Humor, Critique, and Companionship: Audience Reception of an Unconventional Tiktok Marriage Proposal on Youtube

This study investigated audience reception of a reposted TikTok video on YouTube featuring an unconventional marriage proposal between two straight men. Using a qualitative design that combined thematic analysis and content analysis, 125 out of 260 comments from 191 unique users were examined to capture tones, recurring themes, and cultural framings. The findings revealed that humor was the dominant mode of engagement, allowing audiences to negotiate discomfort while collectively reimagining marriage and companionship. Substantive themes included financial and practical benefits, critiques of women and traditional marriage, companionship and stability, admiration and praise, and skepticism or dismissal. Analysis further demonstrated how the YouTube comment section functioned as a digital public sphere where diverse cultural, moral, and ethical arguments were voiced. Anchored on theories of the public sphere, audience reception, and mediated intimacy, the study concludes that digital publics actively reinterpret media texts as opportunities to critique existing norms, experiment with alternative relational scripts, and deliberate on the human condition in the Internet age.

Public sphere, Audience reception, Mediated intimacy, YouTube comments, Marriage discourse

1. Bantugan, B. S. (2024). Coupling-decoupling: Textual analysis of a TikTok video on an unconventional marriage proposal of a white adult heterosexual male in search of a husband. European Modern Studies Journal, 8(6), 99–122. https://doi.org/10.59573/emsj.8(6).2024.9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Abidin, C. (2021). Mapping Internet celebrity on YouTube: Ecologies, economies, and discourses of authenticity. Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Arnot, M. (2020). Reconceptualizing intimacy: Beyond love and sex in twenty-first century relationships. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Baym, N. K. (2015). Personal connections in the digital age (2nd ed.). Polity Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Burgess, J., & Green, J. (2018). YouTube: Online video and participatory culture (2nd ed.). Polity Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Cherlin, A. J. (2020). Marriage, divorce, remarriage. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Dahlberg, L. (2011). Re-constructing digital democracy: An outline of four “positions.” New Media & Society, 13(6), 855–872. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810389569 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Dekker, R., & Engbersen, G. (2014). How social media transform migrant networks and facilitate migration. Global Networks, 14(4), 401–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/glob.12040 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Giddens, A. (1992). The transformation of intimacy: Sexuality, love and eroticism in modern societies. Stanford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Ging, D. (2019). Alphas, betas, and incels: Theorizing the masculinities of the manosphere. Men and Masculinities, 22(4), 638–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X17706401 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Graham, T., & Wright, S. (2015). A tale of two stories from “below the line”: Comment fields at the Guardian. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 20(3), 317–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161215581926 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (T. Burger & F. Lawrence, Trans.). MIT Press. (Original work published 1962) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, & P. Willis (Eds.), Culture, media, language (pp. 128–138). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Jamieson, L. (2011). Intimacy as a concept: Explaining social change in the context of globalisation or another form of ethnocentrism? Sociological Research Online, 16(4), 151–163. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.2497 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Lange, P. G. (2019). Thanks for watching: An anthropological study of video sharing on YouTube. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Livingstone, S. (2015). Active audiences? The debate progresses but is far from resolved. Communication Theory, 25(4), 439–446. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12078 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Papacharissi, Z. (2010). A private sphere: Democracy in a digital age. Polity. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Sheff, E. (2014). The polyamorists next door: Inside multiple-partner relationships and families. Rowman & Littlefield. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Shifman, L. (2014). Memes in digital culture. MIT Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Thelwall, M., Sud, P., & Vis, F. (2012). Commenting on YouTube videos: From guffaws to ‘yeah, whatever.’ First Monday, 17(3). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v17i3.3907 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]