Does Pattinson's Edward Cullen Make Men Feel Inadequate?
Filed under: New Releases, Celebrities and Controversy, Fandom, Newsstand, Fan Rant
On the heels of speculation that Twilight was making abstinence fashionable comes a very amusing bit of hand-wringing from Details magazine. Reporting from the Ground Zero of Forks, Washington during Stephanie Meyer Day, Details discovered that it wasn't just impressionable teenagers pinning their hopes on Edward, married women were also carrying a torch for the eternal teenager: "Gentlemen, your wives have something they want to tell you. The polite way to put it is that the pressures and demands of running a home in the 21st century have a way of siphoning off the platelets from even the most red-blooded of romantic unions. To be blunt: Life is a grind, and our wives are bored sh*tless. Edward Cullen has, for millions of passion-starved better halves worldwide, become the undead embodiment of everything the contemporary schlub seems to have shed: danger, poetry, strength, speed, eternal devotion, and an insatiable hunger for the jugular."
The modern man is finding it impossible to compete with Edward, and Details worries about the erotic dreams he's spawning in married women. The magazine listens dutifully to female confessions that range from enthusiastic to cagey, and lends sympathy to the wives whose husbands "don't get" Twilight or what it provides. "But with life so crazy, this is my escape - Twilight. Edward. Men get into that comfortable rut once the relationship is there. Life gets so busy ... Men and women both, they lose that need to impress each other."
I would actually dismiss the Details piece as fluff, but its sentiments were actually reflected in comments left on Monika's abstinence piece. Many men do seem to be infuriated by the dreamy Edward and his hold over so many women. They're critical of women young and old losing themselves in fantasy, and doubt that any Twilight fan will ever be able to settle for a real, normal man.
What no one seems to realize is that women have been reading about idealistic lovers for a very long time. Jane Austen, the Brontes, and Elizabeth Gaskell all created paragons of male sexiness that women have been fantasizing about for centuries. In the modern era, we've had Harlequin and Fabio, The Thorn Birds, Jean Auel, The Bridges of Madison County, and no one seemed particularly worried. Men just pretended not to see that copy of Highland Hunk tucked in the bedside table drawer. I don't know how many men have actually read a Harlequin novel, but the bulging breeches and ludicrous plots make Edward Cullen seem as blase as the Quaker Oats Man. I believe the utter, unbelievable perfection has always been the point, and no woman has been the poorer for knowing Mr. Darcy, and marrying the boy next door. It's simply the pervasiveness of Twilight that makes it seem like a sociological and sexual crisis.
While I give credit to Details for understanding what spawns a fantasy, I'm a little troubled by some of the tongue clucking. There's an implication that girls really shouldn't be reading or watching Twilight because it's unhealthy, and it stems from sentiments as old as parchment. It was one of the reasons religious authorities advised keeping women illiterate. (They'll do nothing but read romance and write love letters! They'll become whores!) Once that became impossible (darn that printing press), everyone tried their damndest to keep romances out of the hands of women for fear they'd become hysteric or infertile. Or whores.
Look, I'm no Twilight fan, but I don't particularly mind those who are. The only thing that's truly annoyed me about the trend is that "Meyer, Stephanie" has taken over many bookstore shelves, and made it impossible for me to find anything by "McCarthy, Cormac" at the airport. (It took three cities to find a copy of The Road during a trip. Three!) But all of this hand-wringing really smacks of prudishness and repression. It's as though men are just now realizing that women have sexual fantasies just as they do, and they're finding it really gross, labeling it unrealistic, and blaming it all on Robert Pattinson. Yet I don't see Details (or for that matter, Cosmopolitan or Allure) worrying that Megan Fox sets up unrealistic expectations, or represents something about American marriages. No, Fox doesn't have a book series or film franchise, but I'd argue she's just as pervasive and fictional.
But seriously guys, don't worry. Girls can separate fact from fiction, and they'll date you even if you don't have sparkly skin and topaz eyes. It's not going to be the end of the human race because girls of all ages are really, really into this Edward Cullen fellow. You just go on being yourselves (though adopting Cullen's manners wouldn't hurt a few of you), and be there when she puts the book down. She'll appreciate it. I promise.
Tom Cruise and J.J. Abrams Reunite for 'Mission Impossible 4'
'Big Top Pee-Wee': The Original Benicio Del Toro Wolfman
Spin-ematical: New on DVD and Blu-ray for 2/9
Watch This: Brilliant Oscar-Nominated Short 'Logorama'
Chris Nolan to Lead 'Superman' Reboot!?
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
11-18-2009 @ 11:51AM
Jesse M. said...
The most interest part of this essay, for me, was this clip:
"It's as though men are just now realizing that women have sexual fantasies just as they do, and they're finding it really gross, labeling it unrealistic, and blaming it all on Robert Pattinson. Yet I don't see Details (or for that matter, Cosmopolitan or Allure) worrying that Megan Fox sets up unrealistic expectations, or represents something about American marriages."
Quoted for truth, on one hand. On the other hand, a lot of guys, especially the more progressive ones, have been trying for quite a while to suppress their nude celebrity and supermodel fixations, because it's become a commonplace that indulging such fantasies... at least openly, with impunity... is disrespectful to the woman you love, who you've chosen to be with, over all those objects of fixation.
This is partly why obsessed wives are a harder sell than obsessed teenagers. When you reverse the gender mirror, you find that slobbering over celebrity skin is a perfectly acceptable behavior for male teenagers, but marriage calls upon us to grow up and get past those sexual/ego-trip fantasies. This is because a real person should never have to compete with a picture in a magazine for sexual and emotional real-estate.
I'm not saying that all men DO successfully suppress their sexual impulses when they get married. Obviously a lot of them don't, and I firmly believe that they should be held accountable for their offenses and transgressions... accountable both to social norms, and to the terms of the relationship they're in. However, married men who openly slobber over sexy women on TV, or compare their wives to these women, etc. are assholes. The correct response is not necessarily to condone the same behavior in the opposite sex.
Just to be clear, I'm not making a positive decision on the issues above. Women might have to reach equality by becoming a little chauvanistic at times, by fixating on their teenage sexual fetishes. However, I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that it's a complex gender problem, not something that's simple and traditional... the traditional examples were at work in a climate of uncritical sexual oppression, after all, and now that we're working toward equality, these issues of sexual confidence and permissibility get a lot more complicated.
Reply
11-18-2009 @ 12:13PM
George McBain said...
In comment to your Fox-Pattinson comparison, I would just like to mention that taking a walk around the second floor of my work, 6 women (all married to my knowledge in their 30s or 40s) have at least one photo/poster of only Pattinson (one even has one of those stand up cut-outs). Of the men on the floor, only one has any photos of women up besides wife/girlfriends (Malin Ackerman). Wacky.
11-18-2009 @ 12:13PM
George McBain said...
In comment to your Fox-Pattinson comparison, I would just like to mention that taking a walk around the second floor of my work, 6 women (all married to my knowledge in their 30s or 40s) have at least one photo/poster of only Pattinson (one even has one of those stand up cut-outs). Of the men on the floor, only one has any photos of women up (Malin Ackerman). Wacky.
11-18-2009 @ 12:57PM
Gordon said...
George, most men are afraid of getting fired for sexual harassment if they had a photo of someone that was not their girlfriend in their office or cubicle.
11-18-2009 @ 1:35PM
George McBain said...
@Gordon
Exactly! I forgot to add that to my comment, since that is exactly how I feel. I would never put up a Kaley Cuco or Natalie Portman pic, but yet I see a lying down Pattinson in a woman's office and I shake my head :)
11-18-2009 @ 6:11PM
Cinnamon said...
Actually, while I'm sure in some way my husband doesn't appreciate my exile to Twilight land, as he watched the dishes and laundry pile up, our sex life perked up immensely. Not because that I was imaging that he was Edward or Robert Pattinson, though Rob playing the part really helps the visual while reading. It's the romance, especially in Breaking Dawn. It helped bring back all those feelings of when we were first in love, and our lusty passion. He should be thanking his lucky stars for Robert Pattinson.
Reply
11-18-2009 @ 12:14PM
Condor said...
I don't want to read this article but this guy only makes me feel anger for making vampires gay
Reply
11-18-2009 @ 1:06PM
Wendy said...
I just love it when people use the word gay as an equivalent to stupid. It makes me so proud of the human race.
11-18-2009 @ 6:31PM
Bubbameister33 (Confused by Fanboyism) said...
Words change definition over time.
11-18-2009 @ 12:20PM
Yoda's house of Pancakes said...
This is strange; as much as I hate Twilight, I'm going to stand up for Edward Cullen (for now). I don't have a problem with women having fantasies about him. Lord knows us men have more than our fair share of imaginary, scantily clad women who are willing to do things no mortal women wants to do, so I'm cool if the opposite gender gets caught up in that too. It's only fair.
My only issue is this: Is this really your idea of the perfect man? Do you really crave an obsessive, overly-protective chauvinist that stalks you at night while you sleep and gets jealous every time you talk to another guy? Not to mention the whole pedophilia thing. Brad Pitt I can understand. Edward Cullen just boggles my mind.
Reply
11-18-2009 @ 1:05PM
Amy said...
Watch Edward Cullen clips in the first movie :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNoqbYZWptU
Reply
11-18-2009 @ 12:52PM
Plain Jane Jones said...
Yes, in many ways I think we do simply because we're not supposed to. Forbidden fruit is always sexy, and while it's great that you treat us like equals and blah blah blah, we don't want to start thinking that you've ceased to care. Which is a message that your politically correct aloofnees can send.
Though I don't mean to say we crave an obsessive, overly-protective chauvinist that stalks us at night while we sleep and gets jealous every time we talk to another guy every moment of every day. But what woman is beyond wanting her partner to show that they desire her above all others?
Which is not to say I drool over Edward Cullen, I'm more of a Mr. Darcy girl myself, but I can understand the droolage.
Reply
11-18-2009 @ 3:53PM
Yoda's House of Pancakes said...
In other words, men are going to be wrong, no matter what we do :)
11-18-2009 @ 1:51PM
Jackie said...
Reading this, I do not think that you have read the books to understand exactly WHY people are worried about Twilight in a way that they are not worrying over other romances. In part because of its feverish scope of readers, in part because of the different nature of the relationship portrayed in the Twilight series as opposed to your average romance novel.
Sure, Harlequin romances give women completely unrealistic expectations of their partners (I admit to having read more than a few), but the relationships themselves are not as overwhelming as Bella/Edward. What is so dangerous about these books is that Bella has absolutely no outside interests other than this man whose world changes completely for her: she has no aspirations to college, to bettering herself as a person, to making actual human friends, to having any kind of a future, to having any hobbies other than schoolwork -- her entire WORLD revolves around Edward. In New Moon, when he leaves her, she becomes near-suicidal and falls into a bitter funk for months wherein she doesn't speak to anyone. Is this really what we want to be teaching our pre-teens, just as they are beginning to be exposed to relationships? That they should consider themselves completely and totally useless without a man to validate their existence? You compare Twilight to Pride and Prejudice -- Elizabeth Bennet was a complete person even after Mr. Darcy came along; she never needed him to realize her potential as a person.
Moreover, Edward himself is beyond an "unrealistic ideal." He sneaks into her room at night, without her knowledge or permission, to watch her sleep, and this is acceptable -- beyond acceptable, this is the ideal to look for in a man? The books teach that the ideal romance should be complete co-dependence and romanticizes the Romeo and Juliet notion that suicide is a perfectly acceptable alternative to life without their significant other. More frighteningly, girls are swooning over Edward in a way that they have never done over Romeo. While R&J is championed as a tragic romance, modern girls -- and mothers! -- are looking for "their Edward". R&J is removed from real life, but far too many girls are basing their expectations on an obsessive and unhealthy relationship.
(If you think I'm being harsh, read the books and look for comments wherein Bella compares herself to a satellite around a disappeared planet; notes that she would not want to live if Edward were dead; look at her incredibly distant relationship with her parents, and read the actual substance of her conversations with Edward and any evidence of outside activities that Bella does NOT related to Edward. As fluff, the books are fine; when girls take them as their standard for relationships -- which many are doing -- that is when the series becomes worrisome.)
Reply
11-18-2009 @ 2:37PM
Felicia said...
I agree with most of your comments. It irritated me in the books how indifferent Bella was to all the human classmates that tried to befriend her but you have to admit that while your concerns are valid, they are not the concern of the magazine Details.
Details seems to mostly be concerned that women will see them as less than ideal when compared to Edward Cullen and is whining that women might actually have expectations from them now. Gasp! They might actually expect men to be more romantic. How horrible! Has the world gone insane?
Growing up in a world where most pop culture I love--particularly movies--has women always seen through the eyes of men. Like kick-ass women who wear tight clothes and crop tops, supportive or bitchy wives and girlfriends and the ridiculously high bar Hollywood sets with women who wear a size 2 and have implants, I'm going to say that Twilight is far down on my list of what is harmful to young women. Most are intelligent enough to tell the difference between fantasy and reality when it is in book form but in the "reality" of the male-lensed media? That distorts the view way more than Twilight ever could.
11-18-2009 @ 5:01PM
Elisabeth said...
Oh, but I'd argue that bodice rippers CAN be just as dangerous. The women don't really have any outside interests other than the men -- we're often told they're feisty, smart, and independent but once the Scotsman / Viking / Roman soldier walks in, all interests fade and she's determined to snag him. Granted, the point of these books is the gratuitous sex, so it's unfair to knock them for rushing to that ... but really, they basically say the same thing as Twilight. Twilight just stretched it out for four books of "longing."
But most importantly, a lot of bodice rippers (particularly the older ones of the '70s and '80s) are dangerously close to some kind of rape fantasy. Many men have viewed them as a lesson in "If she says no, she doesn't really MEAN it" and frankly, some women have bought into that too.
Now, I believe majority of women see the difference between being "overpowered" by the men of those books and outright rape, but the argument could easily be made that may they make violence and coercion as defensible as Edward's stalking.
That's not saying I disagree with your comments -- I agree almost wholeheartedly with what your saying and I feel dirty defending Twilight at all. I just feel the same labels can apply to a lot of "chick-lit" if we really get down to it.
But as Felicia smartly pointed out, that wasn't the concern of the Details article. I may not like Twilight at all, but I have issues with men waggling their fingers at it for the reasons Details did. If they want to denounce it as dangerous for the reasons you mentioned I'll applaud them, but to whine about how much it sucks that he's dreamy is just gross.
11-18-2009 @ 4:05PM
Davey said...
Agreed, #1, 8, & 11. I think what's dangerous about Twilight that sets it apart from some other things is the really weird and creepy ideal Edward is (he's much more Heathcliff than Cary Grant, and Heathcliff, though sexy in his own way, was also intended to be a fictionalized Satan), and how unhealthy Bella's relationship with him is. I don't know if Twilight specifically deserves more or less critical consideration than any other book or movie that presents unhealthy sexuality to youngsters as acceptable and even ideal, but what's important is that it does deserve different critical consideration. Edward isn't the housewife's Megan Fox--a mere object of physical beauty and sexual desirability--he's another beast entirely. Whether Megan Fox is more or less damaging is debatable (and well worth debating--all unhealthy depictions of sexual ideals, men or women, should definitely be held up for criticism). But I think the reason Twilight is getting so much critical attention for this sort of thing is because it's NOT just another Megan Fox, but a different kind of ideal representing different kinds of unhealthy ideals.
Reply
11-18-2009 @ 6:13PM
Cinnamon said...
First of all, Yoda's house of pancakes sounds delicious. " Like syrup you do not?" Fabulous. Anyway, y'all are really over analyzing this. Edward really represents what we as young women are attracted to, unfortunately. Normally, we get our hearts stomped on which leads us to make more sensible choices in a mate. I think the thing that makes women attracted to the vampire concept is being desired in a dangerous way, but when it's all said and done, the women, hopefully, remains young and beautiful for eternity. I mean, have you seen the crap we do to ourselves to stay beautiful? A nip on the neck is no big deal for us. With Twilight there is also the element that when Bella is turned, her feelings for Edward are frozen in that moment in time were their infatuation is at it's peak. There will never be any drabness between them. Sports Center is never going to take the place of early nights rolling in the sack. They are never going to have to go to couples therapy.They will maintain that fever pitched level of love and lust forever. Who doesn't want that?
As far as unrealistic ideals. I was a teen during the 90's, when idealized versions of men in Versace ads were plastered on mine and my friends walls, and we are all married to wonderful normal men now and are happy, aside from the regular Sports Center interruptions. I think everyone should be glad that Robert Pattinson is the new hot sex symbol, because he really is thin, moderately hairy, regular guy who doesn't dress well and spends most of his time drinking beer. I personally glad that the metro sexual is out and regular joe is in.
Reply
11-18-2009 @ 6:48PM
Yoda's House of Pancakes said...
I am delicious :D
Reply
11-18-2009 @ 11:14PM
Dan said...
I don't mean to be arrogant (okay, well, at least not TOO arrogant) but I was a little taken back by the suggestion of this article. Does a fictional character that women seem to be swooning over made me feel...inadequate? The thought never even crossed my mind. Elisabeth, by no means am I trying to call you out at all when I say this, but the notion, to me is silly and any man who would take the time to consider being intimidated by one celebrity's character persona is silly as hell...and the same SHOULD be said for women, too. REAL women (those that do not live in Hollywood) are often just as beautiful and deserve just as much praise as the stars do, and the same could be said for plenty of fellas too. It's sad how we put so much emphasis on that sort of thing...but I digress. I have so little of a problem with the whole thing, it's incredible that people are actually going to argue about it. I have to agree with the point you made about Megan Fox, particuarly about her (pervasiveness and fiction) and I'm going to have to chalk this up to fluff in a magazine. And I'm sorry, but I'm a grown man, and I'm pretty secure about who and what I am (and what I look like) that Robert Pattinson or Edward Cullen, or Brad Pitt is not going to make me feel like less of a man any day.
Reply