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

[Journey]

You hit the nail right on its ugly head. It is baffling to me Taylor used this strawman argument to prop his couple. I was like WTF!? when first reading it. By his logic, Lois, Mary Jane, and Tim's never love interest (I forget his name, sorry lol) are all worthless characters because they aren't trained fighters or have powers...

I mean Bernard can/was definitely shown to be able to hold his own in a fight, suspiciously well honestly, he'll considering Tim is arguably the worst fighter amongst the bat clan he might be better than Tim who can say.

[Journey]

I really don't get why ya'll are so upset historically speaking Lois Lane is traditionally shown as a damsel maybe not so distressed as she usually knows Clark is on the way & this is just a day at the office but a damsel none the less, it's a truthful statement. It was also a whole joke on Harley's show.

[Celgress]

Is it not possible that Taylor wasn't trying to evoke specifically Lois as damsel but rather calling to attention popular fiction's fairly one note take on queer male characters? By that I mean, you usually get queer male characters who only fit the mold of the limp wristed "sissy", if you'll excuse my language. Taylor's aim seems to be to express that Jay will not fit that stereotype as Jon's partner, and to put clear pin in that for the people in the cheap seats who don't read comics or follow along with this stuff, he explains that Jay has a power set that makes it so he's physically capable in this very physical genre. But even then, Taylor, through his work and interviews, makes it clear that physicality isn't all Jay's about-- it isn't even the first thing he's about given his underground news network being his "sword".

That's not to say this isn't lacking in nuance though, but that's another discussion.

He could have, oh I don't know, more directly said that talked about empowerment rather than tearing down another character and character types by mentioning them. But, yeah, maybe his denigration wasn't intentional. That said, it still angers me a great deal and I will likely not support Taylor's works in the future. Sorry, but consequences apply to everyone so I'll vote with my wallet. It is the way I feel.

[InfamousBG]

I am 40 years old. I have been staying with my parents for about 8 months now for personal reasons. I walked in after work last night and my Dad looked at me in outrage and said "can you believe they are making Superman's son bisexual'?! My Dad was beyond upset. Now the guy has not read a comic in over 60 years. My Dad is very old school and watches Fox News 24/7. I sat down with my Dad and started to explain a few things to him. I don't know or remember the exact words I told him but it was along the lines that people come from many walks of life. Being different is ok. Being different is actually wonderful. It gives this dark world we all live in some color at times. I ended the conversation by hugging my father and told him being bisexual is ok. I then said what if my 5 year old son, his only grandson comes to one of us someday and says he is bisexual or gay? We would never stop loving him or turn him away. So we should not do the same with Jon, Superman's son.

Now do I agree with making Jon bisexual? I am still not sure. Either way I love Jon and everything about him. I love the new book he is in and I am going to keep on reading it. Jon being bisexual does not change my opinion or him or would ever make me just stop reading his book.

[Yoda]

Is it not possible that Taylor wasn't trying to evoke specifically Lois as damsel but rather calling to attention popular fiction's fairly one note take on queer male characters? By that I mean, you usually get queer male characters who only fit the mold of the limp wristed "sissy", if you'll excuse my language. Taylor's aim seems to be to express that Jay will not fit that stereotype as Jon's partner, and to put clear pin in that for the people in the cheap seats who don't read comics or follow along with this stuff, he explains that Jay has a power set that makes it so he's physically capable in this very physical genre. But even then, Taylor, through his work and interviews, makes it clear that physicality isn't all Jay's about-- it isn't even the first thing he's about given his underground news network being his "sword".

That's not to say this isn't lacking in nuance though, but that's another discussion.

I don't think Taylor at all intended it to come off the way it did, and may have even been paraphrased by the interviewer (who presented it as a quote) but in the context of the article it all rolls together and there's no discussion or hint he meant it that way. It definitely reads like he's saying they are "equals" because Jay has powers in a way that Clark & Lois are not (I think it's all within the same paragraph), and for that reason Jon won't have to worry about him, etc. I don't think Taylor actually believes any of that or intended for it to come out that way. Cause he loves Lois as a character and is extremely vocal about her, he's one of the few who pretty consistently mentions her when discussing Jon instead of defaulting to just Clark, and he's written her kicking the crap out of people showing she's formidable herself.

[Sacred Knight]

I'd have said "Dad, here's the thing. I don't agree with you that this is anything close to a big deal from the POV of what someone's sexuality is. But you have to understand...this character sucks and won't be on the front burner for that long anyway."

Seriously though, I think everyone has to deal with old school family members whom you love but are just dead set in some archaic beliefs. To me the anomaly would be to come across someone who didn't. Hell who knows what we'll all be complaining about in 30 more years.

[Uggha]

If one of the Trinity came out (and Diana has been low key bi for awhile anyways) you’d hear even more cries of “don’t change an established character, create a new one”
So they have Jon, who’s young without much romantic history, come out and people complain anyways.

Making a character in the likeness of Superman, same outfit, same heroic name, same power set, etc. isn't creating a new character. It's intellectually bankrupt and dishonest to make that argument. It's basically absconding Siegal and Schuster's creative ideas and convincing yourself you've done something creative yourself. It's the same for any knockoff character. It's away around not having the creative chops to do something yourself and use something somebody else created to tell "YOUR" stories instead of the characters stories and spin it.

[Superlad93]

He could have, oh I don't know, more directly said that talked about empowerment rather than tearing down another character and character types by mentioning them. But, yeah, maybe his denigration wasn't intentional. That said, it still angers me a great deal and I will likely not support Taylor's works in the future. Sorry, but consequences apply to everyone so I'll vote with my wallet.

He didn't directly name any character to tear down though. What he said was the damsel concept (and by extension that includes to general publics perception of what a damsel in distress is rather than any one or two example of it).

[Nelliebly]

I really don't get why ya'll are so upset historically speaking Lois Lane is traditionally shown as a damsel maybe not so distressed as she usually knows Clark is on the way & this is just a day at the office but a damsel none the less, it's a truthful statement. It was also a whole joke on Harley's show.

Except it’s not a truthful statement. It’s not. Not unless you are prepared to unpack the way the character was treated specifically in the 50’s and 60’s snd the way the political movement against women forcing them into certain gender roles after the war impacted even fictional women like Lois. “Damsel” is a loaded gender statement weaponized against women specifically. It’s a much more nuanced topic and if you can’t talk about it with nuance you shouldn’t talk about it at all.

Referring to a woman being saved by a male partner as a “damsel” is a loaded, unfair term weaponized against women specifically to make them seem lesser and weak when, in reality, there is literally nothing wrong with Superman saving anyone who doesn’t have his Powers. It’s a nuanced convo that needs to be talked about with nuance or, again, just don’t do it.

The bottom line is it’s a loaded gender conversion with a lot more nuance and it didn’t belong in a convo about Jay period. It was out of place particularly given the sensitive way that misogyny and homophobia can often align. It was a likely a slip up on Taylor’s part and hopefully he learns snd does better next time.

[Yoda]

He didn't directly name any character to tear down though. What he said was the damsel concept (and by extension that includes to general publics perception of what a damsel in distress is rather than any one or two example of it).

No, he specifically mentions Lois having been portrayed as a damsel and it all flows into the paragraph where he describes Jay as being equal to Jon because he has powers and won't be written that way.

[Yoda]

Making a character in the likeness of Superman, same outfit, same heroic name, same power set, etc. isn't creating a new character. It's intellectually bankrupt and dishonest to make that argument. It's basically absconding Siegal and Schuster's creative ideas and convincing yourself you've done something creative yourself. It's the same for any knockoff character. It's away around not having the creative chops to do something yourself and use something somebody else created to tell "YOUR" stories instead of the characters stories and spin it.

Ok, now do Flash and Green Lantern.

[Nelliebly]

Making a character in the likeness of Superman, same outfit, same heroic name, same power set, etc. isn't creating a new character. It's intellectually bankrupt and dishonest to make that argument. It's basically absconding Siegal and Schuster's creative ideas and convincing yourself you've done something creative yourself. It's the same for any knockoff character. It's away around not having the creative chops to do something yourself and use something somebody else created to tell "YOUR" stories instead of the characters stories and spin it.

Bringing Siegel and Shuster into this feels extremely inappropriate given the way their legal troubles shook out with WB so I would be careful of that bc that’s a slippery slope.

Last time I checked though, Lara Siegel Larson, Jerry and Joanne’s only child, supported the idea of Lois and Clark with children so I don’t think bringing them into this is gonna go the way you think it will go.

[Nelliebly]

No, he specifically mentions Lois having been portrayed as a damsel and it all flows into the paragraph where he describes Jay as being equal to Jon because he has powers and won't be written that way.

Yeah. It was bad. Maybe he truly was misquoted—-who knows. Maybe he misspoke. I’m willing to give the guy another chance but it definitely wasn’t great on paper.

[ZuLuLu]

It gets used against Steve Trevor too in reverse. He's viewed as being a "lesser man" for having a super powered girlfriend, which is another reason we get the misguided Superman/Wonder Woman ship.

It's really not fair to him, Lois, Jay, Mary Jane etc.

There is nothing wrong with superheroes saving their loved ones but it is also understandable, that the trope of putting the non-powered love one in danger or a superhero loved one is their weakness and therefore made them vulnerable have been overused and as badly as Taylor may have phrased it he was simply saying he didn't want to rely on this dynamic for Jay and Jon's relationship going forward.

[Superlad93]

I don't think Taylor at all intended it to come off the way it did, and may have even been paraphrased by the interviewer (who presented it as a quote) but in the context of the article it all rolls together and there's no discussion or hint he meant it that way. It definitely reads like he's saying they are "equals" because Jay has powers in a way that Clark & Lois are not (I think it's all within the same paragraph), and for that reason Jon won't have to worry about him, etc. I don't think Taylor actually believes any of that or intended for it to come out that way. Cause he loves Lois as a character and is extremely vocal about her, he's one of the few who pretty consistently mentions her when discussing Jon instead of defaulting to just Clark, and he's written her kicking the crap out of people showing she's formidable herself.

But then you'd have to take into account that he's speaking to a wider audience than just people like you, I, or the people who post on places like this. And also that he's talking about a time where, yes, generally speaking-- especially at the height of the Silver age-- Lois and characters in her general mold were often closer to the general idea of a damsel in distress. You, I, and a bunch of other people who like and are inspired by Lois can bring up instances in that era and further back where that model isn't fair to place on her based on her actions. But when you take into account the general audience and their limited understanding coupled with the stigma around queer male characters and what they're allowed to act like, I think it becomes far less about talking about who and what Lois is today and how far she's come and pushed things.

But like I said, there doesn't feel like there's a lot of nuance in the creation of Jay in combating all of that, so for that I'm not very impressed by what Taylor said. But, like I said before, for the people in the cheap seats a hammer may be more effective than a scalpel.