Originally Posted by jonathancrane
While I am unaware of your intentions or social views, the final statement in your post is misogynistic. Note: this criticism is not directed to you, as a person, but, the question/claim you posited at the end of the post is quite socially inappropriate. Male superheoes in cinema are given a free pass; do we shame Iron Man or Batman for the numerous one night stands they have? Secondly, dating does not equate to sex; there is no onscreen evidence that she held sexual congress with anyone. But, if she did, I return to my original question: so what? What is wrong with a woman expressing our sexuality? The infuriating tension (and double standard) in our society is that promiscuity in heteronormative men is promoted, while all of the dread/rage is evacuated into the female, as a population and idea.
Sexual intimacy is absent in the Raimi films; all of the intimacy that is present is in chronemics (time) and proximics (space.) Hence, if we examine the films with this criteria, we see that Peter is a very homosocial figure. While he does not engage in sex with other men, he spends ample time with them, especially the ones who possess sexually appealing bodies (cough, cough, Harry.) If anything, it is peculiar that he spends more time with men, whether it is Osborn, Ock, Harry, or JJJ, than he does with women. The screentime he has with the males figures definitely reinforces this; hence, Peter is a very strange figure.
Now, this not a proper critical reading of the films; I would be more detailed and jargon-oriented; my point of this post is to point out that it is wrong to evacuate dread onto the Woman, the figure and the idea, for possessing sexuality; the irony of the situation is that Raimi's films were far from possessing any traditional sexual energy associated with heternormative romances.
Again, please be careful with your wording: the Hype has a large female population, and there is no need to make them feel uncomfortable with language such as 'harlot' or shaming sexuality.