Zoophilia: Difference between revisions

From Zoophilia Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
← Older editNewer edit →
VisualWikitext
meta>Conti
m -{{vprotected}}
meta>JAQ
Overhaul, intended to establish NPOV and address other criticisms. See Talk page.
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Controversial3}}
{{Controversial3}}


[[Image:Leda.jpg|thumb|200px|''[[Leda and the Swan]]'', a [[16th century]] copy after a lost painting by [[Michelangelo]], 1530 ([[National Gallery, London]])]]
[[Image:Leda.jpg|thumb|300px|''[[Leda and the Swan]]'', a [[16th century]] copy after a lost painting by [[Michelangelo]], 1530 ([[National Gallery, London]])]]
'''Zoophilia''' is a [[paraphilia]] defined as an affinity, attraction or sexual attraction by a [[human]] to non-human [[animal]]s. Human/animal sexual interaction is referred to as '''zoosexuality''', or simply animal sex; the term '''bestiality''' is the actual dictionary term, used especially in legal and negative contexts. The quite ambiguous term [[sodomy]] has also sometimes been used for bestiality. In [[pornography]], zoosexuality is occasionally referred to as "'''farmsex'''" or "'''dogsex'''."
'''Zoophilia''' is a [[paraphilia]], defined as an affinity or sexual attraction by a [[human]] to non-human [[animal]]s. Individuals with this paraphilia are called ''zoophiles'', or less commonly ''zoosexuals''.  A related phenomenon is human/animal sexual activity; this is referred to most often as either '''''bestiality''''' (generally preferred by critics of the practice and used in most legislation), or ''zoosexuality'' (generally preferred by zoophiles and many social scientists). To avoid confusion about the meaning of ''zoosexuality'' - which can refer to either the paraphilia or the sexual activity - this article uses ''zoophilia'' for the former, and ''bestiality'' for the latter.  The two terms are independent: not all bestiality is performed by zoophiles, and not all zoophiles engage in bestiality.


Zoophilia is usually considered to be unnatural, and zoosexuality is often condemned as [[cruelty to animals|animal abuse]]; however, some, such as philosopher and animal rights author [[Peter Singer]], argue that this is not inherently the case (though such statements have received condemnations from the animal rights community). As with [[sadism and masochism]], the activity is no longer classified as a pathology under the [[DSM-IV]]-TR unless it is accompanied by distress in the individual or causes interference with the individual's normal functioning, and people who practice zoophilia tend to reject the view of their activities as disordered.
Zoophilia is usually considered to be unnatural, and bestiality is often condemned as [[cruelty to animals|animal abuse]] and/or outlawed as a "crime against nature".  Some, such as philosopher and animal rights author [[Peter Singer]], argue that this is not inherently the case. The activity or desire itself is no longer classified as a pathology under the [[DSM-IV]]-TR unless it is accompanied by distress in the individual or causes interference with the individual's normal functioning.  Zoophilia defenders claim that a human/animal relationship can go far beyond sexuality, and that they are capable of forming a [[loving relationship]] with an animal that can last for years, and that they do not consider it functionally different from any other love/sex relationship.


Research by psychologists and sexologists is in general supportive of some claims made by zoophiles, however this is not generally known or accepted, so most people's knowledge is drawn from stereotypes, personal beliefs, or media.
== Terminology ==


The extent to which zoosexuality occurs is controversial (see below). Zoophilia advocates claim that the human/animal relationship goes far beyond sexuality, and that they are capable of forming a [[loving relationship]] with an animal that can  frequently last several years and that they do not consider functionally different from any other love/sex relationship.  
The general term "zoophilia" was first introduced into the field of research on sexuality by [[Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing|Krafft-Ebing]] (1894).  The term "zoosexual", signifying an emotional and a sexual attraction and/or relationship to animals, has also been used (cited in 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.


==Zoophilia in culture==
The ambiguous term ''[[sodomy]]'' has sometimes been used in legal contexts to include bestiality. "Zooerasty" is an older term, not in common use. In [[pornography]], bestiality is occasionally referred to as ''farmsex'' or ''dogsex''.
=== Zoophilia and the law ===
Zoophilia is illegal in many jurisdictions, while others generally outlaw the mistreatment of animals without specifically mentioning zoosexuality.


Just over half of [[U.S. state]]s explicitly outlaw zoophilia (sometimes under the name "[[sodomy]]"). In [[Australia]], laws are also determined state by state, with only the [[Australian Capital Territory]] and [[Jervis Bay Territory]] not explicitly outlawing it. In [[Germany]], sex with animals is not specifically outlawed (but trading pornography showing it is, cf. [http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/184a.html §184a StGB]); in [[West Germany]], the law making it a crime ([[Paragraph 175|§175b]] StGB, which also outlawed homosexual acts) was removed in [[1969]], while in [[East Germany]] (until the [[German reunification]]), there never was a law against zoophilia at all. In the [[United Kingdom]], [http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30042--b.htm#69 section 69] of the "Sexual Offences Act 2003" reduced the sentence to a maximum of 2 years imprisonment, for penile penetration of or by an animal.
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.


An anomaly that arose in many U.S states was that when laws outlawing "sodomy" (generally in the context of male homosexuality) were repealed, some people thought sex with animals would no longer be outlawed, but a recent conviction of a man in Florida proved that even in states with no specific laws against zoophilia animal cruelty statutes can and will be used (eg [http://pet-abuse.com/cases/2206/FL/US/1 State vs. Mitchel]).
== Extent of occurrence ==
 
In some cases where there is no legislation against bestiality, state officers have attempted to find a basis to charge zoophiles for sex with minors, on the pretext that the animal was under the human [[age of consent]].  Legal commentators point out the age of sexual maturity in animals is far lower than in humans and that if this argument was sound, then [[Dog breeding|dog breeders]] and [[Horse breeding|stud farms]] would be deemed guilty of "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" or "living off the proceeds of child prostitution" respectively.
 
Six states recently adopted new legislation against zoophilia: Oregon, Maine, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and Missouri. In [[Maine]] in [[2000]], there was a court case in which Frank Buble attacked his son Philip with an iron bar, allegedly because of his son's sexual relationship with the family dog, Lady. Philip Buble regarded the dog to be his wife, and wrote a formal letter (signed "Philip and Lady Buble") to the court requesting that his "significant other" be allowed to attend the court hearing. This was declined. However, Frank Buble faced a prison sentence for assault, while no charges were brought against his son. The Bangor Daily News archives show numerous articles on this case, including one detailing Philip Buble's alleged abuse toward his father and advocating zoophilia to the parents of young children on the Internet.  Refs: bangordailynews.com
 
In the Netherlands in [[2004]], according to the newspapers, there was some concern by a legislator that a man caught having sex in a neighbor's barn with a horse not belonging to him could not be prosecuted because no law was broken. There was no visible injury to the horse; the man who was arrested was caught by the horse's owner in the act.
 
=== Zoophilia in pornography ===
[[image:Pan.jpg|thumb|right|[[Pan (god)|Pan]] copulating with a goat; marble sculpture from the ancient city of [[Herculaneum]]]]
[[Pornography]] involving zoosexuality is widely illegal, even in most countries where the act itself is not explicitly outlawed. In the [[United States]], this pornography is automatically considered [[obscene]] and therefore may not be sold, mailed or imported (production and mere possession appear to be legal, however). Similar restrictions obtain in Germany (cf. §184 StGB [http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/184.html]).
 
Materials featuring animal sex are widely available on the [[Internet]], however, mainly because their production and sale is legal in countries like the [[Netherlands]] and [[Denmark]]. The promotion of "stars" began with the Danish [[Bodil Joensen]], in the period of 1970-72. Into the [[1980s]] the [[Netherlands|Dutch]] took the lead, creating figures like "Wilma" and the "Dutch Sisters". Today, in [[Hungary]], where producing zoophilia pornography faces no legal limitations, "bestiality" materials have become a huge industry that produces numerous films, magazines, particularly for the [[Netherlands|Dutch]] companies, and the [[genre]] has created its "very own" stars like "Hector" (a [[Great Dane]] starring in several films). In [[Russia]], many female [[mainstream]] pornographic performers also feel comfortable to appear in such productions.


Pornography of this sort has become known as the stock in trade of a particular class of [[spamming|spammers]]. Email spam featuring women having sex with goats and dogs usually casts the activity as a form of sexual degradation.
The extent to which zoophilia occurs is not known with any certainty, largely because feelings which may not have been acted upon can be difficulty 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.


=== Zoophilia in mythology ===
Scientific surveys estimating the frequency of bestiality, 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 at least some 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 50% for rural teenagers (living on or near livestock farms) have been cited in some surveys, but these statistics are uncertain. Anecdotally, [[Nancy Friday]]'s 1973 book on [[female sexuality]] ''[[My Secret Garden]]'' comprised around 180 women's contributions; of these, some 10% volunteered a serious interest or active participation in zoophilia.
[[Image:Moreau, Europa and the Bull.jpg|thumb|200px|''[[Europa (mythology)|Europa]] and the Bull'' by [[Gustave Moreau]], c. 1869]]
Zoophilia has been a frequent subject in art, literature, and fantasy. In Greek mythology, [[Zeus]] appeared to [[Leda (mythology)|Leda]] in the form of a [[swan]] (resulting in the birth of [[Helen]] and [[Polydeuces]]), and to [[Europa (mythology)|Europa]] in the form of a [[bull]]. The [[Minotaur]] was the offspring of Queen [[Pasiphae]] and a white bull. The god [[Pan (mythology)|Pan]] has also been frequently associated with animal sex.


Erotic [[furry]] fantasy art and stories have been accused of promoting zoophilia, but defenders point out that the characters are predominantly humanoid fantasy creatures who are thinking, reasoning beings as capable of giving consent as any human. Furry characters have been compared to other non-human characters who are subjects of love/sexuality fantasies, such as the [[Vulcan (Star Trek)|Vulcans]] and [[Klingon]]s in [[Star Trek]].
[[Sexual fantasy|Sexual fantasies]] about bestiality 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; an interest and sexual excitement in watching animals [[mating|mate]] is cited as an indicator of this by Massen (1994).


== Zoophilia as a lifestyle ==
== 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.  A useful distinction can be made between an affinity or attraction to animals, and a primary preference for them. A commonly reported starting age is at [[puberty]], around 9 - 11, and this seems consistent for both males and females. Those who discover an interest at an older age often trace it back to nascent form during this period or earlier.  
Separate from those whose interest is curiosity, pornography, or sexual novelty, are those for whom zoophilia might be called a lifestyle.  A commonly reported starting age is at [[puberty]], around 9 - 11, and this seems consistent for both males and females. Those who discover an interest at an older age often trace it back to nascent form during this period or earlier.


Zoophiles tend to perceive differences between animals and human beings as less significant, and view animals as having positive traits (eg, honesty) that humans often lack. They tend to feel that society's understanding is mis-informed, especially in the realm of non-human sexuality, and as a result whilst some feel guilty about their interest and view it through society's eyes as a problem, others do not feel a need to be constrained by traditional norms in their private relationships.
Zoophiles tend to perceive differences between animals and human beings as less significant than others do, and view animals as having positive traits (e.g. honesty) that humans often lack. They tend to feel that society's understanding of non-human sexuality is misinformed.  Although some feel guilty about their feelings and view them as a problem, others do not feel a need to be constrained by traditional standards in their private relationships.


The biggest issue reported by zoophiles is an inability to be accepted or open about their preferences and partners with friends, family and society at large. This is not usually an issue of [[religion]], as many zoophiles find religion and zoophilia to be compatible, but more about fear of harm, misunderstanding and/or rejection. The other major issue is isolation and loneliness, in the same way as [[Homosexual|homosexuals]] were isolated in earlier centuries. Other common difficulties include the death of partners, lack of an acceptable way to grieve, and issues arising from society's treatment of animals as being less important than humans and which portrays and believes them to be automatically abusive.
The biggest issues reported by zoophiles are the inability to be accepted or open about their animal relationships and feelings with friends and family, and the fear of harm or rejection if it became known. Another major issue is isolation and loneliness, due to lack of contact with others who share this attraction. Other common difficulties include the death of the animals they love (particularly because most species have shorter lifespans than humans).  They do not usually cite internal conflicts over [[religion]], perhaps because zoophilia, although condemned by many religions, is not a frequent subject of their teachings.


Animals and humans differ in sexuality.  For most animals, sex carries less importance, is burdened with fewer social and conceptual barriers, and is more an immediate than a conceptual experience. Many animals will normally only have sex when the female shows her interest, although males of many species are, like humans, sexually interested year-round. As a result zoophile relationships vary between human-style relationships (in particular, remaining monogamous), animal-style relationships (wherein both partners are trusted to make their own sexual choices, with the human also playing the role of protector), or try to blend the two in various ways. Not all zoophiles are sexually involved with animals (see below).
Unlike humans, many animals are sexually active only during certain parts of the year. As a result zoophilic sexual relationships vary between human-style relationships (in particular, remaining [[mongamy|monogamous]]), animal-style relationships (wherein both participants are trusted to make their own sexual choices), or try to blend the two in various ways.


Zoophiles may or may not have human partners.  In some cases the human partner or family is aware of animal partners. As human partnerships are generally encouraged by society, both male and female zoophiles often have human relationships or marry, either for human companionship or to deflect suspicions of zoosexuality.
Zoophiles may or may not have human partners and families.  Some zoophiles have an affinity or attraction to animals secondary to human attraction; others have a primary preference for certain animals. 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 (re: divided loyalties and concealment) or [[jealousy]] in human relationships. Zoophiles sometimes enter human relationships to deflect suspicions of zoophilia. Others may choose looser forms of human relationship as companions or housemates, or choose other zoophiles to live with.


== Non-sexual zoophilia ==
== Non-sexual zoophilia ==


Although the term "zoophilia" is often used as a synonym for a sexual interest in animals, in fact the definition of zoophilia is not specifically sexual in nature.  In [[Psychology|psychology]] and [[Sociology|sociology]] it can be (and is) used neutrally as to sexual implications. The first definition listed for the word on [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=zoophilia dictionary.com] is "Affection or affinity for animals".  Other definitions are:
Although the term is often used to refer to sexual interest in animals, zoophilia is not necessarily sexual in nature.  In [[psychology]] and [[sociology]] it is sometimes used without regard to sexual implications. The first definition listed for the word on [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=zoophilia dictionary.com] is "Affection or affinity for animals".  Other definitions are:
 
* "Erotic attraction to or sexual contact with animals"
* "Erotic attraction to or sexual contact with animals"
* "Attraction to or affinity for animals"
* "Attraction to or affinity for animals"
* "An erotic fixation on animals that may result in sexual excitement through real or fancied contact"
* "An erotic fixation on animals that may result in sexual excitement through real or fancied contact"


In either case, the common feature of "zoophilia" is some form of affective bond to animals, over and above the norm, whether emotional or sexual in nature. For examples of non-sexual zoophilia, a good place to look is an animal memorial page such as the well known [http://www.in-memory-of-pets.com in-memory-of-pets.com] memorial and support site, or by [[Google|Googling]] "pet memorials".
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 it it sometimes ridiculed, it is usually respected or tolerated. Examples of non-sexual zoophilia can be found on an animal memorial page such as [http://www.in-memory-of-pets.com in-memory-of-pets.com] memorial and support site, or by [[Google|Googling]] "pet memorials".
 
== Research into zoophilia ==


=== History of research ===
== Legal status ==


Research into zoophilia in its own right has happened since around 1960-1970, with the first detailed studies dating from prior to 1910.
No jurisdiction is known to recognize zoophilic relationships, as such.  They are legally no different from that of a person who keeps a pet or owns livestock.


It is commonly believed that research into zoophilia is a relatively modern phenomena commencing in the mid 1990's.  But more than 40 years ago, peer groups of professionals were already using the term "zoophilia" when studying a fully relational form of bestiality, and took for granted a view of a relational love which could be assessed similar to human-human relationships (including sexual and emotional aspects). They were already researching whether humans could "love" animals, what the nature of animals feelings in return were, and the detailed nature of any sexual and emotional relationship.  
Bestiality is 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 bestiality unclear in some jurisdictions.


Much early research was obtained as a byproduct of research into sexology in general, and violent offenders. The latter was undertaken by asking sample groups from prison or juvenile prison, who already had abuse and violence convictions, if they had also abused animals, which has led to a mis-assumption of a connection by some people.  
*Just over half of [[U.S. state]]s explicitly outlaw sex with animals (sometimes under the name "[[sodomy]]"). In the 2000s, six U.S. states adopted new legislation against it: Oregon, Maine, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Missouri. An anomaly that arose in many U.S. states was that when laws outlawing "sodomy" (generally in the context of male homosexuality) were repealed or struck down by the courts, some people thought sex with animals would no longer be outlawed.  But the 2004 conviction of a man in Florida demonstrated that even in states with no specific laws against bestiality, animal cruelty statutes can be applied (e.g. [http://pet-abuse.com/cases/2206/FL/US/1 State vs. Mitchel]).
*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. [http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/184a.html §184a StGB]). In [[West Germany]], the law making it a crime ([[Paragraph 175|§175b]] StGB, which also outlawed homosexual acts) was removed in [[1969]].  [[East Germany]] before [[German reunification|reunification]] had no law against zoosexuality.
*In the [[United Kingdom]], it is illegal, with [http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30042--b.htm#69 section 69] of the "Sexual Offences Act 2003" reducing the sentence to a maximum of 2 years imprisonment, for human penile penetration of or by an animal.
*Bestiality is illegal in [[Canada]].
*In the Netherlands in [[2004]], newspapers reported concern by a legislator that a man caught having sex in a neighbor's barn with a horse not belonging to him could not be prosecuted because no law was broken. There was no visible injury to the horse.


Some researchers believed and stated that zoophiles were sexual psychopaths. These beliefs have since been professionally discredited as highly flawed interpretations based upon personal preconceptions, poor reasoning, and inadequate psychological models and assumptions which tended to reaffirm existing norms. Present research highlights that zoophiles as a group have noticably lower levels of (for example) both psychopathy and need for control, which are two of the significant indicators for serious sexual abusers or serial killers.
== Psychological perspectives ==


The earlier research tends to have different results since it did not attempt to study zoophiles in general, but selected its case histories primarily from within (for example) populations already known to be violent, abusive, or psychologically troubled. Another difference is whether the research examined the act (earlier works) or the relationship and other measures too, which turned out to be a key factor in understanding zoophilia.
[[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 for [[Paraphilia|paraphilias]] "paraphilias not otherwise specified".
 
Examples of pre-1980 research with emphasis on zoophilia include:
 
* Grassberg ''"Sex with Animals"'' (1968)
* [[Masters and Johnson|Masters]] ''"Forbidden Sexual Behaviour and Morality"'' (1962, 4th Ed 1966, includes significant research on zoophilia)
* Hentig ''"Sociology of the Zoophile Preference"'' (1962)
* Dubois-Dessaule ''"The Study of Bestiality from the Historical, Medical and Legal Viewpoint"'' (1905)
 
=== Findings ===
 
It is interesting to note that each significant study from Masters (1962) to Beetz (2002) has drawn and agreed the same broad conclusions:
 
* The critical aspect to study was emotion, relationship and motive, not just assess or judge the sexual act alone, in isolation, or as "an act". (Masters, Miletski, Beetz)
 
* Zoophilia should not necessarily be considered a significant clinical condition (American Psychiatric Association ([[American Psychiatric Association|APA]]) diagnostic manual 1987, see [[DSM-III-R]])


The first detailed studies which included zoophilia date from prior to 1910.  Research into zoophilia in its own right has happened since around 1960.  Each significant study from Masters (1962) to Beetz (2002) has drawn and agreed on several broad conclusions:
* The critical aspect to study was emotion, relationship, and motive, not just assess or judge the sexual act alone, in isolation, or as "an act". (Masters, Miletski, Beetz)
* Most zoophiles do have human partners (Masters, Beetz)
* Most zoophiles do have human partners (Masters, Beetz)
* Zoophiles' emotions and care to animals can be real, relational, authentic and (within animals' abilities) reciprocal (Masters, Miletski, Weinberg, Beetz)
* Zoophiles' emotions and care to animals can be real, relational, authentic and (within animals' abilities) reciprocal (Masters, Miletski, Weinberg, Beetz)
* Society in general at present is misinformed about zoophilia (Masters, Miletski, Weinberg, Beetz)
* Society in general at present is misinformed about zoophilia (Masters, Miletski, Weinberg, Beetz)
 
* Contrary to popular belief, there is in fact significant popular or "latent" interest in zoophilia, either in fantasy, animal mating, or reality (Nancy Friday, Massen, Masters)
* 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 and Masters)
 
* The above studies all highlight the distinction between zoophilia and zoosadism (in whatever terms they use)
* The above studies all highlight the distinction between zoophilia and zoosadism (in whatever terms they use)
* Masters (1962), Miletski (1994) and Weinberg (1999) comment significantly on the social harm caused by this misunderstanding: "This destroy[s] the lives of many citizens".
* Masters (1962), Miletski (1994) and Weinberg (1999) comment significantly on the social harm caused by this misunderstanding: "This destroy[s] the lives of many citizens".


* Each report concludes in some form or another that clinically there is no clear justification to stigmatize zoophilia; in the 1960's one of Master's conclusions was "..it would be better if society rose to the challenge posed by nature's wealth of variations from the norm and just let them alone..."
== Religious perspectives==


To the extent a "profile" can be drawn, emotionally and psychologically, research suggests that zoophiles have above average [[empathy]]. It is unclear yet from research whether this is a cause or a result of zoophilia. In other words, they may be close to animals because they empathize well, or have developed empathic skills because of intimate closeness with animals. As a group they have a lower level of [[psychopath]]y and need for control than average, and a higher level of sensation seeking and involvement in animal protection than average. They also have an above average level of social individualism, which can be either inhibitive (eg, [[shyness]]) or empowering (eg, independence of thought). Other research gives similar findings.  
Most organized religions take a critical or sometimes condemnatory view of zoophilia or bestiality, with some variation and exceptions.
::''(Beetz Ph.D.: "Love, Violence, and Sexuality in Relationships between Humans and Animals")''
* Passages in Leviticus 18:23 ("And you shall not lie with any beast and defile yourself with it, neither shall any woman give herself to a beast to lie with it: it is a perversion." RSV) and 20:15-16 ("If a man lies with a beast, he shall be put to death; and you shall kill the beast. If a woman approaches any beast and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the beast; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them." RSV) are cited by [[Judaism|Jewish]], [[Christianity|Christian]], and [[Islam|Muslim]] theologians as categorical denunciation of bestiality. Some theologians (especally Christian) extend this, to consider lustful thoughts for animal as a sin, to be punished by God.  Alternatively, many Christians and some unorthodox Jews do not regard the full Levitical law as binding upon them, and might disregard those statements in as no longer relevant.
* Although there are several references in [[Hinduism|Hindu]] scriptures to religious figures engaging in sexual activity with animals (e.g. the god [[Brahma]] lusting after and having sex with a bear, a human-like sage being born to a deer mother), Hindu doctrine holds that sex should be restricted to married couples, thereby forbiding bestiality.  A greater punishment is attached to sexual relations with a sacred cow than with other animals.  However, the [[Tantra|Tantric]] sect of Hinduism makes use of ritual sexual practices, which could include sexual contact with animals.
* [[Buddhism]] addresses sexual conduct primarily in terms of what brings harm to oneself or to others, and the admonition against sexual misconduct is generally interpreted in modern times to prohibit bestiality, as well as [[pederasty]], [[adultery]], [[rape]], or [[prostitution]].  Bestiality (as well as various other sexual activity) is expressly forbidden for Buddhist monks and nuns.
* [[Neopaganism|Pagans]] are very loosely organized and teachings vary considerably. A common theme is the connectedness of humans with nature, and the principle "do what thou wilt" is widely accepted.  As such, sexual activity with animals - assuming it is not harmful to either party - is condoned.


=== Beetz, 2000-2002 ===
== Animal-rights perspectives==


Beetz studied sex and violence in human/animal relationships, and concluded:
One of the primary critiques of zoophilia is the argument that bestiality 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.


: ''There are different people who engage in sex with animals and not the kind of interaction but first and foremost the quality of the relationship seems to distinguish between them. This emotional relation or at least the respect they show towards the will of the involved animal should be more closely investigated, when conducting research that includes bestiality.''
Bornemann 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 bestiality.


: ''Because [it is] this, the quality of the interaction and the relationship - that may be loving, neutral, or violent - and not the fact of a sexual interaction [which] is important, and provides information for a better understanding of bestiality and zoophilia and their significance in relation to other phenomena.''
== Health and safety ==
:''Note: Wikipedia does not give medical advice''


: '''''Former, as well as the here presented research''', suggests that zoophilia itself does not represent a clinically significant problem and is not necessarily combined with other clinically significant problems and disorders, even if it may be difficult for some professionals to accept this.''
Although bestiality cannot result in pregnancy, infections can be an issue for either party.  Most sexually-transmitted diseases are specific to particular species and cannot infect others, however some less common but treatable infections such as canine [[Brucellosis]] can be transferred.  Animals' standards of hygiene usually differ from humans', and as with intimate human-to-human contact, inadequate cleanliness can lead to infections such as gastrointestinal illnesses, for either participant. Animals' and humans' bodily fluids are not inherently harmful to the other, but allergic reactions occasionally occur.


=== Weinberg and Williams, 1999 ===
The question is also raised of physical compatibility between humans and animals.  With larger species, males are often of compatible size and females may be.  The main risk is of injury through ignorance of the physical differences, and excessive friction or infection (female animals). Humans can 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 the course of sexual arousal or in rejecting sexual contact.  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.


Professors Weinberg & Williams ([[Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction|Kinsey  Institute]], Indiana University, 30 years work in sexual research) wrote to the House about a proposed bill, HB 1658:
==Arguments about zoophilia or bestiality ==


: ''No one can argue about the objective harm resulting from a behavior like rape. Such harm arises from the absence of consent and the trauma that accompanies and follows from the act. Opponents of a human having sex with an animal use a similar standard. While what constitutes an animal's consent is difficult to define, people are well aware when an animal is non-consenting. Our research suggests that forcing sex on an unwilling animal is rare among adult zoophiles (as well as being seen as a behavior that would be extremely unsafe since the person is not dealing with a defenseless being).''
Platonic love for animals is usually viewed positively, but most people express concern or disapproval of sexual interest.  Criticisms come from a variety of sources, including moral, ethical, psychological, and social arguments.  They include:
* 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.
* Bestiality is simply for those unable/unwilling to find human partners.
* Sexual acts with animals by humans constitute physical abuse.
* Bestiality is "profoundly disturbed behaviour" (cf. the UK [[Home Office]] review on sexual offences, 2002), and self-degrading.
* It is forbidden by religious law.


: ''The question of consent is usually conflated with the question of harm, which we believe to be the better question. Zoophiles appear to be extremely caring and concerned for their animal(s) and people who know them would be hard put to claim abuse. Implicit in [the bill] is that sex with an animal in itself constitutes abuse. We believe that this merely reflects a negative attitude toward such a non-traditional form of sexuality. Disgust should not be a criterion for legislation.''
Defenders of zoophilia or bestiality 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 relationships with humans.
* Zoophiles usually have human partners.
* Not all sexual activity is inherently harmful/abusive.
* The psychological consensus does not consider it intrinsically pathological.
* Religious viewpoints differ.
They also assert that some of these arguments rely on double standards, such as expecting informed consent from animals for sexual activity, but not for surgical procedures, experimentation, hazardous activities, euthanasia, or even slaughtering them for food.


: ''Remember that less than half a century ago, all states but one criminalized homosexual acts because many people were uncomfortable with the idea of sexual behavior with members of the same sex. This destroyed the lives of many citizens.''
People's views appear to depend significantly upon the nature of their interest and nature of exposure to the subject. People who have been exposed to zoosadism, who are unsympathetic to [[Alternative_lifestyles#Sexual_lifestyles|alternate lifestyles]] in general, or who know little about zoophilia, often regard it as an extreme form of [[animal cruelty|animal abuse]], and/or indicative of serious psychosexual issues.  Mental health professionals and personal acquaintances of zoophiles who see their relationships over time tend to be less critical, and sometimes supportive.  [[Ethology|Ethologists]] who study and understand animal behaviour and body language tend to be matter-of-fact about animal sexuality and animal approaches to humans, and their research is generally supportive of some of these claims regarding animal cognition, behaviour, and sexual-relational-emotional issues. Because the majority opinion is condemnatory, individuals may be more accepting privately than they present to the public. Regardless, there is a clear consensus which regards zoophilia with either suspicion or outright opposition.


=== Miletski, 1994 ===
== Mythology and fantasy literature==
[[image:Pan.jpg|thumb|left|[[Pan (god)|Pan]] copulating with a goat; marble sculpture from the ancient city of [[Herculaneum]]]]
Zoophilia has been a recurring subject in art, literature, and fantasy.


Hani Miletski (sexologist and author of "Understanding Bestiality and Zoophillia") concluded that zoosexuality was a full [[Sexual orientation|sexual orientation]] by the same criteria that other sexual orientations met:
In [[Ugarit|Ugaritic]] mythology, the god [[Baal]] is said to have impregnated a [[heifer]] to sire a young bull god.  In [[Greek mythology]], [[Zeus]] appeared to [[Leda (mythology)|Leda]] in the form of a [[swan]], and her children [[Helen]] and [[Polydeuces]] resulted from that sexual union.  Zeus also seduced [[Europa (mythology)|Europa]] in the form of a [[bull]], and carried off the youth [[Ganymede (mythology)|Ganymede]] in the form of an eagle. The half-human/half-bull [[Minotaur]] was the offspring of Queen [[Pasiphae]] and a white bull. King [[Peleus]] continued to seduce the nymph [[Thetis]] despite her transforming into (among other forms) a lion, a bird, and a snake.  The god [[Pan (mythology)|Pan]], often depicted with goat-like features, has also been frequently associated with animal sex.  As with other subjects of [[classical]] mythology, some of these have been depicted over the centuries since, in western painting and sculpture.


: ''Chapter 13 repeats and summarizes the answer to the basic research question in the current study - is there a sexual orientation toward animals? The definition of "sexual orientation" was adapted from Francoeur (1991) in his discussion of homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality. According to this definition, sexual orientation consists of three interrelated aspects:''
[[Image:Moreau, Europa and the Bull.jpg|thumb|200px|''[[Europa (mythology)|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), and [[Balzac]]'s ''A Passion in the Desert'' (a love affair between a solder and a panther). In more modern times, bestiality 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]].
:# ''affectional orientation - who or what we bond with emotionally;''
:# ''sexual fantasy orientation - about whom or what we fantasize; and''
:# ''erotic orientation - with whom or what we prefer to have sex.''
 
: ''and concludes that all three criteria are met.''
 
: ''Chapter 14 describes its limitations. Also included is a discussion about my bias; a bias not about bestiality, zoophilia and the individuals involved, but rather against discrimination and hatred of people who are misunderstood.''
 
: ''Chapter 15 compares my findings with Kinsey et al.'s (1948) study on the sexual behaviors of American men, Kinsey et al.'s (1953) study on the sexual behaviors of American women, the Gebhard et al.'s (1965) study on sex offenders, the Hunt survey (1974), Peretti and Rowan's (1983) study, and Donofrio's (1996) doctoral dissertation.''
 
=== Masters, 1962 ===
 
"Forbidden Sexual Behaviour and Morality", (cited from 4th Ed. 1966)
 
: ''Masters asks ''"Is it possible for a human being to be in love, in the romantic sense of that expression, with an animal? Is it possible for an animal, within the limitations of its nature, to reciprocate such affection?"'' and says that theorists have "long distinguished" two states, which he calls zoophilia and zooerasty, and that "In this area the attitudes and emotions with which the (human) subjects approach their (animal) objects are considered decisive."''
 
: ''In zoophilia, "there is said to be a genuine feeling for the animal on the part of the human", and may "approximate what is called 'erotic love' when humans only are involved". He comments further, "Though comparatively quite rare, there do occur cases of true zoophilia - of human beings who genuinely 'fall in love' with animals, a love which includes sexual relations, but also such 'romantic' elements as tenderness, spiritual affection, and even jealousy."
 
: ''Zooerasty (which also denotes anal intercourse with a beast) describes "the sexual use of animals where no such emotional involvements exist ... [and] is in fact quite akin to ... [[masturbation]] of a somewhat higher and more complex order, since it does involve a concrete object, or [[Other]], in the act of fulfillment.  But even so, from the psychological point of view there is little in zooerasty that is morbid or seriously aberrant".''
 
: ''He states that there is overlap between the two.''
 
: ''"True zoophiles are encountered with comparative rarity, and their condition is, of course, one calling for psychiatric (or, better, psychoanalytic) intervention - unless they are happy with it, and otherwise well-adjusted, in which case it would be better if society rose to the challenge posed by nature's wealth of variations from the norm and just let them alone, not attempting to interfere with an equilibrium which can in no way result in injury to anyone else."''
 
: ''"Zooerasts, too, need be of no concern to society, since they do not involve others in their behavior, neither should they, commonly, be regarded as medical problems, since in most cases they are no more ill than any other masturbator..."''


: ''Masters raises a follow-up question, ''"To what extent does the human individual participating in an act of bestiality regard the animal sex partner as a person?"'' and comments that:''
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 would be as capable of giving consent as any human. "Furry" characters have been compared to other intelligent and social non-human fictional characters who are subjects of love/sexuality fantasies without being commonly regarded as zoophilic, such as the [[Vulcan (Star Trek)|Vulcans]] and [[Klingon]]s in ''[[Star Trek]]'', or [[elf|elves]] in fantasy fiction.


: ''"[The zoophile] anticipates that the animal will derive gratification from its intercourse with him, as another person would, and he is disappointed if this reaction does not occur", attributes emotional capabilities and some conceptual abilities, and "in short, regards it as a personality, a human-like consciousness which differs from him erotically more in form than in spirit. This is, in part why individuals are able to 'fall in love' with animals, especially with those animals with which they have had repeated sexual experiences..."''
== 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]], it is automatically considered [[obscene]] and therefore may not be sold, mailed or imported. (Production and mere possession appear to be legal, however.) Similar restrictions apply in Germany (cf. §184 StGB [http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/184.html]).


: ''"Exhibitions of human-animal sex intercourse have never received the psychological analysis and other attention they quite richly merit. It is true that research in this area would present many problems, but the insight achieved might well be worth the trouble. Bestiality exhibitions have been popular throughout recorded human history, and it is evident therefore, that they fulfill profound psychological cravings on the part of the spectators, and perhaps on the part of the human participants as well."''
Materials featuring sex with animals are widely available on the [[Internet]], however, mainly because their production and sale is legal in countries such as the [[Netherlands]] and [[Denmark]]. The promotion of "stars" began with the Danish [[Bodil Joensen]], in the period of 1970-72. Into the [[1980s]] the [[Netherlands|Dutch]] took the lead, creating figures like "Wilma" and the "Dutch Sisters". Today, in [[Hungary]], where production faces no legal limitations, bestiality materials have become a substantial industry that produces numerous films and magazines, particularly for [[Netherlands|Dutch]] companies, and the [[genre]] has stars such as "Hector" (a [[Great Dane]] starring in several films). In [[Russia]], many female [[mainstream]] pornographic performers also appear in such productions.  


: ''"As should have been made clear by now, in considering all acts of sexual intercouse with animals we find that only a small minority of these are performed by perverted individuals - that is, by those who can only obtain gratification in this way...  (The injustice ... results, of course, from the fact that when we customarily speak of a particular act as being 'perverted', or a 'perversion', then we habitually go on from there to assume that whoever engages in the so-called perversion is a pervert - which is obviously not the case)."''
Pornography of this sort has become the business of certain [[spamming|spammers]]. Email spam featuring women having sex with goats and dogs usually casts the activity as a form of sexual degradation.
 
('''Important note''': Although it may seem that the above are selectively chosen citations, in fact the opposite is the case.  The reason for the agreement is that in fact current research over the past 15 years is very consistent, and there does not appear to be found any credible, serious, peer reviewed research into zoophiles ''per se'' - as opposed to offenders and animal abusers - that contradicts any of the above in a significant manner.)
 
== Violence and sexuality with animals ==
 
Although some people with a history of violence have physically abused animals, sometimes sexually, there is in fact no evidence at this time that significantly more zoophiles are abusive ''per se'' than those of any other sexual orientation.
What research makes clear is people already inclined to abuse and violence often seek out or begin with dependents within their home or friends' homes, children, animals or other vulnerable groups, to abuse or "practice" on. In simple terms, there are both abusive and non abusive heterosexuals, homosexuals, zoosexuals, and so on. There is considerable research in this area as well, much of which is referenced in the work by Beetz cited below.
 
Violent sexual assault involving animals is often reported in the press, and at times has led to somewhat unexpected results:
 
* In one case a man had his penis bitten off through attempting to have sex with a dog when she was not willing.
* In another, expert witnesses testified in a South African court that men charged with using a dog to rape a girl should be freed on the grounds of improbability, since a dog would not conceivably be able to have a sexual interest in humans ([http://iafrica.com/news/sa/304606.htm], [http://www.dailynews.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=170604]).
* In a further case, a mother was convicted of raping her 7-year-old child, despite his protestations at the time and afterwards that she was out of the room when the dog acted independently ([http://iiu.taint.org/pipermail/crackmice/2000-July/002003.html]). The woman was sentenced to life in prison. The boy has appealed on his mothers' behalf at the age of 14; however, the outcome is not known.
 
===Sexual assault===
 
From time to time, cases where animals have been tied up, assaulted, scared, involved sexually, or injured are reported in the media. It is unclear whether the intent of such incidents is always to harm, but often such animals are harmed anyway. Opposers to zoophilia cite these as evidence that all bestiality is abusive, pro-zoophilia advocates agree that animal abuse is heinous but neither typical of nor commonplace within zoophilia. Zoophiles point out that sexual activity involves learned understanding, and if information and education is withheld then those drawn to engage other species may lack full awareness of key issues and invent their own (less well informed) approaches.
 
=== Zoosadism ===
 
Bornemann coined the separate term "zoosadism" for those who like to inflict pain on an animal. 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 young animals such as puppies, equivalent to human paedophilia.
 
Certainly some horse-ripping incidences 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 bestiality.
 
According to Kidd and Kidd (1987), most of these older research and models rarely took the variety of possible interactions and relations into account, studying the physical acts in isolation.  Beetz in her thesis on sex and violence with animals comments that perhaps because of this, "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."
 
== Terminology ==
 
According to Schmidt (1969), the more general term "zoophilia" was first introduced into the field of research on sexuality by [[Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing|Krafft-Ebing]] (1894).  The term "zoosexual" signifying an emotional and a sexual attraction and/or relationship to animals has also been used (cited in Miletski, 1999).
 
"Zooerasty" is an older term used for sexual intercourse with animals (particularly anal intercourse). It is an outdated term, not in common use.
 
Studies show that most zoophiles also have human sexual partners. Therefore, a distinct zoosexual or zoophilic orientation is as hard to distinguish as a distinct heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual orientation. Only for people who have an long term attraction only to animals and who do not practice sex with humans the diagnosis of an [[exclusive|exclusively]] zoosexual orientation might be justified.
 
== Categorization ==
 
The revised [[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 revised [[DSM-IV]] (APA, 1994) subsumed it under the residual classification for [[Paraphilia|paraphilias]] "paraphilias not otherwise specified".
 
== Extent of occurrence ==
 
The extent to which zoosexuality occurs is disputed. There have been several estimates assessing the frequency of occurrence, as well as anecdotal evidence and informal surveys. Allowing for gray areas of definition and weaknesses in method, a reasonable estimate for the Western world would seem to be that 2-8% of sexually active adults have had a sexual experience with an animal at some point in their lives which was not "once off", and a larger number (perhaps 10-30% depending on area) will have fantasized or had some form of brief encounter. Larger figures such as 50% for farm teenagers have been cited in some surveys, but the quality of the statistics is uncertain. Figures of under 1% for sexually active zoophiles are probably unrealistic.
 
[[Nancy Friday]]'s acclaimed book on [[female sexuality]] "[[My Secret Garden]]" was published in 1973 (i.e. well before the Internet). It comprised around 180 women's contributions. Of these, some 10% volunteered a serious interest or active participation in zoophilia.
 
[[Sexual fantasy|Sexual fantasies]] about bestiality seem to be relatively frequent and also (like many fantasies) occur in people who do not have a strong wish to experience them in real life.   [[Latent]] zoophile tendencies are claimed to exist in many persons - an interest and sexual excitement in watching animals [[Mating|mate]] or similar is common, and cited as an indicator by Massen (1994).
 
It is also unclear what proportion of zoophiles are sexually active with animals. Reasons for this ambiguity include:
 
# A significant but unknown proportion of zoophiles are only involved with animals on an emotional level
# Some are not sexually involved due to life circumstances or choice (this includes factors related to partners such as age, health or lack of interest)
# Levels of sexual involvement differ (eg masturbation but no other activity) or only in the past, or very infrequently, so there is no clear line of what constitutes "sexually involved"
# There is a no clear line delineating a particular affinity for animals from everyday pet care or enjoyment of their company.
# [[Sampling method]]s (in common with most sexology samples) have to estimate the "invisible proportion" who do not talk about their activity or feelings.
 
== Views for and against Zoophilia ==
 
Zoophilia is a controversial subject. Platonic love for animals, even of an intense kind, is usually viewed positively, however sexual interest (whether fantasy or reality) is highly controversial and for many people an emotive topic bound up with many deep social traditions.
 
People's views appears to depend significantly upon the nature of their interest and nature of exposure to the subject. People who have been exposed to zoosadism (see below), who are unsympathetic to [[Alternative_lifestyles#Sexual_lifestyles|alternate lifestyles]], or who lack much awareness of zoophilia often to regard it as an extreme form of [[animal cruelty|animal abuse]], and often indicative of serious psychosexual issues.
 
On the other hand, professionals and people who know genuine zoophiles and their partners personally over a period of time (whether knowingly or unknowingly) often find it hard to see abuse in their partnership.
 
The mainstays of public ethics (eg legal, religious, media) tend to be universally condemnatory of bestiality. Privately, as with many sexual matters,  views vary more widely.
 
=== Arguments ===
 
Common objections include arguments based upon [[religion]] or [[humanism]]:
* It is forbidden by God and society, or demeaning to human dignity
 
Arguments based upon abuse:
* Sexual acts with human beings would be harmful to animals
 
Arguments based upon [[psychology]] and [[sociology]]:
* Bestiality is "profoundly disturbed behaviour" (as described by the UK [[Home Office]] review on sexual offences, 2002)
* Zoophilia is like [[pedophilia]]
* Zoophiles have sex with animals since they cannot get human partners
 
Arguments based upon beliefs about the "nature of animals":
* There can be no true mutuality so sex is wrong
* Animals cannot consent (or: even if animals appear to consent they are not really aware of what they are doing)
* It is unnatural for animals to have sex with humans
* Animals only have sex with their own kind
* Animals only act from instinct
* Animals cannot enjoy sex (or, animals only submit to it to please humans)
 
Arguments based upon personal feelings:
* It is sick (wrong, twisted, disgusting, "icky")
* I can't believe (an animal) would want that (or: let anyone do that)
 
A suggested reason for this is that most cases which come to public attention are via court reports and [[#zoosadism|zoosadism]], and that the majority of non-abusive zoophilic relationships generally never come to public attention.
 
In addition there are strong "double standards" over animals (as utilities and property ''vs.'' as independent living beings worthy of respect) so often people are unconvinced that animals can consent, enjoy or understand sex in a meaningful way.
 
=== Counter-arguments ===
 
: ''(Under discussion and review)''
 
Ethically, the argument from religion depends on one's spiritual beliefs. Many people combine a religious ethic with a personal morality, and do not see religious law as their only ethical values, or do not believe that others private beliefs should be imposed on society in general. In the same way, "preservation of human dignity" is usually perceived in society as a personal issue and not a basis for making legal decisions. Some people simply do not see a conflict between religion and sexuality, and others do not hold strong traditional religious views.
 
Research strongly contradicts the common belief that zoophiles cannot find human partners, as many zoophiles have human relationships.
 
Psychological and sexology research concludes beyond this, that far from being "profoundly disturbed behaviour", zoophilic feelings and relationships are common, latent in many people, and can be authentic, relational, and genuine.  (see below)
 
Zoophiles also note that people who have only minimal interest in animal consent of any kind generally (eg, for surgery, euthenasia, docking, castration, food, care, emotional security or dangerous activities), demand consent only when it relates to sex. They observe that in fact animals negotiate sex, form relational bonds, and give or withold consent in their own way in every kind of activity, and that this is both natural and unmistakable.
 
<!--A common popular assumption is that of a connection between zoophilia and paedophilia. This arises from the view that animals are like children, ie helpless, immature, childlike, easily manipulated and unable to protest strongly.  Zoophiles deny that these are true for adult animals of many species, and psychology and sexology researchers reject the view of zoophiles as inherently abusive. In fact there is presently little connection between zoophilia and abusive practices, save that people inclined to abuse (of whatever sexuality) may have started or practiced on animals (see [[#zoosadism|zoosadism]]).
 
What '''is''' the case, is that zoophilia, requiring as it does communication with a different species, which may have different or less obvious signals, body language and social perceptions, may pose more of a risk than most relationships of harm if such communication is inadequate.
 
Arguments concerning the nature of animals broadly divide along the lines of those who idealise animals, and those who see them in a utilitarian or relational light.  People who are not familiar with animals in great depth can misapprehend their volition, decisiveness, ability to choose and communicate, and their sexuality or sexual dimension.  Those who know them better may see them as instinctive if amicable automatons, or volitional sensitive responsive beings.  Beliefs about human ethics in relation to animals, including killing, medical use, armed forced and zoophilia usually depend upon this individual point of view.
 
Zoophiles point out that animals are trusted to show when they want or do not want attention, food, personal space or closeness, and that as animals have a sexual dimension they can and will show that if they wish it, and that not extending this trust to the equally physical act of sex if mutually agreeable, is illogical and humancentric.
 
In animals, sexual behaviour will usually be shown as an animal matures, unless inhibited by disapproval, as opposed to the more common view that sexual behaviour will not be shown unless incited by fear. Zoophiles point out that male animals sexually would be inhibited if an animal felt afraid or insecure.-->
 
 
: ''(to be completed)''


== Books ==
== Books ==
A list of many books related to zoophilia as of March 1997 can be found [http://www.cotse.net/users/hippo/uzp/PIP_Bibliography.txt here].


=== Academic and professional ===
=== Academic and professional ===
* Andrea Beetz: ''Love, Violence, and Sexuality in Relationships between Humans and Animals'', ISBN 3832200207
* Andrea Beetz: ''Love, Violence, and Sexuality in Relationships between Humans and Animals'', ISBN 3832200207
* 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
* 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
Line 302: Line 146:


=== Other ===
=== Other ===
* Midas Dekkers: ''Dearest Pet: On Bestiality'', ISBN 1859843107
* Midas Dekkers: ''Dearest Pet: On Bestiality'', ISBN 1859843107
* Mark Matthews: ''The Horseman: Obsessions of a Zoophile'', ISBN 0-87975-902-X
* Mark Matthews: ''The Horseman: Obsessions of a Zoophile'', ISBN 0-87975-902-X
* Marjorie B. Garber: ''Dog Love'', ISBN 0641042728
* Marjorie B. Garber: ''Dog Love'', ISBN 0641042728
* Brenda Love: ''The Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices'' (1994), ISBN 1569800111
* Brenda Love: ''The Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices'' (1994), ISBN 1569800111
* Nancy Friday: ''My Secret Garden'' (ISBN 0671019872), first sequel ''Forbidden Flowers'' (ISBN 0671741020), 2nd sequel "Women on Top" (ISBN: 0671648446), notable for readability, and neutral treatment of a wide scope of women's sexuality including zoophilia.
* 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), IBSN 0700606041 or ISBN 070060605X
* Raymond A. Belliotti: ''Good Sex; perspectives on sexual ethics'' (1993), IBSN 0700606041 or ISBN 070060605X
* Bram Dijkstra: ''Idols of Perversity: Fantasies of Feminine Evil in Fin-De-Siecle Culture'', zoophilic art
* Bram Dijkstra: ''Idols of Perversity: Fantasies of Feminine Evil in Fin-De-Siecle Culture'', zoophilic art
* Dubois-Dessaule: ''Tude Sur la Bestiality au point de Vue Historique (The Study of Bestiality from the Historical, Medical and Legal Viewpoint)'' (Paris, 1905)
* Dubois-Dessaule: ''Tude Sur la Bestiality au point de Vue Historique (The Study of Bestiality from the Historical, Medical and Legal Viewpoint)'' (Paris, 1905)
* A. Neimoller: ''Bestiality and the Law'' (1946)
* A. Neimoller: ''Bestiality and the Law'', ''Bestiality in Ancient and Modern Times'' (1946)
* A. Neimoller: ''Bestiality in Ancient and Modern Times'' (1946)
* Marie-Christine Anest: ''Zoophilie, homosexualite, rites de passage et initiation masculine dans la Greece contemporaine'' (Zoophilia, homosexuality, rites of passage and male initiation in contemporary Greece)'' (1994), ISBN 2739421466
* Marie-Christine Anest: ''Zoophilie, homosexualite, rites de passage et initiation masculine dans la Greece contemporaine'' (Zoophilia, homosexuality, and male initiation and rites of passage in contemporary Greece)'' (1994), ISBN 2739421466


== Articles and documentaries ==
== Articles and documentaries ==


=== Printed ===
=== Print ===


* ''The Joy Of Beasts'' (3 December 2000, Independent on Sunday, UK)
* ''The Joy Of Beasts'' (3 December 2000, Independent on Sunday, UK)
Line 323: Line 165:


=== Television and radio ===
=== Television and radio ===
 
* ''Animal passions'' (part of the Hidden Love series) (1999 & 2004, Channel 4, UK)
* ''Animal passions'' (part of the Hidden Love series) (1999, Channel 4, UK)
* ''Animal passions 2'' (June 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."
:: 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)
* ''Sexe et confidences'' (April 2002, CBSC Decision C01/02-329, Canada)
:: Hour-long sex information program hosted by sexologist Louise-Andrée Saulnier discussing bestiality. Covered folklore, academic studies and general information, plus telephone call-in from viewers describing their bestiality experiences and stories they had heard. Criticised for lack of viewer advisories, although broadcast at 1 am.
:: Hour-long sex information program hosted by sexologist Louise-Andrée Saulnier discussing bestiality. Covered folklore, academic studies and general information, plus telephone call-in from viewers describing their bestiality experiences and stories they had heard.
* ''Talk Sport Radio'' (December 2002, UK)
* ''Talk Sport Radio'' (December 2002, UK)
:: Live talkshow interview with lifelong zoophile, followed by call-in discussion. Advisories and call screening in place.
:: Live talkshow interview with lifelong zoophile, followed by call-in discussion.
* ''Animal Love'' (1995, Ulrich Seidl, Austria)
* ''Animal Love'' (1995, Ulrich Seidl, Austria)


Line 345: Line 185:
=== Zoophile websites ===
=== Zoophile websites ===


* [http://www.zoophilia.net zoophilia.net] (Surveys on zoophilia in society, includes anecdotal and 3rd party verified research plus subjective information)
* [http://www.zoophilia.net Zoophilia.net] (Surveys on zoophilia in society, includes anecdotal and 3rd party verified research plus subjective information)
* [http://www.zoophile.net/zoophilia.php Zoophile.net - Zoophilia resources]
* [http://www.cotse.net/users/hippo/uzp/ UZP], the Ultimate Zoo Page
* [http://www.cotse.net/users/hippo/uzp/ UZP], the Ultimate Zoo Page
* [http://www.zoophile.net/zoophilia.php Zoophile.net - Zoophilia resources]
* [http://www.purehumanimal.com/ PURE] (People United to Reunite Eden)
* [http://www.purehumanimal.com/ PURE] (People United to Reunite Eden)


Line 359: Line 199:
* German animal rights site on zoophilia: [http://verschwiegenes-tierleid-online.de/ German language]
* German animal rights site on zoophilia: [http://verschwiegenes-tierleid-online.de/ German language]
* Website (resource): [http://www.pet-abuse.com/database/search.php?type_id=10 Pet-Abuse.Com Database] ''Bestiality and sexual assault cases from the US and England''
* Website (resource): [http://www.pet-abuse.com/database/search.php?type_id=10 Pet-Abuse.Com Database] ''Bestiality and sexual assault cases from the US and England''
* [http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/bangor/results.html?num=25&st=basic&QryTxt=buble&sortby=REVERSE_CHRON&datetype=0 Philip Buble case (see item #9)]
* [http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/bangor/results.html?num=25&st=basic&QryTxt=buble&sortby=REVERSE_CHRON&datetype=0 Philip Buble case]
* [http://pet-abuse.com/cases/2206/FL/US/1 State vs. Mitchel]
* [http://pet-abuse.com/cases/2206/FL/US/1 State vs. Mitchel]
* [http://www.in-memory-of-pets.com in-memory-of-pets.com] pet memorial and pet loss support site
* [http://www.zoophilia.net/secretlife.php Miletski's description of meeting with zoophiles for her research, and attitudes described]
* [http://www.zoophilia.net/secretlife.php Miletski's description of meeting with zoophiles for her research, and attitudes described]


=== Art ===
=== Art ===
* [http://www.venusberg.de/20_animals/animals.htm A series of lithographs from the early 20th century featuring sex with animals]
* [http://www.venusberg.de/20_animals/animals.htm A series of lithographs from the early 20th century featuring sex with animals]
* [http://home.wanadoo.nl/mh/museum/museum02.htm Museum of bestial art]
* [http://home.wanadoo.nl/mh/museum/museum02.htm Museum of bestial art]

Revision as of 04:36, 7 January 2005

Template:Controversial3

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

Zoophilia is a paraphilia, defined as an affinity or sexual attraction by a human to non-human animals. Individuals with this paraphilia are called zoophiles, or less commonly zoosexuals. A related phenomenon is human/animal sexual activity; this is referred to most often as either bestiality (generally preferred by critics of the practice and used in most legislation), or zoosexuality (generally preferred by zoophiles and many social scientists). To avoid confusion about the meaning of zoosexuality - which can refer to either the paraphilia or the sexual activity - this article uses zoophilia for the former, and bestiality for the latter. The two terms are independent: not all bestiality is performed by zoophiles, and not all zoophiles engage in bestiality.

Zoophilia is usually considered to be unnatural, and bestiality is often condemned as animal abuse and/or outlawed as a "crime against nature". Some, such as philosopher and animal rights author Peter Singer, argue that this is not inherently the case. The activity or desire itself is no longer classified as a pathology under the DSM-IV-TR unless it is accompanied by distress in the individual or causes interference with the individual's normal functioning. Zoophilia defenders claim that a human/animal relationship can go far beyond sexuality, and that they are capable of forming a loving relationship with an animal that can last for years, and that they do not consider it 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 term "zoosexual", signifying an emotional and a sexual attraction and/or relationship to animals, has also been used (cited in 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.

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

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.

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 difficulty 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 bestiality, 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 at least some 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 50% for rural teenagers (living on or near livestock farms) have been cited in some surveys, but these statistics are uncertain. Anecdotally, Nancy Friday's 1973 book on female sexuality My Secret Garden comprised around 180 women's contributions; of these, some 10% volunteered a serious interest or active participation in zoophilia.

Sexual fantasies about bestiality 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; an interest and sexual excitement in watching animals mate is cited as an indicator of this by Massen (1994).

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. A commonly reported starting age is at puberty, around 9 - 11, and this seems consistent for both males and females. Those who discover an interest at an older age often trace it back to nascent form during this period or earlier.

Zoophiles tend to perceive differences between animals and human beings as less significant than others do, and view animals as having positive traits (e.g. honesty) that humans often lack. They tend to feel that society's understanding of non-human sexuality is misinformed. Although some feel guilty about their feelings and view them as a problem, others do not feel a need to be constrained by traditional standards in their private relationships.

The biggest issues reported by zoophiles are the inability to be accepted or open about their animal relationships and feelings with friends and family, and the fear of harm or rejection if it became known. Another major issue is isolation and loneliness, due to lack of contact with others who share this attraction. Other common difficulties include the death of the animals they love (particularly because most species have shorter lifespans than humans). They do not usually cite internal conflicts over religion, perhaps because zoophilia, although condemned by many religions, is not a frequent subject of their teachings.

Unlike humans, many animals are sexually active only during certain parts of the year. As a result zoophilic sexual relationships vary between human-style relationships (in particular, remaining monogamous), animal-style relationships (wherein both participants are trusted to make their own sexual choices), or try to blend the two in various ways.

Zoophiles may or may not have human partners and families. Some zoophiles have an affinity or attraction to animals secondary to human attraction; others have a primary preference for certain animals. 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 (re: divided loyalties and concealment) or jealousy in human relationships. Zoophiles sometimes enter human relationships to deflect suspicions of zoophilia. Others may choose looser forms of human relationship as companions or housemates, 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 it it sometimes ridiculed, it is usually respected or tolerated. Examples of non-sexual zoophilia can be found on an animal memorial page such as in-memory-of-pets.com memorial and support site, or by Googling "pet memorials".

Legal status

No jurisdiction is known to recognize zoophilic relationships, as such. They are legally no different from that of a person who keeps a pet or owns livestock.

Bestiality is 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 bestiality unclear in some jurisdictions.

  • Just over half of U.S. states explicitly outlaw sex with animals (sometimes under the name "sodomy"). In the 2000s, six U.S. states adopted new legislation against it: Oregon, Maine, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Missouri. An anomaly that arose in many U.S. states was that when laws outlawing "sodomy" (generally in the context of male homosexuality) were repealed or struck down by the courts, some people thought sex with animals would no longer be outlawed. But the 2004 conviction of a man in Florida demonstrated that even in states with no specific laws against bestiality, animal cruelty statutes can be applied (e.g. State vs. Mitchel).
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Bestiality is illegal in Canada.
  • In the Netherlands in 2004, newspapers reported concern by a legislator that a man caught having sex in a neighbor's barn with a horse not belonging to him could not be prosecuted because no law was broken. There was no visible injury to the horse.

Psychological 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 for paraphilias "paraphilias not otherwise specified".

The first detailed studies which included zoophilia date from prior to 1910. Research into zoophilia in its own right has happened since around 1960. Each significant study from Masters (1962) to Beetz (2002) has drawn and agreed on several broad conclusions:

  • The critical aspect to study was emotion, relationship, and motive, not just assess or judge the sexual act alone, in isolation, or as "an act". (Masters, Miletski, Beetz)
  • Most zoophiles do have human partners (Masters, Beetz)
  • Zoophiles' emotions and care to animals can be real, relational, authentic and (within animals' abilities) reciprocal (Masters, Miletski, Weinberg, Beetz)
  • Society in general at present is misinformed about zoophilia (Masters, Miletski, Weinberg, Beetz)
  • Contrary to popular belief, there is in fact significant popular or "latent" interest in zoophilia, either in fantasy, animal mating, or reality (Nancy Friday, Massen, Masters)
  • The above studies all highlight the distinction between zoophilia and zoosadism (in whatever terms they use)
  • Masters (1962), Miletski (1994) and Weinberg (1999) comment significantly on the social harm caused by this misunderstanding: "This destroy[s] the lives of many citizens".

Religious perspectives

Most organized religions take a critical or sometimes condemnatory view of zoophilia or bestiality, 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 bestiality. Some theologians (especally Christian) extend this, to consider lustful thoughts for animal as a sin, to be punished by God. Alternatively, many Christians and some unorthodox Jews do not regard the full Levitical law as binding upon them, and might disregard those statements in as no longer relevant.
  • Although 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), Hindu doctrine holds that sex should be restricted to married couples, thereby forbiding bestiality. 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 bestiality, as well as pederasty, adultery, rape, or prostitution. Bestiality (as well as various other sexual activity) is expressly forbidden for Buddhist monks and nuns.
  • Pagans are very loosely organized and teachings vary considerably. A common theme is the connectedness of humans with nature, and the principle "do what thou wilt" is widely accepted. As such, sexual activity with animals - assuming it is not harmful to either party - is condoned.

Animal-rights perspectives

One of the primary critiques of zoophilia is the argument that bestiality 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.

Bornemann 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 bestiality.

Health and safety

Note: Wikipedia does not give medical advice

Although bestiality cannot result in pregnancy, infections can be an issue for either party. Most sexually-transmitted diseases are specific to particular species and cannot infect others, however some less common but treatable infections such as canine Brucellosis can be transferred. Animals' standards of hygiene usually differ from humans', and as with intimate human-to-human contact, inadequate cleanliness can lead to infections such as gastrointestinal illnesses, for either participant. Animals' and humans' bodily fluids are not inherently harmful to the other, but allergic reactions occasionally occur.

The question is also raised of physical compatibility between humans and animals. With larger species, males are often of compatible size and females may be. The main risk is of injury through ignorance of the physical differences, and excessive friction or infection (female animals). Humans can 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 the course of sexual arousal or in rejecting sexual contact. 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.

Arguments about zoophilia or bestiality

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

  • 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.
  • Bestiality is simply for those unable/unwilling to find human partners.
  • Sexual acts with animals by humans constitute physical abuse.
  • Bestiality is "profoundly disturbed behaviour" (cf. the UK Home Office review on sexual offences, 2002), and self-degrading.
  • It is forbidden by religious law.

Defenders of zoophilia or bestiality 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 relationships with humans.
  • Zoophiles usually have human partners.
  • Not all sexual activity is inherently harmful/abusive.
  • The psychological consensus does not consider it intrinsically pathological.
  • Religious viewpoints differ.

They also assert that some of these arguments rely on double standards, such as expecting informed consent from animals for sexual activity, but not for surgical procedures, experimentation, hazardous activities, euthanasia, or even slaughtering them for food.

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 tend to be matter-of-fact about animal sexuality and animal approaches to humans, and their research is generally supportive of some of these claims regarding animal cognition, behaviour, and sexual-relational-emotional issues. Because the majority opinion is condemnatory, individuals may be more accepting privately than they present 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

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.

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), and Balzac's A Passion in the Desert (a love affair between a solder and a panther). In more modern times, bestiality 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 would be as capable of giving consent as any human. "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.

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, it is automatically considered obscene and therefore may not be sold, mailed or imported. (Production and mere possession appear to be legal, however.) Similar restrictions apply in Germany (cf. §184 StGB [1]).

Materials featuring sex with animals are widely available on the Internet, however, mainly because their production and sale is legal in countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark. The promotion of "stars" began with the Danish Bodil Joensen, in the period of 1970-72. Into the 1980s the Dutch took the lead, creating figures like "Wilma" and the "Dutch Sisters". Today, in Hungary, where production faces no legal limitations, bestiality 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). In Russia, many female mainstream pornographic performers also appear in such productions.

Pornography of this sort has become the business of certain spammers. Email spam featuring women having sex with goats and dogs usually casts the activity as a form of sexual degradation.

Books

Academic and professional

  • Andrea Beetz: Love, Violence, and Sexuality in Relationships between Humans and Animals, ISBN 3832200207
  • 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: Understanding Bestiality and Zoophilia, 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: Forbidden Sexual Behaviour and Morality, an objective examination of perverse sex practices in different cultures (1962), ISBN LIC #62-12196
  • Roland Grassberg: Die Unzucht mit Tieren (Sex with Animals) (1968)
  • Hans Hentig: Soziologie der Zoophilen Neigung (Sociology of the Zoophile Preference) (1962)
  • Gunther Hunold: 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

Other

  • Midas Dekkers: Dearest Pet: On Bestiality, ISBN 1859843107
  • Mark Matthews: The Horseman: Obsessions of a Zoophile, ISBN 0-87975-902-X
  • 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), IBSN 0700606041 or ISBN 070060605X
  • Bram Dijkstra: Idols of Perversity: Fantasies of Feminine Evil in Fin-De-Siecle Culture, zoophilic art
  • Dubois-Dessaule: Tude Sur la Bestiality au point de Vue Historique (The Study of Bestiality from the Historical, Medical and Legal Viewpoint) (Paris, 1905)
  • A. Neimoller: Bestiality and the Law, Bestiality in Ancient and Modern Times (1946)
  • Marie-Christine Anest: Zoophilie, homosexualite, rites de passage et initiation masculine dans la Greece contemporaine (Zoophilia, homosexuality, rites of passage and male initiation in contemporary Greece) (1994), ISBN 2739421466

Articles and documentaries

Print

  • The Joy Of Beasts (3 December 2000, Independent on Sunday, UK)
  • Heavy Petting (2001, Peter Singer)

Television and radio

  • Animal passions (part of the Hidden Love series) (1999 & 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 bestiality. Covered folklore, academic studies and general information, plus telephone call-in from viewers describing their bestiality 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)

Related articles

External links

Zoophile websites

Anti-zoophilia websites

Other

Art

da:zoofili de:Zoophilie fr:Zoophilie nl:Zoöfilie pl:Zoofilia ja:獣姦 zh:兽交

Retrieved from "https://zoophilia.wiki/index.php?title=Zoophilia&oldid=575"