Sounds like it's this one:
While trashy and I would never put it on my car, this thread says a whole lot more about the OP than it does about the bloke with the sticker. Said bloke would be as happy as that OP is so upset. I just shake my head at how fragile some people choose to be.
This is the sticker!
I'm actually not fragile, but thank you for trying to take me down a peg so that I don't voice my opinion about what is clearly advocating "Rape Culture". I'm sick of looking at this truck and I'm tired of pulling up into a parking lot where someone can imply, through the use of cartoons no less, that it's okay to advocate for hurting women. Yep, it's pretty easy for me to just walk past and forget all about it, but your response and implication that there's something wrong with ME now makes me want to report this to the EEO office on base. Thanks for convincing me that I need to stand up and speak out against a culture that is okay with treating women like property.
You are free to have your impression of the meaning of the sticker and regardless of the interpretation, this thread seems to have proven that the general consensus is that this style of sticker is crass and in poor taste. By all means feel free to report it to the powers that be if you feel that it violates a policy. Depending on your role in the organization you may even have an obligation to report things that you feel violate policies, rules, and laws.
What you should not do, the absence of other evidence, is presume the intention of the owner; which you do by your use of words like advocating and imply (when referring the the owner). Yes you interpret the sticker as an endorsement of rape and others may too, but this thread has shown that reasonable people (if you can call our forums members that) can hold greatly differing opinions about the sticker than the one you espouse. It is possible, regardless of the likelihood, that the owner has a crass/anti-social sense of humor and simply finds it funny.
I am not saying your interpretation of the intent is not correct, but you seem wholly unwilling to even entertain the idea that there could be a different intent or implied meaning behind the sticker.
You are upset that your expression (in this case a post on this forum) has you labeled as "fragile" when you dislike a image that could reasonably interpreted as reflecting social norms glorifying male sexuality and conquest while ignoring/downplaying female sexuality, yet you seem willing to label another person based on their expression (in this case a sticker on a car) as a sexist or as supporting/endorsing rape/rape culture/violence against women, when the situation could reasonably be they thought it would be funny to get a rise out of people.
After seeing the actual image you are referencing, I personally cannot see the same message that you see in the image, partially because the image is so basic and crudely drawn. I can see how it could be interpreted reflect a social framework where sex is only thought of as a male's domain (active male and passive female) and discussing it is used to make a male more of a "man" (hence the wink breaking the 4th wall). But, beyond that, I simply do interpret anything to say the fictional stick figure intercourse is non-consensual or forcible.
I assume that you find this an inoffensive image too then:
Obviously, it's a pilot going out for a fun plane ride near a city. It's too basic and crudely drawn to be interpreted as anything else . . . otherwise you would be assuming the intent of the artist.
While I am not offended by the image the thread starter is offended by, I have not intended to argue that it could not be offensive to some; in fact I believe I stated could see how it could be a reflection of a set of social norms that view men and women through very different lenses.
What I did say is that I do not interpret the image, nor do I see how it could be interpreted, as an explicit advocation of violence against women and rape.
An image can be offensive without having to advocate for anything.
Now on to your image; No I am not offended. Maybe because I infer your intent in posting it is to have a conversation regarding the place of offensive images in our society. Possibly because I have just become numb to these kind of things.
But, you asked about the artist not the poster. I ran the image through a google image search and may I presume you are also the artist?
I find the artwork to be equally lacking in details and crass/in poor taste. As much as it is possible it seems to lack even more of a point than the copulating stick figures; at least that one could be interpreted as mocking the stick figures often seen on family cars or simply enjoying taking something that is often seen a wholesome expression of love for your family and perverting it.
Your image appears to take advantage of a shared moment in our history, by using an airplane piloted by a man seemingly wearing a turban or other headdress flying near two seeming identical rectangular buildings our shared experiences make it likely that most people will interpret this to a reference to acts of terrorism on September 11, 2001. When addressing the image referenced by the thread starter I can think of no event in our consciousness that would link a sexual act in a certain position with advocating violence or rape. In other words, the two really aren't the same thing are they?
Like the thread starters image, I find your image to be lacking advocacy for an action or position. Now if you remove the "airplane rock" and replace it with say a quote from casablanca "play it again, Sam" then I could understand the interpretation that you are advocating for an additional terrorist attack.
Should I ever see you decal out in the world, I likely wouldn't get offended; but, I would think that the person who chose to display it is an idiot and I would make several assumptions about the character of the individual (including that they are likely someone that I would not want to associate with due to lack of shared values). And that is how expression/speech should work, one may be judged on what they express.
To be clear, I am operating off of the definition of offended being along the lines of "resentful or annoyed, typically as a result of a perceived insult" which is the definition that Google gave me. In the case of either image am I not resentful of the poster or artist, nor am I annoyed. In fact it is out of my mind the second after I see it (I have other browser tabs open to the images for reference while writing this post). But, I can understand how others might be.
This really is a bit of a straw man though, my point was not that the image cannot be offensive to some or many, but that I cannot see the explicit endorsement of advocacy for violence against women or rape as being the intent of the person displaying the image. Even if you or others were to explain how it could reasonably be interpreted as such, it would still not be the only possible intent for displaying the image. And where the are multiple reasonable option as to what the intent is we should not assign the worst possible one to the individual.