I didn't know whether to go with:
A national sex offender registry is now in effect. So make sure you have your firearms and sex offenders registered.
or
The sex offender registry is now up and running. I'm registered at Afternoon Delight, for those thinking of gifting.
In the end, I decided to go with neither.
33 comments:
I don't know if I should post a comment about sex offenders. I don't know what people would think if they knew that I thought it was a funny subject.
If I made a joke like 'I was thinking of registering, I hear there are a couple good perks' (I could even change perks to perps) , people would question my taste. But would they be judging the fact that my comment wasn't very funny, or that I get off on inappropriate subject matter.
Either way you look at it, sex is funny.... funny lookin' that is...
While I think we can all agree that offending sex is no laughing matter, I think maybe we can also agree that there is absolutley no instance when making fun of sex offending should be accepted. According to those who know such things, sex can only be funny when it is performed in the missionary position, by consenting and married-to-one-another adults, both of whom are consenting, and both of whom are married, one to the other and each to each other, exclusively. (I was going to add: "where one is a female and the other is a male", but the Supreme Court of Canada put the kibosh on that. Still, though, homosexual sex is not a laughing matter, because of that "missionary position" clause.)
For instance, this joke I may have just made up is not acceptable and therefore not funny: "A gay guy walks into a bar...backwards...and bent over with his pants down." Not even if I had made it clear that the bar was not a pub-type-bar, but a long cylindrical piece of metal about 8 inches long and well lubricated, or if I had indicated that the bar was a pub-type bar, but a bar that was full of missionaries, would that have been funny or acceptable.
Here, then, keeping in mind the missionary-only paramaters indicated above, is the only acceptable sex joke: The husband was on top of his wife, they, the two of them, engaged in consentual intercourse, he with his penis thrusting inside his consenting wife's consenting vagina, when the phone rings. The husband and wife conent to stop their mutual intercoursing to allow the husband to answer the ringing phone. "Hello" he says. "Excuse me, sir", says the voice on the other end, "but is your refrigerator running?" The husband says "hold on", puts the receiver down, dismounts from his wife and gets dressed (so as not to offend any neighbours who may happen to glance in their windows) and walks to the kitchen. He returns to the bedroom and picks up the phone. "Yes", he says. "Yes, our refrigerator is running." "Well," comes the reply from the phone, "you better go and catch it." The husband says "Thank you" and returns the receiver to its cradle. The man then disrobes, quickly, so as to get his penis engorged again, imagines his neighbour's young teenage daughter naked. Once again fully erect, he asks his wife if he may enter her vagina with penile insertion. She consents. They continue their love-making.
That's the only acceptable sex joke I know.
Hmm jokes about sex and child molestation. One of the more tasteless ones I heard (which I only pass on for debate) is this: A pervert is leading a toddler into the woods, the child says "this is so scary", the guy answers, "you think you are scared?, I've got to walk out of here by myself after dark", or the other tasteless classic, Q: 'Whats green and has thirteen tits? A: 'The dumpster behind the breast cancer clinic.'
These are not funny, though I did win a prize in a bar in Seattle some years ago for telling the most tasteless joke.
OK, Calico. Just ... ick.
Identifying a joke as a tasteless, offensive joke does not mitigate its tastelessness and offensiveness. It does not indemnify the teller from the disgust such jokes rightly provoke. It does not make it cool to then tell the joke.
It's like saying "Yeah, I'm an asshole ... but that's just me. I know I'm an asshole. That's who I am." (Appropriate response: "Yeah, and you're an asshole, and no less one for admitting to it.")
I have no problem pushing boundaries, and I'm not much for being politically correct. But ... come on. Really. If you're going to tell a "tasteless classic", have the sack to just do it and live with the resulting disgust. Don't snigger, tell it, then say "these are not funny."
Please, Nils, don't use the ess-enn word. Not on my swatch.
See, now that's funny. Not tasteless, but funny nonetheless.
Wow! who thought some nice little jokes about offending sex could stir up all this tension. Everyone drop your keyboards.
Sex is fun. Sex crimes as a subject can be funny as long as it isn't happening to you. Like animal husbandry - funny to talk about, not so fun to do (ever been kicked in the nuts by a surprised horse).
But only someone who is laughing at the moment can use the word snigger. If you're not laughing and say snigger, you are a sexist offender.
You are all great. Great in bed that is. HA!
I call a spade a spade and tell a tasteless joke,,, a cute play on words follows and Nils snickers over a 'snigger' joke. A few chuckles about sexual offenders and some racial 'inuendo' follows (note, this is not a gay snigger joke) .. and 'I' get called icky and a sphincter...
Although I imagine your sphinchter ( I can't spell) is icky, your humour is not. I did think the jokes were a little old maybe, but not crossing the line. I've heard and told worse. Don't be ashamed of your taste. We're all flowers under the wrath of God. I really shouldn't have quit smoking in the day-time. It makes me crazy. And nils, I didn't mean to really call you a sexist offender. Why can't we all just get a long pole to screw with.
Careful, now, before you go getting all sookie. I did not call anyone "icky". I was responding yo the joke, not the person. I'm sure you're a fine person. The joke was icky.
I likewise did not call you a sphincter. As is clear if you re-read it, I said that "announcing a joke is repugnant, then telling it" does not make it OK. Then: "IT'S LIKE saying ..." So it was a parallel, not a personal attack.
I have no way to judge whether or not you're a sphincter. I've been accused of being one myself, by times. But what you DID was not cool. How hard is it to own up to that fact? I mean, you start by identifying a joke as tasteless - then tell it.
(Incidentally, Rob's "sn" joke was wordplay, and not directed at or said at the expense of anyone. So it was definitely NOT racist.)
I know I'm coming off as a humourless prig here, and that bugs me, because I'm neither. Tasteless jokes exist, I've heard them before, and hell, I've told my share - fewer now than when I was younger, I hope, but I've done it. So I'll admit that I'm not exactly sniping from the highest moral ground.
I just happen to think telling jokes like that - even if you draw attention to them by flagging them as "tasteless" - is wrong in a setting and medium where you don't know who's reading and how hurtful your jokes might be.
And if you don't care whether you're hurting people ... well, that's one real hallmark of a sphincter.
No matter what, if you stick your neck out (like posting on the web) you must be prepared to have it chopped off, or at least smacked around. I never lend anything I expect back, and I never say anything, that I'm not prepared to have shot down or critisized (can't spell). We all have the right to say what we want, but we all also have the right to respond with whatever words we want. Go freedom.
Not questioning that at all, Graham. We do have all the right in the world to say anything on the net. All that means is that we "can" do it. SHOULD we do it? I'd say the answer to that is "sometimes".
When we say things that we KNOW will be hurtful to people who did nothing to deserve it ... well, that makes us assholes.
And fine ... if people think what Calico did is admirable, I have no energy to argue the point further. When it comes to this kind of thing, you're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem. I'm not going to be made to feel bad about stepping up and saying that kind of stuff is wrong.
Jeez, you start a thread about sex offenders, and it gets all serious, all of a sudden!
Hehehehe I adore you, Robert ... always with the perspective ...
Well no shit Rob, you jest on sex offenders and write some funny lines. Nils reads in to my comments and puts me on the 'weird' pedestal. They are words Nils, mere words. Dark humour is an escape valve of mine. My daughter was/is an internet victim as such. Child molestation is not a joke and my intention was not to make it one... However, actions speak louder than words, ask the FBI, I got the prick..
I do apologize if there was offense to my tasteless comments (read joke, of course which defines subjective/objective analysis in it's context)
You don't hear me commenting on advertisting by columists at the end of their columns...
A former prof of mine wrote a PHD thesis which posited that all humour comes at the expense of someone. (Proof, in my mind, that if the generalization is broad enough, it will inevitably be true. Also, that getting a PHD isn't as hard as you might be inclined to think.)
If his thesis is true, in this politically correct world, perhaps humour should be abolished?
But, the stuff that Nils commented on isn`t humour. It is garbage.
For the record: I don't know anyone who would have found either of those jokes funny (including myself), but I don't doubt that someone would (else I expect the jokes would have disappeared rather quickly rather than being retold here.) Let's all agree not to retell these jokes again, okay?
My prof's point (not mine - I stress) is that someone's feelings will be hurt when a joke is told (think Newfie jokes, for example.) According to this prof, even wordplay jokes hurt someone because - get this - the joketeller is taking advantage of the joketellee. If my former prof read this comment, he might be hurt that I thought he was stretching it a bit.
Mike Myers said something interesting on the Actors' Studio a while back: essentially he said comedy was 99% risk and 1% judgement. When improv is working well, there is ample evidence that Myers is on to something. Latter Austin Powers movies aside, I'm glad Myers doesn't worry about who he is offending when he creates comedy. I worry when we obsess (see above comments) about what's offensive in comedy. Lenny Bruce and Richard Pryor wouldn't have gotten anywhere if we did.
There is absolutely no "obsession" about something shoved in your face that is clearly offensive while somebody tries to hide it behind humour. Pretenders that are lazy or have no talent make people laugh at their ability to be outrageous and fool themselves into believing they are funny. And it is our fault, we have rewarded lazy humour for too long to go back. It has redefined humour to many. A good example of inoffensive comedy is Red Skelton. Who knows, maybe Pryor and Bruce would have gone even higher had they been challenged to be funny and inoffensive.
I'm not sure how much more Lenny Bruce could have done for the world of comedy than what he did. Certainly by being offensive and funny he managed to challenge first ammendment rights and help defend freedom of speech.
I feel kind of bad that I didn't really give Richard Pryor his due. I mean his "lazy" brand of humour has given rise to:
NATO Entertainer of the Year Award (National Association of Theater Owners, 1982), Lifetime Achievement Honoree for the American Comedy Awards (1992), CableACE Best Entertainment/Cultural Documentary or Informational Special (1993), NAACP Hall of Fame Award (1996), and first recipient of the prestigious annual Mark Twain Humor Prize (1998).
both an Emmy and a Writers Guild Award for Television work.
Blazing Saddles, continued his success by earning him the Writers Guild of America Award for Best Comedy Written Directly for the Screen.
His numerous recordings have earned him two platinum albums, five golds, and five Grammy's.
Not bad for a "lazy" comedian.
Yes Wayne, Red Skelton was funny when he got a pie in the face, so was Bob Hope when he did his U.S. presidential imitation golf swing shtick. So was my grandmother twenty years ago when she took one shoe off and pretended to limp like her neighbor in the next room at the local old's people home. (True story)
George Carlin, Redd Foxx, Chris Rock, and yes even Carrott Top are in a thinking man's mind 'funny',, in a context...
I've seen two of the above performing in person, sure beats the hell out of Urban Carmichael...
OK, not sure why Urban deserved a shot there. He's a solid performer, an exceptionally witty writer, a mainstay of an entire business (has been for years), has paid his dues, and is recognized across Canada - by people at the top of his profession - for all those attributes. On top of that, he's a complete gentleman in every sense of the word.
If he doesn't make you laugh, that's fine. He'll understand. But give the man his due. His audiences love him and rightly so. If you want to take a shot at Urban, go through me ... or one of the dozens of other Island entertainers who owe him so much.
I was a Richard Pryor fan for years, and still find him side-splittingly funny. I never saw Lenny Bruce and have no opinion of him other than a lot of smart people think he was great, so I figure there must be something to that.
I don't have a problem with pushing the envelope, as I said. I'm troubled by hurtful "jokes" in a medium where they might - quite by accident - cause pain to people who don't deserve it. As one example, a friend of mine who is a big fan of Rob's underwent a mastectomy two years ago. When I read the "joke" about breast cancer, I immediately thought of her, coming to this site (as she is known to do), and having that smack her between the eyes.
Ha. Ha.
Ok Nils, I think we finally found some common ground. I as well didn't chuckle much about the 'nudge nudge wink wink' giggling about the sex offender registry law with subsequent comments to wit "" The man then disrobes, quickly, so as to get his penis engorged again, imagines his neighbour's young teenage daughter naked "" and so on....
Ha ha
"...breast cancer clinic."
Que canned laughter.(What keeps comics of less talent milking bathroom humour(?)etc.for all its worth when they are desperate for a laugh?)
Of course...it is cutting edge, pushing the envelope and groundbreaking. And thinking man`s comedy. Good grief.
Verbally insulting people who are not here to defend themselves. Hiding behind comedy to get a laugh about cancer treatment. All from a "thinking man"" Makes me wonder who turns on the computer for some people in the morning.
Wayne, on the internet, everyone is potentially 'here'. I'm not sure who you're referencing when you say "verbally insulting people". Who verbally insulted, and who was insulted? And when you say "not here to defend themselves" I assume you are implying specific people. Because, you know, it's hard for "types of people" (like breast cancer victims) to get together to, first, agree if they're insulted, and secondly, post a unified response. So, again, specifically, who is being insulted? I want names.
Arguing the offensiveness of comedy is a no-win situation. No matter how harmless something seems to the writer, someone will find offense with it. I've long ago stopped worrying about whether my comedy is offensive. I am my only barometer.
This summer, one of our sketches was accused of being borderline-racist (whatever that means). It was, to my knowledge, only seen that way by that one person. Was that offensive, when only one person seemed to be offended?
When we did Annekenstein, one year we got a letter of complaint that the Annekenstein monster character was making fun of mentally handicapped people. Were we offensive because this one person saw that character that way?
Am I supposed to agree that a joke like the breast cancer joke is offensive, because Nils and Wayne both deem it such? Does it make me wrong or less compassionate if I don't agree that it's offensive?
Personally, I tend not to perform what I consider offensive material. Sometimes, though, I need to explore the boundaries of what I deem offensive. When I do that (perform material that some may find offensive), in public, am I at fault because my threshold for what is considered offensivee may be greater than that of others?
The name Urban Carmichael has been referred to above. It was a cheap shot put-down used in an attempt to elavate some really crude attempts at humour by comparing it to another variety performed by someone who is not here, and unable to explain his perspective. He probably would say "Who cares!" to the implication made. And, if he did say it, I would say he was right.
Should a performer stop listening to his audience, and start preaching their own perspective of offending behaviour? To each his own, I guess. And, we all have the perogative at the ticket counter and remote.
I agree with you, Rob ... our personal barometers are our only true measures. I think, though, that some jokes or subjects are universally regarded as either offensive in their content or in their tone and if those jokes don't ping on your barometer, the fault isn't with the audience.
And if they do ping and you either don't care or want to push the envelope, so be it. Depending on who's listening, you're either really brave or you're being offensive for the sake of it, which - to my mind - is somewhat less admirable.
Given that, my main problem wasn't with someone telling an offensive joke (I didn't flinch at yours). It was with the artifice of pretending revulsion at a joke - then using that as a platform to tell it. Pick one and go with it, is all I'm saying.
Having said all this (and, as I look back, having said far too much on the entire topic), I will end my part of this with a quote from my daughter. "Sometimes," she says, "Sometimes the funny cancels out the mean."
Sometimes ...
Without joking, I can state that I am offended by the whining of some of the people who posted on this thread. I am much, much more offended by Wayne's inept attempt censorship guised as idealism, then I am at someone making a joke in questionable taste. Of course no one thinks cancer is funny in itself. Like child molestation it is a sad and terrifying thing, that's why we use humour to help face and deal with something. Nobody on this thread in any way advocated or praised these terrible issues.
In his defence, Calico said Urban didn't make him laugh as much as some other comedians.
And as far as "thinking man's humour": everyone thinks. Being offensive or sensitive is not a good gauge to measure intelligence with. There are stupid offensive jokes, there are clever offensive jokes, there are stupid and clever 'clean' jokes. The overly-scrutinized jokes on this thread are offensive, yes, but their clever-level is for each reader to gauge.
My intelligence level is offended when I see some clean humour like air-farce, America's Home Videos, Most sitcom's and most stand up comedians trying to pass themselves off as funny.
Get a sense of humour and Lighten up.
Stop offending me with your sensitivity.
Fuck sheep.
Well, okay ... but only the pretty ones.
Nils,,,, via this Blog, all 'Kidding' aside, I am not an animal (or a goat)... Have a nice Christmas.
Sincerly, case closed.
Cat .. your nickname aside, I know you're not.
Post a Comment