(no subject)

[rusty_halo]

I got woken a half hour early today because of jackhammers. Jackhammers! Right outside my building. I was thinking (as I held the pillow uselessly over my ears) that if I went outside and killed the construction workers, I could probably get off on temporary insanity. On account of being driven insane by jackhammers at eight in the morning.

That was a crappy way to wake up.

London Hellmouth got recommended on BBF. Yay! If you had trouble getting to it yesterday, it should be working fine now, so check it out. Wonderful story.

Also, Carolyn Claire's Thirst completely kicks ass as well. Spike/Xander, post-Gift, very creepy and sexy. She does a really wonderful job of creating a place and an atmosphere and a mood ... you really have to read it to get what I mean.

I have so much wonderful stuff to archive right now; did I mention how glad I am that Spike's on Angel? But I'm spacing it out, because if I archive everything at once, some stories will slip through unnoticed. So ... going slow. (If you're waiting for me to archive something, that's why it might take a little while.) I wonder if I archived too many long stories at once in the last few days ... is it too much to read? (For those who usually read a lot of what I archive.) Just curious if anyone has an opinion. I worry about these things.

Also, deborahmm has some interesting thoughts here on the kink thing, inspired by posts by eliade and thebratqueen. I don't entirely agree with deborahmm's view of Spike (though I do agree with a lot of what she said). Her post is interesting because I've been thinking about a lot of the same things lately, too. eliade and thebratqueen have both been posting very wonderful stories recently that don't turn me on at all, because they both hit what is, basically, my anti-kink. (Has nothing to do with the quality of their writing or anything like that, so no offense intended.) But basically, my anti-kink (something I can't enjoy no matter how well it's written) is a character having little sense of self that they want to let someone else have complete control over them. Like the idea of Spike (or Wesley) as whoever's "pet" just creeps me out completely, regardless of whether the "pet owner" is affectionate or cruel.

What's interesting to me is that there's such a fine line between kink and anti-kink for me. Because I totally think Spike is love's bitch, he needs his lover to to be the powerful one in the relationship (which was very true of Dru and Buffy; without that, he'll have no respect for them, as with Harmony). But Spike's also got a very strong sense of self (a lot of insecurity, but still a strong sense of self). When he wants something, he's not going to roll over and give it up. He'll always struggle, and he'll never let himself be totally dominated. He'll be in the submissive role because he likes it and needs it, but it's never total. (Like, even when he's totally in love with Dru and does her bidding most of the time, when he feels that she's lingering too much over Angel, he'll go behind her back and make a deal with the Slayer.)

So, I guess one way to explain the difference is, say there's a Spike/Angel story where the point is that Spike breaks and totally gives in to Angel. That's squicky. But say there's a story where Angel is still the powerful one, but Spike struggles and never stops snarking and demanding. He never totally gives in or accepts the situation. That's good. Or, something similar: Intervention totally hits a kink in a similar way. It's not romantic, but I just love how, even when he's being horribly tortured, Spike's making fun of Glory's hair and her big ass and completely refusing to give in at all. Whereas if he gave up and broke, it would just be sad and depressing.

Anyway, just some vague ideas. I wouldn't usually talk about kinks or any of that, because I'm horribly repressed. (Yes, I read gay vampire porn regularly and still manage to be horribly repressed. Not quite sure how that works.) But it's an interesting topic and deborahmm has a view similar to mine, so I figured I'd attempt to articulate my thoughts. Though my views may change later as this is probably the first time I've made any attempt to articulate them at all.

Comments

[rusty_halo.livejournal.com]

while Spike gets out of the basement, and begins forging a new identity during S4, Xander doesn't. He cycles through dead end jobs, and is nagged and kicked around by Anya. So their positions, their temperments, don't lend themselves to an equality of relationship because of who they both are in the long term.

I see the opposite. In early season five, Xander gets a nice apartment and a better job. In "The Replacement," he realizes that he's capable of adulthood and responsibility. Throughout season five he grows comfortably, and though he grows darker in season six, he's still powerful. In season seven, we see him confident and healthy, striding around in a suit and a better job. Emotionally healthy, missing Anya but ready to move on, being supportive to Buffy and Dawn.

Spike, meanwhile, falls for his worst enemy, mopes around desperately wanting her, gets tortured for her, breaks down when she dies, spends the summer taking care of her sister (with no emotional support, unlike Xander who has Anya and the Scoobies), is ostracized from the group when she returns, becomes her fucktoy, has a mental breakdown, gets a soul, goes (more) insane, spends early season seven in the school basement being haunted, moves in with Xander *again* while still incredibly emotionally fragile, gets tortured by the First Evil, gets chained up in Buffy's basement....

Basically, throughout seasons six and seven especially, Xander is the more powerful one. Spike still has the chip through most of this period, so Xander could kick his ass. Spike is dependent on the Scoobies to not kill him, and in season seven he's again dependent on them for food and shelter. Emotionally, Xander is the healthier one, because Spike's an absolute mess most of this time.

I see quite a bit of evidence that *Xander* could be the powerful one just as easily as Spike. And I like that this makes their relationship more equal. And from what I've seen (minus a few exceptions that go in both directions) it does.

[ladyanne04.livejournal.com]

I understand what you're saying about Xander's progression into adulthood and subsequent maturation. And I think I see why you would view Xander as equally powerful or more powerful than Spike. But in contemplating this, I kept coming back to the premise and wanted to ask - precisely how would you define an "equal" relationship? Equal in what terms and in what manner precisely? And conversely, what precisely would make an unequal relationship?