Was he talking about DEAN? Because I thought he was talking about Jensen Ackles, Douchey Fratboy.

He said Jensen, but I decided to answer both points. I don't expect a reply. He was clearly a hater and not a reasoner.

I don't think he can make an informed decision about whether he wants it or not. Meaning, I don't think he gets much say.

That's what I think. He can't not consent--he's not really a person. He's a golem with killer abs and great moves in bed.

Would Dean, if he were soulless, make the same choice? Would he be capable of making the same choice?

I don't think so. I think the soul makes the choice. Dean might be more likely than Sam to wallow, but I think that Sam with soul would want his soul out hell and no longer being hatebanged by bitter archangels.

Does Dean wallow in his misery so much that it's actually integral to who he is?

I think if Dean can't wallow in his own misery, he will wallow in someone else's. He's a wallower.

I love him, by the way. So freaking much.

I don't know if he's a *wallower,* though. To me that means seeking out pain, and I think if there wasn't any that directly affected him or his loved ones, he wouldn't seek it. But if it's there, he's going to feel it, and feel it deep.

That got a little dirty somehow.

I've seen some of those discussions on-line about how reprehensible it was for Dean to have Death re-soul Sam and I just don't get it. If keeping RoboSam soulless means that essence of Sam stays trapped in the cage while a vessel walks around wearing his face and doing things that are at morally questionable (at best), wouldn't that essentially be the same as Dean letting Sam remain possessed? I don't really see the difference between re-inserting a soul over the objections of the vessel and exorcising a demon over the objections of the demon.

Or maybe it's just me that's wallowing in Dean's pain.

I don't really see the difference between re-inserting a soul over the objections of the vessel and exorcising a demon over the objections of the demon.

I don't think they defined terms very well, sadly. Sam seems to be able to remember his life, just not how he felt about it, or the ability to *feel* at all. Which doesn't make a lot of sense to me, same as the not sleeping issue. What does that have to do with a soul?

They did it better on Buffy, making the soul strictly the essence of someone's goodness, to whatever degree. At least for me, it was a little more cut and dried that way.

Does "enjoying be malicious and cruel" fall under "feelings"? Because it seems to be like it does.

I've seen some of those discussions on-line about how reprehensible it was for Dean to have Death re-soul Sam

I thought the writers were specifically trying to address this point by having Sam try to kill Bobby. It seems to me that any "person" who makes this choice needs to be resouled by any means necessary.

You are really fucked up if you think this is a viable solution to your problems.

Does "enjoying be malicious and cruel" fall under "feelings"? Because it seems to be like it does.

Yeah! Which is also inconsistent. He still knows how to laugh at things and how to flirt, and has no filter when it comes to cruelness.

Which sounds more like pure id than a lack of feeling, but they've made it clear he *can't* feel concern or love or whatever, and it doesn't make a lot of sense.

So I say, resoul the boy! Let's have some good old-fashioned Sammy angst.

I don't know if he's a *wallower,* though. To me that means seeking out pain, and I think if there wasn't any that directly affected him or his loved ones, he wouldn't seek it.

Wallowing doesn't imply seeking for me, but it does involve rolling around in what's there. Dean? Will sit in the dark and feel until the cows come home. I mean, he'll also do, but he'll generate those perfect single manly tears of pain from his internal landscape all day long.

Well, yeah, he does like to roll around in what's there. Bless his little wounded heart.