![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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?
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?
no subject
I'm not saying anybody is ever half a person.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
no subject
When one's sense of self is dependent on one's relationship status: codependence.
I'm pretty sure that's... bad.
no subject
no subject
no subject