The implication is that the man has sex so hard and fast that the rubber of the condom is going to overheat, and that either the process of that causing discomfort or pleasure will cause the woman to scream.
Part of the joke is the subversion of expectations; old men aren’t “supposed” to be able to have sex at all, much less vigorous sex.
It also plays off of the assumption that a young woman marrying a much older man doesn’t expect sex at all; this is indicated by her getting ready for bed, rather than preparing for sex as one might expect with a pair of younger newlyweds.
Add in that you have the old man subverting the young woman’s expectations in an exaggerated way, and you’ve got enough differences from the reader’s/audiences expectations that the joke is usually well received.
This version of it skips the often misogynistic aspects that some variants of the joke use. Those versions typically set up the joke with the young woman specifically being described as a “gold digger” that married the man not only just for money, but having claimed to love the man.
While avoiding that aspect of it does take a layer of subversion away, I feel that the joke works better this way, where the audience lets their own preconceptions of the scenario determine the motivations of the characters in the joke. While I might personally prefer you whittle the joke down into a form that doesn’t allow for a misogynistic or ageist audience to find portrays pleasure in it at all, I feel that this structure works to at least point the finger at ageist thinking rather than rely on it as the sole source of the humor.
I will say that the joke works better in person than in writing, imo.
Nsfw warning
So, a 20 year old woman marries a 70 year old man.
On their wedding night, she goes into the bathroom to get ready for bed.
She comes out and her new husband is standing there, fully erect with a condom on, with a clothes pin on his nose, and stuffing cotton into his ears.
She asks him what the heck is going on, he says "if there’s two things I can’t stand, it’s the screams of a woman and the smell of burning rubber.
I don’t get it. Care to explain?
Maybe to suggest that he’s horny as shit and wants to treat his woman like a sex doll
If he can’t get her wet, that’s going to be a lot of friction on the rubber he’s wearing. And she’d be screaming in pain
The implication is that the man has sex so hard and fast that the rubber of the condom is going to overheat, and that either the process of that causing discomfort or pleasure will cause the woman to scream.
Part of the joke is the subversion of expectations; old men aren’t “supposed” to be able to have sex at all, much less vigorous sex.
It also plays off of the assumption that a young woman marrying a much older man doesn’t expect sex at all; this is indicated by her getting ready for bed, rather than preparing for sex as one might expect with a pair of younger newlyweds.
Add in that you have the old man subverting the young woman’s expectations in an exaggerated way, and you’ve got enough differences from the reader’s/audiences expectations that the joke is usually well received.
This version of it skips the often misogynistic aspects that some variants of the joke use. Those versions typically set up the joke with the young woman specifically being described as a “gold digger” that married the man not only just for money, but having claimed to love the man.
While avoiding that aspect of it does take a layer of subversion away, I feel that the joke works better this way, where the audience lets their own preconceptions of the scenario determine the motivations of the characters in the joke. While I might personally prefer you whittle the joke down into a form that doesn’t allow for a misogynistic or ageist audience to find portrays pleasure in it at all, I feel that this structure works to at least point the finger at ageist thinking rather than rely on it as the sole source of the humor.
I will say that the joke works better in person than in writing, imo.