Superman + Wonder Woman romance

[killercroc]

Nothing stays the same.
And I don't mind this at all. The day it gets old or if they bring back the boring stuff I'll just vote with my wallet. For now, it's doing something and that is driving stories. This is sowing seeds for plots in the wider DCU, as well as giving the hero a romantic life that brings new changes.His life is no longer pondering to reveal his ID or saving the girl. It's getting bigger than that.

[Litgeek]

No, I don't like the relationship.


I've been reading both Superman and Wonder Woman comics since I was a child. I think Superman is, without question, the most inspiring male hero that exists in the DC Universe. (Yes, I like Batman. But I think Superman is more inspiring.)

I love Wonder Woman AND Lois Lane and I think both women are two of the most inspiring female characters that exist in fiction for extremely different but equally valuable reasons. I think they both send different but special messages about female power. I love that Wonder Woman is our first female superhero and I love that Lois Lane was one of the first women to ever be shown on the page or on television working in a man's job. In fact, both characters mean a great to deal me. As a little girl, I looked up to both Lois and Diana for different reasons and they both hold a special place in my heart in terms of inspiration.

I think the relationship in question damages all 3 characters in various ways and I don't support the relationship.

I find the love story between Superman and Lois Lane inspiring and always have. I find it inspiring whether they are in the early stages of courtship, dating or married. I think good and bad stories have been told both in and outside of the marriage. I miss the marriage but I certainly didn't need the characters to be married to enjoy the relationship.

I think it was powerful that Superman---the most powerful man in the world---loved a human woman with flaws and humanity more than anyone. I thought it was even more amazing that Superman loved a woman that wasn't supposed to be supermodel gorgeous or uber powerful because it showed how truly wonderful Superman was--that he saw the true heart and beauty in Lois. I thought that was beautiful and I thought it was part of what connected Clark to us and made him one of us. I found the Clark/Lois relationship to be a true reflection of the Kents love for Clark manifested into a romantic relationship. The Kents had to take a leap of faith when they adopted Clark. They didn't know what the future would bring---they risked everything to adopt this powerful little boy with god-like powers. They loved him as their own child and he loved them. I believe that Clark growing up and learning to love a human woman with that same presence of hope and faith is a reflection of the love that the Kents had for him.

I don't find the concept of two very privileged (because yes, Diana and Clark are privileged people) , stunningly gorgeous, uber powerful people together to be inspiring. I don't like the idea that these heroes are supposedly so much "better" than us lowly humans which is how it always makes me feel. I don't feel as though they are risking anything or putting themselves out on the line to be together in any way. It seems like an "easy" option because the more sincere option is just deemed too hard. And I don't find heroes inspiring who would rather take the easy route out than be true to their hearts and put themselves on the line.

I don't feel connected to either Superman or Wonder Woman---characters that I deeply love---during this current storyline. Instead, I feel disconnected from them. Are we, as humans, simply not good enough? That doesn't seem to be the message of either character at all. And I don't buy the idea that they can still love humanity in the same way just do to their other relationships. It's just not the same thing. It becomes a patriarchal, fatherly/motherly type of love for humanity---above us. Away from us. Looking down upon us. Not walking with us and sharing in our flaws and mistakes and tears and fears.

As a fan of Wonder Woman, I'm also really uncomfortable with the way the relationship always unwittingly seems to twist the message of Marston's creation into a sex object in a way that is very, very male gaze- oriented and not at all in keeping with the intended nature of her as a heroine. Marston created Diana with a human love interest, in part, because he wanted to show that it was ok for a woman to be physically stronger than a man and that that wasn't a knock on the man's masculinity in any way. I feel sad seeing Diana the victim of constant sexist comments about how hard she can be pounded during sex.

As a fan of Lois Lane, I feel sad seeing her humanity and flaws reduced in value by certain people because she wasn't a perfect woman who looked like a supermodel. As if a woman's value and worth to the person who loves her is only rooted in the superficial and the physical. As if Lois's work as a reporter and a career woman wasn't also worthy of intense admiration and praise. In fact, Clark himself always viewed Lois Lane as his equal which was part of what made Clark such a special person---he saw power and honor in those who didn't have the privilege of his powers.

I don't like the relationship. I certainly respect that there are those that are enjoying it and I wish you no ill will at all.



(***The only real way to gage something like this is to ask people in a forum that is open to all and not just to registered members. As it stands, it's pretty well known that CBR is not a place that is known for being friendly to anyone who likes Lois Lane. I'm not saying that there aren't women who enjoy posting here but, in general, this board has a reputation. (Gail Simone herself has talked about this. If you disagree, then take it up with her.) I know very few fans of Clark/Lois that even have accounts here because the forum is famous for being anti-Lois just as Television Without Pity became famous for being anti-anyone but Chloe Sullivan when Smallville was still on the air. So I think you know the result you are going to get before you even set up the poll because the board itself has a bias. The only people still bothering to post here at this point in time are people who are enjoying Justice League. People who either 1.) aren't buying it or 2) have already dropped the Superman titles aren't bothering here. So your poll is going to be skewed.

Interestingly enough, when the New York Daily News asked this question a month or so ago and opened it to everyone, the results came back strongly against the Superman/Wonder Woman relationship. When Newsarama put up the poll and opened it to EVERYONE...again the results came back strongly against the relationship from the general readership. )

[Litgeek]

.

His life is no longer pondering to reveal his ID or saving the girl. It's getting bigger than that.

Superman hadn't "pondered" revealing his ID to Lois Lane for over 20 years. She had known his secret since 1990. Did you even read Superman prior to this?

He also rarely saved her. I can count on one hand the number of times in recent years that Superman had saved Lois Lane when he wasn't saving the entire city in question and she was one of many in that city.

In fact, I can count several times where Lois Lane, through various stories, SAVED HIM. Lois Lane, despite being married to Clark, had her own career and her own way of making a difference. Superman's stories hadn't been focused on "saving the girl" in decades.

Furthermore, I can think of several stories where Superman saved Wonder Woman or Wonder Woman saved him.

[misslane38]

Yes, I'm very happy with this relationship. I don't know if it will last, but it is a "natural" pairing that makes a lot of sense. For one thing, the two work together and clearly share many values, along with a mutual respect and admiration.

All of the above is already true for Lois and Clark. So that being equal all you're left with is...

From a more practical point of view, it is also a relationship that deals with the more obvious problems of either of these two enormously physically powerful beings having a physical/sexual relationship with an ordinary human being. To put it simply, both Diana and Clark would run the risk of killing any normal human with whom they were romantically involved every time they embraced them. A physical relationship with each other gets rid of that obvious problem.

So the key difference is superficial and based on fake science at that.

I hope that the relationship continues and becomes more mature. I'm sure it will eventually be reversed but it certainly makes sense and has a lot of potential.

It has a lot of potential yet your primary focus in your post was sex. That's not a story.

His life is no longer pondering to reveal his ID or saving the girl. It's getting bigger than that.

How is it getting bigger than that? And you do realize his life was never just revolving around the secret issue or rescuing Lois, right? Even if Lois was saved in an issue, it wasn't a huge plot point. Moreover, elements of the secret keeping factor into a key aspect of what Grant Morrison views is essential for the character of Superman and his myth. In his book Supergods, Morrison wrote about the important role Clark Kent played in the narrative of the Superman myth.

Hercules was always Hercules. Agamemnon and Perseus were heroes from the moment they leapt out of bed in the morning until the end of a long battle-crazed day, but Superman was secretly someone else. Clark was the soul, the transcendent element in the Superman equation. Clark Kent is what made him endure. In Clark, Siegel had created the ultimate reader identification figure: misunderstood, put-upon, denied respect in spite of his obvious talents as a newspaperman at Metropolis’s Daily Planet. As both Siegel and Shuster had learned, to their cost, some girls preferred bounding heroic warriors to skinny men who wrote or drew pretty pictures. But Clark Kent was more than the ultimate nerd fantasy; everyone could identify with him. We’ve all felt clumsy and misunderstood, once or twice, or more often, in our lives. Just as everyone suspects the existence of an inner Superman—an angelic, perfect self who personifies only our best moods and deeds—there is something of Clark in all of us.

Clark Kent no longer becomes that identification character or even a sympathetic one if he’s not facing the specific challenges Morrison identifies. Now that he’s quit the Daily Planet to be his own boss and has a goddess for a girlfriend, he’s none of the things that Morrison found so essential and admirable about the Clark Kent character. So what's left? You say now things have become "bigger" than what has existed before, but how?

[Fate's Faith]

As a fan of Lois Lane, I feel sad seeing her humanity and flaws reduced in value by certain people because she wasn't a perfect woman who looked like a supermodel.

How is she not perfect and what supermodels look better than she?

[Sacred Knight]

Its rare when Lois Lane isn't portrayed as being drop-dead gorgeous. Not that I have any problem with that whatsoever, but in terms of physical appearance the woman's never been flawed.

[misslane38]

I liked this even before the New52. So, I'm loving it. And I hope it sticks. For good. And that's no secret.

It amazes me to see some people try to debunk other people's views on this relationship, trying to sway those people to their side by basically saying that they (me included) are wrong, by providing "arguments" or the so-called "blunt truths" (there's no such thing as a "blunt truth" in this matter, BTW). When someone says something positive of the relationship, they come and say that it's not that way because this or that. And I'm honestly tired of it.

Such views are only challenged when incorrect canon facts are used to support them. As Jon Stewart of The Daily Show once said, "I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." Already in this thread and in two others just in the past few days the basis of my arguments were questioned and I immediately provided quotes, links, and evidence to support what I said. What you call blunt truths at least have the key trait of being the truth. And beliefs or preferences based on truths instead of lies are always the best, in my opinion. You should welcome challenges to your views because it puts them and the relationship you're defending to the test. How wonderful it is when one's beliefs pass such tests, is how I feel when I'm challenged. Your mileage may vary.

How is she not perfect and what supermodels look better than she?

Its rare when Lois Lane isn't portrayed as being drop-dead gorgeous. Not that I have any problem with that whatsoever, but in terms of physical appearance the woman's never been flawed.

I think she just meant in comparison to Diana. Or that's at least how I see the difference/issue with regards to looks and beauty.

[eskimo72]

Six months from the kiss would be march 2013. MOS movie is in June 2013. So I'll be waiting too to see if your prediction come to pass.

Second the mere fact ( so you claim) DC feel they need to keep Lois and Clark apart by using WW says they need gimmick more than anything to make Lois and Clark less predictable, more than Superman and Wonder Woman. There were people from Superman's own mythos...they used Cat Grant in the past...so now they have to upgrade to Diana, do they need to make Lois look better? Is that so? The beacon of Superman's life shouldn't need all this gimmick. Reeks of desperation if they had to do this to make Clois so important.

If you expect they will break Clark/Diana up and Clark and Lois will make sweet music and there will be no sexual tension between him and Diana after, I think you don't know DC. The triangle type stories (while stupid and full of soap opera) is what allows these stories to caryy on and on. Different writers will have their bias and come and bring back stuff but this time around Clark and Diana will be the couple that has history. Plus I don't see Superman marrying anyone for a long time.

As for "alliance" in solicits...lol...is it just like the teased "shocking ending" for JL#12 ? It means they trying not to give stuff away.

The gimmick or stunt is the Supeman/Wonder Woman thing -- how can there be a Trinity War if the 'trinity' don't have something to fight about? They didn't want to put Clark and Lois together in the beginning. Matt Idelson said as much in his Ask Matt interview on Supermanhomepage. The writers retreat in October, 2010 decided to put Superman in a love triangle. Couldn't do it while he was married because it would damage his character -- so they rebooted.

Don't be surprised when Cat Grant gets into the act in Superman book -- she's already been shown on a cover. Lana will probably appear in Snyder's untitled book. Hopefully they will show the Clark and Lois relationship grow a little more than before (especially with the five year gap).

Clark and Lois are important. They are an intricate part of the very successful and viable mythology. Remove one of the elements from a legend -- and it fails.

Clark and Diana may not 'break up' -- they may decide that their relationship is as friends, eventually best friends. But don't discount the reappearance of Steve Trevor in every book with Justice League in the title. He's been/will be in all of them. I don't expect to see Trevor in Diana's book, but she's got plenty more males to deal with in it. Her book has never dealt and probably will never deal with the Superman relationship. And if that's the case -- how enduring can this Superman Wonder Woman relationship be?

Plus as Sacred Knight brought up -- Booster and his warning about Superman and Wonder Woman destroying the future and the universe. Johns did say that we would be seeing Booster soon. Since future Booster wore an ARGUS badge in JLI Annual #1 (August, 2012 same as JL #12), we may be seeing him in JLA (Feb, 2013). So there is still time for his appearance.

Clark and Lois are end game. And how their relationship from the beginning is handled by the new 52 writers should never be predictable. Perez had Lois knowing the secret in his run. That angle has not been explored in the comics. That turns the triangle-for-two on it's head and gives it new life. But we won't see any of that if they don't develop the Clark Kent persona (who has been missing since World of New Krypton) and Lois. They've started that a bit in Superman book but it's very early since the Supes/WW thing is going on.

Johns has never said romance. Look up his interviews. It's always relationship or pairing. And if it were the greatest romance ever in comic book history than why wouldn't the solicits use the word 'romance' -- What are they scared of by not doing so? They got the big glitzy promo, right? Plus why did Didio and Lee have to ask Diane Nelson permission for just the kiss?

Clark and Lois are end game. Its a 75 year old very successful mythology. If you don't put Clark and Lois together than you destroy the tried-and-true legend. You can't damage the icons and expect the franchise to go on. It would mean a loss of revenue for DC Comics and DC Entertainment with all its multi-media products.

And who said anything about marriage? But I will point out, Grant Morrison in Action #12 did show how Clark's life played out originally before Lord Vyndyktvx messed with his timeline. Clark left his parents to go work at the Daily Planet, joined the Justice League, fought Darkseid, and eventually married Lois Lane. According to Gail Simone, Morrison grieved about the marriage ending with her at the 2011 San Diego Comic Con. And Matt Idelson said in his Ask Matt interview that he wanted Clark and Lois to stay together at the beginning of the new 52.

So things are what they are at the moment. Time will tell. I'm waiting for the REAL Superman story to begin.

[Sacred Knight]

That's not what I said actually, I said Booster delivered a vague warning, one that is intended to make one think Superman and Wonder Woman's relationship is a problem, but this is far, far from confirmed. They do something Booster wants stopped, that's all we know. Further we don't even know Booster's intentions. What are his reasons for wanting what it is he wants? Is it altrustic? Is it selfish? We have no answers. Its never even implied though that they destroy the universe, I don't know where you got that from.

[Mr. Holmes]

[Sacred Knight]

Hahaha. I miss that Joker.

[Superlad93]

Pass the popcorn, this is getting good lol

[stillanerd]

No, and even though the idea of Superman and Wonder Woman getting romantically involved as been an idea floating around for years, there's a reason why it was only restricted to Elseworld tales and "imaginary stories." Because in the long run, it would actually be damaging for both characters.

Many posters have cited some very good reasons that I agree with, but the main ones for me are these: it symbolically, and in some cases literally, makes Superman more removed from the very people he's supposed to be protecting. Granted, this is something DC has been putting emphasis on Superman ever since the New 52 relaunch, but it winds up making Superman see himself as being Superman first and Clark Kent second when it should be the other way around. Not to mention having a relationship with Wonder Woman distances himself even more from his own supporting cast, in which characters like Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen and Perry White make his wanting to protect others be far more personal and allows him to have greater humility. All being Wonder Woman accomplishes is making him avoid rather than address his need to be treated just like everyone else.

And as for Wonder Woman, it actually diminishes her standing as being an independent female superhero in her own right, one who is not a female version of any previously established male hero like Supergirl, Batgirl, or Hawkgirl. Like it or not, Superman is the bigger cultural icon, and having Wonder Woman be romantically involved with him has the effect of essentially making her a supporting character in his world when she has a world of her own. It makes Diana of Themyscaria, for all practical purposes, "Superwoman" instead of "Wonder Woman." Just take a close look at Justice League #15 in which Clark inspires Diana to try out his trick of wearing glasses as a disguise. Even though it was a nod towards "Diana Prince," it also has the effect of losing her individuality and making her look like a female Superman pastiche, one who, interestingly enough, is being molded and shaped by a male superhero. And if you think this isn't having an affect on her standing in the DC Universe, look at Stormwatch #15, in which the implication is that the new Trinity consists of Superman, Batman, and Green Lantern.

[eskimo72]

That's not what I said actually, I said Booster delivered a vague warning, one that is intended to make one think Superman and Wonder Woman's relationship is a problem, but this is far, far from confirmed. They do something Booster wants stopped, that's all we know. Further we don't even know Booster's intentions. What are his reasons for wanting what it is he wants? Is it altrustic? Is it selfish? We have no answers. Its never even implied though that they destroy the universe, I don't know where you got that from.

I see your point. Future Booster did come back and tried to warn Present Booster about something Superman and Wonder Woman would do. With Present Booster's "What the Hell?" it could be that they're being a couple could destroy the future since he saw them kissing. I believe during the kiss promo, DC said this would shake the DC Universe -- but when don't they ever say that?

[brettc1]

If you think this is good, wait til I post the thread "Would you have sex with a woman who has done it with Superman?"

Oh yeah, its a Freudian roller-coaster.