It's hard being on top

Sookie Stackhouse, in my opinion, is a strong independent woman who knows what she wants. Although her look does resemble the all American girl (thin, blonde hair, blue eyes, and nice legs) there is a purpose. One, this allows her to be easily relatable/ easily to picture. Secondly, her look is further explained in the rest of the book series. There is a reason she looks the way she does. Don't worry, I'm not going to spoil anything for anyone who wants to continue the series. If you don't want to keep reading but want to understand Bill's original question, "What are you?", just look "The Southern Vampire Mysteries" up on Wikipedia. Everything is explained.

Anyway, like I was saying, I see Sookie as being very sure of what she wants. She knows when she wants Bill around and when she doesn't. She's very assertive, and often shuts Bill down. One example of this can be seen when Bill is trying to seductively bathe her. Instead, she tells him, "No... give me the soap." Sookie is very aware of what she wants. She also takes control. Now, I've never read very many "romance" style books, but I was surprised that Sookie took control in the bedroom. Instead of having Bill be on top again, Sookie decides to try something new. She gets on top. I don't know why, but this really struck me. In their other sexual encounters, it seemed as though they were just using the typical "missionary style" position in which the man is on top and mostly in control. I think the fact that Sookie took over and decided that she would take control speaks volumes about the character.

There are many different stories behind the missionary position. All of the put down women in one way or another.

"Kagaba natives in Colombia preferred missionary because of the stability it offers; they believed that if the woman moved during intercourse, the earth would slip off the shoulders of the four giants who held it up above the waters. Some Kerala tribes believe that the male-on-top position is the only way to conceive warriors." (1)

This story behind the use says that if a women were on top, or let alone moved, the would itself would fall off of the shoulders of giants who kept the stability of the world. It also goes on to state that use of the missionary style was the only way to conceive warriors. So, a woman must be sill and controlled in order to produce a strong man? I think not.

"...ancient Chinese preferred male-on-top because of their belief that males are born face down and women face up."

According to this, the reason behind the missionary position is because women are forever to be looking up at the men who are forever looking down. The fact that women are born "looking up" and continue to "look up" at the men is showing that the women are not equal. Women lack control. Women cannot be strong if they are constantly looking up at someone who is superior than them.

"Thomas Aquinas believed that crimes against nature included intercourse in 'unnatural' positions, with the missionary position being considered the only natural one."


"...any sexual act other than missionary position intercourse – man on top of woman – was assumed to be a sin of irrational gratification, of lust."

According to these two statements, a women is to subject herself to man to be controlled during sex, and if she does not, then the sex itself is considered an unnatural sin off irrational gratification of lust. Women are labeled as being "lustful" which has a negative connotation. Thus, the statement is saying that if a woman were to want to be control it would be a sin.

Simon Hardy wrote that the missionary position was used to distinguish "bestial and civilized sex."


"...nonstandard positions might result in birth defects."

Birth defects? If a man were to allow a woman to be on top, or another other way, the child that would be produced could possibly have mental or physical defects? Really? This honestly blows my mind. It's as if saying that if a man were to not be in control sexually than his offspring would suffer because he allowed a woman to be in control.

"Many people still expect the man to take responsibility for initiating and ending sexual activity and for carrying a condom. Women are expected to be less sexually aggressive than men, even though we know that women's sexual feeling can be just as strong as men's." (2)


And I think that with that last quote, Sookie Stackhouse screams it loud and clear. I believe she's prime example of someone who knows what she wants. She understands her inner sexuality and allows herself to take the reins.

http://www.answers.com/topic/missionary-position (1)
http://www.ualberta.ca/dept/health/web_docs/healthinfo/Decisions/roles.htm(2)

Anita Blake, Femme Fatale

The other day I asked a group of friends what they thought of when they heard the phrase "femme fatale." Each one of this described a femme fatale as something along the lines of, "...an alluring and seductive woman whose charms ensnare her lovers in bonds of irresistible desire, often leading them into compromising, dangerous, and deadly situations." Personally, I do not see a femme fatale in this light. I think of someone who is empowering and challenges female gender roles. On Wikipedia, both definitions are listed. The first, as quoted above, is stated. The second reads, "...remains an example of female independence and a threat to traditional female gender roles." And I think Anita Blake does this, or at least tries heavily to attempt to do this. For example, the picture to the above. She's dressed beautifully, in a pink fluffy dress. However, it's obvious that she's not playing into stereotypical gender roles. If she were, instead of having guns she'd be wearing a corsage, or holding her purse close.

Although at times the graphic novel portrays women in a slightly sexist way (huge breast, big lips and hair, tiny waist, etc), the graphic novel is very progressive. Anita Blake is progressive because unlike other novels we've read, she's not focused on love. Instead, she's very much focused on her job. Even with her job, Anita Blake challenges traditional gender roles. I mean, just look at what she does. She's not your typical Suzie-Homemaker, no. She's a Necromancer (animator), vampire slayer, who sometimes works with the police. These three things are crucial to her character. They are also important because they highly separate Anita Blake's story from other stories. For one, out of the three other animators (Zachary, Manny, Bert), Anita is the only woman. Only one police officer is seen, he is male. However, Anita works with the police. This is important because women only make up 15% of the workforce in Law Enforcement(1). Cathrine, Anita's friend is a lawyer. Women only make up 24% of the workforce in Law(2). Anita's friend Veronica (Ronnie) is a private investigator. Women only make up 15% of the workforce in private investigation (3). The fact that these characters hold these jobs that are seen as typically being a male oriented job, prove that Anita Blake (both the character and the graphic novel) challenges gender roles.

The graphic novel is very progressive in the way humans are portrayed, and I believe the same can be said for the vampires. Although male vampires out number female vampires, there is a class system. A female vampire is above the male vampires. The vampire Nikolaos is very old and very powerful. Nikolaos is a very stark contrast to the stereotypical male head vampire, such as Dracula. Where Dracula had many wives, Nikolaos had many male followers that would do her bidding at her command. Nickolas was able to be a powerful leader. She took on a stereotypical "man's job" much in the same way as Anita Blake.

Now that I've gotten all of that out of the way, let me say that I love Anita Blake. She reminds me of an older, wiser Buffy from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Both Buffy and Anita Blake I see as being a femme fatale. They take their own paths and break away from the norm. They are both powerful, strong women. I would love to kick some ass with them.


(1)http://www.military.com/Careers/Content1?file=careersArticlesWomenBadges.htm&area=Reference
(2)http://www.uslaw.com/library/article/ABAWomenJustice.html
(3)http://www.pimagazine.com/FAQ/private_investigator_statistics.htm

Fledgling/Polyamory

While at first I was shocked by the overt sexual nature of the book, that's not what overall captured my attention. Fledgling speaks volumes about polyamory. Yes, there are many other important aspects of the book, such as what it says about race and matriarchy, but for me the polyamorous relationships throughout the book caught me off guard.

I guess I should explain polyamory before I go on any future. Polyamory is defined as, "...the practice, desire, or acceptance of having more than one intimate relationship at a time with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved." According to Wikipedia, there are several factors that occur in a polyamorous relationship. These factors are: fidelity, loyalty, trust, honesty, dignity, respect, mutual support, communication, negotiation, and non-possessiveness. Although one factor is non-possessiveness, Wikipedia goes on to say,

"Polyamorists believe that restrictions on other deep relationships are not for the best, as they tend to replace trust with a framework of ownership and control. They tend to see their partner's partners in terms of the gain to their partner's life rather than the threat to their own. Poly relationships do vary and some can be possessive or provide for the primary partner's veto or approval, whilst others are asymmetrical—possessive one way, but not the other."

With that being said, the relationship between Shori and her symbionts can be see sharing all of these factors.

A while ago I was watching MTV: True Life. The episode was about people who are involved in polyamorous relationships. At first, I was very intrigued. I had never heard of such a thing. I watched the entire episode trying to understand how a relationship of three or more people could work. I kept trying to relate it back to myself. There is no way I could do a polyamorous relationship. I would just be way too jealous. However, Fledgling's take on the issue has changed the way I view polyamorous relationships.

The love/sexuality between Shori, Joel, Wright, Theodora, Cecila, and Brooke is very prominent, and although at times Wright is jealous, overall the combination of symbionts and Shori works out. However, I felt though at times the distinction between love and sex was blurred. Several times in the book, Shori seems to be confused by "love." There's one part where Wright even says something like, "Well, is this how you're showing affection?" While the group dynamic of the relationships works well, love is not communicated verbally but rather thought sexual acts. Thus, it's fair to say that love can be substituted for sex and vice-versa in Fledgling.

The book offers an alternative look on how relationships work. Other than the Silks being racist and bigoted, the community of Ina's is very progressive. The people are portrayed as being happy and giving. Ina's care deeply for their symbionts and are physicality, as well as emotionally, pained if they were to die. The community is also very loving/sexual. It's typical for an Ina to have several symbionts that they are sexually active with, along with other Ina's they can reproduce with. The Ina's, in a sense, create their own world among themselves that behaves civilly for the majority of this time. The Ina's community represents the idea that with an openness to love/sexuality and race, it's possible to live a peaceful, fulfilling life.

While I still don't think I'd be able to do a polyamorous relationship, I do appreciate the message it sends. It's not about just sleeping with everyone. Polyamory is about accepting and loving. I think the messages in Fledgling are messages that everyone at some point in their life needs to hear. Although I know that everyone is not always going to agree, and that conflict is going to inevitably arise, it would be wonderful if we could all live in a world that was a little more open, loving, and peaceful like the Ina's world.

"I never felt any great loss.... only great rushes of power."

"I never felt any great loss of innocence, only great rushes of the kind of power that comes with self-knowledge and shared intimacy."

This is an interesting way of looking at losing one's virginity. Usually it is associated with a "loss of innocence." By looking at it this way, the loss of one's virginity becomes empowering instead of something bad.


"And judgments like "right" and "wrong" only build barriers between people and encourage shame within individuals"

I think that this quote is important. I mean, it's very true. Who is to say what we do is right or wrong? If something deviates away from the norm, then it is considered "wrong." However, if enough people deviate away from the social norm, then it becomes accepted. People should be able to express themselves and live their lives without the fear of being put into a box labeled "wrong".


"Sex can look like love if you don't know what love looks like. It gives you someone to hold on to when you can't feel yourself. It is heat on your body when the coldness is inside of you."

I can't say that I personally identify with this, but I know that it does ring true with others. Many times people mistake "sex" for love, more so "lust" for love. For an example, try to remember high school. People would be dating for only days and they'd already have written across their notebooks "Hannah loves Josh" or whatever. Sex provides a closeness that can be sometimes lagging in ones life.


"I also began to play with different kinds of strength. While I learned about my parent's bodies, I learned that I had the power to make them need me. While I learned how much of myself to reveal, I learned how to draw them out. While I learned that they were no "right" for me, I learned that I was more than what they saw."

This struck me because it's dealing with the subject of a women objectifying herself in a sense, but at the same time learning about herself. By doing this, she was able to gain a sort of power. She could lure people in and realize that there was more to her than what they were seeing.


I think that the essay speaks a lot about Fledgling. Right off the bat it's very easy to relate Shori to the text. I mean, I know Shori is really around 53 years old, her body is one of an 10 year old. The sexuality of the essay also an be easily related back to the relationship between Shori and Wright. I think the quotes I picked really amplify other themes throughout the book. The story is very much about the empowerment for women. Shori, who looks like a child, is the leader of her race. She is in control. People follower her, i.e. Wright, and Theodora. She is able to draw people into her. She's very sexual, and sometimes I believe, associates love with sex. An example can be found on page 127, chapter 12. Celia tells Shori that she had loved Hugh Tang, which leaves Shori confused. Shori says, "Loved? I listened to her with growing confusion." It's obvious that Shori is close to Wright. She needs him more for just blood and sex, but for comfort. For example, at the end of chapter 8, Shori reaches for his hand. However, he let her hold his hand, but he didn't hold hers. The idea of "love" leaves Shori confused. I believe that Shori associates sex with Wright as love for Wright, or at least sometimes.

Here's a preview for a movie that I think relates to Rebbecca's article.

Bella Swan, meet Winne Foster.

First, I'd like to say that there is a point to this, and secondly, I do not mean to offend anyone.

Tuck Everlasting. Twilight. Both books have several characteristics in common. For one, both books revolve around a young, female character who falls in love with an "immortal." But why is this connection important? What does this have to do with my overall analysis of Twilight? It's simple. The characters of Bella and Winne can be easily juxtaposed through a feminist lens. Bella and Winne come from complete opposite sides of the spectrum. Although I will talk about both of them, I will primary be focusing on Bella seeing as how I just completed Twilight.

Although I have never read the book, Tuck Everlasting, I have seen the movie and I researched the main difference between the movie and the book. In the book, Winne Foster falls in love with Jesse Tuck. Jesse and his family stumbled upon a fountain of youth. Jesse, who is eternally seventeen, promises to Marry Winne. Due to circumstance, the Tucks have to flee. Jesse gives Winne water from the fountain to drink. However, she decides not to drink the water and thus, does not become an immortal like Jesse and his family. She lives a full life and dies at the age of 78. I'm sorry if I ruined the book.

Here's a link for more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuck_Everlasting_%282002_film%29

Both Bella Swan and Winne Foster are connected by love. Bella would do anything to be with Edward, and if you continue the series, you'll see she succeeds. Winne obviously takes a different route. While she knows that Jesse loves her and even wants to marry her, she decides that living, even if it's for 50 or 60 more years, is more beneficial. Anyway, this rant is a little off topic.

I guess where I'm trying to go with this is that I feel like Winne was able to make choices and dictate her own life, whereas Bella lacks control. It's ironic that Bella, a female character, seems to lack control over her very life at times. The reason? Stephanie Meyer and her explanation of feminism.

Stephanie Meyer, on her fabulous website gives her amazing definition of feminism. Meyer writes when asked if Bella is considered an anti-feminist heroine, "In my own opinion (key word), the foundation of feminism is this: being able to choose... One of the weird things about modern feminism is that some feminists seem to be putting their own limits on women's choices. That feels backward to me. It's as if you can't choose a family on your own terms and still be considered a strong woman. How is that empowering? Are there rules about if, when, and how we love or marry and if, when, and how we have kids? Are there jobs we can and can't have in order to be a "real" feminist? To me, those limitations seem anti-feminist in basic principle."

First, I believe that if a women wants to get married, she should get married. If she wants to be a housewives, fine. There's nothing wrong with starting a family. However, when a character is so one dimensional the element of choice goes out the window. I get it, Bella is soooo in love. It's her first hearts/flowers/hugs/kisses love. I get it, but what I don't get is how completely spineless she is at times. I honestly believe if Edward told her to jump off a cliff, she'd do it. Oh wait, she does. That's right, Miss Swan resorts to cliff-diving in New Moon so she can hear Edward's voice because she just cannot bear to go on without that sweet sensual voice accommodated by his breathe that annihilates her.

I'm not going to lie. Going into this book, I already disliked it. At first, I mainly disliked it because Stephanie Meyer ruined vampires, but once I started peeling back the layers and looked at the text, I realized a terrible message is being sent through the text. I guess it could be argued that I'm looking too deeply at the text, but honestly, who wants anyone to tell them what to do? Edward emotionally and physically abuses Bella throughout Twilight, and from what I've found, the other books as well. Although the abuse at times is minimal, it still infuriates me.

Edward tells to her to get in the car. She gets in the car.
Edward gets her food and tells her to eat. She eats.
Edward says he's going to drive, even though it freaks her out. She lets it go.
Edward says that she has to go away and lie to her father. She does.
Edward constantly tries to scare her away. She remains unfazed.

There are more, but there is one that really got under my skin. It's in the last "we're in high school so we totally have to have a prom chapter." I literally threw my book and didn't touch it for two days. I was so aggravated by this point. I kept finding myself going, "Really? Is this really happening?" Because I honestly couldn't fathom the idea of going to a dance pretty much right after about dying. However, I could tell I was almost near the end of the book so I tried to let it go. Well, that didn't happen. Instead, Meyer made herself the biggest fool of all.

Edward took Bella's phone. Then, Edward answered Bella's phone, once again dictating her life.

Edward says to Tyler regarding Bella not being at her house on prom night, "I'm sorry if there's been some kind of miscommunication, but Bella is unavailable tonight... To be perfectly honest, she'll be unavailable every night, as far as anyone besides myself is concerned. No offense. And I'm sorry about your evening."

Bella adds that Edward didn't sound sorry at all. And then the unthinkable happens! For once, I got excited. I thought that FINALLY she was going to yell at him for bossing her around, but spines don't grow overnight. Instead, she cried and was angry because he had taken her to prom. She was also angry that, along with her reset battle wound (her leg in a cast), that she was wearing a stiletto heel.

I feel like I've covered this the best I can. I just feel like the character of Bella doesn't have the ability to make an intelligent choice. She's willing to give up her human life to be with Edward for forever when they haven't even know each other that long. It's obvious that Bella is unable to thinking rationally. Although, it's not like she's really going to have to give up that much. She can still go out in the sunshine and all...

To me, Feminism is all about strength, and with this strength a person is able to make decisions that will benefit them for the long-haul. A person is to pursue their hopes and dreams, and have the ability to explore all of their options.

Winne chose life over immortality. She thought about it. I can't help but feel as if Bella is just jumping into her decisions (when she has decisions) without thinking with a level head.

"I do love a good barbeque"- DayBreakers

Soooooooooo. This is my blog. My name is Caitlin and currently I am a junior. I'm majoring in Psychology and Creative Writing. Now that the corny everyday type of intro is out of the way, let me say that I love LOVE love vampires. When I found out that the class was going to revolve around vampires, I was so excited. All of my friends love vampires. I'm not obsessed or anything, but as of late, most new entertainment is somehow involved with vampires. Just look at some of the newer shows on TV. There's True Blood on HBO, The Gates on ABC, and The Vampire Diaries on the CW. Although I only watch one of those shows *cough* True Blood *cough*, it seems like there's a show for everyone. My mother loves the show The Gates, and The Vampire Diaries seems to aim itself at young girls. Vamps are in.

With all of this being said though, there has been a great injustice to the vampire world, but I'll get into that later. Here's a little spoiler though.


Edward Cullen meets Buffy Summers