I don't know about everybody else but Spike is the best partner for Buffy yet.

[WillowFromBuffy]

I see how there’s a big difference between being attracted to a developed and a non-developed child but the thing is, either way that’s still a child. We don’t define children as undeveloped people, we define them as being under a certain age. I don’t see why the definition of a child changes to accommodate another term for being attracted to someone underage. At the end of the day, if someone fancies a developed 12 year old, they fancy a child which equals pedophilia. I wouldn’t call that Ephebophilia, I find that whole term an insult to children who just happen to be developed early. I just want to call a spade a spade.

I’m honestly not really talking about Buffy/Angel, just in general I find fault with the distinction.

I am not arguing that the this distinction should have any legal bearing. But there are still many ways that the distinction is important. For example, SMG was an international sex symbol at the time she shot the Hemery scene, and Alyson did sexy photo shoots where she dressed as a school girl. SMG and Alyson were both women who looked like women, and they were over the age of consent, but I still think this shows a problematic side to our culture, which people should be able to criticise. However, you shouldn't call it paedophilia. Paedophilia is a very specific condition were someone is sexually attracted to a person with a prepubescent body.

 

[TriBel]

I'm not arguing. 😛 Spike was obsessed, not in love. And no, Buffy didn't love him. That's just fact. I don't read comics. Not into them.

Love is a process? Are you an expert on that? 😅

Sigh...it's not a "fact" is it? It's conjecture and opinion. This is the philosopher Luce Irigaray: “I love to you" is more unusual than "I love you," but respects the two more: I love to who you are, to what you do, without reducing you to an object of my love.” I'd say this is where we are in Touched, based on Spike's speech, the shifting subject/object relations implied by what's said before the speech, the visuals and the metadiscourse. This takes nothing away from Bangel.

I'd say love's a process - a structural process - and that's generally how Whedon writes it (though it's not necessarily how the characters understand it). Spuffy and Bangel are structural different but neither is "better" than the other. The best way I can explain it is - in Heaven she'd be with Angel; on earth she'd be with Spike.

And yeah...it's also conjecture and opinion. It will remain conjecture and opinion until someone finds an objective way of quantifying or measuring love.

 

[Buffy Summers]

A reminder for everyone to please be civil and respectful of each other - discuss the arguments rather than attacking each other please. Thank you...

She could never love him Souless, which I'm sure you know. So he fought for his soul back.

I just don't like the idea of someone having to change themselves so someone else will love them.

Slighlty off topic but another thing. Why are most US shows always set around High School. Not even College it's always School. Why is that, what's with the school obsession ?

It's something almost everyone can relate to.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

I just don't like the idea of someone having to change themselves so someone else will love them.

Happens all the time though. I always thought it was normal. This one chick that I was fornicating with wanted to give me a make-over so that I more closely resembled her brother. That was an eye-opener on many levels. So the idea that Spike had to change for a high maintenance woman seemed common to me.

 

[Buffy Summers]

Just because it happens doesn't mean it should. And can you really change yourself? Or is the person in love with a lie?

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Just because it happens doesn't mean it should.

Never said it should, only that it was common.

And can you really change yourself?

Yes, you can. But it's not easy.

Or is the person in love with a lie?

Aren't we all in love with lies sometimes? Aren't there things we gloss over or diminish the importance of so that it doesn't affect our admiration? Isn't love about lying to yourself at times?

 

[DeadlyDuo]

I just don't like the idea of someone having to change themselves so someone else will love them.

I agree. You either love the person as they are or you don't. Add in the fact that the audience were shown that giving a vampire a soul is a punishment, and it makes the situation even worse.

Isn't love about lying to yourself at times?

Nope! That's called denial 😛

 

[TriBel]

I just don't like the idea of someone having to change themselves so someone else will love them.

What about people who work out to have what's deemed an attractive body? What about people who change religion to suit a partner? What about the fact that while many people swear in front of friends, they wouldn't act the same in front Grandparents? Where's the real you? I'd argue existence is mostly performance.

Aren't we all in love with lies sometimes? Aren't there things we gloss over or diminish the importance of so that it doesn't affect our admiration? Isn't love about lying to yourself at times?

Yes - in fact, I think the biggest lie we tell ourselves is the lie of the autonomous stable subject.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

I'd argue existence is mostly performance.

Thus spoke Goffman.

 

[DayDreamer27]

What about people who work out to have what's deemed an attractive body? What about people who change religion to suit a partner? What about the fact that while many people swear in front of friends, they wouldn't act the same in front Grandparents? Where's the real you? I'd argue existence is mostly performance.

Yes - in fact, I think the biggest lie we tell ourselves is the lie of the autonomous stable subject.

Agreed. In the end, relationships all involve some form of effort or change.

Buffy loved Angel, but I don't think she had the same feels for Angelus. In fact, she outright tells Jenny to curse him again.

If anyone is into anime, or ever was, this was a BIG issue on Inuyasha with hus 2 loves. Kikiyo, the 1st love & Kagome, the second, who's also the reincarnation of the first. He's a half-demon & Kikiyo fell in love with him the way he was. However, she asked of he'd be willing to use tge Shikon jewel to become human. If he did that, they could live together as normal lovers, and the jewel would be gone, which eliminates her duty as the Guardian. But she's demonized among the fandom for not really loving him if she wanted him human. Her wanting that was so they could be fully devoted & bonded to one another. And some change was needed for that to happen. So I never villainized her for asking that. And he was perfectly willing to do that for her because he loved her & wanted the same things she wantef for them.

 

[TriBel]

Thus spoke Goffman.

Never read actually read Goffman - I'm more Arts/Humanities than Social Science but it's kinda fundamental in my discipline. 🙂

 

[Btvs fan]

A reminder for everyone to please be civil and respectful of each other - discuss the arguments rather than attacking each other please. Thank you...



I just don't like the idea of someone having to change themselves so someone else will love them.



It's something almost everyone can relate to.

There is a difference between someone changing how they are and a souless vampire getting a soul to be a person let alone a better person.
It's not like Buffy telling him to stop wearing all black that he always wears (and which looks goofy)
Otherwise you might as well ask why Angelus has got be Angel in order for Buffy to love him.

 

[Buffy Summers]

Though he didn't become Angel so that Buffy would love him.

I just would have liked the storyline better where Buffy learned to love Spike for who he was, that's all.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

It's not like Buffy telling him to stop wearing all black that he always wears (and which looks goofy)

But she did. When he was trying to distance himself from his past and not wear the black leather jacket she emasculated him and told him to wear it again.

I just would have liked the storyline better where Buffy learned to love Spike for who he was, that's all.

She did though, and it was the better story. It's just a shame they didn't continue it in S6.

 

[DeadlyDuo]

I just would have liked the storyline better where Buffy learned to love Spike for who he was, that's all.

Agreed. We are shown via Angel that a soul is meant to be a horrible punishment for a vampire. The gypsies cursed Angel with a soul as an act of vengeance because they wanted him to suffer, not to make him a better person. For Spike to willingly inflict that upon himself and it to be romanticised just doesn't sit right with me.

 

[Puppet]

But isn't the only reason it's a punishment because it's forced on Angel? His is a curse, Spike's is....just there. No curse, no loophole. Isn't it possible that that distinction matters, even just a little? Not talking about 'who's better', btw 🙂

 

[Skanky Vamp]

But isn't the only reason it's a punishment because it's forced on Angel? His is a curse, Spike's is....just there. No curse, no loophole. Isn't it possible that that distinction matters, even just a little? Not talking about 'who's better', btw 🙂

Exactly. You can't really call something an albatross around your neck when you actively sought it out. Angelus never wanted a soul, thus his soul became a burden; Spike wanted a soul so it became a boon.

 

[thetopher]

Angel went there to kill Holtz.

No, he went there to confront Holtz. Angel actually didn't know what he was gonna do. And bottom line, he didn't hurt Holtz at all even if he had cause. Because Angel has self-control.

He's chipped, he can't just brush past Xander it takes effort.

Yeah, Spike is incapable of finding a way to overpower Xander because he's chipped. So he punches him out. How does that logic work?

Anya had grabbed hold of him despite him screaming at her to let him go. Remember he was insane at the point.

He wasn't insane at this point because he was 'pretending' to be old Spike, he was acting- therefore not insane. And all he had to do was pull away from her instead of attacking her. But, y'know, 'Spike-Smash' so...

 

[thetopher]

I didn't say it wasn't part of his character. I see your proof, but I don't see how what I said was much different? Emotionally fraught or not, that's still in the realm of "because I can", it's just "because I'm mad".

Because there's a difference between 'this is me in an extreme emotional state' and 'this is my default mode'.
One is an understandable (or not) reaction because its due to circumstance, the other is intrinsic to that person's character. You see the difference? One is far more sympathetic than the other.

What's to tell us that Buffy hitting Giles in that scene isn't supposed to be depicted as okay. Nothing tells us otherwise? She hits him and they hug. That's it. Buffy hitting Spike "because he's annoying and evil" is in the realm of "because I can". If he was that evil the logical thing to do would be to kill him. There's always an excuse not to kill him so she beats on him instead. Isn't it all part of the language? Everybody hits.

I guess its entirely subjective to the viewer but generally hitting somebody who is a) good and b) not hurting you is in the general realm of being a crappy person. This is true for all characters. But Spike does it more than any other character when he has a soul.
There's also a complete lack of consequence for him doing it most of the time. Her punches Faith for no reason, goes to tell Buffy about it and basically gets an attaboy and a hug.
Spike, as a character, often gets to act or do what he wants without suffering much in the way of consequences. Hence its up to us viewers who notice this pattern to call him out for his crap. The crap he often inflicts on other, better, characters.

 

[DeadlyDuo]

But isn't the only reason it's a punishment because it's forced on Angel? His is a curse, Spike's is....just there. No curse, no loophole. Isn't it possible that that distinction matters, even just a little? Not talking about 'who's better', btw 🙂

I disagree. The reason the gypsies chose to give Angel a soul was because it would be an eternal punishment, Darla pretty much says the same thing. Vampires and souls shouldn't mix. Spike suffers having a soul, not as long as Angel did but then again he didn't do half the twisted stuff Angelus did.

The soul itself was the punishment, not whether it was forced or chosen. Angel made the best of what was (for a vampire) a bad situation. Giving Spike a soul takes away Angel's uniqueness and turns Spike into to a more dynamic Angel 2.0. It's a disservice to Spike's character in my opinion and, given the whole soul=punishment element that was pushed down the audience's throats in regard to Angel, it doesn't fly for the writers to turn around and go "Oh Spike got himself a soul for Buffy, isn't it romantic!"

It's a similar situation with Willow and magic. In Season 4, it was used as a metaphor for Willow and Tara's growing relationship but by Season 6 it's used as a metaphor for drugs. The writers can't tell the audience one thing then later tell them something different just because it suits them to change it.

The whole reason the gypsies chose to give Angel a soul was as an act of vengeance to punish him, not to make him a better man. The soul would torture Angel and make him suffer for eternity for all the evil he committed. The gypsies would eventually die (albeit sooner than they thought via the rest of the Whirlwind) but the soul would remain and continue to punish Angel long after their deaths.