The demon sex thread

bespangeled

Scooby
Joined
May 26, 2014
Messages
3,389
Location
Tucson
Black Thorn
Heterosexual
Bisexual
Omnisexual
Pansexual

I am dealing here with the Fanged Four, also known as the Whirlwind. Since the demon does not reproduce sexually, then sex is just for pleasure and domination. There is also Dru - going off with both a Chaos demon and a fungus demon, so sex is not even reserved for other demons.

I vote pansexual. There is an assumption that Angel (and Spike but more Angel) is rampantly heterosexual. Why is that the baseline belief?
 
Heterosexual
Bisexual
Omnisexual
Pansexual

I am dealing here with the Fanged Four, also known as the Whirlwind. Since the demon does not reproduce sexually, then sex is just for pleasure and domination. There is also Dru - going off with both a Chaos demon and a fungus demon, so sex is not even reserved for other demons.

I vote pansexual. There is an assumption that Angel (and Spike but more Angel) is rampantly heterosexual. Why is that the baseline belief?

I'm not sure that any of those labels would apply to a creature who could potentially consider having sex with, not only any human, but also non-humans, as in, other demons, and even possibly animals. A soulless vampire would almost certainly have no inhibitions about any of that. The closest that would seem to apply to vampires would be:

beastiality
A common way to incorrectly spell bestiality.

Sexual intercourse involving a human and a lower animal.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=beastiality

Of course, demons aren't included in that definition, but they obviously would be in the Buffyverse.
 
I'm not sure that any of those labels would apply to a creature who could potentially consider having sex with, not only any human, but also non-humans, as in, other demons, and even possibly animals. A soulless vampire would almost certainly have no inhibitions about any of that. The closest that would seem to apply to vampires would be:

beastiality
A common way to incorrectly spell bestiality.

Sexual intercourse involving a human and a lower animal.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=beastiality

Of course, demons aren't included in that definition, but they obviously would be in the Buffyverse.

Bestiality would be part of pansexual, I think. Rather, we tend to see animals where demons wouldn't. I don't think that Dru sees the chaos demon as an animal, while we see sort of a cow. But I agree that a demon would not hesitate to have sex with animal if they thought it could bring pleasure.

More important than that, do you think Angel would have to be unsouled to have sex with a male? Do you think that the soul has an impact on sexuality other than to mitigate violence and force? Does a soul come with inhibitions that are clearly sexual in nature?

Added - Although I do believe the soul would limit the available pool of prospects.
 
Bestiality would be part of pansexual, I think. Rather, we tend to see animals where demons wouldn't. I don't think that Dru sees the chaos demon as an animal, while we see sort of a cow. But I agree that a demon would not hesitate to have sex with animal if they thought it could bring pleasure.

More important than that, do you think Angel would have to be unsouled to have sex with a male? Do you think that the soul has an impact on sexuality other than to mitigate violence and force? Does a soul come with inhibitions that are clearly sexual in nature?

Added - Although I do believe the soul would limit the available pool of prospects.

Bestiality would seem to be the closest thing to vampire sexuality to me because it applies to both humans of either gender and non-humans. Pansexuality only applies to human relationships.

As to Angel specifically, since it's never mentioned one way or the other on either show or any other canon source, I guess it's left up to the individual fan's imagination Personally, I think that he would consider it with the right male. Personally, I've always thought that he had a secret crush on Xander, and he just hung around Buffy to make Xander jealous.
 
Bestiality would seem to be the closest thing to vampire sexuality to me because it applies to both humans of either gender and non-humans. Pansexuality only applies to human relationships.

So any demon sex is bestial? I'm not getting you here. Is a human who has sex with a vampire involved in bestiality? Is a demon the same as an animal?

I wrote that Dru seemed to find both the chaos and the fungus demons to be 'demon enough for her'. So I don't think that vampires view other demons as animals. That's why they would be generally pansexual. I am specifically asking about four vampire characters - not humans at all - and I doubt any of them would do a sheep. ...at least not routinely😀

As to Angel specifically, since it's never mentioned one way or the other on either show or any other canon source, I guess it's left up to the individual fan's imagination Personally, I think that he would consider it with the right male. Personally, I've always thought that he had a secret crush on Xander, and he just hung around Buffy to make Xander jealous.

😀
Yes - Spike - it was in canon and mentioned by Joss.

Mostly I'm not curious about that, though it is an example.

I'm a grandmother, and I tend to see all people as bisexual. So someone completely hetero or homo sexual is an outlier to me. But I find in fandom, in regard to Angel in particular, that somehow his sexuality was so radically changed by getting a soul that he would be such an outlier. He is completely heterosexual.

There's also a bit of judgement there that seems subconscious. That really bothers me - I know I've only just started to see it that way but it always bothered me. That's why I ask about Angel, and from people who are (like me) major Angel fans. I can see how a soul can take away BDSM and beyond - but why would it make you straight?
 
I'm a grandmother, and I tend to see all people as bisexual. So someone completely hetero or homo sexual is an outlier to me. But I find in fandom, in regard to Angel in particular, that somehow his sexuality was so radically changed by getting a soul that he would be such an outlier. He is completely heterosexual.

There's also a bit of judgement there that seems subconscious. That really bothers me - I know I've only just started to see it that way but it always bothered me. That's why I ask about Angel, and from people who are (like me) major Angel fans. I can see how a soul can take away BDSM and beyond - but why would it make you straight?


You really think most people are bisexual? I don't think so. Most of the people I know are not, and the 2 bisexual guys I have known in life definitely had a strong preference for one particular gender, and they said so. I've thought about this before though (I've never been attracted or turned on by a guy) and I've wondered to what degree my subjectivity influences my assessment of the people around me. I guess I could be projecting my own orientation on people, but so could people who think most people are secretly bi. I'm inclined to accept my general appraisal but who knows. I would expect to see more same sex couples around though if you were right, especially in this increasingly socially progressive age.

About Angel...I don't know, but I've never gotten the impression he was bisexual (with soul). What evidence from the show is there for this belief that is not projection or wishful thinking or whatever? I don't mean to be dismissive, I am honestly curious what makes you think he is (with soul) that is not to a degree wishful thinking or projection etc. Maybe I didn't notice the evidence because I'm straight.

And in case of any careless reading, if Angel turned out to be bisexual, great. I'd still like him just as much and my feelings wouldn't change about him.
 
I definitely don't think pansexual. Pansexual people feel as if they fall for the person not the gender. Vampires do not fall for the person, most often than not it is not about love at all, and any vampire (without a soul) that loves is an outlier.

Vampires are very much like a straight guy performing gay porn for money. The straight guy will still get off because it feels good, but that doesn't make him gay. By definition I don't think vampires are straight, gay or anything else because they have sex because it feels good, not because they are attracted to the person. That essentially means that vampires do not have a sexuality.

A much more interesting aspect is that as it seems, sexuality comes with the soul. So can people have gay souls or straight souls? Now that's something to think about.
 
You really think most people are bisexual? I don't think so. Most of the people I know are not, and the 2 bisexual guys I have known in life definitely had a strong preference for one particular gender, and they said so. I've thought about this before though (I've never been attracted or turned on by a guy) and I've wondered to what degree my subjectivity influences my assessment of the people around me. I guess I could be projecting my own orientation on people, but so could people who think most people are secretly bi. I'm inclined to accept my general appraisal but who knows. I would expect to see more same sex people around though if you were right, especially in this increasingly socially progressive age
.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/smooth-thinking-about-sex/
Is sexual orientation similar to eye color, consisting of fairly discrete categories? Or is it more like height"”that is, falling along a continuum? At the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality meeting in November, I will report that the same continuum of scores exists in the U.S. and in the average of scores from a dozen countries outside the U.S. I also find that fewer than 10 percent of subjects score as "pure" heterosexual or homosexual and that females place, on average, farther toward the gay end of the continuum than males do. My study suggests that characterizing sexual orientation properly requires two numbers: mean sexual orientation (where a given person lies on the continuum) and sexual orientation range (how much flexibility or "choice" the person has in expressing that orientation, which also forms a continuum).


I think we are so socialized to a norm that most people may never act on the attraction or are even willing to see it as such. But - going back to Angel - he would have 150 years all over that scale and then some.

About Angel...I don't know, but I've never gotten the impression he was bisexual (with soul). What evidence from the show is there for this belief that is not projection or wishful thinking or whatever? I don't mean to be dismissive, I am honestly curious what makes you think he is (with soul) that is not to a degree wishful thinking or projection etc. Maybe I didn't notice the evidence because I'm straight
.

Why does there need to be evidence? The main problem with evidence is, according to bias, two people who disagree with each other will end up debating insignificant details and that's not where I want to go. So - Joss words and "that one...." Can we accept that they are both canon? This is a very small slice of what I am wondering about.

For what it's worth, I know plenty of people in the closet. A lot of people worry about what friends would think and a lot of people have that same belief that pure heterosexuality is 90% and not 10% of the population.

So, is this not wanting to see the character as different from you? Or not wanting to see Angel with Spike (hot spot, yeah)? Why would getting a soul make a pansexual into a straight man? Is this a purity issue? A sin issue? Or just straight people are more comfortable? I'm honestly curious - not wanting to argue.
 
I vote pansexual. There is an assumption that Angel (and Spike but more Angel) is rampantly heterosexual. Why is that the baseline belief?

I always just assumed that all four were bisexual.

Also, I don't assume Angel is heterosexual. Spike mentions that they had sexual relations at least once when they were both without souls.
 
Silverspike
Silverspike
[No message]
So any demon sex is bestial? I'm not getting you here. Is a human who has sex with a vampire involved in bestiality? Is a demon the same as an animal?

I wrote that Dru seemed to find both the chaos and the fungus demons to be 'demon enough for her'. So I don't think that vampires view other demons as animals. That's why they would be generally pansexual. I am specifically asking about four vampire characters - not humans at all - and I doubt any of them would do a sheep. ...at least not routinely😀




I'm a grandmother, and I tend to see all people as bisexual. So someone completely hetero or homo sexual is an outlier to me. But I find in fandom, in regard to Angel in particular, that somehow his sexuality was so radically changed by getting a soul that he would be such an outlier. He is completely heterosexual.

There's also a bit of judgement there that seems subconscious. That really bothers me - I know I've only just started to see it that way but it always bothered me. That's why I ask about Angel, and from people who are (like me) major Angel fans. I can see how a soul can take away BDSM and beyond - but why would it make you straight?

I said that bestiality would come closest to describing a soulless vampire because it includes having sex with non humans, which the majority of demons in the Buffyverse are supposed to be. Yes, the word specifically refers to animals, not demons, but there isn't a word in the English language that I am aware of that does actually refer to sex with demons, which is why I used it.

And as to any judgement on my part, subconscious or otherwise, as to Angel's sexual orientation, I don't believe that "since it's never mentioned one way or the other on either show or any other canon source, I guess it's left up to the individual fan's imagination" as judgmental in any way.

The comment about Angel and Xander was intended as a joke, no more serious or judgmental than pairing Buffy with Faith, which seems to be a quite common non-canon ship here and throughout the web.
 
Well, in regards to the Fanged Four- as with all vampires they see themselves as human-plus, humans that have been elevated and don't have to follow society's rules. They do what they want and to hell with everything else.
They kill wno they want and shag who they want.

But I still think they had preferences, Angelus liked Darla because she could keep up with him. She was proud of her 'Apt Pupil'. They were quite a a pair.
Angelus liked Drusilla in a twisted 'this is my creation/daughter' kind of way. Drusilla was always disturbingly child-like in some of her interactions, even the sexual ones.
Spike and Dru were the closest vampire equivelant we see to true love, theirs was a gothic romance type thing.
I never got the impression that Darla liked Drusilla - she found her weird and tiresome, but that may have changed after their joint encounter with The Immortal. (So I guess Darla/Dru is canon as well now...)

Angelus/Spike is harder to pin down. Angelus has said, about Wesley, that 'if I swung that way..' (which, btw, I completely agree with. 😀) so we can guess that Angelus has a preference for women, but almost certainly he experimented. Why wouldn't he?

Spike seems to me, to be one of the more homophobic characters on the show- he values his masculinity, calls people 'nancy boy' and 'poof' and so forth. He could be in denial but I'm not so sure. He also definitely has a preference for women. (Darla, Harmony, Buffy)

But...I really don't believe gaining a soul changes a person's sexuality that much. Darla still had feelings/a connection to Angel, even when she was human. And the reverse is true-Angel was confused about Darla's return, it brought up unresolved feelings that he still had for her. And Spike loved Buffy pre and post soul.
I don't see any evidence that getting a soul/humanity changes your sexual orientation, maybe it perhaps normalises it. By which I mean it cuts down on the more extreem BDSM urges, torture/bloodsucking and stuff.

All of which boils down to this- If you had feelings/relationships with somebody while you were a vampire then you're likely to still have those feelings when you gain a soul/humanity. Or at least, those feelings don't just disappear, they just get messier and more 'human'.

Boy, that was a long, stream-of-consciousness ramble, huh? Sorry 🙂
 
Blaze
Blaze
Good post
Y
Yosso
[No message]
@bespangled I PM'ed you to continue the more off-topic side to our new conversation.

On the relationship between Angelus and Angel, I don't know...I thought about it on the ride home from the bar with friends and I find it rather dubious to extend psychological features of Angelus afterwards to Angel. They are just so different, obviously far beyond just the topic of what they find pleasurable. Also, healthy people enjoying a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex is completely different than Angelus. Angelus doesn't do anything for healthy reasons. He's completely twisted from the inside out. Everything he does is a twisted perversion of the humane way of doing things. Angel is of course the complete opposite of Angelus really. I'm doubtful about how accurate it would be to ascribe anything Angelus did or felt to Angel. Angelus would do anything he wanted to for pleasure (or anything else) for base reasons simply because they were base. Angel wouldn't participate in various types of relationships for any of the same reasons that Angelus would. Just because Angelus did everything he did does that mean Angel would too? Not necessarily, primarily because their reasons for liking or doing anything would be utterly and completely different.

In fact, aren't they supposed to be different people anyway? Buffy says all the time, that vampire is not the person you knew, it's a demon that has taken up shop in the old body, and stuff like that.

I would extend this observation to Druscilla and other vampires too (that the compatibility of vampire and souled versions of people is a very dubious one), but then there is Spike (who doesn't seem different in many fundamental ways with or without a soul) and then I'm confused. I don't know how to interpret Spike in this context.
 
Last edited:
This is actually a very interesting subject.

I think human relationships on a meta-level are somewhat nuanced and complex things and this encompasses sexual orientation as well.

Another philosophy to which I adhere is: one cannot separate the love from the lover. This basically means are psychology, physiology, personal attitudes etc, inform our relationships whether they be romantic or otherwise.

The thing to remember with vampires is that they are not a totally 'alien' species in relation to humans. They are essentially human/demon hybrids with many of the desires, emotions behaviours familiar with their human counterparts. So if human identified as being heterosexual, they may well carry that orientation over into their vampirism. What vampires are perhaps more likely to demonstrate, is a lack of inhibition. Therefore they are more likely to engage in behaviour that is perhaps the preceding human might find taboo.

As for Angel, if I had to put money on it, I’d say he identifies as being heterosexual. The hint is when his soulless counterpart implied that as far as finding men attractive, he ‘didn’t swing that way’. Considering Angelus, if anything, would be less inhibited than his soulled counterpart, I’d say if I had to put a label on him, I’d say heterosexual.

So, what about Angel and Spike’s sexual liaison? Well I don’t think sexual behaviour necessarily dictates sexual orientation, I mean, look at Buffy.

As for the rest of the Fanged Four? I don’t know. I’d wager that Spike identifies as heterosexual as well. I mean, in 20 years of being around each other they only indulge in some sort of sexual liaison, once? I’d probably put that down to experimentation. I mean compared to many University students, that’s pretty tame.

Dru and Darla? I’d say that’s an open call.

In short, I think vampire relationships can be a conventional (relatively speaking of course) or as fluid as human relationships. I’d say the main difference is, many vampires wouldn’t associate, necessarily, the same moral rules when it comes to their behaviour, and that would have an affect on their sexual behaviour. I’d also say they would have fewer restraints and inhibitions, than their human counterparts.
 
Y
Yosso
[No message]
I think that at least pert of the whole vampire/sexual orientation issue depends on just how much of the human's personality we believe is retained after the human is turned turned, and how much the demon controls the body. Is it some sort of symbiotic relationship, or is the human body nothing more than a vessel used by a demon, allowing it to function in our plane of existence? Also, do the human values and personality traits remain as time goes by, or does the vampire demon gradually take more and more of its human host body

I can't remember ever seeing an example of a gay or bisexual vampire on either of Joss' shows, so I don't think that we can do much more than speculate on the matter. Spike's statement, "Except for that one time..." is the closest that we come, and we have no idea whether that was a night of toe curling, teeth gnashing, unforgettable passion, rape, or something in between, so it's hard to make a conclusive judgement based only on those 5 words.
 
I can't remember ever seeing an example of a gay or bisexual vampire on either of Joss' shows, so I don't think that we can do much more than speculate on the matter. Spike's statement, "Except for that one time..." is the closest that we come, and we have no idea whether that was a night of toe curling, teeth gnashing, unforgettable passion, rape, or something in between, so it's hard to make a conclusive judgement based only on those 5 words.

Vampire Willow seemed to be bisexual, which seemed to presage human Willow's sexuality. I would still say that vampire sexuality is as linear or as fluid as human sexuality, perhaps more so due to the lack of inhibitions.
 
Joss Whedon on Spike and Angel pre soul...

I just want to say Angel and Spike they were hanging out for years and years and years, they were all kinds of deviant, they're are vampires,
are we thinking they never? Come on people I'm just saying. I'm just saying.They're opened minded guys. They were evil, but they aren't bigoted or close minded.

For what It's worth I think Vampires sexuality is fluid. They're just into anything that will give them instant gratification, be that blood, violence or sex.

It's all the same to them.
 
Taake
Taake
[No message]
The thing to remember with vampires is that they are not a totally 'alien' species in relation to humans. They are essentially human/demon hybrids with many of the desires, emotions behaviours familiar with their human counterparts....What vampires are perhaps more likely to demonstrate, is a lack of inhibition. Therefore they are more likely to engage in behaviour that is perhaps the preceding human might find taboo.

Many of the things Angelus does are not just things that Angel would find taboo, but are things that Angel would never, ever do, such as Angelus' often severe cruelty, his aesthetic and artistic enjoyment of cruelty, murder, rape etc. to name just a few obvious things. I don't think it's just a lack of inhibition that is the chief difference, but more than that. Especially when I regard Angelus and Angel, I see nothing but striking differences in who and what they are. They share far less in common than otherwise. Angelus' personality is also extremely different than Angel's. They're nothing alike to me.

So on the topic of Angel's sexuality, I likewise don't think anything that Angelus does or says or likes is relevant at all to what Angel would do or say or like. Like you, I'm inclined to believe that Angel is heterosexual...however, if he did turn out to be bisexual, it would be for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with Angelus' reasons. Angel is human and Angelus is not, and like I've said already, I don't find them to be at all alike in any way.

I would extend the same observation to Druscilla, judging from what we saw of what she was like before she became a vampire and after: two completely different people entirely.

But then there is Spike and many other vampires, who blur that line in ways Angel/Angelus do not. To be honest, I don't think it was something that the writers and creator of the show had worked out completely, at least not to my satisfaction (the nature of vampires and their relationship to the original person). There is contradictory evidence and different suggestions during the course of both shows, and some vampires are confusing in this context. This isn't meant to be a criticism of Spike, but Spike doesn't really change all that much in my opinion (not in fundamental ways) after he gets his soul back. I always wondered why Spike didn't radically change back into the meek and sensitive man he was before he became a vampire. That would have made more sense to me. Instead, he doesn't really seem to change much at all.

Anyway, I've gone on long enough.
 
Last edited:
There is contradictory evidence and different suggestions during the course of both shows, and some vampires are confusing in this context. This isn't meant to be a criticism of Spike, but Spike doesn't really change all that much in my opinion (not in fundamental ways) after he gets his soul back. I always wondered why Spike didn't radically change back into the meek and sensitive man he was before he became a vampire. That would have made more sense to me. Instead, he doesn't really seem to change much at all.

Angel didn't revert to the drunken lecher of his human youth. I accept the idea that regaining a soul does not put you back where you originally were as a human. Both of them have evolved into a third personality that is better than the original one.
 
Angel didn't revert to the drunken lecher of his human youth. I accept the idea that regaining a soul does not put you back where you originally were as a human. Both of them have evolved into a third personality that is better than the original one.

I always thought re-ensouled Angel was different and more remorseful/ashamed etc. than pre-vamp Angel was because of the gypsy curse. Spike should have been more like his old self. Or at least different in significant ways pre and post soul.
 
I always thought re-ensouled Angel was different and more remorseful/ashamed etc. than pre-vamp Angel was because of the gypsy curse. Spike should have been more like his old self. Or at least different in significant ways pre and post soul.

The problem (I think) between how different Angelus is from Angel, while Spike remains basically the same with or without the soul is that Angel was the established character, so a radical change with Angelus wasn't only possible, it was downright necessary to differentiate between the two characters, and do so with all of the subtlety of a sledge hammer. There had to be a radical change between Angel and Angelus.

Once Spike came along, his character was defined and popular prior to regaining his soul, so that sort of radical change would be, in effect, replacing the established, popular character, with someone else. Spike had to stay Spike, or there was a risk that the fans wouldn't accept the "new" character. The changes in Spike's character after he regained his soul were subtle at best, and downright nonexistent at worst because anything else would be taking a chance of losing fans.

I think that Buffy telling Spike in "Get It Done" that she "needed the old Spike, the one who almost killed me when we first met," was Joss and the writers trying to explain why Spike's change wasn't like Angel's. Buffy needed the "old" Spike, so that's what he gave her. I know that a lot of people disagree with me about this, and say that I'm just trying to justify Spike's behavior, but that's the way that I saw it. Spike got his soul to please Buffy, and he went back to basically his old character for the same reason.
 
bespangeled
bespangeled
He did both dress and act differently until she made her demands
Back
Top Bottom