Question Does anyone know if Angelus raped as well as tortured?

[HushSarah]

Does anyone know if/when/what scene during rewatching the series (Season 2 specifically) if Angelus in his darker days had ever raped as well as tortured anyone?

I bring this up because (and I keep my distance from FB groups) it's been implied/mentioned allegedly that Angelus had raped his victims before torturing/killing them.

Has this happened? Torturing is an inhuman act and vampires are demons, but there is something about the combination of rape/torturing the innocent that makes them irredeemable. But Angel was, which makes me think this theory is only coming from a certain group. Any thoughts?

 

[thetopher]

The three overt instances I can think of are:

1) Buffy S3 Amends: In one of the flashbacks it's heavily implied that there is a sexual element when Angelus forces himself upon a poor Victorian housemaid; he terrifies and coerces her to get her to 'submit' to whatever he desires and then he kills her, saying that he will also kill her son as 'dessert'.

2) It's (again implied) that he did this to the gypsy girl he feeds off of, the victim that led to him getting cursed.

3) Ats S3 Explicitly stated by Angelus that he repeatedly did this to Holtz wife.

Angelus is never depicted as *cuddly; he is deadly, cunning, imaginative, cruel and sadistic. He's never seen as 'cool' or 'badass' in his evil, just very, very dangerous; one of the worst of his kind.

One of the stark contrasts between Angel and and Spike fans is that, on the whole, no Angel fan likes, roots for or admires Angelus. They might think he's a great bad guy but they have no illusions about him as a character; he's a soulless creep who is bad news for Buffy or whoever else.


*Apart from The Girl In Question where he is inexplicably portrayed in a buffoonish, semi-comedic light along with Spike. But this is the exception.

Torturing is an inhuman act and vampires are demons, but there is something about the combination of rape/torturing the innocent that makes them irredeemable.

In Amends its stated that he murdered an entire family the year before (by one of The First's visions) and that included two children. I do not understand why the line is drawn between 'its acceptable that this vampire brutally kills kids' and 'this vampire rapes/tortures and that is too much'. Both are horrific acts.
I think generally in our society preying on children in any way is seen as the most monstrous and irredeemable thing so I don't get why that is 'okay' for a soulless vampire to get away with after the fact; why does a soul redeem that act and not rape?
In both cases they are done by the demon, not the man.

 

[WillowsFaith]

I think it’s implied considering his predatory nature. Especially since he was creeping on Buffy I’m highschool even when he was Normal Angel🤷‍♀️Also it was said he was the baddest Vampire in his era, more evil then Spike.

 

[HushSarah]

The three overt instances I can think of are:
1) Buffy S3 Amends: In one of the flashbacks it's heavily implied that there is a sexual element when Angelus forces himself upon a poor Victorian housemaid; he terrifies and coerces her to get her to 'submit' to whatever he desires and then he kills her, saying that he will also kill her son as 'dessert'.

I remember that one, it was pretty heavy, but as I remember the Flashback in the Faith crossover "Five By Five", he only tried to drain her, then left shortly after. This wasn't Angelus though. It was Angel with his soul but it appeared to be from the same time frame.

2) It's (again implied) that he did this to the gypsy girl he feeds off of, the victim that led to him getting cursed.

What scene, episode, season?

Angelus is never depicted as *cuddly; he is deadly, cunning, imaginative, cruel and sadistic. He's never seen as 'cool' or 'badass' in his evil, just very, very dangerous; one of the worst of his kind.

We know, I was still asking why wasn't one rape shown?

One of the stark contrasts between Angel and Spike fans is that, on the whole, no Angel fan likes, roots for, or admires Angelus. They might think he's a great bad guy but they have no illusions about him as a character; he's a soulless creep who is bad news for Buffy or whoever else.

Yep, we know, Bangel fans know this and never shipped toxicity together. The second half of Season 2 proved this.

In Amends its stated that he murdered an entire family the year before (by one of The First's visions) and that included two children. I do not understand why the line is drawn between 'its acceptable that this vampire brutally kills kids' and 'this vampire rapes/tortures and that is too much'. Both are horrific acts.
I think generally in our society preying on children in any way is seen as the most monstrous and irredeemable thing so I don't get why that is 'okay' for a soulless vampire to get away with after the fact; why does a soul redeem that act and not rape?
In both cases they are done by the demon, not the man.

I never said what Angelus did wasn't evil, it was. All I was asking was what, was it shown at all that he raped any of his victims in any of his killings, regardless of who they are, yes it's worse with children, we know, but it's the combination that makes it unforgivable. There has to be a reason why it was never shown with Angelus. Why did the show only choose to show a rape/attempted rape with Spike only?

 

[Bop]

Has this happened? Torturing is an inhuman act and vampires are demons, but there is something about the combination of rape/torturing the innocent that makes them irredeemable. But Angel was, which makes me think this theory is only coming from a certain group. Any thoughts?

I think it happened for sure. But as for irredeemable, every soulless demon is suggested to be irredeemable based on what they do anyway-if they kill people.
Like we know Angelus killed and tortured people, he's evil, if it were confirmed 100% that he also raped people it just adds an extra layer to the evil but doesn't change his character too much to me, it makes sense.

It's why I don't understand why people seem to clutch their pearls so much and deny that Spike could have raped someone or that he did indeed put a railroad spike through someone's head. He definitely did things equally as evil. Him and Dru definitely killed children and did all sorts of other things that were evil-what about that poor homeless man Spike thought nothing of killing with Dru.

 

[HushSarah]

It's why I don't understand why people seem to clutch their pearls so much and deny that Spike could have raped someone or that he did indeed put a railroad spike through someone's head. He definitely did things equally as evil. Him and Dru definitely killed children and did all sorts of other things that were evil-what about that poor homeless man Spike thought nothing of killing with Dru.

He attempted to rape Buffy, his own name comes from torture, no one's ever called him William. I mean, the debate won't die, but he's definitely not exempt, no matter how sexual James has played the character, which always bothered me. Joss even said himself, the attempted sexual assault was there to remind people how evil Spike is.

 

[Faded90]

I remember that one, it was pretty heavy, but as I remember the Flashback in the Faith crossover "Five By Five", he only tried to drain her, then left shortly after. This wasn't Angelus though. It was Angel with his soul but it appeared to be from the same time frame.



What scene, episode, season?



We know, I was still asking why wasn't one rape shown?



Yep, we know, Bangel fans know this and never shipped toxicity together. The second half of Season 2 proved this.



I never said what Angelus did wasn't evil, it was. All I was asking was what, was it shown at all that he raped any of his victims in any of his killings, regardless of who they are, yes it's worse with children, we know, but it's the combination that makes it unforgivable. There has to be a reason why it was never shown with Angelus. Why did the show only choose to show a rape/attempted rape with Spike only?

I think they only showed AR with Spike because it was an integral part of Spike’s relationship with the titular character. Rape is a very triggering thing to show and I imagine a lot of networks then would have veto’d showing rape when it didn’t particularly add anything to the story. It’s implied enough times that Angelus has raped and that’s enough, we don’t need to see it. They showed it with Spike purely because it was part of his current day story and it was to our titular protagonist

 

[HushSarah]

I think they only showed AR with Spike because it was an integral part of Spike’s relationship with the titular character. Rape is a very triggering thing to show and I imagine a lot of networks then would have veto’d showing rape when it didn’t particularly add anything to the story. It’s implied enough times that Angelus has raped and that’s enough, we don’t need to see it. They showed it with Spike purely because it was part of his current day story and it was to our titular protagonist

So is torture, WB wouldn't have aired it, true, but being on the UPN network had some free reign to show beyond TV-14 almost TV-MA, showing one scene would have made a difference in Angelus' storytelling. Yes, it's difficult to watch, as is torture, they are both hard to see. They showed it with Spike to remind the audience that he is a demon, said Joss.

 

[DeadlyDuo]

In Amends its stated that he murdered an entire family the year before (by one of The First's visions) and that included two children. I do not understand why the line is drawn between 'its acceptable that this vampire brutally kills kids' and 'this vampire rapes/tortures and that is too much'. Both are horrific acts.
I think generally in our society preying on children in any way is seen as the most monstrous and irredeemable thing so I don't get why that is 'okay' for a soulless vampire to get away with after the fact; why does a soul redeem that act and not rape?

It's the "rape is a special kind of evil" trope. Most shows save that for villains that they don't want to redeem and that they want the audience to hate because they've crossed the "moral event horizon" which there is no coming back from. Once a character crosses that line, they're done for. It's why it's such a weird choice to have Spike attempt to rape Buffy when the writers want the audience to have sympathy for him in the next season.

You also get the "even evil has standards" trope where even the villains think certain acts are a step too far.

Basically if you want to show a villain as an irredeemable arsehole in the shortest amount of time possible, you either show or reveal that they have raped someone.

There has to be a reason why it was never shown with Angelus. Why did the show only choose to show a rape/attempted rape with Spike only?

Rating. Buffy moved to a new network for Season 6 and 7, one that didn't have its censorship guidelines set up yet so the writers took the opportunity to push boundaries with the Spuffy sex because they could (hence why Season 6 is the season with the most sex), they had to tone it back for Season 7 because then the network had got it's censorship in place. It's also why they could be so graphic with the AR and make it so prolonged because there was nothing stopping them.

Buffy Seasons 1-5 and Angel the show remained on WB so they had to imply rather than show.

deny that Spike could have raped someone or that he did indeed put a railroad spike through someone's head.

I don't know how people can deny that Spike put a railroad Spike through people's heads when that is literally how he got the name "Spike".

As for Spike raping previously, narratively given the "rape is a special kind of evil" trope, it makes no sense to have Spike admit to raping underage girls when the show wants the audience to have sympathy for him. I also think that having Spike rape in the past actually diminishes the impact of the AR. After all why is Buffy so special as a victim that it prompts him to get a soul if he's raped before. Why should she get special status over any other victim?

 

[Bop]

It's the "rape is a special kind of evil" trope. Most shows save that for villains that they don't want to redeem and that they want the audience to hate because they've crossed the "moral event horizon" which there is no coming back from. Once a character crosses that line, they're done for. It's why it's such a weird choice to have Spike attempt to rape Buffy when the writers want the audience to have sympathy for him in the next season.

You also get the "even evil has standards" trope where even the villains think certain acts are a step too far.

Basically if you want to show a villain as an irredeemable arsehole in the shortest amount of time possible, you either show or reveal that they have raped someone.



Rating. Buffy moved to a new network for Season 6 and 7, one that didn't have its censorship guidelines set up yet so the writers took the opportunity to push boundaries with the Spuffy sex because they could (hence why Season 6 is the season with the most sex), they had to tone it back for Season 7 because then the network had got it's censorship in place. It's also why they could be so graphic with the AR and make it so prolonged because there was nothing stopping them.

Buffy Seasons 1-5 and Angel the show remained on WB so they had to imply rather than show.



I don't know how people can deny that Spike put a railroad Spike through people's heads when that is literally how he got the name "Spike".

As for Spike raping previously, narratively given the "rape is a special kind of evil" trope, it makes no sense to have Spike admit to raping underage girls when the show wants the audience to have sympathy for him. I also think that having Spike rape in the past actually diminishes the impact of the AR. After all why is Buffy so special as a victim that it prompts him to get a soul if he's raped before. Why should she get special status over any other victim?

I understand why having a character rape is a quick way to show they're irredeemable but I think if a character has a portfolio like Angelus or Spike on a lower level, it doesn't make any sense to make rape the moral line they can't cross because I think they crossed it already.

I've heard the AR was to remind everyone of how evil Spike is, not to show that for the first time he's evil because he tried to rape Buffy. He was already evil, the AR was a reminder.

They would never show Angelus raping someone on-screen because that's not the sort of show Buffy is, they would just suggest it.

 

[HushSarah]

Rating. Buffy moved to a new network for Season 6 and 7, one that didn't have its censorship guidelines set up yet so the writers took the opportunity to push boundaries with the Spuffy sex because they could (hence why Season 6 is the season with the most sex), they had to tone it back for Season 7 because then the network had got its censorship in place. It's also why they could be so graphic with the AR and make it so prolonged because there was nothing stopping them.

Buffy Seasons 1-5 and Angel the show remained on WB so they had to imply rather than show.

I literally just stated this was the reason why. Funny how the censorship stamp was brought back at the start of Season 7. Times have changed since The Vampire Diaries took over the rebranding of the network.

I don't know how people can deny that Spike put a railroad Spike through people's heads when that is literally how he got the name "Spike".

As for Spike raping previously, narratively given the "rape is a special kind of evil" trope, it makes no sense to have Spike admit to raping underage girls when the show wants the audience to have sympathy for him. I also think that having Spike rape in the past actually diminishes the impact of the AR. After all, why is Buffy so special as a victim that it prompts him to get a soul if he's raped before. Why should she get special status over any other victim?

Because reasons, probably shipping ones.

I admire the honesty in Spike's unabashed behavior at his introduction, he was the modern Lestat of the show, a breath of fresh air, and could have stayed that way, growing in it if they chose to keep him as part of the narrative, especially when he was with Dru, (they were the Sid and Nancy). Haven't read the entirety of the comics so I don't know what his development has been up until S12, but, I enjoyed his character in Angel S5, post-Buffy S7. This was the character that was remembered from S2.

 

[thetopher]

I remember that one, it was pretty heavy, but as I remember the Flashback in the Faith crossover "Five By Five", he only tried to drain her, then left shortly after. This wasn't Angelus though. It was Angel with his soul but it appeared to be from the same time frame.

It was a dream-flashback to a Victorian London Christmas and it was definitely Angelus 'reliving' his kills-at-Christmas-list. It was the one that Buffy witnessed and then Angel woke up.
The Five-By-Five was set in Romania and was many years later.

What scene, episode, season?

Five-By-Five I think. She's tied up and he crawls up her body and bites her thigh. It's all very sexual and icky as Darla watches on.

We know, I was still asking why wasn't one rape shown?

It wouldn't have been necessary; therefore gratuitous and in bad taste. The series didn't show plenty of things graphically but chose to imply them instead; torture, beheading, plenty of horrible things.

There has to be a reason why it was never shown with Angelus. Why did the show only choose to show a rape/attempted rape with Spike only?

I suppose one could claim that it was 'necessary' for Spike's character journey to continue (its what many of his fans like to argue).
But it simply wasn't necessary for Angelus at any point; you can get across that he is 'really evil' in many other ways (his psychological torture of Buffy in S2 is a good example) and then he was cursed and then he underwent more 'organic' changes because of his soul.

It's the "rape is a special kind of evil" trope. Most shows save that for villains that they don't want to redeem and that they want the audience to hate because they've crossed the "moral event horizon" which there is no coming back from.

But not everyone agrees with the trope.
It also comes from the idea that rape is worse than murder because there are situations where murder can be justified. I happen to disagree with this (rather simplistic) reasoning since the ending of a life in many circumstances can be horrifying enough to scar and affect more than one person; not to mention that it is the ending of all future happiness of that person as well, all their possibilities snuffed out. So to me murder is worse.
Also even if I did ascribe to the above 'nothing is worse than rape' mentality, I would also say that the killing of children is wrong no matter what, and both Angelus and Spike have done that. Hell, both Drusilla and Darla are self-confessed baby-eaters.

 

[Stake fodder]

I think they don't show Angelus committing rape because it would lose sympathy for Angel for no reason. Yes, it would have been done when he was soulless, but a lot of the audience would still be horrified by the depiction. (As they are with Spike, obviously.) And the writers never wanted to take it that far, even with Angelus. We hardly even see any torture, or gruesome murders of children or anyone else. We know soulless vampires are capable of any evil by definition, but seeing it would be different.

 

[ILLYRIAN]

It is said that when a person becomes a vampire he or she will lose all inhibition, so there's that.
Darla told me (we have a special bond, I carry her image all the time) that Angel is a bit of a dick though nothing to write home to mother about, just as well as he had killed his.
Angelus did like to torture a person and pulling a fingernail out is more fun (apparently) than the rape of a woman, vampires however do like to rape men though according to Spike as many times he wanted to give it (!?!) to Riley but it was written out of the script. It must be said that Angelus didn't dare rape a woman or Darla would have beaten ten bells of crap out of him.
Did Spike rape a woman, if he had and Buffy knew about it she'd have kicked 10 bells of that stuff out of him and he knew that.

 

[Nearwild]

It's strongly implied that he does in the episode with the flashback where Spike finds Angelus with Drusilla (Destiny). Spike says something like, "oh you haven't had your fill then," harking back to the girl he had captured and half drank before, then it's revealed to be Dru on the bed.

 

[Angel6]

I think they don't show Angelus committing rape because it would lose sympathy for Angel for no reason. Yes, it would have been done when he was soulless, but a lot of the audience would still be horrified by the depiction. (As they are with Spike, obviously.) And the writers never wanted to take it that far, even with Angelus. We hardly even see any torture, or gruesome murders of children or anyone else. We know soulless vampires are capable of any evil by definition, but seeing it would be different.

The difference is the writers characterise Angel and Angelus totally differently, so it is abundantly clear that they are separate beings. With spike and spike, that is not at all the case, in fact a lot of spuffling say ‘spike fought for his soul’ as if the soul should be credited for the demons actions, which doesn’t track with established lore at all.

 

[Stake fodder]

The difference is the writers characterise Angel and Angelus totally differently, so it is abundantly clear that they are separate beings. With spike and spike, that is not at all the case, in fact a lot of spuffling say ‘spike fought for his soul’ as if the soul should be credited for the demons actions, which doesn’t track with established lore at all.

Sure, Angelus is far more distinguished as different from Angel. Still, I think the audience would have a visceral reaction to seeing Angelus commit a rape, even knowing it was not Angel. Many viewers would possibly be put off the show completely, because depictions of rape are upsetting. But I agree with @thetopher that Angelus did commit rape, it's implied several times. There are just other reasons that the writers chose not to actually depict it.

 

[TheMaster666]

Nah, I'm sure he asked politely before sucking their blood.

 

[HushSarah]

It is said that when a person becomes a vampire he or she will lose all inhibition, so there's that.
Darla told me (we have a special bond, I carry her image all the time) that Angel is a bit of a dick though nothing to write home to mother about, just as well as he had killed his.
Angelus did like to torture a person and pulling a fingernail out is more fun (apparently) than the rape of a woman, vampires however do like to rape men though according to Spike as many times he wanted to give it (!?!) to Riley but it was written out of the script. It must be said that Angelus didn't dare rape a woman or Darla would have beaten ten bells of crap out of him.
Did Spike rape a woman, if he had and Buffy knew about it she'd have kicked 10 bells of that stuff out of him and he knew that.

He tried to rape Buffy and keeping him around afterward, her forgiving him or not, made no sense. It wouldn't have hurt the writers to bring back Angel for some crossovers within the final battles or made Principal Wood the "strongest warrior they got."

 

[HushSarah]

Sure, Angelus is far more distinguished as different from Angel. Still, I think the audience would have a visceral reaction to seeing Angelus commit a rape, even knowing it was not Angel. Many viewers would possibly be put off the show completely, because depictions of rape are upsetting. But I agree with @thetopher that Angelus did commit rape, it's implied several times. There are just other reasons that the writers chose not to actually depict it.

Why is the same standard not set for torture? They are on the same level of unsettling acts to watch.