Women Laughing Alone At Tom Martin (and his video project about “gold-digging women”)
Gold digger, 1933 model
This won’t be news to a lot of you — I’m a little late getting to it — but our old pal Tom Martin, the repulsive British MRA celebrity, is actually going ahead with the somewhat baffling video “women and comedy” project he was babbling about in the comments here many months ago, when he was still allowed to comment here. Well, “actually going ahead with it” this August if he can get anyone else to agree to work for him for free minimum wage.
The documentary project is called “Laughing with Women” and, Martin explains, it will “investigat[e] if gold-digging impairs women’s joke-making ability, and if, when women reject gold-digging in all its forms, they can become instantly funnier.”
In case that didn’t make sense to you — don’t worry, that’s a completely natural reaction — Tom explains his, er, “logic” a bit further in a jobs listing he’s posted in hopes of finding a crew, which has already gotten a good deal of ridicule over at PZ Myers’ and on at least one comedy website.
Why are women, on average, slightly less funny than men? Does gold-digging in particular impede women’s joke-making ability? When women publicly reject gold-digging, do they become as funny, or even funnier than men?
In his numerous visits to Man Boobz, Martin expounded at length on the topic of gold-digging women, generally referring to them by his preferred term, the shorter and blunter “whores.” Martin has previously estimated that roughly 97% of women fit this description, and has suggested that female penguins are also whores. Frankly, once he gets going on the topic, it’s hard to shut him up, which is partly why he’s no longer welcome in the comments here.
In any case, this odd hypothesis will be tested, Martin says, with a “radical, and revealing street-based social experiment.”
Still puzzled? Mike Booth, the British video comedian behind SomeGreyBloke and Dan Cardamon, has managed to tease out a few more details from Martin (posting here as sexismBusters):
Martin is confident that his proposed video will blow the lid off this whole “women and gold-digging and comedy, no really, they’re connected” thing:
If the radical, and revealing street-based social experiment at the centre of our documentary proves gold-digging does make women less funny (as pre-production research suggests) then our findings will make headlines around the world, our film’s two minute teaser trailer attached to all those news and blog articles (Update: this advert alone has already been blogged and tweeted about by outraged PC types).
The full documentary will be shot to a broadcast-quality standard and format, giving mainstream television companies worldwide the opportunity to purchase broadcasting rights (if they’re feeling brave enough) whilst we maintain a virtually guaranteed revenue stream from our already established hardcore of supporters and fans within the non PC gender equality field around the world, who, along with everyone else, will be able to enjoy Laughing with Women on newly launched pay-per-view channel, Vimeo on Demand (VoD) – where VoD itself takes a very modest 10% cut. The documentary has the potential to be translated into several languages – gold-digging a familiar if hidden story in every country, until now.
In other words, it sounds like some sort of video gold mine.
So I’d recommend that all gold-digging women out there try to get in on the ground floor of this Tom Martin dude.
Oh, and speaking of Dan Cardamon, here’s the faux MRA’s take on the project:
CORRECTION: This post originally stated that Martin wouldnt’ be paying his crew, but he says he will be paying them minimum wage, so I’ve corrected the relevant passage above.
EDITED TO ADD: Tom has shown up in the comments, and I’m letting his comments through (for now at least), so if you have any questions for him, feel free to head to the comments to address him directly.
Posted on June 16, 2013, in $MONEY$, grandiosity, hypergamy, I'm totally being sarcastic, it's science!, ladies aren't funny, misogyny, MRA, somegreybloke, Tom Martin, whores, YouTube and tagged men's rights, misogyny, MRA. Bookmark the permalink. 1,119 Comments.
sittiekittie: Uh, I think that’s dependant on how long you’re measuring. For example I suspect that women in Victorian England were prolly worse sexual communicators
The evidence suggests this isn’t true. What Victorians were really good at was keeping public displays of sexuality from taking place. If you look at diaries, letters, etc. they were no less frisky than we are.
Tom might be amused by this. I was. Of course it’s by women so…
Also Tom: tell the room about your theories about how ingesting more semen might make women funnier. You didn’t really elaborate on that on YouTube.
Three: feminism is why women’s sexuality is becoming more understood by men, not because of some spontaneous “discovery” that just coincidentally happened not in 1770, not in 1870, but during the era that feminism began insisting that the realities of women’s interior and exterior lives are of equal importance and discussion — and that the sexual needs of both partners in a hetero relationship are vital.
RE: Argenti
Nah, can’t watch [rec]; Sneak is deathly afraid of zombies, and any zombie movie, no matter how cheesy, requires intense amounts of eye-covering or I get woken up at ungodly hours of the morning with Sneak plowing onto my bed whimpering about getting eaten.
Hrm did my post not go through? Because I have a three: it’s because of feminism that women’s sexuality has come to the fore, not because of some spontaneous “discoveries” that happened not in 1770, not in 1870, but in the very era in which feminist women and men pushed for an open discussion of what women experience and need in bed. Not that the things you mentioned after your mentioning this “discovery” make a lot of sense to me — but it’s because of feminism that these things are being discussed now. Otherwise the timing of this sudden ability to frankly discuss women’s sexuality is a mind-blowing and hugely ahistorical coincidence.
Oh there it is!
Because they don’t exist.
Maybe his professor is one of Bret McKenzie’s children. (Skip to 1:20 to see what I’m talking about.)
“One, it shows a painful lack of regard for how women were (until the middle of the 19th century) seen as the insatiable sex, which couldn’t restrain itself, and two, WTF is making “men” the only group which “discovers” shit.”
To the point that a good bit of the “female hysteria scare” was that they’ll go mad if they can’t achieve “paroxysm” (euphuism for exactly what you’d think).
LBT — too bad, the third one is MST material!
“If you look at diaries, letters, etc. they were no less frisky than we are.”
I ever email you The Pearl? I have 3 of them. I’d post it publicly but parts are probably considered child porn these days, and lots of it is Very Rapey. But there are excellent limericks!
Victorian porn magazine, written porn, but holy shit is it raunchy.
A)
No “We’ve” would be people, ie humans, ie both men, women and everything else working in the various fields. So not just men.
B)
Discovered is really an interesting word to use when you talk about people’s bodies and the function of pleasure and intercourse. It’s a really, really interesting word to use.
C)
Women being as promiscuous as men is not a surprise to anyone. It really, really isn’t.
D) Every single noise? What about things: “Pass me that glass of water” or “This sentence is false”? Does the presence of a penis automatically change things to be falsehood and lies? Does the same hold for threesomes with two women and one man, or two men and one women? What about lesbian couples? What about couples that don’t define themselves to a two state gender system? What about specific examples of kinks or desires?
E)
I’m not sure I’ll allow you to quantify “masturbation” as something they do if they do it solely to finish themselves off. That would be, perhaps, sex play. Maybe it’s mutual masturbation. Maybe it’s agreed upon by the two of them. Maybe it’s for fun.
The thing is, you’re trying to make it seem as if they’re slutty sluts who can’t even by satisfied by one man (that’s why you put it after faking orgasms, and you include that parenthis with finish themselves off).
F)
I’m not too surprised by the big dick thing in pron, but I would love to see that study. It’s an interesting little quibble about sexualization and culture, isn’t it? And once, it’s a thing you could be investigating other than this strangely nebulous humor-gold-digging concept. For instance, if everyone runs around saying that men need big dicks and it’s a common enough punchline, how come it’s men who are looking for it in porn? Could it be that there are certain standards of sexual behavior that are propped up as mythical in their necessity and requirements for human interaction in some kind of, oh I don’t know, over-arching system and this same system might tend toward making people lose out things?
G)
Notice how HM wrote:
indicate both an interest in and a willingness to read, think about and work with studies of human sexual behaviour? And you respond with
Ah, so the attitude of sharing knowledge and reading about it and then discussing constructively is what keeps us from learning a dogmatic viewpoint and sticking to it in despite of evidence to the contrary?
Huh.
Why, I never.
H)
I don’t think the female body is some kind of orgasm mine, in which manly, swarthy men with great bit thews work to extract both laughs and orgasms from. I don’t think you should think about sex in those terms. I sincerely doubt you are quite serious when you do so. I think you should reconsider your operative premises and which terms you are applying to things like sex and behavior, because so far it strikes as both strangely mechanical and oddly like resource management.
Your entire perspective on this thing so far is not only strange, but weird.
“What about couples that don’t define themselves to a two state gender system?”
TMI alert. All sounds are legit and stand for “more please”.
pecunium, I guess it depends on the outlook you take on history? I have a very bleak outlook on men’s respecting women throughout history. Sure, people who were talkative were very talkative (Story of O is a pretty good example, early 20th century published in 1954), but given how the female gender was viewed as a whole, in conjunction with women who were married basically being property, and the fact that spousal rape had to be actually written into statute in countries around the world, I’d say that women were less likely to specify bad preferences than they are right now, simply because of the society. I could be wrong though, so uh, don’t quote me on that.
Still, the assumption that women are worse at communicating is ridiculous and laughable. I still don’t get how all noises made are fake… Honestly, it’s just been published that women have different types of orgasms and so that whole “fake orgasm” thing (thanks When Harry met Sally) is pretty oddball as a phenomena.
Maybe it’s just me, but neither of those are lacking in my man-less–at least naked men–life. But you would know better, wouldn’t you? Science!
I guess even imaginary friends deserve confidentiality. And anyway, that’s how real science is done, you know. Secretly, with the doers ashamed to put their names on their work. I’ll bet they covered that in your autodidactism courses.
@Viscaria
TW
Yeah! That’s so true. Nothing turns me on more than the attitude my rapist/abuser had toward sex, where the only times I thought he’d hit me were when he failed to get me to “work” thus shaming him. And the fact that I’m disabled and don’t work all that well in myriad ways certainly didn’t make his attacks more vicious. No, not at all!
Men making women orgasm with their penises and nothing else otherwise it’s a FAILURE is definitely the most healthy way to view sex, for everyone!
Tommy boy, see here’s the distinction you’ve never made with your underutilised brain. We’re not about shaming men as a class. Gosh, some of us here are men, if you hadn’t noticed. We’re about mocking misogynists, MRAs and their ilk specifically. They’re not necessarily men. On this thread, we’re mocking you. You’re a misogynist, you’re remarkably stupid, you’re dishonest, and you seem incapable of learning anything.
What’s not to mock?
Oh, and given you’re on record as blaming children for being raped by adults, if we’re going to use shaming language, you deserve every word.
@Falconer:
Nah, the uni gets to keep it as a fee for dealing with toxic levels of stupidity.
Fuck that kitteh, he probably still owes them most of the £36,000 he lost in that lawsuit.
On women’s noises during sex – I’d be willing to bet that any noises seemingly indicating pleasure are fake if Tom’s the man involved.
For myself … nope. No reason to lie, no pathetic excuse of a lover with an ego to prop up, no need for pretence, no fear of some loser mistreating me if he doesn’t get the validation he thinks it’s my job to provide. No misogynists in my bed, just a wonderful, loving man.
(Sorry about the TMI everyone-except-trolls. As you may guess, we had a good time at Home last night. ;) )
Yeh, like I say, scientists put couples in brain scans and had them fuck, and they found that all women’s vocalizations bore no correlation with actual sexual arousal in their brains.
The researchers described women’s vocalizations as encouragements or a script or a way to speed up the man’s orgasms.
The researchers discovered this in 2010 or 11, I’m telling you about it – and in manboobzers heads, that makes me the asshole.
No manboobzers, that makes women the shitty-assed communicators on sex.
Look at your comments – fucking pathetic.
Don’t bore me with [OBNOXIOUS, OVER THE LINE COMMENT REMOVED BY DF -- SERIOUSLY, TOM, THIS IS WHY YOU'RE BANNED HERE OUTSIDE THIS THREAD], or that you have to make fake noises because the patriarchy made you do it. Grow the fuck up.
You’re supposed to be the sensible egalitarian females.
And now we’ve got some twat or other on the side of the gold-diggers. Is this a feminist clown website or just a clown website?
“Oh yeah, well in the 1850s… ”
Get to now, you tossers.
I seriously can’t tell any of you apart, apart from HM, who’s posts are a bit longer.
Hellkell, right now, come up with a name for this film… be creative. Consider it a patriarchal order if you must.
LittleKitten or whatever your name is, you too – another naysaying comment out of any of you clones, and I’ll go elsewhere and you can have fun debating the price of cheese with the boring fedora.
Names.
sittiekittie:pecunium, I guess it depends on the outlook you take on history?
I’m taking primary sources at face value. I’m taking the arguments of secondary/tertiary sources with such value as their theories/arguments incorporate primary sources.
I think we suffer a lot from how the artifacts of public life are interpreted by later ages (take the idea that the hanging corner of table clothes were to “cover the shameful legs of the table”, it turns out they were to keep them from being as easily damaged from things being moved about (cleaning equiment, various carts and serving trolleys), as well as being a symbol of conspicuous consumption (lace was pricey, and having it out where it might get dirty showed that one could afford to keep it clean/replace it).
The idea that such legs were, “indecent” was mocked by Dickens; who was making fun of Americans. The only contemporary references to such things are rare, and derisive. It seems to be an interesting case of Britons (such as Marryat) mocking Americans, and Americans then applying the mockery, as if it were truth, to the British.
The idea became current in the ’60s, and seems to have been a cry against the more repressive ’50s, by making a comparison (albeit not quite true) to an age more oppressive. Sort of the way the TV show M*A*S*H used Korea to refer to Vietnam.
It doesn’t change that women were second class citizens (and a very ill-treated class, at that), but there are a lot of things to show they were possessed of better treatment, in fact, then a perusal of the law implies. This is wen the agitation for the vote began. It’s when marriage for love became seen as the norm, not an aberration.
As with every age, it’s complicated. Among other things the age is temporally vast, and saw as much (maybe more) change than we did. In some ways the telegraph was more transformative than the internet. It’s an interesting time, and often badly glossed (As witn, “Inventing the Victorians” by Michael Sweet, who never gets to the meat of the questions he raises).
Neat. I did not know that about the table clothes. And yea, I agree, anything that’s not within a close temporal proximity to us is challenging to look at while trying to avoid the lens that the media has put up.
“Sort of the way the TV show M*A*S*H used Korea to refer to Vietnam.”
So it was Vietnam? Because my mother insists I’m wrong on this.
Argh! I was going to find you ads for Victorian era vibrators, but Hugo. Fucking. Schwyzer. is the second result for “Victorian vibrators”. I’m going back to the data, it doesn’t piss me off. (Usually, we seem to have had a handful of trolls.)
It’s like the whole image of Victoria herself as some sort of anti-sex prude. Some of that comes from the slash-and-burn work her daughter Beatrice did on her diaries, and some, I think, from the stuff Lytton Strachey wrote in the 1920s. Victoria hated having children, fersure, but she loved sexytimes with the beautiful Albert!
For a Victorian couple whose letters survive, and who had an interesting sex life, I’d suggest Charles and Fanny Kingsley. Fantasies galore from that clerical couple, they adored each other. :)
Fun story: My friend and I were out at antique shops, and she found an honest to goodness vibrator from that era, with “Letters of Authenticity” still attached to prove it was made by some doctor or another who was supposed to be an expert in this issue. It’s huge, comes in a typewriter-like case and looks ridiculous, but it is still really neat. I don’t know what she’s done with it, but if it was lying around my house I wouldn’t put it past my roommate to try to get it working, he enjoys old machines and I don’t think he’d get what it is.
SittieKitty — oh goodness, the might-electrocute-you vibe!
Kitteh — some help? Who’s this? http://instagram.com/p/bAO9f9I9vd/
It says it’s a Rubens but that’s all I’ve got. The clothing looks about the right era for you to maybe know?
Albert was a bit of prude. He was also a bit of a paternalist dickwad. He (despite having no real legal authority) took over a huge amount of the role of governance; he supplanted her previous mentor, Lord Melbourne (though she was very much a monarch; attempting to form the first minority Gov’t; which failed because of secondary issues of politics, which led to Melbourne becoming Prime Minister again).
So man facets to the age. I think it’s part of why Steampunk is so fond of the trappings of Victoriana, among other things they were so bloody certain they could do anything.
That’s not only a Rubens, it’s a self-portrait.
Rubens and I share a birthday, btw. :)
Pecunium – rare thing for a man then not to be a paternalistic dickwad to some degree. Albert was fairly prudish (not surprising given the family behaviour he was reacting to – more power to him for not acting like his douchecanoe father and brother) but he’s also one who’s been unfairly written off to a large degree. Yes, he was effectively uncrowned king, but that was something Victoria wanted (she was sexist as all getout too). He was a damn sight better at the masses of work involved, he was highly intelligent and informed, and contrary to legend he did have a sense of humour. He also had a lot more social consciousness and imparted some of it to Victoria: Melbourne was a total fail in that respect.
Hey now, we’re not all men! Some of us want the wonderful fashion and gears and fancy machinery without the sexual hang ups and patriarchy! (Now, with this much data, I am glad for computers, don’t get me wrong. But I love me some top hats and gears!)
Also…music time!
Thanks kitteh!
Pleasure! :)
kittehs: It’s not that he wasn’t good at it, nor that he wasn’t good for Victoria, but to some degree the problem is (and it manifested later in other ways) that he didn’t get it ratified. Which caused her to have other, unofficial, advisors; which could have caused real problems; even undermined the idea of monarchy.
How about:
EAT ME; YOU PENCIL NECKED, RECEDING HAIRLINED, SOCIALLY STUNTED, DELUSIONAL FUCKNUGGET FROM HELL
Too long?
And kittehs beat me to the ID.
Okay folks. I’ll check back in 50 years.
Ooh ooh, am I the twat?* I think I’m the twat! How exciting!
Seriously Tom, you have never given a reasonable explanation for why gold-digging is even bad. I mean especially since your definition of gold-digging includes such grievous offences as accepting a drink from a man and then not fucking him. But even if we’re talking gold-digging in the classic sense, like marrying a wealthy man 20 years older than yourself for the financial benefits, I fail to see why that would be morally reprehensible. I mean, lying to the dude? Yeah, that’s not okay. But if everybody in the relationship understands what is going on, I do not have any problem with that.
*I am amused that autocorrect tried to make this word “teat.”
I think at this point, Tommy boy’s just pissed he has no gold to dig.
Haha, more like it’ll become sentient and start taking over my house. He’s big into computers and mechanical things like robots, I get the feeling eventually my media system will be a living entity, with how much time and effort he puts into building it/tweaking it so it’s just right.
I’ll be a twat with you Viscaria! Goldiggers ftw. It’s about time all that money got into the hands of the real power in society (ie: women) and out of those silly men’s hands. They’d probably use it to better society instead of spend it all on themselves!
Oooh, Tommy’s getting pissy, the oh-so-reasonable
toupeemask is slipping and his genuinely creepy little self is showing again. And he’s threatening to leave the thread! I am totes terrified he’ll take his genius self away!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
How about this bit of naysaying: Go fuck yourself, rape apologist pedophila apologist and insult to your gender. Go sit on hard chairs until your poor bony arse is numb, then go walk on a thousand legos.
Shaming enough for ya?
“LittleKitten”
You call that an insult? XD
I WISH Tom would take himself away. If he’s firing up his SnitMobile and about to take off into the ether, godspeed.
He does get mighty pissy when us twats won’t do his bidding. A smart dude like him should be able to figure out why we’re not.
In short:
About your new project.
No.
Njet.
Nein.
Nej.
No
Ei.
Ne.
Jo.
—
In longform:
Read these words carefully:
You don’t get to dictate what I do. You don’t get to dictate what people who don’t work for you do. I can’t speak for anyone else, and I won’t.
But you are not a man doing amazing work for the good of humanity. You’re a blinded, bigoted, raging person who somehow finds the mental energy to get up on a pedestal and declare the world shittier, shabbier and shoddier than anyone else around you.
You have no understanding of correlation, causation or questions.
Historical records? You don’t care
Conflicting studies? You don’t care
Sociological precedent? You don’t care
Experiences directly at odds with your stated objective truth? You don’t care
Anecdotes that contradict your current ideas? You don’t care
Suggestions about statistical methods? You don’t care
Conversations about sexual behavior that differs from your interpretations? You don’t care
Good luck with your study. Enjoy doing your things. Have fun finding your findings.
And please leave, because even I find you obnoxious now and I had the part of my brain that finds things obnoxious surgically removed with a spoon..
And – Please tell me there are no minors present – for the fucking record, what the fucking scientists fucking found was that the fucking vocalization of the word fucking and oh god oh god was fucking timed with the fucking fuck ejaculation of the fucking male partner fucking the fucking female in this fucking experiment, and did, in fact fucking correlate with fucking arousal levels – but generally it was assumed that it was a fucking attempt at making the fucking male fucking ejaculate at an opportune time.
Fuck.
This is publicly available data that you are blithely misrepresenting. It’s so incredibly disrespectful towards the people involved and towards the hard work of scientists testing these things.
Like this is some point beyond lying, or mere misrepresentation. This is you, re-arranging the entire universe to suite your needs. And you’re supposed to objectively measure people’s behavior?
*Come on*
Please stop! Or I’ll start rhyming!
Aye. It doesn’t make much sense. I thought we gold-digging whores were terrible; why would we be expected to obey a master man?
Besides, we came up with some great names. I’m rather partial to “A Whore and a Gentleman” and “A Whore Grows in Brooklyn”. But “Ben-Whore” made me snort at the breakfast table, which then required me to do a short performance on the Tom Martin phenomenon. My parents were highly amused.
Yo Tom I’m being 100% honest with you: women don’t fake every single vocalization in bed ever. There are women talking to you here and you’re not listening to them. Listening to us would actually help you not sound to detached from reality in your other public pronouncements, you dig? Do you really, wholly believe that all women throughout history faked every single sound during sex? Is this actually your position?
Also, please post this study. I’m genuinely curious. And before you do, note that when I mentioned the study of men and their feelings toward funny women, I mentioned that it was the men in the study, not *all* women, as you have written here about what you’re taking from this study. Also please note that I’m genuinely interested in this study not just to dismiss it outright, but I am also genuinely telling you that faking orgasms isn’t a thing with all women! It’s just isn’t. You also, based on your YouTube comments I keep mentioning, seem to think “sex” is only penetration. And fewer women do enjoy penetration than enjoy other sorts of stimulation, but plenty of women like penetration just fine. As I said before, look at the clitoris, the full organ, and see how it has a “head” just like the penis and then extends inside; look at where it is in relation to the vagina. You can learn a lot about women’s sexuality from stuff like this.
Women can have a variety of different orgasms.
No one is saying something so simple as “the patriarchy made me do it.” What people are saying is that women’s sexuality has long taken a back seat in a lot of ways, meaning that penetration has been treated as the be-all-end-all of sex, and in the world of social condition it largely still is: check out any mainstream movie with some sort of sex scene. It’s usually a representation of penetration, and often shows the two people coming at once. I’m relatively young and even *I* grew up thinking that’s how sex works: a man and woman, penetrative sex, both coming at once if you’re doing it right. And that’s Hollywood stuff! It’s not how it works for a lot of women. Again, look at a woman’s anatomy. Some women really get off on penetration; some women even “squirt” from it. It’s more common for women to orgasm largely through stimulation of the external clitoris.For a very, very long time all the way through today women have been taught that they should be enjoying penetrative sex because that’s what the male partner wants. And yes, women have faked orgasms from penetrative sex in order to please their male partner. No one is saying that that’s men’s fault, they’re saying that it’s the end result of a societal structure that has ignored the realities of how a woman is wired in favor of emphasizing penetrative sex. Do you not see the difference, or why some women fake it? It’s to make the man happy. Hopefully in such a situation that’s not the only sex such a couple is having–hopefully he gives her what gets her off, she does the same, everybody gets what they want because sex is fun and different bodies work differently. If you’re focusing on some study that shows that some women fake it in order to encourage their partners to orgasm in a penetrative context, what’s the big deal? Is there really some “aha!” there? Not all hetero guys enjoy cunnilingus but they do it because that’s what’s what their partner enjoys, just as some women don’t get much from penetration but do it because their partner enjoys it–and that partner probably enjoys vocalizations, as partners of all genders tend to.
This is Human 101 here. Duh!
Also in your YouTube comments you were talking about 20% of women studied in some study of penetrative sex. Now it’s all women everywhere? And this is evidence of shitty communication, when it’s, as you said, more about encouraging the male partner? Did the study also cover what happens before and after penetration, and whether or not these couples did anything the woman might enjoy?
If anything, you should see women encouraging their male partners as evidence that women aren’t all self-directed whore harpees or other such MRAish silliness. And come on, the fact that some women still feel unable to communicate their desires in bed is influenced by all that socialization I was talking about, and about the history I mentioned above, and the way we’re all taught that penetration=sex. If you grow up thinking (and seeing in a million movies and tv shows and in book,s too) that you’re both supposed to come at the same time via penetration alone, you might have a problem communicating your needs or even understanding what they are. That’s the stuff people are talking about with regard to the problems patriarchal social structures have saddled us with. We’re just straight-up taught that a dude getting off is the most important, and that a woman can get off exactly the same way and *at exactly the same time*.
Anatomy 101, fella! Come on now.
Fibinachi, I like it when you rhyme though ;-.- You are a very impressive wordsmith.
@Ally – LOL, it’s such a fail, isn’t it? Especially since I called my adored Katie ‘Little Kitten’ most of her earthly days. I’m almost tempted to change my nym now. :P
@Fibinachi
Will you really start rhyming if he doesn’t go away?
….
On a completely unrelated note, does anyone know how to change one’s gravatar and screenname?
I’m wanting to see a slash version of Ben-Whore now.
Nepenthe – click on your gravatar and log in on the Gravatar page, then you can upload a new pic. With WordPress, if you just want to change your nym here, I think you can do so on the comment form.
But how can we rhyme on Man Boobz without Kirbywarp?!
Dude.
You claimed there was a BBC documentary about hard chairs and butt padding.
No.Bo.Dy. is going to believe a word you say unless you link to the actual original study.
@Nepenthe:
For me, all I have to do is click the little tab and change my avatar in there. For example, I will transform into a cat now.
And then just alter the name in the name field, since it’s all based on my account – which is e-mail specific. As long as I stay logged in, and my e-mail stays the same, I can change those aspects easily.
The same should apply for you.
Let’s give Tom some credit here. That verifiably and definitely happened.
Tom, “Man Boobzer” pluralises internally. Prefer “in the heads of Men Boobzer”.
Viscaria: Ooh ooh, am I the twat?* I think I’m the twat! How exciting!
Might be me, twat tends to be a belittling thing aimed at men.
Tommy… you are whoring here. You want us (some of us men) to do your work for you because your massive efforts at autodidacticism FAILED. You are £36,000 in debt, because you FAILED at prosecuting your case.
What makes you think this is going to be any different?
Argenti: I used to a volume of collected Pearls. OMG!
One of the running themes was the “Education” of sheltered young ladies. They were afraid of sex, because they knew not what it was; once they had a taste they were veritable succubi, and prone to amazing feats of invention.
Omgs! My favorite was the proverbial naughty schoolgirls. None of the questionable consent parts, all of the “yes, girls like sex”.
I’ve found one and only one study that seems to bear any relation to what Mr. Gutbusters is saying here, watch this space for another tl;dr HM special.
In the meantime, do revisit my collection of his brilliant writing YouTube writings on the subject:
Here, enjoy the hilarious foolishness, these are a variety of comments (posted on the Grey Bloke “Manosphere” video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ew8KPNeEds8):
brainscans show the vocalizations women make during sex bare no correlation with actual arousal in the brain, so women are actually sending out false messages of arousal, because they’ve resigned themselves to orgasmless intercourse, and just want to give an encouraging commentary, following the script, of fake appreciation to the man, the more screaming and groaning by her speeding the time it takes for him to finish. Science tells us the truth about women’s (real) arousal patterns thanks.
The multitude of different ways women can orgasm is something women have become worse at communicating to their lovers over the years, not better (Wolfe, 2012). Women are horrible sexual communicators on average, leaving their individual arousal requirements a mystery for men to work out rather than give instruction. Feminism has encouraged women to simply blame men, for everything, including women’s orgasmlessness. Men’s pelvic arousal nerve/neural pathways are much more uniform…
A relative lack of orgasm might be partially to blame for women’s relative lack of humour generation tendencies too. Women might have to become more communicative and imaginative lovers in order to get more orgasms, and ingest more sperm, in order to become become funnier comedians. [EDITOR'S NOTE: OH MY GODDD]
Women are lot less productive & creative when not having regular orgasms (& alcohol/drug addicted as they fuck round trying to find elusive one who’ll give orgasms) & it makes lives of their male sexual partners hell too. Science is now learning to bypass what women say they like, which is 75% bullshit, and get to what their vaginas actually like, and this is all new research, and you say “so what” – the Islamic approach, where women’s sexuality is simply written off because it’s too complicated [UM...]
Most women do not orgasm from penetrative sex. 2012 research finds women masturbate more when in relationships with men than not (women have to finish themselves off). So, when you’ve finished blaming me or men for women’s vaginas, what is it you really want to say apart from “Rape!” – Are you denying that society continues to blame men get for women not orgasming, and are you denying that this is hurtful to men, or are you just saying “so what?” Either way, I’m learning nothing here. Dig deep
Men get blame for women’s orgasmlessness so ARE victims, of women’s reluctance to communicate about sex (women are becoming LESS communicative over recent decades (Woolf, N. 2012). Scientists found, in 2010, every noise a woman makes during intercourse is fake – deceit, by women (not ‘society’). Women’s self-reported arousal correlates only 26% with vaginal plethysmograph readings, whilst men’s correlated 72%, so, what is OUR problem? Women’s orgasmlessness w/ men drives women to drink & drugs. [SNIFFLE]
Orgasmlessness is a serious issue effecting a lot of women, and the men who have to suffer the backlash. The more sex a woman has with men, the more she hates men, indicating most sex is bad for women. Society teaches us that bad sex is men’s fault, when in reality men are more likely to initiate and reciprocate and communicate, and orgasm
Anger is a legitimate emotion in the face of injustice. People, media, and women pointing the finger at men for women’s lack of orgasm. Case in point, you’re doing it yourself, speculating I am a bad lover. Imagine next time you orgasm, the man you’re with tuts, then berates you for not being a good lover. At the point of your orgasm, shamed. That is the story for a lot of men, dealing with women who lack the civility or communication ethic or knowledge of their own body to explain. Exhibit C. [HAHA OH MY GOD]
Quite. Quite important to women on our planet apparently, 20% faking orgasms during vaginal intercourse, and from my experience, zero % admitting they don’t orgasm from penetrative sex alone. All female vocalizations found to be uncorrelated with arousal. Society blames men for women’s vaginas.
BTW buddy is “Wolfe 2012″ Naomi Wolf? Cuz…she’s not a scientist, you know.
@Hellkell
I’m fangirling you right now. Thought you should know.
Tom’s real mad about something, but like an infant screaming in his high chair, I’m too busy laughing at the ineffectual rage to give a fuck. It’s actually hilarious to me that (a) he thought he could order a bunch of people around on the Internet, and (b) he got very angry when it turned out he couldn’t. God, I just want to pinch his little cheeks!
Tom Martin vs the Feminazis
Is that a promise*? In that case, consider this another naysaying comment, in which I inform you that your theories on female sexuality are laughable and we’re not going to come up with a title for your “documentary” for you. Bye!
(I predict that this promise, like most of what Tom says, will prove to be a lie.)
lowquacks, (a) that rap war is one of the main things that inspired me to start my blog, and (b) did you make that Attenborough poster, because that is so awesome.
This whole thread is being mined for my parasitical blog, but I can’t do anything while you’re all still being funny and creative here. :D
That Attenborough poster!
Wouldn’t it be the best to hear Attenborough do a documentary about teh poor oppressed
buttocksmenz.@cloudiah
Made the “Life of Misandrists” DVD cover myself, yes. It really helped that the first appropriate image of a sad man in a hard chair looked kinda Tom Martinesque.
This is my new favorite Bloody Stupid Martin quote.
If men reach orgasm more often than women during het sex then that teaches us that bad het sex is definitely not men’s fault! I mean, obviously.
I’m finding Tom 3.0 – The Blatant Sexual Insecurity much funnier than Tom 2.0 – Yay Child Rape.
This is all I have to add.
Idk, I’d prefer Tom 1.0 back. Assuming that’s the version that came with female penguins.
Imagine considering if a majority-female group of people agree on something, maybe it’s because they have real insight on being female and are just reporting in on what things are actually like. Imagine doing that rather than seeing them as “clones.” I mean, can you imagine such a thing?
Oh and I see that Fibinachi already found the fucking fuck oh my god fuck oh fuck yes study. D’oh!