All of the above is already true for Lois and Clark. So that being equal all you're left with is...
Originally Posted by ShaunN
So the key difference is superficial and based on fake science at that.
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.
It has a lot of potential yet your primary focus in your post was sex. That's not a story.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by killercroc
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?