Willow's sexuality

[Skanky Vamp]

pansexual

I always thought he was quite sexual too.. could be just because he is horny.

 

[VisionBoy]

As Blaze said, many gay people have relationships with the opposite sex before coming out. I have many gay friends who have. If when any of them referred to themselves as gay I said "Nope, you've had relationships before coming out; so you're bisexual!"... I imagine we'd have a bit of a problem.

Not sure why it matters that Willow is fictional. She had a relationship with a guy in her teens, later realized she was gay and had relationships with women ever since. I really can't see where the complication is in that. It's not as if Willow realized her sexuality super late in life. She was in college; a place and time in life that's often associated with making self-discoveries.

If someone (fictional or real) labels themselves a certain way and makes regular references to having certain feelings; I'll accept that they probably know their own feelings and sexual identity better than I do.

 

[Ethan Reigns]

There are a number of people who were at one time in a heterosexual marriage but later came out as gay. Elton John and Sally Ride are good examples from each gender. I have no problem with Willow not having had a relationship before, hooking up with Oz because that is what she thought she wanted, then accepting the proof from that relationship that she was actually gay. After that, she identified as gay, she made choices as a gay person and she never reverted to heterosexuality and she made her choices at a much earlier age than the more famous people I have mentioned as examples.

 

[Cordy_Chase]

One's sexual history is not a factor in their current orientation. Homosexuality is actually more fluid than heterosexuality but when a heterosexual woman converts it's most often in midlife and either during a heterosexual relationship/marriage or after a break up without any history of lesbian fantasy. Sometimes a particularly scarring experience with a man could cause a young woman to experiment with other women without necessarily realizing the desire, we see an example of this in True Blood with the character Tara.

Willow had been affected deeply by Oz leaving her, being the first guy to notice her as something other than a free passing grade dispenser, as beautiful exactly the way she was, I'm willing to buy that yeah, it was true love. Her confidence with men was already low when she met him after being tricked by a demon (I Robot, You Jane) and then ignored by Xander. It makes sense that she'd become wary of men and be drawn to a woman who offered what she'd needed from a man, an instant emotional interest in her and to see the parts of her that no one else ever really did.

As for whether or not she could have still been attracted to men after firmly establishing herself as able to be attracted to women, one sexual relationship with a woman realistically would not be enough to establish her orientation so she shouldn't have been expected to have it figured out at any point throughout the course of the entire series. This is supported by slight instances of her attraction swaying in how she responds to Dracula, some comments to/about Giles here and there and I believe some faint traces of her once attraction to Xander have always been hanging around such as how he was able to reach her with the words 'I love you' when she was in ultimate evil mode (I know there can be a friendship type of love, but that scene felt quite intimate to me personally).

By season 7, however, pretty solid clarity seems to be reached with the episode Him. When Willow is affected by the love spell gone viral which is aimed towards a young man the sarcastic suggestion to turn the subject into a young woman instantly makes the synthetic attraction more appealing to her and she attempts it. That's not the response of a bisexual, gender wouldn't matter.
Though how she was able to be affected by that spell isn't logical if she were exclusively gay. This suggests that it was not designed to consider sexual orientation which means that straight men sensibly should not have been immune yet Xander and Spike were never affected. If straight men were immune a gay woman should have been as well because she bats for the same team...sorry straying off topic.

There is actually also a slight hint in ATS when Harmony was first transferred from BTVS. Cordelia finds out that she's a vampire in a phone conversation with Willow to which she comments with relief that she thought Harmony's suggestive behavior towards her indicated lesbian. She quickly remembers who she is talking to and gives what passed on the Cordelia scale at that time period for an apology.

Cordelia wasn't the only one to call Willow gay in whatever form and not be corrected, going back to Him, Buffy had pointed it out to her face when she'd first been hit by the spell right before the suggestion is made to turn the subject female. Willow may be shy, but she's also always been true to herself so I doubt she'd let anyone especially her friends and family believe a misinterpretation of her identity.

I think Joss pretty solidly considers her gay and since he took a lot of time deciding between her and Xander to come out as the gay character this seems to be one of his better thought out concepts.

 

[Fuffy]

I'd say she's bi, but found it easier to identify as a lesbian because of all the anti-bisexuality vibe in the world 😛

 

[bespangeled]

I don't see sexuality as anything but fluid - just not everyone is going to wander the entire continuum. Very few people seem to hold to one edge and never move.

I have a daughter who told me from the time she could speak that she was a boy named Christopher. There were some past life memories involved but there was also a strong gender identification as male even after the past life memories faded. She's bi - or maybe pansexual. After 25 years of identifying as male (to the point of seeing herself in a store window and realizing she was female was a shock and disappointment) she decided/realized she had had gender dysmorphia and now identifies as female. If there is one thing I have learned about sexuality after a very long life, it is seldom static. I tend to think most people are probably bi, but not everyone chooses to act on all their attractions.

Willow identifies as gay - I respect her right to self identify. But should she ever change that self identification it doesn't mean that she was wrong when she said she was a lesbian. It just means sexuality is fluid.

 

[Fuffy]

I'm definitely still waiting on a show that will do bisexual characters right

Same here.
However, getting the whole bisexuality thing right would be quite hard to achieve because some are a Kinsey 3 and others are a Kinsey 2 or Kinsey 4 (or somewhere in between).

Therefore, while I'd love to see a show that gets it rights (The O.C got close to this with Olivia Wilde's character), the 'perfect' bisexual character (meaning, someone relatable in terms of their thoughts and actions) would be very hard to write.

Also, people assuming that one is straight just like that and saying homo/bi/trans/whatever phobic comments around them because of that assumption annoys me because last time I checked, my sexual orientation is not a choice that I made, It's something that I was born with 🙂

Just my 2€ on the topic

Back to the topic of Willow:
While I think that she is bi, she has the right to identify with whatever label she feels comfortable with and if 'lesbian' is what she wants to use, she is perfectly permitted to do so🙂

Wow, that was long 😛

 

[GentlyBenevolnt]

Me too, I think Olivia Wilde on 'House' was as close as I've seen for a while but she was still 'disturbed' rather than a happy bi.
Long ago there was a UK show in the 90s called This Life that managed it fine! And of course Captain Jack on Dr Who took the David Bowie 'anything that smiles back' attitude ;-)

 

[white avenger]

In Season 7, when Kennedy asked Willow when she knew that she was attracted to women, Willow said, "It wasn't women. It was one woman. Tara." That seems to me more like she was saying that she fell in love with Tara because she was special and unique more than that she was female. I don't see that as either an affirmation or a denial that she is gay. As for her relationship with Kennedy, in all fairness, the only thing that that affirms to me is Willow's bad judgement.

 

[MarlieTheSlayer]

I see her as a bisexual character, but I respect her identity as a gay woman. I do hope we will have a proud bisexual character in the BuffyVerse someday. I could use more role models 🙁

 

[riceballalien]

Back to the topic of Willow:
While I think that she is bi, she has the right to identify with whatever label she feels comfortable with and if 'lesbian' is what she wants to use, she is perfectly permitted to do so🙂

I feel the same. I am all about identifying as what you want or feel that you are. When it comes down to it, love it was its all about. She was in love with Oz and Xander at one point in time. Even her bad vampire self, she liked both men and women. Angel said that when you turn your true self comes out and becomes more pronounced. For me, it is hard to write as experimenting. She was truly in love with these guys. I really wish that some day media will portray a good bisexual character.

 

[Blaze]

One's sexual history is not a factor in their current orientation. Homosexuality is actually more fluid than heterosexuality but when a heterosexual woman converts it's most often in midlife and either during a heterosexual relationship/marriage or after a break up without any history of lesbian fantasy. Sometimes a particularly scarring experience with a man could cause a young woman to experiment with other women without necessarily realizing the desire, we see an example of this in True Blood with the character Tara.

I disagree with this. Homosexuality isn't any more fluid than heterosexuality, both actually describe the end of the spectrum. The fluidity comes from people that are between those two terms in the spectrum (which Willow might be). But in general the situation you're speaking of comes from people that are now older that finally accept their real sexuality, because back in their days, it was extremely looked upon to be gay. Therefore it was much harder to come out. Nowadays, most LGBT people come out much younger because it's finally becoming more accepted to be queer. There is no such thing as "converting" to being gay. Just like you can "convert" to being straight. Or else all those camps that aim at making people straight again would actually work. It's also a huge myth and stereotype that people "turn" gay after a bad experience with man. Seriously, if that were the case a lot more girls would be gay. Sure, in some cases it might happen that the girl realizes she was gay all along, but there is no correlation with abuse from man, or failed marriage, and homosexuality.

Willow had been affected deeply by Oz leaving her, being the first guy to notice her as something other than a free passing grade dispenser, as beautiful exactly the way she was, I'm willing to buy that yeah, it was true love. Her confidence with men was already low when she met him after being tricked by a demon (I Robot, You Jane) and then ignored by Xander. It makes sense that she'd become wary of men and be drawn to a woman who offered what she'd needed from a man, an instant emotional interest in her and to see the parts of her that no one else ever really did.

I'm sure you don't mean it as offensive, but I hear stuff like this all the time and it just grates my gear a bit. You're implying that what Willow truly wanted was a man, but she couldn't find what she was looking for in a man so she turned to women. That just sounds highly inaccurate to me.

s for whether or not she could have still been attracted to men after firmly establishing herself as able to be attracted to women, one sexual relationship with a woman realistically would not be enough to establish her orientation so she shouldn't have been expected to have it figured out at any point throughout the course of the entire series. This is supported by slight instances of her attraction swaying in how she responds to Dracula, some comments to/about Giles here and there and I believe some faint traces of her once attraction to Xander have always been hanging around such as how he was able to reach her with the words 'I love you' when she was in ultimate evil mode (I know there can be a friendship type of love, but that scene felt quite intimate to me personally).

If one relationship wasn't enough, than how to you explain some people marrying their first ever boyfriend or girlfriend. Surely those people must be secretly gay or straight and they just don't know it. Also, gay people are gay, not blind. It's possible to find someone physically attractive, or to find them good looking, without wanting a relationship or having romantic feelings towards them.

By season 7, however, pretty solid clarity seems to be reached with the episode Him. When Willow is affected by the love spell gone viral which is aimed towards a young man the sarcastic suggestion to turn the subject into a young woman instantly makes the synthetic attraction more appealing to her and she attempts it. That's not the response of a bisexual, gender wouldn't matter.
Though how she was able to be affected by that spell isn't logical if she were exclusively gay. This suggests that it was not designed to consider sexual orientation which means that straight men sensibly should not have been immune yet Xander and Spike were never affected. If straight men were immune a gay woman should have been as well because she bats for the same team...sorry straying off topic.

I think the spell was just aimed at women, hence why men were not attracted. Sexual orientation didn't play into it. 

Therefore, while I'd love to see a show that gets it rights (The O.C got close to this with Olivia Wilde's character), the 'perfect' bisexual character (meaning, someone relatable in terms of their thoughts and actions) would be very hard to write.

Oh god I hated what they did in the OC 😛 Correction, I loved it at first, and then it lasted a whole 3 episode of dating and they broke up and boom Marissa was back to being straight! Had it lasted a bit longer it would have been okay, but the whole thing in perspective felt like it was done for rating. But I forgive them, cause I'll never tire of seeing Olivia Wilde make out with women lol.

But if you want a good bi character, I think the 100 did a good job. Their main character is bi, but it's more subtle cause it's a sci-fi show, and romance doesn't really play much into it (which personally I like, cause we get a bi character but her sexuality isn't actually the plot for her character).

 

[Fuffy]

But I forgive them, cause I'll never tire of seeing Olivia Wilde make out with women lol.

Well, it is Olivia Wilde after all 😛
(I'm more mad at the people at Fox for

Spoiler

killing off Marissa

than for breaking up Malex).

I could use more role models 🙁

Blame the "No Bisexuals" trope for that.

Now I can feel Buffy Summers coming on just to steer the thread back to the original subject 😛

 

[thetopher]

I do hope we will have a proud bisexual character in the BuffyVerse someday. I could use more role models 🙁

In terms of a character in the Buffyverse who a lot of bisexual women seem to identify with then that would be Faith.
Note that I said that people identify with her as such, not that she nessesarily is bisexual. She just seems sexually confident and the rest, as they say, is subtext and lingering looks. 🙂

I would also add the Kalinda Sharma from The Good Wife' is a great bisexual (or more accurately doesn't label herself) character who has long term relationships with both guys and girls.

 

[Fuffy]

Note that I said that people identify with her as such, not that she nessesarily is bisexual. She just seems sexually confident and the rest, as they say, is subtext and lingering looks. 🙂

My POV on Faith's sexuality :

I thought that Faith might be bi for a bit (partly because of the bisexual women being able to relate to her a bit part, I definitely found her more relatable than Willow), until I saw a thread on BB talking about the subject.

I think that the subtext is too in your face to even be considered subtext, possibly because I've been on Faith's 'side' of the attraction before (the one who is attracted to that member of the same gender 😛).

I also like how confident Faith is with her sexuality 🙂

EDIT: Don't know why, but I feel relived typing this 🙂

 

[thetopher]

I thought that Faith might be bi for a bit (because of the bisexual women being able to relate to her a bit part, I definitely found her more relatable than Willow), until I saw a thread on BB talking about the subject.

I think that the subtext is too in your face to even be considered subtext, possibly because I've been on Faith's 'side' of the attraction before (the one who is attracted to that member of the same gender 😛).

I've heard this A LOT from various friends of mine. Of liking somebody so much more than they like you and in that way.
The impression of Faith liking Buffy and really being into her (because their slayers, new friend in a new town, they're both very hot, whatever) and Buffy being ignorant of it/having Bangel blinders on or just being in denial about any sort of 'connection'.

A lot of Faith's hyper friendliness towards Buffy in those first few episodes (and later in 'Bad Girls' ) is so different from how we see her treat anybody else that it does raise some questions.
...But it could also be projection by fans. 😛
And while there is some element to that when you have some of the writers adding subtext and the actress playing it that way deliberatly, well. yeah, it really isn't subtext anymore.

Back to Willow- I'm a big believer in however the character identifies themselves as thet's who they are.
Of course you can make comments/idle wonderings about Willow and her attractions to Xander, Oz and Giles and I understand all of that but in the end she is comfortable labeling herself as gay (as she repeatedly states throughout a lot of s5 and 6...) so that's what she is. 🙂

 

[Cordy_Chase]

I disagree with this. Homosexuality isn't any more fluid than heterosexuality

*shrug*, Maybe you're right. I'm not too knowledgeable on the subject that's why I did a bit of research on the internet to help me out. We all can't have the same viewpoint and the internet can be wrong.

I'm sure you don't mean it as offensive, but I hear stuff like this all the time and it just grates my gear a bit. You're implying that what Willow truly wanted was a man, but she couldn't find what she was looking for in a man so she turned to women. That just sounds highly inaccurate to me.

What grates my gear is when someone tells me how I intended to come across when no one knows but me, sorry. I appreciate your gentle approach but even if my wording is at fault for a misrepresentation, which I concede that it can be, I don't appreciate assumptions being made of my thoughts. You can just ask what I meant, something I DO appreciate is when someone is willing to consider my side of the story because it can at times gnaw at me for a while if I can't say my piece. If you still disagree with me in the end, fine. I'll feel better just knowing I was heard.

In fact, in the paragraph just above I made a statement that is introductory to my angle when I referred to Willow and Oz and I feel that you're reading the concept the wrong way regardless of who is making a statement of it. When a young woman who has been disappointed by men turns to women, it is not supplementing but the exact opposite. It says that it's about what she's looking for not where it comes from. Even if only subconsciously she's broadening her horizon, willing to go anywhere to find what she needs in a partner not settling and the fact that being gay is frowned upon makes this even more so. Being gay is difficult because even one's own family (especially the heavily religious ones) can reject them. So it's beyond me how an individual following their heart to becoming a homosexual in a society which commonly rejects it can be seen as supplementing.

If one relationship wasn't enough, than how to you explain some people marrying their first ever boyfriend or girlfriend. Surely those people must be secretly gay or straight and they just don't know it.

Really? How many times are first relationships soul mates? How can someone really know what they want without exploring what's out there? Is someone really a fan of a particular band if the song by that band that they like is the ONLY song by that band they've ever heard?

What is this about those who marry their first partner are secretly of a different orientation than said relationship? That comes across to me as a complete disconnect from the concept being discussed in that paragraph and it makes absolutely no sense to me. I don't understand what suggestion you were trying to make with that at all.

It's possible to find someone physically attractive, or to find them good looking, without wanting a relationship or having romantic feelings towards them.

I never claimed otherwise but presented one viewpoint. Perhaps I should have been clearer but once again you are assuming.

Forgive my tone, I'm not trying to be harsh but that whole assumption thing makes me feel like that scratching on a chalkboard sound is right in my ear, something I am working on. In addition I can be a bit too sensitive and get embarrassed when a post I felt was well thought out is torn apart like this.

 

[Blaze]

What grates my gear is when someone tells me how I intended to come across when no one knows but me, sorry. I appreciate your gentle approach but even if my wording is at fault for a misrepresentation, which I concede that it can be, I don't appreciate assumptions being made of my thoughts. You can just ask what I meant, something I DO appreciate is when someone is willing to consider my side of the story because it can at times gnaw at me for a while if I can't say my piece. If you still disagree with me in the end, fine. I'll feel better just knowing I was heard.

In fact, in the paragraph just above I made a statement that is introductory to my angle when I referred to Willow and Oz and I feel that you're reading the concept the wrong way regardless of who is making a statement of it. When a young woman who has been disappointed by men turns to women, it is not supplementing but the exact opposite. It says that it's about what she's looking for not where it comes from. Even if only subconsciously she's broadening her horizon, willing to go anywhere to find what she needs in a partner not settling and the fact that being gay is frowned upon makes this even more so. Being gay is difficult because even one's own family (especially the heavily religious ones) can reject them. So it's beyond me how an individual following their heart to becoming a homosexual in a society which commonly rejects it can be seen as supplementing.

How did I make assumptions (not trying to start an argument, I genuinely don't know)? All I said is that I'm sure you didn't mean for it to be offensive. I think that's a fair thing to say, unless you meant otherwise. When I made the statement about Willow, I was referring to this particular statement:

who offered what she'd needed from a man

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. I'm not aiming anything at you personally by the way. Yes, truly I don't understand the concept, I'll admit to that. I haven't lived it personally, nor have I seen it be applied to anyone in real life. All I know from my many LGBT friend and from my personal experience is that this concept is usually a huge stereotype in the gay community and that too many people think that lesbians are just women that have been hurt by men and have therefore turned gay. What I am saying is that this is not the case, and Willow would have been gay regardless of her experience with men (see vamp Willow, who was attracted to women). Being gay isn't something that comes from experience, it's something that you're born with. And you certainly cannot become a homosexual, you already are. Can experience make you realize that you were gay all along, yes 100%, but it's still something that was already there. I'm not bashing your statements, I think you're misunderstanding my point of view here. I'm not attacking you, I'm just stating my opinion as a member of the LGBT community.

Really? How many times are first relationships soul mates? How can someone really know what they want without exploring what's out there? Is someone really a fan of a particular band if the song by that band that they like is the ONLY song by that band they've ever heard?

What is this about those who marry their first partner are secretly of a different orientation than said relationship? That comes across to me as a complete disconnect from the concept being discussed in that paragraph and it makes absolutely no sense to me. I don't understand what suggestion you were trying to make with that at all.

Okay, I'll admit my example wasn't the best. What I meant to illustrate is that you definitely know from one relationship, or even from no relationship at all. I many straight people do you know that have slept with a member of the same gender? Half? A quarter? A tenth? Even less than that? It doesn't take someone being in a relationship with the same gender in order to know that you are gay. Just like most straight people know they are straight right off the bad. Of course, this doesn't apply to everyone, but in many cases people know from a young age. Again, simply from personal experience, the reason that more gay people have a straight relationship before coming out is because of societal pressure. But yes, I do know loads of people that knew they were gay from their very first memory of their childhood, and they had no need to test the theory in order to confirm their gayness.

I never claimed otherwise but presented one viewpoint. Perhaps I should have been clearer but once again you are assuming.

Forgive my tone, I'm not trying to be harsh but that whole assumption thing makes me feel like that scratching on a chalkboard sound is right in my ear, something I am working on. In addition I can be a bit too sensitive and get embarrassed when a post I felt was well thought out is torn apart like this.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm stating my own viewpoint. I never once stated that you said otherwise. I think perhaps you're reading my post too personally. Again, I truly do not mean this as an attack on you, try not to view my post as me just shutting down your arguments, I'm just replying with my personal views and experience. At best I wanna maybe educate a few people out there about the LGBT community, at worst I just wanna state my opinion even if no one cares to hear it 😛 (let's be honest, I do that a lot on the boards). This is not personal at all.

 

[Cordy_Chase]

How did I make assumptions (not trying to start an argument, I genuinely don't know)? All I said is that I'm sure you didn't mean for it to be offensive. I think that's a fair thing to say, unless you meant otherwise. When I made the statement about Willow, I was referring to this particular statement:

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. I'm not aiming anything at you personally by the way. Yes, truly I don't understand the concept, I'll admit to that. I haven't lived it personally, nor have I seen it be applied to anyone in real life. All I know from my many LGBT friend and from my personal experience is that this concept is usually a huge stereotype in the gay community and that too many people think that lesbians are just women that have been hurt by men and have therefore turned gay. What I am saying is that this is not the case, and Willow would have been gay regardless of her experience with men (see vamp Willow, who was attracted to women). Being gay isn't something that comes from experience, it's something that you're born with. And you certainly cannot become a homosexual, you already are. Can experience make you realize that you were gay all along, yes 100%, but it's still something that was already there. I'm not bashing your statements, I think you're misunderstanding my point of view here. I'm not attacking you, I'm just stating my opinion as a member of the LGBT community.

My bad, I actually was not aware of that particular wording and its quite flawed. Confession, sometimes I reuse my posts from different forums if I have the same response to a similar topic elsewhere and am satisfied with the wording. >_< I'd made this post months ago at BuffyForums.
The bolded statement doesn't make sense to me; if homosexuality is always there from birth than how can a particular gay individual have a point in their life where they were truly attracted to the opposite gender? Willow's feelings for both Oz and Xander were quite real and yet she came out as gay.
You'd know better than I, and just for the record I have the utmost respect for the LGBT community. I've been quite an active poster with a LGBT page on Facebook and happen to have an uncle who is gay (though I don't see much of him).

Okay, I'll admit my example wasn't the best. What I meant to illustrate is that you definitely know from one relationship, or even from no relationship at all. I many straight people do you know that have slept with a member of the same gender? Half? A quarter? A tenth? Even less than that? It doesn't take someone being in a relationship with the same gender in order to know that you are gay. Just like most straight people know they are straight right off the bad. Of course, this doesn't apply to everyone, but in many cases people know from a young age. Again, simply from personal experience, the reason that more gay people have a straight relationship before coming out is because of societal pressure. But yes, I do know loads of people that knew they were gay from their very first memory of their childhood, and they had no need to test the theory in order to confirm their gayness.

Crap, see now I'm the one doing the misreading. I thought you were discussing the ability to know what you want from one relationship, not in terms of exploring one's sexuality. Dunce moment.

I know there was no attacking going on here, excuse my super sensitive moment. I used to be worse, I swear! hehe.

 

[Blaze]

My bad, I actually was not aware of that particular wording and its quite flawed. Confession, sometimes I reuse my posts from different forums if I have the same response to a similar topic elsewhere and am satisfied with the wording. >_< I'd made this post months ago at BuffyForums.
The bolded statement doesn't make sense to me; if homosexuality is always there from birth than how can a particular gay individual have a point in their life where they were truly attracted to the opposite gender? Willow's feelings for both Oz and Xander were quite real and yet she came out as gay.
You'd know better than I, and just for the record I have the utmost respect for the LGBT community. I've been quite an active poster with a LGBT page on Facebook and happen to have an uncle who is gay (though I don't see much of him).

I believe your orientation is there from birth, or at least that's what I've observed. I think it has more to do with the presence of a spectrum. Someone that is very high on the Kinsey scale might consider themselves gay but might be incidentally attracted to a person of the opposite sex. Or it is possible to be either aromantic or asexual towards one of the sex only (eg: a woman is sexually attracted to men, but not romantically, but she is both romantically and sexually attracted to women). So sexuality can sometimes be pretty complex, it's not as easy as saying you're either gay, straight or bi. Sometimes there's some in between, which Willow might fall into. But that's when it comes down to identity and what you personally view yourself as.