|
Post by Kerrie on Sept 10, 2003 17:35:59 GMT -5
In my old Psychology text books they describe three types of love in a relationship: passionate love, platonic love and companionate love. Passionate love is basically all about passion, particularly sex. Platonic love is obviously all about the bounds of friendship with minmal passion/sex. Platonic love fouses on the friendship aspect of love rather than the passion. Companionate love incorporates both the platonic and the passionate. According to the text-book most relationships start out passionate and the relationship either fizzles or it starts the next stage of companionate love, which with increasing age may turn into a platonic love. JW has either not read the text, didn't understand it or just outright disagreed it because when he addresses the role of sex in relationships he goes further than the text book ever suggested.
In "Where the Wild Things Are", Anya and Xander are clearly in the transition period from passionate to companionate love. However, in contrast to the text books, the transition is difficult and painful because I believe society worships the concept of passionate love rather than companionate or platonic love: it is more exciting and 'romantic' to be caught up in the throws of some overwhelming (hormonal) relationship. Moreover, the text books ignore the uses that sex is put to. As Spring suggests in the review it is also used as a way of blocking out reality (Buffy) and a way of controlling one's partner. The second is clearly the case with Anya.
Spike's relationship with Drusilla is clearly passionate. This is clearly revealed when Spike says he can't even understand what she is talking about most of the time so it cannot be a platonic or companionate relationship. The fact that he could maintain this relationship for so long says something about his and Drusilla's ideas and passions. Something that he will try to take to his next relationship with Buffy. In season 7, his relationship changes into a platonic relationship. It is disturbing that this is the final stage of relationships.
Buffy and Angel is the most problematic romantic relationship for the text-book. The relationship is quite clearly passionate, but the "happiness clause" forces it to become platonic. The enforced nature of the change means that the passion is kept simmering without being resolved into the next stage of relationships. Buffy takes this to her next relationship with Riley.
Riley is the perfect theoretical partner for Buffy. "Where the Wild Things Are" shows their passion. However, the lack of chemistry between the two and the reasons behind Buffy's sex drive makes the whole relationship difficult to define as 'passionate' in text-book terms. Buffy is, at some level, using Riley for sex (for the mini-death). When they break-up it is because Riley realises that sex does not equal passion - a notion that Buffy resists. "I have given you my heart, my body, my soul" (paraphrase from Buffy's speach from "Into the Woods"). Whilst it is possible that this reflects the difficulty transitioning from passionate to companionate romantic love this seems too simplistic. Buffy's passionate love was still with Angel. Buffy was using Riley for sex without the passion she had given Angel. Riley and Buffy never relly had that initial passionate period so the problem was not that they did not transfer from a passionate to companionate, but that they did not go through the passionate in the first instance. Buffy does not realise the extent of the problem and thought that the problem had been that she was excluding Riley. This is true, but her partial understanding of the problem carries over to her next relationship with Spike.
In season 6 Spike and Buffy had chemistry. However, once again Buffy is using someone for sex. The difference is that this time both partners realise that Buffy is doing the "mini-death" thing. Spike mistakes chemistry for passion which he further mistakes for love. Buffy is not so easily fooled, but has trouble identifying what the relationship is. She confides in Spike fulfilling the platonic requirement that she failed to meet with Riley. She has chemistry that she also did not have with Riley. Under the text-book definition she has met the requirements of passionate romantic love. If we used Jane Austen's definition of love it is obvious which component is missing - clear-sighted mutual respect. This is the critical component that the text book forgot and Buffy realised was missing with Spike.
In season 7, Buffy and Spike develop mutual respect, but the AR has dampened the chemistry. The final romantic relationship between Buffy and Spike is platonic which according to the text book is the final form of romantic love. Given JW's twisting of the the text-book relationships, it seems unlikely that this is necessarily the last phase of Buffy and Spike relationship, although it may be. It will interesting to see how this will affect Spike and Buffy's future relationships.
In summary, in the Joss-verse romantic relationships require mutual trust, passion/sex and communication. Like the text books they are evolving from one stage to another.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrie on Sept 10, 2003 21:14:49 GMT -5
I like the last post too much to delete it (I am so weak!), but I will identify a critical error. The definition of platonic relationships is in error. I have implied friendship without operationalising the term. I would opertonalise friendship/platonic love as mutual trust, liking, respect, and communication. Obviously in season 7, all these criteria were met for Buffy and Spike. In season 6, only the communication component was really met. The mutual respect, trust and liking was at best only partial.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Sept 11, 2003 7:45:12 GMT -5
In my old Psychology text books they describe three types of love in a relationship: passionate love, platonic love and companionate love. Passionate love is basically all about passion, particularly sex. Platonic love is obviously all about the bounds of friendship with minmal passion/sex. Platonic love fouses on the friendship aspect of love rather than the passion. Companionate love incorporates both the platonic and the passionate. According to the text-book most relationships start out passionate and the relationship either fizzles or it starts the next stage of companionate love, which with increasing age may turn into a platonic love. JW has either not read the text, didn't understand it or just outright disagreed it because when he addresses the role of sex in relationships he goes further than the text book ever suggested. <snip> Well done, Kerrie. I see Riley as Buffy's attempt at making a "sensible" choice, while Angel and Spike are all about passion, and not sensible at all. Her relationship with Angel has to end before it gets past the "all feelings" stage, but her relationship with Spike gets to progress. I don't really see any of it as mutually exclusive. I think people who are good friends and have respect for one another can also have a lot of passion for one another. I don't understand the distinction you make between "passion" and "chemistry" with Angel and Spike for Buffy (I confess I have read no books on this matter, so I can't comment on what's textbook, etc). Buffy is nothing, if not passionate, about Spike. When Buffy tells Spike, the morning-after they bring the house down, that he is "just a convenience" she is in huge denial (Spike is hurt by her words, but his attitude, when pulls her underwear out of his back-pocket, suggests he's not really buying her act). Spike is about the most inconvenient choice she could possibly make and he will soon prove that to her. Well, this is a very complicated topic. Buffy is not a girl who does sex "casually" - sex is never "just sex" to Buffy.
|
|
|
Post by deborah on Sept 11, 2003 11:15:55 GMT -5
Well done, Kerrie. I see Riley as Buffy's attempt at making a "sensible" choice, while Angel and Spike are all about passion, and not sensible at all. Her relationship with Angel has to end before it gets past the "all feelings" stage, but her relationship with Spike gets to progress. I don't really see any of it as mutually exclusive. I think people who are good friends and have respect for one another can also have a lot of passion for one another. I don't understand the distinction you make between "passion" and "chemistry" with Angel and Spike for Buffy (I confess I have read no books on this matter, so I can't comment on what's textbook, etc). Buffy is nothing, if not passionate, about Spike. When Buffy tells Spike, the morning-after they bring the house down, that he is "just a convenience" she is in huge denial (Spike is hurt by her words, but his attitude, when pulls her underwear out of his back-pocket, suggests he's not really buying her act). Spike is about the most inconvenient choice she could possibly make and he will soon prove that to her. Well, this is a very complicated topic. Buffy is not a girl who does sex "casually" - sex is never "just sex" to Buffy. This is why I cannot understand how Buffy could have failed to end up truly, madly, and deeply in love with Spike. In S6, as Kerrie and Spring point out, she had the passion but it brought her only shame and guilt because of her regard for Spike as an EST (Evil, Soulless Thing). But over the course of S7 Buffy comes to trust, rely upon, respect and care for him. I never felt that the chemistry had disappeared or become dampened, only that it continued to be denied. Don't passion or chemistry (I too, don't understand the distiction between the two) plus trust and mutual respect equal romantic love? (I know communication also belongs in that equation but in S7 Buffy's communication with Spike was mostly silent. She never really talked to him about her feelings for him.) In my perhaps naive and simplistic view Buffy's recognition of Spike's trust worthiness, her respect for his strengths and loyalty, her obvious affection and concern for him, when combined with their pre-existing chemistry together should have meant that she could finally give herself permission to love him completely. Spuffy fanfic writers and their readers apparently agree. The aforementioned components make it easy for me to imagine how they could, if given time, eventually come together in a complete, romantic, physical, mutually fulfilling relationship (I appreciate that some can't see this if Spike if Spike is a vampire). I guess what I can't reconcile are the comments of JM about how Buffy really loved Angel and not Spike. It makes no sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by LadyDi on Sept 11, 2003 13:15:47 GMT -5
This is why I cannot understand how Buffy could have failed to end up truly, madly, and deeply in love with Spike. In S6, as Kerrie and Spring point out, she had the passion but it brought her only shame and guilt because of her regard for Spike as an EST (Evil, Soulless Thing). But over the course of S7 Buffy comes to trust, rely upon, respect and care for him. I never felt that the chemistry had disappeared or become dampened, only that it continued to be denied. Don't passion or chemistry (I too, don't understand the distiction between the two) plus trust and mutual respect equal romantic love? (I know communication also belongs in that equation but in S7 Buffy's communication with Spike was mostly silent. She never really talked to him about her feelings for him.) In my perhaps naive and simplistic view Buffy's recognition of Spike's trust worthiness, her respect for his strengths and loyalty, her obvious affection and concern for him, when combined with their pre-existing chemistry together should have meant that she could finally give herself permission to love him completely. Spuffy fanfic writers and their readers apparently agree. The aforementioned components make it easy for me to imagine how they could, if given time, eventually come together in a complete, romantic, physical, mutually fulfilling relationship (I appreciate that some can't see this if Spike if Spike is a vampire). I guess what I can't reconcile are the comments of JM about how Buffy really loved Angel and not Spike. It makes no sense to me. AMEN!! All the objections to Buffy/Spike apply equally to Buffy/Angel, plus the happiness clause makes their pairing even more unlikely. It seems to me that Buffy and Spike could have the best of both worlds in future, if he became human or superhuman after a possible shanshu. Sunshine and fat grandchildren coming up! It's hard to imagine either Buffy or Spike (especially Spike) with anyone else. What did we hear time and again but his choices were for her, about her, what she wanted, what she deserved. ME drove this point into our skulls like...a bloody railroad spike!
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Sept 11, 2003 14:59:11 GMT -5
This is why I cannot understand how Buffy could have failed to end up truly, madly, and deeply in love with Spike. <snip> Who says she wasn't? I think Buffy loved Spike very much at the end; she loved him as much as she could love anyone, which was quite a lot. She said, "I love you." I know Spike said "no you don't" but really, this is the same thing Buffy said to him when he said "I love you" in Dead Things and tried to say it to her in Crush. HE says "I love you." SHE says (effectively), "No you don't." And what she meant by that was that his love for her didn't fit her definition of the word "love" - at that point, he is soulless, and despite how screwed up she is, she has a more advanced definition of that word, she understands love better because of her soul. She's not saying that he doesn't have deep feelings, or doesn't believe what he's saying, or doesn't love her as much as he is able. She's saying he doesn't have a deep enough understanding of the meaning of love to "love her." And when the situation is reversed, and Spike tells HER "no you don't," it's much the same idea. Only NOW, he's the one who has a more advanced notion of what love is. He's the one with the deeper understanding of the meaning of love. Given Buffy & Spike's history, and Spike's time as "bug-shagging crazy," and his time under the First's mind-control, then as the First's prisoner . . . it makes sense that it took time for them to get to the point where they were being good to each other, loving and trusting each other, etc . . . and then he died. So it fails to go any farther.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Sept 11, 2003 15:02:04 GMT -5
AMEN!! All the objections to Buffy/Spike apply equally to Buffy/Angel, plus the happiness clause makes their pairing even more unlikely. It seems to me that Buffy and Spike could have the best of both worlds in future, if he became human or superhuman after a possible shanshu. Sunshine and fat grandchildren coming up! It's hard to imagine either Buffy or Spike (especially Spike) with anyone else. What did we hear time and again but his choices were for her, about her, what she wanted, what she deserved. ME drove this point into our skulls like...a bloody railroad spike!We got just the opposite message after Lies My Parents Told Me. We got a clear message that Spike was now making decisions for himself. He decided NOT to kill Wood, and he did it for himself, not to score points with Buffy. Spike's big choice, at the end of Chosen wasn't about Buffy, or for Buffy. We are most definitely not left with the message that everything Spike does is about and for Buffy. He grows way beyond that in Season 7.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrie on Sept 11, 2003 16:15:27 GMT -5
My own distinction between passion and chemistry is that chemistry is purely physical (pheromones and hormones), whilst passion has a greater cognitive and emotional component. Chemistry is an important component of passion. Maybe it would also help if you use the term "passionate love" instead of just passion, because then you might notice that passionate love is not what you mean. Buffy does not love Spike and soulless Spike cannot love Buffy. (If you subscribe to this point of view, which not all of you do. )
|
|
|
Post by Kerrie on Sept 11, 2003 17:12:01 GMT -5
Thanks Spring, Deborah and LadyDi. Now you have given me things to think abot when I thought I had finishd thinking on this topic. ;D At this point I think that my original post was unclear. There are three types of romantic love defined by the text book: passionate, platonic and companionate. Passionate romantic love is the most intense initial stage of romantic love. It is what most people classify as being the "madly in love" stage. In my mind it combines sexual chemistry with romance. I am not really sure on this one - I jumped straight to the companionate stage. Companionate romantic love is the most desirable, long-lasting second stage. It combines friendship and passion in nearly equal measure. Platonic romantic love is the final stage. It is almost purely friendship. (This is what we hope our parents and grandparents have. Yes, I know I am being ageist!) Please don't mess with my brain by mixing them up. I don't care if the distinctions are artiificial! You are not to think outside my Psychology text-books. It is bad enough when JW does it.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Sept 11, 2003 19:17:46 GMT -5
My own distinction between passion and chemistry is that chemistry is purely physical (pheromones and hormones), whilst passion has a greater cognitive and emotional component. Chemistry is an important component of passion. Maybe it would also help if you use the term "passionate love" instead of just passion, because then you might notice that passionate love is not what you mean. Buffy does not love Spike and soulless Spike cannot love Buffy. (If you subscribe to this point of view, which not all of you do. ) Well . . . I'm not sure how you are defining "love." What Buffy felt for Angel wasn't "love" any more than what she felt for soulless Spike was, if you are defining love as a true, deep connection to someone you truly know and see clearly, etc. Buffy barely knew Angel when she fell "in love" with him. Personally, I call what Buffy had with Angel "infatuation." Passionate, wild, infatuation. At the age she was at, it's about the best a person can do. I call what Buffy had with Spike in Season 6 "obsession". Passionate, wild, obsession. In the state she was in, it's about the best a person can do. So - you wanna call #1 "love," I'd say it's just as legit to call #2 "love." I wouldn't call either of them "love" in my strict definition, but I can see why others would . . . I could buy the idea that either one is a sort of . . . form of love, a degree of love. But when you don't really know another person, and blind yourself to all but the good, and you are so young you barely know yourself, can you really "love" someone? And when you're filled with repressed anger and you're horribly depressed and you're very young also, and you refuse to acknowledge anything positive in another, and deny the positive feelings you might have, can you really love someone? I don't have the answers, and sorry Kerrie, I'm probably talking outside your textbooks - but that's how it seems to me.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrie on Sept 11, 2003 22:09:02 GMT -5
Well . . . I'm not sure how you are defining "love." What Buffy felt for Angel wasn't "love" any more than what she felt for soulless Spike was, if you are defining love as a true, deep connection to someone you truly know and see clearly, etc. Buffy barely knew Angel when she fell "in love" with him. Personally, I call what Buffy had with Angel "infatuation." Passionate, wild, infatuation. At the age she was at, it's about the best a person can do. I call what Buffy had with Spike in Season 6 "obsession". Passionate, wild, obsession. In the state she was in, it's about the best a person can do. So - you wanna call #1 "love," I'd say it's just as legit to call #2 "love." I wouldn't call either of them "love" in my strict definition, but I can see why others would . . . I could buy the idea that either one is a sort of . . . form of love, a degree of love. But when you don't really know another person, and blind yourself to all but the good, and you are so young you barely know yourself, can you really "love" someone? And when you're filled with repressed anger and you're horribly depressed and you're very young also, and you refuse to acknowledge anything positive in another, and deny the positive feelings you might have, can you really love someone? I don't have the answers, and sorry Kerrie, I'm probably talking outside your textbooks - but that's how it seems to me. I agree with you that Buffy and Angel enjoyed an infatuation, but JW and Buffy thought it was atype of love. The text book would probably call it passionate love. Buffy and Angel's relationship consisted of affection, trust, and chemistry even if they did not have great insights into each other or their situation. I think affection, trust and chemistry equals infatuation which equals passionate love under the psychology definition. I think we are all agreed that this type of love is short-lived unless it can move to a higher level (companionate love) based on a real appreciation of each other's character. As you say this type of appreciation is probably not possible until a person is older and in good pschological health (i.e. not sufferng from depression or rebound syndrome or anything else). As previously discussed, in season 6 Buffy did not trust Spike. Calling him a "soulless thing" was not a term of endearment - she did not have any real affection for him because she did not hold him in her esteem. Her strongest emotion for him was lust (chemistry). This is not love by any definition except Spike's. In fact even the superior communication levels of Spike and Buffy could be partly due to the fact that Buffy did not respect him and so was not trying to impress him.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Sept 12, 2003 6:57:01 GMT -5
I agree with you that Buffy and Angel enjoyed an infatuation, but JW and Buffy thought it was atype of love. The text book would probably call it passionate love. Buffy and Angel's relationship consisted of affection, trust, and chemistry even if they did not have great insights into each other or their situation. I think affection, trust and chemistry equals infatuation which equals passionate love under the psychology definition. I think we are all agreed that this type of love is short-lived unless it can move to a higher level (companionate love) based on a real appreciation of each other's character. As you say this type of appreciation is probably not possible until a person is older and in good pschological health (i.e. not sufferng from depression or rebound syndrome or anything else). As previously discussed, in season 6 Buffy did not trust Spike. Calling him a "soulless thing" was not a term of endearment - she did not have any real affection for him because she did not hold him in her esteem. Her strongest emotion for him was lust (chemistry). This is not love by any definition except Spike's. In fact even the superior communication levels of Spike and Buffy could be partly due to the fact that Buffy did not respect him and so was not trying to impress him. I'm not really worrying about textbook definitions here, and don't doubt that you're right about how all this relates to the textbook. Buffy trusted Spike with her body and with her heart and with her secrets and with her sister; she trusted him on many levels - but she didn't trust him in that blind, complete way she trusted Angel. But she did trust him to a great extent, and she had plenty more feelings for him than just lust. There's a deep, emotional connection there which she denies for the longest time - but has been there since she met him, and we see evidence of it, over and over - from the very beginning, and all the parallels drawn between them in SchoolHard. Buffy finally admits to having "feelings for you, but not love." Though really, she's already admitted to "hating him" and "violently disliking" him, and we've got a fine line there. She admits to being very hurt and jealous when she sees him with another woman at the wedding, etc. So I don't buy the idea that JW is telling us what Buffy had with Angel was a type of love, but all she had with Spike was lust. I don't buy that at all. He's telling us Buffy had "types of love" with both, but real, true, adult, deep love with neither. I agree you can't really love another person if you don't hold them in esteem; however I think it is EQUALLY true that you can't really love another person if you're too starry-eyed to see them straight. You have to know a person before you can truly hold THAT PERSON in esteem. And I think that's the message we get from JW - neither was "real love"; both were a type.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrie on Sept 12, 2003 17:06:28 GMT -5
I'm not really worrying about textbook definitions here, and don't doubt that you're right about how all this relates to the textbook. Buffy trusted Spike with her body and with her heart and with her secrets and with her sister; she trusted him on many levels - but she didn't trust him in that blind, complete way she trusted Angel. But she did trust him to a great extent, and she had plenty more feelings for him than just lust. There's a deep, emotional connection there which she denies for the longest time - but has been there since she met him, and we see evidence of it, over and over - from the very beginning, and all the parallels drawn between them in SchoolHard. Buffy finally admits to having "feelings for you, but not love." Though really, she's already admitted to "hating him" and "violently disliking" him, and we've got a fine line there. She admits to being very hurt and jealous when she sees him with another woman at the wedding, etc. So I don't buy the idea that JW is telling us what Buffy had with Angel was a type of love, but all she had with Spike was lust. I don't buy that at all. He's telling us Buffy had "types of love" with both, but real, true, adult, deep love with neither. I agree you can't really love another person if you don't hold them in esteem; however I think it is EQUALLY true that you can't really love another person if you're too starry-eyed to see them straight. You have to know a person before you can truly hold THAT PERSON in esteem. And I think that's the message we get from JW - neither was "real love"; both were a type. I don't know, Spring. How does one know when one is being starry-eyed? As impartial judges we look an Buffy with Angel and say that the relationship is idealised, especially by Buffy, but Buffy would never know that. How could she until the misconception was lifted? When the misconception lifted and she sees Angel for what he is then the infatuation would either turn to 'real' love or end, but until then her infatuation would count by Buffy as being the real thing. Spike. I am very Spuffy, but I don't think Buffy loved Spike in season 6. Against my better judgement I kept hoping it would happen, but it did not. I think you can be jealous over someone even if it is just lust (look at you and Patti arguing over JM!). Jealousy, to me, is an ownership issue not necessarily a love issue. The connection that existed between Buffy and Spike since School Hard was chemistry. I can't remember her ever commenting, positively, on aspects of Spike's personality with the exception of his fighting skills. I think Buffy did have feelings for Spike - gratitude that he was there for her, the chemistry, and she enjoyed some aspects of his company but it was not love by any standards. So much of her relationship, at that time, was all about her that I don't think she could really see and value Spike properly to even delude herself into thinking that she loved him. She cared about him. (As an aside doesn't she even say to Willow when Willow is obsessing about Oz's hands(?) that obsessing over minor details is a sign of love. I can't remember her doing that with Spike.) At the end of the day I thnk it is the people themselves who decide whether it is 'love' or not. Young Buffy thought her feeling for Angel were love. Older, depessed Buffy thought her feelings for Spike were not love. What can I say? Buffy can be dense!
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Sept 12, 2003 19:38:04 GMT -5
I don't know, Spring. How does one know when one is being starry-eyed? As impartial judges we look an Buffy with Angel and say that the relationship is idealised, especially by Buffy, but Buffy would never know that. How could she until the misconception was lifted? When the misconception lifted and she sees Angel for what he is then the infatuation would either turn to 'real' love or end, but until then her infatuation would count by Buffy as being the real thing. Spike. I am very Spuffy, but I don't think Buffy loved Spike in season 6. Against my better judgement I kept hoping it would happen, but it did not. I think you can be jealous over someone even if it is just lust (look at you and Patti arguing over JM!). Jealousy, to me, is an ownership issue not necessarily a love issue. The connection that existed between Buffy and Spike since School Hard was chemistry. I can't remember her ever commenting, positively, on aspects of Spike's personality with the exception of his fighting skills. I think Buffy did have feelings for Spike - gratitude that he was there for her, the chemistry, and she enjoyed some aspects of his company but it was not love by any standards. So much of her relationship, at that time, was all about her that I don't think she could really see and value Spike properly to even delude herself into thinking that she loved him. She cared about him. (As an aside doesn't she even say to Willow when Willow is obsessing about Oz's hands(?) that obsessing over minor details is a sign of love. I can't remember her doing that with Spike.) At the end of the day I thnk it is the people themselves who decide whether it is 'love' or not. Young Buffy thought her feeling for Angel were love. Older, depessed Buffy thought her feelings for Spike were not love. What can I say? Buffy can be dense! I suspect we pretty much agree with each other underneath it all, Kerrie. I mean, I agree that young Buffy thought it was "the ultimate love" with Angel, and depressed Buffy refused to consider it was any type of love at all with Spike. I'm just saying "both" Buffies were wrong, in "reality". AND in regard to your statement: "I think you can be jealous over someone even if it is just lust (look at you and Patti arguing over JM!)."First, maybe we are defining lust differently - I am thinking of a relationship that is "purely sex" no other connection is there - example would be a one-night stand. If it is truly "just sex" then I don't think people get very jealous. They don't even care what the other person's name was, or whether they see them again when it is really truly just sex and nothing but sex - all physical, no emotional connection. Jealousy suggests an emotional connection is present. SECOND, Kerrie!!!! Are you suggesting what I think you're suggesting?? That my feelings for James are just lust? I'm . . . sputter . . . choke, choke . . . speechless! My love for naked Spike James Marsters is on the highest spiritual plane! It's transcendent! Yes, the physical is there, naturally, but please don't cheapen it by using the word "lust!"
|
|
|
Post by Kerrie on Sept 13, 2003 3:12:46 GMT -5
I suspect we pretty much agree with each other underneath it all, Kerrie. I mean, I agree that young Buffy thought it was "the ultimate love" with Angel, and depressed Buffy refused to consider it was any type of love at all with Spike. I'm just saying "both" Buffies were wrong, in "reality". AND in regard to your statement: "I think you can be jealous over someone even if it is just lust (look at you and Patti arguing over JM!)."First, maybe we are defining lust differently - I am thinking of a relationship that is "purely sex" no other connection is there - example would be a one-night stand. If it is truly "just sex" then I don't think people get very jealous. They don't even care what the other person's name was, or whether they see them again when it is really truly just sex and nothing but sex - all physical, no emotional connection. Jealousy suggests an emotional connection is present. SECOND, Kerrie!!!! Are you suggesting what I think you're suggesting?? That my feelings for James are just lust? I'm . . . sputter . . . choke, choke . . . speechless! My love for naked Spike James Marsters is on the highest spiritual plane! It's transcendent! Yes, the physical is there, naturally, but please don't cheapen it by using the word "lust!" I think we probably do agree- we usually do. However, after saying that I thought that Buffy wanted to view Spike as an unfortunate series of one night stands. The fact that he went elsewhere after they "broke up" instead of dying of unrequited love would arouse, I suspect, a certain amount of jealousy in Buffy. The show is all about Buffy after all and even the other characters realise this. I am sorry to have misunderstood the spiritual nature of your love for JM. No doubt Patti's "love" is purely lust, but yours would withstand the closest scrutiny, I am sure.
|
|