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.

What complicates it for me, SailAweigh, is that that's the Spike Buffy had the affair with.

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.

I realize this is just my reading of his lines, but I felt Spike's comments in Beneath You were more along the lines of admitting that saying sorry (for something like that attack) was futile. I didn't see it as a refusal to apologize, just an acknowledgement that the attack was too big for an apology.

What further complicates it, is that when Angelus was not under the influence of a soul, the love Angel felt for Buffy turned into something else, into this desire to hurt and torture her. Whereas the love Spike felt for Buffy was fairly unchanged. It might have been cleaned up a little, but with and without soul, he wanted her and wanted to protect her. That, in and of itself is fine with me. I thought it made it more interesting. But when it comes to their "relationships" with and feelings for Buffy, it makes comparing no-soul!Spike and Angelus sort of like apples and oranges.

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.

Don't get me wrong. I am much more impressed that Spike has a soul, than I am that Angel has a soul. Angel's soul has to be imposed on him. Spike sought his. I realize this is arguing a hypothetical and basically a waste of everyone's time, but I believe if Angelus got chipped, once he found he could still beat up and kill demons, he'd be a little demonic emperor, having minions do all his dirty work for him, but still remain just as actively evil. There'd be no pig's blood for him. He'd just have fresh kills brought to him every night.

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.

I have no problems with this as it stands. My objection is that they missed the middle part of the story. They didn't show me Buffy come to terms with the rape attempt. One day she flinched when he handed her a flashlight. The next she was okay. The only thing that happened in between was Spike's less than lucid revelation that he got a soul. And so I think to myself, "Am I supposed to fill in the blanks and decide that makes Buffy's reaction to the attempted rape disappear?"

That's my problem with it. If you (M.E.) want to tell me a story of this hero (Buffy), who is so loving and into redemption that she can put aside this very personal assault by someone she trusted (whether she should have or not), then show me she put it aside and how. Don't just expect me to accept that she did. Because the only way I can make it all make sense, given the Buffy I've watched for 144 episodes, it to feel she's mistakenly blamed herself for being sexually assaulted.

I always expected Buffy to forgive Spike for trying to rape her. But if you want me to buy that she, who had flashbacks at the touch of his fingers - not only forgives him, but "gets over it" to the point where she's calling him a hottie and has an emotional need for his continuing presence, I deserve to know that story. And that story would have been a damn sight more interesting than "Chinese Slayer doesn't speak English and this is our joke for the episode"; "Giles doesn't touch anything for umpteen episodes, but apparently, that's just a misdirect that was used to distract from the real surprise, which is that there is no surprise"; and "The potentials hate Buffy because she makes speeches, even though she's opened up her home to them, and risked her life on numerous occasions to save their sorry asses"; or "Buffy makes long speeches, because it's even more effective than sunlight at driving away evil."

PMM, I wouldn't dream of downplaying how your experience has affected you. Please extend me the courtesy of not downplaying what has happened to me. Having everything I most cherished smashed by the person I most loved and trusted? And you mention triggers -- do you think perhaps that I don't flinch and have panic attacks and deeply fear whether love or trust are possible again?

Okay. Let's not do this. Let's not do this at all. Nobody is saying that infidelity is a trust maker. But let's not pretend that having a lover (spouse, whatever) cheat on you is the same as having someone rape or try to rape you. That doesn't downplay your experience. What it does is say that your experience isn't the same one as Buffy's experience in the story. That's not downplaying. That's an acknowledgement of fact.

Both are bad. They are different kinds of bad. Yes, both affect trust, but in very different ways.

Let's not go there at all. Please.

Cindy, I would rather you didn't answer on someone else's behalf. Also, I never suggested my experience was the same as Buffy's. What I have suggested is that one's own experiences and feelings and fears can colour the way one reacts to incidents on BtVS. I used a personal and traumatic experience for me to illustrate a point I was trying to make about the show. Maybe that was unwise of me. I made the point about myself and no-one else. But the two reactions I have got to that revelation seem, well, a little ``unkind'' to me.

Cindy, I would rather you didn't answer on someone else's behalf.

I wasn't answering on Plei's behalf. If I came across as doing so, I am sorry. I was responding to a statement posted on an open message board. I wasn't rifling through private emails or instant messages. When you put something up here, you put it up for all who come here to read. All who choose to respond are free to. You are free to disagree with, argue with, agree with, or ignore my responses to your posts. But I am not breaking any sort of message board rule of engagement by responding to something posted here.

Also, I never suggested my experience was the same as Buffy's.

No, you suggested your experience was worse than Buffy's. Here's an excerpt of your post:

I consider that betrayal to be a lot worse than a one-off incident of violence or sexual violence.

I didn't mention it when you first posted, because I understand you must be in great pain, and a real person's experience should, of course, trump a fictional character's story. So, because you are real and Buffy is fictional, your pain is more important than Buffy's.

However, rape and infidelity are both violations that take place in the real world. So let's take you and Buffy out of it for a moment. Both are painful. Both attack a person's ability to trust. Both are assaults on the emotions. Both can adversely affect the sexuality of the survivor. Rape is also an assault on the body. Infidelity is not. Your similar physical symptoms aside, I see that as the point that Plei was trying to make.

Although you are real and Buffy is not, there are other real people here besides you. Some real people survive rape and/or infidelity. Since it is impossible for you to know about all the real life experiences of your readership here, as a whole, I find it distressing that you would first decide Violation A that has happened to you, is worse than Violation B that happens to others. That's where I see "downplaying" in this thread

When someone here (in this case, Plei (PMM) ) calls your attention to the fact that your statement sounds as though you've never experienced Violation B, all she is doing is responding to an argument you presented in making your case about your opinion on a TV show.

(Hey, UTTAD? Would you mind using > at the beginning of a line to quote things instead of using the teeny-tiny font? It's a huge readability issue, and I'd really like to be able to follow the points everyone's making, especially in a more serious discussion like this one.)

I was just about to post exactly what Cindy said. But then she posted it, so I'll just point and nod.

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

As an interesting parallel to that, remember that when Angel lost his memories in "Spin the Bottle", he reverted to Liam's personality (though thankfully without the accent).

So beating someone's face to a pulp ISN'T taking power over another person's body?

Not when it's consensual, no.

amych: Okay dokey.

Lady O' Spain: Good point.

(UTTAD - Bronzer-my-Bronzer, it's really easy. Okay, granted, we learned HTML for the Bronze, and then iB for the haven. Learning yet a new code at first feels like the first step in a journey that'll probably take you elsewhere in the long run. But it doesn't have to.)

(Quick-edit code (which is linked right above the posting box, and when you click that link, you get a pop-up with the quick-edit codes, but don't lose your post-in-progress) is easy. And in this instance, if you put a greater-than carat ( > ) ahead of the section you're quoting, it both indents it and sets it in different font, and you don't have to close the tag. Hitting the return key (enter key, whatever, I'm a typist in a PC world) will close the quick-edit code all by itself.)

EDITED for the right, damned carat.

t /mathphobe