This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"My contrition completely dwarfs the impending apocalypse."
11943 members | you are not logged in | 23 April 2014












July 31 2006

Lesbian Hopes in Wonder Woman. On AfterEllen.com, there is an article on lesbian subtext in action movies and the hopes in Joss Whedon to introduce the first lesbian encounter on screen in which nobody dies. Scroll to page 2, last paragraph.

I see this as a very big wish on the part of the author who thinks that female action heroes are "stereotyped" as masculine when they start wielding guns. I think sometimes people will see what they want to see, regardless of whether it's really there or not. In my opinion, this article was full of unfinished thoughts and observations.

For instance, the author takes a look at G.I. Jane and how Demi Moore's character basically started to look like a man -- would the movie have worked if she hadn't shaved her head? If she had insisted on wearing mascara?

A lot of the movies the author mentioned, BloodRayne, Barb Wire, Catwoman, they have all been immense failures, seen by very little of the public.

This part did make me laugh however. parentheses are from me, to clarify:

She (Michelle Rodriguez's character)is obviously presented as a foil for Rayne. The two women eventually meet in combat, bringing out a homoerotic charge that is stereotypical of woman-on-woman fights, and also parallels the homoeroticism between men in action movies.

What? When men duke it out with guns and fists, it's homoerotic? Did anyone think that when Uma Thurman's Bride and Lucy Liu's O-Ren locked swords that it was homoerotic?

[ edited by Browncoat on 2006-07-31 18:56 ]
Some people can find homoerotic subtext in anything. See:TWOP.
Browncoat, I know how you feel, by that logic Starship Troopers is biggest bestiality show shown on screen.
Wait, you people didn't realise Starship Troopers is an animal sex film? Dude.

Gotta be honest. When people start to wish things in movies at an early stage -- no matter how admirable the idea -- I go running the other direction.
Yeah, the fact that Verhoeven directed it should've tipped me off.
Well it's basically saying that because the writers of two movies happen to be gay, it means that their characters have gay slants. Joss is not a women (his wonder woman outfit aside) yet he writes extremely well-rounded female characters.
A lot of the movies the author mentioned, BloodRayne, Barb Wire, Catwoman, they have all been immense failures, seen by very little of the public.


Not to mention some of the worst movies ever made. I really don't like agendas being applied to movies yet unmade. The lead character is gay, great. If she's isn't, great too. I just want to watch a well made movie. I watched Superman Returns yesterday and during the opening credits I thought "I'd rather be seeing 'Wonder Woman - written and directed by Joss Whedon' on the screen".
I don't think the studio would let Joss do it, and I don't think Joss would even try. Joss has an _opportunity_ to work on a major motion picture, despite the relative lack of box office success of Serenity. I can't envision a way you could introduce such plot elements without alienating a substantial part of WW's marketed-to demographic.
In the comics she comes from an island with only women. So they're either gay or not sexual ever... or the other thing. Also, Wonder Woman was literally made from clay to be the perfect Amazonian woman. Not that Joss has to go with any of this.
Think of the ruckus caused when there was announcements that catwoman would be a lesbian in the new comics series, and comic readers only represent a niche group of people. The general public of moviegoers would cry foul if that happened, though I suspect more of them would oppose another catwoman movie first, then move onto the lesbian debate.

I hope that she (the author) is not implying that for WW to not be a lesbian is a failure on the part of Joss to be "progressive" when it probably was never in the cards to begin with.

Science has always concluded that we are sexual beings, however who even says that because we are sexual beings, we'll take whatever is there? Who says that an island of women will be sexual towards one another?

[ edited by Browncoat on 2006-07-31 20:59 ]
Who says that an island of women will be sexual towards one another?

Well, in many ways it's nature (just look at the animal kingdom, which has much gay abandon).

And yes, whoever above mentioned the studio and target audience thing, it is an issue - however much it shouldn't be. Wonder Woman will almost certainly be marketed at children, and (I can't stress this enough) I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with sexuality being understood by children. However, I'm not everybody. The fact many states in the US are voting to block gay marriage pretty much says it all. That, and the rucus caused by the suggestion that Superman might be a bit camp in Superman Returns. The horror! Clearly all gay men should wear red pants on the outside of their, uhm, pants.
Lesbian issues aside, a Joss Whedon movie where nobody dies? Come on. How likely is that?
This article has spurred quite and interesting discussion! This is what I love about this place.

I don't think it's about the fact that sexuality shouldnt' be understood by children, but I'm one of the people that go by the "there's a time and place for everything" rule when it comes to sex education. If the movie is being marketed towards a more child-friendly audience, I certainly do not want kids to be possibly exposed to something they may not be prepared to understand, and I certainly do not want parents to be put in a position to have to explain it when they go into the theater and see that someone has decided to raise the issue of lesbians.

If I had a child, I certainly wouldn't want to go into a child-friendly movie with my child and have a movie tell my child what sex is, or talk about homosexuality. I would like to choose to do that myself. Especially when I can't always depend on the movies (aside from Joss' work really) to be responsible in their depictions...I wouldn't want a kid to think that what he or she sees in the movies is what all relationships are like.

In an ideal world, we would all have friendly, anger-less debates about politics and religion and homosexuality. However, this is not an ideal world and things that shouldn't be issues always are. *Shrug* Much of the fuss when it came to whether Superman was gay or not seemed to stem from the costume itself and the fact that there didn't seem to be much of a "masculine sex drive" -- as the author of the article seemed to attribute as a characteristic to ALL males. Ugh.

And no offense to you, gossi, but I find huge differences between animals and human beings....animals are driven by instinct and impulse...I tend to think human beings think beyond this and have the ability and intelligence to choose whether sexuality (and by this I mean sex) is the bottom line, regardless of gender. Sensuality, I would say, is part of all human beings. Sexuality, I say, can be chosen.

I always thought of the Amazons as more of a sisterhood, and I'm not naive to think that there might be a sisterly relationship more than any kind of lesbian relationship.

[ edited by Browncoat on 2006-07-31 22:18 ]
Obviously, animals are driven by instinct and impulse (and in many cases, intelligence - they've recently found out Dolphins call themselves and others specific names, and a certain type of ant has been proven to be able to count basic maths).

But humans are also driven by instinct and impulse. I know people who've had gay experiences on impulse.

To be honest, hetrosexual relations are so often shown in childrens films -- count the amount of kisses and sex jokes in Shrek, folks -- that I think it'd actually be fine to mention aspects of gay and lesbian culture at the very least. Ultimately, society is as conservative as *WE* make it, and at the moment there's a small movement trying to make it as conservative as humanly possible.
Gossi, that was me. Allow me to expand: Part of Joss' desired target audience is going to be young girls, with a message of empowerment. If he goes with overt lesbian themes, some of that target audience will be lost--there are far more parents of young girls who are OK with a 'girls kick butt' message than an overt lesbian one. Just like Joss had made female empowerment a higher priority than sexuality issues in Buffy, I just can't see him reprioritizing them the other way for WW, even IF the studious would let him take a risk like that.
jclemens, I agree. Ultimately, (and yes, I am judging Joss here - I'm a bad man) -- if he goes into Wonder Woman acting chosen, wanting to change the world -- he's lost me. If there's subtext and a message, great. I'm actually all for the empowerment of everybody (and I couldn't make that bold enough), but at the same time I think there's a limit to how many things you can take on. Or, in other words, if you throw everything at the canvas and then try to shape it back into a film, you end up with a lot of things to remove if you don't want to be seen as 'choosing yourself'.

I'd love for Wonder Woman, in some way, to be a lesbian hero film. At the same time, I'd love more for Wonder Woman to appeal to everybody. She should be an icon of everything that makes us good, and the flaws that make us bad. If you made WW a lesbian, you'd exclude a measuable section of your audience. You shouldn't, but you would.

And if anybody actually understands that, they deserve a meddle.
Browncoat: “Sexuality, I say, can be chosen.”

Quick question for clarity, Browncoat, are you saying:
1) One choses when to express sexuality? That is, when to be sexual?
or
2) One chooses the nature of one's sexuality, i.e., whether they are gay, straight, bi, or etc.?
Think of the ruckus caused when there was announcements that catwoman would be a lesbian in the new comics series, and comic readers only represent a niche group of people. The general public of moviegoers would cry foul if that happened, though I suspect more of them would oppose another catwoman movie first, then move onto the lesbian debate."


I recall no such ruckus, or announcement--when exactly are you talking about?

In current DC continuity, Selina Kyle (the original catwoman) is very straight. Since she's on pregancy leave now, her friend Holly is filling in--and she is indeed gay, but that fact was introduced very matter of factly, without any sort of hype. One issue early on she just happened to drop by her girlfriend's work. No ruckus, (and by the way, both Holly and her girlfriend are still alive and still a happy couple fifty issues later.)

*slaps his head*

Ah, wait--you meant the new Batwoman. Yep, lots of ruckus there. But I don't recall any real complaints about the fact that she's gay. Only about how DC is whoring it out to the media, who are taking it and running a marathon with it.
Oh my brain is reeling from this article and the thoughts you all have presented. I will try and get some of mine out:

1. Joss. I don't like the notion that anyone is trying to place an agenda on Joss for something that's just a draft now. I wish the man could do his work with what he has without all of this "Ah, but will he do THIS for 'us'?" But he is Joss and his track record has created expectations. I don't think that even made sense. Oh well.

2. Classicist Hat Wearing Time! I'm not familiar with Wonder Woman continuity, but in classical Mythology the Amazons left their island or brought men in long enough to reproduce, killing the boy children. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazons.

My other thoughts are ones that aren't well-formed enough for me to put them out there clearly; I'm afraid I would unnecessarily anger some people. Maybe I'll come back with them when I've got them better figured out.
I agree that lots of films aimed at children have heterosexual subtexts or jokes, like Shrek, but even though parents and the Ratings Board are OK with that, I'm don't think that's any "better" or different than if those same jokes were more gay-themed. In other words, I would like to see straight and gay ideas/jokes/subtexts treated the same -- you see that I don't represent the loud, anti-gay minority that is currently making the rules here in the US! ;-)

But when it comes to WW, I think of it this way: I've been reading lots of BSG articles where it states clearly that Starbuck is a giant icon for lesbians, and that Helo is a giant icon for gay men. Now, both of these characters have been portrayed having opposite sex relationships, but lesbian and gay people love these characters because Starbuck is a "tomboy" (so she still "represents" for the lesbian community, even if she happens to sleep with a guy -- maybe she is thought to be bisexual?), and Helo is super good-looking (I don't remember other specific reasons gay men like him, sorry). There is also a lot of 'shipping in the gay community for Gaeta/Baltar, even though Baltar is clearly shown to be a raging heterosexual. (BTW, there was even a link here a few days ago to a blog where Ronald Moore said that he sees no reason not to have a gay or lesbian character/relationship explored.) In the same way, nobody seemed to object to Doctor Who/Captain Jack when Doctor Who S1 showed in the US, I think because it was just subtle, not a lot of time spent exploring any relationship since all the focus was on the adventures with Daleks, Bad Wolf, etc. My point is that a character can still be supported by people who are gay or lesbian, and can still represent a positive image of a person who is (or may be) gay, lesbian or bi, even if their sexuality is not specifically portrayed as gay/lesbian/bi.

I think if Joss were a bit vague about Wondy's sexuality, she would be a hero of the lesbian community and still not be deemed "too gay" for parents worried about what their children see. IMO, a superhero doesn't have time for sex anyway -- there's citizens to rescue and evildoers to stop! ;-)
I watched Superman Returns yesterday and during the opening credits I thought "I'd rather be seeing 'Wonder Woman - written and directed by Joss Whedon' on the screen".

And I bet you felt the same way after you watched the movie...
A further thought - I know it's probably impossible because movies rest on romance most often, but I'd love to see a Wonder Woman where romance/sexuality is NOT, in fact, a key element of the story.

There I go pushing MY expectations/hopes.

Sorry, Joss. Hope you can forgive me.
I agree, Kiba, I would enjoy a story where romance and sexuality are not a key element. I mean, think of Superman Returns where a lot of critics (or is it reviewers..) found fault with Lois Lane being too whiny.

And oops, I did mean Batwoman. I was posting from work **color me sheepish** and was trying to hurry it up before I had to actually...do work.


Quick question for clarity, Browncoat, are you saying:
1) One choses when to express sexuality? That is, when to be sexual?
or
2) One chooses the nature of one's sexuality, i.e., whether they are gay, straight, bi, or etc.?


I think people choose when to express sexuality. I think we are all sensual beings, but as far as sexuality, while we can all be sexual, we choose when to be so. It's not as if we simply cannot help ourselves. We are not animals, we can control impulses. Funny thing is, this is perhaps also what makes us different from Reavers (see, I knew there was a way to bring it back to Joss). Think of Tibetan monks and Catholic priests (please no priest and/or pedophile jokes, though I know this board is always classy) and their ability to resist temptation because they have strong faith. It certainly does not mean they do not make mistakes, but certainly it means that while they are, like all humans, sexual, they choose to be part of that sexuality, or not. This is the same with many religions and denominations that discourage pre-marital sex. Those who stick to that show that they can control impulse, peer pressure and society's pressure.
While I don't think Joss is likely to make WW a lesbian, I think that it would be a mistake to purposely erase homoerotic undertones from a story that is, I think, intrinsically homoerotic. Yes, the Amazons were a kind of sisterhood, but there are undeniable lesbian undertones to their history/mythology. It was a homosocial society that celebrated womanhood in a really unique way. I think a "Wonder Woman" that did not allow for the possibility of a queer reading would be kind of flat.

I'm not too worried about it though...Joss's characters lend themselves to queer readings quite well...so well he even gave a little nod to the much debated Angel/Spike homoeroticism at the end of season 5.

And, yes, Browncoat, when men "duke it out" it very often IS homoerotic. A big part of homoeroticism, though, is to be found in the viewer. Many a Spike/Angel fight seemed sexy to me.

The reason "men duking it out" (or women for that matter) can easily be read as homoerotic is because a lot of theories of triangular desire/homosocial desire assert that tension between men is often a cover for masked homosocial desire (I'm thinking Eve Sedgwick here). Only where there is tension can there be true passion. This is why a queer reading of Angel/Spike is so accessible...there is a perfect setup for triangular desire. Both men vie for Buffy's love, and in doing so reveal their true passion for each other, masked by a rivalry.

That's a very quick overview of Sedgwick...so don't dismiss her based just on that...but I find her to be pretty right-on in terms of homosocial desire.
I agree with the above... the author of the article seems to be projecting her own hopes/wishes onto the Wonder Woman script.
Personally, I just hope the movie is good...
Well, I think the reference to Wonder Woman was made in passing, possibly because Joss is rightly lauded for his portrayal of a lesbian relationship onscreen and seemed to come out of the blue (IMO). Seems a bit daft to wish for that kind of thing from a main-stream 'tent-pole' movie (I think we're a few years away from that and maybe much further if things regress the way they might).

Personally I think some woman-woman fights do have an element of homoeroticism (possibly because they're usually directed by men) but I must confess I haven't particularly noticed it with male action heroes (there are exceptions e.g. the Maverick/Iceman posturing in 'Top Gun', not to mention the infamous beach Volleyball scene). Man-man fights strike me as just being straightforward quests for dominance (competition for 'resources' - including access to females - played out in a more literal sense than is now acceptable in society) and I think you'd have to see sex and dominance as being always related to see most male-male fights as homoerotic.

I also find it interesting that 'Superman Returns' (which I enjoyed even if I thought it had pacing issues and was maybe a bit self-indulgent) is being seen as a gay movie (or that Superman was gay in it). I wonder if it's just because he's slightly more vulnerable and humanised than in previous incarnations (qualities we traditionally associate with women, not male action heroes) ? It can't just be the suit, surely ?
I think it's Superman's innate need to be good -- society tends to glorify the man who assures dominance in his chosen world, not the man who does the right thing for everyone, regardless of whether it'll make him look good or not.
And I bet you felt the same way after you watched the movie...


Being a huge Superman fan, I got rather emotional during the . So Singer is forgiven for the lesser parts of the movie.
Could have something there Browncoat. In the originals both 1 and 2 ended with Superman either asserting his dominance over a foe (Lex Luthor, Zod) or performing supeheroic acts for selfish reasons. The paradox of the end of 1 is that when he's at his most 'super' he's also at his most human (sure he flies into space and circles the Earth so fast the entire world spins backwards but why ? Because the love of his life is dead and he just can't accept it).

Whereas 'Returns' has him potentially sacrifice everything for purely altruistic reasons (just in case we weren't clear enough on the whole Jesus parallel ;). Maybe this is seen as un-manly somehow, like "What's he getting out of it ?".

And Simon, what a scene. Just the look on his face when he stands in the doorway. Gotta say though I was willing to forgive a lot from the moment I saw the original style credits come up on screen (for just a second I was 6 again ;). Say what you like but Singer loves the first films (maybe too much, if that's possible) and the character.
Okay, I wasn't gonna hop on this runaway train, but I think I'm gonna.

(BTW, In my socialist-utopian-Wonder-Woman fantasy, WW lives on an island where everyone lives together in peace and harmony, using the barter system, refraining from banishing the men and killing the boy-children, and accepting and tolerating each other's myriad differences. Violence is banished and so is all reality T.V., except Project Runway, which for me is on Wednesday nights on Bravo. Chocolate truffles grow in little clusters on trees, people drive hybrid cars, and no one ever interrupts you if you're reading.

But that's neither here nor there, for all its relevance to the needs of the story. Plus, why would she ever leave the island?)


Browncoat: “Think of Tibetan monks and Catholic priests (please no priest and/or pedophile jokes, though I know this board is always classy) and their ability to resist temptation because they have strong faith...This is the same with many religions and denominations that discourage pre-marital sex. Those who stick to that show that they can control impulse, peer pressure and society's pressure..”


But...but...but... when I think of Wonder Woman, why should I think of monks & priests and resisting "temptation" and the determined controlling of impulses? I mean, logically, why would we go there, unless we're projecting our own need/perception to see these sorts of behaviors, especially the homo-erotic ones, as lower or less desirable. This is certainly not relevant to the Wondy-story, as far as I understand it.

I obviously don't have a clue about the extent to which Joss intends depicting religion on the island, but it doesn't seem likely to be Apollonian, or ascetic, or given to self-denial. In the comics, wouldn't it have been some kind of pagan-greco-roman-thingy? Dionysian, and not given to self-restraint in the animal appetites?

That doesn't say a thing about whether WW is likely to be gay, but it does address the likelihood of sexual restraint on an (except occasionally) all-female island. Any Spartan-like behavior, I'm thinking, would only be in the style of saving-yourself-for-athletics or somesuch.

Somehow, I just don't think Joss is writing about monks and priest-types and the men and women who don't get to love them.

[ edited by QuoterGal on 2006-08-01 08:02 ]
Chocolate truffles grow in little clusters on trees, people drive hybrid cars, and no one ever interrupts you if you're reading.


They only interrupt you if they're giving you chocolate truffles freshly picked off trees -- or they're giving you a tree.

What I said about priests and monks was not directly linked to WW. I was talking about impulse and the ability to control and choose when to express sexuality. It was to illustrate that self-control is part of society, just as much as men wearing red tights zipping around the universe and women in invisible jets with funky headgear.
I just cant get over Supermans confrontation with Lex Luthor and his ability to save the world this time (said purposely vague for spoiler reasons). By any comic book standard, the movie should have ended well before the end and Superman should not have been able to do what did at the end. Its a great story that I just dont see as consistent with Superman lore--from a kryptonite persepective.

That being said, I did like most of the movie.

As to the article, Im not sure about the supposition that something is feminist because all men want someone and no male gets her. Sounds pretty lonely to me, but thats for another debate. But the idea that the way for women to be more powerful to is to subvert and degrade all men is a little off to me. Dont get me wrong, any woman should be able to choose her own path, but Im reminded of a family guy episode where a militant feminist makes fun of Lois for being a housewife. She claims that she Lois is setting back the womans movement and that she isnt fighting for what real women are fighting for, and in the end, Lois points out that its all about choice. If a woman chooses to be with a man, if she chooses to be a house-wife, then feminism really does work, not because they are subverting men at every turn but because women now have the choice to do what and who they want. And I would agree with that. Choice is what feminism is all about, at least in my book.
Actually, there was an article I read years ago that has always stuck with me. I don't remember what publication it was in, but it was a magazine article that basically said, "bashing men is not feminism, it's hate" and it opened my eyes to a lot of what was going on with the "girl power" phase and "we can do what boys do and do it better" stuff. At the time, I suppose, women were being strongly led to believe that not only can they do everything men could (which is technically true), they can do it better and they must do it better because they are equal and must prove so in order to have value. Housewives were pretty quiet in those days, as they'd be labeled as submissive and there would be efforts to "liberate" stay at home moms.

jerry, I agree that it is totally about choice (and it's great you used a Family Guy episode as an example!) and the article does seem to suggest that there's a strength in being a loner and being the one thing no one can't have. It seems to suggest the ultimate choice is to be alone, which, I guess is a "liberation" from the old days when women were expected to be married by a certain age.
I'm with Serefina (about halfway up)

They're expecting *Joss* not to be killin' folk? What Whedon shows have they been watching?
I'll take those truffles now, please. Thank you.

"What I said about priests and monks was not directly linked to WW."

But, Browncoat, you said, "however who even says that because we are sexual beings, we'll take whatever is there? Who says that an island of women will be sexual towards one another?" You and gossi talked about human-vs.-animal nature, with gossi saying that on an all-gal island, nature would have its out, and you seemed to be saying that since we are capable of self-restraint, ergo, nature might lose against the strength of self-control and resisting temptation.

I'm saying "resisting temptation" & "restraint" and "impulse control" aren't relevant to this discussion, as this is all set in a pre-Christian ethos devoid of the need to see such impulse control as admirable. I'm therefore saying it's likely that an island of women would be sexual together, and therefore that they would gladly "take whatever is there." (This expression of yours seemed to me to be implying "settling for" and "is less than what is to be hoped" -- which to me is your personal assumption about same-sex sexuality -- this is your viewpoint, and not fact. Correct me if I am wrong there.)

Any such gal-island-same-sex should not be, in my opinion, viewed as animals wallowing in sin and incapable of self-control, but existing in a state where Christianity's notion of "temptation" and "sin" are simply not applicable.

'Kay, can't believe I went on about this, but I'm gonna stop before we get wanked again. I'm with ya, Browncoat, that is what I love about this place -- it ain't dull, and the fights ain't ad hominem. (Wow, I had to look that up.)

Anyhoo, a pleasure to be talking to you guys, where almost everyone speaks in full sentences and the spelling is divine.

Oh, yeah, I want my meddle.
I always love the intelligent discussion that takes place on this site, but I for one will sit back and enjoy the ride that Joss will take me on with WW. I trust him. That's all I have to say about that.
How conflicted is our society right now when the clean cut, human, alturistic Superman is "gay" while the snaggled and bedraggled, morally ambiguous, eye make-up wearing Captain Jack Sparrow is the biggest sex symbol on the screen this summer?
As far as the article, I also thought there were many unfinished thoughts and much wishful thinking. Plus the movies the author was talking about were just bad... Unfortunatly the recent female super hero offerings have been dismal, but there are interesting secondary female characters to be found that are more sucessful at the feminine/masculine balancing act. Trinity and Michelle Yeoh's character in CTHD, etc.
You just gotta love the ambiguity that is with Jack Sparrow -- he's just such a mystery.
eek...not to open this can of worms, but I think it important to note whenever people start talking about feminism as being about choice that there is a valid argument that feminism is about critiquing choice. That is to say that not all choices a woman makes are necessarily feminist, even if they make her happy. Feminism, to me, is much more about uncovering why women are conditioned to make certain choices, or are given the illusion of choice. Not to say no women should be housewives, but I think part of what second wave feminists tried to do was expose the conditioning behind women's choices. IE why is it so common for women and not men to choose staying at home as opposed to entering the workforce? How has the domestic sphere been feminized, so that women feel drawn to it even when they are given the option of working outside the home? etc.

Good points all, though...Its just seems that when a lot of people equate feminism with choice it means that the work of feminism is done for a woman who makes a choice, any choice at all...and I just don't think thats the case.

and Browncoat...Jack Sparrow is ambiguous? hehe.
So does this mean that our Zoe is gay or bisexual? For that matter , what about Inara? Is she bisexual or just doing her job?

(I am saying this tongue-in-cheek, you know)
I agree that this article is somewhat presumptuous to publically call for lesbian overtones in the as-yet un-cast or green-lit WW movie, but remember, this is Joss Whedon we're talking about here. He's the guy who:

a.) called himself "super gay"

b.) implied that Spike and Angel totally did it at least once, in the text as well as on the commentary

c.) wrote Faith/Buffy fight scenes in which the sexual explicitness was overt; in the end of "Enemies" was supposed to be this scene, from the shooting script:

FAITH (cont'd): What are you going to do, B? Kill me - you become me. You're not ready for that...

Faith surprises Buffy by jerking her head forward - not to head-butt her, but to give her a quick KISS on the lips.


... only the WB objected (for many of the reasons people on this board have, namely that the audience was composed of young people and teenagers, and a quick girl/girl kiss was not acceptable for such an impressionable audience) and it was changed to Faith kissing B on the forehead.

d.) created the two and a half season-long and extremely homosexual relationship between Willow and Tara? Probably the first fully-realized gay relationship on network TV (and at this point, probably still the only one) and still the benchmark of its kind.

Buffy was a show aimed at teenagers and pre-teens that dared to push boundaries. I can only hope that WW will follow in its footsteps; and given that we've already had a breakout "gay blockbuster" finally in Brokeback Mountain, and that Bryan Singer explored the political/social ramifications of gayness in his X-Men movies, I don't really think that a WW movie with lesbian overtones would kill the movie.

heck, it'll probably bring in the target demographic of comic book movies (young, male teens) in droves.

Any such gal-island-same-sex should not be, in my opinion, viewed as animals wallowing in sin and incapable of self-control, but existing in a state where Christianity's notion of "temptation" and "sin" are simply not applicable.


Okay, you get a meddle AND a pie for that QuoterGal. Because that's actually a potential plot point (in my head). And a really good one at that.

And, to be clear -- I agree with you (and my grammar sucks).
Conpletely unrelated to an extent. I've resently finished reading the history of WW in anticipation of the film and mainly because it facinated me that Joss would take on the Icon.

As far as I can tell both Joss and Joel keep talking about WW as a goddess, reading through the history this happened only recently in the WW world, did it not? If Joss takes from this era of WW then it's all about the returning from "heaven" deal, rather than an island where there are no men.

This WW was all humanitarian in nature...with the super-powers and also a goddess. What with Joss's own views on the subject, this would seem to be more his style.

I'm just hopeful that no-matter what the characters are powerful and fully rounded, including sexually!
This expression of yours seemed to me to be implying "settling for" and "is less than what is to be hoped" -- which to me is your personal assumption about same-sex sexuality -- this is your viewpoint, and not fact. Correct me if I am wrong there.


But, absent any Christian notion of temptation and sin, do people who aren't gay just go ahead and have sex with people of the same sex? I think that's not only a drastic oversimplification, but coming at it from a funny angle. If a same sex pairing is not what the person desires, then it would be settling for something less or it flat out wouldn't happen (sidenote: I am not saying gay sex isn't sex, I'm saying gay sex is not straight sex and if what you want is straight sex, then gay sex by definition [in this instance] would be settling). I know a lot of people who reject Christian notions of temptation and sin and, while it means they are free to act outside of those notions, it doesn't necessarily follow that they must. I think that those predisposed to same sex pairings would definitely feel more free to pursue them, but I don't think its the spectre of what Christianity deems appropriate that keeps me from tracking down Marsters and shagging him rotten :)

ETA: I've never used the word sex so much in a single paragraph in my life. Thanks!
zeitgeist, congrats on so much sex usage. The last time I saw so much sex wasn't in a paragraph, it was in a dream of Paradise Island and involved a pair of Cordelia twins and paraffin.
gossi, if I wasn't old enough to be your grandmother and a (gasp!) lesbian to boot, I'd ask you to marry me.
Thanks, gossi, I'm inflating as we speak (from meddle & the well-known PIE!)

zeitgeist, I agree with you in many ways -- I'm on a big honkin' deadline, so will be back as soon as project is done to explain... what I was saying about sex, sex, sex.
I'm a one-handed typist today, since I just put 6 stitches in my index finger. Ouch. Anyway. I think that it is impossible to do WW without there being at least a lesbian subtext, for adults; kids may miss it, but it will likely be there, given the society had no men, and given that we are biological beings. And Joss does this as well as anyone.

But browncoat, were you suggesting that one chooses their sexuality? That is, chooses being gay? It was not clear from your comments.
Dana5140, I asked him that question, and he says not -- that he was saying one choses when to be sexual. not their sexuality.

Okay, geez, I'm really outta here 'til project is completed...
Okay, good. :-)
Wish I could type more but this one-hand stuff is slow..... and we never touched on the gay subtext of X-Men 3 even, just Superman. :-)
zeitgeist: “But, absent any Christian notion of temptation and sin, do people who aren't gay just go ahead and have sex with people of the same sex? I think that's not only a drastic oversimplification, but coming at it from a funny angle. If a same sex pairing is not what the person desires, then it would be settling for something less or it flat out wouldn't happen (sidenote: I am not saying gay sex isn't sex, I'm saying gay sex is not straight sex and if what you want is straight sex, then gay sex by definition [in this instance] would be settling). I know a lot of people who reject Christian notions of temptation and sin and, while it means they are free to act outside of those notions, it doesn't necessarily follow that they must. I think that those predisposed to same sex pairings would definitely feel more free to pursue them, but I don't think its the spectre of what Christianity deems appropriate that keeps me from tracking down Marsters and shagging him rotten :)”


zeitgeist: My point was simply that the notions Browncoat was discussing -- notions of self-restraint & control, which he introduced to quesion betwixt's suggestion that on an all-girl island the women were either doing it or celibate (or something else?), and upon which Browncoat further elaborated, discussing the sexual (sublimation? repression?) of monks & priests of several religions, to counter gossi's notion that such behavior would be natural, as in the animal kingdom -- that these notions of "resisting temptation" were not relevant to any discussion of pre-Christian pagan gals on an island.

I never meant to suggest, therefore, anything like since it pre-dates Christianity, all women would be shagging wildly together, regardless of their sexuality, since it was only the introduction of Christianity that caused people to restrain their omni-sexual impulses.

I was saying that in a pagan, Dionysian culture -- if that's even what it was -- 1) self-restraint wouldn't have been considered particularly desirable and impulses/instincts may have held broader sway than in an A.D. world and 2) some women would have been having sex together, countering Browncoat's suggestion that that was unlikely ("however who even says that because we are sexual beings, we'll take whatever is there? Who says that an island of women will be sexual towards one another?)

Certainly anyone who feels themselves to be completely heterosexual would find the limitations of an all-girl island sexually confining, and sex with a partner not of their preferred gender would be less than optimal. I was just wondering if Browncoat's reference to "we'll take whatever's there" was referring only to straight women on this blasted island, or whether he was sorta applying that to any woman-woman sex (again, on that blasted island.)

That said, I'm pretty sure we don't know all about the sexual perspectives at that time -- we know some, but not all -- and it is possible that the more rigid current notions of "gay" and "straight" with a firm line drawn down the middle have changed from that culture & time, and that there may have been more "boths" or "in-betweens" or "undecideds." There may be more "undecideds" or "likes both" now than our culture is able to absorb or understand. Dunno, couldn't say, but worth thinking about. Certainly sexuality is cultural as well as biological -- one may be born gay, but one may not allow themselves to express any gay sexuality due to cultural norms & expectations. Culture does have an effect on sexual expression. Maybe a greco-pagan island culture might have defined sexuality more broadly than simply "either/or."

Finally: I'm aware that this discussion used the notion of gay-sex-on-an-all-girl-island-in-JW's Wonder Women as a springboard to explore attitudes about these notions in general, and this all may have zero relevance to Joss's creation of the culture from which Wondy springs.

I certainly dunno what keeps all men everywhere from wanting to shag James Marsters. I know what keeps me from getting to shag James Marsters and I ain't happy about it. (Although, honestly, I always preferred Nicholas Brendon in that way, 'cause he's very like my partner...)

(BTW, zeitgeist, are you freakin' kidding me? You live in L, NJ? I spent three very unhappy weeks there after Christmas this year -- nothing against this lovely, little town. What are the odds?)

(Dana5140, so sorry about the stitches and pain & slowness-of-typing -- hope you heal & feel better soon.)

[ edited by QuoterGal on 2006-08-02 02:33 ]
Thanks- I hate this, 'cause, you know, I always have so much to say! Which may mean that everyone is breathing a sigh of relief! :-)
QuoterGal - fantastic followup and /agreed. And, yeah, I moved to L, NJ in May to be with barest_smidgen, whom I met on this very website :) *cough* The Love Thread™ will never die! *cough*

Dana5140 - get better soon!

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home