Search Results: a real man

Spider-Man Noir probably loses a clean, fair 1v1 against most modern Spider-Men because their raw feats, speed, agility, spider-sense, and experience against superpowered enemies are usually higher.

But Noir’s advantage is not a fair superhero-style fight. He is more of a detective/hunter type: darker, more tactical, and more willing to use stealth, traps, weapons, ambushes, intimidation, and dirty tactics.

My argument for how Noir could win is that he would try to make himself the only Spider-Man in the fight who can actually use webs effectively.

Against Spider-Men with technological web shooters, like MCU Peter or Andrew Garfield’s Spider-Man, Noir could target the devices first. If he damages or disables their web shooters, then the fight becomes much more even: spider-sense, agility, acrobatics, pain tolerance, and close-quarters instincts — but with Noir still having access to his own webbing and gear.

Against a Spider-Man with organic webbing, like Tobey Maguire’s Peter, Noir obviously cannot just break the web shooters. So he would have to attack Peter’s mental state instead. Tobey’s Peter has shown that his organic webbing can fail when he is emotionally conflicted or not in the right mental state. Noir could use fear, guilt, darkness, misdirection, psychological pressure, or carefully staged distractions to try to make Peter unable to use his webs at all.

Noir’s pain tolerance and darker mindset might help him survive the kind of brutal, psychological fight he would need to create, but that alone would not be enough because most Spider-Men are also extremely resilient.

So I do not think Noir wins by being physically superior. I think he only has a real chance if he turns the fight into sabotage, ambush, battlefield control, and mental pressure instead of a clean brawl.

Could Spider-Man Noir defeat other Spider-Men in a 1v1 matchup?

My view: Yes, it is fundamentally anti-women.

If the argument is that women need abortion to be equal to men, the implication is that women’s natural ability to become pregnant is a liability or a defect that must be neutralized before they can compete. That does not sound pro-woman. It sounds like measuring women entirely against a male standard and treating motherhood as an obstacle to success. True empowerment shouldn't require women to reject their own biological reality to fit into a system designed around men. Real respect for women should mean honoring women as women, not treating pregnancy and motherhood as problems that must be eliminated.

what do you think? Do you believe saying women need abortion in order to be equal to men is fundamentally anti-women?

Women are independent financially so most of them think why do I need a man? So was that the real reason why we were even ‘loved?’

I live in Europe and most men are unmarried at 30. So many girls I know are single or very quick to leave a good guy.

When you look around it’s generally like wtf happened. What the point in getting married old when your girl is old too?