But the point you're making is a lot larger than just sexualized language; you use the language to prove a sexualization of the male demons that you don't see with the female demons, and then, when people point out that there's plenty of sexualization going on in other ways, say that you're only talking about the language, when in fact language is the evidence you use to reach a much larger conclusion.
I have no problem with you focusing specifically on the sexualization of male characters, though I think some of the reasoning you use is a bit specious (as someone pointed out above, we've seen many more humanized possessed male characters than female characters; the only female character who was humanized, Meg, used the same sexualized language). I have a problem with your larger point that male characters are sexualized in a way female characters are not, and that, based on that, it automatically follows that a deliberate point for female viewers is being made. Yes, the show treats the men who are possessed as more human than the females, and with the exception of Meg, they certainly work much harder to make us feel the tragedy there (both Simon Said and Wishful Thinking said very disturbing things about how canon views women's control over their own bodies, and how the writers frequently forget women are people are all, and that's not even taking account the frankly horrifying comments Sera Gamble made about being viewed as "weak" by Kripke and the other writers for not wanting to write Sam as a rapist). But I think your conclusion--that because we as viewers are more often given the opportunity to see the male victims as people with a wrong being done to them (i.e., the language of rape) and the female victims are just bodies (i.e., sexy with no attention paid to the violation aspect), it follows that the writers are making a larger point intended for us as women. It's possible, but you have to ignore a lot of other factors on the show to get there.
My point about Jimmy was that we don't know; even if Jimmy was killed, we know that angels can bring people to life, and all we know about angel possession thus far is that the host must be alive, must be in the body with the angel, and must be living. It's possible those rules changed for Castiel when he was brought back, but it's equally possible Jimmy was brought back when he was. I hope we get clarification on this, because if the show goes anywhere sexual with Castiel without making it clear, I have the same issues I had with Ruby in S4. But until we get more information, I don't think it's safe to assume anything.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-09-14 04:53 pm (UTC)I have no problem with you focusing specifically on the sexualization of male characters, though I think some of the reasoning you use is a bit specious (as someone pointed out above, we've seen many more humanized possessed male characters than female characters; the only female character who was humanized, Meg, used the same sexualized language). I have a problem with your larger point that male characters are sexualized in a way female characters are not, and that, based on that, it automatically follows that a deliberate point for female viewers is being made. Yes, the show treats the men who are possessed as more human than the females, and with the exception of Meg, they certainly work much harder to make us feel the tragedy there (both Simon Said and Wishful Thinking said very disturbing things about how canon views women's control over their own bodies, and how the writers frequently forget women are people are all, and that's not even taking account the frankly horrifying comments Sera Gamble made about being viewed as "weak" by Kripke and the other writers for not wanting to write Sam as a rapist). But I think your conclusion--that because we as viewers are more often given the opportunity to see the male victims as people with a wrong being done to them (i.e., the language of rape) and the female victims are just bodies (i.e., sexy with no attention paid to the violation aspect), it follows that the writers are making a larger point intended for us as women. It's possible, but you have to ignore a lot of other factors on the show to get there.
My point about Jimmy was that we don't know; even if Jimmy was killed, we know that angels can bring people to life, and all we know about angel possession thus far is that the host must be alive, must be in the body with the angel, and must be living. It's possible those rules changed for Castiel when he was brought back, but it's equally possible Jimmy was brought back when he was. I hope we get clarification on this, because if the show goes anywhere sexual with Castiel without making it clear, I have the same issues I had with Ruby in S4. But until we get more information, I don't think it's safe to assume anything.