Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The role of sex?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    YES, they for sure did have sex. They've even refered to the fact in later episodes (even 3) and others later in the season. I think it was one of the greatest events in SV history. After a 5 year build up of Clark wanting Lana, it's about time. It is no different than anything else that's been going on on television or even the WB for that matter for a long time. It is also a fresh perspective on Superman and his experience of life. In addition, plain and simply, sex sells. (If his name was Dawson, he would have slept with the entire cast by now.) The end of this episode left me with such an elated feeling. At 18 I think someone is old enough to make a decision like that. We're not talking about underagers or statutory or anything weird like that. They are both LEGALLY adults and have these rights of conscent. Whether or not morals apply or whether or not they were married depends on your own set of values or your religious beliefs, which don't necesarilly apply in this show. How can they please everybody's standards. The facts are these days most people don't wait for marriage anymore. Out of those that do, and if some of them end up in divorce, most of them (the ones that get divorced) they will have sex out of wedlock with a new partner. Just because they are older or have been married before does not make it right either. Having sex without marriage is no worse of a sin than any other of the Ten Commandments for the believers out there. Lying is lokked at as the same degree. We probably shouldn't judge his character for an action like that as well. BTW, if he was ever going to do it with anyone, I am so glad it was Lana.

    Comment


    • #47
      What did you notice about Lana and Clark after they had sex? Suddenly when he got scared and stopped that was all Lana was interested in, more. It changed their relationship, for the bad. This in itself shows that though they were indeed "legal" they weren't mature enough to handle it. Therefore it should not have happened!

      By the way generalizatons like "all" and "most" only make you look to be uninformed! Unless you'd like to site your research!

      Comment


      • #48
        I look at it differently. Sex became a part of their relationship only because of Clark's mortality. When sex was no longer a part of their relationship, Lana began to wonder why. It wasn't the only thing she was interested in. But she naturally asked why things had changed. And of course, such a change in a relationship without an explanation is bad for the relationship.

        I don't think it's a reflection of their lack of maturity, necessarily, but I do think it's a reflection of the level of trust that existed between them. I agree that this step was a mistake, but because of their trust issues rather than immorality or immaturity. Clark didn't trust Lana enough to share the truth about himself. He thought he was no longer Kryptonian, so it was no longer an issue -- but he still should have told Lana his history. I look at the problems caused by their sexual relationship as another lesson for Clark about trust and responsibility. His lack of trust -- and honesty -- is what created the tension. What we are learning in the more recent episodes is that his lack of trust may have been justified.
        Last edited by Watching Smallville; 02-15-2006, 02:29 AM.

        Comment


        • #49
          Great point. Trust is definitely an issue before you go far that far in a relationship and they are paying for it now.

          Comment


          • #50
            Actually waiting till your 18 and you give your self up to a person you truly love is considered very moral in this day and age.

            Comment


            • #51
              Clark Kent's decision to have sex is inconsistent with his character, because his upbringing and values are conservative. That is why every time he has had the chance to indulge his sexual desires (aside from instances of red-K possession), he has chosen to shy away.

              While it may be argued that the true reason Clark abstains from sex is to save his virginity for Lana, such reasoning can't explain his hesitancy to even steal a peek at girls, or why he becomes guilty and uncomfortable when he catches himself in the act. His decision to have sex with Lana busts out of the cuts; he never even mentions the topic until it whirls into this episode's center.

              Judging from his behavior in previous, sexually charged situations, Clark is a character with some innate conviction against casual sex. It is therefore loud and strident when, before he and Lana could even begin to resolve their differences, he decides to consummate their broken relationship.

              Comment


              • #52
                Bottom line: this is the 21st century. We need not be ruled by judgemental 19th century morals.

                Clark and Lana were in love. Clark made it a point to save himself for her, and she did the same for him.

                They expressed thier feelings by making love.

                There is nothing wrong with that at all.

                If there is a real lesson here, it's: Be faithful, devoted and ONLY have sex with who you love.

                Besides, they are both over 18. Legal adults. Statistical fact that teens start many years earlier than that. They were actually responsible with thier feelings.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Would it be moral if he went all the way will Alicia in unsafe? It would have been in wedlock!

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    I know that Clark ends up with Lios based on the comics, but Lios is not a virgin either (I think it was in Spell that her non-virginity was revealed) so I don't see anything wrong with Clark and Lana having sex. With that said, I was also 22 when I started to watch the show and Mortal was the only the second episode I had ever saw so I relaly didn't know clark and lana had such a long history of sexual tension here. If I were Clark I'd probably jump at the chance too since with his powers, I'm not even sure if he could have sex. Especially since him an Lana were dating and in love and probably 18 or up. Of course, I'm aware there are plenty of viewers who are in their early teens and older viewers who may still be virgins. Then perhaps this ending sent out the wrong message for superman fans and some found it to be dissapointing in terms of moral values. I think that is a reasonable opinion to have and I respect that. I think now if Clark and Lana were to have sex I dont' know what he might do to her with his supersperm. I actually think he deserved to experience sex with a woman he loves, his character is a good guy with a romantic heart.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by shirkie
                      I was sickened because the whole point of Clark going "mortal" was so he could be "normal." And what's the first thing he does as a "normal" teenager? He has sex.
                      I'd understand the issue if this WAS the issue, but he's not having sex to be 'normal'. He's having sex because he wants to share that special thing with Lana. If he was doing it to just fit in, it would be cheapened, but he's not in this case.

                      Originally posted by Reign
                      My point is that the subject is a serious one, however it is dealt too lightly in the show and I don't think it serves any purpose except to show that Clark has human desires.
                      But it wasn't invented for this show to establish this - the sex issue has been brought up in the movies Superman and the show Lois and Clark. I don't see them as taking it too lightly, they've been in love four years? In the cases with Alicia it was with the red kryptonite, I don't think the show will convince teenagers that are virgins to rush out and start scrumping their brains out. At least, I hope not


                      Originally posted by Reign
                      As far as morality goes, sex is natural... it is not an immature act, but a mature one... most people who engage in it only think they are mature enough to face the consequences if they should arise.
                      This is true, yet many times you don't realize that maturity level until afterwards when those consequences do arise. Sadly some people are never ready to face up to the aftereffects, such as pregnancy. They say no one is ever really ready for the news of a baby in an unplanned pregnancy.

                      Originally posted by Reign Do they (parents, etc) respect you enough to give you that choice and do you respect them enough to trust their judgment?[/B]
                      Trusting their judgement is one thing, but this doesn't mean you have to agree with them on all matters. Clark disagreed with his parents on several issues where he has been correct, going ahead and doing it despite their wishes, ultimately being in the right. This is generally true in all child-parent relationships.

                      Originally posted by Reign Rule of thumb: if you have to hide the fact that you're having sex, then something must be wrong. [/B]
                      Not necessarily. You may not wish to share it with others in case it hurts them to know (as in the case of Chloe perhaps - she reacted well but she may not have because of her feelings for Clark), because you want to enjoy a special moment and don't want it ruined by listening to someone nag you about their opinion on how it was a bad choice, etc. There's nothing less fun than dating a guy you want to and having your best friend tell you the whole time how she doesn't like the guy, or getting married and having someone always diss your husband, or listening to family on the wrong choices you've made sexually (in their eyes) Sometimes they're right and it's fine to hear the general gentle advice once, but many people don't leave it there. And...sometimes its just their opinion and not necessarily right.

                      Clark Kent's decision to have sex is inconsistent with his character, because his upbringing and values are conservative. That is why every time he has had the chance to indulge his sexual desires (aside from instances of red-K possession), he has chosen to shy away.
                      When Jonathan confronts Clark about having sex with Lana at the table, we hear Clark tell him it's not like he hadn't done it in the parents home. Martha seemed surprise about the sex but not angry like many parents who are overly strict with the deal. I am not sure how conversatively he was raised, as it's never been mentioned on his parents harping he has to save himself for marriage. It's actually never been brought up once. They say marriage is special, etc, and that he'll find the right girl to share his love with, but that's about as far as it goes.

                      I genuinely think, even if they want to be together, they don't have to have sex straight away.
                      Errr right away? They've been off and on together for years. Clark's been in love with her longer than that. If anything this will continue until we die of angst from the same old story with them - back together, broke up, back together, broke up
                      Last edited by LexLuv180; 03-19-2006, 02:50 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        I didn't even know about this thread until now... so for those who feel it's been over done, prepare for more horse beating... as soon as I finish reading everyone's comments. lol.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by shirkie
                          I was sickened because the whole point of Clark going "mortal" was so he could be "normal." And what's the first thing he does as a "normal" teenager? He has sex.

                          YOU DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE SEX TO BE NORMAL.

                          PERIOD.

                          It is INSULTING to insinuate that it's sex that's what makes you "normal," or even worse... "human."

                          1. The role of sex in "Smallville" is as I said-- it's apparently what makes teenagers "normal." Clark was a "freak" because he was a virgin. Now that he's fornicated, he is apparently "normal." But now that he can no longer fornicate, he's no longer "normal." What a wonderful message, Al/Miles.

                          2. They did have sex at the end of "Mortal," obviously.

                          3. Sex in "Smallville" affects viewers by reinforcing this dangerous idea that "everyone" is having sex and it's the "normal" thing to do.

                          I agree with whoever said it's pathetic that some of us now have better morals than Superman, who is supposed to be the archetype of moral integrity.
                          shirkie
                          TOOK THE WORDS OUT OF MY MOUTH.
                          I AM THOROUGHLY DISSAPOINTED.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            3. What effect does sex in Smallville have on teenagers?

                            Ok, even kicking the Religion out of the equation. (cause it has no place in Smallville, including political stands.)

                            Clark values are in question here and what he WILL represent, HENCE HE Can NOT WILLFULLY KILL no mater what age he is in his development. (part of the canon)

                            Even tough I agree with shirkie. I reject the "our house our rules."
                            Originally posted by shirkie
                            but Clark still lives under his parents' roof and needs to abide by their rules regarding sexual activity... 18 or no 18, it's their house and their rules. Teenage Rebellion, just for the desire of an individual original thought (and identity).
                            shirkie
                            cause Clark has done some stuff that the parents don't agree about like pete and Jor-el issues. BUT! He's values were already stated in 4.11 Unsafe by the Kent's.
                            MARRIAGE IS A VERY IMPORTANT THING, AND VIRGINITY IS THE BEST (only) WEDDING GIFT! But now MORALITY and VALUES are now being tossed out and comprimized. Case and point views on premarital sex are being laxed and lessened or viewed as "OK", Bullying leading to shoot outs, "MTV and Girls Gone Wild", and the list goes on...

                            and BIOLOGICAL FACT: Reasoning part of the brain doesn't fully develop/mature till the age of 22+.

                            Sady, slave2moonlight, I disagree on the myth. Look at the Teenage Pregnancy, Abortion & Divorce rates and Adoption/Orphan figures. Societal norms of "proms" and Agreeing on your argument on media's perpetuation influence of sex sells.
                            the majority of the media. Smallville, though I generally still love the show and consider it the best thing that TV has to offer right now, has unfortunately joined those ranks. The fact is, sex sells and teens are hot. The hypocritical media basically sells teens as sex objects, starting them off as young as they can, and it's tragic. Because hot teens sell and sex sells even more, they combine the two for a bigger sale, forcing them to also sell the myth that all teens are sexually active, most to a disgusting level. I can applaud Smallville for not making the cast out to be as notoriously whorish as most teen television characters, but that doesn't make what they're doing okay. If you want to know what's wrong with it aside from moral issues (which are hopeless to argue since most people just don't have/understand/believe in morals anymore), well, it simply isn't Superman. That's all there is to it: Premarital teen sex is not Superman. Clark is a teen, sure, but he's a teen who will grow up to be Superman. Yes, they have to show him struggling with making life choices, but they also should be showing him making the right choices more often than the wrong ones. That's what makes him different from people like Lex. Okay, so the left side will say, what's "wrong" about it? Well, that does come down to individual beliefs, but Clark/Superman is supposed to be strongly "moral," based on "traditional" American morals, which do include only having sex within the bounds of marriage. I believe it's been posted before that according to canon Clark was a virgin when he married Lois. Whether that's accurate or not, that's the way Superman SHOULD be simply based on his character and upbringing, and they blew that because they didn't have enough respect for modern audiences to buy a relationship where hormones were secondary. Oh, and because sex sells.

                            Bottom-line, the human race should know by now that if you give-up your virginity outside of marriage to someone, no matter how into them you are at the time, the chances aren't good that you're going to stay together forever. That should simply be understood by now. It's been proven time and time again. So anyone who says "they are in love" and so they needed to get it on, that's just not usin' your head. It's not mature. It's just plain silly.

                            Under the Influence of Hormones.
                            Originally posted by Reign
                            And I'm glad this discussion brought the topic outside of a religious discussion. Bottom line, the Superman mythos has to do with superior moral integrity... I thought the producers would do more to try to perpetuate that and to use the show as a a vehicle to caution teenagers, since that is expected the WB fanbase.
                            I Completely Agree‼
                            Here's a worthy argument to Disect:
                            Originally posted by AugenStern
                            I don't see having responsible sex as being immoral. I see it as being human, which was the whole point of Clark being mortal.

                            Responsible sex IS NOT the same as Valuing sex

                            The stigma about sex being somehow impure is a very puritanical concept.

                            SUPERMAN IS the ICON of PURITY AND GOODness
                            Originally posted by slave2moonlight
                            Whether or not it is "moral" comes down to individual ideas of what is and is not moral. In the case of Superman, though, he is popularly expected to be a beacon of high traditional morality. Traditional morality, whether the current masses follow it or not, dictates sex only within the bounds of wedlock.


                            Western society trains us to feel ashamed of doing it, ashamed of talking about it, and often even ashamed of thinking about it. Yet acts of extreme violence like throwing someone thirty feet through a wall

                            It's a battle between good and evil you can't expect superman to take ALL his time to give the bad guys psychological help everytime (go watch Dr.Phil instead)

                            or shattering a woman's frozen head are perfectly open subjects and hardly cause anyone to bat an eye.

                            It's ALL an Accident and he is never Directly responsible for those kinds of deaths.

                            Is it 'normal' to have sex? Yes, at least it's normal to want to. It one of the most powerful human drives and is something that starts at puberty and often lasts until old age and death. You can either pretend it doesn't exist (and pretend you're not human) or you can accept it and deal with it in a responsible way.

                            MORAL VALUES are in question here, more than the deed.
                            A better case for biologial reprodution is being available at the age 15 years that Puberty strikes and Marriage occurs, far before civilization. Now Processed food are causing puberty to be early as 10 years old. FACT!


                            It's your feelings for the person you're with that do that.

                            Feelings are NOT valid justifications. i.e. I feel I want to kill, I want to eat alot, etc... Reasons ARE valid Justifications.
                            Originally posted by Reign
                            As far as morality goes, sex is natural... it is not an immature act, but a mature one... most people who engage in it only think they are mature enough to face the consequences if they should arise.
                            Morality and Naturality is not the same. Naturally, "Might is Right"; but it is not Moral.

                            It is not enough to say that the desire and feeling is enough to justify sex. Sex is also about respect, not for the people engaging in it... but also for the people around you. Do they (parents, etc) respect you enough to give you that choice and do you respect them enough to trust their judgment?

                            Rule of thumb: if you have to hide the fact that you're having sex, then something must be wrong.
                            Nicely said!
                            Originally posted by ryanjm
                            Clark and Lana had sex. It was obvious.
                            Never AssUme! They could have just cuddled and like Clinton "oraly" stated "I Did NOT have Sexual Relations with that woman" or she could be Technicaly Virgin.

                            I do not understand why Clark can't have sex when he has his powers.
                            Have you seen Mallrats?
                            Originally posted by Cathrina Devil
                            besides sex is in fact a VERY important part of life, and if you're to spend 4EVER with the one you're married to dont you wanna to be able to doit with someone you click with, the problem with wai´ting for marrige is that you may desire that person but in the sack you may not be compadable, it's sooo not shallow to think this way but only fair, since a sexlife is a big part of a married cupples life, and if not i feel sorry for you.
                            it is our given way of expressing ones love for another phisicly, there fore vip!
                            i'm glad they finally did it and seeing it from clark's pov , who'd wanna be all super and be virgin, i mean come on, just cus he's from krypton doesnt make him all sainthood!
                            He's supposed to be a Saint!

                            (by the way i live in sweden and we have a more natural way of seeing sex, since the power of the church doensnt mean crap to us. it not all just a bunch of SHAME SHAME ...ITS WRONG ..SHAME way of looking at it)
                            wow my first time ( at this) wasnt so bad it didnt hurt at all!
                            OH MY GOD! Sex is NOT a basis of Relationship OR Marriage! I beg you to talk to your parents about that issue or to a mentor.
                            Originally posted by slave2moonlight
                            Clark and Lana haven't even proven that they truly have stronger feelings for each other than extreme lust. Clark hasn't even shared his secret with her. Whether his reasons for being secretive with her are good or bad, sex should only come after the honesty. But then, some might see that as a ridiculously religious/moral view.
                            hahahaha good one ^_^
                            Originally posted by slave2moonlight
                            Superman! As we have posted time and time again, the character of Superman was always:
                            A: A virgin when he married Lois. And
                            B: The highest example of "traditional" American morals/values.
                            And, as posted repeatedly already, whether you agree or disagree with not having sex until marriage, they are part of the "traditional" American morals and values. They may not be the common way of life in this day and age, but they are part of Americana, as is Superman and his association them. As for taking liberties with canon, many liberties are acceptible, but when they alter the nature of the character, that's when they become unacceptible. If Lois and Clark, a show about an adult Superman, had the nerve to stay true to Superman's character and keep him a virgin till his wedding night, it is incredibly cheap, weak, and disrespectful of the character and true fans for a show about teen Superman to throw that part of his character out the window.

                            It takes a heck of a lot of strength of character, dedication, self-control, faith in yourself and a higher purpose, and respect for the person you will one day choose to spend your life with to save yourself. All things one would expect from Superman. After all, if many normal people have those admirable character traits, it's pretty sad for Superman not to. That's why in the past he always did. It doesn't take any kind of restraint to give in to lust. The fact is, He hasn't proven his love for her yet, nor has she proven love for Clark. Talk is cheap, and sex IS even cheaper. This was just your usual case of two teens in a temporary relationship having some sex. We know it's temporary, so we know it's not true love, so give us a break with all this "They're in love!" stuff.
                            I disagree
                            If they were truly in love, they would have stayed together. We all know they don't. People make mistakes, but don't make excuses for them. I mean, if you're just in support of gettin' it on whenever you can, okay, but don't try to sell us that these kids are actually in love and making a mature decision. And, though I admit that people make mistakes, including Superman, this is not the sort of mistake that was ever in his character before. Keep messing with his "character" and he becomes a completely different character all together. Then, it's no longer a show about a teen Superman, which is what I tuned in to watch in the first place.
                            AMEN! PERFECTLY & Magnificently STATED!
                            Originally posted by slave2moonlight
                            ...important part of marriage. I certainly look forward to it, but the more partners you've had in the past, the harder it will be for you to be satisfied, and to not burden your partner with comparisons of previous lovers (even if they are only one or two, you will always make those comparisons). There just doesn't seem to be an understanding of what it really means to love someone anymore, and reading the post above, that is really confirmed. If sex is any kind of factor in deciding whether or not you love someone, sorry, that IS very shallow. I have to call you on that one. That statement couldn't be more wrong. It is the shallowest thing in the world to make sex a make-it or break-it factor in your relationship. Problems are going to arise, no matter who you marry or how much you love each other. You have to be able to work through those problems together, and they MAY be sexual. Or, they may be getting into a car accident Horse Riding and becoming paralyzed for life after only a year of marriage! It sounds like that would be grounds for divorce by your definition of true love. That doesn't sound like true love to me. If you truly love someone, sex should be a lovely way of expressing yourself, but not a requirement for you to keep your side of it. [/B]
                            Originally posted by slave2moonlight
                            Hey, look at it this way, you go through life and kiss a few toads before you find a prince, sure. We're just trying to say that you have the option to avoid sleeping with those toads, and taking that option comes with plenty of benefits, while the more toads you spend time with, the more negatives you bring on yourself. The opposing side insists there ARE NO negatives. Well, we layed them out for ya here a while back, and they are NOT religion based and they are NOT all about diseases. It's just a matter of making the better choice, but folks have come on here saying they are "smarter and braver" because they choose to ignore the negatives, which makes no sense.
                            Good one
                            Order of Importance:
                            Like;
                            Love;
                            Commitment;
                            Marriage;
                            Sex;
                            Children.

                            STORY WISE:
                            Did he do it or NOT is Still unknown?
                            IF he did what acceptable reasoning would that be? cause doing it to be normal IS an EXTREAMELY Lame excuse, even in this Culture.
                            Originally posted by lzpoof
                            Most people started watching this show and got excited about it because it was an opportunity to see what Superman may have been like as a teenager without the weight of the world on his shoulders and without supreme confidence in his abilities.... to enjoy the humor in him discovering himself and abilities and chuckle as he balances homework and meteor freaks...
                            Yeah the episode didn't do justice like 4.19 Blank. There should have been the same quality of Clark interaction when he does not have his powers. like Perosanl strugles of not being able to save some one cause he has no power and people dying, also Helping someone and he gets hurt BADLY, and Possible pregnancy! (SUPERBOY!), etc...

                            I'm still hoping for a twist like Lois dies and Chloe takes her identity. (NOT that I don't like ED.)

                            I wonder if the story twist is:
                            Lana = Lust
                            Lois = Love?

                            Now Chloe had relations with Jimmy Olson that is supposedly a younger Generation. SO Chloe is a cradle-robber.

                            and in Smallville, Lois is a year Older than Clark.

                            And after reading ALL that, Most are not worthy to be replied, or already been re-stated.
                            STICK TO THE TOPIC!

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by slave2moonlight
                              There's some interesting stuff posted here, I must say.

                              I'm still amazed that so many people believe 18 is this magical number that instantly makes you mature, responsible, and knowledgeable, even if you were an immature, selfish brat at 17 the day before. Despite what your parents, the law, or the back of your cigarette carton tells you, age doesn't declare your maturity, or anything much else about you (after all, why are there different ages for different priviledges? It's ridiculous). All it means is that you can legally do something, not that you should and that it's right or normal. Everyone matures in their own time, some earlier than what is considered "normal," most much later. Clark and Lana may be 18 by now, but they still reek of immaturity on many levels.

                              I'm even more saddened every time I hear someone spout the baloney generalization: "teenagers have sex." It's not part of the definition of a teenager to be sexually active, and the really sad part is that far fewer teens are sexually active than the general public thinks. The problem is two things: One, the teens who ARE sexually active always play that "everyone does it" card to make themselves feel better, and a lot of them believe it because there's so much lying about it that goes on among peers. It just purpetuates a myth. The other major contributor to the myth (and a strong influence on the first) is, of course, the majority of the media. Smallville, though I generally still love the show and consider it the best thing that TV has to offer right now, has unfortunately joined those ranks. The fact is, sex sells and teens are hot. The hypocritical media basically sells teens as sex objects, starting them off as young as they can, and it's tragic. Because hot teens sell and sex sells even more, they combine the two for a bigger sale, forcing them to also sell the myth that all teens are sexually active, most to a disgusting level. I can applaud Smallville for not making the cast out to be as notoriously whorish as most teen television characters, but that doesn't make what they're doing okay. If you want to know what's wrong with it aside from moral issues (which are hopeless to argue since most people just don't have/understand/believe in morals anymore), well, it simply isn't Superman. That's all there is to it: Premarital teen sex is not Superman. Clark is a teen, sure, but he's a teen who will grow up to be Superman. Yes, they have to show him struggling with making life choices, but they also should be showing him making the right choices more often than the wrong ones. That's what makes him different from people like Lex. Okay, so the left side will say, what's "wrong" about it? Well, that does come down to individual beliefs, but Clark/Superman is supposed to be strongly "moral," based on "traditional" American morals, which do include only having sex within the bounds of marriage. I believe it's been posted before that according to canon Clark was a virgin when he married Lois. Whether that's accurate or not, that's the way Superman SHOULD be simply based on his character and upbringing, and they blew that because they didn't have enough respect for modern audiences to buy a relationship where hormones were secondary. Oh, and because sex sells.

                              The fact is, there are people out there, darn good lookin' some of 'em, who do wait till they get married before they lose their virginity, and yet you rarely see that portrayed on film just because TPTB think it won't sell. It's really sad when it's practically expected of a character to save himself, and yet they still don't play him that way because sex sells. So, you end up with a public that feels it's "normal" to be sexually active in your teens, or abnormal to have a relationship that is saving sex for later, when things are more sure. Clearly, Clark and Lana haven't worked many of their problems out. They just wanted to get it while the gettin' was good. But, what do you expect from a society that now pushes the rule that "sex takes place on the third date." That's the sort of so-called "morals" we live with today, and yet they still are ignored, ha.

                              What turns up the most in these arguements, though, is one side saying sex outside of marriage is wrong, and the other saying it's not. Sadly, the side in support of "waiting" often has no better defense than to quote scripture. Sure, some of us have great respect for scripture, but not everybody, so it's not an effective arguement. What they should think about is WHY God teaches not to have sex outside of marriage, because all of those rules have sense behind them. Sure, there are the basics: getting diseases, accidental pregnancies, etc... but there are two reasons I think are much stronger. People are more sexually active than ever nowadays, I won't deny that. But, you also have a higher divorce rate than ever. Relationships just aren't working out. You're kidding yourself if you don't think there's a connection. It's much harder to settle down with one person when you're used to bed-hopping. And, even when you've only had monogomous relationships, serious histories with others are forever a part of your life, and we're only human. They can creep up and affect your relationship with the current "love of your life." There's no perfect person that isn't going to be affected by the past. Sex IS important to living creatures. It's not evil. It's a deep connection with another person though, even when you don't want it to be. It will affect you later. Even a one-night stand will always come back to your mind. In short, you complicate your life, the more different sex-partners you've had. You put future relationships at risk. Of course, warnings like this are easily tossed aside by those who want sex now. Everyone thinks the person they are with at the moment is the love of their life. Truly, marriages are not a guarantee, but that's a whole other discussion (a history of premarital sex doesn't help, though). Anyway, all this is really secondary to another truth. Save yourself for one person, and you're going to have a special connection with that person that you will have with no one else. That's one of the main reasons it is best to only have sex with one person in a lifetime. Of course, it works much better if it's mutual, but, I confess, it's hard to find another person who has waited that also fits all your other criteria for Mr. or Mrs. Right, ha. Anyway, you can have lots of meaningless sex, but you're cheating yourself out of a much more special experience (while risking all other sorts of things too), and cheating others out of it too if they are also virgins. You can say you're waiting for someone special, but if that's just your first "serious" boyfriend or girlfriend, frankly, you're full of it. Most people KNOW that it is rare to end up with your first boyfriend or girlfriend. Clark and Lana don't end up together, so we know they are not in "true love," so how is it that some folks are saying it was about time they did it? Maybe they think they are in love, but we know better, so how can any of US support it? People also think sex is a necessary aspect of keeping a relationship together nowadays. When you reach that level in your relationship, it MUST be done or things won't work out. Well, if your relationship can't survive without sex, it's pretty worthless. Marriages aren't guaranteed, but if someone won't wait for you, it's a good sign they don't love you. Which is another reason waiting is in a person's best interest. It can really set the record straight. If they won't wait till you're married, they're probably just after the booty.

                              Well, I could go on and on, but I don't have to. All this stuff is true, and is proven time and time again to everyone. Everybody knows this stuff is true, they just don't want to admit it because people are obsessed with sex. Hey, I understand. I am a total horn-dog, but I'm capable of controlling myself in hopes of something wonderful in the future. I've had some opportunities I can't believe I passed up, and I may not get what I'm looking for in the future, but I at least still have the chance and hope. Clark and Lana no longer have that. They think they've found what they're looking for, but we know they're wrong, so how can any of us say it was about time? And, seriously, how many people do you know that stayed together with their first out of wedlock sex-partner?

                              Bottom-line, the human race should know by now that if you give-up your virginity outside of marriage to someone, no matter how into them you are at the time, the chances aren't good that you're going to stay together forever. That should simply be understood by now. It's been proven time and time again. So anyone who says "they are in love" and so they needed to get it on, that's just not usin' your head. It's not mature. It's just plain silly.

                              As for the folks who think sex is just this fun thing to do whenever you get the chance. Fine, but you're cheatin' yourself out of what could be a very special experience. Most think it will still be special when they are doing it with someone they really mean it with. Again, that's just being silly. If it's something you do pretty much at every chance you get, it's not going to be "special" with the one you decide you truly love.

                              Well, I'll try to leave the subject at that. Just getting some things off my chest. I'm sure I forgot some stuff, but I felt those things needed to be said, even if they are tragically ignored. Now, I want to say one thing about Clark. People have been ridiculously hard on him lately when it comes to the other subjects. While I didn't agree with the sex decision, the word "selfish" has been thrown around a lot because Clark wants to be human more than anything (so he can be with Lana). I have no problem with this inner struggle. We ARE seeing a show about a teenage Clark. Sure, he's all about me, me, me, but that's a big part of being a teen. I DON'T expect Clark to act exactly like Superman right now. It's a different matter in the case of losing his virginity. A: It's not canon, and B: It's a final decision. That's the thing about Clark. In the end, he should make the best final decision. He didn't do that with the sex issue, which was upsetting. Still, having the inner struggle, that is not the final decision. That's perfectly acceptible, realistic, and "normal" of him. He SHOULD have these inner struggles, and we shouldn't get disgusted with him for having to think things through and discover the right path to follow. Clark should always take the right path, but I don't understand folks being so hard on him for having to learn how to make that choice when he's still just a teen. Clearly, being 18 and having sex hasn't magically matured him, but I never expected it to. However, being raised by the Kents and being the future Superman, I DO expect him to always make the right decision in the end. That's why I was disappointed about the sex thing.
                              I believe you may be referring to socioogical or freudian studies on immature/premature sex. Regarding that I respect all off your relgious and/or political views on teen sex, I will begin by saying that you cannot understand that sort of thing unless it happens to you personally, so don't preach or undermine a plot to which you can't relate to.

                              Let me explain what you're trying to convey:

                              Had Lana looked to Clark in the sense that she was trying to use him as a replacement for her own parents/authoritarian figure then yes, that would have been a gigantic mistake. To ensure a relationship by using sex is probably along the lines of prostitution (trading your body for something you want/need).

                              HOWEVER:

                              Lana lives on her own, she is an established entreprenuer (I know i spelt that wrong- oh well) and has also established herself as a independent (and concussion prone) woman. Does she make some bad choices? Yes. But she is well on her own way to being successful with or without Clark or parents so she doesn't need that authority figure or attention to exist with others. In other words: Usually when a promiscuous teen or "Kids who tragically don't listen to you" have sex it is to ensure that they will entice their partners to stay with them.

                              Furthermore ALL of your debate about Clark having 'southern values' is an absurd and illogical basis to use against him having sex with Lana.

                              Couldn't he have slept with Chloe under red k? The blonde chick awhile back? Alicia, those cheerleaders, the hypnosis girl, the teacher, those sorority chicks? Hell, Clark can have any woman he wants! But.... He waited for his first love, Lana, devoutly (if not ANNOYINGLY).

                              Moral integrity, standards, 'relgious beliefs', Jesus Christ, you people really need to look past the content of the story and look to the context.

                              Anything is possible, regardless of any of the above, when the planets align and situation is right. Teenagers have sex, I know, I'm one of them!!!

                              It's a work in progress, Clark having sex isn't a mistake, but it isn't a step towards maturity either, nor was it said that he would be. Perhaps you all have this own version of it in your heads to cope with it, but all the scene was about was finally getting the girl you want because all of the circumstances were opportune for that to happen.

                              And even if it was, who's the say the producer sat at his table and said "Hey, we need to grow Clark up... Let's let him screw Lana-" NO- did it ever occur to any one of you that maybe this was one of Clark's 'mistakes'? Perhaps this is an experience for him to learn from.

                              And to the person who kept saying it's the US's definition of 'normal' for teens to have sex, I find it very sad and insulting that you derive such a context from a scene that never implied sex = maturity. Once again you're embelishing or discerning false ideas to cope with something you didn't want to happen.

                              Lana could survive without Clark, vice versa, they didn't have a compulsive NEED to have sex, they chose it because they felt that they were right for one another. It's both a beautiful idea and a tragic irony by destiny that it wasn't meant to be- but for the brief moment religion, morality, 'MORAL INTEGRITY' didn't mean anything because they love eachother. Akin to how they didn't care about Kryptonian legacy, Lex, parents, etc. When you really get down to the fabric of what that scene meant you are both completely off base yet on target with what that scene was supposed to accomplish.

                              In conclusion, CHECK and MATE...

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                I think you're all reading a little too much into it. You know, it's not that sex makes you normal. Clark wanted to have sex with lana before he was human, duh. It's just that when he turned human, he lost his fear of it. That's it. Period.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X
                                😀
                                🥰
                                🤢
                                😎
                                😡
                                👍
                                👎