August 2002 Archives - Page 10
Who watches the Watchers? Um, that would be us... -- KdS, 05:53:03 08/16/02 Fri
Revival of archived threads seems to have become impossible again, so I hope no-one minds if I post this:
Sorry if this is a little late, but it's taken me a while to plan and write this...
I went away on Wednesday after reading the Watchers Council topic planning to write a defense of the Council, but after some thought I realised I really couldn't. I don't think the Council is, or has ever been, consciously evil in the way some posters here seem to suspect. What I do believe, however, is that it is a highly decadent organisation that is already well on the way to the collapse predicted, according to Rob, in "Fray". Before I get into the argument I would like to stress that I believe that much of the mystery and confusion concerning the Council is because ME has always been more interested in character development than in creating a coherent background "mythos". In many ways, the Council is whatever Joss & Co. find most convenient that week for Buffy and friends' emotional journey. This doesn't stop us trying to tie everything together though - I think we all love the challenge.
For most people, the first time they worried about the Council was "Helpless". I've addressed the Cruciamentum business quite exhaustively in the "Low Points" thread below, so I won't go into it again here. I think that there were early warnings in "What's My Line". The most important was that none of Buffy, Giles, Kendra, or the shadowy Zabuto seem to realise that there are simultaneously two Slayers. The result is that, through bad luck, Buffy and Kendra assume one another to be demonic in nature and come close to killing each other. When they seek Giles's advice, please note that he appears to immediately call Zabuto directly. He also seems to know Zabuto on a personal level. There is no report to or via a higher authority. Probably at this stage ME still considered the Council to be a loose-knit secret society rather than the centralised parapolitical organisation it eventually developed into.
The crossover of "Who Are You" and "Sanctuary" was the point where I personally bailed on the Council and considered it actively evil. I can see justification for killing Faith, but the Collins squad's casual attempt to kill Wes, Angel, and Buffy destroyed my sympathy completely.
Quentin's climbdown in "Checkpoint" changed my opinion. The fact that he backed down with such ease, and that (so far) the Council has made no further attack on Buffy or Faith, convinces me that the core Council is not casual about killing Slayers or other human beings. This leads me to the following reappraisal of WAY?/Sanctuary.
The Collins crew's capture of "Faith" from the SDPD in "Who are You?" seems well-organised and planned. It also suggests that the plan of the core Council was not to kill Faith. Remember, she had been in a coma for nine months with a Council operative on the nursing staff. There would have been countless opportunities to quietly snuff her out, and given the situation it's unlikely that either the Sunnydale authorities or the Scooby Gang would have been seized with the desire to investigate or avenge her death. Yet Collins et al were reduced to planning to kill "Faith" because she was too hard to control, despite the fact that the Council has drugs capable of temporarily destroying a Slayer's power with no long-term effects. In LA, killing Faith would not have been difficult, even after her adoption by Angel. If Angel's life was valued, she could have been shot with a high powered rifle from a nearby roof-top. If Angel's life wasn't valued, the man drives a convertible and leaves it parked in the street! Gelignite. Radio-controlled detonator. Bang. Faith&Angelburger
Instead they attempt to suborn Wes before making a frontal attack on the AI offices. Even if they weren't aware of Buffy's presence, they are three humans against at least two superbeings. Even more idiotically, Weatherby tries to kill Wes before he has had any opportunity to help or betray them, ensuring his non-co-operation. This conduct is not the plan of calm, collected assassins, this is the behaviour of low-grade thugs out of their depth and out to wipe out any witnesses to their embarrassment.
The picture I get of the Watchers' Council is a once-mighty organisation that has now become disfunctional and decadent in practically every way associated with organisations at the end of their natural life. From the Kendra debacle, the Gwen Post disaster and the situation in "Checkpoint", we see that the core Council habitually keeps necessary information from the grassroots, either through sclerotic bureaucracy or the desire to exercise power. The core Council, I believe, has become preoccupied with maintaining its monopoly of knowledge and its internal politics and has lost track of the objective. From Giles's and Zabuto's entirely private hashing out of the situation in WML, it appears that the grass roots have consequentially lost trust of the centre and have developed their own ad hoc networks of co-operation and information sharing. Faith is reduced to destitution in S£ because nobody at the core realises that she has no means of support. (I'd like to have seen scenes from FHT to "Bad Girls" in which Giles made increasingly farcical telephone attempts to screw some money for Faith out of the bureaucracy). The paramilitary wing of the organisation has devolved into small groups of hard men who are good at intimidation and unsubtle murder but fall apart when faced with a real challenge or a morally ambiguous situation and are too proud to seek new orders. I wholeheartedly accept Rook, Wizardman and Cleanthes's argument about the low prestige of hands-on Watching. This is the only non-villainous explanation of what I consider the Council's least forgivable act - placing a man as professionally and personally inexperienced, inept and unstable as Wesley in charge of Buffy and Faith, especially given their previous experiences with authority in "Helpless" and "Revelations". (It's possible that there may have been a nepotistic element here, which again fits in with the idea of a decaying organisation).
As far as my personal judgement of Quentin Travers goes, I'm more charitable than Rob but much less than George. I don't see Quentin as the leader of the Council, or even a high-ranking member. (I see this belief as a misunderstanding of some ambiguous lines in "Checkpoint"). Instead I believe that he is something along the lines of "Slayer Management", a position devoted to doing all the messy unglamorous things the core Council don't want to. I believe that Quentin is a frustrated idealist who genuinely wants to return the Council to its former glory. Unfortunately, like many isolated idealists he has become a fanatic disastrously lacking in elementary human decency. I don't believe his actions in "Checkpoint" were in any way a test. He genuinely wanted to break Buffy to the saddle and his climbdown was largely a pragmatic decision. He recognised the threat to the world from Glory and he also recognised that to push Buffy any harder would be to ignite a pointless all-out war that he might not win or even survive. Moreover, I do give him enough credit to believe that he genuinely doesn't want to kill her or Faith, although the death of either Slayer would probably not send the Travers household into mourning.
As far as some of the unanswered questions go, I think that Giles didn't tell the Council about Buffy and Angel's romantic relationship until very late on, probably after "Becoming". I think that he recognised that the Council's response to Buffy's style of Slaying would be to whisk her away for forcible reeducation and he didn't want that to happen. Most of his reports during Seasons 1-3 were probably very economical with the truth. Similarly, neither Buffy nor Giles attempted to gain financial help from the Council during S6 because that would mean dealing with Quentin and his conditions would probably involve Buffy taking up a more traditional (read monastic) lifestyle.
Can the Council be redeemed? Personally, I think that a major Council-related arc would be interesting but very complex to write. A monolithically EEEEEVIL and corrupt organisation gives a classic but predictable storyline. A decadent organisation would provide a complex story line that would probably take a very long time to work out satisfactorily. The Council probably consists of an unpredictable mixture of frustrated idealists working within the system (Quentin), frustrated idealists bypassing the system and creating their own (Giles and Zabuto), lazy and self-satisfied careerists (most of the upper echelons), consciously corrupt and self-serving opportunists (Gwen) and quite probably some truly scary out-and-out whackos. Which of these people do you try to get on your side and how? Messy politics are interesting to intelligent people, but I can't see the mass audience staying for a storyline closer to "Yes Minister" than anything seen in the fantasy genre before.
A couple of final tangents that I couldn't fit in earlier: firstly, I've read fanfics and essays which suggest that Quentin is Wes's father. I'd like to dismiss this as far too soapy and cliched for ME. I hope they never go that route. Secondly, the big unanswered question for me is the relationship between the Council and The Initiative. Did they know about it and what was their attitude? One wonders if maybe a group of renegade Watchers got fed up with the inertia of the Council and went to some US parapolitical body as the most powerful agency they could think of.
[>Great post. -- Sophist, 08:07:24 08/16/02 Fri
[>Yeah! What Sophist said. -- Dead Soul, 09:07:18 08/16/02 Fri
[>I third that emotion! and a comment... -- tim, 12:47:15 08/16/02 Fri
As a political science grad student, the story arc you propose would fascinate me, but I guess I'm in a distinct minority there. Too bad. :)
As to the Council-Initiative connection, at the end of Primeval, the committee chair comments, "Maggie Walsh's vision was brilliant but ultimately, insupportable" (quote from Psyche). This leads me to believe the Initiative was her brain-child, though getting some kind of backing, or even inspiration, from disgruntled Council-ites is certainly plausible.
Thanks for the great read!
--th
[> [>Initiative -- meritaten, 22:36:32 08/16/02 Fri
No one in the inititave seemed to know what a Slayer was. Also, their perception of "HSTs" was VASTLY different from the Council's. So, I have a hard time believing that they were connected with the Council. I think they just recognized a problem and attempted to address it.
[>Re: Who watches the Watchers? Um, that would be us... -- Robert, 13:57:39 08/16/02 Fri
>>> "... I think that a major Council-related arc would be interesting but very complex to write."
This would be GREAT! It would be a good fit for the Ripper series, if that ever comes to pass. Also, your description of the bureaucracy of the Council is very close to my sentiments.
[>Thanks for the kudos -- KdS, 07:20:24 08/17/02 Sat
As far as "Ripper" goes, I'd love to see a "Scouring of the Council" arc but I've heard that the BBC are only planning to make six episodes - nowhere near enough time to do it well.
Re the Initiative - thanks for reminding me about the Initiative's lack of knowledge of Slayers. It does make it unlikely that any Watchers were involved, but I'd still love to know if they knew about it...
Finally, rereading my post I'd like to clarify that my very harsh judgement of Wesley was entirely of his personality in BtVS S3 - he's come a long way since. Sorry to any Wes fans who were upset.
[>Excellent points -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 17:22:49 08/17/02 Sat
Well done, KdS; the problem with bureaucracies is not that they suddenly turn evil (Bwaa-hah-hah!) but that the members, over time, slowly come to confuse their own well-being and the organization's survival with the mission. Once a shop reaches that point the rationalization piles deep. The organization begins to do harm in it's own defense. It claims, then, that it's survival is essential to accomplishing the mission, so anything it does to keep itself going (and add to its own power) is then moral and justified. . .
Regarding the "center controls information for power, the active agents develop their own networks to compensate" dynamic I think you're spot on. I worked for a governmental bureaucracy once (God forgive me). To do your job you HAD to develop your own (and forbidden) back channel information conduits, working with friends in key offices. (ALWAYS treat the secretaries well . . . ) Secondly, the information network of corridor talk was ALWAYS faster and more accurate than the official word from the front office. So that's something I hope ME explores, either in BtVS or Ripper.
GOOD SOUL BAD SOUL?(POSSIBLE SPOILAGE FOR S7) -- PLAINJANE, 09:19:15 08/16/02 Fri
If Spike does get re-ensouled is it possible that he could get the soul of a mass murderer or is it a given in buffyverse that when you are re-ensouled you get your old soul back?
[>"We will return your soul" (end of Grave) -- Caesar Augustus, 17:07:16 08/16/02 Fri
[>Why are "souls" available for instant recall anyway? -- cjl, 07:10:43 08/17/02 Sat
Accepting, a priori, the existence of the soul, isn't it supposed to be the great plan of the Universe that when a person dies, the soul either goes to its great reward (Western theology), or goes back into the cycle of birth and death (eastern theology)? Even if the person's life ended unnaturally--by vampire bite--what evil has this person done to keep the soul stranded in the Ether, unable to move on to Heaven/Nirvana/the next life? Spike is a perfect example. William's soul has been drifting around in limbo for 120 years? Why? What did he do? Is the very act of becoming a vampire enough to prevent your soul from moving on?
As C.A. pointed out, Lurky told Spike point blank "We give you back YOUR soul"--but the idea of a vampire receiving someone else's soul is interesting, and Joss has hinted at this in the Angel comics. I'd go even further with this idea, and have Angel meet up with someone who is the reincarnation of Liam...
[> [>Souls of the vamped -- KdS, 07:24:17 08/17/02 Sat
Don't have time to check an actual quotation, but I remember Angel's soul being said to have been dragged "from the ether" in BtVS S2.
Yes, it does seem unfair about the souls of the vamped being trapped in limbo, but no-one ever said the Buffyverse is fair. It's actually implied fairly strongly in Stoker's Dracula that the soul of someone who has become a vampire is only released to the afterlife when the vamp is killed and the last thread severed - in fact that's suggested as a major reason for killing vampires.
[> [> [>Re: Souls of the vamped = damned -- wiscoboy, 10:48:04 08/17/02 Sat
But doesn't the release of the soul only happen to those that were taken unwillingly? I believe the souls of those who have asked to be taken are sent to damnation. This would explain how a DEMON would have the power to restore Spike's soul.
[> [> [> [>Re: Souls of the vamped = damned -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:24:59 08/17/02 Sat
Or, maybe the ether is where all souls go when they die.
Sadomasochism Metaphors in BTVS & ATS - dark sexual underbelly (Intro) -- shadowkat, 10:01:02 08/16/02 Fri
Sadistic and Masochistic Metaphors in BTVS & ATS The dark sexual underbelly
Horribly bored so I'm entertaining myself with yet another monstrous post about my favorite shows. Beware this post unlike my other ones is truly monstrous in every possible meaning of the word and is not for the easily offended or faint at heart.
(Masq thanks for your indulgence!)
WARNING spoilers through Season 6 of BTvs and Season 3 Ats. Very long involved, at times scholarly, essay about sado-masochism. Not a pro-ship post! If you find sado-masochism or skewering ships in any way offensive you might want to skip it. I'm not sure how appropriate it is for the board, but after seeing the 1000th thread on AR scene and the trolls, I figure what the hell. This by the way is NOT about the AR scene. Mature readers only, please. Not posting this essay to any other boards. If you want to ask first!
Btvs and Ats quotes from Psyche Transcripts
****************************************************
INTRODUCTION
I intended to make this essay about Guilt. But something else keeps erupting from my brain. Disturbing me. Not letting me alone. Like some hazy dream that you have in the early hours of the morning just before waking. "How can anyone dream or fantasize about a murderer in a sexual way? That is just sick." Oh lord the dark things that hide within our minds. "How can anyone get off on torture? Bondage? Pain?"
So I rolled up my sleeves and did a little research on the internet.
1. SEXUAL FANTASIES & FANFIC
We are odd creatures. At times strait-laced and puritanical in our tastes and other times? Somewhat uninhibited, with odd animalistic, even primal desires. Like our forebears. Last night flipping channels I caught a brief documentary on the History channel about cannibalism in folklore and mythology and how possibly in our collective consciousness we share a common fear or desire for this. The examples they used ranged from fairy tales such as Little Red Riding Hood and Hansel & Gretel to legends of ancient tribes who ate people. If that's trueŠmaybe there's a common repressed desire for other things as well? Did you know that several of our fairy tales were erotic stories filled with S & M motifs? In the earlier versions of Sleeping Beauty she was not awakened by true love's kiss, she was awakened by the birth of a child. The Victorians were the ones who cleaned up the tales for kids, but if you look closely you can see some of the earlier more risqué images remain. The Vampire has always been a sexual metaphor and a violent one at that. As has the werewolf. Both creatures created as metaphors for our more primal, darker urges.
Many people on the boards cannot understand the erotic appeal of Buffy/Spike relationship. That is sick, they say. Is it? Or is it merely human nature to be intrigued and attracted by something raw and dangerous? In the books Secret Garden and Forbidden Flowers, Nancy Friday, a licensed psychoanalyst, collects and analyses sexual fantasies from her patients and female correspondents.
Here is a quote from her book, Forbidden Flowers, p. 6: "all women have sexual fantasies, though sometimes they won't admit it, even to themselves. Fantasies are make-believe states used to enhance reality. Her fantasy provides a safe way to explore the erotic possibilities of a situation that might be very threatening or guilt-producing if she acted it out. A fantasy can give a woman an added sense of life and all its possibilities. It is the unexamined corners of the mind that breed neurosis and fear not the portions of ourselves that we know, recognize and accept." She states that the most important thing to remember about fantasies is that "they are not facts, deeds, they are NOT acting out."
When we watch Buffy The Vampire Slayer and fantasize about Angel or Spike or Drusilla it is just that a fantasy. Spike is not real to us. As Nancy Friday states "summoning up an image in our imagination does not mean we want to bring it into reality". The fanfic you've read, be it slash, straight, S&M, whatever, is just that someone's fantasy. It says very little about the personal and private practices of the writer or their beliefs. Any more than a Stephen King or Thomas Harris novel says anything about the homicidal tendencies of those writers. All they are doing is sharing their opinions and fantasies of the characters with you. You get to make the choice whether or not to read them.
I think many people in our society have troubles with this idea. They believe that if you fantasize about something you will make it real you will hunt it in your every day life. I can tell you from personal experience this is NOT always the case. Very few of us do.
So why do people online feel this desire to declare almost defensively that they would never want Spike in their house? Last time I checked Spike was a fictional character who was portrayed by a delightful actor on a TV show. Hate to tell you this but he ain't coming to your house, he does NOT exist. Now if you said you didn't want someone like Charles Manson in your house or a lion from the zoo or a senile police dog I'd agree. Me neither. Why are we condemning people for their fantasies? Or ourselves for our own? Are we afraid of looking at that dark sister or brother self that hides inside?
As Faith would say "What are you afraid of B? Afraid you might like it?"
In BTVs and Ats the writers wickedly bring our fantasies to life and twist them into nightmares. None of the love relationships on this show are healthy or beautiful. All have some dark negative aspect to them. Some are hidden beneath layers of metaphor, others almost too real. But before we get to Btvs and Ats a little historical perspective on S&M and what it means psychologically.
2. SADOMASOCHISM A HISTORICAL & PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
In the 19th century, psychologist Krafft-Ebing named a deviant sexual disorder he'd discovered - sadimasochism after Sade and von Sacher-Masoch. He identified it as two distinct but related sexual anomalies in his Psychopathia Sexualis of 1885:
Sadism "is 'the experience of sexual pleasurable sensations (including orgasm) produced by acts of cruelty, bodily punishment inflicted on one's own person or when witnessed by others, be they animals or human beings...It may also consist of an innate desire to humiliate, hurt, wound or even destroy others in order thereby to create sexual pleasure in oneself." Sadism refers to the Marquis de Sade, a novelist of the late 18th century. Sade was pre-Victorian. 120 Days of Sodom his major work was published in 1785. He lived from 1740-1817. His novels Justine and Juliette were as much for social satire and philosophical parable as they were comments on sexual depravity and violence.
The Marquis de Sade was institutionalized for daring to write about such a topic and daring to do it in an erotic manner. Ironically, after his death, his wardens made money off of his writings. His name now is used to describe the very things he wrote about. For more information on Marquis de Sade see the dark film Quills with Geoffrey Rush.
Masochism "was where someone 'is controlled by the idea of being completely and unconditionally subject to the will of a person of the opposite sex; of being treated by this person as by a master, humiliated and abused. This idea is coloured by lustful feeling; the masochist lives in fantasies, in which he creates situations of this kind and often attempts to realise them'." Masochism refers to Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, (1836-1895) a 19th century novelist of Venus in Furs. (This was a semi-autobiography describing the Mistress slave relationship. The woman is the mistress, the man her sex slave often allowing her to beat him and handcuff him, etc.) It was published in 1869. His works dealt more with flagellation, being beaten up by cruel lovers than the sexual genitalia acts described by Sade. This seemed to be the trend for pornography in the Victorian age.
Source: "Deviants Dictionary, a project that aims eventually to provide a comprehensive and interactive on-line encyclopaedic dictionary of BDSM-related terms, an 'encyclopervia' of the Net."
Remember the dates that these two ideas were introduced. Sadism in 18th century 1785. Masochism in the 19th century 1880s. Also a little hint on where I'm going with this when were our two vamps turned??? Angel in 1753 and Spike in 1880.
Freud is the psychologist who decided Sadism and Masochism were more closely linked not two separate anomalies. 'He who experiences pleasure by causing pain to others is also capable of experiencing pain in sexual relations as pleasure. A sadist is simultaneously a masochist, though either the active or the passive side of the perversion may be more strongly developed in him. ' Sigmund Freud 1938, The Basic Writings of Sigmund Freud, translated and edited by A A Brill, New York: Modern Library
Havelock Ellis, another psychologist, in 1940s, theorized that 'The masochist desires to experience pain, but he generally desires that it should be inflicted in love; the sadist desires to inflict pain, but in some cases, if not in most, he desires that it should be felt as love'. 'The sadist by no means wishes to exclude the victim's pleasure, and may even regard that pleasure as essential to his own satisfaction' 'Sadism and masochism may be regarded as complementary emotional states; they can not be regarded as opposed states.' Havelock Ellis 1942, Studies in the Psychology of Sex, New York: Random House.
A sadist can't exist without the masochist and the masochist cannot exist without the sadist according to Ellis.
In Btvs and Ats I would argue that the relationships and characters often break down along these lines. One character tends to dominate while another takes a lesser role. This often leads to what Havelock Ellis would call the S&M relationship. In Btvs/Ats this relationship is depicted as unhealthy. It is also largely depicted as unhealthy in most fan-fiction.
TBC - PArt I coming - shadowkat
[> PArt I: Vampires as Metaphor (1 -2 B/A, A/D/D/S) spoilers to season 6 -- shadowkat, 10:04:29 08/16/02 Fri
BTVS & ATS S&M RELATIONSHIPS & OTHER DARK SEXUAL METAPHORS
Part I: Vampires as the perfect Sadomasochists
Vampires as a group make the perfect metaphor for sadomasochism. The very act of biting a human or getting bit yourself and turned = sadomasochism. It also has that cannibalistic urge behind it alluded to in the History Channel documentary I saw the other night. But I'm not sure I even have the stomach to analyze that one.
Someone can't remember who (sorry I think it was purplegirl) posted that Bram Stoker created the dark twisted vision of the vampire as a metaphor for the repressed sexuality of his fellow Victorians. Stoker did not let his vampire become reflected in a mirror the view was since the Victorians couldn't handle the reflection of their dark sexual urges, the vampire, which was the epitome of those urges, should not have a reflection. Stoker's Dracula was a sensual creation, the definition of evil, he floated into the woman's bedchamber and seduced her with an erotic bite on the neck. In Buffy vs. Dracula Dracula floats into Buffy's room and enthralls her, leaving a "love bite" which she delicately hides from her human boyfriend with a scarf. This is very similar to the behavior of Stoker's heroine Mina who similarly hides her "love bites" with scarves.
In some fan-fic the vampire's bite is on the thigh or genitalia, but the effect remains the same. In Ats Angelus bites the gypsy girl Darla gives him on the thigh, and then bites Darla on the neck, a favor she returns as they begin to have sex. (Dear Boy).
1. BUFFY & ANGEL Star-crossed lovers? Or Twist on Lolita?
Lolita is a book by Vladmir Nabokov, it was made into a film by Stanley Kubrick in the 1960s. The book is about a professor who becomes obsessed with his landlady's daughter, a 14 year old named Lolita. In the movie, he first sees her sitting, with long blond pigtails, sucking a lollipop. In Becoming Part I of Buffy the Vampire Slayer Angel first sees Buffy who has just turned 15 sitting on the stairs, with long blond pigtails, sucking a lollipop. He falls in love and pursues her all the way to Sunnydale. Determined to help her. Is Lolita's protagonist sadistic? No. He does however portray an unhealthy desire for teenagers as does Angel.
Unfortunately, helping is not enough for Angel. He also sleeps with the girl which is the act that robs him of his soul. The metaphor is a tricky one. I sleep with the guy and he turns all evil. The ultimate nightmare. But it's an extended metaphor works on multiple levels and they are very clever with it because the last thing they want to do is alienate all those teenage fans. Yet at the same time isn't the story also the guy's ultimate nightmare? The girl you have a crush on prefers the older hunky college kid, senior, or teacher? You know he's evil. So why doesn't she? Why doesn't she notice you? And they don't stop there, they turn the knife one more time Why don't you see the pretty redhead who adores you but does have a bit of a Crush on the mysterious school librarian?
The Dark Fantasy of lusting after the teenage girl and the teenage girl lusting after the older guy is played out in Buffy/Angel. There's nothing wrong with this fantasy. How many people have had a crush on someone older than them? David Boreanze was at least 26-27 years of age when he played the role. Yet all these teenage girls were in love with him. He was playing a 245 year old vampire. I remember having a Crush on Shawn Cassidy, Peter O'Toole, Scean Connery and Harrison Ford with the exception of Shawn Cassidy they were my mother's age. Buffy had a similar crush on Angel, puppy, school girl , romantic love with dire consequences.
Also let's not forget - *cough * daddy issues * cough* - Buffy has major unresolved issues with her father. She keeps trying to resolve them by going after older men. Older men that inadvertently hurt her. If you think about it every guy she's been sexually involved with has been older than her and they all without exception have left or rejected her. A psychologist might argue that she seeks this out, replaying subconsciously her father's rejection over and over again until she can somehow come to terms with it. Her sexual relationship with Angel while appearing nice and puppyish on the surface is actually rather dark they can't consummate their love without him turning evil. When they do consummate it in Surprise, he turns nasty and literally insults her performance and degrades her. For a while in Season 3, they go back to the puppy platonic romance, but this is equally painful and at times sadistic In Enemies, he pretends to beat her up and brutally kisses Faith to lure Faith into giving herself away. In Prom he agrees to go to the prom, then turns her down, breaks up with her, then shows up again. When he becomes human and they consummate their love in I Will Always Remember You Angel takes off the next morning, leaving Buffy alone in bed to fight the big evil alone. Ignoring the fact that she is actually more physically equipped to do it. When he discovers he cannot fight the big evil without being fatally injured, he nobly decides to turn back time, effectively erasing their time together from everyone's memories but his. Once again "daddy" is making the decision to leave for "Buffy's" own good, she does not get a voice in the decision. This behavior continues until Buffy and Angel part ways for good a scene that occurs off stage in Season 6.
As Angelus Angel plays the role of sadist with Buffy. He tells Dru and Spike in Innocence that he wants some time with the slayer he doesn't just want to kill her, he wants to torture her. Emotionally. Mentally. And Physically. Dru hisses that he wants to do to Buffy what he once did to her. In later episodes, we see Angelus attempting to accomplish this task. He stalks her, leaves little gifts for her. Dark gifts. He threatens her friends. Kills her favorite teacher Jenny Calendar. (Passion) Attempts to kill her friends. Attempts to torture or kill her. Engages in nasty word play contests with her. (IOHEFY, Killed BY Death, Becoming Part I) Captures her mentor, Giles, and tortures him. (Becoming Part II) Spike doesn't understand this. Why not just kill her? Spike as is made clear in What's My Line Part II isn't really much for the pre-show. Sadism doesn't appear to be his thing. Dru on the other hand totally gets it Drusilla prefers to torture things and to receive torture.
2. ANGELUS & DARLA AND DRU, & SPIKE The Sadomasochist Family
If any metaphor screams S & M it is the vampire. Think about it for a minute. A sadist gets pleasure from causing pain. A masochist gets pleasure from enduring pain. The vampire gets pleasure from all the things we aren't supposed to like, the unhealthy, repressed, demon part of our psyche. I remember a friend of mine got into an email discussion about S&M and finally backed off stating fairly clearly that she sooo did not want to go there. Most (not all) sadomasochistic relationships end badly. These aren't healthy relationships and can quickly devolve into something real reminiscent of what happened in Reprise in Ats, Seeing Red, or even Crush. As Drusilla states about vampires Btvs & Ats's metaphor for sadomasochists or sexual deviants "we can love quite well just not very wisely." (Crush Season 5, Btvs).
(Brief aside: The problem with S&M in our society a problem that Ann Rice hints at in her Interview with the Vampire series is it is often, inaccurately, identified with homosexuality. Hate to break this to you but Heterosexuals do S&M as often as homosexuals do. Nor are most homosexuals or gay couples into this practice. Unfortunately media has given us a negative impression of S&M and identified it with homosexuality. I recently got into a heated argument with a friend of mine regarding this issue and was unable to convince her that I knew for a fact that homosexuals often had long-lasting healthy relationships that did not involve S&M. Just as there were healthy long-lasting relationships that did involve it. Judging what others do in the privacy of their bedroom is never a good thing. What I admire about Whedon's exploration of this topic is that he did not give it the cliché homosexual vampire slant. He avoided it. Even though the slash fiction writers go there all the time. Most of the slash writers by the way are woman writing about men, not unlike Ann Rice. Their fiction often details practices that they are unfamiliar with and are nothing more than fantasies. Remember what Nancy Friday said having a fantasy does not make it real. While Whedon has no trouble exploring S&M's dark side, he does not do it through homosexual relationships, say what you will about Tara and Willow their relationship was not sadomasochistic. Unhealthy? Yes. But not in that way. Just as not all S&M is unhealthy, not all unhealthy relationships are S&M.)
Angel was heavy into S&M. We see it first in What's My Line Part II where Dru gets off on torturing Angel and Angel taunts Spike with their erotic fun. Spike isn't really into torture, unless of course he's being the one tortured. Spike isn't a sadist as much as a masochist from what I've seen on the show. Not that it matters. Vampires by their very nature are a little bit of both.
Spike the masochist. I do not know how much research the writers did on the Victorian era, but from what I've read Victorians favorite form of sexual deviance was "masochism". They were somewhat repressed sexually. The male as redcat describes in a very good post several archives back, neurasthenic male rather was portrayed as weak in the 19th century. Loving poetry. The Mama's boy. In the pornography of the era, masochism was in. In fact Masochism takes its name from the 19th century writer -Leopold von Sacher-Masoch.
People have argued that Spike is more like the Marquis de Sade. I beg to differ. The show provides us a massive amount of evidence showing Spike to be more like Leopold von Sacher-Masoch. In Smashed Buffy accuses Spike of being in love with her because he is "in love with pain." "You only love me, because you like to be beaten down. Whose the sick one in this relationship?" She screams this at him between punches. To which he smartly replies: "Hello Vampire! I'm supposed to be treading on the dark side." In their relationship Buffy is the Mistress of Pain and Spike the Sex Slave. (More on the twists and turns of this baby later.) Earlier in What's My Line we're told that Spike isn't much into torture but it is Drusilla's thing. Angel even suggests that this may be the problem Spike has with Drusilla. He can't keep her satisfied like the sadist Angelus could. We see much later how true this is in Innocence through Becoming Part II.
Later in Lover's Walk Spike claims Dru left him because he wasn't evil enough for her. And maybe she'll take him back if he chains her up and tortures her. People read this as evidence that Spike was a sadistic fiend, well yeah but he's talking about Drusilla. Drusilla clearly wasn't happy with anything less. In What's My Line she mentions missing the branding iron Spike had in Prague. In Lie to Me she misses leeches.
Drusilla is a true sadomasochist. She likes inflicting pain and enduring it. Spike seems less into it for some reason. Something the writers capitalize on in later episodes showing the eventual rift between Spike and Dru. I'm not saying he isn't sadomasochistic in his own right, he is. Just leans more to the masochistic side than the sadistic.
Angelus is the poster child for sadism. When Spike in FFL's flashbacks suggests fists and fangs, Angelus would prefer artistry, slow torture. In Dear Boy and other ATS flashbacks, we see Angelus slowly torturing Drusilla. When Darla asks when he plans on killing her, Angelus mentions that he'd rather turn her, killing her would just end her torment. In the background we see an insane human Dru struggling to deal with the two vampires in front of her. Later, when Darla brings Angelus the gypsey girl, Angelus and Darla bite each other while having sex clearly enjoying the pain and pleasure. Finally in Revelations Giles tells Buffy that Angelus tortured him for hours for his own pleasure, a scene we watched a portion of in Becoming Part II. And in Ats Sleep Tight as well as a few other interesting episodes, Angel states that he can keep someone alive indefinitely with blood transfusions an eternity of torture. He threatens Lilah with this type of torture in Sleep Tight and with another type of torture in Blood Money.
Darla is also a sadist. She enjoys torturing her victims. In her relationship with Lindsey in ATS we see an insane now human Darla come onto the human lawyer Lindsey, he's turned on until she bites him. Even human, part of Darla gets off on inflicting pain. As a vampire she enjoys being on the receiving end. Angelus appears to prefer inflicting pain to enduring it. Both as ensouled and without a soul. We see him get off on torturing Linwood in The Price (Season 3) and enjoy burning Darla and Drusilla (Season 2 Ats). Not that he minds enduring the torture that much. When captured by Holtz in one of the flashbacks, he pretty much states "torturing me isn't all that effective, vampire."
When we see flashbacks of these characters we are made increasingly aware of their dark sexual activities, their deviant ways. The vampire, Btvs and Ats tells us is a twisted version of the human. Therefore, the vampire will enjoy sex in a deviant twisted manner.
TBC 3-4 of Part I, shadowkat
[> [> So you believe it would have better if it was attempted muder or vamping instead of AR? -- VHF, 17:48:19 08/16/02 Fri
I am just wondering why you feel that way. Because, in terms of evil actions there would be no way Buffy would take Dawn to stay with Spike or would be pained he left town if Spike tried to turn her or kill her. In term of pure evil intent AR, even if it was intentional, in no way compares to attempted murder or vamping.
[> [> [> Re: So you believe it would have better if it was attempted muder or vamping instead of AR? -- demon's shadow, 05:55:44 08/17/02 Sat
Why didn't he just vamp her turn her into a vampire like himself - solve all his problems? Us demons have been trying to figure this out forever. A slayer to our number?
Great!!! Stupid vamp.
Because one is metaphorical and one is actual. And us demons would have been much happier!
VHF - this was discussed thoroughly in the archives. In the archives several of us explained our thoughts and feelings on this scene. If you want to see those go down further on your own post on this topic and see Sophist's suggestion - he includes a link to these archives. Or do a little work and hunt the archives yourself - D'H does a wonderful job organizing them. They are in June.
shadowkat is tired of discussing this point over and over again. Bored now.
[> [> [> [> Re: So you believe it would have better if it was attempted muder or vamping instead of AR? -- Rendyl, 07:44:13 08/17/02 Sat
****VHF - this was discussed thoroughly in the archives. In the archives several of us explained our thoughts and feelings on this scene. If you want to see those go down further on your own post on this topic and see Sophist's suggestion****
****shadowkat is tired of discussing this point over and over again. Bored now****
While I feel it might have been more appropriate for VHF to start a new thread since his subject was not the point of your essay I still balk at any attempt to censure the other posters on the board. Recommending the archived threads is fine, but demanding people drop a subject just because you, I, or anyone else is tired of discussing it is rude and unacceptable. If we don't want to discuss a topic all we have to do is just not read or reply to the posts on it.
Ren
[> [> [> [> [> just passing by... -- ponygirl, 08:08:48 08/17/02 Sat
I think shadowkat (or her demonic persona) was explaining why SHE was choosing not to reply to to VHF. The 'kat, I've noticed usually tries to reply to all the people who post questions about her essays. I'm sure no one would try stop you or VHF from discussing this topic again.
pony (better to beat a dead horse than a live poster) girl ;)
[> [> [> [> [> Re: So you believe it would have better if it was attempted muder or vamping instead of AR? -- Arethusa, 08:09:00 08/17/02 Sat
VHF keeps trying to bring this up, even though (s)he's already been told this was discussed thoroughly. Like I (Medusa) did in another thread, shadowkat is saying she's bored with the discussion. She's not telling VHF to drop it. Although that's a good idea. Rehashing old controversies ad nauseam decreases the quality, variety and civility of exchanges on the board.
[> [> [> [> [> [> thank you, Aerusa said it better than demon's shadow did -- shadowkat, 08:46:14 08/17/02 Sat
Apologies to Ren.
I've been trying to reign my demon in, where can you find good muzzels?
Seriously though for the best discussion of this topic? See the archive thread Sophist lists in VHF's thread below. I'll say nothing more on the topic than what I said in my essay.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think it's relevant that VHF also started that archived thread to which I linked. -- Sophist, 11:41:56 08/17/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> zargon deserves the credit for June's archives -- d'H-something or other, 10:13:02 08/17/02 Sat
[> Part I Vampires (B/S, Riley/Trulls, VampWillow) Spoilers to Season 6 -- shadowkat, 10:06:26 08/16/02 Fri
3. SPIKE & BUFFY: The MISTRESS & SERVANT Relationship
The Spuffy relationship reminds me of the description of Leopold von Sacher-Masoch's novel Venus in Furs. When Spike first states that he is in love with Buffy, no one can quite believe it. What does he see in her? All she does is beat him up. Well, duh.
Let's look at the relationships that work for Spike Drusilla, she was a tad sadistic, while we seldom saw it we can assume she enjoyed torturing and controlling him, playing dark mummy to her sweet dark knight.
Harmony on the other hand was a problem. Harmony is also a masochist. Two masochists aren't really conducive to a relationship. It worked for a little while Spike got to take out his fury towards losing Dru, being dumped, getting a chip, out on Harmony. Then he just got annoyed. There was no love in their interaction. The sadism as Havelock Ellis theorized isn't really much more than cruelty without love attached. Most sadomasochists don't get much out of torturing someone who doesn't enjoy the torture. Spike was just cruel to her, not sadistic so much as plain mean. Saw her as an object. An annoying object. He actually had more affection for the Buffbot than Harmony.
In his relationship with Buffbot, it has been noted that he was practicing being with a human. Possibly. I think he wanted someone who would fight him, beat him down, then have sex. The Buffbot does fight him. Flings him across the room then pounces. Not unlike Buffy does in Smashed.
In interviews, Joss stated he wanted to explore Buffy's dark side in Season 6. So Buffy was the sadist and Spike was the masochist in most of the scenes. What about the Bronze scene in Dead Things? Was that really sadomasochism? Not sure. It does appear they flipped roles there. Also what about the fact he handcuffs her in Dead Things? Again a flip? Perhaps they played both roles? Havelock Ellis and Freud both comment on how sadism and masochism isn't easily separated. The people involved may in fact enjoy playing both roles. But from the episodes Smashed through Dead Things, I was under the impression that Buffy was the one in control here. In Normal Again, Spike even confesses that she has "turned him into her sodding sex slave." In Gone, he barely is able to throw her out and only succeeds in doing so after she's had her invisible way with him. And in AYW, she uses him for sex, beats him up, humiliates and breaks up with him telling him that she is only using him. She seems to hold the reins and certainly is the one doing the bashing. It's not until Seeing Red's infamous attempted rape scene that we see Spike being violent back.
Seeing Red may be the writer's attempt to comment on the negative repercussions of an S&M relationship. Or at least one writer's personal experience of the repercussions of this type of relationship.( If so, it was an extraordinarily brave thing to do and as others have stated possibly a huge miscalculation. BTVS being a horror show there was no other possible conclusion, he'd either bite her or try to force himself on her once she spurned him. I would have preferred the metaphorical biting for reasons stated in the archives, but it's done, willing to see where they go with it.) In Seeing Red Spike tells Buffy that he wants to make her feel it, like she did before. Their relationship has always been violent. They both get turned on by the violence. Buffy realized this long ago in Bad Girls with Faith. "Come on, don't tell me you don't get off on it?" Faith states. Then later in Where the Wild Things Are the writers make an obvious parallel between Buffy and Riley fighting demons and having sex. Spike alludes to this tendency in Fool For Love and in OMWF "We've always been dancing" in FFL and "You have thoughts you'll misbehave, Be your willing slave" in OMWF. In fact Buffy herself questions her attraction to their violent sex in Dead Things : "Why do I feel this way? Why do I let Spike do these things to me?" "Why can Spike hurt me?" and "The only time I feelŠanything is when I'm with him." Unfortunately violent sex can lead to unsafe situations. While Buffy admits she can never fully trust Spike enough to love him, she must trust him a little or she would never have entered into an S&M relationship with him. S&M requires an element of trust.
Trust. The difference between healthy and unhealthy S&M relationships is just that trust and consent. If the couple has a group of safe words and does explicitly trust one another than S&M can be a deviant but fairly healthy sexual practice. If however there is little to trust in the relationship if it is a love/hate relationship based purely on sex, then S&M is not only unhealthy it can be quite dangerous. This is the relationship Spike and Buffy are in. Spike trusts Buffy not to stake him, but should he? We are given reasons why he shouldn't in both Dead Things her dream sequence and the alley scene, and in AYW where she uses him for sex and does consider letting her ex kill him. Buffy trusts Spike not to hurt her or any of her friends, she believes she can control him and he's too incompetent to hurt anyone with the chip in place. Should she? She doesn't really know what he is or isn't willing to do. In Smashed he tries to kill the girl, yeah he hesitated, but he still did it, the chip was the only thing that stopped him. In AYW he is dealing demon eggs, yeah the episode is poorly written but that was the intent. She realizes in AYW that trusting him is not a good idea. Spike on the other hand never gets the whole trust thing, which is partly why the attempted rape happens. In S&M it is imperative that both parties not only trust one another but understand what trust means and know when "no" means "no". Because in S&M there are situations where "no" may actually mean "yes" as well as one's where it means "no"..
Spike was clearly out of line in SR, I'm sure he'd be the first to admit it, but by entering into a sadomasochistic relationship with a vampire who could hurt her Buffy was setting herself up for a fall. As Spike states in Smashed: "Hello? Vampire. I'm supposed to be treading on the dark side. What's your excuse?" It's a bit like playing with fire sooner or later, you will be burned. This in a nutshell is the danger of S&M. It could very likely lead to a situation you can't get out of. Buffy is right when she tells him "I should have stopped you long ago." Actually Buff, you shouldn't have let him in. You initiated things honey. Don't believe me? Ask yourself who kissed who in OMWF, TR and Smashed. And who unzipped who's zipper? (Do not misunderstand me I am not in any way condoning Spike's actions I'm just saying, get in a cage with a cheetah, even a muzzled one? Don't be surprised if you get bit. And that in a nutshell is one of the many reasons why I HATE that scene.)
Not all S&M leads in this direction. If you're dealing with someone who isn't a demon or caged animal, it may actually not get all that dangerous. Control is very important. But do beware of the dangers involved particularly if the relationship outside of the sex is an unhealthy one and to quote James Marsters : "Can you really think of anything remotely healthy about that relationship for either character that you would wish on your best friend?" (see www.bloodyawfulpoet.com, Shore Leave Transcripts). Outside of the Incredible Sex? Think about it. They didn't talk. She beat him up most of the time. He made snarky comments that embarrassed her. He couldn't hang out with her friends. She couldn't hang out with his. (They tried, Life Serial's card game and OAFA's birthday party. He ironically did a better job of it.) They hated what each other stood for and resented having to sink to each other's level. In Tabula Rasa he's running from a loan shark and brings the loan shark down on Buffy and her friends. In Smashed, Buffy beats him up and calls him an evil soulless thing. When he discovers he can hit people he goes off to bite one and is horribly disappointed when he can't. In Wrecked he smugly tells her that she will crave him. She tells him he's disgusting and convienent. In Gone she invades his crypt and manhandles him before telling him who she is. In Dead Things, he seduces her on the platform in the Bronze and suggests she can only be happy in the darkness with him. Nothing healthy about it. OTOH of all of Buffy's relationships Spike actually seemed to understand her. He accepted her darkness even encouraged it. Quite the reverse of Angel and Riley. Wonder what would have happened if he hadn't been a demon? If he had a soul? Would it have worked? Will never know.
4. RILEY and THE VAMP TRULLS = Feeling Needed
Riley is a lot like Spike in the sense that he truly is a masochist. In Season 5, part of Riley's difficulty with Buffy is that once his super-powers are removed he can no longer keep up with her. She can as Spike would put it "bruise him".
Buffy, worried about hurting Riley, apparently starts pulling back. In their sex scenes at the beginning of Season 5, The Real ME, OOMM, Riley is almost competing with her in bed, seeing who can keep going the longest. Then after the chip is removed, we start seeing her make comments like: "yes that was relaxing" before turning over on her side, away from him. She treats him a bit like a reliable puppy dog. Riley craves passion.
So Riley goes to the vamp trulls. The first of these he meets in Willy's bar, while nursing a drink. He's just heard from Dawn how upset and traumatized Angel always made Buffy feel, while Buffy feels comfortable and casual around him (Shadow). Feeling unneeded, he goes to the bar and Sandy, the vampire that VampWillow turns, comes on to him. He lets her bite him right before staking her. His comment "sorry this will never work, I know you only want me for my body." But as he later tells Buffy in Into The Woods at least they want me.
For Riley the pain is a demonstration of being wanted. He wants to feel something. In Season 5, Riley is depressed, he feels useless, every thing has become meaningless. His friends tell him that he has become nothing more than "true love's mission". "You used to have a mission, Riley. Now what are you? The mission's true love?" (Season 5, Btvs)
Riley is a lot like Buffy in Season 6, craving something but uncertain what it is. Have you ever craved something? You try ice cream, you try television, you try everything, but nothing fulfills your need? That's what happened to these two people. First with Riley in Season 5 then later with Buffy in Season 6. They both wanted to feel something other than just being numb of being a waste of space. So Riley goes to the vamp trulls. When they bite him, he feels their need, he feels that he has a purpose, that somehow he is sustaining someone. And the pain? It makes him feel alive. Bit like asking someone to pinch you.
The masochist may often need someone to pinch them. They desire pain to feel alive. To feel love. To feel needed. Some masochists can't experience an orgasm without pain. In Btvs this type of pain is shown as unhealthy. As Giles states it is an ambiguous evil, the vamp trulls, and usually harmless, but it can get dangerous if one of the trulls loses control and takes more than they should. Riley is so far gone, he doesn't care, begging the trull to bite harder. When Buffy finds him he's in what appears to be a dope den, surrounded by thin husks of vampires and their patrons. The vampires get off on the blood, the patrons on the sensation their sucking provides them. The perfect S&M metaphor. A consensual relationship with mutual needs met.
When Buffy confronts him on this he tells her he just wanted to understand what the appeal was, why she preferred Angel, even possibly Dracula to him. She denies this. But he senses what Spike early states she requires a bit more monster than he can give her. She requires the adrenaline of the danger, the sadist in her man. Oddly enough of the rejections Buffy has suffered Riley's is the most similar to her father's. Riley appears to leave for the same reasons she feels her father left because she couldn't satisfy his needs, wasn't what he wanted, was too "primal" for him.
5. VAMPWILLOW - The Sadist
While an argument can be made that Angelus, Spike and the other vampires are mostly sadomasochists, VampWillow is pure sadist. The sadist gets off on torturing others.
Vamp Willow is Willow's vampire self. In Buffyverse the vampire is a twisted version of the human. The human's deepest and darkest desires are reflected in the vampire's persona. Willow clearly has a desire to inflict torture on those who once tortured her. We see this desire occasionally jump to the forefront of her mind. In Earshot, she gets off on her interrogation of Jonathan. And in some of the earlier episodes of Season 6, doped up on magic, she tortures the denizens of the Bronze. (Smashed, ALL THE WAY). What holds Willow back is her conscience, her soul. Guilt. The magic washes the guilt away when she becomes DarkWillow allowing her to torture Warren in Villains, Rack in Two to Go, and Giles in Grave.
Before we ever meet DarkWillow we meet VampWillow in The Wish and in Dopplegangerland. In The Wish, VampWillow gets a great deal of enjoyment out of torturing a chained up Angel, flinging burning matches on his chest. Later in Dopplegangerland we watch her break the Mayor's minions fingers and bite poor Sandy in the Bronze. When she refers to her world the Alternate Universe of the Wish she says - "we could ride people like ponies".
VampWillow does not require the other person to enjoy the torture she dishes out. Actually she seems to prefer it if they don't. This is a sadistic personality. Very different than the sadomasochist, who gets off when they do enjoy it. In comparison Spike is more of a sadomasochist in Seasons 5 and 6. Not a sadist. VampWillow, however, is a sadist in the truest sense of the word.
Vampires in conclusion have been used effectively by BTVS and ATS to demonstrate the unhealthy aspects of sadomasochism. Of addictive love or self-centered immature love. When two people don't so much love each other as crave one another. The type of love that is a fire in the blood. S&M often is the unhealthy result of that type of love at least in the troubled world of BTVS.
END OF PART I.
Part II: Slayers, Witches and Werewolves will be posted laterŠdepending on what responses if any I get to Part I.
Looking forward to your comments as always.
;-) shadowkat
[> [> Re: Part I Vampires (B/S, Riley/Trulls, VampWillow) Spoilers to Season 6 -- Dead Soul, 11:16:05 08/16/02 Fri
Amazing essay - so much to think about and reread and consider that I can't comment now - have to let it percolate a little.
I am truly blown away.
Dead (forgot to use a safe word) Soul
[> [> Wow. And WOW again! -- Sebastian, 11:40:30 08/16/02 Fri
Part II: Slayers, Witches and Werewolves will be posted laterŠdepending on what responses if any I get to Part I.
I, personally, will go insane if you don't post Part II. ;-)
As usual, I'm blown away by your essay. Excellent reading!
- S
[> [> Re: Part I Vampires (B/S, Riley/Trulls, VampWillow) Spoilers to Season 6 -- LadyStarlight, 12:32:03 08/16/02 Fri
Another incredible essay, 'kat. A very balanced exploration of the 'darker' side of the Buffyverse. Looking forward to Part II.
Also, historical tidbits, so it's all good! ;)
[> [> Excellent work ! -- Etrangere, 12:58:01 08/16/02 Fri
I hardly see anything to add, it's brillantly written, very perceptive and complete. Love the explanation about wanting to be hurted to feel like you're needed. And offcourse, the nuance between fantasies and reality... so few people get that.
Most people won't understand that all the fetishist regalia and the SM rituals are about making sense, about meaning something about the relationship between the persons.
keep it coming, i love this essay ;)
[> [> Re: Part I Vampires (B/S, Riley/Trulls, VampWillow) Spoilers to Season 6 -- ponygirl, 13:46:37 08/16/02 Fri
First of all great essay shadowkat! I'm so glad you wrote it.
I tend to agree with Willow, "It's not the violence. It's the power." I would extend that to the sexual relationships you mention, that's it's not so much the pain but the control. I did some very superficial research on the S&M scene a couple years ago for a tv show I was working on. Nice people, though I was glad it was mainly phone interviews 'cause I'm a blusher! Most of them prefer to discuss the bondage/domination/submission aspect which is all about layers of consent and trust, rather than true S&M which apparently is relatively uncommon. And they emphasize that despite appearances there is a great deal of power in the submissive role, the dominant partner is required to abide by the limits set, the lines can get awfully blurry as in all relationships.
To bring this back to your essay, I would suggest that many of the relationships are about dominance and submission rather than actual S&M. Angelus was definitely a sadist, just Drusilla was most certainly a masochist, but I don't consider Angel one, though he definitely seems to assume the dominant position in a relationship. Buffy and Angel's relationship in s1-3 could be seen as Buffy moving from the submissive to the dominant partner. As you note it is a relationship of unequals, which Angel seems to encourage, he's older, he witholds information, physically he towers over her. As Angelus he continues to have the upper hand, constantly taunting Buffy (as Faith would in s3) that she isn't ready. He is the one in control. Until finally Becoming 2 when Buffy asserts her control, first in her willingness to kill Angelus, and then in sending Angel to hell (she has him close his eyes first, his trust in her is absolute). When Angel comes back in s3 he is greatly weakened and Buffy is often in a caretaking role, she has reversed the balance of power. Buffy's actions in Graduation Day in offering her blood to Angel seem on the surface an act of surrender but in many ways it is a complete assertion of dominance (and tellingly the real end of their relationship, 2 doms aren't going to work). Buffy sets the limits, "you don't have to drain me", she hits him when he is unwilling and finally the act itself is one of the most sexual we have ever seen Buffy experience.
Buffy, in her relationship with Riley, seems to be repeating some of the patterns from B/A. He's older, he's concealing things from her, and his physical type seems to suggest Angel's. But she never surrenders control to Riley. Just the opposite. Riley, too, seems to be uncomfortable in a submissive role. I don't see his adventures with the vamp 'hos as Riley's masochism but rather his attempt to assert control. He can't control Buffy, but he can with the trulls -- their need for him is greater than his for them, just as his need for Buffy will always outweigh hers for him.
Well, I wanted to talk about B/S and how I think Buffy's unease in seeing herself as the dominant partner, as opposed to the good/submissive girl she had tried to be in her past relationships contributed a great deal to her self-loathing, but really I've rambled on too long. Great essay 'kat, looking forward to more!
[> [> [> Thanks ponygirl gave me fodder for part II -- shadowkat, 17:25:40 08/16/02 Fri
I think Angel has a more sadistic urg than you might think - it comes out more in ATS than in Buffy, partly b/c he is so subdued with Buffy and weak when he returns. But if you watch some of the episodes after Darla becomes a vampire in Season 2 ATS and some of the epsiodes after Connor is lost in Season 3 Ats - you definitely see that this tendency is not relegated to the vampire. Remember the vampire is a twisted version of the human. Angel buries them down deep but he is still a vampire and his desires are still there.
I agree with your take and leslie's down below on Buffy.
Haven't written PArt II yet - but will get to her there along with Willow and a few others.
From what I read on the Deviants site - S&M actually is all about dominance and submission - it just takes it a bit further. Although I'd agree that B/A is not a true S&M relationship. Unhealthy yes. For different reasons. It is a relationship that deals with shifts in power though.
As for Riley - put of masochism is control. If someone gets off in causing you pain - you control their pleasure. And he has a bit of the sadist in him as well - he enjoys killing things and justifies it since they are after all evil things. Complex character Riley. But actually agree with rest that you said.
[> [> [> [> A line from Riley I've never forgotten...... -- Rufus, 01:21:36 08/17/02 Sat
BUFFY: (looking closely) Look, there's a scar there, (pointing at ScruffyXander's forehead) and there's the same one right there. (pointing at SuaveXander's forehead)
WILLOW: It's all double. (pointing) This zit, and this ... kinda funny dippy thing. A-and this weird little hair that grows in the wrong way (pointing to ScruffyXander's nose)
ScruffyXANDER: Okay! Back off, ladies.
RILEY: Psychologically, this is fascinating. Doesn't it make everyone wanna lock them in separate rooms and do experiments on them?
Talk about control......that little statement said a whole lot about Riley to me......but the separate room bit does have some merit....you know....gotta know how people tick....;)
[> [> [> [> [> Yes, but... -- Cactus Watcher, 05:30:42 08/17/02 Sat
It's almost standard procedure for an experimental psych major. 'We have identical twins here? Great! Let's seperate them and see how much alike they really are.' Other than the first meeting with Willow and Buffy in the bookstore, it's one of the few times Riley shows he had any business being a graduate student in psychology. Yes, he does want to find out what makes them tick, but not in the same way as, say, a clinical psychology major would. Riley doesn't show that kind of personally probing interest at all.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes, but... -- Rufus, 14:00:03 08/17/02 Sat
That wasn't really my point.....it was the fact that when he said that he established his otherness from the scoobies by referring to "Initiative" like activities....activities that would have him in a dominant position, what he was used to....and when he was forced to become an "anarchist" he was no longer in charge. That statement of his reflects his first impulses as a person and that is to take charge and dominate.....also engage in vivisection if the need be. It was done in a comedic way but what Riley had been involved with (he may not have actually participated in the experiments except unknowingly as a subject) before was experimentation in the most extreme with the least regard of life in any form. Riley was screwed because even doing what he does best as a soldier he had been a part of a "secret" experiment all along...so any power he thought he had was illusory, capped off with the fact that his teensy girlfriend could wipe up the floor with him. Makes one thing "who's on top...or was that who's on third..;)?"
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> But Did Riley know or participate in these experiments -- shadowkat, 14:59:01 08/17/02 Sat
You're both touching on something I considered writing about on Riley and was uncertain about. Still am. In fact I wrote it my first draft and deleted it.
How much of those initiative experiments and tortures was Riley truly involved with? What we see in New Moon Rising - is Riley coming upon them torturing OZ and being somewhat taken aback by it. Now an argument can be made that Riley was ONLY taken aback when he realized it was OZ, and would have had no troubles with the torture if it had been someone he didn't know or didn't like. For instance if he had come upon them torturing and experimenting on Hostile 17/Spike. What I wrote - was that Riley got off on torturing the subterresterials and justified it because they were just animals, below par, demons, just as scientists in laboratories and cosmetic companies may justify torturing animals. I was going to argue that Riley had sadistic tendencies...but and here's the reason I deleted it - I wasn't sure if this was really true of Riley. Are we given any real evidence of his involvement with the torture and experimentation? Or is he merely the hunter/gatherer and has no real involvement with what they do with the creatures? He clearly didn't know they were experimenting on him or creating Adam?
OTOH I think it would be wonderfully ironic if he was in fact involved with the experimentation - only to discover that he is also a lab rat. Reminds a great deal of H.G. Wells Island of Dr. Moreau. The psychologist's assistant discovers he's no different than the lab rats he's hurting.
Freud's theory that the sadist can become the masochist and vice versa.
But again - I'm not sure if he was really involved or not.
I got the feeling in The I in Team, Goodbye Iowa, and New Moon Rising - that Riley didn't have much clue as to what the Government's Initiative truly was. The public has an odd view of the military - we think the solidars are robotic, follow orders and don't know the game plan, after talking to someone who is currently serving in the navy - I discovered how wrong this really is. They know. But I get the feeling ME being like the general public with no military experience (as is obviously demonstrated with their Initiative storyline) probably thinks Riley wouldn't have had a clue.
But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise! Please do!
sk
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: But Did Riley know or participate in these experiments -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:17:26 08/17/02 Sat
I think Riley did know, and possibly even watch, the experimentations. However, he didn't try to stop Oz's torture because Oz was someone he kinda knew. It was because he saw that Oz was a human being.
While soldiers in the real military may know a lot about what's going on, chances are soldiers for an overt government conspiracy are going to be different.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> He had an idea -- Rufus, 20:21:37 08/17/02 Sat
Riley as a soldier had been bagging and tagging or straight out eliminating demons....there was an exchange between Riley and Forrest that was worth looking at...
A lab-coat and another guy are leading down a horned demon.
Riley: "How do *you* explain the things we deal with, Forrest?"
Forrest: "They're just animals, man, plain and simple. Granted they're a little rarer than the one's you grew up with on that little farm in Smallville..."
The attitude towards demons was that they were animals, period...of course that's why they lost in the end because the "animals" were a shit-load more than the Initiative was capable of dealing with. They underestimated their power over the "animal" and paid for it.
Riley as a soldier was doing what many soldiers end up defending themselves for....."following orders". Riley may never have been in on the delicate needle and thread parts of the experimentation, but he was there and knew what was going on......of course as the demons are only animals he could rationalize the mistreatment. From New Moon Rising...
RILEY: No, come on. Is it that whole thing about Willow last night? (He sits on the bed.) Look, I only said what I said because I'm concerned. I don't wanna see her get hurt.
BUFFY: You sounded like Mr. Initiative. Demons bad, people good.
RILEY: Something wrong with that theorem?
(Buffy looks exasperated. She walks a few steps away.)
BUFFY: There's different degrees of-
RILEY: Evil?
BUFFY: It's just... different with different demons. There are creatures - vampires, for example -- that aren't evil at all.
RILEY: Name one.
To Riley he had been fighting against evil, the things he had done to protect the innocent..the way he was used to living. Buffy made him consider all he had learned from Maggie Walsh.
RILEY: What's the holdup? I thought Graham gave you a full description.
DOC 1: The holdup is that he described characteristics present in over 40 known varieties of demon. So we're cross-checking DNA evidence - hair, fibers-
RILEY: (impatient) And how long is that gonna take?
DOC 1: (annoyed) I have no idea.
RILEY: I don't need a bunch of tests to know that this thing's a killer.
(Takes out his gun and points it at Oz. Suddenly Oz stops growling and morphs back into his human self. Riley lowers his gun and steps back. Everyone looks surprised. Oz looks up at them panting and closing his eyes.)
(Fade to white screen.)
(Fade to Oz's perspective, lying on a table with two docs over him and many more in the background. Doc1 is on the left, shining a flashlight in his eyes. Riley is behind him.)(Shot of Oz on the table, naked and looking groggy.)
(Riley pushes forward.)
RILEY: Hey, he's coming to. Oz!
DOC 1: He won't be able to talk for a while. We gave him Haldol to keep him quiet. (Shining flashlight on Oz's teeth.)
RILEY: Why? He's not a threat now.
DOC 1: I allowed you to stay as long as you let us do our work, Agent Finn.
Only Colonel Macnamara can place a cease order on medical testing, and he's told us to proceed.
DOC 2: I always suspected that stuff about werewolf transformations being based on a lunar cycle was campfire talk. (Injects Oz with something. Oz groans.)(Riley sees the second doctor pulling out another instrument (stun gun?)
RILEY: Oh, hey, that's enough. Come on, the guy's a student, I know him.
DOC 1: (points to the other soldiers) Take him out.
COMMANDO 3: Yes sir.
(Riley looks angry, but lets the other soldiers escort him away.)(Doc 2 puts the tip of the instrument on Oz's chest and zaps him with electricity. Oz screams and turns into the werewolf.)
DOC 2: See that? Transformation related to negative stimulation. (The docs exchange a look.)
The difference between the impatient Riley and the Riley who tried to intervene in the "experiment" was knowledge...he couldn't live with torture, where just a short time before experimenting on an animal was alright..he was learning what Buffy meant by degrees of evil.
COLONEL: Being new around here, Finn, I had a look at your record and Professor Walsh's notes. Until recently, you were an exemplary soldier headed straight for the top. Then you meet this girl, this ... slayer, and suddenly you begin to exhibit signs of disloyalty. You abuse your command. But tonight... (shakes his head, squints) To release a lethal HST back into the population -
(Riley shakes his head.)
RILEY: Sir, the prisoner-
COLONEL: You will speak when I tell you to!
(Riley goes back to attention.)
COLONEL: Tomorrow I am going to institute a court-martial to investigate the extent of your involvement with the Slayer and her band of freaks. (pause) They're anarchists, Finn ... too backwards for the real world. You help us take them down, and you just might save your military career. Otherwise, you'll go to your grave labeled a traitor.
(Riley looks shocked. The Colonel turns and leaves.)
COLONEL: No woman is worth that.
Once Riley understood that the situation the government was in was far beyond their ability to deal with in the 'usual' way....he rebelled it took a bit of time and experience, but once he realized that demons were more than just animals and a Slayer more than a myth, he couldn't stay with The Initiative....the final blow, the realization that he was no more than an animal, and experiment to the woman he had respected so much, Maggie Walsh. I think everyone has the ability to become sadistic, but most of us never act upon it. Give a person power and an excuse to use it, the hidden sadist can emerge. For Riley, he was decent enough that he was capable of realizing what he was involved with had a darker side that had nothing to do with protecting the public, but just another grand plan executed at others expense. He got past just taking orders and became an anarchist.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: But Did Riley know or participate in these experiments -- aliera, 05:49:12 08/19/02 Mon
SK What you wrote - was that "Riley got off on torturing the subterresterials and justified it because they were just animals, below par, demons, just as scientists in labs and cosmetic companies may justify torturing animals. I was going to argue that Riley had sadistic tendencies...but and here's the reason I deleted it - I wasn't sure if this was really true of Riley. Are we given any real evidence of his involvement with the torture and experimentation? Or is he merely the hunter/gatherer and has no real involvement with what they do with the creatures? He clearly didn't know they were experimenting on him or creating Adam?"
Regarding Riley and of what does he understand and what is his level of participation in the experiments that were done on the demons by the Initiative. Firstly, a caveat, and some general remarks about Riley. There is an inherent difficulty in character analysis of the members of the Buffyverse in that they function at all times as individuals, plot devices and metaphors for other issues, and Riley's character contains this difficulty also. In other words, I have no doubt that they could have presented Riley's participation had they felt that necessary to his character development of the development of the plot and it would have been nicely ironic given his chip. But they did not. Just another note on an issue that sometimes niggles at me...even when viewed a character (not a metaphor) alone Riley's struggles in Season four and five struck me as more complicated and deeper than I have sometimes seen them regarded. He has suffered in part by being Buffy's boyfriend at a time when people were missing Angel and then further by being a representative of the metaphor for the government in a series where authority figures and institutions are usually given a negative presentation. For me, Riley was a character who had to deal with the overturning of all he had come to believe of himself, his world and his place in that world. Although the relationship with Buffy was certainly a part of his impetus for change and even the catalyst for same, it is not central to his ensuing struggle. Just as important a catalyst as the relationship I believe was the scene with Oz when Riley sees Oz's struggle for humanity. This scene is also central to some of the basics questions raised in season four about what is a man. I didn't really care about Riley replacing Angel (as we see he didn't) for me the disappointment in the character came in how Riley dealt with his issues or inevitably, failed to deal. Riley left to seek out a new but striking similar mythology and returned (AYW for certain) fully re-indoctrinated into same. He certainly serves other functions in the story; but, the possibilities inherent in his search for self in season four are well behind him.
This question of what is man led me in particular back to a book by Jamake Highwater (Myth and Sexuality), within which, if you are not familiar with it, he theorizes that our myths are derived from our views of the body and also discusses how these have shifted over time and are viewed by cultures other than our own. At certain points, he places great emphasis on the discoveries and theories of the 17th century , in particular Descartes and the vision of the universe as some cosmic Machine and then later by extension man's body as a machine (as seen in the factory workers in the Industrial Revolution) and then much later as affected by the mythology of capitalism as man's body as a commodity. It seems important to me that the Marquis was writing prior to the 17th century and that our current views are infected by the subsequent myths. The dialogue that Rufus quoted, especially the remark that equates demons with animals is revealing and evocative of Highwater's remarks on the 17th century philosophers and scientists in particular. "They administered beatings to dogs with perfect indifference and made fun of us who believed the creatures felt pain and therefore pitied them. The insisted that the animals were like clocks; that the cries they emitted when struck were only the noises of some little spring that had been triggered by the blow, but that the animal itself has absolutely no feeling" (p149 from Jean de la Fontaine's journalistic account of experiments , not sadly, one of his animal fables). Highwater believed that the experiments were representative of a set of value-loaded myths about the nature of the world that informed the beliefs of the peoples of that time and in fact still shape the comprehension of many people today. Thus terming the demons "animals" opens up a set of questions for the viewers. The question becomes more even more interesting as we incorporate Oz and then Spike into the experimental group, and culminates in our discovery of Adam, and then the chipping of Riley. But perhaps more importantly, a pattern of questioning our assumptions about the nature of what composes a man, a demon, machine was re-established (for Joss has had this in the back of his mind at other times such as IRYJ) to be built upon in both season five and six with the further exploration of the Spike character and the reintroduction of machines that substitute for people such as April and the Buffybot.
Cartesian mechanism shaped not just the viewpoint of the bodies of animals but humans. But since morality doesn't apply to machines and we like to think it does for humans he differentiated between the two by the concept of a soul, which he defined as "a spiritual agency that is not itself part of the body" or has Joss has put it "a moral compass" which can be disassociated from the body by death or infection of the vampire to the "ether". And "For the purposes of dealing with the intersection of morals and human biology, nothing has thus far replaced the Cartesian body-soul dualism."(Stent) We seem still to have this principle in operation, since despite the gains made in challenging our assumptions about demons last and this season and on Angel, Joss sent Spike to Africa in search of a soul.
Does Riley have "sadistic" tendencies was the other issue and under Highwater's theories he probably would. Highwater considers sadism as we know it today (a much different culture than the 1500's or 1700's) linked to power, dominance, violence and the body as a commodity (capitalistic sexuality). He would consider (I think) Riley's repeated exposure to violence, in our culture this is likely to happen pre-army, at least optimum conditions for emphasizing these tendencies if they did exist. He has some other things to say about sadism, which I'll add later if the discussion is still going on...late for the office again, what's new!
Jamake Highwater (Myth and Sexuality, 1990) Highwater draws on the work of Foucault, Pagels and Stent amongst others.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Excellent post! -- Rahael, 06:50:22 08/19/02 Mon
And the whole of Season 4 showed that Maggie Walsh didn't just think that she was allowed to experiment on demons, but also on human beings. Riley was just another lab rat to spy on and study.
And as for whether Riley is a sadist or not, and the work you feed in from Highwater, it seems pertinent that Foucault, with his theories of sexuality, power and the body was into S&M himself.
Which means that, with SK's excellent essay, here is the second Foucauldian season of Buffy - because I saw Season 4 as very much an illustration of Foucault's theories. The Initiative were into dissecting, studying and gathering knowledge - and all those banks of television screens that Walsh used reminded me of Foucault's panopticon.
Another Buffy scene that reminded me of Foucault was the way that the demon bikers tore apart the Buffybot - since that's very similar to the anecdote with which Foucault starts off his seminal 'Discipline and Punish', where a traitor to the French Crown was torn part by horsemen, as a grisly display of the power of the Crown. Foucault then contrasts this with the much more sophisticated and modern punishment of the prison/panopticon, where we are made to think that someone could *always* be watching us and our actions, even if they aren't. And the mere fact of this knowledge shapes our behaviour.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agree was truly excellent, both are here -- shadowkat, 08:55:32 08/19/02 Mon
Thank you for the above points which lend themselves
very well to part II of my essay. Unfortunately I haven't read much Foucault. But as for S&M, I'd say Season 3 was probably one of the most explicit with Faith/Angel and
Faith/Buffy.
I was reading an archive from February when OAFA first aired and someone posted on the S&M images in season 3 with Faith and how Faith was often very sadistic in her behavior towards Angel, Xander and others. I'll be discussing this in more depth in PArt II of course...but having not read foucault myself - I'm interested in how much what he has to say would fit with Faith's behavior.
What interests me is how we justify our sadistic tendencies by dehumanizing those we take them out on. Several characters, that I would term "good", in Btvs do this. If they be demons? It's okay if I abuse. Just as the demons who are evil - consider the Buffbot a toy and therefore no problem to tear apart - although I sincerely doubt they would have had a problem tearing apart Buffy either. But there's another thing you reminded me of - the SG's abandonment of Buffbot and the fact that Spike (a demon) was the only one outside of Dawn who was truly upset by what happened or saw her as more than just a "loss" or toy.
Btvs and Ats keep bringing up the idea that if something does not have a "soul" it is not worth saving, it should be slain. If it does have the "Cartesian idea of the soul"
than we shouldn't kill it, it has a choice and can be saved.
(Consequences, Disharmony, Villains, Sancturary, Trial)
Oh and thanks for the compliment on my essay, Rah!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agree was truly excellent, both are here -- yabyumpan, 06:50:11 08/20/02 Tue
shadowkat wrote:
"What interests me is how we justify our sadistic tendencies by dehumanizing those we take them out on. Several characters, that I would term "good", in Btvs do this. If they be demons? It's okay if I abuse."
Totally agree and the opposite is also true. I was struck by what Lorne said to Angel in 'Forgiving' about torturing Linwood
Lorne: "Angel - this isn't some slimy demon you got trussed up here. He's human (glances at Linwood) marginally, but still..."
Implying that if Linwood was a 'slimey demon', torturing him would be ok and this was said by a 'demon'. I found it quite disturbing that someone like Lorne, who is definatly one of the 'good guys' even though he's a demon, seems to consider demons (and by implication, himself), as lesser beings than humans, even humans who think it's ok to dissect babies! It made me feel very sad for Lorne but it also touches on the whole 'specism' argument. Humans are automatically superior to demons even though we've been shown time and again that there are demons who are far more 'moral' than a lot of the humans on the shows, esp on AtS.
(quote from Psyche's site)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Panopticon -- Sophist, 09:12:17 08/19/02 Mon
The notion and the term originated with Bentham. He campaigned for prisons as a replacement for executions, but some of his notions of prison seem a little chilling today.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks! -- Rahael, 09:34:26 08/19/02 Mon
I did know that once, but had forgotten it completely. I should have made it clear that when I said "Foucault's Panopticon" I didn't mean that he'd invented it, but "the Panopticon that Foucault discussed and theorised". The fact that Bentham meant it to be an alternative to executions ties into Foucault's theories - the modern state is
a) more effective/less grisly
b) but still acts as a method of control, albeit a more sophisticated means.
You are right, still chilling in its own way.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks! -- aliera, 12:55:52 08/19/02 Mon
I came across a Fourcault essay by accident looking for essays on 'Donkeyskin' or maybe it was the one on countertransference (searching leaves me with a feeling of the landscape passing by in a blur). I think I would have liked him; he sounds somewhat like myself, a social critic who doesn't argue pro or con sso I've googled and I'll try to read a bit more tonight.
Highwater is a little different than what I'm used to but also interesting; I'm dancing along through the (a reference he would have liked)through the work and then there's a reference to Selby's Last Exit to Brooklyn that's going to be with me for a while (that's what I get for assiduously avoiding all the SR threads the Fates wap me up the side of the head with it anyway)...but I like that he envisioned a couple of different ways for myth to go...and although he's very limited on what he chose as impact points, the very fact that he limits himself makes the book very easy to read. Also whereas the Campbell I read shows the points in common, H uses other cultures as contrast, to expand the possibilities and show that where we are headed doesn't have to be so linear...there are interesting sideroads also.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great subthread ! -- Ete, 03:50:43 08/20/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes, but... -- anom, 21:58:26 08/19/02 Mon
"That statement of his reflects his first impulses as a person and that is to take charge and dominate.....also engage in vivisection if the need be."
I don't see it that way. I think he's speaking as a psych major here, not as an Initiative soldier. I'm going to use the same quote Rufus did, but emphasize a different part:
"Psychologically, this is fascinating. Doesn't it make everyone wanna lock them in separate rooms and do experiments on them?"
He makes it explicit: he's interested in the psychological differences. Those are the kind that would require separating the 2 Xanders (so he won't be a bad influence on himself!). Physical differences will be the same even if they're in the same room. It's the physical similarities that are already being pointed out, but Riley departs from that line of conversation to bring up the psychological. And I think vivisection is a real leap--Riley's demeanor when he says this is entirely different from the attitude he shows when it comes to how the "STH's" are treated. He shows no interested in experimenting on the werewolf who turns out to be Oz--he's ready to shoot him on the spot (& compare his expression in that scene to the one in the double-Xander scene). I don't even think he looks/sounds like he's trying to dominate when he makes the comment Rufus quotes.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes, but... -- Rufus, 15:00:07 08/25/02 Sun
Really.......up until he was faced with a 'demon' he had gotten to know as a man, Riley was pretty much onboard with what had to be done to protect civillians. The thing is we won't know exactly how involved he ever was in the knife and fork area of experimentation. The irony is that the whole time Riley thought he was in control, he was actually a victim much like the captured demons that were experimented upon. Just as he finds that some demons have more in common with regular folk, he finds out that Maggie Walsh had treated him like one of her experiments....he lost everything he knew and trusted....the Initiative, his mentor, and with a chip inside, his freedom. Sometimes it just doesn't pay to be a nice guy in the Buffyverse...;)
[> [> [> [> Re: Thanks ponygirl gave me fodder for part II -- Miss Edith, 07:55:01 08/17/02 Sat
Angel was pretty sadistic with Darla in season 2 of Ats. The network people were concerned that it was too similiar to rape and insisted that Angel slapping Darla was cut. Angel was certainly aggresive in that sexual encounter. We don't have much evidence of his true sexual desires with a soul as his encounter with Buffy would have been gentle and vanilla as she was a virgin that he would have wanted to protect.
Angel was usually in control with Buffy I felt. In early season 2 she is desperate for a relationship and he keeps her hanging. She is particularly frustrated in Reptile Boy and of course it ends with Angel asking for a date and Buffy shifting the power balance by saying she'll let him know and walking off with a confident smile. So Angel controlling the relationship obviously bothered her. Indeed throughout season 1 Angel was the mysterious stranger who appeared when it suited him and the relationship was very much on his terms.
And of course it was Angel who insisted on ending the relationship because he wanted what was best for Buffy in an almost fatherly way. He brushed aside her statement that she would never have a normal life and she chose to be with Angel. The series goes on to show through Buffy's relationship with Riley and her early death that she may have had the right idea in rejecting a normal life and could have been happier spending her limited life span with Angel. Again in IWRY Angel makes the decision for them both to call an end to the relationship. Even though Buffy is the stronger of the two in that episode he tries to fight alone and take on the dominant alpha male position instead of letting Buffy take care of the demons which is her job.
Whether we call it a protective instinct or a desire to conrol there is certainly a suggestion that Angel likes to be in charge of his romantic relationships. Of course Angleous (the dark and hidden side of Angel) delighted in torture and controlling Dru thorugh pain and fear. He later tries this tactic with Buffy. First he humiliates and coldly rejects her. He then takes pleasure in terroorising and punishing her.
When Angel was imitating Angelous in Enemies he and Faith struggle for the dominant position roughly throwing each other around the room. He seemed to respect Faith as an equal partner. Again with Darla the power balance seemed equal. They seemed to enjoy torturing others rather than each other, though I have no doubt that their sexual encounters could be fairly rough and brutal.
And Riley did work at the iniative in which demons were seen locked up in tiny cages, cruelly experimented on and controlled with laser blasters etc. Had to have an effect on his world view and his need to control.
Dru was a maschosist who delighted in true pain, rather than bondage with a safety word. She is never satisfied with Spike because he is less cruel than daddy. She is seen begging Angel to spank her in Reunion and in Innocence she mentions how much Angel had hurt her with a coy smile. Of course she is happy to return pain following what Angelous taught her. This is illustrated particularly in Whats My Line when she tortures Angel calling him a bad dog and in Crush when she suggests to Spike that they tie Buffy up and play with her. She is even seen playing sadistic games with her dolls such as blindfolding them and inflicting twisted punishments such as removing their eyes.
VampWillow isn't seen desiring pain herself as far as I remember. She is shown time and time again loving to hurt others. She is shown to be almost sexually arosed when punishing Angel and when coming to our reality she breaks the fingers of her vamp minions and says she will make the world fun again. Our Willow shows similar sexual pleasure in torture IMO. In Villians she slowly penatrates Warren's chest with a bullet with a strong parallel to rape. She delights in his agony and finally skins him with a cold "bored now" linking with her vampire self whose sexual needs could be met with torture.
I am also looking forward to part 2 of your interesting post. Sorry about getting a bit long-winded here.
[> [> [> Very interresting and on trust... -- Etrangere, 03:44:33 08/18/02 Sun
I've talked about S6 and B/S whith someone i would consider as a SM specialist (he's involved in a whole spectre of SM aesthetics arts, he's got a website translated in english if anyone's interrested). He doesn't watch much of the show, or in background. I told him about Dead Things and the way the handcuff etc. were used to discuss the issues of trust. His first reaction was, yes, but in SM there is the trust in the relationship with safe words etc., but then there's the matter of faithfulness. That was before I told him about the Spanya incident and Hell's Bells ho biscuit.
I think that might explain some of Buffy's reaction regarding Spike. She doesn't not seem to be the most hurt by the most violent or unethical act of Spike, wether the Demon eggs or even the AR. What seems to affect her the most is when Spike is unfaithful, (out of control ?) when he leaves her in all the senses.
[> [> [> [> Re: unfaithfulness.. -- shadowkat, 08:05:31 08/18/02 Sun
"His first reaction was, yes, but in SM there is the trust in the relationship with safe words etc., but then there's the matter of faithfulness. That was before I told him about the Spanya incident and Hell's Bells ho biscuit.
I think that might explain some of Buffy's reaction regarding Spike. She doesn't not seem to be the most hurt by the most violent or unethical act of Spike, wether the Demon eggs or even the AR. What seems to affect her the most is when Spike is unfaithful, (out of control ?) when he leaves her in all the senses."
(Thanks for website by the way) While agree that demon eggs
and AR could be seen as violent and unethical and out of control. I'm not sure I can agree with the ho-biscut in HB or Spanya incidents. She broke up with him in AYW. Let him know she could never love him. That it wasn't real for her.
And he had to move on. As Anya tells Xander -"We were no longer together. That was for some comfort." While bringing the date to the wedding may have been an overt attempt to make her jealous and is a bit too soon after, he regrets it, leaves and makes it clear that he won't sleep with the girl after all. But Spanya was neither planned nor did he intend on her seeing it - that was comfort sex and having been in the Buffy position myself in the past - I don't see how she can hold it against him. They weren't committed to each other. She more or less told him she didn't have feelings for him. That they'd never be together. That he had to move on. In Entropy - I felt Buffy was actually in the wrong. You don't tell someone to move on, that is over than when they attempt to do it, but sleeping with or being with someone else - than act like they are being unfaithful.
If they were still together - yeah it would have been "unfaithful". But they'd been broken up for awhile and he was clearly struggling with it more than she was.
I was actually very surprised he came and apologized to her
regarding it. When I experienced it - the guy did NOT apologize. He fluffed it off as we were independent agents now and I have to say - he was right. You can't expect an ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend that you've dumped to remain faithful to you. Was Buffy faithful to Angel after he dumped her in Season 4? I seem to remember a lot of hot sex with Riley.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: unfaithfulness.. -- shadowkat, 08:15:46 08/18/02 Sun
Oops sorry for the typos in that one and oh meant "sex" with Riley (not necessarily hot) as well as the scene with PArker which Spike uses against Angel in another episode.
I think ME may have meant for the scene in Entropy to be read the way you read it...but it just didn't work for me that way, based partly on my own personal experience as well as past btvs. ats episodes. What's interesting is the people who are most upset by Spanya, Buffy and Xander - in the past acted far worse. Xander cheated with Willow while he was still dating Cordy not after they'd broken up or after she'd hurt him. Buffy dated Scott Hope while she was nursing Angel - basically two-timing both of them.
And went to visit and help Angel while she was supposedly with Riley. Also flirted with and let Dracula bite her while she was dating Riley - which was one of the reasons Riley started to drift away. In Entropy first thing that went through my head when B/X got so upset was well- karma.
I felt more for Spike/Anya...can you imagine finding out that people had seen your one night stand comfort sex on video cameras? ick.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Actually I agree :) -- Etrangere, 03:19:49 08/19/02 Mon
I don't think that Buffy had any right to morally blame Spike for those points. I was merely pointing that it was that, the ho biscuit, spanya and him leaving town, that seemed to hurt her the more, by contrast with acts that could really be seen as more "evil".
And all those are matter of unfaithfulness, maybe not in the perspective of the romantic (?) relationship, that was broken by Buffy in AYW, but in the perspective of the relationship where Spike was supportive of Buffy, always ready to serve her, dedicated to her happiness etc. All points that fit the SM aspect of their relationship. (Hum ? Am I clear ?)
In fact all those points were showing a Spike that was less in the control of Buffy.
In other word, hurting each others ? not a big deal in their SM relationship, but getting out of the ties that bind them together in pain, that hurts in a whole other plan.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, I see to Ete and agree Atremis -- shadowkat, 05:32:48 08/19/02 Mon
"And all those are matter of unfaithfulness, maybe not in the perspective of the romantic (?) relationship, that was broken by Buffy in AYW, but in the perspective of the relationship where Spike was supportive of Buffy, always ready to serve her, dedicated to her happiness etc. All points that fit the SM aspect of their relationship. (Hum ? Am I clear ?)
In fact all those points were showing a Spike that was less in the control of Buffy.
In other word, hurting each others ? not a big deal in their SM relationship, but getting out of the ties that bind them together in pain, that hurts in a whole other plan."
I see now. Yes I agree. I got the feeling she was more upset by the fact that she wasn't in control of him than the actual AR scene or the demon eggs as well.
And the reason she makes the comment "YEah like that's going to help" to Dawn in Grave
when she suggests hunting a way to Spike's crypt, is because he left her.
He had always been faithful. Like a dependable leashed dog that she could order around. His date with the ho-biscuit, which she's still able to get him to drop was the first break in the chain, the second break is Spanya, which he apologizes for, the third and unexpected break is his actions after the AR scene - the fact he leaves. Up until that point, Buffy was the controlling agent. She barged into his crypt, she beat him up, she accused him of things, she used him to protect or babysit Dawn....the AR scene
broke the cycle - causing him to leave and from Buffy's pov possibly permanently. It's ironic in a sense - his act of violence towards her - is the final break in the leash that
she's had him on or the Mistress/Servant relationship.
And I agree with Atremis' pt. that it was because it was one of her friends. I think that's probably true and certainly what she says to him.
Although it seems very odd to me that she's angrier at Spike than Anya since according to Buffy's own moral doctrine: Spike has no soul, so no choice but to do evil, Anya has a soul and lots of choice. But than Buffy
never worried that much about what Anya did and well, she may be more understanding of that since Anya was stood up at a wedding.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> As I said below, Anya didn't know of Spuffy at the time -- Dochawk, 10:59:59 08/20/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> As I said below, Anya didn't know of Spuffy at the time -- Dochawk, 11:01:03 08/20/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually I agree :) -- Malandanza, 23:26:00 08/20/02 Tue
"I don't think that Buffy had any right to morally blame Spike for those points. I was merely pointing that it was that, the ho biscuit, spanya and him leaving town, that seemed to hurt her the more, by contrast with acts that could really be seen as more "evil"."
I agree that Buffy was more upset by Spike having sex with Anya and bringing the goth girl to the wedding (we don't know whether or not he had sex with her afterwards) than the genuinely evil things he's done. But for the people who claim Buffy (and Xander) had no right to be upset, I'd also agree and say that's not really the point. We've seen:
Xander jealous about Oz/Willow when he's dating Cordelia and jealous of Buffy/Angel
Willow jealous about Xander/Cordelia and Xander/Faith when she's dating Oz; jealous of Tara even though they have broken up when she sees Tara kiss another girl in NA
Spike jealous of B/R to the extent that he helps break them apart and Jealous of Dru/Angel back in Season Two
Angel hurt by Buffy/Riley when Faith accidentally mentions Riley
Riley had to be hurt by seeing Spike in bed with Buffy, regardless of how brave a front he put up
None of these people had any claim over the object of their jealousies -- they were involved in other relationships or the relationship had clearly ended. It still felt like a betrayal for every one of them. Buffy being hurt by Spike and Anya on her own behalf makes sense -- not everyone can be as gracious as Angel was about Groo and Cordy -- but I do think she was more angry, and felt more betrayed, because Spike used their relationship to hurt Xander. She came there to stop Xander from doing anything he might regret, not to scold Spike for faithlessness. Buffy will take any amount of abuse and degradation -- she doesn't believe she deserves any better -- but hurt her family, and there's no quarter. I think that Spuffy ended that night, when Spike betrayed Buffy's friiend -- it wasn't about the sex.
I also disagree with the whole Spike as a sex slave theory -- with Buffy as the dominant, sadistic partner in their relationship and Spike "supportive of Buffy, always ready to serve her, dedicated to her happiness". Spike is more sexually experienced than Buffy (who has two one-night stands and a long term relationship with Riley "Missionary Man" Finn while Spike has a century of bondage games with Dru, Harmony and probably a few others). And remember, Buffy was the one with chafed wrists after their handcuff fun. Spike certainly is dedicated to her happiness -- in OaFA and NA she begs him to leave her alone, she later tells him that the relationship is killing her. Had he genuinely wanted what was best for Buffy, he would have stepped aside long ago or continued as the platonic confidante that she needed after her rebirth. Spike is dedicated to his own pleasure and always ready to serve himself -- if Buffy must suffer for him to get what he wants, so be it. And Buffy, the masochist, takes all the abuse (psychological as well as physical) that he gives her and only rarely has enough self-esteem to fight back.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually I agree :) -- Etrangere, 04:47:58 08/21/02 Wed
"None of these people had any claim over the object of their jealousies -- they were involved in other relationships or the relationship had clearly ended. It still felt like a betrayal for every one of them."
You have every right to feel upset by whatever you want. Actually since most people do not exactly control what they feel, you cannot be hold responsible for what you feel (only for how you act about those feelings). There's a difference between having a right to be upset and jealous because of what someone does and blaming this someone for what he does, saying one is responsible for the pain you feel.
"but I do think she was more angry, and felt more betrayed, because Spike used their relationship to hurt Xander. She came there to stop Xander from doing anything he might regret, not to scold Spike for faithlessness."
Errr... that Spike used their relationship to hurt Xander is a matter of interpretation. Other people (me included) think more that it was to defend Anya. I think one can argue for either possibilities.
As for Buffy, didn't she say something like "didn't take you long" in Entropy ? And "try not sleeping with my friend ?" (though I agree with Doc and Artemis that there is more delicate moves to do than sleeping with a friend of your ex and that was certainly a big part of Buffy's hurt if not all of it)
"I also disagree with the whole Spike as a sex slave theory -- with Buffy as the dominant, sadistic partner in their relationship and Spike "supportive of Buffy, always ready to serve her, dedicated to her happiness"."
That comment didn't refer to the sexual relationship in particular, but more to the aspect where he helps her slaying etc out of love for her (or to get into her bed, if you want)
"Spike is more sexually experienced than Buffy (who has two one-night stands and a long term relationship with Riley "Missionary Man" Finn while Spike has a century of bondage games with Dru, Harmony and probably a few others). And remember, Buffy was the one with chafed wrists after their handcuff fun."
So what ? Try to reread some of this messages, there is a great deal of a certain form of power by being the submissive one. Experience has nothing to do with it. More often than not, Buffy was the one initiating the sex (I think the only exceptions we were shown were the infamous Bronze sex scene and the Tree one in As You Were), she was the one setting the rules and the boundaries (don't tell my friends, not in my house etc.), and she was the one claiming for a superiority from moral upground. That seems enough to me to claim that Buffy had the dominant part in the relationship, no ?
"Spike certainly is dedicated to her happiness -- in OaFA and NA she begs him to leave her alone, she later tells him that the relationship is killing her."
Nope she's saying that using him is killing her. 'Cause Buffy is a moral girl.
" Had he genuinely wanted what was best for Buffy, he would have stepped aside long ago or continued as the platonic confidante that she needed after her rebirth."
Deciding what is best for someone is hard to determine, and I hardly think everyone thinks it's the same. Spike obviously though (with or without self-denial) that their relationship was helping Buffy feeling more alive etc.
Besides the image of Spike "dedicaced to her happiness" was more of an ideal image that Spike as a romantist hold than a reality. I think he tries to make her happy, anyway, but yes sometimes he can blind himself to what he do not want to see. It's a complex matter where several drives are in action.
" Spike is dedicated to his own pleasure and always ready to serve himself -- if Buffy must suffer for him to get what he wants, so be it. And Buffy, the masochist, takes all the abuse (psychological as well as physical) that he gives her and only rarely has enough self-esteem to fight back."
Though I dislike with this vision of Spike, I think you've got a point with Buffy. She sometimes atc within her relationship with Spike as if she wanted to degrade herself, or punish herself for being degraded (wrong ?). But does that mean she let Spike be the one in control of their relationship ? I don't see that.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually I agree :) -- Malandanza, 09:24:57 08/21/02 Wed
"So what ? Try to reread some of this messages, there is a great deal of a certain form of power by being the submissive one.
I'm not sure if you're saying that Buffy was submissive sexually, but in control of the relationship or that Spike was submissive but in control. Since Spike has been portrayed as the sexually submissive party in most of these posts, I'll assume it's the latter.
I tend to think of the person with the power in the non-sexual part of the relationship as being the dominant sex partner, but, of course, this is not always the case. In fact, a deliberate role reversal, with the normally submissive partner in control (or, at least, having the illusion of control) certainly isn't unheard of. So Spike could be the submissive partner in the bedroom yet still be the puppetmaster in the relationship. The beating in Dead Things supports the interpretation that Spike is submissive, but uses his submission to gain power. Spike is in control of the beating -- he can stop it any time he wishes, yet uses the beating to extend his control over Buffy. She leaves the alley dwelling on his parting "you always hurt the one you love" line, and, as evident by her quick connection of Katrina to Warren, believes Spike (and overidentifies once more).
"Experience has nothing to do with it. More often than not, Buffy was the one initiating the sex (I think the only exceptions we were shown were the infamous Bronze sex scene and the Tree one in As You Were), she was the one setting the rules and the boundaries (don't tell my friends, not in my house etc.), and she was the one claiming for a superiority from moral upground. That seems enough to me to claim that Buffy had the dominant part in the relationship, no?"
However, I don't think there is any real evidence that Buffy is a sadist or dominatrix in the bedroom. I can recall three instances of Buffy initiating sex -- in Smashed, Gone and AYW. In addition to the times you mention where Spike initiates contact, there was the alley in DMP and a couple of scenes where a sudden intrusion by one of Buffy's friends ends a high pressure unwanted sexual advance (where Buffy is pressed up against a wall) in OaFA and Gone. While both Buffy and Spike initiate sex, I'm not sure that tells us anything about who is in control once the sex begins. As for setting the rules -- do you really think that Buffy would have staked Spike if he had bragged to her friends about their tryst? I doubt Spike believed her -- the threat was empty. Well, not entirely empty -- it made it clear to Spike that he had control over Buffy. He could threaten to tell her friends (and such a threat pushed her into her fantasy world in NA). Whatever boundaries Buffy set were cheerfully ignored by Spike -- she says no sex in her house and tells him not to tell her friends, but in OaFA at Buffy's birthday party in her house filled with her friends he accosts her in the hallway. Buffy has no real control over Spike, in spite of all his rhetoric to the contrary. In AYW, she reveals that she can't even get him to shut up.
As for the sex, I do think that experience matters. A sexually unsophisticated partner, no matter how enthusiastic, is less likely to be in control in sexual situation than is a jaded hedonist. I also question just how aberrant the sex acts between Buffy and Spike really were. In Gone when Xander intrudes on Spike's "naked exercising" the sex looked pretty tame. Now if Xander had found Spike tied spread-eagled on his bed with a gag in his mouth and a disembodied whip (or vial of holy water/crucifix) floating above his head, perhaps a case for BDS&M with Buffy dominant could be made. However, the only reference to bondage we've seen is the handcuffs -- which implied that Buffy was the one in chains, not the other way around. Most telling about who has the control in the relationship, sexual or otherwise, is Buffy's tearful confession to Tara at the end of Dead Things:
Buffy starts to cry, the emotions she's been desperately holding in finally spilling out.
BUFFY (cont'd): Why do I feel like this? Why do Ilet Spike do those things to me?
TARA: You mean hit you?
Buffy's shame is overwhelming. She can't even look at Tara. Tara starts to understand.
TARA (cont'd) Oh. (really getting it) Oh. Really?
BUFFY: He's everything I hate. Everything I'm supposed to be against. But the only time I feel anything is when we... Don't tell anyone. Please.
If Buffy is in control, she sure doesn't realize it. Sex with Spike was never about power or control for Buffy -- it began as an escape and ended with her struggling to break Spike's control over her life.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually I agree :) -- Miss Edith, 14:01:09 08/22/02 Thu
Buffy was in denial. She wanted to believe she wasn't in control of her choices. She wanted to see herself as having come back wrong in Smashed so she was free to behave as she liked. When she discovered the truth she wanted to know why someone morally superior like her could degrade herself by having sex with a "disgusting thing". She wasn't taking responsibilitiy for her choices. Buffy didn't exactly get off on the power or dominance. But I would say that she did use Spike and the relationship was on her terms.
In DT Spike says that after sex Buffy usually kicks him in the head and runs out after making scornful remarks about his morality. He is thrilled that she is interested in talking. He lays his feelings on the line and says "are we having a conversation...do you even like me".
And in OAFA Buffy threatens to beat Spike up again and looks at him with a frozen and empty expresion when he asked if she was going to beat him again. Not even a twinge of guilt. She wanted to punish Spike for even mentioning the beating. And threatening to kill someone if they reveal your sexual affair is pretty strong stuff. Spike did not know it was an empty threat as Buffy does despise him and she does slay souless vampires. She could very well have tried to justify staking him as a moral decision because of his lack of a soul and his past. She had made it clear any good he had done meant nothing to her "there is nothing good or clean in you". In Spike's place I would have taken her threat pretty seriously as she was constantly trying to classifiy him as beneath her and just a "thing". And if someone thought of me as a thing they could almost do what they liked to me as I am jsut a thing and don't really matter.
Spike did make sexual advances in Gone and OAFA because he was confident with the sexual side of the relationship. That was all Buffy would allow the two of them to have together. Spike's threats to tell the scoobies in Entropy were pretty pathetic and only served to make him look weak. He was degrading himself by begging and did not come across as the strong partner. Rather he was falling apart. Begging someone to have sex with you or you'll tell is not an assertive position to be in. Spike kept quiet about the relationship in HB and I don't think he was ever planning to use the affair to blackmail Buffy. He was desperate when he told Buffy that but still when drunk he was careful not to mention Buffy's name to Anya. Spike likes to think of himself as a gentleman and only told of the affair when Xander called Anya sick for lowering herself by sleeping with him and Buffy just stood aside and watched. Spike had made it clear he had affection for Anya and I believe he honestly wanted to protect her. But I am the type of person inclined to see the good in people so I may be totally off-track. That's just how the scene came across to me personally.
In Entropy Spike makes no attempt to defend himself against Xander. He is essentially broken and when Buffy confronts him about Anya he has no snarky reply whatsoever. I would see him as very much a victim of the relationship. He says in SR that Buffy should have let Xander kill him. And when talking with Anya he claims to have done everything to try and make Buffy happy and how he was just an "evil souless thing acording to some people".
Of course Buffy was just as much a victim as Spike. Due to him lacking a soul he was clearly not the right partner for her. I believe his love was genuine but in trying to make her happy he wanted her to accept the darkness that he wanted to believe was within her. It is not until NA that he finally accepts that Buffy is not addicted to darkness but to misery. IMO Spike was portrayed as a beaten puppy all season trailing after Buffy for approval and trying to turn on her, do anything for love and attention. The relationship was doomed and not good for either party. But I just can't see Spike as the one with the power in the relationship. I just look at scenes in which Buffy coldly expresse her disgust for him and he takes it and comes back for more. He essentially agrees with her assesment that he is incapable of goodness and is condemned to being evil without a soul. Buffy was not deliberately abusing him. DT did conform that in a way. And she did show concern for Spike in HB. But she did use him all the same. They were both in bad places and I am not trying to say one was more right than the other. Just that I don't personally feel that the relationship was ever on Spike's terms. He might have tried to get Buffy to enjoy "rolling in the dirt" but that doesn't mean he was in control. Especially as when making that comment in Wrecked he also says he is dirt. He came from a different moral place sure. But not a more assertive one IMO.
I believe the reason he made his choices was because he had nothing without Buffy. Spike is a person who needs to be loved and have a girlfriend to worship. He spend over 100 years putting up with Dru's cheating, her insanity and her preference for Angelous. You can see his frustrated face whenever she dreamily sighs "Angel". In the same way Buffy made her contempt clear for Spike in front of Riley when she smacks him around and tells Riley she can never get Spike to shut up. I would see that as a poor reflection on Buffy wanting her boyfriend to shut up and do as he was told. Not a way of showing that Spike was in control because he wouldn't shut up. He was the annoying niggling puppy looking for approval in my eyes. Spike saw Buffy at the end of ATW and was willing to have sex with her all the same even whilst suspecting she might be thinking of Riley. Not only does she she side with Riley, she also mentions Angel in a favourable light. Spike will do anything to be with her and puts up with what she offers. I still think he showed zero self-esteem in being prepared to sleep with Buffy even after her behaviour in front of Riley. She specifically says 2I'm using you" and he states he's not complaining.
Spike's relationship with Dru was in a way his ideal. He isn't interested in equality. He wanted to worship his "princess". And he wanted Buffy to treat him as a "willing slave". He craved friendly communication and love. Maybe I'm just a sucker for a bleeding heart but I feel for Spike being essentially alone in life. I don't think any of us can quite realise just how hard it must have been for him living alone in a crypt knowing he was despised by everyone who knows him. In Afterlife he is almost crying when he tells Xander he deserves some respect as "I worked along side you all summer". Yes he could be a pain and yes he did not always treat Buffy correctly. But I do think Buffy was the one with the power in the relationship, regardless of SPike's questionable morality and attempts to drag Buffy into the dirt with him.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well -- Ete, 10:54:47 08/23/02 Fri
This is hard to answer, you make very good points.
Since Spike has been portrayed as the sexually submissive party in most of these posts, I'll assume it's the latter.
And you're right :)
The beating in Dead Things supports the interpretation that Spike is submissive, but uses his submission to gain power. Spike is in control of the beating -- he can stop it any time he wishes, yet uses the beating to extend his control over Buffy. She leaves the alley dwelling on his parting "you always hurt the one you love" line, and, as evident by her quick connection of Katrina to Warren, believes Spike (and overidentifies once more).
This is a good expemple of more or less what I mean
However, I don't think there is any real evidence that Buffy is a sadist or dominatrix in the bedroom.
apart form the violence in Smashed, Gone, suggered in DT (in the teaser) and other instances, it is true we have very little idea of true sadism / masochism being displayed in the sex.
In addition to the times you mention where Spike initiates contact, there was the alley in DMP
I though then that it was Buffy who initiated Spike. He was around, but it doesn't seem to me that he was there for sex. Just my interpretation offcourse.
and a couple of scenes where a sudden intrusion by one of Buffy's friend