So... THAT didn't happen in SUPERIOR SPIDER-MAN #2. Were you right or wrong?

[Mister Mets]

I'm confused as to why you're confused. It was in response to "I think the problem is that it's crippling for fiction if writers aren't allowed to hint at the possibility that specific bad things [in this case rape] can happen." Did you miss the part where I thanked Dan for not including a rape scene? Rape scenes are inappropriate for comics that are marketed to kids. And Spider-man is marketed to kids, no matter what rating you put on the cover. So long as there are Spider-man toys in the toy section at Walmart then you're marketing to kids.

So Dan didn't put a rape scene in. I appreciate that, but I still am not enjoying the current story enough to bother to continue reading it. It's not my Spider-man, and hasn't been for a long, long time; but up until Peter's "death" I had been enjoying Amazing for the first time in ages. Now, I'm giving up on it again.

There's an argument that it doesn't matter what happened in Superior Spider-Man #2, that it was inappropriate to ever do anything in a Spider-Man comic that allows anyone to come to the conclusion that Spock and Mary Jane may consummate their relationship at some point in the future, with MJ unaware that Spock is not Peter Parker.

[Will.S]

There's an argument that it doesn't matter what happened in Superior Spider-Man #2, that it was inappropriate to ever do anything in a Spider-Man comic that allows anyone to come to the conclusion that Spock and Mary Jane may consummate their relationship at some point in the future, with MJ unaware that Spock is not Peter Parker.

I suppose I can see that perspective although so far it seems to be kind of a non-issue given what was shown in #2.

Whether Spider-Man comics today are kid friendly is fodder for another topic but I think even that's been covered to death.

[Noronha]

Do they?

Peter uses it all the time!

[USERNAME TAKEN]

Where's this talk of Spider-man comics being more "explicit" these days coming from?

Back in the innocent days we had Peter having implied sex with MJ and Kraven the hunter brutally committing suicide (both during Kraven's last hunt). The title has also featured an innocent girl getting accidentally killed (her neck broken no less) by Spider-man ON PANEL and Norman Osborn getting impaled by his own glider. Those are just major examples off the top of my head as other darker and more violent things occurred in the past.

I knew there wasn't going to be any rape in the comic because the title has even featured any sex in a very, very long time (other than an implied fling which didn't actually happen).

Spider-man in recent years has featured some "mature scenes" but accussing the title of being less "kid friendly than before" is just modern day revisionism at its worst.

[Lars C]

Those scenes you mention feel adult. Some recent stuff like fart jokes, implied sex with Ock and May, and implied Peterpus masturbation is just a twelve year olds humor at best.

[USERNAME TAKEN]

Those scenes you mention feel adult. Some recent stuff like fart jokes, implied sex with Ock and May, and implied Peterpus masturbation is just a twelve year olds humor at best.

Be that as it may, none of it is more or less inappropriate for kids than what has been shown in the books before.

Liking or disliking the humor is entirely subjective.

If anything, the implied nature of it all makes it even MORE appropriate for children than full on suicide and girls getting their necks snapped on panel.

[Lars C]

Sure, it's subjective. I don't deny that. If that kind of humor is an aquired taste for the young readers and SSM sells well, great I guess. Doesn't have to mean I will spend 8 bucks a month for it.

[refrax5]

Thing is, Spider-man is produced and marketed for a general audience, not an audience of mature, thinking adults. Kids read these titles. When I was ten years old I was reading every comic Marvel put out. Now, I wouldn't suggest them for anyone under 15 years old and some of them I wouldn't suggest for anyone. If the so-called "writers" can't work within the requirements of writing for both children and adults, I suggest they find another line of work. Writing is as much craft as it is art -- maybe moreso -- but most comic book writers today are prima-donnas who think that they are "elevating" the "art form". It's comic books. Write comic books. If you want to do art, be honest about it and do an indy book. It's worked out well for R. Crumb. But don't try to write Spider-man without keeping things within the requirements of a general audience, superhero comic book.

And Dan, thanks for NOT having a rape scene. I really do appreciate that. However, it seems to me that MJ is being written as an extremely stupid person since everyone else is figuring out that Peter Parker isn't acting right but she's taking it as some sort of personal growth on his part. Bad writing.

I had been enjoying Spider-man up until this storyline. I had just recently started reading it again and it was the only Marvel title I liked. Now, I'm off Marvel again. Not liking Superior.

I don't know. I remember when I started reading Marvel Comics as a kid 20 years ago, there was plenty of violent and troubling stuff in those comics, so much so that my parents wouldn't let me read certain titles anymore. I remember, as a 10 year old, reading the Punisher shoving a child molester's face through a tv set (after the guy made a very disturbing confession), all the Satanic stuff in the Ghost Rider Classic reprints, serial killer characters like Carnage who would brutally kill people for fun, etc. And that's just off the top of my head. Sometimes I look through some of my old comics and am amazed that I read some of that stuff as a kid.

[Mark_S]

I don't know. I remember when I started reading Marvel Comics as a kid 20 years ago, there was plenty of violent and troubling stuff in those comics, so much so that my parents wouldn't let me read certain titles anymore. I remember, as a 10 year old, reading the Punisher shoving a child molester's face through a tv set (after the guy made a very disturbing confession), all the Satanic stuff in the Ghost Rider Classic reprints, serial killer characters like Carnage who would brutally kill people for fun, etc. And that's just off the top of my head. Sometimes I look through some of my old comics and am amazed that I read some of that stuff as a kid.

Mae West used to be confused about this too. They'd allow all sorts of violence in the movies but let her put one little sex scene in and they'd scream bloody murder at her. It's an age old double standard.

[Schmed]

I don't know. I remember when I started reading Marvel Comics as a kid 20 years ago, there was plenty of violent and troubling stuff in those comics, so much so that my parents wouldn't let me read certain titles anymore. I remember, as a 10 year old, reading the Punisher shoving a child molester's face through a tv set (after the guy made a very disturbing confession), all the Satanic stuff in the Ghost Rider Classic reprints, serial killer characters like Carnage who would brutally kill people for fun, etc. And that's just off the top of my head. Sometimes I look through some of my old comics and am amazed that I read some of that stuff as a kid.

Agreed 100%. If anything Marvel comics today are far more "kid friendly" than the ones I grew up with.

[Lars C]

Be that as it may, none of it is more or less inappropriate for kids than what has been shown in the books before.

Liking or disliking the humor is entirely subjective.

If anything, the implied nature of it all makes it even MORE appropriate for children than full on suicide and girls getting their necks snapped on panel.

To be clear, I wasn't talking about what's appropriate for children. I agree that Marvel Comics are more kid friendly these days. I'm just talking about my taste and my humor. I would think that the people at Marvel knows what's best to attract the younger readers, and if they lose a 34 year old reader like me but gain a 14 year old, that's alright.

[charlesthehammer]

Agreed 100%. If anything Marvel comics today are far more "kid friendly" than the ones I grew up with.

I don't know, I think that while the violence level hasn't changed much, how its depicted has. Usually more gore, which can make violent acts that didn't seem so bad look much worse.

Mae West used to be confused about this too. They'd allow all sorts of violence in the movies but let her put one little sex scene in and they'd scream bloody murder at her. It's an age old double standard.

That is actually how most rating systems work. It doesn't make sense, but sex is seen as a much worse offense than violence. Though considering America was heavily influenced by the more puritanical branches of Christianity, it starts to make more sense.

[Schmed]

I don't know, I think that while the violence level hasn't changed much, how its depicted has. Usually more gore, which can make violent acts that didn't seem so bad look much worse.

Maybe we read different Marvel comics growing up, meaning we are different ages. It could even be that the stuff I read as a child stuck out more to me because I was a child at the time and had limited exposure to things like that but things like Kravens Last Hunt, Carnage going on killing sprees, Venom choking out cops with his suit, Todd Mcfarlanes Spider-Man run (adjective-less), Frank Millers work on Daredevil, both of Punishers titles (which I thought were awesome!) etc etc etc (I'm sure if i sat down and thought about it for an hour I could come up with a ton of stuff). Hell, we had MJ in lingerie for most of McFarlane and Larsons runs, well all THAT stuff makes todays stuff (onh nooesss, Superior Spider-Man kissed MJ wah wah wah, seriously who gives a fuck, its freaky friday hijinx at worse) seem pretty tame in comparison. Even in DC's camp the death of Jason Todd was pretty brutal.

[David Walton]

Mae West used to be confused about this too. They'd allow all sorts of violence in the movies but let her put one little sex scene in and they'd scream bloody murder at her. It's an age old double standard.

For most American parents, sex is the reality that hits closer to home than violence. It's more likely your kid is going to get pregnant or get an STD than shoot someone.

Also keep in mind that while Hollywood does tend to depict consequences for violence, they rarely do the same for sex. Those who live by the sword die by the sword, but those who bed multiple partners don't sweat it.

[CyberHubbs]

For most American parents, sex is the reality that hits closer to home than violence. It's more likely your kid is going to get pregnant or get an STD than shoot someone.

Also keep in mind that while Hollywood does tend to depict consequences for violence, they rarely do the same for sex. Those who live by the sword die by the sword, but those who bed multiple partners don't sweat it.

Not entirely true. I mean, sure, someone like James Bond can have multiple partners and not die from an STD because it's more about the fantasy than the reality. I suppose the same could be said for the violence.

But you do have consequences for sex. The best example I can think of is Forrest Gump. You do see it in smaller-budget films, also.