Evolution may provide one explanation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Feet, Feces and Statues <\/p>\n\n\n\n
These are such common fetish objects that\nexperts have given them names. (Coprophilia, by the way, is arousal to shit.)\nSexual fetishes don’t stop at objects, either: Specific settings and\nscenarios\u2014everything from caves to foggy weather\u2014are well documented in the\nexisting fetish literature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To fully understand this concept, it’s\nfirst necessary to differentiate a true fetish from fetish behavior. “The\nclinical definition of a fetish is that you need this object or activity to be\naroused, but that’s pretty rare,” says Justin Lehmiller, director of the\nsocial psychology program at Ball State University and a faculty affiliate at\nThe Kinsey Institute. “It’s far more common for people to enjoy fetish sex\non occasion”\u2014BDSM being the most popular example\u2014”but not truly have\na fetish.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whether you’re a dabbler or a full-on\nfetishist, however, it’s not always clear where these sexual proclivities come\nfrom. What we do know is that a person’s personality and sexual history likely\nplay a role. “Habituation might make a more frequent behavior seem dull\nafter a while,” says Roland Imhoff, a professor of psychology at Germany’s\nJohannes Gutenberg University who has authored research on fetishes and sexual\nmotivation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Imhoff compares “vanilla sex” to\neating the same kind of pizza every night for dinner. Even if you love pizza,\nyou’re going to get tired of eating the same pie night after night. Likewise,\nwhite bread sex may grow boring\u2014especially for people with a high sex drive who\nare doing it all the time, he says. That boredom may lead you to try novel and\nincreasingly exotic forms of sex\u2014including sex that incorporates fetish\nobjects. If that experimentation leads to excitement and\u2014the ultimate payoff\u2014an\norgasm, you may be more likely to revisit unusual or “deviant” forms\nof sexual adventurism, he says.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That helps explain BDSM and some of the\nmore common forms of fetish sex. But how does a person develop a serious\nattraction to less widespread fetishes\u2014like sex in caves? Or around wood <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The most likely explanation is that a\nperson is exposed to something unusual or exotic during an especially\npleasurable sexual experience, Lehmiller says. Maybe a woman has terrific sex\nin a cave, or a guy spends his childhood enthusiastically masturbating in his\ndad’s woodshop. These events could form powerful associations in the\nbrain\u2014associations made all the more powerful because they were rewarded with\nan orgasm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Once that reward pathway is formed, the\nassociation between the fetish object and sexual pleasure will be strengthened\nevery time that person has cave sex or plays with himself around wood. And\ndespite what you might guess, there isn’t a significant Freudian or subconscious\nelement to all this. Lehmiller says most fetishists can remember a specific\nsexual event or encounter that kicked things off.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But even that theory doesn’t always\naccount for what may be one of the most polarizing fetishes of all: poop. Fecal\nmatter is inherently revolting to most of us, but researchers have a theory as\nto how someone could develop an attraction to it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Research shows that, when people are\naroused, their disgust reflex shuts down. That makes sense from an evolutionary\nperspective; soap, toilet paper, and breath mints didn’t exist for most of\nhuman history. Sex was a dirty, smelly affair. If arousal didn’t overpower our\ndisgust toward bodily fluids and excretions, our species wouldn’t have lasted\nlong.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Lehmiller offers a hypothetical: “Maybe\na guy is in the shower with his girlfriend, being intimate, and she urinates on\nhim,” he says. Because the man is aroused and his disgust reflex is muted,\nhe may find he enjoys the introduction of human waste into the equation.\n“I’ve heard stories like that,” he adds. He also points out that\nanything considered taboo is likely to kindle excitement. If you’re the type\nwho gets a thrill out of the forbidden, exposure to urine or shit during a\nsexual experience could\u2014emphasis on could\u2014stimulate a new fetish.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Your personality may also play a role.\n“There are probably some traits that predispose people to enjoy fetish\nsex,” Lehmiller says, adding that sensation-seeking is one example. Or it\ncould only be how you’re wired: One study suggests that the areas of the brain\nthat light up in response to pain and pleasure have a lot of overlap; crosstalk\nbetween these overlapping networks might help explain why BDSM is so popular.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But there’s still a lot we have to learn\nabout how these associations develop. And it’s important to note that not\neveryone who has fantastic sex in a cave, or a wood shop, or around poop, for\ninstance, is going to develop a taste for it. As Lehmiller puts it, “It’s\na complex question, and I think there is more than one answer.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This now bring us into properly defining\ncoprophilia<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So what is coprophilia?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Coprophilia is the condition of desire for\nsexual gratification and sexual arousal derived from the smell, taste, or sight\nof feces or the act of defecation. It commonly is referred to by the slang term\nscat. Although ostensibly a somewhat limited practice, it figures prominently\nin the foundations of the science of psychology. Sigmund Freud outlined a stage\nof psychosexual development called the anal stage that involves the child’s\nobsession with the anus as an erogenous zone. The process of toilet training\nsets up a conflict between the child’s pleasure in defecation and pressures\nexerted on the child to control his or her bodily functions. The way children\nresolve this conflict is seen as a primary means of establishing the way they\nlater will deal with authority and issues of possession.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
DEFINITIONS OF COPROPHILIA<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Coprophilia is related to this\npsychosexual conflict but is not a developmental stage. It is a condition that\noccurs in adults and represents the small number of individuals who reject\nsocial pressure to control elimination and instead find the act of defecation\npleasurable and erotic. Because of the relationship of coprophilia to eroticism\nand anality, for much of the twentieth century, it was considered by\npsychologists to be related almost exclusively to homosexuality (Karpman 1948).\nAfter frank analyses of actual sexual behavior such as that of Alfred Kinsey\nand other studies in the post-sexual revolution era, the ascription of\ncoprophilia solely to homosexuals has been shown to be false. So few data exist\nthat there appears to be no consensus about the connection between coprophilia\nand the choice of sexual partners.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The term coprophilia also has a more\ngeneral definition as an affinity that can become an erotic fascination with\nfilth and uncleanliness. Among the very few case studies that address\ncoprophilia, several use the term in this sense. A 1955 study of a woman named\nEvangeline, for instance, describes the pleasure she took in maintaining a\nfilthy home. Although a great deal of the filth consisted of her feces and that\nof her pets, most was of a generalized nature (rotting food, dust, animal hair,\netc.). She expressed no particular interest in the act of defecation but took\ndelight in its product as well as the presence of other types of waste material\n(Xavier 1955).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
REACTIONS TO COPROPHILIA<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Coprophilia generally is regarded as the\nmost taboo consensual sexual activity and commonly is reviled as much as or\nmore than violent or non-consensual acts such as rape and pedophilia. It is\nconsidered so transgressive that unlike other fetishistic or paraphilic sexual\npractices, there is very little published literature on the topic. Not only is\nthere a shortage of popular material, but even academic literature seems to shy\naway from the topic. A very few medical and psychological studies have been\nconducted, but even among those disciplines, little research exists. The\nDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) of the American\nPsychiatric Association (1994) classifies coprophilia as a paraphilia or\natypical sexual interest. It falls under the category of “Paraphilia Not\nOtherwise Specified,” which is a blanket designation used to describe\nconditions that occur in such small segments of the population that they do not\nwarrant individual headings. This is not an accurate measure of the prevalence\nof the practice, however, for the DSM-IV is primarily a diagnostic tool for\nconditions that are to some degree debilitating. If sexual activity involving\nfeces is incorporated into an individual’s sexual practice with no apparent\neffect on other aspects of that person’s life, it will not necessarily figure\ninto the statistics in the DSM-IV.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A nonscientific measure of the discourse\non coprophilia would be the pornography industry. Although the adult entertainment\nindustry is quick to capitalize on most sexual practices, including rape,\npedophilia, sex with animals, and other fringe practices, very few magazines,\nwebsites, or films feature coprophilia. A limited number exist, although there\nis no concrete information about their popularity. The majority of\nnon-commercial websites that address the topic seem to be constructed by\npractitioners of coprophilia, making their information biased at best.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
THE PRACTICE OF COPROPHILIA<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Coprophilia usually is considered an\nunsafe sexual practice because of the possibility of infection from contact\nwith the waste products of the human body. Contact with one’s feces is\ngenerally safer than contact with that of a partner but both carry risk,\nparticularly of bacterial infection. Hepatitis is a particular danger to\ncoprophiliacs, although many other infections are also possible. Coprophilia\ncan be practiced relatively safely if there is no direct contact with the\nfeces. If it is practiced alone, this would include smelling or looking at the\nfeces after defecation; using mirrors, video technology, or photography to\nwatch one defecate; or taking extreme pleasure in the sensation of defecation.\nThese acts are less safe when practiced with a partner, but if the arousal and\ngratification arise primarily from viewing the act of defecation or from\nsmelling the feces, the risk of infection is minimal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Several variations on these practices\nexist, along with a proliferation of slang terms that seem to belie the\nostensibly small population of individuals who practice coprophilia. The term\nglass-bottom boat is used to describe defecation onto a piece of glass, clear\nplastic wrap, or another transparent material while a partner watches from\nbelow. Thus, there is a feeling of being defecated on without actual contact\nwith the feces. Direct defecation onto a partner’s body without a barrier is\ndescribed by the slang terms steamer and Cleveland steamer. This is a far\nriskier behavior, but as long as the feces do not come into contact with broken\nskin or a body opening, the risk of infection is minimal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The most taboo form of coprophilia is the\neating of feces or coprophagia. It is thought to be practiced by an\nexceptionally small number of people and is one of the riskiest sexual\nbehaviors. Some species of animals, such as rabbits, routinely practice\ncoprophagia as a part of their digestive process, and others, such as dogs,\nengage in the practice without any apparent physiological need. In humans,\nhowever, it is a rare occurrence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One case study indicates that the\nconsumption of feces can be a means of disposal of feces used for other sexual\nacts; the erotic sensation may be confined to coprophilia, whereas coprophagia\nserves essentially to destroy the evidence of coprophilic practice (Hingsburger\n1989). True coprophagia, in which pleasure is taken in the act, seems to be\nconfined to the realm of mental illness; even popular references to coprophilia\nalmost never extend to coprophagia. There are at least partial exceptions to\nthis, however. In water sports or urolagnia, the consumption of the body’s\nwaste products is somewhat common. This practice is limited to urine, however,\nand does not include solid waste. Also, there is a somewhat common sexual\npractice called anilingus (referred to by the slang terms rimming and tossing\nsalad) in which the anus is licked by a sexual partner. In almost all cases,\nhowever, cleanliness of the anus is desired by the person performing anilingus.\nAlthough the practice is related to taking pleasure from an ostensibly taboo\nact, the fascination is with the anus itself, not with defecation or feces.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Even rarer are instances of humans\nconsuming the feces of other species, although such cases have been documented.\nOne example was captured on film: In the 1972 movie, Pink Flamingos the\ndirector John Waters filmed his star, the drag queen Divine, picking up the\nfeces of a dog and eating them. The scene intended to establish the complete\nperversion of the character as Divine campaigned for the title “the\nworld’s filthiest person.” Even among the variety of sexual practices\ndepicted in the film, the scene showing coprophagia is by far the best known\nand most notorious.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Another very popular example was the\ninternet shattering clip titled 2 girls one cup<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If you didn\u2019t already know, the short film\nfeatured two girls, one cup, faeces, and vomit \u2013 and it\u2019s probably one of the\nreasons online content doesn\u2019t shock people as much as it used to anymore.\nHowever, despite being ever so disturbing, it racked up millions of views in the\ndays after its release in 2007. But just why was the clip so popular?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For a video to go viral, it needs to have\none or more of the \u2018Three Hs.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2018That is, it needs to have a heart \u2013 to\ntug at people\u2019s heartstrings, to be helpful \u2013 to add value to them, or to have\nhumor \u2013 to make them laugh. \u20182 Girls, 1 Cup is a strange one because while it\u2019s\nnot funny in the regular sense of the word, there\u2019s a strong element of the\nabsurd and a ludicrousness to it, which makes it entertaining. \u2018As for the\nother two Hs, I\u2019m fairly sure those don\u2019t apply in this instance! \u2018There was\nalso an element of timing which made this work. It was both the most gruesome,\nand grotesque video which most people would have ever seen. \u2018Something so\ndisturbing, you almost couldn\u2019t believe you were watching it.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n
At the time of its release even up till\ndate people are still arguing and debating if its real or not<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2018Is it real?\u2019 is a question many people\nwere left asking after seeing 2 Girls 1 Cup. Although it has never been\ndisclosed exactly how the X-Rated scenes were produced, there are some\ntheories. The first is that the faeces are created from food \u2013 namely\nchocolate, coffee cream, and peanut butter. The second is that the woman\ncleaned her bowels before the film (well, that\u2019s OK then). She then allegedly reintroduces\nthe substance, and her rectum rejected it \u2013 making it look like she had pooed.\nSome even say that the vomit was real, but it was regurgitated before reaching\nthe stomach, so it didn\u2019t contain gastric acids. The finals theory is that the\nwhole thing was made using computer graphics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Either its real or not it didn’t stop the\nviewership as people were eager to see it. Though some people found it\ndisgusting and refused to see it, up till date people are still searching for\nit online.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2018The shocking nature of the content meant\nthat it brought the worst out in human nature \u2013 with people wanting to watch\nsomething that people knew would shock them.\u2019 After its release, 2 Girls 1 Cup\nwas also named as one of the most shocking videos to hit the internet. Mainly\nbecause most people had never seen anything like it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
People are still searching for it today.\nCorey Price, VP of Pornhub said: \u2018While completely against our TOS and not\nhosted in Pornhub. As a result, we still get around 1000 unique searches for it\nevery day. \u2018We feel it went viral because it was one of the first shock videos\nand at the time YouTube was a new place to share hilarious reactions that\npushed the fame of the video even higher.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The film even sparked a series of shock\nvideos, with titles including 2 Girls 1 Finger, 8 Girls No Cup, 1 Guy 1 Jar,\nand even 1 Girl 1 Cake, the nickname for the 2008 viral shock video \u2013 Cake\nFarts. Since it came out on January 6, 2007, an enormous number of reactions,\nhomages, and parodies have followed. Most of which goes viral on YouTube.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Evolution may provide one explanation. Feet, Feces and Statues These are such common fetish objects that experts have given them names. (Coprophilia, by the way, is arousal to shit.) Sexual fetishes don’t stop at objects, either: Specific settings and scenarios\u2014everything from caves to foggy weather\u2014are well documented in the existing fetish literature. To fully understand […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":538,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_hide_featured_image":false,"_jetpack_featured_image_duplicate_dismissed":0,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-534","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/poopjournal.rocks\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/PoopingInMugs.jpg?fit=3600%2C2400&ssl=1","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/poopjournal.rocks\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/534","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/poopjournal.rocks\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/poopjournal.rocks\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/poopjournal.rocks\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/poopjournal.rocks\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=534"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/poopjournal.rocks\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/534\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":539,"href":"https:\/\/poopjournal.rocks\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/534\/revisions\/539"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/poopjournal.rocks\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/538"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/poopjournal.rocks\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=534"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/poopjournal.rocks\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=534"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/poopjournal.rocks\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=534"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}