Zoophilia: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:51, 28 May 2005

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

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

Zoophilia is usually considered to be unnatural, and sexual acts with animals are 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, a view which was endorsed by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals president Ingrid Newkirk [1]. Scientifically, research is often critical of the traditional view, and clinically, the activity or desire itself is no longer classified as a pathology under DSM-IV (TR) (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association) unless accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning. Defenders of zoophilia claim that a human/animal relationship can go far beyond sexuality, and that animals are (if allowed) capable of forming a loving relationship 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 terms zoosexual and zoosexuality, signifying the entire spectrum of emotional and sexual attraction and/or orientation to animals, have also been used since the 1980s (cited by Miletski, 1999), to suggest an analogy to homosexual or heterosexual orientations. Individuals with a strong affinity for animals but without a sexual interest can be described as "non-sexual" (or "emotional") zoophiles, but may object to the "zoophile" label. They are commonly called animal lovers instead.

The ambiguous term sodomy has sometimes been used in legal contexts to include zoosexual acts. "Zooerasty" is an older term, not in common use. In pornography, human/animal sex is occasionally referred to as farmsex 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 difficult to quantify, lack of clear divide between non-sexual zoophilia and everyday pet care, and reluctance by most zoophiles to disclose their feelings. Instead most research into zoophilia has focused on its characteristics, rather than quantifying it.

Scientific surveys estimating the frequency of zoosexuality, as well as anecdotal evidence and informal surveys, suggest that more than 1-2% -- and perhaps as many as 8-10% -- of sexually active adults have had significant sexual experience with an animal at some point in their lives. Studies suggest that a larger number (perhaps 10-30% depending on area) have fantasized or had some form of brief encounter. Larger figures such as 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 zoosexual acts can occur in people who do not wish to experience them in real life, and may simply reflect normal imagination and curiosity. Latent zoophile tendencies may be common; the frequency of interest and sexual excitement in watching animals mate is cited as an indicator of this by Massen (1994).

Legal status

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.

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

Just over half of U.S. states explicitly outlaw sex with animals (sometimes under the 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 zoosexual acts, animal cruelty statutes can be applied (e.g. State vs. Mitchell).
In Australia, laws are determined at the state level, with all but the Australian Capital Territory and Jervis Bay Territory explicitly outlawing it.
In Germany, sex with animals is not specifically outlawed (but trading pornography showing it is, cf. §184a StGB). In West Germany, the law making it a crime (§175b StGB, which also outlawed homosexual acts) was removed in 1969. East Germany before reunification had no law against zoosexuality; zoosexual pornography, however, was very restricted. Certain barriers are set by the Animal Protection Law (Tierschutzgesetz).
In the United Kingdom, it is illegal, with section 69 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 reducing the sentence to a maximum of 2 years imprisonment, for human penile penetration of or by an animal.
Zoosexual acts are illegal in Canada (section 160 forbidding "bestiality", note that the term is not defined further, so it is not quite clear what it might cover)
In some countries laws existed against single males living with female animals, for example an old Peruvian law prohibited single males from having a female alpaca (llama).
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.

Zoophiles

Zoophilia as a lifestyle

Separate from those whose interest is curiosity, pornography, or sexual novelty, are those for whom zoophilia might be called a lifestyle or orientation. A commonly reported starting age is at puberty, around 9 - 11, and this seems consistent for both males and females. 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 difficulties many zoophiles report are the inability to be accepted or open about their animal relationships and feelings with friends and family, and the fear of harm, rejection or loss of companions if it became known (see the closet and outing). Other major issues are hidden loneliness and isolation (due to lack of contact with others who share this attraction or a belief they are alone), and the repeated deaths of animals they consider lifelong soulmates (because most species have far shorter lifespans than humans and they cannot openly grieve or talk about feelings of loss). Zoophiles do not usually cite internal conflicts over religion as their major issue, perhaps because zoophilia, although condemned by many religions, is not a frequent subject of their teachings.

Zoophilic sexual relationships vary, and may be based upon variations of human-style relationships (in particular, remaining monogamous), animal-style relationships (both participants making their own sexual choices, human as protector), or blending 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 animal companions. 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 within human relationships [2]. Zoophiles sometimes enter human relationships to deflect suspicions of zoophilia, or due to growing up within traditional expectations. Others may choose looser forms of human relationship as companions or housemates, live alone, or choose other zoophiles to live with.

Non-sexual zoophilia

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

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

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

Zoophiles and other groups

Zoophiles are often confused with furries or therians (or "weres"), that is, people with an interest in anthropomorphism, or people who believe they share some kind of inner connection with animals (spiritual, emotional or otherwise). Whilst the membership of all three groups probably overlap in part, it is untrue to say that all furs or therians have a sexual interest in animals (subconscious or otherwise). Many furs find anthropomorphic adult art erotic and enjoy the companionship of animals, but have no wish to extend their interest beyond an affinity or emotional bond to sexual activity. Those who consider themselves both zoophiles and furries, often call themselves zoo-furs or fuzzies. The size of this group is not known, although an oft-cited figure is 5% of furries.

Perspectives on zoophilia

Psychological and research perspectives

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

The first detailed studies 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 relationships (Masters, Beetz)
Society in general at present is misinformed about zoophilia (Masters, Miletski, Weinberg, Beetz)
Zoophiles' emotions and care to animals can be real, relational, authentic and (within animals' abilities) reciprocal (Masters, Miletski, Weinberg, Beetz)
Contrary to popular belief, there is in fact significant popular or "latent" interest in zoophilia, either in fantasy, animal mating, or reality (Nancy Friday, Massen, Masters)
The distinction between zoophilia and zoosadism is highlighted by each of these studies, in whatever terms they use.
Masters (1962), Miletski (1999) and Weinberg (2003) each comment significantly on the social harm caused by these, and other misunderstandings: "This destroy[s] the lives of many citizens".

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

Religious perspectives

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

Passages in Leviticus 18:23 ("And you shall not lie with any beast and defile yourself with it, neither shall any woman give herself to a beast to lie with it: it is a perversion." RSV) and 20:15-16 ("If a man lies with a beast, he shall be put to death; and you shall kill the beast. If a woman approaches any beast and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the beast; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them." RSV) are cited by Jewish, Christian, and Muslim theologians as categorical denunciation of zoosexuality. Some theologians (especially Christian) extend this, to consider lustful thoughts for animal as a sin. Alternatively, many Christians and some non-Orthodox Jews do not regard the full Levitical laws as binding upon them, and may consider them irrelevant.
Although condemned in Islam, views of its seriousness seem to cover a wide spectrum. Some sources claim that sex with animals is abhorrent, others state that while condemned, it is treated with "relative indulgence" and in a similar category to masturbation and lesbianism (Bouhdiba: Sexuality in Islam, Ch.4 link). A book "Tahrirolvasyleh", cited on the internet, which quotes the Ayatollah Khomeini approving of sex with animals under certain conditions, is unconfirmed and possibly a forgery.
There are several references in Hindu scriptures to religious figures engaging in sexual activity with animals (e.g. the god Brahma lusting after and having sex with a bear, a human-like sage being born to a deer mother), and actual Vedic rituals involving zoophilia (see Ashvamedha). However, Hindu doctrine holds that sex should be restricted to married couples, thereby forbidding zoosexual acts. A greater punishment is attached to sexual relations with a sacred cow than with other animals. However, the Tantric sect of Hinduism makes use of ritual sexual practices, which could include sexual contact with animals.
Buddhism addresses sexual conduct primarily in terms of what brings harm to oneself or to others, and the admonition against sexual misconduct is generally interpreted in modern times to prohibit zoosexual acts, as well as pederasty, adultery, rape, or prostitution. Zoosexuality (as well as various other sexual activity) is expressly forbidden for Buddhist monks and nuns.

Animal rights and welfare concerns

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

In comment on Peter Singer's article "Heavy Petting", which controversially argued that zoosexuality need not be abusive and if so loving relationships could form, Ingrid Newkirk, then president of the American animal rights group PETA, added this endorsement: "If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you French kiss your dog and he or she thinks it's great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong. If it isn't exploitation and abuse, [then] it may not be wrong."

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

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

Cultural perspectives

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

Health and safety

Humans and animals cannot make each other pregnant, but infections due to unclean partners could be an issue for either party. Most diseases are specific to particular species and cannot be sexually transmitted, so humans and animals cannot catch many diseases from zoosexual acts, however a few uncommon but treatable infections such as Brucellosis can be transferred. AIDS is fragile and only lives in primates (humans, apes and monkeys) and is not believed to survive long in other species. Animals' and humans' bodily fluids are not normally harmful to the other, but allergic reactions occasionally occur (rare).

In terms of physical compatibility and injury, many medium/large domesticated species appear to be physically compatible with humans. The main non-deliberate physical risks are of injury, either through ignorance of physical differences, forcefulness, or for female animals, excessive friction or infection. Humans may also be at substantial physical risk and seriously harmed by sexual activity with animals. Larger animals may have the strength and defensive attributes (e.g. hooves, teeth) to injure a human, either in rejecting physical or sexual contact, or in the course of sexual arousal. For example, the penis of a sexually aroused dog has a broad bulb at the base which can cause injury if forcibly pulled from a body orifice, equines can thrust suddenly and "flare", and many animals bite as part of sexual excitement and foreplay.

Arguments about zoophilia or zoosexuality

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

Defenders of zoophilia or zoosexuality counterargue that:

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

They also assert that some of these arguments rely on double standards, such as expecting informed consent from animals for sexual activity (and not accepting consent given in their own manner), but not for surgical procedures, aesthetic mutilation, castration, experimentation, hazardous activities, euthanasia, and slaughter. Likewise if animals cannot give consent, then it follows that they must not have sex with each other (amongst themselves). However, opponents of zoophilia respond that had animals been endowed with the capacity to consent to the aforementioned practices, it would be illicit to perform them, as they would possess a dignity equal to man, and that it is more significant to consider such factors as the sterility of bestiality when ethically judging it.

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), the Roman Lucius Apuleius's The Golden Ass (explicit sexuality between a man transformed into a donkey and a woman), and Balzac's A Passion in the Desert (a love affair between a soldier and a panther). In more modern times, zoosexuality of a sort has been a theme in science fiction and horror fiction, with the giant ape King Kong fixating on a human woman, alien monsters groping human females in pulp novels and comics, and depictions of tentacle rape in Japanese manga and anime.

Modern erotic furry fantasy art and stories are sometimes associated with zoophilia, but many creators and fans disagree with this, pointing out that the characters are predominantly humanoid fantasy creatures who are thinking, reasoning beings that 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 thought to be very likely considered obscene and therefore it is not openly sold, mailed or imported. In any prosecution, however, pornography involving sex with animals would still be subject to the Miller Test. (Production and mere possession appear to be legal, however.) However, this law is presently (January 20 2005) in some doubt, having been ruled unconstitutional in United States v. Extreme Associates (note, though, that the case is still in review and may be referred for further appeal). Similar restrictions apply in Germany (cf. §184 StGB [3]).

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

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

Pornography of this sort has become the business of certain spammers and owners of some fake TGPs, who use the promise of "extreme" material as an "anchor" for user's attention.

Books, articles and documentaries

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, 2002, available at Hani Miletski's Homepage
Josef Massen: Zoophilie - Die sexuelle Liebe zu Tieren (Zoophilia - the sexual love of/for animals) (1994), ISBN 3-930387-15-8
R.E.L. Masters: 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
Hani Miletski: Bestiality - Zoophilia: An exploratory study, Diss., The Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality. - San Francisco, CA, Oktober 1999

Other books

Midas Dekkers: Dearest Pet: On Bestiality, ISBN 1859843107
Mark Matthews: The Horseman: Obsessions of a Zoophile, ISBN 0-87975-902-X
(German translation: Der Pferde-Mann, 2nd Print 2004, ISBN 3833408642)
Marjorie B. Garber: Dog Love, ISBN 0641042728
Brenda Love: The Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices (1994), ISBN 1569800111
Nancy Friday: My Secret Garden (ISBN 0671019872), Forbidden Flowers (ISBN 0671741020), "Women on Top" (ISBN 0671648446), notable for readability, and neutral treatment of a wide scope of women's sexuality including zoophilia.
Raymond A. Belliotti: Good Sex; perspectives on sexual ethics (1993), ISBN 0700606041 or ISBN 070060605X
Bram Dijkstra: Idols of Perversity: Fantasies of Feminine Evil in Fin-De-Siecle Culture, zoophilic art
Dubois-Dessaule: Tude Sur la Bestiality au point de Vue Historique (The Study of Bestiality from the Historical, Medical and Legal Viewpoint) (Paris, 1905)
A. Neimoller: Bestiality and the Law, Bestiality in Ancient and Modern Times (1946)
Marie-Christine Anest: Zoophilie, homosexualite, rites de passage et initiation masculine dans la Greece contemporaine (Zoophilia, homosexuality, rites of passage and male initiation in contemporary Greece) (1994), ISBN 2739421466
Gaston Dubois-Desaulle: Bestiality: An Historical, Medical, Legal, and Literary Study, University Press of the Pacific (November 1, 2003), ISBN 1410209474 (Paperback Ed.)
Robert Hough: The Final Confession Of Mabel Stark (Stark was the worlds premier tiger trainer of the 1920s, specializing in highly sexualized circus acts. She wore white to hide the tiger's semen during mating rituals and foreplay which the audience took to be vicious attacks)

Print and online media

The Joy Of Beasts (3 December 2000, Independent on Sunday, UK)
Heavy Petting (2001, Peter Singer Nerve.com)
Laying with Beasts (March 1996, The Guide)
Sexual Contact With Animals (October 1977, Pomeroy Ph.D.) (co-author of the Kinsey Reports)

Television and radio

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

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

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

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

Talk Sport Radio (December 2002, UK)

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

Animal Love (1995, Ulrich Seidl, Austria)

External links

Websites supportive of zoophilia

Zoophilia.net surveys on zoophilia in society, includes anecdotal and 3rd party verified research plus subjective information
UZP, the Ultimate Zoo Page, general resources
ZooSkool.com website dedicated to providing zoosexuality education
Zoophile.org zoophile community and support site
Poems and Stories by "Silverwolf" describing his relationship with his dogs
Zoophilia Essay by Manawolf (very interesting)

@@ Line 129: / Line 129: @@
 * "Perspectives on human dignity and religious viewpoints differ and a large number of people do not consider them important factors."
-They also assert that some of these arguments rely on double standards, such as expecting informed consent from animals for sexual activity (and not accepting consent given in their own manner), but not for surgical procedures, aesthetic mutilation, castration, experimentation, hazardous activities, euthanasia, and slaughter. Likewise if animals cannot give consent, then it follows that they must not have sex with each other (amongst themselves).
+They also assert that some of these arguments rely on double standards, such as expecting informed consent from animals for sexual activity (and not accepting consent given in their own manner), but not for surgical procedures, aesthetic mutilation, castration, experimentation, hazardous activities, euthanasia, and slaughter. Likewise if animals cannot give consent, then it follows that they must not have sex with each other (amongst themselves). However, opponents of zoophilia respond that had animals been endowed with the capacity to consent to the aforementioned practices, it would be illicit to perform them, as they would possess a dignity equal to man, and that it is more significant to consider such factors as the sterility of bestiality when ethically judging it.
 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.