I’m just going to come out and say it: this joke is old and the comic is gross.
A woman is literally objectified here. That’s the punch line. He wants to use this woman like he used an object. In the movie he did not fuck the volley ball so the humor is supposed to be from the shock.
Please don’t explain to me how she’s a prostitute. You can see in the comic she’s surprised/unhappy. Sex workers deserve respect. This comic feels like punching down.
If you type me a book about how I’m wrong, I’m not going to respond. I can already see this has 500+ upvotes, my opinion is unpopular I know.
He was on that island so long he started to think of the volleyball as a person, warping his perception of what a person should look like. Plenty of people hire prostitutes because they want to feel like they’re with someone they can’t be with anymore. This is no different.
She looks like she wasn’t told this was part of their appointment. In fact, she looks unhappy about it. No context is explained to her and we don’t know if she would have agreed to meet him if he had asked before hand.
In this comic, she is being used. If you think this is OK just because she is being paid for sex, this is one of the things I don’t like about this comic. Sex workers share their body with other people, safety and consent are extremely important. Sex workers deserve basic human respect, which is not shown here
While I agree with you that the actions of the man are horrible, I fundamentally disagree with your interpretation.
I do not think that this woman is the butt of the joke in any way; the comic is not punching at her. In fact, I’d argue if anything she is the person we are meant to identify with and cringe with. Her perspective is the one we follow throughout the comic; her slow realisation is one we the audience follow.
The butt of the joke is the man, and how he is unable to let go of his attachment to Wilson, the volleyball, after his time on the island.
I do not think it is morally objectionable to laugh at this comic, and I do not think the comic itself is morally objectionable, and further I think it completely lacks nuance to condemn art (even webcomics) just because it features characters who are morally objectionable.
I totally understand all of this about the joke. I understand Tom Hank’s character is meant to be the villain.
The author drew this. He thought the world needed it. The objectification of woman is part of the punchline. This is why it’s punching down: The author used the objectification of woman (a real problem that woman experience in their life) to serve the punchline. It makes no real critique of the male character here, it simply presents him and his actions. Can you have bad characters in a non-problematic comic? Yes. Is this happening here? I’d argue no, because a misogynist can just as easily laugh at this comic for misogynist reasons.
I’m just pointing out the comic is gross. If you found it funny I don’t think you’re a bad person. I just don’t think it deserves to be here without someone complaining (which I am doing).
I don’t really agree that discrimination being a punchline of a joke is a bad thing; if anything I think it’s helpful to make bigots a laughing stock. It serves the practical purpose of suggesting that this kind of behaviour deserves ostracism, and can cause introspection in those that exhibit that kind of behaviour.
And I think I disagree that the male character isn’t criticised. Although it’s obviously not explicit (the comic writer doesn’t explicitly say it’s wrong), it is pretty obvious that the behaviour is not to be approved of. You yourself have said you understand that the intent is for him to be the villain of the piece.
I also want to discuss the suggestion that we shouldn’t produce media that can be misinterpreted by bigots for their enjoyment. I think there is some truth to that; art criticising toxic masculinity has often been used as a rallying point for it (see Tyler Durden).
But I also think that abandoning spoof and parody (and even just portrayal of real-life bigotry) removes a massive part of our toolkit as writers.
Matt Baume has a great video on the American sitcom ‘All in the Family’. One of the characters starts out as a bigot, and indeed many bigoted Americans initially identify with him. But he is made the butt of jokes, and slowly his character changes opinion and is reformed over the course of the series. Baume thinks this may have had a positive impact on gay acceptance in the US.
Anyway: to me the comic is fine. It makes a joke about the guy from castaway having a thing for a volleyball, and how that warps his future relationships.
James Acaster’s bit on Ricky Gervais is a classic example. The transphobia is the punchline, and forms an integral part of the routine.
Holy crap, I liked what I saw of Ricky Gervais but this got me looking into that Trans sketch and it’s really bad taste. Plus he supposedly ends it saying he supports trans people but just finds it weird that there’s people who don’t want to do surgery. Which I mean, isn’t the worst of takes (kinda speaking out of his field though), but… punching down isn’t really the best way to show you’re “supportive” of something.
Hey, thanks for keeping an open mind and looking into it yourself. It’s a really nice trait to see.
For those that haven’t come across it, he does a ‘sketch’ where he says that if people can identify as transgender, he can identify as a chimp. Which is very 2007; very attack helicopter of him, and commits the cardinal sin of both punching down, and not being very funny.
I’m just going to come out and say it: this joke is old and the comic is gross.
A woman is literally objectified here. That’s the punch line. He wants to use this woman like he used an object. In the movie he did not fuck the volley ball so the humor is supposed to be from the shock.
Please don’t explain to me how she’s a prostitute. You can see in the comic she’s surprised/unhappy. Sex workers deserve respect. This comic feels like punching down.
If you type me a book about how I’m wrong, I’m not going to respond. I can already see this has 500+ upvotes, my opinion is unpopular I know.
He was on that island so long he started to think of the volleyball as a person, warping his perception of what a person should look like. Plenty of people hire prostitutes because they want to feel like they’re with someone they can’t be with anymore. This is no different.
She looks like she wasn’t told this was part of their appointment. In fact, she looks unhappy about it. No context is explained to her and we don’t know if she would have agreed to meet him if he had asked before hand.
In this comic, she is being used. If you think this is OK just because she is being paid for sex, this is one of the things I don’t like about this comic. Sex workers share their body with other people, safety and consent are extremely important. Sex workers deserve basic human respect, which is not shown here
Not onscreen, anyway.
So why assume the worst? Why make the rather serious accusation of the author violating consent based on a gut feeling?
What makes you think she’s a sex worker and not, say, a FWB?
Can you explain the first panel, then?
Fwb? Hookup from a bar? Just because they don’t know each other very well, you shouldn’t assume he’s paying for it.
While I agree with you that the actions of the man are horrible, I fundamentally disagree with your interpretation.
I do not think that this woman is the butt of the joke in any way; the comic is not punching at her. In fact, I’d argue if anything she is the person we are meant to identify with and cringe with. Her perspective is the one we follow throughout the comic; her slow realisation is one we the audience follow.
The butt of the joke is the man, and how he is unable to let go of his attachment to Wilson, the volleyball, after his time on the island.
I do not think it is morally objectionable to laugh at this comic, and I do not think the comic itself is morally objectionable, and further I think it completely lacks nuance to condemn art (even webcomics) just because it features characters who are morally objectionable.
I totally understand all of this about the joke. I understand Tom Hank’s character is meant to be the villain.
The author drew this. He thought the world needed it. The objectification of woman is part of the punchline. This is why it’s punching down: The author used the objectification of woman (a real problem that woman experience in their life) to serve the punchline. It makes no real critique of the male character here, it simply presents him and his actions. Can you have bad characters in a non-problematic comic? Yes. Is this happening here? I’d argue no, because a misogynist can just as easily laugh at this comic for misogynist reasons.
I’m just pointing out the comic is gross. If you found it funny I don’t think you’re a bad person. I just don’t think it deserves to be here without someone complaining (which I am doing).
I don’t really agree that discrimination being a punchline of a joke is a bad thing; if anything I think it’s helpful to make bigots a laughing stock. It serves the practical purpose of suggesting that this kind of behaviour deserves ostracism, and can cause introspection in those that exhibit that kind of behaviour.
James Acaster’s bit on Ricky Gervais is a classic example. The transphobia is the punchline, and forms an integral part of the routine.
And I think I disagree that the male character isn’t criticised. Although it’s obviously not explicit (the comic writer doesn’t explicitly say it’s wrong), it is pretty obvious that the behaviour is not to be approved of. You yourself have said you understand that the intent is for him to be the villain of the piece.
I also want to discuss the suggestion that we shouldn’t produce media that can be misinterpreted by bigots for their enjoyment. I think there is some truth to that; art criticising toxic masculinity has often been used as a rallying point for it (see Tyler Durden).
But I also think that abandoning spoof and parody (and even just portrayal of real-life bigotry) removes a massive part of our toolkit as writers.
Matt Baume has a great video on the American sitcom ‘All in the Family’. One of the characters starts out as a bigot, and indeed many bigoted Americans initially identify with him. But he is made the butt of jokes, and slowly his character changes opinion and is reformed over the course of the series. Baume thinks this may have had a positive impact on gay acceptance in the US.
Anyway: to me the comic is fine. It makes a joke about the guy from castaway having a thing for a volleyball, and how that warps his future relationships.
Holy crap, I liked what I saw of Ricky Gervais but this got me looking into that Trans sketch and it’s really bad taste. Plus he supposedly ends it saying he supports trans people but just finds it weird that there’s people who don’t want to do surgery. Which I mean, isn’t the worst of takes (kinda speaking out of his field though), but… punching down isn’t really the best way to show you’re “supportive” of something.
Hey, thanks for keeping an open mind and looking into it yourself. It’s a really nice trait to see.
For those that haven’t come across it, he does a ‘sketch’ where he says that if people can identify as transgender, he can identify as a chimp. Which is very 2007; very attack helicopter of him, and commits the cardinal sin of both punching down, and not being very funny.