A Good Metaphor Gone Terribly Wrong: Twilight and the Teenage Vampire Fiction Trend

I wasn’t planning to read or watch Twilight. But when I found myself trapped in a plane flying to the Middle East with nothing for company but trashy mags and an in-flight movie, I decided to hang up my garlic and crucifix and give into the teenage vampire phenomenon. I swear I did for the sake of social science.

I wish that I could report differently, but make no mistake: Twilight is disturbing. Its implicit messages are probably as bad as you feared for all of the reasons that you assumed.

The seductive allure of vampires has long served as a metaphoric exploration of the dangerous, un-tamable terrain of human sexuality. That teenage girls are now the subject of and the market for these tales speaks volumes about the position they now occupy in our culture. Sexualized at ever younger ages, high school girls are indeed contending with the dark allure and sparkle of sexuality. More so than at any other point in North American history, teenage girls are finding themselves in the same position as Twilight’s female protagonist, Bella: left facing a world of romance and desire largely without adult guidance. Bella is a high school junior who moves in with her father when her mother decides to pull of stakes to follow her baseball-playing boyfriend (problematic, anyone?). While Bella’s mother is much more friend than parent, her father is emotionally unavailable. Upon her arrival, Bella’s father presents her with a car – our culture’s most potent symbol of teenage independence – and leaves her to her freedom.

Into this opening waltzes Edward, a sexy 17-year-old vampire who is irresistibly attracted to Bella’s scent and filled with a need to “protect” her. Edward tells Bella that he may be unable to resist her blood and that she would be wise to stay away. But quickly, Bella declares her trust in him and a romance blossoms based on Edward’s super-human powers of restraint. Bella literally flirts with danger.

Twilight really is a teenage girl’s fantasy – and it encourages the worst of teenage misconceptions. Edward is completely devoted to Bella – consumed with a desire that he must restrain. To use a term coined by Bust magazine, Twilight is abstinence porn. Bella is emotionally satisfied and sexually titillated and she’s freed from the burden of taking responsibility for her sexuality – a responsibility that I honestly believe few teenagers want to squarely face. But Bella is also denied all agency. Her relationship is based on Edward’s restraint – putting him firmly in control. When Bella takes sexual initiative, she is presented as responsible for endangering Edward’s self-control. It’s a fantastical situation that renders narratives of male desire and female responsibility physically incarnate.

When things go wrong for Bella, Edward jumps in to fulfill the script of male protector. Unsurprisingly, Bella takes as little agency in her rescue as possible . When she does take action, Bella conforms perfectly to rigid gender scripts. It’s like a bad caricature. Cultural scripts of male protectiveness and female submission are played through so thoroughly that it’s sickening – and predictable enough to be boring. And yes, Twilight is unfailingly heterosexist. That nearly goes without saying.

Twilight does present, however, one exception to the pattern of female submissiveness: female vampires. These “vamps” are autonomous characters with complete agency. They solve problems, defend themselves, disagree with men, and help to save Bella. They are also powerfully sexual. One can’t help but wonder if Bella’s wish to become a vampire is in part a desire to take control of her sexuality and thereby gain agency in other parts of her life. But as ever, Edward plays gatekeeper to her desires.

From romanticizing obsession and the warning-signs of abuse to a villain that video tapes his sexually charged attack on Bella like bad porn, Twilight employs an impressive number of misogynist texts. It even uses the classic abuse excuse “I fell down the stairs” to explain the injuries Bella sustains. I think I’m ready to wash my mouth out with some Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Maybe I need to go buy myself this t-shirt.

PS: As a bonus, here are a few more thoughts on the teenage vampire phenomenon from a friend of mine studying library science:

Teen vampire fiction meets ordinary orphan girl becomes princess fantasy! (1) hm, I am sensing a new trend here thanks to Twilight. It’s the vampire AU fan fiction trend. What will be next? Could it be…

-Vampires! With ponies! (bonus points if the ponies are telepathic)
-The Undead Babysitters Club
-This genre clearly needs something for the boys (2). Probably something about a vampire boy and his dog being stranded on a desert island, struggling for survival with only fish and/or fish blood to eat and only sticks and palm fronds to make a sun-proof shelter. Or maybe a book about vampire pirates.

(1) Note: I have not read this book. It may very well be good, as it was mentioned by the children’s book newsletter I get.
(2) Because clearly no boys would not like these books, nor would any girls like the “boy books.”

RuPaul’s Drag Race, as Promised

We decided that we will spare you our play-by-play analysis because there are only a couple of moments of this week’s RuPaul’s Drag Race that we think are worthy of mention. First, Nina Flowers, who always brings a little genderfuck to the stage, got reamed for just that. Maybe the judges saw something the camera didn’t, but I thought there was plenty of woman in her presentation – just balanced by enough man to make it genderqueer. On the other hand, Ongina was well-received while bringing plenty of the same genderqueer style. It is clear, however that this drag show is keeping with tradition: the goal is a flawless illusion of the so-called opposite gender. And while it’s that very quality that I believe makes drag so subversive, I hope RuPaul will keep celebrating more genderqueer presentations.

Oh, and ps: check out the “Nina Misses Her Husband” bonus video. Best use so far of one of my favorite phrases.

Overheard: Gender Neutrality

“I’m gender queer. My gender is not neutral. It takes sides.”

The Time has come for you to Lipsync..for your Life: RuPaul’s Drag Race

Well, someone went out a created a television show just for me, and by someone I mean RuPaul. RuPaul has found a way to queer the heretofore incredibly heteronormative, cisgender world of reality shows like America’s Next Top Model and I’m just delighted. I love the way that RuPaul has assembled a very diverse group of drag queens who range in cultural and gender presentation widely. I adore the more genderqueer presentations of Nina Flowers and Ongina and there is no denying how classy Ru’ is. RuPaul picked contestants who are mostly sweet and kind and put their best foot forward. Instead of showing cattiness and ugliness, like so many reality shows, RuPaul seems to want us to like all of the contestants. It’s refreshing for the genera and comforts most of my fears about a show like this.

Those are my preliminary thoughts, but there are most to come. My friend Michelle and I will be watching episode four this Wednesday and chatting while we do. So tune in for crazy gender analysis and general dishing! Then tell us what you think.

Slam Poets on the Gender-queer Experience

From Andre Gibson:

Transcript here

And from Kit Yan of the Good Asian Drivers:

I’m especially interested in the connections that Kit draws to colonialism and the way that he talks about the connections between gender and sexuality. I’d like to talk more about that some time soon, but for now I need to get back to the rest of life. Enjoy the poetry!

What to Do: Subversion and Christain Hegamony

Funny how blogs take on a life of their own, isn’t it? My last two posts have been about, to one degree or another, about queer folks within organized religion. I can’t say that was a topic that I intended to deal within this forum and I feel a little uncomfortable with it. But it has gotten me thinking.

It’s hard to deny that religious ideas – very specifically, interpretations of the Christian Bible – are one of the primary justifications for queer oppression in the United States. Time after time, LGBTQ people have found ourselves in conflict with Christian religious leaders seeking to limit our rights. So what are we to do? How do we subvert Christian hegemony within the United States?

There is something distasteful about speaking out as a queer Christian. I’m not ashamed of my faith or ashamed of my sexuality, nor do I feel “under attack” by the “secular world.” Quite the opposite. I avoid speaking out publicly as a queer Christian, or as a Christian period, because my faith is has been such an oppressive force within my country and the world. To speak as a Christian summons up a legacy of colonialism and religious intolerance. When I speak as a queer Christian, I arm myself with a profound privilege. I also identify myself with a source of my oppression. It’s an identity seemingly in conflict with itself and with all non-Christians.

But if it’s true that Christianity – or, I would argue, a particular sort of Christianity – is a political and cultural force leading to queer oppression, then it seems to me that our community is going to have engage with it in some way. And in a country where Christianity is the dominate and dominating faith, as individuals we’re nearly guaranteed personal run-ins, so to speak, with it. So what do we do? I can see three options, each with limitations.

We can subvert Christianity by claiming it. Rather, queer Christians can subvert Christianity in this way. We can be “better Christians” than our straight counterparts. We can arrive early to the proper churches, dress in our Sunday best, wield the biggest Bibles, quote the most scripture, all while we hold our partners hand in the front pew. We can go to seminary, become Bishops, and give the best damn prayer at Obama’s inauguration. We discuss scripture and dialogue with the conservatives and biblical literalists. Perhaps in this way, we can rob them of their ability to degrade us.

There’s something to be said for this sort of subversion. It’s potent. Queer Christian do have the right to claim their faith. But it’s also limited. It places the burden – and privilege – of queer liberation of the shoulders of queer Christians. And at it’s core, it’s asking Christianity to accommodate us.

So many we should just throw the whole thing out. We can oppose Christianity out right. Call it evil, stupid, oppressive, irrelevant, whatever we like. We can openly and flagrantly lead lives that would shock and horrify Focus on the Family (well, that’s hard not to do). This strategy has a satisfying totality to it. It takes on Christianity’s oppressive power with a full frontal assault. It feels good. And it is working. Secularism is on the rise.

But how much change can we affect this way? We will alienate people in this way and the people will alienate will have queer friends and family just like everyone else. Can they afford our consistency?  And for those us of us who really are Christians, can we afford it?

So perhaps we take a middle road and appeal to separation of church and state. It’s a noble position and something we should all be able to agree on. But I think it doges the question and does nothing to ameliorate the prejudices that cement queer oppression. And besides, do we really want to base of argument on American mythopoetics? Is that less oppressive than Christianity?

What to do.  There isn’t a good solution. But I feel like I’ve had this conversation before. What’s really subversive – two normative women holding hands on the street or the butch/femme dynamic? If a trans person passes, is that person subversive? Maybe we should all be performing drag! Really, is one strategy more subversive than another? If so, tell me how you quantify it. Could our community simply deploy all of these strategies at once, each person using whatever feels right? Could we do that without in-fighting?

It sounds trite, but I’m coming to believe a very simple idea. As long as you are aware of the contradiction, privileges and oppressions you embody, what is subversive is being yourself.

An Open Letter to Rick Warren

Dear Pastor Warren,

I owe you an apology. When I heard that it was you who President Elect Obama had asked to give the invocation at his inauguration, I was disappointed. As a member of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community I was also a little angry. Hurt too. But I’ve been thinking and I would like to ask you for something. I’d like to ask you to be my pastor.

It’s hard to believe, but we actually have a lot in common, you and I. I was raised in an Evangelical church. I’ve been saved and born again, just like you. I attend a mainline church now, but I imagine our Sunday morning services are pretty similar to yours and I’m sure I know all the words to the songs you sing. To top it all off, both you and I are attracted to women.

Pardon the joke, Pastor Warren. I just can’t help myself. I suppose that is an important difference between us. I’m bisexual and I’m more likely to wear a nice suit to church than a dress. But I’m a bisexual Christian. I love Jesus. I do my best to live a life that bears witness to the grace and forgiveness God extends to me daily. I read the Bible and try to understand its meaning. When I look at the proof texts used to call homosexuality a sin, I see injunctions against exploitative sexual relationships, like the relationships that characterized the Roman empire, not the loving, co-equal, monogamous relationships of modern same-sex marriage. I don’t intend to marry more than one person; I had to tell my mother that’s not what bisexual means when I came out to her and my father. And I want you to be my pastor.

You’ve said that you want to be America’s pastor and you’re certainly getting your shot at just that. The thing is, to be America’s pastor, you’re going to have to be mine. This country has changed since Billy Graham began his ministry and if you want to take his place, you’re going to need to acknowledge who we have become. We, people who love people of the same gender, are part and parcel of this nation. Many of us are Christians. We are a part of churches all over this nation, worshiping and ministering alongside the rest of our Christian family. We’re struggling to win the right to participate in the sacrament of marriage. Is it really your intention to stand in our way as we come before God?

I don’t believe that you hate people like me. I know that your congregation has been involved in AIDS-related ministries and that you’ve personally spent time with gay people socially. However, you are continuing to throw around the Bible without acknowledging the scholarly debate over the passages you reference. If you’re not careful, you’re going to hit someone! I believe you’re doing your best to show your love for us, but you’ve forgotten what Jesus did besides eating with sinners. He spoke out against religious leaders who used scripture in the same way as you: “How terrible it will be for you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door to the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You don’t go in yourselves, and you don’t allow those who are trying to enter to go in.” (Mt. 23:13, NIV)

Pastor Warren, my community needs you. I’m begging you to enter the kingdom of heaven with us. The greatest tragedy in my life was when I listened to preachers like you and came to believe that I couldn’t be a Christian any more because of my sexual orientation. It took several years and several different religious leaders who told me that I was not an abomination to draw me back to the church. So many young people in America find themselves in the same position I did. We need America’s pastor to be ours too.

What I’m asking from you is simple. There’s no need to agree with me. You do not need to believe, as I do, that same-sex relationships are not inherently sinful. I do hope you’ll come to be convinced of that, but you can be my pastor without changing anything you believe. To be my pastor, you need develop a relationship with me and the rest of my community. Come and worship with us! Be in dialogue with scholars and religious leaders who understand the words of the Bible differently than you. Acknowledge that we can disagree on this issue while loving the same God. Listen to the stories of people who have been profoundly hurt by ex-gay therapies but found liberation through Jesus, who loves them for who they are. Stop using inflammatory language to oppose same-sex marriage and acknowledge the material and emotional hurt your activism has caused loving, committed same-sex couples. At the least, be kind to my community.

In a few days, after you give the invocation at Obama’s inauguration, Bishop Gene Robinson, the first openly gay Episcopal bishop, will also be in Washington D.C. to give another invocation for the President-elect. If you want to be my pastor, think about inviting Bishop Robinson out for coffee. I’m guessing that the two of you would find a lot to talk about. Let that conversation be the first of many.

In Christ,
Joy Ellison