Coprophilia

Coprophilia is the condition of desire for sexual gratification and sexual arousal derived from the smell, taste, or sight of feces or from the act of defecation. It commonly is referred to by the slang term scat. Although ostensibly a somewhat limited practice, it figures prominently in the foundations of the science of psychology. Sigmund Freud outlined a stage of psychosexual development called the anal stage that involves the child's obsession with the anus as an erogenous zone. The process of toilet training sets up a conflict between the child's pleasure in defecation and pressures exerted on the child to control his or her bodily functions. The way children resolve this conflict is seen as a primary means of establishing the way they later will deal with authority and issues of possession.

DEFINITIONS OF COPROPHILIA

Coprophilia is related to this psychosexual conflict but is not a developmental stage. It is a condition that occurs in adults and represents the small number of individuals who reject social pressure to control elimination and instead find the act of defecation pleasurable and erotic. Because of the relationship of coprophilia to eroticism and anality, for much of the twentieth century it was considered by psychologists to be related almost exclusively to homosexuality (Karpman 1948). After frank analyses of actual sexual behavior such as that of Alfred Kinsey and other studies in the post-sexual revolution era, the ascription of coprophilia solely to homosexuals has been shown to be false. In fact, so few data exist that there appears to be no consensus about the connection between coprophilia and the choice of sexual partners.

The term coprophilia also has a more general definition as an affinity that can become an erotic fascination with filth and uncleanliness. Among the very few case studies that address coprophilia, several use the term in this sense. A 1955 study of a woman named Evangeline, for instance, describes the pleasure she took in maintaining a filthy home. Although a great deal of the filth consisted of her feces and that of her pets, most was of a generalized nature (rotting food, dust, animal hair, etc.). She expressed no particular interest in the act of defecation but took delight in its product as well as the presence of other types of waste material (Xavier 1955).

REACTIONS TO COPROPHILIA

Coprophilia generally is regarded as the most taboo consensual sexual activity and commonly is reviled as much as or more than violent or nonconsensual acts such as rape and pedophilia. It is considered so transgressive that unlike other fetishistic or paraphilic sexual practices, there is very little published literature on the topic. Not only is there a dearth of popular material, but even academic literature seems to shy away from the topic. A very few medical and psychological studies have been conducted, but even among those disciplines little research exists. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) of the American Psychiatric Association (1994) classifies coprophilia as a paraphilia, or atypical sexual interest. It falls under the category of "Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified," which is a blanket designation used to describe conditions that occur in such small segments of the population that they do not warrant individual headings. This is not an accurate measure of the prevalence of the practice, however, for the DSM-IV is primarily a diagnostic tool for conditions that are to some degree debilitating. If sexual activity involving feces is incorporated into an individual's sexual practice with no apparent effect on other aspects of that person's life, it will not necessarily figure into the statistics in the DSM-IV.

A nonscientific measure of the discourse on coprophilia would be the pornography industry. Although the adult entertainment industry is quick to capitalize on most sexual practices, including rape, pedophilia, sex with animals, and other fringe practices, very few magazines, web sites, or films feature coprophilia. A limited number exist, although there is no concrete information about their popularity. The majority of noncommercial web sites that address the topic seem to be constructed by practitioners of coprophilia, making their information biased at best.

THE PRACTICE OF COPROPHILIA

Coprophilia usually is considered an unsafe sexual practice because of the possibility of infection from contact with the waste products of the human body. Contact with one's own feces is generally safer than contact with that of a partner, but both carry risk, particularly of bacterial infection. Hepatitis is a particular danger to coprophiliacs, although many other infections are also possible. Coprophilia can be practiced relatively safely if there is no direct contact with the feces. If it is practiced alone, this would include smelling or looking at the feces after defecation; using mirrors, video technology, or photography to watch oneself defecate; or taking extreme pleasure in the sensation of defecation. These acts are less safe when practiced with a partner, but if the arousal and gratification arise primarily from viewing the act of defecation or from smelling the feces, the risk of infection is minimal.

Several variations on these practices exist, along with a proliferation of slang terms that seem to belie the ostensibly small population of individuals who practice coprophilia. The term glass-bottom boat is used to describe defecation onto a piece of glass, clear plastic wrap, or another transparent material while a partner watches from below. Thus, there is a feeling of being defecated on without actual contact with the feces. Direct defecation onto a partner's body without a barrier is described by the slang terms steamer and Cleveland steamer. This is a far riskier behavior, but as long as the feces do not come into contact with broken skin or a body opening, the risk of infection is minimal.

The most taboo form of coprophilia is the eating of feces, or coprophagia. It is thought to be practiced by an exceptionally small number of people and is one of the most risky sexual behaviors. Some species of animals, such as rabbits, routinely practice coprophagia as a part of their digestive process, and others, such as dogs, engage in the practice without any obvious physiological need. In humans, however, it is a rare occurrence.

One case study indicates that the consumption of feces can be a means of disposal of feces used for other sexual acts; the erotic sensation may be confined to coprophilia, whereas coprophagia serves essentially to destroy the evidence of coprophilic practice (Hingsburger 1989). True coprophagia, in which pleasure is taken in the act, seems to be confined to the realm of mental illness; even popular references to coprophilia almost never extend to coprophagia. There are at least partial exceptions to this, however. In water sports or urolagnia, the consumption of the body's waste products is somewhat common. This practice is limited to urine, however, and does not include solid waste. Also, there is a somewhat common sexual practice called anilingus (referred to by the slang terms rimming and tossing salad) in which the anus is licked by a sexual partner. In almost all cases, however, cleanliness of the anus is desired by the person performing anilingus. Although the practice is related to taking pleasure from an ostensibly taboo act, the fascination is with the anus itself, not with defecation or feces.

Even rarer are instances of humans consuming the feces of other species, although such cases have been documented. One instance was captured on film: In the 1972 movie Pink Flamingos the director John Waters filmed his star, the drag queen Divine, picking up the feces of a dog and eating them. The intent of the scene was to establish the complete perversion of the character as Divine campaigned for the title "the world's filthiest person." Even among the variety of sexual practices depicted in the film, the scene showing coprophagia is by far the best known and most notorious.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Psychiatric Association. 1994. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-IV. 4th edition. Washington, DC: Author.

Freud, Sigmund. 1953 (1900). The Interpretation of Dreams, trans. James Strachey. London: Hogarth Press.

Hingsburger, Dave. 1989. "Motives for Coprophilia: Working with Individuals Who Had Been Institutionalized with Developmental Handicaps." Journal of Sex Research 26(1): 139-140.

Karpman, Ben. 1948. "Coprophilia: A Collective Review." Psychoanalytic Review 35(3): 253-272.

Rosebury, Theodor. 1969. Life on Man. New York: Viking Press.

Xavier, Cedric M. 1955. "Coprophilia—A Clinical Study." British Journal of Medical Psychology 28: 188-190.

                                            Brian D. Holcomb