Tony by a hair.

I'm thinking Maurice. I think I'm the only one who is, though.

---

I'm having trouble with the analogy, because I think this is more akin to discerning if a given character was a slave.

I guess what I'm saying is that with my modern viewer's eyes saying no and physically pushing someone off of me and them not stopping=rape, whether it is for Scarlet or not in the same way that owning someone as property=oppressive whether Mamie considered it to be or not.

---

If you locked Tony Geary, James Marsters, and Maurice Bernard (Sonny/GH) on a locked set. Who'd chew the most scenery?

Tony by a hair.

Don't you mean "Tony by a BADLY PERMED hair"?

Similarly, the "Happy Rape" is an old trope - Sabine Women, or a famous verse in Orlando Furioso for example. Don't think you could write Luke and Laura or GWTW today (GWTW for reasons besides the rape scene ending). Don't think we are poorer for that.

I agree. I don't think though, that every story has to be socially responsible. It's fiction.

Oh, absolutely. I don't think the issue of "responsibility" comes into play with fiction until/unless the character who does something reprehensible is lionized *by the creator/writers*. I definitely don't think that happened with Spike. (Granted, segments of fandom said that poor widdle Spikey was just misunderstood and Buffy was such a bitca to him, but I'm definitely not talking about fans here. I don't think the *writers,* however, presented Spike's actions in a favorable light.)

---

I don't think it's a huge overstep to call the scene in GWTW a rape, but it takes making a decision based on what happened in that bedroom, and all we know about what happened in the bedroom is that the next morning, Scarlett is happy about it.

She starts out by saying (thinking) that he'd "humbled her, hurt her, used her brutally." It's explicitly violent, and explicitly without her consent. The fact that she also thinks it was TEH HAWT just makes it a disturbing rape fantasy.

(And honestly, I don't think it's supposed to reflect well on Scarlett that she reacts that way. Scarlett's the hero, but she's also a shallow bitch with no people skills. Rhett's the self-aware bad-boy who's the only person bad enough and deep enough to really understand her and love her for who she is. And wow, they really are the Antebellum Crazyfen Spuffy, aren't they?)

---

I don't think the *writers,* however, presented Spike's actions in a favorable light.

Favourable, no. But way more forgivable than I felt, and the disconnect threatened to taint the ensuing plotlines (hence dismissal in my head -- not to preserve widdle Spike, but just to buy anything that happened with him later).

---

She starts out by saying (thinking) that he'd "humbled her, hurt her, used her brutally."

See, I read it more than 10 years ago, and so I couldn't remember anything specific about the book -- other than Rhett's great line when he dramatically embraces Scarlett by the wagon while Atlanta burns in the background -- "There's a soldier in the South who loves you, Scarlett," -- in the book, he doesn't say "loves you," he said "wants you."

And wow, they really are the Antebellum Crazyfen Spuffy, aren't they?

So very much.

---

And it looks like I may have to forgive TB for liking salmon, for lo, he has proved himself once again as my one true imaginary internet boyfriend.

Yaaaay!

---

Did anyone notice the little Buffy riff in the (fab, incidentally) Weeds pilot? Boy to girl "All you need to do is talk about bear hunting and I'm good to go" Girl to boy "all I have to do is talk about linoleum and you're good to go..." Now, the idea is obvious, but the specific material?

---

When I watched the rape, I thought "No, the Spike in my head still would do evil things -- just not that one, not now, not here." But, I figured, if they wanted him well tarnished, that's a quick and easy way.

I think this is what I'm trying to say when I say "the writers made him do it." At the time, I said an attempted vamping would have made the point and not seemed out of character. But on the other hand, making it rape made it explicitly a bad thing done by the man in Spike and not the monster. The wrong Bad Thing, maybe, but it sure did get their point across in a hurry.

And like many of you, I felt there was no coming back from it. But I'm not sure the writers would have known what to do with Spike in S7 (beyond "But he's different, he has a soul") even without a rape.

Again, I think they made a mistake cutting the (and I'm using this term more to describe what I think they had in mind for Spike's mindset, and not to smooth over or forgive the obvious intent) forced seduction set up scene.

Possibly. It certainly would have made it more clear that Spike wasn't a fluffy puppy who just wanted to be loved, but I'm not sure it wouldn't have been easy to overlook.

---

But on the other hand, making it rape made it explicitly a bad thing done by the man in Spike and not the monster.

Oh, I always interpreted the attempted rape as purposefully saying something about the man, not the monster. The monster was defanged a lont time before. It was the man-Spike who lacked the tools to be a decent man, even when he was motivated to be good. Buffy didn't make him want to be a monster. Because of his feelings for Buffy, Spike felt like a man when he was feeling good about himself, and felt like actual manhood was just out of his grasp when he wasn't. I understand why the betrayal had to happen at the man/woman level rather than the vamp/slayer level of their relationship.

Jessica,

Upstream, you mentioned something about the attempted rape scene, and that it was the worst directed scene in the history of the show, or something like that. How so? I know nothing about film. I like what I like and that's it. What were some of the problems you saw in the direction?

---