OUDaily.com | CARTOON: Proper laundry room use

BoomerGirl32 2 years, 3 months ago

I think Seamus has personal frustrations with women that go well beyond this cartoon.

schuyler 2 years, 3 months ago

I don't believe this Web site is capable of uploading my entire response in regards to the above cartoon I created... If you would like to view it, I will post it on my Facebook page.

davi2173 2 years, 3 months ago

Part 2:

Taking the title, "Proper laundry room use," the perspective, and the visual information presented here into account, it seems very likely what is being portrayed is a scene of pending rape or consensual, sexual intimacy. Again, the title invites the viewer not only to see what the male sees, but to identify with the idea that the male’s engagement in either consensual or nonconsensual sex with the female connotes PROPER (appropriate or correct) use of the laundry room. This is not a public service announcement about women's safety on campus; this is an invitation to share an idea about women as sexual objects. WE enter the room, WE lock the door, trapping her inside, WE think this is PROPER USE. Think about the word "use" for a moment in this context and what it means to “use” someone or something—to apply it for SERVICE. The woman is “using” the washing machine; the male wants to “use” the condom machine and then “use” the female for sex. Think about the setting--a laundry room--and traditional gender-divided spheres of work. The woman is bent over the washing machine, engaging in a domestic activity. She leans over the machine and is unaware of being watched. A condom machine is positioned behind her. The shaded area inside the diagonal lines leading to the close up of the word "CONDOMS" includes her buttocks as she leans over. What does this suggest about her sexual availability for use and vulnerability? What does this suggest about male power and sexual dominance? Note she is also wearing stiletto heels, skimpy shorts, and a midriff top, which is, of course, what young women commonly wear when washing their clothes. How would this image work if the positions of the figures were reversed--if the woman was watching the man doing his laundry? WHY wouldn't this work as "funny"? WHAT does it signify that the artist and presumably at least some others see it as a humorous sexual scene when a woman is leaning over a washing machine? What does it mean to see this as a harmless cartoon or to assert that seeing it as offensive or troubling is nothing more than a misdirected, overzealous cause? A friend I showed this to told me that "it's not worth thinking about." I disagree. Dismissing this kind of humor or the perspective that generates it as harmless reinforces ideas about women that may lead to enactment of exactly this kind of scene. This is not merely offensive; it's irresponsible. See: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/08/22/nyregion/rapists-and-condoms-is-use-a-cavalier-act-or-a-way-to-avoid-disease-and-arrest.html I'm a second waver, and I'm not seeking to vilify the artist. However, I do think this cartoon and The Oklahoma Daily's printing of it reveal a need for serious discourse about verbal and symbolic messages of patriarchal power, sexual violence against women, and the promotion of gender equity more widely at The University of Oklahoma.

mythman 2 years, 3 months ago

*intentional

Leave it to me to wait twelve hours to find a typo.

yostarica 2 years, 3 months ago

"You all need to check the author's response on facebook, because everyone is making massive sexist assumptions."

Yeah, because it's sexist to think you need a woman's consent to have sex with her. Seriously? I'm no "third waver", but the first reaction I had to this cartoon was "is this a joke about rape?" The author and editor who published this = massive tools.

rosa 2 years, 3 months ago

Satire on the idea that putting condom machines in the basement leads to Sodom and Gomorrah?

TheAntiTrevorClark 2 years, 3 months ago

Seriously, does anyone check to make sure these comics make sense before printing them? I seriously do not see any sort of punchline.

Radiohead 2 years, 3 months ago

At least he used protection!

Related to this comic's premise, rape is terrible.

JWOU 2 years, 3 months ago

Wow. You all need to check the author's response on facebook, because everyone is making massive sexist assumptions. I'm just surprised and shocked that the bright students of OU could be so sexually bias, somehow turning this comic into a rape scenario. Here is the link. http://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/schuyler-crabtree/cartoon-from-wed-21010/295629257723

JJanowiak 2 years, 3 months ago

I don't get it, is this freshman about to rape the woman standing next to the condom machine after he locks the door but before she gives clear consent? That's not what the condom machines are supposed to be for.

Buchholtz 2 years, 3 months ago

Rape jokes are bad. Never rape someone as a joke, they won't get it.

But more importantly, never be offended at a CARTOON in the OPINION section. And stop taking things so seriously. False liberal guilt and faux-feminism isn't very becoming.

chri4351 2 years, 3 months ago

This is distasteful!

Shanaynay 2 years, 3 months ago

I'm not sure what you think a feminist is, but I was brought up with the belief that "feminism is the radical notion that women are people, too."

All I want is to make the same amount of money as a man for the same work and to not be reduced to a sex object. I also ask that my personal space (i.e. my body) not be encroached on without permission. Is that really so much to expect?

davi2173 2 years, 3 months ago

Not funny. IF this is not a rape fantasy, which it may be, it is a canned stereotype of an adolescent male sexual fantasy. This kind of "Harold and Kumar" humor is unoriginal and offensive to men, who the cartoonist suggests think this way, and to women, who are depicted as nothing more than objects of sexual gratification. What is especially offensive is including reference to our school in this twisted power fantasy. Really, is this how we want to see ourselves? Does this cartoon reflect Sooner pride?

TheJR 2 years, 3 months ago

So clearly condoms lead to rape! What an informative cartoon.

Firefly21 2 years, 3 months ago

SeamusMcCallahan:

"Feminist itch"?! Perhaps that is a bit uncalled for. Perhaps what students would like is clarification of the purpose of the cartoon. It seems rather ambiguous. As for negative effects, how is promoting safe, consensual sex vilifying morality. Yes, having sex with multiple partners is hazardous but denying the fact the people have sex only contributes to the problem rather than helps.

How can condom dispersal have negative effects? Are you saying that condom dispersal would lead to rape? Providing contraception merely sends a message that if you choose to have sex then you should be, heaven forbid, PREPARED!!!!

linzee 2 years, 3 months ago

OH. oh oh oh oh oh Mister "SeamusMcCallahan"

So let's took a look at your three points:

That this is meant solely to depict an unsafe environment. What environment is that? The one where condoms are widely available on campus? You are a fool if you think sexual assault doesn't already happen in the absence of condoms- in fact, more often than not, I don't think you're going to find a rapist slipping on a rubber before he locks the door. The unsafe environment you want to be addressing isn't one where there are condoms widely available- it is any environment where a person believes they have the right to take advantage of another person without that person's consent. This comic does nothing to address that unsafe social environment- in fact, it makes light of it with playful banter and the absence of any consent in the picture.
Second- morals, really? Whose morals would this be? The guy sees a girl in clothes other than a potato sack so he has the right to rape her? You should be educated enough to know that sex happens more often in areas with abstinence programs than with available condoms, so having the machine wouldn't contribute to immoral acts. Again, the loose morals you want to address here are the morals of those who engage in sexual assault, not those who try to offer protection for an activity students are going to partake in anyways.
We aren't looking for a villain. We are simply asking that the people of the daily should probably think about the many women who have been assaulted in situations such as this, and to not write off their experiences as something to make a joke about. What is more offensive is that you don't not even for a moment try to step out of your position and think about how this might affect other people- you assume that because you weren't offended, others must be overreacting. Consider for a moment that you may underreacting, and your alientation of victims everywhere is a depth of injury you can't even begin to conceive of

patch 2 years, 3 months ago

Rape is certainly NOT the proper use of a laundry room... nor any room for that matter, Mr. Crabtree.

caitlynlacy 2 years, 3 months ago

There seem to be a few frames of this strip missing. Where's the frame where this "babe" acknowledges the creepy faceless man leering at her body? Where's the frame where she consents to being locked in the laundry room with him?

This is offensive. On a college campus, where women have a higher chance of being raped, the last thing the OUDaily needs to be promoting is a flippant attitude toward this behavior. You have reduced a violent reality to a CARTOON.

The_BYX_Stops_Here 2 years, 3 months ago

As much of an opinion piece as this is, and as much as I feel that everyone should be able to freely express his or her own opinion, this seems highly distasteful. In the cartoonist's defense, he/she probably meant it to simply be a voice against condom machines in the residence halls. The piece, however, really appears to be more of a... well.. I believe everyone else has put forth what it comes off as.

And in response to SeamusMcCallahan,

I have never seen the word "villifies" in text before. Good show.

If you really think that our laundry facilities in the residence halls are an "unsafe environment," I suggest you rethink. If, after rethinking, you still feel this, I suggest you bring it up to housing government (HCSA) or any other superiors in housing. I'm sure they would be happy to listen to your fears (or the fears of this cartoonist) and adjust their policies accordingly.

Of course, I'm sure this is just what the "establishment tells [me]". I suggest you tell them, if this is really an issue.

I'll go wave my signs somewhere else. I do feel sorry for the cartoonist... His/her piece was just received in the worst way possible, eh?

Shanaynay 2 years, 3 months ago

I don't get this cartoon. Is the message of this cartoon that men can't restrain themselves when they see condoms and a woman in her pajama shorts? Or is that women should be afraid of men when they are trying to do laundry? Is this a warning to those living in the dorms?

Besides consent from the woman (which is the crucial things missing), where is the panel showing one of them being responsible and BUYING the condom?

I'm a huge supporter of condom machines being put in the dorms, but why should OU install the machines if it's going to lead to rape and students being inconvenienced i.e. locked out of the laundry room?

Furthermore, has Mr. Crabtree ever looked at a woman? I'm pretty sure no woman (save Madonna) has cone-shaped breasts or nipples that defy physics. Why should it always be about a woman's body?

I can't believe this cartoon was published. This is one of the most offensive things I've ever seen in the Daily.

acornvoter 2 years, 3 months ago

More "perspective": A man can be opposed to rape. This one is. This cartoon obviously lends itself to the valid interpretation of it as a rape fantasy regardless of the gender of the person doing the interpreting. There are no frames suggesting the female is interested or has a thought process in this. She is implicitly a form of prey. So, at best, it's sexism. At worst, it's sexism and a rape fantasy. Take your pick.

mythman 2 years, 3 months ago

Whether the suggestion that women should be raped in laundry rooms was intentionally or not, I expect an immediate apology from Schuyler Crabtree.

SeamusMcCallahan 2 years, 3 months ago

It's called "perspective," people. Perhaps if you weren't so quick to find a problem to scratch your feminism itch, you'd consider- just maybe consider- the possibility that maaaaaybe what the cartoonist is depicting is an unsafe environment on this very campus. Or maybe how our comfort with sex, all too often framed merely as "rights" or "liberation," excludes the potentially negative effects (yes, questionable) of a society that villifies any concrete morality. But no, you've gotta find a villain, don't you? Then, just as the political establishment tells you, you have to rip him/her to shreds without any consideration of the Other's motives, etc. If anything, this is most likely an overexagerration of the effects of condom dispersion and nothing all. Sorry third-wavers, you need to go wave your signs somewhere else.

adaneko 2 years, 3 months ago

Wow, someone is creepy. Hope no girls are ever stuck in the same room as you. Not sure what part of this was supposed to be clever.

TheAntiTrevorClark 2 years, 3 months ago

Hey. I can't get the link to the note to work. Did he take it down?

kmer1987 2 years, 3 months ago

I too find this offensive. Regardless of whether Mr. Crabtree promotes the use of the laundry room for sexual escapades, consensual or otherwise, I would have hoped that a student newspaper (which, in the same issue, ran an article on raising awareness of sexually abusive relationships) would have the good sense to stay away from even the potential interpretation of rape. 1 out of every 4 women is sexually assaulted on a college campus. Wouldn't the Daily's time and efforts be better spent on promoting the value of OU's female students and encouraging them to protect themselves from danger? As a female student myself, it disturbs me to think that I don't have the right to perform routine activities on campus without the risk of male students objectifying my body.

(As an aside, I'd also like to point out to "SeamusMcCallahan" that most rapists probably wouldn't stop to pick up a condom en route to sexual assualt, regardless of its purchase price.)

AnnieMcGillicudy 2 years, 3 months ago

I like your name, SeamusMcCallahan, but your rhetoric seems awfully familiar...

schuyler 2 years, 3 months ago

My name is Schuyler Crabtree, and yes, I did draw the above cartoon - with great pride I might add.

This is a fairly interesting series of comments... Many of which are rather surprising to me.

While I normally do not clarify or explain any kind of artwork I create, I will make an exception this time. Most of the art I create is intended to be interpreted as it is seen by the viewer. The cartoons I draw for the daily, however, are not designed in this same fashion. This cartoon, as well as any other cartoons I have drawn for the daily, has one message. I know this because I made it that way. So, there really should be no further discussion about what it means; it means what I drew it to mean.

I recently heard there was discussion about installing condom dispensing machines in the basements of the dorms - this cartoon is a response to that idea.

There are some people who oppose making contraceptives available to young adults because they believe it will incite unbridled sexual activity. This cartoon depicts a situation where two young people behave in exactly that manner: sex is implied immediately after encountering each other because condoms are readily available. I drew this scenario because I believe that people who think the availability of contraceptives leads to unbridled sexual activity are incredibly naive to young adult sexual behavior. I also do not believe that pre-marital sex is necessarily something negative, nor do i believe that anyone should try to inhibit other people's decision regarding sex by making safe-sex practices less available. By presenting a scenario that depicts the opposite of what I personally believe in regards to contraceptives, my aim was to show just how unrealistic and unintelligent the argument against the availability of contraceptives is. This method of humor is not uncommon in our society.

In this cartoon, there is a gap in time between each frame that does not show the viewer directly what happens during each moment between the beginning and the end of the cartoon. It is often necessary to leave moments in time out of cartoons because it would take up far too much space, it would take too long to read, the reader would lose interest over time, and most importantly: not all moments in time are necessary for telling the story. When there IS a gap in time not shown, the viewer should assume the simplest and most logical flow of events from one panel to the next.

Apparently, some people did not make the simplest, most logical assumptions between each frame; otherwise, there would be no need to discuss this.

(more...)

schuyler 2 years, 3 months ago

(2) So what actually happens in the cartoon, and what assumptions can be made from that? In this cartoon, a young adult is taking laundry to the basement of the dorms. Next, we see a young woman leaning over a washing machine with a condom dispensing machine in the background (zoomed in on underneath). A close up of the woman's breasts and butt are shown next. And finally, we see a door closing and locking.

Most likely everyone assumed the person in the elevator was a man (whether it be by the lack of curves in the body, rough-shaped hands, or attire). This assumption is simple and logical for most people. Unfortunately, this is a very critical forum, so I will continue with that spirit in mind. I did in fact draw this character as a man, but the assumption that he/she is a man (without the specific knowledge of creative intention only I possess) is prejudice.

The frame depicting the interior of the laundry room with the woman, machine, and condom dispenser is very clear. The assumption that the "man" entered the room is never actually confirmed, however.

Next up, anatomy. Why is it assumed the man is checking out the woman, and that the woman is not pushing her breasts out and leaning far over the washing machine to get the man's attention? To assume that the man is the "dirty" one in this situation with sex on his mind is sexist towards men.

When the door locks, the simplest and most logical assumption would be that something sexual or private is occurring between the two people. Astonishingly, some people made the complex and unfounded assumption that the woman was being raped by the man. This assumption is entirely sexist towards men. The idea that the man is locking the door, rather than the woman, is also an assumption made without evidence. So why would anyone assume rape? The cartoon doesn't show the woman consenting to sexual activity, but it also doesn't show the man consenting to sexual activity. Even if we do assume the man was checking out the woman rather than that she was trying to seduce him, checking someone out is a very different action from raping someone. It is unreasonable to assume a woman is going to be raped every time a man checks her out. Most importantly, the fact that this cartoon is about the availability of condoms should give the viewer the idea that the sex is safe and therefore consensual. I would hope that it is common knowledge that rape generally does not involve safe-sex practices like the use of contraceptives. This knowledge alone should be more than enough to lead viewers away from the idea of rape if they somehow find themselves entertaining the idea.

As I stated earlier, the simplest and most logical assumptions are exactly as I intended: The man and woman are both consenting to sexual activity with each other in the end. He is checking her out, and she is making her physical attractiveness known to him through her actions. Entirely consensual.

(more...)

schuyler 2 years, 3 months ago

(3) Many of you are under the impression that this comic was drawn to appease you, make you laugh, or simply provide you with a moment of entertainment. This is simply not true. I draw comics for the daily because it is entertaining for me, and because a friend of mine asked me to draw cartoons containing my opinions for the paper; certainly not for public approval. If you understand and enjoy this, or any other cartoon I've drawn this semester, then I am happy to share the message with you. If you do not understand the cartoons I draw, or disagree with the message they send, then you probably shouldn't read them; save yourself the confusion or embarrassment from making sexist comments about things you've misinterpreted.

It is very unfortunate that some viewers did not properly view and analyze the cartoon as it was depicted, but rather developed ideas completely unrelated to the message of the cartoon. Many people interpreted the intended message with ease, and are unfortunately not represented strongly on this online forum; there is little need to discuss that which is straightforward.

It should be noted that one often finds what one is looking for. I imagine some people embittered by the ills of our society are looking for exactly the kind of thing they were able to procure from this cartoon.

It is highly disappointing that some bright young women (who will remain unnamed) involved with the Women's and Gender Studies program at OU, of all people, would actively work to incite further discourse in our community, constantly grabbing at any available media attention in order to fulfill their own desires, to the point of making highly sexist statements concerning men. Let's remember the real purpose of activism; it isn't a selfish cause. Activism should aim to ensure equality, support fairness, and pursue the TRUTH (among other things).

Those of you who have asked (or demanded) for an apology, you won't be getting one. And you don't deserve one.

If any apologies should be delivered, they should be delivered from the mouths of the students who presumed this cartoon supported rape. Not only because the assumption of rape is not logically supported in this cartoon, but also because the vast majority of students who made this assumption did not even attempt to conduct the simplest research and contact me to find out exactly what the cartoon represented. You should apologize to your parents and professors for wasting their time and money by failing to utilize the assets and knowledge provided to you via your academic career to conduct simple research methods.

(more...)

schuyler 2 years, 3 months ago

(4) I hope this message clears up any confusion concerning the content of the above cartoon. While you should feel free to comment in response to this post, please do not make the mistake that I will read any comments written in response to this message, as I have now more than adequately provided you with the information you need to interpret the above cartoon accurately.

Rape is NOT funny, NOR is the fact that I actually had to explain that condoms don't imply rape (along with the rest of the information in this message) to educated college students.

(fin)

SeamusMcCallahan 2 years, 3 months ago

Re. Firefly I use “itch” because what I have seen, by and large, is not a request for clarification, but rather an insinuation that this comic is inherently offensive, insensitive, etc. I subscribe to a line of thinking that believes it is possible for one to get “offended,” even search out such offense at the expense of others whom we do not even know. Concerning morality, that was not necessarily my belief, and I believe context would show you this. I was merely speculating about the “potential” motivations of a cartoonist whom I do not know. Consequently, I’d expect of any mature, level-headed person (and I have met many a feminist who is incapable of thinking outside of his/her notions of “offense”) the same grace extended to cartoonists. See: the literary functions of satire. Re. Annie McGillicudy I try… Re. Linzee Point one: again, like I said to firefly, I was addressing the cartoonist’s potential message. You say, “This comic does nothing to address that unsafe social environment,” to which I reply: “It need not do this.” In short, a cartoon’s scope is necessarily limited, and in making its point it might not have the economy to go further than that. What might be, for better or worse, a satire of a “loose” culture, though, by virtue of it not included x, y, and every other variable that fits the “feminist criteria,” is designated as insensitive or offensive. It’s silly, really… Point two: You stray off point, and question beg. Again, nowhere does this cartoon promote rape. It is something people are reading into the text, and quite sadly, judging a possibly fine individual in the negative for. Point three: Cartoons can function as more than “jokes.” Still, you assume that it MUST be of this class of editorial, and you assume much more. It is when we assume so many things in such a way that we create offense out of thin air; and I do not think that feeling offended, for whatever reason, merits the condemnation of a person’s thoughts. In short, some people, in order to not be offended, need to have a more critical, tolerant perspective.

SeamusMcCallahan 2 years, 3 months ago

Re. Kmer Like the others, you need to re-read the post you are attempting to reply to. I never said I thought it was about rapists; and, to make it clear, I do not. Re. acornvoter Fair enough. Those are good points. Still, that does not exclude the possibility (please note my wording) that there is another, equally valid interpretation. For instance, it might have been that the cartoonist was noting that this is a dangerous environment on campus. And not, as Linzee falsely inferred, because of condom availability, but by virtue of it being relatively isolated, and designed in such a way that a man could lock the door and rape a woman. If this were the intent of the cartoon, while certainly edgy, then it would be far from “offensive” or “insensitive” in the ways that many are trying to portray it. Re. BYX I don’t know if they’re unsafe or not! If the door can lock easily like that, though, they very well could be, no? And by “establishment,” I didn’t mean the powers of this university, but rather the political structure of our country, which necessarily lives and thrives off of polarizing people into camps and hating the other side and reading into one’s opponents the worst of motivations. Nothing wrong with “waving a sign” just as long as it is done with grace and in full knowledge of what is going on (a rare spectacle, in my opinion, whether it be liberals or conservatives). And yes, I do think this cartoonist has been very harshly vilified.

In summary: I’m hearing a lot of people “demanding an apology” from this cartoonist and/or the Daily by what they are inferring from the text. Either they say it suggests something bad, or that it does not include enough of the positive. Clearly, though, the economy of space for such cartoons is limited, and the genre itself is open to (mis)interpretation. Given all this, I find it authoritarian and disingenuous for people to be demanding apologies, and suspect that many just want to see someone “on their knees” to validate their own self-righteousness. That’s just my opinion…

krakendrick 2 years, 3 months ago

I have many things to say

1 - I would like to say that this is unrealistic for one. I am one of the few from the Housing Organizations (HCSA in particular) who worked to get this passed and known on the housing side. I have researched and spoke to many different people, I have seen a thousand and one statistics and not once was there anything that proves that Condom Dispensers lead to increased percentage of rape on College Campus. We are one of the few left in the Big twelve that has not passed any legislation that allows these machines within easy access. There are schools in oober conservative Western Kansas that has passed this before us as well. Many of the percentages, in all schools across the US, shows that birth and STD rates have been going down since the installation. (and FYI European Schools have had them since the 90s) I feel that my time, and many of the activists that have worked with me, is wasted. This deserves an apology from the Daily. I, personally, believe the artist should come forward as well. I understand that he has the right to his opinion, but at some points you must stop and consider whether your right will invade those of others. At one point you must realize that you have gone to far.

I am calling for an apology by the artist/author of this cartoon as well as one from the Daily.

davi2173 2 years, 3 months ago

A response to the comment suggesting other's disapproval of this cartoon is a way "to scratch" a "feminism itch": part 1: I believe the reader is intended to understand the cartoon's message and title from the perspective of the male figure in the first frame as most commonly, the convention of cartoons is that they are read like English verbal text, left to right. First the title is read. Then, as the reader sees the male figure in the first frame, his or her eyes are immediately directed to the circle in the center frame focusing on the words "CONDOMS/automatic dispensing." Next, the reader sees close views of the woman's buttocks and breast. Given the view of the woman in the large center frame and smaller close ups, the reader is supposed to be seeing what the male figure focuses on as he stands at the doorway of the laundry room, looking in.

If the viewer is to understand that this is what the male figure in the first frame "sees" (though he has no head), and if the word Bing! in the lower left side of the first frame is intended to suggest physical arousal in the male, then the message is "available condoms + woman's body = sexual arousal." The intent of the word "bing" in the first frame may also be to signify the occurrence of an idea by the male, but the placement of the word in the bottom half of the frame, which intentionally divides his upper and lower torso, makes this interpretation unlikely.

I don't see anything particularly shocking in suggesting that the elements in the center frame would present visual stimuli eliciting an aroused sexual state in a heterosexual male, but I also don't find this information to be humorous or interesting. What is disturbing here is the image in the concluding frame, the picture of the door closed (we no longer see the male, which means he is inside the room), and the close up of the labeled door lock with the suggested sound "click," indicating that someone inside the room has locked the door.

haye0248 2 years, 3 months ago

You people need to calm down. The cartoonist is saying that he's simply against condom machines in the dorms because it may encourage reckless behavior and more sex. Think with your brain before your emotions. Sheesh when I first read this I was like what!, but then I thought about what the meaning behind this is...(what any good English student should know how to do i.e symbolism, metaphor, etc). Stop being so sensitive! It's people like you guys who made it politically incorrect to say "Merry Christmas" at stores and to other people for fear of offending others.

Kudos to the cartoonist for pushing the envelope and expressing his opinion!!!

sarabrown 2 years, 3 months ago

JWOU: Thank you for directing people to the cartoonist's response. It is true that some of the people who made the comments above would have been better served by doing some more research into the situation. Having read the cartoonist's response, I believe that he did not intend for the cartoon to depict a situation where rape is humorous. It is clearly a satirical comment on hyperbolic reports and assumptions of rampant sexual activity where contraceptives are available. To clarify even more: the artist DOES NOT agree with the position that increased access to contraceptives leads to increased sexual activity among youths.

The cartoonist has the full right of freedom of expression. While the controversy created in the wake of this cartoon could have been limited with a less abstruse flow of events, Schuyler Crabtree should not be forced to apologize for viewers' own interpretations.

patch 2 years, 3 months ago

Part 2:

(4) While his point that condom use lesses the likelihood that the implied sex act is rape is true, there is no real indication that a condom was even obtained, just that the machine was noticed, perhaps as a trigger towards sexual thoughts. Or perhaps the man sees the condoms, sees the woman, turns around and locks the door thinking that he'd like to have fully-condomed sex with her and assuming that she would like the same with him. So, it's possible that the man had an intent to use a condom while there was still a possibility of the imminent sex being consensual. All bets are off when the time actually comes.

In summary, yes, of course the artist had an intent other than advocating rape. And of course he can't show every detail in his intended sequence of events. But the details he chose to depict were really the wrong ones if he wanted his purported intent to be the "simplest, most logical" story to fit them (To reemphasize, there is absolutely no indication that the woman even knows someone else is in the room much less her frame of mind, so pretending the author's intended story is the most reasonable... much less the only reasonable... one is highly disingenuous.)

And, no, I don't think he should be forced to apologize. Not for his comic, at least. For his exceedingly arrogant response to the controversy... he should consider it, perhaps.

patch 2 years, 3 months ago

His response is highly arrogant and, on many points, wrong-headed. Briefly:

(1) He can't pick and choose which of his artwork people are allowed to interpret. And furthermore, he can't chastise people for, correctly according to the official version, identifying that the man in the comic is a man immediately after chastising the same people for not interpreting his comic the way he intended it.

(2) He can't state it's "incredibly naive" to think that condom availability leads to unbridled sexual activity and then also state that the undeniably simplest and most logical flow of events from the man seeing the condom machine is that he and the woman will then have unbridled sexual activity in the laundry room. That ought to be, according to him, an "incredibly naive" interpretation of the events.

(3) Given the information that he chose to give us, we know that (a) the man sees the condom machine, (b) the man then immediately looks at the woman's breasts and butt, indicating what is on his mind. There, however, is absolutely no indication that the woman (a) has similar thoughts on her mind, (b) has even noticed that someone else is in the room leering at her, or (c) is even someone that the man knows (especially since he can't even seem to make out her face!). The comic is presented from his perspective, so it would be a leap to presume that after all of this lead-up, the woman, with her thoughts and perspective completely unexplored, is the one to decide to lock the door, especially since, given what has been shown to us, the man has just arrived and is, as far as we know, still right by the door. Simplest, most logical explanations, Mr. Crabtree.

More to follow on this very important issue...

FranklinGee 2 years, 3 months ago

All right, here's the deal: this cartoon is not about rape. BUT, the artist sure made it easy to think it was.

I get it, Schuyler. You don't want to explain yourself. You're an "artist" with emotions and feelings that you don't have to put out there for the ignorant folk to attempt to comprehend. That's what your long Facebook message was about, right?

You can't insult those who don't agree with you. You just can't. You come off looking like a pretentious and arrogant fool. Your comic suggests two things: sex and rape. There's no way around it. Maybe you should have thought about this a little harder. Maybe, instead of having to close up shots of her body (because one just wouldn't have gotten the point across, I guess) you could have drawn a photo of her winking or smiling. THEN, this whole mess would have been avoided.

I'll be honest, I didn't take issue with this comic until I read your ignorant "defense" of it. You need to grow up, get off your hipster wagon, and grow a pair of balls. If you were mature, you would have said, "I apologize for the misconception about my cartoon. In no way did I intend this. I understand why some people would think this, but here is what I meant to convey with it." But no. You decided to fight against people and in turn, make the Daily look terrible.

Congrats! You're clearly not an mature adult. Enjoy the real world.

BeatrixComet 2 years, 3 months ago

He did take it down, but the content of his note is in the first few comments on the Editor in Chief's column, "Shedding Some Light."

hithere 2 years, 3 months ago

I like Seamus. I wish more people were logical, rational and intelligent. I think a lot of you have personal frustrations that go well beyond this cartoon.

SeamusMcCallahan 2 years, 3 months ago

Re. hithere Sexist. Male patriarchy. Objectification. Arrrrrgh.

Re. BoomerGirl32 You a third-waver? No? Should be. You would fit in well. Most (not all) LOVE to make such assumptions about those with whom they disagree. That is why it is often futile to argue with one: however tolerant and open-minded they claim to be, they always hold that assumption that they are the enlightened ones, and that anyone who disagrees with them must therefore be tainted by the stain of sexism. That is why, every time I'm stomping one of them in a debate (this happens often), pointing out inconsistencies in their position, it always comes back to that singular axiom: male patriarchy. But I think Schuyler is right. A good portion of these women's studies majors are clearly in it for their own "glory." Just look at their faces, beaming with pride, when they get an interview. All about getting that acknowledgment...

garrison 2 years, 3 months ago

I'll avoid the lecture on your unnecessarily violent dialectic imagery (Sexist. Male Patriarchy [sic]. Objectification. Arrrrgh, I know, I know, because they come up when people disagree with you, they're probably inherently meaningless concepts revered only by whiny, angry, attention-seeking women), but in conversations about sexual violence, it might be helpful not to invoke the image of "stomping" the person you're talking to?

No one is in it for glory. This week the Women's Outreach Center is participating in the Red Flag Campaign, raising awareness about dating violence. College campuses can be decidedly unsafe places for women. Since when is it bad to call attention to sexual violence?

Oh, and the argument never "comes back to that singular axiom: male patriarchy". That's embarrassingly redundant. You clearly never actually listen.

dio 2 years, 3 months ago

We need condom machines in the Bizzell Library too. XD

SeamusMcCallahan 2 years, 3 months ago

Well, I suppose I owe you a "thanks" for avoiding the lecture. Listen, I think there is a lot of truth in many of the feminist appeals. I really do. But it goes too far. It tries to hard. It projects meaning unto other people's words and actions to strawman its opponents, for example. It tries to make "stomping" and other language into "unnecessarily violent dialectic imagery," without considering the innocence of the intention. In general, it seeks out offense... On a side note, there was nothing dialectic about my words. I'm not a fan of dialectics myself... Dating violence is bad. This is true. And there is nothing bad about calling attention to something you believe in. Still, when a group of pro-lifers come on to campus (and for the record, I am not pro-life) it is the women's study group that is the first to voice appeal; even going so far to question the motivations and character of the groups that bring in these questionable displays. So I do not think it is disingenuous to question the feminists in the same way they question opponents, especially when their "questioning" usually consists of merely repeating the same three or four truisms over and over again and trying to embarass the pro-lifers. I'm a realist, and as such I think most groups of this nature (revolving around a central issue) are largely polarized, and what results is destructive to community. Just look what'll happen if this cartoonist doesn't conform and get on his knees in apology: they will write him off, and he will be the last welcomed into their fold. Why? That singular axiom, yes. I'll admit to being redundant, but I have certainly listened, and I've heard little beyond "Keep your theology off my biology" and other little zingers they repeat ad nauseam. In general, they oversimply issues that are actually a bit more complex than they imagine, and when asked to clarify points of inconsistency or debate (just watch next time they protest the pro-lifers, and watch them resist dialogue with their opponents; as a neutral onlooker, I've seen this every semester) they just keep on shouting. Are all feminists like this? I doubt it. Just the ones I've encountered on this campus; the ones that seem to be the most vocal...

Bunnie 2 years, 3 months ago

Are some frames missing because I really can't understand this cartoon? It looks like some headless guy walks into a laundry room and the girl looks over at him and winks, which as we all know is the international female sign for "shag me". He spots the condom machine and she locks the door and they do the deed.Now, I find that girl's conduct very objectionable and inconsiderate of others.Other people may have to use those tables to fold their laundry and wouldn't appreciate her dirty arse being on the table. Another stange thing about this cartoon is the condom machine. Men have invented all sorts of birth control devices and pills for females so why would a man have to put a piece of rubber on his tallywacker? Birth control is really the female's responsibility since she's the one who can get knocked up.Is this cartoonist implying that college girls are such sluts that a man has to protect himself from their diseases? Perhaps all freshman boys should have to attend an orientation class on how to avoid disease.

Sex Hygiene - US Navy Training Film (1942) (part 1 of 2) by vintagenavy022

More like this story