Here's some brief personal historical context, so you know where I'm coming from with what I'm about to say.
I was a young boy growing up in the 90's. I was 8 years old when DS9 premiered in '92, and 15 when it finished in '99. As a boy I was socialized in a way that normalized rape culture and misogyny. Feminism was a joke to me, because it was easier for me to stay willfully ignorant of my privilege. At the time, the Sarah plot didn't bother me--in fact, the ethical and moral implications hardly even registered.
When I was 22 in 2006, I realized I was transgender, and I began a difficult process of transitioning my entire life and identity. I've now been living my life as a woman for over 8 years, and I'm lucky enough that I "pass well," so throughout that time, most people (not knowing I'm trans) have consistently treated me no differently than they would treat any other (white, middle class) woman.
Take this from first-hand experience: There is a
colossal fucking difference in how men and women experience the social norms of the world we live in. I got an immensely life-altering crash course in feminism like you would not believe.
In 2008, I became a survivor of sexual assault, by a man I loved and trusted, and who shared my home.
So I continued to watch as this thread degenerated into a "debate" about the philosophy of morality, as a thinly veiled attempt to defend rape culture by asserting the notion that "rape wrong" is simply a subjective opinion, theoretically on par with the equally subjective opinion "rape meh," and I sat in awe as I observed a Star Trek fan opine that the Prophets may be aligned to this "alternative" morality.
I agree with Christopher, and let me say I thought the reply post from Deranged Nasat was brilliant.
I have tried to decide how (and whether) I should respond myself. This thread struck a chord with me, and I think that I need to share my thoughts and feelings. I don't know that I'll manage a comparable eloquence to the aforementioned gents of the thread, but here goes.
The Prophets are highly evolved post-corporeal, non-linear intelligences--who perceive every potential action, and all its potential consequences, simultaneously.
They have shown emotional intelligence, and awareness and aversion to violent and/or oppressive behaviours.
("Aggressive. Adversarial. It must be destroyed."
Emissary)
("We found the Zek's adversarial nature invasive, threatening. We examined your species' history, the totality of your existence. We discovered that you have not always been as you are now." / "We restored the Zek to an earlier, less adversarial state of existence."
Prophet Motive)
I have great difficulty reconciling their previous characterization and motivations with their actions, as dramatically presented in Season 7: That a prophet inhabited Sarah's body without her consent to the effect of compromising and coercing her will, for the express purpose of manipulating her into marrying and submitting to intercourse with Joseph to conceive, carry, and deliver Ben. Rape, sexual and physical servitude, and a complete violation of her reproductive rights over a protracted period of time.
From a real-world perspective, it was clearly the intent of the show writers that the
fictional Prophets took over Sarah's will, and I agree with Christopher that it was a reprehensible creative decision made by insensitive misogynist men. Fortunately the books have done much better for the most part--although David Mack fridges women, it makes me furious, and it needs to fucking stop (but I digress).
Real-world story over. But on the other hand...
From an in-universe perspective, as a Star Trek fan, and particularly as a Star Trek Lit fan, I want to look for the wiggle-room here, because I really don't want to believe the actual,
real Prophets would do that.
I feel compelled to deconstruct this event, and come up with an alternate interpretation of what was depicted on screen: One which does not necessitate the canonical violation of Sarah's consent by the Prophets.
I am strongly motivated, emotionally, to look for this answer, and I'm not entirely sure why.
I have a deep love for Star Trek (Deep Space Nine in particular). They have always been there for me, during times of life experience when I had little or nothing (and
no one) else to rely on. I have always looked up to these characters, and the higher standard of the world they live in.
Maybe it's because I need the Prophets to be respectable, and because of my experience of sexual assault, I can't tolerate the emotional blow of accepting that they would do such a thing to Sarah.
If Trip and Data can be Not Dead, and elements of the shows can be wildly re-imagined, and Beyer can reformat and retcon the entire history of the Delta Quadrant, then I don't see why the Prophets have to canonically be rapists based on one crappy episode's ambiguous dialogue. (and by the way, can Hobus please not be a thing in 2387 prose? kthx)
...Or do the show writers wield the power of the Word of God in this instance? If I try to explain it with an alternate interpretation, am I guilty of downplaying an act of violence against women with convoluted fan nonsense? What if some part of this effort is subconsciously motivated by the parts of my psychology that were formed in my male-socialized youth? God, I hope not. But the TERFs are entitled to their opinion too, so I'd be remiss not to mention the possibility.
But let me be very, very clear here:
I am not saying that a prophet usurping Sarah's will without her consent isn't rape.
What I'm saying is that I prefer to construct a personal interpretation of canon where Sarah gave informed consent.
So.
We know that the Prophets are physically capable of non-consensual body-snatching, because the pah-wraiths have been explicitly shown to do this (Keiko in
The Assignment). Kira in
The Reckoning, and Dukat in the finale arc are also relevant to the discussion, because they both
did consent.
It's
really unclear to me from dialogue whether or not Jake ultimately consented in
The Reckoning.
JAKE: When the Pah-wraith was inside me, I could feel its hatred and I knew that no matter what, it couldn't be allowed to win. Even if it meant I had to die. [in reference to Sisko's decision to let Jake and Kira fight to the death:] You did the right thing.
Based on his dialogue, I'm leaning toward the idea that the pah-wraith would have taken Jake whether he consented or not, but that Jake ultimately accepted it in order to save the lives of others and serve a greater good.
In any case, I feel like it's clear that body snatching is within their capacity, but it's never demonstrated that it works like Jedi mind-tricks, where you don't even realize you were manipulated.
Notice that all three of Keiko, Jake, and Kira are clearly established to have a complete memory of their experience while inhabited, despite being temporarily unable to exercise their own wills. It's less clear how it worked with Dukat and the Kosst Amojan, but it probably worked the same for him too.
Could they have taken possession of Sarah without her ever being aware of it? Maybe, maybe not. If we assume non-consent, then they would have
needed to do so in order for the story to work, but that is totally inconsistent with the other examples from the show. This doesn't feel right to me.
I think it's not only possible, but likely, that Sarah would have consented given the circumstances.
Consider the dialogue from the problematic vision scene in
Shadows and Symbols, in which the prophet (manifesting in Sarah's likeness) reveals information to Ben:
SARAH: The Emissary is corporeal. Linear.
SISKO: Linear or not, I need some answers.
SARAH: The Sisko is intrusive.
SISKO: Are you Sarah Sisko? Are you my mother?
SARAH: Sarah Sisko was corporeal. For a time, I shared her existence.
SISKO: You took over her body, made sure she married my father so that she'd give birth to me.
The Prophet, speaking calmly, says it "shared her existence." It's Ben, upset and angry from shock and surprise, who fills in the blanks here. Ben supplies an uncharitable interpretation of a history he wasn't part of, and which until today, he knew nothing about.
Is she justifying an immoral act? Or just continuing her explanation? The Sisko
is necessary. That, in and of itself, doesn't preclude the possibility that Sarah consented.
What if the prophet made its presence and its nature known to her (as the prophet did for Kira in
The Reckoning), and shared with Sarah its non-linear insights, and convinced or persuaded her toward an awareness that "the Sisko is necessary?"
Think back to
The Reckoning again.. In that instance, a prophet "shared Kira's existence," for the express purpose of
battling to the death and killing her in the process, and according to the prophecy, it would even "consume the gateway to the temple." And yet, due to Kira's own character motivations, she agrees.
The Prophets in their infinite wisdom, knowing all of time and all possible outcomes, are aware that they need Sarah's participation at just the right time in order to make the best possible space-baby to solve all of Bajor and the Alpha Quadrant's problems somewhere down the line.
Perhaps this was explained to her? I can't see that I would turn down that arrangement, if it was offered to me along with the prescient certainty that my refusal would ultimately result in the destruction of worlds and the enslavement of the UFP.
It would still be coercive, in a way, because the decision plays on her emotions... Coercive insofar as any truthful and complete knowledge of immutable facts can be coercive and compel certain action based on one's emotional standards. For example, if ramming my ship into a Borg cube is the only thing that will save the inhabited planet behind me, then of course I don't want to die, but I'm still going to give the order to engage the engine.
SISKO: And once you didn't need her anymore, you left her. No wonder she walked out on my father. She didn't choose him, you did.
SARAH: The Sisko would prefer different answers.
Again, as an audience, our understanding of the writer's intent comes through dialogue which, from an in-universe perspective, can easily be dismissed as Sisko's potentially biased supposition in an extremely pissed-off state, based on the hugely abbreviated retelling of Sarah's story he's getting from the prophet in this vision.
But is Sisko's viciously pessimistic viewpoint the only possible interpretation? Is it even the most
likely?
Despite the unusual circumstances that brought them together, Sarah may have legitimately fallen in love with Joseph. "My secret awareness of the magical destiny of our future space-baby" might be a pretty strong romantic motivator, not to mention aphrodisiac.
As for her leaving Joseph after Ben was born, well... People fall in and out of love all the time. The magic was gone, so to speak.
SISKO: What you're telling me isn't easy to accept. You arranged my birth. I exist because of you?
SARAH: The Sisko's path is a difficult one.
SISKO: But why me? Why did it have to be me?
SARAH: Because it could be no one else.
So because Star Trek is fictional and open to re-interpretation, I choose to believe that the presence and purpose of the prophet were understood to Sarah throughout, and that she willingly participated in ensuring Sisko's destiny.
It preserves the character of the Prophets, and it makes Sarah a stronger and more compelling character than the disposable baby incubator the TV writers had in mind when they crapped out
Shadows and Symbols.
End rant. Thank you for your time.
