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?
h) Didn't Paul KNOW about the time difference? If so, either he told MJ and this therefore makes no sense or he didn't and that makes him a piece of shit.
For the record: Me:
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?
Only under a trauma‑bonding interpretation Marvel did not portray.
I will add the following:
A) Peter was enduring a simulation of death in KLH, he sort of died for a year in Superior and literally died in MJ's arms in the Other. Doc Ock, Miles Warren, Norman, Harry, Ned Leeds and Ben Reilly all seemed to come back to life after years from her pov. Technicallyeven Gwen did via cloning and even then clone shared Gwen's initial desires. So why is MJ presuming that Peter being dead even means he isn't coming to save her?
B) She is in a context where the supernatural and other dimensional mumbo jumbo is ever present. So why is she even presuming there isn't an out to death
C) She has Other friends in the superhero community as does Peter. She lived with the Avengers and was family friends with the Fantastic 4 who regularly go to other dimensions. Does she really think all of them would not notice she is missing and investigate or wouldn't investigate if Spider-Man of all people died somehow, even if he died the moment he returned to Earth and never told anyone the superhero community would look into that eventually and those who know he is Peter parker would naturally notice mj is also gone. So even if she believed peter was dead she'd have no reason to think her lifeninnthis dimension was permanent and therefore be tempted to make things with Paul serious.
D) MJ was held prisoner for 6 months in a single room with no human interaction. She did not lose faith in Peter
E) Hernloaing faith in Peter is kind of akin to Peter just straight up losing faith in with great power = great responsibility at this point
