Tom Martin is no longer just a misogynistic clown, he is a misogynistic clown who is an apologist for child rape and child prostitution.
Man Boobz has blogged a series of comments Tom Martin left on his blog, where Martin calls children as young as 10 ‘whores’.
Tom Martin is considered, by other MRAs themselves, to be a leading light in the ‘movement’, and this rape apologist clown is still getting legitimised by the mainstream by being invited to public debates where he can make claims like “My belief is that 50 to 90 per cent of rape claims are made up, the rape statistics are inflated to make men look more rapey than they really are” without offering any kind of evidence or proof beyond his own bitter, distorted world view. This guy is an internet troll who somehow got let out into the community,
He has clearly demonstrated that he is a joke, and he should not be given any more ligitimation or air time out in public.
I am copying Martin’s comments below, for the full blog post with MB’s commentary, see here.
The latest establishment scam in the UK, is to describe child prostitutes as “vulnerable children groomed for sexual exploitation”, then talk about them being “passed around” etc, without mention of the fact that these young people agreed to be whores, and are getting paid for it.
“Yeah, she offered me a job as a prostitute abroad, which would involve me receiving lots of money for taking cock, so I accepted, became a prostitute, and therefor, according to the official fem definition, this makes me a sex slave”.
Grow up!
Even a 10 year old knows, if someone is paying you for sex, that makes you a whore.
I stand by my statement, that child prostitutes know what they are doing, and therefore deserve to be called prostitutes, not victims.
A progressive European country (either Holland or one of the Scandinavian countries, I remember hearing), introduced in the late 90s, the legal principle of no arbitrary minimum age for consent, rather, the legal requirement to ascertain whether lawful sex had taken place was to establish whether the child or young person ‘understands the meaning of consent’ …
Now, if a ten year old is for instance [specific sexual act redacted] for money up front, then there is very much less question whether that whore understands the meaning of consent or not.
From the perspective of a child who has actually been raped by an adult, how must it seem, to hear the victim-feminist establishment conflate child rape with child prostitution? The raped child remembers having no choice about participating in the sexual activity, of being forced, and then is asked to consider his or her fate or level of agency as similar or the same as that of a child who marketed them self for sex to an adult, took payment, then performed the act.
I don’t think the average 10 year old genuine rape victim would buy the manboobz style analysis that all child prostitution is rape … .
Questions of genuine agency are complicated, but not complicated enough to pass a 10 year old genuine rape victim’s bullshitometer I posit.
Should child prostitution from the ages of 13 up be legal?
Nope. I think that prostitution is a potentially dangerous profession for which a basic qualification in health and safety be required, like an NVQ – and that kind of course would not be attainable until after the minimum of secondary school years are completed, so aged 14, 15, 16, 17 or even 18 or more depending on the country.
States with child prostitution problems should be forced to get these children back into schools to complete their education, and child prostitutes who persist should be treated as school truants, a misdemeanor, and given the carrot and stick approach to get them back on the straight and narrow or go to young offenders institutions. If they want to be prostitutes when they’re old enough, then they can go to the careers advise officer, where the pros and cons of the profession can be laid out, and an application for the training course and license can be given.
Imagine you caught your underage 15 year old daughter on the game, what would you say to her?
“Okay darling, obviously you played no part whatsoever in choosing to be a prostitute yourself, so mummy’s going to help catch the nasty pimp who put you up to this, because what you need to learn is when 15 year old girls accidentally suck cocks for money, they should be compensated, with a bit of victims of crime compensation, and, not forgetting, the original £12 cock-sucking bonanza from the punter. That’s right sweety. Double bubble time. Pass me the phone. Now how does this thing work?”
Or… would you ground the whore for 6 months until she passes all her GCSEs?
Well, given that approximately 98% of manboobzers are whores themselves, I’m guessing you’re probably going to want to blame it all on MRAs.
Prostitutes need to be taxed and licensed so heavily, rendering the profession a relatively poor way of making money.
Anyone who practices as a prostitute without the necessary qualification and license, can go to young offenders institute/jail – just like any other persistent illegal unlicensed trader would.
Anyone working on the sly as an escort, should be hunted down by the taxwoman, and if caught, given a huge bill for tax evasion, as well as a fine, and prison for not having a license. Unlicensed tax-evading prostitutes should be hunted down (which would be easy enough).
Anyone choosing prostitution should pay the highest taxes, and know why those taxes are so high – because of the damage prostitution does to the prostitutes and their customers and their environment and the society.
If licensed hookers pay for a massive license fee and heavy taxes, then some of that money can be ring-fenced to research how best to get women (and girls) to renounce prostitution in all its forms, because let’s face it, a lot of housewhores and princess wannabes could do with a little economic activity-inducing work ethic therapy themselves.
[M]en who pay money to have sex with child prostitutes should not be criminalized – but taken out of circulation and treated compassionately for their condition. I’ve heard that most criminal activity peaks with testosterone levels, in the late teens, but paedophillia is the only crime that increases in frequency as these men get older, indicating a growing pathology for them rather than just a typical immature criminal act.
[P]edophiles who pay children for sex are not really rapists, because the child consents, then performs the act, indicating they understand the nature of the contract. The elder is still a pedophiles, but the child prostitute is still a prostitute.
If the child is enslaved – it’s rape, or too young or stupid to know what he or she’s doing – rape. But poor, and in need of food? Not rape. A choice. Unwilling to do other hard labour paying 9 times less than the prostitution route? Not rape. A choice.
Whatever your age, follow the golden rule, of never taking money for sex, then prostitution will be eradicated. Only the prostitute can stop charging for sex.
And of course, that means rejecting courtship gifts, engagement gifts, marriage gifts, divorce gifts, and government largess also.
I don’t think many of you are ready to renounce prostitution in all its forms. …
I know a whore when I see one.
Someone or other here said I was anthropomorphising human behaviour onto penguin behaviour by calling penguins whores or something.
But the point is, being a whore, is an animalistic trait, that human females should not need to resort to, given they’re at the top of the fucking food chain already. Google “nuptial gifts” and you can read studies about various animals granting sex to those males who provide the most food, or even the most glittery non-edible trinkets etc, or in the case of penguins, rocks to build nests and shelter with.
I’m saying women are better than penguins, or at least would be if they renounced prostitution in all its forms.
There is, obviously, so much wrong with Martin’s ‘thought’ here.
He has invisibilised the pimps – y’know, the ones who control sex slaves, who advertise them online and in the back of local news papers, who beat them and rape them when they don’t ‘work’ and who take all the money from the men who pay to rape them.
He also has no understanding of the concept of consent, he thinks that if a child ‘understands’ what a sex act is (in order to perform it in ‘exchange’ for money), that equates with consent. A child who has been raped or abused or groomed by being shown pornography will then ‘know’ what those sex acts are, and be able to ‘perform’ them with the next abuser; this isn’t consent, it is abuse. He is also making the classic rape-apologist mistake of equating submission with consent, the basic fact that a child does perform a sex act on an adult equals consent to him, it’s only rape if the child is dragged off kicking and screaming by some man in a dirty mac, and the man does things to the child, if the child does things to the man, that child is ‘knowing’ and therefore ‘consenting’ – under male supremacism, an abused child ‘knows’ about sex, and is therefore no longer ‘innocent’ and therefore is no longer a victim, Martin is practically Victorian in his thinking (In Victorian England, when age of consent laws were brought in, an exemption was made for ‘child prostitutes'; in the case of a man raping a prostituted child, the child was the criminal, not the man.)
Martin’s fake concern for a ‘real’ child victim is disgusting and exploitative – as if 10-year-olds are participating in this debate in that way in the first place. His idea of how a 10-year-old might think is ridiculous, as if any responsible adult is going to take a sexually abused child, sit them down, explain child prostitution to them as a child “[marketing] them self for sex to an adult, [taking] payment, then [performing] the act” and then ask that child how they feel about it. Maybe Martin gets off on the idea of emotionally abusing a 10-year-old abuse victim in this way? I sincerely hope this pervert does not have any access to children in real life.
Martin’s attitude to prostituted women is bizarre and contradictory, he can see that it’s dangerous and harmful to women, but he thinks the best thing to do is blame the women themselves (again invisibilising the pimps and johns) and punish them by making it financially unrewarding (as if it is financially rewarding for the majority of women involved in the first place! Belle du Jour fantasies aside, for most women it is purely about financial survival). Martin thinks prostitution exists because women are lazy and greedy and they ‘choose’ to do it because they make a load of money, he ignores completely male demand, he ignores that this demand creates a supply, that poverty is the main push factor into prostitution, either directly, or through the vulnerability to violence and exploitation that poverty creates. He thinks that the women themselves are to blame for prostitution, and that all that needs to happen for prostitution to end is for women to stop charging for sex! Because a homeless drug-addict prostituting to survive can just ‘choose’ to stop any time they like, they could equally easily be doctors or lawyers, but they ‘chose’ to be homeless and drug-addicted instead.
Martin thinks all women are prostitutes, this is a common MRA theme; what is also common among male supremacists is to say that any kind of exchange between men and women makes women prostitutes; for some men, simply being obliged to be nice to their partner/wife/girl friend, so she’ll be in the mood to have sex with him, makes their relationship indistinguishable from prostitution; for MRA’s the only woman who is not a prostitute is one who puts out, then disappears in the morning, then she’s a slut.
The comparison with animal behaviour is always one I find amusing. Males in many species demonstrate their genetic worth by showing they are fit enough to provide nurture and support for the female while she it caring for their offspring (in some species, the males perform a share of this direct care themselves); males do this by bringing food, or building a nest or burrow, or it can be more symbolic (extravagant plumage, scales, or fur, the collection of ‘useless’ objects) all show the male is fit and therefor has good genes to pass on, even if he plays no part in caring for the offspring; it can also be social, grooming, courtship displays etc.
MRAs see all this as prostitution! The males give the females something, the females give the males ‘sex’ – MRA’s can’t seem to understand that prostitution, as it exists in industrialised capitalist societies, has no parallel in the animal kingdom; animals mate to produce offspring (both the females and the males want to have offspring, as much as an animal can be said to ‘want’ anything) and they also mate to strengthen social bonds, either between parents, or more widely within a social group. None of this bears any resemblance to prostitution, if it resembles any thing at all in the human world it’s marriage (and modern ‘companionate’ marriage, where two consenting adults chose to form an economic and social unit, at that) – animals do not keep slaves, you do not find anywhere in nature, a male animal enslaving and pimping out one or more female animals – prostitution is an entirely human invention.
I did a bit of internet searching on Martin’s claim that a “progressive European country (either Holland or one of the Scandinavian countries, I remember hearing), introduced in the late 90s, the legal principle of no arbitrary minimum age for consent, rather, the legal requirement to ascertain whether lawful sex had taken place was to establish whether the child or young person ‘understands the meaning of consent’”
Wikipedia’s page on the age of consent in Holland says:
The age of consent in the Netherlands is 16, as specified by the Dutch Criminal Code, Articles 245 and 247, which read:
Art 245: “A person who, out of wedlock, with a person who has reached the age of twelve but has not reached sixteen, performs indecent acts comprising or including sexual penetration of the body is liable to a term of imprisonment of not more than eight years or a fine of the fifth category.”
Art 247: “A person who, with a person whom he knows to be unconscious or physically unable to resist or to be suffering from such a degree of mental defect or mental disease that he is incapable or not sufficiently capable of exercising or expressing his will in the matter or of offering resistance, performs indecent acts, or who, with a person who has not yet reached the age of sixteen (16) years, out of wedlock, performs indecent acts, or by whom the latter is enticed into performing, or submitting to such acts, out of wedlock, with a third party, is liable to a term of imprisonment of not more than six years or a fine of the fourth category.”
Consensual sexual relations between adolescents who are close in age are not punished: sexual acts between persons who have reached the age of 12 years are widely tolerated by the courts and the Dutch Public Prosecution Service if the difference in age between the two partners is not too great. The latter is determined at the discretion of the court, though usually four years is deemed acceptable.
So that’s a de facto age of consent of 12, but only for sex between teenagers of roughly the same age, so no good for Martin’s 10-year-old ‘whores’, or the johns who want to rape them.
Tom Martin condones male sexual predatory behaviour because he like the innumerable men who sexually prey on girls and women believe men have the innate right of sexual access to any female. Note too Martin’s pathetic attempt at Patriarchal reversal – the female victims men target are the ‘whores’ when in fact if one believes the term ‘whore’ exists then it is the sexually predatory males who are the whores since they are sexually insatiable.
Martin, however is not alone in publicly declaring his misogyny and male contempt for women and female children because Sigmund Freud also claimed female children seduced ‘innocent adult men’ when in fact it was as usual predatory males who held considerable socio-economic power and exploited their positions to prey on girl children and women.
Martin’s bluster is designed to hide his rage and fear that perhaps, just perhaps men might finally be held accountable for their crimes of committing sexual violence against women and girls and that is why Martin engages in long-winded denials.
Martin is in good company because innumerable male Catholic Priests have been outed as serial male sexual predators who have for decades been accorded the right (sic) of subjecting innumerable girls, women and boys to sadistic male sexual violence. The Catholic hierarchy continues to minimalise male Priests’ accountability because like Martin they believe men can do no wrong whereas women and female children aren’t human but either seducers of males or else are sexually insatiable. Patriarchal reversal in action again!
Read the original article in full before commenting. Manboobz has selectively picked quotes and excluded others in a misleading fashion. You will see that I am against child prostitution – and think the most effective way to reduce it is to hold the child more accountable for their actions, as well as holding the adult accountable for theirs. Rather than criminalizing the adult, they should be treated as sick, given the pathalogical elements of pedophilia.
The above article appears to be taking a Marxist victim-feminist position on many points, labouring under the idea that women are automatically oppressed by men, and that prostitution is primarily due to lack of choice and poverty.
Read Temporarily Yours, by Elizebeth Bernstein (2007). She argues:
“Generations of social thinkers have assumed that access to legitimate paid employment and a decline in the double standard would eliminate the reasons behind women’s participation in prostitution. Yet in both the developing world and in post-industrial cities of the West, sexual commerce has continued to flourish.”
Yep. Better than ever opportunities for women, in a time of continued economic growth (pre-credit crunch) – but the whoring never stopped or slowed.
Tom,
I’m not taking orders from you, and I am not going to read through 1500+ comments to see what MB left out; if you think you made some Very Important Point there, you are free to repeat it here.
You are only against prostitution and child prostitution because you are a disgusting misogynist and misanthrope who wants to see women and children punished for any reason possible.
You think 10-year-old victims of commercial sexual exploitation are ‘responsible’ for their own abuse, you think that because a child has been sexually abused and is now ‘knowledgeable’ about sex and therefore capable of actively performing sex acts, they are now no longer victims, but ‘whores’ in need of punishment. You ignore completely the groomers, the pimps and the johns, and act as if child prostitution wouldn’t exist without these evil child ‘whores’ ‘tempting’ mentally vulnerable adults – the pimps and the johns and the child abusers have a choice, far more of a choice than their victims.
I’ve just noticed that in the comments thread under the MB post linked above, you claim:
You are truly despicable, for trying to paint child abusers as victims.
“Marxist victim-feminism” is a meaningless term you made up – many Marxist/socialist feminists take a ‘sex work’ approach to prostitution and want to see it decriminalised and unionised (in spite of the fact that this doesn’t actually work) and ‘victim feminism’ is a misogynistic slur designed to try and shame and silence feminists.
“Sexual commerce” flourishes because those economic opportunities are not equally distributed. White middle-class women may spend a short period of time at the top end of the sex industry (eg Belle du Jour, who only stayed 14 months before her PhD funding started), but the majority of the women in the sex industry are from developing countries where there are few opportunities, especially for women, and this makes them vulnerable to exploitation and trafficking, or they are vulnerable through homelessness and drug-addiction. The ‘whores’ in the Rochdale case (I’m guessing that’s what you were talking about when you talked about them being ‘passed around’) were from poor, disadvantaged backgrounds, and incredibly vulnerable to abuse and grooming – nice middle-class girls aren’t usually left that vulnerable.
And again, there is demand, which you constantly ignore. There are men out there who are perfectly willing to pay to rape doped up children, or homeless adults, or women who speak no English, and who are obviously scared, and may be covered with bruises and cigarette burns.
Well, Tom, according to you, 97% of women are ‘whores':
Also:
97% of women are not part of the sex industry, 97% of women are not prostitutes, strippers, pimps, pornographers, porn performers, telephone sex line operators, or working behind the till in a sex shop. So, according to you, a lot of women who are not involved in the sex industry are ‘whores'; tell me Tommy, what does a women have to do to not be a ‘whore’? What does this look like on a practical daily basis, at work, at home, going shopping for groceries? What is she allowed to wear? Is she allowed to talk to men? Is she allowed to be in a relationship with a man? Is she allowed to use publically funded/subsidised services like running water, flushing toilets, buses? Does this change if she’s a high earner and therefore paying a high rate of taxes? Do men have to follow similar rules in order to avoid being ‘whores’? Do you yourself fulfil these criteria?
Here’s another charming victim-blaming, child-rape-apologist comment from Tom Martin from the comment thread under the MB post linked above:
And here’s another one, poor Tommy feels persecuted, so he has the right to call everyone cunts and whores, yet he still expects to be taken seriously!
Also TRIGGER WARNING, for Martin’s disgusting, contemptible descriptions of child abuse.
Frankly Tommy, I think the Manboobzers are right, you are sewerage.
[...] sexual activity (including same-sex activity) in order to strengthen social bonds (I have written about this before, in the context of it not being proof that prostitution is a ‘natural’ behaviour), but [...]
[...] There’s a new comic strip up on the web, that mocks MRA’s, this particular one is about the misogynist clown Tom Martin. [...]
Reblogged this on oogenhand and commented:
I wonder what the BNP, the EDL and Anjem Choudary will think of Tom Martin.
Reblogged this on Thinking Out Loud and commented:
WHAT??!
Reblogged this on Opinionated Ms Me and commented:
Aha! Here are the questionable views on paedophilia that I mentioned Tom Martin has expressed. He really is a piece of work. When I confronted him on Twitter with these quotes, he said: “I lost an argument. Child rape!” It’s so sad that he doesn’t even see that he’s saying anything wrong.
Tom Martin is still ranting about “10 year old whores” two years later. I don’t think this obsession of his is healthy.
He’s still pretending that to be a ‘real’ victim, a child has to be so innocent that they literally don’t know what’s being done to them; once they have any knowledge about sex, and are (due to grooming, and previous abuse) able to actively perform sex acts, they are no longer victims and are therefore 100% complicit in the crimes committed against them.
He is right about one thing though, some academic sex industry advocates have given up pretending that decriminalising the sex industry does anything to reduce child prostitution, instead they argue about the ‘agency’ of ~juvenile sex workers~, although not many of them are brave enough to say directly they’re fine with 10 year olds prostituting.