Amazing Spider-Man #604: The page in question ...

[box_in_the_box.insanejournal.com]

... Establishing the new status quo for Peter and his "new girl," as discussed in this post.

HA HA HA SHE JUST NEEDED A GOOD STIFF ONE TO SET HER STRAIGHT AMIRITE???

NEVER MIND THAT IT WAS A SUPERVILLAIN WHO RAPED HER USING PETER'S FACE, BECAUSE COMEDY!!!

... Shit like this makes me think that whoever wrote it believes that vaginas have teeth.

Comments

[psychop_rex.insanejournal.com]

This is none too lovely, I agree, but... aren't people overreacting just a tad? A small tad. I mean, I don't honestly think that the writer is making a 'rape joke' here. It's an unsavory moment, to be sure, and I'm kinda going 'iggh' myself as I read it, but it's not quite THAT unsavory.
And I know someone is going to scream at me for asking this, but - IS what the Chameleon did technically rape? I mean, as I recall, the definition of rape is 'forced or nonconsentual sex', and/or sex with a minor, which legally translates to the same thing. Now, if the Chameleon had started making advances and Michelle had slapped him down and he had pinned her to the floor and had his way with her - THAT would be rape all right. The way I'm reading this, though, that quite evidently did NOT happen - Michelle obviously responded to his advances with advances of her own, and they had sex. She is therefore under the impression that what happened was something relatively normal, and that Peter and her are now an item - she doesn't seem at all traumatized or freaked out. To my mind, that means consentual sex, which is not rape. What the Chameleon did, therefore, was illicit sex under false pretences - which is a creepy, squick-inducing, most likely illegal thing to do, and there's every reason to be mad at the people who set up the situation in the first place and then dealt with it in such a casual manner, but credit where credit is due - last time I checked, sex under false pretences did not translate to actual rape. I'm sure it's a crime, but it's a different crime than rape.
Also, what the hell happened to her hair? How long has it been straight?

[box_in_the_box.insanejournal.com]

Michelle consented to having sex with (who she thought was) Peter.

She did NOT consent to having sex with the Chameleon.

I'm trying very hard not to scream at you right now, but sex without INFORMED CONSENT is THE DEFINITION OF RAPE, and when you literally don't KNOW WHO you're having sex with, THAT AUTOMATICALLY MAKES IT RAPE.

I feel like I'm trying to explain the color blue to someone who was born blind.

[(Anonymous)]

Exactly. And just the very fact that those who argue that even though the Chameleon disguised as Peter seducing Michelle wasn't rape but are STILL disturbed by it suggests, at some level, they know what the Chameleon did was illegal and immoral. And yet, Marvel tries to have their cake and eat it too by trying to play the whole thing for laughs what with the whole "Peter gets back to learn that his psycho-bitch of a roommate now insists she's his girlfriend and is now ruining his life by being a control freak" shtick. Then again, the implications of this whole fail of romantic subplot probably never occurred to them.

--stillanerd

[psychop_rex.insanejournal.com]

Look, I looked it up, and this is what my dictionary says (minus all the stuff about turnips and vinegar and rope, all of which the word relates to in secondary, seldom-used terms):

Rape: 1: the act of taking anything by force; violent seizure (of goods), robbery.
2: the act of carrying away a person (esp. a woman) by force.
3: violation or ravishing of a woman.

An entry or two down (there are five entries for the word, including the bits about turnips I mentioned above), here's something more concrete:

2: to carry off (a person, esp. a woman) by force.
3: to ravish, commit rape on 1577.

I don't know what the hell the bit about 1577 means, but note all the descriptive terms used. "Taking... by force". "Violent seizure." "Carrying away... by force." "Violation or ravishing." Slightly antiquated uses aside, rape means violence is involved, FORCE is involved. There is no such thing as a nonviolent or pleasant rape; rape by definition violates, ravishes, traumatizes - it is forced. If you consent to having sex, and you are not forced, and no violence is involved, and it is not traumatizing, then by the basic definition of the word, the term rape does not apply. Michelle was not forced into having sex - the Chameleon made advances, which she then responded to. The fact that she thought it was Peter is definitely a major factor here - of course it is - and that makes it a crime, and a violation of her rights, and it was a horrible, horrible thing to do, and the writer and editor should both be ashamed, and I'm not arguing with any of that - but it was not rape. Some other variety of sex crime? Absolutely. Rape? No. The Chameleon didn't drug Michelle, he didn't bash her over the head, he didn't force her to the floor, he didn't even say that he WAS Peter (although I'll grant you that's a minor loophole) - he started to kiss her, she started to kiss him back. No force was involved; he started to kiss her and then they had normal sex (unless, of course, something happened off-panel which would refutes this, although judging by Michelle's reaction to Peter's entry, I'm inclined to doubt this). The fact that it was consentual and nonviolent, DESPITE the Chameleon's representing of his identity, means that it wasn't rape. I'm not taking issue with the statement that is was wrong - of course it was; it was a vile, hideous thing to do - I'm taking issue with the statement that it was rape, with the use of the word 'rape'. The word does not apply; some other must be used. The Oxford English Dictionary, Third Edition, says so.

[box_in_the_box.insanejournal.com]

It was NOT consensual, because she did NOT consent to have sex with the person whom she was ACTUALLY having sex with. SEX WITHOUT CONSENT IS RAPE, period, the end, no matter whether FORCE was involved or not, and to argue otherwise is EVIL. By YOUR definition, "date rape" doesn't count as "REAL rape" - even though the LAW says otherwise - which means that you're basically arguing on behalf of every vile scumfuck fratboy who got girls drunk at a party and had his way with them - after all, they weren't FORCED, and they "consented" to it, so by your definition, the INFORMED part of "informed consent" doesn't play into it, does it?

I'm arguing MORALS. You're arguing SEMANTICS. As such, as a former rape counselor, I don't think I can continue this conversation with you, because there's no way that I can tell you what I think of you right now, as a PERSON, without using ban-worthy language.

[psychop_rex.insanejournal.com]

Man, hang on just a second, I am NOT arguing anything like that! Date rape is absolutely rape, because, as you said, it is FORCED. There's no such thing as consentual sex when one of the people involved is falling-down drunk or unconscious - that is one person inflicting force on another in a foul, indefensible manner. I never said it wasn't forced - date rapists, regular rapists, EVERY type of rapists are the absolute scum of the Earth, and I have never and will never say otherwise. Likewise, what the Chameleon did was similarly wrong - I am not arguing with you about that; it was a horrible, heinous crime. I AGREE with you on the moral side of things. Yes, I am arguing semantics, but I don't see how that makes me a horrible person simply because I'm saying the dictionary says it wasn't rape. For crying out loud, I'm not saying that makes it defensible! It's completely indefensible; it's a horrible, horrible crime! The man's a monster! I've said he was a monster all along, repeatedly and in many ways! Don't make me out to be a scumbag simply because I'm arguing about a word definition - that's all I was arguing about from the beginning; I was never defending the Chameleon or anyone like him in any way, shape or form, and I don't want anyone to think I was. I apologize if I've offended you, but please believe that that was NOT my intent - I was simply playing Devil's Advocate in an argument that turned out to be a lot more explosive than I initially thought. I misjudged the situation; the fault is mine, mea culpa - please don't damn me as a monster for an unintentional slip-up.

[box_in_the_box.insanejournal.com]

1. Sex without informed consent is, by definition, rape.

2. Sex in which one person is deceived as to the identity of the other is, by definition, sex without informed consent.

3. Therefore, sex in which one person is deceived as to the identity of the other is, by definition, rape.

There is no other acceptable definition. Period, the end.

If you can't see that, then you've damned yourself as a monster, without me doing anything.

[psychop_rex.insanejournal.com]

Look, all I was going by was the dictionary definition, OK? I wasn't talking about my personal feelings on the matter, or anyone's personal feelings on the matter - I was simply saying that, due to what it said in the dictionary in which I looked, perhaps the wrong word had been used. Maybe my dictionary is out of date or something - it's certainly possible; it was published in the '70's - or maybe the legal and the literal interpretations of the word differ; I don't know. All I know is what my dictionary says, and that was what I was going on. Your definition makes sense, all right, and maybe that IS the official definition, and I'm wrong. If so, I'll gladly admit it, but that has NOT 'damned me as a monster', it's defined me as overly pedantic and depending on the wrong research material.
Listen, I have obviously offended you, and again, I apologize for this, but can we just drop it? Despite what you seem to believe, I am NOT some kind of fratboy moron who is trying to justify rape, and any implication that I may have been trying to do so was accidental and unintended, and I'm sorry if I touched a nerve. No offense meant, all right? Mea culpa.

[box_in_the_box.insanejournal.com]

Maybe my dictionary is out of date or something - it's certainly possible; it was published in the '70's - or maybe the legal and the literal interpretations of the word differ; I don't know.

... Holy shit, do you even have to ASK? There are entire FIELDS of rape that weren't recognized as such in the '70s, from "date rape" to MARITAL rape.

All I know is what my dictionary says, and that was what I was going on.

Or you could have taken the FIVE FUCKING SECONDS that it would have required to GOOGLE the fact that there are all sorts of new definitions of rape, including LEGAL ones, that have cropped up in the past FOUR DECADES since your dictionary was published. But that would have required you to EDUCATE yourself, and you're clearly too entitled and privileged to do THAT.

If so, I'll gladly admit it, but that has NOT 'damned me as a monster', it's defined me as overly pedantic and depending on the wrong research material.

No, it's defined you as the type of person who thinks that an argument about the legal definitions of rape can be won with a SINGLE DICTIONARY ENTRY that's at least A FULL GENERATION OUT OF DATE.

You really should just stop talking now, because every explanation you offer actually makes me respect you LESS.

[psychop_rex.insanejournal.com]

Look, first off, this is the first time it has become RELEVANT to me that my dictionary was published in the '70's, OK? Normally, I just look up unloaded words like 'obsequious' or something; this is the first time I've ever looked up a word that has such social weight. It's never failed me before.
Second, yes, I could have looked it up on Wikipedia or something, but it was the middle of the damn night, and I THOUGHT I was just dashing off a quick message before bed, and I was curious to see what the dictionary said. That's all. An error? Yes, certainly, but not one based on laziness.
Third, think what you like of me, man. I'm tired of damn well apologizing. How many times have I done it now? Three? Four? Five? I have ADMITTED that I made a colossal blunder in no uncertain terms, I have apologized over and over again, and still you keep screaming at me. I GET that this is a loaded issue, and that I touched a nerve, and that my reference material led me down the wrong path and I shouldn't have relied on it. I GET all that, but what you don't seem to get was that it was INADVERTENT, as I have said time and time again. It was unintentional, and I'm sick of being bellowed at for what basically boils down to a large faux pas. I have tried to be civil about this since the beginning of the discussion, I've admitted my mistakes, and all I get is extra lashings of venom. Well, up yours, too! If you can't accept a basic apology, then you have no business carrying on a discussion of any sort. I don't damn well care what you think of me at this point - I'm sick and tired of arguing with you, because you obviously think that translates to you screaming at me and me just sitting and taking it, because obviously, YOU'RE right and I'M wrong. Get off your high horse, man! People are human, we make mistakes! I have HAD it with apologizing and re-apologizing simply because you're too busy tearing me a new one to listen! You think I'm a monster? Well, my opinion of you is not too damn high either at the moment, and the only reason I'm not expressing it in direct terms is because I don't want to be banned from the board. I am NOT a monster, I am a human being who made an honest mistake and has admitted as such, and if you can't accept that, then up yours and the horse you rode in on! This isn't about rape anymore, this is about you and your attitude. You can bellow the house down as far as I'm concerned - you can pound the keyboard and spit obscenities and castigate me as the lowest form of life on Earth - I don't care anymore. I have absolutely no interest in the opinions of a man too caught up in his own fury to carry on a civil conversation. Good day, sir, and goodbye.

[box_in_the_box.insanejournal.com]

In some ways, the fact that this was unintentional on your part actually makes it WORSE, because it indicates an underlying mindset of entitlement and privilege that is what led you to make that mistake in the first place - the same mentality that led you to believe that "rape" is as much an "unloaded word" as "obsequious" - and the fact that you refuse to unpack your own privilege knapsack enough to examine the wrong-headed underlying mentality that caused you to make those mistakes pretty much justifies every negative thing I've said here.

I don't CARE about your apologies, because unless you're also CHANGING THE WAY THAT YOU THINK, they don't actually MEAN anything - otherwise, they're basically NON-apologies, along the lines of, "I'm sorry that YOU got offended."

[psychop_rex.insanejournal.com]

If you don't care about my apologies, then what was the point of starting this chinwag in the first place? The only way to conclude an argument is for one person to admit that they were wrong, a thing that I have done. The discussion is OVER, sir, until you get down off your damn soapbox. You may not care about my apologies, but I don't care about your criticisms. There is no further we can go. Good day.

[box_in_the_box.insanejournal.com]

If you don't care about my apologies, then what was the point of starting this chinwag in the first place?

To force you to CHANGE YOUR UNDERLYING MINDSET on this issue, as I have already stated several times before.

The only way to conclude an argument is for one person to admit that they were wrong, a thing that I have done.

No, not really, because you're STILL trying to say that it was somehow reasonable to use a 40-year-old dictionary as a definitive reference for morally and ethically charged issues, like rape, and unless you change your UNDERLYING MINDSET on this, then I can easily anticipate, in the near future, you making similar mistakes with regards to racial issues ("But 'negro' is still an acceptable term, according to my dictionary!") or gender identity issues ("But 'cisgendered' doesn't appear anywhere in my dictionary!"). You honestly thought that an issue as contentious and as affected by current events as rape could be adequately summed up by a single dictionary entry from four decades ago, and you entered into a debate with people who were saying otherwise without doing ANY further homework on the subject (even the FIVE SECONDS it would have taken on Google, which shows your entitlement), and if your worldview is THAT simplistic, then you really do need to THROW YOUR DICTIONARY OUT, because it's CRIPPLING you mentally.

[psychop_rex.insanejournal.com]

Man, have you even been READING my messages so far? I am NOT saying that it was reasonable to use a forty-year old dictionary; I have admitted I don't know how many times that it was a dumb mistake that I shouldn't have made. And how, may I ask, to you plan to force me to change my 'underlying mindset'? By yelling at me? That's a wonderful tactic, that is. For that matter, how do you even know what my underlying mindset IS? You don't know me, you've never met me, you've never talked to me in person, you don't know what my background is - for all you or I know, either of us could be sophisticated computer programs designed to talk on message boards. And yet you automatically assume, based on a few ill-chosen phrases and mistaken assumptions on my part, that my mindset MUST be what you think it is, because goodness knows it couldn't be that this IS a complex issue, and that a perfectly well-intentioned person might offend someone completely by accident by bringing it up in conversation. No, no, I must be a clueless, xenophobic bookworm who depends entirely on an out-of-date dictionary. Well, you may be a perfect gentleman in person, for all I know, but to me, you're coming across as a self-righteous tyrant who automatically thinks the worst of his fellow man, and refuses to give him the benefit of the doubt. It may be a sweeping, unfair assumption on my part, but it's no worse than what you're doing.

[box_in_the_box.insanejournal.com]

I do tend to think the worst of my fellow man, because reality itself usually proves me right.

[psychop_rex.insanejournal.com]

'Usually' is not 'always'. I'm no 'little merry sunshine' myself, but I make it a policy to give people the benefit of the doubt in most situations, and have often been rewarded for it. I'm sorry if your experience has led you to different conclusions, but each to their own.

[kagome654.insanejournal.com]

Dude, rape does not have to involve force, you yourself proved that when you mentioned sex with minors. Also, notice the definition you quoted exclusively speaks of WOMEN, while we know that men can be raped as well. it is a woefully inadequate definition on many fronts. What constitutes rape is complicated, it cannot be summed up in a measly sentence.

[psychop_rex.insanejournal.com]

No, it says 'especially women', not 'only'. It allows for men, it just states that the term is more commonly applied to women, which I think is usually true.
As for the description being inadequate, the discussion it has sparked so far has brought that home to me in no uncertain terms. My dictionary is usually pretty reliable, but in this case, it seems its information needs an update.

[box_in_the_box.insanejournal.com]

OMG YOU'RE STILL USING YOUR 40-YEAR-OLD DICTIONARY TO TRY AND WIN AN ARGUMENT ABOUT WHAT DEFINES RAPE

Just stop talking. Seriously. I don't want to know anything more about how your mind works, because it makes me feel unclean.

[psychop_rex.insanejournal.com]

No, I am not, as you would be able to tell if you'd read more than a few words of the message. What part of me ADMITTING that the description was inadequate and that I'd make a mistake by relying on it do you not understand? I have been trying to gracefully admit defeat and back away for who knows how long at this point, and you keep screaming at me. Well, too bloody bad; I've already written a long message expressing my views on this, and I do not care to discuss it any further. Either take a damn chill pill and back off, or don't - I don't care. It's your arteries that're going to pop, not mine.

[box_in_the_box.insanejournal.com]

And I explained, in reply to that post, why you should have known better than to use that source in the first place, and why it indicates that it shows your underlying entitlement and privilege, neither of which you've acknowledged.

[psychop_rex.insanejournal.com]

What is this with 'your underlying entitlement and privilege'? For your information, yes, I am a male, and no, I have never been raped myself, and yes, I'm not poor, if that's what you mean (although I assure you I'm far from rich). But I am NOT some jaded intellectual who lives in an ivory tower and turns up his nose at the common people. I will have you know that a number of my close friends over the years have either been raped or narrowly escaped rape; I am fully aware of its impact, and I never have tried nor ever will try to poo-poo that impact. Yes, I should have known better than to use that source, as I MYSELF have admitted, but I have already apologized for that in no uncertain terms. It was an honest mistake, and if you think it resulted from my 'underlying entitlement and privilege', then bring the damn guillotine out of mothballs and let's get it over with. I'm tired of being raked over the coals for an error that I've already admitted.

[box_in_the_box.insanejournal.com]

1. By virtue of being white and male, you automatically have privilege in both areas (as do I, as a fellow white male).

2. By virtue of not acknowledging the full scope of your privilege on those counts, you are entitled.

3. Because you see fit to get into debates on hotly contested gender-based moral and legal issues, that are extremely impacted by current events, armed only with a dictionary written 40 years ago by white men, you are showing that you do not acknowledge the full scope of your privilege on those counts.

You want your apology to mean something to me? Tell me that you will never cite "Oxford" as an argument-closer, not just for RAPE, but for ANY such issue, EVER AGAIN. Tell me that you will not enter into legal, political, social or moral debates without DOING SOME HOMEWORK, even if that homework merely involves a FIVE-SECOND GOOGLE SEARCH on the issue. THAT is the only way your apology with MEAN anything, because otherwise, you're just saying you're sorry to SHUT ME UP, and your UNDERLYING MENTALITY hasn't changed a bit.

[psychop_rex.insanejournal.com]

Oh, give me a BREAK. Why on Earth should I APOLOGIZE for being white and male? Is it my fault? Did I design myself that way? Did I make some sort of conscious decision in the womb that I would be white and male? No, I did not. I was born this way, and I have every reason to assume that I'll die this way. I didn't ask for it, and I'm not going to apologize for it. I see fit to get into 'hotly contested gender-based moral and legal issues' because I find them interesting and worthy subjects for discussion, not because I feel the need to flagellate myself over the guilt of being what my parents made me. Yes, I am white and male, and yes, that puts me in a privileged position in many respects, and yes, there are a hell of a lot of people out there who use the fact that they are white and male to justify some horrible things, and of course I acknowledge that, but I refuse to apologize for the basic facts of my existence, or for what other people who share my gender and skin pigmentation have done. I am what I am - I will apologize for my ACTIONS, but not for my genetic makeup.
And I am NOT going to tell you that I will never use the Oxford Dictionary as an argument-closer ever again. Will I be more hesitant to use it as a source in the future? Will I double-check it against other sources? Certainly I will, but the fact remains that the vast bulk of the English language has a basic meaning that is fixed and constant. A penguin, for example - the definition of the word 'penguin' remains the same now as it ever was. Are you honestly telling me that you've never used the dictionary as a means of concluding an argument? Do you always check the publishing date before doing so? It's one thing when you're talking about a loaded and evolving term such as rape - it was stupid to use an antiquated reference for that, as I have admitted time and time again - but I am not going to toss away a perfectly useful reference book simply because one usage of it blew up in my face.
And no, my underlying mentality on the issue HASN'T changed a bit, because believe it or not, IT'S THE SAME AS YOURS, and every other reasonable person's. I AGREE that rape is wrong, and I was never trying to excuse or justify or mitigate the actions of any rapist, would-be rapist or attempted rapist in any way. I made a mistake in my reference material - I did not make a mistake in my underlying mentality about rape. That was your assumption. And believe it or not, I AM damn well sorry. I don't come onto the internet to offend people, and I can assure you that it didn't thrill me when I realized I had done so. I wasn't apologizing to shut you up, I was saying I was sorry because I was SORRY. I was actually sorry. I don't say I'm sorry unless I actually am. It was a genuine apology, and whether or not you believe that makes little difference to me at this point.