Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: Presto Rohypnus! Sexual Consent by Buffyverse Rules

  1. #21
    Slayer hayes62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,089
    Thanks
    158
    Thanked 589 Times in 225 Posts

    Default

    For me the biggest difference between Hyena!Xander and either Spike or Angel when souless is that the Hyena possession is explicitly written as a generic rather than a character-specific transformation. The episode is called The Pack not The Hyena for a reason. Giles points this out:

    GILES: Xander's taken to teasing the less fortunate?

    BUFFY: Uh-huh.

    GILES: And, there's been a noticeable change in both clothing and demeanor?

    BUFFY: Yes.

    GILES: And, well, otherwise all his spare time is spent lounging about with imbeciles.

    BUFFY: It's bad, isn't it.

    GILES: It's devastating. He's turned into a sixteen-year-old boy. Course, you'll have to kill him.

    BUFFY: Giles, I'm serious.

    GILES: So am I. Except for the part about killing him. Testosterone is a great equalizer. It turns all men into morons. He will, however, get over it.
    This is not an episode about Xander. It's about being at high school and how the culture fosters bullying, how some people (in this case Willow) get picked on and others (in this case Xander but it could have been Buffy, it is Harmony and Cordelia in other parts of the story) get sucked in by the pack mentality and commit relative atrocities they never would have seen themselves condoning.

    Spike's attempt to rape Buffy springs not from his maleness or the social pressures on him but from his own very specific character flaws. His romanticism, his inability to let go or distinguish his own need from her desires. Those aren't demonic feelings. They're extremely human but human without the restraints of conscience or real empathy. It's his soulessness not his vampirism that drives what he (almost) does.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to hayes62 For This Useful Post:

    TimeTravellingBunny (26-03-13)

  3. #22
    Scooby Gang sybil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Dream's boat
    Posts
    415
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 35 Times in 24 Posts

    Default

    I was remembering Liam’s turning versus that of Willaim. Liam went into that alley and thought he could get both sex and a bed with a beautiful woman—amazed, actually, that a walking mess/drunken fool thinks he is so sexy women can’t wait to drop their drawers—but we know Liam also used promises, money of a sort, and these women were also often drunk or seeking comfort. But I digress.

    Influences on free will is the point of all this.

    I can’t help note Liam’s eyes were closed and he didn’t really know what was happening at all—he appeared to be waiting for some “whispered message.” He sank to his knees in drunken stuper and blood loss. I think the drunken haze and blood loss wasn’t yet “vampire hunger for blood,” as, it seems to me, he saw visions of gorgeous boobies wavering in front of his eyes. Some men like that kind of fat. I don’t think *until * his mouth got latched onto Darla’s bosom that the line of blood was “the big attraction,” –I don’t think he was after a “blood transfusion,” to prevent his dying, I mean.
    When the blood off the bosom was in him, * then * the demon began its attachment/struggle with the soul in a dying man.

    (But this is for you to decide if he even knew such a thing: http://www.news-medical.net/health/H...ansfusion.aspx ).



    William’s eyes were open, even though I fully concur his thought of “escape from excruciating pain” was “his plan,” and probably, I believe, even a death wish, was attractive, especially when offered by a beautiful woman who thought of him so highly and when he had been so brutally rejected by one , but also seemed a bit…’other?’ (“When I kiss you, I want to die?”)

    William seems to have greater free will in action, he remained in Druscilla’s grasp, even as he complained of the pain of what she was doing, he didn’t holler “what the heck are you doing?” but here we get to the “meat” of influence. The emotional rage of Liam, subverted in “physical pleasures,” was just as “physical” in William—we saw him crash through the streets blindly weeping out his shocked suffering” and “words” acted as “liquor” upon his choice to not fight with all his might from Druscilla’s “drain of his will” and physical blood.

    I don’t think he knew “consequence,” that he would even “live,” until after he was turned and, worse, that he could truly “care” again until he could “feel” with the return of his soul. “Caring” had betrayed him with his peers, in caring for his mother and not “learning the ways of the world,” and in the love he felt for Cecily, but most deeply in putting his soul into the gift he would give her: his poetry. Being a good man, was not as important; it was like an obvious duty of that society, even as “making children” would be in a marriage to her. That part wasn’t “the him” that got really hurt. He drank because he was already “liquored up” with Dru’s words for him.


    My comment on all of this “rape” is this. How many influences actually affect free will? Everything is an influence for every “thing” is material, and thus acts as cause to “effect.” We learn to “sort” the degree of influence in our basic survival instincts (to suck and grab as infants), to decisions of what is too morally reprehensible to even contemplate, yet actually choose to act. But the ‘best part of the physical man’ is “to protect” and this is regularly reprehensibly acted upon in war: with just “seeing it.”

    Obviously anything that is exterior to our own skin and forced to act upon our senses and thus distract or remove focus to our mental faculties in making a “free will” choice “counts.” (Perfume or a really bad fart).

    Lorne is the cause of the “influence” spreading from himself, even in the collection of these evil guests being courted with their ‘preferences’ of enjoyment. These were in everything from “eye candy” to actually lowering of inhibitions to out right rape, between Angel and Eve, as Eve flat out said, it wasn’t like she wasn’t used in this way before (the implication of literally “being made” to “service” Adam, of course) and Angel knew this (creation myth) in his understandable respect/concern for Eve. She was not merely a demon engaged in sex with another demon for fun. We do see demons suffer and also * not * enjoy it, for their fear is also real.

    However, Eve is “evil”—we know this, not only for daring to enjoy sex—we have to wrap it up in rape of her, but “the man” enjoying sex he never gets, as is “natural” to “all males” to “do” any woman, also does ignore Angel had his inhibitions lowered in the reasons he doesn’t have sex, *despite desire for its ‘intoxication’ * he himself was raped, all in the “fun and games” of *anything * that can influence free will is itself an agent of “rape.”

    While I fully concur with TTB (thud) that anything “being imposed” on one’s ability to exercise free will is “the rape of free will,” I would then have to also say that “mind rape” is the rape of free will, and thus, Spike did not just “attempt a rape,” he raped Buffy in absolute terms. That he hadn’t used her vagina may constitute what isn’t a “legal rape,” with vaginal tearing and all the CSI “measures”—even though a rapist often can’t really function to cause ‘vaginal tearing,’ but he may ejaculate in the act of domination—Buffy did experience the full measure of rape, from it’s power over her free will, to shaming her for having “misled” Spike in “kinky sex” before, to the horror of what is not fun or games or sex or anything but what merely has to be “completed” with a phallus.

    I understand the idea of using a bathroom, as it is the room where “expectation of privacy” actually is given privacy. Not merely for “female modesty,” but for evacuation. This was more than “invading her space.” (And to bore you, of course, I got the notion of the “not still” but running water as his “female principle”/baptism to change before it happened. Sorry).

    Buffy’s fear and shock and awareness of betrayal was complete—she was loudly and repeatedly saying “no,” not “yes” with smiles and “come hither” or even other suggestive action that are used as “excuse” in “the next move;” she said “no” which is where “stop” starts, even in “games.” Rape fantasy is a woman who clearly isn’t comfortable with her sexuality that such “force” alleves her from some kind of “guilt” she is supposed to feel or needs to “put out there” with regard to some ‘virtue” that is “the word” that itself is ultimately only about someone’s else’s definition and thus, “power.” (God save us from virtuous women! 18th amendment, but that one really is about ‘no jobs,’ poverty, shame, and “vagrancy” laws IMO).

    But Buffy was clear to me. She had turned her face and was * sobbing * she was completely aware her ‘games playing” and expectation of privacy was not going on and she was clearly showing physically the assault and battery of what her “free will” did not accept, mentally, emotionally, and physically when she was already in the throes of complete awareness of so many levels of violation.

    We say that violent videos of the worst sorts of turning people to meat or torture imposed upon the characters, with brutally accurate sound effects don’t affect kids. But a kid seeing his father hit his mother and feeling his own helpless fear and rage is “damaging.” That one is “real life” and that “influences” his free will (and development).

    So, we sort through many influences on our free will in organizing our mental sensibilities on what is “real” and “what is important” and what influences (we actually may not know or actually do choose to embrace as “changing us” or “shaping us.” (Suffering).. Can “free will” be exercised in the absence of influence? Are all choices a “rape” of “something” inviolate in the “yes” and “no” of such a simple answer?


    The searing pain Buffy experienced is visible “objectively” and thus, even raising a finger in a threat to another’s sense of safety or “invaded space,” is an assault legally, while a wee touch with that finger is battery—I looked it up). But the threat alone has created the “violation” to another. That someone making fingers like a gun at you doesn’t kill you, the experience of being shot and dying does flash through one’s mind. This is not giggling kids at play, “I’m gonna kill you.”—which to use such a phrase requires some level of development to even know what “pretend” means and even what “kill” means. To end someone’s behavior accomplished by “ending them”).

    I do see abuse (and with sexual assault there actually is battery—the physical part of a “sexual assault” upon another person is called “rape.” I do see the the mind is indeed “physical” in having a brain in which to “exist,” and is simply not merely “a change of perspective” but is a * forced * change of perspective on someone else’s free will that, developmentally, that person may not be able to easily change, without an understanding of the damage of “just seeing” an influence emotionally experienced (like domestic violence) that can physically alter that developing brain and it’s functioning in “free will.”

    Yes, the use of force “happens” all the time in our biological development. And, no, it is usually not fun. In fact, such forces are now being seriously examined as often broken information that can cause disease and death; so even the “biological” force is under scrutiny as to what “must be suffered,” and is “natural” or even “evolutionary” e.g. sickle cell.

    So! The question of “influence.” Is a soul an influence or is it “identity” in this universe, or is it ‘the great and wonderful powerful GOOD’? Is a demon merely influence, or some whispered temptation to ignore “taught” doctrine or suddenly “awaken” that “moral center,” or is it the Cartesian, four dimensional “zero point” of “evil?”

    If we are “affected” by our REM dreams to “change our behavior,” which “one of us” is being changed, i.e. that mental “nightmare” born of conflict in “information,” that may be considered forced or is that just “natural influence”—when so many nighmares are shown to be false truths,” yet they do show conflicts between interior and exterior experience? Who are you talking to when you talk to yourself and does your conscience talk to both of you or act as influence?

    Bottom line, primal parts of ourselves give us common “source” for understanding a lot of “why,” in the human experience, but a lot of it is wrong. We might fear sharks “shooting out of the tub drain” and alligators under the bed; we are afraid of “bad hair” ruining our lives, but sing the chorus to the latest dittie, texting madly at 70 mph, while, juggling a coke container in our lap from spilling. It was the ‘song’ that made me do it—no, it was the people who made it and produced it and sent it out over the air waves to “attack” in broad daylight. Round ‘em all up and sue the heck out of the lot! Snerk.

    I honestly feel violence is real and used daily as a weapon without a single “touch,” just as the female sexuality can make a man “rise” without a touch and drives all the control and “assigned virtues” over women to cover up “male fear” and the actual arrogance/refusal to “look at their own selves” as the problem that needs “control” long enough for “wisdom” to work. The reaction to violence is also primal: fear and rage, both violent themselves. That is why I can hardly call Spike’s rape merely “attempted.” Just as you might not call the violent torture of “bringing Buffy low” in season eight as anything else –( unbelievable a. Buffy would just know it was him before the season went anywhere—vampire or human b. I don’t believe Angel would do this entire strategy, especially, “it wasn’t mean shooting them, when I was leading what was already organized against them before I got here” without finding “another way”—he used to be like Kirk with “find that 3rd alternative; and I do agree with KING, on another thread, that Angel hasn’t made sense to me since he 1. had an epiphany and 2. took down the “white board.” He simply isn’t allowed to “learn” no matter “what plot” is thrown at him to execute—it’s laughable and I do.

    As for Xander! Hyena. They were talking as if animals have no “soul.” But it is the rare animal that actually goes to war with others of its species, other than in “pack” in which observation demands: “domination is the order,” yet “conveniently” the reality of “cooperation,” in fact, provides for the actual survival of that species. So…as with everything in this universe you can say about anything and be right, if being right is the objective.
    HUGS!
    sybil
    Last edited by sybil; 25-03-13 at 08:10 PM.

  4. #23
    Slayer MikeB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles, Calif.
    Posts
    2,501
    Thanks
    3,425
    Thanked 577 Times in 342 Posts

    Default

    All caught up




    * Angel and Eve having sex: both of them were raped, but they didn’t rape each other. I consider that’s probably the best way to describe that.


    * Buffy in BtVS S9 was raped by AngelTwilight. The only ambiguous thing is whether Angel put the glow on Buffy or Twilight did. Before the glow, Buffy was vigorously trying to dust him. Angel took the mask off before the glow even happened. Angel obviously wanted to have sex with Buffy – a large – perhaps the only – reason Angel agreed to be AngelTwilight is because he was ‘promised’ that he would be in Twilight with Buffy.

    I’ll repeat again that before the glow started, Buffy was vigorously trying to dust Angel. It is fact that she was raped. She didn’t want the glow on her. She wasn’t in control of that happening.

    The only scenario for that to not be rape is if the glow never happened (or the glow had zero effect on Buffy) and Buffy decided to have sex with Angel. Buffy in BtVS S2 wouldn’t have had sex with uncursed Angel; therefore, she wouldn’t have had sex with AngelTwilight if the glow and/or “control” never happened.


    * Faith was raping Buffy the moment she switched bodies with her till the moment their bodies were switched back.


    * I didn’t want to get into this because it’s kinda off-topic, but it was talked about too much for me to ignore. William Pratt is fully responsible for everything he did as a soulless vampire. In “Fool For Love” (5.07), the people at the party were talking about the strange murders and whatever happening in the city. William would obviously conclude that Drusilla was the sole one doing that or she was part of the group that was doing that. William would obviously assume Drusilla was some kind of demon. And he about reverently agrees to be like she is. Then one of the first things he does after being sired is to sire his mother Anne Pratt.

    It’s the same with Darla: she’s fully responsible for everything she did after being sired that wasn’t because of Jasmine. She thought that maybe the Master was the Devil.




    KingofCretins

    I'm pretty hesitant to say that even Twilight and/or Angel raped Angel and/or Buffy (if you follow the built-in variations there), because unlike, say, Katrina, or jacket-affected people*, or "Something Blue", we don't have enough context to say that Buffy's agency was genuinely gone from her. Indications exist to the contrary in the fact that it still took Angel quite an impassioned line of BS to close the deal, which simultaneously demonstrates that a) Buffy had the faculties to understand him and b) the reasoning skills to contemplate what he was saying. Neither of which one is likely to find in someone whose ability to consent has been compromised in conventional, real world ways.
    Buffy never had sex with uncursed Angel.

    Katrina: Warren used to be her boyfriend.

    RJ was the quarterback and he’s a good-looking guy. While Willow and Anya wouldn’t think twice about RJ, Buffy would probably at least find him good-looking. And those like Dawn and RJ’s girlfriend would have perhaps wanted to be with him even if not for the magical jacket.

    “Something Blue” (4.09): Buffy didn’t do a forgetting spell and two years later Buffy was having sex with Spike. Plus, Willow mentioned The English Patient and later she merely suggested “Why doesn't so just go marry him?”

    And of course, those under the “jacket influence” and Buffy in “Something Blue” still could understand things and still had reasoning skills.

    I wrote a fanfic, just a lark, a trifle, in which Buffy and Xander basically trick themselves into thinking they were unable to resist having sex with each other, only for it to be revealed later that the effect that they thought they were under had long since dissipated.
    Irrelevant to thread.

    ________________________________________________

    Certainly [hyena spirit] Xander had not attempted rape by the time the scene ends.
    You may as well say that Spike in “Seeing Red” (6.19) didn’t attempt to rape Buffy.



    Stoney

    You could draw a parallel between Xander being possessed by the hyena to Spike having his vampire demon in play.
    Spike is a vampire (and was a soulless one at the time); Xander’s not a hyena spirit-infused human.



    Sosa lola

    I think the difference between both situations is that while the hyena possession acted on Xander's interests and dark desires, Xander himself had no control over his actions. He was forced to take a backseat to the hyena possession.
    It’s ambiguous to what degree Xander had “control” over the hyena spirit. Xander did have some level of control over his actions. The bullies didn’t like the Principal and so ate him. Xander had no problem with the Principal and so wasn’t involved with that. Xander did want Buffy. Xander did want to have sex with Buffy. Xander was peeved that Buffy chose to be with Angel instead of him.



    vampmogs

    I'd say the major difference is that Spike WAS the demon. Unlike Xander, he's not "possessed" by a demon. Spike is a demon in a human body.
    We still don’t actually know what exactly vampires are.

    So it doesn't really make sense for me to compare the two when Xander was a human man who was being influenced by a demonic spirit whereas Spike is just a demon with total freewill. I'd sooner compare Spike to the hyena demon than I would compare him to Xander.
    We don’t really know exactly how the hyena spirit worked.

    [hyena-spirt] Xander was spewing out hateful garbage about how Buffy likes her men dangerous
    That’s not garbage.



    hayes62

    Spike's attempt to rape Buffy springs not from his maleness or the social pressures on him but from his own very specific character flaws. His romanticism, his inability to let go or distinguish his own need from her desires. Those aren't demonic feelings. They're extremely human but human without the restraints of conscience or real empathy. It's his soulessness not his vampirism that drives what he (almost) does.
    Um, huh with this: “It's his soulessness not his vampirism that drives what he (almost) does.”

    “Inability to let go”: applies to hyena Xander trying to rape Buffy. It doesn’t exactly apply to Spike because Buffy admitted she still has feelings for him.

    “Romanticism”: ridiculous. Spike never tried to rape Drusilla and nothing suggests he would ever think to rape Harmony.

    “Conscience or real empathy”: your argument is not based on canon. Spike has a conscience (displayed after the AR and many times before that). Spike was empathetic towards his mother, Drusilla, Willow, Buffy, Joyce, and Dawn.



    sybil

    * Soulless Spike could obviously care and feel.

    Spike did not just “attempt a rape,” he raped Buffy in absolute terms.
    Spike sexually assaulted and battered Buffy. He didn’t rape “Buffy in absolute terms”.

    Buffy did experience the full measure of rape, from it’s power over her free will, to shaming her for having “misled” Spike in “kinky sex” before, […]
    There is about no evidence Buffy even thinks about this much less makes this connection. Also, I’m not sure what you are saying. Do you mean “misled” as in her thinking that her having sex with him resulted in him concluding that she loved him?

    […] to the horror of what is not fun or games or sex or anything but what merely has to be “completed” with a phallus.
    She already experienced this with hyena spirit Xander.

    she said “no” which is where “stop” starts, even in “games.”
    “Wrecked” (6.10) and the Balcony Scene (6.13) were fully consensual.

    Rape fantasy is a woman who clearly isn’t comfortable with her sexuality that such “force” alleves her from some kind of “guilt” she is supposed to feel or needs to “put out there” with regard to some ‘virtue” that is “the word” that itself is ultimately only about someone’s else’s definition and thus, “power.” (God save us from virtuous women! 18th amendment, but that one really is about ‘no jobs,’ poverty, shame, and “vagrancy” laws IMO).
    Rape fantasy is a “game” like wanting to be tied up or wanting S&M or BDSM or whatever.

  5. #24
    What? KingofCretins's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Big Honkin' Castle
    Posts
    13,720
    Thanks
    234
    Thanked 3,917 Times in 1,848 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeB View Post
    * Angel and Eve having sex: both of them were raped, but they didn’t rape each other. I consider that’s probably the best way to describe that.
    You are rife with many examples of what I meant by people abusing the hell out of the word "rape". Rape is, at common law and in every statute in the United States, an intentional crime. Which means that it is committed by someone against another person. If all you have is a victim but no actual actor, just an abstract notion, or someone that caused it but did so without intent, knowledge, or will... you don't have a rape. Can't have a rape, by the very definition of what that word means.

    Allow me to contrast with another supernatural example of something that is rape -- The Evil Dead and it's infamous "tree rape". The tree's actions were controlled by the various evil spirits. Those spirits were intentionally directing its actions; those spirits committed rape.

    Angel and Eve having sex was caused by Lorne, but Lorne didn't intend that they have sex. Hell, if we pretended one could rape someone negligently instead of intentionally, it still wouldn't have been rape, since Lorne couldn't reasonably have foreseen they would unwillingly have sex with each other either when he had his sleep removed or when he told them to "get a room".

    They had sex under a mystical influence. It wasn't their idea. Neither of them, however, was raped.

    * Buffy in BtVS S9 was raped by AngelTwilight. The only ambiguous thing is whether Angel put the glow on Buffy or Twilight did. Before the glow, Buffy was vigorously trying to dust him. Angel took the mask off before the glow even happened. Angel obviously wanted to have sex with Buffy – a large – perhaps the only – reason Angel agreed to be AngelTwilight is because he was ‘promised’ that he would be in Twilight with Buffy.
    Despite your best efforts, you can't actually prove from the text -- nor does any interview support -- that the glow deprived Buffy of agency anymore than a four pack of wine coolers might have. The only question that matters is whether the influence she was under made her incapable of consenting or not consenting. That would mean, in a real world sense, so out of her self that she couldn't evaluate consequences and her own preferences and make a decision -- i.e. unconscious or semi-conscious or a psychotic episode. In a scifi/fantasy context, it would also mean total control of the mind, lack of agency, someone else at the proverbial wheel.

    But we know factually it wasn't total control of the mind. No interview, Q&A, or textual reference supports that interpretation. With Katrina, her flat affect, her staring, call and response behavior are factual bases on which we can say Katrina wasn't directing her own actions on any level. That isn't the case with Buffy and her "glow". So we're left with the conventional, real world idea that the glow would have to be rendering her so affected, so altered, she lacked the cognitive ability to decide, i.e. to consent.


    (or the glow had zero effect on Buffy)
    No, not "zero effect", unless you consider everybody that ever left a bar with a few shots in them and woke up looking at coyote ugly to have been raped. The effect must be so great that it makes them incapable of consenting.

    * Faith was raping Buffy the moment she switched bodies with her till the moment their bodies were switched back.
    Yeah, see, no. Stop using rape as a metaphor. Faith was raping Buffy and Riley for the exact time for which they were having sex. Rape is not the act of going through Joyce's mail or putting on lipstick or dancing at the Bronze. Honestly, using rape as a metaphor is either okay in all contexts (i.e. every use by a gamer describing success in "Call of Duty"), or in no context.

    Buffy never had sex with uncursed Angel.
    So? I can't imagine why you think that matters. She also walked away from soulless Spike's overtures in "Fool For Love" with disgust, yet, later had sex with soulless Spike. Whether sex with someone is consensual or not doesn't require that both parties are good and moral people, and the fact that sex was declined once doesn't mean that any sex between those two later must have been unconsensual.

    “Something Blue” (4.09): Buffy didn’t do a forgetting spell and two years later Buffy was having sex with Spike. Plus, Willow mentioned The English Patient and later she merely suggested “Why doesn't so just go marry him?”
    Again, sex or the lack thereof on past or future occasions has no real relevance to whether a specific instance was rape or not. I mean, you're making the argument (whether you realize it or not) that allows people to argue that marital rape isn't a crime, because, after all, the husband and wife have sex all the time, is it that big of a deal if she didn't want to just that once?

    And of course, those under the “jacket influence” and Buffy in “Something Blue” still could understand things and still had reasoning skills.
    In point of fact, Buffy is depicted having a much harder time ignoring the effects of the jacket than we actually see her depicted dealing with the glow.

    Irrelevant to thread.
    I'll decide what's relevant in my own thread, thanks

    You may as well say that Spike in “Seeing Red” (6.19) didn’t attempt to rape Buffy.
    The attempted rape in "Seeing Red" is realized right there on the screen. In "The Pack", things hadn't gone far enough to satisfy the inchoate crime of "attempt" for a rape. Honestly, had an un-eaten Principal Flutie walked in to that lounge/cafeteria at the end of the scene, Hyena!Xander could have jumped to his feet and said "aww, we were just rasslin'". If things progressed to an attempted rape, it happened off-screen, is what I'm saying.

    Banner by LRae12

  6. #25
    Arbiter of Canon Vampire in Rug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,080
    Thanks
    645
    Thanked 1,415 Times in 641 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TimeTravellingBunny View Post
    There's no real world equivalent for 90% of what happens in Buffyverse. Does it mean we shouldn't be discussing it at all?
    You completely misunderstand my point. Warren's cerebral dampener device doesn't exist in the real world. But his plans for Katrina were certainly rape. Just because the phlabotnum itself is magical, that doesn't mean that there is no "real world equivalent" for what Warren was trying to do. The parallels between Warren/Katrina and date rape are obvious. And much like rape in real life, there was a victim and a perpetrator. The fact that the rape utilized a fictional magical device that doesn't exist in the real world is completely irrelevant.

    On the other hand, the situation with Angel, Eve and Lorne is something that there is no real world parallel for. We are talking about a situation where *nobody* was really at fault. There is no real world parallel parallel for that. The dictionary legal of rape was not designed to cover these kinds of *purely philosophical and hypothetical* situations. Again, it doesn't matter that Warren used magic in his attempted rape of Katrina, the act itself meets the criteria to legally be called rape.

    If you asked a legal professor or some other kind of expert "what if I used a magic spell to force someone to have sex with me against their will?" Assuming they took the question seriously enough to answer, they would tell you that obviously that meets the criteria for rape.

    Now imagine you asked them, "what if I accidentally walked through a magic cloud of pheromones and a girl also walked through the pheromones, and we ended up having sex even though we normally would not want to. Because the pheromones basically made us. Is that rape?"

    Even though both questions use magic phlebotnum, can you understand how one of those questions can be more easily qualified as rape than the other? Can you understand why an expert might have more difficulty answering the second question as opposed to the first? Can you understand how the first question, despite the magic phlabotnum can be quite easily compared to real life rape, whereas the second question is quite clearly contrived and philosophical and not even remotely grounded in reality, even as a magical metaphor?


    So give me your word for it. But whether you call rape or not, it sure wasn't consensual sex.
    Why would such a word even exist? A non-consensual sex situation where *nobody* is at fault is something that could never actually happen, so why would there be a word for it? The entire premise as a philosophical exercise is contrived. Again, I've already agreed that the situation could be very traumatic on a very similar level that rape could be. So really, who cares if it does or doesn't "technically" count as rape. If we agree that the situation was horrible and potentially traumatising, then who really cares about the semantics of what word should be used?

    And if we *must* argue about semantics and correct word usage then (a) the discussion has completely moved away from whether the mystical sex was a bad or traumatic thing, and (b) KingofCretins has said that the word "rape" in strictly correct word usage requires a perpetrator, and between the two of you I think he's the one who actually knows what he's talking about here when it comes to definitions.

    Be that as it may; this discussion started when King said that the Dark Horse staff said repeatedly that the spacefrak "was not rape".
    The Dark Horse staff have said repeatedly that the spacefrak wasn't rape, yet certain people choose to ignore/dismiss that, generally for the sake of character bashing. Word of God says that it wasn't rape. And nothing in the actual story has suggested that Buffy was stripped of her free will and turned into a sex doll. I do understand how some people might find the glow to be pretty distasteful, especially upon the first reading. But if we give the writers the slightest shred of credibility, and we bother to read the story after issue #34, I think most reasonable people should be able to agree that the spacefrak was not a rape. I think that to read it as a rape and still think so at this point, you probably have to have an agenda when you open the book.

    Again, the writers have said that it was not rape. And even if you want to argue against the credibility of the writers when it comes to issues of consent, my counterargument would be the characters in the book and the accountability they've been held to. For instance:

    Giles has been blamed for not telling Buffy about the Twilight prophecy. The implication is that if he'd told her about it, she might have been able to avoid all the destruction -presumably by declining sex with Angel. If Angel really did rape her with the glow by turning her into a sex doll, she'd never have been able to decline sex with Angel even if she did know about the prophecy.

    Angel himself had to sweet talk her before she gave in to all the superficial nice stuff he was saying about being happy together. If the glow was doing all the work, why would Angel need to say anything to her at all?

    I think it was suggested that Buffy may not have had sex with Angel if Spike had shown up earlier.

    Xander is bitter at Buffy for not keeping it her pants, because now as a consequence, Dawn is dying. Do people really think that Xander is that much of an @$$hole that he would blame a rape victim for her own rape? I get that some people think that the writers can be pretty insensitive in matters of consent, but do people honestly think that a main character would blame a *the* main character for her own rape, and not get called on it? Are the writers *really* that tone deaf and disgusting? I know the writing isn't always perfect, but I'm gonna give them a little more credit than that. Also there are the Slayers that are angry with Buffy for sleeping with Angel and Buffy takes it on the cheek when they trip her because she knows that they have a semi-legit reason for being pissed at her.

    Generally when a character is possessed or stripped of their own free will, they get forgiven pretty quick. Spike gets excused for his killings when the First was controlling him, nobody really blames Buffy after she tries to kill the scoobies when she legitimately thinks that they are a hallucination, nobody blames Fred for being possessed by the sluks or Wood in those moments of being possessed by the Hellmouth seal or anyone possessed by the Beazor eggs, or Xander being hypnotized by Dracula. I could go on. Even going back to your example with Lorne in Life of the Party, Gunn doesn't get reprimanded for pissing on Angel's chair and nobody really blames Lorne for everything that happened.

    My point here is that the norm for the scoobies is that generally they don't blame a person for their actions when their free will has been taken from them. So Xander being mad at Buffy, Satsu and the other Slayers being mad at Buffy and Willow being peeved at Buffy would be inconsistent characterization when compared to other instances where characters were possessed and/or violated.

    So yeah. When you take into account how the characters are acting -especially when compared to their previous reactions to similar incidences, and on top of that you take into account what the writers have said about their intentions when writing the scene -especially the part where they clarified that it was not a rape scene, I find it pretty hard to believe that someone could read all of of that and still walk away with the idea that Buffy was raped. Oh yeah, and lets not forget that Angel himself was affected by the glow, which is something that never gets mentioned. The spacefrak was clumsy and stupid, yes. But it was not rape.

    In the Other Thread You said: "Maybe we should ask the Dark Horse staff how they define "rape". I take that as an implication that you think the fandom is in a position to educate/enlighten Dark Horse? I find that idea pretty absurd. Dark Horse and Mutant Enemy may not have always had the most tact when approaching the issue of consent, especially when magic is involved. But let's be real. I've seen the fandom abuse the hell out of the word "rape", including posts in this very thread, so I find it pretty silly to suggest that the fans should be educating the writers about anything. Again, I'm reminded of that ugly thread a year or so back when people were trying to stretch the word "rape" so that it includes all sexual encounters under the influence of alcohol.


    It's not about Angel being "strong" and the writers wanting to send us the message that oh, Angel is so strong! It's about the writers not taking the situation seriously at all. It was treated as a joke from the start.
    I realize that the writers didn't treat the Angel/Eve situation seriously. But my point stands: After all the trauma Angel has been through in his life, I don't think that the sex with Eve is gonna be what breaks him. Again, I don't want to diminish how potentially traumatic the situation could be, but if I had to list the most traumatic moments in Angel's life, I don't think that the sex with Eve would be anywhere near the top.

    You also complained about Angel asking Eve if she was okay, as though the show was suggesting that only the woman in this situation could be traumatized over what happened and not the man. I still maintain that it would be highly OOC for Eve to really give a shit how Angel felt or whether he was traumatized. So I think it's perfectly in character for Eve to not ask Angel if he was okay. And I think it is also in character for Angel to consider Eve's feelings in that situation. So I don't have a problem with Angel asking Eve if she's okay, and not vice-versa. I do think that if nothing was said, and that if *nobody* bothered to ask Eve if she's okay, people would be even harsher on this episode for being gross and insensitive -and deservedly so.

    Do you also think that the fact that Jesse's death was never mentioned again, and that Xander didn't appear traumatized by it even at the end of the very same episode (which ended on a light note, with the Scoobies joking), was about showing how strong Xander is? Or was it maybe because Joss, at the time, wasn't thinking about continuity and the show dropped the ball on this?
    Yes, Joss did drop the ball when it came to Jesse's death and the aftermath. Worth noting though that Xander often masks his pain with humour.

    Let's repeat this again: unless there's a clearly identified perpetrator, there's nothing wrong with being forced to have sex. No harm, no foul.

    [...]

    "Oh, never mind, it's an accidental rape... sorry, we shouldn't be calling it rape - I was just forced to have sex which I wouldn't have chosen to do if I had had the control over my faculties. But it was an accident! So all's well! Yay!"
    This is where I feel you are being unreasonable. Nobody is saying "yay" here. Nobody is trying to argue that rape is a good thing. Nobody is trying to argue that magical, weird, non-consensual sex between Angel and Eve is a good thing. The argument is a matter of semantics. I actually *agree* that what happened with Angel and Eve was pretty horrible and could have been traumatic. Where the disagreement comes in is whether you can actually call it a "rape". Personally, I really don't care all that much whether it "technically" qualifies as rape. Because that's really a matter of semantics and has no bearing whatsoever over how traumatic or gross it is. KingofCretins actually has knowledge of legalities, so I'm gonna take his word for it.

    Nice Strawmen you got there. Did anyone ever in the history of Buffy forums suggest either of those? To the best of my knowledge, nobody ever did.
    How is that a strawman? Anya and Giles made out because Willow unintentionally wiped their minds and they thought that they were fiancée's. If you're going to argue that Angel and Eve were the victims of an unintentional rape where there was no perpetrator, why can't Anya and Giles be victims of unintentional sexual battery? They wouldn't have chosen to make out under normal circumstances, they only locked lips because a spell robbed them of their identity. Kissing someone against their will is sexual battery. I'm no expert, but I would argue that kissing somebody through deception by pretending to be somebody else *might* qualify as sexual battery.

    What if Anya and Giles had sex with each other instead of kissing? Would that be rape? If so, why is kissing not sexual battery?

    What about Buffy and Spike in Something Blue? They kissed a lot. Does that count as sexual battery? If they had sex would that have been rape?

    Also, can other crimes such as murder, theft or kidnapping happen with no perpetrator? You're arguing that rape can happen without a perpetrator, what about these other crimes?

  7. #26
    Slayer TimeTravellingBunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,815
    Thanks
    5,639
    Thanked 4,795 Times in 2,263 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vampire in Rug View Post
    You completely misunderstand my point. Warren's cerebral dampener device doesn't exist in the real world. But his plans for Katrina were certainly rape. Just because the phlabotnum itself is magical, that doesn't mean that there is no "real world equivalent" for what Warren was trying to do. The parallels between Warren/Katrina and date rape are obvious. And much like rape in real life, there was a victim and a perpetrator. The fact that the rape utilized a fictional magical device that doesn't exist in the real world is completely irrelevant.

    On the other hand, the situation with Angel, Eve and Lorne is something that there is no real world parallel for. We are talking about a situation where *nobody* was really at fault. There is no real world parallel parallel for that. The dictionary legal of rape was not designed to cover these kinds of *purely philosophical and hypothetical* situations. Again, it doesn't matter that Warren used magic in his attempted rape of Katrina, the act itself meets the criteria to legally be called rape.

    If you asked a legal professor or some other kind of expert "what if I used a magic spell to force someone to have sex with me against their will?" Assuming they took the question seriously enough to answer, they would tell you that obviously that meets the criteria for rape.

    Now imagine you asked them, "what if I accidentally walked through a magic cloud of pheromones and a girl also walked through the pheromones, and we ended up having sex even though we normally would not want to. Because the pheromones basically made us. Is that rape?"

    Even though both questions use magic phlebotnum, can you understand how one of those questions can be more easily qualified as rape than the other? Can you understand why an expert might have more difficulty answering the second question as opposed to the first? Can you understand how the first question, despite the magic phlabotnum can be quite easily compared to real life rape, whereas the second question is quite clearly contrived and philosophical and not even remotely grounded in reality, even as a magical metaphor?
    Can you understand that I don't give a damn about any of that, since I wasn't discussing the guilt of the perpetrator but the feelings of the victim? You've repeatedly failed to understand what I'm talking about because you're 100% focused on "Can we blame someone for this"? My point is, to the victim, it makes no difference. In this fictional scenario, they were still forced to have sex against their will. It's a violation. It's not consensual sex. I believe they would feel just the same as if they were raped in real life. Ergo: this is not a plot one should use as funny.


    Why would such a word even exist? A non-consensual sex situation where *nobody* is at fault is something that could never actually happen, so why would there be a word for it?
    Because we're here discussing a fictional universe in which it can and does happen.

    The entire premise as a philosophical exercise is contrived.
    Complain to the Buffyverse writers. I'm not the one who wrote those situations.

    If we agree that the situation was horrible and potentially traumatising, then who really cares about the semantics of what word should be used?
    Apparently, you do, since you've been arguing very passionately about what word should not be used.
    And if we *must* argue about semantics and correct word usage then (a) the discussion has completely moved away from whether the mystical sex was a bad or traumatic thing, and (b) KingofCretins has said that the word "rape" in strictly correct word usage requires a perpetrator, and between the two of you I think he's the one who actually knows what he's talking about here when it comes to definitions.

    The Dark Horse staff have said repeatedly that the spacefrak wasn't rape, yet certain people choose to ignore/dismiss that, generally for the sake of character bashing. Word of God says that it wasn't rape.
    By "character bashing", you mean what? We have been bashing Kitty Twilight by accusing it of rape? Other than MikeB, none of the people who have expressed doubt about the consent in that case (and coined the self-explanatory expression "date raped by universe") have blamed anyone else as a possible perpetrator.

    And nothing in the actual story has suggested that Buffy was stripped of her free will and turned into a sex doll. I do understand how some people might find the glow to be pretty distasteful, especially upon the first reading. But if we give the writers the slightest shred of credibility, and we bother to read the story after issue #34, I think most reasonable people should be able to agree that the spacefrak was not a rape. I think that to read it as a rape and still think so at this point, you probably have to have an agenda when you open the book.

    Again, the writers have said that it was not rape. And even if you want to argue against the credibility of the writers when it comes to issues of consent, my counterargument would be the characters in the book and the accountability they've been held to. For instance:
    Here we go again. The Dark Horse staff have been as clear as mud on the issue of consent in that case. Phrases like "so much mystical mojo that neither of you could keep it in your pants" certainly don't help and seem to indicate that this was, in fact, magically induced sex rather than something done out of their free will. But when you ask them about it using the R-word, they, of course, start denying it. Like you say, it's a matter of semantics. Too bad nobody has asked them the same question with a different phrasing, such as, was it consensual sex? Were Buffy and Angel in the state of mind where they could give consent? For all I know, the Dark Horse staff 1) may not consider Kitty Twilight a person who can be a perpetrator, 2) didn't even consider this, forgetting that one can be found guilty of raping another person without being the one who's having sex with them, and instead jumped to the conclusion that people were accusing Angel of rape. You and King are shooting yourselves in the foot with the argument that rape has to have a perpetrator: the Dark Horse staff saying that it was not rape is not the same as the Dark Horse staff saying that it was consensual sex, which they haven't actually said.

    Yeah, there are a bunch of other compelling arguments you could use that it was not non-consensual. (There are, however, other compelling arguments you could use to prove that it was.) But the Dark Horse staff saying that it's not rape... is not a compelling one.

    If you want my opinion... (well, if you want my opinion, you could have read it already at least twice or three times in my previous posts, since I've been saying the same thing since this debate started, but it doesn't seem to be getting to you.. but here it is again.) I don't think that the Dark Horse staff meant it to be non-consensual, but I don't think they meant it to be fully consensual either; I think that they had no idea what the heck they wanted it to be, because they were trying to have their cake and eat it, which is why there are so many contradictory statements in the text.

    If Angel really did rape her with the glow by turning her into a sex doll, she'd never have been able to decline sex with Angel even if she did know about the prophecy.

    Angel himself had to sweet talk her before she gave in to all the superficial nice stuff he was saying about being happy together. If the glow was doing all the work, why would Angel need to say anything to her at all?
    Oh yeah, and lets not forget that Angel himself was affected by the glow, which is something that never gets mentioned.
    Who are you arguing with? I'm not MikeB. Nobody except MikeB is arguing that Angel raped Buffy. We know he was also affected. If the sex was non-consensual, the perpetrator of rape was Twilight (the sentient universe). The only way he would reasonably be accused of rape is if he knew before he got affected that they would be overcome by the glow and that it would result in sex, and that he agreed to go along with it, which would be difficult to prove, and which I don't think is indicated in text.

    The spacefrak was clumsy and stupid, yes. But it was not rape.
    Clumsy and stupid is when you say something without thinking and insult someone, or when you get angry and hit something valuable and smash it. Being magically induced (to this or that extent) to have sex is not just "clumsy and stupid".

    Unless you mean it was clumsy and stupid writing (and art). This I definitely agree with.

    In the Other Thread You said: "Maybe we should ask the Dark Horse staff how they define "rape". I take that as an implication that you think the fandom is in a position to educate/enlighten Dark Horse? I find that idea pretty absurd.
    That was a rhetorical question? I find your idea that this idea is absurd, absurd.

    Dark Horse and Mutant Enemy may not have always had the most tact when approaching the issue of consent, especially when magic is involved.
    To put it mildly.

    But let's be real. I've seen the fandom abuse the hell out of the word "rape", including posts in this very thread, so I find it pretty silly to suggest that the fans should be educating the writers about anything.
    Some fans being clueless doesn't mean that the Dark Horse staff have a clue.

    Again, I'm reminded of that ugly thread a year or so back when people were trying to stretch the word "rape" so that it includes all sexual encounters under the influence of alcohol.
    Except that this never happened. People weren't trying to stretch "rape" to include all sexual encounters under the influence of alcohol, only those encounters under the influence of alcohol that are actually rape. The only thing that was ugly was some people insisting that everyone who wakes up and realizes they had sex under influence of alcohol but can't remember how must have had consensual sex, and that it can't be rape by any means, and that female posters who think that they would feel horrified that they might have raped if that happened to them, are just whiners trying to accuse every man of rape. In other words, if you even dare be afraid that a sexual encounter you don't remember at a drunken party might have been rape, you're a man-hating feminazi. And oh, there was also one poster's lovely argument that it obviously can't be rape if the woman in question wore a short skirt and came on to an ex-boyfriend or two at the party, which means she was "up for it" with absolutely anyone who might have been at that party.

    Yes, it was an ugly, ugly thread. But not for reasons you state.

    This is where I feel you are being unreasonable. Nobody is saying "yay" here. Nobody is trying to argue that rape is a good thing. Nobody is trying to argue that magical, weird, non-consensual sex between Angel and Eve is a good thing. The argument is a matter of semantics. I actually *agree* that what happened with Angel and Eve was pretty horrible and could have been traumatic. Where the disagreement comes in is whether you can actually call it a "rape". Personally, I really don't care all that much whether it "technically" qualifies as rape. Because that's really a matter of semantics and has no bearing whatsoever over how traumatic or gross it is.
    No, the disagreement comes from the fact that I was never talking about the legal definitions and criminal liability of Twilight the sentient universe or whoever, but about the fact that the Mutant Enemy and Dark Horse staff have written some very problematic dubcon or non-con situations and have never treated them seriously.

    It feels like we keep having this debate where you're really debating one subject while I'm debating a completely different one.

    How is that a strawman?
    Let's have our friend Wikipedia explain it:

    "To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[3][4] "

    Seems like a textbook example.

    Anya and Giles made out because Willow unintentionally wiped their minds and they thought that they were fiancée's. If you're going to argue that Angel and Eve were the victims of an unintentional rape where there was no perpetrator, why can't Anya and Giles be victims of unintentional sexual battery? They wouldn't have chosen to make out under normal circumstances, they only locked lips because a spell robbed them of their identity. Kissing someone against their will is sexual battery.
    You really don't see the difference between Anya and Giles losing their memory, and Angel and Eve being literally made to have sex with each other?

    I'm no expert, but I would argue that kissing somebody through deception by pretending to be somebody else *might* qualify as sexual battery.
    Would you argue that, if a person who's married and faithful to their spouse has amnesia and forgets that they're married, and then meets and has sex with someone other than their spouse, that was sexual battery? That would be a more fitting real life parallel. Yours is not (yours would actually be a fitting real life parallel to what Faith did to Riley in Who Are You?).

    What if Anya and Giles had sex with each other instead of kissing? Would that be rape?
    No.

    What about Buffy and Spike in Something Blue? They kissed a lot. Does that count as sexual battery? If they had sex would that have been rape?
    It would certainly not be consensual sex. I'm leaving it you to coin the term for it, or not. You could always use the term "non-con" which is popular in fanfiction.

    Also, can other crimes such as murder, theft or kidnapping happen with no perpetrator? You're arguing that rape can happen without a perpetrator, what about these other crimes?
    Um, no I'm not arguing that rape can happen without a perpetrator. Not in real life, anyway. I'm getting really tired of you constantly misrepresenting my arguments. I'm arguing that, if you were accidentally forced to have sex by magic (obviously, if that were possible) like characters in these non-con situations, you would be feel just as raped as if there had been an identifiable perpetrator. There does not need to be a perpetrator in order to be a victim.

    Can a murder happen without a perpetrator? No, because it wouldn't be called "murder". But can a person die violently without a perpetrator? Oh yes. If you die in an accident or natural catastrophe, guess what... you're just as dead. And you're still considered a "victim".

    Can there be theft without a perpetrator? No, because it wouldn't be called "theft", but if you lose something by accident, you will be missing it just as you would if someone intended to take it from you. Can there be kidnapping without a perpetrator? No, but you can get lost or stranded without a perpetrator.

    The difference is, we have the words for all these situations. We don't have the word for "people accidentally being forced to have sex" because it doesn't happen in real life. It does, however, in fiction.

    You seem to think that all that matters is "can we blame someone?" while I think that the more important issue is "how does it affect the victim?" When someone dies in an accident or natural catastrophe, we don't say that they are not victims because nobody intended to kill them. So why would we think that someone who's forced to have sex they could not consent to was not a victim, just because there is no identifiable perpetrator?
    Last edited by TimeTravellingBunny; 07-04-13 at 10:44 PM.
    You keep waiting for the dust to settle and then you realize it; the dust is your life going on. If happy comes along - that weird unbearable delight that's actual happy - I think you have to grab it while you can. You take what you can get, 'cause it's here, and then...gone.

  8. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to TimeTravellingBunny For This Useful Post:

    ami (08-04-13),Nina (08-04-13),Sky (08-04-13),Stoney (08-04-13)

  9. #27
    Slayer MikeB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles, Calif.
    Posts
    2,501
    Thanks
    3,425
    Thanked 577 Times in 342 Posts

    Default

    Rape - Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means penetration by the offender(s). Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape.

    Sexual assault - A wide range of victimizations, separate from rape or attempted rape. These crimes include attacks or attempted attacks generally involving unwanted sexual contact between victim and offender. Sexual assaults may or may not involve force and include such things as grabbing or fondling. It also includes verbal threats.
    http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=317

    http://www.healthyplace.com/abuse/ar...apedefinition/ Here’s some more stuff relating to California law.



    * My quote: "Angel and Eve having sex: both of them were raped, but they didn’t rape each other. I consider that’s probably the best way to describe that."

    If anything, Lorne unknowingly had them rape each other. But it is fact they were raped. For a ‘real world example’ this would be like someone unknowingly putting very strong ecstasy (I don’t know of a better example) or whatever in the punch, two people drinking the punch, and then those two people had sex with each other and they wouldn’t have had sex were not for that very strong ecstasy or whatever.


    * Buffy is not responsible for being glowified; therefore, she was raped by AngelTwilight.

    Even in “Something Blue” (4.09), even though Spike was threatening to chop her into little pieces if he ever gets his chip out, Buffy was merely glaring at him and telling him she’d fight him if he got his chip out and was a danger. She wasn’t violently trying to immediately kill him before the spell began.

    A non-glowified Buffy wouldn’t have had sex with AngelTwilight.

    And unless Twilight or Whistler was responsible for Angel pulling his mask off and then trying to ‘butter Buffy up’, Angel is about certainly responsible for having sex with Buffy and is likely the one who did the glow. There is about no indication that Angel was ‘affected’ by the glow. His main reason for being Twilight is being able to be with Buffy. Even in “Something Blue”, Willow asks “Why doesn’t Buffy just go marry [Spike].” Did Twilight or Whistler have a spell that made Angel take off the mask and then try to butter Buffy up?

    And if it was Twilight, certainly when Buffy’s actually in Twilight that Twilight would have far more ‘control’ over Buffy than when she was on Earth. Yet Buffy immediately wants to leave Twilight even though it looked like a paradise. And unless Whistler had a crystal ball or whatever that allowed him to see Buffy and Angel, it’s unlikely he’d even know when to start the glow.


    * The glow doesn’t need to have been a full ‘possession’ in order for Buffy to be raped. Again, it worked like an immensely – likely immeasurably – more powerful version of the “Something Blue” (4.09) spell.


    * To my knowledge, Joss Whedon – who is the only true arbiter of canon for the Buffyverse – has never said that the space frack wasn’t rape. DarkHorse is not an arbiter of canon. At-most they give opinions and do ‘PR’ and whatnot.


    * Post-BtVS S8 has Angel’s relationships with about everyone as good as or better than they were in AtS S5. And has Willow mostly blaming Buffy for the Seed being broken and Xander only blaming Buffy for the bad stuff that happened in BtVS S8 and after. Post-BtVS S8 is not a good indicator of Buffy’s responsibility for the space frak.




    KingofCretins

    My quote: "Faith was raping Buffy the moment she switched bodies with her till the moment their bodies were switched back."

    I was using the other definition of rape.


    * Unless Buffy and Spike had sex in “Something Blue” (4.09), at-worst both of them were sexually assaulted, but they didn’t sexually assault each other.

    In point of fact, Buffy is depicted having a much harder time ignoring the effects of the jacket than we actually see her depicted dealing with the glow.
    Buffy goes to save Dawn and likely merely kissed and dry humped RJ. And RJ hadn’t been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Slayers, many soldiers’ deaths, etc.


    * Attempted rape seems to require the ability to rape the person. It could be argued that given Buffy was stronger than Spike – and Spike wasn’t trying to drain her – that he didn’t have the ability to actually rape Buffy. In that case, both “Seeing Red” (6.19) and “The Pack” (1.06) are sexual assaults, albeit Xander is a lot less responsible for his given non-possessed Xander never would have tried to rape Buffy.

    Honestly, had an un-eaten Principal Flutie walked in to that lounge/cafeteria at the end of the scene, Hyena!Xander could have jumped to his feet and said "aww, we were just rasslin'".
    Principal Flutie would have called the police because Hyena!Xander was clearly attempting to rape Buffy.

  10. #28
    What? KingofCretins's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Big Honkin' Castle
    Posts
    13,720
    Thanks
    234
    Thanked 3,917 Times in 1,848 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeB View Post
    If anything, Lorne unknowingly had them rape each other. But it is fact they were raped. For a ‘real world example’ this would be like someone unknowingly putting very strong ecstasy (I don’t know of a better example) or whatever in the punch, two people drinking the punch, and then those two people had sex with each other and they wouldn’t have had sex were not for that very strong ecstasy or whatever.
    Rape is still an intent crime. Lorne, Angel, and Eve all lacked the requisite intent. In your hypothetical, neither of the parties to the sex nor the person who introduced the drug would be guilty of the crime of rape. The person who introduced the drug -- if having done so intentionally -- may be guilty of simple (i.e. not sexual or aggravated) battery for introducing the drug.

    * Buffy is not responsible for being glowified; therefore, she was raped by AngelTwilight.
    Well, it is your fanon that she lacked sufficient agency to consent. It's an interpretation that everybody associated with pushing the book out has scrupulously avoided confirming.

    * The glow doesn’t need to have been a full ‘possession’ in order for Buffy to be raped. Again, it worked like an immensely – likely immeasurably – more powerful version of the “Something Blue” (4.09) spell.
    No, but it does have to affect her to the point at which she neither could actually make an informed decision to engage in sex and to such extent that any reasonable person would know she was so affected. Basically, is the glow worth a couple cosmopolitans, or is it like 15 shots of Especial? There is no in-story fact that commits one way or another.

    * To my knowledge, Joss Whedon – who is the only true arbiter of canon for the Buffyverse – has never said that the space frack wasn’t rape. DarkHorse is not an arbiter of canon. At-most they give opinions and do ‘PR’ and whatnot.
    I can't help but notice that this is only the standard you apply to whether or not what you think is canon, actually isn't -- which is to say, you assume Joss agrees with you specifically unless he makes a purple post or gives an interview to disagree with you. Which... congrats, I guess?

    KingofCretins

    My quote: "Faith was raping Buffy the moment she switched bodies with her till the moment their bodies were switched back."

    I was using the other definition of rape.
    And I was using the actual definition, which was rather my point at the outset.

    * Unless Buffy and Spike had sex in “Something Blue” (4.09), at-worst both of them were sexually assaulted, but they didn’t sexually assault each other.
    Neither of them were sexually assaulted, by each other or any third party -- same as the "Life of the Party" situation, no element of intent all around. Despite its name, Willow's "will be done" spell operated entirely in circumstances in which she didn't have intent beyond mere negligence, which is not the requisite intent for battery, sexual assault, rape, etc.

    * Attempted rape seems to require the ability to rape the person. It could be argued that given Buffy was stronger than Spike – and Spike wasn’t trying to drain her – that he didn’t have the ability to actually rape Buffy. In that case, both “Seeing Red” (6.19) and “The Pack” (1.06) are sexual assaults, albeit Xander is a lot less responsible for his given non-possessed Xander never would have tried to rape Buffy.

    Principal Flutie would have called the police because Hyena!Xander was clearly attempting to rape Buffy.
    The crime of attempt doesn't require such actual ability at all, so that discussion is moot. Spike's actions could be taught in a first year crim law class as an example of attempted rape.

    The only distinction I draw with "The Pack" (aside from the intent discussion -- which would be lengthy, not just because we don't know how much agency Xander has, there's also the involuntary intoxication component) on the facts is that, if the crime of attempted rape occurred, it occurred after the scene ended. And I would take Buffy at her word, if I was 100% certain that she was being serious. The statement, couched as it was in dry humor, is a little hard to be certain of; whether she is literally and accurately saying he tried to rape her off-screen, or if she was just being glib.

    Banner by LRae12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •