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

[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.

[chasingtides.livejournal.com]

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.

[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.

[thevinegarworks.livejournal.com]

EEK.

Can't* just drop into a human body without at least some form of consent, I mean. Typing fail.

[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.