Superman and Sperm Donor Vilification (Spoiler Alert)

I caught the new Superman movie over the weekend. Solid 6 out of 10. Entertaining, definitely not great—good visuals, some nostalgic nods to the classic Reeves/Hackman vibe, and it kept things moving. But what really caught me—especially as a sperm donor—was how the film handled Superman’s fall from grace. Specifically, how he’s vilified.

Like most superhero stories, there’s a turn where public opinion shifts, and suddenly the world sees Superman not as a savior, but as a threat. Never mind that he’s saved thousands of lives and literally prevented wars—Lex Luthor still manages to flip the script. Before long, there’s an angry mob, he’s arrested without due process, interrogated, and left to die.

So how does Luthor pull it off? Did he uncover some dark secret? Expose a genocide? Reveal a plan for domination? Nope. The “scandal” is this: Superman might be here to reproduce. That’s it. There’s vague talk that his Kryptonian parents may have encouraged him to spread his genes very widely. No coercion, no deceit—just the possibility that he might have many children and pass on his extraordinary gifts. And that alone is enough to turn the world against him.

There’s talk of an “alien invasion,” as if he’s some outside force trying to infiltrate humanity. But let’s be real—Superman may have been born on Krypton, but he’s fully human. The fact that he can reproduce with women means he is by definition the same species. But he is a man with absolutely extraordinary—and frankly, INSANELY desirable—traits.  And the movie, like other entries in Superman lore, makes it clear: his gifts are genetic. They would be passed on.

His sperm would be by far the most valuable thing on planet Earth. A genetic goldmine.  If he were available and willing, I imagine nearly every woman looking to conceive would want a child with him. And why wouldn’t they? The alternative would be knowingly choosing to give your child a dramatically inferior life. With what his genetics offer—near invulnerability, extended life, super strength, the ability to F**ing fly at hypersonic speeds and shoot lasers out of his eyeballs—passing on a “normal” genome instead would be somewhere between insanity and child abuse. Within a few generations, flight would likely be universal.

But in the film, the world panics over the idea that he might have a “secret harem.” But here’s the twist: the real moral concern isn’t whether Superman reproduces too much—it’s whether he reproduces too little. Given the ability to radically improve the human condition with his genetics, the real tragedy/crime clearly would not be his aggressive reproduction. It would be if he held back. 

Now obviously no real person has genetic traits an iota as desirable as Superman’s. But that’s exactly what makes the film’s moral panic so instructive. Instead of celebrating fertility, the movie world lashes out in unreasoned fear. It treats reproductive generosity as a threat, as do other real world examples. And that instinct—to vilify someone for doing something good for others, simply because it’s powerful or prolific—isn’t just irrational. It’s deeply insecure.