56. Heretofore Het Willow Gets a Girlfriend

For four seasons, Willow Rosenberg has been Buffy The Vampire Slayer's best friend, the shy computer whiz with a gift for magic- stand-in for every late bloomer, every sweet person on the cusp of something really special. This year, she fell in love with a girl. It was a breakthrough event for TV. Experimental Kisses aside, teenage lesbians are new for the networks, especially witches who perform ecstatic spells together that look a lot like orgasms. During one spell, while her girlfriend chanted words of power, Willow turned red, shook uncontrollably and arched her back - a more vulnerable display of adolescent sexuality than we've seen from any girl on the small screen. Almost as daring, Willow suddenly started liking girls. She didn't "discover" her "true" sexual orientation. Willow was really in love with her werewolf boyfriend Oz, in areally hetero way. Now she's really in love with Tara, in a really lesbo way. That the show doesn't expalin this is the part I like the most. Even more startling, Willow chose Tara over Oz when she had the opportunity to get her boyfriend back last spring. Teenagers who change sexual orientation as they explore new options? It's the religious right's worst nightmare (and my favorite dream). People who don't watch the show assume it's just campy candy, but they're wrong: The horror elements are metaphors for the pleasures and dangers of intimacy, the power of sex itself. Mild-mannered Willow actually becomes butch in Tara's presence, a far cry from her wallflower high-school self. When Willow expalins to tara that she hadn't told her friends about Tara because she wanted "something that was .. mine, " Tara takes a deep breath, then responds, "I am, you know... yours." Now for the frustrating part: The show is cowardly, even homophobic, about the girls' literal sexual life. For months, all they did was cast spells, allowing some viewers to insist that nothing was going on but salutes to the Goddess. They're an open couple now, but we've never seen them kiss. Buffy and military boyfriend Riley practically f u c k on-screen, Willow and Tara hug and light candles. It makes me crazy. I'd organize a boycott. But, then, well... I'd never find out what happens next.

I really like this pic. The lightning part.

Click for larger image

If, for example, some establishment did not serve some group of people (e.g. on racial grounds), and thus, one saw only, say, white people being allowed there, I agree that might make that place look racist. But if the establishment is only allowed to stay open if it abides by the law that it *not* serve non-whites, are its owners necessarily racist, particularly if they do the best rule-bending they can (like, say, serving non-whites out back for a discount, a la Fried Green Tomatoes)?

-len

does anyone know where i can find the infamous "make willow gay" article from salon? i'd love to read it.

And while I feel protective of the show when she makes charges of homophobia, I have to admit that I, too, have wondered about what would happen if Joss pushed harder for a kiss. I am certainly pleased overall with how he and the cast have handled the storyline. But I think about the many BUFFY viewers/fans who don't spend hours online digging for the inside scoop about the show and the W/T arc -- what they are left with is what they see (and don't see) onscreen. So the juxtaposition of Buffy/Riley sex fests with Willow/Tara spells and euphemisms is pretty glaring. The average viewer will not necessarily come to the conclusion that the disparity is deliberate and to make a point about the stupidity of WB restrictions.

It's a fine line that the show walks in trying to please both the casual and obsessed viewers, but I think it holds up well for both camps. Still, from time to time both are also going to feel cheated by the lack of something (i.e. timely resolutions to past events like Amy being de-ratted) or the presence of something (i.e. how Dawn's debut was not expected or understood by many fans).

but anyway, i loved the salon article. xita, we can always count on you to provide the w/t-related goodies that we need...

judy, what do you mean "the 'other' buffy fans who don't hang out on message boards obsessively"? you mean my almost 600 posts in three months isn't normal? my god, what will people think of me? i'm going to have to start loudly trumpeting my love of "felicity" or "the street" to cover up my secret w/t life...

Donna Minkowitz is awesome, though. i had no idea that she was also the person who infiltrated the promise keepers. i have immense respect for her, and her salon article was dead on. i think that's the reason why w/t resonates for me so much more than the other same-sex goings-on on tv recently (ER, xena, dawson, ally mcwhatever...) i just don't get as excited about subtext and having to take that extra step to read between the lines, or short story arcs involving ill-fated relationships that disappear without a trace. and with willow and tara, i can tune in every week (well, almost every week) and see their maintext, caring, unapologetic relationship right there. it's great. and they're so damn *hot* together, too!

oh, and have i mentioned that i *love* the fact that nerve chose the flaming o spell to illustrate their blurb? woo and hoo!

oh, PS xita, i just introduced my gf to the wonders of "hush", and she too was blown away by the intense stares and intertwining hands of the soda machine scene. "so did they have sex once the door was barricaded, or what?" was her question...

I completely agree that the lack of sexual intimacy between W and T *is* glaring. And a double-standard. And hence wrong.

But I still think that accusations of homophobia, like of racism and other bigotry, should not be made lightly. I know it was kind of a throw-away line in the article ... "even homophobic", and I appreciate that not everyone knows the constraints that the network has placed on the Buffy creators, but surely Donna Minkowitz is not so naive as to think that Joss Whedon has free rein to do what he wants.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wolliw:
Hey,
But I still think that accusations of homophobia, like of racism and other bigotry, should not be made lightly

---

You say:
"... Of course Joss has to tow the line, and WB obey its sponsers. By the reason why is homphobic."

I agree there's homophobia at fault somewhere -- just not that *the show* is the culprit! Which is what Donna Minkowitz claims in her otherwise entertaining and on-the-ball article.

As you say:
"what scares the WD into basic a cowedly decisions is fear of Homophobia."

... can't disagree with you there - but that's not what the original article was saying.

quote:

---

The show is cowardly, even homophobic, about the girls' literal sexual life. For months, all they did was cast spells, allowing some viewers to insist that nothing was going on but salutes to the Goddess. They're an open couple now, but we've never seen them kiss. Buffy and military boyfriend Riley practically f u c k on-screen, Willow and Tara hug and light candles. It makes me crazy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spring:
[B

What Minkowitz is saying that Joss's attempts at highlighting the hypocrisy of censorship is really counter productive as it is so subtextual as to be meaningless. A lot of people are missing the point and just seeing the surface of the situation - which is it's OK for straights to kiss on TV but not gays.
[/B]

---

I have to disagree with you (nee Minkowitz) on this point Spring. Assuming that Joss would genuinely like to show more W/T affection and intimacy that he's being currently allowed, I think the "Highlighted Double Standard" approach is one of the few weapons available to him.

Over and over I've seen folks, even folks who weren't particularly enamored of W/T, saying "Oh for crying out loud, that was just silly, let them kiss already." They may not like W/T per se, but within the context of the relationship and the show, even they can see, and be annoyed by, the double standard. And I've heard casual, non-fandom savvy viewers say the same thing.

It would seem that some of the W/T scenes are shot in multiple versions, which indicates to me that we'd be seeing nicer stuff if not for active censorship on the WB's part.

I suppose Joss could raise a bigger stink, push as hard as he possibly could, but I don't know that the results would actually be to our liking. There's been a pervasive sense throughout the run of the show that the WB didn't quite get it, I don't know how damaging a full on war would be. One could argue that a principled hard line position is that a neutered portrayal that may send a message that homosexual relationships are only acceptable if neutered is more pernicious than not depicting one at all, therefore, in the abscence of equal treatment, the W/T plotline should be ended. Or, one could argue that if the WB is uncomfortable with W/T, then to be equitable, all the intimacy on the show should be toned down, and in fact, why don't we take out all the possible objectionable content.

Now, I'm being sort of a jerk on purpose here. But really, compared to no W/T at all (which you know was a possibility, Joss had to fight for the very idea), or compared to a defanged (har har) show overall, I'm willing to grit my teeth, as long as I have a sense that Joss continues to work behind the scenes to make things more fair, which I believe he is. I would have never ever ever guessed we'd see in-bed snuggles based on last season. No way. And I keep having to remind myself that even what we've had so far (aside from the kiss) is still incredibly rare, if not breakthrough, for network TV. Take away W/T. That leaves how many open, canonical, ongoing relationships on TV, involving (sorry Felicity, Friends, etc) a main character?

I'm keeping quite a hopeful eye on ER, but right now, all we've got is an unhappy lesbian woman and an unhappy straight woman and a chalupa being crushed down into a diamond.

As for The Kiss...it would seem to be the keystone of the WB's corporate cowardice. I suspect that some suit backed him or herself into a corner, and is hunkered down in The Kiss like a bunker. It reminds me (in a weird way, bear with me) of the censorship laws surrounding some "adult" anime. Under those tortured guidelines, a penis cannot be shown penetrating a vagina (actually, I don't think you can show a penis at all). So, one of the techniques the makers of these things use to get around this is to have...oh, a gross variety of other items, standing in for the penis in sex scenes. So, because of a small, dumb bit of censorship, you get a much more prurient result. Happily, Joss has better taste, there will be no naughty tentacles on Buffy. But I much prefer his approach to, say, oh, Willow switching bodies with Xander and kissing Tara in Xander's body *cough*. Do folks want much more "spells as sex"? Because I got the impression, much as folks liked the flaming O last year, that they were getting kind of tired of that. That's the other path.

Dear god I talk to much.

You (and others) have made the important point that casual viewers won't know that the inequality of rel'ship depiction is not due to the reluctance of the Buffy creators, but because of network restrictions. So from the viewer's perspective, I guess one might think that it *is* the show that is homophobic, or that the show is condoning the inequality.

But all I'm saying is that observing that there is inequality or hypocrisy somewhere, like a tv show, does not automatically enable someone to correctly identify the source of the bigotry. To go back to my earlier example, would it be fair to call Idgie and Ruth's cafe in Fried Green Tomatoes "racist" because they didn't serve black patrons in the front of the store? I hardly think so; if they did, they'd have been shut down, or worse. Perhaps a casual visitor to the town might conclude that the owners of the establishment are racist, but I think that would be wrong. Yes, the inequality of treatment -- a *manifestation* of racism -- is there in their cafe; but the racist attitudes and ideology rest not with them, but with others (the Klan, the legal and political power structures etc.).

Sure, as you say, "someone is afraid of showing W/T honestly as sexual beings", but personally I think it's unfair to lay that at the feet of the show. Because homophobia doesn't just mean inequality of depiction (which no one could dispute is true of W/T vs. the straight couples); homophobia requires the prejudiced thoughts or feelings on someone's part.

Anyway, as I said, I enjoyed the rest of Donna Minkowitz's article, and I appreciate the general spirit of it. But on the other side of the coin, there *have* been battles that Joss Whedon has fought for W/T, not to mention the public statements of AB and AH; I just think that it's hard to take a statement like "the show is cowardly, even homophobic" to exclude these three wonderful folks (but particularly JW) from its condemnation, even if that may not have necessarily been DM's intent.

Yeah, I know how I can come across sounding like that, but of course I would prefer an asexual neutered relationship than to none at all. I still think that Minkowitz has a legitimate point, but in the grand scheme of things it is better to have what we have now than to not have anything at all. I have also found that Minkowitz makes incendiary statements that are very much based on a snapshot of the present situation, much like her famed 'Willow needs to be Gay' article, which was pushing for more at a time when we all thought W/T would remain subtextual forever. Minkowitz takes a snapshot and says 'Look what's wrong here!' and demands more...which is why I still think the 'homophobic' statement works. Well it works for me anyway, but I can see how it does not work for a lot of people. I'm not so much into having them kiss, which I think is a transitory thing, but have W/T look like they feel desire or passionate towards each other (like in the 'Willow hand' scene). I don't need to see them have sex, but maybe reference it once in a while shouldn't be such a burden.
W/T is still breakthrough TV even if it's core message is being undermined by corporate censorship - though of course the benefits far, far, FAR outweigh the little itty, bitty, teeny, weeny, miniscule disadvantages.

LEN:
"I'm keeping quite a hopeful eye on ER, but right now, all we've got is an unhappy lesbian woman and an unhappy straight woman and a chalupa being crushed down into a diamond."

Hee. Hee. Hee. (wiping tears from eyes) Oh Len, you are so freakin' funny! You. Post. More. Now.

Editing to respond to wolliw:
"Because homophobia doesn't just mean inequality of depiction (which no one could dispute is true of W/T vs. the straight couples); homophobia requires the prejudiced thoughts or feelings on someone's part. "

Again, it depends on what 'is' is. An argument can be made that 'Will & Grace' is a homophobic show in the unrealistic ways it portrays Will's life or Jack's life and how it plays into stereotypes for laughs, etc...Since homophobia is present in society, anything with that deals with 'homo-' touches base with that. Your FGT analogy is very good in regards to that. But I'm saying here is that the use of the word 'homophobic' is valid, though you disagree. The problem is that there is still such a dearth of gay representation in mainstream media that any show portraying homosexuality will carry the baggage of homophobic subtext regardless of intent. Hmm, I'm not sure if I'm making sense here.
Let's say we go back to the 50's (or 1800's, whatever time suits you in the context of pre-feminism). Let's say we have a TV show in which a woman is shown as a professional, accomplished, and independent. In trying to portray that woman as a feminist, the creators of the show will invariably depict this person in ways which are stereotypical and/or anti-feminist. Sure the intent is to portray a woman in a positive, feminist light, but due to the nature of society at the time (or what have you) that will not be the only message that is conveyed. The problem is then not with the producers of the show, but with society as whole (which is your argument). Still a feminist show can carry anti-feminist subtext (isn't this what post-modernism is about?) in the same way that a pro-gay show can be homophobic.
Ugh. Too much coffee this morning, methinks.

What an invigorating discussion – who needs coffee ?

OK, you say:
“The problem is that there is still such a dearth of gay representation in mainstream media that any show portraying homosexuality will carry the baggage of homophobic subtext regardless of intent.”

and:
“The problem is then not with the producers of the show, but with society as whole (which is your argument). Still a feminist show can carry anti-feminist subtext (isn't this what post-modernism is about?) in the same way that a pro-gay show can be homophobic.”

I do agree that the postmodern perspective which downplays intent is valid to a degree for the reasons you mention; partly because everything is supposedly inextricably intertwined, a la the paradox of dualism which Derrida deconstructs (one part is never truly without the other and all that), so you can't ever really escape what you are trying to. My personal viewpoint, though, is that intent *does* matter, and as much as we can, we should take it into consideration (people get very upset, rightfully, if you mistake their intent, after all).

i'm sure that all of us, including joss, aly and amber, are guilty of harboring some sort of homophobia of the subtle, unintentional, internalized kind. in a society where heterosexuality is highly priviliged and accepted as the norm, this is unavoidable.

however, i think that the WB's ban of a w/t kiss qualifies as blatant, overt, homophobia. whatever their motivations for instituting this ban (fear of losing viewers/advertisers/money), it is basically a statement on the part of the WB that they feel there is something wrong with willow and tara kissing, wrong enough to not want to show it on television. it doesn't matter if the WB thinks it's wrong because it's immoral, or whether it simply thinks it's wrong because showing it might lead to a lack of viewership and subsequent loss of advertising dollars.

the bottom line is, the WB has forcefully indicated that expressions of teenage homosexuality are something which they do not want their viewing public to see on BtVS, and they feel strongly enough about this to place restrictions on the show's writers and producers.

when you add to this information the fact that the WB *has* allowed same-sex kisses on its other shows, i would call their ban of a w/t kiss a cowardly move indeed. it is a move motivated by the fear that showing a kiss between two characters in a loving same-sex relationship, rather than a one-sided, unreciprocated kiss, will send an undesired message to viewers: the message that it is possible for teens to be in caring, passionate, healthy gay relationships, and that such relationships are okay. considering that it is *this* message the WB is working so hard to repress, rather than the painful, tortured message of a "dawson's creek"-type kiss, i think that homophobia is a very apt term to use.

One day, maybe after the show is off the air, I'd love to hear really candid comments from Joss and Aly and Amber and the other writers, about how they really felt, and all that went down.