Search databasePMCAll DatabasesAssemblyBiocollectionsBioProjectBioSampleBioSystemsBooksClinVarConserved DomainsdbGaPdbVarGeneGenomeGEO DataSetsGEO ProfilesGTRHomoloGeneIdentical Protein GroupsMedGenMeSHchrissiemanby.com Web Sitechrissiemanby.com CatalogNucleotideOMIMPMCPopSetProteinProtein ClustersProtein Family ModelsPubChem BioAssayPubChem CompoundPubChem SubstancePubMedSNPSRAStructureTaxonomyToolKitToolKitAllToolKitBookgh
*

Hugh Klein
Corresponding author.

Bạn đang xem: What does felching mean?


Felching (sucking or eating semen out of someone’s anus) is a sexual behavior about which virtually nothing has been written in the scholarly literature, despite the fact that it appears to be a not-uncomtháng practice aý muốn certain subpopulations of men who have sex with men (MSM). This study examined three broad research questions: (1) How comtháng is felching? (2) How does a desire for felching relate lớn other HIV risk practices và risk behavior preferences? (3) What factors are associated with the desire lớn engage in felching? The data were from a nội dung analysis study of one of the largest Internet websites specifically targeting MSM looking for partners for unprotected sex. A total of 1,316 profiles on the site were analyzed and selected randomly based on users’ ZIPhường codes. Felching was mentioned as a sought-after practice in approximately one-sixth of the men’s profiles. Men who wanted to find felching partners were significantly more likely than those not searching for felching partners lớn seek other types of risky sex, including unprotected oral và unprotected anal sex, và various enhanced risk preferences (e.g., having sex while high, multiple-partner sex, unwillingness lớn withdraw the penis prior lớn internal ejaculation). Multivariate analysis revealed several factors that were related to lớn an interest in identifying partners online for felching, including race/ethnithành phố, indifference to sex partners’ HIV serostatus, several sensation-seeking measures (e.g., wanting “wild” or “uninhibited” sex, self-identification as a “bug chaser”), và eroticizing ejaculatory fluids.


Introduction

Felching is a sexual practice, fairly comtháng ahy vọng men who have sex with other men (MSM) but not limited khổng lồ this population, about which little has been written và, scientifically, about which little is known. Behaviorally speaking, felching entails sucking or eating semen out of someone’s anus. Aao ước heterosexual or bisexually involved couples, felching occasionally occurs as well, & entails sucking or eating semen out of someone’s anus or vagina. In terms of actual practice ahy vọng MSM, however, what usually happens is that one man performs unprotected anal sex on another man, ejaculates inside of that man’s anus, sucks out the semen from that man’s anus, & then swallows the semen. Sometimes, this process is taken one step farther by then feeding the semen back to the original recipient by drooling it onlớn or into his mouth or exchanging it bachồng & forth with hyên ổn orally with a series of deep kisses (i.e., French kisses). The last part of this process—the oral exchange of the semen between the partners—is sometimes referred to as “snowballing “and is, for many men who engage in felching, an integral part of the felching act. It is the part that conveys the greakiểm tra interpersonal intimacy through the semen exchange, và it is also a behavior that enhances the chances for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) lớn be transmitted from one man lớn the other. Ahy vọng MSM, another variation on felching—one that carries with it considerably greater risk—entails several men performing unprotected anal sex on the same man, all of them ejaculating into that man’s anus, and then one man (who may or may not have been a participant in the anal sex/ejaculation activities) coming along lớn eat the semen from the group of men out of the recipient’s anus, often concluding the activities by sharing the semen with the original recipient via kissing.

In terms of health risk, felching may involve several types of risk. First, if the anal insertive partner is HIV-positive, the snowballing component of the felching act increases the chances that the receptive partner will become infected because he is being double exposed khổng lồ the HIV-infected semen (first through receiving it anally, second by accepting it orally). Although the chance of becoming HIV-infected by receiving semen orally is generally considered to be low, it is not a “no risk” or a “safe sex” behavior (Campo et al., 2006; Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, 2006; Hawkins, 2001). Second, if the person performing the unprotected anal sex has other sexually transmitted infections, such as gonorrhea, chlamydia, or syphilis, these, too, can be transmitted khổng lồ the person receiving the semen both through the unprotected anal sex act và through the felching act (Emerson et al., 2007; Morris et al., 2006; Templeton et al., 2008). Likewise, hepatitis may also be transmitted via felching if the person(s) originally providing the semen is/are hepatitis-infected (Turner et al., 2006).

Yet, despite these health risks attendant with felching, little, if anything, has been documented in the scientific literature regarding this behavior. Little is known about how comtháng this practice is aao ước men who have sex with other men or about how common it is for them lớn report a desire to engage in felching Little is known about the types of men who like khổng lồ engage in felching or if there are differences between those who vì & those who vị not practice this behavior. Little is known about how involvement in this particular sexual practice is related to involvement in other risky sexual behaviors. The main purpose of the present study was to lớn examine these particular issues in a sample of men who use the Internet specifically khổng lồ find sex partners with whom they can engage in unprotected sex. Five sầu retìm kiếm questions were examined: (1) How prevalent is felching amuốn the sexual practices being sought by men who use the Internet lớn identify potential partners for unprotected sex? (2) What characteristics are associated with expressing a desire for felching in one’s online profile? (3) How, if at all, is a desire for felching related to other sexual risk practices in this population? (4) How, if at all, is a desire for felching related lớn sexual risk preferences aao ước men who use the Internet to find other men for unprotected sex? (5) What factors differentiate men who look for felching partners online và those who vị not, when the effects of other factors are taken into lớn account?


Participants

Men ranged in age from 18 to 63 years (M = 35.8, SD = 8.8). The sample approximated the American population fairly well in terms of its racial composition (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001), with 76.9% of the men being Caucasian, 8.1% African American, 7.8% Latino, 2.7% Asian, 0.2% Native American, and 4.3% biracial/multiracial. The large majority (88.7%) considered themselves lớn be gay, with most of the remainder (10.0%) self-identifying as bisexual. A small number of men said that they were heterosexual(0.5%) or “curious” (0.8%). One-third of the men(33.9%) self-identified as being “top” or “versatile top”; one-quarter (22.4%) self-identified as being “versatile”; & the remainder (43.7%) self-identified as being a “bottom”; or a “versatile bottom.” Most (59.6%) said that they were HIV-negative, although sizable proportions of the men whose ads were coded said that they knew that they were HIV-positive sầu (17.3%) or that they did not know what their HIV serostatus was (23.1%). The sample, like the American population in general, tended khổng lồ be skewed toward people residing in more densely populated areas (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). One-fifth (đôi mươi.0%) of the men lived in an area with fewer than 250 persons per square mile. At the other over of the spectrum, 37.8% of the men resided in an area with more than 5,000 persons per square mile, & half of these men (19.8% of the total sample) lived in an area with more than 10,000 persons per square mile.


Procedure

The data were collected between September 2006 & January 2007 using one of the largest MSM-oriented bareback-focused websites currently available on the Internet. The website was chosen because it is không tính phí lớn the public, findable by virtually any Internet tìm kiếm utilizing common key words like “bareback,” và because it boasts a large and steadily growing membership. This website allows members khổng lồ post profiles (including photographs) describing themselves, and there are no length restrictions placed on profiles posted. In addition, there are specific places in their profiles where members are instructed lớn indicate the type(s) of relationships they are seeking (long-term relationships, one-on-one sexual encounters, three-way sexual encounters, and so forth), specific sexual acts that they would lượt thích khổng lồ practice, & an open-ended field that can provide supplemental information about one’s most-sought-after traits or behaviors. Essentially, the large, stable, và growing membership of this trang web, coupled with members’ ability khổng lồ describe themselves as fully as they chose, made this particular website an igiảm giá candidate for the present research.

This research relied upon nội dung analysis as the principal analytical tool (Franzioham mê, 2008; Krippendorff & Bock, 2009). All ads were double-coded (once at the beginning of the study & then again at the over of the study) to ensure data unique, and code-recode reliability coefficients were computed khổng lồ assess the unique of the data. Kappage authority coefficients were 0.90 or greater for all items coded, indicating a very high rate of reliability. The nội dung analysis was based on a random sample of users’ profiles, randomly selected by ZIP. code, which is a searchable feature on the site. This included analyzing both the “check box “information contained in their profiles & their “không tính phí form” self-description narratives, in which they provided detailed information about themselves and/or what they were seeking sexually. Men residing outside of the United States were excluded from this retìm kiếm, so as lớn keep it a U.S.-focused study. Also excluded from analysis (n = 6) were profiles that had not been filled out completely (i.e., with the user not providing at least one piece of the required information on each protệp tin page on the website). In order to lớn be included in the analyses, a user’s profile had khổng lồ be active at both the beginning và the conclusion of the data collection period, to guard against “experimenters “or one-time-only visitors khổng lồ the site being included in the study. (Each profile coded initially was visited at the kết thúc of the data collection period to ensure this.) This led to lớn the exclusion of 67 cases (4.8%). In all, 1,316 valid profiles comprise the study sample.


Measures

For each profile, the following information was collected: age (examined both as a continuous measure and as a dichotomous measure comparing men under the age of 30 lớn those aged 30+); race/ethnicity (Caucasian, African American, Latino, Asian, Native American or biracial/multiracial); self-identification as being a sexual “top,” a versatile top, versatile, a versatile “bottom” or a bottom (analyzed both as “top” vs. other và separately as “bottom” vs. other);self-reported HIV serostatus (negative sầu, positive sầu, or unknown); desired HIV serostatus in sex partners (must be negative, may be negative sầu, must be positive, may be positive, vày not care); self-identified sexual orientation (gay, bisexual, “curious, “heterosexual, analyzed as gay vs. other); willingness to lớn give sầu và receive sầu ejaculatory fluid in the mouth & anus; type(s) of “relationships “sought (one-on-one sexual encounter, long-term relationship, three-person sexual encounter, multiple partner sexual encounter, nonsexual activities partner); the user’s ZIPhường code (which was also used khổng lồ compute population mật độ trùng lặp từ khóa as a macro-màn chơi analytical variable, in accordance with statistics provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, 2010); and whether or not the user’s protệp tin was one of the most commonly searched profiles on the site on any day during the data collection period.

In addition, data collection also entailed coding for a wide variety of specific sexual behaviors, including, aý muốn others, receiving/giving oral sex, receiving/giving anal sex, felching, & rimming (oral stimulation of the anus). Finally, a variety of risk-enhancing practices và attitudes were also coded, including a stated preference for engaging in rough sex, having sexual relations while high (known in the target community as PNP.., or “partying and playing”), overtly stating that they will not use condoms and/or that they will not permit their partners to use condoms, an HIV-negative sầu person actively trying lớn become HIV-infected (known in the target community as “bug chasing”), an HIV-positive person actively trying lớn infect partners with HIV (known as “gift giving”; for further information about this phenomenon, see Grov & Parsons, 2006; Moskowitz & Roloff, 2007a), unwillingness to withdraw the penis prior to ejaculation and/or unwillingness to allow a sex partner to lớn withdraw his penis prior lớn ejaculation, an overt preference for anon ymous sex, a stated preference for having long-lasting sexual encounters, an expression of seeking sexual encounters that are “wild “or “uninhibited, “& eroticizing ejaculation fluid (known in the target community as being a “cum whore “or a “cum freak “or a “cum lover “or a “cum dump”).

Xem thêm: Nghĩa Của Từ Dung Dị Là Gì, Nghĩa Của Từ Dung Dị Trong Tiếng Việt

All of the research done in conjunction with this article was undertaken as part of a larger study known colloquially as The Barebaông chồng Project. The retìm kiếm protocols for this study were reviewed and subsequently approved by the Institutional đánh giá Board at Morgan State University.


Prevalence of Characteristics Associated with Wanting lớn Find Felching Partners

Approximately 1 man in 6 (16.5%) expressed a desire to lớn find partners with whom he could engage in felching. Men who were looking for felching partners were younger, on average, than those who did not post profiles expressing such an interest (34.5 years of age vs. 36.1, t = 2.41, p = .016), with particular differences noted between men under & those over the age of 30. African American men were considerably less likely than members of other racial/ethnic groups to express a desire for felching (4.7% vs. 17.6%; OR = 0.23, CI95 = 0.08–0.60, p<.001) &, conversely, Caucasian men were substantially more likely than members of other racial/ethnic groups to lớn have sầu profiles indicating an interest in felching (18.0% vs. 11.5%; OR = 1.69, CI95 = 1.13–2.54, p =.007). There was no difference in profiles mentioning or not mentioning felching based on the population mật độ trùng lặp từ khóa of the area where the men resided or on their sexual orientation.

Felching was more commonly sought by men who self-identified as sexual bottoms or versatile bottoms than it was aước ao those who self-identified as being versatile, versatile tops, or tops (trăng tròn.2% vs. 13.6%; OR=1.60, CI95=1.18–2.17, p=.002). Men who said that they were HIV-negative were significantly less likely than those who were HIV-positive sầu or unsure about their HIV serostatus khổng lồ post profiles saying that they wanted to lớn find partners for felching (14.3% vs. 19.7%; OR=0.68, CI95=0.50–0.92, p=.009). Finally, men who had paid for a site membership, which gave them access to lớn additional features and allowed them more comprehensive sầu usage of the site than those without such a membership, were more likely than those who had not paid for a site membership to say that they were looking for partners for felching (trăng tròn.5% vs. 15.3%; OR=1.43, CI95=1.02–2.01, p=.031).


How Is a Desire for Felching Related to lớn Other HIV Risk Practices?

For the two sexual practices examined that entailed receiving no semen—that is, having someone perkhung unprotected oral sex on the person, and being the insertive sầu partner in unprotected anal sex—no significant differences were found between men who did & men who did not want khổng lồ find felching partners (88.5% vs. 87.9% for receiving oral sex; 79.7% vs. 79.7% for insertive sầu anal sex). When the sexual practice in question involved receiving semen, however, men whose profiles indicated an interest in felching were far more likely to want to lớn engage in the risk practice than were those whose profiles indicated no such interest. Where receiving semen during oral sex was concerned, men seeking felching were more than three times as likely as those who were not seeking felching to lớn want khổng lồ engage in this behavior (19.4% vs. 6.4%; OR = 3.53, CI95 = 2.12–5.95, p <.001). This differential was nearly as large when receiving semen from unprotected anal sex was concerned as well (trăng tròn.6% vs. 7.2%; OR = 3.34, CI95 = 2.18–5.15, p <.001). Men whose profiles expressed a desire for finding felching partners were about twice as likely as those whose profiles did not to say that they wanted to lớn identify men with whom they could engage in all four of these sexual practices (i.e., receptive sầu & insertive unprotected oral sex, receptive sầu & insertive unprotected anal sex) (21.5% vs. 11.6%; OR = 2.08, CI95 = 1.52–2.85, p <.001). Moreover, men seeking felching online were more likely than those who were not lớn say that they wanted lớn find men with whom they could practice oral-anal sex (colloquially known as “rimming”) (26.0% vs. 15.3%; OR = 1.95, CI95 = 1.28–2.96, p<.001).


How Is a Desire for Felching Related khổng lồ HIV-Related Risk Preferences?

On almost all dimensions of risk preference examined, men whose profiles indicated a desire for felching were also seeking lớn engage in other sexual behaviors that are considered khổng lồ be high risk. For example, they were more likely to lớn want to lớn have sầu sexual relations while high (19.6% vs. 12.6%; OR = 1.70, CI95 = 1.24–2.33, p<.001). As another example, they were more than three times as likely to lớn state overtly in their profiles that they would not withdraw their penis prior to internal ejaculation or to allow their partners to lớn vì chưng so (48.0% vs. 15.9%; OR = 4.89, CI95 = 2.06–11.59, p<.001). As a third example, men seeking felching were about five times as likely as those not seeking felching to want multiple-partner sex (trăng tròn.5% vs. 4.3%; OR = 5.70,CI95 = 3.18–10.38,p<.001). They were more likely to want rough sex (24.8% vs. 15.4%; OR = 1.89, CI95 = 1.19–2.76, p =.003), to lớn state overtly that they disliked condoms (even though this was implicit by their very use of the website in question)(41.3%vs.15.6%;OR= 3.81,CI95 = 1.99–7.26,p<.001), to want to find partners with whom they could engage in anonymous sex (32.6% vs. 16.0%; OR = 2.54, CI95 = 1.25–5.10, p =.004), to lớn want to find men for “wild “or “uninhibited” sexual encounters (36.2% vs. 15.0%; OR = 3.22, CI95 = 2.00–5.16, p<.001), to eroticize ejaculatory fluids (35.7% vs. 12.8%; OR = 3.78, CI95 = 2.68–5.34, p<.001), and lớn want to find partners with whom they could engage in sex involving bondage (21.6% vs. 14.2%; OR = 1.66, CI95 = 1.22–2.27, p<.001).

Consistent with the preceding, men searching online for felching were more than three times as likely as those who were not lớn be bug chasers—that is, men whose profiles specifically indicated a desire lớn become HIV-positive (51.7% vs. 15.7%; OR = 5.75, CI95 = 2.58–12.84, p<.001). Also consistent with this, men who were looking for felching partners were more likely than those who were not to lớn say that they did not care about the HIV serostatus of potential sex partners (19.9% vs. 11.3%; OR = 1.94, CI95 = 1.39–2.72, p<.001). The former were also about half as likely as the latter to lớn insist on identifying sex partners who were HIV-negative sầu (10.5% vs.19.8%; OR = 0.47, CI95 = 0.33–0.67, p<.001).

The only risk preferences measure examined that did not demonstrate a significant difference between the men who did & the men who did not advertise for felching online was a stated preference for having long-lasting sexual encounters (19.5% vs. 16.3%).

Xem thêm: Tiểu Sử, Sự Nghiệp Chồng Bảo Thy


What Factors Are Associated with Seeking versus Not Seeking Felching Online When the Effects of Other Measures Are Considered?

Table 1 presents the findings obtained in this part of the analysis. The last column of this table provides standardized coefficients, so that readers can compare the relative sầu effects sizes of the items in the final equation. As shown, eight items were found to contribute uniquely & significantly to lớn the determination of whether or not men sought felching partners in their online profiles. The strongest contributor to lớn the mã sản phẩm was wanting multiple-partner sex, which was much more comtháng among men looking for felching partners than it was aước ao those who were not (β = 0.32, p<.001). The next strongest variable in the equation was eroticizing ejaculatory fluids. Here, men whose lf-identified as “cum freaks” or “cum dumps “or who said that they could not get enough cum (or anything to that effect) were more likely khổng lồ seek felching partners online as those who did not so identify (β = 0.trăng tròn,p<.001). Third, African Americans were found to be substantially less likely than their non-Black counterparts lớn advertise online for felching partners (β = 0.18, p =.012).


Multivariate findings for the factors associated with whether or not men seek felching partners in their online profiles


Odds ratio95% Confidence intervalβ
Race = African American0.300.12–0.770.18*
Does not care about partner’s HIV serostatus1.511.07–2.140.11*
Wants multiple sex partner sex3.812.15–6.740.32***
Prefers khổng lồ find men who will have sex while high1.491.08–2.050.11*
Self-identification as a bug chaser3.631.59–8.260.10**
Unwillingness to lớn withdraw prior to lớn internal ejaculation2.851.16–6.990.08*
Seeking “wild” or “uninhibited” sex1.951.20–3.170.09**
Eroticizes ejaculatory fluids2.681.88–3.820.20***