I guess part of the reason I brought up the depressant was that his more evil nature would come out with the do-gooder redemption-seeking Spike soused, thus causing his impared judgement in trying to force buffy to participate. Some drunk people (and apparently vamps) get very single minded and do things their non-soused selves wouldn't. Drinking lowers the inhibitions and screws up the judgement.

And they had spike do the classic moment of clarity through the haze with his "Oh my god, what am I doing?" face.

Yet they never really tried to *use* that as an excuse. For good or ill, Buffy and Spike should have at least discussed it when he got sober.

I agree they sort of just shoved the whole thing aside. I wish they had at least *tried* to pin it on alcohol.

In a season of "addiction," it seems odd thay didn't even bring it up.

Buffy purity test.

Woohoo. I'm an obsessive, as I'm sure we all are.

Just read this over at Slayage. It's talking about the memory wipe in Tabula Rasa.

Buffy shook off her malaise and became forceful and confident. Willow was smart and resourceful, Tara sweet, Xander a regular guy, Giles was mature and wise, etc. Each reverting to their basic nature unencumbered with history of self. I believe the writer’s were trying to make a point here. Divested of his memory and having no identity to speak of, Spike should have reverted to the violent demon nature becoming, once again, an evil and violent creature. There were no memories of perceived goodness, no love for Buffy, no recall of the chip, all that was left was his basic nature and it should have been evil. It wasn’t. Spike saw himself as human and good; Randy Giles in tweed. Later, when confronted with his vampire reality he declared himself as a force for good; a vampire with a soul.

Yes, that's why I was bitter about Tabula Rasa. Got over it, though.

Hmm..might have worked, although I found Spike's Angelesque self-description hilarious. The thing is, I think that in "Tabula Rasa" Spike did go back to his basic self, albeit his basic human self. His "vampire with a soul" speech proves this as he is clearly in romantic idealist/pretentious wanna-be poet mode at that point (Buffy responds the same way everyone else did to William the Bloody's poetry; "how lame is that?"). You also have his kissing Buffy; he's clearly imagining this as a wind-swept romantic love story where he fights off the evil vampires and gets the girl. He also trusts Buffy/Joan (the mother figure leader of the group) but is wary of father figure Giles ("I must hate you, there's always something"), who he believes to be his actual father. This is reminiscent of William's love for his mother in "LMPTM" as well as his vampiric love of his "mother" Drusilla, both of which had a very Oedipal feel to them. Again, he seeks comfort from the strong female while lashing out at the father type.

Normally, I lurk. Normally, I avoid discussing the attempted rape because it can really bring up some heated discussions that get out of hand. But, I can see this one is being well-handled so I want to throw in another viewpoint.

Buffy doesn't need to forgive Spike. While I agree that many of the people felt the rape was too "real world" and confused many veiwers, it did not confuse me. I saw it as, Spike is an evil vampire, he will do evil things. Pre-season 7, Spike was equivalent to Angelus. Even with the chip, he was still evil. His primary moral compass was toward evil, regardless of his helping the Scoobies, loving Buffy, protecting Dawn, etc. Those actions were abnormal on his part. Normal, for Spike, was evil. Just as we saw in season 3 BtVS and seaon 4 AtS, what Angelus did never needed to be forgiven because it was expected that he would act that way. Spike says it to Wood in LMPTM, he did what vampires do, kill Slayers, he wasn't going to apologize. Basically the same thing he told Buffy in Beneath You, that he wouldn't apologize for the rape. What a vampire does, does not require apologies/forgiveness. You don't forgive the rabid dog that bites you, you shoot it. So, yeah, Buffy should have staked Spike. Not that I wanted to see that mind you, Spike's just too pretty to lose off the show.

I'm coming at this from the perspective that many people have said that they've treated Angel and Angelus like 2 people, but not Spike. My belief is that we should be looking at Spike the same way and Seeing Red was the writers' attempt to get us to do just that. And personally, it did that for me. Up until that point, I truly thought Spike could be redeemed through his own choices. I could pooh-pooh Spike being the Doctor in AYW, but once he tried to rape Buffy, well...I was all for having something horrible happen to his manly parts. Fortunately for Spike, he high-tailed it before Buffy could go Lady Hacksaway on him. And then he went and got the soul.

So now we've got Angel!Lite and how can Buffy not come to care for him? He's insane, attempts to self-immolate for her, helps find Willow, tries to help Cassie, helps Xander steal the letter jacket, he's all about doing the right thing. Yeah, yeah, he's turning people, but not because he wants to. So, Spike is trying to help the helpless, just like Angel. Wow, how can Buffy not come to care about someone who follows the same formula? Okay, tad sarcastic there (and I am a B/S shipper), but I thought it was pretty much crammed down our throats that Spike was the Angel replacement, but with peroxided hair. In fact, the only way Spike could be acceptable was to make him behave like Angel. Thank dog for LMPTM, because I felt we finally got to see him break out of it. Although, one could argue that his biting Wood was the equivalent of Angel smothering Wesley. Actually, that makes Spike better than Angel, because Spike stopped. Angel had to be stopped. So, ya know what, by this point I see Spike as much more "worthy" of affection than Angel.

What it boils down to, is that since forgiveness is not required, why shouldn't Buffy come to honestly care for Spike? And since his behavior can be equated to that of Angel's (who is held up to us as a champion) is there any reason Buffy should hold herself back from caring? No. And that is what I saw in Chosen. Buffy finally came to this realization herself. Doesn't mean she wasn't still half-baked, but she finally saw Spike as someone who could be loved.

For what it's worth, I agree that souled Spike should be afforded the same degree of cosmic forgiveness (or acceptance or tolerance or whatever) as souled Angel for behavior while unsouled. Same with Vampire X, should he or she come along. Beyond that, it was (and rightly so, I think) up to the characters (well, the writers) how they treated the souled version of each vamp with respect to what each did while unsouled. I don't see why Buffy wouldn't be just as likely to not equate souled Spike with the soulless creature who tried to rape her as she would be to not equate souled Angel with the soulless creature who killed Jenny, tortured Giles, and tried to kill Willow, all in an attempt to destroy Buffy. How many times did she say about Spike something like, "It's different now, he has a soul"? (How do you punctuate that? Too lazy to look it up.)

That's how it shakes out for me. Within the 'verse and taking into account the souled/unsouled behavioral loophole (which is presented with greater complexity, I know. At a basic level, though, soulless creatures aren't so much held responsible for what they do as they are, uh, killed for it mostly, and souled creatures are held responsible for their choices to do good or evil, but if they do evil, they can go for redemption rather than automatically having to be killed. Simplification, but ...), I can accept Buffy's acceptance of souled Spike as being distinct from soulless Spike. It took her a while to figure out what that meant to her, and then she went with how she felt (that is how I interpreted the writing, anyway).

Re: soul = new person. As a metaphor, it brings up all kinds of nasty issues.

Which I've already discussed ad nauseum, so I will spare the repost and just give you the direct link to the semi-polished version. Please note that this was written post-Touched, and that Chosen managed to clean up some of the mess.

I had the most worthless Buffy related dream to date today. We were all sitting around the magic box playing Scrabble. Anya won. For some reason the Judge was there with a yoyo in the corner.

Could the term "attempted rape" be the problem, not the abbreviation? It's kind of a wussy neutral-journalism courtroom term. Seems like if we had to refer to the ACTUAL CAR CRASH as the "alleged car crash" every time, we'd be quicker to abbreviate to ACC. Just because it's not as juicy. Maybe the legalese shorthand is responsible for the breezy dismissal Michele blames on the abbreviation, and we'd be better off saying "the time Spike tried to rape Buffy" along with "the time Xander put words in Willow's mouth."

Heather's right that Buffy giving a date to Jonathan is a different case from giving a date to Xander, and giving one to Xander wouldn't help.

not being judged on any sort of objective "you'll never know the love of a woman" scale.

Not having any experience, I tend to overfocus on the objective-type qualifications, like status matching and height. I'm always surprised when my sisters break up with funny, smart prize guys over issues of personality. (I originally had "not charming enough to deserve a date with you in the natural order," which was more accurate but sounded prone to be taken personally -- and I was already on shaky ground, because I wouldn't want to be told who I ought to date to be considered nice.)