PDA

View Full Version : Correct me if i'm wrong: since when adultery is okay?



connyves
05-10-2008, 03:42 PM
With their talk about Peter's upcoming romance, did they forget that Peter technically is a married man? Or hoping fans would forget?

Karl Cook
05-10-2008, 03:46 PM
With their talk about Peter's upcoming romance, did they forget that Peter technically is a married man? Or hoping fans would forget?

Here's where (for some of us) the problem lies, the marriage never happened now. This means that any girl Peter gets jiggy with will not be considered his "mistress". :mad:

Alan2099
05-10-2008, 03:56 PM
With their talk about Peter's upcoming romance, did they forget that Peter technically is a married man?
Is he? Is he really?

quillero
05-10-2008, 04:01 PM
Well, he already made a deal with the devil, cheating can't be worse than that, can it? :tongue:

Alan2099
05-10-2008, 04:03 PM
If a lawyer can say, "okay, sign this. Now your'e not married anymore," then shouldn't the devil be able to do the same? :wink:

connyves
05-10-2008, 04:09 PM
Well, he already made a deal with the devil, cheating can't be worse than that, can it? :tongue:

true, so true!

Mako
05-10-2008, 04:31 PM
Well, he already made a deal with the devil, cheating can't be worse than that, can it? :tongue:


true, so true!

Exactly! What kind of a jerk would do everything in his power to save the life of the woman who raised him like her own child? Spider-Man? More like Spider-Jerk! :rolleyes:

(BTW, it's been almost half a year since that story came out. In the meantime there's been over 12 issues by completely different writers, artists, and a completely different editor. Maybe it's time to let it go. Don't you think?) :wink:

quillero
05-10-2008, 04:40 PM
Exactly! What kind of a jerk would do everything in his power to save the life of the woman who raised him like her own child? Spider-Man? More like Spider-Jerk! :rolleyes:

(BTW, it's been almost half a year since that story came out. In the meantime there's been over 12 issues by completely different writers, artists, and a completely different editor. Maybe it's time to let it go. Don't you think?) :wink:

Well, first, I was joking..see the tongue...

Now I hated OMD, but I've liked most of BND (except for Gale's issues), but I can't help but wonder who's worse:

The people that still complain about OMD or the ones that go into their threads to tell them to move on (other thing would be if they go to derail another thread).

Mako
05-10-2008, 04:55 PM
I can't help but wonder who's worse:

The people that still complain about OMD or the ones that go into their threads to tell them to move on (other thing would be if they go to derail another thread).

Easy. One group has been complaining for close to half a year. The other less so. :tongue:

And honestly, who do you think there's more of, the OMD-complainers or the OMD-complainer-complainers? :redface:

quillero
05-10-2008, 05:03 PM
Easy. One group has been complaining for close to half a year. The other less so. :tongue:

And honestly, who do you think there's more of, the OMD-complainers or the OMD-complainer-complainers? :redface:
Well, yeah. But they are like enviromentalists... they annoy the hell out of me (the JoeQ must die!!!11!!! extremists specially), but they kinda have a point.

Unfortunately it gets lost in the middle of all the childhood raping accusations.

Alan2099
05-10-2008, 05:05 PM
Well, first, I was joking..see the tongue...

Now I hated OMD, but I've liked most of BND (except for Gale's issues), but I can't help but wonder who's worse:

The people that still complain about OMD or the ones that go into their threads to tell them to move on (other thing would be if they go to derail another thread).

So, now you've entered a new stage. The people who complain about the people who complain about the people who complain.

Not that I'm complaining about that, mind you. :wink:

quillero
05-10-2008, 05:15 PM
So, now you've entered a new stage. The people who complain about the people who complain about the people who complain.

Not that I'm complaining about that, mind you. :wink:

Yep. Except those who complain about the Barry-crazies complaining. Those are ok :wink:

Rob Thompson
05-10-2008, 05:19 PM
I believe it is okay as long as you're a democrat. :biggrin:

Mister Mets
05-10-2008, 05:59 PM
Ethics question.

If an amnesiac man doesn't remember that he's married, and has sex with another woman, is he committing adultery? Though in his case, he should be aware of the possibility that he's married, which Peter isn't. Peter's completely ignorant of what happened.

Plus we're not entirely sure if the marriage ever happened. The exact nature of the retcon hasn't been revealed.

matthewaos
05-10-2008, 06:02 PM
I think marvel said that the marriage never happened, something happened that day that they will show someday.

Endless Flight
05-10-2008, 06:15 PM
Peter's completely ignorant of what happened..

Not quite.

Isn't part of his soul in anguish over what never happened?

It sounds ridiculous just typing it. That'd be like me having indigestion even though I didn't go to McDonald's and eat two Big Macs this afternoon. It makes no sense.

nester
05-10-2008, 06:27 PM
i think the really interesting question is, "How many current Brand New Day readers would consider it adultery?" I've seen several posters state that they believe the marriage will be reinstated within a year or two; that this whole thing is an elaborate storyline. What percentage of the readership share that belief?

Do you think we might see a Sins Past reaction in the future? Being told that the characters have never been married and seeing them being intimate with other people are two different things.

DeadXMan
05-10-2008, 06:43 PM
Scott Summers never seemed to have a problem with it.

nester
05-10-2008, 06:48 PM
Scott Summers never seemed to have a problem with it.

I doubt Cyclops has a fan base as large and diverse as Spider-Man's. I guess we'll see.

mikekerr3
05-10-2008, 07:02 PM
If a lawyer can say, "okay, sign this. Now your'e not married anymore," then shouldn't the devil be able to do the same? :wink:

No :redface:

DeadXMan
05-10-2008, 07:03 PM
No :redface:

Clearly, you don't know enough lawyers ;)

mikekerr3
05-10-2008, 07:03 PM
Exactly! What kind of a jerk would do everything in his power to save the life of the woman who raised him like her own child? Spider-Man? More like Spider-Jerk! :rolleyes:

(BTW, it's been almost half a year since that story came out. In the meantime there's been over 12 issues by completely different writers, artists, and a completely different editor. Maybe it's time to let it go. Don't you think?) :wink:

Don't think so I'll let it go when The "deal" is retconned not before.

Rob Thompson
05-10-2008, 07:19 PM
Ethics question.

If an amnesiac man doesn't remember that he's married, and has sex with another woman, is he committing adultery? Though in his case, he should be aware of the possibility that he's married, which Peter isn't. Peter's completely ignorant of what happened.

Plus we're not entirely sure if the marriage ever happened. The exact nature of the retcon hasn't been revealed.Ignorance of the law means one isn't guilty of committing the crime? Not sure I buy that.

However -- I also think things have been undone so the two were never married, therefore it would be impossible for Peter to commit adultery in this case.

mikekerr3
05-10-2008, 07:19 PM
Clearly, you don't know enough lawyers ;)

Related to too may:biggrin: Take a judge a a courtroom too, I believe that the devil can't undo something like a marriage nor a demon.

Mister Mets
05-10-2008, 08:05 PM
Ignorance of the law means one isn't guilty of committing the crime? Not sure I buy that.

However -- I also think things have been undone so the two were never married, therefore it would be impossible for Peter to commit adultery in this case."Ignorance of the law" is not an excuse. In this case, Peter wouldn't be ignorant of the ethics of adultery. However, he'd be ignorant of the fact that he's committing adultery.

If a chef is given poisonous mushrooms (and he doesn't know that they're poisonous), he's not the one committing murder when he feeds them to the future murder victim.

Rob Thompson
05-10-2008, 08:07 PM
"Ignorance of the law" is not an excuse. In this case, Peter wouldn't be ignorant of the ethics of adultery. However, he'd be ignorant of the fact that he's committing adultery.

If a chef is given poisonous mushrooms (and he doesn't know that they're poisonous), he's not the one committing murder when he feeds them to the future murder victim.However he still killed someone, however indirectly.

Mister Mets
05-10-2008, 08:12 PM
However he still killed someone, however indirectly. Yeah, but he won't be blamed by anyone sensible. Assuming the facts are known, he's not going to be prosecuted. And I think most religious leaders would say God's not going to blame him.

Rob Thompson
05-10-2008, 08:15 PM
Yeah, but he won't be blamed by anyone sensible. Assuming the facts are known, he's not going to be prosecuted. And I think most religious leaders would say God's not going to blame him.Except he'll end up blaming himself -- and the victims haven't always been the most sensible types, so they might blame him (and try to take legal action against him). Hell, there would even be a fraction of people who would say he should have known what he was getting ready to cook, so he must be at least partly culpable.

Your thought sounds simple, but it never works out that nicely in reality.

Weapon Ick
05-10-2008, 08:20 PM
There are no universal rules for cheating. Every couple decides for themselves what the boundaries of the relationship are. For example, many couples have a celebrity list of people they are allowed to sleep with because sleeping with your favorite celebrity is a once in a lifetime sorta thing. Rock star wives sometimes allow for their husbands to sleep with groupies on tour but not when they are home. Likewise, politicians can also have similar stipulations which could have been the case with the Clintons.

What is considered to be cheating is decided by the two (or more if you're in to that kinda thing) people in the relationship and no one else. Peter and MJ discussed the deal. They knew the consequences. Therefore if Peter fornicates with anyone other than MJ it is cleared by MJ.

Although we know MJ altered the deal at the last minute. We don't know what she whispered to Mephisto. It could very well have been "but make him impotent" or something.

Dr. Chaos
05-11-2008, 01:45 AM
With their talk about Peter's upcoming romance, did they forget that Peter technically is a married man? Or hoping fans would forget?
What marriage? Peter isn't married.

Yeah, he was in a relationship for awhile but I don't ever remember them tying the knot, that pretty much would have been a bad idea.

Silly boy.

Nick MB
05-11-2008, 01:49 AM
Well, as far as Peter's concerned, adultery isn't illegal, it exists only on the mind of the two people involved. If neither Pete nor MJ consider themselves married, the ceremony itself never happened, their relationship is not still going on, and they are not making any actions to reconcile, then... nope, not adultery.

George Berryman
05-11-2008, 01:56 AM
Correct me if i'm wrong: since when adultery is okay?

Well so long as no one's smoking though, right? :cool:

Brian "Vash" Ashby
05-11-2008, 02:20 AM
Adultery has been cool ever since Moses meet his kids babysitter.

*High five*


as for smoking that comes after.

Mark_S
05-11-2008, 03:58 AM
There are no universal rules for cheating. Every couple decides for themselves what the boundaries of the relationship are. For example, many couples have a celebrity list of people they are allowed to sleep with because sleeping with your favorite celebrity is a once in a lifetime sorta thing. Rock star wives sometimes allow for their husbands to sleep with groupies on tour but not when they are home. Likewise, politicians can also have similar stipulations which could have been the case with the Clintons.

What is considered to be cheating is decided by the two (or more if you're in to that kinda thing) people in the relationship and no one else. Peter and MJ discussed the deal. They knew the consequences. Therefore if Peter fornicates with anyone other than MJ it is cleared by MJ.

Although we know MJ altered the deal at the last minute. We don't know what she whispered to Mephisto. It could very well have been "but make him impotent" or something.


Actually there are formal rules, as dictated in the marriage ceremony itself. "Forsaking all others" covers adultery. And in this case Pete and MJ were married in the eyes of god, so Mephisto really has no power to formally end the marriage.
Peter having sex with another woman will technically be adultery, but at this point moral standards and marvel don't go together so I don't think we can expect any real consequences from it.

Mark_S

ThePhenom
05-11-2008, 04:11 AM
Actually there are formal rules, as dictated in the marriage ceremony itself. "Forsaking all others" covers adultery. And in this case Pete and MJ were married in the eyes of god, so Mephisto really has no power to formally end the marriage.
Peter having sex with another woman will technically be adultery, but at this point moral standards and marvel don't go together so I don't think we can expect any real consequences from it.

Mark_S

Theoretically all reality was changed if these things didn't happen and thus they were never married.

From a moral standpoint, as the guy up there said they don't even know they're doing it and considering the circumstances Peter sleeping with this girl doesn't seem like he's cheating on anyone...

ZT4
05-11-2008, 04:53 AM
With their talk about Peter's upcoming romance, did they forget that Peter technically is a married man? Or hoping fans would forget?

Fans will never forget. We didnt forget when they tried selling us that MJ was a bitch who kept Peter from rescuing Betty because he had "promised her he wouldnt be Spidey again", treat him like shit (explainable once the stalker storyline came up, she wanted to keep him safe at a distance), or have Peter go out swinging in the city whilst MJ sulked and cried in bed knowing a stalker was out there.

This is just another example of Marvel getting their flagship characters wrong

Mister Mets
05-11-2008, 07:03 AM
Except he'll end up blaming himself -- and the victims haven't always been the most sensible types, so they might blame him (and try to take legal action against him). Hell, there would even be a fraction of people who would say he should have known what he was getting ready to cook, so he must be at least partly culpable.

Your thought sounds simple, but it never works out that nicely in reality. I suspect that unless the chef did something wrong (and in this case, we'll assume that he didn't) the general consensus will be that he's unworthy of blame. Whether a few irrational nuts blame him, or whether he blames himself is irrelevant to the question of whether he should be blamed for killing the guy.


There are no universal rules for cheating. Every couple decides for themselves what the boundaries of the relationship are. For example, many couples have a celebrity list of people they are allowed to sleep with because sleeping with your favorite celebrity is a once in a lifetime sorta thing. Rock star wives sometimes allow for their husbands to sleep with groupies on tour but not when they are home. Likewise, politicians can also have similar stipulations which could have been the case with the Clintons.

What is considered to be cheating is decided by the two (or more if you're in to that kinda thing) people in the relationship and no one else. Peter and MJ discussed the deal. They knew the consequences. Therefore if Peter fornicates with anyone other than MJ it is cleared by MJ.

Although we know MJ altered the deal at the last minute. We don't know what she whispered to Mephisto. It could very well have been "but make him impotent" or something.I suspect the Parkers aren't going to have a "favorite celebrity" exception, because for both of them are famous enough that celebrities would be accessible.

Rob Thompson
05-11-2008, 07:22 AM
I suspect that unless the chef did something wrong (and in this case, we'll assume that he didn't) the general consensus will be that he's unworthy of blame. Whether a few irrational nuts blame him, or whether he blames himself is irrelevant to the question of whether he should be blamed for killing the guy. I'd like to think you're right, but it wasn't my experience as a cop.

And as to being irrelevant, well, see above. There are more "nuts" out there than you may be comfortable thinking about.

And shoot, now that I think about it, it's one of the foundations of the Spider-Man books, that people hear he's done some foul deed through word-of-mouth and hold him responsible for it. JJJ would be out of business if he hadn't done that throughout the character's run.

Mister Mets
05-11-2008, 08:57 AM
I'd like to think you're right, but it wasn't my experience as a cop.

And as to being irrelevant, well, see above. There are more "nuts" out there than you may be comfortable thinking about.

And shoot, now that I think about it, it's one of the foundations of the Spider-Man books, that people hear he's done some foul deed through word-of-mouth and hold him responsible for it. JJJ would be out of business if he hadn't done that throughout the character's run. This has nothing to do with whether fans should believe that Peter's committing adultery.Two things to add to this...

1) It was never clearly established before Peter and Mary Jane were married, that either had had sex with anyone else.

2) This one's for the people who think Peter's an asshole. Peter Parker by making the deal to undo the marriage knowingly created a circumstance which could result in him and Mary Jane sleeping with other people. I'm sure someone can twist this into an argument that Peter's allowing his wife to be raped in the future, as she will not have all the necessary information to provide her consent to any future sexual encounter with anyone else.

ronnieramone
05-11-2008, 09:02 AM
I would blame the chef... for being such an idiot that he put something in food that he couldn't identify.

A chef should be able to identify poisonous mushrooms, or they should simply not use mushrooms at all if they cannot.

Likewise, a chef shouldn't use fugu if he doesn't know how to prepare it properly so as not to kill people.

I happen to know a doctor who was sued for prescribing a new medicine that later turned out to have side effects. No one knew at the time, before the drug was pulled, but that didn't stop the courts from making him pay damages.

That's why you have to be extra careful when prescription drugs, mushrooms and post-demonpact adultery are concerned.

Mister Mets
05-11-2008, 09:37 AM
I would blame the chef... for being such an idiot that he put something in food that he couldn't identify.

A chef should be able to identify poisonous mushrooms, or they should simply not use mushrooms at all if they cannot.

Likewise, a chef shouldn't use fugu if he doesn't know how to prepare it properly so as not to kill people.

I happen to know a doctor who was sued for prescribing a new medicine that later turned out to have side effects. No one knew at the time, before the drug was pulled, but that didn't stop the courts from making him pay damages.

That's why you have to be extra careful when prescription drugs, mushrooms and post-demonpact adultery are concerned.Let's say in this case, the mushroom would otherwise be fine, but it was coated in poison by the individual who has always procured mushrooms for the chef.

The example is meant to be one in which there's no way a guy would know that he's doing anything wrong, as he's manipulated entirely by someone else.

King Krypton
05-11-2008, 10:01 AM
Exactly! What kind of a jerk would do everything in his power to save the life of the woman who raised him like her own child? Spider-Man? More like Spider-Jerk!

So the fact that May TOLD him to let her go and everyone from MJ to Dr. Strange did likewise means nothing? Or the fact that Peter defied her wishes because he didn't want to have to live with any guilt over her death, and said as much when he guilt-tripped MJ into taking the bargain? Yes, he is a jerk. He didn't respect May's wishes or the feelings of his wife. He wanted to run away from his guilt and that was that.

Oh, yeah, I forgot. May's too senile and stupid to know what's good for her and selfish deals with the devil are more heroic than taking responsibility for one's actions. That's the Marvel party line, right?

Matt Linton
05-11-2008, 10:39 AM
Actually there are formal rules, as dictated in the marriage ceremony itself. "Forsaking all others" covers adultery. And in this case Pete and MJ were married in the eyes of god, so Mephisto really has no power to formally end the marriage.
Peter having sex with another woman will technically be adultery, but at this point moral standards and marvel don't go together so I don't think we can expect any real consequences from it.

Mark_S

I don't remember myself, but my understanding is that Peter and MJ were married in a civil ceremony, not a church wedding, so that wouldn't be "in the eyes of god".

Tetsuo_man
05-11-2008, 10:52 AM
Personally i think it's not adultry if the other spouse consents to the spouse in a realtionship outside of the marraige. Now the real debate is does Mary Jane consenting to the deal with mephisto constitute consent to peter being in relationships, well i would say no mostly because she i don't think was shown to even think about such a possibility in the time she made her decission.

Matt Linton
05-11-2008, 11:03 AM
The deal was stated as Mephisto making it so the marriage never happened. Agreeing to it would also mean agreeing that another relationship wouldn't be adultery, because you can't have adultery without marriage.

Rob Thompson
05-11-2008, 11:09 AM
This has nothing to do with whether fans should believe that Peter's committing adultery.It has everything to do with the argument: Perception is reality for most people. Whether you or anyone else thinks it is fair or not, there will always be some who see Peter as committing adultery if he has a sexual relationship with another character besides MJ.

Rob Thompson
05-11-2008, 11:11 AM
The deal was stated as Mephisto making it so the marriage never happened. Agreeing to it would also mean agreeing that another relationship wouldn't be adultery, because you can't have adultery without marriage.Agreed. BTW -- I'm forcing myself to re-read OMD, and the longer I think about it, the more the tale becomes a modern day parable for the Christian myth of Adam and Eve, and their expulsion from the Garden of Eden.

ZT4
05-11-2008, 11:19 AM
Mephisto remenbers, Peter and MJ's souls, however small, remember.

It's adultery.

Rob Thompson
05-11-2008, 11:23 AM
Mephisto remenbers, Peter and MJ's souls, however small, remember.

It's adultery.To quote Gene Wilder, "Boy, is he strict!" :biggrin:

Deathstroke
05-11-2008, 11:23 AM
If a lawyer can say, "okay, sign this. Now your'e not married anymore," then shouldn't the devil be able to do the same? :wink:

Devil, Lawyer

Aren't they the same thing? :D

Rob Thompson
05-11-2008, 11:27 AM
Devil, Lawyer

Aren't they the same thing? :DEasy there. No need to insult the Devil like that!

Matt Linton
05-11-2008, 11:29 AM
If it's adultery now, then it was also adultery when Peter married Gwen and fathered her children and MJ hooked up with Wonder Man in the House of M mini.

nester
05-11-2008, 11:45 AM
If it's adultery now, then it was also adultery when Peter married Gwen and fathered her children and MJ hooked up with Wonder Man in the House of M mini.

Again, its a matter of perception. Most of those who read House of M did so with the belief that it was an altered reality. Marvel is doing their best to dispel the misconception that BND is an altered or pocket universe. Its a lose-lose situation, of course, I've felt that was the case since they took this strange approach to get to the new status quo.

Can Marvel keep the hearts and minds of the readership? Stay tuned true believers.:smile:

Tetsuo_man
05-11-2008, 11:48 AM
Did peter make a concious decision to make a deal with wanda so he could have a family with gwen? It may have been some deep desire from the guilt he has held about her death but he didn't conciously make a deal.

Mister Mets
05-11-2008, 03:12 PM
Mephisto remenbers, Peter and MJ's souls, however small, remember.

It's adultery.Peter would probably think his soul just misses Gwen.


It has everything to do with the argument: Perception is reality for most people. Whether you or anyone else thinks it is fair or not, there will always be some who see Peter as committing adultery if he has a sexual relationship with another character besides MJ. And it's the duty of those who disagree to calmly explain why they do so.

Matt Linton
05-11-2008, 03:58 PM
Did peter make a concious decision to make a deal with wanda so he could have a family with gwen? It may have been some deep desire from the guilt he has held about her death but he didn't conciously make a deal.

If anything, it's worse. Peter's life in the House of M world was his ideal life. That means his ideal life is being married to, and having children with, a woman who isn't his wife.

And he didn't consciously make a deal with Mephisto so that he could have relationships with women other than MJ.

nester
05-11-2008, 04:43 PM
Peter would probably think his soul just misses Gwen.

Wow. So is it your opinion that the entire time he was with Mary Jane, he just saw her as a substitute for Gwen? That's the only reason I could see Peter not attributing that feeling to the recent break up with the woman he had been living with for years.

I understand why you find it easier to reconcile the Mephisto deal with your view of the character, although I think it makes him look even less heroic.

StoneGold
05-11-2008, 04:53 PM
If it's adultery now, then it was also adultery when Peter married Gwen and fathered her children and MJ hooked up with Wonder Man in the House of M mini.

If anything, it was more adulterous then, as there was no question whatsoever about the status of the marriage.

StoneGold
05-11-2008, 04:57 PM
If anything, it's worse. Peter's life in the House of M world was his ideal life. That means his ideal life is being married to, and having children with, a woman who isn't his wife.

And he didn't consciously make a deal with Mephisto so that he could have relationships with women other than MJ.

I still think that's more of a genie choice. It wasn't so much that his ideal wish was to be with Gwen, so much as it was to save the people he failed in his life. And if he had saved Gwen, she would have been the one he ended up with. Not that she was better or worse than MJ, but she would have been the one he married if she hadn't died.

Alan2099
05-11-2008, 05:05 PM
I still think that's more of a genie choice. It wasn't so much that his ideal wish was to be with Gwen, so much as it was to save the people he failed in his life. And if he had saved Gwen, she would have been the one he ended up with. Not that she was better or worse than MJ, but she would have been the one he married if she hadn't died.
House of M is debatable. However the Earth-X series DID show his ideal life. In that life, he was married to Gwen, MJ and Harry were married, and he had a son that took over being Spider-man.

The Shadow
05-11-2008, 05:06 PM
Wow. So is it your opinion that the entire time he was with Mary Jane, he just saw her as a substitute for Gwen? That's the only reason I could see Peter not attributing that feeling to the recent break up with the woman he had been living with for years.
Stan wanted Peter to stay with Gwen. In every alternate reality he's with Gwen (except MC2), he pines for Gwen in Spider-Man Blue... yeah I don't think it's a stretch to think he feels he settled.

StoneGold
05-11-2008, 05:08 PM
House of M is debatable. However the Earth-X series DID show his ideal life. In that life, he was married to Gwen, MJ and Harry were married, and he had a son that took over being Spider-man.

Earth-X being out of continuity, though. Earth-X pretty much just being Ross and Krueger's own little world. Meaning there's a lot of Earth-X stuff that doesn't apply to the mainstream MU, not just that.

Alan2099
05-11-2008, 05:11 PM
Of course those were alternate realities. The main reality Gwen died, so that's all we have to go on to show what could have happened.

If you belive so strongly in the opposite opinion, show me one reality where he did he settle for MJ when he
could have had Gwen.

StoneGold
05-11-2008, 05:12 PM
Stan wanted Peter to stay with Gwen. In every alternate reality he's with Gwen (except MC2), he pines for Gwen in Spider-Man Blue... yeah I don't think it's a stretch to think he feels he settled.

Not every. In Reign, he pines for MJ. Same with Marvel Zombies. Of course, he ate her there.

StoneGold
05-11-2008, 05:15 PM
Of course those were alternate realities. The main reality Gwen died, so that's all we have to go on to show what could have happened.

If you belive so strongly in the opposite opinion, show me one reality where he did he settle for MJ when he
could have had Gwen.

I think the problem is the term settling here. For one thing, that assumes that everyone only has one potential partner on earth that they can have a truly meaningful relationship with. I reject that notion.

Gwen came first. And at the point she was killed, MJ wasn't exactly the marrying type. Frankly, I'm not sure she would have been, if not for Stan needing to boost newspaper syndication numbers.

Your Imaginary Pal
05-11-2008, 05:24 PM
Correct me if i'm wrong: since when adultery is okay?
If you're lucky, every Tuesday.

rick
05-11-2008, 05:26 PM
If you're lucky, every Tuesday.

Funny, when I read that line I sort of thought the same thing.

Rob Thompson
05-11-2008, 05:33 PM
And it's the duty of those who disagree to calmly explain why they do so.I'm liking the thought. Perhaps you could start here:

Democratic country keeps its distance from Obama
By Andrew Ward
Published: May 11 2008

Like most people in Mingo County, West Virginia, Leonard Simpson is a lifelong Democrat. But given a choice between Barack Obama and John McCain in November, the 67-year-old retired coalminer would vote Republican.

“I heard that Obama is a Muslim and his wife’s an atheist,” said Mr Simpson, drawing on a cigarette outside the fire station in Williamson, a coalmining town of 3,400 people surrounded by lush wooded hillsides.

Mr Simpson’s remarks help explain why Mr Obama is trailing Hillary Clinton, his Democratic rival, by 40 percentage points ahead of Tuesday’s primary election in the heavily white and rural state, according to recent opinion polls.

A landslide victory for Mrs Clinton in West Virginia will do little to improve her fading hopes of winning the Democratic nomination, because Mr Obama has an almost insurmountable lead in the overall race. But Tuesday’s contest is likely to reinforce Mrs Clinton’s argument that she would be the stronger opponent for Mr McCain in November, and raise fresh doubts about whether the US is ready to elect its first black president.

Occupying a swathe of the Appalachian Mountains on the threshold between the Bible Belt and the Rust Belt, West Virginia is a swing state that voted twice for George W. Bush but backed Democrats in six of the eight prior presidential elections.

No Democrat has been elected to the White House without carrying West Virginia since 1916, yet Mr Obama appears to have little chance of winning there in November. Recent opinion polls indicate that Mrs Clinton would narrowly beat Mr McCain in the state but Mr Obama would lose by nearly 20 percentage points.

West Virginia is hostile territory for Mr Obama because it has few of the African-Americans and affluent, college-educated whites who provide his strongest support. The state has the lowest college graduation rate in the US, the second lowest median household income, and one of the highest proportions of white residents, at 96 per cent.

A visit to Mingo County, a Democratic stronghold in the heart of the Appalachian coalfields, reveals the scale of Mr Obama’s challenge – not only in West Virginia but in white, working-class communities across the US. With a gun shop on its main street and churches dotted throughout the town, Williamson is the kind of community evoked by Mr Obama’s controversial comments last month about “bitter” small-town voters who “cling to guns or religion”.

“If he is the nominee, the Democrats have no chance of winning West Virginia,” said Missy Endicott, a 40- year-old school administrator. “He doesn’t understand ordinary Americans.”

Ms Endicott was among roughly 500 people who crammed into the Williamson Fire Department building on Friday to attend a rally by Bill Clinton, the former president. He told them his wife represented “people like you, in places like this”, and urged voters to turn out in record numbers on Tuesday to send a message to the “higher-type people” who were trying to force her out of the race.

Local leaders said Mr Clinton was the most important visitor to Williamson since John F. Kennedy passed through during the 1960 election campaign. Mr Kennedy’s victory in the West Virginia primary that year was a crucial step towards proving his electability as the first Catholic president. Nearly five decades later, the state appears less willing to help Mr Obama break down barriers to the White House.

None of the 22 Democrats interviewed by the Financial Times at the Clinton rally would commit themselves to voting for Mr Obama if he became the nominee, and half said they definitely would not. The depth of opposition is particularly striking considering that Mingo County is one of the most Democratic places in West Virginia, having cast about 85 per cent of its votes for the party in the 2006 midterm elections. If Mr Obama cannot win there in November, he has little chance of carrying the state.

Most people questioned said they mistrusted Mr Obama because of doubts about his patriotism and “values”, stemming from his cosmopolitan background, his exotic name and the controversy surrounding “anti-American” sermons by Jeremiah Wright, his former pastor. Several people said they believed he was a Muslim – an unfounded rumour that has circulated on the internet for months – despite the contradiction with his 20-year membership of Mr Wright’s church in Chicago. Others mentioned his refusal to wear a Stars and Stripes badge and controversial remarks by his wife, Mich elle, who des cribed America as “mean” and implied that she had never been proud of the US until her husband ran for president.

Conservative commentators have questioned Mr Obama’s patriotism for months and the issue is expected to be one of the Republicans’ main lines of attack if he wins the nomination. “The American people want a president who loves their country as much as they do,” said Whit Ayres, a Rep ub lican strategist. Obama supporters believe patriotism is being used as code to harness racist sentiment.

Josh Fry, a 24-year-old ambulance driver from Williamson, insisted he was not racist but said he would feel more comfortable with Mr McCain, the 71-year-old Vietnam war hero, in the White House. “I want someone who is a full-blooded American as president,” he said.

Mister Mets
05-11-2008, 07:17 PM
I'm liking the thought. Perhaps you could start here:

Democratic country keeps its distance from Obama
By Andrew Ward
Published: May 11 2008

Like most people in Mingo County, West Virginia, Leonard Simpson is a lifelong Democrat. But given a choice between Barack Obama and John McCain in November, the 67-year-old retired coalminer would vote Republican.

“I heard that Obama is a Muslim and his wife’s an atheist,” said Mr Simpson, drawing on a cigarette outside the fire station in Williamson, a coalmining town of 3,400 people surrounded by lush wooded hillsides.

Mr Simpson’s remarks help explain why Mr Obama is trailing Hillary Clinton, his Democratic rival, by 40 percentage points ahead of Tuesday’s primary election in the heavily white and rural state, according to recent opinion polls.

A landslide victory for Mrs Clinton in West Virginia will do little to improve her fading hopes of winning the Democratic nomination, because Mr Obama has an almost insurmountable lead in the overall race. But Tuesday’s contest is likely to reinforce Mrs Clinton’s argument that she would be the stronger opponent for Mr McCain in November, and raise fresh doubts about whether the US is ready to elect its first black president.

Occupying a swathe of the Appalachian Mountains on the threshold between the Bible Belt and the Rust Belt, West Virginia is a swing state that voted twice for George W. Bush but backed Democrats in six of the eight prior presidential elections.

No Democrat has been elected to the White House without carrying West Virginia since 1916, yet Mr Obama appears to have little chance of winning there in November. Recent opinion polls indicate that Mrs Clinton would narrowly beat Mr McCain in the state but Mr Obama would lose by nearly 20 percentage points.

West Virginia is hostile territory for Mr Obama because it has few of the African-Americans and affluent, college-educated whites who provide his strongest support. The state has the lowest college graduation rate in the US, the second lowest median household income, and one of the highest proportions of white residents, at 96 per cent.

A visit to Mingo County, a Democratic stronghold in the heart of the Appalachian coalfields, reveals the scale of Mr Obama’s challenge – not only in West Virginia but in white, working-class communities across the US. With a gun shop on its main street and churches dotted throughout the town, Williamson is the kind of community evoked by Mr Obama’s controversial comments last month about “bitter” small-town voters who “cling to guns or religion”.

“If he is the nominee, the Democrats have no chance of winning West Virginia,” said Missy Endicott, a 40- year-old school administrator. “He doesn’t understand ordinary Americans.”

Ms Endicott was among roughly 500 people who crammed into the Williamson Fire Department building on Friday to attend a rally by Bill Clinton, the former president. He told them his wife represented “people like you, in places like this”, and urged voters to turn out in record numbers on Tuesday to send a message to the “higher-type people” who were trying to force her out of the race.

Local leaders said Mr Clinton was the most important visitor to Williamson since John F. Kennedy passed through during the 1960 election campaign. Mr Kennedy’s victory in the West Virginia primary that year was a crucial step towards proving his electability as the first Catholic president. Nearly five decades later, the state appears less willing to help Mr Obama break down barriers to the White House.

None of the 22 Democrats interviewed by the Financial Times at the Clinton rally would commit themselves to voting for Mr Obama if he became the nominee, and half said they definitely would not. The depth of opposition is particularly striking considering that Mingo County is one of the most Democratic places in West Virginia, having cast about 85 per cent of its votes for the party in the 2006 midterm elections. If Mr Obama cannot win there in November, he has little chance of carrying the state.

Most people questioned said they mistrusted Mr Obama because of doubts about his patriotism and “values”, stemming from his cosmopolitan background, his exotic name and the controversy surrounding “anti-American” sermons by Jeremiah Wright, his former pastor. Several people said they believed he was a Muslim – an unfounded rumour that has circulated on the internet for months – despite the contradiction with his 20-year membership of Mr Wright’s church in Chicago. Others mentioned his refusal to wear a Stars and Stripes badge and controversial remarks by his wife, Mich elle, who des cribed America as “mean” and implied that she had never been proud of the US until her husband ran for president.

Conservative commentators have questioned Mr Obama’s patriotism for months and the issue is expected to be one of the Republicans’ main lines of attack if he wins the nomination. “The American people want a president who loves their country as much as they do,” said Whit Ayres, a Rep ub lican strategist. Obama supporters believe patriotism is being used as code to harness racist sentiment.

Josh Fry, a 24-year-old ambulance driver from Williamson, insisted he was not racist but said he would feel more comfortable with Mr McCain, the 71-year-old Vietnam war hero, in the White House. “I want someone who is a full-blooded American as president,” he said.I've been looking forward to voting for McCain for president for about five years, so I'm not going to help you out here. :biggrin:

I understand your point, and I think some of those idiots do have invalid opinions. Hell, they probably shouldn't be allowed to vote. That said, I have no control over the Democratic primary. I do have some control over these forums, but I'm not going to ban anyone from having what I believe is an invalid opinion. I'm just going to enjoy it when they're proven wrong.


Wow. So is it your opinion that the entire time he was with Mary Jane, he just saw her as a substitute for Gwen? That's the only reason I could see Peter not attributing that feeling to the recent break up with the woman he had been living with for years.

I understand why you find it easier to reconcile the Mephisto deal with your view of the character, although I think it makes him look even less heroic.I never implied that Mary Jane was a substitute for Gwen. However, if Peter doesn't remember being married to Mary Jane, and senses a tremendous loss, he's probably going to assume that it's the girlfriend who was murdered at a young age. He's going to be wrong, which will hurt his ability to deal with it.

nester
05-12-2008, 08:44 AM
I never implied that Mary Jane was a substitute for Gwen. However, if Peter doesn't remember being married to Mary Jane, and senses a tremendous loss, he's probably going to assume that it's the girlfriend who was murdered at a young age. He's going to be wrong, which will hurt his ability to deal with it.

If the sense of loss is new, why wouldn't he attribute the feeling to a more recent event? And if the marriage years are suppose to be unchanged except for the marriage, this sensation would have to be new.

Can you elaborate on why you think Peter, a man trained in inductive reasoning from his science focused education, would attribute a new sensation to an old loss?

Mister Mets
05-12-2008, 09:19 AM
If the sense of loss is new, why wouldn't he attribute the feeling to a more recent event? And if the marriage years are suppose to be unchanged except for the marriage, this sensation would have to be new.

Can you elaborate on why you think Peter, a man trained in inductive reasoning from his science focused education, would attribute a new sensation to an old loss?Because old losses can suddenly hurt really bad (and this one occurred within the last decade.)

Ben Franklin, for instance, sometimes found himself paralyzed with loss over the death of his young son, forty years after the kid died.

If Peter suddenly feels really morose, he wouldn't be able to attribute it to Mary Jane, so he'd believe something else is responsible.

black_spidey728
05-12-2008, 09:28 AM
I never implied that Mary Jane was a substitute for Gwen. However, if Peter doesn't remember being married to Mary Jane, and senses a tremendous loss, he's probably going to assume that it's the girlfriend who was murdered at a young age. He's going to be wrong, which will hurt his ability to deal with it.

So if he was attributing this great sense of loss to Gwen, wouldn't it stand to reason that he would hate the sight of Harry as he would be a constant reminder that Harry's father killed Gwen?

Old No.7
05-12-2008, 09:32 AM
So if he was attributing this great sense of loss to Gwen, wouldn't it stand to reason that he would hate the sight of Harry as he would be a constant reminder that Harry's father killed Gwen?

That would be like taking the dislike for someone out on their parents.

Mister Mets
05-12-2008, 09:35 AM
So if he was attributing this great sense of loss to Gwen, wouldn't it stand to reason that he would hate the sight of Harry as he would be a constant reminder that Harry's father killed Gwen?He'd try to be a better man than that, as he was in the immediate aftermath of Gwen's death. He's not the type to blame the son for what the father does wrong.

It should also be noted that none of the issues of BND so far have referenced a subtle feeling of loss, so Mephisto might have been mistaken on this.

black_spidey728
05-12-2008, 09:36 AM
That would be like taking the dislike for you out on your parents and I'm sure they feel bad enough already.

But that's life, if someone does something bad enough to you, you can't look at members of their family without thinking of it.

Mister Mets
05-12-2008, 09:38 AM
That would be like taking the dislike for you out on your parents and I'm sure they feel bad enough already.It's slightly more logical to blame the parents, because at the very least they raised the guy wrong.



But that's life, if someone does something bad enough to you, you can't look at members of their family without thinking of it. Except it wasn't something Peter ever did before, even when he was roommates with Harry. Even in the minutes after Gwen's death (before Norman died), Peter thought of Harry as a friend.

black_spidey728
05-12-2008, 09:40 AM
He'd try to be a better man than that, as he was in the immediate aftermath of Gwen's death. He's not the type to blame the son for what the father does wrong.

It should also be noted that none of the issues of BND so far have referenced a subtle feeling of loss, so Mephisto might have been mistaken on this.

a better man...the same guy that just made a deal with a satanic entity would be the better man...that's funny.
:rolleyes:

Achillies
05-12-2008, 09:40 AM
It's slightly more logical to blame the parents, because at the very least they raised the guy wrong.

Maybe they raised him right, he just made his own bad decisions.

Mister Mets
05-12-2008, 09:43 AM
a better man...the same guy that just made a deal with a satanic entity would be the better man...that's funny.
:rolleyes:There was nothing in Peter's previous portrayal to indicate that he'd blame Harry Osborn for anything Norman did, given his ample opportunities to do so. The sole exception was when Harry chose to honor his murderer of a father by becoming the Green Goblin.

ronnieramone
05-12-2008, 09:48 AM
So if he was attributing this great sense of loss to Gwen, wouldn't it stand to reason that he would hate the sight of Harry as he would be a constant reminder that Harry's father killed Gwen?

He should hate the sight of Harry anyway.

We were told that all the stories happened, but that Peter and MJ weren't married for them...

If that's true...

Why, in the name of all that's holy, would Peter remain friends with a guy who set into motion a plan to trick him with robot duplicates of his long-dead parents, right after his aunt "died" ???

Why would Peter and Harry be friends in Brand New Day after all the ^%$&* that Harry pulled?

Obviously, everything didn't happen exactly, or Marvel writers and editors just have an extremely selective memory.

Also, if there were any doubt as to MJ being "the One" over Gwen, I point to Sins Past and say "I got your Gwen right here." and then I grab a part of my body.

StoneGold
05-12-2008, 12:25 PM
Why, in the name of all that's holy, would Peter remain friends with a guy who set into motion a plan to trick him with robot duplicates of his long-dead parents, right after his aunt "died" ???

Why would Peter and Harry be friends in Brand New Day after all the ^%$&* that Harry pulled?

Same reason why Pete was friends with Harry up to his Goblin-garbed death, because he recognized it all as mental illness, and knew his friend was inside there somewhere?

Obviously, everything didn't happen exactly, or Marvel writers and editors just have an extremely selective memory.


You're probably right about that last part. But that tends to happen in general, regardless of the title, company, etc. It's not like they've referenced the fetus since that happened.

nester
05-12-2008, 12:46 PM
So if he was attributing this great sense of loss to Gwen, wouldn't it stand to reason that he would hate the sight of Harry as he would be a constant reminder that Harry's father killed Gwen?

I was going to make a crack about Pete taking a page out of Marvel's book and blaming all his troubles on his relationship with MJ, but I think that could actually be an interesting story. If Mephisto could manipulate Peter into forsaking something he once drew strength from, he would gain some badass points out of this mess. The problem is that it would require the audience to recognize that the protagonist is mistaken and I'm not sure you can get that from a fanbase that identifies as strongly with their hero as Spider-Man's.

timbox
05-12-2008, 12:53 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong: How can a question be wrong?

I do not understand the topic of discussion in this thread.

Matt Linton
05-12-2008, 01:35 PM
No one is saying the question is wrong, just the premise of the question (that if Peter had a relationship at this point, it would be adultery).

Mister Mets
05-12-2008, 01:54 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong: How can a question be wrong?

I do not understand the topic of discussion in this thread.The question is wrong if it implies something that may not be true.

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" or "Does your mom know you're gay?" would be examples.

StoneGold
05-12-2008, 03:13 PM
I was going to make a crack about Pete taking a page out of Marvel's book and blaming all his troubles on his relationship with MJ, but I think that could actually be an interesting story. If Mephisto could manipulate Peter into forsaking something he once drew strength from, he would gain some badass points out of this mess. The problem is that it would require the audience to recognize that the protagonist is mistaken and I'm not sure you can get that from a fanbase that identifies as strongly with their hero as Spider-Man's.

You've got something there. The idea behind BND seems to be Spidey's life is more interesting when his life is worse. Which is something I can get behind. But apparently, not everyone can. And I'm basing this mostly on the "I can't read Parker being such a loser!" posts. And I'm not really making a judgment call on it, just saying I like the hard luck Spidey. And it could be because I never really read much Spidey during my years of comic reading, so I don't identify with him as strongly. And most of the stuff I did read was the classic stuff, when his life was a real mess, and not a manufactured one of evil robotic parents.