>>107868348>It could easily have been seen as rape, it still is the best explanation for why she slept with himOh boy.
'Easily seen as rape' is 'easily' robbing the character of her agency. 'Manipulated'? That argument suggests she was incapable of making her own choices. The daughter of a policeman, an of-age young woman, was simply 'manipulated' into having sex with a powerful, rich, older man. Because every case of that is rape too, in some way.
I don't like it any more than you do, but it wasn't rape. Norman didn't force her down and threaten her. He could have seduced her or maybe she seduced herself into it - the man looks like an older, more masculine and successful version of his son. Seduction is not rape. That she kept the babies could simply be indicative of her own personal beliefs and upbringing. Why would she get rid of the babies? She did something and is facing the consequences - in a way. She's being responsible after doing something stupid. Not manipulated.
>>107868429I know you're baiting at this point but heroes typically put their own needs beneath the needs of others. I think Peter should choose his loved ones over the world whenever he's tasked with that choice, but that's the way it is.
He's a superHERO because he saves other people's loved ones, and not everyone can do that. Anyone can be selfish (deservedly so) and only care about themselves. Not everyone can be a hero.
