January 2003 posts
MEs
attitute to female sexuality -- Miss Edith, 05:49:20 01/12/03
Sun
Lately I've been thinking about B/S and the way it was presented.
It seems to me that attitudes came across as a tad puritanical.
We have Buffy coming across as the good girl being corrupted by
the bad boy. A lot of people saw the storyline differently and
saw Spike taking the traditional female role in the relationship
and Buffy being the bad boyfriend (using partner for sex, beating
in DT). A fairly revelationary concept if that was what was intended.
Yet in interviews it was made clear that we were supposed to be
relating to Buffy and seeing her as being let astray by Spike.
In DT she clearly says "Why do I let Spike do these things
to me" when it was Buffy who had iniated the relationship.
The writers have said they showed her kissing Spike and mounting
him in Smashed so it was clear that she was not being taken advantage
off. So I find the statement in DT puzzling. Again in SR Buffy
tells Spike "I stopped you. Like I should have done a long
time ago". Spike was the pursuer in season 5 but it was Buffy
who started the relationship and controlled it threating Spike
with death if her friends found out she had lowered herself into
being with him.
In season 7 Buffy is still saying in CWDP that she did things
with Spike that she is ashamed off. The only suggestion of kink
was in DT with the handcuffs. Is it the outdoor sex that was considered
so outrageous or was something happening between them that the
audience doesn't know about? The reason I ask is that I must confess
to having read a fair bit of spuffy fan fic in my time. Many writers
love to up the kink and they give advice about how to use candle
wax safely etc. So it bugs me that ME seem to think that something
quite unsavery happened with B/S. Fair enough their relationship
was unhealthy and a disaster. I stopped shipping the couple after
season 6 so I would not say the relationship was a good one. But
all the talk of the things they did together as being shocking
and inflicted on Buffy annoy me. In fact Buffy was the one who
wanted the rough sex. It was not the bad boy who forced it upon
her in the version I saw. Spike had respectful sex with Anya and
was gentle with the bot. Buffy was setting the pace in the relationshop
with Spike. Look at how thrilled he was when Buffy wanted to make
love gently in AYW.
Anya was unused to the proper way in which humans behave and her
openeness sexuality was used as an example of how uncomfortable
she could make others. When she slept with Spike Xander said he
was sickened and she looked ashamed. But why? Is a female not
allowed comfort sex after a relationship ending? What were ME
even trying to imply there?
And Faith's love of sex was part of presenting her as a bad girl.
She gave in to her urges and ended up going off the rails. It
was implied she shouldn't have indulged so much and of course
there was a background of sexual abuse hinted at.
I just get the impression that whilst ME do want to present a
positive girl power message in some areas they are a little behind
the times when it comes to presenting liberated female sexuality.
Just the idea that the writers saw Buffy having sex with Spike
in public as something scandalous. Okay it's not my cup of tea
but to each their own and as long as B/S were being discreet and
not hurting anyone what's the big deal? What do other posters
think?
[> Attitudes can be buried
so deep we don't even know they're there -- Sara, 06:20:18
01/12/03 Sun
I think you've really nailed some good points here. I was having
similar problems with the Companion stuff in Firefly. I think
many attitudes towards female sexuality, and even just male/female
roles, behavior, abilities can be hard to recognize in ourselves.
I'm really not sure whether its societal, biological or, as I'm
inclined to think, a combination of both. I think its really good
to call people on this stuff, because a lot of the time they don't
know the subtext they're communicating.
[> Re: MEs attitute to female
sexuality -- BEV, 07:09:33 01/12/03 Sun
umm...just a guess here, but Spike is, or was, umm...a corpse.
At least Angel had a living soul. Spike was just empty, dead,
flesh. I can see where she might have felt quite the necrophile.
does it get kinkier?
[> [> Re: MEs attitute
to female sexuality -- Miss Edith, 07:15:59 01/12/03 Sun
I understand that Buffy was repulsed by the idea of being with
a soulless vampire. But there seemed to me that there was an implication
of unsavoury sexual practices with Buffy weeping to Tara about
the terrible things she has done. She does say " Why do I
let him do these things to me?". Rather than simply confessing
to Tara and later Holden that she had sex with Spike she seems
to be at pains to stress the awful things they did together. Even
in season 7 she is not taking responsibility for her sexual choices,
she is talking of her giving in to Spike's perverted desires and
painting herself almost as the virginal heroine who was corrupted
by the bad guy. It's just not a message I'm very comfortable with.
[> Re: MEs attitute to female
sexuality -- Cactus Watcher, 07:32:19 01/12/03 Sun
Considering the violence of the beginning of their physical relationship,
I suspect that some of the 'games' that Buffy and Spike were playing
during their private encounters were pretty disturbing. I think
the key is that Buffy was appalled that she wanted that kind of
sex and that it was taking over a large portion of her life. Willow
wasn't the only one with an addiction. Since Spike loved her I
suspect he would have given her any kind of sex she wanted. Buffy
wouldn't be the first person male or female who wasn't 100% honest
with themselves about their role in the midst of a bad relationship.
And when Buffy finally does break it off she doesn't accuse him
of anything. Instead she said, "I'm using you." I can
imagine that among other things the rape scene had played out
over and over between them with Buffy egging Spike on. The difference
when we saw it was that Buffy wasn't physically in control of
the situation and was saying no.
Some of this may have been lost in the bowdlerized versions of
Buffy that seem to be running at times in Britain.
[> [> Re: MEs attitute
to female sexuality -- Miss Edith, 07:54:10 01/12/03 Sun
The idea that Buffy was addicted to sex was what annoyed me. I
mean come one the ending of Wrecked with Buffy shivering in her
room surrounded by garlic and clutching a cross. It was the very
obvious cliche of the big bad wolf coming to attack the pure girl
in her tower. Buffy enjoyed good sex and she decided she was addicted
to it and it was a sickness. That struck me as a poor message
to be putting out there. It wasn't as if she was she needed sex
constantly. She just needed some sex to release the tension and
leapt to the conclusion that she was somehow addicted to Spike's
penis.
I guess I just wish the relationship had been handled differently.
All the bad boyfriend cliches didn't work for me. Has Buffy ever
been allowed to enjoy sex without feeling guilty? Angel ended
up with the guy turning evil, Parker discarded her. Riley stuck
around but couldn't satisfy Buffy as she was out staking vampires
after he fell asleep in BVD.
Like I said Anya had a healthy attitude to sex but it was used
as part of what made her weird and non human. She didn't fit in
and her frankness with sex talk was used as the elephant in the
room. Perhaps I've just been watching too much Sex and the City
where the female characters actually discuss their sex lives and
what pleases them. One of the women even walkied in on the other
giving a blowjob and was mortified. So I have trouble understanding
why it is considered an horrendous embarrassment for Anya to mention
that she and Xander use the gym for recreational purposes.
[> [> [> Re: MEs attitute
to female sexuality -- CW, 08:40:39 01/12/03 Sun
I have to say it again. Buffy wasn't necessarily honest with herself
while the relationship was on. The garlic and what-not was a sign
she wanted to blame Spike. But, it wasn't necessarily him she
was afraid of. I have to go back to her expressed inability to
feel anything early that season. Given her reactions in between
incidents, I'd have to say Spike (acting as bad boy or not)was
just a thing to her, and if anyone else handy could have given
her the same experience, she would have used them as well. She
wasn't any different than Faith in that. It really was bad girl,
not bad boy, and that was what really disgusted her, at least
in my opinion.
It is disturbing that ME never allows her a normal relationship,
but they've freeely admitted that torturing Buffy is a tried and
true method of keeping fans watching. It's soap opera. Pain and
misery sells, unfortunately.
[> [> [> [> Buffy's
self-deceptions -- luna, 14:26:53 01/12/03 Sun
Maybe this is just restating what you are both saying, but it
definitely seems to me that one theme of the Buffy-Spike relationship
in S6 was that Buffy was in control but didn't want to admit it.
In the only really "kinky" (mild by internet standards!)
sex they showed, Spike was the one who wore handcuffs. It's my
guess that in that kind of game, the literal control is a way
of acting out the real psychology of the couple.
This is really in character for Spike, since clearly Dru was in
control in his earlier relationship. Buffy on the other hand did
not control Angel, and partly found the Riley relationship to
be a problem because she really was stronger than Riley.
So one part of what was happening in S6 was not just her denial
that she had chosen the Spike relationship but also a denial of
her power in it.
In S7 I think she has understood that--at least accepted it. It
will clarify things though to see what goes on now that Spike
is at least temporarily out of the clutches of FE. I don't know
that I see a renewal of their sexual relationship, but clearly
they will be something to each other.
[> [> [> [> Re:
MEs attitute to female sexuality -- Malandanza, 16:38:02
01/12/03 Sun
"The garlic and what-not was a sign she wanted to blame
Spike. But, it wasn't necessarily him she was afraid of."
I agree with Miss Edith that the sex-as-addiction bit was inane
-- on the other hand, I don't think it was Buffy blaming Spike
so much as Buffy overidentifying (with Willow -- and putting too
much credence in Spike's you've-got-me-in-your-system-you'll-crave-me-like-I-crave-blood
self-indulgent, narcissistic rant) which is a well-established
trait for her. It was certainly Buffy trying not to blame herself,
but I don't see her overtly blaming Spike.
"I have to go back to her expressed inability to feel
anything early that season. Given her reactions in between incidents,
I'd have to say Spike (acting as bad boy or not) was just a thing
to her, and if anyone else handy could have given her the same
experience, she would have used them as well. She wasn't any different
than Faith in that. It really was bad girl, not bad boy, and that
was what really disgusted her, at least in my opinion."
I think that's only half the story -- yes, Buffy wanted an escape
-- wanted to feel anything, just for a little while so she could
feel as though she were alive and, for that, anyone would do.
The other half of the story is that she was so filled with self-loathing
that wanted to be abused and punished. She wanted someone to treat
her as badly as she felt she deserved to be and not just anyone
would do for that. It takes a special sort of person to turn a
girl's pain into his own pleasure. Buffy's breakdown with Tara
wasn't about having sex without commitment -- it was about allowing
herself to become a victim and returning for more.
As for Miss Edith's point about the sex looking pretty tame --
I think that ME made a mistake when they decided to make the sex
in season six as explicit as possible. Sex on American TV can
be explicit or kinky but it can't be both without being censored
or losing sponsorship. ME would have been better off making more
handcuff scenes (allowing the viewer's to imagine what happened)
and showing less of JM's body if they wanted to Spuffy to be in
the running for Sunnydale's kinkiest couple. By making the decision
to show as much skin as possible, Spike ended up looking only
marginally more inventive than Riley. By constrast, we've seen
very little of Xander and Anya's sex life, but we know about roleplaying,
erotic sponge baths and spanking.
But I don't think Season Six was about Puritans and S&M -- the
enduring image for me was Buffy crawling out of the grave and
back into life in the finale. Throughout the season we saw Buffy
being dragged into the darkness by Spike (or willingly enter the
darkness with Spike) -- we saw Spike standing in Buffy's path
over and over -- preventing her from moving foreward. In the same
manner, Spike impeded Buffy's spiritual progress. She spent the
season in the underworld because of his influence -- the dark
sex was just a part of the general darkness in his world and it
was not until he left town that she was able to struggle back
to life (and I think DT was an important turning point for Buffy
-- had she caved in to Spike's demands at that time, she would
have been lost forever).
[> [> [> [> [>
Oh so disagree -- Deb, 19:48:04 01/12/03 Sun
"She wanted someone to treat her as badly as she felt she
deserved to be and not just anyone would do for that. It takes
a special sort of person to turn a girl's pain into his own pleasure.
. . . . .
Throughout the season we saw Buffy being dragged into the darkness
by Spike (or willingly enter the darkness with Spike) -- we saw
Spike standing in Buffy's path over and over -- preventing her
from moving foreward. In the same manner, Spike impeded Buffy's
spiritual progress. She spent the season in the underworld because
of his influence -- the dark sex was just a part of the general
darkness in his world and it was not until he left town that she
was able to struggle back to life."
----------------------------------------------------------
Spike believed he did truely love Buffy. She's the one that initiated
the sexual relationship, and it's tempo. I don't think he was
using Buffy by taking advantage of her pain for his pleasure.
I don't even see where this statement comes from. Perhaps you
could present examples?
I think Spike wanted to believe that it was real, and when he
saw that she was using him, though he didn't know why, he plainly
told her he didn't want to be used, but he wanted all or nothing.
(Invisible Buffy comes to Spike after saying she wanted him to
stop seeing her.) She was quite happy being there with nobody
being able to see her. Then Xander comes in, rather rudely I might
add, and she just loves that fact that Xander "caught"
them, but didn't even know he had. Spike is the one who told her
to get dressed, if she could find her clothes and leave until
she could decided that she wanted to be completely with him. Then
she goes pouting about how Spike kicked her out.
Spike stood in Buffy's spiritual path? Spike prevented Buffy from
moving forward? The spiritual path is dark. She didn't need Spike
specifically to travel that path. You don't grow spiritually while
in the "light." You can come to some realizations, but
the hard work in done in the dark, or in the underworld as you
put it. Very early on Buffy comes to realize that Spike is the
only one who can travel that path with her and not get creeped
out by her. So she believed that her friends would be creeped
out. After watching half of season 3 for the first time, I can
see why she might be afraid of this. Also, Buffy was very ambivalant
about her feelings regarding Spike. She has never been indifferent
about him, so to a certain degree she does love Spike in season
6 because she can feel all terrible about herself (hate) and he'll
totally disagree with her. Both characters traveled down a dark
spiritual path in Season 6, and it eneded in personal apocolypses.
(They're still on those paths.) Spike learned at the end that
not only he saw that he could not be a monster and could not be
a man either, but everyone else saw and treated him just that
way: He was nothing. Buffy learned that this soulless thing could
have real feelings and could love, so she was capable of once
again feeling and loving. (She still believed that Bad, Bad, Bad
Spike put her through hell though.)
I don't intend to be harsh, but it appears to me that the comments
in your post almost relieve Buffy of any responsibility for her
own growth, thus supporting her rationalization that it is all
Spike's fault that she feels so bad. Nobody can stop you from
changing, growing unless you allow them to, but then you must
take responsibility for allowing it to happen. Some of the greatest
spiritual growth occurs because of the terrible things that happen
to good people.
As for kinky sex. I think it was more like Buffy was torturing
herself because she initiated sex with a souless thing, animal
preditor. (I'm sorry I can't remember the brave person who actually
said necrofilia (sp).) I've often wondered if she though she could
give Spike a soul in the same manner she could rob Angel of his.
This next statement is really out in left field, but it is based
on some personal experience. Even, perhaps, in her etheral travels,
Buffy met or experienced William's soul, but the memory of such
was embedded in her unconscious upon returning.
Other kinky sex: big deal. I don't think Buffy said "no"
until the bathroom scene, which does not make the "no"
any less "No." I, too, don't see a return to sex for
the two either, but someting tells me it will be Spike's decision
in the end.
Finally, I agree that ME didn't know what they were doing when
they wrote season 6 as they did. Totally played right into female
sexual stereotypes. Just waiting to see if they do the "Madonna"
thing.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Oh so disagree -- ~Eris~, 20:33:02 01/12/03
Sun
Deb wrote:
"As for kinky sex. I think it was more like Buffy was torturing
herself because she initiated sex with a souless thing, animal
preditor. (I'm sorry I can't remember the brave person who actually
said necrofilia (sp).)"
Hi Deb,
This might be the most obvious reason a slayer would be ashamed
of being with a soulless vampire, but I don't think that is what
ME was trying to show. They portrayed Spike as a person, and people
unfamiliar with the show (a friend of mine is a great example)
might not even realize he was a vampire (except for the flaming
blanket in 'Gone' ).
What I've posted below is from my original reply to this main
thread about the kinky sex. (My reply is titled "Little kinky
sex shown in S6"). I decided not to include it initially
because it was getting slightly off topic, but I saved what I
typed and posted some of it here.
As someone also pointed out, they could have gone the route of
sex with dead soulless vampire = necrophilia and bestiality, but
they didn't. If anything, they showed Spike acting very human,
watching TV, sleeping in a bed, etc. There was also little of
Spike's game face, and actually *none* at all when B/S were having
sex. I'm pretty sure we only saw it during fight scenes. There
were little reminders in episodes that Spike was a vampire (him
saying so in 'Smashed', blanket in 'Gone', preparing blood in
'DT', etc.), but these weren't portrayed to make us think this
was the reason Buffy was upset and ashamed.
As for Spike being soulless, Buffy told him so on various occasions
('Smashed' and 'DT' the most memorable). But this didn't seem
to be the reason she was ashamed. She used it in 'Smashed' to
make him think he had no chance at all with her (after kissing
him twice). It was part of her rant in 'DT' when she beat him.
But she also said he "can't feel anything real", and
we all know that isn't true. She was using his soullessness to
tell herself it was OK for her to beat him and use him. She didn't
even think about his past crimes or his potential for future crimes
(good example is when she completely blew off his egg sceme in
'AYW'). She wasn't concerned about his evil influence on the public
(she even joked with him about his evilness in 'HB'). She just
wanted to convince herself he, as a soulless being, didn't really
love her so that it was OK to use him like she was.
Her friends finding out seemed to be the biggest reason Buffy
tried to avoid Spike in S6. As Buffy said herself, it was "reason
number 1" ('AYW'). She didn't seem to have that big of a
problem with Spike when she was alone with him (as long as he
kept from putting his foot in his mouth, that is ). Buffy may
have said Spike was "disgusting", but she acted anything
but when they were together. She didn't make a gross face when
they kissed or anything. She may have told him to stay away, but
she always went back to him. In 'AYW' she admitted that she "wanted"
him. I think it was her friends' view (Xander mostly) that Spike
was a disgusting, evil, soulless creature that bothered her, not
her own.
~Eris~
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Darkness as an agent of spiritual growth -- Malandanza,
21:30:58 01/12/03 Sun
"Spike believed he did truely love Buffy. She's the one
that initiated the sexual relationship, and it's tempo. I don't
think he was using Buffy by taking advantage of her pain for his
pleasure. I don't even see where this statement comes from. Perhaps
you could present examples?"
I think "believed" is the operative word here. Spike
also believed he loved Dru, yet offered her up as a sacrifice
if Buffy would tell him he had a chance with her -- that's not
love (John Hinkley, Jr. might disagree, but even he only offered
to kill someone he didn't know -- Spike was willing to dust Dru).
I think Spike discovered after the AR that Buffy was right --
he really didn't know the meaning of love.
As for Spike converting Buffy's pain into his gain, I think the
best example is the balcony scene (which ~Eris~ mentioned below)
but almost from the beginning, Spike was looking out for himself,
never mind how much Buffy suffers. Way back in Life Serial,
he began his walk-in-darkness/you're-a-creature-of-the-night routine
-- this was when he was Buffy's only confidante -- she was never
more alone, never more in need of a friend, and all Spike was
interested in was how he could turn it to his advantage. When
Spike says things like:
SPIKE: Only a matter of time before you realize. I'm the only
one here for you, pet! You got no one else!
Smashed
he is playing on Buffy's worst fears. When he discovers he can
hurt Buffy, he is elated. He uses this information to torment
her. He hits Buffy where she is most vulnerable for no purpose
other than his own benefit.
"I think Spike wanted to believe that it was real, and
when he saw that she was using him, though he didn't know why,
he plainly told her he didn't want to be used, but he wanted all
or nothing."
He recanted rather quickly, saying "not complaining here"
when Buffy later broke things off, saying that she'd been using
him. I agree Spike wanted it all -- friendship and sex. He had
Buffy's friendship, but lost it when the sexcapades began -- he
gambled to try have both and lost everything. He thought sex was
more important than friendship -- which is consistent since he
thought so back when he was playing Iago to break up Riley and
Buffy -- and discovered belatedly that he was mistaken. When he
realized the friendship was gone, he tried to salvage the sex,
but it was too late. It's sad for him, but it's not Buffy's fault.
She is under no obligation to have sex with him.
"You don't grow spiritually while in the "light"
... Some of the greatest spiritual growth occurs because of the
terrible things that happen to good people."
I think it's a mistake to assume darkness creates spiritual growth.
Spiritual growth occurs in spite of the darkness; not everyone
is capable of even surviving, let alone prospering, when the darkness
descends. Some are consumed. A beautiful, unselfish act of kindness
can also serve as a catalyst for spiritual growth. I think this
is true in the Buffyverse as well. For example, I'd like to think
that Buffy's offer to share her strength with Willow would serve
Willow's spiritual growth better than, say, chaining her up in
the basement and scourging her with whips.
"Finally, I agree that ME didn't know what they were doing
when they wrote season 6 as they did. Totally played right into
female sexual stereotypes. Just waiting to see if they do the
"Madonna" thing"
I'm not saying that ME didn't know what they were doing with the
writing -- rather, the execution. Fewer graphic sex scenes and
more innuendo would have better served the storyline (imo). I
am expecting the "Madonna thing" -- I think Spike has
finally realized what kind of girl Buffy really is -- he never
had a clue before. For Buffy to have risked so much to save someone
who has devoted so much time to hurting her must be almost beyond
Spike's comprehension -- an act of kindness that ought to help
him on his spiritual journey much better than the emotional torture
he inflicted upon Buffy "helped" her on her journey.
Spike is moving towards Xander's viewpoint -- seeing Buffy as
a saint rather than a sex object.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> OT - Darkness/Light and Growth -- Rahael, 01:41:10
01/13/03 Mon
"A beautiful, unselfish act of kindness can also serve
as a catalyst for spiritual growth"
What follows is my very personal opinion. I offer it here because
I feel quite strongly about this - not because I think it's the
final word, or the only word or even the 'right' word. We have
multiple truths.
Happiness, stability, love - those are the conditions that create
good, whole people. I believe it and have to believe it because
I have seen what happens to a whole community which has been traumatised,
oppressed, starved, tortured, suffered routine disappearances
and hunger and poverty.
It has created a people who have been brutalised and whose eyes
are dead. Who turn away from each other and cannot reach out.
Whose own pain blinds them to that of others. Suffering does not
enoble. Little children who are forced to fight in armies do not
'grow'. Parents are not good parents when they are placed under
such huge stresses. The results of severe darkness leave a community
fractured and mentally ill. I cannot stress that enough. It is
the reason why political change is not happening for us. Because
when you are deadened, and have no hope, you think, why bother?
why make any stand? When exceptional circumstances lead to change
and growth in such communities, you will always notice afterwards
that such societies continue to bear the wounds, continue to be
volatile. We don't only need aid in terms of money and food, we
need therapists sent out there (and some valuable work is being
done by some close family friends). The same friend, who carefully
left a questionnaire about PTSD on our kitchen table when I was
younger - an act of thoughtfulness and kindness which started
me on my path to reintegration.
When I think back to that time, I do not face it with equanimity.
I face it with terror and fear. In my mind, I become that helpless
girl who feared the faces of other human beings, more so than
we will ever fear our imaginary monsters. I am never deceived
into thinking that our family grew because we suffered (and we
suffered much more lightly than many many others). My father is
a wonderful man. I grieve for the person he could have been, if
he hadn't been tortured for five years. It didn't make him grow.
It stunted him. He can't LIVE with other people. It's very very
hard for him. It's hard for him to share personal space with other
human beings. And yet, this man still created a home full of love
and support for me. He did it despite his pain. It's because he
gave me love and stability that I can talk about this, and that
I am happy and I can love, and this is all denied to him. It's
so deeply unfair that when I was younger I used to weep for him.
Imprisoned by his experiences long after he walked free from jail.
Good people are good people despite the outrages of life. That
is why we have to work to undo injustices. I've discussed 'embracing
the darkness' with KdS, when I've said to him that we mustn't
ignore our darkside. But to be honest, when the debate comes to
this point - I have to agree wholeheartedly with him and Mal.
What kept me strong through the dark times were the times of light.
The knowledge of love kept my spirit alive, though hibernating.
What do I mean by hibernating? I mean that I distrusted everyone.
Panic attacks. Intense fits of depression. Post traumatic Stress
disorder. No spiritual growth. Hard to be kind to other people,
hard to be empathetic.
Just my opinion, mind you. Don't mean to be dismissive of other
people's experiences. But no human being I've met has ever been
improved by suffering. Many have struggled to retain their humanity
despite it, and many have become worsened by it. Some human beings
never come back. I can attest to it. The darkness seizes them,
until they make the world dark for everyone else. That's NOT the
darkness that I was arguing that we 'needed to face'. Even the
relatively mild hardships I've undergone has left me emotionally
volatile - there are parts of me that I am still trying to heal.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Hi Rah -- Deb, 05:01:16 01/13/03 Mon
We all have different experiences. Personally, my experience is
that if I don't look back at the "bad" times in my life
and learn something about myself from them -- make committments
to change what I could change, that being only myself -- then
I would feel like a victim, I would feel that the world was a
dirty, disgusting place, and I would never give a person a second
chance or the opportunity for that person (and myself) to grow.
I would never attempt to put myself into someone else's shoes,
or explore empathy. I would just remain stagnant.
Perhaps there is something wrong with me? Maybe I'm just a really
"bad" person, and am totally self-absorbed? Perhaps
I need another kick in the ass from life to wake me up so I can
grow out of this phase, like it has always happened before.
I remember being 14 years old, and hell just seemed to rage all
around me, always had. So I made this deal with God. I told s/he(Frank,
???) to just throw everything bad, sad, nasty, painful and shattering
that I was to experience in this life at me as quickly as possible.
(Kinda like being the only one left on your team in war ball,
and the other side has about 10 players with two balls apiece.
Just throw them all at once, over and over, and I'll catch at
least one ball each time, and just try to dodge the others.) Then
when all this stuff was over, I just asked to be happy. Well,
I got what I asked for. But it did not play out exactly as I had
imagined it would. I thought I would do all the neat "growth"
stuff later in life, and life would be a garden of tulips, roses,
mums and daisies, and there would be no weeds. Quite fanciful
logic it was, but it was one of the two most important prayers,
wishes, whatnot that I made in my life.
First thing that happened afterward was that my first love, think
Buffy's Angel, was murdered, then a friend of mine committed suicide,
then my mother became very sick and my father's business failed,
and I had to lie about my age to get a job to help support the
family financially as well as become the keeper of the hearth,
home and family for the next few years. I was 15 years old, working
in a bar serving drinks until 1:00 a.m. on school nights, walking
over a mile home in the dark after getting off work, doing my
homework, grabbing a couple of hours of sleep, making sure my
younger sister was ready for the day, and maintaining an A- average
so I could get a scholarship so I could go to college. After coming
home from school I cooked, cleaned and did laundry, and life just
kept coming at me. I was miserable, depressed, etc. but then I
kept telling myself that I asked for it this way. Eventually,
though, I began to doubt that there was a God, which is a very
convienient thing to do when you want to blame everyone lese for
everything bad that happens in your life.
But, God came through. When I was 28, I was given the choice of
dying and "resting" -- or coming back. Well I had a
5 and 1/2 week old daughter! I was not about to leave her here
with no one to help her.
Anyway, bad things kept happening, but my outlook regarding them
changed. I did not know just how strong I had become since I was
14. I did not realize just how much faith I had in believing that
I could handle anything. One attribute developed over the years
has been useful to me and to others. When there is a crisis, I
become highly effective. I think that's one reason I've always
been drawn to "deadline" oriented work, and I end up
in short-term positions that are designed to plan, impliment and
drag everyone else through change. Once equilibrium is established,
I'm heading out the door.
I have a great many faults, but I can live with them until it
is time to work on them. I can't change everything at once. But
I am happy, and that is the deal I made with God. I wanted to
be happy, but that happiness developed during the journey through
what many call darkness. I'm still on that journey, and it gets
pretty dark at times, but I'm quite sure that I can deal with
it.
I really don't believe I would be where I am spiritually today
if life had been easier. I would have had no motivation to make
a deal with God to learn how to be happy. It has been my observation
that many people don't develop spiritually if life is too comfy,
and they are often unhappy, or more so, when everything does not
go their way all the time.
Right now I'm going through a difficult time, but it will end
-- one way or another, and that's fine with me. I tell my daughter
that I have worked hard for every single day of my life, and every
poor choice made is mine, and every good choice made is mine.
It's my life and it's my responsibility. And those people who
have popped up during the darkest moments of my life journey to
give a smile, to listen, to give me a piece of the puzzle about
life were angels who just didn't know it until I told them they
were.
So, I do believe that real spiritual growth is more facilitated
by the journey through darkness, but it's usually in these times
of darkness that people, who provide the "beautiful, unselfish
acts" turn up, and it is never a coincidence.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Hi Rah -- Rahael, 06:04:51
01/13/03 Mon
We all have different experiences. Personally, my experience
is that if I don't look back at the "bad" times in my
life and learn something about myself from them -- make committments
to change what I could change, that being only myself -- then
I would feel like a victim, I would feel that the world was a
dirty, disgusting place, and I would never give a person a second
chance or the opportunity for that person (and myself) to grow.
I would never attempt to put myself into someone else's shoes,
or explore empathy. I would just remain stagnant.
But of course! That's my point about 'facing our darknesses',
our internal ones. I just don't equate the kind of poverty and
suffering that grinds human beings down and drains them of their
joy and creativity as that 'kind' of darkness. I think of it as
injustice.
Certainly, I am not unafraid to face my own internal darknesses,
nor think hard and critically about my own behaviour. That is
why I think that suffering does not include a get out clause,
and I have to face the fact that when I'm in pain, I do not generally
behave well. And I had to teach myself to transcend the pain and
the darkness.
But I do not believe that it is only those who have faced hardships
who can be empathetic and kind and unselfish. Many feel pain without
having faced terrible trauma. We all of us understand what loss
is, what rejection is, what cruelty is. Many of my friends are
unhappier than I am - I remain at most times deeply grateful and
appreciative of the world but I have a quality of sadness in my
life which is inescapable. This sadness, this melancholy will
visit many of us, it just came to me earlier. Older in years in
some aspect than my peers, I am always conscious that in many
ways I am immature in others. I am eager to learn from those who
are happier, wiser, more tolerant than I am. I feel that my past
has hampered a lot of my emotional development.
You relate a life far harder and more independent than mine ever
was - I have much to learn from you, and many others here on this
forum with incredibly diverse backgrounds. All of your very different
lives can give me lessons to apply to my own. Just as I hope that
my life can hold some positive messages for others. Those beautiful
unselfish acts shine brighter in the midst of despair, but they
happen all the time. It's just that they aren't so visible when
you're not undergoing the dark night of the soul.
Perhaps there is something wrong with me? Maybe I'm just a
really "bad" person, and am totally self-absorbed? Perhaps
I need another kick in the ass from life to wake me up so I can
grow out of this phase, like it has always happened before.
I hope you didn't derive this from anything I have said. I would
never condemn a person for introspection. It would constitute
a terrible hypocrisy on my part!!! My argument is that suffering
doesn't ennoble, not that those who have suffered don't have to
spend time facing up to what they've been through; they have an
even harder time reintegrating and being whole, because often
they get stripped of necessary coping mechanisms, and that precisly
is my point.
I was left with completely abnormal reactions to ordinary life
- or as a doctor once told me, you aren't having an irrational
reaction - it's perfectly rational, for you. Emotional reactions
too, become abnormal.
I really don't believe I would be where I am spiritually today
if life had been easier. I would have had no motivation to make
a deal with God to learn how to be happy. It has been my observation
that many people don't develop spiritually if life is too comfy,
and they are often unhappy, or more so, when everything does not
go their way all the time.
I respect that observation - but it hasn't been bourne out in
my experience. I don't think there has been anyone whose life
has been comfy - to be human seems to entail facing loss, sadness,
grief and pain. It seems, sadly to visit all our lives. One of
the most healing, regenerating friendships I had at University
was with a girl who was white, upperclass, private school educated,
privileged, intelligent and very socially adept. When I first
saw her around my college I mentally pigeon holed her straight
away, and I was deeply wrong about her. She turned out to be the
warmest, most imaginative, most empathetic person I know. She
taught me to accept myself, to appreciate myself, to see myself
as someone other people wanted to be around. She taught me to
be sociable, and brought me out of my shell. And though she had
never experienced poverty, or bereavement, or discrimination,
she *empathised*. I think, spiritually, she is a bigger person
than me. It's a quality, in my opinion, that can never be quantified
or generalised.
I began to doubt that there was a God, which is a very convienient
thing to do when you want to blame everyone lese for everything
bad that happens in your life.
Well, I'd have to disagree with you here. Though I have the deepest
respect and awe for faith, I do not think that not having faith
displays an emotional immaturity. Certainly, I am a big believer
in personal responsiblity, as you are, but I know many people
who do not believe in God, and yet blame no one else but themselves
for mistakes, nor do they have a grievance against the world.
I'd argue that disenchantment and bitterness with God is a sign
that you still have an abiding faith. Plus, doubt and disenchantment
mingled with a desire to believe produces some *incredible* poetry
;)
I never believed that life would ever get better - I never believed
that I would be even given the chance to grow, so I'm extremely
happy to find that life and happiness and love are accomplishing
in light years, what was so hard and so unassailable in the dark.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Oh Rah. What can I say? I love
you! : ) -- Deb, 07:53:17 01/13/03 Mon
You are so passionate, and it's so invigorating!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> LOL -- Rahael, 08:46:30
01/13/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Part two (because, gosh, this
is so complex!) -- Rahael, 08:05:56 01/13/03 Mon
I just wanted to add some clarifications. I started my reply to
Mal saying that there are multiple truths, and mine was only one,
and your truth is also true. Because I reread my posts and thought
that you might be reading them as some kind of personal judgement
on yourself. I don't know why you should, but there's always a
danger when one's argument is somehow very very integral to one's
world view. Surely it's a tribute, that one ends up a larger person
after suffering, despite rather than because of it.
As for me? Perhaps I'm arguing this because if I haven't somehow
spiritually grown because of my own pains, it leaves me kind of
wanting as a person - same as those discussions about forgiveness,
where I'm again the smaller person because I cannot manage this
intangible emotion.
But actually, I think it's because I've just seen too many ruined
lives, and because I do not personally feel that the path to wholeness
is a progressive linear developmenent. Some parts of us are more
mature than others. Sometimes we fall into ruts. And I want to
look at what my father could be, and see what he is and not condemn
him, but rather extend the fullest sense of compassion to someone
who lives in his loneliness, still bereft and heartbroken after
all these years. He was a wonderful man, and still is, but I'd
give anything to erase all those painful, painful incidents for
him. I *know* that he'd be as wonderful, wise, compassionate and
gentle without having had his spirit broken.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Did I say I love you?
-- Deb, 10:33:28 01/13/03 Mon
I think you have a great deal more campassion than you give yourself
credit for. You bend over backwards to be compassionate at times.
And if you haven't noticed: for all my compassion, forgiveness,
and, well just plain experience, I can be one hell of a whiner
at times. It clears the head like horseradish clears the sinuses.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Awwwwwww -- Rahael,
10:47:13 01/13/03 Mon
I whine plenty. I could self pity for England with marvellous,
glorious gusto. It's an art form not to be despised!
But when people are nice to me, can't help but be happy, cheerful
and nice myself. I think I must be one of nature's cheery souls.
Though sometimes I think I'm just Eeyore. See? Multitudes!
Good luck Deb, my thoughts are with you.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Can I adopt
you? You'd fit in nicely around here. -- Deb, 10:55:55
01/13/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Multiple Truths --
Sara, 17:35:13 01/13/03 Mon
Could it be the type of bad experiences influence how we deal
with them? It seems that when you're a victim of circumstances
(illness, financial problems) it's more likely to give you an
opportunity for growth, but when you're a victim of other people,
the experience is just damaging. Not that I think this is a hard
and fast rule, but from what I've seen, it does seem to fall that
way.
By the way, I think that forgiveness like trust, is something
that is never owed to anyone, but can be earned. You should never
feel bad because someone else isn't worthy of your forgiveness,
that's a reflection of them not you.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Can't say anything
besides I agree, Sara -- ~Eris~, 19:04:54 01/13/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yep I agree.
-- shadowkat, 20:27:08 01/14/03 Tue
Could it be the type of bad experiences influence how we deal
with them? It seems that when you're a victim of circumstances
(illness, financial problems) it's more likely to give you an
opportunity for growth, but when you're a victim of other people,
the experience is just damaging. Not that I think this is a hard
and fast rule, but from what I've seen, it does seem to fall that
way.
Ironically enough - I just discussed a situation where I was the
target of a bad person today. The woman I discussed it with is
writing a book on serial bullies and corporate bullying. She says
that I was a "target" not a victim, a victim is someone
who folds under the bullying who lets their life be destroyed.
My experience with this type of person was luckily just in the
work place and I was able to leave. But Serial Bullies are everywhere
- the sociopaths or psychopaths in our midst. And they do leave
scars and no the experience doesn't make you grow, it's one you
try to move past. And it does change you. After my experience,
my ability to trust others was damaged as was my ability to trust
myself. Not to mention my confidence.
For more on serial bullies - BullyOnline or I think www.bullyonline.org?
Here's some quotes:
"All cruelty springs from weakness" (Seneca 4BC-AD65)
"Most organisations have a serial bully. It never ceases
to amaze me how one person's divisive, disordered, dysfunctional
behavior can permeate the entire organization like a cancer."
(Tim Field)
"The truth is incontrovertible; malice may attack it, ignorance
may deride it, but in the end, there it is." Winston Churchill.
Here's some stuff on it: www.hare.org - Robert Hare's articles,
Book: Without Conscience, the disturbing world of psychopaths
among us, Robert D. Hare.
Also here:
http://www.successunlimited.co.uk/bully/amibeing.htm
By the way, I think that forgiveness like trust, is something
that is never owed to anyone, but can be earned. You should never
feel bad because someone else isn't worthy of your forgiveness,
that's a reflection of them not you.
I'm beginning to strongly agree with this. I used to believe we
had to forgive people - to make us good, for ourselves. Now? I'm
beginning to realize that it is enough to just move on. Try to
move past it. And not think about the person or what happened
as much as possible. It is enough to forgive ourselves for being
in the situation to begin with - as absurd as that might sound
- it's how you feel - that you were somehow responsible for being
the target - when in truth the reasons you were selected had nothing
to do with you. According to my friend - targets are selected
because they are capable, strong, good natured. It's our good
qualities that make these sick people go after us. And that is
not something we should ever have to forgive ourselves for. Sometimes
the best and only thing we can ever try to do is move on. Let
it go. Forget the bully and leave these bad people behind us where
they belong. The possible exceptions? Those who earn our forgiveness
and our trust and ask for it.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yep I agree.
-- Rufus, 00:29:11 01/15/03 Wed
It is enough to forgive ourselves for being in the situation
to begin with - as absurd as that might sound - it's how you feel
- that you were somehow responsible for being the target - when
in truth the reasons you were selected had nothing to do with
you. According to my friend - targets are selected because they
are capable, strong, good natured. It's our good qualities that
make these sick people go after us. And that is not something
we should ever have to forgive ourselves for. Sometimes the best
and only thing we can ever try to do is move on.
An interesting part of being a target is that you are in fact
chosen by a bully because you have qualities that they lack and
envy, but aren't capable or are too lazy to cultivate in themselves.
This anger at what ever bad feelings they have about themselves
is projected onto the target who they go after instead turning
on themselves. The problem is that many bullies do get far in
life by counting on the good nature of others to get away with
as much as they can...frequently when they encounter a "target"
it the first sign of trouble is the "target" not seeing
things their way...this starts an escalation of behaviour that
the bully tries to have blamed on the target. The only reason
the bully gets away with this behavior is the fear of the average
person who doesn't want to get involved or fears retaliation.
What they (the average person) miss is that more often than not
the Bully is also a coward. Some Bullies who start that way as
children do change, more often they don't and become hostile adults
who blame others for anything that goes wrong in their lives.
We are at a sad time when Bullying has become a problem in our
schools, serious enough that young people have committed suicide
and some Bullies have progressed to murder, because they assumed
that they could get away with it. Parents who assume that their
kid would never do anything wrong and make sure they never catch
their kids, or when they do catch them trivialize their behavior
are prime contributors to a major problem in society today. Bullies
don't just happen, they are created, and the general publics tendancy
to go into denial is not making the problem go away and the proof
is the violence and harrassment going on in some schools, and
in the rise of violent juvenille offenders.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agreed.
Bullying in schools and the workplace -- shadowkat, 07:06:07
01/15/03 Wed
The only reason the bully gets away with this behavior is the
fear of the average person who doesn't want to get involved or
fears retaliation. What they (the average person) miss is that
more often than not the Bully is also a coward. Some Bullies who
start that way as children do change, more often they don't and
become hostile adults who blame others for anything that goes
wrong in their lives.
In Btvs - we see this occur with Warren Mears, Andrew and Jonathan
and the horrific results of not addressing the problem earlier.
On the bright side - we see what happens with Larry - who is portrayed
as a Bully up until possibly Phases - where Xander inadvertently
"outs" him and Larry stops being the Bully. By confronting
Larry on his wolfish and inappropriate behavior - Xander puts
a stop to it. Xander actually takes on bullies more than once
in Sunnydale High - he does it in the Zeppo as well. The same
thing sort of happens with the character in Beauty and The Beasts
that Buffy takes on - who dies.
But more often than not, the problem is ignored or swept under
the rug. The truth is if we continue to do this, ignore the problem
- the bully grows up to be the sociopathic boss and gets far worse
than he ever was in high school and more damaging. After all high
school is a limited time period- three years. Working Life is
far more. This is what happened with Warren Mears - who turned
into a murderer.
Here's a quote by Tim Field (a proponent of the initiative to
get legislation on bullying):" Lack of knowledge or, or unwillingness
to recognise, or outright denial of the existence of the serial
bully is the most common reason for an unsatisfactory outcome
of a bullying case for both the employee and the employer"
- this can also be said about the people in school.
Part of the reason I found Warren Mears so unredeemable and horrid
and frightening is because I had to go into work every day and
deal with the real life version of Warren Mears. Until you meet
a Warren in real life and believe me they are out there - you
don't know how scarey this person really is. You tell yourself
you can handle the bully, you tell yourself that you'll know him
when you see him that you won't be fooled. You even might consider
him sort of amusing and hardly frightening as many fans perceived
Warren. (Nope...sorry...he truly is frightening.) There are still
people working with the bully I had, being bullied by him (my
Assistant still works with him, although I went out of my way
to give her as much protection against him as I could - I don't
think he'll target her) and in their heads? They remain convinced
he's just a bad manager. They justify his actions. This is what
happens with bullies - we find ways to justify them, we excuse
their acts based on their problems - oh the poor dear, he's an
alcoholic or manic-depressive, or the girlfriend Katrina was just
a shrew, April just a robot, or people just treated him horribly...etc.
The truth is by excusing his or her (there are female bullies
out there) actions - all we do is encourage them. Like the parent
who refuses to believe their child can do any wrong or the teacher
who dismisses it as testorone or typical teenage teasing. The
unwillingness to recognize the problem causes a greater one.
The co-workers I had that did recognize the bullying and saw the
problem - were too afraid to get involved. They did NOT in any
way stand up for me. Instead they merely listened to my complaints,
agreed to be my reference, and counseled me to leave. They admitted
it was happening but did not want to deal with it. All my closest
friend did was tell me repeatedly to quit. She is trying desperately
to leave herself and is starting to become a target as well.
They were all too terrified of the bully. Afraid of losing their
jobs and their income source.
It sounds easy to stand-up to the bully - but it's not so clear-cut
as one might think. I attempted to stand up to this bully more
than once and eventually had to leave the company, realizing I
could do nothing. And from what I've seen of Rahael's story -
it sounds like her family stood up to the people bullying her
country and paid with their lives.
According to my contact in New Zealand - Europe, Great Britain
and some other countries overseas have legistlation to deal with
serial bullying in the work place and elsewhere. The US and New
Zealand are working on it. There is a legislative initiative in
California right now regarding it. Legal measures could help remedy
the problem.
There is no legal measures now.
We do need to adress it. And we need to stop excusing this type
of behavior in our schools, our workplaces, our neighbors and
perhaps even ourselves...because until we do -we will have to
deal with these horror stories like Tara's death or what is described
in the thread above over and over again.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Don't
forget the weak, though. -- Arethusa, 08:04:50 01/15/03
Wed
Warren gradually takes over the Trio because Andrew and Johnathan
are weak, and let him. His villainy escalates, seducing Andrew
(literally and figuatively) and cowering Johnathan. Andrew accepts
Warren's bullying because he hopes to benefit from it, and Johnathan
does the same, until fear replaces his first motivation.
Cordelia bullies Willow because Willow is insecure and vulnerable,
with her jumpers and childish hair style, but doesn't try to bully
Buffy, who is more self-confident. Cordelia later insults Buffy,
but she doesn't try to bully her. The Cordettes start bullying
Cordelia when she becomes weak and vulnerable in their eyes by
dating a social pariah. They're unsuccessful because Cordelia
is stronger than they. If Cordelia had never had her reversal
of fortunes and learned empathy, she might have continued to torment
and bully her way through life. She is able to get away with bullying
for many reasons. Some students in high school don't care if the
weak are picked on, since they feel the same scorn towards the
weak. They just let the bully do what they don't dare or care
to do. Others do nothing out of fear of being the next victim-relief
that someone else is the target.
Some teachers ignore it because except in the most flagrent cases
it's difficult to differintiate between personality clashes and
bullying, time is short during the schoolday and teachers are
supposed to be on duty nearly every second and can't referee every
argument, they are bullies too and enjoy seeing the weak picked
on, or they are scornful of someone who doesn't stand up for himself.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Bringing
this back to "darkness" -- leslie,
08:57:21 01/15/03 Wed
As I recall, somewhere up there, this started as a confutation
of the idea that Buffy should "embrace her darkness,"
and I think that s'kat's introduction of the bullying theme helped
me pinpoint why I felt that Rah's example of her family's situation
and the experiences of people under oppressive governments, etc.,
didn't seem to be in the same ballpark for me. In terms of what
we are talking about in Buffy's situation--and Warren's, and Larry's,
and so on--is that it is the bully's refusal to "embrace
their darkness" that leads to the bullying and the intimidation
and even murder of others--they refuse to acknowledge their own
weaknesses, to accept their own impulses toward violence, to admit
that all this awful stuff is their issue, not the target's
fault. Bullying comes about by projecting one's own darkness,
whether individual or collective (I'm thinking here of the Nazis
and just the whole history of persecution of Jews), onto a target
and punishing the target for that weakness in oneself.
I think this is also where the controversy over "embracing"
darkness arises, too. It isn't a question of submitting to it,
it's admitting that it exists in you, that the actions
that you take under its influence are your own actions and not
forced on you by some outside agent ("The devil made me do
it," or even "It wasn't me, it was the First Evil").
Theoretically, at least in a Jungian framework, by embracing,
accepting the Shadow, the evil in oneself, one can turn that energy
into a source of strength that is not projected onto others and
is not destructive, turning the darkness from a place of terror
to a place of power.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Oh I agree absolutely -- Rahael, 09:28:11 01/15/03 Wed
That was kind of tangent - my point was that suffering is not
necessary or always conducive to spiritual growth and health.
Examining the dark and examining one's own actions is essential;
and one can still do this having undergone large and repeated
amounts of trauma - it's just that suffering does not lead to
spiritual ennoblement, certain parts of yourself may be stunted,
perhaps permanantly in many cases.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Oh I agree absolutely -- Arethusa, 09:56:37
01/15/03 Wed
So why does suffering weaken some, and turn others into heroes?
Is Cordy a better person than Willow, because suffering turned
her into Saint Cordy and Willow into Dark Willow? Did her mental
and emotional strength under suffering ennoble her, while Willow's
weakness in facing difficulties cause suffering to corrupt her?
Why could Cordy fight back against the Cordettes, but Willow couldn't
fight Cordy? Is Cordy "better" than Willow?
Or is the time of trauma important? Willow suffered through neglect
and peer abuse in childhood. Cordy was obviously supported, or
at least indulged. Her difficulties arose when she was already
an adult. Was that why Cordelia had strength that Willow did not?
Are some people born victims, due to characteristics deemed undesireable-placidity,
timidity, elasticity, self-doubt? Or are victims created in childhood?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Oh I agree absolutely -- leslie,
10:40:08 01/15/03 Wed
First of all, I would note that their stories aren't over yet.
Yeah, Willow went Dark, but now she has realized that she has
that potential and is learning--not necessarily linearly--how
to deal with it. On the other hand, saints don't usually have
sex with the underage sons of the object of their affections.
Well, maybe Saint Vigeous did, who knows, but the whole concept
of a vampire saint is pretty dodgy in any case.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Oh I agree absolutely -- Arethusa,
10:50:58 01/15/03 Wed
They are both at the place where they are dealing with new hardships.
Where it will take them is a slightly separate issue. Is Willow
now stronger than Cordy? It seems that way. Will is tentatively
doing magic and helping Buffy. Cordy has collapsed (although I'm
convinced that she's being controlled or manipulated in some way)
and slept with Connor. My questions still stand, thought. Does
Cordy undergo less victimization than Willow because she's stronger/better?
Why? How do the variable affect their degree of strength?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> wow, rah, i almost feel
like... -- anom, 21:33:46 01/13/03 Mon
...this is too personal to say here, but what you say about your
father & your response to him makes me glad he has you. Whatever
he's still suffering, how could it not be even worse without his
relationship with you? Unless he can't let you share that with
him...I hope that's not the case.
And I hope that his inability to get past what was done to him
won't last for the rest of his life. Even after years, decades,
some people do manage to break free, or at least get better to
some degree.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: wow, rah, i almost
feel like... -- Rahael, 04:55:08 01/14/03 Tue
I think the inability is unconscious. I mean, in one sense he
is free, in the most important way. Despite the brutal experiences
he had besides spending the most important years of his life hiding
in safe houses, always in fear that he might be discovered, his
wife and children far away, he remains unresentful and gentle
(I think that might be due to his Buddhist upbringing. His mother
won't even kill flies - she swatted them away). I know few fathers
who could do what he did even without those experiences - work
seven days a week, make pack lunches every morning, cook hot dinners
every night for two children he never had to look after before.
And he does find some joy in life. He enjoys a good meal, comes
out of his shell with good friends, he finds the oddest tv programmes
amusing (Songs of Praise for god's sake. Christian church services,
when he's an atheist-buddhist!).
But I see the still unfaded scars on his body, hear the talking,
hear how he sometimes shouts in his sleep, see how when he has
nothing to do, he just goes to sleep, or stands silently, thinking.
I know he isn't happy. There's a fundamental deep down sadness
that will never go away. And I don't think he trusts other human
beings any more, nor can he allow them to come too close. To be
honest, I feel powerless to help or undo anything. But maybe I
should just be patient. It is something that has always seemed
to work for every other intractable problem I have faced. Maybe
I should have more faith in the world. As Oliver Cromwell might
have put it, I shall be in a 'waiting posture'.
(An aside - I read with interest the comments made on the unnecessary
nature of Spike's torture scenes. I'm wondering how I'm going
to react to them when I 'see' them. Whether they will speak to
me or repulse me. Also, Ponygirl's comment about not glorifying
the ability to withstand torture reminded me a story my aunt once
told me. She said that my foolish, brave father had the nickname
'the silent' in prison because while all his comrades broke down
and talked, he never said a word. But my aunt said the wisest
way would have been what she did - she pretended to be scared,
and 'broke down' before they could do anything to her. This way
you can tell them a complete, cohesive pack of lies while you
still have control over your mind. Once they start torturing you
and you talk, you have no control. So there you are - handy life
tip I hope no one here has occasion to use!!!!! Though this plan
only worked for my aunt because when the guards were leading her
away, she whispered to her husband "blame everything on me"
and proceeded to incriminate herself for everything. She portrayed
herself as an innocent middle class girl just 'helping out', and
that's all she did. She ended up in prison, but eventually broke
out and escaped the country).
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Aha! You solved
the dilemma -- Sophist, 09:06:06 01/14/03 Tue
I read with interest the comments made on the unnecessary nature
of Spike's torture scenes.
This has concerned me as well; they seemed gratuitous. I think
you've given us the answer, one that makes perfect sense in the
twisted world of evil:
But my aunt said the wisest way would have been what she did
- she pretended to be scared, and 'broke down' before they could
do anything to her. This way you can tell them a complete, cohesive
pack of lies while you still have control over your mind. Once
they start torturing you and you talk, you have no control.
The FE is not just torturing Spike, it's playing on his psyche.
It would have been easy to dust him. The FE wants him alive but
broken or on the FE's side. The physical torture serves to weaken
Spike mentally so that the mind games of FE/Dru and FE/Buffy can
achieve their goal.
Maybe this was obvious to others before, but I just now got it.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Gee,
Sophist you surprise me with your last statement. -- Rufus,
09:16:35 01/14/03 Tue
The FE is not just torturing Spike, it's playing on his psyche.
It would have been easy to dust him. The FE wants him alive but
broken or on the FE's side. The physical torture serves to weaken
Spike mentally so that the mind games of FE/Dru and FE/Buffy can
achieve their goal.
I keep remembering what Holland Manners said about evil living
in the heart of everyone.....and the First is all about getting
someone to do evil, to feed it and perpetuate a constant cycle
of ill will. The First could have easily worked a way to dust
Spike, but Spike misbehaved, acted out of order, against how the
First assumed he "could" act. So he has become a project
of a sort in that the First doesn't like to lose, and Spike is
a painful reminder of how someone can "go good". Sure
it could have had Spike dusted, but trying to get him to do evil
again is what It's all about.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I
meant I didn't get that the torture was to weaken him mentally.
I got the rest. -- Sophist, 09:34:38 01/14/03 Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Very good post Rah -- shadowkat, 17:24:56
01/13/03 Mon
I believe you are right -Good people are good people despite
the outrages of life. That is why we have to work to undo injustices.
I've discussed 'embracing the darkness' with KdS, when I've said
to him that we mustn't ignore our darkside. But to be honest,
when the debate comes to this point - I have to agree wholeheartedly
with him and Mal.
What kept me strong through the dark times were the times of light.
The knowledge of love kept my spirit alive, though hibernating.
I think there is some confusion on the board regarding accepting
and embracing darkness. For me? I think you state it well - we
shouldn't ignore it, but we should be careful not to go into it
either. Isn't there a poem about "Not going into thy dark
night?" I'm so bad at remembering lines from things.
But bear with me as I take this back on topic.
I think Buffy herself is a little confused regarding how to deal
with the darkness inside her. As is partly expressed through Willow
who asks Giles why the coven can't just drain the magic out of
her or kill her. Spike also addresses this fear - kill me, destroy
the darkness, there can't be any light. But Buffy fights Spike
on this.
She says: "You faced the monster inside and fought back.
You risked everything to become a better man." Giles in a
way expresses something very similar to Willow - "the power
is a part of you now, you can't remove it, but it doesn't change
who you are. In the end we are who we are no matter how much we
have appeared to have changed."
From these two statements and the commentary on Season 5 DVD,
I think the writers are trying to say that dark events do not
change who we are at our core. Not really. We can face the darkness
in ourselves and by doing so, choose NOT to give into it, fight
it. Buffy in Buffy vs. Dracula (in a scene very similar to Spike's
in Sleeper) tastes the darkness in her own soul - but instead
of embracing it or allowing it to take her over as Faith did in
Season 3, she accepts it as part of who she is and strives to
rise above it.
Manwitch is right i think - Buffy is in a process of spiritual
awakening. She doesn't "deny her dark side" nor "does
she embrace it" - she struggles to face it and deal with
it and not let it overwhelm or overtake her. Darkness can overtake
us in life if we let it. Faith is a perfect demonstration of that
as is Angel. But darkness is not something to embrace or jump
into like an adventure.
It does change you...in little ways, not the core you, but the
you that has to interact with the world...and it changes how you
interact with that world. Buffy's trials as slayer have hardened
her in a similar manner to what you've so bravely described. She
tends to seem cold at times, contained - partly because she has
been hurt and left.
She shows compassion - because she understands the pain and violence
of self-hate. To go out every night and slay demons is not an
easy task.
I think Buffy's journey is finding a way of understanding the
balance between the two. Using the light to deal with the darkness.
If that makes sense? Somewhere in all this I think I lost my point...and
got muddled. But oh well.
Good post at any rate. SK
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> An excuse to bring up Dylan Thomas
-- Tchaikovsky, 03:42:43 01/14/03 Tue
I don't think the context is quite right- because Thomas is talking
about death, but here's the poem you were thinking of, (I hope):
DO NOT GO GENTLE INTO THAT GOOD NIGHT
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
The beautiful mantra like repetition of the randomly alterntaing
two lines at the end of each stanza is very haunting. And this
poem reminds me, (although it is not entirely applicable), of
Buffy to Angel at the end of 'Amends'. He shouldn't give up, even
if it seems the 'gentle' and correct thing to do.
Back to rambling tangentially. Oh well.
TCH
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Darkness as an agent of spiritual growth
-- Miss Edith, 19:11:52 01/13/03 Mon
I believe Spike's love for Buffy is pretty much canan. In the
script for The Gift Joss acknowledges Spike is devestated at seeing
his love dead. Whether the way Spike expressed his love was healthy
is very open for debate. There is certaintly little doubt that
Spike was attempting to draw Buffy to him as she had made it clear
that he was unable to come into the light and join her. He tells
Buffy in Smashed that "a man can change". In The Gift
he had said "you treat me like a man and that means..."
yet Buffy punches Spike telling him "You're not a man you're
a thing...You're an evil disgusting thing". Spike was then
at the end of his tether and choose to pursue a victim whining
about Buffy mistreating him. Yes he was exhilarated when he discovered
that the woman he had been using as his moral compass wasn't as
high and mighty as she pretented to be. Just like the old days
he lashed out at Buffy to regain his big bad dignity and control.
In Wrecked he continues with this act playing at being the big
bad leering at Buffy and being smug "It made you scream didn't
it". And when Buffy says he's not gods gift he laughs "No
that wouldn't be nearly as interesting would it". He basically
thought he was giving Buffy what she wanted and what she would
come back for. Note how careful he is to only let momentary flashes
of romanticism through "Suns up...stay". Basically though
he was being the bastard that he thought she wanted, waving self-righeous
Buffy's panties in her face when she threatens to kill him. You
can say he uses the information in Smashed to torment her and
he hits her when she's vunerable and you are quite right. But
I think he was like a child in the way he was hitting out and
so desperate to bind Buffy to him.
I don't agree that he found the idea of sex more fullfilling than
friendship. Rather I think he valued the moments when Buffy approached
him for chats and he used such occasions as opportunities to open
up "every night I save you". But he lost the friendship
through no fault of his own. Buffy choose to kiss him and from
then on she was so freaked that there was no way they could go
back to anything even resembling a friendship. Lets not forget
in DT she tells him he is a thing and incapable of feeling anything.
That was what she valued about the sex they shared. To her Spike
truly was just an empty vessel for her to poar all her sexual
needs and pain on to. He was a living vibrater if you will. Spike
thought they could find a connection through sex as he seemed
to believe that Buffy would not sleep with a man she didn't love
so there must be some feeling there. But did he treasure the simple
intimacy in All The Way when he patrolled with Buffy "Good
fight" or when they went drimnking together in LS. I would
say so. Being Buffy's sex toy was not pleasurable to him and it
is revealed in BY that it caused him a lot of inner torment.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Its not about "embracing" darkness.
-- Deb, 00:25:41 01/14/03 Tue
More like: "Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow
of death, I will fear no evil for thous art(sp) with me."
kinda of thingy. The light walks through the darkness with you.
[> [> Re: MEs attitute
to female sexuality -- Miss Edith, 07:55:39 01/12/03 Sun
The idea that Buffy was addicted to sex was what annoyed me. I
mean come one the ending of Wrecked with Buffy shivering in her
room surrounded by garlic and clutching a cross. It was the very
obvious cliche of the big bad wolf coming to attack the pure girl
in her tower. Buffy enjoyed good sex and she decided she was addicted
to it and it was a sickness. That struck me as a poor message
to be putting out there. It wasn't as if she was she needed sex
constantly. She just needed some sex to release the tension and
leapt to the conclusion that she was somehow addicted to Spike's
penis.
I guess I just wish the relationship had been handled differently.
All the bad boyfriend cliches didn't work for me. Has Buffy ever
been allowed to enjoy sex without feeling guilty? Angel ended
up with the guy turning evil, Parker discarded her. Riley stuck
around but couldn't satisfy Buffy as she was out staking vampires
after he fell asleep in BVD.
Like I said Anya had a healthy attitude to sex but it was used
as part of what made her weird and non human. She didn't fit in
and her frankness with sex talk was used as the elephant in the
room. Perhaps I've just been watching too much Sex and the City
where the female characters actually discuss their sex lives and
what pleases them. One of the women even walkied in on the other
giving a blowjob and was mortified. So I have trouble understanding
why it is considered an horrendous embarrassment for Anya to mention
that she and Xander use the gym for recreational purposes for
instance.
[> [> [> Re: MEs attitute
to female sexuality -- Corwin of Amber, 18:08:48 01/12/03
Sun
>The idea that Buffy was addicted to sex was what annoyed me.
People seem to be forgetting the overall situation. Buffy is Dawn's
guardian, and was spending a LOT of time away at night, boinking
Spike. Some of the identifying behaviors for addiction are if
it impacts your family life, if you lie about what you are doing,
etc. Sound familiar?
Yeah, she was addicted, but it didn't have to be sex. It could
just have easily have been drugs or gambling. (magic?) Or, a lot
of people in that severely depressed state turn to self mutilation,
but I suppose that wouldn't be much different from normal life
for Buffy.
[> [> [> [> Re:
MEs attitute to female sexuality -- Miss Edith, 16:07:37
01/13/03 Mon
See I disagree. In Smashed Buffy undoubtly neglected Dawn as she
was so overcome at believing she was a demon and she choose to
stay out overnight after the shock of deciding to hell with it
she would give in to Spike. But I can't think of many other occasions
when we were shown that Buffy was neglecting Dawn in favour of
Spike. Maybe in AYW when she is bringing home Dawn's dinner and
stops outside the house for a quick thrill with Spike? Other than
that I can't think of any examples of Buffy being drawn to Spike
in such a consuming way as calling it an addiction would suggest.
In DMP Buffy was on her break when she saw Spike for a quickie.
She even tells him she doesn't have time for his nonsense as she
is working. Buffy was seeing Spike when things became too desperate
to cope with and she needed some relief. I would see an addiction
as Buffy being drawn to Spike in such a way that she was constantly
fighting the urge and neglecting her friends and Dawn because
she wanted sex all day. IMO that wasn't the case. Indeed in DMP
she didn't even want the sex. And when it ended she seemed a lot
happier in HB and wasn't shown to be fighing an overpowering addiction
at all. She was lying and behaving in a unhealthy way I am not
disputing that. I just can't accept that Buffy was actually addicted
to the sex.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: MEs attitute to female sexuality -- Corwin of Amber,
18:29:34 01/14/03 Tue
I don't assume that the Spuffy we saw on screen was the only Spuffy
that occurred, that's the difference. It was pretty clear that
things were degenerating pretty rapidly between episodes.
[> [> Little kinky sex
shown in S6 -- ~Eris~, 19:50:58 01/12/03 Sun
Hi Everyone. Just jumping into the discussion here. :-)
Cactus Watcher wrote:
"Considering the violence of the beginning of their physical
relationship, I suspect that some of the 'games' that Buffy and
Spike were playing during their private encounters were pretty
disturbing."
But that's exactly the problem. The viewer has to "suspect",
"imagine", or even "assume" that such disturbing
kinky sexual events actually took place, because ME didn't show
it.
Now granted, they do have censors to worry about, but they could
have made a reference to it to give us a better idea of what was
going on with B/S. They didn't have to even show anything, but
they could have talked about it to let the viewers know, like
they did with X/A's sexual practices in S4.
Malandanza made this point with the following:
"As for Miss Edith's point about the sex looking pretty tame
-- I think that ME made a mistake when they decided to make the
sex in season six as explicit as possible. Sex on American TV
can be explicit or kinky but it can't be both without being censored
or losing sponsorship. ME would have been better off making more
handcuff scenes (allowing the viewer's to imagine what happened)
and showing less of JM's body if they wanted to Spuffy to be in
the running for Sunnydale's kinkiest couple. By making the decision
to show as much skin as possible, Spike ended up looking only
marginally more inventive than Riley. By constrast, we've seen
very little of Xander and Anya's sex life, but we know about roleplaying,
erotic sponge baths and spanking."
But ME didn't show anything of the sort for B/S in S6, so we're
just supposed to 'take ME's word for it' and assume it was taking
place.
The kinkiest we got was the handcuff scene and Spike taking her
from behind on the balcony in 'DT'. Having sex in public can also
be considered kinky, and B/S did that in 'DMP', 'DT' and 'AYW'.
Using handcuffs and having sex in public is nothing for Buffy
to be *that* upset over. And the balcony scene was disturbing
because of what Spike was saying to her at the time, not because
of the actual sexual act (to me at least).
She is so ashamed of her affair with Spike, and when I heard her
say in 'CWDP' that she "behaved like a monster" and
"treated him like...", I thought maybe ME finally got
it right. Buffy was feeling guilty because she used a man/vamp
that loved her, and tried to convince herself that his feelings
weren't real. Maybe she knew better now, that it wasn't the sex
that was bad, but the reasons behind it. But then she went ahead
and said she "let him do things" to her. ME backpedaled
and made it all about the kinky sex again.
Is Buffy ashamed of using a man that loved her, or ashamed of
the (practically non-existent) kinky sex? ME has to make up their
mind on that one. They can't have it both ways.
The same thing happened at the end of 'DT'. She asks Tara why
she lets him "do those things" to her, vaguely implying
some kinky behaviors, but nothing definitive. But then acts upset
because she realizes she is using him and doesn't want anyone
to know, because of the "way they would look at" her.
Again, ME tried to have it both ways and it didn't work. I generally
dismissed her "do things to me" remark because the using
him to feel seemed the more important statement at the time.
As sad as the end scene of AYW was, I was a little bit happy because
Buffy realized she was "using him", someone who loved
her. I thought she finally realized this was the reason for her
guilt (it was "killing her"). She didn't go on about
him not having a soul, say he was evil, say he was a vamp and
it was wrong for her as the slayer to be with him, say her friends
would be disgusted with her for being with him, etc. She said
she couldn't love him and that she had to "strong" (self-reliant?).
That's why she had to stop being with him. Again, I thought ME
was done with the kinky sex thing, but then they brought it up
again in 'CWDP'.
In 'NLM' Spike brought up the fact that Buffy was using him because
she hated herself, and she admitted as much. I'm assuming that
because this is the most recent B/S conversation we have, that
that is what ME is going to go with now. Their conversation in
the basement, Spike saying she likes men who hurt her, seems to
show this.
Maybe ME has finally learned that nobody seems to believe the
kinky sex reason for Buffy's guilt, and they've decided to drop
that and use the self-loathing reason instead? It's obvious that
Buffy hated herself and was using Spike to feel ('OMWF, 'AYW'),
but ME seemed to find the kinky sex excuse more exciting or something.
There seems to be a general consensus on the self-loathing as
the reason for the twisted B/S 'relationship', so maybe 'NLM's
writer (the new Drew) latched onto this. He seems to be good at
retconning and fixing up holes and loose threads, so maybe he
knocked some sense into ME and stopped using the kinky sex as
the reason.
Buffy's vague "things" he does to her ('Dead Things'
and 'CWDP') aren't enough for me to buy it. ME's gotta either
show it or be more specific. Anyone agree?
~Eris~
[> [> [> Welcome.
Good post. I do agree -- see my response to s'kat below. --
Sophist, 20:19:28 01/12/03 Sun
[> [> [> Would agree
-- shadowkat, 11:55:54 01/13/03 Mon
Is it possible to agree with you, my own statements and manwitchs
and cjl and not be completely contradictory?
Hope so.
I think you are right. I think Marti (from interviews I've read
both with her and with Marsters) that the writers tried to have
it both ways. Marti was relying on her own college experiences
and wanted to discuss the shame she may or may not have felt in
kinky relationships with "bad boyfriend" while that
is incredibly brave, as a writer who is collaborating with other
writer's it is also not always the best or most realistic idea.
(Works nice in theory but not in practice.) I think, as even they
have admitted in interviews, they tripped big time. They thought
nudity was risque - uhm no, we get that on NYPD Blue and most
people have cable. So showing Spike nude all the time really doesn't
suggest kinkiness. (Not that it ever would. All it did was objectify
him somewhat and cause women to stalk the actor... we live in
a strange world ;-) )The kinkiness relationship on the show has
always seemed to be Xander and Anya. I would agree with Malandaza's
point on that. The sex I saw on the screen btw S/B was never that
kinky IMHO.
I agree - I was confused on what they were going for.
Was it that Buffy was ashamed of what they did together?
Or the fact she was in a relationship with Spike? Or the fact
she was using him? Or all of the above? I was going for all of
the above most of the time. Drew Goddard tried to fix most of
this in NLM and to some extent CwDP - the shooting scripts show
how much. I think someone finally got across to the co-creators
that their whole bad boyfriend storyline didn't really work.
At any rate - I agree - if they wanted to emphasize kinky sex?
They did it wrong. If they wanted to emphasize the ambiguous feelings
young women feel about relationships similar to Buffy's - ie.
the kinky sex, casual sex, using someone for it, being with the
wrong person, all you do is cause pain, etc...they screwed up
on the kinky sex part - thus confusing the audience.
Welcome. SK
[> [> [> [> A look
at the sex -- Miss Edith, 16:47:04 01/13/03 Mon
Smashed could be considered to be unusual sex as the foreplay
consisted of the two of them beating the crap out of each other
and tumbling through a building. Buffy looks uncomfortable in
Wrecked and is limping suggesting the sex was very infigerating.
In AYW Spike mentions they can keep going for up to five hours
and Buffy was so into the sex in Wrecked her morning after comment
is "When did the building fall down". This did not cause
disgust. Many people on the sitges I visitied were envious and
laughingly discussing how they have made beds rock but never brought
down a building before. There was disgust expressed by some at
Buffy's moral choice to sleep with Spike but I can't recall many
people seeing the encounter as really kinky or anything.
In Gone B/S have naked sex which begins with Spike being thrown
against the wall and having his shirt ripped open. A little rough
perhaps? Buffy does goes down on him which may count as unusual
sex for some people? DMP has the two of them shagging in an alley.
Not kinky as such it more suggested empty and dull sex. Buffy
was hardly getting off on the public nature of it. It was more
a case of her desperately needing to feel and going for it in
the place she was least likely to get caught. She was at work
so could harldy go too far from the restraunt. I don't rememeber
that many people being horrified at Buffy indulging in public
sex. Most people were just wondering why Buffy was having sex
in DMP if she wasn't enjoying it.
Dead Things opened with the two of them copulating on the floor
but otherwise perfectly normal sex is suggested, they were just
a little enthusiastic and missed the bed. They even have share
some mildly cute after sex talk "are we having a conversation?".
The balcony sex was perhaps the kinkiest encounter as it was fairly
public and Spike comments on the rush it is giving Buffy to get
away with sex right under her friends noses. Plus it was anal
sex so slightly different from the norm. The handcuffs are used
in DT and it is suggested both Spike and Buffy wore them. Buffy
rubs her wrists uncomfortably so I am guessing she tried them
out first (note her unsure expression when Spike intorduced her
to them. He would have initally taken the lead I feel). But in
her dream Buffy recalls being the agreesser and using handcuffs
on Spike. Of course there is no evidence what really went on there.
OAFA has no sex but it does portray the couple as dare I say it
mildly cute. We have Spike flirting with Buffy and being jealous
of Richard "Oh Buffy can I get you a soda pop I think I'm
in love...jealous my arse" and looking worried at Clem's
comment that Richard was cute. Buffy is most definately not up
for sex at her house and the only raunchiness implied is Spike
raising his eyebrow when Buffy gets the back-massager to take
care of all her aches and pains. AYW has Buffy having sex in front
of her house which was pretty daring of her. Otherwise the sex
is in the crypt and Buffy even allows it to consist of kissing
and the two fall asleep together afterwards.
Not much evidence of kink when you really study the relationship
IMO. The best example is Buffy on the balcony having anal sex
which is frowned upon by quite a few people. Oh and ther use of
handcuffs of course. I feel ME did make a mistake if the relationship
was supposed to be kinky and we were meant to relate to Buffy
talking of the terrible things Spike had caused her to do.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: A look at the sex -- Miss Edith, 16:51:08 01/13/03
Mon
Duh that was supposed to say B/S have invisable sex in Gone, not
naked sex.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: A look at the sex -- shadowkat, 17:44:45 01/13/03
Mon
I feel ME did make a mistake if the relationship was supposed
to be kinky and we were meant to relate to Buffy talking of the
terrible things Spike had caused her to do.
Or ME's views on kinky sex are not as enlightened as their audience?
Actually I agree. Outside of possibly the anal sex (although it
could have just been taking from behind), but anal makes more
sense IMHO and the handcuffs...violent sex..., the rest? Sorry
didn't seem to be that kinky.
OTOH I guess it depends on who you are and your experiences. I
know people who found the scene in The English PAtient where the
characters do it against a wall to be gross. (Personally? I found
it erotic, but then I tend to have broader definitions.)
From the commentaries - I think the writers at ME have a far more
interesting and potentially narrow definition of dirty and kinky
than we do. Doug Petrie found the sucking bloody finger scene
in Fool For Love to be incredibly dirty. I didn't. Alluring? Yes.
Erotic? maybe. Even possibly gross. But then I've seen one too
many HBO and cable shows. Again - we have to remember they are
dealing with somewhat pruddish network censors. Network execs
nd censors have Victorian sensibilities. Scenes like we saw last
year - rarely get put on TV. It wasn't all that long ago that
the idea of showing any male nudity on television was considered
risque. I'm sure Marsters was relieved that they couldn't show
full frontal nudity - the set was apparently quite cold.
So while the audience may have found the sex not kinky or raw,
I'm not sure the writers ever understood or realized that. I think
- in fact I'm almost positive of this - that the writers and 50%
of the audience parted company somewhere in the middle of season
6, so that the show/message the writers believed they were creating
and showing was not the same as the message a good portion (50%?)
of the fanbase watched on TV. (They thought they were telling
one story and the fanbase thought they were seeing another.) As
a result - ME tripped and almost lost 50% of their fans in the
process. Marti even realized it in interviews and attempted somewhat
clumsily to rectify the situation.(All she did was further alienate
the fanbase.)
Will be interesting if they pull off this season with better results.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: A look at the sex -- ~Eris~, 19:00:17 01/13/03
Mon
I agree shadowkat that ME's writers are much less enlightened
than their audience. That is a very polite way of saying it, anyways.
:-) I suppose what they expected to be shocking was just 'cool'
to us, and that's one of the many reasons S6 didn't work.
About the balcony scene, I didn't get the impression that it was
anal sex at all. Sort of a strange point to argue about, I know,
but did anyone else see it that way? I just saw it as him taking
her from behind, like shadowkat said. If it was anal sex, then
that puts a whole new spin on things and would explain Buffy's
comments about the "things" he did to her.
Come to think of it, that is the only scene where she could say
Spike *did* something to her. All of their other sex scenes were
either completely mutual or her doing something to him.
~Eris~
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: A look at the sex -- Miss Edith, 19:32:18
01/13/03 Mon
Well the scene didn't make any sense logistically anyway as there
was no way Spike could enter her in the positions they were in.
Unless he was endowed in a really freaky way. But it could certaintly
be seen as Spike just entering her from behind. I just assumed
the directer was suggested anal sex to make a point about the
kinkiness of it all. If it was just public sex they would probably
have been facing each other. The fact that Spike was behind Buffy
during the act suggested that the director wanted to imply anal
sex. Well to me anyway.
And some spuffy fans were increadibly turned off by their violence
of the first coupling in Smashed and were pretty much intolerant
of the entire relationshiop after that, having wanted a more romantic
good girl tames the bad boy type story. But the majority of spuffy
fans loved the different flavour of sex presented. You only have
to read the fan fic to see all the different scenerios that were
imagined for the couple. So I can see why some fans were left
disapointed after rooting for B/S and then feeling they were made
to feel perverted for enjoying viewing the sexual practices the
two of them got up to.
I think the fans were unfortunately on a very different wavelength
from ME. E.g a lot of spuffy fans saw Smashed as a positive sign
with the barriers falling down as the walls in the house crumbled
around them but the house falling down was later revealed by the
writers to represent the fact that the relationship was unstable
and couldn't last. The fans were just getting their wires crossed
all season and desperately hanging on to any scenes that gave
them hope. Shippers have a real capacity to seize upon favourable
scenes and ignore the ones they don't like. And that's not me
dissing the shippers. I was a B/S shipper and I constantly rewatched
the door scene in DT "Are you drowning or waving, I just
want you to save me and the barriers are all self-made" etc.
The real problem was that ME seemed to feel they could make audiences
love or hate a character or relationship based on their own whim.
When they tried to do this in season 6 fans just felt manipulated.
Witness the hatred expressed by many for AYW with all the Riley
worship used to contrast with Spike. Fans just ended up disliking
Marti for scenes like the AR and the egg-dealing "plot".
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Dark Seduction -- Brian, 13:03:02
01/14/03 Tue
In the smooth, silvered mirror of night
I see the dark shadow move;
It's subtle charm weaves a binding spell.
I hear rich words that caress and promise like dark flame,
And I want to embrace that murmuring ecstasy,
To forget all in the rush to surrender.
But my path breaks the thorns that prick me,
Forcing my blood to scream in its rising,
Banishing night for blinding light,
Razor sharp in its penetration,
Scattering the landscape with fearful illumination.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: A look at the sex -- leslie,
13:29:41 01/14/03 Tue
"E.g a lot of spuffy fans saw Smashed as a positive sign
with the barriers falling down as the walls in the house crumbled
around them but the house falling down was later revealed by the
writers to represent the fact that the relationship was unstable
and couldn't last."
Here I really think there was a screw-up somewhere along the production
line. You want the house falling down to be a bad omen, don't
make it an abandoned house that looks like it's slated for demolition
anyway so that something new can be built on the site.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: A look at the sex -- leslie,
13:25:38 01/14/03 Tue
"About the balcony scene, I didn't get the impression that
it was anal sex at all. Sort of a strange point to argue about,
I know, but did anyone else see it that way? I just saw it as
him taking her from behind, like shadowkat said. If it was anal
sex, then that puts a whole new spin on things and would explain
Buffy's comments about the "things" he did to her."
I certainly did, and that may well be why I wasn't quite so flummoxed
by the "why do I let him do these things to me" reaction
as many seem to have been. Though it also seemed to me that this
may have been only the one time we had actually seen the "things"
they had been getting up to.
[> Interesting discussion
(spoilers for the movie Unfaithful, Season 6 Btvs and BY and CwDP)
-- shadowkat, 10:29:08 01/12/03 Sun
Hmmm...I've had at least two discussions about this topic this
week. Also just watched the movie Unfaithful last night which
has a sexual relationship that reminded me in some ways a great
deal of the Buffy/Spike one. For those of you who haven't seen
it, Unfaithful is an Adrian Lyne film, starring Diane Lane, Richard
Gere, and a french actor I can't remember the name of. The story
entails a 40 something housewife and mother becoming engaged in
an affair with a book dealer. The initial sex scene - which is
told in flashback while she's sitting on a train - has her saying
"no...no...I can't.." while he's seducing her, she's
in tears, yet powerfully turned on...as he disrobes her...but
she's still murmering no...and wrestling with him, so he tells
her to hit him - she does and then gives in and they have violent
wild sex. Every sex scene they have is passionate, somewhat wild
sex - they do it in the bathrooom of a restaurant across the street,
while her friends are sitting unaware of this occurrence...at
a coffee table in the restaurant. She returns to the table, they
comment on how great she looks if a little out of breath and remark
on the heartthrob at the end of the bar who she pretends she's
never seen before. They also do it in a movie theater. One scene
has her fighting him in a hallway...until she reluctantly gives
in and he takes her from behind. While I watched these erotically
filmed scenes - I was reminded of Smashed - Dead Things on Btvs.
At no point in the proceedings was Lane's character raped, btw.
But there were moments in which the "no" means "yes"
seduction fantasy seemed tricky and the line between seduction
and rape seemed very fine. (Just like there are moments in BTvs
where we wonder - about both parties. Gone and Dead Things come
to mind.)
The Buffy/Spike relationship was an ambitious one - because it
was meant to show a certain type of abusive relationship, the
type that I've known people to engage in.
The friends I've known who have engaged in this type of relationship
- deny at first that they were in any way responsible or abusive.
IT was all the guy's fault or the other person's. Not them. They
were seduced. (Sort of like the little kid on drugs who claims
someone else got them hooked.) One of my friends after engaging
in numerous relationships of this sort - finally hit a catharthis
and saw that yes she was responsible and was as abusive as the
guys were. Perhaps more so - since some of the guys she hit on
for this actually cared about her. But it took her a long time
to see it. She wanted to be touched, reached, she wanted to feel
but she did not want the commitment or the pain of rejection that
came with commitment - if she just had sex and didn't invest in
any way in said relationship, he wouldn't be able to truly hurt
her or reject her. It was in her view just physical. The physical
couldn't hurt her. It made her feel good - at the time. At the
same time, she hated herself and wanted to be hurt, wanted to
be punished.
She was very very lucky that none of these relationships ended
with a rape, although she came close once or twice. It's a tough
thing to understand if you have never experienced it or known
anyone who has. (Having never experienced it myself - I struggled
to get it.)Unfaithful, the movie - deals with similar themes,
the addiction - the need to have something in your life. The idea
of a craving.
Neither character does it for love in this movie - they do it
for the sex. (A distinction from B/S - where one character was
in love with the other.)
We all I think can identify with unwanted cravings. The desire
to have that additional chocolat bar or eat five donuts or watch
Btvs over and over again or even spend all day on the internet.
The craving for something to make you feel better, to feel alive,
connected, whatever. Chocolat is so addictive partly because it
is an aphrodisac - it gives off some of the same feelings apparently
as sex might.
It gives you a high. The movie Unfaithful really touched on how
an addiction/a craving for sex can have disastorous results. Love
never came into it. Although it is easy to confuse the two.
Back to the guagmire that was the B/S relationship in Season 6.
Season 6 if you think about it was all about abusive relationships.
In all three core relationships on the show - the key abuser,
or big bad, was either Willow, Xander or Buffy. And all three
reaped horrible results from their abuse. The way the writers
built each one was initially ambiguous...and very realistic.
Each relationship when we start the season seems fine on the surface
- we really don't see any problems. We're in Buffy, Willow and
Xander's povs. In fact if you rewatch Season 6 - we are limited
to Buffy/Willow and Xander and the three nerds pov's through most
of the season, we rarely leave them. We don't really enter Spike's
pov until Entropy.
(And are only briefly in it in Smashed - hence the reason his
character seems to coast.) The possible exception might be Anya
- where we do spend quite a bit of time in her head and much less
in Xanders.
How are each abusive? And do the SG take responsibility for how
they are?
First how they are abusive:
1. Xander and Anya - we see Xander repeatedly criticize Anya through
the season, he also puts off annoucing their engagement for almost
six months, almost as if he's ashamed to share it with his friends.
He never tells her his worries or communicates his feelings to
her. Instead he makes smart alec remarks about the things she
says, what she once was, and implies how he and Buffy and Willow
are somehow above her. It's very ambiguous and subtle, but if
you watch carefully - it's there - which is why Hell's Bells did
not surprise me in the least. It was the inevitable conclusion.
Xander doesn't take full responsibility for any of this. Oh he
admits standing her up at the wedding was the wrong thing and
all. But He refuses to understand how he hurt her, believing it
was leaving her with all the wedding guests. He doesn't see why
they can't just start up again where they left off. Nor does he
understand that in her head he left because she was a demon, a
nobody. Xander doesn't really take responsibility for the abuse
- he blames it on an outside source - his parents and Anya. Instead
of figuring out what is going on - he runs from it.
2. Willow and Tara. This relationship also seems wonderful on
the surface. Beautiful in fact. But look again. Willow is controlling
it. Tara literally sings how she's under Willow's spell. Willow
erases Tara's memories and controls Tara through her magic. When
Tara leaves finally - Willow is under the false impression that
it is the "magic" habit that made Tara leave. Nope.
It's Willow's desire to alter Tara to fit her wishes that terrifies
Tara so much. Tara even says this to her - "you don't use
magic to make things better for yourself..." That's what
Willow was doing and instead of discussing the problems in their
relationship - she tried to erase them. She also did not believe
Tara could love simple Willow. Willow's insecurity like Xander's
insecurity in the X/A relationship - is what caused the abuse.
Although Tara finally returns to Willow - it is clear from Willow's
reaction to Tara's death, that Willow still had not taken responsibility.
She still felt that altering things to fit her ideal was the way
to go. She hadn't taken responsibility for the abuse either -
she blamed it on an outside source - the magic, the addiction.
Instead of figuring out what is going on - Willow in a sense hides
from it.
3. Buffy and Spike. This relationship also seems to start out
okay - they appear to be friends. We have a few smoochies. Except
it's push me pull me all the way. This relationship is the ultimate
love/hate battle. The sex is in of itself a fight. Here's their
relationship in a nutshell:
I hate you! I kiss you! I beat you to a pulp! We have sex! I hate
you and beat you up or run virtue fluttering!
Watch the episodes.
OMWF: Buffy to Spike - I don't want your help! I thought you wanted
me to stay away from you.
Spike to Buffy - fine, I hope you both burn!
Buffy dancing the dance of death
Spike stopping her - singing how one of them has to live.
Spike storming off - tired of group sing along. Buffy follows
him. He tells her that she doesn't have to say anything and should
go back for group hug. She tells him she doesn't want to. He wanders
if she'll ever figure out what she wants. (So does the audience
at this point). She tells him she just wants to feel, even if
it's not real and he also wants to feel - alive. So they passionately
kiss.
Next episode. Buffy pushes him away from her. Insists the kiss
meant nothing. Claims she'll never kiss him or touch him again.
Then whammo she does to save his life.
They lose their memories. Get them back. Giles leaves. Buffy
refuses his comfort in the bar. Then when he tries to leave dashes
after him and kisses him in the Bronze.
Next episode. Spike asks her what this is about. She brushes him
off. He tries again - insisting he can change. She hits him. He
hits her back - chip doesn't fire. He pretends it did fire, she
hits him twice more while he's on the ground. He goes to see what's
up with the chip...etc.
Discovers it's working, there's something up with her - which
means she's an undead thing too and this would explain this bizar
behavior from her and he can have her.
(Typical juvenile response...actually. You're damaged goods, I'm
damaged goods. We're on same level now. cool. let's party.) He
confronts her. She tells him off and hits him when he won't move.
He hits her back. They beat each other up. By the way she threw
the first punch. She has pretty much the upper hand in most of
the battle. Easily throwing him off her when he says he didn't
want to hurt her too much. Then when he thinks she's going to
hit him again, she kisses him and engages him in sex - literally
forcing herself on him and launching herself at him.
Next episode - next morning they wake up. She insults him.
He tries to seduce her almost succeeds. Insults her. She gets
him back. They engage in banter. She insists it will never happen
again. That night she's back - demanding he help her find and
rescue her sister from Willow. The whole time insulting him. Claiming
he's the one into this, not her. They bait each other. He takes
sis to hospital. Buffy puts up garlic to protect herself from
her own cravings.
Next episode - He comes to see her in daylight. Wants his lighter,
she pretends it's not there, when it's in her pocket. He endures
insults from her friend Xander. He embarrasses her in front of
a social worker. Tries to comfort her. She screams at him. He
grabs his lighter out of her pocket. She cuts her hair - because
he loved it. Gets turned invisible and decides to go to his crypt,
molest, seduce and throw him around.
Next episode...we have a continuation of pretty much the same
up until As You Were. Except it doesn't stop there.
She tells him she's using him and it's killing her. But she doesn't
leave the poor guy alone. She greets him at the wedding in Hell's
Bells and tells him that it does hurt, and it hurts to see him
with another girl. In Normal Again - she sits and chats with him
- then horribly insults him in front of Xander and Willow. Xander
gets his help to help Buffy, he is told by Willow to help her.
She insults him again. He gives her hell. Then stalks off.
In Entropy...he tries to get her to tell her friends - convinced
now that's the problem. She refuses. He backs off. She goes after
him - convinced he set up cameras to spy on her. When he denies
it. She insults him again then tells him he has to move on. So
he goes to the magic box - he and anya get it on. X/B see it and
they attack both S/A
for it. B attacks S for moving on. Gee...
Then in Seeing Red - he's drinking, trying to calm down.
Dawn shows up and gives him hell for hurting Buffy by sleeping
with Anya. (At this point, I had the oddest emotional reaction,
I desperately wanted to run over to Buffy's house and ask her
if she learned nothing from her past relationships and slap the
chit. Geeze. Honey do you want the guy to attack you? )
OTOH...Dawn coming to spike was hardly Buffy's fault. Spike, being
the arrested adolescent that he is,
also did some nasty things. He keeps egging her on. "It's
our little secret", "come on you belong in the dark
with me", "oh this is delicious - the girl needs a little
monster in her man", joking about eating Richard, having
sex in alleyways and behind trees, flaunting himself in front
of her constantly, baiting her, and threatening to tell her friends.
He acts like a kid here. I can't stop these feelings. I have to
tell you I'm sorry...because not doing so is tormenting me. And
he is understandably confused - Buffy has sent him mixed signals.
And without the soul - he doesn't understand them. He doesn't
understand she's using him to hurt herself - this does not compute.
Until she literally forces him off her and blasts the message
home, making him realize that he is hurting her - that their relationship
was never about anything else.
Neither party was the good guy here. It was abusive on both parts.
What's always been interesting to me in the analysis of the relationship
is the split in the fanbase. half the audience blames Buffy, half
blames Spike. My difficulty with it is also oddly enough what
i loved about it - if it is possible to have a love/hate relationship
with a relationship on a tv show - here it is. The ambiguity.
On the one hand - you feel as if Buffy deserved to get the stuffing
kicked out of her or as Willow states: "Buffy you deserve
to have every inch of your ass kicked." On the other hand
- you really feel for the poor girl -she's in so much pain and
hates herself so much that she just wants to be punished, to be
hurt.
But back to your points about the sex: The writers weren't commenting
so much on the sex as well how the characters chose to engage
in it - which was in an odd way - to hurt themselves. Buffy wanted
to hurt herself and Spike, for loving her. That's what she tells
Webs, that's what she's truly ashamed of. "In his own sick
twisted way, he loved me, he really did care...but I didn't want
to be loved. I wanted to be punished. I wanted to hurt."
She wanted to be touched. reached. Spike for his part wanted to
be loved, wanted to be touched, to love in return. He, as a soulless
demon, did not understand her self-hatred or her need to be punished.
To him love, sex, pain, death, violence - was all one and the
same - that's how demons think. Buffy understood that. She knew
that going in. It was never a level playing field. Spike realizes
that finally in Seeing Red - that he is so far beneath her -in
that she can understand him but without a soul - he can never
get her. The kinkiness of the sex that makes Buffy feel so ashamed
- I believe - is not the type of sex so much as it was the reason
she was engaging in it.
Also I think - some of the sex she engaged in...embarrassed her
and I seriously doubt the network would have let them show that
on screen.
Beneath You - actually gets a little of this across - in the church
scene. Buffy goes to touch his bare chest and Spike states: "noo...touching.
Am I real to you? Am I flesh? Flesh then. Get it hard. Service
the girl." Am I just flesh...is that all I am to you? When
she throws him across the room. "That's right don't want
the flesh - without the spark..." Their sex - which is what
shames her - was just two bodies banging together. That is what
the writers commented on as being abusive and wrong.
Spike comments on this again in Never LEave Me - "you used
me. That's right - you told me that. But I didn't understand you
then. I didn't understand the violence inside. As evil and wretched
as I was back then, I never truly hated myself. Not like I do
now. I understand now.
You hated yourself and put it on me."
That's what she's ashamed of, so ashamed it's hard for her to
face him. These two characters have to forgive themselves for
what they've done. No one hates Spike more right now for that
attempted rape and those deaths - than Spike. Spike hates Spike
for it. The writers go out of their way to show it. Buffy is ashamed
with herself for abusing him the way she did, for beating him
down. For getting off on causing him pain and for getting off
on the pain he caused her. "The things he made me do..."
Could very well be the things he made me do to him...the things
I did to him. "I behaved like a monster last year.."
she tells Webs, "The things I did to him, to my friends.."
We never know what they did with the handcuffs, but in the dream
sequence in Dead Things - Spike has them on. And in the same sequence
- she's staking him while he's asleep or threatening to.
When I was watching Unfaithful - it reminded me of this. Something
I'd also seen in the sex scenes in Basic Instinct. The sex is
not love so much as war - two people fighting their mutual attraction
and each other. Hurting themselves and their lives, due to some
sort of mutual yet unconnected pain. Sex in the City - is not
a good example of this - for one thing it's on a cable channel
and can pretty much show anything (in US there are censors who
prohibit some stuff believe it or not, but on premium pay cable
channels? anything goes.) It also isn't really talking about abusive
relationships so much as just having sexual relationships. I've
watched the show and have yet to see them explore anything quite
that deep.
The B/S relationship has changed a lot since last year. As have
the two characters - Buffy and Spike aren't the same people. The
nice thing about Btvs is they never repeat themselves. This year
they are showing the characters start to take responsibility for
their actions, feel the consequences. Part of the reason they
gave Spike a soul - was so he could join the others in taking
responsibility for his acts and feeling the consequences of them.
They are also demonstrating how good relationships can be formed.
To do that you need a contrast. I don't believe Spike is the bad
boyfriend this year, any more than Buffy is the bad girl friend.
I think the story now is different.
I also think the writers interviews served to confuse viewers.
They went into tricky territory with Buffy and Spike, because
we were no longer sure which character was the bad boyfriend here.
But that's the reality of these types of relationships - which
more often than not can have truly violent results. LEaving both
parties wounded and in pain.
Just my impressions for what it's worth...SK
[> [> Re: Interesting
discussion (spoilers for the movie Unfaithful, Season 6 Btvs and
BY and CwDP) -- Miss Edith, 11:39:15 01/12/03 Sun
You made some really good points and I agree with you that Buffy
and Spike abused each other. Spike is my favourite character but
I did have real sympathy for Buffy in season 6 and tried to see
where she was coming from. I could understand her beating Spike
in DT for instance as not an evil act, so much as the actions
of a desperately confused young woman. And Spike did indeed egg
her on. In Smashed he tells her "I'm the only one here for
you pet. I'm all you've got". Not to mention the infamous
balcony sex with Spike telling her to look at her friends and
think of what their reaction would be. Both Buffy and Spike were
in pain and behaved badly. I have never questioned that.
I just don't like the implication of Buffy talking of things Spike
made her do. She constantly puts herself in the passive role,
even in season 7 after taking responsibility for acting like a
monster at times towards Spike. My point is that the heroine did
initiate the sexual relationship and Buffy is denying that and
constantly acting as if Spike deflowered her and released all
her bad sexual corruption which wouldn't have existed without
Spike. When Buffy talks of the things her ex partner made her
do that is the impression being given to the majority of the audience.
ME interviews have constantly suggested Spike was the one in the
wrong and Spike was based on the abusive ex of one of the writers
in season 6. This has constantly been said in interviews with
writers admitting that Spike was there to explore the theme of
the bad boyfriend in relation to the heroine. Seeing Buffy as
Spike's victim is not such an interesting place to go as the idea
of the two of them abusing each other. But in season 6 I honestly
believe that was what ME intented as we were constantly being
told we should be sympathising with Buffy and Spike was still
evil.
And I know Sex in the City is just a light comedy. But I just
can't help making a contrast between the repression of the scoobies
in comparision to the women on that show who will discuss which
sexual practices they prefer. Anya's sexuality is used to present
her as different and other and I do see a message being projected
however unwittingly about how we should keep all talk of sex in
the bedroom.
[> [> As always, your
analysis awe me...IMO...you nailed it! -- rabbit, 15:05:56
01/12/03 Sun
[> [> Ah! It all comes
rushing back. : ) -- Deb, 20:09:34 01/12/03 Sun
Montage of love/hate.
Just one observation: I find it strange that this season, Buffy
has felt that she does not need permission to touch Spike, but
Spike is very aware of her feelings regarding touching and backs
off. Reminds me of when I was pregnant, and strangers would come
up and touch my stomach all the time without even acknowleding
me. Everytime I've seen Buffy do this to Spike, I burn the slow
burn. I felt like a "thing" when people did it to me
when I was pregnant. The last scene in 7.11 was the first mutually
OK touching. But the FE can't be touched, so to find out if someone
is "real", you must touch them. It wasn't the soul that
allowed Buffy to see Spike as "real" but his being solid
to show he wasn't the FE. Of course she does tell Dawn that she
"feel for him."
This would make a great thesis. Believe it or not I still haven't
had a topic approved.
[> [> [> Gotta disagree
with you Deb -- Rufus, 03:50:35 01/13/03 Mon
last scene in 7.11 was the first mutually OK touching. But
the FE can't be touched, so to find out if someone is "real",
you must touch them. It wasn't the soul that allowed Buffy to
see Spike as "real" but his being solid to show he wasn't
the FE.
All I can start with is the Shooting Script part with the last
scene with Buffy and Spike....which I think mirrors Intervention
in many ways......From Psyche's transcripts...
. Underground Cavern - Later that night
Close on Spike, hanging up on the wall, as his eyes flutter open
to see......
Buffy, still exhibiting the wounds of her battle, standing before
him, holding a Bringer's dagger.
Spike begins to smirk, wryly...
Spike: A....knife, now, is it? What...What'll that? Y-you
can't...hurt me. You're just a bloody figment, you are. Just a......
He stops as she moves in and starts to cut his bindings. Spike
looks in her eyes. Full of pain and empathy. And in the moment,
he knows. It's Buffy. And he starts to weep.
Without a word, Buffy finishes cutting the bindings tying Spike's
hands to the wall. He starts to fall, but she catches him. Holding
him up.
Spike stares at her. She offers him a small, comforting smile.
And then, slowly letting him lean on her...they walk away together.
Black out
End of show
Buffy has already told Spike she trusts him, and that she believes
in him, so the scene at the end of Showtime is like the one with
the Buffybot in Intervention....just that Spike fears that anything
looking like Buffy is just a figment. The touch in this scene
isn't for her to make sure it's him, but for Spike to confirm
that it's Buffy and when he see's that it is he can only weep.
The Buffy in his dreams was closer to the real Buffy than the
First because the First always resorts to mocking Spike, where
Buffy no longer does. The First may not have been able to cut
him with a knife but it's words to him when he says "she
will come for me" are as sharp...."No, I won't"...that
would be Spike's worst fear, that Buffy wouldn't find him. Wouldn't
want to find him......so as happy as he was to be set free, the
fact that the battle scarred Buffy found him was proof that she
wasn't just saying words he wanted to hear in the basement.
Now to the damaged goods.....SK is right..once Spike thought Buffy
was like him....damaged the stage was set for a multi-episode
demoliti