Thereâs no other way to account for the bewildering profusion, in old humor, of jokes about squirting and soaking.
So the argument is that the prevalence of a particular kind of humor is only explicable as innuendo? Thatâs complete nonsense
Apply the same logic to anything else, and the absurdity becomes obvious. Zombies are currently âbewilderingly profuseâ in all our current forms of media - yet that certainly doesnât mean that the only possible explanation for this profusion is that itâs some sort of sexual metaphor.
But letâs stick purely with comedy - how about pies in the face? Theyâre âbewilderingly profuseâ - yet that doesnât mean every single pie ever delivered into someoneâs face was, in fact, a secret sexual symbol.
And no, Iâm sorry, but when folks like Larry, Curly, and Moe - or Laurel and Hardy - get into a bit of slapstick, the audience doesnât knowingly wink-wink to each other about how they must be a bunch of masochists with various pain and humiliation fetishes.
There are, of course, notable exceptions - Groucho Marx based a lot of his humor on double entendre and making gleefully irreverent plays on words and situations.
But there, the sexual component is an obvious factor - it is at the heart of the humor itself. You wouldnât laugh at one of his dirty jokes if you didnât understand what was scandalous or embarassing about it. If the sexual reference goes over your head, youâre left scratching your chin in confusion.
In complete constrast, water jokes and gags are merely a form of slapstick - theyâre a âbad thingâ happening to someone suddenly and unexpectedly, which deep down is the basis for pretty much all human humor. The event itself is what is comedic - not any symbolism behind it. You donât have to understand a reference to âgetâ slapstick. It just works.
Slapstick is funny even to a toddler, precisely because thereâs nothing to âgetâ. Itâs all about basic human experiences in the form of pratfalls and the like, and their inherent absurdity. Itâs about tickling that part of our brains that makes us burst out laughing when we witness something âbadâ - but not upsettingly bad! - happen to someone else.
âŚlike a baby getting harmlessly pounced on by the family cat, for example. Itâs unexpected - but itâs also completely not worrying, which means our concern centers donât light up. It is something which is inherently absurd and nonsensical, but which we are genuinely not concerned about at all - and that equals humor.
Agree that the authorâs take on this seems like quite a stretch. A squirting flower is clearly about piss?!? How about it is unexpected that a flower that often requires someone to lean in to smell would then âbite backâ and give you a squirt. And the proliferation of other objects to perpetrate the same gag came about because people caught on to the flower trick and an alternate delivery method was desired, not to make it seem more sexual or scatalogical.
###Â #notallcigars
Would have liked embedded pics of some of the cited examples.
Iâm willing to consider the notion that these gags are all inherently sexual or scatological (urological?) but this article certainly doesnât prove it for me.
You are confusing squirting with pie tossingâŚ
A small minority of select water gags? Absolutely.
Every single water gag ever? No, absolutely not.
Yeah, there were a number of examples of squirting gags, but hardly any reasons to believe they were inuendo.
These two are often correlatedâŚ
Of course, it could simply be that water is a handy and ready substance with a lot of great prank potential. Itâs harmless, does not stain, shocks the victim, and if you remember your childhood, getting soaked is actually kind of fun after the shock wears off.
Perhaps we see this in comics so often simply because it actually is a common form of prank. But hey, donât let that get in the way of a good dick joke.
Donât let the caulk squirt in your eye
If you look at the picture you will clearly see that they are NOT squirting, theyâre SPRINKLING!!!
Both are just âcivilizedâ versions of primate poop-throwingâŚ
throwing didnât develop as a means of hunting, but as a form of communication within groups, i.e. throwing stuff at someone else became a form of self expression, which is clearly evident to anyone who has ever been targeted by a chimp locked up in a zoo.
Hmmmm⌠I think my jest was missed.
and we just keep laughing at every variationâŚ
The first sentence reads like âIf you thought Freudâs obsession with reading sex into everything was silly, then surely my obsession with reading sex into everything will change your mind!â
No,not lost - I just got distracted by poop flinging 
Thatâs actually in my âto-readâ queue over at http://piperka.net
Speaking of flinging, throwing, flicking, squirting and squishing:
