Zoophilia

From Zoophilia Wiki
Revision as of 06:55, 11 December 2004 by meta>FT2 (→‎History of research)
Jump to navigationJump to search

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, attraction or sexual attraction by a human to animals. 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 usually considered to be unnatural, and zoosexuality has been condemned as animal abuse; however, some, such as philosopher and animal rights author Peter Singer, argue that this is not inherently the case (though such statements has received condemnations from the animal rights community). As with BDSM and homosexuality, the activity is no longer classified as a pathology by DSM-IV when taken by itself, and people who practice zoophilia tend to reject the view of their activities as disordered.

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.

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.

Zoophilia in culture

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. states 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. §184a StGB); in West Germany, the law making it a crime (§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, section 69 of the "Sexual Offences Act 2003" reduced the sentence to a maximum of 2 years imprisonment, for penile penetration of of by an animal.

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 (see State vs. Mitchel link below).

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

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 [1]).

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 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 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 spammers. Email spam featuring women having sex with goats and dogs usually casts the activity as a form of sexual degradation.

Zoophilia in mythology

Pan copulating with a goat; marble sculpture from the ancient city of Herculaneum

Zoophilia has been a frequent subject in art, literature, and fantasy. In Greek mythology, Zeus appeared to Leda in the form of a swan (resulting in the birth of Helen and Polydeuces), and the Minotaur was the offspring of Queen Pasiphae and a white bull. The god 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 Vulcans and Klingons in Star Trek.


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.

According to both research and anecdote, zoophiles often tend to perceive the differences between animals and humans as less significant, often perceive animals as having positive traits that humans may lack, and tend not to feel as constrained by society's expectations, which are often felt to be misinformed, especially in the realm of non-human sexuality.

The biggest issue zoophiles face is often an inability to be accepted in their relationships. This is not usually an issue of religion, as many zoophiles find religion and zoophilia to be compatible. The other major issue is isolation and loneliness, in the same way as 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.

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).

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.

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 and sociology it can be (and is) used neutrally as 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"

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 in-memory-of-pets.com memorial and support site, or by Googling "pet memorials".

Research into zoophilia

History of research

Research into zoophilia in its own right has happened since around 1960-1970.

Much early research before then 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.

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.

The earlier research tends to have different results since it did not attempt to study zoophiles in general, but selected its case histories only from within (for example) a population already known to be violent or abusive.

It is commonly believed that research into zoophilia is a relatively modern phenomena, commencing in the 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.


Examples of pre-1980 research with emphasis on zoophilia include:

  • Mandetta and Gustaveson "Abortion to Zoophilia: A Sourcebook of Sexual Facts" (1976)
  • Grassberg "Sex with Animals" (1968)
  • 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 (APA) diagnostic manual 1987, see DSM-III-R)
  • Most zoophiles 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 and 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".
  • 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..."


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 psychopathy 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.

(Beetz Ph.D.: "Love, Violence, and Sexuality in Relationships between Humans and Animals")

Beetz, 2000-2002

Beetz studied sex and violence in human/animal relationships, and concluded:

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.
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.
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.

Weinberg and Williams, 1999

Professors Weinberg & Williams (Indiana University, 30 years work in sexual research) wrote to the House about a proposed bill, HB 1658:

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).
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.
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.

Miletski, 1994

Hani Miletski (sexologist and author of "Understanding Bestiality and Zoophillia") concluded that zoosexuality was a full sexual orientation by the same criteria that other sexual orientations met:

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:
  1. affectional orientation - who or what we bond with emotionally;
  2. sexual fantasy orientation - about whom or what we fantasize; and
  3. 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 "[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..."
"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."
"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)"


(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 ([2], [3]).
  • 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 ([4]). 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.

Zoosadism

Bornemann coined the term "zoosadism" for those who like to inflict pain on an animal. 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. Stekel (1952) as well as Davis (1954) and Masters and Lea (1963) claimed that some people who have sex with animals could be latent sadists and lust murderers; this was also supported by Lorand (1950, cited in Schmidt, 1969). From the developmental histories of some murderers it became apparent, that torturing animals was common 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) older research and models rarely took the variety of possible interactions and relations into account, studying the physical acts in isolation, and 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 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 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 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 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 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:

  1. A significant but unknown proportion of zoophiles are only involved with animals on an emotional level
  2. 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)
  3. 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"
  4. There is a no clear line delineating a particular affinity for animals from everyday pet care or enjoyment of their company.
  5. Sampling methods (in common with most sexology samples) have to estimate the "invisible proportion" who do not talk about their activity or feelings.

Books

A list of many books related to zoophilia as of March 1997 can be found here.

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), 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.
  • 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 (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, and male initiation and rites of passage in contemporary Greece) (1994), ISBN 2739421466

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=486"