Sensitive Vampires Are Worse for Girls Than the Bloodsucking Kind

Or so argues Grady Hendrix in Slate today. Hendrix hates emo-boy vampires, with their all-swoon, no-suck brand of human relations. Latoya Peterson argued here in Double X that Twilight and True Blood are bad for women because they're all about pigeonholing female characters into a virgin/slut binary. Hendrix thinks that the sensitive vamps of the last 15 years—descended from Buffy's valiant, tortured Angel—give young women a whole 'nother kind of mixed message.

Just as America's young men are being given deeply erroneous ideas about sex by what they watch on the Web, so, too, are America's young women receiving troubling misinformation about the male of the species from Twilight. These women are going to be shocked when the sensitive, emotionally available, poetry-writing boys of their dreams expect a bit more from a sleepover than dew-eyed gazes and chaste hugs. The young man, having been schooled in love online, will be expecting extreme bondage and a lesbian three-way.

Remember, though, that when Angel famously went from "sensitive" and "emotionally available" to loutish, blood-sucking cad—a change triggered by a steamy "sleepover"—Buffy was shocked, but then she ended up impaling him on a sword and shoving him into a hell vortex. Just saying.

Photograph of Robert Pattison, who plays Edward Cullen in the Twilight movies, by Martin Bureau/AFP/Getty Images.

Tags: angel, buffy, grady hendrix, sex, Slate, twilight, vampires

VIEW THIS CONVERSATION

Nina Shen Rastogi California native, theater and comics fan, Slate "Green Lantern" columnist

Comments

What Makes a Good Romantic Hero?

By: writingbabe | Wed, 07/29/2009 - 13:32

So Grady Hendrix thinks the "sensitive" vampire as romantic hero is a problem why? Because reading about him won't prepare girls and women to meet the "extreme bondage and a lesbian threeway" expectations of young men?

Does he think it would be better if the "love interest" (in this case, a vampire) slapped the girl around and call her "ho," "slut" and/or "bitch"? Should he demand oral sex without offering any? Should he beat and/or kill her when she doesn't meet his expectations?

Would this be more "realistic" preparation for life?

Why is it that male fantasies, no matter how unrealistic, are supposedly okay but any fantasy that feeds a desire (perceived as feminine) for intimacy, for respect, for boundaries, is viewed with contempt, or even labeled dangerous?

Let's face it: a sensitive romantic male, whether a vampire or not, is no more pernicious for girls and women to fantasize about than the ubiquitous Farrah poster was for boys and men.

Better, perhaps. Because the core of the fantasy is pretty admirable: desire tempered by restraint; passion coupled with respect; caring as much, perhaps more, about the needs of the other than about your own needs. That last one in particular resonates with women, because we are so frequently called on to put the needs of others before our own.

So why not a selfless vampire lover? Why not dream of a relationship in which you can trust a partner to care about your needs and desires?

If that's a pernicious fantasy, then Hendrix has an even lower opinion of men than he has of women.

Exactly what I thought.

By: Rachel Hills | Tue, 07/28/2009 - 18:08

Exactly what I thought. Buffy taught girls well that men who seem brooding and sensitive may quickly change personality in the wrong circumstances. Actually, it probably swung us too far the other way: I can think of at least one friend who was convinced that guys turned evil like Angel after you had sex with them.