Discussion Jokes Built on Sexual Entitlement
Discussion Jokes Built on Sexual Entitlement
Woman: Oh, I don't give head.
Man: What do you call a woman who doesn't give head?
Woman: Haha, you're always so funny, what?
Man: An Uber.
Of course, men in the comments were laughing and praising it for being "savage." But the "joke" of the skit comes entirely from the cruel disposal of a woman for expressing a sexual boundary. It only works if you accept the implicit assumption that oral sex is something he is entitled to, and she has therefore wronged him by not providing it.
I've seen similar jokes online that are built on the same assumption:
"What do you call a woman who doesn't give head? Not my girlfriend!"
"If your partner doesn't give head, they're a defective model and you need to trade them in for a new one."
"Humor" like this serves as a message to women that if they don't perform certain acts, they're worthless, placing pressure on them to consent to acts they're uncomfortable with. And it serves as a message to men that their anger at women's boundaries is righteous, further normalizing sexual coercion.
If you try to call this out, some people will say, "Well, people are allowed to look for a partner who fulfills their sexual desires! What if your partner stopped wanting to have sex at all?" But it's one thing to respectfully reject someone due to sexual incompatibility, and another to treat them as worthy of contempt. These jokes aren't saying, "It's okay to reject an incompatible partner," they're saying, "Something is fundamentally wrong with women who have this sexual boundary, and they deserve to be mocked for it."
I also find it disturbing how, in the skit, he has the woman say, "Haha, you're always so funny." Not only does he fantasize about rejecting this imaginary woman, he fantasizes about her feeling safe and comfortable beforehand, so that she can be hurt even more by the rejection. The level of bitterness toward women for simply having boundaries is depressing.
I saw a skit online that goes like this (with a man portraying both the woman and the man):
Woman: Oh, I don't give head.
Man: What do you call a woman who doesn't give head?
Woman: Haha, you're always so funny, what?
Man: An Uber.
Of course, men in the comments were laughing and praising it for being "savage." But the "joke" of the skit comes entirely from the cruel disposal of a woman for expressing a sexual boundary. It only works if you accept the implicit assumption that oral sex is something he is entitled to, and she has therefore wronged him by not providing it.
I've seen similar jokes online that are built on the same assumption:
"What do you call a woman who doesn't give head? Not my girlfriend!"
"If your partner doesn't give head, they're a defective model and you need to trade them in for a new one."
"Humor" like this serves as a message to women that if they don't perform certain acts, they're worthless, placing pressure on them to consent to acts they're uncomfortable with. And it serves as a message to men that their anger at women's boundaries is righteous, further normalizing sexual coercion.
If you try to call this out, some people will say, "Well, people are allowed to look for a partner who fulfills their sexual desires! What if your partner stopped wanting to have sex at all?" But it's one thing to respectfully reject someone due to sexual incompatibility, and another to treat them as worthy of contempt. These jokes aren't saying, "It's okay to reject an incompatible partner," they're saying, "Something is fundamentally wrong with women who have this sexual boundary, and they deserve to be mocked for it."
I also find it disturbing how, in the skit, he has the woman say, "Haha, you're always so funny." Not only does he fantasize about rejecting this imaginary woman, he fantasizes about her feeling safe and comfortable beforehand, so that she can be hurt even more by the rejection. The level of bitterness toward women for simply having boundaries is depressing.
)