Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics
Subject: MUTANT: Rogue and Sexual Harassment
From: <UD137927@NDSUVM1.BITNET> (David R. Henry)
Date: Friday, 10 Apr 1992 15:52:49 CDT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computer Network

Some good thoughts from Michael Ellis:

>...but is anyone bothered that Gambit is continually trying to constitute
>Rogue?

Very much so. No matter what *his* character, Rogue has consistently been
portrayed as very nervous and unsure about her true sexuality. Then again,
what needs continutity in this new, fan-slaved X-Men? More Ellis:

>Rogue has *always* been very sensitive about being touched. ... Gambit
>persists on both flirting with Rogue and in continually touching or
>attempting to touch her. Rogue's been shown in the past to be both
>emotionally insecure (sic). ... She's never has a 'real' relationship,
>and now she's caught with Gambit manipulating her emotions and using her
>body against her. Sounds like harassment to me.

Sounds like? How about is. You know, if the idea is, somewhere in that
locked and sealed room where they think up these plots for X-Men, that
it would be cool to have a character who could romance Rogue, I wouldn't
be so upset. If the character even had some mystery to him (or her, I'm
a modern sorta guy), like having thoughts go through Rogue's head:
   "You know, gosh, I like him. But can I touch him? No. He says I can,
    but I haven't seen him in a few weeks... I don't know... I'm scared."
      then fine. But to have someone with a set group of powers -- kinetic
acceleration, with no hint of immunity to absorbtion -- deliberately play
head games with her, just because he's apparently into seriously disturbed
relationships (if he's not immune to absorbtion, what's in it for him?),
reeks of crass malevolence of the highest sort.

I have never been fond of Gambit, and this newest "seduction" storyline hasn't
endeared me any further. If it's suddenly revealed that Gambit is immune to
Rogue's power, that still doesn't resolve any of the latest X-creators of
blame for a bad situation:  why didn't he tell her at the start of the
relationship? "Oh, gee, thanks for telling me *now*, creep, that I don't have
anything to worry about touching you! Glad you were so concerned about me that
you waited three weeks before you told me this!" Except, of course, we won't
see this sort of scene, because Marvel X-creators have ignored any real
character development in their books as assumed corporate policy for some
time (re:  most Marvel posts on r.a.c.). The sole exception I've found is


The last point of Ellis' post was also good:  Gambit is being presented as
a cool character. Most of the X-Men's audience is young boys (sadly), who
look for cool things to emulate. Having this example of a man not taking
a woman's "No" as a "No" is not being kind to your readers. I wouldn't mind
a storyline about such a relationship in a book whose record track shows
committment to good character depth and development. Under the last couple
of X-Men writers (Byrne included, from this reader's view), that book is
not X-Men.

Which is okay. I don't usually read X-Men for such deep relationships.
I prefer other titles, and largely other medium, for satisfying stories of
that sort. The vast majority of my comics buying is for fun and escapism.
But the current seduction of Rogue storyline is at best nauseating, and
at worst deliberately slimy.

I'm collecting opinions on this subject for the Rogue email fanzine the
Stripe (see address below). We were going to have an issue discussing the
"Gambit problem" very soon, and any r.a.c.ers who wish to share their thoughts
on the subject are welcome to give me any comments. You won't even have to
be subscribed, if you don't want to. :-)

Actually, reading between the lines in the letters column of X-Men, it seems
the newest editorial brainstorm was to give all the X-Men romantic interests.
Too bad they didn't bother actually considering their character's personalities
before playing matchmaker. Ugh.

"I *AM* A MADWOMAN!" -- Rogue, from waaaay back in the 180s.


>>>>>  CTHULHU IN '92! -- Why vote for the LESSER evil?  <<<<<
In related news:  George Bush is the Anti-Kate. Details at 11.
David Henry/Rogue Fan Club/Chaos Anonymous (ud137927@ndsuvm1.bitnet)
                                          (ud137927@vm1.nodak.edu)
What was your question? --K //Thanks... for the memories. -- Rogue