Meta: Better a Friendly Refusal Than Unwilling Consent: Possession and Sex in Supernatural

[chasingtides]

There always been something innately sexual about possession in the Supernatural universe, I think. In Born Under a Bad Sign (2.14), after they've exorcised Meg from Sam's body, Dean points out, "Dude, you like full on had a girl up inside of you for like a week. That's pretty naughty."

Even Jimmy's language to Castiel in The Rapture (4.20) is, in my opinion, closer to that of a lover than anything, especially when he cries to him, "I gave you everything you asked me to give, I gave you more!" Jimmy's joy when he first encounters Castiel, before he is possessed, is very much an infatuation, one that is lost after Castiel is torn from him.

Even the language of possession in the show is sexual - the angel or demon in question "takes" the person. They've used both the term of wearing people and riding people, the latter also having distinct sexual connotations. Beyond Meg-Sam's actions toward Jo in Born Under a Bad Sign, which are overtly sexual (Sam, get off me! Sam, get off me! ), the language used after the exorcism is sexual as well, the language of being inside another person, of taking another person.

Sympathy For the Devil (5.01) only made this utterly transparent. Zachariah, Dean, and Lucifer don't mince words. They know what they're talking about and if the audience wasn't aware that Michael and Lucifer were noncorporeal beings seeking bodies, it would be easy to assume that they were looking for sex - and Michael and his buddies seem to have no qualms about using force.

It makes my insides unhappy to think that we've only seen one possession with enthusiastic consent, if, indeed, possession is relatable to sexual intercourse. Jimmy was willing and even happy the first time he welcome Castiel into his body. (And isn't that sexual language right there as well?) However, Castiel also takes Jimmy's daughter, Claire, and then only goes back inside Jimmy when Jimmy begs him, not wanting this for his daughter. And now - well, presumably, Jimmy is dead, killed by Castiel's comrades-in-arms. And now Castiel (his lover? his rapist? the man who was inside his daughter?) wears his face as he walks the earth. I wonder how Jimmy would feel about that.

Dean's fight with Zachariah, where he keeps telling him that no, he won't let Michael take him is both heart breaking and terrifying. It is one thing to think of a demon - Meg or Lucifer or Azazel - taking someone against their will, but the brutality of the angels is beyond cruel.

Zachariah says to Dean, "You're Michael's weapon or, rather, his receptacle... Michael's vessel. You're chosen. It's a great honor... I am completely and utterly through screwing around.... Now, Michael is going to take his vessel... You understand me?"

I think part of the terror is how easily Zachariah dehumanizes Dean. Dean isn't a person. His consent doesn't really matter (or, in Zachariah's words, the angels' god-given need for consent is "unfortunate"). Dean is an object - he is a receptacle and a vessel. Dean is empty until Michael fills him and uses him. Dean is nothing; he is empty until Michael rides him.

I really don't blame Dean for saying no to that.

Then Zachariah takes it a step further. He broke Sam's legs because Dean was mouthing off at him, but when Dean actually dares to say no - dares to assert himself as a person - Zachariah is visibly furious. He offers to heal Bobby, if Dean will say yes, but says that if Dean says no again, Bobby will never be able to walk. After Dean says no again, Zachariah gives Dean stage four stomach cancer, saying he will heal him if he allows Michael to take him. (Stage IV gastric cancers are usually metastasized tumors that have spread to other parts of the body - probably Dean's only hope of recovery is a miracle.) At another no, Zachariah removes Sam's lungs.

Unsurprisingly, Dean begs for death at this point. Zachariah has, after all, pretty much run out of people to hurt and Dean is in visible agony from his gastric cancer, while Sam struggles behind him. Zachariah, however, tells him, "Are we having fun, yes? ... Kill you? Oh no, I'm just getting started." Zachariah is ready to torture Dean into allowing Michael to ride him.

Lucifer is a little more friendly with Nick, even if he does take the form of Nick's murdered wife. He, of all the angels, is up front with Nick, saying, "To be honest, it'll probably be unpleasant for you." (Even Jimmy talks about how painful it is to be taken by angel. Just think about that statement and its implications.) Lucifer, I suppose, by fannish standards, is closer to dub-con than to Zachariah, Castiel, and Meg's total non-con.

He whispers sweet words to Nick through the lips of his dead wife. He says, "This is your choice. You need to invite me in.... What I need is you. Nick, I need you to say yes."

How many times have those last two sentences been written in romance novels? Slash? Really bad porn? Is there another time, in our society, that person would say, "You need my consent.... The answer's no," except in a sexual one? As writers, how many times have we written about a character taking another, riding another, being inside another? As people, how many times have we talked about that, meaning sex?

I think it's deliberate that these situations are happening exclusively to men, that Anna was born as she is. Even Meg Masters, who comes to Dean in Are You There God? (4.02) and calls him a monster for not seeing that she was alive, doesn't use the sexual language of being ridden, of being taken, of being empty until a demon used her.

It makes us think. For Dean, it's male-on-male violence. A male holds him down, tries to torture him into allowing another male to take him. (Whether or not angels are gendered and how is brought into question by Castiel and Lucifer, but Zachariah holds a male body and Michael is a masculine name.) For Nick, in his dream, he is being taken by his late wife. It's creepy and vaguely reminisce of necrophilia and I do think it's part of why he agrees - it's harder to imagine his beloved as Satan than a stranger. But if it is violence - and I'm not sure in his case that it is as much as it is highly morally questionable - it is, to the eyes of the viewer, female-on-male. Going back to season two, we generally view Meg as female, though, again, we don't know how/if demons are gendered, so we tend to view Sam's possession as female-on-male violence.

However, Castiel is an exception. We became accustomed to viewing the entity as male - he, after all, takes a male body when we see him most of the time. Yet, he takes a little girl, the daughter of the man he has been inside all season. He's a bit of a BAMF when he's inside Claire and there's the issue of Sam's addiction, so I didn't really think about it, but it's disturbing and creepy.

I don't know what to make of it. The angels don't appear to take consent any more seriously than the demons do. If they have to torture a person into saying yes, into begging for death before being taken, then that's fine. That's... bothersome. It throws into relief the idea that humans are the only good guys - they're the only ones who seem to know what "No" and "Stop" mean.

The writers know they are writing for a primarily female audience, I think. And, especially as a woman who has been violated in this way myself, what they're saying is obvious: If you didn't get the message before, YOU CAN'T TRUST ANYONE.

I really don't know, though, how I feel about the writer's using this as their parallel. It's sickening and it's obvious and it screams the message in huge, neon letters. However, I don't know if I want to say that it highlights that men can be victims of this kind of violence as well - especially as Sam has been possessed and Dean is reduced to a receptacle to be filled and even Bobby and John, our male fighting heroes, are possessed. I've seen it written all over livejournal that this episode took them by surprise, that surely Bobby would know how to protect himself from being taken like that. And isn't that a message? But does it diminish real sexual violence in the real world? I just don't know.

ETA: Since this post seems to be causing a great deal of confusion among commenters, I would like to redirect readers to this.

Comments

[familiardevil.livejournal.com]

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 men.
This 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, played by Genevieve - are very sexualized characters, and are put in very sexualized situations. Especially violent sexual situations. She and Sam have wrong dirty sex in which he penetrates her rather violently. He also cuts her to drink her blood. And I feel that, in a way, it is Ruby doing those things, since she is giving consent to Sam to ride the body just as she does.

Which I think is very interesting and may be an unconscious factor as to why so many female viewers dislike and are uncomfortable with Ruby, especially Ruby 2.0, and Sam/Ruby. Possession of males is all good and fine - they're 'big and strong and can handle it', and a good portion enjoy the gay undertones - but when it's women being used in these overtly sexual situations that contain these dark themes, sometimes complete lack of consent, and violence, I think many fans feel betrayed by the show. And at the same time, some enjoy it, maybe because subconsciously some would enjoy being possessed in such a manner, especially by Sam, and being roughed up, raped, and controlled is a fantasy. Of course, some have fantasies like that and still don't like Ruby. But it's something to think about.

I mean, even the way she DIED was sexual. Dean stabbing her in the gut while Sam holds her so she can't escape? I almost feel like it's an ode to Sam, and to Dean as well, because Ruby became a part of Sam with her blood, and controlled his actions (however manipulatively she did it). And Sam is a large part of Dean. So Dean was killing that part of Ruby in Sam, and Sam was helping to kill that part in himself. Ruby did more than possess bodies; she also possessed a part of Sam, the very dark and desperate part of him, and it was a part that needed to die. The action of stabbing her came across as very sexual, but it was more than that, too. It was symbolic in that she had taken over part of Sam and by penetrating her and killing her, Dean was taking that part back.

-c-

[familiardevil.livejournal.com]

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.

I think Claire's possession was the most interesting, though. It is...a great violation to take a little girl's body to use it, even in the way Castiel did it, and I think that was very poignant for Castiel's character at that moment. His disregard for human emotion and human life, which he later displays in When the Levee Breaks when he lets Sam go, but later reveals his true nature in caring for humans when he sends Dean to go save Sam. By possessing Claire we see that Castiel just does not give a fuck who he's possessing, be it a little girl or an adult man, but we also see a sliver of doubt in there when he agrees to jump back into Jimmy's body.

Anna's was interesting, too, in that she was born into her body. I think that was a key element for Dean/Anna, as a parallel to Sam/Ruby. Sam/Ruby is dirty and wrong and disgusting, something that has no love or affection and barely any pleasure in it, if any pleasure at all. Ruby's a demon, she's in a body that is not hers, and it's non-consensual in the fact that the body is NOT Ruby's and she is in no real position to give it to Sam to use. But Anna's body is her own, and she gives it to Dean so that they can both feel good, not bad like Sam and Ruby. So I'm not sure if Anna being born into her own body means that they don't want to have her possess anyone. I think it's more of her position in Dean/Anna, and just the plot for those two episodes and needing to get her grace back and the angel radio and blah blah blah.

Anyways, like I said before. A+ meta.

[chasingtides.livejournal.com]

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.

[chasingtides.livejournal.com]

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.

[lydia-petze.livejournal.com]

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.

[chasingtides.livejournal.com]

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.

[lydia-petze.livejournal.com]

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.

And yes, indeed, there's nothing gay about male on male rape - we know, by now, that rape is about the flexing of power, inflicting oneself on a person who, for whatever reason at the time, is unable to stop them. In terms of this discussion, I actually had the biggest problem with Zachariah's behaviour in SFfD. I was literally hissing "Coercion does NOT mean consent, asshole!" at my screen, and I really wish the show had made that point a little more clearly. If Dean had succumbed to being forced (and how is the kind of force Zachariah was applying any less horrific than physical force?) then it's no diffent than if Michael had just dropped in uninvited.

And yes on the Ruby thing. While hijacking a dead body isn't tasteful, at least she avoided the consent issues the only was she probably could. If only to satisfy Sam.

[chasingtides.livejournal.com]

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?)

[lydia-petze.livejournal.com]

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 - to give up to Michael now would, perhaps, bring him back to Hell, at least mentally.

Yes definitely. And if we add that to the fact that he finally seems to have learned his lesson - emphatically - when it comes to dealing with the angels, it's really no surprise that he refused even in the face of losing Sam and Bobby. He finally understands that nothing is worth the surrender of self that they are demanding, and the fact that there's probably an awful lot they're not telling him.

[thevinegarworks.livejournal.com]

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.

The Claire thing is weird, though, I do agree there. I do believe, judging by Claire's blank stare before Castiel drops into her body, that perhaps they are having some unheard discussion in which Castiel explains that doing this is the only way her family is going to be saved. Claire's not an idiot, and she's not a small child. She's a pre-teen (or a teen? I don't remember if her exact age was ever explicitly states, but anyway). I think she probably had some idea that she was agreeing to do this because it meant saving her parents. Do I think she knew the extent of its importance? No, not at all. But I do believe that it was explained to her beforehand that she needed to do this in order to save her family. This is backed up by the fact that we already know an angel - not even Michael, a badass archangel - can just drop into a human body without at least some form of consent. Show itself has told us that much.

Of course, when you look at where we stand now, things get a little dodgy. We don't know if Jimmy is in his body anymore, in which case Castiel is "riding" his body as his own now, just as Ruby rode Coma Girl's body. In that sense, if Jimmy is truly dead, I don't see Castiel's keeping of his body as a vessel as any sort of overt disrespect beyond the general arguable disrespect for the dead, which is just opening up a whole 'nother can of worms I don't even want to get into, given SPN's weird juggling of this subject.

Interesting meta, though. I enjoyed it.

[chasingtides.livejournal.com]

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.

[familiardevil.livejournal.com]

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.

[smallcaps.livejournal.com]

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.

[familiardevil.livejournal.com]

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 sympathetize with her. The victim. How Sam didn't save her and how she was pissed about it.

[smallcaps.livejournal.com]

But we never meet the secretary. We're not supposed to think about her, it's just meant to show a character trait of Sam's. I guess it does show the parallel a bit, but not to the same extent that it's pounded into us (lol pounded) re the guys.

I don't entirely know that we were supposed to sympathise with Meg, either (interesting that you call her "Meg's host" since technically the name belongs to the human, rather than the demon who possessed her; I get that we're used to referring to the demon as Meg but I wonder if that says something to about the identity or lack thereof of female vessels) as she was (as a spirit) canonically presented as twisted from her living self and at the very least a threat to the boys. But I have issues with that whole episode so I might not be the best person to debate it.

[familiardevil.livejournal.com]

interesting that you call her "Meg's host" since technically the name belongs to the human
I always forget that. Mrf.

I get what you're saying about the secretary. I feel like that scene was only there to show that Sam doesn't want anything to do with Ruby when she's riding a host. But the possession is still sexualized. I'm not really sure it matters how we're supposed to see the host, but it still is, which was the point of this meta, I can see now.

I hope I'm not coming off as a bitch or anything =/ I'm just enjoying the discussion.

[smallcaps.livejournal.com]

Haha, not at all! It's fun to play around with this stuff even though I am supposed to be doing so much other stuff holy shit

[familiardevil.livejournal.com]

Oh, good! Supernatural is so great 'cause it has all these interesting as fuck concepts buried way deep in it, like the sexualization of possession with males primarily, and it's so easy to get sucked in and just go on about shit that's not even on topic.

I feel you gurl. I have so much shit to work on. What am I doing instead? Screwing around on livejournal. Fml.

[chasingtides.livejournal.com]

While it can be problematic that we, for the most part, don't see the women as people - you've basically made my point. Coma Girl and Blonde Ruby Host aren't people to us - we don't know them, not even to turn to Sam and whisper, "Help." The men - and Claire - are people, though, and that's what's I'm discussing here.

I'm not sure what it means that Claire is real to us as a victim. I admit I'm having trouble wrapping my head around Claire's position in The Rapture and the extremely sex-charged language in Sympathy for the Devil. I'm grappling with it and it is very hard - so hard that our sole female victim, other than Meg who we only encounter seasons alter, is so young, is the daughter of Jimmy, whose body Castiel normally rides. I feel like Claire's character is somehow a keystone, but I don't know quite how.

[esorlehcar.livejournal.com]

Personally, I think Claire is made to real to us as a victim not on her own terms, but because of her importance to Jimmy. She was basically fridged without being killed, in other words... we were supposed to be horrified by her possession not because of its effect on her, but because of its effect on Jimmy.

[chasingtides.livejournal.com]

But I wonder *why* is it that the possessed men are humanized and viewed as victims of sexual or near-sexual violation while the women aren't?

Normally, in our society, we are far more ready see women as the victims of sexualised violence than men. I can't count the number of times I've encountered people who said something along the lines of, "Men can't get raped, except in prison, hurr hurr" (with the idea that, if they're in prison, they deserve rape made implicit or explicit). I've seen this idea from men and women, straights and queers. "Well, if it happened, he must have wanted it," will come out of someone's mouth when they wouldn't say that to a woman (even if they might think it). Women, of course, experience this self-same victim-blaming, but, in my admittedly limited experience, men experience it even more than women.

So why is it that on Supernatural - where fans and critics alike discuss how it's about manly men often victimising women - we are seeing highly sexualised male-on-male and female-on-male violence where we are so clearly supposed to see the men as people and as victims?

[chasingtides.livejournal.com]

Er. Posted to the wrong comment, but I figure you'll get it anyway.

[onthetide.livejournal.com]

Perhaps it's a case of a lack of humanized female characters in the show, in general? I mean, it's a pretty male-centric show. Maybe they don't feel the need to add traits to the women Ruby possesses other than "there's a person in there" and "this body is empty"?

[datenshiblue.livejournal.com]

Prissy thing that I am, I disagree with one tiny fact in your comment: we did meet the real Meg and not as a ghost only. It was brief, but she had words with Sam & Dean before she died, after the demon "Meg" was exorcised back to Hell. Only a few words, but it definitely made her real to me.

[smallcaps.livejournal.com]

Oh, good point! Thanks for mentioning that, I'll mull it over.