Farting company: The strange world of eproctophilia

Olfactophilia (also known as osmolagnia, osphresiolagnia, and ozolagnia) is a paraphilia where an individual derives sexual pleasure from smells and odours. Given the large body of research on olfaction, it shouldn’t be surprising that in some cases there should be an association with sexual behaviour. The erotic focus is most likely to relate to body odours of a sexual partner, including genital odours.

One bizarre sub-type of olfactophilia is eproctophilia. This refers to a condition in which people are sexually attracted to flatulence. Therefore, eproctophiles are said to spend an abnormal amount of time thinking about flatulence, and have recurring intense sexual urges and fantasies involving flatulence. In trying to research this article, I did a complete literature search and couldn’t find a single academic or clinical paper that has ever been published on the topic – not even a case study. Therefore, all of the material here is based on non-academic sources. There are also examples of this practice on sites like YouTube where some people have uploaded their videos of farting on faces. Based on this anecdotal evidence, it would appear to be the domain of heterosexual men being farted upon by females.

Like most paraphilias, eproctophilia appears to be found mainly in men, although the anecdotal evidence suggests it is mainly found in heterosexual males particularly attracted to female flatulence. The accounts that I came across suggest that farts are typically targeted at the face, and sometimes more specifically at the mouth, the ear, or nose. Some claim it is a “softer form” of coprophilia (in which people are sexually aroused by faeces). Treatment for eproctophilia is generally not sought unless in some way it becomes problematic for the person. It appears that the majority of eproctophiles accept their fetish – particularly as there are no published treatment case studies in the sexology literature. However, it may be the case that people have this type of fetish but are simply unable to engage in it, even if they are in a stable relationship.

For instance, I came across was in the columns of Dan Savage who has a regular type of ‘agony aunt’ feature called “Savage Love” in ‘The Stranger’ newspaper based in Seattle (USA) but which focuses on more quirky and extreme aspects of human behaviour. This letter was sent into his column:

“My wife doesn’t understand or approve of my sexual needs. I would like her to pass gas in my face. It’s a common enough sexual interest that it has a name (eproctophilia). My wife does break wind from time to time, but she refuses to let me enjoy this natural functioning of her bowels no matter how often I discuss my needs with her”

The reply by Savage wasn’t very complimentary but the letter highlights the condition appears to exist. Another interesting snippet I found was this brief confession of someone asking for help on a fetish bulletin board:

“I’ve been a sufferer [of eproctophilia] for as long as I can remember. I can’t stop myself from getting turned on whenever someone leaves a long, loud fart in my presence. It’s starting to become a real problem for me as I am required to give a lot of enemas in my line of work, and as we all know, enemas provide gas before the ride”

One of the most detailed accounts of eproctophilia I came across was this online confession from an American eproctophile (most notable because Americans refer to flatulence as “gas”). The only demographic information given was that he was a male student at university, in his early twenties, and studying a biological subject:

“I first realised that I had eproctophilia when I was 15 years old. I was at my [female] friend’s house, to do a school project and she had terrible gas. We had known each other for about seven years so she felt more than comfortable to let her gas out in front of me. At that point I was really turned on by the fact that she was a hot girl farting around me but I didn’t know why. As we where sitting on her bedroom floor sticking pictures to a poster she got up and went to the other side of the room to get a piece of paper. When she came back she said ‘Hey John’, and forced my face onto her bum. She then sat on me and she let out a loud, warm, smelly fart on my face. Then she laughed and said ‘Doesn’t that smell delicious hehehehe!!’

I don’t know why but I found that very sexy. I was too embarrassed to tell her how I really felt about what she did, so I just pretended I found it disgusting and that I didn’t care. However, after a while I told her how much I loved when she did that to me and she found it hilarious and was totally OK with it. When we are alone, she always tells me when she is about to fart and if I want her to do it in my face again. I say ‘no’ because that would be too awkward, but I get closer and sniff them anyway. I feel really embarrassed that she knows how I felt about her farting and I feel like she thinks I am some kind of creepy fart freak. But she says its cute, and if she had a boyfriend who had this fetish she would find it fun farting on his face.

Out of all the girls I’ve dated in my whole life, I have never told any of them about this fetish, even when they felt comfortable farting around me. My [female] friend is probably the only hot girl in the world that would do that to their guy friend. I imagine it would be very hard to find a nice, and attractive, girlfriend I actually love that would be OK with my fart fetish. So tell me girls, what would you do if your boyfriend told you he found it hot when you fart? Would you break up with him? Let him smell your gas? Or break up with him and tell the whole world? I know this may be an odd subject but try to be open-minded. Some people might say I am sick and crazy but I’m a pretty normal person, I am mentally and physically fit, [and educated].

Why do I think I like this? I think I find this really sexy because girls don’t usually fart around guys and feel good about it, so when they do I feel like the girl is so comfortable around me that she would let out her nasty flatulence in my presence and not just in front of anyone, and that gets me really turned on. To me, this is the one of the sexiest things a woman can do. My perfect fantasy would probably be for my [female] friend and her other hot friend to be farting on my face in her room. You probably find this really disgusting but it’s not my fault. I have this fetish. I have heard about other fetishes I find to be even worse than mine, so I don’t feel so bad about it. Flatulence is made out of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, oxygen, methane, and hydrogen sulfide, which is completely harmless to the human body. So there is nothing dangerous about this fetish.”

This account seems to echo most of the scientific research on the development of fetishes and paraphilias that such behaviours originate from behavioural conditioning – in this case classical conditioning where being sexually aroused by an attractive women is paired with something that is not inherently sexual (in this case, flatulence) and then starts to become an erotic focus in and of itself. As this male eproctophile notes himself, there is nothing ‘dangerous’ about his activity and it certainly appears to be less stomach churning than compared to paraphilias that appear to be similar (such as copraphilia).

Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Further reading

Gilbert, Avery N. (2008). What the Nose Knows: The Science of Scent in Everyday Life. Crown.

Love, B. (1992). Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices. Fort Lee, NJ: Barricade Books

Money, J. (1986). Lovemaps: Clinical concepts of sexual/erotic health and pathology, paraphilia, and gender transposition in childhood, adolescence, and maturity. New York: Irvington.

Van Toller, S. & Dodd, G.H. (1992). Fragrance: The Psychology and Biology of Perfume. London: Elesevier.

Basic Instinct 2: Counting the cost of blackjack (again)

In a previous blog I looked at the psychology of following ‘basic’ strategy and card counting based on the seminal work by Ed Thorp. Compared with other forms of gambling, there has been very little psychological research into blackjack – about one or two studies per decade by my reckoning. In the 1970s, Dr. Nicholas Bond (who at the time was at the California State University at Sacramento, USA) did some research asking blackjack players some simple questions like ‘When do you take insurance?’ and ‘What do you do when you have 7-7 and the dealer has 6 up?’ Bond’s results showed that most players did not know when to spilt pairs and had the wrong idea about the value of insurance. For instance, players often said that insurance should be taken “when the cards are running right” suggesting that players can predict the run of the cards and when the dealer will turn over blackjack. Although this research revealed strategy errors it didn’t give any insight into why such errors are made.

Dutch psychologists Dr Gideon Keren and Professor Willem Wagenaar went one stage further than Bond and examined in great detail the strategies and beliefs of regular blackjack players. They observed 112 players in the natural environment of a casino and then interviewed 149 players. They found that lots of blackjack players have many erroneous beliefs particularly if they claim they are following basic strategy. The most interesting findings were that players believed (i) a bad player could spoil a game for everyone, (ii) they felt worse if they lost on 20 than if they did with 13, (iii) they only knew if their decisions were correct after the round was over, and (iv) that if they were very unlucky on a particular day they should quit playing. While some of these beliefs may be understandable (and I’ll explain why below), if blackjack players follow basic strategy, none of these beliefs should exist. In short, the findings suggest that players believe in luck and conservatism as a legitimate strategic approach rather than the principles of basic strategy.

It is clear from players’ feelings about “bad” players that they are displaying what we psychologists call a ‘self-serving bias’. Put more simply, when good players win they attribute the outcome as something that was deserved whether or not it came about through other players’ incorrect play. However, when another player plays badly by asking for too many cards, the game may be spoiled for the other (better) players. It will be spoiled when a good player loses because a poor player has taken one card too many. Such players ignore the role of the bad player when the “wrong” cards they receive lead to a win.

These findings also shown that regular blackjack players have the illusion that they can control luck by playing when their luck is in and quitting when their luck is out (although such a finding is not unique to blackjack and can be found among gamblers more generally). What is interesting is that blackjack players appear to conceptualise ‘luck’ as a personal characteristic that can come and go like emotional mood states. It is therefore little surprise if players believe bad players can spoil the game for others – they believe bad players can change the run of good luck for others simply by taking too many cards.

According to the late Australian psychologist, Dr Michael Walker (University of Sydney, Australia), another interesting implication of Keren and Wagenaar’s research is that players are clearly unconcerned about the long-term correctness of decisions but see each hand as a contest with the dealer that may be won or lost depending on the decision made by the player. Take the case of a player who has a hand of 13. Players in such a position will make a judgement concerning the likelihood that the next card will be a 10. Most players will not hit 13 against a dealer’s 7 or 8 if there has been a run of small value cards, but will hit 13 if they are convinced that the next card is not a 10. In such situations, players find out the accuracy of their decisions once the round is over. Most players (including myself) dislike holding on 13 – it is too far from 21 to be psychologically comfortable but there is still the possibility of busting if a 9 or 10 is drawn. If we are dealt 20, there is an elated state because we feel the dealer is unlikely to beat our hand. If the 20 is beaten, we feel psychologically cheated whereas on 13, players can blame themselves for not hitting.

A study by Albert Chau (University of Hong Kong) and colleagues at Monash University (Australia) carried out a blackjack study on a small number of university students. They wanted to investigate whether departures from rational play in blackjack reflected ignorance and/or fatigue. The students were taught basic strategy in blackjack and then asked to play a simplified version of blackjack on computer. Initially the students followed basic strategy but this was eventually discarded for much higher risk strategies. Irrational play didn’t affect ignorance or fatigue (and the student players didn’t perceive basic strategy to be effective). Chau and colleagues argued that “because basic strategy is not a personalized strategy, it seems less likely to be maintained in the face of losses – players were more optimistic that they might win when utilizing their personalized strategies”.

In summary, blackjack is clearly a game that the player can win if basic strategy is used as a starting point. The strategy can be modified as the deck composition changes and good card counters are able to extract an edge over the casino. However, psychological research has shown quite clearly that regular players deviate significantly from basic strategy and make sub-optimal decisions because they perceive themselves as being engaged in a hand-by-hand contest with the dealer. Dr. Walker makes the point that since the characteristics of good play can be specified, blackjack is a good example of the extent to which players can bring about their own losses through the false beliefs that they hold. These false beliefs are held tenaciously, and despite playing countless hands, the beliefs that bring about gambling losses are maintained in the face of failure.

Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Further reading

Bond, N.A. (1974). Basic strategy and expectation in casino Blackjack. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 12, 413-428.

Chau, A.W.L., Phillips, J.G. & Von Baggo, K.L. (2000). Departures from sensible play in computer blackjack. Journal of General Psychology: Experimental, Physiological, and Comparative Psychology,127, 426-438.

Keren, G.B. & Wagenaar, W.A. (1985). On the psychology of playing blackjack: Normative and descriptive considerations with implications for decision theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 133-158.

Thorp, E.O. (1966). Beat the Dealer: A Winning Strategy for the Game of Twenty-One. New York: Random House.

Wagenaar, W. (1988) Paradoxes of gambling behaviour. London: Erlbaum.

Flaming desire: A beginner’s guide to pyrophilia

Pyrophilia (also known as pyrolagnia and sexual arson) is a sexual paraphilia in which a person derives sexual arousal from fire and/or fire-starting activity. It is sometimes confused with pyromania but pyromaniacs do not get any sexual pleasure when they start fires. Most of what is known academically comes from case studies published in the academic and clinical literature. Writings dating back to the 19th century have suggested that psychosexual factors may sometiems play a role in pyromaniac activities. Pyrophilia is thought to be very rare and there are no incidence or prevalence studies on the condition. Even in major texts on sexual paraphilias such as Richard Laws and William O’Donohue’s Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment and Treatment (2008) it is not even mentioned, and in Anil Aggrawal’s Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices (2009) it is only given ten lines (and much of that is taken up with the speculation that the Roman Emperor Nero was a possible pyrophiliac).

A 1989 paper by Dr. Vernon Quinsey and colleagues in the Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry examined arsonists and sexual arousal to fire setting. They wanted to further explore to what extent pyromania was sexually related. They measured and compared the penile responses of 26 arsonists and 15 non-arsonists to audio taped narratives. The narratives were categorized as (i) neutral, (ii) heterosexual activity, and (iii) fire setting motivated by (a) sexual excitement, (b) general (unspecified) excitement, (c) insurance, (d) revenge, (e) heroism, and (f) power. Penile responses to all categories were of small although both the heterosexual activity and the sexual excitement fire setting categories produced more erectile activity than the neutral category. However, Quinsey and colleagues reported there were no significant differences between the arsonists and non-arsonists to any of the story categories. They argued that their data demonstrated no support for the idea that sexual motivation is commonly involved in arson.

In 1979, the psychotherapist Dr D. Cox stated that, having set a fire, the fire fetishist “will claim that he has had his best ever orgasm as he watched the flames leap up” (although the claim was unsubstantiated by anything else in the book chapter). Dr. Stephen Lande arguably published the first case study of a pyrophiliac in a 1980 issue of the Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry. Lande reported the case of a 20-year-old male with a history of arson associated with masturbation as his sole means of obtaining sexual arousal and gratification. Physiological and subjective measures of sexual arousal were taken while he looked at various photographs. The man was most sexually aroused by those involving fire with lesser sexual arousal when looking at photographs of naked females. He was treated using orgasmic reconditioning to increase heterosexual arousal and covert sensitization to decrease arousal related to fire. At the end of treatment, sexual arousal was greater for heterosexual than for fire stimuli.

In 1987, Dr Dominique Bourget and Dr John Bradford reported two cases pyrophilia in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. Their two cases were both adult male arsonists whose intense interest in fire was sexually fetishistic. However, these cases concentrated more on their treatment than the psychological motivations behind such an activity.

In a 1999 issue of the Canadian Psychological Association Bulletin, Dr Larry Litman reported the case of a married 25-year old male pyrophiliac. He voluntarily referred himself for a psychological assessment (at the request of his wife) as a consequence of psychopathology and sexually motivated fire-setting activities. (However, he himself didn’t see his sexually motivated fire setting as a problem). He would set fire to anything at hand when the urge struck him (e.g., paper, clothing, etc.). He reported that for as long as he could remember he had been sexually aroused by fire and had a frequent irresistible compulsive urge to set fires. He recalled that his fascination with fire may have started when helping his mother to shovel lot coal and touching it to see how hot it was. He had also burned himself by accident on a number of occasions. He told Litman that he was “used to pain” as his father had regularly physically abused him when he was a child. Litman reported that:

“He used heat to give himself sexual excitement, and he reached a point where he could be sexually aroused by just talking about fires or having his wife talk about burning things (she reportedly resented having to do this)…The patient’s penile tumescence in response to audiotaped scenarios based on his self-reported sexually arousing fantasies of heat and fire (which I asked him to transcribe) was physiologically assessed via phallometry. Despite his self-reported attempts to not become sexually aroused by the scenarios (as a result of being anxious about the procedure), substantial psychophysiological sexual arousal in response to masochistic sexual scenarios of being forcibly and painfully set on fire by a heterosexual partner or by a mob of sadistic people and subsequent combined intense feelings of love, peace, warmth, pain, and sexual excitement was observed…[He] appeared to be suffering from a longstanding pyrophilic disorder with sexual masochistic features in a personality that revolved around hysteric, obsessive–compulsive, and masochistic dynamics”.

Litman reported that the man had actually engaging in behaviours designed to induce pain with fire for sexual stimulation (including sitting on a hot stove, and wrapping a pair of trousers around his arm and setting fire to them). His anti-depressant medicine helped reduce his thoughts about fire setting but stopped taking it due to other side-effects. His wife subsequently left him because of his sexual fascination with fire.

In a 2002 issue of the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, Dr. Krishna Balachandra, and Dr. Swaminath described the what they believe is the only case in the literature of a female arsonist (a 29-year old heterosexual woman) with a fire fetishism.The case history revealed she had been sexually abused at the age of 8 years, and that during adolescence she had been cruel to animals, and began setting small fires. She used to scout for places to set fires and focused on setting fire to bins and recycling containers. No-one was ever hurt or burned as a result of the arson. She would hide, watch the fire, and then go home and masturbate (while thinking about the fire she had just started). She also kept a detailed diary of every fire she had started. The behaviour escalated and she had started over 175 fires by the time she received psychiatric help. The authors reported:

“The motives were described as an outlet for anger, sexual motivation and satisfaction, and an intense preoccupation with fire, together with tension and affective arousal that was relieved by setting fires. There was no correlation between the fires and her menstrual cycle or substance abuse”.

These cases studies (when taken together) suggest that pyrophilia doesn’t appear to include behaviours commonly associated with pyromania (such as watching neighbourhood fires, setting off false fire alarms, getting non-sexual satisfaction from being around those who work in the fire services, starting fires to be affiliated with the fire services, showing indifference to human life and property after setting fire to something. It also appears that sexual arousal may not always depend on an actual fire as it may also be facilitated by photographs and verbal stories about fire and/or arson. While seemingly rare, case studies show that pyrophilia is a real and bone fide clinical entity.

Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Further reading

Aggrawal A. (2009). Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Balachandra, K. & Swaminath, S. (2002). Fire fetishism in a female Aasonist? Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 47,

Bourget, D. & Bradford, J.M.W (1987). Fire fetishism, diagnostic and clinical implications: A review of two cases. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 32, 459-462.

Cox, M. (1979). Dynamic psychotherapy with sex-offenders. In I. Rosen (Ed.), Sexual Deviation (pp. 306-350). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Laws, D.R. & O’Donohue, W.T. (2008), Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment and Treatment (Second Edition). New York: Guildford Press.

Litman, L.C.  (1999). A case of pyrophilia. Canadian Psychological Association Bulletin, February, 18-20.

Quinsey, V.L., Chaplin, T.C. & Upfold, D. (1989). Arsonists and sexual arousal to fire setting: Correlation unsupported, Canadian Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 20, 203-209.

My Strange Addiction: The wonderful world of the weird

In a previous blog, I examined a case of so-called ‘hair dryer dependence’. The source material for this blog came from one of the people who had appeared on the TLC (The Learning Channel) documentary television series My Strange Addiction. Immediately after I had written the blog I was emailed by one of the researchers on the show asking if I could help getting people on the show for the next series (Season 4).

For those who have no idea what I am talking about, My Strange Addiction is a US TV documentary show that features stories about people with unusual behaviours. Very few of the behaviours they have featured so far would be classed as addictions in the way that I define them. However, some of the behaviours are genuine obsessions and/or compulsions while others have not been the focus of any kind of medical and/or psychiatric diagnosis.

So far, the show has featured people with various obsessive-compulsive disorders (some of which I have examined in my blog) including body dysmorphic disorder, pica (the eating of non-food such as paper, mud, glass, metal), exercise bulimia, trichotillomania (compulsive hair pulling), dermatillomania (compulsive skin picking), thumb-sucking, furry fandom, excessive laxative use, urine drinking, paraphilic infantilism (being an adult baby), and dating cars.

MY STRANGE ADDICTION: A CALL FOR PARTICIPANTS

If anyone out there thinks they have an interesting story that My Strange Addiction might like to hear about, the show’s producers would really appreciate any help they can get in reaching people who may be good potential candidates for their TV show.

• Are you currently struggling to overcome a strange obsession, addiction or compulsive behavior that is taking over your life?
• Do you spend countless hours obsessing about something or engaging in behavior that others would say is strange?
• Have you drained all of your finances into this obsession?
• Are your friends and family members concerned about your wellbeing?
• Would you like to regain control of your life and your health?

If you found yourself answering yes to any of these questions, you may qualify to be a participant in a major documentary series that offers professional assistance for those struggling with a strange obsession, compulsion, or addiction.

For consideration, please reply to this advert with your name, age, contact information, and brief explanation of how a strange addiction is taking over your life. You can also contact us directly at 312-467-8145 or 20westcastingteam@gmail.com. All submissions will remain confidential. Thank you for sharing your story.

Postscript: Alternatively, if you would like to tell me your story as part of my own academic research, then feel free to contact me at my academic email address: mark.griffiths@ntu.ac.uk.

Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Further reading and viewing

Griffiths, J. (2011). Review: My Strange Addiction. US Weekly January 25. http://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/news/review–my-strange-addiction-2011251#ixzz1tYHsItPh

Internet Movie Database. My Strange Addiction. Located at: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1809014/

My Strange Addiction Official Website. Located at: http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/tv/my-strange-addiction

TV.com. My Strange Addiction. Located at: http://www.tv.com/shows/my-strange-addiction/

Warming Glow. The 10 strangest addictions from  ‘My Strange Addiction’. http://warmingglow.uproxx.com/2012/02/10-strangest-my-strange-addictions#page/1

Wikipedia. My Strange Addiction. Located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Strange_Addiction

Wikipedia. List of My Strange Addiction episodes. Located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_My_Strange_Addiction_episodes

Dinner for one! A beginner’s guide to autosarcophagy

Autosarcophagy is the practice of eating parts oneself and is also known as ‘self-cannibalism’ and ‘auto-cannibalism’. The practice is very rare and has only been documented a number of times in the psychological and psychiatric literature (and all are individual case studies). It has sometimes been labeled as a type of pica (on the basis that the person is eating something non-nutritive) although personally I think this is misguided as it could be argued that human flesh may be nutritious (even if most people find the whole concept morally repugnant).

It’s evident that some seemingly autosarcophagic acts occur unwillingly or without conscious knowledge. For instance, the eating and swallowing of dead cells from the tongue and cheeks would hardly be classed as a genuine from of self-cannibalism. Even if someone is aware of the act, it still doesn’t necessarily mean it is an auto-cannibalistic act. For instance, the swallowing of blood following a nosebleed or the accidental biting of one’s own tongue wouldn’t be classed as an autosarcophagic act. Nor would the biting and eating one’s own fingernails or hair (trichophagia), although some may class these behaviours as types of pica).

However, there are documented cases of autosarcophagy where people have eaten their own skin as an extreme form of body modification. Some authors argue that auto-vampirism (i.e., the practice of people drinking their own blood) should also be classed as a form of autosarcophagy (although again, I think this is stretching the point a little).

The practice has certainly come to the fore in some high profile examples in the fictional literature. Arguably the most infamous example, was in Thomas Harris’ novel Hannibal (and also in the film adaptation directed by Ridley Scott), where Hannibal ‘the Cannibal’ Lecter psychologically manipulates the paedophile Mason Verger into eating his own nose, and then gets Verger to slice off pieces of his own face off and feed them to his dog. In what many people see as an even more gruesome autosarcophagic scene, Lecter manages to feed FBI agent Paul Krendler slices of his own brain. In real life (rather than fiction), autosarcophagy is typically a lot less stomach churning but in extreme examples can still be something that makes people wince.

Cases of forced autosarcophagy where people have been forced to eat their own body parts (like the fictional scenes in Hannibal) have been sporadically reported. For instance, forced autosarcophagic acts are known to have occurred as a form of torture during war. The Hungarian Countess Elizabeth Báthory de Ecsed (1560-1614) – and now viewed as the most prolific female killer in history – allegedly forced some of her servants to eat their own flesh (and she was also alleged to have bathed in the blood of virgins as a way of keeping herself youthful). In the 1500s Spanish colonizers forced the indigenous natives to eat their own testicles. More recently, there have been incidents of forced cannibalism in the 1991Haiti coup and reports in 1998 of Sudanese youth being forced to eat their own ears (published in an article on human rights in The Lambeth Daily, August 6, 1998)

Depending on the definition of autosarcophagy used, the spectrum of self-cannibalism could potentially range from behaviours such as eating a bit of your own skin right through eating your own limbs. Here are four autosarcophagic examples that have been widely reported in the media but are very different in scope and the public’s reaction to them.

• Example 1: Following a liposuction operation in 1996, the Chilean-born artist Marco Evaristti held a dinner party for close friends and served up a pasta dish with meatballs made from beef and the fatty liposuction remains. The meal was claimed by Evaristti to be an artistic statement but was highly criticized as being “disgusting, publicity-seeking and immoral”.
• Example 2: On a February 1998 episode of the Channel 4 British cookery programme TV Dinners, a mother was shown engaging in placentophagy when she cooked her own placenta (with fried garlic and shallots), made into a pate and served on foccacia bread. The programme received a lot of complaints that were upheld by the British Broadcasting Standards Commission who concluded that the act of eating placenta pate on a highly watched TV programme had  “breached convention”.
• Example 3: In 2009, Andre Thomas, a 25-year old murderer on Texas death row (and with a history of mental problems) pulled out his eye in prison and ate it.
• Example 4: In a previous blog on vorarephilia I examined the case of the German man Bernd Jürgen Brande who engaged in self-cannibalism (cutting off and then eating his own cooked penis) before being killed and eaten by Armin Meiwes, the ‘Rotenburg Cannibal’ (who also shared in the eating of Brande’s cooked penis).

Only the latter case has been discussed and written about in scientific journals, and even then, the focus has tended to be on the cannibalistic acts of Brande’s killer rather than the auto-cannibalistic act of Brande himself. After a search through the academic literature I could only find eight studies that have ever reported directly on autosarcophagy. These were all case studies and comprised papers published by:

• Mikellides (1950, two cases, Cyprus – no details as the article was written in Greek)
• Comarr and Feld (1964, one case, male tetraplegic who bit off flesh from his fingers but spit the flesh out rather than eating it, USA)
• Betts (1964, one case, psychotic male who large amounts of his own skin, subcutaneous tissue, and blood from his shoulders, USA)
• Mintz (1964, one case, psychotic male who ate his own middle finger, USA)
• Beneke (1999, one case, non-psychotic 28-year old female who engaged in self-cannibalistic acts [e.g., eating small strips of skin] as part of a lifestyle choice in relation to extreme body modification, USA)
• de Moore and Clement (2006, one case, psychotic male who abused amphetamines and ate two of his own toes, Australia)
• Monasterio and Prince (2011, one case, non-psychotic 28-year old male who amputated and ate his own finger, Australia)
• Sunay and Menderes (2011, one case, an elderly 80-year old man with Alzheimer’s who ate two of his fingers, Eastern Europe).

Dr Friedemann Pfafflin (a forensic psychotherapist at Ulm University, Germany) and who has written about Armin Meiwes, the ‘Rotenburg Cannibal’ asserts that “apart from acts of cannibalism arising from situations of extreme necessity…the cannibalistic deeds of individuals are always an expression of severe psychopathology”. However, a couple of the case studies in the literature – while very rare – show that major psychopathology was absent so this is not universally true.

Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK 

Further reading

Ahuja, N. & Lloyd, A.J. (2007). Self-cannibalism: an unusual case of self-mutilation. Australian and New Journal of Psychiatry, 41, 294-5.

Beneke M. (1999). First report of nonpsychotic self-cannibalism (autophagy), tongue splitting, and scar patterns (scarification) as an extreme form of cultural body modification in a western civilization. American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, 20, 281-285.

Betts, W.C. (1964). Autocannibalism: an additional observation. American Journal of Psychiatry 121, 402-403.

Comarr, A.E. & Feld, M. (1964). Autocannibalism in a tetraplegic patient. American Journal of Surgery, 107, 642-643.

de Moore, G.M. & Clement, M. (2006). Self-cannibalism: an unusual case of self-mutilation. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 40, 937.

Huffington Post (2009). Andre Thomas, Texas Death Row inmate, pulls out eye, eats it. TheHuffington Post, September 9. Located at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/09/andre-thomas-texas-death-_n_156765.html

Mikellides, A.P. (1950). Two cases of self-cannibalism (autosarcophagy). Cyprus Medical Journal, 3, 498-500.

Mintz, I.L. (1964). Autocannibalism: a case study. American Journal of Psychiatry, 120, 1017.

Monasterio, E. & Prince, C. (2011). Self-cannibalism in the absence of psychosis and substance use. Australasian Psychiatry, 19, 170-172.

Pfafflin, F. (2008). Good enough to eat. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 286-293.

Reuters (1997). Meatballs made from fat, anyone? May 18. Located at: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2007/05/18/oukoe-uk-chile-artist-idUKN1724159420070518

Sunay, O. & Menderes, A. (2011). Self cannibalism of fingers in an alzheimer patient. Balkan Medical Journal, 28, 214-215.

Let’s talk about sex: A brief overview of narratophilia

Narratophilia is a sexual paraphilia in which an individual derives sexual pleasure from the use of dirty, pornographic and obscene words or sexual story telling with a sexual partner (and is akin to the watching of filmed obscene and/or pornographic material). This can occur face-to-face with a person or via other synchronous media (such as on the telephone [including telephonic sex chat line services] or via Skype on the internet). This is different from telephone scatophilia as all parties are consenting adults (whereas in telephone scatophilia, the person on the receiving end of the obscene and dirty language is a victim who did not give consent for their involvement). In an internet essay on narratophilia, Michael Furlong says that the different ways in which an individual may achieve narratophilia are:

“Story telling by one partner to another during or before sex, erotic literature, cyber sex, audio tape, or phone sex (Blasingame 2005). Texting has also become a very popular way to cause arousal for the both the person sending and receiving. These stories can occur in a casual or common place, but the stories must also be genito-erotically essential (meaning that the narrative must specifically focus on imagery of the genitalia)”

According to (the late) Professor John Money, narratophilia can also be used to describe the reciprocal condition where an individual’s sexual focus is on the hearing of someone speak erotic, obscene, or pornographic words or stories. Some people have argued that narratophilia also includes the reading and writing of obscene and pornographic material particularly if it is used in synchronous electronic media such as online bulletin boards, online chat rooms and mobile phone texting services (so called ‘sexting’). Obviously, definitions of narratophilia were formulated before the advent of the internet age.

However, as Dr Joel Milner, Dr Cynthia Dopke, and Dr Julie Crouch note in a 2008 review of paraphilias not otherwise specified:

“When the criteria for narratophilia are met, the mode of communication can take any form, including telephone sex services, computer-based erotic bulletin boards, and Internet emails. Thus, although a new paraphilia, “chat-scatophilia,” has been proposed to describe an erotic focus on sending obscene words over the Internet (Abal, Marin, & Sanchez, 2003), we do not believe that a new category for Internet transmission of obscene messages is warranted. Furthermore, the degree of overlap between the existing paraphilic categories of narratophilia and telephone scatophilia remains to be determined”

At present, narratophilia is listed as a “paraphilia not otherwise specified” in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV). Paraphilia listed in the ‘not otherwise specified’ category are said to occur much less frequently than the paraphilias that are individually listed (e.g., necrophilia, zoophilia, klismaphilia) in this category. However, it is thought that many couples use narratophilic elements during their sexual behaviour. Here the use of spoken obscene words or pornographic language heightens the sexual arousal but is not a necessary prerequisite for sexual arousal to occur. As a consequence, narratophilia can be classified into one of three types

• Exclusive narratophiia: In this type, the individual is unable to get sexually aroused without the telling of a sexual story or obscene language being used. It is thought that this is extremely rare.
• Preferred narratophilia: In this type, the individual has a preference for narratophilic activities to ‘normal’ and conventional sex. They can still become sexually aroused and have sex without the use of obscene words and/or pornographic stories but would simply prefer to be engaged in narratophilic activity when possible. Again, this is thought to be relatively rare although more common than exclusive narratophilia.
• Optional narratophilia: In this type, the individual may just engage in narratophilic behaviour as a form of sexual experimentation in an attempt to enhance and facilitate conventional sexual behaviour. This is thought to be fairly common and widespread among consenting sexual couples.

In their 2008 review of paraphilias not otherwise specified, Dr Joel Milner and colleagues said that there was only one other paraphilia that narratophilia potentially overlapped with (i.e., telephone scatophilia). They also differentiated paraphilias into one of four categories: (i) nonhuman objects, (ii) suffering or humiliation of oneself or one’s partner, (iii) children or other non-consenting persons, and (iv) atypical focus involving human subjects (self and others). Milner and colleagues classified narratophilia as being in the second category (i.e., suffering or humiliating of oneself or one’s partner). This was presumably because of the humiliation that the individual or their consenting partner might go through by engaging in the story telling or listening of unreal sexual fantasies. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that most individuals (and their partners) experience no feelings of humiliation so being classed in this category seems to be misguided. Personally, I would class it under the ‘atypical focus’ category.

As there are no empirical data on narratophilia, it is thought to be rare. In the 1986 book Touching: The Human Significance of the Skin, Ashley Montagu claims that narratophilia is more common in men (which based on other paraphilic behaviour would seem reasonable to assume). However, there is no research evidence to empirically confirm the observation. Michael Furlong says that because paraphilias are stimulated by the brain and not by touch, narratophilia is more likely to occur in men. He argues that:

“Because narratophilia can be achieved without even another person being present, this is why it is most common among men. Feel and contact are essential to a woman’s arousal. Because narratophilia is done through verbal communication, women are not as easily aroused by this”

Given that so many couples appear to use narratophilic elements within the context of their conventional sex lives, there has been controversy as to whether narratophilia should even be considered as a paraphilia. The American Psychiatric Association would only consider narratophilia a disorder if the individual was experiencing personal distress or impairment, or harm to others. An example of where narratophilia might be considered a disorder is when the behaviour leads to marital discord. Furlong briefly recounted one of Professor John Money’s case vignettes:

“A man in Minnesota lost his family and job after he was arrested for engaging in homosexual activity in a men’s bathroom. He acted as a bisexual by having sex with his wife once every Saturday and he would later admit that he aroused himself with his wife by narrating military stories to himself from his days of military service about the masturbatory exploits of soldiers”.

Personally, I feel the negative impact (i.e., loss of job and family) was due to repeated homosexual infidelity rather than the narratophilia. However, this does not mean that narratophilia cannot be considered a bona fide paraphilia in some circumstances.

Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Further reading

Abal, Y.N., Marin, J.A.L., & Sanchez, S.R. (2003). Nueva parafilia del siglo XXI: Chat-escatofilia. Archivos Hispanoamericanos de Sexologia, 9, 81-104.

Blasingame, G. (2005). Developmentally disabled persons with sexual behavior problems: Treatment, management, and supervision (2nd ed.). Oklahoma City, OK: Wood & Barnes Publishing.

Dalby, J.T. (1988). Is telephone scatalogia a variant of exhibitionism? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 32, 45-50.

Furlong, M. (2011). Narratophilia. Located at: http://sexual-communication.wikispaces.com/Narratophilia

Milner, J.S. Dopke, C.A. & Crouch, J.L. (2008). Paraphilia not otherwise specified: Psychopathology and Theory In Laws, D.R. & O’Donohue, W.T. (Eds.), Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment and Treatment (pp. 384-418). New York: Guildford Press.

Montagu, A. (1986). Touching: The Human Significance of the Skin. New York: Harper & Row.

Money, J. (1986). Lovemaps: Clinical concepts of sexual/erotic health and pathology, paraphilia, and gender transposition in childhood, adolescence, and maturity. New York: Irvington.

The heat is on: An unusual case of hair dryer dependence?

“I recently got a new blow dryer. I was reading the warning tag that says ‘Do not use while sleeping”’ I thought who in the heck uses the blow dryer while sleeping. Well now I know why”

This posting on an online message board was in reaction to one of the cases featured on the US television programme ‘My Strange Addiction’. The television documentary first aired over the 2010 Christmas holiday period highlighted a case of “hair dryer addiction”. The alleged  “hair dryer addict” was 31-year old female Lori Broady. Every night since she was eight years of age, Lori has gone to sleep with the hair dryer on in her bed. She claimed that she can’t get to sleep without the sound and the warmth of the hair dryer blowing, and finds it both psychologically and physiologically comforting. She claimed: “It’s a comfort thing, it’s a security thing, it’s the noise, it’s the air, it’s all-encompassing”.

Clearly, there are no operational definitions of addiction that would class this behaviour as genuinely addictive, but she was clearly engaging in a behaviour that was potentially life threatening (as she could start an electrical fire and get burned). In fact, she has suffered burns on both her chest and arms as a result of falling asleep with the hair dryer still blowing hot air. There was also an incident that led to an electrical fire when the hair dryer fell on the floor after she had fallen asleep. She also claimed that her unusual use of a hair dryer at bedtime was a factor in the breakdown of some of her romantic relationships. Despite these potential risks, Broady claimed she could not go to sleep without the use of the hair dryer (since the airing of the programme she has received professional intervention and has now stopped her hair dryer use at bedtime).

Broady admitted that she “knew it was a problem [but that] I just had a hard time sleeping at night when I was a kid. To me that is insignificant to the comfort that it gives me”. For Broady, the warmth alone was not enough as the sound the hair dryer made was also a critical factor in needing to get to sleep. Having engaged in the habit (and that is what it appears to be – a habit) since she was a young child, it was a hard habit to break as there was years of both operant and classical conditioning to overcome.

If the sound the hair dryer made was as equally as important as the warmth, then wouldn’t an electric blanket plus the sound of a fan suffice? Apparently not. As with most longstanding habits, people get used to specifics. The behaviour can become ritualized. The more someone begins to associate reward and pleasure with a very specific and ritualistic behaviour, the more they want to repeat the experience.

In this particular case, the hair dryer appeared to act as a ‘psychological soother’ and is akin to many other metaphorical ‘comfort blankets’ (such as thumb sucking or hair twirling) that people use as a way to relieve particular day-to-day stresses and strains. In this case, the behaviour certainly appeared to have similarities to addiction (e.g., self-injurious behaviour, comprising of relationships) but there was little to suggest that the behaviour was particularly salient except just before bedtime.

On one level, the need to feel warm and comfortable I bed is natural as many people sleep with the aid of electric blankets. As one commentator on this story noted:

“Well, I know that there are many people who like to have something fuzzy or furry like a teddy bear to take to sleep. In Asian countries like Singapore and Malaysia, many children and some adults are addicted to sleeping hugging a bolster. In fact, the Malay name for a bolster is bantal peluk, which literally means hugging pillow”

In relation to the Broady case and other “strange addictions” that featured on the show, Dr. Jason Elias (Director of psychological services and clinical research at McLean Hospital’s OCD Institute, US) said: “Nothing people do surprises me”. Following the broadcast of the programme on American national television, Broady was interviewed by Entertainment Weekly about the negative criticism against her, and the fact that the appearing on the show led to her quitting her need for a hair dryer to get to sleep. She said:

“At first, when I started seeing the things that people were saying about me, it really made me feel bad. But then I realized that a lot of people are just ignorant. Maybe they don’t want to look within and realize they might have some things that they’re dealing with as well. We kind of set ourselves up for people to say things about us and pick on us or laugh at us. I second-guessed myself a little bit along the way, but I got through it. I became successful with beating my personal addiction…I’m completely done with it. Since I’ve quit, I’m kind of on the outside looking in. It took a long time to get here, but I’m doing really well without it. That being said, I did not realize just how dangerous using the blow dryer really was. I guess that’s part of my denial process. I really, really in my heart felt like ‘what is the big deal?’ It’s just something I’ve always done. I knew it was strange. I knew it was weird. But I did not understand the severity of it”.

Following her television appearance, many people got in touch with Broady saying that they too relied on hair dryers to go to sleep. It seems as though she was not the only one. She said in her Entertainment Weekly interview that:

“I didn’t realize that there’s a whole community of blow dryer users out there. And they all surfaced after the episode aired. There are tons of them. Everywhere. The day that my episode aired [Dec. 29, 2010], there was a gentleman in Virginia whose home burnt down with him and his 15-year-old daughter inside from blow dryer misuse. It was all over national news”.

My own take on this is that in Broady’s case, the behaviour was a deeply ingrained habit that could have had catastrophic effects. It’s certainly not a behavioural addiction as defined by the addictions component model that I overviewed in a previous blog. However, that doesn’t mean that it was a behaviour that was unproblematic.

Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Further reading

Abraham, T. (2011). The world’s strangest addictions: Meet the man who eats glass and the mother who can’t sleep without her hairdryer. Daily Mail, June 9. Located at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2001807/The-worlds-strangest-addictions-Meet-man-eats-glass-mother-sleep-hairdryer.html

Building Bridges (2010). Can’t sleep without a hair dryer. December 24. Located at: http://buildingbridgesworld.wordpress.com/2010/12/24/cant-sleep-without-a-hair-dryer/

Brissey. B. (2011). ‘My Strange Addiction’ blow dryer addict speaks; plus footage of the season finale. Entertainment Weekly, February 15. Located at: http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/02/15/my-strange-addiction-season-finale-video/

MSN Today Health (2010). Their strange addictions: Hair dryer and ventriloquism. December 22. Located at: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/40780006/ns/today-today_health/t/their-strange-addictions-hair-dryer-ventriloquism/

Animal charm? A new classification of zoophiles

At the end of 2011, Dr Anil Aggrawal (Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi, India) published an interesting paper on zoophilia in the Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine. Aggrawal has been writing about various paraphilic behaviours for over a decade and has carved out a productive niche in creating new paraphilic taxonomies (one of which I briefly mentioned in a blog I wrote on necrophilia).

His latest paper outlines a new classification of zoophilia that I thought I would take a brief look at as it includes behaviours that I have looked at in previous blogs (e.g., zoosadism and furry fandom). Aggrawal’s rationale for developing a new zoophile typology was rooted in his view that current terminologies that describe various zoophilic acts “are at best vague and are not used universally in the same sense” by researchers working in the field of zoophilia. For instance, Aggrawal notes that there is a multiplicity of different terms that often describe slightly different aspects when a person has a sexual relationship with an animal (e.g., zoophilia, zoophilism, zooerasty, zooerastia, bestiality and bestiosexuality). Aggrawal’s new taxonomy describes ten different types of zoophile (Classes I to X Zoosexuals, presented below) and is based on both the empirical/clinical literature, and informed theoretical speculation.

Class I zoosexuals: This type comprises human-animal role-players. These individuals never have sex with actual animals but become sexually aroused through wanting to have sex with humans who pretend to be animals. This appears include members of the furry fandom and subsumes those individuals who engage in these pseudo-zoophilic acts (e.g., pet play, pony play, ponyism or pup-play). According to Aggrawal, those individuals that participate in human-animal role-play involve one person taking on the role of a real or imaginary animal in character, including appropriate mannerisms and behaviour. Outside the world of furries, Aggrawal claims that human-animal role-play is sometimes used in sadomasochistic contexts (involving bondage and domination) where the partner is reduced to the status of an animal.

Class II zoosexuals: This type comprises romantic zoophiles. Aggrawal claims this type of zoophile keeps animals as pets as a way to get psychosexually stimulated without actually having any kind of sexual contact with them. This appears to be a theoretical type of zoophile as I have never come across any cases in the clinical literature that would be classed as this particular type.

Class III zoosexuals: This type comprises those individuals that Aggrawal describes as zoophilic fantasizers. Aggrawal claims these people fantasize about having sexual intercourse with animals but – like Classes I and II – do not actually have sex with animals. It is claimed that this type of zoophile may masturbate in the presence of animals (although Aggrawal provides no evidence of such people actually existing). Aggrawal claims that zoophilic voyeurs and zoophilic exhibitionists are subsumed within this particular zoophilic type.

Class IV zoosexuals: This type comprises tactile zoophiles who get sexual excitement from touching, stroking or fondling an animal or their genitals but do not actually have sex with the animal. Aggrawal claims that some tactile zoophiles engage in zoophilic frotteurism, and that for sexual pleasure rub their genitals against animals. Again, Aggrawal presents no empirical evidence for the existence of such people.

Class V zoosexuals: This type comprises what Aggrawal calls fetishistic zoophiles. These individuals keep various animal parts (especially fur) that they then use as an erotic stimulus as a crucial part of their sexual activity. Such individuals have been reported in the clinical literature including the case of a woman (reported in a 1990 issue of the American Journal of Forensic Medical Pathology) who used the tongue of a deer as her primary masturbatory aid.

Class VI zoosexuals: This type comprises sadistic bestials where the source of sexual arousal comes from the torturing of animals (i.e., zoosadism) but does not involve sexual intercourse with the animal. There has been quite a lot of evidence in the empirical literature that such zoophilic activity exists (and which I reviewed in a previous blog).

Class VII zoosexuals: This type comprises opportunistic zoosexuals who have normal sexual encounters but as Aggrawal argues would not refrain from having sexual intercourse with animals if the opportunity arose. Aggrawal claims that such behaviour occurs most often in incarcerated or stranded persons, or when the person sees an opportunity to have sex with an animal when they are sure no-one else is present (e.g., farmhands). Aggraval claims that opportunistic zoosexuals have no emotional attachment to animals despite having sex with them.

Class VIII zoosexuals: This type comprises regular zoosexuals (the  “classic” zoophiles as Aggrawal calls them). These individuals prefer sex with animals than sex with humans (but are capable of having sex with both). Such zoophiles will engage in a wide range of sexual activities with animals (e.g., masturbation, oral sex, vaginal sex, anal sex). These people love animals at an emotional level, and have sex as part of a loving relationship. Aggrawal also includes a subclass within this category called “regular zoophilia by proxy”. Here, Aggrawal described cases of men who forced their wives to be vaginally penetrated by dogs for their own sexual satisfaction.

Class IX zoosexuals: This type comprises homicidal bestials who need to kill animals in order to have sex with them (i.e., necrozoophiles). Although capable of having sex with living animals, there is an insatiable desire to have sex with dead animals. Reports of such behaviour have been noted in the literature (such as the serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer who I commented on in my blog on zoosadsism).

Class X zoosexuals: This type comprises what Aggrawal refers to exclusive zoosexuals. These are individuals who only have sex with animals to the exclusion of human sexual partners (i.e., those identified in the clinical literature as zooerasts).

Aggrawal claims that his new classification may help in treating such people. He says that the zoosexuals in Classes I to V may be treated by simple behavior modification techniques whereas zoosexuals in Classes 6 and above need more rigorous treatment (e.g., pharmacological interventions). Only time will tell whether this new taxonomy is adopted by the field but the classification does seem to have overall face validity even if a few of the classes are theoretical rather than actual.

Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Further reading

Aggrawal, A. (2011). A new classification of zoophilia. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 18, 73-78.

Bartmann, C.P. & Wohlsein, P. (2002). Injuries caused by outside violence with forensic importance in horses. Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr, 109, 112-115.

Beetz, Andrea (2002). Love, Violence, and Sexuality in Relationships between Humans and Animals. Germany: Shaker Verlag.

Miletski, H. (2001). Zoophilia – implications for therapy. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 26, 85–89.

Randall, M.B., Vance, R.P., McCalmont, T.H. (1990). Xenolingual autoeroticism. American Journal of Forensic and Medical Pathology, 11, 89-92.

Schedel-Stupperich, A. (2002). [Criminal acts against horses – phenomenology and psychosocial construct]. Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr, 109, 116-119.

Williams, C. J., & Weinberg, M. S. (2003). Zoophilia in men: A study of sexual interest in animals. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 523–535.

The ‘In’ Crowd: Is there a relationship between ‘in-play’ betting and problem gambling?

For those of us who watch football on the television in the UK, it is almost impossible to watch a game without seeing the many gambling adverts alerting us to the fact we can now bet on over 60 ‘in-play’ markets while watching the game. Should I wish to, I can bet on everything from who is going to score the first goal, what the score will be after 30 minutes of play, how many yellow cards will be given during them game and/or in what minute of the second half the first free kick will be awarded.

‘In-play’ betting is arguably the fastest growing form of gambling in the UK and the UK’s leading ‘in-play’ bookmaker Bet 365 made over £500 million last year. One of the issues I have been asked by the press is to what extent ‘in-play’ betting can be problematic. One of the interviews I did recently was with the Mail on Sunday who published some of my comments yesterday in an article entitled ‘Risky business: With the advent of online gambling, are we creating an epidemic of addiction? ’I was quoted as saying:

‘What the in-play markets have done is take what was traditionally a discontinuous form of gambling – where you make one bet every Saturday on the result of the game – to one where you can gamble again and again and again. You cannot become addicted to something unless you are constantly being rewarded. If the reward only happens once or twice a week, it’s impossible to become addicted. In-play has changed that”

This indeed was a good summary of the interview I did. In-play betting is something that many of us in the problem gambling field are keeping an eye on because it’s taken something that has traditionally been a non-problem form of gambling to something that is more akin to betting on horse racing. At a typical Gamblers Anonymous group, you will get horse racing addicts, slot machine addicts, casino addicts, but it was rare that you got anyone ever having problems with things like football betting, mainly because football betting opportunities were once a week on the pools or betting before the match on a Saturday afternoon.

As I noted in my published quote above, if the reward for gambling only happens once or twice a week, it is completely impossible to become addicted. In-play has changed that because we now have football matches on almost every day of the week making a daily 2-hour plus period of betting seven days a week. As a psychologist who has researched problem gambling for over 25 years, I would assess the structural characteristics of this type of activity and associate it with the type that causes problem gambling for those that are vulnerable and susceptible. So why do I think this?

When considering speed and frequency of gambling in relation to problem gambling, concepts such as event duration, event frequency and payout interval can often be misunderstood and applied in the wrong context. Often, these are mistaken for having the same meaning. Furthermore, concepts such bet frequency and event duration are often ignored despite their importance of their role in the speed and frequency of betting. All of these terms refer to slightly different aspects of gambling although they are all implicated factors that affect speed and frequency.

Event duration essentially refers to how fast the “event” is (i.e., the speed of a gambling activity such as a reel spin on a slot machine that typically lasts for a few seconds). Professor Alex Blaszczynski and his colleagues at the University of Sydney (Australia) noted that gamblers prefer faster speeds and find fast speeds while playing more enjoyable. Therefore, they argued that gamblers’ motivation to play could encourage more persistent gambling activity. Another study by Professor Ladouceur and Dr. Serge Sevigny at the University of Laval (Quebec, Canada) investigated the effects of slot machine game speed on concentration, motivation to play, loss of control, and number of games played on people randomly assigned to either a high-speed (5 seconds) or a low-speed (15 seconds) gambling condition. Their results showed that high-speed gamblers played more games and underestimated the number of games played more than low-speed gamblers. However, speed didn’t influence concentration, motivation, or loss of control over time or money. Despite many methodological limitations they concluded that speed had limited impact on occasional slot machine gamblers.

A paper by Dr Kevin Harrigan and Dr. Mike Dixon (University of Waterloo, Canada) estimated the speed of slot machine play on slot machines. On a machine with a reel spin of every six seconds, players can play 10 times per minute, (i.e., 600 spins per hour) whereas those on a machine with a reel spin of every three seconds, players can play 20 times a minute (i.e., 1200 spins per hour). I also found similar results in research I carried out on British slot machines in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

It is important to acknowledge that duration of the betting event is different from event frequency. However, they may be inextricably linked in so much as the length of a betting event will obviously limit the frequency with they can take place. For example, a betting event lasting two hours (e.g., wagering only on the final outcome of a football game) could not have an event frequency greater than one in any 2-hour period, but a roulette spin (lasting approximately 5-6 seconds) may have an event frequency of several hundred in the same two-hour period. Furthermore, as a result of the introduction of in-running or situational betting (i.e., ‘in-play betting’) this relationship is even less clear.

Event frequency refers to the number of events that are available for betting in any given time period. For example, a lottery draw may occur twice a week but an electronic keno lottery draw may occur 100 times per hour. In this example, a keno lottery draw has a higher event frequency. Bet frequency, on the other hand, refers to the number of bets or wagers placed in any given time period. Using the lottery again as an example, multiple tickets (e.g., 10 tickets) can usually be purchased as frequently as desired before any single lottery draw. So here bet frequency would be equal to 10 but event frequency would be equal to 1. Therefore, bet frequency can often be higher than event frequency and hence, it is possible to spend more than one can afford even with a low event frequency.

The relationship between bet frequency and event frequency needs further empirical investigation. As researchers and clinicians, we often make the assumption the two have a strong relationship; the higher number of betting events – the higher the frequency of betting. Until more research is forthcoming a definitive answer is currently not available. Although, players can place many bets on just one gambling event, the outcome of this event can influence future betting activity. By outcomes, we are essentially referring to winning or losing. Losing can often create financial and emotional motivation to continue betting (i.e. chasing). It could be speculated that the satisfaction from winning may reduce motivation for further betting in the short-term, or it may increase betting as a result of increased bankroll, illusions of control and/or cognitive biases. Therefore, a higher event frequency not only offers more opportunity and choice for betting, but also affects motivation for betting through revealing consequential wins and losses at the end of each event. However, it should also be noted that betting frequency is also impacted by other factors (e.g., peer pressure, time constraints to gamble, etc.).

So does the speed of a game influence the prevalence of problem and pathological gambling? Based on the relationship between event duration, event frequency, bet frequency, and payout interval, empirical research has consistently shown that games that offer a fast, arousing span of play, frequent wins, and the opportunity for rapid replay are those most frequently cited as being associated with problem gambling. The actual prevalence rate of problem and pathological gambling will of course depend on many other factors than speed of the game alone, but games with high and rapid event frequencies such as slot machines are most likely to impact on increased rates of problem and pathological gambling. In-play betting appears to be an activity that is starting to blur the lines between continuous and discontinuous forms of gambling.

Frequency of opportunities to gamble (i.e., event frequency) also appears to be a major contributory factor in the development of gambling problems. The general rule is that the higher the event frequency, the more likely it is that the activity will result in gambling problems. Addictive behaviours have been shown to be associated with the rewards and the speed of rewards and payout rates. Therefore, the more potential rewards there are, and the higher the amount of the rewards, the more problematic the activity is likely to be. Given the time, money and resources, a vast majority of gambling activities are “continuous” in that people have the potential to gamble again and again. Therefore, in relation to problem gambling, in-play betting is an activity that we really need to keep an eye on.

Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Additional input by Dr. Jonathan Parke (Salford University, UK)

Further reading

Blaszczynski, A, Sharpe, L., & Walker, M. (2001). The Assessment of the Impact of the Reconfiguration on Electronic Gaming Machines as Harm Minimization Strategies for Problem Gambling. Report for the Gaming Industry Operators Group, University of Sydney Gambling Research Group, Sydney

Griffiths, M.D. (1993). Fruit machine gambling: The importance of structural characteristics. Journal of Gambling Studies, 9, 101-120.

Griffiths, M.D. (1994). The role of cognitive bias and skill in fruit machine gambling. British Journal of Psychology, 85, 351-369.

Griffiths, M.D. (1999a). Gambling technologies: Prospects for problem gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 15, 265-283.

Griffiths, M.D. (2008). Impact of high stake, high prize gaming machines on problem gaming. Birmingham: Gambling Commission.

Harrigan, K. & Dixon, M. (2009). PAR Sheets, probabilities, and slot machine play: Implications for problem and non-problem gambling. Journal of Gambling Issues, 23, 81-110.

Ladouceur. R., & Sévigny, S. (2005a). The impact of video lottery game speed on gamblers. Journal of Gambling Issues, 17.

Loba, P., Stewart, S. H., Klein, R. M. & Blackburn, J. R. (2002). Manipulations of the features of standard Video Lottery Terminal (VLT) games: Effects in pathological and non-pathological gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 17, 297-320.

Parke, J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2006). The psychology of the fruit machine: The role of structural characteristics (revisited). International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 4, 151-179.

Parke, J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2007). The role of structural characteristics in gambling.  In G. Smith, D. Hodgins & R. Williams (Eds.), Research and Measurement Issues in Gambling Studies (pp.211-243). New York: Elsevier.

Milking the situation: A beginner’s guide to lactophila

Lactophilia (i.e., breast milk fetishism) is a sexual paraphilia where individuals (typically male) derive sexual pleasure from watching women lactate, sucking on women’s milk-filled breasts and/or having sex with lactating women. Sometimes, the sexual arousal is enhanced by the woman also being pregnant, although many men prefer lactating women post-pregnancy. The paraphilic aspect may also be part of other sexual paraphilias such as infantilism (where sexual arousal is derived from being an adult baby). For many infantilists, the practice is often referred to as adult adult nursing, suckling, and adult breastfeeding. In fact, some lactophiles describe themselves as being in an adult nursing relationship. Those who suckle and are suckled within the confines of a monogamous sexual relationship are often referred to as a “nursing couple”.

There are a number of different methods by which erotic lactation can take place. “Lactation games” typically refers to any kind of sexual activity that includes female breast milk. The activity is thought to be widespread but can be unintentional post-pregnancy as many women who have just had babies release milk as a reflex action when sexually aroused.

Over the last decade there appears to have been an increased demand for lactation pornography with magazines such as ‘Pregnant Pink and Milking’. It is evidently a specialty market although the internet has increased the opportunity to see such pornography – even if the person is not a lactophile. Such niche pornography may also be considered taboo – even by those who have no objections to pornography – particularly because of its association with children and incest.

Adult nursing relationships involve a person (typically male) breastfeeding from a woman’s lactating breast. It is only considered to be an ANR when the practice is regular rather than a one-off or happens almost accidentally during post-pregnancy sex. Anecdotal evidence suggests that successful ANRs are reliant on trusting and stable long-term relationships. If the practice is not regular, the women’s milk production ceases. It is thought that in some cases, the suckling can be a replacement for sex and that the mutual and intimate tenderness involved between consenting couples has a stabilizing influence on such relationships. It has also been noted that some women are capable of achieving orgasm during the suckling process. There may also be a number of inherently non-sexual reasons as to why such behaviour is found within loving couples. For instance, couples who may want to adopt a child may use the context of an ANR to stimulate the production of breast milk pre-adoption.

It has also been notes that an apparently small minority of women experience sensual and/or sexual pleasure from pumping breast milk (either manually or from a breast pump. The feelings produced may depend on the context (for instance, some women may only get sexual pleasure if their partner is present during the pumping process. Dr. Fiona Giles (of the University of Sydney, Australia) in her 2003 book ‘Fresh Milk – The Secret Life of Breasts’ noted that some women feel more “feminine” when breast feeding, and may therefore may want to continue with lactation, even after their child have been weaned for emotional and/or sensual motivations.

In a previous blog on fetishism, I wrote at length about a study led by Dr G. Scorolli (University of Bologna, Italy) on the relative prevalence of different fetishes using online fetish form data. It was estimated (very conservatively in the authors’ opinion), that their sample size comprised at least 5000 fetishists (but was likely to be a lot more). They reported that some of the sites featured references to lactophiles. However, this particular fetish was included in a ‘body fluids’ fetish category along with coprophilia, urophilia, menophilia and mucophilia. Although this category made up a sizeable minority of all online fetishes (9%), it is unknown what proportion of these online fetish sites were lactophilic in comparison to the fetishes of other bodily fluids.

The rise in interest surrounding lactophilic activity has led to lactation prostitution where grown adults – including women – pay for the opportunity to be breastfed. This can either be part of other activities such as infantilism (where other activities such as having a diaper [i.e., nappy] changed may play a more primary role) or may be an activity done is isolation to any other service or activity. A 2004 paper in the journal Australian Feminist Studies (again) by Dr. Fiona Giles made reference to a New Zealand brothel that offered lactation services to its clients. In a paper in Women’s Studies the following year, Giles also wrote that:

“Induced lactation allows for a splitting away of breastfeeding from maternity, opening up possibilities for elaborating on the cultural meanings and uses of breastmilk as a substance, breastfeeding as a practice, and lactation as a process. Finally, by introducing lactation into sexual play, it offers the opportunity for a mutual confluence of bodily flows which may help to disassemble the binaries of sexual difference”.

Breastfeeding can also feature in other types of sexual activity such as sadism and masochism (as part of wider set of dominance and submission sexual practices). For instance, submissive women may be commanded by their (male or female) dominant partner to be milked or to produce milk. Alternatively, breastfeeding can be used as a surrogate pleasure reward (or surrogate pleasure) for (male or female) submissive partners who have done exactly as they have been told by the dominant partner.

Lactophilia may also be associated with other specialist types of paraphilia. One such sexual fetish is Maieusiophilia (i.e., pregnancy fetishism). This is where individuals (typically male, but some bisexual or lesbian females also) derive attraction and/or sexual gratification from someone being (or appearing pregnant). There is also a very small minority of people who develop a sexual fascination with the idea of themselves being pregnant (i.e., gravidophilia). This would appear to be psychologically similar to those people who get sexually excited by the thought of being an amputee (i.e., apotemnophilia).

There has been very little empirical research on lactophilia (or associated behaviours). A recent 2011 study was published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine led by Dr. Magnus Enquist (Stockholm University, 2011). They reported the results of a questionnaire study designed to investigate whether two specific sexual preferences (for pregnant women and for lactating women) were associated with exposure to pregnant or lactating women early in an individual’s life. Their data were collected via an online questionnaire advertised in newsgroups (e.g., alt.sex.fetish and alt.sex.fetish.breastmilk) and Yahoo! discussion groups (e.g., Lactaters and Pregnant Ladies). Individuals in these online communities typically describe themselves as fetishists for pregnant and/or lactating women. The research team collected usable data from 2,082 participants. Some of the main findings were that:

• Average age of the respondents was 37 years
• Average age at which respondents became aware of their preference for pregnant and/or lactating women was 19 years
• Most respondents reported both a pregnancy and a lactation preference (71%; 1,474 people);
• A small minority of the respondents reported having a preference for pregnancy fetish only (14%; 296 people)
• An even smaller minority of the respondents reported having a preference for lactation fetish only (11%; 224 people)
• A total 4% (87 people) had neither preference and were excluded from further analysis
• A great majority of the sample had younger brothers or sisters suggesting that they were exposed to pregnant women and/or experienced seeing their siblings being breastfed when in childhood.

Because of this final finding, the authors suggested their results were consistent with the hypothesis that specific sexual preferences may be acquired through exposure to particular stimuli during a specific period early in life (similar to “sexual imprinting” in birds and mammals). In fact, there have been a number of studies offering empirical support for the idea that human partner choice is (at least in part) determined by parental characteristics. The authors concluded that their study offered new insights to growing issue of the correlation between pregnancy, lactation, and sexuality.

Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Further reading (Lactophilia)

Enquist, M., Aronsson, H., Ghirlanda, S., Jansson, L. & Jannini, E.A. (2011). Exposure to mother’s pregnancy and lactation in infancy is associated with sexual attraction to pregnancy and lactation in adulthood. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 8, 140–147.

Giles, F. (2003). Fresh Milk – The Secret Life of Breasts. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Giles, F. (2004). Relational, and strange: A preliminary foray into a project to queer breastfeeding. Australian Feminist Studies. 19, 301-314.

Giles, F. (2005). The well-tempered breast: Fostering fluidity in breastly meaning and function. Women’s Studies: An inter-disciplinary journal. 34, 301-326.

Scorolli, C., Ghirlanda, S., Enquist, M., Zattoni, S. & Jannini, E.A. (2007). Relative prevalence of different fetishes. International Journal of Impotence Research, 19, 432-437.

Further reading (Sexual imprinting)

Bereczkei, T., Gyuris, P. & Weisfeld, G.E. (2004). Sexual imprinting in human mate choice. Proceedings of Biological Science, 271, 1129-1134.

Perrett, D.I., Penton-Voak, I.S., Little, A.C., Tiddeman, B.P., Burt, D.M., Schmidt, N., Oxley, R., Kinloch, N., & Barrett, L. (2002). Facial attractiveness judgements reflect learning of parental age characteristics. Proceedings of Biological Science, 269, 873–80.

Jedlicka, D. (1980). A test of psychoanalytic theory of mate selection. Journal of Social Psychology, 112, 295-299.

Wilson, G.D. & Barrett, P.T. (1987). Parental characteristics and partner choice: Some evidence for oedipal imprinting. Journal of Biosocial Science, 19, 157-161.

Zei, G., Bereczkei, T., Gyuris, P., Koves, P., Bernath, L. (2002). Homogamy, genetic similarity, and imprinting: Parental influence on mate choice preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 677-90.