This is a great meta =) There are definitely a lot of sexual undertones & subtext on SPN, especially of the slash variety. It's part of why I love the show SO MUCH.
I think it's deliberate that these situations are happening exclusively to menThis I disagree with ENTIRELY though. What about Ruby? She used both an unwilling host and an empty host- empty so that Sam would consent to working with her, and later, it would be the factor that would consumate their relationship. Sam can have sex with Ruby BECAUSE she's in an empty body. Both Dean and Sam have also sexalized Ruby herself, and her host. In I Know What You Did Last Summer, when Ruby is possessing the secretary, he asks her 'whose body are you riding?' or something along those lines. Though the bodies Ruby possesses are female, and we associate Ruby with the feminine, and we do not normally associate feminine attributes with penetration or possession, she totally gets all up in girls. Repeatedly. She even uses one canonly for sex. Ruby and her host - especially her third one,
( ... )
There's also something to be said about Lilith, who we've seen possess more bodies than almost any other demon on SPN. Mostly little girls. The show never sexualizes the possessions of the little girls, but all the same...the older blonde women she possesses, she only gets all up in to have sex with Sam. So I think there's definitely something to be said about female possessions as well
( ... )
There seems to be a lot of confusion as to my point in this post. I have clarified my point (I hope) here, if you are interested in commenting on that.
We don't get the language of the sexual with Ruby, just as we don't get the same language with Meg (or Casey or any number of other female-bodied demons - like the crossroads demons). Yes, they are possessed and, yes, we can and should extrapolate this information, but it is not explicit in the text. We get the language for Nick and Dean and Sam and Jimmy, but not for Coma Girl or Meg Masters or Casey or, even, Claire. My discussion of Claire is an extrapolation of the language given to Jimmy.
I think the show is trying to get us to look at this idea that because Sam/Dean/John/Bobby/Jimmy/Nick is 'big and strong and can handle it.' They can't. Sam is absolutely broken after Born Under a Bad Sign. Jimmy can't find another reason to want Castiel until his daughter is taken. I think it is a huge mistake to say that because these characters have penises, they "can handle" the violation we so strongly object to in characters who possess breasts.
I think it is a huge mistake to say that because these characters have penises, they "can handle" the violation we so strongly object to in characters who possess breasts.
And that right there reflects society's views on male rape as a whole. Look how often you get people who can't seem to get their heads around the fact that it happens at all. And that goes double when the rapist is female - I've even seen that played for laughs in movies more than once. There's a scene in Wedding Crashers that had me all openmouthed in horror, yet it was supposed to be funny. Society has a very long way to go in regards to sexual violence of all types.
I think it's problematic (and deeply horrifying) to say that we should think that they can just handle it, that we should should "enjoy" the "gay undertones" of male-on-male sexualised violence (what on earth is "gay" about it? should I enjoy the erotic heterosexual undertones of male-on-female rape?) and should be horrified that Ruby, while possessing Coma Girl, has sex with Sam.
Arguably, indeed, Ruby possessing Coma Girl could be the least violation - in that, she suggests that Coma Girl isn't in there anymore. In Heaven and Hell, she says the body is back with Anna, rotting. If she's telling the truth, then she would be the only one in the show who isn't violating people in this way.
that we should should "enjoy" the "gay undertones" of male-on-male sexualised violence (what on earth is "gay" about it? I'll admit right here to being a reader of rapefic. However, what I'm looking for when I do read it is a realistic portrayal of the emotional and psychological consequences, what it might do to an existing relationship. I really hate that so much of it is written pornographically and seems to be meant to be enjoyable in itself, and leaves off right after the act itself
( ... )
I think the angels' ability to take a body is quite literally dependent upon the person saying, "Yes." I don't believe for a minute that Jimmy gave informed consent or that Claire was remotely capable of giving consent, but that didn't stop Castiel at all. I think it would have been enough for Dean to just say, "Yes. I am Michael's vessel and he can take me." (And how passive is that language, even if Dean were willing?)
As badcat333_99 pointed out, the show was heavy handed last season implying that Dean was raped - or sexually violated in some manner - during his 30 years of torture in hell (and that this is part of what led to his breaking). The implication here is that Dean knows, in some way, what it is like to be "taken" and "ridden" and he knows that it broke him eleven years ago - to give up to Michael now would, perhaps, bring him back to Hell, at least mentally. (And if you've literally given up your body, and you're mentally back in Hell, what else is there?)
I think the angels' ability to take a body is quite literally dependent upon the person saying, "Yes."
You're right, of course. I still wanted to brain Zach for it ;-)
I don't believe for a minute that Jimmy gave informed consent or that Claire was remotely capable of giving consent,
This also raises a question - if this thing about needing minimal consent (ie, the word "yes", if nothing else), Castiel MUST have approached Claire at some point. Given that she probably realised that it was the only way she was going to save her family, I guess she wouldn't have thought too hard about it. Yet again, I guess, we're getting into "consent under duress", but we've discussed that one. Claire's reaction after Cas leaves her body is also pretty telling, the poor kid is pretty traumatised. Yes, she's witnessed her mother possessed and has been kidnapped, etc, but I don't think that's all of it.
The implication here is that Dean knows, in some way, what it is like to be "taken" and "ridden" and he knows that it broke him eleven years ago -
( ... )
Given what Dean saw with Jimmy, Claire, and Castiel and what happened with the apocalypse, even without Alastair's heavy handed implications, it isn't surprising that Dean isn't willing to give up his personal sovereignty. Actually scratch that - Nick had a point in the episode. What would make you want to give up your personal sovereignty to a total strange, knowing you'll be a prisoner in your own body?
And I totally agree with you that neither coercion nor consent under duress is real consent at all.
I don't believe for a minute that Jimmy gave informed consent or that Claire was remotely capable of giving consent, but that didn't stop Castiel at all.I have to disagree here, to an extent. Castiel took his time acquainting Jimmy with his presence. If you recall, when Jimmy steps outside and is first possessed by Castiel, they have a "discussion" about it before Cas just forces his way in. Jimmy even nods and says, "I understand." This leads us to believe that Castiel it telling Jimmy at least something of what he's getting himself into
( ... )
As for the rapefic, I've read hurt/comfort fic that's involved rape. However, the idea of enjoying sexual violation that is written - or shot - to be just that (ie Zachariah's coercion of Dean, Alastair's treatment of Dean), does sicken me. It's not written as rape fantasy. Dean isn't enjoying it. He's suffering pain at the hands of more powerful males who are taking pleasure in exerting power over him and enjoying his agony. He's not consenting to it. It's horrifying and I can't enjoy it, not in an erotic way, not in a "gay subtext" way.
I'm willing to enjoy "gay subtext" in Sam and Dean's codependency or Dean and Castiel's long, lingering looks. But I can't in sexualised violence.
We don't get the language of the sexual with Ruby We did, in I Know What You Did Last Summer. Briefly, but all the same. But I feel you. The act of possession itself is mostly sexualized just with the guys. It's kinda cool though ngl.
I think it is a huge mistake to say that because these characters have penises I agree, but just for the record, I didn't mean it that way at ALL. But some people have that perception of men. And I think that might be a reason why the writers don't normally sexualize the possession of female bodies.
Ruby is not the same because we never met her hosts. The men are all people. We have been introduced to Nick. We know Sam and Bobby and Dean and Jimmy. They are people who are having this horrible thing happen to them.
Meg was only a person three seasons later (and only as a twisted version of her former self). We haven't 'met' any of Ruby's hosts as characters, or Lilith's. Ruby may fuck Sam but Ruby's host isn't sexualised because we are encouraged to think that Ruby's host doesn't exist. None of the women exist. If they don't exist they can't be raped. Possession of males is the only possession that the show tells us matters, it is the only time we are expected to care about the victim.
I can see now that I went off subject in my post. I didn't realize it wasn't really welcome, not that you're saying it's not, but all the same.
I think Ruby IS the same. If this post is about only the guys being sexualized, well, that's just not the truth. In I Know What You Did Last Summer, Sam asks her 'whose body are you riding?' which the OP refers to as sexualized language. I agree that men are the ones who really get the most of it, but Ruby, and Meg as someone points out in Are You There, God? It's Me, Dean Winchester, are as well. So, idk. If you want to debate the Meg one, I can get that. But Ruby's was. In a host that DID exist. She had to ditch the body so Sam would be cool with her.
Possession of males is the only possession that the show tells us matters, it is the only time we are expected to care about the victim.The majority of the time, yes. But the secretary Ruby possesses in 4.09 is the opposite. Sam forces her out because the body isn't empty. And Meg's host, too, when she comes back in 4.02. We are supposed to
( ... )
I think it's deliberate that these situations are happening exclusively to menThis I disagree with ENTIRELY though. What about Ruby? She used both an unwilling host and an empty host- empty so that Sam would consent to working with her, and later, it would be the factor that would consumate their relationship. Sam can have sex with Ruby BECAUSE she's in an empty body. Both Dean and Sam have also sexalized Ruby herself, and her host. In I Know What You Did Last Summer, when Ruby is possessing the secretary, he asks her 'whose body are you riding?' or something along those lines. Though the bodies Ruby possesses are female, and we associate Ruby with the feminine, and we do not normally associate feminine attributes with penetration or possession, she totally gets all up in girls. Repeatedly. She even uses one canonly for sex. Ruby and her host - especially her third one, ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
I think the show is trying to get us to look at this idea that because Sam/Dean/John/Bobby/Jimmy/Nick is 'big and strong and can handle it.' They can't. Sam is absolutely broken after Born Under a Bad Sign. Jimmy can't find another reason to want Castiel until his daughter is taken. I think it is a huge mistake to say that because these characters have penises, they "can handle" the violation we so strongly object to in characters who possess breasts.
Reply
And that right there reflects society's views on male rape as a whole. Look how often you get people who can't seem to get their heads around the fact that it happens at all. And that goes double when the rapist is female - I've even seen that played for laughs in movies more than once. There's a scene in Wedding Crashers that had me all openmouthed in horror, yet it was supposed to be funny. Society has a very long way to go in regards to sexual violence of all types.
Reply
Arguably, indeed, Ruby possessing Coma Girl could be the least violation - in that, she suggests that Coma Girl isn't in there anymore. In Heaven and Hell, she says the body is back with Anna, rotting. If she's telling the truth, then she would be the only one in the show who isn't violating people in this way.
Reply
Reply
As badcat333_99 pointed out, the show was heavy handed last season implying that Dean was raped - or sexually violated in some manner - during his 30 years of torture in hell (and that this is part of what led to his breaking). The implication here is that Dean knows, in some way, what it is like to be "taken" and "ridden" and he knows that it broke him eleven years ago - to give up to Michael now would, perhaps, bring him back to Hell, at least mentally. (And if you've literally given up your body, and you're mentally back in Hell, what else is there?)
Reply
You're right, of course. I still wanted to brain Zach for it ;-)
I don't believe for a minute that Jimmy gave informed consent or that Claire was remotely capable of giving consent,
This also raises a question - if this thing about needing minimal consent (ie, the word "yes", if nothing else), Castiel MUST have approached Claire at some point. Given that she probably realised that it was the only way she was going to save her family, I guess she wouldn't have thought too hard about it. Yet again, I guess, we're getting into "consent under duress", but we've discussed that one. Claire's reaction after Cas leaves her body is also pretty telling, the poor kid is pretty traumatised. Yes, she's witnessed her mother possessed and has been kidnapped, etc, but I don't think that's all of it.
The implication here is that Dean knows, in some way, what it is like to be "taken" and "ridden" and he knows that it broke him eleven years ago - ( ... )
Reply
And I totally agree with you that neither coercion nor consent under duress is real consent at all.
Reply
Reply
Can't* just drop into a human body without at least some form of consent, I mean. Typing fail.
Reply
I'm willing to enjoy "gay subtext" in Sam and Dean's codependency or Dean and Castiel's long, lingering looks. But I can't in sexualised violence.
Reply
We did, in I Know What You Did Last Summer. Briefly, but all the same. But I feel you. The act of possession itself is mostly sexualized just with the guys. It's kinda cool though ngl.
I think it is a huge mistake to say that because these characters have penises
I agree, but just for the record, I didn't mean it that way at ALL. But some people have that perception of men. And I think that might be a reason why the writers don't normally sexualize the possession of female bodies.
Reply
Meg was only a person three seasons later (and only as a twisted version of her former self). We haven't 'met' any of Ruby's hosts as characters, or Lilith's. Ruby may fuck Sam but Ruby's host isn't sexualised because we are encouraged to think that Ruby's host doesn't exist. None of the women exist. If they don't exist they can't be raped. Possession of males is the only possession that the show tells us matters, it is the only time we are expected to care about the victim.
Reply
I think Ruby IS the same. If this post is about only the guys being sexualized, well, that's just not the truth. In I Know What You Did Last Summer, Sam asks her 'whose body are you riding?' which the OP refers to as sexualized language. I agree that men are the ones who really get the most of it, but Ruby, and Meg as someone points out in Are You There, God? It's Me, Dean Winchester, are as well. So, idk. If you want to debate the Meg one, I can get that. But Ruby's was. In a host that DID exist. She had to ditch the body so Sam would be cool with her.
Possession of males is the only possession that the show tells us matters, it is the only time we are expected to care about the victim.The majority of the time, yes. But the secretary Ruby possesses in 4.09 is the opposite. Sam forces her out because the body isn't empty. And Meg's host, too, when she comes back in 4.02. We are supposed to ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment