I miss the love triangle

[Stardust]

Comicsgate wants Peter & MJ back together again. Is Marvel serving Spider-Man to them now that Pete & MJ are back together again?
Comicsgate was mad that Batman & Catwoman didn't get married but they should still get married. We can't let comicsgate decide how comics are written.

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say we should let comicgaters decide how to write comics.

I said that you give them comics loving "meninists" more arguments for their point of view with the triangle.
That treating women like shit is the right thing to do, because if Superman does it it must be OK.
But the comics might get new readers from that crowd if that is the main aim

[Lasil]

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say we should let comicgaters decide how to write comics.

I said that you give them comics loving "meninists" more arguments for their point of view with the triangle.
That treating women like shit is the right thing to do, because if Superman does it it must be OK.
But the comics might get new readers from that crowd if that is the main aim

Don't put words in my mouth. I don't want Superman to treat women like shit.

It won't bring new readers because comicsgaters like the marriage. Here is proof.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jK8D-J9k5us
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSVDBJApWBY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBUbFYNHh2U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVy2EqXlK98

I have lost friends because they sided with comicsgate. I know what they want and they dont want the love triangle comes back.

[Stardust]

And I never said, that they want the triangle era back. You keep saying, that I say that.

I said like many before in this thread, that to have the triangle, Supes has to gaslight the women he supposedly loves.
In which world isn't that treating her like shit?
If you have it in the past, it means character development, which is a good thing.

If you have it in the present, you have a lot of old misogynistic connotations with this trope, that you have no chance to get rid of. Which means you play into the hands of misogynists whether you want to or not.
That doesn't mean, that they want the triangle back.
It only means that certain elements of that story support their world view

In the current climate it would be a big mistake to ignore those conotations and would only hurt the character. IMHO.

[The Overlord]

I don't really care about the love triangle thing but why would Superman who's been shown to be able to build robot replicas of himself not be able to fool Lois. There's no real reason who shouldn't be able to fool the whole world for as long as he pleases, his only threat would be psychics or the clairvoyant. Him being able to fool Lois makes no less sense than him being able to fly.

Okay, let's suspend our disbelief and say Superman can fool Lois as long he wants with Superman robots or what not and Lois can still be protrayed as an intelligent character, problem solved right?

Except that makes Superman into a gas lighting control freak psycho who treats Lois like an object rather then a human being, he is supposed to love her, but he thinks so little of her he cannot tell her the truth.

This love triangle is dated in the worst way possible, either Lois has to be an idiot or Superman has to be a creep to make it work.

[Cmbmool]

I never liked it....Have her know and keep the secret or have her come close and still keep it... either way it's not for me. There's something wrong about lying to those who you love when it comes to Superman and Lois.

[Lasil]

And I never said, that they want the triangle era back. You keep saying, that I say that.

I said like many before in this thread, that to have the triangle, Supes has to gaslight the women he supposedly loves.
In which world isn't that treating her like shit?
If you have it in the past, it means character development, which is a good thing.

If you have it in the present, you have a lot of old misogynistic connotations with this trope, that you have no chance to get rid of. Which means you play into the hands of misogynists whether you want to or not.
That doesn't mean, that they want the triangle back.
It only means that certain elements of that story support their world view

In the current climate it would be a big mistake to ignore those conotations and would only hurt the character. IMHO.

Lois tells Superman that she wants Superman to do his best to keep his secret from her because she wants a challenge.

It's easy to keep the love triangle without misogyny and it will always end in the past because Superman & Lois will get together in the end and she will know his secret. In Smallville Lois doesn't know Superman is Clark for 90% of the series and that wasn't misogyny.

[The World]

Okay, let's suspend our disbelief and say Superman can fool Lois as long he wants with Superman robots or what not and Lois can still be protrayed as an intelligent character, problem solved right?

How is Lois unintelligent because she got fooled by a guy with a billion superpowers over her? The playing ground is completely tilted in his favor.

Except that makes Superman into a gas lighting control freak psycho who treats Lois like an object rather then a human being, he is supposed to love her, but he thinks so little of her he cannot tell her the truth.

This love triangle is dated in the worst way possible, either Lois has to be an idiot or Superman has to be a creep to make it work.

What reason does Superman have to tell her anything before getting into a relationship with her? It's his private business.

[Yoda]

What reason does Superman have to tell her anything before getting into a relationship with her? It's his private business.

It’s not that she has to know from the beginning. But if you’re going to develop the relationship at all into anything beyond flirtation he’s eventually going to have to. That’s the issue really. Whether they progress or keep things in a constant static state.

[The Overlord]

How is Lois unintelligent because she got fooled by a guy with a billion superpowers over her? The playing ground is completely tilted in his favor.

Sure, I supposed if he goes out of his way to constantly gas light it can work, so I suppose Lois can still be intelligent and Superman can be a creep.

What reason does Superman have to tell her anything before getting into a relationship with her? It's his private business.

Is he going to keep lying to her when they start dating? When does the lying stop for him? Does Superman love Lois or lust after her? Does he treat her as a human object that he can do with as he pleases? Lust is just phsyical attraction, love involves trust and being honest. Also unless Superman is actively gaslighting her, she should figure it out, when Superman has to use robots to try to fool her, that is not a good look.

[Jon Clark]

What comics keep doing and what is the best decision for comics are two different things.

Which basically means that any argument based on what comics are doing now or what the original set-up is, are still down to the ideas themselves.

Peter and MJ either work as a couple or they don't. It isn't a "well, in 1963 they weren't together" or "Stan put them together". And it isn't a "they dropped the triangle when Lois and Clark got serious" or "It was Seigel's idea to do X".

I think the idea of Clark trying to get Lois to look past the gasses and quirks works better than Lois and Clark get together fast. YMMV.


It's not because Siegel cam up with the idea. It's not that this was the way it was in my youth. It is partially the idea that it lasted 40+ years in most media, regardless of it's weaknesses, bad presentations, and changing culture. But at it's core I just like Clark as the underdog competing against himself as the alpha-male Superman. It's as classic as the continuing hope that Charlie Brown will one day actually connect with the football or rooting for the star-crossed lovers in a movie or soap opera.

[The Overlord]

Which basically means that any argument based on what comics are doing now or what the original set-up is, are still down to the ideas themselves.

Peter and MJ either work as a couple or they don't. It isn't a "well, in 1963 they weren't together" or "Stan put them together". And it isn't a "they dropped the triangle when Lois and Clark got serious" or "It was Seigel's idea to do X".

I think the idea of Clark trying to get Lois to look past the gasses and quirks works better than Lois and Clark get together fast. YMMV.


It's not because Siegel cam up with the idea. It's not that this was the way it was in my youth. It is partially the idea that it lasted 40+ years in most media, regardless of it's weaknesses, bad presentations, and changing culture. But at it's core I just like Clark as the underdog competing against himself as the alpha-male Superman. It's as classic as the continuing hope that Charlie Brown will one day actually connect with the football or rooting for the star-crossed lovers in a movie or soap opera.

I think there is a lot of tropes that ''worked for a while'' in the past, that does not hold up today, times change and some things are dated in a cute funny way and some things are dated in a really bad way. There are a lot of things that have been considered okay at one point, that just does not work today. Look at Superman II, where to keep his secret identity, he used his powers to erase that knowledge from her mind. Nowadays only telepathic villains would do stuff like that and it would be considered a violation.

How Superman supposed to respect Lois as a person if he lies to her all the time, it seems like he treats her like an object, rather then person if he does that and if he is gaslighting her to keep this game going, that is a bad look for Superman.

[Yoda]

I think the idea of Clark trying to get Lois to look past the gasses and quirks works better than Lois and Clark get together fast. YMMV.


It's not because Siegel cam up with the idea. It's not that this was the way it was in my youth. It is partially the idea that it lasted 40+ years in most media, regardless of it's weaknesses, bad presentations, and changing culture. But at it's core I just like Clark as the underdog competing against himself as the alpha-male Superman. It's as classic as the continuing hope that Charlie Brown will one day actually connect with the football or rooting for the star-crossed lovers in a movie or soap opera.

That’s essentially what happened in the post-crisis era though. She eventually picked Clark. So is the issue then that it actually happened instead of the constant tease? Doesn’t that eventually get just as tedious? It wasn’t an issue in past because audiences turned over. For better or worse that largely isn’t the case anymore.

[Jon Clark]

Is he going to keep lying to her when they start dating? When does the lying stop for him? Does Superman love Lois or lust after her? Does he treat her as a human object that he can do with as he pleases? Lust is just phsyical attraction, love involves trust and being honest. Also unless Superman is actively gaslighting her, she should figure it out, when Superman has to use robots to try to fool her, that is not a good look.

I think it's a question of just when they reach that point.

If Clark asks Lois out for dinner a week after meeting her, does he tell her then? Oh course not, he barely knows her.

If they have a second date a month later, does he tell her? I wouldn't think so, but you might.

If they have known each other for a few years and are just friends, does he tell her? If you say "of course, he knows he can trust her then"- isn't that true of Jimmy or Perry or Inspector Henderson/Maggie Sawyer or Pete (knew him since 1st grade) Ross?

And whatever point Clark chooses to tell her, he risks her getting angry it wasn't sooner. Or of it being too soon, and if he had waited a bit more for her to get more comfortable with Clark she might have been more open to dating a guy who has to drop everything whenever duty calls,

And I want to see it play out instead of just jumping to a pre-packaged relationship.
So Smallville went through it and I don't need the triangle if that had continued, The current comics are a bit iffy thanks to Rebirth but I could accept it in the 1990's as a logical development. But Man of Steel skipped what to me is an important part of the story by having Lois in on the secret from day one. Even a lot of the animated stuff leaves me cold as we are often either dropped in to the relationship after that point or with the follow-ups to STAS it seems they jumped over that period.

[The Overlord]

I think it's a question of just when they reach that point.

If Clark asks Lois out for dinner a week after meeting her, does he tell her then? Oh course not, he barely knows her.

If they have a second date a month later, does he tell her? I wouldn't think so, but you might.

If they have known each other for a few years and are just friends, does he tell her? If you say "of course, he knows he can trust her then"- isn't that true of Jimmy or Perry or Inspector Henderson/Maggie Sawyer or Pete (knew him since 1st grade) Ross?

And whatever point Clark chooses to tell her, he risks her getting angry it wasn't sooner. Or of it being too soon, and if he had waited a bit more for her to get more comfortable with Clark she might have been more open to dating a guy who has to drop everything whenever duty calls,

And I want to see it play out instead of just jumping to a pre-packaged relationship.
So Smallville went through it and I don't need the triangle if that had continued, The current comics are a bit iffy thanks to Rebirth but I could accept it in the 1990s as a logical development. But Man of Steel skipped what to me is an important part of the story by having Lois in on the secret from day one. Even a lot of the animated stuff leaves me cold as we are often either dropped in to the relationship after that point or with the follow-ups to STAS it seems they jumped over that period.

So how long we keep this ''love triangle'' going before it becomes shallow, contrived, makes Lois look an idiot or Superman look like a creep? Is the memory erasing kiss from Superman II fine nowadays?

If we get to Superman actively using his powers to fool her (like using a Superman robot to make her think he is not Superman), it gets to be a little sinister, that he is putting a lot of work to make her doubt what she could deduce in front of her eyes, that may seem like gaslighting, that Lois can't figure things out because Superman is actively messing with her.

Also, Superman is not romantically involved with Jimmy, Perry or Maggie, there are not the same trust demands with them as there would be with Lois.

Again the only real argument I have seen for this is ''nerd nostalgia'' Lois and Superman are a couple who trust and love each other in the comics, resetting everything to go back to this tired old trope is not worth it and trying to do this in a TV show or a cartoon would be tricky to make appealing for a modern audience.

[Vakanai]

I think it's important that regurlar citizens are able to see his face in order to trust him, but he should be very careful about people taking photos of him, especially Lois and Jimmy (Perry too should not see Supes face). Eventually he will come to trust her when she proves she's trustworthy. Meanwhile, the way they sometimes meet for interviews should be kind of mysterious since she can't see his face clearly.

Yes, but should he have always let regular citizens see his face? I like the idea that earlier in his career he'd be a lot more leery of showing his face in public, and work up to understanding his role as the hero with a face and becoming an inspiration, someone people can trust. In other words, he'd have to learn to let people "know" him as Superman just like he'd learn to let Lois know him as Clark/Superman/Kal. Be a more interesting take on his early years, and give him a bit of character growth.