Quote:
Originally Posted by BigV
no, no, no. I want to convey that as the entire meaning of the *comics*.
each one introduces a situation where something (sex) might happen then illustrates how the situation itself is not consent. You described them as
Each of those comics illustrates a scenario taken straight out of "traditionalism" and points out why it's not consent.
|
Again, you are just reiterating the very same meaning I was using as an example as part of a larger piece...
What is the problem exactly? You don't seem to express any disagreement with the context I was using them in (Other then considering it "overthinking"), just an insistence that you are not sure I understood what it meant and then reiterating the very meaning I used it as...
You highlighted in bold me describing it as "the feminist "fight against entitlement" which it views as the core of traditionalism", and now reiterating that you view you it as the core of traditionalism..
In what way do you feel it doesn't fit the context I was using it in? Do you disagree that the comics is an example of the feminist self-perceived fight against entitlement culture which it views as the core of traditionalism? Is it merely that you dislike the specification "which it views" or the quotation marks around "fight against entitlement" and thus acknowledging it as a matter of framing rather then pretending it to be a clean cut description of reality? We seem to be getting stuck in the conversation and I am not sure what is it exactly that we're stuck about...