• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.
  • Thank you for visiting Buffy-Boards. You obviously have exceptional taste. We just want you to know that:
    1. You really should register so you can chat with us!
    2. Twelve thousand people can't be wrong.
    3. Buffy-Boards loves you.
    4. See 1 through 3.
    Come on, register already!

When were Buffy and Angel officially together ?

Joined
Mar 23, 2017
Messages
1,254
Likes
2,330
Black Thorn
#42
I read all 44 of the sonnets back in my first year of college, and I thought the whole book was so uncannily Buffy/Angel that I went and made desktop images for every last poem. I still use them as my screensaver.
Oh wow! That's amazing. Is #39 your favorite in terms of the Buffy/Angel connection or would you pick a different one?
 

Taaroko

Gunner of the USS Buffy/Angel
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
412
Likes
628
#43
Looking back over them, it is extremely hard to choose, but #1 and #39 are both likely in the top five.
 

Curious Pathos

"You're the one, Buffy."
Joined
Nov 9, 2017
Messages
187
Likes
197
Age
23
#44
I think so much of that scene as others have said is coloured by the fact that Angel is in love with Buffy and sometimes when you look back at your first meeting with someone that can be coloured by the feelings you have for them at that moment. I think that what you saw from Angel initially with Buffy was empathy and compassion, a desire to help and protect perhaps. But you can tell from their Season 1 interactions that he was hesitant to have a relationship with her so I don't think he saw her and was all about the romance. I think that grew in time and now that he is love with her he thinks back to that first meeting through that lens.
I agree. I like this reasoning, but I am not sure if that was properly portrayed by the flashbacks. It might be due to the fact David's acting in the scene made me think Angel was more confused than intrigued, protective, or concerned. I could have been the writing that really did not lend itself to that interpretation. The show seems to want to take the scenes at face value as Buffy cannon historical fact, instead of rose-coloured reflection.

All absolutely true, but I guess I'm just trying to reason why they might have chosen to go with that particular angle. I think Angel is also taking his cue from what she says beforehand: 'Before I became the Slayer I was... well I don't want to say shallow, but...'. She fears without her slayer powers she will regress to the supposedly shallow person she was before ('Spordelia'), but Angel's trying to say 'no, you always had that warmth and compassion in you. It didn't just come from being the Slayer'.
What do you think about him bringing up her mentor, Merrick, in this situation? or maybe Joyce? How do you think he could make a decent argument against 'Spordelia' regression?

Also, I think this scene is different because it has to do with Buffy as the Slayer. He is not trying to convey to her that he knew her before her powers or without her powers. It's just conveying a different sentiment. Hard to compare.
This was just my point of reference. If Riley ever made a good argument for knowing Buffy, I would have brought that up, too. I see the Spike scene as an expression of knowing Buffy fully, as both the Slayer and the girl. I also see this scene as Angel expressing he knows Buffy, as both the Slayer and the girl, and I know he does. I just want him to be more clear about it. He knows she is Buffy who happens to have a Slayer calling on her life. He understands that the Slayer is a necessary part of her, and he knows that it is not who she is, entirely. He is trying to encourage her, telling her that her lack of Slayer power doesn't take away who she is, and he is right because the loss of power does not cause a loss of maturity or experience. His approach to the argument is not the best, but he is successful. I just think he could have told the same story about seeing her before she was called, made a stronger point about how they both have changed for the better through their already present potential, and will not let each other regress into their former selves, echoing what she did for him in Amends. Or something like that...It's just the whole point of the episode is that the Slayer powers don't make the Slayer. She is the Slayer, even without her Slayer powers; and, she proves that at the end of the episode. I find it hard to connect the end of the episode with his argument here.
 
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
1,606
Likes
2,890
Age
30
#45
@Grace @EarthLogic @Taaroko

I just read the first poem from Sonnets from the Portuguese and WOW! Not only is this so melancholic and beautiful but it fits Angel so much (his backstory, the tone of it), I am so glad you guys talked about this book today. This is amazing, I just ordered the book on Amazon. I'll keep reading the poems on Wikisource because I can't wait for the book, but it's the kind of book I want to hold in my hands.

Poetry is a bit of a new territory for me (I haven't read much as I'm more interested in novels, theater and essays) so it feels a bit like I don't have much to compare it to, I just really love the tone and it speaks to me.

I love how there's always new things to discover on this show that can add meaning to the story, the characters and the relationships. I choose to believe that Fury (or Whedon?) specifically picked that book because it fitted Angel and his relationship to Buffy. Now I wish we had some quotes on this by the writers!
 

Kairos

Joyous Rebel
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
216
Likes
74
Location
USA
#46
I read all 44 of the sonnets back in my first year of college, and I thought the whole book was so uncannily Buffy/Angel that I went and made desktop images for every last poem. I still use them as my screensaver.
I was reading this thread all "where's Taaroko?" and here you are, so I don't have to look for that link on my phone.

Bangel historians might be interested to know that I wrote that fic mentioned upthread, "Help the Helpless", during/after her desktop project. Oh! And that's why there's now an image of the Claddagh ring behind the words "silver answer", if I recall correctly. And then I chose silveranswer as my username on deviantArt. Mutual fanworks inspiration ftw!

...It's still the wallpaper on my Mac, too.
 
Mylie
Mylie
I will definitely be reading that fic once I find some time! :)

Taaroko

Gunner of the USS Buffy/Angel
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
412
Likes
628
#47
Oh, wow, how did I forget about the Silver Answer icon I made you? I only remembered that you helped me with the design for the desktop image, and that you were particularly struck by that sonnet. *digs through old chat files* Dang, it really was quite a process, getting to the point of wanting to make them all into desktops. You gave me the idea to use "Beauty and the Beasts" for that sonnet instead of "Amends," and then the rest fell into place. And because you were writing a fic based on that one at the same time, we were totally building off each other's energy over it. Hehe! Fun times. I need to go reread that fic sometime when it's not half past midnight.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Messages
4,737
Likes
3,434
Location
Canada
Sineya
#48
When were Buffy and Angel officially together? Is there some official somewhere who declared them to be together? They came together, they impressed each other, they had sex, Angelus arose, he was re-souled, they got back together and Angel has never left Buffy's mind and Buffy has never left Angel's mind even as they went on to other relationships and sex partners.
 
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Messages
1,098
Likes
711
Location
Las Vegas, US
#49
Oh they had a relationship sure, but they were never really together. At least I never viewed it as such. They weren't a couple as they never really coupled.
Some couples stay in and watch Netflix or go to the buffet or do extreme sports.

There isn't a specific thing that makes two people a couple instead of "friends with benefits" or "ongoing hookup" or "deep connection with sexual aspect" or any of the other ways to describe people that aren't in an official relationship.

Buffy had sex with Spike for months but he wasn't her boyfriend.

Angel & Buffy checked A LOT off of the "we're a couple" list. On their own, none of it counts but combined it paints a very "significant other" picture.

They went on dates (coffee, movies, ice skating), gave each other romantic gifts (rings, love poetry), had candlelit picnics, napped under a blanket in bed, held hands, attended formal events together, and were exclusive.

"And maybe a drawer, for some of my stuff. Because that's what couples do, they have drawers."
 
Last edited:

Spanky

Sir Spanks-a-lot
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
16,158
Likes
6,477
Black Thorn
#50
"And maybe a drawer, for some of my stuff. Because that's what couples do, they have drawers."
But the question wasn't were they a couple. It was were they officially together. I don't think they were really ever "together" at least not how I would define it.
 

Spanky

Sir Spanks-a-lot
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
16,158
Likes
6,477
Black Thorn
#52
What is your definition of "together"?
I think most consider couples together.
Having an ongoing intimate relationship with a person that is frequently sexual usually resulting in one party residing with another party for more than a one-night hook up. That is being together with someone. Otherwise you are just dating. Dating is not officially together.
 
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Messages
1,098
Likes
711
Location
Las Vegas, US
#53
Having an ongoing intimate relationship with a person that is frequently sexual usually resulting in one party residing with another party for more than a one-night hook up. That is being together with someone. Otherwise you are just dating. Dating is not officially together.
What about asexuals? Or those who are permanently impotent? Or have taken a vow of chastity (Gandhi with his wife)? Or one has AIDS and fears their partner contracting it? Or women who have the psychosomatic disorder vaginismus?

On Downton Abbey, if Mathew had never regained feeling in his lower extremities, he would've still eventually been together with and married Mary. Just no sex.

If you've seen Pushing Daisies, do you think Ned & Chuck could ever really be together if he can literally never touch her on account it'll kill her? Or Dark Angel when Max was poisoned with something that created an allergy between her and Logan so they couldn't touch?

Buffy & Scott were merely "dating" and that's why in I Was Made To Love You she said "I've had exactly two boyfriends." (Angel, Riley)
 

Spanky

Sir Spanks-a-lot
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
16,158
Likes
6,477
Black Thorn
#54
What about asexuals? Or those who are permanently impotent? Or have taken a vow of chastity (Gandhi with his wife)? Or one has AIDS and fears their partner contracting it? Or women who have the psychosomatic disorder vaginismus?
Then remove the frequently sexual:
Having an ongoing intimate relationship with a person resulting in one party residing with another party for more than a one-night hook up. That is being together with someone. Otherwise you are just dating. Dating is not officially together.

Buffy and Angel still were not officially together.
 

EarthLogic

Kissy th' face!
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
1,089
Likes
2,121
Location
London, UK
#55
To be honest I find this whole question a little ridiculous. How are we supposed to define 'official' anyway? There's no benchmark or qualification for it; it's not like someone from the Dating Authority of Coupledom has to come round with a clipboard asking them to sign a formal declaration! The only people who can define their relationship status are the people who it actually involves - if Buffy and Angel consider themselves together, they're together. And from the way they acted pre-Innocence and by the latter half of S3, I think it's clear they regarded themselves as a couple at those points.
 
flow
flow
I am sorry to hear, you find my wording ridicoulous. Maybe your wording is better, but your tone definitely isn`t.
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Messages
1,098
Likes
711
Location
Las Vegas, US
#56
Then remove the frequently sexual:
Having an ongoing intimate relationship with a person resulting in one party residing with another party for more than a one-night hook up. That is being together with someone. Otherwise you are just dating. Dating is not officially together.

Buffy and Angel still were not officially together.
But Angel & Buffy were "ongoing" and "intimate" and she spent the night at his place several times (fell asleep on his bed in What's My Line #1, fell asleep by her bed in Angel, napped next to each other on his bed in Helpless) outside of sex in Surprise. He sat by her bed and kissed her hand & forehead in Earshot.

They exchanged rings, said "I love you", discussed children, reassured the other of their devotion and fidelity, talked alone for hours in a personal setting, etc.

When they had sex, it wasn't a hookup. It was 100% about furthering a connection and a culmination of their relationship, instead of just sexual gratification.

They both confessed their love and said they belong to each other, prior to sex.

Angel put a ring on Buffy's marriage finger and then took her virginity. That's practically a wedding & honeymoon.
 

Spanky

Sir Spanks-a-lot
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
16,158
Likes
6,477
Black Thorn
#57
@crazysoulless Whatever. It just asked when you thought they were officially together. I said why I thought they were never officially together. Gave you examples of why I thought that. Defined what it meant to me. But even your lists above don't negate why I dont think they were ever officially together, and none of your examples touch on what I defined as together. So... I'll just leave it at that. Yeah, they were a couple. Were they together. No. You think they were together, that's cool. To you they may have been. To me they were not.
 

EarthLogic

Kissy th' face!
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
1,089
Likes
2,121
Location
London, UK
#58
flow: I am sorry to hear, you find my wording ridicoulous. Maybe your wording is better, but your tone definitely isn`t.
Sorry if I came across as harsh. I honestly didn't mean to. I don't find your find your wording ridiculous; I meant 'question' in the sense of the idea of it, not the actual phrasing. I was mainly responding to the idea that some have put forward in this thread that there can somehow be a concrete definition of what makes a couple 'official' i.e. the kind of objective qualification Mr Pole has suggested, which implies that if a relationship doesn't fit those criteria then it doesn't qualify as being 'together'. That's something I just don't agree with.
 
flow
flow
Thank you