January 2003 posts
MEs
attitute to female sexuality -- Miss Edith, 05:49:20 01/12/03
Sun
Lately I've been thinking about B/S and the way it was presented.
It seems to me that attitudes came across as a tad puritanical.
We have Buffy coming across as the good girl being corrupted by
the bad boy. A lot of people saw the storyline differently and
saw Spike taking the traditional female role in the relationship
and Buffy being the bad boyfriend (using partner for sex, beating
in DT). A fairly revelationary concept if that was what was intended.
Yet in interviews it was made clear that we were supposed to be
relating to Buffy and seeing her as being let astray by Spike.
In DT she clearly says "Why do I let Spike do these things
to me" when it was Buffy who had iniated the relationship.
The writers have said they showed her kissing Spike and mounting
him in Smashed so it was clear that she was not being taken advantage
off. So I find the statement in DT puzzling. Again in SR Buffy
tells Spike "I stopped you. Like I should have done a long
time ago". Spike was the pursuer in season 5 but it was Buffy
who started the relationship and controlled it threating Spike
with death if her friends found out she had lowered herself into
being with him.
In season 7 Buffy is still saying in CWDP that she did things
with Spike that she is ashamed off. The only suggestion of kink
was in DT with the handcuffs. Is it the outdoor sex that was considered
so outrageous or was something happening between them that the
audience doesn't know about? The reason I ask is that I must confess
to having read a fair bit of spuffy fan fic in my time. Many writers
love to up the kink and they give advice about how to use candle
wax safely etc. So it bugs me that ME seem to think that something
quite unsavery happened with B/S. Fair enough their relationship
was unhealthy and a disaster. I stopped shipping the couple after
season 6 so I would not say the relationship was a good one. But
all the talk of the things they did together as being shocking
and inflicted on Buffy annoy me. In fact Buffy was the one who
wanted the rough sex. It was not the bad boy who forced it upon
her in the version I saw. Spike had respectful sex with Anya and
was gentle with the bot. Buffy was setting the pace in the relationshop
with Spike. Look at how thrilled he was when Buffy wanted to make
love gently in AYW.
Anya was unused to the proper way in which humans behave and her
openeness sexuality was used as an example of how uncomfortable
she could make others. When she slept with Spike Xander said he
was sickened and she looked ashamed. But why? Is a female not
allowed comfort sex after a relationship ending? What were ME
even trying to imply there?
And Faith's love of sex was part of presenting her as a bad girl.
She gave in to her urges and ended up going off the rails. It
was implied she shouldn't have indulged so much and of course
there was a background of sexual abuse hinted at.
I just get the impression that whilst ME do want to present a
positive girl power message in some areas they are a little behind
the times when it comes to presenting liberated female sexuality.
Just the idea that the writers saw Buffy having sex with Spike
in public as something scandalous. Okay it's not my cup of tea
but to each their own and as long as B/S were being discreet and
not hurting anyone what's the big deal? What do other posters
think?
[> Attitudes can be buried
so deep we don't even know they're there -- Sara, 06:20:18
01/12/03 Sun
I think you've really nailed some good points here. I was having
similar problems with the Companion stuff in Firefly. I think
many attitudes towards female sexuality, and even just male/female
roles, behavior, abilities can be hard to recognize in ourselves.
I'm really not sure whether its societal, biological or, as I'm
inclined to think, a combination of both. I think its really good
to call people on this stuff, because a lot of the time they don't
know the subtext they're communicating.
[> Re: MEs attitute to female
sexuality -- BEV, 07:09:33 01/12/03 Sun
umm...just a guess here, but Spike is, or was, umm...a corpse.
At least Angel had a living soul. Spike was just empty, dead,
flesh. I can see where she might have felt quite the necrophile.
does it get kinkier?
[> [> Re: MEs attitute
to female sexuality -- Miss Edith, 07:15:59 01/12/03 Sun
I understand that Buffy was repulsed by the idea of being with
a soulless vampire. But there seemed to me that there was an implication
of unsavoury sexual practices with Buffy weeping to Tara about
the terrible things she has done. She does say " Why do I
let him do these things to me?". Rather than simply confessing
to Tara and later Holden that she had sex with Spike she seems
to be at pains to stress the awful things they did together. Even
in season 7 she is not taking responsibility for her sexual choices,
she is talking of her giving in to Spike's perverted desires and
painting herself almost as the virginal heroine who was corrupted
by the bad guy. It's just not a message I'm very comfortable with.
[> Re: MEs attitute to female
sexuality -- Cactus Watcher, 07:32:19 01/12/03 Sun
Considering the violence of the beginning of their physical relationship,
I suspect that some of the 'games' that Buffy and Spike were playing
during their private encounters were pretty disturbing. I think
the key is that Buffy was appalled that she wanted that kind of
sex and that it was taking over a large portion of her life. Willow
wasn't the only one with an addiction. Since Spike loved her I
suspect he would have given her any kind of sex she wanted. Buffy
wouldn't be the first person male or female who wasn't 100% honest
with themselves about their role in the midst of a bad relationship.
And when Buffy finally does break it off she doesn't accuse him
of anything. Instead she said, "I'm using you." I can
imagine that among other things the rape scene had played out
over and over between them with Buffy egging Spike on. The difference
when we saw it was that Buffy wasn't physically in control of
the situation and was saying no.
Some of this may have been lost in the bowdlerized versions of
Buffy that seem to be running at times in Britain.
[> [> Re: MEs attitute
to female sexuality -- Miss Edith, 07:54:10 01/12/03 Sun
The idea that Buffy was addicted to sex was what annoyed me. I
mean come one the ending of Wrecked with Buffy shivering in her
room surrounded by garlic and clutching a cross. It was the very
obvious cliche of the big bad wolf coming to attack the pure girl
in her tower. Buffy enjoyed good sex and she decided she was addicted
to it and it was a sickness. That struck me as a poor message
to be putting out there. It wasn't as if she was she needed sex
constantly. She just needed some sex to release the tension and
leapt to the conclusion that she was somehow addicted to Spike's
penis.
I guess I just wish the relationship had been handled differently.
All the bad boyfriend cliches didn't work for me. Has Buffy ever
been allowed to enjoy sex without feeling guilty? Angel ended
up with the guy turning evil, Parker discarded her. Riley stuck
around but couldn't satisfy Buffy as she was out staking vampires
after he fell asleep in BVD.
Like I said Anya had a healthy attitude to sex but it was used
as part of what made her weird and non human. She didn't fit in
and her frankness with sex talk was used as the elephant in the
room. Perhaps I've just been watching too much Sex and the City
where the female characters actually discuss their sex lives and
what pleases them. One of the women even walkied in on the other
giving a blowjob and was mortified. So I have trouble understanding
why it is considered an horrendous embarrassment for Anya to mention
that she and Xander use the gym for recreational purposes.
[> [> [> Re: MEs attitute
to female sexuality -- CW, 08:40:39 01/12/03 Sun
I have to say it again. Buffy wasn't necessarily honest with herself
while the relationship was on. The garlic and what-not was a sign
she wanted to blame Spike. But, it wasn't necessarily him she
was afraid of. I have to go back to her expressed inability to
feel anything early that season. Given her reactions in between
incidents, I'd have to say Spike (acting as bad boy or not)was
just a thing to her, and if anyone else handy could have given
her the same experience, she would have used them as well. She
wasn't any different than Faith in that. It really was bad girl,
not bad boy, and that was what really disgusted her, at least
in my opinion.
It is disturbing that ME never allows her a normal relationship,
but they've freeely admitted that torturing Buffy is a tried and
true method of keeping fans watching. It's soap opera. Pain and
misery sells, unfortunately.
[> [> [> [> Buffy's
self-deceptions -- luna, 14:26:53 01/12/03 Sun
Maybe this is just restating what you are both saying, but it
definitely seems to me that one theme of the Buffy-Spike relationship
in S6 was that Buffy was in control but didn't want to admit it.
In the only really "kinky" (mild by internet standards!)
sex they showed, Spike was the one who wore handcuffs. It's my
guess that in that kind of game, the literal control is a way
of acting out the real psychology of the couple.
This is really in character for Spike, since clearly Dru was in
control in his earlier relationship. Buffy on the other hand did
not control Angel, and partly found the Riley relationship to
be a problem because she really was stronger than Riley.
So one part of what was happening in S6 was not just her denial
that she had chosen the Spike relationship but also a denial of
her power in it.
In S7 I think she has understood that--at least accepted it. It
will clarify things though to see what goes on now that Spike
is at least temporarily out of the clutches of FE. I don't know
that I see a renewal of their sexual relationship, but clearly
they will be something to each other.
[> [> [> [> Re:
MEs attitute to female sexuality -- Malandanza, 16:38:02
01/12/03 Sun
"The garlic and what-not was a sign she wanted to blame
Spike. But, it wasn't necessarily him she was afraid of."
I agree with Miss Edith that the sex-as-addiction bit was inane
-- on the other hand, I don't think it was Buffy blaming Spike
so much as Buffy overidentifying (with Willow -- and putting too
much credence in Spike's you've-got-me-in-your-system-you'll-crave-me-like-I-crave-blood
self-indulgent, narcissistic rant) which is a well-established
trait for her. It was certainly Buffy trying not to blame herself,
but I don't see her overtly blaming Spike.
"I have to go back to her expressed inability to feel
anything early that season. Given her reactions in between incidents,
I'd have to say Spike (acting as bad boy or not) was just a thing
to her, and if anyone else handy could have given her the same
experience, she would have used them as well. She wasn't any different
than Faith in that. It really was bad girl, not bad boy, and that
was what really disgusted her, at least in my opinion."
I think that's only half the story -- yes, Buffy wanted an escape
-- wanted to feel anything, just for a little while so she could
feel as though she were alive and, for that, anyone would do.
The other half of the story is that she was so filled with self-loathing
that wanted to be abused and punished. She wanted someone to treat
her as badly as she felt she deserved to be and not just anyone
would do for that. It takes a special sort of person to turn a
girl's pain into his own pleasure. Buffy's breakdown with Tara
wasn't about having sex without commitment -- it was about allowing
herself to become a victim and returning for more.
As for Miss Edith's point about the sex looking pretty tame --
I think that ME made a mistake when they decided to make the sex
in season six as explicit as possible. Sex on American TV can
be explicit or kinky but it can't be both without being censored
or losing sponsorship. ME would have been better off making more
handcuff scenes (allowing the viewer's to imagine what happened)
and showing less of JM's body if they wanted to Spuffy to be in
the running for Sunnydale's kinkiest couple. By making the decision
to show as much skin as possible, Spike ended up looking only
marginally more inventive than Riley. By constrast, we've seen
very little of Xander and Anya's sex life, but we know about roleplaying,
erotic sponge baths and spanking.
But I don't think Season Six was about Puritans and S&M -- the
enduring image for me was Buffy crawling out of the grave and
back into life in the finale. Throughout the season we saw Buffy
being dragged into the darkness by Spike (or willingly enter the
darkness with Spike) -- we saw Spike standing in Buffy's path
over and over -- preventing her from moving foreward. In the same
manner, Spike impeded Buffy's spiritual progress. She spent the
season in the underworld because of his influence -- the dark
sex was just a part of the general darkness in his world and it
was not until he left town that she was able to struggle back
to life (and I think DT was an important turning point for Buffy
-- had she caved in to Spike's demands at that time, she would
have been lost forever).
[> [> [> [> [>
Oh so disagree -- Deb, 19:48:04 01/12/03 Sun
"She wanted someone to treat her as badly as she felt she
deserved to be and not just anyone would do for that. It takes
a special sort of person to turn a girl's pain into his own pleasure.
. . . . .
Throughout the season we saw Buffy being dragged into the darkness
by Spike (or willingly enter the darkness with Spike) -- we saw
Spike standing in Buffy's path over and over -- preventing her
from moving foreward. In the same manner, Spike impeded Buffy's
spiritual progress. She spent the season in the underworld because
of his influence -- the dark sex was just a part of the general
darkness in his world and it was not until he left town that she
was able to struggle back to life."
----------------------------------------------------------
Spike believed he did truely love Buffy. She's the one that initiated
the sexual relationship, and it's tempo. I don't think he was
using Buffy by taking advantage of her pain for his pleasure.
I don't even see where this statement comes from. Perhaps you
could present examples?
I think Spike wanted to believe that it was real, and when he
saw that she was using him, though he didn't know why, he plainly
told her he didn't want to be used, but he wanted all or nothing.
(Invisible Buffy comes to Spike after saying she wanted him to
stop seeing her.) She was quite happy being there with nobody
being able to see her. Then Xander comes in, rather rudely I might
add, and she just loves that fact that Xander "caught"
them, but didn't even know he had. Spike is the one who told her
to get dressed, if she could find her clothes and leave until
she could decided that she wanted to be completely with him. Then
she goes pouting about how Spike kicked her out.
Spike stood in Buffy's spiritual path? Spike prevented Buffy from
moving forward? The spiritual path is dark. She didn't need Spike
specifically to travel that path. You don't grow spiritually while
in the "light." You can come to some realizations, but
the hard work in done in the dark, or in the underworld as you
put it. Very early on Buffy comes to realize that Spike is the
only one who can travel that path with her and not get creeped
out by her. So she believed that her friends would be creeped
out. After watching half of season 3 for the first time, I can
see why she might be afraid of this. Also, Buffy was very ambivalant
about her feelings regarding Spike. She has never been indifferent
about him, so to a certain degree she does love Spike in season
6 because she can feel all terrible about herself (hate) and he'll
totally disagree with her. Both characters traveled down a dark
spiritual path in Season 6, and it eneded in personal apocolypses.
(They're still on those paths.) Spike learned at the end that
not only he saw that he could not be a monster and could not be
a man either, but everyone else saw and treated him just that
way: He was nothing. Buffy learned that this soulless thing could
have real feelings and could love, so she was capable of once
again feeling and loving. (She still believed that Bad, Bad, Bad
Spike put her through hell though.)
I don't intend to be harsh, but it appears to me that the comments
in your post almost relieve Buffy of any responsibility for her
own growth, thus supporting her rationalization that it is all
Spike's fault that she feels so bad. Nobody can stop you from
changing, growing unless you allow them to, but then you must
take responsibility for allowing it to happen. Some of the greatest
spiritual growth occurs because of the terrible things that happen
to good people.
As for kinky sex. I think it was more like Buffy was torturing
herself because she initiated sex with a souless thing, animal
preditor. (I'm sorry I can't remember the brave person who actually
said necrofilia (sp).) I've often wondered if she though she could
give Spike a soul in the same manner she could rob Angel of his.
This next statement is really out in left field, but it is based
on some personal experience. Even, perhaps, in her etheral travels,
Buffy met or experienced William's soul, but the memory of such
was embedded in her unconscious upon returning.
Other kinky sex: big deal. I don't think Buffy said "no"
until the bathroom scene, which does not make the "no"
any less "No." I, too, don't see a return to sex for
the two either, but someting tells me it will be Spike's decision
in the end.
Finally, I agree that ME didn't know what they were doing when
they wrote season 6 as they did. Totally played right into female
sexual stereotypes. Just waiting to see if they do the "Madonna"
thing.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Oh so disagree -- ~Eris~, 20:33:02 01/12/03
Sun
Deb wrote:
"As for kinky sex. I think it was more like Buffy was torturing
herself because she initiated sex with a souless thing, animal
preditor. (I'm sorry I can't remember the brave person who actually
said necrofilia (sp).)"
Hi Deb,
This might be the most obvious reason a slayer would be ashamed
of being with a soulless vampire, but I don't think that is what
ME was trying to show. They portrayed Spike as a person, and people
unfamiliar with the show (a friend of mine is a great example)
might not even realize he was a vampire (except for the flaming
blanket in 'Gone' ).
What I've posted below is from my original reply to this main
thread about the kinky sex. (My reply is titled "Little kinky
sex shown in S6"). I decided not to include it initially
because it was getting slightly off topic, but I saved what I
typed and posted some of it here.
As someone also pointed out, they could have gone the route of
sex with dead soulless vampire = necrophilia and bestiality, but
they didn't. If anything, they showed Spike acting very human,
watching TV, sleeping in a bed, etc. There was also little of
Spike's game face, and actually *none* at all when B/S were having
sex. I'm pretty sure we only saw it during fight scenes. There
were little reminders in episodes that Spike was a vampire (him
saying so in 'Smashed', blanket in 'Gone', preparing blood in
'DT', etc.), but these weren't portrayed to make us think this
was the reason Buffy was upset and ashamed.
As for Spike being soulless, Buffy told him so on various occasions
('Smashed' and 'DT' the most memorable). But this didn't seem
to be the reason she was ashamed. She used it in 'Smashed' to
make him think he had no chance at all with her (after kissing
him twice). It was part of her rant in 'DT' when she beat him.
But she also said he "can't feel anything real", and
we all know that isn't true. She was using his soullessness to
tell herself it was OK for her to beat him and use him. She didn't
even think about his past crimes or his potential for future crimes
(good example is when she completely blew off his egg sceme in
'AYW'). She wasn't concerned about his evil influence on the public
(she even joked with him about his evilness in 'HB'). She just
wanted to convince herself he, as a soulless being, didn't really
love her so that it was OK to use him like she was.
Her friends finding out seemed to be the biggest reason Buffy
tried to avoid Spike in S6. As Buffy said herself, it was "reason
number 1" ('AYW'). She didn't seem to have that big of a
problem with Spike when she was alone with him (as long as he
kept from putting his foot in his mouth, that is ). Buffy may
have said Spike was "disgusting", but she acted anything
but when they were together. She didn't make a gross face when
they kissed or anything. She may have told him to stay away, but
she always went back to him. In 'AYW' she admitted that she "wanted"
him. I think it was her friends' view (Xander mostly) that Spike
was a disgusting, evil, soulless creature that bothered her, not
her own.
~Eris~
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Darkness as an agent of spiritual growth -- Malandanza,
21:30:58 01/12/03 Sun
"Spike believed he did truely love Buffy. She's the one
that initiated the sexual relationship, and it's tempo. I don't
think he was using Buffy by taking advantage of her pain for his
pleasure. I don't even see where this statement comes from. Perhaps
you could present examples?"
I think "believed" is the operative word here. Spike
also believed he loved Dru, yet offered her up as a sacrifice
if Buffy would tell him he had a chance with her -- that's not
love (John Hinkley, Jr. might disagree, but even he only offered
to kill someone he didn't know -- Spike was willing to dust Dru).
I think Spike discovered after the AR that Buffy was right --
he really didn't know the meaning of love.
As for Spike converting Buffy's pain into his gain, I think the
best example is the balcony scene (which ~Eris~ mentioned below)
but almost from the beginning, Spike was looking out for himself,
never mind how much Buffy suffers. Way back in Life Serial,
he began his walk-in-darkness/you're-a-creature-of-the-night routine
-- this was when he was Buffy's only confidante -- she was never
more alone, never more in need of a friend, and all Spike was
interested in was how he could turn it to his advantage. When
Spike says things like:
SPIKE: Only a matter of time before you realize. I'm the only
one here for you, pet! You got no one else!
Smashed
he is playing on Buffy's worst fears. When he discovers he can
hurt Buffy, he is elated. He uses this information to torment
her. He hits Buffy where she is most vulnerable for no purpose
other than his own benefit.
"I think Spike wanted to believe that it was real, and
when he saw that she was using him, though he didn't know why,
he plainly told her he didn't want to be used, but he wanted all
or nothing."
He recanted rather quickly, saying "not complaining here"
when Buffy later broke things off, saying that she'd been using
him. I agree Spike wanted it all -- friendship and sex. He had
Buffy's friendship, but lost it when the sexcapades began -- he
gambled to try have both and lost everything. He thought sex was
more important than friendship -- which is consistent since he
thought so back when he was playing Iago to break up Riley and
Buffy -- and discovered belatedly that he was mistaken. When he
realized the friendship was gone, he tried to salvage the sex,
but it was too late. It's sad for him, but it's not Buffy's fault.
She is under no obligation to have sex with him.
"You don't grow spiritually while in the "light"
... Some of the greatest spiritual growth occurs because of the
terrible things that happen to good people."
I think it's a mistake to assume darkness creates spiritual growth.
Spiritual growth occurs in spite of the darkness; not everyone
is capable of even surviving, let alone prospering, when the darkness
descends. Some are consumed. A beautiful, unselfish act of kindness
can also serve as a catalyst for spiritual growth. I think this
is true in the Buffyverse as well. For example, I'd like to think
that Buffy's offer to share her strength with Willow would serve
Willow's spiritual growth better than, say, chaining her up in
the basement and scourging her with whips.
"Finally, I agree that ME didn't know what they were doing
when they wrote season 6 as they did. Totally played right into
female sexual stereotypes. Just waiting to see if they do the
"Madonna" thing"
I'm not saying that ME didn't know what they were doing with the
writing -- rather, the execution. Fewer graphic sex scenes and
more innuendo would have better served the storyline (imo). I
am expecting the "Madonna thing" -- I think Spike has
finally realized what kind of girl Buffy really is -- he never
had a clue before. For Buffy to have risked so much to save someone
who has devoted so much time to hurting her must be almost beyond
Spike's comprehension -- an act of kindness that ought to help
him on his spiritual journey much better than the emotional torture
he inflicted upon Buffy "helped" her on her journey.
Spike is moving towards Xander's viewpoint -- seeing Buffy as
a saint rather than a sex object.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> OT - Darkness/Light and Growth -- Rahael, 01:41:10
01/13/03 Mon
"A beautiful, unselfish act of kindness can also serve
as a catalyst for spiritual growth"
What follows is my very personal opinion. I offer it here because
I feel quite strongly about this - not because I think it's the
final word, or the only word or even the 'right' word. We have
multiple truths.
Happiness, stability, love - those are the conditions that create
good, whole people. I believe it and have to believe it because
I have seen what happens to a whole community which has been traumatised,
oppressed, starved, tortured, suffered routine disappearances
and hunger and poverty.
It has created a people who have been brutalised and whose eyes
are dead. Who turn away from each other and cannot reach out.
Whose own pain blinds them to that of others. Suffering does not
enoble. Little children who are forced to fight in armies do not
'grow'. Parents are not good parents when they are placed under
such huge stresses. The results of severe darkness leave a community
fractured and mentally ill. I cannot stress that enough. It is
the reason why political change is not happening for us. Because
when you are deadened, and have no hope, you think, why bother?
why make any stand? When exceptional circumstances lead to change
and growth in such communities, you will always notice afterwards
that such societies continue to bear the wounds, continue to be
volatile. We don't only need aid in terms of money and food, we
need therapists sent out there (and some valuable work is being
done by some close family friends). The same friend, who carefully
left a questionnaire about PTSD on our kitchen table when I was
younger - an act of thoughtfulness and kindness which started
me on my path to reintegration.
When I think back to that time, I do not face it with equanimity.
I face it with terror and fear. In my mind, I become that helpless
girl who feared the faces of other human beings, more so than
we will ever fear our imaginary monsters. I am never deceived
into thinking that our family grew because we suffered (and we
suffered much more lightly than many many others). My father is
a wonderful man. I grieve for the person he could have been, if
he hadn't been tortured for five years. It didn't make him grow.
It stunted him. He can't LIVE with other people. It's very very
hard for him. It's hard for him to share personal space with other
human beings. And yet, this man still created a home full of love
and support for me. He did it despite his pain. It's because he
gave me love and stability that I can talk about this, and that
I am happy and I can love, and this is all denied to him. It's
so deeply unfair that when I was younger I used to weep for him.
Imprisoned by his experiences long after he walked free from jail.
Good people are good people despite the outrages of life. That
is why we have to work to undo injustices. I've discussed 'embracing
the darkness' with KdS, when I've said to him that we mustn't
ignore our darkside. But to be honest, when the debate comes to
this point - I have to agree wholeheartedly with him and Mal.
What kept me strong through the dark times were the times of light.
The knowledge of love kept my spirit alive, though hibernating.
What do I mean by hibernating? I mean that I distrusted everyone.
Panic attacks. Intense fits of depression. Post traumatic Stress
disorder. No spiritual growth. Hard to be kind to other people,
hard to be empathetic.
Just my opinion, mind you. Don't mean to be dismissive of other
people's experiences. But no human being I've met has ever been
improved by suffering. Many have struggled to retain their humanity
despite it, and many have become worsened by it. Some human beings
never come back. I can attest to it. The darkness seizes them,
until they make the world dark for everyone else. That's NOT the
darkness that I was arguing that we 'needed to face'. Even the
relatively mild hardships I've undergone has left me emotionally
volatile - there are parts of me that I am still trying to heal.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Hi Rah -- Deb, 05:01:16 01/13/03 Mon
We all have different experiences. Personally, my experience is
that if I don't look back at the "bad" times in my life
and learn something about myself from them -- make committments
to change what I could change, that being only myself -- then
I would feel like a victim, I would feel that the world was a
dirty, disgusting place, and I would never give a person a second
chance or the opportunity for that person (and myself) to grow.
I would never attempt to put myself into someone else's shoes,
or explore empathy. I would just remain stagnant.
Perhaps there is something wrong with me? Maybe I'm just a really
"bad" person, and am totally self-absorbed? Perhaps
I need another kick in the ass from life to wake me up so I can
grow out of this phase, like it has always happened before.
I remember being 14 years old, and hell just seemed to rage all
around me, always had. So I made this deal with God. I told s/he(Frank,
???) to just throw everything bad, sad, nasty, painful and shattering
that I was to experience in this life at me as quickly as possible.
(Kinda like being the only one left on your team in war ball,
and the other side has about 10 players with two balls apiece.
Just throw them all at once, over and over, and I'll catch at
least one ball each time, and just try to dodge the others.) Then
when all this stuff was over, I just asked to be happy. Well,
I got what I asked for. But it did not play out exactly as I had
imagined it would. I thought I would do all the neat "growth"
stuff later in life, and life would be a garden of tulips, roses,
mums and daisies, and there would be no weeds. Quite fanciful
logic it was, but it was one of the two most important prayers,
wishes, whatnot that I made in my life.
First thing that happened afterward was that my first love, think
Buffy's Angel, was murdered, then a friend of mine committed suicide,
then my mother became very sick and my father's business failed,
and I had to lie about my age to get a job to help support the
family financially as well as become the keeper of the hearth,
home and family for the next few years. I was 15 years old, working
in a bar serving drinks until 1:00 a.m. on school nights, walking
over a mile home in the dark after getting off work, doing my
homework, grabbing a couple of hours of sleep, making sure my
younger sister was ready for the day, and maintaining an A- average
so I could get a scholarship so I could go to college. After coming
home from school I cooked, cleaned and did laundry, and life just
kept coming at me. I was miserable, depressed, etc. but then I
kept telling myself that I asked for it this way. Eventually,
though, I began to doubt that there was a God, which is a very
convienient thing to do when you want to blame everyone lese for
everything bad that happens in your life.
But, God came through. When I was 28, I was given the choice of
dying and "resting" -- or coming back. Well I had a
5 and 1/2 week old daughter! I was not about to leave her here
with no one to help her.
Anyway, bad things kept happening, but my outlook regarding them
changed. I did not know just how strong I had become since I was
14. I did not realize just how much faith I had in believing that
I could handle anything. One attribute developed over the years
has been useful to me and to others. When there is a crisis, I
become highly effective. I think that's one reason I've always
been drawn to "deadline" oriented work, and I end up
in short-term positions that are designed to plan, impliment and
drag everyone else through change. Once equilibrium is established,
I'm heading out the door.
I have a great many faults, but I can live with them until it
is time to work on them. I can't change everything at once. But
I am happy, and that is the deal I made with God. I wanted to
be happy, but that happiness developed during the journey through
what many call darkness. I'm still on that journey, and it gets
pretty dark at times, but I'm quite sure that I can deal with
it.
I really don't believe I would be where I am spiritually today
if life had been easier. I would have had no motivation to make
a deal with God to learn how to be happy. It has been my observation
that many people don't develop spiritually if life is too comfy,
and they are often unhappy, or more so, when everything does not
go their way all the time.
Right now I'm going through a difficult time, but it will end
-- one way or another, and that's fine with me. I tell my daughter
that I have worked hard for every single day of my life, and every
poor choice made is mine, and every good choice made is mine.
It's my life and it's my responsibility. And those people who
have popped up during the darkest moments of my life journey to
give a smile, to listen, to give me a piece of the puzzle about
life were angels who just didn't know it until I told them they
were.
So, I do believe that real spiritual growth is more facilitated
by the journey through darkness, but it's usually in these times
of darkness that people, who provide the "beautiful, unselfish
acts" turn up, and it is never a coincidence.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Hi Rah -- Rahael, 06:04:51
01/13/03 Mon
We all have different experiences. Personally, my experience
is that if I don't look back at the "bad" times in my
life and learn something about myself from them -- make committments
to change what I could change, that being only myself -- then
I would feel like a victim, I would feel that the world was a
dirty, disgusting place, and I would never give a person a second
chance or the opportunity for that person (and myself) to grow.
I would never attempt to put myself into someone else's shoes,
or explore empathy. I would just remain stagnant.
But of course! That's my point about 'facing our darknesses',
our internal ones. I just don't equate the kind of poverty and
suffering that grinds human beings down and drains them of their
joy and creativity as that 'kind' of darkness. I think of it as
injustice.
Certainly, I am not unafraid to face my own internal darknesses,
nor think hard and critically about my own behaviour. That is
why I think that suffering does not include a get out clause,
and I have to face the fact that when I'm in pain, I do not generally
behave well. And I had to teach myself to transcend the pain and
the darkness.
But I do not believe that it is only those who have faced hardships
who can be empathetic and kind and unselfish. Many feel pain without
having faced terrible trauma. We all of us understand what loss
is, what rejection is, what cruelty is. Many of my friends are
unhappier than I am - I remain at most times deeply grateful and
appreciative of the world but I have a quality of sadness in my
life which is inescapable. This sadness, this melancholy will
visit many of us, it just came to me earlier. Older in years in
some aspect than my peers, I am always conscious that in many
ways I am immature in others. I am eager to learn from those who
are happier, wiser, more tolerant than I am. I feel that my past
has hampered a lot of my emotional development.
You relate a life far harder and more independent than mine ever
was - I have much to learn from you, and many others here on this
forum with incredibly diverse backgrounds. All of your very different
lives can give me lessons to apply to my own. Just as I hope that
my life can hold some positive messages for others. Those beautiful
unselfish acts shine brighter in the midst of despair, but they
happen all the time. It's just that they aren't so visible when
you're not undergoing the dark night of the soul.
Perhaps there is something wrong with me? Maybe I'm just a
really "bad" person, and am totally self-absorbed? Perhaps
I need another kick in the ass from life to wake me up so I can
grow out of this phase, like it has always happened before.
I hope you didn't derive this from anything I have said. I would
never condemn a person for introspection. It would constitute
a terrible hypocrisy on my part!!! My argument is that suffering
doesn't ennoble, not that those who have suffered don't have to
spend time facing up to what they've been through; they have an
even harder time reintegrating and being whole, because often
they get stripped of necessary coping mechanisms, and that precisly
is my point.
I was left with completely abnormal reactions to ordinary life
- or as a doctor once told me, you aren't having an irrational
reaction - it's perfectly rational, for you. Emotional reactions
too, become abnormal.
I really don't believe I would be where I am spiritually today
if life had been easier. I would have had no motivation to make
a deal with God to learn how to be happy. It has been my observation
that many people don't develop spiritually if life is too comfy,
and they are often unhappy, or more so, when everything does not
go their way all the time.
I respect that observation - but it hasn't been bourne out in
my experience. I don't think there has been anyone whose life
has been comfy - to be human seems to entail facing loss, sadness,
grief and pain. It seems, sadly to visit all our lives. One of
the most healing, regenerating friendships I had at University
was with a girl who was white, upperclass, private school educated,
privileged, intelligent and very socially adept. When I first
saw her around my college I mentally pigeon holed her straight
away, and I was deeply wrong about her. She turned out to be the
warmest, most imaginative, most empathetic person I know. She
taught me to accept myself, to appreciate myself, to see myself
as someone other people wanted to be around. She taught me to
be sociable, and brought me out of my shell. And though she had
never experienced poverty, or bereavement, or discrimination,
she *empathised*. I think, spiritually, she is a bigger person
than me. It's a quality, in my opinion, that can never be quantified
or generalised.
I began to doubt that there was a God, which is a very convienient
thing to do when you want to blame everyone lese for everything
bad that happens in your life.
Well, I'd have to disagree with you here. Though I have the deepest
respect and awe for faith, I do not think that not having faith
displays an emotional immaturity. Certainly, I am a big believer
in personal responsiblity, as you are, but I know many people
who do not believe in God, and yet blame no one else but themselves
for mistakes, nor do they have a grievance against the world.
I'd argue that disenchantment and bitterness with God is a sign
that you still have an abiding faith. Plus, doubt and disenchantment
mingled with a desire to believe produces some *incredible* poetry
;)
I never believed that life would ever get better - I never believed
that I would be even given the chance to grow, so I'm extremely
happy to find that life and happiness and love are accomplishing
in light years, what was so hard and so unassailable in the dark.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Oh Rah. What can I say? I love
you! : ) -- Deb, 07:53:17 01/13/03 Mon
You are so passionate, and it's so invigorating!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> LOL -- Rahael, 08:46:30
01/13/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Part two (because, gosh, this
is so complex!) -- Rahael, 08:05:56 01/13/03 Mon
I just wanted to add some clarifications. I started my reply to
Mal saying that there are multiple truths, and mine was only one,
and your truth is also true. Because I reread my posts and thought
that you might be reading them as some kind of personal judgement
on yourself. I don't know why you should, but there's always a
danger when one's argument is somehow very very integral to one's
world view. Surely it's a tribute, that one ends up a larger person
after suffering, despite rather than because of it.
As for me? Perhaps I'm arguing this because if I haven't somehow
spiritually grown because of my own pains, it leaves me kind of
wanting as a person - same as those discussions about forgiveness,
where I'm again the smaller person because I cannot manage this
intangible emotion.
But actually, I think it's because I've just seen too many ruined
lives, and because I do not personally feel that the path to wholeness
is a progressive linear developmenent. Some parts of us are more
mature than others. Sometimes we fall into ruts. And I want to
look at what my father could be, and see what he is and not condemn
him, but rather extend the fullest sense of compassion to someone
who lives in his loneliness, still bereft and heartbroken after
all these years. He was a wonderful man, and still is, but I'd
give anything to erase all those painful, painful incidents for
him. I *know* that he'd be as wonderful, wise, compassionate and
gentle without having had his spirit broken.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Did I say I love you?
-- Deb, 10:33:28 01/13/03 Mon
I think you have a great deal more campassion than you give yourself
credit for. You bend over backwards to be compassionate at times.
And if you haven't noticed: for all my compassion, forgiveness,
and, well just plain experience, I can be one hell of a whiner
at times. It clears the head like horseradish clears the sinuses.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Awwwwwww -- Rahael,
10:47:13 01/13/03 Mon
I whine plenty. I could self pity for England with marvellous,
glorious gusto. It's an art form not to be despised!
But when people are nice to me, can't help but be happy, cheerful
and nice myself. I think I must be one of nature's cheery souls.
Though sometimes I think I'm just Eeyore. See? Multitudes!
Good luck Deb, my thoughts are with you.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Can I adopt
you? You'd fit in nicely around here. -- Deb, 10:55:55
01/13/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Multiple Truths --
Sara, 17:35:13 01/13/03 Mon
Could it be the type of bad experiences influence how we deal
with them? It seems that when you're a victim of circumstances
(illness, financial problems) it's more likely to give you an
opportunity for growth, but when you're a victim of other people,
the experience is just damaging. Not that I think this is a hard
and fast rule, but from what I've seen, it does seem to fall that
way.
By the way, I think that forgiveness like trust, is something
that is never owed to anyone, but can be earned. You should never
feel bad because someone else isn't worthy of your forgiveness,
that's a reflection of them not you.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Can't say anything
besides I agree, Sara -- ~Eris~, 19:04:54 01/13/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yep I agree.
-- shadowkat, 20:27:08 01/14/03 Tue
Could it be the type of bad experiences influence how we deal
with them? It seems that when you're a victim of circumstances
(illness, financial problems) it's more likely to give you an
opportunity for growth, but when you're a victim of other people,
the experience is just damaging. Not that I think this is a hard
and fast rule, but from what I've seen, it does seem to fall that
way.
Ironically enough - I just discussed a situation where I was the
target of a bad person today. The woman I discussed it with is
writing a book on serial bullies and corporate bullying. She says
that I was a "target" not a victim, a victim is someone
who folds under the bullying who lets their life be destroyed.
My experience with this type of person was luckily just in the
work place and I was able to leave. But Serial Bullies are everywhere
- the sociopaths or psychopaths in our midst. And they do leave
scars and no the experience doesn't make you grow, it's one you
try to move past. And it does change you. After my experience,
my ability to trust others was damaged as was my ability to trust
myself. Not to mention my confidence.
For more on serial bullies - BullyOnline or I think www.bullyonline.org?
Here's some quotes:
"All cruelty springs from weakness" (Seneca 4BC-AD65)
"Most organisations have a serial bully. It never ceases
to amaze me how one person's divisive, disordered, dysfunctional
behavior can permeate the entire organization like a cancer."
(Tim Field)
"The truth is incontrovertible; malice may attack it, ignorance
may deride it, but in the end, there it is." Winston Churchill.
Here's some stuff on it: www.hare.org - Robert Hare's articles,
Book: Without Conscience, the disturbing world of psychopaths
among us, Robert D. Hare.
Also here:
http://www.successunlimited.co.uk/bully/amibeing.htm
By the way, I think that forgiveness like trust, is something
that is never owed to anyone, but can be earned. You should never
feel bad because someone else isn't worthy of your forgiveness,
that's a reflection of them not you.
I'm beginning to strongly agree with this. I used to believe we
had to forgive people - to make us good, for ourselves. Now? I'm
beginning to realize that it is enough to just move on. Try to
move past it. And not think about the person or what happened
as much as possible. It is enough to forgive ourselves for being
in the situation to begin with - as absurd as that might sound
- it's how you feel - that you were somehow responsible for being
the target - when in truth the reasons you were selected had nothing
to do with you. According to my friend - targets are selected
because they are capable, strong, good natured. It's our good
qualities that make these sick people go after us. And that is
not something we should ever have to forgive ourselves for. Sometimes
the best and only thing we can ever try to do is move on. Let
it go. Forget the bully and leave these bad people behind us where
they belong. The possible exceptions? Those who earn our forgiveness
and our trust and ask for it.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yep I agree.
-- Rufus, 00:29:11 01/15/03 Wed
It is enough to forgive ourselves for being in the situation
to begin with - as absurd as that might sound - it's how you feel
- that you were somehow responsible for being the target - when
in truth the reasons you were selected had nothing to do with
you. According to my friend - targets are selected because they
are capable, strong, good natured. It's our good qualities that
make these sick people go after us. And that is not something
we should ever have to forgive ourselves for. Sometimes the best
and only thing we can ever try to do is move on.
An interesting part of being a target is that you are in fact
chosen by a bully because you have qualities that they lack and
envy, but aren't capable or are too lazy to cultivate in themselves.
This anger at what ever bad feelings they have about themselves
is projected onto the target who they go after instead turning
on themselves. The problem is that many bullies do get far in
life by counting on the good nature of others to get away with
as much as they can...frequently when they encounter a "target"
it the first sign of trouble is the "target" not seeing
things their way...this starts an escalation of behaviour that
the bully tries to have blamed on the target. The only reason
the bully gets away with this behavior is the fear of the average
person who doesn't want to get involved or fears retaliation.
What they (the average person) miss is that more often than not
the Bully is also a coward. Some Bullies who start that way as
children do change, more often they don't and become hostile adults
who blame others for anything that goes wrong in their lives.
We are at a sad time when Bullying has become a problem in our
schools, serious enough that young people have committed suicide
and some Bullies have progressed to murder, because they assumed
that they could get away with it. Parents who assume that their
kid would never do anything wrong and make sure they never catch
their kids, or when they do catch them trivialize their behavior
are prime contributors to a major problem in society today. Bullies
don't just happen, they are created, and the general publics tendancy
to go into denial is not making the problem go away and the proof
is the violence and harrassment going on in some schools, and
in the rise of violent juvenille offenders.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agreed.
Bullying in schools and the workplace -- shadowkat, 07:06:07
01/15/03 Wed
The only reason the bully gets away with this behavior is the
fear of the average person who doesn't want to get involved or
fears retaliation. What they (the average person) miss is that
more often than not the Bully is also a coward. Some Bullies who
start that way as children do change, more often they don't and
become hostile adults who blame others for anything that goes
wrong in their lives.
In Btvs - we see this occur with Warren Mears, Andrew and Jonathan
and the horrific results of not addressing the problem earlier.
On the bright side - we see what happens with Larry - who is portrayed
as a Bully up until possibly Phases - where Xander inadvertently
"outs" him and Larry stops being the Bully. By confronting
Larry on his wolfish and inappropriate behavior - Xander puts
a stop to it. Xander actually takes on bullies more than once
in Sunnydale High - he does it in the Zeppo as well. The same
thing sort of happens with the character in Beauty and The Beasts
that Buffy takes on - who dies.
But more often than not, the problem is ignored or swept under
the rug. The truth is if we continue to do this, ignore the problem
- the bully grows up to be the sociopathic boss and gets far worse
than he ever was in high school and more damaging. After all high
school is a limited time period- three years. Working Life is
far more. This is what happened with Warren Mears - who turned
into a murderer.
Here's a quote by Tim Field (a proponent of the initiative to
get legislation on bullying):" Lack of knowledge or, or unwillingness
to recognise, or outright denial of the existence of the serial
bully is the most common reason for an unsatisfactory outcome
of a bullying case for both the employee and the employer"
- this can also be said about the people in school.
Part of the reason I found Warren Mears so unredeemable and horrid
and frightening is because I had to go into work every day and
deal with the real life version of Warren Mears. Until you meet
a Warren in real life and believe me they are out there - you
don't know how scarey this person really is. You tell yourself
you can handle the bully, you tell yourself that you'll know him
when you see him that you won't be fooled. You even might consider
him sort of amusing and hardly frightening as many fans perceived
Warren. (Nope...sorry...he truly is frightening.) There are still
people working with the bully I had, being bullied by him (my
Assistant still works with him, although I went out of my way
to give her as much protection against him as I could - I don't
think he'll target her) and in their heads? They remain convinced
he's just a bad manager. They justify his actions. This is what
happens with bullies - we find ways to justify them, we excuse
their acts based on their problems - oh the poor dear, he's an
alcoholic or manic-depressive, or the girlfriend Katrina was just
a shrew, April just a robot, or people just treated him horribly...etc.
The truth is by excusing his or her (there are female bullies
out there) actions - all we do is encourage them. Like the parent
who refuses to believe their child can do any wrong or the teacher
who dismisses it as testorone or typical teenage teasing. The
unwillingness to recognize the problem causes a greater one.
The co-workers I had that did recognize the bullying and saw the
problem - were too afraid to get involved. They did NOT in any
way stand up for me. Instead they merely listened to my complaints,
agreed to be my reference, and counseled me to leave. They admitted
it was happening but did not want to deal with it. All my closest
friend did was tell me repeatedly to quit. She is trying desperately
to leave herself and is starting to become a target as well.
They were all too terrified of the bully. Afraid of losing their
jobs and their income source.
It sounds easy to stand-up to the bully - but it's not so clear-cut
as one might think. I attempted to stand up to this bully more
than once and eventually had to leave the company, realizing I
could do nothing. And from what I've seen of Rahael's story -
it sounds like her family stood up to the people bullying her
country and paid with their lives.
According to my contact in New Zealand - Europe, Great Britain
and some other countries overseas have legistlation to deal with
serial bullying in the work place and elsewhere. The US and New
Zealand are working on it. There is a legislative initiative in
California right now regarding it. Legal measures could help remedy
the problem.
There is no legal measures now.
We do need to adress it. And we need to stop excusing this type
of behavior in our schools, our workplaces, our neighbors and
perhaps even ourselves...because until we do -we will have to
deal with these horror stories like Tara's death or what is described
in the thread above over and over again.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Don't
forget the weak, though. -- Arethusa, 08:04:50 01/15/03
Wed
Warren gradually takes over the Trio because Andrew and Johnathan
are weak, and let him. His villainy escalates, seducing Andrew
(literally and figuatively) and cowering Johnathan. Andrew accepts
Warren's bullying because he hopes to benefit from it, and Johnathan
does the same, until fear replaces his first motivation.
Cordelia bullies Willow because Willow is insecure and vulnerable,
with her jumpers and childish hair style, but doesn't try to bully
Buffy, who is more self-confident. Cordelia later insults Buffy,
but she doesn't try to bully her. The Cordettes start bullying
Cordelia when she becomes weak and vulnerable in their eyes by
dating a social pariah. They're unsuccessful because Cordelia
is stronger than they. If Cordelia had never had her reversal
of fortunes and learned empathy, she might have continued to torment
and bully her way through life. She is able to get away with bullying
for many reasons. Some students in high school don't care if the
weak are picked on, since they feel the same scorn towards the
weak. They just let the bully do what they don't dare or care
to do. Others do nothing out of fear of being the next victim-relief
that someone else is the target.
Some teachers ignore it because except in the most flagrent cases
it's difficult to differintiate between personality clashes and
bullying, time is short during the schoolday and teachers are
supposed to be on duty nearly every second and can't referee every
argument, they are bullies too and enjoy seeing the weak picked
on, or they are scornful of someone who doesn't stand up for himself.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Bringing
this back to "darkness" -- leslie,
08:57:21 01/15/03 Wed
As I recall, somewhere up there, this started as a confutation
of the idea that Buffy should "embrace her darkness,"
and I think that s'kat's introduction of the bullying theme helped
me pinpoint why I felt that Rah's example of her family's situation
and the experiences of people under oppressive governments, etc.,
didn't seem to be in the same ballpark for me. In terms of what
we are talking about in Buffy's situation--and Warren's, and Larry's,
and so on--is that it is the bully's refusal to "embrace
their darkness" that leads to the bullying and the intimidation
and even murder of others--they refuse to acknowledge their own
weaknesses, to accept their own impulses toward violence, to admit
that all this awful stuff is their issue, not the target's
fault. Bullying comes about by projecting one's own darkness,
whether individual or collective (I'm thinking here of the Nazis
and just the whole history of persecution of Jews), onto a target
and punishing the target for that weakness in oneself.
I think this is also where the controversy over "embracing"
darkness arises, too. It isn't a question of submitting to it,
it's admitting that it exists in you, that the actions
that you take under its influence are your own actions and not
forced on you by some outside agent ("The devil made me do
it," or even "It wasn't me, it was the First Evil").
Theoretically, at least in a Jungian framework, by embracing,
accepting the Shadow, the evil in oneself, one can turn that energy
into a source of strength that is not projected onto others and
is not destructive, turning the darkness from a place of terror
to a place of power.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Oh I agree absolutely -- Rahael, 09:28:11 01/15/03 Wed
That was kind of tangent - my point was that suffering is not
necessary or always conducive to spiritual growth and health.
Examining the dark and examining one's own actions is essential;
and one can still do this having undergone large and repeated
amounts of trauma - it's just that suffering does not lead to
spiritual ennoblement, certain parts of yourself may be stunted,
perhaps permanantly in many cases.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Oh I agree absolutely -- Arethusa, 09:56:37
01/15/03 Wed
So why does suffering weaken some, and turn others into heroes?
Is Cordy a better person than Willow, because suffering turned
her into Saint Cordy and Willow into Dark Willow? Did her mental
and emotional strength under suffering ennoble her, while Willow's
weakness in facing difficulties cause suffering to corrupt her?
Why could Cordy fight back against the Cordettes, but Willow couldn't
fight Cordy? Is Cordy "better" than Willow?
Or is the time of trauma important? Willow suffered through neglect
and peer abuse in childhood. Cordy was obviously supported, or
at least indulged. Her difficulties arose when she was already
an adult. Was that why Cordelia had strength that Willow did not?
Are some people born victims, due to characteristics deemed undesireable-placidity,
timidity, elasticity, self-doubt? Or are victims created in childhood?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Oh I agree absolutely -- leslie,
10:40:08 01/15/03 Wed
First of all, I would note that their stories aren't over yet.
Yeah, Willow went Dark, but now she has realized that she has
that potential and is learning--not necessarily linearly--how
to deal with it. On the other hand, saints don't usually have
sex with the underage sons of the object of their affections.
Well, maybe Saint Vigeous did, who knows, but the whole concept
of a vampire saint is pretty dodgy in any case.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Oh I agree absolutely -- Arethusa,
10:50:58 01/15/03 Wed
They are both at the place where they are dealing with new hardships.
Where it will take them is a slightly separate issue. Is Willow
now stronger than Cordy? It seems that way. Will is tentatively
doing magic and helping Buffy. Cordy has collapsed (although I'm
convinced that she's being controlled or manipulated in some way)
and slept with Connor. My questions still stand, thought. Does
Cordy undergo less victimization than Willow because she's stronger/better?
Why? How do the variable affect their degree of strength?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> wow, rah, i almost feel
like... -- anom, 21:33:46 01/13/03 Mon
...this is too personal to say here, but what you say about your
father & your response to him makes me glad he has you. Whatever
he's still suffering, how could it not be even worse without his
relationship with you? Unless he can't let you share that with
him...I hope that's not the case.
And I hope that his inability to get past what was done to him
won't last for the rest of his life. Even after years, decades,
some people do manage to break free, or at least get better to
some degree.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: wow, rah, i almost
feel like... -- Rahael, 04:55:08 01/14/03 Tue
I think the inability is unconscious. I mean, in one sense he
is free, in the most important way. Despite the brutal experiences
he had besides spending the most important years of his life hiding
in safe houses, always in fear that he might be discovered, his
wife and children far away, he remains unresentful and gentle
(I think that might be due to his Buddhist upbringing. His mother
won't even kill flies - she swatted them away). I know few fathers
who could do what he did even without those experiences - work
seven days a week, make pack lunches every morning, cook hot dinners
every night for two children he never had to look after before.
And he does find some joy in life. He enjoys a good meal, comes
out of his shell with good friends, he finds the oddest tv programmes
amusing (Songs of Praise for god's sake. Christian church services,
when he's an atheist-buddhist!).
But I see the still unfaded scars on his body, hear the talking,
hear how he sometimes shouts in his sleep, see how when he has
nothing to do, he just goes to sleep, or stands silently, thinking.
I know he isn't happy. There's a fundamental deep down sadness
that will never go away. And I don't think he trusts other human
beings any more, nor can he allow them to come too close. To be
honest, I feel powerless to help or undo anything. But maybe I
should just be patient. It is something that has always seemed
to work for every other intractable problem I have faced. Maybe
I should have more faith in the world. As Oliver Cromwell might
have put it, I shall be in a 'waiting posture'.
(An aside - I read with interest the comments made on the unnecessary
nature of Spike's torture scenes. I'm wondering how I'm going
to react to them when I 'see' them. Whether they will speak to
me or repulse me. Also, Ponygirl's comment about not glorifying
the ability to withstand torture reminded me a story my aunt once
told me. She said that my foolish, brave father had the nickname
'the silent' in prison because while all his comrades broke down
and talked, he never said a word. But my aunt said the wisest
way would have been what she did - she pretended to be scared,
and 'broke down' before they could do anything to her. This way
you can tell them a complete, cohesive pack of lies while you
still have control over your mind. Once they start torturing you
and you talk, you have no control. So there you are - handy life
tip I hope no one here has occasion to use!!!!! Though this plan
only worked for my aunt because when the guards were leading her
away, she whispered to her husband "blame everything on me"
and proceeded to incriminate herself for everything. She portrayed
herself as an innocent middle class girl just 'helping out', and
that's all she did. She ended up in prison, but eventually broke
out and escaped the country).
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Aha! You solved
the dilemma -- Sophist, 09:06:06 01/14/03 Tue
I read with interest the comments made on the unnecessary nature
of Spike's torture scenes.
This has concerned me as well; they seemed gratuitous. I think
you've given us the answer, one that makes perfect sense in the
twisted world of evil:
But my aunt said the wisest way would have been what she did
- she pretended to be scared, and 'broke down' before they could
do anything to her. This way you can tell them a complete, cohesive
pack of lies while you still have control over your mind. Once
they start torturing you and you talk, you have no control.
The FE is not just torturing Spike, it's playing on his psyche.
It would have been easy to dust him. The FE wants him alive but
broken or on the FE's side. The physical torture serves to weaken
Spike mentally so that the mind games of FE/Dru and FE/Buffy can
achieve their goal.
Maybe this was obvious to others before, but I just now got it.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Gee,
Sophist you surprise me with your last statement. -- Rufus,
09:16:35 01/14/03 Tue
The FE is not just torturing Spike, it's playing on his psyche.
It would have been easy to dust him. The FE wants him alive but
broken or on the FE's side. The physical torture serves to weaken
Spike mentally so that the mind games of FE/Dru and FE/Buffy can
achieve their goal.
I keep remembering what Holland Manners said about evil living
in the heart of everyone.....and the First is all about getting
someone to do evil, to feed it and perpetuate a constant cycle
of ill will. The First could have easily worked a way to dust
Spike, but Spike misbehaved, acted out of order, against how the
First assumed he "could" act. So he has become a project
of a sort in that the First doesn't like to lose, and Spike is
a painful reminder of how someone can "go good". Sure
it could have had Spike dusted, but trying to get him to do evil
again is what It's all about.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I
meant I didn't get that the torture was to weaken him mentally.
I got the rest. -- Sophist, 09:34:38 01/14/03 Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Very good post Rah -- shadowkat, 17:24:56
01/13/03 Mon
I believe you are right -Good people are good people despite
the outrages of life. That is why we have to work to undo injustices.
I've discussed 'embracing the darkness' with KdS, when I've said
to him that we mustn't ignore our darkside. But to be honest,
when the debate comes to this point - I have to agree wholeheartedly
with him and Mal.
What kept me strong through the dark times were the times of light.
The knowledge of love kept my spirit alive, though hibernating.
I think there is some confusion on the board regarding accepting
and embracing darkness. For me? I think you state it well - we
shouldn't ignore it, but we should be careful not to go into it
either. Isn't there a poem about "Not going into thy dark
night?" I'm so bad at remembering lines from things.
But bear with me as I take this back on topic.
I think Buffy herself is a little confused regarding how to deal
with the darkness inside her. As is partly expressed through Willow
who asks Giles why the coven can't just drain the magic out of
her or kill her. Spike also addresses this fear - kill me, destroy
the darkness, there can't be any light. But Buffy fights Spike
on this.
She says: "You faced the monster inside and fought back.
You risked everything to become a better man." Giles in a
way expresses something very similar to Willow - "the power
is a part of you now, you can't remove it, but it doesn't change
who you are. In the end we are who we are no matter how much we
have appeared to have changed."
From these two statements and the commentary on Season 5 DVD,
I think the writers are trying to say that dark events do not
change who we are at our core. Not really. We can face the darkness
in ourselves and by doing so, choose NOT to give into it, fight
it. Buffy in Buffy vs. Dracula (in a scene very similar to Spike's
in Sleeper) tastes the darkness in her own soul - but instead
of embracing it or allowing it to take her over as Faith did in
Season 3, she accepts it as part of who she is and strives to
rise above it.
Manwitch is right i think - Buffy is in a process of spiritual
awakening. She doesn't "deny her dark side" nor "does
she embrace it" - she struggles to face it and deal with
it and not let it overwhelm or overtake her. Darkness can overtake
us in life if we let it. Faith is a perfect demonstration of that
as is Angel. But darkness is not something to embrace or jump
into like an adventure.
It does change you...in little ways, not the core you, but the
you that has to interact with the world...and it changes how you
interact with that world. Buffy's trials as slayer have hardened
her in a similar manner to what you've so bravely described. She
tends to seem cold at times, contained - partly because she has
been hurt and left.
She shows compassion - because she understands the pain and violence
of self-hate. To go out every night and slay demons is not an
easy task.
I think Buffy's journey is finding a way of understanding the
balance between the two. Using the light to deal with the darkness.
If that makes sense? Somewhere in all this I think I lost my point...and
got muddled. But oh well.
Good post at any rate. SK
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> An excuse to bring up Dylan Thomas
-- Tchaikovsky, 03:42:43 01/14/03 Tue
I don't think the context is quite right- because Thomas is talking
about death, but here's the poem you were thinking of, (I hope):
DO NOT GO GENTLE INTO THAT GOOD NIGHT
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
The beautiful mantra like repetition of the randomly alterntaing
two lines at the end of each stanza is very haunting. And this
poem reminds me, (although it is not entirely applicable), of
Buffy to Angel at the end of 'Amends'. He shouldn't give up, even
if it seems the 'gentle' and correct thing to do.
Back to rambling tangentially. Oh well.
TCH
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Darkness as an agent of spiritual growth
-- Miss Edith, 19:11:52 01/13/03 Mon
I believe Spike's love for Buffy is pretty much canan. In the
script for The Gift Joss acknowledges Spike is devestated at seeing
his love dead. Whether the way Spike expressed his love was healthy
is very open for debate. There is certaintly little doubt that
Spike was attempting to draw Buffy to him as she had made it clear
that he was unable to come into the light and join her. He tells
Buffy in Smashed that "a man can change". In The Gift
he had said "you treat me like a man and that means..."
yet Buffy punches Spike telling him "You're not a man you're
a thing...You're an evil disgusting thing". Spike was then
at the end of his tether and choose to pursue a victim whining
about Buffy mistreating him. Yes he was exhilarated when he discovered
that the woman he had been using as his moral compass wasn't as
high and mighty as she pretented to be. Just like the old days
he lashed out at Buffy to regain his big bad dignity and control.
In Wrecked he continues with this act playing at being the big
bad leering at Buffy and being smug "It made you scream didn't
it". And when Buffy says he's not gods gift he laughs "No
that wouldn't be nearly as interesting would it". He basically
thought he was giving Buffy what she wanted and what she would
come back for. Note how careful he is to only let momentary flashes
of romanticism through "Suns up...stay". Basically though
he was being the bastard that he thought she wanted, waving self-righeous
Buffy's panties in her face when she threatens to kill him. You
can say he uses the information in Smashed to torment her and
he hits her when she's vunerable and you are quite right. But
I think he was like a child in the way he was hitting out and
so desperate to bind Buffy to him.
I don't agree that he found the idea of sex more fullfilling than
friendship. Rather I think he valued the moments when Buffy approached
him for chats and he used such occasions as opportunities to open
up "every night I save you". But he lost the friendship
through no fault of his own. Buffy choose to kiss him and from
then on she was so freaked that there was no way they could go
back to anything even resembling a friendship. Lets not forget
in DT she tells him he is a thing and incapable of feeling anything.
That was what she valued about the sex they shared. To her Spike
truly was just an empty vessel for her to poar all her sexual
needs and pain on to. He was a living vibrater if you will. Spike
thought they could find a connection through sex as he seemed
to believe that Buffy would not sleep with a man she didn't love
so there must be some feeling there. But did he treasure the simple
intimacy in All The Way when he patrolled with Buffy "Good
fight" or when they went drimnking together in LS. I would
say so. Being Buffy's sex toy was not pleasurable to him and it
is revealed in BY that it caused him a lot of inner torment.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Its not about "embracing" darkness.
-- Deb, 00:25:41 01/14/03 Tue
More like: "Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow
of death, I will fear no evil for thous art(sp) with me."
kinda of thingy. The light walks through the darkness with you.
[> [> Re: MEs attitute
to female sexuality -- Miss Edith, 07:55:39 01/12/03 Sun
The idea that Buffy was addicted to sex was what annoyed me. I
mean come one the ending of Wrecked with Buffy shivering in her
room surrounded by garlic and clutching a cross. It was the very
obvious cliche of the big bad wolf coming to attack the pure girl
in her tower. Buffy enjoyed good sex and she decided she was addicted
to it and it was a sickness. That struck me as a poor message
to be putting out there. It wasn't as if she was she needed sex
constantly. She just needed some sex to release the tension and
leapt to the conclusion that she was somehow addicted to Spike's
penis.
I guess I just wish the relationship had been handled differently.
All the bad boyfriend cliches didn't work for me. Has Buffy ever
been allowed to enjoy sex without feeling guilty? Angel ended
up with the guy turning evil, Parker discarded her. Riley stuck
around but couldn't satisfy Buffy as she was out staking vampires
after he fell asleep in BVD.
Like I said Anya had a healthy attitude to sex but it was used
as part of what made her weird and non human. She didn't fit in
and her frankness with sex talk was used as the elephant in the
room. Perhaps I've just been watching too much Sex and the City
where the female characters actually discuss their sex lives and
what pleases them. One of the women even walkied in on the other
giving a blowjob and was mortified. So I have trouble understanding
why it is considered an horrendous embarrassment for Anya to mention
that she and Xander use the gym for recreational purposes for
instance.
[> [> [> Re: MEs attitute
to female sexuality -- Corwin of Amber, 18:08:48 01/12/03
Sun
>The idea that Buffy was addicted to sex was what annoyed me.
People seem to be forgetting the overall situation. Buffy is Dawn's
guardian, and was spending a LOT of time away at night, boinking
Spike. Some of the identifying behaviors for addiction are if
it impacts your family life, if you lie about what you are doing,
etc. Sound familiar?
Yeah, she was addicted, but it didn't have to be sex. It could
just have easily have been drugs or gambling. (magic?) Or, a lot
of people in that severely depressed state turn to self mutilation,
but I suppose that wouldn't be much different from normal life
for Buffy.
[> [> [> [> Re:
MEs attitute to female sexuality -- Miss Edith, 16:07:37
01/13/03 Mon
See I disagree. In Smashed Buffy undoubtly neglected Dawn as she
was so overcome at believing she was a demon and she choose to
stay out overnight after the shock of deciding to hell with it
she would give in to Spike. But I can't think of many other occasions
when we were shown that Buffy was neglecting Dawn in favour of
Spike. Maybe in AYW when she is bringing home Dawn's dinner and
stops outside the house for a quick thrill with Spike? Other than
that I can't think of any examples of Buffy being drawn to Spike
in such a consuming way as calling it an addiction would suggest.
In DMP Buffy was on her break when she saw Spike for a quickie.
She even tells him she doesn't have time for his nonsense as she
is working. Buffy was seeing Spike when things became too desperate
to cope with and she needed some relief. I would see an addiction
as Buffy being drawn to Spike in such a way that she was constantly
fighting the urge and neglecting her friends and Dawn because
she wanted sex all day. IMO that wasn't the case. Indeed in DMP
she didn't even want the sex. And when it ended she seemed a lot
happier in HB and wasn't shown to be fighing an overpowering addiction
at all. She was lying and behaving in a unhealthy way I am not
disputing that. I just can't accept that Buffy was actually addicted
to the sex.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: MEs attitute to female sexuality -- Corwin of Amber,
18:29:34 01/14/03 Tue
I don't assume that the Spuffy we saw on screen was the only Spuffy
that occurred, that's the difference. It was pretty clear that
things were degenerating pretty rapidly between episodes.
[> [> Little kinky sex
shown in S6 -- ~Eris~, 19:50:58 01/12/03 Sun
Hi Everyone. Just jumping into the discussion here. :-)
Cactus Watcher wrote:
"Considering the violence of the beginning of their physical
relationship, I suspect that some of the 'games' that Buffy and
Spike were playing during their private encounters were pretty
disturbing."
But that's exactly the problem. The viewer has to "suspect",
"imagine", or even "assume" that such disturbing
kinky sexual events actually took place, because ME didn't show
it.
Now granted, they do have censors to worry about, but they could
have made a reference to it to give us a better idea of what was
going on with B/S. They didn't have to even show anything, but
they could have talked about it to let the viewers know, like
they did with X/A's sexual practices in S4.
Malandanza made this point with the following:
"As for Miss Edith's point about the sex looking pretty tame
-- I think that ME made a mistake when they decided to make the
sex in season six as explicit as possible. Sex on American TV
can be explicit or kinky but it can't be both without being censored
or losing sponsorship. ME would have been better off making more
handcuff scenes (allowing the viewer's to imagine what happened)
and showing less of JM's body if they wanted to Spuffy to be in
the running for Sunnydale's kinkiest couple. By making the decision
to show as much skin as possible, Spike ended up looking only
marginally more inventive than Riley. By constrast, we've seen
very little of Xander and Anya's sex life, but we know about roleplaying,
erotic sponge baths and spanking."
But ME didn't show anything of the sort for B/S in S6, so we're
just supposed to 'take ME's word for it' and assume it was taking
place.
The kinkiest we got was the handcuff scene and Spike taking her
from behind on the balcony in 'DT'. Having sex in public can also
be considered kinky, and B/S did that in 'DMP', 'DT' and 'AYW'.
Using handcuffs and having sex in public is nothing for Buffy
to be *that* upset over. And the balcony scene was disturbing
because of what Spike was saying to her at the time, not because
of the actual sexual act (to me at least).
She is so ashamed of her affair with Spike, and when I heard her
say in 'CWDP' that she "behaved like a monster" and
"treated him like...", I thought maybe ME finally got
it right. Buffy was feeling guilty because she used a man/vamp
that loved her, and tried to convince herself that his feelings
weren't real. Maybe she knew better now, that it wasn't the sex
that was bad, but the reasons behind it. But then she went ahead
and said she "let him do things" to her. ME backpedaled
and made it all about the kinky sex again.
Is Buffy ashamed of using a man that loved her, or ashamed of
the (practically non-existent) kinky sex? ME has to make up their
mind on that one. They can't have it both ways.
The same thing happened at the end of 'DT'. She asks Tara why
she lets him "do those things" to her, vaguely implying
some kinky behaviors, but nothing definitive. But then acts upset
because she realizes she is using him and doesn't want anyone
to know, because of the "way they would look at" her.
Again, ME tried to have it both ways and it didn't work. I generally
dismissed her "do things to me" remark because the using
him to feel seemed the more important statement at the time.
As sad as the end scene of AYW was, I was a little bit happy because
Buffy realized she was "using him", someone who loved
her. I thought she finally realized this was the reason for her
guilt (it was "killing her"). She didn't go on about
him not having a soul, say he was evil, say he was a vamp and
it was wrong for her as the slayer to be with him, say her friends
would be disgusted with her for being with him, etc. She said
she couldn't love him and that she had to "strong" (self-reliant?).
That's why she had to stop being with him. Again, I thought ME
was done with the kinky sex thing, but then they brought it up
again in 'CWDP'.
In 'NLM' Spike brought up the fact that Buffy was using him because
she hated herself, and she admitted as much. I'm assuming that
because this is the most recent B/S conversation we have, that
that is what ME is going to go with now. Their conversation in
the basement, Spike saying she likes men who hurt her, seems to
show this.
Maybe ME has finally learned that nobody seems to believe the
kinky sex reason for Buffy's guilt, and they've decided to drop
that and use the self-loathing reason instead? It's obvious that
Buffy hated herself and was using Spike to feel ('OMWF, 'AYW'),
but ME seemed to find the kinky sex excuse more exciting or something.
There seems to be a general consensus on the self-loathing as
the reason for the twisted B/S 'relationship', so maybe 'NLM's
writer (the new Drew) latched onto this. He seems to be good at
retconning and fixing up holes and loose threads, so maybe he
knocked some sense into ME and stopped using the kinky sex as
the reason.
Buffy's vague "things" he does to her ('Dead Things'
and 'CWDP') aren't enough for me to buy it. ME's gotta either
show it or be more specific. Anyone agree?
~Eris~
[> [> [> Welcome.
Good post. I do agree -- see my response to s'kat below. --
Sophist, 20:19:28 01/12/03 Sun
[> [> [> Would agree
-- shadowkat, 11:55:54 01/13/03 Mon
Is it possible to agree with you, my own statements and manwitchs
and cjl and not be completely contradictory?
Hope so.
I think you are right. I think Marti (from interviews I've read
both with her and with Marsters) that the writers tried to have
it both ways. Marti was relying on her own college experiences
and wanted to discuss the shame she may or may not have felt in
kinky relationships with "bad boyfriend" while that
is incredibly brave, as a writer who is collaborating with other
writer's it is also not always the best or most realistic idea.
(Works nice in theory but not in practice.) I think, as even they
have admitted in interviews, they tripped big time. They thought
nudity was risque - uhm no, we get that on NYPD Blue and most
people have cable. So showing Spike nude all the time really doesn't
suggest kinkiness. (Not that it ever would. All it did was objectify
him somewhat and cause women to stalk the actor... we live in
a strange world ;-) )The kinkiness relationship on the show has
always seemed to be Xander and Anya. I would agree with Malandaza's
point on that. The sex I saw on the screen btw S/B was never that
kinky IMHO.
I agree - I was confused on what they were going for.
Was it that Buffy was ashamed of what they did together?
Or the fact she was in a relationship with Spike? Or the fact
she was using him? Or all of the above? I was going for all of
the above most of the time. Drew Goddard tried to fix most of
this in NLM and to some extent CwDP - the shooting scripts show
how much. I think someone finally got across to the co-creators
that their whole bad boyfriend storyline didn't really work.
At any rate - I agree - if they wanted to emphasize kinky sex?
They did it wrong. If they wanted to emphasize the ambiguous feelings
young women feel about relationships similar to Buffy's - ie.
the kinky sex, casual sex, using someone for it, being with the
wrong person, all you do is cause pain, etc...they screwed up
on the kinky sex part - thus confusing the audience.
Welcome. SK
[> [> [> [> A look
at the sex -- Miss Edith, 16:47:04 01/13/03 Mon
Smashed could be considered to be unusual sex as the foreplay
consisted of the two of them beating the crap out of each other
and tumbling through a building. Buffy looks uncomfortable in
Wrecked and is limping suggesting the sex was very infigerating.
In AYW Spike mentions they can keep going for up to five hours
and Buffy was so into the sex in Wrecked her morning after comment
is "When did the building fall down". This did not cause
disgust. Many people on the sitges I visitied were envious and
laughingly discussing how they have made beds rock but never brought
down a building before. There was disgust expressed by some at
Buffy's moral choice to sleep with Spike but I can't recall many
people seeing the encounter as really kinky or anything.
In Gone B/S have naked sex which begins with Spike being thrown
against the wall and having his shirt ripped open. A little rough
perhaps? Buffy does goes down on him which may count as unusual
sex for some people? DMP has the two of them shagging in an alley.
Not kinky as such it more suggested empty and dull sex. Buffy
was hardly getting off on the public nature of it. It was more
a case of her desperately needing to feel and going for it in
the place she was least likely to get caught. She was at work
so could harldy go too far from the restraunt. I don't rememeber
that many people being horrified at Buffy indulging in public
sex. Most people were just wondering why Buffy was having sex
in DMP if she wasn't enjoying it.
Dead Things opened with the two of them copulating on the floor
but otherwise perfectly normal sex is suggested, they were just
a little enthusiastic and missed the bed. They even have share
some mildly cute after sex talk "are we having a conversation?".
The balcony sex was perhaps the kinkiest encounter as it was fairly
public and Spike comments on the rush it is giving Buffy to get
away with sex right under her friends noses. Plus it was anal
sex so slightly different from the norm. The handcuffs are used
in DT and it is suggested both Spike and Buffy wore them. Buffy
rubs her wrists uncomfortably so I am guessing she tried them
out first (note her unsure expression when Spike intorduced her
to them. He would have initally taken the lead I feel). But in
her dream Buffy recalls being the agreesser and using handcuffs
on Spike. Of course there is no evidence what really went on there.
OAFA has no sex but it does portray the couple as dare I say it
mildly cute. We have Spike flirting with Buffy and being jealous
of Richard "Oh Buffy can I get you a soda pop I think I'm
in love...jealous my arse" and looking worried at Clem's
comment that Richard was cute. Buffy is most definately not up
for sex at her house and the only raunchiness implied is Spike
raising his eyebrow when Buffy gets the back-massager to take
care of all her aches and pains. AYW has Buffy having sex in front
of her house which was pretty daring of her. Otherwise the sex
is in the crypt and Buffy even allows it to consist of kissing
and the two fall asleep together afterwards.
Not much evidence of kink when you really study the relationship
IMO. The best example is Buffy on the balcony having anal sex
which is frowned upon by quite a few people. Oh and ther use of
handcuffs of course. I feel ME did make a mistake if the relationship
was supposed to be kinky and we were meant to relate to Buffy
talking of the terrible things Spike had caused her to do.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: A look at the sex -- Miss Edith, 16:51:08 01/13/03
Mon
Duh that was supposed to say B/S have invisable sex in Gone, not
naked sex.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: A look at the sex -- shadowkat, 17:44:45 01/13/03
Mon
I feel ME did make a mistake if the relationship was supposed
to be kinky and we were meant to relate to Buffy talking of the
terrible things Spike had caused her to do.
Or ME's views on kinky sex are not as enlightened as their audience?
Actually I agree. Outside of possibly the anal sex (although it
could have just been taking from behind), but anal makes more
sense IMHO and the handcuffs...violent sex..., the rest? Sorry
didn't seem to be that kinky.
OTOH I guess it depends on who you are and your experiences. I
know people who found the scene in The English PAtient where the
characters do it against a wall to be gross. (Personally? I found
it erotic, but then I tend to have broader definitions.)
From the commentaries - I think the writers at ME have a far more
interesting and potentially narrow definition of dirty and kinky
than we do. Doug Petrie found the sucking bloody finger scene
in Fool For Love to be incredibly dirty. I didn't. Alluring? Yes.
Erotic? maybe. Even possibly gross. But then I've seen one too
many HBO and cable shows. Again - we have to remember they are
dealing with somewhat pruddish network censors. Network execs
nd censors have Victorian sensibilities. Scenes like we saw last
year - rarely get put on TV. It wasn't all that long ago that
the idea of showing any male nudity on television was considered
risque. I'm sure Marsters was relieved that they couldn't show
full frontal nudity - the set was apparently quite cold.
So while the audience may have found the sex not kinky or raw,
I'm not sure the writers ever understood or realized that. I think
- in fact I'm almost positive of this - that the writers and 50%
of the audience parted company somewhere in the middle of season
6, so that the show/message the writers believed they were creating
and showing was not the same as the message a good portion (50%?)
of the fanbase watched on TV. (They thought they were telling
one story and the fanbase thought they were seeing another.) As
a result - ME tripped and almost lost 50% of their fans in the
process. Marti even realized it in interviews and attempted somewhat
clumsily to rectify the situation.(All she did was further alienate
the fanbase.)
Will be interesting if they pull off this season with better results.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: A look at the sex -- ~Eris~, 19:00:17 01/13/03
Mon
I agree shadowkat that ME's writers are much less enlightened
than their audience. That is a very polite way of saying it, anyways.
:-) I suppose what they expected to be shocking was just 'cool'
to us, and that's one of the many reasons S6 didn't work.
About the balcony scene, I didn't get the impression that it was
anal sex at all. Sort of a strange point to argue about, I know,
but did anyone else see it that way? I just saw it as him taking
her from behind, like shadowkat said. If it was anal sex, then
that puts a whole new spin on things and would explain Buffy's
comments about the "things" he did to her.
Come to think of it, that is the only scene where she could say
Spike *did* something to her. All of their other sex scenes were
either completely mutual or her doing something to him.
~Eris~
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: A look at the sex -- Miss Edith, 19:32:18
01/13/03 Mon
Well the scene didn't make any sense logistically anyway as there
was no way Spike could enter her in the positions they were in.
Unless he was endowed in a really freaky way. But it could certaintly
be seen as Spike just entering her from behind. I just assumed
the directer was suggested anal sex to make a point about the
kinkiness of it all. If it was just public sex they would probably
have been facing each other. The fact that Spike was behind Buffy
during the act suggested that the director wanted to imply anal
sex. Well to me anyway.
And some spuffy fans were increadibly turned off by their violence
of the first coupling in Smashed and were pretty much intolerant
of the entire relationshiop after that, having wanted a more romantic
good girl tames the bad boy type story. But the majority of spuffy
fans loved the different flavour of sex presented. You only have
to read the fan fic to see all the different scenerios that were
imagined for the couple. So I can see why some fans were left
disapointed after rooting for B/S and then feeling they were made
to feel perverted for enjoying viewing the sexual practices the
two of them got up to.
I think the fans were unfortunately on a very different wavelength
from ME. E.g a lot of spuffy fans saw Smashed as a positive sign
with the barriers falling down as the walls in the house crumbled
around them but the house falling down was later revealed by the
writers to represent the fact that the relationship was unstable
and couldn't last. The fans were just getting their wires crossed
all season and desperately hanging on to any scenes that gave
them hope. Shippers have a real capacity to seize upon favourable
scenes and ignore the ones they don't like. And that's not me
dissing the shippers. I was a B/S shipper and I constantly rewatched
the door scene in DT "Are you drowning or waving, I just
want you to save me and the barriers are all self-made" etc.
The real problem was that ME seemed to feel they could make audiences
love or hate a character or relationship based on their own whim.
When they tried to do this in season 6 fans just felt manipulated.
Witness the hatred expressed by many for AYW with all the Riley
worship used to contrast with Spike. Fans just ended up disliking
Marti for scenes like the AR and the egg-dealing "plot".
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Dark Seduction -- Brian, 13:03:02
01/14/03 Tue
In the smooth, silvered mirror of night
I see the dark shadow move;
It's subtle charm weaves a binding spell.
I hear rich words that caress and promise like dark flame,
And I want to embrace that murmuring ecstasy,
To forget all in the rush to surrender.
But my path breaks the thorns that prick me,
Forcing my blood to scream in its rising,
Banishing night for blinding light,
Razor sharp in its penetration,
Scattering the landscape with fearful illumination.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: A look at the sex -- leslie,
13:29:41 01/14/03 Tue
"E.g a lot of spuffy fans saw Smashed as a positive sign
with the barriers falling down as the walls in the house crumbled
around them but the house falling down was later revealed by the
writers to represent the fact that the relationship was unstable
and couldn't last."
Here I really think there was a screw-up somewhere along the production
line. You want the house falling down to be a bad omen, don't
make it an abandoned house that looks like it's slated for demolition
anyway so that something new can be built on the site.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: A look at the sex -- leslie,
13:25:38 01/14/03 Tue
"About the balcony scene, I didn't get the impression that
it was anal sex at all. Sort of a strange point to argue about,
I know, but did anyone else see it that way? I just saw it as
him taking her from behind, like shadowkat said. If it was anal
sex, then that puts a whole new spin on things and would explain
Buffy's comments about the "things" he did to her."
I certainly did, and that may well be why I wasn't quite so flummoxed
by the "why do I let him do these things to me" reaction
as many seem to have been. Though it also seemed to me that this
may have been only the one time we had actually seen the "things"
they had been getting up to.
[> Interesting discussion
(spoilers for the movie Unfaithful, Season 6 Btvs and BY and CwDP)
-- shadowkat, 10:29:08 01/12/03 Sun
Hmmm...I've had at least two discussions about this topic this
week. Also just watched the movie Unfaithful last night which
has a sexual relationship that reminded me in some ways a great
deal of the Buffy/Spike one. For those of you who haven't seen
it, Unfaithful is an Adrian Lyne film, starring Diane Lane, Richard
Gere, and a french actor I can't remember the name of. The story
entails a 40 something housewife and mother becoming engaged in
an affair with a book dealer. The initial sex scene - which is
told in flashback while she's sitting on a train - has her saying
"no...no...I can't.." while he's seducing her, she's
in tears, yet powerfully turned on...as he disrobes her...but
she's still murmering no...and wrestling with him, so he tells
her to hit him - she does and then gives in and they have violent
wild sex. Every sex scene they have is passionate, somewhat wild
sex - they do it in the bathrooom of a restaurant across the street,
while her friends are sitting unaware of this occurrence...at
a coffee table in the restaurant. She returns to the table, they
comment on how great she looks if a little out of breath and remark
on the heartthrob at the end of the bar who she pretends she's
never seen before. They also do it in a movie theater. One scene
has her fighting him in a hallway...until she reluctantly gives
in and he takes her from behind. While I watched these erotically
filmed scenes - I was reminded of Smashed - Dead Things on Btvs.
At no point in the proceedings was Lane's character raped, btw.
But there were moments in which the "no" means "yes"
seduction fantasy seemed tricky and the line between seduction
and rape seemed very fine. (Just like there are moments in BTvs
where we wonder - about both parties. Gone and Dead Things come
to mind.)
The Buffy/Spike relationship was an ambitious one - because it
was meant to show a certain type of abusive relationship, the
type that I've known people to engage in.
The friends I've known who have engaged in this type of relationship
- deny at first that they were in any way responsible or abusive.
IT was all the guy's fault or the other person's. Not them. They
were seduced. (Sort of like the little kid on drugs who claims
someone else got them hooked.) One of my friends after engaging
in numerous relationships of this sort - finally hit a catharthis
and saw that yes she was responsible and was as abusive as the
guys were. Perhaps more so - since some of the guys she hit on
for this actually cared about her. But it took her a long time
to see it. She wanted to be touched, reached, she wanted to feel
but she did not want the commitment or the pain of rejection that
came with commitment - if she just had sex and didn't invest in
any way in said relationship, he wouldn't be able to truly hurt
her or reject her. It was in her view just physical. The physical
couldn't hurt her. It made her feel good - at the time. At the
same time, she hated herself and wanted to be hurt, wanted to
be punished.
She was very very lucky that none of these relationships ended
with a rape, although she came close once or twice. It's a tough
thing to understand if you have never experienced it or known
anyone who has. (Having never experienced it myself - I struggled
to get it.)Unfaithful, the movie - deals with similar themes,
the addiction - the need to have something in your life. The idea
of a craving.
Neither character does it for love in this movie - they do it
for the sex. (A distinction from B/S - where one character was
in love with the other.)
We all I think can identify with unwanted cravings. The desire
to have that additional chocolat bar or eat five donuts or watch
Btvs over and over again or even spend all day on the internet.
The craving for something to make you feel better, to feel alive,
connected, whatever. Chocolat is so addictive partly because it
is an aphrodisac - it gives off some of the same feelings apparently
as sex might.
It gives you a high. The movie Unfaithful really touched on how
an addiction/a craving for sex can have disastorous results. Love
never came into it. Although it is easy to confuse the two.
Back to the guagmire that was the B/S relationship in Season 6.
Season 6 if you think about it was all about abusive relationships.
In all three core relationships on the show - the key abuser,
or big bad, was either Willow, Xander or Buffy. And all three
reaped horrible results from their abuse. The way the writers
built each one was initially ambiguous...and very realistic.
Each relationship when we start the season seems fine on the surface
- we really don't see any problems. We're in Buffy, Willow and
Xander's povs. In fact if you rewatch Season 6 - we are limited
to Buffy/Willow and Xander and the three nerds pov's through most
of the season, we rarely leave them. We don't really enter Spike's
pov until Entropy.
(And are only briefly in it in Smashed - hence the reason his
character seems to coast.) The possible exception might be Anya
- where we do spend quite a bit of time in her head and much less
in Xanders.
How are each abusive? And do the SG take responsibility for how
they are?
First how they are abusive:
1. Xander and Anya - we see Xander repeatedly criticize Anya through
the season, he also puts off annoucing their engagement for almost
six months, almost as if he's ashamed to share it with his friends.
He never tells her his worries or communicates his feelings to
her. Instead he makes smart alec remarks about the things she
says, what she once was, and implies how he and Buffy and Willow
are somehow above her. It's very ambiguous and subtle, but if
you watch carefully - it's there - which is why Hell's Bells did
not surprise me in the least. It was the inevitable conclusion.
Xander doesn't take full responsibility for any of this. Oh he
admits standing her up at the wedding was the wrong thing and
all. But He refuses to understand how he hurt her, believing it
was leaving her with all the wedding guests. He doesn't see why
they can't just start up again where they left off. Nor does he
understand that in her head he left because she was a demon, a
nobody. Xander doesn't really take responsibility for the abuse
- he blames it on an outside source - his parents and Anya. Instead
of figuring out what is going on - he runs from it.
2. Willow and Tara. This relationship also seems wonderful on
the surface. Beautiful in fact. But look again. Willow is controlling
it. Tara literally sings how she's under Willow's spell. Willow
erases Tara's memories and controls Tara through her magic. When
Tara leaves finally - Willow is under the false impression that
it is the "magic" habit that made Tara leave. Nope.
It's Willow's desire to alter Tara to fit her wishes that terrifies
Tara so much. Tara even says this to her - "you don't use
magic to make things better for yourself..." That's what
Willow was doing and instead of discussing the problems in their
relationship - she tried to erase them. She also did not believe
Tara could love simple Willow. Willow's insecurity like Xander's
insecurity in the X/A relationship - is what caused the abuse.
Although Tara finally returns to Willow - it is clear from Willow's
reaction to Tara's death, that Willow still had not taken responsibility.
She still felt that altering things to fit her ideal was the way
to go. She hadn't taken responsibility for the abuse either -
she blamed it on an outside source - the magic, the addiction.
Instead of figuring out what is going on - Willow in a sense hides
from it.
3. Buffy and Spike. This relationship also seems to start out
okay - they appear to be friends. We have a few smoochies. Except
it's push me pull me all the way. This relationship is the ultimate
love/hate battle. The sex is in of itself a fight. Here's their
relationship in a nutshell:
I hate you! I kiss you! I beat you to a pulp! We have sex! I hate
you and beat you up or run virtue fluttering!
Watch the episodes.
OMWF: Buffy to Spike - I don't want your help! I thought you wanted
me to stay away from you.
Spike to Buffy - fine, I hope you both burn!
Buffy dancing the dance of death
Spike stopping her - singing how one of them has to live.
Spike storming off - tired of group sing along. Buffy follows
him. He tells her that she doesn't have to say anything and should
go back for group hug. She tells him she doesn't want to. He wanders
if she'll ever figure out what she wants. (So does the audience
at this point). She tells him she just wants to feel, even if
it's not real and he also wants to feel - alive. So they passionately
kiss.
Next episode. Buffy pushes him away from her. Insists the kiss
meant nothing. Claims she'll never kiss him or touch him again.
Then whammo she does to save his life.
They lose their memories. Get them back. Giles leaves. Buffy
refuses his comfort in the bar. Then when he tries to leave dashes
after him and kisses him in the Bronze.
Next episode. Spike asks her what this is about. She brushes him
off. He tries again - insisting he can change. She hits him. He
hits her back - chip doesn't fire. He pretends it did fire, she
hits him twice more while he's on the ground. He goes to see what's
up with the chip...etc.
Discovers it's working, there's something up with her - which
means she's an undead thing too and this would explain this bizar
behavior from her and he can have her.
(Typical juvenile response...actually. You're damaged goods, I'm
damaged goods. We're on same level now. cool. let's party.) He
confronts her. She tells him off and hits him when he won't move.
He hits her back. They beat each other up. By the way she threw
the first punch. She has pretty much the upper hand in most of
the battle. Easily throwing him off her when he says he didn't
want to hurt her too much. Then when he thinks she's going to
hit him again, she kisses him and engages him in sex - literally
forcing herself on him and launching herself at him.
Next episode - next morning they wake up. She insults him.
He tries to seduce her almost succeeds. Insults her. She gets
him back. They engage in banter. She insists it will never happen
again. That night she's back - demanding he help her find and
rescue her sister from Willow. The whole time insulting him. Claiming
he's the one into this, not her. They bait each other. He takes
sis to hospital. Buffy puts up garlic to protect herself from
her own cravings.
Next episode - He comes to see her in daylight. Wants his lighter,
she pretends it's not there, when it's in her pocket. He endures
insults from her friend Xander. He embarrasses her in front of
a social worker. Tries to comfort her. She screams at him. He
grabs his lighter out of her pocket. She cuts her hair - because
he loved it. Gets turned invisible and decides to go to his crypt,
molest, seduce and throw him around.
Next episode...we have a continuation of pretty much the same
up until As You Were. Except it doesn't stop there.
She tells him she's using him and it's killing her. But she doesn't
leave the poor guy alone. She greets him at the wedding in Hell's
Bells and tells him that it does hurt, and it hurts to see him
with another girl. In Normal Again - she sits and chats with him
- then horribly insults him in front of Xander and Willow. Xander
gets his help to help Buffy, he is told by Willow to help her.
She insults him again. He gives her hell. Then stalks off.
In Entropy...he tries to get her to tell her friends - convinced
now that's the problem. She refuses. He backs off. She goes after
him - convinced he set up cameras to spy on her. When he denies
it. She insults him again then tells him he has to move on. So
he goes to the magic box - he and anya get it on. X/B see it and
they attack both S/A
for it. B attacks S for moving on. Gee...
Then in Seeing Red - he's drinking, trying to calm down.
Dawn shows up and gives him hell for hurting Buffy by sleeping
with Anya. (At this point, I had the oddest emotional reaction,
I desperately wanted to run over to Buffy's house and ask her
if she learned nothing from her past relationships and slap the
chit. Geeze. Honey do you want the guy to attack you? )
OTOH...Dawn coming to spike was hardly Buffy's fault. Spike, being
the arrested adolescent that he is,
also did some nasty things. He keeps egging her on. "It's
our little secret", "come on you belong in the dark
with me", "oh this is delicious - the girl needs a little
monster in her man", joking about eating Richard, having
sex in alleyways and behind trees, flaunting himself in front
of her constantly, baiting her, and threatening to tell her friends.
He acts like a kid here. I can't stop these feelings. I have to
tell you I'm sorry...because not doing so is tormenting me. And
he is understandably confused - Buffy has sent him mixed signals.
And without the soul - he doesn't understand them. He doesn't
understand she's using him to hurt herself - this does not compute.
Until she literally forces him off her and blasts the message
home, making him realize that he is hurting her - that their relationship
was never about anything else.
Neither party was the good guy here. It was abusive on both parts.
What's always been interesting to me in the analysis of the relationship
is the split in the fanbase. half the audience blames Buffy, half
blames Spike. My difficulty with it is also oddly enough what
i loved about it - if it is possible to have a love/hate relationship
with a relationship on a tv show - here it is. The ambiguity.
On the one hand - you feel as if Buffy deserved to get the stuffing
kicked out of her or as Willow states: "Buffy you deserve
to have every inch of your ass kicked." On the other hand
- you really feel for the poor girl -she's in so much pain and
hates herself so much that she just wants to be punished, to be
hurt.
But back to your points about the sex: The writers weren't commenting
so much on the sex as well how the characters chose to engage
in it - which was in an odd way - to hurt themselves. Buffy wanted
to hurt herself and Spike, for loving her. That's what she tells
Webs, that's what she's truly ashamed of. "In his own sick
twisted way, he loved me, he really did care...but I didn't want
to be loved. I wanted to be punished. I wanted to hurt."
She wanted to be touched. reached. Spike for his part wanted to
be loved, wanted to be touched, to love in return. He, as a soulless
demon, did not understand her self-hatred or her need to be punished.
To him love, sex, pain, death, violence - was all one and the
same - that's how demons think. Buffy understood that. She knew
that going in. It was never a level playing field. Spike realizes
that finally in Seeing Red - that he is so far beneath her -in
that she can understand him but without a soul - he can never
get her. The kinkiness of the sex that makes Buffy feel so ashamed
- I believe - is not the type of sex so much as it was the reason
she was engaging in it.
Also I think - some of the sex she engaged in...embarrassed her
and I seriously doubt the network would have let them show that
on screen.
Beneath You - actually gets a little of this across - in the church
scene. Buffy goes to touch his bare chest and Spike states: "noo...touching.
Am I real to you? Am I flesh? Flesh then. Get it hard. Service
the girl." Am I just flesh...is that all I am to you? When
she throws him across the room. "That's right don't want
the flesh - without the spark..." Their sex - which is what
shames her - was just two bodies banging together. That is what
the writers commented on as being abusive and wrong.
Spike comments on this again in Never LEave Me - "you used
me. That's right - you told me that. But I didn't understand you
then. I didn't understand the violence inside. As evil and wretched
as I was back then, I never truly hated myself. Not like I do
now. I understand now.
You hated yourself and put it on me."
That's what she's ashamed of, so ashamed it's hard for her to
face him. These two characters have to forgive themselves for
what they've done. No one hates Spike more right now for that
attempted rape and those deaths - than Spike. Spike hates Spike
for it. The writers go out of their way to show it. Buffy is ashamed
with herself for abusing him the way she did, for beating him
down. For getting off on causing him pain and for getting off
on the pain he caused her. "The things he made me do..."
Could very well be the things he made me do to him...the things
I did to him. "I behaved like a monster last year.."
she tells Webs, "The things I did to him, to my friends.."
We never know what they did with the handcuffs, but in the dream
sequence in Dead Things - Spike has them on. And in the same sequence
- she's staking him while he's asleep or threatening to.
When I was watching Unfaithful - it reminded me of this. Something
I'd also seen in the sex scenes in Basic Instinct. The sex is
not love so much as war - two people fighting their mutual attraction
and each other. Hurting themselves and their lives, due to some
sort of mutual yet unconnected pain. Sex in the City - is not
a good example of this - for one thing it's on a cable channel
and can pretty much show anything (in US there are censors who
prohibit some stuff believe it or not, but on premium pay cable
channels? anything goes.) It also isn't really talking about abusive
relationships so much as just having sexual relationships. I've
watched the show and have yet to see them explore anything quite
that deep.
The B/S relationship has changed a lot since last year. As have
the two characters - Buffy and Spike aren't the same people. The
nice thing about Btvs is they never repeat themselves. This year
they are showing the characters start to take responsibility for
their actions, feel the consequences. Part of the reason they
gave Spike a soul - was so he could join the others in taking
responsibility for his acts and feeling the consequences of them.
They are also demonstrating how good relationships can be formed.
To do that you need a contrast. I don't believe Spike is the bad
boyfriend this year, any more than Buffy is the bad girl friend.
I think the story now is different.
I also think the writers interviews served to confuse viewers.
They went into tricky territory with Buffy and Spike, because
we were no longer sure which character was the bad boyfriend here.
But that's the reality of these types of relationships - which
more often than not can have truly violent results. LEaving both
parties wounded and in pain.
Just my impressions for what it's worth...SK
[> [> Re: Interesting
discussion (spoilers for the movie Unfaithful, Season 6 Btvs and
BY and CwDP) -- Miss Edith, 11:39:15 01/12/03 Sun
You made some really good points and I agree with you that Buffy
and Spike abused each other. Spike is my favourite character but
I did have real sympathy for Buffy in season 6 and tried to see
where she was coming from. I could understand her beating Spike
in DT for instance as not an evil act, so much as the actions
of a desperately confused young woman. And Spike did indeed egg
her on. In Smashed he tells her "I'm the only one here for
you pet. I'm all you've got". Not to mention the infamous
balcony sex with Spike telling her to look at her friends and
think of what their reaction would be. Both Buffy and Spike were
in pain and behaved badly. I have never questioned that.
I just don't like the implication of Buffy talking of things Spike
made her do. She constantly puts herself in the passive role,
even in season 7 after taking responsibility for acting like a
monster at times towards Spike. My point is that the heroine did
initiate the sexual relationship and Buffy is denying that and
constantly acting as if Spike deflowered her and released all
her bad sexual corruption which wouldn't have existed without
Spike. When Buffy talks of the things her ex partner made her
do that is the impression being given to the majority of the audience.
ME interviews have constantly suggested Spike was the one in the
wrong and Spike was based on the abusive ex of one of the writers
in season 6. This has constantly been said in interviews with
writers admitting that Spike was there to explore the theme of
the bad boyfriend in relation to the heroine. Seeing Buffy as
Spike's victim is not such an interesting place to go as the idea
of the two of them abusing each other. But in season 6 I honestly
believe that was what ME intented as we were constantly being
told we should be sympathising with Buffy and Spike was still
evil.
And I know Sex in the City is just a light comedy. But I just
can't help making a contrast between the repression of the scoobies
in comparision to the women on that show who will discuss which
sexual practices they prefer. Anya's sexuality is used to present
her as different and other and I do see a message being projected
however unwittingly about how we should keep all talk of sex in
the bedroom.
[> [> As always, your
analysis awe me...IMO...you nailed it! -- rabbit, 15:05:56
01/12/03 Sun
[> [> Ah! It all comes
rushing back. : ) -- Deb, 20:09:34 01/12/03 Sun
Montage of love/hate.
Just one observation: I find it strange that this season, Buffy
has felt that she does not need permission to touch Spike, but
Spike is very aware of her feelings regarding touching and backs
off. Reminds me of when I was pregnant, and strangers would come
up and touch my stomach all the time without even acknowleding
me. Everytime I've seen Buffy do this to Spike, I burn the slow
burn. I felt like a "thing" when people did it to me
when I was pregnant. The last scene in 7.11 was the first mutually
OK touching. But the FE can't be touched, so to find out if someone
is "real", you must touch them. It wasn't the soul that
allowed Buffy to see Spike as "real" but his being solid
to show he wasn't the FE. Of course she does tell Dawn that she
"feel for him."
This would make a great thesis. Believe it or not I still haven't
had a topic approved.
[> [> [> Gotta disagree
with you Deb -- Rufus, 03:50:35 01/13/03 Mon
last scene in 7.11 was the first mutually OK touching. But
the FE can't be touched, so to find out if someone is "real",
you must touch them. It wasn't the soul that allowed Buffy to
see Spike as "real" but his being solid to show he wasn't
the FE.
All I can start with is the Shooting Script part with the last
scene with Buffy and Spike....which I think mirrors Intervention
in many ways......From Psyche's transcripts...
. Underground Cavern - Later that night
Close on Spike, hanging up on the wall, as his eyes flutter open
to see......
Buffy, still exhibiting the wounds of her battle, standing before
him, holding a Bringer's dagger.
Spike begins to smirk, wryly...
Spike: A....knife, now, is it? What...What'll that? Y-you
can't...hurt me. You're just a bloody figment, you are. Just a......
He stops as she moves in and starts to cut his bindings. Spike
looks in her eyes. Full of pain and empathy. And in the moment,
he knows. It's Buffy. And he starts to weep.
Without a word, Buffy finishes cutting the bindings tying Spike's
hands to the wall. He starts to fall, but she catches him. Holding
him up.
Spike stares at her. She offers him a small, comforting smile.
And then, slowly letting him lean on her...they walk away together.
Black out
End of show
Buffy has already told Spike she trusts him, and that she believes
in him, so the scene at the end of Showtime is like the one with
the Buffybot in Intervention....just that Spike fears that anything
looking like Buffy is just a figment. The touch in this scene
isn't for her to make sure it's him, but for Spike to confirm
that it's Buffy and when he see's that it is he can only weep.
The Buffy in his dreams was closer to the real Buffy than the
First because the First always resorts to mocking Spike, where
Buffy no longer does. The First may not have been able to cut
him with a knife but it's words to him when he says "she
will come for me" are as sharp...."No, I won't"...that
would be Spike's worst fear, that Buffy wouldn't find him. Wouldn't
want to find him......so as happy as he was to be set free, the
fact that the battle scarred Buffy found him was proof that she
wasn't just saying words he wanted to hear in the basement.
Now to the damaged goods.....SK is right..once Spike thought Buffy
was like him....damaged the stage was set for a multi-episode
demolition scenario. Spike may have loved Buffy, but he wasn't
above making her unsure of herself to try to keep her. Both did
things that were wrong, and Spike did something wrong in trying
to force himself on Buffy when she clearly said no...add on the
fact that he entered her home uninvited, walked into her bathroom,
then lost it cause she couldn't love him.....well it was a stupid
thing to do. It was when he got his soul back did Spike become
unfrozen from the perpetual adolescent state and see the reality
of the situation, and he was ashamed. It was up to Buffy to forgive
Spike, and she did, so I have no problems with her continued relationship
with him. Spike has changed in a way that he is no longer who
he was without a soul, Buffy see's that and has told him she now
trusts him.
At the end of Showtime we see Spike and Buffy leaving together
unlike in Intervention where he was left in the crypt because
symbolically he still belonged there, now he doesn't.
[> [> [> [> Gotta
disagree with you Rufus . . . I think. -- Deb, 07:45:29
01/13/03 Mon
That may be what the shooting script says, but it is not what
happened. He may have questioned if (hoped) she was real this
time, but his hand fell onto her shoulder and found the physicial.
Now I'm a little confused. I agree that his biggest fear was she
would not want to come for him, and I realize the importance of
her words to him in the basement: "I believe in you."
I don't equate this with "I trust you." I equate this
with "I believe that you have changed and are no longer an
empty monster, and I want to trust you." What has be really
done to this point that would allow Buffy to trust him?
This ties in with Spike's fear she won't want to come for him.
She believes in him, so he has hope she will, but there is the
issue of trust going on here also. She has used him in the past
in more than one way. What if her words were just another way
of manipulating him to her benefit? He dreams of her coming. (Interesting
in that in "Amends" Buffy is actually present in Angel's
dreams.)
Regarding your "damaged goods" thing. (I have no idea
where you are coming from here.) My intention was not to say that
Spike was the only one used. I agree they both used each other,
and if you have read any of my writing on that particular scene,
you would know exactly how I feel about it. It disgusted me on
a very personal level.
I'm of the belief that they both contributed to the "sickness"
of the relationship.
As for my comment of not being able to see them together as a
romantic couple, I think back to Spike's little "love's bitch"
speech to Buffy and Angel. I'm also thinking on the production
side of Buffy. This probably (I say this hoping it is not true.)
will be SMG last season, unless she takes the 10 ep. contract
supposedly offered to her. Buffy is going to end. It would be
a nice ending if they landed on their feet in a true, loving relationship,
and had time to express it physically, but it's not good drama
for it to happen now.
On the theory of storytelling: The Elixir comes at the end of
the story. We're still in "Act II" of the season, according
to Campbell's template, so Buffy still has to enter the "belly
of the whale" or "enter the cave, confront her shadow
and engage in the mystical marriage." Many see Spike and
Buffy as each other's shadows. I agree. According to Jung, our
Shadows are most often of the same sex. (Buffy/killed SITs and
Joyce). Our projected Shadows star in our dreams. So Buffy dreams
of her mother, and she dreams of the murdered SITs. Shadows can
be of the opposite sex, but in this case, the person is much less
opposed and more forgiving. Spike dreams of Buffy, a positive
Buffy in white. Jung says when one dreams of a positive shadow,
the person feels impelled to live out the worst of his nature
and repress the positive. (The use of him/his is because these
are the terms Jung uses, and I'm not going to be politically correct
enough right now to change it.)
If Spike does become a better man, his dreams of Buffy will change.
She will become hostile, judgemental, even poisonous. Jung says
that Shadows represent to intertwined drives: power and sex. When
the Shadow in the dream becomes "nice" then the power
issue has been eliminated, (the feeling of being controlled is
gone) then the sexual tension ends also. (They released a lot
of tension last year.)
I have read some spoilers about a chip, and it does not bid well
that Spike, even now, has the same feelings for Buffy that he
did before. She still means something to him, but without a sexual
interest . . . At the beginning of Season 7, Spike's dreams of
Buffy were of killing her. (or at least before returning to Sunnydale.)
The power issue was still there, but now that his dreams of her
are of a "nice" Buffy, the sexual interest is gone along
with the power issue. Spike spoke of everythng in his memory "bleeding"
together. Jung says that one's unconscious "contents are
blurred and merge into one another, and one never knows exactly
what or where anything is, or where one things begins and ends."
There is so much more, like discussing Spike's role as Trickster,
and "loopholes" but I've not the time to discuss everything
here.
One very interesting quote from Kandinsky: "Everything that
is *dead* [my set-off] quivers. Not only the things of poetry,
stars, moon, wood, flowers. . . Everything has a secret soul,
which is silent more often than it speaks."
Spike has also played a much more interesting role, to me at least:
He has been the primary Trickster since season 4, and, according
to Jung, the Trickster also goes through stages, four to be exact.
(Andrew is serving as a level one Trickster this season.)
Again Jung: ". . . the fundamental goal of initiation lies
in taming the original Trickster-like wildness of the juvenile
nature. It therefore has a civilizing or spiritualizing purpose,
in spite of the violence of the rites that are required to set
this process in motion."
Stage one Trickster: lawless, would-be hero.
Stage two Trickster: Shaman, medicine man -- ability to leave
his body and fly about the universe as a bird, a medium able of
obtaining knowledge of distant events.
Stage three Trickster: Master Yogis symbolized by lonely journey
or pilgrimage, becomes acquainted with nature of death as release,
atonement "fostered over by spirit of compassion" represented
by a "mistress." A symbol of this is the statue of Kwau-Yin
that was in the Magic Shop and in Angel's mansion. It's been around
all seasons. This stage ends with the Trickster/Initiate breaking
all ties with past life style -- period of Devine Discontent.
Okay. I need to go to class, but I think I've found my passion
in Buffy. I absolutely love Spike as Trickster. I think that's
why I watch Andrew with some anticipation, because he's passing
the "weasel" stage right now. I think because of my
fascination with Spike/Trickster lends itself to not being into
"ships" because its all about personal, spiritual development.
I love season 4 Spike, so much so that when I first watched it
in December, Spike invaded my dreams. First he was one of Dru's
China dolls, and then he turned into the shaman and, like the
Native American Vengenance Spirit, turned into ravens that flew
away. I may be wrong, but I think other people on this board were
also having dreams of Spike.
There's just too much to talk about. I think I'll go start my
thesis. . . . after class. Ooops. I'm already late.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Gotta disagree with you Rufus . . . I think. -- Rufus,
18:39:25 01/13/03 Mon
Regarding your "damaged goods" thing. (I have no
idea where you are coming from here.) My intention was not to
say that Spike was the only one used. I agree they both used each
other, and if you have read any of my writing on that particular
scene, you would know exactly how I feel about it. It disgusted
me on a very personal level.
Spike found out that the chip didn't work for Buffy...and that
meant that she was closer to being like him....less than human...damaged.
He took that opportunity to taunt Buffy with that knowledge to
hurt her, never guessing that it would be that tidbit of information
that would get Buffy to cross that line and sleep with him....the
rest of that part of the relationship was Spike attempting to
find any way to keep Buffy in the shadows, the darkness with him.
We have had that arguement about Spike as a Trickster before which
I agree with as the Trickster often will get the hero to see something
about themselves they need to so they can continue on the journey.
Some of the rest of what you are talking about I will not comment
on because I'm spoiled and know what happens.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Really? -- Deb, 00:21:05 01/14/03 Tue
You're spoiled? I'm wrong? Yes!
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Gotta disagree with you Rufus . . . I think. -- Rufus,
01:28:20 01/14/03 Tue
I see the Shadow dance as evolving to that resolution of animus/anima
issues....the end of Showtime that symbolic acceptance of the
Shadow....they are moving on now.
I think that Joss does have lots of Jungian stuff in his work
but that doesn't mean he sticks to that one way of telling his
story. He mixes things up. If you remember from The Second Coming,
Yeats saw history as "gyres" or spirals. In Entropy,
Tara said that "Things fall apart" and I feel that those
words were the signal that the history that is the Buffyverse
was about to end...but does that mean end in a posative or negative
way? Yeats leaves us with a mystery, not revealing as much as
asking, a great poem to reflect upon with the current storyline.
I keep thinking....time is what turns kittens into cats (Tabula
Rasa).
[> [> Re: Interesting
discussion (spoilers for the movie Unfaithful, Season 6 Btvs and
BY and CwDP) -- MaeveRigan, 07:17:33 01/13/03 Mon
Thanks, SK. The comparison with Unfaithful is very interesting
and demonstrates once again how emotionally true BtVS can be.
Your analysis also illustrates, IMO, why B6 was so artistically
challenging and risky--admirably, in my view, but so many viewers
simply did not get it because it didn't fit the mold of previous
seasons, and it didn't follow fanfic-style agendas. It wasn't
pretty--life rarely is--but it carried the characters through
to a satisfying catharsis, as the best fiction should.
[> Re: MEs attitute to female
sexuality -- yabyumpan, 10:59:55 01/12/03 Sun
I totally agree, it's one of the things that really bugged me
about S6. When Buffy was saying to Tara " Why do I let Spike
do these things to me?" I was yelling at the TV "For
crying out loud woman, you're having great sex. If he's just a
'thing' then use him for your pleasure and then just stake him,
you don't care about him right? And if you do care about him,
then you're having great sex with someone you care about, what's
the problem?"
I don't think the necrophilia/but he's a 'dead thing' argument
works either. Maybe if he'd come across as being 'zombie' like
or less human but they've portrayed him in a very human way; interacting
with humans, looking after people he cares about, grieving for
the dead, watching TV, even eating food. The last time I can remember
Spike being shown drinking blood was in S4 when he was staying
with Giles. They've made his personality so 'human' like that
I think it's understandable why a large section of the fan base
have problems seeing him as a 'monster'.Angel show's more 'Vampire/monster'
traits than Spike does.
Getting back to Female sexuality as potrayed by ME, I agree with
all your examples and would add Cordelia on AtS. We've only been
shown Cordy being sexually active on 3 occasions; on the first
with Wilson Christopher 'bad things happened', she had sex for
the first time with a guy she'd been seeing for a while and ended
up pregnant with 'demon spawn';with Groo her sexuality seems out
of place and extreme. While you can feel sympathy for Cordy having
been in the sexual desert for a while and being lonely, you end
up feeling more sorry for Groo because it becomes obvious she's
just using him, however unconsciously. And then of course there's
the RoF sex with Connor. Something so bad that it's got sections
of the fan base saying they'll never watch the show again!
I think also, that it goes beyond problems with female sexuality.
The only people on either show who are allowed to have a healthy,
happy sex life are the supporting characters: Willow-OZ/Tara,
Gunn-Fred, I would also say Xander and Anya. The message for the
hero/heroine (Buffy/Angel) is that 'sex is bad', it will destroy
you, it will destroy others etc. I would guess (not being well
versed in mythology etc) that heros/heroines are meant to be celebate.
There is a whole school of thought that says sex drains your energy,
maybe your 'life force'; that people are less focused on what
they need to do, will perform less well, if they have an active
sex life. Sports men/women are often advised/told not to have
sex before a game. It's also quite common in the major religions
that being sexually active and enjoying it for purposes other
that procreation will make you 'less' in the eyes of God.
I do think that it gives a warped message that to be good, powerful,
strong etc, you must forgo sex.
[> [> What you said reminds
me of a Seinfeld episode. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:51:42
01/12/03 Sun
In it, George's girlfriend was requiring that they not have sex
for a while. And suddenly George, who was always a collassal idiot,
begins acting smarter and recalling memories from very early in
his childhood. Jerry theorized it this way:
Jerry holds up a head of cabbage.
Jerry: Now, let's say this cabbage represents your brain.
He tears off a leaf.
Jerry: Now, in the George Costanza I know, this is the portion
of the brain devoted to intelligent thought.
He thrusts the rest of the cabbage head forward.
Jerry: Meanwhile, this is the part of your brain devoted to sex.
Now, when the potential for sex has been cut off, this previously
useless lump of gray matter becomes useful for the very first
time.
Jerry's theory continues to hold true as George seems to get smarter
the longer he goes without sex, and he reverts back to his former
self when he sleeps with a Portugese waitress.
[> [> Re: MEs attitute
to female sexuality -- Ann N., 14:31:09 01/12/03 Sun
Actually, all the regular characters on "BtVS" are celibate,
although none of them have taken a vow to remain celibate. That's
because celibacy = unmarried. If you took a vow of celibacy, you
were also supposed to take a vow of chastity [no sex]. Otherwise,
you could have all the sex you wanted and tell your partners,
"Sorry, I've taken a vow of celibacy."
So athletes are *still* being advised to remain chaste before
a game? I'd hoped that one had died by now.
Perhaps Buffy and Xander were sickened over sex with Spike because
they considered Spike to be an "evil, soulless thing".
To them it was probably a form of beastiality [sex with animals].
Even Bad Girl Faith initially thought there was something off
with "boinking the undead".
Anya's sex talk was a problem because she didn't know *when* you
could talk about it openly and with whom. I haven't seen "Sex
and the City", but I would assume that these women who openly
discuss sex among themselves are not openly discussing it in front
of total strangers or coworkers, friends, and relatives who would
just as soon not know. I once had a coworker who had a teen-aged
daughter and she couldn't even bring herself to say "menstruation"
or one of its nicknames and told me she didn't even talk about
that thing with her daughter.
Then again, I think Giles and Xander were the most disturbed by
Anya's open sex talk. Remember when Anya wanted to have sex with
both Xanders when he was split in two? Giles asked Willow for
candles and for all to pretend they hadn't heard that disturbing
sex talk. Remember the smile Willow gave Giles when she said,
Candles and pretense?
I'm 48 years old. The Sexual Revolution happened when I was still
in grade school. I remember how little sex was discussed back
then. You can get an idea of that from old books, movies, and
TV shows. I can discuss it openly in spite of an old-fashioned
upbringing because I ran a medical library for over 20 years and
I had to look sex matters up for staff, students, and patients.
(I recall one elderly man who had been married for decades --
was a grandfather, even -- and until I explained/showed [unused]
samples of them to him, had never seen a pad or tampon.
We'll have to see with Fred and Gunn, but so far no relationship
with sex outside of marriage that's been shown on BtVS or AtS
has ended well, has it? Perhaps ME is just sending the old message
that Sex Outside of Marriage is Bad.
[> [> [> Agree - well
said. Some additional points. -- shadowkat, 15:04:25 01/12/03
Sun
Agree with all your points above very well said.
I haven't seen "Sex and the City", but I would assume
that these women who openly discuss sex among themselves are not
openly discussing it in front of total strangers or coworkers,
friends, and relatives who would just as soon not know. I once
had a coworker who had a teen-aged daughter and she couldn't even
bring herself to say "menstruation" or one of its nicknames
and told me she didn't even talk about that thing with her daughter.
I have and live in NYC with friends who fit these characters.
The show is a little glamorized.
But neither my friends nor the characters on the show discuss
sex in front of retail customers, parents (Giles),
or their significant others with their friends in the room.
If Anya was on sex in the city - she'd be discussing this with
Willow and Tara in the coffee shop. Not with Willow, Giles, Xander
and Spike in Gile's apartment. Or with Willow and Xander in the
magic box. Carrie in Sex in The City writes a colume on it in
the show - but she keeps the names of her male companions secret.
She also would never discuss what she does with them out loud
at work - she saves that for her friends in private or the computer.
And often doesn't even tell her friends what she does. One of
the characters in fact is really squicked by such discussions
(Kristen). So you are right. Anya's behavior would be considered
odd in even Sex in The City.
Perhaps ME is just sending the old message that Sex Outside
of Marriage is Bad.
Actually I think they are just exploring the horrifying aspects
of sex. The show is a horror show and its raison d'etre is to
find the horror, the fright, the terror - whatever you want to
call it - in ordinary situations. Sex is a prime target for horror.
Horror genres deliberately target sex for terror. The teen slasher
pics for instance - all the teens get killed while having sex,
the kid who survives is the virgin. Scream movies made fun of
this. I think ME is similarily making fun of it. Also its the
old fear of - now I'm happy, I have the perfect relationship -
what is the worst possible thing that can happen to me??
If this was not a horror show - then I'd say yeah they are sending
a negative message - but it is horror. Have you seen a horror
movie that didn't show terror in ordinary fun things like sex,
love, marriage, etc? Isn't part of the purpose of horror to show
us what scares us most in things like sexual relationships?
[> [> [> [> What
is it that's horrible? -- Sophist, 17:46:02 01/12/03 Sun
Actually I think they are just exploring the horrifying aspects
of sex. The show is a horror show and its raison d'etre is to
find the horror, the fright, the terror - whatever you want to
call it - in ordinary situations. Sex is a prime target for horror.
Horror genres deliberately target sex for terror.
Perhaps, then, to avoid confusion, ME should have been more careful
to distinguish what it was that was "wrong" about B/S
in S6. I can see how some viewers might well conclude that it
was the kinky sex, when in fact it was not (as both Miss E and
Mal have correctly pointed out).
There is no doubt that horror genre does use sex as a target for
horror. That's an aspect of the genre I've always resented because
of the Victorian implications (I agree with yaby here). It's a
cliche I think ME has failed to overturn when it certainly could
and should have done so.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: What is it that's horrible? -- slain, 19:41:44 01/12/03
Sun
Listen or read the 'Innocence' commentary, and you'll see Joss
makes a very good case for why he didn't resort to the Horror
cliche of sex=bad virgin=good in that episode. What he says is
that he wasn't reinforcing that cliche; he wasn't suggesting that
Buffy deserved to have Angel go bad because they had sex. In the
Horror/slasher genre, the killer and the boyfriend are separate
entities; no connexion is made between them, nor is the killer
given much of a human face. In movies like 'Halloween' he acts
like some kind of 'justice' figure, and his acting immediately
after the female victim having sex is obviously linked; there's
no real attempt to say anything other than "If you have sex
then there will be bad consequences."
But isn't that what's suggested for Buffy in 'Innocence'. The
blame isn't with her - it's with Angel. That's what the
episode is about; it's about how men go evil and leave you after
sex, not about how women shouldn't have sex and deserved to be
punished after it. Only a real puritan could read it that way,
and blame Buffy rather than Angel.
'Innocence' is pretty cut and dried; it's an episode about misogyny,
not about the dangers of sex. But I meant to post about Buffy
and Spike in Season 6, rather than rewrite the text of an essay
I wrote on Feminism in the show. But the feminist reading doesn't
work in Season 6, because it wasn't a feminist season; Buffy's
relationship with Spike wasn't a case of his being the abuser
and she the abused (as with Angel); it was a two way process,
of course. But, to get back to the good point shadowkat made,
it was about horror or terror, about a relationship gone bad;
though not, I'd argue, about the bad of sex. Sex is part of a
relationship, but it's the relationship as a whole which I think
is important.
As you point out, relationships in Victorian Gothic (horror/terror)
texts were puritan, in a sense. They did titilate the audience
with sex, but then followed it with a Christian morality which
condemned it, usually in a literal way. But I don't see Buffy
and Spike as fitting in with that, not beyond the very superficial
level at least; I didn't get the feeling that the horror of the
relationship was unclear, or that viewers were unsure what was
so bad about Buffy and Spike.
Are there any scenes which suggest that sex was the culprit? I
don't see that there's a corellation made between kinky sex and
badness; it's the relationship which is bad. Buffy and Spike having
sex in public isn't the bad, it's that Buffy isn't honest about
it, and keeps her relationship from her friends. When Buffy and
Spike destroy a house, it's comedy, not condemny. What was condemny
was Buffy not being honest with herself or her friends; it was
her repression, and it was the fact that she had given up her
self and her belief in her calling.
Which leads back to the Gothic. The essential feature of the Gothic
is the return of the repressed. Do something bad, then cover it
up and it'll come back and bite you. What constitutes 'bad' has
changed over the years, and for Buffy it means giving up her self
(no longer being concerned with living her life so much as escaping
it), and then not talking about how she feels. So by saying that
repression and inot talking about relationships is bad,
it seems to me that BtVS is siding with the Sex in the City ladies,
not against them.
ME haven't overturned the cliche, exactly; to do that would mean
that everyone would have good sex and everything with end happy
with bunnies (except for Anya, she would have ducks). What it's
done is better; it's returned to the original ideas of Gothic/horror/terror
writing and sidestepped the slasher genre. Rather than sex, it's
relationships which hold the new terror in the modern Gothic text,
the terror of them going wrong. That's what Buffy, Spike, Anya,
Xander, Willow, Tara are about; sex is not the issue; in
relationships people have sex, and relationships go wrong.
Maybe M.E. should have made this more obvious. But I don't see
how more obvious it could be; Buffy and Spike have sex, and are
happy. Buffy uses the sex as an escape, and doesn't tell her friends
how she feels about wanting to escape from life. Represses. Buffy
resents Spike for allowing her to escape. Spike resents Buffy
for using him only as an escape. Repressed returns, disaster.
Badness. I think most people get this.
All the characters on BtVS suffer; all of them have bad relationships.
The nearest the show has ever come to overturning the idea of
the horrific relationship was with Willow and Tara; but that couldn't
have lasted, and didn't. There's no drama in good relationships,
and nothing really to be said; good relationships, and perhaps
by extention good sex, are for the very end of the story.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: What is it that's horrible? -- ~Eris~, 20:45:17
01/12/03 Sun
slain wrote:
"Are there any scenes which suggest that sex was the culprit?
I don't see that there's a corellation made between kinky sex
and badness; it's the relationship which is bad. Buffy and Spike
having sex in public isn't the bad, it's that Buffy isn't honest
about it, and keeps her relationship from her friends."
I agree completely, slain. If Buffy had been honest with herself,
with Spike, and with her friends, things probably would have gone
differently. I didn't see the sex itself as being the problem,
rather the reasons behind it, but apparently ME doesn't agree.
I went through the eps and found instances where ME mentions kinky
sex as the reason (or at least one of the reasons) for Buffy's
shame. Off the top of my head, they are 'Wrecked' ("perverse,
degrading experience"), 'DT' ("do those things to me?"),
and 'CWDP' ("let him do things to me that...").
You can read more detail in my post "Little kinky sex shown
in S6" which can be found here
http://www.voy.com/14567/83011.html
~Eris~
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Not intending to change subject. -- Deb, 11:07:22
01/13/03 Mon
My 15-year-old daughte and I have been, very patiently, watching
season 3, two eps a day. Last night Faith does the choking thing
to Xander, and I don't believe he enjoyed it. Angel walks in and
says something like: What he forgot the safe word?
I hooted. My daughter looked at me with questioning eyes. Now
she knows about the "safe word."
I know a lot of parents think Buffy is inappropriate for teenagers
to watch, or listen to I assume. I kinda appreciate it, because
it opens dialogues about topics I don't think I would just bring
up out of the blue.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Great post. Agree. -- shadowkat, 09:51:17 01/13/03
Mon
I think you said this far clearer than I did. I meant to express
that it was the relationship that was wrong not the sex.
As to why audience may have interpreted sex as the problem at
least in the character's pov? Buffy keeps saying - "why do
I let him do these things to me" (why do I enjoy it)
and if "he's everything I'm supposed to hate, if he stands
for everything I despise" - why do I crave him. Then finally,
"I almost let him completely take me over, the things I let
him do to me" - these are the comments I think Miss Edith,
yabby, sophist and the others are struggling with. And lend themselves
to the whole "sex " is bad in horror cliche.
But I think we're misreading what the characters and writers are
saying here. It's not - "I'm sleeping with Spike that is
bad per se" but what she says to Tara later that disturbs
her: "I'm using him? What is good or right about that?"
Well nothing. Tara is less judgmental about this, partly because
well she's seen Willow do it. And realizes what Buffy's gone through.
But as to how Buffy feels regarding this - it's the reasons she
has sex with Spike and the fact that she is having sex with someone
she hates, despises, does not respect, does not admire and is
completely ashamed to be even seen with - that is the problem.
She tells him as much. He thinks she won't sleep with him because
of her fear of her friends finding out. But it's more than that
- it's the underlying reason that she doesn't want to tell her
friends about it - "I won't sleep with you because I don't
love you."
It's not sex that ME is stating is bad - it's the having sex with
someone you don't love and don't even really like.
Someone you are ashamed with. So it's a combination of the items
you said in your above post.
Sex in The City actually - if you watch it closely enough, makes
some of the same points. Just as Manchild sort of does. Sex for
sex's sake with someone who you think of as nothing more than
just an object is empty and degrading for both parties after a
while. Keeping the affair secret? That makes things even more
disastorous. In BTvs - it was keeping secrets that caused the
most damage last year. Buffy's secret about heaven and Spike,
Willow's about using the magic, Xander's about the engagement
and his concerns regarding it...Buffy time and again has gotten
in trouble for this.
At any rate enjoyed your post. Well said. SK
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Response to s'kat and slain -- Sophist, 10:10:51
01/13/03 Mon
It took me awhile to get to this because I wanted to re-watch
JW's comments on Innocence. Since others posted in the meantime,
I'll combine my responses here.
First, let me make sure that everyone understands I'm making a
somewhat limited point. That point is simply that if ME is sending
a message that something other than having sex (or the type of
sex) is responsible for the consequences, it needs to be careful
to make that distinction explicit. There is a great deal of cultural
support for the view that sex is "dirty" or "wrong",
and it's very easy for the wrong message to be received. I'm just
saying that ME needs to be more careful than it has been.
I say this for a couple of reasons. First, a number of posts in
this thread alone have pointed out the possible confusion in S6.
A decent respect for our fellow posters demands that we concede
the potential for confusion was there. Second, many of the key
events in the series have had a connection to sex: B/A in Innocence;
W/X in Lover's Walk; B/P in HLOD; Oz/Veruca in WaH; B/R with the
vamp trulls in S5; B/S in S6; even W/T in S6 had a connection
to sex (which I will say no more about, having said too much already).
The only relationship expressly shown to break up without any
connection to sex was X/A. Given this history on the show, it's
all too easy for viewers to draw the conclusion that ME is equating
sex with disaster.
Let me give a personal example. About 3 weeks ago, my 19 year
old daughter and I were trying to convince 2 non-viewers that
they should watch the show. My daughter has seen every episode
and is a sophisticated viewer: she's very bright, an English major
in college (UC), and very familiar with literary analysis, metaphor,
etc. In the course of the conversation, she said (I'm paraphrasing)
"No one on Buffy should ever have sex. Every time they do,
it ends in disaster." If she sees it this way, I'm stongly
inclined to think most viewers do also. If ME does not intend
this message, it has failed in its purpose.
Now for some specific comments. slain said:
Listen or read the 'Innocence' commentary, and you'll see Joss
makes a very good case for why he didn't resort to the Horror
cliche of sex=bad virgin=good in that episode. What he says is
that he wasn't reinforcing that cliche; he wasn't suggesting that
Buffy deserved to have Angel go bad because they had sex. In the
Horror/slasher genre, the killer and the boyfriend are separate
entities; no connexion is made between them, nor is the killer
given much of a human face. In movies like 'Halloween' he acts
like some kind of 'justice' figure, and his acting immediately
after the female victim having sex is obviously linked; there's
no real attempt to say anything other than "If you have sex
then there will be bad consequences."
But isn't that what's suggested for Buffy in 'Innocence'. The
blame isn't with her - it's with Angel. That's what the episode
is about; it's about how men go evil and leave you after sex,
not about how women shouldn't have sex and deserved to be punished
after it. Only a real puritan could read it that way, and blame
Buffy rather than Angel.
As I hope I made clear above, I seriously doubt that most viewers
agree with your conclusion. Neither the script nor JW's commentary
provide you with any support that I could find. In the scene when
Buffy confronts Ms. Calendar, Buffy says "So it was my fault
then?" and Jenny replies "I'm afraid so." Buffy's
"fault" is then suggested at other places. That is the
message that I think most receive.
Nor does JW support your view. As I understand his comments, he
frankly acknowledges that he was following a horror movie cliche,
says he doesn't agree with it, and justifies it for 2 reasons:
the horror genre requires that anything the heroine does be punished,
and sex is no exception; and Buffy is not killed by an "avenger"
(though since the "avenger" in horror films is explicitly
evil, it's not clear that we should take this badly).
As for S6, I do agree that the problem with B/S was not the sex
per se. Where I disagree is in my view that ME failed to make
this point as clear as it should have.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> I agree with your limited point -- shadowkat,
11:10:28 01/13/03 Mon
Ugh! I wrote a lengthy post explaining exactly why. But voy ate
it.
So here's a paraphrase of that post -
I agree with this point:That point is simply that if ME is
sending a message that something other than having sex (or the
type of sex) is responsible for the consequences, it needs to
be careful to make that distinction explicit. There is a great
deal of cultural support for the view that sex is "dirty"
or "wrong", and it's very easy for the wrong message
to be received. I'm just saying that ME needs to be more careful
than it has been.
Even I've had to work to see if this isn't entirely true.
It took at least three viewings of Season 6 for me to figure out
what they were trying to say about that relationship and lots
of readings of the ATpo board.
This is not to say that I want ME to hammer me over the head with
a distinction a la Aaron Sorkin or David E. Kelley. But they can
be clearer than they have been or make that distinction for more
explicitly. As it stands now? You can make an legitimate argument
for either view: a) if you have sex on the show - you die. You
should either be married first or just be close friends. or b)
bad relationships lead to bad ends, sex is fine - it's how you
do it that ends badly and we're exploring time-worn fears associated.
Either case can be made.
The only way I can tell if my interpretation of the shows metaphors,
etc is valid and not just a projection of my own personal obsessions,
concerns and interests is through a little test: 1) has the metaphor
been used more than once and can I prove it was consistently used
in this manner (the baptism metaphor is an example or the soul
metaphor)
2) does anyone else see the metaphor in this manner outside myself,
3) does anything in the writer's commentaries or interviews back
up this view?
Otherwise it's quite possible that my interpretations are only
personal projections and not valid at all. Btvs lends itself to
this - because so much of the writing is ambiguous. I like that.
But as I've posted before - on some issues, I think it borders
on irresponsible to be too ambiguous. Why? Because of the current
nature of our culture on those issues and how profileration of
negative messages regarding those issues can make things worse.
And I do think that ME tripped last season in their message regarding
power, relationships and responsibility. I think they could have
been more clear without losing anything by doing so.
So, in case of any confusion, I'll reiterate I agree entirely
on this point: That point is simply that if ME is sending a
message that something other than having sex (or the type of sex)
is responsible for the consequences, it needs to be careful to
make that distinction explicit. There is a great deal of cultural
support for the view that sex is "dirty" or "wrong",
and it's very easy for the wrong message to be received. I'm just
saying that ME needs to be more careful than it has been.
SK
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> I think what you're talking about is The Message
-- slain, 11:27:25 01/13/03 Mon
You were talking about overturning the cliche - but isn't that
what 'Innocence' does? Buffy sleeps with Angel, but instead of
his dominating her, she beats him (physically as well figuratively);
Buffy literally hits back against the idea that she will be the
victim of what she decides to do with her body. I see it as the
most explicitly feminist episode of the show - one which tackles
the horror genre cliche. 'Innocence' doesn't conform to the cliche
- the cliche is about women being punished for having sex but
having no right to appeal; 'Innocence' is about firstly the unjustness
of this punishment (it might be Buffy's 'fault' in a literal sense,
but that's different from saying she deserved what happened) and
secondly about undermining the male killer figure in the genre.
I agree that, to an extent, Buffy is punished by the cliche for
having sex; but it's her reaction to it that undermines it. The
cliche says - You shouldn't have sex, you're to blame, you deserve
to be punished. Buffy says - No, you're the one who's at fault.
The cliche says - Ow, stop hitting me.
But as for the Message of the show - that Buffy can be a powerful
and free woman not bound by patriarchal attiudes - sometimes the
show does go off-message. It becomes ambiguous, and it isn't clear
whether Buffy is powerful any more. I think that's inevitable;
in order for BtVS to fulfill its message all the time, as I think
you seem to be suggesting, then there wouldn't be any real narrative:
it would be a polemic.
For the show to have stayed on message in Season 2, Angel would
have had to have gone evil suddenly for no apparent reason, unconnected
with Buffy. But to set up a narrative and tackle the cliche, 'Innocence'
goes off message; Angel's going evil is linked to Buffy. But it
gets back on message; don't tell me Buffy kicking Angel in the
balls doesn't metaphorically do the same to the cliche. Buffy
loses some of her power for a moment in order to show how she
regains it. The whole of Season 6 was off-message, in my view;
it wasn't concerned with showing Buffy as powerful, but that's
because six seasons of mostly powerful Buffy in a good, healthy
relationship isn't a story. Now the show is more-or-less back
to the message, with Buffy being strong and capable again. But
the TV series format demands unhappiness - unhappiness is relationships,
not just sex, and conflict and weakness in its characters.
I think this is the only way to do it in a TV series - most TV
series don't really have a message, and certainly not a Message.
Most other TV shows don't have a desire to work within a genre
which conflicts with the Message. BtVS is about the conflict between
a Message (Feminism), a Genre (Horror) and a Format (TV series).
I think, all things considered, it does the best job possible
of balancing all of these things.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Not at all -- Sophist, 12:57:25 01/13/03
Mon
But as for the Message of the show - that Buffy can be a powerful
and free woman not bound by patriarchal attiudes - sometimes the
show does go off-message. It becomes ambiguous, and it isn't clear
whether Buffy is powerful any more. I think that's inevitable;
in order for BtVS to fulfill its message all the time, as I think
you seem to be suggesting, then there wouldn't be any real narrative:
it would be a polemic
I'm not at all suggesting a polemic. I'm just noting that BtVS
has used sex in ways that are likely to suggest to most people
a message quite different from that ME intends. My only point
is that if ME wants to send a message, it should be clear
enough that a majority (or at least a large, thoughtful minority)
"gets it". If ME doesn't care about any message, so
be it.
I agree that, to an extent, Buffy is punished by the cliche
for having sex; but it's her reaction to it that undermines it.
The cliche says - You shouldn't have sex, you're to blame, you
deserve to be punished. Buffy says - No, you're the one who's
at fault. The cliche says - Ow, stop hitting me.
I disagree for two reasons. First, JW expressly says in the commentaries
that Buffy is being punished for sex with Angel. As I mentioned,
he qualifies it in certain ways, but that there was punishment,
and that the writer recognized such punishment, can hardly be
doubted in light of his comments.
Second, the kick in the balls, satisfying as it was (even to the
male viewers) was not a response to the Angel with whom she had
sex, but to the Angelus who taunted her. Part of the tragedy here
is that neither Angel nor Angelus was "at fault" for
the loss of the soul; thus, she couldn't and didn't retaliate
against the "one at fault". Indeed, the satisfying aspect
of her blow was largely undercut by the fact that it came to seem
inadequate after Angelus killed Jenny.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Not at all -- Malandanza, 21:26:46
01/14/03 Tue
"First, JW expressly says in the commentaries that Buffy
is being punished for sex with Angel. As I mentioned, he qualifies
it in certain ways, but that there was punishment, and that the
writer recognized such punishment, can hardly be doubted in light
of his comments."
I had a problem with B/A right up until Innocence -- it
felt like the relationship was glamorizing sex between a young
girl and much older man, sending exactly the wrong message to
teen-age girls who hardly need any such encouragement. Innocence
reversed the usual sex-without-consequences we see on most TV
and showed what is too often the reality -- the older guy is all
about love and respect until he gets the girl in bed. Just in
case anyone missed it the first time around, we get a repeat showing
with Parker in Season Four. Is it Puritanical to say that sometimes
guys use girls so be careful about entering into sexual relations
too quickly? It's cautionary, certainly -- but look at the reaction
to Faith in her early episodes for her casual attitude towards
sex, or Buffy from Season Six for "using" Spike for
sex. If the healthy attitude towards sex is that of early Season
Three Faith or mid Season Six Buffy, why are these girls universally
disparaged?
In most cases, I'd say the characters are not punished for having
long term, monogamous sexual relations. Oz/Willow, Tara/Willow,
Xander/Anya and Buffy/Riley were very sexual relationships that
lasted quite a while without any negative repercussions. Oz/Willow
broke up not because of Oz and Willow having sex with each other,
but because of Oz's infidelity with Veruca and unresolved issues
between W/X. X/C ended because of X/W. B/R ended because of Riley's
infidelity (first with Faith, then the vampire prostitutes). X/A
finally ended because of Spike and Anya. Willow betraying Tara's
trust with the forget spell initially split up W/T. So I think
the sex is evil message is a little more specific -- monogamous
sex between adults is fine but the further away you get from that
ideal, the more likely there is to be a disaster. And, for a Puritan
like me, that seems like an okay message to get across.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Not at all -- Doug, 08:16:29
01/15/03 Wed
X/A did not end because of Spike and Aya having sex, it was already
over. It ended either when Xander left Anya in "Hells Bells",
or when Anya told off Xander early in "Entropy". They
were not a couple when the sex happened.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> They were on a break
-- Malandanza, 08:45:35 01/15/03 Wed
"X/A did not end because of Spike and Aya having sex,
it was already over. It ended either when Xander left Anya in
"Hells Bells", or when Anya told off Xander early in
"Entropy". They were not a couple when the sex happened."
Both Anya and Xander wanted to get back together after Xander
left Anya at the altar -- we saw that with Xander's comments to
Buffy and Willow after he returned from his walk-about and also
when Anyanka waited for Xander at his apartment to find out if
he still wanted to marry her. I consider Xander and Anya to have
still been a couple (but on a break) until at least one of them
has moved on -- and Xander didn't move on until he saw Anya with
Spike. At that point, the break was complete -- there is no way
that Xander would ever get back together with Anya now that she's
had sex with Spike. Similarly, I would consider Buffy and Angel
to have been a couple throughout Season Three in spite of the
lack of sex -- it wasn't until Riley that Buffy moved on.
However, if you want to date the end of the relationship from
Hell's Bells, the message is that Xander destroyed the
relationship by becoming sexually involved with a girl he would
not marry -- which is still a message that casual sex is wrong.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: They were on
a break -- Miss Edith, 10:43:56 01/15/03 Wed
Xander left Anya at the alter. A pretty clear message that the
relationship had ended. Particularly as Anya had no real idea
of why the wedding was called off. From what I recall Xander simply
made some vague references to it's not you it's me but never explained
what the visions entailed that made him reconsider the marriage.
All Anya was aware of was that someone from her past had tried
to put Xander off the wedding.
Anya did still love Xander but I don't blame her for being disgusted
when Xander said he no longer wanted to marry her, but just have
the relationship on his terms. Anya did tell him when he proposed
that she would only do so if he was ready and sure it was what
he really wanted. I'm not surprised she was offended by the implication
that Xander regretted the engagement and wanted to return to a
more casual relationship. Thery were not involved when Anya slept
with Spike, there was simply a possibility that they might work
things out. So in that case Anya did spoil their chances, but
she was under no obligation to Xander at that time. The relationship
did not finally end because of Anya sleeping with Spike IMO. It
just ended Xander seeing any hope of reconciliation. And that
was too do with his own issues with Spike.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: They were
on a break -- leslie,
10:52:13 01/15/03 Wed
I think the problem was that Xander thought they were on a break
and Anya didn't--which is why she reverted to her vengence career.
All her experience--a thousand years of it--taught her that hiatuses
in relationships really mean "time to call in the vengence
demon." There was nothing mutual about any decision for "a
break"; as Miss Edith pointed out, the split was at Xander's
initiative and he thought he was dictating the terms of this "break"
while Anya thought, and with justification, that he had dumped
her in the most public and humiliating manner possible. Furthermore,
the fact that Anya was so careful about making sure Xander did
want to make the commitment and her distress at his reluctance
to announce their engagement suggests that what he did would strike
her as the fulfillment of all her fears and even possibly a deliberate
set-up. "Are you sure you love me?" "Oh, yeah."
"Are you sure you want to get married?" "Beyond
a doubt." "Are you ready to take your vows?" "Hah-hah,
fooled you!"
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> ME's Fear of Flying -- Sophist,
09:42:36 01/15/03 Wed
Innocence reversed the usual sex-without-consequences we see
on most TV
You must watch different TV shows than I see. Nearly every show
I can think of in at least the last 20 years sends precisely the
opposite message.
and showed what is too often the reality -- the older guy is
all about love and respect until he gets the girl in bed. Just
in case anyone missed it the first time around, we get a repeat
showing with Parker in Season Four.
I never saw this with Angel. For one thing, I always viewed Angel's
chronological age as misleading -- he was frozen in time, not
old. His actual age (to me) was about 22. While there's a gap
between that and Buffy's 17, it was not so great that I felt concern
about it.
The message of "beware the evil seductive guy" bothers
me on 2 counts. First, it didn't really seem to apply in Angel's
case. He really did love Buffy and was not like Parker at all.
Thus, the message got sent in circumstances where it didn't really
apply.
Second, such a message perpetuates the view that females (a) are
naturally reluctant to have sex and (b) lack responsibility becuase
they were seduced into it by the evil male. I don't think either
of these views fits well into a feminist show, and I certainly
don't agree with either.
I should be clear here: I am not in any way justifying
those cases of dishonesty in which one person agrees to sex based
on misrepresentations by the other. I don't see that as happening
with B/A. I am only saying that because the message was sent when
the facts didn't really fit, Innocence tended to perpetuate stereotypes
for both men and women.
If the healthy attitude towards sex is that of early Season
Three Faith or mid Season Six Buffy, why are these girls universally
disparaged?
The disparagement is not universal, but it is widespread. I'd
say there's a great deal of sexist double standard that goes into
that disparagement -- it's telling that you used the term "girls"
and not the more inclusive "people" in your question
(not telling about your personal attitude, but about the cultural
stereotype).
JMHO, but sex is not wrong as long as both partners have the same
expectations. I'd rather see ME send that message.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: ME's Fear of Flying
-- Arethusa, 10:33:24 01/15/03 Wed
JMHO, but sex is not wrong as long as both partners have the
same expectations. I'd rather see ME send that message.
That's just the message I've been getting. Buffy said repeatedly
that she expected to be in a relationship with Angel 4ever. Angel
knew better, even before they found out about the curse. Buffy
expected sex with Parker would bring intimacy, while Parker just
expected sex. Riley thought sleeping with Buffy would put them
on equal footing, and Buffy thought sleeping with Riley would
make her a normal girl in a normal relationship. Spike, who should
have known better after watching Ruffy crash and burn, expected
to have a romantic relationship with Buffy because he slept with
her, while Buffy just expected to forget about the rest of the
world for a little while.
Anya expected Xander would give her a life. He thought she would
make him a man. Willow thought Tara would make her feel important
and powerful, and that sex with Oz would make her more grown up.
(Perhaps.) Only Tara and Oz expected nothing but decent treatment
from their signifigant others. Ignoring Noxon's little foray into
her "all men are beasts" theme (as recounted by her
in The Monsters' Guide), only the people without unrealistic or
hidden expectations truely and unselfishly love, and are loved
in return.
Anyone, even vampires, can love and have relationships, and all
BtVS relationships end, but ME is pretty clear in showing how
relationships without the same general goals and expectations
(and the ability to communicate them) are doomed.
Angel's getting-sex-makes-men-turn-evil was not a message-it was
a plot twist. Just like Willow going evil after sex wasn't a message-it
was part of her character development.
(In other words, I agree with you, but the only messages I got
were ones I wanted to get!)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: ME's Fear of Flying
-- Miss Edith, 10:59:02 01/15/03 Wed
Buffy handled the sex with Angel correctly I felt. She loved him
very much and dated him for a fairly long period of time. It wasn't
a case of her being manipulated or jumping into bed because all
her friends had done so. She discussed the implications of sex
with her best friend "To act on want can be wrong... but
what if I never feel this way again". I fail to see why the
cautionary message was necessery.
What I do find unrealistic is shows with teens in them often show
girls going straight from kissing to sex which is not true in
my experience. Whatever happened to first, second and third base
as I know it's called in America? Don't most teenage girls start
with heavy petting? Buffy was embarrased about Angel seeing her
naked in Surprise and told him to turn around. That was what I
found unrealistic so perhaps she wasn't ready after all. But she
did love Angel and she had waited for a period of time so I can't
really condemn her for her choices. Ultimately she chose to sleep
with Angel after their lifes were put in danger so perhaps it
was a mistake. But if there had been no curse in effect Buffy
would have made the right decision no? Both off them seemed satisfied
with the experience from what I saw. It was only a twist of fate
that caused her to see Angel lose his soul.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Well said, Sophist and
Arethusa. Can I agree with you both? -- Ixchel, 11:05:43
01/15/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Response to s'kat and slain -- Miss Edith,
17:26:46 01/13/03 Mon
ME themselves note in Ats that they often portray sex as a bad
thing. Cordy has a one night stand in the episode Expecting and
falls pregnant and almost dies after falling pregnant with his
demonic spawn. At the end she jokingly tells her friends that
she has received one message form all this "Sex is bad"
and Angel replies "We all knew that". So ME are at least
aware to an extent that the message they are putting out there
regarding sexual activity a lot of the time isn't nessesserily
a positive one.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: What is it that's horrible? -- Miss Edith, 17:14:33
01/13/03 Mon
You say that ME were conveying that message that Buffy's problem
was that she wasn't honest about the sex. I disagree. Writers
interviews stressed that Spike was wrong for Buffy and the releationship
was only causing her pain. It was never once suggested that Buffy's
repression was what was really screwing her up. In AYW we get
the clear message that sex with Spike was a main factor in Buffy's
depression as she walks into the light at the end after breaking
off the relationsip. The problem I have is that Buffy was depressed
because she was torn out of heaven. She turned to Spike to escape
from her problems. Not healthy certainly but being with Spike
could cause her pleasure and help her momentarily forget the misery
of her life. I think in one episode she says the only time she
ever feels anything other than pain is with Spike. Therefore I
objected to AYW suggesting that Buffy's problem was the sex with
Spike. Her problem was her own depression and the fact that she
was lying about it. She was using Spike to escape her pain which
was never going to help her feel better about herself. But by
breaking off the relationshiop she had really solved nothing,
she had simply decided to stop using Spike as a temporory distraction
as it was feeding unhealthy behaviour of hers.
But in AYW I personally felt it was implied that the heroines
problem was the sex she was having with the bad boy Spike. That
was what I disagree with. The sex itself was demonised I felt
and the focus was not on Buffy's lying and unhealthy approach
to the relationship IMO. You only have to read MEs interviews
to get an idea of what they were really trying to say.
The lasting impression I got of the message ME were trying to
portray was that the blame lies with Spike for dragging Buffy
down with his degrading sex. The heroine had been playing with
fire all along. She should not have done such disgusting things
with the bad boy who would only hurt her. I did not see the relationship
used to examine Buffy'sa choices in the way that I feel it could
have been. ME did ultimately try and say that Spike was responsible
for Buffy's choices "I stopped you. Like I should have done
a long time ago" (SR).
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: What is it that's horrible? -- ~Eris~,
19:44:18 01/13/03 Mon
EXACTLY Miss Edith. :-) This is part of what I was trying to say
in my post "Little kinky sex in S6".
ME may not have realized it, but they DID send the message that
it was the sex, kinky or not (or even the relationship) with Spike
that was the problem. But we, the intelligent and thoughtful viewers,
know that that is not the case at all. It was Buffy's secrets
and dishonesty that made her torn out of heaven depression even
worse, not Spike. Spike was *helping* her to cope, if anything.
I and many others realize that the sex was not the problem, but
the casual viewer most likely will not. They will tune in and
see bad evil Spike manipulating poor helpless saint Buffy for
his twisted sexual desires.
A prime example is a friend of mine. She hadn't watched Buffy
since S3. I hooked her in during S6 and at first she didn't even
realize Spike was a vampire (Afterlife, Flooded, etc.). When I
told her, she asked if he had a soul. (That tells you something
about Spike's friendly behavior in early S6). She didn't see 'Smashed',
'Wrecked', or 'Gone', but she did tune in for DMP and DT. After
that (especially the DT balcony scene) she was convinced Spike
was manipulating Buffy and she felt bad for her. She at one point
even said Spike *deserved* the beating he got from Buffy for preying
on her insecurity. Suffice to say I don't agree with this friend
very much. :)
If one watches the entire season, they will see that not all of
the blame should be placed on Spike. Buffy jumped *him* most of
the time. Spike was playing by the rules Buffy set. (the ones
she also made up as she went along, AYW). But ME seems to think
poor Buffy was completely innocent and suffered under Spike's
evil influence.
Like Miss Edith said:
"ME did ultimately try and say that Spike was responsible
for Buffy's choices "I stopped you. Like I should have done
a long time ago" (SR)."
And Buffy repeatedly saying that Spike "did things"
to her makes her seem like a victim also, and not the willing
participant that she was.
~Eris~
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Learn my mantra: What writers say in interviews
is just an interpretation! -- slain, 09:35:54 01/14/03
Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: What is it that's horrible? -- ~Eris~, 20:54:59
01/12/03 Sun
Hi Sophist,
Thanks for your reply to my post.
ME hasn't been too clear on what was the badness of B/S have they?
They allude to kinky sex in many eps, Spike's soullessness, and
Buffy's isolation and dishonesty from her friends. I personally
believe it was the latter, that kinky sex and even Spike not having
a soul didn't cause the destruction, but it was Buffy's own behavior
that made it all come crashing down. If she had been honest from
the start, it would have gone differently because Spike truly
did love/does love her.
I think different ME writers can't make up their minds *why* B/S
is so bad. They just think it is, so they use whatever reason
goes at the time.
If Buffy falls in love with newly souled Spike this season and
they are gentle and tender with each other, then ME will be sending
the message that is was the kinky sex and Spike's lack of a soul
that were the problems, and that just isn't true.
~Eris~
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: What is it that's horrible? -- shadowkat, 09:04:20
01/13/03 Mon
Perhaps, then, to avoid confusion, ME should have been more
careful to distinguish what it was that was "wrong"
about B/S in S6. I can see how some viewers might well conclude
that it was the kinky sex, when in fact it was not (as both Miss
E and Mal have correctly pointed out).
There is no doubt that horror genre does use sex as a target for
horror. That's an aspect of the genre I've always resented because
of the Victorian implications (I agree with yaby here). It's a
cliche I think ME has failed to overturn when it certainly could
and should have done so
Perhaps we should figure out the Victorian implications or what
Miss Edith views as puritan.
1. Premarital sex - are they against that? I'd say no, Buffy and
Riley have quite a bit of it and THAT is not what causes their
relationship to end.
2. Kinky sex - again I'd say no, there are suggestions throughout
Season 4 and Season 5 that Xander and Anya do that.
I think the horror - is when the relationship is about using the
other person for your own pleasure. What is so horrible is the
objectification of the other. Spike last season literally and
figuratively became Buffy's sex object as shown in Gone, Dead
Things and As You Were. Whenever he tried to be more than just
a "sex-toy" she would leave, virtue fluttering.
The other horror - was Spike for his part was showing Buffy the
pleasure in pain. Their sex - was all about "pain" -
which is nearly impossible to get across on network television.
But we are given subtle hints of this both in Buffy's dream sequence
in Dead Things, the rubbing of the wrists, the comment that she
gave him a run for his money, her stumbling home bruised and scrapped
after Smashed, his scrapes and bruises, and a later comment that
for vampires there is no distinction between pleasure/pain/sex/love/violence.
Also she says she wanted to be hurt. My guess is that their sexual
relationship was probably pretty close to what we saw in the AR
scene - which may be on of the reasons that happened. (I admit
it was ambiguous - it took me at least three viewings of the episodes
to realize it.)
The assumption people are making that ME is pushing the message
that "sex" in of itself is bad - is I think a bit simplistic
and not really true. If that was the case - OZ would have died
after Willow and OZ did it in Season 3 - he didn't die. Angel
turned evil - because they were playing off a common teen fear
for women at least (and it has happened to several of us and at
least one of the ME writers) that you finally sleep with the guy
and he turns all evil. The Angel/Angelus storyline was an exploration
of the teenage girls typical fear. It was IMHO at least better
done than most shows dealing with that fear. What the show has
consistently dealt with is that sex should not be treated lightly,
something most television shows seem to disregard. There can be
and often are serious consequences to sex - including but not
limited to AIDS, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Emotional consequences,
Pregnancy,
etc. To treat it the way that some shows do as nothing more than
a handshake - is a tad irresponsible.
One of the best episodes ME did on this topic was actually Harsh
Light of Day - where the girl believes she's connecting with the
guy, they are in her view connecting on a deep emotional level
- and nope, to him it was just a roll in the hay or the bed. Meant
zippo. Women to him are objects. Buffy ironically does the same
thing to Spike.
Which ironically Spike did to Harmony. The show is nothing but
ironic.
I don't see ME as saying sex is bad necessarily. There are characters
who have sexual relationships for long periods of time without
disaster striking. Buffy and Riley is an example. But what is
brought out is the fact that sex should not be something we treat
lightly. I've always been glad that Btvs and ATs do not do the
"I'm enjoying having great sex with this dead guy and when
it's over I'll stake him - yippy for me." How offensive.
And is that any different than what Warren did to say April or
Parker did to Buffy? The show has time and again showed the consequences
of using someone else - using a person - as an object to make
yourself feel great. What is so horrible to me is the "using"
of someone else to make you feel wonderful - even if that person
is a willing participant and enjoying it - in no way makes the
using right or justified. Particularly if you do not see that
person as anything more than an object or "sex-toy"
for your use, something akin to cocaine to make you feel better.
Not sure if that clarifies it or not. This is a tough one to make
clear.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> "Ms Chase, are you trying to seduce me?" [spoilers
for AtS 4.7] -- slain, 10:05:05 01/13/03 Mon
It seems to me that there's a conflict between different attitudes
to sex; the show does seem to me to be going against what you
might call casual sex, particularly when it's one-sided casual
sex (Parker wanted to be casual with Buffy, just as Buffy wanted
to be casual or stringless with Spike). However just because it's
going against that, I agree that it's a leap to say that therefore
it's reverting to a puritan idea that sex before marriage is the
bad. It seems to me that the BtVS view of sex is more complex;
what it's largely against is casual sex, or rather sex which doesn't
have much of an emotional connexion. That's not a regressive attitude,
as the puritan idea of no sex before your wedding day wasn't about
emotions, it was about a matter of law (being married); love was
immaterial.
M.E. isn't being conservative, but it is being romantic; it's
definitely against the idea that sex should be without an emotional
commitment. That's why Angel, Parker, Faith and Buffy are all
condemned, to an extent; they don't consider the other person's
feelings.
How this relates to AtS is the question (well, I think it is,
anyway); are Wesley and Lilah doing the same thing as Buffy and
Spike, the exception being that neither or them seem to feel any
love. Sex for the sake of sex? Is that necessarily bad on AtS,
though? I'm not sure, because the show is certainly more 'city',
and less romantic. BtVS is quite idealistic in many ways, about
love and life and so on, whereas I think AtS could be seen as
more jaded or perhaps more realistic.
The same can be said of Cordy and Connor (what do we call that,
'Cordonny'?); it looks like that's going to have some bad consequences,
but those are external to the two characters - whether or not
it would go bad for the characters is less sure. I'm inclined
to think it probably would have, as Connor is likely to expect
some kind of emotional commitment that Cordy isn't prepared to
give him. How did it end for Ben after he was seduced by Mrs.
Robinson in 'The Graduate'? I can't remember, but situation does
strike me as potentially similar.
Suddenly my subject line makes sense, no?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> The Graduate and "Cordon Blue" --
cjl, 10:30:49 01/13/03 Mon
"The Graudate" analogy doesn't hold in this case. Mrs.
Robinson was trapped in an empty marriage, and she saw Benjamin
Braddock, a young, fresh, intelligent but directionless college
graduate as the ideal candidate for a bit of fun. She loved the
sense of control she got out of their clandestine get-togethers;
but Benjamin had no intention of getting sucked into her black
hole of middle-aged despair, and saw a much better prospect for
a future in her daughter Elaine.
When Mrs. R. found out Benjamin wanted Elaine, she went off her
nut, for two reasons: 1) she wasn't feeling very charitable towards
Benjamin after the break-up; and 2) Benjamin's lack of direction
may have been a readily exploitable asset when they were screwing,
but let her daughter--her hope for the future--come near this
loser? No way.
Cordelia and Connor's "blue" period ("Cordon Blue"),
on the other hand, seems to have come out of nowhere. There's
no CC midlife crisis to speak of, no motivation for emotional
exploitation at all. Even if you put the best possible face on
Cordelia's actions, there's also no rational explanation for indulging
in pre-apocalypse comfort sex with the son of the guy you say
you love. Cordelia's reactions seem to be inconsistent with the
character we've seen for seven seasons on BtVS and Angel.
However...
I'm not going to spoil anyone, but from what I hear about the
next five eps, we might be getting an explanation for Cordy's
wacky behavior. Not sure I buy it yet, but we're getting one...
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: The Graduate and "Cordon Blue"
-- slain, 11:37:17 01/13/03 Mon
I'm not going to spoil anyone, but from what I hear about the
next five eps, we might be getting an explanation for Cordy's
wacky behavior. Not sure I buy it yet, but we're getting one...
She's actually a robot?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Hey--I promised I wouldn't tell. (non-spoilers
ATS S4) -- cjl, 11:51:54 01/13/03 Mon
....and no, she's not a robot.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: "Ms Chase, are you trying to seduce me?"
[spoilers for AtS 4.7] -- Miss Edith, 18:02:58 01/13/03
Mon
I never actually said that ME suggest that pre wedding sex is
bad. I just noticed that they do seem to have a rather prudish
attitude towards sex as expressed through the characters. I am
one of the people who sees nothing wrong with casual sex and lectures
about sex without emotions being hurtful is not the kind of message
I am particularly interested in seeing. Even Wesley and Lilah
are hardly a positive example of people having casual sex. And
lets not forget Lilah is hardly a role model of positive feminenity
in the way the Bufffy is, the character who is to an extent ashamed
of her sexuality. E.g she asks Parker "did I do something
wrong" when he rejects her. And she is ashamed of sex with
Spike. Sex with Riley doesn't seem to do much for her and they
are only ever shown in the missionary position. I would conclude
that Buffy never actually tells Riley that she isn't satisifed
and she doesn't suggest trying new things. In ITW the sex is exactly
the same as it was in the beginning. The two of them having traditional
sex with romantic music in the background. Indeed Buffy is disgusted
at the idea of Riley and his "whores". Joyce is Buffy's
mother and a character a lot of people admire yet the first thing
she asks her daughter when she discovers she is being stalked
is "did you somehow unintentionally lead him on in some way".
Buffy responds to the question as if it were perfectly natural
"well I do beat him up a lot so maybe he took it that way".
No character even looks surprised at Joyce asking her daughter
such an unfair and frankly ridiculous question. I guess we shouldn't
be surprised that Buffy hads such an uncomfortable attitude towards
her body and her sexual needs.
I understand that often ME isn't saying there is anything morally
wrong with causal sex. Rather they are as you say taking the romantic
view that sex should always mean something and consist of some
feeling as otherwise it is slightly sordid. It just seems old
fashioned and stifling to me for ME to feel the need to make that
point. I am in full aggrement that sex with emotions is always
more meaningfull but I don't see why sex should be avoided if
you don't care for your partner. Sometimes we are not in a relationship
but don't wish to deny ourselves sexually. One night stands for
instance do not necesserily have to be a totally empty experience
that leave you feeling ashamed. Sometimes both partners can be
comfortable with their actions and feel fullfilled with some great
sex. Part of what I feel feminism is about is saying that women
can have good sex and it does not necesserily have to be all hearts
and flowers. ME seem to deny us that right IMO.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: "Ms Chase, are you trying to seduce
me?" [spoilers for AtS 4.7] -- slain, 10:10:07 01/14/03
Tue
As I think I said in the post you replied to (or maybe it was
the one about the Message), there's a conflict between Feminism
and the TV narrative in both shows - the TV narrative is quite
romantically inclined, and it doesn't lend itself well to one
night stands; in comedy is does, of course, but in drama the limited
screen time is inevitably used for long term relationships. Put
simply, if Buffy were having great sex and not feeling the need
to be committed (which I would certainly agree would a feminist
statement) then there wouldn't be time to establish a long-term
monogamous romantic storyline.
Look at Sex in the City - when the show is doing comedy, it can
do one night stands - but when it's doing drama, it's all about
two characters. If the writers are going to convince us that two
characters love one another, then they have to be together for
a long time, and in TV standards a long time means a matter of
hours. Buffy's personality has evolved from this concept - because
the writer's goal has been her in a convincing relationship where
she loves someone, therefore her character reflects this. In a
TV series it's all about love interests who're there for more
than one episode, and I think it's a weakness in the format that
no drama shows that I can remember have really addressed (Six
Feet Under is the only one that's come close, but even then the
one night stands are very much second to the long-term romantic
goal).
So Wesley's long-term love of Fred (or maybe Gunn, depending on
who you talk to) is second to his sex with Lilah, just as Buffy's
long-term love of some unidentified (or possibly never-to-exist)
figure is second to her sex with Spike in S6, and Cordy's sex
with Connor is second to her love for Angel. It's not really true
to the Message of the show (see my above or below post for what
I mean by this), or at least the message of BtVS, but it's a concession
they've made to their format which I'm personally comfortable
with. They could get round it if they wanted to, as they have
always done standalone comedy episodes, and Willow is kind of
'spare' at the moment, but I think the writers have become so
immersed in the story that tangential metanarrative like that
isn't on their mind.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Interesting -- KdS, 10:07:24 01/13/03 Mon
"I'm enjoying having great sex with this dead guy and when
it's over I'll stake him - yippy for me."
Reversing gender pronouns - wasn't this what Riley did with Sandy?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Interesting -- shadowkat, 10:21:27 01/13/03
Mon
Not quite. Riley never had sex with Sandy. He didn't even really
do anything with her before staking her. I think he might have
let her bite him - and I'm still not completely clear on whether
ME considers this sex or not.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> IIRC, he did let her bit him and there was
a sexual tone... -- Ixchel, 16:55:47 01/13/03 Mon
I believe he was trying to find out what Buffy had felt with Dracula
(and, maybe, Angel). Also, I think, he didn't like what he discovered,
that the rush or whatever could be perceived as pleasurable. Though
he seemed to like the action itself. Also, Sandy herself behaved
in a sexual manner toward him, which was probably her hunting
technique (much easier than running them down, sort of from the
venus flytrap school of predation). So, I believe, there was a
sexual element.
IMHO, ordinary vampire feeding is not _necessarily_ sexual. Maybe
it is exactly like human eating and can have different meanings:
1. Eating as fuel consumption - among humans eating something
and not, particularly, caring if it's some great gastronomic experience
(just knowing you must eat) - among vampires drinking animal blood,
maybe, or sick Drusilla "eating" even though she didn't
feel like it.
2. Eating as a sensual experience - among humans eating and enjoying
it, but not in a sexual way (pleasantness of flavor, texture,
etc.) - among vampires most feedings on humans probably qualify.
3. Eating as a part of a sexual experience - among humans something
along the lines of whipped cream and body parts meeting - among
vampires feeding during sex (with another vampire) and/or, possibly,
choosing a victim of the gender the vampire is sexually attracted
to and engaging in some sort of mock sexual activity with the
victim before, during or after the feeding (getting picked up
in a bar, a la Sandy, etc.).
That numbers 1 and 2 or 2 and 3 get confused in instances or descriptions
of instances for humans is certainly true, so it could be true
for vampires also.
Very interesting posts in this thread :)
Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Proofreading skills: nonexistent. That
should be "bite" not "bit". -- Ixchel,
17:12:12 01/13/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Good points. -- Sophist, 17:26:12
01/13/03 Mon
It's important to remember that the biting/sex metaphor is there,
but it's not always there.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: IIRC, he did let her bit him and
there was a sexual tone... -- shadowkat, 18:23:18 01/13/03
Mon
Hmmm interesting. I agree with your points and they are certainly
demonstrated with Spike who goes out of his way to make his blood
more appetizing. Interestingly enough - Angel doesn't. I never
understood this - until Never Leave Me when ensouled Spike is
shown not complaining about taking the blood directly from the
bag and refers to human blood - as an addictive substance - "the
juice". Prior to that he seemed to see blood as something
he needed. Food.
Although in Wrecked he does refer to blood as an addictive substance
or something to crave.
I've always been a bit confused on how ME has portrayed this.
Angel is shown drinking cold blood. Seldom heating it and never
adding anything. When Cordy adds cinnamon to it - he literally
gags. He is even shown doing it without anyone watching almost
hiding it as something he's ashamed of.
Harmony comments on his drinking habits in Disharmony:
"how can you stand it? Not drinking human blood...the richness,
the texture...pigs blood, straight to my hips. Blech." And
when she describes human blood, we see Angel yearn for it. He
also apparently gets off on the blood that W&H spiked with Connor's
blood in Sleep Tight.
Spike in Something Blue complains about the cold blood they give
him. He yearns for Buffy's blood. And describes in the flashbacks
of Fool For Love - slayer's blood as being an aphrodisac. (Which
is why I was surprised he didn't drain the 1977 slayer Nikki like
he did the Boxer rebellion slayer.) In Dead Things - we see him
mixing it with burba weed which he describes in All The Way as
making it hot and spicy. In Hush he describes mixing it with weetabix
and peanut butter to give it flavor and texture.
Now - we see the idea of drinking blood as revolting. The scenes
with Spike in Season 7 are horrific and repulsive to ensouled
Spike and us. (Well some of us at any rate.)
Regarding sexual connotations - we have the scene in Fool For
Love with the boxer rebellion slayer - where Spike literally uses
the blood of the slayer to seduce DRusilla - a bloody finger he
has her suck. Or when Dru turns him - the scene is shown as almost
erotic...and painful. Angel's turning at Darla's hands is similarily
erotic - with Angel sucking the blood from her breasts. And Darla
describes Dru's turning of her as a rape.
In Buffy vs. Dracula - Riley clearly regards Buffy allowing Drac
to seduce and bite her as a sexual betrayal. One he attempts to
reproduce with the vamp trulls and justifies to her as such. He
seems to think the thrill she got from Angel was being bitten.
I wonder if he assumed the same thing happened with Spike? It
didn't. Ironically enough - Spike appears to be the only vampire
who never bit her. Although in Intervention - with the Buffbot
- he discusses biting her as an erotic thrill.
I believe he was trying to find out what Buffy had felt with
Dracula (and, maybe, Angel). Also, I think, he didn't like what
he discovered, that the rush or whatever could be perceived as
pleasurable. Though he seemed to like the action itself. Also,
Sandy herself behaved in a sexual manner toward him, which was
probably her hunting technique (much easier than running them
down, sort of from the venus flytrap school of predation).
I think this is true and further evidence of the fact that Riley
just didn't understand Buffy. He thought her love for Angel had
to do with him being a vampire. When in truth - I think Buffy
loved Angel's soul or the man inside him. But Riley of course
never accepted the soul bit nor saw the man, just the undead thing/vampire.
Same with OZ the werewolf at first - it wasn't until OZ changed
back into a man that Riley could see it. Riley is very much the
"take things as I see them" sort of guy. Not much into
looking beneath the surface of things - which was probably one
of the main reason Riley and Buffy couldn't make it. And it didn't
help that he put Buffy on a pedestal - just as Angel did. She
was bound to fall off it eventually.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Agree - well said. Some additional points. -- Miss Edith,
19:59:03 01/13/03 Mon
Well not to kepp harping on it but actually the characters in
Sex and the City do discuss their sex lifes fairly publicly such
as whilst walking down the street. Not to mention happily visiting
sex shops and returning vibraters to the people in charge if they
didn't satisfy them and explicitly saying this. Off the top of
my head I can remember them once discussing whether they would
try anal sex whilst in the back of a cab and the driver told them
no smoking was alllowed and Carrie said "We're discussing
anal sex. I think a cigarette is in order".
Having said that I would not say that SATC necesserily reflects
real life. I certainly don't discuss sex with my friends in public
places. I just get the sense from Bts of a really repressive atmosphere
which is the point I am trying to make. The fact that Anya's generally
harmless comments are embarrassing to the scoobies and we are
meant to relate. In my circle of friends we would just laugh it
off if one of us mentioned giving her boyfriends erotic baths
and would say something like "thanks for sharing".
But I suppose it's true that ME are hampered by censers. I don't
know much about US tv but we get shows like The Sopranos and SATC
shown here in England and I have heard there is a difference between
cable and non cable tv in America. But still the writers do use
Anya's directness with sex to make a point about keeping sex closeted
and its place being in the bedroom only. I'm just not sure it's
one that perhaps a lot of their audience can relate too. JMO.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Agree - well said. Some additional points. -- shadowkat,
09:44:20 01/14/03 Tue
I'm not sure about this - but from the DVD Commentaries, I get
the feeling that some of the SG's comments to Anya are a metanarration
on the censors. Repeatedly in HUSH, FOOL FOR LOVE commentaries
- the writers chuckle over what they inadvertently were able to
sneak past the censors.
I know zip about what British Television allows - except from
what we get on BBC America. But I can reveal what US television
is like. On primetime network television the word shit cannot
be uttered without a bleep. There are numerous other words as
well. Up until recently the words bitch and penis and ass were
considered risque. Also you're not allowed to show the "finger"
sign - ME uses the british symbol for it and giggles at being
able to slip it past the censors. They also use lots of foreign
curse words and slang such as wanker, balls, merde, etc. This
is a mere example of how weird US censors are.
WB - was pretty agressive in telling ME what they could or could
not do. They had to cut a good portion of the Buffy/Angel sex
scene and the dream sequence between Buffy and Spike had lots
of footage cut from it. ME was astonished they were able to get
the screwing gesture Anya and Xander do in Hush on the air. Because
the network made them cut quite a few other items and somehow
missed this one. Marsters in his interviews seems convinced that
the implied blow job in Intervention was cut - it's not but then
it was fairly quick and they may have missed it. Also the sucking
of dirty finger in Fool For Love.
Part of the reason Btvs has to struggle with censors so much is
it's time slot - it comes on at 8pm on East Coast and 7pm Central
- this is prime pre-teen and teen viewing time. It's marketed
to teens and 20 somethings, but also has a strong pre-teen demographic.
Cognizant of this fact - the network requests that the producers
be careful and screens what's put on the air. ME makes jabs at
this tendency, and at the fact it's just a tv show on numerous
occassions - and they use the characters of Anya and Xander often
to do so. Buffy does it once when she's about to say shit and
changes it to stuff in Help. Or to Willow - "do you kiss
your mother with that mouth"? The writers get a thrill out
of poking fun at the Victorian sensibilities of the censors and
the audience the censors are so terrified of offending - which
does exist. More than one show has gotten itself cancelled due
to this.
So I think part of what you're seeing may be not so much a somewhat
Victorian moralistic attitude on the part of the writers as a
metanarration/sardonic commentary on the Victorian attitudes of
the networks and censors. And the fact that the British slang
is allowed may be a commentary on how other countries are far
less pruddish about this.
Sex in The City - doesn't have any of these problems. It's on
pay cable and can be blocked by parents to young viewers.
So anything goes. Same for the Sopranos. In the US you shouldn't
be able to view either show without paying for HBO or renting
on video. (Unless of course your stealing cable..;-) ) Pay cable
doesn't have network censors. Sex in The City would never have
survived on a regular network in the US.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Agree - well said. Some additional points. --
slain, 10:27:21 01/14/03 Tue
I used to be really qualified to talk about censorship on British
TV, but it's been so long since I was forced to study prime time
that I'm probably completely unreliable. But I think you'll find
that in terms of language Britain (but not necessarily the rest
of Europe) is roughly similar to the US up until the 9pm watershed,
after which I think we're considerably more libertrian (a very
British attitude - you can do what you want, just as long as you
do it in the 'correct' manner). In terms of actual events (gay
relationships are somewhat the testing ground), British TV is
more libertarian.
The issue of swearwords amuses me, as it shows the US influence
on British entertainment; that is, while words like wanker, bugger,
shag and bollocks were considered adult swearwords a few years
ago, since they've become popular in America they're now much
more minor and less liable to be censored. Though I can almost
feel the BBC cringe every time Spike says 'wanker' in prime time.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Agree - well said. Some additional points. -- leslie, 10:05:54 01/14/03
Tue
"But I suppose it's true that ME are hampered by censers."
Okay, I know this is an innocent typo, god knows I make them myself,
but the idea of ME being "hampered by censers" completely
cracks me up. "Dammit, will someone get rid of the damned
incense, I can hardly see the keyboard!"
[> [> [> Celibacy
and chastity (now there's an attention grabber) -- Sophist,
17:28:06 01/12/03 Sun
Actually, all the regular characters on "BtVS" are
celibate, although none of them have taken a vow to remain celibate.
That's because celibacy = unmarried.
Not quite. The definition also includes chastity:
Main Entry: cel·i·ba·cy
1 : the state of not being married
2 a : abstention from sexual intercourse b : abstention by vow
from marriage
[> [> [> [> But
being chaste -- Vickie, 16:25:40 01/13/03 Mon
Means having "appropriate" sexual congress. With one's
spouse if married, or not at all if not. According to the dominant
paridigm and my Oxford American Dictionary.
[> [> [> [> [>
Interesting -- Sophist, 17:33:28 01/13/03 Mon
Merriam-Webster online says:
Main Entry: chas·ti·ty
1 : the quality or state of being chaste: as a : abstention
from unlawful sexual intercourse b : abstention from all sexual
intercourse
The second definition is stronger and is the way I understand
the term.
[> [> Ah! First paragraph
hits the bulls' eye right on. -- Deb, 20:26:09 01/12/03
Sun
[> sex symbols -- manwitch,
20:03:45 01/12/03 Sun
While I think you make some interesting points and raise some
interesting issues, I guess I will be a lone voice for the opposition.
I think you have to remember that Buffy is, in a manner of speaking,
a work of art. You have to look at the totality of what is being
said before you can determine what message ME is sending.
The unwillingness to admit her role in the sexuality of Season
6 was, I thought, a large part of Buffy's problem in Season
6. And I agree with luna that it is still to be resolved in Season
7. Buffy's relationship with Spike is still unfolding. I think
its too early to say MEs intention was to validate Victorian prudishness
(not your words, I know). Its clear that Buffy's attitude
towards her relationship with Spike was her problem last year,
not the relationship itself. So if anything, MEs point was against
the sex is terrible attitude.
Again, when Xander yells at Anya, I don't see how Xander can be
interpreted as reflecting MEs opinion. He is reflecting Xander's
opinion. And to a degree he is reflecting Buffy's opinion, as
both attempt wrongly to justify choices that they regret,
pushing away love that was offered to them because they considered
themselves, not the lover, unworthy.
As for Buffy's other sexploits, you have to remember that all
of these characters and their actions have metaphorical resonance
to Buffy. When Angel, the object of Buffy's desire, turns bad
because of a moment of true happiness, I would argue that the
moment of true happiness was Buffy's, and the point of the symbol
is not that sex outside of marriage ends badly but rather that
pursuing one's own fulfilment is not spiritually elevating. Sex
is used to make the point, but the point is not about sex.
Willow, remember, is a metaphor for Buffy's spiritual life, and
her sexual relationships that go well are always also metaphorical
of Buffy's spiritual condition. So again, MEs point, I would argue,
is not about the sexuality. Its using sexual imagery to comminucate
something else.
Faith's relationship to sexuality is again a symbolic reference
to spirituality. Faith believes her power is her own, and uses
it to serve her own needs and desires. Hence when she exercises
that power, it has a sexual fulfilment aspect. She is using her
spiritual calling for her own private enrichment, if you will.
This is why she ends up serving the Mayor, the ultimate symbol
of life consumed by the individual. Buffy by contrast, learns
in Season Three to use her spiritual calling to serve life, rather
than the other way around. And it is, oddly enough, when she makes
that committment, that Oz and Willow make love and the whole world
is different.
Season 6 is about finding the divine in the world around you,
realizing that this world is heaven. The world is not,
as Buffy thought at the start of Season 6, hell. What Buffy dreads
in her relationship with Spike is that she finds pleasure and
solace in something she has defined as evil, whether it be Spike
or the world in general. Its not that she thinks sex itself is
nasty. Its that she doesn't feel that the evil in the world can
also share in the divine presence. But she comes to find that
it does, and that she too can live in the world and embrace the
beauty, even of its horror. This is what I think she means when
she says she wants to show Dawn the world rather than hide it
from her.
The sex is symbolic. I totally disagree that its cliche,
or that ME painted themselves into a corner. I think they know
exactly what they are doing with these symbols and metaphors.
If one wishes to argue that people see in the image, without recognizing
what it points to, a negative message about female sexuality,
well, that is certainly possible. But its hardly MEs fault. They
are telling a story of spiritual awakening, not sexual awakening.
My dissenting opinion, anyway.
[> [> Re: sex symbols
-- ~Eris~, 21:22:51 01/12/03 Sun
"The unwillingness to admit her role in the sexuality of
Season 6 was, I thought, a large part of Buffy's problem in Season
6. Its clear that Buffy's attitude towards her relationship with
Spike was her problem last year, not the relationship itself."
I agree with you. If Buffy had been open and honest, her relationship
with Spike would have gone much better. As long as she was only
using him, it was doomed.
But the show and ME interviews say otherwise. Interviews aren't
cannon, obviously, so I won't discuss them in detail, but I'd
like to mention that we were supposed to see Spike as the "bad
boyfriend" and that the B/S relationship was "what happens
when you get involved with the wrong person". I and many
of us didn't see this, but apparently this is what ME was going
for.
ME gave conflicting messages. Buffy alternated between feeling
guilty because she was using Spike, and feeling guilty because
they had kinky sex. She didn't want anyone to know because of
the "way they would look" at her, but it's unclear whether
her using him or the kinky sex is the reason for that shame. Maybe
ME couldn't decide which to go with, so they tried to do both,
and it didn't work.
I listed examples in my post "Little kinky sex shown in S6",
which can be found here
http://www.voy.com/14567/83011.html
~Eris~
[> [> Manwitch!! You
have been missed! -- Rahael, 01:42:44 01/13/03 Mon
[> [> Re: sex symbols
-- Caroline, 07:46:49 01/13/03 Mon
Some very good points - I hope this thread survives so that I
can post some thoughts later.
Happy new year everyone - real life has been hectic but hope to
be back full-time next week.
[> [> Re: sex symbols
-- Sophist, 10:28:56 01/13/03 Mon
I certainly don't disagree with your interpretations. As I said
above in response to slain and s'kat, I have a substantial concern
that ME has confused the 2 points such that most viewers see the
cliche and nothing more.
BTW, thanks for properly using the term "Victorian prudishness"
when talking about the "sex is dirty" attitude. I see
many referring to that as "Puritanical", which is very
unfair. The Puritans had a reasonably healthy attitude toward
sex as long as it was justified by marriage. It's the Victorians
who were prudish.
[> [> Buffy and sex
-- Caroline, 14:03:44 01/13/03 Mon
Buffy had a hard time adjusting to the world in season 6 post-resurrection
and initially did think that this world was a hellish one. She
regained her faith by the end of the season and I think her relationship
with Spike was a large part of that.
Initially, Spike was the only one she could turn to, that she
didn't have to hide from, that she didn't have to keep secrets
from, and he was supportive and compassionate. He was still dead
and evil and soulless but he was doing what she needed. I think
this explains her attraction to him (others have seen it in previous
seasons and rewatching Intervention persuades me that they may
be right). She is pulled from heaven to hell and she is suffering
so much that she is numb and in shock. The only way she can feel
alive is to fight Spike or have sex with him. That is the only
feeling she has and it's an escape - orgasm as the 'little death'.
For one moment there is only pleasure, no self, no responsibilities,
no unhappiness. It's her only escape from hell on earth. The self-judgement
comes in when she remembers he's dead and soulless and she feels
dead and soulless because she can't feel.
But all the judgement that Buffy feels about Spike is about her,
not Spike. In heaven she is finished and complete, on earth she
has to deal with feelings and desires that she cannot transcend.
I guess I'm saying here that heaven has no polarities and all
the answers and earth does not. On earth she needs to come to
terms with the material world and Spike is the manifestation of
that. She projects onto him all the judgements she makes about
herself and then engages in behaviour towards him that she feels
she deserves. That's what her 'There's nothing good or clean in
you' speech to Spike in Dead Things is about.
Through her interactions with Spike, Buffy starts to come to terms
with the duality of life in this 'verse. She's still harsh with
herself about some aspects of her behaviour (I think appropriately
so) but she comes to a realization of why and therefore no longer
has to 'use' anyone, thus allowing her to end a relationship with
a bad dynamic. But they both created that dynamic together - she
with her harsh self-judgement and he with taking any crumb thrown
his way. I didn't think that ME was saying that sex in public
or with handcuffs was bad - ME was saying Buffy is doing this
for a certain reason and she feels bad about it for a certain
reason. Not that kinky sex is bad.
I think that you can take Buffy's relationships with several other
characters and see that Buffy's existential crisis is played out
with them also. Her neglect of Dawn and later rapprochement as
well as Giles leaving and returning to help save the day. They
symbolized Buffy's crisis with dealing with being pulled out of
heaven and how Buffy finally came to terms with being here. With
Giles there was her slayer responsibilities and pushing her parental
responsibilities onto him and with Dawn there was her parental
role. So to me it's not really that ME is pushing any kind of
cliche, they just happened to use sex as a one way to explore
Buffy psychologically - there were other methods of exploration
concurrent to the sexual one. I don't think that I've ever seen
ME push the 'sex is bad' line - I think what I've been seeing
is that any kind of behaviour (including sex) without self-knowledge
can be bad.
[> Buffy's "fluttering
virtue" and other points -- cjl, 09:21:02 01/13/03
Mon
I think a big problem with the Buffy/Spike relationship as it
was presented in S6 was that Mutant Enemy was pulling in two directions
at once with Spike's character. One ME faction wanted Spike to
be a "grey with a lean towards darkness" bad boyfriend,
only doing good when it came to pleasing Buffy (the Fury/"evilista"
view); the other faction painted Spike as an "amoral with
a lean towards redemption" tortured romantic, yanked around
by Clinically Depressed (TM) Buffy. The fact that Marti Noxon
seemed to be in BOTH camps didn't help.
There is a measure of truth to both portrayals, mainly because
James Marsters is one hell of an actor, and he can make such seeming
contradictions palatable on an episode by episode basis. But when
you "added up" Spike over the course of S6, the inconsistencies
showed up in how the OTHER characters reacted to him. Other than
the alley scene in Smashed, we didn't see Spike acting "evil"
(i.e., wanting to hurt people) all season. (Yes, I remember the
demon eggs. I have the headache to prove it.) For Buffy's crying
jag about letting Spike "do things to her" to make any
sort of sense, Spike needed to be a few shades darker all the
way through S6. But he wasn't. Therefore, we got a sizeable chunk
of fandom thinking Buffy was a hypocrite and a bit of a bitch
for manipulating poor Spikey.
As for the necrophilia angle, it WAS brought up. Sort of. But
it's more Xander's bugaboo than Buffy's. Buffy spends all of her
time immersed in the world of the undead, so she hardly reacts
to the sheer freakiness of it anymore. Besides, after her second
resurrection, she was beginning to wonder if she was all that
different from the creatures she'd been slaying. Re-animated corpse?
Check. Supernatural strength and primal (hunting) urges? Check.
Power drawn from darkness? Check. So...what's the big?
Xander, on the other hand, is still very much Normal Guy, and
still has the luxury of drawing the big, red line between the
living and the dead. I loved his reactions to the twin revelations
at the end of Entropy. His disgust over the necrophilia taboo
was a common point, but there were dramatic differences as well.
When he found out Anya slept with Spike, he felt
1. She defiled herself by sleeping with the undead
2. She betrayed their love by rebounding with Spike
3. She betrayed their love by sleeping with something evil
When he found out Buffy slept with Spike, he felt
1. She defiled herself by sleeping the undead
2. She betrayed their friendship by not telling him about the
Spuffiness
3. She betrayed their common principles by sleeping with something
evil
Of course, there's always hidden reason #4: mainly, what do these
undead guys got that I haven't got, but that's another post entirely.
[> [> Re: Buffy's "fluttering
virtue" and other points -- ~Eris~, 09:50:19 01/13/03
Mon
I completely agree, cjl. The writers couldn't seem to make up
their minds about Spike, so his and Buffy's behavior changed drastically
episode by episode. We know MN and DF like Spike as bad, and JE
likes heroic redemptiony Spike. You can see the differences in
their episodes.
I talked about ME trying to have it both ways regarding the kinky
sex ("do things to her") vs. Buffy using him in my post
"Little kinky sex shown in S6". http://www.voy.com/14567/83011.html
ME couldn't make up their minds about B/S, so what did end up
on screen was confusing and unconvincing at times. I frankly don't
believe Buffy about the kinky sex because aside from the handcuffs,
what is there? I also think her speech to 'William' at the end
of 'AYW' was designed to provoke tears and sympathy for Spike,
not admit Buffy was at fault. Buffy didn't realize (and maybe
never will - see below) her part in the abusive relationship.
She said she was using him, but also in her mind bad evil Spike
took advantage of her and "did things" to her.
On that note, am I the only person shocked by Buffy's coldness/harshness
and lack of remorse when she said "Yes" she was using
Spike in 'NLM'? She didn't look the least built guilty about it.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised though, this is the same Buffy
that had *no* reaction to Spike's beaten face in 'OaFA'. ("What
are you gonna do? Beat me up again?" "I should have
thrown you out the second you got here.")
~Eris~
[> [> [> Re: Buffy's
"fluttering virtue" and other points -- Deb, 10:50:33
01/13/03 Mon
Ohh. Nicely put both of you. That's all I'm going to say, because
I don't want to confuse anyone. . . or myself anymore.
[> [> Re: Buffy's "fluttering
virtue" and other points -- leslie,
15:34:53 01/13/03 Mon
"I think a big problem with the Buffy/Spike relationship
as it was presented in S6 was that Mutant Enemy was pulling in
two directions at once with Spike's character. One ME faction
wanted Spike to be a "grey with a lean towards darkness"
bad boyfriend, only doing good when it came to pleasing Buffy
(the Fury/"evilista" view); the other faction painted
Spike as an "amoral with a lean towards redemption"
tortured romantic, yanked around by Clinically Depressed (TM)
Buffy. The fact that Marti Noxon seemed to be in BOTH camps didn't
help."
I have to say that, along these lines, I'm getting a little fed
up with James Marsters's own repeated mantra on this subject of
"a man who treats another woman badly isn't going to do any
better by you." Okay, a good enough general principal, pin
it up on the bulletin board over your desk (along with "write
shorter sentences")--actually, my own version of it is "don't
date a man who doesn't like his mother"--but I am increasingly
unconvinced that it has anything to do with Spike. What has he
ever done but whatever his woman tells him she wants? Perhaps
he should be a little more choosy, a little less inclined to fall
for women who want to be hurt, whether mentally, emotionally,
or physically, but when they are all screaming, in one way or
another (and I include Harmony here), "HURT ME, HURT ME,
I NEED/DESERVE TO BE HURT," I don't think we can entirely
blame him for not taking a moment to sit down quietly, deconstruct
their psychosexual histories, and gravely consider whether they
are working out some unresolved *cough*daddy issues*cough* on
him. In fact, I would say: Dru, Harmony, Buffy, good for him to
have finally tumbled to it with only the third one.
[> [> [> Re: Buffy's
"fluttering virtue" and other points -- shadowkat,
16:39:44 01/13/03 Mon
First off, thank you for this - I was beginning to wonder if I'm
the only who cringes whenever Marsters and others state that.
And I completely agree.
I have to say that, along these lines, I'm getting a little
fed up with James Marsters's own repeated mantra on this subject
of "a man who treats another woman badly isn't going to do
any better by you."
(The line is actually - "when a man is mean to others, he
will be mean to you" - not that it matters.)
Me too! Me too! I recently read the article on James Marsters
in the NY Times and he restates this point as well as the equally
annoying view that women like Spike because of his potency, he's
bad. This leads me to believe how little he gets women. (sigh)
While I can't speak necessarily for anyone else - my attraction
to Spike did not truly begin until I met William the Bloody Awful
Poet, then the scene where he comforts Buffy in Fool for Love
and then the last scene in Intervention where he tells her can't
bear her being in any pain, especially pain caused by him. I was
never attracted to "evil" big bad posturing spike, I
was attracted to the vulnerable bad poet, the soulful broken heart
- I identified with that. It is in a way the same attraction I
might have for James Dean in Rebel Without A Cause or East of
Eden. OR a young Marlon Brando in The Wild One. Although I think
Spike resembles James Dean better. Marsters like lots of guys
seems to think women get off on the pretty face(which admittedly
helps) and badness/danger.
Uhm no. It would probably shock him a bit if he realized there
are quite a few of us who fell for the bad poet or broken hearted
man. We're well aware of the fact that big bad spike is well posturing.
Another reason I am annoyed by his mantra - is well everything
you cited so well in your post above.
I also agree - I'm increasingly unconvinced this mantra of James'
has much to do with Spike. In fact I'm not sure Marsters idea
of Spike and Whedon's idea of Spike entirely jibe. If they did
- Marsters wouldn't have been so shocked that Whedon decided Spike
would get his soul. Marsters in his interviews seems convinced
Spike was like Faith. I think, and this I find sort of sneaky
and clever on Whedon's part, is that Whedon and his writers decided
to incorporate what Marsters told them about his own trials and
tribulations growing up into the story and have wisely not told
the actor that they did this or planned it. Since the actor doesn't
know his character's story arc ahead of time - he isn't conscious
of the fact that the writers are basing the core of Big Bad Spike
on Marsters the actor. If I'm right on this - then what they are
doing is absolutely brillant not to mention incredibly challenging
for the actor, as well as diabolical on the part of the writers.
(Your dream Spike is right: writers are somewhat inherently evil.)
No wonder Marsters is so terrified and challenged - he's being
asked, albeit indirectly, to do the one thing most actors fear
most - to reveal layers of himself. Marsters may view Spike as
separate from himself - but I think Whedon sees William (the character
beneathe Spike's bravado) as the core of the actor playing him.
When you watch the commentary this becomes oddly apparent - the
casting agent on Season 5 DVD admits when they hired James they
had no clue who Spike was.
They more or less experimented with the actor to build him.
James admits to being hammy in School Hard and over the top -
so Whedon decides let's use that - particularly as James begins
to mature in the role and play it less hammy.
It's a brillant thing to see a writer use an actor's portrayle
of a role and abilities to build a character.
I also think Whedon realizes from talking to James that the actor
enjoys the danger of standing naked before an audience. The danger
of slowly stripping himself bare of all defenses and Whedon plays
on that.
So when I read the actor's interviews, I'm always secretly amused
by how much of what he tells us about himself is oddly inserted
in his character not by him so much as the writers months after
he has given said interview.
My obsession with Spike is partly the irony of the character.
A character who sees himself as this big bad horrible monster,
when at the core is this kind vulnerable broken hearted man who
inadvertently got turned into a soulless killer, but no matter
how bad he gets...he's still the broken-hearted man who wished
to be good underneath.
[> [> [> Re: Buffy's
"fluttering virtue" and other points -- Miss Edith,
18:28:00 01/13/03 Mon
Actually James always used to say that Spike's appeal was that
even though he was bad women loved that he was devoted to his
partner. He jokingly says in an interview with the official Buffy
magazine "hear that guys women will let you get away with
a lot as long as you are good to them. You are then their bastard"
Not his exact words but that was his basic point. He has always
portrayed Spike as inherently romantic and willing to sacrifice
himself for his partner. Where his confusion came in was after
SR which he has said distressed him very much to film as I believe
he has a policy not to accept film roles if they involve filming
a rape.
He first used Spike as a warning at a Buffy convention after SR
had aired. Women were swooning and talking of how Spike was mistreated
by Buffy etc and they were seeing him very much as the victim
of Buffy and felt they could reform Spike with a little tenderness
etc. James was concerned about this and contradicted his previous
beliefs when he said if your boyfriend is mean to others he will
be mean to you. Baically not seeing Spike as an individual character,
but going along with MEs view of the bad boyfriend theme. The
women all loudly disagreed with this so he did become slightly
patrionising and tell them to repeat with him his message about
avoiding bad guys. The thing is Spike is a fantasy character and
it is only in David Fury's head that Spike fans write to real
life serial killers. That really isn't the case. In fact Spike's
fanbase grow the most after FFL when he cries at Buffy's rejection
and is revealed to have been a heartbroken poet. And of course
the ending when his heart softens when he sees Buffy crying and
he makes the decision not to kill her. An overblown example (as
fantasy show) of an example of someone rising above their inner
nature and choosing to do the right thing for love. That was what
appealed to women. In fact a lot of spuffy fans hated Crush as
Spike was so vile to Buffy in chaining her up and threatening
her. I can't think of many women who found that at all sexy or
desirable. FFL is the episode to point to when explaining the
fascination with Spike.
[> [> [> [> "I
used to love her..." -- Malandanza, 08:30:50 01/14/03
Tue
"The women all loudly disagreed with this so he did become
slightly patrionising and tell them to repeat with him his message
about avoiding bad guys. The thing is Spike is a fantasy character
and it is only in David Fury's head that Spike fans write to real
life serial killers."
David Fury takes a great deal of abuse for saying Spike is like
a serial killer, but he has a point -- after all, we've seen Spike
in three relationships. He tried to murder two of his girlfriends
and tried to rape the third. He spent two years stalking Buffy
-- he built a shrine to her, he slipped into her house and ransacked
her clothing for objects to take back to the crypt and dress up
his actual girlfriend in, he did his best to exasperate the problems
between her and Riley, he hung outside her house while she was
having sex with Riley (and accumulated quite a large pile of cigarettes
in the process as he waited) and, later, lurked outside her house
waiting for her to get off work, he had a sexbot built that looked
exactly like her -- he's one creepy guy. Sex and violence are
inextricably mixed in his head -- punching him is like foreplay
to Spike. He equated not being able to hurt people with castration
and it is only after he discovers that he can injure Buffy that
he "gets his stones back." The vile things he said and
did to Buffy last season are so far from romantic that Buffy belongs
on Jerry Springer for staying with him as long as she did. He
has been vile, repulsive and creepy almost beyond description.
It does not surprise me in the least that JM and DF are perplexed
by the continued Spike worship.
(oh, and the title is a reference to an obscure Guns and Roses
song :)
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: "I used to love her..." -- leslie,
08:49:49 01/14/03 Tue
I'm not saying that Spike is the model of the perfect boyfriend,
I just think that the women's complicity in their relationships
with him has to be admitted as well. Even for all of his stalking
of Buffy, he never forced himself on her sexually until they were
well, well into a relationship that she initiated. In fact, his
reaction to Buffy's statement that "the only chance you had
with me was when I was unconscious" is quite telling--at
first he actually doesn't get it, and then when he does, he is
repulsed. That isn't what he wants at all. And yes, yes, I know
all the plotting and commercial reasons why she never just dusted
him in a fit of pique, I just think it is significant that all
the women Spike is involved with want, for one reason or another,
to be hurt or punished, and he is, for whatever psychosexual reason
of his own, happy to oblige. I have to agree with Anya on this
one--after numerous times being called on for vengence by the
same woman, you have to wonder whether maybe she's the one with
the problem that needs addressing.
This also gets to a problem I have with the culture of victimization
that women have created for themselves in the post-Women's Lib
era. Yes, men and patriarchal society have a long history of victimizing
women, and no woman deserves to be abused, whether emotionally
or physically. But at the same time, women have to take charge
of their own destinies and refuse to be abused, and fight against
the cultural forces that tell them they deserve to be abused.
Which is not easy and not always 100% effective, but you have
to try the best you can, not wear your martyr's crown with some
kind of sick pride. Perhaps this is my devoutly non-Christian
upbringing coming through--I can accept self-sacrifice, but martyrdom
repulses me.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Completely agree -- Caroline, 09:13:04 01/14/03
Tue
I enjoy that ME gives us things to think about beyond convenient,
broad themes like patriarchy and feminism and put these issues
within the context of the psychological motivations that underly
behaviour. There is a lot of analysis out there that does put
Buffy and the other character within a feminist or patriarchal
context but ME is saying look at the individual, look at their
behaviour, how do they react in relation to an environment that
has these norms and constraints, and how do they navigate them
to become who they are? To me, that if far more interesting -
to marry the idea of a patriarchal world with the individual responsibilities
of men and women to themselves and others.
[> [> [> [> [>
So, Mal, tell us how you really feel! -- Caroline, 09:01:17
01/14/03 Tue
I agree with a lot of what you said. Spike has done some rather
horrible things, as you have itemized. I have 2 responses to that.
The first is that Spike serves a particular role on the show and
part of it is to act out all the dark impulses that many of us
have but normally control. As a vampire, his conscience did not
function and he could be id-boy. Ergo the 'vile, repulsive and
creepy'. The second is that he used to be human and many are attracted
to that vulnerability he displayed in FFL as William. He developed
feelings for Buffy which eventually led to ensoulment and now
he appears to be following his conscience and being tortured by
past and currents deeds. Because of that, forgivenss is possible
for him.
I'm not one of those women obsessed with Spike or JM but I am
really enjoying the psychological development of this character
(as I do Buffy and Willow in particular) and I'm loving what ME
is doing with all of them. I also choose to be less judgemental
of Spike and more understanding of his character (as I choose
to be with all the SG) because he is also on a psychological journey
with a genuine desire to learn and grow. That's not like your
typical vampire who is just out for blood and the kill.
But I love your posts Mal - they always cheer me up!
[> [> [> [> Reality,
fantasy, and Spike. -- Rufus, 00:42:24 01/15/03 Wed
The thing is Spike is a fantasy character and it is only in
David Fury's head that Spike fans write to real life serial killers.
That really isn't the case. In fact Spike's fanbase grow the most
after FFL when he cries at Buffy's rejection and is revealed to
have been a heartbroken poet. And of course the ending when his
heart softens when he sees Buffy crying and he makes the decision
not to kill her.
You are right about Spike's fan base getting larger after Fool
for Love, and what some fans miss is that they have become attracted
not to the monster, but the underlying man who once was. The confusion
over what part of Spike has attracted them causes fans to find
ways of excusing his bad behavior to the point of demonizing Buffy
for things less extreme than Spike's past as a murderer.
Where I depart company with Fury is when they use the term "serial
killer" with the metaphor of the vampire. The vampire is
the result of a curse and doesn't exist in real life, serial killers
are a real life phenomenon that to my knowledge isn't redeemable,
and certainly isn't a result of metaphysics. The vampire has been
a metaphor for isolation and the demonizing effects of isolation
in the extreme, meaning a curse that seperates a person from others
by causing them to be evil. To compare Spike who is a metaphor
to a serial killer only caused bitterness from fans who were sent
not only once in the direction of Buffy loving or having sex with
a demon, but twice....by the writers. If the writers have a problem
with the fans who like Spike so much then they shouldn't have
romanticized either Spike or Angel only to blame the fans when
many of them only saw a good looking guy they fancied. If we are
to believe that the vampire is a metaphor for a serial killer,
then I have big, Big problems with both Spike and the vampire
they based a whole series upon....because by the writers own words/scripts
they have romanticized the serial killer, not the average fan.
[> [> [> [> [>
Well, think of it like this. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:59:16
01/15/03 Wed
There's a guy who's on the wimpy/nerdy side. His peers constantly
embarrass and torment him. The girl he's developed a crush for
rejects him cruelly. After years and years of this, anger bres
deep within him. He keeps it buried, but the anger is there, until
at last, on the night when the torment has gone just a little
too far, he can't hold it in anymore and goes on a killing spree.
But the violence and the expression of rage is addictive. He goes
on and on expressing his rage through violence until, at last,
someone puts a stop to him.
This can describe the evolution of William into Spike, or it can
describe many of the sad incidents of people going on a shooting
rampage.
Now, I don't think ME originally conceived of their vampires as
serial killers, but I think they can function as a metaphor for
serial killers at times. But I don't see it as romanticising serial
killers, since a) Fury's serial killer comment was intended to
de-romanticise Spike by comparing him to a thoroughly un-romantic
and real world villain, and b) with a few exceptions, ME's vampires
don't seem that romantic; they're ususally far more monster than
they are people.
I'm surprised no one's brought up the episode of Angel where there's
a vampire whose killings make the news as the work of a serial
killer.
[> [> Re: Buffy's "fluttering
virtue" and other points -- Miss Edith, 17:51:18 01/13/03
Mon
ME did in my mind use Spike as a theme (bad boyfriend) rather
than concentrating on developing the character of Spike. At the
beginning of the season Spike was somewhat accepted by the scoobies.
He was babysitting Dawn and he felt he was a part of the gang
hence he was secure enough to confront Xander in Afterlife "I
worked beside you all summer and you didn't tell me". Xander
is plainly uncomfortable with Spike's words and in Gone he seems
concerned for Spike. He rushes downstairs when he believes Spike
has been attacked and is almost friendly towards him before stopping
himself. He even tells Spike "all kidding aside Spike you
really should get a girlfriend".
To some extent I can understand why Spike drew away from the gang
after Buffy's return. Xander rebuffed him in Afterlife and at
the end of the episode he cynically tells Buffy he didn't enter
the magic box because their group hug made him quesy. The implication
was that he knew he wasn't welcome and would likely be rejected
again. In AYW he even tells Buffy he can hardly go inside the
house and near Dawn so why doesn't she stay outside with him (when
he wants sex after she finishes work). But I did object to Xander
suddenly hating Spike again period simply because it was needed
for the story. In Normal Again he wants to fight Spike and Buffy
is ashamed to be caught talking to someone as beneath her as Spike.
And in Entropy Xander is dripping with disdain towards Spike.
Personally I did see some inconsistent writing so that the overall
point could be made about Spike being the outsider and unacceptable
boyfriend.
[> Re: MEs attitute to female
sexuality -- Miss Edith, 20:39:33 01/13/03 Mon
Thanks to everyone who contributed. You've all given me a lot
to think about. The true test for me will be if B/S ever get back
together. If they continue with inovative sex I will be satisfied
that ME are trying to rectivy the message I received about the
sex in season 6 harming Buffy. If B/S have missionary bed sex
to legitimise and normalise the relationship I will personally
take away a certain message whether intented or not.
[> [> Overview or my
take of all the interesting threads -- shadowkat, 15:20:55
01/14/03 Tue
No one will probably see this since it's at the very bottom of
the board...which, hmmm now that I've thought about it could be
a good thing.
What fascinates me from what I've read of most of these posts
and I have by no means read all of them is what fascinates me
about the show. This show can truly be interpreted in numerous
ways and valid cases can be made for each one. The question remains
- which is the one the writers intended us to see and does it
really matter?
I see two things going on here: 1) How sexuality and sex are currently
portrayed in TV and what scenes, language, etc BTVS shows and
what purpose and/or spin BTVS puts on the depiction of sexual
scenes. 2) What message, if any, is BTVS' writers, actors, directors
etc attempting to convey through the bad sexual relationships
and other actions of its characters? Is there more than one? Are
they contradictory messages?
Or is the fanbase as fans tend to do - projecting their own message
or obsession onto it - so in fact more than one message is created?
Is the fanbase completely nutty? Or just the Spuffy portion of
it? ;-) (Depends on who you talk to I guess.)
While watching Season 6 Buffy/Spike relationship and more importantly
attempting to analyze it and reading others reviews and analysis
of it - I've come up with the following takes:
1. Badboyfriend relationship or the relationship we have in our
twenties where we are attracted to the wrong person.
And it's all about sex and pain.
2. The Abusive Relationship (see my post on Unfaithful above)
3. The Spiritual Awakening through realization of sexual encounters,
others encounters - see manwitch's excellent post on this. The
hero's psychological journey.
4. Not letting the Darkness overtake you - Or rising above dark
impulses(I think this is addressed in the Malandaza/Rah/Deb/ thread
- didn't read all of this thread.)
5. Sex is bad or dirty view (Victorian Pruddishness) - coupled
by the sardonic commentary on we can show violence on TV but not
sex, how twisted is that?
Then of course there are the differing takes on the characters
and the discussion on what female sexuality means in our culture
- which I won't attempt to summarize here.
All of this serving to prove that a half a year after Season 6
ended - we still have not come to any sort of consensus on what
the heck the writers were trying to say here. Nor are we that
happy about whatever it was.
This can mean one of three things: 1) The writers are brillant
and have created a textured layered universe with all sorts of
multiple themes, 2) the writers are hacks and have created a moralistic
soap opera with vampires or 3)The writers are pretty darn good
and are trying to challenge themselves and their audience by asking
questions about moral ethics etc and occassionally trip while
doing so. (heck what can you expect from television?)
Pick your favorite. Personally? I'm going for number 3.
SK
[> [> [> Excellent
Summary! I found it, even here at the bottom! -- Sara, quite
proud of myself for reading the entire thread, 16:24:10 01/14/03
Tue
[> [> [> 1. Fanbase
and 2. I'll take "3" for $1,200. Nice summation
-- Deb, 03:58:02 01/15/03 Wed
Current board
| More January 2003