this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2026
460 points (80.4% liked)
Comic Strips
21138 readers
2025 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- AI-generated comics aren't allowed.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The amount of guys I've met in my whole life who outright refused to wear a condom was... One. Singular.
Called him an idiot. Then he ended up catching an STD. His dick burned for two weeks and I couldn't stop smiling.
Anyway, this seems to be another one of those comics that tries present abnormal behaviour as a common thing.
Yeah this comic reeks of manufactured gender war content
Not only that, but the fact is, the vast majority of the time a Bad Thing (e.g. STI transmission or unwanted pregnancy) happens from unprotected sex, it's because both partners simply didn't care enough to use anything. Even taking the idiot in your example, he got laid in the end, that's how he got what he got.
Without these idiots of both sexes, unwanted pregnancy would be extremely rare, and almost no STI would survive longer than a generation.
This. There's always (at least) two people who are having unprotected sex together.
There's nothing more sad or depressing than an unwanted child that two people ruined their lives over.
Yep. Plenty of women out there that insist on having sex without condom as well.
Exactly. Had this happen with two women.
Idk why the comment acts like woman themselves dont choose to do it outside of relationships
Depends on where you live/your cultural context. The number of times I’ve heard from women in recent years that men refuse to wear condoms has been truly surprising.
Surprises me cause I bet decent men won't have problems with a condom while most substandard men would. No one talks about decent men as much as ones that are bad. Also, if you hear many speak about these men, maybe their preference in men is flawed?
The point is not how common or uncommon this is. The point is the phenomenon itself. Also, your personal experience in how common this is cannot be used as a basis for knowing the general prevalence. The truth is, it does happen. Not all men, but always men.
"Not all X but it's always X" is a common neonazi saying. Using it in a different context can even be a dogwhistle in some cases
Thanks for pointing that out. I have zero interaction with neonazis and didn’t know.
It's also a pretty stupid argument, tbh. Which is why it's used very often by neonazis.
How so?
What do you want to say with it?
We are talking about men not wearing condoms and you point out that it's only men who can and don't wear condoms. Like, yeah, of course, because its only men that can wear condoms.
So that point of the argument becomes a tautology without actual direct meaning. It turns from being an argument into a pure attempt of framing/manipulation, and that's not good style in a discussion.
Apart from it not making any sense in the context of this discussion, the argument itself is pretty flawed in general usage too. The general chain of discussion is usually like this:
So it shifts the argument. It goes from "All X are Y" to "Some X are Y", while not acknowledging that shift. It's a variant of the Bailey and Motte fallacy.
The "it's always X that are Y" inversion is usually done in a tautological way.
"Not all muslims are islamist terrorists, but it's always muslims that are islamist terrorists." -> Sure, because to be an islamist you need to be a muslim, but there are tons of non-islamist/non-muslim terrorists too.
The point is to throw off the person you are talking to, because that tautological part cannot be disproved, and that might make someone stumble in posing a counter-argument.
My point is that saying “not all men” every time a problem is addressed is undermining the discussion. Until you have experienced the relentless harassment of women by a subset of the male population, funnily enough present in every country on Earth, please don’t lecture me on bias.
saying "not all men" every time all men are held accountable for what a tiny minority of men do*
Fixed.
The only thing it "undermines" is the sexist generalization.
And this is what bullshit looks like.
Ok. Now what does an argument look like?
Do I actually need explain what misandry looks like, or why it's bad?