When Superman first appeared in 1938, it was the first comic book ever devoted to a single character; Batman made his debut sometime later.
During World War II, Superman was censored by the US government as any mention of nuclear weapons drew the government’s ire, so Lex Luther was in trouble.
Eighty-three years later, the most important thing about Superman is, apparently, his sexual orientation.
As a species, we really are in trouble if we call this progress. Of course there was predictable applause from the woke, virtue signalling, nodding head PC crowd when DC Comics announced that the new Superman, Jon Kent, son of Clark Kent and Lois Lane, will come out as bisexual in an upcoming issue of the superhero’s 21st century story. In November, he was pictured in a same-sex relationship with his friend, reporter Jay Nakamura.
The PC mob claimed it to be a “bold” and “brave” move. There is another word beginning with the letter “b” that sums up this ridiculousness, and it ends in “ollocks”.
In today’s world there is plenty of real, substantial, horrific evil and corruption. Switch on the news, it’s everywhere.
Superman is supposed to be the most powerful superhero in any comic. How thoroughly depressing that he is more concerned with his sexuality than tackling any of the genuine issues facing society.
Seriously, can we not put him to better use?
Is there nothing bigger we can find for him to focus his energy on?
Can we not find a more challenging job for him than, shock horror, daring to kiss his male friend?
Superman: I simply don’t care who you’re kissing, I don’t care what positions you like in bed, or what your safe word is
Series writer Tom Taylor has claimed this coming out extravaganza would have been difficult 10 years, even five years ago.
May I suggest that 10 years ago, even five, we didn’t care or fixate on sexuality to the ludicrous extent that identity politics obsession means we do today?
In August, DC Comics published an issue in which Tim Drake, aka Robin, Batman’s loyal sidekick, also came out as bisexual.
So, Superman is not even original these days, he’s just a copycat?
If I were trapped in a burning building, I would want someone strong and brave to come and rescue me. I wouldn’t care what gender that person was, who they were kissing, shagging, or what pronouns they used in their social media bio. If they could fly, it may well prove to be a bonus.
And, funnily enough, if I had a few moments to speak with them and thank them for saving my life, it would not cross my mind to ask them what they liked to do in bed.
Superman: I simply don’t care who you’re kissing, I don’t care what positions you like in bed, or what your safe word is.
Now, because social critiques are so entirely predictable these days, it’s been claimed, “right-wing fan boys have been clutching their pearls over the announcement”.
Well, I have news for you. I’m neither right wing, nor a fan boy, neither do I own any pearls, but I’ll tell you this is an absolute nonsense.
If it’s brave for Superman to come out as bisexual (not even gay FFS), what hope does the Average Joe – who doesn’t have a magic cape and can’t fly – have? Surely, you don’t normalise something by claiming you need to be a superhero to do it?
What’s also weird is that Jon Kent’s Superman will find comfort in Jay’s arms after he’s totally wrung out from trying to save the world. So, it’s a man who comes to Superman’s rescue rather than a woman? So, even consoling a tired man is now a man’s job?
Yeah, I’m thoroughly unconvinced that’s a good thing. Did anyone think this through?
As ideas go, I’m pretty sure this is a fizzer.