Because the writers wanted to put Lois in mortal danger once more, and because they chose a way which also put Clark in a terrible personal position (and which, incidentally, confirmed Clark's other identity as Superman to Lois), he's viewed as being stupid, insensitive, thoughtless, reckless, uncaring, and ultimately dangerous.
No, Terry, I view Clark as a complete jerk in this episode
because he chose to deliberately put Lois in mortal danger. It was his
choice to do that. No one forced him. There was no way that Lois could have forced him. If he risked Lois's life, it was because he wanted to do it - because he ultimately thought it was worth it to risk her life to get his parents back.
That decision of his is what makes me regard him as an utter jerk in that episode. And I agree with you that Lois was completely infuriating many times during the first season, but tell me, in what episode did she deliberately put Clark in mortal danger by, say, freezing him, or feeding him posion, or committing another life-threatening act against him?
Oh, and he's a complete jerk because he asked her to marry him ("I'd love you even if you were a normal man but I can't stand Clark Kent." - Lois Lane to Superman) without letting her know he was also a super-powered tights-flashing babe magnet who Lois had all but attacked on several occasions in the past.
Terry, are you saying that if Lois hadn't seen through Clark's double identity during ATAI, and if she had still believed that Clark and Superman were two different persons, it would have been all right for Clark to propose to Lois
as Clark Kent only? Are you saying it would have been all right to trick her into marrying Superman, when she was completely unaware that she was doing just that, even if she had possibly just decided that she wanted Clark Kent only, and not Superman?
There are several people here who hold marriage in extremely high regard. Several people here have said that they don't approve of divorce at all. I don't know how you feel about divorce, Terry, but let's assume, just for the sake of the argument, that you don't find it acceptable. Let's say that Lois had married Clark Kent without realizing he was Superman, because Clark himself chose not to tell her. Would you say that it was all right for Clark to hide an extremely important part of himself from his fiancée and fool her into accepting his proposal without knowing who he really was? But when Lois found out that she had married a man who had hidden an extremely important part of himself from her, it would be unacceptable for her to divorce him for that reason, because a woman is honour-bound to stay true to her marriage vows? Even if the man she has pledged herself to hasn't allowed her to know him? Isn't that what you usually call fraud? But maybe it doesn't apply to a man who has fooled and tricked a woman?
Ann
