The Museum of Hoaxes
hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive
 
The boy with the golden tooth, 1593
Jernegan's Gold Accumulator Scam, 1898
Fake Fish Photos
The Gallery of Fake Viral Images
war of the worlds
The night Martians invaded New Jersey, 1938
Jean Gauntt, the Immortal Baby, 1939
The Great Space Monkey Hoax, 1953
Old-Time Photo Fakery, 1900 to 1919
The Great New York Zoo Escape Hoax, 1874
Bonsai Kittens, 2000
Rainbow Parties
The recent publication of a novel for teenagers titled RAINBOW PARTY has revived debate about whether or not such 'rainbow parties' are real. As a recent NY Times article explained, "rainbow parties are group oral sex parties in which each girl wears a different shade of lipstick, and each guy tries to emerge sporting every one of the various colors." Such parties are supposedly all the rage with teenagers (kids these days!... what will they think of next?). In the book, a teenage girl has to decide whether or not to go to such a party, but the party ends up never taking place.

The concept of rainbow parties first gained widespread attention back in 2003 when a guest on the Oprah show claimed that all kinds of teenagers were going to these things. But the thing is, tales about rainbow parties always seem to be third-hand: coming from adults who are trying to raise alarms about teenage sexuality. The same NY Times article notes that "Many say rainbow parties are just a new urban legend -- suburban, actually -- not much more trustworthy than the old stories about alligators in the sewer."

I'd have to agree that the rainbow party concept is probably more urban legend than reality. It reminds me of the Jelly Bracelet tale (that teenagers supposedly wear color-coded jelly bracelets to indicate to other kids what kind of sexual acts they're willing to perform). But as always with such things, it may have started out fake, but give it enough time and someone, somewhere, is probably going to be inspired to make it real.
Categories: Sex/Romance, Urban Legends
Posted by The Curator on Thu Aug 11, 2005
Comments (73)
Chyca sez:
" ... wouldnt the first color pretty much be smeared off by the next girl?
If they're using regular lipstick, yes. On the other hand, if you draw a ring with a permanent marker, it's on there for at least a week or two. Try it.
And markers come in a wide selection of colors (you might even say a "rainbow" of colors.

Mind you, I still don't believe anybody's really doing this. At least, my invitation hasn't come in the mail yet.
Posted by Big Gary in Dallas  in  Dallas, Texas  on  Wed Aug 17, 2005  at  06:41 PM
After awhile it gets hard to clean all those marker colours off you hand. I recommend Goop. It works wonders.
Posted by Charybdis  in  Hell  on  Wed Aug 17, 2005  at  07:01 PM
So if you saw a video of several girls sucking off several guys, you would believe?
Posted by partyboy  on  Wed Aug 17, 2005  at  10:16 PM
An orgy video isn't going to prove anything without the lipstick. There's about a million websites with "real" college girls getting gangbanged. Those girls are actually pros though. You did know that, didn't you partboy?
Posted by Thelonious Monkey  on  Wed Aug 17, 2005  at  11:58 PM
Thank you for that extra explanation for partyboy's education, Thelonius. smile

I would confess that such a video would assist my belief, but it would also have to be backe dup by data that the people in question were who they said they were as well, that is not actors.

Just a quick question partyboy; why is it such an important part of your belief system that others must accept the existence of these parties? You remind me a lot of certain religious individuals who need to convince others of their faith to truly accept that faith themselves.
Posted by DFStuckey  in  Auckalnd New Zealand  on  Thu Aug 18, 2005  at  12:46 AM
Has anyone noticed taht even the participants in these "parties" seem unable to agree on what goes on there to justify the name? One crew says its lipstick, another says its Magic Markers.

Could be a regional difference, to be charoiitable. My feeling is that much like other reports of sexual activity, its utter BS.
Posted by DFStuckey  in  Auckland New Zealand  on  Thu Aug 18, 2005  at  12:51 AM
Wait a minute, there, Stuckey, I was the one who mentioned the Magic Markers, and I never said these parties are real. In fact, in the same post, I said, "I still don't believe anybody's really doing this."
Posted by Big Gary in Dallas  in  Dallas, Texas  on  Thu Aug 18, 2005  at  06:41 PM
Hey, easy there Big Gary - No offense, I'm just saying that the story seems inconsistent around the place. Whoever told you about Magic Markers is obviously not the same circle that talks about lipstick, which is why I raised the point of inconsistent stories.

No offense meant smile
Posted by DFStuckey  in  Auckland New Zealand  on  Thu Aug 18, 2005  at  07:33 PM
A few bars and clubs in Holland hand out coloured bracelets. The colours indicate whether you're single, up for a flirt, up for a one night stand, or gay. So it sounds more like a reality than a myth
Posted by Tychikus  in  Hilversum, Holland  on  Fri Aug 19, 2005  at  04:18 AM
Tychikus, that one doesn't translate. It's like saying that because you can buy marijuana brownies over the counter in Dutch cafes, then you can do so anywhere in the United States.

Although I was aware of the party scene in the Netherlands. Not that it would ever work for me, given that the women there still have the same human conditioning.
Posted by DFStuckey  in  Auckland New Zealand  on  Sat Aug 20, 2005  at  06:54 AM
These parties, though not common, do occur. The lipstick thing was just a happy side-effect of the party and they were thus dubbed raibow parties. I am a sexual health counselor and I have heard specific incidents from my clients who have participated in these parties...these parties are also a good way to spread sexually transmitted infections such a syphilis, gonorrhea and chlamydia. A recent outbreak here was linked to one of these parties.

PS - It's not only teens involved with these things. Remember that oral sex is sex and that it can spread disease, always use a condom or dental dam. For more information on STIs visit http://www.imjustmejustlikeyou.com or www.teenwire.com
Posted by travis  in  Boise, ID, USA  on  Thu Aug 25, 2005  at  04:40 PM
Hi. I'm Jesus Christ (the Son of God) and I'd just like to let everyone know that these parties are a complete fabrication. A rainbow party never has and never will occur on Earth so long as I reign in Heaven. I'm omniscient, so I should know. Also: everyone who has contradicted me in this thread shall be doomed to an eternity of suffering in the bowels of hell. Especially partyboy.

Have a nice day everybody!
Posted by Jesus Christ  in  Heaven  on  Thu Aug 25, 2005  at  05:01 PM
OMG... XD Honestly, I really couldn't say this was fake... I think its pretty likely that there are groups of people doing something like this out there... XD

Just looks at the other kinds of sexual things people do in groups... Hell some of my best freinds are Furries... I've even been asked to go to a "Furr Pile" on a few occasions... (btw, a furrpile is basically an orgy, although furries swear its better XD)

Some people are just very open about sex, and it becomes a social activity to them and their friends...
Personally I think this behavior is wonderful... although... the only problem is STDs... which is kind of sad... cause without STDs there wouldn't be too much to fear. =/
I guess if your friends are close and honst, its a little better. XD
Posted by Kiko  on  Tue Aug 30, 2005  at  04:11 AM
Kiko, I have heard of Furry parties. Since they mostly consist of men dressed in costumes, some of which are of female animals, frotting themsleves into the linings, they are a phenomenon I can beleive in.

Travis, apart from the questionable activity of spamming, have you considered that it is unwise to promote an activity that will increase STDs? Several medical journals have published studies showing that the use of condoms increase the rate of gonnorhea alone by 25% ( Baltimore Medical Journal), and that condosm failure rate in protecting against chlamydia may be at least 50%. Here in NZ condoms are on the way out, being replaced by the Internet and sex toys.
Posted by DFStuckey  in  Auckland New Zealand  on  Tue Aug 30, 2005  at  04:21 AM
Condoms, when used correctly, are upt to 99% effective against many types of sexually transmitted infections...especially gonorrhea, syphilis, and chlamydia. Anyone that says otherwise is getting bad information.

Humans have been using condoms for centuries, and perfecting them for just as long. The latest generation of condoms, made from polyurethane, are hypoallergenic and have much smaller microscopic holes than latex. Lambskin condoms, which were the first used, have large microscopic holes that allow certain diseases (especially viruses) to pass through but are small enough to prevent pregnancy.

It is the people that continue to post erroneous information about condoms that continue to perpetuate the HIV epidemic and the transmission of diseases all across the world. Unless you're informed, educated and trained to talk to the public about these issues I advise not saying anything at all.
Posted by travis  in  Boise, ID USA  on  Tue Aug 30, 2005  at  02:57 PM
travis, are you saying that only those with a vested interest in a subject should be allowed to talk about it? And what do you plan to do to me if I continue to speak up? smile

Besides which, all the items I quoted were from medical research papers; Some of which have yet to be discredited.

No, seriously, travis, I am fully aware of the war going on here in this field ( I do have some training in life science BTW )- I just wanted to see if you could back up your argument in the face of some compelling sounding counter-arguments which you almost did.
Posted by DFStuckey  in  Auckland New Zealand  on  Sat Sep 03, 2005  at  01:21 AM
I would challenge you to provide enough information to allow other people to verify where you got your information. For example which edition, date, volume and page from the Baltimore Medical Journal did you get your info? Which studies, including authors, publish date and institution are you referring to? Are they scientific studies or statistical studies?

Rattling off the name of a medical journal does not make a good argument, it is usually just enough to make people think you're right without them wanting to verify your claims.
Posted by Travis  in  Boise, ID USA  on  Tue Sep 06, 2005  at  05:06 PM
Hey Travis- watch out who you waste your time talking to. Ol' Stuckey gets off by eating crap off a cracker. Really.
Posted by booch  on  Tue Sep 06, 2005  at  06:57 PM
Thanks for the advice...

Travis
Posted by Travis  in  Boise, USA  on  Wed Sep 07, 2005  at  11:02 AM
Travis, if you are still reading, I will give you a more reasonable explanation of previous comments.

For starters, the previous author who malinged me is making use of a phrase I use to illustarte precisely the point you make. Namely, that I could crap on a cracker and say it was peanut butter, but my saying so would not make it true. I think you would agree . . . Unless you would say that if the person saying that the crap was peanut butter was some "expert", in which case that is what it would be.

If you care to wait some time, I could supply you with the references you request. But, then again, would you accept them? There is an entire country who refuses to believe all the medical studies supporting the addition of folate to the diet as being useful in preventing spina bifida, including all of its medical authorities. Having said that, you seem to accept a claim from someone who hides behind a pseudonym that I am a coprophage without any corroborating evidence, so perhaps you don't take your own advice. Knowledge is no guarantee of wisdom.

And booch, if that is your real name, if you intend to defame me, at least understand what I'm saying before you deride it.
Posted by DFSTuckey  in  Auckland New Zealand  on  Thu Sep 08, 2005  at  06:53 AM
Sounds to me like we are once again heading down a slippery slope that is going to reveal that the studies you refer to are not scientific and probably funded by the conservative right, but please, I would love to know which sources you refer to. Rather than waste my time you may want to check and see if the CDC or WHO has already debunked the sources that have so enlightened you.
Posted by Travis  in  Boise, USA  on  Thu Sep 08, 2005  at  10:34 AM
Travis, having read your gracious last reply, I will now withdraw from this discussion. Since it is clear that anything I take the time to present will be judged only on who wrote it as the sole judge of truth, then clearly there are better things I can do with my time on the Net ( Which costs 11 times more than it does for you. )

The sad thing is, I actually agreed with you on the veracity of some of those studies and was merely asking you how you would respond - Something you clearly missed in your missionary zeal. However, since you have made it most clear that you intend to ignore any evidence that contradicts your world view based solely on an irrational predjudice equal to any shown by your imagined foes, I will not disturb you in your belief.

One wonders how someone with this approach finds working in the sexual health field which, as an outsider, I would imagine requires some level of openness and sensitivity. If it makes you feel any better, you win.
Posted by DFStuckey  in  Auckland New Zealand  on  Fri Sep 09, 2005  at  07:32 AM
The simple fact is that the "evidence" you had was either seriously flawed or nonexistent. Turn it around as much as you want, you still don't know what you're talking about.

Travis
Posted by Travis  on  Fri Sep 09, 2005  at  10:18 AM
Travis, I am trying to be polite here. Return the favour and read my message or get someone to read it for you.

I AGREE WITH YOU!

I AGREE WITH YOU!

Now, I am no longer listening to you. Fini.
Posted by DFStuckey  in  Auckland New Zealand  on  Sat Sep 10, 2005  at  04:45 AM
You da man, Stucky. Now go brush yo' teeth.
Posted by booch  on  Sat Sep 10, 2005  at  02:41 PM
ummmm i just graduated high school and I don't think rainbow partys are really happening yet, but i do know the "SEX" bracelets caught on fast so the parties will probally do the same, which is really awful.
Posted by jess  in  pa  on  Mon Sep 12, 2005  at  09:59 AM
We'll for starters I 39 and when I was 19 girls were taking turns blowing me and my friends at a club called Alexandra in Copenhagen. Whether their lipstick was in different colors or not never really bothered any of us - the predominant colors were black and pink - and who really cares. The rest of their make-up made it impossible to recognise them from one saturday to the next. Only those who swallowed were remembered...
Those parties always ended with everobody dancing to a big screen videoshow of Michael Jacksons "Thriller"
Posted by Old guy  in  Denmark  on  Wed Nov 16, 2005  at  12:37 PM
Funny you should mention this. I am neither a goth nor punk, but I sometimes consider myself One-Sexual, as I am deathly afraid of STDs and peanut butter crackers that actually might be defacation.

Oh, back to the funny you should mention this part. I just finished blowing myself, while alternating lipsticks. Yes it sometimes does smear, not to mention what it does to your teeth... I get some funny looks at work. As I mentioned, I'm deathly afraid of STDs so I wear a condom, but just on the tip, otherwise the rainbow effect gets lost.

So there, they exist... or do they... actually, I'm not a teenager, and there are no teenage girls involved, which is probably a good thing, as I'm a one-sexual man in my 60s. I've lived a full life of blowing myself... thank you Jesus.

This cracker tastes funny...

.
Posted by Double Jointed  in  Los Angeles  on  Tue Nov 29, 2005  at  06:45 PM
coprophage...


Travis, wipe that shit eating grin off of DFStuckey's face...



.
Posted by Double Jointed  in  Los Angeles  on  Tue Nov 29, 2005  at  06:49 PM
Double Jointed, it isn't my party, but I'll grin if I want to......

That metaphor is going to haunt me as long as there are literal minded idiots in the net. But at least there are a few wits around to liven things up....
Posted by DFStuckey  in  Auckland New Zealand  on  Thu Dec 01, 2005  at  12:03 AM
Comments: Page 2 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 
Commenting is no longer available for this post.
All text Copyright © 2014 by Alex Boese, except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved.