![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
My LJ activity is pretty much restricted to the BtVS/AtS fandom, which is fine as few of my RL friends or colleagues pay any attention to what I consider to be a fascinating program. Particularly, I've been fascinated by the ways in which many of the characters and storylines transcend the genre and provide some insights into real life.
I'm about to enter some very controversial space here, because I'm going to discuss the subject of rape. Primarily, some opinions and observations I've developed and refined in the wake of Spike's sexual assault upon Buffy in the episode "Seeing Red". It's a hot-button issue. A lot of people have very passionate opinions, both about the subject and the characters. My friends list is by-and-large restricted to a certain subset of the fandom, and I suspect I'm not likely to get flamed, but you never know.
I'm a 27 year old single male. I do not have personal or professional experience with Rape or Rape counseling. My understanding of the psychological factors and pathologies that influence rape are secondhand. Information I picked up from rape awareness seminars, or through friends of mine in the University of Michigan School of Social Work. I'd consider myself somewhat informed, but I'm not an authority on the subject.
There have been many a kerfluffle on the subject of Joss Whedon's portrayal of rape, and after some reflection, I wanted to clarify my own opinions on the subject.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION: What about the attempted rape of Buffy by Spike?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHEDON: That was the writers' ambivalence projected onto the screen. I wanted to show that the two could move back to a relationship of trust. It’s all about Spike taking responsibility and redeeming himself. Demonizing real rapists is bad, because it dehumanizes them and they are no longer responsible for their actions. People are complex.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've seen several different arguments in favor of Spike's ability to seek redemption, and rather than go too deeply into that, I'll begin by focusing on the nature of some of the within Season 6 "Redemptionista" defenses. First I'll start with Spike's efforts to "pull Buffy over to the dark side in Season 6, which I consider the precursor to the actual attempted rape. I'm borrowing my defense from comments made by Laura in her essay "Why Redemption?" from All About Spike.
A) Spike tried to pull Buffy to the "dark side"
Personally, I don’t find this an adequate defense. Buffy does have the right to not be in love with Spike, and she has the right to “refuse to allow him to join her in the light” if she so wishes. In attempting to “join her in the light” Spike seeks to court and woo Buffy. In trying to encourage her darkness, something which clearly causes her a great deal of trauma, Spike is moving beyond wooing. Regardless of the pain of Spike’s unrequited love, and regardless of whether or not Buffy is “repressing her own darkness” she is an individual and has the right to do so. By behaving in this manner, Spike indicates either a clear lack of interest or of respect for Buffy’s rights as a person to determine what she wants her life to be.
B) Spike tried to rape Buffy in "Seeing Red"
But Spike’s behavior, and his redemption must still be about Spike. Buffy’s violence and rejection, while a mitigating factor in Spike’s breakdown, can in no way serve as an excuse or defense. Regardless of how inappropriate or awful Buffy’s behavior may be, she is an individual and has the right to not be in love with Spike, and even if she is in love with Spike, has the right to refuse to allow him into her body if she so wishes to refuse. Spike may well have had a nervous breakdown, but his right to have a breakdown, and to express the pain of unrequited love, ends at Buffy’s bathrobe. In attempting to rape her, he is fundamentally attempting to deny her right to personhood – the right to determine the course of her own life.
His efforts to “pull her to the Dark Side” and his attempt to rape Buffy are still severe obstacles to address, and I'm not certain Whedon ever did so adequately. If indeed Spike has the right as an individual to love Buffy in the manner he sees fit, than Buffy also has a corresponding right to love or not love Spike in the manner she chooses to see fit. Regardless of how improper one views Buffy’s rejection and violent behavior toward Spike, and regardless of how one chooses to criticize the character of Buffy’s friends, only Spike’s behavior is relevant in determining whether or not he is to be redeemed.
There is great ambiguity in what exactly Spike seems to understand in his quest to get the soul. His tests appear to be purely physical in nature, so one cannot assume that Spike fully understood that Buffy indeed does have the right as an individual to not love him as he wants her to. Personally, I feel that this understanding is a critical aspect of Spike’s journey toward redemption. How can one possibly be a good individual, if one does not recognize within others, the same rights that you wish to have?
The story Whedon tells requires Spike to be stamped as redeemed and as Buffy's champion for the final battle. How well, if at all, this was accomplished to that point, I think is very much open to debate. Even if Buffy does love Spike, and does want to have a relationship with him, it is still critical that Spike finally understand that she is a woman in her own right, not an object to be possessed, and that she has a legitimate right to have wants and needs that do not include him. In the finale, when Buffy says "I love you" to Spike, he replies "no you don't but thanks for saying it." Is this, at last an acknowledgment? According to both Joss Whedon and James Marsters it is. So, I suppose we have to take it as a given. Whedon says that Spike has been redeemed of his crimes, both as a Vampire and as an attempted rapist. And as it is Whedon's universe, if he says Spike is redeemed, than so he is.
Perhaps he has achieved this understanding, and perhaps he has not. It is not explicitly given in the text either way, so I feel that the ambiguity must be acknowledged even if one wishes to believe the best of Spike.
Redemption through Free Will?
The "Redemptionista" defense of Spike, and of his ability to seek redemption stems from a belief in free will. The belief that our lives are not predetermined by what we are, and that any seeker can find forgiveness no matter how grave the offense. Yet, many Redemptionista defenses for Spike's act do not merely mitigate Spike’s “evil” choices but spread blame onto Buffy herself for “repressing her darkness”, on her friends for not being adequately attentive to her needs as Spike seeks to bring her into the darkness, and then on Buffy again for abusing Spike physically and engaging in a relationship that included violent sex and the occasional nonconsensual sex game. In the process of doing so, one undermines the role of Spike’s own free will. If one is to give him full credit and ownership for his capacity to be good and do good deeds, one must also give him credit and full ownership for his capacity to be evil and commit evil deeds.
And one must be able to view Buffy, not merely as a love object to be possessed, but as an independent individual with the right to love or to not love Spike in the manner in which she prefers – and not in the manner in which Spike prefers. To deny Buffy these rights, or at the minimum to not show an understanding of these rights, undermines Spike’s own rights to the same prerogatives, regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with her behavior. And fundamentally undermines the free will argument for defense of Spike's crimes.
And yet sexual assault is such an abhorrent crime that if Spike were to truly have full ownersip of that crime, one would be hard pressed to forgive him. It is no surprise that few pro-redemption defenses do this; Whedon himself does not do so.
But he has a soul now!
Whedon builds in an additional out clause for Spike - namely that Spike, as a soulless vampire, does not have the tools to make a moral decision and is less culpable for his crime. In getting a soul, Spike has removed the primary argument against the fear that he would repeat such a crime. Unfortunately, this is undermined by the portrayal of the relationship in Season 6. The writers don't use the fact that Spike is a vampire to inform his characterization - they focus on his immaturity and lack of understanding Buffy - but very little of it seems to have anything to do with the fact that he's a soulless demon. Indeed, in Tabula Rasa, a Spike with no memory of being a vampire exhibits no demonic instincts.
The sexual assault is also cast entirely without metaphor. Spike never shifts into his vampire face or displays vampiric instincts. There is nothing to indicate that Spike is anything other than a man or that Buffy is anything other than a woman. Essentially, the sexual assault is shown as coming from the most human parts of Spike - and that in the moment, it had nothing to do with the demon. So the reaction that Spike was then a soulless demon, that one really couldn't expect more out of him, and that his acquiring of a soul renders immediately worthy of forgiveness does not seem particularly appropriate. This reluctance is further bolstered by the nature of the "tests" Spike endures to get his soul - he engages in combat and is subjected to physical torture - things that he is generally accustomed to and do not pose tremendous moral or metaphysical challenges for him.
From Sex Offender to Hero...
In telling the story of how a rapist may come to be redeemed, Whedon sets Spike out to be the Hero of Season 7. It will be his sacrifice that saves Sunnydale from the Ubervamps and the First Evil. Due to these "facts on the ground" - Spike's grand gesture - it becomes very hard to speak out against Spike's redemption. Knowing this in advance, does Whedon still do the necessary work to achieve his goal irrespective of the grand sacrifice - namely to redeem Spike of his crime of rape through dealing with that very crime? Does he avoid sending a dangerous message, that it is okay for Buffy to "rebuild a relationship of trust" with the man who tried to rape her in her own bathroom? Whedon actually, makes this an even bigger challenge, because Episode 7.20 Touched will instruct the audience that not only should Buffy trust Spike, but that Spike is actually the only person she should trust. Naturally, given the sensitive subject of rape, this is quite the challenge.
In essence, Whedon says - the story of Buffy and Spike, of their new trusting relationship is beautiful - and a sign that perpetrators of sex crimes can rebuild trust. That a rapist can and should be forgiven, almost immediately upon any indication of remorse. And that steps like counseling or therapy, are unnecessary for both victim and perpetrator, whether or not ever either express any understanding or greater awareness of the nature of the crime. Unfortunately, this message does not transcend the genre, as Spike's efforts to regain his soul did not involve a challenge or test corresponding to the sins he was attempting to redeem, nor was Spike ever portrayed as fully understanding nature of his offenses against Buffy.
Whedon's Dangerous Message...
Whedon's message runs counter to almost every study conducted on the subject of rape. In failing to hold Spike fully responsible for the attempted rape, and in failing to more fully explore an understanding of the pathologies that led Spike to commit a sexual assault, Whedon fails to firmly establish his message. ("Demonizing real rapists is bad, because it dehumanizes them and they are no longer responsible for their actions.") I find this particularly alarming considering Whedon once wrote the Season 2 episode Lie to Me, in which he sends an opposing message with a great deal of skill. In that episode, Whedon features a group of teens who worship and exalt Vampires as "the lonely ones". Whedon exposes the naïveté of these children when the vampires are revealed as the gleeful murderers they are. And though Whedon shows that not all Vampires are gleeful murders (Angel is presented as a good guy) he ensures that the Sunset Club attendees become aware of the realities of life. In the case of Spike, Whedon fails to present the reality - namely that while Spike may be a redeemed sex offender, most sex offenders never achieve victory over the pathologies that lead them to commit the offenses.
Ultimately, I find Whedon's presentation of Spike's redemption as displayed by his place as Buffy''s champion and most highly trusted ally to be quite troublesome. As Ducks noted:
In the haste to pronounce Spike "redeemed" of his offense, Whedon downplays the seriousness of Spike's crime and does not explore why Spike would commit such a crime, in fact robbing Spike of the ability to truly triumph over his pathology. Furthermore, in telling the audience that Spike must be forgiven, Whedon does not allow his heroine, the victim, the opportunity to work through the trauma of sexual assault on her own pace, and indeed, hardly explores her feelings on the matter. Given that rape stems from the denial of the victims personhood, it should not be surprising that many (myself included) find this follow-through doubly offensive.
Whedon and his writers have claimed that Spike's love for Buffy was deep and powerful. The Redemptionista expands, claiming that:
And yet, Spike triumphs over this great love to inflict a sexual assault upon the object he desires - and he does so in the name of that very love. He does so, despite her claims that she has never loved him, and despite her cessation of their relationship months before. No matter how you slice it, that's fundamentally true. It happened onscreen and one can't run away from it. It's likely the single most heinous act ever presented by any of the heroes or villains of the series, and to deny that trivializes both sexual assault and the individuals involved in the crime. And despite his stated intentions, Whedon has done exactly that. In his haste to show that Spike and Buffy can rebuild a relationship, he completely avoids delving into just how serious the crime of sexual assault is, and how incongruous the claim of Spike as powerfully loving is in the face of such a pernicious act. For an artist trying to use his show to make a statement about the redemption of a sexual offender, Whedon fails to accurately address the crime, and fails to address the efforts required for an offender to achieve or even seek redemption.
Words of Warning
I won't tell you not to forgive someone who has attacked you. I won't tell you to not try to rebuild a relationship with someone who has attacked you. I won't tell you that your rapist is incapable of loving you. But unlike Whedon, I *will* stress how important it is to fully explore the reasons why such an attack occurred, how important it is that the perpetrator fully appreciate and understand the nature of the offense, and how critical it is to set clear boundaries before engaging in any future interaction. Buffy's forgiveness and succor of Spike is admirable, even though it comes at the expense of her other frayed relationships, and even at great risk to the safety of everyone around her. However, despite Whedon's presentation, this is not something to be tried at home. Neither Spike nor Buffy have owned up to the seriousness of the offense, and neither Spike nor Buffy have indicated a firm understanding of the behaviors and pathologies that led to such an event. Without such an understanding, there is no guarantee that either will be able to successfully avoid a repeat of these behaviors in the future. Rape is quite frequently a pattern of larger abuse, and such patterns are very difficult to break out of. Just because Whedon says that Buffy and Spike have done so, despite doing no where near the type of work needed for the effort, in no way indicates that it should apply to real life situations.
I won't tell you not to like Spike, if you do. I won't tell you not to like Spike+Buffy as a couple, if you do. But be forewarned - there is little in their interactions to indicate that either has truly escaped the pathology that would lead Spike to sexually assault Buffy, or that Buffy has truly overcome that attack. But don't tell me that Whedon's portrayal of the romantic pairing of Spike+Buffy does not trivialize rape and the associated pathologies. It most assuredly does. Like them all you want, but don't be blind to that reality.
It's just a TV show. I'll concede as much. However, Joss Whedon set out to create a cultural icon, is quite proud of that fact, and has generated quite a significant amount of revenue and public acclaim in the process. In that vein, metaphorically, Spike has become the sick patient who never really conquers his illness because nobody will call him on his refusal to take the necessary medication, least of all himself. In real life, we worry about such a patient, hoping, praying and pretending that he'll be okay but waiting for the other shoe to drop - because he isn't doing what he needs to do to get better. In Whedon's fantasy we can smile, say he's just fine, and send him on his way. In addition to being a terrible message to send to victims and perpetrators of serious crimes, it's also a terrible artistic failure for a writer who Whedon set out to produce genre shows that related better to reality than traditional drama did.
I suspect that both young women and young men would find themselves on very dangerous ground if they looked at Buffy and Spike's relationship, as portrayed by Joss Whedon and Mutant Enemy, as a positive model or guideline for their own lives.
I'm about to enter some very controversial space here, because I'm going to discuss the subject of rape. Primarily, some opinions and observations I've developed and refined in the wake of Spike's sexual assault upon Buffy in the episode "Seeing Red". It's a hot-button issue. A lot of people have very passionate opinions, both about the subject and the characters. My friends list is by-and-large restricted to a certain subset of the fandom, and I suspect I'm not likely to get flamed, but you never know.
I'm a 27 year old single male. I do not have personal or professional experience with Rape or Rape counseling. My understanding of the psychological factors and pathologies that influence rape are secondhand. Information I picked up from rape awareness seminars, or through friends of mine in the University of Michigan School of Social Work. I'd consider myself somewhat informed, but I'm not an authority on the subject.
There have been many a kerfluffle on the subject of Joss Whedon's portrayal of rape, and after some reflection, I wanted to clarify my own opinions on the subject.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION: What about the attempted rape of Buffy by Spike?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHEDON: That was the writers' ambivalence projected onto the screen. I wanted to show that the two could move back to a relationship of trust. It’s all about Spike taking responsibility and redeeming himself. Demonizing real rapists is bad, because it dehumanizes them and they are no longer responsible for their actions. People are complex.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've seen several different arguments in favor of Spike's ability to seek redemption, and rather than go too deeply into that, I'll begin by focusing on the nature of some of the within Season 6 "Redemptionista" defenses. First I'll start with Spike's efforts to "pull Buffy over to the dark side in Season 6, which I consider the precursor to the actual attempted rape. I'm borrowing my defense from comments made by Laura in her essay "Why Redemption?" from All About Spike.
A) Spike tried to pull Buffy to the "dark side"
Yeah, but only after she refused to allow him to join her in the light. Spike is the one who wanted to talk things out, who wanted to be let into her life, who wanted to be "a man" for her. When she refused to allow him to do so, he encouraged her darkness -- the darkness that was already there, in Buffy, and which she needs to come to terms with and stop repressing if she's ever going to grow as a person. He also tried to separate her from her friends--the same friends who had just ripped her out of heaven so that she could take care of them and give their lives meaning ... then refused to take any responsibility for their behavior or to even speak to Buffy about it. (Pardon me for not caring).
Personally, I don’t find this an adequate defense. Buffy does have the right to not be in love with Spike, and she has the right to “refuse to allow him to join her in the light” if she so wishes. In attempting to “join her in the light” Spike seeks to court and woo Buffy. In trying to encourage her darkness, something which clearly causes her a great deal of trauma, Spike is moving beyond wooing. Regardless of the pain of Spike’s unrequited love, and regardless of whether or not Buffy is “repressing her own darkness” she is an individual and has the right to do so. By behaving in this manner, Spike indicates either a clear lack of interest or of respect for Buffy’s rights as a person to determine what she wants her life to be.
B) Spike tried to rape Buffy in "Seeing Red"
After she physically and mentally abused him for months. Yes, Spike did a horrible thing--a horrible things that humans with souls are also capable of. That scene was not about Spike getting off on hurting and overpowering Buffy; it was about Spike having a nervous breakdown after months of abuse.
But Spike’s behavior, and his redemption must still be about Spike. Buffy’s violence and rejection, while a mitigating factor in Spike’s breakdown, can in no way serve as an excuse or defense. Regardless of how inappropriate or awful Buffy’s behavior may be, she is an individual and has the right to not be in love with Spike, and even if she is in love with Spike, has the right to refuse to allow him into her body if she so wishes to refuse. Spike may well have had a nervous breakdown, but his right to have a breakdown, and to express the pain of unrequited love, ends at Buffy’s bathrobe. In attempting to rape her, he is fundamentally attempting to deny her right to personhood – the right to determine the course of her own life.
His efforts to “pull her to the Dark Side” and his attempt to rape Buffy are still severe obstacles to address, and I'm not certain Whedon ever did so adequately. If indeed Spike has the right as an individual to love Buffy in the manner he sees fit, than Buffy also has a corresponding right to love or not love Spike in the manner she chooses to see fit. Regardless of how improper one views Buffy’s rejection and violent behavior toward Spike, and regardless of how one chooses to criticize the character of Buffy’s friends, only Spike’s behavior is relevant in determining whether or not he is to be redeemed.
There is great ambiguity in what exactly Spike seems to understand in his quest to get the soul. His tests appear to be purely physical in nature, so one cannot assume that Spike fully understood that Buffy indeed does have the right as an individual to not love him as he wants her to. Personally, I feel that this understanding is a critical aspect of Spike’s journey toward redemption. How can one possibly be a good individual, if one does not recognize within others, the same rights that you wish to have?
The story Whedon tells requires Spike to be stamped as redeemed and as Buffy's champion for the final battle. How well, if at all, this was accomplished to that point, I think is very much open to debate. Even if Buffy does love Spike, and does want to have a relationship with him, it is still critical that Spike finally understand that she is a woman in her own right, not an object to be possessed, and that she has a legitimate right to have wants and needs that do not include him. In the finale, when Buffy says "I love you" to Spike, he replies "no you don't but thanks for saying it." Is this, at last an acknowledgment? According to both Joss Whedon and James Marsters it is. So, I suppose we have to take it as a given. Whedon says that Spike has been redeemed of his crimes, both as a Vampire and as an attempted rapist. And as it is Whedon's universe, if he says Spike is redeemed, than so he is.
Perhaps he has achieved this understanding, and perhaps he has not. It is not explicitly given in the text either way, so I feel that the ambiguity must be acknowledged even if one wishes to believe the best of Spike.
Redemption through Free Will?
The "Redemptionista" defense of Spike, and of his ability to seek redemption stems from a belief in free will. The belief that our lives are not predetermined by what we are, and that any seeker can find forgiveness no matter how grave the offense. Yet, many Redemptionista defenses for Spike's act do not merely mitigate Spike’s “evil” choices but spread blame onto Buffy herself for “repressing her darkness”, on her friends for not being adequately attentive to her needs as Spike seeks to bring her into the darkness, and then on Buffy again for abusing Spike physically and engaging in a relationship that included violent sex and the occasional nonconsensual sex game. In the process of doing so, one undermines the role of Spike’s own free will. If one is to give him full credit and ownership for his capacity to be good and do good deeds, one must also give him credit and full ownership for his capacity to be evil and commit evil deeds.
And one must be able to view Buffy, not merely as a love object to be possessed, but as an independent individual with the right to love or to not love Spike in the manner in which she prefers – and not in the manner in which Spike prefers. To deny Buffy these rights, or at the minimum to not show an understanding of these rights, undermines Spike’s own rights to the same prerogatives, regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with her behavior. And fundamentally undermines the free will argument for defense of Spike's crimes.
And yet sexual assault is such an abhorrent crime that if Spike were to truly have full ownersip of that crime, one would be hard pressed to forgive him. It is no surprise that few pro-redemption defenses do this; Whedon himself does not do so.
But he has a soul now!
Whedon builds in an additional out clause for Spike - namely that Spike, as a soulless vampire, does not have the tools to make a moral decision and is less culpable for his crime. In getting a soul, Spike has removed the primary argument against the fear that he would repeat such a crime. Unfortunately, this is undermined by the portrayal of the relationship in Season 6. The writers don't use the fact that Spike is a vampire to inform his characterization - they focus on his immaturity and lack of understanding Buffy - but very little of it seems to have anything to do with the fact that he's a soulless demon. Indeed, in Tabula Rasa, a Spike with no memory of being a vampire exhibits no demonic instincts.
The sexual assault is also cast entirely without metaphor. Spike never shifts into his vampire face or displays vampiric instincts. There is nothing to indicate that Spike is anything other than a man or that Buffy is anything other than a woman. Essentially, the sexual assault is shown as coming from the most human parts of Spike - and that in the moment, it had nothing to do with the demon. So the reaction that Spike was then a soulless demon, that one really couldn't expect more out of him, and that his acquiring of a soul renders immediately worthy of forgiveness does not seem particularly appropriate. This reluctance is further bolstered by the nature of the "tests" Spike endures to get his soul - he engages in combat and is subjected to physical torture - things that he is generally accustomed to and do not pose tremendous moral or metaphysical challenges for him.
From Sex Offender to Hero...
In telling the story of how a rapist may come to be redeemed, Whedon sets Spike out to be the Hero of Season 7. It will be his sacrifice that saves Sunnydale from the Ubervamps and the First Evil. Due to these "facts on the ground" - Spike's grand gesture - it becomes very hard to speak out against Spike's redemption. Knowing this in advance, does Whedon still do the necessary work to achieve his goal irrespective of the grand sacrifice - namely to redeem Spike of his crime of rape through dealing with that very crime? Does he avoid sending a dangerous message, that it is okay for Buffy to "rebuild a relationship of trust" with the man who tried to rape her in her own bathroom? Whedon actually, makes this an even bigger challenge, because Episode 7.20 Touched will instruct the audience that not only should Buffy trust Spike, but that Spike is actually the only person she should trust. Naturally, given the sensitive subject of rape, this is quite the challenge.
In essence, Whedon says - the story of Buffy and Spike, of their new trusting relationship is beautiful - and a sign that perpetrators of sex crimes can rebuild trust. That a rapist can and should be forgiven, almost immediately upon any indication of remorse. And that steps like counseling or therapy, are unnecessary for both victim and perpetrator, whether or not ever either express any understanding or greater awareness of the nature of the crime. Unfortunately, this message does not transcend the genre, as Spike's efforts to regain his soul did not involve a challenge or test corresponding to the sins he was attempting to redeem, nor was Spike ever portrayed as fully understanding nature of his offenses against Buffy.
Whedon's Dangerous Message...
Whedon's message runs counter to almost every study conducted on the subject of rape. In failing to hold Spike fully responsible for the attempted rape, and in failing to more fully explore an understanding of the pathologies that led Spike to commit a sexual assault, Whedon fails to firmly establish his message. ("Demonizing real rapists is bad, because it dehumanizes them and they are no longer responsible for their actions.") I find this particularly alarming considering Whedon once wrote the Season 2 episode Lie to Me, in which he sends an opposing message with a great deal of skill. In that episode, Whedon features a group of teens who worship and exalt Vampires as "the lonely ones". Whedon exposes the naïveté of these children when the vampires are revealed as the gleeful murderers they are. And though Whedon shows that not all Vampires are gleeful murders (Angel is presented as a good guy) he ensures that the Sunset Club attendees become aware of the realities of life. In the case of Spike, Whedon fails to present the reality - namely that while Spike may be a redeemed sex offender, most sex offenders never achieve victory over the pathologies that lead them to commit the offenses.
Ultimately, I find Whedon's presentation of Spike's redemption as displayed by his place as Buffy''s champion and most highly trusted ally to be quite troublesome. As Ducks noted:
"The most disturbing part of all of this is the message it sends to young, impressionable fans. Joss says, essentially, that it's okay for your ex-boyfriend to try to rape you, so long as he's really, really sorry afterward. And you shouldn't vilify him for trying to rape you... you should try to rebuild a "physical, non-sexual" relationship... because as long as you're not having sex anymore, it's okay. Don't be angry with him... he deserves your forgiveness and support."
In the haste to pronounce Spike "redeemed" of his offense, Whedon downplays the seriousness of Spike's crime and does not explore why Spike would commit such a crime, in fact robbing Spike of the ability to truly triumph over his pathology. Furthermore, in telling the audience that Spike must be forgiven, Whedon does not allow his heroine, the victim, the opportunity to work through the trauma of sexual assault on her own pace, and indeed, hardly explores her feelings on the matter. Given that rape stems from the denial of the victims personhood, it should not be surprising that many (myself included) find this follow-through doubly offensive.
Whedon and his writers have claimed that Spike's love for Buffy was deep and powerful. The Redemptionista expands, claiming that:
"Spike loves more completely and powerfully than any other character on the show."
And yet, Spike triumphs over this great love to inflict a sexual assault upon the object he desires - and he does so in the name of that very love. He does so, despite her claims that she has never loved him, and despite her cessation of their relationship months before. No matter how you slice it, that's fundamentally true. It happened onscreen and one can't run away from it. It's likely the single most heinous act ever presented by any of the heroes or villains of the series, and to deny that trivializes both sexual assault and the individuals involved in the crime. And despite his stated intentions, Whedon has done exactly that. In his haste to show that Spike and Buffy can rebuild a relationship, he completely avoids delving into just how serious the crime of sexual assault is, and how incongruous the claim of Spike as powerfully loving is in the face of such a pernicious act. For an artist trying to use his show to make a statement about the redemption of a sexual offender, Whedon fails to accurately address the crime, and fails to address the efforts required for an offender to achieve or even seek redemption.
Words of Warning
I won't tell you not to forgive someone who has attacked you. I won't tell you to not try to rebuild a relationship with someone who has attacked you. I won't tell you that your rapist is incapable of loving you. But unlike Whedon, I *will* stress how important it is to fully explore the reasons why such an attack occurred, how important it is that the perpetrator fully appreciate and understand the nature of the offense, and how critical it is to set clear boundaries before engaging in any future interaction. Buffy's forgiveness and succor of Spike is admirable, even though it comes at the expense of her other frayed relationships, and even at great risk to the safety of everyone around her. However, despite Whedon's presentation, this is not something to be tried at home. Neither Spike nor Buffy have owned up to the seriousness of the offense, and neither Spike nor Buffy have indicated a firm understanding of the behaviors and pathologies that led to such an event. Without such an understanding, there is no guarantee that either will be able to successfully avoid a repeat of these behaviors in the future. Rape is quite frequently a pattern of larger abuse, and such patterns are very difficult to break out of. Just because Whedon says that Buffy and Spike have done so, despite doing no where near the type of work needed for the effort, in no way indicates that it should apply to real life situations.
I won't tell you not to like Spike, if you do. I won't tell you not to like Spike+Buffy as a couple, if you do. But be forewarned - there is little in their interactions to indicate that either has truly escaped the pathology that would lead Spike to sexually assault Buffy, or that Buffy has truly overcome that attack. But don't tell me that Whedon's portrayal of the romantic pairing of Spike+Buffy does not trivialize rape and the associated pathologies. It most assuredly does. Like them all you want, but don't be blind to that reality.
It's just a TV show. I'll concede as much. However, Joss Whedon set out to create a cultural icon, is quite proud of that fact, and has generated quite a significant amount of revenue and public acclaim in the process. In that vein, metaphorically, Spike has become the sick patient who never really conquers his illness because nobody will call him on his refusal to take the necessary medication, least of all himself. In real life, we worry about such a patient, hoping, praying and pretending that he'll be okay but waiting for the other shoe to drop - because he isn't doing what he needs to do to get better. In Whedon's fantasy we can smile, say he's just fine, and send him on his way. In addition to being a terrible message to send to victims and perpetrators of serious crimes, it's also a terrible artistic failure for a writer who Whedon set out to produce genre shows that related better to reality than traditional drama did.
I suspect that both young women and young men would find themselves on very dangerous ground if they looked at Buffy and Spike's relationship, as portrayed by Joss Whedon and Mutant Enemy, as a positive model or guideline for their own lives.
no subject
no subject
BUT. We also have to remember that Spike is the soul-empty vamp that is no more. If anything, I'm pissed that they just souled him and said "enough of discussing important things already."
Its important to me to make the distinction between the two -- Spike and Will!Spike.
Of course. I stopped watching after S:6 (even though I'm debating on getting back into it, just to see the ending) So I don't really know what happened in S:7 or how Will!Spike was handled...
But I can see how women can ship Will!Spike/Buffy....
Anyhoo. I'm rambling. Shutting up now...
no subject
My issue isn't even with SPIKE, perse, or even Spuffy. It's the way the ship was handled by the people in charge. Rapists are not "complex people" as Joss seems to believe. In fact, they're pretty damned simple. They're sexual predators. They want power and control and they use sex to get it. They are the criminals most likely to repeat offend, least likely to respond to treatment of any kind, and therefore among most dangerous to let back into society. Studies have not even shown *castration* to be an effective punishment/deterrent, since it is well known that rape is a crime of violence, and not sex. A large number of rapists never even have actual intercourse with their victim, and many don't ejaculate.
But see, none of this matters to Joss. Because he souled Spike immediately after he tried to rape Buffy, and thereby gave him a free pass to forgiveness and Buffy's bed. In real life, rapists can't buy souls. And by making a comment like "we shouldn't demonize them" Joss shows how little he knows or cares to know about the topics he writes about to earn his fucking paycheck. If you won't demonize a sexual predator, Joss, exactly who WILL you demonize? I don't personally give a shit about the "message" he's sending with this crap, I long ago realized he has a half assed view of gender relations, and needed some serious psychological intervention. What worries me is that he actually *believes* this shit he spouts. Now that? Is way more scary than Spike.
no subject
no subject
I find the forgiveness/excuse for Spike - "Oh, lookie, we have a soul now so he's not reponsible" reprehensible.
Thank you Kita for your words. You nailed it dead on - as usual.
OT light comment on the music of choice...
Edited to Read Nicer
Joss Whendon gave Liam three personas. Spike was given two. Here lies the difference between them and redemption.
Liam, the idiotic naive whoring boy we can compare that to William the bad poet with a love for his mother. Thus there is no true difference we can accurately compare with. Different mortal men, different lives, different centuries. Moving on.
Joss then gives us Angelus, Scourge of Europe, evil vampire extrodinaire. Now exhibit William the Bloody or Spike by later years for affections of torturing with railroad spikes. Again only difference is age and sire and at this point trivial. We had mortals, and now demons inhabiting their dead bodies. One more jump to go.
In the final role of developing these two vampires Joss gave them souls. Angelus becomes Angel, a very miserable creature with so much grief he wallows in alleyways and feeds off of rats because human blood horrifies him.
However Spike is still Spike.
He doesn't get a new name, he is not with a soul made known to be any different. Spike does not ask to be known as William or Willy or Will or the other possible names that could stem from William. He does not find it distasteful to be labelled by the vampire's awarded name for cruelty.
There is no calling to the fact that there is a soul, a change, a difference in him. No one appears to recognize that there is a soul there. Except a few trivial times in the beginning where he blames her for his soul.
Spike remains just like before, the bleached blonde vampire who doesn't show much of anything but the enjoyment of antagonizing others. And this is after he's crazy! He's sane! Able to damn well make conscious choices on who he and what he is.
In Buffy season two, we got amazing leather pants and an attitude for Angelus. As Angel we lost those outward appearances that Angelus had taken on. The only thing unexplained to be either Liam/Angel/Angelus is the gryphon tattoo which ultimately is the only remaining outward decorative that stays the same. Spike still loves Wood's mother's jacket, still bleaches his hair, and occasionally smokes. The only time his appearance is not Spike like was during the time he was in the basement of the school. That changes though and he's once again looking like a cool badass.
Angel grieved, tried to kill himself to keep himself away from others and the danger he represented as Angelus. To be a vampire, is almost worthy of shame to Angel. Spike however doesn't seem weighed down by grief, granted a soul shouldn't mean pain and hardship but he should feel sorry that those people are dead. The only grief exhibited was during the trivial time in the highschool's basement.
Joss Whendon has not given the viewers of this television show any true way to prove that there is a soul in Spike. He is the vampire he was, and hasn't changed except by his own saying so and a vague probably misleading. "I want to give her what she deserves."
Where is Spike's third persona? Where is proof of his soul?
Meghan
Re: OT light comment on the music of choice...
I've got that ol' massive collection thing going. And my jukebox did come up Hysteria upon loading when I was preparing to post.
I'm oddly tempted to try to match song titles thematically with my posts. The coincidence was to convenient to pass up.
no subject
Buffy never got the chance to work through the issues. The fans were not *allowed* to work through the issues.
Instead we were forced to deal with newly ensoulled Spike, who was NOT shown to have any major differences to unsoulled Spike, and told that the Attempted Rape couldn't be held against him. Otherwise *WE* would be the hypocrites.
Bullshit. I am still offended. Spuffy is still wrong. Thank the Gods that there was no romantic Spuffy shown in season 7. What we were forced to deal with was offensive enough, thank you very much.
And thank you DL....you rock!
*hugs*
-Lucinda
no subject
WORD on everything. See. I brought up what you were trying to say, and you said everything I wanted to say. *G* Worked out pretty well. :)
boting nods of agreement
Given that rape stems from the denial of the victims personhood, it should not be surprising that many (myself included) find this follow-through doubly offensive.
I was never anti-b/s, but I did not like the subtle and not-so subtle disempowerment that chracterized s4-s7 BtVS.
word to kita about b/s shippers blaming the victim. spike is a fictional character, but the people who defend him by blaming the victim (ultimately, simply for not loving him) they are scary.
ot: I love your new (first?) fic at the BB DLgood
and I too have known grad school at umich...
Re: boting nods of agreement
and I too have known grad school at umich...
Did you become as tired of "Hail to the Victors" (the Fight Song) as I did?
Re: boring nods of agreement
The whole thing
Anyway. I work with a lot of women who've been raped. I work with prostitutes. I work with women afraid for their lives because of the men they'd been with. I didn't want to see my work sullying what I considered to be a great female character hero, so I stopped watching BtVS. It hurt too much.
So, I heard about "Seeing Red" before I saw it. I did hear about it. I was shocked and amazed that M.E. would let the story go that far. I was even more disheartened by the comments from Spike fen that I read at the WB posting board. "If she'd just let him finish it, she would've liked it." "Why'd she break up with him anyway, he looooves her so much." Not one of them seemed to think that at attempted rape was a bad thing. If anything, Buffy got what she deserved, or, because she fended him off, didn't let Spike get what he deserved, post-coital bliss on the bathroom floor.
I agree with your comments. Buffy is in serious need of therapy after everything that's happened to her in the past few years. Of course, where she's gonna find a therapist who isn't automatically calling for the "nice young men in their clean white coats" when she starts talking about Hellmouths, vampires and Slayers is a good point. Too bad the Council got destroyed. Maybe they had staff psychiatrists to help...of course, since they seemed mostly mysogynistic creatures, I shouldn't expect any help from that quarter, either.
--S J Smith
Responding slowly enough
Well that's the big problem, isn't it. Spike's the guy, who never really fixes his own problems, because nobody ever calls him on his shit, least of all himself.
In real life, we tiptoe around him, hoping and pretending he'll be okay, and just waiting and waiting for that other shoe to drop - because he hasn't really gotten any better. In Whedon's fantasy we can smile and say he's redeemed.
Which, in addition to being a terrible message to send to fans of you "cultural icon", is also a terrible mistake for a writer who prided himself writing genre shows that related better to reality than the traditional drama did.
Blaming Buffy
It seems popular among the less reasonable Spike fans to claim that Buffy "drove" Spike to his rape attempt through her bad treatment of him. In an attempt to be fair, even those condemning Spike admit that Buffy is not blameless, that their relationship was mutually abusive.
What no one seems to question is whether or not Buffy could be held responsible for her behavior. She began S6 severely traumatized: she had been ripped from Heaven and forced to dig out of her own grave, only to be faced with a demon invasion that she immediately had to defeat. Her temporary belief that she was in Hell was easy to understand. Everyone should consider themselves lucky that she didn't spend the rest of the series catatonic. However, Giles, Dawn, and her friends didn't seem to understand that. They just tried to force her back into her former life and responsibilities. Spike, however, *did* understand--and took advantage of it.
If Spike had been the most well-intentioned, patient, and understanding of boyfriends--which he was not--and tried to do everything that was best for Buffy--which he did not--he would still have had to deal with deep depression, severe mood swings, and other erratic behavior. Symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, in other words.
Anyone trying to be fair would have to consider this mitigating circumstances for Buffy. Did she drive Spike to a nervous breakdown? Well, that was because she had one of her own! Moreover, their relationship before S6 had involved a great deal of mutual antagonism, strongarm tactics on Buffy's part, and treachery (including an attempt to feed her to Drusilla) on Spike's part. It should be no surprise that these continue and worsen considering Buffy's mental state.
The exhibit A of Buffy's abuse of Spike--the beating in "Dead Things"--is a case in point. Buffy believes that she's killed someone, Spike has thrown that person's body away like so much garbage, and is trying to force her to "pull a Faith"--pass off the killing as unimportant, seeing as how she's ahead on the numbers, and move on. When she tries to push by, he tries to physically fight her away. Small wonder she went berserk.
Contrast this with Spike, who suffered no such trauma: he attempts to separate her from her friends, attempts to take control of their finances as a couple by asking her to quit Doublemeat Palace so he can provide for her, and convinces her to take part in sexual activities that she's clearly very uncomfortable with. A systematic, and nearly textbook, case of abuse.
Even if you accept none of this, there's another point to be made: when Buffy broke up with Spike, she took responsibility for her life and her relationship with him. She addressed him as "William", and in doing so, accepted his personhood. From that point on, she treated him with respect--if not always friendliness. She admitted that she'd treated him badly and acknowledged her feelings for him, but explained--firmly and repeatedly--why they couldn't be together. In breaking up with him, she treated him much better than she ever had when they were together.
Spike never accepted any of it. He refused to accept her explanations, blackmailed her with threats of telling her friends about their relationship, and finally--after months of this respectful, but firm, treatment--attempted to rape her.
Seems to me that Spike deserves a bit of the helping of "mutual blame" that has been doled out to Buffy.
Matt
Re: Blaming Buffy
That may very well be, Matt, but inasmuch as Whedon claimed Spike's redemption was about Spike taking responsibility, I consider Buffy's action, contributory or not, as being largely irrelevant. What was relevant - was what was inside Spike.
Nevertheless, there are those who wish to minimize the crime by projecting blame onto Buffy. Her behavior is not model. But again, there is a much large picture to consider.
When Buffy returns from Heaven she is so crused with discomfort that she is almost completely numb. She is uncofortable around her friends, because in trying to hard to make Buffy feel okay - they aren't helping her deal with her feelings on her own terms. For example, Willow, when upset that Buffy has not adjusted, tries to use magic to make Buffy feel how Willow wants her to.
Spike, on the other hand is gentle with her, and gives her room to explore her feelings in the hopes that she "will come around", and Buffy does start to open up to Spike. However, she doesn't "come around" far enough or fast enough for Spike and he begins to abuse her trust. He tells her what he believes she is supposed to feel and tries to coerce her into expressing these feelings - thus beginning the destructive cycle that leads to the beatings and violence on both parts. Indeed Buffy tries to break out of the pattern.
But Spike, again does not trust Buffy to work out her feelings on her own, and reinitiates that phase and indeed forces himself upon her. If one wishes to sympathize primarily with Spike because of the violence done to him, one must also be aware that the circle of violence begun with Spike's breach of the tentative trust that he and Buffy were building early in the season.
If, in order to redeem Spike, he must be held accountable for his behaviors... well then, he must be held accountable for all of them.
And she starts to. But, Spike is impatient and doesn't trust Buffy to
no subject
Hmm. I'm not sure what the original poster meant by this. However, I *do* think that Buffy began their relationship being very insistent that the guy stay in his monsterbox, and I do think that she would've done well to have followed Angel's example and tried to encourage him to be a better person. However, Angel's example is a lot easier to follow when you're a vampire, not a Slayer.
The key, I think, was that Spike realize that Buffy doesn't actually get to tell him which box is his. If he wants to be in the (metaphorical) light, all he had to do was walk over there. Buffy can say he's a monster all she wants, but he doesn't *have* to be one, just because she says. It's his choice to behave that way, to continue to be a leech upon the world. He stood there and waited for Buffy to play muse for him, and continued to do so till the end of the series.
no subject
It would have been most impressive if Buffy had worked more to encourage Spike to be a better person in S6. In Buffy's case, I think she's really unable to encourage Spike, because she's using the relationship with him to escape her traumas rather than confront them. When Angel acts as sponsor/mentor to Faith, it's essentially Step 12 of Alcoholics Anonymous. I suspected that some of her sponsorship of Spike in S7, operated along those lines - obligation to self to help the other as part of a struggle to help oneself come back from a dark place. S6 Buffy, I don't think was in any shape to do that for him, and it's equally possible Spike wouldn't have responded well either. Still, it's a huge missed opportunity on her part, and her poor conduct is something that I think she's had to account for.
But that was Buffy's failure, and while interconnected with Spike's, it in no way absolves him of his own failings. Each character should be held responsible for themselves.
no subject
Absolutely. I like Spike. I like Buffy. I could've found Spuffy delightful. I come to the show with no prejudices toward another pairing and no firm conviction about what Jossverse vampires can and can't be, so there's nothing to interfere with my reception of the storyline. I just...okay, I got a clue from a Joss interview in which he spoke about how touching and fab he found the idea of a man changing himself for a woman. And I guess I just don't find that particularly romantic or original or moving at *all*.# I'd thought I was being shown a guy who depended too much on the opinion and shining pure radiant example of perfect womanhood to inspire him. I thought the fact that he comes from the Victorian era was a comment; he brings all the expectations that era placed upon women as pure ideal holders of society's morals. Sadly, it seems that Joss kind of *bought* those ideas, and never really was trying to subvert them.
This particularly storyline, with Buffy as ideal moral muse and Spike as agent who changes, marked the first time in the entire series that I ever became truly, painfully aware that Buffy is a woman written by a man.
no subject
Which is funny to me, because I thought Whedon had already told that story, only in a far more layered and nuanced manner. In Season 3, it's pretty clear that love for Buffy is a motivating factor in Angel's efforts to pull himself out of the gutter and drag himself back from hell. But at the same token, Angel's shown reading philosophy on his own, seeking out Giles for help, and having dreams and thinking about his future. And he's confronted by other characters, and show engaging in serious reflection.
Angel and Buffy (and the other people in Buffy's life) are shown having discussions and arguments with back-and-forth dialogue - interaction that presents Buffy (and her friends) as people rather than objects in Angel's story. In very limited scenes, Whedon establishes Angel as taking charge of his moral agency. To a lesser extent, I felt that Faith's story was handled in a similar manner.
But, it doesn't seem to me like Whedon thinks about exploring this in a critical manner with Spike. Characters aren't really presented as engaging in dialogue about what they feel Spike's return means to them, to Spike, and to Buffy. What are the characters (particularly Buffy) thinking or feeling while they're stuck just standing around waiting for Spike?
I'm a bit less observant of the gender implications of the storyline. I don't know that it's about a man turning his heroine into an object because he couldn't see a female perspective, or whether it's simply the case of a good storyteller losing his vision and creative energy, and writing like a hack regardless of the gender of his title character.
no subject
I just wanted to say something about this Redemptionista comment - "Spike loves more completely and powerfully than any other character on the show."
This is in my opinion, completely untrue. I would say a more accurate statement is that Spike loves more SELFISHLY than any other character on the show. Only with DRU would I say that he acts out of what I would call love. Because only with Dru does he consistently put someone else before himself. Love, in my opinion, must include some element of wanting what is best for the person you claim to feel the emotion for.
Spike's so-called "love" for Buffy in season 6, was in my opinion a fixation or an obsession, not real love. Or if it was love, it was a selfish, self-obsessed love. What you talked about in terms of his "bringing her into the dark" to me is a demonstration of how selfish his love is. He wants Buffy. And he's willing to hurt her to keep her with him, because he doesn't care about what's best for her, only what HE wants. He isolated her from her friends, he constantly pushed her down emotionally, he was incredibly manipulative, and he actively tried to keep her depressed, traumatized, and alone because the only way he could have her was if she was damaged and desperate. But he didn't care if she was hurt as long as he could HAVE her.
I think the rape was an extension of the pattern of his behavior in season 6. And that's why I don't agree with the Redemptionistas who dismiss it by saying it was out of character for him. It was taking to the extreme the imbalance in their relationship, the disregard for her well-being, and as you pointed out...her personhood. Spike didn't see her as a person. He saw her as something to possess and hold on to at all costs.
In terms of what that Redemptionista said, maybe Spike is more consumed by his emotions than any other character on the show. (Not to say that he FEELS emotions more deeply, or that his emotions are somehow more valid, but that he is unable to control them.) Maybe Spike has the least control over his desires. But is that love? Is the depth of love determined by how much you want a person, and how far you're willing to go to get them, who you're willing to hurt to have them? Especially if the person you're willing to hurt is the person you claim to love? I don't think so.
And I'm sure that it can be argued that Spike with a soul was a changed man; that once he had a soul he was able to truly love unselfishly. I didn't watch season 7. I quit when Spike got his soul because I knew it was going to be a redemption patch, and I didn't want to see that. So I can't really talk with certainty about how they dealt with Spike's redemption and the Buffy/Spike relationship in season 7. But just based on what I've read here, I don't know that it was ever fully addressed. The love Spike showed Drusilla, the most unselfish love I've seen from him, came when he had no soul. Therefore, even if the writers changed the B/S relationship in season 7 on the basis of his having a soul. I don't think that a soul alone is enough to explain away his treatment of Buffy as an object, the way he saw her only through the lens of his own need, or the abusiveness in their relationship. If he could love Drusilla as a person and care for her well-being over his own without a soul, then why was his relationship with Buffy different? That should have been addressed I think. The deep sickness in their relationship should have been dealt with and faced if they were to have some kind of trust. And I agree with you that the way he got his soul, in terms of the challenges he faces, never showed any real awareness of his past crimes, or challenged him on any emotional or mental level.
The whole thing is very disappointing, and unsatisfying, especially when I think about how well-written the show (and the relationships on the show) used to be.
no subject
I'd agree with this, but with the caveat that Spike is is of the delusion that his love is epic and generous, when it is actually petty and selfish - and I think that is a delusion that often sways too many people. Some of the writers included.
When Spike tries to "pull Buffy into the dark", to pressure her about coming open, and forces himself upon her - he's genuinely convinced himself that this is the best thing for Buffy.
Not because it is, but because at heart he feels that if he wants it badly enough it must be right. Spike confuses intense need with true love, and having actually watched S7 I'm not certain he ever understands that.
The whole thing is very disappointing, and unsatisfying, especially when I think about how well-written the show (and the relationships on the show) used to be.
I absolutely agree.
no subject
Let's just say I completely disagree with you.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/liliaeth/12182.html?mode=reply
no subject
no subject
no subject