No, really, the writing was shit. I am being generous with that adjective. As a writer, I’ve become very picky about what I watch. I crave shows with strong characterization, gripping plots, and spot-on continuity. As a writer, that’s what I expect. I expect it in my own writing, and I expect it in the writing of, oh I don’t know, people who are paid to do it. “Rock and a Hard Place” was lacking these core elements of writing. The plot was a mess; not only did I not care about the villain, but I didn’t quite understand her motivation for attacking people in a small town. Supposedly, she was the Roman goddess of the Hearth, Vesta. Now, the mythology presented in Sam’s research was common knowledge (dropping by Wikipedia will tell you that), but how the hunters were supposed to depose of the goddess was problematic. A piece of oak dipped in…virgin’s blood? If the goddess eats the liver of virgins, how exactly the blood of a virgin supposed to harm her? It was a far-from-convincing plot, and as much as I love the MotW episodes, I was very disappointed. Where was the scenes of the brothers working the case? Where was the snark? The brotherly camaraderie we know and love? Where was Supernatural?

SPN has been criticized for its portrayal of women more times than I can count. No female character seems to stick around for more than a couple of episodes, and the Winchesters are notorious for poor track records in the love department. Now, I’ve never been too upset with the women in the show before. The family business doesn’t provide many opportunities for deep, meaningful relationships. It’s why the brothers are as co-dependent as they are, and I accept that. What I do not accept is that this week we finally had an episode written by a woman and instead of using her opportunity to write poignant nuances and glimpses into the Winchester’s views of women, the episode poked fun at some of the rather heart-wrenching things the Winchesters have experienced over the years. And it wasn’t light-hearted or satirical humor–it was crass and it was offensive.

For instance, when Sam and Dean are at their first “chastity meeting,” Sam begins to discuss his reasoning for joining the group. He says that none of his relationships end well–and we know he’s not lying. Sam is baring his soul–and we know how much the Winchesters don’t like to do that–and the scene is glossed over and treated as a shtick to get them in with the group.

But, poor Sammy aside, my real problem with this episode was Susie. Some people dreaded this episode because Dean was going to have sex. You know what? The guy goes through some serious shit. Let him have a little hanky-panky. Great. Fine. My problem is that instead of giving Dean a meaningful and emotional connection with a woman, the writer handed him a sexual object–a former porn star, that Dean has desired–and said, “Hey, here’s a hole for ya.” Who is Susie? The character was grossly underdeveloped, but from what I did see, it seemed that she regretted her former life. She left it behind, changed her name, and started over as a born-again virgin. She was obviously uncomfortable with her identity as a sexual object, but according to last night’s writer, once a sexual object, always a sexual object, so it’s entirely believable that she’ll jump into bed with Dean after 30 seconds of bad Spanish and taco references.

I’m so disgusted by what this says about the woman AND what it says about Dean Winchester’s moral integrity, which brings me to…