You see, three years ago, I was surprised to find myself mesmerized by the dark but beautiful imagery and themes in the first Twilight film. I wondered why I was simultaneously enthralled and disturbed, and I wondered what made this movie so compelling. I contemplated these questions, formulated some possible answers, and wrote about my speculations in an article, Vampires are Real, for The Evolutionary Review. In a nutshell, I decided that certain aspects of the film struck archetypal, primordial chords, some of which were not so nice from a modern, civilized perspective.

So, with great anticipation, I dived into Sarah Seltzer's article on Bella's overwhelming desires. And I found myself right with her, as she described and analyzed Bella's "desire for all the wrong things." More specifically, Bella demonstrates two inappropriate desires: (1) to have sex with a dangerous monster; and (2) to carry to term a demon-baby that is killing her.

Prior to this installment of the Twilight saga, we already know that Bella is irresistably attracted to the vampire, Edward. Edward is a classic bad boy, a dark and brooding loner. He is also extremely dangerous, with super-human strength and a lust for Bella's blood, the scent of which he finds intoxicating. However, in a seemingly odd role-reversal, Bella is the one who keeps making physical advances on him, while he holds back from sex, for fear that he will hurt her. Only after marriage will he agree to consummate their love.

 

Finally, in part one of the final Twilight installment, Breaking Dawn, Bella and Edward have their fairy-tale wedding and engage in what Seltzer describes as "[b]edboard-breaking, feather-spilling, bruising honeymoon sex." The result horrifies Edward, who, despite his best attempt to restrain himself, has indeed left bruises all over Bella's body. Bella, on the other hand, can't wait for more. How are we to understand what seems to be Bella's self-destructive behavior?

Before we look at anwers to this question, let us consider Bella's other unbelievably inappropriate desire. Because the baby growing in her is half-vampire, its rapid development causes increasingly serious damage to the inside of Bella's body, eventually breaking her ribs and spine. Nonetheless, she insists on carrying the demon-baby to full term.

Why does Bella not care more about her own well-being? Why does she choose such a dangerous mate, engage in bruising sex with him, and insist on carrying the baby that does, in fact, eventually kill her? 

Sarah Selzer would have us believe that men are to blame for Bella's self-destructive behavior. She argues that "the patriarchy" managed to get inside of Twilight author's Stephenie Meyer's head, causing her to create female and male characters who are opposites of women and men in the real world. In the real world, men demand sex and women hold them off until marriage. In Breaking Dawn, Bella is the one who demands sex, while Edward is the one who wants to wait until after marriage. In the real world, women will terminate an unplanned pregnancy, especially if it threatens their lives, while men (especially men with conservative politics) want to force all pregnant women to carry their babies to term, even if this endangers the mother's life. But in Breaking Dawn, Bella insists on having the baby, despite the pleas of all the men around her to think of her own health and safety first.

Well, one thing that Sarah Selzer and I agree on is that this is all pure fantasy. It is wish-fulfillment, if you will. It is pure fantasy that Bella can openly express her sexual desires to a dangerous man without being raped and killed. It is pure fantasy that she can cheat death caused by the baby she gives birth to (thanks to being turned into a vampire as she gives birth) and is vindicated by the angelic creature that the baby becomes. The question is whether Selzer is right to blame the patriarchy for disturbing Stephie Meyer's mind, deluding her into rationalizing a woman's prescribed roles "(damsel in distress, object of protection, vessel for childbearing)?" 

My own view is that "prescribed roles" for women (and men) are not always something that men arbitrarily invent to maintain privilege while keeping women in positions of less power. This can happen, of course. As the moral of of the Lord of the Rings tale goes, power corrupts. Men who find themselves in a position of power will indeed create rules and roles to hold on to their privilege while keeping women (and other men) in their places. But in matters of sex and reproduction, I think we are dealing with a much stronger force than "the patriarchy"--life itself. Life relentlessly demands to be continued. It gets men to compete with each other, risking their lives for the privilege of possibly being chosen by a woman. It causes women to choose dangerous mates because the benefits of protection may outweigh the risks of being hurt by them. And, most startling of all, life demands that women risk their own lives in childbirth so that life may continue.

Just yesterday I heard Wayne Dyer repeat an excellent quip on the brutal power of life: "Life is a sexually-transmitted disease that ends in death."