That night...

[Gum Gnome33]

So, I realize that this might be a really heavy idea for a thread. But I've been thinking lately about the strong parallels between the scene in which Angel drains Buffy's blood within an inch of her life, and the "attempted rape" scene in Seeing Red. I want to compare them side by side in order to consider whether they are analogous at all, (and how), and whether the reactions of the other characters seem consistent in each case. Please don't read on if the idea of discussing all of this does not appeal to you!

I don't want to turn this into an Angel vs Spike thread. Instead, I want to talk about something that's always bothered me-- that the scene between Spike and Buffy inspires so much controversy and indeed is a pivotal plot point aimed at getting Spike to make his transformation, while the scene between Angel and Buffy is barely discussed by comparison, albeit to acknowledge how "deeply sexual" it is.

First: the scene in season 3. Angel is dying. Buffy insists that he feed off of her, to save his life. There isn't any doubt that this is what she wants. Three convincing punches from her firsts and she's been knocked to the ground and is near death, her former lover lying on top of her--taking what he needs from her, her life at stake. For a moment, neither is who they were just minutes ago; Buffy is unconscious and Angel is not much more than the demon who lives inside of him. He isn't Angel and he isn't Angelus; he's purely a monster, drinking a slayer's blood to save his life. There is a moment where it seems quite clear, (to me at least), that the young girl who'd asked her lover to save himself at her expense has had a change of heart. There is a look of pure anguish and we see her make a slight attempt to push him away, as she kicks out in front of her. We all know what happens next. Angel "snaps out of it," realizes what he's done, (sound familiar?), rushes her into the nearest emergency room and looks guilty enough to stake himself.

I haven't seen this scene compared to rape at all, in the fandom. Maybe I missed it, but I haven't. I don't know that I would do so, directly, but to me the parallels are obvious. A young girl thinks she is ready for something, her lover takes advantage of this and isn't deterred by her obvious discomfort and anguish later on. Was he in his right mind at the time? No. Did it take much to get him out of it? No. Would I call this rape, outright? Certainly not. It is Buffy's idea to begin with, and there are no frank and obvious protests on her part, (though it's clear to the audience that she is in pain). Are there parallels? Yes. What I find most abhorrent are the numerous declarations I've seen about how "deeply sexual" this scene is.

Anyway, all of this profound truth I'm talking about seems to go unnoticed by the other characters. In fact, it's only Xander who makes even one comment,(!), about the event at all. He says, "It's nice to know that when the chips are down, you'll feed off the girl who loves you." Poignant, and true. Because call it whatever you want but at the end of the day, something completely horrible has just happened to Buffy, at the hands of Angel, (again). Why does no one else seem to notice? To care? Is it because they are about to fight the mayor and have yet to figure out how to stop the coming apocalypse? Perhaps. Is it because their friend is unconscious in a nearby room? Maybe. I buy that. But later? Not a peep? Not even from Giles? Let me take a moment to step aside and wipe off my glasses in puzzlement.

Fast forward three years. Spike is a vampire in love with a slayer. He's had a sexual relationship with her, which was not founded on romance or talks of "forever." But he loves her, nonetheless. She says he doesn't love him. He thinks it might have something to do with the fact that he's just slept with her friend. He apologizes for that. She doesn't seem to be very moved. So he tries to make her "feel" the way she did when they were intimate, again. He initiates sex against her wishes. In the beginning, it isn't all that different from the encounters they'd had before, (namely in "Gone" and "Smashed," in which she initiated). A few moments later it's clear that this time, it's different. She doesn't want to continue. But Spike presses on, desperately trying to get back the connection they had, in the only way he knows how. She successfully throws him off of her, and stands horrified in front of her--truly amazed at what he's done. He runs away, and realizes what he must do...

As we all know, this scene is referred to as "attempted rape." On the boards, I call it the "AR" as well, for the sake of argument. But I believe this phrase is inappropriate, as it doesn't represent what happened. Saying that Spike attempted to rape Buffy implies that he intended to, from the beginning; that it was his goal, all along. In fact, his goal was to apologize to her and, shortly thereafter, to have sex with her again as they had many times before. I think of this scene as a "possible, would-be" rape. What I mean is that in spite of the fact that Spike didn't intend to rape Buffy, that is potentially what he would have done had she not thrown him off of her. Yes, the act didn't appear to be all that different than their previous encounters but the difference is that this time she'd said "no." Continuing might have lead to rape. And if he were actually successful, this would have been rape, regardless of initial intent. But, (and this is really important), the fact that Spike doesn't make any further attempts to complete the act after he is thrown off and realizes that indeed, this time is different, serves as further proof that this is not an "attempt" at rape. It is a near rape by circumstance, which is stopped short and whose perpetrator makes clear that he hadn't wanted it to happen that way. I mean, one could just as easily call the scene between Angel and Buffy "attempted murder." But I wouldn't.

What about the reactions? Xander threatens to go after him. This time, he wants more than to point out what was done to Buffy. Buffy herself implies in "Beneath You" that he'd have been successful is she hadn't stopped him. She doesn't acknowledge that, yes, she stopped him initially but he stopped himself after that. As for Giles and Willow? We don't know for sure if they ever find out. But the former certainly has no qualms about having Spike killed a few episodes later. This is the man, of course, who said nothing to Angel after he'd sucked his slayer dry, a year after killing his own girlfriend.

Now what about the parallels between these two scenes? I tend to see quite a few more than the scoobies apparently do. And that bothers me. A lot. Because something major happened in each instance, and only one is ever addressed.

Vampire loves slayer. Vampire selfishly takes something he needs from the slayer. The first does it because he was asked to, (or one could argue that he was "forced" to, but--three punches? Jury's still out on that). The second does it because, initially, it is meant to recreate the same encounter they'd had many times before--when he was, in fact, on the other side as a willing participant. Ultimately, (lame 3 punch excuse aside), I see these both as understandable reasons for the initiation of each act, respectively. The first is not slowed down by the anguish-filled screams and other various noises coming from the slayer, (arguably, he is not himself). The second is not slowed down by the slayer's obvious protests. Both, when able to "snap out of it," are immediately terrified and repulsed by what they've done. One goes off to wallow, (after helping the slayer avert an apocalypse), and the other changes his composition for the slayer's benefit. Both vampires have taken something from the woman they love. The first has directly endangered her life, and the second has at the very least taken away her trust.

Now of course there are some very poignant differences between these two scenes. In the first, Buffy is unable to stop Angel--clearly she is too weak though she does try to kick at one point. But, more to the point, it's also probable that she is too conflicted to make any further effort--she's clearly terrified and in pain but ultimately wants this for Angel as it will save his life. In the second scene, any initial conflict or delay seems to come from the fact that Buffy wants to believe that Spike will stop on his own, (my personal take), and the obvious fact that what Spike is doing to Buffy is not for the sake of his survival.

It boils down for me like this: Spike wanted, in the beginning, what they'd had before. He initiated in the same way Buffy had with him, on more than one occasion. Angel started out innocently as well. He refused to bite Buffy. When he finally did, it was merely a survival instinct that had kicked in, on behalf of his darkest side. One was soulless and arguably not in complete control of his inner demon, (or his "id," one could say). The other was acting in spite of his soul, and in that moment chose his life over hers. For me, those are the biggest differences.

Anyway, I believe it's important to consider why the two scenes don't receive similar reactions, on the show or in the fan-verse. Why isn't Buffy horrified when she realizes that Angel can so easily be convinced to bring her within an inch of her life? Though she's relieved that he's alive, doesn't a part of her resent him for this? What about the rest of us? Don't we feel that if we can react to the bathroom scene with horror and disgust, that we can feel similarly about the scene in Graduation Day?

So how do you all feel about this? What's your personal take on the similarities/differences between these two scenes? Did the characters react consistently? Fairly? Do you think it's crazy to even compare them at all? If so, why??

 

[wickedtiger86]

Wow. Really great post. I need a minute to get my thoughts in order here.

The way you described Spike's intent in that scene is pretty close to what I've thought all along, but, for some reason, have been afraid to outright say.

I started thinking about the scene between Buffy and Angel actually, when I was watching True Blood, and something similar happened between two characters on there. In True Blood the characters do react more violently when this happens than they did in Buffy. Thought that was interesting.

Anyway, I think that the Scoobies put a huge amount of emphasis on the soul. I think that Angel can actually get away with a lot more because of his soul. The Scoobies tend to want to rationalize his actions more. Perhaps because they all have souls and want to believe that you can't be completely evil while having a soul.

Whenever Spike does anything the automatic response is always "Well he doesn't have a soul. He can't feel. He's a thing." and stuff like that. Which, when you watch Spike, you can see that he is feeling a lot of things and he's feeling them very intensely.

So I guess I think it's the soul that saves Angel from a lot of . . . umm . .. reactions? I mean the scoobies were a little preoccupied with the Mayor but still. If anyone nearly killed one of my friends, regardless of the means, I'd be upset.

On the same note if anyone assaulted any of my friend in any way . . .I'd be very upset. So I see where you are coming from. Perhaps, if Angel had stuck around after the Mayor there would have been more comments towards him from the group? That would make sense. I couldn't see Xander not bringing it up again at some point.

 

[Tome]

Let me take a moment to step aside and wipe off my glasses in puzzlement.

Such a Giles thing to do. 😉

Well, I didn't think I could muster my courage and read all of your post, but I did! 😉 Personally I just cannot compare those two scenes. I don't see Buffy kick as a try to push Angel away. She was just under a lot of pain. As for Angel choosing his life over Buffys, I don't think so! The moment she decided to do that, she told him not to drink it all. Yes it was dangerous for her, but she trusted he would stop in time, and he did.

I didn't like Xander's remark to Angel. Yes, the appearances made Angel look really bad in that situation, but Buffy wanted it. Angel even tried to get away when she told him the first time.

Now you bring the *AR*. I don't wanna dwell on it too much because I always thought that scene was really OOC, but in my mind it just isn't the same thing. In THAT situation, Spike tried to get something from Buffy while she was clearly stating NO. Sure he stopped(after Buffy pushed him away), but this doesn't excuse his action. He wanted to force himself on her. Yes I know, they both were used to go through this whole denial part before they had sex. But you could CLEARLY tell it was different for Buffy at that moment, and Spike who supposedly knew her so well, would have had no problem detecting that.

All in all, it was a bad move for Spike. And he was lucky Buffy forgave him in the end. Angel on the other hand felt guilt because he had risked his lover's life for his. Who wouldn't? But I will never hold him accountable for the whole thing. Buffy made her decision when she told him they had to do it.

That's my two cents.

 

[Gum Gnome33]

but Buffy wanted it. Angel even tried to get away when she told him the first time.

As I said, I know Angel tried to get away. But three punches later and he was completely convinced. But more importantly, the fact that Buffy wanted it isn't enough to make it benign, in my eyes. We've heard that argument before, when it comes to a woman who initially wants something but decides in the middle that she isn't ready... I always read the looks of pain and anguish on her face as indications that she was feeling that way.

it just isn't the same thing. In THAT situation, Spike tried to get something from Buffy while she was clearly stating NO. Sure he stopped(after Buffy pushed him away), but this doesn't excuse his action. He wanted to force himself on her. Yes I know, they both were used to go through this whole denial part before they had sex. But you could CLEARLY tell it was different for Buffy at that moment, and Spike who supposedly knew her so well, would have had no problem detecting that.

Fully agreed, and I did state all of this in my OP. He isn't excused from what he did. But it wasn't an "attempt at rape." It could have been rape, had he succeeded. Like I said, his intent doesn't excuse what he did, but it needs to be acknowledged, in the same way that Angel's intent with Buffy, (to not kill her), is acknowledged so easily.

Angel on the other hand felt guilt because he had risked his lover's life for his. Who wouldn't? But I will never hold him accountable for the whole thing.

Both Angel and Spike felt guilty for what they did to Buffy--both understandably. Both should also be held accountable, in my opinion.

 

[OhWow]

Oh wow...(LOL)

I didn't think I would be able to read that entire post, but to my surprise I did. Kept me intrigued. It was a great post, really. I have to commend you on that. On the nicely thought-out comparison. Perhaps I'm just young and easily impressed, but you seem very elegant with your words and I enjoyed reading it.

And about the actual content. I have never thought about it at all. I agree with everything you said. It is a bit unfair that the scenes are reacted to so differently, yet they are very much alike. I do feel that this may turn in Angel v. Spike, well doesn't it always! 🙂

 

[brinkster130]

I personally don't feel the two scenes can be compared; to me they are just to vastly different. But you do make an interesting comparison, one that I certainly have never seen been made before or discussed.

Like [MENTION=9740]Tome[/MENTION] said, I don't see Buffy's kick as her trying to push Angel away. I saw it as her body reacting to the amount of physical pain she was in.

Drinking Buffy's blood is something that Angel clearly stated he didn't want to do. He refused when she first brought it up and tried to get away from her. He clearly was putting her well being before her own.

Also Angel was dying in that scene. He was delusional, weak and minutes away from death. Buffy knew this, which is why she went to such great lengths to save him; even if it meant risking her own life. Why don't you believe that a slayer (at full strength) couldn't seriously injure (three punches) a poisoned vampire (who is near death) that can hardly stand?

As far as Xander's remark goes, I take what he says with a grain of salt. Xander tends to verbally lash out at those around him when he is hurt, scared or angry. In this scent he was probably feeling all three emotions.

I think the Scoobies let this go without conversation because they are focused on stopping The Mayor. Once that was finished Angel left. There was hardly a reason to bring it up anymore. They all knew what Buffy had done; they all knew how much she loved Angel.

As far as the bathroom scene goes, I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you. I see it as an attempted rape. Buffy was crying and yelling NO! I don't know how she could have made her feelings more clear to Spike in that scene. Spike wasn't in anyway thinking of Buffy's best interest or putting her before himself; he was doing the exact opposite.

Angel, Buffy and Spike were not in similar conditions in these scenes either. Angel near death and Buffy at full strength then later Buffy sore and not feeling well and Spike at full strength. The way I see, it Buffy is only the victim in the bathroom scene.

I will agree that when both men snap out of it, the immediately realize that they hurt Buffy and instantly feel guilty about it. I don't think Buffy will ever look at what happened with Angel in the same light as what happened with Spike because she initiated one (Angel drinking her blood) and had to physically stop the other.

 

[Tome]

As I said, I know Angel tried to get away. But three punches later and he was completely convinced. But more importantly, the fact that Buffy wanted it isn't enough to make it benign, in my eyes. We've heard that argument before, when it comes to a woman who initially wants something but decides in the middle that she isn't ready... I always read the looks of pain and anguish on her face as indications that she was feeling that way.

Yea he was, because Buffy punching him convinced him that she was ready to go for it, no matter what it took. And when did she decides that she wasn't *ready*? I mean, she knew the risks. Even if she changed her mind(which I don't think she did), it would be too late because Angel would be focused on drinking and taken over by his hunger and desire to survive.

All I'm saying is that she knew what she was getting into. Angel never forced her to do anything. He actually told her he wouldn't and then tried to run. Imo, this just doesn't compare to someone(in this case Spike) forcing themselves on someone else(in this case Buffy) to have sexual intercourse.

 

[Gum Gnome33]

Drinking Buffy's blood is something that Angel clearly stated he didn't want to do. He refused when she first brought it up and tried to get away from her. He clearly was putting her well being before her own.

Right, and as I said, I understand completely and am ok with how he acted, both before he drank and when he started to drink. Just as I understand why Spike started out as he did. It's what happens after that bothers me, in both cases.

Why don't you believe that a slayer (at full strength) couldn't seriously injure (three punches) a poisoned vampire (who is near death) that can hardly stand?

Never said I didn't! Of course she could injure him, but what does that have to do with the fact that he started drinking from her? What happened between punching him to the ground and the drinking that made it possible for him to endanger the life of the woman he loved? That's my question.

Xander tends to verbally lash out at those around him when he is hurt, scared or angry. In this scent he was probably feeling all three emotions.

Yes, and for good reason!

Spike wasn't in anyway thinking of Buffy's best interest or putting her before himself; he was doing the exact opposite.

I completely agree. Never said Spike was thinking of her best interest. I just said that Angel wasn't, either. And that the two vampires are equally culpable.

Angel, Buffy and Spike were not in similar conditions in these scenes either. Angel near death, Buffy sore and not feeling well and Spike at full strength.

But Angel's near death state doesn't, for me, take away from what he did to Buffy any more than Spike's soullessness excuses him for what he did to Buffy. If anything, I see them as parallels.

I don't think Buffy will ever look at what happened with Angel in the same light as what happened with Spike because she initiated one (Angel drinking her blood) and had to physically stop the other.

I understand and respect this. But the fact that she initiated doesn't mean she didn't have a right to change her mind. And as I see it, she is at the very least quite conflicted as to whether she made the right choice in letting him drink in that scene. So I can't help but be very disturbed by it.

---------- Post added at 09:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 PM ----------

Angel never forced her to do anything. He actually told her he wouldn't and then tried to run. Imo, this just doesn't compare to someone(in this case Spike) forcing themselves on someone else(in this case Buffy) to have sexual intercourse.

I understand what you mean. But to me, putting someone's life at risk, even when they told you it was "ok," and trying to force sexual contact with them are not too dissimilar, (especially since it's more than plausible that someone can tell you it's ok to kill them and then change her mind!) And despite the fact that Angel refused to begin with, he did do it with very little convincing. I mean, it was her life that was at stake! He could have resisted a lot more. Or not done it at all.

 

[Icarium]

This will sound very rude but do we really need yet more excuses for Spike? Have you seen a Willow fan arguing that Vamp!Willow didn't really want to torture Angel in The Wish, this was, er, consensual BDSM fun, really? Or an Angel fan saying Angel was a really nice guy after Innocence? Why this annoyingly common need to whitewash Spike's actions? It just boggles my mind that people have make the most contrived assumptions and conclusions in order to "prove" that Spike cannot possibly have intended to rape Buffy when he happened to be a serial killer and with 99,99% certainty a serial rapist too. He is the "do that" guy. He was quickly forgiven because of the soul, not because "he didn't mean to rape her, honest".

As far as Xander's remark goes, I take what he says with a grain of salt. Xander tends to verbally lash out at those around him when he is hurt, scared or angry. In this scent he was probably feeling all three emotions.

Not to mention he didn't really see what happened. I am usually loath to defend Angel but if anyone was "raped" in Graduation Day, that was him, not Buffy. I use the quotation marks because I don't think the word rape applies to the situation but Angel was forced into doing something he didn't want to do. Nobody forced Spike to do anything in Seeing Red.

 

[brinkster130]

Never said I didn't! Of course she could injure him, but what does that have to do with the fact that he started drinking from her? What happened between punching him to the ground and the drinking that made it possible for him to endanger the life of the woman he loved? That's my question.

I know you didn't say that, but that was my response to your "lame 3 punch excuse" reasoning. I think that the punches worked because 1) they showed Angel how serious she was about it and 2) because they caused the vampire impulses in him to come out. Her punching him was her way of almost forcing him into it.

I completely agree. Never said Spike was thinking of her best interest. I just said that Angel wasn't, either. And that the two vampires are equally culpable.

Ok, I think I can sort of agree here. Yes, both weren't thinking of her best interest. But I don't think that in these specific scenes that both vampires were equally capable. Spike was emotionally hurting, but he was not physically near death like Angel.

But Angel's near death state doesn't, for me, take away from what he did to Buffy any more than Spike's soullessness excuses him for what he did to Buffy. If anything, I see them as parallels.

I see how you can compare both as somehow incomplete (not quite the right word) or in the right mind but Spike was acting out of a want and Angel out of survival; so I'm still having trouble viewing them as parallels.

I understand and respect this. But the fact that she initiated doesn't mean she didn't have a right to change her mind. And as I see it, she is at the very least quite conflicted as to whether she made the right choice in letting him drink in that scene. So I can't help but be very disturbed by it.

And this is where we differ most; I don't think she changed her mind or did anything to imply this. I guess we just view the scenes differently. 😉

 

[zobothehobo]

So I'm going to respond to like everything in this thread so far 'cause I really love this topic. I'm going to pick and choose what parts of posts I want to respond to... but I'm going to thoroughly respond. haha

So, I realize that this might be a really heavy idea for a thread. But I've been thinking lately about the strong parallels between the scene in which Angel drains Buffy's blood within an inch of her life, and the "attempted rape" scene in Seeing Red. I want to compare them side by side in order to consider whether they are analogous at all, (and how), and whether the reactions of the other characters seem consistent in each case. Please don't read on if the idea of discussing all of this does not appeal to you!

This is a great idea. I never thought of comparing these two, but I think they compare really well.

I haven't seen this scene compared to rape at all, in the fandom. Maybe I missed it, but I haven't. I don't know that I would do so, directly, but to me the parallels are obvious. A young girl thinks she is ready for something, her lover takes advantage of this and isn't deterred by her obvious discomfort and anguish later on. Was he in his right mind at the time? No. Did it take much to get him out of it? No. Would I call this rape, outright? Certainly not. It is Buffy's idea to begin with, and there are no frank and obvious protests on her part, (though it's clear to the audience that she is in pain). Are there parallels? Yes. What I find most abhorrent are the numerous declarations I've seen about how "deeply sexual" this scene is.

I just re-watched this scene and I'm amazed I didn't catch this sooner... Something did always feel off about this scene to me, but I never thought about it enough to place what it is... but you're right. It is so deeply sexual. Watching it, I can't help but feel a bit like I am watching a statutory rape.. I love the way you point it out "a young girl thinks she is read for something, her lover takes advantage of this and isn't deterred by her obvious discomfort and anguish later on."

I don't care if she was reacting to the physical pain... She was obviously not enjoying what was happening to her even though she asked. If I ask you to beat me up, is it ok for you to do it? I asked for it... When I cry and say "ow" should you not listen because I'm only responding to the physical pain of what I asked you to do? That's what I keep thinking reading some of these responses...

Anyway, all of this profound truth I'm talking about seems to go unnoticed by the other characters. In fact, it's only Xander who makes even one comment,(!), about the event at all. He says, "It's nice to know that when the chips are down, you'll feed off the girl who loves you." Poignant, and true. Because call it whatever you want but at the end of the day, something completely horrible has just happened to Buffy, at the hands of Angel, (again). Why does no one else seem to notice? To care? Is it because they are about to fight the mayor and have yet to figure out how to stop the coming apocalypse? Perhaps. Is it because their friend is unconscious in a nearby room? Maybe. I buy that. But later? Not a peep? Not even from Giles? Let me take a moment to step aside and wipe off my glasses in puzzlement.

This is one of the few times I stand up and applaud Xander at stepping in. What he said was true. Yeah, it was a low blow, and yeah it stung... but it needed to be said. And like you pointed out, no one else would say it.

And here's where we get to the point in this post I go crazy. We have my trigger words here... bear with me here...

As we all know, this scene is referred to as "attempted rape." On the boards, I call it the "AR" as well, for the sake of argument. But I believe this phrase is inappropriate, as it doesn't represent what happened. Saying that Spike attempted to rape Buffy implies that he intended to, from the beginning; that it was his goal, all along.

Up until here, I COMPLETELY agree.

In fact, his goal was to apologize to her and, shortly thereafter, to have sex with her again as they had many times before.

It's here where I think you're wrong... I don't think Spike wanted to have sex with Buffy at all when he walked in. He legit just wants to talk to her. I don't see any indication that when he walked into that bathroom he wanted to have sex with her. He wanted to apologize, explain himself, and talk about his feelings... something he really hadn't ever been able to do with Buffy. Spike is a very emotional being. He pretty much knows two ways of dealing with stuff: talk about it, or get violent. At this point, I really don't think sex is in the picture. I don't think sex comes into the picture until "You love me" later on in the scene.

I think of this scene as a "possible, would-be" rape. What I mean is that in spite of the fact that Spike didn't intend to rape Buffy, that is potentially what he would have done had she not thrown him off of her. Yes, the act didn't appear to be all that different than their previous encounters but the difference is that this time she'd said "no." Continuing might have lead to rape. And if he were actually successful, this would have been rape, regardless of initial intent. But, (and this is really important), the fact that Spike doesn't make any further attempts to complete the act after he is thrown off and realizes that indeed, this time is different, serves as further proof that this is not an "attempt" at rape. It is a near rape by circumstance, which is stopped short and whose perpetrator makes clear that he hadn't wanted it to happen that way. I mean, one could just as easily call the scene between Angel and Buffy "attempted murder." But I wouldn't.

I don't believe he would have actually raped her, i do believe he would have stopped if she was still not consenting at the point of penetration... but I do agree with this post and I love the parallel between the scenes here. "one could just as easily call the scene between angel and Buffy "attempted murder." But I wouldn't." AH One of my favorite bits I've ever read on the boards!

I agree with all of your parallels here... and I'm amazed I didn't see it before. It's like wow.

One goes off to wallow, (after helping the slayer avert an apocalypse), and the other changes his composition for the slayer's benefit.

This part made me have to hug my pillow for a moment. But I think it very clearly shows the difference in Spike and Angel. A while ago, I made a thread about how your favorite ships and character relate to your personality, in that thread I made a comment about how there are some people who think the world, and some who feel it. Angel thinks the world. Spike feels it. After they have their "taking advantage of Buffy" encounters, Angel goes off to think about it (and thinks about it for a REALLY long time), and Spike goes to get the one thing that will allow him to feel completely and wholly for her (both in terms of love and understanding). Maybe that's just me reading too far into it... but I think it makes sense...

In the second scene, any initial conflict or delay seems to come from the fact that Buffy wants to believe that Spike will stop on his own, (my personal take),

I like this take... a lot.

The other was acting in spite of his soul, and in that moment chose his life over hers. For me, those are the biggest differences.

Same. it makes sense, and I get it... but that is a huge difference IMO.

Anyway, I believe it's important to consider why the two scenes don't receive similar reactions, on the show or in the fan-verse. Why isn't Buffy horrified when she realizes that Angel can so easily be convinced to bring her within an inch of her life? Though she's relieved that he's alive, doesn't a part of her resent him for this? What about the rest of us? Don't we feel that if we can react to the bathroom scene with horror and disgust, that we can feel similarly about the scene in Graduation Day?

I think the part of her that would resent him for that was too concerned about the fact he was leaving. She knew he was leaving town and I think she was focused on that (as far as emotional feelings about Angel). I think had Angel stuck around, well I hope had Angel stuck around, we would have seen some form of resentment... or at least a conversation. No doubt Xander would have brought it up.

I honestly believe people react so strongly to the bathroom scene because of the topic of "rape." This wasn't rape hidden by the cloak of a metaphor, it was straight up... also there's A LOT of cognitive dissonance with that scene that's hard to get passed. The scene with Bangel goes by so fast... there's not so much emphasis placed on it in the story because it's not about the character development (but IMO is about how Bangel cannot be together because of how strongly and naively Buffy feels for Angel). Watching the Bangel scene, sympathizing with Buffy isn't sympathizing against Angel... In the bathroom scene, sympathizing with Buffy is sympathizing against Spike. Buffy and Spike's views are complete opposites... Buffy and Angel's views are closer together. There's grey area there in the Bangel views, but it's the same brand of grey for both characters.

I don't know if that makes sense, but it's what I feel.

Anyway, I think that the Scoobies put a huge amount of emphasis on the soul. I think that Angel can actually get away with a lot more because of his soul. The Scoobies tend to want to rationalize his actions more. Perhaps because they all have souls and want to believe that you can't be completely evil while having a soul.

I agree. I agree with the Scoobies that you can't be completely evil with a soul... but I think they write off his actions too much and he gets away with a lot that he shouldn't.

Whenever Spike does anything the automatic response is always "Well he doesn't have a soul. He can't feel. He's a thing." and stuff like that. Which, when you watch Spike, you can see that he is feeling a lot of things and he's feeling them very intensely.

Because Spike is a being of feeling. He is motivated pretty much completely by his emotions. I never understood the whole he can't feel 'cause he doesn't have a soul" argument. He obviously does feel.

Now you bring the *AR*. I don't wanna dwell on it too much because I always thought that scene was really OOC,

This is something that I've heard a lot and I really for the life of me do not understand this point of view. How is Spike doing something pretty much completely motivated by emotion and without thinking about it OOC? That's kind of the epitome of Spike's character to me. I just personally feel a lot of people say it's OOC because they don't like it... but just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's OOC. I just don't get it (and I am in no way implying that's why you have this opinion... that's just what it seems to me most people who say that feel)

 

[Gum Gnome33]

This will sound very rude but do we really need yet more excuses for Spike?

I'm not defending Spike. I'm pointing out very clearly and objectively what he did. I'm not saying that he didn't do what he did, or that he shouldn't be accountable for anything. I'm saying that Angel should.

Angel was forced into doing something he didn't want to do. Nobody forced Spike to do anything in Seeing Red.

Angel was forced? How? By being punched? I don't get it. Also, what made him keep feeding off of her, when she was in clear agony? Please, tell me.

---------- Post added at 10:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 PM ----------

I see how you can compare both as somehow incomplete (not quite the right word) or in the right mind but Spike was acting out of a want and Angel out of survival; so I'm still having trouble viewing them as parallels.

So, I see what Angel did as acting out of "want," too. A want, and need for survival. Of course this isn't the same as a want for love. That's why I acknowledge that there are strong differences here, too. But I can't help but see the similarities.

And this is where we differ most; I don't think she changed her mind or did anything to imply this. I guess we just view the scenes differently. 😉

I guess, for me, I wish Angel had seen her anguish and heard her screams of pain and stopped himself. Because though I acknowledge that she might not have actually changed her mind, she was acting in a way that made it clear that something was horribly wrong. I'd have expected Angel to notice this. Just another way of looking at it...

 

[zobothehobo]

Not to take this off topic... but...

Or an Angel fan saying Angel was a really nice guy after Innocence?

I have seen that. I see that all the time. It's the dichotomy between Angel/Angelus. That's the "Angel is a really nice guy... Angelus is the mean one." Yes. This happens ALL THE TIME.

That being said, I don't think this thread is about making excuses for either vampire. But rather, pointing out a possible double standard and comparing two scenes.

 

[Gum Gnome33]

That being said, I don't think this thread is about making excuses for either vampire. But rather, pointing out a possible double standard and comparing two scenes.

Thanks lady, that's exactly what I was getting at. And thanks for your epic post response! I agree with everything you said. *Whew* it's been quite a ride posting all this and reading the responses! It's sticky stuff, and I get that.

 

[Icarium]

I'm not defending Spike. I'm pointing out very clearly and objectively what he did.

Unless you happen to be the guy who wrote the episode, I don't think you can objectively say anything about Spike's motivation. You can guess it from his actions but that would be very subjective.

Angel was forced? How? By being punched? I don't get it.

From the shooting script: "She tears her tanktop aside. Grabs the back of his head, and slams it down on her neck." - sounds like force to me.

So, I see what Angel did as acting out of "want," too. A want, and need for survival. Of course this isn't the same as a want for love. That's why I acknowledge that there are strong differences here, too. But I can't help but see the similarities.

You are comparing a primal instinct (for survival) with actions that a person can fully control (trying to have sex). Might as well claim that instinctively raising a hand to shield one's face from a punch is very similar to deliberately punching someone.

I have seen that. I see that all the time. It's the dichotomy between Angel/Angelus. That's the "Angel is a really nice guy... Angelus is the mean one." Yes. This happens ALL THE TIME.

Way to miss the point. I was obviously referring to immediately after Innocence. And I can't really blame the people who distinguish between Angel sans soul and the other version as that's the party line of everybody in the verse except certain people portrayed as wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

[zobothehobo]

Thanks lady, that's exactly what I was getting at. And thanks for your epic post response! I agree with everything you said. *Whew* it's been quite a ride posting all this and reading the responses! It's sticky stuff, and I get that.

I can't rep you again... but you're welcome! 🙂

 

[Tome]

This is something that I've heard a lot and I really for the life of me do not understand this point of view. How is Spike doing something pretty much completely motivated by emotion and without thinking about it OOC? That's kind of the epitome of Spike's character to me. I just personally feel a lot of people say it's OOC because they don't like it... but just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's OOC. I just don't get it (and I am in no way implying that's why you have this opinion... that's just what it seems to me most people who say that feel)

I didn't mean Spike was OOC. For me, during that scene Buffy is OOC. I just can't imagine her to react the way she did. It's like she was suddenly helpless. I know the situation was special, and Spike and her had an emotional link by then, but still, it just always felt reaaaally weird.

 

[zobothehobo]

Way to miss the point. I was obviously referring to immediately after Innocence. And I can't really blame the people who distinguish between Angel sans soul and the other version as that's the party line of everybody in the verse except certain people portrayed as wrong, wrong, wrong.

Immediately after Surprise is Innocence... this is where we meet Angelus. People say "Angel isn't the bad guy here, Angelus is." That was my point. If you can't blame them and understand their defense of Angel... good for you... I do too. But that's a defense of Angel immediately after Innocence. Because that's when we first meet Angelus...

And as it's been made clear, I think you missed the point of this thread. To make sure I don't take this thread off topic anymore... I will not respond to another one of your jabs at people "making excuses" since this is clearly not what this thread is about.

---------- Post added at 10:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:50 PM ----------

I didn't mean Spike was OOC. For me, during that scene Buffy is OOC. I just can't imagine her to react the way she did. It's like she was suddenly helpless. I know the situation was special, and Spike and her had an emotional link by then, but still, it just always felt reaaaally weird.

Oh... that makes a bit more sense. I still feel like it feels in character for Buffy at this point in the series based on the rest of season 6... but I get more about what you were saying.

And I don't think she's suddenly helpless... just in shock and confused. She kicks him off of her as soon as she grabs a hold of her mind enough to do so.

 

[NY State of Mind]

I'm sorry but I just can't see a Buffy approved survival instint vs a Buffy non-approved attempted rape as the same thing and I'm a fan of both characters

 

[Gum Gnome33]

Unless you happen to be the guy who wrote the episode, I don't think you can objectively say anything about Spike's motivation. You can guess it from his actions but that would be very subjective.

I doubt very much that the people responsible for creating the characters and their actions can be objective when evaluating them. Total disagreement there. As for me? I don't know Spike. I judge him based on his actions. I'm as objective as I can be, for a fan. Less so than I was when I first saw the show, sure.

From the shooting script: "She tears her tanktop aside. Grabs the back of his head, and slams it down on her neck." - sounds like force to me.

Um, You can lead a vampire to a neck, but you can't make him drink. Seriously, though. Still not seeing how he was forced to suck her blood, and to continue doing so in spite of her obvious agony.

You are comparing a primal instinct (for survival) with actions that a person can fully control (trying to have sex).

First of all, let me remind you, (you can re-read my OP), that I understand fully why Angel drank from Buffy, and that though I don't feel he was forced, I am ok with the fact that he initially does so. As you said, it's a primal instinct to survive. I understand that. It's the continuation in spite of her anguish that bothers me. Also, please revisit my OP re: difference between the two situations. Just because I can draw a parallel doesn't mean I don't acknowledge that the need to survive and the need to have sex are different things. Also, do remember that one, (the need to survive), came directly at the cost of Buffy's life. Why are we poo-pooing it away?


Again, remember that this is not a "one vampire is better/ acted better than the other" comparison. This is meant to point out parallels and ask why one is held accountable and the other isn't.

---------- Post added at 11:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:06 PM ----------

I'm sorry but I just can't see a Buffy approved survival instint vs a Buffy non-approved attempted rape as the same thing and I'm a fan of both characters

I understand where you're coming from. It's not something that I saw either, for a while, which is why I find it interesting enough to bring into question. And, remember, I'm not saying that they're the same thing. I'm saying that there are parallels.

And also, I'm urging people to consider that just because Buffy approved of Angel biting her, doesn't mean that a) it was okay, or that b) she couldn't have a change of heart, or--more to the point of this argument-- Angel couldn't see that she was in pain and decide that it was wrong and that he should stop.

I also want to re-iterate that the "survival" for Angel is not simply a matter of taking medicine to heal. Buffy's life can easily be the cost of that survival. So the terms are not as simple as they can seem, when the situation is downplayed and romanticized, as it often is.