American Girls On Their Knees: Teenage Oral Sex Craze Is Sweeping The Nation

Religions > Atheism > American Girls On Their Knees: Teenage Oral Sex Craze Is Sweeping The Nation

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"words of truth"
Date:	26 Jan 2006 01:26:29 PM
Object:	American Girls On Their Knees: Teenage Oral Sex Craze Is Sweeping The Nation

http://www.powells.com/review/2006_01_17.html
Are You There God? It's Me, Monica
A Review by Caitlin Flanagan
The first time I heard a mother of girls talk about the teenage
oral-sex craze, I made her cry. The story she told me -- about a bar
mitzvah dinner dance on the North Shore of Chicago, where the girls
serviced all the boys on the chartered bus from the temple to the
reception hall -- was so preposterous that I burst out laughing. The
thought of thirteen-year-old girls in party dresses performing a sex
act once considered the province of prostitutes (we are talking here
about the on-your-knees variety given to a series of near strangers)
was so ludicrous that all I could do was giggle.
It was as though I had taken lightly the news that a pedophile had
moved into my friend's neighborhood. It was as though I had laughed
about a leukemia cluster or a lethal stretch of freeway. I apologized
profusely; I told her I hadn't known.
The moms in my set are convinced -- they're certain; they know for a
fact -- that all over the city, in the very best schools, in the nicest
families, in the leafiest neighborhoods, twelve- and thirteen-year-old
girls are performing oral sex on as many boys as they can. They're
ducking into janitors' closets between classes to do it; they're doing
it on school buses, and in bathrooms, libraries, and stairwells.
They're making bar mitzvah presents of the act, and performing it at
"train parties": boys lined up on one side of the room, girls working
their way down the row. The circle jerk of old -- shivering Boy Scouts
huddled together in the forest primeval, desperately trying to spank
out the first few drops of their own manhood -- has apparently moved
indoors, and now (death knell of the Eagle Scout?) there's a bevy of
willing girls to do the work.
When I first began hearing these stories, I was convinced that we were
in the grips of a nationwide urban legend, and the prevalence of
stories centered on bar mitzvahs seemed to me suspicious, possibly even
anti-Semitic in origin. But sure enough, in 2003 a feminist Jewish
quarterly called Lilith addressed the story -- not to debunk it but to
come to terms with it as a recognized problem within the Jewish
community: "No one is suggesting, even for a moment, that Jewish teens
are leading the oral sex revolution. But they may have earlier and more
frequent opportunities for sexual contact in a supercharged social
milieu than their non-Jewish peers." The authors observe that the oral
sex is "almost always unilateral (girls on boys)."
In talking with people, I found only one verifiable account of a girl
servicing more than one boy at a party. But the army of school
administrators and teachers and parents and girls I spoke with
convincingly reported an astonishing change in the sexual behavior of
middle- and upper-middle-class girls. Fellatio, which was once a part
of the sexual repertoire only of experienced women, is now commonly
performed by very young girls outside of romantic relationships,
casually and without any expectation of reciprocation. It used to be
that a hopeful recipient of fellatio had a lot of talking to do -- to
persuade, and very often to instruct, his partner. (The Sensuous Woman,
published in 1969, was shocking for a number of reasons, but most of
all because it gave to its audience of middle-class woman explicit
instructions on how to perform oral sex. "Now don't turn up your nose
and make that ugly face!" says the anonymous author, "J." Oral sex is
the "preferred way with many movie stars, artists, titled Europeans and
jet setters.")
Nowadays girls don't consider oral sex in the least exotic -- nor do
they even consider it to be sex. It's just "something to do." A friend
who attended a leadership conference for girls from some of the
country's top schools told me, "Friendships haven't changed a bit since
our day. But sex has changed a lot." One of the teachers, from an
eastern boarding school, told the students that when she was young, in
the 1960s, oral sex was considered far more intimate than intercourse.
The kids hooted at the notion. "It's like licking a lollipop," one
pretty girl from a prestigious girls' school said, flipping her hair in
the ancient gesture of teenage certainty. "It's no big deal."
Somehow these girls have developed the indifferent attitude toward
performing oral sex that one would associate with bitter, long-married
women or streetwalkers. But they think of themselves as normal
teenagers, version 2005. For a while, whenever I passed groups of young
girls, I looked at them anew. Were these nice kids -- the ones playing
AYSO soccer and doing their homework and shopping with their moms --
behaving like little whores whenever they got the chance? It was like
some weird search for communists -- was the sweet, well-spoken daughter
of a friend actually a blowjobber? I looked at the small girls in my
children's schoolyard -- as cosseted and protected and beloved a group
of children as you will find anywhere on the planet -- and tried to
convince myself that in a matter of five or six years they would be
performing oral sex on virtual strangers.
It was crazy! It simply couldn't be true.
Last spring there were glimmers of hope. Ruth Padawer, a senior writer
for The (Bergen, New Jersey) Record, wrote an editorial that was widely
syndicated because of its balm of good news. Apparently there was word
around town that eighth-graders were having oral sex behind the dugout
during recess. (One thing to note about the oral-sex panic is the
insistently wholesome locations in which the sex is said to occur.) But
readers should dismiss the gossip: "According to several well-respected
national surveys, the chatter apparently far surpasses action among
young adolescents." A month later David Brooks wrote a very reasonable
New York Times editorial about teen sex, called "Public Hedonism and
Private Restraint," in which he said, "Reports of an epidemic of
teenage oral sex are ... greatly exaggerated. There's very little
evidence to suggest it is really happening."
However, the axe came down in September. A huge report was issued by
the National Center for Health Statistics. It covered the topic of
teenage oral sex more extensively than any previous study, and the news
was devastating: A quarter of girls aged fifteen had engaged in it, and
more than half aged seventeen. Obviously, there was no previous data to
compare this with, but millions of suburban dads were quite adamant
that they had been born too soon.
The moms were traumatized anew. "It's like there's a bogeyman in the
next room, and we keep praying for him to go away," a friend who has a
seventh-grade daughter told me. "But he won't."
The conviction that nice girls are engaging in no-strings-attached,
semi-anonymous fellatio is based on a genuine and puzzling change in
teen sexual behavior. It is manifested in a group hysteria in which
terrified adults have projected onto their children superhuman sexual
capabilities and technical prowess. And it is reflective of the fact
that the dominant culture in this country -- one forged by the
apparently opposed forces of male sexual desire and female empowerment
-- has abandoned girls in every possible respect. These three factors
worked their way into literature this summer with a book that
historians may someday regard as the single biggest clue to the
cultural anxieties surrounding the American teenage girl circa 2005:
The Rainbow Party, by Paul Ruditis.
The Rainbow Party, an offering from Simon Pulse, a young-adult division
of Simon & Schuster, takes place on a single day, in which a tough
little sophomore named Gin issues invitations to a party at which she
and five of her friends will perform oral sex on the lucky guests, a
group of popular boys. The girls will each wear a different color of
lipstick, so that when a boy has completed the circuit, his penis will
bear the colors of the rainbow. The party is to take place after
school, to last about an hour and a half -- including time for chitchat
-- and to conclude before Gin's father returns home from work.
In addition to the predictable, outraged criticism that this vile book
has received, there is a question of veracity: as many readers have
noted, wouldn't the different colors of lipstick smear together,
destroying the desired rainbow effect? Not once, however, has another
question been posed: How many boys could successfully receive seven
blowjobs in an hour? Surely even the adolescent male at the peak of his
sexual prime needs at least a few minutes to reload. One would assume
that the first transaction would be completed at light speed, that the
second might take a bit longer -- and that by the fourth or fifth even
the horniest tenth-grader might display some real staying power. But
asking questions like these will automatically preclude you from
entering the current oral-sex hysteria, which presupposes not only that
a limitless number of young American girls have taken on the sexual
practices of porn queens but also that American boys are capable of
having an infinite number of sexual experiences in rapid succession. It
requires believing that a boy could be serviced at the school-bus train
party -- receiving oral sex from ten or fifteen girls, one after
another -- and then zip his fly and head off to homeroom, first
stopping in the stairwell for a quickie to tide him over until math.
The Rainbow Party has the feeling of true pornography. In particular,
it has the feeling of homosexual-male pornography. The school is called
Harding High, and the prose takes a quickening, vivid leap forward when
two boys, Hunter and Perry, duck into the school bathroom, where Perry
services his pal and then wonders if they might be gay. Otherwise the
book is inert, obscene without being erotic, its slim narrative
structure insufficient for the gimmickry of its premise. The party is
eventually undermined by a series of debacles, leaving Gin and her pal
Sandy alone to service the crowd -- and then the boys can't even be
bothered to show up. This is clearly a high school humiliation of an
entirely new and apocalyptic order. What if you gave a ***** party
but nobody came? Injury to insult, Gin gets the clap, victim and
catalyst of a school-wide gonorrhea outbreak.
The book's sole effective literary technique is achieved
unintentionally: The Rainbow Party is so leaden and formulaic, so
completely deadened to any of the possibilities of fiction, that it
mirrors the way girls are said to feel about fellatio -- jaded and
shockproof. (It's not just Hunter and Perry's high jinks in the
restroom that put one in mind of bathhouse culture. Almost everything
about the current ***** craze -- the randomness of the sexual
encounters; the fact that they're apparently devoid of meaning beyond
the immediate gratification of male desire, that neither party is
inclined to say "no," that little consideration is given to female
desire, or even female anatomy -- suggests a strain of gay male sex
more than it does traditional male-female relationships.) It is hard to
imagine that a person could read a novel like that and feel genuine
emotion of any kind. In this way it is the exact opposite of the novel
that was for me, and many of my high school friends, the most powerful
book of our young lives. Not since Uncle Tom's Cabin has a single novel
by an American woman prompted so many readers into such radical action.
I speak, of course, about Judy Blume's Forever.
Judy Blume, who has sold more than 75 million books, been awarded the
National Book Foundation's Medal for Distinguished Contribution to
American Letters, and been called one of the most banned writers in
America, began writing for children in the 1960s. She married young,
established housekeeping in suburban New Jersey, and promptly had two
children. She loved the kids but loathed the housewifery, and as a
creative outlet took a class in children's literature.
Blume describes her childhood as one in which she was "dying with
curiosity" about sex, but there was nowhere in the 1940s and 1950s for
a nice girl to get any information. The memory of that burning
curiosity led her to write a novel about a twelve-year-old waiting to
get her period, Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret. Before the
publication of this seminal work, a bookish girl interested in the
emotions and practicalities surrounding menstruation would be nudged by
a sympathetic teacher toward the diary of Anne Frank, which sure enough
addresses the subject with candor, but the general mood of the book --
what with the Holocaust and all -- did not generate much enthusiasm for
the menses. The dearest book of my childhood, Betty Smith's A Tree
Grows in Brooklyn, includes Francie's first period, but again, the
novel's no upper: shortly after first blood Francie is assaulted by a
pervert in a tenement hallway. I was in seventh grade when The Exorcist
was released. No one my age was allowed anywhere near it, but we were
well versed in the plot (the implications of which were clear, if
unspoken, to all of my friends): a prepubescent girl -- a girl our age,
on the cusp of the same event we were -- was overtaken body and soul
not by the Kotex cartel but by the devil himself. At twelve I knew a
few basic facts about menstruation -- it somehow involved babies and
shedding a lining and blood everywhere -- and was possessed by an
unholy fear of it.
And then I went to Naomi Zimmerman's birthday party, and while the
other girls slumbered through the night, I stayed up and read one of
the presents, a brand-new copy of Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret.
By dawn I was a new girl. Here was a character on the brink of getting
her first period, but she wasn't being hunted by sex fiends or Nazis or
Beelzebub. She wasn't frightened by what was about to happen -- she
couldn't wait. And her wonderful family couldn't wait either.
Reading Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret for the first time in
thirty years meant realizing anew that the world of my childhood is as
distant and unrecoverable as that of the Etruscans. Margaret and I were
young during a time when little girls dreamed of getting the courage to
ask their mothers for training bras, attended carefully supervised
dances, eagerly wore clothes that the modern preteen would sooner die
than put on. ("Should I wear my velvet?" Margaret asks her mother when
she learns she's been invited to a boy-girl supper party. "It's your
best," her mother replies.) In Margaret's world the boys can't be
counted on to maintain a grown-up demeanor for these events: they
disappoint the girls by stomping on their toes during a PTA-sponsored
square dance; at the supper party they throw their sports coats in a
pile and shoot mustard at the ceiling through drinking straws. But it
is also the boys who are responsible for introducing the first
glimmerings of sex to the group. When a boy suggests that they turn off
the light and play Guess Who -- "the boys line up on one side and the
girls on the other and then when I yell Go the boys run to the girls'
side and try to guess who's who by the way they feel" -- the girls put
on the brakes immediately. ("'No, thank you,' Gretchen said. 'That's
disgusting!'") The girls agree to a game of Spin the Bottle, however,
and that night Margaret gets her first thrilling, fleeting kiss. The
novel ends in triumph: three drops of blood on Margaret's underpants,
discovered the day of the sixth-grade farewell party, mean that she has
left childhood behind.
Through all of these events Margaret's parents are by her side, helping
her to negotiate her excitement and her fears, congratulating her on
each of the steps she makes toward womanhood. And if they give her
plenty of support when she gets her first period, by the time she's
ready -- at age seventeen -- to have her first sexual experience, they
practically stand by the bed and take photographs to put in the family
scrapbook. For despite the fact that the protagonist in Forever is
named Katherine, she is really Margaret a few years older, still living
in suburban New Jersey, still a good girl with good parents. Forever is
the first mainstream novel written for American teenage girls that is
not only sexually explicit but also intentionally erotic, and that
gives them the exact information -- practical as well as emotional --
to initiate a satisfying sex life.
Again, consider what had come before. As a teenage girl in the early
1970s who was as desperately curious about sex as Judy Blume had been
in the fifties, I read everything I could lay my hands on. I turned to
novels for information about sex not because I'm a reader but because
when I was young they were among the few places a nice girl could find
any. (Love, American Style was risqu=E9, but it was hardly explicit.) To
my parents' dismay I read Valley of the Dolls more times than I could
count, but Jacqueline Susann's attitude toward human sexuality was of a
piece with her prose: whorish and dirty. Goodbye, Columbus commanded my
attention, but you don't turn to Philip Roth if you want to learn how
to go all the way with a really nice boyfriend.
Adults were quick to stick you with The Bell Jar, which you were
supposed to lap up with zesty gratitude because of its racy subject
matter, but I smelled a rat from the get-go. Even at sixteen I could
tell that the book was overpraised, a stealth weapon of grownups eager
to appear progressive in their literary suggestions for teenagers but
secretly dying for you to get an eyeful of Esther's first sexual
experience: recovering from a suicide attempt, on furlough from a
psychiatric ward, she does the deed with an older man and almost
hemorrhages to death.
The only books I'd seen that placed sex where I wanted to find it -- in
the middle of a committed relationship, with the boy treating the girl
as if she were a fragile piece of glass, and their love so powerful
that it threatened to blot them both out -- were the pregnancy-scare
books that had been passed from hand to hand among the girls at my
Catholic junior high. Written in the 1960s, they invariably involved a
supersmart girl (family: respectable, middle-class) and a really neat,
ambitious boy (his people would be working-class; their great dream
would be for their son to become a college boy). Always they would make
a terrible mistake one night; always it would turn out to have been one
shot with a bullet: dead rabbit and hell to pay. They would grapple
with the most serious kinds of decision-making, and always (this is why
we devoured these books and dreamed about them) the couple ended up
married at sixteen, living in garage apartments or guesthouses. Books
like Too Bad About the Haines Girl and Mr. and Mrs. Bo Jo Jones were
supposed to frighten us away from sex, lest we become tragic girls
ourselves. But they were so clearly built upon a commonly accepted and
deeply stirring code of male honor -- an almost chivalric set of
principles, handed down through the centuries, and still in practice in
the American suburbs of the 1960s -- that we were dazzled by them, and
regarded them as the greatest love stories ever told. Which, in a
sense, they were.
And then: Forever. If Hollywood movies of the 1930s taught my parents
how to kiss, Forever taught me how to have sex. This was sex the way
girls wanted to read about it, the way they wanted to experience it:
immersed in romance. Katherine and Michael are college-bound high
school seniors from nice families. Katherine's parents are so
exquisitely in tune with the physical and emotional progress of her
relationship that one wonders if they've planted a wire on her. The
grandmother who in Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret? sent sweaters
with labels that read made expressly for you ... by grandma now sends
Planned Parenthood brochures with a note reading, "I don't judge, I
just advise." Katherine's mother leaves a New York Times article about
teen sex on her daughter's pillow one night, and they rap about it the
next morning. "A person shouldn't ever feel pushed into sex," Katherine
tells her mom. "Or that she has to do it to please someone else ..."
"I'm glad you feel that way," Mom says approvingly. Was Mom, Katherine
asks, a virgin when she got married? No, but she's had sex only with
Dad, and she waited until they were engaged.
Where Margaret offered highly specific information about sanitary pads
and belts, Forever takes us straight to the birth-control clinic, and
it doesn't flinch. ("Then he slipped this cold thing into my vagina and
explained, 'This is a vaginal speculum. It holds the walls of the
vagina open so that the inside is easily seen. Would you like to see
your cervix?'")
Armed with birth-control pills, with a code of sexual ethics that
center on a girl's cautious willingness and a boy's patient and full
commitment to her, and with a final health clearance (Michael admits
that the previous summer he contracted VD from his only other sexual
partner, but he's fine now), Katherine and Michael are off to the
races. Anyone who rereads Forever and expects to find it much tamer
than she remembers is in for a shock: "This time Michael made it last
much, much longer and I got so carried away I grabbed his backside with
both hands, trying to push him deeper and deeper into me -- and I
spread my legs as far apart as I could -- and I raised my hips off the
bed -- and I moved with him, again and again and again -- and at last I
came."
The question is this: How, exactly, in the course of thirty years, did
we get from Katherine to Gin? How did we go from a middle-class teenage
girl (fictional but broadly accurate) who will have sex only if it's
with her boyfriend, and only if her pleasure is equal to his, to a
middle-class teenage girl (a gross media caricature reflective of an
admittedly disturbing trend) who wants to kneel down and service a
series of boys? Katherine and her mother (who still enjoys a
pleasurable sex life with her husband) represent two points on a
continuum. In the mother's generation sex was contained by marriage; in
the daughter's it was contained by love and relationships. The next
point on this progression ought to be a girl who feels that nothing
save her own desire should control her choice of sexual partners.
Instead we see a group of young girls who have in effect turned away
from their own desire altogether and have made of their sexuality
something that fulfills all sorts of goals, but not the one paramount
to Katherine and her mother: that it be sexually gratifying to
themselves.
Tracing the story of the writing and publication of The Rainbow Party
requires an examination of two forces: the genuine and perplexing rise
of oral sex among teenagers -- specifically of oral sex performed by
young girls on boys -- and the media-fueled hysteria of girls' parents,
which has prompted tales of orgiastic tween encounters suggesting that
every ninth-grade noodlehead is leading an erotic life worthy of the
NBA all-stars. The story does not begin with a million moms opening
their coat closets as one, only to watch in horror as their pre-teen
daughters tumble out alongside tumescent chums from chess club. It
begins -- is nowhere safe? -- with PBS. In 1999 the network broadcast
an episode of Frontline that became legendary. Called "The Lost
Children of Rockdale County," it centered on a teen syphilis outbreak
in Conyers, Georgia, an exurb of Atlanta where vast acres of farmland
have been converted into subdivisions of large, handsome houses, and
where the three local high schools, flush with tax dollars, are among
the best in the state. The show became a sensation, was repeatedly
rebroadcast, and was featured on Oprah, where it was called a "must see
for all parents."
"The Lost Children of Rockdale County" is a bizarre program that takes
isolated teen depravity, anxious adult voyeurism, and an ever important
dash of venereal disease and blends them into a vividly yellow piece of
public-service journalism -- one that typically exaggerates the what,
and in so doing just as typically overlooks the why behind a less
sensational but far more pervasive concern. The tale is told largely by
middle-aged women who are at turns clinically matter-of-fact about and
pruriently fascinated by what happened in Conyers. A small group of
white girls from stupendously troubled families (the kids are described
as "cherubic" for maximum effect) began meeting in one of the girls'
houses after school -- and sometimes in a motel room -- to do drugs and
service two groups of rough trade, one of local white boys, the other
of African-American boys (a recent prison inmate among them) who
commuted from a different part of the county to avail themselves of the
girls. Oral sex wasn't the half of it -- what these kids allegedly
engaged in combined the degeneracy of a satanic cult with the agility
of a Cirque du Soleil troupe. We are told that a common after-school
activity in Conyers was "the sandwich," in which a girl would be
simultaneously penetrated by as many as four boys (the fourth,
apparently a Johnny-come-lately, would somehow shoehorn himself into an
orifice already occupied by one of his pals). With the kids in Conyers
exploiting virtually every known opening for sexual transmission, an
outbreak was not unlikely. It spread to seventeen kids, who were
treated and who recovered fully.
But the show also contains interviews with kids who had nothing to do
with this horrifying and aberrant episode, kids who seem adrift in the
increasingly isolating family culture that was being born in the
nineties. They speak of family members who have televisions in their
own rooms, who never eat dinner together, who live with one another in
the sepulchral McMansions of Conyers the way people live together in
hotels: nodding politely as they pass on the stairs, aware of one
another's schedules and routines but only in a vague, indifferent
manner. These are kids -- girls especially -- who have developed a
dull, curiously passionless relationship to their own sexuality, which
they give of freely. The girls seem sad that their easily granted
sexual favors (including oral sex) have not earned them boyfriends, and
completely unaware of how they could have negotiated the transactions
differently.
The producers ingeniously and dishonorably encourage the viewer to meld
these two different stories together, that of the diseased, freaky
girls and their multi-pronged campaign of self-destruction, and that of
the sad, sexually precocious normal kids -- in short, to link the
activities of the latter with the outcomes of the former. And thus the
oral-sex hysteria was officially born. The belief that casual oral sex
in a middle-class school community was an invitation to a teenage
public-health threat of epidemic proportions gave the media license to
talk about it endlessly and in the most graphic terms imaginable --
following the silence =3D death formulation created during the height of
the American AIDS crisis, which encouraged frank public sexual
discourse in the hope of saving lives. It's a no-miss formula:
descriptions of young girls performing oral sex that are so luridly
specific as to seem pedophilic in the adults' retelling, coupled with
stern warnings to parents that their daughters are in harm's way. All
of which misses a less alarming but more poignant fact. What's most
worrisome about this age of blas=E9 blowjobs isn't what the girls might
catch (one can contract an STD through oral sex alone; however, the
risk is lower than for most other forms of sexual transmission), it's
what the girls are almost certainly losing: a healthy emotional
connection to their own sexuality and their own desire. In this context
all the unflinching medico-sexual naughty talk is but a cowardly
evasion of a more insidious problem -- one resistant to penicillin.
Four months after the Frontline documentary aired, Talk magazine
published an essay called "The Sex Lives of Your Children." Its author,
Lucinda Franks, described an upper-middle-class white world in which
oral sex began at age twelve, and said -- in perhaps the first
published use of the term -- that train parties abounded. For the sake
of journalistic accuracy she reported a twelve-year-old girl's
description of the taste of sperm, and during an NPR radio interview
about her essay she referred to the Conyers incident in the wildly
inaccurate way in which the episode had quickly passed into the
national consciousness: in Rockdale County, Georgia, "a whole town --
the kids came down with syphilis."
Two years later Oprah invited Dr. Phil to her television show to
address the topic. "There's an oral-sex epidemic," Oprah told the
audience point-blank. Teary mothers related their horrifying stories:
"A year or two ago she was playing with Barbies and collecting Beanie
Babies. And then now all of a sudden she's into casual oral sex!"
Wide-eyed young girls spilled the beans on their slutty classmates, and
intimated that they themselves weren't so different. That the entire
subject is ugly and fraught was underscored when Dr. Phil decided to
confront a young blowjobber about the error of her ways. She was
sitting in the front row next to her mother, who was apparently hoping
that public humiliation on a global scale might reform her daughter.
Dr. Phil, who has the vast, impenetrable physique of a pachyderm and
the calculated folksiness of a country-music promoter, employs a
psychotherapeutic cloak of respectability to legitimize his many
prurient obsessions. "When you're saying 'It's just friends,' let me
tell you," he raged at the poor girl, "a friend doesn't ask you to go
in the bathroom, get on your knees in a urine-splattered tile floor,
and stick their penis in your mouth. That's not what I call a friend."
(Poor Howard Stern has spent years alternately outraged and heartbroken
about the FCC's refusal to sanction women's talk shows the way it does
his morning show, and episodes like this make you realize he has a
point.)
As the audience roared its approval (whether for chastity or obscenity
was unclear), the girl looked stricken and angry. "That's not what
happened to me," she whispered audibly to her mother, who whispered
back, "Tell him." But the girl was understandably cowed by the specter
of Dr. Phil on one of his verbal stampedes, and she said nothing,
leaving him clueless about a major aspect of the oral-sex craze. No boy
had forced the girl anywhere. In all likelihood she herself had been
the initiator, the location scout, the one who had decided that this
was indeed an activity that could take place between two "friends."
(The oral-sex hysteria has attributed to American boys not only
superhuman virility but also wanton emotional cruelty. The one is
laughable; the other in the main is just not the case. Like the medical
dodge, the demonization of boys oversimplifies the problem and spares
one the arguably sadder truth.)
In 2003 Oprah addressed the topic again: in an article in O magazine
that she also featured on her television show. "Parents, brace
yourselves," Oprah said. Teenagers are leading "double lives" -- and we
all need to get hip to the code words they use. The journalist who
wrote the article got right to the point: A "tossed salad," for
example, was "oral sex to the *****." A "dirty" girl was a diseased one.
And a "rainbow party" was a ***** party where the girls wore
different-colored lipstick.
Apparently taking a break from her toil in the vineyard of belles
lettres -- relaxing, in fact, by watching Oprah -- was Bethany Buck, a
Simon & Schuster editrix who smelled a winner. She contacted Ruditis
(one of whose previous books was The Brady Bunch Guide to Life); they
created characters and an outline; and he was sent off to type the
thing up.
The oral-sex craze -- and in particular girls' insistence that blowjobs
"aren't sex" -- has often been blamed on Bill Clinton and his semantic
calisthenics during the Kenneth Starr investigation. But even if teen
girls were looking to the White House for personal guidance, was it
really Bubba they were trying to emulate? Girls' private lives are
always much more influenced by First Daughters, or even First Ladies,
than they are by any pasty politico. Furthermore, and more damning to
the blame-Clinton argument, the events chronicled in "The Lost Children
of Rockdale County" occurred two years before it was revealed that
Monica Lewinsky (hardly an aspirational figure to the young girls of
America, who wanted neither to fellate middle-aged men nor to wear
beastly Gap suit-dresses) had flashed her XXL thong at him and got out
her "presidential kneepads." And anyway, what culture had Monica
emerged from that she was eager merely to give the great man a *****
-- that her highest sexual ambition was not to become his Mrs. Bo Jo
Jones but simply (read the federally funded Starr report, if you must)
to have him ejaculate in her mouth? Indeed, to hear Monica tell it, the
meanest thing Bill did to her wasn't to refuse her phone calls and give
her a dorky book of poems. No, in Monica's world Bill was a big creep
because at the critical moment he withdrew the presidential organ and
jacked off over the sink -- a sexual decision that might once have been
considered sort of thoughtful (remember the three biggest lies,
anyone?) but in the new order is somehow a mark of disrespect.
***** nation has also been blamed on "abstinence only" sex-education
programs. In this line of thinking the evil Republicans have made such
a fetish of the intact hymen that teenagers -- parsing the term "sexual
abstinence" with Jesuitical precision -- have decided to substitute
oral sex for intercourse, thereby preserving their technical virginity.
I'm no fan of these programs. In light of advances in birth control and
the economic advisability of delaying marriage until after the college
years, sexual purity seems a goal best advanced by those religions that
advocate it, not by our public schools. But even if "abstinence" is at
stake, why would girls voluntarily turn to giving blowjobs? Whatever
happened to the hand job? Whither the dry hump? Why do girls prefer the
far more debasing, uncomfortable, and messy *****? And why are they
apparently giving them out so indiscriminately? These are questions
that none of the usual suspects can answer.
Wherever there's a girl gone wild, there's a gender-studies professor
not far behind, eager to blame her actions on the patriarchy. One of
these is NYU's Julian Carter, who says that oral sex among young teen
girls is part of a complex power dynamic, one that is familiar to
people who know how Carol Gilligan's influential book In a Different
Voice has dominated feminist thinking. Says Carter: "It's precisely at
this age of early adolescence that ... girls' sense of self-worth
changes dramatically ... this is when they are finding out they have
less power within a patriarchal system ..." According to Carter's
theory, the girls are apparently suffering from a severe form of
Stockholm syndrome, and have reacted by performing oral sex on their
wily captors.
The problem with this idea is that surely the patriarchy was far
stronger and more oppressive in the 1950s. But you don't find Betty --
or even Veronica -- cravenly servicing Archie and Jughead. Indeed,
during the very years that the patriarchy has been most seriously
eroded, we have seen a cult of mortification of the flesh take root
among teenage girls. The anorexia and bulimia that swept the teen
population in the eighties, the "cutting" fad of the nineties, and now
this strange new preference for unreciprocated oral sex all evolved as
the patriarchy was being crippled, as new and untested roles were being
offered to the country's girls.
One might expect that Planned Parenthood would have nothing to say on
this subject; oral sex may have many risks, but parenthood isn't one of
them. When I recently logged on, I learned a lot. The organization --
which receives 32 percent of its funding from the federal government --
had on its home page a lengthy description of Supreme Court nominee
Samuel Alito's "Strategy to Gut Roe," but I quickly drilled past that,
straight down to the Teen Wire department, where the "experts" have
helpfully answered all sorts of teen questions, from "Can I lose my
virginity if my boyfriend fingers me?" to whether the insertion of
"objects" during masturbation is recommended. (The experts said it was
all in good fun, but as a nervous mom I couldn't help wondering what
kind of objects.) Leaving behind reproductive matters entirely, the
site also indulged in unabashed sexual advocacy, offering a 411 on oral
sex. For example: "Oral sex -- using one's mouth on a partner's sex
organs -- feels good to many people. There's nothing wrong or nasty
about having oral sex whether a person is receiving or giving it. Both
girls and guys may want to perform oral sex on their partners because
they enjoy giving it." And "Some people enjoy giving oral sex whether
or not they are being stimulated at the same time. Some people can only
enjoy giving oral sex when they are being stimulated at the same time.
And some people [frigid cranky Mormons? Laura Bush? Total losers?] do
not enjoy providing or receiving oral sex at all."
Parents could click on a helpful report from Rutgers University's "Oral
Sex Lady," Nora Gelperin. She digs her job, which involves providing
teenagers with information about oral sex, an activity for which she's
sort of a booster. She does offer some tips for those who want to curb
the oral-sex trend: they should have bull sessions with groups of kids
to "illuminate the variety of teens' opinions about oral sex," in order
to "more accurately reflect the range of opinions instead of continuing
to propagate the stereotype that 'all teens are having oral sex.'" In
other words, instead of the adult instructing kids in what is right and
wrong and telling them what is expected of them, the kids themselves
should seek direction from each other. A mother concerned that her
daughter has turned to performing oral sex on strangers at age twelve
should bear this in mind: "We must not forget that the desire of early
adolescents to feel sexual pleasure is normal and natural and should be
celebrated, not censored." (DAD: Geez I had a rough day at the office.
MOM: Put it out of your mind, honey. Trudy just told me that we have
something very special to celebrate!)
For me, the most shocking moment in "The Lost Children of Rockdale
County" -- more shocking even than "the sandwich" -- involves three
giggly blonde best friends forever who give an extensive, girly
interview while sitting in one of their bedrooms, surrounded by stuffed
animals. At a certain point one of the producers asks them what kind of
music they like, and they all squeal, "Rap!" "Give me an example," the
coaxing producer says to them. The girls decide to sing for her, and
their sweet, piping voices flow easily over the lyrics, which they all
know by heart -- three teenyboppers sitting in a suburban bedroom,
singing their favorite song, "Love in Ya Mouth":
I take 3 little bitches and I put 'em
in a line
I take 4, 5, 6 and blow 'dem hos
mind
It'll take 1 more before I go for
mine
7 bitches get fucked at the same
time
She eats me, sun she, she can suck
a ding dong
All day all night all evenin long
She said she neva done it, she said
she neva tried
Shes sittin there tellin a motha-
fuckin lie
Now, how many licks does it take to
make my ***** split
Well, not many licks if the ***** is
a good trick
Now, any nigga can talk to a *****
and get the ***** to *****
But how many ***** can talk to a
***** and get they ***** sucked
Like me a pimp that you neva saw
Now how do you say "manger et
trois" [uh, sic]
One of the most astonishing things to happen during the 1990s was that
rap music that included some of the most violent, sexually explicit,
and misogynistic lyrics ever recorded slipped seamlessly and virtually
unnoticed into the households of so many apparently responsible
American families. Boomer parents, remembering their own struggles with
their square parents over rock-and-roll, were lenient about their kids'
music. Tipper Gore's heroic campaign to get explicit music rated and
labeled was born after she decided to do something few parents had even
attempted: actually listen to the albums her kids had bought. She was
ridiculed by many factions, including those forces on the American left
who cry censorship whenever anyone attempts to protect the public,
including children, from smut (and in the case of rap, smut emanating
from a source the left valorizes: black urban America). In the summer
of 2004 Bill Cosby brought down a hail of criticism when he lambasted
the hip-hop culture as a shameful squandering of the civil-rights gains
that his generation had fought for and won.
But the protests of white senators' wives and African-American senior
citizens have not had much effect on music sales, and have not
prevented a large number of poor and middle-class kids alike from
becoming saturated by the world of spoken-word, hard-core pornography
that is rap music. Add to this the countless other products of our
increasingly sexualized teen culture, in which male sexual fantasy of
the type once reserved for prison-yard posturing has been adopted and
championed by very young girls who stand only to be brutalized by it --
emotionally, if not physically.
Ironically, many of the objectives stated in rap lyrics are the same as
those of contemporary American feminism: to encourage girls not to be
shackled by the double standard and to abandon modesty as a goal, to
erode patriarchal notions of how men ought to treat women, and to
champion aggressiveness in girls. It was very possible for a girl in
the nineties to have her well-intentioned parents buy her a CD in which
she was urged to suck ***** and get fucked, and to have a
well-intentioned teacher (I was one such) tell her to be as
intellectually and verbally aggressive as she could -- that aggression
for its own sake was a good thing, because it leveled the playing field
in a male-dominated world.
At the same time, actual pornography -- once the province of the most
marginalized and criminally suspect performers and businessmen; once a
slice of illicit commerce entirely beyond the purview of decent society
-- was entering the mainstream. It became possible to find porn star
Jenna Jameson discussing her trade with the likes of Anderson Cooper on
CNN. It was possible, furthermore, to discover that she was being
interviewed not as a fallen woman but as a successful businessperson.
Simultaneously, feminists were turning themselves into pretzels trying
to get together a coherent policy on pornography. Obviously it was
exploitative -- unless it wasn't. Because if it was explicit sexual
material made for the arousal of women, then it was somehow ...
empowering? And how to deal with the Jenna Jamesons of the world, who
were proving themselves to be feminist powerhouses, keeping the
government out of private decisions about their own bodies (thank you,
abortion rhetoric!) and profiting handsomely from the results?
When I was in eleventh grade, I invited a new boyfriend to come to my
house after school one day. My mother was outside gardening, or maybe
she was on the telephone, or reading -- she was around, but through a
glass. The boy and I made Top Ramen at the stove, and afterward I
invited him to come up to my bedroom. I had never been told not to do
such a thing; I seemed then to be lacking a lot of clear information
about what I could and could not do. My parents were preoccupied at the
time with other things. I was the youngest girl in a daughter-raising
project that they appeared to think had gone terribly wrong. They were
no longer giving the enterprise their full oomph.
In the bedroom the atmosphere was charged. I remember that he sat on my
Pier 1 wicker chair, and that I showed him my wall calendar, which had
a different, adorable kitten for each month. And then, abruptly, I said
that we should go back downstairs, and he stood -- immediately -- and
followed me. At the foot of the stairs we found my mother, looking as
though she had been close to charging up.
"Never bring a boy to your bedroom," she told me afterward.
"Why not?"
There was a fumbling for words, and then an answer: "Because he might
go to school and tell other boys what your comforter looks like."
It was a white Dior comforter with yellow rosebuds and matching sheets.
The bed was a Sears four-poster princess bed, a little-girl's bed, but
we had taken off the canopy and added the Dior linens to dress it up
for a teenager. I had wanted pink roses, but the pink had not
unexpectedly gone on sale at the El Cerrito Capwell's. The yellow had.
"That's so stupid," I yelled at my mother. "Just so completely stupid!"
She sighed wearily -- the raising-girls sigh, the sigh of bottomless
despair. Why hadn't she thrown herself off the Golden Gate Bridge at
last opportunity? Why had she ever been so foolish as to think it was
good news each time the obstetrician told her she had been delivered of
a girl?
But even in my teenage snit I understood what she was talking about:
not the comforter but my reputation. Not the boy himself (who was a
very nice person -- anyone could tell it just from meeting him) but the
immutable truth about boys: They want most what we keep private. When
it's known, it's lessened.
At the time of my adolescence my mother was too distracted to give me
everything I needed to turn out well. But 20 percent of her attention
was enough, because the whole culture was supporting her. The notion
that a girl should not give her sexuality away too freely was so
solidly built into the national consciousness that my mother didn't
have to snap out of her depression and give me a comprehensive lecture
on boys for me to understand what she meant. It was a period when
artists and entertainers and commercial America in general did not have
untrammeled access to the country's youth. Television shows were
heavily censored, as were radio stations. George Carlin's "Seven Words
You Can't Say on Television" was hilarious not just for its string of
bad words but because of the context in which he invited us to imagine
their use: think of turning on the TV and hearing the word "*****"! Sex
ed in those days was a little like driver's ed: a grimly delivered set
of facts, copiously illustrated with hideous examples of what could go
wrong if you were foolhardy enough to operate the machinery. ("Is there
going to be a test?" a girl asked about the contraception unit. "Your
life is the test," she was told.) At the time, feminists were
distracted by the vast project of American womanhood; they had not yet
turned their attention to the country's girls.
As a parent, I am horrified by the changes that have taken place in the
common culture over the past thirty years. I believe that we are
raising children in a kind of post-apocalyptic landscape in which no
forces beyond individual households -- individual mothers and fathers
-- are protecting children from pornography and violent entertainment.
The "it takes a village" philosophy is a joke, because the village is
now so polluted and so desolate of commonly held, child-appropriate
moral values that my job as a mother is not to rely on the village but
to protect my children from it.
I'm not, however, terrified by the oral-sex craze. If I were to learn
that my children had engaged in oral sex -- outside a romantic
relationship, and as young adolescents -- I would be sad. But I
wouldn't think that they had been damaged by the experience; I wouldn't
think I had failed catastrophically as a mother, or that they would
need therapy. Because I don't have daughters, I have sons.
I am old-fashioned enough to believe that men and boys are not as
likely to be wounded, emotionally and spiritually, by early sexual
experience, or by sexual experience entered into without romantic
commitment, as are women and girls. I think that girls are vulnerable
to great damage through the kind of sex in which they are, as
individuals, as valueless and unrecognizable as chattel. Society has
let its girls down in every possible way. It has refused to assert --
or even to acknowledge -- that female sexuality is as intricately
connected to kindness and trust as it is to gratification and pleasure.
It's in the nature of who we are.
But perhaps the girls themselves understand this essential truth.
As myriad forces were combining to reshape our notions of public
decency and propriety, to ridicule the concept that privacy and dignity
are valuable and allied qualities of character and that exhibitionism
as an end in itself might not be beneficial for a young girl, at the
exact moment when girls were encouraged to think of themselves as
victims of an oppressive patriarchy and to act on an imperative of
default aggression -- at this very time a significant number of young
girls were beginning to form an entirely new code of sexual ethics and
expectations. It was a code in which their own physical pleasure was of
no consequence -- was in fact so entirely beside the point that their
preferred mode of sexual activity was performing unrequited oral sex.
Deep Throat lingers in the popular imagination because it was one of
the few porn movies to trade on an original and inspired premise: what
a perfect world it would be if the clitoris were located in a woman's
throat. In a world like that a man wouldn't have to cajole a woman to
perform fellatio on him; she would be just as eager to get it on as he
was. But this was a fantasy; a girl may derive a variety of
consequences, intended and otherwise, from servicing boys in this
manner, but her own sexual gratification is not one of them. The modern
girl's casual willingness to perform oral sex may -- as some
cool-headed observers of the phenomenon like to propose -- be her way
of maintaining a post-feminist power in her sexual dealings, by being
fully in control of the sexual act and of the pleasure a boy receives
from it. Or it may be her desperate attempt to do something that the
culture refuses to encourage: to keep her own sexuality -- the emotions
and the desires, as well as the anatomical real estate itself --
private, secret, unviolated. It may not be her technical virginity that
she is trying to preserve; it may be her own sexual awakening -- which
is all she really has left to protect anymore.
We've made a world for our girls in which the pornography industry has
become increasingly mainstream, in which Planned Parenthood's response
to the oral-sex craze has been to set up a help line, in which the
forces of feminism have worked relentlessly to erode the patriarchy --
which, despite its manifold evils, held that providing for the sexual
safety of young girls was among its primary reasons for existence. And
here are America's girls: experienced beyond their years, lacking any
clear message from the adult community about the importance of
protecting their modesty, adrift in one of the most explicitly
sexualized cultures in the history of the world. Here are America's
girls: on their knees.
.

User: "Larry Heath"
Title: Re: American Girls On Their Knees: Teenage Oral Sex Craze Is Sweeping The Nation	26 Jan 2006 04:56:23 PM

"words of truth" <truth760@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1138303589.440332.149190@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
http://www.powells.com/review/2006_01_17.html

Are You There God? It's Me, Monica

snip
More hit and run ***** from "words of stupidity"!
by-by "words of ignorance" aka "iam simply trolling"
Later Larry
aa # 2216
.

User: "Spartakus"
Title: Re: American Girls On Their Knees: Teenage Oral Sex Craze Is Sweeping The Nation	26 Jan 2006 02:10:50 PM

"words of truth" <truth760@lycos.com> wrote:

Are You There God? It's Me, Monica

A Review by Caitlin Flanagan

The first time I heard a mother of girls talk about the teenage
oral-sex craze, I made her cry. The story she told me -- about a bar
mitzvah dinner dance on the North Shore of Chicago, where the girls
serviced all the boys on the chartered bus from the temple to the
reception hall -- was so preposterous that I burst out laughing. The
thought of thirteen-year-old girls in party dresses performing a sex
act once considered the province of prostitutes (we are talking here
about the on-your-knees variety given to a series of near strangers)
was so ludicrous that all I could do was giggle.

[--pages and pages of NastyIkkySexStuff--]
Jesus Christ on a bicycle, WOT, take it to alt.sex.stories!
.

User: "Phillip Brown"
Title: Re: American Girls On Their Knees: Teenage Oral Sex Craze Is Sweeping The Nation	26 Jan 2006 10:27:02 PM

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 14:10:50 -0600, Spartakus wrote:

"words of truth" <truth760@lycos.com> wrote:

[--pages and pages of NastyIkkySexStuff--]

Jesus Christ on a bicycle, WOT, take it to alt.sex.stories!

http://www.technicalvirgin.com/
--
phillip brown
"***** doesn't just happen. there is always an *****-hole involved"
.

User: "Toby"
Title: Re: American Girls On Their Knees: Teenage Oral Sex Craze Is Sweeping The Nation	26 Jan 2006 08:46:01 PM

It's perfect. Stops unwanted teen pregnancies and the need for abortions.
Toby
.

User: "turk"
Title: Re: American Girls On Their Knees: Teenage Oral Sex Craze Is Sweeping The Nation	26 Jan 2006 09:11:25 PM

"Toby" <zdftokyo@gool.com> wrote in message
news:43d988f4$0$12088$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com...

It's perfect. Stops unwanted teen pregnancies and the need for abortions.

And, more importantly, it may get us blown more!
turk
--
My last vestige of "hands off religion" respect disappeared in the smoke and
choking dust of September 11th 2001, followed by the "National Day of
Prayer," when prelates and pastors did their tremulous Martin Luther King
impersonations and urged people of mutually incompatible faiths to hold
hands, united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the
first place.
-- Richard Dawkins, The Devil's Chaplain (2004)
.

User: "Robibnikoff"
Title: Re: American Girls On Their Knees: Teenage Oral Sex Craze Is Sweeping The Nation	26 Jan 2006 09:13:32 PM

"turk" <turk96@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:CoadnRYwbMDAEkTeRVn-vw@comcast.com...

"Toby" <zdftokyo@gool.com> wrote in message
news:43d988f4$0$12088$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com...

It's perfect. Stops unwanted teen pregnancies and the need for abortions.

And, more importantly, it may get us blown more!

Men! Sheesh! <rolls eyes> ;)
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.

User: "2232 Dead"
Title: Re: American Girls On Their Knees: Teenage Oral Sex Craze Is Sweeping The Nation	26 Jan 2006 11:13:29 PM

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 22:13:32 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:

"turk" <turk96@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:CoadnRYwbMDAEkTeRVn-vw@comcast.com...

"Toby" <zdftokyo@gool.com> wrote in message
news:43d988f4$0$12088$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com...

It's perfect. Stops unwanted teen pregnancies and the need for abortions.

And, more importantly, it may get us blown more!

Men! Sheesh! <rolls eyes> ;)

Well, if you had to choose between blow jobs and, say, invading
Iraq....
--
"'I�m not meeting with that goddamned *****,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I�m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk
"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.

User: "Robibnikoff"
Title: Re: American Girls On Their Knees: Teenage Oral Sex Craze Is Sweeping The Nation	27 Jan 2006 08:36:40 AM

"2232 Dead" <zepp2211#2232finestplanet.com@> wrote in message
news:0vajt1pl7i85md5eaml93c6queks6v40lc@4ax.com...

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 22:13:32 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:

"turk" <turk96@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:CoadnRYwbMDAEkTeRVn-vw@comcast.com...

"Toby" <zdftokyo@gool.com> wrote in message
news:43d988f4$0$12088$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com...

It's perfect. Stops unwanted teen pregnancies and the need for
abortions.

And, more importantly, it may get us blown more!

Men! Sheesh! <rolls eyes> ;)

Well, if you had to choose between blow jobs and, say, invading
Iraq....

Er, um, well.............................
Beautiful weather today, eh? ;)
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.

User: "raven1"
Title: Re: American Girls On Their Knees: Teenage Oral Sex Craze Is Sweeping The Nation	26 Jan 2006 03:37:21 PM

On 26 Jan 2006 11:26:29 -0800, "words of truth" <truth760@lycos.com>
wrote:
<snip>
Blow me.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.

User: "Tony Sinclair"
Title: Re: American Girls On Their Knees: Teenage Oral Sex Craze Is Sweeping The Nation	27 Jan 2006 08:43:35 AM

On 26 Jan 2006 11:26:29 -0800, "words of truth" <truth760@lycos.com>
wrote:

Nowadays girls don't consider oral sex in the least exotic -- nor do
they even consider it to be sex.

So Clinton was telling the truth after all.
.

User: "2232 Dead"
Title: Re: American Girls On Their Knees: Teenage Oral Sex Craze Is Sweeping The Nation	27 Jan 2006 09:14:24 AM

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 06:43:35 -0800, Tony Sinclair <no@spam.com>
wrote:

On 26 Jan 2006 11:26:29 -0800, "words of truth" <truth760@lycos.com>
wrote:

Nowadays girls don't consider oral sex in the least exotic -- nor do
they even consider it to be sex.

So Clinton was telling the truth after all.

Hell, it wasn't considered "real sex" back in the 60s when I was in
high schools. There were lots of girls at the local high school who
could show you an amazing time on a date at the drive in and still go
home a virgin.
--
"'I�m not meeting with that goddamned *****,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I�m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk
"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.

User: "Mike Painter"
Title: Re: American Girls On Their Knees: Teenage Oral Sex Craze Is Sweeping The Nation	27 Jan 2006 12:38:55 PM

2232 Dead wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 06:43:35 -0800, Tony Sinclair <no@spam.com>
wrote:

On 26 Jan 2006 11:26:29 -0800, "words of truth" <truth760@lycos.com>
wrote:

Nowadays girls don't consider oral sex in the least exotic -- nor do
they even consider it to be sex.

So Clinton was telling the truth after all.

Yes, they were quite handy in the 50's also.
.

User: "nevermore"
Title: ##Zepp Jamieson claims there were girls in his high school that actually knew his name	27 Jan 2006 06:17:01 PM

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 07:14:24 -0800, 2232 Dead
<zepp2211#2232finestplanet.com@> wrote:

Zepp would have you believe that there were girls that would even go
to a drive-in with a fat loser like him, let alone sit there while he
tried to fish his little weenie out from under his belly rolls....
--

"Yes, Atkins works extremely well. I've lost 75 pounds."
-Zepp Jamieson 06 Jan 2004
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=h8vmvvsa8hl5sh9qgpt9r4gop9j3ms2gq3%404ax.com
"My goal (which I hope to hit in June) is 171."
-Zepp Jamieson 10 Jan 2004
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=gc11005u5n9v9gfrnmakta4jvqqj79ias7%404ax.com

I live in California.
I'm not a refugee, I'm not a Marxist, Zepp is my middle name, and I
weigh 237.
-Zepp Jamieson 2004-06-30
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=q327e0lto1kpfk6e5cst57ob60fbomu037%404ax.com
note: 237 + 75 is 312;

.

User: "satyr"
Title: Re: American Girls On Their Knees: Teenage Oral Sex Craze Is Sweeping The Nation	28 Jan 2006 05:36:52 PM

On 26 Jan 2006 11:26:29 -0800, "words of truth" <truth760@lycos.com>
wrote:

<snip longest treatise ever written on subject of teenage blow jobs>
Well, you wanted abstinence. Maybe these girls are saving themselves
for marriage. Teenage hormones will not be denied.
In 1994 Dr. Jocelyn Elders - the first woman appointed to the position
of U.S. Surgeon General lost her job as Surgeon General because she
dared to say that children should be taught about masturbation. The
right wing hounded her out for that and now they must take
responsibility for the consequences.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: American Girls On Their Knees: Teenage Oral Sex Craze Is Sweeping The Nation	29 Jan 2006 11:31:58 AM

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 23:36:52 GMT, satyr <RsEaMtOyVrE@infidels.org> wrote
in alt.atheism

On 26 Jan 2006 11:26:29 -0800, "words of truth" <truth760@lycos.com>
wrote:

<snip longest treatise ever written on subject of teenage blow jobs>

Well, you wanted abstinence. Maybe these girls are saving themselves
for marriage. Teenage hormones will not be denied.

In 1994 Dr. Jocelyn Elders - the first woman appointed to the position
of U.S. Surgeon General lost her job as Surgeon General because she
dared to say that children should be taught about masturbation. The
right wing hounded her out for that and now they must take
responsibility for the consequences.

They won't. They have neither the courage, honesty, or intellect.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.

User: "joshd"
Title: Re: American Girls On Their Knees: Teenage Oral Sex Craze Is Sweeping The Nation	27 Jan 2006 04:55:41 PM

words of truth wrote:

Which towns are these and how much is the train fare?
(ba-dum-tsst...)
.

User: ""
Title: Re: American Girls On Their Knees: Teenage Oral Sex Craze Is Sweeping The Nation	28 Jan 2006 07:22:27 PM

These are the same lying losers who will *also* pretend that "Jewish women
are frigid."
(No, not you, joshd - the people tying to pretend it's real)
Susan
On 27-Jan-2006, "joshd" <jbd4020@hotmail.com> wrote:

The first time I heard a mother of girls talk about the teenage
oral-sex craze, I made her cry. The story she told me -- about a bar
mitzvah dinner dance on the North Shore of Chicago, where the girls
serviced all the boys on the chartered bus from the temple to the
reception hall -- was so preposterous that I burst out laughing. The
thought of thirteen-year-old girls in party dresses performing a sex
act once considered the province of prostitutes (we are talking here
about the on-your-knees variety given to a series of near strangers)
was so ludicrous that all I could do was giggle.

It was as though I had taken lightly the news that a pedophile had
moved into my friend's neighborhood. It was as though I had laughed
about a leukemia cluster or a lethal stretch of freeway. I apologized
profusely; I told her I hadn't known.

The moms in my set are convinced -- they're certain; they know for a
fact -- that all over the city, in the very best schools, in the nicest
families, in the leafiest neighborhoods, twelve- and thirteen-year-old
girls are performing oral sex on as many boys as they can. They're
ducking into janitors' closets between classes to do it; they're doing
it on school buses, and in bathrooms, libraries, and stairwells.

Which towns are these and how much is the train fare?

(ba-dum-tsst...)

User: "Dan Clore"
Title: Re: American Girls On Their Knees: Teenage Oral Sex Craze Is SweepingThe Nation	27 Jan 2006 05:38:44 PM

words of truth wrote:

http://www.powells.com/review/2006_01_17.html
Are You There God? It's Me, Monica
A Review by Caitlin Flanagan

I always wondered why Monica Lewinsky never appeared in a
"Got milk?" commercial.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587154838/thedanclorenecro/
Lord We�rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
.

User: "Budikka666"
Title: Re: American Girls On Their Knees: Teenage Oral Sex Craze Is Sweeping The Nation	27 Jan 2006 05:43:50 PM

Dan Clore wrote:

I always wondered why Monica Lewinsky never appeared in a
"Got milk?" commercial.

She had her chance to get on the Presidential staff but she blew it.
Budikka
.

User: "Budikka666"
Title: Re: American Girls On Their Knees: Teenage Oral Sex Craze Is Sweeping The Nation	27 Jan 2006 05:42:59 PM

Dan Clore wrote:

words of truth wrote:

http://www.powells.com/review/2006_01_17.html
Are You There God? It's Me, Monica
A Review by Caitlin Flanagan

I always wondered why Monica Lewinsky never appeared in a
"Got milk?" commercial.

She had her chance to get on the Presidential staff but she blew it.
Budikka
.

User: "Bobobonobo"
Title: Re: American Girls On Their Knees: Teenage Oral Sex Craze Is Sweeping The Nation	27 Jan 2006 09:20:18 AM

words of truth wrote:

http://www.powells.com/review/2006_01_17.html
Here are America's girls: on their knees.

[snip]
YAY!!!!!
I only hope that the guys are reciprocating in kind. You're just
resentful because you know you can't go back and live your youth over
again. You're jealous of the boys who are getting all of the BJs. The
Bonobos say:
***************************************
Pathetic Old Men
With carnal knowledge,
I take it all in
You're try'n to tell me,
My love is in sin
I'm getting tired of
Pathetic old men
Frustrated daddies,
We know where you've been
You're try'n to tell us
That love is a sin
I'm really tired of
Pathetic old men
While you're equating
these pleasures with sin
I'll be enjoying
the Daughters of Men
Frustrated daddies,
Pathetic old men
Keep try'n to sell us,
With love as a sin
We're all fucking sick of
Pathetic old men
**************************************************************
And excerpted lyrics from Coathanger Days:
**************************
Our solution
To abortion
Oral sex is...
(Now my love is headed south)
Oh, my goodness
(Your daughter looks pretty with a ***** in her mouth)
***********************************************
Seems like your daughters are looking pretty more often lately.
You know you'll die, never again having any sort of sexual contact with
attractive young women.
I'll make sure that my son knows one thing. Girls who give him oral
sex deserve kindness, respect and reciprocation.
--Bryan
.

User: "Moishe Lipshitz"
Title: Re: American Girls On Their Knees: Teenage Oral Sex Craze Is Sweeping The Nation	27 Jan 2006 03:23:36 PM

"Bobobonobo" <CLASSACT@BRICK.NET> wrote in message
news:1138375218.216637.90120@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

words of truth wrote:

http://www.powells.com/review/2006_01_17.html

Here are America's girls: on their knees.

Yes that's probably true. I know when I was at school we'd only get a bj
maybe once a week from the jew sluts. Now it's greatly improved in these
modern times, you can get one every day. Now that's progress :o)

User: "The Shining Tusks of Fascinet"
Title: Re: American Girls On Their Knees: Teenage Oral Sex Craze Is Sweeping The Nation	27 Jan 2006 05:27:23 PM

Bobobonobo wrote:

words of truth wrote:

http://www.powells.com/review/2006_01_17.html

Here are America's girls: on their knees.

They've got to be.
It's amazing how much more girls seem to enjoy sucking your ***** when
cunnilingus has, is, or will soon happen.
-F
.

User: "Masculist"
Title: Re: American Girls On Their Knees: Teenage Oral Sex Craze Is Sweeping The Nation	27 Jan 2006 05:43:15 PM

Good point "F". One learns early on that the give and take of sex
without good faith and love can suck you into an existential vortex
leading to a depressive hell. When one learns that than oral sex
becomes that existential vortex. The emphasis than is on give and take
and no love which mostly serves women's selfish orgasmic goals which
also leads to fewer orgasm's and the little ***** moving on. It's not
worth it for men...
Smitty
.

User: ""
Title: Re: American Girls On Their Knees: Teenage Oral Sex Craze Is Sweeping The Nation	28 Jan 2006 07:20:59 PM

On 27-Jan-2006, "Masculist" <MASCULIST@gmail.com> wrote:

Spoken like someone who not only does not give, but *cannot*.
You can tell by the way he snipped all of the previous post which was
about simple give/take - which was in response to a selfish *male* post.
"soc.men" snipped to cut dow on lunatic traffic.
Susan
.

User: "cje"
Title: Re: American Girls On Their Knees: Teenage Oral Sex Craze Is Sweeping The Nation	27 Jan 2006 03:34:18 PM

words of truth wrote:
[ big snip ]
This is truly a tragic, tragic state of affairs. (Tragic in the sense
that it didn't happen, oh, say, ten years ago.)
.

User: *"Grdn"*
Title: Re: American Girls On Their Knees: Teenage Oral Sex Craze Is Sweeping The Nation	27 Jan 2006 03:46:28 PM

"cje" <cje@my-deja.com>:

words of truth wrote:

[ big snip ]

This is truly a tragic, tragic state of affairs. (Tragic in the sense
that it didn't happen, oh, say, ten years ago.)

I believe the story is several years old. If it is not,
it is a rerun of one that went around the semi-respectable
middle-brow media several years ago. After reading one of
these tales, one could hardly step outside without expecting
to be assaulted by hordes of salivating teenagers. But....
.

Page 1 of 1

Post reply

Christianity Is Sweeping Across The World Like A Tidal Wave
OT: Sweeping new emergency laws to counter UK terror
Sweeping attitudinal change amognst US atheists?
It already begins: Sweeping anti-abortion laws proposed