"Make her our willing sex bunny!"... I'm putting that on the list!

[KingofCretins]

That was an exchange between Jonathan and Andrew in 6.04 "Flooded". They were talking about Buffy. Obviously, this played out rather horribly with Katrina in 6.13 "Dead Things". They used their 'cerebral dampener' to remove Katrina's identity and free will for their own prurient purposes. The 'cerebral dampener' would have made any sexual encounter per se rape.

It got me thinking -- what about RJ's jacket? Does RJ's jacket from "Him" raise the same kind of moral implications? Does the spell in "Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered"? Clearly Xander thought it did in Season 2, or he wouldn't have resisted all of their advances. But in Season 7, nobody really seemed to give much thought to the jacket's effects. Possibly that's because there's no indication RJ knew about it, and may have just thought he was that cool and liked wearing the jacket. But, Buffy asked Xander if he'd thought about wearing it, and his joking response seemed to acknowledge that the idea of such a toy is tempting to him, and she thought it was funny as well. So, how seriously bad is that kind of gimmick in the Buffyverse?

There are distinctions that can be made. In psychological terms, the cerebral dampener was, in conditioning terms, a positive punisher, whereas the jacket was a positive reinforcer. The dampener suppressed free will, the jacket made powerful suggestions.

So, is there a meaningful difference? Is either or both of these kinds of things morally worse than plying someone with alcohol? What about with a drug? What about with a chemical aphrodisiac?

[The_Narrator]

I don't think there's a meaningful difference, since all of the items you mentioned affected people or made them act differently to how they normally would, in the same way that drugs or alcohol would. The only real reason that seems to 'allow' people to take advantage of those who have had a few too many drinks is that everyone does it, and that's a very dangerous idealogy to me!! (Though I acknowledge that there is some moral flexibility here, in that there is a difference between drunkenly coming onto someone, and actually taking someone completely inebriated and unable to make sensible decisions for themselves and forcing them to do something they probably wouldn't even remember and consent to in the first place.)

I would even classify Spike sleeping with Buffy throughout Season 6 as taking sexual advantage, since he was the only one who knew the true extent of her pain, being a vampire, the one she originally confided in, and just an insightful guy. OK, perhaps that's a slightly harsh judgment on Spike, since Buffy did choose to sleep with him, but perhaps they both took advantage of each other's weaknesses at the time. Is that morally worse than forcing someone to do something via Warren's gadget?

[sueworld]

Is that morally worse than forcing someone to do something via Warren's gadget?

They're two different things though aren't they. I'd hardly call the mutual, yes mutual sexual relationship the pair had going on in the same league as what Warren got up to in season 6.

Warren made a device which stripped someone of their free will. At the end of the day Buffy chose to sleep with Spike, infact she was the one to make the fist move as far as sexual contact was concerned.

So not a fair comparison, no.

[KingofCretins]

This really isn't about Spike and Buffy. Yes, I do think he took advantage of her emotional state, but her emotional state is not the same discussion of vulnerability as the physical/chemical/mystical alterations caused by... cerebral dampeners, magic jackets, wonky love spells, scotch, GHB, and, I dunno, raw oysters. So it's really not part of this topic.

[Wolfie Gilmore]

Did RJ know what the jacket was capable of? Perhaps he thought he just had that effect on women? His brother certainly didn't seem aware of it. Hmm...is there a bit where he puts on the jacket in a purposeful, President Bartlet kind of a way, where you might assume he knows its power?

I find it hard to completely treat the dampener and the jacket the same even if RJ did know what he was doing, because that's played so much for laughs, while the other thing ends in murder. I feel a little similarly re Buffy and comedy as I do re Buffy and metaphor - sometimes it shifts the moral framework because things done for laughs, sometimes suspends my reality sense for a while. I'm trying to think of an example (I think Xander being responsible for OMWF's spell is a failed example, because I DO think...wait a minute, he killed people!). But there are definitely some instances...perhpas Bewitched, B&B...and perhaps that's because there's comic justice. He doesn't just get laid in the end. He almost gets flayed. And learns his lesson. Sorta.

Trying to hink of "pure comedy" moments, will get back to you on that...

[The_Narrator]

Yes, I do think he took advantage of her emotional state, but her emotional state is not the same discussion of vulnerability as the physical/chemical/mystical alterations caused by... cerebral dampeners, magic jackets, wonky love spells, scotch, GHB, and, I dunno, raw oysters

I do understand that Buffy was already vulnerable, whereas these items are things forced onto another person. However, I would argue that taking advantage of someone, say, who had eaten aphrodisiacs is less morally wrong than taking advantage of someone who was emotionally distraught, even if in the first case they had been plied with them, or even (bear with me, odd example) force fed them, and in the second case being distraught was their own 'choice' (I say choice, since generally a lot of people don't exactly choose to be miserable, it's forced upon them in much the same way, that say, a spell is) I acknowledge what you're saying though about forcing something onto someone, e.g. spells or using Warren's device, since that strips them of their ability to make sound decisions, or even make decisions at all. Whilst both the jacket and the dampener are bad, I would argue that the dampener is worse, since Katrina did literally whatever Warren told her, whereas although the women were affected by the jacket, Buffy proved that with enough willpower she could resist it's affects (effects?? Never can remember which is which). Xander's spell ... not so sure about that. I mean, really, he not only took away their ability to choose, but the spell made them dangerous as well, willing to kill even.

[potterfanatic]

Warrens cerebral dampener was made with the intent of getting women to be their sex slaves so that's just wrong. The spell in 'Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered' was a mistake and we knew he had no intention of taking advantage of Cordy had it worked. and as for the jacket in Him, well as was mentioned I don't think he knew what the hell the jacket was doing

[litzie]

In my own personal buffy world, the jacket was never anywhere near as powerful as it is in Him until all the trouble started with the Hellmouth in season 7. Otherwise we'd've had crazy bankrobbing/spell-doing/train-tracks-lying-across going on in sunnydale completely beyond the knowledge of the slayer, which is preposterous to me. So, in my view, the jacket used to be basically a Coolness cologne or something...it made its wearer seem cooler, more attractive, and more intelligent. But Him is one of my favorite episodes of S7 because it gets back to the metaphor of high school angst through magic. MANY things in high school "make" you behave in ways you otherwise wouldn't, including in many cases having sex and later regretting it. Peer pressure, a desire to be cool, even emotional vulnerability a la Buffy in S6...all these things are a sort of inevitable in high school, though you do have the choice of how to respond to them. I think, with the jacket pre-season 7, people must have had a choice as well, if a slightly less objective one than they would have had without the jacket.

As for warren's cerebral dampener...that's less a metaphor and more a literal magic translation of a date rape drug.

[Cinderela]

In my Buffyworld, the question here is simple - intent. While Warren's dampener was created with the intent of taking away free will and controlling others, we see no evidence of the same thing in RJ and the jacket.

Even the original owner of the jacket knew that it effected (or affected - I'm with you Narrator, I can't remember which is which! ) females around them, but now how or why. In my view, there is a big difference in taking advantage of good luck (RJ's view) and attempting to control how others behave or think (Warren's view).

Same with the "getting drunk and take advantage" situation. In my mind, there's a difference between intending to manipulate someone by getting them drunk and taking advantage of someone drunk making a potentially stupid decision ("getting lucky").

I would liken Warren's dampener more to what happened in Halloween (Ethan's spell) or BB&B (yes, Xander was punished for his actions, but that makes it no less wrong!) or what Willow did in Tabula Rasa (again, she was punished, but it was still wrong!)

It's all about intent.

[KingofCretins]

So, let's say Xander and Dawn never spot Buffy and RJ. The entire question would turn on whether he knew what the jacket could and was doing? That's an interesting approach -- a subjective test instead of an objective one. How far did that actually go, anyway? In the shooting script, they were having the sex when Xander found them. The actual episode is much more ambiguous. I certainly hope they weren't.

[Cinderela]

So, let's say Xander and Dawn never spot Buffy and RJ. The entire question would turn on whether he knew what the jacket could and was doing? That's an interesting approach -- a subjective test instead of an objective one. How far did that actually go, anyway? In the shooting script, they were having the sex when Xander found them. The actual episode is much more ambiguous. I certainly hope they weren't.

In my mind, yes, the question is whether RJ knew what the jacket was doing. Well, if they weren't actually having sex, the episode goes overboard giving the impression they were....I hope they weren't either!

That's just......ewwww.

[KingofCretins]

I'm thinking that if they really *had* had sex, Buffy would have been a little more traumatized and a little less glib about the whole thing at the end of the episode... especially teasing Xander about whether he'd wanted the coat. I actually think her "I can't I almost" was banging a student and not blowing up Wood.

But, really, if RJ hadn't known about the jacket, but had managed to work his way through the whole female contingent of Scoobies, that would have been okay?

[Cinderela]

I'm thinking that if they really *had* had sex, Buffy would have been a little more traumatized and a little less glib about the whole thing at the end of the episode... especially teasing Xander about whether he'd wanted the coat. I actually think her "I can't I almost" was banging a student and not blowing up Wood.

But, really, if RJ hadn't known about the jacket, but had managed to work his way through the whole female contingent of Scoobies, that would have been okay?

OKAY, no. It would have been.........gross. But in the context of this question of right vs wrong, it wouldn't fall under the "wrong" umbrella.
Again, because there was no intent by RJ to control or manipulate anyone else.

[The_Narrator]

Intent may decide the guilt of an individual, but not the morality of what that person did. If RJ slept with all of the Scoobies, it would, to me, be morally wrong since they weren't in full control of their actions, but RJ wouldn't be personally responsible, since he had no knowledge or intent to do what the jacket allowed him to (if we agree he was ignorant of it's - dare I say it - affect/effect.)

[KingofCretins]

I don't think there's much reason to think he knew what the jacket did. I guess it depends on how crafty you think he looks when he slips it on in Buffy's office the first time. But, still... he was *completely* floored by her coming on to him, so how likely is it he knew?

[Mabus]

I'm thinking that if they really *had* had sex, Buffy would have been a little more traumatized and a little less glib about the whole thing at the end of the episode... especially teasing Xander about whether he'd wanted the coat. I actually think her "I can't I almost" was banging a student and not blowing up Wood.

But, really, if RJ hadn't known about the jacket, but had managed to work his way through the whole female contingent of Scoobies, that would have been okay?

I'd consider it morally wrong, but not for any reason that would convince many people here. If RJ doesn't realize what the jacket is doing, then as far as he knows both parties are consenting. (Not adults, but the age difference is, so far as we see, small, and we know that RJ is willing.)

Should RJ realize that he can't possibly be that hot? I dunno...but I suspect a lot of teens would believe. As long as he doesn't, I can't fault him on any nonreligiious grounds.