Lois & Clark Forums Forums Fan Fiction Lois & Clark Fanfic FDK: Seven Seconds, Part 11

What kind of horrible weapon is Luthor using against Clark?

Oh yes, Lois. You have no idea.

Well, when faced with such a choice, Lois is going to give herself to Luthor. But that won't happen if Clark has any say in the matter:

And Clark isn't going to give Lois a choice:

Well, in spite of what affected him, we all hope that Clark remains moderately invulnerable. Perhaps he can fly again, if he only can get away from Luthor.

Interesting. Luthor used a weapon that was supposed to control Clark's mind.

I wonder. Had Luthor used something slightly similar on Lois to make her so trustful of him?

Mrs. Cox had created the weapon. Well, that explains how it could affect Clark, since she knew he was Superman.

Hmmm. It's hard to understand how Lex could believe that Lois and Clark would regard him as a good guy, seeing it was him who pushed Clark over the balustrade in the first place. And considering how he had threatened both Lois and Clark and tried to force Lois to marry him!

Lois faints, but wakes up - though without opening her eyes - to utter misery and self-recrimination. But then something happens....

Yes, what if, Lois? Who is that person stroking your arm?

Oh please, let it be Clark....

How much do I love thee? Let me count the ways.

But you didn't tell us if it was Clark!!

Meanwhile, Lex is going to "win" over Clark in his own way:

Talk about being an utter maniac!

Well, interesting, Barbara, and if Lex has used a mind-controlling weapon on Lois, that would explain her utter trust in him.

However, this story (as well as a few others I have read at this site) leaves me wondering: How much more does the American society value a man's right to marriage over a woman's right to her freedom? There have been a few stories here where Lois has been married to Luthor, and even though she has wanted a divorce, she hasn't been able to get one without Lex's consent. Not even when Lex has tried to kill her! In this story, Lex was presumptuous enough to claim that since Lois had gotten engaged to him, she had irrevocably bound herself to him and he could prevent her from ever leaving. This is so strange to me. I'm being reminded of countries and cultures where young women are given away in marriage whether they themselves want it or not.

And by the way, there is another kind of "marriage-genre" in LNC fanfic that leaves me equally baffled. It's those stories where Lois actually goes through with her marriage to Luthor even though she realizes that she doesn't want him, and that she wants to marry Clark instead. Even so, she goes through with her marriage to Luthor, simply because she feels that she has made a commitment to him when she accepted his proposal, and then she can't back out. And I'm just flabbergasted.

So I ask again: How sacred is a man's right to marriage in America? And how legally unimportant is a woman's right to her freedom?

Hmmm. Let's get back to your story, Barbara. I'm looking forward to the conclusion of it, which I hope will bring with it a lot of WAFF.

Ann

Great part, Barbara! No time for more feedback right now.




Well, I'll answer for Barbara. Mrs. Cox didn't create the weapon. She just wielded it!


Ann, I think people do this to show how evil Lex is. It isn't because she couldn't get a divorce because Lex wouldn't let her (At one time that would have been true because in some states both parties had to agree to the divorce. I imagine that was also true in Europe. Sometimes, it's still not extremely easy in the States. The couple usually has to go to court.), it's that he would make it very difficult for her because he would threaten her.

Again, I have to say that this is because the author is trying to show how horribly evil Luthor is. Unfortunately there are men like this. There are also a few women like this. Think about stalkers, etc. I think Luthor would have be the sort to think, "If I can't have her then no one will have her."

Remember that some of these authors are not from the States, Ann. A man has no right to marriage in America. And he has no right to make any woman marry him. I think you are looking at this as a thing about the States because Metropolis is 'in the States'. I think the issue where women (and men) marry for reasons other than love has nothing to do with the US. I think that's a universal thing.

Just a quick reply, Nancy. I have never thought of present-day United States (or the United states of the 1990s) as a country where a woman becomes her husband's property after she has said "I do". It's just that some of these "Lois and Luthor" stories have made me wonder.

I do find it slightly scary that in some parts of the United States, a woman might simply not be able to get divorced, if the court decides she hasn't got enough reason. Perhaps, if her husband has beaten her up once, she didn't go to the hospital to have her injuries documented, and there may be no one else who can back her story up. So maybe the court decides that there is no proof that her husband has treated her badly, and the simple fact that she wants to leave him may not be enough to grant her a divorce, if I understand you correctly. Besides, if it costs money to go to court to get a divorce, a woman may have to stay in an (abusive) marriage because she can't afford to get it dissolved. That seems very bad to me.

Ann

I guess you don't remeber Derek Camden. Okay, maybe the weapon is not obvious enough.

It's from early season 2, episode "Wall of Sound" to be precise.

____________________________________

As to the Lois and Luthor- discussion...

Lex most definitely is evil and I don't think he would pay any attention to women's rights.
With Lois this is another problem. I don't exactly remember stories whre she went down the aisle although she didn't want Lex anymore and agreed to the marriage. Maybe, because I don't tend to read them...

But neither in the series nor in my story Lois says yes when she knows that she doesn't want Luthor anymore. To be willing to trade her freedom for Clark's life doesn't count, does it?

Ahh, and Ann did you notice? You're rid of the villain!!!!

I did notice, Barbara! Thanks!!!

Ann

Divorce does cost money, but it's not extremely expensive unless it drags on and on. Most people that want a divorce seem to come up with the money regardless of their resources. And a woman wouldn't be denied a divorce just because she didn't have proof of having the crap beaten out of her. There are lots of resources available in the US for women in abusive relationships to get help. If they stay, it isn't because they can't get 'out'. He may have convinced her of such, but it just isn't so. And it won't stop her from getting a divorce. I'm sure this must happen in Europe, too. The USA is not the only place where abuse of women (or men) exists.

Divorces are usually constested over monetary issues and over custody issues. And women contest divorces just as much as men. It's not only a man's right to contest a divorce - either person can contest it. What happens is something along the lines of this: Man or Woman 'A' files for divorce. When 'A' files for divorce from 'B', 'A' asks for 1/2 of the financial resources and full custody of the children. 'B' says why should 'A' have full custody of the children when 'A' is an unfit parent, or why should 'A' have 1/2 the resources when 'A' was a lazy bum? And so they go at it, and it often becomes a 'war'. This is simplified. Sometimes 'A' or 'B' has rights regarding the monetary resources regardless of whether or not they were a 'lazy bum'. Some (Most, I think.)states allow uncontested divorces which are cheaper and none of the above goes on. Surely custody issues and monetary issues are not so different in Europe? I've heard of some pretty nasty divorces from Europe, too. It seems to me like the more the money, the nastier the divorce.

And after all, marriage is a legal contract. It shouldn't be extremely easy to get out of it. You wouldn't expect to get out of any other legal contract extremely easily, would you? I don't mean that it should be ridiculously hard, but I think certain documents and court costs are reasonable. I mean, sometimes people can get a divorce for cheaper than the cost of a moving violation (driving a car: i/e a speeding ticket).

I'm sure you are right that the more money is involved, the nastier a divorce can be.

Here is Sweden, if the husband or the wife really wants out of a marriage, the marriage is off. Sure you need legal documents and confirmations before the divorce is official, but you just have to file for them. You don't get a divorce from one day to another - really a divorce doesn't come through that quickly - but there is no way one party can prevent the other from leaving the marriage.

The nasty stuff about divorce in Sweden usually has to do with the custody of the children. That can get quite ugly, indeed.

But in Lois and Luthor's case, where there are no children involved, there should not be a problem of any sort. Sure there might be some bickering about what Lois is entitled to, money-wise, but if Lois did not choose to fight for her right(?) to get as much money as possible, she should have no problem whatsoever getting a divorce very easily. Luthor could never prevent Lois from divorcing him and then marrying Clark instead.

Ann

Oh yeah. And you can't find a better example of that than the current hoohah over the impending divorce of Paul McCartney and Heather Mills. Nasty just doesn't describe it. Thank goodness all the children are grown up!

LabRat