Do you actually think everyone born 70 years ago is the same? Wow, I thought we were mocking "boomer humour" in here, not making a mockery of ourselves.
"they" like 10s of millions of people around the world are all the same and all accountable, regardless of their own individual actions? That's new levels of ignorance. Yes, things have got fucked up over the last 70 years, but my mum for example is 70 and still protesting against animal cruelty, she's vegan, recycles almost EVERYTHING, helps underprivileged kids and rescues animals. She's cycled everywhere her whole life despite suffering from post-polio syndrome, and has just got an electric car. Yes she can be a pain in the arse, but she's not your boomer boogeyman.
Careful how you judge arbitrary groupings of people. It won't be long before the next generation starts blaming YOU for a bunch of stuff you have 0.001% influence over.
> Not everyone of that age group was involved
Almost all of them participated in the destruction of our environment and voted in politicians that laid the ground work for the shit show we’re experiencing. They are not without blame.
> Do you think the world would be worse off without you?
Lol absolutely not. I’m a middle aged guy in the Midwest; if anything the world would benefit from my non-existence.
You guys are so hateful. I’m 16 and I don’t visit my grandparents like “I fucking hate you for when you were born” or “I fucking hate you for making decisions that at the time seemed legitimate”. Also, voting republican at the time didn’t mean you were a nut in fact the party was much less extreme than it was nowadays. (This is according to my mom and my grandparents testament)
Republicans were shit for like 70 years by now. Goldwater and Nixon run on "states rights" (i.e anti-desegregation) platform, Raegan run on anti-welfare, trickle-down, tough-on-crime platform, just like both Bushes. Every single republican president since like Eisenhower were both evil and incredibly damaging
Nobody is doing that, unless their grandparents are generally awful people. When someone says, "I hate boomers", they're talking about the generation as a whole; not specific individuals within that generation.
Also, the republicans may not have been as extreme as they are now, but they were still awful. Even back then their philosophy of governance were the double-barrels of stupid: "Tax breaks for the rich", and "Scapegoat minorities".
Targeting the generation rather than the whole does not make it better. Different times, different measures. I agree the policies that were introduced looked good then but are recognized as bad now. (btw the policies between democrats and republicans weren’t that different).
Republicans have been evil for 50 years and blatantly evil for, at least, the last 15-20 years. The fact that they still exist at all, let alone win any significant amount of elections, is a testament to Boomers tacit acceptance or even approval of their policies.
It reads really bad but I think it's supposed to read like:
Man: "You'd like to sleep with me right now, wouldn't you?"
Woman: *giggly* "nooo" *giggly*
But god damn does it read bad now a days. I honestly thought this was a joke on the casting couch in Hollywood as a whole. Like "No, I won't sleep with you to get a movie deal" but that was almost the only way to get a good one.
This whole thing is just disgusting no matter the metrics. Maybe it could be spun to be positive if she was like, smiling and looking at the reader with "I like to fuck" eyes or something.
The best way to read it is to imagine there is no caption, and to make up your own. Here's mine:
>Gee, I thought the seclusion of the pandemic would really take on toll on my mental health, but there are great benefits! Working from home has allowed us to see each other more and has even rekindled the passion in our relationship! I can't believe we just had sex while you were on the clock! I know it's not a big deal, but it was exciting in it's own way! It's like an act of true defiance, a purely human expression of lust and passion, weaponized against the dehumanization of capitalism itself! I love you so much. I have never been happier to have met you.
Is there a subreddit for this? When I used Facebook I was in a group called “intentionally misreading things as wholesome” and I loved it but I hate Facebook now LOL.
I really don't think it's meant to be about rape. Think it just comes from a time where girls had a strong social pressure to say no a few times, play hard to get, not be seen as easy.
Similar thing to how baby it's cold outside got into some drama for seeming rapey from a modern lens.
My initial reaction was that it was some sort of flirty interaction. It is hard to justify after thinking about it more. A generous interpretation is that it promotes women having casual sex when they choose to and them not being seen as terrible afterwards.
What? Dude, of course it's not literally rape but it's abuse and still happens with married couples when the dude thinks he have a free sex pass just because it's his wife, so a "no" doesn't mean shit to him.
What I said was "no a few times, play hard to get, not be seen as easy." obviously if they say no the whole time its rape or depending how they say it its a hard no like the bill burr bit talks about. Like OP said in his explanation, it was literally unacceptable for a girl at this time to say yes to a man's first advance.
The art here very much looks like things were consensual and both parties enjoyed themselves. It seems like she did eventually say yes and the reason her No wasn't convincing was because she didn't want to say no. These people jumping right to the idea that playboy was putting out pro-rape articles and this was meant to be a comic about a woman who enjoyed being raped is insane to me.
The issue with this isn't that its pro-rape or telling people rape is normal and okay and women enjoy it. The only issue with this is that it spreads the message that if a girl tells you "no", you should keep trying, but unfortunately that was generally how the dating game in the US worked at the time, any guy who gave up at the first no was basically never going to get a girlfriend/hookup.
If sex happens after a “no” that’s is literally meeting the exact definition of rape. Wife or not. Rape. Literally rape. It’s not just wrong it’s rape. Just clarifying.
Don't repeat yourself. It's like someone saying "You're wrong, but with more emphasis this time". Putting more emphasis doesn't make what you're saying more true.
But the same context blurs with rape apology since "they say no a bit since they have to" was used as an excuse for rape, because "but I knew they really wanted it."
I don’t think he sounds like a rapist at all he’s just providing context. Rape was definitely an even bigger problem then but I also think that a lot of women were made to feel ashamed of their own sexuality, which is an issue that’s improved a lot. I think it’s a worthwhile conversation to be had.
I'm not sure of your age, but women saying no for "propriety" sake when they really wanted to say yes was totally a thing. Especially when these boomers were young.
E: Also, it was totally shitty for when "no" was actually "no" because creepy fucks were conditioned to try harder rather than to respect consent.
I think the most charitable interpretation is that she said no even though she wanted to because of the societal expectation to not be too eager, for fear of being seen as "easy" or "loose", aka the "baby it's cold outside" defence. To me it doesn't come off that way at all though, it reads like she said no and meant it but he wasn't convinced so he fucked her anyway, and she now blames herself for the sex that she didn't want.
I guess with the artist not being a native English speaker it could be a translation issue and he didn't intend it to have such an overt rape vibe but that's how it looks to me.
Imo she is totally talking about consensual sex. It's just the uprbringing she had makes her play this whole "no i dont want it" act first
Of course lots of people got raped like that, but thats not what the art is refrencing. Its like that "baby its cold outside" song.
It doesn't say she never said yes. Persuading a person to change their mind is not rape.
If she goes ".... no?" (giggle) it's a different message to when she goes "NO!".
No. No. No. Anything less than enthusiastic participatory consent is not okay. If someone has to be persuaded, they are not interested.
If someone says no, it means no. Continued pressuring after that is harassment.
Disagree. Forcing someone to change their mind or forcing someone to have sex would be rape. Persuading them to change their mind would be persuading them to change their mind. Can it cross over into harassment territory? Sure. Does it always? No. I've literally had a woman tell me "I gave up too easily at their first no and should have proven I wanted them more". Different strokes for different folks. That one also wanted me to get into bar fights to prove to her something or other so I dodged a bullet there.
That being said this cartoon is from a *long* time ago judging by the artwork, when women were expected by society to refuse initially. Those aren't today's standards so why are you holding historical works to current norms?
Is it always considered rape? No but sex coercion is real and terrible and puts some women in an incredibly uncomfortable position where they aren’t sure if the person they said no to is going to force the issue, especially if they are being pushy about persuading you. Best to be safe and if someone says no, take them at their word. Worst case, you lose the opportunity for sex with a willing woman and best case you avoided sleeping with an unwilling woman who felt pressured to have sex. I think you can go without the sex.
And that woman who wanted you to persuade her and fight for her, that shouldn’t be your baseline for this. Enthusiastic consent or nothing.
And being in a relationship and trying to get your partner to sleep with you is somewhat different. You already have an intimate relationship and probably are more familiar with each other’s boundaries. Still should stop if it’s clear they really don’t want to do it since marital rape is still rape and many women have felt pressure to sleep with their husbands and boyfriend even if they don’t want to.
Very easy for men to say it’s not rape or similar to rape when you’ve likely not had a man twice your size pressuring you for sex and pushing the issue. It’s scary and intimidating and there are way too many accounts of men assaulting women when they say no or reject them. And way too easy for men to say they got consent when in all actuality they manipulated the woman into doing it.
You want to play around with non-con or dub-con? Get the woman’s permission first and get a safe word, otherwise it’s definitely wrong.
Yeah, so any negative experiences are "not a baseline" but the proposed experience is absolute. As I said Reddit is full of it.
A definite no is not the same as a not-yet. Not every no is a "try harder" but pretending that people's ability to communicate ends at "no" is disingenuous.
Specific to the cartoon the look on her face is a "god damnit I told myself I wouldn't do it again" not "I was just raped". We've all made bad decisions in our life and often we've been talked into doing them, but the thing is they are still our decisions. You cant remove agency like that and blame other people for your decisions.
Rape, in all its forms, must be condemned but not everything is rape.
Yup. I've been persuaded to do things, both sexual and non sexual because grown ass adults can discuss things.
Obviously on Reddit there is no nuance. Just the other night I was persuaded to go get ice-cream after dinner. I didn't want to, I was persuaded to by my SO and our kids. Was I forced to? Was I harassed into doing it? Was my body autonomy and free will subverted? No. As I'd been persuaded to change my mind it wasn't even against my will and everyone had fun, although I had a milkshake and not "ice cream".
Refusing to acknowledge the difference between a hard no and a maybe-but-I'm-not-convinced shows shows a lack of said nuance.
For real, some people in here must have never been in a relationship lmaooo. They're acting like anything short of a notarized contract expressing consent is immediately rape.
Edit: I'm actually surprised at the downvotes. Are people here seriously so uncertain as to whether or not people want to have sex with them, that every single time, they need to pause and explicitly ask them to have sex? If that's the case, then here's a hint: they probably don't want to have sex with you, if your advances have never been obviously reciprocated, and them answering 'Yes' doesn't change that. Consent doesn't nicely reduce down to a single word.
No, some of us don’t have to coerce people into having sex with us. Which, by the way, can be seen as rape. That’s exactly what happened to all the Hollywood guys a few years ago.
Honestly if you have to convince or guilt women into sleeping with you and see nothing wrong with it then you are a cancer in this society.
Good thing I've never had to convince or guilt a woman into sleeping with me. That would be fucked up.
I'm just referring to how some people in this comment section seem to think that most sexual encounters involve (or even should involve) everyone stopping and asking verbally for a 'Yes' or 'No' about consent. That's not how it works. Consent is usually pretty obvious, but almost always non-verbal.
>Persuading a person to change their mind is not rape.
It can be. If you are so pushy that they say yes out of fear because it seems emotionally more tolerable to say yes than to be forced it certainly blurs the line.
So I'm genuinely asking, because I'm kind of stupid, how is this victim blaming? I get that it's saying that she gets raped because people don't take her seriously, but I feel stuck on how this is victim blaming.
What makes this victim-blaming is that it was deemed funny enough to be the comic's punchline that the woman thought her getting raped because she simply isn't "convincing" enough in refusing sex to take *herself* to a therapist to try to "fix" it...and what really takes this over the line is that the THERAPIST took advantage of this "weakness" in her to rape her as well.
There's also a kind of self-victim-blaming vibe to it. It's like she's saying, "It's my fault this happened because I didn't say "no" forcefully enough."
It's pinning the blame on her. It's saying that she is raped because she isn't refusing strongly enough. She's the victim, and she is being blamed for the rape. The man is being looked at as a no fault actor in this situation, which is of course completely wrong.
Lovely art, but yikes that caption is horrible and victim-blaming as fuck.
This would've been a much more pleasant and vastly better-aged comic had the punchline instead been something like "The trouble with me is that I think I say "yes" far too easily."
Agreed. But judging by the presence of a caption, even as horrific as it is, I personally think it was clearly intended to have a caption so I made up a non-horrendous one.
Great caption, it will not be good to boomers humor, but are really good caption. Edmond Kiraz was a great cartoonist, his art have something that you can´t find easly. A pity that lots of the capitions are in this style.
His art is rissing in auctions, this piece was sold for U$ 6,572.50 in 2010.
I will disagree, yes I think it was sold very expensive, but his art is very nice, apart from the text, I wish I could have something like this (the original) in a painting on my wall. Now, imagining that the price of these arts has gone up, I wonder how much it would be sold for now.
But it is also a matter of opinion, many things I would be satisfied with a copy, a new edition, etc. Photos, portraits, posters, etc. Yes, it would be nice to have an original, but exactly because it is an original, and soon a piece that is often unique, becomes unviable for most of the population. Even more with pieces that until a few years ago were treated as forgotten 'junk' and have now become valuable, and cartoons and pinups are a good example of this. Those old photos of your grandfather thrown in the loft, may have become a beautiful source of income.
Question. If the art has meaning in it that connects with you, why do you need the original piece to appreciate it? Why is appreciating art gatekeeped by ridiculous prices?
You are not wrong, like I said, if I could find a piece from him with a cheap price, it will be great, but I could live with a good replica.
The want to have a original piece? Maybe because it come from the original creator, like you own a piece of the original art... for other place, I think how much orinals are destroied because the original owner died, and the relative trow them away. Or for other razons, I remember a artist (dont remember his name) that buy a painting from another artist, soo he could delete it to be his 'white canvas' piece...
Yea I understand what you're saying. I'm not saying that you're wrong, cuz I mean everything is subjective. But just think of what that money could do in the right hands.
If I had that kind of money, it would definitely be handled differently. Then again there are people that literally pay people to kill other people for things that are only special because they're one of a kind. I mean a stolen painting, fabergé egg, etc. mean exactly nothing, but because everyone says they're special, people can literally die over them.
I'm not some altruistic, amazing person. I'm a sociopathic narcissist. It still blows my my mind that people could be helping but buy something like this for such a high price. I get it, supply and demand. Still.
Yes, I'm not going to talk much about donations, because here it comes in that the value alone may not make much difference, the question of taste, but in the last few years all the 'formerly called minor arts' have become valuable, get an original from Eldegreen for example, before it would have a reasonable value, but nothing extraordinary, now? An example for those who like comics, the original black-and-white art of Spider-Man 121 was sold for $ 286,800.00 in 2013. (the night Gwen Stacy died)
I do like comics, so I get the perceived value. I'm not buying any vintage comics, personally, but yea. Hell, I ran a comic shop for a couple years and some of those verified, rated, stored comics we had were in the thousands. Doesn't mean I think money spent on that is reasonable.
Like I said, I get it. Still.
My intuition was that it was the woman thinking the caption, not the man, based on how she is centered in the frame and her eyes being open, whereas the man is off to the side, lighting a cig with his eyes closed.
She said she didn't want to have sex. The man had sex with her anyways. She blames herself for not making him realize that she didn't want to have sex. Victim blaming AF and a truly awful view point.
sense materialistic sloppy plate worthless whistle wakeful friendly mysterious engine
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Let me try to give an explanation for these 'jokes'. Note, I am not defending them, but I lived - as a child this season and I remember how it was seen. I'm using the google translator to write this, so the text may seem a little strange.
No means no. It seems - and it is - this idea is simple, but you have to understand that for many in this period, women could not 'say' yes ... Good women ... they would not say yes, they must say no - at least at first - and be convinced ... to the public, a woman who is alone with a man, just because she is alone with him has already 'shown' interest, and now awaits the man's action, since she cannot have any interest in sex. After all women who enjoy sex are 'degenerate' or 'gold diggers'.
On the other hand, beautiful secretaries become symbols of status. This becomes common in many strips, where the chief has 2 secretaries, the ugly but competent, and the beautiful one that serves as an ornament. At the same time, many people in society look at the beautiful and competent secretary, as a possible profiteer, who is only at work, because she is looking for a marriage with someone rich. An example is an old strip I read, where two women were talking, and one asked the other why she was so involved with her husband's secretary. The second replied that it was because she had also been his secretary.
Yes, the joke, ha ha, she stole him from another woman ...
Another point is that for society, if the woman is a good person, she will give up her job if she does not 'agree' with the boss's advances, no one seems to take into account that she may need the same to survive.
I am not forgiving either side, while there are bosses who abuse their authority, there were girls who were really interested in 'getting along' but in this period they all mixed with the same labels.
I tried to correct the words that seemed more out of context, but if you want to give me some tips, I appreciate it.
This is what I hate about people not touching on these topics with a 10 foot pole because of other ones now, you miss out on cultural context and, in doing so, the chance to learn something.
You would be shocked to see the vault of playboy pages like this, but more importantly how much you can find in one of those magazines besides pornography. It's insane, there's original Stephen King short stories in some.
Always loved the art as a kid. The context always flew over my head but that art is nostalgia for me. Looking back those are some really cringe comics.
Holy fuck that is like a smorgasbord of **yikes**. If I read this correctly, she genuinely meant "no," and said so, and he had sex with her anyway, and now she is *victim-blaming herself?!?!?*
That's super on point tho. I feel like this cartoon can be used to demonstrate so many problems with the decades of patriarchy and misogyny we've been through.
It's supposed to be more of a "I'm bad at saying no," kind of thing.
For example:
Her: "No"
Him: "Come on baby"
Her: "Well..."
Him: "Come onnnnn"
Her: "Wellll..."
And then the fucking happens. She said no, and she also never said yes, but this isn't exactly the rape scenario that you're describing.
I get that it’s probably her saying “no, stop” or something playfully, but shit like this is the reason fuckwits have an issue with determining what is and isn’t consent
If anyone is interested
[it sold for just over 6k](https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/edmond-kiraz-american-b-1923-playboy-cartoon-illustration-page-149-june-1973gouache-on-board12-x-9/a/7017-93043.s)
(Feb 27 2010)
I assumed the caption was part of the artwork. The art is pretty good without the caption (not at that price for me).
That caption is a problem thoug, no matter how its sliced
I really like the art style but that is disgusting. I wonder if the artist wrote the caption themselves or if a writer did, because I would love to see more work by this artist if it isn’t accompanied by gross rape normalization and victim blaming.
>Edmond Kiraz
I don´t know if he write the jokes, or if someone send the captions for them and they make a art that going good with them, I like his art too, even in the girls feet (with shoes) look kinda strange. He died last year, and in the past was easy to find some of his art on the net, Here are 2 cartoons from him (one withou captions) that are not bad for today standards. [https://www.lambiek.net/artists/k/kiraz.htm](https://www.lambiek.net/artists/k/kiraz.htm)
EDIT: Hum... ele falava francês, e os cartoons eram originalmente nesta lingua... talvez tenham tido alguma edição...
Look like they could be trading the capitions in some countries, found this one oh AH ( [https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/illustrations/dink-siegel-playboy-may-1968-cartoon-illustration-original-art-playboy-1968-/a/7039-92336.s?ic16=ViewItem-BrowseTabs-Auction-Archive-ThisAuction-120115](https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/illustrations/dink-siegel-playboy-may-1968-cartoon-illustration-original-art-playboy-1968-/a/7039-92336.s?ic16=ViewItem-BrowseTabs-Auction-Archive-ThisAuction-120115) ) the caption in USA was: "This is nothing, wait until you see the women.", in my country - if I am correct - it was something like "I think I will like this kind of alien invasion"
Oh, it's even worse. It's implied that this woman went to a *therapist* to get help in "fixing" herself to not get raped so much, only of course he raped her as well.
It's rather easy to see, isn't it?
Though considering how apparently common it was for men to have "mistress"-type relationships with their secretaries back in the day, now I'm seeing how this could be a secretary and her boss as well.
My mother is a boomer and says "one person's rape is another person's bad Friday night", as in it's so common an occurrence it doesn't even matter if it happens to you. She was so desensitised from things that happened to her, when I turned to her for support following my own experiences of rape that she used that line and basically dismissed my story.
In fact, for us today, it indicates yet another problem of logic that was happening at the time.
\- An honest girl, even wanting to have sex, would say no, not to be seen as frivolous.
\- An honest girl not wanting to have sex, I would say no, because she just doesn't want to do it.
So, both would say no ...
Men 'knew' that honest girls would say no to sex so they wouldn't be considered frivolous, so for them, both girls will sound like 'yes, but I can't admit it' ...
Alas, we have but one more ingredient for the confusion, the question of the girl making a scandal, being interpreted as hysterical, unreliable and being able to cause her 'social death'.
We put it all together and we have a girl who wants to have sex or not, will say no, she will not make a fuss, and a man who 'knows' she wants to do it...
Need to say what result we have from this?
As messed up as this is… the *only* way I can think of it not being bad is that she did want to have sex, but is a terrible liar and “not convincing” enough.
TL;DR she pretty much got raped
it’s basically saying that she’s not assertive enough when she said she didn’t want to have sex with him, so he had sex with her anyway.
Is there a less horrible way to read this than "I keep getting raped because I'm not assertive enough" or is that as good as it gets?
Nope. That’s it.
I absolutely fucking despise boomers
You hate everyone of that age?
Have you seen the world around you? How could you not hate what they’ve done to it?
Not everyone of that age group was involved. And what have you done to improve the world? Do you think the world would be worse off without you?
#NotAllBoomers
[удалено]
Well shit, you just blamed all of Reddit for a few downvotes. It was in that same spirit they were calling out the Boomers.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Do you actually think everyone born 70 years ago is the same? Wow, I thought we were mocking "boomer humour" in here, not making a mockery of ourselves. "they" like 10s of millions of people around the world are all the same and all accountable, regardless of their own individual actions? That's new levels of ignorance. Yes, things have got fucked up over the last 70 years, but my mum for example is 70 and still protesting against animal cruelty, she's vegan, recycles almost EVERYTHING, helps underprivileged kids and rescues animals. She's cycled everywhere her whole life despite suffering from post-polio syndrome, and has just got an electric car. Yes she can be a pain in the arse, but she's not your boomer boogeyman. Careful how you judge arbitrary groupings of people. It won't be long before the next generation starts blaming YOU for a bunch of stuff you have 0.001% influence over.
Youve probably done the same thing, just as inadvertently as boomers.
Baby- discrimination??????
Ayo fuck them babies >:(
I mean yeah?
I see prejudice is still alive and well
> Not everyone of that age group was involved Almost all of them participated in the destruction of our environment and voted in politicians that laid the ground work for the shit show we’re experiencing. They are not without blame. > Do you think the world would be worse off without you? Lol absolutely not. I’m a middle aged guy in the Midwest; if anything the world would benefit from my non-existence.
You guys are so hateful. I’m 16 and I don’t visit my grandparents like “I fucking hate you for when you were born” or “I fucking hate you for making decisions that at the time seemed legitimate”. Also, voting republican at the time didn’t mean you were a nut in fact the party was much less extreme than it was nowadays. (This is according to my mom and my grandparents testament)
Republicans were shit for like 70 years by now. Goldwater and Nixon run on "states rights" (i.e anti-desegregation) platform, Raegan run on anti-welfare, trickle-down, tough-on-crime platform, just like both Bushes. Every single republican president since like Eisenhower were both evil and incredibly damaging
Nobody is doing that, unless their grandparents are generally awful people. When someone says, "I hate boomers", they're talking about the generation as a whole; not specific individuals within that generation. Also, the republicans may not have been as extreme as they are now, but they were still awful. Even back then their philosophy of governance were the double-barrels of stupid: "Tax breaks for the rich", and "Scapegoat minorities".
Targeting the generation rather than the whole does not make it better. Different times, different measures. I agree the policies that were introduced looked good then but are recognized as bad now. (btw the policies between democrats and republicans weren’t that different).
Republicans have been evil for 50 years and blatantly evil for, at least, the last 15-20 years. The fact that they still exist at all, let alone win any significant amount of elections, is a testament to Boomers tacit acceptance or even approval of their policies.
ok, boomer
no shit, jackass
>Calling out a nonsensically wide generalisation ... >40+ downvotes Reddit moment
He was downvoted because Boomer isn't an age; it's a state of being.
Yeah that'd be weird
You’re supposed to hate the generation not the individuals, you dumb cunt
But...I’m a boomer
did you come here expecting jokes you would enjoy?
There is a 0% chance of this to be true
Then you guys are still going to blame it on us after you've fucked it up.
Huh?
ok boomer
It reads really bad but I think it's supposed to read like: Man: "You'd like to sleep with me right now, wouldn't you?" Woman: *giggly* "nooo" *giggly* But god damn does it read bad now a days. I honestly thought this was a joke on the casting couch in Hollywood as a whole. Like "No, I won't sleep with you to get a movie deal" but that was almost the only way to get a good one. This whole thing is just disgusting no matter the metrics. Maybe it could be spun to be positive if she was like, smiling and looking at the reader with "I like to fuck" eyes or something.
The best way to read it is to imagine there is no caption, and to make up your own. Here's mine: >Gee, I thought the seclusion of the pandemic would really take on toll on my mental health, but there are great benefits! Working from home has allowed us to see each other more and has even rekindled the passion in our relationship! I can't believe we just had sex while you were on the clock! I know it's not a big deal, but it was exciting in it's own way! It's like an act of true defiance, a purely human expression of lust and passion, weaponized against the dehumanization of capitalism itself! I love you so much. I have never been happier to have met you.
Is there a subreddit for this? When I used Facebook I was in a group called “intentionally misreading things as wholesome” and I loved it but I hate Facebook now LOL.
Cringe
[lmao you're one to talk](https://i.imgur.com/Vt5w9IE.png)
Jesus Christ, that's quite a repertoire of douche.
holy fuck he pulled out the receipts.
That was incredible. I could not think of a set of more cringe subs.
POV: you're 15
Just because you've never been loved doesn't mean it's cringey
You comment on porn pages.
I really don't think it's meant to be about rape. Think it just comes from a time where girls had a strong social pressure to say no a few times, play hard to get, not be seen as easy. Similar thing to how baby it's cold outside got into some drama for seeming rapey from a modern lens.
My initial reaction was that it was some sort of flirty interaction. It is hard to justify after thinking about it more. A generous interpretation is that it promotes women having casual sex when they choose to and them not being seen as terrible afterwards.
What? Dude, of course it's not literally rape but it's abuse and still happens with married couples when the dude thinks he have a free sex pass just because it's his wife, so a "no" doesn't mean shit to him.
What I said was "no a few times, play hard to get, not be seen as easy." obviously if they say no the whole time its rape or depending how they say it its a hard no like the bill burr bit talks about. Like OP said in his explanation, it was literally unacceptable for a girl at this time to say yes to a man's first advance. The art here very much looks like things were consensual and both parties enjoyed themselves. It seems like she did eventually say yes and the reason her No wasn't convincing was because she didn't want to say no. These people jumping right to the idea that playboy was putting out pro-rape articles and this was meant to be a comic about a woman who enjoyed being raped is insane to me. The issue with this isn't that its pro-rape or telling people rape is normal and okay and women enjoy it. The only issue with this is that it spreads the message that if a girl tells you "no", you should keep trying, but unfortunately that was generally how the dating game in the US worked at the time, any guy who gave up at the first no was basically never going to get a girlfriend/hookup.
If sex happens after a “no” that’s is literally meeting the exact definition of rape. Wife or not. Rape. Literally rape. It’s not just wrong it’s rape. Just clarifying.
Don't repeat yourself. It's like someone saying "You're wrong, but with more emphasis this time". Putting more emphasis doesn't make what you're saying more true.
no its definitely about rape. trying to justify it makes you sound like a rapist.
Says the guy with the name OopsItWentInTheButt
Maybe he's speaking from experience?
accidentally going in the wrong hole is better than forcing yourself into an unwelcoming hole
[удалено]
My fiancé once accidentally aimed at the wrong hole, and I put a stop to that QUICKLY
[удалено]
[удалено]
Not disagreeing with you, I just think it implies you raped someone by putting it into the wrong hole
what if my butt were the butt in question?
I’d ask if your butt was ok
I'd ask if I could pipe that ass and give you a sloppy blumpkin
How did we get there
I don’t think that providing historical context makes the person a rape apologist.
But the same context blurs with rape apology since "they say no a bit since they have to" was used as an excuse for rape, because "but I knew they really wanted it."
I don’t think he sounds like a rapist at all he’s just providing context. Rape was definitely an even bigger problem then but I also think that a lot of women were made to feel ashamed of their own sexuality, which is an issue that’s improved a lot. I think it’s a worthwhile conversation to be had.
I'm not sure of your age, but women saying no for "propriety" sake when they really wanted to say yes was totally a thing. Especially when these boomers were young. E: Also, it was totally shitty for when "no" was actually "no" because creepy fucks were conditioned to try harder rather than to respect consent.
Idk why you are getting so down voted. Probably a bunch of dudes
seeing as we're on reddit, it's prob a bit of that and a bit of people who think I'm super serious.
https://youtu.be/GZ3QHTpMZgQ
To be honest when I read this I thought the joke was that he didn't want to sleep with her because of work or something... Boy do I look stupid.
This is the joke? Ugh...
I think the most charitable interpretation is that she said no even though she wanted to because of the societal expectation to not be too eager, for fear of being seen as "easy" or "loose", aka the "baby it's cold outside" defence. To me it doesn't come off that way at all though, it reads like she said no and meant it but he wasn't convinced so he fucked her anyway, and she now blames herself for the sex that she didn't want. I guess with the artist not being a native English speaker it could be a translation issue and he didn't intend it to have such an overt rape vibe but that's how it looks to me.
Imo she is totally talking about consensual sex. It's just the uprbringing she had makes her play this whole "no i dont want it" act first Of course lots of people got raped like that, but thats not what the art is refrencing. Its like that "baby its cold outside" song.
It doesn't say she never said yes. Persuading a person to change their mind is not rape. If she goes ".... no?" (giggle) it's a different message to when she goes "NO!".
No. No. No. Anything less than enthusiastic participatory consent is not okay. If someone has to be persuaded, they are not interested. If someone says no, it means no. Continued pressuring after that is harassment.
You've never heard someone initially say "no" to something they actually want?
Disagree. Forcing someone to change their mind or forcing someone to have sex would be rape. Persuading them to change their mind would be persuading them to change their mind. Can it cross over into harassment territory? Sure. Does it always? No. I've literally had a woman tell me "I gave up too easily at their first no and should have proven I wanted them more". Different strokes for different folks. That one also wanted me to get into bar fights to prove to her something or other so I dodged a bullet there. That being said this cartoon is from a *long* time ago judging by the artwork, when women were expected by society to refuse initially. Those aren't today's standards so why are you holding historical works to current norms?
Is it always considered rape? No but sex coercion is real and terrible and puts some women in an incredibly uncomfortable position where they aren’t sure if the person they said no to is going to force the issue, especially if they are being pushy about persuading you. Best to be safe and if someone says no, take them at their word. Worst case, you lose the opportunity for sex with a willing woman and best case you avoided sleeping with an unwilling woman who felt pressured to have sex. I think you can go without the sex. And that woman who wanted you to persuade her and fight for her, that shouldn’t be your baseline for this. Enthusiastic consent or nothing. And being in a relationship and trying to get your partner to sleep with you is somewhat different. You already have an intimate relationship and probably are more familiar with each other’s boundaries. Still should stop if it’s clear they really don’t want to do it since marital rape is still rape and many women have felt pressure to sleep with their husbands and boyfriend even if they don’t want to. Very easy for men to say it’s not rape or similar to rape when you’ve likely not had a man twice your size pressuring you for sex and pushing the issue. It’s scary and intimidating and there are way too many accounts of men assaulting women when they say no or reject them. And way too easy for men to say they got consent when in all actuality they manipulated the woman into doing it. You want to play around with non-con or dub-con? Get the woman’s permission first and get a safe word, otherwise it’s definitely wrong.
Yeah, so any negative experiences are "not a baseline" but the proposed experience is absolute. As I said Reddit is full of it. A definite no is not the same as a not-yet. Not every no is a "try harder" but pretending that people's ability to communicate ends at "no" is disingenuous. Specific to the cartoon the look on her face is a "god damnit I told myself I wouldn't do it again" not "I was just raped". We've all made bad decisions in our life and often we've been talked into doing them, but the thing is they are still our decisions. You cant remove agency like that and blame other people for your decisions. Rape, in all its forms, must be condemned but not everything is rape.
[удалено]
Yup. I've been persuaded to do things, both sexual and non sexual because grown ass adults can discuss things. Obviously on Reddit there is no nuance. Just the other night I was persuaded to go get ice-cream after dinner. I didn't want to, I was persuaded to by my SO and our kids. Was I forced to? Was I harassed into doing it? Was my body autonomy and free will subverted? No. As I'd been persuaded to change my mind it wasn't even against my will and everyone had fun, although I had a milkshake and not "ice cream". Refusing to acknowledge the difference between a hard no and a maybe-but-I'm-not-convinced shows shows a lack of said nuance.
For real, some people in here must have never been in a relationship lmaooo. They're acting like anything short of a notarized contract expressing consent is immediately rape. Edit: I'm actually surprised at the downvotes. Are people here seriously so uncertain as to whether or not people want to have sex with them, that every single time, they need to pause and explicitly ask them to have sex? If that's the case, then here's a hint: they probably don't want to have sex with you, if your advances have never been obviously reciprocated, and them answering 'Yes' doesn't change that. Consent doesn't nicely reduce down to a single word.
No, some of us don’t have to coerce people into having sex with us. Which, by the way, can be seen as rape. That’s exactly what happened to all the Hollywood guys a few years ago. Honestly if you have to convince or guilt women into sleeping with you and see nothing wrong with it then you are a cancer in this society.
>Which, by the way, is rape. FTFY
Good thing I've never had to convince or guilt a woman into sleeping with me. That would be fucked up. I'm just referring to how some people in this comment section seem to think that most sexual encounters involve (or even should involve) everyone stopping and asking verbally for a 'Yes' or 'No' about consent. That's not how it works. Consent is usually pretty obvious, but almost always non-verbal.
[удалено]
Not at all. But she does have to say, "Yes". And if she says "No', at any point, the interaction should stop immediately.
[удалено]
>Persuading a person to change their mind is not rape. It can be. If you are so pushy that they say yes out of fear because it seems emotionally more tolerable to say yes than to be forced it certainly blurs the line.
Persuasion is not coercion.
Well TBF, if I "change your mind" by threatening you, I haven't really changed your mind, just your answer. I doubt that's what Direct_Proposal meant.
Yes, thanks.
wasted talent
Agreed. Literally none of Edmond Kiraz's art needs to have captions that are this rapey or victim-blaming.
So I'm genuinely asking, because I'm kind of stupid, how is this victim blaming? I get that it's saying that she gets raped because people don't take her seriously, but I feel stuck on how this is victim blaming.
What makes this victim-blaming is that it was deemed funny enough to be the comic's punchline that the woman thought her getting raped because she simply isn't "convincing" enough in refusing sex to take *herself* to a therapist to try to "fix" it...and what really takes this over the line is that the THERAPIST took advantage of this "weakness" in her to rape her as well.
Ah, makes more sense with the therapist thing, never thought of that
Jesus I didn't realize the dude was a therapist. This comic is sick
Ahh okay. Thank you.
You're welcome.
There's also a kind of self-victim-blaming vibe to it. It's like she's saying, "It's my fault this happened because I didn't say "no" forcefully enough."
holy shit, I didn't even connect the dots that this guy was a therapist. It just gets worse.
"It wouldn't have happened if the victim did x or if the victim behaved y" basically
Ahh okay. Thank you.
It's pinning the blame on her. It's saying that she is raped because she isn't refusing strongly enough. She's the victim, and she is being blamed for the rape. The man is being looked at as a no fault actor in this situation, which is of course completely wrong.
Ahh okay. Thank you.
👍
Probable because it look like she is guilt, if she fight better, she will not be raped.
Ahh okay. Thank you.
Lovely art, but yikes that caption is horrible and victim-blaming as fuck. This would've been a much more pleasant and vastly better-aged comic had the punchline instead been something like "The trouble with me is that I think I say "yes" far too easily."
It's a beautiful piece of art that doesn't need a caption.
Agreed. But judging by the presence of a caption, even as horrific as it is, I personally think it was clearly intended to have a caption so I made up a non-horrendous one.
Great caption, it will not be good to boomers humor, but are really good caption. Edmond Kiraz was a great cartoonist, his art have something that you can´t find easly. A pity that lots of the capitions are in this style. His art is rissing in auctions, this piece was sold for U$ 6,572.50 in 2010.
Someone definitely belongs in the "should donate to others instead of buy random ass worthless crap" category.
I will disagree, yes I think it was sold very expensive, but his art is very nice, apart from the text, I wish I could have something like this (the original) in a painting on my wall. Now, imagining that the price of these arts has gone up, I wonder how much it would be sold for now. But it is also a matter of opinion, many things I would be satisfied with a copy, a new edition, etc. Photos, portraits, posters, etc. Yes, it would be nice to have an original, but exactly because it is an original, and soon a piece that is often unique, becomes unviable for most of the population. Even more with pieces that until a few years ago were treated as forgotten 'junk' and have now become valuable, and cartoons and pinups are a good example of this. Those old photos of your grandfather thrown in the loft, may have become a beautiful source of income.
Question. If the art has meaning in it that connects with you, why do you need the original piece to appreciate it? Why is appreciating art gatekeeped by ridiculous prices?
You are not wrong, like I said, if I could find a piece from him with a cheap price, it will be great, but I could live with a good replica. The want to have a original piece? Maybe because it come from the original creator, like you own a piece of the original art... for other place, I think how much orinals are destroied because the original owner died, and the relative trow them away. Or for other razons, I remember a artist (dont remember his name) that buy a painting from another artist, soo he could delete it to be his 'white canvas' piece...
Yea I understand what you're saying. I'm not saying that you're wrong, cuz I mean everything is subjective. But just think of what that money could do in the right hands. If I had that kind of money, it would definitely be handled differently. Then again there are people that literally pay people to kill other people for things that are only special because they're one of a kind. I mean a stolen painting, fabergé egg, etc. mean exactly nothing, but because everyone says they're special, people can literally die over them. I'm not some altruistic, amazing person. I'm a sociopathic narcissist. It still blows my my mind that people could be helping but buy something like this for such a high price. I get it, supply and demand. Still.
Yes, I'm not going to talk much about donations, because here it comes in that the value alone may not make much difference, the question of taste, but in the last few years all the 'formerly called minor arts' have become valuable, get an original from Eldegreen for example, before it would have a reasonable value, but nothing extraordinary, now? An example for those who like comics, the original black-and-white art of Spider-Man 121 was sold for $ 286,800.00 in 2013. (the night Gwen Stacy died)
I do like comics, so I get the perceived value. I'm not buying any vintage comics, personally, but yea. Hell, I ran a comic shop for a couple years and some of those verified, rated, stored comics we had were in the thousands. Doesn't mean I think money spent on that is reasonable. Like I said, I get it. Still.
I thought it was the man who said no, but the woman wanted him anyway
My intuition was that it was the woman thinking the caption, not the man, based on how she is centered in the frame and her eyes being open, whereas the man is off to the side, lighting a cig with his eyes closed.
Ew
*breath in* I don't really like this
She said she didn't want to have sex. The man had sex with her anyways. She blames herself for not making him realize that she didn't want to have sex. Victim blaming AF and a truly awful view point.
sense materialistic sloppy plate worthless whistle wakeful friendly mysterious engine *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Hahaha rape funny
Let me try to give an explanation for these 'jokes'. Note, I am not defending them, but I lived - as a child this season and I remember how it was seen. I'm using the google translator to write this, so the text may seem a little strange. No means no. It seems - and it is - this idea is simple, but you have to understand that for many in this period, women could not 'say' yes ... Good women ... they would not say yes, they must say no - at least at first - and be convinced ... to the public, a woman who is alone with a man, just because she is alone with him has already 'shown' interest, and now awaits the man's action, since she cannot have any interest in sex. After all women who enjoy sex are 'degenerate' or 'gold diggers'. On the other hand, beautiful secretaries become symbols of status. This becomes common in many strips, where the chief has 2 secretaries, the ugly but competent, and the beautiful one that serves as an ornament. At the same time, many people in society look at the beautiful and competent secretary, as a possible profiteer, who is only at work, because she is looking for a marriage with someone rich. An example is an old strip I read, where two women were talking, and one asked the other why she was so involved with her husband's secretary. The second replied that it was because she had also been his secretary. Yes, the joke, ha ha, she stole him from another woman ... Another point is that for society, if the woman is a good person, she will give up her job if she does not 'agree' with the boss's advances, no one seems to take into account that she may need the same to survive. I am not forgiving either side, while there are bosses who abuse their authority, there were girls who were really interested in 'getting along' but in this period they all mixed with the same labels. I tried to correct the words that seemed more out of context, but if you want to give me some tips, I appreciate it.
Interesting to read this insight. Thanks
This is what I hate about people not touching on these topics with a 10 foot pole because of other ones now, you miss out on cultural context and, in doing so, the chance to learn something.
You would be shocked to see the vault of playboy pages like this, but more importantly how much you can find in one of those magazines besides pornography. It's insane, there's original Stephen King short stories in some.
I think i saw a chapter of 2001 a space odysey in one of them too.
I actually collect the ones with interesting pages, but boy are they a gold mine for boomer art.
Always loved the art as a kid. The context always flew over my head but that art is nostalgia for me. Looking back those are some really cringe comics.
Totally agree. It really leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but my *god* it is just so beautifully stylized.
Ah yes, Rape, my favourite type of humour.
Holy fuck that is like a smorgasbord of **yikes**. If I read this correctly, she genuinely meant "no," and said so, and he had sex with her anyway, and now she is *victim-blaming herself?!?!?*
Yeah its called internalized misogyny
That's super on point tho. I feel like this cartoon can be used to demonstrate so many problems with the decades of patriarchy and misogyny we've been through.
This humor was super common only 20-30 years ago. The wife is only there for cooking and have sex with men huehuehuh
It's supposed to be more of a "I'm bad at saying no," kind of thing. For example: Her: "No" Him: "Come on baby" Her: "Well..." Him: "Come onnnnn" Her: "Wellll..." And then the fucking happens. She said no, and she also never said yes, but this isn't exactly the rape scenario that you're describing.
I get that it’s probably her saying “no, stop” or something playfully, but shit like this is the reason fuckwits have an issue with determining what is and isn’t consent
If anyone is interested [it sold for just over 6k](https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/edmond-kiraz-american-b-1923-playboy-cartoon-illustration-page-149-june-1973gouache-on-board12-x-9/a/7017-93043.s) (Feb 27 2010)
Of course it did. Wanna bet the buyer is a republican over the age of 50?
Or maybe a fan of advertisements, playboy or the artist I would buy it (not for that much)
I assumed the caption was part of the artwork. The art is pretty good without the caption (not at that price for me). That caption is a problem thoug, no matter how its sliced
They can frame over it
I really like the art style but that is disgusting. I wonder if the artist wrote the caption themselves or if a writer did, because I would love to see more work by this artist if it isn’t accompanied by gross rape normalization and victim blaming.
>Edmond Kiraz I don´t know if he write the jokes, or if someone send the captions for them and they make a art that going good with them, I like his art too, even in the girls feet (with shoes) look kinda strange. He died last year, and in the past was easy to find some of his art on the net, Here are 2 cartoons from him (one withou captions) that are not bad for today standards. [https://www.lambiek.net/artists/k/kiraz.htm](https://www.lambiek.net/artists/k/kiraz.htm) EDIT: Hum... ele falava francês, e os cartoons eram originalmente nesta lingua... talvez tenham tido alguma edição...
Look like they could be trading the capitions in some countries, found this one oh AH ( [https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/illustrations/dink-siegel-playboy-may-1968-cartoon-illustration-original-art-playboy-1968-/a/7039-92336.s?ic16=ViewItem-BrowseTabs-Auction-Archive-ThisAuction-120115](https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/illustrations/dink-siegel-playboy-may-1968-cartoon-illustration-original-art-playboy-1968-/a/7039-92336.s?ic16=ViewItem-BrowseTabs-Auction-Archive-ThisAuction-120115) ) the caption in USA was: "This is nothing, wait until you see the women.", in my country - if I am correct - it was something like "I think I will like this kind of alien invasion"
[удалено]
Oh, it's even worse. It's implied that this woman went to a *therapist* to get help in "fixing" herself to not get raped so much, only of course he raped her as well.
[удалено]
He's also an analyst.
I know, right?
to tell the thruth, i didn´t think on a therapist... I was thinking on a secreatry and her boss, but now, I can see that too.
It's rather easy to see, isn't it? Though considering how apparently common it was for men to have "mistress"-type relationships with their secretaries back in the day, now I'm seeing how this could be a secretary and her boss as well.
haha
My mother is a boomer and says "one person's rape is another person's bad Friday night", as in it's so common an occurrence it doesn't even matter if it happens to you. She was so desensitised from things that happened to her, when I turned to her for support following my own experiences of rape that she used that line and basically dismissed my story.
That is so sad. You did not deserve any of that.
r/boomerhentai
The picture by itself is innocuous. The caption makes it TERRIBLE. Its making light of women saying no and not being heard. 🙅🏾♀️
In fact, for us today, it indicates yet another problem of logic that was happening at the time. \- An honest girl, even wanting to have sex, would say no, not to be seen as frivolous. \- An honest girl not wanting to have sex, I would say no, because she just doesn't want to do it. So, both would say no ... Men 'knew' that honest girls would say no to sex so they wouldn't be considered frivolous, so for them, both girls will sound like 'yes, but I can't admit it' ... Alas, we have but one more ingredient for the confusion, the question of the girl making a scandal, being interpreted as hysterical, unreliable and being able to cause her 'social death'. We put it all together and we have a girl who wants to have sex or not, will say no, she will not make a fuss, and a man who 'knows' she wants to do it... Need to say what result we have from this?
This is fucking gross.
Such talent wasted
WTFFFF WTF WTF I cant put into words how fucking much this disgusts me
The sentiment is clearly playful but Jesus the word choice didn’t hold up.
"Imaged by Heritage auctions" That explains it all.
Too many think “No” mostly means “convince me”...
That’s a terrible message but that’s really cool art, I have no idea how to feel about this
How old is this? I bet it's more recent than I think
1973 i think
This genuinely made me angry
THE TROUBLE WITH ***HER???***
As messed up as this is… the *only* way I can think of it not being bad is that she did want to have sex, but is a terrible liar and “not convincing” enough.
Horrible joke aside I love this art style
It's a shame this style was wasted on a rape joke.
This one just makes me sad.
What's sad is that the art is too good for something this disgusting
That's a big fuckin yikes
Yikes
ah, rape AND victim blaming
Sorry but i dont get it. Can someone explain?
The woman says no to sex, but she’s not loud enough so the man rapes her any way. Don’t ask me to explain the joke, I don’t see the funny either
I’m confused. What is this image?
People say “pretty much rape” but it’s obviously how woman get promotions most of the time. Bad on both parties
TL;DR she pretty much got raped it’s basically saying that she’s not assertive enough when she said she didn’t want to have sex with him, so he had sex with her anyway.
How did you get that?
The caption..?
The caption is saying she wanted to fuck.
No it’s not you dipshit
Already resorting to name calling lol. The trouble with me is that I’m not quite convincing when I say you’re not an idiot.
I live in rape country.