Sure, but then she would have to kill him. And, she could totally do that.
Sadly enough, as part of the X-Men community, its only a matter of time before she's teleported out of her clothing, tossed into a Shiar cloning machine (naked), has her clothes torn apart in a fight (cause unstable molecules will never beat fanboy want) or is just caught wandering around the danger room with nothing on, just because. Mutants are evidently just more liberated that way.
My buddy and I were watching 'Hulk vs. Wolverine' last night, and he made a big deal out of how much he loved X-23. This panel was made for him. I've never heard of her before, I guess she's some kind of girl Wolverine character?
I've said the exact same thing while holding my friend's sister's graduation picture.
"sir have you heard of the google?"
Isn't she like 14 years old or something?
I really can't like characters who were created so readers don't have to feel gay wanking to their favorite super dudes. I'm all for awesome female character, but for every invisible woman or storm we get 30 characters tacking "girl" to an established male character's name.
If lagging sales demand it, yes.
This is what rule 34 is for.
Wasn't she naked when she was a prostate in NYX
Heh heh "prostate"
Actually I believe that X-23 was created by the producuers of X-men Evolution because they wanted an excuse to involve Wolverine more, as the network wanted them to focus on the kids, not on the adults.
Stupid auto correct, prostitute not prostate
you remember that story of Artemis when that hunter saw her bathing by accident? And then she turned him into a deer and his own dogs ate him? That's what it would be like to see X-23 naked. Only she'd kill you herself.
That was a rather long-winded way to say YOU GONNA GIT RAPED!Don't forget that Artemis ironically is based on a fertility goddess of the same name that predates the classic Greek pantheon, but that's beside the point.
The girl version of Wolverine isn't Rule 34, it's Rule 63. "For every male character, there's a female version of that character." (and vice-versa) For the longest time, love interests were just the main character in drag. Compare Mickey Mouse to Minnie Mouse, and you'll never see the two of them the same way again.It also gives a third meaning at the end of the anti-smoking commercial starring a Mr. Butts ripoff:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLkHJcS7qQc
Yep I love how a character that started as a prostitute is now a main character with its own book. If she was so powerful and a killing machine why on earth would she let a pimp slap her around? The story made sense originally when it came out, then the fanboys all drooled over her and they felt the need to make more back story for her and in doing so wrecked the whole credibility of the story they debuted her with....So in essence I think marvel is just as guilty for rule 34 as the fanboys are!
wow, alot of the comments in this post belong right along side the man in the comic, in the "Creeps" section.