|
|
Post by K-Box on Aug 15, 2009 15:05:38 GMT -8
NuSpidey spoilers: MORE RAPE from the "brain trust." In Amazing Spider-Man #603, the Chameleon is impersonating Peter Parker. In Amazing Spider-Man #601, Peter and his roommate, Michelle Gonzales, had a drunken one-night stand - Michelle was literally shown double-fisting her drinks, while Peter drank so much that he BLACKED OUT and couldn't even REMEMBER having sex with Michelle, thereby making their sex DATE RAPE, due to the inability of one or both of them to give consent, given their levels of intoxication - and when they woke up in bed together the next morning, Peter a) calling out Mary Jane's name, b) reacting with horror at finding Michelle in his bed, and c) admitting that he didn't remember the night before, all left Michelle so upset that she demanded Peter get out of the apartment (where he was staying rent-free anyway, since she'd been paying the rent in his absence for at least two months). Peter had left the apartment to go on duty as Spider-Man, and when he came back, he found that Michelle had left out a plate of cookies for him, but had also padlocked the fridge so that he couldn't get any milk (no, I don't get what the hell that was supposed to mean, either). In the following two pages from Amazing Spider-Man #603, Michelle confronts the Chameleon, whom she believes to be Peter, about what had happened between them (the narration captions are the Chameleon's thoughts):   Let's break down what just happened: 1) Michelle goes from a) feeling so violated and humiliated by Peter that she expresses her desire to "take a Silkwood shower" and murder him with a handgun, and then demands that he get the fuck out of her apartment, to b) spreading her legs for him RIGHT THERE ON THE KITCHEN FLOOR, WITHOUT HIM EVEN HAVING TO SAY A WORD, BUT THEN, I GUESS SHE WAS ONLY SUCH A BITCH BECAUSE SHE NEEDED A GOOD STIFF ONE, AMIRITE??? Michelle is not a character in her own right; she's a dehumanized vagina on legs, who suddenly goes from hating Peter to giving up her pussy to him FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER, especially when you consider that everything she's seen of Peter gives her every reason to have the low opinion that she held of him originally. 2) Because he's posing as Peter to have sex with her, the Chameleon is basically raping Michelle, and I'll bet you a million dollars that her trauma will not be addressed in any way, shape or form, except in terms of how it complicates PETER'S life. OH WHAT WACKY HIJINKS, FOR THE CHAMELEON TO RAPE ONE OF THE WOMEN THAT PETER KNOWS, WHILE WEARING PETER'S FACE, THEREBY MAKING IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR PETER TO KEEP A ROOF OVER HIS HEAD AND GET BACK TOGETHER WITH MARY JANE, HUR HUR HUR TYPICAL PARKER LUCK APPROPRIATE FOR AN ALL-AGES AUDIENCE BECAUSE WE ONLY RETCONNED PETER'S MARRIAGE IN THE FIRST PLACE TO APPEAL TO THE KIDS. I expected this type of creepy gendered portrayal from Mark Waid, for whom "strong female character" almost always equals " Tsundere," but Fred Van Lente? You have let me down, sir. As it stands, I'm now the one who wants to take a Silkwood shower, just as a result of READING this shit, and being exposed to the contents of your minds. |
|
|
|
Post by paulpogue on Aug 15, 2009 18:35:30 GMT -8
VAN LENTE wrote that scene? After reading it, and all the way through your post, I was just assuming it was Waid.
What in GOD'S name is wrong with some of these people?
|
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Aug 15, 2009 21:00:56 GMT -8
Yeah, not to defend the writing in general, but I think Michelle's reaction can be explained.
Devil's Advocate ON:
The previous time she was hurt, not because they slept together but because of how Peter reacted. Now he has apparently decided that he does like her after all - "you know how confused guys can be about these things".
Devil's Advocate OFF.
Not even the Devil is going to touch the rape thing, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by liliaeth on Aug 16, 2009 3:44:06 GMT -8
Yeah, not to defend the writing in general, but I think Michelle's reaction can be explained. Devil's Advocate ON: The previous time she was hurt, not because they slept together but because of how Peter reacted. Now he has apparently decided that he does like her after all - "you know how confused guys can be about these things". Devil's Advocate OFF. Not even the Devil is going to touch the rape thing, though. I can see what you mean, but the thing that annoys me most about this, is that they write it as if any woman who isn't either stupid, insane or drunk as hell, would in any remote way be attracted to the Peter Parker shown in BND. He quite simply has done nothing whatsoever to make himself appealing in any remotest way possible. He's been the prototype example of the 'nice guy'. You know that total moronic, boring retarded jerk that can't get why women won't give him a second glance because he's 'such a nice guy' |
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Aug 16, 2009 5:48:57 GMT -8
Like I said, I'm not defending the writing in general, especially since all I've read is what's been posted in or linked to from this forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by jbhelfrich on Aug 16, 2009 7:30:45 GMT -8
Michelle Gonzales, had a drunken one-night stand - Michelle was literally shown double-fisting her drinks, while Peter drank so much that he BLACKED OUT and couldn't even REMEMBER having sex with Michelle, thereby making their sex DATE RAPE, due to the inability of one or both of them to give consent, given their levels of intoxication Now, you have some points, Kirk, but I think you're going overboard with this one. I think there's a difference between "I got so drunk that I did something really stupid (but was, at the time, a willing participant)" and "I got so drunk that I lay around in a stupor while someone did something I didn't want." Alcohol lowering your inhibitions to the point where you consent to something that you wouldn't in an unaltered state of mind is not the same thing as being fully incapacitated. It doesn't mean that the person you sleep with isn't a creep, but if you knowingly and willingly ingested all of the chemicals that got you to that state, and consented to the activity (no matter how much you regret it later) you shouldn't get to describe the event as rape. Besides, if we prosecuted everyone for drunken hookups, college campuses would be medium security prisons. |
|
|
|
Post by K-Box on Aug 16, 2009 13:40:09 GMT -8
Alcohol lowering your inhibitions to the point where you consent to something that you wouldn't in an unaltered state of mind is not the same thing as being fully incapacitated. It doesn't mean that the person you sleep with isn't a creep, but if you knowingly and willingly ingested all of the chemicals that got you to that state, and consented to the activity (no matter how much you regret it later) you shouldn't get to describe the event as rape. The problem is, the law itself kind of disagrees with you. Basically, if you're too drunk to drive, you're too drunk to consent, because legally, even if you say "yes" to a request for sex, if you're above a certain level of intoxication at the time, your partner can still be prosecuted - and convicted - of rape. Which is not to say that this isn't still complex, for the reasons that follow ... Besides, if we prosecuted everyone for drunken hookups, college campuses would be medium security prisons. There's a few reasons that this doesn't happen, in spite of the law: 1. A lot of people who have sex drunk are having sex with folks that they would freely consent to have sex with while fully sober, so you can't really prosecute anyone in those cases, nor should you, because a) they're still doing what they want, b) there's a limit to how much the law should be in our bedrooms anyway. 2. Even in cases where one person is stone-cold sober and the other is fucking plastered, you've got a he-said-she-said factor. Date rape is an incredibly difficult crime to prosecute, both due to the lack of evidence (unless there's physical violence, all that you can really verify forensically is that intercourse itself took place, and whether it was consent depends entirely upon testimony) and the societal biases that still regard date rape as somehow being different from "real" rape (fueled in no small part by the experiences of people in point 1). 3. If two people are equally drunk, to a degree where they're legally incapable of giving consent, who do you prosecute? Traditionally, the man was prosecuted regardless, even if he'd had more to drink than the woman, and in many cases, that still happens, because the law is still catching up to the idea that men can actually be raped by women. Otherwise, in a case like that of Peter and Michelle, to be truly fair, you'd either have to prosecute both - like the idiotic prosecutors who convict 15-year-old camgirls of being "child pornographers" for posting nudes of THEMSELVES online - or neither, and in a case like that, I'd lean toward prosecuting NEITHER, because they're BOTH victims of date rape (indeed, not only have they violated each other, but they've also arguably violated THEMSELVES, against their OWN consent). My point in bringing this up is not to say that either Peter or Michelle should be OMG LOCKED UP WITH THE KEY THROWN AWAY, but rather, to say that this whole scenario is both legally and morally questionable at best, and deeply squick-worthy as a result, and as such, the fact that this is being sold as SITCOM PARKER LUCK HYUK HYUK HYUK is incredibly insensitive and tone-deaf. If something is being sold as intended "for the kids," which was Quesada's justification for the new status quo, then there shouldn't even be a QUESTION of whether RAPE is being mined for humor. |
|
|
|
Post by jessebaker on Aug 16, 2009 19:37:50 GMT -8
On the other hand, this IS Quesada after all. Even if he says it's to make it more kid friendly, you know damn well that Brand New Day is his own major midlife crisis carried out in comic form.
So yeah, drunk sex with the implication of girl on man rape is par for the course. It's like bitching about Mark Millar making his Ultimate books Rated MA books when they are supposed to be kid friendly comics.
|
|
|
|
Post by K-Box on Aug 18, 2009 13:44:32 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Aug 18, 2009 23:52:06 GMT -8
They just want to set up the following: Pete's roommate gets preggers, they think the child is his, it will after a lot of wangst turn out to be Chameleon's.
|
|
|
|
Post by jessebaker on Aug 19, 2009 21:35:11 GMT -8
They just want to set up the following: Pete's roommate gets preggers, they think the child is his, it will after a lot of wangst turn out to be Chameleon's. That would be something they would save for Harry Osborn, especially since IIRC there is enough leyway for them to pull that card out for the Menace baby as far as switching gears and having Menace say "Fuck, maybe the baby IS Harry's!" as far as them bringing Menace back, in order to explain away why Bendis is refusing to acknowledge Menace's existence (or Norman's impending fatherhood) in the pages of Dark Avengers. |
|
|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Aug 20, 2009 0:16:03 GMT -8
They just want to set up the following: Pete's roommate gets preggers, they think the child is his, it will after a lot of wangst turn out to be Chameleon's. That would be something they would save for Harry Osborn, OTOH, why else have Cham rape Michelle* just after she might have had sex with Peter**? *On this one, I agree with Kirk that it's rape ** On this one, I disagree with Kirk. |
|
|
|
Post by K-Box on Aug 20, 2009 8:19:17 GMT -8
Here's what's going to be ironic, if they actually do a "Is Peter Michelle's baby-daddy?" subplot:
The ENTIRE REASON we have Norman as the father of Gwen's kids in "Sins Past," instead of Peter, was because Quesada felt that having Peter impregnate a woman "aged" him too much.
|
|
|
|
Post by liliaeth on Aug 20, 2009 18:20:38 GMT -8
Here's what's going to be ironic, if they actually do a "Is Peter Michelle's baby-daddy?" subplot: The ENTIRE REASON we have Norman as the father of Gwen's kids in "Sins Past," instead of Peter, was because Quesada felt that having Peter impregnate a woman "aged" him too much. oh but now you're missing the point. It isn't impregnating a woman that 'ages' the char. It's actually being a father that does that. Getting the girl pregnant is just one of those 'youthfull' mistakes that 'everyone' can 'relate' to. You know, as long as she doesn't actually have the kid, or it doesn't turn out to be his... |
|
|
|
Post by jessebaker on Aug 20, 2009 19:32:44 GMT -8
That would be something they would save for Harry Osborn, OTOH, why else have Cham rape Michelle* just after she might have had sex with Peter**? *On this one, I agree with Kirk that it's rape ** On this one, I disagree with Kirk. 1. To further make Cham evil-evil 2. To get rid of Michelle via having her dump Peter and refuse any contact once she realizes how the Chameleon used Peter's face to rape her. Which means more angst. Plus, given the shit they've done with Harry plus Quesada's obsession with Menace, doing a "who's your daddy" thing makes a lot of sense if only because it lets them make Harry's life even WORSE PLUS lets them continue to fuck up the whole handling of Peter vs Norman Osborne via keeping ASM isolated from every other book in Marvel right now via the notion of allowing for Bendis to continue to basically ignore Menace and the Goblin baby's very existence in Dark Avengers. |
|
