Am I missing something here?
That is not funny at all.
That further concludes the person on the right side did NOT consent to being groped. So no, that doesn't make any difference. Even if the person on the right was consenting, it is clearly being portrayed as him consenting the person on the left to touch the animal he is holding.No complaining, them's the rules.
Took me a little while to realise the person on the left is asking the cat, and the cat is responding, if that makes any difference.
Of course it's a cartoon and so there is no actual harm perpetrated by one individual against another. The notion of consent in law has to do with the rights of the individual, specifically protecting the individual against coercion by imposing penalties for disregarding one's not consenting.That further concludes the person on the right side did NOT consent to being groped. So no, that doesn't make any difference. Even if the person on the right was consenting, it is clearly being portrayed as him consenting the person on the left to touch the animal he is holding.
Of course it's a cartoon and so there is no actual harm perpetrated by one individual against another. The notion of consent in law has to do with the rights of the individual, specifically protecting the individual against coercion by imposing penalties for disregarding one's not consenting.
That was also my initial thought before looking a bit longer at the pic.Stupid 'old me just thought the cat scratched both of them in the face, which is slightly closer to reality but less funny.
Maybe it was a paternity suit and he's part sperm whale.Orca?
Or as we like to joke in the UK - “éscorchio”
Fast Show viewers will know.
Holy crap.