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.
I freaking love when men think of my orgasm in terms of their sexual prowess instead of in terms of my pleasure. Nothing turns me on more! If you want to hear some real, authentic lady sex sounds, let me know that you need me to orgasm for the sake of your fragile ego.
From PostSecret.com and a better person than Tom — http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qJ3kTF4CeGQ/UcG7Y2zAReI/AAAAAAAAYwo/rMiHypG-688/s1600/orgasm.jpg
And NSFW, naked sketch.
Yup, you nailed it (har) Viscaria. He was going on and on in Somegreybloke’s comment section about this.
Tom, I wasn’t able to read every comment here: by what mechanism do you believe that women’s humor is “impaired”? Is it some sort of subconscious thing? Is it physiological? Does it relate to the phenomenon I was discussing previously about how we’re told by this culture to dim down our personalities in order to make men like us and to not be threatening to their egos and self-perception? Are “gold-digging women” simply suppressing parts of themselves to snag a man? And is that really “impairment”?
If you are serious about learning about women’s sexuality you should read one of the myriad books written by women and for women about such things. You can read all about the ways we do get off. Those sorts of things will tell you a lot more than whatever you’re reading now. And, you know, maybe not writing all of us off might help?
Oh… Tommy is admitting he needs US to help him get his project off the ground.
It’s so cute.
This, however, isn’t.
We’ve just discovered (when I say ‘we’ I mean men have just discovered, for the benefit of all humanity)
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.
Trust me, women didn’t need men to discover shit about how much they like sex (and if you think all sounds made by women during sex are a lie… I hope they never say “no” to you).
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.