Information AboutBestiality |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT ZOOPHILIA | |
| sexual orientation and identity | |
| zoosexuality | |
| paraphilia | |
| human-animal relationships | |
|
'', a 16th century copy after a lost painting by Michelangelo .]] Zoophilia, from the Greek ζωον (''zôon'', "animal") and φιλία (''philia'', "friendship" or "love"), is a Paraphilia , defined as an affinity or Sexual Attraction by a Human to an Animal . Such individuals are called '''zoophiles'''. The more recent terms '''''zoosexual''''' and ''''' Zoosexuality ''''' describe the full spectrum of human/animal Orientation . A separate term, '''''bestiality''''' (more common in mainstream usage and frequently but incorrectly seen as a Synonym ; often misspelled as "beastiality"), refers to human/animal sexual activity. To avoid confusion about the meaning of ''zoophilia'' — which may refer to the affinity/attraction, paraphilia, or sexual activity — this article uses ''zoophilia'' for the former, and ''zoosexual activity'' for the sexual act. The two terms are independent: not all sexual acts with animals are performed by zoophiles; and not all zoophiles are sexually interested in animals. While sexual zoophilia is legal in a few countries (see: Legal Aspects ), it is not explicitly condoned anywhere today, and in most countries sexual acts with animals are illegal under Animal Abuse laws or, less commonly, laws dealing with Crimes Against Nature . Philosopher and animal liberation author Peter Singer argues that zoophilia is not unethical if there is no harm or cruelty to the animal, but this view is not widely shared, with the majority opinion supporting the view that animals, like children, are not capable of informed consent. There is presently considerable debate in psychology over whether certain aspects of zoophilia are better understood as an Aberration or as a Sexual Orientation . The activity or desire itself is no longer classified as a pathology under DSM-IV (TR) (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association ) unless accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the person. Critics point out that that DSM-IV says nothing about acceptability or the well-being of the animal, and many critics outside the field express views that sexual acts with animals are always either abusive or unethical. Defenders of Zoosexuality argue that a human/animal relationship can go far beyond sexuality, and that animals are capable of forming a genuinely loving relationship that can last for years and which is not functionally different from any other love/sex relationship. TERMINOLOGY Each of the major terms in this field is used in more than one way, depending on context. The general term ''zoophilia'' was first introduced into the field of research on sexuality by Krafft-Ebing in his book Psychopathia Sexualis (1886). In Sexology , Psychology and popular use, it has a variety of meanings, revolving around affinity, affection, or erotic attraction between a human being, and a (non-human) Animal . It can refer to either the general emotional-erotic attraction to animals, or (less commonly) to the specific Psychological Paraphilia of the same name.Beetz (2002) section 5.2.7: "It has to be noted here, that not only in older literature, but also in new books and articles the information on zoophilia/bestiality that is available today is often neglected. Authors write about zoophilia, and though they do not explicitly define it, it must be assumed that they at least do not include all persons who have sex with animals, but rather restrict their comments to a real, permanent, exclusive, fixated zoophilia as defined in the DSM-IV." The terms Zoosexuality , signifying the entire spectrum of emotional or sexual attraction and/or Orientation to animals, and '''zoosexual''' (as in, "a zoosexual {Link without Title} " or "a zoosexual act"), have been used since the 1980s (cited by Miletski , 1999). Technical discussion of zoosexuality as a Sexual Orientation in Psychology is discussed in that article. 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 Love rs instead. The ambiguous term Sodomy , usually referring to non-procreative sex,'' Lawrence V. Texas '' ruling - "Early American sodomy laws were not directed at homosexuals as such, but instead sought to prohibit non-procreative sexual activity more generally" is sometimes used in legal contexts to include zoosexual as well as homosexual acts. '''''Zooerasty''''' is an older term, not in common use, for Objectified sex with animals in a Masturbatory manner. In Pornography , human–animal sex is occasionally described as ''farmsex'', ''dogsex'', or ''animal sex''; these terms are often used regardless of the context or species involved. Bestiality signifies a sexual act between humans and animals. It does not by itself imply any given motive or attitude. It is not always certain whether acts such as Kissing , intimate behavior, Frottage (rubbing), Masturbation , or Oral Sex are considered 'bestiality' in all cultures or legal systems, or whether the term implies sexual intercourse or other Penetrative activity alone. In a non-zoophilic context, words like ''bestial'' or ''bestiality'' are also used to signify acting or behaving savagely, animal-like, extremely viciously, or lacking in human values. The spelling ''beastiality'' is nonstandard. Amongst zoophiles and some researchers,Masters (1962) uses the term "Bestialist" specifically in his discussion of Zoosadism , in the section "related perversions". Elsewhere he tends to use other terms. Likewise Dr. LaFarge, an assistant professor of Psychiatry at the New Jersey Medical School, who is the Director of Counseling at the American Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals and works with the New York correctional system, is quoted as commenting that: ''"it's important to make the distinction between bestialists and zoophiles, because zoophiles try not to hurt their animals, whereas bestialists do"'' {Link without Title} the term ''bestialist'' has acquired a negative connotation implying a lower concern for animal welfare. This usage originated with the desire by some zoophiles to have a way 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. Finally, zoosadism refers to the torture or pain of animals for sexual pleasure, and also includes willfully abusive zoosexual activity. EXTENT OF OCCURRENCE See Also: Demographics of sexual orientation 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 due to fear of both social and legal persecution. Instead most research into zoophilia has focused on its characteristics, rather than quantifying it.," a team of independent statisticians studying Kinsey's procedures had concluded as far back as 1953 that the unique problems inherent in sex research precluded the possibility of obtaining a true random sample, and that Kinsey's interviewing technique had been "extraordinarily skillful." They characterized Kinsey's work overall as "a monumental endeavor."'' {Link without Title} The controversial results were hotly debated, especially by some who felt that inclusion of prison results had allowed sampling bias to distort the conclusions. Gebhard, who investigated these claims and later "cleaned up" Kinsey's large quantities of data in response to these issues, stated that to his surprise, the 1960s "cleaning" of Kinsey's data had not in fact changed any of kinsey's findings significantly. Scientific surveys estimating the frequency of zoosexual activity, as well as anecdotal evidence and informal surveys, suggest that more than 1–2% — and perhaps as many as 8–40% — of sexually active adults have had significant sexual experience with an animal at some point in their lives. Studies suggest that a larger number (perhaps 10–30% depending on area) have fantasized or had some form of brief encounter. Larger figures such as 40–60% for rural teenagers (living on or near livestock farms) have been cited from some earlier surveys such as the '' contains around 190 fantasies:
::''Madge (p.18: humiliation), Hilda (p.48: size), Esther (p.69: fantasy), Alexandra (p.218: fantasy/domination), Gelda (p.230: fantasy), Tina's husband (p.244: both interested in animal mating), Bobbie (p.256: fantasy/horses), Paula (p.259: sex on horseback)''
Psychiatric patients were found to have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55%) of bestiality (both actual sexual contacts and sexual fantasy) than the control groups of medical in-patients (10%) and psychiatric staff (15%).1 An internet survey of sexuality run by the internet survey site survey.net obtained 76,500 responses between October 2000 and December 2006. Responses to the non-specifically worded question "What sexual aspects are you into?" with options "curious/mild/heavy" included: Bestiality-curious 8671 (11.3%); Bestiality-mild 4582 (6.0%); Bestiality-heavy 3133 (4.1%). The respondents by age and gender were 67% male / 31% female; 12.1% age under 18 / 55.0% age 18-30 / 32.9% age over 31.http://www.survey.net/sex1r.html A second internet survey on an entertainment website of around 6000 respondents which asked "Have you ever had sex with an animal" amongst several other unusual sexual acts, gave a result of 742 (13%) "sometimes" and 95 (2%) "frequently", with 1% preferring not to say.http://supervert.com/surveys/sexual_perversity_results as at 2 January 2006. However, although open surveys with large response rates such as these may be suggestive, it is rarely clear how representative such surveys may be. Not all people live near animals. Urban dwellers, who usually lack contact with animals, were estimated by Kinsey (1948) to have only one zoosexual contact for every 30 of the average rural dweller. By 1974, the farm population in the USA had reduced by 80% compared to 1940, causing a greatly reduced opportunity for living with animals; Hunt's 1974 study suggests that the demographic changes affecting this one group led to a significant change in overall reported occurrence.Hunt 1974, cited and re-examined by Miletski (1999): males in 1974 were 4.9% (1948: 8.3%), and in females in 1974 were 1.9% (1953: 3.6%). Miletski correlates this not to a reduction of interest but a reduction in opportunity, due to the 80% decline in people living with animals on farms in the same period (rural farming as percentage of population: 1940 23.2%, 1970: 4.8%). Such people were found by Kinsey to be the most likely to practice zoosexuality. 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 by Massen (1994) and commented on by Masters (1962).From Masters (1962) section 'Psychical bestiality' -- "Sexual arousal at the sight of animals copulating has been reported by a great many persons, both famous and obscure, who have added that such arousal leads sometimes to acts of bestiality, sometimes to masturbation, and occasionally to heterosexual coitus with anyone available. (That the latter result may be forthcoming has always been well known to operators of houses of prostitution, who have staged exhibitions of animal coitus and of bestiality for the express purpose of stimulating the carnal appetites of their patrons...)" LEGAL STATUS See Also: Zoosexuality and the law 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 zoosexual activity unclear in some jurisdictions. Laws on zoosexuality in modern times are often triggered by specific incidents or by peer pressure.In Arizona USA, the motive for legislation was a "spate of recent cases" {Link without Title} , and the Arizona legislator is quoted in that source as stating: Whilst some laws are very specific, others employ vague terms such as " Sodomy " or "bestiality" which lack legal precision and leave it unclear which exact acts are covered. Other factors affecting the operation of law include enforced assumptions as to abuse, creative use of alternative laws, and the impact of uncodified Cultural Norms , prohibitions, and social Taboo s. In the past, bestiality laws were mainly put in place for religious reasons and the assumed possibility that sex with an animal could result in Monstrous offspring, and were primarily concerned with the offense to community standards.Posner, Richard, A Guide to America's Sex Laws, The University of Chicago Press, 1996. ISBN 978-0-226-67564-0. Page 207: Currently, the legality of bestiality varies greatly around the world. It is legal in some countries, such as (StGB) § 184a {Link without Title} Notable legal views include '' {Link without Title} A more detailed list of countries and laws can be found at Zoosexuality And The Law . 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 or before Puberty , around 9 - 11, and this seems consistent for both males and females. Kinsey found that the most frequent incidence of human/animal intercourse was more than eight times a week, for the under-15 years age group. Those who discover an interest at an older age often trace it back to nascent form during this period or earlier. As with human Attraction , zoophiles may be attracted only to particular species, appearances, personalities or individuals, and both these and other aspects of their feelings vary over time. Zoophiles tend to perceive differences between animals and human beings as less significant than others do. They often view animals as having positive traits (e.g. Honesty ) that humans often lack, and to feel that society's understanding of non-human sexuality is misinformed."Masters (1966) also remarked, that most zoophiles do not feel guilty about their sexual practices and do not think, that what they do is immoral or wrong, but mainly fear the legal and social consequences." (cited by Beetz 2002, section 5.2.13) 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 Beetz (2002) section 5.2.13 comments on the findings of Ullerstam (1966, p.119) in Sweden, where zoophilia has been legal since 1944: "It has to be noted in this context, that not having laws against a behavior and acceptance of it by society are two completely different matters... no acceptance of the persons engaging in this kind of sexual activity was adopted by the population. Furthermore, Ullerstam referred to alleged evidence that showed, that many remarkable men had sexual experiences with animals and had to live a life in constant fear because of that. Those man had been widely respected, but would have lost everything if their activities would have become known; all their great contributions would have been forgotten due to a 'primitive moral reaction'." This situation is similar to " to avoid the unwelcome presence of [pornographic files ... will not be used for fictional erotica, binaries, or personal advertisements. Relevant discussions on this newsgroup include: the social and emotional difficulties that zoophiliacs have in today's world; legal issues affecting zoophiles; emotional support for zoophiles who are confused or depressed about their love for animals; and discussion of zoophilia as a social and psychological phenomenon..." Some of these concerns may be qualitatively similar to historical Perceptions In Other Sexual Groups that have been legal or illegal at different times in history. Zoophiles do not usually cite internal conflicts over Religion as their major issue, perhaps because zoosexual activity, although seemingly condemned by some religions, is not a major focus of their teachings. Zoophilic sexual relationships vary, and may be based upon variations of human-style relationships (eg Monogamy ), animal-style relationships (each make own sexual choices), Physical Intimacy (non-sexual touch, mutual Social Grooming , closeness), or other combinations. Zoophiles may or may not have human partners and families. Some zoophiles have an affinity or attraction to animals which is secondary to human attraction; for others the , even when we apply this scale to sexual orientation toward animals. It is logical to assume that the majority of the human race will be placed around the zero point of this Kinsey-like scale...but the current study shows that there are some humans whose place on this Kinsey-like scale is definitely not zero. In fact, there are some...individuals whose place on this scale would be the other extreme (6=sexual inclination exclusively with animals)."'' (Miletski ch.13 pp.171-172) In some cases human family or friends are aware of the relationship with the animal and its nature, in others it is hidden. This can sometimes give rise to issues of Guilt (as a result of divided loyalties and concealment) or Jealousy within human relationships {Link without Title} . In addition, zoophiles sometimes enter human relationships due to growing up within traditional expectations, or to deflect suspicions of zoophilia, and yet others may choose looser forms of human relationship as companions or house mates, live alone, or choose other zoophiles to live with. Not all zoophiles are able to keep animals, or at least not those animals that they feel attracted to, and because of this some resort to Trespass ing on property to have sexual contact with animals. This practice, known as ''fence hopping'', is often condemned by other zoophiles. 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. Definitions of zoophilia include "Affection or affinity for animals", "Erotic attraction to or sexual contact with animals", "Attraction to or affinity for animals", or "An erotic fixation on animals that may result in sexual excitement through real or fancied contact" dictionary.com 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, as with sites. Zoophiles and other groups Zoophiles are often confused with '' ("We know that lots of zoos are also furry, and we know that there is nowhere else in furrydom that they can even mention both words in the same sentence without being abused. It's the same problem that plush furries have had; the same problem Christian furries have had.") Rust adds that furries "report a rather non-judgemental attitude" to some aspects of sexuality, to contain a large proportion of people reporting bisexuality and open committed relationships, that furries have "a higher tolerance for variety in sexual orientation and activity", and that heterosexual furries "participate in gender social body language between members of the same sex without any apparent threat to their sexual identity as a heterosexual", citing these as reasons why furries may give an impression otherwise. which is not dissimilar to typical estimates of the percentage within the population generally. Expressions of Fur Fetishism and Fursuit ing are usually considered a form of costuming, rather than an expression of zoosexual interest and are usually legal. Finally, zoophilia is not related to sexual . Zoosexual activity is not part of BDSM for most people, and would usually be considered extreme, or Edgeplay . Sciences studying zoophilia Zoophilia is in the main covered by four sciences: ). The nature of animal minds, animal Mental Process es and structures, and animal Self-awareness , Perception , Emotion In Animals , and "map of the world", are studied within Animal Cognition and also explored within various specialized branches of Neuroscience such as Neuroethology . Zoophilia may also be covered to some degree by other (non-science) fields such as Ethics , Philosophy , Law , Animal Rights and Animal Welfare . It may also be touched upon by Sociology which looks both at zoosadism in examining patterns and issues related to Abuse and at non-sexual zoophilia in examining the role of animals as emotional support and companionship in human lives, and may fall within the scope of Psychiatry if it becomes necessary to consider its significance in a clinical context. PERSPECTIVES ON ZOOPHILIA Psychological and research perspectives The established view held by the overwhelming majority of professionals in the field of psychology is that zoophilia is a mental disorder. Although 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 " Paraphilia s not otherwise specified", it continues to be defined as a disorder. The World Health Organization takes the same position, listing a sexual preference for animals in its ICD -10 as "other disorder of sexual preference". International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10 , F65.8 Other disorders of sexual preference The first detailed studies of zoophilia date from prior to 1910. Peer reviewed research into zoophilia in its own right started around 1960. However, a number of the most oft-quoted studies, such as Miletski, were not published in Peer-reviewed journals. There have been several significant modern books, from Masters (1962) to Beetz (2002), but each of them has drawn and agreed on several broad conclusions: # The critical aspect to study was emotion, relationship, and motive, it is important not to just assess or judge the sexual act alone in isolation, or as "an act", without looking deeper. (Masters, Miletski, Beetz) # Zoophiles' emotions and care to animals can be real, relational, authentic and (within animals' abilities) reciprocal, and not just a substitute or means of expression. (Masters, Miletski, Weinberg, Beetz)Beetz 2002, section 5.2.4, comments on Massen's views on zoosexuality stating: "Not clearly named in this list is the form of zoophilia, that is characterized by an emotional as well as a sexual attraction respectively love to an animal, which is called zoosexuality by other authors (Donofrio, 1996; Miletski, 1999). Such an attraction is experienced and not deliberately chosen, and the animal does not serve as a surrogate in such a relation" # Most zoophiles have (or have also had) long term human relationships as well or at the same time as zoosexual ones. (Masters, Beetz);Beetz 2002 section 5.2.4: "Studies (Donofrio, 1996; Miletski, 1999) showed, that in the majority of zoophile cases besides the zoosexual activities also sex with human partners takes place... Even if there is an – often very intense – emotional involvement with the animal, sometimes sexual or nonsexual human partners can be found among zoophile persons (Miletski, 1999; Money, 1986)." # Society in general at present is considerably misinformed about zoophilia, its stereotypes, and its meaning. (Masters, Miletski, Weinberg, Beetz)As described by Beetz (2002) section 5.2.7, after a discussion of common perceptions: Beetz comments on this that: "Peven drew a very dark picture about zoophile persons. It has to be noted here, that not only in older literature, but also in new books and articles the information on zoophilia/bestiality that is available today is often neglected. Authors write about zoophilia, and though they do not explicitly define it, it must be assumed that they at least do not include all persons who have sex with animals, but rather restrict their comments to a real, permanent, exclusive, fixated zoophilia as defined in the DSM-IV (Kockott ''et al.'' 1997; Peven, 1996 p.403)." # Contrary to popular belief, there is in fact significant popular or "latent" interest in zoophilia, either in fantasy, animal mating, or reality. (Nancy Friday, Massen, Masters) # The distinction between zoophilia and zoosadism is a critical one, and highlighted by each of these studies. # Masters (1962), Miletski (1999) and Weinberg (2003) each comment significantly on the social harm caused by these, and other common misunderstandings: "This destroy {Link without Title} the lives of many citizens". More recently, research has engaged three further directions - the speculation that at least some animals seem to thrive in a zoosexual relationship,Masters, in 1962, wrote: And ultimately speculated that: Similar findings are also reported by Kinsey (cited by Masters 1962), and others earlier in history. Likewise Miletski (1999) notes that information on sex with animals on the internet is often very emphatic as to how to give pleasure and identify that only a few species such as dolphins have sex for pleasure is discussed more fully under the article Non-human Animal Sexuality ) Religious perspectives Several organized religions take a critical or sometimes condemnatory view of zoophilia or zoosexual activity, with some variation and exceptions. Passages in "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away.") extend this, to consider Lust ful thoughts for an animal as a sin, and the Christian theologian Thomas Aquinas described it along with homosexuality as the worst sexual sins "because use of the right sex is not observed." Alternatively, many Christians and some non-Orthodox Jews do not regard the full Levitical laws as binding upon them, and may consider them irrelevant to an extent. Views of zoophilia's seriousness in for more). No evidence of verified translations or cited references seems to be found in the hands of independent (Western) or other notable Islamic scholars and the main sources seem to be anti-Islamic in nature. Though the book Tahrir-ul-Vasyleh does exist, there is widespread suspicion concerning the existence and authenticity of such a "fourth book". There are a few unsubstantiated 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), as well as explicit depictions of people having sex with animals included amongst the thousands of sculptures of "Life events" on the exterior of the Temple Complex at Khajuraho ..Orthodox Hindu doctrine holds that sex should be restricted to married couples, thereby forbidding zoosexual acts. A greater punishment is attached to sexual relations with a sacred cow than with other animals. 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 . Various sexual activities, including those with animals, are expressly forbidden for Buddhist monks and nuns. In the Church Of Satan , sexual acts involving children and/or animals are universally condemned, as are those in which a human who is too naïve to understand is involved. The Satanic Bible states (p.66) that animals and children are treated as sacred as they are regarded as the most natural expression of life. Animal studies perspectives See Also: Animal sexuality The common concept of animals as heterosexual and only interested in their own species, is seen as scientifically inaccurate by researchers into animal behavior. Animals are, in the main, considered as sexual opportunists by science, rather than sexually naïve. (a notable ethologist considered by many the world's foremost authority on Primates ): Animal rights, welfare and abuse concerns One of the primary critiques of zoophilia is the argument that zoosexual activity 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. The Humane Society of the United States states categorically its belief that: "Not all cases of animal sexual abuse will involve physical injury to the animal, but all sexual molestation of an animal by a human is abuse." Andrea M. Beetz , PhD. in her book "Love, Violence, and Sexuality in Relationships between Humans and Animals" (2002) reports: "In most {Link without Title} references to bestiality, violence towards the animal is automatically implied. That sexual approaches to animals may not need force or violence but rather, sensitivity, or knowledge of animal behavior, is rarely taken into consideration." In comment on 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, {Link without Title} it may not be wrong." (A few years later, Newkirk wrote to the editor of the Canada Free Press in response to a column by Alexander Rubin , making clear that she was strongly opposed to any exploitation, and all sexual activity, with animals. This was necessary since some had sought to interpret her former statement as condoning zoosexual activity. Accordingly, the response was a clarification of her position regarding zoosexual acts, rather than a different response ''per se'' to Singer's actual philosophical point, namely "if it isn't exploitation and abuse is there any moral basis for objecting? ") Dr. LaFarge, an assistant professor of Clinical Psychiatry at the New Jersey Medical School, who is the Director of Counseling at the American Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals and works with the New York correctional system, is quoted in a media article (1999) as reporting that: {Link without Title} It is also reportedQuoted in "Animal Attractions", Hustler, Sept 2001, Web version that: '') Sexology information sites (if sufficiently detailed) are usually careful to distinguish zoosadism from zoophilia: Humboldt Berlin University Sexology Dept (list of paraphilias) sex-lexis.com and sexualcounselling.com . Historical and cultural perspectives See Also: Historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia ''Caveat - It is important to be aware that some of the descriptions in antiquity may have been written from a political agenda, that is, with the intent of portraying a given target group intentionally negatively. Reader judgement is necessary.'' Prior to and outside the influence of the major Abrahamic Religion s ( Judaism , Christianity , Islam ), sex with animals was sometimes forbidden, and sometimes accepted. Prehistoric man probably was not bound by any self-image in regard to sexuality, and "was likely to have made many such attempts." For example, a cave painting from at least 8000 BC in the Northern Italian standing behind a female deer. The viewer is left in no doubt that he intends to have sex with her. We clearly cannot say if our prehistoric artist depicts himself, or something which he has observed someone else doing. What we can deduce however is that he has an intimate knowledge of the external sexual organs of this animal, and that it was made before any known taboos against sex with animals existed." to "Dr. Jacobus X.", said to be a Nom-de-plume for a French author: Abuses Aberrations and Crimes of the Genital Sense, 1901. In recorded history, "[b]estiality... existed as a rather widespread practice in all the nations of antiquity of which we have adequate records. Where it is not specifically mentioned, it may be legitimately inferred on the basis of the over-all evidence."Masters, "Prehistory of bestiality", part of his 1962 paper, 1966 edition It was often incorporated into religious ritual. Some cultures, principally in the Far East and North America , were more open about sexuality than the West, whilst in others (for example herding and nomadic cultures in parts of Africa and the Middle East ) it was considered a normal phase that most Youth s went through but adults usually outgrew. Several cultures built temples ( Khajuraho , India ) or other structures ( Sagaholm , Barrow , Sweden ) with zoosexual carvings on the exterior. In the West, the most explicit records of sex involving humans and animals activity are associated with reports of the murderous sadism, or via the Anus ." Representations of scenes from the sexual lives of the gods, such as Pasiphaë And The Bull , were highly popular, often causing extreme suffering, injury or death. On occasion, the more ferocious beasts were permitted to kill and (if desired) Devour Their Victims afterwards.R.E.L. Masters, "The Prostitutes In Society" Being sentenced to Forcible Sex by dogs and horses as a method of Torturous punishment or Execution also occurred in the Far East . In the Church-oriented culture of the tized {Link without Title} " In the 18th Century , the Age Of Enlightenment took much that had been under the field of religion, and brought it under the field of science. As with Homosexuality a variety of mixed views resultedViews in this period were typically that it was a very rare medical illness, sexual pathology, sign of degeneracy or lower level of humanity to be found in "primitive" (ie non-Western or tribal) cultures, or Crime Against Nature . which persisted through until around 1950, when researchers such as Kinsey followed by R.E.L. Masters began researching sexuality and sexually fringe topics (including zoophilia) on their own terms. HEALTH AND SAFETY See Also: Zoophilia and health Infections that are transmitted from animals to humans are called Zoonoses . Some zoonoses may be transferred through casual contact, but others are much more readily transferred by activities that expose humans to the Semen , vaginal fluids, Urine , Saliva , Feces and blood of animals. Brucellosis is one such disease, since it is transmitted by semen, vaginal fluids and urine. Brucellosis is rare in the USA but is widespread in many other parts of the world. Other verified zoonotic diseases include Pelvic Inflammatory Disease , Q Fever , Chlamydophila Abortus , Tritrichomonas Foetus , and non-specific bacterial urinary and anal infections, sometimes referred to as "dog gonorrhea". Transmission of parasites, Lyme Disease , and fungal infections is also widely noted in the medical literature. Therefore sexual activity with animals is, in some instances, a high risk activity. It is thus advisable for practitioners of zoophilia to assess their relative risk based on geographic location and the species involved. Allergic Reactions to animal semen may occur. Bites and other trauma from penetration or trampling may occur. Likewise animals may be injured by humans through ignorance of physical differences, forcefulness, or, for female animals, excessive friction or infection. ARGUMENTS ABOUT ZOOPHILIA OR ZOOSEXUAL RELATIONS Platonic Love for animals is usually viewed positively, but most people express concern or disapproval of sexual interest, sometimes very strongly. Criticisms come from a variety of sources, including moral, ethical, psychological, medical and social arguments. They include:
Citation taken from Ascione(1993) ''Children Who Are Cruel to Animals: A Review of Research and Implications for Developmental Psychology'', Anthrozoos, 6 (4): 226-247, also cited by Beetz (2002)
Defenders of zoophilia or zoosexuality state that:
They also assert that some of these arguments rely on double standards, such as expecting informed consent from animals for sexual activity (and not accepting consent given in their own manner), but not for surgical procedures including aesthetic mutilation and castration, potentially lethal experimentation and other hazardous activities, euthanasia, and slaughter. Likewise, if animals cannot give consent, then it follows that they must not have sex with each other (amongst themselves). see: '' Speciesism '' Example cited from 'Hustler' article, Sept 2001: House's defense attorney, Michael Rotsten, who specializes in animal cases, thinks California's anti-bestiality laws are arbitrary. "It's all right to shove an electric rod up a fox's butt and electrocute it, but if somebody were to walk up to the animal and masturbate it, they would be a criminal." [http://www.kapelovitz.com/animal.htm] Critics of this reasoning state that animals can communicate internally (hence consent) within their own species, but cannot communicate cross-species. Others state that animal communication is clear and unambiguous cross-species as well. In discussing arguments for and against zoosexual activity, the ''"British Journal of Sexual Medicine"'' commented over 30 years ago, "We are all supposed to condemn bestiality, though only rarely are sound medical or psychological factors advanced." (Jan/Feb 1974, p.43) 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 '' who study and understand animal behaviour and body language, have documented animal sexual advances to human beings and Other Species , and tend to be matter-of-fact about animal sexuality and animal approaches to humans; their research is generally supportive of some of the claims by zoophiles regarding animal cognition, behaviour, and sexual/relational/emotional issues.''All mammals (including humans) share neuroanatomical structures, such as the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, and neurochemical pathways that are important for feelings. This brain region is linked with social organization, empathy, intuition about the feelings of others, as well as rapid, gut reactions. Spindle and Mirror neurons, or neurons like them, are found in other species, and might actually play a role in the sharing of intentions or feelings - perhaps as keys to empathy - between individuals. Research on these neurons will be very helpful for answering questions about which species of animals have "theories Of Mind" or "cognitive empathy" about the mental and emotional states of others. Evolutionary continuity points to the reasonable conclusion that it's highly likely they do exist in many species.'' 2 Because the majority opinion is condemnatory, many individuals may be more accepting in private than they make clear to the public. Regardless, there is a general societal view which regards zoophilia with either suspicion or outright opposition. MYTHOLOGY AND FANTASY LITERATURE and the Bull'' by Gustave Moreau , c. 1869]] From cave paintings onward and throughout human history, zoophilia has been a recurring subject in art, literature, and fantasy. In Ugarit ic 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 Pasiphaë and a white bull. King Peleus continued to seduce the nymph Thetis despite her transforming into (among other forms) a lion, a bird, and a snake. The god Pan , often depicted with goat-like features, has also been frequently associated with animal sex. As with other subjects of Classical mythology, some of these have been depicted over the centuries since, in western painting and sculpture. In Norse Mythology , Loki had intercourse with a stallion, in the form of a mare, and gave birth to Sleipnir . The Sagaholm , a Swedish Barrow from the Nordic Bronze Age , contains a number of Petroglyph s, some of which depict Zoophilia. 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 whose head is transformed into that of a donkey's), '' The Book Of One Thousand And One Nights '' (a princess champions a man enchanted into ape form, among many other examples), 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, zoosexual relations 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 . '', an 1820 Hokusai woodcut depicting a woman dreaming of a sexual encounter with a pair of Octopi .]] Modern erotic Furry fantasy art and stories are sometimes associated with zoophilia, but many creators and fans disagree with this, pointing out that the characters are predominantly humanoid fantasy creatures who are thinking, reasoning beings that consider and consent to sex in the same manner humans would. "Furry" characters have been compared to other intelligent and social non-human fictional characters who are subjects of love/sexuality fantasies without being commonly regarded as zoophilic, such as the Vulcans and Klingon s in '' Star Trek '', or Elves in fantasy fiction. Animals and Anthropomorphs , when shown in furry art, are usually shown engaged with others of similar kind, rather than humans. MEDIA DISCUSSION Because of its controversial standing, different countries and medias vary in how they treat discussion of zoosexual activity. Often sexual matters are the subject of legal or regulatory requirement. For example, in 2005, the UK broadcasting regulator ( OFCOM ) updated its code stating that: {Link without Title} The contrasting views between cultures are highlighted by the case of '' Omaha The Cat Dancer '', a Furry Comic Book , which was simultaneously the subject of a raid by Toronto police for pornographic depiction of bestiality (as noted, furry art is not usually considered "bestiality"), and the subject of praise by the (now defunct) New Zealand Indecent Publications Tribunal for its mature depiction of relationships and sexuality. References to zoosexual activity or bestiality are not uncommon in some media, especially ")'' and South Park ''( Recurring Themes )'', Satirical Comedy such as Borat , and films (especially shock Exploitation Film s), although a few broadcasters such as Howard Stern (who joked about bestiality dial-a-date on NBC) and Tom Binns (whose Xfm London Breakfast Show resulted on one occasion in a live discussion about the ethics of zoosexual pornographic movies at peak child listening time) have been reprimanded by their stations for doing so. In literature, American novelist Kurt Vonnegut refers to a photo of a woman attempting sexual intercourse with a Shetland Pony in '' The Sirens Of Titan '', '' Slaughterhouse Five '', and '' God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater '', while John Irving 's novel '' The Cider House Rules '' repeatedly mentions a pornographic photograph depicting oral sex on a pony. In Clerks II Randal orders a donkey show as a going away present for his best friend Dante, in which it is referred to as "interspecies erotica" by the male performer. PORNOGRAPHY .]] Pornography involving sex with animals is widely illegal, even in most countries where the act itself is not explicitly outlawed. In the United States , zoosexual pornography (in common with other pornography) would be considered Obscene if it did not meet the standards of the Miller Test and therefore is not openly sold, mailed, distributed or imported across state boundaries or within states which prohibit it. Under U.S. law, 'distribution' includes transmission across the Internet . Production and mere possession appear to be legal, however. U.S. prohibitions on distribution of sexual or obscene materials are As Of 2005 in some doubt, having been ruled Unconstitutional in '' United States V. Extreme Associates '' (a judgement which was overturned on Appeal , December 2005). Similar restrictions apply in Germany (see Above ). In New Zealand the possession, making or distribution of material promoting bestiality is illegal. Using animal fur or Stuffed Animals in erotic photography doesn't seem to be Taboo , nor do photographs of nude models posed with animals provided no sexual stimulation is implied to the animal. Stuffed animals are sometimes used in glamour erotic photography with models touching their sexual organs against such animals, and likewise models may be posed with animals or on horseback. The subtext is often to provide a contrast: animal versus sophisticated, raw beast versus culturally guided human. (Nancy Friday comments on this, noting that zoophilia as a fantasy may provide an escape from cultural expectations, restrictions, and judgements in regard to sex.) The potential use of media for Pornographic Movie s was seen from the start of the era of Silent Film . ''Polissons and Galipettes'' (re-released 2002 as " The Good Old Naughty Days ") is a collection of early French silent films for brothel use, including some animal pornography, dating from around 1905 – 1930 . Material featuring sex with animals is widely available on the Internet , due to their ease of production, and because production and sale is legal in countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark . Prior to the advent of mass-market full-color glossy magazines such as Playboy , so-called Tijuana Bible s were a form of pornographic tract popular in America, sold as anonymous underground publications typically comprising a small number of stapled comic-strips representing characters and celebrities.An example digitized Tijuana Bible entitled ''The Pet'' from the 1960s is linked at tijuanabibles.org page link (also see full size and search ). The promotion of "stars" began with the Danish took the lead, creating figures like "Wilma" and the "Dutch Sisters". In 1980s, "bestiality" was featured in Italian adult films with actresses like Denise Dior, Francesca Ray, and Marina Hedman , manifested early in the softcore flick ''Bestialità'' in 1976. Today, in in Basel . ''Club Seventeen'' is a label of the Dutch pornographic company '' Video Art Holland '', specialising in "barely legal" teens. In Japan , animal pornography is used to bypass censorship laws, often featuring Japanese and Russian female models performing Fellatio on non-human animals, because oral penetration of a non-human penis is not in the scope of Japanese mosaic censor. Sakura Sakurada is an AV Idol known to have appeared in animal pornography, specifically in the AV ''The Dog Game'' in 2006 . Brazil is also a substantial producer of animal pornography, many films featuring " She-male s". While primarily underground, there are a number of animal pornography actresses who specialize in bestiality movies. A box-office success of the 1980s '' 24 Horas De Sexo Explícito featured zoophilia. The UK Government has announced plans to criminalise possession of images depicting sex with animals (see Extreme Pornography ), which would include fake images and simulated acts where no crime has taken place in the production. Pornography of this sort has become the business of certain Spammers such as Jeremy Jaynes and owners of some fake TGP s, who use the promise of "extreme" material as a bid for users' attention. SOCIAL COMMUNITY Whether there is such a thing as a "zoophile community" or monolithic Subculture , in the same sense as the Gay Community or any other Alternative Lifestyle communities, is a controversial question. Some zoophiles point to the number and quality of computerized meeting-places in which zoophiles can meet and socialize, the manner in which this extends to Offline social networks, and the trend of social and cultural evolution of community consensus over time, or use the term to imply "the community of zoophiles in general". Others point to the differing viewpoints and attitudes, the trust issues and risks due to lack of safety inherent in socializing, and lack of any true commonality between zoophiles beyond their orientation. Whether or not it should be construed as a "community", the following outline is a rough description of the social world of zoophiles, as it has existed to date. Prior to the arrival of widespread computer , 61% of newsgroup sites carried ASB, and "was 50th in order of estimated readers, and about 140th in order of traffic (bytes/month), putting it well ahead of many existing sci, comp, rec, and soc groups". According to a second post in the same thread, these figures meant that or take some issues around the precise statistics ASB was "in the top 1%" of newsgroup interest, ie 50 out of around 5000. (top 1%) Newsgroup '' Alt.sex.bestiality '' (reputedly started in humorMiletski p.35 "Alt.sex.bestiality (A.S.B.) was one such Internet news group which started around 1990 as someone's idea of a joke."), personal Bulletin Board s and Talker s, were among the first group media of this kind in the late 1980s and early 1990s, rapidly drawing together zoophiles, some of whom also created personal and social Website s and Forum s. By around 1991 - 1993 it became accurate to say that a wide social net had evolved. This changed significantly around 1995-96 (due to the double impact of Miletski's research and the unrelated mid/late-1990s boom in zoosexual pornography), and then a few years later again around 1998-2000 in the wake of the controversy over the first proposed public US appearance of a zoophile on the Jerry Springer show ("I married a horse", 1998, pulled before viewing), which was followed by the 1999-2000 Philip Buble case (in which a plaintiff petitioned the court to let his dog attend judgement as his "wife"). Whilst some zoophiles saw these as attempts to state a personal viewpoint or encourage debate, others saw them in a negative light as ill-advised, futile, harmful, or ultimately egoistic attempts to obtain a public hearing which could only backlash strongly both legally and otherwise against zoophiles. There was also a perception that as knowledge of zoosexuality as a lifestyle became wider spread, the smaller but more formative social groups were being diluted by large numbers of newcomers who had not grown up within the same "culture" or communal values, and many website owners came to be less interested compared to the past. In 1996, a zoophile version of the Geek Code was created, known as the Zoo Code , intended as a shorthand " Signature " for zoophiles to describe themselves, their Philosophies , and their stances on certain common issues such as Animal Welfare and Vegetarianism . It achieved some degree of popularity for a time and is still occasionally encountered today, having also been translated into French and German . In the wake of these changes, a number of the older pro-zoophile websites and forums were voluntarily removed or vanished from the net between 1995 and 2001, and many of the more established individuals and social groups at that time withdrewThis is an established and common pattern in other Online Communities and subcultures too, as people (typically in their 30's) develop more diverse Offline lives or commitments over time. Often they return from time to time, or retain an irreglar presence; sometimes they leave the net completely. See GAFIA . from the online community, perceiving the risks and benefits to no longer be worth it, as they already had sufficient Offline friends amongst other zoophiles. This led to a period of change and consolidation during the late 1990s and early 2000s as old sites closed and the older and newer 'generations' mingled. Most of the major "talkers" Faded And Closed too, especially following the increasing popularity of Instant Messaging and an Incident on "Planes of Existence" (Germany, 2000). At the same time, many other social groups online drew lessons from these and other incidents, leading to a maturing consensus which tended to replace the previous divides on common topics such as the desirability vs. harmfulness of public debate and acceptance, ethics, and conduct. Websites catering to zoosexuality at present can be broken down into several categories. Some sites restrict or prohibit explicit material (such as pictures, stories, contacts, etc), while others embrace these explicit aspects. Some zoophilic websites are run by professional or amateur Pornographer s, marketing pictures, stories and videos. A few provide personal perspectives and information relating to it. There also exist sites providing support and social assistance to zoophiles (including resources to help and rescue abused or mistreated animals), but these are not usually publicized. Such work is often undertaken as needed by individuals and friends, within social networks, and by word of mouth. BOOKS, ARTICLES AND DOCUMENTARIES ABOUT ZOOPHILIA Academic and professional
Other books
Print and online media
Notable cases
Film, television and radio
:: Ofcom 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."
:: 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.
:: Live talkshow interview with lifelong zoophile, followed by call-in discussion.
imdb entry
::A romantic comedy in which a girl's engagement is heavily tested when she confesses to her fiance that when younger she performed Oral Sex on her dog .
SEE ALSO REFERENCES AND FOOTNOTES EXTERNAL LINKS Websites supportive of zoophilia
Websites against zoosexual activity Research
Other
|
|
|