Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-1704683-20130627224448/@comment-61022-20140821073636

Mrstoflet1284 wrote: I am just saying if she actually loved Scott she should not have done stuff with others.

Kind of missed the whole part of the "thought he was dead" portion of the story arc? See, this is the kind of thing about the context you're missing. Why is it when a person is in grieving that they have to not do anything with anyone else? People deal with grief in very different ways. Secondly, I think you also completely missed the fact that Wolverine took complete and absolute advantage of that grieving. Which makes the realization and sense of betrayal when Cyclops turns up alive and well that much more biting.

If you did understand the subtlety and context of the entire exchange, you probably wouldn't have posed the question to begin with. As for talking down to you, I am not, but I *am* being critical of the questions you are posing because they are not clearly defined or explained. If you're afraid of being criticised then perhaps the social aspect of the internet is not a good fit for you.

You were also being gender possessive by suggesting that Jean is "Scott's girl", she is not a possession of anyone. I also believe that since you seem to believe that two characters are supposed to be a couple and others are not shows a gross lack of understanding of how interpersonal relationships work. Understanding that these are all works of fiction -- ergo subject to a little something called artistic license -- I still cannot understand how people can apply possessives of couplings. In that they will identify a character as being so-and-so's boy/girl/man/woman, which implies a possessive ownership of the person. Rather than stating "so and so has a relationship with that other person". Also what bothers me is how people can scratch their head and wonder why and/or get upset when a character ends a relationship with one person and begins one with another.

As for "chilling out" regarding the matter. I'm not "upset" per-se. I am pointing out a rather detestable social trend. Which intentionally or not, is something you are propagating.

Getting back to the matter of relationships in these stories: While these sort of things can be shocking or jarring, these are every day occurrences. They happen in real life every day. If you're ill equipped to deal with it in fiction, then its very telling how well you may be in dealing with that in your outside world. Further to the point is it also suggests that banal fanboy desire for things to remain the same. Issue to issue. This person has to do this, they have to date that person. Which is the stuff of stagnation. Stories do not take new turns or different twists if things remain the same. Just like in life, if things become routine they grow stagnant and become uninteresting.

Also I should also point out that by the very inception the Ultimate Universe was one that was not supposed to follow the mould as the traditional Marvel Universe. It was supposed to break social mores, be more dynamic, and edgy. To do with characters what cannot usually be done in their mainstream books. Characters die and they don't come back. Characters form unusual relationships. They're darker. Edgier. That is the whole point.

Now that all said, if you wish me me not to be a critic and to "back off" as you put it, here's a simple solution for you: If you don't like my commentary choose not to respond to it. That simple. Also I've years of psychology education under my belt, de-constructing what people say is what I can do. If you don't like that, perhaps you shouldn't provide me with more material to de-construct.