I think you're too quick to dismiss the hygiene angle. Even in the modern age I've had plenty of experiences where a partner did not smell the best, and throwing taste in there makes that even worse.
Years ago, I looked at a book on the Latin sexual vocabulary. It cited several distinct verbs: fello (to take a penis into a mouth), irrumo (to insert a penis into a mouth), futuo (to insert a penis into a vagina), pedico (to insert a penis into an anus), and ceveo (to receive a penis into a vagina OR anus). I believe there also were sexual uses for frigo (to rub) and lingo (to lick). So the Romans at least were aware of such activities.
It may not be irrelevant that Christianity opposed nonprocreative sex, and eventually decreed criminal penalties for it; I have read that "sodomy" (a very broadly defined crime in many jurisdiction) carried the death penalty for a long time. Knowledge of such practices may also have been suppressed, beyond the suppressive effects of legal punishment of engaging in them.
"Procreative" may have been an issue. The Roman emperors seem to have been chronically worried about low fertility, especially in the upper classes.
Is pornography the answer? The argument could go something like:
1. Oral Sex is depicted in pornography more frequently than it's actually practiced between couples. This could be because it's more visually appealing than other sex acts, or easier to film/preform, or safer for performers.
2. Pornography consumption and exposure has increased substantially over the past 30-40 years thanks to the internet.
3. Viewing pornography meaningfully changes people's behavior when they have partnered sex, either because it changes their expectations for what's normal or "conditions" them into finding things arousing that they others wouldn't.
I have no evidence that any of the 3 above claims are true.
I came here to say exactly the same thing, that David's dismissal of the "showers" explanation is a bit too rash and decisive. There may have been "adequate" hygiene in "lots of past societies," but the convenience and efficacy of having piped-in water, readily opened up at any time in bespoke cleansing areas, would undoubtedly result in more frequent and thorough cleaning of sebaceous accretions that would otherwise develop a foul and buttery pong.
The presence of a wash basin or a bucket in a common area may have provided adequate hygiene by the standards of the time but that doesn't mean people would have been likely to hoist a leg and start lathering up Parson's Notch.
It's probably not a coincidence that the tribe of people whose demonym -- "French" -- is a synonym for oral sex were the ones who invented the bidet in the 17th century.
Seems like venereal diseases could motivate opposition to oral sex too, even in cases wherein oral sex doesn't risk transmission (AFAIK, very few or no cases wherein oral carries no risk but vaginal carries high risk): if doing sexy stuff is known to invoke the curse of God by way of disease, well, how much moreso a clearly ungodly act like cunnilingus?!
Thinking about this -- it's unclear to me whether people writing in the past got more enjoyment out of the sex acts themselves or out of the thrill that they were behaving in proscribed ways. Rather than 'cheating to get sex' were they 'having sex in order to get to cheat'?
Once the idea that 'sex is primarily for pleasure' takes hold, it is no wonder that people look for more pleasurable ways to have sex. Right now, I am told, the majority of American college aged women have 'experienced and mostly enjoyed' mild choking. see: https://unherd.com/2024/03/on-choking-during-sex/ Do they share goals with those unfortunates who are found dead after hanging themselves while masterbating because they were told it made the sex better? The unherd author, Mary Gaitskill is interested in the psychological reasons why women like being choked, but I wondered if the reasons were more physiological. (This idea assumes that the result is more pleasurable, or at least that curious people were willing to test the thesis.)
In Yukichi Fukuzawa’s memoir, he mentioned a bowl he used during a voyage to America… He used it as an eating bowl. Anyways, the story went something like how later he learned said bowl had been used at a brothel for prostitutes to spit into after finishing their customers. This implies oral sex was a thing in Japan in the nineteenth century and probably long before that.
Have you checked sources like the <em>Kama Sutra</em>? It documents an awful lot of positions, and if neither fellatio nor cunnilingus is included, that suggests they weren't done in that time and place... or perhaps that they didn't count as "sex" and therefore weren't interesting enough to include.
There's also an early-20th-century Norwegian sculptor named Emanuel Vigeland (brother to the better-known Gustav Vigeland, IIRC) who sculpted an encyclopedic collection of sexual positions.
1. Nature. I would guess that until fairly recently most humans would have had much more observation of livestock (and in the case animal husbandry) and wild animals almost from infancy and learn a great deal about the birds and the bees, so to speak, in that way. But they would never see any animals engage in oral sex, and if they never saw anyone else do it because the kind of thing kept private, they would have nothing to imitate and it might just not occur to them as something erotic (or expected) instead of evoking a disgust reaction, which I'd guess is common when imagining anything going into one's mouth that isn't thought to be nutritious good or healthy medicine. There are some oral sexual practices thought to be pleasurable by some minority but which a majority still finds disgusting in just this manner. I have never researched it, but I've heard that deep French kissing (also something never seen in animals) was considered a novel act of romance and/or disgusting by people exposed to it for the first time.
2. Prostitution. Prostitutes in the Roman empire would sometimes make coins depicting acts and prices, and I suspect such devices or "menus" were actually quite common in any place with a large and tolerated prostitution sector, which seems to be most places at most times in history. Looking for these menus might provide some insight into what practices were in demand in that market. But also, it may be that during eras of moral tightening such sectors shrank substantially in size, supply fell, and demand also fell when a few new generation were born into ignorance that was never sullied in this respect.
Not sure if data backs this up, but here's a potential thread: The rise of fellatio directly correlates with a rise in male sexual satiation. Not sure if this holds for women, but it's pretty well documented that novelty increases libido for guys, particularly when they're approaching satiation. The rise of contraceptives led to more sex all around, and the rise of digital porn led to more masturbation. Guys are more satiated then they've ever been, so there's a growing need for sexual novelty, in order to get things moving along. Fellatio fills that role pretty effectively, hence the recent boom?
Another obvious substitute for traditional sex I haven't seen mentioned here: toys.
When I was in Boy Scouts (hell of a segue there, I know), we visited Philmont, a high adventure camp in New Mexico. Among the many activities were tours of reproduced camps of pre-European Americans. It's been decades, but based on where we were, I would guess they were Navajo, Pueblo, or perhaps Comanche. Inside a teepee, we got a lot of detail about everyday home life - including a polished horn we passed among ourselves as the guide explained that while the men were out hunting, the women resorted to that.
It wouldn't be hard to craft all sorts of things, even for a pre-metalworking culture. Inexpensive rubber and contraceptives probably wouldn't alleviate the appeal for all the other artificial aids still in existence. Especially once augmented by modern lubricants.
I'm largely with the hygiene crowd. These days our hygiene is beyond any objective idea of "adequate". Not 100 years ago, some people in America were still doing the thing where there was a weekly bath - the tin tub was taken off of the side of the house, a fire was lit to heat water, and then everyone bathed, children first, then women, then men, in the same water. Frequent hand washing and oral hygiene is another thing we take for granted. - we can get some unpleasant infections if the wrong stuff touches the mucous membranes.
The other angle I'd look into is mass media. These days, someone on the opposite side of the planet can do something, and thanks to social media, a billion people might hear about it the next day. 20 years ago, this was the province of computer geeks. 30 years ago the World Wide Web barely existed. Non-rhetorically, where would someone in 1924 hear about oral sex? What classes of people would have access to that information? What types of people would spread it?
One thing that might have something to do with it: Not all women reach orgasm from vaginal penetration. However, the human tongue (male or female) is very well able both to locate the clitoris and to supply it with lubrication and pressure, and the clitoris is a superior place for erotic stimulation for a lot of women. Perhaps as the idea that sexual gratification is desirable for women, and providing it for their partners, has become more widely accepted, such concerns have influence sexual practices.
I wonder how many references to such things were purged or censored... I recall that Gargantua and Pantagruel was pretty heavily suppressed by the French church in the early 1500's for obscenity, so it may well be that many other works of the time (as well as earlier and later) went through a pretty strong filter, either disappearing after writing or authors self censoring to avoid getting in trouble. Extant works might leave out references entirely, or use very obscure ones that wouldn't be recognizable today.
That could also have strong knock on effects as well, as over time people more or less forget things that used to be more common just from lack of examples. That might explain the dearth of examples in the 17-1900s, along with a sense of "proper people don't talk about that" meaning that works that did mention it might not be preserved.
I think you're too quick to dismiss the hygiene angle. Even in the modern age I've had plenty of experiences where a partner did not smell the best, and throwing taste in there makes that even worse.
Years ago, I looked at a book on the Latin sexual vocabulary. It cited several distinct verbs: fello (to take a penis into a mouth), irrumo (to insert a penis into a mouth), futuo (to insert a penis into a vagina), pedico (to insert a penis into an anus), and ceveo (to receive a penis into a vagina OR anus). I believe there also were sexual uses for frigo (to rub) and lingo (to lick). So the Romans at least were aware of such activities.
It may not be irrelevant that Christianity opposed nonprocreative sex, and eventually decreed criminal penalties for it; I have read that "sodomy" (a very broadly defined crime in many jurisdiction) carried the death penalty for a long time. Knowledge of such practices may also have been suppressed, beyond the suppressive effects of legal punishment of engaging in them.
"Procreative" may have been an issue. The Roman emperors seem to have been chronically worried about low fertility, especially in the upper classes.
Is pornography the answer? The argument could go something like:
1. Oral Sex is depicted in pornography more frequently than it's actually practiced between couples. This could be because it's more visually appealing than other sex acts, or easier to film/preform, or safer for performers.
2. Pornography consumption and exposure has increased substantially over the past 30-40 years thanks to the internet.
3. Viewing pornography meaningfully changes people's behavior when they have partnered sex, either because it changes their expectations for what's normal or "conditions" them into finding things arousing that they others wouldn't.
I have no evidence that any of the 3 above claims are true.
I came here to say exactly the same thing, that David's dismissal of the "showers" explanation is a bit too rash and decisive. There may have been "adequate" hygiene in "lots of past societies," but the convenience and efficacy of having piped-in water, readily opened up at any time in bespoke cleansing areas, would undoubtedly result in more frequent and thorough cleaning of sebaceous accretions that would otherwise develop a foul and buttery pong.
The presence of a wash basin or a bucket in a common area may have provided adequate hygiene by the standards of the time but that doesn't mean people would have been likely to hoist a leg and start lathering up Parson's Notch.
It's probably not a coincidence that the tribe of people whose demonym -- "French" -- is a synonym for oral sex were the ones who invented the bidet in the 17th century.
Seems like venereal diseases could motivate opposition to oral sex too, even in cases wherein oral sex doesn't risk transmission (AFAIK, very few or no cases wherein oral carries no risk but vaginal carries high risk): if doing sexy stuff is known to invoke the curse of God by way of disease, well, how much moreso a clearly ungodly act like cunnilingus?!
Thinking about this -- it's unclear to me whether people writing in the past got more enjoyment out of the sex acts themselves or out of the thrill that they were behaving in proscribed ways. Rather than 'cheating to get sex' were they 'having sex in order to get to cheat'?
Once the idea that 'sex is primarily for pleasure' takes hold, it is no wonder that people look for more pleasurable ways to have sex. Right now, I am told, the majority of American college aged women have 'experienced and mostly enjoyed' mild choking. see: https://unherd.com/2024/03/on-choking-during-sex/ Do they share goals with those unfortunates who are found dead after hanging themselves while masterbating because they were told it made the sex better? The unherd author, Mary Gaitskill is interested in the psychological reasons why women like being choked, but I wondered if the reasons were more physiological. (This idea assumes that the result is more pleasurable, or at least that curious people were willing to test the thesis.)
In Yukichi Fukuzawa’s memoir, he mentioned a bowl he used during a voyage to America… He used it as an eating bowl. Anyways, the story went something like how later he learned said bowl had been used at a brothel for prostitutes to spit into after finishing their customers. This implies oral sex was a thing in Japan in the nineteenth century and probably long before that.
FWIW I believe that Kinsey reported that about half of his sample of women had performed fellatio, based on data collected in late 1940’s.
Have you checked sources like the <em>Kama Sutra</em>? It documents an awful lot of positions, and if neither fellatio nor cunnilingus is included, that suggests they weren't done in that time and place... or perhaps that they didn't count as "sex" and therefore weren't interesting enough to include.
There's also an early-20th-century Norwegian sculptor named Emanuel Vigeland (brother to the better-known Gustav Vigeland, IIRC) who sculpted an encyclopedic collection of sexual positions.
Two thoughts.
1. Nature. I would guess that until fairly recently most humans would have had much more observation of livestock (and in the case animal husbandry) and wild animals almost from infancy and learn a great deal about the birds and the bees, so to speak, in that way. But they would never see any animals engage in oral sex, and if they never saw anyone else do it because the kind of thing kept private, they would have nothing to imitate and it might just not occur to them as something erotic (or expected) instead of evoking a disgust reaction, which I'd guess is common when imagining anything going into one's mouth that isn't thought to be nutritious good or healthy medicine. There are some oral sexual practices thought to be pleasurable by some minority but which a majority still finds disgusting in just this manner. I have never researched it, but I've heard that deep French kissing (also something never seen in animals) was considered a novel act of romance and/or disgusting by people exposed to it for the first time.
2. Prostitution. Prostitutes in the Roman empire would sometimes make coins depicting acts and prices, and I suspect such devices or "menus" were actually quite common in any place with a large and tolerated prostitution sector, which seems to be most places at most times in history. Looking for these menus might provide some insight into what practices were in demand in that market. But also, it may be that during eras of moral tightening such sectors shrank substantially in size, supply fell, and demand also fell when a few new generation were born into ignorance that was never sullied in this respect.
Not sure if data backs this up, but here's a potential thread: The rise of fellatio directly correlates with a rise in male sexual satiation. Not sure if this holds for women, but it's pretty well documented that novelty increases libido for guys, particularly when they're approaching satiation. The rise of contraceptives led to more sex all around, and the rise of digital porn led to more masturbation. Guys are more satiated then they've ever been, so there's a growing need for sexual novelty, in order to get things moving along. Fellatio fills that role pretty effectively, hence the recent boom?
Another obvious substitute for traditional sex I haven't seen mentioned here: toys.
When I was in Boy Scouts (hell of a segue there, I know), we visited Philmont, a high adventure camp in New Mexico. Among the many activities were tours of reproduced camps of pre-European Americans. It's been decades, but based on where we were, I would guess they were Navajo, Pueblo, or perhaps Comanche. Inside a teepee, we got a lot of detail about everyday home life - including a polished horn we passed among ourselves as the guide explained that while the men were out hunting, the women resorted to that.
It wouldn't be hard to craft all sorts of things, even for a pre-metalworking culture. Inexpensive rubber and contraceptives probably wouldn't alleviate the appeal for all the other artificial aids still in existence. Especially once augmented by modern lubricants.
I'm largely with the hygiene crowd. These days our hygiene is beyond any objective idea of "adequate". Not 100 years ago, some people in America were still doing the thing where there was a weekly bath - the tin tub was taken off of the side of the house, a fire was lit to heat water, and then everyone bathed, children first, then women, then men, in the same water. Frequent hand washing and oral hygiene is another thing we take for granted. - we can get some unpleasant infections if the wrong stuff touches the mucous membranes.
The other angle I'd look into is mass media. These days, someone on the opposite side of the planet can do something, and thanks to social media, a billion people might hear about it the next day. 20 years ago, this was the province of computer geeks. 30 years ago the World Wide Web barely existed. Non-rhetorically, where would someone in 1924 hear about oral sex? What classes of people would have access to that information? What types of people would spread it?
Yeah, it's showers
One thing that might have something to do with it: Not all women reach orgasm from vaginal penetration. However, the human tongue (male or female) is very well able both to locate the clitoris and to supply it with lubrication and pressure, and the clitoris is a superior place for erotic stimulation for a lot of women. Perhaps as the idea that sexual gratification is desirable for women, and providing it for their partners, has become more widely accepted, such concerns have influence sexual practices.
I wonder how many references to such things were purged or censored... I recall that Gargantua and Pantagruel was pretty heavily suppressed by the French church in the early 1500's for obscenity, so it may well be that many other works of the time (as well as earlier and later) went through a pretty strong filter, either disappearing after writing or authors self censoring to avoid getting in trouble. Extant works might leave out references entirely, or use very obscure ones that wouldn't be recognizable today.
That could also have strong knock on effects as well, as over time people more or less forget things that used to be more common just from lack of examples. That might explain the dearth of examples in the 17-1900s, along with a sense of "proper people don't talk about that" meaning that works that did mention it might not be preserved.