Pagan Sex, Puritan Sex

Pagan Sex, Puritan Sex




A Revelation For Pagans --

An Eye Opener For Puritans!

Sex, in all its infinite variety, has been the most powerful force influencing making, for good or evil, since the dawn of time. Sex deviations -- sex taboos -- sex freedoms -- all have played their part in shaping history, from the temples of the history of ancient Babylon to the call girls of Manhattan, from the sexual fetishes depicted on the walls of Pompeii to the homosexual explosion of today.

Here, for the first time, is the authoritative study of the excesses of nymphoma and satyriasis, the stimulus of voyeurism, the prevalence of bisexual practices, and all other sex habits and customs set forth in classic detail.



Publié par
Date de parution 13 janvier 2014
Nombre de lectures 19
EAN13 9781626577497
Licence : Tous droits réservés
Langue English

Informations légales : prix de location à la page €. Cette information est donnée uniquement à titre indicatif conformément à la législation en vigueur.

Signaler un problème
Pagan Sex, Puritan Sex
Craig Scott
This page copyright © 2007 Olympia Press.
The following study of some few personal facets of the life-problems that must be faced and solved in one way or another by every man and woman born on this earth is offered in the hope of affording both Pagans and Pu ritans some understanding of the basic motivations that underlie the actions of all of us. — Craig Scott
CHAPTER ONE.The Need and the Barriers
During prohibition, an Englishman visiting our shor es was introduced to a clandestine mint julep and remarked, “You people ar e hard to understand. You invent the greatest drink known to Man, and then you pass a law forbidding you to drink it.” He might just as well have been discussing sex. Whi le invention of Man's greatest pleasure can hardly be ascribed to Robert Fulton, E li Whitney, Thomas A. Edison or any other inventor, American legislators have probably passed more laws either forbidding or severely limiting its enjoyment than all other n ations in human history combined. Man has always been polygamous by nature. His creat ive impulses, be they artistic, scientific, administrative or mechanical, are best stimulated by erotic excitement. His earliest, primitive cultures and cave-wall drawings when not dealing with the hunt, or wars dealt with sex. His ablest leaders, from Juliu s Caesar to Napoleon, have been notorious for their devotion to sex. His great poet s, from Ovid and Li Po to Dylan Thomas, have been obsessed with sex. His most dynam ic financiers, from Croesus and Crassus to the present day, have been tremendous wo manizers. Scholars are still seeking to determine whether the inspiration for Shakespeare's sonnets came from his unslaked desire for the young Earl of Oxford or the mysterious “lady in black”—or for both. Creation and the act of procreation are closely all ied, and virtually all great peoples, from the ancient Egyptians to the reawakened Italia ns of today, have openly recognized this fact of nature. During most of its history, America has sought to s ubmerge this elemental truth. Our school textbooks for more than a century have virtu ally emasculated such lusty Founding Fathers as George Washington, Thomas Jeffe rson and Benjamin Franklin, whose illegitimate progeny far outnumbered those th ey achieved in wedlock. The “great civil war” so eloquently expressed in Ab raham Lincoln's immortal Gettysburg Addressendured for a mere four agonized years. The even greater war between those elements of our society that have sought to express their sexual needs in open behavior and tho se who have sought to restrict Americans to a single mate began some 235 years bef ore a firing on Fort Sumter, and rages on to this day with no end in sight. When the well-born Pilgrim, Thomas Morton, erected his maypole at Merrymount, north of Plymouth, and openly consorted sexually wi th Indian maids, he declared his belief in the natural sexual freedom of Man. When the Plymouth Colony headed by John Winthrop ch opped his maypole down as an obscene phallic emblem and sent Morton packin g back to England, they won the
first victory for sexual repression on American soi l. Ever since, save in limited localities and for limi ted periods, natural, polygamous Man in America has been forced to find his needed fulfillment in secret. To be fully alive (and to enjoy his estate), Man ne eds the intermittent, if not constant, spur of new love—for even the deepest of romantic p assions become stale and flaccid with time and over-familiarity. Man needs sexual desire to be at his creative and g enerous best, and sexual desire can be honestly maintained only through more or les s constant change of partners—or if not of partners, then through constant fresh app roach to and attainment of technical variety in the act of sex itself. Sex itself is the only creative fulfillment that is essential to life—and it can only be attained by search for and discovery of the exotic. He needs the new, the strange, the different—in sho rt, the exotic—if he is to be fully alive. But he has never yet been able to adjust this need, at least in modem times, to the repressive demands of civilization. As Dr. Fernando Henriques, noted sexologist of Oxfo rd University, states in his definitive and entertainingLove in Action,sexual license cannot be “Unrestricted tolerated in society. Its existence would lead to p erpetual dissension. An equally strong reason for order ... is the necessity to assure inh eritance of property and the perpetuation of the society... Thus no society exis ts—or has existed—where general promiscuity is the norm.” In short, the eternal enemies of man's search for t he sexually exotic are two— children and property. As long as the act of love b egets children and men need property and seek it, society demands sexual regulation. Our society, like virtually all others on this plan et, is therefore rigged to offer an exceedingly difficult, dangerous and often downrigh t tricky obstacle course for the individual whose sex-drive demands variety. The legal taboos to true self-indulgence include la ws against incest, miscegenation (in many states), statutory rape, rape, homosexuali ty, bigamy, polyandry, adultery and prostitution, to name but a few. The social taboos, vary, of course, among different regions, different social levels and different religious backgrounds. As a rule, the se non-legal taboos are more effective in restricting sexual license than the wr itten laws. For, while many of the statutes are winked at in practice, group customs a re taught almost from the cradle and retain much of their force throughout life. All in all, Ancient Man handled the deep human need for sexual variety far more sensibly than do we, in all our modern sophisticati on. Actually, considerations of property preceded child ren as the enemy of sexual freedom. Virtually all authorities, from archeologi sts and anthropologists such as Dr. Carleton S. Coon to such mystics as poet-historian Robert Graves, are agreed that human society, in its earliest form, was matriarcha l rather than patriarchal. In short, family and tribe alike were run by women rather than men. Why was this so —since the male, then as now, was presumably swifte r and more muscular man his mate? Why was the ruler of the divine pantheon then worshipped by men theGreat White Goddessknown to the Greeks asArtemis(i.e., the moon) rather thanApollo(the sun)? The answer still survives in a few remote Neolithic communities where people exist who have yet to associate the act of sex with the c onception or bearing of children.
To a folk thus ignorant of biology, the act of sex is purely one of pleasure and satisfaction, while the birth of a child comes clos e to the miraculous. As miracle-makers and creators of ever-new generations, women were wo rshipped as goddesses by their men. They retained their pedestals throughout tens of th ousands of years of pre-history. Since, as far as anyone knew, women alone were resp onsible for the creation of children, all property and social position was inhe ritable only through them. Then some early deep thinker coupled sex and childb irth, and the fact that the human man did have a vital biological function was at last understood. Some time after this, the male disciples of Apollo overthrew the female Moon-worshippers of Artemis, despite such desperate rear -guard actions as gave birth to the Amazon legends. Woman was reduced to virtual child- bearing slavery, from which she is only now beginning to emerge as a social and sex ual equal. Along with the dominant sexual role, Man also grabb ed all the property that had hitherto been deeded to his mates. He took a propri etary attitude toward both his lands and his offspring. To protect his succession, he be came fiercely jealous of Woman. How could he be sure that some neighbor or outlande r would not sneak in via the hut backdoor while he was out hunting and plant alien s eed in fertile areas he considered entirely his own? The high value still put on virginity in some quart ers dates from the unrecorded sexual revolution. If a bride was not a virgin, the jealous husband could never feel certain that his firstborn was his own. In nomadic societies, like the Mongols, where the r uggedness of life demanded rugged, free-wheeling females, things sometimes wen t awry. For example, on their wedding night, a young Temudjin (later Ghengis Khan , the great conqueror) had his bride, Borkai, kidnapped by a neighboring clan-chie f. It was some months before he could muster sufficien t support to regain possession of her, and although he maintained her till death a s his Number One Wife and was seemingly fonder of her than anyone else in his vas t harem, he never acknowledged her first son as his heir, although he employed thi s son's considerable military talents in positions of great prestige and responsibility. As vessels for continuation of the family line, wom en soon, became considered mere property, to be bargained for, bought and sold like so many heifers or Arab steeds or castles or acres of fertile land. Property of any type is pure poison to sexual freed om. In those few secluded tribes where some form of sexual freedom has endured, mere survival is usually so easy (as with the Trobriand Islanders) that possession or di spossession has little or no meaning —or so difficult (as with the Esquimaux) that what little can be obtained must be ticketed for the entire clan or village. The sense of family, as we know it, is largely depe ndent upon property, either in land, in business, or in finance—or, more rarely, i n specific creative or interpretive talents. Once the house or the business is built, continuity becomes of paramount importance to the human ego and security. Illegitim acy usually precludes inheritance, hence commission of casual bastardy becomes an act of damage to mother and child ponderable in terms of dollars by the courts. Since our judges tend to assess paternity damage aw ards according to the extent of the father's resources, mere possession of property tends to inhibit the urge for exotic sexual satisfaction outside of marriage—rather than to render it more accessible as in
days of yore, when the sporting well-to-do were lar gely measured by the bastards they spawned. King Stanislaus of Poland, Louis XV's father-in-law , for example, was held in something close to awe by European high society two centuries ago because of the 346 admitted illegitimate children he conceived out of wedlock. In America today, the ever-fluid sexual situation i s further distorted by the first real sexual revolution in human history (the early trium ph of Man over Woman occurred long before written records were made). To the horror of the conventional-minded, our young women are becoming increasingly aggressive in their approach to sex. F rom their mid-teens on in many hundreds of thousands of cases, daughters of hither to decorous middle and upper-class families are going out after the boys or men of their choice, flaunting and using the weapons with which nature has equipped them for sex. Virginity's value is at an all-time low, and the on ce-revered wedlock is suffering a bearish decline in general esteem. As social commen tator Cullen Moore recently remarked in the opening of a six-part newspaper ser ies for the Hearst chain early in 1966, “American men do not put their wives on a ped estal or pamper their whims. It's the other way around. Husbands in the United States are a status symbol. Women put their men on a pedestal through fear of losing them ...” Apart from the long-process emancipation of America n women, there appear to be two fundamental causes for this amazing sexual volt e-face. One is the snowballing miracle of modern science that has virtually elimin ated the two great fears that hitherto forced women to guard their chastity—those of pregn ancy and venereal disease. The other basic motivation would appear to lie in t he growing population bulge of American women over men. At present (1966), this bu lge is around 3,000,000 and the gap is widening with each passing census. Put me two together—new found freedom from age-old fears of the consequences of sex and a growing man-shortage—and the new sexual a ggressiveness of the American female becomes inevitable and normal rather than th e reverse. Add the equal, and in some degree superior, social position enjoyed by the American woman, and the extent of the sexual revolu tion becomes readily discernible. What it is going to do to long-established national sex mores is less easy to estimate. But it is bound to overturn, rupture and render obs olete a number of cherished American socio-sexual traditions and customs. It is also bound to break any number of taboos that have made the life of the roving romantic and sensualist wretched ever since Victori an manners took over the White House during the Presidency of Millard Fillmore. The latter-day Casanova is at last coming into his own—as is his female counterpart. More important, he may be hard put to it to compete in his search for the exotic with the very females he seeks to conquer. H e may even find himself conquered by them—and enjoying it. Come what may, he (or she) should know what he is a bout when he seeks to risk breaking a lance in amorous combat with new and str ange sexual experience as his goal. It is the purpose of this study to give him a clear idea of what he is after and why, if not how. The how, he (or again she) will readily en ough discover for himself.
CHAPTER TWO.The Urge to Love
Against all man-made restrictions on sexual freedom —restrictions of law, of religion
and of custom—the drive for the vast satisfactions of coitus with a partner new and strange and therefore exciting persists. While accepted as a fact of nature in Asia and Afri ca and the islands of the Pacific (English-settled Australasia excepted), Christian E urope and the Americas, when unable to curb what Freudian psychology has labeled , after food and shelter, man's basic desire, have sought to sweep it under the rug , to deny its existence by ignoring it as much as possible. Every competent survey of human sexual behavior, fr om Krafft-Ebing to Alfred Kinsey, has given these sweepers under the rug the lie. The procreative drive of Man, with its concomitant need for renewal through conta ct with the exotic, is much too powerful and too important biologically to endure restraint. Sometimes it seeks fulfillment via strange, distasteful, even cruel paths. But the urge to sexual fulfillment is as great today as it ever was in olden times when the phallus was openly worshipped as a god (Priapus) and the vagina as a goddess (Astarte and Aphrodite). As such, it deserves both study and comment. Whether or not we approve of the sex-drive, we carr y it within us from birth to the grave. Freudian psychiatry insists we are dominated by it almost from germination in the womb. According to the great Viennese, infantil e breast-feeding is at least as much an act of sexual desire as it is one of survival th rough nourishment. Psychiatrists are still divided as to the effect of bottle-feeding upon the adult psyche, with one strong school insistent as to deprivation of the maternal breast being a basic source of subsequent human neurosis. According to Kinsey(Sexual Behavior of the American Male),57% of pre- some adolescent children admit to indulgence in genital exhibition or genital contact with other children in their own age-groups. The famous sex-surveyor goes even further by implication. As most of the males he interviewed were of adult a ge, he feels that this figure is undoubtedly too low—since a preponderance of grownu ps bury such incidents deep within their subconscious through shame or shame-in duced loss of memory. Though the number of pre-adolescent males included in his survey is too small to offer sound scientific representation, those youths who admitte d such early erotic experience number an even 70%—a figure he still feels is too l ow, since, in his own words, “even they forget many of their earlier activities.” Of 2749 cases included in this particular survey, 6 71 (or almost one-fourth) admit to having had pre-adolescent heterosexual coitus, 199 of them while still in grammar school. Although the bulk of such instances of all-out pre- adolescent sexual contact occurs with little girls of roughly the same age groups, i nstances of male-child sex with older, even adult, females are not uncommon. An aspect of sex also revealed by the Kinsey survey s that has been little regarded by psychiatrists and sociologists alike is its use as a refuge from otherwise unbearable living conditions—as a refuge from poverty, a refug e from the responsibilities of wealth and professional pressures, above all as a refuge from boredom. It was the Kinsey surveys that horrified many peopl e withtabularthat the proof underprivileged elements of our society indulge in almost seven times as much sexual intercourse during adolescence and youth as the so-called middle and upper classes. Although many other factors enter into the relative promiscuity of the underprivileged —chief among them the enforced propinquity and increased opportunity of tenement life
and the lack of parental and parochial restraint—th ere can be little question but that this wide indulgence in heterosexual relations is caused by lack of means and educational development for other forms of entertainment. In short, they all too often have little or nothing else to do—so they do what comes naturally. Kinsey discovered that, with both sexes, the higher the degree of education, financial security and social position, the less th e indulgence in heterosexual intercourse, especially among the young. Furthermore, he established that frequency of sexual contact established in youth tends to endure throughout life. Yet, as always, there were compensations that worke d both ways—against the pleasures of the poor and in favor of the less freq uent indulgences of the well-to-do. For example, perhaps because of the enforced propin quity of underprivileged existence, Kinsey discovered among the poor a dista ste for making love in the nude that amounts almost to a fetish. Obscenity and the unclad figure are closely allied in the traditions that govern much of lower-class society. He cites a number of husbands and wives (especially among the older folk interviewed) who were actually proud of the fact th at they have never seen their mates totally naked in the entire course of their married lives. Deep petting he found to be held degenerate among m any of the underprivileged. Fondling of a loved one's genitals was even more de spicable, oral eroticism held unspeakably foul. As for employment of positions to increase desire, these the underbred held to be certain indication of utter de pravity. To sum up—while the lower levels of urban society m ay indulge in seven times as much fornication as the better placed and educated, many sociologists question if they derive the erotic enjoyment fromthe act that is achievedby the upper levels of society. Kinsey notes that this holds true even among prosti tutes, most of whom come from society's lower strata. While professionally such w omen must and do submit to any or all erotic variations demanded of them by their cus tomers, they permit no such “degenerate” behavior on the part of the lovers the y select from their own level. Kinsey also discovered that, while lower-level husb ands tend to be casually and widely unfaithful to their wives until the age of a bout thirty, they then usually settle down to monogamous routine. In virtually every phase of their sex-lives, the be tter educated and more prosperous elements of our society are the diametric opposites of their less fortunate. Nudity is more and more accepted in well-to-do home s—as the manufacturers of pajamas and nightgowns have learned to their cost—a s well as at private pools and beaches. It is generally considered a concomitant o f full sexual enjoyment. Hence, when members of the upper classes do get aro und to coitus, they are generally able to relish it far more and in far gre ater variety than the less privileged. Where the poor seek sex as a refuge from the frustr ation of youth without hope, the better-off seek it as a refuge from the sheer bored om of monogamous maturity. As for thetruly rich—well, their problem is of a totally different variety. They may have been born to or attained a state of f inancial security beyond the dreams of most of the rest of the population, but t he system of checks and balances works with them as well. Many are also born to a state of emotional insecurity. Although this relatively small if influential class was not included in the Kinsey surveys, its sexual problems have been vastly overp ublicized with little understanding of their motivation. “So what have they got worry about?” is the usual r uthless comment of the public at
large. They have plenty, even if money is not included. Most of their problems are based on affection insec urity. To begin with, they tend to have less contact with their parents, are frequently brought up by governesses and the like during their early years. When they go to school outside of their own economic groups, they f ind themselves marked for special treatment, since wealth is the American patent of n obility. They can never be sure, if they are popular, that t heir popularity is not based on desire to obtain from them ultimate financial or so cial aid. When they pass puberty, although they have the mean s toindulge themselves sexually far more attractively than less favored yo uths,they can never be sure that their usually over-willing partners are not surrendering themselves out of hope of gain rather than through genuine affection. This insecurity often runs right on through their a dult lives, up to and including marriage. Unless they are phenomenally stupid, they are quite aware that mothers ambitious for their daughters' futures are out to t rap them into matrimony through fair means or foul, usually the latter. In short, they can't be sure of anyone sexually, an d this tends to drive many of them into consorting with out-and-out harlots and courte sans. When chided for this, the classic retort is, “At le ast these girls are honest. A man knows where he stands with them.” So the urge to love (and to be loved) is always wit h us—and with all of us—no matter how desperately we seek to hide it or sublim ate it to other channels of interest and activity. Physiologically, love is as necessary as any other bodily function, from ingestion to defecation—yet, strangely, humans, bei ng the mixed-up creatures we are, inevitably manage to penalize ourselves for open in dulgence in this greatest and most needful of human pleasures. Thus, although the vast spread through society of t he theories and teachings of Sigmund Freud may have freed millions of Americans from the social shackles of Victorian sex-taboos, they have brought with them a whole new set of built-in penalty boxes for the self-same folk. In subjecting the sex-experience of the individual to auto-analysis, the teachings of the great founder of psychoanalysis have taken much of the joy out of sex. They have made attainment of complete orgasm of vital importa nce to the lover, forced him or her to work for it and, when not attained, to hold the partner in sex an enemy in the battle of life itself. In brief, fulfillment of the desire to love and be loved has, along with just about everything else in modern civilization, become increasingly difficult and complex. Certainly, whether it be the sex indulgence of our rich or our poor or our great middle classes, sex in America today is a far cry from the frank description of the act given to Malinowski by a male Trobriand Islander... “When I sleep with my love, I hug her with my whole body. We suck each other's lip, so that we are stirred to passion. We suck each oth er's tongues, we bite each other's chin, we bite cheeks and caress the armpit and our genitals. Then she will say, 'My lover, it itches very much... thrust on again, my w hole body melts with pleasure... crush me again, my body vibrates with rapture...” Although neither this Trobriand Islander nor his co nsort may have understood romantic love as our world understands it (in the T robriands, society has come as close to evolving a satisfactory system of free love as a ny people ever has known, thus
precluding the theme of romance) these two lovers u nderstood carnality as few Americans ever will. They made love not to fulfill a contract of marriag e, not to conquer or submit to one another, not to release neurosis-building tensions, not to prove his virility or her ability to attain full climax. They made love because they were mutually attracted and desired to give each other fulfillment, thus fulfilling themselves in th e pleasantest physical act with which Mankind has been blessed. On the other hand, in a pre-Kinsey survey by Dickin son and Beam entitledA Thousand Marriages,the following set of statistics appeared... TABLE III Wife's experience with orgasm in 442 cases Orgasm during coitus 'Yes' (frequency unstated)40% Usually.2% Occasionally15% Rarely10% Formerly, not now4% Following coitus by masturbation involving clitoral stimulation3% Not experienced with husband26% The above figures, which are supported by Kinsey's subsequent surveys of American men and women, suggest that life in this c ountry is a far cry sexually from that of the Trobriand Islanders and certain other p rimitive cultures. Yet, however appalling they may appear to the conve ntional minded, they certainly back up the thesis upon which this volume is based— that sexual desire can be honestly maintained only through more or less const ant change—if not of partner, then of approach and/or technique in the act of sex itse lf. The fact that more than 110 out of 442 wives questi oned admit to receiving sexual satisfaction only through extra-marital partners su ggests that men are not alone in their need for the exotic in sex. It is, in fact, quite p robable that the true figure of infidelity-satisfaction is higher, since many women do not wis h to risk confessing to indiscretions no matter how many safeguards are offered them in s uch a survey. Furthermore, there is no indication as to the perce ntage of wives who have tried extra-marital sex and failed to find satisfaction t herein. In any event, it would appear that millions of American husbands are going about their business wearing invisible horns. However, the desperate search for variety and sexua l satisfaction, apart from homosexuality, is not confined to the act of sex wi th one or more partners. It also (and often) involves journeys into the shadowy world of pathological, or sick, sex. The father of research and understanding in this de viant human behavior, just as Freud was the father of psychoanalysis, was another Viennese physician, Dr. Richard von Krafft-Ebing, whosePsychopathia Sexualis, published in Stuttgart in 1886, made him a predecessor of Freud and opened wide the eyes of the world. It was Krafft-Ebing who first used the wordSadism,after the French named nobleman notorious for his inability to receive sex ual pleasure without the infliction of pain upon the partner. It was Krafft-Ebing who crea ted the wordMasochism, meaning just the reverse, from the behavior of a frail Vien nese dandy of his own era, Sacher-Masoch, who was incapable of orgasm except when suffering pain. In the 236 case histories contained in this groundb reaking volume, Krafft-Ebing recorded human sexual patterns that became in large part one of the cornerstones of
the entire psychoanalytical structure. They were es sentially written for medical colleagues rather than for the eyes of ordinary cit izens, yet are all the more effective for their almost brutal brevity and utter lack of autho r's opinion. Case 40reads as follows: Merchant, 40, abnormally early hetero- and hypersex uality. From 20th year occasional coitus and frequent masturbation. Becaus e of fright (surprise during coitus) psychical impotence. Treatment unsuccessful. This d rove him close to despair. He turned to immature girls with whom his lack of viri lity would not shame him. His will-power, still unimpaired, enabled him to co nquer this impulse, and he found satisfaction with girls legally of age and non-virg inal, but who were younger than their years in appearance. In these cases, his impotence vanished. One day, he saw a woman slapping the face of her 14 -year-old daughter. The sight produced immediate violent erection and orgasmthe memory of it had similar effect. Thereafter, he was greatly stimulated by the sight of girls, no matter how young, being beaten. Reading or hearing of such abuse of young females had similar effect... Such a case is typical of what can result from Man' s need of the exotic to stimulate his libido. Unable to attain satisfaction with fema les of his own age, this merchant found it in the immature bodies of adolescent girls—or in the bodies of women who resembled such undeveloped maidens. The recent and now classic exemplification of this urge in fiction is, of course, Vladimir Nabokov's tremendously successful novelLolita,which has introduced into our language the word “Lolita-ism” to express this desi re on the part of the adult male. On more than one occasion, in his long-bannedMy Life and Loves,late Frank the Harris, brilliantly controversial Irish-born Anglo- American author and editor, frankly reveals strong similar tendencies. With loving detail, he narrates an affair with a th irteen-year-old American girl living with her aunt in a European resort hotel. It was th e aunt who first became smitten with Harris' aura of literary importance and suggested h e share their suite. Harris, smitten with the niece, adroitly arranged i t so that his bedroom lay between that of the girl and her supposed chaperon. Thus se t up, he seduced the girl, first via oral copulation, then by the real thing, enjoying t o the hilt his role of mentor in the rites of Eros. To prevent the aunt from becoming suspicious, he pe rmitted her to seduce him, discovered her well-practiced in the techniques of physical love but listened with barely concealed impatience to her expressed wish to subsi dize his career if he would only return to America with her. Escaping her embraces at last on the plea of exhaus tion, he passed right on through his bedroom to the niece's, who greeted him softly with, “I thought you were never coming!” He promptly taught the child a new sexual trick. Harris describes with delight another occasion when , living in a rented villa on the Italian Riviera, he arranged with the gardener to p rocure each weekend a number of nubile young teenagers with whom he and a few male friends held protracted orgies under the guise of experiments in sex. To justify this pose, they made careful measurement s of the genitals of their subjects before and after intercourse, sought to re late intensity of climax with orificial dimensions and induced their subjects, between sex- sessions, to narrate their own early sexual experiences, which were all solemnly n oted down. Of course, such Lolita-ism is sadistic...


En entrant sur cette page, vous certifiez :

  • 1. avoir atteint l'âge légal de majorité de votre pays de résidence.
  • 2. avoir pris connaissance du caractère érotique de ce document.
  • 4. vous engager à ne pas diffuser le contenu de ce document.
  • 4. vous engager à ne pas diffuser le contenu de ce document.
  • 5. consulter ce document à titre purement personnel en n'impliquant aucune société ou organisme d'État.
  • 6. vous engager à mettre en oeuvre tous les moyens existants à ce jour pour empêcher n'importe quel mineur d'accéder à ce document.
  • 7. déclarer n'être choqué(e) par aucun type de sexualité.

Nous nous dégageons de toute responsabilité en cas de non-respect des points précédemment énumérés.