Superman Returns Was Superman Really Out of Character in SR?

[mego joe]

Exactly, this i agree with.



He was in a committed relationship with Lois in the 70's before she knew who Superman was, so its not that different. As i have said before, i just think Singer modernised their relationship for younger and more modern audiences. Sex is a lot more casual these days, no matter how moral you are.

He was not in a committed relationship with her in the seventies. THe whole point of the status quo then was tha they COULD NOT be in a committed relationship. It was a casusal dating thing with NO committment and no real emotional intimacy.

No matter how moden you are, sex outside a committed relationship is wrong.

 

[Angeloz]

I disagree.

I'll grant you though I wouldn't do such a thing.

Angeloz

 

[LexCorp]

He was not in a committed relationship with her in the seventies. THe whole point of the status quo then was tha they COULD NOT be in a committed relationship. It was a casusal dating thing with NO committment and no real emotional intimacy.

No matter how moden you are, sex outside a committed relationship is wrong.

Only if you never plan to have a relationship like that or have different ideals and take perfect care protection wise. It works for some people.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

He was not in a committed relationship with her in the seventies. THe whole point of the status quo then was tha they COULD NOT be in a committed relationship. It was a casusal dating thing with NO committment and no real emotional intimacy.

No matter how moden you are, sex outside a committed relationship is wrong.

So almost every young man and woman today are wrong for having sex? Sorry Mega, but times have changed DRAMATICALLY. People of all ages are doing it left, right and centre nowadays, even moral people. Whether that is wrong or not is up to you, but to me, it isnt.

 

[LexCorp]

So almost every young man and woman today are wrong for having sex? Sorry Mega, but times have changed DRAMATICALLY. People of all ages are doing it left, right and centre nowadays, even moral people. Whether that is wrong or not is up to you, but to me, it isnt.

Sex is sex and always has been.

2 adults both say yes for what ever reason and there you go.

Right or wrong depends on the situation and circumstance.

You do not have to be in a serious relationship to have sex.

 

[Angeloz]

Sex is sex and always has been.

2 adults both say yes for what ever reason and there you go.

Right or wrong depends on the situation and circumstance.

You do not have to be in a serious relationship to have sex.

Unless you're in an ultrareligious society. Did you know in Iran you can be married for an hour? So prostitution can be legal. But if raped then it's the woman's fault and they can be killed in some countries. But the U.S. isn't that kind of society.

Angeloz

 

[LexCorp]

Unless you're in an ultrareligious society. Did you know in Iran you can be married for an hour? So prostitution can be legal. But if raped then it's the woman's fault and they can be killed in some countries. But the U.S. isn't that kind of society.

Angeloz

And that they need the mans permission to get a divorce yes it is ****ed up.

 

[El Payaso]

No matter how moden you are, sex outside a committed relationship is wrong.

It is not if he agrees and she agrees on it.

 

[Angeloz]

It is not if he agrees and she agrees on it.

And what if a villain drugs them? Or red kryptonite (of the "Smallville" variety)? I'm saying what if they weren't trying for a commited relationship. But they aren't fully in control either.

Angeloz

 

[SuperDaniel]

Like i said, u cant put your morals into Superman. He`s above that. You can treat him as he if was me or you. Superman is supposed to be the inspiration to every aspect of life, not the average joe. This is Spider-man you are talking about.

Superman doesnt have sex outside a commited relationship, Superman doesnt drink, Superman doesnt have an estabilished religion, etc.There are things you just dont touch.

I do all of the above. Not Superman.

 

[Angeloz]

I've heard he was meant to be a Methodist. On the internet but I think it was mentioned somewhere else (comics I think). But as I said there can't be something beyond his control like red kryptonite?

Angeloz

 

[mego joe]

So almost every young man and woman today are wrong for having sex?

Yes.

Sorry Mega, but times have changed DRAMATICALLY.

But the reasons for why it's wrong have not changed at all. Perhaps people's priorities have changed, but those changes are in themselves wrong.

People of all ages are doing it left, right and centre nowadays, even moral people. Whether that is wrong or not is up to you, but to me, it isnt.

But it doesn't make it right. When everyone in the South in the US was racist was that right? Because everyone was doing it? You have to look at the larger moral implications not simply, 'what everyone else is doing.'

It is not about me or you. It is about the good of society in general.

Why it's wrong.

When people become sexually intimate before they are emotionally intimate then it creates a false sense of intimacy. This false sense of intimacy creates all sorts of problems. THis is from scientific studies by the way, not my own head.

If you have sex outside of a committed relationship, and you were to get pregnant, what happens to that child?

When you are having sex outside that committed relationship and you become pregnant, what happens to that child?

If you are not fully committed to giving that child everything that child deserves and making that child a priority over everything else in your life that is wrong.

That child is innocent. THat child didn't ask to be conceived. THat child is your moral and ethical responsibiltiy. Anything short of the biological parents raising that child is in some way wrong.

This of course doesn't mean that it's not going to happen. But as a society we need to diminish the occurances of single parents, children who don't know there fathers, deadbeat dads, parents who don't put their children first.

Why? Because it is the right and moral thing to do and becasue it is in the best interest of a better society.

If that means that you don't have sex outside a committed relationship, well, so be it. The betterment of society as a whole and putting children first is more important than an individual's sexual desires.

 

[mego joe]

And what if a villain drugs them? Or red kryptonite (of the "Smallville" variety)? I'm saying what if they weren't trying for a commited relationship. But they aren't fully in control either.

Angeloz

Then that's a story that needs to be told doesn't it? I could easily say the Jason is really Mxyzptlk, but it's clearly not the case at this point. Singer didn't make it vague b/c he wanted to keep it a mystery, he made it vague b/c he didn't want to tell the story about it b/c he didn't understand the characters enough to realize that it was necessary.

 

[mego joe]

Only if you never plan to have a relationship like that or have different ideals and take perfect care protection wise. It works for some people.

Simply using protection does make it morally right. It just means that you've avoided the consequences of STD's, pregnancy etc....

It doesn't change the fact that your behavior as such is part of a larger committment.

 

[Angeloz]

There's also abortions other than contraception. Not that I'm advocating it. And Lois chose to keep Jason - good for her.

Angeloz

 

[mego joe]

There's also abortions other than contraception. Not that I'm advocating it. And Lois chose to keep Jason - good for her.

Angeloz

The issue was not whether or not Lois made a good decision AFTER getting pregnant, but whether or not SUperman and Lois were in a committed relationship.

People can step up and do the right thing after doing the wrong thing. My point for this part of the thread orignally I believe was talking about whether or not S and Lois were in a committed relationship in the 70's comics and how that they weren't and that it did not translate to a modern update for SR.

We started talking about sex and we got off the original topic as I tried to argue why sex outside a committed relationship is morally and ethically wrong.

 

[Angeloz]

And people disagreed.

Angeloz

 

[mego joe]

Angeloz,

Did you think that SUperman and Lois were in a committed relationship in the comics in the 70's/ pre-Crisis?

I'm just curious.

 

[mego joe]

And people disagreed.

Angeloz

...and I've presented part of my argument to back-up my belief on the subject.

I'm anxious to see what response my argument gets.

So, do you think that Supes and Lois were in a committed relationship in the backstory of SR?

 

[SuperDaniel]

The problem is that peole keep trying to put their lifes and beliefs into Superman in order to make him reletable. So Singer gives him a real-world problem that is tottally out of character and not proper in a Superman story.


Superman is not us. All this idea to Marvelize the characteres of Dc comics pisses me off.

 

[mego joe]

The problem is that peole keep trying to put their lifes and beliefs into Superman in order to make him reletable. So Singer gives him a real-world problem that is tottally out of character and not proper in a Superman story.


Superman is not us. All this idea to Marvelize the characteres of Dc comics pisses me off.

I'm with you there. There is a difference between the two companies characters. In some ways we reallly shouldn't be able to relate to Clark Kent, Bruce Wayne, Diana Prince or many other DC characters. They are extremes in many ways and that's why they are icons. But they are also undiluted in their motivations, very direct and to the point. Even Batman who you can portray as borderline psychotic is very straight forward in his motivations. And they are still noble even if they seem somewhat unrealistic.

Superman is similar in that his motivations are straight forward as well. He character instead of having unrealistic goals is more about how do you weild absolute power and NOT become corrupted.

 

[CGHulk]

Superman is similar in that his motivations are straight forward as well. He character instead of having unrealistic goals is more about how do you weild absolute power and NOT become corrupted.

Well said!

 

[LexCorp]

Simply using protection does make it morally right. It just means that you've avoided the consequences of STD's, pregnancy etc....

It doesn't change the fact that your behavior as such is part of a larger committment.

But you can't label casual sex as wrong....as there are two sides to every story and some people have perfectly normal lives doing it casualy. Sex will create a connection anyway. So together or not the people involved share a moment. Friends shag buddies are common. But there is a relation ship there in the first place so I guess that is not wrong. If they are two adults who can handle the no strings sex and not get attached it's fine.

What I am saying is if the two people involved can handle the mental and physical issues with sex then there is no problem...

 

[El Payaso]

So almost every young man and woman today are wrong for having sex?

Yes.

But the reasons for why it's wrong have not changed at all. Perhaps people's priorities have changed, but those changes are in themselves wrong.

That way we can make people to listen to specific ideologies before they can have the right to choose what to do with their lives, minds and bodies. The premise is they're wrong.

But it doesn't make it right. When everyone in the South in the US was racist was that right? Because everyone was doing it? You have to look at the larger moral implications not simply, 'what everyone else is doing.'

I have to agree. Everybody's doing ti doesn't make it. But having the right to decide about my life does.

It is not about me or you. It is about the good of society in general.

People's basic freedom to choose can't go against good of society in general.

Why it's wrong.

When people become sexually intimate before they are emotionally intimate then it creates a false sense of intimacy. This false sense of intimacy creates all sorts of problems. THis is from scientific studies by the way, not my own head.

Please, links.

Scientist have been wrong so many times before it's not even funny.

If you have sex outside of a committed relationship, and you were to get pregnant, what happens to that child?

When you are having sex outside that committed relationship and you become pregnant, what happens to that child?

I don't know. What happens?

They all become mugs? Or do drugs? Because as far as we know, that happens to all kind of people. Not specifically those conceived outside a commited relationship.

You're spreading this kind of ideology where people's lives are pre-determined by moral factors you and some other people handle better. People are not free to choose what kind of people they will be, they're predetermined by moral behaviour of their parents. Lol at that.

If you are not fully committed to giving that child everything that child deserves and making that child a priority over everything else in your life that is wrong.

That child is innocent. THat child didn't ask to be conceived. THat child is your moral and ethical responsibiltiy. Anything short of the biological parents raising that child is in some way wrong.

We all have seen commited relationships that goes directly into parents that mistreat children or fathers that beat wives. It seems like every person is a single case and people's lives and behaviours can't be confined to some specific morals.

This of course doesn't mean that it's not going to happen. But as a society we need to diminish the occurances of single parents, children who don't know there fathers, deadbeat dads, parents who don't put their children first.

Parents in a commited relationship, that got married before sex and everything often leave their children and put their own lives first or their jobs first. No reductionism as your should impose a specific (personal) moral behaviour dogma as the holy solution.

Why? Because it is the right and moral thing to do and becasue it is in the best interest of a better society.

Translation: Because I say so. And sounds great.

If that means that you don't have sex outside a committed relationship, well, so be it. The betterment of society as a whole and putting children first is more important than an individual's sexual desires.

Sexual life is not confined to procreation. Every person has the right to decide how to live his life and sexual life. Now their commitment to children must come first when the procreation is a fact. That is Superman's case. As soon as he knew, he was there with him and I'm sure he won't leave him alone in the future. So far, Jason is having a great mother and father with Lois and Richard. One day he'll know the truth as many adopted children has to know truth and their lives are not ruined by that.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Yes.

Well then sorry but we think differently on that issue..

But the reasons for why it's wrong have not changed at all. Perhaps people's priorities have changed, but those changes are in themselves wrong.

The thing is though, its not considered wrong anymore, why do you think so many advertisement or movies even use sex to sell to the audience? Because today it isnt taboo.

But it doesn't make it right. When everyone in the South in the US was racist was that right? Because everyone was doing it? You have to look at the larger moral implications not simply, 'what everyone else is doing.'

It is not about me or you. It is about the good of society in general.

Why it's wrong.

When people become sexually intimate before they are emotionally intimate then it creates a false sense of intimacy. This false sense of intimacy creates all sorts of problems. THis is from scientific studies by the way, not my own head.

If you have sex outside of a committed relationship, and you were to get pregnant, what happens to that child?

When you are having sex outside that committed relationship and you become pregnant, what happens to that child?

If you are not fully committed to giving that child everything that child deserves and making that child a priority over everything else in your life that is wrong.

That child is innocent. THat child didn't ask to be conceived. THat child is your moral and ethical responsibiltiy. Anything short of the biological parents raising that child is in some way wrong.

This of course doesn't mean that it's not going to happen. But as a society we need to diminish the occurances of single parents, children who don't know there fathers, deadbeat dads, parents who don't put their children first.

Why? Because it is the right and moral thing to do and becasue it is in the best interest of a better society.

If that means that you don't have sex outside a committed relationship, well, so be it. The betterment of society as a whole and putting children first is more important than an individual's sexual desires.

As i have said before, Superman was raised as a human being, therefore is susceptible to the same emotions and therefore the same mistakes that we can make.