Breaking Dawn
discussion
Opinions please
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Lebbano
(new)
-
rated it 2 stars
Aug 20, 2008 07:16PM
Ok, after reading Twilight, i pretty much knew Edward and Bella werent going to have sex until they were married. But i thought it was a bit unrealistic considering how physical their relationship was, and by physical i mean how much Bella went on about his body... i mean their relationship wasnt that 'deep'. Anyway, i know not all teenagers have sex, but i also know that most people arent virgins when they get married. So... i want some opinions. How many of you thought Bella and Edward should have had sex before marriage? If you say no, is it because the book was meant towards young adults? But yeah, i would like other peoples POV's...
reply
|
flag
I'll probably get a flood of comments saying how it has nothing to do with her religion, but the fact that she's a devout Mormon led me to believe that she'd have them wait. Did it seem like real life...no way! When the girl's throwing herself at the guy, chances are they'd be engaging!
Well, this must be a book geared toward young adults. I didn't need to read 4 books and over 3,000 pages to get the basis of this series. Bella wanted Edward, Edward wanted her, Jacob wanted Bella, she wanted to be immortal (whatever!) and her being pregnant-what the hell?We get it already. As a adult reader this series was redundant and repetitive or was it redundant? This is definitely a young adult series. I am not to impressed.
Yeah i figured they wouldnt have sex until marriage because a) the author was Mormon and b) the book was aimed towards teens. 
Yes the author is mormon, it is geared towards teens. There is one enormous key factor you are forgetting, Edward is from a different era. He was raised with the core beliefs of marriage, wife at home, and children. It was what the time period was. When he became a vampire, if he ever imagined or thought of being married it would include waiting for sex until they were married. Aside from that, he was too scared to hurt her. He also knew that she wasn't all that ready for marriage, and it was a way to delay making her a vampire also.
Just my thoughts.
I enjoyed the book for the action, but I finished it feeling like the last half of the book was a cop-out.
I totally forgot about him being from the turn of the century (last century); Good point, Amber!
I don't think we can legitimately say they "should have" had sex before marriage. Nobody "should" have sex before marriage.
People should have sex when they're both ready, in my opinion, whether they are married or not. Edward clearly wasn't ready before they were married, so they were right not to do it even though Bella WAS.
I keep thinking about this question and wanted to add some more thoughts. I also am Mormon. We believe that sex is a special and sacred part of a relationship between a husband and wife. It is a very private and special intimacy that should be taken seriously. That being said, I myself amuncomfortable reading about it or watching it on tv. To be totally honest, I don't even like to see people making out on tv, I fast forward it or look around the room. Especially when I'm watching it with my husband, and we've been married 10 years. It just makes me embarrassed. There is no way that I could try to write a sex scene myself, and I thought how Stephenie handled it was perfect. I believe I read in an interview somewhere that she's never even seen an R rated movie.
I was also at her book signing in May and told her how glad I was that her books didn't include a sex scene. Her reply was, "You have to write something that you can be proud of that your dad can read."
Hope this helps.
I just want to reiterate some of the other points and put them all together. 1) Edward desperately did not want to hurt Bella in any way and was very afraid of hurting her if they had sex. 2) Edward was raised with the belief that you waited till marriage to have sex - "old-fashioned." 3) Just because Bella wanted Edward doesn't mean she is didn't have the self-control to wait until marriage. 4) Not every teenager has sex before marriage and it's sad that people assume that they are incapable of being in a relationship and remain celibate.
Just my thoughts.
Just my thoughts.
I am also a Mormon, and I must say that Stephenie Meyer tastefully gave them passion. As far as the comment about "Did it seem like real life...no way! When the girl's throwing herself at the guy, chances are they'd be engaging!", I agree that it's important to remember that Edward is from the Victorian age, and was taught to really respect and honor a girl and her virtue. Also, as was established, he had great self control... I think after managing not to drink "the singing blood" in her veins, managing not to sleep with her would be easy. But most of all, as a Mormon, I grew up with and knew MANY men/boys who were able to withstand temptation until the wedding, including my husband. It's not easy, engagement really sucked, but it was worth it in the end, because we could both be confident in knowing we were the only people that we had shared that sort of intimacy with, and the only people that we ever would. I think Meyer's religious background had a definite impact on the writing, even very between the lines reading of life after death, and ideal immortality and things, but having read LOTS of Mormon novels, I'd say she did a very good job giving this more universal appeal while still being able to "...write something that you can be proud of that your dad can read." Conclusion: It was more because of the character of Edward himself and how he was raised, and a little bit Meyer's background that made them wait to have sex than it was because it was a young adult novel. I've read lots of those that do have sex outside of marriage, and it is described more graphically than it was in this.
I agree with Heather. On this topic, I was very much a Bella and my husband was an Edward. We were very inseparable, day and night, most often. Good thing he had some control, or, you know. He could see the big picture more easily than I could. So I guess I relate to their relationship before they were married. I think that is why I loved reading Eclipse. And having been a Bella, I really felt bad for Edward (and my husband) all of this time.
I'm sure Stephenie Meyer had her own reasons for having Bella and Edward "wait" per say, but I liked how what would have been just another love scene in any other book, turned into this big event. And that's how it should be... your first time should be a big deal with an important person. But, I disagree about the tastefulness. My 14 year old sister was reading Breaking Dawn, and I thought it was wayyy too focused on the sex. It made it seem like some magical thing, and frankly, 12, 13, 14, 15 year old girls shouldn't be thinking about it. And it's great, but it is not as picture-perfect as Stephenie Meyer made it seem...I think she gave young girls an unrealistic view on what their first time will be like.
You thought that their first time was picture-perfect? What about all the bruises?
You know what I mean... the sex, not the vampire-induced bruises. I just think that emphasizes that sex is great, rather than that it's great b/c they are married.
I don't think that. I think it was done very tastefully.
Sex SHOULD be great. And I don't think that fact should be concealed from kids. I just think they should be carefully counseled by parents and other role models on how to make those decisions.I'm willing to bet that absolutely zero kids will have sex simply because of this book - they'll have other reasons. Let's just admit that teenagers are often going to have sex and stop going after every book or TV show that makes that look like an okay thing.
Sex is one hundred percent more acceptable for kids to read about than violence. Sex is a normal, healthy function of marriage, and that's how it's treated in the book, and it's not discussed graphically. I see absolutely zero problem with eleven year olds reading about the concept of married people doing it.
The trend of trying to hide normal, healthy things like human sexuality from children is scary to me. It just ends up that the kids find out what they want to know about these things from other, less appropriate sources.
Actually I don't have a problem with kids reading about violence either, as long as it informs the story. I don't belong to the school of thought that believes reading about a thing will cause a child to DO that thing. However, if that is the case, I would MUCH rather see children acting out the example of sex within marital confines than to see them doing ANYTHING violent!
I do think the sex was gratuitous, but for other reasons - it simply wasn't necessary to the story. If someone had a story to tell for children that legitimately required all that sex, fine. This story didn't.
My younger sister (14 years old) quit reading Breaking Dawn because it made her feel uncomfortable. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but I still think that, because it is a young adult book, it should not have focused so much on sex. And, personally, I don't want my children to read about sex...hello...that's why children have parents...so parents can talk to them about it. The last thing I want is for them to read about it. And I think that Kara, a sixteen-year-old who is actually a "young adult", is able to tell better than us older folks that it was simply too much.
I agree. It is too much for teens too young. I believe I read in an article somewhere that Stephenie had considered putting an age rating on it of 13 I think but they didn't I guess. I think that they should have.
She actually wanted an age rating of 15. That would have been wise. I also think that Forever in Blue (4th sisterhood of the traveling pants) should have the same rating.
Jo - Good for your sister. I commend her for having the maturity to know when something was too adult for her and making the choice to stop reading it. Amber & Lori - age advisories are probably a good thing, except that if we open the door to that we'll probably see a literary version of the MPAA, "rating" books and determining that children can't buy some of them, and then authors will deliberately make their books less violent or sexual just to get the lower rating and earn more money...this is what happens in the film industry, and it's ridiclous.
Well, I finished Breaking Dawn. My opinion remains the same. It was rather lengthy, and redundant. I would have liked a more mature story. But, everything ends happily ever after as the last title states. It will be interesting if the author will cont. with a new series with Resenemee as a adult and her relationship with Jacob the wolf. Hopefully, for a more mature audience.
I knew that she would have them wait because it is young adult series, and also because from the begining Edward was very in control of his reactions with Bella, but that's besides the point of the discussion or rather how the discussion has turned. I think parents play a tremendous role on how their kids react to certain adult topics. To have ratings to guide the parents is a good thing, however I feel that it is the obligation of parents to guide their children, not the publishers. And that goes the same for movies, tv, video games, music.
Diabla - THANK YOU! I SO agree with this.
No matter how weird the whole pregnancy was, it's nothing compared to some of the video games that are available. It is amazing how many parents will object to a book (which is their right!) while they allow their kids to play violent video games-especially those with violence toward women.
Helkat14-You welcome! I kinda knew that was what you were saying in your previous post.
I definitely agree with Diabla's statement. It's really a parent's responsibility to help their children define what's appropriate and what isn't. I will admit to some concern as I was reading BD about the younger girls who were reading it. they don't need details of sex at that age coming from a fictional book. But again, that falls more on parents knowing what their kids are reading/watching/listening to, etc. I enjoyed the books, but I agree with Helkat that the sex scenes weren't necessary to the book.
OK We all agree that young girls shouldn't be reading about sex, although you can bet your M&M's that they are thinking about and discussing it with their friends. So, then why did we need 500 and 700 page books to get to the point? Even if I read this as a young adolescent, I would have wanted Meyers to get to the point. She could have wrapped it up in one book, maybe two.
RE: message #9 by Amber, you have been married 10 yrs and are embarrassed to watch someone kiss? I don't particularly want to watch someone go on and on, but showing intimacy should be natural and part of a healthy relationship. Mormon or not. How are our young females going to understand what is healthy and acceptable and what not to tolerate? There is nothing sacred about having sex. You either have intimate feelings for your significant other or you don't. That makes your reasons for having sex very different. And hopefully, those reasons will promote safe, responsible, healthy sex. In today's day, the number one thought should be safety first.
I'm not sure I do agree that young girls shouldn't be reading about sex. I mean, I don't think they need to be reading PORN, but what's with this societal need to keep sex as a function of a respectful and healthy marriage secret from kids? Maybe if they didn't feel like they had to learn everything they wanted to know about human sexuality via their own experimentation, teenagers would find these things out in safer, healthier ways...such as reading about them.
all discussions on this book |
post a new topic
