Of course Komaki is chill she's the archetypal straight woman designed to act as a foil to Hishikawa's absurd shenanigans. That's literally her narrative purpose. Most of the people taking issue aren't put off because of how this affects Komaki (because she doesn't exist) put rather because they are responding to Hishikawa's actions with the same reaction they'd have to them in reality: disgust. The fact that a fictional character designed to not take offense to an action does what they were literally written to do doesn't make that action inoffensive. For example, Bella in Twilight being a-okay with Edward breaking into her room in the night without her knowledge to watch her sleep didn't suddenly make that not an insanely creepy thing to do.
People are allowed to express distaste for a joke they think is unfunny and inappropriate. Something being intended as a joke doesn't exempt it from being subjected to critical thought.
No offense to anyone here if they think so, but doesn't it come from the inability to separate reality from fiction?
Because antihero has existed as far as literature go. They often put in unrealistic circumstance and it's interesting for us to see how they deal with it. And I don't even mean unrealistic as in fantasy world with werewolf, vampire and stuffs. Even in this manga for example, seeing two characters, Hishikawa who is passive but obsessed with buying her friend virginity (while fantasizing about her being the assertive one). Komaki meanwhile not only totally cool with it, but even encourage Hishikawa to not giving up, despite constantly deny Hishikawa's advantage.
How's many here have experienced something like that in real life?
If I support Hoshikawa here, does it means I condone sexual harassment? How could you condone something that unlikely to happen in real life?
Simialrly, if I read a manga about succubus raping a human to satisfy her hunger. Does it mean I condone rape? Or condone denying a person access to foods?
last edited at Feb 9, 2018 9:42AM