I only made it to (the allegations of) feacophilia (in a male researcher from the past).
oh, that hurts my type-o-philia
Isn’t it usually called coprophilia?
Kinsey was married but was what would have been called at the time a ‘latent homosexual’. This is unsurprising, considering one of his best-known studies measured the distance ejaculate travels.
Whaa??? This is a rather odd/specious connection to make. Studying ejaculate force = latent homosexual? I’m not arguing Kinsey’s being a latent homosexual, I’m questioning the “of course he was” conclusion based on his study of ejaculate distance/force.
I don’t know, but I gotta say that “Honey, I was just studying ejaculate force” would be one of the great excuses of all time.
“Bonaparte’s fate, however, is benign compared with that suffered by Lili Elbe (1882–1931), regarded as the world’s first recipient of a male-to-female sex change. She died a year after her first operation (and a few months after her fifth).”
In what way was Ms. Elbe’s surgery related to attempting to achieve orgasm?
I would note that she wasn’t the first - and that to describe her as a recipient rather than as having agency as Bonaparte did - is unfortunate.
I’m not 100% sure, but I think coprophilia is a subset of feacophilia, which could include discarded hair, nails, skin, mucus etc.
I think urolagnia is a kind of feacophilia, and trichophilia qualifies if it applies to hair that is no longer attached to a body.
Again, amateur philology, take with a grain of salt.
The article belies the headline. Bonaparte’s “three kinds” ultimately turned out to be a meaningless distinction. And Hite found a good many more than three.
Still a nice headline.
I understood that Kinsey was more of a hymenopterist than a lepidopterist, what with wasps being one of his big (non-sexual) interests.
These ambiguities, redundancies and deficiencies remind us of those which doctor Alfred Kinsey attributes to a certain Chinese encyclopaedia entitled ‘Celestial Empire of Sexual Healing’. In its remote pages it is written that women are divided into: (a) belonging to the emperor, (b) embalmed, © tame, (d) sucking pigs, (e) sirens, (f) fabulous, (g) stray dogs, (h) included in the present classification, (i) frenzied, (j) innumerable, (k) drawn with a very fine camelhair brush, (l) et cetera, (m) having just broken the water pitcher, (n) that from a long way off look like flies.
I see what you did there.
It’s my all-time favorite list.
wait, where were the three? And why do I have penetrative O’s if my clitoris is more than an inch from my vaginal opening? I feel slightly deficient or delusional now…
A scientific paper by Wallen and Lloyd
This is probably a good thread to remind people that the clitoris is a lot more than just a little button:
I don’t know where you grabbed that from, but tineye says that the museum of sex once used it in an essay
And let’s just say that it contradicts such dittys as
If the distance is less than the width of your thumb, you are likely to come
Naturally, I can’t offer up any first hand experience.
I like the fact that both halves rhyme, but I think the parts needs to be of more equal length to better approximate a proper folk saying. You know, like, “Red sky at night, sailors delight.”
Now, I’m contemplating that saying in a different light…
There’s no shame in using a second hand…