View Poll Results: Sex between a 17year old and a 26year old

Voters
17. You may not vote on this poll
  • It is a statutory rape and/or creepy. I am an US citizen

    6 35.29%
  • It is a statutory rape and/or creepy. I am not an US citizen

    1 5.88%
  • It is not a big deal and definitely not creepy. I am an US citizen

    2 11.76%
  • It is not a big deal and definitely not creepy. I am not an US citizen

    8 47.06%
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 41

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

  1. #21
    Library Researcher DeepBlueJoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Someplace... usually.
    Posts
    285
    Thanks
    777
    Thanked 621 Times in 265 Posts

    Default 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 at 09:36 PM.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DeepBlueJoy For This Useful Post:

    bespangled (26-11-18),flow (14-12-18)

  3. #22
    Slayer MikeB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles, Calif.
    Posts
    2,493
    Thanks
    3,418
    Thanked 558 Times in 332 Posts

    Default

    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 nave 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 nave 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 at 06:37 PM.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MikeB For This Useful Post:

    bespangled (26-11-18),flow (14-12-18)

  5. #23
    Library Researcher DeepBlueJoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Someplace... usually.
    Posts
    285
    Thanks
    777
    Thanked 621 Times in 265 Posts

    Default

    Quote 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.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DeepBlueJoy For This Useful Post:

    flow (14-12-18),GoSpuffy (27-11-18)

  7. #24
    Slayer
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,524
    Thanks
    4,539
    Thanked 3,765 Times in 1,623 Posts

    Default

    Quote 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.

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Dipstick For This Useful Post:

    flow (14-12-18),ghoststar (26-11-18),Klaus Kartoffel (26-11-18)

  9. #25
    Slayer TimeTravellingBunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,803
    Thanks
    5,608
    Thanked 4,767 Times in 2,253 Posts

    Default

    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeB View Post
    [i]

    Angel was making out with Buffy when she was 16 years old. And Buffy is a nave 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 nave 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.

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to TimeTravellingBunny For This Useful Post:

    Alce (27-11-18),flow (14-12-18),ghoststar (26-11-18)

  11. #26
    Slayer
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,524
    Thanks
    4,539
    Thanked 3,765 Times in 1,623 Posts

    Default

    Quote 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.

  12. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Dipstick For This Useful Post:

    bespangled (27-11-18),flow (14-12-18),ghoststar (27-11-18),Klaus Kartoffel (27-11-18),Rebcake (27-11-18),Stoney (27-11-18),vampmogs (27-11-18)

  13. #27
    Library Researcher Rebcake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    238
    Thanks
    362
    Thanked 745 Times in 261 Posts

    Default

    Quote 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

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Rebcake For This Useful Post:

    bespangled (27-11-18),flow (14-12-18)

  15. #28
    Slayer Supporter vampmogs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    12,668
    Thanks
    2,016
    Thanked 8,981 Times in 2,729 Posts

    Default

    Quote 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" -


  16. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to vampmogs For This Useful Post:

    bespangled (27-11-18),Dipstick (27-11-18),flow (14-12-18),Klaus Kartoffel (27-11-18),TimeTravellingBunny (27-11-18)

  17. #29
    Slayer
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    1,467
    Thanks
    68
    Thanked 1,662 Times in 809 Posts

    Default

    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 - - -

    Quote 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.

  18. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to HardlyThere For This Useful Post:

    bespangled (27-11-18),flow (14-12-18),TimeTravellingBunny (27-11-18),vampmogs (27-11-18)

  19. #30
    Slayer Supporter vampmogs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    12,668
    Thanks
    2,016
    Thanked 8,981 Times in 2,729 Posts

    Default

    Quote 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" -


  20. The Following User Says Thank You to vampmogs For This Useful Post:

    flow (14-12-18)

  21. #31
    Slayer
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    1,467
    Thanks
    68
    Thanked 1,662 Times in 809 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vampmogs View Post
    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.
    Oh, I agree. I don't think ambivalence means much or negates anything. Too often you see one try to trump the other, which I think is where the predatory aspect of it comes gets dragged in. Desire might have founded the thing, but it isn't the all of it, nor does it preclude what came after, which were genuine romantic feelings.

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to HardlyThere For This Useful Post:

    flow (14-12-18)

  23. #32
    Scooby Gang GoSpuffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    829
    Thanks
    2,165
    Thanked 2,012 Times in 945 Posts

    Default

    Count me as a second vote for 3B;not a big deal but a little bit creepy.


    I like who I am when Im with him. I like who we are together.

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to GoSpuffy For This Useful Post:

    flow (14-12-18)

  25. #33
    Slayer flow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,603
    Thanks
    3,778
    Thanked 3,773 Times in 1,576 Posts

    Default

    Stoney:
    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).
    I just wanted to say, that this is exactly, what I wanted to find out. There might be a bit of a misunderstanding, because some of you claimed extenuating circumstances for Angel/Buffy, while others think, my aim was to target Bangel. None of this is the case, because I belong to the "It`s neither a big deal nor creepy" -Party. I don`t need to take Angel`s and Buffy`s particular situation into consideration, because even without their extenuating circumstances I would not regard sex between them while Buffy was 17 years old as creepy nor is it a criminal offence or a felony, where I come from. I have to concede though, that the Phrase "It`s no big deal" might have been more flippant than i intended it to be. First sexual experiences are always a big deal and even more so, at such a young age. I maybe should have said "it is not a red flag" or something like that.

    That said, I am surprised by the outcome of the poll. I honestly did not expect it but I can see the point of those of you, that have voted for option 1.

    I`ll come back to this later and explain in more detail . For now I justed wanted to make it absolutely clear, that I am not trying to make a case against Bangel with this poll.

    flow
    Last edited by flow; 14-12-18 at 02:19 PM.
    ................................ Banner by buffylover

  26. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to flow For This Useful Post:

    GoSpuffy (27-11-18),Klaus Kartoffel (27-11-18),Stoney (27-11-18),TriBel (27-11-18)

  27. #34
    Slayer
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,524
    Thanks
    4,539
    Thanked 3,765 Times in 1,623 Posts

    Default

    Quote 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.
    To clarify, I don't fault Angel for falling in love with Buffy and wanting to help her side partly because of that. I wouldn't say that it's nobler than Giles pushing Buffy into helping others. At any rate, Angel first encounters Buffy when her first Watcher was convincing her to fight. Angel's help for Buffy is predicated around the idea that a Watcher will successfully convince Buffy to be the Slayer. Angel helps Buffy because she's the Slayer. Angel and Giles just happen to play slightly different roles but all guided by the idea of Buffy being a child soldier. Moreover, Giles helps Buffy too. Adjusting for their superpowers powers, Giles helps Buffy more and certainly more reliably than Angel. However, Angel was absolutely good to help Buffy. And the Wishverse implies that he would have tried to be a hero even if Buffy didn't come to Sunnydale.

    I think we're mostly in agreement though because I agree with your second paragraph. Angel was weak and didn't stick to his plan to just help Buffy without romance. I think Amends sort of says that. "Take her. Take what you want. Pour all that frustration and all that guilt into *her*, and you'll be free." "Because, sir, to be blunt, the last time you became complacent about your existence turned out rather badly." That's where Angel failed in S1 through early S2, and was thus, rendered into the Big Bad for S2. He deviated from his plan to merely help Buffy and instead, fell into a romantic/sexual relationship because Buffy made him feel so good even though there were plenty of reasons why such a relationship was fatally flawed from the outset.

  28. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Dipstick For This Useful Post:

    flow (14-12-18),Klaus Kartoffel (27-11-18)

  29. #35
    Slayer MikeB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles, Calif.
    Posts
    2,493
    Thanks
    3,418
    Thanked 558 Times in 332 Posts

    Default

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




    BUFFY ANNE SUMMERS



    Buffy arguably more than showed her 'maturity' as a Slayer in The Origin . She already again accepts her Calling in "Welcome to the Hellmouth" (B 1.01). Buffy continues her Slayer duties in "When She Was Bad" (B 2.01).

    Comparing Buffy's 'maturity' as a Slayer and her 'maturity' as a sexual being pre-"Surprise" (B 2.13) and even pre-"Wild at Heart" (B 4.06)/"The Initiative" (B 4.07) is asinine.

    In "Surprise" (B 2.13) itself, she's not fully sure she actually wants to have sex. Her decision is based on the following: 'Angel brings up the subject of wanting to have sex with her', 'sex is what you do at some point in a relationship'--and she knows that 'holding out' led to her ex-boyfriend having sex with someone else ( The Origin )--,'what if she never feels this way about someone BEFORE SHE DIES DURING HER SLAYER DUTIES', Angel was going to go away for perhaps months, and Spike again tried to kill her.

    Then in "Innocence" (B 2.14) Buffy has to ask, "Was I not good?"

    Buffy was more ready, prepared, willing, and able to have sex with Parker Abrams than she was with Angel. Buffy wanted to have sex with Parker. There seemed no 'pressure' from Parker. Yet Parker is considered the worst d-bag ever. Yet Buffy losing her virginity to Angel because she simply wanted to have sex with someone she loved before she dies during her Slayer duties is considered perfectly okay in constrast.

    Finally, Buffy tried her best to bifurcate "Angel" and "Angelus" and Angel did little to dissuade her from that. Buffy tried her best to consider Angel human to the point she doesn't see his 'vamp face' ("What's My Line Part I" (B 2.09)) and forgets that he's not sunlight resistant ("The Prom" (B 3.20)).




    ANGEL


    Angel was sired at 27 years old and Angel in BtVS S1 and beyond is more mature than Rupert Giles. Angel--including human years--is around 270 years old.

    Angel's heavily flirting with Buffy already in "Welcome to the Hellmouth" (B 1.01) and doesn't much help her with the actual Slaying until BtVS S3.

    Angel does his best to have her be with him instead of a human high school boy. This is another problem with Buffy/Angel. Couldn't Owen Thurman do research in the Scooby Gang? Couldn't Buffy simply have a normal boyfriend?




    IN CONCLUSION


    Having said all the above, sadly, Angel and later Spike actually were the most 'compatible' options for Buffy. And they are whom she fell in love. And Buffy being 'Drusilla 2.0', underaged, and a virgin when Angel was with her isn't as disturbing and questionable than Spike's trying to kill Buffy throughout BtVS S2. And that Buffy didn't dust Spike pre-"Becoming Part II" (B 2.22) is only logically explainable as hers being into him and not wanting him dust.

    Angel dusted Darla for Buffy. Spike is fine with Drusilla's still killing and being evil.

    Spike arguably only becomes the 'better' option during BtVS S8.

    Still, that doesn't mean it's fully okay that Angel dated and then had sex with an underaged Buffy. But it's better than when Angel was trying to kill Buffy and it's better than when Spike was trying to kill Buffy.
    Last edited by MikeB; 27-11-18 at 10:12 PM.

  30. #36
    Slayer flow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,603
    Thanks
    3,778
    Thanked 3,773 Times in 1,576 Posts

    Default

    I finally managed to come back to this thread!

    First of all, I`d like to thank everyone, who has contributed to this thread. It did indeed change my views on this matter to some extend - I`ll explain that further below.

    I especially want to thank bespangeled for sharing her and her daughters personal story. It was actually the factor, that mostly made me re-consider my own views.

    I am surprised by the outcome of this poll for two reasons.

    First reason is, that half of the votes were pro "it is a statutory rape - which is a felony - and/or creepy". I want to emphasize once more, that I did not consider it that way (before) and more than that did not seriously believe, anyone would consider it that way.

    The second thing that surprised me, was that the forum was split into two camps and whether you belong to one or the other seems to be depending on whether you are from the U.S. or not. With the exception of ghoststar we have no US citizen, who called it "not creepy" and on the other hand there is no one from outside the U.S, who considers this as a crime or a felony.


    What we believe to be legal or illegal is sometimes shaped by the laws we grow up with or we are used to. That happened with corporeal punishment of your own kids in Germany. It was legal in Germany until 1998/2000. I do remember, that corporeal punishment was ubiquitous, when I was a kid in the seventies. No one would have dreamt of calling it a crime or even a felony. That had changed already in the nineties, but it still wasn`t unusual, to see parents slapping or spanking their children in public. You don`t see that anymore nowadays. I am not saying, it doesn`t happen anymore (it does), but it is not regarded as acceptable or rightful behaviour anymore. Views have changed drastically on that issue, since the law was changed.

    Sometimes our views change and the changing of the law lags behind. That`s when you have a criminal offence, no one takes serious anymore. As I said before, the general age of consent in Germany is 16 (with a Romeo and Juliet clause for teenagers who are 14 or 15). This age has been the age of consent for a long time for heterosexual couples. But up until 1994 it wasn`t the same for homosexual couples. The age of consent for gay people was 18. In 1994 this unequal treatment was abolished and since then the age of consent is generally 16. Back in 1994 no one (or only very few) people actually thought that it was legal for a girl and a guy to have sex at the age of 16 but that it was at the same time illegal for a boy and a boy to have sex, while both were or one of the was 16.

    The law just hadn`t been adjusted to changes in our views and acceptance of homosexuality.

    I actually thought, the same would apply to the Californian age of consent laws as well. I admit, that I was wrong about that, although I still find it hard to understand, how US citizens can regard it as a felony, when it is completely and utterly legal just across the border of California in, for example, Nevada.

    But I have come to realize, that the age of consent, I grew up with is in a way a random choice. You have to draw the line somewhere. We drew the line at sixteen and I am so used to that line, that I feel as if someone is taking away my agency if they claim, I can`t consent to sex as long as I am not 18. But in the end 18 is a choice that might be just as valid as 16 or 17. And it was especially bespangeled`s post, that made me realize, why a teenager might need to be protected by laws even if they are 16 or 17.
    They are vulnerable and likely to be used by someone who is older, more experienced and in a more powerful position. Even if that powerful position depends only on his age and not on him being a boss, a guardian or a teacher.

    Of course this risk of being used or exploited doesn`t stop being a risk on the day you turn 18. But then again - we have to draw the line somewhere. And every line, we draw can in the end only be a random line.

    I do think, we need to accept, that teenagers are sexually active. I`ve chekced a recent statistic for Germany, that gives the average age for the first time with 17 years. Just the same age, Buffy was, by the way.

    The ideal time for having sex (for the first time) would be a time, when you are personally able to deal with (maybe bad or unexpected) consequences. Those consequences could be a pregnany or an STD, but it could also be also finding out, you have been used or exploited. There simply is no age that we could set, that would apply to everyone.

    As a resume, I am still convinced, that it is justified to set the age of consent at 16, but I can see reasons, why it could be justified just the same to set it at 18 instead.

    Once again - a huge thanks to everybody, who participated in this discussion.

    flow
    ................................ Banner by buffylover

  31. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to flow For This Useful Post:

    bespangled (14-12-18),Stoney (14-12-18)

  32. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    4
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default

    try not to believe it's statutory assault however I vote unpleasant. I wouldn't need my multi-year-old little girl dating a 26-year-old. A multi-year-old is progressively developed, working as opposed to going to class, ready to drink liquor, and would be candidly increasingly developed and explicitly experienced.

    In Canada the time of assent is 16. 14 and multi-year olds can assent if there is close to 5 years age distinction. 12 and multi-year olds can assent yet close to 2 years in age contrast.

    I'm not excessively annoyed by Buffy and Angel being explicitly dynamic with one another yet I wouldn't care for it in the event that she was my little girl.

  33. The Following User Says Thank You to Emily For This Useful Post:

    bespangled (01-04-19)

  34. #38
    Library Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    296
    Thanks
    286
    Thanked 329 Times in 176 Posts

    Post

    There is a mix of issues/problems.
    The big issue is the flashback scene of Angel looking at 15 year old Buffy with her Lollipop from a dirty blacked out car. Whistler's line she must be prettier than the last one isn't great either. It's all ewww
    With Spike that isn't really the issue (there are other things) because Buffy is an adult when dates him, not so with Angel or Riley who is her teacher at college
    The other issue is a general Hollywood problem is having older actors/actresses play school kids (SMG was in her 20's) , which they seem obsessed with doing and makes it seem more acceptable. Tbh I don't know why there is this obsession with High school in Hollywood. Unless it's a gangster show, they all seem to be around a school setting. I hope this Buffy reboot isn't set around school. I mean school really does mean F all when you leave. I just don't get it ?
    Last edited by BtVS fan; 01-04-19 at 10:03 AM.

  35. #39
    Scooby Gang Double Dutchess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    478
    Thanks
    1,070
    Thanked 1,362 Times in 550 Posts

    Default

    I would have said Welcome to the Forum, but clearly Emily only joined the forum for spamming (DON'T CLICK THE LINK IN THAT POST)

  36. #40
    Well Spiked Stoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Blighty
    Posts
    8,163
    Thanks
    11,114
    Thanked 13,182 Times in 5,484 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Dutchess View Post
    (DON'T CLICK THE LINK IN THAT POST)
    Totally confused as there isn't a link in the post as far as I can see??

    EDIT: Ah, I see multiple posts elsewhere on the board.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •