Am I the only one thinks Bella is a strong character??

[Heidi]

Jesse wrote: "Well I thought of her as pathetic and two-timing in New Moon. She was leading Jacob on though her heart belong to Edward and she kept giving Jacob the implication that there could be something more with her when she was never going to be in a relationship with him, didn't even want to kiss him. She was doing it because she wanted someone to be strong for her, instead of being strong herself and so was trying to move on with Jacob. She wasn't exactly healing and trying to move on if she was putting herself in danger to see Edward. That's not healing or moving on. And if so, her version of moving on is immediately jumping into another serious relationship with another guy. Not exactly the right thing to do."

That is where you an I can agree. I think two timing on someone is awful. But if she and Edward broke up, she wasn't two timing anyone. Jumping into another serious relationship with another guy is not exactly the right thing to do agreed. How many people do the right thing now a days? Not only is it unheard of, its common. Does it make it right? No. Sometimes people use people to stifle the loneliness.

Right before Jacob answered the phone, I could see the story go a whole different way. If Edward hadn't called, if Jacob hadn't answered. If no one didn't pick up the phone. That whole chance of Jacob and Bella solidifying a real relationship was on the brink of happening. So much so, that Bella had admitted that she saw the life she had with Jacob, kids and being happy. She also admitted that she did in fact love him. So if she really did love him, but held it from herself, does that invalidate her loving him?

[Jessica]

Heidi wrote: "But if she and Edward broke up, she wasn't two timing anyone."

I saw it as her two-timing them both because she still loved Edward very dearly. If he were to come back then Jacob would've been on the back burner(as what happened).

"Right before Jacob answered the phone, I could see the story go a whole different way. If Edward hadn't called, if Jacob hadn't answered. If no one didn't pick up the phone. That whole chance of Jacob and Bella solidifying a real relationship was on the brink of happening. "

But that moment can go a different way that would twist it to the ending of New Moon (that I can think of, anyway). Edward could take no one answering as a sign that she was indeed dead, Alice would tell Bella and off they would go to Italy to stop him. So it would be best to think of the story branching off not from there, but to if she never jumped off the cliff, what prompted Alice to come and what made Edward call. If she never jumped, for whatever reason, what's to say that she would've gotten better and moved on with Jacob and not do more dangerous things to make her hallucinate?

"So if she really did love him, but held it from herself, does that invalidate her loving him? "

Well, if we take in the fact that Meyer said that Nessie was the reason Bella loved Jacob and vise versa, kind of. Meyer invalidated Bella's non platonic love for him. In the last book Bella and Jacob are talking and something prompts them to talk of their love for one another. Bella is mystified as to why she fell out of love with him and instead loves him like a brother. They agree on the conclusion that what Bella was feeling was Nessie's love for Jacob and that Jacob loved the part of Bella that was Nessie.

[Heidi]

Jesse wrote: "Heidi wrote: "Yet, you did the same thing to me. Interesting."

I would love for you to show me where.
"

Ok, take 581 for example. Where did I say Disney princess are pathetic and need a man to survive?

I said " In fact, you shouldn't let her see any of the classics from Disney. Sleeping Beauty had no aspirations other then a prince coming to save her from her life. Cinderella could arguably be considered a gold digger. Most of the Disney "princesses" could be considered anti-feminist." I also said "My main point is, there are a lot of stories we think are innocent until we take a second look at them. The fact is, most impressional people are going to read this book and enjoy it or hate it, and not dissect it into a million pieces. Just like most people will look at Sleeping Beauty and think there's nothing wrong with it. The same as princess Jasmine, whos main goal was to get away from the castle. Only to meet Aladdin and go back to the castle she was trying to escape."

Somehow you got something else entirely.

You responded with this "No sweat! I love the fairytales stories, new and old, but I think if someone wants to say the "Disney" princesses are pathetic and need a man to survive then I think one would need to take in the original, not the new ones."

I'm sorry, where did I say these things? You take a piece of what I said and side step it with an answer to a question I didn't even ask.

Your question "Speaking of, how can one group Jasmine in this labeling of girls who need a man to survive? Or Mulan? "

Once again, this leads me to believe you have a comprehension problem with any of the previous things I wrote.

then theres 566 where I said "Heidi wrote: "I keep referring to it as an example of someone being addicted to something. Cocaine or any drug can also be used to refer to Bella being addicted, but adrenaline junkie is more close to the sort of junkie I think she has become. I do NOT think she has become an actual adrenaline junkie. I think that Bella has become an Edward junkie. And in order to get her fix, she has to do dangerous things. NOT kill herself. I keep on referring back to it, because shes in the same state mentally as someone who is addicted to adrenaline. She is an addict. "

Your first response leads me to lead that you had a comprehension problem , because your very first sentence after all that is "But she's not doing it for the adrenaline rush."

Did you skip over "I do NOT think she has become an actual adrenaline junkie." Did you not understand " Cocaine or any drug can also be used to refer to Bella being addicted, but adrenaline junkie is more close to the sort of junkie I think she has become."

I feel like I'm talking to a crazy person.

[Heidi]

Jesse wrote: "Speaking of, how can one group Jasmine in this labeling of girls who need a man to survive? Or Mulan? This is why I don't like it when people are talking about a group of others and say words that describes the majority of them. It really irks me. Then the person in question feels some kind of way because I correct them, and no one is happy. "

You know I would like to take a whack at this. Sure why not. Jasmine doesn't need a man to survive? Didn't Aladdin save her? I mean its been a while, but didn't something happen in the market and she got into trouble and Aladdin saved her? And Mulan? She was very brave. One could also dare to say, she put her life in danger for someone she loved. (Huh, kind of like Bella putting her life on the for her mother, go figure).

[Jordan]

I don't understand why everyone is not letting their kids read this because of Bella. Sure, there are other reasons... but because of Bella? Because she isn't a good role model? She wasn't written to be a good role model, she was just written to be human. You might as well not let your child read anything, because in every book there is something that a character does that you won't agree with. It's a story, not a life lesson.

[Heidi]

Jordan wrote: "I don't understand why everyone is not letting their kids read this because of Bella. Sure, there are other reasons... but because of Bella? Because she isn't a good role model? She wasn't written ..."

My exact point, thank you Jordan.

[Jordan]

You're welcome! Sorry if I just wrote exactly what you were writing, I was just thinking that. :)

[Jessica]

Heidi wrote: "Ok, take 581 for example. Where did I say Disney princess are pathetic and need a man to survive?"

Well I see me as 581, but I digress.

When the princesses were brought into the topic it was still under the notion from Maxine that Bella is/was pathetic. So I took your comparing the princesses to Bella (not to mention calling them anti-feminist) as a underhanded way of calling them pathetic because you put them in a position where they needed their men to survive where as Bella didn't.

"I'm sorry, where did I say these things? You take a piece of what I said and side step it with an answer to a question I didn't even ask. "

That's because in that quote I wasn't answering a question period and certainly not one you didn't even ask.

" Once again, this leads me to believe you have a comprehension problem with any of the previous things I wrote."

Well let me clear it up for you. You said most of the princesses. Do you know who is grouped in with most of the princesses? Mulan and Jasmine. Yes, Mulan isn't a princesses but I counted her anyway. I hate it when people are talking about a group of people and label 'most', 'a lot', 'the majority', etc. as something. I said this to Maxine already. Then the person who said it gets upset because I corrected them and none are happy.

"Your first response leads me to lead that you had a comprehension problem , because your very first sentence after all that is "But she's not doing it for the adrenaline rush."

And again, no problem comprehending on this end. It was you who kept saying she was an adrenaline junkie. You kept saying she had a junkie mentality. In post 531 you said Bella had become an adrenaline junkie. And even in that post of yourself you show you say that adrenaline junkie is the closest you can get to describing what she was in New Moon.

" but adrenaline junkie is more close to the sort of junkie I think she has become. "

So I did read your whole post. I did and I comprehended it. But I said "she's not doing it for the adrenaline rush" and outright asked how can she be an adrenaline junkie because throughout our whole conversation on this topic you've continuously said she's an adrenaline junkie, she's doing it for the adrenaline rush, that she's like one. What else am I supposed to think?

[Heidi]

Maggie wrote: "Oh please. Bella is nothing like Mulan. Or any of those Disney princesses. So stop comparing her to them. If anything I believe that the entire book went like this:
Bella: I love you Edward
Edward: no stop, my soul is too damaged and I am too broody and dangerous stay away
Bella a: I love you. Make me a vampire.
Edward:damn it stupid human ! I will only hurt you.
Bella:I love you Edward! If you were to leave I would die!
Edward:*leaves*
Bella:*jumps off cliff*
Bella:oh hey there Jacob....
Edward..."

You don't think the fact that almost every Disney princess had to be saved by their prince is something to give you cause to pause. Mulan for example saved everyone and STILL had to be pardoned/honored by the emperor so she wasn't put to death.

[Heidi]

Jesse wrote: "So I did read your whole post. I did and I comprehended it. But I said "she's not doing it for the adrenaline rush" and outright asked how can she be an adrenaline junkie because throughout our whole conversation on this topic you've continuously said she's an adrenaline junkie, she's doing it for the adrenaline rush, that she's like one. What else am I supposed to think? "

Think of it like this, when I say shes like an adrenaline junkie is like you saying shes like a suicidal person. But you never said shes like a suicidal person. I was somehow supposed to know it wasn't something you yourself believed in. Because you bring up things you don't believe in to express a point.

[Jessica]

Heidi wrote: "You know I would like to take a whack at this. Sure why not. Jasmine doesn't need a man to survive? Didn't Aladdin save her? I mean its been a while, but didn't something happen in the market and she got into trouble and Aladdin saved her? And Mulan? She was very brave. One could also dare to say, she put her life in danger for someone she loved. (Huh, kind of like Bella putting her life on the for her mother, go figure). "

That's such a flimsy one, and you know it. Yes, she would've gotten her hand chopped off or worse if Aladdin didn't jump in and you can say that's her needing a man to survive but I could just as easily say that Bella needs a man to survive because her slow reflexes and her reaction to Taylor careening towards her in his car (freezing up and not moving) and Edward saving her was a show of Bella needing Edward in her life, for if he were not there then she wouldn't survive. (The comparison in these two? They actually needed the guy to survive.)

And Mulan and Bella's situations can't compare. Mulan was actually saving her father from going to war and possibly dying because he was ordered to go so she went in his place. Bella was tricked into going to the ballet studio and ending up needing saving because it was a trap. Bella's willingly putting her life on the line doesn't compare to Mulan actually putting her life on the line because one walked right into a trap, the other didn't, one wound up saving their parent, didn't need to be saved by her future significant other and won the war, the other needed saving, got badly injured, and in the end had to beg their significant other to stay with them while Mulan did not. What's his face was the farthest thing on Mulan's mind the whole time.

[Heidi]

Maggie wrote: "Suddenly, Twilight is starting to seem a lot less romantic and a lot more abusive. The last thing that we should ever be doing is glorifying this type of behaviour. "

This is the stage where I refer back to many children s stories which have unacceptable behavior. Peter Pan gets a young girl to run away from home with her brothers and then proceeds to lead her on with no thoughts of wanting it to go anywhere but just play. Her life is in danger many times. He has taken many kids away and they have forgotten their home. You don't think the fact that Peter Pan put these kids on a brain washing island where they would forget where they are from is a little bit evil? You don't think thats some force of abuse?

Theres also "The Giving Tree" by Shel Silverstein. Shouldn't it be called "The Enabling Tree". Cause that poor tree gave and gave and gave.

You can put a twist to quite a few things that are supposed to be just a simple story to enjoy.

[Jessica]

Heidi wrote: "MMulan for example saved everyone and STILL had to be pardoned/honored by the emperor so she wasn't put to death. "

that's because back then woman were objects and were expected to do nothing more but breed and take care of children and keep the house clean and their husband happy.

Also, she was going to be put to death or jailed because of the crimes they said she committed. Which because it was in their particular era, included her being a woman in war. I don't remember all the things the emperor listed but her saving every one but then having the law thrown at her was supposed to show that even when being a hero you have to follow the rules. But as we all know, he pardoned her because her saving everyone outweighed the crimes she committed.

[Heidi]

Jesse wrote: "that's because back then woman were objects and were expected to do nothing more but breed and take care of children and keep the house clean and their husband happy.
"

Yeah, the point of me posting that was yes - even Mulan needed a man to survive. (Not posting what you did, something I already knew)

[Jessica]

Maggie wrote: "These people describe why I wouldn't want my future children to read this http://theoatmeal.com/story/twilight
Especially Sarah
http://sarahgetscritical.com/2012/11/......"

Not to forget that when they're reunited he blames her for believing him, ultimately implying that he blames her for the whole situation with the volturi. If she didn't believe him she wouldn't have gone off the deep end then he wouldn't have gone of the deep end and went to Italy to have himself killed and now because of her they're both in hot water.

[Heidi]

Maggie wrote: "turn back to Wikipedia: “in preparation for sexual activity with the child.”"

Interesting Maggie. None of the werewolves wanted to have sexual activity with the "children". None of thier thoughts were, "I am preparing her to have sex with me" in the pack (because we could hear the packs thoughts). And if that did cross any of their minds, what do you imagine would happen to them.

[Heidi]

Jesse wrote: "Trigger warnings for a sensitive topic.

Weeeeell, if we truly want to go into the nitty gritty with Sleeping Beauty, her aspiration was to be saved, not to obtain a prince charming who wakes her up with the kiss of true love and live happily ever after. In the original she was put to sleep because of a prophesy not a curse, her 'savoir' rapes her and she gives birth in her sleep to children. She wakes up because one of the children sucks on her finger, removing the flax that kept her asleep and she then discovers that she was raped and has two children.

So no, you can't count sleeping beauty as someone who needed a man to survive.. "


Weeellllll I was the one who said Disney - so you shouldn't of gotten that mixed up. But then again, there seems to be a comprehension problem between the 2 of us. You seem to not understand a thing I say. And that is the nicest way I can look at it. Because if I consider you understand exactly what I'm saying, my interpretation is your trying to spin doctor it into an argument you can win. Which if thats what makes you happy - then let me stop it right now by saying -

You are right.

There boo, do you feel better now?

[Jessica]

Heidi wrote: "Think of it like this, when I say shes like an adrenaline junkie is like you saying shes like a suicidal person. But you never said shes like a suicidal person. I was somehow supposed to know it wasn't something you yourself believed in. Because you bring up things you don't believe in to express a point. "

Once more Heidi, I never said she was like a suicidal person whereas you outright said Bella was an adrenaline junkie. I stated multiple times that it isn't my thinking that she's suicidal or trying to kill herself but you outright said she's an adrenaline junkie and are the one who brought up adrenaline junkies in the first place.

I brought it up because it was one of my points. The point being that some people believed she attempted to kill herself and hey! They're not here to explain it so let me try because I want to.

As. I. Stated. Before.

[Heidi]

Jesse wrote: "As. I. Stated. Before."

Your right. Awe, do you feel better?

[Jessica]

Heidi wrote: "Yeah, the point of me posting that was yes - even Mulan needed a man to survive. (Not posting what you did, something I already knew) "

How can you use the emperor pardoning her as her needing him as a man to survive? It was her needing him as the emperor, not because he was a man! you say it like any man could've saved her from death or jail. They couldn't have so she didn't need "a" man, she needed the emperor! He as the emperor was going to put her in jail because of the crimes she committed but because her good outweighed her bad he as the emperor let her go. It wasn't about him being a man. Are your purposely being obtuse?

[Heidi]

Maggie wrote: "Oh please. Jacob imprinted on a girl. It doesn't matter how fast she grows or what supernatural creature she is, she was still a baby practically when Jacob "imprinted" on her. It practically is child grooming. He is going to be a brother to her then suddenly one day marry her. "

Did I say it mattered how fast she grew? I just said, none of them wanted to have sex with babys or children. And in a pack where you can see peoples innermost secrets, if the thought "I want to have sex with this baby or child" entered their mind - the whole pack would see it. What do you think their reaction to that would be?

[Heidi]

Jesse wrote: "How can you use the emperor pardoning her as her needing him as a man to survive? It was her needing him as the emperor, not because he was a man! you say it like any man could've saved her from death or jail. They couldn't have so she didn't need "a" man, she needed the emperor! He as the emperor was going to put her in jail because of the crimes she committed but because her good outweighed her bad he as the emperor let her go. It wasn't about him being a man. Are your purposely being obtuse? "

No I was just being literal. But its ok. Your right, do you feel better now?

[Jessica]

Heidi wrote: "Weeellllll I was the one who said Disney - so you shouldn't of gotten that mixed up. But then again, there seems to be a comprehension problem between the 2 of us. You seem to not understand a thing I say. And that is the nicest way I can look at it. Because if I consider you understand exactly what I'm saying, my interpretation is your trying to spin doctor it into an argument you can win. Which if thats what makes you happy - then let me stop it right now by saying -

You are right.

There boo, do you feel better now? "

Sleeping Beauty is Disney. They own it and the right to use it. I'm just telling you the original and why Sleeping beauty didn't need a man to survive, as you said she did.

this isn't about winning. I am comprehending exactly what you're saying and I don't need you patronizing me or saying I don't comprehend you when it is you who sees the problem, not I. I am talking English and so are you. I see no problem but you do. So you can continue to patronize me or actually explain your problem. Either way, you're the one giving up, not I. I am actually enjoying myself and this conversation. Of course, until you started patronizing me that is. Don't patronize me just because you can't get your point across, that's very childish.

[Heidi]

Jesse wrote: "Sleeping Beauty is Disney. They own it and the right to use it. I'm just telling you the original and why Sleeping beauty didn't need a man to survive, as you said she did. "

Yeah you also said "No sweat! I love the fairytales stories, new and old, but I think if someone wants to say the "Disney" princesses are pathetic and need a man to survive then I think one would need to take in the original, not the new ones. "

See this is where everything gets confusing. Because you said Disney then you say take in the original and not the new ones. Are you still talking about Disney? Cause I thought you were. Now your change in subject leads me to believe you weren't. Or you just realized you couldn't make any strides with Disney so you chose the original stories instead. Whatever the case maybe, your right! Feel better?

I think its more interesting how I'm the one with the problems, and yet I have all the quotes to back it up. You have your inability to comprehend or just stick to the subject. But its ok Boo.. Your right.

[Jessica]

Heidi wrote: "See this is where everything gets confusing. Because you said Disney then you say take in the original and not the new ones. Are you still talking about Disney? "

Yes I am still talking about Disney. As I said, don't patronize me because you can't get your point across. You feel there's a misunderstanding? Explain it.

And it's you're, not your.

[Heidi]

Jesse wrote: "Yes I am still talking about Disney. As I said, don't patronize me because you can't get your point across. You feel there's a misunderstanding? Explain it.

And it's you're, not your. "

Yes I am still talk..."

See this is where everything gets confusing. Because you said Disney then you say take in the original and not the new ones. Are you still talking about Disney? Cause I thought you were. Now your change in subject leads me to believe you weren't.

You're right though, so no need to reply.

[Jessica]

Heidi wrote: "Jesse wrote: "Yes I am still talking about Disney. As I said, don't patronize me because you can't get your point across. You feel there's a misunderstanding? Explain it.

And it's you're, not you..."

Are we going to get stuck repeating ourselves because you feel the need to be childish? that you feel so petulant that you're not even going to attempt to clear up the misunderstanding so that the discussion can once more flow? If so then that's very unfortunate that you can't move past it.

[Heidi]

Jesse wrote: "Are we going to get stuck repeating ourselves because you feel the need to be childish? that you feel so petulant that you're not even going to attempt to clear up the misunderstanding so that the discussion can once more flow? If so then that's very unfortunate that you can't move past it."

Yes it is, you're right! lol. Once again its a comprehension issue. I repeated myself because if you can't comprehend it, and have repeatedly had issues comprehending what I've been saying. I figure I might as well be speaking a different language because you do not seem to understand me. But, in order to make you feel better, you're right. Feel better boo?

[Jessica]

Heidi wrote: "I repeated myself because if you can't comprehend it, and have repeatedly had issues comprehending what I've been saying"

Repeating the question gave you the same answer, so where is the failure to comprehend on my end at? I was talking about Disney. There isn't some other Sleeping Beauty who I could've been talking about. What would repeating a question that the answer would be the same to do anything for? That is obviously not where you see my lack of comprehension if I just give you the same answer because there is no other answer to the question presented. So what am I supposed to think when the questions and answers are repeated but you don't state the problem you see? How is it still my fault that there's a misunderstanding/failure to comprehend?

that's like blaming someone for something that went wrong but refuse to explain why it was their fault but are adamant that it's their fault.

[Heidi]

The problem is you're right. Whew that's cleared up.

[Jessica]

Maxine wrote: "Um, Jesse, Heidi. Maybe you guys should just stop now. It turned from an conversation and debate to a plain argument. Both let it go with your heads held high, yeah?"

You're right. if she doesn't want to explain why her panties are in a bunch then it's not my problem, I just want the conversation to go back to being civil instead of being over misunderstandings. She can be bitter if she wants.

[Jessica]

Maggie wrote: "Oh please. Jacob imprinted on a girl. It doesn't matter how fast she grows or what supernatural creature she is, she was still a baby practically when Jacob "imprinted" on her. It practically is child grooming. He is going to be a brother to her then suddenly one day marry her. "

I never liked the imprinting and if there was one thing that irritated me the most with Breaking Dawn it was that. It was that and how Meyer choose to handle the backlash. I remember She had said that in the book once Jacob imprinted that the pack was beginning to question the imprinting because he imprinted on a baby and this baby will some day be his bride.

[Mochaspresso]

With all this talk about whether Disney Princesses make good role models, this might be of interest to some....

http://www.ranker.com/list/7-disney-p...

Personally, I'm of the mindset that the people who argue about this probably don't have daughters and/or have no understanding of what appeals to little girls. For many girls, the fascination with princesses is mostly wearing the gown, the tiara and those fab sparkly shoes w/ the high heels (by little girl's standards) and being beautiful. That is what is first and foremost in their minds. Go into any Disney store and observe a little girl picking out her princess costume. Prince Charming really does take a backseat to that gown and tiara and the shoes.

[Mochaspresso]

The Twilight men share the same levels of obsession w/ the respective mates that Bella has with Edward. Why aren't they criticized for it in the same manner that Bella is?

[Jessica]

Mochaspresso wrote: "The Twilight men share the same levels of obsession w/ the respective mates that Bella has with Edward. Why aren't they criticized for it in the same manner that Bella is?"

I think it could be because of how different Bella is from the females and not just because she's human. I mean, I don't feel that Emmett is as obsessed with Rosalie as Edward and/or Jacob is with Bella, but that could be a reason, that qualities in Bella are not found in the other women.

[Heidi]

Maggie wrote: "You're right. if she doesn't want to explain why her panties are in a bunch then it's not my problem, I just want the conversation to go back to being civil instead of being over misunderstandings. She can be bitter if she wants. "

Never said I was bitter or my panties were in any sort of bunch. I'd rather talk to someone who can comprehend me. Thats all. Its exhausting saying "the cats on the hill". And having you reply that "dogs chase their tails". Its like we are having 2 very different conversations. Any sort of explanation of "the cat being on the hill" gets twisted around to a dog chasing their tail. There is no progression. I don't want to simplify things anymore. I'm not upset, I just choose not to feed the fire of misunderstanding.

[Heidi]

Mochaspresso wrote: "With all this talk about whether Disney Princesses make good role models, this might be of interest to some....

http://www.ranker.com/list/7-disney-p......"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yAqga...

[Izzy]

If I may? I don't understand why you two keep comparing/contrasting Twilight to the Disney films? They're not relevant in the first place but most importantly, you're ignoring the cultural and historical context of the films. (And the Twilight books, I suppose)

Mulan, for instance. She "needed a man" to pardon her because she did the unthinkable in her time -- she did everything that a woman shouldn't have done. She broke her laws, punishable by death. The Emperor recognised this but he also knew that without her courage, China would've been destroyed. If he had sat back and said nothing then she surely would've been executed by other men that worked for the Emperor. Shang saved Mulan out of a sense obligation -- she saved his life and he would spare hers.
In the film, Mulan stood up and did what was right, and so did the men. I've seen a few different variations, and I'm sure that the Chinese folk-tale is different, but that was a big thing to do back in that time and completely out of the norm since Mulan is set in China, 206 BC – 220 AD.
It's the same thing with the other Disney films -- Peter Pan, Sleeping Beauty, Snow White and so on. You would be better off comparing and contrasting Twilight to something that is set in the same decade.

By all means, talk about Twilight or talk about Disney films but don't bother trying to mix them up together. They're chalk and cheese and you won't get anywhere.
Personally, it sounds like you initially wanted to share your opinions but now you're now each trying to change each other's minds. It's not like you're going to go anywhere with your conversation because you two are unmoveable. You might as well just state each of your perception of the books and move on.

And there is no "winning" or "losing" when it comes to an argument. Heidi, you're making things worse by being incredibly childish with your responses. I don't know how old you are but you're acting like a bloody 9 year old. If you don't want to talk any more then there's nothing stopping you from not talking, is there? Just ignore a message and move on. If you find the conversation exhausting or pointless then just stop having it.

[Mochaspresso]

Jesse wrote: "I think it could be because of how different Bella is from the females and not just because she's human. I mean, I don't feel that Emmett is as obsessed with Rosalie as Edward and/or Jacob is with Bella, but that could be a reason, that qualities in Bella are not found in the other women.
"


I'm not so sure about your assessment of Emmett. I don't remember which book it's in (...it might even be in the guide...), but Emmett says somewhere that he didn't mind dying from being mauled by a bear because he felt like he was looking at an angel when he saw Rosalie. Rosalie took one look at a dying man that she didn't know and had never seen before and carried him over 100 miles and asked Carlisle to "save him" by changing him. I think the levels of devotion that the vampires have with their respective mates are actually just as strong as Bella's and Edward's.

That is why I suspect that there is a double standard going on in evaluating the actions of the Twilight men compared to Bella and the other Twilight women. Edward actually did attempt suicide when he thought Bella was dead, yet there aren't many arguments over whether or not he is a weak character. Jacob ran away several times over being rejected by Bella. Carlisle was so lonely and desperate to have a family that he literally and figuratively created one for himself.

For the record, I also think that the comments about Bella needing a man are an extreme over-simplification of Bella's character. She doesn't need just any man. She needs and wants Edward. I also think it is interesting that most of Edward's family is worried about the fact that he doesn't have a mate and overjoyed when he finally finds Bella....yet Edward is not criticized for "needing a woman".

The question that keeps coming to my mind in reading through this thread is why is okay for a man to actively seek a wife yet so very wrong for a woman to actively seek a husband?

[Jessica]

Mochaspresso wrote: "I'm not so sure about your assessment of Emmett. I don't remember which book it's in (...it might even be in the guide...), but Emmett says somewhere that he didn't mind dying from being mauled by a bear because he felt like he was looking at an angel when he saw Rosalie. "

Well, I don't feel that him thinking that is a show of him being obsessive of her. She is supernaturally beautiful and he's on the brink of death. The first thing that came to mind when I read that (as this is the first time hearing of it) is that he's delirious and thinks she's his angel to guide him over and that looking at her as the last thing he sees before he dies soothes the fact that he's dying.

" Rosalie took one look at a dying man that she didn't know and had never seen before and carried him over 100 miles and asked Carlisle to "save him" by changing him. I think the levels of devotion that the vampires have with their respective mates are actually just as strong as Bella's and Edward's. "

No doubt. I wouldn't disagree with you on that at all.

"That is why I suspect that there is a double standard going on in evaluating the actions of the Twilight men compared to Bella and the other Twilight women. Edward actually did attempt suicide when he thought Bella was dead, yet there aren't many arguments over whether or not he is a weak character."

It's not common which is sad, but I and others I've talked to about this topic believe Edward to be just as weak as Bella in New Moon. It's just a shame that it's not as discussed as Bella and how bad or good she is.

"Carlisle was so lonely and desperate to have a family that he literally and figuratively created one for himself."

And that is why I don't understand why people like Carlisle so much. He turned them without their consent, felt like he was a good Samaritan by saving them from death. Now he has a family member who resents him and wishes she were human still and if one were to look at the science Meyer applied to the vampires, this family would be very broken indeed, mentally and physically.

I assure you, I find fault in the men of Twilight just as much as Bella or Alice or Renee or any select others, i just wish it was talked about more.

"For the record, I also think that the comments about Bella needing a man are an extreme over-simplification of Bella's character. She doesn't need just any man. She needs and wants Edward. I also think it is interesting that most of Edward's family is worried about the fact that he doesn't have a mate and overjoyed when he finally finds Bella....yet Edward is not criticized for "needing a woman"."

Whenever I state what I think of Bella and her chances of survival revolving around needing someone, I never say that just any guy would do but that she needed Jacob and/or Edward. Not because they're supernatural creatures fit to fight and protect her, but because of the unhealthy way she clung to them and how she showed that her world would crumble around her if she didn't have them or Edward.

"The question that keeps coming to my mind in reading through this thread is why is okay for a man to actively seek a wife yet so very wrong for a woman to actively seek a husband? "

Because of society. They see men and women in the same situation very differently and most times the fault is on the woman while they praise the man. If a woman has lots of sex/guys she's a whore, a slut but if a man has lots of sex/girls then he's a playa and has mad swag. The women have to be docile and let the men court them while having dominant women be the suitors the men are thought to be less manly to have a woman do the courting.

[[deleted user]]

Jesse wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "I'm not so sure about your assessment of Emmett. I don't remember which book it's in (...it might even be in the guide...), but Emmett says somewhere that he didn't mind dying..."
FUCK SOCIETY THEN.

[[deleted user]]

Mochaspresso wrote: "Jesse wrote: "I think it could be because of how different Bella is from the females and not just because she's human. I mean, I don't feel that Emmett is as obsessed with Rosalie as Edward and/or ..."

You literally just summed up here everything I was thinking, but didn't write down. Thank you.

[Marilyn]

I happened to catch bits and pieces of whatever's being discussed. Fyi, technically, Mulan is not a princess in the sense that Cinderella or Jasmine is.

Disney only labeled her as such so she can be part of their diversity requirement.

[[deleted user]]

This conversation is getting quite interesting.

From what I've read, everyone is contrasting and comparing Bella to Disney princesses and their need for men, right?

Well, I am not that educated in the background stories to the fairy tales (the only thing I really know about them is the movies I saw growing up) so I really don't know whether they needed "a man" or not. The princes were always there to save the princesses from whatever doom they were in; that could have been out of convenience. But if I do say myself, I don't think Bella needed a man per se? What she needed (in her situation with her being surrounded by supernatural events), was a vampire. Or a werewolf, if you think about it. Or anything stronger than a human. I really don't see how people think Twilight is anti-woman or anti-feminist? I mean, I hear and get their views, but at the same time, I don't agree.

Twilight is a book about a human girl falling in love with a vampire and getting entrapped in his world of nonhuman creatures with all sorts of cool powers and abnormal strengths that are nothing like a human's.

I think someone said somewhere in this discussion that both Edward and Jacob treated her like she was fragile or something? Well, if you really think about it, she technically is fragile - physically at least. Edward and Jacob have both showed their true strengths and I'm pretty sure they could snap her in a second if they really wanted to. They are trying to be soft with their actions around her so they don't cause her death. I guess mentally, they did treat her like a porcelain doll a tad too much. But come on, don't you want the one you love to sit on the top of the world if you could make it happen? You have to give it to them, those sweet/cheesy/cliche but all-around adorable boys.

The main people who read this book are teenagers. Teenagers want romance, they want drama, they want something they can pour themselves into that is full of fluffy, cheesy love. I don't think too many people are thinking "omigosh this scene is so sexist" when they are reading Twilight. I mean, it's pretty obvious that some people do (that's what everyone is discussing now lol). But really I don't think Steph. Meyer intentionally made Twilight a sexist book if that is what it is. She really just wanted a vampire/human romance that shows that they would do anything for each other no matter the cost.

I think this conversation could go on and on about whether Bella needs a man or not. That could probably lead to "is there sexism in Twilight?" or whatever. I think in any story, that conversation could apply. Hell, I'm pretty sure somewhere in Harry Potter or the Hunger Games it could be trialed as sexist or anti-feminist. Disney movies could be sexist too. Twilight could be too. It all depends on how you look at it. How you look at it is different from someone else, yet that is what everyone is fighting about. Getting their opinion on whether Bella needs a man or not.

I don't know if this makes much sense, so please spare me (:

[Mochaspresso]

I don't think that Twilight was intended to be anti-feminist either. What I think is that certain facets of some feminist movements were inherently flawed and as a result, the way that some people are choosing to analyze Twilight through a feminist lens is also flawed.
In other words, I don't think the books are anti-feminist.
I think that the double standard being used to analyze her character is probably more anti-feminist than the books actually are.