*Spoilers* Previews to #22 "Swell"

[AndrewCrossett]

So, by that definition, wouldn't Willow be bi-sexual, too? She's had sexual relations with both sexes, and there's no guarantee that she might not have another male lover sometime in the future.

Once again, if we must use the labels...

Willow would be a bisexual if she still has sexual attraction to men in addition to women. The few things she's said about this suggest that she doesn't. ("I don't truck with the stubbly crowd.") if she doesn't, then she's homosexual.

Willow also self-identifies as a lesbian, while Buffy hasn't self-identified as anything except to say she's not gay "so you'd notice." (Note that she said this before she had sex with Satsu, who noticed.)
[br][/br]
Edit:
[br][/br]

Hmm. What is in the bag? I'm guessing it wasn't monster's lunch. Or maybe it was...

Satsu seems a little spacey or something, and Kennedy almost seemed like she was trying to be nice there at the very end. That, alone, tips me off that Kennedy is up to no good. But something else off. I don't know what it is, I can't put my finger on it.

But, it's just 3 pages out of, what, 11? Hum, these comics are way too short.

Maybe those furry little gremlin things are in the bag? The ones that are supposed to go after Buffy this issue?

What seems "off" to me is why Buffy would let Kennedy do this job in the first place? Kennedy doesn't get along with Buffy and doesn't work with her directly. They have very different ideas of leadership, and when last seen Kennedy was demonstrating her team spirit by threatening to choke Buffy like a chicken if she laid a hand on Willow.

Also, Buffy knows Kennedy is all worked up over her thing with Satsu and wouldn't be an impartial judge of the job she's doing.

I suspect Buffy doesn't even know Kennedy is doing this. If she does, she really needs to step back and reassess her delegation skills.

We usually get a longer preview than 3 pages. I guess it's because if they showed any more they'd give away the surprise of what's in the bag.

 

[wehappyfew]

Satsu is smokin'
wish she liked dudes.

other than that the scene kinda sucked.
they spent the entire scene talking about buffy's sexuality....kinda how these boards roll sometimes 🙂

seriously season 8, 3 strikes and you're....well, you'll always be in with me...

 

[UnKle]

One thing about labels is that we, as humans, must name and categorize everything in our world. It's not bad, it's just our nature and always has been. That which is not named or cannot be wholly categorized, in at least a semi-permanent nature, is confusing to us.

That said, I think I do understand why Willow calls herself a lesbian, and not bisexual. Her meeting and falling in love with Tara doesn't invalidate any feelings she had before Tara, but I think Willow knows that she won't be dating guys anymore. Now, is this true? Because we don't know what Willow will do in the future, so it seems reasonable to futz over labels because who knows, right? Even though the audience has been told and shown that Willow specifically doesn't date men anymore. So, for all intents and purposes, when Willow says she's gay, Willow's gay.

When Joss and co. say Buffy is "not gay", she's not gay. But is she bisexual? You know Joss is a witty wordsmith and enjoys the layers of what words mean, or what the lack of words might mean.

Again, with the not knowing of the future, but also again with the saying that I don't think what Buffy experienced with her time with Satsu was just a quick fling or a throwaway experiment. Post-bliss, Buffy's main thing was to try and break it to Satsu gently that she didn't think this thing of theirs would work out because... and then they were interrupted. Buffy's head is saying, 'you can't be around me and love me, because everybody who gives two flying flips about me ends up dead, half-blind, or needing to get away from so much Buffyness. And if I let this continue, you'll get hurt.' Unfortunately for Buffy's Spock-like logic, her heart kind of still wants what she can't have. I'm almost sure that if Satsu hadn't ended it, Buffy would have continued seeing her. My qualifier is that although I think they would have had a generally positive relationship, it would be yet another relationship where Buffy wasn't 100% present, and Buffy would have probably ended it.

Kennedy is definitely threatened by Buffy, though. I couldn't figure out her deal in Season 7, other than she was a bratty rich kid who just decided she was new and thus had better ideas than anyone else. I definitely wouldn't put it beyond Kennedy to plant seeds in this issue that sows some frustration or doubt in Satsu, and it comes back to Buffy, which screws up the Scooby dynamic if she confronts Kennedy. Maybe Satsu won't kick Kennedy's ass, but I'm SURE Buffy would, given the chance.

 

[AndrewCrossett]

When Joss and co. say Buffy is "not gay", she's not gay. But is she bisexual? You know Joss is a witty wordsmith and enjoys the layers of what words mean, or what the lack of words might mean.

I can totally picture Joss sitting there, with a straight face, talking to an interviewer:

"Is Buffy gay?"

"No."

"Is she bisexual?"

"No."

"Is she straight?"

"No."

Because Joss is on record as being of the opinion that sexual orientation is a continuum that one can move on, and not a series of closed rooms where you have to choose one and stay in it.

That's why these labels really don't work well at all when applied to characters in a Joss story. He's just not going to respect them.

I think Buffy made it clear to Satsu in "A Beautiful Sunset" -- during the vamp fight just before Twilight showed up -- that her misgivings about a relationship between them are NOT due to her "not being gay" (I think Buffy couldn't care less about that) but due to concern for what happens to people she allows herself to love.

"It's fine for me... it's bad for you" is the defining line of this whole relationship.

 

[Don]

I hope Satsu beats Kennedy's ass. Hard.

 

[Five]

AndrewCrossett, I don't mean to be rude or inappropriate, I really, really don't, I swear, I just don't know how to say this in another way... but what do you know of homosexuality exactly ?

Because your opinion kind of seems to me as a little flawed and short-minded. It's just so much more complicated than "you like boys?" "yes." "you like girls?" "no." > "you're straight." or "yes." > "you're bi".
I have a lots of friends, mostly girls, who are straight, who could never go out with a girl and build a future on a lesbian relationship, but who can appreciate a female body and, if they got the chance, with the right person, might just try out once a lesbian sexual relationship.

It's not about who you sexually desire. It's about who you can build your dreams about. A bisexual person can be in a relationship with a girl or a boy, it just makes no difference for them. But lots and lots of young people these days are free, open-minded... In the last few years, sexuality has become something that's more talked about, more shown, it's all around us and it's hardly never shown as a bad thing. So of course young people (15-25) experiment. It's like a new position - unless it's a new gender. It's not about the sexual attraction.

I think it comes with great open-mindness (can I say "open mindness"?). Some people are so open about homosexuality, so tolerant, that it even applies to them. Everyone of us have a part of homosexuality in them. Some of them don't see it at all - but when you're tolerant, you're tolerant with yourself, and even if you don't feel it, you stay open about the fact that if it were to happen to you, it wouldn't be a big deal. Why does everything have to be a big deal anyway ?

 

[AndrewCrossett]

Then you're admitting that sexuality is a continuum and not a series of labels. Which was my point, exactly.

But when other people choose to use labels, I'm going to point it out when they use them incorrectly. Don't want things in black & white? Then don't use black & white terms.

 

[Don]

AndrewCrossett, I don't mean to be rude or inappropriate, I really, really don't, I swear, I just don't know how to say this in another way... but what do you know of homosexuality exactly ?

Because your opinion kind of seems to me as a little flawed and short-minded. It's just so much more complicated than "you like boys?" "yes." "you like girls?" "no." > "you're straight." or "yes." > "you're bi".
I have a lots of friends, mostly girls, who are straight, who could never go out with a girl and build a future on a lesbian relationship, but who can appreciate a female body and, if they got the chance, with the right person, might just try out once a lesbian sexual relationship.

It's not about who you sexually desire. It's about who you can build your dreams about. A bisexual person can be in a relationship with a girl or a boy, it just makes no difference for them. But lots and lots of young people these days are free, open-minded... In the last few years, sexuality has become something that's more talked about, more shown, it's all around us and it's hardly never shown as a bad thing. So of course young people (15-25) experiment. It's like a new position - unless it's a new gender. It's not about the sexual attraction.

I think it comes with great open-mindness (can I say "open mindness"?). Some people are so open about homosexuality, so tolerant, that it even applies to them. Everyone of us have a part of homosexuality in them. Some of them don't see it at all - but when you're tolerant, you're tolerant with yourself, and even if you don't feel it, you stay open about the fact that if it were to happen to you, it wouldn't be a big deal. Why does everything have to be a big deal anyway ?

i kind of feel like you just re-stated his argument...

 

[UnKle]

Bah! Stupid fingers and their stupid inability to type when cold. Sorry about the confusing, possibly not even a word, rep there, Five.

But I was going to say "That's essentially what Andrew Crossett was saying, that sexuality is fluid and changing over the course of a person's life." I would actually further add that some people change only in millimeters, and others change in miles, but the point is not how much sexuality is fluid, but that it is.

 

[Five]

Well, I can see how we agree on certain things, it's true I didn't let that show enough in my post, but no, I disagree mostly with the fact that if people were to use labels, then they should label Buffy 'bisexual'. Again, appreciating a once-in-a-while, when-the-occasion-presents-itself, same-gender sex, doesn't make you bisexual. It's only partly about sex, it's mainly about love. It's about what gender you can fall in love with, imagine yourself live with, build a family with. Those friends of mine I talked about, I don't see then as bisexual for one second, I wouldn't let anybody define them so, because I know it's not true. Being open to same-gender sex doesn't make you bisexual. So no, Buffy is not bisexual.

I like that you like Batsu this much, but I wonder if your liking it doesn't make you see more of it than it really is. God knows there's a lot of this kind of thinking going on in any fandom, on many many subjects, anyway...

EDIT:
I hadn't seen your post UnKle, and I totally agree with you guys about this, to me it's always been a fact, really. But that's exactly my point too : as sexuality is fluid, you cannot really define it, and even though in the past someone has had same-gender sex, doesn't make them bisexual, since it was just ponctual. When you look at the whole picture, that's how you can see what is the sexuality of someone... I'm sorry I'm not making myself clearer.

 

[Uncle Rory]

Why is this important? Who believes this is important? Why state the uselessness of labels while at the same time using them and giving them so much power? Baffling.

The thing is that dictionary definitions are irrelevant (as is society's conception of what is and what isn't gay, bi or straight)

The label that general society puts on people reflects the collective and individual morals, beliefs and prejudices of the labeling society and the idividuals that make up that society. It doesn't necessarily mean that the people using the labels have the slightest idea what "Gay" or "Communist" or whatever really means. For years gay people were lumped together with perverts and pedophiles yet today the majority of intelligent society realizes that these are completely 100% unequivocably unrelated concepts. I certainly don't want whatever label anyone might apply to me being defined by some hypocrital, bible thumping, conservative, main stream, anal-retentant hack.

Show me a person that insists on labelling someone GAY and I will show you a conflicted person with urges or thoughts that they can't deal with. Same with a society. Oh no, Gay people will corrupt our children, weaken the family and we will soon all be heathen devil worshippers. I call that ten pounds of manure in a three pound bag.

What do I mean by "dictionary definitions are irrelevant?
Well, does anyone here really believe that the guy or girl who claims to be 100% straight has never had a gay thought in their whole life?

Some psycologists believe that under the right circumstances the majority of the world would be bi-sexual. Seems logical to me - it's most likely the fear of being labelled GAY that keeps most people Straight. This is never more clear than in same sex situations such as Jail or the Military or maybe within some Churches. People who would never entertain a same sex thought suddenly engage in activity they would never do outside that circumstance. Doesn't mean they are gay.

The real difference between a Bi Buffy and a Straight Buffy is that she got caught - people know and therefore form opinions, (the characters and of course US, the viewers)

In closing, labeling a person for any reason is just another form of prejudice. IMHO the fascination and determination that "it has to be this way because " ........ is akin to tuning in to Entertainment Tonight so you don't miss the next Britney scandal, the next Brangelina farce or Paris Hilton shenanigans. I have way more respect for Buffy than I do for all those folks so I'll just decline and consider her as (or more) human with the right to enjoy her successes or mistakes, loves, losses and predilictions without the judgement inherent in labels.

Uncle Rory

 

[AndrewCrossett]

Honestly, Five, I really, really don't have any desire to put a label on Buffy. If you don't want to call her bisexual, that's completely fine with me. What led to this whole conversation in the first place is that someone said they thought she was straight, and I said no, that label simply doesn't apply to her. Any more than "gay" or (if you like) "bisexual" do.

I do love Batsu, but everything I say about them is based on stuff that was in the actual comic. I'm not claiming that Satsu has to be the Great Love of Buffy's Life and they need to get married and have kids together. I just want people to take a close and unbiased look at what happens between them, physically and verbally, and realize that it wasn't just an experiment or a fling. There is real feeling there, on both sides.

 

[Five]

Well I think that's exactly where we disagree. That's what I wanted to say without really managing to, but I think as, as far as labels go, - though Uncle Rory has a point about the uselessness of labels - "straight" is just fine for Buffy. I won't use it, though. But in black and white terms, I think she's way closer to straight than she ever was to bisexual. Anyway. I'm glad we found some points to agree about - this, I don't think we won't, cos I can't see any feelings from Buffy for Satsu, but hey, each one of us has his own interpretation of art. =)

 

[AndrewCrossett]

Well I think that's exactly where we disagree. That's what I wanted to say without really managing to, but I think as, as far as labels go, - though Uncle Rory has a point about the uselessness of labels - "straight" is just fine for Buffy. I won't use it, though. But in black and white terms, I think she's way closer to straight than she ever was to bisexual.

Obviously we have very different understandings of what the word "straight" is supposed to mean. I think it specifically doesn't describe Buffy. But, we'll just have to disagree.

Like I said, these labels are never going to work in a Whedon story because he doesn't consider them valid.

I don't think we won't, cos I can't see any feelings from Buffy for Satsu, but hey, each one of us has his own interpretation of art. =)

Would it be worthwhile to point out specifically where I see feelings from Buffy for Satsu? Or are we just tired of talking about this?
[br][/br]
Edit:
[br][/br]

The best point you make is that Buffy has feelings for Satsu - Still doesn't derfine her sexuality tho.

I don't want to define her sexuality. I have no interest in doing so. Neither does Joss.

Her feelings for Satsu define nothing except her feelings for Satsu.

I just don't want others to try to define her sexuality either. Words mean things. But in this particular case, the words we're using are not helpful to our understanding, IMO.

Does this make my position clearer?

 

[Tranquillity]

Can I just say, the events of 'After the Fall #16' make the goings on in 'Harmonic Divergence' a bit more understandable....

 

[AndrewCrossett]

Can I just say, the events of 'After the Fall #16' make the goings on in 'Harmonic Divergence' a bit more understandable....

I haven't read it yet.

So you see evidence that Joss is aligning the plots of the two comics?

 

[UnKle]

I saw the cover for Angel #16 and was blown enough away that I bought it. I haven't read it yet but it looks like a lot's happening.

I'm not a born shipper, in fact I'm sort of an anti-shipper in terms of that it's just hard for me to see Buffy coming out of her shell enough to settle down with anyone. I have a much easier time envisioning Buffy running alone into the smoke of some apocalyptic battle, against the wishes of everyone, and then we never hear from her again.

As far as the labels thing, sexuality is just something that everybody sees differently, and often in terms of their own experiences rather than distilling it down objectively to its pure meaning.

But, I do have to say one thing. Sexuality is about relationships and love, yeah, but it's also about sex. Hence the "sex" part of the uality. If I spend my life having sex with both men and women, but only having a relationship with men, then I am very definitely bisexual. /personalopinion

Btw, I'm gay. Just in case that clears anything up for anybody. I don't want to come across in any of my posts like I might be bigoted, because I'm not, or at least I hope not to be.

I think one thing most of us agree on, at least, is that Kennedy is nosing into things and giving opinions where they're not really wanted, like she's always done, and that the more she does it, the closer she gets to somebody just snapping and putting the beat down on her.

 

[AndrewCrossett]

I think one thing most of us agree on, at least, is that Kennedy is nosing into things and giving opinions where they're not really wanted, like she's always done, and that the more she does it, the closer she gets to somebody just snapping and putting the beat down on her.

The thing that strikes me about Kennedy here is that she barely knows Satsu. Satsu has been by Buffy's side for a long while, and Willow has been deliberately keeping Kennedy away from Buffy (see "Anywhere But Here") since... oh, about season 5 of Angel (off to Brazil). Obviously Satsu recognizes her right away, so they've at least met, but it's hardly plausible that they have any basis to be actual friends.

So why would Kennedy volunteer to go all the way to Japan, to do an official job she's not at all qualified to do, just to hand out unwanted love-life advice to a woman she hardly knows?

That's why I know Kennedy has her own agenda going on here, beyond wanting to "help a sister lesbian through her pain."

 

[Pulse]

The thing that strikes me about Kennedy here is that she barely knows Satsu. Satsu has been by Buffy's side for a long while, and Willow has been deliberately keeping Kennedy away from Buffy (see "Anywhere But Here") since... oh, about season 5 of Angel (off to Brazil).

You know... okay I am pro Kennedy/Willow, but I even laugh at the thought that Will would rather be in Brazil with Kennedy than hanging out with Buffy.. I feel like Ken would be hard to handle without your friends anchoring you to what it's like to interact with normal people.

I think that Kennedy has no issues stepping on people's toes. She is incredibly spoiled and she will make her judgments, just like how the second she met Buffy she pretty decided "hmm, nothing special". Actually I hope there is no Satsu/Kennedy romance because I just cannot see Satsu taking Kennedy's shit....even if Willow gives a ringing endorsement to Ken's pierced tongue 😛

 

[AndrewCrossett]

You know... okay I am pro Kennedy/Willow, but I even laugh at the thought that Will would rather be in Brazil with Kennedy than hanging out with Buffy.. I feel like Ken would be hard to handle without your friends anchoring you to what it's like to interact with normal people.

Well, they did spend some time apart for a while, so maybe that did become an issue.

I think that Kennedy has no issues stepping on people's toes. She is incredibly spoiled and she will make her judgments, just like how the second she met Buffy she pretty decided "hmm, nothing special". Actually I hope there is no Satsu/Kennedy romance because I just cannot see Satsu taking Kennedy's shit....even if Willow gives a ringing endorsement to Ken's pierced tongue 😛

Especially since Willow is still claiming exclusive use of it.

Kennedy's behavior in the preview is not exactly geared toward making Satsu think, gee, I wish I could be around you all the time.