Sometimes I am struck by an idea that is both highly unprovable and bound to make people who hear it shake their head and inch away from me. Nonetheless, I present today’s poorly thought out idea that posits an answer to the unasked question: why does prostate stimulation provide sexual gratification for men?

Uncomfortable yet? Well we’re going ahead anyway. What if the sexual reward brought on by prostate stimulation is a population control mechanism? This argument is made on the assumption that we’re only talking about biological interaction between two parties, with no toys or multiple  simultaneous partners thrown into the mix. It’s also depends on the premise that the male sex drive is consistently higher than the female sex drive. And, being a biological discussion, there’s no cultural perspective on homosexual sex to muddy the waters, so we’re going to make a pretty big assumption for the purposes of this discussion that, in the wild, normal male sexuality would include some bisexual tendency.

It’s pretty safe to say that any sex act that involves the prostate getting tickled will not result in conception, so that will cut down on the numbers of kids right there.  And if there wasn’t a sexual alternative, a tribe of humans would quickly find itself with all the women pregnant, and most of the men frustrated. The possibility of popping out to the woods for a quick man on man cuddle would lessen the sexual pressure on the female members.  So, the most content and successful tribes had a higher population of men who enjoyed a little back door action, and evolution took care of the rest. This idea may be the perfect way to make an American Christian’s head explode:let’s call it gay-volution!

I must remind you again that I am not trained or qualified in any way to even ponder the nature of human evolution and sexuality. This blog post is for entertainment purposes only, and no I am not a weirdo.

Wouldn’t it be fantastic if you could have your opponent in any given disagreement read and acknowledge a set of argument rules before the first verbal volley is launched? As an example:

1.You, the opponent, agree that any one storming away from this argument automatically cedes any claim to being right. You leave, you lose.

2.You also agree that this argument will be limited in scope to the immediate issue at hand. All past misdeeds, errors in action or speech, or miscellaneous issues are now past their statute of limitations and are inadmissable. Raise the issue when it happens, or let it go.

I know it’s not as cut and dry as that. There can be instances where the current argument is being triggered by a repeated behavior, so it makes sense to look at the past occurences of the same issue to demonstrate its habitual nature. And sometimes it might be a big enough emotional catastrophe that you need an extended amount of time to gather your composure and come up with a plan of action. But most of the time, forgetting to take out the garbage two weeks ago has nothing to do with who’s going to pay today’s phone bill. It’s a shame the garbage incident made you angry back then, but you can’t deposit that anger into a metaphysical savings account and withdraw it at some later date. If it wasn’t serious enough to deal with at the time, it’s not important enough to keep holding a grudge over.

The idea of an end-user agreement for arguments may make its way into a stage play-we’ll have to see how I feel about it after a few days.