Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson make up: Why it matters 101

Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson: Their off-screen romance is on again. Why the make up and break up cycle of two young adults has constructive potential for the millions of average teens who hang on their every date.

REUTERS/2011 Summit Entertainment, LLC./Andrew Cooper/Handout
Actors Stewart and Pattinson, stars of the new film "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1" are shown in a scene from the film in this undated publicity handout

All those tweens distraught by that dramatic Kristen Stewart  Robert Pattinson breakup this summer: never fear!  Word on the street – OK, in the oh-so-accurate celebrity gossip news – is that the “Twilight” pair are back together. Or at least have had a “dramatic makeup” in Los Angeles, according to Us Weekly.

Yes, that sound you just heard was the delighted gasp of “Twilight” fans everywhere. (Along with the outraged protests of those who are still furious at Ms. Stewart – aka Bella – for doing wrong to her vampire beau. I mean, to the actor who plays her vampire beau.)

See, parents, as we explained some months ago, Stewart and Mr. Pattinson are the stars of the film version of Stephanie Meyer’s young adult book sensation, “Twilight.” Stewart plays Bella, the female protagonist, who has fallen in love with Pattinson’s character, Edward, a vampire. (Just go with it.) 

RELATED: Top 5 bullying myths - What you don't know about bullying

But here’s the thing – the attractive Stewart and Pattinson were also a couple in real life.  They earned the melded last name tag of “Robsten.” Which, honestly, is about as much of a true love fairy tale as you can get for the under-15 set.

Then, one dark day in July, it came to the public’s attention through some not-so-indiscreet photos (what is it with revealing photos this summer?) that Stewart was having an affair. Or at least a “momentary indiscretion,” as she would put it. The Other Man was the married Rupert Sanders, who directed the movie “Snow White And The Huntsman,” in which Stewart played the title role.

Messy messiness.

Pattinson packed his bags, and reportedly holed up at Reese Witherspoon’s ranch for a while. Mr. Sanders’ wife, Liberty Ross, who, in a cringe-worthy detail of the whole sordid affair, played Stewart’s mother in “Snow White,” ditched her wedding ring and reportedly told her husband not to come home.

Stewart was photographed for the next months looking drawn and tear-streaked, reportedly trying in vain to convince Pattinson to talk to her. Meanwhile, talk show host Jon Stewart offered Pattinson ice cream during an interview, saying it helped him through a lot of breakups. 

A sordid soap opera for Twilight fans who had embraced the idea of undying love.

But now reports say that RPatz finally relented to meeting up with Stewart, and that the two have been visiting each other ever since. “Sources” tell celebrity news that the two are still in love with each other and are going to “work it out.”

So ...  is this the happy ending for which we’ve all been waiting?

Not so fast, we say.

Because here’s the thing: as we wrote when this whole ugliness went down in the first place, this sort of break up is complicated. As are the marriages, relationships and feelings involved.

It’s far too simple (and easy) to assign “good” and “bad” when infidelity is involved. As many psychologists and sociologists told me a couple years back, when I was reporting a cover story for the Monitor magazine on this topic, infidelity has more to do with stress, distraction, feelings of worth, relationship dynamics, and self control than it does “good” and “bad.” 

It's not too much of a stretch to say that the same is true about making up.

If the relatively young Stewart and Pattinson (they are 22 and 26) do get back together, it might mean “true love,” as the “Twilight” diehards are saying.

RELATED: Are you a 'Helicopter Parent?' take our QUIZ!

Or it might just be the next step in the relationship world of two talented people who are still young, confused, and – like the rest of us – trying to figure things out. (Albeit with the means to rent a $6.3 million bungalow, but whatever.)

My bet is on the latter. 

And that, I think, would be the most sympathetic story of all - and the best one, really, for the millions of teens who admire the actors involved.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.