Was Spike A Good Man?

[Gum Gnome33]

then it’s only to be expected that he would do things like trying to attack a woman as soon as it seems like his chip doesn’t work or attempting to force himself on the woman he claims to love. If he does have confused notions of humanity, though, then he’s clearly making a choice to follow his worst nature when he doesn’t have to, and that’s despicable.

It's expected that he, a soulless being, would try each of those things. But there's more to each of those incidences. In the first, he has to talk himself into biting her, which shows significant progress. He literally has to convince himself to do what is in his nature as a demon. How common an occurrence is that among predators, I wonder? That he succumbs to it is ultimately of course a problem, but he does become acutely aware of that, when his inherent demonic nature leads him to force himself on Buffy, (the final straw.) I know we've argued this before, but I still firmly believe that he would NOT have gone through with the act, considering the way he acts as soon as Buffy kicks him. He looks shocked, disgusted, and remorseful, then goes to ensure it won't happen again.

So anyway, my point is that he is not GOOD here, but when dealing with the idea of a creature who is inherently evil, it is significant to note that he can recognize those traits and feel disgusted by them. That, obviously, does not make him good alone and wouldn't even be worth mentioning let alone regarding as significant were he ensouled.

Holy crap, that’s a broad definition of selfishness, and I disagree. Sometimes people do things for loved ones simply because they love them. (I am here referring to people, not soulless vampires.) Sometimes it’s less simple, and selfless motives are mixed in with selfish ones. Soulless vampires, on the other hand, can only ever have selfish motives.

People do things for others because they love them, yes. That is ultimately selfish, and there is nothing wrong with it.
I think there are two kinds of selfishness:
One is a terrible thing; it's taking advantage of another for personal gain, putting oneself in front of another with no regard for their well-being.
One is a virtue, and it involves protecting oneself, one's family, loved ones. Sometimes doing a great act of kindness is ultimately selfish.
A truly selfLESS act is one in which the person doing the act can and does not benefit in any way. Most acts, then, are selfish. Some are selfish and harmful, a great deal are selfish but wonderful.

People call Spike selfish for protecting Dawn, claiming that he only did it because he loves Buffy. So? That's bad, how, exactly? If Spike were a man, with a soul, he'd be praised as a hero for the exact same act, with his love for Buffy as a motivation.

Are these statistics supposed to support your claim that it isn’t true that when you love someone, you don’t try to rape them? Because all they do for me is prove that at least 14% of married people are actually selfish abusive scumbags who don’t actually love their spouses. Rape and love are mutually exclusive. They cannot coexist in the same person in the same relationship, and any rapist who claims to love the victim is grossly deluded.

Yes, I believe I addressed the idea of the "gross delusion" in my original post. Here is the rest of the excerpt quoting myself:
"Even the most sick, sociopathic and evil human beings are capable of love. They experience it in unhealthy ways and they express it in unhealthy ways. But love is not an absolute concept; rather, it's relative to those who experience it. A cruel, violent person capable of rape can also be capable of love--it just isn't the same kind of love that results in a trustworthy, safe partnership."
Love is an emotion relative to those who experience it. Rape is an absolute action. A sociopathic, sick individual who can't understand what is in the best interest of another person, (and perhaps with a lack of a fully formed conscience), might be able to love. He or she might not understand what a healthy, functional love is. To help avoid feeling the pangs of nausea that accompany that thought, it's easier to think of it in terms of vampires, who are ultimately a metaphor for such a person. Spike and Dru love each other, Angelus and Darla love each other, (though the latter is more of a utilitarian relationship I think). They do terrible things to each other and associate them with love. In season 6 when Spike was continuously going back and forth with the amount of control he had over his nature, he succumbed to his vampiric, sociopathic understanding of love, (which is something that human beings experience too). The difference is that he realized this and went to do something about it.

Back to the real world: people equate love with marriage, no? Perhaps they shouldn't, automatically, but as a society, that's the general association. If a woman reports to a police officer that she is raped by her husband, her case is likely to get dismissed--and certainly chances are that it won't be given as much consideration as some others, (in some cultures, not at all). There are societies and cultures who believe, (as I already stated), that a woman relinquishes her right to deny sex--or have any control over her body--as soon as she is married, and sometimes that extends to a "serious relationship" as well. You and I agree that the rapist does not truly love the victim--not in the sense of the word that corresponds to what we feel and experience in our own lives. But the rapist may very well claim to, and the victim, (and this is the truly harrowing part), will believe that he/she does as well.

The bottom line is, if we start drawing lines as to where it is and isn't possible for a rape to take place; as to which circumstances qualify as rape and which do not, we risk dismissing or ignoring the cases that are not black and white and do not fit neatly into those established categories. Because love is not absolute, we don't have the convenience of saying "there was love here, therefore there could have been no rape."

It would be fantastic to live in a world in which everyone loved in the same way; in a pure and wholesome way which always took into account the well being of the loved one. I'm sure everyone here on the boards views love in this way, and I hope everyone here experiences exclusively that kind of love. My point is that there are other things that go on that we can't ignore. Yes, we don't have vampires in the world but aside from the blood-sucking, human beings can get very, very close. And that is what I was referring to.

 

[EVIL UU]

[MENTION=11014]Gum Gnome33[/MENTION]

marriage, society, blah, blah, blah

And what does it have to do with love? You love someone, you don't rape them, where there's rape, there's no love, it really is that ****ing simple.

I truly pity those who can't understand it.

 

[Gum Gnome33]

And what does it have to do with love? You love someone, you don't rape them, where there's rape, there's no love, it really is that ****ing simple.

[MENTION=11194]EVIL UU[/MENTION] I am awfully concerned that you are misinterpreting my position as somehow sympathetic to that of a rapist which is horribly upsetting to me and also baffling considering how I've presented my case. I mean, you are completely missing my point.
A healthy expression of love would never include rape and I can't believe I have to make clear that that is my point of view because not only is it obvious, but I doubt anyone on the boards thinks otherwise. But I am trying to make the point that since disturbed people will also claim to love their victims, we should avoid saying that there is ever a case in which a rape cannot take place. "Sorry ma'am, you are clearly in a loving relationship. So and so loves you and would never hurt you" is what is too often said to someone in this position.


I mention marriage and society because they create a bubble which can further prevent the attack from being recognized. There are people who use a marriage (and the connotations that it has with a healthy form of love, as well as the antiquated ones regarding ownership) as a form of entitlement, convincing their spouses and other members of that society that they have all inclusive sexual control over their partners. This is not insignificant, at all. It is a huge problem.

 

[ladydorotea]

A healthy expression of love would never include rape ... But I am trying to make the point that since disturbed people will also claim to love their victims, we should avoid saying that there is ever a case in which a rape cannot take place.

So, what are you basically saying is that 'unhealthily expressed' love - such as a relationship that is marred with (attempted) rape *is still love* to you - and that we *should avoid saying that there is ever a case in which a rape cannot take place* - such as the case when relationship is healthy, mutual and caring. Blink. What you basically also just said - albeit with many twists and turns - is that ANY relationship can include rape and still be considered 'love'. Mind boggling, but thanks for clarification.

 

[Gum Gnome33]

So, what are you basically saying is that 'unhealthily expressed' love - such as a relationship that is marred with (attempted) rape *is still love* to you - and that we *should avoid saying that there is ever a case in which a rape cannot take place* - such as the case when relationship is healthy, mutual and caring.

What the hell? Seriously, maybe I should say this in another language. I didn't ever, ever, say unhealthily expressed love is still love TO ME.
I said to a DERANGED, UNHEALTHY, MENTALLY DISTURBED person, it can be WHAT THEY CALL love. NOT ME. Got it? And because of that, we can't use the term "love" when it comes to rape. Because there are people who think that THEIR VERSION of love, NOT MINE, THEIRS, is acceptable as love, and because those people are capable of raping others, we should avoid ever saying "no, this isn't rape because of the love aspect." Doing so will nullify the cases of those who are raped in relationships, because the outside world assumes those relationships are based on love.

What you basically also just said - albeit with many twists and turns - is that ANY relationship can include rape and still be considered 'love'. Mind boggling, but thanks for clarification.

Well, no, actually here's the clarification: I said that any relationship can include rape and the rapist in that relationship CAN STILL CONSIDER IT (the relationship) TO BE LOVE. Not me. Again, got it? Ok? Wow.

 

[Icarium]

That's the thing - "their" version of love isn't really love, you seem to agree with that, so what exactly is the problem? Why are you disagreeing with "When you love someone you don't try to rape them"? The statement doesn't say "when you think you love someone you don't try to rape them", so it seems to me it's all one big misunderstanding.

Agreed, and nicely put. If Spike has no capacity for anything resembling heartfelt goodness, then it’s only to be expected that he would do things like trying to attack a woman as soon as it seems like his chip doesn’t work or attempting to force himself on the woman he claims to love. If he does have confused notions of humanity, though, then he’s clearly making a choice to follow his worst nature when he doesn’t have to, and that’s despicable.

Yeah, to this day I don't understand why so many people, in particular Spike die-hard fans, can't grasp that reasoning. Paradoxically or not, the more free will one assigns to Spike in his soulless deeds, the more problematic his days of murder and mayhem become. It's one thing if he couldn't help but be evil, if he actually could but didn't bother for whatever reason, then he is no better than any human serial killer and should be staked, soul or no soul.

 

[Gum Gnome33]

That's the thing - "their" version of love isn't really love, you seem to agree with that, so what exactly is the problem? Why are you disagreeing with "When you love someone you don't try to rape them"? The statement doesn't say "when you think you love someone you don't try to rape them", so it seems to me it's all one big misunderstanding.

Thank you for taking the time to read what I wrote and actually interpreting it as I intended. I do think it was a misunderstanding between me and Evil UU which others escalated and then essentially people put words into my mouth which is just horrifying to watch.

But you're right: I do very much agree that "their version of love isn't really love." But the reason I disagreed with the statement "when you love someone you don't try to rape them" is because there are rapists in the world, (probably a good deal of them from the stats I've read), who would tell you they absolutely loooove their victims. Truly, some people think they can fly. They think harm is benign. That's just the reality. Because "love" is so relative, and anybody can claim that they feel it, anytime, it's dangerous for us to use the at all in the context of rape, or any other kind of harm either physical or psychological, lest someone's case be dismissed under its guise.

To give all of this context, my original disagreement came from the argument that proof that Spike didn't love Buffy was that he assaulted her. I think vampires are essentially a metaphor for mentally deranged people; people with no consciences, and ultimately, people with warped perspectives regarding what it means to love or care for someone. (Spike achieves more than this by the time this scene takes place but I'm afraid that if I explain all of that nuance I will automatically be accused of relieving him of his deeds).

Spike, in the bathroom scene, demonstrates a sentiment that is widespread among vampires, (in general a lack of understanding of what it means to do harm--it's "love" for them, something entirely different for the rest of us.), and ultimately Spike makes the decision to get rid of that impulse once and for all by getting a soul. In real life, with human beings, this kind of reaction to one's own horrible acts is unfortunately less common.

 

[Taaroko]

Because "love" is so relative, and anybody can claim that they feel it, anytime, it's dangerous for us to use the at all in the context of rape, or any other kind of harm either physical or psychological, lest someone's case be dismissed under its guise.

I don't think anyone in this thread was trying to use love in the context of rape, except to say that the two things are entirely mutually exclusive, no matter what rapists may believe or claim, and no matter how often society lets them get away with it. Love might be relative (everyone's different, so it only makes sense that everyone's going to love differently), but it isn't that relative. Rapists could claim to love their victims, but they would be wrong. Pretty sure you already agree with that--just trying to clarify.

To give all of this context, my original disagreement came from the argument that proof that Spike didn't love Buffy was that he assaulted her.

Yep, I'd accept that as proof that he didn't love her. But even without the attempted rape, I still wouldn't believe that soulless Spike loved Buffy. He was obsessed with her and powerfully attracted to her, and to a soulless being like him, that would be indistinguishable from the genuine article. It's certainly the closest he could get to it.

I think vampires are essentially a metaphor for mentally deranged people; people with no consciences, and ultimately, people with warped perspectives regarding what it means to love or care for someone.

Vampires are metaphors, yes, but anything that is a metaphor has to work as whatever it actually is first. And soulless vampires are much, much worse than real life sociopaths or people with warped perspectives regarding love.

Spike, in the bathroom scene, demonstrates a sentiment that is widespread among vampires, (in general a lack of understanding of what it means to do harm--it's "love" for them, something entirely different for the rest of us.)

Vampires know perfectly well what it is to do harm. To paraphrase Spike himself, it's sort of their raison d'être. What they can't comprehend is how to feel love and that it's not something you can just force another person to feel for you because you want them to. Spike has had trouble with this concept since at least S3, when he thought he could make Dru come back to him with a love spell, so it's very consistent to his character to think he could force Buffy to love him, and attempted rape was merely his final and most ill-advised strategy for accomplishing that.

and ultimately Spike makes the decision to get rid of that impulse once and for all by getting a soul. In real life, with human beings, this kind of reaction to one's own horrible acts is unfortunately less common.

To get rid of the impulse wasn't why he got his soul, and it also wasn't what the soul achieved. Even with the soul, he still has every single evil impulse that comes with being a vampire, as well as the ones that come with being a human. Having a soul doesn't mean having no evil impulses. But the fact that he now has a soul means that he can choose to ignore those impulses and be something better.

The reason he got it was that it finally occurred to him that Buffy would not love him as he was, and he (very foolishly) assumed that if he just got the final piece (a soul), then there would be no more obstacles, and she'd automatically love him. It was only after he had the soul that he was able to understand how absurd that was.

 

[Gum Gnome33]

I don't think anyone in this thread was trying to use love in the context of rape, except to say that the two things are entirely mutually exclusive

Yes but that's just it: to us, they're of course mutually exclusive, but to the rapists in question, it doesn't have to be, and that's the problem. It's because they claim this that we have to address it, I believe.

Love might be relative (everyone's different, so it only makes sense that everyone's going to love differently), but it isn't that relative. Rapists could claim to love their victims, but they would be wrong. Pretty sure you already agree with that--just trying to clarify.

It's only minimally relative among the healthy and sane, (ie how they express it, but still within the same realm). But compare our understanding of love to the criminals of the world, and it is an entirely different concept. Or look at literature, for example: did Othello love Desdemona? He'd say he did, and that he killed her in the name of his love. We'd roll our eyes and freak out, and all agree that that is the most warped take on "love" that exists. That's an extreme case but it happens in real life. It does--it's horrible, but it does.

And yes, I of course agree that the rapists are wrong when they claim to love their victims--but from their perspective they are very right, which makes them dangerous. I hope what I said makes sense.

And soulless vampires are much, much worse than real life sociopaths or people with warped perspectives regarding love.

Here, I disagree. I would argue that real life criminals are far worse than vampires because on some level they do have a choice not to kill, not to rape, whereas vampires are almost literally compelled to do so. Hard to compare a rock and a hard place, but I would argue certainly that the worst human beings are worse.

Vampires know perfectly well what it is to do harm.

True, I didn't make myself clear. I mean that they know what it is, but they actually view pain and torture as positive and they might think they are not truly hurting on another when they do such acts. For example, Spike thought that chaining Buffy up to have a conversation was just fine, and a natural thing to do. He probably did it all of the time to Dru, and vice versa.

To get rid of the impulse wasn't why he got his soul,

I mean no offense here, but this your opinion--your take on what you saw. Mine is of course very different..

Having a soul doesn't mean having no evil impulses. But the fact that he now has a soul means that he can choose to ignore those impulses and be something better.

I agree very much; I didn't word what I wanted to say properly.

I have to run out otherwise I'd take more time to respond to the rest!

 

[white avenger]

It might be pointed out here that William Pratt was almost certainly totally inexperienced in any sort of romantic or sexual relationship with women, and Spike, as a vampire, was quite likely never in any sort of relationship with anyone except Dru. To her, rape and physical assault WERE expressions of love, or at least as close to love as she could experience.

Given that Buffy was almost certainly the only human girl with whom Spike had ever had any sort of relationship, and based on what we saw of that relationship, there was little if anything connected to it that might correspond to romance or any gentle emotions.

Under those conditions, Spike was doing exactly what he thought was right and what he had apparently been led to believe was what Buffy wanted from him.

This is in no way a defense of Spike's actions, and I'm not trying to put any of the blame for what happened on Buffy. Merely to point out the fact that he quite possibly honestly thought that that was what Buffy expected him to do, or would at least react in the same way that she had done in "Smashed."

 

[EVIL UU]

[MENTION=6758]white avenger[/MENTION]

Spike, as a vampire, was quite likely never in any sort of relationship with anyone except Dru.

That's not true. He dated Harmony for quite some time, as far as vampires go, they seemed pretty close. Also, he did show up at Xander's wedding with a human girlfriend and did shag Anya.

It might be pointed out here that William Pratt was almost certainly totally inexperienced in any sort of romantic or sexual relationship with women

I don't know man, he was around 30 when Dru turned him. I don't think she was Spike's first, I mean, prostitution existed in 19th century.

 

[white avenger]

[MENTION=6758]white avenger[/MENTION]


That's not true. He dated Harmony for quite some time, as far as vampires go, they seemed pretty close. Also, he did show up at Xander's wedding with a human girlfriend and did shag Anya.



I don't know man, he was around 30 when Dru turned him. I don't think she was Spike's first, I mean, prostitution existed in 19th century.

You're right. I totally forgot Harmony, though I think that it's understandable. We are, after all, talking about Harmony here. As for his date at the wedding and his one night stand with Anya, I don't see either of them as either "romantic" or a "relationship."

As to whether or not William Pratt (where did we discover that "Pratt" was his last name? I know that it's pretty well accepted, but I can't remember where it came from) had ever availed himself of the services of a prostitute, I personally think that he would have abstained on the grounds that "mummy wouldn't like it."

 

[Taaroko]

People do things for others because they love them, yes. That is ultimately selfish, and there is nothing wrong with it.

Yeah, no, I'm still majorly not on board with your definition of selfishness here. Doing something for someone because you want to help them is not selfish. Just because you might benefit from it doesn't automatically make you selfish for doing it. Selflessness can reap rewards far greater than selfishness, but it's still selflessness.

People call Spike selfish for protecting Dawn, claiming that he only did it because he loves Buffy. So? That's bad, how, exactly? If Spike were a man, with a soul, he'd be praised as a hero for the exact same act, with his love for Buffy as a motivation.

I don't claim that. I claim he did it because it was a great way to endear himself to the other Scoobies so that they'd let him stay in the group. He'd claim he's doing it out of love for Buffy, but he can't love without a soul.

The bottom line is, if we start drawing lines as to where it is and isn't possible for a rape to take place; as to which circumstances qualify as rape and which do not, we risk dismissing or ignoring the cases that are not black and white and do not fit neatly into those established categories. Because love is not absolute, we don't have the convenience of saying "there was love here, therefore there could have been no rape."

Perhaps not, but that's not what we're saying. We're talking about one specific case, not the injustice of rape victims who are ignored or the flawed society that takes the rapists' side. It's true that there can be no rape where there is love, but that isn't the point. As you've agreed, the two are mutually exclusive, so it works either way. There can be no love where there is rape. Spike attempted to rape Buffy, therefore he did not really love her. Spike had no soul, therefore he was always incapable of real love.

Here, I disagree. I would argue that real life criminals are far worse than vampires because on some level they do have a choice not to kill, not to rape, whereas vampires are almost literally compelled to do so. Hard to compare a rock and a hard place, but I would argue certainly that the worst human beings are worse.

Oh, I agree that real life criminals are worse because they had the option to be better than that but they chose wrong. What I mean is that vampires are more dangerous than real life criminals, 'cause of the super-strength and the bloodlust and the fact that they're demons.

 

[EVIL UU]

You're right. I totally forgot Harmony, though I think that it's understandable. We are, after all, talking about Harmony here.

I'm not a fan of Harmony either but it wouldn't dismiss her, sorry, I have to use that word, eh, relationship with Spike. Spike and Harmony are much more healthy together than Spike and Buffy. They share a crypt, they don't hide their relationship, they have lots of consensual sex and most importantly they don't rape each other and they don't beat each other usually either. Also, Spike doesn't try to manipulate Harm, he's blunt and upfront with his disdain towards her.

 

[zobothehobo]

I do think that Spike's unhealthy expression of his love is still love though. I mean, it wouldn't be if he had a soul.... But since he doesn't, you can't expect him to properly know how to express his love. That is WHY he gets his soul. Because through that terribly disgusting unhealthy expression of his love, he learns that that is exactly what it is. Terrible, disgusting, and unhealthy and tries to seek a healthier and more appropriate expression. He recognizes he cannot do this without a soul, BECAUSE he let it get to where it did before, and that's why he gets his soul. If you treat this terrible expression of love one that isn't actually love, then the rest of it makes no sense and appears to come out of the blue.

 

[Kairos]

unhealthy expression of his love

express his love.

unhealthy expression of his love,

and unhealthy

a healthier and more appropriate expression.

expression of love

Rape is not unhealthy, it's evil. Rape is not an expression, it's an act.

Repeated attempts to reclassify it through the use of softer words, on the other hand, are an unhealthy expression of Spuffy.

 

[Icarium]

I do think that Spike's unhealthy expression of his love is still love though. I mean, it wouldn't be if he had a soul.... But since he doesn't, you can't expect him to properly know how to express his love.

That makes no sense - a certain behaviour is either an expression of love or not, no matter what the person in question is overall, bad or good, soulless or not. Whether that person regards it as love or not is irrelevant to how a more objective observer should perceive it. I mean, the women in Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered thought they were really in love with Xander, but as Giles helpfully infodumped it was "selfish, banal obsession" which almost led to murder.

If you treat this terrible expression of love one that isn't actually love, then the rest of it makes no sense

Well, yeah, that's what I have been saying.

 

[janas]

Hi everyone, I read all the replies to this thread, and before you answer the original question, I wanted to say to Gum Gnome33, that I understand your point. You're not defending rapists and I really liked that you mentioned the number of rapes that occur in the domestic walls, i.e. in a hypothetical relationship of love. These rapes are really many, and go mostly under silence, and this, probably is most terrible of rape itself. We must never forget that the attitude of the rapist, is part of a certain type of culture. The Supremacy and the presumed superiority of men over women, so, I am grateful to you to have it reminded. You say that this is not love and I agree with you. But what I still do not understand about Spike, is this. Why, his fans, consider Spike a demon capable of love, even when it has no a soul? I do not believe that he is different from all the other soulless demons, but this your perception of the character, causes a lot of confusion. The chip is only a muzzle, does not change the attitude of Spike, which in the deep, is and continues to be an evil being. So no, Spike without a soul is not "a good man". It is not never, because it was never love to guide its actions. There is no a "way of loving sick and twisted" because that is not love. It is a perversion, is brutal instinct, is sadomasochism .. is other, but it is not love. If Spike was really able to love without a soul, then why go to Africa? It would make no sense to the story. So in conclusion, Spike pre-chip, with chip, pre-soul, it is not a good man, if the fans of Spike do not admit this, they are automatically deleting the value of having a soul.

So for me, now the question becomes, "Was Spike (with the soul) A Good Man?"

It might be, now he can choose what he wants to be. After attempting to rape Buffy, has received a great gift. The ability to decide what he wants to be. I think he still has a long way to go, and it is still very confused about certain concepts of "disinterested love." In "Chosen" is left the scene with a big din and before his spectacular suicide, received (once again) a big prize. I Love You.

In season five of Angel, I personally found him to be very unhelpful in trying to abide by its commitments "heroic figure". And (in my opinion) he agrees to help the team Angel , because it could be that the Shanshu, maybe.. who knows.. someway, is about him? ..and anyway, he's fine even if it is not Angel to become a real boy. This, for Spike is already a reward. So yes, still way to go, Spike. For now, his goodness of soul, is reserved to his great love for the architecture of his native city (destroy the great clock of the Palace of Westminster in London, it was great fun) and needed to isolate himself from humanity, to satisfy his sadistic impulses, on those poor insects, which despite all, continue to worship him as if he were their king or "her Majesty", as he likes to call himself ..who cares? On the moon, no one can see him and Spike, always needs a great audience, if no, is not cool to be a hero. Without applause, is not fun.

Obviously, this is just my opinion.

 

[Robb Stark]

I'm not entirely sure how this kind of diverted into whether or not it's possible for rape/attempted rape to be an expression of love. Spike, in his own twisted, soulless way, loved Buffy. That in no way makes him a good man though. From the provided commentaries on the episode, Joss talked about how Spike didn't understand the boundaries of his relationship with Buffy. He may love Buffy without a soul, but he's clearly not "good". For what he understood love to be, he loved her though.

However, he realizes how screwed up and evil he was in S5 and S6 when he regains his soul in S7. It is at that point that he becomes a good man. And he proves it over and over again throughout S7.

I want it said though that I wish they'd never done this stupid attempted rape story. I've talked about it at length before, but it's a case of Joss, who clearly has zero understanding of rape and what it means, thinking he's smarter than he actually is. I think he got a little obsessed with Spike and his place on the show, but wasn't able to come up with a legitimate method of furthering the development of the character. So to "shock" the audience, he wrote a rape angle into the plot.

To be honest, and I'm hoping someone can clear this up for me, I've never understood why people even try to excuse this. I mean, no one tries to justify or explain away all the murders and atrocities Angelus or any other vampire has committed. I mean, they're soulless. They're evil. That's what makes Angel and Spike (post S6) special, that they have souls again. I mean, is it just liking the character? We get to know Spike, since he showed up in S2, really well as a character up until he does that to Buffy, so is that why? Even though he's "evil", we still like him? I can't think of another rational explanation. I mean, it's pretty clear that Angelus has raped Drusilla and butchered children, and no one (rightfully) tries to justify that. Why Spike?

 

[Gum Gnome33]

Hi everyone, I read all the replies to this thread, and before you answer the original question, I wanted to say to Gum Gnome33, that I understand your point. You're not defending rapists and I really liked that you mentioned the number of rapes that occur in the domestic walls, i.e. in a hypothetical relationship of love.

Thank you, 🙂
I'm glad you took the time to understand the point I was making.

But what I still do not understand about Spike, is this. Why, his fans, consider Spike a demon capable of love, even when it has no a soul? I do not believe that he is different from all the other soulless demons, but this your perception of the character, causes a lot of confusion. The chip is only a muzzle, does not change the attitude of Spike, which in the deep, is and continues to be an evil being. So no, Spike without a soul is not "a good man". It is not never, because it was never love to guide its actions. There is no a "way of loving sick and twisted" because that is not love. It is a perversion, is brutal instinct, is sadomasochism .. is other, but it is not love. If Spike was really able to love without a soul, then why go to Africa? It would make no sense to the story. So in conclusion, Spike pre-chip, with chip, pre-soul, it is not a good man, if the fans of Spike do not admit this, they are automatically deleting the value of having a soul.

In the first place, for me at least, I don't think Spike without a soul is a good man--just to clear that up. But I think he commits what are clearly good deeds after falling in love with Buffy.

But here's the problem, (and it's obvious here we're dealing with fictional characters, as if the vampire composition wasn't enough evidence), these emotions are emerging from a being that is still a demon, who still as perverted and evil instincts as vampires do. Those are what come up and get the better of him in Seeing Red--the progress that he'd made was almost nullified in an instinct when he succumbed to the violent and terrible creature he was by nature.

So if there seems to be a contradiction within the assertions of the fan base, it's because Spike from mid season 5 through getting his soul is one big contradiction. He makes so much progress and does show empathy,expression of love, protection, and concern for the well being of others with and without possibility of reward. But he reverts back into a monster for the moments of the assault--truly as if he'd never done good, the perversion was there. At that point, he was that metaphor for the twisted human being who claims to love as he attacks his victim. But then, the fact that he can suddenly recognize the complete horror of his actions and feel true disgust is a nod back to the character he had started to build.

This fantasy scenario--the duality of good and bad that is obvious to his fans--is inherently problematic when we try to discuss the show in terms of real life scenarios. Because in real life, when someone guilty of assault claims to love his victim we should not and can not care--he needs to be punished for his actions, and that's final. But this show sets up a world in which a monster--this particular monster--can exhibit behavior that is demonstrative of a healthy person and then in a flash revert back to the evilness which is his natural state, and therein lies the problem in comparing the two realities. The former is something that happens in our world, and the latter only exists in fantasy 'verse. So when a fan claims that a character who commits evil acts has also done good, he/she is either dismissed or called out to be sympathetic to the world's criminals. In short: it's a mess.

Fans of Spike who argue that there is good within him pre-soul are essentially able to suspend disbelief for the sake of the story. Truly it's very similar to the Angel/Angelus principle--for us, we see two different Spikes, pre soul.
This does not mean that in real life, in which people's character and psycopathological states are not ever changing and fluid, we sympathize with or defend people who do despicable things.

And one final thought on the matter: I do not believe I have encountered a fan of Spike's who would ever, ever, freaking ever defend what Spike might have done to Buffy in that scene. In the first place, a lot of us think he would have stopped himself had she not done it first. But the point is, none of us think what he did was justifiable since he claimed to love her. I mean, let's just settle this for the record. What we see is, I think, essentially two different men(...pires). One who had made progress in the name of love, picking up on cues upon observing humanity and then doing some clearly good things in the name of love. Then another, entirely--the sick individual with evil impulse and no regard for the well being of others.
And then, instead of running away to disappear like a coward, (or worse, continuing to pursue her in his soulless state), he went to get a soul for her. Had that not happened, I would not claim to be a big fan of Spike's.