You're viewing a single thread.
I generally like your work, and the punchline without the bonus panel works well (and I agree that seeing the rose guy again is a nice touch), but framing women as a commodity for men to purchase (E: in the bonus panel) is unnecessary misogynistic bullshit.
This could have been the same comic but with a woman. It wouldn't change a thing, you're interpreting things into it yourself.
Did you look at the bonus panel?
If the genders were swapped it would have been a Boyfriend store, there's endless variations possible, next valentines I'll expect a Furry store.
This could have been the same comic but with a woman
Except it isn't. Because women buying men isn't an overused trope in all media (not to mention reality), while men buying women is. Because of misogyny.
You not wanting to hear this because it's easier for you to keep laughing at lazy sexist "humour" than it is to challenge your bias and make a miniscule effort to do better, doesn't change its validity.
WARNING: VIRTUE SIGNALLING OVERLOAD, JOKE BECOMING EXTRA FUNNY
The joke in the bonus panel only works because women very clearly are not a commodity for sale unlike the other items on the list. That's what makes the bonus panel an absurd twist, that there would be such a thing as a "girlfriend store".
As in, if the final item on the list was "get jewelry", and the then the bonus panel showed a closed jewelry store, there'd be nothing funny about that.
Yeah, it doesn't make sense
What jewelry store would be closed on valentine though
If perhaps it was a brothel or something seedy I'd feel like you. I just saw the girlfriend store and thought the joke only works because it doesn't exist and was a silly concept. Especially given that Valentine's Day would be for your partner and not that you'd need to purchase one like you do the other items.
I could be wrong, but that's what I got from it.
Who let Tumblr federate in here?