Upon close examination, we may come to see that this is wholly consistent with the tendency of modern marriage manuals to concentrate almost exclusively upon the sexual satisfaction of the female, a tendency we have observed before. Accordingly, the authors of marriage manuals address themselves directly to the male and endorse cunnilingus as a mode of lovemaking likely to heighten female excitement, facilitate a passionate female response to coitus, and generally contribute to the attainment of the female orgasm.
In this respect, cunnilingus is generally regarded more as a precoital caress than as an end in itself. It is praised as performing two offices at once, contributing to female excitement while providing salivary lubrication to the vaginal opening to ease penile intromission.
At the risk of sounding the same gong over and over, it seems worthwhile to remark again upon the singular absorption of marriage manuals upon the selfless satisfaction of the female. Oral copulation offers an excellent comparison. In discussing fellatio, most sexologists point out unequivocally that there is nothing wrong or perverted in the practice but stress at the same time that any activity that seems at all unnatural to either party should be avoided at all cost. One would expect an identical attitude in respect to cunnilingus, but here the same authorities seem to be urging the practice upon their male readers. The male is told repeatedly that a hygienic vulva is clean, that in fact his mouth will convey more germs to his wife’s pubis than it will receive. There is no effort displayed to reassure women similarly in regard to fellatio, nor is there any complimentary admonition that husbands avoid cunnilingus if they find it repugnant; instead, they are told to conquer their repugnance and get to it!
Throughout time and space, a variety of attitudes have been displayed toward oral stimulation of the female genitalia. As has been the case with other extracoital copulatory methods, the practice has been identified with homosexuality and is often regarded as a Lesbian practice, only incidentally employed in heterosexual relationships. “Do to me what Sappho did with her girl friends,” a female character in a contemporary novel suggests to her male lover. And referring to the French novel, one of Frank Harris’s conquests suggested that he do to her as “that girl” did to Nana, Zola’s heroine-courtesan.
In various times and places, cunnilingus has been regarded as
1. The ultimate caress, sure to excite the most frigid woman, sure to inspire love and affection. “Show me a guy who won’t eat his girl, and I’ll show you a broad I can steal”—this Kiplingesque line, the poetic contribution of one of the coarser modern sexologists, might be said to embody this viewpoint to perfection.
2. An unworthy, demeaning act, to be performed by unworthy men upon depraved females. It is an element of folklore, with at least a little basis in fact, that pimps are inclined to perform cunnilingus upon the prostitutes who support them. There are several logical explanations for this phenomenon. The prostitute’s preference for playing the passive role in oral sexual relations may be attributed to her identification of coitus with “business,” to her desire to imitate her clients by receiving oral sex, to her desire for a wholly passive practice, etc.
This identification of cunnilingus is by no means limited to modern folklore or sexological observation. Vatsyayana typifies the attitude in this fashion.
Some women of the harem, when they are amorous, do the acts of the mouth on the yonis of one another, and some men do the same thing with women. The way of doing this (i.e., of kissing the yoni) should be known from kissing the mouth…
For the sake of such things courtesans abandon men possessed of good qualities, liberal and clever, and become attached to low persons, such as slaves and elephant drivers. The Auparishtaka, or mouth congress, should never be done by a learned Brahman, by a minister that carries on the business of the state, or by a man of good reputation, because though the practice is allowed by the Shastras, there is no reason why it should be carried on, and need only be practiced in particular cases. As for instance the taste and digestive qualities of the flesh of dogs are mentioned in works on medicine, but it does not therefore follow that it should be eaten by the wise.
The techniques of cunnilingus, in contrast to those of oral stimulation of the male genitalia, are, as the Kama Sutra states, similar to those of mouth-to-mouth osculation. Both the lips and the tongue may be brought into play, and the several elements of kissing, sucking, and licking may be employed. Generally, oral caresses are most readily bestowed upon the external genitalia of the female—the clitoris, the labia, etc. Accordingly the practice is most likely to be keenly stimulating and satisfying to women whose erotogenic impulses are most highly localized in these regions, and particularly in the clitoris. As we have noted earlier, this is apt to be the case with women of limited sexual experience; in most instances, increased coital experience manifests itself in a shifting of the erotogenic center from the clitoris to the vagina itself. Thus, cunnilingus is most likely to serve as an end in itself—a means to a deeply moving climax—with less experienced women; vaginally centered females find the practice more valuable as a prelude to coitus.
A variety of caresses may be combined with cunnilingus. These will most often take the form of manual caresses applied to other exogenous portions of the body and may include manipulation of the breasts, thighs, buttocks, etc. In The Lascivious Hypocrite, a standard work of hardcore pornography, the “hero” combines cunnilingus with anal masturbation of the woman; in another section of the same work he addresses himself orally to her vulva while masturbating himself, positioning himself so that she may “stare randily at his stiff cock and thrill at the jets of semen.” The combination of caresses may vary, it seems, with the ingenuity of the participants.
Cunnilingus seems to have special appeal to men of limited potency, or at least to those whose sexual reach exceeds their grasp. After a period of initial reluctance, Frank Harris found the sport particularly valuable; he reports that no other practice taught him so much about the ebb and flow of a woman’s sexuality. In later years, when his own potency receded, Harris delighted in the fact that oral copulation enabled him to give endless pleasure to his partners whether or not he was capable of erection at the time. Variations on this theme constitute the appeal of cunnilingus to the aged male. The senile child molester who delights in performing cunnilingus upon young girls is no rara avis and serves as good exaggerated illustration of this appeal.
Cunnilingus and fellatio are frequently combined, with the two performed simultaneously. The partners lie with their heads in opposite directions and engage in mutual oral stimulation. This posture is known as 69 (or the French soixant-neuf) because the inverted position of the two bodies suggests the relative position of the two numerals. The euphemism head over heels in love is also employed. Vatsyayana informs us that “When a man and woman lie down in an inverted order, i.e., with the “head of the one towards the feet of the other, and carry on this kind of congress, it is called the congress of a crow.”
—♦♦♦—
Anal Copulation
Copulatio per anum, paedecotio, buggery, sodomy—all these are terms for an act that seems to play a far greater part in the erotic literature of the world than it does in the sex lives of contemporary Occidentals. Modern marriage manuals treat sparingly of anal intercourse; if they mention it at all, they rarely do more than cite it as a curious sexual bypath. Studies of Kinsey and other researchers indicate that only a minority of a minority of American heterosexuals practice anal penetration and that they do so less for reasons of particular preference than for the sake of expedience—for example, as a birth-control measure, as a coital substitute during menstruation, or when vaginal coitus is impossible because of medical problems of the female such as malformation of the vagina. These factors, combined with an occasional experiment for variety’s sake, comprise the overwhelming majority of the incidences of anal copulation in our society. And the practice is relatively rare to start with.
Homosexual
anal intercourse is something else, of course; the practice is a chief technique for male homosexuals, especially common in prison, the armed forces, and other environments where homosexuality is more a last resort because of the unavailability of females than a preferred means of gratification. Lesbian anal intercourse is, for obvious reasons, rare to the point of non-existence. Pornographic works occasionally mention and/or describe Lesbian paedecatio effected through the use of a dildo or false penis by the active partner, but it is a certainty that such practices are more a pornographer’s dream than a glimpse of sexual reality.
It is not at all difficult to pinpoint the many reasons for the relative unpopularity of anal intercourse. The immediate and fairly inevitable identification of the anus as the abode of feces is in and of itself sufficient to render this form of extracoital copulation distinctly offensive to many persons, male and female alike.
Additionally, the penetration of the penis into the anus is often difficult to achieve and painful to one or both, parties. The rectal passage is significantly smaller than the vagina and is at the same time less readily dilated. Some women may emit anal secretions when stimulated locally, but many do not, and in any case such secretions do not approach vaginal secretions either in quantity or in lubricating effect. Dilation of the anal sphincter, a sine qua non of painless anal copulation, is difficult to achieve and difficult to maintain, and an involuntary cloture of this muscle after penetration can be painful for the male as well as the female.
For these reasons especially, heterosexual anal copulation is rare in our society and rarely receives much attention in our realistic erotic literature. Aside from vague references to the practice and allusions for variety’s sake, two examples of novelistic treatment of anal copulation between male and female stand out. The first, in D. H. Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover, is veiled to the point of obscurity; although John Sparrow in Encounter and Ralph Ginzburg in Eros have managed to interpret the book as “a paean to buggery,” this aspect of the work has otherwise defied detection for decades. The second and far more explicit instance is to be found in Norman Mailer’s The Time of Her Time, in which the narrator, attempting almost belligerently to bring his partner to orgasm, interrupts coitus and introduces his penis into her anus. This new twist sends her over the edge and leads to sexual climax in due course.
In contrast—and especially marked contrast at that— both contemporary hardcore pornography and the erotic literature of other times and other places put a great deal of stress upon this form of extracoital copulation. Throughout the Moslem world, anal intercourse has long been one of the most important forms of sexual activity, practiced to such an extent that its omission from The Perfumed Garden is genuinely astonishing. The Pompeian murals include scenes depicting the practice as a matter of course. And although Hindu erotic writings are not extensively devoted to a discussion of buggery, the erotic temple sculpture of India commonly shows this practice.
The erotic novels of the Marquis de Sade place an extraordinary amount of emphasis upon anal copulation. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of sexual encounters in both Justine and Juliette involve paedicatio, and the majority of sadistic “heroes” express a distinct preference for this form of sex.
It is evident that this is in large measure a result of two special aspects of Sade—his extreme literary antagonism toward and hatred for the female sex (as symbolized by the vagina) and his equation of the value of a sexual experience with a degree of pain inflicted upon one’s partner. In other words, anal copulation is attractive to Sade (and to sadists generally) because it is both painful to the passive partner and extravaginal.
A brief scene from Justine should serve to establish the sadistic appeal of buggery while providing at once an example of the literary treatment of the practice and the structure of Sade’s writing. The scene tells of the virtuous heroine’s treatment at the hands of a villain named Roland.
Then he brought to light the formidable member with which he was outfitted; he had me touch it, asked if I had ever beheld its peer. “Such as you see it, whore,” said he in a rage, “in that shape it has, however, very well got to be introduced into the narrowest part of your body even if I must split you in half; my sister, considerably your junior, manages it in the same sector; never do I enjoy women in any other fashion: well, it must cleave you, too,” and so as to leave no doubt of the locale he had in mind, he inserted into it three fingers armed with exceedingly long nails, the while saying: “Yes, ‘tis there, it will be shortly into this hole I will drive this member which affrights you; it will be run every inch of the way in, it will tear you, you’ll bleed and I will be beside myself.”
After some incidental torture, Roland then attacks the girl’s vagina:
…He placed me on the edge of the couch, rubbed alcohol upon that mossy tonsure with which nature ornaments the altar wherein our species finds regeneration; he set it afire and burned it. His fingers closed upon the fleshy obtruberance which surmounts this same altar, he snatched at it and scraped roughly, then he inserted his fingers within and his nails ripped the membrane which lines it…
More torture follows, whereupon Roland proposes to enjoy the girl per anum while slowly strangling her, trusting that this will further constrict the anal sphincter and thus add to his pleasure. Sade describes the scene as follows.
He thrusts, he sweats, ‘tis in vain; he prepares the road, ‘tis futile; he is too monstrously proportioned…
He returns to the assault, the glowing blade slides to the edge of the neighboring canal and, smiting vigorously, penetrates to high the midway mark; I utter a cry; Roland, enraged by his mistake, withdraws petulantly, and this time hammers at the other gate with such force the moistened dart plunges in, rending me. Roland exploits this first sally’s success; his efforts become more violent; he gains ground; as he advances, he proportionally tightens the fatal cord he has passed round my neck, hideous screams burst from my lips; amused by them, the ferocious Roland urges me to redouble my howlings… little by little my voice waxes faint; the tightenings now become so intense that my senses weaken although I do not lose the power to feel; brutally shaken by the enormous instrument with which Roland is rending my entrails, despite my frightful circumstances, I feel myself flooded by his lust’s jetted outpourings; I still hear the cries he mouths as he discharges; an instant of stupor followed…
Contemporary sadistic pornography places similar emphasis upon anal penetration, stressing invariably the pain inflicted in this fashion upon the passive partner. How much of this emphasis is a direct consequence of Sade’s influence is a moot point. In any event, sadistic filth does include scenes of buggery to an unusual extent.
Sadism aside, anal copulation has certain elements that recommend it to its devotees. Some males find the tighter anal passage more desirable, especially after childbirth has widened the vaginal canal appreciably. In some cultures, notably some areas of the Arab world, the tightness of the vagina is valued to an extraordinary degree, a value system that leads men to desire inexperienced or young girls as coital partners and, similarly, to appreciate anal copulation.
Nor is anal intercourse necessarily lacking in appeal for females. Those with strong masochistic tendencies are especially prone to find it enjoyable if the pain is not over-intense. Others may enjoy the act if it may be carried out without causing pain or discomfort. For women who are anally erotic, who have no repugnance for the act, and who are not injured or hurt by it, the practice may prove either an enjoyable alternative to coitus, or in some instances, a preferable substitute.
Most coital postures lend themselves to buggery through simple substitution of the anus for the vagina as the target. The two positions most commonly employed are the rear-entry posture, generally with the woman kneeling or bending forward and the man hunched over her, his penis inserted into her anus; and the man above posture, with the woman’s knees drawn fully forward against her breasts so that anal entry is rendered simpler. Countle
ss variations on these twin themes are possible and have been variously recorded.
The general paucity of anal secretions poses a problem; if remedied, a large portion of the pain associated with the act may be circumvented. This is generally achieved through anointing the male sex organ with a lubricant to facilitate entry and minimize friction. Saliva has long been employed for this purpose, and in John Cleland’s Fanny Hill, Fanny watches an incident of homosexual anal intercourse during which one young man “moistens his instrument with his own spittle.” Various oils and creams may also prove suitable.
The acquisition of control over the anal sphincter and the development of the ability to dilate the anus at will is an important technical skill to be employed by the female partner to the act. Opium has been cited in various Oriental works as facilitating painless buggery, but one wonders whether it relaxes the anus or merely mutes the pain. Yogic muscular control, perhaps attainable through practice in the course of defecation, may be of value.
The Ananga Ranga recommends that the passive partner in sodomy take care to evacuate the bowels and cleanse the area thoroughly before the act.
Anilingus, or oral stimulation of the anus, is a relatively rare sexual practice that an overwhelming majority of individuals find offensive. It is occasionally combined with cunnilingus and is somewhat more frequently employed as a prelude to anal copulation. No doubt it may serve both to moisten and hence lubricate the anus and to stimulate anal eroticism.
Eros & Capricorn: A Cross-Cultural Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Techniques (John Warren Wells on Sexual Behavior Book 1) Page 12
