Girl Meets Girl: Sexual Sitings in Lesbian Romantic Comedies

  • Kelly McWilliam


Hollywood romantic comedies are, by and large, an ideologically conservative genre. Based around gender stereotypes and the idealized pursuit, however disguised, of heteropatriarchal monogamy, Hollywood romantic comedies offer countless variations of heteronormative “intimacy.” How, then, does the shift from “boy meets girl” to “girl meets girl” in lesbian romantic comedies—a genre that emerged in 1994 with the release of films like Bar Girls and Go Fish—affect the representation of intimacy? This chapter focuses on Better than Chocolate to investigate how lesbian intimacies, and lesbian sex in particular, occupy space. Where are lesbian intimacies sited and what, if any, negotiations of space are triggered through the embodiment of those intimacies? Ultimately, this chapter argues that through an unusually explicit emphasis on sex, Better than Chocolate draws attention to the limited public mobility of lesbian intimacies through a consistent siting of lesbian sex as a site of spatial negotiation.


  1. Ahmed, Sara. Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, Dennis. “Why Things Don’t Add up in The Sum of Us: Sexuality and Genre Crossing in the Romantic Comedy.” Narrative 7.1 (January 1999): 71–88.Google Scholar
  3. Bell, David. “Perverse Dynamics, Sexual Citizenship and the Transformation of Intimacy.” In Mapping Desire: Geographies of Sexualities. Eds. David Bell and Gill Valentine. London and New York: Routledge, 1995. 304–317.Google Scholar
  4. Bernstein, Elizabeth, and Laurie Schaffner. “Introduction. ‘Regulating Sex’.” In Regulating Sex: The Politics of Intimacy and Identity. Eds. Elizabeth Bernstein and Laurie Schaffner. New York: Routledge, 2005. xi–xxiii.Google Scholar
  5. Browne, Kath. “A Party with Politics? (Re)making LGBTQ Pride Spaces in Dublin and Brighton.” Social & Cultural Geography 8.1 (February 2007): 63–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Frye, Marilyn. “Lesbian Sex.” Sinister Wisdom 35 (1988): 46–54.Google Scholar
  7. Harris, Hilary. “Failing ‘White Woman’: Interrogating the Performance of Respectability.” Theatre Journal 52.2 (2000): 183–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Holmlund, Chris. Impossible Bodies: Femininity and Masculinity at the Movies. London: Routledge, 2002.Google Scholar
  9. Hubbard, Phil. “Desire/Disgust: Mapping the Moral Contours of Heterosexuality.” Progress in Human Geography 24.2 (2000): 191–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hubbard, Phil. “Sex Zones: Intimacy, Citizenship and Public Space.” Sexualities 4.1 (2001): 51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Leap, William. “Introduction.” In Public Sex/Gay Space. Ed. William Leap. New York: Columbia University Press, 1999. 1–22.Google Scholar
  12. Lister, Ruth. “Citizenship and Difference: Towards a Differentiated Universalism.” European Journal of Social Theory 1.1 (July 1998): 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lister, Ruth. Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives. 2nd edn. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mernit, Billy. Writing the Romantic Comedy: The Art and Craft of Writing Screenplays that Sell. New York: HarperResource, 2000.Google Scholar
  15. Moddelmog, Debra A. “Can Romantic Comedy Be Gay?.” Journal of Popular Film and Television 36.4 (2009): 162–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pellegrini, Ann. “Lesbianism Lite.” New York Blade News 1.1 (24 October 1997): 27.Google Scholar
  17. Rubinfeld, Mark D. Bound to Bond: Gender, Genre, and the Hollywood Romantic Comedy. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2001.Google Scholar
  18. Straayer, Chris. Deviant Eyes, Deviant Bodies: Sexual Re-orientation in Film and Video. New York: Columbia University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  19. Valentine, Gill. “(Hetero)sexing Space: Lesbian Perceptions and Experiences of Everyday Spaces.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 11 (1993): 395–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Valentine, Gill. “Creating Transgressive Space: The Music of k.d. lang.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 20.4 (1995): 474–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar


  1. Bar Girls. Director: Marita Giovanni. Performers: Nancy Allison Wolfe, Liza D’Agostino, and Camila Griffs. Orion Classics, 1994.Google Scholar
  2. Better than Chocolate. Director: Anne Wheeler. Performers: Karyn Dwyer and Christina Cox. Trimark Pictures, 1999.Google Scholar
  3. But I’m a Cheerleader. Director: Jamie Babbit. Performers: Natasha Lyonne and Clea DuValle. Lions Gate Films, 2000.Google Scholar
  4. A Family Affair. Director: Helen Lesnick. Performers: Helen Lesnick, Erica Shaffer, and Arlene Golonka. RGH/Lions Share Pictures, 2001.Google Scholar
  5. Go Fish. Director: Rose Troche. Performers: V.S. Brodie, Guinevere Turner, and T. Wendy McMillan. Samuel Goldwyn Company, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. The Incredibly True Adventure of 2 Girls in Love. Director: Maria Maggenti. Performers: Laurel Holloman and Nicole Ari Parker. Fine Line Features, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. It’s in the Water. Director: Kelli Herd. Performers: Keri Jo Chapman, Teresa Garrett, and Derrik Sanders. Kelli Herd Film Company, 1996.Google Scholar
  8. Late Bloomers. Director: Julia Dyer. Performers: Connie Nelson, Dee Hennigan, and Gary Carter. Strand Releasing, 1996.Google Scholar
  9. Never Been Kissed. Director: Raja Gosnell. Performers: Drew Barrymore, David Arquette, and Michael Vartan. Twentieth Century Fox, 1999.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kelly McWilliam
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Southern QueenslandToowoombaAustralia

Personalised recommendations