Zoophilia: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:58, 30 November 2005

Leda and the Swan, a 16th century copy after a lost painting by Michelangelo, 1530 (National Gallery, London)

This article is about zoophilia and bestiality. For other meanings please see #Terminology or wiktionary.

Zoophilia (from the Greek Zoon, "animal", and Philia, "friendship" or "love") is a paraphilia, defined as an affinity or sexual attraction by a human to non-human animals. Such individuals are called zoophiles. The more recent terms zoosexual and zoosexuality also describe the full spectrum of human/animal attraction. A separate term, bestiality (more common in mainstream usage), refers to human/animal sexual activity. To avoid confusion about the meaning of zoophilia – which may refer to the affinity/attraction, paraphilia, or sexual activity – this article uses zoophilia for the former, and zoosexuality for the sexual act. The two terms are independent: not all sexual acts with animals are performed by zoophiles, not all zoophiles are interested in being sexual with animals.

Zoophilia is usually considered to be unnatural, and sexual acts with animals are often condemned as 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. Although research has broadly been supportive of at least some of zoophiles' central claims, common culture is generally hostile to the concept of animal-human sexuality.

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

Terminology

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

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

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

In a non-zoophilic context, words like "bestial" or "bestiality" are also used to signify acting or behaving savagely, animal-like, extremely viciously, or lacking in human values. (Ironically, as is often stated in literature, humans are considered far more "bestial" in this sense than animals. The classic example cited is that animals kill for food or defence, but only humans kill and torture for fun or power.)

Extent of occurrence

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

Scientific surveys estimating the frequency of zoosexuality, as well as anecdotal evidence and informal surveys, suggest that more than 1-2% -- and perhaps as many as 8-10% -- of sexually active adults have had significant sexual experience with an animal at some point in their lives. Studies suggest that a larger number (perhaps 10-30% depending on area) have fantasized or had some form of brief encounter. Larger figures such as 40-60% for rural teenagers (living on or near livestock farms) have been cited from some earlier surveys such as the Kinsey reports, 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 zoosexual activity.

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 mate is cited as an indicator of this by Massen (1994).

Legal status

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

Just over half of U.S. states 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 (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.
In Australia, laws are determined at the state level, with all but the Australian Capital Territory and Jervis Bay Territory explicitly outlawing it.
In Germany, sex with animals is not specifically outlawed (but trading pornography showing it is, cf. §184a StGB). In West Germany, the law making it a crime (§175b StGB, which also outlawed homosexual acts) was removed in 1969. East Germany before reunification had no law against zoosexuality; zoosexual pornography, however, was very restricted. Certain barriers are set by the Animal Protection Law (Tierschutzgesetz).
In the United Kingdom, it is illegal, with 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 Peruvian law prohibited single males from having a female alpaca (llama).

Zoophiles

Zoophilia as a lifestyle

Separate from those whose interest is curiosity, pornography, or sexual novelty, are those for whom zoophilia might be called a lifestyle or orientation. A commonly reported starting age is at puberty, around 9 - 11, and this seems consistent for both males and females. Kinsey found that the most frequent incidence of human/animal intercourse was more than eight times a week, for the under-15 years age group. Those who discover an interest at an older age often trace it back to nascent form during this period or earlier. As with human attraction, zoophiles may be attracted only to particular species, appearances, personalities or individuals, and both these and other aspects of their feelings vary over time.

Zoophiles tend to perceive differences between animals and human beings as less significant than others do. They often view animals as having positive traits (e.g. honesty) that humans often lack, and 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), others do not feel a need to be constrained by traditional standards in their private relationships.

The biggest difficulties many zoophiles report are the inability to be accepted or open about their animal relationships and feelings with friends and family, and the fear of harm, rejection or loss of companions if it became known (see outing and the closet, sometimes humorously referred to 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 impact of repeated deaths of animals they consider lifelong soulmates (most species have far shorter lifespans than humans and they cannot openly grieve or talk about feelings of loss). Zoophiles do not usually cite internal conflicts over religion as their major issue, perhaps because zoophilia, although condemned by many religions, is not a major focus of their teachings.

Zoophilic sexual relationships vary, and may be based upon variations of human-style relationships (eg Monogamy), animal-style relationships (each make own sexual choices), physical intimacy (touch, mutual grooming, closeness), or other combinations.

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 [1]. In addition, zoophiles sometimes enter human relationships due to growing up within traditional expectations, or to deflect suspicions of zoophilia, and yet others may choose looser forms of human relationship as companions or housemates, live alone, or choose other zoophiles to live with.

Non-sexual zoophilia

Although the term is often used to refer to sexual interest in animals, zoophilia is not necessarily sexual in nature. In psychology and sociology it is sometimes used without regard to sexual implications. The first definition listed for the word on dictionary.com is "Affection or affinity for animals". Other definitions are:

"Erotic attraction to or sexual contact with animals"
"Attraction to or affinity for animals"
"An erotic fixation on animals that may result in sexual excitement through real or fancied contact"

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

Zoophiles and other groups

Zoophiles are often confused with furries or therians (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 fur fetishism such as fursuiting, are usually considered a form of costuming, rather than an expression of zoosexual interest and are usually legal.

Finally, zoophilia is not related to sexual puppy or pony play (also known as "Petplay") or 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 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.

Perspectives on zoophilia

Psychological and research perspectives

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

The first detailed studies of zoophilia date from prior to 1910. Peer reviewed research into zoophilia in its own right has happened since around 1960. There have been several significant modern studies, from Masters (1962) to Beetz (2002), but each of them has drawn and agreed on several broad conclusions:

The critical aspect to study was emotion, relationship, and motive, it is important not to just assess or judge the sexual act alone in isolation, or as "an act", without looking deeper. (Masters, Miletski, Beetz)
Zoophiles' emotions and care to animals can be real, relational, authentic and (within animals' abilities) reciprocal, and not just a substitute or means of expression. (Masters, Miletski, Weinberg, Beetz)
Most zoophiles have (or have also had) long term human relationships as well or at the same time as zoosexual ones. (Masters, Beetz)
Society in general at present is considerably misinformed about zoophilia, its stereotypes, and its meaning (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 a critical one, and highlighted by each of these studies.
Masters (1962), Miletski (1999) and Weinberg (2003) each comment significantly on the social harm caused by these, and other common misunderstandings: "This destroy[s] the lives of many citizens".

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

An example of such a statistic is a statement that "96% of people who commit bestiality will go on to commit crimes against people" quoted by PETA [2], which is sourced from a study of such a population [3] . When read in full however, the study also includes the following caution regarding interpretation of their results: "It is difficult to assess 'normality' in a study where all 381 participants were adjudicated juvenile offenders living in state facilities ... It is possible that among other populations ... sex acts with animals might be performed out of love, the need for consolation, or other motivations. In these and other populations, there might not be any link whatsoever to offenses against humans." This qualification is not mentioned by PETA.

Religious perspectives

Most organized religions take a critical or sometimes condemnatory view of zoophilia or zoosexuality, with some variation and exceptions.

Passages in Leviticus 18:23 ("And you shall not lie with any beast and defile yourself with it, neither shall any woman give herself to a beast to lie with it: it is a perversion." RSV) and 20:15-16 ("If a man lies with a beast, he shall be put to death; and you shall kill the beast. If a woman approaches any beast and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the beast; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them." RSV) are cited by Jewish, Christian, and Muslim theologians as categorical denunciation of zoosexuality. Some theologians (especially Christian) extend this, to consider lustful 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 lesbianism (Bouhdiba: Sexuality in Islam, Ch.4 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 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 rituals involving zoosexual activity (see Ashvamedha), as well 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. 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 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.
In the Church of Satan sexual acts involving children and/or animals are universally condemned, as are those in which a human who is too naive to understand is involved. The Satanic Bible states (p.66) that animals and children are treated as sacred as they are regarded as the most natural expression of life.

Animal studies perspectives

(Main article: Non-human animal sexuality)

The common concept of animals as heterosexual and only interested in their own species, is seen as scientifically inaccurate by researchers into animal behavior. Animals are in the main, considered to be sexual opportunists by science, rather than sexually naive. Ethologists such as Desmond Morris who study animal behavior, as well as formal studies, have consistently documented significant homosexuality in a wide range of animals, apparently freely chosen or in the presence of the opposite gender, as well as homosexual animal couples, homosexual raising of young, and cross-species sexual advances. Peter Singer reports of one such incident witnessed by Biruté Galdikas (a notable ethologist considered by many the world's foremost authority on primates):

"While walking through the camp with Galdikas, my informant was suddenly seized by a large male orangutan, his intentions made obvious by his erect penis. Fighting off so powerful an animal was not an option, but Galdikas called to her companion not to be concerned, because the orangutan would not harm her, and adding, as further reassurance, that "they have a very small penis." As it happened, the orangutan lost interest before penetration took place, but the aspect of the story that struck me most forcefully was that in the eyes of someone who has lived much of her life with orangutans, to be seen by one of them as an object of sexual interest is not a cause for shock or horror. The potential violence of the orangutan's come-on may have been disturbing, but the fact that it was an orangutan making the advances was not." [4]

Animal rights and welfare concerns

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

Andrea M. Beetz Ph.D in her book on sex and violence with animals (2002) reports: "in most [popular] references to bestiality, violence towards the animal is automatically implied. That sexual approaches to animals may not need force or violence but rather, sensitivity, or knowledge of animal behavior, is rarely taken into consideration."

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 American animal rights group PETA, added this endorsement: "If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you French kiss your dog and he or she thinks it's great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong. If it isn't exploitation and abuse, [then] it may not be wrong."

(A few years later, Newkirk wrote to the editor of the Canada Free Press in response to a 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?]")

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)

Sexology information sites (if sufficiently detailed) are usually careful to distinguish zoosadism from zoophilia: Humboldt Berlin University Sexology Dept sex-lexis.com and sexualcounselling.com.

Historical and cultural perspectives

Health and safety

Humans and animals cannot make each other pregnant, but infections due to improper cleaning could be an issue for either party. Most diseases are specific to particular species and cannot be transmitted sexually, so humans and animals cannot catch many diseases from zoosexual acts. However, a few uncommon but treatable infections (known as 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.

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 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.") [5] [6]

Arguments about zoophilia or zoosexuality

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

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

Defenders of zoophilia or zoosexuality counterargue that:

"'Natural' is debatable, and not necessarily relevant."
"Animals are capable of sexual consent - and even initiation - in their own way."
"Animals do form mutual relationships with humans."
"Many zoophiles appear to have human partners and relationships; many others simply do not have a sexual attraction to humans."
"It is a misperception that zoosexual activity need necessarily be inherently harmful/abusive. Usually it needs only sensitivity, mutuality, and understanding of everyday animal behavior."
"The psychological profession consensus does not consider it intrinsically pathological."
"Academic and clinical research consistently tends to substantiate rather than deny zoophiles' claims."
"Perspectives on human dignity and religious viewpoints differ and are personal; many individuals do not consider them relevant."
"Both male and female domestic animals of several species can experience the physical sensation of orgasm, and can strongly solicit and demonstrate appreciation for it in their body language, similarly to humans."

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

People's views appear to depend significantly upon the nature of their interest and nature of exposure to the subject. People who have been exposed to zoosadism, who are unsympathetic to alternate lifestyles in general, or who know little about zoophilia, often regard it as an extreme form of 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. Ethologists who study and understand animal behaviour and body language, have documented animal sexual advances to human beings and other species, and tend to be matter-of-fact about animal sexuality and animal approaches to humans; their research is generally supportive of some of the claims by zoophiles regarding animal cognition, behaviour, and sexual/relational/emotional issues. Because the majority opinion is condemnatory, many individuals may be more accepting in private than they make clear to the public. Regardless, there is a clear consensus which regards zoophilia with either suspicion or outright opposition.

Mythology and fantasy literature

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 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 in the form of a swan, and her children Helen and Polydeuces resulted from that sexual union. Zeus also seduced Europa in the form of a bull, and carried off the youth 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, often depicted with goat-like features, has also been frequently associated with animal sex. As with other subjects of 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.

File:Moreau, Europa and the Bull.jpg

Europa and the Bull by Gustave Moreau, c. 1869

Fantasy literature has included a variety of seemingly zoophilic examples, often involving human characters enchanted into animal forms: Beauty and the Beast (a young woman falls in love with a physically beast-like man), William Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream (Queen Titania falls in love with a character transformed into a donkey), The Book of One Thousand and One Nights (a princess champions a man enchanted into ape form), the 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 Vulcans and Klingons in Star Trek, or elves in fantasy fiction. Animals and anthropomorphs, when shown in furry art are usually shown engaged with others of similar kind, rather than humans.

Media discussion

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. For example, in 2005, the UK broadcasting regulator (OFCOM) updated its code stating that:

"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 ..."

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. [7]

The contrasting views between cultures are highlighted by the case of Omaha the Cat Dancer, a furry comic book, which was simultaneously the subject of a raid by Toronto police for pornographic 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.

References to zoosexuality are not uncommon in some media, especially cartoon series such as Family Guy (episode: "Screwed the Pooch") and South Park (Recurring themes), satirical comedy such as Borat, and films (especially shock exploitation films), although a few broadcasters such as Howard Stern (who joked about bestiality dial-a-date on NBC) and Tom Binns (whose Xfm London phone-in resulted on one occasion in a live discussion about the ethics of zoosexual pornographic movies at peak child listening time) have been reprimanded by their stations for doing so.

See: #Books, articles and documentaries

Pornography

Pornography involving sex with animals is widely illegal, even in most countries where the act itself is not explicitly outlawed. In the United States, 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 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 [8]).

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

Materials featuring sex with animals are widely available on the Internet, however, because of their ease of production, and because production and sale is legal in countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark. The promotion of "stars" began with the Danish Bodil Joensen, in the period of 1970-72, along with other well-known porn stars such as the Americans Linda Lovelace (Dogarama, 1969), and Chessie Moore (multiple films, c.1994). Into the 1980s the 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 Dutch companies, and the genre has stars such as "Hector" (a Great Dane starring in several films).

Pornography of this sort has become the business of certain spammers such as Jeremy Jaynes (8th most prolific spammer, sentenced to 9 years for spamming) and owners of some fake TGPs, who use the promise of "extreme" material as a bid for users' attention.

Social community

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

Prior to the arrival of widespread computer networking, most zoophiles would not have known others, and for the most part engaged secretly, or told only trusted friends, family or partners. (This almost certainly still describes the majority of 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 networks of people who knew each other by chance. As with many other 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 boards and talkers, 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 websites and forums. By around 1991 - 1993 it became accurate to say that a wide social net had evolved.

This changed significantly around 1995-96 (due to the double impact of Miletski's research and the unrelated mid/late-1990s boom in zoosexual pornography), and then a few years later again around 1998-2000 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, pulled before viewing), which was followed by the 1999-2000 Philip Buble case (in which a plaintiff petitioned the court to let his dog attend judgement as his "wife"). Whilst some zoophiles saw these as attempts to state a personal viewpoint or encourage debate, others 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. There was also a perception that as knowledge of zoosexuality as a lifestyle became wider spread, the smaller but more formative social groups were being diluted by large numbers of newcomers who had not grown up within the same "culture" or communal values, and many website owners came to be less interested compared to the past.

In the wake of these changes, a number of the older pro-zoophile websites and forums were voluntarily removed or vanished from the net between 1995 and 2001, 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. Most of the major "talkers" faded and closed too, especially following the increasing popularity of instant messenger chat and an incident on "planes of existence" (Germany, 2000). At the same time, many other social groups online drew lessons from these and other incidents, leading to a maturing consensus which tended to replace the previous divides on common topics such as the desirability vs. harmfulness of public debate and acceptance, ethics, and conduct.

Websites catering to zoosexuality at present can be broken down into several groups:

Sites which restrict or prohibit explicit material (such as pictures, stories, contacts, etc)
Sites which embrace these explicit aspects
Sites owned by amateur and professional pornographers, 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.

Zoo Code

In 1996, a zoophile version of the Geek Code was created, known as the Zoo Code, intended as a shorthand "signature" for zoos to describe themselves. It achieved some degree of popularity for a time and is still in occasional (rare?) use today, having also been translated into French and German.

Other popular references

Satirical songwriter Tom Lehrer, whose 1950s recordings mentioned many topics not normally openly discussed in those days, referenced a friend of his who "practiced animal husbandry, until they caught him at it one day!"
A common urban myth that Catherine the Great of Russia died whilst attempting sexual intercourse with a stallion is untrue. Supposedly the harness broke and she was crushed. In fact, Catherine died of a stroke.
American novelist Kurt Vonnegut refers to a photo of "a woman attempting sexual intercourse with a Shetland Pony" in both The Sirens of Titan and Slaughterhouse Five.

Books, articles and documentaries

Academic and professional

Andrea Beetz Ph.D.: Love, Violence, and Sexuality in Relationships between Humans and Animals, ISBN 3832200207
Profesors Colin J. Williams and Martin S. Weinberg: Zoophilia in Men: a study of sexual interest in animals. - in: Archives of sexual behavior, Vol. 32, No.6, December 2003, pp. 523-535
Hani Miletski Ph.D.: Bestiality - Zoophilia: An exploratory study, Diss., The Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality. - San Francisco, CA, Oktober 1999
Hani Miletski Ph.D.: Understanding Bestiality and Zoophilia, 2002, available at 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
Havelock Ellis, Studies in the psychology of sex, Vol. V (1927) ch.4
covering Animals as Sources of Erotic Symbolism--Mixoscopic Zoophilia--Erotic Zoophilia--Zooerastia--Bestiality--The Conditions that Favor Bestiality--Its Wide Prevalence Among Primitive Peoples and Among Peasants--The Primitive Conception of Animals--The Goat--The Influence of Familiarity with Animals--Congress Between Women and Animals--The Social Reaction Against Bestiality. online version
Ellison, Alfred, Sex Between Humans & Animals: The Psycho-Mythic Meaning of Bestiality, San Diego: Academy Press, 1970. [paperback, volumes 1 and 2]
Harris, Edwin. Animals as Sex Partners, 1969

Other books

Midas Dekkers: Dearest Pet: On Bestiality, ISBN 1859843107
Mark Matthews: The Horseman: Obsessions of a Zoophile, ISBN 0-87975-902-X
(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
Gaston Dubois-Dessaule: Etude sur la bestialité au point de vue historique, médical et juridique (The Study of Bestiality from the Historical, Medical and Legal Viewpoint) (Paris, 1905)
A.F. Neimoller:
- Bestiality and the Law: A Resume of the Law and Punishments for Bestiality with Typical Cases from Fifteenth Century to the Present (1946)
- Bestiality in Ancient and Modern Times: A Study of the Sexual Relations of Man and Animals in All Times and Countries (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)
Otto Soyka: Beyond the Boundary of Morals

Print and online media

The Joy Of Beasts (3 December 2000, Independent on Sunday, UK)
Heavy Petting (2001, Peter Singer Nerve.com article link)
Laying with Beasts (March 1996, The Guide)
Sexual Contact With Animals (October 1977, Pomeroy Ph.D.) (co-author of the Kinsey Reports)
Liking it Ruff (July 2005, The Eye, article link, follow-up to original article follow-up link)

Television and radio

Animal passions (part of the Hidden Love series) (1999, follow-up sequel 2004, Channel 4, UK)

Ofcom [the UK television regulator] reported that: "This was a serious documentary exploring a rare minority sexual orientation. Although the programme gave an opportunity for zoophiles to express their opinions, the effect was neither to sensationalise nor normalise their behaviour."

Sexe et confidences (April 2002, CBSC Decision C01/02-329, Canada)

Hour-long sex information program hosted by sexologist Louise-Andrée Saulnier discussing zoosexuality. Covered folklore, academic studies and general information, plus telephone call-in from viewers describing their zoosexual experiences and stories they had heard.

Talk Sport Radio (December 2002, UK)

Live talkshow interview with lifelong zoophile, followed by call-in discussion.

Animal Love (1995, Ulrich Seidl, Austria)

External links

Websites supportive of zoophilia

UZP, the Ultimate Zoo Page, general resources
Zoophile.org zoophile community and support site
Poems and Stories by "Silverwolf" describing his relationship with his dogs
Zoophilia Essay by writer Manawolf

Websites against zoophilia

Research

Other / Art

Pet-Abuse.Com Database bestiality and zoosadism legal cases from the U.S. and UK.
Veggieboards.com discussion of zoophilia An interesting forum debate following Peter Singer's "Heavy petting", with many views from both sides.
Museum of bestial art an online museum of zoophilic representation in art, from prehistoric to modern.

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

@@ Line 194: / Line 194: @@
 This changed significantly around 1995-96 (due to the double impact of Miletski's research and the unrelated mid/late-1990s boom in zoosexual pornography), and then a few years later again around 1998-2000 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, pulled before viewing), which was followed by the 1999-2000 [[Philip Buble]] case (in which a plaintiff petitioned the court to let his dog attend judgement as his "wife"). Whilst some zoophiles saw these as attempts to state a personal viewpoint or encourage debate, others 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. There was also a perception that as knowledge of zoosexuality as a lifestyle became wider spread, the smaller but more formative social groups were being diluted by large numbers of newcomers who had not grown up within the same "culture" or communal values, and many website owners came to be less interested compared to the past.
-In the wake of these changes, a number of the older pro-zoophile websites and forums were voluntarily removed or vanished from the net between 1995 and 2001, 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. Most of the major "talkers" [[Talker#Decline_of_talker_popularity|faded and closed]] too, especially following the increasing popularity of [[instant messenger]] chat and an [[Planes_of_existence_(chat_site)#Catalyst_for_the_death_of_talkers|incident]] on "planes of existence" (Germany, 2000). At the same time, many other social groups online drew lessons from these and other incidents, leading to a maturing consensus which tended to replace the previous divides on common topics such as the desirability vs. harmfulness of public debate and acceptance, ethics, and conduct.
+In the wake of these changes, a number of the older pro-zoophile websites and forums were voluntarily removed or vanished from the net between 1995 and 2001, 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. Most of the major "talkers" [[Talker#Decline_of_talker_popularity|faded and closed]] too, especially following the increasing popularity of [[instant messenger]] chat and an [[Planes_of_Existence_(talker)#Catalyst_for_the_death_of_talkers|incident]] on "planes of existence" (Germany, 2000). At the same time, many other social groups online drew lessons from these and other incidents, leading to a maturing consensus which tended to replace the previous divides on common topics such as the desirability vs. harmfulness of public debate and acceptance, ethics, and conduct.
 Websites catering to zoosexuality at present can be broken down into several groups: