Skip to content

I Finally Figured Out the Problem: Angel Hates Sex

43
Share

I Finally Figured Out the Problem: <i>Angel</i> Hates Sex

Home / I Finally Figured Out the Problem: Angel Hates Sex
Featured Essays angel

I Finally Figured Out the Problem: Angel Hates Sex

I truly love this show... but 25 years later, something finally clicked.

By

Published on January 27, 2025

Credit: 20th Century Fox Television

43
Share
David Boreanaz as Angel and Charisma Carpenter as Cordelia in a season 5 episode of Angel

Credit: 20th Century Fox Television

I am a recovering TV hater. When I was a kid, my parents allowed us very little TV, so I made a snooty virtue of necessity and proclaimed that TV rots your brain and I didn’t want any anyway. This was a lie easily disprovable by the ferocity of my commitment to the soap opera Guiding Light, but I clung to it until college, when the show Firefly (I know, I know) slammed into me like a Mack truck. My older sister found out about this, graciously did not say “I told you so,” and shepherded me into the world of Buffy and, in due time, its companion show, Angel.

I love this TV show. I love it. Angel remains practically unmatched in its success at creating a found family of its characters. Writing this essay made me want to rewatch it, which I am doing right now. I refused to send this piece to my usual beta reader, because they haven’t seen Angel yet and I want neither to spoil it for them nor to give them any reason not to watch it. I watched Angel on the evening of November 6th because it powerfully reminds me that you don’t get a hall pass from the fight just because it’s unwinnable. As you are reading, please hold in your heart the knowledge that this show is, and will probably always be, one of my most beloved pieces of media, ever.

Perhaps inevitably for a long-running show from the early aughts, there’s a lot of fights to be picked with Angel. Some of its problems I’ve only noticed on a rewatch, like the casual violence committed against suspects by a cop character we’re supposed to like. Others were articulable to me even on a first viewing, like that nobody writing for this show had ever met a Black person; Gunn deserved better, and any episode that tried to talk about race should be swiftly yeeted into the sea.

I could never articulate one of my biggest problems with the show—at least not as a college student pulling all-nighters to watch Angel DVDs in my dorm room. I knew it had to do with sex, and I felt like misogyny was mixed in there too some kind of way, but I could never quite put my finger on what was making me feel so icky. Sure, the show punished its characters for having sex, but the show punished its characters for everything they did, not to mention everything they failed to do. And the show condemned misogyny explicitly as well as thematically. What, actually, was my problem?

A quarter-century on from Angel’s inception, I can see that my feeling of ickiness arose from the show’s insistence that sex can’t be meaningful or important unless it’s also hurting people. This is a weirdly consistent theme throughout the show’s run, with very few exceptions. Several of the primary (male) characters have sex (once each) with women who won’t have any lasting impact on plotlines or character development. Fred and Gunn have a sweet, warm relationship that lasts across two seasons, but we virtually never see the sexual side of their relationship. Angel and Cordelia have sex once, but it (a) is a dream and (b) turns Angel evil (“Awakening”). In the landscape of this show, sex is disappointing at best, predatory almost always, and at worst it’s going to kill someone or kickstart the apocalypse.

The show’s original sexual sin—which sets the template for how plot-significant sex will be treated over the course of the series—takes place in the second season, at the end of the so-called “gray Angel” arc. After many ups and downs and magically induced sex dreams and killing a roomful of lawyers, Angel has sex with his vampire ex-girlfriend, Darla. He does this knowing that Darla has been on a thrilling rollercoaster ride through the range of human and vampire morality before landing firmly in “pure evil” territory. He’s also fully cognizant that sex with Darla might turn him evil: the curse that granted him a soul can be reversed, and he can be returned to the nefarious killing machine he used to be, if he experiences a single moment of perfect happiness (glossed in the show as an orgasm during sex with someone he loves).

Instead, the hook-up turns out to be Angel’s personal rock bottom—he describes it as an act of “perfect despair.” Scared straight by the emptiness of his sexual dalliance with mindless evil, he rejects Darla and returns to his friends. Good outcome, right? Except this sets the stage for every other bad thing that happens for the next three seasons. Darla becomes mystically pregnant with a baby whose future—as foretold by prophecy—is shrouded in destruction and misery. Briefly re-ensouled via pregnancy, Darla realizes that the soulless version of her is too evil to be a mother. She stakes herself, in a sacrifice that will allow the baby to be born.

The baby, Connor, comes back later in season three having grown up in a hell dimension, therefore now old enough to have his own perfect despair sexual encounter. He has sex with Cordelia, a person who changed his diapers when he was a baby, because he’s convinced that he’s to blame for the sudden apocalypse Los Angeles is experiencing (“Apocalypse Nowish”). They bone while the city burns, and Angel watches them from a nearby building for some goddamn reason. “But Jenny,” you say, “at least the person he was having sex with wasn’t evil this time!”

GUESS AGAIN, BITCH. We find out that Cordelia is possessed by a demon when this occurs, and she’s only sleeping with Connor to bring on a much bigger apocalypse. Cordelia falls demonically pregnant for a second time (!) and eventually gives birth to villain-goddess Jasmine. Like Darla, Cordelia will not survive childbirth: she lapses into a coma and dies off-screen in the fifth season. Charisma Carpenter has said that her character was written off the show in retaliation for her having had the temerity to get pregnant in real life, which puts an even ickier spin on this sexual encounter and its aftermath.

And then there’s Wesley.

And Fred.

Winifred “Fred” Burkle is a character type that Joss Whedon was never able to stop writing, the big-eyed, vulnerable girl who will inevitably be sexually menaced in a way that’s definitely not voyeuristic or prurient, no sir, it’s happening to teach us an important lesson about Primal Male Urges and The Evils of Misogyny. We can only ever learn this lesson by depicting said misogyny in loving detail and with very broad strokes. This is Angelus with Willow, Caleb/the First Evil with various Potential slayers, Jubal Early with Kaylee, that one… fuckin… client in Dollhouse with Dichen Lachman’s character (God I’m mad that I remember that), and of course, a demon-possessed Wesley with Fred in season three’s “Billy.”

In this godforsaken episode, we meet a character called Billy whose touch “brings out a primordial misogyny in [men], turns them into killers.” Basically, if Billy touches a man, that man turns into a violent incel. The episode depicts and implies a lot of violence against women, and it’s unusually graphic for a show that rarely shows a named character taking any damage that lasts more than about an hour. Here, Wesley gets infected by touching Billy’s blood, which leads to a lengthy sequence in which he threatens Fred, hits her, then stalks her through the hotel as he issues a series of upsettingly sexual threats. A brief sample of what he says:

What do you think it’s like for me? With you smelling the way you do. You think you can taunt a man and get away with it. You brush up close, bat your eyes. Then when our backs are turned you laugh at us… humiliate us.

It is actually really unpleasant! Putting the episode on for long enough to copy down that dialogue sent my heart rate through the roof. Once Billy’s influence wears off, Fred is quick to reassure Wesley that what happened isn’t his fault and that he’s a good man. Fine, okay! I’m not here to argue that the misogyny really is primordial, when bigotry of all kinds are so clearly learned behaviors. Still, it’s striking that the episode closes on how Wesley feels about committing sexualized violence, rather than how Fred feels about having it committed against her by a trusted friend. It’s Fred, rather than Wesley, who takes initiative in repairing the damage to their relationship; and it’s Wesley, rather than Fred, who experiences lasting effects from the violation he suffered in this episode. The episode becomes a pivot point for Wesley’s character journey across the remainder of this season and the next.

As the object of protection, Fred exists at a level of moral purity in her that isn’t present in any of the other (sex-having) ladies of Angel. Sex with Fred can’t be a moral rock bottom—she’s too good and perfect for that!—so it’s taken off the table almost entirely. Indeed, when Fred and Wesley do get together in season five, she dies before they do more than kiss. Fred can be desired, but that desire can’t be consummated, because the vocabulary of the show requires that the act of sex is ethically contaminating. The one and only Fred sex scene we ever see occurs in the episode where she makes the most morally compromising choices we’ll ever see from her (“Supersymmetry”).

The nadirs of “Billy,” which occur without Fred’s participation or consent, set the stage for Wesley’s moral downturn. Later in the season, Wesley finds himself outcast and alone after betraying Angel and his friends, for, let’s say, moderately sympathetic reasons. The evil lawyer Lilah Morgan, an Angel antagonist from early on, tries to tempt Wesley into taking a job with her law firm, Wolfram and Hart. Although he refuses, he starts sleeping with Lilah in the finale of season three. Here again, his sexual choices are meant to illustrate how far he has strayed from the path. “Your former boss has a soul,” Lilah says to Wesley the first time they have sex, “and you’re losing yours.” It’s his own moral rock bottom, as it was for Angel when he had sex with Darla.

Wesley and Lilah keep sleeping together through the first half of season four, and Wesley breaks it off around the same time he’s becoming more fully integrated back into the team at Angel Investigations. Shortly thereafter, Lilah’s killed by the season’s Big Bad, and Wesley has to mutilate her corpse to make sure she doesn’t come back as a vampire. He is sad about this. We dwell quite a lot on how sad it makes him.

Meanwhile, throughout this arc, virtually every character on the show finds time to remark on how much sexier Wesley is, now that he’s sort of awful. Here and always, sex in Angel reaches us via the perspective of the male characters. The show condemns their sexual choices, while simultaneously casting them as victims of magic and manipulation. They are making wicked choices that they will and should regret; but isn’t it kind of sexy and alluring of them, actually? When you think about it? Bad, though. Definitely bad.

It’s this kind of fakey self-flagellation that I find unbearable. I’m all for exploring the complexities of sexual power dynamics, but Angel doesn’t have the range to do that. Instead, it serves up the same tired patterns over and over again, calls it feminism, and expects viewers to eat it up with a spoon and say thank you. Over and over again, sex is the outward sign that the (male) characters have done wrong, and it’s also the punishment they deserve.

Except—it never is the men who end up punished. As much as the show belabors the perspective of the guilt-ridden men, it’s the women who pay, and pay, and pay. Darla sacrifices herself so her despair sex pregnancy son can be born. Lilah gets killed by the Beast’s master, right after Fred (pure, good) finds out that Wesley’s been boning Lilah (seedy, bad). Fred dies because one of her exes loves her so much that he chooses her as the vessel for the second coming of his god. Cordelia dies because—look, I’m trying not to talk that much about Joss Whedon, I am trying so hard to stay in the text, but truly men would rather write five seasons of a television show, get way too obsessed with their own psychosexual narrative, and be a real asshole to Charisma Carpenter, than go to therapy.

Darla dies. Lilah dies. Cordelia dies. Fred dies.

You’re welcome. icon-paragraph-end

About the Author

Jenny Hamilton

Author

Jenny Hamilton reads the end before she reads the middle. She reviews for Strange Horizons and Booklist, and she can be found at her website, on BlueSky grudgingly, and occasionally still on the dying shores of Twitter.
Learn More About
Subscribe
Notify of
Avatar


43 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
wiredog
2 months ago

I’m trying to think of any female character in Buffy that had a happy ending. It has the same problems as Angel. It’s good if you stop watching after “Hush”.

Angel does have an awesome ending.

Avatar
Sophist
2 months ago
Reply to  wiredog

Dawn and Willow both had happy endings. Buffy was happy at the end — the show ends with her smiling, after all — though you could think of it as bittersweet depending on how you feel about Spuffy,

As for the main characters and sex, I don’t see much to criticize with Giles. Willow and Oz had a perfectly healthy sexual relationship. So did Willow and Tara post-Hush until the end of S5. In neither case were the endings of those relationships told through male perspective. Neither, for that matter, were any of Buffy’s relationships. Xander is a different story, but the show makes it pretty clear that his relationships failed because of *his* faults and we are supposed to and do sympathize with the women.

wiredog
2 months ago
Reply to  Sophist

Giles and Willow both get their girlfriends fridged, and that turns Willow into Evil!Willow.

Avatar
2 months ago
Reply to  wiredog

You’re changing your argument, and you’re misusing the word “fridge”.

ChristopherLBennett
2 months ago
Reply to  sophist

Technically you’re right, since “fridging” is specifically killing a female character to motivate a male character, which is a problem because it reflects a wider tendency in fiction to favor male characters’ viewpoints and agency over female characters’. But in this case, killing a partner in the show’s only same-sex relationship raises similar issues of marginalization, so there’s at least some intersectionality there. Although in vernacular, I think it would fall under the “Kill Your Gays” trope rather than the “fridging” trope.

Avatar
2 months ago

Fair.

Avatar
helen
2 months ago
Reply to  Sophist

Buffy suffers, is blamed, or is guilted and shamed by other characters (textually!!) for every single sexual encounter she has.

The first time she has sex, Angel loses his soul and people die; evil!Angel says multiple shitty things to her afterward, about sex. She suffers for it over multiple seasons. Sex with that one college kid ends with him calling her names. Sex with Riley ends with Riley telling her it is her fault that he cheated on her because she’s emotionally unavailable. (for some reason, Xander also berates her for driving her boyfriend to chest on her.) Sex with Spike results in her being shamed by both her terrible ex (Riley) and her terrible friend (Xander), as if she is fundamentally morally bad for sleeping with him. Oh, and then Spike tries to rape her.

It’s not the exact same issues as Angel-the-show, but……Buffy 100% is punished for having sex over the course of BtVS, in a way that feels really unnecessary and unfair to her as a character.

Oh yeah, and Xander gets to be the victim when he hooks up with a demon, but he treats any girl he knows (Buffy and Anya, specifically) as dirty and gross if they have sex with a demon.

Avatar
Ken Burnside
2 months ago
Reply to  helen

100%

Xander is Whedon’s author-avatar, and every time he does something shitty to a recurring female character, every single one of them forgives him and says it’s not his fault.

Fuck that.

I never got into Buffy. I had lots of friends who did, it was their “talk around the water cooler show” while it was on, similar with Angel. And while I didn’t twig to the awfulness of “Women always suffer for men’s misbehavior” in Whedon productions while they were airing (I came closest on seeing how Inara was called “whore” on Firefly, but didn’t quite get it), once you have it pointed out to you, you can’t unsee it, and it sucks almost all of the joy out of rewatching it.

I feel so sorry for the fans for whom this was a core part of their fandom, their identity, etc.

As a palate cleanser: Imagine Buffy written with the same elan and joy as Gilmore Girls.

Avatar
2 months ago
Reply to  Ken Burnside

I’m trying very hard to avoid discussion of Buffy in this thread because it’s OT, so I’ll just note that your first full paragraph is factually wrong.

ChristopherLBennett
2 months ago
Reply to  Ken Burnside

It’s never wise to assume that characters’ attitudes are meant to represent their authors’ attitudes. In the case of Firefly, it was Mal who called Inara a whore, and Whedon specifically created Mal to be a character he disagreed with, a character whose values he didn’t share and that, as he put it, he probably wouldn’t enjoy having over for dinner. He wanted to challenge himself by getting into such a different point of view from his own. The whole point was that Mal was wrong to call Inara a whore, because she was a legal sex worker in a society where that profession was no longer stigmatized, but esteemed. Mal was an outsider from that society, a rebel against its values, and we weren’t necessarily supposed to believe he’d been on the right side. As I mentioned above, by the time of Firefly, Whedon was no longer interested in writing about heroes and villains, just about complex, flawed people whose flaws and failings were the things he found worth exploring.

Basically, writing is like acting — you pretend to be other people and try to simulate them convincingly. So assuming that a character represents the writer’s personality is like assuming they represent the actor’s personality. It’s generally a mistake to try to divine a writer’s beliefs or attitudes from what their characters say and do. Yeah, sometimes writers’ works are polemics for their own beliefs, but it’s unwise to assume that’s the default.

Avatar
2 months ago
Reply to  helen

These are not the arguments I replied to.

Avatar
2 months ago

The early ’00s were very frustrating for me, because nobody else seemed to be watching the same Whedon shows as me. However, the upside is I get to gloat “I told you so” to all the people who thought I was mad–MAD!–which it turns out I quite enjoy.

It seemed to me that the Angel producers were never quite sure what sort of show they wanted Angel to be. I just now thought of a consistent model that explains it all, which I will share without considering if it makes any sense: Angel and company are actually villains.

Over on Buffy, Evil consistently launches world-dooming plan after world-dooming plan, only to be foiled by a high school student and her pals. Once, the big plan fails because the Big Bad decides to make the plan dependent on Spike, of all people. Clearly, evil and overconfident, abject incompetence are inextricable. Probably all those evil plans would have failed anyway or imploded from some unforeseen factor as soon as they succeeded.

Angel and company have the same pattern. They have these big ideas, none of which work. They don’t seem to learn from experience, either.

Avatar
Stuboystu
2 months ago

Well, their takeover of Wolfram and Hart backs you up! I guess in that way it’s about twenty something experiences of trying to find a place in the world.

I think this article does hit on some excellent points that have helped make clear to me some of my uneasiness with the show on watching this (and Buffy) when they were first on.

ChristopherLBennett
2 months ago

“I just now thought of a consistent model that explains it all, which I will share without considering if it makes any sense: Angel and company are actually villains.”

Angel is the beginning of a theme that develops over Whedon’s TV career, a growing rejection of the idea of clearly defined heroes and villains in favor of exploring moral ambiguity. Buffy started out pretty clear-cut; Buffy is a hero killing evil demons. But in later seasons, it started to paint some of the demons sympathetically, blurring the lines a bit. Angel took it further: good and evil are not clear-cut, and the Apocalypse is not a single defeatable evil but the constant everyday chipping away at people’s happiness, freedom, and safety as other people give into their darker sides and temptations. There is no cosmic victory of good over evil, just the everyday struggle to resist our own temptations and fears and choose to do the right thing. “If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do.”

Then we get to Firefly, where the characters were criminals, and where Whedon was consciously interested in exploring protagonists whose values he didn’t agree with. And then you get to his most morally ambiguous show, Dollhouse, where every character is basically just doing what seems to them like the best idea at the time but usually ends up having horrible consequences.

Which is why I find it ironic that after getting deeper and deeper into the exploration of moral ambiguity, Whedon then ended up doing The Avengers and Agents of SHIELD, reverting to a much more straightfoward heroic paradigm. AoS certainly had its share of moral ambiguity and complexity, but its protagonists were still more fundamentally heroic than the characters of Firefly, Dollhouse, or even Angel.

Avatar
2 months ago

I’m not sure I agree with the criticism of Whedon when it comes to the show Angel. Not that Whedon doesn’t deserve criticism, but generally speaking he had less involvement in that show than in any of his other shows. In Seasons 1 and 2 he was focused on Buffy 4 and 5, and thereafter (at least after Once More With Feeling) with Firefly. Angel was a Tim Minear show. The one point where Whedon seems directly culpable on Angel is the treatment of Charisma.

Avatar
helen
2 months ago
Reply to  sophist

Whedon was very involved on at least the first season and the final season, from what I recall. Buffy ended before Angel did and Firefly was canceled (which is why multiple Firefly actors show up in the final seasons of Buffy and Angel…. Caleb, Jasmine, etc). By season 5, Angel was the only show Whedon was working on. I don’t think Tim Minear was ever the showrunner of Angel, though he was an EP and writer. I believe his involvement mostly ended after season 3.

Avatar
2 months ago
Reply to  helen

David Greenwalt was the first one in charge of Angel. He was followed by Minear, who left at the end of S4. It’s a bit unclear who was running the show in S5 — probably Greenwalt or Drew Godard (he was the “executive story editor” for S5).

Avatar
2 months ago
Reply to  sophist

You’re confusing job titles. ‘Executive story editor’ and ‘story editor’ are not leadership positions, except in animated shows. In fact, it’s a beginner’s position in the writers’ room. Goddard was a new writer at the time. The people who run live-action TV shows are executive producers (also known as showrunners).

The first 3 seasons of Angel were helmed by co-creator David Greenwalt, with Minear as his number 2 – he became the most reliable writer/producer becoming co-showrunner during seasons 2 and 3, helping to shape the overall story arcs. Minear left at Whedon’s request to run Firefly, while Greenwalt also left Angel to run another show. David Simkins was hired for season 4, but didn’t work out. He was replaced by Jeffrey Bell, who was the senior writer/producer on Angel at that point. He ran the final two seasons, and would later run Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D..

But regardless of who ran the writers’ room of each show, not a single episode of those shows made it to air without Whedon’s approval. He personally took a pass at any script before signing off. Jane Espenson once said in an interview that everything went through him, even if it was entirely written by someone else.

Avatar
a2zmom
2 months ago

That was only true for season 1-4 of Buffy, Since this is a discussion of Angel, not Buffy. I will say n o more but there are interviews that dispute what you are saying.

ChristopherLBennett
2 months ago

“The people who run live-action TV shows are executive producers (also known as showrunners).”

Well, yes and no, because executive producer credits are given to a wide range of different people, of whom the showrunner is just one. An executive producer can also be the person in charge of the non-writing, logistical aspects of the production (the process of turning the script into a film/episode), or a person in charge of the business side of the production company, or a supervising director given a staff position to oversee the guest directors and maintain a consistent tone, or a cast member important enough to negotiate an EP credit, or a financial backer, or the person who owns the screen rights to the source material but has no involvement whatsoever in the production. Basically “executive producer” means anyone who gets a cut of the profits, for whatever reason. I really wish they’d reform the system to split the title into distinct subcategories so it actually conveys information.

Avatar
2 months ago

I know there are other non-showrunner EPs. I just meant to keep the explanation simple enough.

Having said that, Buffy and Angel had a much smaller amount of EPs besides Whedon compared to today’s shows. The only exceptions were the Kuzuis (who made the 1992 film) and a couple of EPs from the production company that also shared the rights and backed Whedon.

Last edited 2 months ago by Eduardo S H Jencarelli
Avatar
2 months ago

Although not to the same extent as Angel, I would say that Buffy also has an uncomfortable relationship with sex. How does Angel turn evil in the first place? Because Buffy loses her virginity to him. How do we know that Faith is evil? Because she’s a kinky sexual libertine. There’s literally a bit in “Who Are You?” where Faith is helped along on her redemption arc by having tender vanilla sex with Riley (albeit in a scene that’s still basically her raping him, not that the series really directly acknowledges that). When Buffy’s at her lowest, she starts shagging Spike. Almost immediately after we see Willow and Tara naked in bed together, the latter gets shot (and Willow turns evil). There are still a few positive depictions of sex–I don’t remember anything bad coming of Willow and Oz sleeping together, for example, nor even of Xander and Anya’s freewheeling sexcapades (although both of those relationships ended badly)–but it’s still several points on a trend line.

ChristopherLBennett
2 months ago
Reply to  jaimebabb

“How does Angel turn evil in the first place? Because Buffy loses her virginity to him.”

Yeah, but that was on her 17th birthday, and he was over a century old, so it wasn’t so much saying sex was bad as that an older man having sex with an underage girl is bad. (A web search says the age of consent in California is 18 with no close-in-age exception, though I don’t know if that was the case when Buffy was made.) I recall Whedon saying that it was a metaphor for how a girl can fall for a man who seems ideal and then have him turn out to be a creep once they have sex.

Last edited 2 months ago by ChristopherLBennett
Avatar
2 months ago

There is a “close in age” exception (within 3 years) which reduces the crime from a felony to a misdemeanor. That was also true back then.

Last edited 2 months ago by sophist
ChristopherLBennett
2 months ago
Reply to  sophist

Okay, serves me right for doing a hasty web search. But it’s hardly relevant given that the age difference between Buffy and Angel was 254 years (I looked it up this time). What I meant was, I don’t know whether the California age of consent was 18 back then as well as today. If it was, it’s kind of weird that it never came up in that Buffy storyline.

Avatar
2 months ago

I wasn’t disagreeing with you, just supplying the detail.

ChristopherLBennett
2 months ago
Reply to  sophist

I mean you focused on the wrong part. I wasn’t asking about the close-in-age detail, I was asking if anyone could confirm that the age of consent in California was the same in 1998 when the episode aired as it is now.

Avatar
2 months ago

I thought my last sentence in the original reply did that. In case it’s ambiguous, yes the law was the same in 1998 as it is today.

Last edited 2 months ago by sophist
Avatar
2 months ago
Reply to  jaimebabb

I mean, the reason Angel lost his soul is to deal with the metaphor of a young woman abandoned by her boyfriend after sex.

It’s a horror

How does sex positivity induce anxiety and fear?

Avatar
2 months ago
Reply to  C.T. Phipps

You can plead reasons for a lot of these, but it’s still a point of data.

Avatar
2 months ago

I think that the reason Angel and Buffy were good were everyone not named Whedon.

I do think part of the problem is that Angel and Buffy are HORROR COMEDIES and it seems weird that a huge chunk of the objections to the story are that they’re…horror. There’s complaints about people dying, people having unhappy endings, and the issues brought up are ones that induce anxiety or real life fears.

Last edited 2 months ago by C.T. Phipps
ChristopherLBennett
2 months ago

I find the premise of this article questionable. I think you have to consider the wider context. Fiction is about things going wrong. It wasn’t just sex that caused bad things to happen in Buffy/Angel, it was practically everything. School was dangerous. Band candy was dangerous. Teachers, politicians, and other authority figures turned out to be monsters. Lawyers were in league with the devil (never mind the “We already knew that” jokes). These were horror shows, as C.T. Phipps said, so by their nature they were about things that seemed benign turning out to go horribly wrong. So I don’t think you can really single out sex as the specific thing it was painting negatively.

If sex was heavily focused on, it’s because these were soapy dramas aimed at young adult viewers. Most of the shows on their respective networks had a similar emphasis on sexual relationships among their characters and the problems that inevitably resulted. Because fiction is about things going wrong. That’s not “hate,” it’s just the anthropic principle of storytelling: If things don’t go wrong, there’s no story.

Avatar
Lucy
2 months ago

To me the point of this is who the focus in the stories is on. Naturally conflict needs to happen (I don’t think this article is saying otherwise), things need to go wrong. But the show saves its true empathy (i.e. long-term exploration of the consequences) for the male characters involved, while often cutting off any exploration for its female characters with death (which of course is then about how this death affects the men left behind). It reminds me of Star Trek TNG, which gives Picard a whole episode to come to terms with being assimilated by the Borg (because in the words of the writers he wouldn’t just get over it), while Troi gets raped and gives birth to her rapist and there is never any exploration of this being an actual massive trauma if it really happened. It is a wider issue in media (male writers struggling to understand what sexual violence is and how it impacts women), but it’s worth commenting on – especially in a show like Angel where sex and sex-related trauma has such a meaningful role in the characters lives. It’s also important to note that there is a pattern with how this show treats sex and what it represents. I feel like you’re missing the point by saying you need to consider the wider context – the wider context is a different conversation and that doesn’t invalidate this one.

ChristopherLBennett
2 months ago
Reply to  Lucy

But it seems to me that having a gender bias in the writing is also a separate conversation from “hating sex.” So if that was the intent, then the headline is completely misleading.

Avatar
flootzavut
2 months ago

It’s actually Cordy’s third mystical pregnancy I’m afraid – the one where that demon puts its spawn in the back of her head also counts as a pregnancy, albeit one that looks a bit different than we expect.

Also thank you for pointing out the Fred/Wes thing. The fact she apologises when she was the victim makes me absolutely lose my mind, and then in the episode where she dies, she also apologises to him, and I’m like Joss, get therapy I beg of you. (Also I loathe how Fred/Gunn is largely framed through the lens of “isn’t it sad for Wes” and thanks I hate it.

I’ve seen it suggested that Wes has sex to be a noir stand in for Angel, who largely doesn’t (and shouldn’t) have sex per the lore of the show, because otherwise some poor woman’s vagina might make him evil. So Wes is having the dubious morality sex that Angel can’t. Again, thanks, I hate it.

Good article, thank you!

Avatar
2 months ago
Reply to  flootzavut

Billy was written by Jeffrey Bell and Tim Miner. Which is kind of my point that Joss was one of many voices behind these shows.

Avatar
RobinM
2 months ago

Cordilia’s ending storyline is icky and upsetting on multiple levels. You do not sleep with people you used to babysit or thought for an entire episode might be your kid. The first time I watched Angel in its original run I was always upset by what happened to Fred too. Not only was she killed off (I hate that!), but her soul was destroyed so she has no afterlife. Destroying her soul on top of killing her off really upset me. I didn’t realize until years later that Joss Whedon is an atheist and doesn’t believe in anything like souls or the afterlife. If you binge-watch Buffy or Angel you will notice a lot of dead or crazy female characters. It’s not fridging exactly but it’s not good either. I do truly enjoy several episodes from every season except the Jasmine storyline.

Avatar
2 months ago
Reply to  RobinM

From what I’ve heard, it comes out in the comics or graphic novels that Fred’s soul survived. I’m not sure of the exact details though.

Avatar
Jakob
2 months ago

Even back then as a big Angel fan, I remember the end of the Darla arc giving me shivers (and not of the good kind). I desperately looked for a way to redeem this “redemption” arc from the utter misogyny it espouses, but I just don’t see how (and in the light of what we know about the show’s creator today, that’s probably because, well, it espouses utter misogyny). So there’s an evil, empty shell of a woman who only just becomes “ensouled” by being the vessel of a baby. And the most noble thing she can do is end her existence to give life to that baby. Really, what is there not to hate about this story? I was baffled by it, especially by it happening in the Buffyverse. Despite some great storytelling, it sometimes felt as if Angel was the anti-feminist answer to Buffy. Sadly, this actually makes tons of sense now …

Last edited 2 months ago by Jakob
ChristopherLBennett
2 months ago
Reply to  Jakob

As mentioned above, though, Whedon didn’t run Angel. David Greenwalt was the original showrunner and lead developer, and Tim Minear was the showrunner in most of the series. Minear wrote most of the key Darla episodes you’re referring to.

Avatar
2 months ago

What do you think it’s like for me? With you smelling the way you do. You think you can taunt a man and get away with it. You brush up close, bat your eyes. Then when our backs are turned you laugh at us… humiliate us.

Actually, I found this to be a perfect descriptor of what patriarchal cultures and religions do to so many men, even if it’s just at a subconscious level — making them hate women because they see their own desire for women as something that makes them weak, with women exploiting them for it. Even while most women have no idea this is a thing. Hence the importance of controlling women in places like Afghanistan.

Avatar
Angelica
2 months ago

Considering what has come out about Joss, I’m honestly not surprised to see how his beliefs saturated and poisoned his tv shows

Avatar
a2zmom
2 months ago

I’m curious as to why you ignored the fact that Angel was sexually assaulted for weeks by Darla in the beginning of season2. She magically roofied him.

reCaptcha Error: grecaptcha is not defined