This week in the War on Women: Rape, rape, rape, my period tells me how to vote, rape

In case you were living under a rock this week'or maybe just busy rushing home to make dinner for your family because that's what we ladies are all about, per the Gospel According To Mitt'you missed an awful lot of sexytime talk. Because Republicans cannot stop talking about sex.

First up, we've got non-consensual sex, also known as RAPE. This is the kind of sex Republicans don't really have a problem with because, see, most of the time, it's not really rape anyway, and even when it is rape, that's just God's way of saying, "Hey, lady, I like you. You're special. Here, have some rape and also a rape baby."

What, you think that's a joke? Hyperbole? Exaggeration? Ripped from the pages of The Onion? Alas, no:

Richard Mourdock, the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Indiana, said in a debate on Tuesday that "even when life begins with that horrible situation of rape, that is something that God intended to happen." [...]

"The only exception I have to have an abortion is in that case of the life of the mother," Mourdock said. "I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape that it is something God intended to happen."

Naturally, the Republican menfolk are totally fine with this because of course they are. Like Mitt Romney, who endorsed Richard Mourdock, but would like you to know he does not agree with Mourdock but still thinks Mourdock should be in the Senate. Besides, this whole ordeal has been extremely difficult for Mourdock, "professionally" and "emotionally"; in fact, it's made him teary-eyed. Not sure why Mourdock is complaining, since this is obviously God's will, but usually, it's best not to question Republican "logic."

In case you found what Mourdock said offensive, you can stop that now, because John McCain and Rick Santorum said so. Besides, you must conserve your outrage so that you can be much more outraged about this awful, terrible, end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it Obama ad about voting, which is so much worse than rape. (See above re: Republican "logic.")

You see, the problem with the ad is that it features a young white woman'from a wealthy family!'talking about her "first time," and even though she's talking about voting, Republicans know she really means sex, because they see sex in everything, and according to them, sex is only okay when God's forcing a woman to have it against her will. Otherwise, ew. Gross. Icky. Awful. Proof we "live in a fallen, depraved world destined for the fire."

Yes, Republicans are awful. Also, water is wet. Also, you may end up voting for them depending on where you are in your menstrual cycle.

Wait'WHAT?!?!?

Yes. That's right. While Republican men were busy mansplaining when sex is or is not okay, CNN published this astonishing article:

While the campaigns eagerly pursue female voters, there's something that may raise the chances for both presidential candidates that's totally out of their control: women's ovulation cycles.

You read that right. New research suggests that hormones may influence female voting choices differently, depending on whether a woman is single or in a committed relationship.

Are you a single lady with a heavy flow? You just might be feeling extra abortiony and will probably vote for Barack Obama. Unless you're married, in which case, you might not. Who knows? According to the "research":

When women are ovulating, they 'feel sexier,' and therefore lean more toward liberal attitudes on abortion and marriage equality. Married women have the same hormones firing, but tend to take the opposite viewpoint on these issues[.]

So your period will fire off those feeling-extra-sexy hormones, which will, in combination with your marital status, determine your political ideology. This is very serious science based on very serious research conducted through "an internet survey of 275 women," so you know it's super solid. Even though the third paragraph of CNN's article states:

Please continue reading with caution. Although the study will be published in the peer-reviewed journal Psychological Science, several political scientists who read the study have expressed skepticism about its conclusions.

Too bad the actual staff at CNN somehow missed that paragraph. Naturally, the entire internet went, "What the fucking fuck?!?!?" So CNN deleted the article because that totally solved everything. The official reason was that "[a]fter further review it was determined that some elements of the story did not meet the editorial standards of CNN." (I know, I know. What? CNN, which keeps Erick Erickson on the payroll, has editorial standards? Since when?) Too bad CNN can't delete the whole internet, though, because the article is still out there, and I saved the whole thing for you right here. You're welcome.

So, there you have it, ladies and friends of ladies. That's what this election boils down to: a choice between the party that thinks sex is icky, unless it's against your will and makes a baby, and the party that thinks that is all kinds of f'd up, and women better get themselves and their lady parts to the polls double quick to vote like their freedom depends on it (because, duh, it does), which the previously mentioned sex-is-icky party thinks is f'd up because voting is even ickier than sex, especially when women do it. And that's why they're waging a War on Women to strip women of their rights so that big strong Republican men can make their decisions for them.  

And then there's the "science" that says it's not even up to you; it's up to your period.

Whether you're single, married or menstruating, you know what we have to do. We have to send more, better women to Congress. Please give $3 to each of our Daily Kos-endorsed women candidates for the House and Senate to fight back against the Republicans' War on Women.

---

This week's good, bad and ugly below the fold.