But that only worked with Angel because the drug was some sort of agent that made him feel euphoric (not a depressant), thereby I dunno - sorta tricking him into feeling like his soul was gone.

(IOW - that one took a lot of wankery, too)

I guess the only mitigating factor that the writers could pull out for the attempted rape seem to be that "Spike was drunk, alcohol is a depressant, remember what happened to Angel when he got drugged? Angelus came out to play."

Except that Angel's soul was restored by a curse that would steal the soul away again if Angel experienced true happiness. (Hence the euphoria drug.) As far as we know, Spike's soul was simply restored, without the "true happiness" clause. So happy pills wouldn't work on him like that.

(IOW - that one took a lot of wankery, too)

ITA. It did.

But why would they have wanted mitigating factors in SR at all? They needed Spike to have a moment of clarity about his being a soulless being -- impossible to have that happen if he could blame his behavior on any outside force.

Mitigating factor for how Buffy behaved in S7, not for what Spike did in Seeing Red maybe.

I still type it out because the night Seeing Red aired, I read someone I had generally enjoyed reading over the years tell me that if Buffy had just let him do it, she would have enjoyed it, and I never want to forget what it was. I have no doubt Plei and Heather remember what it was, no matter if they call it the toenail clipping.

I'm not trying to personalize this: I'm sure most of the people on this board "get it." But, if I can get all theoretical here for a minute, in using the shorthand, I think you're still being interpellated into a discourse that allows the reader to look away from the event, regardless.

If I had a macro for it, I'd use it. But just like IJS, NSM, ITA, AFAIK, IIRC -- why bother? I am that lazy. But it's not dismissive. When I say AFAIK, I don't mean a diluted version of "as far as I know". I mean precisely that, just as AR means precisely "attempted rape" and "SMG" means precisely Sarah Michelle Gellar.

I never said "diluted," first off. Second, I'd ask you to consider why you use an abbreviation for this one event in the entire history of the show and not for any other.

As I think it was Cindy? pointed out, the abbreviation seems to have originated with the sort of people who thought of the attack as "attempted sex" and who still think Buffy should apologize to Spike for being so mean to him instead of vice-versa. And while it may have gotten adopted more widely just because it's easier to type, I think that ideological position is written in to the abbreviation; by using the abbreviation, by setting up a situation where someone can read for pages and pages about "AR" and never have to think about "rape" if he or she doesn't want to. .

Sluttage?

Yes! Nothing of substance, alas.

I'd ask you to consider why you use an abbreviation for this one event in the entire history of the show and not for any other.

For me, it's because I'm lazy, and every time I refer to it I call it exactly the same thing "the attempted rape". Xander's big lie is sometimes "the time Xander lied to Buffy in S2" or "Xander being pissy and jealous". Tara's death is "Warren shooting Tara" or "the magical mystery wicca-killing bullet" or any number of other expressions. The attempted rape? Always "the attempted rape". Also, clearly understood by folks here.

So I shortcut.

I am lazy, after all.

Don't know why other people do it.

Nothing breezy, nothing dismissive.

I watched from season one, and I flat disagree with your readig of the last two seasons. Sure, they were messy (although I don't object to them just dumping the AR when they realised what a sore point it was) but they were the most inventive and unconventional seasons.

I watched from season one, episode one. Though some of the ideas in the last two seasons were inventive and unconventional, the execution was poor. There were countless character issues (inconsistency, interaction), there were plot lines that went no where (Eye of Bejoxa), and the writing did not consist of the clever dialogue that we have come to expect and demand of ME.

Nice article in the LA Times about AH here.

Do Buffistas have a login at the LA times? I don't want to tell them my age, income level, and shopping habits just to read an interview.

I think Salon/Tabletalk work at LA Times.