InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "Aww. My bees."

cyberghostface (cyberghostface) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-08-20 13:35:00

Entry tags:

char: chameleon/dmitri smerdyakov, char: flash thompson, char: j. jonah jameson jr., char: mary jane watson, char: spider-man/peter parker, creator: fred van lente, title: amazing spider-man

Amazing Spider-Man #603

After last issue, Chameleon is impersonating Peter. He doesn't know who Peter really is. He attempts to get a grasp of Peter's life by looking through his old yearbook and photos. Among them is a photo of Gwen, and a message from Flash in his yearbook where he tells him to "stay puny".

As posted before, Chameleon!Peter has sex with Michelle. I have to ask--is this rape? Personally, I think it is as Michelle probably wouldn't have given consent to Chameleon otherwise. But some fans of the issue on Spider-Man Crawl Space are arguing that it isn't because she gave consent. Is there a legal definition on this?

Anyway, Chameleon!Peter has his meeting with MJ.

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

Re: Arilou_skiff..Oh you have no idea..

unknownscribler
2009-08-22 12:41 am UTC (link)

Really? The original poster said 'on a night out' and 'a guy at the bar'. This does not equate to bar-hopping.

She's at a different club/bar when she meets the brother. In my experience that sort of relocation involves getting at least 1 standard drink down you before moving from the 1st venue to the second, if not 2.

Further I've had plenty of nights out at bars where I didn't drink alcohol at all, due to money or having to be up early next day; it's not particularly unusual. There seems no reason to conclude she was very drunk apart from it not occurring to her that someone was pretending to be their identical twin, which was not a conclusion a lot of people would come to sober.

If money was an issue, why on earth would she be paying the inevitable cover charges involved in going clubbing? If getting up early was an issue why go on the pull at all?

And if she's told the 1st brother something then referenced it with the 2nd brother and he's evaded/dodged/fluffed the reply then she's less likely to spot the inconsistency liquored up than sober.

No one's saying she was very drunk, just that she was in the balance of all probabilities under the influence of alcohol. and even 1 standard glass has an effect on cognitive processes.

...because ...it is morally wrong to deceive people to get them to do stuff they otherwise wouldn't? Sorry, is that a genuine question on your part? She's not a pump, she's a woman who was interested in hooking up with a particular man and through deception hooked up with another.

She was hot and ready to go. While skeezy, I'd wager that most people on the pull who have the opportunity to tap something like that are going to go for it to some degree.

Whaaat? Leaving aside that we don't know if she wanted casual sex or had the idea of maybe getting into a relationship with this guy, having appropriately protected sex is not very risky at all. And you know what, if you take a risk and someone actively does something bad to you, that is wrong of them and cannot be waved off as 'risky behaviour coming back to bite you in the arse'.

Condoms, gloves & dental dams break, aren't used properly or aren't used at all: that's why it's "safer sex" not "safe sex".

Also, she didn't arrange to meet the guy in the second bar, she happened to bump into his brother by accident and he's done all the "right" things from that point onwards to get her into bed. Whether she's calling him Fred or George seems rather insignificant and is no different to if I meet and decide to have sex with an airline stewardess called Sonja only to discover the next day she's a hairdresser named Sharon. she was good looking and charming enough to get me into bed, if I have any regrets well that's really down to me (unless she was a crap lover, then I'd maybe be a bit miffed). Which is in turn no different to going to see 3 Kings expecting a buddy heist comedy and getting something much closer to M*A*S*H as long as I had a good time.

Now, if Fred and George had planned this all in advance and swapped with each other mid-shag, then yes that'd start getting towards "used" and legally dodgy under the notion of procurement.

However, I can tell you honestly that more than a few people I know upon discovering themselves in the situation would seriously consider or outright ask for a threesome because, well, twins.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: Arilou_skiff..Oh you have no idea..

valtyr.dreamwidth.org
2009-08-22 10:50 am UTC (link)

Met someone at a bar, went to the club next door. I don't know the details of the night out, obviously, but it's pretty normal to meet up with your friends at a bar and then go on to a club.

If money was an issue, why on earth would she be paying the inevitable cover charges involved in going clubbing?

Because she likes to dance? Because she wants to spend time with her friends? Because she wants to meet someone? Because she had a flyer for free entry? Because her friend said, "Come on, you can't go home yet, I'll pay your cover charge,"? Drinking: not the primary reason for going to clubs and bars.

And if she's told the 1st brother something then referenced it with the 2nd brother and he's evaded/dodged/fluffed the reply then she's less likely to spot the inconsistency liquored up than sober.

Or she might assume he's had a drink, or that the loud music generally found in clubs is causing communication difficulties.

Condoms, gloves & dental dams break, aren't used properly or aren't used at all: that's why it's "safer sex" not "safe sex"

So? If she's using protection properly, which we have no reason to conclude she wasn't, it's still not 'very' risky. And that's not the point; when listing the risks of casual sex, few people will come up with 'Also the guy might turn out to be his identical twin and then you'll feel violated.' It's not a reasonable risk to take into account.

She was hot and ready to go.

Er... citation needed?

While skeezy, I'd wager that most people on the pull who have the opportunity to tap something like that are going to go for it to some degree.

Okay! You know what, you clearly have a social circle that is radically different from mine, because most of the men and women I know would be horrified by this kind of thing, and I know a fair few people who are cool with casual sex and going out to find it.

Also, she didn't arrange to meet the guy in the second bar, she happened to bump into his brother by accident and he's done all the "right" things from that point onwards to get her into bed.

Wait, I thought she was 'hot and ready to go' already? Make up your mind.

Which is in turn no different to going to see 3 Kings expecting a buddy heist comedy and getting something much closer to M*A*S*H as long as I had a good time.

I can assure you that it is different. I'm just not sure I can explain why to someone who equates 'getting sex by deception' to 'ambiguously marketed film'. Because, wow.

However, I can tell you honestly that more than a few people I know upon discovering themselves in the situation would seriously consider or outright ask for a threesome because, well, twins.

If they found out before the sex? Sure. If they found out afterwards, well, I don't think they'd willingly have sex with someone who's already shown they'll lie to get sex.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Victim-blaming

angelophile
2009-08-25 10:12 pm UTC (link)

unknownscribler, it's probably important at this juncture to remind you Scans_Daily's ethos encourages anti-oppression. The points you theorize in your debate in this thread could be seen as victim-blaming and, as such, we would actively support valtyr calling you out on this matter. While you might not see yourself as victim-blaming or supporting sexist views, that is certainly how this discussion is coming across and, on a predominantly female friendly community your comments ("she was primed", "she was hot and ready to go", etc) certainly read as offensive and unenlightened.

Feminism 101 has a FAQ which touches on the subject if the link above doesn't clarify things clearly enough.

I hope you'll take time to read the links and recognize why your comments have made members of this community uncomfortable.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

unknownscribler
2009-08-26 01:34 am UTC (link)

Skeezy unethical behaviour + regrets the next morning do not automatically equal rape. Recognising, identifying and taking responsibility for risky behaviour -- which absolutely involves, regardless of gender, both consumption of intoxicants and casual sex -- does not justify the taking advantage of it by others.

If people have misinterpreted that then I'm sorry for any upset they might have felt. But I'm not sorry for saying it.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

angelophile
2009-08-26 04:18 pm UTC (link)

None of the "risky behavior" that you attribute to the victim in question is mentioned in the OP's post. What you're doing is attributing certain behavior to the victim and then using that as justification. This is textbook victim-blaming and, while we respect that a wide range of opinions can (and will) be expressed in this community, certain attitudes are damaging towards our ethos of making this community "LGBT-friendly, anti-racist, anti-ableist, woman-friendly and otherwise discrimination and harrassment free."

As such we are freezing this particular thread as you do not appear to recognize what about your behavior is unacceptable within that ethos.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Read comments) -