Joss's commentary on the Angel DVDs says he considers Angel and Spike to be the perfect couple. In another place (can't remember just where now) he refers to Spike as the ingenue.

Damn! I can't believe I chose to not watch Antiques Roadshow FYI today!

LJ, have you seen them categorized as slash, or as queer?

In another place (can't remember just where now) he refers to Spike as the ingenue.

It probably doesn't help that he's taken on Cordelia's role with the group in both shows since Buffy Season 4.

LJ, have you seen them categorized as slash, or as queer?

I thought it was slash, but I could be wrong -- my memory is fuzzy. I know Herself has written about this fairly recently in her LiveJournal.

I remember the term "queer" being used, but it's possible that both were. No cites I can recall, though I probably followed a link from here.

And also why I'm confused by the argument that Buffy is, by virtue of those negative traits, a masculine character

I've seen this (and the corollary that Spike, being motivated by emotion, is female). Usually I decide that the proponent of the theory is very young, or very naive, or otherwise wedded to gender stereotypes. In my more expansive moods, I figure they are working along the lines Camille Paglia put forth in Sexual Persona; to wit, men are Apollonian, straight-line thinkers and doers, problem-solvers. The male is the one who is nominally head-of-household, and deals with the external stuff (mammoth-killer, breadwinner, soldier, athlete). Women are Cthonian, involved and identified with bodily fluids, associative thinkers and manipulators. The female is the emotional head-of-household, dealing with the internal stuff, caring for the children, addressing people's emotions.

If you agree with Paglia, then it's easy enough to map Buffy the Slayer onto the male role, and Spike the vampire, erstwhile poet, and babysitter of Dawn onto the female role.

But mostly the fan response doesn't go that way...mostly it's around the level of "Buffy's totally using Spike sexually, that makes him a woman!" Which is just dumb.

I [heart] Raq.

In my more expansive moods, I figure they are working along the lines Camille Paglia put forth in Sexual Persona; to wit, men are Apollonian, straight-line thinkers and doers, problem-solvers. The male is the one who is nominally head-of-household, and deals with the external stuff (mammoth-killer, breadwinner, soldier, athlete). Women are Cthonian, involved and identified with bodily fluids, associative thinkers and manipulators. The female is the emotional head-of-household, dealing with the internal stuff, caring for the children, addressing people's emotions.

Yeah, that's pretty much my take when being less bitchy.

In my more bitchy moments, I wonder how many of the people making that particular argument have been in the position of being the pursued.

I've seen it argued by so many people who are smart, but seem to have a Spike-sized blindspot, and it's identification more than attraction driving it in my experience. Of course, as my main objection is of the BMECT! variety, potkettleblack.