What historical references exist for mutual oral-sex positions like 'Congress of a Crow' in sex manuals?

1. Ancient South Asian manuals: the Kama Sutra’s “auparishtaka” and formalized oral congress

The Kama Sutra, compiled in antiquity and long read as a compendium of erotic techniques, devotes a chapter to auparishtaka—translated as “oral congress”—which describes multiple, codified ways of performing fellatio and treats the practice as a distinct set of techniques rather than a mere aside, showing that mutual or giver/receiver oral techniques were systematized in classical South Asian sexology ^{[1] [5]}.

2. Classical Mediterranean evidence: poetry, pottery and enumerated postures

Classical Greco‑Roman sources and artifacts routinely depict oral sex and a taxonomy of positions: Greek lyric and vase imagery, Roman frescoes from Pompeii, and commentaries that list dozens of erotic postures attest to ethnographic awareness and visual instruction on sexual acts, including oral rites; translators and Victorian editors like Forberg and Aretin later enumerated many named “congresses” based on these classical traditions ^{[4] [2] [6]}.

3. Manuals and catalogues across cultures: Perfumed Garden, Speculum al foderi, and medieval compilations

Medieval and early modern sex manuals continued the genre: Arabic works such as The Perfumed Garden and European medieval texts including the fifteenth‑century Speculum al foderi catalogued positions and sexual practices, demonstrating continuity of the “how‑to” manual tradition beyond antiquity and into the medieval world where positions and their names were recorded and debated ^{[7] [3]}.

4. Mutual oral positions in later vernacular and modern sources: the “69” and codified techniques

Modern summaries and health literature note simultaneous mutual oral sex—commonly named “69”—as a long‑recognized configuration and trace its cultural persistence into contemporary guides and reviews; clinical and popular overviews point to ancient precedents while describing 69 as a distinct mutual oral position familiar in modern sex manuals and health literature ^{[8] [7]}.

5. Taboo, interpretation and the limits of textual evidence

Across time, many authors also marked oral practices as morally fraught or socially stigmatized—Roman texts for instance treated certain oral acts as humiliating or punishable, and medieval sources often cloak references in euphemism—so the historical record mixes explicit instruction, artistic depiction, and censorious silence, complicating direct equivalence between named positions in different cultures ^{[2] [9]}.

6. On the phrase “Congress of a Crow”: absence in supplied sources and likely explanations

None of the supplied documents use the phrase “Congress of a Crow”; available evidence instead records terms like auparishtaka, numbered or named “congresses” in Renaissance and Victorian commentaries, and modern labels such as “69,” so “Congress of a Crow” may be a later colloquial, poetic or regionally specific epithet not attested in these primary overviews—or it may be a mistranslation, playful neologism, or folkloric name outside the materials provided ^{[1] [2] [7]}.

7. Conclusion: a documented lineage but gaps in nomenclature

There is a well‑documented lineage of manuals and images across India, the Mediterranean and medieval/Arabic literatures that describe and systematize oral techniques—including mutual positions—yet the exact phrase queried is not corroborated in the examined sources; the user’s concept fits within an established tradition of named “congresses” and mutual positions, but precise terminology varies by language, era and translator ^{[1] [2] [3] [7]}.