The Ethical Perspectives of Sexual Humor

Introduction 

Humor is considered to be funnier if it is sexist in nature and exposes the sexist attitudes of those entertaining the jokes. However, there have been alternative views to this notion where the immoralist is put to task to prove that a joke is funnier because it is morally unacceptable. This view shows that it is the subject matter of the joke that makes it funnier and not its morally flawed nature. This then brings one to the question of moral ethics in humor. Ethics, in this area, is more concerned with the application of moral judgments and concepts regarding humor. However, one can take a different perspective of ethics and move beyond the application of moral concepts and judgments to show that a person’s sense of humor is morally expressive. What then are the implications of laughing at sexist jokes? 

In this context, sexist views may cause concerns because they might perpetuate those views. The irony here is that such views may also inhibit the process of self-examination needed to eliminate such views. This alternative ethical perspective is important because it compels us to be more alert to know what it implies when laughing at sexist jokes. It is, therefore, right to say that morally flawed humor greatly enhances our amusement because of its subject matter. It is also true to say that sexist humor is funnier because of it sexism nature. 

When and Why Sexual Humor is Offensive 

To understand when and why sexual humor is offensive, one has to look at the different psychoanalytical theories about jokes. Sigmund Freud was the first to develop an understanding of jokes which he saw as tools which are unconsciously devised to express to wishes and psychological conflict. He also recognized jokes as an important element in social life. He believed that for jokes to be told with a high degree of success, they needed a specific kind of imagined or actual audience. In developing a general theory about comic, he therefore, went beyond analyzing the dynamic tension and narrative structure but also included psychological variables like seductiveness, gender relationships, and differences in social classes (Shafer, 1984). 

Ernest Kris (1938) argued that the success of a joke depended on whether it touched on danger situations and conflicts that were associated with it that the ego has not fully comprehended. The past conflicts of the ego can be overcome by comic because it helps it repeat its past history. To him, for a joke to be successful, it must constitute a certain amount of anxiety, shame or guilt. The joke reduces these anxieties and tensions thereby relieving the listener who feel that the past fear is now overcome. The relief of the anxiety or tension of the fear is expressed through laughter. The concept was applied to show why some jokes fail I general and why others fail only to particular listeners. The jokes that generally fail are those increase anxieties and tensions or have been told in a manner that affect the listener in a desired fashion (Kris, 1938). 

Jokes become offensive to an individual when they are told to someone who is defensive and who is in an unstable psychological position. This is someone who has a little sense of mastery of the implied unconscious anxieties and conflicts and who cannot enjoy fantasy to let go of those anxieties which is the main prerequisite of a joke. The joke can also be offensive to a person who has rigid defenses against certain aggressive conflicts that the joke has touched on. When sexual humor, which are generally considered funny, does not amuse a person in the same social position, with similar values, and similar cultural background, indicates that the problem is not with the quality of the joke or how the joke is being told but can be traced to the listener’s aggressive conflicts or humorless social decorum or inhibition that the person needs to insist on in order to maintain psychic equilibrium. These are people who can be described as being too uptight. 

However, people who are offended by sexual humor should not be regarded as poor sport because their psychological distance to the subject matter is near. It means that they are more affected by the subject matter than others because it does not release anxieties and tensions in them but rather increases them. It should be noted that embracing sexual humor is not related to gender prejudices because both men and women alike are just as likely to find sexual humor amusing even though they both hold sexists views. It is an interesting perspective because anybody can hold sexist views and embracing sexist humor may point at something wrong in our deeper beliefs. It is the belief to most people that telling more sexist jokes makes those who feel offended by them to take action. Those who feel offended can view sexism in its most bizarre form when it is told in the form of stupid jokes (Weems, 2014). 

A lack of emotional attachment to the subject matter of sexual humor is a form of insensibilities of the listener. Bergson is of the opinion that there is an inverse relationship between emotional investment and humor. The more one feels emotionally attached to a subject matter the less likely it will strike him or her as humorous. He argues that insensibility is the trait that causes laughter (Bergson, 2005). It is in this regard that one can say that humor and detachment are directly correlated. Emotional investment in an individual curbs humor to the extent that it precludes the mechanism from being stimulated. Emotions control the situation by preventing the emergence of rigidities. Intense emotional feelings invade all other mental states and control them to work in accordance with a particular belief. In comedy, for instance, the existence of emotions prevents a holistic perspective to issues. In a comical presentation, errors of omission and commission become less comical if they carry with them a troubled past. However, these rigidities can come up to the fore under different contexts (Shuster, 2013). 

There exist individual variations in which persons receive jokes. This is mainly dependent on how the joke comes close to conflicts that are not completely mastered. The conflicts, which are infantile in nature, that are touched by jokes are usually never resolved fully. This shows that there is a need for joke telling to completely resolve these conflicts. Jokes are used here to provide relief and a reassurance of remastering and achieving some form of confidence and security. This is the reason why most people still enjoy sexual humor because nobody can safely say that they have managed to have overcome the powerful conflicts and fantasies of childhood including all encounters with gender prejudices as to be immune to humor, wit, self-mockery expressed in sexuality humor of any quality (Shafer, 2001). 

Is Sexual Humor Invasive? 

It is a common belief by some people that telling sexist’s jokes can help to reduce gender prejudices or break down barriers. Some other people find is disgusting and intrusive. Sexual humor is a topic that is sensitive and leads to debates about morality, free speech, and political correctness. However, what is the real implication of offensive jokes? Some [people feel that offensive jokes do not have real implications because they are “just jokes”. This is a view that views the criticism of offensive humor as a part of being politically correct something that threatens free speech and encourages censorship. However, on the psychological front, this type of humor belittles, denigrates, or maligns a certain social group or an individual which do not hold the same view. 

Research indicates that jokes act as catalysts which release prejudices. It has even been found that some sexist humor have the potential of decreasing perceptions by males on the seriousness of rape. In the same breath, women are more likely to view themselves as sexual objects and become worried about their bodies after experiencing or being exposed to sexual humor. It is important to note that even though sexual humor may not change things instantly, it affects people at an interpersonal level. Some people feel that sexual humor has some positive effects jus to offer some form of resistance. Some sexist comedians have been known to ridicule sexist stereotypes with the aim of undermining sexism. This is a form of reverse joking whose success mainly depends on the identity of the comedian (Weaver and Morgan, 2017). 

The Feminist Perspective on Sexual Humor 

Sexual humor can be said to be prejudicial because of its tendency to take sides on conflicts regarding sexual power, prowess, competence, self-esteem, and handicaps. Sexual humor can also be said to okay certain distributions of power and integrity claims. The do so by condemning or tolerating violations of ethical and physical boundaries and foster self/abasing, proud, envious, complacent, and contemptuous attitudes. These are usually mixed with political or sexual interpretations which bear the role of materialistic interests in the narrative. 

However, most sexual humor is based on negative gender stereotypes such as women being sex objects, whores, or avengers. This type of stereotyping has the tendency of working against close relationship because of its negative attitude. These types of narratives have the tendency of painting a clear picture on the relationships between men and women. However, a closer analysis of these narratives will reveal more than their nominal meaning but also introduces different perspectives relating to heterosexual relationships including the resonance to many levels of psychic functioning. These levels use both the Klenian and Freudian modes of understanding which supplement each other I analyzing the symbolic and literal content of sexual humor and the messages that they really including their innuendos, simplification, and structural aspects of silence. 

Most of sexual humor tends to be biased against women. They portray women as whores who sell themselves in exchange for money. In a sexual humor story which presents the Woman as Whore, Shafer (2001) that portrays the story of two women of different generations. The older woman has a nice diamond ring that attracts the younger woman to her. She wants to know where he woman got the precious material. The older woman tells her that the ring comes from her husband who is a curse that the ring represents. This particular sexual humor antagonizes the woman and creates a stereotype where the woman is relegated to a relationship that is miserable because of the love for material wealth. It is a representation of how women in society live unhappy lives which are uncertain. 

However, this type of situation is also found in at the workplace. However, most of sexual humor is usually mixed up with the mockery that is directed at women and the antagonism of men who use material wealth to take advantage of women. This type of sexual humor is a clear demonstration of the brutish nature of men who buy and abuse women if the price is good. These men can also be included as having sold themselves off into a masochistic life. Furthermore, it also illustrates the identification of victims of social class, money, and power as well as their contributions to their victimhood. This type of sexual humor tends to show empathy or pity or both towards the situation that women find themselves in. Another dimension with regard to this type of sexual humor is the manner in which it portrays relations which are based on material things between the two sexes. It shows how women are regarded as objects by men by being offered other objects to complement their identity in the eyes of men. The sexual humor also shows how other women are envious of their peers when they show off their worldly materials that they have acquired from men. This shows how women are involved in rivalries, grievances, disillusionment with regards to material wealth. 

This brings us to the point of asking what condition of the joke teller is. If the joke is being told for the sake of stimulating a laugh, it means that the joke teller is enjoying this type of portrayal of the relations between the sexes and also between women of different generations. The joke teller adopts a manic stance in relation to the situation that is presented which includes masochism, power, and possession. 

By presenting the story as humorous, the jokester tries to deny inflicting suffering pain and humiliation. The situation invites the jokester to distance himself from the shared instances of life that is experienced by many women and men. The sexual humor also presents a derogatory view of Jews as being materialistic and whose relations with others are masochistic in nature. The older lady with the ring is portrayed as an embodiment of feminine self-abasement and wiles. It also represents the self-mocking attitudes observed in Jews. According to Kris’ thesis, it can be said that those who find this sexual humor funny are those that are more likely to be less rigid, cynical, troubled, or pathetic than those who are put off by the joke. Those who are ideologically committed in a certain respect can be regarded as an exception to this generalization. The ones who enjoy the joke portray those who have incompletely mastered conflicts in the area of material values, psycho-sexual and social relations, and gender power. The generalization can also be attributed to the joke teller, because the pleasure derived from the joke is that of a happy moment that takes one away from the miseries of everyday life. 

Another feminine perspective can be seen from another joke in the “Woman as Whore” sexual humor by Shafer (2001). The joke talks about a young woman from Kent who knew what men wanted when they gave her gifts and treats. This makes the woman to leave to dismiss the men wherever she experienced, this situation. This joke tries to portray the woman as one who is bought like a prostitute who is ready to sell herself to men for material gain. Nonetheless, the joke shows the triumph of the woman over men because she knows what they want. She defeats the logic of men priding themselves as being sexually seductive and macho. It shows how women can use men who have this type of mentality. The woman from Kent uses pretense to convince the men that she has been seduced. It is a common belief that men pursue women until they have them. 

However, the woman from Kent disapproves of this notion by exploiting and defeating men by pretending to comply thereby mocking the stereotypes of material and phallic power. She is seen as having won a victory in the psychosexual and psychosocial wars between the sexes. This sexual humor sets up an ambiguous ad complex interplay of being submissive and assertive, and that of being passive or active. It also shows interplay of seductiveness and exploitation as well as that of strength and weakness. This type of interplay is not only defined I the relationship between men and women but also in human relationships. This is because these traditional polarities are most likely going to be a matter which is unresolved in the minds of humans both in sexual and nonsexual conditions. This sexual humor can most likely entertain both sexes, individuals from different generations, and all those people who know that such incidences all human relationships. 

Another feminist perspective is still found in another joke form the Woman as Whore sexual humor by Shafer (2001) which is based on an aphorism that represents common stereo types about women. It says that if a lady says no, she means maybe, and if she says maybe she means yes. It goes further to say that if a woman says yes, then she is no lady. This joke tries to exclude what a woman says and what she means in response to a sexual advance. It also excludes the possibility of a woman saying yes with power and dignity. The implication here is that a woman is weak and readily available to the advances of predatory men. This sexual humor suggests that women can be compared to ton people who play hard to get even though they are weak. It also implies that women are defenseless sex objects where the macho man prevails. This aphorism tries to convey the fact that there exist double-standards of one being a lady in relation to sexual activity. It points to the fact that a lady should not be assertive on matters to do with sex. In the same vein, men need not be gentlemen when it comes to issues about sex. This double standard expects women to behave in a ladylike manner while men are left to choose what type of behavior they can adopt. 

However, the situation is more complex than it is seen on face value, because not all men will accept this form of double standards with eager. Some men are put off by the enforcement of such brutish powers which stimulate anxieties, shame, and guilt despite the changing social mores in contemporary society. This type of sexual humor is enjoyable to such men to the extent that it appeals to their desire to overcome their inhibitions. The aphorism also presents the perspective of women’s wiliness in relation to men. This comes out clearly to show that men are not sure what a lady means. It shows that women exploit men by setting their own rules and complying by them but still retain their own power behind this façade. The joke has a doubleness that portrays women as both wily and weak minded. 

Shafer (2001) also wrote another sexual humor entitled “the Woman as Avenger. He has a set of jokes which gives a different feminist perspective about women. This set of jokes presents themes associated with women’s power and men’s fears of the potential of that power to control and destroy theirs. The first joke talks about a certain flasher who accosts a Jewish woman in Miami Beach by removing his clothes and standing naked in front of her. The woman does not register any sort of embarrassment, fright or sexual shock, a response that disempowers the flasher. This act exposes the flasher to criticism as someone who is not responsible for himself. This phallic display is completely nullified by her reaction. This exposes the flasher to be confronted by a state of being castrated which he tried to unconsciously negate. It was as if the woman was telling the man that he is sexually insignificant to a woman. When this joke is viewed broadly, we see a man whose personhood is destroyed and makes him become a non-person. 

When viewed in a gender roles perspective, the woman’s response shows how a man can be put down completely by a woman. He is portrayed as a woman who has nothing with regard to his maleness. The woman is seen as taking revenge on the man. The joke portrays the woman as being sexually unresponsive and makes the man a sexless person. It tries to play of the unconscious fantasy and the anxieties that they evoke in both sexes. It indicates that both sexes are victims and aggressors and both get what they deserve. Listeners suffering from conflicts related to this issue will not find it appealing or will feel uncomfortable when they laugh. This is a culturally loaded joke that plays on the fantasies that encourage self-mockery and prejudices. 

Another joke from “woman as Avenger talks of a Jewish mother who gifts her son with two ties at his birthday. In an effort to please his mother, the son wears one of the ties only to be asked what the matter with him was. She asks him if he does not like the other tie. The boy’s approach is repulsed by the mother and is left with a feeling of not being able to deal with the sense of guilt stimulated by her mother and also his inability to satisfy her need for gratitude and love. This can be translated to evoke a sense that has been retained since childhood of being unable to satisfy her sexually due to his small penis size. This is something that persists in men even up to their adult lives which makes them want to compensate by proving their sexual prowess or retreating from any form of heterosexual activity. 

The joke also suggests that any expression of independence on the part of the boy is painful to the mother figure. It also points out at an asexual mother figure who is not responsive to any form of seduction or love from the boy. It is a case where struggles of autonomy and demonstrations of power are inhibited by the mother figure. This type of response puts down the boy by the vengeance employed by the mother figure. The mother figure represents some version of masochism whereby she hurts others by her readiness to feel aggrieved. 

The joke, however, does not present women as embodying masked sadism towards men or mothers toward s their sons. It should be viewed in a sense that women are usually the victims of men’s unconscious assertions of material and sexual power and how often they use this power to take advantage of women’s emotions while remaining uncomprehending, self-absorbed, or unmoved. It should also be seen in the sense that women use these sadomasochistic strategies and tactics in their relations with men. It should be seen in the light of a response towards men’s socially accepted provocations. Infantile fantasies and social reinforcements work together and have a powerful effect on human relations since they get their force from infantile inclinations. 

Another joke from “Woman as Avenger,” talks of a lady by the name of Mae West who routinely glances at a crotch of a man who she has encountered. She asks the man if he has a large penis or if he is having a hard-on on seeing her. This type of scenario shows a bearing in many social relations. Here, we see a woman as being regarded as the seducer who is able to control a man by using looks and words to arouse and control him. She is seen as usurping the male attribute of forwardness in sexual relationships. She shatters the myth of a woman being passive and an object of victimization. She wields both power and pleasure and denies herself nothing. Many men would love being greeted in the same fashion which reinforces the fantasy found in adolescent boys of forceful seduction by a woman who is powerful and experienced. It is a form of scenario which reverses the traditional sexual roles. The man’s passive role is similar to that exhibited by a maiden who is in the process of being overcome by a forceful man. 

The female vengeance first in this scenario where the woman is allowed to usurp the power of the man and reduces him to an obedient wishful boy. It also implies the castration of the man and the acquisition of power by the woman. It shows a woman who does not accept her role as a victim of men. The woman disarms the man when she refers to his penis as a rod and hides her moves by being seductive. She represents a woman who is to be desired and also feared. The Mae West figure represents a powerful advocate of women rights and liberation. She is taking the initiative to expose and change the order of things that are found in a phallocentric world (Butler, 1990). This is a view shared by many women who are contributors to a change of sexual politics. The Mae West figure does not hide her hostility but masks it in some form of sexual humor. She also does not hide her desire in men but uses her seductiveness as a strategy to take control and get gratification by focusing on the desire that men have on her. She uses a strategy of combining sexual politics with pleasure. She also represents the powerful mother figure of early childhood fantasy life and becomes an object of rivalry and envy to some women (Butler, 1990). 

Functions of Sexual Humor in Promoting Intimacy or its Detriment 

Sex is a thing that makes individuals vulnerable because both gender worry about their performance especially when the relationship is still young or a sexual venture with a new person. Men and women who are more concerned with their body image have worries about what their lovers would think about their physique. These heightened sensitivities are affected by sexual humor which can either improve intimacy or work against it. Sexual humor can greatly improve intimacy if the relationship was based on the perception by one partner that the other one was funny. However, sexual humor can adversely affect a relationship if it was used at the beginning. The reason is because no one knows if it will last and if it has a small chance of success. The reaction of the other person will inform the other partner if a sexual joke has gone well or not. Sexual humor usually backfires if it hurts the other person and this turns him or her off. Sometimes it can be used to cover someone’s performance anxiety to evade the situation. 

In situations when physiology fails, sexual humor at oneself can greatly help to enhance the intimacy in the relationship. In long-term relationships, playful sexual humor helps to cement the relationship because both partners have the experience to know which jokes tickle and which ones are harmful. Laughter has the ability to build intimacy and makes sex less boring but fun. Inside sexual jokes and innuendos can be provided by a shared history which reinforces the relationship. It is a common belief by some that sexual humor in a relationship is directly proportional to the levels of love, trust, and goodwill. It means that you trust each other so much that you can be vulnerable to each other. These types of jokes are born out of the love and adoration the partners have for each other. However, the timing of such sexual humor is important. Some men fear that a funny partner can greatly affect their chances of having an erection because of laughing out loud (Kelleher, 2001). 

Is there a Moral Component to Sexual Humor and Why? 

Sexual humor entails some form of moral component which depends on its subject matter. Smuts (2009) wanted to know how a joke is funnier because its material was morally flawed. However, this question presumes that a particular ethical view. It has a narrow view which is divorced from any subjective contributions of the makeup of such objects. It should be noted that jokes are not immoral or moral but can only be so regarded if they are viewed in relation to some distinct sensibility. However, the demand by Smuts to separate sensibility from morality cannot stand in the view of the immoralist. He does not demonstrate why sensibility should be separated from morality. It is, therefore, true that moral weaknesses in individuals play a role in connecting them, through humor, to subject matters that have moral weaknesses. Bergson however feels that this issue depends with conventions which are dominant at a particular moment. Some certain type of chauvinist will find it funny in a particular manner because it exemplifies something which looks real because it questions the rigidity of seeing women as something more than just sexual objects. The chauvinist might have another viewpoint which does not have any influence on him. He may also be oblivious of the alternative viewpoint. 

In this case, it can be argued that apart from recognizing morally weak subject matter as morally flawed, there is also another way of viewing something as more amusing due to its moral flaws and morally flawed subject matter. It can be amusing to the extent that one’s vision fails to register some objects or one object registering over the other. This phenomenon can lead to amusement through rigidity which is not present. These rigidities may prevent one from changing his vision. This, therefore, makes the education capacities of humor to become important. 

The ethical should be viewed as an area of rational requirement which exist, whether we respond to them or not. It is good to acquire the necessary conceptual capacities to initiate us to think in a relevant manner to open our eyes. In this way, humor can be regarded as decent upbringing because it helps individuals to learn something in a certain way as well as learning to inhabit and see the world in a new light. It has the ability of teaching what is and what is not valuable. This then raises many questions regarding humor because old questions can be seen in a new way. Laying emphasis on education enables us to ask questions regarding the relationship between laughter and responsibility. 

Laughter is automatic and exposes a new form of life in certain instances of humor. In this case, humor is seen as not only to reinforce or follow but also illustrate certain aspects of gendering and embodying subjectivity. Responsibility can, therefore, not be located before any laughter. Nonetheless, failing to laugh at a sexist joke may occur due to conscious resolve or decent upbringing. On the other hand, laughing at sexist jokes can also be explained by poor upbringing and conscious opposition to certain stereotypes. This therefore, gives us a means of creating specific approaches to the ethics of humor. It needs a widening of the concept of ethics as well as sharpening the modes of conceptual analysis to help in the elaboration of such concepts. This type of spectrum may suggest that laughing at specific jokes may be problematic. It is important for people, to know why they are laughing at a particular joke by examining themselves as subjects as well as the examination of the whole form of life. Finally, a subject matter that is morally flawed has the ability of making something more amusing. 

The Bergson Theory of humor in conjunction with other alternative views of ethics provides a standard for making sense of such a situation without immersing ourselves to a form of immoralist. We should rather admit that in certain cases this is the way things are supposed to be. The main idea here is that something is funny because it has a deficiency in sensibility. This is because moral flaws have this function. It is problematic to know why some people including ourselves have are amused by something. In this case, humor should be regarded as a particular way of seeing things and inhabiting the world. 

Sexual humor requires to be considered ethically and should not be taken seriously. Sometimes sexual humor is unethical in nature. However, its moral laws are often much less than many people think. Non-contextual criticisms point out that some form of sexual humor is wrong and should be rejected. On the other hand, contextual criticisms which deal with certain kinds of humor such as sexual humor and not with types of humor are more promising. There are several contexts in which sexual humor can be viewed as being morally flawed. These are mistakes which need to be avoided. However, the reaction to sexual humor which is not receptive is not restricted. In many free democracies many citizens are outraged at what they consider to be breaches of the ethics of humor. A good example is that of a philosopher who resigned from his work at the University of Wales in response to some criticism after he told some jokes which were filled with sexual overtones (BBC News, 2000). 

Nonetheless, not all sexual humor is considered morally wrong. Some sexual humor is considered to be beyond moral reproach and innocent. Questions unusually arise on certain categories of humor that turn sex and gender issues into serious moral issues. Even though sexual humor can be morally wrong it is not all that wrong. There are various views held by people regarding the morality of sexual humor. There are some jokes which are offensive in nature. These are jokes which are considered to be unethical by certain people. Sexual humor can be criticized on ethical grounds because it is thought to emerge from a moral defect of the person telling the joke or appreciating it or, by concentrating on the joke rather than the person telling it or laughing at it. Those who fault sexual humor in this way do so by taking into consideration the deleterious effects of the humor. Others are criticized due to some inherent features found in them. Moral criticism is also classified is by distinguishing between contextual and non-contextual criticism. Non-contextual criticism is more concerned with a specific joke which is taken to be morally wrong irrespective of the context. On the other hand, contextual criticism is where criticism is directed not at the joke but rather on a contextualized instance (Benatar, 2018). 

References 

BBC News (2000). Professor resigns after 'naughty' jokes. Retrieved from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/942977.stm 

Benatar, D. (2018). Taking Humor (Ethics) Seriously, But Not Too Seriously. Journal of Practical Ethics, 2, 1, 25-43. 

Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble : Feminism and the Subversion of Identity . New York: Routledge. 

Kelleher, K. (2001). When it's ok to laugh in the bedroom--and when it's not. Los Angeles Times . Retrieved from: http://articles.latimes.com/2001/mar/12/news/cl-36558 

Kris, E. (1938). Ego development and the comic. In: Psychoanalytic Explorations in Art . New York: International Universities Press, 1952, pp. 204–216. 

Shafer, R. (2001). Gender jokes/sexual politics . Studies in Gender and Sexuality 2(4):277–294. 

Schafer, R. (1984), On gendered discourse and discourse on gender. In: Tradition and Change in Psychoanalysis . New York: International Universities Press, 1997, pp. 35–56. 

Shuster, M. (2013). Humor as an optics: bergson and the ethics of humor. Hypatia vol. 28, no. 3. 

Weaver, S. and Morgan, K. (2017). What is the point of offensive humor? The Conversation . Retrieved from: http://theconversation.com/what-is-the-point-of-offensive-humour-76889 . 

Weems, S. (2014). Why offensive jokes affect you more than you realize: do humor and sexism mix? should they? Psychology Today . Retrieved from: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/what-s-so-funny/201409/why-offensive-jokes-affect-you-more-you-realize