Chapter 3: Teen Studies

About half way through the Spring 2003 semester, Professor Rektor, who was both my behavioral psychology and criminal psychology section 2 instructor, presented an elective project to the students in his classes. He wanted to create something like a modern Kinsey report… about human sexuality, and all of the students who wanted to help create the experiment were to sit down and talk about what they wanted to do…what they all could agree on.

Professor Rektor was just to observe and take notes and then set up the experiment in a scientific way. Remember, we were a bunch of sex-obsessed 19 and 20 year olds, and we were all thinking about getting laid with no strings attached, but there were to many variations to make that scientific.

The final consensus was that we would blow-each other – but in a scientific way. Really. Here were the rules we devised: First a booth would be created with a padded divider just above the hip bone. The person getting blown for a period of exactly 10 minutes was going to be called the "receiver subject" and the student who was "doing" them would be called the "giver subject". The divider would keep one from seeing the other. The person giving head would only be able to see the front of their "subject" from the knees to the top of the hip bone. The rear of the receiver would also be in a padded situation and the legs below the knee would be hidden and restrained for both comfort and to keep from thrashing and kicking if their giver achieved their goal.

The lighting in the opening below would be dim, but not dark. The "giver" could use their hands, but would need to be licking or sucking something in the genital area the entire 10 minutes, stopping only for breath, if they couldn't breathe from their noses. The giver had their flavor pick from light flavored syrup/lubricant which would be in a little bucket on a small shelf between the knees of the receiver.

Immediately after the 10 minutes were up, they would have to go into another room and write their initial report from their side.

Everyone who joined the group agreed that in this way it didn't matter if they were working from a man or a woman, since the University life was made for experimentation. Anyone who felt otherwise probably wouldn't have come to the first meeting.

Aside from being scientific, the givers were given game rules. No scratching or biting would be allowed, and everyone had to sign an affidavit of his or her good standing health, and agreement to be otherwise hygienic. The signed paper had such language that "I enter this agreement of my own free will, in being a giver, I will also have the chance to be a receiver."

Oh, and we had to say this out loud on video while looking our instructor straight in the eyes as sort of reinforcing, psychological affirmation of the rules. We weren't to observe the other students, and the teacher would only be recording the head and shoulders of the receiver. This meant in terms of two-way observation, the professor or his research assistant had to at least see our eyes and mouth when we were receiving.

I think most everyone was looking more forward to being a receiver, but the giving part was set up as safe and as clean, and as fair as possible. We all knew that in real life we wouldn't get it this fair and detached, but as we were to recite to our vow of entering into this contract under our own elective choice and free will, and as such we would follow the rules of the so called "game." It was a great way to have the benefits of a sexual moment, maybe even an orgasm without all of the trouble of going out on the pull or having a relationship.

Now, when it was your turn to receive, you also were closed off… but in much brighter lighting. Both the giver and the receiver had headphones on and a choice of music so they couldn't identify each other further. When it was your turn to receive, you had to watch your own giver vow tape back, twice, on a small monitor in front of you. Then put your headphones on. You could hear Professor Recktor's voice in the headphones, the music down low.

Now he would hand you a sealed envelope over the divider and then leave the room and set himself in front of the two way camera system. The envelope would have what you were allowed and expected to do as a receiver. We had all agreed that this would add to the fun. And since it was professor Rektor's experiment overall, he got to set the instructions, which might be different for each receiver subject, as he was in the very early days of collecting information for this study.

First of all, we were to thank the Professor… using ritualistic language. Each of us would use the same beginning instructions for the ritualistic language, and part of the anticipation of getting "off" when we were on the receiving end would be not knowing until it was our turn.

So now, ready to be blown, we had to look our professor in the eye via monitor and say. "My Master, Thank you My Master." Hey, at least we didn't have to say it in Latin or German. We had joked about that when we were setting up the experiment.

Then he would ritualistically say back, "You are a beautiful strong, young person. And you know it."

The whole empowerment angle was very important for us who considered ourselves modern and liberated. This was the part that the students had determined. What our "Master" would say back to us. It was kind of fun to be involved in this kind of constructive reality, even for something like a game "with benefits."

Okay, back to the rules. The next step was that the receiver subject had to say back an acknowledgement to the affirmation. Using the ritualistic language of what we decided to call "the game" for short, we had to say back, "My Master, yes My Master." And yes, the capital letters were in the instructions.

It was a form of self programming, self-hypnosis, chosen of our own free will (as we signed the paper the previous say). We all knew it, and all of the students had a hand in developing it and voting it through. He was our professor. His name even meant Master in English from the German root. It didn't bother us… and it wasn't like we were his slaves, we were his students. As it was, it was all good.

Now if we said it wrong, we had to start at the top of the script again. It was important for science that everyone said the same neurolinguistic programming.