I wasn't criticizing the Twilight series for pornographic content per se - but in the context of it being of a low literary standard. Read my remarks in full.
Okay, so your statement that "female oriented pornography" was its "only attraction" wasn't really your assessment of the Twilight series - per se - but rather just your way of characterizing those who read the series.
My point was that characterizing the appeal of the Twilight series (which I consider pretty lame by the way) as "female-oriented pornography" seemed a lot like the hyperbolic overreaction of those who used to find the underwear/bra section of the Sears & Roebuck catalog so offensively explicit and erotic; and it was quite ironic and amusing because of your comment that immediately preceded it.
As an aspiring writer I can recognize bad writing when I see it without having to read a whole book. Twilight has horrible writing and I agree, it’s basically porn for teenage girls. Women aren’t as turned on by visual images as men are, so something that elicits a similar level of arousal in woman is probably going to be less obvious than the equivalent for guys. Women don’t usually like admitting this, which is why women who read romance novels would flip out if their husbands are reading Playboy but it’s the same exact thing.
Me, I love the Harry Potter books. They aren’t literature either but the writing is better and the stories are less inane. I’d let a ten year old read Harry Potter. Heck, I might read HP to my daughter when she’s ten. But I wouldn’t allow Twilight. It’s not a concern for me because this literary flash-in-the-pan will be long forgotten by the time my daughter is a tween.