Have you looked at the examples from the book? I posted a link earlier.yet another steven wrote:No; what I'm trying to say is you expect an inversion of the usual male centred porn; this inversion could be very literal, "just exchange the roles of men and women and replace male fantasies by female fantasies"; but it can also be slightly more abstract, "men's porn is about what men most like to see; let's make women's porn about what women most like to see." If you don't know "porn for women", you first expect it to be a literal inversion, like the girl in the comic. But when this turns out not to be correct, the second most obvious interpretation is that "porn for X" means "stuff that X likes to see best".
The actual impression someone would get looking at the actual book would never be "just like male porn except for women", or even "not actually porn, but still things women genuinely find attractive".
If you were only to base your impression on what this comic described, then you may come to that conclusion, but that would not be the fault of the author. Even if you only based an opinion on the title before understanding the premise of the book, that's still not the fault of the author... someone said something about books and covers and judging, I can't remember how it went exactly.
In general, forming an opinion about something in ignorance is a bad idea. Just saying.
I don't think I actually expressed any objection to Randall creating this comic as a male, I just don't think your criticism of ieeeaaa (whatever their nickname was) was justified. You insisted that his commentary was offensive to you because he presumed to know what offended women, when he didn't make any such claims.ishkabibble wrote:uncivlengr wrote:I don't think it's fair to say the the views expressed are merely the fictional views of a "character" - xkcd is pretty evidently autobiographical in nature, especially in preachy comics like this.
If the comic stemmed from a conversation with a female friend, that is, if a woman FIRST expressed this sentiment and Randall said "ha! that's a good point!" and THEN wrote the comic, would you still have the same objection?
Conversely, you didn't seem to take into account the possibility that ieeeaaa was expressing an opinion based on something he had previously discussed with a woman before labelling his post as offensive.
Nope, but again, I don't see where my posts would have suggested that I did.ishkabibble wrote:And my earlier question remains: since Randall is a man, should he be prohibited from EVER using female characters in his strips?