July 2003 posts

writing into a corner post seeing red? -- btvsk8, 12:37:50 07/11/03 Fri

Ok so i've been thinking about this and can't make up my mind so I thought i would put it to you guys since the discussions here are usually very insightful.

Buffy and Spike never had sex in season seven (I don't think they even kissed), but I have a feeling that Joss Whedon, feminist that he is would have prefered to have ended the series with Buffy having an enjoyable and healthy sexual relationship. As it was we have a celibate heroine (at least for the past year-and-a-bit.)
I actually thought it was appropriate that Buffy and Spike were the only couple who didn't have sex in Touched because it showed how far they had come from the season six days where they connected on a physical but not an emotional level.
But I feel that the reason that Joss specifically states in the shooting script for Chosen that the couple did not "get sweaty" was more because of the inappropriate message that it would send for Buffy to have sex with her attempted rapist. Much as I (for non-shippery reasons) wanted them to be together, I agree that this is the wrong message to send and definately worse than having a celibate heroine.
The whole "spike didn't have a soul in SR" thing wouldn't, i don't think, have worked as a justification because of how similar pre and post-souled spike are. Or maybe it would, I'm not sure....
Anyway I keep being brought back to the question of whether the bathroom scene in Seeing Red was the right thing to do from a storytelling point of view. I understand it triggered spike to get his soul, but I can't help feeling it left us with an ending to the series that was a choice between "pure, celibate Buffy" and "I'm sleeping with the man who tried to rape me Buffy".
Can anyone resolve this?
PS- be gentle with the first time poster!

[> My opinion... -- Q, 13:12:20 07/11/03 Fri

Spike trying to brutally rape Buffy in Seeing Red was ESSENTIAL, because Spike was one of three major symbols of the abuse of male power that season 6 was all about. Despite the fact that these two were OBVIOUSLY not supposed to be together, and were torturing each other in the worlds most unhealthy relationship, people, insane as they were, KEPT SHIPPING THEM! For sure if Spike tried to rape the hell out of Buffy, people would finally get the picture that they were bad together, and should not be considered a romantic couple (as if it weren't already obvious to all but the topless-Marsters-blinded anyway), right? Well, they didn't.

No, Spike trying his best to rape Buffy wasn't the mistake, the mistake was giving him a soul, and giving any possibility of a relationship any screen time-- that is where the show seriously betrayed it's feminist roots.

[> Re: writing into a corner post seeing red? -- Miss Edith, 13:58:06 07/11/03 Fri

I think the writers were taken aback at the huge response the AR generated on the internet. Even today you can find on-line articles who call Spike the rapist. And a lot of Spike fans were appalled at the plot and were gunning for Marti Noxen with a vengeance, after Steven DeKnight was quick to point out that it was Marti who insisted on the AR. His first interview after that episode had questions from Spuffy fans asking how he felt about official t-shirts being promoted to fans with B/S in a big red heart in the middle. Fans who had brought those shirts, were offended that the AR was being planned at the time, Marti has admitted to getting abuse from the fans because of the plot twist. A lot of Spike fans did forgive Spike for the AR, they never forgave Marti for insisting upon it.

I think ME in season 7 were very much about trying to not rock the boat. Perhaps B/S as a healthier romantic couple were a possibility for season 7, but there was such a focas on the AR I strongly suspect there was some rethinking prior to planning the season 7 character arcs. JMO.

[> First time poster too... -- Antigone, 15:20:59 07/11/03 Fri

Of all the amazing posts on this site this one got me out of my silence. I'm not sure why but this all "Seeing Red thing"--as for many fans--has bugged me for a while (in a good "Joss-why-do-you-make-me-think-so-much" kind of way, of course!). So here are my first attempts at a response. Be kind!

When I saw the AR scene for the first time, before the commercial cut--with Spike's face over Buffy's neck--my first thought was :"he is going to bite her" (hadn't he said a few episodes back, something like: "If you don't stop being such a bitch someday I'll bite you"). Since Spike could hurt Buffy why not bite her, maybe try to sire her... i.e. the "vampiric equivalent" of a rape?

And then he tried to actually rape her; a very "human" (as opposed to vampiric/supernatural) crime... Why? A mistake of the writers who chose to show the actual crime rather than it's metaphor (e.g., attempted siring)? [Side Note: And now I get this very funny flashback to Joss's DVD commentary on "Wild at Heart"--I paraphrase--: "In Season 6, it was 'Au Rrrevoir Monsieur Metaphorrrr'"!] Or a deliberate choice to show that Spike was becoming more "human" because he chose the desperate act of a man rather than followed his vampire instincts? I don't know.

Did the writers write themselves into a corner with the A/R with regard to the B/S relationship?

IMHO I thought the B/S relationship had a lot of good mixed up with the bad. This complexity is what made it "work" for me; made me instantly infatuated with these two as a couple. Just as a few examples: he forced her to accept some of her dark traits (something we young aldults have to do at some point I think; accept that we're not fairy tale "white hats;" that we can do "bad things" and get away with it... it helps us grow, learn our limits, and hopefully, in the end, knowingly CHOSE to do good); he brought her a more mature sexuality (OK some may think it was not healthy because it was violent, cut Buffy from her friends--same metaphor as in "Where the Wild Things Are" BTW--... yes, sex can be overwhelming and out of control and not so good at times... but I am one who thinks that an adult woman deserves to realize that kinky sex is part of her normal, healthy sexuality. Just my opinion of course.) I wish Joss had sometimes more clearly separated the obviously unhealthy aspects of the B/S relationship from the more positive ones, like Spike being a factor in Buffy becoming a woman, in all her complexity, understanding herself better, etc. And I think this is where the AR--this HUGE upset--made it impossible to even accept that Spike may have been "good" in any way for Buffy's character and for the story as a whole.

I do agree that the AR changed things to a point where it is quasi-impossible to imagine them together. Attempts to explain otherwise (like the pre-soul/post soul discussions) have not convinced me so far... And God knows I love Spike and Buffy together. Beyond the deep philosophical meaning behind their relationship, they were simply one of the funnest couples to watch IMHO.

So, btvsk8, I'm as puzzled as you are when it comes to analyzing the A/R scene from a storytelling point of view. When I think about it, maybe they could have shown some other "desperate act" that would have made Spike search for his soul anyway, attempting to sire Buffy being only one of these possible devices. God knows Spike has been desperate in the past --e.g. with Dru; and he "only" knocked her out and tortured her to make her love him again! ;-). Don't misunderstand me; I "loved" the AR scene (in a "I have not had that many emotions go through my body when watching a TV show ever" kind of way). It was bold; and scary; and almost unbearable to watch; and wonderfully acted; and made me almost feel bad for Spike (as a woman I have to say that feeling was more than disturbing)... So thank you Joss and writers for that...

But by making this bold, groundbreaking choice, yes, maybe the writers made a slight mistake by not realizing that it automatically closed the possibility for full reconciliation or romantic future (or just sexual; God knows Buffy probably needed to get some this last Season ;-)!) between these two. Attempted rape is one of these crimes that is just almost impossible to forgive and forget, even in a story. Maybe the writers overlooked that. Of course, they most likely knew there would be controversy but maybe they did not handle so well the "aftermaths" of the AR in Season 7. The AR was a HUGE deal, for the characters, the story, the audience,... and it seems that they tried to "get rid of it" too fast instead of dealing with it heads on, for example by using it as a tool to provide closure between some of the key characters.

Not sure this random stream of consciousness post helps, but at least we can commiserate!

[> [> good post. with you on the disturbingness. -- Alison, 15:37:50 07/11/03 Fri

[> [> [> Re: good post. with you on the disturbingness. -- Liam, 04:04:08 07/12/03 Sat

I agree with a lot of what was said about the disturbing nature of the attempted rape. In terms of my reaction, I always thought that Spike was still evil, so his attempting to rape Buffy wasn't a surprise in terms of what I felt his character was; I _was_, however, annoyed at how they made Buffy suddenly weak and unable to fight Spike properly. It would have been in character to have shown Buffy beat Spike to a bloody pulp, then show the shock on her face at what he had attempted to do. By not doing this, the attempted rape in the epiosde was _too_ like a 'normal' one, hence the fans' reaction.

I also didn't like the attempted rape in that it was an admission by the writers that they failed to show that Spike was still evil, so encouraging people to feel sympathetic for him due to how he was treated by Buffy. (Myself, I never felt sympathetic for _Spike_ any more than I would feel sympathetic for a vicious serial killer who was being beaten up, feeling 'Serves you right'; but I was angry at Buffy for betraying her calling as a Slayer and her caring for Dawn.) Showing Spike dealing with a (literal) loan shark, and playing kitten poker wasn't good enough, as those things were played for laughs.

This was also added to by the epiosdes being two-faced about the Buffy/Spike relationship, in trying to show how bad Spike was, but also emphasising how hot he looked with the shirtless and (almost) naked scenes.

[> [> Desperate acts -- Dariel, 09:26:59 07/12/03 Sat

When I think about it, maybe they could have shown some other "desperate act" that would have made Spike search for his soul anyway, attempting to sire Buffy being only one of these possible devices.

I was not happy with the AR, for a variety of reasons, partly as a B/S fan, partly because I just hate depictions of rape or attempted rape on film. However, I don't think the writers had much choice among acts that would spur Spike to get a soul. If he had tried to sire Buffy, the rape metaphor would have been overshadowed by the fact that siring is also murder. In that case, just kicking him off would not be enough--the only sensible reaction on Buffy's part would have been to stake him. Even if Buffy had been in some depressive funk and let Spike go, Xander certainly would have gone after him.

The AR was a very personal crime, and partially grew out of Spike and Buffy's twisted sexual relationship. From Spike's reaction, Buffy knew that he probably wouldn't try it again. If he had tried to kill/sire her, this could not be considered an outgrowth of their relationship, but an extreme escalation of violence. Hence, no way to know what Spike would do next and the need to stake him.

Despite what some people seem to think, siring someone is much worse than actual rape. (Possibly because, since it's a mystical act, siring is less painful to watch; doesn't make it a lesser crime!) Rape is an attempt to force another person to fulfil some fantasy need or, most often, to express a twisted need to hurt women. However, it's a time-limited experience. A woman can be quite scarred by rape, but most can recover and retain their essential selves. Siring takes away an essential part of the self that can never be recovered, the soul.

Incidently, terrible as it was, the AR told us something important about Spike--that, no matter how desperate he was, he did not want to sire Buffy. Although his love had its twisted side, there was a purer element to it also--he wanted the actual Buffy, not an unsouled, demon-inhabited replica.

[> [> [> Agree with this -- curious, 13:43:38 07/12/03 Sat

I didn't *like* the attempted rape scene but I can understand why ME went there. I also think they were incredibly naive in misjudging the audience reaction.

I also agree that an attempted siring would have been even more problematic. Buffy would have been forced to stake him in her role as a slayer.

In Season 6 - they did say "au revior Monsieur Metaphor" to a large extent. Joss makes that comment on the Season 4 commentary for "Wild at Heart". I'm not sure the audience was ready for that change.

I still found Tara's realistic death more upsetting than the AR. She had no relationship with her murderer and was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[> [> [> [> With you on ME's apparent naivete -- Dariel, 16:48:35 07/12/03 Sat

Marti supposedly came up with the attempted rape idea based on her own experience of trying to "force" intimacy on an ex who was no longer interested. Only Marti had been the one doing the "forcing." Presuming that Marti wasn't holding a knife on the guy (and I'm sure she wasn't!) the situation is hardly comparable to a man trying to rape a woman. (BTW, I have no quarrel with Marti in particular; I'm sure Joss approved the scene.)

[> [> [> [> [> It's difficult for me to accept it was just naivete. -- WickedBuffy, 17:30:40 07/12/03 Sat

Some of you probably know the exact statistics, but weren't Buffy and Spike two of the most talked about characters on the show at that time? Or at least their relationship was? (Positive AND negative.)

It's hard for me to accept that someone in the entertainment field or even just an "ordinary" person, doesn't understand the serious impact that rape and even attempted rape has on people. It would seem to be a scene that would be very carefully considered. Not just in the presentation, but also in the ramifications.

With all the amazing deep thought, creativity and purposefullness that is put into BtVS by Joss and the writers, I feel there was little chance it was due to naivete. That feels like a type of cop-out from the serious nature of the very issue.

Now, admitting it was lack of forethought and a sudden, rare attack of stupidity on the part of BtVS - that sounds more reasonable. But having two of their hottest stars act out a crime of such a violent and personal nature? And not anticipate a negative backlash? They've proven themselves too intelligent to not have realized what would probably happen and accept the responsibility it entailed.

If I were Joss, it would have been a siring, instead. heh, then again - if I were Joss, I'd be surfing in Tahiti as I brainstormed the Connor Conundrum into the sunset.

[> [> [> [> [> [> It's certainly possible -- curious, 17:50:45 07/12/03 Sat

I think I remember that they did consult focus groups - so who knows? Maybe they wanted a very strong reaction.

In the panel discussion on the S6 DVD, MN said they had planned killing Tara and having Willow go dark for a long time. And they knew they were going to do a dark B/S relationship. They just didn't consider the ramifications of having the two stories happening at the same time. (can't remember the exact quotes but it sounded kind of silly to me.)

So I suppose it is possible that they just got sloppy and decided to go for some shock value. Is that what you are saying?

I also think they were trying to do some gender reversal with Spike and Buffy. Some of that worked and some of it really didn't.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: With you on ME's apparent naivete -- ECH, 21:14:58 07/12/03 Sat

How is a man trying to force sex on a woman with or without premeditation "hardly comparable" to a woman forcing herself on a man? I know many people often say that the two things are different because woman are weaker then men. But, in the case of Buffy and Spike the woman is not the weaker sex, if anything the writers have portayed her as the stronger of the two. I understand that people don't have the same real world issues with woman sexually attacking men, even though it does happen, but why on Earth should a sexual assault be viewed as more acceptable or better if one gender does it vs that of another gender.

It shouldn't matter who commits the crime; man, woman, black, white, etc. I know that in real life it does matter because woman are not viewed by alot of people as potential rapists and men are for the most part viewed as the potentially violent ones by society. But, that says nothing about how comparable the crimes are. If things had been turned around and the writers had Buffy try to rape Spike in SR most people would feel very differently (IMHO of course) then they felt after seeing Spike as the agressor. Hell, I bet many of the same people that totally rip apart Spike for it would have no trouble excusing Buffy's actions as her just being confused or Spike 'just being a whip and not being able to take what he was dishing out with the sexual violence earlier in the season'. Sadly IMHO I do think the vast majority of views about the AR in SR or any rape or AR seem to have far more to do with societal biases and emotion then logic and rationality.

So while an attempted vamping which would mean that Spike in essence was trying to kill Buffy and turn her into a demon was a much more horrible act it wouldn't have done anywhere near the damage to Spike and B/S that the AR did. Does that make sense... no not really from a logical stand point. But, humans are very emotional creatures and rape is a hot button issue, add to the fact that ME made a mistake in having Buffy seem like a normal girls being attacked in the scene and filming it as real to life as possible, and what you end up with is a scene that is totally hot button and extremely hard to discuss without emotions becoming heated and flame wars breaking out. I do think the AR could have been used in SR that wouldn't have had this extreme reaction. IMHO, they should have filmed it like the previous non reality super sexual violence between B/S that end up getting really out of hand after they start hitting each other and after Spike lets say throws her against the wall and trys takeing her, and then they end up wrestling around on the floor with her yelling to get the hell off her and then kocking him into the wall, thus brining him back to his senses. Thus, you have a scene with just about the exact same emotions and intentions involved, and is more violent, yet will be a lot less hot button an issue IMHO and with this scene it would not have sparked the endless debates and fights nor would it have IMHO damaged B/S and Spike in the eyes of some fans nearly as much because it would be viewed as less real to many people IMO because they can't see such a thing (with the super human Smashed like violece before hand) happening to them or their friends or family.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Men as more criminal than women. -- WickedBuffy, 10:23:53 07/13/03 Sun

"How is a man trying to force sex on a woman with or without premeditation "hardly comparable" to a woman forcing herself on a man?"

I'm not sure, but the only theory I could come up for that one is that it's because the majority of rape attacks are committed by men. That makes women the minority group in this situation and more victim-identified, in a mass numbers kind of way.

In a general sense, neither is ok, of course. In a specific sense, people usually consider the male as bigger and stronger and wielding a built-in "weapon". And women are stereotypically "the weaker sex". No, stereotypes aren't usually valid or accurate, but it's called a stereotype because so many people unthinkingly accept it as true.

Factually, though, men have alot of testosterone - which can easily increase the likelihood of violence. Rape is an act of violence with sexual actions the tool.

Anyone forcing themselves on anyone else, in any nonconsenual way, is wrong. Whether it's opposite gender or same gender. General society-wise though, in rape, men as victims is difficult to accept. Masculine pride, stereotypes about strength and even stereotypes about men always wanting sex anyway - these all add up to the "hardly comparable" premise as a "groupthink" kind of reaction.

It's as demeaning as when people argue that "date rape" isn't as valid a rape as "stranger rape".

I believe each situation is different and the details are unique to the crime, making a generalized statement like that one thoughtless and cruel. Sexual assault is sexual assault - it harms the victim whatever the gender. Perpetuating that stereotype adds to the damage.

When Buffy went for Spike in the abandoned building, he caught on and consented to the roughness. If he hadn't, then I would have considered it with as much weight as I did the scene of Buffy and Spike in the bathroom. The two scenes are similar in many respects, except for the final decision of the nonagressor.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Men as stronger and "different" than women. -- LeeAnn, 11:32:08 07/13/03 Sun

Oh, please. I'm all for PC but most men are significantly stronger than most women. Also there's the erection thing. A man can have sex with a woman whether she's aroused or not. A woman cannot have sex with a man without getting him aroused. Therefore it is very difficult for a woman to rape a man. There have been a few cases, but very very few.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I agree with you totally women can't rape men. -- VGR fan, 12:05:47 07/13/03 Sun

The man is almost always the stronger and violent one, men can rape woman and other men, but women don't rape anyone its as simple as that. People are talking about Buffy sexually attacking Spike, but that is a joke, he would like to be sexually assaulted by her and plus you are right if he really didn't want it he wouldn't get an erection so it couldn't be rape or attempted rape. And, I also agree with you that women are the weaker sex and need to be protected from these kind of things.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Usually -- LeeAnn, 12:36:52 07/13/03 Sun

Well, give me a gun or a chow and I'll protect myself. But I fought with my brother enough to know that hitting a guy hurts your hands more than it hurts the guy. It's like hitting a wall. But they hit you back and it's like you have been hit with a baseball bat.

Hey, maybe I'm wrong and women today are just tougher than I have even been. But even my cats, the boys feel like fur-covered logs. The girls feel soft and squishy. This despite some of the females being better hunters. The males are stronger, not to hunt, but to fight other males.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Excuse me, how do you know? -- sk, 14:02:56 07/13/03 Sun

Because yes, women have raped men. There are cases.
Just as there are cases where women have beaten men.
Not all men are strong and powerful. And not all women are weak. While online - I've seen men post on having been sexually assaulted. While working in domestic violence I saw men who had been raped and physically abused by their wives and girlfriends, who yes were much bigger than they were.

Gender does not protect you from rape.
And there are women who have raped women and men who have raped men. Rape is NOT necessarily a gender crime and it is NOT a crime against women per se- it is a violent sex crime.

Men who have been raped go through even worse situation sometimes than women, as do men who have been beaten up by girlfriends and wives - b/c our society can't perceive it, we may even think they are joking as you stated in your post.

We view men as the stronger sex. But if you've ever watched a female body-builder show, World Wrestling or met tough women who are bigger than you - you might think differently.

There are females who are 6-7ft tall and over 200 pds of muscel. Get your head out of the stereotypical gutter. Not all women are 5ft and 90 pds. I'm not.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Excuse me, how do you know? -- Rina, 08:49:07 07/14/03 Mon

There is another matter to consider. Who says that you have to use brute force (of the physical kind) to commit rape?

Hasn't there been cases of both men and women drugging their victims before committing the act? Heck, even ME have used the rape metaphor without showing any physical assault. In "Dead Things", Warren used some kind of device to coerce Katrina into having sex with him. Willow is the worst of them all. Unlike Spike or Warren, she had managed to commit rape - twice. She used magic to wipe away Tara's memories in "All the Way" and the Scoobies' memories (although her targets were Tara and Buffy) in "Tabula Rasa".

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thank you for supporting my argument regarding generalities. -- WickedBuffy (possibly PG-Rated for clarity), 13:19:57 07/13/03 Sun

First, this might be helpful in the discussion:

"rape;
1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.
2. The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction.
3. Abusive or improper treatment; violation: a rape of justice.

tr.v. raped, raping, rapes;
1. To force (another person) to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse; commit rape on.
2. To seize and carry off by force.
3. To plunder or pillage."

Second, sexual acts cover a very wide range of situations, including penile insertion, but not limited to it.

Third, rape is an act of violence, not an act of sex. Sex is how the violence is carried out. The weapon of choice for expressing the violence.

LeeAnn: "There have been a few cases, but very very few."

In an effort to see your point, can you back that statement up with a statistic and clarify how many "very, very few" is?

About the conclusion made by VGR fan that it would be impossible for Buffy to attempt to rape Spike (which wasn't the outcome because he consented, but a "what if he didn't") - he doesn't need an erection for her to rape him or to attempt. To be blunt, she could have used a broom handle.

See the definition of what rape actually is for clarification. As for Spike wanting to be sexually assaulted by Buffy, that is an assumption. There were times he did and also times he put off her advances. He was not in a perpetual state of "Buffy Come Jump Me".

Not all men are stronger than all women.
Not all women are weaker than all men.
Not all male cats are harder than all female cats.
Not all female cats are squisher than all male cats.
Not all brothers are hurt less when hit by all sisters.
Not all sisters feel as if they were hit by a baseball bat when all brothers hit them.

::sigh::

You each pointed some of the basic generalities and sterotypes I was referring to in my post.

I repeat from my original post:

"I believe each situation is different and the details are unique to the crime, making a generalized statement like that one thoughtless and cruel. Sexual assault is sexual assault - it harms the victim whatever the gender. Perpetuating that stereotype adds to the damage."

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> One... -- LeeAnn, 13:36:37 07/13/03 Sun

In an effort to see your point, can you back that statement up with a statistic and clarify how many "very, very few" is?

I've only really heard of one. A mormon missionary who was kidnapped and chained to a bed. Given his helplessness the woman had the time to arouse him to an errection. He had her charged with rape. She also had help in kidnapping him and getting him tied to the bed. She fled before her trial.

But if it's happened once, it's surely happened again but even she had to have the help of a man to kidnap and restrain her victim.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That's funny, I've heard of dozens .. -- s'kat (agreeing with WickedBuffy), 14:51:08 07/13/03 Sun

I've known and met men who were raped and abused by women LeAnne. And in far worse scenerios than you reproduced above.

WickedBuffy is ABSOLUTELY right. If I can get across anything I hope it will be this: Women have and do rape and physically abuse men.

I worked in Domestic Violence and in Criminal Law for a while. I also know people who have experienced this.
Their experiences are so painful and society's reaction which is incredibly similar to yours above has made it impossible for these men to seek help or assistance.
They also unlike women, do not get to prosecute the offender. The persistence in believing this stereotype merely because you yourself have no experience with it - is what allows many people to get away with horrendous crimes.

Just because you yourself have not experienced or heard of something does NOT make it not true. Also as regards female power or ability to hurt men - I would have thought watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer would have made you question that. After all Faith successfully almost raped and killed Xander and tortured Wesely. HEr acts were far worse than anything that happened in the AR scene. Trivalizing those acts is in my humble opinion offensive.
Because I have known more than one case, actually more than I care to count or remember when this has happened to men.
I've also seen men report about it happening to them on line.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Absolutely agree. -- s'kat, 14:37:13 07/13/03 Sun

General society-wise though, in rape, men as victims is difficult to accept. Masculine pride, stereotypes about strength and even stereotypes about men always wanting sex anyway - these all add up to the "hardly comparable" premise as a "groupthink" kind of reaction.

It's as demeaning as when people argue that "date rape" isn't as valid a rape as "stranger rape".

I believe each situation is different and the details are unique to the crime, making a generalized statement like that one thoughtless and cruel. Sexual assault is sexual assault - it harms the victim whatever the gender. Perpetuating that stereotype adds to the damage.

Exactly. Just because you as an individual can not imagine it and have never known anyone who has experienced it does not make it not true. Just because you happen to be 5ft and 90 pounds and can't possibly hurt a guy, does not mean there's not a woman out there who is 6ft and 200 pds who can and has. Actually size doesn't matter that much, I've known small women who have beaten up their husbands.

I've known men who have been abused and raped. IT is a horrible crime and as serious as one on a woman. With horrid consequences. I cannot express enough how offensive and intolerable statements such as "men can't be raped by women" are to me. These are stereotypes. Prejudicial.
And they permit these crimes to continue unpunished.
Just as the view "date rape" isn't rape is horribly offensive.

People seem to think all women are tiny and unable to be physically assertive or violent and testrotone makes men more violent then women. LOL! False. Sorry. I know women who anything but tiny. And men who are. Gender does not guarantee size alottments or strength. Being a women does not make you the weaker sex. Any more than being a man makes you the stronger one. That is a stereotype. If anything else, I would have thought that Buffy The Vampire Slayer made that assertion crystal clear. Clearly it hasn't.

Rape is a crime of violence, inexcusable and done to both sexes. Just as murder is horrendous crime that is done to both sexes, so is rape. Although I consider murder far worse.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Having trouble... -- LeeAnn, 15:27:19 07/13/03 Sun

I can accept that there are certain women, particularly women on steroids, who can beat up certain men. I have trouble accepting that those beatings would cause those men to get erections and thus allow those woman to force sexual intercourse on them. Isn't that the justification of many abusers: I know she likes it.

I know there are a few people who are aroused by being beaten but I thought that was consensual S&M thing. And rare.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Having trouble... -- s'kat, 17:13:09 07/13/03 Sun

Okay, I'm going to give you a few non-exaggerated examples.
I honestly hope no one has seen these things.

When I worked in Domestic Violence and Rape Crisis, I saw a woman who was 5'8 maybe 20-30 pounds and her husband who was smaller than she was. He had a black eye. He'd been in the hospital twice. And he had been raped. And no it wasn't S&M - S&M is VERY different than rape.

My second cousin, who is about 5'11 and his wife who is shorter than him is an abused husband. He's not a strong guy. He's not aggressive. She however is filled with rage and very aggressive. And yes I've seen proof. He'd never report her.

It's not muscels that count - it's the willingness to do it.
All you need is a gun. All you need is a broken bottle or a broom handle. Or a stronger fist. Not all guys are strong.
I've seen it. I've seen girls in gym kick boys asses. Just because the majority in your own experience haven't - doesn't mean they don't exist. Whose experience is all-encompassing? You're very lucky you haven't seen this.
I wish I knew less about it than I do. It's one of the many reasons I don't practice criminal law, I no longer volunteer in Domestic Violence or am involved. Seeing these things hurt me too much.

And the statistics? Not necessarily factual. Think about it, if you were a guy would you report this type of crime?
Of course not - you'd get the same response that you just wrote above.

Women don't need to be on stereoids to be stronger than guys. Heck some guys aren't that strong. And some women are.

There are women cops, FBI agents, secret service, CIA, firefighters, foreign correspondents, wrestlers, soccer players, boxers, who are very strong. And there are men who are out of shape never lifted a weight in their lives.
Our world is very very diverse.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Confessions of a gym rat -- sdev, 15:46:55 07/13/03 Sun

"Gender does not guarantee size alottments or strength. Being a women does not make you the weaker sex. Any more than being a man makes you the stronger one. That is a stereotype."

Men are mostly stronger than women. I believe that is a scientific fact, and one that I have observed to be true. I think of it as overlapping graphs. There is some intersection, but mostly men are stronger.

The danger with strereotypes is that when situations do fall outside the typical, which they invariably do, some nevertheless rely on the stereotype to evaluate the situation instead of assessing on a case by case basis. One must be willing to abandon the stereotype for the factual reality.

Nevertheless stereotypes do serve a purpose. They provide general information which can then be supplemented by the particlars of a given situation.

After 9/11 and the pictures they showed of firemen hauling up 100 flights with incredible loads of weighty gear, I personally decided that women were not able to be firemen. Hell not to many men were either. Should an individual woman pass the same physical test, I think she should be accepted. Should firemen recruit women? Absolutely not. That is where the stereotype comes into useful play.

And while I am sure rape of men by women exists do you think it is equal in number, similiar in number, or far fewer than rape of women by men? I would guess far fewer. You have actual experience, I am guessing, so I am asking you.

"Actually size doesn't matter that much, I've known small women who have beaten up their husbands"

Do you think that rape is the same kind of crime?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Confessions of a gym rat -- s'kat, 16:56:42 07/13/03 Sun

Well, actually being beaten up and almost dying might be worse. I've known men and women who had to get recontructive surgery due to a beating. Who were paralyzed from the waist down due to a beating. Who died as a result of a beating.

So it's case by case. In law school I learned not to go by stereotypes, not to make generalities, I still learn it every day, because every day I make one I'm wrong. I go case by case.

After 9/11 and the pictures they showed of firemen hauling up 100 flights with incredible loads of weighty gear, I personally decided that women were not able to be firemen. Hell not to many men were either. Should an individual woman pass the same physical test, I think she should be accepted. Should firemen recruit women? Absolutely not. That is where the stereotype comes into useful play.

Actually there were women firefighters in that disaster.
As there are women firefighters and police officers now.
And women air force majors and soliders. So, the stereotype is still wrong.

Women go through a rigorous training session to become firefighters. It is NOT just a male profession. There were women who went up that building. And women who had to find a way to get out.

While the majority of firefighters are men. Women are in the profession.

So no, the stereotype is NEVER a valid one. But it continues to be a prevalent one in our society. No matter how far we've come, some people will believe women are the weaker sex and men the stronger one.

Rape is a horrendous crime regardless of the victim or abuser. Gender doesn't change it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Confessions of a gym rat -- sdev, 17:17:56 07/13/03 Sun

I said women who could perform the task of fireman equally well to men should be given that chance. But those women are a minute minority. Hence the stereotype. Police do not need the same brute strength and most military personnel don't either. Stereotypes can perform useful functions allowing people to make generalities. My point was how you use the stereotype and being able to discard it when reality diverges is essential.

"Well, actually being beaten up and almost dying might be worse. I've known men and women who had to get recontructive surgery due to a beating. Who were paralyzed from the waist down due to a beating. Who died as a result of a beating"

Absolutely true. I was asking a different question. Are female on male beatings usually a result of being overpowered physically the way rape is defined as physically non-consensual? (Obviously in rape their is also the inability to consent situation as well, such as drug or alcohol impaired, mentally incompetent, etc.)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> A last suggestion for research -- WickedBuffy, 19:03:22 07/13/03 Sun

"Stereotypes can perform useful functions allowing people to make generalities"

I feel that stereotypes are a red flag, warning us to take a closer look at a generality. Generalities exclude individuals. The good thing about a stereotype is that it points to a specific issue or thought that needs to be considered more thoughtfully and carefully. Kind of like a lump suddenly appearing on your arm. It's a sign to take a closer look at what's going on.

"Men are mostly stronger than women. I believe that is a scientific fact, and one that I have observed to be true"

It depends on what kind of strength you are referring to here. Physically? It's been proven that women have a higher pain tolerance than men. Emotionally? Men die at a higher rate of stress-related illnesses than women. Some studies point to the manner men hold in their emotions as unhealthy, while women emote and therefore release stress.

Of course, these are general studies. Generalities are different than stereotypes. Generalites may help point to an answer that solves a question for several people, but excludes some. Stereotypes are more dangerous, implying less thought.

stereotype:
1. A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image

generality:
1. The state or quality of being general.
2. An observation or principle having general application; a generalization.
3. An imprecise or vague statement or idea.

" Should an individual woman pass the same physical test, I think she should be accepted. Should firemen recruit women? Absolutely not. That is where the stereotype comes into useful play. "

You confuse me there. First you said, (I think, correct me if I misunderstood) tht if a woman passed the same physical test to be a firefighter that a man does, she should be accepted. Then you said firefighters should absolutely not recruit women.

As for a stereotype coming into useful play - as I mentioned before, the best use of a stereotype for me as a red flag that some type of simplistic nonthinking is going on and I should slow down a moment to look more closely at the situation.

But, the beginning of this particular thread specifically claimed women could not rape or even attempt to rape, men. (As in the Buffy/Spike scenes.)That is what I have been replying to. Actually s'kat is doing a much better job than I am - yeah! It wasn't anything to do about who did it more often. That would be a totally different discussion and I'm not really sure how it would apply in this Forum.

As for erections - it's a physiological reaction. Men can have them without consciously focusing on it. In fact, in some rape accounts, the women bound the man and put rubber bands at the base of the penis. This was suppposed to cut off vascular circulation in one direction. I don't have the medical specifics, but they are undoubtedly, like anything else, somewhere on the web.

But, in rape, a penis is not a necessity anyway.

Instead of going into all this OT stuff, it might be more helpful and complete to GOOGLE for information. You can get much more, much quicker. than us posting back and forth on the Forum space. Some suggestions? "rape statistics" and "domestic violence". Some other areas might be "consensual sex" and "gender violence".

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thank you, well said Wicked Buffy -- s'kat, 19:31:40 07/13/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> A question about one of your statements -- Sophist, 20:54:24 07/13/03 Sun

You said:

Physically? It's been proven that women have a higher pain tolerance than men.

The one study I read concluded that men were roughly 4 times more pain tolerant than women. Do you remember the source of your information?

Given the context of this discussion, I hasten to add that I disagree with sdev on his defense of stereotypes. I'm just curious about this particular point.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A question about one of your statements -- sdev, 23:31:04 07/13/03 Sun

What do you disagree with? I do believe I missused the word stereotype. As WickedBuffy pointed out generality is a better choice for what I meant.

Also, I am a woman.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Quick reply -- Sophist, 09:01:22 07/14/03 Mon

First off, sorry for the gender confusion.

This is a long debate and a long thread, so I'm going to set out my disagreements with you in bullet point fashion.

1. You made a logical leap from the validity of one particular stereotype to the usefulness of stereotypes in general. This is invalid logic.

2. As your post above recognizes, your point about men being stronger than women is not really a stereotype at all (I have some special knowledge about the definition of that term. Inside joke.:)). Because it was a factual generalization -- indeed, an accurate one -- it tells us nothing about the value of stereotypes.

3. Stereotypes can't serve as useful generalizations if they are inaccurate. Almost all -- I'm tempted to say all -- stereotypes are culturally dependent and highly inaccurate.

4. The particular example you gave -- recruiting women as firefighters -- is, as s'k noted, illegal (equal protection clause, not Equal Rights Amendment). It also fails for the reason you yourself gave -- there are exceptions to the generalization. It also makes dubious assumptions about the duties of firefighters.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Quick reply -- sdev, 09:30:04 07/14/03 Mon

Having looked up the word stereotype in the dictionary I realize the negative connotation is built in; thus I misspoke and should have used the term generalization. Generalizations are useful, but even there minds need to be open to the exceptions. Our world is never black and white.

"recruiting women as firefighters -- is, as s'k noted, illegal (equal protection clause"

Hiring discrimination would be illegal. I don't believe recruitment practices are or can be. By recruitment I mean the way companies go on campuses, for instance, or target advertisements towards a particular group in order to attract that groups' applications for the position. Would failure of the Fire Dept to go to an all girl's high school when they go to an all boy's one constitute discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause? I don't think so.

Would that there were an Equal Rights Amendment.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Quick reply -- Sophist, 09:45:46 07/14/03 Mon

Discrimination law can be tricky. Short answer is that there can be an obligation to recruit if there is a history of intentional discrimination in the past, which would almost certainly be true for women firefighters. And your specific example would almost certainly be illegal. However, the recruiting might well focus on the particular physical requirements of firefighters as long as it sought the same standards in both men and women.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> My Bad -- WickedBuffy, 09:50:05 07/14/03 Mon

I deeply apologize.
Especially to sdev on that sentence.

As it got later and I became worn, I got sloppy and did the very thing I was arguing against.

I generalized. (Though, come to think of it, it would be a stereotype if someone said it who hadn't looked into it, eh?)

I should have written it as I meant it if I'd been more alert, which was that all men don't have a higher pain tolerance than all women.

For one thing, there are different types of pain. And different methods to "measure" them. And all kinds of ongoing arguments as to what is more correct labeling system for the different pain and their classifications. And all kinds of discussions (and competitions) about how to measure pain accurately.

Arguments that it's genetic, that it's affected by race, by estrogen peaks, by psychological make-up, (yes, by gender also) and many other factors. The research going on in all different directions about it is amazing.

Since I'm intimately involved with pain on a constant companion basis, (shotgun marriage), I read alot about it from many different sources. If you still would like exact studies (on what I meant, ...errrr - not what I misstated), I will start looking. If you don't, let me know so I save the energy. GOOGLE chatters endlessly on some topics. :>

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Confessions of a gym rat -- s'kat, 20:16:01 07/13/03 Sun

But those women are a minute minority. Hence the stereotype. Police do not need the same brute strength and most military personnel don't either. Stereotypes can perform useful functions allowing people to make generalities. My point was how you use the stereotype and being able to discard it when reality diverges is essential.

Actually those women are not a minute minority. That is an assumption and a faulty one.

The only reason there are less women is based on discriminatory practices that have taken us years to remove. Brute strength is not what makes a good firefighter. It is intelligence, wherewithal, safety precautions, speed, coordination. Women firefighters exist and in growing numbers.

The way you use "stereotype" has never been useful - actually legally it falls under discrimination based on gender. Refusing a women a job based on the assumption she is physically weaker (without even giving her an opportunity to prove herself) than any male canididates is "discrimination" and
you will be fined. It's illegal under the Equal Right's Amendment. You can only do it on facts. Not presumptions or your personal observations of people in the gym. Discriminating against others based on sexual, racial, religious, age stereotypes is illegal in the United States of America under individual employement law.

Another fallacy is the view that rape is a crime of "brute" strength - it is not. Oh it can be. But you are assuming all rapists pick on people stronger than themselves or equal strength or perhaps assuming that they only pick on weaker parties? First rule - throw out the assumptions. Rapists pick on people for numerous reasons.
A rapist picks on someone weaker in most cases - this can be a man or woman. There are 6ft tall women, not body builders, who can overpower a 5ft 3 man. (heck I know a few). By the same token there are 5ft 3 women who can knock out and tie up a large man, and rape him. She doesn't have to be stronger than him - she just needs a tranquilizer gun.

The assumption that brute physical strength is what you need to hurt someone else is a faulty assumption. A good portion of crimes of violence are not conducted by people who are physically strong. Just by people who have the desire to do it.

Are female on male beatings usually a result of being overpowered physically the way rape is defined as physically non-consensual? (Obviously in rape their is also the inability to consent situation as well, such as drug or alcohol impaired, mentally incompetent, etc.)

You are misdefining rape. It's not defined as being over-powered physically or as physically nonconsensual per se, any more than domestic violence is.
Rape is not the result of a wrestling, boxing, or weight-lifting contest.

Rape is defined as sexual penetration without consent, whether that consent be verbal or physical, all you have to do is say the word no or indicate in some way you don't want it. Clearly that this is against your will. You do not have to fight your attacker to get that across. Xander for instance in Consequences - clearly indicated to Faith he did not want it -verbally. Just because his penis responded DOES not mean he wanted it. Unconscious physical responses do not mean yes. You can't say someone really wants it with an unconscious physical response. Anything can be used for the penetration and the part being penetrated or raped does not have to be a vagina, and it can be on the man or woman. You can sodomize - and that legally is considered rape if there is no consent - although there are separate felonies for sodomization. You can penetrate through the rectum, which is considered penetration and is rape. The person being raped does not have to fight back, they can be unconscious, drugged, or restrained at the time or even in shock and unable to fight you. The fact they did not fight back or were not "physically" overpowered and restrained is no longer a valid nor should it be a valid defense.

There are date-rape drugs - where the man or woman do not know what they are doing, they lose all memory and inhibition and when someone takes sexual advantage of this, it is rape. And it does not matter if it is a man or woman.

Rape is a violent crime, but we do not always see bruises
or scratches. The rapes that occur without them are difficult to prove.

Victims of rape - often do not report the crime, or tell anyone, because they feel ashamed. They feel the fact they weren't able to physically "stop" or "overpower" their attacker makes them at fault. Not true. I've had friends who were so drunk at the time they were raped, they wouldn't have been able to fight the guy off. As a result they never considered it rape - it was their fault.

One of the BIGGEST false assumptions about rape is that the attacker physically overpowers you or physically restrains you for it to be rape. While that may be the case in most known and televised rapes, it is not always the case.

The assumptions you've made are the reason why I hate how television has chosen to continuously depict this heinous and horrific crime. Television shows us people being physically restrained or overwhelmed. They are always small women and bigger men. Thus furthering the stereotype. Buffy
actually did poke holes in it once - by showing Faith attempt to rape Xander and the violent sex between B/S where Buffy was as much the abuser as Spike. But the AR scene took us right back to that well-known, over-done cliche - the tiny woman being physically overpowered. Yes - that happens, but it is not all or even the majority of cases. The assumption it is - is based on seeing that all of the time.

Please - if you get nothing else from this thread get this:
Domestic violence and rape are by no means defined by being physically overpowered. That is a limitation which hurts the victims of these crimes. There are people who have suffered domestic violence verbally where no physical abuse came into play. There are people who have suffered it with drugs, been beaten while asleep, been set on fire or pushed down steps. There have been rapes committed while people have been drugged, knocked unconscious, or tied up. Rapes done with emotional blackmail and extortion.

To state you have to be "physically overpowered" or that rape is a crime against "physical" consent , done only by a person stronger than you in order to be beaten or raped is a horrible misconception and the reason many of these crimes go unreported and many of these victims suffer in silence and alone. Thinking they are at fault.

If you have been one of these victims or have experienced anything that I've mentioned above - please, I beg you, call a rape or domestic violence hotline now! Talk to someone. It is NOT your fault. Just because you did not
fight back, or weren't physically weaker than your attacker - does NOT in any way make you at fault.

sk

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Give me a chance to clarify -- sdev, 22:37:10 07/13/03 Sun

Several people have seriously misread and misunderstood what I wrote.

The one thing I do agree is that I may be using the word stereotype too loosely. Generality is the better term and closer to what I meant as WickedBuffy pointed out.

First, I have a picture and names of the three hundred plus firemen who were killed in the WTC, not one was a woman. I suppose you could hypothesize that the women were smarter or more skillful and thus escaped. But I don't believe that. I do believe that being a fireman specifically requires brute strength that the vast majority of women do not have. I stand by that opinion. There may be other jobs within the fire department that women are qualified for, there may be specific fires and situations that require brains over brawn but much of the job requires enormous physical strength.

"Refusing a women a job based on the assumption she is physically weaker (without even giving her an opportunity to prove herself) than any male canididates is "discrimination" and
you will be fined. It's illegal under the Equal Right's Amendment. You can only do it on facts."

I never said anything like this. I believe that women should be permitted to test for the job and be given the job should they qualify. I do not think there should be an active attempt to try to get women to be firemen, the way minorities are recruited for instance. That is what I meant by women should not be recruited. What I am saying does not fall into any definition of gender discrimination. There is no affirmative obligation to seek out women for a job. There are jobs such as police and the military that I believe women in large numbers do qualify for and thus should be actively recruited. Women have shown themselves to be superlative pilots for instance.

Wicked Buffy: "It depends on what kind of strength you are referring to here. Physically? It's been proven that women have a higher pain tolerance than men. Emotionally? Men die at a higher rate of stress-related illnesses than women. Some studies point to the manner men hold in their emotions as unhealthy, while women emote and therefore release stress."

Also agree with this. I meant to repost on this. I believe studies have shown that women outperform men on extreme high endurance events like ultramarathons. Conjecture- an imporatant birthing skill? Also women have much greater lower body strength and are much closer as a group to men in lower body strength. Women's upper body strength is in general significantly weaker than men's. This is statistical and also a product of my observation in the weight room.

I also am not up on the law so I may be mistaken on this but I thought rape was specifically defined, legally, as vaginal penetration by a penis. All other permutations I thought were called sexual assault including sodomy.

S'kat---

On rape you state, " Rape is defined as sexual penetration without consent, whether that consent be verbal or physical, all you have to do is say the word no or indicate in some way you don't want it. Clearly that this is against your will."

Are you saying that if a woman is lying in bed with a man, unimpaired in any way by drugs or alcohol, and the man opens his pants and gets on top of her and she says no. He continues and she does nothing further to object. Do you believe that is rape? Do you think the law defines that as rape? Are you saying that there is no longer any coercive element to the act of rape?

I am well aware that the inability to give consent because of impairment is rape too. In my post I specifically mentioned instances where the ability to consent could not exist and thus it was by definition rape:
"Are female on male beatings usually a result of being overpowered physically the way rape is defined as physically non-consensual? (Obviously in rape there is also the inability to consent situation as well, such as drug or alcohol impaired, mentally incompetent, etc.)" (quoting myself is very tacky)

I never said any of the following: " Another fallacy is the view that rape is a crime of "brute" strength - it is not. Oh it can be. But you are assuming all rapists pick on people stronger than themselves or equal strength or perhaps assuming that they only pick on weaker parties?"

As you said a gun (or knife) will do just fine as coercion.

"There are people who have suffered it with drugs, been beaten while asleep, been set on fire or pushed down steps. There have been rapes committed while people have been drugged, knocked unconscious, or tied up."

These qualify as physical overpowering in my book and thus are rape or domestic abuse as the case may be. I did forget the extortion one. I don't think I would define that as rape. and I doubt the law would either. Unless the extortion was to physically harm another. But if it were monetary or reputation, I don't think so. I definitely do not believe verbal abuse qualifies as domestic abuse. Maybe to a child. Not to an adult.

Finally the distinction I was trying to make between domestic violence and rape is this. There is no non-consensual element of the crime in domestic violence. Women and men victims have been known to stick around for repeated abuse. Thus the coercive aspect that sometimes relies on superior strength may be missing in domestic violence. The victim does often have a much greater role in allowing the violence to continue. I was making the point that superior strength, whether gained by gun, knife or sheer muscle, was not as great a factor in domestic violence. I believe you made the identical point when you said, " It's not muscels that count - it's the willingness to do it." I agree with this statement on domestic violence as distinct from the act of rape. I do not believe rape is thought of as a codependent situation as is domestic violence. They are often very different crimes.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Give me a chance to clarify -- s'kat, 00:27:23 07/14/03 Mon

I think Wicked Buffy is right when she states you should do further research on this on your own. OR not as the case may be. The topic is a hot button for me, obviously. ;-)

On the firemen issue, while it may be true that no women firemen were killed in 911. (Not sure about that I live in NYC and know things are sketchy.) Not all the firemen were killed in that disaster. Several lived. Several went up and down those stairs and got out. Most died when the one buidling collasped. And women probably make less than 5% of firemen in NYC. They make up higher percentages elsewhere. Each city is different. I don't believe 911 is a good example of how many women are firemen or whether they should be. I fail to see your arguement, except to state that women could not have survived 911 any better than men. True they couldn't. There is no evidence that I can see that states that men could survive it better than women. Specially since you state no women firemen died in 911 - granted as far as we know there may not have been any, but that does not prove there weren't. It's a deductive reasoning fallacy: You are in a sense stating in your syllogism: I have a photo of 300 firefighters who died in 911. The names of all firemen who died. All the people in my photo of firemen who died are men. There are 300. 300 firemen died in 911. Since no women are in the picture. Therefore it stands to reason no women firemen in 911. Uhm no. There could very well have been two or three women out of 1000 male firemen who entered those buildings, they just didn't happen to die. Not all the firemen died in 911. You counter that with another syllogism: Since 300 died and no women, there are only two possibilities for women firemen being in 911 - 1) They can survive better than men, 2) they died without knowing which is impossible. Uhm no, there's a third possibility, they were among the other men who survived. Your syllogism is assuming all the male firefighters who entered the buildings died. They didn't. You are also assuming that the proportion of male to female firefighters is equal - which is unlikely, it could be that there were 20 female firefighters to the 500 male firefighters. Not that unlikely the 20 females survived. Several of the men who died, btw never entered the buildings, several who lived did. Another assumption you are making is all the firemen who died entered the buildings. Without knowing how many women firefighters there are in NYC or that participated in 911 - you have no way of proving your syllogism. Without knowing the specifics of every death - you still can't prove it. So, syllogism fails. You can't prove that it is better to be a man to be a firefighter based on that syllogism. Not saying you can't prove it at all - but the two logic syllogism's you used don't work - 1) Men are stronger than women. Firefighters must have brute strength. Therefore men make better firefighters and women shouldn't be firefighters.
Sorry, all I have to do to disprove this is provide evidence of females becoming firefighters and fighting fires successfully without brute strength and evidence they are strong but do not need to be stronger than men.

2) the whole 911 syllogism we just discussed.

Also there are female bomb experts who go into burning buildings.

So sorry, I still disagree with you. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree on this topic since it is off topic any way.

Two -

rape,as far as I know, is not defined as penetration of the vagina only.
It's definition has been broadened to be defined as penetration of an orifice. This can be a man forcing his penis into a woman's mouth, anus, or vagina. This can be a woman forcing a broomstick up a man's anus, or forcing his penis into something. Or any number of grotesque and horrible possibilities that I would prefer not to go into detail on here. If you want to know all about it? Goggle it.

Domestic Violence does not require non-consent to be crime.
Domestic Violence can and often does include rape, although you are correct the two are separate. Domestic Violence in my opinion can be far worse than rape since it is continuous. It is far broader as well since rape often falls under the umbrella of Domestic Violence. It is very hard to convict a husband or wife of rape of spouse, for reasons you inadvertently mentioned above and I address in next paragraph.

If a man gets on top of his wife after she has said no repeatedly and forces her to have sex - yes that is rape.
And it is tough as hell to prove so seldom gets convicted.
She does not have to fight him physically for it to be rape, although try convincing a jury of that. Some rape victims have been known to give up and lay limp pretending it's not happening to them. In most cases the person does in some way physically restrain them. Women as we've explored in detail in the above posts can as easily restrain a man as a man can restrain a woman. Not that hard to do. Certainly does not require brute or physical strength.

The word "no" should be enough. If someone says no - stop.
(I'm not saying you're saying otherwise, sdeve, I just want to make it clear. That it is far better to assume no means no in all situations than it is to assume it means yes ever.)

Okay, interesting discussion. But it is 3am now and I'm tired of it. So letting it go. Has gone so far off topic..
that methinks it's just eating other posts at the moment.
So I'll save us all some grief and stop now.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Give me a chance to clarify -- Malandanza, 05:12:24 07/14/03 Mon

"1) Men are stronger than women. Firefighters must have brute strength. Therefore men make better firefighters and women shouldn't be firefighters."

I think what sdev was trying to say about firemen was that there should be a single standard, rather than a special double standard, as part of some PC recruiting drive, for female firefighters. Women should qualify under existing standard rather than being preferred over qualified men on the basis of their gender. Having said that, I think the disparity between men and women in jobs like these is more a question of environment -- that little boys are more likely than little girls to want to become firemen (Buffy excluded, of course).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Clearing my name -- sdev, 07:40:43 07/14/03 Mon

I find it strange that on BtVS AR I argued that it was legally and morally an AR because Buffy--

1)yelled to stop, repeatedly, and
2)physically kicked, flailed and struggled

You argued that it was not an AR because her lack of consent was ambiguous.

But in real life you say "no" alone is sufficient to constitute rape.

I am sorry for dragging this on but I feel I was left appearing as if I somehow condone or minimize the crimes of rape and domestic violence. I don't.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Clarification -- Sophist, 09:31:40 07/14/03 Mon

I'm now butting in for s'k, but she did indicate she was pretty much done with this topic and I wanted to clarify 2 points that I know she understands.

First, s'k has not contradicted herself about rape, as your post implies. The reason is that attempted rape, legally speaking, differs from actual rape in one very important way: actual rape requires no particular mental intent by the perpetrator, but attempted rape does. Thus, if a woman says "no" and a man continues and achieves penetration, rape has been committed. If a woman says "no" and the man backs off, that is not necessarily attempted rape. The latter case depends on the man's mental intent at the time.

Second, I don't believe s'k has argued that the bathroom scene in SR was not attempted rape because of the ambiguity of consent. I do believe she has suggested that possiblity for the very different reason that Spike did not have the required mental state.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Okay. Thanks for the clarification. -- sk, 09:47:05 07/14/03 Mon

Okay the difference is again intent.

The husband jumps on his wife, she says no. He continues.
She pleads. He rapes her. Rape. Then says, that was great.
Rolls over. She ends up crying in the bathroom. Or she tries to physically throw him off, can't he's holding her down, and is raped. Or reverse the roles and she has tied him up for one of their bondage games, he says stop, I don't want to, she ignores him, he tries to fight her off,
she still ignores him - we get what leads to a rape even though, the intent was not there at all. You are right here and I'll concede the point - strength does come into
play in this situation. So that example is really a "sexual assault" since intent isn't there - although I think I could probably prove it to a jury, a good defense lawyer could use the defense that since the couple engaged in S&M bondage games, intent is harder to prove. Rape/Sexual assual and other sex related crimes really does need to be decided on a case by case basis not generally. Actually I think all crimes do since there are always extenuating circumstances that come into play.

Spike comes on to Buffy, she yells no, he continues, losing control, she kicks him across the room. Attempted rape or attempted sexual assault?? If he had continued, he would probably be a rapist or at the very least convicted of severe sexual assault and most likely dust, this being a fantasy show. But she kicked him across the room, he looked up shocked. He did not continue the act. He did not vamp out. He did not knock her out.
Or attempt to hurt her (of his own free will I should add) at any point after that. HE had tears in his eyes, was visibly shaken by what happened and left the house in such a hurry his jacket was left behind.
That demonstrates, unlike the above explanation, that there was no intent. Unlike Warren with Katrina - where he clearly did intend to sexually use KAtrina without her consent - that is rape, even though he'd programmed her not to fight him and respond. Spike's actions after Buffy kicks him across the room demonstrate he NEVER intended to rape her and honestly did not realize he was doing that. Now if he'd continued to attack after being kicked across the room, as we see him do in The Initiative, HArsh Light of Day, School HArd, and various other episodes - then yes, that would have meant intent and be defined as "attempted rape". So for that reason it really wasn't an "attempted rape" so much as a "sexual assault", both are serious crimes by the way, one just does not require the
necessary "intent" qualification to be a factor. Very few people outside the legal profession are aware of the distinction.

Hope that makes more sense. Now I'm really going to stop. ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> TY Malandanza -- sdev, 08:01:32 07/14/03 Mon

That is precisely what I meant- one test, pass and you qualify.

Maybe preference to women applicants who do pass the one test would be appropriate,as well, considering their low numbers on the job.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Physical and emotional differences -- sdev, 22:56:03 07/13/03 Sun

"I'm hesistant to say that this is a gender response, particularly after my debate with sdeve regarding making assumptions based on gender differences, but I'm wondering if it might be??"

I was shocked to see this on another thread since I find the mental/emotional gender differences much smaller, idiosyncratic and less able to be generalized than the physical ones. They are certainly not subject to quantification the way physical differences are.

On a personal level, I find the thought that women are responding more emotionally than men on the board much more of a stereotype and more damaging than that most of the women who post could not be firemen.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Being misinterpreted here -- Dariel, 18:15:19 07/13/03 Sun

it's called a stereotype because so many people unthinkingly accept it as true.

these all add up to the "hardly comparable" premise as a "groupthink" kind of reaction.

Okay, this is an interesting discussion and all, but it's a little annoying to be quoted to support something that was not meant or said. The "hardly comparable" premise was about Marti's experience versus the actual scene we saw in SR. Maybe I'm making a big assumption here, but I doubt that Marti would be talking about this had she committed an actual sexual assault.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Dariel, it was in response to the quote from ECH's post, not yours. -- WickedBuffy, 19:21:57 07/13/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dariel, it was in response to the quote from ECH's post, not yours. -- Dariel, 20:45:54 07/13/03 Sun

Yeah, but that quote was ECH misquoting me. Kind of funny, really, that a heated debate got started over something that wasn't actually said until midway through (the "women can't rape men" bit).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Aha - I see what happened. -- s'kat, 22:10:39 07/13/03 Sun

Marti supposedly came up with the attempted rape idea based on her own experience of trying to "force" intimacy on an ex who was no longer interested. Only Marti had been the one doing the "forcing." Presuming that Marti wasn't holding a knife on the guy (and I'm sure she wasn't!) the situation is hardly comparable to a man trying to rape a woman. (BTW, I have no quarrel with Marti in particular; I'm sure Joss approved the scene.)

It's your second tolast sentence Dariel, starting with presuming - it got misread. What it sounds like is that MArti stands in for women in general not just for Marti - at least that's how several of us misinterpreted it.

Now I know from reading your other posts in this thread and others that you by no means meant it this way, but I can see how ECH and sdeve may have misinterpreted it.

Btw - we have no idea what happened with Marti since she's never spoken of it. JM hinted that it was a female writer's experience and that she had been the aggressor, but he backed off of specifics. He only stated that b/c fans pushed him and he was trying to convey two things, albeit poorly 1) that he felt the writer was brave in using the experience and 2) that the writer possibly did not understand the connotation.

He's right. Marti over-estimated her audience, as did Joss Whedon. Never over-estimate a tv audience. Bad idea.
But I can see why. However, rumor has it that they used Buffy Cross and stake and Bronze Beta as focus groups, and
I was on both off and on at that time - and if the rumor is true? They should have known.

OTOH - JM brings his own baggage to the topic. (rumor again - has it that a close female friend or relative of JM's may have suffered a sexual assault and/or rape - meaning that JM cannot watch or act this without seeing the character die horribly. ) So asking JM about his views on this topic is a) cruel, b) counter-productive and c)sheds very little on intent authorial or otherwise.

I agree with Sophist on authorial intent. Regardless of what the actors, writers, producers state their intent was before, during, after shooting that scene - I know what I saw on screen and I know what I read in the scripts, and am going with my own interpretation which is very similar to Sophist's. Spike did not intend to rape her - it got out of control. I think to a great extent - if Marti's experience was what this was based on - that ironically adds weight to my interpretation.

The female whose past this was based on - clearly did not intend to assualt her partner - she was physically agressive though and pushed him, coming close to a rape which often happens when you are dealing with sexual relationships built on rough or S&M style sex as many on this board who've had personal experience with it have attested to, even if rape or assault was not her intent. She got carried away. Without knowing who her significant other was at the time - or who she necessarily was - it is difficult for us to know or imagine how severe the assault was. If it was MArti and having seen her interview about enjoying the whole biting experience of vampires on Night Bites documentary - I can imagine her being pretty aggressive. Anyways...Same thing with Spike - he did not intend to hurt or assualt Buffy - but he was physically agressive and pushed too hard and too brutally, coming very close to raping her - going past the word no, even if that was not his initial intent. ME was attempting to explore that thin line between rape and not rape - something I think is a bit hard to convey to a television audience. Even though I can see clearly what they were doing, from the responses I've seen on this board and others? I think they failed in their attempt. And for this topic? I remain unconvinced that this was the best idea for the story or the characters.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Aha - I see what happened. -- ECH, 07:08:34 07/14/03 Mon

It was the writing, acting, and direction of the scene that failed s'kat IMHO it wasn't the idea of the AR itself. If they had portayed Buffy as the super hero that she is in the scene instead of a weak crying and begging victim for most of the scene I do think they might have suceeded. Also, the lighting, direction, and setting of the AR was made far to real for it not to minipulate the emotions of a good portion of the audience. Basically, they wanted to make a gray AR scene in a violent fantasy relationship between 2 super human characters and IMHO they messed up big time by making the scene as visceral, shocking and real to life as they could. I mean this is really the first time the audience has seen Buffy as a truely helpless victim, a lot of people don't want such an act to be at all gray like JM, so because of the minipulative writing, acting, and filming of the scene it becomes very hard IMHO for a number of people that have strong feelings about violence against women or who really don't understand the issues surrounding rape to see it as anything but black and white. Hell, JM and many fans have on numerous occasions called it flat out rape instead of attempted rape. It was how the scene was portayed that was the real failure IMHO not the idea behind the scene. Hell, I am sure JM and many fans would look at the scene alot less negitively if Spike had simply been vamped out during the AR, because that would put it into more of the not real catagory in their minds. Even though Spike not being in vamp face very much aids in showing he didn't have evil or hurtful intent in the scene.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Completely agree with that. Well said. -- s'kat, 09:09:05 07/14/03 Mon

I think you actually nailed the problem we've been struggling with, because it's hard to admit that the acting, directing, writing was at fault when it was so good on one level and would be award worthy if it was on ER or Seventh Heaven or A Movie of The Week - basically ANY show other than a fantasy show about a woman with superhuman powers. But the truth is that scene was on Btvs and it did not make any sense or have any place on Btvs regardless of the amount of fanwanking I've done and others have done on it. If anything it was wrong for the intent of what came before and after. It did not work for the characters. Buffy's behavior was sooo completely out of character for her, regarding her past behavior that season and in the series as a whole that it jarred the audience. After that scene the audience was left wondering how she could fight after being pushed into a grave in Grave. I think if they'd done something closer to what happened in The Initiative
or even Consequences, or the Pack, people would not have had this visceral reaction.

I agree the acting, filming, direction and writing of this scene failed on numerous levels. It did not in of itself accomplish the authorial intent - stated in interviews and it came very very close to ruining the message of the series (female empowerment) and the characters. I know several people who stopped watching BTVS all together after Seeing Red. And ratings went down after that episode. Replays also get very low ratings. Rumor has it that JM almost walked off the set and quit over it. (Don't know if there is any substantive truth to that rumor or the fact that SMG talked him out of it.) Be interesting to see how high S6 DVD sales are? From interviews - I get the feeling all involved regret it. JM blames himself for it coming across the wrong way, he had panicked. But it was written that way and directed that way. I seriously doubt we'll ever see the scene again. Or so I hope. Big mistake.

[> Am I the only one who thinks calling it "the AR" trivializes a VERY serious incident? -- Q, 12:42:56 07/12/03 Sat

[> [> I think it's more interesting that its importance continues to be overstated -- Sophist, 15:28:42 07/12/03 Sat

We've been told by JW and JE -- and don't forget, authorial intent counts for everything -- that Spike's mental state in the bathroom was such that he did not intend to rape or even hurt Buffy. Strictly as a matter of law, this makes the incident not attempted rape at all.

Regardless of the nature of the act, Spike's re-souling makes the event no more significant for his character than Xander's AR in The Pack. It's clearly less significant than Angel's murder of Jenny Calendar or Faith's AR/AM of Xander.

I've never seen anyone "trivialize" the events of SR. I've seen a great many people overreact to them. That's the danger I'd worry about.

[> [> [> Agree muchly -- curious, 15:48:09 07/12/03 Sat

I was trying to find a way to say what you just said.

Actually, I think over-stating the AR scene trivializes the experiences of real rape victims. If Spike intended to rape or kill or sire Buffy, he would have continued to try to hurt her. He wouldn't have left in horror. He wouldn't have sought a soul. If he had continued the attack, Buffy would have staked him.

Rape is a very serious crime. It is significant in this situation that a.) it didn't happen and b.) it wasn't pre-meditated.

[> [> [> Yep it's the overreaction that bothered me as well. -- s'kat, 16:22:00 07/12/03 Sat

I've never seen anyone "trivialize" the events of SR. I've seen a great many people overreact to them. That's the danger I'd worry about.

Exactly. It's the reason I keep wishing they didn't do it.
I don't believe television audiences have the maturity to handle these type of acts on the screen. And what I've seen on fanboards proves this.

The attempted rape sequence in Seeing Red by how it was filmed in contrast to previous scenes, seemed to trivalize far worse and far more horrendous acts like Faith's attempted rape (which was legally an attempted rape of Xander - since "intent" was there) of Xander, because of how it was filmed. They likewise trivalize Xander's attempted rape of Buffy in The Pack, (which has a solid defense to counter intent based on hyena possession, although it's interesting that Xander remembers everything and it's Xander who informed the hyena). And they blatantly ignore Angel's desire to rape Darla in Reprise and his rape of the gypsey girl in Darla (Ats episode) and his rape of Drusilla (in Dear Boy) - all of which have equally been trivalized. And in my humble opinion are far far worse than what I saw in that bathroom. Geeze the acts Angelus did in those flashbacks. But when you come to Seeing Red which did not have "clear" intent behind it and was stopped and did not become an actual rape and where the person who lost control went out of his way to apologize for it both through actions and words - people over-react and call that rape. Why? Because of how it was filmed. This disturbs me. Why? Because I know way too many people who have been raped in my life and those people fell under the categories of X/F, X/B, A/D, and they couldn't get relief. Should the Attempted Rape sequence disturb you?
Yes. But it is countered by the fact that the assaultor (not rapist - since he didn't complete or even come remotely close to completing the act!)
realized what he was doing and backed off. He did NOT have to. He was stronger than her in that room. HE could have vamped out. She had no weapon and she was locked in a bathroom. To say the offender is a rapist is simply not true, to give it more importance than it is worth is in my humble opinion - highly offensive to those who have actually been raped and assaulted. It gives a mixed message to the audience - which the rape issue does not need in our society. I still to this day think ME screwed up on that scene. Damn TV and the rape cliche. Why oh why do they have to keep doing it? It's not original. It's not interesting.
And to me it was a storytelling cop-out, a plot device to convince the audience Spike needed to get a soul - so they could tell their story. I wish they'd picked something else.

[> [> [> [> Re: Yep it's the overreaction that bothered me as well. -- Dariel, 17:10:05 07/12/03 Sat

Part of the overreaction probably stems from the basic problem with viewing scenes of rape or attempted rape on TV or film--just watching them feels like a kind of violation. There are some otherwise great movies that I will never see (such as Boys Don't Cry) because I don't want that experience. The only reason I sat through it on BtVS was 1) my spoiler source gave a very misleading interpretation of the scene (one reason I swore off spoilers!) and 2) I couldn't believe what I was seeing.

[> [> [> [> Re: I so very much agree. -- lynx, 17:38:10 07/12/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> Agreed. -- Miss Edith, 18:47:22 07/12/03 Sat

I hated the AR, not just because of how it was filmed and the reaction that ME were clearly pulling the strings of the audience for, but also because of the presentation of Buffy which actually deeply offended me.

Calling the incident an AR is just a shorthand way of refering to it, I don't think there's any significant meaning behind it. Even those who hate Spike and use the AR to bash him (on other boards, not this one!) still call it by that accepted term as it is quicket to type, and recognisable to the internet fans as it is used so often. With all the discussion that particular scene generated it's no wonder it's easier to just say the AR, and have most know exactly what you're talking about.

[> [> [> Re: I think it's more interesting that its importance continues to be overstated -- btvsk8, 09:22:36 07/13/03 Sun

If Joss and Jane Espenson say some thing about the show, of course it is very important, but with regards to them saying spike didn't intend to rape Buffy it is hard to know what conclusions to make. This is because there is nothing in the scene itself, besides the look of shock on JM's face that really makes this clear to the audience. The scene was impressive in the acting. directing etc. but it seems it was somewhat a failure in portraying what the writers wanted in terms of character motivation

[> [> [> [> My comment about authorial intent was snarky. -- Sophist, 10:36:47 07/13/03 Sun

I don't actually believe that authorial intent is controlling. I was taking a poke at some who claim to do so, and who also happen to be ones who overemphasize the "AR" (and I'm deliberately using the abbreviation with quotes for similarly snarky reasons; no subtle snarkasm for me).

I agree that the scene can be interpreted in several ways. My own interpretation, which is JMHO, is that Spike did not intend to rape Buffy or even hurt her. YMMV.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Agree -- sdev, 11:34:40 07/13/03 Sun

"We've been told by JW and JE -- and don't forget, authorial intent counts for everything (Snark inserted)-- that Spike's mental state in the bathroom was such that he did not intend to rape or even hurt Buffy."

I know this is the reason I take what the writers say with a healthy dose of skepticism. Also which writers since they all say different often conflicting things. Didn't they also say several things about how Spike was the ultimate bad boyfriend and that the viewer mistakenly had sympathy for him? Well which is it? Since the AR was supposed to be the ultimate reason why Spike was EVIL, how was he so evil if he had no intent, no requisite evil mental state, in the AR? Does this go back to some other legal definition-does not know the difference between right and wrong? I can't believe that either. Within moments of his losing it he knew the difference. He was overwhelmed by guilt (smashing glass in his hand scene). He so knew the difference he knew he needed the soul.

Confused here.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agree -- ECH, 11:53:14 07/13/03 Sun

It has really only been James Marsters that has been saying that Spike is the ultimate bad boyfriend/rapist in the past several months. The writers haven't really called Spike the bad evil thing in Buffy's life in about a year. I think people listen to JM talk about how horrible and evil Spike was supposed to be, and how he was the bad boyfriend, and he has even said that Spike probably should have been killed after the AR. But, I very strongly doubt this is what ME really wants him to be saying. I think that he might think that is what they want him to say, and he might really feel that way because of his feelings of social responsibility and very strong feelings about male violence toward women. But, I think people are using JM statements to reflect the party line of ME and I very much doubt it does. It has been proven time and time again that they really don't inform JM about their storylines, Spike wanting his soul back was just one of a couple examples.

Hell, Fury reciently said that Spike was able to give Buffy something special that no one else could. The writers wouldn't have wrote the lovely B/S scenes in Touched, End of Days, and Chosen if they wanted the audience to believe as JM says that Spike was just the bad boyfriend that ends up buring and hurting the girl terribly.

My point is that just about all of the writers have seemed to change their tune about B/S in the past year, but JM has not. And, I don't think we should be looking at JM current statements about B/S as a mirror to ME's party line about the relationship and Spike.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: My comment about authorial intent was snarky. -- ECH, 11:34:52 07/13/03 Sun

Yes, many peoples interpretations of the AR are very different then others.

Like this scholorly essay on season 6.

http://www.daydreamnation.co.uk/buffy/existentialmuch.html
----------------------------------------------------
He hates his love of Buffy for making him feel human, and for making him question the authenticity of his own evil existence. His song, 'Rest In Peace', represents his desire to return to the simplicity of his old life. Yet in this crisis, it could be said Spike is not following an existential path. Instead, he's exchanging one external morality, a life as an evil vampire, for another: Buffy's hero-morality. Spike feels weighed down by the pressure to conform to the personal morality Buffy had lived by up until her resurrection, and feels that his true essence lies in his old life as an evil vampire. He feels that Buffy is responsible for this crisis and, in an act of hate, he attempts to rape her.

His reaction, when he realises what he's done, is guilt (though not true human remorse). Spike feels that this guilt is artificial, however, and decides that he is the victim, that he has tried too hard to mould himself to fit Buffy's worldview. He feel his true authentic self was his time as a mass-murdering vampire, free from any kind of guilt and living by his own personal morality. Is this the essence of Spike? Vampires are different to conventional existential characters, in that while the newly-unborn vampire demon has no essence, they also have the memories of the human. For vampires, existence doesn't necessarily come before essence, as when every vampire enters its human host it takes on the ghost of their personality.

I would argue that this is what is happening with Spike; there is a split between his new, vampire self, and his old human self, William. William was a gentle man, and essence stills lives own; this is contrasted with Spike, whose true essence is evil, a vampire, who has chosen to become a killer not simply from the necessity to survive, but also because he likes it. Spike feels that his Initiative chip is responsible, and that its removal will remove all feelings of guilt. In fact, the chip was only a catalyst for something already there; the essence of William, and his human feelings. So it's no wonder that when Spike asks to be restored to how he once was, it is his soul that is restored.
---------------------------------------------------------

[> [> Re: Am I the only one who thinks calling it "the AR" trivializes a VERY serious incident? -- Malandanza, 12:09:30 07/13/03 Sun

I don't writing AR instead of spelling out "Attempted Rape" really trivializes the incident, primarily because the word "rape" has been overused on this board to the point where it has lost its shock value. I don't mean talking about vampirism as a metaphorical rape, after all, when you say "metaphorical" it let's the reader know you aren't speaking literally. I'm talking about Faith "raping" Xander, or Buffy "raping" Spike when she was invisible or, later, in As You Were when she visited Spike's crypt, or Willow "mind-raping" Tara (I don't think the mind wipe in any way constitutes rape -- sex after the mind wipe is debatable), and, of course, the ever popular "Xander attempted to rape Buffy when possessed by Hyenas". Saying AR refers to a specific scene. Spelling out "attempted rape" leads to some legalistic quibbles over intent -- Spike didn't attempt to rape Buffy (in spite of what we saw) because he didn't form intent (apparently there was intent in all the other cases) -- which, in turn, leads to a few rounds of blame the victim.

And so, the most brutally realistic and best acted attempted rape scene I have ever watched is converted into a device Spike haters unfairly use to bash Saint William the Bloody, the Patron Saint of Misogyny.

But the real trivialization of the AR came from the writers, in Season Seven, when, inexplicably, they switched from Buffy leery of Spike, to Buffy straddling him the graveyard while Potentials giggle about whether they should be making out with the vamps or staking them. Buffy talks about feeling disconnected and Spike channels Andrew "Dice" Clay with a line about there having been plenty of connecting. Buffy jokes about Spike's inability to understand that no means no, not eventually, because, date rape is funny. And in the finale, the unrepentant rapist and killer becomes the hero. So heartwarming.

But it's hard to blame the Spike defenders for treating the AR no more seriously than did the writers.

[> Of the two storytelling options, I would prefer "AS". -- WickedBuffy, 16:07:58 07/12/03 Sat

I liked the questions you brought up in your post, btvsk8.

Several other posters on this thread have mentioned that siring might have been a better/worse option in place of the attempted rape.

When I watched the scene, I was shocked and sickened - I felt like my ::said possessively:: favorite escapism show had suddenly veered into an episode of COPS. (Reality police show). The sudden turn to such a real situation was what made my stomach drop, moreso than the actual event itself - if that makes sense. I felt jerked out of entertainment and thrown into real life without my consent.

If it had been an attempted siring that had taken place, I know I would have remained securely in my imaginary Sunnydale AND I would have been very entertained, mostly by all the ramifications and suspense of it.

I watch the show for entertainment. Even when Xander in The Pack had Buffy pinned to the ground, I knew nothing could happen - because, c'mon - it was XANDER for petes sake! I stayed in the story - One with the Scoobies.

The only other times I'm jerked out of Sunnydale are very brief - it's when someone wrings someones neck - with that quick twist and gruesome snap. Ms. Calender, alternateworld-Buffy, even the bad guys who are killed that way. It's "too real". I'm no longer in the story, I'm shrieking slightly and back in reality. But I pop back in fairly quickly. :>

So, for me, the better storytelling device would have been an attempted siring. I would have stayed in the state of Buffyness that keeps an audience involved. The whole point of telling a story is to tell it so well, the viewers/listeners feel like they were really there. When the AR scene started, I left. For me, that was a major flaw in the flow.

[> [> Agreed. Had the same reaction. -- s'kat, 16:27:54 07/12/03 Sat

[> But, Joss did allow viewers to believe that B/S had sex in Chosen if they want to believe they did. -- ECH, 18:51:24 07/12/03 Sat

I still believe that IMHO Fox and/or parts of ME were trying to hold back the B/S scenes in season 7. A case were this might be apparent is in Sleeper, Buffy was supposed to end up holding a crying Spike in her arms after he had begged for her help. When it made it to screen we ended up with her standing there saying that she would help him which IMO took alot of power from the scene. I do personally believe Fox had/s a interest in holding back the B/S in that IMHO they have been trying to keep the B/A home fires burning forever since they seem to believe that by using synergy they can save money promoting both their shows "Buffy and Angel", by having B/A together on the cover of magazines, newspapers, ect. One magazine cover with B/A is worth 2 magazine covers to them that have A/C and B/S in that the one B/A cover promotes both shows at the same time.

Also, the dramatic shorthand that Joss used in the finale with Buffy and Spike staring at each other before the fade to black and the flaming hands was totally reminisant of what Hollywood directors had to do after the Hays Office in the 1940s mandated that there would be no overt sexual displays between characters. IMHO Joss added that scene in because he wanted people to believe that B/S had sex in Chosen if they want to believe it. It might have been that Fox mandated that B/S didn't have sex it might have been Joss's own choice. It may be years before we know the truth.

But, the important thing is that Joss did make it so that people who love B/A, hate B/S, and think it is socially irresponsible for Buffy to ever be with sexually her so called attempted rapist because that supposedly sends the "wrong message" can say that B/S didn't have sex or she just had platonic feelings for him like she did with Xander. Joss also wrote it so that general viewers, B/S, and Spike fans that want to believe that B/S had sex in Chosen can believe it.

The exact same thing is true about Buffy loving or not loving Spike. Marti and Jane E. believe that Buffy loved him and Joss doesn't "think" that she love him. It was left open for people to decide on their own if Buffy loves him or not.

Sure JM has made it pretty clear reciently that he really dislikes Spuffy (because of the AR) and has refuted pretty much everything B/S. It is clear that James Marsters feels socially responsable to send the "right message" so he has pretty much taken upon himself to attack B/S and Spike as a boyfriend every chance he has had publicly after Buffy ended. Including saying things like that Buffy never loved Spike, she only loved Angel, they never had sex in season 7, Spike was the ultimate bad boyfriend, Spike is the kind of boyfriend girls get burned by, that he thought Spike should have been killed after the AR, etc. But, IMHO this is simply his feelings about the AR and feelings of social responsiblity showing through. Plus, James said and believed unequivically last year that Spike went to Africa to get his chip out until Joss corrected him in front of Buffy fans months later. It is sad how much the writers keep him out of the loop. But, my only point with all of this is that JM saying that Buffy didn't love Spike, Buffy only loved Angel, and that B/S didn't have sex in Chosen isn't at all canon. Joss and the writers clearly left it up to the viewers to decide if they think Buffy loves Spike and if they did or didn't have sex in Chosen.

[> [> Interesting.... -- curious, 19:25:47 07/12/03 Sat

I don't know if it was Fox doing some censoring or ME setting up something dramatic for next season. Or Fox and/or ME doing clever, misleading marketing of AtS. I do think they went a little overboard in trying to appease both shipper groups when they found out that the WB would allow DB to visit BtVS. Maybe they were just going "back to the beginning".

I hope ME does something interesting with the B/A situation. I think you are right about using the relationship to promote AtS - but I hope they are clever enough to do an interesting twist - something more than an ansty triangle or Buffy torn between two lovers. They can't really build a whole season on SMG's return because she may not want to come back and they might not be able to afford her anyway.

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote some things about B/S and concluded that Spike believes that Buffy will always love Angel. I don't know if that is really the case. (I don't think Buffy knows either. It is still pretty open ended.) But I think in looking at some of the episodes in S6 and S7, that's how it seemed to me. It would make sense that JM - as a method actor - would believe this too. And he always seems to beat himself up but is often wrong about what ME plans to do with Spike. He stated that B/S did NOT have sex in Chosen. But I think you are right - the audience could choose to imagine what they wish.

Anyway, I wonder if they are setting up a situation where Spike doesn't feel he is worthy of Buffy - or whatever. And also has conflict with Angel over Buffy as well as the other issues in their past. I think Spike is either going to be the key to B/A getting together or breaking up permanently. But it can't be a huge or and central focus because SMG won't be a regular and may not even show up all season.

Blah - I had a more coherent response but it's gone now. All this speculating is probably not good for my sun addled brain. I wonder if Joss has even figured out how to bring Spike back from the ashes.

[> [> [> I guess I give more weight to what I experienced watching -- WickedViewer, 19:51:39 07/12/03 Sat

... than what a writer thought the producer wanted it to mean. Or whatever. Sometimes they match up, sometimes they don't.

I firmly believe that once an episode reaches the viewers, the writers and producers and whoever, have lessened their control over what things mean.

Of course, they still legally own the trademarks, etc. And their intent is still valid. But what previously only involved writers and actors and producers, has now grown to include hundreds of thousands of others. The people watching and thinking and coming to their own conclusions about what's going on.

I know not everyone subscribes to this belief, but it's how I feel what actually happens. The majority of viewers of a television show don't even care what the writer meant nor do they seek out interviews for clarity. Perception equals reality. If I feel that Buffy loves Spike, then that's what is. If I don't then that is what is. Even knowing what a writer meant, probably won't change how I personally took it in.

Purists might argue that the true intent belongs to who created it. Which I agree with to a point. If the creator keeps it to him/herself, then the intent is contained there. But once it is released, then it becomes open to all kinds of observations and perceptions. Which is probably why people have a difficult time agreeing on art and music and other creative endeavors.

... but I am having fun thinking of all the potential ways they might bring Spike back!

[> [> [> [> Agree -- curious, 20:14:51 07/12/03 Sat

That's what makes BtVS so interesting to me and causes so much friction among fan groups. It is deliberately written to be ambiguous so that the viewer adds his/her own spin. I always find it amazing that people can watch the show and see completely different things than I do. How many shows can do that?

A couple of examples are from Drew Greenberg. In his commentary for "Smashed", he specifically talked about the scene where Spike tries to bite a woman just after he finds out he can hit Buffy without his chip going off. He says something like "Does he really want to hurt this woman? Is he really evil here? I don't know - and I'm the writer." He deliberately wrote that scene to be open to interpretation.

In a Succubus Club interview, he (Drew Greenberg) also wanted people to argue about whether or not Buffy was right or the rest of the gang was right when she was kicked out of her house. That situation was designed to be debatable.

And what about the differences of opinion of the different writers? - JE and DF in particular.

... but I am having fun thinking of all the potential ways they might bring Spike back!

Me too!

[> [> [> Re: Interesting.... -- ECH, 20:09:01 07/12/03 Sat

The thing is Chosen was written before ME and Fox thought that James would be a regular on AtS. They figured at that time Chosen was written that at most that he might go over to AtS for couple eps as a guest star and the Faith spinoff had already fallen through. So, both Fox and ME probably saw B/A at the time as their best hope of bringing Buffy fans over to Angel. I do think that now that things have changed and Spike is a regular on AtS that the formula that Fox was using has changed a bit. I do think IMHO they are re-evaluating things now that Spike will be the main way that they try to get Buffy viewers to watch Angel. They might go for a more of a B/S or B/A/S (triangle) type arrangement now that Spike has become their key method of pulling in Buffy fans to Angel. It remains to be seen of course what ends up happening, suffice it to say, I think ME will keep things open ended when it comes to Buffy's love life, until at least the end of AtS. And, only then will they end it (most likely with B/A) if it looks like there isn't going to be another spinoff or a possible Buffy movie.

[> [> [> [> Hard to predict -- curious, 20:23:08 07/12/03 Sat

I just hope it is interesting and not stagnant. I hope things move along fairly quickly. Honestly, I hope both boys get love lives beyond Buffy. Or at least meaningful lives. I'm tired of "kick the Spike" and Angel's curse. I hope they come up with something more interesting for both of these guys. Buffy is gone. ;-)

[> [> [> JM as an method actor -- ECH, 20:23:48 07/12/03 Sat

Quote
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
It would make sense that JM - as a method actor - would believe this too. And he always seems to beat himself up but is often wrong about what ME plans to do with Spike. He stated that B/S did NOT have sex in Chosen. But I think you are right - the audience could choose to imagine what they wish.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, from every JM interview I have read personally IMHO I have gotten the distinct impression that he still has a real hard time buying or at least accepting that Spike wanted his soul back intentionally. I think this has alot to do with the fact that he acted in SR thru Grave if Spike wanted his chip out because the writers didn't tell him otherwise. James didn't believe before Joss told him to his face and in front of fans last summer that Spike did want his soul back for Buffy, and since then he seems to accept that is the party line, but I don't think he really believes deep down that Spike wanted his soul back, because as a method actor that was not how he acted/felt when filming the scene.

[> [> [> [> Spike is a conflicted character -- curious, 20:32:26 07/12/03 Sat

which is what makes him soooo interesting. And JM is such an open actor. I can't help but wonder if ME mess with him a little to get really layered performances out of him. (I'm probably thinking too much here.)

But I also think he was exploited when he was forced to do the infamous AR scene at the last minute. He had no time to prepare, etc.

[> [> [> [> [> James should have been trusted to portray that confliction -- Miss Edith, 09:19:40 07/13/03 Sun

In his place I would have been insulted at my bosses not trusting me! James seems to have gone the opposite way, feeling guily for ruining MEs plans for the bad boyfriend. I don't see that. When ME asked for a layered performance James gave it to them. Smashed for instance had the script saying Spike was conflicted over feeding, James played it as such.

And yes arriving to work one morning, being given a script at the last minute with an AR add-on, and when wanting to quit, threatening James with his contract was not classy behaviour.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Contract contract, who's signed a contract? -- LeeAnn, 11:25:07 07/13/03 Sun

And yes arriving to work one morning, being given a script at the last minute with an AR add-on, and when wanting to quit, threatening James with his contract was not classy behaviour.

Those are some of reasons I think the AR was a deliberate strike at James, not just character development. I also believe they meant for Spike to lose his chip and go evil and thus wrote the scenes and had James play them as if that was what Spike wanted and it was only at the last moment they changed their minds.

Maybe it was a money thing. I've read James was signed up for length of show and that, conversely, he only signs up for one year at a time so intense contract negotiations must be going on at the end of each season. It seems to me that the toward end of seasons 4, 5, 6 and 7 Spike was written in a way that it would be easy to write Spike out if an agreement was not reached. Season 4, The Yoko Factor, Spike was written so it would have been easy to stake him or write him out. Season 5, easy to explain if he left after Buffy's death. Season 6, there's suddenly an AR, Spike is sent to Africa and is only a minor character in the last 3 episodes. Change what Lurky says in the final scene or just have Spike lying dead in the cave and no more Spike. Season 7, well, Spike is dead. No agreement on contract and the fans need no explanation if we never see him again.

At one con JM was asked:

Q: How long are you going to be around...how long is your contract for?

JM: Forever and ever. It's all nailed down. It's all certified. I'm on board. There never was any question, but we had to work it out. Lawyers had to go fist -fighting and yen... nen... nen... I told Joss, "Can we just pretend this never, ever happened?" In renegotiations there was some question... There was some talk of putting me on "Angel." Possibly putting me evil on "Buffy" and then switching me over to be evil on "Angel." [Punishing him? Marginalizing his character? If he didn't agree to terms?] But that flew out the window with the whole move to the UPN. And I think that was out the window before then. I think that was early last year and they kinda switched it up. I'd like to go back on "Angel," though, and kick his ass. Angel's ass. Have to be very careful about that. David himself is a good guy. But Spike HATES Angel.

Popular actors renegotiate their contracts and production companies threaten to kill their characters if they can't agree on terms. That's the way it's often done on TV. I think certain storylines have more to do with contracts and money than we ever suspect. Like the ending in Season 5 meant that if Gellar didn't re-sign, and for a reasonable price, that the series could probably have gone on without her. Was Connor suddenly dead because ME and VK couldn't come to an agreement on price? Did BtVS end with many Slayers so ME could carry on the franchise WITHOUT either Gellar or ED. Spike seems to be the only character they weren't willing to discard, at least this year. But that could change anytime.

[> [> Re:But, Joss did allow viewers to believe BS had sex in Chosen if they want to believe they did. -- btvsk8, 09:36:55 07/13/03 Sun

Its interesting to hear of the alternative scene in sleeper, and it kind of confirms what i thought about the writers being confined in what they could do with the B/S relationship in season seven.
I also thought that whether Buffy and Spike had sex in Chosen was left open to interpretation until I read the shooting script in which Joss says that they are dressed modestly to show that they definately did not "get sweaty". i.e. they lay chastely in each other's arms a la Touched. Which results in me being let down by another celibate heroine.

[> [> [> Re:But, Joss did allow viewers to believe BS had sex in Chosen if they want to believe they did. -- ECH, 10:26:19 07/13/03 Sun

I was not talking about that scene, I was talking about the second B/S basement scene where she comes down the stairs he stands up and they look at each other and they cut away, that was totally like the scenes from the 1940s that hollywood directors had to use to imply sex, but not show sex.

[> [> [> [> It needed clips of a rocketship launching, a train entering a dark tunnel and fireworks exploding. -- Wanton Kitten, 11:12:00 07/13/03 Sun

[> The question and the answer... -- ZachsMind, 09:52:16 07/14/03 Mon

The question is not whether or not Buffy and Spike were right for one another. I mean that's pretty darn obvious. They're not. Despite the Shippers out there wanting Buffy to find *someone* we learn in Buffy's little cookie dough speech to Angel that she wasn't ready for anybody. And that realization for Buffy is her personal climactic moment as a character. She can't see how to finalize her destiny until that moment. She's not ready. She's cookie dough. Someday maybe she'll be a cookie, but not yet. She has to finish baking.

Is she done baking when we see her smile at the end? No. But she is ready to really start. She's free in so many ways. Her journey is now her own. She can go find herself and when she's done baking, maybe then she can come back and see Angel or Spike, but by then she'll probably realize she's grown past them. Then perhaps she'll be ready for someone like Xander - not Xander specifically, too much history there. But someone who will accept her for who she is. Someone loyal. Someone who will treat her like a goddess. By then she'll realize - yes dammit. I deserve this. But not before.

The real question here, is whether Buffy was ready at the time for a relationship. And the answer is no. One could argue whether either Angel or Spike were respectively ready during their day in the sun. Personally I don't think any of these characters were psychologically mature enough to devote enough of themselves to a serious relationship. In the case of Angel & Buffy, both had their respective "careers" and had they metaphorically "tied the knot" either their relationship or their respective heroic destines would have suffered.

It's not about good or evil. It's about power, and when Buffy gives that power to the other slayers, we realize that power is about choice. Then we go back and scour through seven seasons of Buffy and we realize it's always about choices. That's your power. The power to make a choice.

In the case of Spike, he was emotionally stunted because he lacked a soul. When he finally got a soul, he realized that he was emotionally stunted. The entire final scene in "Beneath You" is about that realization.

"Why does a man do what he mustn't? For her. To be hers. To be the kind of man who would nevó To be a kind of man!"

What musn't he do? He got the soul for a selfishly selfless reason. His realization after the attempted rape was that he was incomplete. He was less of a man. He wasn't deserving of her. So he thought getting a soul would make him worthy - would make him enough of a man for her to love him so he could feel complete.

However, when he received his soul, "all it does is burn." It didn't accomplish what he thought it did, but instead put in sharp relief precisely why she could never love him. "It's what you wanted, right?!" He asks her this rhetorically, fearing that now he knows the answer. No. She never asked for this. Just like a guy never asks for socks or a loud obnoxious sweater on Christmas but that's all he sometimes gets. He thought getting a soul would be a gift for Buffy, but instead it was a curse. It put him down a road he had not anticipated travelling.

"And-and now everybody's in here, talking. Everything I did, everyone Ió and him. And it. The other... the thing... beneath... beneath you. It's here, too. Everybody... they all just tell me go. Go... to hell."

What's the Him, Spike refers to? Perhaps Angel? That's unclear. What's the IT? The First Evil. Undoubtedly. Spike could see all of it. His entire life. How he harmed so many. It was laid out before him like a quilt. He not only didn't like what he saw, but at this point in the story it was too much for him to bare. It's why he only wanted to rest. The pain was too great.

The Big Picture was bigger than Buffy, and yet he still felt tethered to her. Before the soul, from late in season four onward, Buffy became his entire world. Then he got the soul, and was shown the whole of the universe with a tiny arrow pointing at his cranium saying "you are here." His relation to the rest of the universe made him insignificant, and at the same time what terror he had done to creatures more significant than him made him feel even smaller.

So the souled Spike, though he still felt an affinity and even an attraction to Buffy, realized the picture had always been a lot larger, and he could no longer be so selfish about it. This took some time to work through. It was the equivalent of mourning the death of someone. This is a small sliver of what drove him mad initially. He had to work through all this pain and loss and confusion. Over a century of evil committed coupled with this repeated motif of failed relationships with women, from his first love prior to being turned, through Harm & Dru, to Buffy herself. It was too much for him to grapple with at first. The fact he managed to come out of that with a twinge of sanity is pretty impressive. Lesser men would have given up. We have to remember that the soulless Spike was on occasion suicidal. I don't recall he souled Spike even contemplating that Easy Out.

He probably knew better. In the Big Picture, it wouldn't have been either.

[> [> Re: The question and the answer... -- Rob, 10:27:19 07/14/03 Mon

"What's the Him, Spike refers to? Perhaps Angel? That's unclear."

At the time the ep, many of us posited (and I still believe) that the "Him" Spike is referring to here is William, or in other words, Spike's conscience, who he used to be as a human now being incorporated into his metaphysical and psychological makeup.

Rob

More July 2003 | Current board