index


Message-ID: <57586asstr$1209935403@assm.asstr-mirror.org>
From: Carol C <cobillard@hotmail.com>
Importance: Normal
Subject: {ASSM} To pray, to flirt, to fish and to feel joy in communion: I have seen ecstasy.
Lines: 1265
Date: Sun, 04 May 2008 17:10:03 -0400
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


"To pray, to flirt, to fish and to feel joy in communion: I have seen
ecstasy." -- Rev.  X.

   "While I was praying, somebody touched me.  It must have been the hand
of the Lord." -- Carl Story.

   Indeed.

   -------------

   Question 1: "What are the rules regarding sex for a 15 year old, as well
as for younger teens?"

   Answer: "Here's what Dad and Maria say that can help clarify that from
the letter Teen Sex, paragraph 36: "(Maria: for the sake of potential
problems with the system, we have set a rule for our girls that they can't
fuck a seminating male after starting their period till they are 15).  Yes,
now you are making the qualification as I said, I think there is no reason
to discourage them from having sex with each other until the girls begin to
menstruate and the boys begin to seminate ...  Man's laws are in violation
of God's laws, and because of this, we just have to be careful with our
revolutionary living and our radical ideas and our liberties and freedoms,
which the system doesn't have and sometimes doesn't tolerate.  So boys and
girls, you can have all the sex you want within the guidelines of
counselling with your shepherds and/or parents, but boys, once you start
having semen, you should not fuck any girls who have started their periods
and are under the age of 15 years old.  Once a teen girl starts her periods
she must refrain from actual fucking with any boys who have semen because
then you could produce a baby....  It[']s o.k.  to fuck boys who do not yet
have semen, and girls, once you've reached your 15th birthday, you can go
ahead and fuck."
-- David Berg, "Questions You Always Wanted To Ask", published shortly
after the Teen Training Camp in 1986, quoted in the judgment of Ward, L.J.,
In the Matter of S.T.  (A Minor) (unpublished, Fam Ct., (Engl.) File

(Docket) W42/1992 (1995)) http://www.exfamily.org/art/misc/justward.htm

   COMMENT: Mom's Friend was never that crude in her manner of speaking. 
(Indeed, Berg's staff tried to soften his edict by replacing the f-word
with "make love".) And unlike Berg, she had a secure way of keeping her
girls safe from unwanted pregnancy: oral contraceptives.  (Berg had said
the following: "ERROR NUMBER 15 SAYS THAT 'CONTRACEPTIVES ARE FORBIDDEN.'
Once again, this is not true.  Contraceptives are discouraged and
disapproved of as being contrary to the laws of nature and of God, but they
are not forbidden.  Any of our girls is free to use them if she wishes to
do so, but we do not approve of them, just as the Pope does not approve of
them, and for the same reason."
http://www.exfamily.org/pubs/ml/b4/ml0591.shtml Mom's Friend deemed the
Pill (as distinct from condoms, at least in the early days) a medical
rather than a theological issue.  After HIV/AIDS became recognized as a
serious hazard, condoms were used by the over-18s when making love with
those outside our community.  No rule, not Moses David's and not Mom's
Friend's, could ever stop adolescents, girls and boys, from incessant
lovemaking -- having come out, having already been deflowered, having
experienced ejaculation in a girl's mouth and in her vagina -- whether or
not they had reached menarche and spermarche.  Nor did such a ban, such an
order to stop immediately upon first menses and first ejaculation, make
biological, psychological or theological sense.  At the age when kids
become the most eager for and needful of sex Berg was asking them to
abstain, or at most to have oral sex.  But put in context, we see that he
was already descending into fuzzy thinking as well as into pedophilia.  In
this essay I review some of the issues relating to puberty and first sex
and the rules codified by Mom's Friend in reaction to what she called
Berg's dementia.  These rules enabled and encouraged girls and boys to have
sex as soon as they started puberty and assured their protection not just
from pregnancy but from predators, from coercion, from STDs and from
emotional harm.  Anyway, as for me 15 was, I think, my best year.  I was
irresistible; I was exhibitionist; I was having more fun and feeling more
empowered than ever before.  And, as it happened, Mom's Friend's House was
at its height.

   --------------

   I must have seen, over the years, a couple of hundred "first times":
girls and boys, sometimes sheepishly, sometimes looking to their mother or
sibling for support, occasionally confidently more often diffidently,
approaching, kissing and exciting each other's sex parts and then finally
making love in front of friends and family.  (A boy of 12-14 is just as
likely to be looking over at his mom, if she is there and watching, than at
the girl's face at the moment when he is pushing his penis into the girl's
vagina.  An older boy will look just at the girl and take his mom for
granted.  Some persons would want to know why any mother would want to see
such an event; but we are beyond that now in this series of essays:
mothers' fixations with their son's penises may be subconscious in
mainstream society but in our ethic and our faith where salvation is part
and parcel of coitus, the mystical relationship between a mother and her
son's penis is openly expressed.) The sight of an adolescent penis entering
an adolescent vagina and bringing both participants into the congregation
of the faithful as full members is both touching and satisfying.  One is
celebrating over semen: a First Communion, proving the normality of sex and
its timeless and intergenerational and spiritual necessity.  The occasion
is always the same, and yet it is always different.

   Mom's Friend and the other mothers of our feminist, maternal sect had
rebelled against Moses David's descent into pedophilia.  They declared that
there should be no sex before onset of puberty; partners should be willing,
capable, consensual and within 10% of each other's age.  It should be safe
sex: limited to a closed circle, each girl on the Pill.  There must be
parental guidance.  That was in the early 1980s: even before the Children
of God's sexual theology faced a scourge of STDs including HIV, and a
proliferation of "Jesus babies" from unprotected flirty fishing with
outsiders.  Mom's Friend and her circle of women argued that liberal sex
was part of the natural scheme of things, part of God's order and that
frustration of the strong sexual urges of adolescents led to many of
society's ills and to neuroses among adults.  Thus: from earliest puberty
adolescents are encouraged to submit to their sexual urges on the basis
that orgasm brings them close to Jesus and that satisfaction of the
universal sexual urge at a young age will help preclude sexual dysfunction
and multiple emotional and psychological disturbance later on.
(In an ironic copy of the Muslim definition of sexual maturity, Mom's
Friend and her group defined it as a boy or girl with any amount of pubic
hair: a status that qualified him or her, if he or she chose, and with his
or her mother's support, to "come out".  [Aside: never mind that Muslims
also shave off their pubic hair: something we were forbidden to do.

http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=2903
] Thus the boy in the middle image here:
http://www.ucsf.edu/sfshare/images/puberty.jpg would in our community
already be active sexually, evangelizing by sharing his penis.  His mom and
any older siblings would have seen to that.  It always seemed to me that
the nicest recognition I could give a pubescent boy was that his penis had
grown since the last time, that I'd enjoyed his semen even more, and so on.
Mothers seemed always to appreciate hearing this -- especially when they'd
been watching all along.
(Possession of pubic hair can have disastrous consequences in Islam: "It
was reported that a boy who had stolen something was brought to `Uthmaan.
He said, `Look at his groin (to see if he had pubic hair, which would
indicate whether he had reached the age of puberty [and would therefore be
considered to be a responsible adult] or not).' They did not find any pubic
hair, so they did not cut off his hand." (Al-Mughni, 7/459; Ghidha'

al-Albaab, 1/97)."

   (I am reminded of the sister and brother at Rev.  Mary's so excited
after their first sex, jumping up and down in embrace with their mother,
penis and vagina still sticky and dripping.  "The mother of the siblings
turned her kids in such a way that the three of them formed a triangle, and
her eyes moved up and down darting from her boy's penis and his balls to
her daughter's vagina, then to her daughter's breasts and to the faces of
both of them.  I wondered if she often saw them naked, or if this was a
rare opportunity for her to verify the beauty of their bodies and their
sexual capacity and competence." http://tinyurl.com/38q9gd )

   It was, as Mom said, important always to be expressive over a penis, at
least if you liked the boy or thought you might like him if you got to know
him.  I considered it a success if I could make the penis erect just by my
body language.  And when I would choose to go further and make love with
the boy I wanted his penis to stay hard while he was kissing my vagina; I
wanted him in a constant state of anticipation of his own orgasm and
ejaculation.  One has a way of knowing when an erection is contrived and
when it is the genuine result of eagerness for your body.  Only in the case
of true arousal and excitement can we say that there is divine intervention
and presence.  It's for that reason that a drop of seminal fluid at the tip
can be so telling.  And so delicious.

   (12- and 13-year-olds, if they stayed with us or if they continued to
visit could scarcely escape the sexual electricity chez nous.  Thus even if
a boy's or a girl's mother did not take the initiative, the inclusiveness
of the peer group and the frequent nudity assured an awakening of the
sexual spirit.  By 12 or 13 every boy and girl would be ready, and for boys
the readiness would bring erections, and the erections would bring
invitations to make love.  Inevitably, given the foregoing, many
adolescents came out spontaneously, even by accident the way I did;
something of a pity since coming out parties were so nice.  In a few
occasions they would come out at a nude dance party -- as the Big Breasted
Girl did at age 13; but that was uncommon since those parties were supposed
to be reserved for 14 or 15-year-olds through 18-19 year-olds.  13- and
14-year-old boys and girls don't have much in common (besides their need
for sex) with older teens.  That essay is here: http://tinyurl.com/2sotow
It's an account of a girl who showed up at our party and was overwhelmed by
the sexual electricity and by the sexual eagerness of her date.  In the end
she became desperate for his penis to slide inside her vagina -- dilated
and ready -- and we, the onlookers, were equally eager for it to happen. 
What that means to me is that one is ready for sex as soon as one feels the
need; that the parent's task is to make that sex safe and not to inhibit it
but to encourage and manage it.)

   Mom's Friend argued for that, and indeed for more: that we should be
proud of our bodies, especially of our sex parts.  The search for
"naturalness" led her and her friends to naturism: to "nudity in its
place", areas of her house -- the enclosed pool area and the basement --
where nudity was optional but customary.  Mom's Friend -- whose parents had
provided for her with a trust fund available to her if and when she would
leave the CoG (thus preventing her from giving any of her inheritance to
the Church) -- was now financially independent, and she bought and
furnished a large house: a rooming house for mothers who had absconded from
the CoG, from other cults, from communes.  Here her life experiment began,
long before the start of the modern witch hunt targeting nonstandard child
raising, family nudity and public sex involving minors.  A child who had
grown up (as some or many in the CoG had) seeing their elders engaging
making love and hence visualizing themselves having similar urges and doing
likewise, watched as members of their cohort approached sexual maturity and
began their sex lives.

   (One claim that caused a stir especially among the mothers and former
CoG members, and also among girls who had come to Mom's Friend's House
after losing their virginity elsewhere (myself included) was Mom's Friend's
claim that no girl need feel pain at her coming out and only very rarely
did a boy have to be urged to press harder with his penis.  I think that
the facts turned out very surprising: when a girl's vagina is heavily
lubricated with saliva from oral sex, and when her boy is 13 or 14 and his
penis less than an inch in diameter, pain seems not to be an issue. 
According to folklore there are girls who cannot be deflowered without
surgical help but we never knew any such.  A lot of girls were examined by
Mom's Friend's doctors: unsurprisingly, I think given what we now know
about such things, Mom's Friend had lots of hangers-on who were
professionals, doctors, ministers, lawyers, politicians.  And of course
Mom's Friend knew how to use them to good advantage to keep herself and her
girls and boys out of the spotlight.)

   To boy and girl alike the erect penis became symbol not of aggression
but of romance and passion, and of the presence and life-direction of God.
Arousal and erection denoted closeness to the Divine; orgasm and
ejaculation were Divine rewards.  And the sharing of bodily fluids was
tantamount to Holy Communion: the body and blood of Christ, shared between
to lovers in His name.

   Thus, Mom's Friend, over time, developed certain rules for our sexual
development and expression: � The sexual urge, normal at the onset of
puberty, was not to be resisted.  � Sexual maturity began with the onset of
puberty: menarche or spermarche.
� "False modesty", inhibitions, embarrassment, shame, guilt were
unfounded and rejected: the sexual urge, a normal signal for a bodily

function, was to be obeyed.  � Sexual exclusivity below the age of 18 was
discouraged although not prohibited; adolescents were encouraged to relate
to different partners but only one partner in any 24-hour period.  � A
sexual exchange should always begin by oral sex, the "true" foreplay.  It
followed that the "highest form" of sex would be mutual oral sex, with
vaginal sex following; or else oral foreplay, vaginal sex, and then oral
sex again after ejaculation.  � The girl should be in charge of directing
the manner of sexual expression, and the girl should be assured her right
to pursue orgasm.  It was in recognition of the need of many girls for oral
clitoral stimulation that lay behind (it seems) the rule mandating oral
sex. � Lovemaking ought to be done in tandem, in the presence of others:
family and friends, recognizing that vicarious sexual enjoyment is an
important element of sex and that the enjoyment of one couple enhances the
pleasure of another.  The example most often given was of a brother and
sister each making love with a best friend of the other, each taking
pleasure not only in his or her own orgasm but that of friend and sibling
alongside, and appreciating the sight of trickles, drips and traces of
semen.  � Adolescent sex must be restricted to a closed circle of our own
faith, both as a matter of prudence to avoid external scrutiny and
denunciation, and as a matter of medical safety.  � Circumcision was
mandatory: for Biblical, medical and aesthetic reasons.  As I have shown in
past essays, aside from religious mandates circumcision is
maternally-driven anyway.  And for oral sex it is a distinct advantage.
The essence of this was that adolescents' sexual development depended
not only on the example and the guidance of peers but also on positive
encouragement and example of mothers and their partners or lovers, on older
siblings, and indeed on Mom's Friend and her quasi-professional hangers-on
such as the Rev.  X.  While pre-pubescent and younger children would
generally pay no or little attention to the sexual activities of their
elders, they certainly were not unaware of what would be expected of them
as they developed physically.  Indeed, while every positive effort was made
to avoid any feeling of inadequacy on the part of those who developed late
or of superiority of those who were precocious, the sight of developing
breasts and developing penises, of pubic hair and of erections and
relationships, could not ever be avoided.  (And this is normal.  In France,

children are taught properly about sex:
http://www.geocities.com/cobil1/parischildren.html ) This led to some
eagerness to experiment sexually: not a bad result, according to Mom's
Friend.  One does not need to have a fully mature penis or vagina to enjoy
sex, and in fact oral sex is extremely satisfying even in the early stages
of puberty.  Moses David had encouraged oral sex so long as the girl
swallowed the ejaculated semen: http://www.exfamily.org/children-of-god/
From the standpoint of the girl there is indeed some tactical advantage in
becoming used to dealing with penises of a manageable size and lesser
ejaculations first: for us in fact performance of oral sex became something
of theater as well as sex for its own sake.  Certainly many girls of 12 or
13 or even 14, with due regard to the 10% rule, enjoyed being the first
partner of a boy and -- as I did so often during our year living on a
houseboat when I was 12 and 13 -- seducing boys almost at random who
satisfied certain criteria I set.  (My diary for that year describes each
and every boy and his penis and his personality; it's almost 15 years later
and I blush when reading it.  I'm sure the boys would blush even more -- in
fact The Blond-Haired Boy, a coincidental re-encounter and my present
boyfriend, did blush when I showed him -- especially the sketches I made
right afterwards.  When, not so long ago, Mom got to see his penis again --
a lovely one with its blond pubic hair and its head larger than its shaft
-- she pretended to remember it, and she clearly loved the sight of the
semen streaks on my breasts, its traces on my chin and my thighs.)

   All of that said, there was no reason for a girl or boy not to flaunt
her or his developing body, and there was, I think, less reluctance in ours
than in the general naturist community on the part of changelings -- boys
and girls between the ages of 10 and 11, say -- to appear naked and show
off the first stages of their development, a few pubic hairs, a penis
getting thicker, breastlets appearing.  There was, in particular, pride to
be taken in spontaneous erections because this was a signal of God's grace.
I remember how, when I was 13-1/2 and 14, Mom's Friend used to remind me,
when she saw me seated, to keep my knees apart so that my "best parts would
be visible to the boys" and that I should take note of their arousal, that
this was a "good sign".  How different from the advice of other mothers'
and other women in locus parenti that girls should keep their legs closed
"in ladylike fashion".  To us as to feminists, "lady" was a pejorative
term. Vaginas were to be seen and shared, stares, or at least gazing, to be
welcomed as a compliment.  Mom's Friend again: "it's kissable and fun; let
the misogynists do without." Because little boys grew up familiar with the
vagina ("hidden in plain sight" to other boys, even most of those in family
nudism) -- and especially because they see teens and adults making love --
their attitude to the vagina is wholesome and positive.  None that I knew
of ever hesitated, when the time came, at oral lovemaking, or fretted about
mucus, blood and semen when kissing the postcoital vagina.  And in our
circle no boy from the age of ten up was unaware that kissing and licking a
clitoris will bring intense pleasure to a girl, nor of the rule that the
advent of pubic hair is the signal for boys and girls to begin making love.
Mom's Friend's view was that at the sight of a vulva a boy should feel a
desire to kiss it; and similarly for girls seeing an attractive penis.  The
urge might be resisted for eminently practical reasons, but it boys and
girls should nonetheless be so conditioned.

   There was some pressure on the part of some mothers, dating I suppose
from the Moses David years, to let, or to seduce, pre-pubescent boys into
having intercourse with mature girls.  This was an issue in litigation
involving the CoG, it was the way "Davidito" -- Moses David's stepson --
was introduced to sex, and it was seen as "normal" and beneficial.  Child
minders and teachers could and did seduce their infant charges.  Mom's
Friend was adamantly opposed: she saw this as one more element of the
pedophilia that had infected the Church.  From my standpoint, and I think I
know as much about going through puberty and facing the challenge of sex as
anybody, the impulse to have sex should come from the teen and be based on
her or his perceived urges and wants.  And, as I said, there should be
pubic hair.  Certainly sex should start by or around the time of menarche
and spermarche, and for those few who mature late an exception can be made;
but it is wrong for a parent not just to take satisfaction in a child's
first sex but to deem it a personal failure if a girl's defloration or a
boy's first intercourse is delayed due to late maturity.  It is not so much
a matter of size, it's a matter of hormones and desire.  If the two
partners are of the same age and emotional maturity, size is irrelevant: as
Moses David said, even a small child is capable of orgasm.  But whether it
is wise to impose the challenge of sex on an immature body is another
matter; on that basis I think the criterion of pubic hair is valid.  Few
girls will, anyway, be interested in a penis that has not already begun to
grow and that has some pubic hair.  And it's one thing for a boy (or a
girl) to anticipate first sex "soon" or "in a few months" or "sometime in
the future" and quite another to have had a first orgasm and to be unable
to desist from chasing after more.

   I have previously referred to a prescient Craigslist posting that proves
the Big Lie that a bigger penis is necessarily a better one:
http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sea/172601243.html (there comes a
point at which too much is more than enough and quite a nuisance).  The
current torrent of spam fraudulently promising the impossible -- pills or a
patch that will make a penis grow magically to 7 inches in length and 3
inches around -- tries by sheer dint of boring repetition to attribute a
truth to the two propositions: that a giant penis is (a) possible and (b)
desirable for sex.  I have said, and I have said this from considerable
experience, that average is best.  By "average" I mean the range enjoyed by
85% of adult males.

   Certainly there are girls and women who like to be seen fondling and
orally caressing and welcoming into their vaginas painfully large penises,
but the fact is that most girls would put higher priorities on personality,
wealth and facial and body attractiveness.  Of course for adolescents the
criteria are someone fuzzier since we were not looking at that age for a
life partner and, for girls of 11 to 14 many boys whose penises they would
be playing with would still be at the changeling stage, with the penis
growing.  Assuming the correctness of this chart
http://www.average-penis-size-chart.com/average-penis-length.html a penis
is not fully grown until age 17 or 18.  That said, a 4- or 5-inch penis is
cute and functional and I scarcely dare to try to count the millions of
babies who have been born to fathers of that age, much less the hundreds of
millions of girls who have been pleased to play with them and be deflowered
by them.  If anyone should have been apprehensive about public reception of
a penis of that size it would have been the mothers who unclothed them at
coming out parties; yet this never was an issue: not with the mothers and
not with the girls.  And evidently not with the boys since boys of 13 (with
few exceptions they were the youngest recruited for the task, and most were
14) always produced semen adequate enough to impress girl, girl's mother
and girl's friends.  (I can recall a couple of boys who, having produced
their first drops of semen, rushed to show their mothers; it must be
exciting for a boy.) One might speak, mutatis mutandis, of girls' breasts:
boys have different preferences, different demands; but in our environment
of adolescent girls many girls with super capacity for oral and vaginal sex
still had relatively undeveloped breasts and it scarcely mattered.  In any
event the eagerness of a girl to play with a penis will distract a boy from
their breasts.  Time will tell: as with growing penises their partners
might not notice from day to day but from month to month there was a
difference and our occasional group photographs proved the point: girls
became sexy not just for what they did but for what they were.  It was
actually Rev.  X who gave the girls the greatest insight into the
psychology of boys and the impact of the sight of breasts on the penis; it
was also he who stressed that sex is not a competitive sport, nor is it a
zero-sum game.  It was he who said that girls are at their sexiest (at most
coquettish) at age 16.  ("Watch her while she chooses a boy for the nude
dance party", he would say, "and then watch her during the first half of
the dance, at the time leading up to where she first plays with his
penis.") The aim of our faith, our inheritance from Mo and the CoG, is that
girls should need and want penises in their bodies early and often as proof
of faith and as a means of spreading that faith.  But the religious aspect
cannot be separated from the sexual one, so girls and boys equally must be
freed of societal restraints; of inhibition, of modesty, of shame and of
hesitation.  In this sense there would always be a difference between the
teen or adult convert and the adolescent and grown-up who was born into the
faith and learned its tenets before puberty.  Our girls should not have
mixed feelings about their vaginas as mainstream girls do as described by a
commentator in the New York Times Magazine a couple of years ago:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/magazine/01wwln_lead.html The vagina is,
whatever the misogynists say, a thing of beauty.  You can see the beautiful
vaginas of some beautiful Chinese actresses like Gillian Chung on the
photos purloined from Edison Chen's pink MacBook that he foolishly brought
in for service: http://tinyurl.com/ynptn2
http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212128810.shtml

   (I've previously written that Rev.  X was always correct with under-18s,
however much it was obvious that he enjoyed seeing their nudity.  On the
other hand he did seduce probably half the girls when they came of age and
I'm somewhat embarrassed to say that I was one of them.  I wrote about how
after my 18th birthday party he managed to get me to a corner of the
backyard and put his penis into my vagina without my being able -- or
wanting to be able -- to say no.  I can only take credit for thereafter
having refused his importuning to take his sticky penis in my mouth.  (And
hey, I normally love to have sticky penises in my mouth!) A smooth talker
was he; and like so many -- too many -- clergymen he had a talent for
getting his penis into the vaginas of members of his "parishioners".  I
don't mean to denigrate Rev.  X: we put up with him not merely because he
and his penis entertained us but also because he had valid theology and
guidance to impart.

   (Furthermore he provided a reassuring public face for Mom's Friend's
commune that, with the other professionals, protected us from intrusion and
interference by the authorities.  That two or three of those "authorities"
got sexual favors, mainly from among some of the single mothers, is besides
the point.  No animals (so to speak) and no mothers, and most of all no
minor children, were harmed in the process.  And who am I to complain given
that I was one of those "Jesus children" born of Mom's liaisons with some
Capital City political figure when she was flirty fishing, lobbying for the
CoG and promoting Berg's "Law of Love"? 
http://www.exfamily.org/art/exmem/ffing_ed.shtml
http://www.movingon.org/article.asp?sID=1&Cat=9&ID=3597 Lastly, if I've
given the impression that Rev.  X was a "dirty old man" please be disabused
of that: I didn't mean to give that impression.  He was neither old nor
dirty, just self-satisfied, supremely self-confident (as Evangelicals are
wont to be, I suppose) and persuasive.  He did manage to make girls and
women feel pretty, sexy, witty, wanted and important, no bad quality in any
man.  In addition, he was objectively a good lover and it is difficult to
find fault with a man once you have seen his penis ejaculating into your
mom and your mom entranced and in ecstasy.)
"Coming out" -- a girl's first sexual experience, her first penis in
vagina -- as often as not was a planned affair.  Mine, at age 11-1/2, was a
spontaneous "accident", but that was unusual.  Unusual to say the least: I
was tussling with a boy and fell down and suddenly his penis was inside me.
Which in retrospect must have involved some planning and lubricating on his
part for it to slide in as easily as it did, even given his age and size. I
had expected the event to occur after consultation with Mom and with
friends about but it didn't work out that way.  Shortly afterwards I tried
oral sex, and for that I did have an audience.  Some girls, a minority in
fact, would have a coming out party -- a defloration party -- with a couple
of friends and their partners and mothers of the boy and girl.  The girl
would be seated at the foot of a bed and the boy's mother would generally
escort him to the door and see to the removal of his underpants, and he
would then approach the girl and, perhaps after a perfunctory kiss, present
his penis to her to play with and to kiss.  As often as not the boy would
have at least a partial erection when he first got to her; if not she would
see to it with her lips and tongue.  And then she would spread her legs and
the boy would kiss and lick her vagina and her clitoris and bring her to
the threshold of orgasm.  At which time he would press his penis into her
vagina, friends of the girl perhaps holding her legs up so that the
gorgeous sight of penis deflowering her and ejaculating into her could be
seen and enjoyed.  Mom's Friend thought it was important that the girl
herself grasp the penis and aim it into her vagina -- that she should be an
active party to her own coming out.  In reality it didn't always work out
that way; there's a certain urgency to the penile penetration; the occasion
tends to move at its own pace and direction.  There's actually a how-to
video of this minuet, not an actual defloration however, part of which has

been posted to the Internet: http://snurl.com/1z4mm -- the point is that
there should be a reciprocal commitment to building up each other's
excitement, finally resolved by the penis entering the vagina at the very
point when the girl is on the threshold of orgasm.  I think it's important
in every case where the girl has confidence in her partner and knows that
he will follow her cues, for her to take charge of his penis at the outset
and begin with a flourish: making the penis very stiff and taking it in her
mouth for a couple of minutes of excitement.  Then the boy must spend as
much time as needed brining her close to orgasm before putting his penis
into her vagina.  After ejaculation, the girl can retrieve the penis to
enjoy the fluids; indeed mutual oral kissing is a lovely form of afterplay
and Holy Communion.  Those who master this technique at puberty, Mom has
told me, are those who are most likely to carry on that way through old
age, using sex as an instrument of faith and evangelism as well as of
mutual personal pleasure.

   It goes without saying that not everybody is gorgeous while making love.
Nonetheless, what is gorgeous about everybody's lovemaking is the
anticipation of orgasm on their face -- and if you know how to read it on
their genitals too -- and even more so the transformation that happens when
they slide into the point of no return and orgasm takes over from
anticipation.  And then, it is to be hoped, the onlooker can see the proof
in the form of a trickle of semen, and in confirmatory smiles of joy.  That
is a fact of life and I wrote about it in "The Golden Wedding Celebration"
not long ago, a family lovemaking celebration of their grandparents' 50th
anniversary:
http://tinyurl.com/2m7gza
It is the tragedy of mainstream society that children are taught, or in
any case led to think, that sex is somehow dirty and contaminated with sin
when the opposite is true.  Tying it purely to personal love and commitment
rather than religious devotion and religious (and sexual) delight for its
own sake is just one more means of social control, and specifically control

over women's bodies.

   By affirming the rejection of social and psychic inhibitions, one's
first sexual experience releases one to engage in sex upon impulse.  One
quickly adopts a silent language, and few of my friends ever needed to
exchange words about what kind of stimulation was desired.  Even in the
first house, where I lived until I was 12 and where everybody was clothed,
or partly clothed, most of the time, it was common to see a boy and a girl
spontaneously disrobe and begin to caress and kiss and play with each
others sex parts and then move to mutual oral sex and to intercourse as the
case may be.  At Mom's Friend's House the model was our nude dance parties
where, as in a 2- or 3-ring circus, couples would stop dancing, move to one
of the gym mats, and proceed to perform sex.  Others would watch and you
could, of course, measure their arousal by watching the boy's penis become
erect and by seeing the girl become fidgety, her nipples begin to show the
signs of arousal, and the boy and the girl start to fondle each other. 
Soon they would take the place of the first couples now drippy with semen
and smiling sheepishly, proudly or exhaustedly.  But, hey, these boys did
not pretend to be Chippendales, and none of the girls or moms expected that
of them.

   It is now approaching a decade since Mom's Friend more or less closed
her boarding house to families with children.  There are annual alumnae
gatherings and there are often visitors, but Mom's Friend has always had
good connections among politicians and professionals and it became clear
that she would be in danger if she continued.  This is a pity: maternal
supervision provided protection.  There remain cults and communes, but
these are smaller scale, and the sexual activities of teens tend to be
peer-driven so that the parents can offer "plausible denial".  The irony of
this is that at the same time that Society and its Hypocrites have engaged
in such witch hunts, culture has moved ahead and, especially with free
access to sexual knowledge and to chat rooms on the Internet, more than
ever girls and boys and having indiscriminate sex as soon as they are
physically capable.  And indeed, sometimes an eagerness is created even
earlier: without a mother's guidance there can be unfortunate results.  The
experience of those families who -- like the emigrating fundamentalist
Mormon polygamists of more than a century ago -- have migrated to Mexico or
Canada is, I think, better.  There is no reason why sex should be secretive
and hidden even from friends and family when it is such a universal
impulse.
The point is that making love is so basic to the human condition that it
is seen as a right and indeed a holy obligation.  (This, of course, creates
in our faith the same conflict with homosexuality that exists in virtually
all traditional beliefs; but the nature of our practice meant that we saw
almost none of that, and indeed almost no cases of impotence either, not
that various mothers did not at various times fret over their boys', and

sometimes their girls', capacity and proclivity.)

   As I've noted before, things have changed in the last decade and many
boys come equipped for their first sex having taken Viagra -- just as the
girl will have started on the Pill the month before.  That, after all, is
what mothers are for: to keep their kids safe.  Here's an article from a
British newspaper on the 10th anniversary of Viagra:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2008/feb/24/controversiesinscience

   Mom had, in a poster on her wall of the 1960s Nude Party "candidate" for
President, Louis Abolafia, what she considered a model penis. 
http://snurl.com/louisabolafia (not the same poster that Mom had, but you
get the point).  Louis was a bit too hirsute for my taste, but is penis was
indeed nice.  I see that Google has a lot to say about him:
http://tinyurl.com/2e2vyp ; looking further on Nexis I see that the
Associated Press carried a brief obituary, picked up by many newspapers,
November 3, 1995: "Louis Abolafia, an artist who ran for president against
Richard Nixon in 1968 as the naked Hippie 'love candidate,' died of a drug
overdose Monday, authorities said.  He was 54.") That was Mom's generation
(and Louis having been only 27 in 1968 wasn't old enough under the
Constitution to run for president).  Never mind Louis's penis (and I'm not
sure whether she actually ever met Louis or not much less made love to him)
she would often refer to the penis of her partner of the day as "gorgeous".
Like many of us, she loved to show off each erection and bits of all the
semen she collected.

   (There is a compromise here: the best orgasm and ejaculation for most
boys is when the girl keeps a steady, usually slow, up and down pace and
stimulates a constant repetition of spurts of semen but the most attractive
display is when the head of the penis is outside her mouth and semen can be
seen to erupt up and stream, or at least trickle, out without however
making a mess and getting all over her face.  The best compromise I think
is when some semen is allowed to escape from her mouth and then at the last
spurt the penis is brought briefly out of the mouth with semen all over its
head, and then put back in the mouth to be licked clean.  This anyway is
what I tried to do, not always with perfect success; the hope was that any
boys watching would by then have excited erections, something more likely
among younger, less cynical ones.  Because of Mom's Friend's House as a
female refuge there were generally more girls than boys about which meant
that nearly any boy would have, or could find, a partner.)

   Anyway, to get back to the main point: the vagina too should be on
display whether it is being kissed and licked or whether the penis is
inside it.  At our nude dance parties I enjoyed holding (or having my boy
hold) my vagina up high in mutual oral sex and having it kissed and licked
while making love to the tip of my partner's penis with mouth and tongue.
In that situation it isn't always possible to keep everything in mind and
while the show is gorgeous for the onlooker the oral stimulation may not be
perfect.  At age 15 or 16 if the boy ejaculated into my mouth early in the
evening he would certainly want to, and be able to, have a vaginal orgasm
later on.  Even older boys could usually do that if they didn't get
sidetracked by boy talk at my expense.  Girls could be expected to
congregate and gossip and preen and show off their traces of semen to each
other; but we hoped boys would stay focused on us throughout.

   Mom seems to have wanted me to watch her closely as she took a man's
penis and played with it, made it stiff, kissed it and, in due course made
it ejaculate -- before or after her own orgasm.  Early on she wanted me to
know what a vagina was for and how it worked and how a man could make a
girl happy by licking her clitoris.  She wanted, above all, to get across
the theme that the clitoris could be sexy, a concept not usually in the
public domain.  I would see Mom's dilated vagina and wonder how mine would
ever become like that.  But that would be a fleeting thought: as a small
child I was not interested once I'd learned the basics of anatomy.  Later I
found that to be the general rule among pre-pubescent children: curiosity
but also avoidance and, sometimes, embarrassment at one's own incapacity. A
very few would be precocious in one way or another, and they were usually
secretive about it.  But then, on the threshold of puberty, more curiosity
and some eagerness and anticipation: a hurry to get that capacity and a
"wonderment" about what the fuss is over, what is orgasm.  Girls, and boys
too, would start to hang around older teens while they were making love,
and they would be seemingly hypnotized by the sight of a penis moving in
and out of a girl, and by the traces of semen that would appear at
ejaculation.  And then for the girls there would be a positive knowledge, a
confidence, that very soon they would have the capacity to arouse and the
desire to play with a penis too.  This is something that as an 11-year-old
I chatted about with other girls, and it led me to that incident where I
saw a boy masturbating and I went over and I got some KY jelly and I
finished the job for him and got surprised when his semen spurted into my
eye.  One of the mothers passed by and pretended not to see: this was so
ordinary an incident there.  At Mom's Friend's House the mother would
probably have had something to say, perhaps about how oral sex would be
superior to masturbation, perhaps suggesting a coming out party for me. 
But at the first house things were more laissez-faire.  Closer indeed to
the CoG and the dictates of all those "Mo Letters" that Moses David had
sent around.

   I reached the stage where I would stare at the penis in Mom's poster and
I would wonder about the folds, the ridges and the wrinkles and the secret
of what made a penis erupt after constant rubbing.  (When I look at a
penis, or think of one, I invariably envisage running my tongue around its
ridge and exciting it, of the penis filling out and moving up and pressing
into my mouth; and if I'm on the floor or on a bed I instinctively spread
my legs to make room for my partner to put his mouth over my vulva and
press his tongue inside and make me feel good.) And later, when I talked to
boys, I found they had the same wonder about all the secrets and wonders of
the vagina, and a confident expectation that when their penis became
attractive to girls they would be kissing vaginas and making them ready for
that penis to go inside.  And that neither girl nor boy would hesitate once
both were ready.

   The point is that there is no room for inhibitions in our faith, these
we think to be society-imposed and based on false, unnatural teachings. 
This is best articulated by the difference in how boys and girls react to
the challenge of first sex depending on whether they were raised in our
faith and our community, or not.  In the year I lived with Mom on the
houseboat and seduced boys from outside, I found a nervousness and an
insecurity in boys even as they were bashfully taking down their pants and
showing me their penises.  My strategy, as I've explained it a couple of
times in these essays, was to engage a boy in conversation, give him the
opportunity to peek at my breasts under my oversize T shirt, embarrass him
by catching him in the act, and teach him that nothing could be more normal
and appropriate -- and that he must reciprocate by showing me his penis. 
By constant chatter in the manner of any sophisticated confidence trickster
I would get him naked and begin to play with his penis.  I chose slender
boys with dark fuzz on their upper lips because I thought their penises
would be growing and pretty, bookish ones because I knew I would have
enough to talk with them about and be able to distract them without
frightening them away.  I wanted the boy's penis to be just a slightly
smaller model of Louis's; I wanted a nice bed of pubic hair and an exciting
rush of semen when the boy ejaculated.  I wanted it to be sticking straight
out as soon as it saw me, letting me celebrate its sleekness, its slit and
the semen hiding inside.

   Where there was an audience, as in later years when we lived at Mom's
Friend's House, I would love to show off the new penis, the wrinkly
scrotum, the smooth shaft and especially the lovely circumcised (it was
always circumcised at Mom's Friend's House: the mother would have known
that if not at birth before her boy reached puberty his penis would have to
be circumcised or he would not be welcome there) head of the penis.  To
kiss and moisten it, to watch the boy's expression change from
apprehension, to anticipation, to delight, was always lovely.  (Moses David
had a different opinion on circumcision.  Citing the apostle Paul and the
New Covenant, he claimed it was redundant. 
http://www.exfamily.org/pubs/ml/b5/ml2806.shtml I'm not going to go into
theological arguments here except to point out that Paul could not have
been correct as Jesus's penis was circumcised and when I kiss a penis today
I think of His penis too.  For the rest, suffice it to say that
circumcision has always, since the 19th Century anyway, been popular in
America, first as a supposed preventive measure for masturbation -- and,
hey, the Scouts and sports were supposed to be that too -- and then as a
public health measure.  But it does have a religious root, and it is
attractive and hence female-driven.  Only a couple of times in my life have
I had an uncircumcised penis in my mouth, and those were foreigners in a
foreign country.)

   The point of catching a changeling boy early -- at least from Mom's
Friend's viewpoint -- was that (in a change from Moses David's teaching)
masturbation was deemed redundant and Biblically forbidden; in fact
beginning with the first kiss and until after ejaculation boys were not
supposed touch their penis; it was for the girl to give the penis direction
and pleasure, aim and control.  (See Berg's pamphlet "My Childhood Sex! 
Doing What Comes Naturally": http://www.exfamily.org/pubs/ml/ml779.shtml
Meanwhile oral sex gave the girl the opportunity to display her vagina, to
flaunt it, to excite bystander boys.  Thus the rule that until they reach
the stage of choosing a life partner boys and girls should preferably have
a different partner for successive days of lovemaking and should come to
know every boy and his penis within their age range.  But only one partner
in any 24 hour period and, where possible, lovemaking should be in front of
friends and family, never alone.

   This was not, I hasten to add, an invitation to promiscuous sex.  It
was, rather, a mandate and an instruction to use sex as God intended, to
evangelize and to draw partners into the circle of Jesus: "flirty fishing",
with each orgasm being at the same time a matter of prayer and pleasure. 
Mom's Friend expanded the concept so that boys, too, had the role of
fishers: when they would go to college and out to the wider world they
would have learned how to attract and to please women and to bring them to
Jesus: using, as she liked to say, "Jesus's penis".  I think as a practical
matter it was her boys' acquired taste for cunnilingus and knowledge of
girls' anatomy and their assurance of climax and their treatment of the
fluids of lovemaking -- the mingled semen, mucus and menstrual blood -- as
Communion Host as much as anything.  On the other hand, the kind of
personalities that would allow a boy or girl to flourish in our community
would have succeeded in any sexually-charged environment of which college
is a quintessential example.  And I can think of a couple of our boys who
had been chosen multiple times to deflower girls at coming out parties --
and who, later on at college, could be seen to have a particular talent for
finding virgins among the student body to seduce.  Breeding will out, as
they say.  What I found remarkable was the degree these girls would consent
to make love for the first time not alone and in seclusion, but with at
least one other couple there, sharing that sexual electricity.  I would
have thought that girls had to be brought up in our culture and our ethic
to want to have witnesses to that first penis penetrating their hymen, and
to look to that penis as the hand (or, indeed, the penis) of Jesus.  But
the evangelical talents of the missionary can perhaps be learnt after all;
the confidence of the target girl be won by constant romantic chatter and
by passion just as much as 12- and 13-year-old boys entrusted their penis
to me on the houseboat, hypnotized by force of passion and by my voice.
(This worked in one of two ways, or both together.  As the debate over
the Mormon Romney and the Southern Baptist Huckabee showed, two strong,
missionary religions can invade each other's territory and gather converts.
When I was at community college I had no trouble attracting certain boys
(i.e., evangelically "Christian" boys), and showing them that Mom's
Friend's interpretation of Bible and of sex as religion were the "right"
way.  Indeed at one point a boy from Mom's Friend's House and I made a
rather successful sport of targeting Promise Keepers: it's not just boys
who are vulnerable to seduction -- almost anybody is.  I found it even less
difficult to enrapture boys through sex in the manner of traditional flirty
fishing and to draw them as long as it amused me into our circle, without
revealing too much and exposing Mom's Friend to denunciation if the
relationship went sour.  Thus in neither case would I reveal my background
or our liberal sexuality until there was already commitment on his part:
however removed from the CoG today, former members and children of members
keep their backgrounds secret until it is safe to reveal them -- if ever.
None, for example, were ever told about Mom's background, and none ever saw
Mom in the nude.  But evangelism has a power to exclude the contrary, and I
know that romance, passion and sex have that power as well.  My key rule
was never to let the boy take charge even if that was his mindset.  His
penis -- and his tongue -- had always to be under my control, as Mom's
Friend had taught us.  I always felt very strong the first time a new boy's

penis erupted in semen for me.)

   During my houseboat year most of my lovemaking was oral sex, but if the
boy had a particularly fine erection we might have vaginal sex.  Boys were
sometimes embarrassed on those few occasions when Mom came on board while
we were having sex -- they were never from homes where nudity and liberal
sex were practiced the way we did it.  But Mom had, and has even today
despite her debilitating illness -- a captivating manner and a nice body.
When her boyfriend of the time, the owner of the houseboat, was with her
had sex a few times in tandem with me and -- somewhat surprisingly -- that
seemed to reassure rather than disorient the boy.  In some way it
demonstrated the normality and humanity of the act that Mom was taking her
partner's big penis in her mouth, exciting it almost to ejaculation before
spreading her legs for her partner to bring her to the cusp of orgasm and
then insert the lovely round head of his penis into her vagina to
ejaculate, semen invariably leaking out with Mom licking off any semen that
remained on his penis.  I knew from experience the desperate eagerness of a
penis, just out of a mouth and now poised to slide in between labia made
ready by a boy's saliva.  How much more exciting it was, even, to see the
bigger penis of Mom's consort making that move, and its head disappearing
into her vagina.  If Mom and her partner finished before I did, I could be
sure that she would be watching my boy's penis moving in and out, and that
she would be beaming when she saw the first traces of semen.  (It's no
wonder that, at a nude dance party or when making love at the pool, girls
would wear with pride the drops and trickles of drying semen on their faces
and their breasts and at their vulvas, not wanting to wash them off too
soon.)

   The focus is always on the head of the penis and, especially, on that
little slit.  The semen is so important, implicit in all the doctrines of
all the religions, and explicit in ours.  It was from Mom, and from the
reaction of my partner and hers on such occasions, that I learned the power
of showing off the head of the penis often during oral sex, most especially
after ejaculation, making sure it was covered with semen or at least
decorated with bits of semen that I could lick off and be seen to enjoy,
running my tongue along the little slit and then again around the crown,
smiling and wishing for more.

   I recall that when I was 13-14-15, just after we moved to Mom's Friend's
House, Older Girl would, under Rev.  X's direction, "instruct" girls of
10-13 in the "how to" of sex.  The point she was trying to get across is
that sex is a renewable resource and that through the miracle of friction
of mouth (or vagina) against tip of penis one creates a force that makes
semen spurt out under pressure, a "fountain of joy", she said.  She had a
knack (and the patience) for running her tongue around the tip of the penis
of any particular boy who was available until the boy ejaculated -- and
then she would catch as much semen as she could in her mouth.  And she
would hold the semen there, lie back, spread her legs, and the boy would
lift up her hips and make love to her clitoris with his tongue until she
told him to stop.  Ever afterwards I would copy Older Girl, and Terrific
Girl copied both of us, in the way that she would have a penis nuzzle up to
her mouth, excite it, make it stiff and make a show out of causing it to
erupt with semen.  But that is not all: the trick is to keep the penis
hard, to choose a boy who will want to kiss and lick your vagina and your
clitoris to its ultimate joy -- and still have his penis hard and stiff and
ready to penetrate your vagina and to carry on with thrusts, in and out,
until you have had enough.  Terrific Girl's performance was endearing, as
even her dad would say.  When she made love to a penis it always seemed
that there was nothing else in the world she would rather be doing, and
that the boy she was doing it with was the most passionate, romantic,
spiritual and ecstatic boy in the world.  And his semen the semen of Jesus.
All that, bearing in mind that our sexual sharing was, in the spirit of
Moses David as he once was, a means of bringing our partner closer to God.
Thus: Terrific Girl would approach her target boy, and her breasts would,
while not exactly intimidating him, overwhelm him; and she would put him at
ease and the more she did so, the more his penis would become excited, and
when it pointed directly at her she would sit on the floor with her legs
crossed and her vagina perhaps exposed; and she would be watching the penis
and soon the two would caress each other.  And they would kiss each other's
sacred parts; and her mouth would be at the head of his penis and her
tongue running around and over it and the penis would enter and leave her
mouth, but just a little, only its head.  And the boy would be in a trance
from then until he ejaculated.
(Mom, and even Mom's Friend, who was Terrific Girl's dad's partner after
all, worried sometimes that her dad might have a sexual response to his
daughter's relationship with boys' penises, with seeing his daughter slide
her lips sensuously over a penis until it erupted in semen.  But in fact he
was quite casual about it.  While the sight of his daughter with a penis in
her mouth might remind him that he wanted sex and leave him with an
erection for Mom's Friend to deal with, it was with purely fatherly
appreciation that he would see his daughter.  And she in turn could watch
his penis erect and in motion, dispassionately.  This must have been
because both saw sex as a form of religious expression.  On the other hand,
once I saw a father at a nude dance party, aroused and apparently upset at
the view his daughter having sex.  When Older Girl saw the man rubbing his
erect penis she took charge of it and brought him to orgasm and to
calmness. A chaperone should not be emotionally involved in the sexual

antics of his charges.  http://tinyurl.com/2ztcwe )

   To some extent, the fascination that greets the sight of a girl playing
with a penis, pressing her tongue against it and ruling over it from
arousal and erection to ejaculation, argues against routine total nudity.
Anticipation is half the fun.  Thus the practice of a mother escorting her
underpants-wearing son to the place where his naked girl awaits
defloration, and then lowering his pants to reveal his penis -- typically
only then becoming erect in at the sight of the girl in a way that
onlookers find so cute and delightful.  Everybody likes seeing a penis
going from flaccidity to erection, just as everybody likes to see
ejaculation.  ("Gross indecency" is simply a matter of context: there is a
right place and an inappropriate place for seeing sex.) When these are
orchestrated by the boy's mom (who, as I've repeatedly noted inevitably has
a mystical relationship with her boy's penis) and by the girl herself,
however na�ve and inexperienced is all the more touching, heartwarming.  No
wonder that any boys who accompanied the attending girlfriends of the
deflowered girl are almost always in a high state of excitement by the time
the main girl has finished.  They typically will have fierce erections and
their partners too will be excited enough to need to make love right away.
For the mothers of the boy and the girl, the reaction is more muted: they
will have attended a rite of passage, a First Communion and seen to the
girl's entry into mature life and romance.  That in itself is heartwarming
and satisfying for any mother.  Better, too, than what they describe at the
Midwest Teen Sex Show. 
http://midwestteensexshow.com/2007/08/30/mtss-episode-5-the-first-time/

   Of course it all depends on your baseline, where you come from, how
you've been indoctrinated, and so on.  For us, the sight of a clutch of
boys each with a fierce erection, each lusting after any one of a gaggle of
girls or each after his date at a nude dance party, is a true Act of God in
the literal, not the legal, sense.  There is no such thing as obscenity or
pornography in the flesh, only in artificial depiction, in sex-for-money:
the true obscenity.  There is innocence in an adolescent erection, in an
adolescent dilated vagina, in the sight of semen surging into and dripping
out of a girl.  Amateur videos are tolerable, even cute sometimes. 
Professional filming is artificial, nasty, obscene, redundant.

   Boys and girls, once they had come out, joined our ranks guilelessly and
happily.  As I have consistently stressed, in our pro-feminist environment
girls did not need to be passive either in sex itself nor in its
solicitation; and Mom's Friend taught children from the youngest age to
show their sex parts to best advantage, legs apart; to be proud of
erections; to flaunt breasts.  How often they would make love was another
issue, resoled by access and convenience more than anything else.  Those
who lived at Mom's Friend's House for however long might have sex every day
and some in fact did although the average was probably closer to three
times a week.  Those who did not drive and were dependent upon mothers or
siblings to bring them had sex much less often, and would be vexed by the
deprivation unless they could find partners from within our circle close by
to their homes.  In that sense, the brother-sister pairs worked out
particularly well since brothers and sisters so often had suitable friends
and of course there was no family impediment to their lovemaking.  I knew
of a dozen or more teen sex circles of that sort in the area when I was
living in Our Town; I suspect that with the Internet and with the sexual
awakening of teens due to chat rooms and Web sites there must be many more
now.

   Outr� as my growing up appears to have been to most of the mainstream
population, the fact is that it bears some resemblance to a significant
minority of adolescent Children of God members of the 1970s and later; and
is not that far off from 21st century teen sexual life.  Over the years I
have cited and linked to a large number of newspaper and journal articles
dealing with the issue, as well as the attempts by hypocritical social
engineers to try to enforce their own image of a sex-free existence upon
adolescents -- and in the absence thereof see to it that they are punished
by denying them protection against STDs and pregnancy, never mind
termination.  The best example I can think of in this regard is the attempt
at judicial punishment of kids who have recorded their sexual indiscretions
on cell phones and on camcorders: the Genarlow Wilson case is just one
example:
http://www.geocities.com/cobil1/wilson2.html Countless mothers I knew
took regular nude snapshots of themselves and their children to memorialize
their children's genital development; as far as I know so long as they were
non-sexual and naturist, the mothers were safe.  But lots of girls took
(and take) cell phone snaps and vids of their friends playing with penises,
and that's quite a bit more dangerous.  Indeed as Genarlow discovered,
taking pictures while your penis is in a 15-year-old girl's mouth can be
juridically suicidal.  But prosecution is selective, or accidental.  One of
my girlfriends used to draw quick sketches of girls holding a penis just
taken out of their mouth, its tip covered in semen.  I think on First
Amendment grounds she was perfectly safe; anyway the girls in the pictures
could have been any age, who's to say.
Given the foregoing, we may not have been so different from much of the
"mainstream".  And it goes without saying that physically we were little
different from the general population, except that we were probably
healthier because of Mom's Friend's emphasis on outdoor activities and
(before its time) on organic eating.  There simply wasn't the environment
in which alcohol (except rarely, and then with food), tobacco or drugs
could take hold.  Some of us were pretty and some were not; but I don't
think that those who were not were much less successful socially.  Mom had
been chosen as a lobbyist to "flirty fish" among the politically powerful
because of her come-hither good looks and her sexy breasts.  She resembled
in her heyday the British TV cooking-show personality Nigella Lawson
(herself daughter of a politician, but that's another story).  I remember,
from the youngest age, seeing how her partners, most of whom lasted with
her a month or two and the longest just over a year, became fixated on
Mom's breasts and how obvious their need to undress her would be.  In those
days her boobs were very steady, very sexy; her nipples like silver dollars
calling out to men to love them and to be aroused and to make love.  Every
man seemed to want to be with her.  Mom taught me to look for their penis
even before they got undressed, to see if they were uncomfortable in their
arousal, to see if they had to adjust their clothing because of an
erection. I didn't stay close, but I did watch a bit, sometimes from around

corners sometimes not.

   Most didn't even notice my presence; their style might be different
depending on whether we were in a nudity zone or in some semi-private part
of the house, but their desperation to make Mom naked was palpable.  As I
approached puberty and as penises became something of a focus of my
attention, I would measure mentally the time it took for her partner's
penis to reach erection.  Mom always got excited if her partner's penis
secreted a drop or two of seminal fluid: she took that as a personal
compliment and would either use that as a reason to start oral sex
forthwith or she would lift it off with a finger and put it to her tongue.
In any case, the man would have to play with her vagina and kiss her
clitoris and bring her to orgasm before he was free to ejaculate into her.
She made sex into an art form, something I began to appreciate more after I
started having sex too, when I was 11-1/2.  I couldn't have been sexy at
that age, but the pleasure was there to get and to give; once my breasts
grew fuller and my vagina more "interesting" I could impress and excite
boys who might be watching us just by the manner in which I would have my
partner lift my hips up high to kiss and lick my vagina, and the way his
penis would move in and out of it with my legs up high and everything in
full view.  It certainly is a shame when people think that vaginas need to
be hidden from view -- that is, I think the worst of misogynism.  What
could, after all, be more basic to human existence or to humanity or to
beauty than a penis in a vagina?  There is poetry:
http://jessicadoyle.ca/2007/01/31/the-penis-the-vulva-a-poem-drawing-13geni
talia/ And, as Mom would say, with all those boys eager to kiss your vulva
and keep their eyes open while doing it, it must be a nice place to visit.
For the onlooker, the hidden beauty of the dilated and eager vagina is
completed by the arrival of the penis; and at completion a trickle of semen
testifies to its inner nature: source of love and life and multiplier of
pleasure, receiver of Holy Communion, home to the messenger of Jesus -- the
penis.

   (The beauty of sex parts was another point over which Mom and Mom's
Friend differed with Moses David.  I think the Internet, which has in the
absence of popularized family nudity and naturism given all children access
to photographs of nudity and sex has done much, among younger generations,
to dispose of any notion that sex and sex parts might be ugly.  In prior
essays I've discussed the evolution of penis and vagina as "art".  Amateur
videos may not always show talent, but they frequently do show beauty. 
http://pornoamateurs.be (I have neither the time nor the inclination to
sort through all the rubbish there but one of my old friends from Our Town
seems to have made a hobby of it and he occasionally supplies a video clip
or a photo that would prove a point for my essays.))
The position where a girl's face and her breasts and her vagina are all
visible and the boy is overwhelmed with desire and delight and the vagina
is, finally, crowned with semen -- the very image of our coming out
celebrations for girls of 12 or 13 beginning their sexual life -- this is
art and romance and passion and religious devotion.  The most important
element, I think, and something obvious to anyone who has watched Mom or me
at lovemaking, is that the boy does not impress his penis onto or into us.
We draw his penis to us and make it obvious that we are guiding it and
loving it and making love to it; our reward is our own orgasm, the boy's
ejaculation and the semen that we consume.  Mom is disabled now with
illness and her last lovemaking was about two years ago: but that is how it
was and that is how she should be remembered and that is how it is with me.
It is not pornography, it is not obscenity, for a girl made nude to lower
her boy's pants, to take his penis, rising slowly to erection, to present
it to onlookers, to kiss and lick it and to make it very stiff, and then to
direct a pre-choreographed minuet of vagina and clitoral excitement and
penile activity culminating in successive orgasms of girl and boy,

celebrated with semen.

   There is, I need hardly point out, a basic difference between foreplay
between adolescents and that between adults.  Adolescent boys at least
after their first sex with a girl normally had spontaneous erections.  I
saw my task as welcoming the erect penis and acknowledging its excitement
and marveling how rubbing the tip of a penis with my tongue could bring a
boy such pleasure and happiness.  Mom sometimes had to play with her
partner's penis for a few minutes to make it move upwards; her breasts I
think played a more important role in arousing her partners than I found to
be the case with young boys, immediately excitable.  Oral sex is, as Mom's
Friend always insisted, the best foreplay.  The other obvious difference
between men and boys is that the boys as often as not would want to make
love more than once in a day.  That was the source of Mom's Friend's rule
that we should have only one lover in a 24-hour period -- the dynamics of
multiple lovers in the same space and time would have been too troublesome
for a closed community.  Neither the encouragement of communal sex --
lovemaking in tandem with friends and family -- nor the allowance of boys
and girls to compete to have sex the next day with a person whose style
they appreciated and admired gave rise to problems of that sort.  It's a
pity that I can't illustrate the issue but you will understand, Dear
Reader, that notwithstanding that millions of under-18s have recorded their
lovemaking on video for posterity (just as, a generation before, girls made
plaster casts of their boy's erections, as rock critic Ellen Sander
reported this in the Nov.  1968 issue of Paul Krassner's magazine The
Realist ("The Case of the Cock-Sure Groupies").  http://snurl.com/groupies
or http://www.ep.tc/realist/84/01.html ) I have discussed this in prior
essays.

   The pride in being seen at orgasm and in looking ahead to changing
partners, to recruiting a new lover, for the next day is part and parcel of
our faith and practice, up until the point that we would choose a life
partner.  It sometimes seems odd to outsiders that a girl is not upset that
her boy, his penis still insider her body, may be sizing up the girl
alongside (assuming, of course, that the girl alongside is not his sister,
in which case his emotions towards her are assumed to familial and not
sexual).  It never occurred to me to be upset under such circumstances, the
more so since I would inevitably be judging other boys' penises for their
style and beauty, other boys' faces for their personality and emotion. 
There's no reason why a girl should not think to herself that she could do
better to please a particular boy than the girl next to her, the girl in
whose mouth that boy's penis happens to be at the time.  Since one didn't
have a major commitment to any boy, did not have much invested in a
particular boy as compared with the whole community of boys, it just didn't
matter.  The fact is that our social structure, our evaluations by our
peer, our parental coaching and our personal aims all argued for treating
lovemaking as a personal relationship with and for Jesus and a source of
mutual pleasure without individual (as contrasted with group) commitment.
Personal, individual commitment would be for later, when we reached the
stage of marriage and had a semblance of economic independence.  Claiming
exclusivity earlier than that would be pretense and folly and would
sacrifice the joy and service of having multiple partners and experiencing
innumerable bodies, innumerable lovely penises.

   Some people, mainstream people I have dared to reveal my past to, have
expressed more horror at certain of our practices than others.  Some who
could accept the notion of a coming out party with mothers of the boy and
girl delighting at seeing the boy's penis deflower the girl are horrified
by the thought of a boy making love in tandem, his mother taking a penis in
her mouth and her vagina even as his penis is moving in and out of a girl,
nearby or even alongside on the same bed.  For us, it comes down to what I
have repeatedly called the "mystical relationship between a mother and her
son's penis".  This is something well understood in Freudian analysis and
in the study of primitive cultures although little has appeared in print
(there is a study in a 1932 issue of the International Journal of
Psychoanalysis).  Gender-equality activists try to equate Mrs. 
Robinson-type seduction of teens by older women with coercion of younger
girls by men, but the comparison is false.  This is perhaps not the forum
to discuss it further, but suffice to say that Mary Kay Letourneau's
seduction of 12-year-old Vili, and her bearing two of his children, did him
no psychological or physical harm. 
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/5-22-2005-70332.asp I note that the
Italians take a more relaxed view of such things, even where it's a
13-year-old girl and Antonio di Pasquale, a 34-year-old butcher:
http://tinyurl.com/2wutc2 (Daily Telegraph)
http://www.osservatoriominori.org/ (Italian source) I'm not sure I agree;
although the Wayne Compton and Tina Akers case had a reasonable outcome
where the result was marriage and a child: http://tinyurl.com/2fnf8c

   The same cannot be said of the seduction and statutory rape of girls by
priests, etc.  and while a few fathers -- Terrific Girl's dad, for example
-- can maintain equanimity in front of a daughter with a penis in her mouth
and semen dripping down her chin, this is not true of most fathers in most
circumstances.  In that case, we found, it does make a difference whether
the father has a partner of his own (and in the case of Terrific Girl her
dad was never very far away from Mom's Friend's vagina) and whether he is
up close or watching from tactful distance.  Taken in perspective, with
other adolescents making love nearby, the impact is more theological and
intellectual and less personal and emotional.  Suffice to say that my Mom
said once that she'd have been overwhelmed to see a son of hers with the
head of his penis covered in semen at the lips of a girl and that she
didn't see any reason why fathers should be different when up close to a
daughter with a boy's tongue at her clitoris.  But however much Mom
understood her own lovers I don't think she was right to suppose that they
(her lovers) would have the same emotional, psychological, etc. 
relationship with their daughters.  This is an example of a person
attributing her own feelings and responses to another in an invalid way. 
We are all different, and there certainly are gender differences: feminists
are correct when they say that no man can appreciate the condition of being
a woman.  The case of lovemaking is only the most obvious: that while a man
may become aroused instantly, it takes quite a bit more for a girl or
woman. She may find the sight of the (or a) penis cute and sexy but it will
take romance and foreplay to enable her to approach climax; indeed to want
to take the penis into her vagina.

   That's why the ceremony of coming out was so important.  The ceremonial
arrival of the boy, his covered penis being unclothed by his mom, her
playing with the penis to make it hard and taking it into her mouth; and
the boy's kissing and exciting of her vagina and clitoris -- coupled with
the anticipation, with her own undressing and placement to get ready for
the boy's arrival and for her defloration -- these were enough to make her
very ready for the adolescent penis to enter her, almost always without
pain.

   Those who are dubious about all this, and who doubt that subcultures
such as the CoG and offshoots of them such as Mom's Friend's House could
have existed should bear in mind that a couple of years ago nobody (except
me perhaps -- see my earlier essays) ever heard of Warren Jeffs and the
pubescent polygamous brides of his cult.  Cults exist because they make
sense to certain kinds of people under certain circumstances.  Outsiders
cannot imagine the religious enthusiasm and the sexual joy that pervaded,
in particular, Mom's Friend's House.  I cannot speak for members of the CoG
as it was; readers can find accounts, albeit mostly by disaffected
ex-members and their offspring, at http://exfamily.org The discipline that
Mom's Friend and her helpers managed to impose protected us from STDs and
from pregnancy; it is obvious that the CoG was too big, too extended, to
assure such safety consistently throughout its domain.  The point Mom's
Friend made was that parental guidance -- maternal supervision -- and the
presence of friends and family at the time of lovemaking assured the
participants, and the girls especially, that there would be no coercion, no
abuse, and no danger.  And such a regime was possible because penis and
vagina had been sanctified and made into objects of beauty, and semen
(going just a bit further than Moses David did, although he also ordained
that semen should be swallowed and never wasted) had been identified as
Host of Holy Communion.

   Thus it was that by example -- by never excluding their daughters and
their sons from their own lovemaking -- mothers taught their daughters that
penises were sources of fun and joy never to be feared or scorned or shied
away from, but to be admired, loved and freely played with and enjoyed. 
And seen to be enjoyed: the vicarious pleasure is as important as the
physical one because it carries the spirit of Jesus.  And that the vagina
was no cloaca, never obscene, but the source not just of life and love but
of ecstasy, to be caressed and kissed before blessing it with semen.  The
ultimate accomplishment was to be using breasts, vagina, facial expression,
personality and intellect to captivate, capture and control not just penis
but boy; and to leverage him to control an entire crowd of boys -- and of
girls too -- and promote our faith and our culture.  Whether we can succeed
in the face of "righteous opposition" by social engineers and hypocritical
control freaks, or whether in the next generation we will have to stay
underground or exiled, remains to be seen.  (Note that among these
hypocrites who rail against "pornography" but whose real aim is to enslave
women by returning not just abortion but contraception to illegality, are
some of the most notorious evildoers and swindlers: Charles H.  Keating,
Jr. for example, who peddled junk bonds to S&L depositors, lying to them by
pretending the bonds were federally insured, giving stolen money to Mother
Theresa while targeting Larry Flynt.  See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Keating and the book "Inside Job" by
Pizzo et al.) I would like to bring up a son and a daughter in liberality,
where they could be proud of their respective sexuality and flaunt faith
and ecstasy unabashedly.  A decade ago at Mom's Friend's House brothers and
sisters could be seen making love in tandem at the nude dance parties. 
Mothers and brothers could take familial satisfaction at the sight of some
boy's penis ejaculating into a daughter-sister.  A girl -- me -- would have
no inhibition and no false modesty, no reason not to follow my impulses and
make love to a new boy in the presence of yesterday's boy and of my Mom. 
This may be too much to expect tomorrow: the "liberal state" is sexually
liberal only for profit, not for personal freedom.  The irony is that sex
under parental protection is likely to be safe sex, without risk of STD and
without risk of unwanted pregnancy; without coercion, abuse or perversion.
To put parents in fear of allowing their daughters and their sons the
freedom we knew is to corrupt body and conscience and society.

   This is not to say that good taste and social protocol are trumped by
sexual liberalism (or libertarianism) and sexual freedom.  At Mom's
Friend's House, more so than at the first house, sex had its time and its
place and one would not have expected anyone to disrobe except in the
proper place: the basement or near the pool area -- both protected from
prying eyes.  Parents of small children and adults with other things on
their minds could and did avoid the sight of erections and demonstrations
of sex acts.  Although I have largely written for this audience about our
sex education and our lovemaking practices, we had other things to occupy
us as well, and we certainly didn't make love every day of the week or
every chance we got.  Somebody had to deal with the housekeeping, the
cooking, the homework and the non-sexual outdoor activities, things I have
never gone into in this series of essays.  Nor have I discussed Mom's
Friend's finances, a complex and interesting issue but not really relevant
beyond the fact that her parents had so feared her giving her inheritance
to the CoG that they'd put it in a trust fund that she could not touch
until she left the Church -- and even this she could only receive its
income.
So: there is life beyond sex, after all.

   My new autobiographical online book ("My First Time: An Oral Sex
Primer") can be downloaded at: http://tinyurl.com/5vq3hu (PDF, 113 pp.)
Love, Carol http://snurl.com/cobillard
Note: I have tried to address, in this and in other essays, questions
received from readers.  I cannot answer emails personally, but I do try to
deal with queries in due course.  Comments are appreciated in any event. 
Much has been written on cult and commune life, but rather little on that
of the second-generation who never lived that life and yet are affected by
its legacy.  Most of what is written represents a rejection, of "false
teachings" and "harmful practices".  That, however, ignores what attracted
large numbers to the movements in the first place: that there is a basic
truth, or there may be a basic natural truth, in the lifestyle.  Dear
Reader, do let me hear from you to know your views.
I have stressed before that these essays represent a particular view of
our growing-up, one in which literary license has enabled me to omit all
the angst and conflict.  No commune life is easy; indeed family life is not
easy.  About half the boys who propositioned me (or any girl) could expect
to be shot down; not every boy I tried to seduce was willing although most
were.  We are directed in the Bible to make love often and we are rewarded
with ineffable pleasure in so doing.  But that does not mean
indiscriminately.  The girls I write about are composites of different
girls I lived with so not every incident I mention happened exactly as

described; but all the events were indeed mentioned in my teen diaries.

   FWIW, a scholarly analysis of the correlation between "religiosity" (in
mainstream religions) and oral and conventional sex can be found at:
paa2007.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=70881 Caitlin Flanagan
wrote an article which I've cited before for The Atlantic Monthly on 12-
and 13-year old girls and their fondness for giving oral sex:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200601/oral-sex



   _________________________________________________________________
Windows Live SkyDrive lets you share files with faraway friends. 
http://www.windowslive.com/skydrive/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh
_skydrive_052008

	----- ASSM Moderation System Notice------
	This post has been reformatted by ASSTR's
	Smart Text Enhancement Processor (STEP)
	system due to inadequate formatting.
	----- ASSM Moderation System Notice------

	
<1st attachment begin>

<HTML removed pursuant to http://assm.asstr-mirror.org/erotica/assm/faq.html#policy>
<1st attachment end>

----- ASSM Moderation System Notice------
Notice: This post has been modified from its original
format.  The post was sent as an email attachment and
has been converted by ASSTR ASSM moderation software.
----- ASSM Moderation System Notice------

-- 
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}|
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+