The document discusses the television show "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and how reception theory can be used to analyze it. Reception theory focuses on how audiences interpret and make meaning from media, rather than just accepting the message intended by the creator. While "Buffy" presents mainstream ideals on the surface, it also includes subversive elements that empower marginalized groups through alternative interpretations. The show features one of the first lesbian relationships on television and challenges gender norms, allowing queer and feminist readings. Reception theory posits that audiences can "poach" from dominant works and construct their own meanings, finding representation where the creator did not intend it.

1. Van Eerde
Reception Theory in “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”
As modern cultural studies expand to include the media’s role in issues of
feminism, gender, etc., media audiences have become a crucial site of investigation for
mass communications research. This shift is a reaction to the fact that we, as a society,
now learn information predominantly through the consumption of the media (Morley,
1992). However, the messages relayed in most media outlets follow a particular
orthodoxy that tend to be saturated in narrow and dominant modes of thinking. These
stereotypes and beliefs work to construct specific hegemonic storylines in contemporary
media. The mass media’s broad dispersion of idealized overriding images has all but
universalized them, leaving marginalized identities to be left in the margins and erased
from the lives and values that media portrays.
Given the authority that social media holds, there is an incredible amount that we
can learn about “fan culture and perhaps even more we can learn from fan culture”
(Jenkins, 1992). Therefore, communications research and critical theory “needs to be
attentive to whose fantasies are being excluded, what mechanisms are excluding them,
and which groups have the power to include or exclude from the cultural mainstream”
(Jenkins, 1992). It is therefore imperative to create and give power to media outlets that
subvert the standard narrative, as this has great social and cultural power to educate and
make change (Richardson, 2013).
Gotta Love a Girl with an Anvil
“Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” written by the one and only, Joss Whedon,
proclaimed that “the very first mission statement of the show...was the joy of female
1

2. Van Eerde
power: having it, using it, sharing it” (Gottlieb, 2002). The show is critically acclaimed as
one of the first major progressive movements for feminism to be represented through
mainstream media, evident in that it was included in the National Organization for
Women’s “Feminist Primetime Report” (Fazzone, 2001). The social implications in a
“coming of age” series that revolves around a skinny blonde girl who kicks ass are
undeniable, as it directly challenges the commonly perpetuated archetype for women as
the damsel in distress (Gottlieb, 2002). Joss Whedon wanted a show where a girl goes
into a dark alley, “and a monster comes, and then she just aces him. It’s like, you want to
see the tiny person suddenly take control.” There are also direct commentaries on the way
that the patriarchy is pervasive in everyday life for young women. For example, In the
episode, “Restless,” Giles represents a patriarchal power in the dream sequence. He is
running inventory on the items needed to put on the play they are about to put on. He
says: “now, costumes, sets, um, the things that you, uh, you know, um…” Harmony (a
woman) responds with: “props?” and Giles promptly says no. Directly after, Riley (a
man) says, “props?” and Giles promptly says, “yes!” The patriarchy is almost satirically
at play here. Furthermore, Giles tells Buffy “you have to stop thinking” to which she
retorts: “don’t you think it’s a little old fashioned?”
However, the show is not always conspicuously following a feminist agenda, and
Whedon even explicated his choice to construct a feminist series that is not entirely coded
as explicitly feminist, but rather strongly suggestive in order to keep a range of audience
members: “If I can make teenage boys comfortable with a girl who takes charge of a
situation without their knowing that’s what’s happening, it’s better than sitting down and
selling them on feminism.” So while it is clearly his intent to raise awareness, he chooses
2

3. Van Eerde
to do so in ways that do not scare off certain audiences that have the privilege not to think
about feminism, and arguably are the ones that need to hear it the most. That being said,
“Buffy the Vampire Slayer” has attracted a vast audience, found a concrete place in
academia, and set the feminist precedent for other television series.
It also plays with conventional expectations of gender through role reversals and
the shifting of gender dynamics. The series consequently serves as an incredibly useful
site of investigation with which to explore a myriad of social justice issues and the ways
that problematic structures are addressed, condemned or erased in modern society. It also
invites us, as audience members, to participate in readings of content within the show that
discontinue the dominant status quo. There are many distinct dimensions of the
relationship between cultural groups and material within media outlets. With reception
theory as the primary lens, this thesis will examine fan culture and the “borderlands
between mass culture and everyday life and that constructs its own identity” and “its
inescapable relations to other forms of cultural production and other social identities.” I
will put a specified focus on constructions of gender, sex, and sexuality in the Television
series, “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” and explore alternative ways with which to
experience the Buffy-verse.
Alongside female empowerment, the show presents a long-standing lesbian
relationship, one of the first to be shown on network television. This is controversial, as
historically, women have been expected to stay in the heteronormative framework and
not question the status quo. For example, in the academic article, “Murdering the
Lesbian: Lillian Hellman’s The Children’s Hour,” Mary Titus investigates how society
received women and their roles. In the early 20th
century, this “old fashioned”
3

4. Van Eerde
sentiment became normalized when women shifted from the independent “New
Woman” to the “flapper” (Titus, 1991). The New Woman represented women who
prioritized their careers, political goals and exclusively female spaces over adhering
to the heterosexual script, such as finding a husband. Conversely, the flapper
represented women who expressed their sexual independence and desire, but
catered to the heterosexual path. The “flapper” stereotype persisted and arguably
sets standards in contemporary society. Women were socially policed into these
norms by creating a fear of being suspected as queer which implicated both female
spaces and queerness as “bad.” Therefore, the relationship between Willow and Tara
created significant controversy when it aired in the late 1990’s, evidenced by the WB
network not allowing Willow and Tara to kiss. However, Joss Whedon recognized the
potential for social change through its rebellion of heteronormative and sexist ideologies,
and changed to the United Paramount Network to be the first lesbian kiss (and later the
first lesbian sex scene) to be shown on broadcast Television.
For the Mainstream and the Marginal
It is clear that the series does largely maintain a focus on content that appeals to
dominant audiences, evidenced in its’ widespread popularity as opposed to a marginal
cult following. This is not an inherent fault of the show, but rather an indication of the
biggest obstacle that we face as a society: how do we give social power to marginal
representations if there is a standard narrative that all media must follow to some degree
in order to be widely regarded? The line between the predominant voice in media that
completely leaves out the marginal and the media that is so blatantly coded queer that no
dominant viewer would want to engage with it does not seem like it can be blurred.
4

5. Van Eerde
However, there are ways that mainstream texts “winkingly acknowledge queer spectators
without alienating more conservative consumers (Jenkins, 1992). In “Buffy the Vampire
Slayer,” Joss Whedon found a way to accommodate for a multiplicity of receivers to find
their own satisfaction. For a better understanding of how these facets can exist at the
same time within a piece, let us look at F. Scott Fitzgeralds’ novel, The Great Gatsby.
The novel has been highly acclaimed for generations and is a staple read in most school
curriculums. If you were to read it on the beach and take every word at face value and
nothing more, it is likely you would still enjoy it. The story itself is intriguing and full of
action. On the other hand, if you read this book for your high school English class and
spend the better part of a year investigating the myriad of themes, symbols and hidden
values that connect within the story, you would have a significantly different experience
than the beach reader. The motifs within the story rise to the surface, which allows for an
even greater appreciation for the content of the story and the implications it holds.
This multi-layered identity of this novel also applies to Buffy the Vampire
Slayer. At face value, the show and all its’ content is saturated in hegemonic beliefs and
ideologies. The microcosm of Sunnydale accurately represents the top of the social
privilege pyramid in that the make up of the people consists of predominantly thin,
attractive, able-bodied, white, upper-class residents. The very fact that such a small sect
of society is ubiquitous in the world of the show appeals to the mainstream, and the
audience members that see their identity represented in the show may never even realize
or question the lack of representation for marginalized identities. However, there are key
components of the day-to-day lives within the characters that create a safe space for the
marginal. The show also possesses qualities that allow for criticism regarding the status
5

6. Van Eerde
quo, if one were to be looking for such subversion. Essentially, the text is divided against
itself in that so much of its’ interpretation is in the power of the receiver. Current
audience research now routinely assumes that ‘people habitually use the content of
dominant media against itself, to empower themselves” (Morley, 1992). This allows
people to navigate within the system to grant themselves authorship with the
material that could even be used to challenge that system.
In her essay titled: “The Master’s Tool cannot be used to Dismantle the Master’s
House,” Feminist scholar, Audre Lorde theorizes that the only effective way to
deconstruct the status quo is to create new social systems that are void of historically
oppressive constructions. The “Master’s House” only thrives because of the perpetuation
of its’ own beliefs, and continuing to exist within its’ space allows it to thrive (Lorde,
1984). This theory has been largely adapted as the only way in which to make great
social change. However, there are other schools of thought that insist on the many
ways that one could have agency, even within the dominant context of the Master’s
House. For example, scholar, Michael de Certeau, speaks to this in his book, “The
Practice of Everyday Life.” Rather than advocating for burning down the Masters’
House, he explores the possibility for citizens of society to “manipulate the mechanisms
of discipline and conform to them only in order to evade them” (de Certeau, 1988). He
presents the concept of “poaching,” which emphasizes the consumers’ power to
appropriate and repurpose media representations. He explicates that the “presence and
circulation of a representation…tells us nothing about what it is for its users. We must
first analyze its manipulation by users who are not its makers” (de Certeau, 1988). Here,
he is making the claim that innumerable transformations are made within the dominant
6

7. Van Eerde
culture from those that wish to adapt it to their own interests and their own rules. Henry
Jenkins further speaks to this in his book, “Textual Poachers: Television Fans and
Participatory Culture,” where he describes how social groups can define their own culture
and thereby construct a community within the context of the materials presented that may
differ significantly from the narrowly circumscribed context. He describes this as the
“ideological positioning of viewing subjects” (Jenkins, 1992). In other words, poaching
and reception theory allow for fans of a television series to make meaning of materials
that others may not see of find worthless. What Joss Whedon seems to be attempting to
achieve is a dominant space that offers subversive readings. That way, marginal viewers
can empower themselves, and dominant viewers are encouraged to investigate the
dynamics of privilege and power and address the inequality that occurs in stratified
social systems. Yes, power relations will largely persist if the Master’s house
remains, but one could do a lot of damage in the house if they have all the keys to the
rooms.
Who is Looking and Why it Matters
There is a specific relationship between the content of media material and the way
that the viewer consumes it. Each individual viewer possesses certain identity markers
and will receive the content of a performance differently than the mainstream
interpretation and possibly even the intent of the writers/authors. As author, Jacqueline
Bobo, puts it, “mainstream media has never rendered our segment of the population
faithfully,” regarding her identity as a black woman (Mowley, 1992). She analyzed
The Color Purple and set herself the mission of understanding the positive response
from Black female viewers’ to the film and the issues of how “a specific audience
7

8. Van Eerde
creates meaning from a mainstream text and uses the reconstructed meaning to
empower themselves and their social group” (Bobo, 1988). Bobo further explicates
that a black audience watching a film understands that “at some point, an
expression of the exotic primitive is going to be offered to us. Since this is the case,
we have one of two options…one is never to indulge in media products, an
impossibility in an age of media blitz. Another option is to filter out that which is
negative and select from the work, elements we can relate to” (Mowley, 1992).
This general shift in concern from the writers and the content to the reader depicts
reception theory (Holub, 1984). Reception theory offers a site of investigation to analyze
how viewers operate, especially viewers who use the content and individualize it in a way
that is different from the imposed dominant order (de Certeau, 1988). How we perceive
and understand our surroundings depends on who we thinks of ourselves as viewers to
be. The essential components of the theory place more power in the receiving community
than the content, and emphasize the subjectivity of any piece of work that becomes
public. There is no objective experience. The artist can work as hard as possible to
convey a specific meaning in their work, but as soon as it is out of their hands, it is at the
mercy of the receiving community to do with it what they will. In that sense, viewers
hold the power to craft the material they are presented with.
Reception theory has also been used as a strategy for empowerment and survival.
For example, a group known as the “Gaylaxians” consisted of queer fans of Star Trek
who altered its core text in order to include LGBT characters. Their decision to do this
was because of their concern about the “suicide rates of queer youth, who would not be
reached through strategies of subcultural appropriation” even in the form of camp.
8

9. Van Eerde
Instead, they attempted to create a space within a dominant context for themselves to be
empowered and represented (Jenkins, 1992).
Camp in Relation to Reception Theory
To better understand reception theory, one could look at the definition of Camp.
In the academic article, Campe-Toi on the Origins and Definitions of Camp, Mark Booth
explains how something is camp when it orients itself towards the marginal. So, a
Camp movie holds the intention of speaking out to marginalized communities. A
person could also be campy, by taking something and making it their own. This is
apparent in the way Booth defines Camp, as “making fun out of what you take
seriously as opposed to making fun of it.” For example, if a little girl has Disney
princesses in her room, she is not being Camp, whereas if a gay adult male has
Disney princesses in his room, he is being Camp, especially if he then commits to the
princesses more than the object itself merits. Therefore, the relationship between
the person’s identity markers and the object indicates whether or not the person is
being “campy.” Furthermore, Camp orients itself specifically to include the marginal
in that it possesses a subversive nature that invites a sense of solidarity for
marginalized identities. This is evident in The Rocky Horror Picture Show, in that it
purposefully creates a safe space for non-normative identities and then celebrates
it.
Because the intent is necessary in order for something to be considered camp,
reception theory corresponds more appropriately with what Booth describes a “Camp
fads and fancies.” He states that Camp fads and fancies are not camp because they were
not created with the intention of being camp, but that they have certain qualities to them
9

10. Van Eerde
that attract camp people. “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” would be qualified as one of
camps’ fads and fancies in that it offers a multitude of ways in which to perceive gender
and sexuality. It presents issues which can be enjoyed by the common viewer at face
value – as well as possessing qualities that allow for a specific audience to make the
material their own and find in it greater meanings, layers and depths.
Non- Normative Relationship and Sexual Orientations
Let us now begin to take a closer look at how reception theory can be applied to
specific instances and themes in “Buffy the Vampire Slayer.” For the mainstream viewer,
the series reifies hegemonic ideals through the misrepresentation of Willow Rosenberg’s
bisexual sexual identity and the erasure of her polyamorous relationship orientation.
Polyamory is a “form of non-monagamy grounded in the belief in people’s capacity to
share and multiply their love.” Willow’s identity appears to be in accordance with the
socially constructed norms of gender and sexual orientation in the first few seasons of the
series. Her character maintains the image of a cute, nerdy girl in a monogamous
relationship with her boyfriend. Yes, she falls in love with a werewolf, who is not exactly
representative of the dominant dating culture in the U.S., and yes, his werewolf identity
causes him to cheat on her with another werewolf and leave Willow with a broken heart.
But for the most part, her character arc remains loyal to a socially respectable
representation that exists in dominant media outlets. However, this wholesome identity is
drastically challenged when Willow joins an exclusively female space through the
college’s Wicca group and meets Tara. The subsequent bond that ensues between them
errs on the side of romance almost immediately, and the hints grow over the course of ten
or so episodes. Much to any homophobic and/or heternormative viewer’s dismay,
10

11. Van Eerde
Willow’s queerness is made too obvious to deny when her and Tara finally make an
unquestionable gesture of romance that crosses over the line of what is considered to be
“just friends.” In “New Moon Rising,” the two of them hold hands and quickly proceed
to satisfy the U-haul, cat loving, lesbian stereotype. This typecasting describes the
standard monogamous lesbian couple that engages in extreme commitment very
early on, such as moving in together, and Tara and Willow definitely fulfill this as
they talk about potentially adopting “Kitty Fantastico” together.
In proper Joss Whedon fashion, this is the same episode that Oz unexpectedly
comes back on campus, ready to sweep Willow back up off of her feet with his new
“suppress the wolf within” trick. Willow is placed in emotional turmoil, as it becomes
clear that she must now choose between Oz and Tara. Now, it is acceptable to assume
that every audience member has loved Oz from the beginning, with his “short, non-
committal phrases” and ever-changing hair color (Veber & Whitmore, 1999). However,
Tara has become an increasingly likeable character and evidently makes Willow happy in
a different way than Oz. Both characters have earned places in the Scooby gang and have
tugged at the heartstrings of the viewers at one point or another.
The writers do not make it an easy decision for Willow, and the love triangle
invokes sympathy from Willow’s friends. But most importantly in this discussion about
polyamory as a valid relationship orientation is that there is never even a dialogue
regarding why her making a choice between Oz and Tara is necessary at all. For example,
when Willow is talking to Buffy about how she does not want anyone to get hurt, Buffy
replies: “No matter what, someone is going to get hurt, you just gotta be honest.” Implicit
in Buffy’s response is the expectation for Willow to make a choice. Tara and Oz similarly
11

12. Van Eerde
share the belief that Willow should choose the person that makes her happy, but their
definition of happiness holds the expectation that only one of them will provide that for
her. While good intentioned, these sentiments holds no weight if Willow wants to explore
the possibility of engaging in a relationship with both of them. Willow even exhibits her
desire to share her love with both Tara and Oz in numerous instances, and yet it is never
presented as an option.
Willow tells Tara that: “Life was starting to get some good again, and you're a big
part of that. And here comes the thing I wanted most of all, and.... I don't know what to
do. I wanna know, but I don't.” Willow also confessed to Buffy that “There is something
between [me and Tara]. It wasn't something I was looking for. It's just powerful. And it's
totally different from what Oz and I have.” Perhaps she does not know what to do
because she is being forced to make a choice between two people that she loves in
complex and different ways. These examples convey the unique intimacy that Willow
shares with each partner and supports the idea that Willow the desire to engage in a
polyamorous relationship with both. These examples also express how the episode is
mononormative, is a term used to expose the discursive power dynamic that assumes
everyone is innately monogamous and thereby places this relationship orientation
as the dominant norm. Furthermore, both characters offer no alternative other than
Willow making a choice. The series only utilizes a monogamous framework and
consequently fails in presenting the possibility of a non-normative relationship
orientation. The underlying message of Polyamory directly dispels the “romance myth”
and makes the claim that no one individual exists that can fulfill another individuals
needs and desires completely. Unfortunately, the dominant ideal of relationships is
12

13. Van Eerde
saturated with depictions of finding “Mr. /Ms. Right,” and any other alternative romantic
discourse is condemned. Even Xander is made to choose between two women that he
cares greatly for in “Triangle,” Xander clearly has a very distinct relationship with Anya
that is just as valid as his platonic relationship with Willow, and yet a troll (it’s a long
story) forces him to make a choice. Implicit in this, again, is the ideology that a choice
needs to be made, and that one of the relationships must be prioritized over another. It is
a social tendency to believe that romantic relationships are more important to a person
than their relationships that are not romantic, and the episode, “Triangle,” absolutely
reifies this belief.
Buffy can also be analyzed as having been punished for her sexual relationship
with Angel, as he turns evil as a result. In a Slayage article, Marc Camron, states that
“Buffy learns a lesson in proper sexual norms and does not experiment until college, the
earliest time a proper girl should do such things (monogamous relationships only, no
sluts please.” Camron constructs a clear and insidious dichotomy that one is either
monogamous, or a slut. Therefore, Willow cannot find resolve with her polyamory
because the word itself is interchangeable with the word “slut” (Ritchie & Barker).
The Use of Language
In the article, “There aren’t words for what we do or how we feel so we have to
make them up,” the authors speak to how language is constructed to cater to monogamy
and is therefore a strategy to dictate modes of expression (Ritchie & Barker, 2007). While
the script stops any open dialogue regarding the possibility of Willow having multiple
partners, the episode further restricts any thought of polyamory in its presentation of
jealousy. Jealousy is a term constructed by the hegemonic vernacular as a “natural
13

14. Van Eerde
response” to anything that threatens monogamy, and inherently implicates the idea of an
accepted possessiveness within a relationship. However, they use this strategy as opposed
to asking them to enter into a space with its’ own language and rules that is unique to
marginalized communities. For example, there are specific words used in polyamory
communities to empower themselves and their modes of relational behavior. Take
“frubbly”, for instance. Frubbly is a term used to convey one’s positive emotional feeling
towards their partner’s relationship with another (Ritchie & Barker, 2007). However,
jealousy is what is clearly at play in the episode, which caters much more towards
monogamy. When Oz comes back to Sunnydale, he has a sense of entitlement over
Willow, evident in his confidence that she was “waiting for him.” The characters in Buffy
understand themselves in terms of concepts that are available to them, and jealousy is the
only emotion used to describe how Oz feels when he approaches “competition” over
Willow’s affections. His jealousy is such a strong “natural” force that when he smells
(yes, smells) Willow on Tara’s body, it causes him to lose control over his werewolf
instincts and try to attack Tara.
The article further explains how language plays a vital role in how we navigate
through society. An individuals’ experience is heavily dependent on language, and
language is primarily in the voice of the dominant authority, which does not have the
capacity to fully express or represent queer identity. However, the decision to use the
language that forces the marginalized communities to find their own forms of expression
may not have mal intent. By using more heteronormative vernacular, the series suggests
that to give the power to a privileged audience is necessary, as they are the ones with the
influence for social progress. However, while the show predominantly uses the language
14

15. Van Eerde
of heterosexuality with all its distortions and erasures to speak out, applying reception
theory encourages the marginalized individuals who are silenced in our world to
express their identity and create their own story outside of the standard narrative.
This holds great implications for a viewer who can connect their own identity markers
with the piece. For example, the writers most likely use such language in order to engage
a more ignorant audience and hope that they will investigate the dynamics of privilege
and power that are addressed at face value in the show. This could encourage them to
then address the inequality that occurs in stratified social systems.
Therefore, the Buffyverse is implicated for not creating new language to make
sense of the emotions and identities that fall outside of the dominant constructions of love
and relationships. However, in the writer’s defense, the erasure of queer language
indicates the issues of society as a whole. The narrative of a man becoming violent in a fit
of jealous rage has become socially naturalized, and this scene perpetuates the common
ideology that possessiveness over a woman is ok and therefore the audience is not invited
to hold Oz accountable for his actions. Willow is even scripted to support this when she
takes the blame for “upsetting him” as if she did something innately “wrong” by falling
for more than one person, especially given that the other person is a woman. Also, the
emphasis that is placed on sexual relations that Willow does or does not engage in
directly affect how characters react to Willow. For example, as soon as Oz returns, Tara
believes that she has lost any romantic potential with Willow and therefore they can only
be friends. Tara has the belief because “people are expected to have one lover and anyone
else should fall into the category of friend” (Ritchie & Barker, 2007). After Willow and
Oz spend a night together, Willow tells Tara that “nothing happened,” meaning that
15

16. Van Eerde
nothing sexual happened between them. She says this to make sure that Tara is not hurt,
exposing the mononormative emphasis on linking commitment to sexual experiences.
To the series’ credit, it was quite a radical decision on the writer’s part to have
Willow enter into a complex and enduring love relationship with another woman,
especially over Oz, who was such a unanimously adored character. However, this
progressive victory is not without complication. The series resolves the love triangle
conflict by ultimately forcing Willow to negotiate her identity within the system of
compulsory monogomany. In one of the final scenes of “New Moon Rising,” Willow
tells Oz that he will always be with her and part of her will always be waiting for him, but
that she chooses Tara as her romantic partner. Her decision to choose Tara as her singular
partner does foreclose polyamory, consequently halting that potential narrative. It seems
as if Willow’s ultimate decision of monogamy validates her relationship with Tara. How
you perceive the paradox in this episode largely depends on what lens you are looking
through. Essentially, depending on what tools of reception theory you are using,
Willow’s decision can be seen as a victory or a loss.
Coding Willow as Gay
As soon as Willow blows out the candle at Tara’s door to show that her choice
has been made and sexy times are implied, Willow is coded as gay. Her entire history of
having crushes exclusively on men is erased and bisexuality is never even presented as a
possible sexual orientation. “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” creates a fixed identity for
Willow when there are persuasive patterns of her sexual fluidity. This is done through
erasing, making fun of, or misrepresenting Willow’s queerness while simultaneously
validating her gay performance.
16

17. Van Eerde
Due to the quick and absolute turnover that Willow experiences in “changing
from straight to gay,” the series works to prove that Willow is, in fact, a lesbian.
Willow’s character arc thereby becomes focused on her gayness to dispel any doubt from
the audience that Willow could still be attracted to men. For example, when Anya
expresses concern that Willow is trying to win over Xander in “Triangle,” Willow
responds with “Hello, gay now” in order to convince Anya that her lesbian identity
makes it impossible for her to still like Xander. Also, the buffybot in “Intervention”
offers the comical moment in her description that “Willow’s gay: 1999-present” to reify
the idea that Willow is “recently gay” as opposed to any other sexual orientation.
Contradictory to the push to code Willow as lesbian, there are instances in the
show that prove dissonant to this label. For example, one of Willow’s most famous lines
is: “I think I’m kinda gay.” Willow says this line initially in reference to her bisexual
vampire self in “Doppelgangland.” There is something to be said about the fact that
Willow being “kinda” gay is blatant foreshadowing for her bisexual identity and yet
everyone seems to only accept bisexual Willow if she is a soulless vampire. Willow also
says the line again in “Tabula Rasa,” when Willow falls for Tara, despite thinking she is
dating Xander and having forgotten her identity. Again, Willow believes herself to be
“kinda” gay, notably after she is understood by others to be a lesbian, and her self-
identification is not even taken into consideration. Furthermore, in “The Gift,” there is a
piece of dialogue between Xander and Willow that speaks to bisexuality. When Xander
makes the comment: “smart chicks are so hot,” Willow asks “you couldn’t have figured
that out in tenth grade?” This passing, sentimental moment could very well be coded in
the scene as a cute and platonic moment as they reminisce over years past and
17

18. Van Eerde
consequently ignoring any non-normative identity and orientation. However, engaging
with reception theory opens up the possibility to take in this dialogue and re-imagined it
as a reminder of Willow’s capacity to fall for men as well as a possibility that they still
hold feelings for each other that do not fall under the category of “friend” or “lover.”
Aforementioned in the previous discussion, a subversive aspect of polyamory is that it
offers the “opportunity for exploring the fuzzy divide between sexual and non-sexual
relationships.”
The Resistant Reading of Polaymory
Willow, as well as other characters, are constantly forced to situate themselves
within the hegemonic social framework and adhere to the standards that it presents.
However, rather than focus on the outcome which vilifies polyamory, one could utilize
reception theory as a tool to look at the way in which aspects of the series gives this
relationship orientation power by exploring and validating polyamory. This particular
series contains a structure that allows the receivers to take what they want out of a
reading in an unauthorized way. While the show predominantly uses the language of
heterosexuality with all its distortions and erasures to speak out, applying reception
theory encourages the marginalized individuals who are silenced in our world to
express their identity and create their own story outside of the standard narrative.
This holds great implications for a viewer who can connect their own identity markers
with the piece.
Let’s take another look at “New Moon Rising.” There is a reading available to
focus on the range of possibilities that exist for polyamorous relationships and
tendencies. Yes, there is pressure for Willow to maintain a monogamous relationship,
18

19. Van Eerde
which invisibilizes polyamory and invalidates it as a possible orientation. However, one
could argue that the narrative is giving us 35 minutes of how life would make more sense
if Oz were not so jealous. His mononormative values are more to blame then Willow’s
love for both characters. This reading of the content can therefore be even further
extended to look at how the audience member absorbs the storyline. Willow’s situation
invokes sympathy, and both Oz and Tara are written as lovable characters. All of these
factors open up the possibility for one to read the episode from a resistant vantage point
as opposed to the dominant reading that condemns polyamory.
That being said, what versions of polyamory is the show offering? The possibility
and the pleasure that exists in the “fan gang” consisting of Darla, Angelus/Angel,
Drusilla and Spike is one story. These characters all “shared” one another and they all
more or less accepted the polyamorous relationship. For example, Darla was explicitly in
love with Angelus, and yet she slept in the same bed as Drusilla, and they took many
baths together. Spike is also adamantly in love with Drusilla, referring to her as “his
destiny.” However, in the episode, “Angel,” Spike says: Angel and I were never intimate,
apart from that one time.” This line is intended to be funny, but also not to necessarily be
discredited as something that may have happened and has probably inspired a lot of sexy
fan fiction. Therefore, the show never condemns their polyamory, and it notably consists
of important and main characters. Drusilla can even be labeled as a strong polyamorous
role model for audience members that may want to explore such a relationship
orientation. She is an overall loved character, and given her relationship with Spike,
Angelus/Angel and Darla, she allows for many people to identify with her polyamorous
desire.
19

20. Van Eerde
Dominant and Resistant Readings of Gender
“Buffy the Vampire Slayer” maintains dominant representations and ideologies
regarding gender. Firstly, the cast is exclusively cisgender, and comments are made that
connote an essentialist understanding of how men and women behave. For example, men
are stereotypically thought of as inconsiderate players, which is reified when Willow
angrily states: “you men and your manness,” after Parker Abrams does not see Buffy as
more than a one night stand in Season 4. Women are implicated as well, especially when
Spike uses feminized terms as insults to Gloria to get her angry in “Intervention in order
to distract her from torturing him. Spike confidently says: “The slayer is going to kick
your skanky, lopsided ass back to whatever place would take a cheap whorish, fashion
victim ex-god like you” which successfully gets her fuming. However, there are a
multitude of ways that the series breaks the rules of gender norms and ideas of
masculinity and femininity. Spike is exemplary of this, as he is constantly crossing “the
boundaries of conventional gender identifications” (Simkin, 2002). For example, Spike’s
black leather jacket that is key to his dangerous appeal is from the last slayer that he
killed, which could implicate that part of his powerful persona is rooted in wearing a
female jacket. In a Slayage article, Simkin states that, “the complexities of gender and
power that are mapped out…play eloquent tribute to the creator’s (and the writer’s)
serious intent.” Especially given this statement, I see the writer’s choice to blur Spike’s
gendered characteristics as deliberate and thoughtful in terms of gender exploration and
the deconstruction of gender stereotypes.
The writers also deliberately seem to be playing with butch and femme, which are
markers used in queer subcultures to identify an individual with either stereotypically
20

21. Van Eerde
masculine or feminine characteristics. In the episode, “Some Assembly Required,”
Xander is digging in the cemetery as Buffy and Willow sit nearby, watching. Xander then
states: “Y’know, this might go a lot faster if you femmes actually picked up a shovel,
too” to which Buffy promptly responds: “Sorry, but I’m an old fashioned gal. I was
raised to believe that men dig up the corpses and the women have the babies.” Now, her
comment is clearly one of sarcasm, which mocks such a traditional mode of thinking and
therefore does not require much reception theory. However, resistance to gender roles is
not always offered as directly. It is rather shown through many characters and storylines.
In other words, much of the materials that are sites of investigation for gender and
sexuality are not necessarily intrinsic to the series and the ways that certain themes,
symbols and motifs are interpreted do not objectively exist within the show. But, they are
still available to certain people looking for such a reading.
The dominant reading of gender and sexuality is that the two are conflated. For
example, when all of the female characters become attracted to R.J. in “Him,” Willow has
to patch up the discrepancy that she is in love with a boy by trying to work a spell that
would give him a sex change. For example, in the Slayage article, “I Think I’m Kinda
Gay”: Willow Rosenberg and the Absent/present Bisexual in Buffy the Vampire Slayer,”
Em McAvan states that the “series explicitly codes Willow’s sexuality in essentialist1
terms.” Essentialism is a term used to describe that certain human traits are
“predetermined by some manner of interior essence” (Butler, 2010). Furthermore,
the fact that the series situates Willow as an essential lesbian identity causes her to act out
queer performativity2
in a way that further dichotomizes gender. Performativity is a term
1
2
21

22. Van Eerde
used to describe how individuals express and present their identity through markers such
as daily behavior, clothing, language, etc. This serves to reify the ideology that one’s
biological sex is inextricably linked to gender and therefore the only way Willow, as a
lesbian, can properly love R.J. is if she alters his genitalia negatively impacts movements
that work to promote anti-essentialism. Feminist theorist, Judith Butler, discusses how
sexuality is directly linked to gender. Butler supports an anti-essentialist viewpoint in
feminist theory, specifically in her essay, “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution:
An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory.” She theorizes that gender is not a
static identity innate to human beings, but rather, a detailed repetition of actions dictated
by cultural and social institutions (Butler, 1988).
The resistant readings of gender in the series offer opportunities to find ways in
which the show opens narrative that appeals to gender queer identities. In the article, The
Queer Gaze, Tim Wray says: “To study gender roles is not to accept their inevitability,”
and the series works to open up an exploration of gender and the multitudes of angles
with which to examine gender roles and sexuality. The tension that arises in the gender
roles that many of the characters take on definitely support the notion that to bring gender
roles to light does not imply inevitability. For example, Xander represents a myriad of
gender confusions. Xander does have certain masculine traits, such as his construction
job, but he also represents new masculinity, which is coded as “feminised, passive,
romantic, heroic, weak and human” (Simkin, 2002). In the episode, “Reptile Boy,”
Xander’s anxious masculinity becomes painfully clear when he tries to fit in with the frat
boys at a party. The frat boys represent more of the conception of old masculinity, which
is coded as more macho and sexual (Simkin, 2002). He is willing to be a part of the
22

23. Van Eerde
patriarchy in his desire to be considered a “manly man,” and yet he is also a victim of the
patriarchy. This is evidenced after he is forced into wearing a dress and kicked out of the
party, to which he states: “One day I’ll have money, prestige, power. And on that day,
they’ll still have more.” The gendered expectation for him to uphold certain
characteristics is a cause of constant stress and anxiety in him.
Xander’s role in the Scooby gang is usually that of providing comedic relief, as
opposed to fulfilling the typical role of the “strength” or the “protector” that is expected
of men. Because he lacks what is considered to be traditional masculinity, he
acknowledges himself as a useless combatant when he says “And I, in the meantime, will
help by standing around like an idiot.” In the episode, “Zeppo,” every member of the
Scooby Gang is allocated a place to help to defeat a group of female demons known as
the “Sisterhood of Jhi,” who are trying to open the Hellmouth and destroy the world.
Except for Xander. Cordelia explains to Xander in, shall we say, blunt words that “you’re
the useless part of the group. You’re the Zeppo.” Xander then goes on to attempt to create
a façade that would code him as “manly.” For example, he gets a car, which Buffy
promptly responds to with “is this a penis metaphor?” His thought process is so because
of the link that our society makes between “manly” materials and traditional masculinity.
However, the episode offers a rather clear message that Xander’s personality does not
change. Even when the girl who becomes fascinated with his car perceives his
masculinity as more conventional, he is uncomfortable and bored with her throughout
their entire interaction. Utilizing reception theory, I would argue that the episode invites
audience members who do not reify traditional masculine characteristics to sympathize
with and relate to Xander.
23

24. Van Eerde
Ultimately, Xander’s manly mask just does not fit. Some could of course perceive
Xander as more masculine after having sex with Faith, frightening Jack O’Toole in their
chicken fight, and saving the world. However, the point that the episode seems to make is
that Xanders’ strength and character lies in his “feminine” characteristics and should be
celebrated and given value to as opposed to being perceived as a failure to be “manly.”
Therefore, the show implicates his feminine characteristics as what makes him such a
vital role in the Scooby gang. For example, he is able to stop Evil Willow with his
sympathy and his heart. Although each individual instance where Xander lacks traditional
masculinity is largely treated with comic irreverence, in their totality, these moments
represents a systemic critique of the foundational expectations of masculinity. Given how
complex gender is in the series, one could even investigate the issue further and examine
the multiple ways the gender dynamic shift between dominant and resistant notions.
Gender Dynamics
There is a complex spider web of gender dynamics that merit acknowledgement
throughout the series. Joss Whedon’s explicitly feminist agenda creates certain
parameters for how male and female characters are represented, and the relations between
them. Through role reversal, role shifting, and certain characters that encourage criticism
on traditional gendered structures collectively create the gender play at work. The quote
that is so often quoted to express a gender/power dynamic is said by Spike when he says,
“I may be love’s bitch, but at least I’m man enough to admit it.” Here, Spike portrays the
contradictory gender relations that are expected of men and women in society.
Feminist theorist, Angela McRobbie, describes that feminism has succeeded in
shifting certain feminine expectations: “the conventionally coded meta-narratives of
24

25. Van Eerde
romance which… could only create a neurotically dependent female subject, have gone
for good.” For example, in Buffy’s relationship with Riley, he quickly becomes
uncomfortable with Buffy’s strength and frequently seeks to overpower her. He cannot
perform the stereotypical role of the “man” in the relationship by being physically
stronger, and Buffy does not “play into the needy female role and allow him to be her
caretaker or protector” (Simkin, 2004). However, tension consequently arises that puts a
great strain on the relationship. Riley’s inability to let go of having the masculine power
ultimately ends their relationship.
Reception theory again allows for a multiplicity of ways that the reversal of the
traditional gender paradigm is productive and positive. While Riley struggles greatly with
his relationship with his own masculinity, in “This Year’s Girl,” Riley says to Buffy
“You’re really strong. I like it.” Riley is actively working on resolving his relationship
with his own masculinity. Also, in “Fool for Love,” when a vampire stabs her in the
stomach with her own stake, she says: “I can’t believe I passed out. Do you think I’m a
total wuss now?” and Riley sarcastically responds with: “Oh, yeah. I like a girl who can
play a few hard sets of tennis with a major stab wound.” And even though they do break
up, Riley comes back in season 7 happily married to a strong and powerful female demon
hunter named Sam. This opens up the possibility that one can perceive Riley as having
completely resolved his anxieties regarding his masculine role in a heterosexual
relationship.
The relationship between Spike and Buffy is another exemplary site of shifting
gender dynamics. His character is presently both violent and dangerous vampire punk, if
you will, however, the shows delves into his history as a human who is an adorable, well-
25

26. Van Eerde
dressed, poetic, and emotional man named William “the Bloody,” for his bloody awful
poetry, apparently.
Furthermore, Spike’s romantic partners seem to consistently take the more
powerful position in the relationship. Therefore, Spike already represents a blending of
masculine power and femininity, and it also presents the more realistic relationship
dynamic in a couple where the power shifts. Especially in the episode, “Fool for Love,”
they both engage in overpowering the other. When Buffy gets shaken about almost being
staked by a vampire, she demands that Spike tell her how he killed two slayers by
shoving him against a wall. Spike responds with: “Ow! Wait. Not ow. You feeling all
right, Slayer? This stuff usually hurts.” Because she is relying on him to tell his history,
he plays into this power and he thereby plays into his heightened feeling of masculinity:
“What can I tell you, baby? I’ve always been bad.” However, this scene cuts directly to
Spike pre-vampire in 1880, as William, who I have previously described as the poetic
hopeless romantic. He is in love with a woman named Cecily, who responds to his
declaration of love with: “You’re nothing to me, William. You are beneath me.” After
William soon after gets sired, he gets power from killing the female slayer in a way that
can be interpreted (again, with reception theory) as vengeance and an attempt to get back
the masculinity that was stripped of him by Cecily. As he tells Buffy how he killed the
two slayers, he constantly plays with the fact that she is reliant on him and he therefore
has power over her. For example, at one point he takes her by the neck and resists any of
her advances to fight back. He even punches her wound at one point, enjoying her
weakened state. However, because of the chip in his head, the power he has stems solely
from the information he has that she wants as well as the wisdom of his experiences with
26

27. Van Eerde
how Slayers have a “death wish.” Therefore, once he told her everything she wanted to
know, she regains her power, as she no longer has any use for him. And after Spike tries
to kiss her, saying: “Come on. I can feel it, Slayer. I know you want to dance,” Buffy
shoves him to the ground and looks down at him to say: “You’re beneath me.” Too close
to home for Spike and reminiscent of his less powerful days pre-vamp, he immediately
gets a shotgun and plans on gaining power over Buffy once and for all, despite the fact
that Harmony tries to stop him, saying that he will get “bitch slapped up and down Main
Street.” However, the episode ends with Spike coming upon Buffy in a state of tears on
her porch. Struck with empathy, Spike sits alongside her as a source of comfort. An
interesting facet regarding the way that this scene plays out is how Spike does not try to
physically comfort Buffy more so than a slight pat on the back. Furthermore, there is a
notable space between the two of them, and Buffy does not ever lean into Spike. This
differs from the standard narrative where the man holds the “damsel in distress” while
she cries into his arms.
He isn’t seen as watching over Buffy, but rather, sitting next to her as an equal
with the sole intent of offering any support and comfort that she chooses to accept from
him. The fact that there is not an exact role reversal of power presented, but that it is
constantly blended throughout the series is arguably the most effective and progressive
ways to show that gender does not necessitate who has power in a relationship. This
shifting power dynamic is unfortunately not consistent throughout the series, however, as
there are many other ways that men have social power over the women in the series. This
predominantly occurs through the existence of the male gaze.
Whose Gaze is it, Anyway?
27

28. Van Eerde
"It's weird, though. In his way, I feel like he's still watching me.” Buffy says this
to Willow in the episode, “Angel,” in order to express her feeling the Angel’s eyes are
always on her, even when he is not there. Granted, Angel is often watching Buffy from
afar (judge that how you will), her sentiment is one shared by most women in our society.
Film theorist, Teresa De Learetis, states that: “In their traditional exhibitionist role
women are simultaneously looked at and displayed, with their appearance coded for
strong visual and erotic impact so that they can be said to connote to-be-looked-at-ness”
(Aston, 1975). Women are socialized to be the spectacle in our society, with men as the
expected viewer. “Men, the common story goes, are the lookers. It is, after all, peeping
Tom, not peeping Jane” (Ahmen, 2010). The male gaze is the notion that women are
perceived as first and foremost objects for the visual pleasure of men.
Theorist, Laura Mulvey, evidences this concept when she declares that in a
patriarchal society, “pleasure in looking has been split between active/male and
passive/female” (Mulvey, 1975). She also presents the concept of scopophilia which
describes circumstances where “looking itself is a form of pleasure” (Mulvey, 1975). An
example of scopophilia is present day reality is catcalling, which is a direct manifestation
of the male gaze. A vast amount of psychological research has delved into the male gaze.
For example, the study: “A test of objectification theory: the effect of the male gaze on
appearance concerns in college women” shown that “the internalized male gaze, and not
just any gaze, negatively affects women.” The consequence of such internalization can
lead to habitual body monitoring, which could create anxiety and shame in a women’s
relationship with her body (Fredrickson, 1997). Unfortunately, women thereby often
adopt an observer’s perspective on their physical selves.
28

29. Van Eerde
The male gaze is both presented and condemned in the series through exposing
how it influences women in the series. The way that the series navigates the gaze
suggests that they are well aware of its theme in the majority of media and attempts to
subvert it. For example, in the episode, “Gone,” Buffy’s relationship with the gaze and
her sense of self are brought to light. This episode marks a tumultuous time in Buffy’s
relationship with Spike (albeit, it is never considered to be particularly peaceful). After he
calls her “goldilocks” and leaves the house, Buffy is left feeling like she has no control.
She consequently chops her hair off, and goes to a hair salon to get it styled. As she is
leaving, the trio (the big bad of the season) accidently hit her with their invisible ray gun.
Therefore, for the majority of the episode, Buffy is invisible. Many characters still
manage to focus on the fact that she got a hair cut, which they only know from Buffy’s
description. Clearly, the bigger deal is her apparent change in appearance rather than her
new issue of invisibility.
Buffy makes several comments throughout the episode that indicate how free she
feels being exempt from being looked at. Now unmarked and unseen, Buffy goes about
with a sense of dominance. This is due to the concept that being a woman in a culture that
objectifies the female body created “multiple opportunities to experience anxiety along
with its accompanying vigilance (Fredickson, 1997). This allows her a sense of freedom
from such anxiety that would adjunct her usual relationship between others and her
physical appearance. Also, the camera is in the perspective of what Buffy is seeing,
giving her ultimate gazing power. She visits Spike, and upon his confusion, says: “I told
you…stop trying to see me” and she rips his shirt off, making him (and notably his abs)
the object of the gaze. She casually tells Xander and Willow: “I’m invisible girl!!...just
29

30. Van Eerde
clearing my head.” She also states: “This vanishing act is quite liberating…you can do
anything you want…whoever…it’s like you’re free of life.” Her implication that to be
free of life is to be free of having a physical, looked at, embodiment shows that Buffy
clearly feels power in her escape from a physical presence.
The episode also works to express how connected we are as a society between
how we appear to others and our sense of self, but does it mark this connection as freeing
or restraining? While Buffy is evidently empowered by escaping the scopic gaze, the
main plot point of the episode is that if Buffy does not reverse her invisibility, she will
lose herself. The Scooby gang discovers that she is “going to fade away,” and become
nothing, which places her identity as unstable and diminishing without her dependency
on the gaze. Furthermore, when she does reverse the effects, she says “I was taking a
vacation from myself…it didn’t work out.” Therefore, this episode presents a framework
for understanding how the internalization of the male gaze causes psychological distress
(Fredrickson, 1997). Using reception theory to closely examine Buffy’s reaction to being
invisible, the episode can be a source of productive conversations, as it does show the
liberation that women can feel if they were no longer seen as objects of the male gaze.
The Gaze and Mirror Theory
It is impossible to have a universal spectator, and therefore the gaze that most
media works with is catered to the dominant viewer. This increases the tension in those
looking for an appearance and identity that matches their own. The construction of
identity very much involves how one perceives another, and when a character’s identity
is created, they are very often suited towards the male gaze. Author, Tim Wray speaks to
the experience in growing up queer in respect to the gaze. He states: “A tension is set up
30

31. Van Eerde
between the appearance we are obliged to project, and our sense of our own image.”
This concept is explained in Mirror Theory, proposed by philosopher, Jacques
Lacan. He posits that a child reaches a certain point in development where recognition of
self occurs; the child looks in a mirror, and this external image of the body formulates a
sense of “I.” Therefore, the child learns that “I” am the subject in relation to others as the
“object.” However, what happens when you understand yourself as the subject, but live in
a society that will force you to also understand yourself as an object of others? As Elaine
Aston argues in “Feminist Theories of Theory: The Case Against Realism,” the female
subject sees in the mirror that she is a woman, and “at that moment, she further fractures,
split once as the male- identified subject and his subjectivity and split once more as the
woman who observes her own subject position as both male-identified and female
(Aston, 1995). This has greatly negative implications for a woman, as her double
consciousness effect what researchers refer to as a “peak motivation state.” This state
occurs when “a person’s body or mind is stretched to it limits in a voluntary effort to
accomplish something difficult and worthwhile” (Fredrickson, 1997). However, to
achieve this, one must temporarily lose self-consciousness. This is significantly harder
for women to achieve, as their internalization of another’s perspective creates a doubled
consciousness, which is incompatible with the single-mindedness necessary to achieve
peak motivation states (de Beauvoir, 1952).
Laura Mulvey further evidences this notion when she is explaining the
consequences of women being the predominant object of the scophilic looker: “The sense
of forgetting the world as the ego has subsequently come to perceive it (I forget who I am
and where I was) is nostalgically reminiscent of the pre-subjective moment of image
31

32. Van Eerde
recognition” (1975). Here, Mulvey creates opportunity for individuals, specifically
woman, to imagine such a pre-subjective moment, before they began to understand
themselves in the sense of “to be looked at” and therefore as objects. This is where
objectification theory comes into play.
Objectification Theory
If a woman is walking down the street, it is a common experience for a man
driving by to call something out or whistle, handing out approval when her appearance
suffices his expectations. This exemplifies how it is viewed as a “socially sanctioned
right of all male to sexualize all females” (Westkott, 1986). Objectification Theory posits
that women are “acculturated to internalize an observer’s perspective as a primary view
of their physical selves” (Fredrickson, 1997). Laura Mulvey introduced this theory in her
essay: “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” She states that “various features of
cinema viewing conditions facilitate for the viewer both the voyeuristic process
of objectification of female characters and also the narcissistic process
of identification with an ‘ideal ego’ seen on the screen” (Mulvey, 1975). The most
omnipresent way that female characters are sexually evaluated is though the gaze – or the
visual inspection of the body (Fredrickson, 1997).
The objectification of women in “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” occurs throughout
the series in covert and overt ways. The covert ways that the women in the show are
objectified most likely was not even realized by the writers; placing value on a females’
physical attractiveness seems to be ubiquitous in society, and often what is ever-present
has the luxury of being imperceptible. This objectifying gaze is insidious in an audience’s
encounter with visual media that “spotlight bodies and body parts and seamlessly align
32

33. Van Eerde
viewers with an implicit sexualizing gaze” (Mulvey, 1975). The overt ways in which
women are seen as objects with men as the gazer seems to be the writer’s intent at social
commentary. For example, the Trio objectifies women so blatantly and grotesquely that it
is difficult to pass their behavior off as acceptable. In the episode, "I Was Made to Love
You," Warren builds a robot girlfriend that he uses for sex. In "Dead Things," the nerd
gang makes a device that hypnotizes women and turns them into sex slaves, treating them
as objects and making crude comments about their anatomy (Fazzone, 2001). Warren
uses the machine on his ex-girlfriend, Katrina, mesmerizing her to wear a French maid's
costume. Katrina is forced to serve drinks to the Trio and to call them "master,"
emphasizing their perception of her as object, and when Katrina wakes up from the
trance, Warren lashes out and kills her. While these are extreme and hyperbolic examples
of objectification, it is not something to be taken lightly. The episode opens the narrative
that in some ways indulges in the stereotypical male fantasy of how women submissively
women should act, and then presents it as so obviously problematic that it disrupts any
audience member who is entertaining Warren’s behaviors and deeming that as
acceptable. Therefore, reception theory is particularly useful here, as it allows for the
audience to apply the relationship that Warren has with women to how women are treated
and perceived in modern reality.
The covert ways in which women are seen as objects with men as the gazer is
presented through more invisible ways, such as camera angles and feminine behaviors
that become integral to certain character’s identities. Let’s look at Cordelia (in a
respectful manner of course). Her character is immediately introduced as the bombshell.
The camera angle often begins at her feet and moves upward, controlling the way that the
33

34. Van Eerde
audience views her and notably prioritizes her body parts (legs, then chest, then face)
before showing her as a whole being. Furthermore, Cordelia is portrayed as largely
viewed as a one- dimensional character, enjoying and exploiting her physical
attractiveness to gain social power. For example, in the episode, “Halloween,” Cordelia
says to Buffy: “you may be hot stuff when it comes to demonology or whatever, but
when it comes to dating, I’m the slayer.” She knows of herself to be the popular girl that
all the men in the school desire, and actively objectifies herself through feminine ways
such as wearing makeup, tight and trendy clothing. This Self-objectification is described
as an adaptive strategy adopted by women to anticipate the repercussions of their
appearance on an observer, specifically a male observer (Calogero, 2004).
While Cordelia could be blamed for perpetuating sexism by dressing and acting in
ways to encourage her body to be objectified, I would argue that she is doing so as a
means of survival in the society that she lives in. Objectification theory explicates that the
“cultural milieu of objectification functions to socialize girls and women to, at some
level, treat themselves as objects to be looked at and evaluated” (Fredrickson, 1997). The
structure of our society offers rewards to women who comply with expectations of
femininity and encourages women to have a preoccupation with their own physical
appearance. For example, the vast amount of life benefits that physically attractive
women receive in American culture can determine her life experiences. Physical beauty
is what gives Cordelia her power to have social success. So do we condemn her
attentiveness to her physical appearance, or interpret her vanity as a strategy for to
determine how others will treat them (Fredrickson, 1997). I would argue that Cordelia,
herself, is acutely aware of the structures in place, stating in “Go Fish” that: “certain
34

35. Van Eerde
people are entitled to special privileges. They’re called winners. That’s the way the world
works.” She is not simply an ignorant product of society, but a person who understands
the dominant ways that women are expected to act and the ways they are rewarded for
such behavior. She works to make herself a winner in one of the only viable ways the she
can do so as an attractive woman.
This concept can be better understood with the application of the aforementioned
Mirror Theory that implicates the “I” as subject and others as object. Unfortunately, the
value that is placed on women’s appearance causes them to see themselves as object. To
live in a culture that objectifies female bodies can disrupt their flow of consciousness by
doubling their perspectives of themselves and causes them to adopt an observer’s
perspective of self. This causes a tension in viewing oneself as subject and object
simultaneously. Such self-monitoring causes self-objectification and can be received as a
way for women to understand how others will treat them. In a sense, Cordelia is using
reception theory herself in order to gauge how others receive her and crafts her
appearance and “self-absorbed” identity accordingly. She thinks of herself as “the
Queen,” understands what constructions make what is considered a Queen, and
constructs her appearance and her identity to continue fulfilling this powerful role for a
woman in modern society.
The episode, Intervention, seeks to deconstruct the normative expectation for
women to receive being seen for their looks as a “compliment” or just “how things are.”
The ways in which women are objectified in our society unfortunately encourage women
to strive for a self-presentation that codes her as passive. The ideal body for a woman is
for her to possess characteristics that are considered weak, or at least weaker than her
35

36. Van Eerde
male counterpart. For example, the smaller a woman is (short, thin, slightly toned but not
muscular), the more attractive she is perceived. Even in the clothing women are expected
to wear, such as high heels, tight clothes, etc., mostly works to restrict rather than enable
physical power or activity. While Buffy does in many forms subscribe to and therefore
re-inscribe patriarchal standards of beauty, it never gets in the way of her fighting
efficiency which can be perceived as making a stronger feminist point than if she were
more masculine, as her power could then be conservatively linked with her “manliness.”
The penultimate social ideal for feminine beauty is portrayed not in Buffy, but
rather when Spike creates “Buffybot,” a robot version of Buffy, because the real Buffy
rejected him. Buffybot represents the modern expectation of the feminine, clad in a pink
tight shirt, a short skirt, and heels to show off her feminine figure. She is everything the
stereotypical straight man looks for in a woman. However, the episode juxtaposes the
stereotypical male ideal of a “perfect” woman (Buffybot) with the real woman “Buffy,”
which invites the audience to recognize the distinction. The real Buffy is pointedly
wearing clothing similar to Giles in the episode, covered head to toe in beige, minimal
decoration (makeup, jewelry) and sound shoes. Also, it is worth noting that while the
Buffybot is pointedly less effective as the real Buffy, she remains a skillful fighter and is
still able to ward off an impressive amount of vampires regardless of the tight clothing
and the heels that physically restrain her. In the essay, “Throwing like a Girl” by Iris
Young, she describes how women often self-monitor themselves and their bodies as a
result of habitually being objectified. Women consequently are more likely to restrain
from physical activities, as movement causes more attention on the body, and “women’s
attention is often divided between the aim to be realized in motion and the body that must
36

37. Van Eerde
accomplish it” (Young, 1990). However, the abilities of both Buffybot and the real Buffy
to transcend the stereotypically hesitant and timid narrative of a woman crafts a space
where women can celebrate their bodies in motion, whether it be a feminine body or a
more conservative body, which real Buffy represents exclusively in the context of this
single episode.
The show evidently works to deconstruct objectification in a productive way that
encourages the audience to critically examine how the male gaze negatively affects
women. It is also important to note that while Buffy may still be viewed as the object that
grants looking pleasure to its’ viewers, the thru line in the series that Buffy is the one
doing the action, reminds the audience again and again that Buffy is the subject. The
show very much revolves around Buffy and her heroic actions as the slayer, more so than
her physicality or femininity. This subverts the narrative strategies has the male as the
initiator of a quest, whereas the female is solely the object of that quest. The female is
consequently “inactive, is defined only in terms of the male, is, in short, the object of the
male/hero’s quest, but not a subject or initiator of action in her own right” (Aston, 1995).
Does the Female Gaze Exist?
Since Laura Mulvey brought to light the Male Gaze in her essay mentioned
previously, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” feminist film theory has
associated the position of the spectacle with femininity, and the position of
spectator with masculinity. But, what happens when a female subject occupies the
position of the spectator, and the male becomes the spectacle? The contention for
the “woman-as-viewer, the female spectacle, is how can she ‘look’ when the
economy of the gaze is male?” (Aston, 1975). Mulvey states that: “while argument
37

38. Van Eerde
rages over whether the spectating woman is necessarily male-identified, the
spectacular male is almost universally understood to be femininized. (Mulvey,
1975).” Traditional economy asks women to jump into the perspective of the male
viewer and have to “apply male eyes” while men, on the other hand, do not have to make
that jump. However, if the audience can be placed in the perspective of a heterosexual
man, is it possible for it to be placed in the perspective of a heterosexual woman? The
simple answer is yes. If we define sexual objectification as seeing people as no more than
a sum or their parts, and what those parts can do sexually, then women can objectify men.
This notion is clearly operative in the series, most obviously with Spike.
Throughout the series, Spike’s body is constantly on display. In “Intervention,” Buffybot
says: “You should see him naked,” and the audience almost does, quiet a few times.
Cinematic codes appear in “Fool for Love” that work to effectively situate Spike with
“to-be-looked-at-ness (Aston, 1975). In one scene in particular, Spike is walking towards
the camera. The scene plays out in slow motion, there is wind in his hair, and the camera
angle begins at his feet and moves up. The camera is controlling the dimension of space,
“shifting the emphasis of the look” and consequently creating a gaze for Spike (Mulvey,
1975). Furthermore, Spike is almost always wearing very tight clothing that leaves none
of his body to the imagination. And just in case it does, he is shirtless for quite a few
scenes throughout the series. Spike is actually the only character throughout the entire
show that presents fully naked in the episode: “Gone.” This inversion of the role often
ascribed to women destabilizes the notion of any fixed gender identity.
There are many other ways in which men are experienced as objects for female
pleasure. In the episode, “Go Fish,” Buffy and Willow (pre-gay) are blatantly eating
38

39. Van Eerde
popcorn while ogling at the male swimmers at the pool. The camera shots also work
purposefully to place men in the traditionally feminine role of being looked at. When the
swimmers are about to jump into the pool, the shot of just their mid-waist down lasts for
most seconds than what is necessary to show the dive. Also, Xander is very obviously
objectified in the scene, when the camera angle begins at his feet and slowly moves its
way up, forcing you to take in his body before considering him as a whole person, let
alone the “nerdy, usually unattractive” Xander Harris. The reactions of the girls give him
more value than his previous status because of such objectification, and that his body
“meets the standards” of the viewer. While gender swapping does risk reinforcing the
prevailing patriarchy, role reversals do have the power to make a point. I do not sanction
the objectification of anybody, however, men do arguably occupy a safer space in which
to be objectified, as women face the multitude of psychological repercussions and well as
feeling physically less safe on a disproportionate scale in relation to men. Therefore, I
would still maintain gender swapping as a valid strategy, (so long as it is carefully
considered), to make objectification more relatable to men and potentially expose just
how harmful objectification is for women, men, and society. In other words, it allows
female voices and experiences to be better heard and understood.
A common refute to the argument that women are disproportionately sexualized
and considered to be objects of the gaze is: “well, men are objectified in a sexual way,
too! Just look at Jockey commercials!” Yes, men are also socially objectified in mass
media as well as in commercials and as marketing strategy for businesses. However, the
way in which women are sexualized is markedly different, and men have not experienced
the history of systematic oppression that women have. Furthermore, the type of men that
39

40. Van Eerde
are objectified represented an idealistic body image just as female objectification does,
but the characteristics that are expected of men directly implicate power and strength.
I spoke earlier about how optimal feminine characteristics mark her as weak,
whereas the optimal masculine characteristics are: muscular, tall, active, confident, and
powerful. Take Angel and Spike. In many ways, they are both objectified and thought to
be attractive, and they can very easily be seen as objects of scopophilic pleasure, which
makes a female gaze very present. However, while there is material there to argue for the
presence of a female gaze, there is also quite a bit that contradicts its’ presence. I would
argue that Spike is presented as some one to be desired and in a way that does not cater
towards any specific gender. Many straight men have admitted to crushing on Spike, and
his blurring of masculinity and femininity creates a safer space for all viewers to desire
him. So there is still room for men to situate themselves as the looker.
While the female gaze clearly is at play within the series, there is contention as to
whether or not its’ presence is condoned. For example, there is a reading available to see
a form of punishment for the female gaze. Buffy, along with the audience and the camera
angles, finds pleasure in looking at Angel’s muscular body, which is often shirtless and
thereby revealing a rather sexy tattoo on his shoulders. However, her actively indulging
in the pleasure of his body renders a series of tumultuous chain of events that follow in
the episodes “surprise” and “innocence” leave Buffy regretful, guilty, and heart broken.
This indicates that there is a link that can be made between Buffy’s enjoyment of Angel’s
body (indicative of the female gaze) and the event of him losing his soul and having
irreversible consequences. One such consequence was the murder of the spunky and
likeable computer teacher, Jenny Calendar; a character who held much promise as a
40

41. Van Eerde
strong individual as well as a romantic interest for Giles. Her killing was a consequence
that painfully struck the heart of every character and audience member.
The Presence of Homoerotica
There is also a heterosexual implication to the female gaze, because queer female
audience members experience an incongruent role as spectator. If the spectacle is a man,
a queer woman can situate herself with straight women finding pleasure at looking, but
she can not join in herself, and if the spectacle is a woman, she can join in on the pleasure
of looking, but must then situate herself with the male gazers. She also then may identify
more with the woman spectacle and reproduce herself as an object of desire for
consumption (which thereby denies her a subject position) rather than with the spectator
who is so strongly coded to be male (Aston, 1975). The only exception to this
heteronormative conundrum that the series seems to offer is the slight queering of the
character, Faith. Faith is very exploratory with her sexuality, confident, and attune to her
sexual desires. While she exclusively engages in sexual encounters with men, she and
Buffy have a few interesting intimate interactions. For example, Faith kisses Buffy on the
forehead in the episode “Enemies.” There is also something particularly queer about
Faith literally taking over Buffy’s body in the episode “Who Are You.” There is a
fascination that Faith has with Buffy that can easily be queered for viewers intending to
see that.
Henry Jenkins speaks to how specific content in shows “give fans the images
through which to construct their own fantasies” in a way that allows for explicit
denotation rather than as connotation (Jenkins, 1992). This very much applies to the
homoerotic subtext available in the series, as imaginary homoerotic tropes and subtexts
41

42. Van Eerde
definitely play out throughout the series in a way that straight audience members may not
notice, or find amusing and move one, whereas queer audience members can experience
a sense of representation and community in a show that features almost entirely
heterosexual relationships, and notably no overt gay male relationships. For example,
when Angelus returns in the episode, “Innocence,” he walks into a room with Drusilla
and Spike and proceeds to kiss Spike on the forehead, similarly to the Buffy/Faith kiss. In
his piece, the Queer Gaze, Tim Wray explicates: “we find imaginary alternative worlds in
our own cities, find myths and stories in them.” To further evidence the pointed homo
erotica that is presented in the series, a plethora of fan fiction is written that explores the
unstable line between Xander and other male characters. While there may never be an
intrinsic attraction, queer audience members “want to belong, but we don’t; and so we
celebrate ambiguities in boundaries, definitions and roles” (Ahmed). For example, when
Xander first enters into the initiative in Season 4, he says “I totally get it now. Can I have
sex with Riley too?” Also, the initiative itself can be received as representing a male
centric and homoerotic space. More recurrent throughout the show is the campy Spike
and Xander dynamic that the writers seem to enjoy focusing on. In the episode, “Beneath
you,” Buffy, Spike, Xander, and Anya are asked, “are there any of you who haven’t slept
with each other?” Xander and Spike then exchange a very conspicuous look, which
engages the audience in a slew of possible meanings. Also, in the episode, Hush, Spike is
tied up in Xander’s chair in his basement and has to spend the night. This could
absolutely be read as kinky and homoerotic for interested viewers. Albeit both characters
make clear their discontent with the situation, there is still a tension at play. Is it sexual
tension? It very well could be! All of these aforementioned moments tell us quite a bit
42

43. Van Eerde
about how our culture negotiates “a complex transition in how it thinks about sexuality”
(Jenkins, 1992). While the arguably deliberate choice for the writes to create many
instances of homoerotica for its viewers is a progressive step towards queer acceptance, it
is still necessary to examine how the lines are still drawn by the dominant social forces in
regards to what is considered acceptable forms of sexual representation.
You Got the Power
The medium of television as a means of receiving information and social trends
shapes cultural identities. It is evident that so many hegemonic beliefs that oppress the
marginal are so insidious in most mass media representations that it is rendered invisible.
Therefore, an audience member from a marginalized group may have an oppositional
stance as they participate in mainstream media (Morley, 1992). However, reception
theory and poaching gives the viewer the autonomy to take in the content, and cater it to
their own liking. The complex dynamics of reception theory offer a lens with which to
understand how new ideas can enter dominant culture from the margins and have a great
impact on what counts as mainstream. A marginal fanbase “is not something fragile that
needs [society’s] protection, but rather something that has been transformative and
expansive in its influence on culture” (Jenkins, 1992).
“Buffy the Vampire Slayer” is an exemplary series that is available to a myriad
of ways in which to receive it. The aspects of the show that reify dominant modes of
thinking is porous enough to allow for alternative readings. Furthermore, so much of the
series goes against the grain and works to invert the traditional paradigm. Henry Jenkins
explains that, “there has always been a tension between the desire of fans to create culture
that is meaningful within their own community and the desire to engage in larger
43

44. Van Eerde
conversations that impact the culture (Jenkins, 1992). This plan revolves around the idea
of fan activism, which has a different shape than hegemonic content including outlets for
queer culture. Fan activism would instead be a space that is made up entirely of a
marginal community that is able to empower themselves as well as others; work created
by and for marginally dominated social groups. This is a difficult feat to achieve, as it
operates “outside of the dominant conceptions of intellectual property or outside
heteronormative and patriarchal assumptions” (Jenkins, 1992).
The way to achieve this goal is for the academic critiques of mainstream media
utilized in this thesis must become public opinion. If more individuals in every social
group become part of the conversation, much more could become available for
underrepresented groups to find themselves explicitly in TV shows, as opposed to having
to always use reception theory. Furthermore, this would open the door for the works that
are created by marginal communities to receive attention in the general public.
Beliefs, representations and biases that are displayed in mainstream media
permeate how we function as a society, and the way that we function as a society then
influences what ideologies exist in the media. Given this cyclical relationship between
media and social ideologies, there is so much to be gained from more theoretical work on
the relationship between society members and the media that is constantly displayed.
There is opportunity to foster awareness, empowerment and change on both an individual
level and the level of the media. Essentially, there is no excuse to sit complacently within
the current system of identity representation. So start finding ways to receive dominant
media outlets in alternative ways, and initiate conversations about the importance of
having a marginalized community produce and be properly acknowledged for their work.
44

45. Van Eerde
Yes, this is a systemic cycle that must be broken to allow for this to happen, but you have
the power to raise your voice. If you identify as queer, you have the power to find
solidarity with other marginalized communities. If you do not identify as queer, you have
the power to raise you voice in allyship. You got the power. Now, what are you going to
do with it?
45

46. Van Eerde
References
Ahmed, Hammad. Gays and the Gaze. Stanford University. Print.
Aston, Elaine. (1995). An Introduction to Feminism and Theatre. New York City:
Routledge. Print.
Camron, Marc. (2005). The Importance of Being the Zeppo: Xander, Gender Identity and
Hybridity in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Slayage Conference. Online.
De Beauvoir, Simone. (1952). The Second Sex. (H.M. Parshley, Trans.). New York City:
Knopf. Print.
de Certeau, Michel. (1988). The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of
California Press. Print.
Fazzone, Amanda. (2006). REDESIGNING WOMEN: Television after the Network Era
(Feminist Studies and Media Culture). University of Illinois Press. Print.
Fredrickson, Barbara & Roberts, Tomi-Ann. (1997). OBJECTIFICATION THEORY
Toward Understanding Women’s Lived Experiences and Mental Health Risks.
Cambridge University Press. Print.
Gottlieb, Allie. (2002). Buffy's Angels. New York City: Metro Publishing Incorporated.
Print.
Jenkins, Henry. (1992). Textual Poachers, Television Fans and Participatory Culture.
New York City: Routledge. Print.
Jowett, Lorna. (2004). The Problem of Romance and the Representation of Gender in
Buffy and Angel. Slayage Conference. Online.
46

47. Van Eerde
Morley, David. (1992). Television, Audience and Cultural Studies. New York City:
Routledge. Print.
Mulvey, Laura. (1975). Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. New York City: Oxford
University Press. Print.
Simkin, Stevie. (2002).“Who died and made you John Wayne?”: Anxious Masculinity in
Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Slayage Conference. Online.
Simkin, Stevie. (2002). “You Hold Your Gun Like a Sissy Girl”: Firearms and Anxious
Masculinity in Buffy the Vampire Slayer.” Slayage Conference. Online.
Wray, Tim. (1997). The Queer Gaze. London: The Bartlett School of Architecture, UCL.
Print.
Young, Iris. (2005). Throwing Like a Girl: And Other Essays in Feminist Philosophy and
Social Theory. New York City: Oxford University Press. Print.
47