Most Romantic Couple in the Buffyverse

InsaneMystic said:
Aside from the entirety of Crush? (Which is possibly the most romantic episode of any show past, present, or future, in this or any parallel dimension...) All the stalking, shrine-building, mannequin dressups, Harmony dressups, clothes stealing, building the freaking Buffy-Bot, kidnapping both Buffy and his ex-partner of many decades to sacrifice one before the other's eyes... You don't get romance running on higher octane than that. I can't even imagine it possible.
Click to expand...

All of that says "creepy" to me, not romance lol
 
B
Bexieh
[No message]
D
dexeded
[No message]
Faith
Faith
Amen to that
S
SlayerOfVampyrs
That's pretty much the it.
Lol, Spike beating the hell outta the mannaquin with a box of chocolates was so romantic 😀
 
Buffy and Angel hands down. They were in love and really caring and passionate. And even when Angel left for L.A. you could tell they still loved each other.
 
I wholeheartedly believe Spike is the most romantic character in the 'verse, and no more so than when he loves Buffy, so from that perspective it's Spuffy all the way. Some examples of Spuffy romance:

-Buffy is the most important thing in the world to Spike, even when he's soulless. Romantic.

-Even when Buffy is dead Spike carries on doing the things he knows she would have wanted to do, (the things he promised her he'd do "till the end of the world"). So incredibly romantic.

-They way they look at each other in After Life, Showtime, Touched, 4 or so scenes in Chosen...and even Hell's Bells. Enough said.

There are so many more to list but I realize this isn't a Spuffy thread. 😛

Bangel of course has its deeply romantic moments. I can appreciate them for what they are, and I think they have their time and place. Personally I think the ultimate example is in "What's My Line" Part I, "I didn't even notice."

I think both Woz and Tillow are incredibly romantic couples.

Xanya are too, in their own way.
 
D
dexeded
[No message]
Bangel makes my teeth hurt, far too sugary! I'd constantly want to pistol whip the guy if my boyfriend was like that.

Tillow was in my opinion the most romantic, with dashings of support and respect.
 
Yeah I think there are some really different opinions about romance in this thread. I have to go with Bangel for the most romantic in my opinion.
 
miromurr: Falling in what, excactly? Lust? ;-p
Click to expand...

Lust was a phase of their journey, not the end. What attracts me most about the ship is how unconventional it is. They went to hell and back - yet they survived as romantic partners, and their scenes in Chosen are the pinnacle of their respective journeys that prove again that love can conquer hate.
 
Moscow Watcher said:
Lust was a phase of their journey, not the end. What attracts me most about the ship is how unconventional it is. They went to hell and back - yet they survived as romantic partners, and their scenes in Chosen are the pinnacle of their respective journeys that prove again that love can conquer hate.
Click to expand...

Hmm, actually sheer animalistic lust kind of remained the only permanent staple in this relationship ( if you count S8 'dream'.) Everything else is/was more or less in the air - and especially the going to hell and back part. I know this is one of the basic myths of Spuffy, but want to point out that surviving as romantic partners did not happen - because they were never romantic partners to begin with. Romantic love is 'boring' according to Joss, so he tries to make sure it never happens on screen - unless it is followed by immediate killing of one of the pair - or some such tragedy. Be glad he never saw B/S as romantic.

And yup, of course I see Bangel as the most romantic - they are the staple of tragic BtVS verse romance, the star-crossed couple that transcends everything.
 
I will answer the question of this thread later, I just want to point out one thing:

The fact that there is no romace in a relationship, doesn't mean there is no (or couldn't be) love.
 
I
InsaneMystic
I'd actually go so far to say that romance and "real" love are mutually exclusive. no surprise, eh? ;)
Chosen Enemy said:
I will answer the question of this thread later, I just want to point out one thing:

The fact that there is no romace in a relationship, doesn't mean there is no (or couldn't be) love.
Click to expand...


That is , of course, a matter of personal opinion when speaking of couples. Generally speaking though, I agree. Love for one's children, parents and friends have nothing to do with romance/sex - yet these kind of feelings often are stronger than some short-lived romances.

In the long run though, the (sexual liaison) devoid of romantic feelings is usually doomed.
 
ladydorotea said:
That is , of course, a matter of personal opinion when speaking of couples. Generally speaking though, I agree. Love for one's children, parents and friends have nothing to do with romance/sex - yet these kind of feelings often are stronger than some short-lived romances.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about other kinds of love. Since this thread is about couples, I obviously meant romance with couples. And that's not a matter of opinion actually. In a relationship there could be a guy who doesn't bring to his girlfriend flowers every day, but will it meanthat he doesn't love her?
 
Chosen Enemy said:
I wasn't talking about other kinds of love. Since this thread is about couples, I obviously meant romance with couples. And that's not a matter of opinion actually. In a relationship there could be a guy who doesn't bring to his girlfriend flowers every day, but will it meanthat he doesn't love her?
Click to expand...

Bringing flowers every day is the cheapest way to fake a romance, IMHO. I have been married to the same guy for 22 years, and I don't ever judge a relationship by a gimmick like this. Romance is a shared interests and being able to discuss/resolve problems at all times, deep interest in each others well-being, caring and above all - selflessness. And it is always a two-way street.
 
ladydorotea said:
Bringing flowers every day is the cheapest way to fake a romance, IMHO. I have been married to the same guy for 22 years, and I don't ever judge a relationship by a gimmick like this. Romance is a shared interests and being able to discuss/resolve problems at all times, deep interest in each others well-being, caring and above all - selflessness.
Click to expand...

But who are you to say what's romance? Some girls would really love it if someone brought them flowers every day.
If you read my post in the Romance thread we had not too long ago, you'll see that I will agree that those are gimmicks that are gone after a while. But that doesn't mean love is gone. Which is basically my point. Love and romance don't have to come together. They can, but don't have to.
Different girls (and guys) find different things as romantic. I, for example, don't like romance at all. And when someone tells you they love you, it also doesn't always mean they really love you.

Romance is a matter of opinion, yes. But a relationship without romance, doesn't mean there is no love. That was my point.
 
Chosen Enemy said:
Romance is a matter of opinion, yes. But a relationship without romance, doesn't mean there is no love. That was my point.
Click to expand...

I think you are deliberately mixing up your definitions of love and romance, treating romance as a showy, commercialized display of love - which is in your definition ( if I am not mistaken) is somewhat of a crush mixed with earning.

I say a romantic relationship for me would be the two sided one - with both sides of the couple not being afraid/restricted/reluctant/unable to show their affection openly, continuously and consistently. It is that simple.

I understand love in a much broader sense too - not necessarily a sexual attraction but a deeply running connection that compels one to make personal sacrifices for the sake of another.

Everything else associated with sex or not I do not count as either true love or romance. It is that simple.
 
I think you are deliberately mixing up your definitions of love and romance, treating romance as a showy, commercialized display of love - which is in your definition ( if I am not mistaken) is somewhat of a crush mixed with earnings.

I say a romantic relationship for me would be the two sided one - with both sides of the couple not being afraid/restricted/reluctant/unable to show their affection openly, continuously and consistently. It is that simple.

I understand love in a much broader sense too - not necessarily a sexual attraction but a deeply running connection that compels one to make personal sacrifices for the sake of another.

Everything else associated with sex or not I do not count as either true love or romance. It is that simple.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not. Romance isn't just gestures. Love is love (with a broader sense of course), but there could be nothing in a relationship but feelings, and all there is is love. That's why I said they don't have to go together. You can just stand next to each other, do nothing but breathe, but still share love. Because love is the feeling, not what you do or give (also, but not all, but that's not the point). You can show/tell the love or not. But the love remains.
 
Chosen Enemy said:
You can just stand next to each other, do nothing but breathe, but still share love. Because love is the feeling, not what you do or give (also, but not all, but that's not the point). You can show/tell the love or not. But the love remains.
Click to expand...

Actually, you cannot 'just stand next to each other and breath' forever. Because , lets face it, life moves on. Having an unrequited crush that cannot be expressed and/or shared is unhealthy and ( for me) is sort of boring. And the feelings that go nowhere grow stale - sort of like stale bread. Or resolve themselves into something altogether opposite - there are plenty of examples of mutual fatigue that settles on the couples that squabble and fight all the time, and can never learn to respect each other. Almost every Beatrix and Benedict out there eventually turn into Megara and Iskaral Pust (or Rihanna and Chris Brown).
 
Actually, you cannot 'just stand next to each other and breath' forever. Because , lets face it, life moves on. Having an unrequited crush that cannot be expressed and/or shared is unhealthy and ( for me) is sort of boring. And the feelings that go nowhere grow stale - sort of like stale bread. Or resolve themselves into something altogether opposite - there are plenty of examples of mutual fatigue that settles on the couples that squabble and fight all the time, and can never learn to respect each other. Almost every Beatrix and Benedict out there eventually turn into Megara and Iskaral Pust (or Rihanna and Chris Brown).
Click to expand...

Who talked about forever? I'm talking about that moment where you are. Are you saying that in this moment there is no love? Just because they do nothing but next to each other and breathe?
 
Chosen Enemy said:
Who talked about forever? I'm talking about that moment where you are. Are you saying that in this moment there is no love? Just because they do nothing but next to each other and breathe?
Click to expand...

I am saying that if the love is real than sooner or later the breathing ought to not be enough, that's all. Or it is time to move on. If the couple cannot resolve their issues and be honest/caring with each other, they are not truly a couple but two wistful people sharing the same space.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom