Man of Steel, HUMANS of Tissue Paper

Shall we play a game?

Warning: If you blush easily, don’t read.  This is as ridiculous as the stupid theory.

Larry Niven’s dissertation on Superman’s powerful physiology is mentioned in Superman Earth One, Volume 2.  This theory has been around since 1971 and really has nothing to do with what truly goes on within Superman’s books.   It is mostly brought up by people who want to further alienate Superman from the human race, especially Lois Lane, or want to see him ‘hookup’ with someone who is not totally human.  Lots of emphasis on his physiology rather than his heart, mind, soul, or spirit.

It is only a theory and many writers have dispelled the ridiculous notion for almost four decades since Niven’s paper.  With the creation of Superboy during the 90s, this proved Kryptonian and Terrean DNA could mesh to make a clone.  So if Clark and Lex can have a ‘son’, then Clark and Lois could have a child.  SCIENCE!  (Cue Thomas Dolby)

The SteelvsTissue theory alienates Superman from the human race he loves and protects.  It denies him a full life.   This causes Superman emotional and psychological problems as a character.  He HAS to relate to his adopted planet and its people (otherwise what’s the point of Clark Kent/Superman).   And in order to make him a multi-layered character with depth, he has to have intimacy with humans on all levels.

I am not a scientist.  There are others more proficient than I who can explain why Superman doesn’t break anything while doing everyday things as Clark Kent.  But I can imagine the many problems if writers profess or use the SteelvsTissue theory as a basis.  Shall we talk about toilet training before he got powers?  Nah, let’s not.

In Superman Earth One, volume 2, Pa Kent mentions this theory and Clark is embarrassed by the talk.  But in order to check out the validity of the theory, let us delve into possible scenarios.

Has farm boy Clark ever masturbated in the barn loft?  Surely Pa would know since the roof would have to be repaired.

In Niven’s theory, Clark’s projectile semen becomes weapons of mass destruction.  So not only the roof, but any birds, airplanes, or other flying objects would be destroyed.    Many people quote Brody from Mallrats, but if Superman’s projectile sperm was a weapon, just think how Bruckheimer’s Armageddon’s story could have changed.  Instead of Bruce Willis landing on a meteor heading for Earth, Superman could just ejaculate and destroy it.  Same amount of believability.  (not kidding)  Short movie.  Not to mention (but I am)  the projectile sperm would add to Superman’s power set, making him even more powerful, more alienated . . . and boring.

Some people think Clark and Diana would make a perfect sexual couple since she is not ‘human’.  But, this brings up another problem for Clark, Diana is supernatural/magic, which makes him weak.  More so in the new 52, since Diana is a daughter of Zeus, the Big Daddy of the Greek God set.  So conceivably there may be some Kryptonian erectile dysfunction going on with this coupling.   Not exactly sexually satisfying if that’s the only point to put them together.  Clark has a secret identity and Diana in the new 52 does not.  They seem to be TOO much alike so story conflict would be nil, but luckily they both seem to be in love with particular humans and this has proven to be motivation for their storylines.   Besides, as Geoff Johns may show in Justice League, a power couple within the Trinity is going to displace power away from Batman – and that can never be tolerated.

Others believe that Clark and Bruce should get it on – but Batman is human.  If he has sex with Clark, he’d be the God Damned DEAD Batman under the SteelvsTissue theory.

It seems as if everyone should forget about the Man of Steel, Humans of Tissue Paper theory and allow writers to scribe Superman as a being with a dual identity who relates to humanity on many levels.  Most especially Lois Lane since the triangle for two was created from day one.  Superman should have a full and loving life.  He deserves that much.


November 1, 2012. BaudyBlahBlahBlah.


  1. Mary replied:

    I don’t think the magical element of Diana is relenvant at all and I don’t think it helps the argument.

    I think the most base argument is that sex isn’t not defined by how hard you can fuck someone. Great sex is defined by many things and it often includes things like smell, touch, taste and the elusive intangible which is chemistry and how you feel about the person you are having sex with. To reduce sex to purely the physical brute force, it reduces sexual pleasure to something very shallow when in reality (for those of us that actually are old enough to get this) it’s very complex.

    Also, it’s important to note that Kevin Smith was making a point when he wrote Brody that way—that those people were LOSERS. His point was that these fanboys were so compusively obsessed with stupid things that they had no social lives or sex lives of their own.

    To see what Kevin Smith really thinks about Superman’s sex life….look at the special he did for playboy featuring his journalist wife where he talks, at length, about the idea of his greatest sexual fantasy—Lois Lane having sex with Superman.

    • baudyhallee replied:

      Hi Mary,

      Thanks for commenting.

      Actually the supernatural nature of Diana (especially now) is something my long-time-comic-reading son says in regards to the Kryptonian. While some people think, as you aptly put it, that Superman’s brute force would find a ‘home’ in Diana — it just doesn’t hold up when we consider Clark’s weaknesses. Most of the people who I’ve seen cite the SteelvsTissue theory are Superman/Wonder Woman fans. As you said, this is not what a great sex life is about. Sex is not JUST physical, but emotional, mental, psychological, and spiritual. To cite Nevin’s theory focuses singularly on physiology which is only a small part of the sexual experience especially with a man who has a big heart, is in love and is a hero.

      Basically, I wanted to show that the theory doesn’t have a place in any Superman story as it completely strips him of his relevancy to humanity and to readers. Clark Kent is how we relate to Superman and Lois is how we see and understand the complete being that is Clark/Superman/Kal.

      I thought it might be a fun read by taking the ‘weapons of mass destruction’ aspect and showing how the theory doesn’t portray Superman as he was conceived and sustained over the past 7.5 decades. Siegel and Shuster created Superman to be a love story, not just the triangle for two, but an alien’s love for his adopted home and its people. A celebration of the human spirit — and not physiology.

      I will check into looking at Smith’s special. That’s sounds awesome.

      Thanks again.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback URI

%d bloggers like this: