| Revision as of 23:07, 20 October 2008 view sourceCoren (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,492 editsm Reverted edits by 92.39.197.115 (talk) to last version by Possum← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:01, 28 October 2008 view source Trevorisgay (talk | contribs)2 edits ←Replaced content with 'Trevor likes to suck horses dick:) Citation Needed'Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Trevor likes to suck horses dick:) | |||
| {{Expert-subject|Psychology|date=July 2008}} | |||
| Citation Needed | |||
| {{Original research|date=June 2008}} | |||
| {{otheruses4|zoophilia, the emotional and (optionally) sexual attraction of humans to animals}} | |||
| ]'', a 16th century copy after a lost painting by ].]] | |||
| '''Zoophilia''', from the ] ζῷον (''zṓion'', "animal") and φιλία (''philia'', "friendship" or "love") is a ] involving the ] to ]. | |||
| Various other terms have been used by clinicians and by '''zoophiles''' (individuals with zoophilia) themselves. Zoophilia refers specifically to sexual interest in animals, not sexual behavior involving animals.<ref>According to Masters (1969), "only very rarely is the animal contact a product of sexual deviation in the sense that the person's desires are exclusively or customarily and preferentially, and for reasons beyond his or her control, directed toward animals rather than toward human partners. Rather, in all but a tiny minority of cases, bestiality is engaged in for other reasons. It may be a substitute or supplemental type of sex outlet, as masturbation is for many persons."</ref>. | |||
| Although sexual interactions with animals is legal in some countries (see: ]), it is not explicitly condoned anywhere today. In most countries, such acts are illegal under ] laws or laws dealing with ]. | |||
| There is currently considerable debate in psychology over whether certain aspects of zoophilia are better understood as a ] or a ].{{Fact|date=August 2008}} | |||
| == Terminology == | |||
| {{Wiktionarypar3|Zoophilia|Zoosexuality|Bestiality|interspecies relationships}} | |||
| 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 ] in his book ] (1886). In ], ] and popular use, it has a variety of meanings, revolving around affinity, affection, or erotic attraction between a human being, and a (non-human) ]. It can refer to either the general emotional-erotic attraction to animals, or (less commonly) to the specific ] ] of the same name.<ref>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."</ref> | |||
| The more recent terms '''''zoosexual''''' and ''''']''''' describe the full spectrum of human/animal ]. A separate term, '''''bestiality''''', refers specifically 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 terms ''']''', signifying the entire spectrum of emotional or sexual attraction and/or ] to animals, and '''zoosexual''' (as in, "a zoosexual " or "a zoosexual act"), have been used since the 1980s (cited by ], 1999). Technical discussion of zoosexuality as a ] in ] 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 ''']rs''' instead. | |||
| The ambiguous term ''']''', usually referring to non-procreative sex,<ref name="sodomy_law">'']'' ruling - "Early American sodomy laws were not directed at homosexuals as such, but instead sought to prohibit non-procreative sexual activity more generally"</ref> is sometimes used in legal contexts to include zoosexual as well as homosexual acts. '''''Zooerasty''''' is an older term, not in common use, for ] sex with animals in a ] manner. In ], 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 ], intimate behavior, ] (rubbing), ], or ] are considered 'bestiality' in all cultures or legal systems, or whether the term implies sexual intercourse or other ] 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, yet some experts{{Who|date=August 2008}} suggest that this terminology might be more appropriate. | |||
| Amongst zoophiles and some researchers,<ref name="bestialist">Masters (1962) uses the term "bestialist" specifically in his discussion of ], 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 ] and works with the ] 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". Williams and Weinberg (2003) found that "elf-defining as a "zoophile" was said by the participants in our study to involve a concern for the animal's welfare and pleasure and an emphasis on consent in the pursuit of sexual gratification. Lacking these elements signified identification as a "bestialist," meaning a person whose sexual interest in animals involves only the human's physical gratification."</ref> the term "bestialist" has acquired a negative connotation implying a lower concern for animal welfare.{{Fact|date=August 2008}} 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. {{Fact|date=February 2007}} | |||
| Finally, "zoosadism" refers to the torture or pain of animals for sexual pleasure, and also includes willfully abusive zoosexual activity.{{Fact|date=September 2008}} | |||
| == Extent of occurrence == | |||
| The extent to which zoophilia occurs is not known with any certainty, largely because feelings which may not have been acted upon can be difficult to quantify, lack of clear divide between non-sexual zoophilia and everyday pet care, and reluctance by most zoophiles to disclose their feelings due to fear of both social and legal persecution. Instead most research into zoophilia has focused on its characteristics, rather than quantifying it.<ref name="kinsey_research">], reviewing the ]s stated that: ''... as for the call for a "]," 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."'' 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.</ref> | |||
| The ]s claim that 40–60% of rural teenagers (living on or near livestock farms) had sexual experience with an animal at some point in their lives, but some later writers consider these uncertain.<ref name="kinsey_research" /> Anecdotally, ]'s 1973 book on ] '']'' comprised around 190 women's contributions; of these, some 8% volunteered a serious interest or active participation in zoosexual activity.<ref name="Nancy_Friday">''Nancy Friday'': - '']'' contains around 190 fantasies: | |||
| * 15 represented zoosexual activity as an actual interest or major fantasy, either past or present: | |||
| ::''Jeanne (p.85), Lisa (p.87), Kate (p.89 **), Jo (p.161), Rosie ( p.163), Dawn (p.163), Wanda (p.163), Raquel (p.168), Felicia (p.195 **), Sonia (p.196), Trudy (p.198:**), Nina (p.202 **: youthful experimentation), Jocelyn (p.279 **), Esther (p.288 **), Anon (p.300)''. <br />(** - actual activity or strong stated interest in actual activity) | |||
| * For a further 8 (23 total = 12%) it was represented as one of multiple 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)'' | |||
| * It should be noted these figures are for sexually interested aspects only. Non-sexual zoophilia is excluded from the above book. | |||
| * Various sources comparing genders in zoophilia, express an expectation that the rate for zoosexual activity in men would be expected to be higher than the rate in women.</ref> | |||
| In one study, psychiatric patients were found to have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55%) of reported bestiality (both actual sexual contacts — 45% — and sexual fantasy — 30%) than the control groups of medical in-patients (10%) and psychiatric staff (15%).<ref name="psych">{{cite journal | author=Alvarez WA, Freinhar JP.| title=A prevalence study of bestiality (zoophilia) in psychiatric in-patients, medical in-patients, and psychiatric staff.| journal=Int J Psychosom.| year=1991| volume=38| issue=1-4| url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=1778686| pages=45–7}}</ref> | |||
| 5.3% of the men surveyed by Crépault and Couture (1980) reported sometimes fantasizing about having sexual activity with an animal during heterosexual intercourse.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Crépault C, Couture M |title=Men's erotic fantasies |journal=Arch Sex Behav |volume=9 |issue=6 |pages=565–81 |year=1980 |pmid=7458662 |doi=}}</ref> 7.5% of 186 university students questioned in a 1982 study said they had sexually touched or had sexual intercourse with an animal.<ref>Story, M. D. (1982). "A comparison of university student experience with various sexual outlets in 1974 and 1980," ''Adolescence'', 17, 737–747. Cited in Earls & Lalumiere (2007).</ref> | |||
| 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.<ref>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.</ref> | |||
| ] 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 ] is cited as an indicator by Massen (1994) and commented on by Masters (1962).<ref name="watching">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...)"</ref> | |||
| == Legal status and ethics == | |||
| {{main|Zoosexuality and the law}} | |||
| In many jurisdictions, all forms of zoosexual acts are prohibited; others outlaw only the mistreatment of animals, without specific mention of sexual activity. Because it is legally unresolved whether sexual relations with animals are inherently "abusive" or "mistreatment", the legal status of zoosexual activity remains unclear in some jurisdictions. | |||
| Laws on zoosexuality in modern times are often triggered by specific incidents or by peer pressure.<ref>In ] USA, the motive for legislation was a "spate of recent cases" , and the Arizona legislator is quoted in that source as stating: | |||
| {{quotation|Arizona appears to be in the minority of states that does not make sex with animals a crime. That doesn't necessarily mean we're wrong. But why shouldn't we be in line with everybody else if the rest of the nation thinks it's a problem?}}</ref> Whilst some laws are very specific, others employ vague terms such as "]" or "bestiality" which lack legal precision and leave it unclear exactly which 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 ], prohibitions, and social ]s. In the past, bestiality laws were mainly put in place for religious reasons and the belief that sex with an animal could result in ] offspring, and were primarily concerned with the offense to community standards.<ref name="posner">Posner, Richard, A Guide to America's Sex Laws, The University of Chicago Press, 1996. ISBN 978-0-226-67564-0. Page 207: | |||
| {{quotation|here is some evidence that bestiality was particularly reviled because of fear that it would produce monsters... At early ], there was no offense of cruelty to animals... The focus of <nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki> statutes is different from that of the traditional sodomy statute; anti-cruelty statutes are concerned with both the treatment of the animal and with the offense to community standards, while anti-bestiality provisions embodied in the sodomy statutes are aimed only at offenses to community standards.}}</ref> | |||
| Currently, the legal status of bestiality varies across the world. In some countries, such as ], and ] bestiality remains legal. In ], the ], much of the ], ] and ], it is completely outlawed. In ], only penetrative acts are illegal. Countries such as ], ] and ] are somewhere in between; they permit sexual activity with animals, but strictly prohibit the promotion of animal-oriented pornography.<ref>Germany: ] (StGB) § 184a </ref> | |||
| Notable legal views include ], where a 2005 report by the ] for the Swedish government expressed strong concerns over the increase in reports of ] incidents. The Swedish Animal Welfare Agency believed current animal cruelty legislation was not sufficient in protecting animals from abuse and needed updating, but concluded that on balance it was not appropriate to call for a ban.<ref>http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=1357</ref> In ], the 1989 Crimes Bill abolished bestiality as a criminal offense, instead viewing it a ] issue.<ref>In New Zealand, Fisher J concluded that "he community is generally now more tolerant and understanding of unusual sexual practices that do not harm others," (''Police v Sheary'' (1991) 7 CRNZ 107 (HC))</ref> Some countries once had laws against single males living with female animals. For example, an old ]vian law allegedly prohibited single males from owning a female ].<ref>''"Strange sex laws"'' page at trivia page on sex laws: "The alpaca (a variety of llama) appears to be the most popular four-legged bedmate for many single Peruvian guys. So prevalent, apparently, is this sexual deviance that an old law still outlaws the activity. Unmarried young men are prohibited from even having a female alpaca live in their homes or apartments." Also cited in April 1997 on '']'' </ref> | |||
| Philosopher and animal liberation author ] 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. | |||
| == 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 ], around 9 - 11, and this seems consistent for both males and females.{{Fact|date=February 2007}} Around half of zoophiles have their first experience of zoosexual activity between the ages of 11 and 14.<ref>"This is especially the case when allied with the young age most of the participants began engaging in such activity, with almost half having had their first experience between 11 and 14 years of age. Fourteen was the median age at which they reported first having sex with animals." (Williams and Weinberg, 2003, p. 529)</ref> ] 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 ], zoophiles may be attracted only to particular species, appearances, personalities or individuals,<ref>Williams and Weinberg (2003) found that its participants often preferred animals of a particular sex, appearance and personality. "We directly asked, 'What makes one animal (within a species) sexier than another?' This time most of the replies seemed to represent the ideal friend — the animal providing empathy, attention, and the sheer joy of companionship. Bob, aged 32, a production engineer, noted 'An animal's personality plays a large part as well.A playful filly would be very sexy while an animal disinterested in life is not.' rom the question 'What makes one animal (in a species) sexier than another,' a frequent response referred to the feral nature of the animal, especially as this was perceived through its physical features. Here the sensual rewards centered on more aesthetic characteristics — strength, grace, posture, sleekness, and the like. All those currently having sex with an equine said it was their most desired species. In contrast, among those currently having sex with a dog, 17% said they would prefer an equine as a partner." Among self-identifying homosexuals, 42% had strong sexual feelings exclusively for male animals, none for female animals, and 58% for animals of both sexes; in heterosexuals, 7% had strong sexual feelings exclusively for male animals, 70% for female animals, and 22% for animals of both sexes; and in bisexuals, 10% had strong sexual feelings exclusively for male animals, 5% for female animals, and 84% for animals of both sexes.</ref> 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. ], unconditional love) that humans often lack,<ref>"When asked 'Is being in love with an animal different than with a human?' approximately three-quarters answered positively. The features the men mentioned were anthropomorphic in that they described ideal human love relationships. Ironically, humans were often seen as less able than animals to provide these ideal human characteristics. The feature they most frequently mentioned was that an animal's love was unconditional." (Williams and Weinberg, 2003, p. 527)</ref> and feel that society's understanding of non-human sexuality is misinformed. Although some feel guilty about their feelings and view them as a problem, others do not feel a need to be constrained by traditional standards in their private relationships.<ref name="zoophiles_views">"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) 93% of participants in Miletski (2003) had no desire to stop having sex with animals.</ref> | |||
| Research suggests that zoophiles have above average empathy. As a group they have a lower level of psychopathy than average, and a higher level of sensation seeking and involvement in animal protection. They also have an above average level of social individualism, which can be either inhibitive (e.g., shyness) or empowering (e.g., independence of thought).<ref>Beetz (2002). Miletski summarizes in ''Introduction to Bestiality and Zoophilia'' (2006; Contemporary Sexuality, 40(12)): "The personality tests Beetz conducted revealed that participants had more difficulties in interpersonal relationships, had the same degree or fewer signs of psychopathy, were more sympathetic and helpful than most people, and had a typical need for control and dominance. Moreover, 34.5 percent of the participants reported being active in animal protection organizations."</ref> | |||
| 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.<ref name="zoophiles_views" /><ref name="ullerstam"> | |||
| 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'."</ref> This situation is similar to "]" and "]" of bisexuality and homosexuality in that thoughts and acts of zoophilia are frowned upon by society. 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 soul mates (most species have far shorter lifespans than humans and zoophiles cannot openly ] or talk about feelings of loss).<ref>For example this description of the loss of a dog to ] kidney disease despite being able to confide in his wife: "I thought I was O.K., and then I burst into tears in the kitchen and couldn't stop crying. I didn't have any idea how much I loved until she was gone. I was depressed for a long time. My work was suffering and my relationship with my wife was suffering. People I knew would make comments that on the surface were quite harmless, but cut me deeply - "You got rid of one of your dogs, didn't you?", and "Look, it was only a dog. You'll get over it!" After I found myself idly wondering how I'd commit suicide (just as an intellectual exercise, you understand), I realized that something had to be done.... Eventually my doctor referred me to a free counseling service.... Eventually I told him of my sexual relationship with . I have to confess that I was expecting him to denounce me and wheel out a straight-jacket. But he surprised me by declaring happily that THAT was the reason I was so feeling so damned rotten. I hadn't lost a dog, I had lost a lover! And I couldn't express that pain to my friends because of the social taboo. Even my wife couldn't fully comprehend the extent of the loss I had suffered. So I was being forced to carry the pain of my loss all alone. That man saved my sanity, and possibly my life." </ref><ref name="support_group">One notable early attempt at creating a zoophile support structure was the ] ''soc.support.zoophilia.'' which was proposed in 1994 but narrowly failed to meet the 2/3 majority needed to be created (actual result=63% ). Its proposed charter stated:- "The purpose... is to provide to the zoophile community a place to exchange information, emotional support, and advice of legal or psychological natures. The newsgroup will be ] to avoid the unwelcome presence of ... 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..." | |||
| </ref> Some of these concerns may be qualitatively similar to historical ] that have been legal or illegal at different times in history. Zoophiles do not usually cite internal conflicts over ] as their major issue, perhaps because zoosexual activity, although seemingly condemned by some religions, is not a major focus of their teachings.{{Fact|date=February 2007}} | |||
| Zoophilic sexual relationships vary, and may be based upon variations of human-style relationships (e.g., ]), animal-style relationships (each make own sexual choices), ] (non-sexual touch, mutual ], closeness), or other combinations. | |||
| Zoophiles may or may not have human partners and families.<ref>"About half of the men said they had a 'strong' sexual interest in humans. (Seventeen percent said this strong interest was directed toward men, 17% toward women, 13% toward both, and the remainder that they did not have a strong sexual interest in either men or women.) Over their lifetime, 9% reported 10 or more women as sex partners (total group median D 4) and 9% reported 10 or more men as sex partners (total group median D 1). Seventeen percent, however, reported never having a human partner of either sex. Further, in the year prior to the interview, three-quarters reported having no heterosexual sex with a human and almost two-thirds no homosexual sex. Over the same period, 12% reported sex with a woman 20 times or more, and the same percent with a man 20 times or more. Over half of those who had sex with a human of either sex reported being 'very satisfied' or 'satisfied' with the experience. But only about a quarter of them said they wished they were having more sex with a human of either sex." (Williams and Weinberg, 2003, 530) 32% of Miletski's (2002) male sample, and 9% of her female sample, were currently married. 12% of the men and 18% of the women were divorced.</ref> Some zoophiles have an affinity or attraction to animals which is secondary to human attraction; for others the ] with animals is primary.<ref>"hen asked to compare their sexual interest in animals and humans, over two-thirds reported that they would rather have sex with an animal than with a human, that sex was 'more satisfying' with animals, and that they thought more about animals than humans when masturbating. About a quarter said that they had an equal preference toward animals and humans, that sex with animals or humans was equally satisfying, and that they were likely to have thought about 'animals and people equally' when masturbating. Only a few reported a stronger preference for humans than animals." (Williams and Weinberg, 2003, 530-531)</ref> ] argues that a scale similar to Kinsey's could be applied for this.<ref name="miletski_orientation">Miletski, Hani: ''"The findings of this question... clearly indicate that different people have different levels of sexual inclination toward animals. "Is there a sexual orientation toward nonhuman animals?" — yes, so it appears...it very clearly shows that some people...have feelings of love and affection for their animals, have sexual fantasies about them, and admit they are sexually attracted to them. Sexual orientation, as we know it, can be fluid and changing with time and circumstances...We can place people on all levels of 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)</ref> 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 ] (as a result of divided loyalties and concealment) or ] within human relationships. 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.<ref>For example, the only woman studied by Williams and Weinberg (2003) was the wife of another zoophile participant.</ref> | |||
| 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 ]ing on property to have sexual contact with animals. This practice, known as ''fence hopping'', is often condemned by other zoophiles.{{Fact|date=August 2007}} | |||
| === Non-sexual zoophilia === | |||
| Although the term is often used to refer to sexual interest in animals, zoophilia is not necessarily sexual in nature. In ] and ] 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", or "An erotic fixation on animals that may result in sexual excitement through real or fancied contact",<ref></ref> | |||
| 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 ] 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 , (memorial, tribute and support sites), by ] "pet memorials", or on sites such as and other ] sites. | |||
| === Zoophiles and other groups === | |||
| Zoophiles are often confused with '']'' or '']s (or "weres")'', that is, people with an interest in ], 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. The size of this group is not known, although a recent survey suggests the figure may be around 18% of furries<ref>The 18% figure stems from , which collected data from 5,700 self-selected furries in 2008. This number differs widely from others which were previously circulated, two of the better known suggesting a small minority, and "anecdotal word" suggesting 5%. The two surveys are '''''' (2000-2002, based on data 1997-98) by David J. Rust, states that of the 360 (325 in person, 35 online) surveys around 2% were self-reported zoophiles. '''''' (2000), commonly referenced in furry sites as a well known survey/] of furries that 28% of his 232 respondents were zoophiles, but emphasizes that "not all were practising" and this was in a specifically zoophile-accepting group. Overall (he states) zoophiles are a minority in the ] ("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.")<br />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 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.</ref>. Expressions of ] and ]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 ] (also known as "Petplay") or ], 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.<ref> See, eg, ''gloria-brame.com'' : "''Animal Training:'' fantasy play in which one partner is an animal trainer and the other is the animal. Ponyplay and dogplay are the two most popular forms this takes. Fantasies including obedience training, exercise training, paper-training (in dogplay), harnessing and riding (in ponyplay), and so on. Other animal roles include cats (especially kittens), tigers, pigs, cows, and worms."</ref> These activities are ] 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.<ref>Online media article in ''The Village Voice'' ("Leather Puppy Love", 2001): "Myths were dispelled (people into puppy play are ''not'' into bestiality) For some, it is pure role-playing with no erotic component, because when a pup is a pup, there is no sexual interaction For others, the pup is always a ''human'' pup capable of frisky human sexual behavior with other pups or their owners" (italics as in original) ; similar views are given on the disclaimers to other animal roleplay sites, such as </ref> They are instead more usually associated with ]. Zoosexual activity is not part of BDSM for most people, and would usually be considered extreme, or ].{{Fact|date=February 2007}} | |||
| === Sciences studying zoophilia=== | |||
| Zoophilia is in the main covered by four sciences: ] (the study of the human ]), ] (the study of ]), ] (the study of ]), and ] (the study of ]). | |||
| The nature of animal minds, animal ]es and structures, and animal ], ], ], and "map of the world", are studied within ] and also explored within various specialized branches of ] such as ]. | |||
| Zoophilia may also be covered to some degree by other (non-science) fields such as ], ], ], ] and ]. It may also be touched upon by ] which looks both at zoosadism in examining patterns and issues related to ] 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 ] if it becomes necessary to consider its significance in a clinical context. | |||
| ==Perspectives on zoophilia== | |||
| === Psychological, psychiatric, and research perspectives === | |||
| The established view in the field of psychology is that zoophilia is a mental disorder. Although ] (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 ] (APA, 1994) subsumed it under the residual classification "]s not otherwise specified", it continues to be defined as a disorder. The ] takes the same position, listing a sexual preference for animals in its ]] as "other disorder of sexual preference".<ref>, F65.8 Other disorders of sexual preference</ref> | |||
| The ] (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the ]) requires that the individual does not receive the diagnosis of zoophilia unless it is accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the individual.<ref>Miletski, H. "Zoophilia -- Implications for Therapy," ''JSET'', 26, 85-86.</ref> 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. | |||
| 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 ] 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)<ref>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"</ref> | |||
| # Most zoophiles have (or have also had) long term human relationships as well or at the same time as zoosexual ones. (Masters, Beetz);<ref name="human_partners">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)."</ref> | |||
| # Society in general at present is considerably misinformed about zoophilia, its stereotypes, and its meaning. (Masters, Miletski, Weinberg, Beetz)<ref name="common_understandings">As described by Beetz (2002) section 5.2.7, after a discussion of common perceptions: | |||
| {{quotation|Peven claimed that zoophiles/bestialists derive pleasure from the defenselessness of the animal or victim, like necrophiles or pedophiles. They '...have failed completely at the challenge of relationships, have given up all hope of equality, and have rejected society and the social field entirely. They apparently have lost all hope of mutually satisfying cooperative sexual pleasure.'}} | |||
| 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)."</ref> | |||
| # 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 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,<ref>Masters, in 1962, wrote: | |||
| {{quotation|Where ] is not present, there is considerable room for doubt as to whether there is any cruelty. It has always been noted in fact, by ancient historians and up through Kinsey in our own time, that animals tend to become affectionately attached (not only physically) to humans who have sex relations with them, and sometimes have even been known to forsake intercourse with their own kind in testimony to their preference for relations with humans. Whatever one may think of bestiality, this does not sound as if it were an act of cruelty so far as the animal is concerned.}} | |||
| And ultimately speculated that: | |||
| {{quotation|One seems forced to conclude, the animal derives a considerable psychical and/or emotional pleasure from sexual contact with a being of a higher nervous, emotional, and intellectual organization, who is somehow able to provide the animal with non-material rewards which another animal is not able to offer.}} | |||
| 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 ] beforehand, to the point that "one can find instructions on how to tell if the animal is in the mood for sex."</ref> the thesis of psychological research that zoosexuality is closer to a sexual orientation than a sexual fetish, and the supposition that science apparently is closing in on confirming the capacity for authentic ], and their enjoyment and choice of actions (including sex) driven by an internal feeling that certain things are pleasurable.<ref>] ''"]"'' (2006) discusses the "possibility of positive feelings in creatures," including "play, sex, touch, food, anticipation, comfort, aesthetics, and more." In response the President and CEO of the ] (HSUS) comments about recognition of animal emotion: "Dr. Balcombe convincingly argues that animals are individual beings with a wide range of emotions and feeling. If he is correct — and I believe he is — it follows that we must grapple with the ethical consequences of his important insights." <br />(The common ] that only a few species such as dolphins have sex for pleasure is discussed more fully under the article ])</ref> | |||
| === Religious perspectives=== | |||
| Several organized religions take a critical or sometimes condemnatory view of zoophilia or zoosexual activity, with some variation and exceptions. | |||
| Passages in ] (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 ], ], and ] theologians as categorical denunciation of bestiality. Some theologians (especially Christian<ref name="christianview">In Judaism and Islam, having desirous sexual thoughts is not considered, theologically, a major sin. In Judaism it is subsumed within the category of '']'', as a failing of emotional control (Judaism focuses more on wrongful acts than wrongful thoughts in its theology). Christianity often takes a notably more rigid line in this area; compare ] ] "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."</ref>) extend this, to consider ]ful thoughts for an animal as a sin, and the Christian theologian ] described it along with homosexuality as the worst sexual sins "because use of the right sex is not observed." | |||
| Views of zoophilia's seriousness in ] seem to cover a wide spectrum. This may be because it is not explicitly mentioned or prohibited in the ], or because sex and sexuality were not treated as ] 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 ] and ]ism (Bouhdiba: Sexuality in Islam, Ch.4 ). | |||
| ] devoted to the deity ] ]] | |||
| A book "]", cited on the Internet, which quotes the ] ] approving of sex with animals under certain conditions, is unconfirmed and possibly a forgery.<ref>The cite itself is widespread,<sup> </sup> however it is contested whether such a fourth volume of Tahrirolvasyleh ever in fact existed (see ] 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.</ref> 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 ] scriptures to religious figures engaging in sexual activity with animals such as explicit depictions of people having sex with animals included amongst the thousands of sculptures of "Life events" on the exterior of the ] at ]. 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. | |||
| ] 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 ], ], ], or ]. Various sexual activities, including those with animals, are expressly forbidden for Buddhist monks and nuns. | |||
| ===Animal studies perspectives=== | |||
| {{Main|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. ] such as ] 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 ] (1948, 1953) concurs.<ref>Kinsey ''et al.'' (1948, p. 668) states "When one examines the observed cases of such crosses... one begins to suspect that the rules about intraspecific mating are not so universal as tradition would have it". Kinsey ''et al.'' (1953) further point out that genetic studies have shown the existence of a "large number" of inter-specific hybrids, that have occurred in the wild. (Cited: Miletski, 1999, p.51)</ref> Peter Singer reports of one such incident witnessed by ] (a notable ethologist considered by many the world's foremost authority on ]): | |||
| {{quotation|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.|}} | |||
| === 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." {{Derefer|1=http://www.nmanimalcontrol.com/aco_fo/sex_abuse/ }} | |||
| ], PhD. in her book "Love, Violence, and Sexuality in Relationships between Humans and Animals" (2002) reports: "In most 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 ]'s article , which controversially argued that zoosexual activity need not be abusive and if so relationships could form which were mutually enjoyed, ], then president of the ] ] group ], added this endorsement: "If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you ] 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, it may not be wrong." | |||
| A few years later, Newkirk wrote to the editor of the Canada Free Press in response to a , 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 " | |||
| Dr. LaFarge, an assistant professor of Clinical Psychiatry at the New Jersey Medical School, who is the Director of Counseling at the ] and works with the ] correctional system, is quoted in a media article (1999) as reporting that: | |||
| {{quotation|it's important to make the distinction because zoophiles try not to hurt their animals...}} | |||
| {{quotation|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.}} | |||
| It is also reported<ref name="Hustler_2001">Quoted in "Animal Attractions", Hustler, Sept 2001, </ref> that: | |||
| {{quotation|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 . "For instance, they allow a dog to become dehydrated so he will lick almost constantly.}} | |||
| ] (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 ], the sexual enjoyment of killing animals (similar to "]" 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 ], and ] on immature animals such as puppies. Some ] 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: '']'') | |||
| Sexology information sites (if sufficiently detailed) are usually careful to distinguish zoosadism from zoophilia: and . | |||
| ===Historical and cultural perspectives=== | |||
| {{main|Historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia}} | |||
| Prior to and outside the influence of the major ]s (], ], ]), 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." <ref> For example, a cave painting from at least 8000 BC in the Northern Italian ] (specific location: "Coren del Valento"), and commented on by Raymond Christinger, "depicts a man complete with full ] 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." ] for a ] author: Abuses Aberrations and Crimes of the Genital Sense, 1901.]</ref> In recorded history, "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."<ref>Masters, "Prehistory of bestiality", part of his 1962 paper, 1966 edition</ref> It was often incorporated into religious ritual. | |||
| Some cultures, principally in the ] and ], were more open about sexuality than the West, whilst in others (for example herding and nomadic cultures in parts of ] and the ]) it was considered a normal phase that most ]s went through but adults usually outgrew. Several cultures built temples (], ]) or other structures (], ], ]) 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, ] and ] of the ] and ], in which some authors estimate that several hundreds of thousands died.<ref>Masters (1962) reports: "Beasts were specially trained to copulate with women: if the girls or women were unwilling then the animal would attempt rape. A surprising range of creatures was used for such purposes - bulls, giraffes, leopards, cheetahs, wild boar, zebras, stallions, jackasses, huge dogs, apes, etc. The beasts were taught how to copulate with a human being either via the ] or via the ]."</ref> Representations of scenes from the sexual lives of the gods, such as ], were highly popular, often causing extreme suffering, injury or death. On occasion, the more ferocious beasts were permitted to kill and (if desired) ] afterwards.<ref>R.E.L. Masters, "The Prostitutes In Society"</ref> Being sentenced to ] by dogs and horses as a method of ] punishment or ] also occurred in the ]{{Fact|date=December 2007}}. | |||
| In the Church-oriented culture of the ], 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 ] and a degradation of man".<ref>Masters (1962): "Theologians, bowing to Biblical prohibitions and basing their judgements on the conception of man as a spiritual being and of the animal as a merely carnal one, have regarded the same phenomenon as both a violation of Biblical edicts and a degradation of man, with the result that the act of bestiality has been castigated and ]tized "</ref> | |||
| In the 18th century, the ] took much that had been under the field of religion, and brought it under the field of science. As with ] a variety of mixed views resulted<ref>Views 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 ].</ref> which persisted through until around 1950, when researchers such as ] followed by ] began researching sexuality and sexually fringe topics (including zoophilia) on their own terms. | |||
| == Health and safety == | |||
| {{main|Zoophilia and health}} | |||
| Infections that are transmitted from animals to humans are called ]. Some zoonoses may be transferred through casual contact, but others are much more readily transferred by activities that expose humans to the ], vaginal fluids, ], ], ] and blood of animals. Examples of zoonoses are ], ], ], and ]. Therefore sexual activity with animals is, in some instances, a high risk activity. ] to animal semen may occur, including ]. Bites and other trauma from penetration or trampling may occur. | |||
| == Arguments about zoophilia or zoosexual relations == | |||
| ] 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 religious, moral, ethical, psychological, medical and social arguments. They include: | |||
| {{Fact|date=August 2007}} | |||
| * "Let bestiality be legal and sexual activity between adults and children will be legal" | |||
| * "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: ])'' | |||
| * "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)<ref>The HSUS states: | |||
| {{quotation|In his 1993 article, Dr. Frank Ascione stated that 'bestiality may be considered cruel even in cases when physical harm to an animal does not occur (this is similar to the case of adult sexual activity with a child where consent is presumed to be impossible).' This is because animals are unable to be fully informed, communicate consent, or to speak out about their abuse. In a 1997 article, Piers Beirne, Professor of Criminology at the University of Southern Maine, points out that 'for genuine consent to sexual relations to be present...both participants must be conscious, fully informed and positive in their desires'.}} | |||
| {{quotation|Bestiality is by nature sexual coercion because animals are incapable of genuinely saying 'yes' or 'no' to humans in forms we can readily understand.}} {{Derefer|1=http://www.nmanimalcontrol.com/aco_fo/sex_abuse/}} | |||
| 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)</ref> | |||
| * "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."<ref>As cited elsewhere, 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." {{Derefer|1=http://www.nmanimalcontrol.com/aco_fo/sex_abuse/}}</ref> | |||
| * "Animals mate instinctively to produce offspring (or: only have sex for reproduction), hence they are deceived when these activities are performed." (this reason is somewhat disputed due to research by the Bronx Zoo suggesting that some apes copulate for entertainment.)<ref>The common assertion that animals "only have sex for reproduction" is discussed in depth by the ] website ]. In summary, the assertion is true, but ''only for a very limited and "very specific definition" of "sex for pleasure" based upon "many seemingly artificial distinctions"'': The myth assumes that sex cannot both be biologically imperative ''and'' pleasurable, and considers sex only pleasurable if it takes place at arbitrary times during the year, discounting sex as "unpleasurable" if linked to a reproductive cycle or incapable of reproduction, as well as if any explanation can be suggested which removes the need to assume pleasure is gained. (See ]). Source .</ref> | |||
| * "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 ] review on sexual offences, 2002)<ref>http://www.archive2.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm56/5668/5668.pdf (section 79, p.33)</ref> | |||
| * "It offends human dignity<ref name="argument_from_dignity">An example of ''argument from human dignity'' is given by Wesley J. Smith, a senior fellow and ] proponent at the ] of the conservative Christian ]: - "such behavior is profoundly degrading and utterly subversive to the crucial understanding that human beings are unique, special, and of the highest moral worth in the known universe--a concept known as ']' ... one of the reasons bestiality is condemned through law is that such degrading conduct unacceptably subverts standards of basic human dignity and is an affront to humankind's inestimable importance and intrinsic moral worth." and </ref> or is forbidden by religious law." | |||
| * "It can actually damage the animals', or their owners', reputations, and have them ostracised or ]." <ref>http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/Aids_Focus/0,,2-7-659_1161152,00.html "No one wants anything to do with their meat or milk. I'm going to have to destroy my goats."</ref> | |||
| Defenders of zoophilia or zoosexuality state that: | |||
| * "'Natural' is debatable; it's also not necessarily relevant." ''(ie, ])'' | |||
| * Cross species sex does sometimes occur in nature (e.g. ) | |||
| * "Animals are capable of sexual consent - and even initiation - in their own way."<ref>Miltski, 1999, p.50: "it is not an uncommon practice for dogs to hump on the legs of people of both genders, and to perform coital movements (Cauldwell, 1948 & 1968; Queen, 1997). Rosenberger (1968) emphasizes that as far as cunnilingus is concerned, dogs require no training, and even Dekkers (1994) and Menninger (1951) admit that sometimes animals take the initiative and do so impulsively."</ref><ref name="beetz_solicitation">Beetz 2002, section 5.2.8: "Animals sometimes even seem to enjoy the sexual attention (Blake, 1971, Greenwood, 1963, both cited in Miletski, 1999) or to initiate it (Dekkers, 1994). Animal owners normally know, what their own pets like or do not like. And as long as there is no sexuality involved people most probably would agree, that an animal moving away when petted, does not like it and does not consent to being petted, while an animal, that stays, pushes against the hand, and seems to enjoy it, gives consent to being petted. Owners know also other preference of their pets without having to use force..."</ref><ref name="Einsenhaim_solicitation">Beetz 2002, section 5.2.8: "Dogs wag their tail to express consent (Einsenhaim, 1971, cited in Katmandu, 2004)"</ref> | |||
| * "Animals do form mutual relationships with humans." | |||
| * "Research shows the majority of zoophiles appear to have human partners and relationships;<ref name="human_partners" /> many others simply do not have a ] to humans." | |||
| * "Many zoophiles have an attraction to species which are relatively inaccessible, such as ]; 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."<ref>Beetz (2002), ''Love Sex and Violence with Animals'', section 5.2.8: "In most references to bestiality violence towards the animal is automatically implied. That sexual approaches to animals may not need force or violence but rather a sensitivity or knowledge of animal behavior... is rarely taken into consideration." Beetz also states there is significant evidence that violent zoosadistic approaches to sex with animals, often characterized by "binding, roping, threatening, beating", are linked to "violent behavior" and could be a "rehearsal for human-directed violence", however she notes ''inter alia'' that in existing research " never explicit questions about the degree of violence used had been asked."</ref><ref>Beetz 2002, section 5.2.8: "It is possible, that animals are traumatized even by a non-violent, sexual approach from a human. However, if the approach is conducted with kindness and care and ceased the animal shows signs of discomfort, such as zoophiles describe ideal sexual interactions with animals, no such trauma should result..."</ref> | |||
| * "Instinct does not exclude enjoyment, volition or learning." | |||
| * "Animal and human ] 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. ] 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'."<ref name="neutering.org">See , an advocative site discussing the view that spay and neuter, far from helping animals, is a lazy and harmful way to manage sexuality and is practiced more for its human convenience than because of its ethical appropriateness. Also see subpage (adult content/parental tagged) for alternatives.</ref> | |||
| * "Both male and female domestic animals of several species can experience the physical sensation of ], and can unambiguously solicit and demonstrate appreciation for it in their body language. Animals of many species also ], even if other sexual partners are accessible."<ref name="animal_masturbation">See ] for more information on animal's sexuality, and both male and female masturbation in the animal kingdom and natural world.</ref><ref name="beetz_solicitation" /> | |||
| * "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). ]'']<ref>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." </ref> | |||
| 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. {{Fact|date=June 2008}} | |||
| 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 ] in general, or who know little about zoophilia, often regard it as an extreme form of ] and/or indicative of serious psychosexual issues.<ref name="herek_ATLG">The finding that attitudes to alternate sexualities correlate strongly with nature of contact and beliefs, is stated in a variety of research into zoophilia and also mirrored in ], which have been more thoroughly researched over a longer time period. Thus Herek, who established the Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale in psychology, states ''"The ATLG and its subscales are consistently correlated with other theoretically-relevant constructs. Higher scores (more negative attitudes) correlate significantly with high religiosity, lack of contact with gay men and lesbians, adherence to traditional sex-role attitudes, belief in a traditional family ideology, and high levels of dogmatism (Herek, 1987a, 1987b, 1988, 1994; Herek & Glunt, 1993; Herek & Capitanio, 1995, 1996)"'' , and that ''"the strongest predictor of positive attitudes toward homosexuals was that the interviewee knew a gay man or lesbian. The correlation held across each demographic subset represented in the survey--sex, education level, age--bar one: political persuasion. "'' </ref> Mental health professionals and personal acquaintances of zoophiles who see their relationships over time tend to be less critical, and sometimes supportive.<ref name="herek_ATLG" /> '']'' who study and understand animal behaviour and body language, have documented animal sexual advances to human beings and ], 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.<ref>''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 ] 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.'' {{cite book | last = Beckoff | first = Marc | title = The Emotional Lives of Animals | publisher = New World Library |date=2007 | pages = xix,129-130 | isbn = 1-57731-502-2 }}</ref> 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== | |||
| <!-- Unsourced image removed: ] copulating with a goat; marble sculpture from the ancient city of ]]] --> | |||
| ] and the Bull'' by ], c. 1869]] | |||
| From cave paintings onward and throughout human history, zoophilia has been a recurring subject in art, literature, and fantasy. | |||
| In ]ic mythology, the god ] is said to have impregnated a ] to sire a young bull god. In ], ] appeared to ] in the form of a ], and her children ] and ] resulted from that sexual union. Zeus also seduced ] in the form of a ], and carried off the youth ] in the form of an eagle. The half-human/half-bull ] was the offspring of Queen ] and a white bull. King ] continued to seduce the nymph ] despite her transforming into (among other forms) a lion, a bird, and a snake. The god ], often depicted with goat-like features, has also been frequently associated with animal sex.{{Fact|date=February 2007}} As with other subjects of ] mythology, some of these have been depicted over the centuries since, in western painting and sculpture. In ], ] had intercourse with a stallion, in the form of a mare, and gave birth to ]. The ], a ] ] from the ], contains a number of ]s, some of which depict Zoophilia.{{Fact|date=February 2007}} | |||
| Fantasy literature has included a variety of seemingly zoophilic examples, often involving human characters enchanted into animal forms: '']'' (a young woman falls in love with a physically beast-like man), ]'s '']'' (Queen Titania falls in love with a character whose head is transformed into that of a donkey's), '']'' (a princess champions a man enchanted into ape form, among many other examples), the ] ]'s '']'' (explicit sexuality between a woman and a man who had been transformed into a donkey), and ]'s '']'' (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 ] fixating on a human woman, alien monsters groping human females in pulp novels and comics, and depictions of ] in Japanese ] and ].{{Fact|date=February 2007}} | |||
| ]'', an 1820 ] woodcut depicting a woman dreaming of a sexual encounter with a pair of ].]] | |||
| Modern erotic ] 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 ] and ]s in '']'', or ] in fantasy fiction. Animals and ], when shown in furry art, are usually shown engaged with others of similar kind, rather than humans.{{Fact|date=February 2007}} | |||
| == 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 (]) updated its code stating that: | |||
| {{quotation|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 ...}} | |||
| {{quotation|OFCOM sets out a ] 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.<ref></ref>}} | |||
| The contrasting views between cultures are highlighted by the case of '']'', a ] ], which was simultaneously the subject of a raid by ] police for pornographic depiction of bestiality (as noted, furry art is not usually considered "bestiality"), and the subject of praise by the (now defunct) ] Indecent Publications Tribunal for its mature depiction of relationships and sexuality. | |||
| References to zoosexual activity or bestiality are not uncommon in some media, especially ] series such as ] ''(episode: "]")'' and ] ''(])'', ] such as ], and films (especially shock ]s), although a few broadcasters such as ] (who joked about bestiality dial-a-date on NBC) and ] (whose ] 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.{{Fact|date=February 2007}} In literature, American novelist ] refers to a photo of a woman attempting sexual intercourse with a Shetland Pony in '']'', '']'', and '']'', while ]'s novel '']'' repeatedly mentions a pornographic photograph depicting oral sex on a pony. | |||
| In ] Randal orders a ] as a going away present for his best friend Dante, in which it is referred to as "interspecies erotica" by the male performer. | |||
| == Pornography == | |||
| {{Refimprove|date=August 2007}} | |||
| ].]] | |||
| {{Main articles|Obscenity|Pornography|Legal status of Internet pornography}} | |||
| ] involving sex with animals is widely illegal, even in most countries where the act itself is not explicitly outlawed. In the ], zoosexual pornography (in common with other pornography) would be considered ] if it did not meet the standards of the ] 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 ]. Production and mere possession appear to be legal, however. U.S. prohibitions on distribution of sexual or obscene materials are ] in some doubt, having been ruled ] in '']'' (a judgement which was overturned on ], December 2005). Similar restrictions apply in Germany (see ]). In ] the possession, making or distribution of material promoting bestiality is illegal. | |||
| Using animal fur or ] in erotic photography doesn't seem to be ], 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 ]s was seen from the start of the era of ]. ''Polissons and Galipettes'' (re-released 2002 as "]") is a collection of early ] silent films for brothel use, including some animal pornography, dating from around 1905 – 1930. | |||
| Material featuring sex with animals is widely available on the ], due to their ease of production, and because production and sale is legal in countries such as the ] and ]. Prior to the advent of mass-market full-color glossy magazines such as ], so-called ]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.<ref>An example digitized Tijuana Bible entitled ''The Pet'' from the 1960s is linked at (also see and ).</ref> | |||
| The promotion of "stars" began with the Danish ], in the period of 1969–72, along with other porn actors such as the Americans ] (''Dogarama'', 1969), ] (multiple films, c. 1994), Kerri Downs (three films, 1998) and Calina Lynx (aka Kelly G'raffe) (two films, 1998). Another early film to attain great infamy was "]", smuggled into ] around 1980 without details as to makers or provenance.<ref name="animal_farm_documentary">''The Search for Animal Farm'' (documentary, part of the ] series) (April 2006, Channel 4, UK): - ''"Investigates the story behind one of the most infamous films in porn history, and reveals how it came to be made."'' The film was smuggled into ] around 1970. No one was quite sure where the film came from or how it was made. The Search for Animal Farm traced the people who made the film, the impact it had on Britain's porn industry and the woman who became known for a time as 'the queen of bestiality'. . The film was later traced to a crude juxtaposition of smuggled cuts from many of Bodil Joensen's 1970s Danish movies.</ref> Into the 1980s the ] took the lead, creating figures like "Wilma" and the "Dutch Sisters". In 1980s, "bestiality" was featured in ] adult films with actresses like Denise Dior, Francesca Ray, and ], manifested early in the softcore flick ''Bestialità'' in 1976. | |||
| Today, in ], where production faces no legal limitations, zoosexual materials have become a substantial industry that produces numerous films and magazines, particularly for ] companies such as ''Topscore'' and ''Book & Film International'', and the ] has stars such as "Hector" (a ] starring in several films). Many Hungarian (Suzy Spark, Silvi Anderson et al) and ]n (Pantera aka Jordan Elliot, various girls filmed by ''Club Seventeen'') mainstream performers also appeared anonymously in animal pornography in their early careers.<ref>For example: (horsebang.com, beasthunt.com) who currently assigns most of her work to ] in ]. ''Club Seventeen'' is a label of the Dutch pornographic company '']'', specialising in "barely legal" teens. </ref> | |||
| In ], animal pornography is used to bypass censorship laws, often featuring Japanese and Russian female models performing ] on non-human animals, because oral penetration of a non-human penis is not in the scope of Japanese mosaic censor. ] is an ] known to have appeared in animal pornography, specifically in the AV ''The Dog Game'' in 2006. ] is also a substantial producer of animal pornography, many films featuring "]s". While primarily underground, there are a number of animal pornography actresses who specialize in bestiality movies. A box-office success of the 1980s, '']'', with Mexican pornstar Juanita Chong featured zoophilia. | |||
| The UK Government has announced plans to criminalise possession of images depicting sex with animals (see ]), which would include fake images and simulated acts, as well as images depicting sex with dead animals, where no crime has taken place in the production. | |||
| Pornography of this sort has become the business of certain ] such as ] and owners of some fake ]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 ], in the same sense as the ] or any other ] 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 ] 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 ], 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 ]s of people who knew each other by chance. As with many other ], broader networks began forming in the 1980s when networked social groups became more common at home and elsewhere, and as the ] and its predecessors came into existence, permitting people to search for topics and information in areas which were not otherwise easily accessible and to talk with relative safety and anonymity. The popular<ref>According to from 1994, 61% of newsgroup sites carried ASB, and "was 50<sup>th</sup> in order of estimated readers, and about 140<sup>th</sup> 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 ASB was "in the top 1%" of newsgroup interest, ie 50 out of around 5000.</ref> (top 1%) ] '']'' (reputedly started in humor<ref>Miletski 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."</ref>), personal ]s and ]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 ]s and ]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 ] show ("I married a horse", 1998, pulled before viewing), which was followed by the 1999-2000 ] 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 ] was created, known as the ], intended as a shorthand "]" for zoophiles to describe themselves, their ], and their stances on certain common issues such as ] and ]. It achieved some degree of popularity for a time and is still occasionally encountered today, having also been translated into ] and ]. | |||
| 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 withdrew<ref name="GAFIAted">This is an established and common pattern in other ] and subcultures too, as people (typically in their 30's) develop more diverse ] lives or commitments over time. Often they return from time to time, or retain an irreglar presence; sometimes they leave the net completely. See ].</ref> from the online community, perceiving the risks and benefits to no longer be worth it, as they already had sufficient ] 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" ] too, especially following the increasing popularity of ] and an ] 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 ]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.<ref name="support_group" /> | |||
| == Books, articles and documentaries about zoophilia== | |||
| === Academic and professional === | |||
| * Anil Aggrawal.: ''Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices'' (2008), CRC Press, Boca Raton, ISBN 9781420043082; ISBN 10: 1420043080 | |||
| * Andrea Beetz Ph.D.: ''Bestiality and Zoophilia'' (2005), ISBN 978-1-55753-412-5 | |||
| * Andrea Beetz Ph.D.: ''Love, Violence, and Sexuality in Relationships between Humans and Animals'' (2002), ISBN 978-3-8322-0020-6 | |||
| * Belliotti, R.A: ''Good Sex: Perspectives on Sexual Ethics'', 1993, University Press of Kansas. ISBN 978-0-7006-0605-4 | |||
| * Christopher M. Earls and Martin L. Lalumiere: ''A Case Study of Preferential Bestiality (Zoophilia)'', 2007, Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14(1), 83-88. | |||
| * Professors Colin J. Williams and Martin S. Weinberg: ''Zoophilia in Men: a study of sexual interest in animals'' in: Archives of sexual behavior, Vol. 32, No.6, December 2003, pp. 523-535 | |||
| * Davis and Whitten: ''The Cross-Culture Study of Human Sexuality'' (Annual Review of Anthropology 1987, Volume 16, pp. 69-98), ISSN 0084-6570 | |||
| * Ellison, Alfred, ''Sex Between Humans & Animals: The Psycho-Mythic Meaning of Bestiality'', San Diego: Academy Press, 1970. | |||
| * Gunther Hunold Ph.D.: ''Abarten des Sexualverhaltens: Ungewohnliche Ersheinungsformen des Trieblebens (Perverse Sexual Behaviour)'' (1978) | |||
| * Hani Miletski Ph.D.: ''Bestiality - Zoophilia: An exploratory study'', Diss., The Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality. - San Francisco, CA, October 1999 | |||
| ** Hani Miletski Ph.D.: ''Bestiality/zoophilia - An exploratory study,'' 2000, Scandinavian Journal of Sexology, 3(4), 149-150. | |||
| * Hani Miletski Ph.D.: ''Understanding Bestiality and Zoophilia'', 2002, available at () | |||
| * Hans Hentig Ph.D.: ''Soziologie der Zoophilen Neigung (Sociology of the Zoophile Preference)'' (1962) | |||
| * Harris, Edwin. ''Animals as Sex Partners'', 1969 | |||
| * ], ''Studies in the psychology of sex, Vol. V'' (1927) ch.4<br> covering Animals as Sources of Erotic Symbolism--Mixoscopic Zoophilia--Erotic Zoophilia--Zooerastia--Bestiality--The Conditions that Favor Bestiality--Its Wide Prevalence Among Primitive Peoples and Among Peasants--The Primitive Conception of Animals--The Goat--The Influence of Familiarity with Animals--Congress Between Women and Animals--The Social Reaction Against Bestiality. | |||
| * Josef Massen: ''Zoophilie - Die sexuelle Liebe zu Tieren (Zoophilia - the sexual love of/for animals)'' (1994), ISBN 978-3-930387-15-1 | |||
| * Kahn, Richard. Zoophilia and Bestiality: Cross-cultural Perspectives. In Marc Bekoff (ed.), ''Encyclopedia of Human-Animal Relationships''. Greenwood Press, (2007). | |||
| * Lindzey, A. "On Zoophilia". ''The Animals' Agenda'', Westport: May/Jun 2000. Vol. 20, Iss. 3; p. 29. | |||
| * Mandetta and Gustaveson: ''Abortion to Zoophilia: A Sourcebook of Sexual Facts'' (1976), ISBN 978-0-89055-114-1 | |||
| * Podberscek, Anthony L, Elizabeth S. Paul, James A. Serpell eds. ''Companion Animals and Us : Exploring the Relationships between People and Pets'', Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-63113- | |||
| * R.E.L. Masters Ph.D.: ''Forbidden Sexual Behaviour and Morality, an objective examination of perverse sex practices in different cultures'' (1962), ISBN LIC #62-12196 | |||
| * R.E.L. Masters Ph.D.: ''Sexual Obsession: An autobiographical approach to the problem of the sex-dominated personality'', 1969, New York: Paperback Library. | |||
| * Roland Grassberger Ph.D.: ''Die Unzucht mit Tieren (Sex with Animals)'' (1968) | |||
| * S. Dittert, O. Seidl and M. Soyka: ''Zoophilie zwischen Pathologie und Normalität: Darstellung dreier Kasuistiken und einer Internetbefragung (Zoophilia as a special case of paraphilia: presentation of three case reports and an Internet survey)'' - in: Der Nervenarzt : Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychiatrie, Psychotherapie und Nervenheilkunde; Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Neurologie, 2004, June 10 2004 () | |||
| === Other books === | |||
| * Midas Dekkers: ''Dearest Pet: On Bestiality'', ISBN 978-1-85984-310-9 | |||
| * Mark Matthews: ''The Horseman: Obsessions of a Zoophile'', ISBN 978-0-87975-902-5<br> (German translation: ''Der Pferde-Mann'', 2nd Print 2004, ISBN 978-3-8334-0864-9) | |||
| * Marjorie B. Garber: ''Dog Love'', ISBN 978-0-641-04272-0 | |||
| * Brenda Love: ''The Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices'' (1994), ISBN 978-1-56980-011-9 | |||
| * Nancy Friday: ''My Secret Garden'' (ISBN 978-0-671-01987-7), ''Forbidden Flowers'' (ISBN 978-0-671-74102-0), "Women on Top" (ISBN 978-0-671-64844-2), notable for readability, and neutral treatment of a wide scope of women's sexuality including zoophilia. | |||
| * Raymond A. Belliotti: ''Good Sex; perspectives on sexual ethics'' (1993), ISBN 978-0-7006-0604-7 or ISBN 978-0-7006-0605-4 | |||
| * Bram Dijkstra: ''Idols of Perversity: Fantasies of Feminine Evil in Fin-De-Siecle Culture'', zoophilic art | |||
| * Gaston Dubois-Dessaule: ''Etude sur la bestialité au point de vue historique, médical et juridique (The Study of Bestiality from the Historical, Medical and Legal Viewpoint)'' (Paris, 1905) | |||
| * A.F. Neimoller: | |||
| ** ''Bestiality and the Law: A Resume of the Law and Punishments for Bestiality with Typical Cases from Fifteenth Century to the Present'' (1946) | |||
| ** ''Bestiality in Ancient and Modern Times: A Study of the Sexual Relations of Man and Animals in All Times and Countries'' (1946) | |||
| * Marie-Christine Anest: ''Zoophilie, homosexualite, rites de passage et initiation masculine dans la Greece contemporaine'' (Zoophilia, homosexuality, rites of passage and male initiation in contemporary Greece)'' (1994), ISBN 2-7384-2146-6 | |||
| * Gaston Dubois-Desaulle: ''Bestiality: An Historical, Medical, Legal, and Literary Study'', University Press of the Pacific (November 1, 2003), ISBN 978-1-4102-0947-4 (Paperback Ed.) | |||
| * Robert Hough: ''The Final Confession Of ]'' (Stark was the world's premier tiger trainer of the 1920s, specializing in highly sexualized circus acts. She wore white outfits to hide the tiger's semen during mating rituals and foreplay, which the audience took to be vicious attacks.) | |||
| * Otto Soyka: ''Beyond the Boundary of Morals'' | |||
| === Print and online media === | |||
| * ''The Joy Of Beasts'' (3 December 2000, Independent on Sunday, UK) | |||
| * '''' (2001, Peter Singer ) | |||
| * ''Laying with Beasts'' (March 1996, ) | |||
| * ''Sexual Contact With Animals '' (October 1977, Pomeroy Ph.D.) (co-author of the ]) | |||
| * '''' (1999, RiverFront Times, discussing the British documentary and Missouri's legislation) | |||
| * '''' (May 2004) "Tanya Gold, reviewing the Edward Albee play, finds that love affairs with pets are not as unusual as you'd think" | |||
| * '''' (July 2005, ) | |||
| * '''' (2006, Steven Rinella, published on ) | |||
| * '''' (September 2001, '']'') | |||
| ===Notable cases=== | |||
| * ''Sudan man forced to 'marry' goat'' (], Friday, 24 February 2006, 16:40 GMT ) | |||
| * ''Man dies after sex with horse'' (News24, 19/07/2005 07:54 - (SA)) | |||
| === Film, television and radio === | |||
| {{Advert|date=August 2008}} | |||
| {{Citations missing|section|date=September 2008}} | |||
| * ''Coming Soon'' (2006, Sir Tijn Po, released by ):: Won a special award for "Originality and Support for Suppressed Minorities" at the Festivalu Finále Plzeň, where it premiered. The film takes the form of a documentary about E.F.A., the world's first zoophile-rights organization, thereby exploring "civilization's eternal quest for the perfect balance between love, tolerance, morality, censorship, tradition, experimentation, etc." The film had its international premiere at Berlin's Kino Babylon (Mitte) on Good Friday, 2008. The World-Wide Premiere of the Director's Cut, as well as the official DVD launch, started on Independence Day, July 4th, 2008. The premiere is still taking place on-line at http://www.comingsoon.cz where the entire film is streaming free of charge and is Equally Accessible to All! , | |||
| * ''Animal passions'' (part of the Hidden Love series) (1999, follow-up sequel 2004, Channel 4, UK): Ofcom reported that: "This was a serious documentary exploring a rare minority sexual orientation. Although the programme gave an opportunity for zoophiles to express their opinions, the effect was neither to sensationalise nor normalise their behaviour." | |||
| * ''Sexe et confidences'' (April 2002, CBSC Decision C01/02-329, Canada): Hour-long sex information program hosted by sexologist Louise-Andrée Saulnier discussing zoosexuality. Covered folklore, academic studies and general information, plus telephone call-in from viewers describing their zoosexual experiences and stories they had heard. | |||
| * ''Talk Sport Radio'' (December 2002, UK): Live talkshow interview with lifelong zoophile, followed by call-in discussion. | |||
| * ''Animal Love'' (1995, Ulrich Seidl, Austria) | |||
| * The animated series '']'' features a character named ], who frequently shows traits of zoophilia. | |||
| * '']'' (2007), a documentary of the life and death of ], and those who came to ] for a similar reason. One of 16 out of 856 candidates awarded a place at the ] 2007. | |||
| * '']'' (also known as ''<nowiki>'Stay'</nowiki>''):A romantic comedy in which a girl's engagement is heavily tested when she confesses to her fiance that when younger she performed ] on her dog . | |||
| *'']'':There is a scene where Randall, Dante, Jay, Silent Bob, and Elias sit in the Mooby's as they watch the "Sexy Stud" perform oral sex on "Kinky Kelly", a donkey, then ultimately stands up, when finished, and then begins to sodomize the animal. After the group is put in the ] for the night, the "Sexy Stud" explains that the viewers won't face any jail time and that he'll receive a fine for animal cruelty. "The Sexy Stud" also refers to Zoophilia as "Interspecies Erotica". | |||
| ==See also== | |||
| {{multicol}} | |||
| {| class="wikitable" style="float:right; margin-left:.5em; font-size:90%;" | |||
| ! Animal studies | |||
| | | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| |- | |||
| ! Human sexuality<br />and sexual orientation | |||
| | | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| |- | |||
| ! Human/nonhuman interaction | |||
| | | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| |} | |||
| {{multicol-break}} | |||
| {| class="wikitable" style="float:right; margin-left:.5em; font-size:90%;" | |||
| ! Ethics, morality and philosophy | |||
| | | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| |- | |||
| ! Animal welfare | |||
| | | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| |- | |||
| ! Other | |||
| | | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] (a ]) | |||
| * ] | |||
| |} | |||
| <br /> <br /> | |||
| {{Commonscat|Zoophilia}} | |||
| {{multicol-end}} | |||
| ==References and footnotes== | |||
| <!--This article uses the Cite.php citation mechanism. If you would like more information on how to add references to this article, please see http://meta.wikimedia.org/Cite/Cite.php --> | |||
| {{reflist|2}} | |||
| == External links == | |||
| <!--Please do not add commercial links or links to your own website--> | |||
| ===Research=== | |||
| * | |||
| * {{Derefer|http://www.pet-abuse.com/database/ Pet-Abuse.Com Database}} bestiality and zoosadism legal cases from the U.S. and UK. | |||
| {{paraphilia}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Revision as of 13:01, 28 October 2008
Trevor likes to suck horses dick:) Citation Needed