Shouldn’t consider it completely unrelated. The comic’s last panel says “I will not indulge in your poorly disguised fetish.”
That’s a sex thing. So the comic opens that domain of discussion by making use of it.
Nudes are another fetish, so bringing them up in the already approached avenue is theoretically within the general context.
Also, no offense, but when discussing someone’s creations, unavoidably the person themselves also becomes a topic of discussion. Their past actions are brought up, in relation to the topic at hand or not.
It is something we all do, whether we realize it or not.
Is it misogynistic? I’d say it borders on it as well. However, can we be sure this wouldn’t have played out the same had said nudes were of a man instead of a woman?
But I think in this case, the user themselves and their history are what triggered a permanent ban instead of a lower punishment, which in my view shows that the comment itself wasn’t really out of context after all.
Shouldn’t consider it completely unrelated. The comic’s last panel says “I will not indulge in your poorly disguised fetish.” That’s a sex thing. So the comic opens that domain of discussion by making use of it. Nudes are another fetish, so bringing them up in the already approached avenue is theoretically within the general context.
Also, no offense, but when discussing someone’s creations, unavoidably the person themselves also becomes a topic of discussion. Their past actions are brought up, in relation to the topic at hand or not. It is something we all do, whether we realize it or not.
Is it misogynistic? I’d say it borders on it as well. However, can we be sure this wouldn’t have played out the same had said nudes were of a man instead of a woman?
But I think in this case, the user themselves and their history are what triggered a permanent ban instead of a lower punishment, which in my view shows that the comment itself wasn’t really out of context after all.