Posted by Timandm
(3374 posts)
- 4 months, 12 days ago
- Show Bio
Most of us know, by now, that Otto Octavius is currently wearing Peter Parker's body... Peter's mind went into Otto's body and Otto's mind is now in Peter's body. Otto is now living as Peter Parker. He's living in Peter's apartment, doing Peter's Job, and dating the love of Peter Parker's life, Mary Jane Watson....
Here's my question for those of you out on the comic vine....
If Otto Octavius, in Peter Parker's body, has sex with M.J. (without revealing the truth of what has happened) would you consider it rape?
In my opinion, it would absolutely be rape as he would presenting himself as Peter Parker when he really isn't Peter Parker. He would be deceiving M.J. Any sex between them could never really be consensual because she wouldn't know that he's not really Peter Parker. She'd be having sex with Peter Parker's body, but not Peter Parker. I think it's obvious that she would never have sex with him, if she knew the truth...
This reminds me of the time The Chameleon pretended to be Peter Parker and ended up having sex with Parker's roommate, Michele Gonzales... The Chameleon pretended to Peter Parker and deceived a woman into sleeping with him...Michele THOUGHT she was sleeping with Parker...she wasn't...rape...
Now, in this situation, things become more complicated because Peter Parker's body is being used, but that really ISN'T Peter Parker and if M.J knew who was inhabiting Peter's body, she wouldn't go anywhere near it...
#1
Posted by lykopis
(6290 posts)
- 4 months, 12 days ago
- Show Bio
Rape.
I would put it this way. I hypnotize someone and convince them some stranger is their husband/wife. The person pretending to be their husband/wife is aware of this. Sex happens.
Peter's consciousness appears to be with Otto -- and stopped him from killing someone. I am going to hope/assume he will be able to do the same should the situation come up.
The legal term is Rape by fraud, its no where near as severe a crime as regular rape in the eyes of the court but still technically illegal though the mind swap thing may not be covered by real world law, makes it a bit iffy
I would put it this way. I hypnotize someone and convince them some stranger is their husband/wife. The person pretending to be their husband/wife is aware of this. Sex happens.
Peter's consciousness appears to be with Otto -- and stopped him from killing someone. I am going to hope/assume he will be able to do the same should the situation come up.
I would put it this way. I hypnotize someone and convince them some stranger is their husband/wife. The person pretending to be their husband/wife is aware of this. Sex happens.
Peter's consciousness appears to be with Otto -- and stopped him from killing someone. I am going to hope/assume he will be able to do the same should the situation come up.
Didn't Ultimate Wolverine try pulling this in Ultimate Peter's body?
Oh gross, I hope not! I didn't read Ultimate Comic's Spider-Man until the Death of Peter Parker..... Does anyone else out there know anything about this?
Didn't Ultimate Wolverine try pulling this in Ultimate Peter's body?
Oh gross, I hope not! I didn't read Ultimate Comic's Spider-Man until the Death of Peter Parker..... Does anyone else out there know anything about this?
He does, it's Ultimate Spider-Man #66. And what's worse is, that this MJ was under aged.
Wolverine in Peter's Body Peter is back to normal, but Logan obviously tried something.
#29
Posted by Babs
(17359 posts)
- 4 months, 11 days ago
- Show Bio
Even though he looks like Peter, he certainly is not acting like Peter and I hope that since he and MJ have known one another their entire lives, she would be able to notice the obvious changes to his personality. I don't think she would want to have sex with him considering the way he was acting in the most recent issue of SPECTACULAR SPIDER-MAN. He's acting like a huge jerk. I don't think people are giving Mary Jane enough credit.
Even though he looks like Peter, he certainly is not acting like Peter and I hope that since he and MJ have known one another their entire lives, she would be able to notice the obvious changes to his personality. I don't think she would want to have sex with him considering the way he was acting in the most recent issue of SPECTACULAR SPIDER-MAN. He's acting like a huge jerk. I don't think people are giving Mary Jane enough credit.
I think it's the writer who isn't being given much credit.
And who can blame them, given that this sort of thing was hinted at by the writer before.
I think we all know that she logically wouldn't fall for Ock's act, but the writer might dumb her down if wants to get some shock value in.
I doubt he would though, enough fans have bees in their bonnets about this whole thing.
#33
Posted by Babs
(17359 posts)
- 4 months, 11 days ago
- Show Bio
@Shadow Swordsman said:
@Babs said:
Even though he looks like Peter, he certainly is not acting like Peter and I hope that since he and MJ have known one another their entire lives, she would be able to notice the obvious changes to his personality. I don't think she would want to have sex with him considering the way he was acting in the most recent issue of SPECTACULAR SPIDER-MAN. He's acting like a huge jerk. I don't think people are giving Mary Jane enough credit.
I think it's the writer who isn't being given much credit.
And who can blame them, given that this sort of thing was hinted at by the writer before.
I think we all know that she logically wouldn't fall for Ock's act, but the writer might dumb her down if wants to get some shock value in.
I doubt he would though, enough fans have bees in their bonnets about this whole thing.
I like that expression, "bees in their bonnets." :)
I agree that there's something to be said about Slott not being given enough credit. I would like to think Slott is one of the biggest Spider-Man fans so I think he has a limit to how far he would take things. Anyway, he's writing a series that has people talking, so we have to give him that at least.
Mary Jane gave Peter consent - not Ock - thus rape. Lines can be blurred as far as defining a person and who is who.
That's pretty much how I see it. nice, simple and to the point... As always, your genius is much appreciated, my friend.
I have to ask how SC said anything that's "genius" o-o
If anything, I'd consider this the best reply so far:
@joshmightbe said:
The legal term is Rape by fraud, its no where near as severe a crime as regular rape in the eyes of the court but still technically illegal though the mind swap thing may not be covered by real world law, makes it a bit iffy
I didn't know about that term. Good to know, I guess; informative!
Mary Jane gave Peter consent - not Ock - thus rape. Lines can be blurred as far as defining a person and who is who.
That's pretty much how I see it. nice, simple and to the point... As always, your genius is much appreciated, my friend.
I have to ask how SC said anything that's "genius" o-o
If anything, I'd consider this the best reply so far:
@joshmightbe said:
The legal term is Rape by fraud, its no where near as severe a crime as regular rape in the eyes of the court but still technically illegal though the mind swap thing may not be covered by real world law, makes it a bit iffy
I didn't know about that term. Good to know, I guess; informative!
The legal term Rape by Fraud is found in two states - Texas and California. California has worked to change the 1800's law but because of a previously adopted mandate to not accept any changes to laws that could contribute to the already over populated prisons, they have had to table this.
Rape by Fraud (Deception) is when a woman participates in a sexual act with another who by deception, presented himself as her husband. The difference between this term and "regular rape" is the lack of violence involved. It still carries the same weight and criminality. It being "no where near as severe a crime" is factually untrue in the legal sense, but I do acknowledge this as your opinion.
The issue is that this specifically mentions spousal fraud -- again, due to the centuries old law that it is -- and fails to recognize common-law relationship, long term relationships, new relationships -- ANY relationship. This is why every state has dropped the law. Except for California (I explained why above) and as for Texas...oh well. It's Texas.
I would put it this way. I hypnotize someone and convince them some stranger is their husband/wife. The person pretending to be their husband/wife is aware of this. Sex happens.
Peter's consciousness appears to be with Otto -- and stopped him from killing someone. I am going to hope/assume he will be able to do the same should the situation come up.
Mary Jane gave Peter consent - not Ock - thus rape. Lines can be blurred as far as defining a person and who is who.
That's pretty much how I see it. nice, simple and to the point... As always, your genius is much appreciated, my friend.
I have to ask how SC said anything that's "genius" o-o
If anything, I'd consider this the best reply so far:
@joshmightbe said:
The legal term is Rape by fraud, its no where near as severe a crime as regular rape in the eyes of the court but still technically illegal though the mind swap thing may not be covered by real world law, makes it a bit iffy
I didn't know about that term. Good to know, I guess; informative!
The legal term Rape by Fraud is found in two states - Texas and California. California has worked to change the 1800's law but because of a previously adopted mandate to not accept any changes to laws that could contribute to the already over populated prisons, they have had to table this.
Rape by Fraud (Deception) is when a woman participates in a sexual act with another who by deception, presented himself as her husband. The difference between this term and "regular rape" is the lack of violence involved. It still carries the same weight and criminality. It being "no where near as severe a crime" is factually untrue in the legal sense, but I do acknowledge this as your opinion.
The issue is that this specifically mentions spousal fraud -- again, due to the centuries old law that it is -- and fails to recognize common-law relationship, long term relationships, new relationships -- ANY relationship. This is why every state has dropped the law. Except for California (I explained why above) and as for Texas...oh well. It's Texas.
Technically it is not rape in law, as the suspect in question is only mentally being questioned, and you cannot in this definition mentally rape somebody..( well actually you can, but that is another subject and I am not even sure it is illegal ) I am not talking from a perspective of the american view so I am different but if a court in the UK heard this it will not be rape in LAW( but morally yes obviously ) as she gave consent to the body to perform the sexual act ( peters body ) but then we have the question, was she deceived? Yes, so that also brings the question... Does it go against the British definition?
"Consent exists where someone "agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice". However, criminal barrister Felicity Gerry, author of the Sexual Offences Handbook, says: "If someone has a reasonable and genuine belief their partner gave consent they shouldn't be convicted.""
So technically it was NOT be rape in the UK. Or it may become case law and the law changed but that's another subject. Morally yes it is rape though.. If this was in a country where they have a law that said if they are tricked or do not have the full knowledge about whom they are sleeping with so to say, it is RAPE, so as this is taking place in america it is rape.
@Pyrogram: That was a long way to go to say, "Yes, it would be rape" but your point is well made...
It's true, there's the "letter of the law" to be considered. We the people are governed by laws of the land and those laws are intended to constrain people to proper or acceptable behavior. As you pointed out, this is a case that is obviously morally wrong...we can only hope the law will protect people in such cases. In this case it would be odd...
@Pyrogram: That was a long way to go to say, "Yes, it would be rape" but your point is well made...
It's true, there's the "letter of the law" to be considered. We the people are governed by laws of the land and those laws are intended to constrain people to proper or acceptable behavior. As you pointed out, this is a case that is obviously morally wrong...we can only hope the law will protect people in such cases. In this case it would be odd...
100% Agreed, people cannot say , YES its rape, No its not, without realizing what the law says and looks at case study... In real life I assume they would try it not rape... as she agreed. Damn justice... She may have been tricked, but no harm or mental harm came to her. :(
Not necessarily. Im more inclined to say no just to combo-break this thread. Instead, I think it depends on the situation.
Well, you have the situation here... Otto Octavious is currently inhabiting Peter Parker's body... He has not told anyone that he's taken possession of Parker's body. He is pretending to be Peter Parker.
So, under the pretense of being Peter Parker, if he seduces M.J. (her believing that he's really Peter Parker) and they have sex....
soooo...there's the situation. Could you be more detailed and say why you don't believe it would be rape?
#47
Posted by Jezer
(2591 posts)
- 4 months, 10 days ago
- Show Bio
@Timandm said:
@Jezer said:
Not necessarily. Im more inclined to say no just to combo-break this thread. Instead, I think it depends on the situation.
Well, you have the situation here... Otto Octavious is currently inhabiting Peter Parker's body... He has not told anyone that he's taken possession of Parker's body. He is pretending to be Peter Parker.
So, under the pretense of being Peter Parker, if he seduces M.J. (her believing that he's really Peter Parker) and they have sex....
soooo...there's the situation. Could you be more detailed and say why you don't believe it would be rape?
Yeah, I read the OP. I would, but right now im typing from my phone. Probably later.
#48
Edited by Jezer
(2591 posts)
- 4 months, 10 days ago
- Show Bio
@Timandm said:
Most of us know, by now, that Otto Octavius is currently wearing Peter Parker's body... Peter's mind went into Otto's body and Otto's mind is now in Peter's body. Otto is now living as Peter Parker. He's living in Peter's apartment, doing Peter's Job, and dating the love of Peter Parker's life, Mary Jane Watson....
Here's my question for those of you out on the comic vine....
If Otto Octavius, in Peter Parker's body, has sex with M.J. (without revealing the truth of what has happened) would you consider it rape?
In my opinion, it would absolutely be rape as he would presenting himself as Peter Parker when he really isn't Peter Parker. He would be deceiving M.J. Any sex between them could never really be consensual because she wouldn't know that he's not really Peter Parker. She'd be having sex with Peter Parker's body, but not Peter Parker. I think it's obvious that she would never have sex with him, if she knew the truth...
This reminds me of the time The Chameleon pretended to be Peter Parker and ended up having sex with Parker's roommate, Michele Gonzales... The Chameleon pretended to Peter Parker and deceived a woman into sleeping with him...Michele THOUGHT she was sleeping with Parker...she wasn't...rape...
Now, in this situation, things become more complicated because Peter Parker's body is being used, but that really ISN'T Peter Parker and if M.J knew who was inhabiting Peter's body, she wouldn't go anywhere near it...
So, what do you think people? Would it be rape?
It depends on whether she has sex with him because he is Peter or because he seduced her(as Peter).
What if Peter Parker is in his own body, and Mary Jane, though dating him, refuses to start sleeping with him? Then, the fact that he is Peter isn't what's instrumental in her giving him consent.
On the other hand, if Octavius is in Peter's body and seduces her - then following the hypothetical I just posted - she's having sex with him because of his personality difference - because he is Octavius. Because of the difference in things he says, the way he makes her feel, and how he's able to turn her on. Which, following my hypothetical, Peter isn't able to do.
Its different if there's already a sexual relationship established and she's having sex with him because she thinks he's her boyfriend. The key word is "seduction" which hint at the idea that they don't already have a sexual relationship. So no, it is not rape.
I mean, what about the girls who sleep with a guy because "you're so caring and different from all the other guys. Mhmmm." and then wake up to the guy's gone and ignoring them? Did they really know true inner essence/self of who they were sleeping with? No. So if they gave consent to this persona who was loving/caring, and it turned out the guy was really a hit-it-and-quit-it douchebag--were they just then raped? No.
Going further, if James Bond as a secret agent makes up a persona undercover and sleeps with 10 million women(like probably does on the average night), did he just rape them because he's not "Jimmy Mceverydayman" but a totally different person?
If someone has multiple personalities, and their spouse doesn't know, and one of their other personalities sleeps with the spouse - is that also rape?
Did Barney Stinson rape that one woman from How I Met Your Mother when he seduced her as The one and only Lorenzo Van Matterhorn?
Ultimately, without introducing background knowledge on the two character, based solely on the info you gave me in the OP: No, it is not rape, in my opinion.
If a girl and I are preparing to have sex, but when the lights are out my friend takes my place without her knowledge, is that rape? Probably.
@Jezer: I feel like pretending to be a specific person is different than just lying yourself, which is much broader. If I told a girl I was a (any) prince and she sleeps with me, its her bad for being easily manipulated. But, if she came into coitus with the expressed intent of sleeping specifically with Prince Malima of Morrocco and I took advantage of her lack of judgement or knowledge, I think that would be closer to rape. But not really. Kind of
NOTE: Honestly, I have no idea what I'm trying to say. I think I mean its kind of rape in the Superior case because MJ wants to have sex with specifically Peter and definitely not Doc Oc. Had she known the truth, she would likely/might refuse intercourse.
GOT IT---> Its like being sober and having sex with a beligerantly drunk person.
FINAL EDIT: I'm probably going to be ripped apart for that "its her bad" part...XD
I would put it this way. I hypnotize someone and convince them some stranger is their husband/wife. The person pretending to be their husband/wife is aware of this. Sex happens.
Peter's consciousness appears to be with Otto -- and stopped him from killing someone. I am going to hope/assume he will be able to do the same should the situation come up.
This
Now that you brought that up, it probably will happen like that.
Log in to comment