Amazing Spider-Man 700, Avenging Spider-Man 15.1, and the handling of sexual consent in comics.

SPOILERS FOR:
AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 700
AVENGING SPIDER-MAN 15.1

READ AT OWN RISK

I read Amazing Spider-Man 700… and I hated it.

Sure, I didn't feel that Peter was given a death befitting his life as a hero, but I also found the issue as a whole not worth the money it’s priced at ($7.99) because I don’t care how many pages it has, if it’s not good it’s not worth the cover price.

Neither of those things are a huge deal though. Not to me. I would have read it, not liked the ending, said my piece on twitter, and moved on.  After reading Amazing Spider-Man 700 I decided I was not buying Superior Spider-Man because of my dislike of issue 700. What really bothered me though was the interactions between MJ and Doc Ock who is masquerading as Peter Parker.

MJ interacts with Doc Ock believing that he is Peter Parker. This means that there are intimate moments shared between the two where MJ is consenting to the situation based on her belief that she is with Peter. It’s horrible and wrong. There is no denying that. Many have stated, however, that Doc Ock is a villain so he is expected to do horrible things.

Fine. I hate it. It’s super creepy and triggered me something terrible, but I’ll agree that Doc Ock is a piece of filth.

At the end of Amazing Spider-Man 700 Peter dies while still in Doc Ock’s body. No one but Doc Ock (in Spidey’s body) knows this… despite Peter telling Carlie, his police officer ex-girlfriend, that he was trapped by a body swap and her refusing to believe him... just brilliant writing that *eye roll* Carlie, who has been super smart up until now and requested Peter in Doc Ock's body prove himself, refuses to believe him when given the correct information and shoots at him. Doc Ock is supposedly a real hero now because he has seen Peter’s memories. Otto is experiencing them as if he was truly Peter. He will live on and be a better person.

So that should be the end of the creepiness, right?
…
…
…
No.

Avenging Spider-Man 15.1 takes place between Amazing Spider-Man 700 and Superior Spider-Man 1 (Superior is not yet on sale).  It should therefore show Otto living up to Peter’s legacy of being a hero, even when others tear you down for your help. Apparently Marvel thinks differently.

Instead of a story of redemption, where Otto confesses to his crimes, at the very least, to those closest to Peter, and tries to earn their forgiveness while becoming a better person, we instead get an arrogant man laughing about killing Peter Parker, who fantasizes about MJ and makes a date with her without revealing who he truly is.

  

Where is the new heroic Otto? Where is the redemption or growth of the character?

Maybe you’re thinking I’m jumping the gun a bit? Superior isn't out yet. Perhaps all that will happen over time in that title as the book has to have somewhere to go, right?

Well, I disagree. Even if that is the first story arc of Superior Spider-Man it will do nothing to rid the despicable aspects of sexual assault from this storyline. Even if this follows the standard comic path of reversing the death and setting things back to somewhat resemble how things were, it will not excuse, erase, or punish these actions.

I felt really uncomfortable about the issue of sexual consent and even asked Dan Slott if I could ask him a question on twitter (while Dan didn't write Avenging Spider-Man 15.1, he did write Amazing Spider-Man 700 and will be writing Superior Spider-Man). Dan doesn't like people to @ him on negative tweets so I asked first. He said I could and I thanked him and asked my question. Understand that this is exceptionally hard in 130 characters or less (@ing Dan and leaving a space before typing takes 10 characters). Dan was also swamped with @s regarding 700. Still, he responded and I thanked him for his time.

While the tweets between us did nothing to rectify the situation as it stands, Dan said it would be addressed in Superior Spider-Man 2. I won’t be giving Marvel any more money on Spider-Man titles at this stage. I will however read a friend’s copy and decide for myself if it truly does deal with it or not.

So really the end result was that I didn't like the issue, I felt sick reading it and absolutely despise the MJ and Doc Ock bits, but I was just going to walk away and keep an ear out about it to see if things improved… and then Stephen Wacker started mouthing off.

Now I’m a big believer in people having the right to say what they want. I’m also a big believer in calling people out on what they say if what they say is horrid. Stephen Wacker was (and, last I checked, was still) being aggressive on twitter.

I tried to ask him a question. As I was the only person that I knew who had raised this issue, and his tweets started immediately following my discussion with Dan, I figured he may have seen it. My tweet wasn't answered so I had a look at his feed to try to work out if it was me that set him off and I noticed he was responding in an aggressive manner towards other people.  Through this I worked out that I wasn't the only one that felt this way about the MJ/Doc Ock thing, and that there was a discussion over on Bleeding Cool about it.

So, how many people have to say that something is setting off their Spidey-sense before Stephen Wacker (and by extension, Marvel), stops throwing a tantrum about people having negative reactions to a piece of work and starts having a second look at it to see if maybe there is something they should address?

Stephen Wacker is accusing people who see anything wrong with the piece of WANTING to see it. That is disgusting and utter rot! He has also accused people of not really caring about the subject and just feigning concern. I can promise you I am not doing that. I am a rape survivor and these interactions between MJ and Doc Ock made me feel sick. They shocked me and made my skin crawl. They filled me with disgust and anger. I am not feigning concern. I am furious at the dismissive treatment of concerns from readers and the aggressive manner in responding to comments.

Stephen Wacker has stated that this is “insulting to the actual weight of the subject”. No, Stephen. Discourse regarding rape culture in comics is not insulting. Being attacked for raising concerns is.

~ Kit

* BTW, the times on some tweets and forum messages are out of order because I went back and grabbed the missing pieces to place here way after I started taking the initial screen captures.


---

** Edited to add some legal information regarding laws relating to Rape by Fraud. While these have been mentioned in a reply to a comment below, I thought it best to add the information here to allow everyone to be on the same page when discussing this topic.

- - -

Rape by Fraud is a legally recognised crime in a few different locations around the globe. The following links explain this further.

Rape by Deception
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception

Rape by deception is a crime in which the perpetrator has the victim's sexual consent and compliance, but gains it through deception or fraudulent statements or actions.

Rape by Fraud Law and Legal Definition
http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/rape-by-fraud/

Rape by fraud refers to a rape in which the woman is induced to believe that the offender is her husband.

Rape is the carnal knowledge of a woman without her consent, obtained by force, threats or fraud, etc. The fraud must consist in the use of some stratagem by which the woman is induced to believe the offender is her husband. [Lee v. State, 44 Tex. Crim. 354, 360 (Tex. Crim. App. 1902)].

Northwestern University School of Law
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v101/n1/75/LR101n1Christopher.pdf

Fraud, along with force and coercion, is one of the three principal means by which a person can commit rape. 12

12  See, e.g., MODEL PENAL CODE § 213.1 cmt. at 301 (Official Code and Revised Comments, 1985) (“[R]ape has traditionally included not only intercourse by force or threat, but also sexual imposition on an unconscious or otherwise incapacitated female, intimacy achieved by certain fundamental kinds of deception, and intercourse with a mentally incompetent or underage female.”); Joel Feinberg, Victims’ Excuses:  The Case of Fraudulently Procured Consent, 96 ETHICS 330, 333 (1986) (noting that “rape can be committed by fraud as well as by violence or coercion”).

Obtaining intercourse through fraud, just as through force and coercion, constitutes rape because it vitiates
the consent of the victim. 13

13  See, e.g., People v. Crosswell, 13 Mich. 427, 437 (1865) (upholding defendant’s conviction for

rape by fraud and explaining that “[t]he outrage upon the woman . . . is just as great in these cases as if actual force had been employed; . . . the act can[not] be . . . any less against the will of the woman when her consent is obtained by fraud, than when it is extorted by threats or force”); SISSELA BOK, LYING: MORAL CHOICE IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LIFE 18 (1978) (observing that deception, as well as force, can be coercive); Chamallas, supra  note 7, at 814 (noting the view that “consent is not considered freely given if secured through physical force, economic pressure, or deception”).

But the particular focus on consent differs. 14

14  See, e.g., PETER  WESTEN, THE  LOGIC OF  CONSENT:    THE  DIVERSITY AND  DECEPTIVENESS OF CONSENT AS A DEFENSE TO CRIMINAL CONDUCT 188 (2004) (“Wrongful force and fraud . . . both operate to undermine . . . consent, but they do so in distinct ways.”); Joseph H. Beale, Jr., Consent in the Criminal Law, 8 HARV. L. REV. 317, 321 (1895) (“A seeming consent extorted by force or terror differs from consent obtained by fraud.  In the latter case the mind is deceived into agreement; in the former, the body is forced to act without a real agreement of the mind.”).

The two most prevalent types of rape by fraud transpire in the contexts of medical treatment fraud and marital relations. 17

17  See, e.g., Anne Coughlin,  Sex and Guilt, 84 VA. L. REV. 1, 19 (1998) (“The traditional approach . . . [finds rape] by fraud in only two narrow contexts.  The first . . . involves a man . . . deceiving the woman into thinking that she is submitting to a nonsexual act.  The other tactic . . . involves a man who obtains intercourse by masquerading as the woman’s husband.”); Patricia J. Falk, Rape by Fraud and Rape by Coercion, 64 BROOK. L. REV. 39, 119 (1998) (identifying “the two archetypal rape by fraud cases, fraudulent medical treatment and husband impersonation”); Ernst Wilfred Puttkammer, Consent in Rape, 19 U. ILL. L. REV. 410, 422 n.45 (1925) (noting that spousal impersonation cases “form the bulk of the fraud cases”).

In the typical spousal impersonation case, a spouse consents to intercourse with someone whom s/he believes is his or her spouse (typically the victim is in the dark and barely awake), but instead receives intercourse with a non-spouse. 19

19  See, e.g., State v. Navarro, 367 P.2d 227, 230 (Ariz. 1961) (affirming defendant’s conviction for

rape by fraud for obtaining intercourse by entering sleeping victim’s bed at night and impersonating her husband); Pinson v. State, 518 So. 2d 1220, 1224 (Miss. 1988) (same).

The final link has incredibly detailed information relating to Rape by Fraud.

I hope this added information has been of help and interest to people.