Zoophilia Wiki - User contributions [en]

Furry Fandom & the Zoo Community (Deprecated)

2026-04-30T17:19:27Z

Bloit: Removed redirect to Help talk:Furries are the spawn of satan

==Furry Fandom & the Zoo Community==

==Varka==

[[Varka]] has to be one of the staples of the furry community. He is a [[zoophile]] himself and it's interesting to see all of the accomplishments and value that they have brought to the fandom. Varka created [[Bad Dragon]], [[e621]], [[Furry Network]], [[Dragonfruit]] and [[Dragonfruit Printing]], as well as [[Herpy.net]], and [[twentypercentcooler.com]].

He also worked with [[Douglas "Fausty" Spink]] at his IT firm [[Baneki]] after the merger of their companies.

==[[Dragonfruit Printing]]==

==[[Furry Network]]==

==[[Bad Dragon]]==

==[[e621]]==

==[[Herpy.net]]==

A [[zoophilia]] community that went derelict ran by Varka the founder of Bad Dragon.

==[[twentypercentcooler.com]]==

AIDS & Zoophilia

2026-04-30T17:18:06Z

Bloit: Bloit moved page HIV/AIDS to AIDS & Zoophilia over redirect

{{Sex}}
'''AIDS''', or '''A'''cquired '''I'''mmuno'''D'''eficiency '''S'''yndrome, usually refers to a state of infection with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) that has progressed from its initial chronic phase into a more aggressively acute stage. It is a sexually-transmitted disease which has the immune system as its main target, and when weakened can lead to the onset of opportunistic diseases.

== AIDS and zoophilia ==
The idea that the origin of the AIDS epidemic is linked to zoophilic relationships between humans and monkeys is particularly anchored in the collective imagination. It is, however, unfounded.

Similarly to [[Syphilis and Zoophilia|syphilis]], another sexually-transmitted infection, such diseases are the subject of a moral condemnation. This belief stems from the idea that the outbreak of the epidemic would be linked to condemned sexual practices, such as homosexuality or [[bestiality]]. The origin of the epidemic being undoubtedly African, it was also easy to believe that those responsible for the spread of the epidemic were the Africans, to whom one could attribute wild or strange customs such as [[zoophilia]]. Likewise, it is common in Africa that the origin of the disease is also associated with the transgression of moral prohibitions in collective beliefs. These transgressions involve both zoophilia and homosexuality or other so-called "obscene" sexual positions. This condemnation takes place in traditional education, which distinguishes the pure and the impure, but is also to be compared with the influence of Judeo-Christian values after several centuries of evangelization in certain regions. Mirroring Western beliefs on the origin of the disease, popular discourse in Africa sometimes associates the origin of AIDS with the weakening of social mores (or even their corruption) under foreign influence, referring to rumors sometimes developed around zoophilia<ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://www.jle.com/en/revues/san/e-docs/approche_de_la_sexualite_au_congo_dans_le_contexte_du_sida_220101/article.phtml|url-access=subscription|first1=Robert|last1=Courtois|first2=Etienne|last2=Mullet|first3=Denis|last3=Malvy|title=Approach of sexuality in Congo in an AIDS context|journal=Cahiers d'études et de recherches francophones / Santé|language=fr|date=January–February 2001|volume=11|issue=1|pages=43–48}}</ref>

Many serious hypotheses about the onset of the AIDS epidemic actually suggest a transmission vector from the non-human animals to humans of a virus that would have mutated. The origin of this epidemic could be attributed to a virus carried by the green monkeys. However, nothing indicates that a zoophilic report is at the origin of the contagion. For many diseases such as Ebola, there is transmission of the disease from monkeys to humans. This transmission mainly takes place through bites or other routes, depending on the mode of transmission of the virus (consumption of the animal is another, for example).

But these situations remain exceptional. In most cases, viruses are species-specific. For example, we cannot infect a monkey with HIV, and for laboratory analyzes we use a simian virus, SIV, which is similar to HIV, but modified for the experiments.

Recent research has made it possible to date the origin of the epidemic, and in particular, trace it back to the emergence of colonial towns in Cameroon at the end of the 19th century, which allowed a one-off event of the disease to occur. The virus found there a favorable ground for the emergence of an epidemic, which subsequently became global.

== AIDS prevention and zoophilia ==
=== An HIV positive person cannot infect their animal companion during sexual intercourse ===
The practice of zoophilia is not exempt from the risk of transmission of [[STI & Zoophilia|sexually-transmitted infections]] between men. This can occur under the specific conditions listed below.

==== Penetrations by the same animal of two successive partners ====
If one of the sexual partners is HIV-positive or has an STI, it could be transmitted to the other partner.

Do not forget that anal penetration is often an inherently traumatic activity (in particular with certain animals) and that the anal mucosa is particularly fragile. Very often, micro-bleeding occurs and the penis of your animal partner will be a potential vector for HIV transmission.

In some cases it may be possible to use condoms (yes, yes, they work for dogs, too!). The simplest safe approach is to avoid two successive penetrations by the same animal on two different partners. Since the AIDS virus cannot survive for more than a few minutes outside the body, it is reasonable to assume that the next day it will have been destroyed. A simple rinse with water may not be enough, though.

==== Penetrations of an animal by two successive partners ====
The risk for HIV here is mainly linked to the ejaculation of seminal fluid. Two partners successively entering an animal can thus transmit the HIV virus to each other.

To avoid HIV infection, as with other [[STI & Zoophilia|STIs]], one of the partners can use a condom.

== Miscellaneous ==
The HIV status of a partner is not discernable with simple observation. A screening test provides the serological status as of two months before the sample. People who are HIV-positive but do not know their HIV status are at higher risk of transmitting the disease than a person who is treated.

If you are HIV-positive, you do not have to say your HIV status if you take the necessary precautions, but you have a responsibility (just like your HIV-negative partner) to make sure your partner is not at risk of transmitting HIV.

== See also ==
* [[STI & Zoophilia]]
** [[Syphilis and Zoophilia]]

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Sexuality]]

Talk:Zoophilia

2026-04-01T10:23:28Z

Bloit: Removed redirect to Zoophilia Wiki talk:Zoophilia

We should probably remove the "for" and "against" headers in "Debate over zoophilic relations" and instead introduce the topics in order of usefulness. Some of those opinions seem to be there simply because they're those of a organization like the HSUS.
-DogMichael

Zoophilia Wiki talk:Zoophilia

2026-04-01T10:23:22Z

Bloit: Blanked the page

Category:BEHEAD NIGGER BABIES

2026-04-01T10:22:55Z

Bloit: Blanked the page

Trial of Thomas Hogg

2026-04-01T10:21:45Z

Bloit: Removed redirect to Template:Nobeidore.raw

{{Imported}}
{{Infobox court case
|name = New Haven v. Thomas Hogg
|court = New Haven Colony Court
|image =
|caption =
|full name =
|date decided = 1647
|citations =
|transcripts =
|judges =
|number of judges =
|decision by =
|prior actions =
|subsequent actions =
|related actions = [[George Spencer (sex offender)|Trial of George Spencer]]
|opinions =
|keywords = {{flatlist|*[[Bestiality]]
*[[sodomy]]}}
|italic title =No
}}
The '''trial of Thomas Hogg''' took place in New Haven Colony in 1647. Hogg was accused of [[bestiality]] when a neighbourhood sow gave birth to piglets that allegedly resembled him. Unlike several men and boys convicted of the crime and consequently hanged in the 1640s and ensuing decades, Hogg refused to confess, thus avoiding the death penalty. Called "the most interesting buggery case" ever, it left an enduring mark in the [[history]] of capital punishment.

== Background ==

Thomas Hogg was a servant from New Haven Colony, where the one-eyed George Spencer confessed to [[sodomy]] after a sow gave birth to a deformed one-eyed piglet, which led to his execution in early April 1642.<ref name="Chehardy"/> Like Spencer, Hogg did not enjoy a good reputation. He was considered a liar and a thief, and his appearance offended his neighbours.<ref name="Godbeer"/> Women of various social positions, including a "neager" slavewoman named Lucretia, reported his indecency, as he allowed his "filthy nakedness" (penis and scrotum) to show through his breeches. Hogg, who suffered from a painful inguinal hernia, argued that his indecency was not intentional.<ref name="Goodheart"/>

== Charges and trial ==

Five years after Spencer's execution, Hogg was implicated in "the most interesting buggery case" ever.<ref name="Jackson">{{cite book|last=Jackson|first=Charles|title=The other Americans: sexual variance in the National past|publisher=[[Praeger Publishers|Praeger]]|year=1996|isbn=0275955516}}</ref> He was already awaiting trial for theft, dishonesty and indecent exposure when he was brought up on charges of [[bestiality]],<ref name="McManus"/> after a sow gave birth to two piglets that resembled him.<ref name="Chehardy ">{{cite web|last=Chehardy |first=Kimberley N.|year=|url=http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1999-2000/Chehardy.htm|title='Wickedness Breaks Forth': The Crime Of Sodomy In Colonial New England|accessdate=2 February 2013}}</ref> Hogg's mistress, Mrs. Lamberton, found the birth to be a sign from God, and told the authorities that one of the "monsters" had "a fair and white skinned and head, as Thomas Hogg is",<ref name="Goodheart"/><ref name="Jackson"/> and the other "a head like a child's and one eye like him, the bigger on the right side, as if God would describe the party, with the description of the instrument of bestyalie."<ref name="Goodheart">{{cite book|last=Goodheart|first=Lawrence B.|title=The Solemn Sentence of Death: Capital Punishment in Connecticut|publisher=[[University of Massachusetts Press]]|year=2011|isbn=978-1558498471|accessdate=2 February 2013|url=https://books.google.com/?id=bEIush39IB8C&dq=%22servant+Thomas+Hogg%22}}</ref>

Theophilus Eaton, governor of the colony, and his deputy brought Hogg to a barnyard where the crime was supposed to have taken place. They ordered him to scratch the sow under her ear,<ref name="Goodheart"/> after which "there appeared a working of lust in the sow, insomuch that she powred out seede before them."<ref name="Chehardy"/> Hogg was then ordered to scratch another sow, but she was not stimulated.<ref name="Chehardy"/><ref name="Goodheart"/><ref name="Friedman">{{cite book|last=Friedman|first=Lawrence|title=Crime And Punishment In American History|publisher=[[Basic Books]]|year=1994|isbn=0465024467}}</ref><ref name="Beirne">{{cite book|last=Beirne|first=Piers|title=Confronting Animal Abuse: Law, Criminology, and Human-Animal Relationships|publisher=[[Rowman & Littlefield]]|year=2009|isbn=978-0742599741}}</ref> The governor and deputy governor were frustrated that, despite their experiment, Hogg denied the charges. Without the confession, the "impudent liar" could not be hanged<ref name="Goodheart"/> because the requirement of two witnesses could not be met.<ref name="Godbeer">{{cite book|last=Godbeer|first=Richard|title=Sexual Revolution in Early America|publisher=[[Johns Hopkins University Press]]|year=2004|isbn=0801878918|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/sexualrevolution0000godb}}</ref><ref name="McManus"/> Instead, he was convicted of lying and stealing,<ref name="McManus"/> for which he was severely whipped and incarcerated.<ref name="Chehardy"/><ref name="Goodheart"/> While imprisoned, Hogg was kept on a "mean diet and hard labor, that his lusts not be fed."<ref name="Goodheart"/>

== Aftermath ==

The situation left a permanent mark on capital punishment jurisprudence.<ref name="Goodheart"/> Hogg appears again in court records in 1648, when he was admonished for failing to appear for guard duty.<ref name="Chehardy"/><ref name="McManus">{{cite book|last=McManus|first=Edgar J.|title=Law and Liberty in Early New England: Criminal Justice and Due Process, 1620–1692|publisher=[[University of Massachusetts Press]]|year=2009|isbn=978-1558497726}}</ref>

== References ==

{{reflist}}

== External links ==

*[http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/01/when_bestiality_gets_blamed_on_the_animals.html In early America, farm animals took the blame for zoophilic sex.]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hogg, Thomas}}
[[Category:History]]

Template:Nobeidore.raw

2026-04-01T10:21:44Z

Bloit: Blanked the page

Help:Cheatsheet

2026-04-01T08:19:40Z

Bloit:

__NOEDITSECTION__
__NOTOC__
{{Short description|Brief guide to Zoophilia Wiki formatting codes}}
<noinclude><div align="center">{{Help pages header}}</noinclude>
{{Notice|For a complete list of Wikitext codes, see '''[[wikipedia:Help:Wikitext]]'''. For information on special words, see '''[[wikipedia:Help:Magic words]]'''.}}

{| style="background-color: #f5faff; border: 2px solid #a3b1bf; margin: 1.5em auto; text-align: left; width: 100%;"
| colspan="3" style="background-color: #cee0f2; text-align: center;" | <h2 style="border-bottom: none; font-weight: 700; margin: 0.5em;">Wikitext Cheat Sheet</h2>
|-
| colspan="3" style="background-color: #e6f2ff; border-top: 2px solid #a3b1bf; text-align: center;" | '''Works anywhere in the text'''
|- style="background-color: #e6f2ff; font-size: 0.9em; padding: 0.3em; text-align: center;"
| style="border-bottom: 2px solid #a3b1bf; width: 30%;" | Description
| style="border-bottom: 2px solid #a3b1bf;" | You type
| style="border-bottom: 2px solid #a3b1bf; width: 30%;" | You get
|-
| Italics{{Anchor|Italic text}}, bold{{Anchor|Bold text}}, and both{{Anchor|Bold and italic}}
| {{Mono|<nowiki>''italics'', '''bold''', and '''''both'''''</nowiki>}}
| ''italics'', '''bold''', and '''''both'''''
|-
| colspan="3" style="border-top: 1px solid #cee0f2;" |
|-
| [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking|Link]]{{Anchor|Internal link}} to another page<div style="font-size: 0.9em; padding: 0.7em 0.5em;">''see [[wikipedia:Help:Interwikimedia links]] for linking to sister projects''</div>
| {{Code|<nowiki>[[Copy edit]]</nowiki>}}<br />{{Code|<nowiki>[[Copy edit]]ors</nowiki>}}
| [[wikipedia:Copy edit|Copy edit]]<br />[[wikipedia:Copy edit|Copy edit]]ors
|-
| colspan="3" style="border-top: 1px solid #cee0f2;" |
|-
| "[[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Piped link|Pipe]]" a link to change the link's text
| {{Code|<nowiki>[[Android (operating system)|Android]]</nowiki>}}
| [[wikipedia:Android (operating system)|Android]]
|-
| colspan="3" style="border-top: 1px solid #cee0f2;" |
|-
| Link to a section
| {{Code|<nowiki>[[Frog#Locomotion]]</nowiki>}}<br />{{Code|<nowiki>[[Frog#Locomotion|locomotion in frogs]]</nowiki>}}
| [[wikipedia:Frog#Locomotion|Frog#Locomotion]]<br />[[wikipedia:Frog#Locomotion|locomotion in frogs]]
|-
| colspan="3" style="border-top: 1px solid #cee0f2;" |
|-
| [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Red link|Red link]]<div style="font-size: 0.9em; padding: 0.7em 0.5em;">''Links to pages that don't exist are automatically red. Red links in articles help by showing desired [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Redirect|redirects]] or [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Notability|notable]] pages.''</div>
| {{Code|<nowiki>[[Red link example]]</nowiki>}}
| [[Red link example]]
|-
| colspan="3" style="border-top: 1px solid #cee0f2;" |
|-
| Plain website
| {{Code|<nowiki>https://zoophilia.wiki/</nowiki>}}
| https://zoophilia.wiki/
|-
| colspan="3" style="border-top: 1px solid #cee0f2;" |
|-
| Link a website
| {{Code|<nowiki>[https://zoophilia.wiki/]</nowiki>}}
| [https://zoophilia.wiki/]
|-
| colspan="3" style="border-top: 1px solid #cee0f2;" |
|-
| Link and name a website
| {{Code|<nowiki>[https://zoophilia.wiki/ Zoophilia Wiki]</nowiki>}}
| [https://zoophilia.wiki/ Zoophilia Wiki]
|-
| colspan="3" style="border-top: 1px solid #cee0f2;" |
|-
| [[wikipedia:Help:Citations quick reference|Citations, references, and footnotes]]<div style="font-size: 0.9em; padding: 0.7em 0.5em;">sources in the article will appear where {{Template link general|plaincode=on|Reflist}} is put, typically under a Level 2 section heading (see below) towards the bottom of the page; text between <nowiki>{{}}</nowiki> is for a [[wikipedia:Help:Template|template]].</div>
| <pre style="overflow: auto;">
Hello<ref name="LoC">[https://www.loc.gov/about/ Library of Congress]</ref> World!<ref>https://www.w3.org/</ref>

Hello again!<ref name="LoC" /><ref>Perry's Handbook, Sixth Edition, McGraw-Hill Co., 1984.</ref>

References: {{Reflist}}
</pre>
| Hello<ref name="LoC">[https://www.loc.gov/about/ Library of Congress]</ref> World!<ref>https://www.w3.org/</ref>

Hello again!<ref name="LoC" /><ref>Perry's Handbook, Sixth Edition, McGraw-Hill Co., 1984.</ref>

References: {{Reflist}}
|-
| colspan="3" style="border-top: 1px solid #cee0f2;" |
|-
| [[Template:Citation needed]]<div style="font-size: 0.9em; padding: 0.7em 0.5em;">''one of many [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup|cleanup templates]]''</div>
| {{Code|<nowiki>This statement is true.{{Citation needed}}</nowiki>}}
| This statement is true.{{Citation needed}}
|-
| colspan="3" style="border-top: 1px solid #cee0f2;" |
|-
| [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Signatures|Signature]]{{Anchor|Signature}}<div style="font-size: 0.9em; padding: 0.7em 0.5em;">''sign your contributions when posting to a [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Tutorial (Talk pages)|talk page]]''</div>
| {{Code|<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>}}<br /><br /><span style="font-size: 0.9em;">''do not sign in an article, only on talk pages''</span>
| [[Special:MyPage|Username]] ([[Special:MyTalk|talk]]) {{CURRENTTIME}}, {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)
|-
| colspan="3" style="border-top: 1px solid #cee0f2;" |
|-
| [[wikipedia:Help:Wikitext#Show deleted or inserted text|Strike]] your [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] comment
<div style="font-size: 0.9em; padding: 0.7em 0.5em;">''to show your previous comment is outdated''</div>
| {{Code|<nowiki><s>This topic isn't [[Zoophilia Wiki:Notability|notable]].</s></nowiki>}}
| <span style="text-decoration: line-through #000 solid 1px;">This topic isn't [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Notability|notable]].</span>
|-
| colspan="3" style="border-top: 1px solid #cee0f2;" |
|-
| [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Underlining|Underline]] your text
| {{Code|<nowiki><u>This topic is notable</u></nowiki>}}
| <span style="text-decoration: underline #000 solid 2px;">This topic is notable</span>
|-
| colspan="3" style="border-top: 1px solid #cee0f2;" |
|-
| Hide text somewhere for editors<div style="font-size: 0.9em; padding: 0.7em 0.5em;">''[[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] is how things are decided''</div>
| {{Code|<nowiki></nowiki>}}
| 
|-
| colspan="3" style="border-top: 1px solid #cee0f2;" |
|-
| [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Picture tutorial|Show an image]]<div style="font-size: 0.9em; padding: 0.7em 0.5em;">''for uploading, see the [[wikipedia:Help:Introduction to uploading images|intro to uploading images]]''</div>{{Anchor|Thumbnail image}}
| {{Code|<nowiki>[[File:Wiki.png|thumb|Caption]]</nowiki>}}
| [[File:Wiki.png|thumb|Caption]]
|-
| colspan="3" style="border-top: 1px solid #cee0f2;" |
|-
| Add a page to a [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:FAQ/Categories|category]]{{Anchor|Add a page to a category}}
| {{Code|<nowiki>[[Category:Category name]]</nowiki>}}<br /><br /><span style="font-size: 0.9em;">''place near the bottom of a page''</span>
| <span style="font-size: 0.9em;">''shows''</span> "Category name" <span style="font-size: 0.9em;">''in a bar at bottom when the page is previewed or published''</span>
|-
| colspan="3" style="border-top: 1px solid #cee0f2;" |
|-
| Link to a [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:FAQ/Categories|category]] or [[wikipedia:Help:Files|file]]
| <br />{{Code|<nowiki>[[:Category:Zoophilia Wiki]]</nowiki>}}<br />{{Code|<nowiki>[[:File:Example.jpg]]</nowiki>}}
| <br />[[:Category:Zoophilia Wiki]]<br />[[:File:Example.jpg]]
|-
| colspan="3" style="background-color: #e6f2ff; border-top: 2px solid #a3b1bf; text-align: center;" | '''Works only at the beginning of lines'''
|- style="background-color: #e6f2ff; font-size: 0.9em; padding: 0.3em; text-align: center;"
| style="border-bottom: 2px solid #a3b1bf; width: 30%;" | Description
| style="border-bottom: 2px solid #a3b1bf;" | You type
| style="border-bottom: 2px solid #a3b1bf; width: 30%;" | You get
|-
| [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Redirect|Redirect to another page]]{{Anchor|Redirect to another page}}<div style="font-size: 0.9em; padding: 0.7em 0.5em;">''redirects must be placed at the start of the first line''</div>
| {{Code|<nowiki>#REDIRECT [[Zoophilia]]</nowiki>}}
| [[File:Redirect arrow without text.svg|30px|link=]] [[Zoophilia]]
|-
| colspan="3" style="border-top: 1px solid #cee0f2;" |
|-
| [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Redirect|Redirect to a section of another page]]
| {{Code|<nowiki>#REDIRECT [[Zoophilia#Legal status]]</nowiki>}}
| [[File:Redirect arrow without text.svg|30px|link=]] [[Zoophilia#Legal status]]
|-
| colspan="3" style="border-top: 1px solid #cee0f2;" |
|-
| [[wikipedia:Help:Section|Section headings]]{{Anchor|Section headings}}<br /><div style="font-size: 0.9em; padding: 0.7em 0.5em;">''a Table of Contents will automatically be generated when four headings are added to an article''</div>
| {{Code|<nowiki>== Level 2 ==</nowiki>}}<br />{{Code|<nowiki>=== Level 3 ===</nowiki>}}<br />{{Code|<nowiki>==== Level 4 ====</nowiki>}}<br />{{Code|<nowiki>===== Level 5 =====</nowiki>}}<br />{{Code|<nowiki>====== Level 6 ======</nowiki>}}<br /><br /><span style="font-size: 0.9em;">''do not use'' = Level 1 = ''as it is for page titles''</span>
|
== Level 2 ==
=== Level 3 ===
==== Level 4 ====
===== Level 5 =====
====== Level 6 ======
|-
| colspan="3" style="border-top: 1px solid #cee0f2;" |
|-
| [[wikipedia:Help:List|Bulleted list]]{{Anchor|Bulleted list}}
| {{Code|* One}}<br />{{Code|* Two}}<br />{{Code|** Two point one}}<br />{{Code|* Three}}
|
* One
* Two
** Two point one
* Three
|-
| colspan="3" style="border-top: 1px solid #cee0f2;" |
|-
| [[wikipedia:Help:List|Numbered list]]{{Anchor|Numbered list}}
| {{Code|# One}}<br />{{Code|# Two}}<br />{{Code|## Two point one}}<br />{{Code|# Three}}
|
# One
# Two
## Two point one
# Three
|-
| colspan="3" style="border-top: 1px solid #cee0f2;" |
|-
| Indenting text{{Anchor|Indenting text}}<div style="font-size: 0.9em; padding: 0.7em 0.5em;">''this is used when replying on a [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Tutorial (Talk pages)|talk page]], to make it easier to follow conversations.<br />After a string of indents, or to revive a discussion, an outdent {{Template link general|italic=on|Outdent|n}} can be used to reset the paragraph to the left margin.''</div>
| {{Code|<nowiki>no indent (normal)</nowiki>}}<br />{{Code|<nowiki>:first indent</nowiki>}}<br />{{Code|<nowiki>::second indent</nowiki>}}<br />{{Code|<nowiki>:::third indent</nowiki>}}<br />{{Code|<nowiki>::::fourth indent</nowiki>}}<br />{{Code|<nowiki>{{Outdent|4}} return to left margin</nowiki>}}
|
no indent (normal)<br />
:first indent
::second indent
:::third indent
::::fourth indent
{{Outdent|4}} return to left margin
|}

{{Quicktemplates|state=expanded}}
</div>
<noinclude>

== See also ==
{{Side box|text='''Note''': You can use the [[Zoophilia Wiki:Sandbox|sandbox]] to experiment with page editing.|imageright=[[File:Sandbox.svg|42px]]}}
[[File:Wiki markup cheatsheet EN.pdf|upright|thumb|Wiki markup quick reference (PDF download)]]
* For a full list of editing commands, see [[wikipedia:Help:Wikitext|Help:Wikitext]]
* For including parser functions, variables and behavior switches, see [[wikipedia:Help:Magic words|Help:Magic words]]
* For a guide to displaying mathematical equations and formulas, see [[wikipedia:Help:Displaying a formula|Help:Displaying a formula]]
* For a guide to editing, see [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia|Contribution Guide]]
* For an overview of commonly used style guidelines, see [[Zoophilia Wiki:Simplified Manual of Style]]
* For a page on how to use Zoophilia Wiki in bite-sized morsels, see [[Zoophilia Wiki:Tips]]
* For advice on writing style and formatting in a bullet-point format, see [[Zoophilia Wiki:Style tips]]
* For summaries of some Zoophilia Wiki protocols and conventions, see [[Zoophilia Wiki:Dos and don'ts]]
* If you don't want to use wikitext markup, try [[Zoophilia Wiki:VisualEditor]] instead
* '''To ask a question''', see [[Zoophilia Wiki:Questions]] to locate the appropriate venue(s)
---- <div style="font-size: smaller;">{{Center|1={{Offer help}}}}</div>
{{Wikipedia editor navigation|state=collapsed}}

[[Category:Basic information|{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:Editor snippet collections]]
[[Category:Wiki guides]]
</noinclude>

Zoophilia Wiki:Copyrights

2026-04-01T08:19:32Z

Bloit: Replaced content with " '''CC BY 4.0 Deed''' '''Attribution 4.0 International''' ''You are free to:'' Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. ''Under the following terms:'' Attribution - You must give appropriate credit , provide a..."

'''CC BY 4.0 Deed'''
'''Attribution 4.0 International'''

''You are free to:''

Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

''Under the following terms:''

Attribution - You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions - You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

''Notices:''

You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .

No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.

Zoophilia Wiki:Terms of Service

2026-04-01T08:19:28Z

Bloit: Replaced content with "Zoophilia Wiki is now open for everyone to contribute to the site! Account Creation is subject to approval; However, no hard questions. Just a simple bio about what you like do to. '''Our Terms of Service below lists what can be done on the Wiki. ''' * All posts should include citations if it is from an article, book, movie, etc. * Pornography content is not allowed; Solo content that is on the subject of animal anatomy is allowed. * Ensure pages you edit/create..."

Zoophilia Wiki is now open for everyone to contribute to the site!
Account Creation is subject to approval; However, no hard questions. Just a simple bio about what you like do to.

'''Our Terms of Service below lists what can be done on the Wiki.
'''

* All posts should include citations if it is from an article, book, movie, etc.
* Pornography content is not allowed; Solo content that is on the subject of animal anatomy is allowed.
* Ensure pages you edit/create is non-biased, and is not made to attack, belittle, or defame someone's character.
* The User Talk page is welcome to be used to discuss on pages.
* Do not use the wiki to advertise, unless permission has been granted by an admin.
* The Ziki is not a classifieds site. It is a resource/information page.

Zoophilia, The Sexual Love for Animals

2026-04-01T08:18:59Z

Bloit: Undo revision 135719 by CTCA (talk)

'''Title''': [[Zoophilia]], the sexual [[love]] for animals

'''Author''': Josef Massen

'''Published by''' Pinto Press Verlag Koeln

'''ISBN''': ISBN 3-930387-15-8

'''Price''' : approx. EUR 25.00 (out of stock)

'''Other''': hardback, 349 pages

'''Content''': As a member of the criminal police, the author of this book often got to know people with unusual erotic tendencies. He collected information about unusual sexual behavior for 15 years. In doing so, he also found access to the excluded and discreet community of "animal lovers". As a result of his research on zoophilia, this is the most extensive study that has been published on this topic to date.

Unfortunately this book is out of print. According to the publisher, no [[further]] edition is planned.

{{People}}
[[Category:Books]]
[[Category:Culture]]

Template:Commons category

2026-04-01T08:18:26Z

Bloit: Undo revision 135718 by Pooplia (talk)

{{Sister project
| position = {{{position|}}}
| project = commons
| text = Wikimedia Commons has {{{alt-term|media related to}}} <span style="font-weight: bold; {{#ifeq:{{{nowrap|no}}}|yes|white-space:nowrap;}} {{#ifeq:{{{italic|yes}}}|yes|font-style: italic;}}">[[commons:{{#if:{{{1|}}}|Category:{{{1|}}}|{{if then show|{{#invoke:WikidataIB |getCommonsLink|qid={{{qid|}}}|onlycat=True|fallback=False}}|Category:{{PAGENAME}}}}}}|{{#ifeq:{{{lcf|{{{lcfirst|no}}}}}}|yes|{{lcfirst:{{{2|{{#if:{{{1|}}} | {{{1|}}} |{{if then show|{{#invoke:String|replace|{{#invoke:WikidataIB |getCommonsLink|qid={{{qid|}}}|onlycat=True|fallback=False}}|Category:|}} |{{PAGENAME}} }} }} }}} }}|{{{2|{{#if:{{{1|}}} | {{{1|}}} |{{if then show|{{#invoke:String|replace|{{#invoke:WikidataIB |getCommonsLink|qid={{{qid|}}}|onlycat=True|fallback=False}}|Category:|}}|{{PAGENAME}} }}}}}}}}}]]</span>.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||{{ns:14}}={{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{#ifeq:Category:{{replace|{{{1|}}}|_| }}|{{#invoke:WikidataIB |getCommonsLink|qid={{{qid|}}}|onlycat=True|fallback=False}}|[[Category:Commons category link is on Wikidata]]|{{#ifeq:{{replace|{{{1|}}}|_| }}|{{PAGENAME}}|[[Category:Commons category link is defined as the pagename]]{{preview warning|Commons category does not match the Commons sitelink on Wikidata – [[Template:Commons_category#Resolving_discrepancies|please check]]}}|[[Category:Commons category link is locally defined]]{{preview warning|Commons category does not match the Commons sitelink on Wikidata – [[Template:Commons_category#Resolving_discrepancies|please check]]}}}} }}|{{#if:{{#invoke:WikidataIB |getCommonsLink|qid={{{qid|}}}|onlycat=True|fallback=False}}|[[Category:Commons category link from Wikidata]]|[[Category:Commons category link is the pagename]]{{preview warning|Commons category does not match the Commons sitelink on Wikidata – [[Template:Commons_category#Resolving_discrepancies|please check]]}}
}}
}}
}}</includeonly>
}}<noinclude>
{{Documentation}}

</noinclude>

Donkey show

2026-04-01T08:18:11Z

Bloit: Undo revision 135711 by Pooplia (talk)

{{imported}}

[[File:Donkey-bar.jpg|thumb|A bar in Boy's Town, Nuevo Laredo, Mexico advertising a nightly "donkey's show"]]

A '''donkey show''' is a supposed type of live sex show in which a woman engages in [[bestiality]] with a donkey,<ref>{{cite news|author=|title=Foreign Affairs|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=W18EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA103|quote='the donkey show,' which highlighted a Catherine the Great-style coupling|volume=45|issue=6|work=Los Angeles Magazine|date=June 1, 2000|accessdate=2010-04-25}}</ref><ref name="dawson">{{cite book|author=Jim Dawson|title=Who Cut the Cheese?: A Cultural History of the Fart|year=1999|quote=There was a time when guys would boast of having seen a girl-and-donkey show in Tijuana, Mexico.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RLSXmhudzOQC&pg=PA155|isbn=1-58008-011-1}}</ref> which, according to urban legend and some works of fiction, were once performed in the Mexican border city of Tijuana, particularly in the mid-20th century.

Gustavo Arellano, in his ¡Ask a Mexican! column, argues that donkey shows are not real.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.ocweekly.com/news/ask-a-mexican-are-donkey-shows-really-a-thing-in-mexico-6432071|title=¡Ask a Mexican: Are Donkey Shows Really a Thing in Mexico?|last=Arellano|first=Gustavo|date=2014-10-16|newspaper=OC Weekly|access-date=2017-01-01}}</ref>

As late as 2008, they have been mentioned as a reason to visit Tijuana, and naive tourists may seek them out.<ref name="alejandro">{{cite book|title=Nor-tec rifa!: electronic dance music from Tijuana to the world|series=Currents in Iberian and Latin American Music|chapter=Where's the Donkey Show, Mr. Mariachi? Reterritorialing TJ|author=Alejandro L. Madrid, Alejandro Luis Madrid-González|edition=illustrated|publisher=Oxford University Press US|year=2008|isbn=9780195342628|pages=16, 115, 145, 217 (footnote 2), 220 (footnote 41)|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Q2W6uYsvqroC}}</ref>

The "donkey show" has been portrayed in several American films, including ''Losin' It'' (1983), ''Bachelor Party'' (1984), ''The 40-Year Old Virgin'' (2005), [[Cinematography#Clerks 2 (2006)|''Clerks II'' (2006)]], ''The Heartbreak Kid'' (2007), and ''Cake'' (2014).{{Citation needed|date=September 2017}}

In the 1981 book ''New West'', a Tijuana taxi driver offers tourists a ride to see a donkey show in the red light district.<ref name=west>{{cite book |title=New West |year=1981 |quote=One of the drivers offered to drive me to a donkey show. In Tijuana's past the donkey show was always rumored to exist| url=https://books.google.com/books?id=CUIcAQAAIAAJ&q=donkey+show+mexico&dq=donkey+show+mexico&hl=en&ei=KIzUS4PNN8OAlAfoqPHsDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA |isbn= }}</ref>

In Mark Winegardner's 2005 book ''The Godfather Returns'', set in the late 1950s and early 1960s, Fredo Corleone's wife Deanna Dunn insists on attending one: "on a whim, they'd headed to Mexico. When they'd gotten there, Deanna Dunn, insisted on going to see a donkey show. ... who thought that watching a donkey fuck a teenage Indian girl was a hoot."<ref>{{cite book|author=Mark Winegardner|title=The Godfather Returns|publisher=Ballantine Books|year=2005|quote=|page=[https://archive.org/details/godfatherreturns00wine/page/252 252]|url=https://archive.org/details/godfatherreturns00wine|url-access=registration|isbn=}}</ref>

In 2005 the term is claimed to be used to describe a situation that has become a "complete mess".<ref>{{cite book|author=Jonathon Green|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5GpLcC4a5fAC&pg=PA428&dq=%22donkey+show%22+sex&ei=sqfzS6XUEZXakQSzncnZBw&cd=2#v=onepage&q=%22donkey%20show%22%20sex&f=false|title=Cassell's dictionary of slang|accessdate=2010-05-21|year=2005|publisher=Sterling Publishing Company}}</ref> For example, the Government, and news media outlets.

==References==
{{Reflist|2}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Donkey Show}}
[[Category:Terms]]

Uniquely Dangerous

2026-04-01T08:18:06Z

Bloit: Undo revision 135710 by Pooplia (talk)

[[File:Hidden bestiality community focus of new book (1).mp3|thumb|Carren Maloney Discussing with Scoot on a radio show about "Uniquely Dangerous"]]
Book by Carreen Maloney, 2018 ([https://www.amazon.com/Uniquely-Dangerous-Carreen-Maloney-ebook/dp/B07BPRHZLR/ Amazon.com])

== Summary ==
After the 2010 arrest of [[Douglas "Fausty" Spink|Doug Spink]] and the subsequent media circus, journalist and animal welfare advocate Carreen Maloney took it upon herself to track down the truth and write about Spink's viewpoint. The report took several years to write, and became an entire book about [[zoophilia]], Spink's life, and the treatment of animals in today's society. The events in the book wrap up around the time of his late-2014 escape into Canada, leaving much of his later life unrecorded.

== About the Author ==
Carren Maloney was a radio show guest (2018) to discuss the book "Uniquely Dangerous"
[[File:Images.jpg|thumb|Uniquely Dangerous - A book by Carren Maloney]]
Hidden bestiality community focus of new book.<ref>https://wwl.radio.com/media/audio-channel/hidden-bestiality-community-focus-new-book</ref>

Scoot talks to Carreen Maloney, author of the new book "Uniquely Dangerous: A True Story" which pulls back the curtain on hidden bestiality communities in the American south

[[Category:Books]]
<references />

== A WORK OF INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM ==
On April 14, 2010, the federal government raided Douglas Spink’s home. At the time, he was living 20 miles from my home in northern Washington State. Mr. Spink’s animals were seized and taken to Whatcom Humane Society, the local agency tasked by the government. I’ve written for—and about—Whatcom Humane Society for more than a decade.

Early on, I wasn’t sure I was going to write anything about Mr. Spink or zoophilia. Frankly, I didn’t know what to write. The story was complex. Shadowy. Characterized by a maze of conflicting so-called facts and perspectives. But when the facts I was digging up didn’t corroborate with what was being presented by the media, I decided to keep investigating anyway, with no idea where it would lead.

Initially, Doug Spink wasn’t optimistic about my interest in his personal story. He told me he didn’t need or want a “Kardashian-style” look at his life. He made it clear he wasn’t willing to be a spokesman for other zoos, either. Mr. Spink’s attorney, Howard Phillips, also wasn’t thrilled by the possibility of this book. When we met in 2010, he told me flat-out he had classified me as “the enemy,” adding that he would be relaying that exact message to his client. The media had already savaged Mr. Spink, and Mr. Phillips was being prudently cautious about publicity.

Still, despite the roadblocks, our communications persisted. At first halting over the prison email system, then eventually by telephone and in-person interviews following Mr. Spink’s release from federal custody. For my part, I didn’t think it was fair to publish a story about Mr. Spink until he was released from prison, at which time he would have the chance to respond fully to the allegations being made. And only then would he have the opportunity to produce documentation to support his statements.

Eight years after the raid, I’ve finally finished writing the story, in the form of a book titled '''''Uniquely Dangerous.'''''

Along the way, the book has gathered its own momentum. The project has expanded in scope. Many more zoos have approached me. Some know Doug Spink personally, but many don’t. The majority of zoos simply want to share general information about zoophilia, and to tell their personal stories. That unexpected outpouring has led me to create another section of the work, a compendium that pulls together individual stories about zoos.

Some zoos are happy I am writing about zoophilia, while others would prefer I just shut up and went away. To let sleeping dogs lie.

This first chapter is free to read, if you enjoyed it, I suggest you purchase a copy of the book. Please go here https://uniquelydangerous.com

{{People}}

Colin J. Williams

2026-04-01T08:18:01Z

Bloit: Undo revision 135709 by Pooplia (talk)

'''Colin J. Williams''' (born {{abbr|c.|circa}} 1941) is a sociologist and retired Professor of Sociology at Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis. He served as Research Sociologist at the Kinsey Institute for Sex Research from 1968-1980.<ref name="cst1989">Staff report (June 30, 1989). Sexual revolution didn't happen, study says. ''Chicago Sun-Times''</ref><ref name="ap1989">Associated Press (July 4, 1989). U.S. missed sexual revolution, study finds. ''Toronto Star''</ref> Williams' work mostly looks at sociological issues affecting gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.<ref>Staff report (February 5, 1993). Kinsey's `10% gay' statistic attacked. ''Indianapolis Star''</ref><ref>Jan 27, 1993 Gay issue could humiliate military. ''Indianapolis Star'''</ref>

== Life and career ==
Williams earned his bachelor's degree from the London School of Economics in 1963 and his master's degree from the University of British Columbia in 1966. He earned his Ph.D. in sociology from Rutgers University in 1970.

== Work regarding Zoophilia ==

* Williams CJ, Weinberg MS. Zoophilia in men: a study of sexual interest in animals. Arch Sex Behav. 2003 Dec;32(6):523-35. doi: 10.1023/a:1026085410617. PMID: 14574096.

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==

* [https://liberalarts.iupui.edu/about/directory/williams-colin-j.html Colin J. Williams faculty page]
{{People}}
[[Category:People]]

Furry Fandom & the Zoo Community

2026-04-01T08:17:56Z

Bloit: Undo revision 135708 by Pooplia (talk)

{{Furry}}
The Furry Fandom and the Zoophile Community have had overlap since the fanom began. While many Furries attempt to distance themselves from [[Zoophiles]], the overlap is inarguable. Some Anti-Furs have historically been Anti-Fur for the reason that they have seen Furry as an expression of Zoophillia, and thus their Anti-Fur sentiment is actually an [[Anti-zoo|Anti-Zoo]] sentiment. Not all Furries are Zoophiles, and not all Zoophiles are Furries. The cross-over of Furries and Zoophiles has caused significant controversy in the past, throughout the [[history]] of both communities. This page details some significant Furry projects of note.

==Varka==

[[Varka]] has to be one of the staples of the furry community. He is a [[zoophile]] himself and it's interesting to see all of the accomplishments and value that they have brought to the fandom. Varka created [[Bad Dragon]], [[e621]], [[Furry Network]], [[Dragonfruit]] and [[Dragonfruit Printing]], as well as [[Herpy.net]], and [[twentypercentcooler.com]].

He also worked with [[Douglas "Fausty" Spink]] at his IT firm [[Baneki]] after the merger of their companies.

===Furry Network===
[[Furry Network]] is a social media site catering to Furries, hoping to be more modern than the previous standard, Furaffinity.

===Bad Dragon===
[[Bad Dragon]] is a fantasy sex toy company that is famous for creating mass-produced Dragon Dildos. Bad Dragon caters almost exclusively to the Furry Community. Due to their PR campaigns of the 2010s, Bad Dragon is now a meme and a household name. The company formerly played heavy into fantasy, with elaborate profile pages, ref sheets, and back stories for each Dildo (and penetrable) they would sell. In the time since they've become a staple of internet culture, they've removed these deeper fantasy aspects, and significantly toned-down their selection to make themselves appear more friendliness. Bad Dragon used to have a wider selection of dildos and penetrables than they presently now have, with many of them being very realistic to animal anatomy.

===e621===
[[e621]] is a booru site hosting pornography made by the Furry Fandom. e621 also has a non-pornographic, SFW variant site called e926.

===Herpy.net===

[[Herpy.net]] was a [[zoophilia]] community that went derelict ran by Varka the founder of Bad Dragon.

===twentypercentcooler.com===

==See also==
*[https://wikifur.com Wikifur] -- Wikifur, the Furry Encyclopedia

Module talk:Documentation

2026-04-01T08:17:47Z

Bloit: Blanked the page

Allergic Response To Intimate Interspecies Contact

2026-04-01T08:17:11Z

Bloit: Removed redirect to ACHOO

There have been questions posted regarding the possibility of allergic reactions during or after sexual contact. Having an allergy to the semen of an animal is very possible, and the introduction of semen into the mouth, vagina or anus allows fast absorption because of the nature of the tissue (mucus membrane). Penile contact with the vaginal or anal tissue of another species involves less exposure and may show symptoms of an allergic reaction more slowly, showing up after repeated experiences. If the contact is with the animal’s tongue, there can be a sensitivity reaction just because of the repetition. The tongue is intended in animal’s life to perform many activities. Irritation and tenderness will pass quickly; a cold pack will provide comfort if needed.

An allergic reaction can be expressed as a mild reaction, such as eczema, hives, hay fever and asthma.

An Anaphylactic reaction can be life threatening, the entire system reacts. Noticeable symptoms are severe difficulty in breathing and a sudden drop in blood pressure resulting in fainting or loss of consciousness. This is a life-threatening Emergency, oral medications will not be able to fix this condition. Seek emergency help immediately. You do not have to reveal what precipitated the reaction. The treatment will be the same no matter what the cause. However getting dressed, if possible will help deter certain lines of questions.

The tendency to respond in an allergic fashion is an inherited trait. If you have had past allergic reactions, you are apt to be sensitive to more things in your environment. If you do have a [[history]] of allergies, proceed cautiously with this new erotic experience. Allergies do not get better over time, they get worse. If you have had an Anaphylactic reaction ever in your life, stick to movies…Since semen is a foreign protein, the body will most likely respond in a very life threatening way.

===Treatments of Allergies are many and varied.===

Avoidance, medication, and desensitization injections (these shots take years to work and since animals can be removed easily from the environment, most insurance companies will not pay for them) Medication that is used to treat allergies are commonly called anti histamines. Over the counter medication include, Benadryl
(diphenhydramine) 25-50mg every 4-6 hrs, maximum daily dose is 400mg per day. Claritin (loratadine) 10mg once a day. Zantac ( ranitidine) 150mg twice a day ( yes, I know it is usually used to treat heartburn but it is also an antihistamine ) Barrier methods are not very effective as condoms are constructed for humans and the anti spermicidal condoms are irritating to the mucus membranes of the dog. There has been mention of an “EpiPen”, The active ingredient is Epinephrine, and this medication can only be obtained with a prescription. There are health risks inherent in the medication itself, and should be used only by the person it is prescribed, whose physician is aware of the person’s health history. Allergy symptoms get increasingly worse with each exposure to the allergen (whether it is semen, bee stings or pollen) .

There are limited ways one can test if they have an allergic reaction. Such as having drops of semen fall on your hand or place on your lip, and test for any reactions. Taking a small amount of semen and putting it on the forearm and covering it with plastic wrap and leaving it over night may help with the question of possible reactions. If the area is red or red and raised, proceed with caution.

===Questions asked from message boards===
'''Is an allergy to fur related at all to an allergy to semen?'''
An allergic reaction to a given thing doesn't automatically equate to any other allergy. Allergies manifest themselves differently in individual people. One critter's hair will affect a person allergic to it, while another critter of a different species might cause no reaction at all. You'll have to experiment to find your answer, but be aware and wary. Anaphylactic Shock is not a nice thing to experience, especially if you're far from a Hospital.

'''An allergic reaction encounter'''
This has happened with two different girls, who both tried twice. Including a couple other first hand accounts of this occurring in a similar fashion from other women.
-1 in 20 girls have had an allergic reactions to dog semen in the past.
-If you're already allergic to dog dander, dog cum is linked and quite likely to be an allergen as well.
-Remember to ask.. if you or they have ever had allergic reaction.

We are '''NOT''' doctors. Some members have mentioned they have tried Benedryl.
Which has helped them mostly with the severe case of throat swelling, hives, etc.

===References===

https://www.zoovilleforum.net/threads/allergic-response-to-intimate-interspecies-contact-sex-animals-and-allergies.461/
[[Category:Resources]]

Allergic Response To mustard

2026-04-01T08:17:01Z

Bloit: Blanked the page

Mating Outside of Heat

2026-04-01T08:16:05Z

Bloit: Replaced content with "{{sex}} {{stub}} {{essay}} Many Zoophiles ask if it is possible to "Mate outside of Heat", meaning if it is possible to mate with their animal loves outside of their seasonal estrus cycle. The simple answer is that depends on the animal itself. Males are usually always ready to mate, so problems are hardly to be expected. With female animals, the situation is quite different. Females are only ready to have sex within the mating season. However, the..."

{{sex}}
{{stub}}
{{essay}}

Many [[Zoophiles]] ask if it is possible to "[[Mate]] outside of [[Heat]]", meaning if it is possible to mate with their animal loves outside of their seasonal [[estrus cycle]].

The simple answer is that depends on the animal itself. Males are usually always ready to mate, so problems are hardly to be expected. With female animals, the situation is quite different. Females are only ready to have sex within the mating season. However, there are exceptions. Some animals show interest in mating outside of this time and have no objection to it. Nonetheless, this is very different from person to person. A [[Zeta Principles|basic ethical rule]] is if the animal shows aversion or does not want sex, all actions must be stopped immediately!

==External links==
https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165926/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Kann_man_Sex_auch_au%C3%9Ferhalb_der_Paarungszeit_haben%3F
[[Category:Sexuality]]
[[Category:Resources]]

Zoosadism Leaks

2026-04-01T08:15:53Z

Bloit: Undo revision 135703 by Pooplia (talk)

== Introduction ==
Akela (known as "Zoodonym"), the creator of the infamous leaks (2018). Mainly showcasing "Kero the Wolf," and "Snake Thing."

In September of 2018, a massive Telegram dump that included chat logs, videos, and photos was make public to Twitter by a user known as Zoodonym (Akela.) They were known by "[[Zoosadism|Zoosadist]] Leaks," exposing a disturbing secret hidden underground by individuals who shared and participated in acts of extreme animal torture, otherwise known as [[Zoosadism]].
[[File:Screenshot of Akela's Twitter response.png|thumb|Akela's response to the discovery of a then friend.]]

===== Who were they? =====
The leaks centered around one main individual: Snakething (Levi Dane Simmons,) also going by Rall, and Nelizar. Akela, a former associatre of SnakeThing, obtained access to his accounts with permission from SnakeThing. As he had a "blackmail fetish."

Other individuals were:<ref>The sadists list - Wikifur - Zoosadist Evidence

https://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Zoosadist_Evidence#Zoosadist_list</ref>

* Kero The Wolf
* Xyro
* Glowfox
* Sephius Rivendare
* Digivolve ('''Tane''')
* Tekkita
* Corneil Grimond
* Emberwolf
* Techno Husky
* Petsy
* Pettech

===== How did he get these? =====
* Akela met SnakeThing online around 2016 and engaged in roleplay and fantasies
* SnakeThing gradually esclated to sharing real-world bestiality
* In early 2018, SnakeThing came clean to raping a puppy with another person, known as Tim Win, and leaving it for dead. Akela played along to gather more insight and gather evidence.

[[File:SnakeThing puppy convo.png|thumb]]

Akela was given access to his account - Acting quickly, he attempted to gather and export all chat logs and media from groups to private chats. Telegram's then new feature had the export feature to make this process seemless.

The logs were briefly shared with Shadowwoof, a known figure in the zoo Telegram scene known for hunting zoosadist. Shadow referred him to another admin, Humacymus, who turned out to be in the logs himself and was caught trying to influence the situation.

Akela then lost trust in Shadowwoof, and proceeded with the leaks himself.

Days later, Akela publicly released a portion of the logs on Twitter. Leaving the most incriminating for law enforcement. However, the withheld logs were passed to Douglas Spink by Shadowwoof, who leaked them to Twitter the same day. This alerted all of the offenders, causing them to hide, disrupting the ongoing investigations.

===== What were in the files? =====
<ref>WikiFur - Contents section of the Zoosadist Evidence page

https://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Zoosadist_Evidence#Contents</ref>According<sup>[</sup> to people who looked through the files, some of the video and images included an individual penetrating the corpse of a deer; an individual penetrating a live, tied-up dog; and an animal tied over a log having the wide end of a baseball bat shoved into its anus and vagina until it begins to spasm.

The chat logs also included individuals discussing bringing a dog sedated on marijuana or an over the counter drug to a convention for the purposes of sexually assaulting the animal; suggesting in order to fulfill a fetish that someone procured a snake from Craigslist in order to sexually penetrate it and then abandon it outside; and Kero the Wolf discussing his dog's fatal illness<sup>[''clarify'']</sup> and his regret over sexually abusing the animal. In addition to these descriptions, the RAR files contained hundreds of others.

Some of these files were normal and generic photos of different dogs, likely taken from the Internet.

Too be worked on.
[[index.php?title=Category:History]]

Social Aspects & Zoophilia

2026-04-01T08:15:45Z

Bloit: Undo revision 135702 by CTCA (talk)

{{sex}}
= Social Aspects & Zoophilia =

Zoophilia is a very controversial issue. While some stand for the cause, there are opponents who want all of this to go to hell. This section aims to examine most of the arguments. One or the other disagreement will surely arise here as well.

<br />

<div class="editsection" style="float:right;margin-left:5px;">

[ [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pro_und_Kontra&action=edit&section=2 edit] ]

</div>
== Is the animal humanized? ==

From some points of view: yes. A [[zoophile]] sees and treats his animal not only as an equal sexual partner, but mostly also as a life companion. Whether the animal is humanized depends on the one hand on the point of view and on the other hand on what is defined as "humanized".

<div class="editsection" style="float:right;margin-left:5px;">

[ [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pro_und_Kontra&action=edit&section=3 edit] ]

</div>
== Does man become an animal? ==

No, humans and animals remain what they are. But [[zoophiles]] don't find the difference essential. In contrast to other people, for whom this difference is often very important. Even if animal behavior has to be discussed in order to communicate, this does not change anything.

<br />

<div class="editsection" style="float:right;margin-left:5px;">

[ [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pro_und_Kontra&action=edit&section=4 edit] ]

</div>
== You have to have sex with an animal to be considered a Zoophile. ==

Not true. A person can be attracted to an animal much more than a traditional dog lover but does not need the sex included. Sex could be considered something "extra" to the relationship. But this is what separates the term for [[Bestiality]], and [[Zoophilia]]. A person who only has an attraction to an animal is a Zoophile. One who only wants to have sex with the animal with no [[love]] in the picture is considered a beastlist.

<br />

<div class="editsection" style="float:right;margin-left:5px;">

== Can or does an animal want to have sex with humans? ==

Yes and no, it is not just the human partner who starts the zoophile acts. If an animal "knows" that its human partner also likes the sexual relationship, then it will again and again offer itself to the partner and also invite him to sexual acts (7.10). To avoid any misunderstandings, I would like to remind you once again of the mutual agreement of both partners. Likewise, it is not specified which of the partner is the active one and which one takes on the passive role.

<br />

<div class="editsection" style="float:right;margin-left:5px;">

[ [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pro_und_Kontra&action=edit&section=5 edit] ]

</div>
== Is zoophilia cruelty to animals? ==

No. Zoophiles abhor all forms of violence. Actions that are carried out with coercion and against the will of the animal are of the "zoosadistic nature" and are not only rejected by the zoophiles but are frowned upon. A zoophile will always make sure that "his" animal is not forced to do anything against his will.

<br />

<div class="editsection" style="float:right;margin-left:5px;">

[ [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pro_und_Kontra&action=edit&section=6 edit] ]

</div>
== An animal cannot express itself. ==

Every living being has possibilities for communication, but many people disregard these expressions or are not able to interpret them correctly. Without the ability to communicate, hardly any animal species could survive. One must not forget that the human being is linguistically an "ear animal". It communicates mainly through complex acoustic signals, while in animals a large part of communication takes place through smells and body language. In our highly civilized (really?) Culture, people have also forgotten how to consciously perceive these other types of communication. In addition, there are many prejudices against animals, which they portray as stupid living beings that only follow a fixed genetic program. That this is not the case is being proven more and more often from a scientific point of view. Anyone who tries to decipher animal communication encounters complex behavior and understanding patterns.

<br />

<div class="editsection" style="float:right;margin-left:5px;">

[ [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pro_und_Kontra&action=edit&section=7 edit] ]

</div>
== An animal has no will of its own. ==

An animal also has a will. However, this is not the same for all species and races. In the case of domestic animals, this is mostly disregarded or suppressed (which almost brought the European bison to extinction because it could not be domesticated like the primitive), since the same often only serve as a product supplier for food and goods, or are misused as presentation objects. Or as guard and service dogs often unable to lead their species-appropriate life. Don't forget the [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Hund dogs] too[https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Hund]which are kept as pure prestige objects. Many dog â€‹â€‹breeds have already gone through this phase (Lassie, Boomer, ...). The consequences are almost unmanageable, diseases such as hip dylapsia (HD) are only part of it, and all of this just to meet the ideal of humans. It is now also to be expected that the animal shelters will fill up again because the Disney film 101 Dalmatians once again raised this breed to prestige. One only wants to hope that it will not be so and that the need will be provided in breeding factories under inhumane conditions.

<div class="editsection" style="float:right;margin-left:5px;">

[ [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pro_und_Kontra&action=edit&section=8 edit] ]

</div>
== An animal obeys blindly. ==

Obedience must also be trained in an animal, unfortunately this is often done with violence to intimidate the animal. Under the same conditions, a person also becomes an intimidated and ostensibly wiliness being, since he then also does not dare to contradict himself and carry out the commands of the others in order to avoid punishment. On the other hand, an animal that has not had any negative experiences with the people around it will also trust them completely in most cases.

<br />

<div class="editsection" style="float:right;margin-left:5px;">

[ [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pro_und_Kontra&action=edit&section=9 edit] ]

</div>
== An animal cannot defend itself. ==

Every larger animal can defend itself against humans, be it by scratching, hitting, biting, etc. In the vast majority of cases, humans would be physically inferior to the animal if they had no tool that they could use as a weapon.

<br />

<div class="editsection" style="float:right;margin-left:5px;">

[ [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pro_und_Kontra&action=edit&section=10 edit] ]

</div>
== Sex with animals is unnatural. ==

This is a man-made definition. Several cross-species sexual contacts between different races are known. See 3.11, 3.15, 3.18. Even plants use animals for their sexual contacts, which in many species is even necessary in order to reproduce.

<br />

<div class="editsection" style="float:right;margin-left:5px;">

[ [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pro_und_Kontra&action=edit&section=11 edit] ]

</div>
== Do animals mate with other species on their own? ==

Yes, albeit rarely. Various cases are known in which animals have chosen a sexual partner of a different species. The fact that such events are rarely made public is due to the fact that most of the time no offspring are produced in such mating, and only in the rarest cases is a human observer present who records the event in a documentary way for other people. (See 3.21) More well-known are the cases that occur in zoos. There are crossbreeds between different big cats such as between lions and tigers, which have already been observed in the wild. Brown and polar bears also [[mate]] in zoos while they never meet in nature. The oldest document that is known to me and in which there is talk of cross-species mating,

(Picture elefnahs.jpg)

<div class="editsection" style="float:right;margin-left:5px;">

[ [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pro_und_Kontra&action=edit&section=13 edit] ]

</div>
== Zoophilia is forbidden! ==

As far as Germany is concerned: no. Distribution as pornographic material is prohibited. In Austria, as far as I know, zoophilia is still classified as a disease, contrary to the DSM (see 3.13). However, depending on the interpretation of the law (see 6), zoophile acts are permitted. According to one network participant, zoophiles are also allowed in Switzerland. In Germany, zoophile acts have not been punishable since 1969. In that year Paragraph 175b, which previously made zoophilia a criminal offense as fornication, was abolished. The now valid paragraphs of paragraph 184 date from 1973. However, the paragraph was expanded (tightened) with regard to child pornography in 1994 and 1997.

In other countries this may be different, in the USA it even varies from state to state. If there is something to be read in the newspaper about "animal molesters" or someone has been caught by the police or the owner in a stable, he has committed another criminal offense (trespassing, cruelty to animals, damage to property).

<br />

<div class="editsection" style="float:right;margin-left:5px;">

[ [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pro_und_Kontra&action=edit&section=14 edit] ]

</div>
== Zoophiles are sick. ==

Zoophilia is not classified as a disease in most countries, but as an additional sexual addiction. The classification of sexual diseases is now regulated worldwide exactly according to the information of the "American Psychiatric Association". The classifications and the classifications of sexual inclinations were laid down in a binding book called "DSM-IV" (old version still DSM-III-R). Zoophilia is classified as "minor" or "minor" [[paraphilia]] because of its lower frequency, as it is formulated there. Paraphilia is the modern, polite term for "perversion". Homosexuality and voluntary SM (Sado-Masocism), like zoophilia, used to be viewed as severe perversions. In the meantime, after this work, the two are no longer perversions.

<br />

<div class="editsection" style="float:right;margin-left:5px;">

[ [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pro_und_Kontra&action=edit&section=15 edit] ]

</div>
== Aren't zoophiles sick weirdos? ==

No! Zoosexuals (= zoophiles) come from ALL strata of the population. Bus drivers, academics, car mechanics or medical assistants can have this tendency. They are completely normal, productive people who do not attract attention in everyday life.

<br />
Discriminating sexual contact between a person and an animal - as opposed to sexual contact between people - as "disorder", "abnormal", "unhealthy" etc. is nothing more than a DEFINITION. Every single aspect from which this is devalued in relation to sex between people also occurs there, but WITHOUT necessarily leading to a corresponding devaluation: e.g. sex between homosexual people cannot lead to procreation either, but from today's point of view it is still no longer perverse ; Even sex between people who come from different cultures and speak different languages â€‹â€‹cannot (as a rule) lead to a more far-reaching relationship in the human sense, but is still not perverse;

The assumption, which is by no means empirically proven to this day, that a zoophilic tendency has "early childhood" (traumatic!) Causes and can and should be dealt with through psychoanalysis, contains precisely this unjustified negative evaluation: because no one comparatively comes up with the idea of â€‹â€‹"normal" "Seeing human heterosexuality as a result of early childhood trauma and wanting to deal with it through psychoanalysis. The devaluation is already implicit in the psychoanalytic question.

<br />

<div class="editsection" style="float:right;margin-left:5px;">

[ [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pro_und_Kontra&action=edit&section=16 edit] ]

</div>
== Do zoophiles not react their "drive blockage" on animals because they are unable to find a human partner? ==

No! Many zoos live in "normal" human relationships, some even have families and children and are happy with them. But they also tend to have sex with animals for various reasons. As an additional "kick" in their sex life and / or from a close emotional relationship with their darlings. As long as this is done amicably with the animals, it will not harm anyone and should be acceptable. Even more people just have fantasies involving sex with animals. They are only interested in stories, pictures, etc. The boundaries are fluid here. There are probably only a few who, again for different but respectable reasons, exclusively have sexual relations with animals. But not in order to react to your "impulse accumulation",

<br />

<div class="editsection" style="float:right;margin-left:5px;">

[ [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pro_und_Kontra&action=edit&section=17 edit] ]

</div>
== Aren't zoophilia suffering from their predisposition? ==

Nonsense, zoos don't suffer from having sex with animals, in fact they are very happy with it. They only suffer from the pressure of not being able to publicly admit it and of constantly having to lead a double life, as otherwise they could lose friends, family and jobs. The social taboo and the resulting isolation and feeling of guilt are more likely to be the trigger for depression, for example. This is why public acceptance of zoo [[sexuality]] is so important. Since the end of 1993 there has been a zoophile interest group IZM that wants to contribute.

<br />

<div class="editsection" style="float:right;margin-left:5px;">

[ [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pro_und_Kontra&action=edit&section=18 edit] ]

</div>
== Animals are domesticated and subject to humans. ==

Even domesticated animals do not obey unconditionally and do not completely submit to humans. They just got used to living with humans.

<br />
<div class="editsection" style="float:right;margin-left:5px;">

[ [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pro_und_Kontra&action=edit&section=19 edit] ]

</div>
== Sex with animals is immoral / unethical. ==

That may be the case now, but it has not always been and will not always be so. A few decades ago, homosexuality was frowned upon and despised by society. Nowadays, with few exceptions, homosexuality is accepted by our society. Otherwise, I recommend taking a look at the oh-so-chaste Bible. Anyone leafing through an older complete edition will be taught better with regard to morals and ethics. Among other things, the first midwife in [[history]] was a pastor's daughter. That's right, in the past it was perfectly legitimate for priests to have offspring. So a thing that is considered highly immoral in the Christian world. Likewise, almost all women have been banned from the Bible and the Catholic world and replaced by men, where the names were replaced by similar ones from the world of men. Apparently very morally justifiable.

Elements of zoophilia can be found in the earliest mythologies, folk tales, and in the various cults and religions. In the fine arts and [[literature]], too, zoophilia was and is again and again the subject of representation. While in our culture the zoophilia is met with aversion, in other cultures even the religions demanded coitus with "holy" animals as a cultic service. Today's symbol of medical ethics, the snake, was a living snake during the Aesculapian cult that was used sexually by girls and women in the temples of Aesculapius - "Aesculapius" is a Latinized form of the Greek god of medicine Asclepius .

In Japan, sexual intercourse with animals was hardly ever disapproved. Sexual occurrences of this kind were generally not encouraged, but no severe bans were issued. The [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pferd horse] plays a special role in the imagination of the Japanese woman. The ancient expression "Uma-tawake" means doing nonsense or foolishness with a [[horse]]. In Japan, however, this word is also used quite generally as a term for zoophilia, sexual intercourse with animals in general.

<div class="editsection" style="float:right;margin-left:5px;">

[ [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pro_und_Kontra&action=edit&section=20 edit] ]

</div>
== Animals feel differently than humans. ==

People don't feel exactly the same either. Every transfer of one's own feelings to another person is only a projection of one's own perceptions. In the same way, no one can say 100 percent what an animal feels. He will only ever be able to deduce this from its behavior, which, if you know the animal well, usually works very well.<div class="editsection" style="float:right;margin-left:5px;">

[ [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pro_und_Kontra&action=edit&section=21 edit] ]

</div>
== A leg jumping dog wants sex with people. ==

This statement is not true. The [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Hund dog] here primarily wants to satisfy its sexual drive. It does not matter to him whether he is satisfied by rubbing his leg or whether he has the person himself as a sex partner, although he will prefer the latter if he can choose. A dog will - if it has not had bad experiences here - always endeavor to mate with its pack partner (human) if it does not have a canine partner as a better alternative. However, if the animal, due to a lack of contact with conspecifics, is too influenced by humans as a social partner, then it will recognize them as the only sexual partner and, for example, prefer a male to his humans to a female. In this respect, the animal would then rather want sex with humans than with other members of its own species (see 3.21).

<div class="editsection" style="float:right;margin-left:5px;">

[ [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pro_und_Kontra&action=edit&section=22 edit] ]

</div>
== Which partner does an animal prefer: humans or animals? ==

An animal will instinctively always prefer an animal of its kind as a sexual partner if it is not taught something else from an early age. There are enough counterexamples in nature to show that this is not always the case. (See 3.11).

An animal that has only got to know "its" human being as a partner will then almost always be fixated on human beings as a sexual partner. If this is to be avoided, it is very important that the animal come together with similar species in its childhood. Kinsey and co-workers report that males who are regularly masturbated may, in certain cases, transfer their sexual readiness to the person who manually stimulated them. These animals then no longer react to bitches that are ready to mate, since they are to a certain extent "fixated" on the human sexual partner. It is generally known that animals can also develop a strong affection for humans. There are innumerable stories, true and fictional, about the animal's love for its master. It cannot be ruled out

<br />

<div class="editsection" style="float:right;margin-left:5px;">

[ [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pro_und_Kontra&action=edit&section=23 edit] ]

</div>
== Zoophilia is a pervert. ==

It is simply wrong to only speak of perversity. As with the other types of sexual behavior, in sexuality with animals a distinction must be made between engaging in sexual intercourse with an animal for pathological motives and, on the other hand, behaviors in which the animal is included in certain acts to increase sexual arousal.

(See also 3.18 and 3.13) In addition, it is important to note that people are taught what they consider perverted or not, and that differs from religion to religion, from culture to culture, and sometimes also opposite to ours Culture in general is handled. Much of what is considered good in our religion and culture, just as right, is seen in others as highly perverse and immoral.

Quote from a book by G.Schmidt, sexologist in psychiatry and mental hospital: "Perversions are not simply unusual preferences, for example the preference for children among pedophiles, the preference for leather, lingerie or boots with fetishists, the preference for showing the male genitals with exhibitionists. Most perversions are rather rigid rituals through which a whole structure of interaction and conditions must be created so that pleasure and orgasm can be experienced. "(p.63) Here it also becomes clear that with everything that is understood as zoophiles , so after the exclusion of the zoosadists, one cannot speak of a pervert or a perversion here in any way. Zoophiles do not have a rigid ritual in their relationship with their animal partner.

<br />

<div class="editsection" style="float:right;margin-left:5px;">

[ [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pro_und_Kontra&action=edit&section=24 edit] ]

</div>
== Do animals have a consciousness? ==

Yes. Animals have a consciousness. They dream when they sleep, with all the bullying like REMs (rapid eye movement), movements, twitching, vocalizations and erections like humans do. The dreams are related to what was previously experienced.

<pre> Example dog:
- Was there an excited and aggressive situation; Baring teeth and "barking".
- a fear-inducing situation is played out by "whining" when dreaming
again.
- If there was a playful situation, the runs fidget more often in the dream.
etc, etc ... </pre>
<br />

<div class="editsection" style="float:right;margin-left:5px;">

[ [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pro_und_Kontra&action=edit&section=25 edit] ]

</div>
== Sex with people is not species-appropriate for animals. ==

That may be true from the human point of view. However, one must then also face the following facts:

* Is it "appropriate to the species" that a [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Hund dog] is normally not allowed to have sex with other dogs in its entire life, and when it tries it is usually scolded very badly?
* Is it "appropriate to the species" that [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pferd horses] are _forced_ to mate in breeding ? The mares are tied up with aids such as nose brakes and ropes in order to cause rape by the stallion?

<br />
A zoophile would never _force_ his animal to something with force or mechanical aids, which is common in animal breeding.

Many people have got used to factory farming, which in no way does justice to the species-specific characteristics of the animals. You buy cheap supermarkets without thinking about the background.

<div class="editsection" style="float:right;margin-left:5px;">

[ [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pro_und_Kontra&action=edit&section=26 edit] ]

</div>
== Zoophiles have sex with animals when they are not harmed. ==

This point has been and is pointed out several times in this FAQ because there are still many misunderstandings in connection with zoo sexuality. Where this misunderstanding comes from is unclear, probably from the press, which immediately equates animal abusers with [[zoosexuality]] instead of differentiating them out of convenience or ignorance. So it haunts many people that an animal suffers during sex with a person. That zoos do _not_ physical harm to their partners should be unmistakably clear to the reader of this ZOO FAQ at this point in time.

<div class="editsection" style="float:right;margin-left:5px;">

[ [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pro_und_Kontra&action=edit&section=27 edit] ]

</div>
== But what about others, for example psychological damage? ==

In contrast to humans, "damage" in animals is unlikely to be proven. Most likely in behavior. But I would bet that the animals do far better than some pets in our society when they are zoophiles. Zoophiles who keep their own animals could be accused of having a similar relationship of dependency as an abused child to its abuser. But children are also dependent on their parents and pets are also dependent on the pet owner in a non-zoophilic relationship. What all cases have in common is that the child or animal will retain damage if they are directly exposed to violence. Zoophiles as well as caring parents will therefore avoid any kind of violence, which, in contrast to this, cannot be said of an abuser and also of some "normal" animal owners. Furthermore, it should be clear to everyone that an animal, unlike humans, does not drag any moral ballast with it. It would also not occur to the idea that cross-species sex can lead to societal discrimination. Sex is a natural act for an animal.

And whether "licking the genitals" is so much worse behavior, like hopping on your hind legs at the table, is an ethical question. Either our society has to solve this for us, or each individual for himself.

<div class="editsection" style="float:right;margin-left:5px;">
http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pro_und_Kontra
[ [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pro_und_Kontra&action=edit&section=28 edit] ]

</div>
== Animals only have "sex" in order to reproduce and that is anchored in their instincts. ==

Church teaching asserts that in nature there is only purposeful sexuality that is fixed on the reproduction of the species. Hence there should be no deviation from this principle in other creatures. According to the Church, there is no pre-maturity sexuality among animals, no masturbation, no oral or anal sexual practices, no homosexuality, and no sexual contact between different species. But all of these sexual acts by animals are known. So you are natural. However, thanks to political correctness and ecclesiastical influence, this is seldom raised.

Sexual acts before sexual maturity; Riding of sexually immature animals with cattle, [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Ziege&action=edit goats] , [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Schaf&action=edit sheep] and [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Esel wild asses] . In the Berlin zoo, a young giraffe with an extended penis was constantly chasing an older mare. All documented facts that, if our church is of the opinion, should not even exist. But all of this is there and is pure reality.

<pre> (See e.g. Sexual Science Picture Lexicon, p.816)</pre>
Masturbation is widespread in the animal world and occurs not only in captive animals, but also in wild males living with females of their own species. Male monkeys frequently masturbate using their hands, feet, or mouth. Masturbating [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pferd horses] and [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Esel donkeys] excavate the [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pferdepenis&action=edit penis] and beat it rhythmically against the abdominal wall. Bulls, [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Ziege&action=edit billy goats] , deer and antelopes obviously have the option of deliberately narrowing the foreskin tube. They then masturbate until they ejaculate by extending and withdrawing the rod several times. Male and female [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Hund dogs] masturbate by licking their genitals intensely.

Oral practices take place in many animals in such a way that the partner's erogenous zones are licked before sexual intercourse. Josef Massen was able to observe several times how young mares who knocked off the stallion despite tall horses immediately gave up their resistance after the stallion had nibbled her udder with his lips.

Homosexual behavior is very common in the animal kingdom, especially stallions, bulls, [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Hund dogs] , rabbits, and especially [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Ziege&action=edit goats] and [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Schaf&action=edit sheep] . Inter-specific animal contacts also take place, which are demonstrably not just simple errors. And these are not just rare individual cases, but such cases occur all the time ... just nobody talks about it, the topic is a big taboo in the modern Catholic religion.

In any case, it is not true that animals only have sex for reproduction.

<div class="editsection" style="float:right;margin-left:5px;">

[ [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pro_und_Kontra&action=edit&section=29 edit] ]

</div>
== Dogs do not lick their genitals on their own. ==

As for the licking thing ... as a smell animal, every dog â€‹â€‹is extremely interested in the typical sexual smells of humans. The stronger a person smells, the stronger the dog's interest. In particular, the smell that develops on the external genitals over time is irresistibly attractive to a dog. Many biological waste products such as sweat, dead skin cells, vaginal secretions, sperm, urine and excrement residues, which are chemically and bacterially broken down in a warm, humid climate, mix in this area. (This is also the case with people who normally keep themselves hygienically clean.) Originally, the dog was not only a hunter, but also a scavenger, so it perceives this smell as extremely appetizing and does not even need to be "made" to lick become.

However, many dogs are annoyed by the strong acidic odor of the fresh vaginal secretion. This is where the often observed increase in dog sympathy towards menstruating women comes from. During menstruation, the acidity is greatly reduced.

<pre> The following saying is certainly also known:
Question: "Why do dogs lick their tails? [Note: penis ]"
Answer: "Because they can."</pre>
== Dogs lick their anus!. ==

This is a usual statement said for ages. While it is true dogs can lick their anus, this doesn't mean it's every dog in the world. This can be related to many things as to why. Most pet owners, even zoos usually do not have the issue of their dogs randomly licking themselves such as their butt. What's important, is finding out why they're dog is doing this. This can be diet, worms, or any other reason. This is why it's important to make sure you're dog is healthy and feeding a good diet. <div class="editsection" style="float:right;margin-left:5px;">

[ [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pro_und_Kontra&action=edit&section=30 edit] ]

</div>
== Zoophilia can therefore be presented as a variant of love for animals. ==

Yes, many like animals. It is all the more peculiar, however, that almost all of their animals deny their animals any sexuality. Bitches are sterilized or given medication to suppress their [[heat]]. Males are stuffed full of drive-suppressing tablets, or they are completely emasculated. And why the whole thing? Because it doesn't fit the picture of the cute little cuddly toy when Fifi suddenly clings to his owner's leg or Asta puts her tail to one side when you stroke her back. Animals have to be kind and innocent! Most people don't want to have anything to do with the fact that they, too, are drive-controlled beings with sexual needs!

<div class="editsection" style="float:right;margin-left:5px;">

[ [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pro_und_Kontra&action=edit&section=31 edit] ]

</div>
== The difference between cattle and humans is too great for both to have a sexual relationship with one another. ==

The difference between humans and "cattle" is nowhere near as great as human hubris tries to convince itself. Humans are only mammals ... Humans probably have a lot more in common with animals in the emotional realm than we usually want to admit to ourselves; and even when it comes to intelligence, we tend to vastly underestimate animals, just because they have no "linguistic" intelligence in the human sense and can therefore only communicate to us to a very limited extent. Every dog â€‹â€‹owner knows from personal experience that animals are capable of amazingly intelligent behavior - orders of magnitude more intelligent than any "artificial intelligence" that we humans have been able to teach computers so far. And some people can lead to certain

It is therefore inappropriate to judge a human sexual crossing of the border to the animal as "beastly" negatively from the outset. Because there is an unreasonable devaluation of the animal as a prerequisite.

<div class="editsection" style="float:right;margin-left:5px;">

[ [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pro_und_Kontra&action=edit&section=32 edit] ]

</div>
== You shouldn't let an animal lick you off. ==

There are many reasons why people shouldn't be licked off: "It's disgusting", "It's unhealthy" and so on. But why that should be so, no one can answer. The fact that, for example, the saliva of dogs has a germicidal effect, the change in disease transmission from animals to humans is far less than the probability of disease transmission between two people is simply ignored or even suppressed. Quoting "That it can be licked off and the saliva of the animals is simply "BÃ¤Ã¤Ã¤h"" is something that is taught from an early age. Only the exaggerated cult of hygiene in our society seems to be the only explanation for this.

Since this is apparently a very emotional topic, here are a few more considerations.

<div class="editsection" style="float:right;margin-left:5px;">

[ [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pro_und_Kontra&action=edit&section=33 edit] ]

</div>
=== Social aspect: ===

Mutual grooming is an essential part of social cohesion for many animals. This begins with brood care, which is directly used for hygiene, and extends to symbolic acts of grooming among adult animals. With our pets, grooming is mostly done with the tongue. As pack members, we are included in this type of communication unless we reject it. Such rejection is often based on prejudice or false hygienic concerns (see below). In the meantime, a skin-caring and wound-healing effect of saliva has been scientifically proven. Eberhard Trumler dealt objectively with this topic in his books "Taking dogs seriously" and "With the dog". As is known, snout, Licking corners of the mouth and kisses with tongue are common and even necessary means of communication among dogs. If we accept it and respond, we can build a much better relationship with our dog than those people who are constantly disgusted avoiding the dog's snout. Finally, licking also serves as an exchange of tenderness and sexual communication. Among humans, as is common among animals, humans and animals can communicate in this way, if both want to. Finally, licking also serves as an exchange of tenderness and sexual communication. Among humans, as is common among animals, humans and animals can communicate in this way, if both want to. Finally, licking also serves as an exchange of tenderness and sexual communication. Among humans, as is common among animals, humans and animals can communicate in this way, if both want to.

<div class="editsection" style="float:right;margin-left:5px;">

[ [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pro_und_Kontra&action=edit&section=34 edit] ]

</div>
=== Medical aspect: ===

As already mentioned, the saliva contains nourishing and healing substances. A comparative microbiological study also shows that the human oral flora contains the richest range of bacteria (around 250 different bacteria are found in the mouth), not those of dogs or cats. A search in the database of the medical data service DIMDI brings up 6 examples of infections that were transmitted by licking pets.

The number of microbiological complications caused by bite injuries is significantly higher, since bacteria are pushed deep into the tissue when biting and the flora of the gingival pockets, which mainly consists of anaerobic microorganisms, is expressed. In addition, little saliva is transferred when biting. The effects of a bite injury are therefore not suitable as an argument to view leak contacts as a risk of infection. Only parasites represent a certain residual risk, whereby dangerous parasites (fox tapeworm) are extremely rare here.

One must be aware that physical contact between two individuals always carries the risk of catching the other's illnesses in the process. However, this risk is also present in every interpersonal relationship and should be seen as a normal, natural "element of danger" of the hundreds that belong to everyday life. For example, the possibility of transmitting the pathogen of the infectious gastritis Helicobacter pylori through kisses has often been described. In such a case, both partners have to be treated. Ultimately, however, you have your immune system to deal with the microorganisms in your environment.

In summary, there is no valid reason to refrain from leaking for medical reasons.

<div class="printfooter">

Von "[https://web.archive.org/web/20070113165626/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pro_und_Kontra http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Pro_und_Kontra]"

==Reference==

[[Category:Sexuality]]
[[Category:Resources]]
[[Category:Culture]]{{Home}}

Causes of Zoophilia - A 2000 Survey

2026-04-01T08:15:38Z

Bloit: Undo revision 135701 by Pooplia (talk)

'''This is a survey that was taken from the old [[zoophilia]].net website and is to show how far the survey relating to Zoophilia has progressed through the years.'''

===Introduction===
A brief word of introduction. The following document is in no way official, and these figures should not be taken as universal fact. There are doubtless many factors that I've not accounted for, which significantly affect the data. Also, the word zoophilia has been used throughout. When I say zoophilia I am likely actually referring to both zoophilia and [[bestiality]].
Also worth note is that the graphs here are merely to give a visual indication of the data (which is usually also summarised in a table) and so they have been made as compact as possible. Because of the difference between the number of male and female respondents, graphs which give a comparison between the two genders have used percentages instead of absolute figures, as indicated. But again, the absolute figures are typically also given in table format.

This version of the document was compiled on the 12th May 2000, at which point the total number of respondents stood at 186.

===Gender===
Not surprisingly, the vast majority of survey respondents were male. In fact 85%, over four fifths, of survey respondents were male. This is significantly different to figures found in other web surveys, most being around 60% (Survey.net, 2000). This could indicate that males are more likely to find and respond to this survey, or that gender has some minor effect on the prevalence of zoophilia or bestiality.

(IMAGE)
[[File:Gendergraph.png|200px|center|]]

===Approximate age===
A graph showing the approximate age of respondents by gender. Here again, it is no surprise to find that the majority (51.61%) of 'net users are under 30. This fits in with other surveys, which show the figure to be around 51% (Survey.net, 2000). This portion has fallen significantly from the survey as it stood 16 months ago, at which time 57.14% of respondents were under 30. Also the portion of respondents over 50 has risen from 1.9% to 4.3%.
[[File:Approxage.gif|right]]
These changes over time aside, the only really notable fact illustrated by these figures is the difference between the two genders. For some reason the average age of male respondents was 32.1, while for females the age was 28.7, a difference of 3.4 years. As predicted this figure has fallen from the previous survey 14 months ago, when it was 5 years. But still there's the possibility that females are more pressured to be 'normal' at a young age, and so may develop zoophilia or bestiality at a later stage of life.
[[File:Agesgr.png|left]]

===Age when first realized zoophilia/bestiality===
A graph showing the age respondents realised their zoophilia or bestialityThe explanation I gave earlier for the difference between the ages of male and female respondents is illustrated perfectly here. The peak age at which females realise/decide their zoophilia or bestiality is 15 to 18, while for males this figure is between 12 and 14. The figure for males matches the approximate age that they go through the initial stages of puberty. For females, who go through puberty two years earlier, the age at which they realise their zoophilia should be similarly earlier. That it is later indicates perhaps some social or other similar pressure affecting their decision.
In addition to this later peak in ages, there's also a wider spread of ages, with a greater portion of females realising their zoophilia or bestiality at ages under 11, between 15 and 30 and between 41 and 50, than men. I can't think of any obvious reason behind this, though social attitudes towards women and [[sexuality]] perhaps give a greater freedom than for men.
[[File:Gender2.png|left]]

===Sexual orientation===
The two graphs below show the sexual orientations of males and females; both actual orientation, and to what gender(s) that orientation applies. It is worth noting that the same person can be multiple orientations. For example a person can be both a [[zoophile]] and a human bisexual, while occasionally being a bestialist.

[[File:Survey_orient_fem.gif|center]][[File:Orient_male.gif|center]]

The first, and most striking, difference between the two graphs is that females are on the whole far more heterosexual, where animals are concerned. The reasons for this are quite obvious, when certain physiological factors are considered. However, there are other differences more difficult to explain. For example, it seems there are slightly fewer bestial males (73%) than females (75%), something often rumoured the opposite. Interestingly, for the first survey these figures were 68% and 79% respectively.
Also, in males so called "zoo exclusiveness" seems far more prevalant than in females, with all 28 female respondents so far being in some way interested in humans, and only 80% of males being of a similar attitude.

However, here we have the first marked difference between [[zoophiles]] and non-zoophiles. 34.2% of zoophiles or bestialists are bisexual with regards to humans, while non-zoos are bisexual only XXX% of the time. This is perhaps the result of a general acceptance of anything beyond human heterosexuality being more prevalant in zoophiles, or as I once heard it put, once one social boundary has been crossed the next is easier.

[[File:Type.png|center]]

===Species preference===
A graph showing the species preference of male respondents. The graph to the left shows the ten most popular species amongst males. Not surprisingly, dogs and horses feature as the two most prominent species. It is interesting to note how different the preferences people have for different animals are, for example between cattle and wolves. The reason behind this is likely impossible to explain, though it could be something to do with the connections between the most popular species (dogs and horses) and similar species, such as wolves and cattle.
[[File:Survey_male_species.gif|left]]
The figures that do not appear on this graph are those for bears (8 strongly attracted, 25 slight), birds (2 strong, 8 slight), llama (13 strong, 29 slight), pigs (14 strong, 31 slight), rabbits (4 strong, 6 slight), racoons (5 strong, 7 slight), mustelids (1 strong, 11 slight) and others (including giraffe, gazelles, seals, elephants, monkeys, house cats and snakes).

A graph showing the species preference of female respondents. To the right is a graph showing the ten most popular species amongst females. Again it is no surprise to see dogs and horses featuring as the most popular. However, what is remarkable is that over 84% of females are strongly interested in dogs, while for males the figure is only 67%. Again, biological factors likely come into play here. These same factors might also explain a lesser attraction to horses in females than in males.
[[File:Survey_female_species.gif|right]]

Again it's interesting to see how different the attractions to the different species are. For example with wolves, 12 respondents are strongly attracted to them, 2 slightly attracted and all remaining 14 respondents not at all attracted.

The figures that do not appear on this graph are those for Antelope (1 strongly attracted, 1 slightly), bears and racons (both 1 strongly, 3 slightly), birds (3 strongly), llama (2 strongly, 2 slightly), rabbits (1 strongly, 2 slightly), mustelids (2 strongly, 1 slightly) and others (including snakes, eels and house cats).

===Upbringing===
The only open question, this question looking at a person's upbringing is one of the most difficult to analyze. The reasons for this are twofold; because it is a qualitative question (not quantitative, as is for example age) and because it is difficult to make comparisons to any normal. So I've taken a look at the responses and tried to broadly categorize some of these. The results of this categorization are shown in the following table.

[[File:Upbringing.png|center]]
The above table shows a summary of the relationships respondents have had with their parents. An interesting point here is quite how positive people seem to be with regards to their upbringing, over 90% rating their upbringing okay, good or very good while an expected statistical mean would be 60%. This is a question that I am particularly interested in finding some 'model' data to compare it to. However, I suspect that this positive attitude will be mirrored through the whole 'net population.

Unfortunately, the data collected here isn't really sufficient in volume for much comment to be made on the differences between males and females. It does seem that males report worse upbringings than females, with 71.4% of females having a good or very good upbringing, the figure for males being only 65.8%. These figures have converged slightly since the last analysis though, when they were 73.7% and 65.8%.

===Parent's knowledge of sexual orientation===
[[File:Survey parent told.gif|left]]

The graph to the left shows what percentage of respondents have told their parents of their zoophilia, and which parents. What is straight away clear is that females are far more, almost two times more, likely to have told their parents of their sexuality. It's also clear that people are more comfortable telling their mother of their sexuality than their father.
Of course, this question does not look at how their parents found of their zoophilia. I'm quite sure that in many cases one parent is told, and this is passed on to the other. I'm currently considering ideas for a future survey looking more specifically at this matter, either zoophilia and family, or 'coming out' experiences.

A graph showing the year respondents told their parents.
[[File:Survey_year_told.gif|left]]The graph to the left shows a scatter-plot of when respondents who had told a parent of their zoophilia did so. While it may seem that people are far more willing to tell their parents of their zoophilia today than they were twenty years ago, it's worth noting the ages of respondents; 20 years ago almost half of survey respondents were not even ten years old!

However, even taking this into consideration the data is definitely showing a greater acceptance of zoophilia within the family environment. Over the past twenty years 36 respondents have told a parent of their zoophilia. Over the twenty years prior only 7 people did so.

It's also worth noting that the two highest figures so far are 1994 and 1998. It is possible that this sudden increase is due to the 'net, and the availability of information pertaining to zoophilia. It was only a few months after I got onto the 'net and discovered I was not alone with this sexuality that I told my parents of my zoophilia. Certain individuals have actually dubbed this "zoophoria", an illustration of just how usefully versatile the abbreviation "zoo" is.

[[File:Parentstold.png|center]]

The above table shows how a person's coming out to their parents has changed their parents' attitudes towards them. Here especially the quantity of data is almost negligible, though thusfar it's looking as though if you're female, you are more likely to see a change for the better than the worse if you tell your parents. If you're male though, the reverse seems true, with more than twice as many males seeing a change for the worse than for the better.

===Zoophilia/bestiality in family background===
This was perhaps the strangest of all the questions here, though also one of the most direct, looking specifically at how hereditary zoophilia or bestiality is. Be this by genetics or by learning and exposure (one person I recall talks of how she as a child 'held the bag of doggie cum' for her parents, who bred dogs). As such, it is one of the most relevant questions. The results are summarised in the following table.
[[File:Parentszoosurv.png|center]]

Alas here again, there is no model data to compare to, and it seems highly improbable that such data can be collected. However, data HAS been collected that shows what percentage of the population is involved in bestiality, by an organisation called Survey. Net. This data indicates 11% of 'net users are curious about bestiality, 5.6% are "mildly involved", and a [[further]] 4.4% are "heavily involved". (Survey.net 2000)

At first this data would indicate that a far larger amount of zoophilia or bestiality should be prevalant within a family than the table above suggests. However, given that only 16.1% of respondents to this survey have told their parents of their zoophilia, it would seem a great number of zoophiles exist in families with a [[history]] of zoophilia or bestiality, and are oblivious of the fact. It was only after I came out to my parents that I discovered I had a grandfather who might have been involved in bestiality.

A graph showing the portion of respondents who are aware of zoophilia or bestiality in their family. I cannot make any quantitative statements from here, because the error margins for all the figures I am working with so far are too great. So unfortunately my own interpretations here are inconclusive. However, the graph to the right shows a summary of what portion of respondents to this survey are aware of zoophilia or bestiality existing in their family.
[[File:Survey_zoo_fam_pie.gif|right]]

===Family's view on animals===
[[File:Survey_tot_fam_view.gif|left]]
A graph showing respondents' families views on animals. The graph to the right indicates what kind of family attitude to animals respondents perceived. I suspect that this is one of the key factors in defining a person's zoophilia as opposed to bestiality, and this is shown by the graph below where bestialists and zoophiles have been separated. A family background that is very positive towards animals likely instils more in a person just how equal to us animals are, and this is a vital component of being able to have an equal relationship with an animal; that you recognise its sentience and worth.

A graph showing respondents' families views on animals, by sexuality. It's clear from the graph to the right that zoophiles rate higher their family's attitude towards animals, though it's interesting to note that not one respondent selected 'very negative'. I know that I've grown up in a family with a very positive attitude towards animals; I've three Yorkshire Terrier dogs, me and my family's been vegetarian for 14 years now, and I believe I'm quite wholly zoophile.
[[File:Survey_fam_view.gif|right]]

[[File:Fam.png|center]]

===Pets during childhood===
[[File:Petschildhood.png|center]]

The above table shows the number of pets respondents had during their youth. It seems that female respondents have more pets during their youth than male respondents (82.1% with three or more pets, as opposed to 55% in males), which together with the results from the previous question on family's opinions of animals, perhaps indicates that females are more influenced by their family background.

[[File:Survey_pets_youth.gif|right]]

The graph to the right shows what pets people have in their youth, something that seems to have quite some affect on a person's species preference. The table below shows an analysis of three different animals; dogs, horses and big cats. The portion of people strongly, slightly and not at all attracted to these animals and who had dogs, horses or cats (domestic or big cats) as pets shows a slight but consistent connection between pets in childhood and species preference in later life. The stronger that attraction to the particular species, the more likely it is that person had pets of that species as a child. Where that particular species is not so common a pet, the match seems even clearer; though for birds and sheep the quantity of data is insufficient.

[[File:File:Petsyoth.png|center]]

===Self-Image===
[[File:Selfimg.png|center]]

The above table shows the responses to this question by gender. From these figures it's clear that male respondents appear to have a lesser self image of themselves than female respondents, though I suspect this is quite normal.

What was found from analysis of this question is that no single factor seems to have a major impact on self image, though species preference (those attracted to prey animals have a better self image than those attracted to hunter animals), [[sexual orientation]] (bestialists have lowest self-image, followed by zoophiles then non-zoophiles) and the number of current pets (respondents with no pets have significantly lower self-image than those with more than three pets) seem to have the greatest impact.

Other factors which have a less significant impact on self image are age and human relationships. Respondents aged below 20 and above 40 seemingly with highest self image, and those at 28 with lowest. Also, respondents in a human relationship are significantly less likely (almost five times so) to rate their self image as negative, and 25% more likely to rate their self image as positive; but I suspect this is quite an obvious point.

It's not clear though which is cause and which is effect for much of this. It's likely that self image affects species attraction, and perhaps if a respondent is in a human relationship or not, but does a self-confident respondent have more pets, or is a respondent with more pets more self-confident? And of course the ultimate question, is a respondent with lower self-confidence more likely to become a bestialist or zoophile, or is it vice-versa?

===Current sexual relationships===
The first question in this section asked what pets a zoophile currently has. The results are summarised below.

[[File:Chart1selfimg.png|center]]
As can be seen from the above data, female zoophiles are far more likely to have pets than their male counterparts, and they are more likely to have more of them. 23.5% of females have four or more pets. This figure for males is only 10.0%. At the same time, only 5.9% of females are likely to have no pets, while a startling 35% of males have no pets of their own!

The second and third questions in this section looked at the sexual relationship zoophiles have with their own animals, and with animals they do not own. The results are again summarised below.

[[File:Relationships1.png|center]]

The most notable fact that can be seen from the above information is that there are a great number of zoophiles who have pets, and yet who do not have sexual relationships with them. This is of course somewhat obvious; all zoophiles have some species they they feel the same about as anyone else would. I for example [[love]] dogs, but not in a zoophilic sense, simply as pets.

Another interesting point is that 50.0% of males, who we've seen are almost six times less likely than females to have their own pets, have sexual relationships with animals they do not own. Only 33.3% of females on the other hand, who are six times more likely to have pets of their own, have sexual relationships with animals they do not own.

[[Survey_in_relationship.gif|left]]
A graph showing the portion of male or female respondents in a human relationship. The final questions in this section looked at how zoophiles conduct human relationships. The graph to the right shows what portion of zoophiles are involved in relationships. It is clear that a far higher percent of female zoophiles are also involved in human relationships, in fact almost twice as many. This is reflected in the question on sexual orientation towards the start of this document, which showed that zoo exclusiveness was far higher in males than in females.

[[File:Survey_partner_knows.gif|right]]
A graph showing the portion of male or female respondents in a human relationship who have told their partner of their sexuality. The graph to the right looks at what portion of those in human relationships have told their partner of their sexuality. The relationship between the portion of those in a relationship and the portion of those people who have told their partner seems rather startling, tough! A four fifths of females are in relationships, and four fifths of those in a relationship have told their partner! Exactly the same is true of males, though the figure becomes three fifths.

===Current social relationships===
[[File:1.png|center]]

The table above shows what portion of males and females know other zoophiles in real life (not via the 'net), and how many. It's interesting to note that males seem to socialise more with zoophiles in real life than females. This could be because most zoophiles today meet in real life having already met via the 'net, which is a medium used predominantly by males. It stands to reason therefore that with fewer females online, those that are less likely to meet other females. However, I should point out that since the last survey this has become less obvious.

Another point that seems odd is just how many people do not know any zoos in real life, 52.5% of respondents. Until only a few months ago I fell into this category myself, but still I would have expected this figure to be lower than it is.

[[File:Solral2.png|center]]

This table indicates what portion of male and female respondents know other bestialists in real life, and how many. It appears that fewer respondents know other bestialists in real life than they do zoophiles, something that is unremarkable as it follows with the earlier question pertaining to sexual orientation. Though it is important to note here that the definition of bestialist and zoophile are both subjective.

The final question from this survey concerned how popular respondents perceived themselves to be. The results follow.
[[File:Solral3.png|center]]

Looking at the above data it's difficult to see anything particularly remarkable. Also, this kind of question really does need model information to be compared to. One thing that can be discerned is that male respondents seem to deem themselves less popular than females. Whether this is merely a tainted perception or reality I can't determine without some model data.

This article is the very nice work of Muse's Zoo Research and can be read here in it's full context.

{{People}}
[[Category:Surveys]]

Butt-to-Butt

2026-04-01T08:15:29Z

Bloit: Undo revision 135700 by CTCA (talk)

{{stub}}
The butt-to-butt position may be used when turned during a tie, or it may occasionally be seen during [[dildogging]] in commercial pornography videos.

{{Terms}}
[[Category:Terms]]

Vegetarianism

2026-04-01T08:15:14Z

Bloit:

{{stub}}

[[Zoophiles]] may lean towards the vegetarian lifestyle because of their inclination.

When assessed the reactions, proportionally more Zoophiles are vegetarians in relation to the general population average. But certainly not all of them. Like other people, Zoophiles are carnivores too, although some of them are pure herbivores.

==Resources==
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20070113140040/http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/index.php?title=Zoophile_Vegetarier%3F Zoophile Vegeterianism on the Zetapin Wiki]
[[Category:Terms]]
[[Category:Research]]

Who are these Zoophiles?

2026-04-01T08:15:02Z

Bloit: Undo revision 135697 by CTCA (talk)

==Who are these Zoophiles?==

As the name itself suggests, these are people in whom an animal assumes a partner-like position. [[Zoophiles]] are students, workers, employees, freelancers, academics, civil servants, etc.

==Where are these Zoophiles==

You can meet them in the supermarket, at the gas station, on the street, on the bus or in the S-Bahn, on a walk or in the office. In other words, zoophiles are actual people like you and me, the only difference being that they also have sexual feelings for animals.

First and foremost, [[zoophiles]] see the [[love]] for animals. Any kind of violence is rejected in relation to the animal. Just as one builds a relationship with a partner for the sake of love among people, their animal partner is also loved among these people. In the same way, the sexual side is only carried out with mutual consent.

==Emotions==

[[Zoophiles]] associate their affection with a strong emotional attachment to the animal with which they are related; if it is injured or sick, the [[zoophile]] suffers with it. These people expect such empathy from every other [[zoophile]].

==Zoosadism is Not Accepted in the Zoo Community==

Then there is the "bad" side. These people are not interested in the love of animals, even if they like to use it as an excuse. They only have their own sexual gratification in mind. The animal is viewed as an object of pleasure that is simply used or abused as needed. Such people are rejected by most zoophiles for their actions. This should be clear to everyone who does not see animals only as disposable items.

==The Misconception==

If you want to deal with this topic as well as with people in a value-neutral way, you have to differentiate between these two "sides". Otherwise it is easy to be subject to common prejudices.

==References==

http://wp13459774.server-he.de/zoofaq/minifaq.htm
[[Category:Research]]

Psychology of Zoosexuality

2026-04-01T08:14:57Z

Bloit: Undo revision 135695 by CTCA (talk)

{{stub}}
==Psychology of Zoosexuality==

Part of the reason that many people have a strong reaction against the idea of sexual [[intimacy]] with animals may be due to the fact that most other attractions: whether that of the average person, foot-fetishist, latex-lover, or even indeed the transvestite is seeking arousal either through a human partner or something symbolic of a part of their body or at least the clothing which adorns it!

[[Zoosexuality]] is therefore different because it is concerned with a different primary target of affection: rather than a human and that which adorns them, it is another species of creature which is fawned over.

Technically a [[zoosexual]] individual may have a fetish for paws (obviously an analogue to the foot-fetish) and a zoo could also be turned on by the animals collar or other accessories in a form of homeovestism or transvestic fetishism, depending on whether the animal is wearing apparel which are socially deemed suitable for their gender or whether they are wearing tack typically used for the opposite gender, respectively.

==References==
http://beastiality.club/beastiality-club-extreme-animal-sex-content/the-encyclopedia-of-zoophilia/

{{Home}}
[[Category:Research]]
[[Category:Resources]]

Understanding Bestiality and Zoophilia

2026-04-01T08:14:49Z

Bloit: Undo revision 135692 by CTCA (talk)

{{stub}}
[[Category:Books]]
{{infobox book
| name = Understanding Bestiality and Zoophilia
| image = Understanding_bestiality_and_zoophilia_cover_page.jpg
| caption = Front cover of the book
| author = [[Hani Miletski]], M.S.W., Ph.D.
| country = United States
| language = English
| release_number = 4
| subject = Zoophilia
| genre = Research
| publisher = East-West Publishing, LLC
| pub_date = 2002
| pages = 273
| isbn = 0-9716917-1-1
| website = http://drmiletski.com/bestiality.html}}[[File:Hani Miletski Understanding Best.pdf|thumb|Hani Miletski, PH.D., M.S.W. (PDF)]]Understanding [[Bestiality]] and [[Zoophilia]] is a book written by [[Hani Miletski]] (Ph.D., M.S.W.) that compiles a [[history]] of bestiality, all known academic opinion on the topic, and her own doctoral study. More information about the book can be read on Dr. Miletski's [http://drmiletski.com/prolog.html Website].

==Reason==
Before this book was written, there wasn't one single location for a psychiatrist to gain information to help a client who came out to them as [[zoosexual]]. The scattered psychological opinion was often puritanical and misinformed. Armed with that basic knowledge, Miletski met with some [[zoophiles]] and drafted a questionnaire to help gain some insight into their hidden lives. The questions on the survey were structured in such a way as to answer her [[Portal:Main|main]] research question, "Is there a sexual orientation toward non-human animals?", by using Francoeur's (1991) definition of "sexual orientation". A zoosexual would show:
# The existence of affectional orientation toward animals,
# The existence of sexual fantasies about animals, and
# The existence of erotic orientation toward animals.

==Results==
The questionnaire was completed by 93 participants (82 men and 11 women) who were selected on the basis of having had sex with animals. The study is descriptive, rather than representative, because the subjects were not picked randomly and the sample size was relatively small. Miletski considers that she achieves her goal, having shown that nearly all of the participants responded in ways that affirmed the three domains of a sexual orientation towards animals. This study is meant as pioneering research into a previously unexplored topic, and uncovers a general idea of who "zoophiles" are.

{{People}}
[[Category:Culture]]

Zeta Pride

2026-04-01T08:14:42Z

Bloit: Undo revision 135691 by CTCA (talk)

'''Zeta Pride''' (not to be confused with the event currently named [[Zoo Pride Week]]) was an annual convention of zoophiles in Northern Germany, organized by ''Fjordwolf''.

It originated as a second German "zoo-con" for those in the north of the country that didn't wish or weren't able to travel to [[Zetacon]]. There were rooms available as well as camping spaces for those travelling with dogs.

On the agenda were a few entertaining competitions such as [[zoophilia]]-related quizzes, spaghetti eating contests (performed "hands-free" out of a dog bowl), blind food tastings, song recognition challenges, etc. There was also a BBQ and a traditional, optional visit to a Brazilian restaurant for Rodizio. The convention was non-sexual in nature and served as a gathering of like-minded individuals to promote socialization and the free exchange of ideas.<ref name="ookami">{{Cite news|last1=Herder|first1=Daniel|last2=Mikuteit|first2=Hanna-Lotte|date=2012-06-01|title=Michel-Pastor stoppt dubioses Tiercamp|trans-title=St. Michael's Church pastor stops dubious animal camp|url=https://www.abendblatt.de/hamburg/hamburg-mitte/article106577039/Michel-Pastor-stoppt-dubioses-Tiercamp.html|newspaper=Hamburger Abendblatt|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210228174610if_/https://www.abendblatt.de/hamburg/hamburg-mitte/article106577039/Michel-Pastor-stoppt-dubioses-Tiercamp.html|archive-date=2021-02-28|url-status=live|language=de-DE|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

== See also ==
* [[Legacy ZetaPride]]

{{Home}}

[[Category:Culture]]
[[Category:History]]

Andrea Beetz

2026-04-01T08:14:35Z

Bloit:

'''Prof. Dr. Andrea Martina Beetz''' (born July 22, 1975 in Erlangen) is a qualified psychologist and focuses on the interaction between humans and animals.

1994-1999 she studied psychology at the Friedrich-Alexander-University in Erlangen, with semesters abroad 1997-1998 in the USA at the University of California. In March 1999 she received her diploma in psychology from the University of Erlangen.

From May to November 1999 she studied psychogerontology at the University of Erlangen, where she also worked on her dissertation from November 1999, which she was able to complete in 2002 . Her dissertation " [[Love]], Violence, and [[Sexuality]] in Relationships between Humans and Animals " ( 2002 ) is one of the very few recent studies on the subject of [[zoophilia]].
[[File:Andrea beetz.jpg|thumb|Prof. Dr. Andrea Beetz]]
Currently she holds the professorship for the Bachelor's degree program in Special Education by Distance Learning at IU International University, where she serves as the program director. Her teaching and research focus on socio-emotional development, attachment theory, attachment-based interventions in schools and child and youth services, as well as early intervention.

In addition to training educators in attachment-based practices, another focus of Beetz’s research and teaching is on the human-animal relationship and animal-assisted interventions. In the field of animal-assisted pedagogy, she is one of the few nationally and internationally renowned experts. She also works independently in psychotherapy with children, adolescents, and adults, specializing in hypnotherapy.

== Publications regarding Zoophilia ==

* Andrea Beetz: [[Love, Violence, and Sexuality in Relationships between Humans and Animals]] , Shaker Verlag GmbH Aachen, ISBN 3832200207

== External Links ==

* [https://www.iu.de/hochschule/lehrende/beetz-andrea/ Presence at the IU International University]
* [https://hypnotherapie-erlangen.de/ Website of her psychological practice]
{{People}}
[[index.php?title=Category:People]]
[[index.php?title=Category:Research]]

Zoocadia

2026-04-01T08:14:18Z

Bloit: Undo revision 135686 by CTCA (talk)

'''Zoocadia''' is a Zoophile only type site that strives to be a place without fetish seekers, based on the ZETA-Principles and having a warm welcome experience to people interested in the community, or seeking guidance on Zoophilia.

== History ==
Zoocadia was founded in 2023. The founders of Zoocadia decided to create their own forum due to dissatisfaction with the rampant issues, including fetishism and disorder, in another zoo forum they were involved with. Although they don't hate that previous site, they believed it was problematic and unmanageable. The founding team, who had known each other for years, shared common ideals, including fairness and adherence to the ZETA principles. They wanted to build a better, less toxic space for animal-loving zoophiles, aiming to create a forum that would provide a healthier, more respectful community.

Zoocadia was featured on [[Zooey Dot Pub]] interviewing the staff on how they came together and wanted to create a welcoming environment for zoos, even for the ones that are curious.<ref>https://zooeydotpub.zdu.se/interview-with-zoocadia/</ref>[[File:Zoocadia.jpg|thumb|Zoocadia Home page]]

== Content ==
Zoocadia features less pornographic content, however users are welcome to upload their own once they reach certain milestones to receive access. You aren't expected to upload anything; some content features lovely dog photos; farm animals enjoying the fresh grass, even wonderful sunset photos.

== External links ==

* [https://zoocadia.net/ Zoocadia Website]

== References ==
<references />
[[Category:Culture]]
[[Category:Websites]]

Zoosadism

2026-04-01T08:14:08Z

Bloit: Undo revision 135684 by CTCA (talk)

{{short description|Pleasure derived from cruelty to animals}}
'''Zoosadism''' is pleasure derived from [[What is Considered Abuse|cruelty to animals]]. It is part of the Macdonald triad, a set of three behaviors that are considered a precursor to psychopathic behavior.<ref name=macdonald>{{cite journal|author=J. M. MacDonald|title=The Threat to Kill|journal=American Journal of Psychiatry|volume=120|issue=2|pages=125–130|year=1963|doi=10.1176/ajp.120.2.125}}</ref>

==General==
[[Zoophiles]] abhor with a passion zoosadism, as well as any cruelty to animals. In general, they find it particularly unsettling that sexually tainted cruelty to animals can easily find its way into the media and thus form an inaccurate image of "the [[zoophile]]".

Violent acts against animals are called zoosadism. A zoosadist tries to achieve physical and, above all, psychological satisfaction through his actions. Animals are usually easier for persons to reach than humans and cannot give him away directly. Zoosadism is cruelty to animals. The only difference is that animal cruelty often also arises from human greed for wealth or willfulness, or the animal is neglected out of disinterest, but the zoosadist acts out of an "inner drive".

==Research==
Some studies have suggested that individuals who are cruel to animals are more likely to be violent to humans. According to ''The New York Times'':

{{cquote|The Federal Bureau of Investigation{{!}}FBI has found that a history of cruelty to animals is one of the traits that regularly appear in its computer records of Serial rape{{!}}serial rapists and Serial killer{{!}}murderers, and the standard diagnostic and treatment manual for psychiatric and emotional disorders lists cruelty to animals as a diagnostic criterion for conduct disorders.<ref>{{Cite news | last = Goleman | first = Daniel | author-link = | last2 = | first2 = | author2-link = | title = Child's Love of Cruelty May Hint at the Future Killer | newspaper = New York Times | pages = | year = | date = 7 August 1991 | url = | postscript =  }}</ref>}}

Helen Gavin wrote however in ''Criminological and Forensic Psychology'' (2013):

{{cquote|This is not a universal trait, though. Dennis Nilsen had difficulty initiating social contact with people, but loved his faithful companion, Bleep, a mongrel bitch. After his arrest, he was very concerned for her welfare, as she was taken to the police station too.<ref name="Helen Gavin 2013 120">{{cite book|author=Helen Gavin|title=Criminological and Forensic Psychology|pages=120|year=2013}}</ref>}}

Alan R. Felthous reported in his paper "Aggression Against Cats, Dogs, and People" (1980):

{{cquote|A survey of psychiatric patients who had repeatedly tortured dogs and cats found all of them had high levels of aggression toward people as well, including one patient who had murdered a boy.<ref>{{Cite journal | last = Felthous | first = Alan R. | author-link = | last2 = | first2 = | author2-link = | title = Aggression Against Cats, Dogs, and People | journal = Child Psychiatry and Human Development | volume = 10 | pages = 169–177 | date = | year = 1980 | url = | doi = 10.1007/bf01433629| id = | postscript =  }}</ref>}}

This is a commonly reported finding, and for this reason, cruelty to animals is often considered a warning sign of potential violence towards humans.

==Legal status==
In the United States, since 2010, it has been a federal offense to create or distribute "obscene" depictions of "living non-human mammals, birds, reptiles, or amphibians ... subjected to serious bodily injury".<ref>Robson, Ruthann (2010-12-14) [http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2010/12/animal-porn-criminalized-by-federal-law-again.html Animal Porn - Criminalized by Federal Law Again] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110415045939/http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2010/12/animal-porn-criminalized-by-federal-law-again.html|date=2011-04-15}}, ''Constitutional Law Prof Blog''</ref> This statute replaced an overly broad 1999 statute<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/48.html|title=18 U.S. Code § 48 - Animal crush videos|website=LII / Legal Information Institute|accessdate=23 April 2018|url-status=live|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20111121143325/http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/48.html|archivedate=21 November 2011}}</ref> which was found unconstitutional in ''United States v. Stevens''.

In 2019, The United States Congress passed a well known PACT Act (Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act)

''Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,''

This Act may be cited as the “Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act” or the “PACT Act”.<ref>H.R.724 PACT ACT <nowiki>https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2019/10/22/house-section/article/H8355-1</nowiki></ref>

Similar to the 2010 law. However, there has been speculation on the actual meaning, whether it was causing death for sexual gratification, or simple bestiality. Such as the case law involving a man who was imprisoned for obscene material and bestiality. (Reference is missing, will need to be researched)

The PACT Act in 2019 was to strengthen the 2010 law that makes the depiction of animal cruelty a crime, but allows the cruelty itself to go unpunished.<ref>https://www.zoovilleforum.net/resources/h-r-724-pact-act.26/updates</ref>

==Criticism of alleged Link to violence against humans==
On the other hand, Piers Beirne, a professor of criminology at the University of Southern Maine, has criticized existing studies for ignoring socially accepted practices of violence against animals, such as animal slaughter and vivisection, that might be linked to violence against humans.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://digitalcommons.usm.maine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=criminology |title=Archived copy |accessdate=2017-11-08 |url-status=live |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20171107021521/http://digitalcommons.usm.maine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=criminology |archivedate=2017-11-07 }}</ref>

==See also==
* [[What is Considered Abuse|Cruelty to animals]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
* [http://www.forensicnursemag.com/articles/411clinical.html Four-legged Forensics: What Forensic Nurses Need to Know and Do About Animal Cruelty]
[[Category:Terms]]

Zoophilia Wiki talk:About

2026-04-01T08:13:29Z

Bloit: Undo revision 135682 by CTCA (talk)

Literature

2026-04-01T08:13:23Z

Bloit: Undo revision 135681 by Pooplia (talk)

{{Culture}}
{{Essay}}

There is not much literature available on the subject of [[bestiality]] and [[zoophilia]], despite the fact that humankind has been practicing [[interspecies]] [[love]] since we first began creating cave art depicting sex between people and animals (and likely before that, as well)!

Thanks to the internet, it is now easier than ever to pick up copies of books on this rare subject, sometimes by ordering a print book shipped to one’s address or even by simply downloading an ebook.

Some noteworthy non-fiction books include Midas Dekker’s [[Dearest Pet: On Bestiality]] (a thorough examination of bestiality in myth and the arts throughout [[history]]) as well as Hani Miletski’s [[Understanding Bestiality and Zoophilia]] (the first survey of zoos in the ‘general population’). Wet Goddess and The Horseman: Obsessions of a [[Zoophile]] are both excellent autobiographical books about men who have publicly come out as zoos.

For fictional accounts there are the novels Bear, His Monkey Wife, and Lady into Fox. The first is quite explicit (though it does not continue all the way to intercourse) while the last two rely more on implied sexual activity than titillating detail. A Passion in the Desert is one short story which is heavily suggestive but does not contain any explicitly sexual passages. For books written to sexually excite the reader, see erotica.

For those who don’t mind a bit of ‘amateur hour’ many zoo websites also have sections for stories, fantasies, and other tales of love and lust between mankind and every type of ‘beast’ imaginable. These will most often be explicit although one may occasionally find one which is more of a love story.

==References==
http://beastiality.club/beastiality-club-extreme-animal-sex-content/the-encyclopedia-of-zoophilia/
[[Category:Culture]]

Zoophilia Is Morally Permissible

2026-04-01T08:13:16Z

Bloit: Undo revision 135680 by CTCA (talk)

[[File:Zoophilia Is Morally Permissible.pdf|thumb|right|Bensto, F. Zoophilia Is Morally Permissible. Journal of Controversial Ideas (PDF)]]
As one of our most deeply entrenched social taboos, [[zoophilia]] is widely considered to be wrong and having sex with animals is illegal in many countries. In this article, I would like to go against this de facto consensus and argue that zoophilia is morally permissible. This would have major implications for how we legally and socially deal with zoophilia.<ref name="zimp">{{Cite journal|last=Bensto|first=Fira (pseudonym)|date=2023-10-31|title=Zoophilia Is Morally Permissible|url={{fullurl:File:Zoophilia Is Morally Permissible.pdf}}|format=PDF|journal=Journal of Controversial Ideas|volume=3|issue=2|doi=10.35995/jci03020005|doi-access=free|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

The introduction below is copied from the source article to describe the scope and nature of the research. The full PDF document is available at right.

== Introduction ==
Sex with animals is a powerful social taboo that exposes its practitioners to utmost indignation and stigma. Zoophilia is one of the few sexual orientations (along with, for example, necrophilia or pedophilia) that remain off-limits and have been left aside from the sexual liberation movement in the past fifty years. I would like to argue that this is a mistake. There is in fact nothing wrong with having sex with animals: it is not an inherently problematic sexual practice. Given the sheer outrage that the mere mention of zoophilia triggers in many people, we might expect the case for its permissibility to be a hard sell and my claims to be modest and tentative. This is not so: not only do I think that zoophilia is morally permissible, but I also think that the case in its favor is rather straightforward, so that it should be the default position within many philosophical quarters. This makes it all the more surprising that no ambitious and explicit defense of it has been published so far.

I start in Section 1 by clarifying what is meant by zoophilia. In Section 2, I introduce the debate over the permissibility of zoophilia. In Sections 3 and 4, I address the questions of whether zoophilia is harmful and whether animals can consent to sex with humans. In Section 5, I tease out some important implications.

== Metadata ==
* Submitted: {{#formatdate:2023-03-23|mdy}}
* Accepted: {{#formatdate:2023-09-24|mdy}}
* Published: {{#formatdate:2023-10-31|mdy}}

== References ==
<references />

{{Home}}

[[Category:Research]]
[[Category:Resources]]

Beastforum

2026-04-01T08:12:59Z

Bloit: Undo revision 135679 by CTCA (talk)

{{History}}
BeastForum Started (Sometime in 2000, or 2001 - Reference needed.) was an English forum dedicated to [[bestiality]]. It allowed its members to exchange amateur images and videos for free.

Anyone could create an account for free, and then post their amateur images and videos, and in return, it was possible to download images and videos of other members. The number of downloads was limited to 5 per day, and may vary depending on the number of uploads. For example 1 amateur image sent gives the possibility of uploading 2 amateur images per day.

Be careful, however, under the free and community aspect of this forum, there is a reuse of material posted for free by members. For example on the site http://www.animal-sex.com, we find:

[http://www.animal-sex.com/memberarea/amateur/show/71789 http://www.animal-sex.com/memberarea/amateur/show/'''71789 '' ']

who comes from <br>
[http://www.beastforum.com/index.php?showtopic=71789 http://www.beastforum.com/index.php?showtopic='''71789 '' ']
<br> Note the reuse of the same topic number!

The domain name beastforum.com is registered by a company named Jones Holding Ltd (http://www.who.is/domain_information-com/beastforum.com/)

This company is the owner of dozens of domain names dedicated to bestiality:
{| border = "1"
|
* animaltop.com
* animalsex.com
* animal-sex.com
* animaljuice.com
* animaltraffic.com
|
* animalpost.com
* animalarchive.com
* beastletter.com
* bestialitysearch.com
* bestialityforum.com
|
* barnboys.com
* beastiality.com
* banner-farm.com
* beasttoons.com
* bestiality.com
|
* beastdating.com
* caledonianmales.com
* doglove.com
* farmjoy.com
* hqzoosex.com
|
* mamelsex.com
* petpound.com
* shawnsfarm.com
* [[zoophilia]].net
* zooxtreme.com
|
* [[zoophile]].net
* zoolinks.com
* zoopics.com
|}

Consequence: Amateur videos and images, sent free of charge by members, end up, without knowing it, end up on pay sites by BF. Or shared and sold by other users. However, BF was known to be a bigger player in this.
[[Category:History]]

Things You Can Do

2026-04-01T08:12:52Z

Bloit: Undo revision 135674 by CTCA (talk)

{{ZETA banner}}{{Page tabs|[[Main Page]]|[[Things You Can Do]]|[[Donate]]|NOTOC=true|This={{{This|2}}}}}{{Robelbox|theme={{{theme|2}}}|title=Things to Do!}}
<div style="{{Robelbox/pad}}">
The Wiki is a place to find information to learn more about Zoophilia. As well as Bestiality. We intent to give a complete, non-bias approach to the community. We're not perfect. There may be some imperfections. But we hope you get the information you're looking for!
Do you know the term for Z.E.T.A?
<p>The Principles of Z.E.T.A. Zoosexuals for the Ethical Treatment of Animals </p>
<p>1. Bestow upon animals the same kindness one would wish bestowed upon oneself.</p>
<p>2. Consider the well being of an animal companion as important as ones own.</p>
<p>3. Place the animals will and well being ahead of ones desires for sexual gratification.</p>
<p>4. Teach those who seek knowledge about bestiality and zoophilia without promoting it.</p>
<p>5. Discourage the practice of bestiality in the presence of fetish seekers.</p>
<p>6. Censure sexual exploitation of animals for the purpose of financial gain.</p>
<p>7. Censure those who practice and promote animal sexual abuse.</p>
</div>
{{Robelbox/close}}
{{Robelbox|theme={{{theme|3}}}|title=Find Great Online Communities!}}
<div style="{{Robelbox/pad}}">
The Zoo Community has been mostly online. With many using Yahoo Groups, Usenet, and Alt.Sex.Bestiality. All the way to bigger sites like Beastforum, and soon after Zooville.
Along with many smaller boards like ZooBB, ZoophilesForum, and Zetaboards.
Below is a list of current communities welcoming new, curious users looking into Zoophilia.
</div>
There's many great options to choose from. Sites can come and go, but we at the [[Zoophilia Wiki]] will make sure to keep this page up-to-date! What follows is a very simple list of sites you may be able to access for your introduction into the Zoo Community.

* [https://www.zoovilleforum.net/ ZooVille] - [[ZooVille]] is a [[Zoophilia]] message board designed for discussion and viewing media. With a user-base of over 94k members. You're bound to find great useful information from various active users. Many posts will have information that is readily available for new comers, and everyone is always willing to be helpful for anyone that has questions.

* [https://zoocommunity.org ZooCommunity] - [[ZooCommunity|ZooCoommunity]] is a discussion board-only site. Providing resources and helpful guides as well as a pace for new comers to learn more about zoophilia, the site does not allow pornography or any NSFW content at all. It is often promoted as a safer, and more educational resource than [[Zooville|ZooVille]].

* [https://zoowg.org Zoo Writers Guild and Discussion Forum] - [[ZooWG|Zoo Writers Guild]] is a story driven site, for those who want to read or make some new stories of their own. There's also many great resources to choose from.
* [https://zetaspace.org ZetaSpace] - [[ZetaSpace|Zetaspace]] is a mastodon (Twitter) like page for Zoophiles to discuss, and share what they like. The site does not host content, as it's only meant for a content free zone.
* [https://feral.cafe/explore Feral.Cafe] - We're a small feral furry space for those who want a calmer environment where they can express the all the diverse facets of who they are.
* [https://www.readbeast.blog/ ReadBeast] - A place to find erotic stories and educational guides on bestiality.
* [https://x.com/ZooRightsMvmnt Twitter/X user] - One of many accounts forming a very loose knit but welcoming community on X/Twitter.
* [https://x.com/i/communities/1847115872357568714 Twitter/X] The zoo pride community of X/Twitter
* [https://zoocadia.net/index.php Zoocadia.net] - Another zoophilia forum.
* [https://www.loverslab.com/ Lover's Lab] A place where adult video game mods are shared, including many bestiality related mods.{{Robelbox/close}}

Zoophilia

2026-04-01T08:12:41Z

Bloit: Removed redirect to Zoophilia Wiki:Zoophilia

{{Imported|Wikipedia|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia}}
{{Sex}}
[[File:2014-01-26 Roman Oil Lamp with Erotic Motiv 09 anagoria.jpeg|thumb|256px|Roman oil lamp depicting a zoophilic act, 1<sup>st</sup>–3<sup>rd</sup> century A.D.]]
[[File:Pan goat MAN Napoli Inv27709 n01.jpg|thumb|256px|The Greek god Pan having sex with a goat, statue from Villa of the Papyri, Herculaneum (catalogued 1752).]]
'''Zoophilia''', also called '''[[zoosexuality]]''', is a sexual attraction to non-human animals.

== Terminology ==
=== General ===
Three key terms commonly used in regards to the subject—''zoophilia'', ''bestiality'', and ''zoosexuality''—are often used somewhat interchangeably. Some researchers distinguish between zoophilia (as a persistent sexual interest in animals) and bestiality (as sexual acts with animals), because bestiality is often not driven by a sexual preference for animals.<ref name="ranger">{{Cite journal|last1=Ranger|first1=R.|last2=Fedoroff|first2=P.|year=2014|title=Commentary: Zoophilia and the Law|journal=Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online|volume=42|issue=4|pages=421–426|url=https://jaapl.org/content/42/4/421.full|pmid=25492067}}</ref> Some studies have found a preference for animals is rare among people who engage in [[Sexual Contact with Animals|sexual contact with animals]].<ref name="earls">{{Cite journal|last1=Earls|first1=C. M.|last2=Lalumiere|first2=M. L.|year=2002|title=A Case Study of Preferential Bestiality (Zoophilia)|journal=Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment|volume=14|issue=1|pages=83–88|doi=10.1177/107906320201400106|pmid=11803597}}</ref> Furthermore, some zoophiles report they have never had sexual contact with an animal.<ref name="maratea">{{Cite journal|last=Maratea|first=R. J.|year=2011|title=Screwing the pooch: Legitimizing accounts in a zoophilia on-line community|journal=Deviant Behavior|volume=32|issue=10|page=938|doi=10.1080/01639625.2010.538356}}</ref> People with zoophilia are known as "zoophiles," though also sometimes as "zoosexuals," or even very simply "zoos."<ref name="ranger" /><ref name="handbook">{{Cite book|last=Beetz|first=Andrea M.|editor=Ascione, Frank|year=2010|title=The International Handbook of Animal Abuse and Cruelty: Theory, Research, and Application|chapter=Bestiality and Zoophilia: A Discussion of Sexual Contact With Animals|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/?id=G_MwT9OHj4AC&pg=PA201&dq=zoophilia#v=onepage&q=zoophilia&f=false|isbn=978-1-55-753565-8}}</ref> [[Zooerasty]], [[sodomy]], and [[wiktionary:zooerastia#English|zooerastia]] are other terms closely related to the subject but are less synonymous with the former terms, and are seldom used. "Bestiosexuality" was discussed briefly by Allen (1979), but never became widely established.{{Citation needed}} [[wikipedia:Ernest Bornemann|Ernest Bornemann]] (1990, cited by Rosenbauer, 1997) coined the separate term ''[[zoosadism]]'' for those who derive pleasure—sexual or otherwise—from inflicting pain on animals. Zoosadism specifically is one member of the [[wikipedia:Macdonald triad|Macdonald triad]] of precursors to [[wikipedia:Psychopathy|sociopathic behavior]].<ref name="MacDonald">{{Cite journal|last=MacDonald|first=John M.|year=1963|title=The Threat to Kill|journal=American Journal of Psychiatry|volume=120|issue=2|pages=125–130|url=https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/ajp.120.2.125|doi=10.1176/ajp.120.2.125}}</ref>

=== Zoophilia ===
[[File:Tako to ama retouched.jpg|thumb|left|[[wikipedia:Katsushika Hokusai|Hokusai]]'s (1760–1849) ''[[wikipedia:The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife|The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife]]''.]]
The term ''zoophilia'' was introduced into the field of research on [[sexuality]] in ''[[wikipedia:Psychopathia Sexualis (Richard von Krafft-Ebing book)|Psychopathia Sexualis]]'' (1886) by [[wikipedia:Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing|Krafft-Ebing]], who described a number of cases of "violation of animals (bestiality)",<ref name="krafft-ebing">{{Cite book|last=Krafft-Ebing|first=Richard Freiherr von|year=1886|title=Psychopathia Sexualis|url=https://archive.org/details/PsychopathiaSexualis1000006945|publisher=Enke|location=Stuttgart|pages=281,561}}</ref> as well as "zoophilia erotica",<ref name="krafft-ebing" /> which he defined as a sexual attraction to animal skin or fur. The term ''zoophilia'' derives from the combination of two nouns in Greek: '''''ζῷον''''' (''zṓion'', meaning "animal") and '''''φιλία''''' (''[[wiktionary:-philia|philia]]'', meaning "(fraternal) [[love]]"). In general contemporary usage, the term ''zoophilia'' may refer to sexual activity between human and non-human animals, the desire to engage in such, or to the specific [[paraphilia]] (''i.e.,'' the atypical arousal) which indicates a definite preference for non-human animals over humans as sexual partners. Although Krafft-Ebing also coined the term ''zooerasty'' for the paraphilia of exclusive sexual attraction to animals,<ref name="deviance">{{Cite book|last1=Laws|first1=D. Richard|last2=O'Donohue|first2=William T.|year=2008|title=Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment|url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/Sexual_Deviance/yIXG9FuqbaIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=zooerasty|publisher=Guilford Press|location=New York City|page=391|isbn=978-1-59-385605-2}}</ref> that term has fallen out of general use.

=== Zoosexuality ===
The term ''[[zoosexual]]'' was proposed by [[Hani Miletski]] in 2002<ref name="handbook" /> as a value-neutral term. Usage of ''zoosexual'' as a noun (in reference to a person) is synonymous with zoophile, while the adjectival form of the word—as, for instance, in the phrase "zoosexual act"—may indicate sexual activity between a human and a non-human animal. The derivative noun "zoosexuality" is sometimes used by self-identified zoophiles in both support groups and online discussion forums to designate [[sexual orientation]] manifesting as romantic/emotional involvement with, or sexual attraction to, non-human animals.<ref name="handbook" /><ref name="zoosexuality">{{Cite web|title=Information: What is zoosexuality?|url=http://zoosexuality.org/?id=1|date=2011-01-03|website=Zoosexuality.org|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110714043810if_/http://zoosexuality.org/?id=1|archive-date=2011-07-14|url-status=dead}}</ref>

=== Bestiality ===
[[File:日本春宫册页《女人和狗》.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Japanese ''[[wikipedia:ukiyo-e|ukiyo-e]]'' [[wikipedia:woodblock print|woodblock print]] from [[wikipedia:Kunisada|Utagawa Kunisada]]'s series, "Eight Canine Heroes of the House of Satomi", 1837.]]
[[File:Indiaerotic5.jpg|thumb|right|350px|An 18<sup>th</sup>-century Indian miniature depicting women practicing zoophilia in the bottom register.]]
The legal term ''bestiality'' has three common pronunciations: {{IPA|[ˌbestʃiˈæləti]}} or {{IPA|[ˌbistʃiˈæləti]}} in the United States,<ref name="pronunciation">{{Cite web|title=How to pronounce BESTIALITY in English|url=https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/pronunciation/english/bestiality|website=Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus|publisher=Cambridge University Press|accessdate=2024-08-10|df=mdy-all}}</ref> and {{IPA|[ˌbestiˈæləti]}} in the United Kingdom.<ref name="pronunciation" /> Some zoophiles and researchers draw a distinction between ''zoophilia'' and ''bestiality'', using the former to describe the desire to form sexual relationships with animals and the latter to describe the sex acts alone. Confusing the matter yet [[further]], writing in 1962, Masters used the term ''bestialist'' specifically in his discussion of zoosadism.

Stephanie LaFarge, an assistant professor of psychiatry at the New Jersey Medical School, and Director of Counseling at the [[wikipedia:American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals|ASPCA]], writes that two groups can be distinguished: bestialists, who rape or abuse animals, and zoophiles, who form an emotional and sexual attachment to animals.<ref name="roth">{{Cite news|last=Roth|first=Melinda|date=1999-12-15|title=All Opposed, Say “Neigh”|url=https://www.riverfronttimes.com/news/all-opposed-say-neigh-2475096|newspaper=St. Louis (MO) Riverfront Times|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230209090649if_/https://www.riverfronttimes.com/news/all-opposed-say-neigh-2475096|archive-date=2023-02-09|url-status=live|access-date=2024-08-21|df=mdy-all}}</ref> [[Colin J. Williams]] and [[Martin Weinberg]] studied self-defined zoophiles via the internet and reported them as understanding the term ''zoophilia'' to involve concern for the animal's welfare, pleasure, and [[Sexual consent|consent]], as distinct from the self-labelled zoophiles' concept of "bestialists", whom the zoophiles in their study defined as focused on their own gratification. Williams and Weinberg also quoted a British newspaper saying that ''zoophilia'' is a term used by "apologists" for ''bestiality''.<ref name="asb">{{Cite journal|last1=Williams|first1=Colin J.|last2=Weinberg|first2=Martin S.|title=Zoophilia in men: a study of sexual interest in animals|url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1026085410617|journal=Archives of Sexual Behavior|volume=32|issue=6|pages=523–535|date=December 2003|pmid=14574096|doi=10.1023/A:1026085410617|url-access=subscription|access-date=2024-08-21|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

== From WikiFur ==
'''Zoophilia''' is a technical term for the [[wikipedia:Sexual|sexual]] attraction of [[wikipedia:Human|humans]] to [[wikipedia:Animal|animals]].

It has been increasingly used in [[wikipedia:Mainstream|popular]] and [[wikipedia:Furry culture|furry culture]] as an alternative to the term [[bestiality]], because it stresses orientation over acts, and is usually regarded as less prejudicial. (For more information on the context and use of the technical term, see: [[Paraphilia]].)

It is a common misconception that [[Furry|furries]] are lovers of animals, and (by extension) [[zoophiles]]. It is true that a significant proportion of erotic furry artwork and stories involve beings with animal characteristics having sex with each other, or with humans, but it should be noted that the participants are usually [[wikipedia:Anthropomorphic|anthropomorphic]] beings.

While some [[Furry|furries]] are [[zoophiles]], the two terms are not synonymous. Most [[Furry|furries]] do not have any sexual interest in animals in real life, though some may roleplay otherwise in fantasy scenarios.

=== Self-identified zoophiles versus bestiality ===
Most people who identify themselves as [[zoophiles]] distinguish between zoophilia and bestiality. Though some [[zoophiles]] choose to engage in sexual contact with their animal companions, not all do. [[Zoophiles]] state that they are lovers of animals, and that sexual contact, when it is done, is an extension of a deeper emotional and perhaps spiritual relationship with the animal, similar in character to the sexual expression between human companions.

They sometimes refer to those who have [[Sexual Contact with Animals|sexual contact with animals]] without emotional bonds as "beasties." [[Zoophiles]] may draw attention to the distinction between bestiality (an act), and zoophilia (a sexual orientation), and to the view that those who have sexual contact with animals without an emotional connection are not [[zoophiles]].

Some self-identified [[zoophiles]] also use the term to refer to anyone with the kind of emotional bonds they stress as distinguishing them from bestialists, including those who have no sexual contact with or interest in animals.

An analysis of data from the [[wikipedia:Furry Survey|Furry Survey]] suggests that one in six [[Furry|furries]] self identify as [[zoophiles]].<ref name="survey">{{Cite web|author=J.M.|date=2012-02-06|title=Zoophilia in the Furry Community|url=https://www.adjectivespecies.com/2012/02/06/zoophilia-in-the-furry-community/|website=[adjective][species]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190516022338if_/https://www.adjectivespecies.com/2012/02/06/zoophilia-in-the-furry-community/|archive-date=2019-05-16|url-status=dead|access-date=2020-08-21|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

== Extent of occurrence ==
The [[Kinsey Reports]] reported the percentage of people who had sexual interaction with animals at some point in their lives as 8% for men and 3.6% for women, and claimed it rose to 40–50% in people living near farms,<ref name="deviance" /> but some later writers dispute the figures because the study lacked a random sample in that it included a disproportionate number of prisoners, resulting in [[wikipedia:Sampling bias|sampling bias]]. [[wikipedia:Martin Duberman|Martin Duberman]] has written that it is difficult to get a random sample in sexual research, and that even when [[wikipedia:Paul Gebhard|Paul Gebhard]], Kinsey's research successor, removed prison samples from the figures he found that they were not significantly changed.<ref name="duberman">{{Cite magazine|last=Duberman|first=Richard|date=1997-11-03|title=Kinsey's Urethra: A review of ''Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life'' by James H. Jones|url=http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/publications/duberman.html|magazine=The Nation|pages=40–43|publisher=The Kinsey Institute|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160409223108if_/http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/publications/duberman.html|archive-date=2016-04-09|url-status=dead|access-date=2009-01-11|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

By 1974, the farm population in the United States had declined by 80 percent compared with 1940, reducing the opportunity to live with abundant privacy in proximity to a variety of animal species; Hunt's 1974 study suggests that these demographic changes led to a significant change in reported occurrences of bestiality. The percentage of males who reported sexual interactions with animals in 1974 was 4.9% (1948: 8.3%), and in females in 1974 was 1.9% (1953: 3.6%). Miletski believes this is not due to a reduction in interest, but merely a reduction in opportunity.<ref name="hunt-miletski">Hunt 1974, cited and re-examined by Miletski (1999).</ref>

[[wikipedia:Nancy Friday|Nancy Friday]]'s 1973 book on [[wikipedia:Female sexuality|female sexuality]], ''[[wikipedia:My Secret Garden|My Secret Garden]]'', is a collection of approximately 190 fantasies shared by different women; of these, 23 involve zoophilic activity.<ref name="friday">{{Cite book|last=Friday|first=Nancy|title=My Secret Garden: Women's Sexual Fantasies|publisher=Trident Press|location=Boulder, Colorado|year=1973|url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/7DJmAQAACAAJ|isbn=978-0-67-174252-2|pages=180–185|chapter=Room Number 11: What do women fantasize about? The Zoo.|access-date=2024-08-21|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

In one study, psychiatric patients were found to have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55%) of reported bestiality, both actual sexual contacts (45%) and sexual fantasies (30%) than the control groups of medical in-patients (10%) and psychiatric staff (15%).<ref name="psych">{{Cite journal|last1=Alvarez|first1=William A.|last2=Freinhar|first2=Jack P.|year=1991|title=A prevalence study of bestiality (zoophilia) in psychiatric in-patients, medical in-patients and psychiatric staff|volume=38|issue=1–4|pages=45–47|journal=International Journal of Psychosomatics|url=https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-prevalence-study-of-bestiality-(zoophilia)-in-and-Alvarez-Freinhar/e06541b43412628437f84ff7d59beb5b7ff3dab6|url-access=subscription|pmid=1778686|access-date=2024-08-21|df=mdy-all|quote=It is recommended that due to the obvious prevalence of this condition, questions exploring this previously ignored topic should be routinely included in the psychiatric interview.}}</ref> Crépault and Couture (1980) reported that in their study of 94 men in heterosexual relationships between the ages of 20 and 45, five had fantasized about sexual activity with an animal during intercourse with their partner.<ref name="couture">{{Cite journal|last1=Crépault|first1=Claude|last2=Couture|first2=Marcel|date=December 1980|title=Men's erotic fantasies|journal=Archives of Sexual Behavior|volume=9|issue=6|pages=565–581|url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01542159|url-access=subscription|pmid=7458662|doi=10.1007/BF01542159|access-date=2024-08-21|df=mdy-all}}</ref> In a 2014 study, 3% of women and 2.2% of men reported fantasies about having sex with an animal.<ref name="joyal">{{Cite journal|last1=Joyal|first1=Christian C.|last2=Cossette|first2=Amélie|last3=Lapierre|first3=Vanessa|date=February 2015|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267627883_What_Exactly_Is_an_Unusual_Sexual_Fantasy|title=What Exactly is an Unusual Sexual Fantasy?|journal=The Journal of Sexual Medicine|volume=12|issue=2|pages=328–340|doi=10.1111/jsm.12734|pmid=25359122|access-date=2024-08-21|df=mdy-all}}</ref> A 1982 comparative study found that of 186 University of Northern Iowa students, 14 (7.5%) had interacted sexually with an animal.<ref name="story">{{Cite journal|last1=Story|first1=Marilyn D.|date=Winter 1982|title=A comparison of university student experience with various sexual outlets in 1974 and 1980|journal=Adolescence|volume=17|issue=68|pages=737–747|url=https://www.proquest.com/openview/076fdf694b4dc76f933d65a170de0108/1|url-access=subscription|pmid=7164870|access-date=2024-08-21|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

{{Anchor|Faunoiphilia}}
Sexual arousal from watching animals [[mate]] is known as ''faunoiphilia''.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Aggrawal|first=Anil|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=uNkNhPZQprcC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA374|title=Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices|publisher=CRC Press|location=Boca Raton, Florida|edition=1st|chapter=Zoophilia and Bestiality|chapter-url=https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/mono/10.1201/9781420043099-16/zoophilia-bestiality-anil-aggrawal?context=ubx&refId=db706ee9-387d-48aa-b058-a8ea3a298d1e|date=2009-03-22|page=264|isbn=978-1-42-004309-9|doi=10.1201/9781420043099|access-date=2024-09-20|df=mdy-all}}</ref> A frequent interest in and sexual excitement at watching animals mate is cited as an indicator of latent zoophilia by Massen (1994). [[wikipedia:Sexual fantasy|Sexual fantasies]] about zoophilic acts can occur in people who do not have any wish to experience them in real life. Nancy Friday notes that zoophilia as a fantasy may provide an escape from cultural expectations, restrictions, and judgements in regard to sex.<ref name="friday" /> Masters (1962) says that some brothel madams used to stage exhibitions of animals mating as they found it aroused potential clientele, and that this may have encouraged the clients to engage in bestiality.<ref name="watching">{{Cite book|last=Masters|first=Robert E. L.|title=Forbidden Sexual Behavior and Morality: An Objective Re-examination of Perverse Sex Practices in Different Cultures|edition=3rd|url=https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.b3912428|location=New York City|date=October 1962|publisher=The Julian Press|chapter=Psychical bestiality|chapter-url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b3912428&seq=129|pages=109–116|access-date=2024-09-20|df=mdy-all}}</ref> Several highly-cited studies by Chivers, et al., have documented stronger vaginal responses in women to films depicting [[wikipedia:Bonobo#Sexual social behavior|bonobo copulation]] than to non-sexual stimuli.<ref name="genital">{{Cite journal|last1=Chivers|first1=Meredith L.|last2=Bailey|first2=J. Michael|date=October 2005|title=A sex difference in features that elicit genital response|url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301051105000323|url-access=subscription|journal=Biological Psychology|volume=70|issue=2|pages=115–120|pmid=16168255|doi=10.1016/j.biopsycho.2004.12.002|access-date=2024-09-20|df=mdy-all|quote=These results suggest that stimulus features necessary to evoke genital arousal are much less specific in women than in men.}}</ref><ref name="gender">{{Cite journal|last1=Chivers|first1=Meredith L.|last2=Seto|first2=Michael C.|last3=Blanchard|first3=Ray|date=December 2007|title=Gender and sexual orientation differences in sexual response to sexual activities versus gender of actors in sexual films|url=https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-17941-013|url-access=subscription|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|volume=93|issue=6|pages=1108–1121|pmid=18072857|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.1108|access-date=2024-09-20|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

== Perspectives on zoophilia ==
[[File:Franz von Bayros 020.jpg|thumb|right|256px|A depiction of [[wikipedia:Oral sex|cunnilingus]] between an adolescent girl and a [[wikipedia:Deer|deer]] by [[wikipedia:Franz von Bayros|Franz von Bayros]].]]

=== Research perspectives ===
Zoophilia has been partly discussed by several sciences: [[wikipedia:Psychology|psychology]] (the study of the human [[wikipedia:Mind|mind]]), [[wikipedia:Sexology|sexology]] (a relatively new discipline primarily studying [[human sexuality]]), [[wikipedia:Ethology|ethology]] (the study of [[Animal sexual behaviour|animal behavior]]), and [[wikipedia:Anthrozoology|anthrozoology]] (the study of human–animal bonds and interaction).

In the [[wikipedia:DSM-5|fifth edition of the ''Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders'']] (DSM-5), zoophilia is placed in the classification "other specified paraphilic disorder"<ref name="dsmv">{{Cite book|url=https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm|title=Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders|edition=5th|chapter=Other Specified Paraphilic Disorder, 302.89 (F65.89)|editor=[[wikipedia:American Psychiatric Association|APA]]|year=2013|publisher=American Psychiatric Publishing|page=705|isbn=978-0-89042-575-6|access-date=2024-09-20|df=mdy-all}}</ref> ("[[paraphilia]]s not otherwise specified" in the DSM-III and IV<ref name="dsmiv">{{Cite book|title=Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders|edition=4th|publisher=[[wikipedia:American Psychiatric Association|APA]]|location=District of Columbia, U.S.A.|year=2000|isbn=978-0-89042-025-6|oclc=43483668|df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref name="milner">{{Cite book|editor-last1=Laws|editor-first1=D. R.| editor2 = O'Donohue, W. T. |last1=Milner|first1=J. S.|last2=Dopke|first2=C. A.|title=Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment|edition=2nd|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yIXG9FuqbaIC&pg=PA385|publisher=[[wikipedia:The Guilford Press|The Guilford Press]]|location=New York City|year=2008|pages=384–418|isbn=978-1-59385-605-2|oclc=152580827|chapter=Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified: Psychopathology and theory|df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref name="lovemaps">{{Cite book|last=Money|first=John|author-link=wikipedia:John Money|title=Lovemaps: Clinical Concepts of Sexual/Erotic Health and Pathology, Paraphilia, and Gender Transposition in Childhood, Adolescence, and Maturity|publisher=[[wikipedia:Prometheus Books|Prometheus Books]]|location=Buffalo, New York|year=1988|isbn=978-0-87975-456-3|oclc=19340917|df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref name="seto">{{Cite book|last1=Seto|first1=M.C.|last2=Barbaree|first2=H.E.|editor-last1=Hersen|editor-first1=M.|editor-last2=Van Hasselt|editor-first2=V. B.|year=2000|title=Aggression and violence: an introductory text|chapter=Paraphilias|publisher=[[wikipedia:Allyn & Bacon|Allyn & Bacon]]|location=Boston|pages=198–213|isbn=978-0-205-26721-7|oclc=41380492|df=mdy-all}}</ref>). The [[wikipedia:World Health Organization|WHO]] takes the same position, listing a sexual preference for animals in its [[wikipedia:ICD|ICD]][[wikipedia:ICD-10|-10]] as "F65.8: Other disorder of sexual preference".<ref name="icd10">{{Cite web|url=https://icd.who.int/browse10/2019/en#/F65.8|title=International Classification of Diseases Version:2019|website=World Health Organization (WHO)|access-date=2024-09-22|df=mdy-all|quote=A variety of other patterns of sexual preference and activity, including making obscene telephone calls, rubbing up against people for sexual stimulation in crowded public places, sexual activity with animals, and use of strangulation or anoxia for intensifying sexual excitement.}}</ref>

A slow but broadening trend can be seen in the academic literature of the 21<sup>st</sup> century towards greater acceptance of zoophilia as a legitimate sexual expression rather than a deviant one. In the DSM-5, for instance, zoophilia rises to the level of a "diagnosable disorder" only when accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning, otherwise being regarded as another element of the psyche to reflect on and harmonize with the rest of one's life.<ref name="dsmv" /><ref name="implications">{{Cite journal|last1=Miletski|first1=Hani|date=2015-01-21|title=Zoophilia—Implications for Therapy|url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01614576.2001.11074387|journal=Journal of Sex Education and Therapy|volume=26|issue=2|pages=85–89|url-access=subscription|doi=10.1080/01614576.2001.11074387|s2cid=146150162|df=mdy-all|quote=Zoophiles may come to the attention of sex therapists, counselors, and educators for a variety of other reasons. Living a life of secrecy, as many zoophiles do, can lead to many psychological issues such as depression, anxiety, feelings of isolation, and suicide ideation.}}</ref>

Zoophilia may also be covered to some degree by other fields such as ethics, philosophy, law, [[animal rights]] and [[animal welfare]]. It may also be touched upon by [[sociology]] which looks both at zoosadism in examining patterns and issues related to [[sexual abuse]] and at non-sexual zoophilia in examining the role of animals as emotional support and companionship in human lives, and may fall within the scope of [[psychiatry]] if it becomes necessary to consider its significance in a clinical context.
The ''Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine'' (Vol. 18, February 2011) states that sexual contact with animals is almost never a clinically significant problem by itself;<ref name="scidirectpii">{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.jflm.2011.01.004 |title=A new classification of zoophilia |year=2011 |last1=Aggrawal |first1=Anil |journal=Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine |volume=18 |issue=2 |pages=73–8 |pmid=21315301}}</ref> it also states that there are several kinds of zoophiles:<ref name="scidirectpii"/>

{{div col}}
# Human-animal role-players
# Romantic zoophiles
# Zoophilic fantasizers
# Tactile zoophiles
# Fetishistic zoophiles
# Sadistic bestials
# Opportunistic zoophiles
# Regular zoophiles
# Exclusive zoophiles
{{div col end}}

Additionally, zoophiles in categories 2, 3, and 8 (romantic zoophiles, zoophilic fantasizers, and regular zoophiles) are the most common, while zoophiles found in categories 6 and 7 (sadistic bestials and opportunistic zoophiles) are the least common.<ref name="scidirectpii"/>

Zoophilia may reflect childhood experimentation, sexual abuse or lack of other avenues of sexual expression. Exclusive desire for animals rather than humans is considered a rare paraphilia, and sufferers often have other paraphilias<ref name="LawsO'Donohue2008">{{cite book|author1=D. Richard Laws|author2=William T. O'Donohue|title=Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yIXG9FuqbaIC&pg=PA391&dq=zoophilia+rare#v=onepage|date=January 2008|publisher=Guilford Press|isbn=978-1-59385-605-2|page=391}}</ref> with which they present. Zoophiles will not usually seek help for their condition, and so do not come to the attention of psychiatrists for zoophilia itself.<ref name="Roukema2008">{{cite book|author=Richard W. Roukema|title=What Every Patient, Family, Friend, and Caregiver Needs to Know About Psychiatry, Second Edition|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=t7Mg3iuc9ygC&pg=PA133&dq=zoophilia+other+paraphilias|date=August 13, 2008|publisher=American Psychiatric Pub|isbn=978-1-58562-750-9|page=133}}</ref>

The first detailed studies of zoophilia date from prior to 1910. Peer reviewed research into zoophilia in its own right started around 1960. However, a number of the most oft-quoted studies, such as Miletski, were not published in [[peer review|peer-reviewed]] journals. There have been several significant modern books, from Masters (1962) to Beetz (2002);<ref name="Beetz2002">Beetz 2002, section 5.2.4 – 5.2.7.</ref> their research arrived at the following conclusions:

*Most zoophiles have (or have also had) long term human relationships as well or at the same time as zoosexual ones, and that zoosexual partners are usually dogs and/or horses (Masters, Miletski, Beetz)<ref name="Beetz2002"/><ref name="Aggrawal2008">{{cite book|author=Anil Aggrawal|title=Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=uNkNhPZQprcC&pg=PA257&dq=zoophilia+most+common+animal#PPA258|accessdate=13 May 2012|date=December 22, 2008|publisher=CRC Press|isbn=978-1-4200-4309-9|page=257}}</ref>
*Zoophiles' emotions and care for animals can be real, relational, authentic and (within animals' abilities) reciprocal, and not just a substitute or means of expression.<ref>(Masters, Miletski, Weinberg, Beetz)</ref> Beetz believes zoophilia is not an inclination which is chosen.<ref name="Beetz2002"/>
* Society in general at present is considerably misinformed about zoophilia, its stereotypes, and its meaning.<ref name="Beetz2002"/> The distinction between zoophilia and zoosadism is a critical one to these researchers, and is highlighted by each of these studies. Masters (1962), Miletski (1999) and Weinberg (2003) each comment significantly on the social harm caused by misunderstandings regarding zoophilia: "This destroy[s] the lives of many citizens".<ref name="Beetz2002"/>

Beetz also states the following:

{{quote|The phenomenon of sexual contact with animals is starting to lose its taboo: it is appearing more often in scholarly publications, and the public are being confronted with it, too. ... Sexual contact with animals – in the form of bestiality or zoophilia – needs to be discussed more openly and investigated in more detail by scholars working in disciplines such as animal ethics, animal behavior, anthrozoology, psychology, mental health, sociology, and the law.<ref name="BeetzPodberseck">{{cite book|author1=Anthony L. Podberscek|author2=Andrea M. Beetz|title=Bestiality and Zoophilia: Sexual Relations with Animals|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Z-GbOvrbniQC&lpg=PT91&dq=beetz%202002%20zoophilia&pg=PT94#v=onepage|accessdate=13 May 2012|date=September 1, 2005|publisher=Berg|isbn=978-0-85785-222-9|page=94}}</ref>}}

More recently, research has engaged three further directions: the speculation that at least some animals seem to enjoy a zoophilic relationship assuming [[Sadism and Masochism|sadism]] is not present, and can form an affectionate bond.<ref>Masters, 1962.</ref> Similar findings are also reported by Kinsey (cited by Masters), and others earlier in [[history]]. Miletski (1999) notes that information on sex with animals on the internet is often very emphatic as to what the zoophile believes gives pleasure and how to identify what is perceived as [[Sexual consent|consent]] beforehand. For instance, Jonathan Balcombe says animals do things for pleasure. But he himself says pet owners will be unimpressed by this statement, as this is not news to them.<ref>{{cite news|author=Jonathan Balcombe |url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/may/29/animalbehaviour.evolution |title=Animals can be happy too |newspaper=[[The Guardian]]|accessdate=13 May 2012 |location=London |date=29 May 2006}}</ref>

Beetz described the phenomenon of zoophilia/bestiality as being somewhere between crime, paraphilia and love, although she says that most research has been based on [[criminology|criminological]] reports, so the cases have frequently involved violence and psychiatric illness. She says only a few recent studies have taken data from volunteers in the community.<ref>[http://www.scie-socialcareonline.org.uk/profile.asp?guid=fac3acab-5377-4f9a-a9f0-007248ee2e43 "Bestiality/Zoophilia: A Scarcely-Investigated Phenomenon Between Crime, Paraphilia, and Love"]. Scie-SocialCareOnline.org.uk. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101115133416/http://www.scie-socialcareonline.org.uk/profile.asp?guid=fac3acab-5377-4f9a-a9f0-007248ee2e43 |date=15 November 2010 }}</ref> As with all volunteer surveys and sexual ones in particular, these studies have a potential for [[self-selection]] bias.<ref name="Slade2001">{{cite book|author=Joseph W. Slade|title=Pornography and Sexual Representation: A Reference Guide|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Opv9nz2M5c0C&pg=PA980&dq=%22volunteer+selection%22+sex|year=2001|publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group|isbn=978-0-313-31521-3|page=980}}</ref>

Medical research suggests that some zoophiles only become aroused by a specific species (such as horses), some zoophiles become aroused by multiple species (which may or may not include humans), and some zoophiles are not attracted to humans at all.<ref name="earls" /><ref>{{cite journal |pmid=15895645 |year=2005 |last1=Bhatia |first1=MS |last2=Srivastava |first2=S |last3=Sharma |first3=S |s2cid=5744962 |title=1. An uncommon case of zoophilia: A case report |volume=45 |issue=2 |pages=174–75 |journal=Medicine, Science, and the Law |doi=10.1258/rsmmsl.45.2.174}}</ref>

Researchers who observed a monkey trying to mate with a deer in 2017 ([[interspecies]] sex) said that it may provide clues into why humans have interspecies sex.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jan/10/snow-monkey-attempts-sex-with-deer-in-rare-example-of-interspecies-mating|title=Snow monkey attempts sex with deer in rare example of interspecies mating|first=Hannah|last=Devlin|date=10 January 2017|newspaper=[[The Guardian]]|accessdate=12 March 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/01/macaque-monkey-sika-deer-interspecies-mating/|title=Monkey Tries to Mate With Deer in First Ever Video|date=11 January 2017|website=Nationalgeographic.com|accessdate=12 March 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://mashable.com/2017/01/10/snow-monkey-deer/|title=Sex between snow monkey and deer shows different species may mate if they're 'deprived', study says|first=Marissa|last=Wenzke|website=Mashable.com|accessdate=12 March 2018}}</ref>

===Historical and cultural perspectives===
{{Main|Historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia}}
[[File:Judensau from Frankfurt.jpg|thumb|right|The taboo of zoophilia has led to stigmatised groups being accused of it, as with [[blood libel]]. This German illustration shows [[Jews]] performing bestiality on a ''[[Judensau]]'', while Satan watches.]]
Instances of this behavior have been found in the Bible.<ref name="aggrawal_2009_16_3">{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.jflm.2008.07.006 |title=References to the paraphilias and sexual crimes in the Bible |year=2009 |last1=Aggrawal |first1=Anil |journal=Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine |volume=16 |issue=3 |pages=109–14 |pmid=19239958}}</ref> In a cave painting from at least 8000 BC in the Northern Italian [[Val Camonica]] a man is shown about to penetrate an animal. Raymond Christinger interprets that as a show of power of a tribal chief,<ref>[http://www.archaeometry.org/sxx.htm Archaeometry.org], Link to web page and photograph, archaeometry.org</ref> and so we do not know if this practice was then more acceptable, and if the scene depicted was usual or unusual or whether it was symbolic or imaginary.<ref name="Bevan2006">{{cite book|author=Lynne Bevan|title=Worshippers and warriors: reconstructing gender and gender relations in the prehistoric rock art of Naquane National Park, Valcamonica, Brecia, northern Italy|url=https://books.google.com/?id=WzxmAAAAMAAJ&q=Coren+del+Valento+animal&dq=Coren+del+Valento+animal|year=2006|publisher=Archaeopress|isbn=978-1-84171-920-7|page=}}</ref> The "Cambridge Illustrated History of Prehistoric Art" says the scene may be humorous, as the penetrating man seems to be waving cheerfully with his hand at the same time. Potters seem to have spent time depicting the practice, but this may be because they found the idea amusing.<ref name="Bahn1998">{{cite book|author=Paul G. Bahn|title=The Cambridge Illustrated History of Prehistoric Art|url=https://books.google.com/?id=xwm_D1u_UTsC&pg=PA188&dq=%22prehistoric+art%22+bestiality|year=1998|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-45473-5|page=188}}</ref> Dr "Jacobus X", said to be the [[pen name]] of a French author, said this was clearly "before any known taboos against sex with animals existed".<ref>''Abuses Aberrations and Crimes of the Genital Sense'', 1901.</ref> Marc Epprecht states that authors such as Jacobus X do not deserve respect because their methodology is based on hearsay, and was designed for voyeuristic titillation of the reader.<ref>{{cite journal|url=https://books.google.com/?id=dJdErRqoBeQC&pg=PA193&dq=%22Jacobus+X%22+taboos|title="Bisexuality" and the politics of normal in African Ethnography|journal= Anthropologica|volume=48|pages=187–201|number=2|year=2006|author=Marc Epprecht|jstor=25605310|doi=10.2307/25605310}}</ref> Masters said that since pre-historic man is [[prehistoric]] it goes without saying that we know little of his sexual behaviour;<ref>Masters, Robert E. L., ''Forbidden Sexual Behavior and Morality'', p. 5.</ref> depictions in cave paintings may only show the artist's subjective preoccupations or thoughts.

[[Pindar]], [[Herodotus]], and [[Plutarch]] claimed the Egyptians engaged in ritual congress with goats.<ref name="BulloughBullough1994">{{cite book|author1=Vern L. Bullough|author2=Bonnie Bullough|title=Human Sexuality: An Encyclopedia|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=y5HFtMkmFMYC&pg=PA61&dq=bestiality+%22ancient+egypt%22+religious |date=January 1, 1994|publisher=Taylor & Francis|isbn=978-0-8240-7972-7|page=61}}</ref> Such claims about other cultures do not necessarily reflect anything about which the author had evidence, but may be a form of propaganda or [[xenophobia]], similar to [[blood libel]].{{citation needed|date=March 2016}}

Bestiality was accepted in some North American and Middle Eastern indigenous cultures.<ref name="Noram">{{cite book|author=Judith Worell|title=Encyclopedia of Women and Gender: Sex Similarities and Differences and the Impact of Society on Gender|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/?id=7SXhBdqejgYC&pg=PA298&dq=bestiality+indigenous+gender|date=September 2001|publisher=Academic Press|isbn=978-0-12-227245-5|page=[https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofwo0000unse_g9b9/page/298 298]|chapter=Cross-Cultural Sexual Practices|url=https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofwo0000unse_g9b9/page/298}}</ref> Sexual intercourse between humans and non-human animals was not uncommon among certain Native American indigenous peoples, including the [[Hopi]].<ref name="Voget61">Voget, F. W. (1961) "Sex life of the American Indians", in Ellis, A. & Abarbanel, A. (Eds.) ''The Encyclopaedia of Sexual Behavior'', Volume 1. London: W. Heinemann, pp. 90–109.</ref><ref name=Taleyesva>{{cite book|last=Talayesva|first=Don C|title=Sun Chief: The Autobiography of a Hopi Indian|year=1942|publisher=Yale University Press|page=78|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ebB-BbI0wx8C&printsec=frontcover&vq=zoophilia#v=onepage&q=intercourse%20chicken&f=false|author2=Simmons, Leo William|accessdate=12 December 2012|isbn=9780300002270}}</ref> Voget describes the sexual lives of young Native Americans as "rather inclusive", including bestiality.<ref name="Voget61"/> In addition, the [[Copper Inuit]] people had "no aversion to intercourse with live animals".<ref name="Voget61"/>

Several cultures built temples ([[Khajuraho]], India) or other structures ([[Sagaholm]], [[tumulus|barrow]], Sweden) with zoophilic carvings on the exterior, however at [[Khajuraho]], these depictions are not on the interior, perhaps depicting that these are things that belong to the profane world rather than the spiritual world, and thus are to be left outside.{{citation needed|date=March 2016}}

In the Church-oriented culture of the [[Middle Ages]], zoophilic activity was met with execution, typically burning, and death to the animals involved either the same way or by hanging, as "both a violation of [[Religion and sexuality|Biblical edicts]] and a degradation of man as a spiritual being rather than one that is purely animal and carnal".<ref>Masters (1962)</ref> Some witches were accused of having congress with the devil in the form of an animal. As with all accusations and confessions extracted under torture in the [[witch trials in Early Modern Europe]], their validity cannot be ascertained.<ref name="BulloughBullough1994"/>

===Religious perspectives===
Passages in [[Leviticus 18]] (Lev 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 Jewish, Christian, and Muslim theologians as categorical denunciation of bestiality. However, the teachings of the [[New Testament]] have been interpreted by some as not expressly forbidding bestiality.<ref name="Plummer">{{cite conference |last=Plummer |first=Keith |title=To beast or not to beast: does the law of Christ forbid zoophilia? |year=2001 |url=http://place.asburyseminary.edu/trenpapers/892 |conference=53rd National Conference of the Evangelical Theological Society |location=Colorado Springs, CO}}</ref>

In Part II of his ''[[Summa Theologica]]'', medieval philosopher [[Thomas Aquinas]] ranked various "unnatural vices" (sex acts resulting in "venereal pleasure" rather than procreation) by degrees of sinfulness, concluding that "the most grievous is the sin of bestiality".<ref>[http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas-homo.html Fordham.edu] Aquinas on Unnatural Sex</ref> Some Christian theologians extend [[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]]'s view that [[Antithesis of the Law#Adultery|even having thoughts of adultery is sinful]] to imply that thoughts of committing bestial acts are likewise sinful.

[[File:Khajuraho-Lakshmana Temple erotic detal3.JPG|thumb|right|Man having intercourse with a horse, pictured on the exterior of a temple in [[Khajuraho]].]]

There are a few references in [[Hinduism|Hindu]] scriptures to religious figures engaging in symbolic sexual activity with animals such as explicit depictions of people having sex with animals included amongst the thousands of sculptures of "Life events" on the exterior of the [[Hindu temple|temple complex]] at [[Khajuraho]]. The depictions are largely symbolic depictions of the sexualization of some animals and are not meant to be taken literally.<ref>Swami Satya Prakash Saraswati, ''The Critical and Cultural Study of the Shatapatha Brahmana'', p. 415.</ref> According to the Hindu tradition of erotic painting and sculpture, having sex with an animal is believed to be actually a human having sex with a god incarnated in the form of an animal.<ref name="PodberscekBeetz2005">{{cite book|first1=Anthony L. |last1=Podberscek |first2=Andrea M. |last2=Beetz |title=Bestiality and Zoophilia: Sexual Relations with Animals |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Z-GbOvrbniQC&pg=PT12 |accessdate=4 January 2013 |date=1 September 2005 |publisher=Berg |isbn=978-0-85785-222-9 |page=12}}</ref> However, in some Hindu scriptures, such as the ''[[Bhagavata Purana]]'' and the ''[[Devi Bhagavata Purana]]'', having sex with animals, especially the cow, leads one to [[Naraka (Hinduism)|hell]], where one is tormented by having one's body rubbed on trees with razor-sharp thorns.<ref name = "mani">{{cite book|author = Mani, Vettam|title = Puranic Encyclopaedia: A Comprehensive Dictionary With Special Reference to the Epic and Puranic Literature|url = https://archive.org/details/puranicencyclopa00maniuoft|publisher = Motilal Banarsidass|year = 1975|location = Delhi|isbn = 978-0-8426-0822-0|oclc=2198347|pages = [https://archive.org/details/puranicencyclopa00maniuoft/page/368 368–70]}}</ref>

== Legal status ==
{{Main|Zoophilia and the law}}
In many jurisdictions, all forms of zoophilic acts are prohibited; others outlaw only the mistreatment of animals, without specific mention of sexual activity. In the United Kingdom, [[Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008]] (also known as the Extreme Pornography Act) outlaws images of a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive).<ref name=opsisect63>{{cite web|url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/section/63|work=Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008|title=Section 63 – Possession of extreme pornographic images|year=2008}}</ref> Despite the [[Ministry of Justice (United Kingdom)|UK Ministry of Justice]]'s explanatory note on extreme images saying "It is not a question of the intentions of those who produced the image. Nor is it a question of the sexual arousal of the defendant",<ref>{{cite web|title=Extreme Pornography|url=http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/extreme_pornography/|publisher=Crown Prosecution Service|accessdate=23 September 2015}}</ref> "it could be argued that a person might possess such an image for the purposes of satire, political commentary or simple grossness," according to ''[[The Independent]]''.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Jackman|first1=Myles|title=Is it illegal to have sex with a dead pig? Here's what the law says about the allegations surrounding David Cameron's biography|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/is-it-illegal-to-have-sex-with-a-dead-pig-heres-what-the-law-says-about-the-allegations-surrounding-10510743.html|accessdate=23 September 2015|newspaper=[[The Independent]]|date=21 September 2015}}</ref>

Many new laws banning sex with animals have been made recently, such as in [[New Hampshire]],<ref name="Newhampshire" /> [[Ohio]],{{citation needed|date=October 2019}} [[Germany]],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://dejure.org/gesetze/TierSchG/3.html|title=§ 3 TierSchG - dejure.org|website=Dejure.org|accessdate=20 October 2018}}</ref> [[Sweden]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.webpronews.com/sweden-joins-an-increasing-number-of-european-countries-that-ban-bestiality-2013-06|title=Sweden Joins An Increasing Number Of European Countries That Ban Bestiality|website=Webpronews.com|accessdate=16 November 2017}}</ref> [[Denmark]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://politik.tv2.dk/2015-04-21-flertal-for-lovaendring-nu-bliver-sex-med-dyr-ulovligt|title=Flertal for lovændring: Nu bliver sex med dyr ulovligt|date=21 April 2015|accessdate=20 October 2018}}</ref>[[Thailand]],<ref>[http://www.thailawforum.com/blog/what-are-the-laws-in-thailand-regarding-sex-with-animalsand] {{dead link|date=October 2018}}</ref> [[Costa Rica]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.elpais.cr/2016/03/09/diputados-aclaran-alcances-y-limites-de-la-nueva-ley-de-bienestar-animal/|title=Diputados aclaran alcances y límites de la nueva Ley de Bienestar Animal|website=Elpais.cr|accessdate=16 November 2017}}</ref> [[Bolivia]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.derechoteca.com/gacetabolivia/ley-no-700-del-01-de-junio-de-2015/|title=LEY No 700 del 01 de Junio de 2015 » Derechoteca|website=Derechoteca.com|accessdate=16 November 2017}}</ref> and [[Guatemala]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://gt.transdoc.com/articulos/archivos-leyes/Ley-de-Proteccin-y-Bienestar-Animal/62680|title=Transdoc :: Ley de Protección y Bienestar Animal :: transdoc.com|website=Transdoc.com|accessdate=16 November 2017}}</ref> The number of jurisdictions around the world banning it has grown in the [[2000s (decade)|2000s]] and [[2010s (decade)|2010s]].

The only EU countries where zoophilia remains legal are Finland, Hungary, and Romania.<ref name="BBC Newsbeat 2015-04-22">{{cite web |title=Denmark passes law to ban bestiality |website=BBC Newsbeat |date=2015-04-22 |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/32411241/denmark-passes-law-to-ban-bestiality |access-date=2018-08-18}}</ref>

Laws on zoophilia are sometimes triggered by specific incidents.<ref>Howard Fischer: [https://web.archive.org/web/20080515222156/http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/122006 Lawmakers hope to outlaw bestiality],
''Arizona Daily Star,'' 28 March 2006. In Arizona, the motive for legislation was a "spate of recent cases."</ref> While some laws are very specific, others employ vague terms such as "[[sodomy]]" or "bestiality", which lack legal precision and leave it unclear exactly which acts are covered. In the past, some bestiality laws may have been made in the belief that sex with an animal could result in monstrous offspring, as well as offending the community. Current anti-cruelty laws focus more specifically on animal welfare while anti-bestiality laws 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|978-0-226-67564-0}}. Page 207.</ref>
Notable legal views include Sweden, where a 2005 report by the Swedish Animal Welfare Agency for the government expressed concern over the increase in reports of [[horse-ripping]] incidents. The agency believed current animal cruelty legislation was not sufficient in protecting animals from abuse and needed updating, but concluded that on balance it was not appropriate to call for a ban.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=1357 |title=TheLocal.se |publisher=TheLocal.se |date=26 January 2012 |accessdate=13 May 2012 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130515124451/http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=1357 |archivedate=15 May 2013 |df=dmy-all }}</ref> In [[New Zealand]], the 1989 Crimes Bill considered abolishing bestiality as a criminal offense, and instead viewing it as a mental health issue, but they did not, and people can still be prosecuted for it. Under Section 143 of the Crimes Act 1961, individuals can serve a sentence of seven years duration for animal sexual abuse and the offence is considered 'complete' in the event of 'penetration'.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM329260.html |title=Crimes Act 1961 No 43 (as at 01 October 2012), Public Act – New Zealand Legislation |publisher=Legislation.govt.nz |date=2012-10-01 |accessdate=2013-01-04}}</ref> In [[Canada]], a clarification of the anti-bestiality law was made in 2016 which legalizes most forms of sexual contact with animals other than penetration.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/sum-som-eng.aspx?cas=36450|title=Her Majesty the Queen v. D.L.W.|publisher=Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (ORSCC)|date=2016-05-02|accessdate=2016-06-20}}</ref>

Some countries once had laws against single males living with female animals, such as [[alpaca]]s.{{Citation needed|date=January 2009}} Copulating with a female alpaca is still specifically against the law in Peru.<ref name="Leavitt2003">{{cite book|author=Fred Leavitt|title=The Real Drug Abusers|url=https://archive.org/details/realdrugabusers0000leav|url-access=registration|quote=female alpaca peru copulate.|date=January 1, 2003|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield|isbn=978-0-7425-2518-4|page=[https://archive.org/details/realdrugabusers0000leav/page/195 195]}}</ref>

As of 2017, bestiality is illegal in 45 U.S. states. Most state bestiality laws were enacted between 1999 and 2017.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.animallaw.info |title=Michigan State University College of Law |publisher=Animallaw.info |date= |accessdate=2013-01-04}}</ref><ref name="TableLaws2016">{{cite web|url=http://www.animallaw.info/topic/table-state-animal-sexual-assault-laws |title=Table of State Animal Sexual Assault Laws | Animal Legal & Historical Center |website=Animallaw.info |date=2016-06-24 |accessdate=2017-04-17}}</ref> Until 2005, there was a farm near [[Enumclaw, Washington]] that was described as an “animal brothel”, where people paid to have sex with animals. After [[Enumclaw horse sex case|an incident on 2 July 2005]], when a man was pronounced dead in the emergency room of the Enumclaw community hospital after his colon ruptured due to having had anal sex with a [[horse]], the farm garnered police attention. The [[Washington State Legislature|state legislature]] of the [[State of Washington]], which had been one of the few states in the United States without a law against bestiality, within six months passed a bill making bestiality illegal.<ref>Johnston, Lynda and [[Robyn Longhurst|Longhurst, Robyn]] ''Space, Place, and Sex'' [[Lanham, Maryland]]:2010 Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, p. 110.</ref><ref>"[https://web.archive.org/web/20080822194920/http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0%2C%2C2-10-1462_1739698%2C00.html Man dies after sex with horse]". News24, 19 July 2005.</ref> Arizona,<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/16/sheriff-says-craigslist-facilitates-bestiality |title=Sheriff says Craigslist facilitates bestiality |newspaper=Washington Times |date=2011-03-16 |accessdate=2013-01-04}}</ref> Alaska,<ref>{{cite news |last1=Sessions |first1=David |title=Bill to Criminalize Bestiality Advances in Alaska Legislature |url=http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/01/27/bill-to-criminalize-bestiality-advances-in-alaska-legislature |accessdate=2020-02-10 |work=[[Politics Daily]] |date=27 January 2010 |archiveurl=https://archive.ph/20120908120705/http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/01/27/bill-to-criminalize-bestiality-advances-in-alaska-legislature/ |archivedate=2012-09-08 |url-status=unfit}}</ref> Florida,<ref>{{cite news|url=http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-05-06/news/29534132_1_bestiality-bill-house-leaders-new-bill |location=New York |work=Daily News |first=Nina |last=Mandell |title=Legislation outlawing bestiality makes it to Florida governor's desk |date=6 May 2011}}</ref> Alabama,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://openstates.org/al/bills/2014rs/SB151/|title=SB 151 - Alabama 2014 Regular Session|website=Openstate.org|accessdate=17 April 2017}}</ref> New Jersey,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://legiscan.com/NJ/text/A3012/2014|title=New Jersey A3012 - 2014-2015 - Regular Session|accessdate=17 April 2017}}</ref> New Hampshire,<ref name="Newhampshire">{{cite web|url=http://legiscan.com/NH/text/HB1547/id/1286995|title=New Hampshire HB1547 - 2016 - Regular Session|accessdate=17 April 2017}}</ref> Ohio,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://legiscan.com/OH/text/SB195/2015|title=Ohio SB195 - 2015-2016 - 131st General Assembly|website=Legiscan.com|accessdate=16 November 2017}}</ref> Texas,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/politex-blog/article160220199.html|title=Texas: Crackdown on animal cruelty, bestiality, starts Sept. 1|website=Star-telegram.com|accessdate=12 March 2018}}</ref> Vermont,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Documents/2018/Docs/ACTS/ACT062/ACT062%20As%20Enacted.pdf|title=No. 62. An act relating to criminal justice|website=Legislature.vermont.gov|accessdate=20 October 2018}}</ref> and Nevada<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/79th2017/Reports/history.cfm?BillName=AB391|title=AB391|website=Leg.state.nv.us|accessdate=12 March 2018}}</ref> have banned sex with animals between 2006 and the present, with the latter 5 all banning it in 2017. When such laws are proposed, they are never questioned or debated.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/dcblog/2011/03/senate_again_passes_bestiality.html |title=Senate again passes bestiality bill | Florida Politics | Sun Sentinel blog |publisher=Weblogs.sun-sentinel.com |date=2011-03-24 |accessdate=2013-01-04}}</ref><ref name="ScientificAmerican">{{cite magazine|last=Bering |first=Jesse |url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=animal-lovers-zoophiles-make-scient-2010-03-24 |title=Animal Lovers: Zoophiles Make Scientists Rethink Human Sexuality | Bering in Mind, Scientific American Blog Network |magazine=Scientific American|date=2010-03-24 |accessdate=2013-01-04}}</ref> Laws which prohibit non-abusive bestiality have been criticized for being discriminatory, unjust and unconstitutional.<ref name="interdis"/><ref name="mroberts" />

== Pornography ==
{{Main|Obscenity|Erotica and pornography|Legal status of Internet pornography}}
{{category see also|Category:Animal pornography}}Zoophilia Wiki has a section for [[:Category:Zoophilia in Art|Zoophilia in Art.]] [[File:Édouard-Henri Avril (28).jpg|thumb|300px|''Ancient Greek sodomising a goat"'', plate XVII from '[[De Figuris Veneris]]' by F.K. Forberg, illustrated by [[Édouard-Henri Avril]].]]
Pornography involving sex with animals is widely illegal, even in most countries where bestiality itself is not explicitly outlawed.{{citation needed|date=November 2013}}

In the [[United States]], zoophilic pornography would be considered [[obscene]] if it did not meet the standards of the [[Miller Test]] and therefore is not openly sold, mailed, distributed or imported across state boundaries or within states which prohibit it. Under U.S. law, 'distribution' includes transmission across the Internet. Production and mere possession appears to be legal, however. U.S. prohibitions on distribution of sexual or obscene materials are {{As of|2005|lc=on}} in some doubt, having been ruled [[Constitutionality|unconstitutional]] in ''United States v. Extreme Associates'' (a judgement which was overturned on appeal, December 2005).

Similar restrictions apply in Germany (see [[Zoophilia#Legal status|above]]). In New Zealand the possession, making or distribution of material promoting bestiality is illegal.

The potential use of media for pornographic movies was seen from the start of the era of silent film. ''Polissons and Galipettes'' (re-released 2002 as "The Good Old Naughty Days") is a collection of early French silent films for brothel use, including some animal pornography, dating from around 1905 – 1930.

Material featuring sex with animals is widely available on the Internet, due to its ease of production.{{citation needed|date=April 2013}} Prior to the advent of mass-market magazines such as ''[[Playboy]]'', so-called [[Tijuana Bible]]s were a form of pornographic tract popular in America, sold as anonymous underground publications typically comprising a small number of stapled comic-strips representing characters and celebrities.<ref>An example digitized Tijuana Bible entitled ''The Pet'' from the 1960s is linked at [http://tijuanabibles.org/cgi-bin/hazel.cgi?action=detail&item=TB073&fullsize=0 tijuanabibles.org page link] (also see [http://tijuanabibles.org/cgi-bin/hazel.cgi/hzpi/u/HzSt031FT7pj.ctu7.2/hazel.cgi?action=detail&item=TB073&fullsize=1 full size] and [http://tijuanabibles.org/cgi-bin/hazel.cgi?action=SEARCH&SEARCH_SPEC=bestiality&SUBMIT_ACTION_SEARCH=Search search]).</ref>
The promotion of "stars" began with the Danish [[Bodil Joensen]], in the period of 1969–72, along with other porn actors such as the Americans [[Linda Lovelace]] (''Dogarama'', 1969), Chessie Moore (multiple films, c. 1994), Kerri Downs (three films, 1998) and Calina Lynx (aka Kelly G'raffe) (two films, 1998). Another early film to attain great infamy was "[[Animal Farm (video)|Animal Farm]]", smuggled into Great Britain around 1980 without details as to makers or provenance.<ref>{{cite web|title=The Dark Side of Porn Season 2 (2006) - Documentary / TV-Show|url=http://crimedocumentary.com/dark-side-porn-season-2-2006/|website=Crimedocumentary.com|accessdate=28 May 2018}}</ref> The film was later traced to a crude juxtaposition of smuggled cuts from many of Bodil Joensen's 1970s Danish movies.

Into the 1980s, the Dutch took the lead, creating figures like "Wilma" and the "Dutch Sisters". In the 1980s, "bestiality" was featured in Italian adult films with actresses like Denise Dior, Francesca Ray, and [[Marina Hedman]], manifested early in the softcore flick ''Bestialità'' in 1976.

Today, in [[Hungary]], where production faces no legal limitations, zoophilic materials have become a substantial industry that produces a number of films and magazines, particularly for Dutch companies such as ''Topscore'' and ''Book & Film International'', and the [[genre]] has stars such as "Hector", a [[Great Dane|great dane]] dog starring in several films. Many Hungarian mainstream performers also appeared anonymously in animal pornography in their early careers, including for example, Suzy Spark.<ref>[http://www.eurobabeindex.com/sbandoindex/suzyspark.html EuroBabeIndex.com], Suzy Spark</ref>

In Japan, animal pornography is used to bypass censorship laws, often featuring Japanese and Swedish{{citation needed|date=March 2017}} female models performing [[fellatio]] on animals, because oral penetration of a non-human penis is not in the scope of Japanese mosaic censor. Sakura Sakurada is an [[AV idol]] known to have appeared in animal pornography, specifically in the AV ''The Dog Game'' in 2006. While primarily underground, there are a number of animal pornography actresses who specialize in bestiality movies. A box-office success of the 1980s, ''[[24 Horas de Sexo Explícito]]'' featured zoophilia.

In the United Kingdom, [[Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008]] criminalises possession of realistic pornographic images depicting sex with animals (see [[extreme pornography]]), including fake images and simulated acts, as well as images depicting sex with dead animals, where no crime has taken place in the production. The law provides for sentences of up to two years in prison; a sentence of 12 months was handed down in one case in 2011.<ref>[http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2086306_acts_of_depravity_found_on_dads_computer ‘Acts of depravity’ found on dad’s computer], ''[[Reading Post]]'', 26 January 2011.</ref>

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

==Health and safety==
For zoos to add: This article should be updated with information about the risks of human-to-human transmission of [[Venereal Disease|venereal disease]] compared to animal-to-human and human-to-animal Zoonotic transmission. There should also be a new section about well-being for the animal partners. Bites and trampling are mentioned obliquely, but it should be made clear how different species interact (love bites from horses, risk of scratching from the front claws of dogs, salmonella on reptiles, etc).

{{Main|Zoonosis}}
Infections that are transmitted from animals to humans are called [[Zoonosis|zoonoses]]. Some [[zoonoses]] may be transferred through casual contact, but others are much more readily transferred by activities that expose humans to the [[semen]], vaginal fluids, [[urine]], [[saliva]], [[feces]] and blood of animals. Examples of zoonoses are [[Brucellosis]], [[Q fever]], [[leptospirosis]], and [[toxocariasis]]. Therefore, sexual activity with animals is, in some instances, a high risk activity. [[Allergy|Allergic reactions]] to animal semen may occur, including [[anaphylaxis]]. Bites and other trauma from penetration or trampling may occur.

== Zoophiles ==
=== Non-sexual zoophilia ===
The love of animals is not necessarily sexual in nature. In [[psychology]] and [[sociology]] the word "zoophilia" is sometimes used without sexual implications. Being fond of animals in general, or as pets, is accepted in Western society, and is usually respected or tolerated. However, the word zoophilia is used to mean a sexual preference towards animals, which makes it<ref name="CraigheadNemeroff2002">{{cite book|editor1=W. Edward Craighead|editor2=Charles B. Nemeroff|title=The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology and Behavioral Science|url=https://books.google.com/?id=JQMRmyOfpJ8C&dq=zoophilia+meaning&q=zoophilia+meaning#v=snippet&q=zoophilia%20meaning&f=false|date=November 11, 2002|publisher=John Wiley & Sons|isbn=978-0-471-27083-6|page=1050}}</ref> a [[paraphilia]]. Some zoophiles may not act on their sexual attraction to animals. People who identify as zoophiles may feel their love for animals is romantic rather than purely sexual, and say this makes them different from those committing entirely sexually motivated acts of bestiality.<ref name="Delaney2003">{{cite book|author=David Delaney|title=Law and Nature|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZjqWw-9ZQfYC&pg=PA252&dq=zoophilia+romantic|year=2003|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-1-139-43700-4|page=252}}</ref>

=== Zoophile community ===
[[File:Zeta toy MMB 01.jpg|thumb|right|Several companies (e.g., Bad Dragon) sell [[dildo]]s in the shape of animal penises, both realistic and fantastical. This one is based on a [[wolf's penis]].]]
An online survey which recruited participants over the internet concluded that prior to the arrival of widespread [[computer network]]ing, most zoophiles would not have known other zoophiles, and for the most part, zoophiles engaged in bestiality secretly, or told only trusted friends, family or partners. The internet and its predecessors made people able to search for information on topics which were not otherwise easily accessible and to communicate with relative safety and anonymity. Because of the diary-like [[intimacy]] of blogs and the anonymity of the internet, zoophiles had the ideal opportunity to "openly" express their sexuality.<ref>Montclair, 1997, cited by Miletski, 1999, p .35.</ref> As with many other [[alternative lifestyle|alternate lifestyles]], broader networks began forming in the 1980s when participating in [[online community|networked social groups]] became more common at home and elsewhere.<ref name="Weinberg and Williams">Weinberg and Williams</ref> Such developments in general were described by Markoff in 1990; the linking of computers meant that people thousands of miles apart could feel the intimacy akin to being in a small village together.<ref>Markoff, 1990.</ref> The popular newsgroup [[alt.sex|alt.sex.bestiality]], said to be in the top 1% of newsgroup interest (i.e. number 50 out of around 5000), – and reputedly started in humor<ref>Miletski p. 35.</ref> – along with personal bulletin boards and talkers, chief among them Sleepy's multiple worlds, Lintilla, and Planes of Existence, were among the first group media of this kind in the late 1980s and early 1990s. These groups rapidly drew together zoophiles, some of whom also created personal and social websites and [[Internet Forum|internet forums]]. By around 1992–1994, the wide social net had evolved.<ref>Miletski (1999)</ref> This was initially centered around the above-mentioned [[newsgroup]], alt.sex.bestiality, which during the six years following 1990 had matured into a discussion and support group.<ref>Milteski (1999), p. 35.</ref><ref>Andriette, 1996.</ref><ref>Fox, 1994.</ref><ref>Montclair, 1997.</ref> The newsgroup included information about health issues, laws governing zoophilia, bibliography relating to the subject, and community events.<ref>Donofrio, 1996.</ref>

Weinberg and Williams observe that the internet can socially integrate an incredibly large number of people. In Kinsey's day contacts between animal lovers were more localized and limited to male compatriots in a particular rural community. Further, while the farm boys Kinsey researched might have been part of a rural culture in which sex with animals was a part, the sex itself did not define the community. The zoophile community is not known to be particularly large compared to other subcultures which make use of the internet, so Weinberg and Williams surmised its aims and beliefs would likely change little as it grew. Those particularly active on the internet may not be aware of a wider subculture, as there is not much of a wider subculture, Weinberg and Williams felt the virtual zoophile group would lead the development of the subculture.<ref name="Weinberg and Williams"/>

Websites aim to provide support and social assistance to zoophiles (including resources to help and rescue abused or mistreated animals), but these are not usually well publicized. Such work is often undertaken as needed by individuals and friends, within social networks, and by word of mouth.<ref>Miletski (1999), p. 22.</ref>

Zoophiles tend to experience their first zoosexual feelings during adolescence, and tend to be secretive about it, hence limiting the ability for non-Internet communities to form.<ref name="browplm2">{{cite web|author=Thomas Francis |url=http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2009-08-20/news/those-who-practice-bestiality-say-they-re-part-of-the-next-gay-rights-movement/2/ |title=Those Who Practice Bestiality Say They're Part of the Next Sexual Rights Movement – Page 2 – News – Broward/Palm Beach – New Times Broward-Palm Beach |publisher=Broward/Palm Beach |date=20 August 2009 |accessdate=13 May 2012}}</ref>

== ZooWiki ==
[[File:Zeta sign.png|thumb|ZooWiki logo]]
'''ZooWiki''' was a [[Wikipedia:wiki|wiki]] for the German [[zoophile]] community. It was created on May 23, 2005, by [[Wulfie]]. It had 89 articles as of October 2006, on topics such as [[literature]], authors, philosophy, events, vendors, anatomy and general trivia. ZooWiki's policies specified that it should not contain explicit or illegal content. ZooWiki was at http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/ (defunct by July 2012)

== Debate over zoophilia or zoophilic relations ==
[[File:Leda - after Michelangelo Buonarroti.jpg|thumb|[[Leda and the Swan (Michelangelo)|''Leda and the Swan'']], copy of a lost Michelangelo.]]

Because of its controversial nature, people have developed arguments both for<ref name="singer01">{{cite web|author=Pablo Stafforini |url=http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001----.htm |title=Heavy Petting, by Peter Singer |publisher=Utilitarian.net |accessdate=13 May 2012 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120606173906/http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001----.htm |archivedate=6 June 2012 }}</ref> and against<ref>{{cite web|url=http://stopbestiality.wordpress.com/2010/12/12/bestiality-and-lack-of-consent/ |title=Bestiality and Lack of Consent " StopBestiality |publisher=Stopbestiality.wordpress.com |accessdate=13 May 2012}}</ref> zoophilia. Arguments for and against zoosexual activity from a variety of sources, including religious, moral, ethical, psychological, medical and social.

=== Arguments against bestiality ===
Bestiality is seen by the government of the United Kingdom as profoundly disturbed behavior (as indicated by the UK [[Home Office]] review on sexual offences in 2002).<ref>{{cite book |chapter-url=http://www.archive2.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm56/5668/5668.pdf |title=Protecting the Public: Strengthening Protection Against Sex Offenders and Reforming the Laws on Sexual Offences |chapter=Other offences |pages=32–3 |year=2002 |isbn=978-0-10-156682-7 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20131205100653/http://www.archive2.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm56/5668/5668.pdf |archivedate=5 December 2013 |df=dmy-all }}</ref> [[Andrea Beetz]] states there is evidence that there can be violent zoosadistic approaches to sex with animals. Beetz argues that animals might be traumatized even by a non-violent, sexual approach from a human;<ref name="Beetz 2002, section 5.2.8">Beetz 2002, section 5.2.8.</ref> however, Beetz also says that in some cases, non-abusive bestiality can be reciprocally pleasurable for both the human and non-human animal.<ref name="Beetz 2002, section 5.2.8"/>

An argument from human dignity is given by Wesley J. Smith, a senior fellow and [[Intelligent Design]] proponent at the [[Center for Science and Culture]] of the conservative Christian [[Discovery Institute]]: – "such behavior is profoundly degrading and utterly subversive to the crucial understanding that human beings are unique, special, and of the highest moral worth in the known universe—a concept known as '[[human exceptionalism]]' ... one of the reasons bestiality is condemned through law is that such degrading conduct unacceptably subverts standards of basic human dignity and is an affront to humankind's inestimable importance and intrinsic moral worth."<ref>[http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2005/08/bestiality-and-varied-attacks-on-human.html Wesleyjsmith.com] and [http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/985pgwjh.asp Weeklystandard.com], 31 August 2005.</ref>

One of the primary critiques of bestiality is that it is harmful to animals and necessarily abusive, because animals are unable to give or withhold consent.<ref name=Regan63>Regan, Tom. ''Animal Rights, Human Wrongs''. Rowman & Littlefield, 2003, pp. 63–4, 89.</ref>

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has said that as animals do not have the same capacity for thinking as humans, they are unable to give full consent. The HSUS takes the position that all sexual activity between humans and animals is abusive, whether it involves physical injury or not.<ref>[http://www.nmanimalcontrol.com/aco_fo/sex_abuse/ Sex Abuse] {{webarchive|url=https://archive.today/20071214033934/http://www.nmanimalcontrol.com/aco_fo/sex_abuse/ |date=14 December 2007 }}, NManimalControl.com</ref> In his 1993 article, Dr. Frank Ascione stated that "bestiality may be considered abusive even in cases when physical harm to an animal does not occur." In a 1997 article, Piers Beirne, Professor of Criminology at the University of Southern Maine, points out that 'for genuine consent to sexual relations to be present...both participants must be conscious, fully informed and positive in their desires.'<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nmanimalcontrol.com/aco_fo/sex_abuse/ |title=The First Strike Campaign: ANIMAL SEXUAL ABUSE FACT SHEET |website=NManimalControl.com |accessdate=13 May 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070312010653/http://www.nmanimalcontrol.com/aco_fo/sex_abuse/ |archive-date=2007-03-12}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.2752/089279393787002105 |title=Children Who are Cruel to Animals: A Review of Research and Implications for Developmental Psychopathology |year=1993 |last1=Ascione |first1=Frank R. |journal=Anthrozoös: A Multidisciplinary Journal of the Interactions of People and Animals |volume=6 |issue=4 |pages=226–47}}</ref>

=== Arguments for bestiality ===
[[File:Persian woman with an animal Wellcome L0033282.jpg|thumb|Book illustration depicting dog with woman, [[Isfahan]], [[Iran]], 15th century.]]
Some defenders of bestiality argue that the issue of [[sexual consent]] is irrelevant because many legal human practices (such as [[semen collection]], [[Artificial insemination of livestock and pets|artificial insemination]], [[hunting]], [[animal testing|laboratory testing]], and slaughtering animals for meat) do not involve the consent of the animal.<ref>{{cite web|author=28 February 2011 by Lucas Wachob |url=http://www.breezejmu.org/opinion/columnists/article_f08fbb0c-42ca-11e0-ab43-00127992bc8b.html |title=Column: In defense of chicken 'lovers' – The Breeze: Columnists |website=Breezejmu.org |date=28 February 2011 |accessdate=13 May 2012}}</ref> Brian Cutteridge states the following regarding this argument:

<blockquote>"Animal sexual autonomy is regularly violated for human financial gain through procedures such as [artificial insemination and slaughter]. Such procedures are probably more disturbing physically and psychologically than acts of zoophilia would be, yet the issue of consent on the part of the animal is never raised in the discussion of such procedures. To confine the 'right' of any animal strictly to acts of zoophilia is thus to make a law [against zoophilia] based not on reason but on moral prejudice, and to breach the constitutional rights of zoophiles to due process and equality before the law. [...] Laws which criminalize zoophilia based on societal abhorrence of such acts rather than any real harm caused by such acts are an unjust and unconstitutional infringement on individual liberty."<ref name="interdis">{{cite web |url=http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/cutteridgepaper.pdf |title=Inter-disciplinary.net |accessdate=13 May 2012 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120722100122/http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/cutteridgepaper.pdf |archivedate=22 July 2012 |df=dmy-all }}</ref></blockquote>

[[Hani Miletski]] believes that "Animals are capable of sexual consent – and even initiation – in their own way."<ref>Miltski, 1999, p. 50.</ref> It is not an uncommon practice for dogs to attempt to copulate with ("[[hump]]") the legs of people of both genders.<ref>Cauldwell, 1948 & 1968; Queen, 1997.</ref> Rosenberger (1968) emphasizes that as far as cunnilingus is concerned, dogs require no training, and even Dekkers (1994) and Menninger (1951) admit that sometimes animals take the initiative and do so impulsively.<ref name="Beetz 2002, section 5.2.8"/> Those supporting zoophilic activity feel animals sometimes even seem to enjoy the sexual attention<ref>Blake, 1971, and Greenwood, 1963, both cited in Miletski, 1999.</ref> or voluntarily initiate sexual activity with humans.<ref name="Dekkers, 1994">Dekkers, 1994.</ref> Animals such as dogs can be willing participants in sexual activity with humans, and "seem to enjoy the attention provided by the sexual interaction with a human."<ref name="interdis"/> Animal owners normally know what their own pets like or do not like. Most people can tell if an animal does not like how it is being petted, because it will move away. An animal that is liking being petted pushes against the hand, and seems to enjoy it. To those defending bestiality this is seen as a way in which animals give consent, or the fact that a dog might wag its tail.<ref>(Einsenhaim, 1971, cited in Kathmandu, 2004)"</ref>

[[Preference utilitarianism|Utilitarian]] philosopher and [[Animal rights|animal liberation]] author [[Peter Singer]] argues that bestiality is not unethical so long as it involves no harm or cruelty to the animal<ref name=SingerNerve>Singer, Peter. [https://web.archive.org/web/20080616055314/http://www.nerve.com/Opinions/Singer/heavyPetting/main.asp Heavy Petting], ''Nerve'', 2001.</ref> (see ''[[Harm principle]]''). In the article "Heavy Petting,"<ref name="Singer01">{{cite web|author=Pablo Stafforini |url=http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001----.htm |title=Utilitarian.com |website=Utilitarian.com |accessdate=13 May 2012 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120606173906/http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001----.htm |archivedate=6 June 2012 }}</ref> Singer argues that zoosexual activity need not be abusive, and that relationships could form which were mutually enjoyed. Singer and others have argued that people's dislike of bestiality is partly caused by irrational [[speciesism]] and [[anthropocentrism]].<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1093/isle/isq034 |title=Animal Liberation or Human Redemption: Racism and Speciesism in Toni Morrison's Beloved |year=2010 |last1=Ruetenik |first1=T. |journal=Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment |volume=17 |issue=2 |pages=317–326}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1353/cul.2010.0020 |first=Colleen Glenney |last=Boggs |date=Fall 2010 |title=American Bestiality: Sex, Animals, and the Construction of Subjectivity |journal=Cultural Critique |volume=76 |issue=76|pages=98–125 |url=http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/cultural_critique/summary/v076/76.boggs.html |jstor=40925347|doi-broken-date=2020-01-22 }}</ref> Because interspecies sex occurs in nature,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070314-hybrids.html |title=Interspecies Sex: Evolution's Hidden Secret? |website=News.nationalgeographic.com |date=28 October 2010 |accessdate=13 May 2012}}</ref> and because humans ''are'' animals,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.stanford.edu/group/pwruab/cgi-bin/pwrofthepen/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/kerstin-grune1.pdf|title=Changing Perspectives of Bestiality: Breaking the Human-Animal Distinction to Violating Animal Rights|website=Stanford.edu|accessdate=20 October 2018}}</ref> supporters argue that zoosexual activity is not "unnatural" and is not intrinsically wrong.<ref name="mroberts">{{Cite SSRN|last=Roberts|first=Michael|date=2009-06-01|title=The Unjustified Prohibition against Bestiality: Why the Laws in Opposition Can Find No Support under the Harm Principle|ssrn=1328310|df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1080/01639625.2010.538356 |title=Screwing the Pooch: Legitimizing Accounts in a Zoophilia On-line Community |year=2011 |last1=Maratea |first1=R. J. |journal=Deviant Behavior |volume=32 |issue=10 |pages=918–943}}</ref>

Research has proven that non-human animals can and do have [[Animal co-opted sexual behavior|sex for non-reproductive purposes]] (and [[Animal sexual behaviour#Sex for pleasure|for pleasure]]).<ref name="Poiani">{{cite book|author1=Aldo Poiani|author2=A. F. Dixson|title=Animal Homosexuality: A Biosocial Perspective|url=https://books.google.com/?id=EftT_1bsPOAC&lpg=PR7&dq=animals%20homosexuality&pg=PR7#v=onepage&q=animals%20homosexuality&f=false;|date=19 August 2010 |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|isbn=978-1-139-49038-2|page=7}}</ref> In 2006, a Danish Animal Ethics Council report concluded that ethically performed zoosexual activity is capable of providing a positive experience for all participants, and that some non-human animals are [[Sexual imprinting|sexually attracted to humans]]<ref>[http://www.justitsministeriet.dk/fileadmin/downloads/Dyrevaernsraad/Seksuel%20omgang%20med%20dyr.pdf Danish Animal Ethics Council report] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111009031312/http://www.justitsministeriet.dk/fileadmin/downloads/Dyrevaernsraad/Seksuel%20omgang%20med%20dyr.pdf |date=9 October 2011 }} ''Udtalelse om menneskers seksuelle omgang med dyr'' published November 2006. Council members included two academics, two farmers/smallholders, and two veterinary surgeons, as well as a third veterinary surgeon acting as secretary.</ref> (for example, [[dolphins]]).<ref>{{cite news|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2002-06-04/world/uk.dolphin_1_ric-o-barry-dolphin-swimmers?_s=PM:WORLD |work=CNN |title=Bid to save over-friendly dolphin |date=28 May 2002 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120321162034/http://articles.cnn.com/2002-06-04/world/uk.dolphin_1_ric-o-barry-dolphin-swimmers?_s=PM%3AWORLD |archivedate=21 March 2012 }}</ref>

Some zoophiles claim that they are not abusive towards animals:<ref name="ScientificAmerican" />

<blockquote>"In other recent surveys, the majority of zoophiles scoffed at the notion that they were abusive toward animals in any way—far from it, they said. Many even consider themselves to be animal welfare advocates in addition to zoophiles."<ref name="ScientificAmerican" /></blockquote>

== Mentions in the media ==
Because of its controversial nature, different countries vary in the discussion of bestiality. Often sexual matters are the subject of legal or regulatory requirement. In 2005 the UK broadcasting regulator ([[OFCOM]]) updated its code stating that freedom of expression is at the heart of any democratic state. Adult audiences should be informed as to what they will be viewing or hearing, and the young, who cannot make a fully informed choice for themselves, should be protected. Hence a [[Watershed (television)|watershed]] and other precautions were set up for explicit sexual material, to protect young people. Zoophile activity and other sexual matters may be discussed, but only in an appropriate context and manner.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/codes/bcode/?a=87101 |title=OFCOM Broadcasting Code |website=Ofcom.org.uk |date=28 February 2011 |accessdate=13 May 2012}}</ref>

The IPT {{Clarify|date=December 2019}} was replaced after the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act in 1993, replaced with bodies designed to allow both more debate and increased consistency, and possession and supply of material that it is decided are objectionable was made a criminal offence

== See also ==
* [[Wikipedia:Zoophilia|Zoophilia]] on Wikipedia
* [[Bestiality]]
* [[Zetacon]]

== References ==
<references />

=== External links ===
* [https://www.zeta-verein.de/en/ ZETA Official Website]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20190516022338if_/https://www.adjectivespecies.com/2012/02/06/zoophilia-in-the-furry-community/ "Zoophilia in the Furry Community"] article on the blog ''[adjective][species]'' (defunct, archived on The Wayback Machine)

{{Home}}

[[Category:Sexuality]]
[[Category:Terms]]

Zoophilia Wiki:Zoophilia

2026-04-01T08:12:32Z

Bloit: Blanked the page

Template:Bounce.css

2026-04-01T08:11:07Z

Bloit: Blanked the page

User:Swagmuslimlover51

2026-04-01T08:09:33Z

Bloit: Undo revision 135267 by BYaKuReN HiJiRi SHoTJaK NooNKiLLeR1448 (talk)

Portal:LGBT/TabsTop

2026-04-01T08:09:21Z

Bloit: Undo revision 135257 by BYaKuReN HiJiRi SHoTJaK NooNKiLLeR1448 (talk)

Portal:LGBT

2026-04-01T08:09:06Z

Bloit: Undo revision 135255 by BYaKuReN HiJiRi SHoTJaK NooNKiLLeR1448 (talk)

Template:Furry

2026-04-01T08:06:56Z

Bloit: Undo revision 134871 by Fbecgyyyyyyydne (talk)

<noinclude>
{{Template}}

=== Usage ===
{{ic|<nowiki>{{Furry}}</nowiki>}}

For any articles that pertain to the Furry Fanom. Any articles with this template will be added into [[:Category:Furry]].

== Example==
{{Furry}}</noinclude><includeonly><div style="background:##3498df; text-align:center; font-size:85%; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;"><div style="font-size:150%;"><strong>Furry Fandom</strong></div>
This article pertains to topics involving the [[Furry Fandom]].
</div>[[Category:Furry]]</includeonly>

User:Killniggers

2026-04-01T08:06:29Z

Bloit: Blanked the page

Dipylidium caninum

2026-04-01T08:06:18Z

Bloit: Undo revision 134763 by Killdykekikesandzooniggers (talk)

{{Short description|Species of flatworm}}
{{more citations needed|date=February 2017}}
{{Speciesbox
| image = Dipyl can worm1.JPG
| image_alt = Adult "Dipylidium caninum." The scolex of the worm is very narrow and the proglottids get larger as they mature
| image_caption = Adult ''Dipylidium caninum''. The [[scolex]] of the worm is very narrow and the [[proglottids]] get larger as they mature
| genus = Dipylidium
| species = caninum
| authority = (Linnaeus, 1758)
| synonyms =
| synonyms_ref =
| subdivision_ranks =
| subdivision =
}}
[[Image:Dipylidium LifeCycle.png|thumb|250px|''Dipylidium'' life cycle]]

'''''Dipylidium caninum,''''' also called the '''flea [[tapeworm]]''', '''double-pored tapeworm''', or '''cucumber tapeworm''' (in reference to the shape of its cucumber-seed-like [[proglottid]]s, though these also resemble grains of rice or sesame seeds), is a [[cyclophyllid]] [[cestode]] that infects organisms afflicted with [[flea]]s and [[Trichodectes canis|canine chewing lice]], including [[canids|dogs]], [[felid|cat]]s, and sometimes human pet-owners, especially children.

==Adult morphology==
The adult worm is about {{convert|18|in|cm}} long. [[Gravid]] proglottids containing the worm's microscopic eggs are either passed in the definitive host's feces or may leave their host spontaneously and are then ingested by microscopic flea larvae (the intermediate hosts) in the surrounding environment. As in all members of [[family (biology)|family]] [[Dipylidiidae]], [[proglottid]]s of the adult worm have genital pores on both sides (hence the name ''double-pore tapeworm''). Each side has a set of male and female reproductive organs. The uterus is paired with 16 to 20 radial branches each. The [[scolex]] has a retractable [[Rostellum (helminth)|rostellum]] with four rows of hooks, along with the four suckers that all cyclophyllid cestodes have.

==Life cycle==
The definitive host within this life cycle is primarily canines, and occasionally felines, and in rare cases young children. The intermediate hosts include fleas (''Ctenocephalides'' spp.) and chewing lice. The first stage in the life cycle is when the gravid proglottids are either passed out through fecal matter, or actively crawl out of the anus of the host. The gravid proglottids once out of the definitive host release eggs. Then, an intermediate host will ingest an egg, which develops into a [[cysticercoid]] larva. The adult flea or louse will then harbor the infective cysticercoid until a definitive host, such as a dog, becomes infected by ingesting an infected flea or louse while grooming themselves. Humans can also become infected by ''D. caninum'' by accidentally ingesting an infected flea. In the small intestine of the definitive host, the cysticercoid develops into an adult tapeworm, which reaches maturity about one month after infection. This adult tapeworm produces proglottids, and over time, the proglottids mature and become gravid and eventually detach from the tapeworm and the life cycle starts all over again.<ref>{{cite web|title=Dipylidium caninum Infection|url=https://www.cdc.gov/dpdx/dipylidium/|website=Centers for Disease Control and Prevention|accessdate=24 April 2015}}</ref>

== Geographic Distribution ==
This parasite occurs worldwide in animals, such as dogs and cats, as well as in humans, though to a significantly lesser degree. It is the most common tapeworm of dogs and is relatively common in cats. Despite human diplydiasis being rare, instances have been reported from every inhabited continent.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|title=CDC - DPDx - Dipylidium caninum|url=https://www.cdc.gov/dpdx/dipylidium/index.html|date=2019-07-10|website=www.cdc.gov|language=en-us|access-date=2020-05-07}}</ref>

Human instances of diplydiasis are reported globally, and unsurprisingly roughly one third of the cases occur in children less than 6 months of age. The most at-risk age group is those that range from 2 months to 4 years old. <ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Neira O|first1=Patricia|last2=Jofré M|first2=Leonor|last3=Muñoz S|first3=Nelson|date=December 2008|title=Infección por Dipylidium caninum en un preescolar: Presentación del caso y revisión de la literatura|url=http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0716-10182008000600010&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en|journal=Revista chilena de infectología|language=en|volume=25|issue=6|doi=10.4067/S0716-10182008000600010|issn=0716-1018|doi-access=free}}</ref>

==Pet infections==
Tapeworm infection usually does not cause pathology in the dog or cat, and most pets show no adverse reaction to infection other than increased appetite. The bulk of infections are asymptomatic and the infections that do result in symptoms are generally mildly so. Pets behavior may reflect the presence of anal discomfort and itching, or pruritus. This could result in the ‘butt-scooching” across the floor, grass or carpeting. It may be accompanied by slight gastrointestinal disturbances, as this is the region where the worms inhabit. Though not a pathology of the diplydiasis, the most unnerving sign of the infection is the presence of proglottids in the animals, or child’s, feces. These proglottids can also be found near the perianal region, in the feces, and in diapers (children). The motile proglottids can actively crawl out of the anus of the infected animal/person and migrate small distances, thus potentially covering this array of neighboring surfaces. It is from these locations that the larval stage of the flea will come along and ingest them. Then the metacestode stage, a cysticercoid, develops in the coelomic cavity (abdominal cavity; [[Portal:Main|main]] body cavity) of the flea larvae and remains there as the flea matures into an adult. These freshly passed proglottids are motile, allowing them to also be found on the floor and furniture, from a migration out of a pets anus and could be compared to resembling fly larvae, or maggots.<ref name=":0" />

The other tapeworm infecting cats is ''[[Taenia taeniaeformis]]'', though this form is much less commonly encountered than ''D. caninum''.

A recent (2018) study using genetical analysis and experimental infections and life-cycles showed that two different distinct genotypes of ''D. caninum'' occur respectively in dogs and in cats, and suggested that two different species might be involved.<ref name="LabuschagneBeugnet2018">{{cite journal|last1=Labuschagne|first1=Michel|last2=Beugnet|first2=Frédéric|last3=Rehbein|first3=Steffen|last4=Guillot|first4=Jacques|last5=Fourie|first5=Josephus|last6=Crafford|first6=Dionne|title=Analysis of ''Dipylidium caninum'' tapeworms from dogs and cats, or their respective fleas. Part 1. Molecular characterization of ''Dipylidium caninum'': genetic analysis supporting two distinct species adapted to dogs and cats|journal=Parasite|volume=25|year=2018|pages=30|doi=10.1051/parasite/2018028|pmid=29806592|pmc=6013089|url=}} {{open access}}</ref><ref name="BeugnetLabuschagne2018">{{cite journal|last1=Beugnet|first1=Frédéric|last2=Labuschagne|first2=Michel|last3=Vos|first3=Christa de|last4=Crafford|first4=Dionne|last5=Fourie|first5=Josephus|title=Analysis of ''Dipylidium caninum'' tapeworms from dogs and cats, or their respective fleas. Part 2. Distinct canine and feline host association with two different ''Dipylidium caninum'' genotypes|journal=Parasite|volume=25|year=2018|pages=31|doi=10.1051/parasite/2018029|pmid=29806593|pmc=6013090|url=}} {{open access}}</ref>

==Human infections==
A human infection with ''D. caninum'' is rare, but if an infection does occur, it is more likely to occur in young children. As of the early 1960s, the number of cases of ''D. caninum'' in the U.S. was a mere 21. Therefore, human infection of Dipylidium caninum, or diplydiasis, is a rare occasion. It is largely agreed across the parasitology community that despite the reports of this disease occurring, there are very likely numerous cases that have gone unnoticed and unreported because of its subtle and minor pathology in humans, in addition to its scarceness in clinical records. The adult tapeworm grows within the host for 3–4 weeks after initial infection. The number of parasites the host is initially infected with is directly related to the number of cysticercoid juveniles present in the fleas coelom. The load of parasites present in the humans is lower, luckily, as the life cycle is not occurring in the ideal conditions or species as humans are not the definitive host.<ref>Bowman DD. Georgis‘Parasitology for Veterinarians. Sixth edition Philadelphia. PA: Saunders Company; 1995:145–6</ref>

Many cases have an unexciting course of infection, as can be depicted in two cases occurring in the 1960s. The first case occurred in a 9-month-old female. Mother found motile proglottids the child’s diaper, later identified as D. caninum. The child had no apparent signs or symptoms. The presumed source of infections was one of the family’s four Labrador retrievers, two of which were found to already have been infected with D. caninum. The second additional case occurred in an 18-month-old male. Mother found motile proglottids in the child’s diaper and again, the child was symptom-free. A puppy in the household was found to be infected and thus was the source of the child infection.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Thompson|first=James H.|date=1963|title=Human Dipylidium caninum Infection|journal=The Journal of Parasitology|volume=49|issue=3|pages=402|doi=10.2307/3275807|jstor=3275807|issn=0022-3395}}</ref> Young children and toddlers are at a greater risk of infection because of how they interact with their pets. A human may attain an infection by accidentally ingesting an infected flea through food contamination or through the saliva of pets. Most infections are asymptomatic, but sometimes these symptoms may be identified in an infected individual: mild diarrhea, abdominal colic, [[anorexia]], restlessness, constipation, rectal itching, and pain due to emerging proglottids through the anal cavity.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Garcia-Martos |first1=Pedro |last2=Garcia-Agudo |first2=Lidia |last3=Rodriguez-Iglesias |first3=Manuel |title=Dipylidium caninum infection in an infant: a rare case report and literature review |journal=Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Biomedicine |date=26 May 2014 |volume=4 |issue=2 |page=S565–S567 |doi=10.12980/APJTB.4.2014APJTB-2014-0034 |url=http://www.apjtb.com/zz/2014S2/7.pdf |accessdate=20 September 2016 |url-status=bot: unknown |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150518081154/http://www.apjtb.com/zz/2014S2/7.pdf |archivedate=18 May 2015 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

==Treatment and prevention==
As with most tapeworm infections, the drugs of choice are [[niclosamide]] or [[praziquantel]]. The best way to prevent human infection is to treat infected animals with products  which aid in killing the fleas on the animal. One can also use oral medication prescribed by a veterinarian.

==Gallery==
<gallery>
Image:Dipylidium caninum ovum 1.JPG|''Dipylidium caninum'' egg packet
Image:Dipylidium caninum proglottid 1.JPG|''D. caninum'' proglottid
Image:dipylidium caninum.jpg|''D. caninum''
File:Dipylidium caninum worm.JPG|''D. caninum'' worms
</gallery>

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
* [https://veterinarypartner.vin.com/default.aspx?pid=19239&id=4951442 ''tapeworms'' from The Pet Health Library]

{{Taxonbar|from=Q81125}}

[[Category:Cestoda]]
[[Category:Parasitic diseases]]
[[Category:Parasites of dogs]]
[[Category:Parasites of cats]]
[[Category:Parasitic helminths of humans]]
[[Category:Veterinary helminthology]]

User:Rslashmarkiplier

2026-04-01T08:04:30Z

Bloit: Blanked the page

Zoophilia Wiki:Protection policy

2026-04-01T08:04:12Z

Bloit: Blanked the page

Category:Subhumans

2026-04-01T08:03:59Z

Bloit: Blanked the page

Category:Subhumans

2026-04-01T08:03:44Z

Bloit: Replaced content with "List of significant individuals in the zoo community,those who we honor that have passed away and professionals who's work is helping to remove the negative stigma."

List of significant individuals in the zoo community,those who we honor that have passed away and professionals who's work is helping to remove the negative stigma.