humor and sexual assault

 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Humor, Sexual Violence, and Social Justice

  Joshua Singh Sexual Assault and Humor Both articles approach the topic of sexual assault in a very different manner than one would expect. Regardless, the authors provide a new understanding of the intersection that exists between humor and sexual assault. The Time article explains the author’s approach to her own sexual violence experiences. She compares how sexual violence is usually approached in a very solemn manner and how the victim’s story is told using very religious language, and she believes this language or way of approaching a victim’s sexual violence experiences distances the victim from us. The author explains that a new approach of spontaneity is needed. She explains that “Humor, however, disrupts stasis. Humor is a form of action. It requires spontaneity” (Time). By using humor when approaching such a grueling topic, the victim is humanized more and brought closer to the audience. Her explanation is reminiscent of the incongruity theory article. By approaching a...
Read more

Theories Response

Compared to the other theories we read, Descartes, Spencer, and Freud are all far more interested in the physiological explanation for laughter. Laughter is a release of pressure (in one way or another) for each of them. This obsession with figuring out why laughter bubbles up in ones body is interesting given our knowledge of laughter through modern science now. Laughter and laughing increases our bonds with others because it release endorphins. Although Descartes states that laugher does not accompany the greatest joy—laughter actually releases joy and pleasure hormones. On that point, I wonder if children are included in his rationalization of laughter as not coming from joy. Would children laughing as they play on swings not count or (to bring it back to adulthood) I know plenty of people who laugh at the rush of joy and excitement that riding a roller coaster brings (even after they get past the wonder of riding it for the first time). I think for these theories to really work, yo...
Read more

Plato, Hobbes, Kant, Kierkegaard Response

     Plato, Hobbes, Kant, and Kierkegaard offer various opinions on what constitutes funny, what expense humor arises, and what kind of person stimulates a laugh from others. Plato first explains humor as a "pleasure and paint that lies in the malice of amusement" (12). He finds that humor is almost always at someone else's expense and that the individual being laughed at must be acting foolish or in some way untraditional that warrants such mockery. Plato and Socrates concluded that "when we laugh at what is ridiculous in our friends, our pleasure in mixing with malice mixes with pain" (13). I find this ideology quite controversial as the only form of humor is not the result of others' ills, and humor is not always accompanied by mal intent of ridicule over someone we care about. A similar form is taken by Thomas Hobbes, who claims that "by the apprehension of some deformed thing in another, by compassion whereof they suddenly applaud themselves" ...
Read more