The Judge also claimed Dalton was "full of feeling" because he liked reading. This doesn't make any sense in itself as it's quite possible to read a lot and be an evil psychopath. Not only that but he oddly enough also proclaimed Angel a complete monster, even though we know Angel is an art connoisseur, even when evil. So basically I think the Judge is a rather bad judge of character. 🙂 As for Drusila, not only she is crazy but her supposed "love" for Spike didn't stop her from sleeping with Angel too, so I don't think she is any more reliable. For me they are like the women who fall under Xander's love spell in B, B&B - this supposed love is as Giles put it "a selfish, banal obsession". Once they don't get what they want things turn ugly as happened with Spike's "love" for Buffy too.
Also, remember. For over a century, he was with Drusilla, as well as Angelus and Darla for some time. He had no reason to feel guilty because they never felt guilty.
Come on, Spike wasn't always with Drusila and we also are talking about Spike, not Andrew. He actually can decide for himself whether to do something or not. And in any event, saying he can feel guilt but didn't because Drusila urged him to be a monster just makes him worse in my eyes.
The Judge also claimed Dalton was "full of feeling" because he liked reading. This doesn't make any sense in itself as it's quite possible to read a lot and be an evil psychopath. Not only that but he oddly enough also proclaimed Angel a complete monster, even though we know Angel is an art connoisseur, even when evil. So basically I think the Judge is a rather bad judge of character. 🙂 As for Drusila, not only she is crazy but her supposed "love" for Spike didn't stop her from sleeping with Angel too, so I don't think she is any more reliable. For me they are like the women who fall under Xander's love spell in B, B&B - this supposed love is as Giles put it "a selfish, banal obsession". Once they don't get what they want things turn ugly as happened with Spike's "love" for Buffy too.
I always felt that the Judge could recognize feelings in vampires. Not so much a judge of character, but a judge of how they feel, if they feel at all. Because with Angel, after he turned into Angelus, he said he wanted to get back at Buffy because she made him feel, which he completely hated. And there was no humanity in him as Angelus because I felt like he didn't want to love. He was just plain evil. When he did feel love in that episode where the ghost possessed him, he absolutely hated that feeling. As such, he tried repeatedly to wash it off, and quickly wanted to go out and kill someone.
So, maybe when Dalton read, he felt real emotions that made him have some humanity. I know when I read something I absolutely love and really get into, I feel connected with the characters. I may cry, get angry, feel happy, etc. As I sure many of us do 🙂 I mean even evil psychopaths can love to read something that may makes them feel emotional, even if we don't see it. Take Mark Chapman who killed John Lennon. He loved to read "The Catcher in the Rye" and always had it with him.
With Dru, she could still feel love for Spike, but not be loyal in her relationship. That happens all the time in the real world.
Come on, Spike wasn't always with Drusila and we also are talking about Spike, not Andrew. He actually can decide for himself whether to do something or not. And in any event, saying he can feel guilt but didn't because Drusila urged him to be a monster just makes him worse in my eyes.
In "Crush," Spike says, "For over a century, we [he and Dru] cut a swath through continents. For 100 years, she never stopped surprising me. Never stopped taking me to new depths." So, yes. Since the day he was sired, Spike was always with Dru. She then left him around s3. I don't mean he was with her like 24/7, but in a relationship. When they were together, he may have been able to decide things on his own, but Dru was the one to show him new things (as he explained), especially since she was his sire.
And it wasn't just Dru who helped unleash the monster inside Spike, but Angelus. In AtS, the episode called "Destiny,"
when Angel and Spike are fighting, Spike says "Dru sired me, but you made me a monster." Angel responds by saying, "I didn't make you Spike. I just opened the door and let the real you out." After knocking Angel, Spike then says, "You never knew the real me."
I think "urged" may be too strong of a word, but rather Angel and Dru helped Spike get in touch with the demon inside him. They gave him a push in that direction sort of speak. But, that wasn't who he truly was because he still had some humanity left in him after being sired.
Yes but humans have the ability to feel empathy for their partners and guilt and many do when they cheat. Vampires don't have that ability, so Drusila is incapable of even understanding what love is, let alone deciding if she feels it or not.
In "Crush," Spike says, "For over a century, we [he and Dru] cut a swath through continents. For 100 years, she never stopped surprising me. Never stopped taking me to new depths."
Yet Drusila isn't around when he kills Nikki Wood or when he met Angel in that submarine. Spike is a drama queen, he loves to exaggerate. Giles says Drusila is Spike's "sometime paramour". He can be just as evil when she isn't around.
I think "urged" may be too strong of a word, but rather Angel and Dru helped Spike get in touch with the demon inside him. They gave him a push in that direction sort of speak. But, that wasn't who he truly was because he still had some humanity left in him after being sired.
Well, I don't agree with this interpretation. But funnily enough if I did, I would have had even more of a problem with Spike. If he kept parts of his humanity but still kept on murdering then he is much worse than the rest of the vampires. They don't have much more of a choice than a hungry lion has as far as killing went. If Spike had a residual consciousness but couldn't be bothered to use it than he is pretty much the Andrew of vampires - just going with the flow and then saying how he "had no choice" and people shouldn't blame him.
She may not understand what love is or what it means to be in a true, loving relationship, but that doesn't mean she cannot feel it IMO. Like I said before, referring to "Crush," Buffy tells Spike he cannot love because he doesn't have a soul. Again, she basing this on her relationship with Angel. But Dru says vampires, even without souls, can love "quite well, if not wisely." And the Judge recognized that she can feel love and affection.
Yet Drusila isn't around when he kills Nikki Wood or when he met Angel in that submarine. Spike is a drama queen, he loves to exaggerate. Giles says Drusila is Spike's "sometime paramour". He can be just as evil when she isn't around.
Oh, yeah, I definitely agree that Spike can be evil on his own when she isn't around, but I think he only got to that point because of Dru and Angelus. That's what I'm getting at. Like in "Lies My Parents Told Me,"
he wanted to have his mom come with him and Dru, and Dru's like "WTF?" Again, Dru may not understand why, but at that point, Spike did. He loved his mom and wanted to take of her. But once she was out of the picture, all he had left was Dru.
Well, I don't agree with this interpretation. But funnily enough if I did, I would have had even more of a problem with Spike. If he kept parts of his humanity but still kept on murdering then he is much worse than the rest of the vampires. They don't have much more of a choice than a hungry lion has as far as killing went. If Spike had a residual consciousness but couldn't be bothered to use it than he is pretty much the Andrew of vampires - just going with the flow and then saying how he "had no choice" and people shouldn't blame him.
That's exactly why Spike is such a complex character and so interesting, at least IMO. 🙂 I don't see it as making him the worse of all vampires, but rather why it might actually make him the best (sorry Angel fans 🙂). I mean what exactly is "humanity?" Is it the conscience, is it feeling guilty, is it the ability to love? It can be so many things! When humans are sired into vampires, they supposedly lose their humanity because they are now demons. Yet, Spike shows that this theory isn't entirely true because he shows sides of his humanity even without a soul. That's HUGE in the vampire world. Maybe that's why Dru was able to feel love because she was around Spike for so long (I don't know, I'm just brainstorming there).
Yet, in any case, once being sired, Spike did act like how vampires are suppose to. He wanted to kill, he wanted to terrorize, and all that jazz. He really had no free will when it came to that. More importantly, he never felt guilty about it. What he did feel guilty over was
his mother. Some of part of him, most likely the "humanity" left in him, truly loved her wanted to take care of her. And when he killed her, that guilt weighed on him and he tried to bury it.
. As I mentioned, I think he felt guilty toward the people he truly loved, but not toward others he killed when he had no soul. But that changed once he got his soul. He felt guilty for everything and everyone.
Well I'm one of those people who always needs an explanation, logical or mystical. It doesn't make sense Spike has bits of humanity in him even without his soul, and in my opinion that kinda makes it worse. That means Spike went around murdering and torturing people even though he still had some humanity in him, that pretty much means in my eyes that he murdered people just because it was something to do or that he even enjoyed it. I cringe at the thought of that. But I don't hate Spike, he's my second favorite character, sorry die-hard Spike fans, Angel will always be #1 in my book.
Well I'm one of those people who always needs an explanation, logical or mystical. It doesn't make sense Spike has bits of humanity in him even without his soul, and in my opinion that kinda makes it worse. That means Spike went around murdering and torturing people even though he still had some humanity in him, that pretty much means in my eyes that he murdered people just because it was something to do or that he even enjoyed it. I cringe at the thought of that. But I don't hate Spike, he's my second favorite character, sorry die-hard Spike fans, Angel will always be #1 in my book.
"Should I use my invisibility for good or for evil?" ::scratches head:: Hehe, I feel like I'm saying the same thing again. 🙂
IMO, just because pre-soul Spike had some humanity left in him doesn't automatically make him a good person. He was still first and foremost a vampire with no soul. Put another way, Spike having some humanity left is not the same as Spike having a soul. As such, the humanity left in him when he had no soul did not make him feel guilty for killing innocent people. That was all the demon side. But, I think the humanity side did allow him to love the ones he really cared about when he had no soul, which were his mother, Dru, Buffy, and even Joyce. But, yes. I think when Spike was a vampire and killed people, he enjoyed it. That's no big shock though. He sought slayers out. He craved the violence, as shown in s4 when he found out he could kill demons. And even Buffy pointed out how Spike enjoyed the fighting and killing in "Fool for Love." "You got off on it."
I do understand the quagmire that is Spike. When we talk about humanity, what are we talking about? If Spike has the capacity to care then why shouldn't that extend, at least by identification, to innocent strangers? How the humanity is displayed though is different for different people. Love can rarely be objectively defined. Although Heartthrob isn't the best ep, it does demonstrate how people show love can be different from person to person irrespective of whether someone has a soul.
I'll still say that I won't judge soulless vampires in the same way I'd judge their soulled counterparts otherwise, (and here is where I agree with Angel(us) purists) it renders having a soul as meaningless, and not only that it wouldn't make sense for Spike to even get a soul.
Joss' explanation about adult understanding that comes from the soul, is also problematic because the lack of soul does not inhibit the vampire's intellectual capacity. SoullessSpike can understand the pain he's causing and can be a skilled and ruthless manipulator if he needs to be (Yoko Factor, Into The Woods)
I've gotten so confused just thinking about this. I can't settle for speculation, I'm one of those people who needs concrete answers, that's why I don't mind spoilers.
Unfornately there is no concrete answer. Joss actually confirmed the whole soul thing is prey to convenience. He's more about the metaphor than the metaphysical.
I've gotten so confused just thinking about this. I can't settle for speculation, I'm one of those people who needs concrete answers, that's why I don't mind spoilers.
Like Kana said, there's probably no concrete answer. It's not all black and white in the Buffyverse. There are many gray areas. For me, that's why I just try and put the pieces together by looking at everything we see in the show. It might not be the answer we want, but that's the way it's presented.
I've gotten so confused just thinking about this. I can't settle for speculation, I'm one of those people who needs concrete answers, that's why I don't mind spoilers.
The concrete answer is that there was no long term planning whatsoever. So one episode Spike is fully evil, a few episodes later he is basically a reluctant hero, then he is back to fully evil again. Heck, the attempted rape itself was written exactly because the writers felt many fans had forgotten how evil Spike was. Gee, I wonder why that was?
Personally I like gray characters but for me Spike doesn't qualify as gray, he is simply inconsistently written. The writers could never agree on what they wanted to do with him and the justifications for his staying in the show were ever more ridiculous (the scene where the Council people come to "interview" him and just leave him be comes to mind). Apparently David Fury even went as far as to compare some Spike fans with people who write letters to serial murderers...fast forward two seasons and Fury then proclaimed he loved writing "Lies My Parents Told Me".
Like Kana said, there's probably no concrete answer. It's not all black and white in the Buffyverse.
That's all fine and good but if there is ambiguity about the evilness of unsouled vampires this should be reflected in the characters' behaviour. Let's assume Buffy believed that soulless vampires can be anything but totally bad. Shouldn't this have made her rethink her behaviour? If vampires aren't all bad is it really justifiable to kill some of them seconds after they crawl out of the grave? Yet this never happened. The writers tried to have it both ways and failed.
Spikefan31I agree about Spike being inconsistently written. The writers really should have made a decision to have him be fully evil or good and stuck with it.
The concrete answer is that there was no long term planning whatsoever. So one episode Spike is fully evil, a few episodes later he is basically a reluctant hero, then he is back to fully evil again. Heck, the attempted rape itself was written exactly because the writers felt many fans had forgotten how evil Spike was. Gee, I wonder why that was?
Agreed. All we can try and do is make some sort of sense of it. In previous forums I'd dedicated many a thread about the nature of vampires and the soul: Not an easy task.
Personally I like gray characters but for me Spike doesn't qualify as gray, he is simply inconsistently written. The writers could never agree on what they wanted to do with him and the justifications for his staying in the show were ever more ridiculous (the scene where the Council people come to "interview" him and just leave him be comes to mind). Apparently David Fury even went as far as to compare some Spike fans with people who write letters to serial murderers...fast forward two seasons and Fury then proclaimed he loved writing "Lies My Parents Told Me".
There are some elements of consistency with Spike, but we always have the retcon business lol. The question remains what is the nature of the soul. We knew that vampires can love and we knew that vampires can feel general affection for their own kind. We've seen at least one other vampire have a kinship of sorts with humans after being around them for an extended period of time. What would happen if you have an adaptable and changable vampire who constantly redefines his identity and who has the ability to love and you chipped him and he was forced to work with the good guys for his survival (we know he's done this before in Season 2)? Well this is what was explored. While it's not true "l'existence précède l'essence" it does explore how changeable behaviour can be amongst vampires.
That's all fine and good but if there is ambiguity about the evilness of unsouled vampires this should be reflected in the characters' behaviour. Let's assume Buffy believed that soulless vampires can be anything but totally bad. Shouldn't this have made her rethink her behaviour? If vampires aren't all bad is it really justifiable to kill some of them seconds after they crawl out of the grave? Yet this never happened. The writers tried to have it both ways and failed.
I found this interesting because I've always wondered the same thing although even in the show, it's not that simple. Buffy rarely judges the vampires she kills. She even understands that what happens to vampires for the most part isn't there fault, however there behaviour is such that by killing them she is protecting humans. It's possible that if vampires are controlled in a way then they may not need to be staked. This was kind of explored with the Initiative although the full extent of agenda we do not know. Demon ambiguity has been dealt with but I suppose with vampires, there behaviour is more predictable in general. Even a vampire like Spike capable of love needed extreme circumstances for his behaviour and Angel didn't specify that a vampire needed to be soulled to control themselves (although he did say they totally evil, granted), so while I agree that the full discussion on vampire ambiguity wasn't discussed but the best I can do to explain that is that in the Buffyverse, mainly due to experiences, and their personal relationships there was a bit more immediacy required than sitting on internet forums debating the ethical treatment of vampires, but yes I agree, I would have liked it explored more. Still we can still draw our own conclusions and infer what we will using various bits of evidence presented on the show.
That's all fine and good but if there is ambiguity about the evilness of unsouled vampires this should be reflected in the characters' behaviour. Let's assume Buffy believed that soulless vampires can be anything but totally bad. Shouldn't this have made her rethink her behaviour? If vampires aren't all bad is it really justifiable to kill some of them seconds after they crawl out of the grave? Yet this never happened. The writers tried to have it both ways and failed.
But she did believe vampires at their very core were bad, at least that's how I always saw it. It was only with Angel and Spike specifically that she questioned her behavior because they were different from other vampires. And that was her whole dilemma in s6. She had feelings toward Spike but the bottom-line was he was still a vampire with no soul, and she was the slayer. But, even before s6, she didn't kill Spike because of the chip. She didn't feel right killing a vampire that couldn't fight back. He was also a valuable source for information in the demon world. As Spike said, she knew he was a monster, but she treated him like a man.
Some might see it as inconsistent, the writers failing, but I just see it as the story developing. I also don't like to judge the writers for not knowing where the series was going or how characters would develop over the course of the seasons, especially if they didn't know. I don't think it's fair to their creative process. But, if writers know, more power to them. If they didn't, then I just try and take the hand we're dealt with. 🙂 Plus, even if some still see ambiguity, then it just makes it more fun to discuss 🙂
Well I'll always hold the AR against Spuffy until the day I die. I think the Spuffiness in me that I use to have is gone for good this time, ever since I finished re-watching Season 6 of Buffy a few days ago. Don't get me wrong, Spike is still one of my all-time favorite characters... just not when he's with Buffy. Kinda like Angel, Angel's my favorite character just when he's not in love with Cordelia.
soulunsungSo, am to believe that since you're holding the AR against Spuffy & Spike in general, that any other character who does something as equally as bad has NO CHANCE AT ALL at any type of redemption - most esp Spike?! Wow.
Well I'll always hold the AR against Spuffy until the day I die. I think the Spuffiness in me that I use to have is gone for good this time, ever since I finished re-watching Season 6 of Buffy a few days ago. Don't get me wrong, Spike is still one of my all-time favorite characters... just not when he's with Buffy. Kinda like Angel, Angel's my favorite character just when he's not in love with Cordelia.
To each his own I guess 🙂 For me, everytime I watch s7, I'm reminded why I love Spuffy so much. The AR was just part of their journey. But, everyone has their preferences and I respect that. 🙂 Buffy is my favorite character but I don't like it when she's with Angel. And I love Angel but not when he's with Buffy.
Well I respect everyone's opinions (Even if I like Angel better on BTVS because he's a much happier person whereas on ATS he's pretty much always depressed). Not sure where my future lies as a Bangel at the moment, I'm starting to think they should give Angel a new love interest.
1. Spike was not responsible for his actions because of his lack of a soul.
Spike had obvious control of his actions. He (as a soulless "monster") decided to not give up Dawn and Buffy to Glory after being tortured. He (as a soulless "monster") decided to go in search for a soul. He (as a soulless "monster") fought numerous vampires, monsters, etc. He (as a soulless "monster") decided he loved Buffy. He clearly did not lack a moral compass in those other events and we have no reason to think he does at this one.
2. Buffy's no didn't mean no.
This is from the original script:
Buffy struggles with Spike, pain shooting through her injured back. He's on top of her, desperate, hungry.
SPIKE (kissing, touching) - I know you felt it... When I was inside you...
BUFFY - Don't...
She manages to push him off. She scuttles for the door like a wounded animal. He catches her leg, scrambling back on top of her and pinning her wrists down.
SPIKE - You're going to let me inside you...
BUFFY - Please...
SPIKE - You'll feel it again, Buffy...
BUFFY - Spike, stop...
He tears at her robe, getting it open.
SPIKE - I'll make you feel it...
BUFFY - STOP!
She shoves him back, exploding. He flies across the room, smashing midway up the opposite wall, cracking the plaster and crashing to the floor. Buffy stands, trembling with rage, fear -- and reclaimed power.
BUFFY (cont'd) - Ask me again why I could never love you.
Spike looks up at her, realizing how far he just crossed the line.
SPIKE - Oh god. Buffy... I didn't --
BUFFY "“ Because I stopped you. Something I should have done a long time ago.
Spike can muster no response, the weight of his actions crushing down on him. Buffy stands motionless, her eyes slick with anger "“ and a tinge of fear from almost being violated.
Previous relations with Spike ALWAYS involved Buffy giving it back to Spike as much as he gave it to here. Here, she's described as a wounded animal as well as trembling with rage [and] fear. Clearly, this incident is different from any past liaisons they've had. Buffy used physical force to stop him, not to continue what they were doing.
3. Spike didn't go with the intention to rape Buffy.
This may be 100% true. It, however, doesn't make his actions any less.
In Criminal Law, an attempt to commit a crime is an offense when an accused makes a substantial but unsuccessful effort to commit a crime.
According to dictionary.com, rape is defined as :
1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
Therefore, by definition, Spike committed attempted rape, whether it was his intention or not.
As a side note, what the hell is "accidental" rape? Like, oh gosh, I just accidently shoved you on to the ground, forced your legs apart, and shoved myself inside you? Oops?
Connor HoltzSpike is no more responsible without a soul than Angelus. Joss nails it in veryu clear vampires can fool you into thinking they are different but in the end they lack of a soul will always cause them to turn on you.
I was wondering if someone was going to mention this. One can argue back and forth about the ambiguity of whether Spike was in his right mind or not, or how the lack of a soul affects his actions, but the fact that he attempted to rape Buffy shouldn't even be argued: he did.
I don't think it's ok to say beforehand what should or should not be argued. I'm still fully convinced that Spike did not attempt to rape Buffy (without soul/no soul even entering the picture much), and I've seen no argument to change my mind. In all likelihood, the jury will forever remain hung on this while I'm around.
I'm not gonna go back into the discussion though, I've said all I had to say, and it doesn't do me too much good, emotionally, to step back into the fray of the discussion of such a sensitive subject... so just read up on my old posts if you wanna know why I'm adamant on the not guilty about the alleged "attempted rape", and likewise adamant about Buffy's very sizeable share of responsibility for what happened in the bathroom.
StarSlayerOne can argue any side to any story. Whether one chooses to believe it depends on the person. I've actually read your old posts and while I don't agree with everything, you make some interesting points :)
1. Spike was not responsible for his actions because of his lack of a soul.
Spike had obvious control of his actions. He (as a soulless “monster”) decided to not give up Dawn and Buffy to Glory after being tortured. He (as a soulless “monster”) decided to go in search for a soul. He (as a soulless “monster”) fought numerous vampires, monsters, etc. He (as a soulless “monster”) decided he loved Buffy. He clearly did not lack a moral compass in those other events and we have no reason to think he does at this one.
I was rethinking this argument the other day and I'm more convinced Spike should not responsible for his actions because he is vampire with no soul, as opposed to a vampire with a soul or human for that matter. It was actually something Wesley said in AtS. In s2, "There's No Place Like Pirtz Girb,"
we see what the real demon inside Angel looks like. And he's afraid it will come back, take control over him. Wesley says to Angel, "We know you're a man with a demon inside. Not the other way around." I think that describes exactly the whole-having-a-soul. Without a soul, it's a demon with a man inside. But with a soul, it's a man with a demon inside.
That's how I see the AR. It was the demon side conquering the human side of Spike.
Now, yes. Spike did many noble acts without a soul and we hold him responsible for that. But again, with the AR, something different happened. This was the demon side taking over rather than his human side. I believe his human side was the one responsible for his noble acts, but the demon was responsible for his evil acts.
The same can be said for Angel when he killed Jenny. We hold the demon, Angelus, responsible for her death. But, we don't hold Angel, with a soul, responsible.
I've always disagreed with this argument too. In this instance, Buffy clearly meant "No" as in "Stop." Yes, other times her "no" meant "don't stop," but not here.
3. Spike didn’t go with the intention to rape Buffy.
This may be 100% true. It, however, doesn’t make his actions any less.
In Criminal Law, an attempt to commit a crime is an offense when an accused makes a substantial but unsuccessful effort to commit a crime.
According to dictionary.com, rape is defined as :
1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
Therefore, by definition, Spike committed attempted rape, whether it was his intention or not.
I actually graduated from law school recently, and I'm beginning to think it's not as clear cut as it seems. Unless it's statutory rape, intent can matter for rape. There are two types of intent under criminal law. Specific intent and general intent. Under common law, attempt is a specific intent crime. This means there needs to be a specific, desired intent to bring about a criminal result and an overt act, or some conduct in furtherance of the crime. But, there needs to be both. Depending on the jurisdiction, there are defenses to attempt. If the state adopts common law, there is no defense to attempt once the act is complete. In other states, voluntary and complete abandonment before the act is complete can be a defense for attempt.
But, under common law, rape is actually a general intent crime, meaning there doesn't need to be specific mens rea. In other words, there doesn't need to be an evil intent to commit the crime. Commission of an unlawful act will be enough.
Here though, we don't have a complete act. We have an attempt. What it means to be "substantial" though can depend on the state, the jury, etc. One can certainly argue that Spike didn't have the specific intent to rape Buffy. Even if he there was attempt, there is the defense that he abandoned the act before it was completed. He certainly was negligent and reckless with his actions, which I think would be the better argument against Spike.
I just want to mention this is from a legal perspective. I still believe Spike was definitely wrong for what he did, but again. I believe it was more so from his demon side.
---------- Post added at 08:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:04 PM ----------
Bingo. I found this from a website that describes California law.
For attempted rape:
Unlike rape, attempt or assault with intent are what the law calls "specific intent" crimes. This means that in order to find an accused guilty, the prosecutor must show the accused intended to have intercourse by force or threat of injury and against the will of the victim. Even if the accused unreasonably believes the victim is consenting, the accused does not have the intent necessary for the crime.
A person can commit forcible rape negligently. If the accused did not, but should have, realized that the victim was not consenting, but was submitting because of a perception of force or threat of injury, the accused is guilty of rape.
IMO, this would be the stronger argument against Spike because we're really not dealing with intent here. We're dealing with what the reasonable person would believe. So, in that sense, Spike should have realized that Buffy meant "no" and was not consenting. I think we can all agree on that.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
