BUFFYVERSE

Angel Raped Buffy, Spike only tried

POSTED BY: FURYFIRE
UPDATED: Saturday, July 24, 2004 10:07
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 27662
PAGE 1 of 2

Sunday, June 1, 2003 9:41 AM

FURYFIRE


Okay so, Buffy was only 17 years old, just turned actually, when she lost her virginity to an older man, well above the age of majority. Hence, technically Angel raped her.

Do yall think the producersb noticed this?

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  

Sunday, June 1, 2003 9:45 AM

CYRIDEL


Well, looking at it from a completely legal standpoint, technically yes since the age of consent is 18 in California. But since they were truly in love and she ended up sending him to hell, I don't anyone really thought much of it.

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

Sunday, June 1, 2003 2:02 PM

ROBERTSPARLING


It's unrealistic to call Angel and Buffy having sex "rape". Two consenting parties having sex, that's what happened. Spike tried to force himself onto Buffy. Violently. I'm a proponent of statutory rape legislation, but only in certain circumstances. And it really doesn't apply to the show in any way, for the reasons stated, and not to forget that Angel probably doesn't legally exist. Not like he has a social security card or anything.

The age of consent has been lowered, at least in New York, to 17 if it makes you feel any better.

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

Sunday, June 1, 2003 2:11 PM

SLOWSMURF


Others might call it rape, she nor he would though. Thats all that really matters.

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

Sunday, June 1, 2003 2:29 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC


The reason that it could be considered rape is because a person that young would not be considered capable of giving consent. Buffy was already making life and death decisions and showed a level of maturity demonstrating that she was able to give consent. Legally it is a case of necrophilia, which I hope is illegal, and Buffy is the offender, and if rape were to be considered once again Buffy would be at fault because a dead person can’t give consent.

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

Sunday, June 1, 2003 3:23 PM

ROBERTSPARLING


good point.

and yes, necrophilia is illegal

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

Sunday, June 1, 2003 4:55 PM

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...

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

Sunday, June 1, 2003 5:27 PM

FURYFIRE


This is the dumbest and funniest thing i've ever heard. Can you give consent for someone to have sex with your own dead body? LOL

K, what a provocative issue, and especially the title of the original post. Whoa, man, whoa.

Technically, it is rape with age difference and Buffy being under the age of majority, needing Joyce's consent. Granted, Buffy was mature enough to make the right decision...or was she? Look what happened afterwards, he tried to kill her. No relationship like this can be justified in a legal system.

And yeah, I agree with you guys, but how do we debate these points?

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  

Sunday, June 1, 2003 5:42 PM

LOTV


As much as I NEVER watch Buffy, and I'm only reading this thread on a whim... let us access our local online dictionary.

ahem...

rape ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rp)
n.
1.The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.
2.The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction.
3.Abusive or improper treatment; violation: a rape of justice.

According to such definitons, Angel did not rape Buffy as Buffy gave her consent to such an action, because it was not a forced action, as was previously mentioned in this thread.

As for other legal issues however, the waters begin to become murky. Due to child protection laws, Angel could be placed under arrest for corrupting youth (under aged sex) however, this is unlikely to go through due to the consent Buffy gave him, her age, and the fact that neither Angel or Buffy would be likely to turn themselves in.

As for the necrophelia issue... In vampire myth (truth?) Vampires are considered Undead. Yet, according to scientific defintion, something is alive if it meets the following criteria:

life ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lf)
n. pl. lives (lvz)

1. The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

As Angel is capable of all such things, he under the law would be considered alive, and thus Buffy could not perform necrophilia on him...

Thank you, and this has been your lawyer report of the day.

LOTV: Ima-who-whata-whoichy-whoda-whazza--huh?

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

Sunday, June 1, 2003 6:04 PM

LIVINGIMPAIRED


Yes, both the statutory rape and necrophilia technicalities occured to me long ago. But keep in mind what the word "statutory" means. Only occording to some statute is it a rape. Besides, while 18 trips around the sun is the span of time society has decided that a person needs to be mature enough to consent to sex, 16 is the age when when it stops be a real crime in many states. Also, keep in mind that this 18 rule is a very recent development in western culture. It was not too long ago--within Angel's life time--when a unmarried woman of 18 years was considered an old maid.

Furthermore, both of the above mentioned crimes pale in comparision to others perpetrated by various members of the Scooby gang; Faith was the only one that got nabbed by the laws for it.

Over the course of both shows, the "Good Guys" have committed the following crimes, many on several occasions:

- Breaking and Entering
- Cracking (hacking) private, government computer databases.
- Assault
- Battery
- Assault with a deadly weapon
- Blackmail
- Shoplifting
- Obstructing Justice
- Stealing a meter-maid's cart
- Aiding and Abetting an known felon
- Attempted Murder
- Murder
- Impersonating a police officer
- Impersonating an Interpol officer
- Stealing government weapons (don't know the techincal name, but know it's a crime)
- Kidnapping
- Fraud
- Burglary
- Arson

And I know there's a bunch of stuff I'm forgetting. I'd also like to add that Xander attempted to rape Buffy long before Spike jumped on the bandwagon. (he was possesed by a Heyena)

________________

GILES: This computer invasion that Willow is performing on the cororner's office. One assumes that it is entirely legal?
BUFFY: Of course.
WILLOW: Entirely..
GILES: Right. Wasn't here. Didn't see it. Couldn't have stopped you.

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

Sunday, June 1, 2003 6:05 PM

LOTV


... and you kept a list of all of this!?

LOTV: Ima-who-whata-whoichy-whoda-whazza--huh?

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

Monday, June 2, 2003 7:08 AM

FURYFIRE


What's necrophelia?

Angel was 241 yrs old, Buffy 17. He's an old man with a lust for little girls.

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  

Monday, June 2, 2003 8:11 AM

BRTICK


ha. um, well, I would point out that what Spike tried to do was a touch worse then what Angel did.

Keep Flying!

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

Monday, June 2, 2003 8:32 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:

Originally posted by FURYFIRE:
What's necrophelia?

Angel was 241 yrs old, Buffy 17. He's an old man with a lust for little girls.

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.



nec·ro·phil·i·a

also nec·rophi·lism

n.
(1)Obsessive fascination with death and corpses.
(2)Erotic attraction to or sexual contact with corpses.

In this case the second one. Buffy had sex with someone whose heart wasn't beating, thus a dead person. Further this person (Angel) had died and had not been resuscitated (therefore dead.)

Sorry LOTV, but a corpse meets all of your requirements of life (except reproduction but mules don’t do that either). The reason? Well it is alive, the cells go on for quite a bit being alive after someone dies, so dead is accepted to be medically dead (heart stopped) or brain dead (brain stopped doing it’s thing.)

This is the reason that if my heart stops and then they come with a defibrillator and restart may heart ten minutes later I was dead for ten minutes.

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

Monday, June 2, 2003 7:02 PM

LOTV


Well... ahem..

Let me put it this way: Should your heart stop, and you are medically dead for 10 minutes, during that 10 minutes, I really do not expect you, or anyone else for that matter, to jump up, drive over to your 17 year old girlfriends house... and do the deed.

Not to represent the Undead here in legal court, but I'm sure that vampires and zombies of the like in legal standing due to their capabilites of motion and... according to the Buffyverse, "sexual capabilities"... would not be considered "dead" and thus individuals who fornicate with such beings would not be guilty of necrophilia, regardless of their techincal medical standing.

Why are we still talking about this anyway!?!

LOTV: Ima-who-whata-whoichy-whoda-whazza--huh?

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

Tuesday, June 3, 2003 9:19 AM

LIVINGIMPAIRED


Quote:

Originally posted by LOTV:
... and you kept a list of all of this!?

LOTV: Ima-who-whata-whoichy-whoda-whazza--huh?



Just a mental list. Oh, and I thought of a couple more:

- Vandalism
- Encouraging deliquency in a minor

________________

Nothing says "Aha, I'm on to you!" like being on the receiving end of a vicious police beating.

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

Tuesday, June 3, 2003 11:11 PM

LOTV


Quote:

Originally posted by LivingImpaired:


- Encouraging deliquency in a minor



That's it! That's the one I meant with corrupting youth... on a post so long ago no one cares anymore... thanks anyway for reminding me...

Quote:

Originally posted by LivingImpaired:

Nothing says "Aha, I'm on to you!" like being on the receiving end of a vicious police beating.



I Love that line...

LOTV: Ima-who-whata-whoichy-whoda-whazza--huh?

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

Friday, June 6, 2003 7:01 AM

SPIDERFISH13


Sorry - I'm a bit late to this and haven't read (nor am I responding) to all of the posts. I just wanted to put my 2 cents in though:

So what if Buffy was 17? She consented to having sex with Angel - it wasn't forced. There is a BIG difference between being forced (raped) and what happened to her with Angel. Knowing many women who have been raped (and almost having once been a victim of it myself) I find the very idea that "Angel raped her, Spike 'ONLY' tried" to be pretty disgusting.

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

Friday, June 6, 2003 9:43 PM

DRAKON


"So what if Buffy was 17? She consented to having sex with Angel"

The problem is a matter of semantics. Rape is a crime , and a pretty bad one at that. It not only covers non-consentual activities, but also situations where one of the parties is legally assumed to be incapable of offering consent. Such as if one of the parties is drunk, drugged, or under age.

Its a bit like the laws governing murder. You plan on shooting someone, set up an ambush and then kill them, that is murder. If it is done in a fit of passion, or while goofing off with a loaded weapon, its still murder, or manslaughter. Either way, the victim is dead, via your course of actions.

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

Friday, June 6, 2003 9:46 PM

SPIDERFISH13


Quote:

he problem is a matter of semantics. Rape is a crime , and a pretty bad one at that. It not only covers non-consentual activities, but also situations where one of the parties is legally assumed to be incapable of offering consent. Such as if one of the parties is drunk, drugged, or under age.


I respect your opinion on this matter. However, I disagree with the idea that a 17 year old is too young to give consent.

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

Friday, June 13, 2003 10:57 PM

QUAISIOR


When that episode of Buffy was filmed, the age of consent in California was 17. It was only raised to 18 in 2001.

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

Saturday, June 14, 2003 1:13 AM

SLOWSMURF


Double post.

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

Saturday, June 14, 2003 1:13 AM

SLOWSMURF


Lol.

We really need that whip sound about now :)

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

Sunday, June 22, 2003 7:07 AM

FURYFIRE


Thank you QUASIOR (sp?) That was a real answer, and what I needed. Thanks for the response.

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  

Wednesday, June 25, 2003 7:17 PM

JMF


Quote:

Originally posted by LOTV:
Well... ahem..

Let me put it this way: Should your heart stop, and you are medically dead for 10 minutes, during that 10 minutes



But Angel's heart is still pretty much... stopped.

Quote:

Not to represent the Undead here in legal court, but I'm sure that vampires and zombies of the like in legal standing due to their capabilites of motion and... according to the Buffyverse, "sexual capabilities"... would not be considered "dead" and thus individuals who fornicate with such beings would not be guilty of necrophilia, regardless of their techincal medical standing.

Why are we still talking about this anyway!?!

LOTV: Ima-who-whata-whoichy-whoda-whazza--huh?



I don't think, pardon me, that being able to move and screw things qualifies you enough to be living. The body and host is dead. The demon isn't even a materialized creature. At best, one could call it an infection or parasite (just terming it for categorization as fictional as they are). The body is most definintely dead.

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

Wednesday, June 25, 2003 7:57 PM

SLOWSMURF


Yes, but I believe the point is that this obviously is NOT something that could be legally tried(he's a vampire!), so using legal definitions is quite stupid.

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

Monday, July 28, 2003 7:10 PM

RANDOMHERESY


Angel is only technically dead, he meets most of the biological requirements set out to determine a living organism. He walks, he talks, he screws 17 year olds, for all intense and purposes Angel is alive, his heart merely doesnt beat because thats not part of vampire physiology, it's like saying a plant isnt a living because it doesnt have a heart. Okay that was a crappy comparison but you get my point.

--------
That's not normal: normal is coming home to find your mother nailed to a cross
screaming verses from the book of Mormon, your dad performing a dark ritual
with your brother as the sacrifice, and your sister getting railed by a goat.

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

Thursday, October 30, 2003 11:09 AM

LINDEN


"Angel Raped Buffy, Spike Only Tried"

That is such a repulsive sentence...

So, in your eyes the scene in "Seeing Red" where Spike tries to force himself on Buffy, trying to tear of her robe, when all the while she is screaming at him and clearly showing that she does not want this, isn´t really that bad? That the scene where Angel and Buffy are making love in "Surprise" is worse than that? And just to be clear, in that scene Angel actually says "Buffy, maybe we shouldn´t..." He is not the instegator, she is.

I find that sentence as bad as any lawyers out there trying to get their clients free from all charges when they, in fact, know that they are guilty. Saying that they´re "only doing their job"
That makes them as despiccable as the crime itself.

I consider rape one of the lowest acts you can commit on another human being and to see a remark like that makes me so angry. Have you seen the episodes in question? I wish you would really sit down and watch that bathroom-scene again. Watch Buffy´s genuine fear and then you tell me what rape is.

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

Wednesday, November 5, 2003 1:39 PM

BROKENDREAMS3638


I agree this is stupid... Its not rape she was willing and so was he! Its not rape unless one person says NO!! And i don't think it matters with the age, since uh ANGEL IS DEAD! I think buffy was mature enough to make that decision since she deals with life and death matters every day! Even though she knew after she made a mistake, still do you remember who you lost your virginity to? I bet you, you regret it too. Everyone does! Spike did actually try raping her! She said no... I don't think Buffy at that time really cared about how old he was since she believed that she loved him. If you really believe you love someone, and it all comes down to a choice, then its just your choice. you may regret it, maybe you wont you never know! You have to remember fate only takes you so far, but once your there its up to you to make it happen. Buffy loved Angel she probably still does! And people lets not forget IT'S A TV SHOW! A tv show that basically just had there last season. Don't get me wrong I love that show, but i really believe that it wasn't rape, because both male and female were willing to do it. And come on do you think she was really thinking about the Age when she saw Angel without his shirt on? Ok we all should know Angel is really hot! Hello people!!!!!! LOL

Brokendreams3638

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

Wednesday, November 5, 2003 2:13 PM

MAGUINAN


"This is why I don't vote."

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

Thursday, November 6, 2003 5:08 AM

ZEKE023


Agreed.

This is legal semantics and Morality and Legality are different.

No matter how you phrase it, this whole argument undermines the sanctity of a person's body and the horrifying nature of rape.

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

Thursday, November 6, 2003 11:32 AM

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.

Sorry for the rant. On the inane (yet amusing) argument that is this thread, I have one thing to add. Is Angel dead? Technically, vampires are called the 'undead,' yes? 'un' being a prefix meaning 'not' as in uninterrupted, or undisputed. So, philologically speaking, Angel is not-dead. Just a thought

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

Thursday, November 6, 2003 12:27 PM

FURYFIRE


Simmer.
We're takling legal issues here. Angel is immortalized as a 25 year old and had sex with a 17 year old girl. Under 18, a mionr, you are a child. We're talking a dark and tall evil 25 year old man having sex with children. Kay, I'm stretching it, but yah, Spike was raping Buffy, Angel and Buffy both consented to having sex with each other but legally it is rape and that's undeniable. This topic was just to point out something I had noticed, and to stir some feathers. Don't get worked up. Rape is a serious issue, but sex with a minor with consent is "rape" to some people which is why I mentioned it. Simmers.

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  

Thursday, November 6, 2003 8:51 PM

LOTV


ooookay.. finally it all makes sense now, as to why this whole thread refuses to die...

You've got your definition of rape in the wrong sense.

rape- The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse

What you are suggesting, sex with a minor is pedophilia / corruption of a minor. Because Buffy fully understood her actions, and gave consent to them, its not rape.

The only time when rape would be considered, regardless of consent, would be if the raped individual did not fully understand the situation, such as from a seriously underaged individual, or from a person with a mental limitations (retardation, medical states, etc)

However, Buffy's legal guardians could very well press charges for pedophilia as Buffy was then a minor.

LOTV: Ima-who-whata-whoichy-whoda-whazza--huh?

Garapagosu Last Update: 6/24/03

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

Thursday, November 6, 2003 11:46 PM

DRAKON


Quote:

Originally posted by zeke023:
Agreed.

This is legal semantics and Morality and Legality are different.



You're saying there's a difference between what's legal and what's right? Hmmm... I know a couple of other folks who have made similar distinctions.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Friday, November 7, 2003 11:54 PM

FURYFIRE


Vampires are not incuded in the legal system. If the authorities ever caught Angel, appearing as a 25 year old, who had sex with a 17 year old, he would be arrested if Joyce were to press charges. He would be tried and convicted. Nothing in the legal system speaks of vampires, he'd be imprisoned noetheless. Look at how many times that the poilce have fired guns at Angel, they don't understand. They'd arrest him under the normal law and never understand the difference. Angel's excuse that he's the living dead won't bode over well.

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  

Saturday, November 8, 2003 2:30 AM

DRAKON


This is kinda a silly argument, but what the heck.

You mention Joyce pressing charges, and that is key. If she don't, then it is a rare prosecutor who will go ahead and press anyway, regardless of the technical matters concerned. Statutory rape, when the victim is 17, and willingly consented, is tough to convict on. And with the defendent an apparent 25 year old male, its not that good.

Think about it for a second. Yes, technically it is a violation of the law. But you go to trial, and this 17 year old girl starts talking about how she is in love, appearing mature, and not seduced. You have the defendent, who appears about her age.

Plus, if they ever get to telling the tale of the entire ordeal, the defeating the boxed demon that Spike and Drusila brought in, how Angel turned into an evil vampire, instead of a good one, how the statue was destroying the world, and how Buffy ran Angel through with a sword to prevent the world from ending, well, what do you think the DA would do?

Either lock them up as complete loonies, or kick them out of the office for wasting his time. No DA would waste the court's time or his own reputation going after him on this issue.

In technical terms, Angel committed statutory rape of a 17 year old girl. He is also guilty of murder, torture and a whole lot of poor behavior that would be legally actionable. Statutory rape of a consenting 17 year old is the least of his crimes. And it is highly doubtful that a DA would even pursue it.

Besides which, Joyce is dead, Buffy is over 21 now, and she is no longer in the country last we heard. Neither the victim nor the defendent are going to press charges, so, in practical effect, there is no crime.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Tuesday, November 11, 2003 8:08 AM

FURYFIRE


I don't know how anyone an defend a rapist


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  

Wednesday, January 7, 2004 10:38 PM

DARKERRAIN


I thought it was said above that when the episode was filmed, the legal age in California was 17. Soooo technically, Angel isn't a rapist, statutory or otherwise.

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

Saturday, January 10, 2004 8:45 AM

LADYJAYNE


Actually, the arguments are flawed because the term "rape" isn't even used in the legal system anymore. I've worked in a prison. The term is Criminal Sexual Conduct.

Under strictly legal terms, what Angel did would be considered Statutory CSC and what Spike did was Attempted CSC III.

I'm probably one of the biggest Spike fans around, but I still know CSC when I see it. I also know pederasty, too. (Pederasty is when an adult has a romantic/sexual relationship with a teen rather than pedaphilia which is with a child) A man hiding in the bushes and "falling in love" with a girl eating a lollipop just makes my skin crawl.

--Kala

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

Sunday, January 25, 2004 8:39 AM

KINGOFKOINS


I'd just like to point out, that while I don't believe that Angel raped Buffy, Xander certainly tried to. During "The Pack," in the scene where he had her on the floor and was smelling her fear, it's obvious he was trying to rape her. Why is it that he gets off the hook, whereas everyone seems to think Spike should be eviscerated by weasels? Both Spike and Xander were under the control of evil forces that were not themselves. Am I the only one who thinks this?

--------------------------------
It's sickening how comforting the privacy of the mind can be.

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

Sunday, January 25, 2004 9:55 AM

JASONZZZ



The common law, from which America gets much of its precedents in the legal field, set the age of consent at age ten. In other words, participating in sexual activity with someone above the age of ten did not result in the crime of "statutory" rape or child molesting. The activity may have come under other statutory or informal social regulations, but anyone over the age of ten could consent to a sexual activity.

During the latter part of the 1800's and the early part of the 1900's, attitudes towards sexual activity began to change in America and so did attitudes toward the age of consent. California was one of the first states to raise the age of consent. It raised it from ten to fourteen in 1889 and then from fourteen to sixteen in 1897. Then, in 1913, California again raised it from sixteen to eighteen.

(note that the April 2001 revision provides additional civil penalties to specific types of cases in addition to the misdemeanor and felony charges)

In criminal law, the age of consent is the age at which a person is considered to be capable of legally giving informed consent to sexual acts with another person. Thus somebody engaging in sex with someone below the age of consent commits a crime, called child sexual abuse. Strictly this is regardless of his or her own age, but if two young people engage in sex than the older one is considered to commit a crime, especially if the age difference is relatively large.

The age of consent should not to be confused with the age of majority or age of criminal responsibility. The marriageable age is not necessarily the same as the age of consent. In some countries the two are different.

The age of consent varies widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, though most jurisdictions in the world today have an age of consent between 14 to 18 years, but ages as young as 12 and as old as 21 also occur, with some countries in the Middle East holding female ages of consent in the single-digit range.

Social and legal attitudes towards the appropriate age of consent have drifted upwards in modern times; while ages from ten through to thirteen were typically acceptable in the mid 19th century, fifteen through eighteen had become the norm in many countries by the end of the 20th century. Calls for the age of consent for heterosexual sex to be lowered are largely unheard of, outside of U.S. states with an age of 17 or 18.

Sexual relations with a person under the age of consent is in general a criminal offense, with punishments ranging from token fines to life imprisonment. In the United States this offence is frequently called statutory rape, though outside the United States other names are more commonly used (e.g. "carnal knowledge of a person under sixteen years").

That the relationship was consensual is not in general a defense to having sexual relations with a person under the age of consent; however, there frequently are some defences: common examples include a limited mistake of age defence, and a defence of similarity of age. A mistake of age defence is that the accused mistakenly believed the victim was not under the age of consent.


In re T.A.J. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1350 [73 Cal.Rptr.331]. Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2.
From: ( http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/childrenandthecourts/case_law/del
inque/delinquency-13.htm
)

A juvenile court petition was filed alleging that a 16-year-old boy had sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old female. The petition alleged the child engaged in statutory and forcible rape. At the jurisdictional hearing the only issue was whether the sexual encounter was consensual. The juvenile court found that the act was consensual and that the statutory rape charge was true, but made no finding with regard to the forcible rape count. The child appealed, contending that Penal Code section 261.5 was unconstitutional, both facially and as applied to him. Specifically, he contended that the statute (1) violated his right to privacy under the California Constitution and (2) may not be constitutionally applied to him since he was a member of the class the statute was designed to protect. The Court of Appeal rejected both contentions. First, the court held that American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren (1997) 16 Cal.4th 307, did not confer upon children the right to engage in consensual sexual intercourse. "While we do not ignore the reality that many California teenagers are sexually active, that fact alone does not establish that minors have a right to privacy to engage in sexual intercourse. We accept the premise that due to age and immaturity, minors often lack the ability to make fully informed choices that take account of both immediate and long-range consequences."

The court further found that the reasonable expectation of privacy that exists for a child deciding whether to have an abortion (American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p.373), "cannot be imputed to their
decision to engage in consensual sexual intercourse." On the child's second contention, the court noted that the legislative intent behind the statutory rape law was to make illegal sexual intercourse both between children and adults and between children. Although children cannot be prosecuted for felony statutory rape (unlawful intercourse between an adult and a child) because the child is the victim in such a crime, there is no parallel with regard to misdemeanor statutory rape, which by its terms involves sexual intercourse between two children.



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  

Sunday, January 25, 2004 10:01 AM

JASONZZZ



So again, consent is not a legal issue. Since the law (in California) defines that a person under the age of 18 cannot legal give consent (for whatever the reason). You are probably right that a DA will probably not press charges on their own; but if Joyce presses files charges, then she can still bring civil penalties and possibly can still bring criminal charges against them. In any case, if the issue comes to trial, a jury cannot just decide on their own to ignore the law. If the evidence is there and it fits the crime, what kind of jury system do we have if we can have people just willy-nilly decide that the law doesn't apply in a particular case?

Quote:

Originally posted by Drakon:
This is kinda a silly argument, but what the heck.

You mention Joyce pressing charges, and that is key. If she don't, then it is a rare prosecutor who will go ahead and press anyway, regardless of the technical matters concerned. Statutory rape, when the victim is 17, and willingly consented, is tough to convict on. And with the defendent an apparent 25 year old male, its not that good.

Think about it for a second. Yes, technically it is a violation of the law. But you go to trial, and this 17 year old girl starts talking about how she is in love, appearing mature, and not seduced. You have the defendent, who appears about her age.

Plus, if they ever get to telling the tale of the entire ordeal, the defeating the boxed demon that Spike and Drusila brought in, how Angel turned into an evil vampire, instead of a good one, how the statue was destroying the world, and how Buffy ran Angel through with a sword to prevent the world from ending, well, what do you think the DA would do?

Either lock them up as complete loonies, or kick them out of the office for wasting his time. No DA would waste the court's time or his own reputation going after him on this issue.

In technical terms, Angel committed statutory rape of a 17 year old girl. He is also guilty of murder, torture and a whole lot of poor behavior that would be legally actionable. Statutory rape of a consenting 17 year old is the least of his crimes. And it is highly doubtful that a DA would even pursue it.

Besides which, Joyce is dead, Buffy is over 21 now, and she is no longer in the country last we heard. Neither the victim nor the defendent are going to press charges, so, in practical effect, there is no crime.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"



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  

Monday, January 26, 2004 12:57 AM

LOADANDMAKEREADY


Quote:

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

The common law, from which America gets much of its precedents in the legal field, set the age of consent at age ten. In other words, participating in sexual activity with someone above the age of ten did not result in the crime of "statutory" rape or child molesting. The activity may have come under other statutory or informal social regulations, but anyone over the age of ten could consent to a sexual activity.

During the latter part of the 1800's and the early part of the 1900's, attitudes towards sexual activity began to change in America and so did attitudes toward the age of consent. California was one of the first states to raise the age of consent. It raised it from ten to fourteen in 1889 and then from fourteen to sixteen in 1897. Then, in 1913, California again raised it from sixteen to eighteen.

(note that the April 2001 revision provides additional civil penalties to specific types of cases in addition to the misdemeanor and felony charges)

In criminal law, the age of consent is the age at which a person is considered to be capable of legally giving informed consent to sexual acts with another person. Thus somebody engaging in sex with someone below the age of consent commits a crime, called child sexual abuse. Strictly this is regardless of his or her own age, but if two young people engage in sex than the older one is considered to commit a crime, especially if the age difference is relatively large.

The age of consent should not to be confused with the age of majority or age of criminal responsibility. The marriageable age is not necessarily the same as the age of consent. In some countries the two are different.

The age of consent varies widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, though most jurisdictions in the world today have an age of consent between 14 to 18 years, but ages as young as 12 and as old as 21 also occur, with some countries in the Middle East holding female ages of consent in the single-digit range.

Social and legal attitudes towards the appropriate age of consent have drifted upwards in modern times; while ages from ten through to thirteen were typically acceptable in the mid 19th century, fifteen through eighteen had become the norm in many countries by the end of the 20th century. Calls for the age of consent for heterosexual sex to be lowered are largely unheard of, outside of U.S. states with an age of 17 or 18.

Sexual relations with a person under the age of consent is in general a criminal offense, with punishments ranging from token fines to life imprisonment. In the United States this offence is frequently called statutory rape, though outside the United States other names are more commonly used (e.g. "carnal knowledge of a person under sixteen years").

That the relationship was consensual is not in general a defense to having sexual relations with a person under the age of consent; however, there frequently are some defences: common examples include a limited mistake of age defence, and a defence of similarity of age. A mistake of age defence is that the accused mistakenly believed the victim was not under the age of consent.


In re T.A.J. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1350 [73 Cal.Rptr.331]. Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2.
From: ( http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/childrenandthecourts/case_law/del
inque/delinquency-13.htm
)

A juvenile court petition was filed alleging that a 16-year-old boy had sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old female. The petition alleged the child engaged in statutory and forcible rape. At the jurisdictional hearing the only issue was whether the sexual encounter was consensual. The juvenile court found that the act was consensual and that the statutory rape charge was true, but made no finding with regard to the forcible rape count. The child appealed, contending that Penal Code section 261.5 was unconstitutional, both facially and as applied to him. Specifically, he contended that the statute (1) violated his right to privacy under the California Constitution and (2) may not be constitutionally applied to him since he was a member of the class the statute was designed to protect. The Court of Appeal rejected both contentions. First, the court held that American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren (1997) 16 Cal.4th 307, did not confer upon children the right to engage in consensual sexual intercourse. "While we do not ignore the reality that many California teenagers are sexually active, that fact alone does not establish that minors have a right to privacy to engage in sexual intercourse. We accept the premise that due to age and immaturity, minors often lack the ability to make fully informed choices that take account of both immediate and long-range consequences."

The court further found that the reasonable expectation of privacy that exists for a child deciding whether to have an abortion (American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p.373), "cannot be imputed to their
decision to engage in consensual sexual intercourse." On the child's second contention, the court noted that the legislative intent behind the statutory rape law was to make illegal sexual intercourse both between children and adults and between children. Although children cannot be prosecuted for felony statutory rape (unlawful intercourse between an adult and a child) because the child is the victim in such a crime, there is no parallel with regard to misdemeanor statutory rape, which by its terms involves sexual intercourse between two children.



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



So what's your point?

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

Monday, January 26, 2004 1:29 AM

SERGEANTX


This thread seemed comical to me when it first popped up so many months ago. Since then I've watched some Buffy episodes and some Angel episodes and come to what is, I hope, a little better understanding of what Joss is trying to do with this whole Buffyverse thing.

Feel free to correct me, as I'm fairly new as a Buffy fan, but it seems that none of these shows are about monsters in the literal sense. They all seem to me to be about the real, fearsome problems that we all deal with on a daily basis. Given that, I see the whole thing with Angel and Buffy as much closer to what was being discussed above in, I'd assumed, a somewhat tongue-in-cheek manor.

What I'm saying is that the Buffy/Angel romance is the story of a very young girl hooking up with much older guy.

How did it all begin? Let's see we've got a much older man, alienated from most of his peers (due to his enlightened conscience) who, in his lonliness notices a young girl with similar problems. He stalks her from the darkness for awhile, obsessed with her as a curiosity. Soon he begins becoming more actively involved by helping her. He protects her when she feels threatened and gives her a sense of understanding when everything else around her seems threatening and alienating. Soon she begins to see him as more of a peer than the other people in her world and a budding relationship begins.

Things develop from there and soon their 'friendship' gains passion ending in a sexual encounter that ultimately makes him a 'monster'. Of course once the nature of their relationship is discovered he must 'go away' for a long time....

In a later episode of Angel he sees his forbidden love return to him. Through a series of freak occurrences he finds himself able to spend a day of perfect bliss with her, thinking this time they've escaped the moral implications of his 'sin'. But alas he sees that society will never accept them, and they will be plagued by a never ending wave of 'demons' set on destroying them. He realizes that his dream, his true love, can never exist anywhere but in his mind, as a fantasy that he will always remember, but that she will probably not.

This kind of stuff is a lot creepier than demons and vampires, eh?


SergeantX

"..and here's to all the dreamers, may our open hearts find rest." -- Nanci Griffith

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

Monday, January 26, 2004 1:20 PM

COBBHOUSE


Given that the state of CA age of consent is 18 (i think it is, from what ppl have said above), actualy this is also the age of consent in iraq (or atleast was under the previous administration). In much of the rest of the world it is 16. And if Angel had been convicted of rape, they could have always had him deported back to Ireland.

As far as i can remember from the episode (on skyone) where spike and buffy were in the bathroom, she said no, he grabbed her, she fell on the floor, and then spike looked all shocked. I doubt rape was spikes intention, as she had said no many times before, only to throw him into his coffin later. He didn't force her, and was shocked that no ment no this time.

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

Tuesday, January 27, 2004 3:49 AM

IDEFIX


Quote:

Originally posted by Cobbhouse:
Given that the state of CA age of consent is 18 (i think it is, from what ppl have said above), actualy this is also the age of consent in iraq (or atleast was under the previous administration). In much of the rest of the world it is 16. And if Angel had been convicted of rape, they could have always had him deported back to Ireland.



I'm from germany and we have the age of consent at 16 here. and if both are younger than that it's also no problem. as long as they both wanted to. I think it's stupid beyond believe to have a fixed age at all because it's so differnet from person to person and 'rape' is the entirely wrong word for it even if one is older than that fixed age and the other is younger as long as they both want to. rape is about forcing someone. and that's about the worst crime one human being (regardless of age) can do to another. rape is about power not sex it intends to humiliate a person. underage (whatever the age) sex is something completely different.

Quote:


As far as i can remember from the episode (on skyone) where spike and buffy were in the bathroom, she said no, he grabbed her, she fell on the floor, and then spike looked all shocked. I doubt rape was spikes intention, as she had said no many times before, only to throw him into his coffin later. He didn't force her, and was shocked that no ment no this time.



that's about the same I saw. she really meant no this time and she really was frightened and she really felt threatened and forced. but he never wanted her to feel that way. he just didn't understand that "no" meant "no" this time fast enough. as soon as he understood he was shocked and I even seem to remember guilt on his face. he was sorry to have misunderstood. so you can charge him with being slow and stupid but not with attempted rape because he never wanted to rape her (force her).

so no rape anywhere as far as I'm concerned. even if Buffy felt like it with Spike. had she not teased him with almost the same kind of behaviour many times before he should have known that "no" meant "no" but it never did before. they should have used a safty word or something. and maybe you should also keep in mind that in this particular relationship the tiny girl is not the helpless partner. she was always able to kick Spikes butt and he relied on this for much of what they did together. "she needs a little monster in her men" comes to mind.

and don't get me wrong I really felt for her in that scene. it looked like attempted rape from her eyes and it is not my intention to say that she got what she bargained for but I think it was a big misunderstanding and that's just not attempted rape. as rape is carried out with intent and there was no intent only 'normal' behaviour from one of them (Spike) with the other (Buffy) having had a change of heart in between last time and now. and a big failure to communicate on top of it.

Idefix

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

Wednesday, January 28, 2004 1:15 AM

DRAKON


Quote:

Originally posted by Idefix:

I'm from germany and we have the age of consent at 16 here. and if both are younger than that it's also no problem. as long as they both wanted to. I think it's stupid beyond believe to have a fixed age at all because it's so differnet from person to person and 'rape' is the entirely wrong word for it even if one is older than that fixed age and the other is younger as long as they both want to. rape is about forcing someone. and that's about the worst crime one human being (regardless of age) can do to another. rape is about power not sex it intends to humiliate a person. underage (whatever the age) sex is something completely different.



But what is the alternative?

I see complaints like this all the time, the law is arbitrary. But the argument never addresses an alternative that can accomplish the same protection for the underage, against predatory sexual appetites.

Traffic lights are also arbitrary. But the alternative is to have a human person there, directing traffic. If you get rid of age of consent laws, then that would require establishment of some kind of testing and commision, meaning human beings have the power to decide whether you are, or are not qualified to grant consent in something that many folks think is too personal an issue to be ruled over by government in the normal course of things.

Just because a law is arbitrary does not mean that it is a bad thing. Even arbitrary rules accomplish some good. Perhaps that 15 year old is mature enough to play with. Perhaps not, and you only want to think so because your own hormones are jones. Either way, as a mature adult, passing up the pleasure of her company, until she is of legal age, seems a better solution than simply throwing her to the wolves.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Wednesday, January 28, 2004 1:39 AM

KALATHENA


Quote:

This kind of stuff is a lot creepier than demons and vampires, eh?


Thanks for this well observed post, SergeantX. This is the kinds of stuff *I* have noticed about Buffy. I was a late-comer to the series, having borrowed seasons 1-5 on videotape from a friend of mine and watching them over a summer.

The patterns you have noticed were completely unmistakable to me. Someone else on this thread mentioned Xander in "The Pack". I will also point out "Harsh Light of Day" and "Beauty and the Beasts". In the Buffyverse, men are often portrayed as misleading pricks at best (Parker) and sexual predators at worst (Xander, Angel). The message is clear: Have sex with a guy and he turns into a monster, if he isn't a monster underneath already (Oz, Spike).

This theme was played out with more metaphor but more intensity in Season 7 when Buffy discovers that the original Slayer was forced into her duty against her wishes. I think most would agree that the rape perpetuated by the original Watchers was far more horrifying than any overt sexual act we'd seen on the show to this point.

Power over vs. power from within. Freedom from vs. Freedom to. These were the most common themes within the entire series.

--Kala

p.s. It about killed me when I found out that Jane Espenson wrote "Harsh Light of Day". Sigh. I thought for sure that one was a Marti Noxon. Ah well. I suppose Jane's not always perfect.

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

Thursday, January 29, 2004 7:16 AM

JASONZZZ


The points, if you actually read the post instead of just looking at it as a lengthy diatribe and slapping your forehead with your beer can (and everyone else who reads a legitimate and detailed post, then responds only with "so?") , are these:

1. The legal age of consent in California is 18 and has not changed since 1913.
2. There might be a moral argument against who can give consent or not and at what age based on common law or moral beliefs, but the criminal statutes defines it fairly clearly.
3. I give examples that "consent" while under the age of consent is not a legal defense.
4. There is a big difference between "Rape" and "Statutory Rape", the only thing common is the words in there. The operation definition and criminal statute definitions between the two are dramatically different. Same type of differences in the types of killing, e.g. "Manslaughter 1, 2, 3... Murder 1, 2, 3, etc."
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.

Quote:

Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:

So what's your point?




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  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
The anti-Joss anti-Buffy fever
Fri, January 20, 2023 20:16 - 4 posts
Oh boy... Joss gets triple teamed by Buffy / Angel alums - Charisma, Sarah , Amber
Wed, April 7, 2021 10:55 - 81 posts
Felicia Day On Escape!
Sun, February 28, 2021 20:17 - 6 posts
Is there life after Buffy...??
Sat, January 26, 2019 17:27 - 7 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

FFF.NET SOCIAL