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

[virginia-fell.livejournal.com]

This is incredibly profound, and kind of makes me want to watch this show just to see what it looks like in context.

[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-

[chasingtides.livejournal.com]

As soon as I saw how Zachariah was talking about Dean-as-object, I knew I needed to write this. I am so on the fence about interpretation that I really want to see what other people think - but I am leaning toward seeing it as anyone-can-be-victim and another way to discuss such an important topic.

[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.

[hearseeno.livejournal.com]

You've got some really interesting things to say about this and it's making me think about things in new ways, always something that feels like a gift from the meta-writer. So, thank you.

One of the things that I wonder, after reading your meta, is the influence of the restrictions of our language. Is it because our language doesn't differentiate between types of violation? I wonder if it's because we as a society hold sexual violation as the worst kind of violation that one person can do to another, and still live through it? Do we then perceive other forms of violation through that lens? Other forms of violation definitely exist, and yet they, too are often couched in sexual terms. I think of some of the language used even in cases of emotional violation, where the knowledge of who you are is used to demean and overpower. There we use such terms as "a mind fuck," an "emotional rape.

Or is it that violations are intimate, and very often our society equates all kinds of intimacy with sexuality? And so our vocabulary of intimacy, whether positive or negative, is informed by sexual imagery?

Do we have other imagery, other words with different connotations, to describe the intimate abuse of power? Or are we restricted by our language, which grew out of the context of our society's values?

[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.

[chasingtides.livejournal.com]

I am not sure. In my experience, we do have language for non-sexual physical violations (non-sexual beatings, for example) and we have ways, as a society, to de-sexualise sexual violations. (As for the latter, I learned to be an expert in couching the discussion of my sexual violation in non-sexual terms whenever possible.)

However, I think we sexualize the language of violation when we want to underscore the severity of the violation - sexual violence and violation are things that we're, at least, peripherally aware of as a society.

On the other hand, I've been part of discussions about how sexual violence is so often dismissed in our society - you want wanted it, you were asking for it, if you just didn't do x. And what intrigues me is the way the fandom is using this language to discuss Bobby's possession - that it's bad writing because Bobby knows better, Bobby would never do that, Bobby must have done something stupid for a demon to possess him. (And don't the hunters do the same when Sam is possessed? He was possessed because of his blood, a theory that protects the other hunters from the same fate.)

[lydia-petze.livejournal.com]

This was incredibly interesting - thankyou. I had picked up on the implications but I hadn't really thought it through as hard as this. And reading over the comments, I'm getting even more to think about. (Yay, thinky fandom ;-))

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?

Re Jimmy's initial consent - yes, he may have been completely willing, but he certainly did not give informed consent. He couldn't have. To extend the sexual metaphor a little further (possibly overextending it) I'd compare it to a kind of statutory rape - much like a young person may not know all the implications of the act, even with consent*, neither did he.

*I know an underage person can't give consent at all, but I'm already hammering this metaphor into a shape it probably wasn't ever meant to be. Forgive me.

[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.

[blackcat333-99.livejournal.com]

Very interesting meta. I noticed that this ep had both brothers being violated, essentially. Sam with his "unaware/uncaring of proper boundaries" fangirl feeling him up, and Dean with the explicit "attack" by Meg. Hmm. Must think more on this.

Although I would slightly disgree with this:

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.

Meg did use that language, if I recall correctly. She (well, GhostMeg) asked Dean, "Do you have any idea what it's like to be ridden by evil for months?"

Which I found to be an interesting correlation to the fact that yeah, Dean's just gotten out of Hell, where he was ridden by evil for 40 years, 30 of which he was actively victimized. And Alastair's later words to Dean on the subject of what went down as part of the torture, "all those pokes and prods"... definitely a sexual rape connotation. And Dean eventually broke because of it. So I got the message that even big strong guys can be victims of assault and in a position of not being able to protect themselves from it, and yeah, it can break them too.

[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]

It's been a *long* time since I watched Are You There, God? so I missed that.

And I totally forgot the rape implications between Alastair and Dean. Those were terribly, terribly obvious. And what it also meant to Dean, for Uriel and Castiel, to put him in the same room as his torturer (rapist) and told to do the same to Alastair as Alastair did to him. Absolutely horrifying - and utterly underscoring that these terrible, terrible things can and do happen to men, even when we, as a society, choose to look away.

[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?)

[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.

[musesfool.livejournal.com]

Ruby's death is framed like a rape - Sam holds her down and Dean penetrates her with a knife that has been explicitly associated in the text - by him - with his penis.

[chasingtides.livejournal.com]

While that's true - Sam does hold her down and Dean does knife her and this does have further connotations - I don't see what that has to do with the language of possession in the show.

[m-pellegrino.livejournal.com]

Ruby's death has fuck-all to do with this meta. This post is talking about the possession of males and the parallels it holds to male rape. Please direct all useless and diversionary comments to someone who cares.

[musesfool.livejournal.com]

They don't need to use the language of rape with the female characters (though Meg does, and Ruby does), because they use the imagery.

[fannishliss.livejournal.com]

I'd like offer two pieces of historical context influencing this language and set of ideas.

1. The Exorcist. Probably the most influential text on possession in US culture. Definitely portrays the possessed person as utterly, utterly raped. Also, dramatizes the horror of that rape by having the victim being a young girl, and by using religious imagery.

2. Voodoo. I have strongly associated the language of "riding" with Voodoo. It is the term applied by voodoo practitioners who invite the Loa to "possess" them, usually resulting in ecstatic dance or miraculous feats. The person "ridden" is sometimes actually called the Horse. -- I would love it if someone more knowledgable about Voodoo would speak to this, as I realize that Voodoo is a living religion, and I have no wish to offend or misportray.
--- In voodoo, as I understand it, the Horse almost always INVITES the rider, so this usage is not in line with being ridden without giving consent.

I very much agreed with your point re Bobby. As viewers, we have the luxury of knowing everything, and think that Bobby OBVIOUSLY should have gotten the same tattoo the boys have... whatever.... I remember that he himself uses protective talismans... Demons have multiplied exponentially since Bobby first became a hunter (after he killed his possessed wife by stabbing her, remember) -- so it's not that odd, really, that when Bobby thought he was "safe" he wasn't -- ie, he could have been jumped when he stopped for gas and his talisman torn off --VERY much an image of rape, being overpowered, divested, and aggressively penetrated. Thank you for reminding us not to blame the victim.

I do want to go back to Castiel for a second. We don't know whether or not he asked Claire for her permission, because it happened offscreen, but we must assume she said yes, because "those are the rules". I wouldn't be too quick to say "she is too young to consent" because although there are parallels, she is not engaging in sex -- she is offering herself as a vessel. To put it another way, she is old enough to have taken first communion -- do you see my point? As viewers, we see Claire through Jimmy's eyes -- he sees his daughter's life being nullified by the Angel that has apparently used him and thrown him away, and he is desperate to give his daughter her life back. Also, remember that Claire is in the clutches of her mother, who is possessed by a demon -- so allowing Castiel to possess her is a way to protect herself -- and, actually, her consent does allow Castiel to help save her, her mother, and the Winchesters. So yes, possession and sex are very similar, but not the same.

In this most recent ep, Z came off as a torturer, to be sure, and politically, that is what perked up my ears. It means a lot in the age of heroes like Jack Bauer for a Show to unequivocally condemn torture the way Supernatural has -- up to and including the idea that when a Righteous Man picks up the knife, it starts the ball rolling for Apocalypse. Clearly Z and his "frat brothers" have no qualms about torture or about non-consent -- because they are EVIL, Angels or not.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It's a very difficult topic to reason about. namaste

[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]

As for Claire's capability to give consent to give up her personal sovereignty to save her family, I am having a discussion about the with lydia_petze about that. Though it does save her family, it is, at the very least, consent under duress and does appear to traumatize her.

Riding, to my knowledge, is a complicated state, but it would not, religiously, be considered the same as possession. As it's a living religion - and while I've had contact with voodoo, I am far from a practitioner - I would hesitate to say anything further and fully respect the right of fans who are practitioners not to discuss this. I have often taken that route with my personal beliefs because such discussions, almost inevitably, cause more problems than they solve.

[chasingtides.livejournal.com]

Except for the part where my meta is specifically discussing the language tools in regard to possession.

If I wanted to discuss everything that is evocative of rape in Supernatural - from males and females, with males and females as victims - I wouldn't have enough space in a livejournal post to do an overview. Suggesting that the imagery of Ruby's death is more problematic than Zachariah's torturous attempted coercion of Dean is problematic and horrific in and of itself.

[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.

[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.