The question that hasn't been asked re: Superman and Wonder Woman

[misslane38]

I wasn't accusing you being uncivil; that's what others implied. In my eyes, for all your faults, you're nothing if not cordial.

Good to know. Thanks for clarifying.

Neither did I imply that your inability to relent made you anything but obstinate, which leads to people approaching any and all discussion with you with two stones in their hands. I would very much welcome debate with an equal, but if said equal is so set in her ways that she makes everything about her pet subject, and that any argument between us will never lead anywhere because of that, it doesn't really make for a pleasant experience, now does it?

See, this is where the incivility comes in. There is no need to paint my interest and passion for Lois Lane and her relationship with Superman in a derogatory manner by labeling it a "pet subject." Nor do I see the need to suggest that any conversation in which I discuss Lois inherently has no value or point. Mainly because conversations or arguments don't have to have a point or a place where it's leading. They're an opportunity to express thoughts and ideas and clarify them based on exposing them to scrutiny. It doesn't have to be a zero sum game where a discussion and debate needs to have a clear winner or an epilogue wherein a definitive conclusion is reached.

A lot of times, for me, I just like to know that my opinion can be treated as a valid one. Valid not correct. For example, in this very thread I said I'm fine with Superman and Wonder Woman having sex soon in the New 52, yet I couldn't even express that without SM/WW fans trying to project upon that opinion nefarious intent and then proceed to attack me using the completely irrelevant Clana vs. Clois debate from Smallville. In the thread about Lobdell's recent interview, I can't even say that I hope Diana isn't objectified by having Perry et al. ogling her at Lois' housewarming party, or that I thought Lobdell did a disservice to Lois in Superman #13 when he had her lightswitched into a corporate stooge, without people telling me I'm wrong to care about Diana and Lois in those instances. For our discussion here, I don't understand why my short post pointing out how reducing Superman's attraction to Wonder Woman to his appreciation of her vagina's greater durability compared to a human (easily assumed to be Lois) is not only an inaccurate representation of how Superman was shown to be attracted Wonder Woman in terms of her strength in the New 52, but any attraction to any woman that would actually build into something more poetically and suitably fits the Superman mythos if it's clear that what a person does with their gifts, like strength or intelligence, is what matters most.

As for how you don't relent, I refer you to you inability to acknowledge why your participation elicits such negative responses from various other posters. I refer you to some discussion about new 52 Lana knowing Clark's secret identity or not. I didn't even partake in that discussion, but I recall how you argued beyond the point of reason that she didn't, even though Clark offered to "take her down" from the barn they were sitting on. Something like "he could be referring to helping her down a huge-ass ladder the panel doesn't show".

What? I only disputed that point from the Action back up because later canon contradicted it. Clark has stated very clearly to Diana that he's distant from the humans in his life because he can't open up to them about his life. If he's already shared his secret with Lana, it makes his fears in this regard seem hypocritical and his lack of action with regards to Lois incomprehensible. So, my view is either one has to assume that panel from Action is vague by accident or design as to whether Lana knows the secret, or Clark's subsequent characterization regarding his secret is the final word on whether she knows. In that case, that scene in Action shouldn't be read as one where Lana is in the know, because if she is Clark looks like an idiot and a hypocrite for whining about having no one to talk to and for his reluctance to open up to Lois whose safety one would hope he cares just as much about as Lana's.

On a recent topic about Lois (this one actually about Lois, to your credit), you refused to accept that Lobdell is treating Lois exactly how she's been treated since the start of the new 52, defending that, evidence nonwithstanding, she had been treated like garbage. To be fair, though, you didn't really follow up on that one after my reply, so it's still open for debate.

No, Lois has been treated like garbage, and you know what? So has Wonder Woman. The evidence is plain for all to see. I refused to accept your point of view, because I don't believe it's right. I could just as easily say you refuse to accept that I'm right. See how that works? Lobdell lightswitched Lois into Edge's stooge instead of standing up to him as she had done repeatedly before. Lobdell said Lois wouldn't be defined by her relationships with men, yet all we see of her is related to her friendship with Clark and her growing closeness to Jonathan. Even then, the one scene we get to have of Lois in months (mind you, Lobdell said Lois would be a major part of his Clark's life before her multiple month absence) is at her housewarming party that turns out will have little to do with the big change in her life and more to do with the big change in Clark's. Elsewhere, Lois has been fridged repeatedly. She has literally had her integrity thrown in the trash without explanation or build up and has her life taken away so she can be swept like a piece of trash into a dustpan so that Superman can be made to act out of character. I know people don't like reading criticism of the New 52, and have tried to polish these turds as a way to mollify critics, but it doesn't work. There is little justification for anyone believing Lois has received nothing but good and fair treatment from DC in the past few years.

Come now, misslane. Please don't insult my intelligence with plastic olive branches. Either own up to what you do, or don't, but don't give me mealy-mouthed apologies.

I can't apologize in the way you want me to because I don't know what I'm apologizing for. From what I can tell, your only issue with me is that I don't let you and others win arguments by submitting to what is believed to be superior wisdom, evidence, and logic. I'll apologize for any personal slights you may have felt I did, but I guess I don't have to because you said that in your eyes I've been cordial. If your response to my willingness to bury whatever hatchet exists, is to invalidate it is unreal and behave dismissively you have to admit that you are the problem. You are the one who has repeatedly in your recent posts insulted my intelligence with patronizing and condescending comments. Your reaction to an olive branch is to mock and insult. You are behaving with a lack of civility, and if you don't see that then you have lost all credibility when it comes to being able to judge me or anyone else for how they converse on this board.

You are correct in one thing: You weren't the first one to bring up Lois in this thread (funnily enough, my first reply to you was to agree with you [post #36], despite your belief that I see red whenever your name pops up). You are also correct that bringing up Lois in a discussion is not a crime. It does, however, become aggravating when your raison d'être is Lois, and it's never enough for you to reply and refute: You have to post animated gifs of Smallville, attempt to police the terms people use and dredge up grievances with DC concerning their treatment of female characters - basically, whether provoked or not, you turn almost every single thread you post in into a soapbox. And it's always about Lois. I'm all for being thorough and standing up for one's beliefs, regardless how I personally feel about them, but you've turned it into one of the most annoying gimmicks in these boards. It all comes back to the reputation you've built for yourself, and how people respond to it, because they know what makes you tick and they can see where your arguments are coming from a hundred miles off. Essentially, you're reaping what you've sown.

You describe all of the above as if they're worthy of criticism and condemnation, but they are so unbelievably trivial. Posting animated gifs of Smallville is my crime? Ridiculous. I advocate on the behalf of the female characters because I want them to be respected? Yes, I do, how terrible. The only thing I'm reaping is the response from people here who see me as a threat to their beliefs and preferences. They want to exist in an echo chamber where they don't have to confront different opinions or praise of characters and relationships they dislike.

[misslane38]

What do you mean? You also didn't provide any context, issue number or story summary for your image, nor was it needed. I trusted you weren't posting some Elseworlds or Imaginary Story, and I hope you can give me the same consideration. I've been doing some recent reading of the Bronze Age, and you're wrong in that Superman wanted Lois to like Clark. He dated her in public, had picnics, traveled to the Fortress of Solitude and even discussed the possibility of marriage, all of it as Superman, with no thought of Clark. That he subsequently happened to date Lana as Clark has no bearing on how he'd have liked Lois feeling about him. And in the Silver Age, he fell in love or became infatuated with a number of alien princesses, native american women, female kryptonians and cavewomen, always as Superman, with nary a thought to how he wished they loved him as Clark.

I mean, I have no idea what's going on in the story you posted. It didn't prove what you were supposedly trying to prove because it had nothing to do with Clark wanting Lois to like Clark. It was a scene in which Lois was apologizing for getting upset when another woman acted a certain way with Clark at the office earlier that day. I'm still not sure what I'm supposed to be getting out of that. Superman dated Lois and did all of things you listed because that was the only way for him to have Lois. But, based on the panel I posted, he had a genuine desire for Lois to never stop trying to see something in Clark Kent.

That word explains it better than I ever could. Default. With you, it's always Lois by default, and how you must jump to her defense from any and all offence, perceived or otherwise. And therein lies the problem.

That is not an accurate statement at all about my approach. Lois is criticized and attacked, and concerns about her are mocked and attacked constantly. I get that you'd rather no one defend Lois so she was left defenseless, but that's not going to happen no matter how hard you try.

most insufferable thread 2013

It is, and I'm done with it. Self-DCeit and I have been engaging in a back and forth, so both of us are to blame. However, to show that I can be the bigger person, I'll do him a favor and let it go. Any additional hi-jacking of this thread is on him. I'm fine with ending the conversation or taking it to PM.

[direction9]

That is not an accurate statement at all about my approach. Lois is criticized and attacked, and concerns about her are mocked and attacked constantly. I get that you'd rather no one defend Lois so she was left defenseless, but that's not going to happen no matter how hard you try.

this sort of obsession/victimization is the crux of it. everyone loves her, no one really ever attacks her. there's no one who is interested in her being defenseless, and no one needs you to step it to ensure that isn't the case.

[misslane38]

this sort of obsession/victimization is the crux of it. everyone loves her, no one really ever attacks her. there's no one who is interested in her being defenseless, and no one needs you to step it to ensure that isn't the case.

For someone who was just complaining about the thread's off-topic and insufferable nature, you sure have an odd way of getting it back on track to the subject of Superman and Wonder Woman having sex. It's good to know, though, that everyone here loves Lois and, as a result, attacks against her and concerns about her are hated and welcomed respectively. About Superman and Wonder Woman having sex, will DC want to approach it thoughtfully by making sure Diana and Clark practice safe sex? There are concerns about super babies from the wider public, and it would be a bit soon for them to have a baby, so when they do have sex I hope it's suggested that they're taking precautions.

[direction9]

it's a thread about things that aren't going to happen.
also if they have sex the scene will be off-panel and romantic and protection will be a real world concern that doesn't apply unless the story is headed towards superbaby, which won't happen
but no one is persecuting your fav character and calling for your personal crusade, dig?

[TomariS]

*dares to peek in* Oh goodie! We really need a mod, haha!!

Ummm...Guys? do you realise that if a writer wants Superman and Wonder Woman having sex it will happen, right? And that if a writer wants Clark and Lois to have sex -AU or in continuity- (by hints, some not so explicit scenes, or just showing the aftermath), it will happen anyway, right? Unless DC uses some restrictions to stop that from happening, of course... XP

Niven's theories are not the sacred GOSPEL, yet sometimes they're used as if they were. They do not dictate how Comics work, because all is set on a fictional world. Trying to find a scientific explanation for everything, characters and things that were created by the imagination of people like Shuster, Siegel or Marston, sometimes just simply doesn't work. Why not post or create a thread about Superman and Wonder Woman and enjoy the relationship for what it is, no Lois needed?

Let's enjoy the comics people! Let's enjoy whatever versions of the characters we have, no need to get so serious about Clark's sex life.

[Superman Priime]

I know you all won't believe me, but I really didn't mean for this thread to turn out the way it has.

Good gracious LOL

[Self-DCeit]

Self-DCeit and I have been engaging in a back and forth, so both of us are to blame. However, to show that I can be the bigger person, I'll do him a favor and let it go. Any additional hi-jacking of this thread is on him. I'm fine with ending the conversation or taking it to PM.

I accept my share of the blame in this and flagellate myself for partaking in such a derailment - sorry, everyone, and Superman Priime in particular. This isn't about having the last word for me, misslane. It's mainly another attempt at making you understand how insufferable you can be and why your participation in threads invariably leads to confrontations such as this, so that this kind of crap can finally stop and the mention of Lois or Diana in a Superman thread ceases to be flame fodder. While I'm at it, I'll address the rest of your points.

If you agree that the way I interpreted the poster's intent and meaning is a valid one, then it's neither reaching or worthy of your initial knee-jerk flaming response to what I said.

You misunderstand. Just because I agree, for instance, that conspiracy theories are a "valid" way of interpreting tragic events that occured in our world, doesn't make them any less ridiculous or obnoxious, especially when they're incessantly droned with fever pitch intensity by conspiracy nuts.

It is up for debate because people in those scenarios really, truly, deep down find something else about those people that draws them in or they choose to overlook what is unattractive to them.

It is not, misslane. It simply is not a choice. I can't fault you for being a hopeless romantic that would look for depth in a street puddle, but please don't project that on others.

Superman would never overlook Wonder Woman, or any woman, using her strength for evil or selfish ends[...]Superman does have only one way to love or feel attraction in that he would never be attracted to someone based on raw strength alone. Strength would have to be demonstrated and the way it's demonstrated--a good deed--is what would cement the attraction.

Now we're truly going around in circles. I invite you to take a gander at Action Comics #395, wherein your precious Silver Age Superman falls in love with a man-hating space amazon called Althera, "a beautiful godess and incredibly strong", and is overjoyed after having finally found "the one woman fit for a superman" (funnily enough, they are forced to call it off when they realize they're both different species, which would make Superman a speciecist).
Silver Age siliness aside, you're still overlooking the fact that, underneath all that "super", there is also a "man". And the flesh is weak, as the saying goes, so it's ludicrous to insist that Superman would never feel attraction at a base level.

It's not even made clear that Superman was attracted to Diana, in any sexual or romantic sense, in that moment. He simply made an observation about her strength. If he had said to Flash, "You're fast," when they first met I wouldn't assume he was attracted to him.

Facetiousness doesn't become you, misslane, and you're doing the whole barn ladder thing again. The panels are pretty clear, both at that moment and in the aftermath of the fight.

The OP said that Superman would observe Wonder Woman as not a "woman of tissue," and that alone would be sufficient foundation for an attraction to build. There is no other way to read that statement without acknowledging that, to the OP, if Superman saw a woman as a "woman of tissue" it would be something he'd see as less desirable, and therefore he'd have to overlook that trait in favor of other good qualities in the person or reject the person altogether as a not good enough or not right for him.[...]My initial comments were in defense of Lois Lane, in general, and of Wonder Woman in the New 52. It was also in defense of Superman, and his attraction to both women, because in both of their cases his attraction was based on what they were doing with their unique form of power. For Lois, it was her masterful articles that stood up to the powerful. For Diana, it was her use of strength for good that he admires (he says as much in JL13). I'm not criticizing anyone other than the OP.

That's not what you were saying. You leaped to the assumption that, according to the quoted poster, Superman would find "physical weakness unattractive". I tried to explain it to you how that's not the case, how preferring one thing does not equate to being repulsed by other thing. But you will never accept that. Why? Because, the way you see it, that would put Lois at an inherent disadvantage in your fantasy, but there's not need to. It's perfectly normal, misslane. Just because athletes and bodybuilders tend to gravitate towards other athletes and bodybuilders, doesn't mean they can't feel attracted to regular joes or janes.

Well, unless Superman has an entirely alien way to approach the mechanics of intercourse that I don't know about, then I and the rest of us assume his positions and movement resemble a human's. What that activity results in, on the other hand, could be quite different. I'm open to another interpretation, but I was pretty sure everyone approached the topic of Superman's sexual performance, according to Niven, as resembling human intercourse in every way except in the power of the physical movements and of a presumed ejaculation that he has.

Leave the facetiousness to me, misslane; clearly, you're no good at it. You can't have your cake and eat it too, assuming Superman's biology is similar enough to a human's for your whole proprioception business to work and then claim unknown variables in the next paragraph. For the record, I'm not disputing it's conceivable, but as usual you're missing the point that it's not about what he can do with a human female, but what he can do with a superpowered female that he can't with a non-powered one.

Superman's adaptation, and the whole point of proprioception within the confines of sexual intercourse, is that it is unconscious. However, let's say that it's not. He'd have to control himself, as most men would, with any woman--powered or superpowered--because Superman unleashed to his full power at the level he might let loose with a villain would be likely to harm anyone. If you agree that Superman can have sex that is pleasurable with a woman of tissue, be it Lois or whomever, and the only thing you imagine he's missing is sex so rough that it would be the equivalent of Superman's penis pounding Wonder Woman's vagina with the force he'd use against Doomsday, then I don't think that's something that should matter to him or anyone.

Ok, fair play to you. The revolting image you've evoked actually elicited a chuckle from me, but you're resorting to hyperbole again and comparing apples to oranges. Rough or vigorous sex does not imply violence, misslane. It would, however, imply a shattered pelvis for any unlucky human female at the very least.
And it bears repeating: Nobody is saying Superman cannot have sex with nonpowered females, only that said intercourse is necessarily different than that he would have with a superpowered woman. Keyword: Different. It'd be a wholly different experience. And while he could do both the whole proprioception dirty and the rough business to a superpowered female, he can't do both with a nonpowered one. To argue otherwise is just being argumentative for argument's sake.

There is no need to paint my interest and passion for Lois Lane and her relationship with Superman in a derogatory manner by labeling it a "pet subject." Nor do I see the need to suggest that any conversation in which I discuss Lois inherently has no value or point.

But there is. Take the poster TomariS, above. She's clearly a proponent of the Superman/Lois relationship. She singlehandedly keeps a Lois and Clark thread alive. She evidently likes the character of Lois. Do you see anyone having a go at her? Do you see her leaping to the fray whenever Lois is mentioned in what she may or may not perceive as a positive light? Do you see anyone groaning and rolling their eyes whenever the name "Lois" comes up in a thread and say "oh, boy, counting down to TomariS appearing in 3,2,1..."? Think about it.
(Apologies for pulling you into this, TomariS. Hope you don't mind.)

A lot of times, for me, I just like to know that my opinion can be treated as a valid one. Valid not correct. For example, in this very thread I said I'm fine with Superman and Wonder Woman having sex soon in the New 52, yet I couldn't even express that without SM/WW fans trying to project upon that opinion nefarious intent and then proceed to attack me using the completely irrelevant Clana vs. Clois debate from Smallville.

It bears repeating: You're reaping what you've sown. People have become so fed up with you, that whatever you say is perceived as Lois spin doctoring. I can't say you haven't worked hard to earn that assumption.

[Self-DCeit]

What? I only disputed that point from the Action back up because later canon contradicted it. Clark has stated very clearly to Diana that he's distant from the humans in his life because he can't open up to them about his life. If he's already shared his secret with Lana, it makes his fears in this regard seem hypocritical and his lack of action with regards to Lois incomprehensible. So, my view is either one has to assume that panel from Action is vague by accident or design as to whether Lana knows the secret, or Clark's subsequent characterization regarding his secret is the final word on whether she knows. In that case, that scene in Action shouldn't be read as one where Lana is in the know, because if she is Clark looks like an idiot and a hypocrite for whining about having no one to talk to and for his reluctance to open up to Lois whose safety one would hope he cares just as much about as Lana's.

First of all, it wasn't contradicted. Superman said he grew up with the identity of Clark Kent and kept it to protect the people he's close to "once Superman came on the scene". The Action backup was set in the past, way before that, so your clumsy attempts at waving away the fact that Lana knows his identity and accusing Superman of hipocrisy were just that. Also, I don't even think the issue of JL you're referring had been published at the time of the discussion.

No, Lois has been treated like garbage. [...] There is little justification for anyone believing Lois has received nothing but good and fair treatment from DC in the past few years.

All of this was disproven in the discussion you bailed out of in a previous thread, much like you're getting ready to do with this one. Here, for your convenience.

I can't apologize in the way you want me to because I don't know what I'm apologizing for. From what I can tell, your only issue with me is that I don't let you and others win arguments by submitting to what is believed to be superior wisdom, evidence, and logic. I'll apologize for any personal slights you may have felt I did, but I guess I don't have to because you said that in your eyes I've been cordial. If your response to my willingness to bury whatever hatchet exists, is to invalidate it is unreal and behave dismissively you have to admit that you are the problem. You are the one who has repeatedly in your recent posts insulted my intelligence with patronizing and condescending comments. Your reaction to an olive branch is to mock and insult.

You really are the Charlie Sheen of these boards, aren't you? It's not you who's wrong, it's everybody else. You and the thing you do are just misunderstood and the bad men say nasty things to you because you won't admit they're right. Get over yourself. Do refer above and pretty much every other discussion I've had with you. Other than writing in another language, there aren't many other ways I can explain it to you why people react to you the way they do, and why the weaselly "I'm sorry if you're offended at what I said or did" is nothing more than a dishonest and haughty excuse for an apology. Not that one is required, mind you. You don't offend me, you're just a clockwork annoyance in these boards.

You describe all of the above as if they're worthy of criticism and condemnation, but they are so unbelievably trivial. Posting animated gifs of Smallville is my crime? Ridiculous. I advocate on the behalf of the female characters because I want them to be respected? Yes, I do, how terrible. The only thing I'm reaping is the response from people here who see me as a threat to their beliefs and preferences. They want to exist in an echo chamber where they don't have to confront different opinions or praise of characters and relationships they dislike.

It is indeed ridiculous. It's that fever pitch I was referring to above. And again, get over yourself. How in the world do you expect to threaten anybody's beliefs in an Internet discussion that's not about politics or religion? You fancy yourself a crusader that makes a perceived status quo shake to its core, but you're just an annoying Greenpeace activist who holds up posters of butchered whales at Sea World.

I get that you'd rather no one defend Lois so she was left defenseless, but that's not going to happen no matter how hard you try.

Why the contrived melodrama? I'm ambivalent towards Lois and acknowledge her place in comic book mythos; I mean, she's been around longer than Batman, for chrissakes. But how can a fictional character be left defenseless and, more importantly, why would I want nobody to defend Lois if she did indeed need defending? What I'd like is that you rein in your virulent fangirlism and victimization complex and actively try to comprehend what others repeatedly tell you instead of letting it go over your head; you might be surprised at how people will start reacting more peacefully to your posts if you do so.

[Mr. Mastermind]

lol This stayed on topic.

I'm requesting a moderator and I'm volunteering.

[Typhoeus]

To answer the topic, no I don't think Superman & Wonder Woman will have sex any time soon since the energy released by their love-making might charge-up quantum particles to the breaching point leading to an entropic chain reaction tearing apart the fabric of the space-time continuum and eventually collapsing the entire universe on itself into a singularity (no kidding).
Superman & Wonder Woman are both superheroes; they wouldn't endanger the balance of the universe for a brief moment of passionate intimacy...
Wait a minute!...Wait a minute!!!...justice league international annual...Booster Gold's disappearance...the kiss...
OH MY GOD!!! The Apocalypse is upon us!!!!!!!!!!!...RUUUUNNNNNNNNNN!!!....

[Russell]

I assumed that they already had. If not yet, then during Trinity War