Why are heroines against the sex industry in many SHIP stories?

[GeekyPornCritic]

I've been reading a lot of SHIP erotica as of late. I love reading these stories and they provide great inspiration when I write custom scripts. I have noticed the sex industry such as strippers, pornstars, and prostitutes as a running theme. Why are heroines against the sex industry in many SHIP stories?

Heroines believe women should be considered strong and equal to men. However, they are against women expressing their sexual opinions as pornstars and strippers. They are also against women who are willing prostitutes (not sex slavery). Expressing someone's sexual views should be that person's decision alone. We have the right to freedom of expression. Being stripper and pornstar are NOT illegal.

I was reading Dark One's story about Solar Woman. She burnt down a brothel despite the fact the owner Porky had a LICENSE from the city. She abused her power as the mayor to prevent him from getting a new license and failed as the mayor and as Solar Woman. Is sex more important than stopping meth, rap, theft, and murder? Porky's employees aka the strippers were willing employees. Of course Solar Woman is fucked or "tamed" into being a willing employee.

Are many heroines extreme conservatives on the right who are against sexual expression?

I enjoy reading The Fuchsia Fox. She referred to a porn produce as sleazy, but she never attempted to shutdown his business. She properly criticized him based on her personal view of him. That's how far it should go. He wasn't doing anything illegal. She is probably the most liberal heroine in SHIP and enjoys expressing her sexuality. She was willingly a stripper in a story.

[DrDominator9]

I guess it stands to reason that Superheroines would be more likely to be conservatives now that you mention it, and yet though they mete out justice many are also vigilantes, so we can't be too quick to label them in either way. Like the general population, it's probably a mix of attitudes among the heroines. I suspect they channel most of their anger against the male owners of whore houses and against the pimps. An interesting story would be a super female pimp arguing and ultimately fighting for her rights against a super-heroine.

[Damselbinder]

I mean, isn't the answer tremendously obvious? These industries are rife with exploitation, whether it's literal sexual slavery, aggressive pimping, or just taking advantage of people. Is it all like that? Of course not. But it's prevalent enough. I don't think you have to be an 'extreme conservative' to be against prostitution. And that doesn't imply you think it should be illegal. For example, I don't think anyone should take heroin, but I also think it's not the sort of thing which should be completely illegal (for various reasons).

On a more meta-level, superheroes/heroines are often set against pimps/porn industry magnates because it's very easy to write such people as nasty, sleazy bastards. You barely have to do any writing to establish them as a fucko that we'll cheer our hero on to have them beat. Even if they're straw-men, they're crowd pleasing straw-men.

[GeekyPornCritic]

I mean, isn't the answer tremendously obvious? These industries are rife with exploitation, whether it's literal sexual slavery, aggressive pimping, or just taking advantage of people. Is it all like that? Of course not. But it's prevalent enough. I don't think you have to be an 'extreme conservative' to be against prostitution. And that doesn't imply you think it should be illegal. For example, I don't think anyone should take heroin, but I also think it's not the sort of thing which should be completely illegal (for various reasons).

On a more meta-level, superheroes/heroines are often set against pimps/porn industry magnates because it's very easy to write such people as nasty, sleazy bastards. You barely have to do any writing to establish them as a fucko that we'll cheer our hero on to have them beat. Even if they're straw-men, they're crowd pleasing straw-men.

I should have added this in the opening post. I think the writers of such stories are not well informed of pornography and legal brothels.

By attacking legal businesses, the heroines are in fact breaking the law. It is not illegal to create porn with consistent adults. Attacking a porn producer is illegal. He has not done anything wrong. Furthermore, a porn producer in legal pornography does not exploit women. Pornstars have their own set of rules on set, and can decline any bookings from companies. Pornstars can also refuse to work with a specific model. More pornstars in recent years do self-bookings (self-management), and do not work for model agencies. Pornstars also set their rates. Women models are paid more money than the male models.

If you are against prostitution, then you think it should be illegal because you are against it. It's one thing to dislike something, it's another thing to be against it. I dislike rap music. However, I am not against it. I'm not protesting it to be ban.

Legal brothels do not have pimps. Pimps are illegal throughout the nation. Brothel's owners are landlords. They rent rooms to prostitutes.

How can I cheer for a heroine attacking an innocent person?

If the villain is a sex slaver and pimp, then I am cheering for the herione to win. Nobody should be forced into any unwanted sexual acts. Now that's illegal.

[Damselbinder]

I mean, isn't the answer tremendously obvious? These industries are rife with exploitation, whether it's literal sexual slavery, aggressive pimping, or just taking advantage of people. Is it all like that? Of course not. But it's prevalent enough. I don't think you have to be an 'extreme conservative' to be against prostitution. And that doesn't imply you think it should be illegal. For example, I don't think anyone should take heroin, but I also think it's not the sort of thing which should be completely illegal (for various reasons).

On a more meta-level, superheroes/heroines are often set against pimps/porn industry magnates because it's very easy to write such people as nasty, sleazy bastards. You barely have to do any writing to establish them as a fucko that we'll cheer our hero on to have them beat. Even if they're straw-men, they're crowd pleasing straw-men.

I should have added this in the opening post. I think the writers of such stories are not well informed of pornography and legal brothels.

By attacking legal businesses, the heroines are in fact breaking the law. It is not illegal to create porn with consistent adults. Attacking a porn producer is illegal. He has not done anything wrong. Furthermore, a porn producer in legal pornography does not exploit women. Pornstars have their own set of rules on set, and can decline any bookings from companies. Pornstars can also refuse to work with a specific model. More pornstars in recent years do self-bookings (self-management), and do not work for model agencies. Pornstars also set their rates. Women models are paid more money than the male models.

If you are against prostitution, then you think it should be illegal because you are against it. It's one thing to dislike something, it's another thing to be against it. I dislike rap music. However, I am not against it. I'm not protesting it to be ban.

Legal brothels do not have pimps. Pimps are illegal throughout the nation. Brothel's owners are landlords. They rent rooms to prostitutes.

How can I cheer for a heroine attacking an innocent person?

If the villain is a sex slaver and pimp, then I am cheering for the herione to win. Nobody should be forced into any unwanted sexual acts. Now that's illegal.

I think saying 'if you're against something, that means you think it should be illegal' is flatly wrong. Unless by 'against' you just mean 'thinks it should be illegal', in which case it's tautologous.

"Legal brothels do not have pimps." Yes. And I'm sure there are also many illegal brothels.

No, it's not illegal to create porn with consenting adults. I watch pornography. I'm not making any kind of holier-than-thou point here. I'm sure many - even most - producers are reasonable and don't mistreat their employees. But you are, ultimately, talking about works of fiction here. I will demonstrate with an example.

Let us imagine that a superhero takes on, say, a manufacturer of textiles. "Manufacturing textiles," I hear you cry, "is perfectly legal. The hero is wrong!" But let us further imagine that this textiles manufacturer brutally - even if not illegally - exploits their workers. Then the situation is different. Now just take out 'manufacturer of textiles' and add in 'producer of pornography'. Now it would be equally ridiculous if the hero was JUST attacking the manufacturer/producer for being a manufacturer/producer, but presumably in each story in question there is more to it than that.

Now if your point is 'pornographers are unfairly vilified', that is a different matter. It may well be a fairer one. But it is, because of its nature, a business in which the possibility for exploitation, and the harm such exploitation would cause, would be great. It is something that writers in search of villains will be attracted to. Simply banging your fist and dogmatically insisting that pornography is legal, therefore heroes opposing them are wrong, is to insist on ethics being much simpler than they actually are. It is also an approach which, I submit, is extraordinarily unlikely to convince anyone who disagrees with you.

[GeekyPornCritic]

I mean, isn't the answer tremendously obvious? These industries are rife with exploitation, whether it's literal sexual slavery, aggressive pimping, or just taking advantage of people. Is it all like that? Of course not. But it's prevalent enough. I don't think you have to be an 'extreme conservative' to be against prostitution. And that doesn't imply you think it should be illegal. For example, I don't think anyone should take heroin, but I also think it's not the sort of thing which should be completely illegal (for various reasons).

On a more meta-level, superheroes/heroines are often set against pimps/porn industry magnates because it's very easy to write such people as nasty, sleazy bastards. You barely have to do any writing to establish them as a fucko that we'll cheer our hero on to have them beat. Even if they're straw-men, they're crowd pleasing straw-men.

I should have added this in the opening post. I think the writers of such stories are not well informed of pornography and legal brothels.

By attacking legal businesses, the heroines are in fact breaking the law. It is not illegal to create porn with consistent adults. Attacking a porn producer is illegal. He has not done anything wrong. Furthermore, a porn producer in legal pornography does not exploit women. Pornstars have their own set of rules on set, and can decline any bookings from companies. Pornstars can also refuse to work with a specific model. More pornstars in recent years do self-bookings (self-management), and do not work for model agencies. Pornstars also set their rates. Women models are paid more money than the male models.

If you are against prostitution, then you think it should be illegal because you are against it. It's one thing to dislike something, it's another thing to be against it. I dislike rap music. However, I am not against it. I'm not protesting it to be ban.

Legal brothels do not have pimps. Pimps are illegal throughout the nation. Brothel's owners are landlords. They rent rooms to prostitutes.

How can I cheer for a heroine attacking an innocent person?

If the villain is a sex slaver and pimp, then I am cheering for the herione to win. Nobody should be forced into any unwanted sexual acts. Now that's illegal.

I think saying 'if you're against something, that means you think it should be illegal' is flatly wrong. Unless by 'against' you just mean 'thinks it should be illegal', in which case it's tautologous.

"Legal brothels do not have pimps." Yes. And I'm sure there are also many illegal brothels.

No, it's not illegal to create porn with consenting adults. I watch pornography. I'm not making any kind of holier-than-thou point here. I'm sure many - even most - producers are reasonable and don't mistreat their employees. But you are, ultimately, talking about works of fiction here. I will demonstrate with an example.

Let us imagine that a superhero takes on, say, a manufacturer of textiles. "Manufacturing textiles," I hear you cry, "is perfectly legal. The hero is wrong!" But let us further imagine that this textiles manufacturer brutally - even if not illegally - exploits their workers. Then the situation is different. Now just take out 'manufacturer of textiles' and add in 'producer of pornography'. Now it would be equally ridiculous if the hero was JUST attacking the manufacturer/producer for being a manufacturer/producer, but presumably in each story in question there is more to it than that.

Now if your point is 'pornographers are unfairly vilified', that is a different matter. It may well be a fairer one. But it is, because of its nature, a business in which the possibility for exploitation, and the harm such exploitation would cause, would be great. It is something that writers in search of villains will be attracted to. Simply banging your fist and dogmatically insisting that pornography is legal, therefore heroes opposing them are wrong, is to insist on ethics being much simpler than they actually are. It is also an approach which, I submit, is extraordinarily unlikely to convince anyone who disagrees with you.

You are wrong on every level. You can insult me all you want by saying "I'm crying", it doesn't make you right. These are works of fiction, thus I can criticize these works. I have the right to criticize books, movies, and all forms of entertainment as you have the right to support them. If someone wrote a novel with a message that blacks should be slaves in 2019, would you tell me "its just fiction. Live with it"?

Again, I am NOT referring to villains such as pimps and sex slavers who illegal exploit women. Those guys should go to jail.

Superheroines (not speaking of SHIP) don't attack employers who legally exploit their employees. I can make the argument of exploitation in many businesses. Does Wonder Woman break into McDonald's headquarters for underpaying employees? Nope!

You are saying (also wrongly) the law does not apply to superheroines. It is wrong for any heroine to attack or destroy a legal business regardless if it is porn or a textiles manufacturer. Superheroines are suppose to protect the innocent, not attack legal businesses.

What crime did a porn produce commit? A heroine is fighting in a porn studio while Little Johnny is robbing the bank.

You also purposely ignored the facts from my previous post. You ignored pornstars in legal pornography are NOT being exploited. These stories always paint the consenting female actress as a victim when she is not. Then, the male pornstar who gets paid much less as a villain with the producer. It attempts to sale the male pornstar as a villain and all men are evil. These stories reek with anti-porn messages (this is ironic considering this community and the story's content) from today's mainstream media and the "war on porn".

Steven Bell had a similar situation in M-Girls #28 -- Take Me Out at the Ballgame. The "villains" were having consensual sex with a cheerleader from the rival team. Miss Marvelous falsely accused the baseball team of violating and exploiting a rival cheerleader. The cheerleader wanted to have a gang bang. Nothing illegal was happening and Miss Marvelous learned this the hard way after she though she defeated the baseball team. The cheerleader defeated her and told the team about her weakness.

Sure the baseball team is not a pornographer. Yet, they did not commit a crime. First, the cheerleader gave consent for a gangbang. Second, they committed self-defense to protect themselves from Miss Marvelous. Steven Bell also directly states Miss Marvelous's mistake and pure ignorance.

Good writers can create great villains without using the legal sex industry. Miss Marvelous's greatest enemy was a politician involved in foreign wars and drugs. One of Fuchsia Fox's many enemies is a terrorist organization that wants to destroy America.

[Damselbinder]

I didn't mean to insult you, GPC. When I said "I hear you cry", I meant 'cry' in the sense of 'cry out' or 'shout', not 'weep.' It's just an idiom. I'm afraid I still utterly disagree with you, but no offence was intended.

[tallyho]

Lets all just keep it civil guys. An obvious answer though is when she tries to stop them and fails there is a raison d'etre for any sexual assault that follows on the heroine

Not that much reason is needed in most cases

[bushwackerbob]

Traditionally, at least in theory, superheroines are supposed to stand for wholesome values, she is supposed to be a role model and represent the better angels of our souls. Yes, porn is legal and totally awesome and is certainly more mainstream than it was thirty years ago but I think in large part is not entirely societally publicly socially acceptable and therefore is ripe for SHIP stories, especially if there are illegalities connected with these SHIP porn industry stories.

[Foolish Mortal]

If you have noticed that as a theme in your stories, you may want to ask the writers. People in the porn industry in general can be viewed as as sleazy.
I won't go into that here because it has been addressed well by others.
If a heroine is defeated by someone in the "porn" industry what will happen to her. Chances are nothing good right? SHiP Fanfiction, Ingredients. Superheroine, check.
Unsavory villain, check.
Superheroine is defeated, check.
Superheroine is placed in a compromising position or worse, check.
The writer checks all of the boxes and submits the story. Are they attempting to make a statement about society or politics? Probably not.

[Disciple]

Okay, allow me to rise from my ancient slumber and throw in my own two cents...

I must admit, I never expected to find someone who felt this strongly about an element I always took for granted in the genre. For me, the illegality (outright or implicit) of the sex industry is half the fun - I've known Dark for almost a decade now, and I know he recognizes selling sex as a largely victimless crime. His heroines are, for the most part, meant to be not-too-bright busybodies that the world won't be particularly worse (or better) off without, so it's only fitting they fight "crime" that doesn't, in the long run, cause any ripples.

(By the by - you should perhaps have read that Solar Woman story more closely. The brothel burning down was an accident; if anyone was 'responsible' it was the owner for being stupid enough to smoke with so much body-oil and booze lying around, and hell, basic lack of fire-safety is a reason to deny someone a license, isn't it?)

[GeekyPornCritic]

Okay, allow me to rise from my ancient slumber and throw in my own two cents...

I must admit, I never expected to find someone who felt this strongly about an element I always took for granted in the genre. For me, the illegality (outright or implicit) of the sex industry is half the fun - I've known Dark for almost a decade now, and I know he recognizes selling sex as a largely victimless crime. His heroines are, for the most part, meant to be not-too-bright busybodies that the world won't be particularly worse (or better) off without, so it's only fitting they fight "crime" that doesn't, in the long run, cause any ripples.

(By the by - you should perhaps have read that Solar Woman story more closely. The brothel burning down was an accident; if anyone was 'responsible' it was the owner for being stupid enough to smoke with so much body-oil and booze lying around, and hell, basic lack of fire-safety is a reason to deny someone a license, isn't it?)

Did I miss something from an earlier volume? The line reads as "Solar Woman had started a fire that burned the main part, the old red barn, down just two weeks back." from SOLAR WOMAN: PORKY STRIKES BACK.

[bushwackerbob]

I suppose one could say there was a minor continuity error connected to the previous story because the previous story stated that Solar Woman knocked the cigar out of the villain's mouth which started the fire.

[DonShip]

Yes, it was a multipart story.

But, I hear you. I agree with most of what you say. Prostitution should be legalized. I myself have enjoyed their profession on many occasions. (SIde Note: Prostitution in Germany was Awesome! I spent half my army pay on them).

Now, the heroine you reference was based on a known character (Solar Woman, created by Nightwing) that I was trying to stay true to, way back in the early 2000s. My own characters also rage against prostitution, and the pimps and human traffickers that force women to "debase" themselves. Yes, my heroines considered themselves the epitome of feminine virtue, despite the skimpy costumes and all too frequent "setbacks." They frequently find themselves forced into that oldest of professions by the end of the stories. It's part of the peril. I like my heroines to win in enough stories that my readers don't know if they'll win or loose, thus the peril element becomes more intense (I hope),

But my heroines frequently have old school feminist beliefs and view prostitutes not necessary as evil, but as victims of evil men. So they want to destroy the men, and thus save those poor victims.

Perhaps I've been a little too heavy handed, but I view SHIP fiction as over the top fun, so heavy handed seems to be the way to to go. At least for me.
But I have sometimes wondered if I'm pushing it. Maybe I need to contemplate this some more.
Thank you for reading and your honest comments. It helps.

[Femina]

Are there many stories in which Super heroines go after LEGALLY operated sex industries? From my experience these sorts of stories generally focus on attacking pimps and gangs that are illegally exploiting their 'employees' or else 'legally' exploiting their employees to an unhealthy degree.

That being said... one thing one should take care not to forget when dealing with superheroes of any sort, is that they are already usually breaking the law by participating in vigilantism... so the 'legal' thing isn't always the thing a Superhero cares about. They usually have a set of moral ethics and principles which trump what a government expects of them. So just running your business legally isn't enough to ensure Batman never comes banging down your door, you have to also not exploit loopholes which 'legally' victimize your employees. Batman doesn't care about the law unless the law is correct from HIS perspective.

[bushwackerbob]

I brought the subject of the legality of superheroines fighting crime about three years ago on this site and a poster who seemed to have a legal background suggested that the superheroines are somehow deputized by the local authorities, I guess similar to Oliver Queen on Arrow, but I am still skeptical of the plausibility of that nonetheless. I would love to see a SHP story where the superheroine takes care of business, perhaps outside her jurisdiction, the cops come on the scene, she then gets arrested and booked for vigilantism. Then the fun begins.

[GeekyPornCritic]

I brought the subject of the legality of superheroines fighting crime about three years ago on this site and a poster who seemed to have a legal background suggested that the superheroines are somehow deputized by the local authorities, I guess similar to Oliver Queen on Arrow, but I am still skeptical of the plausibility of that nonetheless. I would love to see a SHP story where the superheroine takes care of business, perhaps outside her jurisdiction, the cops come on the scene, she then gets arrested and booked for vigilantism. Then the fun begins.

I don't think superheroines are deputized in most stories. Local authorities allow superheroines to fight crime because cops cannot handle super villains. Barney Fife would be on his way to the hospital if he tried to stop Darkseid. Their only option is allowing superheroines to step in and resolve the problem.

However, local authorizes do not normally deputize superheroines because they fear the heroines could abuse their authority. It is best to allow them to practice vigilantism.

[bushwackerbob]

I brought the subject of the legality of superheroines fighting crime about three years ago on this site and a poster who seemed to have a legal background suggested that the superheroines are somehow deputized by the local authorities, I guess similar to Oliver Queen on Arrow, but I am still skeptical of the plausibility of that nonetheless. I would love to see a SHP story where the superheroine takes care of business, perhaps outside her jurisdiction, the cops come on the scene, she then gets arrested and booked for vigilantism. Then the fun begins.

I don't think superheroines are deputized in most stories. Local authorities allow superheroines to fight crime because cops cannot handle super villains. Barney Fife would be on his way to the hospital if he tried to stop Darkseid. Their only option is allowing superheroines to step in and resolve the problem.

However, local authorizes do not normally deputize superheroines because they fear the heroines could abuse their authority. It is best to allow them to practice vigilantism.

First of all let us both acknowledge the absurdity of discussing the rules of engagement for fictional superheroines in a fantasy universe. While I share your skepticism of the idea of the deputization (is that a word?) of superheroines, and I do not recall seeing either in SHP fiction or film any reference to that idea, that does not mean that the universe that the authors have created that it does not exist. I would like to hear from authors such as Don Ship and others their take on the status of superheroines regarding their legal authority concerning crimefighting. You talk about the supervillains such as Darkseid, but how about run of the mill ordinary bad guys? I am not a legal expert and I know this sounds ridiculous to apply real world laws to a fictional universe but I think that if a municipality tacitly let superheroines fight crime without any kind of rules of engagement, oversight, or official designation, that the city would have a tremendous potential for legal liability if anything went wrong in terms of false arrest, false imprisonment, no search warrants, potential injury to criminal while attempting to make an arrest, I would think that any of these issues would be easy pickings for a defense attorney to slice through.

[DonShip]

In my super heroine universes (yes, I have my own multiverse), super heroine vigilantism is legalized by the Federal government. They are not piece officers, so are not held to the same legal standards. Basically, they have a kind of enhanced "citizen arrest" right. Most of the criminals they apprehend would be set free on technicalities if super heroines were officers of the law.

I do one day want to write a story, or series, where masked vigilantes are outside the law, so face arrest if caught by the police, but still go out and capture bad guys for the cops. That would add a whole new layer of peril.

[Femina]

its all down to the fictional universe of course. I believe Damsilbinder's universe also has a sorta deputation process that even PAYS superheroes based on their crime fighting success... but such is not always or even usually the case, and even in universes where it is so, the assumption still has to be that in the begging superheroes were vigilantes and a changing world adapted to recognize them.

I was just pointing out that Superheroes aren't concerned with the law as though it were the end all and be all of what is right and good (exceptions exist obviously). Often Superheroes will blatantly break the law if they feel the law is bad.

Superheroing is generally the realm of the old D&D 'Chaotic Good' territory, that being the heroes are only concerned with what THEY perceive to be right and good, and don't consider the law as being a binary yes/no barrier. They analyze the situation as it comes up and try to do the thing that will make them sleep better at night and help as many of the involved people as possible to sleep better at night. To many supers, If the law is getting in the way of that, then who needs it?

[bushwackerbob]

its all down to the fictional universe of course. I believe Damsilbinder's universe also has a sorta deputation process that even PAYS superheroes based on their crime fighting success... but such is not always or even usually the case, and even in universes where it is so, the assumption still has to be that in the begging superheroes were vigilantes and a changing world adapted to recognize them.

I was just pointing out that Superheroes aren't concerned with the law as though it were the end all and be all of what is right and good (exceptions exist obviously). Often Superheroes will blatantly break the law if they feel the law is bad.

Superheroing is generally the realm of the old D&D 'Chaotic Good' territory, that being the heroes are only concerned with what THEY perceive to be right and good, and don't consider the law as being a binary yes/no barrier. They analyze the situation as it comes up and try to do the thing that will make them sleep better at night and help as many of the involved people as possible to sleep better at night. To many supers, If the law is getting in the way of that, then who needs it?

I can just picture the commercial for the superhero training class "If you want to fight crime and feel the constitution and the Bill of Rights does not apply to you, then our superheroine academy is the place for you." The ACLU would probably list Superman as enemy number one of their organization. One of the defining characteristics of villains is that they feel that they are above the law. If superheroes are allowed to violate the civil rights of citizens in certain situations then how are they any different than the villains. Yes I know the villains act out of self interest and the heroes act out of a sense of the greater good but at the end of the day what matters most is actions not good intentions. Superheroes who act out of a concept of situational ethics regarding the law are mirroring the actions of villains who will ignore the law when it is most convenient for them. Damm hypocrites. These superheroes may be able to sleep better at night but I was reminded of this tv show quote "justice may be blind, but it can see in the dark".

[Femina]

its all down to the fictional universe of course. I believe Damsilbinder's universe also has a sorta deputation process that even PAYS superheroes based on their crime fighting success... but such is not always or even usually the case, and even in universes where it is so, the assumption still has to be that in the begging superheroes were vigilantes and a changing world adapted to recognize them.

I was just pointing out that Superheroes aren't concerned with the law as though it were the end all and be all of what is right and good (exceptions exist obviously). Often Superheroes will blatantly break the law if they feel the law is bad.

Superheroing is generally the realm of the old D&D 'Chaotic Good' territory, that being the heroes are only concerned with what THEY perceive to be right and good, and don't consider the law as being a binary yes/no barrier. They analyze the situation as it comes up and try to do the thing that will make them sleep better at night and help as many of the involved people as possible to sleep better at night. To many supers, If the law is getting in the way of that, then who needs it?

I can just picture the commercial for the superhero training class "If you want to fight crime and feel the constitution and the Bill of Rights does not apply to you, then our superheroine academy is the place for you." The ACLU would probably list Superman as enemy number one of their organization. One of the defining characteristics of villains is that they feel that they are above the law. If superheroes are allowed to violate the civil rights of citizens in certain situations then how are they any different than the villains. Yes I know the villains act out of self interest and the heroes act out of a sense of the greater good but at the end of the day what matters most is actions not good intentions. Superheroes who act out of a concept of situational ethics regarding the law are mirroring the actions of villains who will ignore the law when it is most convenient for them. Damm hypocrites. These superheroes may be able to sleep better at night but I was reminded of this tv show quote "justice may be blind, but it can see in the dark".

I think its simply that, to the superheroes that operate on their own ethical compass, that particular moral quandry doesn't bother them. It's easy to say the law is what separates heroes from villains, but that is only a qualifier that can bother you if you BELIEVE that the law is what separates heroes from villains.

It isn't to ME. What separates heroes from villains in my estimation is that, generally heroes protect people, and generally villains hurt them. The specifics can get muddied if you aren't careful of course, which is why Batman has his own 'code' and such. He's drawn the line in the sand of what he will and will not do, most heroes draw their own line, and if the law suddenly changed and said 'that line is wrong what you really need to do is kill the joker' Batman wouldn't flinch, wouldn't kill the joker, and wouldn't feel bad about not following that law or worry that it made him just like the villains.