Why hypersexuality seems ever more common in sitcoms. One of the more common character “types” in modern Western sitcoms appears to be suffering (but also not suffering) from hypersexuality. A novel laughter theory helps explain why. The last few decades have seen an increase in the number of sitcom characters exhibiting hypersexuality. Their behavior can solicit sympathetic laughter from audiences who focus on the many negative consequences. But there’s also the laughter that comes from envying others experiencing greater than average pleasure. As I’ve written here on multiple occasions, science is an attempt to understand the patterns we observe in nature, and this includes human nature. For those of us interested in, some of those patterns show up in television sitcoms. According to Quizlet.com, one of the 8 most common sitcom character “types” on offer during the last 40 years includes that of womanizer and “manizer” . These are men and women portrayed as having a much higher-than-average level ofMost sitcom fans would be familiar with many of the lead characters’ names. They include, for the men, Authur “Fonzie” Fonzarelli had her share of boyfriends before Leonard, although viewers might point out that she seemed at least open to a long-term commitment. Plus, unlike others, it didn’t appear to be a point of pride for her. Blanche Devereaux in this group as well. I’m no doubt missing some—so, apologies.one that appears so often in modern television comedies? Readers of this blog series know that when faced with any question related to laughter and humor, I rely on insights provided by The Mutual Vulnerability Theory , as described inmay be tolerated in some cultures, it would generally not be considered “normal.” Second, while there are some well-known downsides associated with this behavior, in most modern secular societies, it would not necessarily be regarded as a “deficiency” that would completely prevent one from having friends and succeeding in life, including having children and grandchildren. This is particularly true considering most comedies encourageconsequences are glossed over or minimized for comedic effect. This larger context allows the behavior to be categorized as a “vulnerability,” such that it makes one’s life—on balance—more difficult at times, but not so much as to be untenable.The next factor to consider is the number of vulnerability categories hypersexuality bridges. The MVT divides vulnerabilities into four main groupings—those having physical, emotional, cognitive, and social liabilities and repercussions—and each is linked in some way to this behavior. The physical threats are not insignificant. Contracting a sexually transmitted disease immediately comes to mind. Older participants may be looking at potentialEmotionally, hypersexual individuals are often believed to be indifferent, distant, and dismissive of others’ feelings. They have an almost childlike impulsivity and inability to delay gratification. Some exhibit deep insecurities. Cognitively, these characters typically show poor judgment. They fail to recognize potential hazards associated with their actions or deal rationally with the threats once revealed. And socially, they risk being considered impulsive, unreliable, and exceptionally deceptive, making them perhaps entertaining friends, but not trustworthy ones. And they would clearly not appear to make good partners for long-term relationships, the sort that have traditionally been associated with rearing successful children and grandchildren, or other nongenetic legacies individuals often strive to grant future generations. These downsides of hypersexuality are the qualities for which audience member would offer lifting laughter to sympathetic and otherwise lovable characters. They exhibit some shortcoming such that their status is somewhat lowered, and we as viewers laugh to express a sense of mutual vulnerability, of understanding and support. We give them a boost back up to their original place in the previous status relationship they have with their fellow characters and with us as their fans.There’s another dynamic at play: assets. The MVT recognizes four ways in which a status relationship can be altered and warrant a reminder of shared vulnerability. Someone else’s status may decrease, ours may decrease, ours may increase, and someone else’s may increase. Again, in reasonably liberal secular societies, this last factor cannot be ignored, for it can inspire an audience member’s self-lifting laughter. That is, when hypersexual characters display some sort of exceptional or enviable ability, or find themselves the beneficiary of good fortune, their status rises and we, the viewer, by comparison, feel as if ours has been somewhat diminished. And, just as if we had done something silly or stupid, we would want to remind others of our collective vulnerability to lift ourselves and restore the prior, preferred status relationship.. They seem clever enough to get themselves out of serious trouble most of the time. And last, but certainly not least, they frequently engage in a certain physical act for which nature has given us a tremendous amount of enjoyment and appreciation.speaks, writes, and consults on a range of topics, including laughter, humor, their origins and evolution, and the central role each plays in our lives.Self Tests are all about you. Are you outgoing or introverted? Are you a narcissist? Does perfectionism hold you back? Find out the answers to these questions and more with Psychology Today.