Blog Archives
From the university of perversity: An A to Z of non-researched sexual paraphilias
One of my students asked me the other day whether I will ever run out of sexual paraphilias to write about. I may run out of paraphilias that have been scientifically researched but the one thing I’ve learned from all my reseach into human sexual behaviour is that human beings appear to have the capacity to become sexually aroused to almost anything. Today’s blog takes a brief A to Z look at 26 paraphilias where (as far as I am aware) there is absolutely no empirical or clinical research on the topic. In fact, in almost all of the paraphilias listed here, I couldn’t even find an anecdotal case study or an online forum where people discuss such issues. The majority of the paraphilias below can be found in either Dr. Anil Aggrawal’s book Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices and/or Dr. Brenda Love’s Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices. Just to make things a little more interesting, one of the 26 paraphilias listed below is one that I made up.
- Anasteemaphilia: This is where individuals derive sexual arousal to individuals who are much taller or shorter than themselves (i.e., it is the large difference in height that is the primary source of sexual arousal)
- Batrachophilia: This is a sub-type of zoophilia where individuals derive sexual arousal from and/or attraction to frogs. The Victorious Vocabulary website says that it relates to an extreme fondness for frogs, or a sexual obsession with frogs.
- Cratophilia: This is where individuals derive sexual arousal from displays of strength. I have only come across one academic paper that makes a specific reference to ‘cratophilia’ and that was a study led by Dr G. Scorolli on the relative prevalence of different fetishes using online fetish forum data. They reported that some of the sites featured references to ‘muscle fetishes’ (5% of all sites concerned with bodily features) and that some of these related to cratophilia (although it also featured individuals who were sthenophiles who prefer the look of the muscles rather than acts of bodily strength)
- Doraphilia: This is where individuals derive sexual arousal from animal fur, leather, and/or skin. The Wikipedia page on clothing and garment fetishes mentions doraphilia in passing but there is no supporting empirical evidence.
- Endytophilia: This is where individuals derive sexual arousal only from partners who are clothed during sexual intercourse. The only interesting things I found on the internet relating to endytophilia was that (a) it contained the letters for the word ‘depiliation’, and (b) it was claimed in an online article by Tony Leather that the most famous endytophile was Elvis Presley.
- Fratrilagnia: This is where individuals derive sexual arousal from having sex with one’s own brother. Although I am aware cases of brother-sister incest, the implication from the behaviour being classified as a sexual paraphilia is that it is the fact being a brother is the primary source of the individual’s sexual behaviour.
- Geusophilia: This is where individuals derive sexual arousal through taste (presumably of food but none of the definitions I’ve come across make that explicit – seem my previous blog on sitophilia).
- Hyphephilia: This is where individuals derive sexual arousal from touching skin, hair, leather, fur or fabric. This appears to be very similar to doraphilia (above) but includes a greater number of tactile materials from which an individual derives sexual pleasure.
- ldrophrodisia: This is where individuals derive sexual arousal from the odour of perspiration, especially from the genitals. This would appear to be a sub-type of olfactophilia (sexual arousal from smells and odour).
- Juvenilophilia: This is where individuals derive sexual arousal from having sex with juveniles.
- Knismolagnia: This is where individuals derive sexual arousal from tickling. Since writing this article I managed to collect enough anecdotal material to write a whole blog on this paraphilia.
- Lyssophilia: This is where individuals derive sexual arousal from becoming angry or upset.
- Moriaphilia: This is where individuals derive sexual arousal from telling sexual jokes. This may be related to other psychological conditions such as ‘punning mania’ although this sexual paraphilia (if it really exists) could be argued to be a sub-type of narratophilia.
- Nosolagnia: This is where individuals derive sexual arousal from knowing partner has terminal illness. Although I have never come across a case of nosolagnia, I would imagine it has psychological overlaps with those individuals who seek sexual arousal from vulnerable individuals (such as those who sexually exploit the learning disabled).
- Ochlophilia: This is where individuals derive sexual arousal from being in a crowd. This would appear to have some overlap with frotteurism (sexual arousal from rubbing up against people and which I examined in a previous blog).
- Placophilia: This is where individuals derive sexual arousal from tombstones. After finding out what placophobia was, the musician and author Julian Cope claimed he must be a placophile on a post at his Head Heritage website (although my guess is that his love for tombstones is not sexual).
- Quadoshka: OK, I admit this a little bit of a cheat as there are so few sexual paraphilias beginning with the letter ‘Q’ (and I’ve already covered queefing in a previous blog). Quadoshka is where individuals derive sexual arousal American Indian form of tantric sex.
- Rhytiphilia: This is where individuals derive sexual arousal from facial wrinkles. This would appear to be related to gerontophilia (sexual arousal to people who are much older than the individuals themselves).
- Septophilia: This is where individuals derive sexual arousal to decaying matter (presumably human or something else that was once living, but none of the definitions I have come across make any specific references). This paraphilia would therefore appear to have clear overlaps with necrophilia (sexual arousal from dead people) and necrobestiality (sexual arousal from dead animals).
- Timophilia: This is where individuals derive sexual arousal comes from gold or wealth. Given that money and/or wealth are often said to be aphrodisiacs, I would have thought there would be lots of research into this, but I have yet to come across any. However, it is one of the few paraphilias that is listed here that appears on the Right Diagnosis online medical website. This also reminds me of the interview on the Mrs. Merton Show where Debbie McGee was asked “So, what first attracted you to the millionaire Paul Daniels?”
- Uranophilia: This is where individuals derive sexual arousal from heavenly thoughts. One online definition claims that uranophilia is the “ultimate expression of faith in that you can take such joy, such pleasure from the mere thought of heaven alone”. I am very doubtful that this paraphilia even exists.
- Vicarphilia: This is where individuals derive sexual arousal from other people’s sexual experiences. To me, this sounds remarkably like a form of narratophilia (that I covered in a previous blog). One online dictionary goes much further in its definition and defines vicarphilia as “vicarious arousal sexual arousal from other peoples’ exciting actions, experiences and behaviors and sexual attraction for people who lead exciting lives, such as influential people, celebrities, gangsters, and people who engage in dangerous sports such as racers, daredevils, and action sportsters”.
- Wing Fetishism: This is where individuals derive sexual arousal from wings – but not from bird or animal wings but from angel or demon wings. I know of no literature on this at all but I am assuming it is a fantasy-based paraphilia like macrophilia (sexual arousal for giants).
- Xylophilia: This is where individuals derive sexual arousal from wooden objects. This may have some overlap with the next sexual paraphilia on this list (i.e., ylophilia).
- Ylophilia: This is where individuals derive sexual arousal from forests. The Fetish News website defines ylophilia as an extreme affinity for forests, including sexual attraction to or arousal from the texture and shape of trees and shrubs. This would therefore seem to overlap with dendrophilia (sexual arousal from trees, that I covered in a previous blog).
- Zelophilia: This is where individuals derive sexual arousal from jealousy.
So did you spot the one I made up? If you think you know which one it is or want to know, email me directly at: mark.griffiths@ntu.ac.uk. Also, if you have any information on any of the paraphilias listed here I would love to hear from you.
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.
Caust, D. (undated). Sex sense: Unusual sexual behavior. Located at: http://www.drdeborahcaust.com/articles/pdf/ss9_unusual.pdf
Gates, K. (2000). Deviant Desires: Incredibly Strange Sex. New York: RE/Search Publications.
Leather, T. (2012). What floats your sexual boat? Wikinut, September 9. Located at: http://news.wikinut.com/What-Floats-Your-Sexual-Boat/3vg12rx5/
Love, B. (2001). Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices. London: Greenwich Editions.
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.
Wikipedia (2013). Clothing fetish. Located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clothing_fetish
This farming man: An unusual case of zoocoprophilia?
One of the most bizarre sex-related stories I have come across in the last few years concerns an Englishman called David Truscott from Pengegon Parc, Camborne (in Cornwall). Truscott, was 41-years-old when he was put in prison for two years after he had harassed and terrorized one particular family for a six-year period near Redruth (Cornwall). He repeatedly covered his naked (or scantily-clad) body in cow manure and would roll around on the floor masturbating on the family’s farm (if he wasn’t completely naked he either wore just underpants although on one occasion he was apprehended by police wearing shiny red sorts and latex gloves). He had already received a court order preventing him from going anywhere near the family but breached his restraining order on February 26 [2011] when he was caught by the farmer Clive Roth’s 16-year old son pleasuring himself while covered in cow manure.
Jill Wilson, the crown prosecutor in the case at Truro Court told the court that there was “a history of [Truscott] visiting this particular farm seeking sexual gratification while immersed in cow dung and mud”. Mark Charnley, the lawyer defending Truscott told the court that his client was a “sad, vulnerable, socially inadequate man…He does show remorse for what he did and a realization of the harm he was doing to the family” and pleased for leniency because his client had no close family and had learning difficulties. Charnley also suggested that Truscott was suffering from a form of autism that led him to engage in his sexual behaviour while under stress. However, Judge Christopher Elwen said Truscott had to be jailed for his “perverted activities [and because he’d] made the home life of the Roth family absolute hell through your bizarre fetish and disgusting behaviour”. The Judge concluded: “The family members live in fear of what you might get up to from time to time. They have constantly to look over their shoulders. Any untoward activity on the farm brings your disgusting behaviour to mind”.
It was back in 2004 that Truscott was first spotted by the family when he was found masturbating in the faeces of the farm’s muck spreader. As the behaviour was not an isolated incident, the family tried to keep their manure spreading equipment clean but Truscott still found ways to make himself a nuisance to the family. When the manure became harder to come by, Truscott took his revenge on the family by setting fire to an animal pen containing the family’s cows and calves in which one of the cows died. The family’s three-year old son was traumatized by the incident and lived in fear that the house where he lived was going to be burned to the ground. Mr Roth’s mother also lived in fear that the farmhouse was going to be the subject of an arson attack. As a consequence, Truscott pleaded guilty and received a three-year prison sentence.
When he was released from prison in 2009, Truscott returned to the family’s farmhouse and was found naked in a pile of manure. He received yet another prison sentence (of 20 weeks) and a restraining order preventing him from stepping foot on the family’s farm. However, this proved ineffective and was broken on a number of subsequent occasions (including one where he immersed himself almost naked inside a large vat of manure inside the farm’s milking parlour. It was also revealed in court that Trsucott owned 360 pairs of women’s knickers and usually slept in ladies’ pyjamas.
Although I only have the various news reports to go on (all the ones I read are listed in the ‘Further reading’ section at the end of this blog), I would make a number of observations. Firstly, the primary sexual attraction appears to be towards animal faeces, therefore he could possibly be classed as a coprophile. Although I have never come across a case of anyone in the academic and clinical literature deriving sexual pleasure from anything other than human faeces, definitions of coprophilia never specify that the faecal matter has to be human. Maybe Truscott’s behaviour could therefore be classed as “zoocoprophilia” (my own word to describe those individuals who derive sexual pleasure and arousal from animal faeces).
Secondly, (and I admit this is highly speculative), it could perhaps be argued that Truscott would classify as a ‘Class V zoosexual’ in Dr. Anil Aggrawal’s recently published new classification of zoophiles. The Class V zoosexual 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. Given that the animal manure appeared to be a critical component in Truscott’s masturbatory activity, maybe he could arguably be classed as a Class V zoosexual.
Thirdly, there is some empirical evidence of an overlap in coprophilia and zoophilia. An earlier study on a sample of paraphiliacs reported that zoophiles appear to engage in many paraphilic behaviours including coprophilia. In a survey of 561 non-incarcerated paraphiliacs seeking treatment, Dr Gene Abel and colleagues reported in an issue of the Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, that all of the 14 zoophiles in their sample reported more than one paraphilia and seven of them reported at least five other paraphilas including coprophilia, urophilia, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, frotteurism, telephone scatophilia, transvestic fetishism, fetishism, sexual sadism, and/or sexual masochism. This also supports the observation that if a person has one paraphilia, they often have others. In the case of Truscott, there was some evidence that he engaged in transvestite sexual behaviour in the fact that he often wore women’s knickers and slept in female nightwear.
Finally, fact that Truscott’s lawyer suggested his client had a form of autism may be an important factor in the behaviour displayed. In a previous blog I wrote on coprophagia (i.e., people that eat faeces, and a behaviour that sometimes overlaps with coprophilia), I noted that various medical and psychological disorders have been identified that are associated with coprophagia including mental retardation and autism.
Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK
Further reading
Abel, G. G., Becker, J. V., Cunningham-Rathner, J., Mittelman, M. S., & Rouleau, J. L. (1988). Multiple paraphilic diagnoses among sex offenders. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 16, 153–168.
Aggrawal, A. (2011). A new classification of zoophilia. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 18, 73-78.
Beck D.A. & Frohberg, N.R. (2005). Coprophagia in an elderly man: a case report and review of the literature. International Journal of Psychiatry Medicine, 35, 417-427.
Crazy News (2011). The pervert who got sexual thrills in cow manure. March 24. Located at: http://weirdcrazynews.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/pervert-who-got-sexual-thrills-in-cow.html
Daily Mirror (2011). Pervert who got sexual thrills in cow manure sent to prison. Daily Mirror, March 24. Located at: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/pervert-who-got-sexual-thrills-in-cow-117998
Evening Standard (2011). Pervert with fetish for cow manure is locked up, March 23. Located at: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/pervert-with-fetish-for-cow-manure-is-locked-up-6384125.html
Ghaziuddin, N. & McDonald, C. (1989). A clinical study of adult coprophagics. British Journal of Psychiatry, 4, 53-54.
Omasiali (2011). Sick white devil repeatedly has sex with cow manure back in jail, May 15. http://omasiali.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/sick-white-devil-repeatedly-has-sex-with-cow-manure-back-in-jail/
Randall, M.B., Vance, R.P., McCalmont, T.H. (1990). Xenolingual autoeroticism. American Journal of Forensic and Medical Pathology, 11, 89-92.
Skruff, J. (2012). Britain’s filthiest sex fiend strikes again, July 18. Located at: http://skrufff.com/2012/07/britains-filthiest-sex-fiend-strikes-again/
White Watch (2011). White man who repeatedly has sex with cow manure back in jail. March 27. Located at: http://whitewatch.info/2011/03/27/white-man-who-repeatedly-has-sex-with-cow-manure-back-in-jail.aspx
Creature comforts: How do zoophiles justify their behaviour?
Regular readers of my blog will know that I don’t shy away from talking about behaviours that some people find abhorrent and/or morally repugnant. I’ve now published around a dozen blogs on zoophilia-related topics and in the process have received some fairly abusive emails from zoophiles who “loathe” and “detest” the articles that I have posted on my blog. Well, here’s a blog that’s also likely to enrage.
I recently came across an interesting zoophilia paper published in a 2011 issue of the journal Deviant Behavior. The paper was entitled ‘Screwing the pooch: Legitimizing accounts in a zoophilia on-line community’ and written by Dr. R.J. Maratea (New Mexico State University, USA). The paper examined “how deviant individuals use Internet technology to communicate accounts that neutralize hostile labels associated with their behaviors”. The data were collected from a zoophilia message board with 550,000 users referred to by a pseudonym (i.e., Zoo Board) throughout the paper. (Having visited a lot of online zoophilia forums in my own research, I could take a fairly educated guess at which forum Dr Maratea collected his data from, but as he took a lot of time in his paper to guarantee the forum’s anonymity I’ll leave it be). Dr. Maratea’s decision to study Zoo Board was threefold. As he argued:
“The decision to use Zoo Board was predicated by three factors: (1) message threads were regularly created and updated, indicating that members are actively involved in the Zoo Board community; (2) the vast membership on Zoo Board meant that a large number of users could potentially post or respond to posted accounts at any given time; and (3) the archival capacity of the message board allows for the cultivation of accounts over an extended period of time. The final research sample was comprised of 87 discussion threads containing 4983 individual posts, which dated back as far as March 4, 2004”.
Dr. Maretea claimed that his data suggest that zoophiles routinely justify their actions through four particular types of argument: (i) denial of injury, (ii) justification by comparison, (iii) claims of benefit, and (iv) condemning of condemners. He also asserts that zoophiles produce what is termed “neutralizing accounts”. More specifically, these three types were categorized as (i) appeals to enlightenment, (ii) claims of cultural diffusion, and (iii) neutralization by comparison.
Denial of injury: This refers to an assertion by zoophiles that their actions are permissible because they did not harm or cause injury to the animals involved.
- Example: “I think a lot of people who have never seen an animal ‘‘ask for sex’’ (and most of us here know, they can and WILL, sometimes very insistently!) assume that we’re performing selfish acts against the animals’ will . . . non-zoos tend to just associate the fact that bestiality is more or less entirely illegal with the assumption that it must horribly hurt the animal, such is life, I’m afraid”.
Justification by comparison: This refers to the justification of zoophilic behaviour by comparison of their behaviour to other worse criminal behaviour (i.e., zoophiles highlight their sense of self-worth by saying that their behaviour is not as bad as other behaviours).
- Example: “I like the way the [media] blatantly link bestiality with pedophilia. I guess what we do is sorta like marijuana, ours is a ‘’gateway’’ type of sexuality. People like to think that zoophilia is a step away from necrophilia, pedophilia, and so on when it’s in no way related”.
Claims of benefit: This refers to zoophiles who claim that not only was the animal not harmed but that their sexual activity with animals was beneficial to the animal and met the animal’s sexual needs.
- Example: “We are all animals at some level, with about the same wants and desires. Your fuzzy friend loves getting his rocks off or her world rocked just as much as you do! This is pretty evident to us, but think about it: very few animals are intelligent enough to have sex for fun! I like to think dogs (maybe horses) are among them most of the time. The drive for sex is seen in all living things”.
Condemning of condemners: This refers to the practice of zoophiles condemning those who vilify their zoophilic behaviour. Here, the accusers are viewed as “unfit to judge” or pass comment on zoophilia because the accusers engage in behaviour that is equally as bad. Zoophiles denounce “conventional society as hypocritical for demonizing zoophilia. Some claimants argue that normals tend to callously abuse the very animals they allegedly seek to protect”.
- Example: “A neighbor of mine crates their dog (puppy), all day in their backyard. Totally neglects the dog. I called animal control as the weather is getting cold. Makes me sad that this happens all the time, everywhere. My amazing dog goes every- where with me. I couldn’t imagine leaving her in the yard in a 3X3 crate with less than 1hr of human contact a day…Some people need to be treated how they treat their pets. Nothing pisses me off like animal/pet neglect. WE chose them, not the other way around”.
Appeals to enlightenment: This refers to zoophiles who try to appeal to enlightenment and justify their zoophilic activity by arguing that “certain behaviors are vilified because larger society is incapable of comprehending the appropriateness of those actions”.
- Example: “You will run into objections such as: it’s against the law; it’s against religion; it’s perverted; and it’s dirty. All of these issues are artificial and belie a fundamental problem with modern society. We as a nation, as a world, exploit animals for everything from food to companionship. Giving animals or admitting that animals are capable of being in mutual loving relationships puts that world view into serious question”.
Neutralization by comparison: This refers to zoophiles that identify similarities between themselves and “other social groups that have overcome a corresponding deviant identity”. Although this is similar to ‘justification by comparison’ (above) the difference here is that individuals are not ‘‘justifying their actions by comparing their crimes to more serious offenses, but rather neutralizing their deviance via comparison to other historically stigmatized acts and behaviors that have achieved some level of mainstream social acceptance”.
- Example: “For years, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transsexual/transgender people have been fighting a long hard battle for their rights of equality and for the freedom to express their own individual sexuality without the fear of legal prosecution. Personally, I don’t see why practicing zoophiles such as myself and other people here and around the world, [shouldn’t] campaign for the right to legally express our own sexuality too”.
Claims of cultural diffusion: This refers to zoophiles that try to normalize their behaviour through reference to zoophilic acts in popular culture in as a way of showing there is greater mainstream acceptance for their behavior than publicly acknowledged.
- Example: “I think it does seem like more zoo/beasty stuff is popping up in movies and TV lately, usually as jokes on sitcoms and stuff, but still, it puts it out there, exposing people to the idea, making it a bit more familiar. And, slowly, I think the more familiar the idea becomes the more likely it is to become gradually more accepted”.
Although I’m a psychologist, I still appreciate the contribution that sociology can make in the field of sexual paraphilias. As Dr. Maratea argues, traditional sociological theory has examined how those classed as ‘deviants’ manage their day-today identity and stigmatization from non-deviants. However, online communities such as the ones at Zoo Board allow virtual anonymity and facilitate those who were once isolated to meet like-minded individuals (albeit virtually) who validate their own behaviour and experiences. As Dr. Maratea concludes:
“On Zoo Board, accounts are regularly disseminated that normalize zoophilia by constructing alternative dialogues that challenge the mainstream social discourse that defines animal sex as deviant. To this end, the messages and themes contained in neutralizing accounts reveal much about the social organization of the Zoo Board community, and the individual and collective identity work that takes place therein”.
Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK
Further reading
Beetz, A.M. (2000, June). Human sexual contact with animals: New insights from current research. Paper presented at the 5th Congress of the European Federation of Sexology, Berlin.
Beirne, P., 1997. Rethinking bestiality: towards a concept of interspecies sexual assault. Theoretical Criminology, 1, 317–340.
Miletski, H. (2000). Bestiality and zoophilia: An exploratory study. Scandinavian Journal of Sexology, 3, 149–150.
Miletski, H. (2001). Zoophilia – implications for therapy. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 26, 85–89.
Miletski, H. (2002). Understanding bestiality and zoophilia. Germantown, MD: Ima Tek Inc.
R.J. Maratea (2011). Screwing the pooch: Legitimizing accounts in a zoophilia on-line community. Deviant Behavior, 32, 918-943.
Williams, C. J., & Weinberg, M. S. (2003). Zoophilia in men: A study of sexual interest in animals. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 523–535.
Surf emancipation: Using the internet to study zoophilia
I have just had a paper published in the latest issue of the Journal of Behavioral Addictions that outlines the advantages, disadvantages, and other implications of using the Internet to collect data from those people displaying sexually paraphilic behaviour. Up until around 2000, paraphilic behaviour had been relatively little studied outside of published case studies. However, in my new paper I have argued that the internet has provided a new arena in which researchers can collect data from people in much easier ways than prior to the introduction of online technologies. Probably the most used online data collection method for studying paraphilic behaviour is the online questionnaire. Typically in these types of study, online questionnaires are publicized and placed at online paraphilia forums. These forums are a convenient way to communicate information between paraphiliacs.
I argued in my latest paper that the one particular paraphilia where researchers have arguably made the most use of the internet for both recruitment and data collection is that of zoophilia. As Dr. Christopher Earls and Dr. Martin Lalumiere noted in a 2009 issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior, almost all data on zoophiles since 2000 have come from online recruitment. There have been three notable quantitative studies of zoophilia among non-clinical (i.e., community) samples. This includes studies by Dr. Andrea Beetz (in 2004 with 32 zoophiles), Dr. Colin Williams and Dr. Martin Weinberg (2003; 114 zoophiles), and Dr. Hani Miletski (2004; 93 zoophiles). It could be argued that none of these data sets would have been possible without the advent of the internet, and the internet sites devoted to bestiality and zoophilia. Research into zoophilia via online data collection demonstrated that online samples provided different results to previously reported case studies. Unlike the relatively few published case accounts, online zoophilic studies suggested that there were both men and women who had clear preferences for zoophilic activities and that the behaviour was not a substitute for the absence of other humans in the locality. Online zoophilic studies also showed that far from suffering any kind of mental abnormality or psychiatric condition, that many zoophiles lived both happy and productive lives.
The Internet can also be a rich and complex resource of textual material. As such, it can be invaluable to those researchers interested in specific experiences of particular individuals such as zoophilia. Included in the lived experiences of zoophiles are perceptions, beliefs and feelings, all of which are made sense of by the individual through the process of meaning making. Online forums are often the first port of call for zoophiles to contact and meet other like-minded people. However extreme the sexual behaviour is, the internet arguably provides the best medium in which to facilitate people’s sexual desires. Some of the most interactive and textually rich parts of the Internet are numerous zoophilic forums. Zoophilic forums typically comprise interactive sites where messages can be left or particular topics discussed in real time. These sorts of data are naturalistic and can be collected without identifying oneself as a researcher or even acknowledging a researcher’s presence
In order to understand the nature of the bestiality subculture online, Dr. Robert Jenkins and Dr. Alexander Thomas in their 2004 book Deviance Online: Portrayals of Bestiality on the Internet studied 100 forum websites dedicated to the portrayal of bestiality. The authors claimed that the advent of the internet had facilitated the networking among and marketing to a subculture of participants across time and space. All 100 websites were selected and coded and fell into three main types. These were ‘pornography’ (i.e., sites oriented toward those who enjoyed viewing or participating in bestiality; 80% of the sites), ‘community building’ (i.e., sites oriented toward providing news or encouraging communication among fellow bestiality practitioners and sympathizers; 7%), and ‘exhibitionism’ (sites oriented to showing bestiality for exhibitionist purposes, either as moral judgment or for humour; 9%). The remaining sites were hybrid sites. The authors hypothesized that women would be disproportionately represented on bestiality websites. The study found only one of the 100 websites featured a (human) male in a bestial act (a man receiving fellatio from a goat). They also reported that it was difficult to describe the depictions of women as anything but degrading. They also claim that the:
“The Internet fulfills a similar function as bohemian neighborhoods and red light districts have fulfilled for other (larger) deviant subcultures in the past. By creating a commons for individuals with similar interests and concerns, it is not surprising that a subculture devoted to bestiality has developed”.
Despite the clear advantages of using online forum data to study zoophilic populations (e.g., ease of data collection, cost-efficiency), the collection of zoophilic data by ‘lurking’ (i.e., observing without making presence known) raises some interesting ethical issues. In online research, the lines have become blurred between ‘public’ and ‘private’ spaces. On some level, cyberspace is always a public domain unless specifically designated as private. However, respecting a person’s right to privacy is viewed as a basic ethical requirement of any social science study. Some may argue that it is the perceptions of the participant that defines the domain as public or private, rather than the physicality of the situation. The issue of privacy may become more complicated if the researcher is involved in online participant observation.
Another online methodology that can be utilized to collect data on paraphilic behaviours is online interviewing. Such a methodology is particularly useful for case study research involving paraphiliacs. Online interviewing of zoophiles is advantageous. As with collecting zoophilic data via online questionnaires, online interviewing of zoophiles involves a considerable saving in time for both researchers and participants as there is no travelling involved for either party. Online interviews can also be carried out synchronously (via an instant messenger system) or asynchronously (via email). Asynchronous online interviews may be attractive and convenient for zoophiles allowing them to respond at their own pace and in their own time. Such detailed accounts can also be used to publish case studies that may have not been highlighted in the literature
One of the main advantages with the collection of case study data onlineis that those being interviewed may be very different from those who seek out medical and professional help for their zoophilic behaviour. As with data collected via online surveys, zoophiles divulging information online may be less psychologically disturbed about their behaviour and may be happy and have incorporated their zoophilic behaviour into their day-to-day lives.
Another informative paper in a 2009 issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior was by Dr. Christopher Earls and Dr. Martin Lalumiere (2009) whose recruitment of a zoophile via the internet allowed them to establish the veracity of some of their respondents who contacted them online. For instance, one letter from “Possum” was long and detailed. Earls and Lalumiere noted that embedded within the email was a name. By cross-referencing the name with a number of different data banks (e.g., the Social Sciences Citation Index, Google, and Yahoo), they were able to verify several important demographic aspects of the person who sent the email. Possum soon realized he had inadvertently divulged his identity. Earls and Lalumiere were thus satisfied that the information supplied in the initial email was true and (with the person’s permission) published the case in the Archives of Sexual Behavior.
The utilization of a variety of online research methods can be a useful and practical way of examining many different aspects of zoophilic behaviour. As Earls and Lalumiere correctly noted, paraphiliacs recruited via medical treatment centres will tend to show more general pathology. Paraphiliacs recruited from prison samples will tend to have greater criminal histories, and paraphiliacs recruited online will tend to show better adjustment and perhaps better intellectual skills. Basically, compared to psychiatric patients and inmates, those recruited online would be expected to be computer sophisticated and more open to discussing their sexuality.
Zoophiles’ familiarity with Internet technology – particularly as being online is often the best way to meet and communicate with other like-minded people – along with the anonymity of the media, may facilitate and enhance such studies being undertaken. The main disadvantages of online methodologies (such as self-selecting samples, issues concerning reliability and validity) are no different to those encountered in more conventional offline research methodologies.
Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK
Further reading
Beetz, A. M. (2004). Bestiality/zoophilia: A scarcely investigated phenomenon between crime, paraphilia, and love. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 4, 1-36.
Earls, C.M. & Lalumiere, M.L. (2009). A case study of preferential bestiality Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 605-609.
Griffiths, M. D. (2010). The use of online methodologies in data collection for gambling and gaming addictions. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 8, 8-20.
Griffiths, M.D. (2012). The use of online methodologies in studying paraphilia: A review. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 1, 143-150.
Jenkins, R.E. & Thomas, A.R. (2004). Deviance Online: Portrayals of Bestiality on the Internet. New York: Center for Social Science Research.
Kim, P., & Bailey, M. (1997). Sidestreets on the information superhighway: Paraphilias and sexual variations on the Internet. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 22, 35-43.
Mangan, M. A. & Reips, U. (2007). Sleep, sex, and the Web: Surveying the difficult-to-reach clinical population suffering from sexsomnia. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 233-236.
Miletski, H. (2000). Bestiality/zoophilia: An exploratory study. Scandinavian Journal of Sexology, 3, 149-150.
Miletski, H. (2005). Is zoophilia a sexual orientation? A study. In A. M. Beetz & A. L. Podberscek (Eds.), Bestiality and zoophilia: Sexual relations with animals (pp. 82–97). Ashland, IN: Purdue University Press.
Mustanski, B.S. (2001). Getting wired: Exploiting the Internet for the collection of sexually valid data. Journal of Sex Research, 38, 292–301.
Williams, C. J., & Weinberg, M. S. (2003). Zoophilia in men: A study of sexual interests in animals. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 523–535.
Wood, R. T. A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2007). Online data collection from gamblers: Methodological issues. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 5, 151–163.
Turtle shell shock: Emysphilia and the paraphilia that never was
Regular readers of my blog will be aware that I have written a number of blogs on zoophilia-related topics. This has included blogs on zoophilia in general, zoophilia classification, zoosadism (sexual pleasure from being sadistic to animals), necrobestiality (sex with dead animals), and very specific forms of zoophilia including delphinophilia (sex with dolphins), herpetophilia (sex with lizards), ophidiophilia (sex with snakes), ornithophilia (sex with birds including avisodomy), musophilia (sexual stimulation from mice including felching), formicophilia (sexual stimulation from insects), and melissophilia (sexual stimulation from bees and bee stings).
There are also loads of specific types of zoophilia that I have yet to devote a whole blog to. Dr. Anil Aggrawal’s Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices list of zoophilia subtypes also includes (in alphabetical order) aelurophilia (sex with cats), arachnephilia (sexual arousal from spiders), batrachophilia (sexual arousal from frogs), cynophilia (sex with dogs), and phthiriophilia (sexual arousal from lice). However, while I was idly researching another blog, I came across a Wikipedia reference to emysphilia. I repeat it here in full:
“Emysphilia (or Turtle Fetish) is a rare sexual fetish in which the practitioner experiences sexual arousal from visual and tactile stimuli relating to turtles and tortoises. It was first discovered by Dr. Daniel Schechner of the University of Hawaii in 1959. Dr. Schechner dedicated a brief portion of his monograph The Varieties of Sexual Experience to this fetish. In the book, he mentions a native Hawaiian islander, known to the reader as ‘Mr. Gor’ who confesses ‘a strong sexual attraction to creatures belonging to the order Testudines’ (2 Schechner 387). Dr. Schechner’s encounter with ‘Mr. Gor’ also finds a brief place in his autobiography No Dull Flesh (1 Schechner 261). Since Dr. Schechner’s discovery, little research has been done on this disorder. As of yet, the American Psychiatric Association, which publishes the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR), has not recognized the turtle fetish as a legitimate disorder. References: Schechner, Daniel, M.D. No Dull Flesh. Honolulu: UH Press, 1974. Schechner, Daniel, M.D. The Varieties of Sexual Experience. Honolulu: UH Press, 1959. This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article “Emysphilia”. This Link may die if entry is finally removed or merged”.
It all sounded very convincing including hyperlinks to the author and his university. However, when I tried to examine this particular paraphilia more closely, I soon discovered that there was no such paraphilia as emysphilia and that it’s existence had been faked. I then read a really interesting article on the topic written by June Torbati in a 2007 issue of the Yale Daily News. She provided the background to the fake paraphilia and tied it to a story about student “dependence” on Wikipedia.
Torbati tracked down the author – Johan Behan – of the Wikipedia entry on emysphilia who admitted it was “totally absolutely fake”. The names of the people in the article were his college room-mates (Dan Schechner and Ankit Gor). Behan claimed to have invented the word ‘emysphilia’ (allegedly basing it on the Greek word for turtle, although I checked this out and that doesn’t seem to be the case although the suffix ‘emys’ does appear in many turtle names such as ‘Chubutemys’, ‘Hangaiemys’ and ‘Judithemys’). Torbarti also reported that:
“Behan said he has created many fake articles for Wikipedia, the most successful of which was the entry on emysphilia. To ensure others would find the article believable, Behan said, he had to do more than just write one entry on ‘emysphilia’ including creating several others relating to the fake fetish. ‘It’s an art of creating a web of phoniness’ he said. Additionally, striking an academic tone was important to creating an air of legitimacy. ‘You need to write it in a way that makes it sounds like it’s something possible’ Behan said. “If you write it like an authoritative pronouncement it tends to work better”.
Torbati claimed that Wikipedia’s editorial system (or rather lack of it) had American professors “concerned that students are citing incorrect information in their academic work”. Torbati interviewed a Yale history professor – Michael Gasper – who had banned the use of Wikipedia as a source of information for his students’ essays.
Any of my regular blog readers will know that I often use Wikipedia as a source of information (although I typically quote verbatim from it and allow readers to make there own judgment about the veracity of any claims made). Personally, I think Wikipedia is a great starting place but wherever possible I like to cite from academically published journal papers. It’s also worth noting that what starts off as a joke may take on legitimate academic currency. For instance, ‘Internet Addiction Disorder’ was originally proposed as a psychiatric disorder by Dr. Ivan Goldberg in the mid-1990s. However, his original online article was a satirical hoax.
I was one of the academics who cited Goldberg’s hoax criteria in a paper I published in Clinical Psychology Forum back in 1996. I was criticized for this by Dr. Susan Hansen in a paper she published in a 2001 issue of the Journal of Critical Psychology, Counselling and Psychotherapy. However, in my reply to her paper, I did point out that I had been writing about internet addiction a year before Goldberg published his hoax criteria, and that the hoax criteria had created a lot of academic debate which subsequently led to a lot of research in the area. I have absolutely no idea if ‘emysphilia’ will ever gain academic or clinical legitimacy, but based on the case of Ivan Goldberg’s hoax, you never know.
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.
Aggrawal, A. (2011). A new classification of zoophilia. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 18, 73-78.
Griffiths, M.D. (1996). Internet addiction: An issue for clinical psychology? Clinical Psychology Forum, 97, 32-36.
Griffiths, M.D. (2001). The pathologification of excessive internet use: A reply to Hansen. Journal of Critical Psychology, Counselling and Psychotherapy, 1, 85-90.
Torbati, J. (2007). Profs question students’ Wikipedia dependency. Yale Daily News,February 27. Located at: http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2007/feb/07/profs-question-students-wikipedia-dependency/
Wikidumper (2006). Emysphilia. December 29. Located at: http://wikidumper.blogspot.co.uk/2006/12/emysphilia.html
Dead creature feature: A brief look at necrobestiality
Back in October 2006, many American papers reported the case of Ronald Kuch, a 44-year old man from Michegan who was jailed for having sex with a dead dog. The incident was seen by a number of people included staff members of a nearby day care centre and the police. A summarized account of the incident at the Pet Abuse website reported that:
“Kuch was arrested after police searched the area of Midland and Carter roads on Oct 20 for a man who ran away from a Bay County Animal Control officer. The entire incident was within view of a nearby day care center…Kuch is charged with crimes against nature and assaulting a law enforcement officer. Troopers said a woman from the day care center called for animal control because there was a dead dog near the property that had been hit by a car several days earlier. Before officers could arrive, the man showed up and began engaging in sexual acts with the dog, police said. The animal control officer also reported seeing Kuch involved in the sex act and as he approached him, Kuch shoved him away and ran off… [Police officers] later learned that the dog, a black Labrador retriever, belonged to [Kuch’s] girlfriend. The dog had been dead for four or five days”.
Dr. Brenda Love in her Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices defines necrobestialism as referring to those individuals who derive sexual arousal and pleasure from having sex with dead animals. According to Dr. Love, this may include ‘bestial sadists’ who kill before or during the torture of animals, as well as those who choose to have sex with animals that they already find dead. A 2011 paper (that I examined in a previous blog on different types of necrophilia) by Dr Anil Aggrawal (Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi, India) in the Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine proposed a new classification of zoophilia including those individuals who had sex with dead animals. One of the ten sub-types (so called ‘Class IX zoosexuals’) comprises ‘homicidal bestials’ who need to kill animals in order to have sex with them (i.e., necrozoophiles). Dr. Aggrawal reports that although capable of having sex with living animals, there is an insatiable desire among Class IX zoosexuals to have sex with dead animals.
The act of humans having sex with dead animals appears to be incredibly rare. What’s more, the reason for engaging in such acts may not even be sexually motivated. For instance, Brenda Love’s entry on necrobestiality in her Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices noted that:
“The Suaheli and Arabian fishermen along the coast of Africa until a hundred years ago believed that unless they had anal sex with the sea cows that they netted or that had washed up dead they would be dragged out to sea the next day and drowned by the sea cow’s dead sister. Many locals would therefore make these fishermen swear by the Koran that they did not have sex with the sea cow they were selling at the local market”.
There was no reference in Love’s book as to where the evidence was for this practice but given the thorough job she did on most entries in her encyclopedia, I have no reason to think this practice was untrue.
There are more recent examples of humans having sex with sea animals. One British tabloid newspaper reported that a 46-year old man (Andrew Dymond) was caught with a picture of a man having sex with a dead squid along with pictures of child pornography and other zoophilic pornographic acts (including humans having sex with dogs and horses). After Dymond’s home computer had been seized by police, they found a large amount of “grossly offensive” pornography on it including someone “performing an act of intercourse with a dead animal, namely an octopus/squid, which was grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character”.
In a 2006 book chapter on paraphilic crime signatures, Dr. William Hickey reported that the serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer collected animal roadkill, dissected the remains, and masturbated over the animals he had cut up, because he “found the glistening viscera of animals sexually arousing”. In Dr. Louis Schlesinger’s book on sexual murder, it was reported that: “Dahmer dissected roadkill, butchered small animals, nailed cats and frogs to trees behind his house, and once put a dog’s head on a stick”. Aggrawal also reported the case of 20-year old Bryan Hathaway from Superior, Wisconsin (USA) who in 2006 was arrested for having sex with a dead deer. Hathaway’s case is arguably the most notorious case of necrobestiality in recent times as the case was reported by the worldwide mass media. The case also raised lots of legal, moral and ethical questions over whether a dead animal was really an animal.
Hathaway was charged with ‘sexual gratification with an animal’, but his legal team argued that the deer carcass wasn’t an animal and that the legal statutes do not prohibit an individual from having sex with a carcass. One of Hathaway’s legal team, Fredric Anderson, said that “If you try to include corpses in the category of ‘animals’, then ‘you really go down a slippery slope with absurd results”. For instance, would the picked-over skeletal remains of a dead animal still meet the definition of an animal? Mr. Anderson said that if the carcass was defined as an animal, it would therefore be illegal to have sex with frozen meat or a roast turkey. The state prosecutor James Broughner argued that a deer carcass was still an animal because in Hathaway’s own personal statement he had admitted to having sexual relations with a ‘dead deer’ indicating that Hathaway still thought of it as an animal. He also added that pet owners still call their deceased pets animals after death. In March 2007, Hathaway was given probation rather than a prison sentence However, it was then revealed that Hathaway was given a 9-month prison sentence for killing a horse so that he could have sex with it.
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.
Aggrawal, A. (2011). A new classification of zoophilia. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 18, 73-78.
Coles, J. (2010). Perv ‘had pics of sex with squid’. The Sun, March 4. Located at: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2878375/Perv-had-pics-of-sex-with-squid.html
Hickey, E.W (2006). Paraphilia and signatures in crime scene investigation. In Hickey, E.W. (Ed.), Sex crimes and Paraphilia (pp.95-107). New Jersey: Pearson.
Love, B. (2001). Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices. London: Greenwich Editions.
Pet Abuse (2007). Sex with dead dog, assaulting an ACO Freeland, MI (US). Located at: http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/9867/MI/US/#ixzz22CLTh2Kx
Schlesinger, L. (2004). Sexual Murder. New York: CRC Press.
Metro (2006). Man has sex with dead deer. Located at: http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/25475-man-has-sex-with-dead-deer
The Smoking Gun (2006). Can you get dear with a dead deer? November 16. Located at: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/can-you-get-dear-dead-deer
Steel, K. (2006). 101 uses for a dead deer. In The Middle, November 16. Located at: http://www.inthemedievalmiddle.com/2006/11/101-uses-for-dead-deer.html
Steel, K. (2007). 101 uses for a dead dog. In The Middle, February 27. Located at: http://www.inthemedievalmiddle.com/2007/02/101-uses-for-dead-dog.html
Verbruggen, R. (2006). Lawyer: necrophilia and animal bestiality are two different things. Minnesota News, November 16. Located at: http://www.bloggernews.net/12188
The fin crowd: A brief look at delphinophilia
Of all the books about zoophilic activity, one of the strangest is Wet Goddess, a novel by Malcolm Brenner based on his nine-month sexual relationship with a dolphin living at the Floridaland amusement park. Back in 1970, while studying at New College of Florida (Sarasota), Brenner had a relationship with a dolphin called Dolly. Brenner claims the dolphin made the first moves in their relationship. I have to admit that when it comes to dolphins and human sex, the only thing that came to mind before researching this article is the phrase “waxing the dolphin” one of the many euphemisms for male masturbation.
In a 2011 interview with the Huffington Post, Brenner said that Dolly became “more and more aggressive. She would thrust herself against me. I found that extraordinarily erotic. It’s like being with a tiger or a bear. This is an animal that could kill you in two seconds if it wanted to”. Brenner claimed the relationship ended when Dolly was moved to an oceanarium following the closure of the amusement park in Florida where Dolly was housed. In his interview he further added:
“I had every intention of going to visit the dolphin when I got back to the South, but it didn’t work out that way. I learned the hard way that dolphins are chattel, and much more emotionally vulnerable than I had ever imagined…Some people find it hard to imagine that I wasn’t abusing the animal. They didn’t see me interacting with the dolphin. They weren’t there. These creatures basically have free will. What is repulsive about a relationship where both partners feel and express love for each other? I know what I’m talking about here because after we made love, the dolphin put her snout on my shoulder, embraced me with her flippers and we stared into each other’s eyes for about a minute. This was not some dog trying to hump my leg, okay. This was a 400-lb. wild-born female dolphin. She was an awesome creature…As self-aware mammals, dolphins are capable of making profound emotional attachments to other dolphins and, apparently, to selected humans as well. A dolphin can die of loneliness, of a broken heart, of separation anxiety.”
Brenner’s story may be not as unique as one might first imagine. In 1991, a 38-year old British man, Alan Cooper, was accused of masturbating a tamed dolphin (called Freddie) in front of a number of swimmers in Northumbria (England), and charged with performing a “lewd act”. At Cooper’s trial, expert witnesses testified that male dolphins use their penile erections socially as well as sexually. As a consequence, Cooper was acquitted as it couldn’t be proved that the act was sexual. However, there are a range of websites that give practical advice on how to have sex with a dolphin, and how to tell if they want sex (such as the Sexwork website) as well as websites devoted totally to dolphin lovers (such as the Delphinophile website). There are also dozens of online confessions about either having sex (or wanting to have sex) with dolphins on the Beast Forum (be warned, these are very sexually explicit and all involve zoophilic activity). A recent online essay also examined the case of ‘Dragon-wolfe’, a self-confessed delphinophile who reported that:
““[Dolphins] enjoy the company of humans, and if a relationship develops between a human and a dolphin, as has happened with me, they will, on occasion, wish to express their trust and affection for you in the most direct way; through mating, or sex-play…One thing to note. Whether you masturbate or mate a fin, male or female, always spend time with them afterwards. Cuddle them, rub them, talk to them and most importantly show them you love them. This is essential, as it helps to strengthen the bond between you. Like a way of saying that this wasn’t just a one night fling. The dolphins appreciate it and they will want your company more the next time you visit them”.
So what do academics have to say about delphinophilia? The most recent studies of zoophilia since 2000 have typically collected their data online from non-clinical samples. This has included studies by Dr Andrea Beetz (University of Erlangen, Germany; 32 zoophiles), Dr Colin Williams and Dr Martin Weinberg (of Indiana University, USA; 114 zoophiles), and Dr Hani Miletski (Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, San Francisco, USA; 93 zoophiles). In all three studies, the most commonly preferred animals were either dogs or horses. However, sex with dolphins was not unheard of in these samples. For instance, the study of 114 zoophiles by Williams and Weinberg notes that one of the zoophiles had engaged in delphinophilia. Similarly, the study by Beetz also found one person whose preferred animal to have sex with was a dolphin. She also reported that when it came to animals favoured in masturbation fantasies, a total of two people (7%) favoured dolphins. In a interview with seven erotic dancers, Tim Keefe interviewed the ‘Manx Minx’ who as part of her interview admitted that:
“Currently, my favorite non-human fantasy has to do with going to Marine World and getting a job as an underwater mermaid and having the dolphins try to get me when I go in to feed them after the place closes. I majorly want to have sex with a dolphin, and I don’t know if I will ever get the chance. That’s my big quirk fantasy for the moment. They’re so smart, they must be good lovers, you know”.
If you really want to read about examples of human-dolphin sex, then check out an article on delphinophilia at the Vivid Random Existence website. There is a long online essay collating human’s experiences of having sex with dolphins. The author – a self-admitted zoophile – makes the following observations (ones which I feel duty bound to point out that I don’t personally agree with):
“There is nothing wrong with having sex with dolphins, so long as the dolphin consents to sex. As discussed in other posts, animals can consent to sex by using body language; they do not need to speak a human language to communicate what they want and don’t want. In addition, it is very clear when a dolphin does and does not want to have sex. And according to Internet sources, people have personally experienced dolphins becoming aroused at the sight of a human…People have had sex with dolphins, and from what these people described, both participants (the human and the dolphin) were satisfied by their blissful interactions…Additionally, remember that dolphins themselves are often sexually attracted to humans, in a phenomenon known as ‘reverse bestiality’. They have been known to demonstrate their attraction by making their bodies turn a pinkish color, and through certain behaviors. Of course, due to the taboo associated with bestiality and zoophilia, the ‘reverse bestiality’ dolphin fact will probably never be discussed by the mainstream media”.
My own brief look at delphinophilia certainly comes to the conclusion that it exists among a small minority of zoophiles, and that this has been confirmed by academic researchers in the zoophilia field. However, as I wrote in a my previous blog on herpetophilia (i.e., zoophilic activity between humans and lizards), the animals cannot give informed consent, so therefore such sexual activity is morally wrong. I am in agreement with Dr. Denise Herzing (of the Wild Dolphin Project in the US) who was reported as saying:
“Glorifying human sexual interactions with other species is inappropriate for the health and well being of any animal. It puts the dolphin’s own health and social behavioral settings at risk.”
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.
Beetz, Andrea (2002). Love, Violence, and Sexuality in Relationships between Humans and Animals. Germany: Shaker Verlag.
Brenner, M. (2009). Wet Goddess. Eyes Wide Open.
Farrier, D. (2011). Dolphin man Malcolm Brenner follow-up Q&A. 3 News, September 23. Located at: http://www.3news.co.nz/Dolphin-man-Malcolm-Brenner-follow-up-QA/tabid/1072/articleID/227046/Default.aspx
Goebel, J. (2012). Zoophilia: Thinking through trans-species sexuality. A Geology of Borders, March 30. Located at: http://ageologyofborders.wordpress.com/2012/03/30/zoophilia-thinking-through-trans-species-sexuality/
Keefe, T. (2005). Some of my best friends are naked: Interviews with seven erotic dancers. In R. Kick (Ed.), Everything You Know About Sex is Wrong (pp.191-205). New York: The Disinformation Company.
McCormack, S. (2011). Malcolm Brenner Chronicles his sexual relationship with dolphin in ‘Wet Goddess’. Huffington Post, September 29. Located at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/23/malcolm-brenner-dolphin_n_974764.html
Vivid Random Existence (2010). Delphinic zoosexuality (or zoophilia): The sexual attraction to dolphins. December 5. Located at: http://vividrandomexistence.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/delphinic-zoosexuality-or-zoophilia-the-sexual-attraction-to-dolphins/
Wikipedia (2012). Zoophilia and the law. Located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law
Williams, C. J., & Weinberg, M. S. (2003). Zoophilia in men: A study of sexual interest in animals. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 523–535.
See you later alligator: A beginner’s guide to herpetophilia
In previous blogs I have examined various sub-types of zoophilia including ornithophilia (sexual attraction to birds) and formicophilia (sexual attraction to insects). It wasn’t until very recently, that I came across an article on herpetophilia that according to the online Urban Dictionary is “the sexual attraction to reptiles, commonly dinosaurs or anthropomorphic lizards”. There is a fairly active online community of herpetophiles including herpy.net (with lots of discussion topics such as “How to please a reptile”). The dinosaur-loving herpetophiles can be found interacting with each other on sites like Lava Dome Five where there is an overt crossover between herpetophilia and macrophilia (i.e., sexual arousal from giants – in this case giant lizards in the form of dinosaurs).
One 2012 online essay I read on the Vivid Random Existence (VRE) website claimed that there was a new emergent form of zoosexuality – human sexual attraction towards lizards (and in particular, monitor lizards) – a subcategory of herpetophilia. It was claimed by VRE that the “lizards of choice” for herpetophilic zoophiles were either the Varanus Salvator (a water monitor lizard) and the Nile Monitor. So you can get an idea of the person putting forward these views, the unnamed VRE author is a 20-year old man who describes himself as the following:
“I am bisexual and zoosexual – I am sexually attracted to multiple genders and multiple species (in other words, I am sexually attracted to male humans, female humans, male non-human animals and female non-human animals). When it comes to sexual attraction, the creature’s gender and species are irrelevant to me. However, I am only attracted to a few species (maybe about 7 or 8)”.
The VRE essay then goes on to talk about the sexual ethics of lizard relationships. VRE claims that lizards do not pair bond in the way that many mammals do and asks the very specific question:
“Is it ethical for a human to have sex with a monitor lizard, even if that lizard only ‘tolerates’ the sex and neither enjoys nor dislikes it? From a utilitarian perspective (a perspective adopted by philosophers such as Peter Singer), there is nothing wrong with having sex with a monitor lizard, so long as no harm occurs…With large animals like horses, such human-horse sexual interactions are clearly acceptable under this philosophy – for example, even if a horse has a neutral opinion regarding sexual encounter with a human, the fact that the horse is larger than the human automatically means that physical ‘abuse’ is less likely to occur to the horse”.
The VRE website also claimed in a previous 2010 online essay (Zoosexuality: Should it be considered acceptable?) that the smaller the animal is, the less ethical the activity becomes. VRE then goes on to say that Nile monitor lizards and Komodo dragons are big enough to accommodate human genitalia but that humans having sex with smaller lizards would be unethical due to anatomical incompatibility. A 2011 VRE essay also claims that there are a sub-group of zoophiles that are sexually attracted to alligators and crocodiles, and that some owners of pet alligators or crocodiles have active sexual relationships with them. The “proof” of this claim was based on a video circulating among online zoophile forums (but I’ve not seen it myself). VRE describes the film’s contents:
“The human in the video is male, and the alligator in the video is also male. The human male is seen anally penetrating the male alligator, who is flipped upside down; the fact that the gator has an erection (and the fact that the gator is not tearing the man to pieces) suggests that the alligator is tolerant of (or possibly even enjoys) the sexual relationship with the human”
The issue of whether it is ethically wrong to have sex with a crocodile is again raised (along with the issue of how dangerous the activity is to start with. In the 2012 essay, VRE then says:
“Many have claimed that zoosexuality is wrong on the grounds that it is physically abusive. Although sex with animals can be abusive depending on the size of the animal, it can also not involve any abuse. In other words, it all depends on the size of the animal, and whether or not it is compatible with a human…When considering other species, it is important to realize that some species are too small for humans to engage in sex with”.
The article also quotes from philosopher Peter Singer’s online essay Heavy Petting (published on the nerve.com website) in which Singer (Princeton University, US) reviews Midas Dekkers’ Dearest Pet. Singer wrote that:
“Some men use hens as a sexual object, inserting their penis into the cloaca, an all-purpose channel for wastes and for the passage of the egg. This is usually fatal to the hen, and in some cases she will be deliberately decapitated just before ejaculation in order to intensify the convulsions of its sphincter. This is cruelty, clear and simple…But sex with animals does not always involve cruelty. Who has not been at a social occasion disrupted by the household dog gripping the legs of a visitor and vigorously rubbing its penis against them? The host usually discourages such activities, but in private not everyone objects to being used by her or his dog in this way, and occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop”
I can’t say I agree with any of these arguments, as my own view is that sex should always be consensual and inter-species sexual activity is always non-consensual. Being “cruelty-free” does not make sexual activity with animals an acceptable activity. Singer’s arguments suggest that some animals (e.g., dogs) can engage in cruelty-free sex with humans and that no party is harmed. I can think of (admittedly extreme) scenarios where sex between humans could take place where neither party is harmed but it doesn’t mean it is morally acceptable. For instance, a human who has sex with a deceased person (i.e., a necrophile) technically does no harm to either party but that doesn’t make it acceptable. There is also the scenario that appeared in Quentin Tarantino’s Kill Bill where men had sex with Uma Thurman’s character while she was in a coma. Again, this might be perceived by some as “cruelty-free”, but the common denominator in both these extreme situations is that the sex was non-consensual.
Another related paraphilia to herpetophilia, and sub-category of zoophilia, is that of ophidiophilia that is defined in Dr. Anil Aggrawal’s Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices as a sexual attraction to snakes). There are some really quite bizarre snake sexuality websites including those where there is a crossover with vorarephilia (i.e.. sexual arousal from the idea of being eaten, eating another person, or observing this process for sexual gratification). This seems a logical crossover given that snakes swallow their prey whole (check out the Snake Eats website if you don’t believe me).
An act often associated with ophidiophilia is ophidicism. This is where women voluntarily insert snakes (and sometimes eels) tail first into their vagina to get sexual pleasure as it wriggles free. There are also stories of both men and women allegedly receiving sexual pleasure from snakes wriggling free following anal insertion. Acts of ophidicism have been documented going back to Ancient Greek times. Dr. Brenda Love in her Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices also says the practice was prevalent in Roman times except the women put snakes into their vaginas head first. There are more recent references to the activity in the psychological literature including a case study reported in a 1964 issue of the International Journal of Psychoanalysis by Austrian psychoanalyst Dr. Melitta Sperling.
VRE claims that in the case of animals like snakes, only certain sexual acts with them would be considered abusive. VRE asserts that ophidicism is unethical, and that penile penetration of snakes that are physically incompatible with humans (in terms of size) is animal abuse. However, there are some acts that VRE believes could still be ethical involving snakes (e.g., oral sex – although it wasn’t clear whether that was a human performing oral sex on a snake, vice-versa, or either).
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.
Aggrawal, A. (2011). A new classification of zoophilia. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 18, 73-78.
Love, B. (2001). Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices. London: Greenwich Editions.
Singer, P. (2001). Heavy petting. Located at: http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001—-.htm
Sperling, M. (1964). A case of ophidiophilia: A clinical contribution to snake symbolism. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 45, 227-233.
Vivid Random Existence (2010). Zoosexuality: Should it be considered acceptable? July 20. Located at: http://vividrandomexistence.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/zoosexuality-should-it-be-considered-acceptable-or-not/
Vivid Random Existence (2011). Crocodilian zoosexuality (or zoophilia): The sexual attraction to alligators and crocodiles. December 5. Located at: http://vividrandomexistence.wordpress.com/2011/12/05/crocodilian-zoosexuality-or-zoophilia-the-sexual-attraction-to-alligators-and-crocodiles/
Vivid Random Existence (2012). Lizard zoosexuality (or zoophilia): The sexual attraction to lizards. January 13. Located at: http://vividrandomexistence.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/lizard-zoosexuality-or-zoophilia-the-sexual-attraction-to-lizards/
S’tuff love: A beginner’s guide to plushophilia
I’ve only come across one academic reference to plushophilia and that was in a comprehensive list of paraphilias in the 2009 book Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices by Dr.Anil Aggrawal (Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi, India). I also checked out Dr. Brenda Love’s (normally very reliable and all encompassing) Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices but there was nothing on plushophilia at all. Dr. Aggrawal defines plushophilia as a “sexual attraction to stuffed toys or people in animal costume, such as theme park characters”. However, other online sources simply define plushophilia as a sexual paraphilia involving stuffed animals. Sexual and pornographic activities involving animal anthropomorphism (including plushophilia), is known among the plushophile community as ‘yiffing’.
Plushophiles are often referred to as plushies, although as I noted in a previous blog on the Furry Fandom, the term can also refer to stuffed animal enthusiasts who have no sexual interest at all (i.e., people who just love cuddly toys). Because of an infamous 2001 article by George Gurley in the magazine Vanity Fair, plushophilia is often assumed to be a common practice among members of the Furry Fandom. However, survey research has shown this not to be the case. For instance, an old and unpublished survey from data collected in the late 1990s by David J. Rust of 360 members of the furry community (325 respondents from furry conventions and 25 respondents online) suggested less than 1% of them were plushophiles (0.3%).
In a more recent attempt to replicate Rust’s study, Kyle Evans carried out a survey in 2008 on 276 people who self-identified themselves as being furries and who were recruited from furry or furry-related online message boards and forums. Evans reported a much higher prevalence rate of plushophilia (7%) than the study by Rust (although this was still a low prevalence rate suggesting that the overlap between plushophilia and the Furry Fandom is minimal). Evans claimed that because the majority of Rust’s survey was conducted in person at conventions, participants were susceptible to the social desirability bias when it came to plushophilia. Many plushies do not want any association with furries whatsoever.
Many plushophiles are avid collectors of cuddly toys and many began accumulating their collections in childhood (although some have already reached adulthood before their interest in stuffed toys begins). Some plushies are said to be totally obsessed with their hobby and may share behavioural similarities with pathological hoarders. Among a small minority of plushies, the collecting may border on being an obsessive-compulsive disorder. Like many collectors, plushies may focus their collecting behaviour on very specific types of cuddly toy such as teddy bears. For some plushies, their passion for collecting may lead them to careers that involve making and/or trading plush toy animals. The online Wiki Fur website claims that:
“A common practice among plushophiles who are serious collectors is to purchase two of each plushie; one for display and use, and another for safe keeping and preservation. Many plushophiles consider their toys very dear and rarely trade or sell them, even when there are concerns such as limited space and storage”.
As mentioned earlier, a small number of furries consider themselves plushophiles. Some furries and/or plushies have specific animistic beliefs (i.e., a set of beliefs concerning the existence of non-human “spiritual beings”) that cross over into their love of toy animals. Furthermore, for some furries, toy animals are said to serve as representations of totem animals. The Wiki Fur website defines an animal totem as:
“An important symbolic object in furry spirituality used by a person to get in touch with specific qualities found within an animal which the person needs, connects with, or feels a deep affinity toward. Some Furry lifestylers find they draw spiritual energy from a totem animal which guides their lives and causes them to imitate behaviors of that animal”.
Role players among Furry Fandom members may also create characters based on the idea of living toys and stuffed animal characters. Plushies frequently enjoy interacting with furries whose primary avatar is a toy character. However, as the Wiki Fur website asserts “not everyone who enjoys playing as or with such an avatar is necessarily a plushophile or collector of stuffed animals in real life”.
The sexual element of plushophilia has been overplayed and sensationalized by both the print and broadcast media. However, there are plushie sex and dating sites (such as Plushie Love and Plush Yiff), and for those plushies where sex is an important part of their activity, their behaviour has been argued by the Wiki Fur website to be a genuine sexual paraphilia.
“Depending on the individual, sexual stimulation and plush toys may arise from purely sensual enjoyment, may act as an aid for fantasy gratification and physical or mental stimulation alone or with another person, or may have an animistic and spiritual component. For example, some plushophiles who make use of their toys in intimate ways do so with a partner, while others only experience such feelings toward a plush animal that they view as more than an inanimate object. A common practice among sexual plushophiles is to modify a plush toy in order to make it sexually accessible or to minimize damage to it from such use”.
However, Wiki Fur is quick to point out that not all plushies who relate to their toys sexually modify them, and not plushies actually make direct contact with their stuffed toys for intimate stimulation. One infamous plushophile is FoxWolfie Galen who has his own website was interviewed for Salon magazine. He was first asked how he had sex with a stuffed animal:
“Well, none of [my toy animals] have an SPA [strategically placed appendage]. It’s been thought of a couple of times, but part of the difficulty would be constructing one and not having it fall off the plushie. That’s a problem people have dwelled on for a long time. It’s usually just cuddling and rubbing with me. There’s usually no need for the penetration. Most of [my toy animals] don’t have an SPH [strategically placed hole], but some do. It’s not a requirement for me – if’s there I’ll use it, and if not, I’m just as happy without it. It all depends on what you allow happen to them. Some people wear condoms for complete protection”.
Galen has more than a 1000 stuffed animals and he was asked how he chooses his “sexual partners”. He said:
“It’s basically the same as with people,” Galen says in explaining how he chooses his lucky winners. Some you’re attracted to sexually and some you’re not. I’m not interested in just human-human [sex]; it’s gotta be human-plushie-human. The person would have to be interested in plush”.
Academic research is beginning to be carried out on plushophilia (but only in relation to Furry Fandom and/or zoophilia). There are some aspects of plushophilia that might have psychological resonance with pathological collecting and hoarding, but most research is likely to examine the more sexual elements of plushophiles’ lifestyle.
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.
Evans, K. (2008). The furry sociological survey. Located at: http://www.furrysociology.net/report.htm
FoxWolfie Galen’s Plushie Page (2012). Definitions. Located at: http://www.velocity.net/~galen/furrydef.html
Gerbasi, K. C., Paolone, N., Higner, J., Scaletta, L. L., Bernstein, P. L., Conway, S., & Privitera, A. (2008). Furries from A to Z (anthropomorphism to zoomorphism). Society & Animals, 16(3), 197-222.
Hill, D. (2000). Cuddle time: In the world of plushophiles, not all stuffed animals are created equal. Salon, June 19. Located at: http://www.salon.com/2000/06/19/plushies/
Rust, D.J. (2001). The sociology of furry fandom. Located at: http://www.visi.com/~phantos/furrysoc.html
Wiki Fur (2012). Animal totem. Located at: http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Animal_totem
Wiki Fur (2012). Plushophilia. Located at: http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Plushophilia
