 |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
Zoophilia is a paraphilia defined as an affinity, attraction or sexual attraction by a human to non-human animals. Human/animal sexual interaction is referred to as zoosexuality, or simply animal sex; the term bestiality is the actual dictionary term, used especially in legal and negative contexts. The quite ambiguous term sodomy has also sometimes been used for bestiality. In pornography, zoosexuality is occasionally referred to as "farmsex" or "dogsex."
Zoophilia is usually considered to be unnatural, and zoosexuality is often condemned as animal abuse; however, some, such as philosopher and animal rights author Peter Singer, argue that this is not inherently the case (though such statements have received condemnations from the animal rights community). As with sadism and masochism, the activity is no longer classified as a pathology under the DSM-IV-TR unless it is accompanied by distress in the individual or causes interference with the individual's normal functioning, and people who practice zoophilia tend to reject the view of their activities as disordered.
Research by psychologists and sexologists is in general supportive of some claims made by zoophiles, however this is not generally known or accepted, so most people's knowledge is drawn from stereotypes, personal beliefs, or media.
The extent to which zoosexuality occurs is controversial (see below). Zoophilia advocates claim that the human/animal relationship goes far beyond sexuality, and that they are capable of forming a loving relationship with an animal that can frequently last several years and that they do not consider functionally different from any other love/sex relationship.
| Contents |
Zoophilia is illegal in many jurisdictions, while others generally outlaw the mistreatment of animals without specifically mentioning zoosexuality.
Just over half of U.S. states explicitly outlaw zoophilia (sometimes under the name "sodomy"). In Australia, laws are also determined state by state, with only the Australian Capital Territory and Jervis Bay Territory not explicitly outlawing it. In Germany, sex with animals is not specifically outlawed (but trading pornography showing it is, cf. §184a StGB (http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/184a.html)); in West Germany, the law making it a crime (§175b StGB, which also outlawed homosexual acts) was removed in 1969, while in East Germany (until the German reunification), there never was a law against zoophilia at all. In the United Kingdom, section 69 (http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30042--b.htm#69) of the "Sexual Offences Act 2003" reduced the sentence to a maximum of 2 years imprisonment, for penile penetration of or by an animal.
An anomaly that arose in many U.S states was that when laws outlawing "sodomy" (generally in the context of male homosexuality) were repealed, some people thought sex with animals would no longer be outlawed, but a recent conviction of a man in Florida proved that even in states with no specific laws against zoophilia animal cruelty statutes can and will be used (eg State vs. Mitchel (http://pet-abuse.com/cases/2206/FL/US/1)).
In some cases where there is no legislation against bestiality, state officers have attempted to find a basis to charge zoophiles for sex with minors, on the pretext that the animal was under the human age of consent. Legal commentators point out the age of sexual maturity in animals is far lower than in humans and that if this argument was sound, then dog breeders and stud farms would be deemed guilty of "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" or "living off the proceeds of child prostitution" respectively.
Six states recently adopted new legislation against zoophilia: Oregon, Maine, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and Missouri. In Maine in 2000, there was a court case in which Frank Buble attacked his son Philip with an iron bar, allegedly because of his son's sexual relationship with the family dog, Lady. Philip Buble regarded the dog to be his wife, and wrote a formal letter (signed "Philip and Lady Buble") to the court requesting that his "significant other" be allowed to attend the court hearing. This was declined. However, Frank Buble faced a prison sentence for assault, while no charges were brought against his son. The Bangor Daily News archives show numerous articles on this case, including one detailing Philip Buble's alleged abuse toward his father and advocating zoophilia to the parents of young children on the Internet. Refs: bangordailynews.com
In the Netherlands in 2004, according to the newspapers, there was some concern by a legislator that a man caught having sex in a neighbor's barn with a horse not belonging to him could not be prosecuted because no law was broken. There was no visible injury to the horse; the man who was arrested was caught by the horse's owner in the act.
Pornography involving zoosexuality is widely illegal, even in most countries where the act itself is not explicitly outlawed. In the United States, this pornography is automatically considered obscene and therefore may not be sold, mailed or imported (production and mere possession appear to be legal, however). Similar restrictions obtain in Germany (cf. §184 StGB [1] (http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/184.html)).
Materials featuring animal sex are widely available on the Internet, however, mainly because their production and sale is legal in countries like the Netherlands and Denmark. The promotion of "stars" began with the Danish Bodil Joensen, in the period of 1970-72. Into the 1980s the Dutch took the lead, creating figures like "Wilma" and the "Dutch Sisters". Today, in Hungary, where producing zoophilia pornography faces no legal limitations, "bestiality" materials have become a huge industry that produces numerous films, magazines, particularly for the Dutch companies, and the genre has created its "very own" stars like "Hector" (a Great Dane starring in several films). In Russia, many female mainstream pornographic performers also feel comfortable to appear in such productions.
Pornography of this sort has become known as the stock in trade of a particular class of spammers. Email spam featuring women having sex with goats and dogs usually casts the activity as a form of sexual degradation.
Zoophilia has been a frequent subject in art, literature, and fantasy. In Greek mythology, Zeus appeared to Leda in the form of a swan (resulting in the birth of Helen and Polydeuces), and to Europa in the form of a bull. The Minotaur was the offspring of Queen Pasiphae and a white bull. The god Pan has also been frequently associated with animal sex.
Erotic furry fantasy art and stories have been accused of promoting zoophilia, but defenders point out that the characters are predominantly humanoid fantasy creatures who are thinking, reasoning beings as capable of giving consent as any human. Furry characters have been compared to other non-human characters who are subjects of love/sexuality fantasies, such as the Vulcans and Klingons in Star Trek.
Separate from those whose interest is curiosity, pornography, or sexual novelty, are those for whom zoophilia might be called a lifestyle. A useful distinction can be made between an affinity or attraction to animals, and a primary preference for them. A commonly reported starting age is at puberty, around 9 - 11, and this seems consistent for both males and females. Those who discover an interest at an older age often trace it back to nascent form during this period or earlier.
Zoophiles tend to perceive differences between animals and human beings as less significant, and view animals as having positive traits (eg, honesty) that humans often lack. They tend to feel that society's understanding is mis-informed, especially in the realm of non-human sexuality, and as a result whilst some feel guilty about their interest and view it through society's eyes as a problem, others do not feel a need to be constrained by traditional norms in their private relationships.
The biggest issue reported by zoophiles is an inability to be accepted or open about their preferences and partners with friends, family and society at large. This is not usually an issue of religion, as many zoophiles find religion and zoophilia to be compatible, but more about fear of harm, misunderstanding and/or rejection. The other major issue is isolation and loneliness, in the same way as homosexuals were isolated in earlier centuries. Other common difficulties include the death of partners, lack of an acceptable way to grieve, and issues arising from society's treatment of animals as being less important than humans and which portrays and believes them to be automatically abusive.
Animals and humans differ in sexuality. For most animals, sex carries less importance, is burdened with fewer social and conceptual barriers, and is more an immediate than a conceptual experience. Many animals will normally only have sex when the female shows her interest, although males of many species are, like humans, sexually interested year-round. As a result zoophile relationships vary between human-style relationships (in particular, remaining monogamous), animal-style relationships (wherein both partners are trusted to make their own sexual choices, with the human also playing the role of protector), or try to blend the two in various ways. Not all zoophiles are sexually involved with animals (see below).
Zoophiles may or may not have human partners. In some cases the human partner or family is aware of animal partners. As human partnerships are generally encouraged by society, both male and female zoophiles often have human relationships or marry, either for human companionship or to deflect suspicions of zoosexuality.
Although the term "zoophilia" is often used as a synonym for a sexual interest in animals, in fact the definition of zoophilia is not specifically sexual in nature. In psychology and sociology it can be (and is) used neutrally as to sexual implications. The first definition listed for the word on dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=zoophilia) is "Affection or affinity for animals". Other definitions are:
In either case, the common feature of "zoophilia" is some form of affective bond to animals, over and above the norm, whether emotional or sexual in nature. For examples of non-sexual zoophilia, a good place to look is an animal memorial page such as the well known in-memory-of-pets.com (http://www.in-memory-of-pets.com) memorial and support site, or by Googling "pet memorials".
Research into zoophilia in its own right has happened since around 1960-1970, with the first detailed studies dating from prior to 1910.
It is commonly believed that research into zoophilia is a relatively modern phenomena commencing in the mid 1990's. But more than 40 years ago, peer groups of professionals were already using the term "zoophilia" when studying a fully relational form of bestiality, and took for granted a view of a relational love which could be assessed similar to human-human relationships (including sexual and emotional aspects). They were already researching whether humans could "love" animals, what the nature of animals feelings in return were, and the detailed nature of any sexual and emotional relationship.
Much early research was obtained as a byproduct of research into sexology in general, and violent offenders. The latter was undertaken by asking sample groups from prison or juvenile prison, who already had abuse and violence convictions, if they had also abused animals, which has led to a mis-assumption of a connection by some people.
Some researchers believed and stated that zoophiles were sexual psychopaths. These beliefs have since been professionally discredited as highly flawed interpretations based upon personal preconceptions, poor reasoning, and inadequate psychological models and assumptions which tended to reaffirm existing norms. Present research highlights that zoophiles as a group have noticably lower levels of (for example) both psychopathy and need for control, which are two of the significant indicators for serious sexual abusers or serial killers.
The earlier research tends to have different results since it did not attempt to study zoophiles in general, but selected its case histories primarily from within (for example) populations already known to be violent, abusive, or psychologically troubled. Another difference is whether the research examined the act (earlier works) or the relationship and other measures too, which turned out to be a key factor in understanding zoophilia.
Examples of pre-1980 research with emphasis on zoophilia include:
It is interesting to note that each significant study from Masters (1962) to Beetz (2002) has drawn and agreed the same broad conclusions:
To the extent a "profile" can be drawn, emotionally and psychologically, research suggests that zoophiles have above average empathy. It is unclear yet from research whether this is a cause or a result of zoophilia. In other words, they may be close to animals because they empathize well, or have developed empathic skills because of intimate closeness with animals. As a group they have a lower level of psychopathy and need for control than average, and a higher level of sensation seeking and involvement in animal protection than average. They also have an above average level of social individualism, which can be either inhibitive (eg, shyness) or empowering (eg, independence of thought). Other research gives similar findings.
Beetz studied sex and violence in human/animal relationships, and concluded:
Professors Weinberg & Williams (Kinsey Institute, Indiana University, 30 years work in sexual research) wrote to the House about a proposed bill, HB 1658:
Hani Miletski (sexologist and author of "Understanding Bestiality and Zoophillia") concluded that zoosexuality was a full sexual orientation by the same criteria that other sexual orientations met:
"Forbidden Sexual Behaviour and Morality", (cited from 4th Ed. 1966)
(Important note: Although it may seem that the above are selectively chosen citations, in fact the opposite is the case. The reason for the agreement is that in fact current research over the past 15 years is very consistent, and there does not appear to be found any credible, serious, peer reviewed research into zoophiles per se - as opposed to offenders and animal abusers - that contradicts any of the above in a significant manner.)
Although some people with a history of violence have physically abused animals, sometimes sexually, there is in fact no evidence at this time that significantly more zoophiles are abusive per se than those of any other sexual orientation.
What research makes clear is people already inclined to abuse and violence often seek out or begin with dependents within their home or friends' homes, children, animals or other vulnerable groups, to abuse or "practice" on. In simple terms, there are both abusive and non abusive heterosexuals, homosexuals, zoosexuals, and so on. There is considerable research in this area as well, much of which is referenced in the work by Beetz cited below.
Violent sexual assault involving animals is often reported in the press, and at times has led to somewhat unexpected results:
From time to time, cases where animals have been tied up, assaulted, scared, involved sexually, or injured are reported in the media. It is unclear whether the intent of such incidents is always to harm, but often such animals are harmed anyway. Opposers to zoophilia cite these as evidence that all bestiality is abusive, pro-zoophilia advocates agree that animal abuse is heinous but neither typical of nor commonplace within zoophilia. Zoophiles point out that sexual activity involves learned understanding, and if information and education is withheld then those drawn to engage other species may lack full awareness of key issues and invent their own (less well informed) approaches.
Bornemann coined the separate term "zoosadism" for those who like to inflict pain on an animal. Some extreme examples of zoosadism include necrozoophilia, the sexual enjoyment of killing animals, similar to "lust murder" in humans, sexual penetration of fowl such as hens (fatal in itself) and strangling at orgasm, mutilation, sexual assault with objects (including screwdrivers and knives), interspecies rape, and sexual assault on young animals such as puppies, equivalent to human paedophilia.
Certainly some horse-ripping incidences have a sexual connotation (Schedel-Stupperich, 2001). The link between sadistic sexual acts with animals and sadistic practices with humans or lust murders has been heavily researched. Some murderers tortured animals in their childhood and also sexual relations with animals occurred. Ressler et al. (1986) found that 8 of their sample of 36 sexual murderers showed an interest in bestiality.
According to Kidd and Kidd (1987), most of these older research and models rarely took the variety of possible interactions and relations into account, studying the physical acts in isolation. Beetz in her thesis on sex and violence with animals comments that perhaps because of this, "in most [popular] references to bestiality, violence towards the animal is automatically implied. That sexual approaches to animals may not need force or violence but rather, sensitivity, or knowledge of animal behavior, is rarely taken into consideration."
According to Schmidt (1969), the more general term "zoophilia" was first introduced into the field of research on sexuality by Krafft-Ebing (1894). The term "zoosexual" signifying an emotional and a sexual attraction and/or relationship to animals has also been used (cited in Miletski, 1999).
"Zooerasty" is an older term used for sexual intercourse with animals (particularly anal intercourse). It is an outdated term, not in common use.
Studies show that most zoophiles also have human sexual partners. Therefore, a distinct zoosexual or zoophilic orientation is as hard to distinguish as a distinct heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual orientation. Only for people who have an long term attraction only to animals and who do not practice sex with humans the diagnosis of an exclusively zoosexual orientation might be justified.
The revised DSM-III-R (APA, 1987) stated that sexual contact with animals is almost never a clinically significant problem by itself (Cerrone, 1991), and therefore both this and the revised DSM-IV (APA, 1994) subsumed it under the residual classification for paraphilias "paraphilias not otherwise specified".
The extent to which zoosexuality occurs is disputed. There have been several estimates assessing the frequency of occurrence, as well as anecdotal evidence and informal surveys. Allowing for gray areas of definition and weaknesses in method, a reasonable estimate for the Western world would seem to be that 2-8% of sexually active adults have had a sexual experience with an animal at some point in their lives which was not "once off", and a larger number (perhaps 10-30% depending on area) will have fantasized or had some form of brief encounter. Larger figures such as 50% for farm teenagers have been cited in some surveys, but the quality of the statistics is uncertain. Figures of under 1% for sexually active zoophiles are probably unrealistic.
Nancy Friday's acclaimed book on female sexuality "My Secret Garden" was published in 1973 (i.e. well before the Internet). It comprised around 180 women's contributions. Of these, some 10% volunteered a serious interest or active participation in zoophilia.
Sexual fantasies about bestiality seem to be relatively frequent and also (like many fantasies) occur in people who do not have a strong wish to experience them in real life. Latent zoophile tendencies are claimed to exist in many persons - an interest and sexual excitement in watching animals mate or similar is common, and cited as an indicator by Massen (1994).
It is also unclear what proportion of zoophiles are sexually active with animals. Reasons for this ambiguity include:
Zoophilia is a controversial subject. Platonic love for animals, even of an intense kind, is usually viewed positively, however sexual interest (whether fantasy or reality) is highly controversial and for many people an emotive topic bound up with many deep social traditions.
People's views appears to depend significantly upon the nature of their interest and nature of exposure to the subject. People who have been exposed to zoosadism (see below), who are unsympathetic to alternate lifestyles, or who lack much awareness of zoophilia often to regard it as an extreme form of animal abuse, and often indicative of serious psychosexual issues.
On the other hand, professionals and people who know genuine zoophiles and their partners personally over a period of time (whether knowingly or unknowingly) often find it hard to see abuse in their partnership.
The mainstays of public ethics (eg legal, religious, media) tend to be universally condemnatory of bestiality. Privately, as with many sexual matters, views vary more widely.
Common objections include arguments based upon religion or humanism:
Arguments based upon abuse:
Arguments based upon psychology and sociology:
Arguments based upon beliefs about the "nature of animals":
Arguments based upon personal feelings:
A suggested reason for this is that most cases which come to public attention are via court reports and zoosadism, and that the majority of non-abusive zoophilic relationships generally never come to public attention.
In addition there are strong "double standards" over animals (as utilities and property vs. as independent living beings worthy of respect) so often people are unconvinced that animals can consent, enjoy or understand sex in a meaningful way.
Ethically, the argument from religion depends on one's spiritual beliefs. Many people combine a religious ethic with a personal morality, and do not see religious law as their only ethical values, or do not believe that others private beliefs should be imposed on society in general. In the same way, "preservation of human dignity" is usually perceived in society as a personal issue and not a basis for making legal decisions. Some people simply do not see a conflict between religion and sexuality, and others do not hold strong traditional religious views.
Research strongly contradicts the common belief that zoophiles cannot find human partners, as many zoophiles have human relationships.
Psychological and sexology research concludes beyond this, that far from being "profoundly disturbed behaviour", zoophilic feelings and relationships are common, latent in many people, and can be authentic, relational, and genuine. (see below)
Zoophiles also note that people who have only minimal interest in animal consent of any kind generally (eg, for surgery, euthenasia, docking, castration, food, care, emotional security or dangerous activities), demand consent only when it relates to sex. They observe that in fact animals negotiate sex, form relational bonds, and give or withold consent in their own way in every kind of activity, and that this is both natural and unmistakable.
A list of many books related to zoophilia as of March 1997 can be found here (http://www.cotse.net/users/hippo/uzp/PIP_Bibliography.txt).
|
||||
| View Live Article | This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License | |
||
