Conclusion
In the foregoing chapters we have witnessed five cases, presented in the subjects' own dialogue, of persons, young and old, male and female, with a preference for the oral aspects of sex. NO deliberate attempt has been made to moralize on the issue—and, indeed, it is a moral issue in many of our 50 states. Rather, the objective has been to take the bull by the horns, as it were, and face up to the reality of what most of our modern psychiatrists and sociologists consider a basic human instinct.
Regardless of what our Victorian moralists believe and preach and legislate, this much appears to be certain: oral lovemaking, even to the extent of fellatio and cunnilingus to orgasm, will always be a popular, if secretive, mode of sexual expression. A very large segment of Americans are going to continue yielding to their instincts, and continue repudiating the prudish dictum that oral love is dirty and perverse.
The devotees of oral love will carry on into the distant future as they have in the distant past with the rationale, which no moralist can challenge, that fellatio and cunnilingus are actually no less sanitary than mouth-to-mouth kissing, given the same amount of hygienic care beforehand. In fact, the common opinion of medical doctors is that simple mouth-to-mouth kisses are responsible for more contagion than all other forms of human contact put together.
Concerning the alleged perversity of oral-genital love, we must refresh our thinking as to what sex is really all about. Basically, it is an involuntary reaction of the natural mating instinct upon which procreation of the species depends. But as a "natural adjunct" of the mating instinct, there is a drive toward complete intimacy and pleasure, the one being an integral of the other. Hence, if the male and female mating partners feel instinctively driven to seek complete intimacy and pleasure in oral-genital expressions of lovemaking, who can say it is perverse?
Of course, anything can be indulged in to excess and with abuse. A mouth-to-mouth kiss between mother and child would become "perverse" if the mother sank her teeth into the child's flesh. But where tenderness and joy and love are the dominating motivations, and where no injury, mental or physical, results, no perversion can possibly exist except in the mind of a hypercritical observer. Indeed, in such an instance, it might be said that the real perversity exists, not in the act, but in the mind of such an observer.
That is not to say that all oral-genital sex of a heterosexual nature is a healthy situation so long as it is tender and loving. Within these chapters we have seen situations involving adults and young people that certainly were unhealthy from the standpoint of social values, albeit tender and loving. But in the main, without going into extreme situations, we would venture to say that very little oral-genital sex is truly unhealthy.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Fenmorr, Jay C. Oral Love-Making. Canoga Park: Viceroy Books, 1967.
Kinsey, Alfred C. Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Philadelphia and London: W. B. Saunders Company, 1953.
Larke, Denny, Ph.D. Guide to Sexology. New York: Paperback Library Inc., 1965.
Street, Robert. Modern Sex Techniques. New York: Lancer Books, 1963.
Ullerstam, Lars, M.D. The Erotic Minorities. New York: Grove Press, 1966.
Yankowski, John S. The Yankowski Report on Premarital Sex. Los Angeles: Holloway House, 1965.