Questionable Content 10: La Li Lu Le Lo

[Cikomyr]

Yeah, the appropriate response to a thing you like doing a thing you don't like is to look down awkwardly, not say anything, and pretend the bad thing never happened, that way you never have to insinuate that you ever liked something that was flawed.

EDIT: Not to mention, of course, deriding those stupid morons who dare insult its perfection.

Hey man. You are all right? You talk like a passive-aggressive facebook troll. I know I said something you disagree, but its no reason to strawman my position to Kingdom Come.

[Traab]

Personally, im getting an over reaction reverb over this whole thing. Good lord, she isnt THAT bad. People are acting likes its the apocalypse that this character dares to make an appearance and will actually be *gasp* speaking for awhile! Is she turning into nickelback or something? Maybe she is made of taco bell?

[Thialfi]

Personally, im getting an over reaction reverb over this whole thing. Good lord, she isnt THAT bad. People are acting likes its the apocalypse that this character dares to make an appearance and will actually be *gasp* speaking for awhile! Is she turning into nickelback or something? Maybe she is made of taco bell?

Is it wrong of me that I consider Nickelback something of a guilty pleasure?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Is it wrong of me that I consider Nickelback something of a guilty pleasure?

Yes, but only because it shows an incredibly low threshold for both guilt and pleasure.

()

GW

[AvatarVecna]

Hey man. You are all right? You talk like a passive-aggressive facebook troll. I know I said something you disagree, but its no reason to strawman my position to Kingdom Come.

Hyperbole aside, I don't appreciate the dismissal of other people's opinions as "whining", a word which carries inevitable connotations: whatever complaints are being made, and whatever the subject may be, a person "whining about something" is understood to be making complaints that are that are some combination of petty, immature, and stupid. I mean, maybe that connotation was intended on your part, and you think that people complaining about an unpalatable webcomic character are all of those things, in which case my previous comment is a bit less hyperbolic, but I guess you're entitled to your opinion.

Personally, im getting an over reaction reverb over this whole thing. Good lord, she isnt THAT bad. People are acting likes its the apocalypse that this character dares to make an appearance and will actually be *gasp* speaking for awhile! Is she turning into nickelback or something? Maybe she is made of taco bell?

The stuff with Brun is mostly fine (outside of her first initial appearance, which got retconned into something more whimsically violent than disturbingly violent), but this character not only doesn't really add anything, but seems to exist to actively make whatever scene she's inserted into more irritating than it had to be, and that annoyance becomes unfairly associated with actually likable characters purely because they're in proximity with her; Elliot is nice and dorky, and Brun has a lot of interesting depths, but their appearance is less enjoyable because it usually means a comic or two of Renee's nagging is incoming. She's not the antichrist or anything. She's more like...a ghostly ant crawling on your skin: just physical enough for you to feel it crawling around and consistently making an otherwise fine time you were having worse, but not physical enough for you to actually do anything about her. It's a minor irritation at worst, but so far it's been a depressingly dependable one.

[Traab]

Is it wrong of me that I consider Nickelback something of a guilty pleasure?

Yes, its very wrong. There is no reason to feel guilty about enjoying nickelback in the first place. I just used it as an example of bizarre internet hate where it seems like everyone loves to pile on and go even further in expressing their disdain for something.

[John Cribati]

Renee is... pushy. Maybe as much as bossy. And yeah, this thing currently happening with Elliot is a weird grey area.

Frankly, I find the overwhelming negativity toward her very appearance to be unfounded.

[Thialfi]

Yes, its very wrong. There is no reason to feel guilty about enjoying nickelback in the first place. I just used it as an example of bizarre internet hate where it seems like everyone loves to pile on and go even further in expressing their disdain for something.

Oh, I know. I never got the whole "it's cool to trash things that were popular" thing that goes around the internet. I was blown away when it became fashionable to dis Linkin Park.

Renee is a bit abrasive without any of the charm Faye has to compensate and her treatment of Elliot is wrong, especially since she knows him and should have some idea of his issues, but the scorn visited on her is not commensurate with her transgressions.

Speaking of Elliot, umm, I thought he was just a lovable, innocent, and shy hulk of a man. Today's strip takes that to a whole nother level. Perhaps he and Brun are ideally suited for one another.

[Morquard]

There's also the fact that the first thing we really saw of her was right after Brun's bar burned down, and instead of saying "Hey thanks for taking care of my friend" first, she went right into "If you touch her, I rip your balls off".

[Knaight]

Oh, I know. I never got the whole "it's cool to trash things that were popular" thing that goes around the internet. I was blown away when it became fashionable to dis Linkin Park.

The whole idea that it's cool to trash things that are popular is vastly overstated. The thing about popularity is that it makes it disproportionately likely for people to have interacted with the object of popularity accordingly. That's going to get a lot of people who have an informed opinion, and some of them are going to be negative. Then, said negative opinions are dismissed as just someone dissing things that are popular instead of genuinely negative opinions formed because people decided to interact with the object of popularity. To use a few examples - I've listened to both Linkin Park and Nickleback because of their popularity (hitting the point where they played on the radio), and genuinely like the first and am largely ambivalent about the latter. I've watched Star Wars 4-6 and Forrest Gump because of their popularity (as that put them on my radar), and liked all of them but Forrest Gump, which I absolutely despise. The reasons I despise it have nothing to do with it being popular, and a lot to do with it oscillating between virulent anti-intellectualism and religious messages that I can't get into into detail here but that can be reasonably summed up using terms that involve "supremacist".

Out of six works listed, that's four that are seen as positive, one neutral, and one that's negative. Yet expressing any negative opinion on Forrest Gump even after praising other popular works gets dismissed as some attempt to trash things because they're popular. It's a load of nonsense.

[Traab]

You should try reading cracked.com articles some time (or dont, they have gotten super political) But time was, you couldnt go a week without at least one article about some random subject bringing up how much nickelback or taco bell suck. It would just be a casual mention, an analogy like, "Now as we all know, human trafficking sucks worse than being locked in a nickelback concert with nothing to eat but taco bell chalupas but etc etc etc" then go on with the actual topic. Its not just there either, those two things in particular got a strange amount of attention even when the subject being discussed has nothing to do with either. They are used as stand ins for "things that are terrible"

[Knaight]

You should try reading cracked.com articles some time (or dont, they have gotten super political) But time was, you couldnt go a week without at least one article about some random subject bringing up how much nickelback or taco bell suck. It would just be a casual mention, an analogy like, "Now as we all know, human trafficking sucks worse than being locked in a nickelback concert with nothing to eat but taco bell chalupas but etc etc etc" then go on with the actual topic. Its not just there either, those two things in particular got a strange amount of attention even when the subject being discussed has nothing to do with either. They are used as stand ins for "things that are terrible"

There's absolutely a canon of "things that suck" that are brought in as easy jokes, and those things need to be popular - throwing in some novel that you hated and was read by 500 people makes a joke that none of your readers are likely to get. That's not the same thing as it being cool to trash things that are popular in general though, and it only really works on things that are both well known and widely disliked. The same jokes could be made with something like the LoTR novels, and they'd fall flat. In practice though the whole idea that it's cool to insult popular things is mostly brought up as a defense of popular things when they're being criticized. I have a heavily timestamped criticism of Forrest Gump floating around somewhere (even if I track it down I couldn't link it here, it breaks the Religion & Politics rules repeatedly). There are specific criticisms with citations. "You just hate it because it's popular" is the standard defense.

[Cikomyr]

Hyperbole aside, I don't appreciate the dismissal of other people's opinions as "whining", a word which carries inevitable connotations: whatever complaints are being made, and whatever the subject may be, a person "whining about something" is understood to be making complaints that are that are some combination of petty, immature, and stupid. I mean, maybe that connotation was intended on your part, and you think that people complaining about an unpalatable webcomic character are all of those things, in which case my previous comment is a bit less hyperbolic, but I guess you're entitled to your opinion.

My point was that people's displeasures at this character/storyline have already been discussed, put forward, debated and argued. The number of synonym i am using here should highlight​ the degree at which the topic has been featured in this thread. At this point, i think everyone gets it: some people dont enjoy reading the comic because of parts and pieces.

Taking the time to write yet another post just to further bash the same tired old point sort of lost its novelty at this degree. Id just like people to try to have to contribute to the discussion with more than a 1000th "man this sucks" & variants thereof.

[AvatarVecna]

My point was that people's displeasures at this character/storyline have already been discussed, put forward, debated and argued. The number of synonym i am using here should highlight​ the degree at which the topic has been featured in this thread. At this point, i think everyone gets it: some people dont enjoy reading the comic because of parts and pieces.

Taking the time to write yet another post just to further bash the same tired old point sort of lost its novelty at this degree. Id just like people to try to have to contribute to the discussion with more than a 1000th "man this sucks" & variants thereof.

I'm sorry for discussing my opinion on the current comic in a thread dedicated to giving people a place to voice their opinions on the current comic.

Spoiler

Show

One of the things about media you'll have to get used to is that, when a new piece of media comes out that isn't a standalone, it's going to get discussed, and the things it did well (or not well) are going to get discussed in more detail, because that's how people learn and expand their knowledge of things. Webcomics will generally be more subject to analysis over time than a comparable medium (comic books) because they're frequent releases of small bits of material; this is also true of original fiction (and fanfiction) on the internet as compared to more standard publication methods. To use an example, there are now 7 main movies in the Star Wars canon, and it's popular enough that...let's say each one has like 1000 reviews dedicated to it (obviously not the actual number). If each movie was instead split up into 20 little short snippets released over time, those snippets would not have 50 reviews each, they'd have 1000 each from each reviewer reviewing each snippet as it was released. Needless to say, "too much Jar Jar" would quickly get old in the Phantom Menace snippets reviews, but that doesn't mean it's not worth complaining about.

The advantage to this kind of released snippets over time method, as far as criticism goes, is that it allows for alterations to be made more often based on what works and what doesn't; obviously in something where the ongoing plot has had a lot of thought put into it, criticisms on individual releases might not see much change (see the ever-present discussions for the OotS comic, such as the current ongoing "Andi sucks" stuff), but something where long-term plot is less set in stone (such as a gag-a-day comic, or a comic focused on short day-in-the-life arcs). You can see this in QC from the beginning; Pintsize, while still undeniably a core cast member, is far less of one than he was near the beginning. As a character, he's grown into a far less long-term likable person, but he's perfectly palatable as comedy relief in short doses - and that's how the comic uses him. If we got a Pintsize-focused arc that was just him going around all day being a tiny **** to people, it might be funny, but the joke would get old fast; if that kind of arc was the only kind of Pintsize we got in the comic, not only would the joke have long since gotten beaten into the ground, but the character would probably be actively despised every time he pops up, purely because his every previous appearance was a negative experience. If that was how Pintsize's contributions to this comic had gone, Mental Conditioning would push us to not like him when he appears again, not because he does anything immediately bad in his sudden appearance, but because we're so used to being aggravated and disappointed when he's present that it's a programmed response.

New things that happen with a character are relevant to how people feel about the character. I'd probably agree with your opinion about 1000 voices saying "this sucks" if it was 1000 voices crying out over 1 instance, but 10 voices crying out over 100 instances isn't a mob of people shouting about some unexpected suckage, it's a small group of people consistently complaining about the ongoing suckiness of the character. Taking into account a character's new actions in order to reevaluate your opinion of them overall is part of being an adult; it's why Renee gets credit from me (and, I imagine, basically everybody else who reads the comic) for giving Brun a place to stay after the bar burned down. But basically every appearance of her has been more negative than positive, and even though it's minor things (she's not a manipulative Disney villain or anything), that kind of thing builds up over time into something far less bearable.

TL;DR

Why keep complaining? Because it means the sum of complaints might one day be enough to get the creator to change things up to make the character more tolerable. Why keep complaining? Because this is a place for speaking our opinions, and I'll speak my opinion on this if I damn well please. Why keep complaining? Because saying something negative, even if it's been said a million billion times, at least leaves things more open for discussion than just keeping my mouth shut. If you think what I've got to say about the character is wrong, or misguided, or whatever, present an argument that they're better, or point out discrepancies, or show their good qualities. Traab did that when the issue of keeping/selling the clock came up previously, and they had good points. But telling people to shut up because you're tired of hearing a particular opinion isn't creating conversation unless some ******* like me takes it as an opportunity to rant.

[Wraith]

On the one hand, "Executive override" is a great line, and I wish that I had brought it to mind when I was speaking to my staff. It's a great phrase that I enjoyed a lot.

On the other, I feel that Jim is missing out on an opportunity to fill a gap in the market: topless coffee shops. Today's comic is proof of concept - keep Elliot there in the doorway with a sign in his hands and even the most tsundere of patrons will need a minute to compose themselves before they rush in for a closer look - and their excellent Coffe O' Doom beans will keep bringing back repeat business.... I think he could be sitting on a goldmine if he'd only stop and think about it.....

[The Glyphstone]

I'm surprised it's not a thing in real life, actually. Bikini baristas exist, seems like having toned+muscled men could be hitting an entire new market.

On the other hand, it might not be enough of a gimmick to compete in the savage coffee shop environment of Northampton, pitted against illustrious competitors like Vladof's Beverage Emporium.

[Beelzebub1111]

Renee is... pushy. Maybe as much as bossy. And yeah, this thing currently happening with Elliot is a weird grey area.

Frankly, I find the overwhelming negativity toward her very appearance to be unfounded.

Among other things, Her smugness really gets under my skin to start. Add on the harassment and misanthropy on top of it, a dash of hypocrisy, and coat with the implication from the creator that we're supposed to find this behavior charming, you have a recipe for a loathsome character stew.

In regards to today's comic "could be construed as"? I think you mean "is".

[Cikomyr]

Why keep complaining? Because it means the sum of complaints might one day be enough to get the creator to change things up to make the character more tolerable.

Then do it on the creator's forum where he might actually read you?

Why keep complaining? Because this is a place for speaking our opinions, and I'll speak my opinion on this if I damn well please.

You seem to have a problem when I state MY opinion tho, hypocrite much?

Why keep complaining? Because saying something negative, even if it's been said a million billion times, at least leaves things more open for discussion than just keeping my mouth shut.

Disagreed. Saying something that has been said a million time does not opens anything to discussion. On the contrary, constant negativism has the tendency to lead to a spiral of hate and intellectual inbreeding. Any kind of constant reinforcement without bringing something new to the discussion can lead to nasty consequences of groupthink; especially if its over subjective matter.

If you think what I've got to say about the character is wrong, or misguided, or whatever, present an argument that they're better, or point out discrepancies, or show their good qualities.

But i didnt criticized the criticizing of Questionable Content. Please not that my recent post is the first time i protested against the constant negativity.

I protested the lazy repeatitiveness (?) of the arguments put forward. Basically the way of thinking that "this sucks" constitutes a worthwhile post in of itself without actually bringing anything of actual new to the conversation.

Traab did that when the issue of keeping/selling the clock came up previously, and they had good points. But telling people to shut up because you're tired of hearing a particular opinion isn't creating conversation unless some ******* like me takes it as an opportunity to rant.

I didnt told people to shut up. I merely pointed out the repeatitiveness (again: ?) Of the short, lazy negativity. How it didnt brought anything of value to the discussion beside Yet Another Bitching Post. I dont mind people saying bad things about the comic as long as they make a case, but the 30th post saying nothing more than "this sucks" and variants got old real fast.

I think you were just looking for an excuse to rant.

[AvatarVecna]

Then do it on the creator's forum where he might actually read you?

Not a big fan of that forum, and joining for the pleasure of further Renee discussion wastes time. I spend time on this forum, and this thread is where QC gets discussed; this is where I choose to voice my opinion of the comic, and the author

You seem to have a problem when I state MY opinion tho, hypocrite much?

An unsurprising and poorly thought out argument. If you read my post again, my issue isn't with you disagreeing with opinions, it's your apparent desire to have them silenced for no better reason than "I'm tired of hearing it". Observe the careful distinction between these two replies:

I have a negative opinion of this thing.

I disagree with that opinion!

Disagreement?! Let's argue this out!

And now the comparison:

I have a negative opinion of this thing.

It's still more interesting than everyone whining about it.

That second one is a (very minorly altered) quote of you, and the difference seems clear to me: one is actually discussing the opinion, while the other at best diverting the discussion to a discussion of opinions themselves, or at worst attempting to shut down the opinion in question. When I replied to your thing, I was disagreeing with your opinion on the value of stating an opinion that's already been stated a number of times; when you replied to the other person, you didn't directly tell them to shut up, you just expressed a negative opinion of them stating their opinion - not of them holding the opinion, just them sharing it. It's extremely passive-aggressive, so I responded in kind. What's more, your response, even if it's not the way you meant it in this case, is a classic way of opposing an opinion without actually having the intellectual honesty to stake your opinion in the ground. Let's look back at those examples, but this time with an actual thing:

I have a negative opinion of murder.

I disagree with that opinion!

Disagreement?! Let's argue this out!

And now the comparison:

I have a negative opinion of murder.

It's still more interesting than everyone whining about it.

An extreme example, I know, but it's not for the purposes of pointing out the seriousness of the subject matter, but the motivation behind the response. Even if you don't mean for it to come across that way, even if there was no underlying subtext intended, it can easily be construed that you disagree with the opinion itself, but don't want to actually come out and say that, so you subtly oppose the opinion while also moving the conversation in a new onto a new topic. Even if you did do it by accident, I hope you can understand that it looks like a post by a person who doesn't have the intellectual honesty to actually state their disagreement with an opinion.

Disagreed. Saying something that has been said a million time does not opens anything to discussion. On the contrary, constant negativism has the tendency to lead to a spiral of hate and intellectual inbreeding. Any kind of constant reinforcement without bringing something new to the discussion can lead to nasty consequences of groupthink; especially if its over subjective matter.

Your aversion to groupthink would be commendable if it was actually the issue at hand. If the ongoing discussion of Renee sucking was nothing more than a group of people endlessly discussing her first appearance (the genital mutilation threats) and all having a little negativity circle jerk, concocting elaborate theories based on that one comic of how she would suck forever, I would say that you definitely had a point, people were taking a little and stretching it farther than they have any right to, and that the discussion of Renee sucking was a neverending loop of hateful feelings...but that's not what's happening here. The discussion that pops up isn't unceasing iterations of a argument long since beaten into the ground, it's the introduction of a new piece of evidence to an old argument to see if it changes anything. As it happens, it doesn't, but it's at least discussion of a new piece of an older puzzle, rather than the discussion of a "this horse you're beating is so dead its remains are being shipped to Walmart in bottles of Elmer's" topic you're making it out to be. Every time we get another bad thing from Renee, that specific bad things gets discussed; it is the new thing being brought to the discussion, and claiming that every round of discussion of Renee has been a spiral of unthinking hate is at best uninformed and at worst disingenuous.

While the subjective nature of the subject matter muddies the issue a bit, it can be roughly compared to a graph (with a very vague Y-axis measuring positive and negative thoughts, and an X-axis of each strip containing Renee, you wouldn't have one post with 1000 opinions all echoing each other, you'd have a few dozen opinions on each strip, all of the varying from each other in both overall content and level of opinion, but the scatterpoints would still form an overall pattern of negativity. That's not groupthink, that's not a freak occurrence blown out of proportion, that's a consistent trend of sucking. I will say that at least in my understanding, it's curving closer to positive than it was starting out (although that's largely because it started quite poorly, and of course it's still quite negative overall), but it means that the conclusion (Renee sucks) isn't so well-established that it's set in stone. If Renee sucking continued on for so long that it was as dependable as gravity, comments of "Renee sucks in this appearance and here's why" would be less relevant and less common. The dependability of such things doesn't make further measurements irrelevant either; even a well-established pattern can be upset by a significant enough change. The opinion of the billionth person to observe a thing is as relevant and valuable overall as that of the first person, except in the sole way that their opinion changes the average collective opinion less than any opinion before it. That doesn't mean it's not as valuable though: the last Skittle in the bag isn't less delicious than the first just because there's no more left after it.

As a final note before moving on, I'm amused at your accusation of my argument leading to anti-intellectualism, as if increased discussion of a thing is worse for thought than decreased discussion of a thing, especially when your response is "I don't want to hear any more of this complaining, but plugging my ears makes me look close-minded, so I'll just tell them how much I'd appreciate it if they stopped talking that way, so they look like an ass if they refuse". Classy.

But i didnt criticized the criticizing of Questionable Content. Please not that my recent post is the first time i protested against the constant negativity.

Semantics deliberately dancing around the issue at hand, as previously discussed about responding to statements of opinions.

I didnt told people to shut up. I merely pointed out the repeatitiveness (again: ?) Of the short, lazy negativity.

1) The ability, inclination, and free time necessary to fully portray your opinion of a thing every time it pops up is not something everybody has. A bit more to the point, not everybody needs to go into their opinion at length on a particular iteration, because somebody will.

2) The difference between telling people to shut up and saying that you wish people wouldn't talk is nitpicking at technicalities.

[Ibrinar]

My point was that people's displeasures at this character/storyline have already been discussed, put forward, debated and argued. The number of synonym i am using here should highlight​ the degree at which the topic has been featured in this thread. At this point, i think everyone gets it: some people dont enjoy reading the comic because of parts and pieces.

Taking the time to write yet another post just to further bash the same tired old point sort of lost its novelty at this degree. Id just like people to try to have to contribute to the discussion with more than a 1000th "man this sucks" & variants thereof.

I almost never see someone do the same when people say positive things about something which makes me a tad skeptical that it is only about the repetition. Especially coming after mostly discussion about sexual harrassment and not just repeating that we don't like her.

[eee]

And the Silver Fox proves he's a good, if cranky and unshaven, boss.

[Traab]

Well handled. He assessed the situation, pointed out that she was a moron without directly saying it, told her to make amends and is moving on. She didnt do that out of malice or anything so as long as elliot isnt too upset there is no need to take it further.

[Thialfi]

Whoa! Was that a moment of self deprecation from Renee? Careful there now, wouldn't want to show any traits that might be construed as even slightly endearing. She might become a slightly less annoying character than Tai. Although with me, that's a really low bar to clear.

[Flickerdart]

I'm surprised it's not a thing in real life, actually. Bikini baristas exist, seems like having toned+muscled men could be hitting an entire new market.

On the other hand, it might not be enough of a gimmick to compete in the savage coffee shop environment of Northampton, pitted against illustrious competitors like Vladof's Beverage Emporium.

It may be more difficult to find (and thus, more expensive to pay) attractive muscular men, rather than pretty much any woman willing to wear a bikini on the job.

[Yuki Akuma]

It may be more difficult to find (and thus, more expensive to pay) attractive muscular men, rather than pretty much any woman willing to wear a bikini on the job.

Men aren't socialised to put in the extreme effort it requires to maintain that type of figure to the same extent women are socialised to put in the extreme effort it requires to maintain a Bikini Bar's figure.

I dunno which is harder to maintain, though

[Flickerdart]

It's not even that. It's that the standard for "woman that men would like to see in a bikini" is a lot lower than the standard for "man that women would like to see shirtless."

[Traab]

That was actually one of Arnold Schwarzenegger's first businesses in america. He basically started up a bricklaying business with a fellow bodybuilder and made good money as a shirtless muscular european dude.

[Admiral Squish]

It's not even that. It's that the standard for "woman that men would like to see in a bikini" is a lot lower than the standard for "man that women would like to see shirtless."

I feel like it's a case of 'women that men would like to see in a bikini' being more common than 'men that women would like to see shirtless', rather than 'men have lower standards'. And those women are more common, at least partially, because of the lower social pressure on men to maintain an attractive physique. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I would not make it as a woman, it's just too damn hard, and I like cookies too much.

At the fundamental, biological level, I think men and women are way more similar than people tend to think. It seems like, 99% of the time, if somebody says 'women are X and men are Y', it's either completely untrue or the product of a forced social construct more than it is any sort of 'inherent' aspect of the gender. Men and women both experience the same lustful desires (with a few exceptions), it's just that men are expected to indulge them and women are expected to hide them.

[Beelzebub1111]

At the fundamental, biological level, I think men and women are way more similar than people tend to think. It seems like, 99% of the time, if somebody says 'women are X and men are Y', it's either completely untrue or the product of a forced social construct more than it is any sort of 'inherent' aspect of the gender. Men and women both experience the same lustful desires (with a few exceptions), it's just that men are expected to indulge them and women are expected to hide them.

Alternatively, Women are taught, through modern media, that their sexuality is an inherently good, pure and empowering thing, while men are taught that their sexuality is a base, dangerous, animal vice that needs to be constantly suppressed. It all depends on your perspective and environment.

[Cikomyr]

Alternatively, Women are taught, through modern media, that their sexuality is an inherently good, pure and empowering thing, while men are taught that their sexuality is a base, dangerous, animal vice that needs to be constantly suppressed. It all depends on your perspective and environment.

I think you have a fundamendal misunderstanding of modern media. Men are definitely not though that.

In fact, id argue that modern culture normalizes men sexuality and the objectification of women, and whatever you have seen to make you reach the above conclusion was probably a tentative to change the status quo.