Ummoh mumumph hummohmnum mpphm.
High-risk sexual behaviors are common and as HPV doesn’t have the cervical cancer risk for males it probably plays no factor.
In general funding for STD’s is uncommon because it is generally considered the result of moral failings and as your cite mentioned it is only offered to women because of the cervical cancer risk, and thus offered to those who are actually at risk of the cancer.
True.
Also, I believe there are prehistoric cave paintings showing apparent oral sex, so it is documented at least 30,000 years ago or so in homo … somespecies.
Actually, the article says:
That is the 9-valent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which was only approved by the FDA in 2014.
Policy changes take years, and it is being considered.
But it still wouldn’t have much impact on the actual practices.
And Real Men are sleeping alone.
As I was trying to get my comments about the history of sex into some coherent paragraphs I finally realized that you’re making an unstated assumption.
I think that everybody agrees that the last few decades have widened what “good girls do” to include stuff they weren’t doing earlier in the 20th century. Oral is one. Anal is another. Even threeways and lesbianism were once considered too weird and/or evil to be salacious.
So the unspoken assumption is that history describes a simple arc of more openness from less openness.
History is way more complicated than that. There were times and places and classes and religions where openness was present. The 18th century was generally more ribald than the 19th in America because America got a whole lot more religious in the 1800s and because a middle class appeared that considered the habits of the lower classes to be vulgar. History books tend to be written from a middle class viewpoint and that predisposes us to think that middle class norms (when the middle class was a tiny slice of the population) were indeed the norm. Yeah, but.
Victorian pornography is full of oral sex and anal sex and threeways and lesbianism. (And the British Victorians put whipping into almost every book.) Slightly later the Tijuana Bibles would do the same. Most underground pornography everywhere, both print and film, included every possible sex act. It’s really hard to tell whether these represented pure fantasy about what wouldn’t be done except by the most depraved prostitutes or exaggerated descriptions of what everybody knew really happened.
There does seem to have been a widening of what was acceptable in the Roaring 20s that got repressed for a variety of reasons in the 30s. The “smut” books of the 50s and 60s seldom mention lesbianism or even have men disapproving of any woman/woman contact. That reversed when hard-core porn boomed in the 70s, and I’ve never come across any explanation of why. The attitude today that men stereotypically think all women are bi and are desperate to see two girls making out would have been thought weird by mainstream America and sex writers 50 years ago.
But by everybody every time in the past? Maybe not. History isn’t neat like that.
Neither anal cancer nor penile cancer are very common, so 40% of one and 90% of the other doesn’t add up to nearly as much as cervical cancer does.
I don’t think I’ve ever before read more misinformation in one small sentence, not to mention the typo.
You’re saying he is not a cunning linguist?
Ok, so you didn’t like the OP. But has the quality of this thread improved? Or is it going down over time?
There’s a letter from Napoleon to Josephine instructing her not to bathe. I guess it’s my dirty mind that assumes why.
I think the ancient Greeks and Romans lacked a separate word for “homosexual.” Men did what they did with whoever was available; it’s like creating a separate social category for nosepickers and holding them to it. I can’t imagine them saying “Oral with bros, but not with hos!”
This statement makes one wonder how many people who belong to the American Association for Nude Recreation (FKA American Sunbathing Association) engage in oral sex. 
Anyway, I remember reading that in one of his divorce cases, Charlie Chaplin’s wife accused him of enjoying cunnilingus, and he replied, “But don’t all married people do that?”
(And I always thought women LIKED that. Maybe not her.)
Actually, I think that Lita Chaplin’s complaint was more that he demanded fellatio, which she called an “abnormal, against nature, perverted, degenerate and indecent act.”
Homosexuality as an identity is a relatively modern invention. Ancient Greeks and Romans lacked a word for a homosexual person because as a culture they didn’t have the concept of a homosexual person. They had homosexual acts, of course, but not homosexual people. If a man engaged in homosexual acts, he was not a homosexual man, he was just a man who happened to do those things. Homosexuality as an identity didn’t come around until the 19th century (mostly - there were some cultures who had the concept long before then).
Men in ancient Greek and Roman cultures didn’t do whatever they did with whoever was available. In Greek culture, men could boink women or young boys, but not other men. Sometimes the boys were slaves, and sometimes not. If not, the courtship had to be approved by the boy’s father. A married man could have a relationship with a boy without it being considered cheating on his wife. It was much less culturally accepted for a man to have a relationship with another adult man, but it did happen.
Roman culture had some similarities, but also some differences. In ancient Rome, it was ok to be the “man” in a sexual coupling (i.e. the one doing the penetrating), but performing oral sex or receiving anal sex was seen as demeaning and subservient. Two men of equal social status could therefore not have a relationship, but a man could boink as many of his male slaves as he wanted to. A man could also not have a relationship with a young boy who was a free citizen. If the boy was a slave, the man was free to boink him as much as desired. But again, the man had to be the one doing the penetrating. Performing oral sex on a slave or receiving anal sex from a slave would put the man in a subservient position to the slave, which was considered degrading.
If a man were caught performing oral sex or receiving anal sex, he would not be accused of being a “homosexual”. They didn’t have the concept of homosexuality as an identity yet. Instead, the man would be accused of being effeminate, which for a man was considered degrading and could result in the loss of social stature (and possibly his job if he was a politician).
It should also be noted that adult men boinking boys was not universally accepted in either ancient Greek or Roman culture. In some areas it was more taboo than others, with some cities considering it ok for a man to have a platonic relationship with a boy but not a sexual relationship with a boy.
In parts of ancient Greece, girls could go to something sort of like a girl’s school, though it had a bit more of a community aspect to it than just being a school. Sappho (yes, that Sappho, from the island of Lesbos) was the head of one of these community schools, and many of her poems were about her young female students. Relationships between women and their young students and between two students were not uncommon. Over time, these communities faded away. Outside of these girl schools, relationships between women were not socially acceptable, in either Greek or Roman culture. Women were supposed to be baby factories for their husbands. Their husbands could boink young boys, but the women were only for their husbands.
Perhaps I should be asking this in Cafe, but when did oral sex become known as 'French" ?
(For comparison, masochism/dominance was “English” to the French)
Apparently, those acts themselves were considered effeminate and degrading; whether the partner was a man or woman was irrelevant. At least, that is what one can infer from such quips as
and the wonderful
In A Brief History of Oral Sex, by David DePierre, he indicates that the term Frenching was introduced at the end of the 18th century, with the Marquis de Sade’s works a major influence.
In the late 19th century there was a (in)famous monthly magazine called The Pearl. Here is are a couple of stanzas from a poem in the publication.
*Yet lured its votaries to a sudden doom,
And stamped Consumption’s flush on Beauty’s bloom.
Sweet Gamahuche found softer ways to fame,
It asked not Dildo’s art, nor Frigging’s flame.
Tongue, not prick, now probes the central hole,
And mouth, not cunt, becomes prick’s destined goal.
It always found a sympathetic friend;
And pleased limp pricks, and those who could not spend,*
It’s blown out of proportion.