BUFFYVERSE

Angel Raped Buffy, Spike only tried

POSTED BY: FURYFIRE
UPDATED: Saturday, July 24, 2004 10:07
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 18382
PAGE 2 of 2

Thursday, January 29, 2004 7:29 AM

STATIC


I only skimmed through this thread, but here's my input.

Given that the legal age of consent in California is 18, then the sex that occurred between Angel and Buffy is considered STATUATORY rape, which is to say that while it was CONSENSUAL, it was not LEGAL, the understanding being that the law considers someone under the established age of consent to be unable to GIVE 'fully informed' consent.

Basically, my friends in Juvenile Justice paraphrase this by saying, "It's easier to seduce them when they're that young, so you're taking advantage, which is SORT of like coercing them, which is SORT of like rape."

This has probably all been said anyhow, but I thought I'd offer my input.

==================================================
"Wash. . .we got some local color happening. A grand entrance would not go amiss."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 29, 2004 7:52 AM

SPIKESPIEGEL


We seem to be agreed that if Angel raped Buffy at all, it was only in a technical, legal sense (Statutory).

Well, in a technical, legal sense, Angel is dead. Not just like, a mistaken identity case where he's wrongly assumed dead, but demonstrably, with cold skin and no pulse dead.

I'm pretty sure there's no precedent for charging dead people with crimes committed 220ish years after they died. Angel needs an airtight alibi, all he has to do is lie very, very still.



"Bang."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 29, 2004 8:38 AM

ATHERTONWING


well does that mean buffy committed an act of necrophilia? or is that mis-counted because of the fact she's a minor.......heh heh she LOVES dead people heh heh. ok but seriously...?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 29, 2004 9:14 AM

SPIKESPIEGEL


No wonder people stab you in the gut, Atherton.

Yeah, come to think of it, she DID commit necrophilia. But it was now, what, six years ago? I don't the statute of limitations on that minor, if gross, crime. But since she committed it as a minor, were she to have been convicted of it, the records would've been sealed once she was an adult, sparing us all from, you know, pondering this too closely.



"Bang."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 29, 2004 6:19 PM

LOADANDMAKEREADY



Quote:

5. A jury's responsibility is to determine whether the facts or the case match up with the charges, not inject their own private opinions that are directly contrary with what the statute describes.


For 789 years -- that is since Magna Carta in the year 1215 -- there has been no greater principle of either English or American Constitutional Law than, that it is both the Right and Duty of the Jury to judge not only the meaning of the law, the facts of the case, and the moral intent of the accused, but that it is their PRIMARY, and PARAMOUNT Right and Duty to judge the justice of the Law itself ... and to hold all persons Not Guilty if they think the Law Itself is Unjust!

So, it is not only their RIGHT, it is their DUTY, to, "inject their own private opinions that are directly contrary with what the statute describes."

If the House passes a law, it is subject to approval or veto by the Senate. If the Senate pass the law, it is subject to approval or veto by the Executive. If the President signs it, it is subject to approval or veto by the Judiciary -- which hasn't truly done its job for nearly a Century. If the Supreme Court approve it, it is subject to approval or veto by the Citizenry through their agency ... the Jury!

So, it is not possible that you could be more mistaken.

"...no government, so called, can reasonably be trusted for a moment, or reasonably supposed to have honest purposes in view, any longer than it depends wholy on voluntary support." from NO TREASON by Lysander Spooner

ABOVE ALL ELSE, KYFHO!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 29, 2004 6:54 PM

LOADANDMAKEREADY


Quote:

Originally posted by LivingImpaired:
- Stealing government weapons (don't know the techincal name, but know it's a crime)



Lets see: the gummymint sticks a tax board bayonet in your back and forces you to hand over your money, in effect a portion of your life -- the time and effort it took you to earn that money -- the goofermint then uses that stolen money to purchase weapons. The gummymint then calls it "stealing," and accuses you of "theft" when you take possession of property purchased with monies which were stolen from you.
You call it theft? I call it a tax rebate!

"It is the same with government as Caesar said it was with war: with money you can hire soldiers, and with soldiers you can get more money ... and also command general obedience to your will." Lysander Spooner

ABOVE ALL ELSE, KYFHO!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 29, 2004 7:18 PM

LOADANDMAKEREADY


Quote:

Originally posted by twiceonsundays:
Maybe if you DID vote, the people in office (and making the laws) would be on your side. In a representative government, they can't represent you if they don't know how you feel. vote vote vote vote vote vote. One more time. vote. okay, two. vote! no, really, vote. Did I mention you should vote? And in between, call your representatives and tell them how you feel. And then vote.



The people in office are never on your side.

Who is going to fight harder for public office?
Your honest neighbor who knows he will have to put his life on "hold" for a number of years to gain office in order to secure a freedom or expand a freedom, then go back home and pick up his life where he left off, and enjoy that freedom?
Or someone who burns to control the lives of others, and sees politics as a way of combining his sickness with a career which will bring him personal wealth, power, and fame?

"You can see it in their eyes as they sit and move the levers that work the gears of the State. They look at you and know there really is a free lunch. And when they reach to tear off a piece of your flesh, do you bite the hand that feeds on you? Or do you like so many of your fellows, ask if the maggot likes you rare, medium, or well done?"
From the Second Book of KYFHO

Don't vote ... it only encourages them!

ABOVE ALL ELSE, KYFHO!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 29, 2004 7:21 PM

JASONZZZ


Wow, do you tote guns in Montana too? Yeah, you are talking about Jury Nullification. People who believe that also believe they don't have to pay income tax because it said so right there in the Constitution.

Magna Carta, yes - basic law, blah blah blah. It's great, everything we know derives from it, but we don't use it! We might use it as a basis for comparison and talk about how things are derived and what reasoning there is for Laws. We aren't in England! (well for that matter, neither are the English, but that's another discussion) and we have our own set of laws of the land here.

Where I come from, we vote people in to the two branches of the Government, then the President picks the people for the third. The citizens makes laws thru the Legislature. Well, sure the special interest gets their influence in there somewhere and the water gets muddier from there on out. But what the hey - everyone gets to speak about it.

Hey you get picked for the jury, you review the facts, you listen to the Judge review the law that you get to compare the facts with, you and the other 11 folks go and compare notes from the law with the facts and you decide whether they match up. How simple is that? Why all of a sudden do you get to make the law? That's not representative. That's you (or somebody else equally as misinformed).

And yes, it's possible. Do people believe in nullification? When the case is muddy and the facts aren't straight, you can nullify all you want. I wouldn't want anyone convicted when the facts aren't all there. But we are an entire nation of people, not Joe sitting in the corner making up stuff. That's what you are saying - which even if true, doesn't make any sense.

Why? b/c if you can Jury Nullify one way, to say that the law doesn't apply b/c I don't like it; then you can also do it the other way and say that John (the defendent) is guilty even though the facts aren't all there, but I think his ass should be fried anyways.

If we do that, why have laws in the first place. Oh wait, why have trial in the first place. Why don't we just stand on the street corner and throw stones at each other. The gang with the more people and the bigger stones win! Woohoo!

Look, no reason to talk about this anymore. Obviously, I can see where you are coming from if you have to quote Lysander Spooner. He is brilliant when it comes from that end of the spectrum. But I vehemently disbelieve that the government is a completely separate entity from the people. Which, somehow, some people (like Lysander Spooner) believes.

The government *is* the people. Here in the US, we do not have a government of Monarchs dictating the law to us. We do not have religious freakzoids dictating their law from their version and interpretation of the book. And we certainly do not have gun toting morons running up and down the street thinking about who else they can drag back to the palace and whipped in the name of the law.

The people *do* absolutely decide what's going on, we vote people in. In many states, they have even more power thru the initiative process. But we have to all sit down and agree on what *is* the law first. If there is anything that I would disagree with more than having a King or some other royalty sitting high up there making law, is some Joe equally misinformed and start making up the law while they are sitting in the Jury.

No sir, you can take that back to whatever country that is from...

And pardon me for the tirate if you are not from the US. Maybe whereever you are from, you could actually do that. If that's the case, please let me know, so I can remember to stay the heck away from that place on my next biz trip.

(me shuttering in the corner of the thought)


And Holy Smokes! Don't vote! How else do you recommend getting their silly asses out from there? Would you recommend an armed revolt?
We have lots of dumb asses sitting in those benches right now, I would not agree any less. But we still make the laws - although that bit with raising their own salaries every year is really chapping my hide...



Quote:

Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:

Quote:

5. A jury's responsibility is to determine whether the facts or the case match up with the charges, not inject their own private opinions that are directly contrary with what the statute describes.


For 789 years -- that is since Magna Carta in the year 1215 -- there has been no greater principle of either English or American Constitutional Law than, that it is both the Right and Duty of the Jury to judge not only the meaning of the law, the facts of the case, and the moral intent of the accused, but that it is their PRIMARY, and PARAMOUNT Right and Duty to judge the justice of the Law itself ... and to hold all persons Not Guilty if they think the Law Itself is Unjust!

So, it is not only their RIGHT, it is their DUTY, to, "inject their own private opinions that are directly contrary with what the statute describes."

If the House passes a law, it is subject to approval or veto by the Senate. If the Senate pass the law, it is subject to approval or veto by the Executive. If the President signs it, it is subject to approval or veto by the Judiciary -- which hasn't truly done its job for nearly a Century. If the Supreme Court approve it, it is subject to approval or veto by the Citizenry through their agency ... the Jury!

So, it is not possible that you could be more mistaken.

"...no government, so called, can reasonably be trusted for a moment, or reasonably supposed to have honest purposes in view, any longer than it depends wholy on voluntary support." from NO TREASON by Lysander Spooner

ABOVE ALL ELSE, KYFHO!



Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 29, 2004 8:40 PM

LOADANDMAKEREADY


Quote:

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Why don't we just stand on the street corner and throw stones at each other. The gang with the more people and the bigger stones win! Woohoo!



Exactly, it's called Democracy!

"...a common passion or interest will always sway a majority, and there is no inducement to prevent them from sacrificing the weaker party..."
James Madison

Or as you so eloquently put it, "The gang with the more people and the bigger stones win!"
Democracy is an institutionalized form of mob rule ... my gang is bigger than your gang, so what we say goes.

Quote:

I vehemently disbelieve that the government is a completely separate entity from the people. Which, somehow, some people (like Lysander Spooner) believes.


Perhaps you should turn the television off for a little while, and take a closer look at the real world.

Quote:

The government *is* the people. Here in the US, we do not have a government of Monarchs dictating the law to us.


In theory: No. But in practise: Yes!

Quote:

And we certainly do not have gun toting morons running up and down the street thinking about who else they can drag back to the palace and whipped in the name of the law.


TRUE! In this country, those gun toting morons blow the heads off of mothers nursing their infants, or burn women and children to death in their own Church ... as they did in Texas a few years ago.

Quote:

The people *do* absolutely decide what's going on, we vote people in.


"I don't care who votes, as long as I get to choose the candidates."
Huey Long





Quote:

And pardon me for the tirade if you are not from the US. Maybe where ever you are from, you could actually do that. If that's the case, please let me know, so I can remember to stay the heck away from that place on my next biz trip.


The US is no longer the US. As for me, I currently -- and temporarily -- reside in the Peoples Republic of Califnordia ... a truly dystopian country if I ever saw one. Consider it the worlds largest open air insane asylum.




Quote:

And Holy Smokes! Don't vote! How else do you recommend getting their silly asses out from there?


Only to be replaced by other silly asses?

Quote:

Would you recommend an armed revolt?

"America is at that quite place where it is too late to change the system from within, and too early to start shooting the bastards."
Claire Wolff


{QUOTE]We have lots of dumb asses sitting in those benches right now, I would not agree any less. But we still make the laws - although that bit with raising their own salaries every year is really chapping my hide...


Actually, we "delegate" the making of laws to elected officials. Those elected officials have each sworn a solemn oath to obey the laws "WE" have created to limit their power! This body of law is called the Constitution. Its sole purpose is to define and limit the power and authority of Government.
The men and women in government routinely break those laws.
If they did NOT break those laws, if the Constitution were enforced, better than ninty percent of American government would disappear over night.

That, in what passes for my mind, is the sole problem with this country. It does no good to vote out of office a politician who has passed an egregious or unconstitutional law if said removal from office does not also repeal the law.

Oath of office enforcement!

Bill of Rights Enforcement!

And yes! I agree with you about the 27th Amendment to the Constitution! (Which was actually the original Second Amendment when submitted to the States for ratification in 1789 ... word for word!)
"No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened."

Constitutionally speaking, the United States Government is the largest and most powerful criminal organization in the history of this planet!

ABOVE ALL ELSE, KYFHO!




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 30, 2004 12:25 AM

DRAKON


Only one point to point out.

In arguing the law, you have to ask whether the law even covers this case. Angel is, and has been, dead for quite some time. At present, there is no explicit law declaring vampires or other undead to be subject to the law. And being dead does prevent prosecution in almost all cases, of murder, rape and the like. Theft and other property crimes, it is my understanding the estate may be made liable for restitution, but cannot be held accountable for the actions of the deceased.

In short, is it still statatory rape if the guy is dead?

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 1:47 AM

LITWOLF689


Well, Angel did not force Buffy to sleep with him. In fact, he kinda tried to stop her because he started to hesitate but Buffy said 'No just kiss me.' See Buffy encouraged him. So its not rape.

Spike on the other hand, when he was in the bathroom with Buffy, he pushed her to the floor, ripped her clothes off, and also started to hit her a little. And this was all against her will. So thats rape... or at least attempted rape.

Spike was closer to raping Buffy than Angel was.

^-^

Litwolf689

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 6, 2004 5:00 AM

DASBRICK


arg. forgive me if this has been done before. I will be using the Michigan Law system, since when I watched this episode witha friend at Cooley Law School in Lansing, he mentioned that it was rape.

I found this link to clarify it up basicly: http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/rapedefined.htm

If she is under 18, there is no aguement weather it was rape or not. IT WAS.

Rick Hallman
Das-Brick.org

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 6, 2004 5:01 AM

DASBRICK




Rick Hallman
Das-Brick.org

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 6, 2004 6:42 AM

JASONZZZ



Agreed.

Although the discussion still fell into a couple of categories:

- not sure if the law applies
- the law isn't morally correct, it should be nullified by jury if charges are brought
- not sure what the law is


Quote:

Originally posted by DasBrick:
arg. forgive me if this has been done before. I will be using the Michigan Law system, since when I watched this episode witha friend at Cooley Law School in Lansing, he mentioned that it was rape.

I found this link to clarify it up basicly: http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/rapedefined.htm

If she is under 18, there is no aguement weather it was rape or not. IT WAS.

Rick Hallman
Das-Brick.org



Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 6, 2004 8:44 AM

SUCCATASH



I just saw this episode last night on FX. A good ep, and that bathroom scene is really creepy.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 6, 2004 1:47 PM

TSOULZ


This topic sickens me to no end. And on more than just a Buffy/Angel/Spike level. Why even discuss the legality of actions taken by characters in a television show? Because if it is, I'm not so proud to say I'm a fan of Buffy or Angel anymore, considering the company I keep. The show's about morality and redemption, not legality. Rape isn't a word to be tossed around, for whatever reason. According to most your standards, my wife (of which is five years older than me) is a rapist, since I was unable to "consent" when we became intimate. I shudder at the thought and immediately condemn those that think so as sorry excuses for human beings. When forceful, rape is rape; a disgusting display of power within agression. But if both parties consent to the act, regardless of the age, it IS NOT rape. Their should be another, less abrasive term for it, if it requires legal scrutiny. Rape, as it was defined above, is an act of force. Adding "statuatory" as a prefix doesn't change the word itself, but reacclimates it to a primitive society still bent on the assumption of power.

Not to mention, I seriously doubt Joss' intention with those episodes was to evoke this kind of topic. And on that, Buffy loved Angel in Surprise, hence their intimacy. Age should not make a differene. Buffy and Spike were still on a hate-hate kind of downward spiral; there was no love there, in any way, shape or form. And Buffy didn't consent. I don't care if Spike was slow or stupid on that time's "no meant no" ideal, it was still attempted rape. Plain and simple.

Call me irritable on this topic as I regard it as a very very stupid one.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 7, 2004 12:22 AM

LITWOLF689


Quote:

Originally posted by DasBrick:


If she is under 18, there is no aguement weather it was rape or not. IT WAS.

Rick Hallman
Das-Brick.org



I guess your right. So, from a legal point, Angel did rape her, but to Angel and Buffy, it was not rape because they both wanted it.

The other times when Buffy went to Spike to have sex with him willingly would not be rape. Only the one time in the bathroom would be at least attempted rape. But, how old was Buffy when she started to have sex with Spike?

Darn, I always hated Spike because I thought he had raped Buffy that one time but now see that legally (sp?) Angel also raped Buffy.

...well, I still really dont like Spike.

^-^

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 7, 2004 12:22 AM

LITWOLF689


Sorry it printed twice

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 7, 2004 12:49 AM

LINDEN


Quote:

Originally posted by tsoulz:
This topic sickens me to no end. And on more than just a Buffy/Angel/Spike level. Why even discuss the legality of actions taken by characters in a television show? Because if it is, I'm not so proud to say I'm a fan of Buffy or Angel anymore, considering the company I keep. The show's about morality and redemption, not legality. Rape isn't a word to be tossed around, for whatever reason. According to most your standards, my wife (of which is five years older than me) is a rapist, since I was unable to "consent" when we became intimate. I shudder at the thought and immediately condemn those that think so as sorry excuses for human beings. When forceful, rape is rape; a disgusting display of power within agression. But if both parties consent to the act, regardless of the age, it IS NOT rape. Their should be another, less abrasive term for it, if it requires legal scrutiny. Rape, as it was defined above, is an act of force. Adding "statuatory" as a prefix doesn't change the word itself, but reacclimates it to a primitive society still bent on the assumption of power.

Not to mention, I seriously doubt Joss' intention with those episodes was to evoke this kind of topic. And on that, Buffy loved Angel in Surprise, hence their intimacy. Age should not make a differene. Buffy and Spike were still on a hate-hate kind of downward spiral; there was no love there, in any way, shape or form. And Buffy didn't consent. I don't care if Spike was slow or stupid on that time's "no meant no" ideal, it was still attempted rape. Plain and simple.

Call me irritable on this topic as I regard it as a very very stupid one.





Thank you, TSOULZ. I couldn´t agree more.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 7, 2004 8:40 AM

JASONZZZ



That's exactly it. Morals are fine if we can all agree (pre-agree) on a set of terms that we can all live with. But we have demonstrate here in our little slice of the world that we can't. That's why there are laws. And especially in Americas anyway, the laws are made by the people or their representatives. That means it's a quasi agreement (sometimes at best) on why we do, sometimes it's about morality - what we consider moral. It's not a law handed down to us from a Monarch or some higher being. We've defined it.

It's fine if we don't call it rape. The problem is, when an adult takes advantage of a child (what is defined as statutory rape), it is just as violent of an act - from a societal point of view. In fact, I would call it even more incidious, simply because the person is defined to be incapable of making a right and wrong judgement. So now, we have defined the act - that is, someone acting in a predatory role taking advantage of another who is not capable of making a judgement to give consent. Well, where do we draw the line? We can all agree that it's not the same line everywhere, and so far, it's not, each state has it's own definition. In Hawaii and New Mexico, it was the age of 14 for the longest part of the last century. It's not down to a local level, but at least it's fairly locally defined, at least we have a choice to say what it is.

I agree with you - *Rape* is a forceful and violent act and shouldn't be a word to be tossed around. People believe that the act of subjugating a minor into a sex act is that very same type of incidious violence.


Quote:

Originally posted by tsoulz:
This topic sickens me to no end. And on more than just a Buffy/Angel/Spike level. Why even discuss the legality of actions taken by characters in a television show? Because if it is, I'm not so proud to say I'm a fan of Buffy or Angel anymore, considering the company I keep. The show's about morality and redemption, not legality. Rape isn't a word to be tossed around, for whatever reason. According to most your standards, my wife (of which is five years older than me) is a rapist, since I was unable to "consent" when we became intimate. I shudder at the thought and immediately condemn those that think so as sorry excuses for human beings. When forceful, rape is rape; a disgusting display of power within agression. But if both parties consent to the act, regardless of the age, it IS NOT rape. Their should be another, less abrasive term for it, if it requires legal scrutiny. Rape, as it was defined above, is an act of force. Adding "statuatory" as a prefix doesn't change the word itself, but reacclimates it to a primitive society still bent on the assumption of power.

Not to mention, I seriously doubt Joss' intention with those episodes was to evoke this kind of topic. And on that, Buffy loved Angel in Surprise, hence their intimacy. Age should not make a differene. Buffy and Spike were still on a hate-hate kind of downward spiral; there was no love there, in any way, shape or form. And Buffy didn't consent. I don't care if Spike was slow or stupid on that time's "no meant no" ideal, it was still attempted rape. Plain and simple.

Call me irritable on this topic as I regard it as a very very stupid one.



Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 7, 2004 12:58 PM

TSOULZ


Quote:

I agree with you - *Rape* is a forceful and violent act and shouldn't be a word to be tossed around. People believe that the act of subjugating a minor into a sex act is that very same type of incidious violence.


I will never deny a person their view or opinions, but some things need to be put under a magnifying glass. It all comes down to what a person has experienced in their own lives. I will grant the "statuatory rape" believers that anything under 15 or 16 years of age is a sick display of power-driven violence. But anything beyond that, unless truly RAPE or under the influence, can be considered consenting, regardless of what the judicial system says. I've known friends that were emancipated at 16 and 17 years old; and they're considered adults at that point. And no one, not a single soul will coerce me to believe that simply because I chose to live with my parents and not emancipate myself, that I was not adult enough to engage in "consenting" sex. I would quite happily spit in the face of a lawyer, judge, hell, the president if they wanted to tell me I couldn't make my own damn decisions when I was 16, even one so dyer as sex.

Politics...another agravating topic. Sorry...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 7, 2004 1:22 PM

MISGUIDED BY VOICES


Quote:

Originally posted by Litwolf689:
See Buffy encouraged him. So its not rape.



"It was the short skirt and lipstick you honour"

No further comment to make. (save to say I snipped the quote out of context somewhat)

"I threw up on your bed"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 13, 2004 6:33 AM

IDEFIX


I'm sorry for bringing this up again. it's kind of an everlasting topic anyways but I had a dream last nicht about this thread and a whole new aspect to it:

we've talked about Buffy and Angel and we've talked about Buffy and Spike.
let's talk about Faith and Xander in "The Zeppo".

did Xander rape Faith in that EP? he was 19 because as I recall it was stated in the bug-lady EP in S1 that he was 17 then, so 2 years later he would have been 19. Faith's age was never stated to my knowledge but I think it was stated somewhere that Slayers get Called when they're 15 or 16. that would make Faith underage in "The Zeppo".

so if the man is off age and the girl is under age and the girl sexually attacks the guy and he consents he's guilty of rape? it was his first time no less, whereas she clearly had done this on many occasions with many men. just for the fun of it because "slaying makes her horny".

...just another thought.

and on a personal note. I was 14, when I first talked with a guy (he was 15) about having sex together and we decided to wait til I was 16 because we were good children and the law in germany says you have to be 16 to have sex. as it is our relationship didn't last 2 years (only about 1 but it was still a very deep and stable and good relationship as long as it lasted). I still regret it now (I'm 28 now). I really really should have slept with that boy because we both wanted it and we both loved each other and it would have been good for both of us. stupid decision of mine. one of not too many I really regret. and for no good reason also. we were sure it would be right and good - just the law said differently and we were too intimidated by it to ignore it. he would have been my perfect first time and I wasted it.

Idefix

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 13, 2004 7:09 AM

IDEFIX


Quote:

Originally posted by Misguided By Voices:
Quote:

Originally posted by Litwolf689:
See Buffy encouraged him. So its not rape.



"It was the short skirt and lipstick you honour"

No further comment to make. (save to say I snipped the quote out of context somewhat)




have you seen the EP? cause that just sounds like a very stupid comparison to me. she wanted to sleep with him and all but told him to and never changed her mind thru all of it. she still wanted it the next day until she found out he's lost his soul and gone psycho. and later, when he got his soul back and returned from hell she still wanted to sleep with him and even did, once it was safe to do in the S1 Angel EP where he was human for a day. nothing like lipstick and a short skirt here to me.

I think people should be allowed to have a will of their own regardless of age. if no one gets manipulated there is a free will to consider. we are born with one. at least that's my believe. it is true that children are easier to manipulate than grown ups but they also have their own will and they are even able to state it if asked. and a 17 year old is no small child that can't be asked what she wants. I'd take a close look at the manipulation going on if one partner is very young and one is older but I can't decide that someone is too young to know what he or she wants in general. but laws around the world seem to make it easy by just stating an age (widely differing between nations) and be done with it. I think that's making it too easy.

I'm no fan of grown-ups abusing children sexually. but abuse has to be against the will of the child for it to be abuse. if the child is too young to grasp the concept of sex (under 10 years maybe) it still doesn't want it, that's the part that really harms the child, the not wanting it, not physically because it hurts and not emotionally because it's just not what he or she wants. after learning about sex (we here in germany learn the biology at 10-11 in school) the child will even be able to state that it doesn't want it before the act. I certainly was. you can think at that age and you can certainly feel and decide what feels good and what doesn't, some grown ups seem to forget that. if someone older or an authority figure threatens or manipulates the child into doing it anyway it's rape and I think rape of a child is worse than rape of an adult because the child can't deal with the violence of it in the same way an adult can or will learn to. rape is the worst crime one human being can commit against another. it tries to destroy not the body (like murder) but the soul/integrity. I don't want that crime assotiated with any underage consenting sex of whatever age.

and I don't even know why we all fight about this for this long. because at heart I believe we all just want no one to be raped ever, no child or adult no woman no man. but rape is about forced sex and talking a child into having sex he or she doesn't want is forced sex that's rape and the worst form of it. but a child of whatever age deciding to have sex with whomever of their own free will and not regretting it afterwards and being willing and eager to do it again that's not forced and therefore not rape. but that's not the law. I know that.

Idefix

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 13, 2004 7:12 AM

FIVEBYFIVE


Angel's not dead. He's Undead, duh.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 13, 2004 7:30 AM

JASONZZZ


Quote:

Originally posted by Idefix:
I'm sorry for bringing this up again. it's kind of an everlasting topic anyways but I had a dream last nicht about this thread and a whole new aspect to it:

we've talked about Buffy and Angel and we've talked about Buffy and Spike.
let's talk about Faith and Xander in "The Zeppo".

did Xander rape Faith in that EP? he was 19 because as I recall it was stated in the bug-lady EP in S1 that he was 17 then, so 2 years later he would have been 19. Faith's age was never stated to my knowledge but I think it was stated somewhere that Slayers get Called when they're 15 or 16. that would make Faith underage in "The Zeppo".

so if the man is off age and the girl is under age and the girl sexually attacks the guy and he consents he's guilty of rape? it was his first time no less, whereas she clearly had done this on many occasions with many men. just for the fun of it because "slaying makes her horny".

...just another thought.

and on a personal note. I was 14, when I first talked with a guy (he was 15) about having sex together and we decided to wait til I was 16 because we were good children and the law in germany says you have to be 16 to have sex. as it is our relationship didn't last 2 years (only about 1 but it was still a very deep and stable and good relationship as long as it lasted). I still regret it now (I'm 28 now). I really really should have slept with that boy because we both wanted it and we both loved each other and it would have been good for both of us. stupid decision of mine. one of not too many I really regret. and for no good reason also. we were sure it would be right and good - just the law said differently and we were too intimidated by it to ignore it. he would have been my perfect first time and I wasted it.




well... I can certainly understand how you feel about "should have done it"... there are prolly others who feel things the other way around too, i.e. "Shouldn't have done it...".... So, I guess it's just regretful all around, just depends on how you deal with the experience.

Quote:

Originally posted by Idefix:

Idefix



Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 13, 2004 7:31 AM

PUDOR


Quote:

Originally posted by SlowSmurf:
What if the person gives consent before they die?(via a will or whatever)

I'm just curious what the courts would do with that...



Just to add a skewed note to the discussion, when I was going through my pseudo-goth phase at the age of 14, I filled in a necro-card (which were being given out pretty much everywhere). A necro-card (I'm not sure how *legal* they are, and I'm pretty sure they were mostly supposed to be a joke), basically was a copy of a donor-card, which you carry in your wallet, allowing anybody (or a named party) to use parts of your body (specified by your self) for sexual purposes after your death.

I always wondered what sort of legal status that would have if I'd died... ;)


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 15, 2004 12:23 PM

MISGUIDED BY VOICES


Quote:

Originally posted by Idefix:
did Xander rape Faith in that EP? he was 19 because as I recall it was stated in the bug-lady EP in S1 that he was 17 then, so 2 years later he would have been 19. Faith's age was never stated to my knowledge but I think it was stated somewhere that Slayers get Called when they're 15 or 16. that would make Faith underage in "The Zeppo".



Legally? No, its not possible within the legal definition, as its stands in most countries, for a woman to "rape" a man. There's a separate offence in most cases of sex with a minor.

"I threw up on your bed"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 16, 2004 12:28 AM

IDEFIX


Quote:

Originally posted by Misguided By Voices:
Quote:

Originally posted by Idefix:
did Xander rape Faith in that EP? he was 19 because as I recall it was stated in the bug-lady EP in S1 that he was 17 then, so 2 years later he would have been 19. Faith's age was never stated to my knowledge but I think it was stated somewhere that Slayers get Called when they're 15 or 16. that would make Faith underage in "The Zeppo".



Legally? No, its not possible within the legal definition, as its stands in most countries, for a woman to "rape" a man. There's a separate offence in most cases of sex with a minor.

"I threw up on your bed"



read my post again. I didn't ask if Faith raped Xander. I asked if Xander raped Faith, because he was off age (19) and she was underage (about 16-17).

I asked to make if even clearer how stupid I think the law is. just have an "age of consent" and don't look at the circumstances or people involved.

Idefix

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 1:46 PM

ELYSIAN


Did Angel rape Buffy in "I Will Remember You"? He slept with her and then stripped her of her memories of that. No-one can ever consent to sex without knowing that their memory of it will be gone . . . I don't think.


Insofar as Spike . . . Spike was a victim of domestic abuse. She beat him constantly. I know domestic abuse can be a qualifier for murder, say if you lost control and killed your abuser. Can anyone say that Spike was in his right mind?! I'm not sure that excuses what he did, but it does put it in a context.

Comments?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 27, 2004 11:03 AM

NUR


Quote:

Originally posted by Elysian:
Did Angel rape Buffy in "I Will Remember You"? He slept with her and then stripped her of her memories of that. No-one can ever consent to sex without knowing that their memory of it will be gone . . . I don't think.


Insofar as Spike . . . Spike was a victim of domestic abuse. She beat him constantly. I know domestic abuse can be a qualifier for murder, say if you lost control and killed your abuser. Can anyone say that Spike was in his right mind?! I'm not sure that excuses what he did, but it does put it in a context.

Comments?



So I'm a little late but I agree completely. Spike has taken a lot of flack for that incident. I'm not saying that what he did was excuseable but rather quite understandable. I once saw it put in the framework of reversing their roles. Imagine you heard a story about a man who constantly goes to a woman he knows loves him and practically forces her into repeated rough sex then tells her at ever oportunity that she's worse that the dirt between his toes. Once, she's had enough of being degraded and violated on his terms, she turns around and gets a little rough with him wanting to turn the tables and take a little control back into her life. Would we say that she tried to rape him? Not at all, its all in the perception of the situation.

On a random note, for personal reasons I would completely disagree with anyone that tried to argue that Angel raped Buffy. Statutory rape and rape rape can be two very different things.

http://www.thecherryorchard.net

Those who restrain desire, do so because thiers is weak enough to be restrained.
-William Blake

O my Lord! bestow wisdom on me, and join me with the righteous.
-Qur'an 26:83

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 22, 2004 12:10 PM

ACTORGURL3


Considering it is only sagitory rape if you are not "legal" the legal age is 16 so there fore she was not doing anything illegal. Had she been doing something illegal, she gave her consesus to him and would only sue if he gave her an std or pregnancy and refused to help. Otherwise, she asked for it and at first he refused.

Hazel: Paige, I just saw Spinner. He was completely out of line.
Paige: [crying] It wasn't what I thought, you know? First time, I thought it would be beautiful or something. It's so stupid.
Hazel: It's not stupid
Paige: Those shoes, I wanted it to work. I wanted him to want to be with me.
Hazel: He did want to be with you.
Paige: Yea, sure.
Hazel: He'll call you. You don't have to worry.
Paige: I didn't even want to do it Hazel. I said No, over and over and over.
Hazel: You said no? and he didn't listen?
Paige: He just pushed me down, harder, and he wouldn't stop. He just wouldn't stop.
Hazel: Paige, Honey. If you said no, that's rape.
Paige: Don't touch me. Don't ever touch me.
Spinner: Why not? Everyone else does.
Spinner: He took it too far, like Hazel said, right? Didn't he?

PVC we rock on, we rock on till the break of dawn, hip hop, don't stop, we will make your body rock. rock rock roll rol icy icy cold cold disco disco beat beat pvc sweet sweet!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 23, 2004 7:30 AM

FURYFIRE


Excuse me? How is it understandable that he was allowed to rape her??? Doesn't matter what his feelings were or what his intentions were, he tried to bloody well rape her, and those actions can never be deemed understandable.

And in response to that other post above, Angel didn't rape Buffy in I Will Remember You, she was in a full frame of mind when she consented, he only raped her in Innocence.

If you know anyone that can help my screenwriting career, please help! And yes, I am self-advertising here. Hehehe, me such a little devil.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 23, 2004 7:49 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Why couldn't this thread just die?

As I said before I don't think the laws cover the event in which a dead person has sex with one below the age of consent. As such we fall back on the fact that it was consensual and forget the established legal age of consent.

Yes, legally with the ages of them what happened would be considered rape, but it would also be considered necrophilia. I think it’s just an eventuality law doesn’t cover.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 23, 2004 9:32 AM

LOSTINTHEVERSE


Here's how I see this playing out. (I was never a religious fan of the show, though I've seen a few eps here and there)

Angel is vulnerable to be charged with Statutory rape. Through other actions, Buffy has proven her ability to consent and understand her actions, though in trying to prove that most courts would probably rule her insane (I mean,
Quote:

"Well, I can give consent because I go around killing vampires and vaquishing demons in my free time. Those are pretty heavy decisions. Fire bad. Tree pretty."
sounds more than a little crazy). So there goes any shot of her ability to give consent at all. Of course, Buffy's mom would have to press charges, which doesn't seem likely.


Now:
Given that necrophilia is illegal... what about if 2 vampires have fully consentual sex? eh? Where does hot Undead-on-Undead action fall into all of this? Now that can lead to some interesting legal discussions.



~ Lost In The 'Verse

"About a year before we met, I spent 6 months on a moon where the primary form of recreation was juggling geese. My hand to god. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 23, 2004 9:32 AM

LOSTINTHEVERSE


Here's how I see this playing out. (I was never a religious fan of the show, though I've seen a few eps here and there)

Angel is vulnerable to be charged with Statutory rape. Through other actions, Buffy has proven her ability to consent and understand her actions, though in trying to prove that most courts would probably rule her insane (I mean,
Quote:

"Well, I can give consent because I go around killing vampires and vaquishing demons in my free time. Those are pretty heavy decisions. Fire bad. Tree pretty."
sounds more than a little crazy). So there goes any shot of her ability to give consent at all. Of course, Buffy's mom would have to press charges, which doesn't seem likely.


Now:
Given that necrophilia is illegal... what about if 2 vampires have fully consentual sex? eh? Where does hot Undead-on-Undead action fall into all of this? Now that can lead to some interesting legal discussions.



~ Lost In The 'Verse

"About a year before we met, I spent 6 months on a moon where the primary form of recreation was juggling geese. My hand to god. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 24, 2004 10:07 AM

NUR


Quote:

Originally posted by FURYFIRE:
Excuse me? How is it understandable that he was allowed to rape her???



1)If he was allowed it wouldn't be rape then would it?

2)He wasn't allowed and though he tried, he didn't succeed.

Apart from those 2 little corrections I feel no need to respond to anything else you've said. You aren't seeing everything that led up to the incident and you didn't listen to what I said the first time.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/fleshlycherry/

Those who restrain desire, do so because thiers is weak enough to be restrained.
-William Blake

O my Lord! bestow wisdom on me, and join me with the righteous.
-Qur'an 26:83

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Is there life after Buffy...??
Sat, January 26, 2019 17:27 - 7 posts
Felicia Day On Escape!
Sat, December 22, 2018 10:09 - 1 posts
Buffy Comics Reading Order?
Thu, July 19, 2018 03:00 - 3 posts
BUFFY BRACKETOLOGY - Round 7
Wed, January 31, 2018 20:35 - 1 posts
BUFFY BRACKETOLOGY - Round 6
Wed, January 31, 2018 20:30 - 1 posts
Just finished watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer for the first time
Mon, October 31, 2016 23:08 - 17 posts
Chop wifes head off... get a free hug
Sun, October 30, 2016 12:30 - 3 posts
Sarah Michelle Gellar wins People Choice Award 2014
Wed, April 20, 2016 18:51 - 4 posts
Xander goes wild ! Nicholas Brendon arrested for rowdy antics in hotel room.
Thu, September 3, 2015 08:16 - 9 posts
SMG is a dork
Wed, April 15, 2015 04:09 - 4 posts
SMG gets reality TV series for sane people
Fri, April 10, 2015 16:31 - 1 posts
SMG in beastiality fiasco
Fri, April 10, 2015 16:22 - 3 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL