What about Sarah's life and her rights?

[JesterFace]

Benjamin was born after Sarah, his mother, was taken over and eventually made to have a child with Joseph Sisko.

Even if the Emissary was needed, was it right to steal a persons life to make it happen? Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one, still. Is that some form of slavery? Wormhole aliens lived outside time, so maybe for them it wasn't a big deal, they didn't understand linear time at that point and what they were robbing from Sarah? Sarah's life was basically taken away for a long time, fortunately eventually she got it back. Questionable way to create the Emissary?

 

[Markonian]

Soon as the Prophets left her, she moved across the planet and died in an accident. Not so much “getting her life back” as “lived out your usefulness”.

Sarah was impregnated and carried their crotch fruit to term. That’s rape.

Novel author Christopher L. Bennett mused the problem was that the DS9 writing staff at the time was all male, so they didn’t think it through.

 

[NCC-73515]

It was probably similar to the pah wraith taking over Keiko

 

[kkt]

Soon as the Prophets left her, she moved across the planet and died in an accident. Not so much “getting her life back” as “lived out your usefulness”.

Sarah was impregnated and carried their crotch fruit to term. That’s rape.

Novel author Christopher L. Bennett mused the problem was that the DS9 writing staff at the time was all male, so they didn’t think it through.

They didn't have another explanation handy for why Ben doesn't remember Sarah when he sees the picture. A troubling piece of writing all around.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Novel author Christopher L. Bennett mused the problem was that the DS9 writing staff at the time was all male, so they didn’t think it through.

Isn't that the problem of all miraculous births from history: the woman never consents? Whether or not they could have explored this dimension more than they did (other than saying Sarah never chose Joseph), the story reflects common features of myth that are otherwise accepted (unfortunately) within most cultures.

 

[Tosk]

Novel author Christopher L. Bennett mused the problem was that the DS9 writing staff at the time was all male, so they didn’t think it through.

Or possibly it has nothing to do with gender because the Prophets have been shown to do whatever they want to people a lot of the time.

 

[NCC-73515]

It would've meant less involvement to possess the dad instead. Then it could be just a ONS instead of having to control the mom for a year. Since they didn't do that, we can assume that Prophet traits are maternal

 

[JesterFace]

Soon as the Prophets left her, she moved across the planet and died in an accident. Not so much “getting her life back” as “lived out your usefulness”.

Question is, did she move and change her life because of what happened to her? About a year(?) of her life had disappeared, suddenly she had a son and was in a relationship with Joseph. I wonder, did she remember any of the life as a prophet or did she just wake up one day as herself. Perhaps missing a year of her memory made her to move and that then led to an accident. Had she been herself all that time, she could've been around the time of DS9.

It was probably similar to the pah wraith taking over Keiko

Keiko was fine in about a day, Sarah was posessed for a lot longer?

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

The problem with the prophets is that they see all events past, present and future.
They controlled her because to them it‘s just the way it was, is and will be.
When you think about it, they don’t even have real agency themselves.
They just act in the way for the universe to be consistent.

It sucks for Sarah, and it is rape.
But deterministic omniscience can’t co-exist with agency.

 

[kkt]

Gods in most religions don't consider themselves bound by human standards.

 

[Tosk]

Perhaps missing a year of her memory made her to move and that then led to an accident. Had she been herself all that time, she could've been around the time of DS9.

Or perhaps the Prophets took her the very day she would have originally died and the new direction caused her to live several years longer than she would have? They did something similar with Akorem Laan. (I'm not saying they did do it with Sarah, just that we don't have any info either way.)

 

[at Quark's]

Isn't that the problem of all miraculous births from history: the woman never consents? Whether or not they could have explored this dimension more than they did (other than saying Sarah never chose Joseph), the story reflects common features of myth that are otherwise accepted (unfortunately) within most cultures.

In the arguably most famous one of them all, the Christmas story, Mary consents to her becoming pregnant before it happens. Though perhaps if you try to read it as 'unfriendly' as possible, you could read it as a submission, I suppose ( "I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered (to the angel). "May your word to me be fulfilled." ).

How we look at (this Annunciation part of) the story, if it had been part of the earliest versions or not doesn't matter. Even if you'd make the worst possible case assumption such as: this is an embellishment made as late as the 3rd or 4th century, and it was mainly included with political motives to show that women should submit themselves or something like that, it still proves that people thought it was important enough to have her going along willingly written into it- and it never got edited out again.

In the Reckoning - an silly episode, if you ask me, it looks as if both the Prophets and the Wraiths use humans -both male and female- mostly as pawns anyway. Even though the Prophet one declares of Kira's body 'this vessel is willing', we don't know if it's true, or if Kira even ever gave the Prophet permission on a conscious level (though I think Kira probably would have consented if asked). Jake is assumed seized without his consent just because it's the appropriate Evil thing to do for a Wraith, of course. Earlier in the episode, the Sisko smashes a priceless historical artefact 'in an uncontrollable urge' (which later turns out to be the Prophets' doing), which brings him into trouble with the Bajoran clergy. And of course, the battle took place on the middle of the promenade, amongst mortals who had no need to be involved anyway, while the Prophet and the Wraith probably could have chosen any interdimensional theatre for their epic battle - unless of course it was always the intention the mortals would interfere to save their lives. No matter how you turn the issue - neither Prophets nor Wraiths seem very considerate about lower life forms in this one.

 

[Markonian]

Or perhaps the Prophets took her the very day she would have originally died and the new direction caused her to live several years longer than she would have? They did something similar with Akorem Laan. (I'm not saying they did do it with Sarah, just that we don't have any info either way.)

Death may be preferable than having the body controlled by an incomprehensible alien that imprisons the mind and uses it to act as attractive woman.

Also, the Prophets don’t act less reprehensible if they save somebody from certain death only to enslave them and get them raped.

 

[Sakonna]

In the initial reveal, I do think the intent was that we were to be horrified by what happened to Sarah, I don't think we're meant to regard the Prophets actions as morally acceptable.

It gets really confused by then using the Sarah Prophet throughout the season, so Sisko starts to develop this relationship with a "mother" who is also a creepy violator. Sarah Prophet as an ongoing character was one of the worst mistakes of the final season, in that the writing itself introduces some problems, but also that actress was awful in the role, so her presence offers only negatives.

It would all play so much better if they continued to portray the Prophets as before, with many different actors incarnating them. Maybe Sarah could have stayed in the mix and just been one of them. Hell, bring Kai Opaka back, she was great in the orb visions in "Accession"!

 

[Timo]

At which point of DS9 would we have been supposed to think that the Prophets were benevolent entities?

I don't think what happened to Sarah was "questionable" at all, nor was it intended to be. It was simply brutal, no questions left open. The Prophets did stuff, and that's the end of it; it's not as if even the Emissary ever was in a position to complain. "We regret" isn't Prophetspeak. And how could it be, when they do mind the consequences of their actions, consequences they already know fully in advance? Complaining does no good, then. For those folks, ends always fully justify means, because the cost-benefit analysis is 100% accurate...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Tosk]

Also, the Prophets don’t act less reprehensible if they save somebody from certain death only to enslave them and get them raped.

I didn't say they did. I made no judgement call on their actions one way or the other.

 

[valkyrie013]

Look at Zeus, shapeshifting, seducing, etc. sleeping with more women then Ghengis Khan.. ( and that is saying someithing!)
Prophets were about themselves ( as is with most of the species..) they seen they had to create an Kwisatz Haderach and seeing it wouldn't be done normaly, took it upon themselves..
Was it wrong? Oh most definatly.. Just like a Gould taking a host, etc.
Could they have found a girl that was about to die, or was dieing and took the body? might have been better..

 

[Sakonna]

At which point of DS9 would we have been supposed to think that the Prophets were benevolent entities?

Well, they did get cast in fairly uncomplicated Hero Gods roles in "The Reckoning" and "What You Leave Behind." I do think whenever the writing leaned too hard into the fantasy/mythology aspect of the Prophets, it didn't serve them and wasn't an easy fit, precisely because the greatest thing about the Prophets was their alien unknowability, and you don't want to trade that for a simpler fantasy story we've all already seen a billion times.

But I agree that for most of DS9, the Prophets were quite satisfyingly portrayed as unsettlingly divorced from any concerns of benevolence/malevolence.

 

[at Quark's]

In the initial reveal, I do think the intent was that we were to be horrified by what happened to Sarah, I don't think we're meant to regard the Prophets actions as morally acceptable.

It gets really confused by then using the Sarah Prophet throughout the season, so Sisko starts to develop this relationship with a "mother" who is also a creepy violator. Sarah Prophet as an ongoing character was one of the worst mistakes of the final season, in that the writing itself introduces some problems, but also that actress was awful in the role, so her presence offers only negatives.

It would all play so much better if they continued to portray the Prophets as before, with many different actors incarnating them. Maybe Sarah could have stayed in the mix and just been one of them. Hell, bring Kai Opaka back, she was great in the orb visions in "Accession"!

Yeah, come to think of it, the entire 'your existence was arranged by the Prophets in the first place!' arc seemed unnecessary. It didn't really add anything substantial to the larger story, in retrospect.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

In the arguably most famous one of them all, the Christmas story, Mary consents to her becoming pregnant before it happens. Though perhaps if you try to read it as 'unfriendly' as possible, you could read it as a submission, I suppose ( "I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered (to the angel). "May your word to me be fulfilled." ).

Reflecting only on the details told in the story, consent makes no appearance. Mary is never asked about actions that will impact reproduction, sexuality, or marriage. At best, there is passive acceptance, perhaps filtered through a sense of inequality. You might argue that because men were wrote down the story, it reflected the attitudes toward women, and that some element of consent was not valued by the writers. Unfortunately, that makes the annunciation closer to all those stories in which the gods treat humans as their playthings, including in matters of sexuality and reproduction. In general, the ancient western world made women (to varying degrees) responsible for being raped. A rapist might be punished for a crime against property (due to the financial harm to the family) or a public crime, but not necessarily against the woman. And there were more than a few cases in which a woman was forced to marry her rapist, making the question of consent--such as it was--effectively moot.