• surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    5 days ago

    Ignoring that second part I see. Glad to know I got that right.

    The comic is extremely stupid. What’s the punch line? Where is the exaggeration? Where’s the twist of expectations? This is just the artist, who believes that women act like this, drawing women acting like this. That’s not funny or witty or entertaining. That’s documentation. Maybe it could be spun as some sort of anti-humor. But that would require wit, and we’ve covered that.

    Or maybe you find it relatable and the reason you like it is “He’s saying the thing we’re not allowed to say!”? In which case, the comic is still stupid. You are allowed to say that. And we’re allowed to judge him for saying such a stupid thing.

      • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 days ago

        Ok, what I think it is: it’s a commentary on how women are ridiculous for dressing provocatively and then not expecting to get male attention for dressing that way.

        Now please, explain what I’m missing.

        • FelixCress@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          women are ridiculous for dressing provocatively and then not expecting to get male attention

          Nope. It is about some women walking with most of their tits exposed and then vilifying men for looking at them.

          But I guess you missed this part.

          • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            5 days ago

            Sure. Different angle on the same thing. As far as I can see, the author is still simply documenting what he thinks happens in the world.

            So where’s the funny? Where’s the subversion of expectations? Where’s the ol switcheroo? What part of this makes you have any reaction at all?