Previous Post Remarkably this is the first I've heard of this. First off, the definition of rape: various dictionaries offer definitions which variously include or do not mention deception as condition which qualifies the act of sex as rape. I'd cautiously go with the "it is" side of the argument based on very ancient narratives which depict Zeus or Uther Pendragon sleeping with women disguised as their husbands and which clearly depict the act as rape (although the Greeks tend to the "but then she enjoyed it so that's okay" qualifier). That said I'm uncomfortable about how casually rape is used as a way of describing repugnant acts (rape of the environment, rape of the senses, rape of his rights etc), even sexual ones, because the danger is that actual, genuine, unquestioned rape then gets blurred with lots of other definitions. There's a spectrum of rough consentual sex, elective rape fantasy play, mutually drunken regret-it-tomorrow intercourse, paid for sex with economically helpless sex workers etc., some of which raises moral questions, but all of which blur the intense ahborrence that rape should elicit. Then I'd point out that there are a couple of very major examples of comics rape-by-deception that haven't been cited so far in the debate I've seen. In the first Squadron Supreme limited series by Gruenwald, the Supremor's Hyperion is replaced by the Squadron Sinister version for a couple of issues. While posing as his heroic counterpart he sleeps with Power Princess, who yields to him after a long period of unspoken mutual lust between her and hero-Hyperion. In fairness to Gruenwald he does deal with the issues this raises and uses it to fuel the eventual denouement of the two Hyperions problem. In the same series Golden Archer uses a mind control device to convince his ex-girlfriend Lady Lark to come back to him and they renew their sexual relationships as a consequence. This is likewise depicted as rape. But the earliest implication of this happening is actually in Fantastic Four, circa #177-179 (Thomas/Perez - from memory). The Counter-Earth Reed Richards was likewise transformed by cosmic rays but on his world Sue Storm died of radiation and he was changed into the strong, deformed Brute. In a multi-part storylne the Brute comes to Earth and teams with the Frightful Four. "Our" Reed is cast into the Negative Zone to die (again) and the Brute is restored to human form and takes his place in the FF. There he finds himself alongside "our" Sue, who is alive, beautiful, and believes she is married to him. There's a scene where Sue leaves her bedroom in a semi-transparent Perez-negligee and walks off looking troubled, and a caption saying something to the effect of "She can't get rid of the feeling that the man she's just left is not her husband." This is never mentioned again when Reed gets back to save the day (helped by the Brute who is suddenly contrite and sacrifices himself). But anyway, sex with shapechanged imposters is almost compulsory at Marvel these days. The challenge is to find a heroine who hasn't slept with a skrull recently.

Some interesting points, and nice nods to former comics precedent... especially the point about the whole recent Skrull thing.

Mistaken identity sex (whether through intentional deception or honest misunderstanding) is an old storytelling trope that I doubt will disappear anytime soon... it's too titillating, injecting some taboo into the lives of characters who would never normally do that kind of thing.

It's definitely been used for comedy in the past, although how appropriate that was is highly debatable. I recall the sitcom "Soap" getting mileage out of the married character Burt being replaced by an alien who was constantly having sex with Mary, Burt's wife, to the point where the following pregnancy plotline questioned whether the baby was the alien's or Burt's. The premise was supremely silly, and was played that way. They took the impossible nature of the crime as an excuse to mine jokes out of it. (Still, even back then there was something off-putting about the whole plotline, considering the show's ability to combine real emotions and drama with zany situations.)

Aside from a shifting of society's tolerance that has taken place since the days of "Soap" (much as with the movie "Arthur" and the 'cuteness' of drunk driving), I think the Spider-man bit runs into trouble by virtue of the fact that the universe it inhabits doesn't allow the reader to write off the seriousness of the act based on the impossible nature of it. In too many other instances, superhero stories need you to get worked up over unbelievable circumstances. It's hard to tell your audience to buy into the danger of giant robot sentinels hunting down mutants, but to then not take the absurd premise of a shape-shifting super spy impersonating a character too seriously.

Further, I believe it is no longer hard to imagine a real-world scenario where someone could adequately impersonate another. Back in the 70's, the concept was definitely too absurd to take seriously. That's not true today... With the internet, many of us form strong, friendly relationships with people we've never met face to face. It's not impossible to imagine a situation where a hacker or other opportunist could arrange a meeting with someone you know only from online and pass him/herself off as you, possibly victimizing your friend for money, sex or worse. We're warned constantly that we need to be aware that the people we're interacting with may not be what they claim to be... they might not even be the same size, age, or gender as who we assume them to be. As a result, shape-shifting predators aren't nearly as silly of an idea as they used to be, and far fewer people are likely to find the humor in such a set-up.