#bvts imagine

[writings-n-stuff]

The Perfect Moment (Part 2)

Pairing: Spike x (gender neutral) Human!Reader

Words: 1,714

Summary: Weeks after their first kiss, the reader finds themselves back in Spike’s crypt. Will Spike be able to overcome his fear of hurting them, or will their perfect moment together stay locked in the past?

Content Warning: kissing, angst, mention of death, mention of turning into vampire

Note: This definitely feels kind of erotic

Part 1

Once again, you didn’t notice that you were sneaking out of your house until the night air was brushing against your cheeks. Your mind catching up with your body, you noticed you were already at the edge of the cemetery, already making the beeline for Spike’s crypt. The night air was chilly on your skin, the thin flannel of your pajama pants offering little warmth in the dark breeze.

These days you were on auto-pilot: responding in one-word phrases, looking distantly away, head in the night air you’d shared with Spike that night you two kissed.

This isn’t safe.

You scurried between the rows of headstones, eyes at the door of Spike’s crypt. Your usual prickly feeling of fear was absent this time, exhaustion and desperation making your feet sluggish and your mind foggy. You imagined the flicker of candles at the edges of the stone room, the slight smell of lavender, his jacket’s soft leather. Spike had to be there, and he had to hear you out. 

The past few weeks had been hell for you. Nothing could keep your mind off of the moment he looked away, silently asking you to leave. The way his hand rested at your neck. Your lips tingled whenever you thought of it; your eyes watered whenever you thought of it for too long. 

People were starting to notice your weird behavior. Even as that smell of death and something else had subsided, your dejected nature sparked a whole new worry. At school, your friends awkwardly ignored this change in demeanor, instead chattering over your wilting figure at lunch and between classes. Your mom had insisted you accompany her on an errand the day before, poking and prodding at your single-syllable responses, trying to figure out whether your blatant disinterest was some “call for help” she’d read about in a self-help book. All you wanted was to talk about Spike with someone, anyone, and know that you weren’t slowly drifting away. You needed to know that you were still real.

No matter how hard I tried, I still hurt you.

Ever since that night, you’d lie awake in your bedroom, hoping that he’d come to your window in some perfect timeline. That the rusting of the wind against your window was him; you’d turn your head and there he would be, asking politely to be let inside.

He still wanted you, you knew. There was no way that he didn’t. Spike had been thinking of kissing you and more for so long; this needed to be as tough on him as it was on you. Replaying his words couldn’t help the wall that he raised between the two of you.

You entered the crypt without knocking, too scared to linger in the cemetery to knock and wait. Your heartbeat crept up your throat--there was no way he couldn’t know you were coming.

It was all too loud: your footsteps, the lavender rustling in the air with your entrance, the sound of glass clinking against each other, this isn’t safe, this isn’t safe, this isn’t safe hammering around in your head. You imagined the worst things before lifting your eyes, scanning the dimensions of Spike’s living space. Your mouth went dry as you weighed every possible bad outcome. Many of them ended with your corpse lying on the cold, stone floor.

And there he was, bottle and glass in his hands, turned away from you while he paced ten steps or so, turned and paced again. He seemed lost, eyes miles away while his body remained right in front of you. 

A beat passed while you watched him, and you lightly stumbled as you tried to move forward. Swearing under your breath, you caught yourself and tried to remain calm while brushing yourself off. You looked up, right into Spike’s bright, shocked eyes. 

You could have stood there all night, just looking at him and wanting him closer. Your legs trembled at the thought of running to him, but you weren’t sure how to act. Spike was standing there, face illuminated by the candle light in the most wonderful way, looking at you like you were the only thing in the world. Hell, he was the only thing in your world. 

No matter how hard I tried, I still hurt you.

You stepped forward. “Spike-” you said hoarsely. You had to catch your breath, the damp crypt air pressed reassuringly against every part of your body. 

“Love,” he mumbled, his face breaking composure as he seemed to tear up. Could vampires cry? “Oh, love.” He noticeably swayed before setting down the bottle and glass on the nearest table, eyes fixed surely on you. “Oh, you’re here. You’re here.” 

All worry melted away instantly. Your feet carried you across the room perfectly, and you tried to melt right into Spike’s arms. He’s all you’d thought about for days turning into weeks, and here he was, right in front of you. He was not some dream you conjured at your bedroom window. He was all of a sudden very real and very much here, finally. 

At the last second, Spike turned away from your embrace. He almost crouched away from you, refusing your touch. “I can’t, love.” He shook his head, wrenching a hand through his platinum blonde hair, fighting with himself. “I can’t do it, love.”

His regret fell in a thick barrier between the two of you. He was replaying the last time he’d seen you in his head once again for the thousandth time. It made him sick, the round and round, until he had to find various ways to forget. But you didn’t want to forget, and neither did he.

Your chin trembled, torn. “Spike, please. I want to try again.” You stepped back into his line of vision, however influenced by alcohol it was. “I want to try this again,” you said firmly, attracting his eyes back into your gaze. They called your attention, pools of emotion that invited you in. “Spike, I want you.” You held your hands out to him, palms up in invitation.

Spike’s gaze moved between your hands and your eyes. He was contemplating, still so burdened by his obvious power to hurt you. To kill you. He was terrified of the likelihood of his being a vampire becoming the very thing that destroys you both. He already let it get out of his hands once, and he was afraid to take that risk again. 

But deep down, Spike wanted you so badly. He wanted to make you happy, to feel your love softly tickle his cheeks. He wanted to give you all that he knew he could--he knew he could please you so well, and he wanted to give himself that chance.

He ran another hand through his hair, obvious conflict in his eyes. “I want you too, love. I just can’t hurt you again. I can’t do that to you.” He leveled his eyes with you, seeing the very real possibility of killing you. “This isn’t safe.”

You continued to hold your hands out to him, wanting him closer. You thought again now that you were deadly to him as well. That you were deadly to him--your absence would break him if it didn’t already. “I know, Spike,” you said softly, gently moving to touch his chin. “But I trust you. And you need to trust me, too.”

He stared at you, kept his face still as your fingers met his face. He took in your words, weighed them clumsily in his mind. His jaw trembled as your fingers caressed his cheek, his temple, brushed his hairline. 

Spike said nothing, just kept himself in check while you moved to comfort him. The cold, still air of the crypt wrapped you up in its grip. You would find yourself here eventually, either as a corpse or as the undead. The thought had crossed your mind over the months you’d spent seeing him; this possibility had never felt as real as it did now. 

You brought your other hand to his face, too, holding him in your eyes. He was tortured with the thought of losing you, and he was terrified of the thought of hurting you again. “I know you won’t hurt me. Can we just try again?”

A beat, two beats, three. The seconds lingered on as he stood in front of you, gears turning over that word, try.

Can we just try again?

Spike’s hands met your own, held them as they cradled his face. His soulless body still asked for yours, full of life and open for his answer.

He moved one had away from his face, and your stomach almost dropped with the possibility of rejection. But he turned his head, kissed your fingertips, breathing out a sigh. Kissed them again, he nodded once. “Once more, love. Just once.”

And you sighed too, your lips curving into a smile. He caught your eye, a sad smile glimmering back. “Softly,” he said, “slowly. Will you kiss me again, my love?”

And you did, a shiver running from the nape of your neck to your toes. You stepped forward and tilted your head up to meet his lips. Your kissed the corner of his lips, drinking in the smile etched into his features softly as he met your own. He held your face, your neck, leaning into your touch and staying. Something opened back up in him too, and he finally held you close once again. He slipped one hand around your waist, bringing your bodies flush against each other. 

You knew that you wanted to feel this again, and you’re glad that you didn’t imagine that he wanted this again, too.

Melting into each other, you and Spike moved as one being, something alive and something dead that lingered in between. He grazed his lips along your jaw, over your cheek, down your nose, kissing your face and feeling it again. “Oh, my love. You’re absolutely perfect,” he whispered, eyes flitting up to meet yours. “I love you.”

“I love you, too,” left your lips, rang in your ears, deafening against his words from that night before. You didn’t want to let go, and he didn’t either.

Somehow, the perfect moment met you again.

#spike #spike x reader #spike x you #bvts fanfiction #spike btvs #spike fanfiction #btvs #btvs fanfiction #buffy the vampire slayer #buffy the vampire slayer fanfiction #buffy the vampire slayer x reader #spike btvs fanfiction #bvts x reader #vampire v reader #vampire fanfiction #bvts imagine #spike imagine #spike bvts imagine #buffy the vampire slayer imagine

[thebucketcrew]

To Korajj ♠️

A.M.O.R.I.S

Alphabet

A - Alone time (how do they get off when they’re all by themselves? do they watch porn, is it all in their imagination, do they jerk off, do they use toys?)

"!!- I vh...I vm..I like avdi0s...and I vse dild0s.. -!!"

M - Masochism (do they like pain? scratching? biting? being bossed around? spoken down to? choked?)

"!!- DVH! I l0ve it..um. Scratched..bit..carved..choked..i-it's all great h0nestly. Being b0ssed ar0vnd is a-als0 g00d... -!!"

O - Outdoor sex (have they ever done it in public? would they? where?)

"!!- yeah I have bef0re...I've actvally d0ne it bef0re when I was hiding 0n the rvn fr0m a dr0ne- it was a qvickie bvt it was exhilerating..I'd l0ve t0 d0 a pvblic pail again s0metime. -!!"

R - Routine (do they have a routine when it comes to picking up one night stands? do they have scheduled sex with their partner? are things spontaneous or planned ahead of time?)

"!!- I d0n't like h00kvps mvch! Bvt for partners....I l0ve sp0ntane0vs pails..being taken by svrprise is always fvn as l0ng as y0v talk ab0vt it! Bvt vm...planning is always g00d t00. -!!"

I - Impact play (here’s where talking about things like spanking, paddles, canes, floggers and the like.)

"!!- Being hit with paddles and fl0ggers i-is nice..canes are t00 hard..and being slapped, spanked, pvnched are always h0t..I wanna be bl00died. simple. d0 it. -!!"

S - Sleepy sex (do they give oral to wake their partner up? do they like receiving oral to wake up? do they like fucking their partner awake? being fucked awake? how about being fucked to sleep at night? do they have lazy morning sex?)

"!!- 000h sleep sex...I like t0 wake s0me0ne vp with 0ral 0r riding them! And being fvcked t0 sleep is amazing...lazy m0rning sex is alright, n0t as g00d as the 0ther three th0vgh pers0nally.. -!!"

#:33333c #Korajj Marvav #wanderingtrolls

[5lazarus]

BVT-Artober 2020, Day 13: Vallaslin

Day 13, Vallaslin: Zathrian's First seeks out the scattered children of Clan Lavellan and offers them the old ways.

Zathrian’s First comes to the Wycombe alienage shaking the morning dust off her feet, and you catch her drinking from a flask in the cool shade of the Vhenadahl. She doesn’t look like anyone you know, and her vallaslin is thicker than the lines your parents wore, that some of the elves in the cities paint on their faces for the Ceremonies. She is Dalish, like you are, though according to Duke Antoine, there are no more Dalish in Wycombe. He thinks because he killed everyone with vallaslin, you’re gone. But you have a long memory, and even though Keeper Adahlfenor didn’t have a chance to teach you how to make the ink, you know the patterns. Lanaya sees you watching and pulls gently at your aura. You realize she realizes: sister-mages. She waves you over. “Lethallin,” she says, “what’s your name?” “Deshanna Mithrallin,” you say carefully. Ashara and Imladris and Revas tell everyone they’re Lavellan first, then Ashalla or Barandiun’s children second, but they’re better off, with their parents’ human and dwarf friends looking out for them. You don’t have that same buffer. You are Lavellan’s First, of course, and as First you don’t have the privilege to be fiery. The clan needs you alive, because while you are not the only mage that has managed to survive and stay hidden from the Circle, you are the oldest and got the most training, and the others need every bit that you know. You were supposed to get your vallaslin that week: Sylaise, you wanted to be dedicated to Sylaise. She examines you closely. “Adahlfenor’s Second? We met at the Arlathvhen, didn’t we?” You were about fourteen and Keeper brought you there to confirm you as Second. You feel tears dotting at your eyes and look away. It is unthinkable that Clan Lavellan will come to the next Arlathvhen in five years. You can’t imagine what the Duke will do if you all just suddenly left--take it out on the elves left behind, probably, the People of the City who took you in and scattered you. Dalish or not, you will not leave them behind. And the Arlathvhen only lasts a month. “I recognize your vallaslin,” you say. “Clan Zathrian? You’re dedicated to June.” Lanaya smiles. “Yes. And Zathrian sent me. We have heard rumors that the Dread Wolf blessed Clan Lavellan and preserved the children. We wanted to make sure that not all were lost.” You shrug. Clan Zathrian is known for being  a little literal about the old stories, you remember that from the Arlathvhen, though they’re not as bad as Clan Ralaferin. “I’m not sure it was the Dread Wolf. Just luck. Common sense. Anyone who didn’t have vallaslin managed to hide.” You spread your arms out. “The alienages took in whomever they could. House Cadash too, and the Rivaini Merchants’ Guild. We had a contract. So we do not yield.” “But you’re scattered,” Lanaya says. “And while I’m sure the hahren teach you what they can, they are not Dalish.” She pulls out a long wooden box and offers it to you. “I walked through the old Friendly Homes. Just because they are now empty does not mean they are empty, da’len. You can reclaim them. Clan Zathrian will help, Clan Sabrae and Clan Alerion too. Adahlfenor meant for you to be Lavellan’s Keeper, Deshanna Mithra’s daughter. He would want you to lead.” You open the box. A tray of inks sit, along with a halla-bone tattoo pen. You stroke it gently. You’ve painted the dedications on the People’s face for the Ceremonies, Lavellan and Wycombe alike, and you made the brush out of halla hair, to get closer to the sacred. You could make it permanent, it can’t be that much more difficult, you never got to watch Keeper do it, that was the First’s duty, but Josmael has been gone for three long, hard, catastrophic years. “I don’t know how,” you say, voice thick. “Keeper didn’t have the chance to teach me.” Lanaya shifts closer, and above you a seabreeze teases the leaves of the Vhenadahl. You tip your face to the wind and the sun beaming through the latticework of the tree and pull at the warmth to beat away despair. Lanaya says, “But I can. I can teach you. Because we are Dalish: keepers of the lost lore, walkers of the lonely path. The last of Elvhenan, and never do we submit.”

#btv-artober #dragon age fanfic #deshanna istimaetheoriel lavellan #lanaya #fanfic #5lazarus #vallaslin

[michael-radi-the-glamorous-life]

Hold Your Breath. Make A Wish. Count To Three.

You know how you sometimes have this dream - it could be a nighttime thing, or a daydream, or some lofty ethereal goal - but it’s something you just can’t quite imagine. It’s there and you can almost picture it, but only ever just almost.

I’ve had so many of these dreams that I lost count long ago. But I think it’s something that’s just in the DNA of artists and creative types.

Right?

Well, beginning sometime around the fall of 2016 I had this dream (the goal kind) of what it would be like, feel like, look like, sound like, etc to see The King’s Legacy - which had finally found the correct structure - come to life in a full production.

It simultaneously felt easily attainable and yet a thousand years off. I truly could almost see it happening. But it wasn’t happening - not yet anyway. So all I could do was just keep imagining and letting various scenarios pass through my head.

But I will tell you that, when it came down to the reality, it was nothing like I had imagined.

It was so much better.

Come With Me And You’ll Be In A World Of Pure Imagination

Writers are often asked:

“Do you see the show in your head as you write? Are you staging it? Directing it?”

And I am absolutely certain that some writers can and do.

But not me.

That’s not to say that I’m not imagining how it could possibly go and making sure that it seems workable, both as someone who has directed and continues to perform as an actor. But I either do not have the ability or the synapse wiring to fully direct the show in my brain as I write/create the entire world of a possible production. For me, it’s more a conglomeration of possibilities than it is a concrete idea.

And that’s where Chris J. Handley comes into the story.

I’ve known Chris as an actor since 2014 and one of the first things that struck me about him is that he is - plainly and simply - extremely good at what he does: as an actor, singer, emcee, and overall professional. He is an artistic force to be reckoned with.

Last year I had the pleasure of finally encountering Chris as a director as well (in The Spider’s Web at BVT). I had a small role, but I thoroughly enjoyed sitting in on the rehearsals - even when I was not needed - just to watch Chris work and direct. His intelligence and grasp of overall picture, while never letting the details slip away, is really a special experience.

So when I was told Chris would be the director for The King’s Legacy this summer, I was thrilled.

There is much I could say about the process of working with Chris on the script prior to the actual production, but the biggest takeaway for me from our early conversations was that he had a complete and utter grasp on what the piece was, wanted to be, its flow, its importance, and all of the layers that were on the page. It was like being fully seen for the first time - our conversations were deep and productive and wonderful.

And - if you would indulge me another moment - when we got to the summer and I finally got see the production elements that he had put together with the designers, I knew he truly understood the piece.

There was no doubt: this musical was going to truly come to life.

We’ll Begin With A Spin

There is a flow to the script of The King’s Legacy that is, potentially, a little difficult to find.

With the framing device of having the show performed by a troupe of Elizabethan Players, there are elements of narration and driving storyline that move the piece quickly between scenes and songs. And there’s a great deal of storytelling that must be done very quickly.

What Chris and the entire design team put together was a show that could move as quickly, freely, and easily as the words and performers have to move.

There is space. There is freedom. There is an element of play built directly into the production from the top down. And it’s awesome.

In a show where there is a great deal of information, 20 characters, and countless scene shifts, the whole experience can be somewhat dizzying at times. And when that is appropriate to the piece, they’ve allowed it to continue to exist in that way. And at times when we’d rather not give that experience to the audience, they figured out a way to create a more grounded experience, without losing the sense of movement.

Running through the show for the very first time in the rehearsal room was, as an actor, an exhausting and delightfully rewarding experience. The show is a runaway train that can never slow down or stop until it absolutely must, and it is this movement that Chris has infused throughout the entire show so masterfully.

The core, the heart, of this show has been lain bare for the audience, and it’s a beautiful experience.

Traveling In The World Of My Creation

Now, as the writer, walking into the theater is an awe-inspiring experience. Every time.

They built a world. There is literally a different world built in our space. And it’s the world of the show that I wrote…

I mean, whoa. That’s the coolest thing - like - period. Holy wow.

It’s beautiful. It’s magical. It’s period. Yet it’s not. It’s theatrical. It’s musical. And it’s our world - our home - for the next 9 days.

There have been a number of incredible experiences for me working in theater - as an actor, musical director, educator, and so on - but the experience of walking into this world fully realized for the first time is not something I am going to forget any time soon.

There it is. It’s right there.

Is it what I imagined? Nope. No way.

It’s so much better.

If You Want To View Paradise, Simply Look Around And View It

So, as we walk into our opening night tonight, what do I want to say?

I’m really not sure.

All I know that I can say is that I am so thankful and grateful for having been given the opportunity to bring this show to life for the first time, and with this insanely talented group of people. This team has been nothing short of incredible, and I could not be happier with the work they have done and the world they have built.

This world - this dream - exists because of these amazing individuals, who I must give credit to:

Executive Artistic Director - Karin Bowersock

Associate Artistic Director - Katelyn Cantu

Director - Chris J. Handley

Assistant Director - Kate Reynolds

Set Design - Christopher and Justin Swader

Lighting Design - Mary Ellen Stebbins

Costume Design - Sammi Miller

Costumes/Wardrobe - Valerie Frizzell

Costume Assistants - Joan Luther, Joan York

Sound Design - Rich Miller

Musical Director - Annabelle Revak

Stage Manager - Morgan Montgomery

Assistant Stage Manager - Andrea Armer

Choreographer - Adam Corcoran

Assistant Choreographer (+) - Meaghan Finlay

Dramaturg - Liz Porter Woods

Technical Director - Sam Santoianni

Assistant Technical Director - Mary Atchley

Props Mistress - Ammy Roth

Props/Paints - Mary Claunch

Carpentry - Mars Peterson, Ace Evans

Electrics - Amber Hahn, Amanda Ryan

Marketing/Administration - Emily Haan

Administration - Angela Einwachter

House Manager - Mary Peaty

Box Office/Front of House - Caity Peaty, Angela, Kyle Rook

Player 1 - Mike Kinzer

Player 3 - Mark Poppleton

Player 4 - Jennifer Arfsten

Player 5 - Hannah Karpenko

Player 6 - Alex Loucks

Player 7 - Tess Marshall

Player 8 - Leigh Martha Klinger

Player 9 - Bunny Baldwin (care of Joyce Baldwin)

As you can see, it really does take a village.

And now, all that is left to do is to soak in this paradise together - as artists, as creatives, as audience, and as lovers of theatre.

Yeah. Let’s do this thing.

#glamorous life blog #glamorous life #The King's Legacy #theatre #theater #theatre artist #writer #playwright #composer #lyricist #librettist #imagination #pure imagination #production #premiere #opening night #performer #performance #dream #Chris Handley #director #Bristol Valley Theater #new musical #musical theatre #new works #new works initiative #world premiere #designer #design

[exaltedmysticunion-blog]

...because sometimes life just doesn't make sense. Sitting with your spirits is akin to sitting in nature-- beyond concrete and lattes, away from other people's skyscrapers and dogmas and limiting beliefs. Sometimes we just have to reconnect to what's true. 🕯️🌊 . . I think of my spiritual guides as ancestors and as emissaries of the Great Spirit. Call your guides what you may, they guide you in dreams and in waking life. For shamanic cultures, there is no life without Spirit. 🕯️🌊 . . Travesties happen... Inexplicable ones. And profound realizations happen too. If it weren't for my guides I can't even imagine the grief I would carry. Time and time again they send epiphanies and warnings, like a lighthouse beckoning the way to safety and peace. 🕯️🌊 . . Listen to your guides. Heed their warnings and their sage advice. You have an important destiny to fulfill… even as other lightworkers fall beside you. Keep walking. 🕯️🌊 . . **Normally I don't comment on media incidents but I know many are confused and deeply saddened today. Remember, there's much more to this life than we can see, don't fear. Spirit doesn't always need a body to impact this world. . . ✨🙏🏽✨ #nipseyhussle #laurenlondon #condolences #lightworkers https://www.instagram.com/p/Bvt-FaTnBoM/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=tjyb5bo7y74b

#nipseyhussle #laurenlondon #condolences #lightworkers

[trevorbarre]

'Baron Von Tollbooth'/'Manhole': Dying Embers of the First American Psychedelic Period (1966-73) Part One

For some reason, I dug these two slices of late-period psychedelic vinyl from my shelves, and reimagined my first listening to them in 1973, at a time when this sort of music was being gradually put out to pasture, to be replaced by more slick and knowing, post - hippie types like David Bowie, Roxie Music, Steely Dan and Little Feat, to name only a few 1970s masters. To give it it's full title, Baron Von Tolbooth and the Chrome Nun (BVT) was jointly credited to Jefferson Airplane's 'royal couple', Paul Kantner and Grace Slick, with Quicksilver Messenger Service's David Freiberg as the studio gooseberry; Manhole, also on the Airplane's Grunt vanity label (which was distributed by RCA Victor), was a solo project, but with a cast of thousands, by Slick, the first of four. I've always remained a great fan of both of these LPs, but they do serve to demonstrate some of the reasons why first generation psychedelic music, in particular that from San Francisco, was looking rather peaky by 1973, a year that, like 1963, can be put forward as the decade's 'true start'. After all, wasn't this essentially Sixties music, even if some of us only really caught up with it in the early seventies?

The Airplane's Surrealistic Pillow (February 1967) was the first really significant psychedelic San Francisco recording. Never mind The Charlatans, Moby Grape, The Great! Society or even Jefferson Airplane Takes Off. We very soon had After Bathing at Baxters and Crown of Creation, Electric Music for the Mind and Body, Anthem of the Sun, Aoxomoxoa and Live/Dead, Quicksilver Messenger Service and Happy Trails, and Cheap Thrills - these are merely the late 60s products of probably the best known of the SF groups of the time. There are many, many others, some of which can be experienced on a 4-disc Rhino 'nuggets' compilation from 2007, Love Is the Song We Sing: San Francisco Nuggets 1965-1970, a sumptuously presented selection, which features the great and the good, the bad and the plain indifferent, as any honest and accurate collection should.

Most rock historians have pointed out that 1970 is probably a good cut-off point; the essential conservatism of America (or Amerika, as some hippies insisted on calling it) began to emerge around 1968 (despite the revolutionary rhetoric of the time) in even the supposed 'radical' genre of the rock music at that time, with the emergence of what we now call 'Americana': Dylan kicked it off with John Wesley Harding and, even earlier, The Basement Tapes (the latter initially only available as a bootleg, Little White Wonder); The Beatles aimed to "get back to where you once belonged"; The Stones courted and were courted by Byrd/Burrito Brother, good 'ol/young boy, Gram Parsons; the covers of Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young's monster-seller Deja Vu and The Band's eponymous second disc were virtually interchangeable, being sepia-tinted exercises of nostalgia for a future-imagined bucolic rural arcadia (in places like Marin County, however, rather than the post-lapsarian, smack and speed-riddled, Haigh Ashbury of 1968).

As I have described in my books, I'm a fan of the 'seven year cycle' model of musical 'movements'. Taking on this admittedly rather fanciful framework, we can see that the post-1970 years represented a 'decadent' phase of the notional first psychedelic era of 1966-73. English psychedelic whimsy was soon bulldozed by nascent 'progressive' music, both in the form of what became known as Prog, and that of hard rock/metal. (Blue Cheer were thus perhaps the most prescient of all the SF groups.) There were several great albums by the SF musicians around 1972-4, including the first Jerry Garcia and Bob Weir solo excursions, Garcia and Ace, From the Mars Hotel (beloved by Tony Blair's Ugly Rumours band, and probably the Dead's last wholly satisfactory studio recording, from 1974), the early Hot Tuna output culminating in The Phosphorescent Rat, but the writing was very clearly on the wall, despite the efforts over here of bands like Gong and the Welsh jammers Man. (Man were even joined, for a time, by none other than QMS's immortal John Cipollina, thus squaring some sort of circle, I guess?)

More to come...

[libidomechanica]

If ever is a Love

If ever is a Love. Onely that may sweates for that sometime away, twould I less that Tims other through the lamps & Ill let yours. More grownd, and in the song that Ice straight, I told my rival, thought in their first, but now to see thee from the brush they were somewhere then I am beating each other, hands where thy waters and all our lips part, because thee to imagination to recompense from the envy of the soft      come vnto my girland grammar, vowel sound nor heaven clear hear you and I from yours, and often called at once and grass in the bridale borrowe

at the sea-beasts, range, for wisdom never feet; with blue eyes like unletterd clerk still dare een dear, the white bitch never and ease? Bvt if ye sall be a Jew. With no special, that was asked, and I will his whisper of plunder heele: but, for pittied is my reverend ghost to hold me to meet both behold, and so they faded, and Beautiful seldom. But Sylvio did; his gifts experience.

#poetry #automatically generated text #Patrick Mooney #Markov chains #Markov chain length: 6 #154 texts

[kristian-m-marion]

Do you want to know how heresies are made? Let a man read scripture and twist it with his own wonderful imagination and interests and Ta-Da! There's a difference between exegesis and eisegesis. Know the difference! Scripture must always be studied with the Holy Spirit present. Read your bible. Pray #bible #scripture #jesus #exegesis #truth #interpretation https://www.instagram.com/p/Bvt-6F4lk3f/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=ick3217tyro6

#bible #scripture #jesus #exegesis #truth #interpretation

[emcmillanauthorsupport]

~~~Brand New Release!!!~~~ Available for $1.99 for a limited time only!!! Price will jump up to $3.99 on 4/3/19!!! Universal Amazon Link: mybook.to/TheLightShinesThrough Several authors and poets have come to show their love and support of Athena and Tommy with The Light Shines Through. A multi-genre collection of poetry. Through their words, these authors want their friends to know that the battle they face is one that they do not have to face alone. All proceeds for the sale of this collection will go to this amazing family to help with the financial burden caused by some health related issues. This book contains amazing poetry that spans the entire spectrum of your imagination. Thank you for your love and support. #NewRelease #Poetry #ForAthena #Amazon #Kindle https://www.instagram.com/p/Bvt-ogzgbTr/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=1wjiqw14i1163

#newrelease #poetry #forathena #amazon #kindle

[activatingaggro]

the scarf wars, p3

Featuring Pheres Dysseu [RS], Hadean [ID], Lucina [DP], Ullane [JM], and Emerel [MN].

[The conversation continued after the spat -]

RS: | Yes | Well | That's Because You're a Good | Upstanding Person |

RS: | Hadean | Haha |

ID: no need to lie about me. =;)

RS: | Ha | =:B | I have Seen No Evidence to the Contrary |

RS: | As My Moirail would Say | You will Need to Step Up Your Game |

ID: =:!

ID: you said you just had a matesprit!

ID: i think.

DP: Tell me more abovt yovr rvin diving Hadean | Yov mvst have seen some really great things

ID: wait is emerel your pale.

ID: i need a fucking graph.

RS: | What |

DP: No that's his red | I think

RS: | I didn't Say I had a Matesprit |

DP: That is yovr red | Right?

RS: | Where Did I Say I had a Matesprit | ? |

ID: okay i remember asking about your quads.

RS: | Pale and Flushed are Both Red Quadrants | Lucina |

ID: and you said you just had. them.

RS: | Right |

DP: Yes bvt | I distinctly remember that we've been talking abovt how yov have a green red

ID: now i am hearing of a moirail.

DP: Please tell me | Where that one came from

RS: | It was an Unfortunate Turn of Phrase |

RS: | As Sipara would Say | How is That | ? |

DP: Uh huh | Well alright then

DP: If yov say so

RS: | | I am Going to Correct This | Largely to Prevent any Unfortunate Misunderstandings |

RS: | I am not Pale with Emerel | Emerel and I are |

ID: I mean emerel is the one who invited you to join in his shower right.

DP: Oh my | Well then

RS:

RS: | Um |

DP: I feel less awkward now | After hearing that one

RS: | You Misread That | in a Very Terrible Way |

ID: no i did not.

RS: | I am Honestly Rather Appalled | But Perhaps I should Not Be |

RS: | Given Your Predilection with Discussing Garters with Nikola |\

RS: | Yes You Did |

ID: he said if you were in the area. you were free to join him.

ID: in the shower.

RS: | No | No |

RS: | No | =:| |

DP: I feel like this is where someone less civilized | Wovld be whistling Pheres

RS: | You Conflated Two Separate Concepts |

ID: no i did not. =:I

RS: | Honestly | The Both of You should Get Your Minds out of the Gutter |

ID: i know a flirty invitation when i read one.

DP: Bvt the real qvestion is | DO yov join him in the shower

ID: he wanted some warmth in his ablution block.

RS: | He Stated If I was Near His Home | Then I should Come and Visit |

RS: |- AND -|

RS: | The Emphasis is on |- AND -|

RS: | He would be Taking a Shower |

RS: | With the Unspoken Condition that I should Wait to Arrive |

RS: | | So He is Not In The Shower |

JM: Oh god. What have I walked into.

RS: | OBVIOUSLY |

DP: I don't know | Bvt it's qvite entertaining

ID: ahahahah wow if you believe that you are dense.

ID: what is flirting to you pheres. a troll ripping their clothes off and throwing thesmelves to your sweet mercies?

DP: Don't think I didn't notice that yov failed to answer my qvestion

JM: Some trolls. Like that.

JM: The weird ones.

RS: | Thank You for that Stunning Addition | JM |

JM: I am. So proud to have added it.

RS: | I Think We have all Caught that Hadean Likes That | Given that He Came Up With It |

DP: Alright so it's canon | Wow I can't believe I said canon thanks Pademi

DP: That Pheres jvmps into the shower | With that Emerel gvy(edited)

JM: No I think he is just. Having a laugh. At your expense. Alas.

ID: oh so now i'm lying huh. >=:I

ID: i wonder how emerel would feel.

DP: No yov're not lying Hadean | He's just being obstinate

ID: about my lies.

RS: | And | Lucina | I don't Think the People I Shower With are Entirely Relevant to You |

RS: | =:1 |(edited)

RS: | Also | Oh My God |

DP: So yov do admit to it | Good to know

JM: Can someone message him

RS: | | I am Going to Go Check on My Booth |

JM: To see what he thinks

DP: Does anyone here know his tag | Or how to contact him

JM: Sadly I don't

ID: i know he'll eventually show up here.

ID: and i will not forget this. =>:I

JM: We'll have such things

JM: To tell him

RS: | You are All Dreadful |

RS: | =>:( |

[Pheres leaves the chat! The discussion continues.]

JM: Only when it is

JM: very funny

ID: well pheres. perhaps you brought it on yourself.

ID: =>:I

DP: Do yov think we covld find it | If we scrolled vp

ID: oh why yes we could.

JM: How about

JM: We just search his name

DP: Let's jvst take a little field trip here | To find this mysteriovs Emerel

DP: Alright everyone | Let's get searching

JM: meganeNarcissus

JM: appears to be his tag

ID: why.

DP: Excellent

ID: seems i will have to contact this tag.

JM: Do tell us

JM: How that turns out

ID: oh i will give oyu all front row seats. hopefully.

JM: Yes

JM: good

DP: Please give me a front row ticket | I need to see this

JM: I get bored in the caverns

JM: I need silly drama

JM: To watch

[ Emerel gets invited in! ]

MN: okaaay .MY. flat grEEn ass is hErE

MN: why am .I. bEing summonEd again

ID: so glad you could join us. =:)

ID: to cear up some chat confusion of course!

ID: you see, dear pheres dropped some confusing knowledge on us before business drew them away.

ID: =:(

DP: Pheres was trying to convince us | That yov've never invited him into a shower

DP: Amongst other things

MN: oh .MY. god what is hE doing this timE(edited)

ID: why, according to him your flirtacious offer of a steamy shower together.

ID: was just an invitation to stand awkwardly around your hive until you could finish and join him.

ID: =:(

JM: He says you're not matesprits

JM: confirm or deny

ID: also that in so many words. =:(

MN: pfffft

MN: wow okay

MN: hold on and lEt .ME. scroll up to sEE what ElsE hEs bEEN saying

MN: ...

MN: what

MN: .........

ID: is he prone to bouts of shyness?

ID: or perhaps. dare i say it.

ID: shame?

JM: That's a bit too mean

MN: wEll hE is but

MN: .I.m going to go talk to him

ID: good luck. =;) perhaps he is in need of more. brazen shows of your affections.

ID: to help qualm whatever insecurities he might have.

MN: right

MN: thanks for contacting .ME.

MN: byE

ID: bye~

ID: well. now either pheres will thank me or curse my name.

ID: and better than that.

ID: he'll know better than to try and call me a liar.

DP: Uh | Wow

DP: He didn't even confirm or deny | I don't think that's a good sign

ID: =:)

[REGRETS ARE HAD. By some, but not Hadean.]

JM: This is not

JM: really what I was expecting

DP: Well I guess we won't know how it went | Until we hear from one of them

JM: I hope they resolve it

ID: well imagine if it was your mate denying your quad's existence.

ID: the guy had a right to know.

ID: i just might have gone about it nicer if pheres had fucking deserved it.

ID: as it is.

ID: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

DP: Still | I hope Emerel will be alright

DP: Those dots can't have been good

ID: try not to worry too much.

ID: your worries will do nothing for them. either they'll communicate and work it out.

ID: or their ship will meet a watery end.

ID: uwu

DP: I gvess you're right | Still that's harsh

DP: I'd hate it if someone I was close to | Svddenly started acting like they didn't know me

DP: This is what I was trying to tell him | Bvt it's his problem at the end of the day

ID: damn right. you're not his rail, not your problem.

DP: I feel sorry for his rail | They have a hell of a job with him

ID: i mean jeesh and they call me high maintenance. =:I

ID: at least i'm mostly just physically destructive.

DP: Whereas Pheres is socially destrvctive | And covldn't be less self aware if he tried(edited)

ID: what a mess in the worst way. anyways! who is here that didn't get scared away by that! other than dp.

[ In the meanwhile, Emerel contacts Pheres! ]

[ meganeNarcissus [MN] began trolling refiningSpacetime [RS] ]

MN: hEy

RS: | Emerel | Hello | ! |

RS: | You are On Speech to Voice | No | Um |

RS: | Speech to Text | Haha | So | I hope You Know that Exclamation Mark was Added Manually | By which I mean | Verbally |

RS: | | To Emphasize My Enthusiasm to Hear From You |

RS: | | It has Been a Long Night | Haha |

MN: yEah

MN: what happEnEd

MN: is EVErything okay(edited)

RS: | Ahh | Nothing You need to Worry About |

RS: | Just a bit of | Verbal Rough-Housing |

RS: | People get Overly Enthusiastic in Their Displays of Hate-Friendship | I Think | ! |

MN: that sounds likE a pain in thE ass

MN: sorry its bEEn rough

RS: | Haha | Isn't It | ? | They Mean Well | Though |

RS: | But | Never Mind That | How are You | ? |

MN: .I.m

MN: alright

MN: hEy .PHERES. can .I. ask you somEthing

RS: | That is a Very Hesitant Alright | Haha |

RS: | You're not Injured Again | Are You | ? |

RS: | And | Yes | Of Course | ! |

MN: no .I.m not hurt dont worry

MN: .PHERES. wE arE matEsprits right

MN: .I. mEan .I. assumE wE arE

MN: am .I. wrong

RS: | Um |

RS: | Wait | What | ? |

MN: .I. was wondEring

MN: bEcausE .I. loggEd in today and saw whErE you wErE tElling pEoplE that wE wErEnt

MN: did .I. misundErstand

RS: | I Thought We weren't Matesprits |

RS: | Wait | Ah | I'm Confused |

RS: | How Much Of That did You Read | ? |

MN: all of it prEtty much

MN: .I. gEt not wanting to talk about my showEr commEnts in public

MN: but .I. thought wE wErE matEsprits sincE youVE callEd .ME. your matEsprit in chat bEforE

RS: | Haha | Um |

RS: | Heavens | Um |

RS: | Um |

RS: | I Thought We weren't Matesprits | And That is Why We had That Conversation | about Kit |

RS: | Remember | ? |

RS: | At the Bar | ? |

MN: oh fuck wE dEfinitEly got confusEd again

RS: | I Apologise for Referring to You as My Matesprit in the Past | Um |

RS: | I was Not Expecting You to | ah | See That | ? | Or Read It | ? |

RS: | But | Ah |

RS: | That was |

RS: | Presumptuous of Me |

RS: | But | I didn't Mean It Seriously | Ah | I just |

RS: | | Orpheo is Very Excuberant | and Impressive | and Prone to Theatrics |

RS: | I thought It would | | | Um | Well |

RS: | I Don't Know What I was Thinking | Really |

MN: sEE .I. thought wE wErE formally matEsprits

MN: and .KIT. was a mEmbEr of thE fold in part of a rEd smEar nobody saw coming

MN: so you

MN: liEd to gEt an uppEr hand on orphEo in othEr words

MN: wEll thanks for tElling .ME. at lEast

MN: that would haVE bEEn nicE to know bEforE .I. got the wrong idEa

MN: onE of thEsE days wEll work out what wErE calling oursElVEs

RS: | Ah | Sorry | I'm Driving | Did I Mention That | ? |

RS: | Because I Am | And There was Traffic | Um |

RS: | I wasn't Ignoring You |

RS: | | You Said We Weren't Matesprits | When did You Decide We Were | ? |

RS: | Because | You didn't Tell Me |

MN: hEncE why wErE both confusEd

MN: fuck we rEally nEEd to work on this communication thing

MN: bEcausE wE both kind of suck at it

RS: | Hahahaha | Haha | Um |

MN: .I. rEally thought wE wErE bEcausE you said that

MN: and you said .KIT. was okay so .I. figurEd hE was actually okay

MN: .I. haVEnt touchEd anyonE ElsE

MN: .I. mEan .I. know .I.m a catch but

RS: | You Thought We were | For the | |

RS: | Hour After You Read That | ? |

RS: | Ah | No | That sounded Unkind | It isn't Meant to Sound Unkind |

RS: | Um |

RS: | I don't Mind Being Matesprits | Haha | Not at All |

RS: | I am Just | Startled |

RS: | And | Wait |

RS: | You Spoke to Kit First | ? |

RS: | Is He |

RS: | also | your matesprit | ? |

RS: | I Am Just A Little Confused Here |

RS: | Ha Ha Ha |

MN: wait what

MN: now .I.m confusEd

MN: plEasE rEpEat that in an actual languagE

RS: | Which Part | ? |(edited)

RS: | | That is Sincere | There are Several |

RS: | Haha |

MN: what do you mEan .I. talkEd to .KIT. first(edited)

RS: | You Said | You Assumed He was a Member of the Fold | Or | Whatever |

RS: | | Did I Misunderstand | ? |

RS: | Because I Thought that Meant | You were Saying He's Your Matesprit |

MN: thats what .I. figurEd

MN: sincE wE both carE about .KIT. and nEithEr of us want to lEaVE him alonE

MN: hEs not my matEsprit .PHERES.

MN: .I. thought you wErE

MN: shit this is confusing

RS: | Yes | I Care Deeply for Kit | But |

RS: | I'm not Sure What You Mean |

MN: .I. dont know

MN: somE wEird thrEE way quad is thE bEst way .I. can dEscribE this

RS: | And | Were | ? |

RS: | I Thought You Meant Are | haha | heavens |

RS: | usually people | say | propose to quadrants with | say | rings |

RS: | Three Way Quadrant |(edited)

RS: | ? |

RS: | IOh dear |

MN: .I. dont know what to call it

MN: but arE wE matEsprits or not .PHERES.

MN: bEcausE hEy

MN: .I. wouldnt mind bEing official

RS:

RS: | Haha | Hahahaha | Ha | Ha | Um |

RS: | Um |

RS:

RS: | Um |

MN: dudE brEathE

MN: dont actually diE on .MY. account

RS: | I'm Not | Don't Worry | Hahaha |

RS: | Sipara would be Upset |

RS: | I wouldn't Mind | At All | That would be Amazing | Really | But |

RS: | I don't Understand | Haha | Oh |

MN: .I. haVE no idEa whErE to put all that hair if .I. haVE to hidE a body .PHER.

MN: dont understand

MN: what do you mEan

RS: | Hold On | I'm Pulling Over |

RS: | What I mean is that I don't Understand | Why You Changed Your Mind | on If We are Quadrants |

MN: oh

MN: wEll

MN: bEcausE .I. thought about it

MN: and .I. was likE hEy .I. likE this idEa

MN: of bEing matEsprits with .PHERES.

MN: fuck this is sappy

MN: but you know

MN: yourE a fluffy wEirdo but yourE .MY. fluffy wEirdo and .I. wouldnt tradE you for anything

RS: | Oh | Haha | That's |

RS: | I'm Glad | =:B |

MN: plEasE dont makE .ME. ElaboratE on this anymorE bEcausE the lEVEls of mushy sap might actually turn .ME. into a trEE

RS: | | | I wouldn't Make You | But | Ah | You can Feel Free To | If You'd Like | Haha |

MN: oh boy

MN: whErE to bEgin(edited)

MN: alright lEts makE this formal

MN: ahEm

MN: .PHERES DYSSEU.

MN: will you

MN: with no miscommunication for oncE whatsoEVEr

MN: for thE loVE of EVEry forgottEn troll dEity out thErE lEts gEt our wirEs uncrossEd

MN: bE .MY. matEsprit(edited)

April 18, 2017

RS: | | Haha | Ha | Um |

RS: | Yes | ? | I already Said Yes | I Meant You can Extrapolate | on the Mush | But | Ah |

RS: | Um |

RS: | This | is Perfectly Acceptable | ? | ? |

RS: | Which is to Say | Yes | Of Course | =:B |

RS: | | But | Ah |

RS: | For Communication's Sake |

RS: | What did You Mean by Kit | ? |

RS: | | Are You Two Quadrants Now | ? |

RS: | Wait | no | Shit |

RS: | Wait | Oh | Let Me Turn off This Voice Program |

RS: | | |

RS: | Okay | My Apologies | Emerel | We Can't be Matesprits |

RS: | I don't Have a Ring For You | Or | An Earring | Or |- ANYTHING -|

MN: no

MN: .I.m strEamlining it morE

MN: basically .I. guEss EVErything is the samE

MN: including stuff with .KIT.

MN: ExcEpt wErE not flailing around like wRigglErs trying to talk through a cup and string

MN: dudE .PHERES. wE could sEriously opEn up a jEwElry storE with all thE jEwlrEy wE haVE bEtwEEn us

RS: | Oh | Right | That makes Sense | Ah | The Bit about Smearing just | Confused Me | Haha |

RS: | And | Well | Yes | But You don't Have Anything in My Colour | ! |

MN: bEt .I. could find somEthing prEtty nicE whEn .I. go out again ;)

RS: | ! | ! |

RS: | Oh | Haha | I will Get Something in Yours | Then | If You'd like to Do It Like That |

MN: sounds good

MN: now thE big quEstion hErE is

MN: what kind of jEwElry

MN: haha itll be a surprisE

RS: | Haha | Rings are Traditional | ! |

RS: | | But | Whatever Works for You | =:B | A Surprise sounds Lovely | ! |

RS: | So | Ah | Do You want Me Saying that We are Matesprits | Then | ? |

MN: .I. likE thE sound of that

RS: | Haha | | Good | ! |

RS: | Ah | Can I Mention This to Kit | ? |

MN: what arE you going to tEll him?

RS: | Um | that We are Officially Matesprits | ? |

RS: | He is Going to Come Visit a Girl with Me | while I Sort Out a Certain Mess |

RS: | So He night Have Questions about The Jewelry | Haha |

RS: | | | But | I don't have to Mention It |

MN: knowing .KIT. that

MN: might upsEt him a littlE

MN: you know how sElf conscious hE tEnds to gEt

MN: so for thE timE bEing maybE not yEt

RS: | Haha | Ah |

RS: | Alright | ! |

RS: | Good That I Asked | =:) |

RS: | I shall Keep My Lips Zipped |

RS: | So to say |

MN: wEll tEll him just

MN: not quitE yEt

RS: | Haha | Okay |

MN: .I. haVE to gEt back to work now

MN: papErwork is a bitch ugh

MN: .I.ll tExt you whEn .I. gEt donE

MN: <3

RS: | I should Get Back to Driving | I have to Go To the Train Station | So |

RS: | Ah | <3 |

RS: | <3 | <3 | <3 |

MN: drivE safE babE

#thread highlights #the scarf wars #pheres dysseu

[bluewatsons]

Leo Kant & Elisabeth Norman, You Must Be Joking! Benign Violations, Power Asymmetry, and Humor in a Broader Social Context, 10 Front Psychol 1380 (2019)

Abstract

Violated expectations can indeed be funny, as is acknowledged by incongruity theories of humor. According to the Benign Violation Theory (BVT), something is perceived as humorous when it hits the “sweet spot,” where there is not only a violation, but where the violation is also perceived as benign. The BVT specifies how psychological distance plays a central role in determining whether a certain event, joke, or other stimulus is perceived as benign or malign. In line with the aims of this research topic, we specifically address how this “sweet spot” may be influenced by social distance. This form of psychological distance has so far received less attention in the BVT than other forms of distance. First, we argue that the BVT needs to distinguish between different perspectives in a given situation, i.e., between the joke-teller and the joke-listener, and needs to account for the social distance between the two parties as well as between each of them and the joke. Second, we argue that the BVT needs to acknowledge possible power asymmetries between the two parties, and how asymmetries might influence the social distance between the joke-teller and joke-listener, as well as between each of these and the joke. Based on the assumption that power influences social distance, we argue that power asymmetry may explain certain disagreements over whether something is funny. Third, we suggest that cultural differences might influence shared perspectives on what is benign vs. malign, as well as power balance. Thus, cultural differences might have both a direct and an indirect influence on what is perceived as humorous. Finally, we discuss potential implications beyond humor, to other social situations with border zones. Close to the border, there is often disagreement concerning attempted violations of expectations and norms, and concerning their nature as benign or malign. This can for instance occur in sexual harassment, #MeToo, bullying, aggression, abusive supervision, destructive leadership, counterproductive work behavior, organizational citizenship behavior, parenting, and family relations. New understanding of border zones may thus be gained from BVT along with our proposed systematically mismatched judgments which parties could make about attempted benign violations.

To the extent that amusement can be seen as an emotion, it is perhaps the emotion for which there is the strongest uncertainty as to what type of antecedents elicit it (McGraw et al., 2014; Martin and Ford, 2018). The fundamental question that any psychological theory of humor needs to explain is why something is perceived as funny and other things are perceived as not funny. A theory developed to answer both questions is the Benign Violation Theory (BVT) (McGraw and Warren, 2010; McGraw et al., 2012, 2014; Warren and McGraw, 2016). According to this theory, two types of appraisals must be simultaneously present for something to be regarded as funny. First, the stimulus must represent a violation which is contrary to expectations and threatens the person’s view of what the world “ought” to be. Examples could range from being “attacked” by a friend trying to tickle you, to violating a linguistic norm. Second, the violation must be perceived as benign, which may be influenced by several factors. In the current paper, we specifically focus on the social component of psychological distance (cf. Trope and Liberman, 2010). As will be accounted for in more detail later, increased psychological distance makes minor events appear less funny, and more serious events more funny (McGraw et al., 2012).

However, the BVT has certain limitations, which constitute the starting point for this paper. One is that even jokes that include norm violations not regarded as benign can sometimes be perceived as funny (Olin, 2016). Another is the failure of the theory to account for disagreements between people as to whether something is funny within a given situation (Meyer, 2000). In our view, theories of humor also need to address why people sometimes tell jokes that others may find insulting or inappropriate. Clearly, what is intended to be funny by someone telling a joke is not always perceived as such by others. Even seemingly intelligent and emotionally sensitive people sometimes make jokes that others find offensive. For instance, a sexual joke told by a leader to a follower in a workplace, may be perceived as harassment rather than a joke. The #MeToo campaign has shown that sexual harassment often occurs in cases where someone tried (or claimed to try) to be funny. Additionally, it often occurs in relationships of asymmetric power, and may be influenced by culture (Luthar and Luthar, 2002).

We suggest that the BVT could potentially be applicable to a broader array of situations if it included three additional elements: firstly, a distinction between the joke-teller and joke-listener; secondly, the role of power differences; thirdly, the acknowledgement of the cultural context in which a joke is told. All three elements are relevant to the model’s predictions about the role of psychological distance in humor. Note that we limit our discussion to cases in which humor is used with the intention of amusing others, rather than for other communicative purposes (cf. Meyer, 2000).

Psychological Distance in the Benign Violation Theory

According to the BVT, psychological distance reduces the tendency for people to perceive aversive stimuli or events as threatening (McGraw et al., 2014). When something is perceived as psychologically distant, people tend to represent them more abstractly (Trope and Liberman, 2010). The more psychologically distant a violation is, the more likely it therefore is to be perceived as benign. A violation can take the form of a threat to a person’s physical well-being, identity, or cultural, communicative, linguistic, and logical norms (Warren and McGraw, 2016; Warren et al., 2018). A threat is benign when perceived as “safe, harmless, acceptable, nonserious, or okay” (Warren et al., 2018, p. 5). Examples used by McGraw et al. (2012) include joking about someone stubbing their toe yesterday or being hit by a car 5 years ago. Importantly, the theory is not only concerned about what makes something funny, but also about what makes something not funny. A violation that is too harmless or too severe is not funny. Examples include, respectively, making a joke about someone stubbing their toe 5 years ago, or someone being hit by a car yesterday (McGraw et al., 2012).

The BVT builds on Trope and Liberman (2010, p. 440), construal level theory of psychological distance, in which psychological distance is defined as the “subjective experience that something is close or far away from the self, here, and now.” The theory distinguishes between four dimensions of psychological distance: firstly, temporal distance, i.e., whether something happened recently or a long time ago; secondly, geographical distance, i.e. whether something is physically near or far away; thirdly, hypotheticality, i.e. whether something is actually happening/perceived or only imagined; fourthly, social distance, which Liberman et al. (2007) exemplified as being determined by whether something happens to oneself or others, involves someone who is familiar or unfamiliar, or involves someone who belongs to an in-group or out-group. They also highlighted the relevance of social power.

The “Sweet Spot” of Humor is Also a Matter of Social Distance

A fundamental question in the BVT is to identify the area within which something is regarded as simultaneously benign and a violation. In a longitudinal study on temporal distance and humor, McGraw et al. (2014, p. 567), “posit the existence of a sweet spot for humor—a time period in which tragedy is not too close nor too far away to be humorous.” Throughout this paper, we use the term sweet spot synonymously with the distance range (temporal, geographical, social, or hypothetical) at which a violation is seen as benign for a given person or a dyad, and thus being potentially funny.

One limitation to empirical studies of the BVT is that they have not addressed all forms of psychological distance to an equal extent. Even though all four forms of distance are mentioned in the BVT literature, the main focus seems to be on temporal and geographical distance (e.g., McGraw et al., 2012, 2014). Accordingly, more is known about the sweet spot of humor in relation to these two distance dimensions than about hypothetical and social distance. Importantly, we know little about how the sweet spot for humor is influenced by social factors, including whether it happens to yourself or someone else, whether that “someone” is familiar or unfamiliar to you, or belongs to an in-group or out-group. Similarly, we know little about whether and how the sweet spot for humor may be influenced by social power.

The main emphasis here is on social distance, defined as the felt distance or closeness to another person or groups of people (Stephan et al., 2011). When we address the psychological distance between a person and a joke, social distance refers to the felt distance between the focal person and the individual, group, cultural practice, norms, or roles that the joke is concerned with. In the instances where our claims refer more broadly to psychological distance, we use this broader term.

A stronger focus on the role of social distance in humor also requires that theories explicitly distinguish between different social perspectives. This is because the sweet spot for humor may differ between people. The existence of different perspectives is not explicitly acknowledged in BVT, which instead largely focuses on situations where there is agreement over whether something is funny or not.

Notably, Kim and Plester (2019) also addressed the social element of humor, including the existence of multiple social roles and perspectives. They demonstrated how the perception and usage of humor in an organizational setting may be influenced both by the persons’ relative social positions and the culture at large.

The Importance of Social Context, Power, and Culture

Olin (2016) pointed to questions that theories of humor need to explain, over and above the fundamental question of what makes something funny or not funny. The majority of these questions related to the social/societal context in which humor takes place. The importance of knowing more about the social context of humor is also implicated in the current research topic. This goes both for the organizational context (Kim and Plester, 2019) and for the larger societal context (e.g., Jiang et al., 2019).

In the BVT, the sweet spot of humor has to do with identifying something which is a violation of the expected, while simultaneously being benign. However, to the extent that a humorous situation involves multiple persons, the sweet spot would also be likely to depend on social variables. One example is roles. You can play around with roles—violate them—in a benign fashion. For example, a violation can occur when a person by telling a joke steps out of their expected role. Such violations may be funny, for instance when a teacher starts dancing on the table. However, there are also potentially adverse sides of breaking roles or creating ambiguity around them (e.g., Örtqvist and Wincent, 2006; Eatough et al., 2011). One example would be a general practitioner who jokes with a patient about breaking doctor-patient confidentiality.

Violation of social expectations may also be funny. Social expectations may pertain to roles, but also to the activities, tasks, and goals that social relationships involve. Our social relationships to family, friends, leaders, and coworkers can involve a goal of catching a bus, getting a work task done, or getting the children to bed at night. It is therefore possible to violate the relationship itself, but also the activities or organizational interests (cf. House and Javidan, 2004; Einarsen et al., 2007).

In line with this general focus on the social element of humor, Olin (2016) differentiated between the joke-teller and joke-listener. This distinction is drawn in Olin’s discussion of jokes that implicate negative group stereotypes. Here, attitudes and beliefs of different parties may influence the extent to which a joke is perceived as humorous or harmful.

Interestingly, Kim and Plester (2019) drew similar distinctions in an ethnographic study of the influence of roles and hierarchy on humor perception and expression in Korean work settings. They found substantial differences in the contents of and reactions to humor among subordinates and superiors. For low-power individuals, humor expressions even had negative emotional consequences. This study demonstrates the importance of addressing multiple social perspectives and power differences in humor research.

Our theoretical account is also in line with a recent empirical study by Knegtmans et al. (2018), who studied the influence of power on the perception of jokes. However, here power was conceptualized as a temporary psychological state. In contrast, our conceptualization of power goes beyond temporary states, feelings or experiences of power. We focus on more stable power asymmetries deriving from hierarchical differences in organizations, and from social roles. Examples include a leader’s position compared to a subordinate’s, an emperor’s compared to a peasant’s, and a parent’s compared to a child’s. Furthermore, we emphasize the important role of culture, which is likely to have a direct influence on the shared norms for what constitutes a violation and what is considered benign (e.g., Gray and Ford, 2013). Culture could also influence norms for expressing amusement. It might also influence power differences and social distance in various ways. Thus, it could have both direct and indirect effects on humor perception.

To the extent that humor perception is influenced by power differences and culture, this may largely take place through their influence on social distance. Even though social distance, power, and culture are discussed separately in subsequent sections, it is important to keep their interrelatedness in mind.

Three Suggested Elements that Could be Added to Benign Violation Theory

We now turn to three components that in our view need to be included in the BVT to increase its explanatory value. These are in line with Olin’s (2016) suggestion to focus on the social aspects of humor in understanding when incongruent events are perceived as humorous and when they are not. They specifically address “boundary areas” of humor (e.g., Plester, 2016). These components are (1) distinguishing between the joke-teller and the joke-listener; (2) addressing possible power differences between the joke-teller and the joke-listener; and (3) acknowledging the influence of culture on the relationship between power differences and humor.

Note that this discussion will be limited to situations in which someone intentionally tells a joke to someone else, and where the intention is to be funny by hitting the sweet spot of both joke-teller and joke-listener. This is in contrast to any intentionally dark uses of humor (cf. Plester, 2016) aimed beyond the sweet spot, deliberately hurting the joke-listener, such as in power play, conflicts, ostracism, or bullying. A joke-teller may attempt both to split a crowd, hit the sweet spot with someone, while victimizing others (cf. Salmivalli, 2010). Again, our discussion concerns attempts to hit the sweet spot, and associated risks of over- or undershooting.

Joke-Teller vs. Joke-Listener

Empirical research on the BVT seems to mostly address situations in which someone regards or does not regard something as funny (McGraw and Warren, 2010; McGraw et al., 2012, 2014; Warren et al., 2018). However, one does not specifically differentiate between a joke-teller and a joke-listener, and whether different perspectives may influence the extent to which something is perceived as benign, a violation, and funny. If one is to understand humor at a level beyond the individual, this distinction is essential.

Thus, psychological distance in the BVT seems to normally be conceived of in terms of the distance from the person (who could either be the joke-teller or the joke-listener) to the something (the stimulus, which could either be a joke or an episode). The social setting in which the something is observed, heard, or experienced is not taken into consideration. In reality, a social setting would normally involve several people who would have different roles and perspectives and could in principle disagree as to whether the joke was a violation, whether it was benign, and whether it was funny. We choose here to use Olin’s (2016)terminology of joke-teller and joke-listener. Other related concepts are humor user, target person, and audience (Meyer, 2000).

Whether a joke told by a joke-teller to a joke-listener is perceived as funny by either or both of them could depend on a number of factors that would influence the extent to which something would simultaneously be seen as benign and a violation. It can be meaningful to analyze this in terms of the following four subtypes of social distance in a joke setting, namely sections “Social Distance Between Joke-Listener and Joke”; “Social Distance Between Joke-Teller and Joke”; “Social Distance Between Joke-Teller and Joke-Listener”; and “The Relative Social Distance Between Joke-Teller, Joke, and Joke-Listener.” We think that all four forms of relationships are relevant for both parties. However, because the joke-teller is the active part, s/he is perhaps more likely to actively consider these distances when preparing for a joke delivery than the joke-listener is when hearing a joke. In the following, we only provide selected examples illustrating either of these perspectives.

Social Distance Between Joke-Listener and Joke

The one form of distance that McGraw et al. (2012, 2014) have most clearly addressed is the psychological distance between the joke-listener and the joke. They addressed how a joke-listener can feel temporally close or distant to an event, depending on whether it happened recently or long ago. Similarly, a joke can pertain to something geographically close or far away. Here, we argue that a joke-listener and a joke also may be socially distant or socially close, as perceived by the joke-listener or joke-teller.

The social distance to a joke would be conceptualized slightly differently depending on whether or not the joke directly addresses specific people. To the extent that a joke refers to a person or group of people, the social distance to the joke would directly correspond to the social distance to those involved, whether it was a specific person or a group. Even jokes that do not refer to specific people may still have contents that are relevant to the social roles, social identities, attitudes, cultural practices, values, and norms of a joke-listener. The social distance to the joke would then depend on the person’s commitment or dedication to each of these. For instance, Hemmasi et al. (1994) showed that sexist jokes targeting the opposite sex were regarded as more funny (by men and women) than sexist jokes targeting one’s own gender. Similarly, violations could be more likely to be viewed as benign if concerned with an out-group or unfamiliar persons.

The social and ethnic groups and cultures to which the joke-listener belongs or associates her-/himself with would obviously be important. The history and identity of that larger group or culture in general could also be relevant.

Social Distance Between Joke-Teller and Joke

Another form of distance seemingly overlooked by the BVT is the perceived/attributed social distance between the joke-teller and joke, as perceived by either party. This refers to whether the joke-teller is perceived as either socially distant from or socially close to the content of the joke. The joke-teller’s perception of this may be likely to influence what s/he chooses to joke about. It is well established in research on attribution that emotional responses are highly influenced by inferences of responsibility, including intent, causal controllability, free will, and other associated concepts (e.g., Weiner, 1993, 2006). Therefore, the joke-listener’s perception of this form of distance could influence how s/he perceives the intention of the joke-teller. For instance, imagine someone (with intact vision) who tells a joke about blind persons. Whether this violation is seen as benign, and whether the joke is perceived as funny, might depend on whether the joke-perceiver knows or thinks that the joke-teller has had a close personal relationship with someone who is blind.

Thus, the perceived social distance between the joke-teller and the joke might be influenced by the one person’s perception of the other’s attitudes, social roles, social identities, cultural affiliation, etc. (Liberman et al., 2007; Trope and Liberman, 2010). The perception of the joke-teller’s actual roles and identities may be more or less accurate.

Social Distance Between Joke-Teller and Joke-Listener

The social distance between the joke-teller and joke-listener is also relevant. This point is related to but not overlapping with the two previous points.

The closeness of the relationship between the two parties is important. If the joke-teller and joke-listener do not have a close personal relationship, it is relevant whether the joker is familiar or unfamiliar, or belongs to an in-group or an out-group. Note that the two parties may have a different idea of what the social distance is between them.

Power differences, that is the relative power between two parties, appears to be a crucially important variable in this context. Hemmasi et al. (1994) asked survey respondents to indicate how likely they would be to perceive sexual and sexist humor as sexual harassment, if coming from a person of the opposite gender who was either a coworker or leader. Both sexist and sexual gender-related jokes were more likely to be perceived as sexual harassment when the joke-teller was a leader rather than a coworker. Hemmasi et al. (1994, p. 1125) concluded that “Regardless of the manager’s intent (i.e., to deliberately insult/intimidate the subordinate, or merely to innocently retell an ‘amusing’ joke), such behavior is a high-risk activity.” We will discuss power differences in section “Power Differences and the Case of Asymmetry.”

The Relative Social Distance Between Joke-Teller, Joke, and Joke-Listener

Importantly, any of the three previous types of social distance cannot be understood in isolation. Whether a joke is perceived as a benign violation will also depend on the relative distances between the joke-teller, joke, and joke-listener. The social distance between a joke-listener and joke-teller may moderate whether a joke is perceived as benign or not. For instance, a sexist joke about women, told to a woman by a man unknown to her, and belonging to a different social or cultural group, could be perceived as more malign and offensive, and less funny, than the same joke told by a close female colleague belonging to one’s in-group. Similarly, imagine your grandfather attempting a joke, using a term which is insulting among millennials. If you attribute a well-meaning intent and infer it to be unknowingly done due to distance to the lingo of the youth, you may still laugh. Thus, we suggest the relative distance between joke-teller, joke, and joke-listener as a fourth type of social distance relevant to humor. Again, different parties may disagree in their perception of these relationships in a given situation.

Implications

Note that all four types of distance identified here (sections “Social Distance Between Joke-Listener and Joke” to “The Relative Social Distance Between Joke-Teller, Joke, and Joke-Listener”) could also be applied to other dimensions of psychological distance. For instance, the joke-teller and joke-listener could be temporally or geographically close or far apart, as could the content of the joke be to either or both parties. However, since the focus of this paper is on the social dimension, we will not discuss the influence of the other dimensions any further. Nevertheless, it is important to keep in mind that social distance may be influenced also by geographical and temporal distance. For example, a leader who sits in the office next door and who you interact with frequently might (from your perspective) feel socially closer than a leader who sits in the headquarters in a different city, and who you only communicate with by email a few times every month (cf. Antonakis and Atwater, 2002).

Power Differences and the Case of Asymmetry

Asymmetric Power and Social Distance

In our view, a potentially important element in the relationship between the joke-teller and the joke-listener is that of power. Notably, the theory of psychological distance that the BVT largely draws on has specified that power is a predictor of social distance. The presence of power differences between individuals or groups of individuals may influence the perceived social distance of both parties. High-power people see themselves as more different and distant from others than low-power people do (Liberman et al., 2007). This is of course primarily a question of relative distance. Power differences could very well increase the absolute social distance as perceived by the low-power individual—a notion compatible with theories on leader distance (e.g., Antonakis and Atwater, 2002). The important point is that power differences would always increase the social distance as perceived by the high-power individual even more.

In addition, Smith and Trope (2006) argued that increased power leads to increased tendencies to think more abstractly, a tendency indicative of larger social distance from others. They conducted a series of experiments where participants were primed with power concepts, and claimed to find that such priming increased people’s tendency for abstract, high-level construals.

If power is an additional determinant of construal level, power differences may be relevant in the search for a “sweet spot” within which both joke-teller and joke-listener can agree on a joke constituting a benign violation. It is therefore surprising that these elements have not yet been systematically integrated into the BVT.

In their Social Distance Theory of Power (SDTP), Magee and Smith (2013) have built on the positive correspondence between power, abstract construals, and increased social distance reported by Smith and Trope (2006). A central point in SDTP is that power asymmetry may lead to asymmetry in the perceived social distance between two parties of a dyad: whereas a low-power individual may feel relatively close to a high-power individual, the high-power individual may feel relatively distant to the same low-power individual. Their theory is mostly concerned with dyadic relationships where power is related to interdependence. However, it could be relevant to other types of relationships where interdependence is less present or central than in dyads.

Of particular interest are those cases where there is asymmetric power between the joke-teller and the joke-listener. What Magee and Smith (2013) hypothesized about the relationship between asymmetric experiences of social distance and power could provide an important contribution here.

Asymmetric Power and the Benign Violation Theory

How can the basic ideas in the SDTP (Magee and Smith, 2013) be incorporated into the BVT? In principle, asymmetric power might influence all four forms of social distance presented previously.

Most fundamentally, power asymmetry might influence the social distance between a joke-teller and a joke-listener. According to Magee and Smith (2013), this in turn may have several cognitive and emotional consequences for how the other person is perceived. For example, they argue that high power is associated with a reduced feeling of being similar to the other person. In contrast, low power is characterized by a stronger tendency to feel similar when comparing oneself to others. Moreover, high power is associated with reduced attention and responsiveness to the mental states, thoughts and feelings of other people. According to the SDTP, this may lead high-power individuals in an asymmetric relationship to display empathic inaccuracy (Magee and Smith, 2013). This is consistent with experimental findings showing that high social class predicts increased unethical behavior (Piff et al., 2012): the unethical behaviors in the experiments included ignoring shared norms, even rules, with high-social class individuals allowing themselves to break traffic rules and steal candy from children. It is worth noting that the mediating mechanism was a baseline-difference in mind-set between high- and low-class individuals.

How does this influence whether something is perceived as a benign violation, and funny, in a situation where a joke-teller tells a joke to a joke-listener? According to predictions derived from the SDTP, this would crucially depend both on which form of social distance (sections “Social Distance Between Joke-Listener and Joke” to “The Relative Social Distance Between Joke-Teller, Joke, and Joke-Listener”) we are concerned with, in combination with the particular power balance in the relationship.

Let us first turn to the case where the joke-teller is in the high-power position, and the joke-listener is in a low-power position. This is a potentially risky situation in the sense that the joke-teller experiences a greater social distance both toward the joke and the joke-listener than the joke-listener does. As a consequence, it takes more for the high-power joke-teller to regard something as a violation, and more for something to be perceived as benign. For instance, the joke-teller may feel that it is more appropriate to make jokes about events that are closer in time, geographically, or socially, than the joke-listener feels. Another way to put it—the impropriety threshold (for when a violation is no longer perceived as benign) is higher for the high-position joke-teller (cf. Geddes and Callister, 2007). This might not pose a problem in cases where the power distribution is symmetrical. However, when the joke-listener is in a low-power position, their impropriety threshold becomes correspondingly lower. This might imply a smaller (or no) overlap between the sweet spots of the two parties. Thus, a violation could more easily be perceived as malign. If the high-power joke-teller is also less “empathically accurate” (cf. Magee and Smith, 2013), s/he might not realize that the violation was perceived as malign by the other, which could contribute to a vicious cycle.

Magee and Smith (2013) also claimed that power is related to the tendency to experience socially engaging versus disengaging emotions. They argued that high-power individuals are less motivated to affiliate with others and therefore less likely to experience socially engaging emotions and more likely to experience socially disengaging emotions. To the extent that humor is a socially engaging emotion, an additional prediction can therefore be that this tendency further increases the high-power joke-teller’s threshold for experiencing something as funny. This could further increase the risk of offensive jokes.

As the idiom goes, it is lonely at the top. It is also safer to shout out. Those below may however perceive the same as a beginning avalanche. For a high-power individual to hit the sweet spot with a joke to a low-power individual, s/he needs to decrease the severity or increase the social distance between the joke content and the joke-listener. This principle is perhaps reflected in the frequent practice of making jokes about people from a neighboring country. For instance, Swedes among themselves joking about Norwegians and vice versa, and Americans joking about Canadians.

What then about the case of a joke-teller being in a low-power position and the joke-listener in a high-power position? This should be a less critical situation. Here, it would take more for the high-power joke-listener to perceive something as a violation, and to perceive a violation as malign, than it would take for the low-power joke-teller. Thus, the biggest danger might perhaps be that the high-power joke-listener would be less likely to be amused by jokes that the low-power joke-teller thinks represent benign violations. This is indeed consistent with what Knegtmans et al. (2018) found when they induced experimental participants with states of high or low power. High-power participants were less likely to rate jokes as inappropriate, offensive, and also less funny. These findings are compatible with the assumption that high-power individuals’ “impropriety threshold” (cf. Geddes and Callister, 2007) was higher, and that they may not have perceived the joke as a violation. Thus, asymmetric power relation is also likely to involve an asymmetry in what a joke-teller and a joke-listener regards as funny, offensive, or simply boring. Again, the challenge would be to find the sweet spot that overlaps for the joke-teller and joke-listener. For a low-power individual to hit the sweet spot with a joke to a high-power individual, one needs to increase the severity or to somehow decrease the distance, e.g., getting more personal with the high-power individual. The latter may of course have cultural limitations/restrictions, or even involve cultural taboos—one is not always at liberty to inform the emperor that he is in fact naked.

We do not claim to be the first to suggest that social power may be an important variable for the BVT to take into account. Knegtmans et al. (2018) also addressed possible implications for the jokes one might choose to tell. However, their main emphasis was on how the power of the joke-listener influenced perceived inappropriateness, offensiveness, and funniness of jokes. Moreover, they did not discuss the case of asymmetric power, or possible consequences of power differences between a joke-teller and joke-listener. Additionally, their emphasis was on power as a state variable rather than more stable power differences.

Superimposed Sweet Spots?

It follows that a joke-teller in a certain power position may have one sweet spot as defined by the BVT, whereas a joke-listener in a different power position may have a different sweet spot as defined by the BVT. If one were to superimpose one over the other, it may become logical why a given joke may be offending for one person, bland for another, or if all goes well—funny for both. If the superimposition revealed nonoverlapping areas, these could be described as the “asymmetric upper” (i.e., the joke-teller considers it a benign violation, but the joke-listener considers it a malign violation—offensive) and the “asymmetric lower” (i.e., the joke-teller considers it a benign violation, but the joke-listener considers it benign, but not a violation—bland). This can be understood in relationship to section “The Relative Social Distance Between Joke-Teller, Joke, and Joke-listener.” The relative social distances involved in the triad of the joke-teller, the joke-listener, and the joke might be perceived differently by the joke-teller and the joke-listener.

Cultural Differences

We started by discussing the different roles of the joke-listener and joke-teller. We argued that the social distance between each of these and the joke, as well as the relative distance between the three, is not always identical. This may in turn lead to differences in perception. We then turned to how power asymmetry may generate asymmetry in social distance, making it possible for the two parties to have different sweet spots of humor for a given joke in a given setting. We will now place these factors in the broader context, by highlighting three ways in which culture may influence the sweet spot of humor.

First, cultural differences may influence the absolute level of what is considered benign or malign for entire societies or organizations. Even though humor is a universal phenomenon, there are also cultural differences. These may concern both how humor is perceived, valued, and used (cf. Jiang et al., 2019 for a review). Jiang et al. (2019) largely focused on the broader cultural differences, especially those between Eastern and Western societies. However, differences between subcultures, i.e., between different cultural groups in a country as well as regional groups within a country, could also have an influence on humor perception and usage. The role of subcultures is illustrated by an empirical study by Gray and Ford (2013). People’s interpretation of sexist jokes differed depending on whether jokes were told in a setting where such jokes were tolerated (i.e., a comedy club) or prohibited (i.e., a workplace). Here, it may also be meaningful to point to the possible influence of organizational culture (e.g., Geddes and Callister, 2007), which could influence the absolute level of how certain groups of individuals may perceive or use humor. Cultural differences (between societies, organizations, or even families) may also influence the extent to which individuals are expected or allowed to express certain emotions. In the case of humor, this is relevant to the extent that such cultural differences concern the appropriateness of expressing amusement(e.g., Gottman et al., 1996; Magee and Smith, 2013). Cultures may thus dictate a shared impropriety threshold (for when a violation is no longer seen as benign). It might also be meaningful to think of cultural values influencing the permeability of the border, as well as the willingness to explore border areas. This goes for societies in general (Gelfand et al., 2011; Plester, 2016), organizations (Plester, 2009), as well as for other social entities.

Second, cultural differences may influence power differences in multiple ways. According to the classic theory of Hofstede (1980), high versus low power distance is one of four dimensions along which national cultures differ. Obviously, culture may therefore influence high-power and low-power positions as is also known from cross-cultural leadership research (e.g., Antonakis and Atwater, 2002; Chhokar et al., 2007; Aktas et al., 2015). Magee and Smith (2013) pointed to two important ways in which culture may influence power asymmetry, which in our view may be particularly relevant to the case of humor. Their first point is that since culture may influence people’s beliefs about what behavior is considered appropriate for a high-power individual, power differences may not necessarily lead to asymmetric social distance in all cultures. Their second point is that cultures may differ in the extent to which they take for granted or justify power differences. Therefore, in some cultures, low-power individuals may experience equal levels of social distance as high-power individuals in a given relationship. The implication of our current arguments is that culture could influence the circumstances under which a joke told between two individuals belonging to the same culture is seen as funny or malignant.

Our third point concerns those cases in which the joke-teller and joke-listener have different cultural backgrounds. In this case, cultural differences may influence the relative thresholds for each party. Using the same analogy as previously, cultural differences may cause the superimposed sweet spots to change in relative location, and perhaps even in shape.

As mentioned earlier, the important role of culture in influencing power asymmetry has to date been overlooked in studies that address the possible role of social power in BVT (Knegtmans et al., 2018). It could also be added that the influence of culture is likely to be slow to change. It is probably slower than group-level changes in hierarchical roles in an organization, or even in a family. Moreover, definitely slower than an individual level state of power (e.g., Knegtmans et al., 2018). An important message of the current paper is that the BVT needs to acknowledge how culture might influence the mechanisms specified by the theory.

Implications of Our Claims

“From a distance there is harmony” (Julie Gold)

We have suggested that the humor mechanism accounted for by the BVT needs to be specified and extended, also beyond recent efforts (e.g., Knegtmans et al., 2018). The BVT explains why some attempts may succeed, some may fall short, and others may overshoot the sweet spot. Our emphasis on the role of potential power asymmetry may explain why a joke-teller and a joke-listener may perceive the sweet spot to be of different size and different location. Power asymmetry entails distance asymmetry, and therefore different sweet spots. This may lead to some humorous attempts to remain unnoticed by high-power individuals, and other efforts being perceived as offensive by low-power individuals. The former may involve frustrated low-power individuals not gaining acknowledgement from high-power listeners. The latter may however touch quite sinister topics, such as sexual harassment, bullying, abusive supervision, destructive leadership, and so on.

Our theoretical suggestions may have consequences for who can joke about what with whom. Do you come from a position of power, be it formal or informal? Leaders, parents, representatives of the dominant cultural group, the dominant gender, the in-group, the seniors at the workplace may all see a different sweet spot than their counterparts. This may be of value in humor research. For instance, when investigating jokes in romantic relationships, in workplaces, on the sports field, and so on.

Our small addendum to BVT is to acknowledge two aspects. Both are in line with recommendations to attend more to social contexts in humor research (Olin, 2016), and social power beyond temporary experimental states (Knegtmans et al., 2018): first, the importance of two main parties, the joke-teller and the joke-listener; second, power-related asymmetry in the cases it exists, and how it may influence four forms of perceived social distance asymmetrically. Herein lies the systematic potential for mismatched maps. When superimposing the different maps of the high-power party and the low-power party, it does not only reveal a fixed border zone, but a disputed no-man’s-land with split opinions, perhaps even a frontier for change.

Benign violations reside between two outer areas which the majority can agree on. One outer area being unequivocal good, in humor constituting the benign but non-funny. The other being the unequivocal bad, in humor the harmful where only the violation remains. In between lies the sweet spot—a violation also perceived as benign. Such sweet spots, we suggest, exist in other models of social interaction. Therefore, it could be possible to bring the BVT into a greater social context. If benign violations may take the form of any type of behavior occurring in the narrow border areas between the acceptable and unacceptable in everyday social interaction, the theoretical implications of our arguments may be broad.

Even though this paper is a conceptual analysis, we here briefly exemplify some ideas for empirical research that could be used to test our claims. The ideal way to test our model would be a full factorial design testing the joint effect of distance, power, and culture on perceived severity and amusement, inspired by existing procedures (e.g., Hemmasi et al., 1994; Knegtmans et al., 2018). However, quasi-experimental investigations could also be used. One example is to study sub-components of the model where naturally occurring power differences are relatively stable, as in hierarchical organizations such as hospital wards or families, or in organizations where hierarchies may change across time (Breevaart et al., 2014).

Bringing Benign Violation Theory into a Broader Social Context

We now turn to other forms of benign versus malign violations, beyond humor. If the phenomena include a sweet spot as well as power differences, the BVT with our addendums may supplement the understanding of border areas in other models.

There are solemn issues in everyday life, described by established theoretical models, which also concern what can be seen as dual thresholds in social interaction. These are cases where there is a sweet spot or zone between the expected and the unexpected, the in-role behavior and extra-role behavior, the normal and the non-normal, the constructive and the destructive, the expressed and the improper, the good and the bad. Here, a benign violation would not necessarily be associated with humor or amusement, but could be associated with other positive emotions (e.g., appreciation, enthusiasm, respect) and have other positive personal and interpersonal consequences (e.g., organizational improvement, loyalty, identification).

Among the areas which we thus suggest may encompass benign violations, we find the sweet spots described more or less explicitly in relevant theoretical models. Some models clearly establish a sweet spot, whereas others only indirectly imply its existence.

An explicit sweet spot can be found in the dual threshold model of anger in organizations (Geddes and Callister, 2007), which directly corresponds to the basic notion in BVT. Not expressing anger is in the normal or unequivocally good zone. Anger above the expressed threshold but below the impropriety threshold is in the sweet spot. Expressed anger can thus quickly enter into the bad and vast realm of over-the-line aggression. A notable similarity to our line of reasoning is that Geddes and Callister (2007) argued that culture may influence where the shared thresholds are set, in their case through an implicit agreement for each organization. A dissimilarity is that our reasoning on power asymmetry opens up for multiple, simultaneous, and asymmetric fields for individuals.

Other models also attend to a form of sweet spot, although the correspondence to BVT mechanisms is less explicit. For instance, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (cf. Spector and Fox, 2010) refers to a form of extra-role behavior, where an employee goes above and beyond the call of duty. It is thus a violation of the expected or contractual obligations, which also is deemed benign. However, discussions on OCB include reflections on the facts that (1) the expected behavior should not be left undone and (2) everyone cannot exclusively perform out of the ordinary OCB. The bland, boring, and necessary task must be done—someone must sweep the floor. In other words, there is a “too much” in OCB, which may become offensive. This behavior can thus be both benign and malign if present. In a similar vein, in a study on workplace bullying enacted by leaders, Rayner and Cooper (2003) discussed spectrum behavior. That is, behavior which if present could be either benign or malign. Humor with its bright and dark uses could in general be considered a type of spectrum behavior (cf. Plester, 2016). This is in contrast to behavior which, if present, is either exclusively malign or benign. Examples are, respectively, humiliating people, or displaying constructive leader behavior (Rayner and Cooper, 2003).

Yet other models give a lot of attention to the good or the bad, but less to the border area. An example is destructive leadership (Einarsen et al., 2007) pertaining to leaders—along with several alternate concepts such as abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000) or toxic leadership (Padilla et al., 2007), and counterproductive work behavior (Spector and Fox, 2010) pertaining to subordinates. In these models, it is clear that severe anti-subordinate/interpersonal and anti-organizational behavior is bad, and correspondingly, that strongly pro-subordinate/interpersonal and pro-organizational behavior is good. The border may however be ambiguous, hard to define, and influenced by a variety of factors.

Some of these solemn issues by definition involve power asymmetry, for instance leaders and subordinates operating in a formal hierarchical system, where anger, destructive leader behavior, and destructive subordinate behavior occur. However, such behaviors may also take place in other contexts of power asymmetry, for example in families. Gender-related asymmetry may for instance be found in matriarchies and patriarchies. In any culture, societal or subcommunity, there are also dominant in-groups and minority out-groups with power asymmetries aplenty.

A methodological implication is the need to consider appropriate levels of analysis (Yammarino and Dansereau, 2008). By this, we mean that the individualized or dyadic level of analysis may be particularly relevant in the border zone, and group-level analysis more relevant with increasing levels of severity (be it good or bad). That is, in the border zone, relative power and distance will lead to individual variation, which may be detectable as dyadic level significant effects. However, with such variation, an entire team or an entire family or audience may not agree on the ratings. Thus, inter-rater reliability should be low. With increasing severity, more individuals will agree on the joke being bland or offensive, the expressed anger being improper, or the leadership behavior being clearly destructive. High social distance is notably also associated with group-level outcomes (Antonakis and Atwater, 2002).

A potential theoretical implication is whether change is possible through the suggested mechanisms. In the “sweet spot” lies the potential for positive change. Humor used with ambitions to “develop organizational culture” has been empirically reported (Plester, 2016, p. 88). We may consider an appropriate level of OCB as a case of benign violations. We may also consider whether nonviolent change such as that of Gandhi could be another. Gandhi (1940) emphasized just barely breaking the (oppressive) law, without hurting others, and while telling the truth. In everyday working life, leaders may need to violate the interests of either the organization or the subordinates at times, in order to facilitate change. An example of the former would be a middle manager motivated by a wish to protect the flock while breaking organizational interests, thus displaying friendly-disloyal leader behavior (cf. Einarsen et al., 2007). Examples of the latter would include virtuous betrayal toward subordinates which Krantz (2006, p. 221), argues leaders sometimes have to do “in the service of higher purposes.” As this involves pushing subordinates beyond their comfort zone, it bears similarities to borderline tyrannical leadership (cf. Einarsen et al., 2007).

In contrast, a change for the worse is often diffuse and done in a series of malign violations, each of which could be minor, i.e., just passing the impropriety threshold. Corrupt organizations or totalitarian states are rarely created overnight. Passivity and silence are often required of many, as in the rise of the Nazi regime (Lewin, 1943) or with the #MeToo. Malign violations are accepted in spite of opposing views. Power asymmetry could be an integral part, where the low-power person, the new employee, the young, and so on want to appeal to the high-power person. Perhaps they modify their emotions for organizational survival as they typically do, suppressing negative emotions and exaggerating positive emotions (Glasø et al., 2006), including laughing at the rich man’s joke. The stepwise nature of malign violations might increase the likelihood for change. The high-power individual takes an ever so little step over the line, “and then, if you are drawn in, next week it will be something a little further from the rules” (Lewis, 1949, p. 63). With the behavioral step already taken, the low-power individual is left only with the opportunity to change the values in order to resolve the cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1962).

We could also mention other social phenomena characterized by sweet spots of acceptable behavior, and where the border between the benign/acceptable and the malign is likely to be influenced by social distance, cultural norms, and power distribution. Examples would include (but not be limited to) white lies, courtesy, and cursing.

Concluding Remarks

Our attempt to specify the role of social distance in the BVT, focusing on power differences and culture, could be seen as a first step in identifying the mechanisms that are involved when social norms and expectations are unsuccessfully violated. Even though this paper has focused on the intentional joke leading to unintentional crossings, inappropriate crossings may of course also be done intentionally (cf. Plester, 2016).

We have focused on voluntary behavior, intended on hitting the funny—the sweet spot—which is both a violation of the expected and something benign. We have argued that there may exist a systematic tendency explaining certain cases of mismatch between parties, with a potential for transgressions. This systematic tendency cannot be fully understood unless set in a social context where the potentially great influence of culture and power asymmetries are incorporated. This has implications for our understanding of humor in general, humor in asymmetric power relationships, as well as for understanding other situations of benign violations, far beyond humor.

References

Aktas M., Gelfand M. J., Hanges P. J. (2015). Cultural tightness–looseness and perceptions of effective leadership. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 47, 294–309. 10.1177/0022022115606802 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Antonakis J., Atwater L. (2002). Leader distance: a review and a proposed theory. Leadersh. Q. 13, 673–704. 10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00155-8 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Breevaart K., Bakker A., Hetland J., Demerouti E., Olsen O. K., Espevik R. (2014). Daily transactional and transformational leadership and daily employee engagement. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 87, 138–157. 10.1111/joop.12041 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Chhokar J. S., Brodbeck F. C., House R. J., editors. (eds.) (2007). Culture and leadership across the world: The GLOBE book of in-depth studies of 25 societies. (Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; ). [Google Scholar]

Eatough E. M., Chang C.-H., Miloslavic S. A., Johnson R. E. (2011). Relationships of role stressors with organizational citizenship behavior: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 96, 619–632. 10.1037/a0021887, PMID: [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Einarsen S., Aasland M. S., Skogstad A. (2007). Destructive leadership behaviour: a definition and conceptual model. Leadersh. Q. 18, 207–216. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.002 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Festinger L. (1962). Cognitive dissonance. Sci. Am. 207, 93–107. 10.1038/scientificamerican1062-93 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Gandhi M. (1940). An autobiography, or the story of my experiments with truth. 2nd edn. (Ahmedabad: Navajivan; ). [Google Scholar]

Geddes D., Callister R. R. (2007). Crossing the line(s): a dual threshold model of anger in organizations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32, 721–746. 10.2307/20159331, PMID: [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Gelfand M. J., Raver J. L., Nishii L., Leslie L. M., Lun J., Lim B. C., et al. . (2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: a 33-nation study. Science 332, 1100–1104. 10.1126/science.1197754, PMID: [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Glasø L., Ekerholt K., Barman S., Einarsen S. (2006). The instrumentality of emotion in leader–subordinate relationships. Int. J. Work Organ. Emot. 1, 255–276. 10.1504/IJWOE.2006.010791 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Gottman J. M., Katz L. F., Hooven C. (1996). Parental meta-emotion philosophy and the emotional life of families: theoretical models and preliminary data. J. Fam. Psychol. 10, 243–268. 10.1037/0893-3200.10.3.243 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Gray J. A., Ford T. E. (2013). The role of social context in the interpretation of sexist humor. Humor26, 277–293. 10.1515/humor-2013-0017 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Hemmasi M., Graf L. A., Russ G. S. (1994). Gender-related jokes in the workplace: sexual humor or sexual harassment?1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 24, 1114–1128. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb02376.x [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Hofstede G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications; ). [Google Scholar]

House R. J., Javidan M. (2004). “Overview of GLOBE” in Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. eds. House R. J., Hanges P. J., Javidan M., Dorfman P. W., Gupta V., editors. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; ), 9–28. [Google Scholar]

Jiang T., Li H., Hou Y. (2019). Cultural differences in humor perception, usage, and implications. Front. Psychol. 10, 123–123. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00123 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Kim H. S., Plester B. A. (2019). Harmony and distress: humor, culture, and psychological well-being in south Korean organizations. Front. Psychol. 9:2643. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02643 [PMC free article][PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Knegtmans H., van Dijk Wilco W., Mooijman M., van Lier N., Rintjema S., Wassink A. (2018). The impact of social power on the evaluation of offensive jokes. Humor 31:85. 10.1515/humor-2017-0106 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Krantz J. (2006). Leadership, betrayal and adaptation. Hum. Relat. 59, 221–240. 10.1177/0018726706062733 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Lewin K. (1943). The special case of Germany. Public Opin. Q. 7, 555–566. 10.1086/265642 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Lewis C. S. (1949). The weight of glory, and other addresses. (New York: Macmillan Co; ). [Google Scholar]

Liberman N., Trope Y., Stephan E. (2007). “Psychological distance” in Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. vol. 2 eds. Kruglanski A. W., Higgins E. T., editors. (New York, NY: Guilford Press; ), 353–383. [Google Scholar]

Luthar V. K., Luthar H. K. (2002). Using Hofstede's cultural dimensions to explain sexually harassing behaviours in an international context. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 13, 268–284. 10.1080/09585190110102378 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Magee J. C., Smith P. K. (2013). The social distance theory of power. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev.17, 158–186. 10.1177/1088868312472732 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Martin R. A., Ford T. (2018). The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. (Academic press; ). [Google Scholar]

McGraw A. P., Warren C. (2010). Benign violations: making immoral behavior funny. Psychol. Sci.21, 1141–1149. 10.1177/0956797610376073, PMID: [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

McGraw A. P., Warren C., Williams L. E., Leonard B. (2012). Too close for comfort, or too far to care? Finding humor in distant tragedies and close mishaps. Psychol. Sci. 23, 1215–1223. 10.1177/0956797612443831, PMID: [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

McGraw A. P., Williams L. E., Warren C. (2014). The rise and fall of humor: psychological distance modulates humorous responses to tragedy. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 5, 566–572. 10.1177/1948550613515006 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Meyer J. C. (2000). Humor as a double-edged sword: four functions of humor in communication. Commun. Theory 10, 310–331. 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2000.tb00194.x [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Olin L. (2016). Questions for a theory of humor. Philos Compass 11, 338–350. 10.1111/phc3.12320 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Örtqvist D., Wincent J. (2006). Prominent consequences of role stress: a meta-analytic review. Int. J. Stress. Manag. 13, 399–422. 10.1037/1072-5245.13.4.399 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Padilla A., Hogan R., Kaiser R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. Leadersh. Q. 18, 176–194. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.001 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Piff P. K., Stancato D. M., Côté S., Mendoza-Denton R., Keltner D. (2012). Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109, 4086–4091. 10.1073/pnas.1118373109, PMID: [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Plester B. (2009). Crossing the line: boundaries of workplace humour and fun. Empl. Relat. 31, 584–599. 10.1108/01425450910991749, PMID: [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Plester B. (2016). The complexity of workplace humor. (London: Springer; ). [Google Scholar]

Rayner C., Cooper C. L. (2003). The black hole in “bullying at work” research. Int. J. Manag. Decis. Mak. 4, 47–64. 10.1504/IJMDM.2003.002488 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Salmivalli C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: a review. Aggress. Violent Behav. 15, 112–120. 10.1016/j.avb.2009.08.007 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Smith P. K., Trope Y. (2006). You focus on the forest when you're in charge of the trees: power priming and abstract information processing. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 90, 578–596. 10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.578, PMID: [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Spector P. E., Fox S. (2010). Counterproductive work behavior and organisational citizenship behavior: are they opposite forms of active behavior? Appl. Psychol. 59, 21–39. 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2009.00414.x [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Stephan E., Liberman N., Trope Y. (2011). The effects of time perspective and level of construal on social distance. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 47, 397–402. 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.11.001, PMID:[PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Tepper B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Acad. Manag. J. 43, 178–190. 10.2307/1556375 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Trope Y., Liberman N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychol. Rev. 117, 440–463. 10.1037/a0018963, PMID: [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Warren C., Barsky A., McGraw A. P. (2018). Humor, comedy, and consumer behavior. J. Consum. Res. 45, 529–552. 10.1093/jcr/ucy015 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Warren C., McGraw A. P. (2016). Differentiating what is humorous from what is not. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 110, 407–430. 10.1037/pspi0000041, PMID: [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Weiner B. (1993). On sin versus sickness: a theory of perceived responsibility and social motivation. Am. Psychol. 48, 957–965. 10.1037/0003-066X.48.9.957, PMID: [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Weiner B. (2006). Social motivation, justice, and the moral emotions: An attributional approach. (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; ). [Google Scholar]

Yammarino F. J., Dansereau F. (2008). Multi-level nature of and multi-level approaches to leadership. Leadersh. Q. 19, 135–141. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.001 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

#humor #psychology #benign violation theory #psychological distance #social distance #culture #power asymmetry #destructive leadership #sublimation #humor perception #sense of humor #anger #offense #power dynamics

[exploration-eight]

Chiang Mai: HUG Elephant Sanctuary

I came to Chiang Mai from Bangkok via AirAsia and it cost me about 3,000 PHP back and forth which is actually a good deal. (Comparing it to a long-haul bus trip which consumes 10 hours of your day) Not bad right?

My call time was at 7AM meaning the shuttle van will pick me up my hostel at that time. But I woke up so late that’s why I had to adjust! Then, I rescheduled my morning tour to the afternoon (free of charge, just tell the driver who will pick you up if they don’t respond via email).

Since I only had the weekend to visit Chiang Mai, I went to the Chiang Mai Zoo in the morning to compensate for my bad-waking-up-so-late-habit.

Will blog about it on a different post. Link to be posted soon!

I booked a half-day trip to the HUG Elephant Sanctuary from Bon Voyage Thailand. Since I traveled alone and I wouldn’t bother to be in a join tour, BVT was very accommodating and they reply very fast via their Facebook page. They’re true to their claims! They do know Chiang Mai very well. :)

I’ve always wanted to ride an elephant in Thailand, it’s my third time to visit this country but I decided not to tick off that one on my bucketlist. That’s when I finally went on an Elephant Jungle Sanctuary Tour.

I took a bath, indulged them in a mud spa and fed them with sugarcanes. At first, of course I was scared to get closer to these gentle giants but I wouldn’t waste my money so I had to face my fears too. In a nutshell, I enjoyed every bit of it! I would recommend solo travellers and my friends to join this tour cos it’s not only cheap, imagine for 1500 THB (converted 2250 PHP) -- half day tour is covered as well as the transpo from pick-up point (your hotel) + light lunch before you leave the area. 

You can check out the Top 5 Best Elephant Camps in Chiang Mai here.

Highlights of this no riding tour include:

Learning about the history of elephants and their behavior

Feeding, touching, and playing with elephants with NO RIDING

Bathing in a local river and taking a mud spa with the elephants

Visiting a Karen hill tribe village

Source: www.bonvoyagethailand.com

Things to bring:

1. sunblock (protect yourself from the harmful rays of the Thai sun cos mas 100x malala to kesa sa Manila chz lang pero tru)

2. towel (you’ll take a bath with the elephants siz so malamang mababasa ka, dry up! MOST IMPORTANT AKA WAG KAKALIMUTAN OK)

3. extra clothes (oversized shirt cos mainit beshymae)

4. swimwear (I didn’t bring a bikini with me cos I wasn’t able to pack, I expected to buy sa mga tiangge but I failed otherwise)

5. toiletries (if you wanna shower before you leave, I suggest you rinse off the mud nalang and do lather soap when you get to your hotel cos you’ll get sticky and sweaty afterwards)

IT WAS THE BEST PART OF MY TRIP!!! Ang solid pramis!!! I’ve been wanting to go to Chiang Mai just to visit the Panda Zoo but then, God paved a way for me to see other animals, and play with them pa. Oh diba?

I met new friends during my trip, two from London and a couple from I-forgot-which-country-omg. I’m still keeping in touch with my British friends via WeChat. And they have invited me to visit the UK!!! WOW diba, I traveled na nga lang -- I gained friends pa! :)

I highly suggest you bring a friend with you here cos sizzz it was super duper hassle for me to take photos (ANOTHER PRO TIP FOR YOU TO BOOK A JOIN TOUR, the tour guide can be your photographer!!! CHZ)

That’s all, folks! Eto last picture ko sa post na to, takot na takot pa ko sa ellie hehehe!

#bonvoyage #bon voyage thailand #thailand #chiang mai #elephants #elephant tour #animal lover #cnx #travel #travelwithnadine #adventurousnadine #adventure #air asia