If you haven't noticed the sexualization of violence against women, you haven't been paying attention. A defense in rape trials is often that the accused was just doing what the victim liked: giving her violent sex. Women, our culture tries to tell us, like it rough.
But the truth is revealed by the fact that in images of women subjected to violent sex, the woman is rarely happy. She's crying. She's terrified. She's pleading and/or fighting for her life. The violence isn't a turn-on for the woman; it's a turn-on for the person or people about to harm her.
And it's a turn-on, apparently, for audiences. And anyone who intentionally and explicitly links sex and violence in order to titillate an audience is not only not a feminist, s/he is a misogynist. I'm talking to YOU, Joss Whedon.
Which brings us to Reason #3 that Dollhouse is Misogynist Bullshit: sex made violent and violence against women made sexy; sex and violence linked so closely you can't tell where one ends and the other begins.
There are snippets of this in every episode, but the most explicit and extended is in Ep 2, "Target" the horrible, stupid version of "The Most Dangerous Game" that all sorts of people raved about. Echo is programmed to be an outdoorsy girl so she can accompany hot young thing Richard on a rafting trip. They make it through the rapids, shoot wild (and possibly illegal) game for dinner, have vigorous, energetic sex in a tent, and before the sweat covering their bodies has even cooled, Richard tells Echo that she better get moving because he's only giving her a five-minute head start.
It's totally gross. It's not just that he intends to hunt and kill her, it's that he gets off on horrifying, hurting and confusing a woman he's just had sex with by casually informing her that he intends to hunt and kill her. He makes her vulnerable; he asks for her trust; he tells her he really enjoys being with her; and then he says, essentially, "It's going to be really fun to track and kill you." His goal all along has been to kill her.
That's misogynist. And please don't try to tell me that Joss is being misogynist on purpose, to show that it's wrong. We all know already that it's wrong to kill and hunt another human being. What makes this episode extra misogynist and evil is the way sex is used to heighten the violence, and the way the hunter gets off on the mixture of sex and violence. That is NOT critiqued in this episode; at no point does the show deconstruct what Richard did. And as the ep progresses, Richard continues to talk to Echo like a lover, using endearments, telling her that "his father would have really liked her" and that "she really is the perfect woman."
The fact that she manages to kill him is NOT some sort of feminist victory; it's a necessary conclusion if the show is going to continue and Eliza Dushku is going to keep her job. The good guys never win here, because Echo is not fighting for the good guys; in this case, she is merely fighting someone who is even more sadistic and awful than the people who own her mind and body for a minimum of five years.
The other really, really gross linking of sex and violence is in "Man on the Street," the ep Joss wrote all by himself and is thoroughly proud of. Sierra's handler Hern has been caught forcing Sierra to have sex with him while she's in her "blank-slate" state, a huge violation of trust since Sierra has programmed to trust him completely and to believe he will never harm her. As a result of her programming, she does not resist at all his demand that she let him do what he wants to her. Hern, of course, is relieved of his duties when this is discovered, and beaten up, and assumes he might even be killed for damaging Dollhouse property. And then we get this conversation between Hern and Adelle DeWitt:
DeWitt: Did it make it better, that she didn’t struggle?
Hern: No. It made it easier.
Then the topic moves to Mellie, the woman with whom FBI agent Paul Ballard has been discussing his investigation of the Dollhouse:
DeWitt: I need her killed and it can’t be clean. This is you chance to avoid the attic. You may even consider it something of a promotion. After all, this one will, probably, struggle.
Get it? Killing a woman is a promotion for raping another. Yes! There's a discussion of how Mellie will, probably, struggle, and there is an immediate cut to Mellie moaning and shouting, her head thrown back--oh wait, she's having an orgasm! She's suddenly in bed with Paul! (How did those two fall madly in bed with each other, given that he was so dismissive of her earlier? I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying that the writers didn't give a very full treatment of that relationship's development.)
The planning of her violent death and the fact that she will struggle is juxtaposed with her in orgasm. Given that Hern's in trouble for rape, this deliberate sexualization of the impending violence is really, really, really GROSS.
If you don't believe me, if you think I'm making a big deal out of nothing, think how different the scene would have been if the transition had not been from Adelle talking about how Mellie will struggle when being murdered, but to Sierra having her memory wiped yet again, and THEN and only then was there a cut to Mellie and Paul in bed having pillow talk, without the vivid sights and sounds of Mellie's orgasm.
The orgasm is there to make the violence sexy. But it doesn't work. It just makes the sex violent. It doesn't make the depiction we see of of the intersection of sex and violence a feminist study; it makes it hateful misogynist crap.
Now, someone will probably point out that Hern isn't really sent to kill Mellie; he's sent to be killed by Mellie, who is a sleeper active who turns into a ninja killer when she hears the phrase "There are three flowers in a vase. The third flower is green.” But the violence goes on for a while before that phrase is uttered. Mellie could have been activated the moment Hern walked in the door. Instead, we get to see her terrified for her life, running, being caught and dragged by her feet. The emphasis is on the fear of this woman, not her power.
Yeah. That's a good way to sum it up. Buffy was about female power; Dollhouse is about female fear--not the eradication of it, but the creation of it, because that's what keeps the series going. That's misogyny--AND bad television.
See Reason #1 here, Reason #2 here, and an overview of the problem with "recreating violence against women isn't misogyny if you're doing it to educate" argument here.
Yeah, I see your point, and I think you're right on a LOT of levels. But. I also think that part of the show is that the Dollhouse caters to whoever has can pay, without caring whether or not what they're doing is misogynistic, so that Most Dangerous Game episode is part of that. And the Mellie thing - I felt like all that stuff was just a misdirect so we'd be surprised when Mellie killed Hern (which I was).
However.
I also think it could ALL have been done WAY better - in a way that says that the Dollhouse is amoral, and misdirecting about Mellie, and everything else - without being misogynistic. I mean c'mon, Joss has done it before, so why not now? This show just took the way wrong direction to tell what could have been a really interesting story.
Also, I hear it's been canceled.
I also think that part of the show is that the Dollhouse caters to whoever has can pay, without caring whether or not what they're doing is misogynistic, so that Most Dangerous Game episode is part of that.
OK.... but that's misogynist. It's hard to make a show about people who don't care about misogyny and then avoid misogyny.
I wouldn't be offering this pointed, extended critique of the show--I probably wouldn't even be watching--if it were from the makers of CSI; I would expect misogyny, because that's what those shows traffic in from the start. I'm making my critique because this a show from Joss, who has claimed to be a feminist, who claims that this show has some sort of feminist agenda. Either he is so uncritical of his own work that he can't really see what's going on here, or he has acquired a really weird definition of feminism, or... something.
I hope you're right and that the show will soon be off the air. I can't find anything conclusive, except that supposedly ep 13 won't air.
Mm, I don't know. How is it misogynistic if the Dollhouse is amoral with its female dolls, but (in THEORY, anyway), they're doing the same thing with their male dolls? I get that the show is only showing it on the part of the female dolls, and that IS misogynistic. I'm just saying that I see where it could have gone right instead of wrong - they could have said what they wanted to say (that the Dollhouse is this amoral place that only cares about the money) in a better way; a way that ISN'T misogynistic. But. They didn't. They said it in a way that sexualizes violence against women. I'm just saying that they COULD have done it, since the premise of the show isn't necessarily misogynistic. And I like the PREMISE, just not where they've gone with it.
How is it misogynistic if the Dollhouse is amoral with its female dolls, but (in THEORY, anyway), they're doing the same thing with their male dolls?
Where is it written that a person or show or entity guilty of misogyny can't abuse men as well?
But there is definitely a double standard in the way the dolls are treated. So far, aside from one comment by the man on the street in "Man on the Street" and the buttless chaps Victor takes off the rack of clothes for him in “Needs,” there's been no hint of male dolls being used for gay sex--instead, it has been many rich Miss Lonely Hearts who have hired Victor for stud services. But surely, given that men--gay or straight--are more likely to hire prostitutes than women are, that would be one of the primary markets for male dolls?
And for the record, I'd be thoroughly grossed out and upset if it had been Victor who had been hired by Richard for a combination sex/murder camping trip.
But it wasn't Victor; it was Echo. And that's because our culture, although perfectly happy to perpetrate all sorts of violence against gay men, still prefers to direct most of its violence against women. And it LOVES to sexualize that violence. Often, straight men who engage in things like gay bashing work hard to de-sexualize violence against gay men--just beating the shit out of them as opposed to raping them AND beating the shit out of them--'cause they don't want to seem gay themselves.
I'm just saying that I see where it could have gone right instead of wrong - they could have said what they wanted to say (that the Dollhouse is this amoral place that only cares about the money) in a better way; a way that ISN'T misogynistic. But. They didn't. They said it in a way that sexualizes violence against women. I'm just saying that they COULD have done it, since the premise of the show isn't necessarily misogynistic.
I'm willing to concede that it's possible that the show could have been handled in a way that isn't misogynist--maybe not likely, but possible. The thing that's galling to me is that Joss claimed this would have a feminist agenda, and yet it's just VILE. It's so insulting and annoying to be told that this is something that's going to explore and help solve a problem the world faces, when instead, it makes it worse.
Well, I guess I think if they're abusing male and female in the same ways, it's not misogyny so much as just plain gross and abusive. I don't feel like it's a particular hatred/oppression of women if the men are being treated the same way. But that's really neither here nor there, since I guess the point is that, while the Dollhouse, in theory, could treat them the same, in the actual show only the women are shown being treated like that.
When I first read Joss Whedon's description of the show I thought it was going to be about a search for identity, and I think it could have been - a totally non-misogynistic search for identity. But, sadly...not. Not even at all.
Well, I guess I think if they're abusing male and female in the same ways, it's not misogyny so much as just plain gross and abusive.
Perhaps we don't disagree strongly enough on this to argue the point too much, but I would point out that a system like chattel slavery, the way it operated in the US until we finally fought a war to get rid of it, is both just plain gross and abusive to both men and women, AND misogynist. Male and female slaves were whipped and tortured and brutalized and dehumanized and underfed and bought and sold, but there were still ways in which women suffered additionally and were oppressed extra within slavery because they were women, which makes it misogynist.
I don't think the Dollhouse is an amoral place that only cares about the money. I think it's an IMMORAL place that cares about money a lot, but cares even more about POWER. It's a manifestation of patriarchy in one of its rawest forms. One of the ways patriarchy maintains itself is by exerting control over women, particularly women who misbehave or don't acquiesce--which, after all, is how both Echo and Sierra end up there. I personally don't really think it's possible for something like the Dollhouse to abuse men and women in the same ways, because our society has rules about the ways men and women can be abused, and because the way the genders are perceived influences the effects of treatment they receive.
Try this: call a straight woman "a filthy, disgusting whore who's so worn out she's not worth fucking, even for free."
Now call a straight guy "a filthy, disgusting whore who's so worn out he's not worth fucking, even for free."
Same treatment--but is it the same? does it have the same weight, the same effect? Or does it mean something different, because our society sees men and women differently? I would argue the latter.
You wrote down that, "And it's a turn-on, apparently, for audiences. And anyone who intentionally and explicitly links sex and violence in order to titillate an audience is not only not a feminist, s/he is a misogynist. Which brings us to Reason #3 that Dollhouse is Misogynist Bullshit: sex made violent and violence against women made sexy; sex and violence linked so closely you can't tell where one ends and the other begins."
And it just occurred to me that in BtVS, Spike and Buffy's relationship was mostly depicted by sex and violence (excluding season 7), with a lot of lust and love all mixed together. And when I say that they had a relationship, I'm not saying that they had that kind of official bf/gf dating relationship, just so you know. But I'm really curious about what you think of S/B, because here I am wondering if Spike and Buffy are different just because Spike loved and was in love with Buffy? Because from how I see it, the sex and violence between S and B was linked in a way that the sex was made violent and the violence against the woman was made sexy. And sex and violence was also linked so closely that you couldn't tell where one ended and the other began. Even though, in-between it all, Spike kept telling Buffy that he loved her, would do anything for her, calling her names such as "pet" and "love" as well as telling her "you always hurt the one you love" and "that's my girl". I mean, I get that it's misogynist and wrong if a guy's goal all along was to kill a woman who he only played and toyed with. But it's not wrong to link so much of the sex and violence together when the guy actually loves the woman, despite the woman giving into him and sort of liking him back even though she's also in pain emotionally (I'm talking about Buffy in season 6)? Both Spike and Buffy got off on the mixture of sex and violence. And it was also a turn-on for audiences. So, I don't really get what you would consider to be right and wrong, except for the obvious which you already provided examples in your blog entry. Or did it only make it right when just about everything changed in season 7 of BtVS and Buffy finally got her focus back and Spike wanted to give Buffy what she deserved by getting his soul back just for her? If everything about Spike and Buffy was different, then what made them so different besides him loving her?
Hi Khatani--
thanks for disagreeing with me on this, because you've done it politely and reasonably, while I'm sure there are people who would disagree with me much less politely. I'll try to respond your objections as politely and reasonably myself.
I suppose one way I could have made my statement less open to objection is if I had written, "Anyone who intentionally and explicitly links sex and MURDER in order to titillate an audience is not only not a feminist, s/he is a misogynist."
The violence in the two examples I mentioned wasn't just a little spanking; it was the threat of a violent, untimely death, in which the person committing the murder rather enjoys it and the person who is being murdered is fighting for her life. Linking sex to that is really, really gross.
And it just occurred to me that in BtVS, Spike and Buffy's relationship was mostly depicted by sex and violence (excluding season 7), with a lot of lust and love all mixed together.
This is true only of season 6, I would say. Buffy doesn't feel any desire for Spike until after she dies and comes back to life the second time. The first time they're shown exchanging any kind of physical affection, which is "Something Blue" (4/8), they stop fighting for the duration of their engagement caused by the spell Willow has cast on them.
I thought about "Smashed," (6/9), the episode where Buffy and Spike first have sex. I always thought a lot of the violence on Buffy was pretty cartoony, and this is especially cartoony, in that it doesn't do them any real damage. There are no cuts on their faces, for instance, no gaping wounds oozing blood. The damage done to them is about as serious as when a boulder falls on Wiley Coyote, and he's turned into an accordion version of himself.
I also never bought the transition from fighting to fucking. One moment Buffy is beating the crap out of Spike; the next, she's kissing him and hiking up her skirt. I felt the writers didn't make clear what was going on in her head that she would suddenly agree to have sex with him.
I will also say that I sorta don't care. I mean, I thought Spike was a great character, but I am not interested in sex with vampires. I'm more interested in sex with human beings, and I think the most interesting and problematic relationships on the show were the ones between human beings.
I realize that none of those statements disproves your point. I am only explaining what that relationship says to me.
I am wondering if Spike and Buffy are different just because Spike loved and was in love with Buffy? ... But it's not wrong to link so much of the sex and violence together when the guy actually loves the woman, despite the woman giving into him and sort of liking him back even though she's also in pain emotionally (I'm talking about Buffy in season 6)?
They're different because they're cartoons who usually don't suffer much more damage than Wiley Coyote. In other words, think about "Dead Things" (6/13), the ep where Spike says to Buffy, "You always hurt the one you love." When he says that, Buffy has just beaten his face to a bloody pulp (one of the relatively few times when her beatings actually damage him, given how much she fights him), angry that he has tried to prevent her from telling the police that she killed Katrina. Imagine if at that point, upon hearing that sentence, Buffy had unzipped his pants and started cooing, "Oh, baby, you're right. I'm gonna boink your brains out now. I'm gonna screw you hard." Would that have seemed sexy to you?
And I do think it's wrong to link sex and violence when the guy actually loves the woman and I think it's REALLY wrong to excuse linking sex and violence by saying, "The guy really loves the woman he's beating up." See "Beauty and the Beast" (3/4) to see what I mean by that.
Both Spike and Buffy got off on the mixture of sex and violence. And it was also a turn-on for audiences. So, I don't really get what you would consider to be right and wrong.
Well, I'm more rigid about this than a lot of some feminists, I realize. There are people who defend s/m relationships and say it's about trust and so forth. So perhaps trust is one element: if the woman trusts the guy not to REALLY hurt her--maybe that makes it OK for some people. if she doesn't trust the guy, if she's really scared, it's not OK.
For me, I think the world would be a better place if we de-linked sex and violence.
One reason sex and violence are linked is that love and violence are linked, particularly in religion. God loved the world, so he sent his son to be tortured and murdered, because only the torture and murder of someone free from sin could save the rest of us. How sick is that? To me, it's incomprehensible that anyone could consider the atonement a doctrine of love. But millions of people do.
Hi there, Holly. All right, I have a lot of disagreements that I'd like to point out in regards to what you've said, and I will try my best to do it as clearly, respectfully, and politely as I can.
You said, "I thought about "Smashed," (6/9), the episode where Buffy and Spike first have sex. I always thought a lot of the violence on Buffy was pretty cartoony, and this is especially cartoony, in that it doesn't do them any real damage. There are no cuts on their faces, for instance, no gaping wounds oozing blood."
Yeah, the violence on Buffy wasn't super-realistic, but when I watched the series, it didn't bother me that a lot of times there weren't bleeding wounds and big bruises. Plus, I didn't really care about that part of the show. First of all, I kept in mind that it was a TV show after all, so these things do happen. And secondly, it was mentioned in the show that a Slayer doesn't bruise easily and they heal pretty quickly. So I just thought that even if Buffy did have some cuts and bruises, it wouldn't be noticeable or she had covered it up. Also, there actually were lots of times where Buffy would get a nasty cut on her forehead every now and then, so I can't complain. Aside from that, I didn't think the violence on Buffy was cartoony in any way, at least that wasn't part of my impression. I thought it was good majority of the time, but perhaps I'm just not as picky about my violence. And I've gotta say that even though there weren't that many cuts, bruises, and oozing blood, the violence is still violence, and that's what most people see when they watch Buffy beating up vampires, such as Spike, and other demons. They all have that whole super-power strength thing, so I never expected a Slayer or any demon to bruise or bleed easily.
"This is true only of season 6, I would say. Buffy doesn't feel any desire for Spike until after she dies and comes back to life the second time. I also never bought the transition from fighting to fucking. One moment Buffy is beating the crap out of Spike; the next, she's kissing him and hiking up her skirt. I felt the writers didn't make clear what was going on in her head that she would suddenly agree to have sex with him."
Okay, here are some things I want to first explain. I know obviously that season 6 was the only season where Spike and Buffy had sex, but while watching S & B in the previous seasons all the way back to when they'd only met, the sexual tension was already there from the start. I remember watching this one interview where I think it was one of the writers who even stated that when S & B first meet in the "School Hard" episode of season 2, it was fairly obvious Spike had an immediate sexual attraction toward Buffy when they were at the Bronze and he walked around her while watching her dance. Personally, when I watch that scene, I do feel his attraction and the sexual tension he had going on for her. It's like that 'love at first sight' thing, only it's not; it's more like sexual attraction at first sight.
Spike has always had more insight and wisdom about love than Buffy, and just about everyone else on BtVS. An example that nicely illustrates this fact is when he tells both Angel and Buffy, 'You'll be in love till it kills you both. You'll fight, and you'll shag, and you'll hate each other till it makes you quiver, but you'll never be friends. Love isn't brains, children, it's blood... blood screaming inside you to work its will. I may be love's bitch, but at least I'm man enough to admit it.' Another example is the time when he's able to make Buffy question whether Willow will really take revenge on Glory for what she did to Tara, and Spike says this to her, 'I'd do it. Right person. Person I loved. I'd do it.'
It was obvious that Spike's desire, obsession, and passion grew for Buffy over the seasons until he had the dream of him kissing Buffy and finally realized that his obsession and passion wasn't fueled by his hatred toward her but by love instead. Spike desired Buffy much more quickly and readily before Buffy ever started to desire him in season 6. They both are turned on by the violence they inflict on one another (Spike especially), and judging by everything that had already happened in previous seasons (especially season 5) before season 6 and the circumstances leading up to the sex scene in "Smashed," the fighting before the sex was supposed to be rough, violent and sexual foreplay. So I felt that the writers did a very good job of making clear what was going on in both of their heads, that is, when you look back at their relationship in previous episodes of season 6 and the other past seasons. Not only was it already made clear of how much sexual tension there existed between Spike and Buffy, but if you watch the interactions between the two of them, all throughout the seasons leading up to the episode of Smashed, they both already had a strong connection in respecting and understanding each other. If you want to know what I mean, and are curious and interested, you can read more in-depth of what Spike has done for Buffy here: http://vrya.net/bdb/essay1.php
When Buffy was brought back from the grave, she reveals her secret pain about how she was actually in heaven to Spike, and only Spike alone. So obviously, it shows that she trusts (as you've probably heard a hundred times already) in him enough to confide and find comfort in him. And if you read most of what was on the vrya site, I think you'll come to understand why Buffy was able to trust in Spike so much after she was resurrected. I think that after all he did for her, it really did earn him more respect from Buffy. After Buffy died at the end of season 5, Spike could have left Buffy's friends to fight demons on their own and returned to his old life, but instead, he chooses to live a life that doesn't suit him, a soulless vampire, by fighting on the good side, keeping his promise to Buffy that he'd protect her sister, all the while knowing that he'd never see Buffy again and still loving her hopelessly and unconditionally. And when Buffy was brought back, she knew what Spike did. Hence, why they were able to strengthen their bond that was built on trust and understanding. Mix that with lots of attraction and sexual tension, and when things get heated, there's a high possibility of sex being the result, at least for two people who are like Buffy and Spike. So, in my opinion, you have to look at all of this as a necklace of pearls that are all connected together by a string, instead of looking at the show as kodak pictures where you only photograph each scene separately from all the rest. That's the only way that things will make more sense.
"I will also say that I sorta don't care. I mean, I thought Spike was a great character, but I am not interested in sex with vampires. I'm more interested in sex with human beings, and I think the most interesting and problematic relationships on the show were the ones between human beings."
I'd disagree with you here as well. Okay so where do you draw the line between humans and vampires in BtVS? Do you only draw the line at the physical aspects such as, vampires need blood as their food supply to survive and humans don't, and vampires can't stand the sunlight and humans can? If that's the case, then isn't that kind of superficial? Spike possessed and displayed human traits. Traits that obviously a dark, soulless creature of evil shouldn't. Spike may not have been a human on the outside, but he certainly was very human on the inside, unlike all other soulless vampires. I'm not trying to disregard the fact that the chip in his brain did prevent him from going back to his evil, wicked ways, but point is, his feelings toward Buffy are very real and sincere. When he first fell in love with Buffy, I believe it was real, but it wasn't sincere because he still loved selfishly and his love wasn't mature yet. But the feelings of love that he felt toward Buffy was just as real as what any other human would feel. In fact, he was the only soulless vampire who was shown being capable of loyalty, compassion, empathy, and true love toward a human woman. We already know from Angel that a souled vampire can truly love a slayer, but as a soulless vampire, Angel/Angelus wasn't capable of the kind of real, unconditional love Spike possessed as a soulless vampire. So the emotions and what a vampire is capable of feeling is really actually dependent on the vampire's own individual personality. Just like how a human man can be madly in love, Spike was a vampire who created a shrine dedicated to the woman he loved (Buffy). Is that not human-like? Whenever he became frustrated, hurt, and angry when Buffy rejected his love for her, that's what many human men also feel. When he cries that time when Buffy told him he was beneath her, and when he also cried when Buffy sacrificed herself to save the world, that's what humans do for the people they love too. And after his attempt at raping Buffy, he finally realized what kind of monstrous, sick, evil, disgusting thing he had done and stopped, and afterward felt human regret, guilt, and anger at himself for hurting the one he loved most. So I believe that after Spike had turned into a vampire, the gentle and loving William still lived inside of him as well as the monster that Buffy kept talking about in season 7. And just like how we humans have some of our own inner demons to battle in order for us to become better people, soulless vampire Spike did the same thing and got his soul back in order to become the kind of man Buffy deserved. Spike is no different from a human man who's in prison or just got out of prison (in his case, the chip in his head did kind of imprison him in a way that it took away his free will to do anything physical with the intention to hurt humans) and begins to realize that he wants to become a genuinely better person and redeem himself. So for me, I don't find Spike to be any different from human men, although I personally think that human men like him are rare in this world, even though Spike is a vampire who drinks blood and mostly sleeps during the day.
"When he says that, Buffy has just beaten his face to a bloody pulp (one of the relatively few times when her beatings actually damage him, given how much she fights him), angry that he has tried to prevent her from telling the police that she killed Katrina. Imagine if at that point, upon hearing that sentence, Buffy had unzipped his pants and started cooing, "Oh, baby, you're right. I'm gonna boink your brains out now. I'm gonna screw you hard." Would that have seemed sexy to you?"
I do not think this is a valid example. For one thing, it wouldn't make any sense at all if Buffy just suddenly started wanting to kiss and have sex with Spike when you look at how much terrible crap she's in and how badly she feels about it all. She's trying to get rid of Spike because she has already set her goal on getting to the police station to inform them that she killed Katrina. Buffy's taking her anger, pain, and frustration out on Spike; it's nowhere near sexual foreplay, and Spike is just laying there letting her beat the daylights out of him. And when you consider the way that Buffy is feeling, of course she wouldn't start having sex with Spike during a time like that. Her mind is occupied with Katrina's death, not wanting to have sex. If I were in her shoes, I would NOT be in the mood for sex at a time like that when I'm scared, extremely disappointed in myself, and feeling guilty as heck that I've just accidentally killed someone. Think about it.
"And I do think it's wrong to link sex and violence when the guy actually loves the woman and I think it's REALLY wrong to excuse linking sex and violence by saying, "The guy really loves the woman he's beating up." For me, I think the world would be a better place if we de-linked sex and violence."
I understand the point you're making here. Okay, now please don't take what I'm about to say as me trying to offend you or anything like that, but I think you have a really black and white view on this. It's something that I've noticed you sometimes do in some of your entries. And whether you care or not, that's up to you, but I want to be straight and honest with you instead of sugar-coating the truth, because I do feel that you tend to see a lot of things as black and white and being one-sided, when it's really not.
When it comes to Buffy and Spike's relationship, I admit that I admire and envy this type of relationship. I know many, many people dismiss it as just a misogynist and abusive relationship, but I really don't see it that way when the people who are involved in such a relationship are people like Buffy and Spike. And you know, I would never ever want to be in a violent relationship like this in my life, because I'm not Buffy. The type of relationship they have with the super-human strength and violence intermingled with sex isn't realistic in our world, but in BtVS, in the Buffyverse, it's realistic in there. To me, it makes a lot of sense how a woman who is as strong and tough as Buffy who is sexually attracted to Spike but has been holding back, to mix sex and violence with a strong, compelling, challenging vampire (who she considered to be her mortal enemy, and couldn't help the way she was feeling toward him) who she's fully capable of handling. It makes sense in BtVS for something like this to happen, and I do believe that exceptions like this (where the sex and violence are strongly linked) is acceptable. The sex and violence isn't just linked between S & B because Spike really loves Buffy, but it's linked for THEM because that's who they are, and that was the nature of their relationship from the very beginning they met. Because of Spike, Buffy was able to accept and embrace the dark side of herself (as a Slayer), something that she had denied and tried to run away from for so long.
And in my perspective, Spike also gave Buffy the love of a lifetime. Because of who they were and what they experienced together, they were both able to rise from it as better and stronger people. Spike went through a heck of a journey in his pursuit of Buffy which made him become more self-aware of who he was and what he was actually doing, and getting his soul back, and finally learning how to love Buffy the right way, selflessly and unconditionally, without desiring her or expecting to take anything away from her, and giving up everything for her without expecting anything in return. Then as for Buffy, she wouldn't have had sex with Spike in Smashed if his dark side hadn't tempted her. When she gives into the darkness, she acknowledges that she does want Spike, telling him, 'I do want you. Being with you... makes things... simpler. For a little while.' But she's not supposed to dwell in darkness. It's a journey that she had to go on, that she's supposed to experience and learn from in order to grow by accepting that there is darkness within her and embracing and mastering that darkness, even if she is the slayer who's duty is to battle against the evil forces of darkness. So actually, both B & S guided each other. If sex and violence in a relationship wasn't linked in a way that Spike's and Buffy's was, when I actually consider and think carefully about the relationship first, then I probably wouldn't approve of sex and violence being linked at all, but this is an exception that I approve of.
So you might think that it's wrong to link sex and violence, and I'm not sure if you don't believe there to be any exceptions, but I differ from you because I don't believe love and relationships (only the best and extraordinary kind, though) are that black and white.
"One reason sex and violence are linked is that love and violence are linked, particularly in religion. God loved the world, so he sent his son to be tortured and murdered, because only the torture and murder of someone free from sin could save the rest of us. How sick is that? To me, it's incomprehensible that anyone could consider the atonement a doctrine of love."
I would love it if people would put more effort into using, or at least learning to use, their reasoning and logical skills to figure things out. And I'm not excluding myself from that because I'm still trying it myself. One thing I've learned and continue to remind myself of is that religions, societies, and governments are very similar on many levels, and I don't believe everything a religion says, just like I don't believe everything in society. I come from an animist religion. Shamanism to be exact.
Khatani:
You acknowledge that the violence on BtVS isn't realistic, and mention all sorts of reasons why this is so, such as the fact that it's a tv show and slayers have super strength and heal quickly. All of those are elements of what makes the violence on the show cartoony, in my opinion.
I know obviously that season 6 was the only season where Spike and Buffy had sex, but while watching S & B in the previous seasons all the way back to when they'd only met, the sexual tension was already there from the start.
I don't believe that there was sexual tension BETWEEN them from the start. Do you really believe that Buffy WANTED Spike when he was trying to kill her in season 2, or when he came to her and offered a deal because he wanted Dru back? She found him gross. I absolutely agree that Spike thought Buffy was hot and that he sexualized his threats of violence. That is part of what makes him so menacing and awful. But it does not mean that it was reciprocated.
And when the attraction REALLY took off was not when they thought they were engaged and spent all that time making out, but when Faith took over Buffy's body and taunted Spike sexually. But Buffy had nothing to do with that. At that point Spike begins to see Buffy differently, but it's rooted in deceit.
You are right that Spike always had more insight about love--and a great many other things--than anyone else on the show. But you do not provide a single concrete example demonstrating that BUFFY was attracted to Spike throughout the course of the show.
And as for Buffy's trust in Spike.... Well, I already acknowledged that trust is important--but is it the ONLY element in sexual desire? Do you want to have sex with everyone you trust?
Okay so where do you draw the line between humans and vampires in BtVS?
On BtVS, I draw the line here: if a person has become a vampire, they're a vampire. If they haven't died and turned into a vampire, they're still human--unless they're a werewolf.
I'm not especially interested in the sex Oz had with Veruca, either. I'm more interested in the sex he had with Willow.
"When he says that, Buffy has just beaten his face to a bloody pulp (one of the relatively few times when her beatings actually damage him, given how much she fights him), angry that he has tried to prevent her from telling the police that she killed Katrina. Imagine if at that point, upon hearing that sentence, Buffy had unzipped his pants and started cooing, "Oh, baby, you're right. I'm gonna boink your brains out now. I'm gonna screw you hard." Would that have seemed sexy to you?"
I do not think this is a valid example. For one thing, it wouldn't make any sense at all if Buffy just suddenly started wanting to kiss and have sex with Spike when you look at how much terrible crap she's in and how badly she feels about it all.
It's an extremely valid example! The whole point is that sex at a time like this is preposterous! When someone is upset enough to beat someone's face to a bloody pulp, that's not something that should transition easily to sexual desire! And it's THAT sort of violence that is sexualized on Dollhouse!
If I were in her shoes, I would NOT be in the mood for sex at a time like that when I'm scared, extremely disappointed in myself, and feeling guilty as heck that I've just accidentally killed someone. Think about it.
Khatani, I have thought about it, which is why I picked that example: I picked an example that mirrors violence against women in the real world. The fact is, men who abuse women often do so because they're feeling threatened in some way. They're scared, they're disappointed in themselves, they feel bad about something they've done, so they take it out on the person closest to them: a woman who isn't as strong as they are, who can't or won't fight back effectively. The women often just take it because they fear that if they fight back, they'll be hurt worse. And beating the woman up makes the guy feel manly and strong--and sorry, because he's hurt her--so then he wants to make up, and oftentimes the only way he knows how to do that is through sex. And often times, the woman submits, even though she feels nothing but pain, because, well, he really loves her.
You wanted advice on texts you should know in order to understand feminism, so here's one: Watch "Last Tango in Paris." There's a scene known euphemistically as "the butter scene." It's often discussed for how sexy it is. And there's also a crucial scene where the two people admit that they're in love and want to be together--Marlon Brando tells the woman all the things he'll make her do to prove she loves him, while they're in a very intimate situation.
This is considered a really, really sexy movie. It's the sort or relationship people who aren't Buffy and Spike could have. Watch LTiP and then tell me what you think.
Or watch "Streetcar Named Desire," where Marlon Brando hits his pregnant wife. The scene was edited to be less violent in the first cut released, but clearer indications of just how hard he was willing to hit his wife were restored in a later version. Stella runs out of the room and up to the neighbor's apartment. That's when Stanley gets upset and stands at the foot of the stair shouting "Stella!" And she goes down to him, even though he just hit her while she's pregnant, and they have sex--really great sex.
So, the fact is, Khatani, I have thought about it. A LOT.
I purposely picked an example when Spike is the victim of Buffy's violence, because I think the gender reversal helps to show how inappropriate it is to mix real, non-cartoony violence with sex, but I could have picked the rape scene, which you mention. That scene shows the limitations of and problems with Spike's reliance on violence as foreplay. REAL violence against women, where she is genuinely scared and not acting like a super-hero, isn't sexy.
I will also say that that scene bothered me in terms of continuity and logic, because Buffy's super-power strength seemed to have deserted her. Normally she can throw Spike across the room, and suddenly she can't even muster enough strength to roll over on top of him and beat the crap out of him the way she normally would? So saying "No" to sex suddenly makes Buffy as weak as a normal female?
And you know, I would never ever want to be in a violent relationship like this in my life, because I'm not Buffy. The type of relationship they have with the super-human strength and violence intermingled with sex isn't realistic in our world, but in BtVS, in the Buffyverse, it's realistic in there.
You acknowledge explicitly that the only woman who could really, truly safely be in a relationship like the one Buffy has with Spike is BUFFY, because she's a super-hero.
That is precisely what I mean by cartoony, and why I say I am not interested in sex with vampires. However entertaining her relationship with him might be, it does not provide an actual model for sexual relationships between real human women and real human men--which is what our dating pool is limited to.
When it comes to Buffy and Spike's relationship, I admit that I admire and envy this type of relationship.
Buffy feels ashamed of and degraded by her relationship with Spike. Why would you envy and admire that?