![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I know some are comparing Ezekiel's non-consensual angel occupation to rape, but I don't see it that way at all. The only comparison would be if Sam were a virgin, and Ezekiel burst into his room and said "The angels are coming, and they're looking for a virgin to sacrifice," and Dean said "Holy cow, you must immediately have sex with my comatose brother in order to prevent this." (Oh God, someone is going to use this as a fic prompt. PLEASE, I DO NOT WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THIS FIC.)
I realized this in a conversation in brightly_lit's comments (see http://brightly-lit.livejournal.com/20549.html ) ... in many ways, Dean treats Sam the way you'd treat a small child, especially when it comes to this issue of consent. Not just a small child, but a seriously ill small child. In 9.01, Dean treats Sam the way you'd treat your four year old who needs a kidney transplant. You don't ask the kid if he wants to live. You don't consider the moral implications of putting "someone else" inside his body. You just get in there and do what needs to be done. Because (a) keeping this kid alive is your most important job, the responsibility that trumps all others, and (b) even if it wasn't your job, you love him so much that you're going to do whatever it takes to keep him alive, even if it forces you to do something you know he wouldn't really want (and of course you convince yourself that it doesn't matter if he doesn't want it, because it's for his own good and he's really in no position to make that decision and the ends justify the means and good Lord, I could go on forever with this one, because it just doesn't matter, you can always justify saving the one person who you cannot let die). You know, and Dean knows, that it might make the child unhappy. And you want him to be happy, you really do, but if it's a choice between happy or alive, you pick alive. Every time.
( But wait; there's more! )I realized this in a conversation in brightly_lit's comments (see http://brightly-lit.livejournal.com/20549.html ) ... in many ways, Dean treats Sam the way you'd treat a small child, especially when it comes to this issue of consent. Not just a small child, but a seriously ill small child. In 9.01, Dean treats Sam the way you'd treat your four year old who needs a kidney transplant. You don't ask the kid if he wants to live. You don't consider the moral implications of putting "someone else" inside his body. You just get in there and do what needs to be done. Because (a) keeping this kid alive is your most important job, the responsibility that trumps all others, and (b) even if it wasn't your job, you love him so much that you're going to do whatever it takes to keep him alive, even if it forces you to do something you know he wouldn't really want (and of course you convince yourself that it doesn't matter if he doesn't want it, because it's for his own good and he's really in no position to make that decision and the ends justify the means and good Lord, I could go on forever with this one, because it just doesn't matter, you can always justify saving the one person who you cannot let die). You know, and Dean knows, that it might make the child unhappy. And you want him to be happy, you really do, but if it's a choice between happy or alive, you pick alive. Every time.
So after a lot of rambling, I think my take on the consent issue is that Dean doesn't consider it an issue. When it comes to what he sees as his responsibility toward Sam, he's a very "ends justify the means" thinker. Whether Sam agrees, of course, is going to be another story.
