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

[TomSlick]

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.

Wow, the writer of Spider-Man says there's no rape and there won't be and people still can't shut the 'ef up about it.

By the way, I know what would boost sales. For the next year, have PP return, kick Doc Ock's ass and then write a year's worth of issues of PP just hamging out on the couch, watching the tube, having a good time with Mary Jane with absolutely no danger or conflict.

Apparently that's what people want.

[Meehaul]

I, for one, believe if they slept together, it would be rape via fraud; however, I think that would make for a bunch of truly interesting moral conflicts and add considerably to the story. This is, after all, fiction. It's supposed to be interesting. It's supposed to be fraught with conflict. If you're worried about "the children," you should be equally worried about Octo-spidey punching off the dude's jaw. If you have problems with either of those things, don't read the book. I, for one, will continue reading it. I've always believed that Slott had within him a truly awesome spider-story. Hopefully this is it! It seems promising to me. We get to explore the person Pete might have been and mabe we see the most creative character re-boot I've ever seen attempted in comics. I don't mean the switch to Ock, but instead the life Pete will ultimately return to--it might be a dramatically altered life, which would be a good thing.

[BottomsUp]

I have to applaud Dan's restraint on this. If I were in his shoes, I'd really start messing with people just for the hell of it, once I saw this puppy'd hit 75 pages.

You know, something subtle, yet explosive. Give MJ her acting career back and have her first role be in an arthurian play. As Igraine.

It'd probably take a day to catch on and then the forum would detonate.

[Mister Mets]

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.

I think you misunderstand my point. I would applaud it if someone in Iran addressed the problems of stoning alleged adultresses. Powerful works of art could be produced on that topic. But due to censorship in Iran, artists aren't able to engage the culture, and the people are restricted in their ability to discuss what a work of art says about their culture.

[Xenon]

I, for one, believe if they slept together, it would be rape via fraud; however, I think that would make for a bunch of truly interesting moral conflicts and add considerably to the story. This is, after all, fiction. It's supposed to be interesting. It's supposed to be fraught with conflict. If you're worried about "the children," you should be equally worried about Octo-spidey punching off the dude's jaw. If you have problems with either of those things, don't read the book. I, for one, will continue reading it. I've always believed that Slott had within him a truly awesome spider-story. Hopefully this is it! It seems promising to me. We get to explore the person Pete might have been and mabe we see the most creative character re-boot I've ever seen attempted in comics. I don't mean the switch to Ock, but instead the life Pete will ultimately return to--it might be a dramatically altered life, which would be a good thing.

I don't think it really adds much, especially considering how you take away Doc Ock forever just so Mary Jane feels violated and has trouble connecting with Peter again. Plus, from an overarching standpoint, one Spider-Love has already been raped, so...yeah...kinda went down that road.

Fortunately, however, it appears its a moot point. Mr. Slott said a few posts ago (though I missed it the first time between all the ad hominem) that it doesn't happen. So I think that settles the matter for now. He said it doesn't happen, so we should take him on his word there.

Of course, as I mentioned earlier, the fact that he's not going to rape her doesn't mean they aren't going to get together, but that's a whole separate conversation from the one we've been having.

[Xenon]

I think you misunderstand my point. I would applaud it if someone in Iran addressed the problems of stoning alleged adultresses. Powerful works of art could be produced on that topic. But due to censorship in Iran, artists aren't able to engage the culture, and the people are restricted in their ability to discuss what a work of art says about their culture.

I think I misunderstand your point too. Are you trying to say that if he were to put it in there (though again, moot point for now) that it would be cultural commentary? I mean, even if that were the case, I still don't see why the outrage would be missing. I think that might be the point I'm stuck on. You said that the outrage seems off because it's not illegal in New York, and I'm just tyring to figure out what you mean at this point.

Though I will say any cultural commentary value is limited since we're dealing with soul/mind swaps, something that is at least for now a scientific impossibility.

[Mark_S]

I think I misunderstand your point too. Are you trying to say that if he were to put it in there (though again, moot point for now) that it would be cultural commentary? I mean, even if that were the case, I still don't see why the outrage would be missing. I think that might be the point I'm stuck on. You said that the outrage seems off because it's not illegal in New York, and I'm just tyring to figure out what you mean at this point.

Though I will say any cultural commentary value is limited since we're dealing with soul/mind swaps, something that is at least for now a scientific impossibility.

But the heart of it is deception. As has been noted on this thread not everyone thinks that it is a bad thing to lie to get the girl and while the wolf isn't as celebrated in our culture as he once was there is still an attitude that all of the responsibility rest on the woman's shoulders while the man is just 'being a guy' when he uses deceptive tactics.

As to Mr. Slott's denial... again you can point to past stories and the Carlie/Chamealon affair that was left open to interpretation on the page itself.

[Meehaul]

I don't think it really adds much, especially considering how you take away Doc Ock forever just so Mary Jane feels violated and has trouble connecting with Peter again. Plus, from an overarching standpoint, one Spider-Love has already been raped, so...yeah...kinda went down that road.

Fortunately, however, it appears its a moot point. Mr. Slott said a few posts ago (though I missed it the first time between all the ad hominem) that it doesn't happen. So I think that settles the matter for now. He said it doesn't happen, so we should take him on his word there.

Of course, as I mentioned earlier, the fact that he's not going to rape her doesn't mean they aren't going to get together, but that's a whole separate conversation from the one we've been having.

I thought it would be intersting to see MJ come to loathe Pete's face the way she did the black suit. That would add an interesting twist to their friendship and would be something unexplored with the crappy Sins Past. But we'll see where Slott takes it. Should be interesting.

[Raphael Edwards]

Wow, the writer of Spider-Man says there's no rape and there won't be and people still can't shut the 'ef up about it.

I don't think that's the debate now really. The debate is over the implied thought of sexual relations between Otto and MJ and Dan and Wacker's feelings towards those who are upset about it.

By the way, I know what would boost sales. For the next year, have PP return, kick Doc Ock's ass and then write a year's worth of issues of PP just hamging out on the couch, watching the tube, having a good time with Mary Jane with absolutely no danger or conflict.

Apparently that's what people want.

Yes, because not wanting Otto as Spider-Man and possibly sleeping with MJ means we'd rather have Peter beat Ock's ass once, sit on the couch and occasionally plow MJ and forget about all of his duties at work as well as friends, family and his role as Spider-Man.

Seriously guy?

[Meehaul]

I suspect, though obviously don't really know, that Slott and Wacker weren't really thinking about "rape via trickery" in regards to this story. After all, it's a bit of an esoteric point and clearly not any sort of focal point of the story (as far as I know). Given the outrage expressed, maybe they ought to include it as a plot point! It raises all sorts of interesting implications, which is the meat of fiction. I for one am shocked, shocked I tell you, that no one is protesting Spider-Ock knocking off a dude's jaw.

[Sighphi]

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.

You might want to tell your cover artist to stop it.



If you want this discussion to not continue.

[The Superior Michael Deery]

You might want to tell your cover artist to stop it.



If you want this discussion to not continue.

Who knew one of the most famous images of the 20th Century was actually rape?

[Meehaul]

Who knew one of the most famous images of the 20th Century was actually rape?

Thats actually a battery or a third degree sexual assault. A rape requires penetration and for genitalia of at least one of the parties to be implicated. I think the nurse's statute of limitations has expired, though.

[Sighphi]

Who knew one of the most famous images of the 20th Century was actually rape?

So that dude wasnt in the Navy?

[Farmernudie]

lol...who's inside that navy guy??