No attempted rape?

[InsaneMystic]

StarSlayer, I could hug you. Great to have a lawyer in the thread... especially if she supports one of my main arguments! 😀

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.

Very much agreed, that indeed pinpoints exactly the mistake Spike made, IMO.

And this is where the soul comes into play, as the deciding factor of whether it's reasonably possible for a person without a soul (and thus, severely limited in their empathic capability) to read the difference in "flavor" of the no's.

 

[StarSlayer]

StarSlayer, I could hug you. Great to have a lawyer in the thread... especially if she supports one of my main arguments! 😀

Lol, well, I'm not one yet. Have to pass the bar first. But, bringing in the legal side of things made me look at it another way and question things. 🙂

 

[VampireJason]

It disgust me that people try to justify Spike's actions in Seeing Red. It was an attempted rape, which is my main reason why I never want Spuffy together sexually again. I think they could make good friends but that's it. If Spike were shanshued and settled down with Buffy I wouldn't be able to describe my words of disappointment in Joss IMO. But that doesn't mean I hate Spike, he's one my favorites just not in Season Six.

 

[StarSlayer]

It disgust me that people try to justify Spike's actions in Seeing Red. It was an attempted rape, which is my main reason why I never want Spuffy together sexually again. I think they could make good friends but that's it. If Spike were shanshued and settled down with Buffy I wouldn't be able to describe my words of disappointment in Joss IMO. But that doesn't mean I hate Spike, he's one my favorites just not in Season Six.

I'm saying, legally, he may not be guilty of attempted rape because of how the law defines "attempt." But, he certainly can still be guilty of rape in another way, which would be negligently. I'm not justifying his actions. As I said, I still believe he was wrong. But, I can't compare Spike to a regular human being or a vampire with a soul because he wasn't. He was a vampire with no soul.

 

[Tome]

It disgust me that people try to justify Spike's actions in Seeing Red. It was an attempted rape, which is my main reason why I never want Spuffy together sexually again. I think they could make good friends but that's it. If Spike were shanshued and settled down with Buffy I wouldn't be able to describe my words of disappointment in Joss IMO. But that doesn't mean I hate Spike, he's one my favorites just not in Season Six.

Actually for me it is up to Buffy. She was the one who got attacked by him, if she consider that meant he can never touch her again, then so be it. But obviously it is not the case 😛 So Spuffy can and will still happen!

 

[dan k]

Spike did the wrong thing but he didn't have a soul so he can't be held responsible for his actions. Buffy and Angel reunited in season 3 after Angel brutally killed Jenny, what's the difference?

I have sympathy for Spike because on many occasions Buffy did say no but didn't mean it like people have already said. Without a soul he wasn't to know the difference and was unaware of what he was actually doing until she kicked him off. I'm not condoning what he did in anyway but these are special circumstances. His mind didn't work like an ordinary human.

You watch season 7 and to say that Spuffy can't work as an item is bizarre when you see that all has been forgiven. Buffy can't fathom the thought of Spike not being there, she'd moved on and accepted Spike was a new man and he'd become a new man for her. This wasn't the same Spike that tried to rape her.

 

[StarSlayer]

I'm sure this was already mentioned in this thread, but I'm too lazy to go back an check, lol. We're so quick to accuse Spike of rape (and rightfully so), and condemn him for his actions that we forget Angel is just as guilty of statutory rape in s2, and he had a soul. Even though Buffy consented, that doesn't matter under the law. She was under 18 (a minor) and Angel was an adult. Again, it's that double standard.

 

[Tome]

I'm sure this was already mentioned in this thread, but I'm too lazy to go back an check, lol. We're so quick to accuse Spike of rape (and rightfully so), and condemn him for his actions that we forget Angel is just as guilty of statutory rape in s2, and he had a soul. Even though Buffy consented, that doesn't matter under the law. She was under 18 (a minor) and Angel was an adult. Again, it's that double standard.

Nooooo please don't start a debate on that whole 'statutory rape' thingy!! It's never gonna end.

 

[StarSlayer]

Nooooo please don't start a debate on that whole 'statutory rape' thingy!! It's never gonna end.

Whoops, sorry. I wasn't trying to start anything. I just thought I'd mention it, since I've been talking in legal terms.

 

[dan k]

I'm sure this was already mentioned in this thread, but I'm too lazy to go back an check, lol. We're so quick to accuse Spike of rape (and rightfully so), and condemn him for his actions that we forget Angel is just as guilty of statutory rape in s2, and he had a soul. Even though Buffy consented, that doesn't matter under the law. She was under 18 (a minor) and Angel was an adult. Again, it's that double standard.

This will sound controversial but i don't blame Angel at all for what happened in season 2. Its only recently that i found out it was statutory rape as in the UK the age limit is 16 not 18.

Although lawfully what Angel did was wrong i believe Buffy was old enough to make that decision and it wasn't as if Angel forced the situation.

The passion, the love they shared at that moment during "surprise" well i can't criticize Angel for succumbing. I suspect some will say "but he broke the law" but for me Buffy was old enough to make that decision and to have a go at Angel for him choosing not to reject the woman who he loved and hurt her feelings in the process, well i think that would be extremely harsh.

You need to look at the circumstances.

 

[Tome]

This will sound controversial but i don't blame Angel at all for what happened in season 2. Its only recently that i found out it was statutory rape as in the UK the age limit is 16 not 18.

Although lawfully what Angel did was wrong i believe Buffy was old enough to make that decision and it wasn't as if Angel forced the situation.

The passion, the love they shared at that moment during "surprise" well i can't criticize Angel for succumbing. I suspect some will say "but he broke the law" but for me Buffy was old enough to make that decision and to have a go at Angel for him choosing not to reject the woman who he loved and hurt her feelings in the process, well i think that would be extremely harsh.

You need to look at the circumstances.

We're doomed!!!!!!!!

 

[StarSlayer]

Although lawfully what Angel did was wrong i believe Buffy was old enough to make that decision and it wasn't as if Angel forced the situation.

The passion, the love they shared at that moment during "surprise" well i can't criticize Angel for succumbing. I suspect some will say "but he broke the law" but for me Buffy was old enough to make that decision and to have a go at Angel for him choosing not to reject the woman who he loved and hurt her feelings in the process, well i think that would be extremely harsh.

You need to look at the circumstances.

That's all well and good, but all that doesn't matter under the law in the U.S. That's all I'm saying. Statutory rape (an adult having intercourse with a minor, which in California is anyone under 18) is a strict liability crime, meaning you can state whatever you want to justify your actions, but the court doesn't care. You're still guilty. No defenses apply.

 

[dan k]

I know that. And that's all well and good, but all that doesn't matter under the law in the U.S. That's all I'm saying. It's a strict liability crime, meaning you can state whatever you want to justify your actions, but the court doesn't care. You're still guilty.

You are right but i just wanted to state that i don't think what Angel did in season 2 is comparable to what Spike did in season 6.

Both actions are of course crimes but the circumstances are very different that was just the point i wanted to make.

This isn't me criticising Spuffy. As i mentioned in my post before i'm a great believer in that ship but i didn't want that Bangel moment to be brought into this discussion as a way of defending why Spuffy could be an item.

Buffy wanted to go a step further with Angel, that wasn't the case with Spike. So i wouldn't use that example in justfiying why Spuffy can work. I'd use the Jenny example instead.

On both instances Buffy's lovers committed terrible acts while being souless beings. Them two acts were comparable in terms of arguing "Well if Buffy can get with Angel in season 3 after that then why not Spike?

 

[Tome]

My point of view on this is that if you bring a REAL life perspective to a show with a lot of fiction then you have to do it for EVERYTHING in it...

Also... laws or not, they were both consenting, and I have nothing against that scene personally.

 

[Marisa]

It disgust me that people try to justify Spike's actions in Seeing Red. It was an attempted rape, which is my main reason why I never want Spuffy together sexually again. I think they could make good friends but that's it. If Spike were shanshued and settled down with Buffy I wouldn't be able to describe my words of disappointment in Joss IMO. But that doesn't mean I hate Spike, he's one my favorites just not in Season Six.

All things aside I disagree with this statement. People in the buffyverse have done bad things if not worse than this. So to say Spike and Buffy shouldnt be together is wrong in my eyes. That is like me saying Angelus did all of these bad things and Bangel doesnt deserve to ever be together again.

I know it is wrong what Spike did but it just seems harsh IMO to state it that way but I guess we can agree to disagree 😉

 

[StarSlayer]

You are right but i just wanted to state that i don't think what Angel did in season 2 is comparable to what Spike did in season 6.

Both actions are of course crimes but the circumstances are very different that was just the point i wanted to make.

I agree. It's not comparable. I was just simply stating that both Angel and Spike would be guilty under the eyes of the law.

This isn't me criticising Spuffy. As i mentioned in my post before i'm a great believer in that ship but i didn't want Bangel to be brought into this discussion as a way of defending why Spuffy could be an item.

I know you believe in Spuffy 🙂 And I wasn't trying to bring in Bangel as a way of defending Spuffy as an item. Sorry if you thought that cause I know you support both 🙂 I just wanted to point out that double standard again.

 

[dan k]

I agree. It's not comparable. I was just simply stating that both Angel and Spike would be guilty under the eyes of the law.



I know you believe in Spuffy 🙂 And I wasn't trying to bring in Bangel as a way of defending Spuffy as an item. Sorry if you thought that cause I know you support both 🙂 I just wanted to point out that double standard again.

I've edited what i said because what i meant to say was i didn't want that specific Bangel moment to be brought in as a way of defending Spuffy as an item because i don't think they are comparable.

The comparison with Jenny though is bringing Bangel in as a way of defending Spuffy and i'm fine with that because both that and the AR are comparable acts in my opinion.

No need to apologize :smile3:, you just gave your opinion.

 

[StarSlayer]

I've edited what i said because what i meant to say was i didn't want that specific Bangel moment to be brought in as a way of defending Spuffy as an item because i don't think they are comparable.

I agree. I don't think they are comparable, especially from our points of view. I just meant from a legal point of view, they aren't so different because they would both be guilty. (I think I kinda said that in my other post too, so sorry about the repetition, lol)

The comparison with Jenny though is bringing Bangel in as a way of defending Spuffy and i'm fine with that because both that and the AR are comparable acts in my opinion.

Completely agree.

No need to apologize :smile3:, you just gave your opinion.

Lol, thanks. I can't never be too sure with internet talk. 🙂

 

[dan k]

I agree. I don't think they are comparable, especially from our points of view. I just meant from a legal point of view, they aren't so different because they would both be guilty.



Completely agree.



Lol, thanks. I can't never be too sure with internet talk. 🙂

I can assure you've not upset me :biggrin3: and i understand the point you made was just talking about the fact that both acts were not legal.

Should have mentioned that in my last post, save you writing it out again, now i'll apologize to you. :smile3:

 

[Kana]

It's an interesting point about the legality of the situations but does human law even apply to vampires...?

Lindsay: "There are beings, detective. Beings that aren't governed by the laws and strictures that we as humans have devised.

This makes things even more blurry...

Generally, we don't treat soulless vampires in the same way morally or practically. Buffy certainly doesn't, for most part she slays them without trial.