Zoophilia

From Psychology Wiki

Community portal · Tasks to do · News · Help

Clinical · Educational · Ind&Org · Other fields · Professional · Transpersonal · World

Assessment | Biopsychology | Comparative | Cognitive | Developmental | Language | Personality | Philosophy | Research Methods | Social | Statistics

Social Psychology: Add · Specialist · Topics · Here

---

Zoophilia,from the Greek Ζωο (zôon, "animal") and φιλία (philia, "friendship" or "love"), is a paraphilia, defined as an affinity or sexual attraction by a human to a non-human 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), 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.

Modern society is generally hostile to the concept of animal/human sexuality. While some, such as philosopher and animal rights author Peter Singer, argue that zoophilia is not unethical if there is no harm or cruelty to the animal, this view is not widely shared; sexual acts with animals are generally condemned as "crime against nature" and/or animal abuse.

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, and research has broadly been supportive of at least some of zoophiles' central claims. 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.

Contents 1 Terminology 2 Extent of occurrence 3 Legal status 4 Zoophiles 4.1 Zoophilia as a lifestyle 4.2 Non-sexual zoophilia 4.3 Zoophiles and other groups 4.4 Sciences studying zoophilia 5 Perspectives on zoophilia 5.1 Psychological and research perspectives 5.1.1 Mis-citation of research 5.2 Religious perspectives 5.3 Animal studies perspectives 5.4 Animal rights, welfare and abuse concerns 5.5 Historical and cultural perspectives 6 Health and Safety 7 Arguments about zoophilia or zoosexual relations 8 Mythology and fantasy literature 9 Media discussion 10 Pornography 11 Social community 12 Books, articles and documentaries about zoophilia 12.1 Academic and professional 12.2 Other books 12.3 Print and online media 12.4 Notable cases 12.5 Film, television and radio 13 See also 14 External links 15 References and footnotes

[edit] 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.^[1]

The terms zoosexuality, signifying the entire spectrum of emotional or sexual attraction and/or orientation to animals, and zoosexual (as in, "a zoosexual [person]" 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 lovers instead.

The ambiguous term sodomy, usually referring to non-procreative sex,^[2] 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,^[3] 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.^{[citation needed]}

Finally, zoosadism refers to the torture or pain of animals for sexual pleasure, and also includes willfully abusive zoosexual activity.

[edit] Extent of occurrence

Main article: 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. ^[4]

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 8-10% -- 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 40-60% for rural teenagers (living on or near livestock farms) have been cited from some earlier surveys such as the Kinsey reports, but some later writers consider these uncertain.^[4] Anecdotally, Nancy Friday's 1973 book on female sexuality My Secret Garden comprised around 190 women's contributions; of these, some 8% volunteered a serious interest or active participation in zoosexual activity.^[5]

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.^[6]

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).^[7]

[edit] Legal status

Main article: 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.^[8] 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 taboos. 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.^[9]

Currently, the legality of bestiality varies greatly around the world. It is legal in some countries, such as Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands, while it is illegal in Great Britain (for penetrative acts), Canada, and much of the United States and Australia. Countries such as Belgium, Germany and Russia are in between the two as they permit sexual activity with animals but strictly prohibit the promotion of animal-oriented pornography.

Notable legal views include Sweden, where a 2005 report by the Swedish Animal Welfare Agency for the Swedish government expressed strong concerns over the increase in reports of horse-ripping incidents, and gave as its opinion that current animal cruelty legislation needed updating as it was not sufficiently protecting animals from abuse, but concluded that on balance it was not appropriate to call for a ban. [21], New Zealand where the 1989 Crimes Bill considered abolition of bestiality as a criminal offence, and for it to be treated as a mental health issue.^[10] 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 (a relative of the llama).^{[citation needed]}

A more detailed list of countries and laws can be found at zoosexuality and the law.

[edit] Zoophiles

[edit] 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.^{[citation needed]} 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.^[11] 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.^{[citation needed]}

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^{[11] [12]} This situation is comparable to "outing" and "the closet" of homosexuality. 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 impact of repeated deaths of animals they consider lifelong soulmates (most species have far shorter lifespans than humans and zoophiles cannot openly grieve or talk about feelings of loss).^{[13] [14]} 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.^{[citation needed]}

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 bond with animals is primary. Miletski argues that a scale similar to Kinsey's could be applied for this.^[15] 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 [22]. 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 housemates, live alone, or choose other zoophiles to live with.^{[citation needed]}

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 trespassing on property to have sexual contact with animals. This practice, known as fence hopping, is often condemned by other zoophiles.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] 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" ^[16]

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 animal love generally, 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 petloss.com, in-memory-of-pets.com (memorial, tribute and support sites), by googling "pet memorials", or on sites such as MarryYourPet.com and other pet marriage sites.

[edit] 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). While 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 the few surveys that exist together with their editors' comments might support a figure of 2 - 5% of furries^[17], which is not dissimilar to typical estimates of the percentage within the population generally. Expressions of fur fetishism such as fursuiting, 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 puppy or pony play (also known as "Petplay") or animal transformation fantasies and roleplays, where one person may act like a dog, pony, horse, or other animal, while a sexual partner acts as a rider, trainer, caretaker, or breeding partner.^{[citation needed]} These activities are sexual roleplays whose principal theme is the voluntary or involuntary reduction or transformation of a human being to animal status, and focus on the altered mind-space created. They have no implicit connection to, nor motive in common with, zoophilia. They are instead more usually associated with BDSM. Zoosexual activity is not part of BDSM for most people, and would usually be considered extreme, or edgeplay.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Sciences studying zoophilia

Zoophilia is in the main covered by four sciences: Psychology (the study of the human mind), sexology (the study of human sexuality), ethology (the study of animal behavior), and anthrozoology (the study of human-animal interactions and bonds)^{[citation needed]}

The nature of animal minds, animal mental processes 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.^{[citation needed]}

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.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Perspectives on zoophilia

[edit] 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 of zoophilia date from prior to 1910. Peer reviewed research into zoophilia in its own right has happened since around 1960. There have been several significant modern studies, from Masters (1962) to Beetz (2002), but each of them has drawn and agreed on several broad conclusions:

1. 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)
2. 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)^[18]
3. Most zoophiles have (or have also had) long term human relationships as well or at the same time as zoosexual ones. (Masters, Beetz)^[19];
4. Society in general at present is considerably misinformed about zoophilia, its stereotypes, and its meaning. (Masters, Miletski, Weinberg, Beetz)^[20]
5. 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)
6. The distinction between zoophilia and zoosadism is a critical one, and highlighted by each of these studies.
7. Masters (1962), Miletski (1999) and Weinberg (2003) each comment significantly on the social harm caused by these, and other common misunderstandings: "This destroy[s] the lives of many citizens".

More recently, research has engaged three further directions - the findings that at least some animals appear to thrive in a zoosexual relationship,^[21] the weight of psychological research that zoosexuality is closer to a sexual orientation than a sexual fetish, and the finding that science apparently is closing in on confirming the capacity for authentic emotion in animals, and their enjoyment and choice of actions (including sex) driven by an internal feeling that certain things are pleasurable.^[22]

[edit] Mis-citation of research

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.

An example of such a statistic is a dubious^[23] statement cited frequently^[24] by PETA that "96% of people who commit bestiality will go on to commit crimes against people", which is sourced from a study of such a population.

When read in full however, the study also includes the following caution regarding interpretation of their results: "It is difficult to assess 'normality' in a study where all 381 participants were adjudicated juvenile offenders living in state facilities ... It is possible that among other populations ... sex acts with animals might be performed out of love, the need for consolation, or other motivations. In these and other populations, there might not be any link whatsoever to offenses against humans." This qualification by the authors regarding misinterpretation of their paper is not mentioned by PETA.

A further source of misinterpretation is that the 96% statistic is a highly controversial figure even amongst offender populations. The choice of survey quoted ignores contradictory evidence and clarifications from other studies. It is based upon a total of 24 individuals who admitted to serious sexual assault on humans, and the headline finding has not been replicated in any other large scale study of either offending or non-offending populations.

[edit] Religious perspectives

Several organized religions take a critical or sometimes condemnatory view of zoophilia or zoosexual activity, with some variation and exceptions.

Passages in Leviticus 18 (Lev 18:23: "And you shall not lie with any beast and defile yourself with it, neither shall any woman give herself to a beast to lie with it: it is a perversion." RSV) and 20:15-16 ("If a man lies with a beast, he shall be put to death; and you shall kill the beast. If a woman approaches any beast and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the beast; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them." RSV) are cited by Jewish, Christian, and Muslim theologians as categorical denunciation of bestiality. Some theologians (especially Christian^[25]) extend this, to consider lustful 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.

Views of zoophilia's seriousness in Islam seem to cover a wide spectrum. This may be because it is not explicitly mentioned or prohibited in the Qur'an, or because sex and sexuality were not treated as taboo in Muslim society to the same degree as in Christianity. 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.^[26] 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.^{[citation needed]} Some Vedic rituals actually involve zoosexual activity, such as the Ashvamedha.^{[citation needed]} 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.

[edit] Animal studies perspectives

Main article: 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. Ethologists such as Desmond Morris who study animal behavior, as well as formal studies, have consistently documented significant masturbation and homosexuality in a wide range of animals, apparently freely chosen or in the presence of the opposite gender, as well as homosexual animal couples, homosexual raising of young, and cross-species sexual advances. Haeberle (1978) states that sexual intercourse is "not so very unusual" between animals of different species as it is between humans and animals, a view with which Kinsey (1948, 1953) concurs.^[27] Peter Singer reports of one such incident witnessed by Biruté Galdikas (a notable ethologist considered by many the world's foremost authority on primates):

"While walking through the camp with Galdikas, my informant was suddenly seized by a large male orangutan, his intentions made obvious by his erect penis. Fighting off so powerful an animal was not an option, but Galdikas called to her companion not to be concerned, because the orangutan would not harm her, and adding, as further reassurance, that "they have a very small penis." As it happened, the orangutan lost interest before penetration took place, but the aspect of the story that struck me most forcefully was that in the eyes of someone who has lived much of her life with orangutans, to be seen by one of them as an object of sexual interest is not a cause for shock or horror. The potential violence of the orangutan's come-on may have been disturbing, but the fact that it was an orangutan making the advances was not." [23]

[edit] 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." [24]

Andrea M. Beetz, PhD. in her book "Love, Violence, and Sexuality in Relationships between Humans and Animals" (2002) reports: "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."

In comment on Peter Singer's article "Heavy Petting", which controversially argued that zoosexual activity need not be abusive and if so relationships could form which were mutually enjoyed, 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."

(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 [then 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:

"it's important to make the distinction [between bestiality per se, and zoophilia] because zoophiles try not to hurt their animals..."

"There is no evidence yet that zoophilia leads to sexual deviation, but that's not to say that's not the case. We do make the link between other forms of physical violence against animals as being a predicator of physical violence against women and children. I would go on to say that someone who is sexually violent with an animal ... is a predator and might very well do that toward people." [25]

It is also reported^[28] that:

Surprisingly, many zoophiles join animal-rights activists in their opposition to animal pornography because the films objectify the critters, and mistreat the animals. "Things are done to elicit behavior," explains [one zoophile]. "For instance, they allow a dog to become dehydrated so he will lick almost constantly."

Ernest 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. (Main article: Zoosadism)

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.

[edit] Historical and cultural perspectives

Main article: 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 religions (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." In recorded history, "Bestiality... 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."^[29] 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 youths 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, torture and rape of the Roman games and circus, in which some authors estimate that several hundreds of thousands died.^[30] 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. ^[31] 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 Middle Ages, zoosexual activity was met with execution, typically burning, and death to the animals involved either the same way or by hanging, as "both a violation of Biblical edicts and a degradation of man".^[32]

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 resulted^[33] 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.

[edit] Health and Safety

Main article: 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. 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.

[edit] 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:

• "Sexual activity between species is unnatural."
• "Sexual activity between species is (or should be) naturally repugnant to anyone in their right mind", sometimes called the "yuck factor". (For contrasting view see: Wisdom of repugnance)
• "Sexual contact with animals exposes people to elevated risk for infection with zoonotic diseases"
• "Animals are not sapient, and therefore unable to consent." (similar to arguments against sex with human minors)^[34]
• "Animals are incapable of relating to or forming relationships with humans."
• "Zoosexual relations are simply for those unable/unwilling to find human partners."
• "Sexual acts with animals by humans are always physical abuse."^[35]
• "Animals mate instinctively to produce offspring (or: only have sex for reproduction), hence they are deceived when these activities are performed." ^[36]
• "It takes advantage of animals' innate social structure which forces them to please a leader."
• "Humans are guardians in charge of animals, so a sexual relationship is a betrayal of the trust earned by this duty of care."
• "Zoosexuality is 'profoundly disturbed behaviour.'" (cf. the UK Home Office review on sexual offences, 2002)^[37]
• "It offends human dignity^[38] or is forbidden by religious law."

Defenders of zoophilia or zoosexuality state that:

• "'Natural' is debatable; it's also not necessarily relevant." (ie, naturalistic fallacy)
• "Animals are capable of sexual consent - and even initiation - in their own way." ^[39][40]
• "Animals do form mutual relationships with humans."
• "Research shows the majority of zoophiles appear to have human partners and relationships^[19]; many others simply do not have a sexual attraction to humans."
• "Many zoophiles have an attraction to species which are relatively inaccessible, such as dolphins; tending to oppose the view that they are simply 'looking for easy sex'."
• "It is a misperception that zoosexual relations need necessarily be inherently harmful/abusive. Usually it needs only sensitivity, mutuality, and understanding of everyday animal behavior."^[41][42]
• "Instinct does not exclude enjoyment, volition or learning."
• "Animal and human social structure is flexible enough both to allow for different species in it and can easily encompass dynamically changing roles and leads."
• "People choosing to take responsibility for an animal, have to also take responsibility for its sexual drive. Neutering and ignoring are a failure to accept animals as they are, often used to avoid facing an uncomfortable aspect of animal reality or 'best care'." ^[43]
• "Both male and female domestic animals of several species can experience the physical sensation of orgasm, and can unambiguously solicit and demonstrate appreciation for it in their body language. Animals of many species also masturbate, even if other sexual partners are accessible." ^[44][40]
• "The psychological profession consensus does not consider it intrinsically pathological. Academic and clinical research consistently tends to substantiate rather than deny zoophiles' claims."
• "Perspectives on human dignity and religious viewpoints differ and are personal; many individuals do not consider them relevant."

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). [Also see: speciesism] ^[45]

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 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.^[46] Mental health professionals and personal acquaintances of zoophiles who see their relationships over time tend to be less critical, and sometimes supportive.^[46] Ethologists 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. 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.

[edit] Mythology and fantasy literature

From cave paintings onward and throughout human history, 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.^{[citation needed]} 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 Petroglyphs, some of which depict Zoophilia.^{[citation needed]}

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), 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.^{[citation needed]}

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 Klingons 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.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] 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:

"Freedom of expression is at the heart of any democratic state. It is an essential right to hold opinions and receive and impart information and ideas. Broadcasting and freedom of expression are intrinsically linked. However, with such rights come duties and responsibilities ... The focus is on adult audiences making informed choices within a regulatory framework which gives them a reasonable expectation of what they will receive, while at the same time robustly protecting those too young to exercise fully informed choices for themselves ...

"OFCOM sets out a watershed and other precautions for explicit sexual material, to protect young people, and specifies that discussion of zoosexual activity along with other sexual matters may take place, but in an appropriate context and manner." [26]

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 New Zealand Office of Film and Literature Classification for its mature depiction of relationships and sexuality.

References to zoosexual activity or bestiality are not uncommon in some media, especially cartoon series such as Family Guy (episode: "Screwed the Pooch") and South Park (Recurring themes), satirical comedy such as Borat, and films (especially shock exploitation films), 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.^{[citation needed]} 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.

[edit] Pornography

Main articles: Obscenity, Pornography, Legal status of Internet 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 (cf. §184 StGB [27]).

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, 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 movies was also 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.

Materials featuring sex with animals are 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 Bibles 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.^[47] The promotion of "stars" began with the Danish Bodil Joensen, in the period of 1969-72, along with other well-known porn stars such as the Americans Linda Lovelace (Dogarama, 1969), and Chessie Moore (multiple films, c.1994). Another early film to attain great infamy was "Animal Farm", smuggled into Great Britain around 1980 without details as to makers or provenance.^[48] Into the 1980s the Dutch took the lead, creating figures like "Wilma" and the "Dutch Sisters". In 1980s, "bestiality" was a central theme in Italian adult films featuring actresses like Denise Dior and Marina Hedman, manifested early in the softcore flick Bestialità in 1976.

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 such as Topscore and Book & Film International, and the genre has stars such as "Hector" (a Great Dane starring in several films). Many Hungarian (Suzy Spark, Silvi Anderson et al) and Russian (Pantera aka Jordan Elliot, various girls filmed by Club Seventeen) mainstream performers also appeared anonymously in zoophilia pornography in their early careers.^[49] Best-known current performers in Europe include Andy aka Anna Dyna^[50], Bilara, Adilia "the Sinful Lady". In Japan, zoophilia 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. Brazil is also a substantial producer of zoophilia pornography, many films featuring "she-males".

Pornography of this sort has become the business of certain spammers such as Jeremy Jaynes (8th most prolific spammer, sentenced to 9 years for spamming) and owners of some fake TGPs, who use the promise of "extreme" material as a bid for users' attention.

[edit] 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 networking, most zoophiles would not have known others, and for the most part engaged secretly, or told only trusted friends, family or partners. (This almost certainly still describes the majority of zoophiles; only a small proportion are visible online). Thus it could not be said there was a "community" of any kind at that time, except perhaps for small sporadic social networks of people who knew each other by chance. As with many other alternate lifestyles, broader networks began forming in the 1980s when networked social groups became more common at home and elsewhere, and as the