lirazel | Annoyance of the day:

Current Mood: annoyed

Entry tags:

Annoyance of the day:

People who flat-out say that Buffy didn't love Spike despite the fact that she said she did.

She said she did. The only reason we have to believe that she didn't is one thing Spike said, and since when do people believe anything that comes out of Spike's mouth? Boy can speak the truth that no one else will, but he also says a ton of b.s., and everyone knows it.

I just hatehatehatehatehatehate all of these people sitting around telling a woman (and it would be a woman--if a man said, it I think a lot less people would disagree with her) who finds it nearly impossible to say the words "I love you" even to people she regards as family (remember "Intervention"? That's canon) that she doesn't love someone when she said she did.

I don't have a problem with people quibbling over the nature of her love. You can argue that she didn't love him romantically or as much as she did Angel or whatever (I would disagree with the first one and re: the second, I would remind you that, as

the_royal_anna says, we don't love in amounts. We love in ways). That's legit. But to say, flat-out, that she didn't love him even though she says she did takes agency away from Buffy in a way that I am entirely uncomfortable with and that DRIVES ME CRAZY, OKAY. If she had said she loved Riley (she didn't, did she?), I would be pissed at people saying she didn't love him, either. Uuuugh why does this annoy me so much?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Plenty of friendships are sexual ones. I'm certainly not arguing that their relationship isn't one involving sexual attraction. Caring about someone and having sex with them =/= being in love with them.

But thank you for making leaps of assumption about my need for 'conventional' romance.

What exactly makes "being in love with someone"? I'd like to have that explained. Apparently, love, desire, jealousy, and willingness not to have any other partners is not enough. What is?

And I have never seen a "friendship" where people love each other and have sex and are jealous of a possibility of either of them having sex with someone else, and making steps to ensure the other person that they won't have sex with anyone else. That's a very odd definition of friendship.

I think plenty of people feel jealousy over or ownership of a friend, especially a 'friend with benefits'. That doesn't mean they're in love.

I'm also not sure where 'a willingness not to have any other partners' is coming from, here. Spike certainly doesn't (and I'd never contest his post-soul love for Buffy), but Buffy is certainly interested in dating Robin Wood until he starts being a total dink.

Being in love involves a sublimation of self and a desire for egalitarian partnership. It's a primal need to be with someone because they complete you. I just don't think she views Spike that way. These are things I have never seen in Buffy Summers. I'm not BLAMING her, or denigrating her character. Being the Slayer is a rough gig, and she has a lot of baggage from that, from her father issues, from her Angelus issues, and they're all quite reasonable things to be tied up about.

I think she loves him very much, but I do not think she is in love with him. I think he is the friend she values most in the world, and that she knows he loves her and wishes she could reciprocate fully. I think she says it because she wants it to be true. I think he gives her permission not to feel it, and they share a very important moment of complicated companionship.

Honestly, have you never had a friend you had sex with and cared for deeply but didn't view in a romantic context? I certainly have. I don't think it devalues their relationship at all.

Edited 2010-12-14 23:56 (UTC)

I'm also not sure where 'a willingness not to have any other partners' is coming from, here. Spike certainly doesn't (and I'd never contest his post-soul love for Buffy), but Buffy is certainly interested in dating Robin Wood until he starts being a total dink.

No, Buffy attempts to date Wood, but when Spike offers to leave and she tells him she wants him to stay, and he indicates that that wouldn't work if she is going to try to be dating Wood, she never tries to date Wood again. And to quote blackfrancine's post above, "And it's not at all unexpected that Spike would be jealous of Wood or Angel--but what is perhaps unexpected is that both times, Buffy makes an effort to placate Spike out of his jealous huffs. She goes to him first in First Date, then asks him not to leave town. And in Chosen she talks him down from his Angel-induced fury and chooses him to fight with her. And chooses him AGAIN to spend her last 2 nights on the planet with."

Being in love involves a sublimation of self and a desire for egalitarian partnership. It's a primal need to be with someone because they complete you.

Uh... if I told you what exactly I think about that definition, I'd sound very rude, so I won't. I'll just ask, what if I don't feel like an incomplete person, and don't feel like I need anyone to "complete" me?

I'll just ask, what if I don't feel like an incomplete person, and don't feel like I need anyone to "complete" me?

Then... don't date? Plenty of people are aromantic. I'm speaking poetically, regardless; obviously everyone is a complete person unto themselves. But being in love involves the sense that you need the other person, fundamentally. I don't think this is that out of line here.

Actually, yes, telling people they shouldn't date because they don't feel incomplete on their own is out of line. And this has nothing to do with being "romantic". The idea that you should be with someone because you fundamentally need</> them, rather than because you want it, even though you are perfectly able to live on your own, or that should you love them because you need them, rather than loving them simply for who they are, is pretty disturbing to me.

And I tend to think that loving someone because you need them is an immature form of love. I roll my eyes when people say they can't live without someone.

What?

I am not aromantic just because I don't feel incomplete without my boyfriend. Saying that I shouldn't date because I have different ideas of love to yours is ridiculous.

I misinterpreted that part of the comment to mean boot_the_grime didn't feel s/he needed -romantic partnership- to feel complete.

Regardless I am bowing out of the conversation as I don't feel it's productive. I just thought I'd clarify that point.

I know you said you're bowing out, but I'd like to add my thoughts.

Unless I'm misunderstanding boot_the_grime, you didn't misinterpret her. She doesn't feel she needs a romantic partnership to feel complete. The idea that she does is insulting to her. And, well, to me. As a chick, I've spent most of my life being told I need a guy to complete me. It's taken me a while to realize that that's bullshit and that I can be a wholly happy individual without a romantic relationship.

And, no, it doesn't make me aromantic. I have a boyfriend right now. I was complete before I met him, and I'm still complete now that I have a partner.

I understand you were speaking from a poetic sense, which I can get behind just fine. But telling someone they're aromantic because they don't feel like half a person without a partner is wonky.

If you do not think you need romance in your life at all to be satisfied I view that as an aromantic POV? At least a 'grey aromantic' POV, I suppose. Regardless, aromanticism isn't an insult in the slightest.

Of course it isn't. But it isn't up to you to label other people.

I'm not saying anybody is ever half a person.

That is the implication, though, when you say this: "It's a primal need to be with someone because they complete you."

And, no, I don't feel that everybody needs romance in their life to be satisfied. I think the emphasis on the necessity of romance, especially for women, is a harmful method of subjugation.

Labeling wasn't my intent; I was saying that she doesn't have to date, and that plenty of people are aromantic -- separate thought, though looking back I can see how it might come across as 'then don't date because you are clearly aromantic'.

I mean I could have put 'because you feel they complete you' but I sort of thought that was implied.

Luckily for everyone I am not emphasizing the necessity of romance. In fact, given the subject at hand, I've always said I like Buffy Summers best when she's single and not worrying about the societal perception that she needs a man.

Labeling wasn't my intent; I was saying that she doesn't have to date, and that plenty of people are aromantic

I think you're missing the point still.

I am dating someone. Prior to dating him, I was not interested in dating people. I would fit what you apparently define as "aromantic" (which doesn't match my definition, incidentally). However, just because I don't need a romance to complete me doesn't mean I don't enjoy it when one comes along.

Boot_the_grime doesn't have to date, no. But she can go on dates out the wazoo and still feel completely content with herself. She can stay home on a Friday night and be content with herself. In short: her sense of self is not dependent on her relationship status.

I mean I could have put 'because you feel they complete you' but I sort of thought that was implied.

...that's not much better, actually. I'm in love. My partner doesn't complete me. I don't feel like he completes me. You've shifted from an objective view to the assertion that a person in love feels they were incomplete previously which, as I say, isn't much of an improvement.

You seem stuck in an all or nothing mindset. Either a person actively wants to be with someone or they want to live their life without any romance. There are other options, you know. Some people don't attach any particular importance on romance in their lives, but that doesn't mean they're not romantic when the right person comes along. I tend to think this would be the norm if we didn't have so much heterosexist socialization gearing us up to pair up and sprint down the aisle.

*applauds*

In short: her sense of self is not dependent on her relationship status.

When one's sense of self is dependent on one's relationship status: codependence.

I'm pretty sure that's... bad.

WORD to this.

Ah. Good. I was a bit hesitant to jump in on your behalf, but I was speaking for myself, as well. :)

Oh. I just woke up and realized that that could sound insulting. Meh! I meant, I was hesitant to jump in on your behalf cause it might be patronizing and white knighting, not because I have anything against you. I'm gonna get some breakfast now...

No, Buffy attempts to date Wood, but when Spike offers to leave and she tells him she wants him to stay, and he indicates that that wouldn't work if she is going to try to be dating Wood, she never tries to date Wood again.

Yes. This is such an interesting, subtle way to read that scene. I love it. I've always struggled a little to figure out what Buffy's expression means when she looks at Spike after he asks where Wood fits in if he stays in town. And I love this read. That she's figuring out, even as she's asking Spike to stay, that Wood doesn't fit in. That she won't be dating him again.

AND. More about the jealousy (because I'm excited to think about this)! It's interesting to me how when Buffy's dating Wood, Spike is jealous (I mean, duh--the poor guy is crushed)--but he's willing to play it cool and back out and not cause waves. But by the time Angel strolls into town, he's actually secure enough in her affection/feelings for him, that he's willing to confront her about the kiss. And he's willing own his jealousy. To me, that shows that there is something beyond the flicker of jealousy one might feel at seeing an ex move on or what 2 friends would feel. Because if he thought there was nothing real between them, he'd have hid his feelings, like he did when she was going out with Wood. But as it is, he feels like he has a legitimate grievance.

And Buffy. She justifies his brazen display of jealousy. Because right away, she feels guilty (and I think she sort of does in First Date, too--when Spike comes into the restaurant and sees Wood feeding her. I think she feels like she's betraying Spike--which tells me that she thinks that there's something substantial between them too). But back to Chosen--she starts making excuses and dodges right from the beginning of their Angel-kiss conversation. She stops short of actually apologizing--but she stops just short of it. They both know that there's something between them. It's tangible.

Also: I'm going to friend you if that's okay. Because I've seen you around a bit lately, and I love reading your comments.

Of course it's OK :)

I'm friending you right back :)

What exactly makes "being in love with someone"? I'd like to have that explained. Apparently, love, desire, jealousy, and willingness not to have any other partners is not enough. What is?

I'd add the need for joy in there somewhere, if only in the joy of experiencing the emotion (not that joy precludes tragedy or sadness. Just that at some point somewhere there needs to be a feeling of elation associated with love. Even if it's self-contained and fleeting.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Annoyance of the day:

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject