Zoophilia Wiki - User contributions [en]

Legality of bestiality by country or territory

2006-05-19T19:48:47Z

150.101.115.231: Australian state laws referenced

{{Legal disclaimer}}
'''Zoosexuality and the law''' looks at the laws governing [[zoophilia|human-animal sexual interaction]] (also sometimes known as bestiality or zoophilia) around the world.

The law tend to vary considerably. As Masters points out, countries with a strong view on religion tend to have stricter laws, those without such a tradition tend to be more relaxed{{citeneeded}}. Other shapers include the cultural context - some cultures tacitly or openly accepting zoosexuality, others seeing it as abnormal.

Because it is easy to determine when there is a law against, but (for reasons discussed) often less easy to reliably identify when it is legally acceptable, this article focusses upon laws against zoosexual activity and does not attempt to address where it may be legal. Only in a few confirmed cases, where it is clearly permitted, will these be stated.

==Background to the legal framework==
===Zoosexuality===
{{main|zoosexuality}}
[[Zoosexuality]] is the spectrum of human-animal sexual interaction. Other than for breeding or veterinary purposes, in many countries humans are frowned upon if they interact with a non-human animal in this manner, and yet clinical research strongly suggests that for at least some such people, this is a type of emotional and lifestyle bond that they are drawn to, or a [[sexual orientation]], and that often there is no force or coercion involved. Other research suggests that in such 'relationships' often the animal gains or is at the least not harmed. According to some researchers, in such relationships "one seems forced to conclude, the animal derives a considerable psychical and/or emotional pleasure from sexual contact with a being of a higher nervous, emotional, and intellectual organization," described further in the article [[zoosexuality]].

Against this, there are regular reports in the press of what may be termed animal rape, torture, or sexual abuse, often of an extreme nature, described further in the article [[zoosadism]]. Historically, such acts have been seen negatively in the West, both as religious offences against God, and as suspect or abusive acts unsuited to the civilized world, a general societal view which persists to the present time.

A pivotal researcher in the field, [[Hani Miletski]] describes<ref>Miltetski, 1999, p.1</ref> how: "Throughout the literature review, it is very obvious that authors perceive sexual relations with animals in very different ways. Definitions of various behaviors and attitudes are often conflicting, leaving the reader confused. Terms such as 'sodomy,' 'zoorasty,' 'zoosexuality,' as well as 'bestiality' and 'zoophilia' are often used, each having a different meaning depending on the author." [[Vern Bullough]], a renowned professor emeritus who reviewed her work, states:<ref> Review of Miletski's book, published in ''Journal of Sex Research,'' May 2003. ([http://www.dynomind.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_2_40/ai_105518225 Online version])</ref> "It seems clear from Miletski's summary of the existing literature that very little is actually known about bestiality and there is not anything approaching a consensus as to why animal-human sexual contacts occur... many of the existing reports and studies should be classified more as pseudo-science than serious research."

===Historical and cultural context===
{{main|Historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia}}
Historically, the societal view on zoosexuality has been dominated by Western views on morality, which can often be traced back to religious influences and more specifically to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions under which it was viewed as an [[Abomination (Bible)|abomination]] and breach of God's will. During the [[Middle Ages]] this led to people being burned for zoosexual activity, viewed on a par with [[homosexuality]]{{citeneeded}} under the term "[[sodomy]]", as as one of the most horrific acts possible from a religious point of view.

In other cultures, it was at times accepted, or tolerated, and at other times [[taboo]] or punished, and this varied very widely.

In more recent centuries the subject was studied as a medical abberation, some form of [[throwback]] or degeneracy within medicine, and finally within the 20th century, came to be recognized as a [[sexual orientation]] in many cases.

===Legal context===
Laws on zoosexuality tend to be shaped by three main factors:
* Animal welfare concerns
* Personal moral views of shapers of opinion
* Cultural beliefs about the act

Issues confusing the matter are that such research as is available, is not widely known, and that cases which come to public light may not be representative of the whole.

Posner (1996) states, "there is some evidence that bestiality was particularly reviled because of fear that it would produce monsters... At early [[common law]], there was no offense of cruelty to animals... The focus of <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[cruelty to animals]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> statutes is different from that of the traditional [[sodomy law|sodomy statute]]; anticruelty statutes are concerned with both the treatment of the animal and with the offense to community standards, while antibestiality provisions embodied in the sodomy statutes are aimed only at offenses to community standards." <ref name="posner">Posner, Richard, A Guide to America's Sex Laws, The University of Chicago Press, 1996. ISBN 0-226-67564-5. Page 207.</ref>

Animal welfare bodies usually, but not always, view zoosexuality or zoophilia as a matter of animal abuse, or at the least, of concern. A notable exception is the Swedish Animal Welfare Agency, which in 2005 addressed concerns over a surge in [[horse-ripping]] incidents by reviewing the matter and concluded that although animal cruelty legislation needed updating, a ban on zoosexual activity was not justified by research.

==Why is it difficult to list zoosexuality laws?==
There are two reasons it is hard to be ceertain whether zoosexuality is legal in an area. The terminology used in law may be vague, so it is not clear what is covered, and whilst it is usually clear if a specific law prohibits zoosexual activity, it is not always so clear (for several reasons) whether the absence of an obvious law means the opposite.

===Vagueness of terms===
Some countries list laws very clearly, such as the UK, which specifically prohibits penetration of a human being by the penis of an animal, and penetration of an animal by a human's penis.

By contrast many countries are quite vague about the exact scope of law. Terms such as "sex with animals", "sodomy", "crime against nature", or "bestiality" are significantly lacking in legal precision, and as with many laws, what may seem very straightforward from a distance is very vague close-up in a courtroom. This also makes them indeterminate and leaves it unclear what exact activities such terms might encompass.

===Difficulty in establishing legality===
It is difficult to state with certainty which countries beyond these accept zoosexual actions in law. This is for many reasons, the main ones of which are:

;1) Assumption of cruelty
Even if zoosexuality is not explicitly prohibited, there are often many other laws which can be used to effectively prosecute cases. For example, most countries have animal cruelty laws, and a prosecutor will argue that all zoosexual activity is animal abuse.<ref>The argument that "all sexual activity with animals is automatically abuse" was made for example, in 1) the 2004 case of [http://pet-abuse.com/cases/2206/FL/US/1 State vs. Mitchell] (Florida), 2) the 2004 Pony case in Utrecht, Holland (cited below), and 3) the 2006 Washington state law which asserts as its foundational premise that "animal cruelty in the first degree is committed when a person knowingly engages in sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal." [http://washingtonvotes.org/2006-SB-6417 SB-6417 2006]</ref>

;2) Creative law use
Some countries have a range of historic but vague laws on their statute books (for example [[sodomy law]]s, "[[crime against nature]]" laws, or other laws based upon the historical religious beliefs of the culture), and will prosecute under that.<ref>For example a man found to have committed a zoosexual rape of a sheep in [[Michigan]] 2006 was not charged with [[animal cruelty]], but with [[crime against nature|crimes against nature]]. It is notable that a first offence of animal cruelty, which includes any "unnecessary neglect, torture, or pain", carries only up to a 93 day sentence ([http://www.animal-law.org/statutes/michigan.htm MI 750.50 section 2(f) and section 4]), whereas a zoosexual act prosecuted as a crime against nature is capable of a 20 year sentence.</ref> Even when these type of laws do not exist, it is often the case that a prosecution will be found on some ground or other, however contrived. Two examples:

In one case, prosecutors unable to find a basis for prosecution charged the individual with "sex with a minor". (It is unclear whether they considered the breeding of horses and operation of stud farms to be "living off the proceeds of prostitution of minors")

In the case of [[Kenneth Pinyan]], reports suggest that despite seizing and examining carefully a large number of such videos from the property, no evidence of abuse was found. Not only was there no abuse found, but the state had no law against zoosexual activity at the time. None the less, as one news source comments:
:"It was only after Pinyan died, when law enforcement looked for one way to punish his associates, that the legality of bestiality in Washington State became an issue ... The prosecutor's office wanted to charge [his friend] with animal abuse, but the police found no evidence of abused animals on the many videotapes they collected from his home. As there was no law against humanely [having sex with] one horse, the prosecutors could only charge [him] with trespassing."<ref name="thestranger">{{cite news|url=http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=30811|accessdate=2006-04-30|title=The Animal In You|publisher=The Stranger|date=February-March 2006}}</ref>

;3) Non-codified cultural prohibitions

Often there are traditions or unwritten cultural beliefs, such as tribal law or custom, which although not codified as legislation, carry an equal weight to any other law.

;4) Social taboos
Finally, whether or not legal, there are often social mores which frown strongly upon it. For example, even in Sweden, where zoophilia has been legal since 1944, Beetz comments<ref>Beetz, 2002, ''Love Sex and Violence with Animals'', section 5.2.13</ref> on the findings of Ullerstam<ref>Ullerstam, 1966, p.119</ref>:
:"It has to be noted in this context, that not having laws against a behavior and acceptance of it by society are two completely different matters... no acceptance of the persons engaging in this kind of sexual activity was adopted by the population. [...] Furthermore, Ullerstam referred to alleged evidence that showed, that many remarkable men had sexual experiences with animals and had to live a life in constant fear because of that. Those man had been widely respected, but would have lost everything if their activities would have become known; all their great contributions would have been forgotten due to a 'primitive moral reaction'."

For these reasons, this article only asserts legality where it is both confirmed and openly acknowledged custom and law that zoosexuality is legal, and where in fact it is openly confirmed, acknowledged or able to be practiced.

==Overview of legislation==
Laws in the West are in flux at the moment. Some countries such as the UK have recently (2002) relaxed their laws, whilst others (several US states) have recently introduced new ones where none previously existed.

A key factor seems to be the motive behind the change: in the UK the motive was a complete review of all sex offences, which concluded that a [[life sentence]] was inappropriately harsh. By contrast in [[Arizona]] USA, the motive for legislation was a "spate of recent cases" [http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/122006], and the Arizona legislator is quoted in that source as stating:
:"Arizona appears to be in the minority of states that does not make sex with animals a crime. That doesn't necessarily mean we're wrong. But why shouldn't we be in line with everybody else if the rest of the nation thinks it's a problem?"

===Common reasons given for laws ===

In cultures with a strong background in [[Abrahamic religion]]s ([[Judaism]], [[Christianity]], and [[Islam]]), personal or cultural beliefs about [[God]]'s [[bible|Biblical]] laws or [[religion and sexuality|God's plans for human sexuality]] are a strong influencing factor.

Against this, in some countries (notably the [[United States]]), courts have ruled that views on morality are not sufficient justification for law (''[[Lawrence vs. Texas]]'') but in other cases (''[[Muth v. Frank]]'') have ruled adversely to a broader reading of that case.

A second major reason is the strong desire of society to outlaw and punish [[animal cruelty]] and [[animal abuse]]. Cultural and personal assumption, lack of informed knowledge, and cases of [[zoosadism]] have left society as a whole wary or hostile towards any belief that animals may engage in sex with humans on a mutual or non-abusive basis. (The article on [[zoosexuality]] considers research in this area in more depth). A factor in this is that prior research, often performed only on known incarcerated violent abuser populations and [[Zoophilia#Mis-citation_of_research|mis-cited]] by parties with vested interests, and described by professor emeritus [[Vern Bullough]] as "more often [[pseudoscience]]"{{citeneeded}} and author [[argument from ignorance|assumption]], was used for many decades as proof that zoosexual activity should be classified as a rare but profound sexual pathology.

Studies suggest that [[zoosadism]], or wanton abuse, [[torture]], violent [[rape]] or cruelty to animals, for example pet abuse or animal crushing, is a potentially strong indicator for abuse towards humans. Despite invesigation, a similar link has not been shown with sexual activity in general or zoophiles generally.

A major social factor in the proposed introduction of laws, is the coming to light of specific cases to public attention; this was the case in [[Washington (state)|Washington]], [[Missouri]] and [[Arizona]] USA, and also behind recent attempts in [[2004]] to change the law in [[Netherlands|Holland]].<ref name="Holland_case">"MPs were outraged at the start of March when a man caught raping a pony in Utrecht could not be punished because he had not broken any law... Veerman will now investigate the possibility of adding sex with animals to the list of acts classified as animal cruelty, news agency ANP reported." [http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=19&story_id=6363]</ref> In such cases it often does not seem to matter whether there was abuse or not,<ref>Eg Washington where the police looked for abuse but failed to find any evidence</ref> or how rare or commonly such matters arise. Rather it seems to be a case of "[[NIMBY|not in my back yard]]."

Overall much of the concern can be summarized as coming from lack of knowledge, combined with repugnance at the concept of human-animal sexuality, presented in a societal context of religious or social abhorrance, and a desire to reduce abuse.

==Laws against zoosexuality==
Zoosexuality is permitted in a few countries, such as [[Sweden]] and the [[Netherlands]]. In other countries, such as [[Germany]] and [[Russia]], zoosexuality is legal, but zoosexual [[pornography]] is illegal.

Elsewhere in the developed world, it is a prudent assumption that it is illegal or at the least against social custom.

There are also commonly laws against forcing another person to engage in zoosexual activity, especially minors (usually considered equivalent to [[rape]]), and laws related to exposing others (either non-consensually or minors) to the sight of a sexual act.

===National laws===
====Australia====
* In [[Australia]]<ref name="au_state_laws">Ref: Halsbury's Laws of Australia #9 page 247662.
* [[Tasmania]] (Criminal Code s122(b): Not more than 21 years imprisonment)
* [[New South Wales]] (Crimes Act (1900) s79: Not more than 14 years imprisonment)
* [[South Australia]] (Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935) s69: "buggery with an animal" - Not more than 10 years imprisonment)
* [[Western Australia]] (Criminal Code s181: "carnal knowledge of an animal" - Not more than 7 years imprisonment)
* [[Queensland]] (Criminal Code s211: "carnal knowledge of an animal" - Not more than 5 years imprisonment)
* [[Victoria]] (Crimes Act (1958) s59: Not more than 5 years imprisonment)
* [[Northern Territory]] (Criminal Code s138: Not more than 3 years imprisonment)
* [[Australian Capital Territory]] and [[Jervis Bay Territory]] have "no equivalent provisions".</ref>, laws are determined at the state level, with all but the [[Australian Capital Territory]] and [[Jervis Bay Territory]] explicitly outlawing it.

====Canada====
* Zoosexual acts are illegal in [[Canada]] (section 160 forbidding "bestiality". The term is not defined, so it is not quite clear what it might cover.)

====Europe====
* In [[Belgium]] zoosexual acts are legal, however the spreading of zoosexual pornography is not according to a court ruling in 2006 against a man who frequently had sex with dogs in a shelter he had worked for. He was acquitted from the charge of animal abuse and was only found guilty of violating public decency by spreading zoosexual pornographic material he had made at the shelter, which he did mainly via his website under the nickname ''Freki''. The Belgian animal rights organisation ''Gaia'', which filed the complaint, has appealed against the court ruling however and calls for the law to be changed to criminalize zoosexual acts.
* In [[Germany]], sex with animals is not specifically outlawed (but trading pornography showing it is, cf. [http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/184a.html §184a StGB]). In [[West Germany]], the law making it a crime ([[Paragraph 175|§175b]] StGB, which also outlawed homosexual acts) was removed in 1969. [[East Germany]] before [[German reunification|reunification]] had no law against zoosexual activity; zoosexual pornography, however, was very restricted. Certain barriers are set by the Animal Protection Law (''Tierschutzgesetz'').
* In [[Sweden]], zoosexual acts are legal, although animal cruelty is not. A 2005 report by the [[Swedish Animal Welfare Agency]] for the Swedish government expressed strong concerns over the increase in reports of [[horse-ripping]] incidents, although noting that "the rise in documented cases did not necessarily mean that there was a de facto increase", and distinguished zoosexual activity from incidents involving physical injury (zoosadism). The Animal Welfare Agency gave as its opinion that current animal cruelty legislation needed updating as it was not sufficiently protecting animals from abuse, but concluded that on balance it was not appropriate to call for a ban. [http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=1357]
* In the [[United Kingdom]], it is illegal, with [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30042--b.htm#69 section 69] of the [[Sexual Offences Act 2003]] reducing the sentence to a maximum of 2 years imprisonment for human penile penetration of or by an animal.

====New Zealand====
* Zoosexual acts are illegal in [[New Zealand]] under a variety of sections contained in the Crimes Act 1961. Section 143, makes "bestiality" an offence, but as in Canada, the meaning of bestiality is derived from case law. There are also associated offences of indecency with an animal (section 144) and compelling an indecent act with an animal (section 142A). It is interesting to note that in the 1989 Crimes Bill considered abolition of bestiality as a criminal offence, and for it to be treated as a [[mental health]] issue. In ''Police v Sheary'' (1991) 7 CRNZ 107 (HC) Fisher J considered that "[t]he community is generally now more tolerant and understanding of unusual sexual practices that do not harm others."

====United States====
Many [[U.S. state]]s<ref name="us_state_laws">US State Laws where known:
* [[Misdemeanor]]: [[Arkansas]] (Ark. Stat. Ann. @5-14-122 (2005): "Bestiality" - Class A Misdemeanor), [[California]] (Penal Code Section 286.5 "Crime Against Nature" - misdemeanor), [[Connecticut]] (CT Penal Code 952.53a-73a "Sexual assault in the fourth degree" - Class A Misdemeanor), [[Iowa]] (2005 Merged Code 717C.1 "Bestiality" Aggravated Misdemeanor - up to 2yrs and $500-$5000 fine), [[Kansas]] (K.S.A. @21-3505 "Criminal Sodomy" Class B Nonperson Misdemeanor), [[Minnesota]] (Minn. Stat. @609.294, (1993): Either fine of not more than $3,000 or sentence of not more than 1 year), [[Missouri]] (Mo Rev. Stat. @566-111 "Unlawful Sex with an Animal" - Class A Misdemeanor (1st offense) thereafter Class D Felony), [[Nebraska]] (Neb. Statutes @28-1010 "Indecency with an animal" - Class III misdemeanor), [[New York (state)|New York]] (NY CLS Penal @130.20 (1994): Class A misdemeanor), [[North Dakota]] (N.D. Cent. Code @12.1-20-12 "Deviate Sexual Act" is a Class A Misdemeanor), [[Oregon]] (Oregon Laws 2003 @167.333 "Sexual Assault of Animal" a class A misdemeanor), [[Utah]] (Bestiality 76-9-301.8: Class B Misdemeanor), [[Wisconsin]] (Wis. State. @944.17(2)(c) and (d)(1993) "Sexual Gratification" a class A misdemeanor).
* [[Felony]]: [[Delaware]] (11 Del. C. @777 (1993): Class D Criminal felony), [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]] (O.C.G.A. @16-6-6 (1994): 1-5 yr. jail sentence), [[Idaho]] (Idaho Code @18-6605 (1994): "length of imprisonment in excess of 5 years is in discretion of court."), [[Illinois]] (720 ILCS 5/12-35 (2003): Sexual Conduct (or Contact) with an Animal - Class D Felony), [[Louisiana]] (RS 14:89 (2003) "Crime Against Nature" up to $2,000 fine and/or 5yrs with or without hard labor), [[Maine]] (17-A M.R.S. @ 251 (1994): Class C Crime; 3-5 yrs), [[Maryland]] (Unnatural/Perverted Sexual Acts Article 27, Section 553: Up to $1,000 fine, max of 10 years prison), [[Massachusetts]] (Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 272 @34 (1994) "Crime against Nature" prison term of not more than 20 years), [[Michigan (MCL @750.185 (1992): Jail sentence not more than 15 years), [[Mississippi]] (Miss. Code. Ann, @97-29-59: Sentence of not more than 10 years), [[Montana]] (Mont. Code. Ann, @45-5-505 (1994): 10 year sentence and/or $50,000 fine), [[North Carolina]] (N.C. Gen. Stat. @14-177 (1994): Class I felony. 3-10 yrs), [[Oklahoma]] (Okl. St. @21-886 (1994): "imprisonment not to exceed 10 years"), [[Rhode Island]] (R.I. Gen. Laws @11-10-1 (1993): 7-20 years), [[South Carolina]] (S.C. Code Ann. @16-15-120 (1993): 5 yrs jail and/or fine of at least $500), [[South Dakota]] (SD Codified Laws 22-22-42 (1995): "Bestiality" - Class 6 Felony 1st offense, Class 5 subsequent offenses), [[Virginia]] (Va. Code. Ann. @18.2-361 (1994): Class 6 Felony), [[Washington D.C.]] (DC Code @22-3502 (1994) ("Sexual Psychopath" chapter): Fine not more than $1000 and/or sentence of not more than 10 yrs).
* Legislation in progress [[as of 2006]]: [[Arizona]] (introduced after a "spate of recent cases" [http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/122006]), [[New Jersey]], [[Washington (state)|Washington]] (introduced after the [[Kenneth Pinyan]] case in [[Enumclaw]]).
* Believed illegal or 'other': [[Pennsylvania]] (18 Pa. C. S. @3101, 3123 and 3124 (1994)), [[Tennessee]] (Tenn. Code. Ann. @39-13-511 (1994) specifically mentioned under Public Indecency if done in a public place)</ref> explicitly outlaw sex with animals (sometimes under the term of "[[sodomy]]" or "unnatural [[crime against nature]]").

Many U.S. state laws against "sodomy" (generally in the context of male homosexuality) were repealed or struck down by the courts in [[Lawrence v. Texas]], which ruled that perceived moral disapproval on its own was an insufficient justification for banning a private act. On the other hand, the 2004 conviction of a man in Florida ({{Derefer|1=http://pet-abuse.com/cases/2206/FL/US/1 State vs. Mitchell}}) demonstrated that even in states with no specific laws against zoosexual acts, animal cruelty statutes would instead be applied, and [[Muth v. Frank]] showed that some courts might be "desperate to avoid the plain consequences" of Lawrence and may make "narrow and strained" efforts to avoid seeing it as relevant to other consensual private acts beyond the realm of homosexuality.<ref name="MuthvFrank">From main article ''[[Muth v. Frank]]'' - "The grounds for dismissal, that Lawrence had dealt specifically with homosexual sodomy and not other consensual private sexual activity between adults, were considered "narrow and strained" by at least one newspaper, the ''Boston Globe'' [http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/08/28/hypocrisy_on_adult_consent/]. As legal scholar Matthew Franck observed, the writer of the opinion, Judge Daniel Manion, must have been "desperate to avoid the plain consequences of the [Supreme] Court's recent precedents on sexual liberty". "</ref>

Finally, the 1999 [[Philip Buble]] case showed that when a self-confessed zoophile is assaulted and the assault is motivated by his zoophilia (ie [[hate crime]]), a jury can convict the assailant and a judge give a stern sentence, despite the controversial nature of the cause.

===Pornography laws===
:''Main articles with legal sections: [[Obscenity]], [[Pornography]], [[Legal status of internet pornography]]''
Animal pornography is governed in the United States by the same [[Miller test]] and [[obscenity law]]s as any other form of pornography. In many countries such as [[Canada]], [[Hungary]] and the Netherlands, such material is legal, although in some countries where zoosexual acts are legal, zoosexual pornography is not (Belgium, Germany, Russia).

===Religious laws===
{{main|Zoophilia and religion}}
In certain religions, sex with animals was part of the legal framework of a [[theocracy|theocratic]] state, and as such the matter also falls under [[religious law]]. This is particularly the case for [[Abrahamic religion]]s such as [[Judaism]], [[Christianity]] and [[Islam]], although many other religions and traditions such as [[Hindu]], [[Buddhism]] and even [[Satanism]] have religious views and rules on the matter which did not form part of a national legislative regime.

===Historical and other laws===
In some countries laws existed against single males living with female animals. For example, an old [[Peru]]vian law prohibited single males from having a female [[alpaca]] ([[llama]]).

==See also==
* [[Zoosexuality]]
* [[Zoophilia]]
* [[Homosexuality laws of the world]]
* [[Sodomy law]]
* [[Gay rights]]
* [[Legal status of internet pornography]]
* [[Social norm]]
* [[Sexual norm]]

==External links==

==References==
<references />

[[category:Zoosexuality]]
[[category:Sex laws]]

Zoophilia Wiki:Zoophilia

2005-10-14T05:36:43Z

150.101.115.231: /* Legal status */ Incorrect. A Single pet store's policy does not equal all Sydney stores legally requiring identification - http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3442678a12,00.html

[[Image:Leda.jpg|thumb|300px|''[[Leda and the Swan]]'', a [[16th century]] copy after a lost painting by [[Michelangelo]], 1530 ([[National Gallery, London]])]]
'''Zoophilia''' (from the [[Greek language|Greek]] ''Zoon'', "animal", and ''Philia'', "friendship" or "love") is a [[paraphilia]], defined as an affinity or [[sexual attraction]] by a [[human]] to non-human [[animal]]s. Such individuals are called '''zoophiles'''. The more recent terms '''zoosexual''' and '''zoosexuality''' also describe the full spectrum of human/animal attraction. A separate term, '''bestiality''' (more common in mainstream usage), refers to human/animal sexual activity. To avoid confusion about the meaning of ''zoophilia'' – which may refer to the affinity/attraction, paraphilia, or sexual activity – this article uses ''zoophilia'' for the former, and ''zoosexuality'' for the sexual act. The two terms are independent: not all sexual acts with animals are performed by zoophiles, not all zoophiles are interested in being sexual with animals.

Zoophilia is usually considered to be unnatural, and sexual acts with animals are often condemned as [[cruelty to animals|animal abuse]] and/or outlawed as "crimes against nature". However, some, such as philosopher and animal rights author [[Peter Singer]], argue that this is not inherently the case.

The activity or desire itself is no longer classified as a pathology under [[DSM-IV|DSM-IV (TR)]] (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the [[American Psychiatric Association]]) unless accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the person. Critics point out that that DSM-IV opinion says nothing about acceptability or the well being of the animal; defenders, on the other hand, argue that a human/animal relationship can go far beyond sexuality, that research supports their perspective, and that animals are capable of forming what is claimed to be a genuine [[loving relationship]] that can last for years and is not considered functionally different from any other love/sex relationship.

== Terminology ==

The general term "zoophilia" was first introduced into the field of research on sexuality by [[Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing|Krafft-Ebing]] (1894). The terms '''zoosexual''' and '''zoosexuality''', signifying the entire spectrum of emotional and sexual attraction and/or orientation to animals, have been used since the [[1980s]] (cited by Miletski, 1999), to suggest an analogy to homosexual or heterosexual orientations. Individuals with a strong affinity for animals but without a sexual interest can be described as "non-sexual" (or "emotional") zoophiles, but may object to the "zoophile" label. They are commonly called '''animal lovers''' instead.

The ambiguous term [[sodomy]] has sometimes been used in legal contexts to include zoosexual acts. "'''Zooerasty'''" is an older term, not in common use. In [[pornography]], human/animal sex is occasionally referred to as ''farmsex'', ''dog sex'' or ''animal sex''.

Amongst zoophiles, the term "'''bestialist'''" has acquired a negative connotation implying a lower concern for animal welfare. This arises from the desire by some zoophiles to distinguish zoophilia as a fully relational outlook (sexual or otherwise), from simple "ownership with sex." Others describe themselves as zoophiles ''and'' bestialists in accordance with the dictionary definitions of the words.

== Extent of occurrence ==

The extent to which zoophilia occurs is not known with any certainty, largely because feelings which may not have been acted upon can be difficult to quantify, lack of clear divide between non-sexual zoophilia and everyday pet care, and reluctance by most zoophiles to disclose their feelings. Instead most research into zoophilia has focused on its characteristics, rather than quantifying it.

Scientific surveys estimating the frequency of zoosexuality, as well as anecdotal evidence and informal surveys, suggest that more than 1-2% -- and perhaps as many as 8-10% -- of sexually active adults have had significant sexual experience with an animal at some point in their lives. Studies suggest that a larger number (perhaps 10-30% depending on area) have fantasized or had some form of brief encounter. Larger figures such as 40-50% for rural teenagers (living on or near livestock farms) have been cited from some earlier surveys such as the [[Kinsey report]]s, but some later writers consider these uncertain. Anecdotally, [[Nancy Friday]]'s 1973 book on [[female sexuality]] ''[[My Secret Garden]]'' comprised around 180 women's contributions; of these, some 10% volunteered a serious interest or active participation in zoophilia.

[[Sexual fantasy|Sexual fantasies]] about zoosexual acts can occur in people who do not wish to experience them in real life, and may simply reflect normal imagination and curiosity. [[Latent]] zoophile tendencies may be common; the frequency of interest and sexual excitement in watching animals [[mating|mate]] is cited as an indicator of this by Massen (1994).

== Legal status ==

Zoosexual acts are illegal in many jurisdictions, while others generally outlaw the mistreatment of animals without specifically mentioning sexuality. Because it is unresolved under the law whether sexual relations with an animal are inherently "abusive" or "mistreatment", this leaves the status of zoosexuality unclear in some jurisdictions.

* Just over half of [[U.S. state]]s explicitly outlaw sex with animals (sometimes under the term of "[[sodomy]]"). In the 2000s, six U.S. states adopted new legislation against it: Oregon, Maine, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Missouri. When many U.S. state laws against "sodomy" (generally in the context of male homosexuality) were repealed or struck down by the courts, some people thought sex with animals would no longer be outlawed. However, the 2004 conviction of a man in Florida demonstrated that even in states with no specific laws against zoosexual acts, animal cruelty statutes can be applied (e.g. [http://pet-abuse.com/cases/2206/FL/US/1 State vs. Mitchell]).
* In [[Australia]], laws are determined at the state level, with all but the [[Australian Capital Territory]] and [[Jervis Bay Territory]] explicitly outlawing it.
* In [[Germany]], sex with animals is not specifically outlawed (but trading pornography showing it is, cf. [http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/184a.html §184a StGB]). In [[West Germany]], the law making it a crime ([[Paragraph 175|§175b]] StGB, which also outlawed homosexual acts) was removed in [[1969]]. [[East Germany]] before [[German reunification|reunification]] had no law against zoosexuality; zoosexual pornography, however, was very restricted. Certain barriers are set by the Animal Protection Law (''Tierschutzgesetz'').
* In the [[United Kingdom]], it is illegal, with [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30042--b.htm#69 section 69] of the [[Sexual Offences Act 2003]] reducing the sentence to a maximum of 2 years imprisonment for human penile penetration of or by an animal.
* Zoosexual acts are illegal in [[Canada]] (section 160 forbidding "bestiality". The term is not defined, so it is not quite clear what it might cover.)
* Zoosexual acts are illegal in [[New Zealand]] under a variety of sections contained in the Crimes Act 1961. Section 143, makes "beastiality" an offence, but as in Canada, the meaning of beastiality is derived from case law. There are also associated offences of indecency with an animal (section 144) and compelling an indecent act with an animal (section 142A). It is interesting to note that in the 1989 Crimes Bill considered abolition of beastiality as a criminal offence, and for it to be treated as a [[mental health]] issue. In ''Police v Sheary'' (1991) 7 CRNZ 107 (HC) Fisher J considered that "[t]he community is generally now more tolerant and understanding of unusual sexual practices that do not harm others."
* In some countries laws existed against single males living with female animals. For example, an old [[Peru]]vian law prohibited single males from having a female [[alpaca]] ([[llama]]).

== Zoophiles ==

=== Zoophilia as a lifestyle ===

Separate from those whose interest is curiosity, pornography, or sexual novelty, are those for whom zoophilia might be called a lifestyle or orientation. A commonly reported starting age is at [[puberty]], around 9 - 11, and this seems consistent for both males and females. Those who discover an interest at an older age often trace it back to nascent form during this period or earlier.

Zoophiles tend to perceive differences between animals and human beings as less significant than others do, and view animals as having positive traits (e.g. honesty) that humans often lack. They tend to feel that society's understanding of non-human sexuality is misinformed. Although some feel guilty about their feelings and view them as a problem (also see ''[[denial (psychology)|denial]]''), others do not feel a need to be constrained by traditional standards in their private relationships.

The biggest difficulties many zoophiles report are the inability to be accepted or open about their animal relationships and feelings with friends and family, and the fear of harm, rejection or loss of companions if it became known (see ''[[outing]]'' and ''[[the closet]]'', sometimes humorously referred to in this context as "the stable"). Other major issues are hidden loneliness and isolation (due to lack of contact with others who share this attraction or a belief they are alone), and the repeated deaths of animals they consider lifelong soulmates (because most species have far shorter lifespans than humans and they cannot openly grieve or talk about feelings of loss). Zoophiles do not usually cite internal conflicts over [[religion]] as their major issue, perhaps because zoophilia, although condemned by many religions, is not a major focus of their teachings.

Zoophilic sexual relationships vary, and may be based upon variations of human-style relationships (in particular, remaining [[Monogamy|monogamous]]), animal-style relationships (both participants making their own sexual choices, human as protector), or various combinations.

Zoophiles may or may not have human partners and families. Some zoophiles have an affinity or attraction to animals secondary to human attraction; others have a primary preference for animal companions. In some cases human family or friends are aware of the relationship with the animal and its nature, in others it is hidden. This can sometimes give rise to issues of [[guilt]] (as a result of divided loyalties and concealment) or [[jealousy]] within human relationships [http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Relationship/story?id=433489&page=1]. In addition, zoophiles sometimes enter human relationships due to growing up within traditional expectations, or to deflect suspicions of zoophilia, and yet others may choose looser forms of human relationship as companions or housemates, live alone, or choose other zoophiles to live with.

=== Non-sexual zoophilia ===

Although the term is often used to refer to sexual interest in animals, zoophilia is not necessarily sexual in nature. In [[psychology]] and [[sociology]] it is sometimes used without regard to sexual implications. The first definition listed for the word on [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=zoophilia dictionary.com] is "Affection or affinity for animals". Other definitions are:
* "Erotic attraction to or sexual contact with animals"
* "Attraction to or affinity for animals"
* "An erotic fixation on animals that may result in sexual excitement through real or fancied contact"

The common feature of "zoophilia" is some form of affective bond to animals beyond the usual, whether emotional or sexual in nature. Non-sexual zoophilia is generally accepted in society, and although sometimes ridiculed, it is usually respected or tolerated. Examples of non-sexual zoophilia can be found on animal memorial pages such as [http://www.in-memory-of-pets.com in-memory-of-pets.com] memorial and support site, or by [[Google|googling]] "pet memorials".

=== Zoophiles and other groups ===

Zoophiles are often confused with ''[[furry|furries]]'' or ''[[Therianthropy|therian]]s (or "weres")'', that is, people with an interest in anthropomorphism, or people who believe they share some kind of inner connection with animals (spiritual, emotional or otherwise). While the membership of all three groups probably overlap in part, it is untrue to say that all furs or therians have a sexual interest in animals (subconscious or otherwise). Many furs find anthropomorphic adult art erotic and enjoy the companionship of animals, but have no wish to extend their interest beyond an affinity or emotional bond to sexual activity. Those who consider themselves both zoophiles and furries, often call themselves ''zoo-furs'' or ''fuzzies''. The size of this group is not known, although an oft-cited figure is 5% of furries, which is not dissimilar to typical estimates of the percentage within the population generally. Expressions of [[fetish|fur fetishism]] such as [[fursuit]]ing, are usually considered a form of costuming, rather than an expression of zoosexual interest and are usually legal.

==Perspectives on zoophilia==

=== Psychological and research perspectives ===

[[DSM-III-R]] (APA, 1987) stated that sexual contact with animals is almost never a clinically significant problem by itself (Cerrone, 1991), and therefore both this and the later [[DSM-IV]] (APA, 1994) subsumed it under the residual classification "[[Paraphilia|paraphilias]] not otherwise specified".

The first detailed studies of zoophilia date from prior to 1910. Peer reviewed research into zoophilia in its own right has happened since around 1960. Each significant study from Masters (1962) to Beetz (2002) has drawn and agreed on several broad conclusions:
* The critical aspect to study was emotion, relationship, and motive, not just assess or judge the sexual act alone, in isolation, or as "an act". (Masters, Miletski, Beetz)
* Zoophiles' emotions and care to animals can be real, relational, authentic and (within animals' abilities) reciprocal (Masters, Miletski, Weinberg, Beetz)
* Most zoophiles have (or have also had) long term human relationships (Masters, Beetz)
* As a result, society in general at present is considerably misinformed about zoophilia (Masters, Miletski, Weinberg, Beetz)
* Contrary to popular belief, there is in fact significant popular or "latent" interest in zoophilia, either in fantasy, animal mating, or reality (Nancy Friday, Massen, Masters)
* The distinction between zoophilia and zoosadism is highlighted by each of these studies, in various terms.
* Masters (1962), Miletski (1999) and Weinberg (2003) each comment significantly on the social harm caused by these, and other common misunderstandings: "This destroy[s] the lives of many citizens".

At times, research has been cited based upon the degree of zoosexual or zoosadistic related history within populations of juvenile and other persistent offenders, prison populations with records of violence, and people with prior psychological issues. Such studies are not viewed professionally as valid means to research or profile zoophilia, as the results would be based upon populations pre-selected as knowingly having high proportions of criminal records, abusive tendencies and/or psychological issues. This approach (used in some older research and quoted to demonstrate [[pathology]]) is considered discredited and unrepresentative by researchers.

An example of such a statistic is a statement that "96% of people who commit bestiality will go on to commit crimes against people" quoted by [[PETA]] [http://www.peta.org/mc/NewsItem.asp?id=6838], which is sourced from a study of such a population [http://www.psyeta.org/sa/sa10.1/fleming.shtml] . When read in full however, the study also includes the following caution regarding interpretation of their results: ''"It is difficult to assess 'normality' in a study where all 381 participants were adjudicated juvenile offenders living in state facilities ... It is possible that among other populations ... sex acts with animals might be performed out of love, the need for consolation, or other motivations. In these and other populations, there might not be any link whatsoever to offenses against humans."'' This qualification is not mentioned by PETA.

=== Religious perspectives===

Most organized religions take a critical or sometimes condemnatory view of zoophilia or zoosexuality, with some variation and exceptions.
* Passages in [[Leviticus]] 18:23 ("And you shall not lie with any beast and defile yourself with it, neither shall any woman give herself to a beast to lie with it: it is a perversion." RSV) and 20:15-16 ("If a man lies with a beast, he shall be put to death; and you shall kill the beast. If a woman approaches any beast and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the beast; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them." RSV) are cited by [[Judaism|Jewish]], [[Christianity|Christian]], and [[Islam|Muslim]] theologians as categorical denunciation of zoosexuality. Some theologians (especially Christian) extend this, to consider [[lust]]ful thoughts for animal as a sin. Alternatively, many Christians and some non-Orthodox Jews do not regard the full Levitical laws as binding upon them, and may consider them irrelevant. Some zoophiles take this injunction to indicate that sex with animals in the [[missionary position]] is forbidden, but that other positions are not specifically mentioned nor apparently against the divine will.
* Views of its seriousness in [[Islam]] seem to cover a wide spectrum. This may be because it is not explicitly mentioned or prohibited in the [[Koran]], or because sex and sexuality were not treated as [[taboo]] in Muslim society to the same degree as in Christianity. Some sources claim that sex with animals is abhorrent, others state that while condemned, it is treated with "relative indulgence" and in a similar category to [[masturbation]] and [[lesbian]]ism (Bouhdiba: Sexuality in Islam, Ch.4 [http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/bouhdiba.htm link]). A book "[[Tahrirolvasyleh]]", cited on the internet, which quotes the [[Ayatollah Khomeini]] approving of sex with animals under certain conditions, is unconfirmed and possibly a forgery.
* There are several references in [[Hinduism|Hindu]] scriptures to religious figures engaging in sexual activity with animals (e.g. the god [[Brahma]] lusting after and having sex with a bear, a human-like sage being born to a deer mother), and actual [[Vedic religion|Vedic]] rituals involving zoophilia (see [[Ashvamedha]]), as well as explicit depictions of people with animals included amongst the thousands of sculptures of "Life events" on the exterior of the [[Hindu temple|temple complex]] at [[Khajuraho]]. Orthodox Hindu doctrine holds that sex should be restricted to married couples, thereby forbidding zoosexual acts. A greater punishment is attached to sexual relations with a sacred cow than with other animals. However, the [[Tantra|Tantric]] sect of Hinduism makes use of ritual sexual practices, which could include sexual contact with animals.
* [[Buddhism]] addresses sexual conduct primarily in terms of what brings harm to oneself or to others, and the admonition against sexual misconduct is generally interpreted in modern times to prohibit zoosexual acts, as well as [[pederasty]], [[adultery]], [[rape]], or [[prostitution]]. Zoosexuality (as well as various other sexual activity) is expressly forbidden for Buddhist monks and nuns.

=== Animal rights and welfare concerns===

One of the primary critiques of zoophilia is the argument that zoosexuality is harmful to animals. Some state this categorically; that any sexual activity is necessarily abuse. Critics also point to examples in which animals were clearly abused, having been tied up, assaulted, or injured. Defenders of zoophilia argue that animal abuse is neither typical of nor commonplace within zoophilia, and that just as sexual activity with humans can be both abusive and not, so can sexual activity with animals.

In comment on [[Peter Singer]]'s article "Heavy Petting", which controversially argued that zoosexuality need not be abusive and if so loving relationships could form, Ingrid Newkirk, then president of the [[United States|American]] [[animal rights]] group [[People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals|PETA]], added this endorsement: "If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you [[French kiss]] your dog and he or she thinks it's great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong. If it isn't exploitation and abuse, [then] it may not be wrong."

(A few years later, Newkirk wrote to the editor of the Canada Free Press in response to a [http://canadafreepress.com/2005/rubin072105.htm column by Alexander Rubin], making clear that she was strongly opposed to any exploitation, and all sexual activity, with animals. This was necessary since some had sought to interpret her former statement as condoning zoosexuality. Accordingly, the response was a clarification of her position regarding zoosexual acts, rather than a different response ''per se'' to Singer's actual philosophical point, namely "if it isn't exploitation and abuse [then is there any moral basis for objecting?]")

Bornemann (1990, cited by Rosenbauer 1997) coined the separate term ''"zoosadism"'' for those who derive pleasure from inflicting pain on an animal, sometimes with a sexual component. Some extreme examples of zoosadism include [[necrozoophilia]], the sexual enjoyment of killing animals (similar to "[[lust murder]]" in humans), sexual penetration of fowl such as hens (fatal in itself) and strangling at orgasm, mutilation, sexual assault with objects (including screwdrivers and knives), interspecies [[rape]], and [[sexual assault]] on immature animals such as puppies. Some horse-ripping incidents have a sexual connotation (Schedel-Stupperich, 2001). The link between sadistic sexual acts with animals and sadistic practices with humans or lust murders has been heavily researched. Some murderers tortured animals in their childhood and also sexual relations with animals occurred. Ressler et al. (1986) found that 8 of their sample of 36 sexual murderers showed an interest in zoosexual acts.

Sexology information sites (if sufficiently detailed) are usually careful to distinguish zoosadism from zoophilia: [http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/SEN/CH20.HTM#b1-PARAPHILIAS Humboldt Berlin University Sexology Dept] [http://www.sex-lexis.com/Sex-Dictionary sex-lexis.com] and [http://www.sexualcounselling.com/Glossary sexualcounselling.com].

===Cultural perspectives===

Among the [[Masai]], it was customary for older boys to have sexual relations with [[she-ass|she-asses]]. Young [[Riffian]] boys also had sexual liaisons with female asses (Ford and Beach, 1951, pp. 147-148). Among the [[Tswana]] of [[Africa]], boys assigned to the care of cattle frequently engaged in zoosexual activity. It was also common in the [[Gusti]] tribes and considered rather harmless, but boys were reprimanded and warned against this activity. Miner and DeVos (1960) comment that amongst Arab tribal cultures, "Bestiality with goats, sheep, or camels provides another outlet. These practices are not approved but they are recognized as common among boys."

Separately, Western cultures have at times reacted to other negatively-viewed sexual and lifestyle activities, with [[moral panic]], in the past.

== Health and safety ==

Humans and animals cannot make each other pregnant, but infections due to improper cleaning could be an issue for either party. Most diseases are specific to particular species and cannot be transmitted sexually, so humans and animals cannot catch many diseases from zoosexual acts. However, a few uncommon but treatable infections such as [[Brucellosis]] can be transferred. [[AIDS]] is fragile and only lives in primates (humans, apes and monkeys) and is not believed to survive long in other species. Animals' and humans' bodily fluids are not incompatible, but allergic reactions can sometimes (rarely) occur.

In terms of physical compatibility and injury, many medium/large domesticated species appear to be physically compatible with humans. The main non-deliberate physical risks are of injury, either through ignorance of physical differences, forcefulness, or, for female animals, excessive friction or infection. Humans may also be at substantial physical risk and seriously harmed by sexual activity with animals. Larger animals may have the strength and defensive attributes (e.g. hooves, teeth) to injure a human, either in rejecting physical or sexual contact, or in the course of sexual arousal. For example, the penis of a sexually aroused dog has a broad bulb at the base which can cause injury if forcibly pulled from a body orifice, equines can thrust suddenly and "flare", and many animals bite as part of sexual excitement and foreplay. In [[2005]], a man died in [[Enumclaw]], [[Washington]] after being [[anal sex|anally penetrated]] by a stallion. [http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002384648_farm16m.html]

== Arguments about zoophilia or zoosexuality ==

Platonic love for animals is usually viewed positively, but most people express concern or disapproval of sexual interest. Criticisms come from a variety of sources, including moral, ethical, psychological, and social arguments. They include:

* "Sexual activity between species is unnatural."
* "Animals are not sentient, and therefore unable to consent." (similar to arguments against sex with human minors)
* "Animals are incapable of relating to or forming relationships with humans."
* "Zoosexuality is simply for those unable/unwilling to find human partners."
* "Sexual acts with animals by humans constitute physical abuse."
* "Zoosexuality is "profoundly disturbed behaviour" (cf. the UK [[Home Office]] review on sexual offences, 2002).
* "It offends human dignity or is forbidden by religious law."
* "Animals mate for no purpose other than to produce young."

Defenders of zoophilia or zoosexuality counterargue that:

* "'Natural' is debatable, and not necessarily relevant."
* "Animals are capable of sexual consent - and even initiation - in their own way."
* "Animals do form mutual relationships with humans."
* "Many zoophiles appear to have human partners and relationships; many others simply do not have a [[sexual attraction]] to humans."
* "It is inaccurate to state that zoosexual activity is inherently harmful/abusive."
* "The psychological profession consensus does not consider it intrinsically pathological and has tended on the whole to substantiate rather than rebut zoophiles' claims."
* "Perspectives on human dignity and religious viewpoints differ and a large number of people do not consider them important factors."
* "Both male and female domestic animals of several species can experience the physical sensation of [[orgasm]], and can strongly solicit and demonstrate appreciation for it in their body language, similarly to humans."

They also assert that some of these arguments rely on double standards, such as expecting informed consent from animals for sexual activity (and not accepting consent given in their own manner), but not for surgical procedures including aesthetic mutilation and castration, potentially lethal experimentation and other hazardous activities, euthanasia, and slaughter. Likewise, if animals cannot give consent, then it follows that they must not have sex with each other (amongst themselves). [Also see: ''[[speciesism]]'']

People's views appear to depend significantly upon the nature of their interest and nature of exposure to the subject. ''People who have been exposed to zoosadism'', who are unsympathetic to [[Alternative_lifestyles#Sexual_lifestyles|alternate lifestyles]] in general, or who know little about zoophilia, often regard it as an extreme form of [[animal cruelty|animal abuse]] and/or indicative of serious psychosexual issues. ''Mental health professionals and personal acquaintances'' of zoophiles who see their relationships over time tend to be less critical, and sometimes supportive. ''[[Ethology|Ethologists]]'' who study and understand animal behaviour and body language tend to be matter-of-fact about animal sexuality and animal approaches to humans, and their research is generally supportive of some of the claims by zoophiles regarding animal cognition, behaviour, and sexual/relational/emotional issues. Because the majority opinion is condemnatory, many individuals may be more accepting in private than they make clear to the public. Regardless, there is a clear consensus which regards zoophilia with either suspicion or outright opposition.

== Mythology and fantasy literature==
[[image:Pan.jpg|thumb|left|[[Pan (god)|Pan]] copulating with a goat; marble sculpture from the ancient city of [[Herculaneum]]]]
From cave paintings onward and throughout human history, zoophilia has been a recurring subject in art, literature, and fantasy.

In [[Ugarit|Ugaritic]] mythology, the god [[Baal]] is said to have impregnated a [[heifer]] to sire a young bull god. In [[Greek mythology]], [[Zeus]] appeared to [[Leda (mythology)|Leda]] in the form of a [[swan]], and her children [[Helen]] and [[Polydeuces]] resulted from that sexual union. Zeus also seduced [[Europa (mythology)|Europa]] in the form of a [[bull]], and carried off the youth [[Ganymede (mythology)|Ganymede]] in the form of an eagle. The half-human/half-bull [[Minotaur]] was the offspring of Queen [[Pasiphae]] and a white bull. King [[Peleus]] continued to seduce the nymph [[Thetis]] despite her transforming into (among other forms) a lion, a bird, and a snake. The god [[Pan (mythology)|Pan]], often depicted with goat-like features, has also been frequently associated with animal sex. As with other subjects of [[classical antiquity|classical]] mythology, some of these have been depicted over the centuries since, in western painting and sculpture. In [[Norse mythology]], [[Loki]] had intercourse with a stallion and gave birth to [[Sleipnir]], see also [[Sagaholm]].

[[Image:Moreau, Europa and the Bull.jpg|thumb|200px|''[[Europa (mythology)|Europa]] and the Bull'' by [[Gustave Moreau]], c. 1869]]
Fantasy literature has included a variety of seemingly zoophilic examples, often involving human characters enchanted into animal forms: ''[[Beauty and the Beast]]'' (a young woman falls in love with a physically beast-like man), [[William Shakespeare]]'s ''[[A Midsummer Night's Dream]]'' (Queen Titania falls in love with a character transformed into a donkey), ''[[The Book of One Thousand and One Nights]]'' (a princess champions a man enchanted into ape form), the [[Rome|Roman]] [[Lucius Apuleius]]'s ''[[The Golden Ass]]'' (explicit sexuality between a man transformed into a donkey and a woman), and [[Balzac]]'s ''[[A Passion in the Desert]]'' (a love affair between a soldier and a panther). In more modern times, zoosexuality of a sort has been a theme in science fiction and horror fiction, with the giant ape [[King Kong]] fixating on a human woman, alien monsters groping human females in pulp novels and comics, and depictions of [[tentacle rape]] in Japanese [[manga]] and [[anime]].

Modern erotic [[furry]] fantasy art and stories are sometimes associated with zoophilia, but many creators and fans disagree with this, pointing out that the characters are predominantly humanoid fantasy creatures who are thinking, reasoning beings that consider and consent to sex in the same manner humans would. "Furry" characters have been compared to other intelligent and social non-human fictional characters who are subjects of love/sexuality fantasies without being commonly regarded as zoophilic, such as the [[Vulcan (Star Trek)|Vulcans]] and [[Klingon]]s in ''[[Star Trek]]'', or [[elf|elves]] in fantasy fiction. Animals and non-humanoids, when shown in furry art are usually shown engaged with others of similar kind, rather than humans.

== Pornography ==
[[Pornography]] involving sex with animals is widely illegal, even in most countries where the act itself is not explicitly outlawed. In the [[United States]], it is thought to be very likely considered [[obscene]] and therefore it is not openly sold, mailed or imported. In any prosecution, however, pornography involving sex with animals would still be subject to the [[Miller Test]]. (Production and mere possession appear to be legal, however.) However, this law is presently ([[January 20]] [[2005]]) in some doubt, having been ruled [[unconstitutional]] in ''[[Extreme Associates|United States v. Extreme Associates]]'' (note, though, that the case is still in review and may be referred for further appeal). Similar restrictions apply in Germany (cf. §184 StGB [http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/184.html]).

Curiously, using animal fur or [[Taxidermy|stuffed animals]] in erotic photography (in a sense, the combination of [[necrophilia]] and zoophilia) doesn't seem to be [[taboo]], nor do photographs of nude models posed with animals provided no sexual stimulation is implied to the animal. Stuffed animals are sometimes used in glamour erotic photography with models touching their sexual organs against such animals, and likewise models may be posed with animals or on horseback. The subtext is often to provide a contrast: animal versus sophisticated, raw beast versus culturally guided human. (Nancy Friday comments on this, noting that zoophilia as a fantasy may provide an escape from cultural expectations, restrictions, and judgements in regard to sex.)

Materials featuring sex with animals are widely available on the [[Internet]], however, because of their ease of production, and because production and sale is legal in countries such as the [[Netherlands]] and [[Denmark]]. The promotion of "stars" began with the Danish [[Bodil Joensen]], in the period of 1970-72. Into the [[1980s]] the [[Netherlands|Dutch]] took the lead, creating figures like "Wilma" and the "Dutch Sisters". Today, in [[Hungary]], where production faces no legal limitations, zoosexual materials have become a substantial industry that produces numerous films and magazines, particularly for [[Netherlands|Dutch]] companies, and the [[genre]] has stars such as "Hector" (a [[Great Dane]] starring in several films).

Pornography of this sort has become the business of certain [[spam (electronic)|spam]]mers and owners of some fake [[Thumbnail gallery post|TGP]]s, who use the promise of "extreme" material as a bid for users' attention.

==Social community==

Whether there is such a thing as a "zoophile community", in the same sense as the [[gay community]] or any other [[alternative lifestyle]] communities, is a controversial question. Some zoophiles point to the number and quality of computerized meeting-places in which zoophiles can meet and socialize, the manner in which this extends to [[offline]] social networks, and the trend of social and cultural evolution of community consensus over time, or use the term to imply "the community of zoophiles in general". Others point to the differing viewpoints and attitudes, the trust issues and risks due to lack of safety inherent in socializing, and lack of any true commonality between zoophiles beyond their orientation. Whether or not it should be construed as a "community", the following outline is a rough description of the social world of zoophiles, as it has existed to date.

Prior to the arrival of widespread computer [[networking]], most zoophiles would not have known others, and for the most part engaged secretly, or told only trusted friends, family or partners. (This almost certainly still describes most zoophiles; only a small proportion are visible online). Thus it could not be said there was a "community" of any kind at that time, except perhaps for small sporadic [[social network]]s of people who knew each other by chance. Broader networks began forming in the [[1980s]] when networked social groups became more common at home and elsewhere, and as the [[internet]] and its predecessors came into existence, permitting people to search for topics and information in areas which were not otherwise easily accessible and to talk with relative safety and anonymity. The [[newsgroup]] ''alt.sex.bestiality'' (reputedly started in humor), personal [[bulletin board]]s and [[talker]]s, were among the first group media of this kind in the late [[1980s]] and early [[1990s]], rapidly drawing together zoophiles, some of whom also created personal and social [[website]]s and [[forum]]s. By around 1991 - 1993 it became accurate to say that a wide social net had evolved.

This changed significantly in the wake of the first public appearance of a zoophile on the [[Jerry Springer]] show ("I married a horse", 1998), followed by the [[Philip Buble]] case (in which a plaintiff petitioned the court to let his dog attend judgement as his "wife" in 1999). Whilst some zoophiles saw these as attempts to state a personal viewpoint or encourage debate, most saw them in a negative light as ill-advised, futile, harmful, or ultimately egoistic attempts to obtain a public hearing which could only backlash strongly both legally and otherwise against zoophiles. A number of pro-zoophile websites and forums were voluntarily removed or vanished from the net in the wake of these affairs, and many of the more established individuals and social groups at that time withdrew from the online community, perceiving the risks and benefits to no longer be worth it, as they already had sufficient [[offline]] friends amongst other zoophiles. This led to a period of change and consolidation during the late 1990s and early [[2000s]] as old sites closed and the older and newer 'generations' mingled. At the same time, many of the remaining social groups online drew lessons from these and other incidents, and a maturing consensus tended to replace previous divides on common topics such as the desirability vs. harmfulness of public debate and acceptance, ethics, and conduct.

Websites catering to zoosexuality at present can be broken down into several groups:
* Sites which restrict or prohibit explicit material (such as pictures, stories, contacts, etc)
* Sites which embrace these explicit aspects
* Sites owned by amateur and professional [[pornographer]]s, marketing pictures, stories and videos
* Sites providing personal perspectives and information

Sites providing support and social assistance to zoophiles (including resources to help and rescue abused or mistreated animals) are not usually publicized. Such work is often undertaken as needed by individuals and friends, within social networks, and by word of mouth.

== Other popular references ==

* Satirical songwriter [[Tom Lehrer]], whose [[1950s]] recordings mentioned many topics not normally openly discussed in those days, referenced a friend of his who "practiced animal husbandry, until they caught him at it one day!"
* A common [[urban myth]] that [[Catherine the Great]] of [[Russia]] died whilst attempting [[sexual intercourse]] with a stallion is untrue. Supposedly the harness broke and she was crushed. In fact, Catherine died of a stroke.

== Books, articles and documentaries ==

=== Academic and professional ===
* Andrea Beetz Ph.D.: ''Love, Violence, and Sexuality in Relationships between Humans and Animals'', ISBN 3832200207
* Profesors Colin J. Williams and Martin S. Weinberg: ''Zoophilia in Men: a study of sexual interest in animals''. - in: Archives of sexual behavior, Vol. 32, No.6, December 2003, pp. 523-535
* Hani Miletski Ph.D.: ''Bestiality - Zoophilia: An exploratory study'', Diss., The Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality. - San Francisco, CA, Oktober 1999
* Hani Miletski Ph.D.: ''Understanding Bestiality and Zoophilia'', 2002, available at [http://www.drmiletski.com/bestiality.html Hani Miletski's Homepage]
* Josef Massen: ''Zoophilie - Die sexuelle Liebe zu Tieren (Zoophilia - the sexual love of/for animals)'' (1994), ISBN 3-930387-15-8
* R.E.L. Masters Ph.D.: ''Forbidden Sexual Behaviour and Morality, an objective examination of perverse sex practices in different cultures'' (1962), ISBN LIC #62-12196
* Roland Grassberger Ph.D.: ''Die Unzucht mit Tieren (Sex with Animals)'' (1968)
* Hans Hentig Ph.D.: ''Soziologie der Zoophilen Neigung (Sociology of the Zoophile Preference)'' (1962)
* Gunther Hunold Ph.D.: ''Abarten des Sexualverhaltens: Ungewohnliche Ersheinungsformen des Trieblebens (Perverse Sexual Behaviour)'' (1978)
* Mandetta and Gustaveson: ''Abortion to Zoophilia: A Sourcebook of Sexual Facts'' (1976), ISBN 0-89055-114-6
* Davis and Whitten: ''The Cross-Culture Study of Human Sexuality'' (Annual Review of Anthropology 1987, Volume 16, pp. 69-98), ISSN 00846570
* S. Dittert, O. Seidl amd M. Soyka: ''Zoophilie zwischen Pathologie und Normalität: Darstellung dreier Kasuistiken und einer Internetbefragung (Zoophilia as a special case of paraphilia Presentation of three case reports and an Internet survey)'' - in: Der Nervenarzt : Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychiatrie, Psychotherapie und Nervenheilkunde; Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Neurologie, 2004, online published 10.Juni 2004

=== Other books ===
* Midas Dekkers: ''Dearest Pet: On Bestiality'', ISBN 1859843107
* Mark Matthews: ''The Horseman: Obsessions of a Zoophile'', ISBN 0-87975-902-X<br> (German translation: ''Der Pferde-Mann'', 2nd Print 2004, ISBN 3833408642)
* Marjorie B. Garber: ''Dog Love'', ISBN 0641042728
* Brenda Love: ''The Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices'' (1994), ISBN 1569800111
* Nancy Friday: ''My Secret Garden'' (ISBN 0671019872), ''Forbidden Flowers'' (ISBN 0671741020), "Women on Top" (ISBN 0671648446), notable for readability, and neutral treatment of a wide scope of women's sexuality including zoophilia.
* Raymond A. Belliotti: ''Good Sex; perspectives on sexual ethics'' (1993), ISBN 0700606041 or ISBN 070060605X
* Bram Dijkstra: ''Idols of Perversity: Fantasies of Feminine Evil in Fin-De-Siecle Culture'', zoophilic art
* Dubois-Dessaule: ''Tude Sur la Bestiality au point de Vue Historique (The Study of Bestiality from the Historical, Medical and Legal Viewpoint)'' (Paris, 1905)
* A. Neimoller: ''Bestiality and the Law'', ''Bestiality in Ancient and Modern Times'' (1946)
* Marie-Christine Anest: ''Zoophilie, homosexualite, rites de passage et initiation masculine dans la Greece contemporaine'' (Zoophilia, homosexuality, rites of passage and male initiation in contemporary Greece)'' (1994), ISBN 2739421466
* Gaston Dubois-Desaulle: ''Bestiality: An Historical, Medical, Legal, and Literary Study'', University Press of the Pacific (November 1, 2003), ISBN 1410209474 (Paperback Ed.)
* Robert Hough: ''The Final Confession Of [[Mabel Stark]]'' (Stark was the worlds premier tiger trainer of the [[1920s]], specializing in highly sexualized circus acts. She wore white to hide the tiger's semen during mating rituals and foreplay which the audience took to be vicious attacks)

=== Print and online media ===

* ''The Joy Of Beasts'' (3 December 2000, Independent on Sunday, UK)
* ''Heavy Petting'' (2001, Peter Singer [http://www.nerve.com Nerve.com])
* ''Laying with Beasts'' (March 1996, [http://www.guidemag.com The Guide])
* ''Sexual Contact With Animals '' (October 1977, Pomeroy Ph.D.) (co-author of the [[Kinsey Reports]])
* ''Liking it Ruff'' (July 2005, [http://www.eye.net/eye/issue/issue_07.14.05/plus/lovebites.html The eye], follow-up to original article [http://www.eye.net/eye/issue/issue_06.30.05/plus/lovebites.html link])

=== Television and radio ===
* ''Animal passions'' (part of the Hidden Love series) (1999, follow-up sequel 2004, Channel 4, UK)
:: Ofcom [the UK television regulator] reported that: "This was a serious documentary exploring a rare minority sexual orientation. Although the programme gave an opportunity for zoophiles to express their opinions, the effect was neither to sensationalise nor normalise their behaviour."
* ''Sexe et confidences'' (April 2002, CBSC Decision C01/02-329, Canada)
:: Hour-long sex information program hosted by sexologist Louise-Andrée Saulnier discussing zoosexuality. Covered folklore, academic studies and general information, plus telephone call-in from viewers describing their zoosexual experiences and stories they had heard.
* ''Talk Sport Radio'' (December 2002, UK)
:: Live talkshow interview with lifelong zoophile, followed by call-in discussion.
* ''Animal Love'' (1995, Ulrich Seidl, Austria)

== See also ==
* [[Environment, choice, and sexual orientation]]
* [[Kinsey Reports]]
* [[Non-human animal sexuality]]
* [[Paraphilia]]
* [[Philip Buble]]
* [[Catherine the Great]]
* [[Sexual orientation]]

== External links ==
=== Websites supportive of zoophilia ===
* [http://www.cotse.net/users/hippo/uzp/ UZP], the Ultimate Zoo Page, general resources
* [http://www.zoophile.org Zoophile.org] zoophile community and support site
* [http://www.angelfire.com/retro/auto_tiger/silverwolf/ Poems and Stories] by "Silverwolf" describing his relationship with his dogs
* [http://www.firstlight.net/~chythar/manawolf/articles/zooessay.htm Zoophilia Essay] by writer Manawolf

=== Websites against zoophilia ===
* [http://www.nmanimalcontrol.com/aco_fo/sex_abuse/ Humane Society of the U.S. viewpoint and "First Strike" campaign Fact Sheet]

=== Other ===
* [http://www.pet-abuse.com/database/search.php?type_id=10 Pet-Abuse.Com Database] ''Bestiality and sexual assault cases from the U.S. and UK''
* Animal rights site, Germany: [http://verschwiegenes-tierleid-online.de/ German] [http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?url=http%3A%2F%2Fverschwiegenes-tierleid-online.de%2F&lp=de_en English translation]
* [http://pet-abuse.com/cases/2206/FL/US/1 State vs. Mitchel]
* [http://www.deviantdesires.com/dcforum/DCForumID1/3.html ''deviantdesires'' discussion of zoophilia and issues arising]
* [http://www.sex-lexis.com/Sex-Dictionary/zoophilia ''sex-lexis'' reference section on zoophilia and related topics]

=== Art ===
* [http://home.wanadoo.nl/mh/museum/museum02.htm Museum of bestial art]

[[Category:Paraphilia]]
[[Category:Sexual orientation and identity]]



[[bg:Зоофилия]]
[[da:Zoofili]]
[[de:Zoophilie]]
[[eo:Zoofilio]]
[[es:Zoofilia]]
[[fr:Zoophilie]]
[[nl:Zoöfilie]]
[[ja:獣姦]]
[[pl:Zoofilia]]
[[sv:Zoofili]]
[[zh:動物戀]]