“As for your drivel about how rapists are not demons…Mutent Enemy pandered to their Spuggy fanbase…I really can’t believe you’re defending Joss on this…I must say I’ve lost all respect for you….lobby the date rapist Andrew Luster to be released”
“The whole Angel, can rape who he wants, we still want him with Buffy, does hurt the credibility and “genuine” outrage a bit..The B/A board never cared about rape before… “- Buffy Cross and Stake Board, 2003 1
Be it on the giving end, receiving, or just coming across it, any variation on the following may be familiar to those in the online Buffyverse fandom: You’re a rapist lover. A danger to your children/family. Blinded by cheekbones or “abs”. You write to serial killers. You excuse and defend rapists. Because darn it, you didn’t react in the way that gelled with how some people felt in regards to Spuffy or Spike after the episode Seeing Red (6.19). Most recently, Heather Fowler weighs in. 2 I think her contention that the Buffy/Spike relationship sends a “dangerous” message to young people to be insular and that she unfairly misrepresents and marginalizes opposing view-points (only “casual viewers and Spikistas”?!) and selectively applies her standards. I further believe her description and take on certain elements just raises the question. Thus instead of limiting myself to answering to her own personal perspective and thesis, I tackle her analysis and the show head-on in an attempt to provide a different perspective.
Though there are still discussions of the show on the internet, I’m surprised there was an article concerning the “message” a storyline sent some four years ago. As for her article, in characterizing the Buffy/Spike relationship as “abusive”, the thesis requires omitting that Buffy initiates sex just as much, if not more, than Spike. Buffy’s unwelcome sexual acts on Spike, the verbal and emotional abuse (by real world standards), and the vicious beating of Spike from Buffy in Dead Things. My problem with it is that I believe it treats the events as if they took place in a vacuum and that it negates the mythology of the show. I avoid making an issue of these things unless somebody tries to argue one-sidedly about a character being solely in the wrong or I want to explain motivations. I don’t look at it through a “who has the moral high-ground?” tunnel. When Buffy beat the Heavens out of Spike in an alley, I didn’t think “evil”. Not “she is the abuser and he is the victim”. Just, “wow, this is the point that she is at, this is her pain.”
Still the article contends for various reasons the show sent a bad message to young viewers, at least with the portrayal of the Buffy/Spike relationship. It cites quotes and scorns fans who refer to the bathroom scene in Seeing Red “dismissively” to AR (not unusual in the Buffyverse, used in all groups). 3 Using the same standard it is bemusing, then, that there appears to be no outrage at the notion of a 100+ year old vampire in the body of a 30 year old man peering through the window of, and following around and observing, a 15 year-old girl, then eventually courting her and committing statutory rape. Moreover, where is the outrage over Xander’s attempted rape of Buffy while possessed by a hyena? Or, how about the continued relationship between Buffy and Angel after he tortured, stalked and murdered her friend(s) and while evil used what was between he and Buffy to emotionally taunt her? Giles shoots-up Buffy without her consent to render her powerless. Faith the slayer nearly strangles human Xander to death in the midst of a sexual assault. I do not bring this up as a red-herring, rather to illustrate that if clear-cut after-school-special messages from BtVS was desired, one could have saved time giving up long ago. If one takes the moral high-ground due to principle at the exclusion of reason and understanding, its easier to take seriously if that principle is applied evenly.
The thesis draws a comparison between what fans deemed “Spikistas” said in a couples messages written 4 years ago on a forum after a TV scene where an aborted event transpires between a fictional, no-conscience vampire and a fictional super-powered slayer, and citizens who place blame on real-life rape victims. I believe it is important to consider what beliefs of the perpetrators in the real-life instances generate those notions expressed regarding rape-victims, and then break-down how those truths hold up against a TV vampire before one can consider that comparison apt.
Nature of the Beasties
“Just throwing in my half a cent to say that would most definitely include me. I was very intrigued by and drawn to the S/B entanglement, and I was never a squeeing Spuffy fan girl. I thought it was daring, violent, sexy, and very, very dark. (…)I found myself up nights thinking about it. I found that it was complicated and messy and scary – like life itself – and that made me ponder it, be afraid of it, and in many ways relate to it. We all do things we shouldn’t, and many of us have had sex with the wrong people, for the wrong reasons, knowing full well that our behavior was not only self-destructive but destructive to the people around us.” (violetr, Television Without Pity, 2006) 4
I wasn’t taken by BtVS in the early seasons. Only watched the show for something to do at my dad’s as my sister attended her conference or at my mom’s when there was nothing else on during local late-night rerunning. Eventually I got into it and found Joss Whedon’s mythology fascinating. I came to my conclusions on their nature based on what I observe, many elements being universal in modern America’s take on vampire mythology. Much of which are taken for granted, such as the fact that Buffy kills these creatures instead of jailing them for their crimes, often immediately out of the grave when they have yet to commit a crime (Lie to Me, Sleeper, Lessons). How is that justified and what does it say of vampires? One can deduce, partly from hearing Angel’s perspective early in the show’s run, that at the very least they lack a conscience and the capability to view the world through human eyes. Killing them on the spot is no loss as they have no ability to be good or capacity to understand how and why. They remember through a filter what having a conscience was like. They recognize and remember laws and what humans believe is wrong, they know or can find out what can hurt humans. On the other hand vampirism doesn’t necessitate sadism (Harmony, Dalton), they aren’t always just run-of-the-mill vampire (Angelus), and often times they are just as clueless about things (Holden Webster) and brag about achievements (Spike, stabbing vampire in Fool For Love) as humans. The only non-physical hallmark of vampires is their lack of conscience and inability to understand on a human level, ie. their lack of what the Buffyverse calls the soul. It doesn’t mean they can’t “love” in their own way (Spike and Drusilla), it doesn’t mean they can’t be devoted (Spike, the vampire who burnt up for Angelus), it doesn’t mean they cannot revere (followers of the Master). Just not through the same lens as, no matter the spin, humans. If one was ever to engage in a relationship with a human being, would one – in the context of this fictional universe – expect that to suddenly change?
I didn’t, but more importantly the text canonically never indicated a change in the mythology, and it was a good story to watch because of my perspective on it. I never “shipped” them, as we call it in the Buffyverse, but I found it fascinating that Spike would try to define himself based on what he believed Buffy wanted as he always would with women he desires. I was humbled and captivated by Buffy’s pain and need to use Spike as a sort-of heroin substitute. I was intrigued by how Spike’s world collided with the self-loathing Buffy’s as her actions translated to love in Spike’s world. I was taken by the general tragedy of it all. All this big, messed-up, complex situation amounted to as a story. As I was watching it, before I became a member of the online fandom, I didn’t take a “who is wrong?/who is right?” approach because I was more interested in understanding the characters and what would become of them. Still, it didn’t mean I forgot what they were: Spike a soulless creature and Buffy a human with a conscience.
It’s the False-Dichotomy, Stupid!
I believe evil is for fairy tales like “Buffy”. I don’t think bad things we’d rather forget about or react in dumb-horror in response to are “evil”. There are reasons for everything and the truth is that while we rightly condemn people for it, examining and counter-acting conductors will be the only way to stop them. Men aren’t born rapists, after all; they can help it. Certain men choose to be. I don’t believe men who rape are evil. Not because I don’t believe it is bad or am being dismissive, but because I believe the word dehumanizes everything to which it is attributed in an attempt to feel better about ourselves and forget things like rape are all too human. What I also believe is that the “all too human” factor is what plays a major role in my analysis of not only the scene in the bathroom but the Spike/Buffy affair as a whole.
Rape is rape because it is forcing on an unwilling person. We prosecute because it is wrong, teach that it is wrong because people have the capacity to understand – not just learn and recognize – that, and let people walk the streets because there is an expectation that everybody understands and remembers, despite cultural beliefs that put the burden on women. A problem for me arises when equating creatures that have no consciences with men; it just perpetuates sexist notions in a culture that already has a tendency to absolve men of responsibility and accountability for their behavior. In Buffy, the Vampire Slayer, in fact, the crimes committed by demons are treated differently than the crimes committed by humans. The show is careful to make that distinction in many ways several times. That is where holes appear in the analogy between societal realities and a vampire in a universe that portrays both the same society fictionally and vampires. It is not dismissing Spike’s or any vampire’s behavior. It is pointing out with good reason that conditions that lead to what happened in this case in the bathroom are not the same as if it were to happen in real life or even with, say, Rupert Giles (Buffy’s watcher). What happened to Buffy is not in question, nor her pain. What Spike did is not in question, nor his accountability. But what Spike is alters my approach significantly in comparison to how I would a real man. I do believe Spike did what he did because, as a vampire informed by what he was yet lacking a conscience and capacity for human empathy to guide him, he wrongly drew from Buffy’s pain that she was in denial. I don’t believe Spike went in intending to rape Buffy or that he believed that he could over-power her. I don’t even believe Buffy believed he could actually overpower her physically since not too long afterwards she has no qualms about taking on a juiced-up character, Warren Meers. Before one’s knee jerks at that, it in no way minimizes the effect it had on Buffy. It in no way suggests that what Spike did was Buffy’s “fault”. Most importantly it doesn’t have to. While it was not Buffy’s “fault”, while she did not “deserve” it, I can’t disregard what is at that point 6 seasons of mythology because of a 45-second scene that included calculated camera angles, close-ups, and a dead silence. It does not amount to Spike having the moral-capacity, world-view, and comprehension of humans as would a man. Nor did I in any other instance regarding the show’s plot. Not because of his abs, not because of his cheekbones, it is explaining and analyzing characterization and motivation. This isn’t a defense or an excuse and to misrepresent that as “excusing a rapist”, I believe, misses the whole point on the complexities of the character/characters and story at the time that made so many people like it.
Any notion that there is a dichotomy on what a fan’s perspective can be is a construct that appears to function to manipulate, limit, and dismiss legitimate points and vilify those who hold them within the fandom. Not to say I thought including the scene was the best step for the writers to take. The irresponsibility to un-wisely include such a hot-button, struggling real-life issue to end a complex, muddied plot in vindictively punishing an audience for not swallowing the sub-textual personal hang-ups a writer or two may have had is not lost on me. Yet, my issue with them would not justify any intellectual dishonesty regarding the show.
Jane Says: “This ain’t Your Mamma’s TV Show”
“And of course anytime we talk about [the Spike and Buffy relationship], we should remember – he did a very, very bad thing.(…) I like Spike and I was very worried about the attempted rape because that is … not something you play around with. It’s very hard to come back from.(…) And it-it … We wanna-I think we have to be very careful that we are not saying anything about humans … when we say that Spike looked into his soul at that moment and saw the demon that is what made him want to go get his soul.” -Jane Espenson (Candy), 2002 5
“We just went to a real dark place, and I think this where people started to feel, ‘Okay, like the episode, like the show, but what is going on?’ I wouldn’t say that we were floundering at all, but at that point in the relationship we didn’t know where it was going. ” (Marti Noxon, SFX) 6
“I don’t feel like it’s a failure to communicate. We’ve made our case.” (Marti Noxon, O’Hare, 2002) 7
It has been stated by writer Steven DeKnight and actor James Marsters the scene was Marti Noxon’s idea, who’d attempted to force herself on a boyfriend to save a relationship. 8, 9 Not to pry into somebody’s personal life but that is significant in explaining where an idea came from and why it would seem off in the metaphorical universe. In an interview with internet radio interviewers, writer Jane Espenson said what Spike did was a very bad thing that shouldn’t be forgotten in any discussion of the Buffy/Spike relationship. Further that when the decision was made to go through with it she wanted to be careful not to be saying anything about humans (see quote above). I think it is important to hear what Ms. Espenson says in its entirety.
What is interesting was something expounded on by Jane Espenson at William and Mary College a couple years ago. Noxon put the scene on the table arguing it was used in All My children where the character Laura was raped by her significant other, Luke, in an attempt to drive the plot. Jane Espenson replied, rightly I think, that it was not 1984 anymore and no audience would accept such a device. Her contention was in vain, but her view is shared by many, some of whom also believe it just reinforced the trend of punishing Buffy for sex and was yet another example of the Rape To Redeem the Bad Girl cliché. When Marti Noxon told the press that “(they) took it to such an extreme” 10 in order to make a point it just reinforced for fans that it was just an exploitive excuse to drive the plot. Yet, for all the cliche’s and sub-textual politics, the show went on and the analysis still stands.
“More than words” …?
I believe the problem with the contention that Spike is not punished for his treatment of Buffy is that, well, he is punished in the context of the mythology that BtVS presents – he gets his soul after seeing Buffy was correct that he was evil but ends up suffering for more than he bargained for. It costs him his sanity and, ultimately, his life. An echo of Angel seasons ago. Further I disagree with the idea that an apology would have been louder and more significant than what we are shown in the seventh season. “Can’t say ‘I’m sorry’. Can’t use ‘forgive me'” is what Spike says in 7.2. Of course he can’t; I certainly would have cringed if an apology came out of his mouth as it would sound like a defense. It would also put an unfair burden on Buffy to say, “I forgive you”. It would not be Spike’s place to do so, I believe. He says, “all I can say is I have changed”.
I also don’t believe it sent any kind of message that excuses somebody for their actions. This isn’t new, rather a theme in the Buffyverse that is a complex and mythological universe; Angel had stalked, harassed, terrorized, committed murder of a friend of Buffy’s and before he went evil informed Buffy he, what we are presumed to believe, raped a woman (that was before they had sex, okay?). He was, completely unrelated to what he wrought on Buffy and her friends, sent to a Hell dimension (Becoming, P.2) by Buffy which we are told about but do not see. It wasn’t until a year later that Angel decides after three years it is best for Buffy if he leaves after helping to take down the Mayor. This is just as Spike sacrifices himself in order to close the Hellmouth after helping to fight the Uber-Vamps. In at least two episodes Spike begs Buffy to kill him and when that doesn’t work later offers to leave town in an attempt to create a safer environment. Was Mutant Enemy sending a bad message with Angel? That as long as he changes his name and rapes a different woman “all is forgiven? That statutory rape is okay as long as he is broody and you suffer for the sex? That as long as a woman goes to jail for a totally different reason it is alright to sexually assault a man?
What of Buffy? Should she have attended a rape-crisis group? Should there have been episodes of Buffy waking up from nightmares of it, like Allison on Melrose Place? Should it have been a reaction like we see on Lifetime? I’d understand how one’s mind may go straight to that given the way in which the bathroom scene was shot, but at the end of the day this is BtVS. Shouldn’t it be a reaction like that of BtVS past? Note a rape never happened. A reaction like Buffy’s and Xander’s ever on after Xander attempts to rape her while possessed? The reaction and interaction after hearing in the show’s third season that Angel fell in love with Buffy when he saw her at 15 ? Is that how all 15 year olds who were watched by older men would react? Giles shooting Buffy up; its okay after about 25 minutes of show because he had to? Portraying Buffy as the focus of a mistake after she and Angel had sex while every instance to pin Angel is trumped by how he is evil and can’t help it and gets sent to Hell? Faith violently sexually assaults Xander? Isn’t this assuming there is a “way” a rape victim is supposed to act? Claims of rape are dismissed is because the victim doesn’t “act” a certain way. 11 Was Buffy supposed to flinch at Spike’s touch all the time? Not all rape victims do. Not all victims of any sort of sexual assault do. Couldn’t one also, then, say the idea that there is a way Buffy was supposed to act is sending a bad message?
At the end of day, BtVS was a story about the human condition illustrated with vampires and demons. They are philosophical notions and symbolic portrayals. If one cannot understand, perhaps a show about vampires and demons is not something they should get into. As with all great stories, it explores concepts of redemption, belonging, forgiveness, and friendship. There were underlying messages, some of which the audiences were split about, some of which the audience or part of the audience believe was contradicted by the story, construction, and characters as a whole (for example, whether or not BtVS was feminist show; I think it never was). The reductionism, or breaking the show and fans down piece by piece and message by message based on individual morality, is mostly just fans. At most BtVS was criticized in terms of pop-culture cliché s. Anybody can choose a plot, be it Buffy/Spike or Buffy/Angel, and tell a person they are sub-moral to approach it one way, while praising and/or being dismissive of another simply because the show is just that nuanced. Or preach to high Heaven in disregard of the experiences and perspectives of another simply because its fans are from all walks of life. Or cherry-pick quotes from writers or fans, omit inconvenient facts and perspectives simply because there are just so many of them. It is their right. Anyone is allowed to have any opinion on a plot, character, relationship, to like one more than the other. But I believe it is another thing to ignore the 800-pound gorilla in the fandom that is choosing when to suspend the disbelief and when not to, choosing when Buffy is a slayer killing conscienceless vampires fresh out of the grave and when the vampire is granted the same status and expectations of a man thereby making Buffy momentarily genocidal, choosing when moral principles apply and what conditions merit it, and then defining perspectives and statements of other fans on their terms reached after the above is said and done. Then the expectation one must swallow it hook, line, and sinker simply because not doing so means you “defend a rapist” or are “pro-rapist”, no different than a certain political mentality during this wartime climate. It is pious, dishonest, and does a disservice to free expression in fandom and to analysis.
One also has a right to blanket, ridicule, and then misrepresent fans. It doesn’t exempt one from criticism, nor does it make it the true reflection of what another fan thinks simply because it is their truth … the sad truth being that if people were less reactionary and more understanding then many of these issues wouldn’t exist. That is what “destroys” camaraderie and “social order” of fandom, not merely the differing of opinions over a TV plot. But most of all, to borrow an old quote repeated by Faith the slayer, it clearly doesn’t make them better-than-thou.
Reference:
- 1 Buffy Cross and Stake Board, archives 2003, www.voy.com/13746/ (cited at All Things Philosophical on BtVS/AtS archives Aug. 2003, Shadowkat, www.voy.com/14567/ ) 2″Messages About Sex and Violence in the Buffy/Spike Realationship on Buffy, the Vampire Slayer”, by Heather Fowler. 3 Use of “AR” first Google search results: “We All Don’t Want a Spike Movie: Part Deux” The WB General (page 3) Cathyness1 and mbbthebestwww.talk.thewb.com, “Season 6 and Season 3. Is there a reason for Similarities? Spoilers for both seasons” Artemiswww.voy.com/14567/, “Buffy Season 7” Buffy, the Vampire Slayer forum (Jan. 5, 2004) DaBigDavewww.televisionwithoutpity.com 4 Buffy, the Vampire Slayer forum “Buffy Season 6” violetrwww.televisionwithoutpity.com 5 Archives, Jane Espenson, May 22, 2002 www.thesuccubusclub.com/ 6 Marti Noxon on Dead Things, by Edward Gross SFX Magazine (Year End Edition) 7 “Buffy’s Annus Horribilis”, by Kate O’Hare tv.zap2it.com/tveditorial/tve_main/1,1002,274|75999|1|,00.html 8 Creation Con, January 2003, James Marsters 9 Archives Steven DeKnight, May 8 2002, www.thesuccubusclub.com/ 10 “Buffy’s Angels: The blonde girl with cleavage really isn’t so feminist – but the men in her life are” by Allie Gottlieb www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/09.26.02/buffy1-0239.html 11 Successfully Investigating Acquaintance Sexual Assault: A National Training Manual for Law Enforcement www.vaw.umn.edu/ 12 All episodes cited property of 20 Century FOX and a product of Mutant Enemy Productions 7.2 (season 7, episode 2) “Beneath You” 7.3 (season 7, episode 3) “Same Time, Same Place” 7.4 (season 7, episode 4) “Help” 7.5 (season 7, episode 5) “Selfless” 7.6 (season 7, episode 6) “Him”
