2. How do we define offensive or abusive?

3. Using stereotypes and poorly written first person narrative is sloppy and lazy on the originators part, and makes for a great discussion on Beej's blog.

Naturally, I think everyone here can agree that anything that portrays abusive behavior as acceptable is just wrong.

Our issue, however, is how do we determine what is deemed abusive.

Taking the original example of Edward forcing Bella into the car…
(I assume this is the scene in Twilight where he grabs her by the jacket after she gets lightheaded from the blood lab. It is the only one that I can think of that she is "forced." Could be in New Moon, don't remember.)
If we are looking at this from a technical standpoint, almost every definition (including legally, but that is at the judge's discretion) states that there has to be harmful intent before it can be considered abuse. In this situation, the most obvious intent was to keep her from driving because she might wreck, or cause someone else to wreck. Also, since he grabbed her by the jacket and not her physical body, this promotes the idea of playfulness, and she is never actually forced to get into the car, he only takes her to the door. He then threatens that he will chase her down if she tries to run, but there is no evidence as to if he will (more on this later).

Going by definition, this is far from abuse. Maltreatment perhaps, an exercise in controlling behavior, likely, but not abuse.

Now then, aside from the technical view, we have the contextual view. This is in which what the reader would assume the possibilities of intent are, based on context.

This comes mainly from Edward's threat that he will chase her down. For me, it was entirely meant as a playful jest, as well to everyone else I ask about it. This, of course, means it is not seen as abuse. If she does not want to get in the car, he will let her go.

However, at this point there is the possibility he is dead serious, and willing to track her down whether she likes it or not. This would then be the abusive behavior that we do not want promoted.

So, if the readers automatically assume that there is no intent of abuse on his part, and understand the context as "playful teenage banter" can we still consider it abuse on the readers' part, only because we see it as such? Are we allowed to say your interpretation of context is wrong?

The problem here, is that the story is written in first person (as Beej already mentioned), from Bella's standpoint. Therefor, we do not know what Edward's real intention is. This is error of the author. It makes the situation cloudy.

In the end, it seems to me, it is just as folly to declare Edward abusive, as it is for a fan to say it is not.

However, I did recently see an opinion on a message board that made me adjust my view of Twilight a bit. The person said that the act of telling girls that they shouldn’t read or enjoy Twilight didn’t sit well with her. Instead, she insisted that people have the right to like what they like. She also pointed out that, if we tell girls that they’re not smart enough to know what’s good for them, then we’re being just as patronizing as Edward is to Bella and are therefore guilty of precisely the thing we’re complaining about. I hadn’t thought of it that way, but I have to admit that she’s right. So I think the answer is to let kids read what they want to read (within reason), but for parents and teachers to read those things, too, in order to try to engage kids in critical thinking. Censorship isn’t the answer to problematic material. The answer is encouraging people to realize that it is, in fact, problematic, so they can then recognize and react appropriately when they encounter those problems in real life. So if you have a daughter, read Twilight with her, and then say, “OK, we enjoy this because it’s melodramatic and supplies an emotional roller coaster that is fun for escapism. And that’s great. But let’s talk about the way these characters act, and whether it’s ok in real life.”

Anyway, these are my thoughts on the portrayal of abusive behavior in “mindless, silly fun.” I’ll try to get around to commenting on some of your theories about narrative voice (and considering my thesis topic, you know where this is going) later.

My first topic is the subject of the portrayal of abusive behavior.

The problem that I see that connects a lot of these scenarios is the idea that if, in the end, the woman decides that she is ok with the abusive behavior, then that justifies the man’s decision to be abusive. There is a date rape scene in Seth Rogen’s Observe and Report that got a good bit of attention when the film came out. The scene shows Seth Rogen’s character having sex with Anna Farris’ character, who is completely unconscious. Rogen pauses when Farris starts to wake up, and her response is “Why are you stopping, m*****f*****?” The makers of this movie seemed to think that Farris’ line somehow retroactively made his decision to rape an unconscious woman ok. Seth Rogen said in an interview, “When we're having sex and she's unconscious like you can literally feel the audience thinking, like, how the f*** are they going to make this okay? Like, what can possibly be said or done that I'm not going to walk out of the movie theater in the next thirty seconds? . . . And then she says, like, the one thing that makes it all okay.”

Her statement may mean that she won’t feel bad about what happened, but it does nothing to make Rogen’s character any less of a rapist. I haven’t seen the film (just that scene online), so I don’t know the context. For all I know, the film invites critical thinking about the events in the scene. I do know that it is a dark comedy and that Rogen’s character is supposed to be a jerk. I am not opposed to films depicting bad behavior, as long as there is some acknowledgement (or at least room for audience acknowledgement) that it is, in fact, bad behavior. I don’t think that Observe and Report is quite the level of subversion that you’re talking about, since it I doubt it’s hidden underneath such a façade of lighthearted fun.

I think Beej is spot-on in asserting that the “mindless, silly fun” label actually makes some content more dangerous, since so many people use the label as an excuse to shut down any critical thinking. I don’t want to go too far down the road of assuming that people mindlessly emulate what they see in popular media, but I don’t think we can ignore the effects. In both Crank (in the scene Beej mentions) and Observe and Report, a male character’s decision to rape a woman is dimissed as ok when it turns out that the woman actually does want it anyway. I’m afraid that scenes like these, when not viewed with a critical eye, encourage a sense of sexual entitlement in some young men. That the scenes promote the idea of: “I am so good and she’s going to love it so much that she’s bound to change her mind once we start (or retroactively consent when she wakes up).” And I’m afraid that young women will be led to believe that men expect that sort of submission, and that they have to offer it if they’re going to be desirable. I don’t know. I hope people are smarter than that. But I volunteer for a rape crisis center, and I see the stats coming in every month, and something out there is perverting a lot of people’s ideas about sexuality and consent. A lot more than just pop culture, of course, but everything plays a role.

Continued in next post

Clarification: A person rarely decides, "This is a good story about a vampire because it does not offend anyone." It would be more like, "This is a good story about a vampire because it contains aspects that vampire fans enjoy." The assumption is then that as long as the context of the story is within the confines of what the audience deems acceptable, a non-offensive nature (or offensive nature as the case may be) is inherent.

In this particular case, my point was not to justify the object's existence via it's offensive nature, only to question the opinion that it is offensive (or not).

In all honesty, in regards to the Twins, I have been told I am no allowed to see objects like them as offensive.

You may remember the outrage the New York Post ignited due to the political cartoon that many thought likened President Obama to a chimp. I too thought, "hey, I'm (indirectly) offended by that." Being the good little debater that I am, I instantly joined in the discussions on Facebook to help out those who would be directly offended (African Americans).

To my surprise, they didn't want my help, and was actually offended that I "thought" I was offended. It was explained to me by several African American people, mostly middle-aged or older, that because I did not have a direct history with the racism in question (I am not black, I, nor an ancestor, has never been a slave, etc), it offends them that I think I am offended. Many of them were even more offended that I said I was offended and said that I was hurting their cause.

So then what do we really consider offensive? What happens when the people who are the reason we think something is offensive, says we are not allowed to be offended?

This is mostly the reason for my original opinion, "if it is offensive it needs to be rectified, but whether or not it is offensive, I do not care."

If you are a Rationalist (as I tend to be, and many people), then yes, it does make it right.
As well, if it is rationalized as being healthy, that would make it healthy (to a Rationalist).

"Just because someone isn't offended by trash, it doesn't justify its existence or propagation."

Short of purposefully making something only not to offend (which is rare outside of apologies), an object's offensive nature has little to do with it's justification.

The problem here is the assumption that an object (literary or otherwise) can be made that will always have a neutral-positive effect. This is logically impossible. Hence the purpose of Beej's blog entry in the first place.

Then the issue becomes, what does one decide as "trash" and what is not.

However, there comes the point of one making the decision for another, and as Beej put it in regard to Edward and Bella, "who is he to determine what is good for her?"

This would be no different. Because we may decide it is "trash," what right do we have in making someone else see our point of view?

All we can do is point out the short comings in technical expertise of the author, but if the reader's argument is, "it is written like I think," who are we to say it is poorly written? Obviously, it is written for the audience it was intended. What we may see as a poor example of a relationship, they are able to see as what they conceive as "love."

It may be that "garbage in is garbage out," but remember "one man's trash is another man's treasure."

Like I said, creepy before they are "together". But isn't Edward like 108 years old? That's a little out of teenage crush zone.

That's fine. Because she's your wife, she deserves and requires your protection, and you deserve and require hers. The difference in you and your wife and Bella and Edward is that they are not a married couple; they are high school kids with a crush. Also, he breaks into her house and does this against her will (and that of her father's), whereas you and your wife live together as a family, where breaking and entering is impossible and watching over one another is a given.