Rob H: "...he isn't screwing up as much as Spider-Man makes demands on his time and thus sometimes he can't do all he could do otherwise."

And that's the whole point of it, Rob.  In the Marvel Universe, it isn't a publicly known fact that Peter Parker is Spider-Man.  When a teenaged Peter seems to screw up(because of his role as Spider-Man) it can be shrugged off and attributed to immaturity and being a kid.  However when a grown-up Peter seemingly shirks responsibilty, he is going to be seen as a screw-up by those around him.  Unless he publicly reveals his identity, being Spider-Man is always going to interfere with Peter's social and professional lives...and if he constantly is seen to screw up, the people around him are going to see him as a loser.  A personable and likeable one, but still a loser.

In the Marvel Universe, it isn't a publicly known fact that Peter Parker is Spider-Man. 

****

Well, it sure seems that way. I'd wish they would start to bring back his supporting cast and do more stories re: his secret identity messing things up.

Cause as it stands now, MJ and Aunt May know, so they can understand if he misses Valentine's Day, most of the supporting cast does not appear anymore, and the supporting cast he does have right now is the New Avengers group, which of course know who he is.

So in a sense, there is no one right now for Peter to let down-because the only people who regularly appear are people who know who he is.*

Should that change**, then yes he would be in his mid 20s and screwing up, seemingly although not really, but to me that would just be more tragic-Peter Parker would be looked at by some as not fulfilling his potential, but we the audience would know he is doing the right thing and fulfilling his potential, just not the one they think he has.

* There's been a bit of stuff with his school pre-New Avengers which is the last time I can remember him regularly having unexplained/poorly explained absences, etc.

**Flash it appears is coming back with an interesting twist.

As a self-styled old fogey, all that says is that most people today are losers.

***

They just grow up later because adolescence has been extended. When you have people regularly going to college/post college into their mid-20s, and not getting their first full-time jobs until then, and thus getting married and having children in their late 20s/early 30s, and libving at home later, parlty due to financial pressures today, it is inevitable. *

Back when you stopped school to work on the farm and got married as a teen, you grew up sooner. Then most people started finsihing high school. That delayed things.  Then college. Etc.

*In my own case, by my age, my mother had all 3 of her children, and was married 10 years and lived outside of her parents 10 years. My father had 2 of 3 of us by my age, had worked at his permanent job at a jail for 5 years, had been married 6 or 7 years and had lived on his own 10 years. Had worked full-time since he was 15

My grandfather had his permanent job for 9 years by my age, been married 10 years, and had  3 of 4 kids.  He had owned his own home for at least 7 or 8 years. Had worked since he was 12

Me? No kids. No home. Out of school only 3 years.  "permanent job" 5 months. Married 6 months.  No threat  of war  or draft.  Had part time jobs since 16, onmly worked full time in summers, and oinly been working full-time 3 years.

Maybe, but their was a time when their was no adolesence at all. People were grown up by their early to mid teens.  Adolesence I've been told is more of a 20th century invention when people had a bit more money/leisure time and the kids did not have to work/not allowed to work.

Things change. Just like in the 50s, perhaps, kids who were 12 were still kids-and now 10/12 year olds are more "sophisticated" pre teens and tweens and all that. They stop being little kids earlier, but continue being adolescents longer.

Its really a social thing more than anything else.

I don't think that true.

First of all, most people today don't grow up until their mid 20s-at least!

**************************************

Yes, and that's sad. That's why so many people want Superman to be in his 40s because they can't grasp a twentysomething who is that mature and inspirational.

A pity.

************************************

Second, he isn't screwing up as much as Spider-man makes demands on his time and thus sometimes he can't do all he could do otherwise.

********************************

This is an example of how the character has degenerated -- not so much what is true to his nature, as a metaphor for adolescence.

I do not think anyone here should call anyone's parents, losers.

The time thing is really not that important to me.  I really do not care.  It is more an observation of the average difference in real time and comic book time.  I wonder if making it a rule would allow for consistency across a publishing line of comics.

My bigger desire is to worry about continuity only within a series.  No more Crises.  If a book is cancelled and then starts over later with new creator/s, then I do not think they or we shuold worry about the differences.  Again, I look to Wonder Woman, Superman, and Doom Patrol as two examples of this "rule" applied...where either necessary or decided upon (I just ended this sentence with a preposition).

Happy Valentine's Day!

That's why so many people want Superman to be in his 40s

****

Well, in the old days, he certainly looked and acted like he was in his 40s ;) 

If I had to hazard a guess Superman seems to me to be in his early 30s or so.