The demon sex thread

[thetopher]

I fault the writers and creator of the shows here at this point. In the context of this discussion (the relationship of vampire to former human), it seemed to me that initially they had largely defined what that was, tacitly. Angelus, Druscilla etc. showed, at least to me, that the relationship between vampire and former human is a tenuous one at best. Then came things like Spike...and they confused the whole issue with a re-ensouled human who for all intents and purposes is the exact same person as the former vampire. Maybe I spoke too soon by saying Spike should have gone back to being the sensitive poet type he was before...but it makes no sense that they are not different in any way. Maybe some but not all of Spike/William's former feelings or inclinations could have reemerged in some way, or maybe Spike could have just...been different, in some interesting way (for the sake of entertainment and the show)....something, anything. If this theory that is currently floating around is true (that the writers and creator didn't want to change Spike because he was already so popular just the way he was) that would be, to borrow one of Spike's many expressions, bullocks. What an incredibly ingratiating orientation towards the fan-boys to take. This, from the people who stood up against homophobia and put the first girl-girl kiss on television. How shameful is that...we're scared of the fans so therefore we are not going to change/develop him out of fear?!? How disappointed and ashamed I would be if this rumor is true. On top of all of this, that attitude is incredibly lazy.

This. Oh, a thousand times this! 🙂

Can't rep you enough.
S7 Spike is a missed opportunity imo, I wanted to see a little of the poor put-upon Mommy's boy from 'Fool For Love' and see everybody's reaction to it.
It would've been glorious. 🙂
We could've seen William learn how to be kick-ass, big bad Spike again, that should've been his arc, it would've been original and really interesting to watch.

 

[Silverspike]

Whatever the reasons were, Joss and co. should never have made any decision in the show simply out of fear of what the perception might have been (from fans or critics or anyone else). I thought that was what Joss and co. was about: constantly challenging things. If it's true that they didn't want to change Spike for fear of the fans or just out of concern for the fans, than that's b.s. That's disappointing to the highest degree to me. That is IF they wanted to change Spike but were compelled to leave him alone for sake/fear of fans.

As with al these things I think It's more likely that Whedon and co just made it up as they went along and cherry picked from what they thought would serve the plot the best.

If you try and stick rigidly to one view of the verse you'll go insane. 😀

We could've seen William learn how to be kick-ass, big bad Spike again, that should've been his arc, it would've been original and really interesting to watch.

To be honest I don't think there would have been enough time to get that in with everything else they had to cover. Hence the 'abridged' version we ended up with.

 

[janas]

Again respectfully (I'm really not trying to say that my opinion is the right one), I just don't see it.

As two vampires without souls, I'm not sure what else intimate could mean. Vampires are certainly not intimate on an emotional level, they are intimate on a bestial level, which directly refers to sex in my mind. Just my two cent.

In reference to the specific scene, who is speaking at the moment, is a vampire with a soul, and he refers to another vampire with a soul. There is nothing in the text that indicating that Spike was referring to the past and their versions without a soul. Every time I see that episode, I think that with "Except That One ..." Spike refers to that moment of intimacy between him and Angel, which we saw in their recent past (Damage) that is a moment of intimate emotional level.

As you can see, it's always a matter of personal perception of events, since the dialogue, being vague, can be interpreted in many different ways.
I repeat once again that explanations posthumous of the authors don't interest me much. What JW says about that scene, it's all in that scene.

Angel and me have never been intimate. Except that one...

 

[Silverspike]

Angel and me have never been intimate. Except that one...

....time when we shagged each others brains out. 😀

 

[bespangeled]

Angel/Angelus and Spike are the two vampires who we know far more about than all the other vampires combined on both series, so it's hard NOT to bring them up as examples, especially in a subject like this, since they are conceived as being so different from each other in so many ways.

I've always compared the changes between living human and vampire with what happens in Robert Heinlein's "Puppet Masters" (the book, not the movie) in that, once the Master took command of the body, it quickly discovered that its host body could feel pleasure, something that the Masters alone were incapable of. If the possessing demon who occupies the dead body of a turned victim, or host, is similarly unable to feel much of anything on its own, then I think that its reactions would be just about the same as Heinlein's Masters was. Basically, if it feels good, do it. That would apply to just about every physical endeavor, including sex. It feels good, so they do it. The gender, willingness, or even species of any chosen partner would be irrelevant, and probably the more violent such activity was, the better they liked it

As for our two ensouled vampires, one of the things that having a soul equates with in the Buffyverse is having a conscience, therefore a sense of right and wrong. Assuming that both Liam and William were guided by the moral standards of their upbringing, they would likely have an inhibition against any sort of sexual orientation except heterosexual, or at least an inhibition against displaying any other sort of sexual orientation. With that in mind, neither Spike nor Angel might have been willing to express or act on such feelings, even if they still felt them.

Whedon never depicted any sort of deviant, if I may use that term without insulting anyone here, sexual activity between vampires, or pretty much anyone else, on his shows (we know that there was some flack about Willow and Tara, despite the fact that the fans loved them together) more in deference to the sensors than any desire to depict his vampires in a more realistic fashion.

Why would their sexual morality revert to 17th and 18th century standards of conduct? In Victorian England pedophilia ran rampant - it was normalized. And in both cultures raping someone who was way beneath you in status really was not that much of a problem. Scary era, Victorian England. If you took a 10 year old off the streets, washed em, fed em, and raped em daily, the poor kid would be considered ungrateful for complaining.

They aren't exactly admirable in any other areas - status is what counted. How you treat your betters, your peers, and your inferiors.

And WA - sensors are on the Enterprise, I believe. Censors, OTH, are here on this blue marble.😀

---------- Post added at 05:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:04 PM ----------

Spike's comment in Season 5, "Except for that one time," isn't really any sort of admission, or even real evidence of, bisexuality, unless you want to assume that Buffy's two night stand with Satsu makes her bisexual. We have no idea what the circumstances were that triggered "that one time." That's not an argument in favor of, or opposed to, the question of Angel and/or Spike being bisexual, but I just thought that I would mention it.

It's not that 'one time'.
It's 'that one......'
And again - why do you need proof of bisexuality and what is proof of bisexuality? Yews, if you feel attraction toward both sexes then you are bisexual, so Buffy is bisexual? Why is that an issue? Is being more than vanilla romance hero(ine) sex a problem?

I grew up on the slash wars - the original slash wars from TOS. It amazes me how little has changed. Maybe it's because we identify with certain characters but pairing two male characters (same sex but male is worse) in any form tends to bring on the demands for proof. At least no one has said that whoever ships them is going to burn in hell so we have made some progress🙂

---------- Post added at 05:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:27 PM ----------

You're completely right. It's a similar situation to Willow loving Oz but later on labeling herself as a lesbian. Dating and sleeping with someone of the same/opposite sex doesn't make you straight/bisexual/gay or whatever else. But it does put the characters on a spectrum, or whatever spectrum there is in the vampire world. Who knows.

Didn't we decide that sexuality is a spectrum? Hell, we know there are same sex couples in the animal world. Some are even famous. Sexuality is fluid, and as difficult to pin down as mercury.😉

 

[white avenger]

Why would their sexual morality revert to 17th and 18th century standards of conduct? In Victorian England pedophilia ran rampant - it was normalized. And in both cultures raping someone who was way beneath you in status really was not that much of a problem. Scary era, Victorian England. If you took a 10 year old off the streets, washed em, fed em, and raped em daily, the poor kid would be considered ungrateful for complaining.

They aren't exactly admirable in any other areas - status is what counted. How you treat your betters, your peers, and your inferiors.

And WA - sensors are on the Enterprise, I believe. Censors, OTH, are here on this blue marble.😀

Just because something is permissible doesn't make it morally right, and I prefer to believe that neither man, while human, would either participate in or approve of pedophilia. As vampires, yes, because that is a crime only a monster could commit. Permit me that one delusion, if delusion it might be.

Also, note that I said that both men would be guided by the moral standards of their UPBRINGING, not their society. From what little we saw of William's mother and Liam's father, I seriously doubt that either one of them would have brought their children up to believe that such a thing was permissible.

And, actually, the critics DO have sensors. That's how they can review movies, TV shows, and books that they, themselves, haven't even bothered to see or read. Not saying that their sensor are always accurate, however.

 

[bespangeled]

I understood you were talking about sexual behavior. I was implying that, since there are many things that Angelus would do that Angel would never do (accompanied with a short list), that the same could be said about anything else one might be compelled to compare them by, including sexual preferences really. It's not just a lack of inhibition, it's much more than that: Angel definitely would not and could not do a lot of the things Angelus does (e.g. his severe cruelty, his artistic and aesthetic enjoyment of cruelty, and on and on). If we all can admit this, than why would sexual preferences be any different? If much of Angelus' personality and actions and thoughts and feelings are things Angel would and could never do, then why should anyone assume that Angelus' sexual preferences/orientation are a reliable indicator of Angel's sexual preferences/orientation? I should have been a little more explicit I guess. I was also using your original post to address others who have voiced similar opinions to the one I was trying to undermine.

You do realize you are conflating Angel having sex with a male to rape, torture and sadism? Not sure there is much beyond that where I want to go.

I'm sorry - to me that probably would include only sleeping with the one girl that he truly loves and in the missionary position. I really hope I am misreading this and you are not saying that sadistically driving Dru insane was equal to having sex with any man - evidently Spike in this thread (whether or not he was willing back when they were demons).

When you say "human relationships on a meta-level are somewhat nuanced and complex things and this encompasses sexual orientation as well" I agree with you. Where I disagree though is when you say "They (vampires) are essentially human/demon hybrids with many of the desires, emotions behaviours familiar with their human counterparts." Not in Angel/Angelus' case, not in Druscilla's case either.

So Darla and Angelus did not have a passionate relationship that lasted over a century - as did Spike and Dru? There is nothing from the past that affects the present? I'd say the Darla arc blows holes in that one.

Yes, I understand that. You used Angelus' expressed opinions ("he didn't swing that way") as proof of Angel's orientation (Since Angelus is so much less inhibited than Angel), and I wanted to say that it struck me as the wrong way to understand Angel's orientation. Like I've already said, I find the use of the demon as a reliable indicator of the human's feelings/thoughts/whatever dubious. That was what prompted my entire post in the first place. Basically, my opinion is, if you want to know how Angel feels, explore and scrutinize Angel, not Angelus. Why doesn't that make more sense? I have a question about Angel so I'll look at....Angelus?!? (These last points aren't addressed to you Kana so much as the original poster of the thread).

I always thought that the 'he didn't swing that way' comment was a dig at Wesley's former bright eyed idolization.

There are many reasons to explore Angelus - he exerts huge influence on Angel. We can start with Darla's 'who we were' comment. There is a documented canon sexual encounter/relationship between Spike and Angel. There are also documented cases of Angel sleeping with Dru and Darla. Somehow I doubt he was celibate as a demon - I suspect he had sex with other women, men and possibly rodents (that part is a joke 😀). Nor is he celibate as a human (Nina - kinda funny since the bestiality reference earlier).

Here is my response. I have no idea what orientation you have or anyone on this board. I don't assume you are all straight and only have sex when well considered with a single chosen person with whom you are in love. Life isn't like that - that's a Disney movie. Sex is the biggest mind-farker in the world. There is not one person here who has not made choices that surprised them as time goes on - or who never will. So I have no problem assuming that Angel probably did not get a soul, and then find god, and stop having "deviant" sex. That idea actually scares me.

I do know that as a family the Fanged Four was together for a few centuries in one form or another, and that included sex. I do know that Angel seems to have a need to protect his family even when they are still killers (or Spike would have been dust on a submarine, for starters).

The past has a huge influence on who Angel is - to think of him a newly born, blank slate, and not affected is problematical. He is who he is because he retains many of Angelus's more civilized traits (love of art, beauty, good clothes, power) and daily fights against his less civilized urges. If you don't factor that in, if you pretend he became Angel and the past was no longer relevant to his current souled life - you may be misunderstanding the entire premise of the show.

Do you think the reasons Angel found Darla attractive were the same reasons why Angelus found Darla attractive? They both liked the ballet...but for the same reasons? I think that obviously they liked those things for completely different reasons, their own different and distinct personal reasons, because however you draw it, in the final analysis they have to be considered as two different people. If it turned out that Angel was bisexual, would he like the intimacy of a man for the same reasons of Angelus? They both like women, but do they like them for the same reasons? Obviously not. So if the two of us both find a third person attractive, does that mean our positions are the same? No, because I'm certain our reasons for finding that hypothetical third person attractive would be different and distinct from each other. I'm wondering if I am really making myself clear (obviously I didn't in the original post). Sure, like any two people compared, you are eventually going to find some things in common between Angel and Angelus. But does that mean there is a close relationship between the two? Examining Angel and Angelus, the few similarities or common opinions you can find are really just superficially similar or common.

Not at all clear to me. Whatever the reason, his relationship with Darla transcended their past. It wasn't like he happened to run into Darla a century later and decide he should sleep with her/help her/ protect her/ save her without clear knowledge of who she was. After 40 years with one person I can certainly attest to the fact that the reasons we are together change through time. But history is powerful.

And, as far as Angelus is concerned - if you make a list of outward traits and ignore the demonic killing and torture - right now Angel has moved far closer to Angelus than he was when he was a filthy rat eating shadow.

I'm looking over your last post, and you basically agree with me here when you say: "I'd say there are stark differences in his behaviour and the feelings that inform that behaviour, but I don't see them as entirely separate". My question is, since whatever similarities are really just surface and superficial at best between Angel and Angelus, why not just acknowledge that they are essentially two different people, as opposed to saying they are "not entirely separate", when a substantive and compelling connection between the two is so dubious? I would rather just say they are essentially different people, because the similarities aren't enough and aren't deep enough to say otherwise.

I think I answered this. They share history. They share a great many benign personality traits. Angelus gave birth to Angel and he is still along for the ride. It's the only way to explain how Angelus knew information about his crew, enough to rip them apart while he remained in a cage. So they are not two distinct and separate people. They are a demon and a soul in the body of one man, with a history that goes back 200+ years.

I fault the writers and creator of the shows here at this point. In the context of this discussion (the relationship of vampire to former human), it seemed to me that initially they had largely defined what that was, tacitly. Angelus, Druscilla etc. showed, at least to me, that the relationship between vampire and former human is a tenuous one at best. Then came things like Spike...and they confused the whole issue with a re-ensouled human who for all intents and purposes is the exact same person as the former vampire. Maybe I spoke too soon by saying Spike should have gone back to being the sensitive poet type he was before...but it makes no sense that they are not different in any way. Maybe some but not all of Spike/William's former feelings or inclinations could have reemerged in some way, or maybe Spike could have just...been different, in some interesting way (for the sake of entertainment and the show)....something, anything. If this theory that is currently floating around is true (that the writers and creator didn't want to change Spike because he was already so popular just the way he was) that would be, to borrow one of Spike's many expressions, bullocks. What an incredibly ingratiating orientation towards the fan-boys to take. This, from the people who stood up against homophobia and put the first girl-girl kiss on television. How shameful is that...we're scared of the fans so therefore we are not going to change/develop him out of fear?!? How disappointed and ashamed I would be if this rumor is true. On top of all of this, that attitude is incredibly lazy.

Okay - rant seen. You don't like the way the resouling of Spike was handled. We've debated this and no doubt will again, but not here unless it really has an impact. As I said earlier, my question is not to do with Spike - though I knew he would be brought in - I am just not sure why that is part of a discussion as to why a soul means a new sexual orientation. And you were the person who brought up homophobia - I don't think people are consciously homophobic but I do believe the idea that being souled makes you straight is....well....pretty judgmental when it comes to orientation.

As always - YMMV 😉

---------- Post added at 09:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:03 PM ----------

Just because something is permissible doesn't make it morally right, and I prefer to believe that neither man, while human, would either participate in or approve of pedophilia. As vampires, yes, because that is a crime only a monster could commit. Permit me that one delusion, if delusion it might be.

Also, note that I said that both men would be guided by the moral standards of their UPBRINGING, not their society. From what little we saw of William's mother and Liam's father, I seriously doubt that either one of them would have brought their children up to believe that such a thing was permissible.

And, actually, the critics DO have sensors. That's how they can review movies, TV shows, and books that they, themselves, haven't even bothered to see or read. Not saying that their sensor are always accurate, however.

Well, you said that they would return to the sexual morality of the time. This was the sexual morality of the time. The good people of England and Ireland felt they were godly and righteous. Because - then as now - being rich and successful meant God smiled on you. What you did with your inferiors did not matter. And yes, I really wish pedophilia was as unreal as demons.

When Liam's father yelled at him for tupping the maid it was because it took her away from her job. Were she to end up pregnant the best that could happen to her is she would have been stuck away to raise her bastard and shunned. That's if Liam would admit to being the father and arranged the upkeep. Watch Les Mis - pay attention to Fontine. That was how Liam's father raised him.

As for William - your parents or nanny made sure you slept on your back with your hands over the covers. That was about as much as parents felt you needed to know. Had he gone to a boy's boarding school - and given his place in society it seems probable - he no doubt experimented with other boys. Oddly enough, masturbation was the big sin, and health danger, of the time. Hairy palms and blindness were an issue.

Actually I think there would have been more sexual expression without censors. Have you ever seen the full scene of the sexual interlude Buffy and Spike shared in Smashed? Let's just say there was plenty cut once the floor gave away. Not gonna comment on the rest of the Spike opinion unless I know why it concerns souls and sexual orientation.

As for the past - why wouldn't two demons have sex? In 20 years together - okay - yeah, Spike - why would they refrain? Particularly since we know Dru and Darla also had sex.

 

[AnthonyCordova]

You do realize you are conflating Angel having sex with a male to rape, torture and sadism? Not sure there is much beyond that where I want to go.

I'm sorry - to me that probably would include only sleeping with the one girl that he truly loves and in the missionary position. I really hope I am misreading this and you are not saying that sadistically driving Dru insane was equal to having sex with any man - evidently Spike in this thread (whether or not he was willing back when they were demons).

I am definitely not conflating Angel having sex with a male to rape, torture and sadism. You misread me. I thought the implication of what I was talking about was clear, but apparently not. My premise is that what Angelus does or thinks or feels is not a reliable indicator of what Angel would do or think or feel. You might not agree with that premise, but don't misunderstand me. What I am saying is that, IF it is the case that Angelus does most/all of the other things he does for different reasons than Angel, than why would we assume that his sexual preferences are any different and that it would help us understand Angel's? That is the idea I am working with here. If this is still confusing than I am at a loss to explain it any better. Like I said, you might disagree, but I hope at least you may understand what I mean. As for that last paragraph, this is where I say I don't understand what you mean. How does what I just said have anything to do with Angel therefore being limited to only one partner forever and only in the missionary position (and all of the rest that you said)? A lot of things to say come to mind, but I won't presume to understand what you mean.

So Darla and Angelus did not have a passionate relationship that lasted over a century - as did Spike and Dru? There is nothing from the past that affects the present? I'd say the Darla arc blows holes in that one.

Do you mean Darla not seeming any different briefly reensouled than without? If that's what you mean, it's hard to say, because she wasn't around with a soul long enough to observe what differences there might have been.

I am taking stock of these characters as individuals. In other words, who they really are as people. You see Angel caring for Darla's soul and think, see, he's just like Angelus?!? I don't get what you mean. I see a person who cares for Darla in a deep empathetic way (something Angelus could never do because he's an evil demon and I don't think evil demon's (which vampires definitely are) really care for anything, not in any sense we humans speak about and define 'caring'). I see a person who feels deep guilt for his past and sees Darla as part of that and wants to correct it and save her, redeem her, and in the process atone for what Angelus did by her side in some small way. And on and on. In other words, I see a person (Angel) who is completely different than Angelus. Angelus wouldn't do any of those things for Darla. He wouldn't care for her soul, at least not in any human way but only in some twisted and warped evil demon sort of way. He certainly wouldn't try to redeem her or help her atone. I don't think the Darla arc "blows a hole" in my argument at all. If anything, it supports it.

I need to say here that I NEVER understood why Angel felt guilty from the gypsy curse in the first place. My feeling has always been that Angel is NOT Angelus. Obviously, Angel would never have murdered or raped etc. anybody (let alone the great number of people he did those things to) if he had never been turned into a vampire. So why should he be made to feel guilty for those things? It will never be something I can understand.

There are many reasons to explore Angelus - he exerts huge influence on Angel. We can start with Darla's 'who we were' comment. There is a documented canon sexual encounter/relationship between Spike and Angel. There are also documented cases of Angel sleeping with Dru and Darla. Somehow I doubt he was celibate as a demon - I suspect he had sex with other women, men and possibly rodents (that part is a joke 😀). Nor is he celibate as a human (Nina - kinda funny since the bestiality reference earlier).

There is a documented sexual encounter/relationship between Spike and Angel? When? That would be news to me, and I'll admit I don't know the canon or comics as well as others (I have not read the comics yet). Anyway, Spike never met Angel before he was killed and Angelus assumed his body. Spike only knew Angelus, not Angel. Of course, in S5 of Angel Spike knew Angel (the guy with the soul), so are you saying that Spike and Angel had a sexual encounter/relationship after that point? (comics or something?) If so, that's news to me. If you mean "that one time" thing Spike mentions, stop saying over and over again that that was Spike and Angel in this thread. That was ANGELUS and Spike.

Angel slept with Dru and Darla, okay, so what? I obviously recall the time he slept with Darla (that's what gave us Connor)...but so what? Does that mean he had sex with her for the same reasons as Angelus? And with the same feelings as Angelus? Of course not. We can find common actions in the world by any two people without much effort, but what distinguishes them as different or similar people is the purpose behind those actions, the reasons behind those actions, the feelings behind those actions, and on and on.

Angel has had sex with many women, and Angelus has slept with many female vampires. Okay...so what? They share that in common with literally just about every guy I know. It seems like a trivial connection, an innocuous one. I'm struggling to understand what the point of this is. If I had a vampire version of myself who liked reading (and I myself like to read), you would come around and say, see, they both do things like that so therefore, because the vampire version of Anthony has sexual experiences in x, y and z therefore the human version of Anthony must feel the same and do the same things?

To reemphasize everything, most things Angelus does Angel would never do. And then, there are things they both do judged from a surface perspective but underneath it all the reasons and feelings etc. are completely different. And then there are things they both do (like sleeping etc.) that are neither here nor there. And maybe there are a few things that Angel and Angelus do for similar reasons...but not enough to say they are the same people, and not enough to say that one is a good indicator for the behavior of the other. My own two cents is I don't think Angel is bisexual judging from an analysis of Angel only. Some expression of real sexual interest in a man would have revealed itself over the time I've followed Angel (again, not the comics yet, I don't know what's in store for me there).

I'm getting tired...I'll try to come back and address the rest later. Some quick observations:

He is who he is because he retains many of Angelus's more civilized traits (love of art, beauty, good clothes, power)

I'll try to address this at a later time. You're white washing the differences again to me. And one more time: they both like beauty, but for any of the same reasons? Good clothes?...well, Angel could have easily come to that on his own after pulling himself up by the bootstraps after seeing Buffy, relearning to feel self-respect for himself, wanting to look good for Buffy after falling in love after first sight, and then afterwards getting into the habit of it, and so on. That didn't have to require Angelus. But I'll try and come back to this....

and daily fights against his less civilized urges.

His less civilized urges are because Angel is still after all a vampire. Any vampire with a soul would struggle with less civilized urges from time to time by virtue of still being a vampire (desire/craving for blood, etc.). It's beside the point to me. Unless you mean something more? Elaborate if you'd like.

Not at all clear to me. Whatever the reason, his relationship with Darla transcended their past. It wasn't like he happened to run into Darla a century later and decide he should sleep with her/help her/ protect her/ save her without clear knowledge of who she was. After 40 years with one person I can certainly attest to the fact that the reasons we are together change through time. But history is powerful.

I feel I've addressed this above. He felt guilt about the past and felt he could atone for her and most importantly for himself. It was more about himself and his own need to redeem things and to repay the prior evils to the world with good.

And, as far as Angelus is concerned - if you make a list of outward traits and ignore the demonic killing and torture - right now Angel has moved far closer to Angelus than he was when he was a filthy rat eating shadow.

Angel has changed a lot, but that doesn't mean he and Angelus are close. Certainly not close enough to use one as a reliable measure of the other (which was my point). They are definitely not that close. But now I'm repeating myself again.

And you were the person who brought up homophobia - I don't think people are consciously homophobic but I do believe the idea that being souled makes you straight is....well....pretty judgmental when it comes to orientation.

Do you mean me? You definitely must not mean me. I've never said that Angel was souled and therefore that makes him straight. I've been saying that 1. Angelus is a different person that can't be reliably used to tell us what Angel thinks or feels on anything and 2. If you want proof of what Angel's orientation to anything is (sexuality or anything else) there is no better place to look than Angel himself, and, taking in all that I've seen, 3. I don't see enough tangible evidence so far in Angel's (not Angelus') actions or words to indicate he's bisexual. If he is bisexual, great. I don't care.

To conclude quickly, I know I haven't said anything to show this (I've been pre-occupied defending the alternative view here) but believe it or not I can see where you are coming from in some ways and on some points. Your original post seemed like a premature assumption to me: Angel is bisexual just because Angelus was. That is what prompted me to respond the way I have. On the relative proximity of Angel to Angelus, I'd be willing to bend a little and come a little closer to the idea that there is some connection between the two...but not before establishing important points, like the great differences between them too.

 

[janas]

AnthonyCordova, I agree totally with you.

There is a documented sexual encounter/relationship between Spike and Angel? When?

No, there is no.

Angel slept with Dru and Darla, okay, so what?

Also in this case, canon says otherwise. From TGIQ

Angelus: That's why he had us tossed. So he could violate--
Darla: He didn't.
Angelus: Violate our women!
Spike: Violate in succession!
Darla: Concurrently.
Angelus: Concurrently? You never let us do that.

Sorry, but I still think that all this debauchery from Fanged Four it's a mere fanon invention.

 

[bespangeled]

AnthonyCordova, I agree totally with you.
No, there is no.

Also in this case, canon says otherwise. From TGIQ

Angelus: That's why he had us tossed. So he could violate--
Darla: He didn't.
Angelus: Violate our women!
Spike: Violate in succession!
Darla: Concurrently.
Angelus: Concurrently? You never let us do that.

Sorry, but I still think that all this debauchery from Fanged Four it's a mere fanon invention.

You on the Angelus only bus? Or do you believe male vampires didn't sin by having sex together? 🙂

Concurrently - two girls and one guy. That has nothing to do with both guys together with no women.

So there was no deviance?

ANGELUS
Don't mistake me. I do love the ladies. It's just lately... I've been wondering...
(holds his own fist in the beam of sunlight)
what it'd be like...
(watches his hand sizzle)
to share the slaughter of innocents... with another man.
(turns his hand over so the palm is in the light now; looks admiringly at it as it smokes)
Don't... don't think that makes me some kind of a deviant, hmm?
(pulls his hand back close to his face)
Do you?
(Staring at Angelus, William sticks his own hand in the lightà¯Â¿Â½voluntarily this time)

ANGELUS
(laughs, slaps William on the shoulder affectionately)
Au ah! I like this one! You and me, we're gonna be the best of friends.

Angelus and William laugh together.

Debauched!

 

[Silverspike]

Sorry, but I still think that all this debauchery from Fanged Four it's a mere fanon invention.

Except a certain Mr Whedon says otherwise. 😀

Also, so I imagine that shagging Darla in front of a terrified Dru isn't debauchery then? Ah but then maybe thats seen as being more acceptable because it's het?

And yes I did quote that scene further up thread Bespanged, not that anyone took a blind bit of notice of course. *g*

 

[janas]

You on the Angelus only bus? Or do you believe male vampires didn't sin by having sex together? 🙂

Look, they will have also had sex together, but I miss the canon references. I am ok with the fanfics (I write a lot myself) but they are always just what they are. Fanfics.
Regarding Angelus, IMO his entire "aura" screams "alpha male" from a mile away 😛

Except a certain Mr Whedon says otherwise. 😀

Yes, you've already said this ...once or twice!

 

[Silverspike]

IMO his entire "aura" screams "alpha male" from a mile away

Oh I agree, but then being an alpha demon doesn't mean he can't shag other males. 😀

Yes, you've already said this ...once or twice!

Oh forgive me, but I sometimes think the good stuff bares repeating. 😀

 

[thetopher]

I think some people here are trying to have it both ways (pun! 😛)

Either Angelus and Spike having sex is canon because Spike said that they did it 'that one time', so it only happened that one time.
Or Spike meant something else by 'intimate' and you're just inferring from other conversations during their flashbacks.
In which case maybe they shagged each other senseless loads of times, but there's no evidence that this happened. Fanon.

Watching 'TGIQ' again recently there's really very little evidence to suggest that they indulged in orgy's with each other and such. Angelus and Spike seem very put out that Darla and Dru have had sex with one person at the same time.
So, they themselves clearly get to indulge this distinct pleasure...except maybe it happened more often after the event, but again that's pure 'fanon' territory.

And for the record I don't think anyones trying to homophobic or anything, people just view charactrer relationships and the evidence for them differently. 🙂

 

[Silverspike]

Either Angelus and Spike having sex is canon because Spike said that they did it 'that one time', so it only happened that one time.

Fine by me. 😀 A shag is still a shag.

In which case maybe they shagged each other senseless loads of times, but there's no evidence that this happened. Fanon.

Yep, but then we have Whedons word that they apparently did, although I do realise that considering the age range of this show they'd be hard pressed to portray such a thing even If they wanted to. *g*

But fine, I imagine that for some out there it's always going to be easier to imagine certain characters indulging extreme violence rather then having had sex with other men.

 

[thetopher]

Yep, but then we have Whedons word that they apparently did, although I do realise that considering the age range of this show they'd be hard pressed to portray such a thing even If they wanted to. *g*

But fine, I imagine that for some out there it's always going to be easier to imagine certain characters indulging extreme violence rather then having had sex with other men.

That's what I'm taking about- which is it, is Spike right or is Joss? Can't have it both ways.
Either one time explictly referenced on the show or Joss saying 'yeah, probably a whole bunch of times- their vampires'.

I would also point out that Whedon is on record saying 'bring your own ship' to the show, so that doesn't really prove anything.
As far as he's concerned anything goes, Spangel is not unique in that.
If you want to ship Joyce/Darla or Oz/Giles I doubt Joss would care- he'd just say 'knock yourself out. 🙂

As a Fuffy fan I know all about WB and network censoring, (they should've kissed on the lips, dammit. 🙁) Joss had to fight really hard for a simple Willow/Tara kiss, completely non-sexual and in-character.
Now in Buffy and Angel had both been on UPN, which was a lot more relaxed about such things, we probably would've seen much more playing around with sexuality. 🙂

 

[Silverspike]

That's what I'm taking about- which is it, is Spike right or is Joss? Can't have it both ways.
Either one time explictly referenced on the show or Joss saying 'yeah, probably a whole bunch of times- their vampires'.

Can't it be both? Both work for me. The point is however way you look at it they would have had sex at some point.

I mean you ship fluffy for example and there's no canonical evidence to say they shagged and yet I for one would go with it. 😀

Thing is you're right the verse is free and easy and has more then enough doorways for each character that fans can choose to either open or ignore.

Me? Well I'm an open kind of gal. 😀

 

[thetopher]

Can't it be both? Both work for me. The point is however way you look at it they would have had sex at some point.

I mean you ship fluffy for example and there's no canonical evidence to say they shagged and yet I for one would go with it. 😀

Thing is you're right the verse is free and easy and has more then enough doorways for each character that fans can choose to either open or ignore.

Me? Well I'm an open kind of gal. 😀

Nope, Buffy and Faith never shagged on or offscreen, but they kissed a couple of times. (And there was all that fighting and suggestive comments...)
And Faith did finally manage to get in Buffy's pants- literally. 😀

If I'm honest the whole Spangel relationship, just like the Fuffy one, (And I don't nessesarily mean romantic or sexual, just something) seems to have untapped potential that the writers don't seem to want to explore.

Buffy and Faith and Angel and Spike are in seperate comics at the moment and I think that's a shame, I think both relationships have a lot of drama left in them.

If we'd had that Angel S6 (that wshould've gotten) maybe there might've been more clarity on the whole Spike/Angel bonding thing.

 

[AnthonyCordova]

One last thing: in any references to Spike's "that one time" or anything else from that period in the fanged four's lives, please from this point forward, say Angelus, or Angelus and Spike, not Angel, because that is who you/we are really talking about. They do have separate names after all. It would be less confusing for any of us (like me) who insist there is a difference between the two.

 

[bespangeled]

I think some people here are trying to have it both ways (pun! 😛)

Either Angelus and Spike having sex is canon because Spike said that they did it 'that one time', so it only happened that one time.
Or Spike meant something else by 'intimate' and you're just inferring from other conversations during their flashbacks.
In which case maybe they shagged each other senseless loads of times, but there's no evidence that this happened. Fanon.

Watching 'TGIQ' again recently there's really very little evidence to suggest that they indulged in orgy's with each other and such. Angelus and Spike seem very put out that Darla and Dru have had sex with one person at the same time.
So, they themselves clearly get to indulge this distinct pleasure...except maybe it happened more often after the event, but again that's pure 'fanon' territory.

And for the record I don't think anyones trying to homophobic or anything, people just view charactrer relationships and the evidence for them differently. 🙂

Sorry - but that line is so frequently added to that it's often no remembered correctly:

ILLYRIA
You'll have proof soon enough. A corrupted ruler on such a path sees treachery and betrayal all around him. He cannot suffer intimates and will eventually turn against them.

SPIKE
Guess I don't have to worry about that, 'cause Angel and me have never been intimate. Except that one...

He trails off before he adds anything, leaving the clause open. Could be that one time - but that is fanon 😉

Could be any time or amount - that one million time when he wanted to 'play' - that one decade or so - that one week in the Riviera with champagne, roses and a hot tub.

As for homophobic - I agree that no one is trying to be, or is.

---------- Post added at 02:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:25 PM ----------

@AnthonyCordova

I think we are coming from opposite views of the Angel/us divide.

Let's adopt the fanon convenience that calls the demon Angelus and the soul Angel. If I am correct, you see them as entirely different entities.

I see them a both always present but the demon is repressed unless the soul is taken out.

Do we agree here?

---------- Post added at 02:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:31 PM ----------

Can't it be both? Both work for me. The point is however way you look at it they would have had sex at some point.

I mean you ship fluffy for example and there's no canonical evidence to say they shagged and yet I for one would go with it. 😀

Thing is you're right the verse is free and easy and has more then enough doorways for each character that fans can choose to either open or ignore.

Me? Well I'm an open kind of gal. 😀

I have given too much rep in the last 24.....yes, I agree that we each can build doorways. That's the thing about any fandom - the freedom. We have a jar of pieces, just pour them out and move them around. Everyone's mosaic looks a bit different.

---------- Post added at 02:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:36 PM ----------

One last thing: in any references to Spike's "that one time" or anything else from that period in the fanged four's lives, please from this point forward, say Angelus, or Angelus and Spike, not Angel, because that is who you/we are really talking about. They do have separate names after all. It would be less confusing for any of us (like me) who insist there is a difference between the two.

Amazingly enough that is also fanon - or rather an idea constructed as the universe matured. But the first time we meet unsouled.....

Xander: Don't do that!

Angelus: Oh, I think I do that.

Willow: Angel...

Jenny: He's not Angel anymore. Are you?

Angelus: Wrong. I *am* Angel. (tightens his grip on Willow) At last!

the buzzard calls himself Angel! 😀

However I will happily use that system because it does work.