02/25/2011 04:50 pm ET | Updated May 25, 2011

Here Cum the Oscars

Now we have all heard the notion that if an actor plays a mentally retarded role in a film, they are a virtual shoo in for an Oscar nomination. Ben Stiller hilariously addressed it in the film Tropic Thunder and there are countless examples proving it's validity. Sean Penn, Dustin Hoffman, Tom Hanks, Daniel Day Lewis, etc. Well, this year I have noticed a new, and possibly alarming, trend. I realized that three of the five Oscar nominees for Best Actress were the recipients of oral sex in their films. Yes, three out of five! So I pose this question to you, is receiving cunnilingus the new retarded?

Let's examine the facts. As I mentioned above, three of the five nominees for Best Actress received oral sex in their films and all received ample publicity for these racy scenes. Michelle Williams in Blue Valentine, Annette Benning in The Kids Are All Right and Natalie Portman in Black Swan. Was it the way they artfully squirmed? Maybe the way they moaned just so? Were they giving a lesson in the craft of acting to younger actors, this is how you accept cunnilingus like a movie star?

So what does this mean? I posit that the academy thinks that women who allow themselves to be pleasured are deviant and we all know the Academy loves a crazy woman. We, as a culture, love the titillation of sex, but feel shame for loving it. And so we judge these characters as perverse and aberrant. And after the movie is over, we applaud these actresses for being able to transform themselves into these wayward characters. Too deep? Probably.

Now while this trend is in itself interesting, perhaps the most fascinating revelation is this. While all of "receivers" are basking in the limelight of their nominations, the "givers" are left blowing in the wind, so to speak. Ryan Gosling. Julianne Moore. Mila Kunis. All fabulous actors with brilliant performances in their own right and all of them snubbed by the Academy! Coincidence? I don't think it was just that the academy didn't care for their tongue techniques, the scenes weren't that graphic.

So what did they do wrong? They were the givers! They should be rewarded for their altruistic intentions. I feel it is important to note that whether or not orgasm was reached did not affect the Academy outcome. The victors and also rans were equally snubbed. So it seems it doesn't matter if the fireworks flew, just as long as the carpet was vacuumed, again, so to speak.

So is giving less deviant than receiving? Maybe. I mean, donating to charity is looked upon more favorably than taking it. I'm just saying.

Or is it as simple as this? Due to understandable cunnilingus logistics, the "receivers" just had more screen time.