|
|
Post by Rebecca on Dec 23, 2009 1:13:13 GMT -5
It was probably in response to mine, since I said that her considering herself gay in the present doesn't necessitate her orientation as homosexual back in high school.
|
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on Dec 23, 2009 1:15:42 GMT -5
On the bright side... we haven't even gotten close to the topic of "colors" yet. Or did I just open that can of worms?  |
|
|
|
Post by Rebecca on Dec 23, 2009 1:16:40 GMT -5
Nothing to see here, people. Move along. |
|
|
|
Post by Emmie on Dec 23, 2009 1:19:57 GMT -5
On the bright side... we haven't even gotten close to the topic of "colors" yet. Or did I just open that can of worms? Oh! So epic. Where is that thread again? Back in the age of the most glorious fights ever on this forum.  |
|
|
|
Post by joxerlives on Dec 23, 2009 16:06:16 GMT -5
On the bright side... we haven't even gotten close to the topic of "colors" yet. Or did I just open that can of worms? Colours? |
|
tkts
Rogue Demon Hunter
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 439
|
Post by tkts on Dec 24, 2009 2:47:32 GMT -5
Why would it work? These girls were willing to do anything for him and you think that switching his sex would change it? It was a spell. Willow was into girls, so she was going to change him into a girl. Willow said specifically at least twice that she was going to change RJ into a girl to prove that she loved him the most. In that respect, turning him into girl would have made the others unattracted to him. At least that's how Willow saw it. Yeah, Willow is attracted to women, but that is not why she was going to change RJ into one. At least not the primary reason IMO. I don't think we can really read all that much into anything from "Him." The whole episode was pretty much played for laughs, rather than for serious character development. |
|
tkts
Rogue Demon Hunter
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 439
|
Post by tkts on Dec 24, 2009 2:52:34 GMT -5
My personal opinion on sexual fluidity (gender aside) is your orientation is what it is when it is and how you say it is. Just because Willow considers herself gay now doesn't mean that she considered herself gay back in high school. Your orientation at the moment doesn't define your orientation at any other point in your life. Willow's experience in high school is probably a strong argument for the "Willow is attracted to the person, not the gender" argument. Up until Oz, we never see her wanting "a boyfriend" -- she just wants Xander. Which is similar to what she tells Kennedy in S7: "And it wasn't women. It was woman. Just one." |
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on Dec 25, 2009 12:47:15 GMT -5
On the bright side... we haven't even gotten close to the topic of "colors" yet. Or did I just open that can of worms? Colours? Hilarious battle of semantics when one neon-haired member was around... said member could never argue in any sort of logical pattern, and a discussion about sexuality became a ridiculous debate about chromosemantics. Em: I'm sure it's in the Bronze somewhere... |
|
Randi Giles
Wise-cracking Sidekick
I Want to Believe
Moon Eyes in disguise.[Mo0:34]
Posts: 2,616
|
Post by Randi Giles on Dec 25, 2009 13:23:50 GMT -5
My personal opinion on sexual fluidity (gender aside) is your orientation is what it is when it is and how you say it is. Just because Willow considers herself gay now doesn't mean that she considered herself gay back in high school. Your orientation at the moment doesn't define your orientation at any other point in your life. Willow's experience in high school is probably a strong argument for the "Willow is attracted to the person, not the gender" argument. Up until Oz, we never see her wanting "a boyfriend" -- she just wants Xander. Which is similar to what she tells Kennedy in S7: "And it wasn't women. It was woman. Just one." A point I was trying to make before. |
|
|
|
Post by wickedgoodwillow on Dec 26, 2009 11:53:00 GMT -5
Really? Chill out and don't think the world is making personal statements against you or attacking you. Really, its a disucssion not a personal attack. You really should just relax a bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on Dec 26, 2009 22:36:35 GMT -5
Really? Chill out and don't think the world is making personal statements against you or attacking you. Really, its a disucssion not a personal attack. You really should just relax a bit. This is NOT acceptable. Your tone was aggressive and rude, and not at all congenial, or welcoming of discussion. I'm quoting it below: Willow is a lesbian. Get over it if you have a problem. Its been how many years now and you are still trying to hold on to the fact that before she developed fully as a sexual person she was attracted to two guys. Sorry she is just gay!!!!!!!!!!! Telling someone to "get over it" is not a way to foster discussion. For that very reason, a Moderator told you to adjust your attitude, and I'm reinforcing her suggestion. Call it a second opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by thisyearsgirl91 on Dec 27, 2009 0:39:20 GMT -5
I don't think there was anything wrong with what wickedgoodwillow said. Sometimes someone can appear to be rude through text, when really they don't mean to be.
|
|
Iceeh★
Bad Ass Wicca
Also, Angels.
Somewhere, along in the bitterness.[Mo0:7]
Posts: 2,298
|
Post by Iceeh★ on Dec 27, 2009 1:02:57 GMT -5
I think Oklahoma is good at producing tactless people...  |
|
|
|
Post by Emmie on Dec 27, 2009 1:41:48 GMT -5
Telling another member to "get over it" crosses a line. Discussion on this forum is about the text, not about arguing the beliefs of the people here. You can disagree on the finer points of the text, but no one has the right to arbitrarily dictate what another member should believe. Telling someone to "get over it" does that - it orders someone to jettison their belief because they're wrong. You can make an argument that you disagree, but no one has the right to dictate belief. It's disrespectful. 'Nuff said.
Respect is key.
|
|
Miss. Rogueh
Wise-cracking Techno Genius
Orangey's Twin!
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 725
|
Post by Miss. Rogueh on Dec 27, 2009 1:52:37 GMT -5
I don't see anything wrong with what wickedgoodwillow said... I think that if someone is in a bad mood already and is having a bad day they can take it the wrong way. I think everyone here needs to remember that you can't put inflections in your text the way you can when talking vocaly to someone. Alot of the "fights" can come down to someone took offence to something because it came across rude, or mean to them but it wasn't ever ment to come off that way. Plus people take things to seriously. I mean really is Buffy worth getting all upset about. There was a study done that are quicker to anger and "lash out" (flaming) on the internet then they are face to face. I think whenever you read something that upsets you, you need to just take a step back, (go get a drink or something) calm down a little, and then go back and re read it. If it still upsets you, contact the poster privatly and hash it out between the two of you. If you can't do that then you are probably to imature to be getting into these discussions.
and just so we are all clear here... I don't want this to be taken as RUDE or MEAN or in any other way HARMFUL or DISRESPECTFUL.
|
|
|
|
Post by Emmie on Dec 27, 2009 2:00:16 GMT -5
This is not a fight. This is a moderator saying it's disrespectful to tell anyone to "get over it" on this forum. The issue has nothing to do with the Buffy the TV show and everything to do with treating other members with respect. Telling someone to get over it because they have a different belief than your own - that's disrespectful. If that's unclear to anyone - well, let me spray some Windex on that for you and wipe it clean:
Ordering someone to adjust their beliefs so that they align with your own = Disrespectful.
And since this thread has gone completely Off-Topic and other members are coming in to argue with Moderators, we'll just go ahead and lock it and put this thread to bed. Nite nite, all.
|
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on Dec 27, 2009 10:52:11 GMT -5
thisyearsgirl91 and rogueh: I understand that inflection is lacking in posts, or at least to a certain degree. There are ways to get your "tone" across. For example, all capital letters is used for shouting. So are exclamation points. Punctuation is your friend here. However, nothing about "get over it" is conducive to a discussion. No one took her post personally, but telling people to just "get over it" is inflammatory, and is the basis of many arguments based on personal attacks.
We, the Mods, didn't see anything too offensive about the post, so all we did was recommend changing the attitude. If it had been downright inflammatory, a ban would have been issued.
This is a forum, and yes, opinions are welcome. But opinions are also meant to be debated. Our job as Moderators is to make sure that discussion is kept conducive, civil, and constructive. Otherwise, we say, or do something about it.
And btw, coming back at a Mod telling her to "chill out" is beyond patronizing, and again, the rudeness factor is present. There is no getting around that one.
What you think is your business. What you do here (this forum) is our business too, and we will enforce any codes of decorum as we see fit.
|
|
|
|
Post by CowboyGuy on Dec 27, 2009 18:45:47 GMT -5
As a final note: "Yeah, it wasn't that bad. That's why the "Get over it" member didn't get banned or a warning level put on. A verbal reprimand was all that was needed. But I do think it's disrespectful to do that and it's the kind of attitude that spurns arguments of a personal nature - which leads to badness." We all know Willow identifies as a lesbian now. But that doesn't mean we cannot discuss possibility, or rather, what we would like to see. Take for example Buffy! No one would have ever imagined she'd sleep with Satsu. But she did. I'm unlocking this in hopes for positive discussion, and no fighting. |
|
|
|
Post by Skytteflickan88 on Dec 27, 2009 19:11:39 GMT -5
I think we need to invent a new term.
Straight or gay doesn't work, since those terms basically mean that you're only attracted to one gender, period. If doesn't take fluid sexuality into account. I guess you could say, "She was straight then, homo now" but that might make some people just call her bi.
Bisexuality isn't perfect either, but it's better. But for that to work, a person had to be sexually attracted to both gender at the same time, not at different times in life, like Willow seems to do.
What we need is a new term. Maybe:
Hetro-nowish, homo-nowish and bi-nowish, meaning "hetro/homo/bi at this current time in life". Or hetro/homo/bi-present or something.
That kinda thinking works for me, since I believe in the that Willow did find Xander & Oz attractive at one point, but that now she only likes girls (I'm assuming she's not in denial) and that she one day might like only guys, or both guys and girls. Jumping from hetro to homo to bi and back again, you might say. She's right now at a homo-present phase and might stay there for the rest of her life.
Btw, I didn't take love into the equation. When I say lesbian, I mean a girl that's sexually attracted only to girls, not a girl who can only be in love with girls. Love might be there, but not necassarily for the term lesbian to apply. I mean, it's possible that you can only be in love with men but only be attracted to women. What would you call that sex-lhomo/love-straight-ian?
|
|
Paul
Ensouled Vampire
[Mo0:34]
Posts: 1,173
|
Post by Paul on Dec 27, 2009 19:27:57 GMT -5
Straight, gay, bi... they're all just crude adjectives that people have invented to try and define human behaviour. Sexuality is far too complicated and personal to be wholly defined by one term.
Willow is Willow-sexual.
|
|
