On a Scale of 1-10 How Much do You Hate Parker?

[Emzzie]

I agree with Spikeluver185. Parker used Buffy, but I don't hate him. I just dislike him a great deal. Buffy was just trying to get over Angel (as said by Jane Espenson) ,even if Buffy herself was unaware of it. Parker took advantage that he saw Buffy was easily charmed because she was vulnerable at that time and he turned it all into a quest for sex. There are tons of guys out there like that but you cannot say that it's ok because Parker says that he is going to live in the moment. That was not a warning sign to Buffy because it can mean a million other things than sex.

 

[neoolong]

Neoolong - so Parker talked about "living in the now." Well, LOTS of people use that (and similar) quotes. But that doesn't mean he made his intentions about casual sex clear.

Then Buffy should have cleared it up. He did say it, and if she misinterpreted it, that's on her.

"Live for today" was Buffy's motto too, was it not? In S1, she shares this sentiment with Willow. But for Buffy, it means something different. It means that life is short. "Tomorrow you might be dead." So throw yourself into today, enjoy every moment of it, fall in love, laugh a lot, be with your friends, try to live a normal life. "Live for now" does NOT equate "have fun, meaningless relationships."

Says who? Parker enjoying every moment of it is to get laid. If he explains what's he's about, maybe Buffy should have figured out what it meant.

Parker WAS elusive with what he claimed to have wanted. For all Buffy new, "living for now" meant forming a relationship without restraint. Trusting someone when maybe you should be more wary. Forming a strong bond with someone more quickly than you thought you would. It can mean a LOT of things aside from "casual sex."

But, it can also mean casual sex. So, why shouldn't Buffy have to get more information instead of just thinking that everyone uses her limited definition of the term?

So, to this question: I say yes. And no. I would say that those in love live very much in the moment. And those seeking short-term relationships do, too. And anyone (and everyone) in between.

So it's broad. So why shouldn't Buffy seek clarification?

In fact, this quote here:
"It make me think about, you know, living for now...I mean, everybody says they get it. 'Oh, man. Me too. Live for today.' But what they really want is a reason to goof off. Not study for finals."
supports my argument more than yours. I bolded the section in particular for you. He said that people usually only say that WHEN THEY WANT TO GOOF OFF. As in, not be serious. As in, he implied he was being serious when he said it. So how in the world was he NOT being elusive? And how was Buffy in the wrong for taking his implications as they were?

Go back and read the whole section, not just that part. He's saying that he gets what other people mean by it, but it's not how he uses it. In other words, he doesn't mean just goofing off.

I believe that Parker KNEW this motto had multiple meanings, and purposely did not clear them up.

And yet, Buffy didn't seem to think that it needed to be cleared up. Why shouldn't she ask if it's equally likely that Parker assumed that she knew what she was talking about.

In fact, he evens says that. "It's cool to find someone else who understands."

I believe the writers wrote Parker that way for a reason.

Here are the facts:
- Parker and Buffy got to know one another. Parker spewed off a lot of vague, useless mottos that Buffy took the wrong way. Understandably.

Of course. However, she doesn't clear up that she didn't really get it when Parker said that she understood.

- They had sex. Which, of course, Buffy consented to.
- Parker doesn't contact her for (I think we can assume, though the timeline in my memory's a bit foggy) at least a week. Even though before the sex, they had been seeing each other every day.

If you're going to actually talk about this, you need to actually know what happens. It's not at least a week. It's only been a few days. Parker states this, and I've already mentioned the timeline.

- Parker makes a joke about using freshmen women.

To Forrest. Which doesn't mean much since both Forrest and Riley admit that Forrest has said worse, neither of them have a problem with that. Just because guys talk, doesn't mean they mean it exactly like they said. That and the phrase usually takes a different definition of the word "use," since it's a really badly written character who goes around saying that he uses women.

What are we left to assume? Honestly? Parker's behavior IMMEDIATELY changed upon hooking up with Buffy. He severed contact with her, when before he made sure to initiate contact. He IMMEDIATELY beings flirting with other women on campus.

So? He's not looking for a monogamous commitment, how is it wrong of him to flirt with other women?

He makes crude jokes about using Buffy.

To Forrest. Not exactly a conversation that can be taken out of context.

Your arguments are vastly unsupported by evidence within the show.

Funny, because I've yet to see you quote exactly how what he said supports the view that he may have been looking for a commitment.

I also note that you have decided not to actually use evidence, since the timeline was clearly established in dialogue. Amusing that you chose specifically to not do the legwork to nail down what happens. Hell, he's only in a few episodes, it's doesn't take that much effort to review the few appearances that he has.

 

[Buffy Summers]

Okay, time out.

Attack the argument, please, it's not necessary to start getting belittling. If you can't be respectful in your posts, don't post. I'm not going to say this again.

In fact, this quote here:
"It make me think about, you know, living for now...I mean, everybody says they get it. 'Oh, man. Me too. Live for today.' But what they really want is a reason to goof off. Not study for finals."
supports my argument more than yours. I bolded the section in particular for you. He said that people usually only say that WHEN THEY WANT TO GOOF OFF. As in, not be serious. As in, he implied he was being serious when he said it. So how in the world was he NOT being elusive? And how was Buffy in the wrong for taking his implications as they were?

Go back and read the whole section, not just that part. He's saying that he gets what other people mean by it, but it's not how he uses it. In other words, he doesn't mean just goofing off.

EXACTLY. That is what (I think) fly on the wall is saying. He doesn't mean just goofing off. If he meant for Buffy to think "living for the moment" meant having some casual sex, he would have MEANT goofing off. Saying "live for today" for him means doing things that are important. Like having meaningful sex with someone you care about.

 

[fly on the wall]

Neoolong - You seem determined to blame Buffy.
I have not said that Buffy didn't make assumptions. All I am saying is that Parker was counting on her making assumptions.

If you can admit that "live for now" has multiple meanings, then you must admit that Parker was NOT clear with his use of it. HE did not clarify, and I don't know why you believe it was solely up to Buffy to seek out clarification. If Parker cared--truly cared--what Buffy was thinking or feeling, he would have asked. He would have made himself clear. If he was looking for fun, and not hurt feelings, he would have made sure he and Buffy were on the same page. He did not.

So, why shouldn't Buffy have to get more information instead of just thinking that everyone uses her limited definition of the term?

Replace "Buffy" with "Parker," and change the genders, and you have my question. WHY IS IT UP TO BUFFY? Why is Parker the innocent party here?

Go back and read the whole section, not just that part. He's saying that he gets what other people mean by it, but it's not how he uses it. In other words, he doesn't mean just goofing off.

Go back and read what I said. Because that was exactly my point. He didn't mean just goofing off. He meant something serious. With Buffy. Of course, he didn't mean this at all. He just SAID IT to get her into bed. But oh no, wait, Buffy didn't ask what he meant by saying he was not like other people, just goofing off, so clearly she deserved to get used. Right.

I also note that you have decided not to actually use evidence, since the timeline was clearly established in dialogue. Amusing that you chose specifically to not do the legwork to nail down what happens. Hell, he's only in a few episodes, it's doesn't take that much effort to review the few appearances that he has.

....so "a few days" cannot equal seven? Funny. I didn't know "a few" was such a specific number. The feeling that I got, from the various montages and hints through dialogue, was that it was about a week later.

Also...yes, guys talks. Sometimes crudely. But you cannot take everything Parker did as individual acts, as you seem to be doing. Yes, each individual thing he did may not seem that bad. But looking at the whole picture, how can you deny he's a scumbag? Or, at the very least, a user?

Why are you are so hell-bent on blaming Buffy for what happened? Can you please answer one question...why was it Buffy's job to clarify what Parker was saying? Does he have no responsibility to clarify himself, to make sure the things he says come across clearly? If I say something that can be taken multiple ways, and could result with hurt feelings, I damn well make sure that the person I'm talking to is on the same page. Perhaps you don't think people should take such responsibility with their words, and that's your choice. However, even if Buffy misinterpreted what Parker was saying, this is nothing, IMO, compared to what Parker did...at the very least, he did not speak straightly with her before having sex.

 

[Washburne]

I rewatched these episodes a few days ago and since I might be biased I won't go into a deep discussion. But what I don't get is why "live for the moment" seems to be about either "It's a one night stand. Period". or "I want this to be a long term thing." Can't it just be "Let's see how things go from here."? I got the feeling that even though they didn't jump straight to bed Parkers intention was to have fun for one night and then move on to the next girl. Not like this was a one time thing. This is how he behaves. Not my kind of living but if that's how you want to live you life you're free to do so. Personally I just think you should be open about it. Which in my point of view Parker wasn't. It's not like they met at a party and went upstairs and that was it.

Also...yes, guys talks. Sometimes crudely. But you cannot take everything Parker did as individual acts, as you seem to be doing. Yes, each individual thing he did may not seem that bad. But looking at the whole picture, how can you deny he's a scumbag? Or, at the very least, a user?

Agreed.

 

[Buffy Summers]

If I gave the impression that I thought Parker was implying he wanted a long term committment, I'm sorry, that's not what I intended.

 

[Silum]

I rewatched these episodes a few days ago and since I might be biased I won't go into a deep discussion. But what I don't get is why "live for the moment" seems to be about either "It's a one night stand. Period". or "I want this to be a long term thing." Can't it just be "Let's see how things go from here."? I got the feeling that even though they didn't jump straight to bed Parkers intention was to have fun for one night and then move on to the next girl.

Where did you get that? I saw Parker as portraying the good guy who wanted a serious relationship, in fact he wooed buffy with those very intentions. Once 'having' her, he was done and ignored her as a straight bit of fun. He manipulated her.

I dont know about you but every time this kindof instance ive known (one night stands) has always been a spur of the moment/ nightclub/ night of passion thing... not a 'wooing' followed by 'sex' followed by 'ignorance'.

 

[Washburne]

I dont know about you but every time this kindof instance ive known (one night stands) has always been a spur of the moment/ nightclub/ night of passion thing... not a 'wooing' followed by 'sex' followed by 'ignorance'.

I know I should have edited as I was about to. Bad choice of word for sure I admit. Oh well. Too late to edit now. Does "once and that's it" intention sound better? My head is still not working as it should.

 

[Paramour]

Fly on the wall, I completely agree with everything you've said. I said many of the same things earlier and was met with the same arguments you are receiving. Which is why I gave up.

Neoolong, arguing with you is a fruitless endeavor. However, I feel a compulsion to do so anyhow and cannot seem to stop myself.

No one is saying you are wrong, but what you're doing in condemning Buffy for the same things Parker is also guilty of, yet putting all the blame on her. What you're saying is you admit that Parker is guilty of not being clear with his intentions and the meaning behind his brilliantly original and not at all vague "life motto", and that Buffy is guilty of not seeking out clarification. But, Buffy is somehow more to blame -- why? Since Parker is the one who initiated everything (chatting her up in the lunch line when they first met, showing up in her dorm room, asking her to the party) shouldn't he have also been the one to make sure his intentions were clear? It reminds me of the episode in season 6 "As You Were", when Riley returns to enlist Buffy for the capturing of the Suvolte demon. He never told her the objective of the mission which was to capture it, not kill it. So when Buffy kills it, the blame lies with Riley. No one blames Buffy. Riley wasn't clear and since Buffy wasn't given any reason to assume he was keeping something from her, she did what she thought was right. Completely different situation, but same principle. Maybe Buffy should have questioned him a bit more, but it would be absurd to put the blame solely on Buffy. Just because the outcome of Parker's unclear actions weren't as bad in comparison, doesn't mean he should be blameless.

Just cause guys make crude jokes with each other about girls, does not mean that they aren't true. In his joke, he admitted to using her. "The toilet seat doesn't follow you around after you use it". Your argument there is, "Forrest talks even more crudely about women, even in cases not about his own mother." That does not prove that Parker didn't mean what he said. It's two different guys and two different situations.

The scene when Parker is talking to the other girl, Katie, right before Buffy confronts him - we hear him say, "You know it hit me hard, my dad. Since then I just don't put stuff off anymore. It's about living for now.". If the entire purpose of that bit of the scene and the casting of "Katie" is not to show that Parker is using the same lines on all the girls he talks to, then what is? That's why Buffy just happens to catch him at that exact moment when he is saying the same thing to Katie that he had said to her only a few days ago. To show that whether it's true or not, "I live for now" is a line. One he uses to smooth talk girls right into his bed. Sure, you could argue that he's just being friendly and he says that to every person he meets and it doesn't mean he's trying to get her in bed, but come on. You keep demanding quotes for things that there aren't quotes for cause they're meant to just be understood.

You can keep arguing that his character was poorly written, but his character was written the way he was meant to be portrayed-- the typical college guy who leads girls on to get them to have sex with them, then after he gets whats he wants he moves on to the next. And his way out? Claiming the girl is too "needy". His character wasn't given any more personality or depth for a reason.

 

[Tammarie]

i don't REALLy hate parker, but...i hate parker.
He's just such a *insert some really bad word here*
I suppose the reason i don't REALLY hate him is because they never made a really big deal about it, i mean he was an issue for what, a few episodes. So yes, i hate him, but i haven't sen enough of his awfullness to REALLy hate him

 

[Emzzie]

Ohhhhh
It's getting heated.
Parker was a jerk.
Let's just leave it at that shall we?