🐱 Marvel Raises Doubts on Spider-Man’s Sexuality with Shocking Cover

CatParty


Pride Month is nearly upon comic book fans. And while Marvel fans have been left disappointed compared to some of the offerings from DC Comics, the announcements are still coming. Marvel has announced a series of comic book runs and variant covers featuring LGBTQ+ characters and queer creators from the Marvel Universe. And one recent announcement had some Marvel fans confused as to whether Peter Parker/Spider-Man might be bisexual.

Peter Parker/Spider-Man has been brought to live-action three times, played by Tom Holland, Andrew Garfield, and Tobey Maguire. Peter Parker’s onscreen romances include Mary Jane Watson (Kristen Dunst), Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), and Michelle Jones (Zendaya). Each character was based on one of Peter Parker’s comic book relationships.

However, one of his primary love interests that he has not interacted with much yet on the big screen is Felicia Hardy/Black Cat. Felicity Jones brought Black Cat to live-action in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014) with Andrew Garfield, but she was not given much to do in the film, which was poorly received y fans. Luckily, Garfield was able to reprise his variant of Spider-Man in Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021).

Black Cat first appeared in The Amazing Spider-Man #194 (1979) by Marv Wolfman and Keith Pollard. Felicia Hardy has a complicated romantic history with Spider-Man and has finally been confirmed as bisexual. That is why she got her very own Pride Variant Cover. But laying beside her was Peter Parker, which some Marvel fans took to mean that their favorite web-crawler was also coming out of the closet.

Questions quickly began pouring in under Marvel Comics’ official announcement of the cover, drawn by Jen Bartel, on Twitter. One user asked:

“spiderman is gay?”
To which other users jokingly responded with

“Yes, he’s in a relationship with Johnny storm and sometimes Deadpool also.”
Yes he’s in a relationship with Johnny storm and sometimes Deadpool also
🍂 (@TeddysManTits) April 14, 2022
Peter Parker was only included as Black Cat’s love interest on the variant cover of Marvel Voices: Pride #1 written by Charlie Jane Anders, Christopher Cantwell, Andrew Wheeler, Alyssa Wong, Grace Freud, Ira Madison III, and Danny Lore. However, many Marvel fans have long suspected Peter could be secretly bisexual, and they jumped on the chance to point out other male Marvel superheroes he could have been in a relationship with.

Johnny Storm/Human Torch of the Fantastic Four has long been one of Spider-Man’s best friends. Some fans have pointed out they can be pretty flirty with each other, including the Human Torch inviting Peter over to watch a very special DVD with him in Amazing Spider-Man Digital #17 (2009) by Brian Reed.

Wade Wilson/Deadpool has never been shy about being attracted to both Peter Parker and Spider-Man (when he does not know they are the same person). The Merc with a Mouth is pansexual and actually has a “daughter” with Peter named Itsy Bitsy, who is a genetic combination introduced in Spider-Man/Deadpool #8 (2016) by Joe Kelly.

And in Moon Knight #4 (2019) by Brian Michael Bendis, Peter admitted having dated Marc Spector/Steven Grant/Moon Knight “a little bit.” It is not clear if he was joking, but Marvel has been poking around the idea of Peter Parker being bisexual for a while. But for now, he is still officially straight.
 
Cover Art has Spider-Man with two women...

Having a MFF threesome isn't special, it's called two-chicks at once.
No, you see, they're applying shipper logic to it. If two characters are in the same picture together, then they're obviously either fucking or they like all the same things as one another, so they're fucking. Given black cat likes fucking women and men, spiderman, by being in the same frame as her, also likes fucking women and men.

Incidentally, this is also why appearing in the same picture as a known* nazi† makes you an evil racist donald drumph inch erectionist. It's all the same, simplistic, immature logic.

*known as in twitter or the ny times said it so it must be true
†lit: "person I disagree with"
 
Just how many months do leftists have dedicated to being insufferable now?
IMG_20211112_184344.png
 
Who gives a fuck about those superhero fag show? Clowns wearing tights and wondering if they're fucking faggot, you “Ameinikan” nouveau riche's aesthetic is really as suck as tequila.
 
Última edición:
For a nerdy guy, Peter Parker gets laid like tile more often than not.
Well, he's a nerd who can carry a couch when its time to move to a new apartment, and isn't as physically intimidating in stature like a lot of other guys who can do that.
Nearly upon? Did the whole fucking month of May just disappear while I was napping or what? There is a full damn 31 days month between us and Pride... calm your tits.
At the risking of needing to Read Another Book:
"Pride Month is Coming."
Christ, at least when the Starks said their line it was allegorical about the need to be prepared, not... whatever the fuck is going on in the Left.
 
Well, he's a nerd who can carry a couch when its time to move to a new apartment, and isn't as physically intimidating in stature like a lot of other guys who can do that.
Hell, he could carry your apartment. Carry that over to physical endurance and no wonder the ladies keep coming back.
 
I’m so far past the point of caring that I actually find myself questioning what they’ll do next to ensure they can have “Their” characters that also happen to be the ONLY canonical characters purely to fuck over the estates of the creators.

That’s all this is about. They told the tards they hired to write this shit that it matters but it doesn’t and the tards don’t care because they get to make some money and can fail upwards when they’re shitcanned.

Also, before anyone asks, the only thing about it that upsets me is how long it’s taking for the comic industry to just die already.

No fucking joke, it’s like that gag from the first Austin Powers movie where Dr Evil tries to kill the guy in the Fez but he somehow keeps surviving.
 
I’m so far past the point of caring that I actually find myself questioning what they’ll do next to ensure they can have “Their” characters that also happen to be the ONLY canonical characters purely to fuck over the estates of the creators.

That’s all this is about. They told the tards they hired to write this shit that it matters but it doesn’t and the tards don’t care because they get to make some money and can fail upwards when they’re shitcanned.

Also, before anyone asks, the only thing about it that upsets me is how long it’s taking for the comic industry to just die already.

No fucking joke, it’s like that gag from the first Austin Powers movie where Dr Evil tries to kill the guy in the Fez but he somehow keeps surviving.
Maybe the comics industry is too big to fail or die, or at least the big two are.
 
Peter Parker should get bit by an AIDS bug and then spend the entire comic crying about his poz'ed hole and then suddenly fuck Dr. Octogon in his butthole to tame him. Now that's progressive.
 
Firstly: STOP TRYING TO MAKE SPIDER MAN A FAGGOT! NOBODY WANTS THAT EXCEPT FAGGOTS, AND NOBODY SHOULD CARE WHAT FAGGOTS WANT!

Secondly: How the fuck does a cover of him with 2 chicks in any way "raise doubts" about his sexuality? Fucking 2 chicks or fucking a bi chick is still straight.
 
Can’t we have one superhero who ain’t slurping down cock like fat man on a glizzy bender?
 
I was just discussing this general subject with someone IRL and I feel like now is a good enough time to bring it up as a reminder: everybody knows that nobody dies in comics, because death is never permanent, but people seem to forget that all personality shifts and changes from the "base" personality aren't permanent, either. It doesn't matter how many times Captain America hands his shield away to some 'better person', because he'll always end up with it again as if it never happened. It doesn't matter how many characters fall in line with whatever fad is in comics at the time - sidekicks, abandoning their names, edgy outfits, random hookups or random sexualities or character flaws - the run will eventually bomb or get old and someone else will come along and change it back afterward.

These kinds of people salivating over the idea that a fictional character might possibly have had sex with a different gender than usual offscreen some time are pathetic, but the people raging about how the SJW ARE RUINING COMICS FOREVER are showing their utter lack of experience with comics too. Getting worked up about it literally only gives the comics more attention, when in reality there's always been countless weird runs of comics that nobody liked, most people didn't even notice, and are quickly forgotten to history because they never picked up any traction.
 
All I gotta say is I think Black Cat is one of the weakest parts of Spider-Man's lore.

It makes me laugh that Wikipedia entry on the character claims the creator Marv Wolfman thought her up because of a Tex Avery cartoon. Like Marvel and Disney (or at least wiki editors) are in heavy denial that Felicia isn't a giant ripoff of Batman's Catwoman.

They both have feline inspired names and theme. They're both obviously cat burglars. They both serve to function as Femme Fatales in the stories. The only difference is Black Cat was made some 40 years after Catwoman.

Also Black Cat having long silver hair doesn't make any damn sense, why is she a Black Cat if her costume isn't all black and how can she be a cat burglar with that get up?

Just a nonsense character built from plagarism.
 
To be fair, Spiderman was canonically diddled as a boy by Skip, and we all know the effect that can have on a little boy. Many such cases.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo