Buffy and Angel- was it wrong??????????

[midwesternwatcher]

"The Night Lord" said that Angel was 26 when he was sired. It seems to me I heard somewhere he was 27. Anyway, can you give me a reference, either from the show or from a commentary?

[Randi Giles]

If you check The Prodigal his tombstone I believe shows his date of birth and death in this episode. I always forget but I know for sure mid-twenties.

Oct 9, 2010 19:22:34 GMT -5 @iigreenii said:

Anytime I see a comment like "Angel the pedophile" or Spike the rapist" I skip right over them and don't even bother to finish reading what they had to say. They're obviously one-sided/biased opinions looking at things black and white. Rarely anything in the Buffyverse is black and white.

That's what I need to start doing. Every time I see someone say how Spike is a rapist it irks me to no end.

[The Night Lord]

Angel's tombstone: 1727-1753. I have heard comments he was 27 when sired, which he stated in the promo for the show, but there's the dates, which tells you he was 26

[Josh]

Oct 9, 2010 20:04:24 GMT -5 The Night Lord said:

Angel's tombstone: 1727-1753. I have heard comments he was 27 when sired, which he stated in the promo for the show, but there's the dates, which tells you he was 26

I don't know how reliably we can look at dates shown though considering we actually got two completely different birthdates for Buffy shown within the same episode once

[The Night Lord]

That's true. But Angel's dates and age hasn't been contradicted anywhere else in the show....except by his physical aging

[nl197]

Oct 9, 2010 20:11:27 GMT -5 The Night Lord said:

That's true. But Angel's dates and age hasn't been contradicted anywhere else in the show....except by his physical aging

Off-topic sidebar: (spoiler-tagged only so it doesn't take up space)

SPOILER: Click to show

It's interesting that for his time as Angel, David Boreanaz looked significantly different at times. It's not so much that he looked older, more it was his overall size that seemed to go up and down. Most of that change happened in 2001, and again near the end of his series. That first change in 2001 came when he was about to have a child in real life, and the second time was when he was sidelined by knee surgery. The same thing happened to a character on "Veronica Mars". On that show there was a bad boy character named 'Weevil', and in the third season he was almost twice the size he was in the first two seasons and his face was full of acne. He as also never seen walking around very often and after looking into what happened to him (in real life), it was the same thing - knee surgery.

The medication made him swell up, and in Boreanaz' case, once ANGEL was over, he slimmed back down. Way down. When "Bones" started he looked like he was Angel circa 1997 - Buffy season 1 Angel, but with a bit of scruff on his face. Complete transformation.

It's made even more interesting that for going on six years he's played a human FBI agent, and he's looked pretty much the same for these years as Booth on "Bones".

If the roles were reversed and he played Angel now rather than before, maybe his look would have been more consistent and the vampire effect would have been maintained more.

James Marsters seemed to let himself go when he joined Angel and co. for season 5, as he was no longer the super-chiseled muscle man he was on Buffy. He had very few shirtless scenes on ANGEL, and probably didn't need to maintain the physique.

[tkts]

Oct 9, 2010 8:30:26 GMT -5 Josh said:

And as others have mentioned, age is irrelevant in the Buffyverse and, not trying to start a fight or offend you, but this post does just come off as a senseless Angel bash since there seemed to be no issues brought up with Xander/Mrs. French, Xander/Impata, Xander/Anya, or Connor/Cordelia on the age front and there were also no issues brought up with Buffy/Spike considering how unhealthy and abusive that "relationship" was.

Xander/Anya is the only one that's really comparable.

There's no need to bring up issues with Xander and Mrs. French because that's always treated, even within the context of the show, as wrong. Xander/Ampata, same deal ... as soon as they find out she's an ancient cursed mummy out to suck the life out of him, there isn't exactly anybody going "oh, Xander and Ampata, how cute."

Connor/Cordelia, as others have mentioned, is squicky for other reasons.

I'm inclined to side with those who find the Buffy/Angel relationship a little off-putting. People keep bringing up the age he was sired, as if physical age is the only important thing, but it's not. Buffy is a starry-eyed teenager with her first love. She may save the world on a regular basis, but she still has only 16 years of life experience under her belt when they meet. Angel has had more than 200 years to live and learn. So, yes, in a lot of ways, Angel is the adult and Buffy is the child, and maybe he should know better.

As to why people don't necessarily react the same way to Xander and Anya, I think there are two main reasons. First is the usual double standard in which an adult female who pursues an underage male is not looked upon the same way as an adult male who pursues and underage female. (Although, due to the historical power differential between the genders, I think there is some small amount of legitimacy to this double standard.) Second is how they're portrayed ... Anya appears so lost and uncertain at the beginning of her relationship with Xander that he often appears to be the older one, making it harder to see her as the older one.

[nokomis]

Oct 9, 2010 4:21:32 GMT -5 @nl197 said:

Wow....that's incredibly one-sided.

He didn't take advantage of her at all. The whole thing was mutual and they both resisted it at first. They both knew it wasn't smart, and they both tried to be as careful as they could. You make it sound like Buffy is some kind of victim in this, which, considering what the series is, and how early in the show this began, clearly isn't the case. Somehow I don't see Joss Whedon making the hero of the show a teenage girl and then having her be some victim to an older vampire at the same time.

This looks like yet another attempt to 'Angel bash'.

I wonder, if this was as wrong as you say, are you more accepting of Spike?

I ask not only because that particular story was leaps and bounds above this one on a level of disgust, but also there is a huge pro-Spike / anti-Angel bias among fans and I want to know if that has affected this at all.

What's wrong with having an 'Angel bash'. It was just my attempt to be critical of the show.

Wow, it seems i have treaded on nerves. I didn't mean to. No i am not an enormous Spuffy fan. I love Angel; I'm just questioning whether there realtionship was really as beautiful as it was made out to be.

And no, i do not think that Angel is a 'monster rapist' so please don't try to put words into my mouth.

Ok, someone said that Angel was 23/24 when he was sired. I'd still say that's a little to old. But in my defence, I thought Angel could be older than that.

I didn't realise people would get so offended by me being critical of Buffy and Angel. Believe me, I love Angel but what i wrote was just my personal opinion.

[nokomis]

Oct 9, 2010 8:30:26 GMT -5 Josh said:

I don't think Buffy is a victim at all. Yes, she is 17 and Angel was in his 20s when he was sired, but that doesn't mean anything. They both resisted, Angel moreso than Buffy initially and it's not like they rushed into it at all. Hell, Angel was prepared to leave Sunnydale for her protection and to help the world the night they ended up sleeping together. Not to mention that by just labeling it as wrong because she was 17 completely ignores the fact of how much more grown up and mature Buffy is than anyone else. Yeah, she has her moments of immaturity, but the fact of the matter is that she had saved many lifes and gone through so many battles by time she slept together.

And as others have mentioned, age is irrelevant in the Buffyverse and, not trying to start a fight or offend you, but this post does just come off as a senseless Angel bash since there seemed to be no issues brought up with Xander/Mrs. French, Xander/Impata, Xander/Anya, or Connor/Cordelia on the age front and there were also no issues brought up with Buffy/Spike considering how unhealthy and abusive that "relationship" was.

No, YOU think age is completely irrelevant. I disagree. "A senseless angel bash". That is rude. Since when does another fan's opinion become senseless?

You can disagree all you want, you're entitled to your opinion. But i wouldn't call it senseless just because i dont agree.

What i was really concerned with was Angel's age when he was sired. The fact that he is century's old makes it even more disgusting. And that is also where the issue of responsibility comes into play. But that's only my opinion. I guess it's not like she could get pregnant. I guess we're supposed to assume vampires dont get STD's. Oh well.

I'm sorry, but the whole Angel/ Buffy thing was over-romantised bullsh**. As an adult, I can see that now. And dont start tring to say I'm not a real fan coz Buffy's all i watch.

[buffster88]

I think Joss addressed this question of age in the paleyfest reunion.

Personally I'm a Bangel fan, so NO it was definitely not wrong. They did love each other and wanted to be with each other. Not wrong at all.

[nokomis]

Oct 9, 2010 18:37:26 GMT -5 AngelFaith said:

Oct 9, 2010 18:00:06 GMT -5 leyki said:

Angel had sex with Buffy when she was 17, but he felt in love with her when she was 14-15.
That kind of makes him lead towards paedophilia....

•Pedophilia (or paedophilia) is a psychological disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children

Even though Buffy was 15/16 (she was not fourteen) when Angel first saw her, he is in now way a paedophile. She is NOT prepubescent and she does NOT look like a child. If anything, she looks a few years older than she actually is, Angel had no way of knowing exactly how old she was.

I have seen the "Angel is a paedophile" argument so many times before it just becomes tiring. As others have pointed out, it's usually used as Angel or Bangel bashing and is just not true. Of all the arguments the anti-Bangels can come up with, this one is one of the weakest.

Ok hunny, I think everyone knows the definition of paedophilia so you dont need to patronise us all. Some of us are saying that their relationship was bordering paedophilia not that Angel was an actual paedophile. Why do you have do define people as bashers or anti- this, anti- that. People just have differing opinions. I gues we're all supposed to shutup and worship at the throne of Joss Whedon's magnificence. Yeah, good luck with that.

[nl197]

Oct 10, 2010 13:51:24 GMT -5 nokomis said:

Why do you have do define people as bashers or anti- this, anti- that. People just have differing opinions. I gues we're all supposed to shutup and worship at the throne of Joss Whedon's magnificence. Yeah, good luck with that.

People "bash" Angel all the damn time. Some of it comes from those comic books, but I haven't read those. When both shows ended, they ended. The more crap I hear about those comics and how much people hate Angel and others because of them, the less I want to know about them and more-than-likely I'll never read them or watch the motion comics now.

People are indeed anti-Angel. That's why this whole thing looks like yet another case of that.

I don't worship at the throne of anything. I despise "Dollhouse" and never want to see it again. That second season was throw-in-the-kitchen-sink levels of ridiculousness, all because they wanted to wrap the show up, a show that was flimsy to begin with. Whedon had a limited influence on "ANGEL" as a series, and I consider that to be a good thing, because every time he got directly involved it became Buffy-lite. Both shows were too different to meld together but whenever Whedon wrote and directed an episode, it became glaringly obvious just how different they are. Not better-than, or less-than, just different.

I didn't watch "The Office" or "Glee" episodes he directed just because he directed them. I don't watch either of those shows and saw little point just to see that 'directed by' credit on screen.

So I can't speak for everyone else, but I'm not blindly following or worshiping Joss Whedon at all. I just can't stand this "Angel bashing" garbage all the time and it just plain pisses me off.

If you say you weren't trying to do that, fine. I believe you.

[BuffyFanOne]

There are some heated opinions here haha

My take is this....Is it wrong for a 26/7 year old man to sleep with a 16 year old girl...absolutely yes!

BUT BUT BUT

Angel is not a regular 20somehting man and Buffy is not a regular 16 year old girl. They are both super natural beings. Vampire/slayer.

If you really htink about it, Buffy's life expectancy is like 25...so really she is beyone middle age. She is mature beyond her years and has had to deal with things by the age of 16 that most adults never have to deal with.

Is the Buffy/Angel relationship in a grey area...absolutely. Is it wrong...NO

[leyki]

Oct 9, 2010 18:37:26 GMT -5 AngelFaith said:

Oct 9, 2010 18:00:06 GMT -5 leyki said:

Angel had sex with Buffy when she was 17, but he felt in love with her when she was 14-15.
That kind of makes him lead towards paedophilia....

•Pedophilia (or paedophilia) is a psychological disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children

Even though Buffy was 15/16 (she was not fourteen) when Angel first saw her, he is in now way a paedophile. She is NOT prepubescent and she does NOT look like a child. If anything, she looks a few years older than she actually is, Angel had no way of knowing exactly how old she was.

I have seen the "Angel is a paedophile" argument so many times before it just becomes tiring. As others have pointed out, it's usually used as Angel or Bangel bashing and is just not true. Of all the arguments the anti-Bangels can come up with, this one is one of the weakest.

Since my mother language is greek, let me understand the term a little bit better than you.
A child molester is is the one who sexually abushes children, and a pedophile is the one who feels attracted to children under the age of 14.

Buffy in season 1 was 15 years old, and she was called at least one year before. Angel saw her and felt in love with her when she was first called.
I am not saying he is a pedophile, since we haven's seen this behavior from him ever since, but falling in love with a 14 year old child, is not so normal, especially when you are over 250 years old and a vampire....

[wenxina]

Pretty sure that she turned 17 in S2, which meant that in S1, if she was 15, she was on the verge of turning 16. Meaning that she was Called when she was 15.
As for the squick factor... erm... all a matter of perception, no? In older cultures, many brides were young.

Now, for basic Moderator business.
1. NO DOUBLE-POSTING! Edit your previous post. If you don't know how to, well, it's the "modify" button.

2. If you want to start a thread that's critical of a particular aspect of the show, that's fine. But be prepared for people to defend the show. Also, any more condescending language thrown about, and I will personally end your time at SlayAlive. This goes out to EVERYONE. I don't care which couple you ship, or why you ship them. Shipping is subjective, as are many things, so interact respectfully with each other.

[janas]

We all know that Whedon uses the language of metaphor. Personally, I always thought, (after seeing Becoming) that Angel was actually a teenager. If we consider his "rebirth" from the moment he sees Buffy for the first time. Angel starts to live again when he met Whistler. For about 240 years, first was a demon and then lived outside the world, hiding.

I wanna help her. I want... I wanna become someone.

Oct 10, 2010 12:47:00 GMT -5 nokomis said:

Oct 9, 2010 4:21:32 GMT -5 @nl197 said:

And no, i do not think that Angel is a 'monster rapist' so please don't try to put words into my mouth.

What is a pedophile, if not a monster rapist?

[AngelFaith]

Apologies if my previous post came across as condescending, it was not my intention. I just wanted to use a standard definition of paedophilia to support my argument. I genuinely did not mean to offend anyone.

That being said, I still hate the "Angel is a paedophile" argument. Paedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent bodies, children that have not developed. Buffy looks like an adult when Angel first sees her, as I said before, she even looks a little older than her real age. For all Angel knew she was sixteen or seventeen.

[BuffyFanOne]

I kind of see it that ANgel was drawn to Buffy when he saw her the first time because he felt a cosmic connection. I think that was also when he began loving her but i don't think it was a sexual attraction in the beginning. i think that only came after they fell in love with each other.

[wenxina]

I won't state which posts struck me as condescending, but the general rule of thumb is, if you're telling people to shut up because your point of view is superior, or when you chide someone for presenting their argument, or the basis of their argument, then you're probably treading in that zone.

Again, just stay respectful and everyone will be happy.

BuffyFanOne: Re: the cosmic connection... that's what #34 of S8 told us.

[nokomis]

I apologise for being condescending.
There are obviously two sides to every coin, so to speak. If you choose to see Bangel as a cosmic attraction between two very mature people then I guess that's a perfectly valid opinion (there's nothing wrong with enjoying that aspect of the show)But if you wanna look at it more critically i.e. as it being somewhat wrong then that can be valid too. (there are different types of enjoyment that one can take from the show)
It's funny how heated a Buffy debate can get.
Personally, the soppiness and idealisation of their relationship bores me. I find the whole thing a bit unrealistic and am critical of the whole idea of a 'perfect (hetero) love', that is often perpetuated. I just find it refreshing to look at media and film images more critically, Buffy included.