What is consent in comics and how do you view it?

[SuperiorIronman]

Its hard to put strict parameters on this because even in the real world during courtship we tend to play up our strengths and downplay our flaws, dress up our best and act on our best behavior in order to win the prize. Thag isnt rape but its definitely a form of manipulation, its just widely known and accepted as everyone naturally will do that, even if the prize isn't necessarily sex. It happens at job interviews, contests and etc.

So when you introduce societies that have mind readers and shape shifters and their culture is literally defined by those things, do you apply our own version of consent onto them?

What about spies? They lie, steal murder and kill for the mission, so why wouldn't they commit sexual acts if it meant success? Why would Mystique do that? Or Widow in hrr early days?

Spies actually do have issues with that where they lie, form marriages, and even have kids under false identities. It actually is a real problem since the spy tends to piss off after the job is done leaving questions about rape by deception, what to do with kids, legal stuff etc. Sure it gets the job done but as a result you end up with all sorts of legal issues nobody has a universal answer for other than don't do it so we don't have to go down the rabbit hole.

[CentralPower]

So, if the Thing pretended to be an aryan to have sex with the nazi Warrior Woman, would that count as rape?

The quoted reply is perfect.

It highlights the pointlessness of this thread.

It has been pointed out that Otto (Peter) took up with a woman who had never met Peter or Otto (meaning that she had no expectations of either). And, if we really want to fall down a ****-hole, I could point out that Otto met Anna while investing in his new (albeit stolen) life.


But, the more important point is that rape/consent were not the point of "Superior Spider-Man". The point of Slott's run was to define and differentiate the hero and the villain.

The only way to make it about rape is to intentionally misread the comics for the sake of being #offended.

[Steel Inquisitor]

The quoted reply is perfect.

It highlights the pointlessness of this thread.

Except it's not pointless, people have differing views on consent in fiction.

It has been pointed out that Otto (Peter) took up with a woman who had never met Peter or Otto (meaning that she had no expectations of either). And, if we really want to fall down a ****-hole, I could point out that Otto met Anna while investing in his new (albeit stolen) life.


But, the more important point is that rape/consent were not the point of "Superior Spider-Man". The point of Slott's run was to define and differentiate the hero and the villain.

The only way to make it about rape is to intentionally misread the comics for the sake of being #offended.[/QUOTE]

But Otto would have committed rape with anyone when he posed as Peter Parker, since they were having a relationship with Peter not Otto. It's not about what the point of the title was, it's about Otto's actions - something which was a constant theme in the series. This is why Otto was still a villain at heart, despite his progress being a "hero." And it'll never be bought up again because it'd be uncomfortable for Marvel to be scrutinised in the media for having a rapist pretending to be Spider-man so this won't be mentioned again, just like when Peter struck a pregnant MJ.. The fact the comics overlooked what he didn't not make it rape, it's just the comics weren't focused on exploring that because readers would lose all sympathy for Otto if they acknowledged the implications. For example, Law and order: SVU, Elliot Stabler is a detective who routinely gets involved in police brutality which is normalised whenever he doesn't get in trouble for doing that.

It's not about being offended it's about realising that comics have a terrible job with consent and the readers go along with it for entertainment.

Consent has a meaning, characters being in fictional stories aren't outside morality in how they're written.

[Devaishwarya]

The quoted reply is perfect.

It highlights the pointlessness of this thread.

It has been pointed out that Otto (Peter) took up with a woman who had never met Peter or Otto (meaning that she had no expectations of either). And, if we really want to fall down a ****-hole, I could point out that Otto met Anna while investing in his new (albeit stolen) life.


But, the more important point is that rape/consent were not the point of "Superior Spider-Man". The point of Slott's run was to define and differentiate the hero and the villain.

The only way to make it about rape is to intentionally misread the comics for the sake of being #offended.

Highlighted for truth.

[Papa Moai]

Except it's not pointless, people have differing views on consent in fiction.
---
But Otto would have committed rape with anyone when he posed as Peter Parker, since they were having a relationship with Peter not Otto.

Would that be true in the case of people who never knew the real Peter Parker? Anna Marconi didn't fall for the original Peter Parker, she fell for SpOck. There may have been things she didn't know about her new love interest but it's also not a "Revenge of the Nerds" situation.

[Lukmendes]

That can't be that true. A lot of relationships are based on that. I mean Scott and Emma was born through her deception/manipulation. Sabretooth and Birdie? Moondragon and Thor? Shaw and the various women of the hellfire club.

It's not because such fucked up things have a certain normalty that they're okay, it'd be like saying that just because of older people are fucking children that it's okay because it happens with certain frequency.

The quoted reply is perfect.

It highlights the pointlessness of this thread.

It has been pointed out that Otto (Peter) took up with a woman who had never met Peter or Otto (meaning that she had no expectations of either). And, if we really want to fall down a ****-hole, I could point out that Otto met Anna while investing in his new (albeit stolen) life.


But, the more important point is that rape/consent were not the point of "Superior Spider-Man". The point of Slott's run was to define and differentiate the hero and the villain.

The only way to make it about rape is to intentionally misread the comics for the sake of being #offended.

Just because a writer has a specific intention, doesn't mean that the actions of the characters can't be reacted with a "Wait what the ****?".

After all, back in Avengers#200, we had Carol leaving the comics with her rapist, who I think was also her son or somethin', which was so fucked up, another writer noticed that and got rid of it.

So yeah, if writers do something stupid, then there's nothing wrong with calling them out, and if fans are being stupid and actually misreading a scene, then they deserve to be called out too.

Anyways, the whole thing with Anna Maria is weird, 'cause yeah she didn't know Peter Parker before Otto took over his body, but Otto is also pretending to be this guy instead of being himself, and it's not something as simple as "I just didn't tell her that I like Star Trek", it's "I'm a terrorist who tried to kill everyone in the planet, stole someone's body and now I'm pretending to be the guy", even if there's no rape by deception in there, there's still a huge amount of deception at least.

[Huntsman Spider]

It's not because such fucked up things have a certain normalty that they're okay, it'd be like saying that just because of older people are fucking children that it's okay because it happens with certain frequency.



Just because a writer has a specific intention, doesn't mean that the actions of the characters can't be reacted with a "Wait what the ****?".

After all, back in Avengers#200, we had Carol leaving the comics with her rapist, who I think was also her son or somethin', which was so fucked up, another writer noticed that and got rid of it.

So yeah, if writers do something stupid, then there's nothing wrong with calling them out, and if fans are being stupid and actually misreading a scene, then they deserve to be called out too.

Anyways, the whole thing with Anna Maria is weird, 'cause yeah she didn't know Peter Parker before Otto took over his body, but Otto is also pretending to be this guy instead of being himself, and it's not something as simple as "I just didn't tell her that I like Star Trek", it's "I'm a terrorist who tried to kill everyone in the planet, stole someone's body and now I'm pretending to be the guy", even if there's no rape by deception in there, there's still a huge amount of deception at least.

Not to mention, when Anna Maria realized who Otto really was, it killed any feelings she had for him when he was wearing Peter's face/body like a stolen suit, and she said as much in the relaunch of Superior Spider-Man when she figured out he was Horizon University's new professor "Elliot Tolliver."

[davetvs]

That can't be that true. A lot of relationships are based on that. I mean Scott and Emma was born through her deception/manipulation. Sabretooth and Birdie? Moondragon and Thor? Shaw and the various women of the hellfire club.

Then there was that time Hawkeye raped the Scarlet Witch since she didn't know who she was and it was his shot at banging all the avenger women realized. (Since she was with vision mostly he just had to take that chance). Which I guess the writers realized that was bad and retconned her into a robot and relocated her to having Doom raping the real Wanda. Because reasons. Still, since Marvel "robots" are sentient beings as well usually, I'm not so sure that Clint got off the hook on that debacle.

I wouldn't call how Scott and Emma started manipulation. She didn't force him to cheat on Jean, she merely provided the arena for him to do so without being caught (for a while, at least.)

[Jabare]

There has to be a line with deception.

A married guy that picks up a side woman but tells her he’s single. This is a cruddy thing to do.

It’s deception but definitely not rape.

Deceiving another person in order to have sex with them is morally wrong when it prevents the other person from giving fully informed consent to the act. The reason for this is that informed consent cannot be given when you don't really know what you agree to when agreeing to have sex.

There's a number of real world examples that we could look to depending on how in depth this conversation goes.

But generally speaking, sexual encounters involving deception would qualify as sexual misconduct if someone is: lying about the use of contraception, lying about your age, gender, marital status, religion or job, lying about having been tested for sexually transmitted diseases and infections, pretending to be someone’s partner, and falsely making the partner believe that the sexual act is a medical procedure etc. etc. etc.

There is actually a somewhat famous court case along the same lines of the scenario you brought up. Look up Sabbar Kashur. I think it was in 2010 or 2011

[baxer]

I wouldn't call how Scott and Emma started manipulation. She didn't force him to cheat on Jean, she merely provided the arena for him to do so without being caught (for a while, at least.)

Well she said it was part of therapy, so it was sexual assault

[Lukmendes]

Not to mention, when Anna Maria realized who Otto really was, it killed any feelings she had for him when he was wearing Peter's face/body like a stolen suit, and she said as much in the relaunch of Superior Spider-Man when she figured out he was Horizon University's new professor "Elliot Tolliver."

If I remember correctly, when she learned about it in ASM post Superior, she was, shocked to say the least, but I don't think she reacted negatively to having dated a terrorist...

Then again, I only remember earlier issues, but I don't think she was pissed at Otto for lying to her there... Only later in Superior's relaunch.

I wouldn't call how Scott and Emma started manipulation. She didn't force him to cheat on Jean, she merely provided the arena for him to do so without being caught (for a while, at least.)

Well, she was practicing therapy, which I'm sure she had no license for, and told him that having sex with her was part of the therapy, despite Cyclops being clearly uncomfortable at least, so yeah, manipulation is putting it lightly, she raped him.

[The Cool Thatguy]

Well, she was practicing therapy, which I'm sure she had no license for, and told him that having sex with her was part of the therapy, despite Cyclops being clearly uncomfortable at least, so yeah, manipulation is putting it lightly, she raped him.

God, that plot sucks all around.

But yeah, Emma seduced Scott, acting as his therapist and knowing he was still suffering heavy emotional consequences from bonding with Appoccy. He could not give informed consent, and she had to know it.

[Frontier]

If I remember correctly, when she learned about it in ASM post Superior, she was, shocked to say the least, but I don't think she reacted negatively to having dated a terrorist...

Then again, I only remember earlier issues, but I don't think she was pissed at Otto for lying to her there... Only later in Superior's relaunch.

I guess by then they had realized the unfortunate implications fans had pointed out.

Well, she was practicing therapy, which I'm sure she had no license for, and told him that having sex with her was part of the therapy, despite Cyclops being clearly uncomfortable at least, so yeah, manipulation is putting it lightly, she raped him.

It's kind of sad that there are only, like, 2-3 good therapists in the Marvel Universe (not that I'm calling Emma a villain, but you don't see Doc Samson manipulating people into sex).

[Steel Inquisitor]

I wouldn't call how Scott and Emma started manipulation. She didn't force him to cheat on Jean, she merely provided the arena for him to do so without being caught (for a while, at least.)

Emma manipulated Scott by twisting his head up side down deliberately and admitted as such. And she was his therapist doing this, despite him being married to Jean at the time. That it worked didn't make her any less wrong, and manipulating people for her own agenda is her bread and butter it didn't end once she joined the X-men. Scott shared some responsibility but the majority lies with Emma. Emma's a therapist like DR. Karla Sofen, not Doc Samson.

[Frontier]

Emma manipulated Scott by twisting his head up side down deliberately and admitted as such. And she was his therapist doing this, despite him being married to Jean at the time. That it worked didn't make her any less wrong, and manipulating people for her own agenda is her bread and butter it didn't end once she joined the X-men. Scott shared some responsibility but the majority lies with Emma. Emma's a therapist like DR. Karla Sofen, not Doc Samson.

So my takeway from this is that you shouldn't trust blonde female therapists in the Marvel Universe .