InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "It's a perfect likeness."

drsevarius (drsevarius) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-09-13 16:48:00

Entry tags:

char: chameleon/dmitri smerdyakov, char: michelle gonzales, creator: fred van lente, title: amazing spider-man

Fred Van Lente update on the Chameleon controversy

I got another e-mail from Fred Van Lente, that he's asked me to post.

First off, while I believe he had the best of intentions, the poster "DrSevarius" wrote me under his real name and asked me a question I thought I was answering in private, to him. He posted my response without my permission and without telling me beforehand it was supposed to be for public consumption.

If he had told me that, I would have, first off, made it clear that I am not a Marvel employee. I am not a Marvel spokesperson. I am a freelancer. I speak only for myself. That is just as true for the following statement as the previous one.

Also, if he had told me that, I may have been less coy about the following "Spoiler Alert". Anyone who cares not to have stuff that's in ASM #605 revealed now should avert their eyes.

Amazing Spider-Man #605, which went to the printer weeks ago, makes it clear that Michelle and Chameleon did nothing more than make out in the kitchen scene in #603.

There was no sex, and therefore no rape.

And I'll simply point out that in the scene in ASM #604 when Peter comes home he has no idea why, exactly, Michelle is treating him differently, only that she is. He learns why-- at least partly -- and he responds, in #605.

Thanks for listening. I appreciate it.

Best,
Fred Van Lente

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

bluefall
2009-09-14 01:20 am UTC (link)

No, it doesn't. Because again, Bond is not getting people into bed on anything other than his own charisma. The women he sleeps with have consented to sleeping with the person they're with. That's manifestly unlike consenting to sleeping with a different person than the one you sleep with, which is not consent at all.

It's not about "going down that road," there's no slippery slope argument here, there is quite simply no relation between consent on little information and total failure of consent. Superman and his double identity don't even begin to come into it, they have nothing to do whatsoever with this argument. There is no question of consent there. If Lois agreed to sex with Clark Kent, and slept with Clark Kent, how is that even in the same universe as agreeing to have sex with Peter Parker and actually having sex with the Chameleon?

This isn't a fantasy scenario, by the way, some metaphorical extension of typical "pretend to be rich" barfly deception. This is something that translates directly to real life. Imagine a committed couple, Dick and Jane, and a third party, Joe. Joe thinks Jane is hot. Dick and Jane go to a costume party, and Dick wears a full-body knight costume. Joe buys the same costume. At some point during the night, he uses that costume to present himself to Jane as though he were Dick, and has sex with her. Are you really going to argue that's not rape? That that, in any way, meets the criteria of "informed consent"? That it is remotely comparable to not telling a one-night stand that you have an interesting day job?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

zordboy
2009-09-14 01:47 am UTC (link)

"There is no question of consent there."

Lois didn't agree to have sex with her nerdy co-worker she doesn't like that much. She was consenting to sex with someone else, the tall studly guy with the red cape. But that's okay?

The reader knows Clark's a decent guy and we know the Chameleon isn't, but if that's the only difference, then consent isn't coming into it is it? "Chameleon and Peter Parker *aren't* the same person" -- well, Lois thought Clark and Kal weren't the same person.

Same idea. I mean hell, wouldn't some of Bond's conquests offered a different decision knowing the disturbing high mortality rate his girlfriends tend to have, and the enemies his interesting day job tends to attract?

"The women he sleeps with have consented to sleeping with the person they're with."

Except he chose not to mention some reasonably important information that will, in all likelihood, cause very bad things to happen. How many times has he slept with someone who didn't know about the 007 thing, and he then had to rescue them? Again, for them to have "informed" consent, shouldn't he have mentioned that in passing? But he didn't.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

bluefall
2009-09-14 02:00 am UTC (link)

She was consenting to sex with someone else, the tall studly guy with the red cape.

Which is exactly who she had sex with. The fact that he's also Clark Kent is about as relevant as the fact that he likes to do crochet in his spare time, and Lois hates crochet. That is not even the same universe as agreeing to have sex with someone and consequently sleeping with someone entirely different.

Again, for them to have "informed" consent, shouldn't he have mentioned that in passing?

No. Failing to volunteer information and thereby presenting the best possible picture of yourself is not remotely the same as giving false information and thereby capitalizing on someone else's picture entirely. I don't know how many different ways I can say this.

Bond is, of course, a gold-plated asshole. Nobody's arguing that. What he does is probably comparable to not telling your partner you have an STD (which I bet he's also done regularly), or that you're actually married to a jealous prizefighter. Part of being a sexually active adult is knowing that sex carries a risk of contracting STDs or jealous lovers. Hence it is reasonable to expect that "informed" is the default state wrt to Bond's jackassery.

It is not reasonable to expect that someone you believe to be one person is actually somebody else. "Informed" is not possible in this case unless the masquerader himself spills the beans.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	arilou_skiff 2009-09-14 06:16 am UTC (link)
	Isn't there an argument for differentiating between force and fraud here? Just like there is an argument for making robbery and fraud different crimes? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	janegray 2009-09-14 08:22 pm UTC (link)
	The argument that "if he didn't use force or the threat of force, it wasn't rape" makes no sense. Drugging somebody to get them in bed is considered rape, yet there is no actual force involved in fucking an unconscious person. They are both rape, just like robbery and fraud are both theft. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	arilou_skiff 2009-09-14 09:06 pm UTC (link)
	Drugging someone can be considered to be use of force though. (Just like drugging someone and kidnapping them is) there is precedent for feeding someone drugs being considered an act of assault, IIRC. (Reply to this) (Parent)

arilou_skiff
2009-09-14 09:21 pm UTC (link)

I'd also note that at least where I'm from robbery is *not* theft. And neither is fraud. Robbery is folded under chapter eight: "On Theft, Robbery and other crimes of acquisition" (as seen theft and robbery are two separate crimes) while Fraud is filed under "Fraud and other dishonesty".

Rape is filed under "Sexual crimes", along with a bunch of other crimes. It is specifically defined as "He who (the language is gender-neutral, but I'm not sure how to replicate that in english) through violence or threats of violence or criminal action coerces another to sexual intercourse or act which is considered to be equal thereof [actual sentencing guidelines]
The same is to be the case if the person has intercourse or other sexual act that according to the first section is comparable to intercourse by means of illegitimately exploiting that the person due to unconsciousness, sleep, intoxication or other effects of drugs, sickness, bodily injury or mental illness or otherwise taken into consideration of the circumstances is considered to be in a state of helplessness."

Note that there are other sexual crimes with wider applicability than rape.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	ashtoreth 2009-09-14 06:27 pm UTC (link)
	I'm the only one who thinks James Bond was a rapist? Sean Connery era Bond and some nurse who he forced to have sex or he'd tell on her...something? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	bluefall 2009-09-14 06:32 pm UTC (link)
	Did he? I've only ever seen a couple Bond films, since the whole franchise appears custom-designed to irritate me, but if he was pulling shit like that, then yeah... glad I haven't seen it. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

psychop_rex
2009-09-15 11:12 am UTC (link)

For the record, I HAVE seen that one, and I'm pretty certain that no, he didn't. The scene in question is one where Bond is at a health resort, and a villain has just busted up the place while the beautiful female attendant was elsewhere. She comes back, and starts getting anxious about how it'll be her job if her boss finds out that she wasn't where she was supposed to be. Bond is like 'Well, I can think of ONE way you could convince me not to tell', and she goes 'You don't mean...? Oh, no,' and he says 'oh, yes,' and they go behind a curtain and the scene changes. True, one could view that as sex through blackmail if viewed literally, but it needs to be seen in context - James has been bustin' the Bond moves on this attendant since he first arrived, and she's been playing the 'exasperated but possibly interested' card for a similar amount of time. They've been flirting, is what I mean, and the scene plays out as the culmination of that, rather than any sort of display of force. Bond's still a chauvinist pig and all, of course, but I don't think he would ever resort to rape - for one thing, he prides himself on his gentlemanliness, and for another, one of the more ridiculous aspects of the series is how every beautiful woman he meets immediately falls deeply in lust with him and goes 'Sex? Sure! Now? No problem!'

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Read comments) -