A crush fetish is a fetish and a paraphilia in which one is sexually aroused when someone crushes objects, food, and sometimes small animals (frequently insects) with their body, usually under their foot, or when crushed oneself. The term soft crush refers to the more common fetish surrounding videos involving inanimate objects (such as food) or small invertebrates (e.g. insects, snails, worms, arachnids) being crushed, while the term hard crush refers to such videos involving larger animals with vertebrae, and arguably more pain-susceptible animals (e.g. reptiles, birds, mammals). The preference could be barefoot, high-heels, flip flops, socks, and so on, depending on the fetishist. Most soft crush fetishists prefer to distinguish themselves from hard crush fetishists, believing that crush films with larger animals give the entire group a bad label.
There are currently no known laws forbidding the crushing of objects and insects, but the production or trade of crush erotica involving live vertebrates is condemned by animal rights activists and is illegal in many countries, including the United States and Great Britain. In the United States, interstate commerce in [hard] crush videos has been illegal since 2010, and many other countries also have banned them.
Jeff Vilencia is one known director of crush films, such as Smush! Vilencia, along with many other fetishists, has loved to see invertebrates crushed since a young age; he claims that when he was 2–3 years old, he repeatedly attempted to get people to step on him.
The legality of crush films and the actual practice of crushing varies by region; however, many have been posted on web sites and are available for download via the Internet, making the control of their distribution difficult.
In 1999, the United States Congress enacted a statute affecting the legality of crush films which criminalized the creation, sale, and possession of depictions of animal cruelty, though with an exception for "any depiction that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value." In 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit invalidated the ban on the sale and possession of such films (if not otherwise obscene) as a violation of the Constitution's guarantee for freedom of speech. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the Third Circuit's decision in United States v. Stevens, finding the law unconstitutional because the law was so broad and vague that it included any portrayal of an animal in or being harmed such as by hunting or disease. On November 28, 2010, bill H.R. 5566, which prohibits interstate commerce in animal crush films, was passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate, and on December 9, the bill was signed by President Obama becoming the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010.
In 2016, a man on YouTube under the name "bootsmade4crushing" uploaded videos of himself crushing inanimate objects with his expensive boots. However, he handled a secret second channel under the name "Boots666" through his Tumblr blog that linked to unlisted videos where he crushed live animals. Both his channels and Tumblr blog have been removed since being exposed.
- G.A. Pearson. (1997). Digest Cultural Entomology. Fourth issue. Crush Fetishists
- Dr. Mark Griffiths, (May 17, 2012). A Beginner's Guide To Crush Fetishism
- Thoswal. (March 2014). Hear A Crush Fetishist Out
- Crush Films
- H.R. 5566: Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010. www.govtrack.us
- DeMello, Margo (September 2009). Feet and Footwear: A Cultural Encyclopedia. Greenwood. Retrieved 2014-03-03.
- Third Circuit Rejects Proposed New "Depiction of Animal Cruelty" First Amendment Exception The Volokh Conspiracy, July 18, 2008
- A. S. Hamrah. (2000) A Better Mousetrap. Hermenaut.com (accessed 2006-05-04)
- G.A. Pearson. (1997). Digest Cultural Entomology. Fourth issue. Insects as Sexual Fetish Objects . North Carolina State University.
- IMDB. Smush. (accessed 2006-05-04)
- Lex Appeal Animal Cruelty, Crush Videos and the First Amendment.
- Hearing before the subcommittee on crime, of the committee on the judiciary (United States) House of Representatives. Punishing Depictions of Animal Cruelty and the Federal Prisoner Health Care Co-Payment Act of 1999. (accessed 2006-05-04)
- § 48. Depiction of animal cruelty. United States Code: Title 18, Part I, Chapter 3, § 48. Cornell University Law School
- United States v. Stevens - Protecting Animals no Justification for First Amendment Amputation, The Legal Satyricon, 20-07-2008
- Adam Liptak (April 20, 2010), Justices Reject Ban on Videos of Animal Cruelty, New York Times
- YouTube Won’t Ban A Guy Who Crushes Animals to Death (Update: Channel's Dead)