A well written piece, and exactly to the point. When will we get past the Puritanical heebeegeebies and just accept homosexuality as just another normal part of the human experience? Sheesh.

quantumac | November 25, 17:57 CET

So we should not be discussing it then?

Simon | November 25, 18:42 CET

I am resentful of the Katy Perry comparison. After all, she did know her name, it was not her experimental game and there was no boyfriend to mind it. Hrumph.

curlymynci | November 25, 18:53 CET

I think this was a simplistic view that did not consider the idea that there is text and there is meta-text. In the textual world, what he said might be true, but in the real world where we live, the story is far more complicated. It is how the events of the text are viewed in our real world that is the real issue, why we can suggest that sleeping with an underling might not be wise, whether male or female, etc.

Dana5140 | November 25, 18:57 CET

So we should not be discussing it then?

One of the oldest traditions in Western culture is that of minding one's own business except for when other people's is so much more interesting.

Sunfire | November 25, 19:11 CET

Or if it's Tuesday.

zeitgeist | November 25, 19:18 CET

Yeah, I'm with Dana5140 in that it felt a little simplistic to me. If you think there's nothing to be said about the Buffy / Satsu thing, that's fine, but it seems weird to write about how there's nothing to be said. Seems to me there are interesting conversations to be had about it (and we've had one or two on this board, I think) but this doesn't really open up any kind of discussion. This piece combined with last week's Japan-is-so-gay-friendly (huh?) piece gives me a "meh" feeling.

Also, the idea that it's just "her" business and "her" opinion is the only one that matters seems particularly odd given that "she" is a fictional character and it's a story for... well, us. Which makes it exactly our business, I'd say!

catherine | November 25, 19:19 CET

If we didn't discuss who Buffy was sleeping with, the fandom would have gone out of business years ago.

Simon | November 25, 19:22 CET

"It is how the events of the text are viewed in our real world that is the real issue, why we can suggest that sleeping with an underling might not be wise, whether male or female, etc."

Well that would be a whole different article, although still important. This seems to be more about how others shouldn't judge what she did because in the text because it's between the 2 of them (regardless of being experimental or a permanent life change), just like gay marriage should be in the real world.

I think it may have been mistake on Buffy's part for many reasons but I agree with the writer overall.

DeathIsYourGift | November 25, 19:27 CET

For me the storyline raises different questions. I'm not at all bothered by the homosexual implications. But I absolutely think it raises questions about how different people define "moral" behavior.

On one hand, you could see the situation as Buffy finding solace in the arms of someone who really cares about her. The sex is just a beautiful release of tension and loneliness. It's nice to be loved, no matter who is doing the loving.

On the other hand, you could also begin to question what these actions say about Buffy. Is she willing to use someone who loves her just to get a fix? She is decidedly not gay, and has no intention of making a life change. Where does that leave Satsu in all of this? And why is sex presented as a recreational therapeutic activity in the first place? Is it necessarily puritanical to believe sex should signify a deeper and committed relationship, or is that just a concept of the past?

So there is definitely a discussion in there. But I don’t think it’s necessarily all about the gay thing.

Rebekah | November 25, 19:45 CET

It's not just gay or not gay in the world, you know. As Yoda would say, there is another...

curlymynci | November 25, 19:54 CET

Yeah but he also said "luminous beings are we ...". Well i've tried turning the lights off and everything and I just don't glow, simple as that. Wee man floated a mean X-wing but bright ? Not convinced.

I kinda get the author's point but personally i'm not a big fan of someone's comment being all about why people shouldn't be commenting, either we all get a go or we none of us do but kinda-sorta representing your own comment as the final word rubs me up the wrong way.

I also think saying it shouldn't be a big deal is laudable but so out of touch with reality that you almost have to assume it's disingenuous (kind of like people that "don't see colour" - really ? So you can't tell if your friend's black or not and, presumably, have no sympathy with the way society treats them on that basis cos it just doesn't matter ? Uh huh, 'K). Yes, it shouldn't be a big deal but the unfortunate fact of the matter is, it is (for now).

Saje | November 25, 20:10 CET

I don't think there is a single one of us on this board who thinks that fact that Buffy slept with a woman is important in and of itself- removed from all other considerations. And that is why I thought the original post was simplistic. I know that to some people the whole "gay thing" is troublesome, but in reality, that ship sailed a long time ago, and no one is shocked, shocked I say to find out that some woman has slept with another woman. Who cares? Which is why the subtext is what is important. And there is a ton of subtext there in Batsu. I remember the day when Joss said "Bring your own subtext." And now people want to act like there is none there to be seen? So on this board, no one has ever argued just the issue of Buffy being bicurious, or not even curious at all but just looking for release from someone who is willing to provide it (to which I say, go masturbate; it has fewer complications in a world where every decision you make has significant ones). To us, we have to ask, what does this mean, and was it the right thing to do. Not because Buffy is "gay" or "not gay," or however someone might try to define her (like the ceasless "Is Willow gay or bi" arguments). What we are really saying is, did she do the right thing here? Does it fit in with her character? How do we read this? But as to the question of her simply sleeping with a woman, who really much cares?

[ edited by Dana5140 on 2008-11-25 21:42 ]

Dana5140 | November 25, 21:41 CET

well yes, and I think that's what this article was saying too. "Who cares?" along with "Who cares in the real world, as well?" in reaction to Prop 8. Was I reading it wrong?

DeathIsYourGift | November 25, 21:53 CET

Or if it's Tuesday.

Never on Tuesdays. Gossip ye not on this our day of Dawn-napping.

ETA: Wait what Yoda was bi?! That explains a lot.

[ edited by Sunfire on 2008-11-25 21:55 ]

Sunfire | November 25, 21:53 CET

Actually, Dana, a lot of people care as evidenced by all the anti gay legislation out there. This article was very specifically written with that in mind. People shouldn't care about who anyone sleeps with or marries because of all the actual important issues we face but they do. There are bigots everywhere, even here in Buffy land.

I never said that my article should be the last word on this relationship. I simply wrote what I took away from Buffy's relationship with Satsu as I was thinking over the issues the queer community is facing. There's always more to be said.

project bitsy | November 25, 22:10 CET

Of course it is, don't be ridiculous.



I dunno about you, but all of the bisexuals that I know are 3 foot tall with huge funky ears and live in swamps and use their mystical/bogus-scientific-explanation-goes-here powers to do awesome things. Yes, I am kidding; you'd think you'd be used to that by now.

zeitgeist | November 25, 22:12 CET

ETA: Wait what Yoda was bi?! That explains a lot.

Either that or he carefully attended the training of a healthy, muscular young man (all sweaty too) simply to bring balance to the Force. Sh'yeah, right. Also, green is damn near smack dab in the middle of the colour spectrum - pure coincidence ? I think not !*

Who cares? Which is why the subtext is what is important.

Uh huh. As I said nearer the time, that's why Joss was interviewed by the 'New York Times' for every other issue too. Oh wait ...

* OK, I kinda do but sshhhh ! ;)

Saje | November 25, 22:16 CET

"Kidding" is in trueness my default interpretation setting for zeitgeist.

Sunfire | November 25, 22:21 CET

Yeah he's clearly kidding - they don't all live in swamps.

Saje | November 25, 22:24 CET

Really? I thought it was the ears thing... drat!

zeitgeist | November 25, 22:35 CET

project bitsy : Do I know you from 2 or 3 other boards?

DaddyCatALSO | November 25, 23:05 CET

I guess it's possible. For someone who has their own blog I don't do a great deal of commenting. Where do you think you know me from and what other handles do you go by?

project bitsy | November 25, 23:11 CET

So, wait. Am I reading people wrong? I am saying, in and of itself, this is not important; women sleep with women all the time. In the story, it might be very important, but not because she slept with a woman, but because of what it means to the people involved. Bitsy- I am well aware that in the real world people care, but I was not referring to the Prop 8 issue (for example) with my comment, just to the fact that in the context of the Buffyverse, this is not a cultural watershed- women sleep with women all the time, so the fact that 2 more did here is a big so what. People on this board know where I stand on this issue, since I am a major Wara shipper kind of guy. And ZG, do we find import in Buffy doing the nasty with a woman as opposed to a man? Had she decided to get laid by a man, would that matter? She just wanted the connection and release and used what was to hand, because she is not committed to Satsu; she has not become gay in the doing. Maybe I am not articulating what I am trying to say well, but was this something that really threw us all for a loop and made us say we are giving up on Buffy as a result? No, we have already seen Willow come out. We do not care that Buffy slept with a woman qua woman, but that she slept with someone , and we know that that has a tendency to lead to trouble. We can attach what significance we want to her doing so, but the idea is not outrageous.

Dana5140 | November 25, 23:34 CET

Dana5140, that all sounds valid for how you read it but I don't get why you're projecting it onto everyone else here. People cared that it was a woman, and not just the NYT and the mainstream. I don't know the numbers but I'm sure the rate of discussion here was much higher than it was for Buffy's previous hookup.

Furthermore, not everyone who is a fan of Buffy or Joss is socially liberal and votes against the likes of Prop 8. That (implicit) assumption is just incorrect. (Nor is it a requirement to be a feminist, or any "persuasion", to love Joss' work.)

jam2 | November 26, 00:13 CET

Nope, I am obviously not clear, jam2. I think my last statement captures the idea. And I am neither projecting, nor speaking for everyone here; I just would be surprised if there are members here who are shocked that Buffy did this; surprised, maybe, that Joss went that route for the story, but not shocked and appalled. Since Willow already did, in that respect.

Dana5140 | November 26, 00:34 CET

Dana, you also need to remember that there are other places that are not here, and that the referenced article was not specifically about the reactions of members here, but people and fans in general. I know we're not supposed to discuss stuff that happens other places, but we also don't exist in a vacuum, and there most assuredly are people who care that "he made Buffy gay now", and care in a rather more negative and vocal manner than, "Huh. I'm surprised he went that way with the story. Oh, well."

Rowan Hawthorn | November 26, 01:07 CET

Upthread, zeitgeist answered this with "Of course it is, don't be ridiculous.", and I have no idea if he was kidding or meant it... But speaking for myself, yes, I think the fact that Buffy slept with a woman is important in and of itself- removed from all other considerations.

I didn't have a problem with Joss writing it. I wasn't "shocked or appalled". If I would have been, yeah, I probably would have checked out long ago, after Willow and Tara (or other gay relationships in the show).

But I did think it was "important" that Buffy had slept with a woman, and not a man. I thought it (the same sex part) had implications for the character, the story, even the message, and all of that was significant, worth thinking about and discussing. In my mind, it was different than if Satsu had been a guy, and I think the comic itself and the discussion here reflected that.

jam2 | November 26, 01:49 CET

project bitsy: Then no, because I don't use any other names since 2002.


Some soap-shadow-boxing:

1-I agreed with the basic thrust of theblog, but i ahve to say Buffy 's right of making ehr own decisions only exists inside the Buffyverse. She doesn't owe expalantions to Xander or Willow, but we have every good reason to talk up a storm about it.
(The converse of what was said in another thread. Some of us were coming up with Buffyversal reason why The First couldn't imitate Tara. A poster asked us if we were joking. I replied that AMber's unwillingness to play evilTara was only outside the B'verse.)

2-Sex without obligations doesn't work for m,e, but I don;'t know if I'd know that without having tried it. I'm not universally non-judgemental about mutual-consnet practices *cough"Do you trust me?"Cough* but I don't think what B&S were giving each other was wrong.

3-And I don't think buffy was strictlys epakign using Satsu, since Satsu was perfectly willing, despite wanting more, to take what she could get and move on. Better than a vibrator when it comes to the conversation afterwards.

4-As to the whole "inapprorpriate for chain of command reasons," I see the point, but don't grant it. This is basically an informal organization, so a strict code isn't really applicable.

DaddyCatALSO | November 26, 02:47 CET

DaddyCatALSO, yeah, pretty much agreed on all points there. Lots of things can be said to be "not a particularly good idea" without being unequivocally, indisputably, going-straight-to-hell "Wrong".

Rowan Hawthorn | November 26, 04:01 CET

This reminds of something from my way distant past, I think. Way back when, when I was in college and taking a class that simply was set as a seminar, there were a diverse mix of people in the class and we got to talking about race. I said that when I looked at people in the class I did not first see that some were black and some were white; what I first saw was just people. I was not attempting to dismiss anyone, but I know one of the African American women in the class was offended by me saying that. That is, that identity was important to her, and while I could not have known that going in, it was a reminder that we all identify ourselves as we do. In this case of Buffy with Satsu, I don't find it surprising or even much culturally important; I do find it an interesting complexion to the story whose import has not yet played out, but almost certainly has nothing to do with the fact that Buffy slept with a woman. Just as Oz would have been killed to drive Willow's story had Tara not existed, Satsu simply serves a part of the story, and from that perspective, the fact that it is a woman that Buffy slept with is simply a fact in the story. How this is viewed in the larger culture is not something I can know or predict; as everyone knows I am into reader response, so how someone constructs meaning here is up to them and will be based on whatever they wish to base it on. Could some be homophobic and read this negatively? Of course. Do I, personally, feel this is important. No, I do not. It is just part of the story, and I do not yet know what it means for the tale. Is there cultural significance or importance to Thirteen having meaningless sex with women on House, or Angela starting a new relation with her former lesbian lover on Bones? I really do not think so. It is just part of the story, and I wish there would come a time when we would attach no significance at all to the fact that someone enters a consenting relation with someone else no matter what sex is involved. Straights do it all the time and we give it no real thought at all, because it is the norm. Only when we step outside the norm do we invest the relation with far more meaning. But try as I might I cannot get the words to express what I am trying to say, so I think I shall not try to say it any more. :-)

Dana5140 | November 26, 04:04 CET

I get what you're trying to say, Dana; but I don't think you're getting what the rest of us here have said, which is that, regardless of how you may have read the story or I may have read the story, or anyone else here may have read the story, quite a few people in the general fandom had a very bad, very vocal reaction. Which is exactly what I read the article as addressing. Where are we missing each other? From what I see here, I'd say most of us probably agree with you that it would be nice to see a time when people wouldn't care one way or the other about the gender of whomever a fictional character (or a non-fictional one, for that matter) might see fit to have either a relationship or a one-night stand with. Unfortunately, that's not the way it is (and I really don't expect to live long enough to see it, either...)

Rowan Hawthorn | November 26, 04:28 CET

I was not kidding.



Yes, of course there is. No matter that a reader or watcher might wish about it some day not being more culturally significant than a straight couple hooking up, it still is significant- maybe in the mind of individual readers, definitely in the culture at large.

zeitgeist | November 26, 06:26 CET

There has been no outcry on these events, ZG. They are taken as a matter of course, of of a matter of whatever. Which, in my estimation, is fine. Your argument seems really to be saying, in any given event in any given program at any given time there is cultural importance, if even in the mind of an individual viewer. Well, of course. But in larger terms? That's where I am not sure.

Rowan, I did say Could some be homophobic and read this negatively? Of course. so does that not agree with what you said?

Dana5140 | November 26, 12:42 CET

I'd say there was an outcry (for a variety of reasons) amongst the people that knew/cared about Buffy/Satsu. If you're saying there was no mass public outcry then I agree Dana5140 but isn't that more likely to be because it occurred in a comic that maybe 100,000 people in the entire world actually read ?

Whatever we might like to think, we're tiny in comparison to the world at large, huge deals that have us all in a tizzy for weeks often don't cause even the slightest ripple "out there".

And if you're saying that even amongst the fans there was no massive outcry about the gay aspect purely due to the "gayness" of it then I suspect that's at least partly down to peer pressure (if someone that felt that way on here actually said so i'd imagine they'd encounter a fair amount of hostility) and maybe also an element of self-selection among Buffy fans (i.e. the nature of the show itself may, on balance, tend to attract more socially liberal fans).

Saje | November 26, 13:45 CET

Even here there were people who didn't love it - and not necessarily for homophobic reasons. There were people who said they were going to stop reading the comics, there were people who thought it was out of character for Buffy.

zeitgeist | November 26, 14:59 CET

Sure but that's what Dana5140 is saying (i.e. that the furore wasn't over the gayness but for other reasons). My point is that no-one on here (that I recall) admitted they didn't like it because they had a problem with homosexuality which might be because we're a relatively (socially) liberal bunch (at least when it comes to those that share our points of view) OR might be because no-one wanted to admit it owing to the reaction they'd probably incur.

Either way, what happened on here most definitely doesn't mean that gay relationships are taken as "a matter of course". Extrapolating from us to the world at large doesn't always net particularly useful results IMO (see boxoffice, 'Serenity's for instance). Probably cos you guys are all weird ;-).

Saje | November 26, 15:55 CET

There we go- thank you, saje (sage!), for putting my words into meaningful words.

And from here, I would like to wish everyone, in the US and out, a happy Thanksgiving.

Dana5140 | November 26, 16:45 CET

Well, I recall at least one person complaining specifically about the gayness (and I believe the self-selection kicked in at that point and they dropped off the radar), and some might be said to have done so while couching it in terms of it not being right for Buffy, but I haven't gone back and re-read those threads recently (not that much of a masochist). Also, all of the media attention was surely "about the gayness". Happy Thanksgiving US-types!

[ edited by zeitgeist on 2008-11-26 16:49 ]

zeitgeist | November 26, 16:45 CET

Also, all of the media attention was surely "about the gayness".

Yeah agreed. Actually, I seem to agree with you and Dana5140 seems to agree with me yet the two of you don't agree with each other. Which is kinda confusing cos of, y'know, logic ;).

ETA: That said, reading again it could be Dana5140 is agreeing with my characterisation of his position rather than actually agreeing with my position. Phew, transitive property maintained, the universe can stand down to ParadoxCon 1 ;).

And yep, happy Thanksgiving to the Yanks on the board (didn't realise it was today) - have a good 'un ;).

[ edited by Saje on 2008-11-26 17:08 ]

Saje | November 26, 16:57 CET

Its tomorrow, but people may be headed off to travel and not reading tomorrow, thus the wishing in advance.



That made me smile :). Thanks! My point is really that it is neither culturally nor personally insignificant, though probably less significant than even a few years ago.

zeitgeist | November 26, 18:30 CET

Dana5140 zeiutgeist: If I could get past the stymie in writing the first murder scene investigation in my screenplay, I'd be trying to work along the lines of it having little external significance.

Saje:I dunno, I call myself Far Right and I'm here.

DaddyCatALSO | November 26, 18:57 CET

saje, lol there. Ver' funny! But I think I was agreeing that you were able to say what I was trying to say, I think. I think.

Dana5140 | November 26, 19:00 CET

I'm not so sure, Dana ;) (JOKING!!!!!!!).

zeitgeist | November 26, 21:40 CET

And here are Joss's own words today:

MJ: What kind of fallout have you gotten for Buffy having an affair with a woman in the Buffy comic?

JW: I have gotten no fallout of any kind. The fact of the matter is that [women kissing] is kind of old news. It's even old news in pop culture. We tried not to turn it into a giant event and spend months going "Wait for the Buffy kiss—so she can figure out how heterosexual she is!"

Dana5140 | November 27, 01:28 CET

I refer you (and, it seems, Joss ;) to my comment about New York Times interviews, the (possibly more liberal) nature of Buffy fandom and the relatively tiny impact the comic has on the culture at large (despite how it may look from here, inside the goldfish bowl). I'd also add, thinking on it, that "girl on girl action" has long been the mainstream friendly face of gayness (and women kissing being old news is a long way from homosexuality being completely accepted) and that Joss not suffering any "fallout" (whatever that even means) does not in any way mean no one's bothered by it.

I'm glad you think people in general no longer have any sort of issue with homosexuality Dana5140, I just wish I lived in that world too.

[ edited by Saje on 2008-11-27 10:27 ]

Saje | November 27, 10:27 CET

WSS^tm.

zeitgeist | November 27, 17:45 CET

Saje: In a way, you're just re-stating what Joss said. In a way. Mainstream friendly is quite true, but perhaps it's a truth that can be used.

DaddyCatALSO | November 28, 20:11 CET

And in a way i'm not too. What a crazy mixed up world we live in ;).

I.e. with the best will in the world to him, what Joss said is irrelevant to the point Dana5140 is making and me and zeitgeist are contesting. To use another example, people don't always get caught - or receive "fallout" - for committing murder but it's plainly not true to say "Therefore we no longer have a problem with murder", right ?

Saje | November 29, 10:37 CET