|
|
| Line 4: |
Line 4: |
| Muhammed is pedophile | | Muhammed is pedophile |
| Churkis is fags | | Churkis is fags |
| {{Sex}}
| | Allah is faggot |
| [[File:Zoonigger.png|thumb|256x256px|Roman oil lamp depicting a zoophilic act, 1<sup>st</sup>–3<sup>rd</sup> century A.D.]]
| | Muhammed is pedophile |
| [[File:Zoonigger.png|thumb|256x256px|The Greek god Pan having sex with a goat, statue from Villa of the Papyri, Herculaneum (catalogued 1752).]]
| | Churkis is fags |
| '''Zoophilia''', also called '''[[zoosexuality]]''', is a mental illness where a human have sexual attraction to non-human animals.
| |
| | |
| == Terminology ==
| |
| === General ===
| |
| Three key terms commonly used in regards to the subject—''zoophilia'', ''bestiality'', and ''zoosexuality''—are often used somewhat interchangeably. Some researchers distinguish between zoophilia (as a persistent sexual interest in animals) and bestiality (as sexual acts with animals), because bestiality is often not driven by a sexual preference for animals.<ref name="ranger">{{Cite journal|last1=Ranger|first1=R.|last2=Fedoroff|first2=P.|year=2014|title=Commentary: Zoophilia and the Law|journal=Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online|volume=42|issue=4|pages=421–426|url=https://jaapl.org/content/42/4/421.full|pmid=25492067}}</ref> Some studies have found a preference for animals is rare among people who engage in [[Sexual Contact with Animals|sexual contact with animals]].<ref name="earls">{{Cite journal|last1=Earls|first1=C. M.|last2=Lalumiere|first2=M. L.|year=2002|title=A Case Study of Preferential Bestiality (Zoophilia)|journal=Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment|volume=14|issue=1|pages=83–88|doi=10.1177/107906320201400106|pmid=11803597}}</ref> Furthermore, some zoophiles report they have never had sexual contact with an animal.<ref name="maratea">{{Cite journal|last=Maratea|first=R. J.|year=2011|title=Screwing the pooch: Legitimizing accounts in a zoophilia on-line community|journal=Deviant Behavior|volume=32|issue=10|page=938|doi=10.1080/01639625.2010.538356}}</ref> People with zoophilia are known as "zoophiles," though also sometimes as "zoosexuals," or even very simply "zoos."<ref name="ranger" /><ref name="handbook">{{Cite book|last=Beetz|first=Andrea M.|editor=Ascione, Frank|year=2010|title=The International Handbook of Animal Abuse and Cruelty: Theory, Research, and Application|chapter=Bestiality and Zoophilia: A Discussion of Sexual Contact With Animals|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/?id=G_MwT9OHj4AC&pg=PA201&dq=zoophilia#v=onepage&q=zoophilia&f=false|isbn=978-1-55-753565-8}}</ref> [[Zooerasty]], [[sodomy]], and [[wiktionary:zooerastia#English|zooerastia]] are other terms closely related to the subject but are less synonymous with the former terms, and are seldom used. "Bestiosexuality" was discussed briefly by Allen (1979), but never became widely established.{{Citation needed}} [[wikipedia:Ernest Bornemann|Ernest Bornemann]] (1990, cited by Rosenbauer, 1997) coined the separate term ''[[zoosadism]]'' for those who derive pleasure—sexual or otherwise—from inflicting pain on animals. Zoosadism specifically is one member of the [[wikipedia:Macdonald triad|Macdonald triad]] of precursors to [[wikipedia:Psychopathy|sociopathic behavior]].<ref name="MacDonald">{{Cite journal|last=MacDonald|first=John M.|year=1963|title=The Threat to Kill|journal=American Journal of Psychiatry|volume=120|issue=2|pages=125–130|url= by specific incidents.<ref>Howard Fischer: [https://web.archive.org/web/20080515222156/http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/122006 Lawmakers hope to outlaw bestiality],
| |
| ''Arizona Daily Star,'' 28 March 2006. In Arizona, the motive for legislation was a "spate of recent cases."</ref> While some laws are very specific, others employ vague terms such as "[[sodomy]]" or "bestiality", which lack legal precision and leave it unclear exactly which acts are covered. In the past, some bestiality laws may have been made in the belief that sex with an animal could result in monstrous offspring, as well as offending the community. Current anti-cruelty laws focus more specifically on animal welfare while anti-bestiality laws are aimed only at offenses to community "standards".<ref name="posner">Posner, Richard, A Guide to America's Sex Laws, The [[University of Chicago Press]], 1996. {{ISBN|978-0-226-67564-0}}. Page 207.</ref>
| |
| Notable legal views include Sweden, where a 2005 report by the Swedish Animal Welfare Agency for the government expressed concern over the increase in reports of [[horse-ripping]] incidents. The agency believed current animal cruelty legislation was not sufficient in protecting animals from abuse and needed updating, but concluded that on balance it was not appropriate to call for a ban.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=1357 |title=TheLocal.se |publisher=TheLocal.se |date=26 January 2012 |accessdate=13 May 2012 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130515124451/http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=1357 |archivedate=15 May 2013 |df=dmy-all }}</ref> In [[New Zealand]], the 1989 Crimes Bill considered abolishing bestiality as a criminal offense, and instead viewing it as a mental health issue, but they did not, and people can still be prosecuted for it. Under Section 143 of the Crimes Act 1961, individuals can serve a sentence of seven years duration for animal sexual abuse and the offence is considered 'complete' in the event of 'penetration'.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM329260.html |title=Crimes Act 1961 No 43 (as at 01 October 2012), Public Act – New Zealand Legislation |publisher=Legislation.govt.nz |date=2012-10-01 |accessdate=2013-01-04}}</ref> In [[Canada]], a clarification of the anti-bestiality law was made in 2016 which legalizes most forms of sexual contact with animals other than penetration.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/sum-som-eng.aspx?cas=36450|title=Her Majesty the Queen v. D.L.W.|publisher=Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (ORSCC)|date=2016-05-02|accessdate=2016-06-20}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| Some countries once had laws against single males living with female animals, such as [[alpaca]]s.{{Citation needed|date=January 2009}} Copulating with a female alpaca is still specifically against the law in Peru.<ref name="Leavitt2003">{{cite book|author=Fred Leavitt|title=The Real Drug Abusers|url=https://archive.org/details/realdrugabusers0000leav|url-access=registration|quote=female alpaca peru copulate.|date=January 1, 2003|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield|isbn=978-0-7425-2518-4|page=[https://archive.org/details/realdrugabusers0000leav/page/195 195]}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| As of 2017, bestiality is illegal in 45 U.S. states. Most state bestiality laws were enacted between 1999 and 2017.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.animallaw.info |title=Michigan State University College of Law |publisher=Animallaw.info |date= |accessdate=2013-01-04}}</ref><ref name="TableLaws2016">{{cite web|url=http://www.animallaw.info/topic/table-state-animal-sexual-assault-laws |title=Table of State Animal Sexual Assault Laws | Animal Legal & Historical Center |website=Animallaw.info |date=2016-06-24 |accessdate=2017-04-17}}</ref> Until 2005, there was a farm near [[Enumclaw, Washington]] that was described as an “animal brothel”, where people paid to have sex with animals. After [[Enumclaw horse sex case|an incident on 2 July 2005]], when a man was pronounced dead in the emergency room of the Enumclaw community hospital after his colon ruptured due to having had anal sex with a [[horse]], the farm garnered police attention. The [[Washington State Legislature|state legislature]] of the [[State of Washington]], which had been one of the few states in the United States without a law against bestiality, within six months passed a bill making bestiality illegal.<ref>Johnston, Lynda and [[Robyn Longhurst|Longhurst, Robyn]] ''Space, Place, and Sex'' [[Lanham, Maryland]]:2010 Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, p. 110.</ref><ref>"[https://web.archive.org/web/20080822194920/http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0%2C%2C2-10-1462_1739698%2C00.html Man dies after sex with horse]". News24, 19 July 2005.</ref> Arizona,<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/16/sheriff-says-craigslist-facilitates-bestiality |title=Sheriff says Craigslist facilitates bestiality |newspaper=Washington Times |date=2011-03-16 |accessdate=2013-01-04}}</ref> Alaska,<ref>{{cite news |last1=Sessions |first1=David |title=Bill to Criminalize Bestiality Advances in Alaska Legislature |url=http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/01/27/bill-to-criminalize-bestiality-advances-in-alaska-legislature |accessdate=2020-02-10 |work=[[Politics Daily]] |date=27 January 2010 |archiveurl=https://archive.ph/20120908120705/http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/01/27/bill-to-criminalize-bestiality-advances-in-alaska-legislature/ |archivedate=2012-09-08 |url-status=unfit}}</ref> Florida,<ref>{{cite news|url=http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-05-06/news/29534132_1_bestiality-bill-house-leaders-new-bill |location=New York |work=Daily News |first=Nina |last=Mandell |title=Legislation outlawing bestiality makes it to Florida governor's desk |date=6 May 2011}}</ref> Alabama,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://openstates.org/al/bills/2014rs/SB151/|title=SB 151 - Alabama 2014 Regular Session|website=Openstate.org|accessdate=17 April 2017}}</ref> New Jersey,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://legiscan.com/NJ/text/A3012/2014|title=New Jersey A3012 - 2014-2015 - Regular Session|accessdate=17 April 2017}}</ref> New Hampshire,<ref name="Newhampshire">{{cite web|url=http://legiscan.com/NH/text/HB1547/id/1286995|title=New Hampshire HB1547 - 2016 - Regular Session|accessdate=17 April 2017}}</ref> Ohio,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://legiscan.com/OH/text/SB195/2015|title=Ohio SB195 - 2015-2016 - 131st General Assembly|website=Legiscan.com|accessdate=16 November 2017}}</ref> Texas,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/politex-blog/article160220199.html|title=Texas: Crackdown on animal cruelty, bestiality, starts Sept. 1|website=Star-telegram.com|accessdate=12 March 2018}}</ref> Vermont,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Documents/2018/Docs/ACTS/ACT062/ACT062%20As%20Enacted.pdf|title=No. 62. An act relating to criminal justice|website=Legislature.vermont.gov|accessdate=20 October 2018}}</ref> and Nevada<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/79th2017/Reports/history.cfm?BillName=AB391|title=AB391|website=Leg.state.nv.us|accessdate=12 March 2018}}</ref> have banned sex with animals between 2006 and the present, with the latter 5 all banning it in 2017. When such laws are proposed, they are never questioned or debated.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/dcblog/2011/03/senate_again_passes_bestiality.html |title=Senate again passes bestiality bill | Florida Politics | Sun Sentinel blog |publisher=Weblogs.sun-sentinel.com |date=2011-03-24 |accessdate=2013-01-04}}</ref><ref name="ScientificAmerican">{{cite magazine|last=Bering |first=Jesse |url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=animal-lovers-zoophiles-make-scient-2010-03-24 |title=Animal Lovers: Zoophiles Make Scientists Rethink Human Sexuality | Bering in Mind, Scientific American Blog Network |magazine=Scientific American|date=2010-03-24 |accessdate=2013-01-04}}</ref> Laws which prohibit non-abusive bestiality have been criticized for being discriminatory, unjust and unconstitutional.<ref name="interdis"/><ref name="mroberts" />
| |
| | |
| == Pornography ==
| |
| {{Main|Obscenity|Erotica and pornography|Legal status of Internet pornography}}
| |
| {{category see also|Category:Animal pornography}}Zoophilia Wiki has a section for [[:Category:Zoophilia in Art|Zoophilia in Art.]] [[File:Édouard-Henri Avril (28).jpg|thumb|300px|''Ancient Greek sodomising a goat"'', plate XVII from '[[De Figuris Veneris]]' by F.K. Forberg, illustrated by [[Édouard-Henri Avril]].]]
| |
| Pornography involving sex with animals is widely illegal, even in most countries where bestiality itself is not explicitly outlawed.{{citation needed|date=November 2013}}
| |
| | |
| In the [[United States]], zoophilic pornography would be considered [[obscene]] if it did not meet the standards of the [[Miller Test]] and therefore is not openly sold, mailed, distributed or imported across state boundaries or within states which prohibit it. Under U.S. law, 'distribution' includes transmission across the Internet. Production and mere possession appears to be legal, however. U.S. prohibitions on distribution of sexual or obscene materials are {{As of|2005|lc=on}} in some doubt, having been ruled [[Constitutionality|unconstitutional]] in ''United States v. Extreme Associates'' (a judgement which was overturned on appeal, December 2005).
| |
| | |
| Similar restrictions apply in Germany (see [[Zoophilia#Legal status|above]]). In New Zealand the possession, making or distribution of material promoting bestiality is illegal.
| |
| | |
| The potential use of media for pornographic movies was seen from the start of the era of silent film. ''Polissons and Galipettes'' (re-released 2002 as "The Good Old Naughty Days") is a collection of early French silent films for brothel use, including some animal pornography, dating from around 1905 – 1930.
| |
| | |
| Material featuring sex with animals is widely available on the Internet, due to its ease of production.{{citation needed|date=April 2013}} Prior to the advent of mass-market magazines such as ''[[Playboy]]'', so-called [[Tijuana Bible]]s were a form of pornographic tract popular in America, sold as anonymous underground publications typically comprising a small number of stapled comic-strips representing characters and celebrities.<ref>An example digitized Tijuana Bible entitled ''The Pet'' from the 1960s is linked at [http://tijuanabibles.org/cgi-bin/hazel.cgi?action=detail&item=TB073&fullsize=0 tijuanabibles.org page link] (also see [http://tijuanabibles.org/cgi-bin/hazel.cgi/hzpi/u/HzSt031FT7pj.ctu7.2/hazel.cgi?action=detail&item=TB073&fullsize=1 full size] and [http://tijuanabibles.org/cgi-bin/hazel.cgi?action=SEARCH&SEARCH_SPEC=bestiality&SUBMIT_ACTION_SEARCH=Search search]).</ref>
| |
| The promotion of "stars" began with the Danish [[Bodil Joensen]], in the period of 1969–72, along with other porn actors such as the Americans [[Linda Lovelace]] (''Dogarama'', 1969), Chessie Moore (multiple films, c. 1994), Kerri Downs (three films, 1998) and Calina Lynx (aka Kelly G'raffe) (two films, 1998). Another early film to attain great infamy was "[[Animal Farm (video)|Animal Farm]]", smuggled into Great Britain around 1980 without details as to makers or provenance.<ref>{{cite web|title=The Dark Side of Porn Season 2 (2006) - Documentary / TV-Show|url=http://crimedocumentary.com/dark-side-porn-season-2-2006/|website=Crimedocumentary.com|accessdate=28 May 2018}}</ref> The film was later traced to a crude juxtaposition of smuggled cuts from many of Bodil Joensen's 1970s Danish movies.
| |
| | |
| Into the 1980s, the Dutch took the lead, creating figures like "Wilma" and the "Dutch Sisters". In the 1980s, "bestiality" was featured in Italian adult films with actresses like Denise Dior, Francesca Ray, and [[Marina Hedman]], manifested early in the softcore flick ''Bestialità'' in 1976.
| |
| | |
| Today, in [[Hungary]], where production faces no legal limitations, zoophilic materials have become a substantial industry that produces a number of films and magazines, particularly for Dutch companies such as ''Topscore'' and ''Book & Film International'', and the [[genre]] has stars such as "Hector", a [[Great Dane|great dane]] dog starring in several films. Many Hungarian mainstream performers also appeared anonymously in animal pornography in their early careers, including for example, Suzy Spark.<ref>[http://www.eurobabeindex.com/sbandoindex/suzyspark.html EuroBabeIndex.com], Suzy Spark</ref>
| |
| | |
| In Japan, animal pornography is used to bypass censorship laws, often featuring Japanese and Swedish{{citation needed|date=March 2017}} female models performing [[fellatio]] on animals, because oral penetration of a non-human penis is not in the scope of Japanese mosaic censor. Sakura Sakurada is an [[AV idol]] known to have appeared in animal pornography, specifically in the AV ''The Dog Game'' in 2006. While primarily underground, there are a number of animal pornography actresses who specialize in bestiality movies. A box-office success of the 1980s, ''[[24 Horas de Sexo Explícito]]'' featured zoophilia.
| |
| | |
| In the United Kingdom, [[Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008]] criminalises possession of realistic pornographic images depicting sex with animals (see [[extreme pornography]]), including fake images and simulated acts, as well as images depicting sex with dead animals, where no crime has taken place in the production. The law provides for sentences of up to two years in prison; a sentence of 12 months was handed down in one case in 2011.<ref>[http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2086306_acts_of_depravity_found_on_dads_computer ‘Acts of depravity’ found on dad’s computer], ''[[Reading Post]]'', 26 January 2011.</ref>
| |
| | |
| Pornography of this sort has become the business of certain [[Spam (electronic)|spammers]] such as [[Jeremy Jaynes]] and owners of some fake [[Thumbnail gallery post|TGP]]s, who use the promise of "extreme" material as a bid for users' attention.
| |
| | |
| ==Health and safety==
| |
| For zoos to add: This article should be updated with information about the risks of human-to-human transmission of [[Venereal Disease|venereal disease]] compared to animal-to-human and human-to-animal Zoonotic transmission. There should also be a new section about well-being for the animal partners. Bites and trampling are mentioned obliquely, but it should be made clear how different species interact (love bites from horses, risk of scratching from the front claws of dogs, salmonella on reptiles, etc).
| |
| | |
| {{Main|Zoonosis}}
| |
| Infections that are transmitted from animals to humans are called [[Zoonosis|zoonoses]]. Some [[zoonoses]] may be transferred through casual contact, but others are much more readily transferred by activities that expose humans to the [[semen]], vaginal fluids, [[urine]], [[saliva]], [[feces]] and blood of animals. Examples of zoonoses are [[Brucellosis]], [[Q fever]], [[leptospirosis]], and [[toxocariasis]]. Therefore, sexual activity with animals is, in some instances, a high risk activity. [[Allergy|Allergic reactions]] to animal semen may occur, including [[anaphylaxis]]. Bites and other trauma from penetration or trampling may occur.
| |
| | |
| == Zoophiles ==
| |
| === Non-sexual zoophilia ===
| |
| The love of animals is not necessarily sexual in nature. In [[psychology]] and [[sociology]] the word "zoophilia" is sometimes used without sexual implications. Being fond of animals in general, or as pets, is accepted in Western society, and is usually respected or tolerated. However, the word zoophilia is used to mean a sexual preference towards animals, which makes it<ref name="CraigheadNemeroff2002">{{cite book|editor1=W. Edward Craighead|editor2=Charles B. Nemeroff|title=The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology and Behavioral Science|url=https://books.google.com/?id=JQMRmyOfpJ8C&dq=zoophilia+meaning&q=zoophilia+meaning#v=snippet&q=zoophilia%20meaning&f=false|date=November 11, 2002|publisher=John Wiley & Sons|isbn=978-0-471-27083-6|page=1050}}</ref> a [[paraphilia]]. Some zoophiles may not act on their sexual attraction to animals. People who identify as zoophiles may feel their love for animals is romantic rather than purely sexual, and say this makes them different from those committing entirely sexually motivated acts of bestiality.<ref name="Delaney2003">{{cite book|author=David Delaney|title=Law and Nature|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZjqWw-9ZQfYC&pg=PA252&dq=zoophilia+romantic|year=2003|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-1-139-43700-4|page=252}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| === Zoophile community ===
| |
| [[File:Zeta toy MMB 01.jpg|thumb|right|Several companies (e.g., Bad Dragon) sell [[dildo]]s in the shape of animal penises, both realistic and fantastical. This one is based on a [[wolf's penis]].]]
| |
| An online survey which recruited participants over the internet concluded that prior to the arrival of widespread [[computer network]]ing, most zoophiles would not have known other zoophiles, and for the most part, zoophiles engaged in bestiality secretly, or told only trusted friends, family or partners. The internet and its predecessors made people able to search for information on topics which were not otherwise easily accessible and to communicate with relative safety and anonymity. Because of the diary-like [[intimacy]] of blogs and the anonymity of the internet, zoophiles had the ideal opportunity to "openly" express their sexuality.<ref>Montclair, 1997, cited by Miletski, 1999, p .35.</ref> As with many other [[Alternative lifestyle|alternate lifestyles]], broader networks began forming in the 1980s when participating in [[Online community|networked social groups]] became more common at home and elsewhere.<ref name="Weinberg and Williams">Weinberg and Williams</ref> Such developments in general were described by Markoff in 1990; the linking of computers meant that people thousands of miles apart could feel the intimacy akin to being in a small village together.<ref>Markoff, 1990.</ref> The popular newsgroup [[Alt.sex|alt.sex.bestiality]], said to be in the top 1% of newsgroup interest (i.e. number 50 out of around 5000), – and reputedly started in humor<ref>Miletski p. 35.</ref> – along with personal bulletin boards and talkers, chief among them Sleepy's multiple worlds, Lintilla, and Planes of Existence, were among the first group media of this kind<!-- 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>
| |
| | |
| Weinberg and Williams observe that the internet can socially integrate an incredibly large number of people. In Kinsey's day contacts between animal lovers were more localized and limited to male compatriots in a particular rural community. Further, while the farm boys Kinsey researched might have been part of a rural culture in which sex with animals was a part, the sex itself did not define the community. The zoophile community is not known to be particularly large compared to other subcultures which make use of the internet, so Weinberg and Williams surmised its aims and beliefs would likely change little as it grew. Those particularly active on the internet may not be aware of a wider subculture, as there is not much of a wider subculture, Weinberg and Williams felt the virtual zoophile group would lead the development of the subculture.<ref name="Weinberg and Williams"/>
| |
| | |
| Websites aim to provide support and social assistance to zoophiles (including resources to help and rescue abused or mistreated animals), but these are not usually well publicized. Such work is often undertaken as needed by individuals and friends, within social networks, and by word of mouth.<ref>Miletski (1999), p. 22.</ref>
| |
| | |
| Zoophiles tend to experience their first zoosexual feelings during adolescence, and tend to be secretive about it, hence limiting the ability for non-Internet communities to form.<ref name="browplm2">{{cite web|author=Thomas Francis |url=http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2009-08-20/news/those-who-practice-bestiality-say-they-re-part-of-the-next-gay-rights-movement/2/ |title=Those Who Practice Bestiality Say They're Part of the Next Sexual Rights Movement – Page 2 – News – Broward/Palm Beach – New Times Broward-Palm Beach |publisher=Broward/Palm Beach |date=20 August 2009 |accessdate=13 May 2012}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| == ZooWiki ==
| |
| [[File:Zeta sign.png|thumb|ZooWiki logo]]
| |
| '''ZooWiki''' was a [[Wikipedia:wiki|wiki]] for the German [[zoophile]] community. It was created on May 23, 2005, by [[Wulfie]]. It had 89 articles as of October 2006, on topics such as [[literature]], authors, philosophy, events, vendors, anatomy and general trivia. ZooWiki's policies specified that it should not contain explicit or illegal content. ZooWiki was at http://zoowiki.zetapin.de/ (defunct by July 2012)
| |
| | |
| == Debate over zoophilia or zoophilic relations ==
| |
| [[File:Leda - after Michelangelo Buonarroti.jpg|thumb|[[Leda and the Swan (Michelangelo)|''Leda and the Swan'']], copy of a lost Michelangelo.]]
| |
| | |
| Because of its controversial nature, people have developed arguments both for<ref name="singer01">{{cite web|author=Pablo Stafforini |url=http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001----.htm |title=Heavy Petting, by Peter Singer |publisher=Utilitarian.net |accessdate=13 May 2012 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120606173906/http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001----.htm |archivedate=6 June 2012 }}</ref> and against<ref>{{cite web|url=http://stopbestiality.wordpress.com/2010/12/12/bestiality-and-lack-of-consent/ |title=Bestiality and Lack of Consent " StopBestiality |publisher=Stopbestiality.wordpress.com |accessdate=13 May 2012}}</ref> zoophilia. Arguments for and against zoosexual activity from a variety of sources, including religious, moral, ethical, psychological, medical and social.
| |
| | |
| === Arguments against bestiality ===
| |
| Bestiality is seen by the government of the United Kingdom as profoundly disturbed behavior (as indicated by the UK [[Home Office]] review on sexual offences in 2002).<ref>{{cite book |chapter-url=http://www.archive2.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm56/5668/5668.pdf |title=Protecting the Public: Strengthening Protection Against Sex Offenders and Reforming the Laws on Sexual Offences |chapter=Other offences |pages=32–3 |year=2002 |isbn=978-0-10-156682-7 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20131205100653/http://www.archive2.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm56/5668/5668.pdf |archivedate=5 December 2013 |df=dmy-all }}</ref> [[Andrea Beetz]] states there is evidence that there can be violent zoosadistic approaches to sex with animals. Beetz argues that animals might be traumatized even by a non-violent, sexual approach from a human;<ref name="Beetz 2002, section 5.2.8">Beetz 2002, section 5.2.8.</ref> however, Beetz also says that in some cases, non-abusive bestiality can be reciprocally pleasurable for both the human and non-human animal.<ref name="Beetz 2002, section 5.2.8"/>
| |
| | |
| An argument from human dignity is given by Wesley J. Smith, a senior fellow and [[Intelligent Design]] proponent at the [[Center for Science and Culture]] of the conservative Christian [[Discovery Institute]]: – "such behavior is profoundly degrading and utterly subversive to the crucial understanding that human beings are unique, special, and of the highest moral worth in the known universe—a concept known as '[[human exceptionalism]]' ... one of the reasons bestiality is condemned through law is that such degrading conduct unacceptably subverts standards of basic human dignity and is an affront to humankind's inestimable importance and intrinsic moral worth."<ref>[http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2005/08/bestiality-and-varied-attacks-on-human.html Wesleyjsmith.com] and [http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/985pgwjh.asp Weeklystandard.com], 31 August 2005.</ref>
| |
| | |
| One of the primary critiques of bestiality is that it is harmful to animals and necessarily abusive, because animals are unable to give or withhold consent.<ref name=Regan63>Regan, Tom. ''Animal Rights, Human Wrongs''. Rowman & Littlefield, 2003, pp. 63–4, 89.</ref>
| |
| | |
| The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has said that as animals do not have the same capacity for thinking as humans, they are unable to give full consent. The HSUS takes the position that all sexual activity between humans and animals is abusive, whether it involves physical injury or not.<ref>[http://www.nmanimalcontrol.com/aco_fo/sex_abuse/ Sex Abuse] {{webarchive|url=https://archive.today/20071214033934/http://www.nmanimalcontrol.com/aco_fo/sex_abuse/ |date=14 December 2007 }}, NManimalControl.com</ref> In his 1993 article, Dr. Frank Ascione stated that "bestiality may be considered abusive even in cases when physical harm to an animal does not occur." In a 1997 article, Piers Beirne, Professor of Criminology at the University of Southern Maine, points out that 'for genuine consent to sexual relations to be present...both participants must be conscious, fully informed and positive in their desires.'<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nmanimalcontrol.com/aco_fo/sex_abuse/ |title=The First Strike Campaign: ANIMAL SEXUAL ABUSE FACT SHEET |website=NManimalControl.com |accessdate=13 May 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070312010653/http://www.nmanimalcontrol.com/aco_fo/sex_abuse/ |archive-date=2007-03-12}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.2752/089279393787002105 |title=Children Who are Cruel to Animals: A Review of Research and Implications for Developmental Psychopathology |year=1993 |last1=Ascione |first1=Frank R. |journal=Anthrozoös: A Multidisciplinary Journal of the Interactions of People and Animals |volume=6 |issue=4 |pages=226–47}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| === Arguments for bestiality ===
| |
| [[File:Persian woman with an animal Wellcome L0033282.jpg|thumb|Book illustration depicting dog with woman, [[Isfahan]], [[Iran]], 15th century.]]
| |
| Some defenders of bestiality argue that the issue of [[sexual consent]] is irrelevant because many legal human practices (such as [[semen collection]], [[Artificial insemination of livestock and pets|artificial insemination]], [[hunting]], [[Animal testing|laboratory testing]], and slaughtering animals for meat) do not involve the consent of the animal.<ref>{{cite web|author=28 February 2011 by Lucas Wachob |url=http://www.breezejmu.org/opinion/columnists/article_f08fbb0c-42ca-11e0-ab43-00127992bc8b.html |title=Column: In defense of chicken 'lovers' – The Breeze: Columnists |website=Breezejmu.org |date=28 February 2011 |accessdate=13 May 2012}}</ref> Brian Cutteridge states the following regarding this argument:
| |
| | |
| <blockquote>"Animal sexual autonomy is regularly violated for human financial gain through procedures such as [artificial insemination and slaughter]. Such procedures are probably more disturbing physically and psychologically than acts of zoophilia would be, yet the issue of consent on the part of the animal is never raised in the discussion of such procedures. To confine the 'right' of any animal strictly to acts of zoophilia is thus to make a law [against zoophilia] based not on reason but on moral prejudice, and to breach the constitutional rights of zoophiles to due process and equality before the law. [...] Laws which criminalize zoophilia based on societal abhorrence of such acts rather than any real harm caused by such acts are an unjust and unconstitutional infringement on individual liberty."<ref name="interdis">{{cite web |url=http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/cutteridgepaper.pdf |title=Inter-disciplinary.net |accessdate=13 May 2012 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120722100122/http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/cutteridgepaper.pdf |archivedate=22 July 2012 |df=dmy-all }}</ref></blockquote>
| |
| | |
| [[Hani Miletski]] believes that "Animals are capable of sexual consent – and even initiation – in their own way."<ref>Miltski, 1999, p. 50.</ref> It is not an uncommon practice for dogs to attempt to copulate with ("[[hump]]") the legs of people of both genders.<ref>Cauldwell, 1948 & 1968; Queen, 1997.</ref> Rosenberger (1968) emphasizes that as far as cunnilingus is concerned, dogs require no training, and even Dekkers (1994) and Menninger (1951) admit that sometimes animals take the initiative and do so impulsively.<ref name="Beetz 2002, section 5.2.8"/> Those supporting zoophilic activity feel animals sometimes even seem to enjoy the sexual attention<ref>Blake, 1971, and Greenwood, 1963, both cited in Miletski, 1999.</ref> or voluntarily initiate sexual activity with humans.<ref name="Dekkers, 1994">Dekkers, 1994.</ref> Animals such as dogs can be willing participants in sexual activity with humans, and "seem to enjoy the attention provided by the sexual interaction with a human."<ref name="interdis"/> Animal owners normally know what their own pets like or do not like. Most people can tell if an animal does not like how it is being petted, because it will move away. An animal that is liking being petted pushes against the hand, and seems to enjoy it. To those defending bestiality this is seen as a way in which animals give consent, or the fact that a dog might wag its tail.<ref>(Einsenhaim, 1971, cited in Kathmandu, 2004)"</ref>
| |
| | |
| [[Preference utilitarianism|Utilitarian]] philosopher and [[Animal rights|animal liberation]] author [[Peter Singer]] argues that bestiality is not unethical so long as it involves no harm or cruelty to the animal<ref name=SingerNerve>Singer, Peter. [https://web.archive.org/web/20080616055314/http://www.nerve.com/Opinions/Singer/heavyPetting/main.asp Heavy Petting], ''Nerve'', 2001.</ref> (see ''[[Harm principle]]''). In the article "Heavy Petting,"<ref name="Singer01">{{cite web|author=Pablo Stafforini |url=http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001----.htm |title=Utilitarian.com |website=Utilitarian.com |accessdate=13 May 2012 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120606173906/http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001----.htm |archivedate=6 June 2012 }}</ref> Singer argues that zoosexual activity need not be abusive, and that relationships could form which were mutually enjoyed. Singer and others have argued that people's dislike of bestiality is partly caused by irrational [[speciesism]] and [[anthropocentrism]].<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1093/isle/isq034 |title=Animal Liberation or Human Redemption: Racism and Speciesism in Toni Morrison's Beloved |year=2010 |last1=Ruetenik |first1=T. |journal=Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment |volume=17 |issue=2 |pages=317–326}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1353/cul.2010.0020 |first=Colleen Glenney |last=Boggs |date=Fall 2010 |title=American Bestiality: Sex, Animals, and the Construction of Subjectivity |journal=Cultural Critique |volume=76 |issue=76|pages=98–125 |url=http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/cultural_critique/summary/v076/76.boggs.html |jstor=40925347|doi-broken-date=2020-01-22 }}</ref> Because interspecies sex occurs in nature,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070314-hybrids.html |title=Interspecies Sex: Evolution's Hidden Secret? |website=News.nationalgeographic.com |date=28 October 2010 |accessdate=13 May 2012}}</ref> and because humans ''are'' animals,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.stanford.edu/group/pwruab/cgi-bin/pwrofthepen/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/kerstin-grune1.pdf|title=Changing Perspectives of Bestiality: Breaking the Human-Animal Distinction to Violating Animal Rights|website=Stanford.edu|accessdate=20 October 2018}}</ref> supporters argue that zoosexual activity is not "unnatural" and is not intrinsically wrong.<ref name="mroberts">{{Cite SSRN|last=Roberts|first=Michael|date=2009-06-01|title=The Unjustified Prohibition against Bestiality: Why the Laws in Opposition Can Find No Support under the Harm Principle|ssrn=1328310|df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1080/01639625.2010.538356 |title=Screwing the Pooch: Legitimizing Accounts in a Zoophilia On-line Community |year=2011 |last1=Maratea |first1=R. J. |journal=Deviant Behavior |volume=32 |issue=10 |pages=918–943}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| Research has proven that non-human animals can and do have [[Animal co-opted sexual behavior|sex for non-reproductive purposes]] (and [[Animal sexual behaviour#Sex for pleasure|for pleasure]]).<ref name="Poiani">{{cite book|author1=Aldo Poiani|author2=A. F. Dixson|title=Animal Homosexuality: A Biosocial Perspective|url=https://books.google.com/?id=EftT_1bsPOAC&lpg=PR7&dq=animals%20homosexuality&pg=PR7#v=onepage&q=animals%20homosexuality&f=false;|date=19 August 2010 |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|isbn=978-1-139-49038-2|page=7}}</ref> In 2006, a Danish Animal Ethics Council report concluded that ethically performed zoosexual activity is capable of providing a positive experience for all participants, and that some non-human animals are [[Sexual imprinting|sexually attracted to humans]]<ref>[http://www.justitsministeriet.dk/fileadmin/downloads/Dyrevaernsraad/Seksuel%20omgang%20med%20dyr.pdf Danish Animal Ethics Council report] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111009031312/http://www.justitsministeriet.dk/fileadmin/downloads/Dyrevaernsraad/Seksuel%20omgang%20med%20dyr.pdf |date=9 October 2011 }} ''Udtalelse om menneskers seksuelle omgang med dyr'' published November 2006. Council members included two academics, two farmers/smallholders, and two veterinary surgeons, as well as a third veterinary surgeon acting as secretary.</ref> (for example, [[dolphins]]).<ref>{{cite news|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2002-06-04/world/uk.dolphin_1_ric-o-barry-dolphin-swimmers?_s=PM:WORLD |work=CNN |title=Bid to save over-friendly dolphin |date=28 May 2002 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120321162034/http://articles.cnn.com/2002-06-04/world/uk.dolphin_1_ric-o-barry-dolphin-swimmers?_s=PM%3AWORLD |archivedate=21 March 2012 }}</ref>
| |
| | |
| Some zoophiles claim that they are not abusive towards animals:<ref name="ScientificAmerican" />
| |
| | |
| <blockquote>"In other recent surveys, the majority of zoophiles scoffed at the notion that they were abusive toward animals in any way—far from it, they said. Many even consider themselves to be animal welfare advocates in addition to zoophiles."<ref name="ScientificAmerican" /></blockquote>
| |
| | |
| == Mentions in the media ==
| |
| Because of its controversial nature, different countries vary in the discussion of bestiality. Often sexual matters are the subject of legal or regulatory requirement. In 2005 the UK broadcasting regulator ([[OFCOM]]) updated its code stating that freedom of expression is at the heart of any democratic state. Adult audiences should be informed as to what they will be viewing or hearing, and the young, who cannot make a fully informed choice for themselves, should be protected. Hence a [[Watershed (television)|watershed]] and other precautions were set up for explicit sexual material, to protect young people. Zoophile activity and other sexual matters may be discussed, but only in an appropriate context and manner.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/codes/bcode/?a=87101 |title=OFCOM Broadcasting Code |website=Ofcom.org.uk |date=28 February 2011 |accessdate=13 May 2012}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| The IPT {{Clarify|date=December 2019}} was replaced after the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act in 1993, replaced with bodies designed to allow both more debate and increased consistency, and possession and supply of material that it is decided are objectionable was made a criminal offence
| |
| | |
| == See also ==
| |
| * [[Wikipedia:Zoophilia|Zoophilia]] on Wikipedia
| |
| * [[Bestiality]]
| |
| * [[Zetacon]]
| |
| | |
| == References ==
| |
| <references />
| |
| | |
| === External links ===
| |
| * [https://www.zeta-verein.de/en/ ZETA Official Website]
| |
| * [https://web.archive.org/web/20190516022338if_/https://www.adjectivespecies.com/2012/02/06/zoophilia-in-the-furry-community/ "Zoophilia in the Furry Community"] article on the blog ''[adjective][species]'' (defunct, archived on The Wayback Machine)
| |
| | |
| {{Home}}
| |
| | |
| | |
| [[index.php?title=Category:Sexuality]]
| |
| [[index.php?title=Category:Terms]]
| |
☯︎ ☸︎☞︎🕆︎👍︎😐︎🕿︎ ✆︎✋︎❄︎❀︎ ❝︎💣︎✡︎☯︎ ☸︎☠︎✋︎☝︎☝︎✌︎🕿︎ ✆︎✋︎❄︎🕯︎💧︎❀︎ ❝︎✌︎☠︎❄︎✋︎💣︎✌︎❄︎❄︎☜︎☼︎☯︎ ☸︎✏︎✏︎
