The concept of being offended explained in a comic

[Silk]

It's also the violation of privacy and the long lasting effects as opposed to murder being rather...final. Murder in my eyes is more serious than Rape, but Rape is more horrific than murder (depending on the method of murder). I mean...I would rather suffer through an attempted murder than an attempted rape because it would cause less psychological harm, buuuut I would rather be raped than murdered because I have the chance of "getting over" a successful rape and with a successful murder...well, I'm dead. It's a complex question, but it doesn't affect the end result of "if something is off limits to joke about, then everything is" of st and up comedy because everything is gonna offend SOMEBODY.

Let's not forget a simple matter of both rape and murder are not strictly simple X and Y events. In one instance you could have a woman who was kept bound for several days raped by several men viciously after they abducted her. Compared to a relatively painless gun shot to the head. Or on the other side of the spectrum. A man who had sex while intoxicated then regretting it the next day, compared to someone who was murdered by drowning after days of waterboarding. Personally if we go with the usual lingo for what a rape is, I've been raped upwards of 40 times now, but when it comes to actual violent rape which I resisted to the fullest extent, thankfully only the once. Being raped in that way makes all of these "I was drunk that night and I would've never of gotten with him if I wasn't" calls of rape completely pale in comparison. It's a important distinction to make as the level of horrificness becomes very objectively different dependent on circumstance.

[Blythe]

The beauty of humor is that it's art, and I mainly mean the comics who perform on stage, is a reflection of the present. The now. Jokes from a good comic are meant for more then to make you laugh, they are meant to make you forget about life and it's struggles. Death happens, but when a comedian jokes about death it is meant to distract you from the fear of it. It doesnt delegitimize the risk of death and shouldn't trigger someone with a near death experiance. It is meant to make light of the hardship and can be even, cathartic. Cathartic to those who fear it, and to those who almost did die. In the back of their minds the fear is there, but a comedians goal is to pull that back from the fore front.

I think there's some merit to this idea--some darker humor does have this sort of intent.

Some of the most offensive topics that get joked about can bring a certain catharsis. I know it does for me--it eases that fearful sense of tension. There are certain horrible things that have happened to me that I need to be able to make light of or hear someone else joke about in a generic sense. The big thing for me is: do I know that someone making a joke is joking? That comic in the first post is a great example--two of the things mentioned in there literally just sounded illogical and idiotic rather than resembling a joke, the "too pretty to be a lesbian" and the "never get laid if it weren't for date rape." Those didn't sound like jokes. Any comedian making either of those 'jokes' ought to get booed offstage for being ridiculously unfunny. Or their friends should tell them how painfully unfunny they are. Saying "dude, that's honestly just not funny" does more to squash a friend making offensive jokes than anything.

Does it change that a joke can reinforce certain bad ideas? Well, no. I think jokes can still do that and do it powerfully and horribly well, especially depending on what sort of joke someone's trying to pitch and to what crowd of individuals. But at the same time, I also think that its important to evaluate a person outside of jokes they made and to look at the context in which they made it. What sort of person are they outside of their humor? Dark or morbid humor specifically is meant to shock. It's not for everyone for a reason. Dark humor is a double-edged sword--often altogether can be too cutting.

George Carlin was an absolute master of that style of humor.

I think we lose a certain level of much needed discourse on hard-to-talk-about topics if we decide certain subjects can't/shouldn't be joked about. Humor is often a way to bring disparate groups together to talk about something in a non-aggressive way. I wouldn't want to lose that. The only time I ever made headway talking to certain bigoted family members of mine was when we had comedians in common. It framed discussion about race in a way that opened it up for them.

But it's also something that shouldn't be used often, and it should be used in a smart way--otherwise it's just crass and offensive without being funny, without any manner of thought to go with it, while desensitizing people to serious topics. It should be used knowing one's audience and with a tacit understanding of what you want someone to laugh at (or with). Tact, intelligence, timing, a certain sensitivity or cleverness exploring an issue--I think these need to be present in some form in dark humor pertaining to real life situations. There needs to be balance for it to work as intended.

Good comedy should be thought-provoking, even if...no, especially if...it's about painful or dark subjects. Context matters--both in who tells the joke and who is listening, if its in private vs. within public purview, where and when the joke is told, etc.

Sometimes a joke is appropriate for a situation...and sometimes it isn't. Good judgement is key for good humor.

Comedy's a tough gig. <_<

[Vergil Tanner]

Minor soapbox

A man who had sex while intoxicated then regretting it the next day

I would argue that if you consented while intoxicated and then regretted it the morning after, then it isn't rape. If you were in your right mind enough to actively consent, then you should live with the consequences. It isn't your partners fault that they took yes as yes. At what point does Yes become No? Should everybody carry a breathiliser with them, along with a legal contract requesting written and recorded consent? That's just stupid. Obviously there are degrees - if one person can barely stand up, then they obviously physically can't consent and it's rape. But if they're just a little tipsy but can still speak relatively clearly, why is it the other persons fault if they regret it the morning after? What if both people were a bit drunk and both of them regret it in the morning? Did they rape each other, or is it a case of "Who gets to the police first?" It's a grey area, and really should be taken on a case by case basis.
On a side note, why in every example I hear, it's the men carrying out the violent rape and the women who only have sex with an intoxicated man? Probably not your intent, I just find it interesting that those are always the order of example. Women are just as capable of abduction and violent rape as men are. I find it abhorrent that people seem to either shrug off male rape victims as "not that common," or even flat out deny that they exist. A scene where a reluctant man gets cornered by a determined woman and forced into sex is seen as funny, but the same scene with the roles reversed would be seen as horrifying and have people petitioning the station to pull the episode. It's that kind of double standard that fucking disgusts me.
Sorry. I'm gonna step off my soapbox before I derail the thread.

But yes, I agree with your overall point; it should be taken on a case by case basis, bearing in mind the various extremes. In general, though, I would rather be violently forced into sex than murdered at all, since at least with the rape (you would hope), your life goes on. It will be harder, yes, but at least you still have it, y'know? Besides, I can always go into training and turn into a vigilante with a tragic backstory, then get my own film one day. It would have to be Rated R for mature themes, but still! And hey, maybe in the film, the "Rape Scene" would feature a famous actress that I get to see nekked, so...bright side to everything!
See? That kinda joke would be banned if we started banning rape jokes!
>.>
<.<
>.>
I'm a horrible person.



And yeah, I agree, Blythe. Not much to add to that. XD It's like people have forgotten the meaning of "Gallows Humour."

[RedRose]

        It's a double-edged blade at best. You can never know what will offend who -what is offensive to me might not be to you and vice versa. There is also a stage where the avoidance of being offended is taken to the level of ignorance, denial and self-deceit, or otherwise treated in a differently uhhealthy manner (eg. stigmatization of acknowledgement instead of normalization of the condition). And reinforcing lack of offensive things occasionally becomes a tyranny where people break down in fear and anxiety while rewording an e-mail a dozen times because they don't know whether it'll cost them their job if they phrase something wrongly. I saw an article somewhere where it was shown that "extra-polite" societies actually had a much higher tendency to become brutal and reactionary than ones where the occasional swearing and this and that is permitted...

        Either extreme is actively harmful.

        I myself don't censor people, but I do base my opinion of them on what they say and do, and I may call an individual out if they go overboard (or are particularly tasteless). As a general rule, if something makes someone uncomfortable, you try to limit it in their vicinity if it does not infringe on you. (Eg I'll do my best to call everyone what they want to, but I'll still express my opinion on the matter in the appropriate debate thread, or I'll make sure that there is at least one plant-only option for the vegetarians if there are any present, but I'll not refrain from eating meat myself because they don't like to see it.)

Love this post.