index


Message-ID: <50366asstr$1107378601@assm.asstr-mirror.org>
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.1.2418
From: Carol <cobillard@hotmail.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Subject: {ASSM} Afterthoughts: The Davidito Book and the Children of God sex
Lines: 1092
Date: Wed,  2 Feb 2005 16:10:01 -0500
Path: assm.asstr-mirror.org!not-for-mail
Approved: <assm@asstr-mirror.org>
Newsgroups: alt.sex.stories.moderated,alt.sex.stories
Followup-To: alt.sex.stories.d

The murder-suicide of Ricky Rodriguez ("Davidito") -- his killing of Angela
Smith and his own suicide -- prompted a number of calls to me from friends
aware of my past asking how the new publicity about the Children of God
child sex scandals related to my own stories. Here are the news clippings:
http://www.angelfire.com/co4/cobil/nyt_cog.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/co4/cobil/lsuntimes_davidito.htm
This additional essay takes the opportunity of the new publicity about the
CoG (also known as The Family) to put into perspective what I have been
saying about my own childhood among women who had been with the Church, gone
flirty fishing for it, and later abandoned it.

My previous essays, and two articles recently published, and a number of Web
sites are good sources for information about the religious-sexual side of
the CoG, and the evolution of their practices with respect to children and
children's sexual activity. You can Google "Davidito book" and find more; it
recorded in some detail the upbringing, especially the sexual stimulation
and upbringing, of Ricky, and excerpts of it appear here and there on the
Web. These are a few descriptive and documentary sites:
http://www.thefamily.org/dossier/books/book1/chapter4.htm
http://factnet.org/cults/children_of_god
http://countercog.excult.org
http://www.religioustolerance.org/fam_love.htm

For those who dispute the validity of any church which makes sex a part of
its theology and its sacraments, I can only say that all churches do it: sex
is a part of every religion, although he message is mixed these days, given
the thrust of political correctness. Then, of course, there is the Westboro
Baptist Church, that considers everybody who doesn't agree with them a
faggot, and every church that accepts premarital sex, divorce or association
with even non-practicing homosexuals a "fag church".
http://www.godhatesfags.com/fags/fag.html
Of course those guys in Westboro probably don't realize just how close some
of their ideas are to those of the Deoband school of Islam. And for those of
you who didn't study comparative religion, Deoband (Pakistan) is the source
of Taliban practice and its preachers seek to regulate the tiniest details
of human behavior. Including, of course, how you have sex. Also, like the
Deobandis, the Westboro boys claim to possess the sole and unique correct
understanding of God's thought, and God's hatreds. Personally, I think
Tracey Emin's ideas, her philosophy of art and sex (with sex as the
centerpiece of life) are both truer and more relevant to life; I saw her
recently, on BBC America I think.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/netnotes/article/0,6729,810347,00.html
Organized religion has proven to be a major source of evil. Absolute power
-- which the leaders of cults tend to have -- corrupts absolutely, and this
is nowhere more true than in matters of sex. So it should be no surprise
that as time went on, both Moses David's actions and his theology became
corrupted.

To get back to the point I was making, the answer to the question on the
relationship between Davidito and us is, not much, at least not directly.
Mom and Mom's Friend, and most of their friends, left the CoG long ago.
Indeed, they left because they disagreed with Moses David's increasingly
depraved (as they saw it) promotion of direct sexual contact between infants
and adults. Out of that objection came Mom's Friend's ban on
intergenerational sex: indeed on sex between boys and girls with an age
difference of more than 15-20%. Mom's Friend had no objection to children
observing adolescents and adults at sex; indeed she thought that freedom to
watch was an essential learning experience. But that nursemaids in Moses
David's communes and outposts were placating little boys by taking their
penises in their mouths and bringing them to infantile orgasm, and that boys
were doing the same to infant girls, was beyond the pale. In the later years
of the Church, children of all ages were directly involved in sex, with
other children and with adults. That's why Mom and Mom's Friend left.

A brief summary of their theology as it concerns sex: They agreed with the
CoG that as soon as a pubescent child felt eager for sex, he or she should
be encouraged to have it. We still believe that. But they could not accept
the abuse of small children for the satisfaction of adults, nor accept that
pre-pubescent children could properly be involved as participants in sex at
all. Knowledge about sex is another thing, and that it leads to an interest
in girl-boy penis play after the start of sex-organ development is fine.
Indeed, it's appropriate, and we would think it a pity if a girl or a boy
reached age 14 without having made (especially) oral sex an essential part
of her or his life. In fact, it is amazing how quickly, indeed innocently
and guilelessly but also eagerly and happily, both boys and girls then
incorporated sex into their lives, how normal taking a penis into mouth, and
indeed elaborately mounting each other for mutual oral sex, became something
we would do quite spontaneously. It is our view that the human body -- and
most of all, the penis -- represents God, and that romance and passion and
sexual ecstasy are quite independent of spousal love (which is not to say
that spousal love does not imply exclusivity and faithfulness). Indeed of
all the deadly sins, the worst (for an unmarried lover) would be jealousy of
a former sex partner, resentment at seeing the penis of a boy you'd had fun
with the day before ejaculating into and at the behest of and to the delight
of one of your own girlfriends. Somehow we were programmed for that not to
happen, just as we (like all girls) are programmed to be excited at the
sight of a penis if, and only if, under our social rules we are free to make
love to it. If the penis was from outside our circle of friends we would be
repulsed (or amused, in the sense of ridicule). Thus: by a strange boy
masturbating, or a flasher in a raincoat or a propositioning stranger who
hasn't been properly introduced. For those to whom we have been introduced
our task as adolescents is to evangelize, as our mothers did, through our
bodies. To attract passion we should love nudity, and we should feel happy
to arouse and to be aroused among groups. It is good and proper that within
our commune we should freely show our libido, we should encourage and
support each other's sexuality. If I brought a new boy to a friend of mine,
and told her to open her "present", and she took down the boy's shorts and
played with his penis and had fun, it was a blessing for all of us. Sex is a
form of prayer, and orgasm comes directly from God as His response; semen is
His Holy Communion, passed from boy to girl. It would be a pity if we did
not enjoy sex early and often. But there were two conditions: the girl must
be assured full and equal participation -- and orgasm; and the best (and
thus holiest) foreplay is oral sex. There is another point which I have made
before and I shall not elaborate on here: while most boys can have a perfect
orgasm and full satisfaction by putting his penis into any nice girl's mouth
and vagina, most girls need more than just physical stimulation, they need
romance and atmosphere and a sense of belonging to get full pleasure.

(How our lifestyle served to substitute for "love" is beyond the scope of
these essays; it will suffice to say that we as girls "belonged" to a stable
of boys and to move, day by day, among them -- and even among new boys who
might come to our dance parties -- in no wise diminished the quality or
nature of romance. With a new boy, almost always there would come a new girl
too, to make up the numbers. And she would probably need our support to set
her at ease and see to it that whichever boy she happened to be matched with
moved slowly and at her pace with his penis. If, as was sometimes the case,
she was a virgin and startled by the concept of oral sex as foreplay, the
mere focusing of our attentions on her would have a bonding effect on
everybody, the new boy included. There always was a sort of silent cheer
when a girl was seen to take a penis confidently in her mouth for the first
time ever. And another when the boy ejaculated and she had to put into
practice what she must have known as our theory: of semen as precious Word.
This is no different from what happened to me when I made oral love for the
first time (it was the second, actually, but the bystanders didn't know
that) in front of friends. Somehow even a new girl, presented with a strange
boy -- the two of them now nude and staring with wonder at each other, the
boy's penis perhaps starting to stir and the girl smiling shyly, pressing
her arms back to bring out the best in her breasts -- adapted quickly to our
practices. How could they not? Why else had they come but to be liberated
both sexually and philosophically? For the girl to wear her traces of drying
semen as badge of power, romance, purpose and sanctification.)

The above is not CoG theology; it is Mom's and Mom's Friend's, shared by the
other mothers we knew. They would encourage their children, but it was the
children's peers who played the main role. The eagerness of a boy or girl
just a few months older and/or more developed to initiate others meant that
by the age of 14 most all kids who lived or visited with us were already
sexually active. It would be hard to stay chaste -- even if you had been led
to think chastity had any value -- with your friends sexually active and
having sex in front of you. All with the full approval of their mothers,
most of whom would have spent years with the CoG or another sect or commune
and would themselves have sex freely and openly, if more discreetly than
teenagers are wont to do. What some, perhaps most, outsiders would take for
indecent and promiscuous, to us as children was normal and as adolescents
was romantic: a boy and girl reciprocally flirting and propositioning,
vaunting their sex with others around. Arousal and excitement leading to
erection and shivering delight. And penis gravitating to mouth. And all the
rest. It became the role of mothers to instill from birth pride, confidence
and desire in their offspring, and to banish shame, modesty, jealousy and
inhibition. Family nudity and frankness and openness -- so that kids could
see their parents and older siblings enjoying sex -- would go a long way to
making offspring comfortable doing likewise. And hence the scenes I just
described, which mothers, fathers, partners would regard with approval,
remembering that they had done likewise. (I should note here that seeing, or
watching, younger couples at sex may be, for normal people, a source of
curiosity but not arousal; seeing couples of the same age or slightly older
at sex is on the other hand a legitimate source of sexual arousal. This is
an fact which criminologists and legal scriveners concerned with child porn
and child abuse seemingly fail to appreciate and incorporate in their
principles. The result is the criminalization of some innocent, as well as
much guilty, behavior.)

The New York Times article linked to above discussed a mother having watched
her 11-year-old son being initiated by a 28-year-old girl. (A "naughty
nanny" story?) With us, his mother might well have been there too, but the
boy would have had his first sex with a girl his own age or slightly older.
Following on my earlier discussions about the mystic relationship between
mothers and their sons' penises and mothers' attendance at defloration
parties, no reader should be surprised at that. I can tell you that most, if
not all, mothers, if they weren't brainwashed by social engineers and
hypocrites and their dictatorial religions full of myths, would contrive to
be present at a son's first sex (as, indeed at a daughter's). Mothers always
take pride in their sons' erections and ejaculations, even if most often or
ever see them in the flesh. Outsiders I talk to seem to find this assertion
kinky and perverse, but their contrived horror doesn't make it any less
true. And there is no objective reason why a Mom should not be upfront about
her affection for every part of her son's body and her interest in his
welfare. Nor is there any reason for her not to discreetly keep watch over
her son's penis, its growth and its first use. In effect, our boys' mothers
were handing their sons over to the institution of girlhood and to a life of
sex fun. It's not a sexual but a maternal pleasure for the mother; and for
the boy it is final proof to his Mom that he has achieved a certain
independence. And that his semen will carry on her genes forever. The fact
is, that in every defloration I was at, the boy was very conscious of his
mother's presence and if she was there he would turn to her at the end to
show off his sticky penis as it deflated. And of course at the party which
followed they would invariably hug and kiss, the boy's penis symbolically
close to the place from whence it had originally come. One of my girlfriends
has a sketchbook full of images she drew of one of these parties; I wonder
if it's legal for her to keep it. Of course the only photographs we have
would have been taken after all the kids showered and dressed: happy family
snapshots. Everybody looks so happy, so proud. On the other hand, I think of
those naturist family photos I wrote about, that some families take year by
year to show off their children's development, and I think: what went wrong
with American society? What makes us feel guilt, or rather as a society to
want families to feel guilt, over natural behavior and normal biology?

All of us, whether in the CoG or out of it, or descended from women who were
there, agree that the penis is the most beautiful sculpted object known to
humanity, that there is nothing on God's earth more beautiful than a strong
penis as it descends into a gorgeous vagina. The transformation of infant
into adolescent is the greatest of events, and the process rightly captures
the imagination and the attention of family and friends. The group that
shares each other's nakedness grows in Godliness; I think that's universally
true. For us, it went further: seeing each other giving and receiving bliss,
sharing bodies, became an important lesson, and one of utmost religious
significance. While as little kids we really didn't understand what sex
entailed, we did understand that it was a kind of sharing and that it made
grownups and teens deliriously happy. We took on faith, so to speak, that it
the semen whose droplets we could see represented Holy Communion, that girls
loved it; and we understood that (teen and grownup) bystanders were touched
by the orgasms of others, that they could vicariously enjoy them, and that
often they would be inspired to have sex too. In all these senses, I think,
Mom's Friend and her likeminded colleagues were at one with the CoG. I will
note, however, that Moses David did not make semen central to his theology;
it appears in his writings most notoriously in connection with the
conception of Jesus, which he attributes to the semen of the archangel
Gabriel. (Neither Berg nor any other theologian explains the how Joseph and
James, the brothers of Jesus, were conceived; I suppose the default
assumption is that Mary had sex with her husband Joseph. On the other hand,
some argue that Mary wasn't their mother. All this is, however, beyond the
scope of this essay. You can read more if you want at:
http://www.bibletexts.com/terms/jesusfamily.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02767a.htm )

But Mom's Friend offered more: respect and self-respect. And, in a sense, a
certain power: for girls knew that by introducing a boy to sex, it and she
-- i.e., girls as a class -- would become irresistible to him. We knew,
instinctively, how to use our breasts to attract, and our voices to calm a
nervous boy. From that point, arousal is easy and ejaculation inevitable.
But the boy would be expected to bring the girl to climax too, usually
orally. And faking orgasm was, among us, rather frowned upon: if we didn't
climax, it was the boy's fault; and if a boy spent more time than normal
kissing and sucking at a girl's clitoris you can be sure that a crowd of
girls would gather around to criticize. That unwanted attention, more than
penile size or difficulty of erection or delayed ejaculation could be cause
for embarrassment. The worst thing for a boy is to have his tongue in a
girl's vagina and to have that girl looking bored. I have to say, though,
that the rate of (female) orgasm among us was and remains far higher than
among mainstream adolescents because what we had first and foremost from
Mom's Friend was assertiveness training. Coupled with the conditioning to
believe that our vaginas are beautiful and worthy of being kissed. And
knowing that, if a seated girl was so inspired she had as much right to
spread her legs and display herself to boys as they did to exhibit a
spontaneous erection to her.

One of the principal aims of sex education for pre-pubescent kids, aside
from teaching about STDs and safe sex and the principle of the safety of a
closed circle of disease-free partners, would be to provide an understanding
of the process of sexual arousal and release, an explanation of why, at
puberty and generally quite before their genitals are fully developed,
people experience an urgent need for sex. Unless a parent has a totally
honest relationship with her child -- especially her son -- it's going to be
hard to discuss, the more so since it really has to be shown. That's why it
was nice that at Mom's Friend's House there were opportunities to see the
process from start to finish. Indeed, it was somewhat more important to urge
tolerance and understanding on the part of teens so that they wouldn't
object, and indeed would take the trouble to explain what they were doing,
when a younger kid wanted to watch -- usually from across the room. It might
have been better for them to have seen an actual defloration party, but such
events (aside from the fact that they didn't happen very often) were private
affairs. It seemed to me that it was enough if a child had been raised to
know and expect that when she reached puberty she would undergo an emotional
(i.e., a hormonal) change that would forever change her attitude towards and
her relationship with a penis, and make her want to kiss and love it and
enjoy it. So, it was important that at the threshold of puberty she had the
opportunity see slightly older girls making love. Without an understanding
of human sexuality, it would be hard for a 10-year-old or most 11-year-olds
to understand how and why two kids just a year or two older than they might
be chatting innocently, and their innocence suddenly might turn to lust and
they look at each other in a different way, and suddenly they are exploring
each other's body, and then the boy's penis is erect and the girl is playing
with it and kissing it and the boy is caressing her vagina, and so on. If I
noticed kids watching me, I would try to adjust my style and our position to
provide a better view, a better explanation of what was happening. For
example, when I was ready for the boy's penis to enter my vagina I might put
my legs up on his shoulders or otherwise up high to provide both him and
bystanders a really clear view of my vagina and of exactly what his penis
was doing. Or I might show the children how ejaculation works by licking his
penis around its tip until semen spurted out (fountain-like if, we were
lucky). In either case, anybody watching would see how much fun it was for
both of us. Older kids' having sex not something one expects pre-pubescents
to stare at, or to care to watch often; there may be something wrong if they
do. But one day soon after, the sight of others at sex is going to stir up
emotions inside them and they should know what to expect and how to deal
with it. I would always say that when that happens a girl (or a boy, for
that matter) should right away talk to her (or his) mother about
contraception (which, by the way, the CoG never embraced, preferring to
populate itself with "Jesus children" of which, of course, I am one) and
defloration and all the other things she can help with. But this is only
possible with the proper background, what I called above "conditioning".

The latter point is that girls and boys would have been taught, both in the
nurseries of the CoG and at Mom's Friend's House -- and at all the other
similar offshoots of religious sexuality -- that God wanted boys and girls
to get together, that the penis is instrument of His love. Mom's Friend,
however, approached this as sex education, and stressed that the divine
intent was that they should get together only once they were physically
mature. But like David Berg she also tried to banish inhibition, shyness,
modesty, embarrassment and other impediments to the maximum early enjoyment
of sex. In fact, that meant that children rushed to have sex as soon as they
felt able, as soon as their hormones and the state of their puberty focused
their minds on sex. Since they were protected from older children and
adults, they -- we -- were dealing with peers and not abusive older people.
I have seen no trace among our alumni of the kind of social and
psychological problems that some CoG offspring complain of:
http://www.movingon.org

Given the accusation -- indeed the testimony, in the form of the Davidito
Book -- that nursemaids and teachers teased infant boys with their bodies,
played with the boys' tiny penises and gave them oral gratification, the
contrast with Mom's Friend's House and other ex-CoG refugee havens is
startling. While there was a lot of nudity with us, insofar as infants were
concerned this was no more shocking or upsetting or intrusive than any
naturist group. But every child would have her or his day. At a certain age
around puberty, her or his interest in sex and the sex process would mature,
and somehow others knew -- even if she or he did not. There would be
invitations and advances. Or a mother would see, and might sometimes suggest
to her girl that she have a defloration party to mark her coming of age and,
indeed, advertise her availability. In any case, just as I was, at some
point a girl would be fascinated with the sexual implications and the sexual
process of a penis, would stare at it, be invited to touch it, and then --
or soon -- out of peer pressure and contrivance it would be in her mouth, in
her vagina. Once a girl has tasted semen, it belongs to her forever. From
our upbringing, its sacredness is both captivating and intoxicating and
habit forming. To play with a penis and have it get engorged, and for it
suddenly to show you love and spurt out its semen-nectar, is delightful.
Subject, of course, to the personality, the kindness, the romance and the
passion of the boy. Sex is always the same, yet it's always different. It is
hard to gaze on a penis without wanting to hold it, to excite it, and to be
excited and aroused and happy with it. And make it give you everything it
holds. Especially when one is in the flush of ecstasy from the boy's tongue
rubbing against your clitoris and circling deliciously inside your vagina.
To work together as partners, girls exchanging gifts, so to speak,
facilitating liaisons was great fun. One grows out of it, but for teenagers
it was a social and a learning experience that, tragically -- and to their
cost in dysfunction, divorce and depression -- mainstream adolescents rarely
know. Every time I would see a girl holding a wet penis and smiling, semen
dripping from her mouth and exhausted from her own orgasm and his, I would
want to go over to hug her.

When I was 12 and 13, occasionally Mom would see me keeping my eyes closed
while a penis was in my mouth. She didn't otherwise normally intervene, but
when she saw my eyes closed she would remind me to open them and say that I
was missing half the fun and half the blessing. She was right: it's just the
nicest thing to take a flaccid penis and have it dance on your tongue, press
your lips against its tip and draw it in and out of your mouth, not just
feeling but watching it stiffen. And that's as true with a smallish
pubescent penis as with a grand grown-up one. Mom would say the same thing
to any boy she saw not paying full attention to my clitoris: that he can't
do a proper job, and give proper joy and blessing, unless he watches his
progress and sees the object of his lovemaking. The arrival of semen, she
would say, is to be anticipated, seen, and tasted, smelled and blessed --
even if the boy is still young and even if it's just a drop. For semen to
spurt out in quantity, however, is its essence as Holy Communion and it's
why puberty marks a particular stage in our religious, as well as our
physical, lives. And after ejaculation one should not be in too much of a
hurry to clean up; afterplay must come first, perhaps penis in vagina to
follow penis in mouth. Or the other way around. This is all the more reason
for teens to enjoy sex with others about, to take advantage of those free
years, to share their respective expressions of passion, to enjoy
vicariously each other's orgasms and multiply their own pleasures and
blessings. I think of that now when I see young people embracing. I often
wonder, though, whether other girls think as we do, and see the image of
penis and of vagina and of penis in vagina as ultimate beauty -- sex as art,
and art as sex. 

Mom was, for sure, more specific, indeed intrusive, in her advice on sex
than most mothers. But that was not really her main point. Aside from
passing on the theology that she had inherited and developed with women like
herself, she was (and is) an original feminist who asserted females' rights,
insisting that our orgasm should come first. It can come as no surprise that
the boys we knew were just as prone to arrogance, slothfulness and
selfishness and boys anywhere. It didn't help our cause to believe that the
penis, much less semen, is sacred, nor to be willing to play with and kiss a
penis, to engage in sex spontaneously. Hence the order of play that we tried
to enforce: it would be fun to play with a boy's penis, to make it hard, to
kiss and suck it for a bit; but that boy would have to bring us to climax or
to the verge of climax before he would be allowed to ejaculate. I think
every girl developed her own regime in the first year after her coming out.
I'm sure boys compared notes about us; we certainly shared our own
experiences and opinions among ourselves. The nice thing was that there was
little point in jealousy since our love was institutionalized: our romance
with boys was realistic; we knew that any permanent relationships would have
to wait. And for those few outsiders who joined us after, say, the age of 14
it was not the free nudity nor the adolescent embarking on physical
lovemaking that was a challenge, and certainly it was not the need to accept
our view of hymen as loathsome obstacle to pleasure and sacred duty. Rather
it was overcoming the fiction, the myth, of romance as love, of permanence
of love, of love as relevant to sexual communion. From her earliest days, a
girl would learn from her mother that she had this temporary "barrier" that
she should want a boy to pierce with his penis as soon as she could, i.e.,
when she started to get pubic hair. And that the penis that did this for her
would be so lovely that she would want desperately to kiss it first, and
this would make it hard and stiff and ready to help her make love. And of
course the girl would all her life have seen her mother and older friends
making love, and the smiles on their faces, and their devotion to the penis
and happiness to have semen in their mouths and swallow it.

I think this is the reason why most of the girls who had a coming out party,
a formal defloration with their mother and a few friends attending, were
daughters of former CoG members who lived away from us and so had only
occasional contact with other likeminded families. Such girls -- and boys --
would come to our place mostly for dance parties and summer outings in the
back yard. Each time they came, there would be a moment of acclimatization.
I would see this most markedly when a brother and sister would get undressed
and you could tell that they didn't see each other naked at home, didn't see
each other at sex. There would be a sort of shy or embarrassed darting of
eyes at first, without being too obvious about it. After that, once the
siblings fell into line with the sexy atmosphere, they would typically feel
free to admire each other -- not, certainly, in any sense of arousal or
incestuous lust, but by way of support and familial love. To see her brother
with an erection, then, should elicit in a sister only a knowing smile.

When I had first come to say at Mom's Friend's House and was told that there
were brother-and-sister visitors from time to time, I wondered how they
could cope with what I took to be a social taboo of watching a sibling at
sex, especially oral sex. But it turns out not to be a big deal, no more
"shocking", indeed probably less so, than a mother attending to her
daughter's defloration. No more shocking, really, than Mom and I having sex
next to each other on the houseboat. Anyway, siblings, just like anyone
else, tend to watch closely when a penis is sliding in and out of a girl's
mouth, hoping, needing, to see a telltale drip of semen as proof of joy. One
could not really be one of us without feeling free to take pride in a
sibling's sex play. It is one measure of the total openness and acceptance
among us as liturgy of the whole process of arousal, excitement and
ejaculation and climax. Dear reader, you have to understand that we see
nudity as beauty per se, the sex organs as our most beautiful and
religiously significant parts. So it was less surprising than heartwarming
to see a sister transfixed by her brother at mutual oral sex: his mouth
covering his girl's vaginal opening and his tongue inside her; the girl
trying to time the movement of his penis in and out of her mouth so as to
synchronize, more or less, their orgasms. She was seated with her lover next
to him, the two of them watching, as we all like to, the penis appearing and
disappearing into the mouth while the girl's tongue tried to maintain
control by circling the head of the penis as it passed by. But at the same
time the sister was fondling her lover's penis and the two of them were
getting increasingly agitated. How lovely it was! And then, when her
brother's semen came rushing out, she lost no time in lying back, her legs
spread wide apart, her boy on top of her. And now his face was buried
between her thighs, his tongue moving back and forth and around inside her
labia; and her boy's penis was in her mouth moving in and out of her mouth
from above. And it was her brother's turn to watch and admire and anticipate
his sister's joy and blessing. I think back on those days and those events
with nostalgia and happiness and only wished that all of humanity could
experience such adolescence. I didn't see that girl finish: I couldn't wait
because my partner's penis was really stiff and lovely and we needed
urgently to make love. I wanted to feel semen stream into me; I wanted to
give my date pleasure. But how I wished I'd had a brother, or a sister, to
be with and to share the sights and sounds and aromas of my sexual joy.

By comparison with dance parties, brothers, and certainly fathers, were not
normally invited to a defloration. None were present at any I attended. But
I was told that at least sometimes a brother did come, to escort and
(usually) be naked with a particular girlfriend of his sister. Given the
story I just related, it shouldn't be surprising. And after all: "Once one
accepts that virginity has no intrinsic value and is best disposed of early
in life, the sight of a penis penetrating virginal daughter or sister is
cause for celebration: she was well rid of that impediment, that obstacle to
fun and bliss."
http://assm.asstr-mirror.org/Year2004/48125
I imagine it's all a matter of conditioning. I'm not a boy, and I don't have
a sister, so I can't really imagine that a boy should be upset to see a
penis poised to enter his sister; but I know that society sort of expects
that to happen. When the penis is lowered into her and breaks through the
barrier, it seems to me that the girl has now just been validated, blessed
and given new stature and status. You see her vagina dilated and gaping, and
you see her chest rise and fall in the exhaustion of orgasm and you know
that she is lovelier than before. Certainly, that time I made a first public
display of having a boy ejaculate in my mouth and then showed everybody his
semen and swallowed it, it was a great event for me and I know for my
friends too. Nobody gave a thought to my age -- 11: they could see how happy
we both were, the boy and I. I just think that to see rivulets of semen
running out the corner of a daughter's or sister's mouth or mixed with her
mucus and blood from her vagina, is (or ought to be) the fulfillment of
family solidarity and proof of godly continuity. (I have known girls to
criticize technique while another girl has her brother's penis in her mouth,
but I think that's a rather crude intrusion. Nothing should stop a boy from
speaking up; I certainly never resented suggestions from a boy, or having
him point out what made him feel good. In fact, I always have preferred --
when we're not showing off with mutual oral sex -- having oral sex for the
first time seated in a chair, with my partner kneeling in front. And then
following up with him seated and me kneeling. That way we can see everything
and one is free to move or squirm and use one's hands in such a way as to
improve friction and pleasure.)

It's no surprise that at least some would want to join others seated around
a sibling at sex to watch the beauty of penis entering and exiting, to enjoy
the scent and to experience the excitement of ejaculation. Still, for those
from out of town, siblings or not, who did not practice open sex full time,
it must not have been easy to take on a secret lifestyle and a set of
beliefs that could be shared only with us, and only every so often. No
wonder that we girls would delight in the visit of such a boy, and perhaps
rush to undress him and fuss over his penis, to make him feel welcome,
wanted and needed. We knew that it doesn't take long for a young person to
commit to a free-sex lifestyle and to develop innate sexual needs. But more
than that, our evangelistic fervor reflected our connection between sex and
religion and our joy (in every sense of the word) in spreading the good
news. When I would pull down a boy's underpants and his penis would come
into view and I would begin to play with it I would feel like the High
Priestess. An erection is part of a religious happening. All our theology
would come to me. And not just to me: for me, yes, but also for anyone
watching that there would be an urgency to see the ejaculation, to meet the
arrival of the Host. There is nothing lovelier than the spurting of semen,
than collecting it on your tongue, licking off and swallowing its traces.
And knowing that you are sharing DNA that amalgamates and represents body
and personality of all the world since Adam. Indeed, of God who made Adam in
His image. No wonder boys are so proud at that moment. Their ecstasy
memorializes it all.

In retrospect and hindsight, taking a pubescent, +/- 5-inch penis into my
mouth and teaching its owner about romance was of even more religious
significance. Puberty is itself a holy miracle, and I think of a boy's first
ejaculations as a mother's colostrum -- the first nourishment that a baby
will get. But, pity as it may be, I didn't see or understand that at the
time, and like so much in life it's too late now. I don't see pubescent kids
today, and have outgrown the interest; although I know that when and if I
have children of my own I would be proud to watch their sexual growth and
honored to see first sexual awakening, first pubescent erection, first
pubescent ejaculation and first penis in mouth and defloration and all the
things I have written about. If, in the 21st Century, with our new norms and
new definitions of children's rights (including "right", or rather
"mandate", to be chaste -- or at least to pretend to be chaste), that is to
prove possible. To my mind, contriving to make it sinful, outrageous,
abusive, etc. for a 13-year-old girl to be seen with penis in mouth and
semen dripping down her lips and chin simply drives her and her boys and her
friends to secrecy -- and danger. For doing what comes naturally and what is
divine command. In truth there may be a fine line between abuse -- clearly
evident in Davidito's case if only because of the sexual relationships
pursued (presumably at his mother's direction) by his minders and teachers
-- and same-age relationships encouraged, fostered by mothers. That there is
indeed (as I've often written) a mystical relationship between mothers and
their boys' penises can't be denied. And there's no reason why a mother
shouldn't monitor and admire her boy's penis as it develops, and comment on
it too, providing counsel. I have seen a boy's mother fidget in her chair
with emotion as drops of seminal fluid seeped out of his fiercely erect
penis while he stood before the girl he was about to deflower. I have to
assume the boy got has confidence from her, that she had prepared him for
that day. And why shouldn't mothers discuss sex intimately with their boys,
as with their girls, from the youngest of ages? Why shouldn't a mother tell
her son that when his penis grows girls will want to take it in mouth and
vagina and that this will make the boy feel very good indeed. And of course
he should be taught, and shown, semen, and how it will spurt from his penis
into a girl in an act of passion bringing fantastic joy to both of them.
Presumably, in an open and free family boys and girls will see this happen,
will see mothers at sex, as I so often did. And will take it for granted
that the pleasure and sanctity of sex are vested future interests for them
too. It is totally ridiculous, even outrageous, that for so many boys the
first semen he sees should be his own and not that of older males around
him. Even the youngest boy should know that an erection is something to be
proud and happy over even if it's an immature one. As a boy or a girl
approaches puberty, he or she should be aware of parental and sibling
recognition, as well as the subtle expectation that the new adolescent will
embark on sexual adventure. The defloration party is one way, a nice way, of
making that an "event": for girl or boy who hasn't touched or been touched,
the formality of presentation of penis, of kissing it, of boy kissing girl's
vagina and bringing her to the verge of climax and then penetrating her --
this is the ultimate rite of passage.

I have been asked, when I have argued as above, "Doesn't this promote
infantile masturbation, and do we want to encourage that?" As far as I know,
some immature boys and a smaller number of girls are prone to masturbation;
others are not. It is true that knowledge and the realization that rubbing
the tip of his penis or her clitoris will be pleasurable will induce some
kids to masturbate. It is also true that there is something of a conspiracy
to keep little boys and girls from knowing the ins and outs if all this;
indeed the promotion of competitive sports and boy scouting and the like has
always had one its aims to keep boys outdoors and with their clothes on and
their hands away from their penises. We -- and by "we" I mean Mom's Friend
and her likeminded colleagues and followers -- simply have no opinion on
masturbation: if children or adults want to do it, this has nothing to do
with us; we only argue for making available maximum opportunities for
heterosexual sex from the moment of puberty on. And dissemination of full
knowledge relating to sex, health and sexual well-being. And, at least for
our families, an understanding of the religious aspects. I've written about
how I responded a few times to the sight of boys masturbating: I might
intervene, take the boy in hand and, like that time in the bathroom, engage
him in mutual oral sex; or I might just ignore it. That first time I
intervened was when I was 11, in the first house, and I took over massaging
the boy's penis with my hand, with funny consequences that I described in my
essay.

I don't know why it is, unless it's a matter of the polarization of politics
in the postmodern era -- but everybody is expected to have a view on
everything, and that view should coincide with his or her self-assigned
group's worldview. As it happens, there are many issues I simply am
indifferent over, and masturbation happens to be one of them. At the start
of puberty, boy-girl sex becomes important, desirable; once semen is
produced, once menses begin, I think it is essential, indeed commanded.
Before that, from the earliest signs of puberty, it is optional. That's my
-- our, I think -- view; others may disagree. I would expect the social
engineers and the self-appointed hypocrite prophets of God to disagree.
Nothing new there. For them, any observation, much less recorded image, of a
naked child is obscene, if not child abuse:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/16222840
(archived at: http://tinyurl.com/5um75 )
Parenthetically, I have no view either about homosexuality: I'm not Rev.
Phelps of the church I linked to above. (See also:
http://snipurl.com/cd6t )
I know that gay people have, in principle, no interest in us; if they do not
interfere with my lifestyle, why should I pay attention to theirs, about
which I know nothing? On the other hand, I once met a sex worker who told me
that she'd learned all she needed to know about fellatio by watching gay men
at it. I told her that I learned all I needed to know by doing it, starting
at age 11, that my Mom had seen me at it and given me lots of advice and
that I didn't think I'd missed any essential aspects of the art. (In this
day and age, of course, girls can get all the lessons they want by renting a
DVD; but I still say that experience is the best teacher.) The importance of
things like keeping your eyes open all the time and not swallowing the semen
too quickly are not so obvious from just watching, so Mom's advice has been
very important to me. There's also the business of putting on a show for
your friends -- making a demonstration of the spurting semen by bringing the
boy to ejaculation through running your tongue repeatedly around the tip of
his penis with its little slit exposed. Or collecting his semen on your
tongue and opening your mouth for others to see it before letting the semen
slide down your throat. A demonstration of this technique can be hypnotic,
and I've done it at a party and found a dozen onlookers sighing in relief
when, finally, the semen spurts out. The slowness of the procedure gives the
prostate gland time to produce extra seminal fluid, so with luck the semen
will explode out of the penis -- and it will be a challenge for the girl to
capture it all, or as much of it as she can, with mouth and tongue.

However it turns out, I have to tell you that there isn't anybody in the
world who isn't captivated by the sight of penis in mouth -- and I can tell
you from personal experience that even the most crazed bible-thumping
pro-chastity fanatic will often have a secret life in that regard. Without
exception, though, absolutely the most fascinated, hypnotized watcher is a
sister staring at her brother's penis moving in and out of another girl's
mouth, waiting for the penis to erupt, for the sight of her brother's semen.
Suffice to say that all of this is good enough reason to refrain, generally,
from everybody in a room having oral sex at the same time: it contributes
far more to the ambiance and everybody's pleasure to be able to watch others
before and after. And, anyway, sex should not be any sort of competition:
anyone who tries that will quickly discover that however good one thinks one
is, there is always somebody smarter and better at it, and better looking,
too: better face, better penis, and so on. That said, every girl is amazed
at the phenomenon of arousal and ejaculation just by tactile sensation, and
it was no wonder to me that no sooner did a girl -- who probably had seen
this from a distance many times over the years -- realize that her breasts
had developed enough to interest boys, and the penises of boys her age
enough to interest her than she'd want to experiment herself. We always used
to have to remind girls that they too were capable of special sensation and
that they should spend as much time watching what boys do when licking at a
girl's clitoris as the other way around.)

Getting back to the original question, one needs to consider not only the
response to masturbation (i.e., laissez faire) but what to do about
pre-pubescent kids who insist that they want to try out sex. Mom's Friend
discouraged it, and refused to support mothers who wanted to let such kids
try, even oral sex. Sometimes mothers were pushy on this; indeed they were
often way ahead of their sons and daughters in what they expected of them.
This strikes me as odd, because one would expect that of fathers,
specifically in regard to their sons, but not of mothers. Perhaps at some
point I can find the time to write an essay about a dance party where this
proved to be an issue, one Mom having brought her reluctant kids to play out
her own fantasies. And of course some kids just did it on their own, without
asking. But if Mom's Friend knew what they were planning, unlike the CoG
crowd she insisted that children be told to wait "until they have
discernable pubic hair at least". Well, that's a subjective criterion that
could result in attention being paid to a girl's nether region, attention
that might in any particular case be welcome or might be embarrassing. In
practice, one could tell a girl's attitude -- her eagerness or reluctance
for sexually-driven attention -- by whether, when she was sitting in a chair
nude, her knees were close together or far apart, and whether she welcomed
the gaze, indeed the stares, of others upon her breasts and upon her vulva.
She'd have a second chance at rejection or confirmation of an approach when
a boy would sit down next to her: would she return his gaze by looking in
his face or at his penis? Where would their respective hands go? If he got
an erection, the girl had every right to caress and fondle it -- in fact
there was something wrong if she didn't give it the attention it deserved,
perhaps moving her hand down to cuddle his balls too and leaning over to
give his penis a kiss. As I said, kids of that age are less inclined to
spend time kissing each other on the lips and more anxious to play with
genitals and breasts. So once a girl had made her decision, things could
progress rapidly to experimental or tentative oral sex -- which of course
isn't much different from the "real" kind. If an adult or Older Girl
happened to be around, there might be an invitation to the new recruit to
have a coming-out party, a ceremony of defloration set up so that those
dearest to her could see her beautiful vagina and watch her have a penis
enter it for the first time. We were always willing to finesse the question
of whether a girl who'd tried oral sex was still a virgin. Don't ask, don't
tell. It was enough that a girl who has had her sex parts kissed and has
reached orgasm and then has had semen spurt into her has come as close to
God as it is possible to be.

I have several times described how those defloration celebrations were
handled. The target girl's mother would position her on the bed, either at
the head or the foot; in either case her legs would be spread well apart,
and perhaps lifted up and back, her back supported by pillows, so that she
and we could see her face, her breasts and her crotch. With luck, we might
already be able to see inside her labia. A clever mother would want the boy
to have at least a glimpse of what was inside and to remind him that the
most important part of the event was bringing the girl to orgasm orally.
Anyway, the chosen boy would come in, either naked or wearing only
underpants which he'd take off right away in a sort of quick striptease. He
would approach the girl tentatively, shyly offering her his penis to cuddle.
In other words, he would throw his shoulders back and press his hips
forward, as a signal to her, asking for recognition.

The girl would probably play with the penis and make it hard and beautiful.
This might well be a pretense, but we were perfectly prepared to accept that
she had never touched a penis before, even if we knew or suspected that she
had. Almost always we would get to see the penis in her mouth for a minute
or so; then someone would remind the boy that this was the girl's event, not
his, so that he would crouch down and begin kissing licking the girl's
vagina and engaging her clitoris to bring her to the threshold of climax.
(While most girls do not ever reach orgasm 100% of the time especially when
it's their first time, it seems to me that they always did when they were
the star of a defloration party.) I think it's usually obvious when a girl
is approaching her first orgasm. She, or her mother, would signal, and the
boy, having been prompted, would quickly move up and direct his penis into
her vagina, press it firmly through her hymen, complete her orgasm and fill
her with as much semen as he could produce. Invariably, everybody would be
touched by the beauty and the emotion and naturalness of it all, however
much the couple fumbled and ad-libbed. Every stroke of the penis in vagina
is a reaffirmation, a rededication. I've described these events several
times before, and you can find the essays on the Web site I set up:
http://www.angelfire.com/co4/cobil
Ideally, a girl will grasp the penis to guide it home, but a lot of girls
don't. The Big Breasted Girl didn't, and her boy's big penis wound up poking
her in the wrong place. At a defloration with everybody looking that's not
likely: one of the mothers or friends would speak up. Anyway, Mom's
recommended position on such occasions is such that both boy and girl have a
good view of the penis penetrating and unless the boy is terribly clumsy
everything should go well. Also, the boy will have kissed and licked at the
vagina long enough to make it very dilated and wet. The girl will have her
legs raised, and her vagina will be ready and visible to all, including
herself, as the penis approaches it. In fact, if there is a problem it may
be that the penis is momentarily too rigidly upright to be directed
downwards for easy penetration; the boy then has to lean forward, finding
support for his arms where he can and leaving the girl to manipulate his
penis. I have to say that when a boy with a mature penis takes that
position, so long as he doesn't obscure our view of the girl's vagina and of
his penis's trajectory, it produces the most beautiful scene, with his penis
moving in and out and (if they aren't too tight) his scrotum and balls back
and forth. One of the photographs that accompanied my last essay illustrated
this ("Mom's favorite position").
http://www.angelfire.com/co4/cobil/topl.htm
Most girls would have found a penis like that irresistible, and when the boy
came to greet her would have -- sometimes with prompting from their mother
-- caressed, explored and kissed it first. No wonder that boys were always
in demand afterwards, by all the girls.
 
Perhaps most touching of all is, however, later when the girl, satisfied,
leans back and you can see traces of the couple's combined fluids -- semen,
mucus, blood -- drip from her vagina, while a matching stickiness coats the
boy's softening penis. It is as holy a Christian sign as I can imagine: of
body and blood, of passion and making love. (For those who would call this
blasphemy I can only repeat what Mom says: everybody remakes God into their
own image -- it's not the other way around.) No wonder the mothers of boys
selected for the task were so proud. It was from one of them that I learned
always to suggest to the girl that she should kiss the penis at that point,
spending some time at afterplay and contemplating what she has accomplished.
There are only two such memorable homecomings in a girl's life: her own
birth and the day she escapes from and discards virginity. And it's not much
different for a boy, even if society wants to pretend that it is. Our
community, indeed, had as its basic aim to equalize the status of girl and
boy in sex and in religion -- another reason why we paid no heed to
virginity except to get rid of it. I would always tell a boy and girl
following such an event that this was the proudest day of their lives and
that they should remember it always, no matter if they had a thousand sex
partners thereafter. My reason for saying that was because the most
essential part of the event was assuring the girl a climax. As I've said
many times, starting a girl off right, with an orgasm her first time, is the
most important thing if she is to approach sex correctly. And to feel that
God has spoken to her through it, through that boy's penis. She needs to
know that her life will never be the same, and that she will be the better
off because of it, and that she can count, absolutely, positively on this
new, repetitive joy. She is now free to seduce and be seduced, to show off
her body, to flirt with intent. Every day if she likes, and each time with
somebody different.

(Defloration aside, it goes without saying that the flirty minuet was, and
is, not all that different among older people. While one may have different
notions of what is sexy and different preferences as to physique, penis,
breasts, etc., it worked the same way when I was 15 and older, even when I
became an adult. Boys proposition everywhere, but with us girls could do so
also; and once a girl has the confidence of her convictions nothing stopped
her from responding to a boy's continued stare by commanding him to approach
her so she could have a look at his penis. And his balls -- always his
testicles too. And if she chose to play with the penis, things would go on
from there. It could be very deflating for the boy if, having looked, she
chose not to -- but that was usually just part of the game. What girl
doesn't like to see a boy's penis fill out and rise up on account of her?
And when they've done that, they become so kissable. I often would forget,
until almost too late, that I was supposed to stop and make the boy bring me
to climax orally before letting him ejaculate into my mouth or my vagina.
Sometimes one of the other girls watching would have to remind us, although
none of our regular boys would ever admit to losing interest in his girl's
climax just because he'd already been satisfied. It is disgraceful when a
boy, having ejaculated, takes his penis from a girl's mouth, leaves her
vagina gaping and eager for his kisses, and then ignores her. And since a
lot of boys refuse, rather hypocritically, to kiss a vagina full of their
semen, a girl is taking a risk if she lets him put his penis in before she
has got to the cusp of climax.)

In my time the issue of "when" was an, or the, appropriate time for first
sex wasn't articulated as an issue: it just happened -- but also there was
more pressure to start; the group we lived with hadn't developed any
philosophy on the subject, so Moses David's thinking -- which never had any
rule against importuning or even coercion -- governed by default. And even
Mom's Friend's rule on that subject would not have prevented the boy who in
fact deflowered me from challenging me as he did: we were horsing about and
in a tumble that he provoked, we fell and he somehow managed to slip his
legs in between mine and just directed his penis into my vagina. I hadn't
even realized his penis was erect and to this day I wonder about how it
slipped in so easily without foreplay or extra lubrication. Perhaps I was
somehow excited by the tussle. By the time I came to Mom's Friend's House I
was 13 and past that point: I'd been having vaginal sex for almost two years
and, as I've written, was something of an activist in oral sex and seduced a
whole series of boys during the year I lived on the houseboat with Mom.
Thereafter we moved to Mom's Friend's House. For months to come, in addition
to seducing boys, I would eagerly introduce them to girls their age, girls
just awakening to the possibilities. I knew, of course, that the boys would
fawn over those girls and that ultimately -- usually a matter of weeks --
the girls would surrender. I'd work on their mothers, too, to convince them
their daughters were ready. It was just a matter of getting a girl of, say
12, 13 or 14 to appreciate the power of her own growing breasts, the
potential of her vagina. And the possibility of using them to assert control
over boys. Plus, of course, the fun and delight that a boy's penis
represents, including the fun of deconstructing the mystique of something --
the penis -- that for a lifetime they have so held in awe.

Readers might reasonably ask how the experience of early sex affects later
relationships. As for the CoG, the movingon.org Web site includes a reader
survey, self-selected so that it's hardly statistically sound but
informative nonetheless. The vast majority of ex-CoG children (i.e.,
offspring of CoG members who grew up under their liberal, but intrusive and
pressured, sexual community and had early sex have successful adult
relationships and sex lives. I think that among my own friends the outcome
is similar. A few, boys mainly, have had a hard time adjusting to the
competition: when they were with us there was none, but now they are
competing in a free market. And for reasons I have covered in earlier
essays, it's difficult to carry on now all or even much of what we did,
because of new social norms. post-1985 health risks, and the lack of
interest in commune living. Remember, Mom's Friend is a trust-fund brat:
knowing that CoG members had to give their wealth to the Church upon
joining, her parents set up a trust fund that she could not draw on and
would only receive income from, and the use of a house from, once she left
the organization. In effect, Mom's Friend subsidized her communal boarders
and the single mothers who stayed with her from time to time. None could
ever have afforded a market rent: certainly Mom could not. My own life, too,
has taken a conventional turn. All I can say is that I am happy with my
childhood, and would like to find some compromises for any children I have.
Part of my investigative journalism -- such as calling on Rev. Mary (a cult
where Rev. Mary's own daughter took charge of supervising the sexual
initiation of boys and girls) and visiting Baja California (a timeshare
where kids were left pretty much on their own to experiment sexually) -- has
been to seek out options. Ways in which kids can have holidays where they
can experience nudity, nude playing, nude dancing, and the kind of liberal,
open sex and group arousal under parental supervision that we enjoyed. If we
can preserve a next-generation community with venues for dance parties and
coming-out parties and backyard naturism and fun that we had, it would be
great. But if it is to be a true copy of what I enjoyed, ultimately it has
to be driven and controlled and kept honest by adolescent girls with advice
from their Moms. I have concluded, from my investigation as reported in some
of these essays, that while nude dance parties for teens remain common
currency, outposts of communal life of the sort we had are extremely rare.

Those who would denigrate our life style have called it a "cult of the
penis", but it wasn't that. It is a lifestyle that gives predominance to
sexual expression from the moment of capacity because that is a self-evident
aspect of natural law, of biology. And for all his faults and later
degeneracy and millenarianism (Second Coming, End of World, etc.), Moses
David did have at one point in his life a true insight into the divine order
for sex and in human sexuality. Neither he nor we would force our order upon
outsiders, but we should be free, with our families, to act out our lives as
we feel commanded to do. And that includes the special place that sexuality
and visible sex -- indeed visible ejaculation and respect for semen as the
host of Holy Communion -- hold in our lives. And kids growing up to know
that it's perfectly normal for adolescents to enjoy each others' nude
bodies, for boys and girls to pair off and play erotically in common
company. That penis belongs in mouth and vagina, that ejaculation brings
real joy measured by spurts of semen that the girl should treasure and can
justly show off and happily consume. And that sexual pleasure is a renewable
resource, with penis alternately in mouth and in vagina, and boys obliged to
make their girl happy by kissing and licking her most precious and beautiful
inner parts.

The Children of God as a church has had so much exposure, and there has been
so little direct governmental interference (the Ward case being the major
exception of judicial intervention)
http://countercog.excult.org/judgment/index.htm ,
that despite the rule of law that religious belief is no excuse for criminal
behavior, it seems there were powerful political forces at work to shield
mothers from accusations of child abuse. Perhaps that was part of Mom's
lobbying role in the days when she was flirty fishing among the politically
powerful. I'm not sure that even she knew the implications of what she was
doing; she would build the relationships and more senior staff and their
hired lawyers would move in to make representations. And, as I've written
before, Mom never would discuss the identities of the politicians and senior
staffers she had sex with; eventually I stopped asking because it only upset
her or made her angry, depending on her mood of the day. Mom's Friend, of
course, didn't have that kind of "immunity" so her recovery project for
mothers and children had to be far more discreet. It's always been amazing
to me that the kids who were having so much fun at sex managed to keep it
all a secret once they were out of the house. I think part of it was (1)
that few kids could be or were approached except through their mothers, who
would have had proper commitment and discretion, and (2) since everybody
understood there had to be severe limits on outside boys, with the exception
of very few whose mothers had a special relationship with Mom's Friend, boys
had to be sponsored by a sister or other girl.

As I've written, it isn't every brother and sister who are eager to disrobe
in front of each other and be paired off to have sex in each other's
company. And, often, provide a venue for the first party. In my research on
all of this, reflected in these essays, I found that the biggest risk was in
a potential divorce and custody dispute. But such disputes are rare where
the child is already past puberty since the child has a major say in where
he or she will live. Finally, for whatever reason, most of us had single
Moms and custody was unlikely ever to be an issue and there was nobody to
make mischief about our lifestyle. When we had a dance party, there would
generally be a group of mothers upstairs with Mom's Friend, ostensibly
chaperones but in fact committed to letting us go about having sex, safely
and happily and with variety. Those mothers, conspiring together, managed to
exclude the vast majority of neurotic, inadequate, selfish and inept
hangers-on and troublemakers. Not that any mother ever concedes that her son
(or daughter) is sexually inadequate, but Mom always said in answer to that,
"We can tell." And it's true that word gets around. Even virgin boys -- and
as I wrote, sometimes mothers preferred virgin boys as defloration partners
for their girls -- would turn out to have a reputation that followed them. I
suspect that more often than we thought, they weren't virgins at all and at
least had had oral sex. A mother, pushing her son forward as extension of
her own ego would certainly never tell. And there was this point: the
assigned boy was supposed to be reliable, to have nice penis and an assured
erection, to be conscious of his obligation to bring the girl to climax, to
produce semen in quantity and all the rest. How, if he was a virgin, could
anybody be so sure of these qualities? Better, I thought then and now, for
the girl's mother to admit this and ask for an experienced boy whose penis
and whose personality we all had tried and knew about.

As I've written, lots of times boys could and would happily have oral sex,
even mutual oral sex, months before their penis had grown enough to give
them real confidence for vaginal sex. Some boys feel inadequate on account
of penile size; others ignore the issue and just present the girl with their
middling erection. In my experience, growing boys would likely as not make
up for any perceived genital immaturity by being especially solicitous with
their tongue on my sex parts. I encountered the situation more than other
girls simply because I matured early and began to have sex young, while most
11-year-old boys are just beginning to mature. Encountering that, I started
to especially enjoy boys whose penises and balls were out of synch,
different parts growing at different rates. It's just a matter of being
fascinated by anomalies and curiosities of humanity. It is degeneracy and
perversion when an adult man is aroused by an 11-year-old girl; but for an
11-13 year old boy to be so aroused is normal. And hadn't such boys been
aroused by me, even when I had only the tiniest of breasts, scarcely more
than buds? That boy who targeted and deflowered me when I was 11 must have
seen something sexy in me. And as it turned out, all it took to get me
interested and involved in things sexual was to get rid of my hymen. No
wonder that ever afterwards I've been on a campaign to convince every girl
that she should plan for sex the minute she reaches puberty and that every
Mom should be a matchmaker to bring penis and vagina together. Not in the
fumbling way I did it, but with a party where everybody can make a fuss over
the couple. And the couple can learn that "inadequacy" is a matter of
perception, and of myth. I'm not saying that every teen should have had sex
by the time she or he crosses the puberty threshold, but it's an option for
at least a few, particularly those late to develop; every kid is capable of
both arousal and orgasm at that point. Anyway, the reason for the
involvement of their mothers is that she has the perspective to know when
they should start.

Size apart, at issue for a boy's first vaginal sex is not particularly
dysfunction, as most any young boy who is not physically defective is
capable of an erection. Indeed it can be a fun challenge to make an
inexperienced and nervous boy's penis erect. Especially when the thing
hindering his erection is the presence of his mother, and his very fear of
disappointing her by not being able to penetrate the girl. (That, of course,
is why we had no problem with the 13/14-year-old boy whose erection got
caught in his elastic waistband when his mom tried to help him lower his
underpants as he entered the room where his "bride" was waiting to be
deflowered. But no boy who was suspected of insecurity or impotence would
ever have been selected for that task anyway.) These days, a lot of boys
take Viagra prior to their first coitus, so the problem is virtually
nonexistent. A more difficult issue can be delayed ejaculation, especially
if the boy's penis is thin by comparison with the girl's vagina and there
isn't enough friction to give him a speedy orgasm. The answer there is to
take time out for oral sex. Just one more reason why having mothers and
friends about for a girl's coming out is really helpful and a good idea. It
isn't enough for her just to have her hymen broken: she also needs to know
her partner has ejaculated, and sense semen inside her, if the event is to
serve its purpose as First Communion.

I have to say that all this business of our boys inevitably being OK as sex
partners did not, as the story of my onetime boyfriend the 16-Year-Old Boy,
translate into every boy growing up into a fully-charged, quality partner.
Some kids did well in a structured multi-partner environment, but could not
stabilize their sex lives after age 18 when they were essentially on their
own. That is no different from the indigenous peoples who cannot handle
Western society (a few tragic cases of Hmong immigrants, and even Native
Americans, the latter having every right to special consideration) and who
migrate to their own social spheres. Only today there are few free-sex
communities left and the economy has become unforgiving. Which is to say
that the 16-Year-Old Boy has a job as refrigeration technician, but as far
as I could tell, isn't able to impress any girls to the degree of building a
stable relationship. Probably that has nothing to do with his past with us;
it is enough to say that just proffering a stiff penis is not enough in
adulthood (and if I alienate a few readers by pointing out the truth, so be
it). American cities are full of men and women who -- at best -- spend their
off hours wishfully clicking on pictures in match.com. And at worst waste
their time and money on porn sites. All my experience with him proves, I
think, that it's all well and good to have a lovely, responsive and
productive penis and really lovable balls, but personality counts, too, and
a girl eventually gets bored with a cypherhead, however delightful his
tongue feels inside her vagina. Mom, as I said, had that poster of Louis
Abolafia (you'll see his nude photo, his lovely penis, at
http://www.spectator.net/EDPAGES/exoticerotic.html )
on her wall. And after I'd got rid of the 16-Year-Old Boy she tried to
explain that her criticism of him was that, while he had a lovely penis and
balls just like Louis, what he didn't have was character that you could read
on his face, an outgoing personality that made taking his penis into your
mouth a matter of urgency, desperately wanting to give him pleasure and to
have his semen. That, she said, was something you could tell even from a
photograph. Well, perhaps.

Mom, of course, kept her passion forever for the style of boy she'd loved
from her own teen years. She never could figure out the boys I was with, or
our music or our interests. And although I kept assuring her that I was,
just as she kept telling me, keeping sex "in perspective" and that I did,
indeed, have other interests, and couldn't she see that I read a lot, and
that I was always out with friends hiking and doing stuff, somehow I don't
think she was every fully satisfied. But that's the story of the
generations, isn't it? Take a boy's clothes off, though, and he's the same,
since Adam. No matter how handsome and statuesque his penis, he's still the
same boy inside. Liberal sex was important to Mom; it was a commitment she'd
made long ago. I accepted it, in fact I loved it. I thought I was avoiding
mistakes that Mom had made; she, on the other hand, seems to have thought I
was making them all over again. But one of the points I have tried to make
is that an honest, liberal parent doesn't try to impose her ancient
childhood norms on her kids. Mom was happy to see me in an embrace. She'd
experienced an abrupt breakaway from her own parents when she left them for
the Children of God, and when she found she'd followed a false prophet -- or
at least a partially false one -- she was chastened. She allowed me to make
decisions but provided guidance based on her own experience -- exactly what
an ideal parent would do. Readers may find the theological basis for her
life and mine odd, but I hope that the recent revelations about the Children
of God, The Family and Davidito will prove that the basis was substantial,
even if faulty. One assumes that readers in this venue will not be outraged
by the unconventional, sexually-aware, nature of our theology and hence our
upbringing. But the fact is that -- as all those expensive professionals who
were engaged to analyze children from the Children of God sect found -- in
general one suffers no damage from early and honest sexual encounter. To
know the body of the opposite sex from the earliest age when it is
physically appropriate to do so is a blessing. In fact, postponing sex until
legal age is a matter of economics, not biology or psychology. Human beings
paired off at 14-16 for millennia, and only now, when further education and
maturity are needed to compete in the modern economy have governments
legislated later ages for school leaving and employment. Whatever else they
do, however, governments cannot legislate later ages for puberty -- and in
fact the age of puberty has been falling steadily over a number of years.
(You can google "age of puberty" for the statistics.) Past that age, kids
can and should enjoy each others' bodies. That is natural law. And I have
seen and, I think, shown, that it is right and proper. I hope nobody tries
to extrapolate from the Davidito case -- a young man driven psychotic not by
his past but by his present friends and by hangers-on with an agenda -- to
condemn the life we led. In any case, I have done the best I can to set out
honestly the basis for our beliefs and our practices, what we believed and
what we did. And how it made us better, sexually and socially happier,
adults. More than that I can't do. And what I am not going to do is to
defend human biology, and what comes naturally from it.



Love,
Carol



P.S.: Although I have discussed the issue more than once, I am still asked
how often we, as adolescents, had sex. The assumption seems to be that sex
is all we did. I repeat what I have said before: we may have started our sex
lives earlier than most Americans, girls or boys, and sex may have been a
part of our faith, but it was far from all-consuming. Yes, our dance parties
and the occasional coming-out parties were sex-driven, although at some
coming-out parties the main girl and her beau were the only ones to have
sex; indeed sometimes the only ones to be naked. Yes, there was absolute
freedom to be nude in the backyard and in the basement of Mom's Friend's
House -- as in dedicated zones of lots of homes I've been in, especially
homes of the communal, liberal sort. And girls had equal rights to be flirty
and adventurous and to start something. But in fact and for the rest, making
love was a matter of mood and romance and feeling: it just happened,
spontaneously. I guess for most that meant once, occasionally twice, a week;
counting, I should say, multiple attempts at orgasm on a single occasion as
one time. More often, perhaps, if the weather was nice and people came over.
For me, a lot more often when I was going with the 16-Year-Old Boy. The
truth is, nobody was keeping score -- and except for my diary notes, often
indecipherable and incomplete -- we don't remember exactly. What we do
remember are the funny, the sad, the new and the exciting; but just as we
grow gradually, not even realizing that today we have a few more pubic hairs
than yesterday, our breasts are just that bit grander, our boy's penis a bit
more impressive, one day's joy can be confused with another's. All I can say
with confidence is that the best orgasm ever is your latest one, the best
penis the one that is on the verge, right now, of ejaculating for you.

-- 
Pursuant to the Berne Convention, this work is copyright with all rights
reserved by its author unless explicitly indicated.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| alt.sex.stories.moderated ------ send stories to: <ckought69@hotmail.com>|
| FAQ: <http://assm.asstr-mirror.org/faq.html> Moderators: <story-ckought69@hotmail.com> |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|ASSM Archive at <http://assm.asstr-mirror.org>   Hosted by <http://www.asstr-mirror.org> |
|Discuss this story and others in alt.sex.stories.d; look for subject {ASSD}|
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+