Coprophilia
sexual paraphilia involving feces
Coprophilia (from Greek κόπρος, kópros 'excrement' and φιλία, philía 'liking, fondness'), also called scatophilia or scat (Greek: σκατά, skatá 'feces'), is the paraphilia involving sexual arousal and pleasure from feces.
Research
In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), published by the American Psychiatric Association, it is classified under 302.89—Paraphilia NOS (Not Otherwise Specified) and has no diagnostic criteria other than a general statement about paraphilias that says "the diagnosis is made if the behavior, sexual urges, or fantasies cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning". Furthermore, the DSM-IV-TR notes, "Fantasies, behaviors, or objects are paraphilic only when they lead to clinically significant distress or impairment (e.g. are obligatory, result in sexual dysfunction, require participation of nonconsenting individuals, lead to legal complications, interfere with social relationships)".
Although there may be no connection between coprophilia and sadomasochism (SM), the limited data on the former comes from studies of the latter. A 1999 study of 164 males in Finland from two SM clubs found that 18.2% had engaged in coprophilia; 3% as a sadist only, 6.1% as a masochist only, and 9.1% as both. In the study pool 18% of heterosexuals and 17% of homosexuals 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 six had engaged in coprophilic behavior, compared with only one in the matched control group consisting of 12 SM-oriented males who did not engage in bestiality.
Society and culture
A table in Larry Townsend's The Leatherman's Handbook II (the 1983 second edition; the 1972 first edition did not include this list) which is generally considered authoritative states that a brown handkerchief is a symbol for coprophilia in the handkerchief code, which is employed usually among gay male casual-sex seekers or BDSM practitioners in the United States, Canada, Australia and Europe. Wearing the handkerchief on the left indicates the top, dominant, or active partner; right the bottom, submissive, or passive partner.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Coprophilia” as sexual paraphilia involving feces. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as sexual paraphilia involving feces. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 6, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q464215. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1999, 1983 and 1972.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Coprophilia”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Coprophilia primary sources, Coprophilia archive and Coprophilia research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Coprophilia”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Coprophilia” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.