For me it doesn't count as emotionally intense when you're possessed/driven by ghosts.
But that's just me and my sex life. I don't mean to speak for everyone.
Wash: Captain, didn't you know kissin' girls makes you sleepy? Mal: Well sometimes I just can't help myself.
'Our Mrs. Reynolds'
Buffy and Angel 1: BUFFYNANGLE4EVA!!!!!1!
Is it better the second time around? Or the third? Or tenth? This is the place to come when you have a burning desire to talk about an old episode that was just re-run.
§ ita § - May 14, 2005 8:58:51 pm PDT #786 of 10458
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Gris - May 14, 2005 9:17:13 pm PDT #787 of 10458
Hey. New board.
If I remember the episode correctly (doubtful), weren't the ghosts brought into a more powerful existence because of their lust first? They made them focus on it more, but it had to be there before they noticed. I mean, the ghosts weren't coming out for any of the other sex-having couples in that frat house, and there had to be several. Graham, at least, seemed like a playa. Even if you argue it was the Slayer, specifically, being lustful that caused them to latch on, it still seems she must have been feeling it pretty good.
t /still love Riley and screw you all
Gus - May 14, 2005 9:41:45 pm PDT #788 of 10458
Bag the crypto. Say what is on your mind.
There has to be some point to this conversation.
OK, maybe not.
BuffyNImmotal4EVAH!!!!one!
§ ita § - May 14, 2005 10:03:42 pm PDT #789 of 10458
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Hot sex does not have to be emotionally intense.
P.M. Marc - May 14, 2005 11:00:34 pm PDT #790 of 10458
So come, my friends, be not afraid/We are so lightly here/It is in love that we are made; In love we disappear
Hot sex does not have to be emotionally intense.
Too true.
Am-Chau Yarkona - May 14, 2005 11:02:46 pm PDT #791 of 10458
I bop to Wittgenstein. -- Nutty
Love's hard to quantify, but I think that she didn't love Riley as much as she wanted to, and that she loved Spike more than she wanted to.
Gris - May 15, 2005 6:49:09 am PDT #792 of 10458
Hey. New board.
Hmm. Guess we were using different meanings of "intense." I was just thinking "hot."
Sorry if I came off belligerent last night. Sobriety was not part of the equation.
brenda m - May 15, 2005 6:52:11 am PDT #793 of 10458
If you're going through hell/keep on going/don't slow down/keep your fear from showing/you might be gone/'fore the devil even knows you're there
I was just thinking "hot."
Hot? Their anti-chemistry literally put the fire out in the room.
SailAweigh - May 15, 2005 6:54:25 am PDT #794 of 10458
Nana korobi, ya oki. (Fall down seven times, stand up eight.) ~Yuzuru Hanyu/Japanese proverb
Heh, I always felt there was more chemistry between Riley and Buffy than there was between Angel and Buffy, at least. But yeah, anti-hot all the way. Heck, Riley and the Vamp!Ho was hotter than Riley and Buffy.
Gris - May 15, 2005 6:59:45 am PDT #795 of 10458
Hey. New board.
(Shrug) I like what I remember of their sex scenes just fine. They weren't really inspiring me to run to my bunk, but nobody does chemistry like James Marsters, as we all know.
Definitely agree that they had more chemistry than B/A. Maybe the problem is SMG.
ETA: Also, despite all of my wishes that Riley could have worked out for Buffy, I think Spike was most definitely more important both to her and for her. She just wasn't made to interact with normal humans, which Riley, despite all those drugs and training, would always be.
I'm not sure I really know what love is (did Romeo love Juliet? What about Jack and Rose? Leia and Han?) or if it even has a steady definition, in or out of the Buffyverse, so I have a hard time deciding if she loved either of them.