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

[gblews]

Wait, wait. They make Buffy bisexual? Ok, one previously heterosexual attractive female gets in a relationship with a woman, it's progressive. Two, it's wish fulfillment of male writers.

But that's not actually what happened. They didn't "make her bisexual." What happened was that a friend named Satsu, who was lesbian, developed a crush on Buffy, and though Buffy discouraged her at first, she was open-minded enough that she eventually decided to give it a try. She enjoyed it enough to do it a couple of times, but finally decided that she just wasn't able to return Satsu's feelings, because she wasn't bisexual.

That wasn't how I interpreted Buffy's actions in that scene. I thought Buffy ended the relationship, not because she wasn't bisexual, she had already shown that she was by having sex with a woman, but because she wasn't in love with Satsu.

This is what I've been saying -- it's a huge, huge mistake to confuse behavior with orientation.

I think it is a huge mistake to ignore behavior as an indicator of orientation. It's like you're ignoring reality in order to make things fit into a neat little easily defined package.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I think one of the writers is just mistaking his fantasies for creative inspiration.

The fact that the answer to my question contains spoilers suggests that the writers haven't forgotten about Amy, and she just hasn't appeared at all since the funny scene where Willow unwittingly fixed her then re-ratted her.

 

[Sparkle Fabulosa]

Again, spoilers. Amy Madison is not gone forever!

 

[Christopher]

That wasn't how I interpreted Buffy's actions in that scene. I thought Buffy ended the relationship, not because she wasn't bisexual, she had already shown that she was by having sex with a woman, but because she wasn't in love with Satsu.

You haven't been listening. Just having sex with a woman does not make a person bisexual. That is not how it works. I've explained how behavior and orientation can be two different things. Buffy tried sex with a woman but decided it wasn't something she was interested in doing on a regular basis. Therefore, she's not bisexual.

It's like the difference between weather and climate. One is about individual events, the other is about the overall, long-term pattern. If a region with a dry climate has one huge rainstorm, or if a region with a cold climate has one atypically warm week, that doesn't mean its climate has changed, just that there's variation in the weather within an overall climate pattern. By the same token, a single instance of same-sex behavior does not negate an overall heterosexual orientation. Because orientation, like climate, is a long-term pattern. Buffy would only count as bisexual if she continued to be interested in both men and women over the long term.

I think it is a huge mistake to ignore behavior as an indicator of orientation. It's like you're ignoring reality in order to make things fit into a neat little easily defined package.

No, it's like I took a human sexuality class in college and actually know what the hell I'm talking about.

 

[theenglish]

Was Joss Wheadon involved in the post-show comics? That wholly determines my interest in them. That it sprung from the same creative mind as the show.

Yes, it was produced by Whedon and he wrote/co-wrote a lot of the storylines and individual books. And it is considered "canon". Same for Season 9 and 10 series of the comics. In later stories they also start including Angel storylines and characters.

There are some lists around that list all the official comicbooks and preferred reading order. But I would say that starting to read Season 9 would be pretty good starting point. And if it interests you, then digging up rest of the books and order in which to read them.

Personally I don't pay much attention to the comics they say its canon but it is really not. if buffy did a reunion show I guarantee they will ignore the comics. think of it as the star wars expanded universe effect

In this case, the creator and show runner of the entire concept of Buffy from the movie through both television series is still in charge of the comics and their direction. So, because THE AUTHOR SAYS SO, its canon. End of discussion. Period.

Any other interpretation if "fan fiction".

 

[theenglish]

Wait, wait. They make Buffy bisexual? Ok, one previously heterosexual attractive female gets in a relationship with a woman, it's progressive. Two, it's wish fulfillment of male writers.

But that's not actually what happened. They didn't "make her bisexual." What happened was that a friend named Satsu, who was lesbian, developed a crush on Buffy, and though Buffy discouraged her at first, she was open-minded enough that she eventually decided to give it a try. She enjoyed it enough to do it a couple of times, but finally decided that she just wasn't able to return Satsu's feelings, because she wasn't bisexual.

That wasn't how I interpreted Buffy's actions in that scene. I thought Buffy ended the relationship, not because she wasn't bisexual, she had already shown that she was by having sex with a woman, but because she wasn't in love with Satsu.

This is what I've been saying -- it's a huge, huge mistake to confuse behavior with orientation.

I think it is a huge mistake to ignore behavior as an indicator of orientation. It's like you're ignoring reality in order to make things fit into a neat little easily defined package.

What you are saying is biologically incorrect and goes against basically everything we know about human sexuality. Under the right social norms, we can behave in many different ways.

Historically, for example, the ancient Greeks and Romans performed sexual acts with same and different sex partners because that was the social norm. Today in prisons, heterosexuals perform sexual acts with their own gender (and it is horrible that we joke about this) because of circumstance. We can't judge someone's sexual orientation based on behavior because behavior is determined by social norms and circumstance.

 

[Christopher]

Today in prisons, heterosexuals perform sexual acts with their own gender (and it is horrible that we joke about this) because of circumstance.

You're unfortunately conflating two separate issues there. Joking about prison rape is certainly horrible, but not all same-sex interactions in prison are nonconsensual. It's not at all uncommon for heterosexual people in single-sex environments -- whether prison, the military, or whatever -- to engage consensually in same-sex behavior.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Also it's weird that Giles is out of the main credits. It's like if TNG started saying "Special Guest Star: Brent Spiner".

I'm watching the musical episode. Hilarious idea. Also: "Respect the kruller...and tame the donut!" Nice Magnolia reference in there, which feels kind of like a clever censor bypass for a deceptively really dirty joke.

 

[Forbin]

Forbin, that's funny and horrible at the same time! I would have slapped him.

Keep in mind they were really good friends, and both soused.

 

[theenglish]

Today in prisons, heterosexuals perform sexual acts with their own gender (and it is horrible that we joke about this) because of circumstance.

You're unfortunately conflating two separate issues there. Joking about prison rape is certainly horrible, but not all same-sex interactions in prison are nonconsensual. It's not at all uncommon for heterosexual people in single-sex environments -- whether prison, the military, or whatever -- to engage consensually in same-sex behavior.

That's exactly what I was referring to.

 

[Sparkle Fabulosa]

Also it's weird that Giles is out of the main credits. It's like if TNG started saying "Special Guest Star: Brent Spiner".

I'm watching the musical episode. Hilarious idea. Also: "Respect the kruller...and tame the donut!" Nice Magnolia reference in there, which feels kind of like a clever censor bypass for a deceptively really dirty joke.

Which song is your favourite?

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Also it's weird that Giles is out of the main credits. It's like if TNG started saying "Special Guest Star: Brent Spiner".

I'm watching the musical episode. Hilarious idea. Also: "Respect the kruller...and tame the donut!" Nice Magnolia reference in there, which feels kind of like a clever censor bypass for a deceptively really dirty joke.

Which song is your favourite?

Rest In Peace.

 

[Sparkle Fabulosa]

Ooh that's a good one! In case you didn't know, James Marsters (Spike) had a band in the early 2000's called Ghost of the Robot. You should check them out.

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

From this year:

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGCTwjgpp54[/yt]

 

[Sparkle Fabulosa]

Um, why isn't he using his Spike accent? It sounds weird with his natural accent.

 

[Christopher]

Um, why isn't he using his Spike accent? It sounds weird with his natural accent.

If he's doing it as an independent music video performed by James Marsters rather than playing the role of Spike in a performance of "Once More With Feeling," then there's no reason to do it in character. We've already heard the "Spike" version of the song, so I'd imagine he wanted to offer a new interpretation.

 

[Sparkle Fabulosa]

I guess that makes sense.

 

[RoJoHen]

Also it's weird that Giles is out of the main credits. It's like if TNG started saying "Special Guest Star: Brent Spiner".

Stop watching the credits. You're unintentionally spoiling yourself.

 

[Sparkle Fabulosa]

They should have kept him as a regular in the credits so there wouldn't be any spoilers.

 

[theenglish]

Also it's weird that Giles is out of the main credits. It's like if TNG started saying "Special Guest Star: Brent Spiner".

Stop watching the credits. You're unintentionally spoiling yourself.

Spoiler: Minor Spoiler about Giles future on Buffy--doesn't really spoil plot details.

IRL, he was planning on moving back to England and there was actually a Buffy spin off in the works called Ripper that was being written for him. The project fell through and he doesn't really stay away from the series completely.