On season 4 of Buffy...should I be watching Angel?

[Grendelsbayne]

Didn't they try to do that with Enterprise?

Buffy has hella double standards when it comes to morality. Xander tries to magically force a woman to love him it's fun Xander hijinks. Warren does it it's appropriately labeled rape.

The show easily let Xander off the hook for what he attempted to do to Cordelia and ended up doing to everyone else, but take away the fact that Warren's spell on Katrina ended in murder, it's pretty much the exact same thing.

One could also make an argument that Willow committed rape when she made Tara forget the fight.

But it's okay when a main character does it, apparently.

Not to defend Xander too much, because he was entirely wrong and stupid and the episode definitely could've used some more long-term consequences, but it's not the same thing Warren did. Xander wanted to make Cordelia fall in love with him so he could break up with her. It's cruel and vindictive and manipulative and not ok, but it's not rape.

 

[Christopher]

I think it's Groosalug, though I could easily be wrong about that.

Almost. Groosalugg, nicknamed Groo. Probably an homage to Sergio Aragones's Conan-parody comic-book character Groo the Wanderer.

 

[Forbin]

I never particularly liked the bands that played at The Bronze, either.

However, one of my favorite musical choices from Buffy is when "Wild Horses" plays at the Prom.

Me too! I think that's probably the best cover of that song I've ever heard. Got it on my playlist.

 

[Forbin]

When older shows used pop music, it was usually newly composed, generic, and instrumental.

And often painful.
One episode of Mannix I recently watched was about a folk duo with a problem. Their performance scenes were ear-bleeding.

Night club/discoteque background music on 60s and 70s shows was pretty horrendous. I guess being even a good tv score composer didn't necessarily make one a good pop-tune composer.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I thought Xander's intention was to make her take him back. If he was just trying to leave the relationship with 'Hand' then you're right. That would fall more under the category of kidnapping and assault.

If he had any intention at all of being physical with her while she was under the spell's influence it's the same. Except of course he wouldn't have killed her.

Every character who has used magic to affect another character's behavior has committed at the very least a form of assault. Any sexual activity under the resulting state is rape.

 

[Sparkle Fabulosa]

Also, Xander could have easily taken advantage of Willow or Buffy while they were magically-influenced. He didn't. Warren did.

 

[gblews]

Of course, anything from OMWF and anything performed in Caritas is standout.

For me, it all depended on the song Lorne sang. He had kind of a "freakish" voice, really high and shill, almost bleating when he got loud. But I started a re-watch of Angel as a result of this thread, and quite liked Lorne's "Get Here When You Can' and "I Left My Heart in San Francisco". Both were ballads sung in the lower range of his voice.

However, one of my favorite musical choices from Buffy is when "Wild Horses" plays at the Prom.

Agree. I had forgotten about this one. Worked very well within the context of the story and was a pretty good cover of the song.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I thought Xander's intention was to make her take him back. If he was just trying to leave the relationship with 'Hand' then you're right. That would fall more under the category of kidnapping and assault.

If he had any intention at all of being physical with her while she was under the spell's influence it's the same. Except of course he wouldn't have killed her.

Every character who has used magic to affect another character's behavior has committed at the very least a form of assault. Any sexual activity under the resulting state is rape.

Take another look at the episode sometime when you get the chance - it was all about breaking her heart the way she broke his. No mind controlled relationship intentions whatsoever. And as Janeway's Girl stated, he actively avoided taking that sort of advantage of the situation multiple times in the episode.

As to possible applicable legal definitions of magical mischief... Certainly some of the situations we've seen could be considered some form of assault, but it's not a universal baseline. For instance, confusion spells - like when Amy convinced her teacher to accept invisible homework, or when Willow convinced some cops that she was an interpol inspector - could hardly be considered anything more than simple fraud. And, of course, much of the magical mayhem we've seen has been unintentional side effects (like what Xander's love spell did to all the girls in town except Cordelia) - that would have to be something more along the lines of negligent or reckless behavior causing accidental injury.

You're also basing a lot on this assumption of magic always being used directly and purposefully, even though that very often isn't what we see on screen. For example: Giles and Joyce most definitely had their behavior magically altered in "Band Candy", and that alteration did result in sex, but I don't see how you could get any kind of a rape case out of that incident.

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

True, all it means, is that Giles and Joyce would get it on if they had met as teenagers.

 

[Christopher]

As to possible applicable legal definitions of magical mischief... Certainly some of the situations we've seen could be considered some form of assault, but it's not a universal baseline. For instance, confusion spells - like when Amy convinced her teacher to accept invisible homework, or when Willow convinced some cops that she was an interpol inspector - could hardly be considered anything more than simple fraud. And, of course, much of the magical mayhem we've seen has been unintentional side effects (like what Xander's love spell did to all the girls in town except Cordelia) - that would have to be something more along the lines of negligent or reckless behavior causing accidental injury.

I think you may be overlooking some issues. The Law and the Multiverse blog addressed this question once as it applied to psychic manipulation:

Because of the way the brain works, anything a psychic does that actually affects the mind of the subject must necessarily affect the subject’s physical neurons....

If the alteration is harmful or even merely offensive then that’s a battery in tort terms because battery only requires an intentional harmful or offensive contact, which does not have to be a literal touching of the defendant’s body to the plaintiff’s. For example, many jurisdictions have held that intentionally blowing tobacco smoke at a person can be a battery. See, e.g., Leichtman v. WLW Jacor Communications, Inc., 92 Ohio App.3d 232 (1994). Even something as incorporeal as a laser is also capable of touching a person. Adams v. Commonwealth, 534 S.E.2d 347 (Ct. App. Va. 2000) (Adams is a criminal assault and battery case but the principles are applicable to tortious battery).

And speaking of criminal assault and battery, as we discussed in the comments on the amnesia article, these kinds of psychic attacks may qualify. In the comments we discussed Missouri law, but it is not unique. In Virginia, for example, “battery is the actual infliction of corporal hurt on another (e.g., the least touching of another’s person), willfully or in anger, whether by the party’s own hand, or by some means set in motion by him.” Adams, 534 S.E.2d at 350. Affecting even a single neuron would seem to qualify as “the least touching of another’s person,” and a psychic attack is definitely “some means set in motion by [the psychic].”

These kinds of psychic attacks may also be grounds for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, especially if the forced actions, forcibly recalled memories, or implanted memories are extreme or outrageous.

It seems to me that altering someone's mental state with a magic spell would qualify as battery by the same standard. Even with magic involved, the brain is still a physical organ whose operations are biochemical in nature, so a change in behavior or perception would have to be a physical change on some level.

So a confusion spell is more than just fraud. It isn't simply misleading someone, it's altering their mind and perceptions from the inside. It's more like slipping someone a hallucinogen or a drug that impairs their judgment. Drugging someone without their consent is legally considered assault. So casting a spell on someone without their consent would be assault as well.

You're also basing a lot on this assumption of magic always being used directly and purposefully, even though that very often isn't what we see on screen. For example: Giles and Joyce most definitely had their behavior magically altered in "Band Candy", and that alteration did result in sex, but I don't see how you could get any kind of a rape case out of that incident.

But it's still assault, and since the behavior-altering substance they were dosed with resulted in sex, it might still be considered sexual assault in some form, with both of them as the victims.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

As to possible applicable legal definitions of magical mischief... Certainly some of the situations we've seen could be considered some form of assault, but it's not a universal baseline. For instance, confusion spells - like when Amy convinced her teacher to accept invisible homework, or when Willow convinced some cops that she was an interpol inspector - could hardly be considered anything more than simple fraud. And, of course, much of the magical mayhem we've seen has been unintentional side effects (like what Xander's love spell did to all the girls in town except Cordelia) - that would have to be something more along the lines of negligent or reckless behavior causing accidental injury.

I think you may be overlooking some issues. The Law and the Multiverse blog addressed this question once as it applied to psychic manipulation:

Because of the way the brain works, anything a psychic does that actually affects the mind of the subject must necessarily affect the subject’s physical neurons....

If the alteration is harmful or even merely offensive then that’s a battery in tort terms because battery only requires an intentional harmful or offensive contact, which does not have to be a literal touching of the defendant’s body to the plaintiff’s. For example, many jurisdictions have held that intentionally blowing tobacco smoke at a person can be a battery. See, e.g., Leichtman v. WLW Jacor Communications, Inc., 92 Ohio App.3d 232 (1994). Even something as incorporeal as a laser is also capable of touching a person. Adams v. Commonwealth, 534 S.E.2d 347 (Ct. App. Va. 2000) (Adams is a criminal assault and battery case but the principles are applicable to tortious battery).

And speaking of criminal assault and battery, as we discussed in the comments on the amnesia article, these kinds of psychic attacks may qualify. In the comments we discussed Missouri law, but it is not unique. In Virginia, for example, “battery is the actual infliction of corporal hurt on another (e.g., the least touching of another’s person), willfully or in anger, whether by the party’s own hand, or by some means set in motion by him.” Adams, 534 S.E.2d at 350. Affecting even a single neuron would seem to qualify as “the least touching of another’s person,” and a psychic attack is definitely “some means set in motion by [the psychic].”

These kinds of psychic attacks may also be grounds for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, especially if the forced actions, forcibly recalled memories, or implanted memories are extreme or outrageous.

It seems to me that altering someone's mental state with a magic spell would qualify as battery by the same standard. Even with magic involved, the brain is still a physical organ whose operations are biochemical in nature, so a change in behavior or perception would have to be a physical change on some level.

So a confusion spell is more than just fraud. It isn't simply misleading someone, it's altering their mind and perceptions from the inside. It's more like slipping someone a hallucinogen or a drug that impairs their judgment. Drugging someone without their consent is legally considered assault. So casting a spell on someone without their consent would be assault as well.

I can see that it definitely could be based on this kind of definition - though I do have to question the wisdom of defining blowing smoke in someone's face as assault. I'm curious how widespread that extreme of a definition is.

You're also basing a lot on this assumption of magic always being used directly and purposefully, even though that very often isn't what we see on screen. For example: Giles and Joyce most definitely had their behavior magically altered in "Band Candy", and that alteration did result in sex, but I don't see how you could get any kind of a rape case out of that incident.

But it's still assault, and since the behavior-altering substance they were dosed with resulted in sex, it might still be considered sexual assault in some form, with both of them as the victims.

I agree 100% that Ethan's spell rises to the level of assault of some kind - like you mentioned, it's very much like he secretly dosed everyone with drugs (and with harmful intent, as well), and while I'm not 100% sure that assault is the best possible term to describe such a situation, I can't for the life of me think of a better one, and I do believe that most jurisdictions would tend to define it that way as well.

That it would be a sexual assault? I don't really see that (though I won't argue that some jurisdictions would disagree with me). Ethan is responsible for putting them in the situation, of course, and for doing so against their will. Is he responsible for them having sex, though, when there was nothing particular sexual about the actions he took or the situation he put them in? Just because one bad thing may have made another bad thing possible doesn't automatically mean that the person who caused the first thing is responsible for causing the second.

 

[Christopher]

That it would be a sexual assault? I don't really see that (though I won't argue that some jurisdictions would disagree with me). Ethan is responsible for putting them in the situation, of course, and for doing so against their will. Is he responsible for them having sex, though, when there was nothing particular sexual about the actions he took or the situation he put them in? Just because one bad thing may have made another bad thing possible doesn't automatically mean that the person who caused the first thing is responsible for causing the second.

From what I gather about the law, it kinda does mean that. Whoever commits an illegal act that leads to a certain harmful outcome is the party ultimately responsible for the outcome. For instance, there was a case where a pedestrian was struck and killed by a police car pursuing a fleeing driver, and the fleeing driver was charged with felony murder, because if he hadn't committed a criminal act -- fleeing the police, resisting arrest -- then the pedestrian wouldn't have been killed.

Of course, this is a case where both Giles and Joyce weren't too upset about what they ended up doing. But if it had been different, if they'd been ashamed of what they'd done under the influence, if they'd felt violated by it, then Ethan would at least be responsible for infliction of emotional distress, as discussed in that link. I'm really not sure what the specific charge would be, though.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

You're also basing a lot on this assumption of magic always being used directly and purposefully, even though that very often isn't what we see on screen. For example: Giles and Joyce most definitely had their behavior magically altered in "Band Candy", and that alteration did result in sex, but I don't see how you could get any kind of a rape case out of that incident.

Giles and Joyce did not rape each other, but you could argue Ethan raped them both.

Casting a confusion spell on somebody but then not doing anything particularly bad afterward is like dosing somebody with the daterape drug and then just leaving them safely at home and walking away. It's 'Use of a control substance'.

I'm starting to thing Angel is relying too much on prophecies in a similar manner Battlestar Galactica did in the fourth season. They're getting awfully specific about Angel killing Connor. Which seems to mean one of two things. It's either another interpretation misdirect, or they're setting it up for Holtz to successfully unsoul Angel, so Angelis can kill his child as revenge for previously killing his children. But it seems either of these would have more impact later if they weren't getting just so damn specific.

I'm starting to wonder if Kate ever plays a role again. I liked her in the first two seasons even if she was played against Angel a bit too much.

Good to see Riley get a proper sendoff. They could have so easily made him act like an ass when he discovered Buffy in bed with Spike.

Again though, obviously none of these writers have ever held a crappy low wage job. My experience with such is less Machiavelian power structures and more just exhausted people joking around and trying to take the path of least resistance through the day.

 

[RoJoHen]

Some of the prophecies are what they are for very specific reasons.

 

[Sparkle Fabulosa]

True, all it means, is that Giles and Joyce would get it on if they had met as teenagers.

I always wanted Giles and Joyce to get together as adults. I thought they would have made a good couple.

 

[Bob Morton]

Eewww. But weren't they like, 40?

 

[Sparkle Fabulosa]

So? 40 year-olds are allowed to have romantic/sexual relationships just as much as younger people.

There isn't an expiration date on love.

 

[Bob Morton]

I forgot we're being serious here. Sorry.

I am like, 40, for the record, and am in total agreement with what you said. Seriously.

 

[Bob Morton]

One of my favorite shows of all time. I just watched the episode where Buffy is explaining to Giles and Riley that Professor Walsh wouldn't want to attend her 19th birthday surprise party because she was like, 40.

 

[Sparkle Fabulosa]

Oh okay. Little bit of advice? When being sarcastic on the Internet, it is best to use emojis. It's kind of difficult to detect a person's tone with just words.

And the fact that Giles attended made her comment all the more funny!