Crush fetish

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.[1] 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).[2] The preference could be barefoot, high-heels, flip flops, socks and sandals, 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.[3]

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.[4] In the United States, interstate commerce in [hard] crush videos has been illegal since 2010,[5] and many other countries also have banned them.[6]

Crush films

Example of a crush fetish film with kiwifruits crushed

Crush films are videos of insects and objects being crushed by being stepped on.[7][8][9]

Jeff Vilencia is one known director of crush films, such as Smush![10] 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.[11]

Legal status

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.

The production or trade of crush erotica involving vertebrates is condemned by opponents of animal cruelty and is illegal in many countries including the United States.[12]

United States

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."[13] 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.[14] 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.[15] 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.[5]

On September 8, 2015, a Houston woman pleaded guilty in the nation's first federal animal crush video case.[16][17]

United Kingdom

Although the majority of films are thought to originate in the United States, the first arrest in the UK was made in 2002 of Craig Chapman, Christine Besford, Sarah Cooke, and Theraza Smallwood. The industry is estimated to generate thousands of pounds' worth of sales.[18]

China

Although not illegal under Chinese animal cruelty laws,[19] in 2006, Wang-Jue (simplified Chinese: 王 珏; traditional Chinese: 王 玨; pinyin: Wáng-Jué), a Chinese nurse appearing in an Internet crush video stomping a helpless kitten, posted an apology on the Luobei city government official website. She said she was recently divorced and did not know what to do with her life. The cameraman, a provincial TV employee, and she lost their jobs when internauts discovered their identities.[20][21]

See also

References

  1. ^ G.A. Pearson. (1997). Digest Cultural Entomology. Fourth issue. Crush Fetishists
  2. ^ Dr. Mark Griffiths, (May 17, 2012). A Beginner's Guide To Crush Fetishism
  3. ^ Thoswal. (March 2014). Hear A Crush Fetishist Out
  4. ^ "Crush fetish". www.ehrfurcht.com.
  5. ^ a b H.R. 5566: Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010. www.govtrack.us
  6. ^ DeMello, Margo (September 2009). Feet and Footwear: A Cultural Encyclopedia. Greenwood. Retrieved 2014-03-03.
  7. ^ Third Circuit Rejects Proposed New "Depiction of Animal Cruelty" First Amendment Exception The Volokh Conspiracy, July 18, 2008
  8. ^ A. S. Hamrah. (2000) A Better Mousetrap. Hermenaut.com (accessed 2006-05-04)
  9. ^ G.A. Pearson. (1997). Digest Cultural Entomology. Fourth issue. Insects as Sexual Fetish Objects . North Carolina State University.
  10. ^ IMDB. Smush. (accessed 2006-05-04)
  11. ^ Lex Appeal Animal Cruelty, Crush Videos and the First Amendment.
  12. ^ 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)
  13. ^ § 48. Depiction of animal cruelty. United States Code: Title 18, Part I, Chapter 3, § 48. Cornell University Law School
  14. ^ United States v. Stevens - Protecting Animals no Justification for First Amendment Amputation, The Legal Satyricon, 20-07-2008
  15. ^ Adam Liptak (April 20, 2010), "Justices Reject Ban on Videos of Animal Cruelty", The New York Times
  16. ^ Dart, Tom (9 September 2015). "Houston woman convicted of making 'animal crush' fetish porn videos" – via The Guardian.
  17. ^ "Houston Woman Convicted of Producing and Distributing Animal Crush Videos". Federal Bureau of Investigation.
  18. ^ Tony Thompson (May 18, 2002). "'Crush videos' plumb depths of perversion". The Guardian.
  19. ^ Robinson, Jill (7 Apr 2014). "China's Rapidly Growing Animal Welfare Movement". Huffington Post. Retrieved 15 July 2014.
  20. ^ "High-heeled kitten killer apologizes". China Daily. 2006-03-16. Retrieved 2010-08-30.
  21. ^ "The meow murderess brought to heel". Daily News and Analysis. 2006-03-18. Retrieved 2010-08-30.

External links

Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010

The Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111–294, 124 Stat. 3177, enacted December 9, 2010, was a United States law that addressed the banning of depictions of cruelty to animals to satisfy a crush fetish. The bill, H.R. 5566, was introduced by Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA), and primarily modifies 18 U.S.C. § 48.

Balloon fetish

A balloon fetish is a sexual fetish that involves balloons. A balloon fetishist is also referred to as a "looner". Some balloon fetishists "revel in the popping of balloons and [others] may become anxious and tearful at the very thought of popping balloons". Others enjoy blowing up balloons or sitting and lying on them.

Cruelty to animals

Cruelty to animals, also called animal abuse, animal neglect or animal cruelty, is the infliction by omission (animal neglect) or by commission by humans of suffering or harm upon any non-human. More narrowly, it can be the causing of harm or suffering for specific achievement, such as killing animals for food or for their fur; opinions differ about the extent of cruelty associated with a given method of slaughter. Cruelty to animals sometimes encompasses inflicting harm or suffering as an end in itself, defined as zoosadism. With approximately 65 billion animals killed annually for food, farm animals are the most numerous animals subjected to cruelty.Divergent approaches to laws concerning animal cruelty occur in different jurisdictions throughout the world. For example, some laws govern methods of killing animals for food, clothing, or other products, and other laws concern the keeping of animals for entertainment, education, research, or pets. There are a number of conceptual approaches to the issue of cruelty to animals.

For example, the animal welfare position holds that there is nothing inherently wrong with using animals for human purposes, such as food, clothing, entertainment, fun and research, but that it should be done in a way that minimizes unnecessary pain and suffering, sometimes referred to as "humane" treatment.

Utilitarian advocates argue from the position of costs and benefits and vary in their conclusions as to the allowable treatment of animals. Some utilitarians argue for a weaker approach which is closer to the animal welfare position, whereas others argue for a position that is similar to animal rights. Animal rights theorists criticize these positions, arguing that the words "unnecessary" and "humane" are subject to widely differing interpretations, and that animals have basic rights. They say that the only way to ensure protection for animals is to end their status as property and to ensure that they are never used as commodities.

Wet and messy fetishism

Wet and messy fetish (WAM), also known as sploshing, is a form of sexual fetishism whereby a person becomes aroused when copious amounts of a substance are applied to the naked skin, face, or to clothing. Several dozen websites are dedicated to WAM.

Many people with WAM fetishes are drawn to the tactile sensations of wet or messy substances against their skin. Other individuals simply prefer the visual appeal of others getting wet or messy with products that have different textures, consistencies and colours. A subject will often be pelted with cream pies (sometimes using shaving foam rather than real cream pie filling), have slime dumped on them, or sit on cakes. Another common theme is the pouring of substances inside clothing while it is being worn; clothing chosen for this can vary from swimsuits or underwear to full outfits. Normal street clothes, either casual or office wear, are commonly featured in WAM productions, but many other types of outfits, from wedding attire to industrial overalls or more specialist fetishwear such as PVC, latex, or leather items may be used. White items are particularly popular with some fans of this fetish.

Messy substances most commonly focused on by WAM participants include whipped cream, raw eggs, milk, lotion (see lotion play), paint, oil, mud, pudding, chocolate sauce, fruit juice, beer, shaving foam, custard, baked beans, treacle, ketchup, ice cream, peanut butter, slime, and cake batter, among others.

A fetish for bodily fluids such as feces, urine, vomit, semen, and female ejaculate is not considered part of WAM. The former three are typically considered coprophilia, urophilia, and emetophilia; urophilia is somewhat commonly found in mainstream pornography. The later two are also somewhat mainstream.WAM fetish videos (made by both fans and commercial producers) may include nudity and sexual acts, while others may only feature fully clothed participants. Videos can frequently be seen on public video hosting sites like YouTube. Some of these videos are flagged but most of them remain available despite the sexual undertones, mainly because a large majority of wet and messy videos posted publicly do not include nudity and are therefore considered suitable for all audiences to view. Indeed, not only is much WAM video content indistinguishable in any easily defined sense from the kind of slapstick featured in mainstream entertainment, but scenes of slimings or pieings from the mainstream media are often compiled and marketed by producers towards a WAM fetishist target audience.

This page is based on a Wikipedia article written by authors (here).
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.