Episode Discussion Buffy, Spike, Seeing Red and The Me Too Movement

[thetopher]

Maybe you should be pilloried for saying that (can someone telle me what pilloried means?).

You get your hands locked in a static wooden contraption in the public square and then the villagers pelt you with rotten fruit, veg, meat. Sometimes stones. It's a rather medieval punishment.

Well, not 'you' as in you in particular- you as in 'anyone' who is getting pilloried.



Honezst is a Czech word I think; it means honesty towards people of low moral character; like stalkers. 😀

I think the greatest achievement of Spuffy is adding to rape culture. And not by accident but by design. As Whedon himself said the point was that 'we shouldn't demonize rapists'.

Indeed this was what Spike's S7 journey was about; rapists aren't all bad.
Which is stupid because I don't want to equate soulless Spike and his actions with soulled Spike (I don't do that with Angel/Angelus) even though the season goes out of its way to make that very tough indeed.

 

[WillowFromBuffy]

I probably shouldn't respond to this, because the lack of common ground is so complete.

Women with a firm stance on morals, sexual conduct and what constitutes sexual assault and abuse will apply that to any situation throughout the show, sometimes going overboard IMO.

I just don't think every work of fiction should be a Bildungsroman. If you feel something, write it. Writers shouldn't second guess themselves or analyse their writing too much. It should be up to the audience to comment on the moral value of a work.

But it's ok for Spike because he's got abs and cheekbones and he's funny.

You may have the morals of Mother Theresa, but if you have a flabby tummy, you ain't gonna get with me 😛 Can't lie.

Maybe it's because I didn't grow up in a Western World way with all the Hollywood movies/shows and I escaped the conditioning or whatever but I would never fantasize about or imagine dating someone like Spike.

So what beautiful land of milk and honey do you hail from then? It certainly can't be any place I know of.

I can't fathom someone wanting to be stalked, abused and sexually assaulted. Or that they fantasize about this. I know it happens (which is sad in itself) but I can't fathom it.

I don't believe that is what draws people to Spuffy. I made a separation between the fantasy and the reality of dating someone like Spike. The sexual assault and stalking certainly isn't part of the fantasy. I know there are works of fictions that romanticise this, and while I would be hesitant to condemn such works, I prefer fiction that shows us the folly and irrationality of our desires. I cling to that old fashioned belief that a good work of fiction is one that holds tension and ambiguity and never gives us the complete answer to its own thesis.

I think the greatest achievement of Spuffy is adding to rape culture. And not by accident but by design.

This is such an extreme accusation. I don't know what to do with it.

As Whedon himself said the point was that 'we shouldn't demonize rapists'.

I haven't actually taken the time to look up this quote, so I don't know the context, but I think I can guess what Joss means. Most people are raped by people they know and trust. How can someone trust or even love someone that is demonic? I know women who have been abused by their boyfriends, who were people I thought I liked. They certainly did not seem like demons when I met them. I have to conclude that not every rapist is a raging psychopath. Fiction should reflect that. If the media goes to far into demonising rapists, it may lull us into a false sense of security.

I am not saying that rapists should be forgiven. I happen to think that you should be extremely careful to trust anyone who has ever been violent, because once someone crosses a line, they tend to loose some of their natural inhibitions. If Joss really believe in forgiving rapists, then I disagree with him. Still love the story, though, despite my reservations.

 

[DeepBlueJoy]

If Whedon said we shouldn't demonize rapists, a pox on him. Rapists need demonized. They need locked up. They're the 'gift' that keeps on taking from the women, men and children they tear apart. Rape is soul searing. It rocks a person's confidence, and until recently, locks a person into a lifetime of shame and self-questioning b/c it wasn't something that people could talk about without running into a buzzsaw of judgment and pity. Strong women (and male) survivors don't want pity even more than everyone else, and don't want to be seen as victims or be asked why they didn't successfully prevent it. Less confident women (and most children) often lose all confidence in themselves. Nearly all of us find a reason to blame ourselves, no matter what the circumstances. Society encourages this, though thankfully, this appears to be changing.

I may be a fan of spuffy, but i don't excuse Spike's behavior. I do believe he loved her without the soul, but I honestly believe he lacks true moral agency without the soul and couldn't be good for her without it, not in the long term. I don't automatically think Buffy is correct when she makes excuses for him either, though I do believe she's right to give him a chance after he comes back. I think their relationship is a MIXED story. I do believe the arc goes in a positive direction, but I also believe it is imperfect... and I will also stipulate that the writing of the series has been less than stellar from pretty much season 6 on (and that I don't know the comics well, so cannot vouch for or stand behind every choice they've made in those - because I don't know the nuances). I still think that they're positive, on the whole, but I know no one who is 100% positive all the time. I know no couples who never have issues... and addicts (which is the closest to what I can compare them to have a very up and down and sideways trajectory -- even when they move forward and try hard to escape their past and their old behaviors.

I need to say something else. I don't demonize Angel. I loved him and loved his series until season four more than I liked Buffy, which was for a long time a guilty pleasure. So, though I have a favorite relationship, it isn't even the combination I write most often (when I've written Buffy as my main focus, it's always been with crossover characters). Angel and she seem to need different things. Buffy is too internal. She needs someone who will dig her out of herself. I think Angel needs someone who will challenge him -- and Buffy is too inside herself to do it. I think that Angel needs someone more like Cordelia -- though I don't think Cordelia would really have the patience. She's very self-centered, but she has that hardness that would make her able to call Angel on some of his behaviors. One reason I would have liked to see the series continue (preferably without some of the uglier bits of season 4) is that I would have liked to see Angel find true love. I am also not sure that one gets over killing someone... or being killed by someone who loves us... No matter that it was essential and entirely the right choice, I think that Angel will forever remember that Buffy sent him to hell and that Buffy would forever remember that she needed to... and might need to again. Unless something serious changed with that pesky soul. I am also not sure that Buffy's friendships with Giles and the scoobies could survive her being with Angel. His alternative self killed people they cared about. I do believe Buffy cares too much about their feelings to comfortably reignite things with Angel, particularly if he didn't secure his soul somehow. Bottom line, I think both pairings have significant issues.

 

[TriBel]

I think the greatest achievement of Spuffy is adding to rape culture. And not by accident but by design. As Whedon himself said the point was that 'we shouldn't demonize rapists'.

I haven't actually taken the time to look up this quote, so I don't know the context, but I think I can guess what Joss means. Most people are raped by people they know and trust. How can someone trust or even love someone that is demonic? I know women who have been abused by their boyfriends, who were people I thought I liked. They certainly did not seem like demons when I met them. I have to conclude that not every rapist is a raging psychopath. Fiction should reflect that. If the media goes to far into demonising rapists, it may lull us into a false sense of security.

I came to make a similar point so thanks WfB. I don't know a single woman who's been abused by a demon. In fact, I've never meet a demon. I don't think I'm any worse for it. Whedon's is a valid critical position - "demonzing" suggests abusers are "other". They're not. There's a reason Gordon Burn's book on The Yorkshire Ripper is called "Somebody's Husband, Somebody's Son". In this case, the mythologizing of the abuser as a monster and the demonization of women who didn't adhere to "moral codes" and patriarchal definitions of femininity (they were constructed as "the monstrous feminine") led to vital clues being missed and women dying as a result. Rapists and abusers are fully human.

PS. Just so we're clear - the attraction Spike has for me is more to do with Merleau-Ponty and Luce Irigaray than it does with Marsters' abs.

 

[DeepBlueJoy]

Considering the way sexuality is portrayed in the rest of Hollywood, I think Buffy actually handles it relatively well. At least, there are consequences. Of course, it could have been done better, but it was a relatively low budget show on a second string network. That we're still talking about it now is a testimony that it did a lot right.

No, the rapist, the child abuser aren't 'other'. In fact, they are so not other, that they've lived in open closets where often many people know that they aren't quite 'right' but no one does anything because they don't see the predation for what it is... they look the other way. Until (like the 'doctor' in Michigan) hundreds of children have complained. The Catholic church, Bill Cosby, the various coaches who've repeatedly groomed children, snowed their parents and then abused and violated their victims and gotten away with it for years are testimony that rape culture isn't the demon rapist in the alley, but the nice church deacon, coach, teacher, doctor... caregiver, or daddy or mummy or classmate, or fellow soldier, or boss. Those are the USUAL rapists.

IF that 'not demon' is what Joss meant, then he was right in a way... they are 'regular' people... but in my opinion, they are demons in 'nice people' clothing. Because the evil they do is horrendous. They end worlds. They stop lives before they even get started. And the walking dead are those who can never process, never trust, never love themselves or others. Their days are forever dark. Most of the world doesn't see them. Not as survivors, not as victims. They are often called other things by family and any friends they may manage to make: 'messed up', 'drug addict', 'street prostitute' (though the names are usually a lot less polite. They aren't seen as people who were raped, violated and who were often forced to perform sex acts for people who should have been relied on to protect them, loved them and build them into adults.

Murder is over. Sexual violence, for the victim, is forever. The hell is inside your head. Tell me that is not demonic.

Please, if someone tells you they're being harassed, abused or have been raped by that nice person you know that they work with, or who is their teacher... please believe them. Being believed is truly the greatest gift I ever got. That door needs to be opened, and opened as early as possible... because there a lot of people suffering and a lot of nice people raping/abusing/using and coercing them.
 
Many acquaintance/familial abusers/rapists OFTEN choose the outsider in any group/class -- so when that person attempts to report, they're already established as 'problem child' or 'unreliable' or 'desperate'. Those people make the BEST victims. They are often unsympathetic victims because they misbehave, then they become really messed up inside, and they act out even more... and they're desperate to fit in, to belong, to be loved. Just as wolves and other animal predators separate stragglers and weaklings from the herd, the human predators do the same thing. I think that doctor in Michigan forgot one thing... the eager to please, talented kids desperate to succeed in gymnastics became adults... and some of them, possibly because of that talent, developed the confidence to open their mouths and go on the record. But that is the first time I can remember that happening. Thankfully, they've made a space for those who are less confident to come forward. Some of those children were told they were making it up by their parents... parents who are now horrified at their blindness.

 

[RomanticSoul]

I just don't think every work of fiction should be a Bildungsroman. If you feel something, write it. Writers shouldn't second guess themselves or analyse their writing too much. It should be up to the audience to comment on the moral value of a work

But every work of art ultimately reveals something about the artist. Pretty sure that came up a few times with Whedon and other writers, especially after Kai Cole went public about Whedon. You can separate art from artist as a consumer but the art and artist are never truly separate.

So what beautiful land of milk and honey do you hail from then? It certainly can't be any place I know of.

Who said I did? I just said I didn't spend my childhood growing up with Western Entertainment, hence I tend to hold very different opinions from those who did. Not all people but a lot of them. And I hate how westernized (americanized) even my countries shows/movies etc have become. How screwed up is it that you can't have people swearing on tv/movie screen or show nakedness but torture, stabbing, shooting, blowing people up and so forth is fine even in PG-13 movies/shows. Does not compute. I grew up with people swearing and being naked and not looking like they just stepped off the cover of a flashy magazine and I'm just fine. Hell I'd say I'm way more well adjusted because of it. Because people swearing and being naked and looking like normal people is freaking normal.

This is such an extreme accusation. I don't know what to do with it.

Why am I accusing anyone in your opinion? Whedon said it himself, I don't have to accuse him or the show of anything. He said the story was designed to be about Spike, the attempted rapist, with the expressed purpose of 'not demonizing rapists'. He and his writers were so caught up in that they completely ignored Buffy's side of the story. Hence adding to rape culture. And lets not forget that 'stalker Spike' of S5 was never treated correctly either. Characters just made fun of him and Buffy threw up the de-invite once but no one did anything to stop him. Another horrible message to send IMO, it's fine to keep a stalker around as long as he is occassionally helpful.

I came to make a similar point so thanks WfB. I don't know a single woman who's been abused by a demon. In fact, I've never meet a demon. I don't think I'm any worse for it. Whedon's is a valid critical position - "demonzing" suggests abusers are "other". They're not. There's a reason Gordon Burn's book on The Yorkshire Ripper is called "Somebody's Husband, Somebody's Son". In this case, the mythologizing of the abuser as a monster and the demonization of women who didn't adhere to "moral codes" and patriarchal definitions of femininity (they were constructed as "the monstrous feminine") led to vital clues being missed and women dying as a result. Rapists and abusers are fully human.

Who said anything about demons being real? The demons on the show are metaphors for real life. So was Spike. That goes for 'Spike the Killer', 'Spike the Stalker', 'Spike the Abuser' and 'Spike the Attempted Rapist'.

And IMO who are you or Whedon to tell anyone they shouldn't demonize their abusers/rapists? If the only way someone can deal with or move beyond their trauma is by 'demonizing' the person who did that to them, they have the damn right to do so. If they need that to cope and go on living, all the more power to them.

In the case of BtVS the excuse of not 'demonizing rapists' might just be more for the people behind the scenes who don't want to be seen that way. It was after all Marti Noxon's story (she was the one who tried to force herself on someone) and Whedon had apparently quite a bit of dirty laundry (if Kai Cole spoke the truth) he could never be sure when it might be aired. So if he successfully taught people not to 'demonize' certain acts, all the better for him.

 

[WillowFromBuffy]

But every work of art ultimately reveals something about the artist. Pretty sure that came up a few times with Whedon and other writers, especially after Kai Cole went public about Whedon. You can separate art from artist as a consumer but the art and artist are never truly separate.

That is exactly what I am saying. If you feel it, write it. Most of us just aren't as perfect as you, so our writing reflects that.

And I hate how westernized (americanized) even my countries shows/movies etc have become.

You cannot be talking about Germany. I assume you must be from Narnia.

Why am I accusing anyone in your opinion? Whedon said it himself, I don't have to accuse him or the show of anything. He said the story was designed to be about Spike, the attempted rapist, with the expressed purpose of 'not demonizing rapists'. He and his writers were so caught up in that they completely ignored Buffy's side of the story. Hence adding to rape culture.

Can you help me find the full quote? If Joss really admitted to wilfully seeking to strengthen rape culture, I will give you a 1000 dollars.

If you claim that BtVS may have perpetuated dangerous beliefs about sexual abuse, then I might agree with you, but claiming that this was an expressed goal by the writers ... that is just loony talk.

Marti Noxon's story (she was the one who tried to force herself on someone)

Marti Noxon is certainly not demonic. As rather small woman, she probably does not see herself as a physical threat in the same way as a man - especially a larger man - should. What she did was awful. Does it make her an awful person? She doesn't seem like an awful person. If a person like Marti could do something like that, I want to understand why.

 

[Mrs Gordo]

I would have liked to see Angel find true love.

He did find true love. So much so that he achieved perfect happiness and lost his soul. Your other comments regarding Buffy and Angel’s relationship are OT so I won’t address them here but I hope to be able to discuss this with you sometime as I think our views vary significantly.

 

[RomanticSoul]

Most of us just aren't as perfect as you, so our writing reflects that

I called myself perfect? Where exactly?

You cannot be talking about Germany. I assume you must be from Narnia

Your lack of knowledge about East Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall is not my fault. Pretty sure I'm more of an expert on the matter than you. Because I actually lived there. But sure, dismiss me on account of your lack of knowledge.

If you claim that BtVS may have perpetuated dangerous beliefs about sexual abuse, then I might agree with you, but claiming that this was an expressed goal by the writers ... that is just loony talk

So now I'm crazy? I never said their purpose was to add to rape culture. I said the fact that the story was designed to be about Spike, therefor leaving Buffy without a voice, was the problem. Making the story only about the journey of the attempted rapist is what adds to rape culture. There is a difference between expressed intend and unintentional side effect, this was the latter. At least I hope it was. Because frankly, there was nothing to stop them from telling both stories. Except it would have interfered with Spuffy, is my guess, so they ignored Buffy's side.

Marti Noxon is certainly not demonic. As rather small woman, she probably does not see herself as a physical threat in the same way as a man - especially a larger man - should. What she did was awful. Does it make her an awful person? She doesn't seem like an awful person. If a person like Marti could do something like that, I want to understand why.

I'm pretty sure the reason the word 'demonize' was used was due to Spike being a demon. If you were to apply that to our non-demonic world I'm sure it would be that we shouldn't see rapists as evil or bad people in general. But I won't make any excuses for MN due to her size/strength as there are plenty of women who abuse or rape. Size and strength have nothing to do with it.

 

[WillowFromBuffy]

Your lack of knowledge about East Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall is not my fault. Pretty sure I'm more of an expert on the matter than you. Because I actually lived there. But sure, dismiss me on account of your lack of knowledge.

I lived with a guy from Dresden for 10 months, so I wouldn't say I am completely ignorant. Not all that impressed by the DDR, to be honest. No offence.

So now I'm crazy? I never said their purpose was to add to rape culture. I said the fact that the story was designed to be about Spike, therefor leaving Buffy without a voice, was the problem. Making the story only about the journey of the attempted rapist is what adds to rape culture. There is a difference between expressed intend and unintentional side effect, this was the latter. At least I hope it was. Because frankly, there was nothing to stop them from telling both stories. Except it would have interfered with Spuffy, is my guess, so they ignored Buffy's side.

This is the line that I quoted: "I think the greatest achievement of Spuffy is adding to rape culture. And not by accident but by design." It may be that I am simply misinterpreting everything you write, but when you say someone is doing something by design and not by accident, that usually implies intent.

I'm pretty sure the reason the word 'demonize' was used was due to Spike being a demon. If you were to apply that to our non-demonic world I'm sure it would be that we shouldn't see rapists as evil or bad people in general. But I won't make any excuses for MN due to her size/strength as there are plenty of women who abuse or rape. Size and strength have nothing to do with it.

You can see people as bad without demonizing them. Demonozing someone means to deny them any positive human qualities. I believe this is a dangerous and naive practice.

I think the fact that Marti knew she could not wrestle her boyfriend matters quite a bit. It means she knew she couldn't force him to do anything he didn't want. It is still a despicable thing to do, but it would have been much worse for a strong person to assault someone much weaker than themselves and actually go through with it.

 

[debbicles]

Ok things are getting really heated and a little bit on the personal side here. I'm not a mod but surely we can discuss this topic without spitting feathers? White flag? Anyone? I love being here and don't want us to fall out.

It seems to me there a number of limbs to Nikon's original question - well, duh! I hear you say.
Firstly, I am so glad to see from previous posts that I am not alone in having to find out what the MeToo movement is. I don't follow social media except through good old Auntie Beeb.
If you know me from this board you will know I am a huge fan of Spike and am also a Spike and Buffy shipper. Avatar self-explanatory but I wanted there to be no doubt.
To the first question I would answer that I think Seeing Red is as visceral, powerful, painful and relevant today as it ever was. And I rejoice in that. I would hope that anyone watching it would have the benefit of a kind friend, parent etc who would be able to explain things and comfort them, because it was tough watching my two favourite characters in such a dreadful situation. As a work of art and performance it is almost without parallel in today's media. Kudos to all involved, particularly SMG and Marsters. There are countless programmes these days which seem to portray woman constantly as victims and enjoy the degradation heaped on them. Buffy was never one of those. Like many great works of art the show arouses passion, provokes debate and discussion and is multi-layered.

To the second question, how do I explain forgiveness? Huge question with no single answer. We had a thread about this on the Back Steps a while back and if you check that out it covers a lot of ground. Forgiveness is not logical, it comes from the heart. It can't be explained or even justified. When you grant and receive it it's liberating. I saw Buffy forgive Spike, and it was her choice. She didn't need to do it. She did because she saw the look of horror on his face when he realised what he had done. She saw that he tried to atone, most importantly, she wanted to forgive him. If he had tried again, even if he had not succeeded, then I would have been the first in line to stake him. No forgiveness there. His character would have been irreparably ruined for me. Spike is to me the most complex character in a show chocfull of complex and intriguing characters. But that would have been that for me.

And sorry but that previously expressed opinion that as a Spike fan I forgave him because he is hot, has killer abs, whatever, I'm afraid I find that also an insidious attitude as it outright states that if I am a Spike fan then automatically I have no moral judgement, that I am a shallow fangirl with no mind of her own and I think that is also a culpable attitude to fall into. I can't presume to speak for anyone other than myself but I have never ever seen any hint from anyone on the Back Steps sub-forum, elsewhere on this board or anywhere else that I post that anyone subscribes to the so-called rape culture. If I did see it, I would run for the hills. Perhaps I am wrong to interpret that opinion in this way and I wait to stand corrected.

Did Buffy move on? Well, I saw her forgive Spike. I don't think "moving on" is quite the right expression, but I don't think the show ever dealt in S7 quite as fully with what happened as it could or should, having introduced the assault. But then I don't think Buffy was ever shown dealing with her mother's death, either. She just gets on with her life and dealing with the next apocalypse. You couldn't hope to fully recover from anything like that, just do your best not to let it overwhelm you. Buffy never ever until that instance showed any sign that she felt threatened by or afraid of Spike. She knew he was fixated on her in earlier seasons but I never classed his behaviour as stalkerish because she was never in danger from him. I can make the distinction between stalker behaviour as shown on crime programmes, reading the papers and from SVU. And Spike to my mind fell into the category of washed-up pathetic former Big Bad who is trying his best to get near the woman he places on a pedestal the only twisted way he knows how. Stalker? Never. And in saying this, I am not denigrating or minimising real life experiences. I just am discussing a fantasy show.

Is Spike changed? Well he certainly gives Buffy pause for thought, doesn't he. And she is more than a little wary of allowing him back into even the fringes of her life. He seems the same outwardly but he has a burden of guilt. That is only revealed gradually to Buffy bit by bit, not just in BY. And yes, he is changed, I think. He recognises what a miserable creature he was when he rampaged as a killing machine for over a century. Previously he had deluded himself that he was some kind of dark warrior.

How do Spuffy fans deal with this in the present #Me Too culture. The answer - the same way I always have. Rape, sexual assault and abuse, they are wrong now, they were wrong yesterday, 20 years ago, 2000 years ago, and they will be tomorrow. They have always been and always will be wrong. I don't need #MeToo for that, and again if I am misinterpreting the question please do correct me. And I am a fan of Spike and Buffy. I never saw Buffy blame herself for what happened, I never saw Spike blame her for what he did and I don't think I've ever seen a single poster adopt that stance either.

As to the portrayal of rape culture, I would also point out that that whilst Seeing Red is the standout episode for one character attacking another, there was another relationship on the show where the assault took place successfully off screen or was merely implied. I loved Willow and Tara together, they were a they were a beautiful warm, sexy relationship that I adored watching. But Willow's lust for power and desire for control led her to cast a spell on Tara that inhibited her free will and under that spell, the magical equivalent of Rohipnol, they had sex. Or rather, Willow had sex with Tara against her consent. I don't understand why in a show that was supposed to be about female empowerment that was never openly named for what it was. The field should have been a level one and Willow seemed to have a get out card. I don't know why. I am not by any means saying that what Spike did was not heinous and terrible, but I would have loved to see recognition from Willow herself of what she actually succeeded in doing. Or the producers/writers. Tara should never have gone back to Willow without working through to a place of trust. If I were to condemn Spike for what he did to Buffy, it seemed to me that for the sake of integrity in storytelling the same standards should apply to the sexual assault that actually happened. I don't think despite this that Willow's love for Tara was any less real for that terrible deed. But I don't forget it and I use that to place Spike's failure then atonement in some kind of perspective.
Ok this has to be the longest post I have ever made. Thank you all for bearing with me.

 

[Buffy Summers]

WillowFromBuffy if you cannot discuss this without making it personal then stay out of the thread.

 

[RomanticSoul]

I lived with a guy from Dresden for 10 months, so I wouldn't say I am completely ignorant. Not all that impressed by the DDR, to be honest. No offence.

There were plenty of things in the DDR not be impressed about. My point was that me actually having lived it makes me more of an expert on the entertainment we had during and after it then you.

This is the line that I quoted: "I think the greatest achievement of Spuffy is adding to rape culture. And not by accident but by design." It may be that I am simply misinterpreting everything you write, but when you say someone is doing something by design and not by accident, that usually implies intent

Yes it might sound contradictory but not that quote put together with what I said in my last post. The intend of the writers to ONLY focus on Spike's side of the story and completely ignoring Buffy made it rape culture by design. Do I think they actually intended to add to rape culture? I want to say no. They had to ignore Buffy's side to be able to pull of Spuffy and he had to get all that focus to make him sympathetic to the audience again. However the unintended side effect of that was that Buffy got no voice and was actually victim blamed and that's rape culture. And I really hope all of this is just because of the crappy writing of S7 in general because I don't my low opinion of the creative team to get any lower.

I might sound contradictory sometimes but it's not my intend. English isn't my first language and my English is far from perfect.

You can see people as bad without demonizing them. Demonozing someone means to deny them any positive human qualities. I believe this is a dangerous and naive practice.

IMO if the victim needs to demonize the person (not all people or all people of the same sex) who did it to them in order to survive, cope and move on...then they have the right to do so. I don't care about the offender's other attributes because I'm all for the victim.

I think the fact that Marti knew she could not wrestle her boyfriend matters quite a bit. It means she knew she couldn't force him to do anything he didn't want. It is still a despicable thing to do, but it would have been much worse for a strong person to assault someone much weaker than themselves and actually go through with it.

In Marti's case maybe that's true. But again I won't make excuses for such behavior because physical strength doesn't always matter. Plenty women abuse their position of power (teacher, professor, entertainment industry).

 

[debbicles]

Just a postscript to my earlier note- in response to whichever opinion it was that Spike fans are shallow fangirls who forgive him because of his chiselled features. I would be dishonest if I said I loved this character for his complexity alone - Marsters I think is the most beautiful-looking man ever when he portrays Spike. I make no apologies for appreciating that, but if it were the only thing I liked, then I wouldn't like him at all. There is a depth to Spike's character that I have never seen before or since in any tv portrayal. And if you want to stick me in the stocks for saying that, go ahead!!!!

Xx

 

[WillowFromBuffy]

IMO if the victim needs to demonize the person (not all people or all people of the same sex) who did it to them in order to survive, cope and move on...then they have the right to do so. I don't care about the offender's other attributes because I'm all for the victim.

I am not saying demonizing is bad, because I am worried about the abusers. I am worried people won't believe that the friendly teacher, supportive boyfriend or loving father could be capable of abuse. Victims of abuse are often confused, because their abuser are capable of being kind to them. I think fiction should reflect that abusers aren't easily distinguishable from the rest of humanity. They are probably mostly like the rest of us.

Having cleared that up, I am going to leave the discussion as requested.

 

[thrasherpix]

There's also contradictory message for men (just as there are for women in which the ideal is to be sexy but not slutty and is often arbitrarily defined by the social status of the person rather than by any objective standard). Men are supposed to be aggressive, and quite a few women (not necessarily feminist or having ever used the Me, Too hashtag mind you, but probably includes some in that flavor) say things like if he can't approach her (even "have the balls to approach me") then he can't have her (and yes, I see words like "have me" as if she's a possession to be won), which I've heard plenty say in real life, on talk shows for women, and message boards I used to belong to (though with a less feminist leaning than BB). Not saying all are like that (I'm not), but many are, and the romance genre bears that out. And yet at the same time if men do behave by those standards then they're opening themselves to reprisals for "creepy" or even "predatory" behavior (*). It's not about objective behavior that can be easily defined, but the subjective attitude of the one who defines it on a case by case basis based on her feelings about HIM rather than his behavior.

(* I'd like to say as opposed to genuinely creepy, predatory behavior as stalking, B&E into the home of the woman, building shrines, and outright violence against her when she rebuffs him, but the existence of Spuffy--hardly a unique romantic figure--prevents me from doing so. It's ironic that I don't get the vapors as many other women do over the trivial things I see people get up in arms about, but someone acting like Spike--even if he looked just like him--would have me filing a restraining order, and many of those situations he puts Buffy through would have me using pepper spray on him at the very least, and quite possibly lethal force.)



Though that aside, I'll also share an observation that is often a factor. Many males and females who hate on the opposite gender are actually users, those who practice an extreme form of fish love which is pursuing the opposite gender based on appearance, social status, etc (and I was told growing up "it's just as easy to fall in love with someone rich as someone poor" with the message being hang around the guys with money to fall in love with one of them). In such an environment, all too many get rejected.

Furthermore, those who get pursued can understandably become cynical, and either distrustful of the other gender...and/or decides to use right back. In the end, these people, male and female, come to feel entitled (which can easily lead to abusive and predatory behavior) but as they're dealing with mutual shallow values that have nothing to do with love, and are simply used until they're no longer useful (or a better deal comes along), they can easily come to hate the opposite gender while overlooking the majority of males and females who don't feel so entitled, and who treat others as human beings rather than as prizes or resources to be won (and you won't hear them making a fuss). And going by how many lie on dating sites (even posting fake or photoshopped or otherwise inaccurate pix of themselves that they have to realize will be exposed upon a genuine meet) then I think most know this on some level.

That aside, I'll also share that while male d-bags and bad boys often do get females, they also get rejected by many other females before they find one (or a harem) gullible enough to fall for them and/or willing to take their crap.
 

I think the greatest achievement of Spuffy is adding to rape culture. And not by accident but by design. As Whedon himself said the point was that 'we shouldn't demonize rapists'. So the whole thing was designed to make you feel bad for poor Spike and that could only happen by not giving Buffy's side a voice and an arc where she deals with what happened.

Could you link to him saying this? ("We shouldn't demonize rapists.")

I have a vague feeling of having seen this, but I can't recall if I did or just saw it asserted on BB before (I think the latter because I'm sure I'd remember it if I saw him being quoted in the media). I just tried to google it but I'm not finding it.

 

[debbicles]

As to whether, following #MeToo, I as a Spuffy fan am reconsidering SR in light of its status as fruit of the poisoned tree, my answer is once more no. I don't think it changes its status as a work of art, nor the rest of the show.

I have loved many great films that have been produced within the notorious Hollywood casting couch system and within those films the attitudes towards women and minorities are appalling. But I'm perfectly capable of enjoying a film's artistic merits whilst recognising in it the elements that are abhorrent and evaluating it within its social context. We are all a product of our times, a cliche but true nonetheless.

My beloved noir films are a perfect example of this, but within them you will also see the timeless values placed on love and honourable behaviour. None of that changes for me. I hope I have not misinterpreted the question but again I will stand corrected if I have.

 

[Taake]

Just a postscript to my earlier note- in response to whichever opinion it was that Spike fans are shallow fangirls who forgive him because of his chiselled features. I would be dishonest if I said I loved this character for his complexity alone - Marsters I think is the most beautiful-looking man ever when he portrays Spike. I make no apologies for appreciating that, but if it were the only thing I liked, then I wouldn't like him at all. There is a depth to Spike's character that I have never seen before or since in any tv portrayal. And if you want to stick me in the stocks for saying that, go ahead!!!!

Xx

Good point. I don't think that Spike fans are just shallow and give into his chiselled features, but I think there's a frustration (that I know I can feel with e.g. 50 Shades of Grey and a lot of portrayals in the media, not just Spike to be clear, and Angel gets treated this way too because he is handsome) about how things seem to be acceptable because a guy is good looking. Like, no one is making excuses for Warren trying to rape Katrina. Certainly, he didn't show any remorse, but even if he did, I find it harder to believe that viewers would forgive him or heatedly argue for him. Again, true that he is not as complex as Spike, I'm not trying to stick you or anyone to the stocks, or say that you can't like Spike. But I think that's partly were the argument comes from and I think it is a problem in media overall which feeds the frustration in arguments like this, because the good looks do help the characters get endeared to us.

One shouldn't stick it just to one character of course because you can find it pretty much everywhere, especially in rom-coms. 🙂

 

[debbicles]

Hi, I understand that point, Taake. Sorry but every time I try to quote it remains more hit than miss. I wouldn't dream of forgiving Spike for anything he did on the grounds that he is goodlooking. His looks are not the prime reason for my watching. As I said in my previous long post in this thread if he had tried again in that scene, even if he hadn't succeeded still, I would have staked him myself. Well, you know what I mean!
Looks be damned.
But I do relate to the frustration that there is that some handsome men get away with murder or other transgressions because they are handsome. Or that it is always the handsome guy/gorgeous girl that gets the love interest in the rom-com. Yes, I think that does unfortunately happen a lot. But there are some thoughtful films etc out there that delve below the surface and do endeavour to show that looks and youth don't always guarantee goodness or a good outcome.

And I think speaking generally I have noticed that there may well be a trend towards objectifying men, as well, which is something I find also quite repellent. But that's OT maybe.
As to whether I would have found Warren easier to tolerate if he had shown remorse - heck yes. Again looks be damned. It was his relentless objectification of poor Katrina that I found disgusting. If he had been a dreamboat in the looks department it would have made not one jot of difference to me.
The Beauty Myth says all this and more, far more eloquently and cleverly than I ever could hope to.

 

[Taake]

Because he has no soul. Because his love, no matter how big is not enough.

What makes this different from the other attempted rapes in Buffy.... Spike's IMMEDIATE REACTION TO HIS OWN BEHAVIOR.

Horror.

He went and got his soul -- that needed moral compass -- BECAUSE of his horror about what he did. That is a very powerful message.

See, for me this doesn't work. What this emphasis on horror says to me is that they traumatized their lead protagonist in order to further a male characters story. Buffy had to be violated so that Spike could learn something about himself... But I don't see her learning anything about herself. Come season 7 I see an emotionally shut down and isolated young woman who is put in a position to care for the man who assualted her, but I don't see her learning anything. I don't see him learning much either. He gets his soul, but he has zero concerns about her even after. If he had been moved to Angel immediately, stayed out of the path of the woman he loves and violated, and they reconnected later. That might've been different. But Spike is still all about Spike at this point for me, and I don't care what he needs... he's the offender. Even if he regrets it I care about what Buffy needs and at the start of season 7 she is not all that happy to see him. The way the rest of the season plays out, for me, gives the message that sexual assault is a way to start a relationship. Without it, Spike gets no soul, which seems to have been necessary to make Spuffy kosher or whatever, but for me personally I preferred Spuffy before this. It's the after I can't forgive, and the message (for me) is basically a "stand by your man" for abused women.

Not saying you have to agree with this, just trying to shed some light on why for someone like me, this doesn't work narratively.

It's not black and white. But it is REAL. LIFE is not black and white, folks. Life just is. In my opinion, the Buffy and Spike arc is a message that two messed up people could and did heal. One could argue that they healed each other. Buffy would be dead if it wasn't for Spike in season 6 (OMWF and maybe Death Things too). Both Spike and Angel became better people because of having Buffy in their lives. That makes Buffy one heck of a woman, as far as I am concerned.

Buffy is NO victim here. She is a true survivor.

Can't agree there either. I don't think any of this is presented in a real life kind of a way, just in a romanticized "love heals everything" wishfullfilment fantasy. To me, the idea of two messed up people healing each other is... well, ludicrous. To be clear, I'm not trying to convince you of my point of view, or to say you're wrong in any way, just explain why none of this is "good enough" for me. Just because you're a victim doesn't mean that you can't be a survivor...


On the original question, in the #MeToo climate I think the story would have to be presented differently.

The bathroom scene is particularly traumatizing for me as a viewer (even if able to separate fantasy from reality and having the ability to watch the news) because it's not Spike the demon who attacks Buffy. It is Spike the man, the man she's trusted, let inside of her, laughed with... it is a sincere and awful violation of Buffy's person and it is not presented as a metaphor or in a fantastical way. It is a real, raw and I'd say gratuitous rape scene. (Or sexual assault if you will, but no penetration doesn't make it any less violating). I don't think this scene belongs on a show with invisibility rays and snake demons, I don't think this kind of scene is what most (not saying all) signed up for when they started watching Buffy. I don't think it's brave or edgy, I think it is reckless and uncalled for.

Today they would either have had to make that scene differently, or dealt better with the aftermath. Buffy would talk to someone. An actual conversation about it. She would deal with it on screen. And Spike on a cross talking about how Buffy will forgive him probably wouldn't have been the same either, I think.

Basically, I think that in today's climate the AR would have been more of a big deal in the show, not just the means to an end (Spike getting his soul).