And we know this particular artist considered that pose erotic because it looks almost exactly the same as one of his own famous pieces of sexually explicit art.
Milo Manara has been a one trick pony for 50 years.
He’s only able to draw the same character in the same poses, with very small variations.
So, all of his “art” looks practically the same - and, to me, it’s extra boring.
Compare him with another great Italian artist, Magnus, who had an extreme versatility and could range from purely erotic stuff (‘Le 110 pillole’) to extra fun ‘clean’ comics (‘Alan Ford’).
Sure. They deserve people with actual talent.
Whether you’re judging artistic talent or plain old eroticism, this artist isn’t fit to clean Frank Frazetta’s brushes.
I never really thought anything about that cover, other than how poorly drawn it is.
I may be too ‘european’ for this, but isn’t this the same as with any other skintight superhero suit wearing person?
I mean yes, she is on all fours etc and yes of course this has erotic connotation, but why all the outrage? Her backside will look like any other superhero backside.
If a male hero stands on the roof, his groin faced away to the city, do we assume he wanks off?
Why are we assuming she is “flashing” the city?
While I am fine with erotic art, it needs to be where it is appropriate. This seems rather inappropriate, IMO.
The artwork itself is not good. While comics often contort figures into poses that are not realistic, they at least feel natural. This does not. It’s bad anatomy.
I haven’t heard of this guy before, but I did a quick search and he is actually good at figure drawing, though some of it looks like he draws from reference. Not sure if he just phoned this in, or at 70, he’s lost some of his ability. Either way, it isn’t a good render, IMO and he cold do better.
ETA- oops I didnt mean to post this as a reply.
Here’s a typical Spider-Man cover.
You’ll note that even though his butt is visible in this illustration
- He is not posed as if “presenting”
- The fabric doesn’t reveal nook and cranny of his ass and groin as the above image does with Spider-Woman’s butt crack
- His costume looks like something he’s wearing rather than some kind of body paint
- The piece was not created by an artist who appeared to be tracing one of the sexually-charged, explicit images from one of his earlier erotic comics
Even up close I can’t see his web shooter so yeah, no problem there.
Alright, you win the internet for today…
Thanks 
In all honesty, I never really saw Spider Man as much of a sexualized character anyway. He always seemed kind of wholesome.
That’s not really the case with most female comic characters, unfortunately. It’s not about the spandex, it’s all about the positioning.
We’ve all seen the “what if the male Avengers all posed like Black Widow” pic, right?
This is a reiteration of his erotic work in a format supposedly representing a crime fighting woman about to kick ass - not present it for the male gaze.
Typical Spider-Man similar pose:
The drawer cribbed from his own work in erotic publications where the intent would be clear to a blind European misogynist.
Which is fine in an erotic work - but surely doesn’t represent women crime fighters as interested in fighting crime.
I still find it kind of icky, but yeah, context matters. I might not be interested in something like that, but it’s not a comic aimed at kids.
I agree. It’s too gang rapey as well.
Right? Not a fan.
Hmmm, you should have picked a Miles Morales one if you want “selective evidence”.
Nobody said it was a ‘typical’ cover.
Take this instead, including nooks and crannies and if you want to go ‘full projection’ with sperm like web fluid.
No. More like this.
