You are my sweetest downfall
I loved you first , I loved you first
Beneath the stars came falling on our heads
But there just soft light, there just soft light
Your hair was long when we first met
Samson came to my bed
Told me that my hair was red
He told me i was beautiful and came into my bed
Oh I cut his hair myself one night
A pair of dull scissors and the yellow light
And he told me that I’d done alright
and kissed me till the morning light
–Regina Spektor
*
Now that I’ve watched my way almost to the end of Buffy’s third season, I’m ready to write the sequel to my first post, which was Buffy The Social Anxiety Slayer. (Note: if you don’t want the larger context, just skip to after the break. But you probably do.) (Update: link fixed.)
This is a post about what the show does with sex. It is not about how the show caves in to goth-lite alternative rock at every opportunity, culminating in a prom scene where the cover of “Wild Horses” by the Rolling Stones made me so angry that I had to set one of my Mazzy Star records on fire. More generally, it isn’t really about the show’s alleged insight into the high school experience. Buffy is comfortably devoid of any such insight. Particularly annoying is the show’s equation of talking about studying with actual studying, and its helpful decision to reinforce the popular idea that SAT scores + money determine college admissions.
This isn’t insider criticism for fans of the show. It would be a huge mistake to think of Buffy as a cult phenomenon. It is the prelude to a larger blog project on sexuality and popular culture, tentatively scheduled to post this August. There I will take a look at the trickle that’s become a torrent: Swingers, Sex and the City (again), The Tao of Steve, Rodger Dodger, The Rules, The Game, Wedding Crashers, and so on. (It will come to light in a few years that Zizek was the only theorist ahead of the curve, since he actually does write about The Rules and seduction in his newer books.)
These works, which are collectively raising the bar for alienation, emotionlessness, and insincerity, are what is happening right now in sexuality. They totally subsume the “metrosexual.” The only significant sexual events they don’t enfold are at the frontiers of gender: transsexuality, transgendered individuals, and related phenomena. It’s really no surprise that the most controversial and, often, the most exciting things being written in the feminist blogosphere right now are by, for, or about “trans” persons.
So this post really continues the work I began in my TWFB posts on cowboys, strippers, and astrology. Ultimately, I’ll be putting together a whole book on magic and popular culture, tentatively titled Willing Fictions, which I see partly as an update of Weber.
One final note, before we get down to brass tacks: you can’t go home again. It’s a huge relief to be writing about Buffy, since last week I also watched Notting Hill and tried to watch The Notebook. No, I don’t know why I’m that dumb either. I insist that nobody told me that Notting Hill was going to be about a pitiable little whiner, played gamely by Hugh Grant, following around Julia Roberts despite her astounding self-absorption until she finally gives him a painting. In essence, it was the story of a guy trying to act out the ridiculous expectations of subservience and continual forgiveness that are usually imposed on women.
The Notebook was even more unfair, because it’s one of those films that tries to whisk us away to a more innocent time. The problem with films like that is that they always fall back on anachronistic tricks from the corrupt old present: the Ryan Gosling character is essentially a modern scammer, except that he really means it because, after all, this was a different America where you could say “aw, shucks” and mean it.
Enough with the classic-style romances. Let’s get to the vampires. Apologies in advance: somebody recalled my Zizek, so I’m gonna have to paraphrase instead of quoting.
1. The Red Herring
The word on the street about Buffy is that the show broke ground for alternative sexualities. As Brandon wrote in a comment to my first post, “The show may do more to ‘bring to light’ marginalized sexual predilections than it does marginalized members of the D&D club.”
I see this issue differently. While the show’s references to “safety words” and so on may be confusing or shocking to somebody who has been living under a rock for ten years, these references never go beyond the status of jokes for 98% of the characters, with the exception of the vampires Spike and Drusilla. Sado-masochism comes up as repartee when characters are being actually tortured or imprisoned. That is just pure sadism. It’s not the contractual relationships that have enabled these kinds of desires to become semi-mainstream. Likewise, erotic asphyxiation is just a goofy way for the show to joke about nerdy sidekick Xander almost getting strangled.
I am, however, interested in the fact that these perversions function as a kind of red herring, in part because that is the larger social function of perversion, outlined persuasively by Zizek in The Ticklish Subject. For Zizek, sado-masochism and other such complexes serve their function by making the requirements of sexuality so concrete and complicated that they provide the illusion of solid ground: the problem becomes the immediate practical problem of tying up one’s lover properly, rather than the anxiety-producing question of what one actually desires. The specificity of fetish simultaneously obscures the relationship between the fetish and the rest of life, and provides an illusory sanctuary from those other fourteen waking hours in the day.
On the show, the references to perverse or fetishistic behavior, which are always made as jokes and thus always refer to somebody else besides the principals, draws our attention away from the fact that the relationships of the principals are not what they seem, and aren’t reducible to “real” perversions like sado-masochism either. For example, the Television Without Pity recap of one show goes like this: “Does it mean anything that Angel shows the most personality we’ve seen from him after torture and bondage? Best not to read too much into that.” This skips over the fact that the Angel/Buffy relationship, which has no medieval props, isn’t ice creams and lockets, and isn’t just a case of the badass older guy either.
2. The Spell: Seduction and the Death Drive
In the very Freudian world of the show, desire is produced by the id. The vampires are id-mirrors of the human beings, and even the vampires have id-eclipses where they turn into ravenous Klingons (if you haven’t seen the show, I can summarize by saying this is when they turn from evil Jekyll into evil Hyde). The really bad vampires (usually henchmen), who don’t repress at all, always look like Klingons.
The id is the repressed truth of the person. The vampire form of Willow gives us the first clue that Willow is gay. When Buffy gets infected by demon blood, she acquires the ability to hear what everybody’s “really” thinking, except for Angel, who she can’t hear because he’s already id (being a vampire and all).
Desire is not a two-way street in Buffy. It is either active desire, which is the desire to kill, or passive desire, which is the desire to die. (Jean Baudrillard was the first to identify seduction with the desire for death, I believe, in his book on the subject.) The id aligns itself with the death drive. As the vampire Spike puts it, in amusing allegorical fashion, “I found her on a bench, making out with a chaos demon.” This is actually what is happening every time anybody in the show makes out with anybody else. Thus a vampire always interrupts trysts in Sunnydale, and rock shows at “the Bronze” are always under threat of vampires.
The active half of this equation should be pretty familiar: the satisfaction of desire equals the erasure of the other person, who is merely a means, and who is “sacrificed” on the altar of that instrumentality. (That’s why it’s so dangerous to be desired. When every woman in town is bewitched by Xander, they nearly kill him.) The greater the agency of the other, the greater the victory, and that makes Buffy the Slayer the object of disproportionate lust. This is an utterly masculine dynamic. Both men and women on the show are concerned about threats to their masculinity, a topic I’ll cover in more detail under the heading of castration.
Meanwhile, what about the desire to die? Why such a profusion of spells, hypnotic trances, and possessions? As Kenneth Burke argues in The Rhetoric of Motive, the “desire to die” appears frequently in artworks, and is very rarely literal, even if it sometimes expresses itself as literal (i.e. suicidal) intentions. In Buffy, the desire to die is the unconscious articulation of a desire for the interruption of normalcy.
Sometimes this takes the form of adultery, like the adulterous relationship between Xander and Willow that Willow tries to ward off with a Pez dispenser her boyfriend gave her (standing in for a cross). Here the normal romantic relationship is invaded by chaos.
In general, the desire for interruption is the desire to enter a world of different and greater bliss. Xander, the unpopular kid, wants the popular girl Cordelia. Willow, the studious nerd, wants Oz the rocker. Potential love interests for Buffy are criticized for being thrillseekers, but their real problem is that what is excitingly different for them is more of the same for her. Buffy’s dream world is made up of the fables surrounding normal events like the prom.
Buffy’s the most interesting case, because her predicament sheds light on the intersection between desire and duty (the work ethic). She doesn’t want to be a Slayer: she says so at the beginning of the show, and reiterates the point approximately twice per episode for seven seasons, except at the end of certain episodes where she realizes that being a Slayer is her job yadda yadda yadda. I say “yadda yadda yadda” because, after another fifteen minutes of screentime, we’re always back to the Buffy who doesn’t like the color of her parachute.
Her love for Angel suspends her obligation to her Slayer duties: here’s a vampire she doesn’t have to kill. This is the respite she cherishes in his company.
The reason she wants this respite, as she makes clear in the pilot episode, is that her destiny has been imposed on her, just the way studying is imposed on all the high school students, and the way work is imposed on adults. Being a Slayer is a “forced choice,” and the result is that she’s bound to want to express her freedom by subverting that choice. In general, just as the agency of the Slayer is the forced choice of the employee, the freedom offered by the vampire merges with the passive spectacle of entertainment and celebrity. Celebrities are the ones who got away, like Roxy Carmichael did: we assume their lives are more interesting and glamorous than our own, so we ambivalently either want them to return to our level, or we want to be consumed by them. We stalk them innocuously through magazines and celebrity gossip sites, and we are consumed by them in the mediocre mode of distraction.
Even the celebrities themselves don’t know how to escape this dynamic, so they mirror us back to ourselves in works like Eminem’s “Stan” or Sarah McLachlan’s “Possession.” The power of fascination is really a projection born of unhappiness.
The most hypnotically compelling vampire on the show, Dracula himself, is also the most famous, his legend stretching far beyond the limits of the show.
3. Love on Buffy: Don’t Blame Boreanaz
You can’t understand Buffy until you put it in reverse: Buffy loves Angel because he’s a vampire, Willow loves Oz because he’s a werewolf, Giles is a good Watcher because he was once a teddy boy named “The Ripper.”
The key to the love relationship is sublimation: most of the time, Oz’s werewolf nature is sublimated into his rock music. Giles and Angel both revert to their bad old selves on the occasions where they have to fight, at which times Buffy and the viewers alike are delighted by the show of machismo.
In other words, the love relationship is a fiction that keeps a lid on the real source of attraction, the lurking power in the other. When Drusilla hypnotizes Giles into thinking she’s Jenny Calendar, he’s really seeing Jenny as she actually was: he was in love with a computer teacher who was also a “technopagan” and occultist, but the only reason Ms. Calendar was a technopagan was that she was actually a Gypsy (with some other, silly “gypsy” name) sent to make sure Angel continued to suffer. Drusilla is only doing what Ms. Calendar did first. Ms. Calendar was the woman Giles loved because of her secret identity as a Gypsy witch.
If you’re one of those unfortunate types who happens not to have any obvious lurking chaos, you’re basically out of luck until magic comes to your aid. Xander’s two shots at attractiveness come when he’s possessed by demonic hyenas, and later when he is transformed by a magical costume into an actual soldier. He wins the right to Cordelia’s love on that one magical night. Willow is a different story: she’s just very repressed. Her tone of voice, her sense of style, and her luck all change as her desiring id (her Wicca powers and homosexuality) gradually surfaces.
If all this sounds a little less than romantic, well, don’t worry, it gets worse. The show is less sanguine than Freud about the virtues of sublimation, and invariably portrays love as a form of castration that affects men and women alike.
The funniest kinds of castration affect Buffy. Dracula, when he’s seducing her, commands her to put down her stake. In the same episode where Xander turns martial, Buffy dresses in period costume to impress Angel, and ends up transformed into a passive woman incapable of protecting herself. Angel, in a characteristic scene, tells her that he was always bored of helpless women like that. Later, he will tell her that he always gets bored of women who are like the wild child Faith. You can’t go one way or the other in Buffy: you have to be the voluntary Samson whose hair could always grow back.
That’s why David Boreanaz gets an unfair deal when he is criticized for playing Angel with the sensitivity of a cardboard cutout. It’s pretty hard to play a character whose inner conflicts are in a state of perfect equilibrium, and that’s what you get with Angel, since he’s both more powerful and more crippled than any other principal. He’s a vampire, but he has a soul. He’s wracked with guilt, but he has a reason to live because of Buffy. The impulses neutralize one another so perfectly that he’s left with no room for emotion. The slightest actual happiness will turn him evil, since it will break the spell of repression.
4. The Stakes
So what about the stakes? They’re sexual, right? They’re pointy (sometimes Buffy calls her stake “Mr. Pointy”) and both Faith and Giles make terrible jokes comparing killing vampires to having sex.
The moment of the staking is the moment of conquest and disillusion. The vampire is literally “seen through,” in that he or she turns to dust and disappears. When Buffy snaps out of her hypnotic trances (when she’s fighting the Master and later when she’s fighting Dracula), she gets down to the business of staking. Faith’s lust for the act is the mirror and complement of her completely cynical appropriation of her own desires, a la Samantha in Sex and the City. Angel has sex with Buffy, loses his soul, and begins to taunt her by saying the relationship meant nothing. Buffy is never fully disillusioned with Angel, though, so he gets stabbed with a mere sword and returns later, intact.
The vampire at the moment of its death is also the symbol of the betrayed lover, which is why the staking is so frequently dramatized as a surprise. Mr. Trick has the same look when he’s staked as Buffy has when she sees Angel with Faith.
When Cordelia realizes that Xander is cheating on her, she almost immediately falls through a rickety stair onto a metal rod. She sends Xander away as she lies in the hospital, recovering from being staked.
5. The End Scene Where We Look Wistfully Back And Sometimes Do A Voice-Over
This is the properly tragic dimension of the show: without the vampires, there is nothing, because according to the logic of the show, desire is what bodies forth the world. Willow can’t allow her vampire döppelganger to be killed, because that would mean a living death for her.
Duty and reasonableness are a vacuum, empty as the dusty air after a slaying. Desire teems with creation, but its law is kill and be killed, or else wear a false and crippling mask. That is our world through the eyes of this show. That is its spell, and its disenchantment.
While I agree that the show does present the particulary nasty side of love–the possessive, destructive side–and, here, I intentionally call love what you call sex, for, though the stake is an obvious penetration metaphor, it is also importantly and unavoidably the literalization of the metaphor of the broken heart–I’m not sure that the moments that you have chosen give an adequate picture of the other side. This is partly because the other side is deliberately obscured, most of the time, or, when it is not obscured, it is foreclosed: Consider–is it possible that what Giles loves in Jenny is not her covert assignment as a kind of arbiter of continuous pain, but, instead, the possibility of stepping outside of the painful aspects of the Sunnydale dynamic? I believe the show to be tragic, yes, but also romantic in the Schillerian sense: the possibility to transcend all the death and blood and chaos is continuously removed somewhere far away–it becomes impossible because the forces of darkness literally conspire to take it away. But the fact that it is shown to be possible, however briefly, is the affirming part of the show. The constructive part of love is not narrated, that is true. It is shown through the way that a social construct exists for these people that persists because of and despite the things they go through. This is not to contradict what you are saying…but I hope it can be taken for a kind of qualification. My feeling is that this is a little over-condensed.
*particularly*
Do you think this treatment of sex is particular to Buffy, or is it inherited from a broader genre of Victorian vampire/horror lit? And if so, do you think they’re doing it consciously, twisting and questioning it? I almost asked if you thought they might be doing it ironically — I’m inclined to say they are, but I am also becoming disillusioned with irony these days. Irony is not enough, reframing and defamiliarizing are better exercises.
After all, the Dracula used in Buffy is Bram Stoker’s, not Vlad the Impaler.
I always thought that the basic problem with sexuality in Buffy was the inability to deal with friendship as a reason to want to be with people. The original Arcadia in the series is a scene, probably in the first or second show, where Xander, Willow, and Buffy are sitting on a couch watching some filmi qawwali, and Buffy reaches down to unselfconsciously play with Willow’s hair. From that point I think that you have it; if your sexual relationships align with your deepest attachments, then of course both Willow and Xander want to sleep with Buffy (or Willow and Xander with each other); the whole fixation on popularity / violent desire is the essential tragedy of the series that keeps it going. (Buffy rejects her friends, both of whom more or less explicitly want her at some point in the series, for Angel the blank slate; Xander rejects Willow for Cordelia; Willow rejects Xander for Oz.)
The central feature of TV sexuality is that no relationship can survive sexual consummation. Therefore the one more or less realistic long-term relationship in the show, between Xander and Anya, is almost always played comedically; any other developing one has to get cut short by one of the people getting killed or turning into a monster. A real relationship would involve giving up on the dream fossilized in the (steadily more unhappy) group house.
Jonathan,
Trying to continue holding fast to the shows protestations of romantic feeling creates more problems than it solves. There’s no question that Giles may want to escape the horrors of the Hellmouth with Jenny, but the reason that he picks Jenny is her New Age personality, which leads back to the occult and darkness. If Giles really wanted to escape, he’d find a “normal” woman and abandon Buffy.
Same thing with Willow: if the show valued the Platonic pursuit of knowledge over its own highly libidinal brew of knowledge, power, self and desire, then Willow would disappear to Oxford rather than attending UC Sunnydale.
(Of course, neither Willow nor Giles can actually leave, because they’re important characters on the show. But that’s part of the point. This is a show about fighting and being corrupted by and being mirrored by vampires and demons.)
For a long stretch of the show, Willow’s romantic hopes are centered on Oz, and yet in the middle of that romance we get a vision of VampWillow that implies Willow is gay. Getting highly invested in the Oz romance — in other words, taking Willow’s Schillerian dreams at face value — means being unreasonably surprised when Oz is replaced by Tara.
Willow and Xander begin their affair very soon after Oz and Cordelia become their actual significant others; the darkness making their loves impossible is of a very recognizable and human kind.
*
Buffy meanwhile moves from Angel, to Dracula (who’s playing on her love for Angel), to Spike. If we take Riley as proof that she also likes normal guys, we have to try to reconcile that with the fact that a) Riley isn’t normal, he’s a footsoldier in the war, and b) the collective libido of the fan base doesn’t lie, Riley is an object of contempt.
Buffy, like Anya and the rest of the characters, is a 1,123 year old demon of desire trapped in the normalizing body and schedule of a high school girl. We can understand her reasons for idolizing events like prom, but such dreams tend to partake of the very sentimentality and conformism that the show spends the rest of its time demolishing. Buffy defeats the Mayor of the town, and a sidekick conveniently named “Faith,” by blowing up her high school, and we’re supposed to believe her that she would have liked to have done it differently?
*
None of this is meant to belittle the emotions the characters experience. Just because love is founded on unexpected qualities (like the fact that Angel is a vampire), doesn’t mean it doesn’t eventually produce tenderness, mourning, loyalty, etc. Xander stays and fights the mayor out of loyalty to his friends, but they need him because he still remembers his training from when he turned into “soldier guy.”
Meta,
Actually, the tie-in I’ll be making to a larger analysis of sexuality in pop culture depends on an ironic reading of Victorian sexuality in Buffy.
I do think the show does reframing (for example, reframing civic virtue as detonating Sunnydale High) and defamiliarizing (representing socialites in the defamiliarized form as vampires).
I’m most interested in its irony. The show is constantly deflating its monsters and demons, of course — this is what Buffy does during the repartee period prior to the staking, and also takes up about half of any given meeting of the principal characters in the library (where they devise their plans for overcoming evil).
In my post, I identify this ironic subversion with lucidity and staking. However, and this is the important thing, it is false lucidity, because it yields again to spells and monsters. Buffy’s moments of clarity are absolute moments that negate the whole world, so she’s always alone with the vampire, either literally or as the scene is shot. In order for desire to continue to exist in the world, and in order for there to be an alternative to boring high school life, sexy vampires have to keep returning.
So Buffy’s irony keeps reversing itself, becoming a shocking credulity. Even while Oz or Xander is making snarky asides in the library, Giles is reading from one of his books to demonstrate the absolute truth of the peril — meaning, the absolute truth of the fable, which is true because it is psychologically necessary.
Great point, Rich. I think of the scene where Xander is trying to tell Buffy that she’s his hero, but ends up also telling her that if it’s the wrong time of night, “What would Buffy do?” turns into “What is Buffy wearing?”
You’ve watched through the end of season three, but the later seasons clearly influence one’s opinion on where things go wrong. The question eventually becomes, why do these people stay? (Other than the obvious fact that it’s a TV show and they have to stay.) The college setting does not succeed in duplicating the high school setting as a reason why everyone needs to hang around and fight vampires; most of the characters either overperform the college (as you point out with Willow) or underperform (Buffy, Xander). Buffy is trapped there because of her duty, but why the others?
The best answer is that they love Buffy. But it’s not presented as Platonic, I-just-can’t-give-up-on-high-school friendship, which would be really lame. They keep making gestures towards living together, and everyone knows what that means in a college context.
That adds to your thesis in the following way, I think; Buffy functions for the other characters as the sucession of sexy vampires function for Buffy. She’s about as dangerous as they can deal with, and the show’s connection of dangerousness and sexiness means that she similarly interferes with their ability to just settle down with someone and have a normal (boring on TV) life. And the pattern recurs: Willow functions for Tara pretty much the same way. When Xander and Anya get domestic, it’s comic relief, but it’s still not allowed to really go anywhere.
I know that I’m going on too long here, but — the other example that comes to mind of TV sexuality associated with deadliness is Northern Exposure, in which what’s-her-name the bush pilot is the most beautiful woman in the village and whose boyfriends all die. When she and the doctor are finally settling down together as they’ve been threatening to all series, he gets scared away by how whenever they have sex, a gun goes off somewhere nearby. So there’s one last season in which he’s with an Aleut tribe, safely separated from her.
Rich, this isn’t excessive at all — it’s very pertinent. I don’t know Northern Exposure, but it sounds like the show was purposely satirizing the need for continual dramatic interruptions of quiet contentment.
As for Buffy, I think she certainly does represent a breath of fresh, demon-haunted air for the sidekick characters; that backs up the assertion of several baddies, including Faith and Count Dracula, that Buffy herself is drawing on “dark” powers.
Buffy is very good at turning the practical constraints of the medium into a statement about the fragility and instability of love, just as other shows have used it to make points about neurosis (Six Feet Under) or philandering (The Sopranos). The real contrast would be something like The Gilmore Girls, which by its fourth season features fights between the destined couplles that reveal nothing except the desperation of the writers. (Same with The O.C. after its first season.)
It’s always tempting to shut down these interpretations with an appeal to the exigencies of the medium (”well, Whedon had to keep it interesting”); oddly enough, this is often how Buffy fans absolve the principal characters of responsibility for the romantic mishaps that befall them.
admittedly i haven’t read this all…but i saw you mentioned ryan gosling. he is so beautiful and gracious. he tipped me ten dollars for a croissant when i was a waitress. he’s totally a sexy, drawling walking “.aw shucks”
also where’s the L word in all this?
Notthing Hill: true, whiny little bitch, but it’s all so cute…coincidentally I just watched Four Weddings and a Funeral again while on an elliptical – boy was Andie MacDowell cute….
miso,
What has The L Word got to do with all this? I hear good things, and could probably watch it shamelessly, but is it actually breaking ground, or just doing an excellent job being a guilty pleasure?
I put Four Weddings And A Funeral in a different class entirely from Notting Hill.
Check out Wax Banks on Buffy over the past few days….
Yeah, I checked ‘im out, but I was a little disappointed. The focus seems to be on defending every possible aspect of the show against every possible criticism: Riley Finn (as played by Blucas) is great, the fourth season is great, and so on. Or, in admitting criticism, to say “Well, Whedon already admitted it.”
That trends towards insularity rather than insight.
Ironic then that he’d soon later write a post about holding bloggy media criticism to higher standards.
[...] help it: I’m going to have to write a belated response to Joe Kugelmass’ post on BtVS and sexuality. No kink? Truly? I mean, I know da Buff is a strait-laced young miss, but I don’t think when [...]
[...] “Sexuality, Pop Culture, and Magic,” I wrote about Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and the strange equations at its heart. Buffy puts [...]
Gawd bless Google… This is a most impressive and interesting analysis (especially for a fan!), and while I lack the qualifications to insert the correct psycho-babble into this discussion, I do wonder slightly at the characterisation of the Jenny Calendar/Giles relationship discussed here.
Is it not simpler (Occam) to recognise that Giles is attracted to Ms Calendar not because she is a Gypsy or a techno-pagan, but because she is both unusually someone he can interact with on a similar level – she understands and can support his “secret identity” – and she is a “strong” woman who can challenge and surprise him, and lead him where he is reluctant to follow (in the relationship).
The ultimate strong and independent woman is of course Buffy. Can Giles be a normal heterosexual male and *not* find his athletic, nubile charge attractive and of course supremely unavailable? The show dwells often on the tension in his respect for and frustration over her headstrong and independent qualities, that make her the supreme slayer who always saves the day, and returns from the dead repeatedly where all previous slayers have failed. Maybe he simply finds an alternative strong female character in Jenny Calendar where he can never consummate a suppressed desire for the object of his own duty.
Giles is problematic and changes wildly from series to series and episode to episode as the story demands in any case. I can’t really reconcile the adventurous, strong “Ripper” ego of his past with the wimp that he has become when he reaches Sunnydale, that despite his age and maturity is now unable to conduct a basic adult courtship ritual and has to be “tutored” by high school students…
The “Wild Horses” cover is actually by the Sundays, not Mazzy Star. An understandable mistake.