|
|
Post by Rob on Nov 21, 2003 0:38:00 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! You were all over that one, Laura. Maybe one of these days the show might actually surprise me. Unfortunately for Eliza, it isn't a good sign for a series to have such a patented formula only 5 episodes into its run. It's a shame. She does such a nice job, and clearly demonstrates that she can carry a good show. Tru Calling is CLOSE to being good...but it doesn't quite get there for me. Eliza is the onl reason I keep tuning in. Plus, I think they're about to throw the "dark, mysterious stud" plotline in there...and I'd like Tru to give the doctor a shot (Lord, that's an awful pun). He's a smart, understanding, genuinely nice guy. I guess nice guys aren't sexy enough. |
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Nov 21, 2003 0:38:57 GMT -5
Right there with you, Scooter. Len, we are in agreement. Incidentally, I've been teaching marriage and family for well over 25 years. I've aged to the point where I sometimes think of myself (when teaching about love, sex, and etc.) as a younger, hipper (therefore, not hip, right?) Dr. Ruth. My observation after all these years? We really do bollix it up with our young people, and I can do a 20 page rant on the hypocrisy our society spews out that effectively separates men and women, leaving them boxed, sealed and ribboned, disconnected, separated, and lonely. I'm not gonna get into an argument on differing morality and different ethics related to sexuality. I will say that, IMHO, sexuality and sex are Goddess-given gifts that enable us to reach out, span the distance between our cores (our souls), and quell the inner loneliness. It's also a Goddess-given gift that enables us (responsibly, I would hope) to have fun and to enjoy a romp and our bodies. So, it's both, and it's so much more. Our decision to use the gift is personal, religious, socially-influenced, spiritual, etc. I don't respect anyone less or more because of their sexual choices, values, or opinions. I do, however, respect/not respect someone if they don't exercise responsibility in their sexuality. Just me. Just sharing on this most intimate of issues. Agreed, for the most part. I often wish I didn't have the emotional hang-ups associated with sex - I love it, but only with the right person. Who that person is seems to be entirely dependent on factors I don't understand - until after I figure out they are the latest "one". And they don't come around that often; I often wish that I was able to have that connection and the fun associated with it in a less serious context. Okay, enough wallowing. More cookies! ;D ("M'fashnik. . .kind of like mmm-cookies. No, quite different, actually.") |
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Nov 21, 2003 0:41:02 GMT -5
You were all over that one, Laura. Maybe one of these days the show might actually surprise me. Unfortunately for Eliza, it isn't a good sign for a series to have such a patented formula only 5 episodes into its run. It's a shame. She does such a nice job, and clearly demonstrates that she can carry a good show. Tru Calling is CLOSE to being good...but it doesn't quite get there for me. Eliza is the onl reason I keep tuning in. Plus, I think they're about to throw the "dark, mysterious stud" plotline in there...and I'd like Tru to give the doctor a shot (Lord, that's an awful pun). He's a smart, understanding, genuinely nice guy. I guess nice guys aren't sexy enough. Ahem. . .some nice guys are VERY sexy. In fact, no man can remain sexy (to me) for long if he's NOT nice. *I* think Xander was very sexy, and Buffy was nuts to overlook him. How much are you loving me now? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Nov 21, 2003 0:42:41 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've always called you Makd, but it always makes me long for a Quarter Pounder with cheese. Considering that I battle with my weight constantly AND post at night, that makes for a tricky combination.  |
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Nov 21, 2003 0:43:38 GMT -5
Ahem. . .some nice guys are VERY sexy. In fact, no man can remain sexy (to me) for long if he's NOT nice. *I* think Xander was very sexy, and Buffy was nuts to overlook him. How much are you loving me now? ;D Enough to be the "right person."  |
|
|
|
Post by makd on Nov 21, 2003 0:43:39 GMT -5
I think being fixated on the sex between Spike!Harmony is a good thing. It was a very powerful visual that was used to illustrate - what? That sex for it's own gradification has consequences? I'm not judging anyone's morals, just commenting on why the scene was so disturbing to most of us in one way or another. I just watched the episode again, and Spike had such a look of pain on his face. Harmony too. Two beings trying to connect and failing. Sex is a powerful weapon also. Look how Angelus used it to put William in his place. And all the angry word play between Angel and Spike about Buffy when they fought. Always nice to have new blood. okay, on the "Always nice to have new blood." ewww. Where have we heard this before? And which of our guys might have said it? (could be a nerd alert coming on? More importantly, less fun: on the Sparmony horizontal tango. Rewatched the episode from the download at buffy.nu. Noticed, as you did, that neither Spike nor Harmony seemed to be really enjoying themselves. Spike was too caught up in the act of "feeling" to really "feel" it. He so wanted to enjoy his body - but really didn't appear to be. Harmony, too, was not connecting. And, isn't that one of the underlying themes for the season? the disconnect in Angel's life. Well, the disconnect isn't all about Angel. (he's all about it.). We all feel the disconnect at times. In yesterday's episode, Spike and Harmony felt the disconnect, when they tried to connect. And therein, lies the sadness. Earlier I posted that the consequences of their coupling were teary-bloody eyes, a bite, rage. I think the real consequences are more subtle. I think the real consequence of the sparmony is the realization that sex can sometimes (like this sitch) be not fun; not loving; not momentous; not of the good. In fact, this particular act of sex, freely chosen by two consenting adults (forget that they are perhaps terminally immature), was not in anyway the fun-filled romp they'd intended. It was sad, pathetic, bleak. And it sends a subtle lesson to be careful when you have sex - at the very least, if it's gonna be for fun, be sure the conditions are right for the funning. After Spike and Angel had returned to LA and Harmony was waking up, Spike stayed far away from her. I don't think he'll be too interested in boinking her again, unless the conditions become more positive. He was a little dissatisfied...and I don't just mean it "in that way". He felt the disconnect. He may link it to Buffy and be a little skittish about a romp for awhile; he may not. He is, after all, Spike. And you know what? It's not just premarital sex that can be that way, on occasion. So can marital sex. That's one of the reasons couples go into marriage counseling. Please too: Note, I haven't changed my values, attitudes, beliefs, or morals about premarital sex - they're pretty much as they have been for the last 37 years. (See my previous postings on this. I have no objection to Spike and Harmony getting it on without love, just for the funnin'.) What I have changed is my opinion of what occurred on the desk in the office at W&H. It clearly started as a romp, but ended in something clearly, "of the sad". |
|
|
|
Post by makd on Nov 21, 2003 0:50:16 GMT -5
I've always called you Makd, but it always makes me long for a Quarter Pounder with cheese. Considering that I battle with my weight constantly AND post at night, that makes for a tricky combination. Rob I am prime filet mignon, no 1/4er pounder, here; aged, yes, but nevertheless prime. YOU may call me Mary. |
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Nov 21, 2003 0:51:01 GMT -5
Enough to be the "right person." For tonight, at least. |
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Nov 21, 2003 0:53:32 GMT -5
I return to the living room to find Spike, my adorable yet vicious little tabby, who not five minutes ago I chased away from my freshly-baked cookies, sprawled across the warm spot I left on the couch, looking like he owns the place.
I love cats. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by makd on Nov 21, 2003 0:57:03 GMT -5
I return to the living room to find Spike, my adorable yet vicious little tabby, who not five minutes ago I chased away from my freshly-baked cookies, sprawled across the warm spot I left on the couch, looking like he owns the place. I love cats. ;D Is he into the cookies? ooh, ooh, wait, I know this: Were any of the cookies half-baked, cause if they were, Spike would certainly have waited for them to finish baking. Of course, you might also want to check the room to see if there's an angel that's waiting to eat the baked ones. |
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Nov 21, 2003 1:00:32 GMT -5
Is he into the cookies? ooh, ooh, wait, I know this: Were any of the cookies half-baked, cause if they were, Spike would certainly have waited for them to finish baking. Of course, you might also want to check the room to see if there's an angel that's waiting to eat the baked ones. Wow. And I totally missed all that. I just had a cat in the cookies. Nice catch. . . . ;D |
|
|
|
Post by makd on Nov 21, 2003 1:19:01 GMT -5
And, it's a wrap! This 1/2 baked cookie is going to bed.
night!
|
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Nov 21, 2003 1:41:54 GMT -5
I thought it's "because God says it's wrong" - that's not the reason why catholics believe premarital sex is a sin? That's not a matter of logic - it's a matter of faith. I'm not saying that it's bad to do something solely on faith - only that it should be acknowledged when that is the reason. Are you saying there's an ADDITIONAL reason why catholics in particular don't have premarital sex? A rational reason? What is it? Let me put this out there immediately before I wade in here: I am not Roman Catholic. In fact, I do not actively practice any organized religion. Still, I'm not sure I agree with the characterization of faith as "irrational." I'd wager we all have faith in something, whether we realize it or not. Corny as it sounds, I believe in love. I choose to think that if one believes in love, they believe in some sort of God. I also believe when one dies they don't simply disappear into nothingness. Whatever made a person who they were fundamentally - that pesky"soul" thing - goes somewhere in my opinion. I sort of HAVE to believe that, otherwise all this earthly rubbish is meaningless. There is not one iota of science to back up the feelings I've just described...but they're strong and absolute within me nontheless. That certainly doesn't make them rational, but it does make them valid in a personal way...and in the end, that's all the validation a person should need. My point (there is one coming, I swear) is this: the right time to have sex might be influenced by external forces, such as religious doctrine and common sense real-world issues like pregnancy, venereal disease or the emotional risk that your partner may not view sex with the same relative importance. To me, though. it all boils down to how much faith you have in yourself AND the person you're about to do it with. Science and religion might enter into it when one is having a philosophical discussion, but everyone here is old enough to know how fast that goes flying out the window in the heat of the moment. Those kind of moments define people. God doesn't do it. Your parents don't do it. Scientific facts certainly don't do it. They definitely influence, but they don't make the decision. Only YOU can define you...and that is all about faith. Just not necessarily the religious kind. Might not be rational...but it is what it is. |
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Nov 21, 2003 1:46:19 GMT -5
Rob I am prime filet mignon, no 1/4er pounder, here; aged, yes, but nevertheless prime. YOU may call me Mary. LOL. Nah...I can resist the calling of the arches. Makd you ever shall be. |
|
|
|
Post by Nan-S'cubie Mascot on Nov 21, 2003 2:04:40 GMT -5
Too much talk of religion and sex not involving Spike. Hot-button topics on which consensus is unlikely and therefore prone to rants. To be used only in moderation. Thud.
|
|
