The practice of oral connection, in which the male JL and female
genitals are stimulated directly by mouth, lip, or tongue rhythms, receives
little attention and considerable neglect in printed discussions of human sexual
habits. Although this procedure is so widespread as to be elemental in sexual
behavior, many inhibit the impulse for one reason or another. Let us consider
conceivable objections and give them frank appraisal.
Are You Ready To Move Onto The Next Lesson? Click Here...
To begin with, the practice is completely normal. When millions engage in it and
additional millions suppress the tendency, it can scarcely be regarded
otherwise. However, to many minds, any method of behavior which deviates too far
from the conventional has the color of depravity.
Of course, few will admit in their everyday conversations that they indulge in
the practice, since each participant is inclined to regard himself as an
exception. No mother, regardless of her own sex behavior, would think of
discussing it with her daughter, nor would a father with his son. Yet in some
way both offspring should acquire a clear understanding of the matter. Sooner or
later, it may arise, and when it does, it should be regarded with an enlightened
and objective attitude, not with shock and narrow concepts. The uninformed bride
of a few weeks may suddenly find herself engaged in this experience with her
newly-wed husband; so may a naive groom with a highly passionate wife. Neither
must allow a germ of ignorance to breed the suspicion that depravity exists.
If the practice of oral connection be analyzed with an open mind, it will be
found that the prejudices regarding it have no basis in fact; that a distorted
imagination is largely responsible for a negative attitude. The reasons for
prejudice are obvious. Firstly, the tendency is unconsciously associated with
homosexualism, the thought of which is disagreeable to normal people. The mere
fact that two persons of the same sex can react passionately toward each other,
is sufficient to condemn their primary means of sexual outlet, even though this
identical means of outlet may likewise be employed by completely normal
individuals of opposite sexes.
Of course, there is no more justification for this narrow view than for the
conclusion that kissing is a perversion simply because unfortunate homosexuals
engage in it also. Consequently, oral rhythm as practiced by members of the
opposite sex is completely unrelated to perverted abnormality. That it happens
to be a method of homosexual expression is coincidental; both the perverted and
the normal use whatever means are available to them.
Secondly, the genital area of our bodies has always been regarded as of doubtful
cleanliness. Again, this concept can be faulty if both male and female observe
proper hygienic habits.
Oral contact with the ear is a common procedure, practically routine, in love
making. In fact the ear represents a powerful erotic zone. The same can be said
also of neck. On a warm humid night both areas are subject to various
accumulations of an obvious nature and can scarcely be called clean. Many hours
of dancing may have passed between the early shower of the evening and
subsequent petting party. Can two sweaty bodies be regarded as wholesome? On the
other hand, for married couples, it is a mere matter of minutes from tub to bed,
and the fastidious of both sexes will, whenever possible, bathe or shower before
amative indulgence, then if only to guard against body odor.
Cleanliness is a vital factor regardless of the type of relationship between
sexes. There should be no greater relaxation in its application to one part of
the body than to another. If anything, greater caution should be exercised in
any area likely to offend. Among the civilized, specific attention is given the
The kiss is a sexual element the abandonment of which no reasonable person would
recommend. However, it cannot be defended on any hygienic principle. The mouth
and throat are constant incubators of disease, with salivary pools of dangerous
and even deadly bacteria floating within. This does not include the less
harmful, though actually more revolting accumulations of mucous resulting from
an inflamed sinus, congested lungs, a simple head cold, or the decayed food
particles lodged between the teeth or in some hidden cavity. Yet, the same
people who pretend shock and disgust at the thought of oral connection, will
readily and indiscriminately engage in the "soul kiss." They will unhesitatingly
probe their partner's mouth with, perhaps, a coated tongue, and encourage a
similar response in return.
This is, of course, a most disgusting description of the most common method of
sexual expression. But no one can deny its faithfulness or justify it on any
grounds of cleanliness. The plain, bare-faced fact emerges that the delightful
kiss is a thoroughly unsanitary convention.
Notwithstanding, it and its inevitable salivary exchange are almost universally
accepted, and must be as long as people are impelled by the sex urge, for the
kiss actually has a very definite and vital place in the operation of sex.
Common sense suggests that a well-cleansed male organ is free of all odor. A
corresponding condition likewise exists where a careful woman is concerned. The
tip of the clitoris lies on the surface of the vulva, is an even-textured
membrane, is easily reached, and is capable of a more rapid and thorough
cleansing than deposits between one's teeth. Both of these genital zones would
be more likely to suffer contamination by oral contact than to inflict it. The
truth is that the universal kiss is not so wholesome a convention that oral
contact with a cleansed genital area need be regarded as a perverted activity.
Consequently, where oral connection is concerned, an imaginative rather than
actual condition has created the prejudices that exist against it.
Of course, this form of sex play is never engaged in as a day-after-day
practice. It severely taxes the nervous system, particularly the male's. The
highly passionate woman, however, almost without exception will usually devote
some period of foreplay to an oral caressing of the male organ. Generally,
mutual activity is reserved for times of superpassion when the emotion of either
male or female or both, impels them to find a release requiring the closest and
most intimate form of expression. Resulting orgasms are equally as strong and
even on occasion stronger when oral attention is given to the female clitoris.
The orgastic response of the male to oral contact is, as a rule, greater.
In continental Europe this practice is as common as intercourse, and the
hygienic habits of the European woman tend to encourage it. For example, in most
countries—France, Holland, Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia—to mention only a
few, the homes of the upper class, as well as many of the middle class, contain
in the bathroom, besides the toilet, another fixture known as the bidet, used
for the douche.
The bidet has the general shape of a toilet. It is designed in the center,
however, to extend toward the vagina in a snout, and eject a strong fountain of
water upon the genital area of the female. A faucet on either side, for hot and
cold water, controls the temperature and pressure.
The bidet, of course, is a highly civilized feature and should be an essential
appurtenance in every American household. It encourages daily douching, a
practice not engaged in nearly enough by American women, who usually resort to
it only following a sexual relationship or the end of a period. This is not
sufficiently frequent to eliminate the secretion formed in the vagina and
vaginal vault. Douching should be performed regularly as a matter of routine
On the continent of Europe oral connection is as common as intercourse, and sex
being what it is, there is no reason to assume differently for other localities.
It has been so widely adopted in this country that no one need feel
individualistic in its practice.