Wesley, AtS and gay stereotypes
A few weeks ago I did an essay on Willow and Tara and gay stereotypes, wherein I said that though I didn't believe ME ever meant to be homophobic, they inadvertently acted that way through some of the symbolism and cliches they employed.
At the time I promised the flip side of this, which was a discussion of how, if Buffy screwed up with the gay symbolism, Angel actually did great. I finally had some free time to do this so here we are. And, once again, please remember that this is merely an interpretation. I'm not saying it's the interpretation or even my interpretation. It's simply food for thought. =)
Part 2: Wesley, not canonically gay, but a hell of a symbol
Cultural background
As The Celluloid Closet (TCC) explains, for decades Hollywood was forbidden to show homosexual characters onscreen. This resulted in, for one thing the evil/dead gay stereotype, but it also resulted in what became known as the "sissy" character; that is to say a character who was never acknowledged to be gay, but was strongly implied to be gay. As TCC puts it "When, under tremendous pressure from the Catholic Church and other civic and religious groups, the Code was strengthened in 1934, borderline gay characters fell into well-worn innuendo and reliable sissy credentials, but said the same things."
In the early days of Hollywood, "The sissy was used onscreen and off, as both scapegoat and weapon, to expose a mistrust of brightness or wit in men who were not also pushy or agressive." In other words, they allowed for society's homophobia to be shown without actually putting gays on the screen.
TCC goes on to say "Onscreen this kind of hostility was stated hardly more delicately, but since homosexuality did not officially exist, the trust of such basically homophobic sentiment was directed elsewhere. Symbols of masculinity were defended by the use of symbols for homosexuality. The fact that most early movie sissies were homosexual only if one chose to see them as being homosexual was simply a reflection of the fact that the existence of homosexuals in society was acknowledged only when society chose to do so." (Slash fans, take note)
It should be noted, though, that "Because they were only symbols for failed masculinity and therefore did not represent the threat of actual homosexuals, most sissies during the reign of the Code were not demeaned, nor were they used in cruel or offensive ways. It was not the sissy but what he stood for that was offensive."
And, of course, it's worth it to remember that "To characterize such behavior as homosexual simply because it is stereotypical is of course a mistake." TCC is not trying to say that all sissy characters were closeted gays, merely that it's a Venn diagram with some overlap.
There were also characters who, though not flat-out sissies, were still homosexual and only referred to as such through hints and symbolism. Case in point, the character of Joel Cairo in The Maltese Falcon (1941) who is referred to as a homosexual in the book, but in the film version is turned into a perfumed fop. Hinting at homosexuality by stating a male character's preference for lavendar and/or pansies also became common.
The subtext of homosexuality began to put Hollywood in a quandry, however. Because they shoved their gay characters into symbolic closets, the audience's ability to look for and read that symbolism grew, thus creating subtext where it wasn't always wanted. This, then, gave rise to need for more symbolism, to show where the homosexuality began and ended.
Buddy pictures in particular had a need for this since, "The expendability of women in buddy films was one reason for [the fear of the male buddies being taken for gay]. Heterosexual romance was often just a standard plot ingredient, thrown in at regular intervals because it had to be there, and lacking the emotional commitment that the filmmaker failed to give it. The real emotions in the movies, as well as in the movie industry, have always taken place between men. Men have been the important forces at work, both as instigators of all the action in the pictures and as instigators of the films themselves, by deciding what movies should be made and how. Subtexts presented themselves constantly but were left unresolved, just as the women waited around while the boys recreated their adolscent fantasies, unemcumbered by an emotional commitment to anything but each other and a good time." (Yet again, slash fans take note.)
The subtext-that's-text of buddy films covers everything from the canonical gay backstory of Ben Hur (granted, not your usual buddy pic ;) ) to Glenn Ford's comment that he and George Macready "knew we were supposed to be playing homosexuals" in Gilda (1946) which was disputed by Charles Vidor, the film's director.
But of course, Hollywood cannot simply have gay characters as the heros, so a solution was needed. During the late Sixties, when buddy films started to become popular again, the sissy once again served a purpose. He worked as the touchstone character, proving to the audience that the buddies of the picture were not gay because he was. Midnight Cowboy (1969), for instance, deflected suspicion of any homosexuality between Joe and Ratso by making their contempt for faggots clear whenever they encounter gay characters. (It's interesting to note that Dustin Hoffman said in a later interview that he felt that, given their backgrounds, the characters should be racist, and in one scene a black man should come in, to which Joe and Ratso would move away muttering "scum bags" or "niggers". This was shot down as it would "lose every liberal in the audience" and the scene was done with a Times Square queen which Ratso calls a "faggot".)
The use of sissies as touchstone characters continues to this very day. Case in point, a scene in Rush Hour 2 when Lee and Carter go shopping and encounter a sissy sales clerk who gushes all over them - much to Carter's discomfort. Carter's reaction shows that both trends of the touchstone sissy character have stayed in place over the years, that is to say that it's not enough to simply have the sissy there but the buddy characters must somehow make fun of or show dislike of him as well, thus proving their heterosexuality.
(I find it interesting to note that Shanghai Noon, another Jackie Chan buddy movie, had no such sissy character, leading me to wonder who in the process of making Rush Hour 2 felt the need to put one in.)
Tea and Sympathy
Then there are movies where the symbolism overshadows the true meaning of the film. Case in point Tea and Sympathy (1956), a movie which has "become so symbolic of the classic cure for homosexuality...that people forget it is the story of a shy heterosexual."
If you've never seen Tea and Sympathy, you've probably heard of it through the oft-quoted "Years from now... when you talk about this... and you will... be kind." It is the story of Tom Lee who is falsely accused of homosexuality because he does not enjoy typical "male" activities such as sports. Instead he'd rather spend his time listening to classical music, or sewing.
He is "falsely acused of homosexuality by men whose sporting activities provide the most homoerotic action on the screen. In buddy relationships well established by the fellow students, Tom fits in as a scapegoat sissy. The film pleads tolerance, therefore, not for sexual deviation but for unfortunate heterosexuals who happen to be less than 'masculine'. At no time is homosexuality seen as a valid option for a real man. The message is that one cannot assume that a young man is homosexual just because he doesn't knock himself out playing touch football."
Tom is eventually "saved", however, by sleeping with Laura, the housemaster's wife, with whom he is in love.
"When Laura finally sleeps with Tom Lee, she is saving him not from a life of sissyhood, but from his own fear that his fellow students might be right about his sexuality - at thought that has already driven him to attempt suicide. 'To me, it was never a play about homosexuality,' Anderson [the writer] says. 'When Leif Erickson hounds Tom Lee, he's really persecuting what he fears in himself.' Thus Tea and Sympathy is the ultimate sissy film; it confirms what the creators and portrayers of sissies have always sought to deny, that the iconography for sissies and for sexual deviates is the same and that the one has come to mean the other."
This, then, set the stage for another cliche, however inadvertently. It became okay to show a sissy character, acknowledged to be gay or not, so long as the character was "cured" through the love of a woman, much as it was okay to make Pussy Galore a lesbian, since she was "cured" by sleeping with James Bond. And the "cure" for sissies is obvious: become more stereotypically manly, more sexual with women and less intellectual and weak. Only then can you be considered "good".
Enter Wesley
The character of Wesley has never, of course, been acknowledged to be gay, but he is, however, a sissy in the truest Tea and Sympathy sense. Created as a counterpart to Giles, Wesley, as the show's creators agree, was intended to be an example of someone who had put too much faith in book learning (being an intellectual) than in actual field experience. He also exhibits classical sissy traits: he's prissy, weak, gives up easily during a fight (and ideally before, if it keeps his kneecaps attached), is knocked down easily and whines over the tiniest wounds.
Like his counterpart in Tea and Sympathy, Wesley has his eye on a girl, but the kiss of non-passion between him and Cordelia was so absurdly awful for a man of his age that many felt the subtext of his homosexuality became, in that moment, text. Particularly considering his earlier comments in The Prom about his days in an all-boy prep school where the upperclassmen made the lowerclassmen dress up as girls and, well, dip's tasty, isn't it?
Wesley also serves his role as the touchstone sissy. Though of course Giles's sexuality was not in doubt (at least considering that Ethan wasn't onscreen ;) ) but his suitability was. During the course of their time together it's made clear that Giles can barely tolerate Wesley and all he stands for, even though Wesley himself is only a copy of the type of person that Giles was back in Buffy season 1. By drawing the contrast between the two, the audience is expected to roll its eyes right along with Giles at the ridiculous thought that a foolish twit like Wes could ever prove useful to the Scooby gang.
And the Scooby gang is right there with us. Other than Cordelia, who thanks to her breakup with Xander was barely still a member herself, it's made clear that the Scoobies can't stand Wesley. They all, in some form or another, roll their eyes at him, ignore him, and make fun of him.
However, how they make fun of him, much like how Willow and Tara's arc played out, intentional or not, once again becomes key. Because Wes, while on Buffy, is not just made fun of for being a stuffy intellectual, he's made fun of because he's not manly enough. He's called "Princess Margaret" by Faith and Buffy dismisses him as someone who only knows how to "scream like a girl". (Ironic that the two making fun of him for not being manly enough are the two strongest women on the show.) Thus Wesley's identity as a sissy character is complete - he's not manly enough to be admired, and the other characters make fun of him for it. Wes is a sissy, and because of that the Scoobies, and us by extension, are not supposed to like him.
Enter Angel
It's only when Wesley hops over to Angel that suddenly all of the gay cliches are broken. Or, rather, the cliches are still there, but rather than using them as Buffy did with Wes-the-sissy and gay/evil/dead Willow/Tara, it defies them.
For starters, at no point does Angel, the show or the character, feel a need to distance itself from the subtext. Even before Wesley arrives we have Doyle, who flat-out admits he has a crush on Angel. Sure, Spike jokes around with "I understand, I have a nephew who's gay" but at no time is it implied that even Spike thinks that being gay is a bad thing. Instead the joke implies that really, would Angel just admit it?
Over the course of what is now 4 seasons, there are more jokes about Angel's homosexuality than can easily be counted, but at no time is Angel bothered by this. Angel, who quickly snaps at anyone who insults his hair or dares to suggest that maybe he looks older than 25, is never once flustered by anyone assuming that he's gay. The one time he is bothered by the potential assumption is in Couplet where it's not so much the implied homosexuality but the implication that he's with Groo of all people that bothers him. Multiple assumptions that he and Wesley are a couple never phase him, nor is he bothered or worried enough to correct it when Cordy, the girl he's in love with, questions his sexuality as well.
This is not to say that Angel is therefore gay. Nor is that to say that he isn't (Although with Buffy and Cordy, I think we'd at least have to argue the boy to bi) It's only to say that unlike male heros who have come before him, Angel feels no need to make himself look more masculine by distancing himself from those who are stereotypically less masculine.
Which leads us to Wesley. Unlike Buffy, both the character and the show, Angel the character and the show embraces Wes's sissy nature. True, Cordy makes fun of Wesley, but no more or less than she does anyone else she comes across, and her frequent jibes about Angel's homosexual tendencies shows that this is not a trait she necessarily associates with weak and so-called womanly characters.
And Wesley when he shows up is just as "womanly" as ever. He continues to bumble about, proclaims himself Angel's "humble servant" and expresses a devotion to Angel so strong that once again the subtext threatens to become text. Like his Tea and Sympathy counterpart, he also hints at an interest in womanly hobbies (in Wes's case, knitting and botany).
But still, Angel himself is never once bothered by it. He accepts Wesley as both a friend and as a surrogate family member. More importantly, unlike the gang on Buffy, he feels no need to encourage Wesley away from his sissy tendencies. When the two of them fight, it is over issues of leadership or judgement calls, not over Wesley not being manly enough. (More on this in a moment)
The Angel/Wesley relationship of season 1 started to become so textual that in season 2 we have something to counteract it. Remember, though, that the classic defense against subtextual buddies was a sissy - someone so flamboyantly gay and detested by the buddies that it was obvious that the buddies themselves were straight.
Who is the first new character introduced in season 2? The Host, who makes it clear in his very first episode (Judgement) that his sexuality is ambiguous at best. But for all that the Host is the new sissy on the block he is not used as a touchstone character. Angel and Wesley consider him a friend. Once again Angel is not bothered by a male character flirting with him. At no point does Angel cheapen itself by mocking the sissy. Instead the subtext is deflected by giving Wesley a girlfriend - a disappointing action to those who liked the subtext, but by no means is it an insulting one.
Wesley's "cure"
If we take the attraction to Cordelia and Virginia at face value, we can see that Wesley is still a sissy in the Tea and Sympathy style: not gay, merely not masculine. However that only applies to Wesley from season 3 of Buffy to the end of season 2 on Angel. Once we hit season 3 of Angel Wesley starts to leave his sissy nature behind him. There are few that would look upon Wesley of season 4 who could, without knowing of his past, even begin to guess that there had been a sissy inside of him. He's rugged, stronger, tougher in a fight and incredibly attached to two women: Lilah and Fred. By all rights he's "cured".
So, Wes once again fulfills the cliche - sissy turned tough guy. Except for one thing: none of his friends agree this is a good thing.
The actual "cured sissy" cliche celebrates the cure. After all, don't we want more so-called manly men? But Angel rejects this part of the stereotype. Yes, Wes is "cured" but the process by which he became so is not a good one, nor is it approved of.
Which isn't to say Wesley isn't allowed to be strong. His friends don't mind him using his strengths in the slightest. When Angel fires the gang in season 2, Wesley takes charge with Cordy and Gunn's, and later Angel's approval. There are some quarrels about how that leadership should be carried out, but never on the level of Wesley's qualifications so much as Gunn and Angel both feel more comfortable doing things in their own way. It's not a challenge to Wes's masculinity.
The real death of sissy Wes, though, starts to come in Pylea in which Wes sheds his glasses, grows some stubble, and then uses his leadership to send men to die.
At the start of season 3 we see, I think, the "real" Wes. He's not so uptight as to be his former prissy self, but he's not so "cured" that he can't sit there waxing poetic about, appropriately enough, freshly brewed tea. If Wesley had a baseline, I suspect this is it.
His downfall comes, though, with the development of his feelings for Fred. He's in love with her, she's in love with someone else. Unlike the sissies who came before who were made better by their contact with women, Wesley becomes worse. He's pettier than usual, jealous and bitter. He turns his attention to Angel and Connor and ends up making a decision that betrays the trust his friends had in him.
From there he gets even more entangled with a woman - Lilah. If his love for the boyish Fred didn't convince the audience that Wesley had some heterosexuality in him, his affair with the sexy bad girl certainly did.
The beginning of season 4 shows us a Wes unlike his previous self (a logical progression from his previous self, yes, but a marked contrast too). No longer quiet, bumbling, subserviant or even intellectual, Wes is now a "man's man". He wears manly clothes, he fights demons single-handed, he barks orders to his underlings and Lilah both. His intelligence is still there, yes, but it only shows itself now in his planning to do what he thinks is best and not in wistful joy over the history of the names of flowers.
And his friends don't like this. That is the key. Season 4 Wesley, though cured, is dark. He's even suspected of being evil - or so close to it that it hardly matters. Gunn can't stand to be in the same room with him. Fred, though attracted, expresses contempt for the changes Wes has made. And, perhaps most notably, in his perfect day fantasy Angel envisions a Wesley who not only says "I'm sorry" but who goes back to his bookish ways. Not all the way back to a sissy, no, but at least a step or two back from the macho asshole Wes has turned himself into. The only person who expresses total acceptance of the new Wes is Lilah, who's evil.
Conclusions
So we can see that for all that Angel has never really had a canonically gay character on the screen, unlike Buffy it actually handles the symbolism and cliches without a problem. Sissy characters exist, but are either allowed to remain sissies (like the Host) with no one making fun of them, or they change (like Wes) with the other characters wondering why they had to. And Angel, the hero, doesn't define himself through the mockery of anyone less manly than he is.
For me as a fan, I suspect this is why for the past few years I've been wishing Angel would have a canonically gay character. I didn't know why, but I just had a hunch that they would handle it better than Buffy did. Now I think I know why. Buffy had a canonically gay character (Willow) who's symbolism and metaphors (magic as homosexuality and magic as evil addiction) sent her down the path of turning into a horrible Big Bad. Angel, on the other hand, had a subtextually gay character (Wesley) who's journey towards masculinity and by extention greater heterosexuality wasn't considered an improvement of his character.
Of course in the end what this really goes to show is the ultimate point, which is that no character in the Buffyverse is ever going to end up in a happy place, no matter what their sexuality is.
And with that: [twack] Out to you guys. No pun intended. ;)
At the time I promised the flip side of this, which was a discussion of how, if Buffy screwed up with the gay symbolism, Angel actually did great. I finally had some free time to do this so here we are. And, once again, please remember that this is merely an interpretation. I'm not saying it's the interpretation or even my interpretation. It's simply food for thought. =)
Part 2: Wesley, not canonically gay, but a hell of a symbol
Cultural background
As The Celluloid Closet (TCC) explains, for decades Hollywood was forbidden to show homosexual characters onscreen. This resulted in, for one thing the evil/dead gay stereotype, but it also resulted in what became known as the "sissy" character; that is to say a character who was never acknowledged to be gay, but was strongly implied to be gay. As TCC puts it "When, under tremendous pressure from the Catholic Church and other civic and religious groups, the Code was strengthened in 1934, borderline gay characters fell into well-worn innuendo and reliable sissy credentials, but said the same things."
In the early days of Hollywood, "The sissy was used onscreen and off, as both scapegoat and weapon, to expose a mistrust of brightness or wit in men who were not also pushy or agressive." In other words, they allowed for society's homophobia to be shown without actually putting gays on the screen.
TCC goes on to say "Onscreen this kind of hostility was stated hardly more delicately, but since homosexuality did not officially exist, the trust of such basically homophobic sentiment was directed elsewhere. Symbols of masculinity were defended by the use of symbols for homosexuality. The fact that most early movie sissies were homosexual only if one chose to see them as being homosexual was simply a reflection of the fact that the existence of homosexuals in society was acknowledged only when society chose to do so." (Slash fans, take note)
It should be noted, though, that "Because they were only symbols for failed masculinity and therefore did not represent the threat of actual homosexuals, most sissies during the reign of the Code were not demeaned, nor were they used in cruel or offensive ways. It was not the sissy but what he stood for that was offensive."
And, of course, it's worth it to remember that "To characterize such behavior as homosexual simply because it is stereotypical is of course a mistake." TCC is not trying to say that all sissy characters were closeted gays, merely that it's a Venn diagram with some overlap.
There were also characters who, though not flat-out sissies, were still homosexual and only referred to as such through hints and symbolism. Case in point, the character of Joel Cairo in The Maltese Falcon (1941) who is referred to as a homosexual in the book, but in the film version is turned into a perfumed fop. Hinting at homosexuality by stating a male character's preference for lavendar and/or pansies also became common.
The subtext of homosexuality began to put Hollywood in a quandry, however. Because they shoved their gay characters into symbolic closets, the audience's ability to look for and read that symbolism grew, thus creating subtext where it wasn't always wanted. This, then, gave rise to need for more symbolism, to show where the homosexuality began and ended.
Buddy pictures in particular had a need for this since, "The expendability of women in buddy films was one reason for [the fear of the male buddies being taken for gay]. Heterosexual romance was often just a standard plot ingredient, thrown in at regular intervals because it had to be there, and lacking the emotional commitment that the filmmaker failed to give it. The real emotions in the movies, as well as in the movie industry, have always taken place between men. Men have been the important forces at work, both as instigators of all the action in the pictures and as instigators of the films themselves, by deciding what movies should be made and how. Subtexts presented themselves constantly but were left unresolved, just as the women waited around while the boys recreated their adolscent fantasies, unemcumbered by an emotional commitment to anything but each other and a good time." (Yet again, slash fans take note.)
The subtext-that's-text of buddy films covers everything from the canonical gay backstory of Ben Hur (granted, not your usual buddy pic ;) ) to Glenn Ford's comment that he and George Macready "knew we were supposed to be playing homosexuals" in Gilda (1946) which was disputed by Charles Vidor, the film's director.
But of course, Hollywood cannot simply have gay characters as the heros, so a solution was needed. During the late Sixties, when buddy films started to become popular again, the sissy once again served a purpose. He worked as the touchstone character, proving to the audience that the buddies of the picture were not gay because he was. Midnight Cowboy (1969), for instance, deflected suspicion of any homosexuality between Joe and Ratso by making their contempt for faggots clear whenever they encounter gay characters. (It's interesting to note that Dustin Hoffman said in a later interview that he felt that, given their backgrounds, the characters should be racist, and in one scene a black man should come in, to which Joe and Ratso would move away muttering "scum bags" or "niggers". This was shot down as it would "lose every liberal in the audience" and the scene was done with a Times Square queen which Ratso calls a "faggot".)
The use of sissies as touchstone characters continues to this very day. Case in point, a scene in Rush Hour 2 when Lee and Carter go shopping and encounter a sissy sales clerk who gushes all over them - much to Carter's discomfort. Carter's reaction shows that both trends of the touchstone sissy character have stayed in place over the years, that is to say that it's not enough to simply have the sissy there but the buddy characters must somehow make fun of or show dislike of him as well, thus proving their heterosexuality.
(I find it interesting to note that Shanghai Noon, another Jackie Chan buddy movie, had no such sissy character, leading me to wonder who in the process of making Rush Hour 2 felt the need to put one in.)
Tea and Sympathy
Then there are movies where the symbolism overshadows the true meaning of the film. Case in point Tea and Sympathy (1956), a movie which has "become so symbolic of the classic cure for homosexuality...that people forget it is the story of a shy heterosexual."
If you've never seen Tea and Sympathy, you've probably heard of it through the oft-quoted "Years from now... when you talk about this... and you will... be kind." It is the story of Tom Lee who is falsely accused of homosexuality because he does not enjoy typical "male" activities such as sports. Instead he'd rather spend his time listening to classical music, or sewing.
He is "falsely acused of homosexuality by men whose sporting activities provide the most homoerotic action on the screen. In buddy relationships well established by the fellow students, Tom fits in as a scapegoat sissy. The film pleads tolerance, therefore, not for sexual deviation but for unfortunate heterosexuals who happen to be less than 'masculine'. At no time is homosexuality seen as a valid option for a real man. The message is that one cannot assume that a young man is homosexual just because he doesn't knock himself out playing touch football."
Tom is eventually "saved", however, by sleeping with Laura, the housemaster's wife, with whom he is in love.
"When Laura finally sleeps with Tom Lee, she is saving him not from a life of sissyhood, but from his own fear that his fellow students might be right about his sexuality - at thought that has already driven him to attempt suicide. 'To me, it was never a play about homosexuality,' Anderson [the writer] says. 'When Leif Erickson hounds Tom Lee, he's really persecuting what he fears in himself.' Thus Tea and Sympathy is the ultimate sissy film; it confirms what the creators and portrayers of sissies have always sought to deny, that the iconography for sissies and for sexual deviates is the same and that the one has come to mean the other."
This, then, set the stage for another cliche, however inadvertently. It became okay to show a sissy character, acknowledged to be gay or not, so long as the character was "cured" through the love of a woman, much as it was okay to make Pussy Galore a lesbian, since she was "cured" by sleeping with James Bond. And the "cure" for sissies is obvious: become more stereotypically manly, more sexual with women and less intellectual and weak. Only then can you be considered "good".
Enter Wesley
The character of Wesley has never, of course, been acknowledged to be gay, but he is, however, a sissy in the truest Tea and Sympathy sense. Created as a counterpart to Giles, Wesley, as the show's creators agree, was intended to be an example of someone who had put too much faith in book learning (being an intellectual) than in actual field experience. He also exhibits classical sissy traits: he's prissy, weak, gives up easily during a fight (and ideally before, if it keeps his kneecaps attached), is knocked down easily and whines over the tiniest wounds.
Like his counterpart in Tea and Sympathy, Wesley has his eye on a girl, but the kiss of non-passion between him and Cordelia was so absurdly awful for a man of his age that many felt the subtext of his homosexuality became, in that moment, text. Particularly considering his earlier comments in The Prom about his days in an all-boy prep school where the upperclassmen made the lowerclassmen dress up as girls and, well, dip's tasty, isn't it?
Wesley also serves his role as the touchstone sissy. Though of course Giles's sexuality was not in doubt (at least considering that Ethan wasn't onscreen ;) ) but his suitability was. During the course of their time together it's made clear that Giles can barely tolerate Wesley and all he stands for, even though Wesley himself is only a copy of the type of person that Giles was back in Buffy season 1. By drawing the contrast between the two, the audience is expected to roll its eyes right along with Giles at the ridiculous thought that a foolish twit like Wes could ever prove useful to the Scooby gang.
And the Scooby gang is right there with us. Other than Cordelia, who thanks to her breakup with Xander was barely still a member herself, it's made clear that the Scoobies can't stand Wesley. They all, in some form or another, roll their eyes at him, ignore him, and make fun of him.
However, how they make fun of him, much like how Willow and Tara's arc played out, intentional or not, once again becomes key. Because Wes, while on Buffy, is not just made fun of for being a stuffy intellectual, he's made fun of because he's not manly enough. He's called "Princess Margaret" by Faith and Buffy dismisses him as someone who only knows how to "scream like a girl". (Ironic that the two making fun of him for not being manly enough are the two strongest women on the show.) Thus Wesley's identity as a sissy character is complete - he's not manly enough to be admired, and the other characters make fun of him for it. Wes is a sissy, and because of that the Scoobies, and us by extension, are not supposed to like him.
Enter Angel
It's only when Wesley hops over to Angel that suddenly all of the gay cliches are broken. Or, rather, the cliches are still there, but rather than using them as Buffy did with Wes-the-sissy and gay/evil/dead Willow/Tara, it defies them.
For starters, at no point does Angel, the show or the character, feel a need to distance itself from the subtext. Even before Wesley arrives we have Doyle, who flat-out admits he has a crush on Angel. Sure, Spike jokes around with "I understand, I have a nephew who's gay" but at no time is it implied that even Spike thinks that being gay is a bad thing. Instead the joke implies that really, would Angel just admit it?
Over the course of what is now 4 seasons, there are more jokes about Angel's homosexuality than can easily be counted, but at no time is Angel bothered by this. Angel, who quickly snaps at anyone who insults his hair or dares to suggest that maybe he looks older than 25, is never once flustered by anyone assuming that he's gay. The one time he is bothered by the potential assumption is in Couplet where it's not so much the implied homosexuality but the implication that he's with Groo of all people that bothers him. Multiple assumptions that he and Wesley are a couple never phase him, nor is he bothered or worried enough to correct it when Cordy, the girl he's in love with, questions his sexuality as well.
This is not to say that Angel is therefore gay. Nor is that to say that he isn't (Although with Buffy and Cordy, I think we'd at least have to argue the boy to bi) It's only to say that unlike male heros who have come before him, Angel feels no need to make himself look more masculine by distancing himself from those who are stereotypically less masculine.
Which leads us to Wesley. Unlike Buffy, both the character and the show, Angel the character and the show embraces Wes's sissy nature. True, Cordy makes fun of Wesley, but no more or less than she does anyone else she comes across, and her frequent jibes about Angel's homosexual tendencies shows that this is not a trait she necessarily associates with weak and so-called womanly characters.
And Wesley when he shows up is just as "womanly" as ever. He continues to bumble about, proclaims himself Angel's "humble servant" and expresses a devotion to Angel so strong that once again the subtext threatens to become text. Like his Tea and Sympathy counterpart, he also hints at an interest in womanly hobbies (in Wes's case, knitting and botany).
But still, Angel himself is never once bothered by it. He accepts Wesley as both a friend and as a surrogate family member. More importantly, unlike the gang on Buffy, he feels no need to encourage Wesley away from his sissy tendencies. When the two of them fight, it is over issues of leadership or judgement calls, not over Wesley not being manly enough. (More on this in a moment)
The Angel/Wesley relationship of season 1 started to become so textual that in season 2 we have something to counteract it. Remember, though, that the classic defense against subtextual buddies was a sissy - someone so flamboyantly gay and detested by the buddies that it was obvious that the buddies themselves were straight.
Who is the first new character introduced in season 2? The Host, who makes it clear in his very first episode (Judgement) that his sexuality is ambiguous at best. But for all that the Host is the new sissy on the block he is not used as a touchstone character. Angel and Wesley consider him a friend. Once again Angel is not bothered by a male character flirting with him. At no point does Angel cheapen itself by mocking the sissy. Instead the subtext is deflected by giving Wesley a girlfriend - a disappointing action to those who liked the subtext, but by no means is it an insulting one.
Wesley's "cure"
If we take the attraction to Cordelia and Virginia at face value, we can see that Wesley is still a sissy in the Tea and Sympathy style: not gay, merely not masculine. However that only applies to Wesley from season 3 of Buffy to the end of season 2 on Angel. Once we hit season 3 of Angel Wesley starts to leave his sissy nature behind him. There are few that would look upon Wesley of season 4 who could, without knowing of his past, even begin to guess that there had been a sissy inside of him. He's rugged, stronger, tougher in a fight and incredibly attached to two women: Lilah and Fred. By all rights he's "cured".
So, Wes once again fulfills the cliche - sissy turned tough guy. Except for one thing: none of his friends agree this is a good thing.
The actual "cured sissy" cliche celebrates the cure. After all, don't we want more so-called manly men? But Angel rejects this part of the stereotype. Yes, Wes is "cured" but the process by which he became so is not a good one, nor is it approved of.
Which isn't to say Wesley isn't allowed to be strong. His friends don't mind him using his strengths in the slightest. When Angel fires the gang in season 2, Wesley takes charge with Cordy and Gunn's, and later Angel's approval. There are some quarrels about how that leadership should be carried out, but never on the level of Wesley's qualifications so much as Gunn and Angel both feel more comfortable doing things in their own way. It's not a challenge to Wes's masculinity.
The real death of sissy Wes, though, starts to come in Pylea in which Wes sheds his glasses, grows some stubble, and then uses his leadership to send men to die.
At the start of season 3 we see, I think, the "real" Wes. He's not so uptight as to be his former prissy self, but he's not so "cured" that he can't sit there waxing poetic about, appropriately enough, freshly brewed tea. If Wesley had a baseline, I suspect this is it.
His downfall comes, though, with the development of his feelings for Fred. He's in love with her, she's in love with someone else. Unlike the sissies who came before who were made better by their contact with women, Wesley becomes worse. He's pettier than usual, jealous and bitter. He turns his attention to Angel and Connor and ends up making a decision that betrays the trust his friends had in him.
From there he gets even more entangled with a woman - Lilah. If his love for the boyish Fred didn't convince the audience that Wesley had some heterosexuality in him, his affair with the sexy bad girl certainly did.
The beginning of season 4 shows us a Wes unlike his previous self (a logical progression from his previous self, yes, but a marked contrast too). No longer quiet, bumbling, subserviant or even intellectual, Wes is now a "man's man". He wears manly clothes, he fights demons single-handed, he barks orders to his underlings and Lilah both. His intelligence is still there, yes, but it only shows itself now in his planning to do what he thinks is best and not in wistful joy over the history of the names of flowers.
And his friends don't like this. That is the key. Season 4 Wesley, though cured, is dark. He's even suspected of being evil - or so close to it that it hardly matters. Gunn can't stand to be in the same room with him. Fred, though attracted, expresses contempt for the changes Wes has made. And, perhaps most notably, in his perfect day fantasy Angel envisions a Wesley who not only says "I'm sorry" but who goes back to his bookish ways. Not all the way back to a sissy, no, but at least a step or two back from the macho asshole Wes has turned himself into. The only person who expresses total acceptance of the new Wes is Lilah, who's evil.
Conclusions
So we can see that for all that Angel has never really had a canonically gay character on the screen, unlike Buffy it actually handles the symbolism and cliches without a problem. Sissy characters exist, but are either allowed to remain sissies (like the Host) with no one making fun of them, or they change (like Wes) with the other characters wondering why they had to. And Angel, the hero, doesn't define himself through the mockery of anyone less manly than he is.
For me as a fan, I suspect this is why for the past few years I've been wishing Angel would have a canonically gay character. I didn't know why, but I just had a hunch that they would handle it better than Buffy did. Now I think I know why. Buffy had a canonically gay character (Willow) who's symbolism and metaphors (magic as homosexuality and magic as evil addiction) sent her down the path of turning into a horrible Big Bad. Angel, on the other hand, had a subtextually gay character (Wesley) who's journey towards masculinity and by extention greater heterosexuality wasn't considered an improvement of his character.
Of course in the end what this really goes to show is the ultimate point, which is that no character in the Buffyverse is ever going to end up in a happy place, no matter what their sexuality is.
And with that: [twack] Out to you guys. No pun intended. ;)