Oral Connection
 

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.

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 genital region.

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 hygiene.

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.