There’s 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? That’s complete nonsense
Apply the same logic to anything else, and the absurdity becomes obvious. Zombies are currently “bewilderingly profuse” in all our current forms of media - yet that certainly doesn’t mean that the only possible explanation for this profusion is that it’s some sort of sexual metaphor.
But let’s stick purely with comedy - how about pies in the face? They’re “bewilderingly profuse” - yet that doesn’t mean every single pie ever delivered into someone’s face was, in fact, a secret sexual symbol.
And no, I’m sorry, but when folks like Larry, Curly, and Moe - or Laurel and Hardy - get into a bit of slapstick, the audience doesn’t 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 wouldn’t laugh at one of his dirty jokes if you didn’t understand what was scandalous or embarassing about it. If the sexual reference goes over your head, you’re left scratching your chin in confusion.
In complete constrast, water jokes and gags are merely a form of slapstick - they’re a “bad thing” 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 don’t have to understand a reference to “get” slapstick. It just works.
Slapstick is funny even to a toddler, precisely because there’s nothing to “get”. It’s all about basic human experiences in the form of pratfalls and the like, and their inherent absurdity. It’s about tickling that part of our brains that makes us burst out laughing when we witness something “bad” - but not upsettingly bad! - happen to someone else.
…like a baby getting harmlessly pounced on by the family cat, for example. It’s unexpected - but it’s also completely not worrying, which means our concern centers don’t 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 author’s 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 ‘bite back’ 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.
Would have liked embedded pics of some of the cited examples.
I’m willing to consider the notion that these gags are all inherently sexual or scatological (urological?) but this article certainly doesn’t prove it for me.
You are confusing squirting with pie tossing…
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 correlated…
Of course, it could simply be that water is a handy and ready substance with a lot of great prank potential. It’s 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, don’t let that get in the way of a good dick joke.
Don’t let the caulk squirt in your eye
If you look at the picture you will clearly see that they are NOT squirting, they’re SPRINKLING!!!
Both are just “civilized” versions of primate poop-throwing…
throwing didn’t 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.
The first sentence reads like “If you thought Freud’s obsession with reading sex into everything was silly, then surely my obsession with reading sex into everything will change your mind!”
No,not lost - I just got distracted by poop flinging