![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
flexibeasti find it interesting that so many people seem to think that there's some objective "sense of humour". It's common to see, in personals ads, the abbreviation 'GSOH' - Great Sense Of Humour - as a property of the seeker or as a desirable property of the sought. But what, exactly, does it mean to have a "Great Sense of Humour"? Some people find it amusing to play pranks on people like putting tarantulas in their beds, for example - i seem to remember reading a personal ad where the seeker did things like this, and suggested that the person he was seeking "must have a better sense of humour than my last girlfriend".
More specifically, though, i have often been told i need to get a sense of humour - as has![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
sacred_harlot. Yet, rarely a day goes by where i don't do or say something around sacred_harlot with humourous intent - and she finds it amusing. And this is despite the fact that my "sense of humour" is very nerdy/computer-geeky (such that i still chuckle when i think of cheshire_bitten's response to one of my recent posts), whereas sacred_harlot's "sense of humour" is definitely not that way inclined. Further, i'm not aware of any claims that naked_wrat doesn't have a sense of humour; but she often makes jokes that i find rather amusing through to hilarious.
It's particularly interesting to watch people use the "you need to get a sense of humour" tactic on me during discussions of political and/or social issues; as happened recently, someone tries to 'lighten' the discussion with a joke, and when i refuse to let the discussion be derailed, they then claim i have no sense of humour. But from my perspective, even if the 'joke' is intended as (to use Deborah Tannen's terminology) a 'connection' maneuver ("Hey, let's not argue, let's have fun!") rather than a 'control' maneuver, it can nevertheless often come across as the latter: the metamessage being conveyed to me is "I will decide how and when to change the tone of this conversation - and I have decided that the serious political talk section of this discussion is now over". Whether or not i actually find the 'joke' amusing is another matter - sometimes i do. The issue for me, though, is who is claiming the privilege to decide whether the issue under discussion is 'important' enough to warrant further discussion, or whether it can simply be dismissed with a 'joke'.
My writing style is naturally rather formal; and i tend to write about a lot of serious issues in my LJ and in online fora. So people often come to the conclusion that i'm a formal person overall, and get surprised when they actually meet me in person and find that i'm actually not as formal (and uptight :-) ) as my writing probably suggests. i feel i have a sense of humour - just not the sense of humour that is apparently expected of me by those who feel that their sense of humour is the only 'real' one.
More specifically, though, i have often been told i need to get a sense of humour - as has
sacred_harlot. Yet, rarely a day goes by where i don't do or say something around sacred_harlot with humourous intent - and she finds it amusing. And this is despite the fact that my "sense of humour" is very nerdy/computer-geeky (such that i still chuckle when i think of cheshire_bitten's response to one of my recent posts), whereas sacred_harlot's "sense of humour" is definitely not that way inclined. Further, i'm not aware of any claims that naked_wrat doesn't have a sense of humour; but she often makes jokes that i find rather amusing through to hilarious.It's particularly interesting to watch people use the "you need to get a sense of humour" tactic on me during discussions of political and/or social issues; as happened recently, someone tries to 'lighten' the discussion with a joke, and when i refuse to let the discussion be derailed, they then claim i have no sense of humour. But from my perspective, even if the 'joke' is intended as (to use Deborah Tannen's terminology) a 'connection' maneuver ("Hey, let's not argue, let's have fun!") rather than a 'control' maneuver, it can nevertheless often come across as the latter: the metamessage being conveyed to me is "I will decide how and when to change the tone of this conversation - and I have decided that the serious political talk section of this discussion is now over". Whether or not i actually find the 'joke' amusing is another matter - sometimes i do. The issue for me, though, is who is claiming the privilege to decide whether the issue under discussion is 'important' enough to warrant further discussion, or whether it can simply be dismissed with a 'joke'.
My writing style is naturally rather formal; and i tend to write about a lot of serious issues in my LJ and in online fora. So people often come to the conclusion that i'm a formal person overall, and get surprised when they actually meet me in person and find that i'm actually not as formal (and uptight :-) ) as my writing probably suggests. i feel i have a sense of humour - just not the sense of humour that is apparently expected of me by those who feel that their sense of humour is the only 'real' one.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-13 00:59 (UTC)I like to think that as well as being amused by others that I contribute some giggling or at least smiling to a conversation; but in order to do so I need to be relaxed and happy, and unfortunately I have had many reasons to not be happy over the years :-( These days I am attempting to get my funny's where I can, and the passing on of laughter is such a gift - I intend to be a funny old woman :-P You do indeed make me laugh regularly Sweetie :-*
Much Love,
Sacred Harlot, passionate hugs and kisses XXX