In her article, The Predator and the Jokester, Lauren Berlant makes parallels between those who make jokes, and sexual predators. She explains that both the jokester and the predator take control of a moment and give the victim something they did not ask for. Berlant, while explaining that the two are similar, acknowledges that they are not the same thing. She elucidates that the victim of a jokester is subject to a joke, which may be uncomfortable, but it is still not the same as a victim of sexual predator being subject to violence. Both, however, seek out power to give the victim something that they did not ask for.

When highlighting the differences between the predator and the jokester – specifically stand-up comedians, Berlant claims, “No one asks to be the predator’s audience: That is why we call their acts violence” (Berlant 2017). This is an extremely important thing to point out in her article, so that her purpose in writing the article is clear. One may interpret the article as equating sexual violence with being subject to a bad joke, when really, she is simply focusing on the parallels between both situations.

Thomas Hobbes’ work in, Human Nature, in: The English Works of Thomas Hobbes support the superiority theory of laughter by explaining that men laugh at the expense of other men.

In Critique of Judgment, Immanuel Kant references both the relief and incongruity theory of laughter when he asserts that laughter can be the effect of a tense situation descending into nothing, resulting in relief, and a deception in expectation.

Schopenhauer verifies the incongruity theory in his work, The World as Will and Idea, by asserting that laughter is simply a result of a change in perception between an object, and the idea of that object.

Herbert Spencer rejects that idea that every man subscribes to one theory of laughter in his work, The Physiology of Laughter, and that rather life is made up of a variation of all three theories, often overlapping.

In his work, The World as Will and Idea, Arthur Schopenhauer addresses the incongruity theory of laughter – calling it out by its name. He explains that the paradox that occurs when expectations are shifted is what produces laughter from human beings, specifying that theses instances of paradox can be expressed in words or in actions. Schopenhauer then emphasizes that the more ridiculous the contrast of the paradox is, the more laughter will be produced. This, by definition, represents the incongruity theory of laughter, as Schopenhauer agrees that a shift in perception can be absolutely hysterical.