Just some thoughts, definitely not "answers", I don't think your questions have simple ones, if they did, they wouldn't be so uncomfortable to contemplate.
What does it mean that even angels will ride roughshod over consent with pleasure?
My take?
It means nobody likes us (humans) very much.
According to the known mythos, God created humans and required his angels to defer to them. Lucifer revolted against that, as explained by Uriel.
If true, and it's all angelic hearsay, or human mythology, why would God require than angels defer to man? What is so special about humans? Whatever it is, it has placed them in between these two warring factions of angels and demons.
In the movie Prophesy (which SPN seems to borrow from), it's asserted that man has a "soul", angels do not.
If we take what Anna described as an angel's existence, angels have only obedience, not volition. There's a lot of question thrown on that at the moment, who are Zachariah and his cronies "obedient" to? But the concept is that angels obey God's Word, whereas humans were given free will.
The price of the exercise of free will according to scripture was expulsion from paradise, from easy living in protected comfort, into the world full or dangers, disease, disasters. Humans have free will, but not power, not the power of angels, nor of demons.
Angels lack a soul, and maybe a soul is what it takes to respect the sovereignty of consent?
And/or...
It means that as Anna suggested, something is very very wrong "up there" in heaven.
And what does it mean to have this representation of male rape in mainstream television and have it primarily - as I see it, correct me if I'm wrong - ignored by its normally highly rape-conscious, misogyny conscious fanbase?
It means that it's a lot easier for female fans to perceive and react to female issues?
To bring up an old argument, in 4.09 I Know What You Did Last Summer, there was a huge backlash against Sam for fucking a demon, and the whole necrophilia issue, but only a handful of people I noticed ever reacted to the fact that Sam was coerced and seduced.
Sam said no, not once but several times, and Ruby didn't back off until she provoked a reaction in line with what she wanted. At least one person I know of was so sensitive to this that they considered it dub-con for Sam, and I tend to agree. But the larger fandom reaction was against Sam, with little sympathy for the fact that his refusal clearly meant nothing to Ruby.
Was this because, as a male, the rule no means no doesn't apply for Sam?
With that reaction in the recent past, it doesn't surprise me much that there hasn't been more reaction to the rape-like aspect of Dean's torture.
I don't know which bothers me more, to be honest.
From the point of view of the show itself, I think the message was put plainly, and some of us (yourself included) got it.
God is not in His heaven and all is not right with the world.
Speaking as a feminist and as a survivor of sexual violence and all of that jazz: Why on earth should we expect men to respect our right of consent if we refuse to respect theirs?
That really, really bothers me about what I'm seeing as I watch reactions unfold. Maybe I'm too close to the issue and am overreacting, but it does bother me.
If it doesn't matter if Sam says no or Dean says no, then why should it matter if Ruby or Jo or Anna says no or not?
It may be of little comfort but I suspect that on the whole, these are issues that not a lot of the fandom have had to face or deal with in any real meaningful way.
Just maybe, an eye or two might be opened by the discussion.
Why on earth should we expect men to respect our right of consent if we refuse to respect theirs?
In a political sense you're right. But in a moral sense, they should because it's the right thing to do. Just as we should respect theirs because it's the right thing to do.
I'm just lost on how people focusing on sexual violence against women instead of what can be viewed as allegorical sexual violence against men, though that interpretation is very much up for debate, somehow proves the fandom is not respecting men's right to consent.
Women are routinely possessed in the SPN universe as well men, and the mere act of possession as sexual violence hasn't been much talked about in either those instances; the issues of misogyny and sexual violence people have discussed in relation to SPN have not been allegorical.
If the fandom was treating issues of sexual violence differently depending on the gender of the victim, this argument would make more sense to me. As it is, fandom (by which, of course, I mean the relatively few people talking about this stuff at all) is talking about sexual violence against women because canon hasn't included non-allegorical cases of sexual violence against men, and it hasn't spent a lot of time discussing the allegorical rape of either male or female characters. Canon has certainly presented male victims as more human and more important than female victims on many occasions, but that's yet another example of the show's pronounced gender issues, not proof that the fandom is misandrist or ignoring issues of male rape.
Honestly, I had trouble figuring out what the initial post was about until the OP clarified in comments. I think the topic's pretty interesting-- especially, actually, in light of the misogyny in SPN. Is the sexualized violence supposed to be more egregious, because we're so accustomed to seeing it used against women we're supposed to be inured?
I agree that the thought of SPN fandom or fandom as a whole as misandrist is...lol no.
It's an interesting question, for sure. I think, given what we know of the SPN writers (did you hear Sera Gamble's comments about how important it was to her to not write Sam as a rapist, and how Kripke and the other writers seemed to think she was weak because of it? It was very telling, and horribly depressing) it's most likely that it's presented as more egregious almost accidentally, in that men are routinely treated as human on the show in a way women are not. So we as viewers are presented with the male violation and pain while the female violation and pain tends to be glossed over (with the exception of Meg, but what happened to her was presented not on its own terms, but by how it affected Dean).
I don't personally think that possession has been presented as a straight-up allegory for rape in the way the OP does (I particularly doubt the writers would have showed their new golden boy raping a child if that was the case), but it's interesting way to look at it, and adds several layers to that particular component of canon. But I think there's a pretty wide gulf between discussing that and suggesting it's unfair or proof of prejudice that other people are focusing on sexual violence against women.
No, I didn't hear those comments! Honestly, I try to avoid a lot about SPN because the show depresses the crap out of me at times anyway.
It's an interesting question and I'm still not quite sure what I think of it myself-- there's definitely been sexual implications like the 'ridden hard' comment, but metaphor is just that.
As I recall, there was already a swell of anticipated anger at the implication before we saw it that Sam might be having or have had sex with Ruby, over the assumption that there would be an unwilling host participant.
By the time we actually saw the flashback, and the writers had covered that base, a certain portion of the fandom was already predisposed against the idea, and against Sam.
The bulk of the negative reaction was against the idea rather than a real reaction to the actual scene. This is a damn shame, because the scene was incredibly intense and powerful, and incredibly painful. It should have swung sympathy in Sam's direction, showing how much he went through after Dean's death, and foreshadowing how Ruby pushed and manipulated him, taking advantage of his emotional suffering.
I suppose I was one of the few whose reaction to the hints about Sam having sex with Ruby, was to grow increasingly concerned about Sam, as I knew that he would never have slept with a demon if he was of sound-mind.
Dean even calls it directly after that scene, telling Sam that so far all he's told him about is "a manipulative bitch that screwed you, played mind-games with you, and did everything she could to get you to go bad."
I agree, it's a shame if audience members missed out on the true implications of that event.
Just some thoughts, definitely not "answers", I don't think your questions have simple ones, if they did, they wouldn't be so uncomfortable to contemplate.
What does it mean that even angels will ride roughshod over consent with pleasure?
My take?
It means nobody likes us (humans) very much.
According to the known mythos, God created humans and required his angels to defer to them. Lucifer revolted against that, as explained by Uriel.
If true, and it's all angelic hearsay, or human mythology, why would God require than angels defer to man? What is so special about humans? Whatever it is, it has placed them in between these two warring factions of angels and demons.
In the movie Prophesy (which SPN seems to borrow from), it's asserted that man has a "soul", angels do not.
If we take what Anna described as an angel's existence, angels have only obedience, not volition. There's a lot of question thrown on that at the moment, who are Zachariah and his cronies "obedient" to? But the concept is that angels obey God's Word, whereas humans were given free will.
The price of the exercise of free will according to scripture was expulsion from paradise, from easy living in protected comfort, into the world full or dangers, disease, disasters. Humans have free will, but not power, not the power of angels, nor of demons.
Angels lack a soul, and maybe a soul is what it takes to respect the sovereignty of consent?
And/or...
It means that as Anna suggested, something is very very wrong "up there" in heaven.
And what does it mean to have this representation of male rape in mainstream television and have it primarily - as I see it, correct me if I'm wrong - ignored by its normally highly rape-conscious, misogyny conscious fanbase?
It means that it's a lot easier for female fans to perceive and react to female issues?
To bring up an old argument, in 4.09 I Know What You Did Last Summer, there was a huge backlash against Sam for fucking a demon, and the whole necrophilia issue, but only a handful of people I noticed ever reacted to the fact that Sam was coerced and seduced.
Sam said no, not once but several times, and Ruby didn't back off until she provoked a reaction in line with what she wanted. At least one person I know of was so sensitive to this that they considered it dub-con for Sam, and I tend to agree. But the larger fandom reaction was against Sam, with little sympathy for the fact that his refusal clearly meant nothing to Ruby.
Was this because, as a male, the rule no means no doesn't apply for Sam?
With that reaction in the recent past, it doesn't surprise me much that there hasn't been more reaction to the rape-like aspect of Dean's torture.
I don't know which bothers me more, to be honest.
From the point of view of the show itself, I think the message was put plainly, and some of us (yourself included) got it.
God is not in His heaven and all is not right with the world.
Reply
That really, really bothers me about what I'm seeing as I watch reactions unfold. Maybe I'm too close to the issue and am overreacting, but it does bother me.
If it doesn't matter if Sam says no or Dean says no, then why should it matter if Ruby or Jo or Anna says no or not?
Reply
I agree completely - if no means no when a woman says it to a man, it should mean the same when a man says it to a woman. When a man says it to a man.
I'd be lying if I said that the imbalance in fan reactions surprised me, though.
Reply
Reply
Just maybe, an eye or two might be opened by the discussion.
Reply
In a political sense you're right. But in a moral sense, they should because it's the right thing to do. Just as we should respect theirs because it's the right thing to do.
(Here from metafandom.)
Reply
Women are routinely possessed in the SPN universe as well men, and the mere act of possession as sexual violence hasn't been much talked about in either those instances; the issues of misogyny and sexual violence people have discussed in relation to SPN have not been allegorical.
If the fandom was treating issues of sexual violence differently depending on the gender of the victim, this argument would make more sense to me. As it is, fandom (by which, of course, I mean the relatively few people talking about this stuff at all) is talking about sexual violence against women because canon hasn't included non-allegorical cases of sexual violence against men, and it hasn't spent a lot of time discussing the allegorical rape of either male or female characters. Canon has certainly presented male victims as more human and more important than female victims on many occasions, but that's yet another example of the show's pronounced gender issues, not proof that the fandom is misandrist or ignoring issues of male rape.
Reply
I agree that the thought of SPN fandom or fandom as a whole as misandrist is...lol no.
Reply
I don't personally think that possession has been presented as a straight-up allegory for rape in the way the OP does (I particularly doubt the writers would have showed their new golden boy raping a child if that was the case), but it's interesting way to look at it, and adds several layers to that particular component of canon. But I think there's a pretty wide gulf between discussing that and suggesting it's unfair or proof of prejudice that other people are focusing on sexual violence against women.
Reply
It's an interesting question and I'm still not quite sure what I think of it myself-- there's definitely been sexual implications like the 'ridden hard' comment, but metaphor is just that.
Reply
Thank you for pointing this out! I too was confused by the backlash against Sam, when clearly it was Sam that was the victim in the situation.
It is disheartening to realize that rape, or dub-con, is not recognized as such when it is female->male violence.
Reply
By the time we actually saw the flashback, and the writers had covered that base, a certain portion of the fandom was already predisposed against the idea, and against Sam.
The bulk of the negative reaction was against the idea rather than a real reaction to the actual scene. This is a damn shame, because the scene was incredibly intense and powerful, and incredibly painful. It should have swung sympathy in Sam's direction, showing how much he went through after Dean's death, and foreshadowing how Ruby pushed and manipulated him, taking advantage of his emotional suffering.
Reply
Dean even calls it directly after that scene, telling Sam that so far all he's told him about is "a manipulative bitch that screwed you, played mind-games with you, and did everything she could to get you to go bad."
I agree, it's a shame if audience members missed out on the true implications of that event.
Reply
Leave a comment