By Jove, I think I've got it!

Way back in 2010, a movie came out called 'Blue Valentine' in which Ryan Gosling performed oral sex on Michelle Williams. It was sweet and hot without being particularly gynecological and yet it netted the movie an NC-17 rating from the MPAA.

In response Gosling said "There is something very distorted about this reality that they've created, which is that it is OK to torture women on screen...Any kind of violence towards women in a sexual scenario is fine. But give a woman pleasure, no way. Not a chance. That's pornography."*

The public outcry was so large that the MPAA caved and changed their NC-17 to an R but it's really hard to argue with his conclusion, particularly in light of the recent ramp up of the 'legitimate rape' thing the conservatives are pushing. The subtext is that if a woman gets pregnant from such an attack she must have (secretly, of course) enjoyed it. You have to wonder, though. Why is it so much worse to show a man giving a woman pleasure versus victimizing her? Finally, I think I have an answer.

It's wasteful.

Per the 'conserve' portion of their nomenclature, conservatives merely want to husband their resources. Romance, as everyone knows, is a black hole when it comes to time, money, and energy, especially when you could be using those resources for positive things like world domination. There's prostitution, I suppose, but they're not too keen on that idea either despite the fact that buying a quick fuck has got to be more economically frugal than spending thousands on dates and jewelry.

Maybe it comes down to the fact that, historically speaking, prostitutes aren't the best mothers. STD's, addictions, and extreme poverty are endemic. Prostitutes in antiquity were more likely to attempt some form of birth control (which, incidentally, conservatives are also famous for not liking). Plus, you had to negotiate. So much easier to find a nice girl tending her flock of fluffy sheep and have your way with her. This behavior nets progeny AND they get to hoard resources that would otherwise have been wasted on her (who only a couple centuries ago was chattel for God's sake-- those were the days.).

Put that way, romance is fiscally irresponsible in these dark economic times. Better to show our nation's young how the true winner behaves-- with force. Take Genghis Khan, founder of the largest contiguous empire in human history which stretched from the Yellow Sea in the east to the Black Sea in the west. According to DNA evidence, by 2003 our man Genghis had roughly 16 million modern male descendents. This doesn't even take into account his female descendents since it was based on Y chromosome studies- and he wouldn't have cared anyway since Mongols famously had only one use for women.

It's clear that fortune favors the rapist.

Interestingly enough, biology favors the rapist too. In a Canadian study from 2007, researchers found that "Reflexive vaginal responding may have had fitness benefits for our female ancestors because vaginal vasocongestion produces lubrication, which reduces the likelihood of injury and subsequent infection during vaginal penetration. Ancestral women who did not reflexively lubricate would have been more likely to experience injuries or infections that could have rendered them reproductively sterile or resulted in their deaths."**

In other words: she gets wet because if she doesn't you will tear her and she will possibly die. She's not hot for you, asshole, she's protecting herself.




Footnotes for those who wondered:
*Robles, Celina "Ryan Gosling: Female Pleasure Is "Pornography," According to MPAA" (Eonline.com 12.07.10)
** Abassi, Jennifer "What Our Eyes Say About Our Sexual Preference" (PopSci 08.08.12)