As I’ve written here on multiple occasions, science is an attempt to understand the patterns we observe in nature, and this includes human nature. For those of us interested in laughter and humor, some of those patterns show up in television sitcoms. According to Quizlet.com, one of the 8 most common sitcom character “types” on offer during the last 40 years includes that of womanizer and “manizer” (Quizlet 2025). These are men and women portrayed as having a much higher-than-average level of sexual desire combined with a much lower-than-average interest in long-term commitments.
Most sitcom fans would be familiar with many of the lead characters’ names. They include, for the men, Authur “Fonzie” Fonzarelli (Happy Days), Benjamin “Hawkeye” Pierce (M.A.S.H.), Sam Malone (Cheers), Jerry Seinfeld (Seinfeld), Dan Fielding (Night Court), Will Smith (Fresh Prince of Bel-Air), Joey Tribbiani (Friends), Charlie Harper (Two and a Half Men), and Barney Stinson (How I Met Your Mother).
As for “manizers,” there are quite a few qualified characters in television dramas, but the list is a bit shorter in leading characters within popular modern sitcoms. Penny (The Big Bang Theory) had her share of boyfriends before Leonard, although viewers might point out that she seemed at least open to a long-term commitment. Plus, unlike others, it didn’t appear to be a point of pride for her. Blanche Devereaux (Golden Girls) was the archetypal “manizer” with an almost superhuman appetite for men, especially when compared to her uninspired housemates. One would also want to include Jack McFarland (Will and Grace) in this group as well. I’m no doubt missing some—so, apologies.
What’s behind the pattern?
What to make of this? Why is this character trait one that appears so often in modern television comedies? Readers of this blog series know that when faced with any question related to laughter and humor, I rely on insights provided by The Mutual Vulnerability Theory (MVT), as described in my first post. There, I explain how laughter is best defined as a vocal affirmation of mutual vulnerability. Let’s examine how this relates to womanizer and manizer characters below.
First, while hypersexuality may be tolerated in some cultures, it would generally not be considered “normal.” Second, while there are some well-known downsides associated with this behavior, in most modern secular societies, it would not necessarily be regarded as a “deficiency” that would completely prevent one from having friends and succeeding in life, including having children and grandchildren. This is particularly true considering most comedies encourage emotional “distancing” in their audiences whereby any potential negative consequences are glossed over or minimized for comedic effect. This larger context allows the behavior to be categorized as a “vulnerability,” such that it makes one’s life—on balance—more difficult at times, but not so much as to be untenable.
The obvious downsides …
The next factor to consider is the number of vulnerability categories hypersexuality bridges. The MVT divides vulnerabilities into four main groupings—those having physical, emotional, cognitive, and social liabilities and repercussions—and each is linked in some way to this behavior. The physical threats are not insignificant. Contracting a sexually transmitted disease immediately comes to mind. Older participants may be looking at potential stress injuries or heart-related troubles. Even younger, healthy individuals may be subject to physical attack by a jilted lover, there jealous lift partner, if any, or a family member wanting to defend their family member’s honor.
Emotionally, hypersexual individuals are often believed to be indifferent, distant, and dismissive of others’ feelings. They have an almost childlike impulsivity and inability to delay gratification. Some exhibit deep insecurities. Cognitively, these characters typically show poor judgment. They fail to recognize potential hazards associated with their actions or deal rationally with the threats once revealed. And socially, they risk being considered impulsive, unreliable, and exceptionally deceptive, making them perhaps entertaining friends, but not trustworthy ones. And they would clearly not appear to make good partners for long-term relationships, the sort that have traditionally been associated with rearing successful children and grandchildren, or other nongenetic legacies individuals often strive to grant future generations.
These downsides of hypersexuality are the qualities for which audience member would offer lifting laughter to sympathetic and otherwise lovable characters. They exhibit some shortcoming (physical, emotional, cognitive, and/or social) such that their status is somewhat lowered, and we as viewers laugh to express a sense of mutual vulnerability, of understanding and support. We give them a boost back up to their original place in the previous status relationship they have with their fellow characters and with us as their fans.
… as well as the upsides
There’s another dynamic at play: assets. The MVT recognizes four ways in which a status relationship can be altered and warrant a reminder of shared vulnerability. Someone else’s status may decrease, ours may decrease, ours may increase, and someone else’s may increase. Again, in reasonably liberal secular societies, this last factor cannot be ignored, for it can inspire an audience member’s self-lifting laughter. That is, when hypersexual characters display some sort of exceptional or enviable ability, or find themselves the beneficiary of good fortune, their status rises and we, the viewer, by comparison, feel as if ours has been somewhat diminished. And, just as if we had done something silly or stupid, we would want to remind others of our collective (mutual) vulnerability to lift ourselves and restore the prior, preferred status relationship.
What’s to envy? Well, these characters do tend to be significantly more attractive than average. They are more charismatic, more interesting, and more fun-loving. They tend to be better at manipulating others, including through mild deception. They seem clever enough (or lucky enough) to get themselves out of serious trouble most of the time. And last, but certainly not least, they frequently engage in a certain physical act for which nature has given us a tremendous amount of enjoyment and appreciation.
© John Charles Simon