The whole grudge on Spike....

[Allie]

I don't know if I should put this, but I have to. NO ONE ever brings rape or attempted rape on themselves. It doesn't matter what previously happened, when someone no and the other keeps on, that is rape. I just have a bad problem that statement. I am not attacking, but to say that hurts. I liked the storyline and Buffy and Spike together. I got over that scene because he was souless. But seriously, no one brings that on themselves.

Joan the Vampire Slayer agrees: Yes, but don't forget that these are fictional characters - we have to learn to not get so personally offended 😉

I know we are talking about fictional characters, which I love. But to me, it isn't right to say that anyone, fictional or not, could bring something like that on themselves. I am not mad at that, but I figured I should say that that bothered me rather than holding it in and getting aggravated. This way I speak my mind, get my point out there, and feel better 🙂. I hope that doesn't bother anyone, I don't mean to. I just feel the need to be honest.

 

[Misty]

Okay, what I was trying to get out in this thread was a question that I have. My question is that no one ever holds Angel responsible for his actions without a soul in season 2 of Btvs, but yet they hold Spike responsible for the AR when he didn't have a soul either, so why is that?

 

[Allie]

I don't hold Spike responsible myself, because of the no soul thing. I think you can't really blame someone if they don't have a soul.

 

[Tome]

Cordy & Xander, are you talking about the characters in the show or the fans? And if it's the fans, I think the difference for everyone was because Spike with no soul was still much more 'human' than Angelus.

It always was strange to me how Angel without a soul was pure evil and cruelty, and that Spike managed to change. I guess you can attribute that to the chip or just that Spike was destined to be more than an 'evil' vampire.

Hopefully it answers your question.

 

[Misty]

I don't hold Spike responsible myself, because of the no soul thing. I think you can't really blame someone if they don't have a soul.

Well yeah, and I don't think either should be blamed without a soul, and even though I didn't say that in my surrent post, I'm trying to get that out to people.

 

[faeriegrrl27]

Now even though I am a Bangel as well as a Spuffy, I think it is unfair how people hold the attempted rape in Seeing Red on Spike. But what I find very odd, is that nobody ever holds Angel responsible for his actions in Season 2 of Buffy. Yes Angel didn't have soul, but neither did Spike in Seeing Red. Also, Buffy is no innocent angel in the attempted rape because she is responsible for this happening too, for the way that she just treated Spike like dirt and made the relationship very difficult and confusing. And when did ensouled Spike tried to kill Buffy in her sleep, not to mention her mom, and even succeed killing somebody that was a Scooby at one time? So I think that it's alittle unfair to compare souled Angel with ensouled Spike in a Spuffy/Bangel debate or thread.

So I was pretty much with you until you said the attempted rape was Buffy's fault. She did treat him badly, but does every person who treats another person badly asking to be violated?

 

[Buffy Summers]

Personally, I think with Angel, he was tormented and horrified by the things he did as Angelus - and worked to make amends for them. Spike was kind of the same with and without a soul, except he stopped killing people lol. I didn't see any regret for his soulless actions.

 

[faeriegrrl27]

That's not entirely true. Spike didn't kill Robin on account of having killed his mom. And he in Beneath You, he's pretty tormented ("And now they're all in here... talking.") He could have been referring to the First, but I don't think it was just the first. He did really regret what he'd done and he even regretted his attempted rape sans soul. The difference is, he accepted that he did it and didn't want to mope, unlike a certain forheady person who is also being discussed in this thread.

 

[white avenger]

Personally, I think with Angel, he was tormented and horrified by the things he did as Angelus - and worked to make amends for them. Spike was kind of the same with and without a soul, except he stopped killing people lol. I didn't see any regret for his soulless actions.

The biggest difference in how Angel and Spike handled the reinstatement of their respective souls is directly related to how they were received and treated by the people with whom they associated with and cared the most about.

On top of the initial shock and overwhelming guilt that came with Angel's soul came the rejection and condemnation of Darla, the closest thing to a wife or mate that he had ever known. Darla saw his soul as a curse, which it was, and something that made him less than he had been before, at least as far as she was concerned.

On the other hand, Spike, after that same initial shock and overwhelming guilt was accepted, defended, and encouraged by the one person who he cared most for in the world, Buffy, who would have been completely justified in never trusting him again. Buffy saw Spike's soul as something positive and admirable, something that made him "a better man," more than he had ever been before.

Ultimately, both men owe the degree of their present success (present as in the context of the series) to the acceptance, faith, and encouragement of Buffy Summers. Because of her, Angel crawled out of his alley, washed the rat blood off of his hands, and began the journey toward redemption. Likewise, because of Buffy, Spike crawled out of his basement, washed the rat blood off of his own hands, and began his own journey toward redemption.

Interestingly, Spike just MIGHT have would up more like Angel, a brooding recluse, if Buffy hadn't figuratively kicked him in the ass, told him that she neither needed nor wanted another reclusive self pitying vampire. She needed "the old Spike, the Spike who almost killed me when we first met." Because of that, Spike was able to move past the guilt and self recriminations and get on with the job of fighting the bad guys.

Spike was pretty much the same with or without his soul because the woman who he loved made it very plain that that was what she needed. And who was he to refuse a lady in need?

 

[InsaneMystic]

I don't know if I should put this, but I have to. NO ONE ever brings rape or attempted rape on themselves. It doesn't matter what previously happened, when someone no and the other keeps on, that is rape. I just have a bad problem that statement. I am not attacking, but to say that hurts. I liked the storyline and Buffy and Spike together. I got over that scene because he was souless. But seriously, no one brings that on themselves.

I very much see where you're coming from, trust me. And I'm more than aware how thin the ice is I'm walking on with my argument. Still, I'd feel like a hypocrite if I denied Buffy's share of responsibility in the matter. And being a hypocrite is possibly the one thing to call me I'd be most offended for, because lies and hypocrisy are the stuff that make me go irrational with anger (that anger usually manifesting as acidic sarcasm that really hits below the belt). Call me a potential rapist or an apologist for violence, and you'll get a polite "I see where you're coming from"; but whoever calls me a hypocrite better brace themselves for the answer.

Having made that clear, here's my view of it again:

When you use another person emotionally and/or sexually, you set a precedent.
When you accept violence as a valid part of foreplay, you set a precedent.
When you go over the other persons "no", and/or react iffy at being told "no" ("Gone"!), you set a precedent.
When you end the affair several times, but keep coming back again after all, you set a precedent.

Buffy checks on all accounts. It does not make it right what Spike did, but it makes it very understandable. Add to that that Buffy was more than aware that she was dealing with an unsouled (in clinical terms, effectively someone with a severe antisocial personality disorder) person who was romantically obsessed with her, the expression "poking the bear" doesn't begin to describe it. It's more like taking a semi-wild dog, actively training it to be a vicious fighting machine, and then just leaving the kennel door open when you don't want the critter any more. If said dog then attacks and mauls you, you don't deserve the injury (= morality), but yes indeed, you brought it on yourself (= consequence).

If it weren't Buffy and Spike, but the depressive girl next door and her antisocial boyfriend, and all other things were identical (including the guy getting up to seek therapy right after the deed, without getting a court order to do so) - then yes, I'd be all for showing the guy massive lenience under the law. If there ever was a case where "mitigating circumstances" apply, it's this one. I think an appropriate sentence would a a couple of months of jail, "freed on parole" starting instantly. If I were the judge, the guy would be sentenced, yes, but he'd walk out of my court as a free man (under parole).

And "parole" is exactly what metaphorically happened in the show, because Spike was NOT a full-on, trusted Scooby member right when he came back in S7, neither in Buffy's view nor in anyone else's. I repeat myself, but SMG's acting in "Beneath You" was PERFECT.

If Buffy had instead gotten up the act of "righteous-anger, innocent-victim" to Spike in S7, my view stands that this would have been hypocritical and irresponsible of her, disqualifying her as a role model for female empowerment and ruining the character forever. Thank Joss the show had the courage not to have her do so.

And once again, before anyone feels the need to be the spokes(wo)man of rape victims, I remind you that these are the views of someone who has been at the receiving end of this myself, and who is very much aware that an estimate of 99% of all sexual violence indeed happens on people who did nothing to bring it on themselves. Kudos for Joss Whedon, though, to have the courage to show 1% does not equal ZERO. It does not make for a pouplar statement, especially in a show that's (rightfully) considered to be feminist in its main theme, but it simply is the truth if you take off the morality goggles and argue for personal responsibility (which the show has, indeed, been about since way back in S1).

Just my 0.02 $ 🙂

 

[Allie]

I get where you are coming from. I, too, dealt with this issue, so you understand why I am really sensitive about it. It probably has more to do with my issues than anything, so I am sorry if that bothered anyone. And knowing that you went through similar situations, then I think that you know where I am coming from too. So I apologize if I got a little defensive about it, it is just still an extremely tough thing for me.

 

[Washburne]

It does not make it right what Spike did, but it makes it very understandable.

That I agree on. Even if I personally would skip the "very". But to me that doesn't change the fact that it's an attemted rape. I doubt every single rape in the world is done with the attempt to rape. Most of the time there's so called reasons or excuses. But that doesn't change what it was. In my mind.

Willow killed Warren. No doubt. Was it understandable? Yes. I think most people would be devasted with grief if their loved one was killed. A lot of people also having a lot of hatred to the person being responisible. In those moments I'm sure a lot of us would want revenge. Luckily very few of us have the chance. So of course it was understandable. But as in with case with Spike, the act itself doesn't change depending on if it's understandable or not.

 

[InsaneMystic]

That I agree on. Even if I personally would skip the "very". But to me that doesn't change the fact that it's an attemted rape. I doubt every single rape in the world is done with the attempt to rape. Most of the time there's so called reasons or excuses. But that doesn't change what it was. In my mind.

The thing here is - and that is indeed exceedingly unusual, possibly unique, in the Spike/Buffy situation - that Spike didn't need excuses. He never got a clear, unmistakeable signal from Buffy that what he did there was anything but the kind of "sorta consensual" sex they had lots of times before.

Yep, she struggled - but that's always been foreplay. She screamed "no, stop" - but that always translated before as "try harder, I may change my mind to yes in a minute". Yep, he caused her physical pain - but she had quite enjoyed him doing that before. She had ended the relationship - but she'd done so several times before and always came back for more, after all. It is unfair to assume Spike should have been able to see the situation as rape. He is not a mind-reader. It can not be called rape if the woman doesn't give a signal that it is, indeed, against her will.

The sad and truly tragic part is, I can't for the life of me think of anything that could have been a clear signal. Buffy - and this is indeed Buffy's responsibility alone, not Spike's; in this regard, Spike is 100% innocent - had destroyed the value of the word "no" over the course of their relationship, and an empathic reaction to Buffy's fear and pain is beyond Spike's capabilities (with him being unsouled). That indeed is the tragedy of the scene, a tragedy that victimizes Spike no less than Buffy. It is not Spike's fault that it came across as rape. It just happened, a tragic accident that Spike did not intend and was shocked and devastated when he saw that it had happened against his will. Calling him evil for that will simply not sit right with me, ever.

In fact (even though I fear Acathla's hell will break loose from the Bangels when I say it) I see parallels between Buffy stabbing Angel in Becoming II, and Spike trying to have sex with Buffy in SR. Taken out of context, both actions are without a doubt "morally evil" (Buffy "murders" a man who says, tears in his eyes, that he loves her; Spike tries to "rape" a crying and screaming woman on a bathroom floor). Put into context, though, they are truly tragedies: Lovers causing suffering to each other without a trace of bad intention, because life doesn't deal fair hands and karma's a b*tch.

And before anyone thinks I'm too stupid to see it 😉 - yes, I am fully aware of one HUGE difference in the two scenes, too. Spike's motivation to have sex with Buffy was not to save the world from getting sucked into hell by an ancient ugly statue, so, unlike Buffy, I'm not suggesting for a second that he were a hero for what he did. But his motivation was to be loved, which is hardly villainous or evil, either.

 

[Washburne]

He never got a clear, unmistakeable signal from Buffy that what he did there was anything but the kind of "sorta consensual" sex they had lots of times before.

Not fighting against it hard enough is a good enough reason not to call it rape? Would help a lot of men if they're ever accused of rape. Rape is an incredibly sensitive subject and a lot of the time it'll all come down to individuals opinions. And since people are different so will also our views on any given situation vary.


And I never said that Spike was evil in this case. Just discussing the meaning of the word rape. Now I'll hopefully be gone from this thread until I've watched season 6 again and compare Buffy's "no's" in this scene to the ones earlier. But if we as viewers notice that she's not willing this time there must be some difference. Or? *curses bad memory*

 

[InsaneMystic]

Not fighting against it hard enough is a good enough reason not to call it rape? Would help a lot of men if they're ever accused of rape.

I am aware of that, and that it's not a theoretical "would" either. It's been used as an excuse for millennia, and shamefully, it's been used by legislators and judges, not only by rapists themselves. (Look it up in the Mosaic Laws in the Bible. If a woman gets raped in a city, she must be put to death, as she "obviously" didn't protest loudly enough or else the neighbors would have helped. So she "obviously" must have agreed to it and is a whore.)

Like I said, the argument is possibly not valid anywhere outside the Spike/Buffy context. And here's why:

Now I'll hopefully be gone from this thread until I've watched season 6 again and compare Buffy's "no's" in this scene to the ones earlier. But if we as viewers notice that she's not willing this time there must be some difference. Or? *curses bad memory*

You, me, and probably every other viewer noticed a glaring difference there, indeed, because we (presumably) have souls and can, thus, empathize with the fear and pain Buffy feels. Spike, without a soul, does not have that option. He can only rely on information she explicitly gives him... and like I said before, Buffy has undermined the signals of "no", "stop", and "struggle" by having redefined them as "foreplay". Without empathy, Buffy is, even in the bathroom scene, giving out mixed signals. 🙁

If "pain = hot'n'sexy" and "no, stop = try harder, baby" on Monday, it's asked a bit much for a non-empathic person to see "pain + no, stop = rape" on Tuesday.

 

[sk]

You, me, and probably every other viewer noticed a glaring difference there, indeed, because we (presumably) have souls and can, thus, empathize with the fear and pain Buffy feels. Spike, without a soul, does not have that option. He can only rely on information she explicitly gives him... and like I said before, Buffy has undermined the signals of "no", "stop", and "struggle" by having redefined them as "foreplay". Without empathy, Buffy is, even in the bathroom scene, giving out mixed signals. 🙁

If "pain = hot'n'sexy" and "no, stop = try harder, baby" on Monday, it's asked a bit much for a non-empathic person to see "pain + no, stop = rape" on Tuesday.

Has Spike really show any lack of understanding for such nuances throughout the show?
If anything I would say that he always has been pretty good at just that. Reading peoples mind, understanding what they really feel.

Don't see why he shouldn't be able to notice the difference this time when it's so clear for everyone else.

I would say that he just didn't looked for it.

/SK

 

[InsaneMystic]

Has Spike really show any lack of understanding for such nuances throughout the show?
If anything I would say that he always has been pretty good at just that. Reading peoples mind, understanding what they really feel.

Examples please, because off the top of my head, I just don't see it. And if there are examples for showing empathy without a soul, than double the "I had no soul" hypocrisy of Angel (not Angelus, there is no Angelus except as an alibi, in that case).

Really, if a soul makes so little difference, this whole repentance this has to be an act. It makes no sense otherwise.

Don't see why he shouldn't be able to notice the difference this time when it's so clear for everyone else.

I would say that he just didn't looked for it.

Ok, this argument makes me angry, sorry.

If you have to look for it and be a mind-reader to see it, it is unclear signals, by definition. This would give people the power to accuse anyone who ever had sex with them as a rapist, because the "I wasn't completely sure I wanted it wholeheartedly" will always work as an cheap alibi noone can prove wrong. I give a BIG NO to that.

If the woman doesn't make it clear that she doesn't want it, it is not rape, I don't give a damn whether or not she wants the sex or not, because it doesn't even enter the picture for that question. If she doesn't clearly protest (and, as I said, Buffy didn't and couldn't in SR, though, tragically, not for lack of trying), it's not "rape", it's acquiescing to sex even if she's not completely in the mood for it, so she has no one but herself to blame if she doesn't enjoy it. To call that "rape" makes half the couples in the world, men and women, habitual rapists. Let He Who Is Without Sin cast the first stone, in that case. If you ever had sex, you may well be a rapist but just don't know it yet.

I say it again: It is the tragedy of SR that was was intended as just sex by Spike came across as a rape experience by Buffy, and she was powerless to send clear signals. As she didn't, NO WAY can it be said that Spike "tried to rape" Buffy, unless you muddle the waters enough to make every sexual encounter open for reinterpretation as "rape" ex post facto. And that price is definitely too high for me to want to pay, even at the cost of letting someone who slept with someone against their will, but didn't rape them by my definition, get away scot free.

Better let a few guilty people walk away free than open a loophole for jailing millions of innocents. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a dang good idea in my book, and the proof that Spike "tried to rape" Buffy is still not coming for me.

Ok, end of rant... hope I didn't offend anyone, I tried to keep standing on my emotional brakes while posting. :blush:

 

[faeriegrrl27]

To lighten the mood here, I'm going to toss in a suggestion that Spike didn't realize what was going on because he wasn't able to hear the eerie silence (different from the background music playing when they usually do their dance of reluctant lust), nor was he able to see the menacing screen cuts and camera positioning. 🙂

 

[sk]

Examples please, because off the top of my head, I just don't see it. And if there are examples for showing empathy without a soul, than double the "I had no soul" hypocrisy of Angel (not Angelus, there is no Angelus except as an alibi, in that case).

Really, if a soul makes so little difference, this whole repentance this has to be an act. It makes no sense otherwise.

First thing that comes to mind is in season 4, Something Blue.
While the gang thinks Willow is slowly getting back on track after the Oz breakup Spike has no problem noticing how depressed she still is and that she's actually very close to a total breakdown.

Ok, this argument makes me angry, sorry.

If you have to look for it and be a mind-reader to see it, it is unclear signals, by definition. This would give people the power to accuse anyone who ever had sex with them as a rapist, because the "I wasn't completely sure I wanted it wholeheartedly" will always work as an cheap alibi noone can prove wrong. I give a BIG NO to that.

Oh, I thought we had established that Buffy did send clear signals for anyone (with a soul) to see.

You, me, and probably every other viewer noticed a glaring difference there, indeed, because we (presumably) have souls and can, thus, empathize with the fear and pain Buffy feels.

Was just suprised to see that you didn't think a soulless Spike could see it when I always considered that capability in Spike being the exact thing that makes him so different from most other vampires.

/SK

 

[GrrArghx]

I really don't see how someone can think it's not attempted rape.
He was trying (aka attempting) to force himself on her when she didn't want it (aka rape).

There isn't a single time (correct me if I'm wrong) before Seeing Red, where she was screaming and clawing to get away from him like she was in that bathroom.