Given all the talk about consent recently, I suddenly realised something - and you know, I don't think I've ever seen this discussed anywhere. (Although there may have been a huge debate that I just missed, of course...)
Remember this scene from 'Him' in Season 7 - Buffy and RJ in the empty classroom, just before Xander discovers them there:
1. Are they having sex here, rather than just making out? (He's still got his jeans on, but then so did Spike in 'Smashed')
2. Does RJ know that his Letterman jacket has the effect on women that it does, rather than being oblivious to it? (And just assumes he's really, really popular and lucky.)
3. Is this rape?
Because if the answers to 1) and 2) are yes, then so is the answer to 3), and yet 'Him' never gets mentioned in the same breath as 'The Pack' or 'Seeing Red' or even 'Dead Things' and 'All The Way'.
Mind you, there's an argument to be made that in a world where magic is real, we can't always use direct 1:1 analogies to consent issues in our own world. The jacket doesn't seem to affect Buffy's ability to consent so much as her desire to... the metaphor in this episode seems to be that the jacket represents the aura of glamour, fame, sophistication and attractiveness that surrounds the popular kids in school, or sports stars and actors in the real world, and makes ordinary people forget their inhibitions and lust after them - as opposed to, say, the jacket is a date-rape drug. So based on that, I'm wondering - if you were a government legislator in the Buffyverse when magic, demons and the supernatural suddenly became common knowledge, and you were charged with drafting a new sexual offences law, what would you rule in relation to magical Letterman Jackets of Lust?