• Thank you for visiting Buffy-Boards. You obviously have exceptional taste. We just want you to know that:
    1. You really should register so you can chat with us!
    2. Twelve thousand people can't be wrong.
    3. Buffy-Boards loves you.
    4. See 1 through 3.
    Come on, register already!

Spuffy was the most realistic relationship in the show.

GraceK

Grr Arrg
Joined
Nov 3, 2016
Messages
1,278
Age
33
You literally did just attack the different man though and Spuffy fans too, so don't pretend otherwise.

Also the problem with calling it a teenage romance is the obvious. Angel wasn't a teen, he was 27. It's even referred to in the show .
Angel "I'm older than you and this can't ever happen"
🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️

Spuffy Stan’s :: Ew gross Angel is such a pedo he was attracted to Buffy when he was like in the body of a 27 year old when she was 15/16 and he was like 247

Spuffy Stan’s:: Spike and Buffy are true love! Buffy totally was attracted to him all the way in season 2 even though she was like 16/17 and he was in the body of a 27 year old and he was like 145 years old. And he was attracted to her too! JM even admits it!!!

Bangels:................

Enough. The pedo argument is ridiculous and doesn’t hold up. I’ve debunked this before and I’m sick of seeing it. If you don’t like Bangel FINE. But don’t start accusing it of being the sick disease ridden relationship because you prefer your ship. Don’t drag down Bangel to prop up Spike.

Here’s an idea:: listen to what James Marsters actually has to say . He just gave a really in-depth interview on the Buffering podcast , available for free on ITunes . He gives a real insight into how he played his character, how he feels about Spike, his sexuality, his relationship with Buffy, with Joss, the writing, and everything else.

Neither relationship was the best for her. At least most Bangels can admit that Spuffy got a lot better post season 7 and we don’t make false accusations about him. I love both ship ALOT and I love both characters. It just seems that whenever just Spuffy fans are confronted with facts about Spike or Spuffy they resort to inane false arguments about Angel as a retort. I’m sorry that Angel didn’t try to rape Buffy. I’m sorry that Buffy didn’t get into a self destructive relationship with Angel. 🤷🏻‍♀️ Oh well. That’s not Angels problem. No need to turn him into a pedophile to make up for it.
 
Last edited:
BuffyBot22
BuffyBot22
PREACH!!
Mrs Gordo
Mrs Gordo
It really is a pretty good interview!
B
Btvs fan
Bu##$#%t He was calling Spuffies serial killer lovers and I seen that used before so I will give it right back

DayDreamer27

Potential
Joined
Feb 11, 2018
Messages
206
🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️

Spuffy Stan’s :: Ew gross Angel is such a pedo he was attracted to Buffy when he was like in the body of a 27 year old when she was 15/16 and he was like 247

Spuffy Stan’s:: Spike and Buffy are true love! Buffy totally was attracted to him all the way in season 2 even though she was like 16/17 and he was in the body of a 27 year old and he was like 145 years old. And he was attracted to her too! JM even admits it!!!

Bangels:................

Enough. The pedo argument is ridiculous and doesn’t hold up. I’ve debunked this before and I’m sick of seeing it. If you don’t like Bangel FINE. But don’t start accusing it of being the sick disease ridden relationship because you prefer your ship. Don’t drag down Bangel to prop up Spike.

Here’s an idea:: listen to what James Marsters actually has to say . He just gave a really in-depth interview on the Buffering podcast , available for free on ITunes . He gives a real insight into how he played his character, how he feels about Spike, his sexuality, his relationship with Buffy, with Joss, the writing, and everything else.

Neither relationship was the best for her. At least most Bangels can admit that Spuffy got a lot better post season 7 and we don’t make false accusations about him. I love both ship ALOT and I love both characters. It just seems that whenever just Spuffy fans are confronted with facts about Spike or Spuffy they resort to inane false arguments about Angel as a retort. I’m sorry that Angel didn’t try to rape Buffy. I’m sorry that Buffy didn’t get into a self destructive relationship with Angel. 🤷🏻‍♀️ Oh well. That’s not Angels problem. No need to turn him into a pedophile to make up for it.
Agreed 100%. Plus age is controversial for a reason. Different places have different age of consent laws. In Japan, it's 12 I think. In UK it's 16. And in Angel's time, it was 11. lol Girls Buffy's age would be married with children already.

Either way, it is controversial with people having varying opinions.

But Spike's behavior is more cut & dry things that many irl will consider predatory.
  1. Listening to Briley having Sex
  2. Sniffing her clothes
  3. Kidnapping & tying her up
  4. Making Shrines of her
  5. Sleeping with Special-Made sexbots
Bunny Boilers are coming to mind here. Note how most people think Glenn C. was a nutcase in Fatal Attraction for getting nuts over some dude who just wanted to shag her. She's not a sweet misunderstood romantic & very few will treat her that way. lol

Spike's behavior is a bit more clear. Compared to Angel being assigned a mission to watch over the new slayer, whom he happened to fall for. And again, her age is controversial. I won't get into details, but where I live plenty of dudes Angel's age date younger girls. I know a good few teenagers who were dating college guys & mid - late 20's guys.

So again, when it comes to ages 15+, things get murky. Again age of consent in some places is only 16,. So I guess the UK is full of pedophiles since the law only goes to 16. Thus making it easier for all those nasty men to pray on little girls. Perverts, all of them!!!!

On a serious note, Spike's behavior can be called predatory because he was a evil. He was evil. He lacked human morality. So it's perfectly legit to call a villain in that case predatory, especially when a lot of his behavior was unwelcome. Angelus was predatory, saying there was something he wanted to do to Buffy on Valentine's day. And he's pretty implied as a rapist I believe. Again, not unheard of for evil villains lacking in humanity. Which pre-season 7 Spuffy involved.

Compared to taking another hero and trying to make him out to be a predator to suit a narrative when nothing he did was ever depicted as predatory. Yes, he fell for a younger girl, and he was nothing but respectful to her. He never makes unwanted advances toward her, steals her clothes, smells her clothes, kidnaps her, ties her up, or pushes her for sex. He loved who she was & respected her as an interesting & strong young woman. When they finally had sex, Buffy is who initiated while Angel was hesitant.

And as I mentioned we have characters like Giles & Joyce who saw no issues with Angel. Neither labelled him a pedophile for being involved with Buffy. Joyce's reason for not wanting them together had to do with Buffy's future. Not because her daughter was being prayed on by some molester. And Giles had no issues with them period. He just fell off Angel's team when he killed Jenny. Understandably so.

And as stated in examples, BOTH vamps were attracted to teenage Buffy. So they're even in that regard. Both are from a time where girls Buffy's age were prime for sex & marriage. Spike has even stated to doing bad things to girls Dawn's age. So again, really no moral high ground in that regard.

Spuffy does get better in the comics from what I have seen. But it seemed the OP was mainly referring to the season 6 deal with it's realism in casual sex vs. everything regarding Bangel which seemed fairytale. But most of the relationship (in the show) took place with soulless Spike. He didn't get a soul until the very last season, and then he wasn't really with Buffy until the comics 3 seasons later.
 
Last edited:

Btvs fan

Scooby
Joined
Feb 11, 2019
Messages
664
Age
38
Agreed 100%. Plus age is controversial for a reason. Different places have different age of consent laws. In Japan, it's 12 I think. In UK it's 16. And in Angel's time, it was 11. lol Girls Buffy's age would be married with children already.

Either way, it is controversial with people having varying opinions.

But Spike's behavior is more cut & dry things that many irl will consider predatory.
  1. Listening to Briley having Sex
  2. Sniffing her clothes
  3. Kidnapping & tying her up
  4. Making Shrines of her
  5. Sleeping with Special-Made sexbots
Bunny Boilers are coming to mind here. Note how most people think Glenn C. was a nutcase in Fatal Attraction for getting nuts over some dude who just wanted to shag her. She's not a sweet misunderstood romantic & very few will treat her that way. lol

Spike's behavior is a bit more clear. Compared to Angel being assigned a mission to watch over the new slayer, whom he happened to fall for. And again, her age is controversial. I won't get into details, but where I live plenty of dudes Angel's age date younger girls. I know a good few teenagers who were dating college guys & mid - late 20's guys.

So again, when it comes to ages 15+, things get murky. Again age of consent in some places is only 16,. So I guess the UK is full of pedophiles since the law only goes to 16. Thus making it easier for all those nasty men to pray on little girls. Perverts, all of them!!!!

On a serious note, Spike's behavior can be called predatory because he was a evil. He was evil. He lacked human morality. So it's perfectly legit to call a villain in that case predatory, especially when a lot of his behavior was unwelcome. Angelus was predatory, saying there was something he wanted to do to Buffy on Valentine's day. And he's pretty implied as a rapist I believe. Again, not unheard of for evil villains lacking in humanity. Which pre-season 7 Spuffy involved.

Compared to taking another hero and trying to make him out to be a predator to suit a narrative when nothing he did was ever depicted as predatory. Yes, he fell for a younger girl, and he was nothing but respectful to her. He never makes unwanted advances toward her, steals her clothes, smells her clothes, kidnaps her, ties her up, or pushes her for sex. He loved who she was & respected her as an interesting & strong young woman. When they finally had sex, Buffy is who initiated while Angel was hesitant.

And as I mentioned we have characters like Giles & Joyce who saw no issues with Angel. Neither labelled him a pedophile for being involved with Buffy. Joyce's reason for not wanting them together had to do with Buffy's future. Not because her daughter was being prayed on by some molester. And Giles had no issues with them period. He just fell off Angel's team when he killed Jenny. Understandably so.

And as stated in examples, BOTH vamps were attracted to teenage Buffy. So they're even in that regard. Both are from a time where girls Buffy's age were prime for sex & marriage. Spike has even stated to doing bad things to girls Dawn's age. So again, really no moral high ground in that regard.

Spuffy does get better in the comics from what I have seen. But it seemed the OP was mainly referring to the season 6 deal with it's realism in casual sex vs. everything regarding Bangel which seemed fairytale. But most of the relationship (in the show) took place with soulless Spike. He didn't get a soul until the very last season, and then he wasn't really with Buffy until the comics 3 seasons later.
Wow that is so hypocritical.

Bangel is cut and dried greatness while Spuffy is sick and that's it.

You say she initiated it with Angel. It was exactly the same with Spike though.
 
W

WillowFromBuffy

Guest
I think Bangel-fans take the edge out of Bangel in their attempt to define it against Spuffy. The show is so much more interesting than the entrenched fandom cliques are willing to admit.
 
Bluebird
Bluebird
Kinda the point I made, fandom reduces relationships to a few keywords, but that might require thinking from literal types. Thinking is hard when you can just shout instead!
B
Btvs fan
Agreed it is

thetopher

Member of the Church Of Faith
Joined
Dec 23, 2013
Messages
10,075
Location
The Moot, England
Sineya
How many times must a man hit a woman (or vice versa) before the behaviour is classed as abusive, once or more than once? Should a woman/man stay in a relationship with a man/woman if s/he's only hit her/him "just the once"?
Hitting somebody (even just once) is a crime- legally speaking- so its pretty cut and dried as a wrong thing. A abused victim can go to the police and say 'I'm being abused' and actions can be taken.
Emotionally controlling behavior is less cut-and-dried obviously. It's why there are so many different symptoms whereas physical abuse is...well, obvious physical abuse.

The reason I've quoted instances multiple times is because they cover the different headings you've listed. If Riley does something more than once aka the "two examples/ two instances" then it is classed as "repeated pattern of behaviour".
Even if I agreed with the unfair characterization two is not a repeated pattern, it is merely two instances. And even then you're using those two examples to mean multiple indicators simultaneously, which is silly. I just shows there's a compelling lack of material or proof for you to use.

Also your headings doesn't list about the perpetrator wanting the person to "need" them, and that word comes out of Riley's mouth a lot in regards to Buffy, or about justifying the behaviour with a crappy excuse eg "I'm so in love with you I can't think straight".
That's because being needy is different from being controlling. It's also more common in a relationship. One could accuse Tara of being needy but she isn't really controlling.
The difference is pretty clear; control is about power, having power over your partner, being needy is about being the 'junior' partner in a relationship and realizing the inequity there.
It comes from insecurity not narcissism.

Riley accuse Buffy of sleeping with Angel without any evidence whatsoever, that comes under your "Presuming guilt until proven otherwise" heading.
He doesn't 'presume guilt' at all, Riley accepts what Buffy tells him at face value, although he's worried because Angel has obviously been this big thing in Buffy's life. He openly shares those fears with Xander. He goes to see Buffy when she gets back and gets the wrong end of things.
He only jumps to an erroneous conclusion when he comes across the beaten Initiative soldiers and Angel standing over them. Then a macho misunderstanding occurs.

If Riley had assumed guilt he would've said things like 'I hope you had fun with your ex whilst I was waiting around worried about you!', 'What did you two do? What did you talk about? Why won't you tell me?', etc.

Riley tries to warn Angel to stay away from Buffy because he knows about their past relationship, that comes under your Overactive jealousy, accusations or paranoia (obvious)" heading. Also Riley outright accuses Buffy of "letting" Dracula bite her:
Riley is jealous precisely because he wasn't told ENOUGH about Angel in the past; he wasn't told about the 'boinking= perfect happiness' clause because Buffy left that out. If she'd been more forthcoming then Riley might not have had that misunderstanding.

Also Buffy did let Dracula bite her; Riley says 'you're under the thrall of the dark prince' and that was true, to a degree; that's not paranoia.
You might have issue with his motives or how he expresses himself but if he's right...then he's not being paranoid, obviously.

Also if you want to go for "repeated pattern of behaviour", then Riley grabs Buffy's arm repeatedly despite her making it very clear she doesn't like him doing it.
He grabs her arm when he's high on drugs- not in his right mind- and again when they're in the process of breaking up/having a big argument almost a year later.

On a separate note I don't care if Riley grabs super-strong slayer Buffy by the arm. This is such a weird, gendered issue. She has superpowers and can hand him his ass or whatever.

Also, if we're counting, Angel and Spike grab Buffy more, and they have super-vampire strength. Are they controlling? Well, Spike, sure, because there's a ton of evidence but I don't think Angel is.

Riley refuses to go to the doctor because he thinks being normal isn't enough for Buffy. He doesn't agree until she says "Riley, I need you. I need you with me ... and I need you healthy."
Ahh, so you think that Riley is putting his life in danger for the sole purpose of manipulating Buffy? That's what you're saying? lol That his emotional breakdown is false and calculated to illicit sympathy from Buffy?
I think most people think this is just a genuine bone-head move on Riley's part borne of a deep crisis and insecurity and not some manifestation of controlling behavior. But whatever, agree to strongly disagree.

Riley admits to Xander that he doesn't think Buffy loves him, yet he sticks around. Why? Why stay in a relationship if you don't think the other person loves you in return?
You've just highlighted the greatest evidence that Briley WASN'T a controlling relationship. Riley confides genuine feelings and emotional vulnerability to somebody who is not Buffy. So after that we would naturally expect him to double-down on any sort of controlling behavior, right? He'd pull out all the stops and really make Buffy feel crappy.
But he doesn't. He has his little crisis with the surgery and then tries to adjust to his reduced status. If anything he doesn't communicate ENOUGH with Buffy about his fears going forward.
A controlling partner wouldn't do this.

It's not like flipping a switch and saying "I don't want you seeing any of your friends or family again" and the person agreeing, groundwork has to be laid to cause division which results in the person cutting their friends or family out of their lives.
This is nonsense. Stopping potentially dangerous ex-boyfriends and creepy stalkers from seeing your girlfriend is nowhere near the equivalent of shutting friends and family out of someones life. There is no equivalency.

Its becoming clear that you didn't even bother to read article in the the link, you just took the bare indicators I posted and twisted them to fit you view of Briley. lol

Riley isn't trying to isolate Buffy from the scoobies because they're not a perceived "threat" to the relationship.
Again this shows you have no understanding of what a controlling relationship is in real life; its not about some perceived 'threat', its about making your partner beholden to you in all things, to have power over them. So everyone would be shut out.
So if Riley is so needy (which he is) and controlling (which he of course isn't) then he certainly wouldn't want Buffy to have so much free time, he would isolate her from her Mom, wouldn't stick up for her sister when Buffy complains about her, would say over and over again that the slaying is monopolizing too much of her time, would imply that her slaying all the time makes her less attractive, or that she's too skinny, or too athettic/butch and he finds it a turn-off. He would hang around her and her sick Mom all the time and make sure that Buffy relied on him and him only for emotional comfort and then get openly pissy with her if she didn't.
 
Bluebird
Bluebird
I think accusing Riley of being an abuser is kinda abhorrent really. It demeans the severity of controlling relationships in reality

Bluebird

two by two, hands of blue
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
6,254
Black Thorn
You literally did just attack the different man though and Spuffy fans too, so don't pretend otherwise.

Also the problem with calling it a teenage romance is the obvious. Angel wasn't a teen, he was 27. It's even referred to in the show .
Angel "I'm older than you and this can't ever happen"
You have completely misunderstood my point from start to finish and I'm not getting into this. It's like smashing my face against concrete trying to communicate with you beyond big pictures.

This horribly obnoxious and argumentative attitude of quite a few Spike fans is why I stopped posting here in the first place. People go crazy over a perceived attack on their ship like someone's just slapped their own mother, when what I actually did was post my opinion based on my life. It's pathetic. Well done on being a decades old stereotype.
 
B
Btvs fan
You were giving it, ill give it back its that simple

DayDreamer27

Potential
Joined
Feb 11, 2018
Messages
206
Wow that is so hypocritical.

Bangel is cut and dried greatness while Spuffy is sick and that's it.

You say she initiated it with Angel. It was exactly the same with Spike though.
She initiated sex. Was that an invite to the emotional abuse where he calls her evil, says she doesn't belong with people she loves, harrasses her at work, then hounds & tries to rape her when she stopped the sex?

Even after the sex began, Spike was doing things that emotional abusers & rapists do. And his behavior was not always welcome. But if Buffy voiced that, Spike just laughed ot shrugged her off & continued doing what he wanted & acting how he wanted.

The social worker is coming by to see her home, and possibly take her only family, and Spike is still hanging around after being repeatedly told to leave. Then sticks around long enough to make Buffy look suspicious in from on the SW.

Buffy sure did initiate sex with Spike, and was blunt twice about the kind of relationship it was. So she also didn't play him. But he emotionally abuses her, abd acts like a victim by yelling yo her that all she does is play him & make up rules.

Again, I am not seeing where Angel, who was a respectful fellow knight like our heroine who encouraged her going into the light was as bad to her as a soulless evil guy who tried to drag her into the dark. Lol The only thing Bangel had was an age difference. Spuffy also had that, and a lot of abuse (on the show).

Even in metaphors. When things started, she entered his crypt in the darkness. As soon as she ends it, she's coming out into the light.
 
W

WillowFromBuffy

Guest
I think that the age issue in Buffy and Angel's relationship is definitely something worth talking about, even if accusations of paedophilia are wildly inappropriate. Angel and Joyce both specifically address it on the show, while Buffy herself refuses to acknowledge it. Some people are fine with this type of age difference. Others are not.

While I ultimately disagree with @DeadlyDuo when it comes to Riley, I am able to see where she's coming from. I don't think it is "abhorrent" to argue that Riley displays red flag behaviour. It's very hard to say where the line between abuse and regular dysfunctionality lies. To me, Riley seems like a genuinely nice guy with many great qualities, but I don't think it's absurd to see some of his actions are troubling. He can be very forceful during arguments, and if he had been in a relationship with a less assertive character than Buffy, I might have been more bothered by that. Controlling relationship in reality are often subtle and ambiguous to bystanders, the victim and the abuser themselves, so much so that it often takes a particularly serious event for it to be recognised for what it is.
 

DeadlyDuo

Scooby
Joined
Jul 29, 2016
Messages
7,161
Age
29
Hitting somebody (even just once) is a crime- legally speaking- so its pretty cut and dried as a wrong thing. A abused victim can go to the police and say 'I'm being abused' and actions can be taken.
Emotionally controlling behavior is less cut-and-dried obviously. It's why there are so many different symptoms whereas physical abuse is...well, obvious physical abuse.
The point you made though was that such behaviour had to be "throughout their relationship" and that one or two instances don't count because it had to be a "repeated pattern of behaviour". The point I was making is at what point do you classify something as abuse? Hitting your partner, even just once, is still abuse so why should emotionally controlling behaviour have to happen repeatedly before it can be classed as the same. Physical abuse is easier to prove, but the question wasn't about proving it, it was about how many times does it have to happen for it to be classed as abusive.

As I've said before, Riley was showing "Red Flag behaviour", that doesn't mean he'd reached the point of being abusive towards Buffy, but his behaviour is concerning and could indicate that the relationship might head that way had it continued for longer.

Even if I agreed with the unfair characterization two is not a repeated pattern, it is merely two instances. And even then you're using those two examples to mean multiple indicators simultaneously, which is silly. I just shows there's a compelling lack of material or proof for you to use.
More than once is a repeated pattern or does it have to happen a third time? Riley grabbed Buffy's arm on three separate occasions plus three times during one occasion, I'd call that "repeated".

Something can be more than one thing at the same time., it's not just this or that.

That's because being needy is different from being controlling. It's also more common in a relationship. One could accuse Tara of being needy but she isn't really controlling.
The difference is pretty clear; control is about power, having power over your partner, being needy is about being the 'junior' partner in a relationship and realizing the inequity there.
It comes from insecurity not narcissism.
And Riley's insecurity feeds his behaviour. Riley feels inferior to Buffy and wants to balance the scales, however Buffy never treated him that way so the scales were already level ergo Riley's actions would unbalance the scales.



He doesn't 'presume guilt' at all, Riley accepts what Buffy tells him at face value, although he's worried because Angel has obviously been this big thing in Buffy's life. He openly shares those fears with Xander. He goes to see Buffy when she gets back and gets the wrong end of things.
He only jumps to an erroneous conclusion when he comes across the beaten Initiative soldiers and Angel standing over them. Then a macho misunderstanding occurs.
How can you say Riley didn't "presume guilt" when he automatically assumed Buffy slept with Angel with no evidence whatsoever just because Buffy and Angel have history. There are other reasons why Angel beat up the initiative soldiers eg he was defending himself after they attacked him for being a vampire, but no, Riley immediately jumps to the conclusion that Buffy had been unfaithful.

If Riley had assumed guilt he would've said things like 'I hope you had fun with your ex whilst I was waiting around worried about you!', 'What did you two do? What did you talk about? Why won't you tell me?', etc.
BUFFY What? You think that Angel and I . . .

RILEY: Didn't you?



BUFFY: But it does seem like he has this ... control over me, I ... even though a big part of me is resisting.

RILEY: No, that's okay. I shouldn't take this personally. I mean, what with Angel, I mean, it's understandable that there would be transference. I mean, they're both broody immortals.

Buffy looks dismayed and gets up to walk close to Riley.

BUFFY: (firmly) I am not transfer-y. (quieter) I swear to you. I'm your girl, and I'm gonna stay that way.
RILEY: Okay. But you are not going anywhere near him again.



Riley clear assumes Buffy had cheated with Angel and he assumes she "let" Dracula bite her because of "transference". HE is the one that brings up Angel in Buffy vs Dracula despite buffy not having seen Angel since the Yoko Factor. Buffy has to reassure Riley that she is faithful to him and will remain so, despite the fact that she's not given Riley any reason to think she would cheat on him.

Riley then comes up with a bullshit excuse to justify his unreasonable behaviour "I'm so in love with you I can't think straight". Making excuses for unreasonable behaviour is a common occurrence in controlling relationships.

Riley is jealous precisely because he wasn't told ENOUGH about Angel in the past; he wasn't told about the 'boinking= perfect happiness' clause because Buffy left that out. If she'd been more forthcoming then Riley might not have had that misunderstanding.
I never realised Buffy had to give Riley the ins and outs of a duck's backside in regards to her previous relationship with ANgel. Maybe she should tell Riley how big Angel was and what positions they used during there one sexual encounter?

Also Buffy did let Dracula bite her; Riley says 'you're under the thrall of the dark prince' and that was true, to a degree; that's not paranoia.
You might have issue with his motives or how he expresses himself but if he's right...then he's not being paranoid, obviously.
BUFFY: But it does seem like he has this ... control over me, I ... even though a big part of me is resisting.

So even though Buffy makes it clear that Dracula biting her was against her will, it's her fault because she "let" him bite her. By that token (but obviously not to the same degree), if Buffy hadn't stopped Spike during the AR because she was unable, then she must've "let" him rape her, only it wouldn't be rape because she would've "let" him have sex with her.

RILEY: I think, when this thing started, it was just some stupid, immature game. I wanted to even the score after you let Dracula bite you.
BUFFY: I did not let Dracula-

Buffy herself says she didn't "let" Dracula bite her, or are you saying she's lying?

He grabs her arm when he's high on drugs- not in his right mind- and again when they're in the process of breaking up/having a big argument almost a year later.

On a separate note I don't care if Riley grabs super-strong slayer Buffy by the arm. This is such a weird, gendered issue. She has superpowers and can hand him his ass or whatever.

Also, if we're counting, Angel and Spike grab Buffy more, and they have super-vampire strength. Are they controlling? Well, Spike, sure, because there's a ton of evidence but I don't think Angel is.
So that makes it okay then? Just because Buffy could kick Riley across the room, he's entitled to grab her roughly despite her repeatedly making it clear she doesn't like it and asking him to let go?

Ahh, so you think that Riley is putting his life in danger for the sole purpose of manipulating Buffy? That's what you're saying? lol That his emotional breakdown is false and calculated to illicit sympathy from Buffy?
I think most people think this is just a genuine bone-head move on Riley's part borne of a deep crisis and insecurity and not some manifestation of controlling behavior. But whatever, agree to strongly disagree.
It's a bit too coincidental that Riley finally agrees to see the doctor after Buffy says the words "I NEED YOU" when she's been trying to get him to see the doctor for the majority of the episode and he refused. He assumes Buffy won't want to be with him if he's "normal" and he brings up Angel yet again:

RILEY: It's not enough for you.
BUFFY: Why would you say that?
RILEY: Come on. Your last boyfriend wasn't exactly a civilian.

You've just highlighted the greatest evidence that Briley WASN'T a controlling relationship. Riley confides genuine feelings and emotional vulnerability to somebody who is not Buffy. So after that we would naturally expect him to double-down on any sort of controlling behavior, right? He'd pull out all the stops and really make Buffy feel crappy.
But he doesn't. He has his little crisis with the surgery and then tries to adjust to his reduced status. If anything he doesn't communicate ENOUGH with Buffy about his fears going forward.
A controlling partner wouldn't do this.
Xander is team Riley and would thus be seen as an ally. He's in Buffy's inner circle. Given that Xander was singing the "virtues" of Riley which made Buffy give in to Riley's ultimatum, I'd say it was beneficial to Riley to keep Xander on side. Plus Xander made Buffy feel crappy about Riley. Same result, just by proxy.

his is nonsense. Stopping potentially dangerous ex-boyfriends and creepy stalkers from seeing your girlfriend is nowhere near the equivalent of shutting friends and family out of someones life. There is no equivalency.
Except a) Buffy never asked him too, and b) Buffy didn't view Angel that way. Riley took it upon himself to warn Angel to stay away from Buffy, especially as he assumed they slept together in LA.

With Spike, Buffy viewed him as an annoyance and Riley threw him out the house after catching him in her bedroom. However, Riley didn't visit Spike's crypt and fake stake him because Spike posed a risk to Buffy, he did it because Spike fancied Buffy and had a romantic interest in her and Riley felt threatened by it. After all, Spike fit the profile of both Angel and Dracula aka vampire.


Its becoming clear that you didn't even bother to read article in the the link, you just took the bare indicators I posted and twisted them to fit you view of Briley. lol
I didn't bother reading the article. Not all controlling relationships are the same and Riley hadn't yet reached the stage of being classed as abusive. What he WAS doing was demonstrating Red Flag behaviour. There's a difference.

Again this shows you have no understanding of what a controlling relationship is in real life; its not about some perceived 'threat', its about making your partner beholden to you in all things, to have power over them. So everyone would be shut out.
So if Riley is so needy (which he is) and controlling (which he of course isn't) then he certainly wouldn't want Buffy to have so much free time, he would isolate her from her Mom, wouldn't stick up for her sister when Buffy complains about her, would say over and over again that the slaying is monopolizing too much of her time, would imply that her slaying all the time makes her less attractive, or that she's too skinny, or too athettic/butch and he finds it a turn-off. He would hang around her and her sick Mom all the time and make sure that Buffy relied on him and him only for emotional comfort and then get openly pissy with her if she didn't.
Riley does infringe on Buffy when she's slaying by turning up when she clearly wants to be alone, and he did want Buffy to rely on him and got pissy when she didn't.

As I've said before, all controlling relationships have to start somewhere. Riley wouldn't be able to take complete control of Buffy overnight, it would be just little instances here and there. A lot of controlling relationships start off very subtly so the victims don't even notice they're being controlled until it's too late.

Riley hadn't reached the stage of out right controlling Buffy, but his behaviour was showing signs that the relationship would've headed in that direction eventually.
 

Spanky

Scooby
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
20,004
Black Thorn
Angel isn't a pedophile but he is factually a sex offender and rapist.
 

katmobile

Scooby
Joined
Jun 17, 2018
Messages
778
Age
47
🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️

Spuffy Stan’s :: Ew gross Angel is such a pedo he was attracted to Buffy when he was like in the body of a 27 year old when she was 15/16 and he was like 247

Spuffy Stan’s:: Spike and Buffy are true love! Buffy totally was attracted to him all the way in season 2 even though she was like 16/17 and he was in the body of a 27 year old and he was like 145 years old. And he was attracted to her too! JM even admits it!!!

Bangels:................

Enough. The pedo argument is ridiculous and doesn’t hold up. I’ve debunked this before and I’m sick of seeing it. If you don’t like Bangel FINE. But don’t start accusing it of being the sick disease ridden relationship because you prefer your ship. Don’t drag down Bangel to prop up Spike.

Here’s an idea:: listen to what James Marsters actually has to say . He just gave a really in-depth interview on the Buffering podcast , available for free on ITunes . He gives a real insight into how he played his character, how he feels about Spike, his sexuality, his relationship with Buffy, with Joss, the writing, and everything else.

Neither relationship was the best for her. At least most Bangels can admit that Spuffy got a lot better post season 7 and we don’t make false accusations about him. I love both ship ALOT and I love both characters. It just seems that whenever just Spuffy fans are confronted with facts about Spike or Spuffy they resort to inane false arguments about Angel as a retort. I’m sorry that Angel didn’t try to rape Buffy. I’m sorry that Buffy didn’t get into a self destructive relationship with Angel. 🤷🏻‍♀️ Oh well. That’s not Angels problem. No need to turn him into a pedophile to make up for it.
I'm sorry you haven't been called sick and deluded and arrogant and contemptuous of the opinions of others.

Both sides use dumb arguements and there are extremists and moderates on both sides. Honestly you really think Bangels acknowledge that Spuffy season seven and beyond isn't toxic because the evidence on here doesn't bear you out. There events least Fuffy extremist along for the ride too. You seem to be one of the few in both camps.
 

thetopher

Member of the Church Of Faith
Joined
Dec 23, 2013
Messages
10,075
Location
The Moot, England
Sineya
To me, Riley seems like a genuinely nice guy with many great qualities, but I don't think it's absurd to see some of his actions are troubling.
Well I find some of them troubling too, and some of them are jerk moves. But he is not an abusive a-hole nor is he a manipulative control-freak

The point you made though was that such behaviour had to be "throughout their relationship" and that one or two instances don't count because it had to be a "repeated pattern of behaviour". The point I was making is at what point do you classify something as abuse?
A pattern is three or more instances of the same specific behavior, I would've thought. Like if Riley tried to undermine Buffy's confidence in her home life three or more times.
Tbh two examples of something that could be taken multiple ways is not a pattern, it could be a co-incidence.


Repeated patterns throughout a relationship examples: 'You came back wrong' or 'you're a creature of the dark, like me'. Controlling behavior by undermining Buffy's confidence, self of self, isolating her from all her friends.

Hitting your partner, even just once, is still abuse so why should emotionally controlling behaviour have to happen repeatedly before it can be classed as the same. Physical abuse is easier to prove
We've been over this; physical abuse is a crime, you hit somebody and you can be arrested. It's not about proof its about boundaries being crossed and harmful intent. If somebody punches you then they are trying to inflict harm on you. Controlling relationships are more complicated, so they're held to a different standard of evidence. For example professional couples therapists and the like look for many signs of controlling behavior because its much more insidious.

As I've said before, Riley was showing "Red Flag behaviour", that doesn't mean he'd reached the point of being abusive towards Buffy, but his behaviour is concerning and could indicate that the relationship might head that way had it continued for longer.
This is so incredibly vague and nebulous. You call it 'red flag behavior; that could lead to something worse' whereas anyone else might go 'wow, that was a douche kinda move, what's up with that?' and then look at the context.

And the context doesn't support Riley getting more and more controlling, but getting more and more insecure and therefore self-destructive as he tries to 'connect' with Buffy on some level.

And Riley's insecurity feeds his behaviour. Riley feels inferior to Buffy and wants to balance the scales, however Buffy never treated him that way so the scales were already level ergo Riley's actions would unbalance the scales.
I disagree. Buffy never treated Riley like an important part of her life. She never treated him as a confidante and came to him when she needed help. When things got on top of her she shut everyone else out. She didn't do that when Angel was around.
So Riley has some reason to be insecure, it just doesn't excuse any of his subsequent behavior.

How can you say Riley didn't "presume guilt" when he automatically assumed Buffy slept with Angel with no evidence whatsoever just because Buffy and Angel have history.
There are other reasons why Angel beat up the initiative soldiers eg he was defending himself after they attacked him for being a vampire, but no, Riley immediately jumps to the conclusion that Buffy had been unfaithful.
Wait, how can he jump to a conclusion if he already assumes Buffy has slept with Angel?
Both can't be true. Either he always thought that Buffy and Angel were going to have sex, and therefore he should just immediately attack Angel when he sees him- 'cause evil now- or he took Buffy at her word, despite being upset about it, and then jumped to a conclusion only when Angel barges into town looking for Buffy and beating people up.

Riley clear assumes Buffy had cheated with Angel and he assumes she "let" Dracula bite her because of "transference". HE is the one that brings up Angel in Buffy vs Dracula despite buffy not having seen Angel since the Yoko Factor.
Riley can be a jealous idiot? Because most males in the Buffyverse can be jealous idiots I guess.
You keep on bringing this up like it defines Riley's behavior towards Buffy and all other guys- which is what a possessive, controlling boyfriend would be like. Riley is not jealous of Xander and Buffy hanging out, or thinks there's anything between Buffy and Spike.
To a controlling personality Buffy being around any other attractive male would be unacceptable and he would comment on it. Because it would be about control, not about insecurity

Making excuses for unreasonable behaviour is a common occurrence in controlling relationships.
I can be, or it can be a simple apology for acting like an ass-hat. It's not a particularly good apology but, in this instance, I very much doubt that Riley is trying to manipulate Buffy. He's been beat up and humiliated a bit by her ex and is actually a bit pathetic here.
His explanation is lame, but its also kind of a trope. You might not like the trope but that's separate from this being controlling behavior.

I never realised Buffy had to give Riley the ins and outs of a duck's backside in regards to her previous relationship with ANgel. Maybe she should tell Riley how big Angel was and what positions they used during there one sexual encounter?
The curse and the cause of ti breaking is pretty much THE big thing in Buffy and Angel's relationship so it is odd that Buffy wasn't clear about it.
I'm just saying that Buffy could've been more forthright/clearer, not that she necessarily should've been.

So even though Buffy makes it clear that Dracula biting her was against her will, it's her fault because she "let" him bite her.
Riley only uses the word transference because he doesn't get 'vamp mind control' or whatever; he's rationalizing it into something he can understand. Plus insecure.

By that token (but obviously not to the same degree), if Buffy hadn't stopped Spike during the AR because she was unable, then she must've "let" him rape her, only it wouldn't be rape because she would've "let" him have sex with her.
No, they're not remotely similar. :mad:

One of the big problems I have with your theory is that it actually belittles and trivializes ACTUAL controlling relationships, which can be incredibly destructive to an individual's self-esteem and personal life. You cannot fathom the harm done to people caught up them because otherwise you would never make such a fatuous comparison.

I look at Buffy and I never see somebody who is in a controlling relationship, and to be honest Riley is just too staid, unimaginative and well, decent to every play the kind of scummy mind-games that characterize these toxic couples.

So that makes it okay then? Just because Buffy could kick Riley across the room, he's entitled to grab her roughly despite her repeatedly making it clear she doesn't like it and asking him to let go?
Okay, go ahead, count the grabs. In a world where couples often fight to the death is there anything more ridiculous than counting the grabs.

It's a bit too coincidental that Riley finally agrees to see the doctor after Buffy says the words "I NEED YOU" when she's been trying to get him to see the doctor for the majority of the episode and he refused.
lol of course it isn't coincidental, Buffy persuaded him with her mouth! Buffy told Riley in no uncertain terms what he meant to her and that had the desired effect.

So yeah, I actually think Riley was genuine and not using his impending death to toy with Buffy's emotions just so he could hear the word 'need' come out of her mouth.

Xander is team Riley and would thus be seen as an ally. He's in Buffy's inner circle. Given that Xander was singing the "virtues" of Riley which made Buffy give in to Riley's ultimatum,
And of course Riley KNOWS that Xander is team Riley is this is one of those calculated manipulations he has going on huh? Riley's a friggin' chess-master when it comes to playing the game of relationships.
Or, alternatively, he was just being emotional and honest with another guy who was also in a relationship.

I'd say it was beneficial to Riley to keep Xander on side. Plus Xander made Buffy feel crappy about Riley. Same result, just by proxy.
Yeah, it's a big ol' man-conspiricy to make Buffy feel crappy.

Except a) Buffy never asked him too, and b) Buffy didn't view Angel that way. Riley took it upon himself to warn Angel to stay away from Buffy, especially as he assumed they slept together in LA.
I never said what Riley did was correct, it was incredibly stupid and macho. However it is not evidence of controlling behavior precisely because Riley thinks Angel is a threat.
If he hadn't though that Angel was a threat then it might've been a sign of Riley being unreasonably controlling. As it is its just him white-knighting. Again, this is something other characters do, often on Buffy's behalf.

With Spike, Buffy viewed him as an annoyance and Riley threw him out the house after catching him in her bedroom. However, Riley didn't visit Spike's crypt and fake stake him because Spike posed a risk to Buffy, he did it because Spike fancied Buffy and had a romantic interest
No, Riley is pissed at Spike (and himself) but does not consider him a romantic rival. That's laughable at this stage. 'You actually think you have a chance with her?' etc

I didn't bother reading the article. Not all controlling relationships are the same
Then there's no point in continuing this. You believe whatever you want to believe about 'controlling relationships' but can't be bothered to look at any other informed opinions.

Riley hadn't reached the stage of out right controlling Buffy, but his behaviour was showing signs that the relationship would've headed in that direction eventually.
So is he controlling or isn't he? Is he merely in the process of controlling Buffy?
Is his mention of the Initiative yet another manipulation to get Buffy to 'need' him? Is the chess-master waiting by the helicopter rubbing his hands together at his own brilliant machinations?
Does he fly off to South America thinking 'bloody hell, that backfired. I've signed up to the Army again and all it was was a ruse to get Buffy to 'need' me some more'. :p
 

Bluebird

two by two, hands of blue
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
6,254
Black Thorn
@Btvs fan You were giving it, ill give it back its that simple
See, this is the problem. You seem to think my opinion of realism based on life experiences was an attack on you. I wasn't giving it to you, so I don't know why you're giving it back.

I don't know how to explain this any differently than I already have.
 
B
Btvs fan
Not me specifically but Spuffy fans generally. If you're saying it wasn't, then thats cool end of argument.

katmobile

Scooby
Joined
Jun 17, 2018
Messages
778
Age
47
See, this is the problem. You seem to think my opinion of realism based on life experiences was an attack on you. I wasn't giving it to you, so I don't know why you're giving it back.

I don't know how to explain this any differently than I already have.
That's the problem you say that Spuffys take things personally when you guys dish it out but then act like we're the bullies when you counter argue and you are unbelievably santimonous about it. There are times when I feel pretty dogpiled around here as a Spuffy it's not a friendly space for us but I enjoy debate and I've got think skin and an elastic heart. I'm sorry but you can't voice a strong opinion however grounded in 'reality' it is and claim people are mean for putting up counter arguments even in the Angel paedo ones that I don't agree with as she's forced to grow up fast and he's from an age with different standards. Neither Bangel or Spuffy have close real life equivalents although in 'Why Buffy matters' a chapter argues for parallels between Spike and John Dunne and I see Nicky Cruz parallels too. There are elements of real life in both but in reality you wouldn't give the rubbish they pull unsouled because there's no real life equivalent except maybe addictions.
 

katmobile

Scooby
Joined
Jun 17, 2018
Messages
778
Age
47
Who is you guys?

Again, I posted an opinion based on personal perspective and life experience and somehow I've attacked all Spuffys in some ship war no one told me I was partaking in. I just posted in a thread, referring to my perspective of realism.
When you're attacked a lot you percieve attack. I tried searching for your OP but maybe it's a bit far back. You did moan you'd almost quit the board because of mean ole Spuffys if it's happened before then it's possible you are 'being attacked' because you are attacking even if you don't realise it. I know Dora seems to have a problem seeing the difference between persecution and contradiction so it's not as if there isn't precedent for it.

Who is you guys?

Again, I posted an opinion based on personal perspective and life experience and somehow I've attacked all Spuffys in some ship war no one told me I was partaking in. I just posted in a thread, referring to my perspective of realism.
Also however grumpily you did it you did take a side.
 
Top Bottom