Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Poll - Sex between a 17 year old and a 26 year old

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    As you say, it IS statutory rape in California. There's no point in saying that it's not, or that it is just a matter of opinion. The actual question is whether you think statutory rape should apply when the minor is an older teen, say 16 or 17. Consent is not the issue with statutory rape, which is what makes it different from the other kind*. It just states that there is a minimum age at which people CAN freely consent. I think most people agree that there is or should be a minimum age of consent, they just disagree what that "magic number" should be.

    It is definitely more serious than a traffic ticket, although it probably wouldn't be enforced at all unless there was someone in the mix (parents, teachers) who felt there was enough of a problem to report it. Law enforcement doesn't go around writing tickets and checking IDs of kids "parking", but the police will tell them to zip it and move on, if they come across them. (This — while annoying to kids involved in consensual sexual relations — is to prevent the non-consensual kind.)

    The difference in ages is key to how serious a punishment is meted out is. If the kids are at least 16 and no more than 2 years apart in age, it is a misdemeanor and more of a traffic-ticket situation. Very few 18-year-olds sexually involved with 17-year-olds are going to be cited. The younger the minor and the wider the age gap, the more seriously the crime is taken. Because of the age gap, a 26-year-old having sex with a 17-year-old is a felony offense (though prosecutors have the option not to seek felony charges) and would probably result in the older person being required to register as a sex offender. (Urinating in public might also get you on this list, so it's kind of stupid.)

    The idea behind it is that the older person in these cases actually IS a predator, even if the younger person doesn't see it that way.

    I totally get it from Buffy's perspective. She's been more than responsible, she's already died once, for crying out loud. She should have the sexual experience she wants! I want that for her. On the other hand, Angel engages in all the classic grooming behaviors with her, which makes him creepy and predatory even if he feels really bad about it. His telling Buffy "we shouldn't" doesn't absolve him of failing to stop.

    I don't think he's a pedophile, however.

    *Prosecutors are not above trying actual rapists as statutory rapists, as it's lots easier to get a conviction.
    Weird love is better than no love — Buffy Summers

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Rebcake View Post
      As you say, it IS statutory rape in California. There's no point in saying that it's not, or that it is just a matter of opinion. The actual question is whether you think statutory rape should apply when the minor is an older teen, say 16 or 17. Consent is not the issue with statutory rape, which is what makes it different from the other kind*. It just states that there is a minimum age at which people CAN freely consent. I think most people agree that there is or should be a minimum age of consent, they just disagree what that "magic number" should be.
      I appreciate this is directed at the OP, but just wanted to emphasise when I said I don't see it as statutory rape I meant entirely in the sense that it isn't where I live. I have no issue with the fact that it is different in other places and if it is classed as statutory rape for the age of participants wherever it is committed that's the law. I don't think it's a matter of opinion either, but I think flow was trying to gauge the differences in other countries/states in real life (rather than debate the case re: Buffy/Angel of whether it was or not).

      You're completely right that the size of the age gap definitely increases how predatory the act is.
      Last edited by Stoney; 26-11-18, 12:12 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        I don't think it's necessarily creepy unless there is a power inbalance issue, but I don't think the question accurately describes Buffy and Angel. Not just because Angel is 250+ year old vampire, but Buffy is a Slayer.

        To me, it has always seemed more than a bit hypocritical when people freak out over Buffy's age ONLY when it comes to her ability to consent to sex and choose to have sex with whoever - while treating her as an adult in every other aspect of her life, primarily Slaying.

        If Buffy is treated as a child/minor who cannot consent to sex or isn't mature enough, then she most definitely should not be risking her life every night, she should not be fighting monsters, nor should she be given the enormoud responsibility to save the world or make decisions that affect millions of people. If we look at it through that prism, Buffy is a child soldier, and Giles is an abuser, and the entire premise of the show is creepy.

        I would also like to note that the age of consent, whatever it is, is normally lower than the age of majority, which allows you to vote or (theoretically) be voted into office; I believe it's also lower than the age at which a person can be drafted or enlist into an army. For instance, in my country, age of consent is 14, bur age of majority is 18. Not to mention that, even if you can theoretically be voted into office at 18, people usually don't get to be until they are decades older than that, and even 20 somethings rarely get to lead armies or make executive decisions of any kind in most countries nowadays.
        You keep waiting for the dust to settle and then you realize it; the dust is your life going on. If happy comes along - that weird unbearable delight that's actual happy - I think you have to grab it while you can. You take what you can get, 'cause it's here, and then...gone.

        Comment


        • #19
          I vote "It is not a statutory rape (here). Whether or not it's creepy, or a big deal, depends on each individual case to begin with. I am not an US citizen."

          However, a good opportunity to take a trust-y look at Wikipedia because I actually didn't have an idea how it's exactly regulated here.

          In Germany age of consent is 14 years for up until 21 years old sexual partners. If you're 21+ and have sex with 14&15 years olds, their legal guardians can file a charge against you. The court will determine the teen's ability to consent (e.g. via psychological/medical estimates) and you'll be judged accordingly. From 16 on it's free for all (with some restrictions like prostitution (18+), exploiting power differentials/personal dillemmas (18+), sex with students as teachers etc. (18+)).

          So... did Angel ever pay Buffy any money?

          The morality of it? I refrain from blanket judgements let alone demonizations/victimizations. Humans and their relationships are complex, grainy and indeterminate. The same age constellation in different relationships can unfold itself in all sorts of dynamics. I'm fine with the regulations as they are because there *has* to be a legal line somewhere where it's reasonable. Everyone should be made aware of them and take responsibility for their actions. Personally, I think Bangel carries some creepiness but since it's mostly consensual creepiness I don't see much of a problem. I also agree with the comments about Angel's unique circumstances. The idea that he's a pedophile (even if he was a normal human man) is ridiculous and factually wrong.
          Last edited by Klaus Kartoffel; 26-11-18, 02:50 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Klaus Kartoffel View Post
            I vote "It is not a statutory rape (here). Whether or not it's creepy, or a big deal, depends on each individual case to begin with. I am not an US citizen."

            However, a good opportunity to take a trust-y look at Wikipedia because I actually didn't have an idea how it's exactly regulated here.

            In Germany age of consent is 14 years for up until 21 years old sexual partners. If you're 21+ and have sex with 14&15 years olds, their legal guardians can file a charge against you. The court will determine the teen's ability to consent (e.g. via psychological/medical estimates) and you'll be judged accordingly. From 16 on it's free for all (with some restrictions like prostitution (18+), exploiting power differentials/personal dillemmas (18+), sex with students as teachers etc. (18+)).

            So... did Angel ever pay Buffy any money?

            The morality of it? I refrain from blanket judgements let alone demonizations/victimizations. Humans and their relationships are complex, grainy and indeterminate. The same age constellation in different relationships can unfold itself in all sorts of dynamics. I'm fine with the regulations as they are because there *has* to be a legal line somewhere where it's reasonable. Everyone should be made aware of them and take responsibility for their actions. Personally, I think Bangel carries some creepiness but since it's mostly consensual creepiness I don't see much of a problem. I also agree with the comments about Angel's unique circumstances. The idea that he's a pedophile (even if he was a normal human man) is ridiculous and factually wrong.
            The term "pedophilia" would definitely be wrong, since it refers to primary sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children, and wouldn't apply to attraction to anyone over 13. The term for primary sexual attraction to people in late teens (15-19) is ephebophilia. However, it would be difficult to argue that Angel is primarily attracted to teenagers since Darla, Cordelia and Nina were all older when he became interested in them.
            You keep waiting for the dust to settle and then you realize it; the dust is your life going on. If happy comes along - that weird unbearable delight that's actual happy - I think you have to grab it while you can. You take what you can get, 'cause it's here, and then...gone.

            Comment


            • #21
              Is the Guardian of the Planet really still a 'child'?

              Let me stipulate that I would not want my 17 year old dating a 26 year old. Most 17 year olds aren't prepared for full adulthood and there is a power differential whether or not one is intended.

              That said, I don't think it should be statutory rape, but I do believe it's deeply troubling and often unethical, particularly when the older person is an authority figure such as a teacher. I think it should be an offense for an authority figure to have sex with a subordinate, particularly sanctions should attach for one who is a minor.

              BUT: Women of 17 have been marrying men 26 and older forever. While it isn't ideal, what it ends up being really depends on the two people involved. It can be loving. It can be abusive. It can be rape. Age DOES matter, but it is NOT the entire story.


              Buffy: Is she really like other girls?

              * When one of those people is a woman who carries the future of the PLANET on her shoulder, and has done since age 15, I don't know that you can reasonably consider her a child.

              * When that person knows her expiration date could be NOW, it creates a certain spirit of desperation.

              * She wanted this chance at love, romance and sex (probably expected to be her ONLY chance). She was grabbing hard for that. She wasn't forced, coerced or even seduced into this.

              * She was a warrior. She was stronger than Angel. She was no victim.

              Was Buffy ready to make love to a man? I think she was.

              What she wasn't ready for (and no adult woman would be either) is for him to turn into a monster.

              That is where her age began to matter. A fully adult woman might have been a bit more ready to harden her heart quicker and do what was needed (slay him right here and then without hesitation). But we know individual humans are different. Some people can suck it up and get their head in the game and some cannot. Some fall totally to pieces. Some get there like Buffy did, but it takes time and consequences to drive them there.

              Still, my argument is this: the guardian of the planet is old enough to die for her planet; she's old enough to want to get laid.

              Her options for a partner she couldn't easily break are kind of limited, btw.

              Now, let us take Angel for a moment.

              * I don't think Angel ever saw Buffy as a kid. He saw her as The Slayer. Then he saw her as a woman. Eventually. (Yes, he was enthralled from the get go, but he didn't encourage her to consummate things -- and they didn't consummate the relationship until 2 years later, when she was unequivocally grown up, and if not legally of age of consent... (18 is only age of consent in parts of the US, in most states it is 17 or even 16 btw)

              * Angel could not marry Buffy, even if he wanted to. It is legal for spouses to have sex even if one of them is under 18. I think no one will argue that Angel was not committed to Buffy.

              Finally, what is a pedophile/ephebophile?

              They are a person who exhibits a sexual preference for people of a certain age. This is so critical that when the person they are interested in ages past that, they lose interest in them. Angel never loses interest in Buffy, therefore he does not meet the criteria for pedophilia. Note: his other partners all qualify as 'adult' when he first gets with them. Also not suggestive of pedophilia or any other age specific sex obsession.

              That said, was it possible that Angel was drawn to the sweet young Buffy? Absolutely.

              Sadly most men are drawn to young 'nubile' women, probably at least in part as a biological imperative because young women of reproductive age are most likely to be fertile and live long enough to raise children to adulthood... But that's not an attraction to children, though our pornworld society is only encouraging the sickness of it by objectifying women who are 'barely legal'.

              _______________

              Notes:

              a) I am no fan of Angel and Buffy. I think their relationship is all hat and no cattle. They don't talk together, they don't have a good partnership and they aren't really shown being interdependent. Angel acts as if he has a right to make the decisions in the relationship, in a way I don't find to be healthy. Buffy's age may have something to do with it, except he does it to her later (in the day that he undid) and to his friends in his own series (lies to Cordelia, lies to his team several times) -- he makes decisions for others for their own good. It's a flaw of his character.

              b) I'm the adult survivor of two different sex abusers at age 10 - abuser was 18, and at 12 - abuser was 26. Both were supposed to be 'keeping me safe' though they weren't authority figures per se. There were other lesser offenders when I was even younger. (*men* who kissed me or tried to feel me up). I just want to explain that I have a MURDEROUS rage toward those who I consider pedophiles or ephebophiles. (those who want children and those who want adolescents respectively). I would not defend what I consider rape. There is no consensual sexual abuse, no matter how 'loving'.

              _____________

              PS: I am not sure the poll had enough choices. It was too absolute and this is not an absolute topic. I am a US citizen. I chose the rape option because I could NEVER consider ANY sex for the first time (even between adults) not to be a big deal... sex between an adult and someone who is not quite there is at least concerning. Sex between 15 and 26 is rape, though i think sex between 15 and 18 is equivocal. 16 and 26 should be legally sanctioned, but not sure it should put someone on the sex registry for life. 17 and 26 -- really depends on who is involved. The point is, this is MESSY.

              Much of the world has an age of consent of 16, and I am not sure it's a good age, but a lot of people (both genders) assume adult responsibilities earlier than in western countries -- but people are different emotional ages. Did you know that Anthony Stewart Head got with his common law wife when he was 28 and she was 18? don't think they are legally married, but they're still together and have raised two kids. Was that inappropriate? So just that one year makes a big difference, then?
              Last edited by DeepBlueJoy; 26-11-18, 09:36 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                All said regarding writers, producers, actors, directors, viewers, readers, etc. are what I remember, my opinions, etc.




                * This thread wasn’t put in this section: http://www.buffyforums.net/forums/fo...he-Boiler-Room.

                This thread is put in the General Section and seems to specifically regard the Buffy/Angel relationship.

                A 26-year-old man having sex with an underage girl in California is a big deal and would very likely put the man in prison for years.

                The Buffy/Angel situation is relatively MUCH worse given what Angel actually is and how and when he approached Buffy.


                * It’s somewhat telling that Angel didn’t approach Buffy when she had a boyfriend (pre-Pike) and a quasi-boyfriend (Pike).


                * Angel doesn’t tell Buffy he’s a vampire. I’ve always considered he read her diary and already knew she was into him and that’s why he approaches the subject of wanting to kiss her.

                It’s telling and disturbing that Angel naturally ‘vamped out’ when first kissing Buffy.

                Angel was making out with Buffy when she was 16 years old. And Buffy is a naïve virgin in “Surprise” (B 2.13).


                * The idea that Buffy in BtVS S1 and BtVS S2 is somehow ‘mature beyond her years’ because she’s the Slayer is utter nonsense. Buffy in “The Harsh Light of Day” (B 4.03) is still naïve and ‘immature’ regarding sexual relationships.

                A 14, 15, 16, 17 year old having a job and responsibilities doesn't automatically make that child “mature” in sexual relationships.


                * Finally, Angel is only a ‘good’ vampire because the Gypsies decided to curse him instead of dust him. And he’s only ‘good’ when affected/effected by the curse. And Whistler only had Angel meet Buffy because of the Twilight Prophecy. It’s easily argued that Buffy/Angel is the least healthy sexual relationship that Buffy’s had.
                Last edited by MikeB; 26-11-18, 06:37 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by GoSpuffy View Post
                  Adding the lollipop scene definitely added to the creepy factor. In some ways I'm more bothered by Riley. TA's shouldn't date students in their class. They should have waited until the course was over before instigating a relationship.
                  I am definitely more bothered by Riley. It was a conflict of interest, ethical violation, and probably a violation of his terms of employment/school code at the university.

                  Riley would have graded Buffy's papers. He had the ability to fail her if she didn't go out with or sleep with him.

                  People fail out of school over stuff like this. Failing even one class in one's very first semester... that is serious business for a scared undergrad. Failing because of a coerced relationship? Well, people have committed suicide for less.


                  I'm not sure of the age difference, but as a grad student, with her being a freshman, it would have been at least four years. Add him being in the military at some point either between undergrad and grad school (as an officer) or before university (enlisted) - he'd have to be probably six years older than her. Yes, she's 18, but 18 to 24 or older is still a significant age difference. Given his life experience, the power difference is huge even before we add that he has teacher AUTHORITY over her.

                  She is a first semester undergrad -- we saw how insecure she was in those few weeks, how out of place she felt. Buffy was more confident in Welcome to the Hellmouth than she was in her first weeks on campus. Willow was in her element. Buffy was not.

                  That said, as it turns out, the relationship wasn't actively coercive, and eventually it became clear to Riley that it was HE that was the one who couldn't handle Buffy's power or authority...

                  But the relationship should never have happened. At minimum: if Riley was serious about courting her, he should have asked to TA for someone else, or at least waited until she was no longer in his class.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by DeepBlueJoy View Post
                    I am definitely more bothered by Riley. It was a conflict of interest, ethical violation, and probably a violation of his terms of employment/school code at the university.

                    Riley would have graded Buffy's papers. He had the ability to fail her if she didn't go out with or sleep with him.

                    People fail out of school over stuff like this. Failing even one class in one's very first semester... that is serious business for a scared undergrad. Failing because of a coerced relationship? Well, people have committed suicide for less.


                    I'm not sure of the age difference, but as a grad student, with her being a freshman, it would have been at least four years. Add him being in the military at some point either between undergrad and grad school (as an officer) or before university (enlisted) - he'd have to be probably six years older than her. Yes, she's 18, but 18 to 24 or older is still a significant age difference. Given his life experience, the power difference is huge even before we add that he has teacher AUTHORITY over her.

                    She is a first semester undergrad -- we saw how insecure she was in those few weeks, how out of place she felt. Buffy was more confident in Welcome to the Hellmouth than she was in her first weeks on campus. Willow was in her element. Buffy was not.

                    That said, as it turns out, the relationship wasn't actively coercive, and eventually it became clear to Riley that it was HE that was the one who couldn't handle Buffy's power or authority...

                    But the relationship should never have happened. At minimum: if Riley was serious about courting her, he should have asked to TA for someone else, or at least waited until she was no longer in his class.
                    Maybe my S4 memory is off but I don't think Buffy was still taking Psych 101 when she was actually dating Riley. Most American colleges are on the semester system where you conclude a class around the Christmas holidays. Buffy and Riley had a rapport, an alleged chemistry in the early eps but they didn't take an actual step to romance until Hush, and they weren't a couple until A New Man. Hush is the last scene where we see Buffy and Willow in Maggie's psychology class. Doomed occurred immediately after Hush and Buffy was probably still in class. For the rest of Buffy's time with Maggie, she's interacting with her as the leader of the Initiative. A New Man implies that Buffy finished her psych class. "All that time you were sitting in my class"; "I always knew you could do better than a B minus." So, I think Buffy was finishing up her first semester around Doomed and starting her second semester in A New Man.

                    So, I guess Riley's TA impropriety is that he kissed her in Hush, under incredible stress where the whole town had lost their voices, and was arguing that they date in Doomed when Buffy was still in Maggie's class and he was TA. However, IMO, Riley was likely looking towards like, the next week when Buffy wouldn't be in Maggie's class anymore in Doomed. When Buffy and Riley actually resume their relationship proper in A New Man, I don't believe that he's her TA.

                    Based on my recollection, I don't think Riley did much wrong as a TA. The Hush kiss was under extraordinary circumstances. If my calendar was correct, Riley would have ideally waited until A New Man to push for a relationship but it's just one episode. It never occurred to me for a second that Riley would fail Buffy if she didn't go out with him- and I don't think that was a reasonable threat based on Riley's behavior or Buffy's perception of Riley's behavior. Riley never indicated that he'd fail or academically penalize Buffy. I think he was pushy but all of his pushiness was directed at diagnosing why Buffy wasn't dating him like that was sign of some mental defect. Which was annoying and crappy but had nothing to do with Riley being a TA. Buffy felt perfectly free to deny him a relationship in Doomed until the end of the episode when she decided to date based on her own feelings.

                    I defended Bangel in this thread. But I think Bangel and Spuffy are infinity more disturbing than Biley.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      The results of this poll are very telling. It seems they're conforming the well known trend of the US culture being much more concerned with sex than with violence. Or should we have another poll on whether it's OK for teenagers to be soldiers/generals in the fight against the forces of darkness and risk their lives every night, or if the entire premise of the show is creepy?

                      - - - Updated - - -

                      Originally posted by MikeB View Post
                      [i]

                      Angel was making out with Buffy when she was 16 years old. And Buffy is a naïve virgin in “Surprise” (B 2.13).


                      * The idea that Buffy in BtVS S1 and BtVS S2 is somehow ‘mature beyond her years’ because she’s the Slayer is utter nonsense. Buffy in “The Harsh Light of Day” (B 4.03) is still naïve and ‘immature’ regarding sexual relationships.

                      A 14, 15, 16, 17 year old having a job and responsibilities doesn't automatically make that child “mature” in sexual relationships.
                      Oh come on, Mike. You know what is utter nonsense? Talking about being as a Slayer as if it's the same thing as some kid working at McDonalds.

                      Buffy has fought on the front lines of battle against evil and risked her life every night since she was 15. Buffy was told she was going to die, and actually died at 16. Buffy constantly has to make decisions that affect dozens, hundreds, billions of people. You don't think she's too immature for that? You don't think that a "child" too immature for sex is also too immature to be sent into war and sent to die? You don't see a problem with your double standard?

                      What are the US laws on people recruiting child soldiers?
                      You keep waiting for the dust to settle and then you realize it; the dust is your life going on. If happy comes along - that weird unbearable delight that's actual happy - I think you have to grab it while you can. You take what you can get, 'cause it's here, and then...gone.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by TimeTravellingBunny View Post
                        The results of this poll are very telling. It seems they're conforming the well known trend of the US culture being much more concerned with sex than with violence. Or should we have another poll on whether it's OK for teenagers to be soldiers/generals in the fight against the forces of darkness and risk their lives every night, or if the entire premise of the show is creepy?
                        The entire premise of the show is creepy. It's a horror show. Snerk.

                        But really, put up another poll on whether it's creepy or disturbing that teenagers are fighting monsters without support from any major institutions. I know that I'd vote "yes" much I like I voted "yes" here. As a US citizen, no less. Here, I did vote that it was generally creepy for a 27-year old to date a 16-year old but exceptions can exist where both parties are of similar maturity or they believably are limited in other romantic partners, and those applied to Bangel. I wasn't attacking Angel as a predator.

                        That all said, this show gives me much more compelling reasons for Buffy to slay demons than for Buffy and Angel to have a romance together. If the teenagers don't slay demons, we're caught in the other CREEPIER choice where thousands of people die horrible grisly deaths and the world ends. If Buffy and Angel don't have a romance together.....Buffy certainly just moves on with less emotional baggage. Angel, well, he's a more mysterious case because I think he was more altered by his romance with Buffy than she was by him. I tend to think that he'd squat in an apartment doing low-level good to ease his conscience and then, possibly backslide to suicide or not doing anything as he did for much of the 20th century without Buffy as a big formative heroic influence. Who knows but Angel's empowerment purchased with Buffy's trauma isn't the same surety that the world will end if the teens don't slay. So, yeah, I don't think Angel is a predator or pedophile. However, I do think that he gave into an urge that prioritized his pleasure over Buffy's development when he pursued Buffy. But I would not make the same accusations of Giles because Giles pursued Buffy as a child soldier because he believed (and the show indicates) it was necessary to save lives and even the world. That said, I only have such good, excusing feelings about Giles when he's also fighting to save lives and the world. Come S6 when he leaves so that the young people (that he recruited as children) can fight evil for him, he also crosses the border where he prioritizes his ease of life over the young people's development. That's why I think Giles has least allowance/cause to leave in S6. I wouldn't be as angry if Xander or Willow left the hellmouth to live a civilian life.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by TimeTravellingBunny View Post
                          The results of this poll are very telling. It seems they're conforming the well known trend of the US culture being much more concerned with sex than with violence.
                          I would call that a radical interpretation of the poll.
                          Weird love is better than no love — Buffy Summers

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Dipstick View Post
                            So, yeah, I don't think Angel is a predator or pedophile. However, I do think that he gave into an urge that prioritized his pleasure over Buffy's development when he pursued Buffy. But I would not make the same accusations of Giles because Giles pursued Buffy as a child soldier because he believed (and the show indicates) it was necessary to save lives and even the world.
                            For what it's worth, Angel does tell Whistler "I want to help her" after he's genuinely moved by seeing her crying into the mirror. He reaffirms this again in Helpless when he tells Buffy he saw her heart and wanted to try and protect it. This isn't his only motivation as he also tells Whistler he "wants to become somebody" and he calls Buffy his "destiny" in the Wishverse but I do think that Angel has some genuinely noble motives as well. In fact, I'd actually argue that just wanting to "help Buffy" as opposed to pushing Buffy into a role that's predominately around helping *others* as Giles does is actually *more* noble. Except, early on Angel pushes Buffy into her Slayer duties as well ("Don't turn your back on this") so there's similarities between Angel and Giles too.

                            This doesn't negate the fact that Angel's personal weaknesses result in him pursuing a relationship with Buffy despite all signs indicating that Angel himself thinks it's a bad idea. I do think his Cryptic Guy act in early Season 1 is partially about keeping Buffy at a distance and turning her off (and it almost works - "Angel? Yeah there's a guy you can see being in a relationship with. 'Hey Honey you're in mortal danger, I'll see you next week'") as well as other reasons too (Angel being scared to reveal himself etc) but he ends up falling in a relationship despite repeatedly vocalising that it's wrong and being a massive flirt. So he's to blame for that absolutely. But I do think that he had selfless and admirable reasons for wanting to support Buffy that he believed would genuinely help her.
                            "The earth is doomed!" - Banner by Nina

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              My option isn't there, so I'm voting 3b: Not a big deal but a little bit creepy.

                              Buffy isn't your average 16yo. Angel isn't your average 26yo. If I trust Buffy to save the world and tell authority figures where to go, then I trust her to use her bodyparts. Did things go badly? Yes, in a way that could never be foreseen. It could happen with anyone, no matter what age.

                              - - - Updated - - -

                              Originally posted by vampmogs View Post
                              For what it's worth, Angel does tell Whistler "I want to help her" after he's genuinely moved by seeing her crying into the mirror. He reaffirms this again in Helpless when he tells Buffy he saw her heart and wanted to try and protect it. This isn't his only motivation as he also tells Whistler he "wants to become somebody" and he calls Buffy his "destiny" in the Wishverse but I do think that Angel has some genuinely noble motives as well. In fact, I'd actually argue that just wanting to "help Buffy" as opposed to pushing Buffy into a role that's predominately around helping *others* as Giles does is actually *more* noble. Except, early on Angel pushes Buffy into her Slayer duties as well ("Don't turn your back on this") so there's similarities between Angel and Giles too.

                              This doesn't negate the fact that Angel's personal weaknesses result in him pursuing a relationship with Buffy despite all signs indicating that Angel himself thinks it's a bad idea. I do think his Cryptic Guy act in early Season 1 is partially about keeping Buffy at a distance and turning her off (and it almost works - "Angel? Yeah there's a guy you can see being in a relationship with. 'Hey Honey you're in mortal danger, I'll see you next week'") as well as other reasons too (Angel being scared to reveal himself etc) but he ends up falling in a relationship despite repeatedly vocalising that it's wrong and being a massive flirt. So he's to blame for that absolutely. But I do think that he had selfless and admirable reasons for wanting to support Buffy that he believed would genuinely help her.
                              I agree there's a bit of both, but that's just honesty. Would Angel have signed up if Buffy wasn't attractive? Obviously it's only one of those "what ifs" we can never know but it's a valid question.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by HardlyThere View Post
                                I agree there's a bit of both, but that's just honesty. Would Angel have signed up if Buffy wasn't attractive? Obviously it's only one of those "what ifs" we can never know but it's a valid question.
                                I mean, we can speculate but, as you say, we'll never know, so what's the point? We can't help who we're attracted to and it's be difficult to parse attraction from a lot of our motivations. However, I think Angel's concern for Buffy's saftey is evident in her first vampire slaying (he's shown bouncing up and down/fidgeting as he watches nervously from the shadows) and I think the way he feels for her *and identifies with her* as he watches her weep in her mirror is totally genuine. Did he find her attractive? No doubt. But IMO it goes deeper than simply thinking she's hot (the Shooting Script says "he's obviously feeling for her" as he watches her cry) so I'm not all that bothered if attraction is in the mix too.
                                "The earth is doomed!" - Banner by Nina

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X