It's basically finding your soulmate when you see them. It doesn't care for age differences. A 17 year can imprint with a 4 year old. The 17 year old just has to wait until the 4 year old grows up.
Or, in Jacob's case, a 17/18 year old can imprint on a newborn baby.( Let someone be the center of the universe, let your self float away! )
How is losing your sense of self admirable? How can making your life revolve around one being someone you yearn for, in a partner?
No doubt Jacob will help raise
Renesmee, but I suppose my mind is having a very, very hard time wrapping my mind around the fact that he'll have to go from a fatherly/brotherly type of love and support to a, well, romantic type of love and support. Because, ultimately, imprinting is suppose to procure werewolves/offspring/love sex joy joy. I don't understand this transition. I know a few friends who have had friends who've waited until someone is legal before anything physically starts (though emails/texts/chats have not really been non-sexual). That's when the person's still a teenager. This, and other examples, are when the other person is a baby, or a toddler. I just...I get squicked out, to use a phrase from the Internet.
It also bothers me that finding your soulmate, in this universe, means losing your sense of self. It means having the other person become the center of the universe, the gravity of the earth. That's suppose unhealthy and kind of creepy.
Growing up, I've read romance novels or young adult/teen books about romance. It really skewed my expectations for relationships, for males. It joined other factors like observing my parents or sisters or other forms of (mostly Western) media. This before my depression kicked in.
Reading these books and being exposed to the media and my parents hammered home the points:( Bad love/relationship expectations )
Holy fuck, I just thought of the book the fifth point refers to for the first time today in a long fucking time. I can't believe, as a kid, I gobbled up all the romance novels set in the 1500 or 1600's or whatever in Europe/London, you know, with Ton and everything. It was rape.
I can't believe I read that
book and was completely okay with it whereas I saw Jodie Foster in The Accused
and that really stuck with me so much and besides my parents forbidding me to wear short skirts after I got my period (due to religious beliefs), that movie also scared off short skirts.
Was it because one was written and the other was visual? Was it because in one, it was his wife and I was expected to believe the male to have sexual power and knowledge and use it and in the other it was clearly strangers raping Jodie Foster's character? Oh, my God, did I condone what was essentially a rape in one book, by not reacting badly to it?
Even if the setting and time period in the book condones rape or males sexually assaulting their fiancee or wives, I wasn't raised in that period. That book was heavy on victim-blaming and the victim/female taking all the blame for all the fights in the relationship upon her shoulders. I shouldn't have been "okay, cool" and just gone on to the next book.
Oh, God. I feel so bad for reading that book and thinking it was completely okay. Oh, my God, I liked a book that endorses rape-culture.