I think what annoys me so much about Twilight (okay there's a hell of a lot of that annoys me about the series, but one thing at least) is how so many people--and not just teens which would be understandable, but grown women--take it so damn seriously! I swear there are grown women, like the so called "Twilight Moms" that really seem to believe in all seriousness that it's this great work of literature, a soon to be classic. That just kills me! Literature is my absolute passion--I take it seriously--and I cannot stand to see brilliant authors moldering on the shelves while Stephenie "Sparkly Vampire" Meyer sells out the wazoo.

Everyone has their guilty pleasures. I can totally understand people who enjoy Twilight as something to laugh at or pass the time, but these people who think it's brilliant just floor me. It's a terrible piece of writing. It's ridiculously campy and completely earnest all at the same time, which is a deadly combination. There's not a hint of humor, irony, or self-awareness on the author's part. She really seems to believe that she's writing a great love story. And that people seem to take her word for it--Gah! It makes me wonder about humanity.

I've read the first three and I'll gladly trash it. I hate that series.

The funny thing is I usually love vampire stuff..Buffy, True Blood, Anne Rice back in the day. But I cannot stomach Twilight. Blech!

You know, just glancing at this article, I would have assumed that it took place in the Bible Belt. It's discouraging to see that it was actually across the pond...

"Real virginity is BORING. It's about nothing...it's also (where it exists) often about people who are unpartnered, lonely, nerdy, perhaps unattractive or with psychological problems. The gal who wrote in that she was 42, very religious, and had been molested as a child (hence obviously very fearful of sex) is the classic "modern virgin" -- a sad case, not anything anyone would desire to emulate."

Wow, Laurel, judgmental much? I've had sexual intercourse, and it's NOT that damn amazing. In fact, I think it's pretty damn boring, and one of the most overrated things on the planet, species propagation aside.

So people who've never experienced it for whatever reason, choice or lack of opportunity, don't need to be looked down upon whether you wish to emulate them or not.

awww.....that was just lovely. I was blown away not only by her voice, but at how poised and professional her stage presence was once she started singing. You go girl, all the way to the end!

Although, I admit I'm a bit confused as to why a frumpy middle aged lady would be assumed to be untalented. Surely we're not that superficial, are we?

Oh and Brightstar-thanks for the fashion advice. That was so necessary. (eyeroll)

OK. I guess I'm just confused as to how you're using the term "relevant". I know Cosmo is commercially successful. I work in a bookstore, I know what sells. (And what sells is complete and utter shit, but that's another story.) Cosmo does sell extremely well, as do the trash tabloids like US Weekly and OK! But does that make any of it relevant? I watch people stand at the register and stare at the tabloids and laugh and roll their eyes and make disgusted noises and then they pick them up and buy them. I have heard women say as they buy an issue of Cosmo, "Well I'm going on a plane ride. Gotta have something to do, might as well read some smut."

To me, the term relevant suggests something with a real practical and social significance to people's (in this case women's) lives. Relevant implies something that makes you think about issues and probably affects how you see these issues. It implies that you can learn something from it. I went through a period where I read (and yes bought) issues of Cosmo for the yuk factor until I finally lost my shit over how misogynistic it is. In all that time, the one practical thing I ever learned was a cocktail recipe that was particularly yummy. Other than that, nada.

So I'm not denying that women in droves are buying the magazine. I just don't see how that makes it relevant. I do believe that the large majority of women buy the magazine to laugh at it or to engage in mindless entertainment while passing the time on a plane or something. A very small minority of its audience (probably teenagers) may take it seriously, but I'm guessing the majority do not

And I can't even believe I'm having this conversation. This is the most I've ever talked about Cosmo in my life.

So you're saying that you take it seriously? I guess I'm a little confused as to what you're actually saying. I'm assuming you're a guy from your name, so I don't even know what your expertise in Cosmo is. Do you use it to formulate your perception as to what a woman believes and acts like? Or do you read it so you can try the "50 amazing sex tricks guaranteed to make you see stars!"

In defense of Laura Miller: I'm fairly certain that she herself is not stating that HGB is an emaciated "bobblehead", but rather that that is the image that current young women have of her, as she cites an entry from Jezebel. You made it sound like Miller's needlessly insulting her personal appearance, and I'm pretty sure that's not the case. She's referring to what others think of HGB, not what she necessarily thinks about her.

And:

@Christopher whateveryear: Agenda? What agenda? I just said that nobody takes Cosmo seriously, which seems to just be a simple fact. I'm a 26 year old woman, and I've never met a woman in my life that took it seriously. Everybody I know just has a good giggle over the ridiculous sex advice and the stupid "articles."