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

[oneveryfineday]

And what story was this?

Morrison’s Green Lantern: Blackstars.

[Vakanai]

Morrison’s Green Lantern: Blackstars.

Hmm...I'm curious, but I'm wary of everything Morrison writes (I hate his insistence on making things as confusing as he possibly can).

[manwhohaseverything]

And what story was this?

greenlantern blackstars

[Vordan]

Yeah, that’s the reason behind the reaction I’ve been seeing from the conservative sphere. “Conservatives hate this because they’re homophobic” is only a simplified version of why they’re in an uproar.

You can write Superman as a leftist, but making Superman’s son a leftist came crashing into the psyche of conservative America because it taps right into the broader conflict of a generational divide. To conservatives, if everything wholesome and good and nostalgic is encapsulated within their Clark Kent Superman, then everything wrong and deviant with the current generation is encapsulated within his son. It’s the real-life narrative of parent vs child playing out right now. And Morrison—have to give them credit for being so prescient—wrote that exact dynamic of a Clark who is unable to change with the times and Jon as the frustrated youth rebelling against him.


And, uh, yeah, Jon does kill Clark in that story. And in real life some conservatives fear that the left will transmogrify a sacred cultural symbol. Some gave a rallying cry for the rescue (yes, they used that actual word) of their All-American Conservative-At-Heart-Superman, re-emphasizing his virtues as a Kansas-grown farm boy and a symbol of Americana, because the bisexual socialist Superman with his radical sexuality and radical politics was coming to destroy them. If conservatives weren’t willing to defend an institution as American as Superman, then what was worth defending?

I just thought it was interesting. There’s long been a cultural tension between a progressive Clark Kent and a conservative Clark Kent, and then you throw this queer Gen Z-er Superman into the mix.

God I love Blackstars so much. For someone who loves Superman as much as Morrison does, their deconstructions of him (Superdoom, Blackstars) are brutal.





Clark as the worthless nostalgia figure who can’t make anything better only wax on about the “good old days”. Can’t even get out of the way either and let the next Gen take over. Definitely been interesting seeing some of the backlash, especially over a character who if you had asked those same people what they thought of him before all this, they likely would’ve said he was lame and boring compared to Batman. Part of why I really warmed up to the idea of Jon being bi is that it’s such a spit in the face of the cultural perception of Superman as this conservative figure. Don’t know if Clark can ever escape that baggage but Jon and the other takes may be able to.

Great analysis about what’s driving the backlash by the way!

[Robanker]

In response to the question above about the famous line from Superman: The Movie….

Fairly certain that even in the 70’s “I like pink very much, Lois” was 100% a thinly veiled response to their earlier conversation about if he eats. I will refrain from describing in detail what he was saying he would eat bc there are kids on this forum but if you know you know.

The only thing more blatant is the scene in Superman 2 in the Lester cut when he suggests they go somewhere to “talk” snd she asks where he wants to go to “talk” and the extremely obvious implication is that neither of them mean “talk” and both mean “where can we go to ****.”

And this was 40 years ago. Again you can literally find the comic con video from season 9 of Smallville on YouTube and see the show blatantly pandering to the audience and fans with a fairly graphic by the CW standards sex scene between Tom and Erica with fans screaming over it.

Superman and Lois filmed during a literal pandemic where their actors were supposed to be keeping 6 feet distance as much as possible and where very little physical contact was even allowed by the actors’ guild and that show STILL found a way to get a love scene in there during the honeymoon flashback because that’s the expectation now.

The idea that THIS franchise of all franchises hasn’t been sexual is so laughable and ridiculous. Clark Kent has sex more than Batman. He’s “wholesome” but also literally ALWAYS having sex. He’s just monogamous and so because he’s monogamous it doesn’t register as typical “male” behavior with critics. The only complaints about it have always been linked to some kind of misogyny against Lois but never against him. She has been slut shamed PLENTY but he always walks away still seeming innocent to fans and critics even though it takes two people to tango and he is always a full participant and initiating their sexual relationship in literally every canon. (Misogyny)

This BS now is just homophobia. And they are making complete asses of themselves. It’s just embarrassing, double standard homophobia.

I think he was actually just looking at her underwear with permission and being a bit of a flirty schoolboy. Keep in mind, the movie opens with a child narrating. I think they wanted to play that scene flirtatious, but not... Well I don't think the intent was to have Lois ask if he's a generous lover, but it does kind of play out that way.

The slang has only made it a bit more explicit, but I think the intent is more innocent.

Their relationship works best when it's portrayed as wholesome but also clear they get down pretty often. It's not sexless by any nature, but there's a gentle quality to their connection that's pretty important and that's kind of why that scene really captured them. There's flirtation, but there's a light touch too.

And to be crass, I imagine every viewing going forward after the "heroes don't do that" meme ensures viewers will read that as Lois trying to be both clever and delicate in discovering if box is in Superman's diet.

Clark has wholesome elements to him, certainly, but he also knocks people's heads in and absolutely has a bit of a scoundrel's pep in his step if you're being honest with his history. Superdickery is the usual example, but it's a real thing about him. He does like to troll his loved ones sometimes. He's mischievous at times, prone to anger at others. He's distant or gets way to in his head about his effect on others. He's not perfect, but to the Midwest he's their Rockwellian security blanket that tells them nothing's wrong in America's heartland because everyone thinks they came from Smallville.

In trying to be the best of America, people use him as an excuse to overlook it's worst qualities, in this case homophobia.

It's an albatross the character will never remove from his neck simply because the American population generally thinks Kansas = red state and don't question if Smallville is a blue district due to gerrymandering.

But hey, why make sense when outrage is so much sexier?

[Darkspellmaster]

I should note that I love that jon hugs Damian and that he's all willing to do so without reservation.

Yeah which is offensive for several reasons.

Man of steel/woman of Kleenex is connected to rape culture and that doesn’t really change if it’s two men. The idea that one can imagine an alien from the stars who can shoot fire from his eyes but people can’t imagine them being gentle during sex is problem at best and actively offensive at worst.

The implication becomes that the only way for sexual satisfaction is through traditional hard penetrative sex which is problematic on a lot of levels.

It's going to be made worse now with some regarding Jay's new power set which makes him impossible to hit in general due to being able to let things go through him. So there's going to be a lot more of the comments in regard to how much Better Jay is for Jon as a lover than Lois will be for Clark.

It’s always been a disgusting thing to say about Lois and Clark. Not just because it equates the value of their relationship and connection as being defined by the physical (when obviously while sex is a big part of their relationship it’s not the entire reason they are connected/attracted/with each other) and it’s just a plain ugly and misogynist view about sex. It takes a story about the impossible and instead of theorizing how his powers could bring her pleasure focuses solely on female bodily pain. It doesn’t take into consideration that maybe Clark loves being able to be there for her in that way especially given how much he loves her. Not to mention it implies there isn’t value in creativity sexually or in gentleness and restraint with a partner which, again, is problematic. It’s a terrible, misogynist “theory” that no one should be bringing up in any serious way.

And the weird thing is this is never brought up with Diana or Steve, or Cyborg and his girlfriend, Kori and Dick, or even like Wally and Linda, or if we go to non hetro couples, like Kyle and Northstar or Hulkling and Wiccan or Valkyrie and her girlfriend. And that's the thing I think a lot of people who have this view look at it through the eyes of the male character most of the time. Or they use it to defend the idea that only strong female or male, types can please those of power. Again Peter Parker holds back when he fights, he could take someone's head off with a well timed punch, if he can control his powers in bed with MJ then certainly Clark can with Lois. So this idea that Jay is going to be better because the can "take it" makes me think that there's just a dislike of non powered love interests in general.

So, yeah, I’m not thrilled to know that may become a Convo with Jon and Jay because there are also plenty of ways this theory becomes offensive when you are talking about two men. It still boils down sexual connection as being solely about penetration, it’s still heteronormative and it still enforces rape culture by implying that force and strength are absolute and implying there isn’t pleasure and satisfaction to be be found in gentleness, love and creativity.

Thanks I hate it!

Totally agree with you on this. I've seen way to many fanfiction written about same sex pairings that use this idea. That Pain must be the only way to show off feelings. I'm seeing some discussion of "does Jay like it rough because things can pass through him? If so does that mean that Jon will be able to be all hard on him in various ways because he would need to feel it some how." And I'm grossed out by the thoughts of it that way.

Co-signed.

They never whine about DKR being political where it shows Superman being the personal hitman of the country's head politician.

Their problem is entirely homosexuality and they're just trying to obfuscate it because they know just being bold-faced bigoted is wrong and they don't want to consider themselves as people holding awful values.

Jon was a near blank slate. He was a new character with no history to invalidate. He's literally what they said is "diversity done right" and they're complaining.

Yeah I noticed that, probably because it's Batman and Millar, so you can't complain too much. Most Superman readers don't read DKR for Superman though in that book.

Pretty much yes, I would say this is a huge part of it. Others have pointed out other factors too, due to who Superman is and what he's stood for over the years.

I think it's more like they want a non legacy character to do it.

Nevermind Clark can use a urinal and not fire off a urine stream that rips through Metropolis, no we don't want to take actual evidence that Kryptonians can control their physiology to the precision of perfect human mimicry, let's also think about real world examples. Does anyone pick up their baby at the same force they use to lift a dresser that's fallen over? No.

But hey, why make sense when we can poorly veil misogyny and homophobia?

If someone wants to argue the they think someone else is a better fit for Clark, sure. They're wrong, but sure. That's never been the case, and there's also no reason Jon shouldn't be bisexual. Yeah, sure, people are forgetting about Kathy but I don't think Jon ever showed interest there. They were just friends. At most, I think she had one tease of interest in him and that's it.

He had a thing for Imra, and now Jay. Good for him. Complain that Jon fell for a reporter and ultra fan of his mom making him too similar to Clark. That's a legitimate grievance.

I love these analogies! No you wouldn't pick up a baby the same way you pick up a fallen dresser. And yes logic flies out the window usually when people are confronted by these factors. Agreed with the whole better fit thing, absolutely wrong, but they can try. I wouldn't say people are forgetting about her. She's still around in art, and if she shows up again in the Superman/Robin book, people are sure to recall who she is. Oh I would agree. I feel like Jay is a weird mix of Kitty Pryde, Kamala with his fangirl aspects, and like a bit of Jean gray mixed in there. I don't know why but like Jay is reminding me more of a Xmen Character in a lot of ways.

"I like pink very much, Lois!"

Was pink a euphemism for vagina in the 70s? If not, it's even filthier now.

That movie gets better with age. Fight me.

According to my dad, no, it wasn't. Yeah it's been upgraded in a way from being a simple. "i like the color" to something way dirtier. I mean it's dirty in that he's looking at her undies, but now it's got a different feel with how people take that line.

[Ascended]

Yeah, that’s the reason behind the reaction I’ve been seeing from the conservative sphere. “Conservatives hate this because they’re homophobic” is only a simplified version of why they’re in an uproar.

To a point it might be simplified, but it seems more of a "short hand" than a legit misreading.

I'm sure there are some conservatives out there (they're not *all* crazy bigots) who have legitimate issues with this that aren't homophobic. Hell, even Cain's remarks about how this would have been cutting edge twenty years ago and is now more corporate gimmick than anything....that's not far off from what I myself said, and I certainly have no problem with Jon being bi.

But pretty much every comment I've seen from the rightwing.....at best there's a slight nugget of a reasonable argument there (like Cain), but at the core it's like, 95% homophobia. Granted I've only seen stuff coming from the craziest end of the rightwing where all the bigots are...but the reasonable Republicans have largely been forced out of the national conversation.

And if conservatives think that everything wholesome and good about Superman matches their political views then....well, that's just a big "no." But admitting that the best parts of Superman don't fall into either political party's dogma wouldn't fit their current victim narrative of "poor us, all the good things in America are dying because our party is in decline and we need gerrymandering to win elections!" Never mind the fact that most versions of Clark are clearly left leaning and he was rarely ever a clear conservative in the first place (outside of a few times like parts of the 50's and 80's).

Just so we don't get too deep into the politics or name calling, I'm not a democrat. I'm an independent and have almost equal loathing for both groups.

[Writerblog]

It's going to be made worse now with some regarding Jay's new power set which makes him impossible to hit in general due to being able to let things go through him. So there's going to be a lot more of the comments in regard to how much Better Jay is for Jon as a lover than Lois will be for Clark.



And the weird thing is this is never brought up with Diana or Steve, or Cyborg and his girlfriend, Kori and Dick, or even like Wally and Linda, or if we go to non hetro couples, like Kyle and Northstar or Hulkling and Wiccan or Valkyrie and her girlfriend. And that's the thing I think a lot of people who have this view look at it through the eyes of the male character most of the time. Or they use it to defend the idea that only strong female or male, types can please those of power. Again Peter Parker holds back when he fights, he could take someone's head off with a well timed punch, if he can control his powers in bed with MJ then certainly Clark can with Lois. So this idea that Jay is going to be better because the can "take it" makes me think that there's just a dislike of non powered love interests in general.



Totally agree with you on this. I've seen way to many fanfiction written about same sex pairings that use this idea. That Pain must be the only way to show off feelings. I'm seeing some discussion of "does Jay like it rough because things can pass through him? If so does that mean that Jon will be able to be all hard on him in various ways because he would need to feel it some how." And I'm grossed out by the thoughts of it that way.

UGH. I really could do with less sexism against Lois, let's see how these things develop and the reaction of the fandom.
So his power is phasing things throught his body...I don't think it is really that helpful on sex...

According to my dad, no, it wasn't. Yeah it's been upgraded in a way from being a simple. "i like the color" to something way dirtier. I mean it's dirty in that he's looking at her undies, but now it's got a different feel with how people take that line.

It's funny how expressions change over time. There is one really funny with Iron Man and Captain America. But I think Superman knew she was using pink panties?

I know Aerosmith has a song called pink that is about sexual organs and it was released on 90s

Yeah which is offensive for several reasons.

Man of steel/woman of Kleenex is connected to rape culture and that doesn’t really change if it’s two men. The idea that one can imagine an alien from the stars who can shoot fire from his eyes but people can’t imagine them being gentle during sex is problem at best and actively offensive at worst.

The implication becomes that the only way for sexual satisfaction is through traditional hard penetrative sex which is problematic on a lot of levels.

It’s always been a disgusting thing to say about Lois and Clark. Not just because it equates the value of their relationship and connection as being defined by the physical (when obviously while sex is a big part of their relationship it’s not the entire reason they are connected/attracted/with each other) and it’s just a plain ugly and misogynist view about sex. It takes a story about the impossible and instead of theorizing how his powers could bring her pleasure focuses solely on female bodily pain. It doesn’t take into consideration that maybe Clark loves being able to be there for her in that way especially given how much he loves her. Not to mention it implies there isn’t value in creativity sexually or in gentleness and restraint with a partner which, again, is problematic. It’s a terrible, misogynist “theory” that no one should be bringing up in any serious way.

So, yeah, I’m not thrilled to know that may become a Convo with Jon and Jay because there are also plenty of ways this theory becomes offensive when you are talking about two men. It still boils down sexual connection as being solely about penetration, it’s still heteronormative and it still enforces rape culture by implying that force and strength are absolute and implying there isn’t pleasure and satisfaction to be be found in gentleness, love and creativity.

Thanks I hate it!

I have seen a lot of taling of gay men perpetuating toxic masculinity, so man women kleenex repurposed on a homosexual relationship isn't possitive.

Mountain from Game of Thrones is really huge, one of the strongest men on the world. His wife is small, normal body. Now they have a kid and he seems very in love with his wife. They are so adorable together

[witchboy]

To a point it might be simplified, but it seems more of a "short hand" than a legit misreading.

I'm sure there are some conservatives out there (they're not *all* crazy bigots) who have legitimate issues with this that aren't homophobic. Hell, even Cain's remarks about how this would have been cutting edge twenty years ago and is now more corporate gimmick than anything....that's not far off from what I myself said, and I certainly have no problem with Jon being bi.

But pretty much every comment I've seen from the rightwing.....at best there's a slight nugget of a reasonable argument there (like Cain), but at the core it's like, 95% homophobia. Granted I've only seen stuff coming from the craziest end of the rightwing where all the bigots are...but the reasonable Republicans have largely been forced out of the national conversation.

And if conservatives think that everything wholesome and good about Superman matches their political views then....well, that's just a big "no." But admitting that the best parts of Superman don't fall into either political party's dogma wouldn't fit their current victim narrative of "poor us, all the good things in America are dying because our party is in decline and we need gerrymandering to win elections!" Never mind the fact that most versions of Clark are clearly left leaning and he was rarely ever a clear conservative in the first place (outside of a few times like parts of the 50's and 80's).

Just so we don't get too deep into the politics or name calling, I'm not a democrat. I'm an independent and have almost equal loathing for both groups.

Saying that a bi Superman would've been cutting edge twenty years ago is a valid point.
Using that point to imply that Jon coming out as bi is a problem now, as Cain did, is homophobic.

[Ascended]

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Even the complaints that have a vaguely valid point are still often wrapped up in homophobia and their "valid" points are thinly veiled attempts to hide the fact.

I'm sure there are arguments against this that are utterly fair and valid. I haven't seen them but the world is a big place and I'm sure those arguments are out there. But they're not coming from Fox News or the other talking heads on the right end of the American political spectrum.

[witchboy]

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Even the complaints that have a vaguely valid point are still often wrapped up in homophobia and their "valid" points are thinly veiled attempts to hide the fact.

I'm sure there are arguments against this that are utterly fair and valid. I haven't seen them but the world is a big place and I'm sure those arguments are out there. But they're not coming from Fox News or the other talking heads on the right end of the American political spectrum.

I don't see what valid reason there would be for Jon not to be bi.

[JAK]

And in real life some conservatives fear that the left will transmogrify a sacred cultural symbol. Some gave a rallying cry for the rescue (yes, they used that actual word) of their All-American Conservative-At-Heart-Superman, re-emphasizing his virtues as a Kansas-grown farm boy and a symbol of Americana, because the bisexual socialist Superman with his radical sexuality and radical politics was coming to destroy them. If conservatives weren’t willing to defend an institution as American as Superman, then what was worth defending?

Which is the height of irony, because Kansas was anything but conservative around the time of Superman's creation. The very ideals at Superman's core are anathema to conservative (and while we're at it, neoliberal) goals.

And if conservatives think that everything wholesome and good about Superman matches their political views then....well, that's just a big "no." But admitting that the best parts of Superman don't fall into either political party's dogma wouldn't fit their current victim narrative of "poor us, all the good things in America are dying because our party is in decline and we need gerrymandering to win elections!" Never mind the fact that most versions of Clark are clearly left leaning and he was rarely ever a clear conservative in the first place (outside of a few times like parts of the 50's and 80's).

Just so we don't get too deep into the politics or name calling, I'm not a democrat. I'm an independent and have almost equal loathing for both groups.

I cannot possibly second all of this emphatically enough.

[Vordan]

Which is the height of irony, because Kansas was anything but conservative around the time of Superman's creation. The very ideals at Superman's core are anathema to conservative (and while we're at it, neoliberal) goals.



I cannot possibly second all of this emphatically enough.

Digging into Kansas history has certainly been interesting to say the least. Definitely shaped my thoughts of the Kents and where their morals come from.

[JAK]

Digging into Kansas history has certainly been interesting to say the least. Definitely shaped my thoughts of the Kents and where their morals come from.

Right? Especially at the time, there wouldn't have been as much of a gap between them and the Golden Age Superman as people might think in today's context.

[HsssH]

Was Kansas used deliberately by Siegel and Shuster or was it just a random state that they picked?