DC’s New Superman, Jon Kent, Comes Out as Bisexual in Upcoming Comic

[oneveryfineday]

I was curious about how Jon was filtered to the public consciousness so I checked out some mainstream network coverage and grabbed some quotes. I thought it would be interesting to see how the cultural conversation plays out through Superman, especially since when society undergoes social, philosophical, and religious shifts we tend to work it out in fiction, and Jon got to have his moment. Apologies for the length.

- “Superman is one of the most iconic characters in comic books. And it’s sort of bridging a generational gap from a character that came out in the 1930s, 1940s, to his son, you know, part of the world today.” (x)

- “His sexuality isn’t the only way the character has been updated. In recent editions he’s also been advocating for refugees and fighting the climate crisis. Is it a bird, is it a plane, or is it social change.” (x)

- “A bisexual Superman. Not Clark Kent, but rather Jon Kent, the son of the perfectly wholesome alien-human hybrid couple, Clark Kent and Lois Lane. He tackles climate change and school shootings, and will soon begin a romantic relationship with a male friend.” (x)

- “It’s not just any superhero, this is Superman. This is the big one. And yes, even though it’s not Clark Kent, the original Superman, it’s his son, it’s still a really big deal, and a really big step in representation for the LGBTQ community. […] There really is a progression over the last decades. You have LGBTQ villains, then victims, sort of side characters, and now superheroes, and actually what DC and their rival Marvel have been doing is really queering their cast of characters, they’ve been bringing back superheroes with new queer backstories…but Superman is really the big one. This is next level.” (x)

- “Instead the writers have introduced a new character, their son Jon Kent. He’s a millennial. He’s growing up in the 21st century and his character reflects that. Jon Kent campaigns for climate action, he fights military brutality, he gets arrested at a protest for refugee resettlement. Jon Kent is basically ‘woke Superman’. […] The [fans’] problem is not with the romance. They have a problem with the partners. They’re fine with heroes in heterosexual relationships but not same-sex ones. So how do you work around this problem? Fans feel strongly about their superheroes so a sudden change in character may come as a shock. The alternative is what Superman has done—introduce a new character, equally symbolic, equally powerful. Getting a consensus here is nearly impossible but the fact is you cannot stop the march of time. Superman was a refugee from another planet. Today his son is fighting for refugees on Earth. It’s a natural progression. […] The idea is not to alter old characters or change their legacies. Create new characters, equally powerful but more diverse. So a bisexual Superman is not the end of the world. It is a sign of a changing world.” (x)

My least favorite news reaction comes courtesy of Nigel Farage, who said that the Superman he admired was a “big, masculine, alpha male figure who goes out and wants to take on the enemy and save the world” “one of the most heterosexual role models” married to Lois Lane but is now part of an “endangered species”, with the intention to imply that the new guy in comparison is an emasculated, unheroic, limp-wristed queer. Seriously, f*ck that, and f*ck the idea that a man kissing another man is anything less than masculine and using Clark to perpetuate that idea.

A different segment from another show does have a more positive take on how a queer Superman challenges traditional masculinity: “Because if you think about real life, I mean there will be very, very tough guys who fight for the SAS who are bisexual and gay. And I think the issue here is the fact that traditionally we’ve associated the heroic actions of people like Superman and Batman—we’ve somehow conflated them with straightforward heterosexual masculinity. And it doesn’t have to be that way. As I say in the real world, you can have real male heroes who are gay or bisexual. And to just actually just make one of them bisexual is actually a nod to that reality.” (x) With that in mind, I would love to see certain people’s faces when they find out that Jon is stronger than his dad. And I think it’s telling that Jon’s queerness, more than any other controversial thing he’s done in his existence (even dropping “The American Way” from the motto), is somehow the biggest transgression on the Superman name and is the spark that lit the international firestorm of debate. In a way this challenges people’s perception of Clark too, because he’s the messianic figure of Western society and whether or not he accepts Jon is a statement on what’s acceptable in our culture. And of course both Clark and Lois are going to be the coolest, most loving parents in the world, and homophobes are going to have to deal with the shattering realization that the Super family are no longer the ideal, completely straight nuclear family and they might just hang a rainbow flag in front of their house. It’s nearly impossible to disentangle what Jon coming out means to Clark and Lois as characters too.

Nigel Farage also continued to talk about Jon in heavy scare quotes, but despite that he pretty much gets it right on what Jon Kent is about. If Jon challenges traditional heterosexual masculinity then what else does he challenge: “Jon Kent is coming out in DC Comics as being bisexual. That’s just the beginning. But what he’s also gonna be doing is he’s gonna be fighting some different campaigns. Rather than taking on enemies that could destroy the world he’s gonna do some rather different things. He’ll be fighting against climate change. That’s a very, very important part of what he’ll be doing. In particular, something that is incredibly political, he will be campaigning against the deportation of those who do not qualify as refugees that have entered America illegally. Now that is all astonishing.”

I do get satisfaction that not only are people outraged over a new bisexual Superman, they’re outraged over his activism too (which he’s done for…all of three issues). I think there’s something about Jon’s transgressive queerness that sort of intertwines with his politics, in a sort of “The new Superman is queer, and that’s not all because don’t you know he’s a social justice warrior too?” It’s a Golden Age Superman with a modern queer twist. Though what if New 52 Clark was a radical Superman who dated guys? It’s an interesting thought exercise.

In total, hell yeah for Jon Kent getting to be known to all sides of the general public as the bisexual, young, super activist of the 21st century. Ya either love him or hate him. I have to give Taylor credit because I think he succeeded in what he set out to do in a remarkably short amount of time. Also I think it’s funny that the cultural conversation took a clear hurdle over the fact that Jon replaced Clark as Earth’s Superman.

I hope that after all this has settled down Jon can take a breather so we can get to know more of him as a character. Does he still go to college? What does he do in his spare time? What are his likes and dislikes? At least he’s set to appear in more books so hopefully there’s more room to explore that stuff.

[Nelliebly]

Her most recent appearce in film still perpetuates that she is the anchor, the moral fiber, the tether of hope in Clarks eyes. It being common knowledge the best way to manipulate him is by endangering her in any way. You can thank mister snyder for that. also seen recently in Harley Quinn show, Batman Hush, and of course Injustice. Superman and Lois subverts this only becasue Clark sons become easier hostages.

Marvel seems to be distancing away for this trope, thier new Spiderman has not been put in this situation with MJ. in fact none of the marvel leading men have had their female opposite taken hostage i believe.

The MCU isn’t distancing from the trope—it’s distanced from romance and sexuality period. There have been countless articles written about this. With rare exceptions, the MCU doesn’t engage enough in genuine relationships outside of the core heroics for there to ::be:: any stakes in that regard. That’s not actually a good thing and has been heavily criticized in major publications and by a lot of critics.

I like the MCU a lot. But they have yet to actually produce a love story that’s actually on the level of Superman and Lois Lane in terms of just sheer commitment to love and romance. They were all inspired by Reeve and Kidder but didn’t actually get there. They got close with Pepper and Tony but they didn’t really get there because of the MCU need to make everything a damn joke. They could have gotten there with T’Challa and Nakia if it were not for Chadwick’s tragic passing may he Rest In Peace.

Trying to compare romance and sex with the MCU doesn’t work. Even Wandavision—their most blatant attempt at a show about a relationship—went long stretches where the characters didn’t interact. There was no love scene. No real commitment to a love story outside of the gimmick of the sitcoms.

Marvel has plenty of great love stories but the MCU has not done an effective job of building them. So it’s not a good comparison.

[Nelliebly]

Putting aside Dean Cain bc I don’t care what that dude has to say.

Dana Daleny openly supported Jon on social media.

And Bitsie Tulloch liked a ton of the tweets introducing Jon as bisexual.

If Erica Durance wasn’t completely social media inept (she really is, her fans tease her) I’m sure she would have liked it too.

So Daddy can complain all he wants, but Mama was happy.

[witchboy]

Putting aside Dean Cain bc I don’t care what that dude has to say.

Dana Daleny openly supported Jon on social media.

And Bitsie Tulloch liked a ton of the tweets introducing Jon as bisexual.

If Erica Durance wasn’t completely social media inept (she really is, her fans tease her) I’m sure she would have liked it too.

So Daddy can complain all he wants, but Mama was happy.

That's great to hear support from Dana Delaney and Bitsie Tulloch.
I have wondered what Teri Hatcher had to say.

[Vordan]

I hope that after all this has settled down Jon can take a breather so we can get to know more of him as a character. Does he still go to college? What does he do in his spare time? What are his likes and dislikes? At least he’s set to appear in more books so hopefully there’s more room to explore that stuff.

What else is he scheduled to appear in? Was thinking he was going to join the JL but unfortunately it looks like Bendis is just going to do his own thing for now. I am interested in seeing Jon interact with the wider DCU more.

[Writerblog]

The MCU isn’t distancing from the trope—it’s distanced from romance and sexuality period. There have been countless articles written about this. With rare exceptions, the MCU doesn’t engage enough in genuine relationships outside of the core heroics for there to ::be:: any stakes in that regard. That’s not actually a good thing and has been heavily criticized in major publications and by a lot of critics.

I like the MCU a lot. But they have yet to actually produce a love story that’s actually on the level of Superman and Lois Lane in terms of just sheer commitment to love and romance. They were all inspired by Reeve and Kidder but didn’t actually get there. They got close with Pepper and Tony but they didn’t really get there because of the MCU need to make everything a damn joke. They could have gotten there with T’Challa and Nakia if it were not for Chadwick’s tragic passing may he Rest In Peace.

Trying to compare romance and sex with the MCU doesn’t work. Even Wandavision—their most blatant attempt at a show about a relationship—went long stretches where the characters didn’t interact. There was no love scene. No real commitment to a love story outside of the gimmick of the sitcoms.

Marvel has plenty of great love stories but the MCU has not done an effective job of building them. So it’s not a good comparison.

I disagree, wandavision did great with romance. It really sold the romance that on movies barely had space to play.

I think Peggy/Steve was the closest to a Lois/Clark, but it had the problem that she stayed on the past.
MCU often uses friendships instead of romantic relationships

[manwhohaseverything]

The MCU isn’t distancing from the trope—it’s distanced from romance and sexuality period. There have been countless articles written about this. With rare exceptions, the MCU doesn’t engage enough in genuine relationships outside of the core heroics for there to ::be:: any stakes in that regard. That’s not actually a good thing and has been heavily criticized in major publications and by a lot of critics.

I like the MCU a lot. But they have yet to actually produce a love story that’s actually on the level of Superman and Lois Lane in terms of just sheer commitment to love and romance. They were all inspired by Reeve and Kidder but didn’t actually get there. They got close with Pepper and Tony but they didn’t really get there because of the MCU need to make everything a damn joke. They could have gotten there with T’Challa and Nakia if it were not for Chadwick’s tragic passing may he Rest In Peace.

Trying to compare romance and sex with the MCU doesn’t work. Even Wandavision—their most blatant attempt at a show about a relationship—went long stretches where the characters didn’t interact. There was no love scene. No real commitment to a love story outside of the gimmick of the sitcoms.

Marvel has plenty of great love stories but the MCU has not done an effective job of building them. So it’s not a good comparison.

I disagree,pepper and tony beats clois by a mile and then more.Also,i would rather have something heart felt and good intense romance that's subtle ..Than mushy shlok anyday.The reeves kidder movie wanted to Portray the up in the clouds kinda romance.That worked cause that superman had that kinda tone.Doesn't mean everyone should follow the lead.They made a romance movie..These guys aren't.They made action comedies.I don't really care what's healthy or not.. Action characters treating action as an afterthought is not good for the character.Every story needs to have a point.The point of superman ain't clark and lois relationship.Period.

And i believe,clois has sent the cynical sassy lady action down the drain.I like lois..Not lady clark.

[DABellWrites]

If this whole "modern" Superman fails and DC de-ages Jon, I think it'll really put the nail in the coffin for him. Which sucks, because I think Jon would be perfect not to replace Clark, but to expand on the non-costume side of DC Comics. The side-liners like in Astro City. That's just me though. Best of luck Jon Kent.

[DABellWrites]

Also it’s extremely toxic to imply that a relationship between any two people including two men is more equal bc of physical powers. We’ve been over this a million times with the Superwonder stuff—that’s gross.

If you're the world's strongest man who spends your days saving the world from any threat or danger, there's nothing wrong with desiring a partner who you can see as your equal. That's just basic human desire. Kurt Busiek, and Mark Millar, have given us some interesting takes on Superman's love life. Kurt Busiek showing us it just works with The Samaritan and Winged Victory (though I wish there was more stories ). The Utopian shows us it can be suffocating being with someone like Superman and life maybe better being with someone like you. Post-Crisis Superman stories showed us being married to a normal person can work. There are bumps in the road, but it works. Having someone as an equal comes in different ways. Talia and Selene can be seen as equals to Bruce in many ways. Lois Lane can be seen as equal to Clark in their relationship as reporters.

Anyways, my comment isn't about Superman and Wonder Woman, I don't care about that. It's your comment of two people with physical powers seeing each other as equals is "toxic" and "gross". That's stupid. Which why I listed those writers and post-crisis Superman's marriage to Lois Lane. Much as I don't want to type this out, Geoff Johns's was also right. Anyways, my point is that it's not inherently toxic or gross, there are many different avenues you can take the story. Toxic and gross can actually be one of them. Write a story where two characters with similar powers wasn't good for either of them romantically. I hate it, but the "perfect mate" is another one too. There are many ways you can take this, just don't forget to write a good story.

[exile001]

My least favorite news reaction comes courtesy of Nigel Farage

Nigel Farage is an all round piece of garbage (he's an on again-off again politician for the far right). He is truly an embarrassment and I apologise on behalf of my country.

[Robanker]

I was for Jon being gay a while back and I'm good with him being bi. The only downside is the click bait pot stirring news outlets are doing to purposely foment outrage for revenue.

I hate hate hate that his love interest is a reporter and fanboy of Jon's mother, though. Sadly, the trend of "like his dad, but" seems to be continuing with Jon.

[JAK]

If you're the world's strongest man who spends your days saving the world from any threat or danger, there's nothing wrong with desiring a partner who you can see as your equal. That's just basic human desire.

Sure, but "your equal" is different for everybody. Clark's love for Lois is because of their connection on a personal and mental level, not that both can punch a mountain (obviously). For some characters, power level equality would be fitting because that's what they're into, for others it's superficial. If both can punch a mountain but have nothing in common, the former trait quickly becomes meaningless (if not immediately).

I can certainly see how, particularly for a character that's being touted as "Dad why didn't you see this and react differently," it'd seem like (at least) a step back to emphasize both having powers as what makes the relationship better. And for Taylor to use Clark and Lois's relationship as a comparison and trying to paint L&C as coming up short for this reason is, frankly... bullsh*t.

[Writerblog]

If you're the world's strongest man who spends your days saving the world from any threat or danger, there's nothing wrong with desiring a partner who you can see as your equal. That's just basic human desire. Kurt Busiek, and Mark Millar, have given us some interesting takes on Superman's love life. Kurt Busiek showing us it just works with The Samaritan and Winged Victory (though I wish there was more stories ). The Utopian shows us it can be suffocating being with someone like Superman and life maybe better being with someone like you. Post-Crisis Superman stories showed us being married to a normal person can work. There are bumps in the road, but it works. Having someone as an equal comes in different ways. Talia and Selene can be seen as equals to Bruce in many ways. Lois Lane can be seen as equal to Clark in their relationship as reporters.

Anyways, my comment isn't about Superman and Wonder Woman, I don't care about that. It's your comment of two people with physical powers seeing each other as equals is "toxic" and "gross". That's stupid. Which why I listed those writers and post-crisis Superman's marriage to Lois Lane. Much as I don't want to type this out, Geoff Johns's was also right. Anyways, my point is that it's not inherently toxic or gross, there are many different avenues you can take the story. Toxic and gross can actually be one of them. Write a story where two characters with similar powers wasn't good for either of them romantically. I hate it, but the "perfect mate" is another one too. There are many ways you can take this, just don't forget to write a good story.

What? are we talking about Superman or Lex Luthor here?

Loving someone for me have nothing to do with being equal, but being fair, good person and loyal.

I really want nothing to do with the mentality that people want only to fall in love with people equal to them on physical strenght.

Sure, but "your equal" is different for everybody. Clark's love for Lois is because of their connection on a personal and mental level, not that both can punch a mountain (obviously). For some characters, power level equality would be fitting because that's what they're into, for others it's superficial. If both can punch a mountain but have nothing in common, the former trait quickly becomes meaningless (if not immediately).

I can certainly see how, particularly for a character that's being touted as "Dad why didn't you see this and react differently," it'd seem like (at least) a step back to emphasize both having powers as what makes the relationship better. And for Taylor to use Clark and Lois's relationship as a comparison and trying to paint L&C as coming up short for this reason is, frankly... bullsh*t.

Well Jon didn't fall in love wih Jay because of powers, it seems like a later reveal being spoiled by interviews (again)

[Yoda]

Yeah, if the "equality" they are talking about is having the same values and drives for justice, that's one thing. Clark wouldn't be with someone who wasn't his "equal" in that area.

But it's always "equality" in the sense that she's as strong as him or a superhero. I suppose it doesn't have to be per se gross, but it rarely is presented that way or even argued in good faith. This is especially true when discussing Lois. Because she is his "equal" in all the senses that matter except being as physically strong. It's nothing to do with his saving people, fighting for the same values or being a hero. That's rarely ever presented as an actual issue other than a few (IMO poorly written) attempts at creating "conflict". And it never comes up that there are plenty of "human" heroes in the DCU. So it's either the always gross "woman of kleenex" argument or the grossly overexaggerated "no one else can understand" POV. And I mean, Utopian, Samaratin, Miracle Man, aren't presented as ideals like Superman is. Utopian is a failure and set up that way, Miracle Man is a facist and it's presented as a bad thing he's losing touch. I'm not as familiar with Samaritan, but isn't his whole MO like he's an extreme have to save everyone can't take a moment for myself variation?

[JAK]

Well Jon didn't fall in love wih Jay because of powers, it seems like a later reveal being spoiled by interviews (again)

Oh, I know - that's why I said "makes the relationship better" as opposed to it being the reason for said relationship.

Yeah, if the "equality" they are talking about is having the same values and drives for justice, that's one thing. Clark wouldn't be with someone who wasn't his "equal" in that area.

But it's always "equality" in the sense that she's as strong as him or a superhero. I supposed it doesn't have to be per se gross, but it rarely is presented that way or even argued in good faith. This is especially true when discussing Lois. Because she is his "equal" in all the senses that matter except being as physically strong. It's nothing to do with his saving people, fighting for the same values or being a hero. That's rarely ever presented as an actual issue other than a few (IMO poorly written) attempts at creating "conflict". And it never comes up that there are plenty of "human" heroes in the DCU. So it's either the always gross "woman of kleenex" argument or the grossly overexaggerated "no one else can understand" POV. And I mean, Utopian, Samaratin, Miracle Man, aren't presented as ideals like Superman is. Utopian is a failure and set up that way, Miracle Man is a facist and it's presented as a bad thing he's losing touch. I'm not as familiar with Samaritan, but isn't his whole MO like he's an extreme have to save everyone can't take a moment for myself variation?

Bingo. Like you said, it certainly doesn't *have* to be gross, but the way it's often presented is no better of a mentality than wanting celebrities to date other celebrities because "they're both famous."