submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by to c/comicstrips@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 39 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The comm needs to implement a gooner tag so I can block these.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    This is some of the most over-dressed, under-cleavaged-nippled-camel-toed-or-ass-hanging-out gooner-bait I've seen in a minute, but maybe the fact I can say that means you're onto something.

    It mostly amounts to you and I would be in seperate circles, but you do you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Right, which is why I said so I can block it. Not that it should be outright banned.

    I’m just not interested in comics where the only β€˜joke’ is slim thick mummy wants to fuck.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    I thought the joke was that she forgot what Mummies do and made up something on the spot that just happens to suit her and her victim, this time.

    EDIT: we don't get the victim's reaction. Not every dude's a monster-fucker wannabe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    I see that as a generous interpretation. But to each their own.

    I didn’t even mention the dude.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Imo it's just terribly dull content. I don't mind sexualized characters but if a comic has nothing else to offer, it's a pass.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Inspiring conversation and thought is far from "nothing else". I thought I had implied this one delivers fuck-all in the way of "sexualization" unless one is desperate or aversive, but I guess I'll make that statement explicit; It's not sexy unless that's what one is desperate to see or avoid.

    I chuckled at this one for many reasons, not least of which because she would be dry, brittle, smelly, taste awful, voice probably horrifying, as well as delusional, dumb, or just inconsiderate to boot.

    Whatever the case, not even a conversation first? On all but my worst days, I had more game than that, and could draw a mummy that doesn't look like a water-filled baloon too, but sure, all that's possibly going on with this one is innuendo.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Red cheeks, extreme body-proportions, posing in the last panel with an obvious innuendo. Denying the sexualisation here is just ignorant.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    Attempted, sure, but it very much requires specific audiences to land. Did you think the word "delivers" was in there to look pretty?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 4 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] -5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    My first comment ended on the note that if you got your way, we would likely never interact again, and that that was fine by me. You didn't have to treat this thread like your last chance to save my soul or sell me the latest from Amway global, but here we are.

    I'm not here to apologize that some rosy cheeks and a linen-wrapped body that's had its organs ripped-out doesn't do it for either of us. Maybe move on with your day rather than literally chasing things to annoy and then claim you were the one being annoyed-by.

  • source
  • parent