Superman's son takes it up his ass!
Or, he puts his dick in his lover's ass!
DC’s newest Superman has come out of the closet! Jon Kent, the son of the original Superman (Kal-El / Clark Kent), will be starting a relationship with Jay Nakamura, a new character introduced earlier this year. Jon Kent took over for his father as the “official” Superman in DC’s mainline Superman: Son of Kal-El comic as Earth’s most powerful superhero. The original Superman/Clark Kent is still around, but off-world dealing with drama on Warworld in the Action Comics and limited-run Superman and the Authority line comic books.
Ms. Ruffin, "Representation" is NOT the issue. The "issue" is the expectation that writers are faithful to the extremely robust canon of stories that have defined the iconic Superman character for over eighty-(80+) years. In the DC comic books, which I've been reading for over sixty-(60) years, there have been dozens and dozens of stories about Superman having children, which is nothing new, but "sex," or "sexual identity," or "sexual preference" was NEVER the focus of any story, and shouldn't be unless, of course, no rules apply and soft-porn as well as hard-core pornography is also acceptable, like in following "adult" comic books, graphic novels, and illustrations of:
"Machola Seeks a Remembrance"
by Richard Corben"APHRODISIA"
by Paolo Eleuteri Serpieri"THE PIT"
by John Persons
That's right, the above images also exist in "comic books." You should know, the Comics Code Authority (CCA) prohibited such content, because the stories were ultimately about super-heroism, not super-sexualism. Unfortunately, the CCA no longer exists.
You should also know, that DC Comics routinely engages in publicity stunts and controversial stories to propel interest in its under-performing comic books, because Marvel Comics has been kicking DC's ass for decades. Here, look:
In fact, at one point Superman was one of the worst selling DC comic books, and terminating the iconic comic book was seriously being considered. Artist and writer John Byrne was hired to save Superman by reinventing the character, which included making him both weaker and dumber.
So, DC decided to "re-tell" and "re-brand" the Superman character with an entirely new origin, which eventually lead DC to kill Superman and then bring him back to life, just like in the film, "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice."
So, what next?
Fu Manchu is also a fictional character; so, to be "inclusive" do we re-cast Fu Manchu as an obese-amputee-lesbian-Latina woman?
Let me be clear, there's absolutely nothing wrong with DC creating original characters who might be bisexual or whatever, but evolving iconic characters solely to pander to left-leaning, contemporary social justice warrior (SJW) themes shows blatant contempt for the canon of work that defined a well-established character, and also insults the values and intelligence of readers, audiences, the general public, sponsors, vendors, advertisers, etc. The tail does not wag the dog.
Ms. Ruffin, people in YOUR ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY are constantly inserting a lesbian, or gay, or bisexual, or transgender, or queer, or intersex, or bigamist, or polygamist, or pedophile, or questioning, or asexual, or ally, or pansexual, or any other sexual variation into nearly every television show or film - and that's total fiction, because these divergent or alternative sexual populations are minorities but are represented as being much, much more. In fact, the LGBT+ movement has achieved significantly more "representation" and in a much shorter span of time than similar achievements by Black people, Native Americans, Latinos, heterosexual women, and the disabled in business as validated by Apple's homosexual Tim Cook, and in government, as validated by Dr. Rachel Levine as the first transgender Secretary of the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.
So, instead of being a yet another left-leaning SJW, use some common sense, because just as easy as it surely is to make a "fictional" Superman bisexual, NBC (your boss) can just as easily deem your program as "inconsequential" and REPLACE YOU with a left-leaning bisexual White woman, and as you know, there are a bunch of them lurking for that same "rare" opportunity, like you, to host their own nationally televised network program.
I welcome your feedback.
Trip Reynolds
trip.reynolds@yahoo.com
 |
Reynolds' Rap First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. |