Agents of SHIELD. Season 1 Discussion Thread

Both Thor and Superman can have sex with normal humans, at least there's no indication they couldn't.
Sure, they're strong, so what?! T
he male doesn't need to do a lot, there are sexual positions and techniques where he's just lying there.

And where does it say that Thor or Superman have any kind of superhuman orgasms?! Not everything about them is super, or otherwise Superman would need a new sink every time he brushed his teeth, and that would be more harmful to his secret identity than the glasses disguise could ever be.

 

^Just read this:

http://www.rawbw.com/~svw/superman.html

 

Stop it with Niven. He wrote that as a joke.

For one thing, his first point is that Superman is an alien and thus human biology does not apply to him, but in his very next point, he automatically assumes that his orgasm is just like that of a human, only with more strength. And he goes on and on with this.

It's a joke, dammit, and one which does not get funnier the more often and vigorously it is used as an argument.

 

Good grief, why so serious? Yes, it was written with light-hearted intent, but we're discussing a comic-book character, so our intent should be equally light-hearted. It's all just an intellectual exercise about imaginary ideas for recreational purposes.

 

There was an elseworlds special where all the men on the planet died, except Superman, and the baby did John Hurt his way out of Lois. Poor Lois.

Besides precrisis Superman can travel through time under his own power, so really if he wanted to sew his wild oats, he could have gone to krypton before the fall.

 

I was light-hearted about it. The first time I even laughed about it.

Then I sat through the first seven seasons of "Smallville", where Millar & Gough only allowed Clark to have sex when he's depowered or Lana got powers. And that's just the most common example of writers actually using the Niven piece as canon.

Basically, when people in charge thinking "Superman shouldn't have sex" used this joke as a "legitimate reason" why "Superman can't have sex", it got serious for me.

JMS at least had Clark simply not knowing what would happen and therefore being hesitant to take any risk.

 

I think you're wrong to interpret the essay as a joke. It's a logical extrapolation from the Silver/Bronze Age assumptions about Kryptonian powers. At the time, the premise in the comics was that Kryptonians were just like humans, except that when anything Kryptonian was exposed to yellow sunlight, it became superpowered. And I mean anything -- people, animals, metals, fabrics, minerals, you name it. That was the rule in the comics at the time the essay was written. Niven did what any science fiction writer would do: he started with that speculative premise and deduced its logical consequences. If what the comics said about Kryptonian powers were true, then this would logically be what would happen if Superman had sex with a human woman. It was no more a joke than the comics themselves were a joke -- which means that the underlying premise was fanciful and played for fun, but the intent was still to tell a coherent narrative based on the established rules of the setting. The comics themselves did a lot of the same kind of extrapolation about the consequences of Kryptonian powers and the superstrength of Kryptonian materials; Niven was doing the same thing, but with a subject matter the comics weren't able to go anywhere near. Its humor lay in the juxtaposition of such adult and explicit subject matter with a wholesome comic-book character written (at the time) for children. It doesn't mean the logic of the essay was intentionally invalid. It was an entirely valid extrapolation from what the comics of the day had spent decades driving home about how Superman's powers worked.

True, later interpretations of Superman haven't used the same explanation for his powers; the "everything Kryptonian becomes super under a yellow sun" principle vanished after Crisis on Infinite Earths. But that means that different portrayers of Superman are able to interpret the nature of his powers in many different ways. And if they choose to follow the logic of Niven's essay, then they're perfectly within their rights to do so. It's not "wrong," it's just one possible interpretation.

And it's a logical one. Even if we ignore the stuff about super-strong sperm and whatnot, there's still Niven's point about how orgasm involves involuntary muscle contractions. A being with superstrong muscles might be able to control those muscles carefully enough to keep from hurting people under normal circumstances, but when it comes to involuntary muscle spasms, all bets are off. And even if Clark could gain enough mastery that he could control his muscles even during orgasm, it would surely take time and practice. So Smallville's interpretation made perfect sense, since it portrayed a Clark who was young and inexperienced in such matters. A major theme throughout the whole series was his effort to learn to control his powers so that they didn't do accidental damage. If they could do a story like that about his super-breath or heat vision, what's so horrible about applying the same approach to his initial sexual experimentation? Especially when the whole thing was an allegory for a teenager's coming of age and his adjustment to his changing body. I think they probably would've done it the same way even if Niven's essay had never been written. Because it makes sense, both as a technical issue and a story device. It's not the only possible approach, but it's a legitimate one.

 

Again, Niven's very first argument is that Superman isn't human, so there is no reason why his bodily functions during an orgasm should be like those of a human male. Niven, I presume, was intelligent enough to know that when he was writing the piece, therefore he must have meant it as a joke. Had he written it today, it would qualify as satire on nerd/geek culture.

Well, the early years of SV felt very reactionary as a whole, so that part to me felt more like the producers telling the teenage audience that sex is evil.

Anyway, even if it is a legitimate approach, as you stated yourself, it's far from the only one. The problem is when for many - you obviously excluded - it is the only one, because, well, sex is evil.

 

Even as a joke, Niven's essay raises valid arguments.

I could joke that water is wet. Doesn't make it untrue.

And sex is great. Just get a red sun lamp.

 

Or get a wizard to make Lois' whohaw magical.

 

So, when does the show return from hiatus?

 

September.

 

As I said, it was similar in approach to many of the actual comic-book stories of the day, just with a much more adult subject matter.

And no, it wasn't a joke, at least not in the sense you're using the term. It was offering multiple distinct arguments about problems that could arise from human-Kryptonian sex. The point that two beings from different species might not be attracted to each other at all is merely critiquing the idea from a different direction. That's why it's his first point. He's saying it's unlikely that Superman would be attracted to Lois at all. But then he goes on to say, setting that problem aside and assuming that they were biologically compatible enough to mate at all, there are other problems that would still arise.

He does the same thing in section VI: he points out that it's vanishingly unlikely that human and Kryptonian genes would be compatible, but then he shrugs that off and proceeds to discuss what would happen if they somehow did match. Since this is all speculation anyway, it's valid to include several different "if"s. So you're totally wrong to say he's making one inconsistent argument. He's making several successive arguments based on distinct premises.

Which is my point. But your reaction seems to be that it's a crime even to propose it in the first place.

 

The essay was written in 1971.

If you couldn't read, or walk or breathe in 1971, lets just remember that old people humour is weird.

Although, it only takes Clark 5 days to downgrade towards a "relatively" human powerset... Beach-house on the dark side of the moon, and don't go back to Earth till the baby is out.

 

He is a God. His strength comes from magic. The mythological world is rampant with demigods who's mothers managed to have sex with gods and not die.

 

Meanwhile last week, Valkyrie passed out from exhilaration at the the peek of a sexual climax with our friend Flash Thompson.

It's so nice when our friends hook up.

Wait?

If he was wearing Venom at the time, which he almost certainly was, did that make it a threesome? And did Flash subconsciously order or literally order Venom to use himself as a condom... Venom is a girl? Venom has babies, so either the symbiote is a girl or asexual.

Also, if venom was an an equal parter in that sex, how else would Flash have had the Strength to "get'er done" then why wasn't Venom allowed to spray his DNA inside her just like the human was?

Then the next event dealio might very well be Planet of the Symbiotes II: Asgard.

 

One more time: That's the comics. It's not the case in the movie/TV universe that we're discussing. The MCU Thor is an alien, not a god. Odin explicitly said in The Dark World that Asgardians are not gods.