It doesn't have to be the case if it is written properly. Actually, it makes more sense for Clark and Diana to be a couple, they can grow old together since they can live much longer than humans, they wouldn't have to worry about the aging difference (young looking Clark with an old Lois down the road), plus Diana can take care of herself (less stress for him), etc. There are more advantages for Clark to be with Diana than with Lois, but the comics don't touch any of this.
Oh yeah...there are a
TON more advantages for Clark to be with Diana than with Lois and it makes a ton more sense......if you believe that SUPERMAN---of all men--would live his life this completely
shallow and superficial. Because every reason you listed here is quite frankly the most superficial thing I have ever read about why two people should be together. But that's nothing new. I have never in my entire tenure as a fan seen a case made for the Superman/Ww relationship that wasn't rooted in superficial, shallow, sexist BS. There's a reason why this relationship is loathed beyond loathed amongst so many comics' circles---particularly among women.
Also, it's never "written properly" because it's a
horrible concept. And don't trot out "it worked in
Kingdom Come" with me. Mark Waid himself stated outright in the Gender in Comics course just last month that he isn't sure even now if it was the right choice to end Kingdom Come that way because he doesn't believe their relationship works long term. The Actual
writer of Kingdom Come has gone on record that he thinks it wasn't a great idea. Not to mention that Kingdom Come was the result of the brutal murder of Lois Lane. Even in KC, Diana was still #2. Something else Mark Waid has gone on record with.
But no seriously....let's think through all these "advantages" that you've listed here. Let's really think about what you are suggesting for SUPERMAN--AKA the guy who is supposed to be the most honorable, caring man in the world. No really. Let's talk about it.
1.) First, let's address the factual errors with your suggestion that Superman and Lois won't grow old together. Au contraire. Not always true.
Actually, in the Golden Age of Comics, they
did grow old together as a married couple. Siegel and Shuster's Superman and Lois Lane married in Action Comics #484 in the 40th Anniversary issue of Action Comics. This was all the way back in 1978. The marriage took place on Earth 2 but was then continued in the Superman Family stories in the 80's as Mr. and Mrs. Superman.
It then became the Golden Age canon for Superman. Superman and Lois both aged at the same rate and grew elderly together as a married couple. They raised Kara as their daughter. Eventually, Lois died (we assume it's from natural causes) and Clark is grief-stricken and beside himself. As she dies, Lois tells Clark that they will "never end." He doesn't understand what she means and he becomes obsessed with finding a way to reunite with her. He eventually dies from his injuries in the arms of Kara and as he lays dying, he tells Kara that he "finally understands" what Lois was trying to tell him. He finally understands that the will always go on---that nothing truly sacred like love can ever truly die.
The Golden Age Superman dies an older man and we then see him reunited in the heavens with Lois. They are both young again in the stars for eternity.
Here is a look at the older Lois and Superman btw.
http://fyeahsupermanandloislane.tumblr.com/post/18823933119/superman-and-lois-lane-of-earth-2-action-comics
2.) Then we get to the problem that Superman is not immortal and he can and
HAS died before Lois before. See:
All Star Superman and the
Death and Return of Superman. His life expectancy is not some guarantee. He can be killed. He can die. He can die before Lois. It's the basis of one of the most famous Superman stories ever in comics---arguably some might say THe greatest Superman story in comics written by Grant Morrison.
3.) But putting all these factual problems aside---including the fact that we have NO CLUE how long Clark is going to live or how he's going to age. Putting all that aside...
Are you honestly suggesting that SUPERMAN (of all people) or any decent human being would choose their romantic partner based on something as shallow, superficial and out of our control as LIFE EXPECTANCY and physical appearance?
No really. Let's talk about what you are suggesting.
We will all die at some point. This is a fact of life. We never know when we marry someone if we will grow old with them or if they will die tomorrow. Life is precious and it's fleeting.
I could die in a car crash tomorrow. It's morbid to say it but life is precious. Does that mean that my husband should leave me? That he should find another woman who is guaranteed to live longer than I will? Do you understand what you are even suggesting?
What about Christopher Reeve and his wife? Do you think Dana Reeve should have left him after his accident because now his life expectancy was dramatically shorter? Should all spouses just up and leave their partners if they learn that they are ill or might die? Newsflash...WE WILL ALL DIE.
4.) I suggest you read Elliot S. Maggin's extremely famous story entitled "Luthor's Gift" before you ever talk again about the "aging difference" between Lois Lane and Superman. Ironcally, Superman looks with complete disdain at the people who make this suggestion in the story. As if he can't quite believe that they think him so shallow. Seriously. Read it.
http://fyeahsupermanandloislane.tumblr.com/post/39759515828/luthors-gift-by-elliot-s-maggin-an-excerpt-i
5.) "Diana can take care of herself so it's less stress for Clark." Again, what a stupid, superficial reason for two people to be together. First off, Lois is not some helpless person. She's a capable career woman. But are you now suggesting that only people with superpowers are worthy of being with someone with physical power? Because...that's pretty ablelist.
How about people who have special needs or physical handicaps? Should they also keep to their own kind because it would be "too much stress" for a person without a disability to love them?
How about all the police officers, fire fighters and soliders? Should they also up and leave the people they love and only marry people who also know how to shoot a gun?
Then we reach the problem that what you are suggesting is....cowardice. You want Superman---of all people---not to just be shallow and superficial but also to be too much of a coward to be willing to take the same risk that HIS PARENTS did when they adopted him.
Jonathan and Martha Kent had no guarantees when they adopted Clark. They were afraid. It was hard. But they did it because they LOVED him. Because love should never be dictated by fear. Because making CHOICES based on fear and what's "easy" is no way for anyone to live--let alone THE GREATEST HERO IN THE WORLD.
Lois and Clark choosing to be together is hard. But life is hard. Life is not easy. Marriage is not easy. But because when you love someone...every day is precious. You don't trade whatever time you get with someone you really love just to make your life a little easier. It's no way to live. Taking the easy way out because it's "stressful" isn't inspiring nor is it heroic.
And that's the real problem with Superman and Wonder Woman as a couple. It takes all that is heroic and inspirational about Superman and it spits on it. Instead of a humble man who is willing to take the same chance that his mother and father did and walk amongst the humans and love with bravery and humility....you instead get a god-like figure too cowardly to be with the person he really loves and instead take the easy way out.
I have not even touched the horrible things that the relationship does to Wonder Woman---a character created specifically to have her OWN love interest and her own story in a very specific way that Superman tramples all over when he enters the picture. I have not even touched on how horrifically disrespectful it would be to have Wonder Woman FINALLY get a media property after 35 years off the scene and to force her into a love triangle with SUPERMAN assuring forever that the general public only ever thinks of her in relation to him as opposed to understanding that she has a vast, rich history OF HER OWN that has absolutely nothing to do with him.
I cannot and will not ever abide these superficial, shallow arguments about Superman's love life. You can't ask me to believe that Superman is the "greatest hero the world has ever known" and then, in the same breath, establish that he's so shallow, superficial and cowardly that he'd turn his back on the woman he truly loves bc he's consumed with the physical and his own godliness. It's gross.
I imagine most people would rather have a few precious moments with a person they truly love than spend eternity with someone who will only ever hope to be #2. Maybe you are the kind of person that would rather have #2. But I don't think Clark is. And arguments that assert that he is? Insult the entire point of the character.
So sure. Right. It makes a "ton more sense" and there are "way more advantages" for Clark to be with Diana as opposed to Lois Lane. If you completely miss the
point of Superman from the ground up and assume that he's shallow, superficial and cowardly.
t: 
