|
|
Post by Yasotay on Sept 27, 2024 15:49:38 GMT -5
I think one thing that is abundantly clear is that it's a far better idea not to risk it. If you "go for it" and you were right that she wanted it, the best that will happen is you'll have a little fun and release some endorphines. If you "go for it" and you were wrong, congratulations. You've really hurt someone. I respect you guys and think you have some really worthwhile perspectives, but I absolutely cannot agree to disagree on this one. I absolutely agree with you it's better not to risk it and if the woman says no, you should respect that. That's what I would always do. My point in bringing up that incident wasn't to say sometimes it's okay to ignore it when a woman say "no" but rather to show this is a complex issue and some women, themselves, may have a different point of view than you'd expect. So I'm not comfortable making sweeping judgments about something always being right or wrong in this regard, particularly when it's in the realm of fiction. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,860
|
Post by shaxper on Sept 27, 2024 15:59:24 GMT -5
I think one thing that is abundantly clear is that it's a far better idea not to risk it. If you "go for it" and you were right that she wanted it, the best that will happen is you'll have a little fun and release some endorphines. If you "go for it" and you were wrong, congratulations. You've really hurt someone. I respect you guys and think you have some really worthwhile perspectives, but I absolutely cannot agree to disagree on this one. I absolutely agree with you it's better not to risk it and if the woman says no, you should respect that. That's what I would always do. My point in bringing up that incident wasn't to say sometimes it's okay to ignore it when a woman say "no" but rather to show this is a complex issue and some women, themselves, may have a different point of view than you'd expect. So I'm not comfortable making sweeping judgments about something always being right or wrong in this regard, particularly when it's in the realm of fiction. I know far too many people who have been traumatized by someone else who felt they should just take their shot because what have they got to lose? It's unfair to put anyone in a situation where they have to say no. Often, they don't know what they want and feel pressure to go with it or they will ruin the relationship, and that's disturbing as hell to me. I've had no shortage of rewarding romantic and sexual experiences in my life without ever taking the initiative without first being given a green light. I'd be horrified to go home at the end of the night and suddenly wonder, "what if she just didn't feel comfortable saying no?" And thus I really do judge anyone who feels it's appropriate to shoot their shot without having reason to believe their advances are wanted. This is not a game where you are trying to sneak past someone's defenses. It's supposed to be a shared experience that satisfies both parties. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Sept 27, 2024 17:17:06 GMT -5
Maybe something got lost in the translation. I’m seeing terms like “go for it “ implying that a person uses the opportunity to have full on sex with someone you’re getting to know. I have never said that. The man will always be the one to make the first move. The asking out on dates , even in 2024 is usually initiated by the man. The first kiss is usually initiated also by the man. I believe it will always be so. I keep seeing videos of todays woman lamenting the fact that there are no good men and they are not being approached any more. You can’t have it both ways.
But to get back to Avengers 197-200, it was a bad story that used mind shenanigans and machines to take advantage of Danvers body. It’s that simple
|
|
|
|
Post by Yasotay on Sept 27, 2024 17:25:07 GMT -5
I know far too many people who have been traumatized by someone else who felt they should just take their shot because what have they got to lose? It's unfair to put anyone in a situation where they have to say no. Often, they don't know what they want and feel pressure to go with it or they will ruin the relationship, and that's disturbing as hell to me. I've had no shortage of rewarding romantic and sexual experiences in my life without ever taking the initiative without first being given a green light. I'd be horrified to go home at the end of the night and suddenly wonder, "what if she just didn't feel comfortable saying no?" And thus I really do judge anyone who feels it's appropriate to shoot their shot without having reason to believe their advances are wanted. This is not a game where you are trying to sneak past someone's defenses. It's supposed to be a shared experience that satisfies both parties. I'm generally in agreement with what you're saying. But unless the other person is the one actually initiating the advances, you can never know with absolute certainty when your own advances are wanted. And if they're the one initiating the advances, then they're putting you in the same awkward position you just said you don't want to put them into. If no one took ever took their shot, the human race would have gone extinct a long time ago.
Just saw what George said above and I agree with him, I'm talking about asking a girl on a date or something along those lines, not initiating sex.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,860
|
Post by shaxper on Sept 27, 2024 17:57:43 GMT -5
"Can I kiss you?"
It's really that #$%& simple.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yasotay on Sept 27, 2024 18:22:34 GMT -5
"Can I kiss you?" It's really that #$%& simple. You just killed 3/4 of the romances Hollywood ever made LOL.
I have no problem with first saying "Can I kiss you?" It was just the way you phrased that above that made it sound like asking that would be too forward. I'll stop posting on this part of the conversation now and we can all get back to simply discussing how Jim Shooter is the finest human being to ever walk the earth...
|
|
|
|
Post by Yasotay on Sept 27, 2024 18:25:53 GMT -5
- A few final thoughts from me on what really was an excellent and thought provoking podcast:
1. Immortus had actually returned to life about a year before this but apparently just forgot about his son and left him alone in limbo. Bad parenting skills by Immortus.
2. I'm glad George says he liked Identity Crisis. I thought I was the only one on this forum who appreciated that series.
3. Just how would a normal man go about having sex with someone like Ms. Marvel or Power Girl to begin with? Seems kind of dangerous.
4. George snuck into my house and raided my comics collection. Among the handful of books I still have in the back of a closet are that What If issue and Avengers 200.
5. Impossible man "popping" out of Ms. Marvel is what could have saved this story!
|
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Sept 28, 2024 2:01:30 GMT -5
Any time you've removed consent from the equation, it's rape. It's unfortunate that there were eras in which that wasn't universally agreed, but I think some small part of us had to wonder while watching Snow White as children, "What if she doesn't want that dude kissing her while she's asleep?". I do believe there is a fundamental morality built into all of us in regard to things like this. Some people just let that feeling in their pants tune it out. And yeah, I really do think someone was letting their own sick fantasy play out on the page with this one. Thank you, you expressed what I wanted to say but much better! |
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Sept 28, 2024 2:10:31 GMT -5
One thing I'd be very curious about is how the authors of this story reacted to the Avengers Annual written by Claremont at the time (but I think that's impossible).
It's believable that after decades they no longer remember anything about the circumstances in which Avengers 200 was born, but in 1981 it had been practically a year. So hopefully the memory was still fresh. Claremont was basically telling them "You're a bunch of rape enablers, SHAME!". It's obvious that the metatextual message of the story was addressed to them.
Or maybe none of them read it (but I doubt that Shooter had absolutely no idea of the content given his passion for micromanagement). How much noise did this Annual make at the time?
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Sept 28, 2024 16:26:46 GMT -5
One thing I'd be very curious about is how the authors of this story reacted to the Avengers Annual written by Claremont at the time (but I think that's impossible). It's believable that after decades they no longer remember anything about the circumstances in which Avengers 200 was born, but in 1981 it had been practically a year. So hopefully the memory was still fresh. Claremont was basically telling them "You're a bunch of rape enablers, SHAME!". It's obvious that the metatextual message of the story was addressed to them. Or maybe none of them read it (but I doubt that Shooter had absolutely no idea of the content given his passion for micromanagement). How much noise did this Annual make at the time? It was big, first because it had Michael Golden's beautiful art and second because it was Rogue's first appearance. Carol's behaviour sounded like a light retcon, because in Avengers #200 she seemed quite clear about leaving with Marcus of her own free will even after learning how he had manipulated her. As a reader, I didn't think it was a big thing; just Chris not liking the way Carol had been written in issue #200. It's not unheard of to have characters acting one way under one writer and another way under a different one, so the sudden change in tone regarding Carol's tribulations wasn't really earth-shattering. But needless to say, Avengers annual #10 was way better than Avengers #200! Dramatically, story-wise, and in terms of character development. |
|
|
|
Post by Calidore on Sept 28, 2024 17:40:54 GMT -5
I'm going to chime in firmly on the side of shaxper on this one. Yes, a "subtle boost" from a mind control machine removes consent. A love potion is not the same as buying dinner or drinks, which is entirely a psychological influence if anything; rather, it's the same as spiking the dinner or drink, which is entirely physical compulsion, as is the machine. The entire point is to compel, not influence. The friend who didn't understand the Brazilian girl's contradictory signal wasn't wrong. He listened when she said no. That she then said she didn't actually mean no doesn't make it his mistake, or the situation "complicated". Hopefully he also listened the second time and they had a very nice evening together. |
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Sept 29, 2024 3:30:23 GMT -5
It was big, first because it had Michael Golden's beautiful art and second because it was Rogue's first appearance. Carol's behaviour sounded like a light retcon, because in Avengers #200 she seemed quite clear about leaving with Marcus of her own free will even after learning how he had manipulated her. As a reader, I didn't think it was a big thing; just Chris not liking the way Carol had been written in issue #200. It's not unheard of to have characters acting one way under one writer and another way under a different one, so the sudden change in tone regarding Carol's tribulations wasn't really earth-shattering. But needless to say, Avengers annual #10 was way better than Avengers #200! Dramatically, story-wise, and in terms of character development. Been awhile since I've last read either of those issues, but I seem to recall that in Avengers Annual #10 Carol suggested that she was still under the influence of that 'subtle boost' when she agreed to return to Limbo with him. |
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Sept 29, 2024 6:58:08 GMT -5
It was big, first because it had Michael Golden's beautiful art and second because it was Rogue's first appearance. Carol's behaviour sounded like a light retcon, because in Avengers #200 she seemed quite clear about leaving with Marcus of her own free will even after learning how he had manipulated her. As a reader, I didn't think it was a big thing; just Chris not liking the way Carol had been written in issue #200. It's not unheard of to have characters acting one way under one writer and another way under a different one, so the sudden change in tone regarding Carol's tribulations wasn't really earth-shattering. But needless to say, Avengers annual #10 was way better than Avengers #200! Dramatically, story-wise, and in terms of character development. Been awhile since I've last read either of those issues, but I seem to recall that in Avengers Annual #10 Carol suggested that she was still under the influence of that 'subtle boost' when she agreed to return to Limbo with him. You know, in a universe where mind controlling is as common as pickpocketing, maybe you shouldn't completely trust someone when they tell you they want to live out the rest of eternity in limbo with their kidnapper and rapist, especially when that kidnapper has already openly admitted to using artificial means to bypass their consent. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Sept 29, 2024 8:09:11 GMT -5
It was big, first because it had Michael Golden's beautiful art and second because it was Rogue's first appearance. Carol's behaviour sounded like a light retcon, because in Avengers #200 she seemed quite clear about leaving with Marcus of her own free will even after learning how he had manipulated her. As a reader, I didn't think it was a big thing; just Chris not liking the way Carol had been written in issue #200. It's not unheard of to have characters acting one way under one writer and another way under a different one, so the sudden change in tone regarding Carol's tribulations wasn't really earth-shattering. But needless to say, Avengers annual #10 was way better than Avengers #200! Dramatically, story-wise, and in terms of character development. Been awhile since I've last read either of those issues, but I seem to recall that in Avengers Annual #10 Carol suggested that she was still under the influence of that 'subtle boost' when she agreed to return to Limbo with him. I think so, and that is a retcon. There was no sign of her being still manipulated at the end of #200. I'm not saying that it was an illogical plot twist, but Carol still being under Marcus's spell when she left with him is Chris Claremont's idea. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Sept 29, 2024 8:56:30 GMT -5
Been awhile since I've last read either of those issues, but I seem to recall that in Avengers Annual #10 Carol suggested that she was still under the influence of that 'subtle boost' when she agreed to return to Limbo with him. I think so, and that is a retcon. There was no sign of her being still manipulated at the end of #200. I'm not saying that it was an illogical plot twist, but Carol still being under Marcus's spell when she left with him is Chris Claremont's idea. Yeah, it was added in after the fact. I'm wondering whose idea it was to write her out of the series. She could have easily stayed on earth at the end of #200. |
|
