From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Gianni Morandi[edit]

His inclusion, which lacks a citation, seems like a troll attempt. In either case, it doesn't add any significant insight into humans with coprophagia.

Removed for sourcing[edit]

The source for "in sex" is a case report of one individual, and it is clearly discussed as being in the context of mental illness. So, not only is this a source that does not comply with WP:MEDRS; it is misrepresented. Do we have a MEDRS-compliant source discussing coprophagia and sex? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

In sex[edit]

Some human coprophiles engage in coprophagia as a sexual fetish. Until 1995, the only documented cases of coprophagia in humans were those with schizophrenia or other mental illness, but it has now been shown to occur among relatively mentally healthy individuals.[1] Psychiatrists using the classification system of the DSM-IV would consider this a symptom of the paraphilia called coprophilia - "if the behavior, sexual urges, or fantasies cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning". Coprophagia is also depicted in pornography, usually under the term scat (from scatology).[2]


  1. ^ Wise TN, Goldberg RL (1995). "Escalation of a fetish: Coprophagia in a nonpsychotic adult of normal intelligence". Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy. 21 (4): 272–75. doi:10.1080/00926239508414647. PMID 8789509. 
  2. ^ Holmes, Ronald M. Sex Crimes: Patterns and Behavior. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. pp. p. 244. ISBN 0-7619-2417-5. OCLC 47893709. 
SandyGeorgia, thank you for cleaning up this article. I don't think that psychiatrists, psychologists and/or sexologists would state that coprophagia is something that well-adjusted, mentally-stable humans engage in. Flyer22 (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm sure that the vast majority of psychiatrists, psychologists and/or sexologists would not state that coprophagia is something that well-adjusted, mentally-stable humans engage in. Flyer22 (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
This sort of editing seems rather inconsistent. There was a verifiable source provided. Yes it was a case-study, but it was verifiable. This article is littered with [citation needed] tags. These edits are not verifiable to a source, not even a case-study, so why have they not been removed?__DrChrissy (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia removed that text and source because WP:MEDRS is strict about its sourcing -- no WP:Primary sources, except in certain cases. For example, WP:MEDDATE states, "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published." She also removed that text/source because it was misrepresented. When I saw this edit, for example, I was tempted to reword that text to be specific to that one man, but I didn't feel like addressing the matter at that time. If we keep that source because this is an area "where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published," we should be clear that it is specifically about that one man, and why it is. It is more important that medical claims be sourced than, for example, literature or popular culture claims. SandyGeorgia's expertise is in medical areas, and she is giving editors time to source the other stuff. Flyer22 (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to explain this. I think we are moving in the same direction. I totally accept that a case-study is not sufficient evidence that a behaviour is "normal". I get very frustrated when this occurs so frequently for non-human animals (as exists in this article). I agree with you that some (very little) of the information could perhaps be reintroduced with a clear indication that this is a case-study.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
As to the "inconsistency", there's only so much one editor can do in one sitting :) If more needs to be deleted, please do! The article is a mess, and pointing editors away from incorrect sourcing, towards correct sourcing, is the fastest way I know of to bring up the overall quality of any article. I haven't had time to check all of the other cn tags, but if they make claims about human health, I'm likely to shoot on sight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree Will take similar action with the non-human animal stuff.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
In this section, I see that SandyGeorgia did keep the aforementioned case study source, but she used it appropriately. Flyer22 (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Ugh. Thanks for pointing out another problem. The text isn't controversial, so I didn't shoot on sight, but those primary sources should be replaced with secondary sources if they can be found. If I had journal access, I'd do it myself :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind the "Coprophagia is also depicted in pornography, usually under the term scat (from scatology)." sentence being readded, though. Flyer22 (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good ... I just went to re-add it, but article structure has changed, so wherever it fits ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
That's probably my fault. It seemed odd that the article discussed Animals, then Invertebrates and Vertebrates, then Plants, then to Humans. I put all the verts in one section.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

As a layman I also find it hard to believe that people who engage in coprophagia can be "well-adjusted, mentally-stable humans". However, it is not difficult to find pictorial and written evidence of this kind of activity on the Web, which would not be the case if there was no audience for such depictions. Shouldn't it at least be mentioned in this article? The Wikipedia article on the related topic of [Coprophilia] lists various practices that most of us would consider extremely unsavory, and if they can be mentioned there, why should there not be a mention of coprophagia as an extreme BDSM/fetish-related activity here? Perhaps this can be used as a reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henryhood (talkcontribs) 05:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Henryhood (talk · contribs), coprophagia material in a sexual sense is currently in the article. To add more than that on it, WP:Reliable sources are needed. Flyer22 (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I somehow overlooked the mention in the section on "Society and culture". Shouldn't this also be mentioned in the introduction to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henryhood (talkcontribs)
Henryhood (talk · contribs), that bit is not WP:Lead material since it's just a very small portion of the article. On a side note: Remember to sign your comments at the end of your posts by typing four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. A bot signed your first post above in this section, and I tagged the other one as unsigned. I also removed your name from your second post, since you were replying to me, not to yourself. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I will sign my comments. Henryhood (talk) 06:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOT removed for sourcing[edit]

See WP:NOT (an indiscriminate list, for example). The following are lists with no indication that secondary sources mention their significance wrt coprophagis, hence also original research. Secondary sources discussing coprophagia in these is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

In film[edit]

  • The third amongst the four acts of Pier Paolo Pasolini's 1975 film Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom, a loose adaptation of the Marquis de Sade's aforementioned The 120 Days of Sodom, is concerned with coprophagia.
  • Dušan Makavejev's 1974 film Sweet Movie contains a long scene featuring coprophagia.
  • 2 Girls 1 Cup; a 2007 scat-fetish pornographic film.
  • August Underground; a woman held captive by a pair of serial killers is degraded by being forced to eat her own excrement.
  • The Green Elephant; during a psychotic break, one prisoner consumes his own feces.
  • The Human Centipede (First Sequence); a mad scientist captures three tourists and surgically connects them mouth to anus, so that two of them are "fed" by the bowel movements of the "segment" whose buttocks their mouth has been attached to.
  • The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence); in the sequel to the above, a man copycats the scientist's experiment, but with nearly a dozen victims.
  • Unspeakable; when a catatonic woman defecates, a man smears it on her vagina, then performs cunnilingus on her.
  • Pink Flamingos; the film ends with Divine eating a dog's freshly laid stool.
  • Vase de Noces; a farmer prepares and consumes a meal made of urine and feces, then regurgitates it.
  • Bronson; a patient in a mental institution is shown eating his own feces while another character watches in confusion.
  • The Acid House; in an adaptation from Irvine Welsh's collection of short stories of the same name, specifically 'The Granton Star Cause', the parent's of the protagonist engage in sadomasochism and as a 'punishment' the father has to consume his wife's excrement.
  • I Declare War; there is a dare between two of the boys.

In TV series[edit]

  • Tsst; in the seventh episode of the tenth season of South Park, the American animated TV series, a nanny (Jo Frost from the reality TV program Supernanny), ends up in a psychiatric hospital, chanting "It's from Hell!", while eating her own feces after her attempt to help Cartman's mom with his son's behavior problems.
  • HumancentiPad; in the first episode of the fifteenth season of South Park, Kyle is kidnapped as a consequence of failing to read the terms of a product license and forced to become part of a "revolutionary new product", the "HUMANCENTiPAD", for which he and two others were kidnapped. The three kidnapped subjects were placed on all fours, each with their mouth sewn to the next one's anus (the storyline is based on The Human Centipede). Due to this, each human after the first must eat the previous human's feces, which is eventually used to power an iPad.
  • Brian & Stewie; in the seventeenth episode in the eighth season of Family Guy, Brian and Stewie become trapped in a bank vault. When the vault's door closes, Stewie is frightened and defecates into his diaper. He soon gets a diaper rash because of this, and suggests that Brian (a dog) "eat his poo", which Brian eventually does.
  • T.: The Terrestrial; in the sixteenth episode of the seventh season of Futurama, Fry becomes stranded on the planet Omicron Persei 8. In a parody of E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial, Jrrr (son of Lrrr, the planet's ruler) finds Fry and leaves a trail of his feces (which resemble Skittles) for Fry to follow, which Fry eats, calling it "Feces Pieces", much like Elliot leaving a trail of Reese's Pieces for E.T.

In music[edit]



The new rabbit text, besides being mostly uncited, goes off-topic ... we don't need to give excess detail about rabbit habits that is unrelated to the topic of coprographia. Would we please prune and cite? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Category removals[edit]

With this edit, Drmies removed Category:Abnormal behaviour in animals, Category:Sexual acts, Category:Paraphilias, Category:Dog health and Category:Dog training and behavior, stating, "trim: dogs are mentioned only in the EL and in the categories, a crazy situation. also, why is this abnormal? rm category. also, nothing in here about sex. rm category."

Drmies, I'm not sure how I feel about the removal of the dog categories, since you are correct that it's odd to only be focused on dogs (even if they engage in coprophagia more than some other house pets). I'm confused by your "abnormal" question. It is generally considered abnormal/atypical (by reliable medical sources and the general public) for humans to eat feces, and it is noted in various reliable sources that it is abnormal/atypical for many non-human animals to eat feces; of course, it is normal for some non-human animal species to eat feces. The article addresses all of that. As for the Sexual acts category and the Paraphilias category, see the Society and culture section.

SandyGeorgia and DrChrissy, any opinion on these categories with regard to this article? Flyer22 (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I would certainly replace Category:Abnormal behaviour in animals. The 2 dog categories I would also replace, but the article probably needs a little expansion on these which should not be difficult to find. As for the human categories, I again feel that expansion of the article would make these appropriate.DrChrissy (talk) 08:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
By "replace," I take it you mean "re-add"? Flyer22 (talk) 08:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't pay much attention to how categories work, but it certainly is odd that dogs aren't even mentioned in the article. But is it "abnormal" behavior in animals? I am not sure (it is abnormal behavior in humans). The article is underdeveloped for humans. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry - yes, I meant re-add.DrChrissy (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
By the way, if you want to read a brief discussion of "abnormality" as used in ethology, I put one in an article I created List of abnormal behaviours in might help.DrChrissy (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia (WP:Pinging you again because I'm not sure that you are watching this article/talk page), while more content about coprophagia among humans can be added to the article, there is not a lot more to add about it since it's very common for humans to intentionally eat feces unless they have a mental disorder. As we know, and as noted in the Feces article, humans perceive feces as having an extremely foul odor, and this is believed to be a deterrent created by nature so that humans do not eat the waste and become sick; the odor indicates that this content is not meant to be food. The "bad smell of feces" deterrent is believed to be a factor for various other animals as well. But, yeah, it's clear that eating feces is significantly more common among non-human animals than it is among humans.
DrChrissy, I'd already noticed that List of abnormal behaviours in animals is linked in the lead of the article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Flyer, I understand that there is probably more to say about animals than humans in this topic, and that we may have covered most of what matters in humans. But I don't care to keep up with animal content, and I don't know much about or care much about categories, so I'm not sure what I have to add here. (Yes, I have page watch listed ... but my attention will wane until/unless some student editor adds some garbage about humans that needs to be fixed  :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Understood, SandyGeorgia. I also only WP:Watchlisted this article because of its human content. Flyer22 (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Going back to what can be added about humans to the article, we could add content about human babies eating feces because they don't know any better. That is, if we find WP:Reliable sources for it of course. There are also cases where toddlers (sometimes because they don't know any better) and children a little older than toddlers might eat feces for whatever reason. Flyer22 (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Here's another Google search about it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Humans: Not necessarily "unhealthy" for people;[edit]


Pretty much if your eating your own poop and you're a healthy person - your poop isn't going to make you sick. If you eat another persons poop who is healthy, it shouldn't make you sick either. if you eat a sick persons poop - this is when it's not a good idea. This is when it can transfer diseases. If you simply eat your own poop and you're not infected with any illness, it's not unhealthy.

People's take on this? I don't see why for eveyr other animal Coprophagia is healthy, but for humans it wouldnt' be... we're not special. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Article Evaluation[edit]

This article contains all portions and subtopics that are relatable to the main topic. It provides information of a wide variety of organisms that exhibit coprophagia including invertebrates, vertebrates, humans and even plants, and gives details on specific species and reasoning as to why some species carry out this eating behaviour. If any of these organisms are under represented in information it would be the humans, as we are only provided with a brief sentence discussing this eating behaviour in mental illness, along with a portion on society and culture were we are provided with coprophagia in association with human activities. As well, the plant information is too under represented and next to no information was given. There are sufficient references used as information in this article and appear to be of a wide range, suggesting that many views and research have been taken into consideration when writing this article. All citations work and appear to be appropriately placed in the article and of a appropriate source. With an exception to the history of this article, which is expected to be of an older date, all other information is fairly recent and suitable. When looking into the Talk page of the article, there is much discussion on the idea of this eating behaviour and mental illness, along with a list of films and TV series that relate to this eating behaviour. This article overall provides a great overview and much detail in some aspects of coprophagia in many different organisms and species, showing that it is not just a select group that carry out this behaviour but it is in fact popular. (Moved to talk page from face of article: diff of article edit) — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|--Epriscilla (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)]] comment added by Epriscilla (talkcontribs) 16:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)