Talk:Coprophilia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

cant you put a warning on this page[edit]

you know, some shows and sites have warnings about 'sensitive viewers', warning them away from particularly odious or shocking pages?

i almost literally vomited while reading this page... i think it might be nice if there were a tag, something like {{sensitivty-warning}} or an ESRB-style rating tag system for certain pages....

Seriously. I was a half second away from hurling all over my keyboard.

the only other articles that make me feel that way are the 'piles of human corpses' pages, in various historical battles or genocides.

thank you~~--Decora (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Decora. I'm afraid that we cannot put a warning on the page, per policy on WP:NODISCLAIMERS. You may wish to see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer - essentially, there is stuff you may find offensive, it's an encyclopaedia. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A page about a term that refers to sexual arousal and pleasure from feces is not even remotely "particularly odious or shocking". Seriously. -- obviously not. -- Jibal (talk) 00:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity in Germany[edit]

As far I know (Not being an expert on German pornography, but being from Germany) it is not true that Coprophilia is featured prominently in German pornography? I would really like to know the source of this claim. 132.180.241.108 11:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Me personally, I've watched enough of them. 82.138.217.145 14:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least the most famous "provider" of coprophilia performances, acts, pictures and videos, Miss Cheyenne, is German Hektor 22:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does sound like a fairly bizarre claim to make. Maybe it comes from the South Park movie. :p Hammerite 17:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A torrent site I frequent tends to upload a lot of different types of porn, including coprophilia. Personally it's really not my thing, but I've noticed all the same that a large portion of those uploaded have .GERMAN. in the title. Just anecdotal evidence, however. --Angrycrustacean 06:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To put it in cold facts:brazil, germany, and japan are the most prolific in scat videos, whereas eastern europe and US cater to the shit-not-scat fetish. brazil does farts and afaik they are the only ones.
I believe France is fairly open to this as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Easy morning rebel (talk • contribs) 01:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you get these facts about popularity of this thing? Schoolstage (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I don’t want to know. 2A00:23C5:E08D:8A00:7CE2:5277:D6D2:C685 (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Psychological reasoning[edit]

It would improve the article a great deal if it would mention the psychological reasoning behind coprophilia. 192.115.227.253 12:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It really would, hmm, where could one find that. . . Sexual Fetish text books? Are there any? I'm interested in the psychology behind it now because of that sick two girls one cup video. that was pretty sick. --75.82.107.229 (talk) 09:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two girls one cup is more coprophagia. Easy morning rebel (talk) 01:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the evidence i can gather,part of the attraction of coprophilia comes from the humiliation and shame/taboo of poop.Guys like seeing a chick be okay with something that the average person would find repulsive

Removal of sadomasochism study?[edit]

I find some difficulty with the study in the article. Much of it seems to be only vaguely significant information. Furthermore, it is misleading because it focuses entirely on sadomasochists. Perhaps if there were more studies and psychological information it would fit in, but as is it inaccurately portrays coprophiliacs as sadomasochists by means of exclusion. I propose removing the study until more information can be added to the article. Easy morning rebel (talk) 01:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added the statistical information back in. Do you have another study or reference? I've searched most of the scientific journals and this was the only study on the topic that I could find. I did, however, add a note clarifying that not all coprophiles are necessarily sadomasochists. I'm open to discussing this further if you want and look forward to seeing whatever resources you can come up with. Voyager640 (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually see the usefulness of keeping either of the two studies in the introduction. Coprophilia is not inherently tied to SM anyway, so why even bring it up? I would agree with removing the mention unless you or anybody else sees a compelling reason not to. Zach99998 (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we could clarify the distinctions between coprophiles and coprophiles into sadomascohism without deleting one of the only studies that provides actual statistics. See also their article on sadomasochists into bestiality - they argue that there can be a non-pathological form of bestiality. Voyager640 (talk) 10:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google[edit]

Looks like someone has been messing with Google, this page is now "number 2" on the search for widipedia 82.12.106.84 09:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops that was a typo, nevermind 82.12.106.84 09:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to include Japanese culture of special fecal diet? Something about employing highly educated girls, give them a special diet, then prepare their feces in such a way that it is edible. Thank you.lemean 152.130.6.197 152.130.6.197 20:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just reference any of the Marquis de Sade's books. He did extensive analysis of diet in this context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.131 (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

82.15.17.152[edit]

The IP 82.15.17.152 should be banned because of all the vandalism he's been doing to this entry for the last couple of weeks. Seriously, check the history of both the entry and the discussion. 194.6.246.250 20:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland steamer merge proposal[edit]

No. Not necessary, no need. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming this in in reference to the Cleveland steamer article, why not? -- backburner001 12:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's worthy enough to have an article on its own, for one, and I believe the merge request to be part of a continuing mission to rid wikipedia of notable but offensive sex acts. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I agree with you on the motivations behind the merge proposal. But, setting the motivations aside for the moment, would merging the content from Cleveland steamer be a benefit to the Corprophilia article? I think, despite the bad faith motives for the proposal, it might strengthen this article to merge the content on Cleveland steamer here. Any thoughts? -- backburner001 17:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There may be some information of worth, but I see no reason to deteriorate the Cleveland steamer article for the sake of this one, either. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 17:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right now the Cleveland steamer looks more like a candidate for wiktionary rather than an article. Joffeloff 18:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only because of certain people with different agendas. The article needs help, but eliminating it doesn't make sense to me. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 18:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify on badlydrawnjeff's comment: The content of the article has been removed and limited to one sentence repeatedly by one user who disagrees with the existence of the article. See previous versions of the article to discover the deleted content. -- backburner001 22:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I deleted the content that isn't sourced and probably isn't true anyway. Brian G. Crawford 03:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge I know wikipedia isn't paper, but this should really be merged. It would best to place this in its proper context as a sexual fetish vis-a-vis other similar er.... poo-related sexual acts. Not that I want to know more about it... *bleah* Roodog2k 23:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golden showers redirects to urolagnia, and watersports is a disambiguation page. That makes sense. Likewise Cleveland steamer should redirect to coprophilia. Perverts who like to take a crap on each other for fun is notable, but a specific term for it isn't. I still haven't heard a single reasonable argument for keeping the Cleveland steamer in a separate entry, not in two deletion discussions and not in deletion review. If there's nowhere to merge it to, it probably needs to go back to AfD, since that was one of the suggestions most made in deletion review. I'm a reasonable guy. Tell me why it should be kept separate, because I'd really like to know why. Brian G. Crawford 03:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golden showers probably shouldn't redirect, although it does make a little more sense than this does. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listed for three days and having you and one other person advcating a merger does not consensus make. Let's wait a couple more days before doing this. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge. Cleveland steamer is important for different reasons than the Coprophilia association. --Apyule 16:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge, expand Cleveland steamer is an important item to understand in its own right especially as per its use in pop culture. The lead should include a line that it is a type of coprophilia. When I needed to understand what Cleveland Steamer meant, I came to Wikipedia. I'm disappointed that information is now being blanked and deleted in the name of morality. -MarkBuckles 18:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that a Cleveland Steamer does not require rocking back and forth like a "steam roller". I don't know why this is included, it isn't called a "Cleveland Steamroller". The reason it's called a "Steamer" is because poop is warm when it comes out of your body and "steams" when it hits something cold, because room temperature is generally lower than your 98.6 degree poop. This steamroll stuff is bullshit, some idiot just made that up and added it on. -Mankind716 23:45, 20 Dec 2009 (UTC)

What I want to know, and why I even came to this page is:

Why Cleveland? 2A00:23C5:E08D:8A00:7CE2:5277:D6D2:C685 (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this? https://www.clevelandrange.com/Products/Steamers 

213.205.240.248 (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

space docking[edit]

I needed to know what space docking was and was bemused that it was not on wikipedia. There does seem to have been an article at one time. Neither is the act mentioned in this article. I've been unfortunate enough to view a video of it, so I know it's not a hoax act. So why isn't it on wikipedia? Was it 'wiped':)Merkinsmum 19:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space docking. Schoolstage (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice[edit]

Wouldn't this page be a good place for some interesting pictures, Not! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ajuk (talk • contribs) 08:04, 1 January 2007.

Names of notable coprophiliacs in "See also"?[edit]

Recently, an editor added Mark Oaten to the "see also" section of this article. The change has since been reverted, but it has left me wondering whether or not articles on notable coprophiliacs should be listed in such away. Any thoughts on this matter or links to relevant policy or guidelines are appreciated. Robotman1974 22:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion one way or another, but if I don't see some discussion here rather than continually reverting back and forth between having this in or out I'm going to protect the article with the wrong version.--Isotope23 15:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care for this idiot. But the reference is a violation of WP:LIVING and is not supported by a reliable source. Do you want wikipedia sued for slander? What kind of discussion you want to see with anonymous editors? `'mikka 20:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since the beginning, a better source has been provided at Mark Oaten. I made a post at the noticeboard because I don't know about the validity of the source, I don't know if anyone's taken a look, but we have something better than the satirical paper now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2girls1cup[edit]

On the shock site page someone posted an article on the usuage of chocolate instead of feces in scat porn. Although I don't want to do the work I think this is worth mentioning. It is also worth discussing the usuage of shock images involving scat.Benny Lava

legality?[edit]

Can we get some information on the legality of coprophilia? Where is the act legal and not legal? Where is distributing video of the act legal and not legal? Herorev (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's assumed that it's legal nearly everywhere pornography is legal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Easy morning rebel (talk • contribs) 01:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In Switzerland "Pornography containing human excrement" is fully illegal (source: German Wiki on pornography: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornografie#Schweiz ). Coll (unregistered) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.182.18.48 (talk) 10:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not wrong Switzerland made human excrement and urine legal in 2014, or more specificity those items are not considered "hard pornography" any more.Crozix (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The legality of coprophilia is not black and white. The only time I have read it being illegal outside countries where all pornography illegal was with Marco Fiorito over the film Hungry Bitches where the Unites States filed charges under US obscenity law. But I can't find a conclusion in that story.Crozix (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to add any such reliably sourced information that you can locate. Open-ended requests for others to add information are not useful. -- Jibal (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plate Job[edit]

Since "Plate Job" redirects to this page, why do you idiots keep removing a description of what a plate job is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.10.249 (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was 1\ not cited, and 2\ included a reference to Danny Thomas. That certainly looked like vandalism to me. Incidentally, see WP:CIVIL. HalJor (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tenacious D[edit]

Didn't Tenacious D talk about a cleveland steamer in their song "Rock Your Socks"? --96.240.76.5 (talk) 07:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image[edit]

Can I have some sort of reasonable assurance from someone with some actual power that that pointless shock image isn't going to come back? Normally this sort of thing gets eliminated quickly by people who remove vandalism, but in this particular case certain people seem to be defending it in the name of non-censorship. The most permanent solution would obviously be to delete it, but it's already been proposed for deletion for a possible copyvio, so I'm not sure how much another proposal would help.

I'd like to stop having to monitor the revision history page constantly.

Thanks.

155.33.145.250 (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


That image is a depiction of coprophilia. Wikipedia needs more examples! Just because it's gross doesn't mean it's not a legitimate contribution

I second this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.222.216 (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is prominent on example images, this page looks rather unencyclopedic without an example image.130.56.94.41 (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We need an image of some form really, though in keeping with other sex pages, a cartoon would be preferable. Or at least a less graphic depiction. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.58.185 (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

health comments?[edit]

Could we have a paragraph about the health problems associated with this subject. I understand that feces is one of the most unhealthy things one could come across.

IceDragon64 (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Cleveland Steamer[edit]

I wrote an article about the sexual practice Cleveland Stemaer.--95.114.55.28 (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did. Or at least, someone did with a registered name and not an IP address. However, the new article has no reliable sources and fails to consider that the earlier article (at Cleveland steamer) was merged into this one after some debate (above). If the earlier issues aren't addressed and valid sources provided, this new article will be merged into this one as well. HalJor (talk) 00:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
??? --95.114.252.44 (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell the merge was unsuccessful since I came here to learn what a Cleveland steamer is and I still don't know. To have an article redirect to another (which is not simply a synonym) without mentioning the former really serves no purpose. Skrofler (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dodgy statistics[edit]

Quote: "In a separate article, a subset of 12 men from that study who engaged in bestiality was analyzed and found that 54.5% of the 12 men had engaged in coprophilic behaviors".

I propose removal of any material based on any source which claims anything about 54.5% of 12 people. That must have been some pretty serious BDSM to have resulted in 0.54 of a person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.47.220 (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland steamer[edit]

Cleveland steamer currently redirects to this page following the merging of content into this article, discussed above. At some point since then the merged content has been removed, and the page currently makes no mention of the term. Consequently, the redirect has been nominated for deletion at Redirects for discussion. Your comments are invited at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 10#Cleveland steamer. Thryduulf (talk) 08:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudocoprophilia[edit]

When we mistake hunters and scientists for coprophiles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4108:E200:154:AB57:9171:7B4B (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who the hell wrote this[edit]

Seriously read this:

Although there may be no connection between coprophilia and sadomasochism (SM), the limited data on the former comes from studies of the latter. A study of 164 males in Finland from two SM clubs[4] found that 18.2% had engaged in coprophilia; 3% as a sadist, 6.1% as a masochist, and 9.1% as both. 18% of heterosexuals and 17% of homosexuals in the study pool had tried coprophilia, showing no statistically significant difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals. In a separate article analyzing 12 men who engaged in bestiality, an additional analysis of an 11-man subgroup revealed that 6 had engaged in coprophilic behavior, compared with only 1 in the matched control group consisting of 12 SM-oriented males who did not engage in bestiality.[5]

Can it just be removed? It's so ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.214.118.124 (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"12 men"[edit]

Does it make sense to include this here? Can any study involving only 12 people have any importance in an encyclopedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.70.195.166 (talk) 04:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC) After reading some other comments on the talk page, I've elected to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.70.195.166 (talk) 04:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2021[edit]

Change misspelling 'corophilia' should be 'coprophilia' AstroZEBUS (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — see Special:Diff/1015187980. Thanks, DanCherek (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit requiest on 03 June 2021[edit]

Request to update reference no. 10 to reflect archived URL at http://web.archive.org/web/20071014023406/http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,454147,00.html or else to remove reference entirely. It appears that the link given in the current ref tag is getting a 404- Not Found response. 98.178.191.34 (talk) 05:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 12:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is the following true?[edit]

Is this true? American musician Chuck Berry recorded videos of himself urinating on and engaging in coprophilia with women. In one video, a woman defecates on him after he says "Now it's time for my breakfast.

The sources go to a MTV article, which doesn’t mention this at all, and the other source is spy magazine. If Spy magazine is satirical, then wouldn’t the statement above about Chuck Berry be false? Paige Matheson (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems questionable, I've removed it. Crossroads -talk- 05:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rolling Stone mentions the sex tape, but only describes the urination. Dronebogus (talk) 05:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This Vulture article speaks laudingly of Spy’s journalism as well as its satire and compares it to modern magazines like Slate: https://www.vulture.com/2011/04/digging-into-the-archives-of-spy.html I think it’s inaccurate to describe Spy as just being something akin to Brass Eye or The Onion. I’m re-adding the information with the MTV cite removed. Dronebogus (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coprophilia&oldid=1206790660"