Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:Indeed. I've always found it funny that gamers react so harshly to Twilight given our own predilection for escapism.

No one would care if the escapism didn't bring vampires into it.

It's Twilight's portrayal of a (dark) fantasy staple that causes the bile directed towards it from others interested in the genre.

I take it you weren't interested in Anne Rice's books, then?

I liked Garth Ennis's take on Anne Rice.

This wouldn't disturb you if you had seen the NASCAR romance novels...

And dear FETHING GOD I wish I was joking.

I've seen a little bit of a movie based on one of her books. I was fairly bored by it, but then again I didn't watch the whole thing.

::EDIT:: In refference to Anne Rice, not NASCAR.

True. Though I think that's a function of masculine dominance in modern popular culture. Byron's vampire had a lot in common with the vampires of Twilight.

I get more sentimental as I get older. But I also think mattyrm is pretty dead on to a large extent (and it doesn't depress me). But remember the difference between real people and fantasy characters: what we are, we are on the inside; but they get to be themselves on the outside.

dogma wrote:Though I think that's a function of Masculine Dominance in modern popular culture.

I didn't know my effect in pop culture went that deep!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I never should have quit my job as a motorcycle-wrestling stuntmarine.

Manchu wrote:I get more sentimental as I get older. But I also think mattyrm is pretty dead on to a large extent (and it doesn't depress me). But remember the difference between real people and fantasy characters: what we are, we are on the inside; but they get to be themselves on the outside.

When sentimentality is embodied by chemical reactions the sentimentality is not removed, only re-contextualized. Romance will always be a component of the human experience, though not necessarily one which is associated with classical ideas. Something which makes me happy. The world would be a very boring place if everything always stayed the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:I didn't know my effect in pop culture went that deep!

Your name is Saxon Hale, isn't it? Even if it isn't, it doesn't get more manly than a Dinosork.

I just said my name is Masculine Dominance!

Of course, my stage name was "The Womansexer". I chose that name because of all of the womans I dated and then stopped dating.

I thought your name was femdom, honestly.

That was my nickname in highschool, but I changed it after I remembered I had a penis.

Where have you been??

This will very quickly become horribly inappropriate if I don't stop my self right...now.

I've not read or seen any Twilight, but I did read A bunch of Anne Rice's stuff in college, so don't feel like I can really criticize the pussifying of Vampires.

I also paid full retail for a Gav Thorpe novel so I can't be all snooty about it's literary qualities either.

As someone who worked in a bookstore for over 3 years I can tell you that "Fantasy Romance" has been around for ages. It is a necessary niche for women. Most men don't understand it because men are (typically) visually stimulated. We have supermodels, cheerleaders, and so forth as our "unobtainable fantasy." They have cheesy romance novels of various sub-genres; historical fiction (typically feudal lords or buff Scottish men in kilts depending on if the woman likes refined men or uncultured barbarians), fantasy romance (vampires and other supernatural things), etc.

Here's a solid romance tip for the rest of you guys (I'm a happily married man): pay attention to what books, movies, or television shows she's interested in and take notes. Find out which male character is her favorite, chances are she fantasies about him. From there it's more or less your job to make her see the qualities or characteristics of this fictional person in you. It sounds insidious but it works.

Oh, my girlfriend told me i was like Richard Gere in Pretty Woman when we met (the difference being she wasn;t a whore), and now i'm basically Al Bundy. However, she got stuck on it and even ended up liking it with me going out with my friends for a beer 2-3-4-5-... more time to gossip with her friends for her.
I've generally noticed that if you're romantic and caring and nice in the first 3 months of a relationship, it doesn't really matter how you behave the next 20 years or so (without crossing that fine line of i-really-dont-give-a-feth, of course)

aka_tizz wrote:I've generally noticed that if you're romantic and caring and nice in the first 3 months of a relationship, it doesn't really matter how you behave the next 20 years or so (without crossing that fine line of i-really-dont-give-a-feth, of course)

I can understand and agree with that. I've lived with my wife for 7 years now and I don't behave any differently than I did at the start of our relationship. I love her because she tolerates me and isn't a moron like 90% of the world, she loves me because... well... I don't really know. I must be doing something right I suppose.

Moral of the story is: You're either marriage material or you're not. If you're not, enjoy your 20+ years of random women. If you are, remember that looks fade and if you're going to spend most of your time with someone they'd better be the kind of person you can love or at least tolerate.

dreadlord wrote:

aka_tizz wrote:I've generally noticed that if you're romantic and caring and nice in the first 3 months of a relationship, it doesn't really matter how you behave the next 20 years or so (without crossing that fine line of i-really-dont-give-a-feth, of course)

I can understand and agree with that. I've lived with my wife for 7 years now and I don't behave any differently than I did at the start of our relationship. I love her because she tolerates me and isn't a moron like 90% of the world, she loves me because... well... I don't really know. I must be doing something right I suppose.

Well, i sometimes wonder that myself. I can't say i love her, so far i've been incapable of that, but at least i have someone with whom i share a great deal of common interests and discussion topics and all that other abstract crap. So even if i'm sometimes a douche-bag and i prefer going out for a beer instead of going out with her, i do care. I only have problems showing it.

aka_tizz wrote:

dreadlord wrote:

aka_tizz wrote:I've generally noticed that if you're romantic and caring and nice in the first 3 months of a relationship, it doesn't really matter how you behave the next 20 years or so (without crossing that fine line of i-really-dont-give-a-feth, of course)

I can understand and agree with that. I've lived with my wife for 7 years now and I don't behave any differently than I did at the start of our relationship. I love her because she tolerates me and isn't a moron like 90% of the world, she loves me because... well... I don't really know. I must be doing something right I suppose.

Well, i sometimes wonder that myself. I can't say i love her, so far i've been incapable of that, but at least i have someone with whom i share a great deal of common interests and discussion topics and all that other abstract crap. So even if i'm sometimes a douche-bag and i prefer going out for a beer instead of going out with her, i do care. I only have problems showing it.

Stop me if I'm sounding too much like Dr. Phil but sometimes that's all you need to say. I openly admit to people that I am, in fact, a douche. I loathe most people and rarely feel anything that qualifies as a deep emotion. My wife thinks I'm depressed but I just think it's because I have a working brain and a pair of eyes to see the horrible truths. Is that emo enough? Or do I need more emo in my diet?

But really, if a woman has a brain she'll understand that no relationship is going to be peaches and cream all the time. So an occasional "I'm sorry I'm a douche" works wonders to patch up hurt feelings.

dreadlord wrote:So an occasional "I'm sorry I'm a douche" works wonders to patch up hurt feelings.

I 100% submit to that. I rarely ever TRULY mean it, but i still say it. Keeps a relationship standing

isthatmycow wrote:I've noticed that in the past 10 years, people are liking stupider and stupider things. Twilight was an all new level of stupid, one of the worst books I've read. People say, oh twilight is good, the book is great, but did you ever notice, Stephanie meyers never won a pulitzer prize for the books? she sold millions, but was never awarded for their supposed "quality". Its just an example of how supid people have grown in the past decade.

Obviously you were either born recently or just haven't been paying attention.

dreadlord wrote: historical fiction (typically feudal lords or buff Scottish men in kilts depending on if the woman likes refined men or uncultured barbarians),

Hear, hear! I´ve been wondering about those books for years but to afraid to even touch one to avoid getting the cooties

But anyway if they can have their novels I want to have my tentacle prom (Tho my wife disagrees with me I don´t know why )

M.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW wasn´t the Bella girl the one that said to his vampire boyfriend (17 y/o for a century) "beat it I got a paper that says that I´m 18, I´m to old for you so I´m going to date a werewolf" I´m not very sure as I have only read the Twilight spoofs that are funny as hell.

Tyyr wrote:

isthatmycow wrote:I've noticed that in the past 10 years, people are liking stupider and stupider things. Twilight was an all new level of stupid, one of the worst books I've read. People say, oh twilight is good, the book is great, but did you ever notice, Stephanie meyers never won a pulitzer prize for the books? she sold millions, but was never awarded for their supposed "quality". Its just an example of how supid people have grown in the past decade.

Obviously you were either born recently or just haven't been paying attention.

I'm fifteen dude, i only know alot about the pop culture of those said 15 years i have lived. So i don't get it, you're saying that people have always liked stupid things, which i already knew, i'm just saying that the pop culture dumbs donw a good ten to fifteen notches every five years.

isthatmycow wrote:i'm just saying that the pop culture dumbs donw a good ten to fifteen notches every five years.

Nah, i think the pop culture stays the same, we're the ones who get smarter. It's just a matter of perspective

Tastes change, but intelligence does not, not appreciably anyway. If you want to blame something for making much of the cultural media available seem stupid, then blame the internet for tearing the newness out of everything.

Twilight is nor more or less stupid than 40K. I get that we're in an "elitist" hobby, but must the majority of our community really makes look that backwards? :/ The same people that complain that plastic men don't have paint on them, that argue about the plausibility of things happening in a universe where mankind is ruled by a dead guy or complain that his opponent keeps his army list on something other than official GW list sheets? People are into different things. And I tried reading a few pages of one of those NASCAR romance novels. Replace white stallion with race car and there ya go.

Twilight is way more stupid than 40k, simple and slightly chauvanistic answer is, dippy fething women like Twilight.

Thats like saying "Ok" magazine is as good as White Dwarf!

You know, one is for (generally) blokes who like wargaming, the other is for women to read about famous people painting their sheds or food shopping or some other ridiculous fething task that has no bearing on society.

At least this is a proper hobby! Thats just... .. wrong somehow.

Well, some people do like to read what was the last place where Paris Hilton puked when dead-drunk...
Not me though. I'll stick to my hobby. I find a pack of painted figurines far more entertaining than Paris's last feth-parties

tizz wrote:
Nah, i think the pop culture stays the same, we're the ones who get smarter. It's just a matter of perspective

You can think that, but you'd be wrong. We no longer find Blackface Minstrelsy acceptable for example. The uses of culture don't really change on an emotional level, but the way those emotional responses are mediated fluctuates wildly. Pop culture is anything but unchanging.

Dogma wrote:Tastes change, but intelligence does not, not appreciably anyway. If you want to blame something for making much of the cultural media available seem stupid, then blame the internet for tearing the newness out of everything.

This is more like it. Plus, the internet is a more 'immediate' and all-encompassing media. One has access to a more varied set of cultural texts than we would have in the past - working class people have access to classical music, japanese theatre, african drum-orchestras, and learned people are exposed to more 'crude' and/or populist material than might otherwise have been the case. It does a lot to tear down intellectual and cultural barriers between the classes - which is a Good Thing. An unfortunate side effect is that it also involves a greater exposure to that which is banal and asinine in ALL forms of cultural text and practice. It's a small price to pay, IMO.

Heck, i was kidding. I couldn't compare Elvis Presley to Michael Jackson