bri-marie [i]She's obsessively in love with a control freak stalker.[/i] Much like Cassie, I don't understand why this is only a bad thing in Twilight. Harry Potter, The Mortal Instruments, Vampire Academy, Wicked, Vampire Diaries, and The Mediator all have obsessive love, stalkers, and overly "controlling" partners. Not only are those relationships deemed good (by both the characters in the book and the fans of the books), but they're actually relationships people strive to mimic. [i]She wants him so bad that she'll abandone everyone else she loves so that she could be with him.[/i] Being happy is a bad thing? She's not supposed to be with the person she wants to be with, become the person she wants to become? [i]As in, she wants to have sex with a living statue and a corpse.[/i] So, is this a problem you have with [i]all[/i] vampire romance stories, or does this particular negative aspect of vampire relationships only pop up for Twilight? [i]But she doesn't listen to ANYONE. Or if she does, she does her best to push the words aside and rush to her fucked up choices.[/i] Once again, is she supposed to live her life for other people? That, not only makes for a weak character, but also a weak human being in general. I find it very interesting that you berate her for staying with an "overly controlling" boyfriend, but then also berate her for not listening to said "overly controlling" boyfriend and doing what [i]she[/i] wants. So which way to you want her to be: a submissive little lamb who lets everyone dictate every move and thought she makes, or a strong woman who knows what she wants and doesn't let anyone stand in the way of it? [i]and allows her to make her own choices even if he feels they're wrong.[/i] Except for that time he forced himself on her, and all those times he wouldn't take 'no' for an answer. Oh, and that time he threatened to die unless he kissed her. But, hey, he let her see Edward so it's all good. [i]She even punched Jacob in the face![/i] After he molested and sexually assaulted her. (Which you seem to conveniently keep forgetting as you praise his character.) Bella (and any women in general) has [i]every[/i] right to hit, punch, kick, and bite [i]any[/i] man who forces any kind of sexual contact on her. Especially a man that took her "I tried to force his head away from me" as encouragement.

bendaimmortal [i]"I don't understand why this is only a bad thing in Twilight."[/i] I didn't say that. But this is a Critical Analysis on Twilight club. Not generally on fiction. But I think in Twilight it highlights because Twilight has tons of questionable/more or less inappropriate content in it. [i]"Being happy is a bad thing?"[/i] Yes, if that happiness sources from relative death + emotionally abusive boyfriend. And if in order to gain that happiness, you need to and are willing to hurt and abandone everyone else who loves you. [i]"She's not supposed to be with the person she wants to be with, become the person she wants to become?"[/i] In this case, no. Because a fact of life is that what you want is not always good/healthy for you and in this case it totally is not. [i]"So, is this a problem you have with all vampire romance stories, or does this particular negative aspect of vampire relationships only pop up for Twilight?"[/i] All. I'm not big on reading/seeing/imagening people having sex with corpses. The corpse being reanimated doesn't make a difference. How strongly the said aspect of a relationship bothers me depends on how much, in the contnt, I'm being reminded of that they're corpses (and that's done a lot in Twilight) - and on how the other aspects of the relationship are (which are not exactly beautiful and healthy in Twilight.) [i]"Once again, is she supposed to live her life for other people? That, not only makes for a weak character, but also a weak human being in general."[/i] No. She's supposed to give a normal, healthy life a chance instead of going for an undoable decision at the age of 18, and she's supposed to live her life WITH the other people which means listening to them and taking their advices-sourcing-from-experience, seriously. That, makeas a strong human being because this human being would be strong and brave enough to see wht the world and life has in store instead of escaping to the world of undead before even started to live, and because this human being would be living a life wherein other people matter instead of just herself. [i]"I find it very interesting that you berate her for staying with an "overly controlling" boyfriend, but then also berate her for not listening to said "overly controlling" boyfriend and doing what she wants. So which way to you want her to be: a submissive little lamb who lets everyone dictate every move and thought she makes, or a strong woman who knows what she wants and doesn't let anyone stand in the way of it?"[/i] What's with the ultimatums? Some of you are acting as if there is nothing in between two extreme options. Anyway. Listening to and seriously considering other's feelings and wise warnings from experience is not letting them dictate every move and thought you make. Because even if you listen and seriously consider them, you can still make whatever decision you feel right to make, but the thing is you are less potential to make the wrong decision because you've taken time to seriously consider your goal from more than one point of view. It's like Jacob said: "You're rushing into it because you're afraid you'll change your mind." As in, you're not listening to others because you're afraid you'll see they're right and you might change your mind. And Bella's words "I fought the feelings only because I knew they wouldn't change anything" are illogical. If you are absolutely sure that accepting/embracing B won't change A, there would be no desire to fight B. Being a strong woman who knows what she wants and doesn't let anyone stand in the way of it is encouragable and admirable. But when it includes making undoable decisions that dramatically affect the rest of your life [i]and everyone around you, and have loved ones lose you[/i], it becomes more essentially selfish and in essence something that should be dealt with VERY careful and through consideration with the help of experienced - and not in a rushed me-myself-and-I attitude. As for Bella and Edward alone... Edward's opinion and feelings about her choosing a vampire life because he knows the consequences and pain of it, is not controlling. It's giving a wise warning/advice from experience. As in, of course Bella should listen to it but she doesn't. It's not the same as breaking her car in efforts to stop her from seeing a safe friend just because he's jealous of her, or physically dragging and pushing her in order to make her not drive home herself when she wishes to, just because he's afraid for her safety. Which abuse she lets him do but she shouldn't. So I wasn't contradicting. I was critisizing her behaviour on two essentially different matters. For driving her home matter she probably was in significant danger and his will to protect her understandable, but he didn't have to physically force and abuse her inro solving the problem his way. As if he couldn't have taken the passenger's seat in her car or followed her from distance which would've been much less controlling choices but served the purpose of protecting her. [i]"Except for that time he forced himself on her, and all those times he wouldn't take 'no' for an answer. Oh, and that time he threatened to die unless he kissed her. But, hey, he let her see Edward so it's all good."[/i] He threatened to die unless he kissed her, in the book? In the film it seemed to be Bella's own decision to offer him that, as he never said that it would be the only good enough reason for him. But in general, yes, perhaps my phrasing was too generalizing. I know it probably seems so, but I'm not forgetting Jacob's forced kissing stunt when I praise the character. I'm just not holding it against him through a point of view of the entity of the character and his behaviour towards Bella. Especially as it's being compared to the entity of Edward's character and his behaviour towards Bella. I agree any woman has the right to violently defend themselves if sexually molested and by all means they should, but as I pointed out up there, I only think Bella's choice of method was somewhat unfair seeing to that she knew the guy was good at heart and doesn't usually disrespect her like that AND she had romantic feelings for him.

RavenclawRocks Somebody copy and pasted onto the Harry Potter vs Twilight spot and didn't give you any credit.

bendaimmortal RavenclawRocks, I shall go report it as stolen if someone already hasn't. Thanks for informing! Much appreciated!

bri-marie [i]But I think in Twilight it highlights because Twilight has tons of questionable/more or less inappropriate content in it.[/i] I know this is the C.A.T spot. My point is that it's rare for anyone to say boo about the other books, regardless of what messages they send. (The Mortal Instruments romanticizes incest.) It's [i]only[/i] in Twilight where this is deemed unacceptable. [i]And if in order to gain that happiness, you need to and are willing to hurt and abandone everyone else who loves you.[/i] So what about people who hurt their parents by taking a completely different career choice than what their parents wanted? Or people who move out of the country their parents live in? [i]Because a fact of life is that what you want is not always good/healthy for you and in this case it totally is not.[/i] Except everything worked out for Bella. She easily became a vegetarian vampire, and got to keep her best friend [i]and[/i] family in her life. So, with the possible exception of her being a vampire, there was no bad or unhealthy-ness that came from her decision. [i]She's supposed to give a normal, healthy life a chance[/i] Which she did. For eighteen years. After giving it a chance, she realized it wasn't for her -- she was not happy as a human. Was she supposed to be miserable because it [i]might[/i] get a little better for her? [i]this human being would be living a life wherein other people matter instead of just herself.[/i] Bella's eighteen years consisted of living for other people. She took care of her mother, took care of her father. She left her home town and traveled to a completely different state [i]for her mother[/i]. If other people truly didn't matter to Bella, she wouldn't have done any of those things for the people she cared about. [i]What's with the ultimatums?[/i] There aren't any. [i]Some of you are acting as if there is nothing in between two extreme options.[/i] No, we're commenting on what you're saying. You're angry that she's selfish, and then angry that she's not. [i]Listening to and seriously considering other's feelings and wise warnings from experience is not letting them dictate every move and thought you make.[/i] She [i]does[/i] listen to what others have to say. That's [i]why[/i] she didn't let Carlisle change her at the end of New Moon, or right after she graduated. Because she [i]listened[/i] to Carlisle, Edward, and Rosalie. Just because she became a vampire doesn't mean she didn't listen to anyone. [i]have loved ones lose you[/i] Nobody lost Bella. And it was pretty obvious that Bella was going to fight like Hell to keep Jacob and Charlie in her life as much as she possibly could. [i]He threatened to die unless he kissed her, in the book?[/i] Yes: "[Jacob] glanced up at the sun and then smiled at me. "There's a pretty serious fight brewing down there. I don't think it would be all that difficult to remove myself from the picture." [...] "What's the difference, Bella? This will only make it more convenient for everyone. You won't even have to move." [...] "I don't have to do anything deliberate -- I could just do my best for my pack and let what happens happen.: He shrugged. "[i]If[/i] you could convince me you really did want me to come back -- more than you wanted to do the selfless thing." "How?" I asked. "You could ask me," he suggested. "Come back," I whispered. He shook his head, smiling again. "That's not what I'm talking about." -- Eclipse, chapter 24, pages 523 - 525. (American hard-back, first edition.) [i]I'm just not holding it against him through a point of view of the entity of the character and his behaviour towards Bella. Especially as it's being compared to the entity of Edward's character and his behaviour towards Bella.[/i] Molestation is molestation. Jacob molesting Bella is not excusable because (in your opinion) Jacob had been a better person to and for Bella than Edward.

bendaimmortal [i]"So what about people who hurt their parents by taking a completely different career choice than what their parents wanted? Or people who move out of the country their parents live in?"[/i] Pay attention, please. I said hurting AND abandoning. Choosing a career or moving out of country is not abandoning. And while it may be hurting those who love you, typically they'd get over it sooner otr later. But if you more or less kill yourself, that is not something they'll get over. And don't forget the part wherein the happiness would be sourcing from eternity as a blood-lusting undead with an emotionally abusive husband. So again; yes, being happy is bad if it sources from that kind of a choice. Such is a choice for which you'd need your head examned and professional help. [i]"Except everything worked out for Bella. She easily became a vegetarian vampire, and got to keep her best friend and family in her life. So, with the possible exception of her being a vampire, there was no bad or unhealthy-ness that came from her decision."[/i] Yes, because the author didn't even try to take a realistic approach, she just wrote down her own wet dream. The fact that she pointed out and put weight on all those dramatic possibilities and dangers but STILL everything just happened to work out perfectly well for Bella, is the ultimate proof of that. In a nutshell: the author wrote down her own fantasy and not the real deal. [i]"She's supposed to give a normal, healthy life a chance Which she did. For eighteen years. After giving it a chance, she realized it wasn't for her -- she was not happy as a human. Was she supposed to be miserable because it might get a little better for her?"[/i] An 18 year old hasn't yet lived. She's barely grown up and left the controlled life of a child with her parents. She had no idea what life and the world could be through the eyes of an adult and the maturity of an adult, and to have adult experiences. She didn't even give it a chance. And she didn't come off that miserable human being to me. She even said herself that "My life is not miserable. It's not perfect but nobody's life is perfect." She says "Your world is also my world." How could she possibly know if she's never been literally IN that world. She'd only been a human observer at the borders of that world, but she'd never FELT what it's like to be in that world as it's natural habitant. Like, she's taking a huge risk, sacrificing her entire life and all those who love her, just because she feels this way at that point of her YOUNG life. [i]"Bella's eighteen years consisted of living for other people. She took care of her mother, took care of her father. She left her home town and traveled to a completely different state for her mother. If other people truly didn't matter to Bella, she wouldn't have done any of those things for the people she cared about."[/i] And yet all the sudden she chooses to throw them all out of her life for all eternity. If they [i]truly[/i] mattered to her, she would not be able to do that when she had a choice which she consciously fought against. Well, she would've thrwon thenm out of her life if the real life version of her brain hadn't written everything miraculously working out perfectly for her. [i]"No, we're commenting on what you're saying. You're angry that she's selfish, and then angry that she's not."[/i] But you're failing to think of it relatively seeing to the situations in which she is selfish or is not. But can I expect anything else from people who compare dying and abandoning one's family, to moving out of town or choosing a career... [i]"Molestation is molestation. Jacob molesting Bella is not excusable because (in your opinion) Jacob had been a better person to and for Bella than Edward."[/i] Perhaps I don't hold it against him because at least Jacob apologized for it later and isn't likely to do it again. Has Edward ever apologized for the emotional (and at least at one point physical) abuse he practices on Bella?

cassie-1-2-3 [i]she just wrote down her own wet dream[/i] A wet dream requires an orgasm in your sleep. I just thought I'd point that out for no reason.

bri-marie [i]. Choosing a career or moving out of country is not abandoning. And while it may be hurting those who love you, typically they'd get over it sooner otr later.[/i] Depending on the family, the situation, the reason they could consider themselves abandoned. [i]the author wrote down her own fantasy and not the real deal.[/i] It's wonderful that you have that opinion. That doesn't change the fact that Bella didn't hurt anyone with her choice. [i]She had no idea what life and the world could be through the eyes of an adult and the maturity of an adult[/i] What exactly is "living life"? And how old do you have to be before you've "lived it"? Bella did not live in a little bubble in a padded room for eighteen years. She didn't live in a little bubble in a padded room for the two/three years she was with Edward. She went places, saw things, learned things, met people. On the other hand, [i]you[/i] don't know that her life would have been any more exciting, easy, or better in any way had she left the only man she truly loved. It [i]could[/i] have been exactly the same, or even worse. [i]If they truly mattered to her, she would not be able to do that when she had a choice which she consciously fought against.[/i] Bella is entitled to be happy, to make [i]herself[/i] happy, and to live for [i]her[/i]. She proved time and time again that her family mattered and that she was going to fight/find a way to keep them in her life. She agonized over saying goodbye. But in the end it was [i]her[/i] choice how to live [i]her[/i] life, not theirs. [i]But you're failing to think of it relatively seeing to the situations in which she is selfish or is not.[/i] And you're failing to look at this through and un-biased lens. [i]But can I expect anything else from people who compare dying and abandoning one's family, to moving out of town or choosing a career...[/i] Abandon: to leave completely and finally. If my mother and up left my father, my two sisters, and me so she could get a better job, it [i]WOULD[/i] be abandonment. That's what abandonment means. If my mother decided to get a job that would better [i]her[/i] situation and negatively effected the rest of her family, it would hurt. But that is, apparently, unselfish. [i]Perhaps I excuse it because at least Jacob apologized for it later and isn't likely to do it again.[/i] Once again, Jacob's isn't excusable. The fact that he [i]might[/i] not do it again does not make it better. Edward's (who wasn't even in the country at the time) behavior does not, in anyway, effect the fact that Jacob sexually assaulted Edward's ex-girlfriend.

bendaimmortal [i]"Depending on the family, the situation, the reason they could consider themselves abandoned."[/i] Yes, but what Bella was to do would make them certainly feel that waqy. [i]"It's wonderful that you have that opinion. That doesn't change the fact that Bella didn't hurt anyone with her choice."[/i] It's not the point. She's a role model to teenage girls/heroine of the story and therefor glorifying her fucked up choices by having all that highly risky and basically sick crap work out perfectly for her and for everyone else exactly the way she wanted, is not a good thing. [i]"What exactly is "living life"? And how old do you have to be before you've "lived it"?"[/i] Basically, you have to have experienced more than the life with your parents because that's only the "nest" wherein you're being prepared for the world and your totally own life. And you have to have seen more than your teenage years/early twenties because your view of the world can not possibly be ready at your teenage years/early twenties. In life there's too much to know, to be and enjoy (and suffer, but you know that's part of healthy living.) You can't possibly say you've lived if you've barely faced the minority of it all, like Bella. [i]"Bella did not live in a little bubble in a padded room for eighteen years. She didn't live in a little bubble in a padded room for the two/three years she was with Edward. She went places, saw things, learned things, met people."[/i] And what things they were... [i]"On the other hand, you don't know that her life would have been any more exciting, easy, or better in any way had she left the only man she truly loved. It could have been exactly the same, or even worse."[/i] Could've been but not likely. You're forgetting it's her own choices we're talking about here and that the point is, she knew she should be something else but chose not to even try to be that but remain the unhealthy herself. She used the words I've never been normal, I don't want to be normal". Not generally speaking, but in this case not-normal equals sick because her choices include nothing but morbid desires and and happiness sourcing from death and being emotionally abused. [i]"Bella is entitled to be happy, to make herself happy, and to live for her. She proved time and time again that her family mattered and that she was going to fight/find a way to keep them in her life. She agonized over saying goodbye. But in the end it was her choice how to live her life, not theirs."[/i] She's also entitled to get professional help for her issues that lead her feeling like she belongs to the world of undead and with an emotionally abusive husband. [i]"And you're failing to look at this through and un-biased lens."[/i] I am not biased. I'm looking at this through reasonable lens and through a point of view of what is healthy for a person. Again, I'm not the one who compares dying and living with emotionally abusive husband, to moving out of town and choosing a career. No matter how much SMeyer wrote everything work out perfectly for Bella, her choicce is not healthy. [i]"Abandon: to leave completely and finally. If my mother and up left my father, my two sisters, and me so she could get a better job, it WOULD be abandonment. That's what abandonment means."[/i] It would be abandonment only if she stopped contacting you and visiting you / having you visit her. But she wouldn't have to do that over a job. [i]"Once again, Jacob's isn't excusable. The fact that he might not do it again does not make it better. Edward's (who wasn't even in the country at the time) behavior does not, in anyway, effect the fact that Jacob sexually assaulted Edward's ex-girlfriend."[/i] Again, I'm looking at the characters and comparing them with Bella as a whole, not through just one thing they did. The fact that he might not do it again does not make it better than he did it in the first place but it does make HIM better choice for Bella than Edward who is likely to continue all the abuse he practices on her.

bri-marie [i]Yes, but what Bella was to do would make them certainly feel that waqy.[/i] But, once again, this is an incident that happens in almost [i]all[/i] vampire romance stories. The human always has to chose between turning into a vampire and staying human. And, once again, those people aren't considered to be abandoning their families either. [i]It's not the point.[/i] That [i]is[/i] the point. Bella made a choice that had the risk of emotionally hurting her family. But they didn't get hurt at all. Especially since there was risk no matter who she chose to be with. We're told (and shown) time and time again how temperamental the wolves are, and how dangerous they are when they're angry. Choosing to bring a volatile giant wolf around your family that could seriously physically harm them isn't any less of a risk than emotionally harming them with your death. [i]You can't possibly say you've lived if you've barely faced the minority of it all, like Bella.[/i] My grandfather came over from Poland, lived with his parents until he got married, never left the town he moved to, and worked until the day he died. He never went anywhere for vacation, never got into any trouble.. And he never would have said he "didn't live." I'm twenty-one, have visited two countries; been to seventeen different states in my own country; gone para-sailing, jet skiing, skiing, snow-boarding; I've ridden an elephant, a camel, and a horse; swam with dolphins and sharks; lived on my own with a crappy paying job; gone to college; got in fights; smoke and drank; lost friends and family members; stood up for my rights and beliefs; and gotten engaged. And I, despite being in my early twenties, would never say I haven't "lived" either. You're version of "living" isn't the same as my grandfather's or mine. Bella may not have "lived" by your standards, but that doesn't mean she didn't at all. [i]She used the words I've never been normal, I don't want to be normal".[/i] She's never said "I don't want to be normal." On the contrary, she tells us in book one how awkward, upset, and out of place she felt in Arizona because she didn't fit in. When Edward tells her she's the only one he can't hear, she gets upset [i]again[/i]: "My mind doesn't work right? I'm a freak?" The words bothered me more than they should -- probably because his speculation hit home. I'd always suspected as much, and it embarrassed me to have it confirmed. (Twilight, chapter nine, page 179.) [i]Not generally speaking, but in this case not-normal equals sick because her choices include nothing but morbid desires and and happiness sourcing from death and being emotionally abused.[/i] Bella wasn't normal before she even moved to Forks and met Edward. [i]Again, I'm not the one who compares dying and living with emotionally abusive husband, to moving out of town and choosing a career.[/i] No. But you are the one who's saying it's okay for a man to sexually assault a woman as long as he's a good person before the incident, and that that is okay as long as he's not abusive in other ways. [i]But she wouldn't have to do that over a job.[/i] And you know this because you know what job my mother has, or because you know my mother and our familial situation? [i]The fact that he might not do it again does not make it better than he did it in the first place but it does make HIM better choice for Bella than Edward who is likely to continue all the abuse he practices on her.[/i] Sexual abuse is not better than verbal and mental abuse. Jacob is not a better choice because he only forced himself on her -- that's just as bad as what Edward does.

EchoHellfire Valid points and explained. Brilliant. I really hope the Bella giving birth scene is like the chest-burster scene from Alien. just for the lulz.

CloudedMindx You took the words straight from my mouth, honestly, if I ever started acting like Bella, I'd want someone to push me off a cliff, and not to hear my ex's voice, so I could not live in the shell of a anti feminist mary sue -__-

BABY_PINK_LOVE I respect you opinion, but at the end of a day its a book. Bella's not real. Neither is edward, its a book.

bendaimmortal BABY_PINK_LOVE; You fail to grasp the power of fiction on sensitive age groups and/or sensitive minds. After all what is fiction but a made-up example of real life and real life people, sometimes spiced with fantasy elements such as magic and mystical creatures.

cassie-1-2-3 I don't think a significant number of minds are sensetive enough to believe that they must have sex with "some cold dead statue guy" - or whatever it was you said - in order to be happy, just because Bella fell for a vampire. If you meet someone who truly believes that, I'd take a picture.

bendaimmortal "Significant number of minds"? Are you saying that one person's mind is not significant? That it becomes significant only if large number of minds are being messed up? And anyway, in case you forgot, this article isn't about the having sex with a corpse. It's just one tiny part of the full picture. Differen people pick after different aspects of a heroine/fictional story. bri-marie, I'll address your latest arguments when I have more time.

cassie-1-2-3 That's not at all what I said, you severely misunderstood. I never said anything about the quality of individual minds. I was speaking purely of quantity. The key word of that sencence you quoted was "number". Also, I said "are", which is the plural form of "is". That should have indicated that I was speaking of multiple persons, as opposed to "one person's mind". Bella's sexual decisions, to me, is the most ridiculously shallow argument in this argument, so it stuck with me. I didn't feel like rereading it to remind myself of the rest, which is why I only commented on that point. You can apply what I said to the rest of your arguments as well, if you wish.

bendaimmortal cassie-1-2-3: The keywords was the 'number' in my response too. I meant that even if only one sensitive mind was affected by the messed up shit glorified in fiction, how is it less significant from if it happened to a million minds? As in, the number shouldn't matter. And you can take the arument in the shallow way but it wasn't and isn't meant in that way. I'd understand if it was the first argument brought up or the only one, but it isn't. It's combined with all the emotionally, psychologically and physically unhealthy, disturbed and unwise shit Bella Swan goes through - and thus is totally not meant in a shallw way. And I've even made that literal point in the article so I'm not quite sure why would you even be taking it as a shallow argument.

BabyOwlLover4 @bri-marie "But you are the one who's saying it's okay for a man to sexually assault a woman as long as he's a good person before the incident, and that that is okay as long as he's not abusive in other ways." Think of it like this. Dumbledore was good before, and successful, but then he became power-hungry for a while and willing to use the Dark Arts to get that. But he realized it harmed himself and his family, so he stopped. He later defeated Grindelwald and spent the rest of his life fighting the Dark Arts. Jacob was good before, he never hurt or molested anyone. After he kissed Bella, he apologized. He (and his pack) has also saved her (and the Cullens') life a number of times.

bri-marie Jacob, as I've already mentioned, manipulates and forces Bella into kissing him twice. And he didn't apologize for kissing her, he apologizes for hurting her hand (his words, not mine). He constantly manhandles her, and hurts her feelings. He doesn't stop doing anything.

-Grace- I'll post a more in depth response later :D But just for now, you talk about why Jacob would have been a good choice for Bella. Have you ever had someone you're not interested in forcefully pursue you? Telling you they'll wait for you to be ready, being rude to/about the person you're with, forceing themselves on you? Believe me when I tell you it's not charming at all. It's actually really upsetting. The one thing that really annoys me about Bella in Eclipse is how easily she lets Jacob get away with being so awful to her. Don't get me wrong, he's a good person, a good friend to her. But he SERIOUSLY needed to respect that that's all he was. Just something to consider :)

bendaimmortal @ -Grace-: You have a point. But I stick to my opinion/view that he would've been a better choice for a boyfriend/husband in the end. I haven't read all the books but the way it seems is that Edward did nothing bad in order to get Bella as his own but once he did ger her, he treats her as his possession/child and not an equal lover and a grown-up, whereas Jacob does some serious crap when desperately tying to get her as his own but I can't see him abusing her in a relationship. Now both situations are equally bad as they are, but my starting point is in the fact that Bella's choice/emotional life to begin with was messed up. Had she fallen more in love with the good friend and healthy relationship-chance that was Jacob and thus chosen him, none of that crap would've happened. But instead she fell in love with the abisobe stalker and was willing to commit a suicide for him and brought out flaws in the good friend. @bri-marie: Just wanted to say I am still intenting to reply to your latest reply to me. I'm just not as passionate and into anti-Twilight matters and debating it as I am to some other fandoms, so my interest doesn't linger on this for too long at a time. :)

-Grace- I don't think Edward treats her as a possesion. He's quite bossy, but I think that's understandable considering how breakable she is. If you think about it like this, it's easier to understand: when most people wake up in the morning, they don't think about all of the different ways that they could potentially die before the end of the day. But in reality, we're in so many situations every day that are potentially life-threatening! We don't really notice. But Edward would! Imagine being outside that, imagine never having to think about yourself or anyone in your family dying. Imagine it just wasn't part of the equation. And then he meets Bella. She is the first human he's been close to in what, 80 years? It would be completely new to him, the concept that she could die. And so easily! No wonder it makes him so anxious :)

bendaimmortal The motive being understandable, doesn't make the behaviour OK to carry on doing onto someone or accept upon onself. Not if it's away from one's indepenence and basic rights, or emotionally abusive. And many of Edwards protection-undertakings are all of that and thus turn the tratment more of a possession than of an equal lover.

missracoon This is so spot on.