I think the problem with the original comic isn't that op hates women, it's more the way the woman in the comic was portrayed and the underlying implications. From what I understand, OP probably had a girl yell at him for looking at her ass when he in fact was not. Alright, makes sense, it can be frustrating to be yelled at for something you didn't do. The problem came in in later panels, when the girl intentionally threw herself all over the uninterested guy, all while yelling at him for looking at her ass. This implies the mentality of "no means yes". That a woman's behavior can mean something different than she's saying. This mentality can be very dangerous in certain situations, as it blurs the lines of consent. If a girl says no while her body language, outfit and behavior says yes, that's still nonconsent. The problem with this comic isn't that op is a rapist, it's that it (possibly unintentionally) encourages the idea that no means yes. No means no, ladies, gents and nonbinary friends. Saying nothing means no. Changing your mind means no. Being drunk or high means no. Anything but an enthusiastic and ongoing yes is not consent. Now, before you get up my ass, there's lots of nonverbal ways of saying yes, but what's important is that your partner is actively engaged in whatever you do, that you check in before trying something new, that they continue to be enthusiastically on board throughout the whole thing. Enthusiastic, ongoing consent. THATS the problem with the comic. No never means yes.