The role of sex?

[Reign]

shirkie and slave2moonlight, you two are the reason that i posted this thread: to find some like-minded souls on this forum.

Q#2 was to clarify because I didn't want to start a discussion that was irrelevant.

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

[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.

Clark didn't run out to the nearest kegger and score some girl just for the sake of doing it, he gradually built up to it with someone he'd loved deeply for many years, and since he was mortal he could do it without fear of accidently setting her face on fire or anything else unpleasant. That's the only real message here, and it's a pretty good one.

The stigma about sex being somehow impure is a very puritanical concept. 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 or shattering a woman's frozen head are perfectly open subjects and hardly cause anyone to bat an eye.

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.

Which option sounds healthier?


Also, it's a tad hypocritical to judge someone as being immature when the same could easily be said about most of the generalizations made about premarital sex. No, its not good to rush into it or do it when you're really young, but trust me, its not the frequency that makes it special or unspecial. It's your feelings for the person you're with that do that.

[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.

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.

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.

[ryanjm]

Clark and Lana had sex. It was obvious.
I do not understand why Clark can't have sex when he has his powers.

About sex: I'll never understand why some people put so much weight behind the "meaning" of sex. Sex is something you either do because:
a) You want to start a family
or
b) You want to orgasm.

Both of those are fine. My standards for when people should start a family are very high. My standards for people who want to orgasm are very low. Protect yourself from STDs and pregnancy. Other than that, go ahead and enjoy yourself.

Let's be honest here. You've got two viewpoints: The religious, and the non-religious.
The religious either forgoes reasoning in favor of "God says so", or they make up reasoning to support what their religion believes.
The non religious, having nothing invested in what an ancient book says, uses their own experience, reasoning, and conversations with other people to make up their mind on sex.

There is no reasoning with followers of a religion. I have family and friends who are Christians and I respect their right to follow their religion, but I will argue them into the ground every time a subject like this comes up simply because reason always trumps faith in face to face discussion. If their faith is strong, then they will persist regardless of reasoning, and this is where the conversation ends and becomes pointless. Similar to this one

[slave2moonlight]

Originally posted by ryanjm
Clark and Lana had sex. It was obvious.
I do not understand why Clark can't have sex when he has his powers.

About sex: I'll never understand why some people put so much weight behind the "meaning" of sex. Sex is something you either do because:
a) You want to start a family
or
b) You want to orgasm.

Both of those are fine. My standards for when people should start a family are very high. My standards for people who want to orgasm are very low. Protect yourself from STDs and pregnancy. Other than that, go ahead and enjoy yourself.

Let's be honest here. You've got two viewpoints: The religious, and the non-religious.
The religious either forgoes reasoning in favor of "God says so", or they make up reasoning to support what their religion believes.
The non religious, having nothing invested in what an ancient book says, uses their own experience, reasoning, and conversations with other people to make up their mind on sex.

There is no reasoning with followers of a religion. I have family and friends who are Christians and I respect their right to follow their religion, but I will argue them into the ground every time a subject like this comes up simply because reason always trumps faith in face to face discussion. If their faith is strong, then they will persist regardless of reasoning, and this is where the conversation ends and becomes pointless. Similar to this one

Hmm, I did a thorough post a bit earlier on how there is so much more to it than simply being a pro or anti religion topic. To look at it that way is simply taking the easy way out, without analyzing BOTH sides fairly. Only giving one side of it any fair thought is not a good example of using reasoning, experience, and conversations. Nor is a statement that there is no reasoning with followers of religion. You haven't shown good argumentative skills, only skills at writing off other peoples' opinions.

Oh, and if that's all you're able to get out of sex, you're missing out on so much. That's the sad thing about the folks with that outlook. There's a whole quality in sex that they are missing out on. It has nothing to do with religion, but those old books, whether you believe God dictated them or not, can still be a good source of wisdom and advice if you try to ask "why" someone would write that something is good or bad for you. You should try to consider and analyze advice from ALL sources more thoroughly than, "Oh, that's stupid stuff from an ancient book." Plenty of atheists still acknowledge the wisdom in the words of such books, even while disreguarding its source.

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.

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.

Originally posted by AugenStern
Clark didn't run out to the nearest kegger and score some girl just for the sake of doing it, he gradually built up to it with someone he'd loved deeply for many years, and since he was mortal he could do it without fear of accidently setting her face on fire or anything else unpleasant. That's the only real message here, and it's a pretty good one.

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.

Originally posted by AugenStern
The stigma about sex being somehow impure is a very puritanical concept. 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 or shattering a woman's frozen head are perfectly open subjects and hardly cause anyone to bat an eye.

Big post earlier about stuff like this. None of us have been saying sex is impure or shameful, just outside of marriage. Bringing in the violence comparison is weak, because it's a separate subject. It always happens though. "Don't you think we should worry more about something else" is simply a diversion. Whether or not violence is an important issue, it does not affect the importance or unimportance of THIS issue.

Originally posted by AugenStern
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.

Which option sounds healthier?

No one is arguing this on either side, it's just something the anti-chastity side leans on.

Originally posted by AugenStern
Also, it's a tad hypocritical to judge someone as being immature when the same could easily be said about most of the generalizations made about premarital sex. No, its not good to rush into it or do it when you're really young, but trust me, its not the frequency that makes it special or unspecial. It's your feelings for the person you're with that do that.

You either didn't read my earlier post, or weren't paying attention as you read. And no, it's not the frequency, it's the frequent variety. If someone is saying "I love you" to everyone they meet, it's not going to mean much when they say it to you. If someone is having sex with several different people (even monogomously, getting into a "serious" relationship with each one), it's not going to be AS special when they have sex with you. There's no way around that. It's just denial to argue that.

[lzpoof]

There is one hilarious thing I find in this discussion:

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...


Now we're starting discussions about the morality of what he did ? Would there be such a condemnation of him if he was any other teenager on any other show ? Why must there be earth shattering moral consequences in the actions of Clark Kent in his first real 'relationship' with a person that he has risked his life for and saved many times and who has in some way kept him sane through his transformation ? You people ask for a show the treats him like any other teenager then when he makes a decision that many teenagers would make you go off the deepend ........ Imagine the urges of a normal teenager then add in the fact that he has saved so many lives and feels responsible for everyone within 50 miles and I'm sure having sex with a beautiful 18 year old that he has been in love with since he has a child and has touched him like no other character is capable of ... well that's probably the easiest decision he ever had to make.

Please stop dwelling on the concept of morality n this and accept the plot for what it was ... the hero and his heroine/love sharing an intimate moment that doesn't involve a lifethreatening situation.

On my personal 2 cents about everyone mentioning sex before marriage.... well what's better. 2 people who love each other sharing something special out of wedlock ... or Anna Nichole Smith bonking a nearly dead guy for his money. Oh but hey.. at least she married him right .....................................

[Cathrina Devil]

i totaly agre with ya!
oh by the way im a new member so dont spew now for what i'm about to say but the way i see it: Clark is still a perfectly healthy young male, sure a kryptonian one but hey! hes in love with the girl of his dreams( dreams, not his future!) and finally he gets his chanse at something divinly given as making love! thats right, he MADE LOVE.. with lana ( god oh why couldnt it had been chloe???)
so to correct you all religious typer he did nothing wrong!
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 clarcks 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!
( 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!

[slave2moonlight]

Originally posted by lzpoof
There is one hilarious thing I find in this discussion:

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...


Now we're starting discussions about the morality of what he did ? Would there be such a condemnation of him if he was any other teenager on any other show ? Why must there be earth shattering moral consequences in the actions of Clark Kent in his first real 'relationship' with a person that he has risked his life for and saved many times and who has in some way kept him sane through his transformation ? You people ask for a show the treats him like any other teenager then when he makes a decision that many teenagers would make you go off the deepend ........ Imagine the urges of a normal teenager then add in the fact that he has saved so many lives and feels responsible for everyone within 50 miles and I'm sure having sex with a beautiful 18 year old that he has been in love with since he has a child and has touched him like no other character is capable of ... well that's probably the easiest decision he ever had to make.

Please stop dwelling on the concept of morality n this and accept the plot for what it was ... the hero and his heroine/love sharing an intimate moment that doesn't involve a lifethreatening situation.

These retorts repeatedly sound as if they are being posted without thoughtful reading of all the PREVIOUS posts in this thread. These questions have been answered already.

As you said, most people started watching this show to see what Superman was like as a teen; not just any teen next door, 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, Clark may have saven Lana plenty of times, but he's saved others too. He hasn't proven his love for her yet, nor has she proven love for Clark. Talk is cheap, and sex can be 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. 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.

Oh, and, again and again, not all teens submit to premarital sex, even while in a relationship they believe is going to last forever. If normal kids can restrain themselves, Super-teen can, so let's stop using this lame, "All the kids are doing it! It's a normal teenager thing!" excuse. As Shirkie pointed out before, being sexually active is not part of the definition of "normal teenager." As I've said before, it's something the media pounds into peoples' heads to excuse their actions, which are completely motivated by money People tune in for skin. Lust is part of being a normal teenager, no doubt, but the idea that everyone acts on it is a cop out. It's something sexually active teens and adults say to make them feel better about their past choices.

Originally posted by lzpoof
On my personal 2 cents about everyone mentioning sex before marriage.... well what's better. 2 people who love each other sharing something special out of wedlock ... or Anna Nichole Smith bonking a nearly dead guy for his money. Oh but hey.. at least she married him right .....................................

Okay, now you're just being silly. No one here has said anything positive about such gold-digging actions, so it makes no sense to use as a comparison. Also, pointing out how some people make worse choices does not excuse bad choices.

[slave2moonlight]

Originally posted by Cathrina Devil
i totaly agre with ya!
oh by the way im a new member so dont spew now for what i'm about to say but the way i see it: Clark is still a perfectly healthy young male, sure a kryptonian one but hey! hes in love with the girl of his dreams( dreams, not his future!) and finally he gets his chanse at something divinly given as making love! thats right, he MADE LOVE.. with lana ( god oh why couldnt it had been chloe???)
so to correct you all religious typer he did nothing wrong!
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 clarcks 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!
( 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!

Sorry, can't spare you for being a newbie. Saying he did nothing wrong, again, is a case of personal opinion. Some people believe sex outside of marriage is wrong, some don't. People on either sides who don't respect people for having either opinion, for whatever their reasons, are not fit for social interaction. There are people proclaiming atheism in another much less civilized thread on this subject, who are referring to the more religious-minded people as following superstition. A ridiculous accusation, when, even if you discount all proposed proof of God's existence, there at least is something to offer up. Atheism has no way of proving God DOESN'T exist, therefore, atheism seems to require even MORE faith, and therefore is even more of a religion/superstition than belief in a deity. All that is beside the point, though I recommend any readers take it into consideration before disrespecting beliefs. HOWEVER, it's a bit different to call premarital sex a BAD choice. In my very long post (a few posts back) I cite several reasons why waiting for marriage is a BETTER idea. No, it won't fix all the problems in your life, and it still might not work out the way you hoped, but it has a lot more potential for greatness, making it the BETTER choice. People are free to choose either way, and I respect that, but with all the information out there, it seems odd for people to defend premarital sex so strongly, and bash "saving yourself" so openly. It happens though. It's like all the folks who keep taking up smoking. Everyone KNOWS it causes cancer, but I guess kids still think it looks cool. And, jeez, please read the previous posts before referring to this as a "religious nuts vs. sensible, mature adults" debate. All of my posts have not depended on religion as a defense! Seriously, read that LONG post I wrote. No one has reasonably countered it YET. All I've seen since then is a lot more of the same "you're too hung up on ancient morals" and "They're in love!" stuff shouted at those who believe Clark made a no-no.

Speaking of the "They're in love" bit. Hey, I keep saying this, we know they're not in love. Might as well give up on that retort. If they were in love, Clark wouldn't end up with Lois. I know, I know, he doesn't realize that right now. Well, folks, that's why many of us are lucky enough to have parents who discourage out of wedlock sex. As I've said before, almost every kid thinks they're in love with someone during high school, and yes, sometimes that does last a few years and involve a really close relationship. But, what happens to these couples most of the time? They realize they are not in love and they break up. So, please, don't give me the they're in love bit, because we KNOW this is what happens to Clark. There wouldn't be so many divorces nowadays if people would remember that true love is NOT a temporary thing. If Clark and Lana were really in love, the future would result in a Lana Kent, not Lois Kent. It's not like Lana died or something. Clark chose Lois over her. When people grow older, they learn to recognize the difference between love and lust. This is part of the sense in waiting till you're married to have sex. Everyone thinks they know when they get the definitions down, but it takes a lot longer to learn to recognize/separate them. People who are a little older and have more experience separating lust from love enter a relationship that they intend to keep going till death parts them. Yes, there is always the option of divorce, but no one should go into marriage thinking about that, or it ain't gonna work.

No one is saying sex can't be an 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 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.

Oh, and there are different types of religions and churches, including Christian ones. I've never had shame, shame, shame beliefs. If my wife and I are capable, I intend to have lots of sex, maybe even get a little kinky sometimes, but if I love her, it won't be necessary to keep me around. I hope your understanding of love develops more fully in the future so that you won't have such strict requirements. There are many ways to express yourself physically, but at the moment, the definition of love and marriage you gave sounds like little more than lust. Sorta like Clark's feelings for Lana. Hey, lust can be very strong, and you can really get the idea that you're in love. It doesn't last though. Case in Point: Lois Lane, the real love of Clark's life.

Okay, all that out of the way, all this religious fanatic namecalling is so pathetic. Clearly, people are not reading the posts in this particular forum, or just don't grasp them. Call us romantics if you must (it's better than religious fanatics, and more accurate). Sure, some folks only believe in waiting because they believe that's what God wants them to do. That's fine. It's sad that people nowadays don't care what God wants or don't acknowledge His existence. Very unappreciate of the gift of life, love, and everything else, but we're not supposed to talk about religious stuff here, and in all my posts on this subject, I have NOT used God or religion as the REASON not to have premarital sex. I know not all folks believe in such things. So, if all the posts I've written before are not reason enough for someone to look at waiting for marriage as a reasonably good idea, that's just too bad, and very sad. I've made a ton of valid points, and none of them have been thoughtfully challenged. I have only one final thing to add to explain our point of view: We are romantics. We believe in a "love of your life." I hear people on the other side of the discussion throwing around phrases like "in love," "making love," "love of his life," "it's a physical expression of love," etc..., yet the rest of their posts are full of a focus on lust rather than love. Their seems to be a total lack of understanding of what a "love of your life" is. You mention Lana is the "girl of Clark's dreams, not the girl of his future." Right there, you point out that Lana is his lust and Lois is his love. Let me put it this way: A "love of your life," is a belief that there is someone out there you are searching for (and, most of us are, on both sides of the issue) to share your life with and be devoted to. To give yourself to fully. It includes procreation, it includes physical pleasure, but it includes so much more. Finding this "soul-mate" is a natural desire, not a learned one. It's a desire that everyone has, though some bury it away or lose faith in the concept from misguidance or bad experiences. Anyway, if and when you find this person, if this person is truly the love of your life, how do you justify having "made love" to others before them? Maybe they don't care, because they love you, but how can you not wish you had waited for your "one true love," if that's really what you feel they are? You were just testing out "sexual compatibility?" You were just "having a good time?" You THOUGHT you were in love with those other people? You weren't committed to anyone at the time? See, many of us believe that, if we are searching for the "love of our life," we should be committed to them our whole life, including BEFORE we find them. That's at the heart of it, really. Even these folks who mock us for believing in waiting for marriage would be disgusted, heart-broken, or angered if their wife or husband, or the love of their lives cheated on them, right? Well, if you believe you have a "love of your life out there," then, whenever you have sex with someone who is not that person, you are cheating on them. And, believe me, you are not going to find the love of your life based upon sexual compatibility, and if it is even a major factor, that's a lack of understanding of love. If you can't get past/work through sexual problems or an unexpected and complete lack of sex in your marriage, it's doomed to failure. Sex is important? Yes. And no. Sex is great, wonderful, a priviledge, but if you can't live without it, that's weak, and if you can't love without it, that's a weak love. It's not even love.

I'm not saying a person should go around punishing themselves because they did not wait for this one "love of their life." Different people learn things and experience things differently in their lives, and some people just don't get all the information explained to them the right way and don't think much on the subject themselves because they are more interested in the sex. It's the easy way to go. But, if a person can read all the things I've written in this thread so far and still doesn't want to save themselves, or at least wish slightly that they had (and, even if you are not a virgin, you can start saving yourself anew if you are still searching), that doesn't say much for their view of the person they want to spend the rest of their lives with someday. They're out there somewhere. Why do you want to make love to anyone else?

But, if you just view sex as something for pleasure's sake, well, that's just sad, because it is so much more. But, please, don't try to tell me that is what it is for Clark and Lana. Ask people who had sex with their high school sweethearts in the past. Most will be honest and say it was nothing more than lust in retrospect, though it seemed completely like love at the time.

[Mitko]

Strange, if I remember correctly Lois and Chloe are not virgins either, and in Chloe case she was minor and her relationship wasn’t as long or deep as Clark and Lana’s. I don’t see anybody pouring fire and brimstone on them. Isn’t that odd?!

[AugenStern]

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.

Traditions are always changing though. They have to stay somewhat relevant in order to keep any amount of credibility, and the 'no sex out of wedlock' thing is probably THE least relevant one of all these days, up there with sacrificing lambs and putting jack'o'lanterns out to scare off evil spirits. Nowadays both of those things are done pretty much only for fun or out of boredom, just like waiting until marriage to have sex.

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.

Extreme lust for one person usually doesn't endure very long. The characters obviously have deeper feelings than physical attraction anyway, because otherwise they'd never have put up with so much crap from each other. The depths of Clark's feelings are actually what's preventing him from telling her the truth. He'd rather bite the bullet and suffer than endanger her life or risk their friendship. Honesty is important, but even moral absolutes like 'always tell the truth' don't always stand up to real world situations. If Clark did that, everyone would know his secret and he'd be dead or just another lab rat in Bell Reeve.

Big post earlier about stuff like this. None of us have been saying sex is impure or shameful, just outside of marriage. Bringing in the violence comparison is weak, because it's a separate subject. It always happens though. "Don't you think we should worry more about something else" is simply a diversion. Whether or not violence is an important issue, it does not affect the importance or unimportance of THIS issue.

Maybe not, but it goes to show just how choosy people are about what outrages them. They focus on sex because its been institutionally villainized for centuries by the same exact traditions you've already referred to.

No one is arguing this on either side, it's just something the anti-chastity side leans on.

You either didn't read my earlier post, or weren't paying attention as you read. And no, it's not the frequency, it's the frequent variety. If someone is saying "I love you" to everyone they meet, it's not going to mean much when they say it to you. If someone is having sex with several different people (even monogomously, getting into a "serious" relationship with each one), it's not going to be AS special when they have sex with you. There's no way around that. It's just denial to argue that.

That *is* what I meant, and your reaction stems from the fact that you see it as somehow degrading or depreciating to have sex with more than one person, that it somehow detracts from the overall experience. In extreme cases I agree that it can, but basically what you're talking about is the selfish need to feel you completely own your partner both emotionally and sexually, which, besides being a complete fallacy, strikes me as kinda creepy. So is the idea that you can only really fall in love with a single person over the course of your life. If you're satisfied with those beliefs, great! But I don't think its unrealistic to say that you are the exception and not the rule.

Who would you REALLY rather have as a marriage partner, with all other things being equal? Someone with a lifetime of awkward, repressed sexuality, or someone who is confident with themselves and has learned to focus their sexual energy without being ashamed of it? You don't have to answer that, just think about it.

'Special' isn't keeping your virginity until marriage...a fair amount of people never even have an opportunity to lose it before then. Special is when you commit yourself fully to another person, not out of any sort of moral obligation, maritial duty, or anything else, but simply because you *want* to. That is the lemon in the punch, the creme filling, the a/c and power windows.

Anything else is just a technicality. Or in some cases, a hang-up.

[lzpoof]

I'm still not understanding why peopel keep bringing up the ubermorality of superman in this discussion ? I didn't read all the comic books but I doubt they include the exact same storyline where Clark tempoarily loses his powers after saving Chloe at North Pole (especially since she wasn't in the comics). so the writers added in a little extrawhere Clark, now freeof the burdens of 'going on to bigger things' decides to just follow his own hormones like he figures every other teenager does.

The fact that he lost his powers altered him which already is not part of the 'mythos'. The writers just went from there.

If we take a step back from the comic book gestapo on here who think every episode must lead correctly through hundreds of different comic and movie storylines and that no one can take any separate take on it ..(sigh).. then thye really didn't do anything wrong. What clark does when he has no powers has no effect on the morality of future superman. Future superman most likely only holds himself to his 'virtues' because he feels like the whole world depends on him and he needs to be a model citizen for it. I'd venture that 'liberated' teenage Clark would no longer feel the same way.

I'm also a little confused over why everyone seems to want to pick apart Smallville for not being 'true' when every single incarantion of superman has some inconsistencies and holes in it.

I tried to watch the end of the movie the other day and I wanted to puke. flying around the world and turning it the other way somehow reverses time ? What kind of bullcrap is that. So why doesn't superman just turn back time anytime anything bad happens and he can fix it ? Gee whiz if that was possible then nothing bad should ever have really happened because he could just go back and stop it. That contradicts pretty much the entire superman history. That point was for the superman gestapo with short memories.

For the moral crowd.. how moral is reversing time to save Lois ? did you see him reversing time to save anyone else ? Oh I get it.. it's only ok if it's someone he really loves. Then he can abuse his powers. Isn't that a bit greedy ? I mean people dying all over the world every day and he only turns back time so he can get some nook. naughty superman. Smells of power abuse to me. Besides, isn't turning back time kinda altering people's 'destinies' ? that doesn't sound like something a moral person would do. Maybe Lois' death woulda serverd a purpose no one would now achieve.

the overall point is ... it's all relative folks. Morality is in the eyes of the beholder, everyone has a different view on it. And frankly today's crowd aren't interested in what people of the 40's though of superheroes. You think XMen would ever have survived in the era when the Superman legend was born ? All the female superheroes woulda had to wear frocks because their costumes would be too slutty. And of course no one would take them seriously and there would always have to be a male superhero to save THEM. And no black superheroes either, that would offend too many people... how dare they say that black people could be heroic.... it's digusting *sarcasm*. I'm sure somewhere there's some Arab kids who believe in a superhero who saves them from American imperialism. We called him Osama. Since you morality folks call Superman the epitome of a society's morals I guess that means Osama was a superhero to some society too....... It's kinda like Santa Claus, Papa Noel ,etc. All myths and folklore get changed to suit the people that are telling the stories and those that are listening. I don't see how the show really did anything different?

[ryanjm]

A note before I respond:
Guys, just an FYI, but writing essays is a good way to NOT get anyone to read what you have to say about something on a message board. I don't know about you guys, but I'm pretty busy outside of here and I can only spend so much time reading and responding to messages. Please try and keep it to a few paragraphs and pare down the filler. Thanks.

Slave-
To address your points earlier which were interesting but I had admittedly skipped over due to the length of the post:
Skipping to what I believe were your main 2 points
1) Bed-hopping influences later behavior by making it more difficult to stay with one person.
2) You form a more "special" connection with someone that is the only person you've had sex with.

As for point 1, you make the connection between more promiscuity and higher divorce rates. While this may be a factor, it is but one of a huge number. Others include: (1) men and women are less in need of each other for economic survival, and (2) gains made in birth control allow men and women to separate sexual activity from having children.
Also, the divorce rate has actually leveled off in the last few decades, and is not in fact rising much/at all.

Another thing is that your point can be argued both ways. You claim that it makes you less likely to have sex with other people if you've only had sex with one, but the other side is that you could wonder about what it is like with other people AFTER you've committed yourself to one person. This curiousity could hurt your partner, while if you had satisfied this curiousity beforehand, you would be even more sure of your decision to stay with one particular person.

As for your second point, this is entirely subjective based on what you percieve sex to mean to you. From a biological perspective, it is what every creature does to carry on the species. If you make something more out of it for whatever reason (which I can only guess is religious seeing as this view is not promoted outside of certain religious goals of monogamy and marriage), then it is entirely personal to you. I would question attaching much significance to this, for if you found someone who was very special, but had previously had sex, do you then find that person unacceptable? Or do you find your relationship less special and deem that person "bad" for not waiting?

When I originally said "let's be honest" with regard to religion, it is because these "one person, wait until marriage" views only start with people greatly influenced by religion. You can trace almost every person who argues this back to their religious beliefs, which they then try to support.
Most people who start with a clean slate, or look outside of religion for answers, do not find the Christian ideals something in tune with a rational, logical way of looking at things, which can be seen by the way anyone responds to this topic--if they are religious, they deem sex before marriage bad. If they are not, then they do not.
In the end it is just bashing our heads against the wall and TV will continue to put on what it believes will sell. For myself, it was about time they got it on, and absolutely 100% acceptable from a moral standpoint. I take it there is a minority who will disagree, but that's life.

[slave2moonlight]

Originally posted by Mitko
Strange, if I remember correctly Lois and Chloe are not virgins either, and in Chloe case she was minor and her relationship wasn’t as long or deep as Clark and Lana’s. I don’t see anybody pouring fire and brimstone on them. Isn’t that odd?!

Not really odd. Those of us arguing the topic aren't supporting Chloe's or Lois's choices about sex. They are not Superman. Superman has canon to live up to, and a certain moral representation. Chloe can be defined any way they want, she has never existed before. They could have made her the school tramp, and, while she certainly wouldn't have been as loved as she currently is by the masses, it wouldn't have interfered with previously established views of the character, because there weren't any.

[slave2moonlight]

Originally posted by AugenStern
Traditions are always changing though. They have to stay somewhat relevant in order to keep any amount of credibility, and the 'no sex out of wedlock' thing is probably THE least relevant one of all these days, up there with sacrificing lambs and putting jack'o'lanterns out to scare off evil spirits. Nowadays both of those things are done pretty much only for fun or out of boredom, just like waiting until marriage to have sex.

Well, that is a pretty incorrect assessment. Apparently, you'd be surprised how many people wait until marriage to have sex. Definitely, not the majority, but trust me, there are quite more than enough for it to be relevant. This wouldn't be such a heated topic on the forums if the above statement were true. Relating waiting for marriage to sacrificing lambs is the most outrageous thing I've ever heard, and, no one is going to save their virginity out of boredom. More the other way around. That must be the most peculiar interpretation I have ever read. Please, we are trying to discuss this rationally here. That is just more "self justification" rather than rational argument.

Originally posted by AugenStern
Extreme lust for one person usually doesn't endure very long. The characters obviously have deeper feelings than physical attraction anyway, because otherwise they'd never have put up with so much crap from each other. The depths of Clark's feelings are actually what's preventing him from telling her the truth. He'd rather bite the bullet and suffer than endanger her life or risk their friendship. Honesty is important, but even moral absolutes like 'always tell the truth' don't always stand up to real world situations. If Clark did that, everyone would know his secret and he'd be dead or just another lab rat in Bell Reeve.

Extreme lust can last a LONG, LONG time, especially if it is teased the way Clark's has been. And, not have put up with so much crap from each other? People do that everyday, as often when purely in lust as when in love. Clark and Lana care about each other the way friends do, there's that kind of love there, and there's lust, but they're not IN love. As I said, if that were true, they wouldn't eventually break-up. The jury is still out on why Clark hasn't told Lana the truth, and, knowing that he ends up with Lois, it's safer to assume that he was more concerned that Lana wouldn't want to be with an alien. But, whatever his reason for not telling her is unimportant. It's understandable that he'd be concerned for a number of reasons, but, if he truly knows that he loves her, he should have told her anyway. Regardless, as I keep saying, we know he's not in love, because he eventually will choose Lois. Now, if the creators of Smallville wish to continue altering the character of Superman, they could change things. They could make it like Lana and Clark are really in love. She could die in a horrible accident and that could be why he ends up with Lois. This is NOT the Superman story though, so, if they alter the future of the story to make Clark and Lana truly in love, they are altering the existing history of Superman to excuse their choice of giving Clark's virginity to Lana, and that's not cool. I realize the fans of the show that are NOT longtime Superman fans may have no problem with this, but, more than previous statements about this being a religion vs. anti-religion issue, this is really a Superman canon fans vs. just Smallville fans issue, speaking in assumed majorities, of course.

Originally posted by AugenStern
Maybe not, but it goes to show just how choosy people are about what outrages them. They focus on sex because its been institutionally villainized for centuries by the same exact traditions you've already referred to.

Two incorrect statements above. First, violence in Superman stories is expected. Fans tune in to Superman expecting a character who FIGHTS bad guys and is a symbol of the highest moral fiber. Violence against violence is not evil, it's protection. You can't defend the helpless with hugs all the time. Anyway, lots of things outrage us folks who weren't happy with Clark losing his virginity. We discuss those things in other threads. However, THIS thread is about the sex topic, NOT violence or whatever other issues some folks have with the show. Second thing, tradition doesn't villainize sex, it gives sex a great respect and importance by honoring it as something that should be shared only with the person you have truly committed yourself to.

Originally posted by AugenStern
That *is* what I meant, and your reaction stems from the fact that you see it as somehow degrading or depreciating to have sex with more than one person, that it somehow detracts from the overall experience. In extreme cases I agree that it can, but basically what you're talking about is the selfish need to feel you completely own your partner both emotionally and sexually, which, besides being a complete fallacy, strikes me as kinda creepy. So is the idea that you can only really fall in love with a single person over the course of your life. If you're satisfied with those beliefs, great! But I don't think its unrealistic to say that you are the exception and not the rule.

The comparison to keeping sex within the bounds of marriage to completely owning your partner is the fallacy, and very sad. It also shows no respect for marriage itself, which is fine if that is your stance, but I don't know if many folks would want to marry someone who has no respect for the commitment of marriage itself. Anyone who makes the decision to get married, hopefully puts some sort of interest in such a decision, and we know Clark eventually marries Lois, so I'd like to give him the benefit of that assumption. The idea of only giving yourself to the person you're married to is about becoming one with that person on both a physical and spiritual level and not allowing a third party to disrupt the union. If you've ever been in a relationship, you know that three's a crowd. Also, what was discussed earlier is the concept of a one TRUE love. Yes, I believe in that, and I don't think I'm the exception, because most people claim this is what they are searching for. All the pro-premarital sex argument has really come down to so far is people like to have sex for the physical pleasure of it, which demeans the "expression of love" the act is. I believe true love is lasting, not short term, and if that is true, then to find mutual true love is to find a lasting love. I say it again, if Clark and Lana are truly in love, only death should prevent them from ending up together, unless they completely mess with canon. Sorry, all these relationships people have that don't go the distance (like Clark's and Lana's) are not true love. If they don't last, it's not true love, simple as that.

Originally posted by AugenStern
Who would you REALLY rather have as a marriage partner, with all other things being equal? Someone with a lifetime of awkward, repressed sexuality, or someone who is confident with themselves and has learned to focus their sexual energy without being ashamed of it? You don't have to answer that, just think about it.

Always with the outlandish ultimatums. I'll answer it, because I think it would be helful to anyone who asks themselves such a ridiculous question (which is just more self-justification for promiscuity). Frankly, saving yourself doesn't always result in awkward, shameful, repressed sexuality. It's other factors that cause this. There are healthy ways to approach "saving yourself," and unhealthy ways, just as the opposite side has been saying there are healthy and unhealthy ways to have premarital sex. Not having sex does not automatically mean you know nothing about it when the time comes. The other side of the argument seems to imagine that people who are saving themselves sit in a dark room covering their ears and eyes, "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil." Not the case. In conversations, I've come to find that I know things about sex that some very experienced people don't. See, the curiosity is still there, the interest is still there, and I don't supress it. I talk about it and learn about it and read about it. I won't be going into it blindly, or just picking things up as I go along. If anything, I will greatly be looking forward to my wedding night, far more than the person who has been having sex sporatically (or frequently) since their teens. In addition, I won't have any embarrassing STD stories to 'fess up to, I won't be making any comparisons with previous experiences that may or may not hurt the relationship with this person I truly love, and I we will have a special something between us that we've shared with no one else. This isn't an "ownership" thing, and if that's the attitude a person has, they are going to have trouble in any one-on-one relationships. Gotta get that "ownership" thing out of the head to be able to devote yourself to someone. Then again, that, I believe, is a contributor to the high (if no longer rising) divorce rate nowadays as well. But, hey, many people DON'T think much of marriage nowadays either, just as they don't think much of saving their virginity. It's a growing trend. Soon, some other part of the social order will lose its support too. The trouble is, this is part of a de-evolution of society, not progress. Anyway, to answer the question, I would rather be discovering things with my partner together. Not that I expect to find someone who has waited for me, but even then, I would feel good knowing that I am sharing something with her that I have shared with no one else.

Originally posted by AugenStern
'Special' isn't keeping your virginity until marriage...a fair amount of people never even have an opportunity to lose it before then. Special is when you commit yourself fully to another person, not out of any sort of moral obligation, maritial duty, or anything else, but simply because you *want* to. That is the lemon in the punch, the creme filling, the a/c and power windows.
Anything else is just a technicality. Or in some cases, a hang-up.

Opportunities to have sex aren't all that hard to find. I've known a variety of types of people in my life, some I would have thought that about, but it's not really true. As for the rest of your statement above, I agree totally. What makes it NOT special is when you do that with two, three, or several people, and then try to say it's still special with your true love when you find them.

Originally posted by lzpoof
I'm still not understanding why peopel keep bringing up the ubermorality of superman in this discussion ? I didn't read all the comic books but I doubt they include the exact same storyline where Clark tempoarily loses his powers after saving Chloe at North Pole (especially since she wasn't in the comics). so the writers added in a little extrawhere Clark, now freeof the burdens of 'going on to bigger things' decides to just follow his own hormones like he figures every other teenager does.

The fact that he lost his powers altered him which already is not part of the 'mythos'. The writers just went from there.

Well, this has been mentioned several times before, *sigh* but, one more time really quick: Yes, the writers write new plotlines, details about Clarks early years that were never revealed before, some altering canon, but the problem is when choices are made that alter the character of Superman himself. As posted before, Clark's character is supposed to be ingrained with traditional American morals and values (traditions may change, as previously stated, but morals do not, they are only disregarded by those who choose to do so) and a virgin when he marries Lois. People less interested in the classic character of Superman and more interested in your typical WB teen romance drama might have no problem with it, but understand that many folks tune in because they love Superman and hate to see him altered in such a way.

Originally posted by lzpoof
If we take a step back from the comic book gestapo on here who think every episode must lead correctly through hundreds of different comic and movie storylines and that no one can take any separate take on it ..(sigh).. then thye really didn't do anything wrong. What clark does when he has no powers has no effect on the morality of future superman. Future superman most likely only holds himself to his 'virtues' because he feels like the whole world depends on him and he needs to be a model citizen for it. I'd venture that 'liberated' teenage Clark would no longer feel the same way.

Same answer as I just posted. It's not about the comic book or movie details, it's about the character of Superman. Who he is. And losing his powers does NOT mean that anything he does then doesn't count. That's like guys in a rock band who say cheating on their wives while on the road doesn't count. People have been going to strange lengths to say that Clark is a different person without his powers, while the show has been trying to display that he is the same (for example, he's still a hero, even when he has no powers).

Originally posted by lzpoof
I'm also a little confused over why everyone seems to want to pick apart Smallville for not being 'true' when every single incarantion of superman has some inconsistencies and holes in it.

Again, same answer as above. It's his character that must stay true. Part of his character is that he's this all-American farmboy, oldest living boyscout, Mr. Perfect, strongest moral example, etc...

Originally posted by lzpoof
I tried to watch the end of the movie the other day and I wanted to puke. flying around the world and turning it the other way somehow reverses time ? What kind of bullcrap is that. So why doesn't superman just turn back time anytime anything bad happens and he can fix it ? Gee whiz if that was possible then nothing bad should ever have really happened because he could just go back and stop it. That contradicts pretty much the entire superman history. That point was for the superman gestapo with short memories.

I have to agree with you on this. Well, I mean, the ridiculousness of it. The reason it doesn't "make me want to puke" is because I liken it to the simpler style of Superman, who seemed to be able to fix anything and do truly AMAZING feats. The idea of spinning the world in reverse actually turning back time (instead of causing all sorts of natural disasters worse than that freakin' earthquake) actually makes me think of the innocence of the earlier 20th century sci-fi concepts, and in that way I don't mind it so much. But, all in all, it is ridiculous. Still, it doesn't alter Superman's character himself. Anyway, don't think that everyone who is complaining about Clark having sex absolutely LOVED the spinning the world backwards scene.

Originally posted by lzpoof
For the moral crowd.. how moral is reversing time to save Lois ? did you see him reversing time to save anyone else ? Oh I get it.. it's only ok if it's someone he really loves. Then he can abuse his powers. Isn't that a bit greedy ? I mean people dying all over the world every day and he only turns back time so he can get some nook. naughty superman. Smells of power abuse to me. Besides, isn't turning back time kinda altering people's 'destinies' ? that doesn't sound like something a moral person would do. Maybe Lois' death woulda serverd a purpose no one would now achieve.

Okay, this is a bit much. We're not discussing if the Superman movies are flawed, we're discussing sex on Smallville. Why does the opposing side keep trying to change the subject?

Originally posted by lzpoof
the overall point is ... it's all relative folks. Morality is in the eyes of the beholder, everyone has a different view on it. And frankly today's crowd aren't interested in what people of the 40's though of superheroes. You think XMen would ever have survived in the era when the Superman legend was born ? All the female superheroes woulda had to wear frocks because their costumes would be too slutty. And of course no one would take them seriously and there would always have to be a male superhero to save THEM. And no black superheroes either, that would offend too many people... how dare they say that black people could be heroic.... it's digusting *sarcasm*. I'm sure somewhere there's some Arab kids who believe in a superhero who saves them from American imperialism. We called him Osama. Since you morality folks call Superman the epitome of a society's morals I guess that means Osama was a superhero to some society too....... It's kinda like Santa Claus, Papa Noel ,etc. All myths and folklore get changed to suit the people that are telling the stories and those that are listening. I don't see how the show really did anything different?

Hmm, well, I THINK I see what your saying here. But, most people (not just in the U.S.) know that Osama is evil. So...is morality really relative?