On a Scale of 1-10 How Much do You Hate Parker?
- Thread starter Girl with Sword
- Start date
- Status
Zombierella
Potential
I just thought he was a tool. If he just wanted to get some, He should have been more clear about that. I hate it when guys don't make their intentions clear. Especially after they spend all that time acting like they actually give a crap about you. lol. Can you tell I've hard experiences with parker like guys before? =p
Considering the circumstances, why didn't Buffy have to make her intentions of a relationship clear to Parker prior to sleeping with him? She just went to college, is single, that's a time where it's not unexpected that people will simply hook up. So if Buffy is looking for more, why didn't she say so?
This is the guy after all that said, "Is this okay? Because I can stop if you wanna. It's your choice."
This is the guy after all that said, "Is this okay? Because I can stop if you wanna. It's your choice."
At first, I read "poker" instead of Parker and was really confused of why that was relevant to season 4. lol Well, it is 5 am here so, yeah...
Anyway, I can't say I hate Parker, but, I'm not crazy about him either. I never knew why Buffy was so into him. He's not even cute or interesting and seemed so fake. Well, he actually was fake, I guess. I think that Buffy was trying too hard to get over Angel and instead of just letting the wounds heal first, ended up being hurt even more.
What he did is (unfortunately) a somewhat normal way of acting for some people, especially when in college (yes, there are some girls that behave like that too). I don't like it and don't really understand it, but, I guess that's life. :tongue: I know a few Parker like guys in real life, but the difference is that they are honest about it, if I may say so. I mean, why try to lead someone on like that, anyway? ::huh1::
And why did he have to bash Buffy like that? After she had saved his life? To sound cool? Oh, Parker, you little punk, it's college, not highschool! :huh:
I guess my disliking of the above mentioned dude could rate 4/10.
Anyway, I can't say I hate Parker, but, I'm not crazy about him either. I never knew why Buffy was so into him. He's not even cute or interesting and seemed so fake. Well, he actually was fake, I guess. I think that Buffy was trying too hard to get over Angel and instead of just letting the wounds heal first, ended up being hurt even more.
What he did is (unfortunately) a somewhat normal way of acting for some people, especially when in college (yes, there are some girls that behave like that too). I don't like it and don't really understand it, but, I guess that's life. :tongue: I know a few Parker like guys in real life, but the difference is that they are honest about it, if I may say so. I mean, why try to lead someone on like that, anyway? ::huh1::
And why did he have to bash Buffy like that? After she had saved his life? To sound cool? Oh, Parker, you little punk, it's college, not highschool! :huh:
I guess my disliking of the above mentioned dude could rate 4/10.
BillyidolwannaB
Scooby
What's with all the non hate for Parker? Especially from the chicks.. If you really liked someone and were led to believe the feeling was mutual and there was potential for a relationship, then they use you for sex and start blowing you off the very next day, you're gonna be crushed and filled with anger and confusion and some hatred. It doesn't last forever, but "a few episodes" is the equivalent of what, a few weeks? Maybe even less? That's not an inordinate amount of moping time for most people. Plus, it's not like she was sitting in her dorm room listening to Dashboard Confessional and cutting herself. And the fact that she still saved his life even in her drunken primitive state, shows she's a better person than most. I would have let him burn.
Aside from all that, Buffys reaction is irrelevant to whether the character should be hated or not. He was written to be a douche bag and hated by all. He used stupid cliche lines to get girls in bed, had his fun, dumped them and moved on to the next. Then tired to make them feel stupid when his motives were questioned and made obscene comments about them. This is literally all that was ever learned about this character. So to say you don't have a problem with him means you're okay with liars and manipulators and overall a-holes. The lesson he taught her or the reaction he inspired doesn't change the fact that he sucks.
Aside from all that, Buffys reaction is irrelevant to whether the character should be hated or not. He was written to be a douche bag and hated by all. He used stupid cliche lines to get girls in bed, had his fun, dumped them and moved on to the next. Then tired to make them feel stupid when his motives were questioned and made obscene comments about them. This is literally all that was ever learned about this character. So to say you don't have a problem with him means you're okay with liars and manipulators and overall a-holes. The lesson he taught her or the reaction he inspired doesn't change the fact that he sucks.
Washburne
Protector of the key.
I've been surprised by that too. And the whole thing of "He just acts as any guy" feels to me that people accept that guys are jerks. Which in all honestly we are. Just not all that bad as Parker. Well as bad in my eyes since most people don't seem to think that he's that bad. But still it feels weird. But I guess I'm the weird one since I seem to be in minority.
But then again, isn't girls/women (in general) known for falling for the wrong/bad guy( = a jerk)? And you try to claim you're the smarter gender. 😉
But then again, isn't girls/women (in general) known for falling for the wrong/bad guy( = a jerk)? And you try to claim you're the smarter gender. 😉
How did Parker use Buffy for sex? Did he ever say that he was looking for something long-term? He ended up a douchebag later, but even a few days after they've had sex he still comes off relatively okay. While he may not have called her back, he didn't exactly say when, and her coming to him so soon very well could have weirded him out enough to drop it.
Also, why exactly was Buffy not at fault for not being up front about her desire for a long term relationship instead of hooking up? It's college, hooking up happens. It's going to be an expectation that can occur on either side.
I fail to see where the girls he slept with didn't get anything out of it. Is there canonical evidence that he's lousy in bed? He beds them, both parties have fun, and they part. As long as they use protection, I'm not seeing a whole lot of downside if they're both sleeping with one another after not knowing each other that well.
Are girls supposed to be some fragile creatures so easily manipulated by men with cliche lines? Can they not decide that they want to simply have sex with some cute guy that they met? Why must it mean that the guy is using the girl?
That's pretty much the only jerkish part of his behavior, although there is some truth to what guys say to each other and what they actually mean. Forrest didn't exactly have a problem with what he said about Buffy. And Riley only had a problem with the fact that it was Buffy, not women in general. He's okay when Forrest talks even more crudely about women, even in cases not about his own mother.
Okay, where did he lie? Did he lead her on with a promise of a relationship? I don't actually recall that in any of the episodes he was in. He pretty much made sure he had her consent, almost to the very last minute. She could have backed out any time.
I think it was pretty obvious that he used her for sex. His little joke about "the toilet seat doesn't follow you around after you use it" pretty much gives that away. Just cause he didn't tell her from the beginning that all he wanted was sex, doesn't mean he didn't lead her on. It was stated that they had spent the whole week hanging out together so it clearly wasn't a one night stand kind of thing. If it was a mutual desire for some no strings attached nakedness, why did he have to spend a whole week smooth talking her and trying to work his way into her pants? He clearly had ulterior motives.
Whether he was "lousy in bed" or not doesn't have anything to do with it. The argument here isn't about casual sex in general, it's about this character. Riley even tells Buffy that he "sets em up and knocks em down" so he obviously has a reputation for using girls. Maybe Buffy was the only one who ended up heartbroken, maybe all the other girls were raging nymphos and didn't mind, but he didn't take that into consideration.
So it's okay to compare a girl to a toilet seat as long as your buddies don't mind? That's nice.
He uses the same "living for now and taking chances" crap on every girl he meets. No, he didn't outright lie to her but spending a week pretending to want to get to know her is a waste of time if he knew he didn't want it to go anywhere. Yea, he had her consent... but just cause it wasn't rape doesn't mean he hadn't been leading her on.
Who was that said too? Like I said, there is something to what guys say to each other that they don't actually mean. Yeah, he's kind of a dick, and yeah he was looking for sex, but Buffy was down for getting down too. If she was looking for a long term relationship so short into college, then she should have been up front about that.
So exactly where was it said that he misled her? And why shouldn't she have to be upfront about her motives?
Or he wanted to get into a friends with benefit type of thing. I suppose she seemed interesting enough to hang out with, she has friends after all. Maybe he honestly found her attractive enough to have sex with her and be her friend, just not her boyfriend.
Raging nymphos? So all girls that like sex that aren't in relationships are sluts? Nice opinion.
From that quote, however crude it is, all we get is that he gets a lot of play. Random hook-ups or whatever. It could be like crazy Vegas type action, where nobody is looking for a long term relationship. Doesn't mean that's he's using anybody.
And since it is college, where random hook ups aren't uncommon, why exactly is Buffy clear from making her intentions known? If she had, she might have been able to avoid the whole thing because Parker wouldn't have wanted to deal with that.
I'm not the one that said it, and Riley doesn't seem to mind as long as it's not Buffy. And, like I said, there are plenty of things that guys say to each other that they don't really mean. I'm sure that Forrest didn't actually mean those things that he said about his mother that Riley implied were quite crude.
Or, he actually want to get to know her, and then got weirded out by his perception of her getting clingy. Why exactly is she free from blame for not trying to find out what both parties involved wanted?
And saying "living for now," that's pretty straight forward in that he's thinking about right now and not coordinating schedules next semester. Hell, he's pretty saying exactly what he wants, how is that misleading anybody?
Which you actually haven't proven. The closest thing is that he wanted to keep her around as a friend that he has sex with. He might have found her interesting enough for that in the beginning. Doesn't mean he was looking for something more substantial than that.
If Buffy wanted more, she should have said so. It's college after all.
It's pretty obvious he didn't want to be friends with her. After they had sex he wanted nothing more to do with her.
That is not my opinion. I never said they were sluts. A nympho and a slut aren't the same thing. It might have been an exaggeration but I didn't realize everything I said would be dissected.
Maybe if all we saw from him was his interaction with Buffy, some of the things you're saying could very well be true. But he is shown with a number of other girls saying all the same things he said to Buffy and other characters confirm the fact that he uses girls then dumps them.
It was never said that she wanted a serious relationship. Maybe she didn't know what she wanted at that point. Therefore, making it difficult to make her intentions known. Him, on the other hand, knew he just wanted sex and should have been more upfront about it. She shouldn't have to ask, "If I have sex with you, are you going to forget about me the second I leave your room then go around saying heinous things about me?".
I don't really see why this is an argument. I understand your points but I thought this character's motives and actions were pretty clear. There wasn't a lot left open to interpretation as far as what he wanted and how he treated her.
If it's so obvious, quote where it occurred. It should be prior to what can be construed as her being "clingy" or way too demanding for a situation that wouldn't require it.
So you didn't expect to have to back up your statements?
And if they're true, then I don't see why he wouldn't say them again. Hell, I've used the same stuff with more than one girl. Usually jokes and stuff like that, but all true. Doesn't mean anything.
And where exactly does it state that he dumps them? If they're not in a relationship and they're sleeping with him pretty quick, it's not really dumping them.
Then she should have said that she didn't know what she wanted, but that it was more than just a roll in the hay. So why didn't she do that? Like I said before, it's college. There are going to be expectations that exist in the situation. If Buffy was going to be opening herself up on an emotional level like that, she should have been aware that she should be sure what she was getting into. She's not a child and she's not Kendra, she's dated before so it really shouldn't have been a shock.
Can you demonstrate a time where that actually works? It doesn't even work in Vegas as far as I've seen. Well, it does with hookers but that's beside the point. You could crudely call it a game, but you do have to show interest.
And he did even say that he was all about living in the now, so the future wasn't the biggest concern for him. He was pretty upfront abou it.
There is if he's supposed to be a character and not a blatant anti-male caricature. He's lazy writing at best simply to come up with a "college" villain. It's crap pure and simple.
LadyLavinia
Scooby
Buffy really didn't do anything to make her relationship work with Riley. Not really. Even during Season 4, she went to L.A. to see Angel on some matter and was quite willing to forget all about Riley to be with him. Only Angel's decision to become a vampire again and have her memories wiped prevented that from happening.
Her first visit to L.A., along with her treatment of Riley in S5 only tells me that Buffy was merely using him as rebound from Angel. And she would have done the same to Parker. Only he dumped her before that could happened. As far as I'm concerned, Parker was a lucky man.
No, I didn't expect to have to backup things I never said. "Sluts" was your word.
As for the rest, I'm tired of arguing. You think Parker is super awesome and that's fine.
Crashing Doors
Potential
I'm kind of in the same boat with you on this one, but that doesn't mean I like him any more for it. I like the lesson he taught Buffy maybe, but I still can't stand guys like Parker.
When women say, "Oh, guys are all the same", they're talking about guys like Parker and giving guys like me a bad name!
The way Parker tried to justify it to Willow in "Beer Bad" was just so disgusting and lame, but very true at the same time.
Hate him... to the amount of 10.
Paramour said:
So if you acknowledge that he's the villain, then clearly his intentions were less than honorable, by design. Are you really just angry that this storyline shines a light on how guys who behave this way make women feel? That it shows that contrary to what guys tell each other, treating women this way is wrong?
Grey Ghost
From the land of Giles
I never said he was the villain. Nor the best guy ever. However, none of his actions necessarily mean that he's the biggest douchebag ever. Sure, that's what he's supposed to be portrayed as, but none of his actual dialogue necessarily points in that direction. Much of it is assumption without regard to context. Sure, he could have handled it better, but Buffy's hardly an innocent victim.
Exactly what way is that? Where in dialogue does he actually lead her on, as opposed to the "living for the now" thing that he actually says?
---------- Post added at 02:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:27 AM ----------
And "raging nymphos" were yours. Not the greatest difference.
...I suppose that making up facts is fine now?
- Status