Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Fun with Polls Cheating.

Oh, where do I start to disagree with this.

I've stated my pov on the 'you can make your characters do anything' before, so I won't reiteriate it here. Aren't you all glad?

Suffice to say, that it's not necessarily being false to the characters or your audience to do so. Provided it's properly done, it's just as valid a story and use of the characters as any other premise.

Whether it suits a particular reader's tastes is quite another kettle of fish, of course. But because one reader (or many) doesn't like a premise doesn't make the premise itself necessarily invalid.

We all accept that, generally speaking, there are certain things Lois and/or Clark will not do, in the normal course of things. However, there are always circumstances which will change that and it's perfectly legitmate, imo, for authors to explore those avenues if they wish.

As always with fandoms, for every author who won't accept the premise - whether it's done logically and well or not - there will be another who will. So reader biases shouldn't influence an author too much if they want to explore the theme. There will also be readers who will be won over to the premise who never thought they could (if it's properly presented) - how often have we seen that in comments folders?

I believe that I could very easily produce circumstances that would have Clark and/or Lois cheating on one another. With SF it's much easier to do than most genres, because you can use a variety of 'magic' and outside influences to twist them onto that path. None of which would work at all in most other genres. If you accept that a weird Indian can swap Clark's body with Tim Tomerson is it really that much of a stretch to imagine he could subvert Clark's mind to commit adultery?

I don't have an inclination to write such a story, but I wish good luck to any who do want to tackle it. And if you provide a good and logical enough basis for the actions, I'll even read it and be amazed at your inventiveness.


LabRat

Interesting, Labrat, because I see that as being in the same basic category as amnesia, etc. In other words, Clark wouldn't be consciously choosing to commit adultery and violate his wedding vows. So for me, outside influences like that are only high-powered forms of duress that still can't affect the personal choices of existing characters.

If the definition of cheating is having sex with someone other than your spouse, then no "marriage" will not survive. What I mean by "marriage" is that I do not believe that the trust can ever, ever be truly regained. The doubt is always there in the back of the mind. If they are late, what are they doing. If they aren't interested in making love, are they getting it from someone else. The list of doubts goes on and on.

Also from experience through people I know, once someone has cheated it is easier to cheat again. I've known of people who have wound up divorced after 25 years - from the first time cheating - only to have the second marriage end for cheating also.

I have never understood how woman can marry a man who cheated on his previous wife with her. They always quote the guys line of her faults. In the several cases I know they cheat on the new wife or husband.

With Lois's background if Clark cheated on her she would never speak to him again after she castrated him with a bladed coated in Kryptonite. I don't see Clark cheating considering he waited to be sexually involved with a woman until she knew his "secret". I can't see that changing now. Also he is very aware of Lois's past and I can't see him doing that to her. Cheating for both of them is so far out of the realm of their character - in the show - that it is not a plausible story line - imo.

Now if you we were to take an example from Desperate Housewives where Evie confronts Marcia Cross character (drawing blank on chracters name) she accused her of cheating because of the emotional relationship she has with George. The talking and sharing they were doing without her husband knowing.

If you want to count that as cheating as Evie does in DH then I would say that maybe Lois would be the one. Clark is not really able to share with anyone who doesn't know the "secret". However, Lois could turn to someone as she did in the series with Daniel Scardino. It could be "innocent" in the sense that there is no intention of sex on her part but the need for compaionship - as in Desperate Housewives.

In this case I can see Clark forgiving Lois if she stops the relationship. He would feel bad that she felt she wasn't getting the emotional support from him and I could see him making adjustments in Superman's life. Again this is my opinion based on the fact that I would kill a guy who cheated on me - very slowly with unimagible pain involved.

But what if Clark were experiencing the other type of cheating, the emotional withdrawal from their established relationship and the transfering of feelings to someone else? Except for the idiotic Clark of 'Meet the Presses' I can't see how Clark could possibly cheat on Lois unless he felt a 'soulmate' connection to someone else. After that episode I've always had doubts about his true feelings. Once he left Lois downstairs I found it possible to believe his love is not quite as deep or as real as we'd been led to believe. In fact, once they got married he didn't seem 1/25th as into her as he had been prior to the wedding.

If Clark thought he had found 'another' soulmate wouldn't that devastate Lois as much as any physical cheating would? IMHO the accompanying emotional 'cheating' would be even worse than the physical act of adultery(although that definitely deserves some type of corrective surgery involving kitchen utensils). It would be a total rejection and betrayal - he's not with his lover(only) because of lust; he's with her because he just prefers her.

I think if either has an affair it would have to be because they think they're in love, not just to scratch an itch.

As opposed to me, where is IS about the infidelity, regardless of whether it is Lois/Clark cheating with the other or on them.

It is one of the few things that will make me stop reading a story that I have been enjoying by an author I love. Not always; depends on exactly how it's handled.

And at least one story I read didn't quite cross my "personal comfort line" until almost the very end of the story. So I finished it, but am now much more hesitant about their stories.