Zoophilia: Difference between revisions

From Zoophilia Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
meta>TBP
Media
No edit summary
(177 intermediate revisions by 44 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[Image:Leda.jpg|thumb|300px|''[[Leda and the Swan]]'', a [[16th century]] copy after a lost painting by [[Michelangelo]], 1530 ([[National Gallery, London]])]]
{{imported|Wikipedia}}
'''Zoophilia''' (from the [[Greek language|Greek]] ''Zoon'', "animal", and ''Philia'', "friendship" or "love") is a [[paraphilia]], defined as an affinity or [[sexual attraction]] by a [[human]] to non-human [[animal]]s.  Such individuals are called '''zoophiles'''. The more recent terms '''zoosexual''' and '''zoosexuality''' also describe the full spectrum of human/animal attraction. A separate term, '''bestiality''' (more common in mainstream usage), refers to human/animal sexual activity. To avoid confusion about the meaning of ''zoophilia'' – which may refer to the affinity/attraction, paraphilia, or sexual activity – this article uses ''zoophilia'' for the former, and ''zoosexuality'' for the sexual act.  The two terms are independent: not all sexual acts with animals are performed by zoophiles, not all zoophiles are interested in being sexual with animals.
{{sex}}
[[File:2014-01-26 Roman Oil Lamp with Erotic Motiv 09 anagoria.jpeg|thumb|Roman oil lamp depicting a zoophilic act, 1st–3rd century A.D.]]
[[File:Pan goat MAN Napoli Inv27709 n01.jpg|thumb|The Greek god Pan having sex with a goat, statue from Villa of the Papyri, Herculaneum (catalogued 1752)]]


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


The activity or desire itself is no longer classified as a pathology under [[DSM-IV|DSM-IV (TR)]] (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the [[American Psychiatric Association]]) unless accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the person. Critics point out that that DSM-IV opinion says nothing about acceptability or the well being of the animal; defenders, on the other hand, argue that a human/animal relationship can go far beyond sexuality, that research supports their perspective, and that animals are capable of forming what is claimed to be a genuine [[loving relationship]] that can last for years and is not considered functionally different from any other love/sex relationship.
== Terminology ==
=== 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 = http://www.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 |doi=10.1177/107906320201400106 |pmid=11803597 |title=A Case Study of Preferential Bestiality (Zoophilia) |year=2002 |last1=Earls |first1=C. M. |last2=Lalumiere |first2=M. L. |journal=Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment |volume=14 |issue=1 |pages=83–88}}</ref> Furthermore, some zoophiles report they have never had sexual contact with an animal.<ref>{{cite journal | author = Maratea, 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="Handbookth">{{Cite book | chapter-url = https://books.google.com/?id=G_MwT9OHj4AC&pg=PA201&dq=zoophilia#v=onepage&q=zoophilia&f=false | title = The International Handbook of Animal Abuse and Cruelty: Theory, Research, and Application | chapter = Bestiality and Zoophilia: A Discussion of Sexual Contact With Animals | isbn = 978-1-55753-565-8 | editor = Ascione, Frank | author = Beetz, Andrea M. | year = 2010}}</ref> [[Zooerasty]], [[sodomy]], and zooerastia<ref>{{cite web|title=zooerastia definition|url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/zooerastia|website=Dictionary.com|accessdate=13 December 2011}}</ref> 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|date=February 2014}} [[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 [[Macdonald triad]] of precursors to [[Psychopathy|sociopathic behavior]].<ref name=MacDonald>{{cite journal|last=MacDonald|first=J. M.|title=The Threat to Kill|journal=American Journal of Psychiatry|year=1963|volume=120|issue=2|pages=125–30|url=http://journals.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=149172|accessdate=19 January 2013|format=PDF|doi=10.1176/ajp.120.2.125}}</ref>


== Terminology ==
=== Zoophilia ===
[[File:Tako to ama retouched.jpg|thumb|[[Katsushika Hokusai|Hokusai]]<!--Katsushika is the family name so it is put first, BUT he is called by his given name-->'s (1760–1849) ''[[The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife]]''.|left]]The term ''zoophilia'' was introduced into the field of research on [[sexuality]] in ''[[Psychopathia Sexualis (Richard von Krafft-Ebing book)|Psychopathia Sexualis]]'' (1886) by [[Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing|Krafft-Ebing]], who described a number of cases of "violation of animals (bestiality)",<ref>Richard von Krafft-Ebing: [[Psychopathia Sexualis (Richard von Krafft-Ebing book)|Psychopathia Sexualis]], p. 561.</ref> as well as "zoophilia erotica",<ref>Richard von Krafft-Ebing: [[Psychopathia Sexualis (Richard von Krafft-Ebing book)|Psychopathia Sexualis]], p. 281.</ref> which he defined as a sexual attraction to animal skin or fur. The term ''zoophilia'' derives from the combination of two nouns in [[Greek language|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 391">D. Richard Laws and William T. O'Donohue: [https://books.google.com/books?id=yIXG9FuqbaIC&pg=PA391&dq=zoophilia+paraphilia Books.Google.co.uk], Sexual Deviance, page 391. [[Guilford Press]], 2008. {{ISBN|978-1-59385-605-2}}.</ref> that term has fallen out of general use.
 
=== Zoosexuality ===
The term ''[[zoosexual]]'' was proposed by [[Hani Miletski]] in 2002<ref name="Handbookth"/> 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 on internet-based discussion forums to designate [[sexual orientation]] manifesting as romantic or emotional involvement with, or sexual attraction to, non-human animals.<ref name="Handbookth"/><ref>{{cite web|title=What is zoosexuality|url=http://zoosexuality.org/?id=1|website=Zoosexuality.org|accessdate=3 December 2011}}</ref>


The general term "zoophilia" was first introduced into the field of research on sexuality by [[Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing|Krafft-Ebing]] (1894).  The terms '''zoosexual''' and '''zoosexuality''', signifying the entire spectrum of emotional and sexual attraction and/or orientation to animals, have been used since the [[1980s]] (cited by Miletski, 1999), to suggest an analogy to homosexual or heterosexual orientations. Individuals with a strong affinity for animals but without a sexual interest can be described as "non-sexual" (or "emotional") zoophiles, but may object to the "zoophile" label. They are commonly called '''animal lovers''' instead.
=== Bestiality ===
[[File:日本春宫册页《女人和狗》.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Japanese ''[[ukiyo-e]]'' [[woodblock print]] from [[Kunisada|Utagawa Kunisada]]'s series, "Eight Canine Heroes of the House of Satomi", 1837. ]]
[[File:Indiaerotic5.jpg|thumb|right|350px|An 18th-century Indian miniature depicting women practising zoophilia in the bottom register.]]
The legal term ''bestiality'' has three common pronunciations: {{IPA|[ˌbestʃiˈæləti]}} or {{IPA|[ˌbistʃiˈæləti]}} in the United States,<ref>{{cite web|title=Pronunciation of bestiality|url=http://www.macmillandictionary.com/pronunciation/american/bestiality|publisher=MacMillan Dictionary|accessdate=3 January 2018}}</ref> and {{IPA|[ˌbestiˈæləti]}} in the United Kingdom.<ref>{{cite web|title=Pronunciation of bestiality|url=http://www.macmillandictionary.com/pronunciation/british/bestiality|publisher=MacMillan Dictionary|accessdate=3 January 2018}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://sexuality.about.com/od/glossary/g/zoophilia.htm |title=Sexuality.about.com |website=Sexuality.about.com |accessdate=13 May 2012}}</ref> Confusing the matter yet [[further]], writing in 1962, Masters used the term ''bestialist'' specifically in his discussion of zoosadism.


The ambiguous term [[sodomy]] has sometimes been used in legal contexts to include zoosexual acts. "'''Zooerasty'''" is an older term, not in common use. In [[pornography]], human/animal sex is occasionally referred to as ''farmsex'', ''dog sex'' or ''animal sex''.
Stephanie LaFarge, an assistant professor of psychiatry at the New Jersey Medical School, and Director of Counseling at the [[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>{{cite news|title=All Opposed, Say Neigh |url=http://www.riverfronttimes.com/1999-12-15/news/all-opposed-say-neigh/ |author=Melinda Roth |work=Riverfront Times |date=15 December 1991 |accessdate=24 January 2009}}</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>{{cite journal |vauthors=Williams CJ, Weinberg MS |title=Zoophilia in men: a study of sexual interest in animals |journal=Archives of Sexual Behavior |volume=32 |issue=6 |pages=523–35 |date=December 2003 |pmid=14574096 |doi=10.1023/A:1026085410617}}</ref>


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


== Extent of occurrence ==
It has been increasingly used in [[Wikipedia:Mainstream|popular]] and [[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]].)


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


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


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


== Legal status ==
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 (sexuality), and to the view that those who have sexual contact with animals without an emotional connection are not [[zoophiles]].


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


* Just over half of [[U.S. state]]s explicitly outlaw sex with animals (sometimes under the term of "[[sodomy]]"). In the 2000s, six U.S. states adopted new legislation against it: Oregon, Maine, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana. Many U.S. state laws against "sodomy" (generally in the context of male homosexuality) were repealed or struck down by the courts in [[Lawrence v. Texas]], which ruled that perceived moral disapproval on its own was an insufficient justification for banning a private act.  On the other hand, the 2004 conviction of a man in Florida ([http://pet-abuse.com/cases/2206/FL/US/1 State vs. Mitchell]) demonstrated that even in states with no specific laws against zoosexual acts, animal cruelty statutes would instead be applied. Finally, the 1999 [[Philip Buble]] case showed that when a self-confessed zoophile is assaulted and the assault is motivated by his zoophilia (ie [[hate crime]]), a jury can convict the assailant and a judge give a stern sentence, despite the controversial nature of the cause.
An analysis of data from the [[Furry Survey|Furry Survey]] suggests that one in six [[Furry|furries]] self identify as [[zoophiles]]<ref>http://adjectivespecies.com/2012/02/06/zoophilia-in-the-furry-community/</ref>.
* In [[Australia]], laws are determined at the state level, with all but the [[Australian Capital Territory]] and [[Jervis Bay Territory]] explicitly outlawing it.
==Extent of occurrence==
* In [[Germany]], sex with animals is not specifically outlawed (but trading pornography showing it is, cf. [http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/184a.html §184a StGB]). In [[West Germany]], the law making it a crime ([[Paragraph 175|§175b]] StGB, which also outlawed homosexual acts) was removed in [[1969]]. [[East Germany]] before [[German reunification|reunification]] had no law against zoosexuality; zoosexual pornography, however, was very restricted. Certain barriers are set by the Animal Protection Law (''Tierschutzgesetz'').
The [[Kinsey Reports|Kinsey reports]] rated 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 was 40–50% in people living near farms,<ref name="deviance 391" /> but some later writers dispute the figures, because the study lacked a random sample in that it included a disproportionate number of prisoners, causing [[sampling bias]]. [[Martin Duberman]] has written that it is difficult to get a random sample in sexual research, and that even when [[Paul Gebhard]], Kinsey's research successor, removed prison samples from the figures, he found the figures were not significantly changed.<ref>Richard Duberman: [http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/publications/duberman.html KinseyInstitute.org] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090111215816/http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/publications/duberman.html |date=11 January 2009 }}, Kinsey's Urethra ''The Nation,'' 3 November 1997, pp. 40–43. Review of ''Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life.'' By James H. Jones.</ref>
* In the [[United Kingdom]], it is illegal, with [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30042--b.htm#69 section 69] of the [[Sexual Offences Act 2003]] reducing the sentence to a maximum of 2 years imprisonment for human penile penetration of or by an animal.
* Zoosexual acts are illegal in [[Canada]] (section 160 forbidding "bestiality". The term is not defined, so it is not quite clear what it might cover.)
* Zoosexual acts are illegal in [[New Zealand]] under a variety of sections contained in the Crimes Act 1961. Section 143, makes "beastiality" an offence, but as in Canada, the meaning of beastiality is derived from case law. There are also associated offences of indecency with an animal (section 144) and compelling an indecent act with an animal (section 142A). It is interesting to note that in the 1989 Crimes Bill considered abolition of beastiality as a criminal offence, and for it to be treated as a [[mental health]] issue. In ''Police v Sheary'' (1991) 7 CRNZ 107 (HC) Fisher J considered that "[t]he community is generally now more tolerant and understanding of unusual sexual practices that do not harm others."
* In some countries laws existed against single males living with female animals. For example, an old [[Peru]]vian law prohibited single males from having a female [[alpaca]] ([[llama]]).


== Zoophiles ==
By 1974, the farm population in the USA had declined by 80 percent compared with 1940, reducing the opportunity to live with animals; 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>Hunt 1974, cited and re-examined by Miletski (1999)</ref>


=== Zoophilia as a lifestyle ===
[[Nancy Friday]]'s 1973 book on [[female sexuality]], ''[[My Secret Garden]]'', comprised around 190 fantasies from different women; of these, 23 involve zoophilic activity.<ref>{{cite book|author=Nancy Friday|title=My Secret Garden|publisher=Simon and Schuster|edition=Revised|year=1998|isbn=978-0-671-01987-7|pages=180–185|chapter=What do women fantasize about? The Zoo|origyear=1973|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/?id=J9ZKmplu4agC&pg=PA180}}</ref>


Separate from those whose interest is curiosity, pornography, or sexual novelty, are those for whom zoophilia might be called a lifestyle or orientation. A commonly reported starting age is at [[puberty]], around 9 - 11, and this seems consistent for both males and females. Those who discover an interest at an older age often trace it back to nascent form during this period or earlier.
In one study, psychiatric patients were found to have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55 percent) of reported bestiality, both actual sexual contacts (45 percent) and sexual fantasy (30 percent) than the control groups of medical in-patients (10 percent) and psychiatric staff (15 percent).<ref name="psych">{{cite journal |pmid=1778686 |year=1991 |last1=Alvarez |first1=WA |last2=Freinhar |first2=JP |title=A prevalence study of bestiality (zoophilia) in psychiatric in-patients, medical in-patients, and psychiatric staff |volume=38 |issue=1–4 |pages=45–7 |journal=International Journal of Psychosomatics}}</ref> Crépault and Couture (1980) reported that 5.3 percent of the men they surveyed had fantasized about sexual activity with an animal during heterosexual intercourse.<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1007/BF01542159 |title=Men's erotic fantasies |year=1980 |last1=Crépault |first1=Claude |last2=Couture |first2=Marcel |journal=Archives of Sexual Behavior |volume=9 |issue=6 |pages=565–81 |pmid=7458662}}</ref> In a 2014 study, 3% of women and 2.2% of men reported fantasies about having sex with an animal.<ref>{{cite journal |last1 = Joyal |first1=C. C. |last2=Cossette |first2=A. |last3=Lapierre |first3=V. | year = 2014 | 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 }}</ref> A 1982 study suggested that 7.5 percent of 186 university students had interacted sexually with an animal.<ref>{{cite journal |pmid=7164870 |year=1982 |last1=Story |first1=MD |title=A comparison of university student experience with various sexual outlets in 1974 and 1980 |volume=17 |issue=68 |pages=737–47 |journal=Adolescence}}</ref>


Zoophiles tend to perceive differences between animals and human beings as less significant than others do, and view animals as having positive traits (e.g. honesty) that humans often lack. They tend to feel that society's understanding of non-human sexuality is misinformed. Although some feel guilty about their feelings and view them as a problem (also see ''[[denial (psychology)|denial]]''), others do not feel a need to be constrained by traditional standards in their private relationships.
{{anchor|Faunoiphilia}}
Sexual arousal from watching animals [[mate]] is known as ''faunoiphilia''.<ref>Aggrawal, Anil. [https://books.google.com/books?id=uNkNhPZQprcC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=faunoiphilia&f=false Forensic and medico-legal aspects of sexual crimes and unusual sexual practices]. CRC Press, 2008.</ref> A frequent interest in and sexual excitement at watching animals [[mating|mate]] is cited as an indicator of latent zoophilia by Massen (1994). [[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. 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">R.E.L. Masters: ''Forbidden Sexual behavior and Morality.'' New York, NY 1962, Lancer Books, Inc. (Section "Psychical bestiality").</ref>{{failed verification|Where in the book does it say that? I couldn't find that anywhere in the book, and I also dispute the credibility of that book|date=November 2013}}.
Several studies have found that women show stronger vaginal responses to films depicting [[Bonobo#Sexual social behavior|bonobo copulation]] than to non-sexual stimuli.<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.1108 |title=Gender and sexual orientation differences in sexual response to sexual activities versus gender of actors in sexual films |year=2007 |last1=Chivers |first1=Meredith L. |last2=Seto |first2=Michael C. |last3=Blanchard |first3=Ray |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |volume=93 |issue=6 |pages=1108–21 |pmid=18072857|url=https://semanticscholar.org/paper/5b52fc27742c03a14ff61ccb1bff8f3421b2fe55 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.biopsycho.2004.12.002 |title=A sex difference in features that elicit genital response |year=2005 |last1=Chivers |first1=Meredith L. |last2=Bailey |first2=J. Michael |journal=Biological Psychology |volume=70 |issue=2 |pages=115–20 |pmid=16168255}}</ref>


The biggest difficulties many zoophiles report are the inability to be accepted or open about their animal relationships and feelings with friends and family, and the fear of harm, rejection or loss of companions if it became known (see ''[[outing]]'' and ''[[the closet]]'', sometimes humorously referred to as "the stable"). Other major issues are hidden loneliness and isolation (due to lack of contact with others who share this attraction or a belief they are alone), and the repeated deaths of animals they consider lifelong soulmates (because most species have far shorter lifespans than humans and they cannot openly grieve or talk about feelings of loss).  Zoophiles do not usually cite internal conflicts over [[religion]] as their major issue, perhaps because zoophilia, although condemned by many religions, is not a major focus of their teachings.
==Perspectives on zoophilia==
[[File:Franz von Bayros 020.jpg|thumb|right|260px|Art by [[Franz von Bayros]] depicting [[oral sex]] between an adolescent and a [[deer]]]]


Zoophilic sexual relationships vary, and may be based upon variations of human-style relationships (eg [[Monogamy]]), animal-style relationships (each make own sexual choices), or other combinations.
=== Research perspectives ===
Zoophilia has been partly discussed by several sciences: [[psychology]] (the study of the human [[mind]]), [[sexology]] (a relatively new discipline primarily studying [[human sexuality]]), [[ethology]] (the study of [[ethology|animal behavior]]), and [[anthrozoology]] (the study of human–animal interactions and bonds).


Zoophiles may or may not have human partners and families.  Some zoophiles have an affinity or attraction to animals which is secondary to human attraction; others have a primary bond with an animal. In some cases human family or friends are aware of the relationship with the animal and its nature, in others it is hidden.  This can sometimes give rise to issues of [[guilt]] (as a result of divided loyalties and concealment) or [[jealousy]] within human relationships [http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Relationship/story?id=433489&page=1]. In addition, zoophiles sometimes enter human relationships due to growing up within traditional expectations, or to deflect suspicions of zoophilia, and yet others may choose looser forms of human relationship as companions or housemates, live alone, or choose other zoophiles to live with.
In the 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="DSM 5">{{cite book | title = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition | chapter = Other Specified Paraphilic Disorder, 302.89 (F65.89) | editor = American Psychiatric Association | year = 2013 | publisher = American Psychiatric Publishing | page = 705}}</ref> ("[[paraphilia]]s not otherwise specified" in the DSM-III and IV<ref name=DSM>
{{cite book |title= Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-IV | publisher = [[American Psychiatric Association]] | location=Washington, DC |year=2000 |pages= |isbn=978-0-89042-025-6 |oclc=43483668 |doi=| title-link = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders }}
</ref><ref name = Milner2008>
{{cite book | editor1 = Laws, D. R. | editor2 = O'Donohue, W. T. | last = Milner | first = J. S. | author2 = Dopke, C. A. | title = Sexual Deviance, Second Edition: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment | publisher = [[The Guilford Press]] | location = New York | year = 2008 | pages = [https://books.google.com/books?id=yIXG9FuqbaIC&pg=PA385 384–418] |isbn=978-1-59385-605-2 |oclc=152580827| chapter = Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified: Psychopathology and theory}}
</ref><ref name = Lovemaps>
{{cite book |author=Money, John |author-link = John Money |title=Lovemaps: Clinical Concepts of Sexual/Erotic Health and Pathology, Paraphilia, and Gender Transposition in Childhood, Adolescence, and Maturity |publisher=[[Prometheus Books]] |location=Buffalo, N.Y |year=1988 |pages= |isbn=978-0-87975-456-3 |oclc=19340917 }}
</ref><ref name = Seto2000>
{{cite book |editor1 = Hersen, M. |editor2 = Van Hasselt, V. B. | title = Aggression and violence: an introductory text |publisher= [[Allyn & Bacon]] |location=Boston |year=2000 |pages= 198–213 |isbn=978-0-205-26721-7 |oclc=41380492 | last = Seto| first = MC| author2 = Barbaree HE | chapter = Paraphilias}}
</ref>). The [[World Health Organization]] takes the same position, listing a sexual preference for animals in its [[ICD]][[ICD-10|-10]] as "other disorder of sexual preference".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/ |title=International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10, F65.8 Other disorders of sexual preference |website=Who.int |accessdate=13 May 2012}}</ref> In the DSM-5, it rises to the level of a diagnosable disorder only when accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning.<ref name="DSM 5" /><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Miletski | first1 = H. | s2cid = 146150162 | year = 2015| title = Zoophilia – Implications for Therapy | url = | journal =  Journal of Sex Education and Therapy| volume = 26 | issue = 2| pages = 85–86 | doi=10.1080/01614576.2001.11074387}}</ref>


=== Non-sexual zoophilia ===
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"/>


Although the term is often used to refer to sexual interest in animals, zoophilia is not necessarily sexual in nature.  In [[psychology]] and [[sociology]] it is sometimes used without regard to sexual implications. The first definition listed for the word on [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=zoophilia dictionary.com] is "Affection or affinity for animals".  Other definitions are:
{{div col}}
* "Erotic attraction to or sexual contact with animals"
*Human-animal role-players
* "Attraction to or affinity for animals"
*Romantic zoophiles
* "An erotic fixation on animals that may result in sexual excitement through real or fancied contact"
*Zoophilic fantasizers
*Tactile zoophiles
*Fetishistic zoophiles
*Sadistic bestials
*Opportunistic zoophiles
*Regular zoophiles
*Exclusive zoophiles
{{div col end}}


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


=== Zoophiles and other groups ===
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>


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


Finally, zoophilia is not related to sexual [[Human animal roleplay (BDSM)|puppy or pony play]] (also known as "[[Petplay]]") or [[Animal transformation fantasy|animal transformation fantasies and roleplays]], where one person may acts like a dog, pony, horse, or other animal, while a sexual partner acts as a rider, trainer, caretaker, or breeding partner. These activities are [[Sexual_role-playing|sexual roleplays]] whose principal theme is the voluntary or involuntary reduction or transformation of a human being to animal status, and focus on the altered mind-space created. They have no implicit connection to, nor motive in common with, zoophilia. They are instead more usually associated with [[BDSM]]. Zoosexual activity is not part of BDSM for most people, and would usually be considered extreme, or [[edgeplay]].
*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"/>


==Perspectives on zoophilia==
Beetz also states the following:


=== Psychological and research perspectives ===
{{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>}}


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


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


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


An example of such a statistic is a statement that "96% of people who commit bestiality will go on to commit crimes against people" quoted by [[PETA]] [http://www.peta.org/mc/NewsItem.asp?id=6838], which is sourced from a study of such a population [http://www.psyeta.org/sa/sa10.1/fleming.shtml] <!--(24 out of the sample of 381 criminals had zoosexual experience although the survey did not explore the motive or intent)-->. When read in full however, the study also includes the following caution regarding interpretation of their results: ''"It is difficult to assess 'normality' in a study where all 381 participants were adjudicated juvenile offenders living in state facilities ...  It is possible that among other populations ... sex acts with animals might be performed out of love, the need for consolation, or other motivations. In these and other populations, there might not be any link whatsoever to offenses against humans."'' This qualification is not mentioned by PETA.
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>


=== Religious perspectives===
===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.


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


=== Animal rights and welfare concerns===
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"/>


One of the primary critiques of zoophilia is the argument that zoosexuality is harmful to animals.  Some state this categorically; that any sexual activity is necessarily abuse.  Critics also point to examples in which animals were clearly abused, having been tied up, assaulted, or injured. Defenders of zoophilia argue that animal abuse is neither typical of nor commonplace within zoophilia, and that just as sexual activity with humans can be both abusive and not, so can sexual activity with animals.  
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 comment on [[Peter Singer]]'s article "Heavy Petting", which controversially argued that zoosexuality need not be abusive and if so loving relationships could form, Ingrid Newkirk, then president of the [[United States|American]] [[animal rights]] group [[People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals|PETA]], added this endorsement: "If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you [[French kiss]] your dog and he or she thinks it's great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong. If it isn't exploitation and abuse, [then] it may not be wrong."
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"/>


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


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


Sexology information sites (if sufficiently detailed) are usually careful to distinguish zoosadism from zoophilia: [http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/SEN/CH20.HTM#b1-PARAPHILIAS Humboldt Berlin University Sexology Dept] [http://www.sex-lexis.com/Sex-Dictionary sex-lexis.com] and [http://www.sexualcounselling.com/Glossary sexualcounselling.com].
[[File:Khajuraho-Lakshmana Temple erotic detal3.JPG|thumb|right|Man having intercourse with a horse, pictured on the exterior of a temple in [[Khajuraho]].]]


===Cultural perspectives===
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>


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


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


== Health and safety ==
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>


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


In terms of physical compatibility and injury, many medium/large domesticated species appear to be physically compatible with humans. The main non-deliberate physical risks are of injury, either through ignorance of physical differences, forcefulness, or, for female animals, excessive friction or infection. Humans may also be at substantial physical risk and seriously harmed by sexual activity with animals.  Larger animals may have the strength and defensive attributes (e.g. hooves, teeth) to injure a human, either in rejecting physical or sexual contact, or in the course of sexual arousal. For example, the penis of a sexually aroused dog has a broad bulb at the base which can cause injury if forcibly pulled from a body orifice, equines can thrust suddenly and "flare", and many animals bite as part of sexual excitement and foreplay. In [[2005]], a man died in [[Enumclaw]], [[Washington]] after being [[anal sex|anally penetrated]] by a stallion. ("The prosecutor's office says no animal cruelty charges were filed [against the other man present] because there was no evidence of injury to the horses.") [http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002384648_farm16m.html] [http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002568970_webhorse.html]
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>


== Arguments about zoophilia or zoosexuality ==
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 &#124; 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 &#124; Florida Politics &#124; 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 &#124; 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" />


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


== In the media ==
==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).


Because of its controversial standing, different countries and medias vary in how they treat discussion of zoosexuality. Often sexual matters are the subject of legal or regulatory requirement. Forexample, in 2005, the UK broadcasting regulator ([[OFCOM]]) updated its code stating that:
{{Main|Zoonosis}}
:"Freedom of expression is at the heart of any democratic state. It is an essential right to hold opinions and receive and impart information and ideas. Broadcasting and freedom of expression are intrinsically linked. However, with such rights come duties and responsibilities ... The focus is on adult audiences making informed choices within a regulatory framework which gives them a reasonable expectation of what they will receive, while at the same time robustly protecting those too young to exercise fully informed choices for themselves ..."
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.
:OFCOM sets out a [[watershed]] and other precautions for explicit sexual material, to protect young people, and specifies that discussion of zoosexuality along with other sexual matters may take place, but in an appropriate [[context]] and manner. [http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/codes/bcode/?a=87101]


The contrasting views between cultures are highlighted by the case of [[Omaha the Cat Dancer]], a [[furry]] [[comic|comic book]], which was simultaneously the subject of a raid by [[Toronto]] police for pronographic depiction of bestiality (as noted, furry art is not usually considered "bestiality"), and the subject of praise by the [[New Zealand]] government committee on import of printed material for its mature depiction of relationships and sexuality.
==Zoophiles==


References to zoosexuality are not uncommon in some media, especially [[cartoon]] series such as [[Family Man]] and [[South Park]], and films, although a few broadcasters such as [[Howard Stern]] (who joked about bestiality dial-a-date on NBC) have been reprimanded or fired by their stations for doing so.
=== 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>


== Pornography ==
===Zoophile community===
[[Pornography]] involving sex with animals is widely illegal, even in most countries where the act itself is not explicitly outlawed. In the [[United States]], zoosexual pornography (in common with other 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 appear to be legal, however. U.S. prohibitions on distribution of sexual or obscene materials are presently ([[January 20]] [[2005]]) in some doubt, having been ruled [[unconstitutional]] in ''[[Extreme Associates|United States v. Extreme Associates]]'' (note, though, that the case is still in review and is likely to be appealled). Similar restrictions apply in Germany (cf. §184 StGB [http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/184.html]).
[[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<!-- Clarify: Of what kind? Of all internet groups? Or of zoophilia-related internet groups? --> 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>


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


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


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


==Social community==
== 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)


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


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


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


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


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


== Other popular references ==
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>


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


== Books, articles and documentaries ==
<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>


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


=== Other books ===
[[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 journal |doi=10.2139/ssrn.1328310 |title=The Unjustified Prohibition against Bestiality: Why the Laws in Opposition Can Find No Support under the Harm Principle |year=2009 |last1=Roberts |first1=Michael }}</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>
* Midas Dekkers: ''Dearest Pet: On Bestiality'', ISBN 1859843107
* Mark Matthews: ''The Horseman: Obsessions of a Zoophile'', ISBN 0-87975-902-X<br> (German translation: ''Der Pferde-Mann'', 2nd Print 2004, ISBN 3833408642)
* Marjorie B. Garber: ''Dog Love'', ISBN 0641042728
* Brenda Love: ''The Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices'' (1994), ISBN 1569800111
* Nancy Friday: ''My Secret Garden'' (ISBN 0671019872), ''Forbidden Flowers'' (ISBN 0671741020), "Women on Top" (ISBN 0671648446), notable for readability, and neutral treatment of a wide scope of women's sexuality including zoophilia.
* Raymond A. Belliotti: ''Good Sex; perspectives on sexual ethics'' (1993), ISBN 0700606041 or ISBN 070060605X
* Bram Dijkstra: ''Idols of Perversity: Fantasies of Feminine Evil in Fin-De-Siecle Culture'', zoophilic art
* Dubois-Dessaule: ''Tude Sur la Bestiality au point de Vue Historique (The Study of Bestiality from the Historical, Medical and Legal Viewpoint)'' (Paris, 1905)
* A. Neimoller: ''Bestiality and the Law'', ''Bestiality in Ancient and Modern Times'' (1946)
* Marie-Christine Anest: ''Zoophilie, homosexualite, rites de passage et initiation masculine dans la Greece contemporaine'' (Zoophilia, homosexuality, rites of passage and male initiation in contemporary Greece)'' (1994), ISBN 2739421466
* Gaston Dubois-Desaulle: ''Bestiality: An Historical, Medical, Legal, and Literary Study'', University Press of the Pacific (November 1, 2003), ISBN 1410209474 (Paperback Ed.)
* Robert Hough: ''The Final Confession Of [[Mabel Stark]]'' (Stark was the worlds premier tiger trainer of the [[1920s]], specializing in highly sexualized circus acts. She wore white to hide the tiger's semen during mating rituals and foreplay which the audience took to be vicious attacks)


=== Print and online media ===
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>


* ''The Joy Of Beasts'' (3 December 2000, Independent on Sunday, UK)
Some zoophiles claim that they are not abusive towards animals:<ref name="ScientificAmerican" />
* ''Heavy Petting'' (2001, Peter Singer [http://www.nerve.com Nerve.com])
* ''Laying with Beasts'' (March 1996, [http://www.guidemag.com The Guide])
* ''Sexual Contact With Animals '' (October 1977, Pomeroy Ph.D.) (co-author of the [[Kinsey Reports]])
* ''Liking it Ruff'' (July 2005, [http://www.eye.net/eye/issue/issue_07.14.05/plus/lovebites.html The eye], follow-up to original article [http://www.eye.net/eye/issue/issue_06.30.05/plus/lovebites.html link])


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


== See also ==
== See also ==
* [[Environment, choice, and sexual orientation]]
* [[Wikipedia:Zoophilia|Zoophilia]] on Wikipedia
* [[Kinsey Reports]]
* [[Bestiality]]
* [[Non-human animal sexuality]]
* [[Zetacon]]
* [[Paraphilia]]
* [[Philip Buble]]  
* [[Catherine the Great]]
* [[Sexual orientation]]
 
== External links ==
=== Websites supportive of zoophilia ===
* [http://www.cotse.net/users/hippo/uzp/ UZP], the Ultimate Zoo Page, general resources
* [http://www.zoophile.org Zoophile.org] zoophile community and support site
* [http://www.angelfire.com/retro/auto_tiger/silverwolf/ Poems and Stories] by "Silverwolf" describing his relationship with his dogs
* [http://www.firstlight.net/~chythar/manawolf/articles/zooessay.htm Zoophilia Essay] by writer Manawolf


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


=== Other ===
* [http://www.zeta-verein.de/en/ ZETA] official website
* [http://www.pet-abuse.com/database/search.php?type_id=10 Pet-Abuse.Com Database] ''Bestiality and sexual assault cases from the U.S. and UK''
* ''[http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sex.bestiality/browse_frm/thread/b26e8acbd087f127 Zoophilia and Your Health]'' (posted on [[alt.sex.bestiality]])
* Animal rights site, Germany: [http://verschwiegenes-tierleid-online.de/ German] [http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?url=http%3A%2F%2Fverschwiegenes-tierleid-online.de%2F&lp=de_en English translation]
* [http://www.zoophilia.net/ Zoophilia & Beastiality Information Articles]
* [http://www.fifine.org/whitefangsTexte/84-Englisch.html Dr. Miletski, extract from cited book, re: meeting with zoophiles for her research, and attitudes described]
* [http://www.deviantdesires.com/dcforum/DCForumID1/3.html ''deviantdesires'' discussion of zoophilia and issues arising]
* [http://www.sex-lexis.com/Sex-Dictionary/zoophilia ''sex-lexis'' reference section on zoophilia and related topics]


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


[[Category:Paraphilia]]
* [http://adjectivespecies.com/2012/02/06/zoophilia-in-the-furry-community/ ''Zoophilia in the furry community''] article on [[adjective species|adjective specie]]
[[Category:Sexual orientation and identity]]
==Mentions in the media==
[[Category:Zoosexuality]]
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 below are interlanguage links. -->
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


[[bg:Зоофилия]]
[[Category:Sexuality]]
[[da:Zoofili]]
[[Category:Terms]]
[[de:Zoophilie]]
<references />{{Home}}
[[eo:Zoofilio]]
[[es:Zoofilia]]
[[fr:Zoophilie]]
[[nl:Zoöfilie]]
[[ja:獣姦]]
[[pl:Zoofilia]]
[[sv:Zoofili]]
[[zh:動物戀]]

Revision as of 21:53, 30 November 2023

IMPORTED FROM WIKIPEDIA
This article was originally imported from Wikipedia and as such may be partially or completely broken, filled with links to non-existent pages, contain/cite outdated information, and/or exhibit a tonal incongruence relative to our original content. We at the Zoophilia Wiki make every effort to ensure up-to-date information is provided here so that zoophiles may be well-informed, and will continue to edit the article until it is readable and useful to our audience. As the page begins to materially differ from the source document, this notice will eventually be removed.
The Zoophilia Wiki disclaims any liability for misinformation spread by the archiving of these articles.
We're so glad you came
Zoo Sexuality
Its time to talk tail
Roman oil lamp depicting a zoophilic act, 1st–3rd century A.D.
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.[1] Some studies have found a preference for animals is rare among people who engage in sexual contact with animals.[2] Furthermore, some zoophiles report they have never had sexual contact with an animal.[3] People with zoophilia are known as "zoophiles", though also sometimes as "zoosexuals", or even very simply "zoos".[1][4] Zooerasty, sodomy, and zooerastia[5] 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] 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 Macdonald triad of precursors to sociopathic behavior.[6]

Zoophilia

Hokusai's (1760–1849) The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife.

The term zoophilia was introduced into the field of research on sexuality in Psychopathia Sexualis (1886) by Krafft-Ebing, who described a number of cases of "violation of animals (bestiality)",[7] as well as "zoophilia erotica",[8] 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 (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,[9] that term has fallen out of general use.

Zoosexuality

The term zoosexual was proposed by Hani Miletski in 2002[4] 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 on internet-based discussion forums to designate sexual orientation manifesting as romantic or emotional involvement with, or sexual attraction to, non-human animals.[4][10]

Bestiality

Japanese ukiyo-e woodblock print from Utagawa Kunisada's series, "Eight Canine Heroes of the House of Satomi", 1837.
An 18th-century Indian miniature depicting women practising zoophilia in the bottom register.

The legal term bestiality has three common pronunciations: [ˌbestʃiˈæləti] or [ˌbistʃiˈæləti] in the United States,[11] and [ˌbestiˈæləti] in the United Kingdom.[12] 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.[13] 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 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.[14] 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 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.[15]

From WikiFur

Zoophilia is a technical term for the sexual attraction of humans to animals.

It has been increasingly used in popular and 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 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 anthropomorphic beings.

While some furries are zoophiles, the two terms are not synonymous. Most furries do not have any sexual interest in animals in real life, though some may roleplay otherwise in a fantasy scenario.

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 without emotional bonds as "beasties.” Zoophiles may draw attention to the distinction between bestiality (an act), and Zoophilia (sexuality), 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 Furry Survey suggests that one in six furries self identify as zoophiles[16].

Extent of occurrence

The Kinsey reports rated 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 was 40–50% in people living near farms,[9] but some later writers dispute the figures, because the study lacked a random sample in that it included a disproportionate number of prisoners, causing sampling bias. Martin Duberman has written that it is difficult to get a random sample in sexual research, and that even when Paul Gebhard, Kinsey's research successor, removed prison samples from the figures, he found the figures were not significantly changed.[17]

By 1974, the farm population in the USA had declined by 80 percent compared with 1940, reducing the opportunity to live with animals; 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.[18]

Nancy Friday's 1973 book on female sexuality, My Secret Garden, comprised around 190 fantasies from different women; of these, 23 involve zoophilic activity.[19]

In one study, psychiatric patients were found to have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55 percent) of reported bestiality, both actual sexual contacts (45 percent) and sexual fantasy (30 percent) than the control groups of medical in-patients (10 percent) and psychiatric staff (15 percent).[20] Crépault and Couture (1980) reported that 5.3 percent of the men they surveyed had fantasized about sexual activity with an animal during heterosexual intercourse.[21] In a 2014 study, 3% of women and 2.2% of men reported fantasies about having sex with an animal.[22] A 1982 study suggested that 7.5 percent of 186 university students had interacted sexually with an animal.[23]

Sexual arousal from watching animals mate is known as faunoiphilia.[24] A frequent interest in and sexual excitement at watching animals mate is cited as an indicator of latent zoophilia by Massen (1994). 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. 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.[25][failed verification]. Several studies have found that women show stronger vaginal responses to films depicting bonobo copulation than to non-sexual stimuli.[26][27]

Perspectives on zoophilia

Art by Franz von Bayros depicting oral sex between an adolescent and a deer

Research perspectives

Zoophilia has been partly discussed by several sciences: psychology (the study of the human mind), sexology (a relatively new discipline primarily studying human sexuality), ethology (the study of animal behavior), and anthrozoology (the study of human–animal interactions and bonds).

In the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), zoophilia is placed in the classification "other specified paraphilic disorder"[28] ("paraphilias not otherwise specified" in the DSM-III and IV[29][30][31][32]). The World Health Organization takes the same position, listing a sexual preference for animals in its ICD-10 as "other disorder of sexual preference".[33] In the DSM-5, it rises to the level of a diagnosable disorder only when accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning.[28][34]

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;[35] it also states that there are several kinds of zoophiles:[35]

  • Human-animal role-players
  • Romantic zoophiles
  • Zoophilic fantasizers
  • Tactile zoophiles
  • Fetishistic zoophiles
  • Sadistic bestials
  • Opportunistic zoophiles
  • Regular zoophiles
  • Exclusive zoophiles

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.[35]

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[36] 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.[37]

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-reviewed journals. There have been several significant modern books, from Masters (1962) to Beetz (2002);[38] 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)[38][39]
  • 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.[40] Beetz believes zoophilia is not an inclination which is chosen.[38]
  • Society in general at present is considerably misinformed about zoophilia, its stereotypes, and its meaning.[38] 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".[38]

Beetz also states the following:

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.[41]

More recently, research has engaged three further directions: the speculation that at least some animals seem to enjoy a zoophilic relationship assuming sadism is not present, and can form an affectionate bond.[42] 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 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.[43]

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 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.[44] As with all volunteer surveys and sexual ones in particular, these studies have a potential for self-selection bias.[45]

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.[2][46]

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.[47][48][49]

Historical and cultural perspectives

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.[50] 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,[51] 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.[52] 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.[53] 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".[54] 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.[55] Masters said that since pre-historic man is prehistoric it goes without saying that we know little of his sexual behaviour;[56] 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.[57] 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]

Bestiality was accepted in some North American and Middle Eastern indigenous cultures.[58] Sexual intercourse between humans and non-human animals was not uncommon among certain Native American indigenous peoples, including the Hopi.[59][60] Voget describes the sexual lives of young Native Americans as "rather inclusive", including bestiality.[59] In addition, the Copper Inuit people had "no aversion to intercourse with live animals".[59]

Several cultures built temples (Khajuraho, India) or other structures (Sagaholm, 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]

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 Biblical edicts and a degradation of man as a spiritual being rather than one that is purely animal and carnal".[61] 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.[57]

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.[62]

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".[63] Some Christian theologians extend Matthew's view that even having thoughts of adultery is sinful to imply that thoughts of committing bestial acts are likewise sinful.

Man having intercourse with a horse, pictured on the exterior of a temple in Khajuraho.

There are a few references in 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 temple complex at Khajuraho. The depictions are largely symbolic depictions of the sexualization of some animals and are not meant to be taken literally.[64] 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.[65] 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 hell, where one is tormented by having one's body rubbed on trees with razor-sharp thorns.[66]

Legal status

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).[67] Despite the 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",[68] "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.[69]

Many new laws banning sex with animals have been made recently, such as in New Hampshire,[70] Ohio,[citation needed] Germany,[71] Sweden,[72] Denmark,[73]Thailand,[74] Costa Rica,[75] Bolivia,[76] and Guatemala.[77] The number of jurisdictions around the world banning it has grown in the 2000s and 2010s.

The only EU countries where zoophilia remains legal are Finland, Hungary, and Romania.[78]

Laws on zoophilia are sometimes triggered by specific incidents.[79] 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".[80] 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.[81] 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'.[82] 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.[83]

Some countries once had laws against single males living with female animals, such as alpacas.[citation needed] Copulating with a female alpaca is still specifically against the law in Peru.[84]

As of 2017, bestiality is illegal in 45 U.S. states. Most state bestiality laws were enacted between 1999 and 2017.[85][86] 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 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 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.[87][88] Arizona,[89] Alaska,[90] Florida,[91] Alabama,[92] New Jersey,[93] New Hampshire,[70] Ohio,[94] Texas,[95] Vermont,[96] and Nevada[97] 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.[98][99] Laws which prohibit non-abusive bestiality have been criticized for being discriminatory, unjust and unconstitutional.[100][101]

Pornography

Zoophilia Wiki has a section for Zoophilia in Art.

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]

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 in some doubt, having been ruled unconstitutional in United States v. Extreme Associates (a judgement which was overturned on appeal, December 2005).

Similar restrictions apply in Germany (see 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] Prior to the advent of mass-market magazines such as Playboy, so-called Tijuana Bibles 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.[102] 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", smuggled into Great Britain around 1980 without details as to makers or provenance.[103] 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 dog starring in several films. Many Hungarian mainstream performers also appeared anonymously in animal pornography in their early careers, including for example, Suzy Spark.[104]

In Japan, animal pornography is used to bypass censorship laws, often featuring Japanese and Swedish[citation needed] 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.[105]

Pornography of this sort has become the business of certain spammers such as Jeremy Jaynes and owners of some fake TGPs, 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 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).

Infections that are transmitted from animals to humans are called 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. 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[106] 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.[107]

Zoophile community

Several companies (e.g., Bad Dragon) sell dildos 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 networking, 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.[108] As with many other alternate lifestyles, broader networks began forming in the 1980s when participating in networked social groups became more common at home and elsewhere.[109] 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.[110] The popular newsgroup 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[111] – 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 forums. By around 1992–1994, the wide social net had evolved.[112] 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.[113][114][115][116] The newsgroup included information about health issues, laws governing zoophilia, bibliography relating to the subject, and community events.[117]

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.[109]

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.[118]

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.[119]

ZooWiki

File:Zeta sign.png
ZooWiki logo

ZooWiki was a 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

Leda and the Swan, copy of a lost Michelangelo.

Because of its controversial nature, people have developed arguments both for[120] and against[121] 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).[122] 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;[123] however, Beetz also says that in some cases, non-abusive bestiality can be reciprocally pleasurable for both the human and non-human animal.[123]

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."[124]

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.[125]

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.[126] 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.'[127][128]

Arguments for bestiality

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, hunting, laboratory testing, and slaughtering animals for meat) do not involve the consent of the animal.[129] Brian Cutteridge states the following regarding this argument:

"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."[100]

Hani Miletski believes that "Animals are capable of sexual consent – and even initiation – in their own way."[130] It is not an uncommon practice for dogs to attempt to copulate with ("hump") the legs of people of both genders.[131] 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.[123] Those supporting zoophilic activity feel animals sometimes even seem to enjoy the sexual attention[132] or voluntarily initiate sexual activity with humans.[133] 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."[100] 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.[134]

Utilitarian philosopher and animal liberation author Peter Singer argues that bestiality is not unethical so long as it involves no harm or cruelty to the animal[135] (see Harm principle). In the article "Heavy Petting,"[136] 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.[137][138] Because interspecies sex occurs in nature,[139] and because humans are animals,[140] supporters argue that zoosexual activity is not "unnatural" and is not intrinsically wrong.[101][141]

Research has proven that non-human animals can and do have sex for non-reproductive purposes (and for pleasure).[142] 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 sexually attracted to humans[143] (for example, dolphins).[144]

Some zoophiles claim that they are not abusive towards animals:[99]

"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."[99]

See also

External links

Media

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 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.[145]

The IPT [clarification needed] 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

  1. 1.0 1.1 Ranger, R.; Fedoroff, P. (2014). "Commentary: Zoophilia and the Law". Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online. 42 (4): 421–426. PMID 25492067.
  2. 2.0 2.1 Earls, C. M.; Lalumiere, M. L. (2002). "A Case Study of Preferential Bestiality (Zoophilia)". Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. 14 (1): 83–88. doi:10.1177/107906320201400106. PMID 11803597.
  3. Maratea, R. J. (2011). "Screwing the pooch: Legitimizing accounts in a zoophilia on-line community". Deviant Behavior. 32 (10): 938. doi:10.1080/01639625.2010.538356.
  4. 4.0 4.1 4.2 Beetz, Andrea M. (2010). "Bestiality and Zoophilia: A Discussion of Sexual Contact With Animals". In Ascione, Frank (ed.). The International Handbook of Animal Abuse and Cruelty: Theory, Research, and Application. ISBN 978-1-55753-565-8.
  5. "zooerastia definition". Dictionary.com. Retrieved 13 December 2011.
  6. MacDonald, J. M. (1963). "The Threat to Kill" (PDF). American Journal of Psychiatry. 120 (2): 125–30. doi:10.1176/ajp.120.2.125. Retrieved 19 January 2013.
  7. Richard von Krafft-Ebing: Psychopathia Sexualis, p. 561.
  8. Richard von Krafft-Ebing: Psychopathia Sexualis, p. 281.
  9. 9.0 9.1 D. Richard Laws and William T. O'Donohue: Books.Google.co.uk, Sexual Deviance, page 391. Guilford Press, 2008. ISBN 978-1-59385-605-2.
  10. "What is zoosexuality". Zoosexuality.org. Retrieved 3 December 2011.
  11. "Pronunciation of bestiality". MacMillan Dictionary. Retrieved 3 January 2018.
  12. "Pronunciation of bestiality". MacMillan Dictionary. Retrieved 3 January 2018.
  13. "Sexuality.about.com". Sexuality.about.com. Retrieved 13 May 2012.
  14. Melinda Roth (15 December 1991). "All Opposed, Say Neigh". Riverfront Times. Retrieved 24 January 2009.
  15. Williams CJ, Weinberg MS (December 2003). "Zoophilia in men: a study of sexual interest in animals". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 32 (6): 523–35. doi:10.1023/A:1026085410617. PMID 14574096.
  16. http://adjectivespecies.com/2012/02/06/zoophilia-in-the-furry-community/
  17. Richard Duberman: KinseyInstitute.org Archived 11 January 2009 at the Wayback Machine, Kinsey's Urethra The Nation, 3 November 1997, pp. 40–43. Review of Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life. By James H. Jones.
  18. Hunt 1974, cited and re-examined by Miletski (1999)
  19. Nancy Friday (1998) [1973]. "What do women fantasize about? The Zoo". My Secret Garden (Revised ed.). Simon and Schuster. pp. 180–185. ISBN 978-0-671-01987-7.
  20. Alvarez, WA; Freinhar, JP (1991). "A prevalence study of bestiality (zoophilia) in psychiatric in-patients, medical in-patients, and psychiatric staff". International Journal of Psychosomatics. 38 (1–4): 45–7. PMID 1778686.
  21. Crépault, Claude; Couture, Marcel (1980). "Men's erotic fantasies". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 9 (6): 565–81. doi:10.1007/BF01542159. PMID 7458662.
  22. Joyal, C. C.; Cossette, A.; Lapierre, V. (2014). "What Exactly Is an Unusual Sexual Fantasy?". The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 12 (2): 328–340. doi:10.1111/jsm.12734. PMID 25359122.
  23. Story, MD (1982). "A comparison of university student experience with various sexual outlets in 1974 and 1980". Adolescence. 17 (68): 737–47. PMID 7164870.
  24. Aggrawal, Anil. Forensic and medico-legal aspects of sexual crimes and unusual sexual practices. CRC Press, 2008.
  25. R.E.L. Masters: Forbidden Sexual behavior and Morality. New York, NY 1962, Lancer Books, Inc. (Section "Psychical bestiality").
  26. Chivers, Meredith L.; Seto, Michael C.; Blanchard, Ray (2007). "Gender and sexual orientation differences in sexual response to sexual activities versus gender of actors in sexual films". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 93 (6): 1108–21. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.1108. PMID 18072857.
  27. Chivers, Meredith L.; Bailey, J. Michael (2005). "A sex difference in features that elicit genital response". Biological Psychology. 70 (2): 115–20. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2004.12.002. PMID 16168255.
  28. 28.0 28.1 American Psychiatric Association, ed. (2013). "Other Specified Paraphilic Disorder, 302.89 (F65.89)". Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. American Psychiatric Publishing. p. 705.
  29. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-IV. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. 2000. ISBN 978-0-89042-025-6. OCLC 43483668.
  30. Milner, J. S.; Dopke, C. A. (2008). "Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified: Psychopathology and theory". In Laws, D. R.; O'Donohue, W. T. (eds.). Sexual Deviance, Second Edition: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment. New York: The Guilford Press. pp. 384–418. ISBN 978-1-59385-605-2. OCLC 152580827.
  31. Money, John (1988). Lovemaps: Clinical Concepts of Sexual/Erotic Health and Pathology, Paraphilia, and Gender Transposition in Childhood, Adolescence, and Maturity. Buffalo, N.Y: Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-0-87975-456-3. OCLC 19340917.
  32. Seto, MC; Barbaree HE (2000). "Paraphilias". In Hersen, M.; Van Hasselt, V. B. (eds.). Aggression and violence: an introductory text. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. pp. 198–213. ISBN 978-0-205-26721-7. OCLC 41380492.
  33. "International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10, F65.8 Other disorders of sexual preference". Who.int. Retrieved 13 May 2012.
  34. Miletski, H. (2015). "Zoophilia – Implications for Therapy". Journal of Sex Education and Therapy. 26 (2): 85–86. doi:10.1080/01614576.2001.11074387. S2CID 146150162.
  35. 35.0 35.1 35.2 Aggrawal, Anil (2011). "A new classification of zoophilia". Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine. 18 (2): 73–8. doi:10.1016/j.jflm.2011.01.004. PMID 21315301.
  36. D. Richard Laws; William T. O'Donohue (January 2008). Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment. Guilford Press. p. 391. ISBN 978-1-59385-605-2.
  37. Richard W. Roukema (August 13, 2008). What Every Patient, Family, Friend, and Caregiver Needs to Know About Psychiatry, Second Edition. American Psychiatric Pub. p. 133. ISBN 978-1-58562-750-9.
  38. 38.0 38.1 38.2 38.3 38.4 Beetz 2002, section 5.2.4 – 5.2.7.
  39. Anil Aggrawal (December 22, 2008). Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices. CRC Press. p. 257. ISBN 978-1-4200-4309-9. Retrieved 13 May 2012.
  40. (Masters, Miletski, Weinberg, Beetz)
  41. Anthony L. Podberscek; Andrea M. Beetz (September 1, 2005). Bestiality and Zoophilia: Sexual Relations with Animals. Berg. p. 94. ISBN 978-0-85785-222-9. Retrieved 13 May 2012.
  42. Masters, 1962.
  43. Jonathan Balcombe (29 May 2006). "Animals can be happy too". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 13 May 2012.
  44. "Bestiality/Zoophilia: A Scarcely-Investigated Phenomenon Between Crime, Paraphilia, and Love". Scie-SocialCareOnline.org.uk. Archived 15 November 2010 at the Wayback Machine
  45. Joseph W. Slade (2001). Pornography and Sexual Representation: A Reference Guide. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 980. ISBN 978-0-313-31521-3.
  46. Bhatia, MS; Srivastava, S; Sharma, S (2005). "1. An uncommon case of zoophilia: A case report". Medicine, Science, and the Law. 45 (2): 174–75. doi:10.1258/rsmmsl.45.2.174. PMID 15895645. S2CID 5744962.
  47. Devlin, Hannah (10 January 2017). "Snow monkey attempts sex with deer in rare example of interspecies mating". The Guardian. Retrieved 12 March 2018.
  48. "Monkey Tries to Mate With Deer in First Ever Video". Nationalgeographic.com. 11 January 2017. Retrieved 12 March 2018.
  49. Wenzke, Marissa. "Sex between snow monkey and deer shows different species may mate if they're 'deprived', study says". Mashable.com. Retrieved 12 March 2018.
  50. Aggrawal, Anil (2009). "References to the paraphilias and sexual crimes in the Bible". Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine. 16 (3): 109–14. doi:10.1016/j.jflm.2008.07.006. PMID 19239958.
  51. Archaeometry.org, Link to web page and photograph, archaeometry.org
  52. Lynne Bevan (2006). Worshippers and warriors: reconstructing gender and gender relations in the prehistoric rock art of Naquane National Park, Valcamonica, Brecia, northern Italy. Archaeopress. ISBN 978-1-84171-920-7.
  53. Paul G. Bahn (1998). The Cambridge Illustrated History of Prehistoric Art. Cambridge University Press. p. 188. ISBN 978-0-521-45473-5.
  54. Abuses Aberrations and Crimes of the Genital Sense, 1901.
  55. Marc Epprecht (2006). ""Bisexuality" and the politics of normal in African Ethnography". Anthropologica. 48 (2): 187–201. doi:10.2307/25605310. JSTOR 25605310.
  56. Masters, Robert E. L., Forbidden Sexual Behavior and Morality, p. 5.
  57. 57.0 57.1 Vern L. Bullough; Bonnie Bullough (January 1, 1994). Human Sexuality: An Encyclopedia. Taylor & Francis. p. 61. ISBN 978-0-8240-7972-7.
  58. Judith Worell (September 2001). "Cross-Cultural Sexual Practices". Encyclopedia of Women and Gender: Sex Similarities and Differences and the Impact of Society on Gender. Academic Press. p. 298. ISBN 978-0-12-227245-5.
  59. 59.0 59.1 59.2 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.
  60. Talayesva, Don C; Simmons, Leo William (1942). Sun Chief: The Autobiography of a Hopi Indian. Yale University Press. p. 78. ISBN 9780300002270. Retrieved 12 December 2012.
  61. Masters (1962)
  62. Plummer, Keith (2001). To beast or not to beast: does the law of Christ forbid zoophilia?. 53rd National Conference of the Evangelical Theological Society. Colorado Springs, CO.
  63. Fordham.edu Aquinas on Unnatural Sex
  64. Swami Satya Prakash Saraswati, The Critical and Cultural Study of the Shatapatha Brahmana, p. 415.
  65. Podberscek, Anthony L.; Beetz, Andrea M. (1 September 2005). Bestiality and Zoophilia: Sexual Relations with Animals. Berg. p. 12. ISBN 978-0-85785-222-9. Retrieved 4 January 2013.
  66. Mani, Vettam (1975). Puranic Encyclopaedia: A Comprehensive Dictionary With Special Reference to the Epic and Puranic Literature. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 368–70. ISBN 978-0-8426-0822-0. OCLC 2198347.
  67. "Section 63 – Possession of extreme pornographic images". Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. 2008.
  68. "Extreme Pornography". Crown Prosecution Service. Retrieved 23 September 2015.
  69. Jackman, Myles (21 September 2015). "Is it illegal to have sex with a dead pig? Here's what the law says about the allegations surrounding David Cameron's biography". The Independent. Retrieved 23 September 2015.
  70. 70.0 70.1 "New Hampshire HB1547 - 2016 - Regular Session". Retrieved 17 April 2017.
  71. "§ 3 TierSchG - dejure.org". Dejure.org. Retrieved 20 October 2018.
  72. "Sweden Joins An Increasing Number Of European Countries That Ban Bestiality". Webpronews.com. Retrieved 16 November 2017.
  73. "Flertal for lovændring: Nu bliver sex med dyr ulovligt". 21 April 2015. Retrieved 20 October 2018.
  74. [1] [dead link]
  75. "Diputados aclaran alcances y límites de la nueva Ley de Bienestar Animal". Elpais.cr. Retrieved 16 November 2017.
  76. "LEY No 700 del 01 de Junio de 2015 » Derechoteca". Derechoteca.com. Retrieved 16 November 2017.
  77. "Transdoc :: Ley de Protección y Bienestar Animal :: transdoc.com". Transdoc.com. Retrieved 16 November 2017.
  78. "Denmark passes law to ban bestiality". BBC Newsbeat. 2015-04-22. Retrieved 2018-08-18.
  79. Howard Fischer: Lawmakers hope to outlaw bestiality, Arizona Daily Star, 28 March 2006. In Arizona, the motive for legislation was a "spate of recent cases."
  80. Posner, Richard, A Guide to America's Sex Laws, The University of Chicago Press, 1996. ISBN 978-0-226-67564-0. Page 207.
  81. "TheLocal.se". TheLocal.se. 26 January 2012. Archived from the original on 15 May 2013. Retrieved 13 May 2012.
  82. "Crimes Act 1961 No 43 (as at 01 October 2012), Public Act – New Zealand Legislation". Legislation.govt.nz. 2012-10-01. Retrieved 2013-01-04.
  83. "Her Majesty the Queen v. D.L.W." Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (ORSCC). 2016-05-02. Retrieved 2016-06-20.
  84. Fred Leavitt (January 1, 2003). The Real Drug Abusers. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 195. ISBN 978-0-7425-2518-4. female alpaca peru copulate.
  85. "Michigan State University College of Law". Animallaw.info. Retrieved 2013-01-04.
  86. "Table of State Animal Sexual Assault Laws | Animal Legal & Historical Center". Animallaw.info. 2016-06-24. Retrieved 2017-04-17.
  87. Johnston, Lynda and Longhurst, Robyn Space, Place, and Sex Lanham, Maryland:2010 Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, p. 110.
  88. "Man dies after sex with horse". News24, 19 July 2005.
  89. "Sheriff says Craigslist facilitates bestiality". Washington Times. 2011-03-16. Retrieved 2013-01-04.
  90. Sessions, David (27 January 2010). "Bill to Criminalize Bestiality Advances in Alaska Legislature". Politics Daily. Archived from the original on 2012-09-08. Retrieved 2020-02-10.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  91. Mandell, Nina (6 May 2011). "Legislation outlawing bestiality makes it to Florida governor's desk". Daily News. New York.
  92. "SB 151 - Alabama 2014 Regular Session". Openstate.org. Retrieved 17 April 2017.
  93. "New Jersey A3012 - 2014-2015 - Regular Session". Retrieved 17 April 2017.
  94. "Ohio SB195 - 2015-2016 - 131st General Assembly". Legiscan.com. Retrieved 16 November 2017.
  95. "Texas: Crackdown on animal cruelty, bestiality, starts Sept. 1". Star-telegram.com. Retrieved 12 March 2018.
  96. "No. 62. An act relating to criminal justice" (PDF). Legislature.vermont.gov. Retrieved 20 October 2018.
  97. "AB391". Leg.state.nv.us. Retrieved 12 March 2018.
  98. "Senate again passes bestiality bill | Florida Politics | Sun Sentinel blog". Weblogs.sun-sentinel.com. 2011-03-24. Retrieved 2013-01-04.
  99. 99.0 99.1 99.2 Bering, Jesse (2010-03-24). "Animal Lovers: Zoophiles Make Scientists Rethink Human Sexuality | Bering in Mind, Scientific American Blog Network". Scientific American. Retrieved 2013-01-04.
  100. 100.0 100.1 100.2 "Inter-disciplinary.net" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 22 July 2012. Retrieved 13 May 2012.
  101. 101.0 101.1 Roberts, Michael (2009). "The Unjustified Prohibition against Bestiality: Why the Laws in Opposition Can Find No Support under the Harm Principle". doi:10.2139/ssrn.1328310. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  102. An example digitized Tijuana Bible entitled The Pet from the 1960s is linked at tijuanabibles.org page link (also see full size and search).
  103. "The Dark Side of Porn Season 2 (2006) - Documentary / TV-Show". Crimedocumentary.com. Retrieved 28 May 2018.
  104. EuroBabeIndex.com, Suzy Spark
  105. ‘Acts of depravity’ found on dad’s computer, Reading Post, 26 January 2011.
  106. W. Edward Craighead; Charles B. Nemeroff, eds. (November 11, 2002). The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology and Behavioral Science. John Wiley & Sons. p. 1050. ISBN 978-0-471-27083-6.
  107. David Delaney (2003). Law and Nature. Cambridge University Press. p. 252. ISBN 978-1-139-43700-4.
  108. Montclair, 1997, cited by Miletski, 1999, p .35.
  109. 109.0 109.1 Weinberg and Williams
  110. Markoff, 1990.
  111. Miletski p. 35.
  112. Miletski (1999)
  113. Milteski (1999), p. 35.
  114. Andriette, 1996.
  115. Fox, 1994.
  116. Montclair, 1997.
  117. Donofrio, 1996.
  118. Miletski (1999), p. 22.
  119. Thomas Francis (20 August 2009). "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". Broward/Palm Beach. Retrieved 13 May 2012.
  120. Pablo Stafforini. "Heavy Petting, by Peter Singer". Utilitarian.net. Archived from the original on 6 June 2012. Retrieved 13 May 2012.
  121. "Bestiality and Lack of Consent " StopBestiality". Stopbestiality.wordpress.com. Retrieved 13 May 2012.
  122. "Other offences" (PDF). Protecting the Public: Strengthening Protection Against Sex Offenders and Reforming the Laws on Sexual Offences. 2002. pp. 32–3. ISBN 978-0-10-156682-7. Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 December 2013.
  123. 123.0 123.1 123.2 Beetz 2002, section 5.2.8.
  124. Wesleyjsmith.com and Weeklystandard.com, 31 August 2005.
  125. Regan, Tom. Animal Rights, Human Wrongs. Rowman & Littlefield, 2003, pp. 63–4, 89.
  126. Sex Abuse Archived 14 December 2007 at archive.today, NManimalControl.com
  127. "The First Strike Campaign: ANIMAL SEXUAL ABUSE FACT SHEET". NManimalControl.com. Archived from the original on 2007-03-12. Retrieved 13 May 2012.
  128. Ascione, Frank R. (1993). "Children Who are Cruel to Animals: A Review of Research and Implications for Developmental Psychopathology". Anthrozoös: A Multidisciplinary Journal of the Interactions of People and Animals. 6 (4): 226–47. doi:10.2752/089279393787002105.
  129. 28 February 2011 by Lucas Wachob (28 February 2011). "Column: In defense of chicken 'lovers' – The Breeze: Columnists". Breezejmu.org. Retrieved 13 May 2012.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  130. Miltski, 1999, p. 50.
  131. Cauldwell, 1948 & 1968; Queen, 1997.
  132. Blake, 1971, and Greenwood, 1963, both cited in Miletski, 1999.
  133. Dekkers, 1994.
  134. (Einsenhaim, 1971, cited in Kathmandu, 2004)"
  135. Singer, Peter. Heavy Petting, Nerve, 2001.
  136. Pablo Stafforini. "Utilitarian.com". Utilitarian.com. Archived from the original on 6 June 2012. Retrieved 13 May 2012.
  137. Ruetenik, T. (2010). "Animal Liberation or Human Redemption: Racism and Speciesism in Toni Morrison's Beloved". Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment. 17 (2): 317–326. doi:10.1093/isle/isq034.
  138. Boggs, Colleen Glenney (Fall 2010). "American Bestiality: Sex, Animals, and the Construction of Subjectivity". Cultural Critique. 76 (76): 98–125. doi:10.1353/cul.2010.0020 (inactive 2020-01-22). JSTOR 40925347.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of January 2020 (link)
  139. "Interspecies Sex: Evolution's Hidden Secret?". News.nationalgeographic.com. 28 October 2010. Retrieved 13 May 2012.
  140. "Changing Perspectives of Bestiality: Breaking the Human-Animal Distinction to Violating Animal Rights" (PDF). Stanford.edu. Retrieved 20 October 2018.
  141. Maratea, R. J. (2011). "Screwing the Pooch: Legitimizing Accounts in a Zoophilia On-line Community". Deviant Behavior. 32 (10): 918–943. doi:10.1080/01639625.2010.538356.
  142. Aldo Poiani; A. F. Dixson (19 August 2010). Animal Homosexuality: A Biosocial Perspective. Cambridge University Press. p. 7. ISBN 978-1-139-49038-2.
  143. Danish Animal Ethics Council report Archived 9 October 2011 at the Wayback Machine 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.
  144. "Bid to save over-friendly dolphin". CNN. 28 May 2002. Archived from the original on 21 March 2012.
  145. "OFCOM Broadcasting Code". Ofcom.org.uk. 28 February 2011. Retrieved 13 May 2012.