On another board there was a discussion of the proposed Spider-Man reboot featuring a teen Spider-man,that drifted in a discussion of who is Spider-man. Some like a grown up Spider-man, who's an Avenger and has a steady job ( and a wife and maybe kids!!!!)I thought I'd share my counter argument here:

The question is, should Peter Parker "grow up". Why is that needed or necessary? Spider-man's personna is the wise cracking, hard luck hero who some people don't trust. Peter is a guy who's life never quite comes together because he's Spider-man. It costs him jobs, friends and relationships. A Spider-man with a steady job, a steady girl and membership in the most prestigous Super-Team isn't really Spider-Man. It goes against the core of the character. He can have these things briefly, but in the end it has to fall apart.

This is why I loved DC's Imaginary Stories in the '60's, and wished Marvel had had something similar at the time; Spider-Man could have grown up and had all sorts of terrible and/or wonderful things happen to him and/or his supporting cast (they could have croaked Aunt May, married Peter off to Gwen Stacy, and had little Spider-Kids running up the walls in webbing diapers) - but everything would be back to normal in the next issue.*  The toys put back in the box, unbroken, as somebody around here is so fond of saying... 

*Just Imagine - What If Mort Weissenger had been a Marvel editor?

These characters were created and aimed at a particular audience.

Why people keep insisting on modifying them beyond this, I don't get. What these people need is a -new- character that they can relate to and leave the original character intact.

It's a bit telling that the "fans" who so often claim to love a character the most are the ones who understand said character the least. If you think Spider-Man should be married (to MJ Watson, of all people) and a member of the Avengers, well, sorry, you really aren't a fan of the character Lee and Ditko created all those years ago.

Their whole philosophy seems to be, "I love Captain Wonderful, but I'd love him even more if he were something completely different."

And of course, those of us who think "First Do No Harm" is a good mandate are accused by the unwashed masses of "defending the status quo."

I love the "grown up" Spider-Man in Spider-Girl.  Which evolved from a one-shot What If? story, and isn't trying to make sense in Spider-Man's current continuity, but remaining an "imaginary story".

Superman had the "Mr & Mrs Superman" stories for years that let readers see an older Clark and Lois.

And all the above leads me to my conclusion: why age the characters in the current concinuity, when you can always age them in a seperate continuity, and have the best of both worlds?

Guy on another board said:

"That was his thing in the 60s. Ever since the 70s, he's been at least in his late 20s, movies notwithstanding."

I dont recall Peter aging that fast in the 70s. Are there any  markers that would make the 70s Peter in his late twenties? Was he still going to College back then?  Drawing a blank on Pete's life in those days.