Yuck.
There's some underlying premises to this scenario that seem off to me with respect to the character of Clark Kent.
His being trapped in a bad marriage suggests a foolishness, a gullibility that he 'could' be 'trapped' in the first place.
As well, it suggests a demonising of the woman involved, which is a tad uncomfortable as a concept: how can we take her seriously and therefore him seriously? is it she who makes the marriage 'bad' (or maybe it's him, in which case he's not 'Clark Kent' but a somewhat integrity challenged whoever, a man with neither honour or compassion. Do we even care about him then? Mr Rochester was a monster, recall, - he chained his mentally ill wife in the attic for years.
Let's say, for argument's sake, we accept that he's married - would he cheat on his wife with Lois? Wouldn't that be a betrayal of both his wife and Lois? Which brings us back to integrity again. I don't see Clark Kent as that sort of sleaze.
c.
