Mary Jane and Superior Spider-Man (Amazing Spider-Man #700 Spoilers)

[USERNAME TAKEN]

This whole "Rape by deception" thing is getting really weird. It's hard enough to define it in the real world, let alone in a world where one's "brain patterns" can inhabit another's body. So, in order to try and determine where that "it is/it isn't rape by deception" line is, I put forth this question;

Is it "Rape by deception" if Steve Rogers from 2012 travels back in time to have sex with Peggy Carter from 1942, while allowing her to believe that he was Steve Rogers circa 1942?

First impulse, I imagine, will be to say "no, because he's the same person" but...technically he's not. Steve Rogers 2012 has a different "body" than Steve Rogers 1942. New cells have replaced old cells, etc.... So, in that way, if we are to say that Doc Ock will have committed rape in Peter Parkers body....the exact same body that Peter Parker himself would be using to have sex with MJ, than wouldn't Steve Rogers be even more guilty of rape by deception for not even using the body that Steve Rogers 1942 would have used? So, I think we have to rule-out the physical aspect of rape by deception.

This leaves us with the "sex is more than just a physical thing" argument. But, again, if Doc is guilty for letting MJ think he's emotionally, mentally, etc...someone he's not, than wouldn't Rogers be just as guilty because he's not the EXACT same person that Peggy would think him to be?

So, following the guidlines that we seem to be establishing for what constitutes rape by deception in comics, would Steve Rogers 2012 be guilty or not?

By extension, Superman has been an attempted rapist for decades because he's tried to make out with Lois Lane without her really knowing he's Clark Kent.

[USERNAME TAKEN]

Nothing has happened yet. Deal with it and move on. Oh, and Happy New Year to you all and such...

My point from day one.

Nothing has happened yet.

[Russell]

I haven't read the latest posts but I don't think there will be a rape
In SSM, I think that the creators are pretty switched on(especially after BND) and they won't let it happen. I do know two things though :

1- no rape has happened as of 700
And
2- I understand the need to defend your favourite book, but it is terrifying how some people can say that IF Ock had sex with MJ and she thinks its Peter, that it ISN'T rape. Or the attempts to liken it to a superhero not revealing their identity. They are completely different scenarios and I'm concerned for people that can't see that

[jona]

Glad to see you back on the boards Dan! I have my own reservations about how this whole thing will unfold, but the fact that you've broken you're self imposed exile till ssm #1 hits the shelves to address we the fans concerns about this proves to me that you do take this seriously, and you've given me hope that you have a plan. I may not like where this COULD ( I emphasize COULD) go, I feel that it's important to you that at the end of the day, you want to tell a great story and that's what makes Spider-Man great. That's what makes Peter Parker great. That's what makes his legacy great. MAKE MINE MARVEL! Ahhh too much drinking and posting.... Love to you all in 2013

[EuphemismForSex]

2- I understand the need to defend your favourite book, but it is terrifying how some people can say that IF Ock had sex with MJ and she thinks its Peter, that it ISN'T rape. Or the attempts to liken it to a superhero not revealing their identity. They are completely different scenarios and I'm concerned for people that can't see that

So am I.

Some very creative mental gymnastics.

[Striderblack01]

Well, many of you will be happy to know that as far as the law is concerned "Rape by fraud" is just as contentious as it has been proven here.

Every state has their own definition of rape, and most of them seemed to be more concerned with force rather than fraud.
"Fraud in the inducement" covers flattery, promises, and most of the lies you hear in bars.
"Fraud in the factum" is lying about the act itself.
If a gynecologist told a patient he need to insert a medical instrument, but inserted his hairy jingle-jangle instead, that's lying about the act.

Lawfully, Fraud in the inducement is not rape.
Fraud in the factum is.

Now, there have been more than a few cases that fall on either side of the issue.
Here are some that I found interesting (keeping in mind that these are dated):

One of the most notorious recorded sexual scams is the case of Raymond Mitchell, dubbed the "Fantasy Man" by the press. n135 Mitchell telephoned women, pretended to be their fiancees or boyfriends, explained that he had had a fantasy about having sex with a blindfolded woman, and persuaded them to leave their doors unlocked and to wait in bed blindfolded. n136 He also instructed his victims not to touch him during sex. n137 Mitchell was convicted under a Tennessee statute specifically criminalizing rape by fraud--the only one of its kind in the United States. n138 Although arguing that the women consented to the sexual intercourse, the court held that consent is ineffective if obtained by deception. n139 Presently, Mitchell is arguing on appeal that the statute is too vague as it does not specifically set forth the types of fraud which would lead to conviction. n140

The case of United States v. Booker provides a third variation on the impersonation theme. Booker had sexual intercourse with a sleeping or unconscious woman shortly after she had consensual intercourse with another man, arguably impersonating the woman's voluntary lover. He was tried for rape under military law.The court struggled with whether his action constituted rape by fraud and whether such fraud was in the factum or in the inducement. The court ultimately held that fraud as to the identity of a sexual partner constitutes fraud in the factum which vitiates consent because: "The better view is that the 'factum' involves both the nature of the act and some knowledge of the identity of the participant." Thus, Booker was convicted of rape. Patricial Falk, "Rape by Fraud and Rape by Coercion," 64 Brooklyn L. Rev. 39 (1998).

Personally I find the latter to be extremely compelling, but acknowledge that it can be a slippery legislative slope if not properly defined.
The fact that most states do not include fraud language I believe has more to do with said slope, rather than a wholesale rejection of the concept of rape by fraud.

Happy New Year, wankers!

[Mark_S]

Any super hero that beds a girl (or guy) without disclosing his other identity is guilty of "rape by deception."

I've told a few girls that I loved them, even though I didn't, just to get them in the sack, so I'm a rapist too.

And how do those women feel now that they know the truth?

[Mark_S]

By extension, Superman has been an attempted rapist for decades because he's tried to make out with Lois Lane without her really knowing he's Clark Kent.

No, she was always going after him.

[Mark_S]

So am I.

Some very creative mental gymnastics.

There always are. For myself if there is no sex in the next issue I'll let this drop. For the most part I'm basing my suspicions on stories that have come before and the simple fact that I don't believe much of what marvel says about the future.

[BottomsUp]

Why wouldn't he have sexual organs?!

Well, Chameleon tends to imperosonate women as well... I dunno, either he's really experienced at tucking it in, or he's really dedicated to his craft

[Chris S.]

Stunned at some of the people who started CBR accounts this past month just to talk about this issue. :-/ Seriously, how many of you guys are ban-evaders just taking on the air of civility, concern, or indignation?

At least two, although they've been rebanned.

A big event also brings out newcomers.

I know that this discussion is a bit crazy and I have refused to even do the poll. I thought it was a bit crazy back with the Chameleon and whatever that girls name was.

Having said that, isn't this a good thing? Don't you want the book to draw attention? Don't you want people to discuss what is going on? Trolls are going to troll unfortunately, but people should discuss the book.

And you're ending one of the longest running comics at Marvel. Of course people are going to be upset. Now some of this response is a bit crazy as well all know Peter isn't dead and he will be back, but it is going to happen.

This honestly feels a lot like what they did with the death of Johnny and then the FF title.

Oh and for a lot of us this forum is the only place we can discuss stories in comics. I occasionally talk to a guy in my LCS about comics when I go. We usually talk for a good 30 minutes. But beyond that I don't have anyone to discuss comics with. I get that here and I'm thankful for it.

[SplinteringHeart]

Jon, quite honestly? I am disgusted at some of the specific people out there (NOT everyone) who HAVE sunk to all-new levels of trolling. And all over THIS issue of Spider-Man.

In the past few weeks I've seen the lowly & immoral try to use actual infirm children to make their case (and/or jokes in bad taste)...
Claim assaults on their free speech...
And NOW accusations of rape (in a story line where I KNOW there is NONE).

So I don't think there are "fools" who are "crying rape." I know there are SPECIFIC persons with axes to grind OVER SPIDER-MAN (a FICTITIOUS character) who have sought to pervert this issue and sway kind-hearted people with genuine (tho in THIS case MISPLACED) concerns to join them in this "cause."

I don't think that those SPECIFIC people are fools. I think they're cruel, shameless, and cowardly. And I believe when this current ploy of theirs doesn't (in the end) bear any fruit, they will simply switch over to a different line of attack.

Hello Dan,

Thanks for the more reasoned response.

I don’t have the experience you do of the sort of charlatans you mention. Your reactions do seem to be based on your experience/knowledge of these people….. I am not one of them, and I don’t believe that “Toastedbred” and “Xenon”, whose reasoned (but critical) posts I have supported on here, are those sort of people……..I’m just a Spidey fan from London, who has a valid opinion to share…..

I will maintain my point about the implied potentiality in your storyline in ASM 700, but I will move on now, at least from bothering you and Steve directly and work on giving the benefit of doubt…

This a courtesy reply. I’m grateful to have had some discourse with you and Steve on this, even if it has been somewhat bad tempered…

By the way, we have met Dan, sort of…..at a Sci-fi/Comic Convention, Sunday a few months ago (October?) at London Olympia……you were giving a talk alongside Chris Claremont…you meet many people I’m sure so I don’t expect you to remember, but I did pick up the mic…we talked on crossover events (Fear itself etc), you said us fans can’t get enough of them, I expressed surprise in these times of austerity mentioning that I expect fans would be cutting back on titles…..I of course also prompted you for hints on what was going to happen in ASM 700, you were of course giving nothing away!

Right, maybe I’ll take a look at that MJ appreciation thread….

TTFN

Regards

Jon

[Mister Mets]

One thing I've pondered. Outrage that the story may hint at something that would be considered rape in certain jurisdictions, but not the one in which the story is set, seems misplaced. If you think New York State law is too lax, or that something inferred reflects flaws in American culture, a story that invites greater scrutiny about that topic should be welcomed under most circumstances.

[Xenon]

Mergers and Ad Hominem! Man New Year's was crazy around here.

I think we are all losers when we have to debate about wether or not the editor of Spider-Man is rude to the fans.

Yep.

Lowly creature, you are not fit to even utter the name of the glorious Victor Von Doom.

Psssh.I be running Strider-Doom all day in MvC2.

It's Ock's 50th too :( He needs some loving! His mother chased all his girlfriends away!

just the one.

This comes down to, I think, individual authors view of Doom. You have the take that his 'honorable' nature is simply an egotistical, narcissistic pretension of a delusion of Doom, the kind of Doom you get in, what was that arc called... Unthinkable? And then you get the Doom which seems to really have that honorable part far more rooted into his character. These dueling takes on Doom have sometimes caused a somewhat schizohprenic approach to the character.

I don't know a lot about him, I don't read FF. But I do know that there's only so many mass murders I'll give you before I start to question your moral fiber.

This whole "Rape by deception" thing is getting really weird. It's hard enough to define it in the real world, let alone in a world where one's "brain patterns" can inhabit another's body. So, in order to try and determine where that "it is/it isn't rape by deception" line is, I put forth this question;

Is it "Rape by deception" if Steve Rogers from 2012 travels back in time to have sex with Peggy Carter from 1942, while allowing her to believe that he was Steve Rogers circa 1942?

First impulse, I imagine, will be to say "no, because he's the same person" but...technically he's not. Steve Rogers 2012 has a different "body" than Steve Rogers 1942. New cells have replaced old cells, etc.... So, in that way, if we are to say that Doc Ock will have committed rape in Peter Parkers body....the exact same body that Peter Parker himself would be using to have sex with MJ, than wouldn't Steve Rogers be even more guilty of rape by deception for not even using the body that Steve Rogers 1942 would have used? So, I think we have to rule-out the physical aspect of rape by deception.

This leaves us with the "sex is more than just a physical thing" argument. But, again, if Doc is guilty for letting MJ think he's emotionally, mentally, etc...someone he's not, than wouldn't Rogers be just as guilty because he's not the EXACT same person that Peggy would think him to be?

So, following the guidlines that we seem to be establishing for what constitutes rape by deception in comics, would Steve Rogers 2012 be guilty or not?

Guys, it's not that hard. It's a real simple test. Just ask two questions.

Who does the person believe he/she is sleeping with?
Who _is_ the person he/she is sleeping with?

If those two answers are not the same, then yes, there is a rape that has occurred. Now, you may argue that not all rapes are equal, and that's fine but outside the boundaries of this discussion, I think. You can argue about where Steve Rogers from the future is Steve Rogers from the past, bu that's a detail. You can argue

Alternatively, ask yourself a different question. If the proposed "victim" woudl be upset with the situation if they knew all the facts, then they did a very bad bad thing, whatever you want to call it.

No, Jon. The EASY insult is to take something as serious as rape and use it as a cudgel in an argument about comic book characters.

On the crystal ball front, is it okay if I predict a future where if rape NEVER occurs in SUPERIOR SPIDER-MAN that you and others WON'T be as generous with your apologies as you have been with your accusations?

It's a little ironic you can come in here and call people names and make baseless attacks their motivations and identities and still act like you need an apology for people talking about possibilities that were purposely raised in your comic book.

[Xenon]

One thing I've pondered. Outrage that the story may hint at something that would be considered rape in certain jurisdictions, but not the one in which the story is set, seems misplaced. If you think New York State law is too lax, or that something inferred reflects flaws in American culture, a story that invites greater scrutiny about that topic should be welcomed under most circumstances.

This is silly. If a comic was written that was set in Iran and featured the heroes taking place in the stoning of an adultress, somethign that is perfectly legal in that country, would that not be outrageous? Of course it would. Something being legal in a country has no bearing at all on the morality or outrageousness of the situation.