Editing Social Scientific Analysis of Human-Animal Sexual Interactions (section)

===4. Redefining Relations with Animals===
Growing concern surrounding the ways in which humans interact with other species has translated into a global trend towards legal regulation. The rules put in place tend to regulate, from a protectionist perspective, what can be classed as good practices and other practices that should be penalised and even be considered a crime. The ways animals are treated in experiments, the conditions of the enclosures where they are kept, animal husbandry practices, and varieties of animal mistreatment. Broad sectors mobilise in defence of animal rights, demanding a change in their status, which even includes their consideration as legal persons. Aspects previously ignored in different legislations, such as sexual practices, are now being tackled. In fact, at a global level, an increasing number of legislative acts now prohibit any type of sexual relation between humans and non-humans <ref>Beetz A.M.  Bestiality and zoophilia: A discussion of sexual contact with animals. In: Ascione F.R., editor. International Handbook of Animal abuse and Cruelty: Theory, Research, and Application. Purdue University Press; West Lafayette, IN, USA: 2010. pp. 201–220. [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=International+Handbook+of+Animal+abuse+and+Cruelty:+Theory,+Research,+and+Application&author=A.M.+Beetz&publication_year=2010& Google Scholar]]</ref><ref>Holoyda B., Newman W. Zoophilia and the law: Legal responses to a rare paraphilia. J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry Law. 2014;42:412–420. [[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25492066 PubMed]] [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=J.+Am.+Acad.+Psychiatry+Law&title=Zoophilia+and+the+law:+Legal+responses+to+a+rare+paraphilia&author=B.+Holoyda&author=W.+Newman&volume=42&publication_year=2014&pages=412-420&pmid=25492066& Google Scholar]]</ref>. The regulation of these practices gives us a few clues to understanding the change in significance of interspecies sexuality, and ultimately, of animals themselves.

The argument in favour of prohibiting these relations is clear, based on cases of assault and abuse. It is understood that an animal can never give consent, something which would then equate zoophilia with rape<ref>Beirne P. Rethinking bestiality: Towards a concept of interspecies sexual assault. Theor. Criminol. 1997;1:317–340. doi: 10.1177/1362480697001003003. [[https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1362480697001003003 CrossRef]] [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Theor.+Criminol.&title=Rethinking+bestiality:+Towards+a+concept+of+interspecies+sexual+assault&author=P.+Beirne&volume=1&publication_year=1997&pages=317-340&doi=10.1177/1362480697001003003& Google Scholar]]</ref> <ref>Beirne P. Singer’s “Heavy Petting” and the Politics of Animal Sexual Assault. Crit. Criminol. 2001;10:43–55. doi: 10.1023/A:1013119904480. [[https://doi.org/10.1023%2FA%3A1013119904480 CrossRef]] [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Crit.+Criminol.&title=Singer%E2%80%99s+%E2%80%9CHeavy+Petting%E2%80%9D+and+the+Politics+of+Animal+Sexual+Assault&author=P.+Beirne&volume=10&publication_year=2001&pages=43-55&doi=10.1023/A:1013119904480& <nowiki>Google Scholar]</nowiki>]</ref>. Social norms tend to view animals, to all intents and purposes, as social minors that must be protected. This paternalistic vision of animals denies their possibility for agency, from a moral vision that ties in with the biomedical perspective. This is the stance taken by the majority of animal rights defence movements. Such considerations have been largely transferred to criminal law, which now makes provisions for new crimes such as “sexual abuse” of animals <ref>Toribio A.A. La explotación sexual de animales y la zoofilia en el código penal español. Crit. Penal Poder. 2020;20:111–137. [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Crit.+Penal+Poder&title=La+explotaci%C3%B3n+sexual+de+animales+y+la+zoofilia+en+el+c%C3%B3digo+penal+espa%C3%B1ol&author=A.A.+Toribio&volume=20&publication_year=2020&pages=111-137& <nowiki>Google Scholar]</nowiki>]</ref>. Growing legal regulation raises various issues: (1) to what degree does the consideration of such relations as a crime truly contribute to the protection of non-human animals? and (2) whether certain punishments to condemn certain practices are licit, legitimising other forms of socially accepted abuse, such as those found in the food industry<ref>Marceau J.  Beyond cages: Animal Law and Criminal. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, UK: 2019.  [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Beyond+cages:+Animal+Law+and+Criminal&author=J.+Marceau&publication_year=2019& Google Scholar]]</ref> . As this author notes, punitive laws protect certain species whilst ignoring others and the punishment eventually falls onto subaltern social sectors that are criminalised on the basis of ethnocentric considerations.

However, alongside this prohibitionist tendency, we find another trend moving in a very different direction, which argues that sexual relations with animals do not always imply cruelty <ref name=":3" />. Whilst he does not condone zoophilia, Singer considers that, as a taboo, it is irrational, helping to maintain distance between humans and animals. Some authors even argue that zoophilia could be a non-anthropocentric model for relating with other species. This would require a rethinking of interspecies relations, but also a change in the concept of sexuality <ref>Bakke M.  The predicament of zoopleasures: Human-nonhuman libidinal relations. In: Rossini M., Tyler T., editors. Animal Encounters. Brill; Boston, MA, USA: 2009. pp. 221–242. [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Animal+Encounters&author=M.+Bakke&publication_year=2009& <nowiki>Google Scholar]</nowiki>]</ref>. This is a minority perspective that argues in favour of the right to maintain affective-sexual relations with animals.

These changes are bringing to light the fact that, obviously, such practices are not confined to ‘primitive’, ‘peasant’ or ‘rural’ societies, nor are they restricted to men or certain ages. Zoophilia is now becoming visible in ‘modern’ societies, ‘urban’ contexts, and also among women. In this regard, the Internet has made a fundamental contribution by connecting people who share certain ways of understanding these practices, structured around a new expression of identity, precisely at a time when sexuality has become one of the core defining elements in individual identity.

Up to the 1960s, as shown<ref>Gubern R.  La imagen pornográfica y otras perversiones ópticas (argumentos) Anagrama; Barcelona, Colombia: 2005.  [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=La+imagen+pornogr%C3%A1fica+y+otras+perversiones+%C3%B3pticas+(argumentos)&author=R.+Gubern&publication_year=2005& <nowiki>Google Scholar]</nowiki>]</ref> in the case of America, the consumption of zoophilic pornography and other variants was through very specialist and selective channels in individualised peep-show booths. However, within the pornographic film industry, the production of zoophilic films now occupies an important place<ref name=":18">Díaz-Benítez M.E. Sexo com animais como prática extrema no pornô bizarre. Cad. Pagu. 2012;38:241–279. doi: 10.1590/S0104-83332012000100009. [[https://doi.org/10.1590%2FS0104-83332012000100009 CrossRef]] [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Cad.+Pagu&title=Sexo+com+animais+como+pr%C3%A1tica+extrema+no+porn%C3%B4+bizarre&author=M.E.+D%C3%ADaz-Ben%C3%ADtez&volume=38&publication_year=2012&pages=241-279&doi=10.1590/S0104-83332012000100009& Google Scholar]] </ref>. Widespread access to the Internet has made it easier to consume increasingly repudiated practices. It has disseminated and spread more or less minority practices to the extent of generating a significant sex market that can be adapted to user profiles, practically à la carte <ref>Valcuende del Río J.M., Jiménez Sierra R., Marco-Macarro M. Recreando espacios, tiempos y relaciones en internet. Rev. Fórum Identidades. 2017;23:9–28. [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Rev.+F%C3%B3rum+Identidades&title=Recreando+espacios,+tiempos+y+relaciones+en+internet&author=J.M.+Valcuende+del+R%C3%ADo&author=R.+Jim%C3%A9nez+Sierra&author=M.+Marco-Macarro&volume=23&publication_year=2017&pages=9-28& Google Scholar]]</ref>. Unsurprisingly, in this context, some countries have developed an emerging industry, which raises new research problems with regard to this part of the pornographic business, in which women take centre stage in the configuration of zoophilic products<ref name=":18" />. Once again, science is concerned with the risks surrounding the possible spread of such ‘perverse’ practices: new forms of objectification of women in zoophilic pornography, access among minors to such practices, and the exploitation of animals turned into mere objects.

However, although the web is a forum for outcry, it has also become a space for confluence and the defence of this sexuality <ref name=":19">Williams C.J., Weinberg M.S. Zoophilia in men: A study of sexual interest in animals. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2003;32:523–535. doi: 10.1023/A:1026085410617. [[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14574096 PubMed]] [[https://doi.org/10.1023%2FA%3A1026085410617 CrossRef]] [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Arch.+Sex.+Behav.&title=Zoophilia+in+men:+A+study+of+sexual+interest+in+animals&author=C.J.+Williams&author=M.S.+Weinberg&volume=32&publication_year=2003&pages=523-535&pmid=14574096&doi=10.1023/A:1026085410617& <nowiki>Google Scholar]</nowiki>]</ref><ref name=":20">Kavanaugh P.R., Maratea R.J. Identity, resistance and moderation in an online community of zoosexuals. Sexualities. 2016;19:3–24. doi: 10.1177/1363460715583585. [[https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1363460715583585 CrossRef]] [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Sexualities&title=Identity,+resistance+and+moderation+in+an+online+community+of+zoosexuals&author=P.R.+Kavanaugh&author=R.J.+Maratea&volume=19&publication_year=2016&pages=3-24&doi=10.1177/1363460715583585& Google Scholar]] </ref><ref name=":21">Sendler D.J. Why people who have sex with animals believe that It is their sexual orientation: A grounded theory study of online communities of zoophiles. Deviant Behav. 2018;39:1507–1514. doi: 10.1080/01639625.2018.1491698. [[https://doi.org/10.1080%2F01639625.2018.1491698 CrossRef]] [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Deviant+Behav.&title=Why+people+who+have+sex+with+animals+believe+that+It+is+their+sexual+orientation:+A+grounded+theory+study+of+online+communities+of+zoophiles&author=D.J.+Sendler&volume=39&publication_year=2018&pages=1507-1514&doi=10.1080/01639625.2018.1491698& <nowiki>Google Scholar]</nowiki>]</ref><ref name=":22">Sendler D.J., Lew-Starowicz M. Digital ethnography of zoophilia: A multinational mixed-methods Study. J. Sex. Marital. There. 2019;45:1–20. doi: 10.1080/0092623X.2018.1474405. [[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29746216 PubMed]] [[https://doi.org/10.1080%2F0092623X.2018.1474405 CrossRef]] [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=J.+Sex.+Marital.+There.&title=Digital+ethnography+of+zoophilia:+A+multinational+mixed-methods+Study&author=D.J.+Sendler&author=M.+Lew-Starowicz&volume=45&publication_year=2019&pages=1-20&doi=10.1080/0092623X.2018.1474405& Google Scholar]]</ref>. Individuals who practice this form of sexuality offer positive interpretations, labelling themselves zoosexuals or simply zoos, and creating a ‘‘zoo community’’ <ref>Durkin K., Forsyth C.J., Quinn J.F. Pathological internet communities: A new direction for sexual deviance research in a post modern era. Sociol. Spectrum. 2006;26:595–606. doi: 10.1080/02732170600948857. [[https://doi.org/10.1080%2F02732170600948857 CrossRef]] [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Sociol.+Spectrum&title=Pathological+internet+communities:+A+new+direction+for+sexual+deviance+research+in+a+post+modern+era&author=K.+Durkin&author=C.J.+Forsyth&author=J.F.+Quinn&volume=26&publication_year=2006&pages=595-606&doi=10.1080/02732170600948857& Google Scholar]]</ref>. Some members of these networks are becoming aware that their sexual preferences do not constitute an anomaly, merely a different sexuality, and they argue that they are an unacknowledged sexual minority <ref name=":21" /><ref name=":22" />. In this context, some researchers are beginning to talk about zoophilia as a [[sexual orientation]] <ref name=":7" /><ref>Miletski H. Zoophilia: Another Sexual Orientation? Arch. Sex. Behav. 2017;46:39–42. doi: 10.1007/s10508-016-0891-3. [[https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10508-016-0891-3 PubMed]] [[https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10508-016-0891-3 CrossRef]] [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Arch.+Sex.+Behav.&title=Zoophilia:+Another+Sexual+Orientation?&author=H.+Miletski&volume=46&publication_year=2017&pages=39-42&pmid=27832371&doi=10.1007/s10508-016-0891-3& <nowiki>Google Scholar]</nowiki>]</ref><ref name=":23">Cassidy R.  Zoosex and other relationships with animals. In: Donnan H., Magowan F., editors. Transgressive Sex: Subversión and Control in Erotic Encounters. Berghahn Books; New York, NY, USA: 2009. pp. 91–112. [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Transgressive+Sex:+Subversi%C3%B3n+and+Control+in+Erotic+Encounters&author=R.+Cassidy&publication_year=2009& Google Scholar]]</ref>. For Cassidy<ref name=":23" />, zoosexuality needs to be understood within the context of recognising new emerging sexual identities that are no longer restricted by a patriarchal system centred on reproduction.

The development of these zoo communities on the Internet has enabled researchers to access such sexual practices more easily<ref name=":19" /><ref name=":20" /><ref name=":21" /><ref name=":22" /><ref>Jenkins R.E., Thomas A.G.  Deviance online: Portrayals of bestiality on the Internet. Center for Social Science Research; Oneonta, NY, USA: 2004.  [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Deviance+online:+Portrayals+of+bestiality+on+the+Internet&author=R.E.+Jenkins&author=A.G.+Thomas&publication_year=2004& Google Scholar]]</ref><ref>Maratea R.J. Screwing the pooch: Legitimizing accounts in a zoophilia on-line community. Deviant Behav. 2011;32:918–943. doi: 10.1080/01639625.2010.538356. [[https://doi.org/10.1080%2F01639625.2010.538356 CrossRef]] [[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Deviant+Behav.&title=Screwing+the+pooch:+Legitimizing+accounts+in+a+zoophilia+on-line+community&author=R.J.+Maratea&volume=32&publication_year=2011&pages=918-943&doi=10.1080/01639625.2010.538356& <nowiki>Google Scholar]</nowiki>]</ref>. If we can overcome moral barriers, we have the opportunity to make visible, analyse and understand an approach to human-animal relations that, to date, has been largely ignored. However, zoosexuality is presented as a minority reality, and as a consequence of its illegality in many countries, zoosexuals will become less and less visible. The influence of animal rights defence sectors turns [[zoophiles]] and zoosexuals into criminals.