
New Moon-- the second installment of the Twilight saga-- premieres today. If I go out to my front porch and listen closely I can hear the shrieking of millions of teenage girls (and, in many cases, their moms) as they descend upon movie theaters nationwide. Hey, I'm going too. I usually like to read up on movie reviews beforehand, so I trotted off to rottentomatoes.com to find out what the hipper-than-thous had to say about the sequel. Most of what I found was predictable disdain, not entirely unfounded or unexpected, but something else struck me as interesting. Nearly every review was preoccupied with sex. Or rather, the lack thereof. It's been a while since I've seen the word "abstinence" used to much in connection with a Hollywood movie, though I could almost hear the snickers. Virtually every major critic seems to agree that the books, and their film counterparts, are about sexual repression and the silly idea that sexual urges should not instantly, completely gratified. For a minute, I wondered if we had read the same Twilight.
But of course that's what they see. Our culture has a short in their collective brains at the concept of passionate love without passionate lust. Our lovers, no matter how star-crossed or challenged, always make love. It's good for the box office bottom line and it reaffirms all of the sexual propaganda we've been hearing for thirty years. Then along comes Ms. Meyers, with an epic teen love story....that doesn't encourage premarital sex. What? Teenagers who don't hop in the sack at the first hormonal convenience? That's unnatural. It's uncomfortable. It's downright dorky. The human/vampire dynamic doesn't disturb anyone, but rather the idea that love can be restrained without being repressed. One has to equal the other, right?
I have one word for all of them: yearning.
We've really forgotten what that means. Here's a refresher: deep longing, esp. when accompanied by tenderness or sadness (dictionary.com). Synonym-- desire. It has been so long since we've seen a love story without sex that we've almost lost context for such an idea. But for all of her faults as an author, Ms. Meyers gets it. She understands that yearning is a powerful force, one that speaks to a much deeper part of our souls than insta-sex. Just think for a minute about all of the teen girls swooning over her books....why haven't they flocked in similar droves to other, more "sexually liberated" versions of the same story? The answer isn't just Robert Pattinson's hair or Taylor Lautner's abs (which are, to be fair, a work of art). Women are attracted to this strange, old-fashioned idea of....waiting. They are intrigued by this love affair in which honor, restraint, and-- yes, let's use the word-- abstinence are just as integral to the relationship as desire, passion, and hormones. And I am not sure why they consider Ms. Meyers such a prude. I've read the books; after their marriage, Edward and Bella happily dispose of restraint and yearning in favor of pleasure and satisfaction on the scale of a small hurricane. Seriously, the furniture suffers. I am a rather jaded reader when it comes to romance, but even I gasped-- not because she was overly specific but because it was so incredibly appropriate. Would we care so much to see them consummate their relationship if it had happened in book one or movie one? I don't think so.
In any romance, the journey is the really important part of the story. We all know they'll end up together....what we care about is how. We want to be mesmerized. By refusing to pander to the sexual expectations of our culture, Stephanie Meyers makes Bella and Edward's journey far more compelling and far more satisfying when they can finally give answer to their physical desires.
Three cheers for vampire abstinence.
Maybe our culture could learn a thing or two from the undead.

