Read on Twitter
I feel like all the fights I get into about fiction basically boil down to the basic inability of people to understand the difference between criticising writing choices versus making some kind of statement about actual human beings.
The problem with Superman & Lois isn't that I think Clark Kent, as a person, would cheat on his wife — it's that the writers made a misogynistic writing choice which marginalised Lois, the oldest female character in Western comics.
I have absolutely zero interest in debating what the parameters of cheating are or whether Clark "having feelings" for Lana constitute cheating or it's okay as long as he doesn't pursue her. The issue is that the writers chose to tell this story at all.
Stories don't come from the ether. Writers choose to tell them. There was no reason why Lana had to be a part of Superman & Lois or — if she was — why she had to be presented as "the one who got away" who Clark still has feelings for.
Whether you think it is or isn't cheating for Clark to have feelings for Lana or wonder "what if" is irrelevant. The criticism is that the writers chose to raise this question at all. It's completely valid to question why *this* is the story they chose to tell.
Why was Clark, married to Lois with two children, not considered interesting enough? Why did Lana have to be involved and involved as an "old flame"?
Like I said before: if the pilot script had involved Lois locking eyes with an "old flame", time slowing down, and Clark being uncomfortable with it the same people defending this would be inconsolable. I wonder why.
