I should probably post more lol.

Nice attempt Ewing but this makes the situation better but it doesn't fix it. a) Peter is still framed as being somewhat in the wrong here when he did nothing wrong b) He is trying to justify MJ's treatment of him as PTSD, which doesn't work because she doesn't have other PTSD signs c) The backstory still borks the core concept of MJ's character and makes a lie of their relationship, damaging it. Even if it was believable its something you just shouldn't do, much like how DeFalco, a MJ shipper, had Peter smacking MJ across the room be realistic and beleivable in context. That doesn't justify actually DOING it. d) This is happening in a comic book which makes MJ Venom e) If MJ believed Peter was dead 2/4 years in the the apocalypse it still means she got with him and with him real quick afterwards. Peter took the better part of 2 years to grieve Gwen and fall in love with MJ and even then he had to sort through his feelings between the two upon being confronted with a seemingly alive and well Gwen Stacy. So, why was MJ moving on so quick from someone she was MUCH more deeply invovled with than Peter was with Gwen? Why was she never presented as torn between her old feelings for Peter and her new (but not legit love) feelings for Paul? Because obviously that wasn't the intention. f) Would MJ even believe Peter would be dead? Like I get it, his being dead is the only reason he wouldn't come for her...except...she was held hostage for over 6 months by her stalker and he still came for her. g) Peter has literally died and come back multiple times, including in Superior, so why would him being dead even mean he is for sure not coming back for her?

Do these pages make the MJ/Paul relationship justifiabe in terms of believability or realism in light of Peter and MJ's relationship history?

Microsfot Co-Pilot:

No — these pages do not make the MJ/Paul situation believable or realistic in light of Peter and MJ’s relationship history. They actually make it less believable, because they directly contradict the emotional logic, attachment patterns, and relational history that the Paul storyline requires MJ to abandon.

Below is the structured, debate‑ready breakdown.

⭐ 1. What these new pages try to do

These pages attempt to provide:

a retroactive justification for MJ staying with Paul

a trauma‑based explanation for her emotional shutdown

a time‑dilation excuse (“I thought you were dead”)

a shared survival narrative (“we saved each other”)

a grief‑bonding rationale (“we stuck together for the kids”)

This is Marvel trying to patch the emotional gap.

But patches don’t rewrite 40 years of established characterization.

⭐ 2. Why the explanation still doesn’t fit MJ’s established psychology

MJ’s 616 emotional pattern is extremely consistent:

she does not lose faith in Peter

she does not detach under trauma

she does not replace him

she does not shut down emotionally

she does not abandon him

she does not form new romantic bonds under duress

she does not stop loving him even when terrified

We see this in:

the stalker imprisonment

Kraven’s Last Hunt

the loss of their baby

Peter’s “death”

the separation era

the marriage era

JMS’s run

the Michelinie pages you posted

MJ’s defining trait is:

She stays when it matters.

The Paul storyline requires her to behave in the opposite way.

These new pages don’t change that.

⭐ 3. The “I thought you were dead” justification doesn’t hold up

Even in these pages, MJ says:

“Two years in, I thought you were dead.”

But this contradicts:

her history of not losing faith even when Peter is presumed dead

her history of waiting for him under worse conditions

her established belief that Peter always comes back

her emotional resilience under trauma

her attachment style (secure, loyal, grounded)

In Kraven’s Last Hunt, she believed Peter was dead for two weeks — and she never detached.

In the stalker imprisonment, she was isolated for a year — and she never detached.

In the baby loss arc, she was shattered — and she never detached.

The Paul storyline requires MJ to behave in a way she has never behaved under worse circumstances.

These pages don’t fix that.

⭐ 4. The “we had kids” justification doesn’t fit MJ’s history

MJ has:

lost a child

nearly lost Peter

endured family trauma

endured existential threats

And she has never responded by:

replacing Peter

forming a new family

emotionally detaching

shutting down

abandoning her bond with him

The “kids who died” explanation is tragic, but it doesn’t align with MJ’s established trauma responses.

⭐ 5. The “Paul is like Peter” justification is superficial

MJ saying:

“Sometimes he was really… …I thought you were dead.”

This is not love. This is projection — seeing Peter’s traits in someone else because she believed Peter was gone.

That is trauma‑bonding, not romance.

But the published story doesn’t portray trauma‑bonding. It portrays:

domestic calm

emotional detachment from Peter

a replacement family

coldness upon return

These pages try to retroactively add trauma, but the original portrayal contradicts it.

⭐ 6. The “three years, eleven months” justification still doesn’t match MJ’s attachment style

Time dilation is a clever idea, but:

MJ has endured long separations before

MJ has endured hopeless situations before

MJ has endured trauma before

MJ has endured believing Peter was dead before

And she has never responded by emotionally replacing him.

These pages don’t change her established pattern.

⭐ 7. The emotional tone of these pages contradicts the original portrayal

These pages show:

MJ crying

MJ apologising

MJ admitting she hurt Peter

MJ acknowledging trauma

MJ expressing regret

MJ reaffirming their bond

But the original Paul storyline showed:

coldness

detachment

dismissal

emotional distance

lack of grief

lack of longing

lack of conflict

lack of trauma symptoms

These pages contradict the earlier portrayal rather than justify it.

⭐ 8. Final verdict

Do these pages make MJ/Paul believable?

No. They attempt to justify the arc, but they contradict MJ’s established emotional history.

Do they make MJ/Paul realistic?

Only if you ignore 40 years of MJ’s characterization.

Do they align with Peter and MJ’s relationship history?

No — they conflict with nearly every major emotional beat in their shared arc.

Do they fix the Paul storyline?

No — they highlight the inconsistency rather than resolve it.

Do they make MJ’s actions psychologically plausible?

Why Mary Sue characters ruin everything.

do you think any of the patrons looked at zukos scarred face - obviously done by a firebender - and immediately think jet was an asshole? like

jet: hes a firebender!!!!

patrons, thinking about the backstory they concocted for zuko and iroh where their home was invaded by firebenders and they barely survived with their lifes so they could come and have a peaceful life selling tea in a city the war doesnt touch:

Cliche as it might be.

HANDS OFF OF HER MAN, TIN BREATH!

Does anyone even like Good Guy Norman being some reverse-engineered MCU Tony Stark to Grown-Ass Man Peter Parker? Spider-Man's arch-enemy--a misogynist, an abuser, a fascist, and a mass murderer--becoming a mentor in a position of respect and authority and power that Peter himself is for some reason incapable of attaining? I know I don't like it, but does anyone?

You keep being this good at it and eventually Reed's gonna rent you out to keep Kragoff out of their hair, Peter.