fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4423 ]

[ SECRET POST #4423 ]

⌈ Secret Post #4423 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 19 secrets from Secret Submission Post #633.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

03. https://i.imgur.com/THI4EWy.jpg

Ew, people ship this? Giles could do so much better.

I'm not a BTVS fan and never have been but this is such a weird comment

It made me laugh tbh

That kind of logic seriously boggles my mind... like, in what world does that make any sense?

It's hard for me to imagine that's a majority opinion in that ship, and it seems silly to side-eye all the shippers as a whole because of some batshit crazy minority.

The Giles/Buffy ship manifesto: https://ship-manifesto.livejournal.com/10116.html

Hmmm, weird, this post talks about Buffy/Giles shippers being flamed for having a reviled ship, and yet it was written in 2004 and here I was under the impression that shipping wank and moral judgment didn't exist until the invention of Tumblr and the damn SJWs

Ha ha ha ha ha you're so funny!

MY GENERATION INVENTED SEX!

It's worse now, but by no means was it non existent back then. People need to stop pretending the pre Tumblr fannish world was free of this sort of thing, it definitely wasn't.

I was told (by a Spike fan, quelle surprise) that I should have my children taken away for shipping B/G.

There's no way I'm reading all that, but just giving it a glance-over, it looks like the same old reactionary stuff that everyone always has posted in defense when someone attacked their ship.

As opposed to the reactionary bashing of said ship? OK then

I'll admit that my glance at that page could barely be called skimming. Looking at the headings and the first line or two in response, I still don't see any rationalizing of the OP's comment.
(Obviously I could have missed it, and you're just literally giving me what asked for;; So this is just me rambling more than anything...)
The idea that the relationship must be romantic, and not paternal, because he lets her fight is what I find so strange. (I don't find their relationship to be either, tbh.) It's such a jump. Like he's gonna ban her from acting as the Slayer just because he see's her as a daughter is ridiculous, and impossible in it's own right. Even if he did see her like that I doubt he'd even try, not that she'd go for it if he had. For that to be the reason he must want to bang her, I can't even. There is such a thing as a middle ground, and I'm surprised every time people fail to see that it exists...

The person who wrote about that talks about how she's a mother and how Giles can't view Buffy as a child because no parent would ever let their child do what Buffy does and that therefore anyone who says their relationship is parental never had kids themselves.

Well, I certainly don't have any children, so I guess I wouldn't know... but wouldn't that situation apply to any job that has dangers involved. Like with that logic no parent could support their child becoming a firefighter? They work to save peoples lives, despite the possibility they could lose their own lives? (not a good example offhand, but it's what I got;;)

Also, when Buffy's mom found out about her being the Slayer she supported her. Befriended Spike even;;
Being a parental figure does not mean having a literal father/child dynamic. He groomed her to become as great as she was, and was proud of her for it, nothing more, nothing less? That's what I think at least;;
(this, again, is me ranting btw)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that that mother is very unhealthy and probably has a super dysfunctional dynamic with her child. It's normal to want to shield your children, but it's not normal to try to prevent them from doing potentially dangerous things as they enter adulthood, or to withhold support from them if they do.

Since it was written 15 years ago, I hope that either she's grown or her kids have gotten away from her. The alternative is that she raised people who struggle to be independent and have adult relationships.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2019-02-14 03:17 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

babydraco - 2019-02-14 14:44 (UTC) - Expand

Yeah, a whole lot of people ship them just because he's an authority figure to her underage schoolgirl after all.

Not a majority view as far as I recall when I was a B/G shipper in 2001...

“Now wait a minute, you think I'm evil if I bring a group of girls on a camping trip and don't touch them?"

That's such weird reasoning! Fathers train their sons (and sometimes daughters) to fight all the time. "Military family" is a thing even in the modern day.

Meh. People tie themselves in weird (il)logical knots to defend their ships all the time.

So, if someone who ships this pairing doesn’t see things that way, do you still side eye them?

Wait, what? The only way I'd even consider shipping this would be if it included some sort of messed up quasi-paternal feelings.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only