Scatophila : Hot or Not?

Man-love over boy-sex? Semen better than Astroglide? Your mother's naked body more horrifying than a 747 full of infants exploding in mid-air and the debris raining down through razor sharp mesh wire? Discuss it here!
Locked
User avatar
MacDaddy
Cock Throttler
Posts: 3712
Joined: July 7, 2004, 10:16 am
Location: Anywhere that F1 isn't

Post by MacDaddy » September 20, 2004, 11:52 am

I remember seeing someone writing (It think it was Matthew) about scatophilia.

This is incorrect. The term used for when you want someone to shit on you (or getting all turned on by shit in general) is coprophilia. Wanting to eat someone elses shit is coprophagia.

Scat it the slang term used on certain sites on the internet which I have never seen and do not frequent.

This information has been brought to you by your friendly neighbourhood grammar nazi.
.Matt wrote:you are all so wise. and unspeakably revolting, of course.

User avatar
Tenacious B
I Fought The Gay & The Gay Won
Posts: 10291
Joined: September 25, 2003, 3:49 pm
Location: Internetsville
Contact:

Post by Tenacious B » September 20, 2004, 12:02 pm

scatophilia is defined as an intense, often sexual fascination with feces. that was what i was alluding to, not necessarily any sort of consumption or shared defecation.

so suck it, grammar nazi.

User avatar
masterb
Penis Fancier
Posts: 2919
Joined: July 7, 2004, 11:19 am
Location: england

Post by masterb » September 20, 2004, 12:05 pm

:oops:

User avatar
MacDaddy
Cock Throttler
Posts: 3712
Joined: July 7, 2004, 10:16 am
Location: Anywhere that F1 isn't

Post by MacDaddy » September 20, 2004, 12:39 pm

I am afraid you are incorrect Matthew.

cop·ro·phil·i·a
n.
An abnormal, often obsessive interest in excrement, especially the use of feces for sexual excitement.

Scatophilia is, as I have said, a colloquialism. While certainly understandable, and having it's place in the vernacular, it is as yet not an officially recognised word. This is not to say that it is a neologism either, as it has been and is used to describe the above disorder. I was merely pointing out that it's use is (technically) incorrect.

Heil.
.Matt wrote:you are all so wise. and unspeakably revolting, of course.

User avatar
Ceek
Anal Investigator
Posts: 5983
Joined: October 6, 2003, 12:21 pm
Location: San Fransico home of the Golden Gate Bridge
Contact:

Post by Ceek » September 20, 2004, 12:41 pm

Neil seems embarressed about his scatophilia/coprophilia
During the last six decades, Cliff Richard has charted many hit singles, and holds the record (along with Elvis Presley) as the only act to make the UK singles charts in all of its active decades (1950s–2000s). According to his website, he has sold 250 million records over the course of his career.

User avatar
masterb
Penis Fancier
Posts: 2919
Joined: July 7, 2004, 11:19 am
Location: england

Post by masterb » September 20, 2004, 12:50 pm

yeah i've had the phobia since i walked in on you and pol that day ...

:wink:

and then after clifford's debacle things have never been the same ... i sometimes lie awake crying thinking about the 'coprophilic' images in my head.
Last edited by masterb on September 20, 2004, 12:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MacDaddy
Cock Throttler
Posts: 3712
Joined: July 7, 2004, 10:16 am
Location: Anywhere that F1 isn't

Post by MacDaddy » September 20, 2004, 12:56 pm

Listen here you turdburgling anus spelunkers, I have told you that scatophilia is not the correct term. Quit using it.

Also it is not a phobia it is a sort of fetish.

Coprophobia is the term for the fear of feces.

Mark, learn, and inwardly digest.
.Matt wrote:you are all so wise. and unspeakably revolting, of course.

User avatar
Sqasl
Fag
Posts: 488
Joined: August 11, 2004, 1:00 am
Location: an island
Contact:

Post by Sqasl » September 20, 2004, 1:29 pm

scatology is, however a real word. making scat not just a colloquialism.

scatology, n.

1.An obsession with excrement or excretory functions.
2.The psychiatric study of such an obsession.
3.Obscene language or literature, especially that dealing pruriently or humorously with excrement and excretory functions.

so it's also an obsession, apparently just lacks the word 'abnormal' in the definition. and philia is a standard suffix, meaning the same thing whenever used, and can be added to other root words, like scat.

the scatman evidently didn't know any of this.

i dunno. the more words for it the better. it's a colourful topic and deserves a colourful vocabulary.

nice use of the word 'spelunker', though. and 'turdburglers', for that matter.

User avatar
Tenacious B
I Fought The Gay & The Gay Won
Posts: 10291
Joined: September 25, 2003, 3:49 pm
Location: Internetsville
Contact:

Post by Tenacious B » September 20, 2004, 1:33 pm

oh clinton ZING i say ZING.

great post. +points.

User avatar
MacDaddy
Cock Throttler
Posts: 3712
Joined: July 7, 2004, 10:16 am
Location: Anywhere that F1 isn't

Post by MacDaddy » September 20, 2004, 1:43 pm

While you are correct about the definition of scatology, you are not right about the use of -philia as a standard suffix.

While it is indeed a standardised suffix, it cannot be applied correctly to all root words.

If this were the case we would end up in the ridiculous situation of saying things like deskophilia or birdophilia or Marcophilia. A standardised suffix can only be applied correctly to accepted terms, although it may be applied to anything when one is unconcerned with grammar or the rectitude of one's speech.

This is doubly so when one tries to bastardise another term (scatology) to describe something for which one does not know the correct term (coprophilia).

Big up yourself.
.Matt wrote:you are all so wise. and unspeakably revolting, of course.

User avatar
Sqasl
Fag
Posts: 488
Joined: August 11, 2004, 1:00 am
Location: an island
Contact:

Post by Sqasl » September 20, 2004, 1:49 pm

kickass! no more grovelling for free points in 'bored'. i do, however, feel a little bad for profiting from something which i only did because of how close it is to my heart. no literally. that's unhygienic. not bad enough to ever use that 'donate' button. that's weird.

:yesss:

User avatar
Tenacious B
I Fought The Gay & The Gay Won
Posts: 10291
Joined: September 25, 2003, 3:49 pm
Location: Internetsville
Contact:

Post by Tenacious B » September 20, 2004, 1:51 pm

MacDaddy wrote:While you are correct about the definition of scatology, you are not right about the use of -philia as a standard suffix.

While it is indeed a standardised suffix, it cannot be applied correctly to all root words.

If this were the case we would end up in the ridiculous situation of saying things like deskophilia or birdophilia or Marcophilia. A standardised suffix can only be applied correctly to accepted terms, although it may be applied to anything when one is unconcerned with grammar or the rectitude of one's speech.

This is doubly so when one tries to bastardise another term (scatology) to describe something for which one does not know the correct term (coprophilia).

Big up yourself.
unfortunately one of your main premises is incorrect. if scat- were indeed a made-up prefix, then your argument would hold water. unfortunately for you, we're shown scatophilia to be a not only accepted but technically correct definition for our purposes.

so having showed scat as a simple abbreviation of an accepted word, we can thus point you to any search engine on the internet to show the consitent use of this word in exactly our context.

whether or not -philia is a hold-all suffix, scatophilia is by its very use and legitimacy both valid and correct.

User avatar
masterb
Penis Fancier
Posts: 2919
Joined: July 7, 2004, 11:19 am
Location: england

Post by masterb » September 20, 2004, 1:59 pm

i must disagree with you matt and clint ...

please see http://www.dictionary.com

no entries for scatophilia whatsoever , so it is not a real or legitimate word at all, coprophilia is described exactly how marco did ...

although it's a pity because i concur , scatophilia is a very colourful word ...
Last edited by masterb on September 20, 2004, 2:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MacDaddy
Cock Throttler
Posts: 3712
Joined: July 7, 2004, 10:16 am
Location: Anywhere that F1 isn't

Post by MacDaddy » September 20, 2004, 1:59 pm

Oh God, I'm not gonna argue about it anymore. Try writing it in any academic context and watch the failure and ridicule roll in.

Sure on the forum it means nothing. Call it Shitlovingology if that floats your boat.

I am safe in the knowledge that the english dictionary and the academic world at large agrees with my terminology, and not yours.
.Matt wrote:you are all so wise. and unspeakably revolting, of course.

User avatar
Sqasl
Fag
Posts: 488
Joined: August 11, 2004, 1:00 am
Location: an island
Contact:

Post by Sqasl » September 20, 2004, 2:02 pm

where you're mistaken is that language is not as bound by these legislative, prohibitive rules as you seem to think it is. language, by its very nature, evolves organically out of a need to communicate. if i know what 'scatology' means, and you know what it means, then its a word. i can deduce the meaning of 'markophilia', even if its existence is implausible.

the relative failure of esperanto is a good example of how languages cannot be constructed and bound by absolute rules. we'd all be talking an ancient language akin to sanskrit if we didn't allow things like the addition of a well known suffix in an unconventional way.

at what point did the addition of the prefix ism to the marquis de sade's name become a real word, recognised by you? how do we appoint these figures of authority? surely we're just as valid authority's as speakers of the language? the rectitude of my speech is not decided by some old guy in england. it's decided by its effectiveness in communicating my meaning. and you understood it at the beginning.

User avatar
Tenacious B
I Fought The Gay & The Gay Won
Posts: 10291
Joined: September 25, 2003, 3:49 pm
Location: Internetsville
Contact:

Post by Tenacious B » September 20, 2004, 2:04 pm

masterb wrote:i must disagree with you matt and clint ...

please see http://www.dictionary.com

no entries for scatophilia whatsoever , so it is not a rear word , coprophilia is described exactly how marco did ...

although it's a pity because i concur , scatophilia is a very colourful word ...
MacDaddy wrote:Oh God, I'm not gonna argue about it anymore. Try writing it in any academic context and watch the failure and ridicule roll in.

Sure on the forum it means nothing. Call it Shitlovingology if that floats your boat.

I am safe in the knowledge that the english dictionary and the academic world at large agrees with my terminology, and not yours.
both of you base the validity of your arguments on whether this word is in the dictionary. i am tempted to agree were it not for the fact that widespread use of a word warrants its inclusion into the dictionary.

so we reach a point where the only difference between your word for a simple, albeit disgusting, biological function, and mine, is age. and i'm sure you'll agree that's a pretty irrelevent basis.

User avatar
Sqasl
Fag
Posts: 488
Joined: August 11, 2004, 1:00 am
Location: an island
Contact:

Post by Sqasl » September 20, 2004, 2:08 pm

damn, that rant took so long to write that it's no longer relevant. ah, the rapidly changing world we live in. except for language, slowly remaining the same, in the hands of a crusty old few.

User avatar
masterb
Penis Fancier
Posts: 2919
Joined: July 7, 2004, 11:19 am
Location: england

Post by masterb » September 20, 2004, 2:09 pm

fair enough , but it's not a word til it's in the oxford ...

User avatar
Tenacious B
I Fought The Gay & The Gay Won
Posts: 10291
Joined: September 25, 2003, 3:49 pm
Location: Internetsville
Contact:

Post by Tenacious B » September 20, 2004, 2:13 pm

masterb wrote:fair enough , but it's not a word til it's in the oxford ...
actually, the definition of a word does NOT include the fact that it has to be in a dictionary.

User avatar
masterb
Penis Fancier
Posts: 2919
Joined: July 7, 2004, 11:19 am
Location: england

Post by masterb » September 20, 2004, 2:14 pm

eat my shit :shock:

User avatar
Sqasl
Fag
Posts: 488
Joined: August 11, 2004, 1:00 am
Location: an island
Contact:

Post by Sqasl » September 20, 2004, 2:19 pm

damn.

that was pretty funny.

User avatar
Sqasl
Fag
Posts: 488
Joined: August 11, 2004, 1:00 am
Location: an island
Contact:

Post by Sqasl » September 20, 2004, 2:31 pm

debate club is the shiznig. debates about linguistics are the shiznig. and so is arguing against normative, authoritarian arguments.

i'm going now. i need to smoke. and wander around varsity aimlessly, basking in the glow of a debate well argued and unresolved.

more debate in the morning :twisted:

User avatar
MacDaddy
Cock Throttler
Posts: 3712
Joined: July 7, 2004, 10:16 am
Location: Anywhere that F1 isn't

Post by MacDaddy » September 20, 2004, 2:31 pm

Alright. You people don't want to understand, and I suppose I can't make you. If you read the beginning of the thread, you will notice that I began my argument by saying that the vernacular usage of scatophilia is perfectly acceptable.

My argument was a semantic one alone, agreed, but you people seem convinced that you are right despite the weight of evidence against you. The accepted source for all the words in the English language is the Oxford English Dictionary. If a word does not appear there then it is not a correct word. This is the very basis for our structured academic use of the language.

Please don't plague me with bullshit arguments about "the evolutionary nature of language". While nobody disputes that language evolves, in terms of correct usage of the language we require an authoritative source in order to clearly articulate and understand meaning. Whether I know what you mean or not is no argument at all in favour of a word being technically correct.

Use language however you wish, however I caution you that in the extremely unlikely circumstance that you are called upon to write about coprophila in a journalistic or academic sphere, usage of 'scatophilia' would be judged as incorrect.

Keep arguing about it because I know you like to argue. I just don't see how you can argue with me when it comes to things such as English language usage or psychological/medical terminology. Go ahead, just know that you're wrong.

Also try typing scatophilia into your authoritative source hyperdictionary and tell me what you find. Neil is completely correct.

PS. I fucking love this debate club!!!!
.Matt wrote:you are all so wise. and unspeakably revolting, of course.

User avatar
Dannah
Fag
Posts: 268
Joined: September 8, 2004, 10:15 pm
Contact:

Post by Dannah » September 20, 2004, 6:26 pm

This thread is fucking great.

That's really all I have to say about it.
- Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching on magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music -

User avatar
Rebel Pope
Cock Throttler
Posts: 3520
Joined: August 27, 2004, 8:23 am
Contact:

Post by Rebel Pope » September 22, 2004, 8:58 am

Sqasl wrote:where you're mistaken is that language is not as bound by these legislative, prohibitive rules as you seem to think it is. language, by its very nature, evolves organically out of a need to communicate. if i know what 'scatology' means, and you know what it means, then its a word. i can deduce the meaning of 'markophilia', even if its existence is implausible.

the relative failure of esperanto is a good example of how languages cannot be constructed and bound by absolute rules. we'd all be talking an ancient language akin to sanskrit if we didn't allow things like the addition of a well known suffix in an unconventional way.

at what point did the addition of the prefix ism to the marquis de sade's name become a real word, recognised by you? how do we appoint these figures of authority? surely we're just as valid authority's as speakers of the language? the rectitude of my speech is not decided by some old guy in england. it's decided by its effectiveness in communicating my meaning. and you understood it at the beginning.
What Clinton says is true. Language does evolve over time. What is not true is the belief that if "you" and "I" understand a word then it becomes part of the language. This premise is not feasible, for in order for a word to become officially recognised as part of a language its usage must be wide spread. One cannot simply make up a list of words with one's family and expect the world at large to happily start using them. In the example used by Marco Coprophillia is the accepted use because it is used by the majority of the english speaking community whereas Scatophillia is only used by a small section of the population (in this case being internet porn junkies). In order for scatophillia to become a recognised word in the English language its use needs to become far more widespread. Essentially the role of a dictionary is to decide which words have become widespread enough to be considered understandable by the majority of that languages speakers.
If you and I understanding each other was the used as the form for deciding an acceptable word then grunts of agreement (or disagreement) such as Uh and Uh Uh would also have to be recognised as words and that, monkey boy (Clinton), is not language evolution but instead a return to the jungle.
"Boxers don't have sex before a fight, do you know why that is? They don't fancy each other."
- Jimmy Carr

User avatar
tetrahc
Penis Fancier
Posts: 1436
Joined: August 23, 2004, 9:00 am
Location: The Twilight Zone
Contact:

Post by tetrahc » September 22, 2004, 9:55 am

The point that all of you seem to be missing here, is that english is in fact not one language,
but many languages. Every english speaking country has their own english with their own vocabulary, their own spelling conventions and even their own grammatical conventions.
(so called grammatical "rules" and spelling "rules" are in fact not rules in the sense of laws but rather conventions) Even within countries different english speaking communities have different english vocabularies and different pronunciation conventions.

The tendency to call all these languages "english" is more or less arbitrary. while it is true that all these different english languages have more in common with one another than any of them have with (for example) any other germanic language, it is also true that people from one english community can not always understand the "english" of people from a different comunity, and in this sense, they do not speak the same language

The disagreement in this thread basically stems from the fact that two different "englishes" are under discussion: so called standard or academic english as codified by the oxford dictionary, and internet porn junky english (which is such a relatively new language that I doubt it even has a dictionary of its own)
You're traveling through another dimension,
a dimension not only of sight and sound, but of mind...

User avatar
Sqasl
Fag
Posts: 488
Joined: August 11, 2004, 1:00 am
Location: an island
Contact:

Post by Sqasl » September 22, 2004, 10:50 pm

uhm, warren... you seem to be torn between "wide spread usage" and "majority usage". majority, at least, is clearly defined, but i don't think that for a word to be used or understood by more than 50 % of english speakers as a criterion for how whether it's a word or not is paeticularly fair. indubitably. 'wide spread usage' is more vague. it introduces a relative term with very little quantitative value, making the job of those poor old wankers at oxford even more difficult. ie. "how wide does it have to be for it to be considered 'widespread'?"

given these difficulties of criteria, i chose to place an emphasis on the original purpose of language, and a de-emphasis on normative, authoritative concerns regarding "official".

your discussion of 'officially recognised' takes us back to the oxford dictionary, and i don't give a fuck what methods those octogenarians use to decide what's official.

:boxing:

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest