Anyone else bothered by Clark losing his virginity?

[efilflah]

Originally posted by Sarsi
I think people put sex up onto too high a pedestal, it really isn't that big a deal, especially in this day and age. Maybe if people stopped making such a fuss over it young people wouldn't be dying to find out just what the fuss is all about.
I also wonder just how relevant any opinion on this subject is when it comes from someone who actually has never had sex. Who are they to dictate to anyone what sex is or should be about when they have never done it?
The way I see it Clark and Lana are way more virtuous than the majority of real world teens of the same age. The average age that people have sex is a lot younger than 18, females actually have it at a younger age than males.
Smallville is about Clark becoming Superman set in our present, not some 50 to 60 years ago and the reality is most people their age and in their situation would have had sex by now, if not years before.
Clark loves Lana and if you can't see that then you are blind, I can only assume you just don't want to see it. I find it rediculous that people even suggest that Clark was underhanded with Lana just so that he could get her into bed, another situation of believing what you want to believe imo.

Here here *claps*

I agree completely with this. I also think people are confusing "pre-marital" sex with "casual" sex. They aren't the same. If you are in a loving relationship then there is no difference in waiting to get married or waiting until a special day that you may set up for the event, you both have to feel ready, you both decide the time.

If you think that getting married will solve any of the complications a couple has when sex is thrown into the mix then I'm sorry to say, it doesn't work that way. Yes you may feel more committed, but anymore committed than say a 5 year engagement has already made you? I doubt it, the highs of being married will wear off, and you'll fall back into your routine sooner or later. What about people who get married just just so they can have sex? It's been known to happen, people who are blinded by hormones that they speed along the wedding so that "special night" comes along faster.

There's also a lot of talk being thrown around about getting pregnant too early, this is ridiculous. Fear of having a child before you're ready? Then practice safe sex, problem solved. A combination of the pill and Condoms and you have nothing to worry about, so don't be so afraid of sex, it'll only numb your enjoyment of it, as long as you are sensible (like Clark and Lana) then you'll be fine.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that too many kids have sex when they're not ready and aren't careful, and yes it's more common today than it used to be it's sad to say, but that's more often to do with casual sex, partying, alcohol and the occasional girlfriend/boyfriend using sex to secure their failing relationships. It's not "Sex's" fault that these kids/young adults are insecure, and to be honest we could assign plenty of blame to the parents, society, schools for not doing a better job at making sure these people grow up with a healthy knowledge of sex and it's consequences, but bringing them up to believe that they should wait until marriage instead of waiting until they're ready, is in my opinion a bad move that'll only lead to curiosity on their part.

Clark and Lana were clearly shown making the decision together, they obviously love each other even if you don't think so and I feel that unless you have a problem with the sex act itself then there should be no stigma attached to our hero, because essentially he did nothing wrong.

He may not have told her the truth about himself, but everybody has secrets, even in 50 year old relationships people still find out things about their respective partners that they like/dislike, realistically you can't expect people to sit down and have a conversation about everything before they have sex, just because there may be a conflicting idea/thought that could prevent the act from going ahead.

[jimmyolsenblues]

You know what Clark has had so many opportunities to have sex and has turned down many a lady. He waited until he was 18 , I hope my children wait as long, There was nothing wrong with the message when he said, "I am 18". The writers are acknowledging that Clark is legally an adult, not a bapist. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

[Brainiac_13]

Originally posted by Lambshank
They are both 18, one girl has lived in Paris and developed a long term relationship, and owned her own coffee shop, the other saves lifes on a regular basis and has been through more traumatic experiences than most people do in their lifes, I consider that to be enough to call them adults, so why bother to try reducing both of the to 'two kids'?

Because: 1) Lana lived in Paris for 3 months, not 3 years, and it was arbitrarily formative, as in: It was in thr script, and it was also unrealistic. 2) It is also bullshiite that a highschool chick could operate a retail business on the side. I once owned a coffee shop in a small town. Small town coffee shops are not often populated like city shops, and they require a physical ton of owner/operator personal presence. You just can't do it on an after-school and weekends schedule, and that would be assuming Lana was bright enough to also come through school doing no homework or studying. NOOOOPE. 3) Heroics and trauma don't make a person into an adult. 4) It's funny - when you're 18, you think certain things in certain ways. When you approach the ripe old age of 18x2, you have long since realized what an idiot you were at 18. Furthermore, if you have any brains whatsoever at that point, you also realize that people who are 54 and 72 are probably looking at you funny as well. Suffice to say that it is not AGE that makes a person wise and it is wisdom more than anything else that makes a person truly, mentally and emotionally, an adult. Sure, yes, of course it is possible for people to possess uncanny wisdom for their age. Are Clark and Lana these types of people? Hail. Naw.

Er... Why?

Put it this way: I have about 9 friends who only occasionally watch Smallville. Most of them check in with me about the eps. All 9 of them asked me "Did they do it? Did I miss it? and Can I borrow your DVD?" - That's ALL they asked about. Not "did Clark get his powers back?" or any other plot device. Just the sex. Now maybe I have some horn-dog friends or something, but I am more inclined to believe that there's something about sex that's generically compelling. *Shrug*

I don't know how the ratings were, could you show me? All I know is we haven't seen anything sexy since Clark and Lana got together, it all seems to be romantic and lovey dovey so far, which parts were rating grabbers?

I was asking for information, not implying that I had some.

Originally posted by lzpoof
Can we please stop with the premarital sex threads? They really accomplish nothing. Some people think one way, some the other and these threads do nothing to convince either side of the other's validity. All it results in is bickering.

That would depend upon whether or not you regarded morality as absolute. It's not really an "opinion" to say X is good or evil if the act can be tied to a moral absolute.

Furthermore, there are demonstrable 'bads' associated with premarital sex and virtally no 'goods' aside from personal pleasure, which is in itself not a worthwhile aim in terms of the greatest possible good for all humankind.

Given, then, the lengthy list of 'bads' associated with teenage premarital sex [unwanted pregnancy, poverty, disease, emotional strife, violence, substance abuse and addiction, incapacity for child-rearing, improper socialization of child, crime...] and the short list of goods [orgasms, (illusion of) intimacy and maturity], it can be reasoned without reference to absolutes that premarital sex, especially among teenagers, is a negative phenomenon that is destructive to society.

Granted, we must also reason through the assignment of 'bad' to each of the above side-effects, but I don't think anyone would get very far trying to say otherwise.

[jag5311]

Post #42 of 63

Wah Wah Clark had sex.

If you people think two adults who truly love eachother are not going to have sex then you need a serious reality check.

Do you people honestly think it's a sex = ratings deal? Oh no, I just saw two people say they love eachother, kiss for 5 seconds and then cut to an open window, what a horny boner inducing sex scene that was, the ratings are gonna be skyyyyy high now! Please...

haha, that's great! It's true though, the WB, in terms of a "sex" scene, did it in a very professional manner. You didn't have Lana walking around in sleazy lingerie, thong up her butt, breasts popping out while she bounced on Clarks lap...like you might see in most reality tv shows.

Yes they had sex. Yes they are 18. Clark was "normal" at this time keep in mind. They have loved each other from day one.

I agree he should tell her the truth of his past, but I don't think there was a problem with the WB letting people know "they had sex". Whether you like it or not, sex is in the media, it's a part of our culture, and we have to accept the fact that people are having sex at a much younger age.

Also, it's not like it was a one night stand. They both said they wanted to slow down and make it special.

I think given the fact that they "did it", I think it was handled appropriately.

[jaime,oburg]

I think people are missing the point of this thread.

Everyone has their own personal belief system as how to live their lives. I respect everyone's opinion on the choices they make concerning their virginity.
But.... we are debating whether CLARK should have lost his virginity. Don't confuse that with a morality, religious or sign of the times debate.
Having Clark remain a virgin until he marries Lois Lane was a huge part of what Jerry & Joel were trying to establish with the Clark/Kal-El/ Superman character. I think that was why it was written that way.
He never lied or stole. Things that mere mortals could never resist slipping up just one time. The creators I believe also saw sex as one of the things that stood him apart from being mortal.
One would really have to be a god among men to resist all the temptations that one time or another we could not resist.

[shadow_2099]

I dont understand where this "He is Kryptonian he cant have sex" nonsense started from. And Shirkie is (I am almost 100% sure) WRONG in her L&C reference.

Making a choice for oneself is cool. Making a choice, or condemning that choice in others, is BAD. She doesnt want to have sex till marriage, that is a fine personal choice. I just dont think that makes her morally superior to an ant, let alone another person, but it is a choice I respect none the less.

Sex before marraige isnt about morality. Rape is an issue or morality. Trying to have kids to trap a man(or woman) is about morality. Having sex who is outside your current relationship is about morality. But not sex in and of itself.

And there are plenty of characters who outline absitence. Its just that in OUR culture that isnt the norm anymore and to deny that fact is just plain wrong. Secondly, Superman in the comics AND in the L&C DID have sex before marriage to Lois.

Finally, he's been married to Lois for years now. He is currently almost as strong as he was pre-Crisis. He hasnt hurt her yet. He CAN have sex with Lois, which means he can have sex as a teenager on Smallville.

Morality is doing the right thing. And to me, having sex with the woman you care about is the right thing to do, provided both wish to do so.

So really, enough of this nonsense. Superman as an icon has evolved and become more and more "human" in his ways, thus proving to be more inspirational because the ideal is now far more understandable. He is still the Blue Boy Scout, but now we see how even truly good people can get mad, lash out, yell, cry, and feel pain. These are good lessons.

Shadow

[EarthBound]

I for one am glad Clark finally got some action. If this wasnt a family oriented board i would let you bible huggers know what i really think.

[Quadrotriticale]

Personally I don't like the fact he did nor do I like the fact he lies. This story line they are telling has definitely scarred the Superman story. Is it entertaining? Sure but they've ruined a few aspects of the age old story.

[jaime,oburg]

Originally posted by EarthBound
I for one am glad Clark finally got some action. If this wasnt a family oriented board i would let you bible huggers know what i really think.

Just because some fans were not in favor of Clana sex doesn't mean anyone is religious or as you so ignorantly referred to as "bible huggers". Tolerance certainly needs to be learned with this post. It is inflammatory and doesn't belong on this board.

[batfinx]

Sex before marraige isnt about morality. Rape is an issue or morality. Trying to have kids to trap a man(or woman) is about morality. Having sex who is outside your current relationship is about morality. But not sex in and of itself

Rape is crime, not a moral choice. That's like saying child molestation is about morality. In the rape of an adult or a child, it's about taking any choice away from the victim. They are being forced to do something they have absolutely no control over, often at the threat of death if they don't comply, or they are taken advantage if they've had too much to drink and can no longer make a rational choice, or they've been drugged into unconsciousness. Let's try and keep felonies out of the discussion.

Secondly, Superman in the comics AND in the L&C DID have sex before marriage to Lois

No, Shirkie is correct, Lois and Clark on L&C waited till their wedding night. In the comics you won't find any panel of Lois and Clark in bed together until after they were married. Does that mean emphatically that they didn't have sex in the comics till their wedding night? No, I can't say that with any certainty, but they sure didn't show them in bed together until then. But there probably wouldn't have been as much disappointment on L&C or in the comics if they had not waited till the wedding night because 1, Lois is Clark's destined love interested, but mainly 2, Clark was honest with Lois before they became intimate and well before they got married. The same is not true of Clark and Lana.

He was deceiving her before they consummated their relationship sexually and he is still deceiving her. The fact that he was without powers, or even human makes no difference. None of that alters the fact that he came from another planet and his arrival resulted in the deaths of Lana's parents. The issue of it not being his fault because he didn't program the ship and certainly couldn't command where meteors landed is a conclusion Lana should have been given the choice of reaching after he told her the whole truth about himself. He didn't give her that choice and now with his powers back, he's made it clear he's going to continue to deceive her.

Finally, he's been married to Lois for years now. He is currently almost as strong as he was pre-Crisis. He hasnt hurt her yet. He CAN have sex with Lois, which means he can have sex as a teenager on Smallville

That's funny. That's like saying he is so powerful he can kill as an adult so he can certainly kill as a teenager. Superman doesn't kill. Does that make him an old fashioned hero along with his old fashioned morality? Would you like him to be a super powered Punisher? You make it sound as though just because Superman is capable of something, he's obligated to do it.

Morality is doing the right thing.

No, ethics is about doing the right thing. Morality is about a specific code of conduct and standards, or belief system a person adheres to regardless if those standards are seen as old fashioned by others.

I have never gotten into a morality battle about Clark and Lana having sex, but I do believe Clark is being totally unethical. That bothers me not just because he's going to be Superman, but because it will be seen as all his fault when he and Lana break up rather than the two of them just finding out, like a lot of couples do, that aside from a physical attraction to each other, they have absolutely nothing else in common.

Lana rebounded from Jason to Clark and they had a whirlwind courtship and then after a few weeks decided to move to a sexual relationship. It's typical after a rebound relationship for there to be a honeymoon period where everything seems great, but after a time they have moments of long awkward silence because they have nothing at all to talk about.

In the future, when Clark is truly an adult, not just chronologically legal, he'll have a great deal in common with Lois. They'll both share a love of journalism and busting the bad guys and he'll do it as Superman and she'll do it with her articles. But for now, as a teen, Clark has about as much in common with Lana as a tree has with a puppy, other than the puppy is going to pee on that tree soon and it won't be pretty

[jaime,oburg]

Agreed. Couldn't have posted better batfinx. Thanks for your opinion.

[Clareo]

I also wonder just how relevant any opinion on this subject is when it comes from someone who actually has never had sex. Who are they to dictate to anyone what sex is or should be about when they have never done it?

I'm terribly sorry, but I registered for the sole purpose of making a call on this major fallacy/lapse in logic (well, ok, I wanted to comment on a few other things, too). That's like saying that a psychologist can't possibly testify to the workings of a schizophrenic's mind, or define the disorder, or decide that a patient needs anti-psychotics - all because that doctor has never experienced a schizophrenia him or herself. Perhaps a more salient comparison is that this rationale (or lack thereof, here) is in the same vein as saying that I can't possibly have a relevant opinion on puppy mills or capital punishment or the visual grotesqueness that is Jello because I've never actually been in a puppy mill or watched an execution (or been executed) or eaten the gross-looking Jello. I can look at it, observe it from all angles, see that it's jiggly, semi-clear refrigerated goo composed of ingredients that I'd rather not digest, and thus, I can conclude that Jello is visually unappealing. Basically, the argument that's been made is an argumentum ad hominem - denying the possible truth or untruth of arguments made by people who don't believe in premarital sex, simply because some of them might be virgins. This is an attack on their person, and not on the actual argument.

I've never committed murder, but I can serve up plenty of empirical evidence to show that murder has a negative impact on society - in this same way, I can also present entirely logical arguments demonstrating that premarital sex has a bad effect on society.

I entirely resent the "bible thumpers" comment noted above, as if generalization about people who don't believe in premarital sex is somehow an effective argument. If I started saying that everyone who has had sex outside of marriage is surely a red flag-waving Communist lacking any sense of morality, so of course we can't listen to any of them, someone would (most likely) call me on it. They would be correct in doing so, because I've made a generalization that has nothing to do with the actual arguments presented. Besides this, not all people who believe that premarital sex is wrong are Christians. If I wanted to be snarky, I would point out that there are other faiths which also espouse the idea of waiting until marriage.

That being said, I was disappointed in Clark's actions, because, as many, many people have noted, whether you personally believe it or not, American society has always had a place for chastity alongside what it considered to be other important moral concepts. If Superman is supposed to be these morals incarnate, then his violation of one of them should be viewed with more than a bit of disgust. I often compare Superman to a knight from the old French and English tales of courtly love and chivalry - the physical embodiment of virtue. Whether or not some think that this is not a part of modern American society isn't really the important issue. The issue is what Superman is supposed to represent. If we can agree that from his first comic book appearance, through the movies, through Lois and Clark, that he represented a certain and specific set of morals, it can be concluded that breaking one of those is in violation of the entire Superman canon. Lois and Clark didn't air that long ago - I'd say that the embracing by the general populous of premarital sex as an "ok-thing to do" has existed since the late 80s. I also think that there's something important to be noticed about Clark's "resurrection." Isn't it a bit fishy that while he was mortal, having sex with Lana was an okay thing for him to do, but now that he's back to being the bastion of morality, Superman, he appears to have reconsidered his relationship with her? I know that we all like to make out the writers to be throwing sex in there for the ratings, but I'm trying to find some point to this storyline, and the best I can come up with is the contrast between what your average "mortal" can engage in, versus what someone who is supposed to represent pure good and virtue can take part in while still being pure good and virtue incarnate.

[Kellylizbeth]

Superman as an icon has evolved and become more and more "human" in his ways, thus proving to be more inspirational because the ideal is now far more understandable. He is still the Blue Boy Scout, but now we see how even truly good people can get mad, lash out, yell, cry, and feel pain. These are good lessons.

Superman as an icon has not evolved; he has devolved. I do not find Smallville's version of Clark Kent to be inspirational at all. In fact, I find it quite difficult to be inspired by a so-called "ideal" who is a selfish, lying, fornicating, thieving felon, who has abused "drugs" (red k).

Have we really lowered the bar so far that now we can look up to a person who abuses "drugs" and robs a bank as an ideal? It's possible for him to still maintain the status of ideal, when he can't even keep it in his pants? (even though many ordinary, "less than ideal" folks are able to do so)

Superman is supposed to be beyond reproach. He's not supposed to be a "dark hero"; he's not even supposed to be a basically good but somewhat flawed kinda guy. He is supposed to be The Ideal. He is supposed to be the epitome of morality, character, ethics. I can't see this Clark Kent growing up to become the future Superman at all. At the rate he's going, he's more likely to become a guest on the Jerry Springer show. That's how low he has sunk.

He is not evolved. He is not inspirational. He is not an ideal. He is not a Boy Scout. And, he is not truly good. Granted, he's done good things. He's not rotten to the core. But, he's no paragon of virtue either. He's become a "tainted hero", a "fallen hero", a "dark hero".

Don't get me wrong, I really like "dark heroes". But, Superman isn't supposed to be that kind of hero. He's supposed to be a "white knight in shining armor hero" with no shades of gray. There was a time when America had quite a few "white knight heroes". Now we can't even seem to stomach having one. Maybe, we've just become too cynical to believe in them anymore.

I've seen many people say "it wouldn't be realistic to expect Clark to do this or that/it wouldn't be realistic to expect Clark to uphold this or that standard" and it makes me very sad. We've lost our ability to believe. We've lost our way, and we've lost our faith.

Thanks to Smallville, Superman has fallen lower than Lassie on my list of heroes. A dog now has better moral character than he does.

[xrayvision]

I was also disappointed that they used this mortal storyline mainly to have him do the deed. I'd like them to do something where it all appeared to be a dream, but that would be lame and they'd probably lose many fans. Even though it wasn't rape and he cares about Lana very much, it still takes from his character. Superman has always been shown to be pure (at least until he got married).

Even in Superman III, when the evil Superman seemed to have had sex with that blonde woman, it was done in a way that the evil Superman was a different being and that once Clark Kent beat him in that fight, that the true Superman had reclaimed his body. Nobody could complain about a lightswitch theory there because his virtuous image had already been established and that the Superman that came out when exposed to that artificial kryptonite was not the true Superman. For Smallville to try to correct this, they would have to do a "lightswitch".

[soon2Bmrs.clark kent]

wow i think you guys are looking way to much into it
:/ well we knew it was gonna happen eventually!!!