|
Post by makd on Nov 20, 2003 21:43:43 GMT -5
Hi, Everyone!
CSI tonight is NOT for me, so I am off to read a little slashfic, courtesy of Jenny (some of her stuff is hilarious), and I thought I'd stop by and say hello.
By the way, Please keep calling me "makd"; I like it. Everytime I see "Mary", I go looking for Mary Stanz!
Yesterday's and this afternoon's postings on 5.8 were fantastic. What a great group we are! I love us!
by for now, and see youall in about 1/2 hour or so!
|
|
|
Post by Rae on Nov 20, 2003 22:18:15 GMT -5
Hi, Everyone! CSI tonight is NOT for me, so I am off to read a little slashfic, courtesy of Jenny (some of her stuff is hilarious), and I thought I'd stop by and say hello. By the way, Please keep calling me "makd"; I like it. Everytime I see "Mary", I go looking for Mary Stanz! Yesterday's and this afternoon's postings on 5.8 were fantastic. What a great group we are! I love us! by for now, and see youall in about 1/2 hour or so! I love us, too! Of course, I also think ya'll talk way too FREAKING much! Really. I'm on vacation and I can't be hogging my sister's computer all night just to catch up on all these insightful posts. (Seriously, just wanted to second makd's "what a great group..." comment. I have spent all my allotted computer time reading everything so I don't have time to comment on anything except to say you guys are so smart.) Ok, I'm off to watch ER with my sis and the newest addition to our family, Paige. Hope everyone is having a lovely week and has a wonderful Thanksgiving!
|
|
|
Post by Laura on Nov 20, 2003 22:19:52 GMT -5
<snip> By the way, Please keep calling me "makd"; I like it. Everytime I see "Mary", I go looking for Mary Stanz! LOL! I have to say, in my head I call you "mak-d"!
I really enjoyed reading everybody's comments, too. I don't really want to get into the whole "was anyone at fault in the Spike/Harmony boinking, and if so, who?" discussion. I have my own, strongly felt religious and moral convictions on that, but I'm not going to tell anybody else what he/she should be doing -- as long as nobody else thinks he/she has to try to persuade me that my beliefs are wrong!
As for all the parallels -- we've identified parallels between Spike and Angel, between Buffy and Drusilla; between Spike and Gunn; between Lindsay (if Lindsay it be!) and Willow?; between Fred and ?
We've also identified how the journeys of Spike and/or Angel allude to the journeys of both Indiana Jones and Parsifal/Percival.
So many layers/levels to this episode! No wonder Lee and Nan are having a rough time getting their reviews done!
|
|
|
Post by makd on Nov 20, 2003 23:13:15 GMT -5
Hi, Nan - back, and wanted to say - good luck with the job, and don't worry about the review.
Rent before review, OK?
Back to Jenny. Some of her writings are just hilarious!
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Nov 20, 2003 23:16:19 GMT -5
Mmm. . .solved my broodiness issues with a stop at the grocery store for chicken pot pies and ready-to-bake cookie dough (which I sometimes even bake). Amazing what comfort food can do for mood issues. Off to watch Tru Calling - back later.
|
|
|
Post by Patti - S'cubie Cutie on Nov 20, 2003 23:26:50 GMT -5
The board says Patti's around someplace. I've asked her to sticky this Part and lock up 71. Annnnnd...she just DID. Thanks, Patti. You're welcome!
|
|
|
Post by Linda on Nov 20, 2003 23:33:57 GMT -5
To me this is a fascinating topic- I guess b/c I don't feel there IS any one right answer. What I as a parent want for my children is a magical connection that will sustain and last them for the duration of their relationships. How they come to that particular relationship ...that one is a conundrum...I see so many wonderful relationships that have had any number of beginnings. ... Today's hypersexualized environment renders this a hot button topic for any sexually active person or parent endeavoring to raise morally responsible children. Two women in the park came to a parting of the ways b/c one objected to the other's giving her 7 year old a Britney birthday bash. Issues of exploitation vs nurturing vs a good time always engender complicated answers and that is as true of the response of the 2 moms at loggerheads over Britney-bash as the response of our board to Spike boinking Harmony- Hi again to everyone, And thanks to Sue, Shanno, ctowner1, ellie, SandyShores,SpringSummers and everyone else who welcomed me on after I posted and ran earlier today. I didn't want to leave, but by the time I registered and hit "Post" I found I was late (LATE, I tell you!) for work. Yup, addictive. If I may weigh in with a general opinion first -- I find nothing wrong with consensual sex between equals. And when I say equal, I mean maturity, power, or just having the same goal of reaching the big "O." ;D I actually thought Spike's flirty / lusty headtilt to Harmony was funny and cute and who wouldn't run off with him for a nooner? What I found jarring about Spike and Harm's encounter was the disconnect. Spike wasn't looking at her and didn't want her to speak during the act. He seemed determined to reach his goal with no thought for hers. That says unequal to me and I think that it borders on sacrilege to say that Spike sex should be bad in any way, shape or form Also, did anyone notice that Spike's stated reason for not staking Angel was "She would never let me hear the end of it." (Or something like that.) So it may not be ALL about Buffy, but she is still a big part of it for Spike. In her absence, Spike's behavior was pretty selfish throughout. Was it significant that they did not show a Spike/Fred talk post-corporealization? I suspect she is the one person who could put the brakes on his hedonism right now.
|
|
|
Post by Patti - S'cubie Cutie on Nov 20, 2003 23:37:09 GMT -5
Hey! "Forrest" (Leonard Roberts) is in tonight's episode! He seems to be the bad guy, which on this show means he's probably not! MAN I have missed that show two weeks in a row! Ticks me off!
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Nov 20, 2003 23:49:02 GMT -5
Hi again to everyone, And thanks to Sue, Shanno, ctowner1, ellie, SandyShores,SpringSummers and everyone else who welcomed me on after I posted and ran earlier today. I didn't want to leave, but by the time I registered and hit "Post" I found I was late (LATE, I tell you!) for work. Yup, addictive. Also, did anyone notice that Spike's stated reason for not staking Angel was "She would never let me hear the end of it." (Or something like that.) So it may not be ALL about Buffy, but she is still a big part of it for Spike. In her absence, Spike's behavior was pretty selfish throughout. Was it significant that they did not show a Spike/Fred talk post-corporealization? I suspect she is the one person who could put the brakes on his hedonism right now. Hi again! Yeah, this group is a lot of fun - hence the addictive quality. It's nice how well everyone spells, too. I think it's absolutely true that Fred currently provides Spike's link to, well, unselfish behavior. Mostly because she's the only one there who ever seemed to give a rat's ass about him, so I think the caring is reciprocated. So if she was around, he'd probably be politer, more gentlemanly, etc. I can't decide if it's a Dawn interaction, or if he's got any ulterior motives. . .remains to be seen.
|
|
|
Post by Laura on Nov 20, 2003 23:51:05 GMT -5
Mmm. . .solved my broodiness issues with a stop at the grocery store for chicken pot pies and ready-to-bake cookie dough (which I sometimes even bake). Amazing what comfort food can do for mood issues. I've been making brownies when I get home at night. Ah, the power of chocolate!What did you think? I thought this episode came together a lot better than any of the other ones -- no yo-yoing of "who's the bad guy?" this week. I have to say, I think I like it tonight.
We'll see what happens in two weeks
|
|
|
Post by Laura on Nov 20, 2003 23:58:06 GMT -5
MAN I have missed that show two weeks in a row! Ticks me off! Well, you won't miss it next week! ('Cause it won't be on for two!)
|
|
|
Post by Len on Nov 20, 2003 23:59:43 GMT -5
This might be a dead issue...back from the old segment, but I was away, and thought I'd respond anyway, answering a few different people in general, and Nicki in particular.... I said: Nicki said: and then she said: Treading verrrry carefully here, in NO way wanting to insult.. ....Your response to my post really seems to me to boil down to: "waiting is good because I know some women who didn't wait and they regret it" and "waiting is good because God said so." I can't really speak to the second reason - God also said don't wear linen and wool, homosexuality is an abomination, and don't work on the sabbath. I see nothing wrong with weraing linen and wool, homosexuality, or working on the sabbath (although I HATE doing it! ). If you believe God wants you to wait, that's a matter of personal religious belief - not one of reason - and I can't respond to it. With respect to the first reason - that's wholly consistent with my theory that society beats up women for just enjoying their bodies sexually. You don't say WHY these women regretted "giving it up." Did they feel cheapened by having sex just for having sex? Why on earth would they feel that way? I look at the whole "waiting for marriage thing" as something I just cannot understand. God (as I see him/her/it) gave us this wonderful gift of bodies that can experience such pleasure - pleasure we can share with others and ourselves. To let that gift lay fallow for years and years on the hope that some day (a day which may never come), Mr. Right will be met and marriage will ensue does not make sense to me (which of course, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense!). I wonder how many women who waited for years and years and subsequently got divorced 3 years later are "happy" they waited? [As an aside, on top of that, I think the whole "there has to be love for sex" thing messes women up because it gives them conflicting signals. There is a natural urge toward sex and then there's this societal urge toward attaching it to love (which I suppose originated way back in primal times as a way to protect pregnant women - i.e. if the meotional link is there, the impregnator will protect his mate and the species will continue to propagate). I think that this is in many ways a recipe for disaster - i.e. instead of being able to evaluate potential Mr. Right's in a reasonable way (which includes emotions of course), the issue is clouded by sexual urges. i.e. if the only way you're going to satisfy that sexual urge is to convince yourself that there is emotional attachment, you're going to be much more likely to convince yourself that emotional attachment is there.] Well..I think I'm getting all rambly..and it's late..but that ny 2.22 on the issue! (a personal hot button, in case you didn't notice! ) [hops of sexual soapbox] [sexual soapbox s'cubie? nahhhh ]
|
|
|
Post by Laura on Nov 21, 2003 0:00:08 GMT -5
Okay, so I'm the one with Patti-itis tonight. I guess I'll go to bed -- got an early meeting tomorrow, and I'll be off the board all day. Easy on the posting party!
|
|
|
Post by Len on Nov 21, 2003 0:00:42 GMT -5
Well, you won't miss it next week! ('Cause it won't be on for two!) what the Angel schedule? Anyone know what the new/rerun deal is for the next few weeks?
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Nov 21, 2003 0:06:09 GMT -5
| |