![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
You know, I'm all for taking a wait-and-see attitude about the whole situation between Sam and Ruby. But what I don't get is the level of animosity against the OP in this post. (ETA: Post has been bahleeted.) Jumpin' Jehovah, people, do you really need to crucify the person for having an opinion? Are conjecture and speculation about things that may come to pass now verboten?
This whole thing has already gotten nastier than most of the Wincest/anti-Wincest wank. If the situation actually does come to fruition, this fandom is going to explode.
This whole thing has already gotten nastier than most of the Wincest/anti-Wincest wank. If the situation actually does come to fruition, this fandom is going to explode.
well, it's to be expected
Date: 2008-10-17 06:08 pm (UTC)If they are? That's more balls than I'll Kripke credit for, I can't see him breaking Sam down to that level, but it sure would send the Samgirls into a tizzy of killing-Tara like proportions.
Re: well, it's to be expected
Date: 2008-10-17 06:34 pm (UTC)Haha, this made me giggle.
It's so true, though isn't it??
Date: 2008-10-17 08:35 pm (UTC)Which, sadly, I would really, really emjoy.
For I am evil, and like to eat babies and trip old women walking down the road with their walkers.
Mwahahahahahaaaa
Re: well, it's to be expected
Date: 2008-10-17 06:46 pm (UTC)No, but I can easily see him simply not having fully considered the implications of it.
Kripke or Sam?
Date: 2008-10-17 08:37 pm (UTC)Sam not having considered? That would be unthinkable. Sam was possessed, I don't buy that for a minute- every single writer should be shot if they are going with that explanation. I'll load the rifles myself.
Re: Kripke or Sam?
Date: 2008-10-17 08:57 pm (UTC)Re: Kripke or Sam?
Date: 2008-10-18 02:21 am (UTC)I don't know. I can forgive Jared's recent comments because I doubt he's thought at all about the implications of it, but if it's introduced as a plot point on the show without making clear that what he's doing is rape, pure and simple, I'm going to be very unhappy.
which I am okay with.. I want some texture to Sam
Date: 2008-10-18 04:51 am (UTC)Which makes me want to start a prayer chain for the writing staff at SPN.
Re: which I am okay with.. I want some texture to Sam
Date: 2008-10-18 01:47 pm (UTC)I'd love for Sam to confront his own dark side, but holy fucking Christ do I NOT think that making him a rapist is the way to do it. I just. If Kripke et al come along and tell us that Sam has been having sex with Ruby knowing that there's a girl in there with no way of either agreeing to or protesting what's happened to her, just trapped in her own body while Ruby and Sam use it to get off -- that's way, way, way past "texture" on smack in the middle of "I can't accept this in a character I'm supposed to care about." Also, I believe it would be wildly out of character for Sam. I would believe it if it were to start after Sam gave in to his dark side and became truly evil, but prior to that, it just isn't who he is. Nothing in the show has even come close to preparing me for a Sam who would do that.
You write that he's no better or worse than Dean, and I agree. I don't think Dean would rape a woman either.
I guess I'm not communicating well, which is par for the course with me.
Date: 2008-10-18 07:28 pm (UTC)That being said IF he is indeed in a sexual relationship with Ruby occupying a not!possessed body (one that is neither dead or in some sort of chronic persistent vegetative state) that's where I see the possibility of a texture to Sam.
Re: I guess I'm not communicating well, which is par for the course with me.
Date: 2008-10-19 01:20 am (UTC)Also, that's a really cute icon. :)
That's a *great* question
Date: 2008-10-19 02:59 am (UTC)I love icons, they just make me happy.
Re: well, it's to be expected
Date: 2008-10-17 07:20 pm (UTC)I don't know - most of the Samgirls I know (myself included) WANT Sam to be boinking Ruby, inhabited body or not. :D
Oooo. Can I be your friend? Most Samgirls
Date: 2008-10-17 08:40 pm (UTC)Re: Oooo. Can I be your friend? Most Samgirls
Date: 2008-10-17 09:19 pm (UTC)'Cause really, there's no making up for that. Saving the world does not get you a "bye" to commit rape.
I'd love to see Sam's characterization become more complex, but not by adding "rapist" to his resume.
I believe the fact is that there is a large question
Date: 2008-10-18 04:48 am (UTC)I guess that's my point, not knowing the specific circumstances of a possible relationship makes any arguments for or against not terribly important until we get a canon clarification. If Sam is engaging in a sexual relationship, with a demon who is housed with a body that does not have it's original occupant in a lock down.. I respectfully submit that it could be some very interesting story. That's all I'm trying to get at.
Re: I believe the fact is that there is a large question
Date: 2008-10-18 01:53 pm (UTC)Ah. See, to me, that's what we do allatime, we discuss and argue about things that aren't 100% clear from canon. Fandom is constantly talking about "what if" and "do you think [this or that]" or "if John missed all those Christmases he's a terrible father" / "no he isn't, he was out there trying to save people and that trumps Christmas" and so on. I'm really bewildered why this one situation has so many people saying that we shouldn't have opinions about a "if he is/if he isn't" until we know for sure whether he is or isn't.
If Sam is engaging in a sexual relationship, with a demon who is housed with a body that does not have it's original occupant in a lock down.. I respectfully submit that it could be some very interesting story.
I agree. If the girl is no longer in the body, then sure -- though I'd be interested to know how Sam could be convinced that it was true, since everything we know so far says that the soul is still in the body even after the body should be dead.
Re: I believe the fact is that there is a large question
Date: 2008-10-18 07:25 pm (UTC)Really? I must be missing something fairly substantial, then. I know that when a person 'comes back' as a ghost, you can forcibly dispatch it via their remains, but other than that- I can't think of where I've seen that. Can ya help a fellow fan out?
Re: I believe the fact is that there is a large question
Date: 2008-10-19 01:18 am (UTC)Ahhh. see I was thinking more in terms of a dead/comatose body
Date: 2008-10-19 03:02 am (UTC)Having written that, I think I'm going to lay down for a while. It's so very, very wrong. I'm going to go and lay down until I feel less horrible.. We're really getting to some very weird lines with this story.
Oy.
Re: Oooo. Can I be your friend? Most Samgirls
Date: 2008-10-17 09:15 pm (UTC)