 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Encyclopedia :
Z :
ZO :
ZOO :
Zoophilia |
|
|
Zoophilia, a 16th century copy after a lost painting by Michelangelo, 1530 (National Gallery, London)Zoophilia (from the Greek Zoon, "animal," and Philia, "friendship or love") is a paraphilia, defined as an affinity or sexual attraction by a human to non-human animals. Such individuals are called zoophiles. The more recent terms zoosexual and zoosexuality also describe the full spectrum of human/animal attraction. A separate term, bestiality (more common in mainstream usage), refers to human/animal sexual activity. To avoid confusion about the meaning of zoophilia – which may refer to the dictionary definition, paraphilia, or sexual activity – this article uses zoophilia for the former, and zoosexuality for the sexual act. The two terms are independent: not all sexual acts with animals are performed by zoophiles, and not all zoophiles engage in sexual activity. Zoophilia is usually considered to be unnatural, and sexual acts with animals are often condemned as animal abuse and/or outlawed as a "crime against nature." Some, such as philosopher and animal rights author Peter Singer, argue that this is not inherently the case, a view which was endorsed by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals president Ingrid Newkirk [1]. Scientifically, research is often critical of the traditional view, and clinically, the activity or desire itself is no longer classified as a pathology under DSM-IV (TR) (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association) unless accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning. Defenders of zoophilia claim that a human/animal relationship can go far beyond sexuality, and that animals are (if allowed) capable of forming a loving relationship that can last for years, and that they do not consider it functionally different from any other love/sex relationship. TerminologyThe general term "zoophilia" was first introduced into the field of research on sexuality by Krafft-Ebing (1894). The terms zoosexual and zoosexuality, signifying the entire spectrum of emotional and sexual attraction and/or orientation to animals, have also been used since the 1980s (cited by Miletski, 1999), to suggest an analogy to homosexual or heterosexual orientations. Individuals with a strong affinity for animals but without a sexual interest can be described as "non-sexual" (or "emotional") zoophiles, but may object to the "zoophile" label. They are commonly called animal lovers instead. The ambiguous term sodomy has sometimes been used in legal contexts to include zoosexual acts. "Zooerasty" is an older term, not in common use. In pornography, human/animal sex is occasionally referred to as farmsex or dogsex. Amongst zoophiles, the term "bestialist" has acquired a negative connotation implying a lower concern for animal welfare. This arises from the desire by some zoophiles 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. Extent of occurrenceThe 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. Instead most research into zoophilia has focused on its characteristics, rather than quantifying it. Scientific surveys estimating the frequency of zoosexuality, as well as anecdotal evidence and informal surveys, suggest that more than 1-2% -- and perhaps as many as 8-10% -- of sexually active adults have had significant sexual experience with an animal at some point in their lives. Studies suggest that a larger number (perhaps 10-30% depending on area) have fantasized or had some form of brief encounter. Larger figures such as 50% for rural teenagers (living on or near livestock farms) have been cited in some surveys, but these statistics are uncertain. Anecdotally, Nancy Friday's 1973 book on female sexuality My Secret Garden comprised around 180 women's contributions; of these, some 10% volunteered a serious interest or active participation in zoophilia. Sexual fantasies about zoosexual acts can occur in people who do not wish to experience them in real life, and may simply reflect normal imagination and curiosity. Latent zoophile tendencies may be common; the frequency of interest and sexual excitement in watching animals mate is cited as an indicator of this by Massen (1994). Legal statusNo jurisdiction is known to recognize zoophilic relationships, as such. They are legally no different from that of a person who keeps a pet or owns livestock. Zoosexual acts are illegal in many jurisdictions, while others generally outlaw the mistreatment of animals without specifically mentioning sexuality. Because it is unresolved under the law whether sexual relations with an animal are inherently "abusive" or "mistreatment", this leaves the status of zoosexuality unclear in some jurisdictions.
Zoophiles tend to perceive differences between animals and human beings as less significant than others do, and view animals as having positive traits (e.g. honesty) that humans often lack. They tend to 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. 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 or rejection if it became known (seeouting). 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 repeated deaths of animals they consider lifelong soulmates (because most species have far shorter lifespans than humans and they cannot openly grieve or talk about feelings of loss). Zoophiles do not usually cite internal conflicts over religion as their major issue, perhaps because zoophilia, although condemned by many religions, is not a frequent subject of their teachings. Zoophilic sexual relationships vary, and may be based upon variations of human-style relationships (in particular, remaining monogamous), animal-style relationships (both participants making their own sexual choices, human as protector), or blending the two in various ways. Zoophiles may or may not have human partners and families. Some zoophiles have an affinity or attraction to animals secondary to human attraction; others have a primary preference for animal companions. In some cases human family or friends are aware of the relationship with the animal and its nature, in others it is hidden. This can sometimes give rise to issues of guilt (re: divided loyalties and concealment) or jealousy within human relationships [1]. Zoophiles sometimes enter human relationships to deflect suspicions of zoophilia, or due to growing up within traditional expectations. Others may choose looser forms of human relationship as companions or housemates, live alone, or choose other zoophiles to live with. Non-sexual zoophiliaAlthough the term is often used to refer to sexual interest in animals, zoophilia is not necessarily sexual in nature. In psychology and sociology it is sometimes used without regard to sexual implications. The first definition listed for the word on dictionary.com is "Affection or affinity for animals". Other definitions are: 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 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 in-memory-of-pets.com memorial and support site, or by googling "pet memorials". Perspectives on zoophiliaPsychological and research perspectivesDSM-III-R (APA, 1987) stated that sexual contact with animals is almost never a clinically significant problem by itself (Cerrone, 1991), and therefore both this and the later DSM-IV (APA, 1994) subsumed it under the residual classification "paraphilias not otherwise specified". The first detailed studies which included zoophilia date from prior to 1910. Research into zoophilia in its own right has happened since around 1960. Each significant study from Masters (1962) to Beetz (2002) has drawn and agreed on several broad conclusions: At times, research has been cited based upon the degree of zoosexual or zoosadistic related history within populations of juvenile and other persistent offenders, prison populations with records of violence, and people with prior psychological issues. Such studies are not viewed professionally as valid means to research or profile zoophilia, as the results would be based upon populations pre-selected as knowingly having high proportions of criminal records, abusive tendencies and/or psychological issues. This approach (used in some older research and quoted to demonstrate pathology) is considered discredited and unrepresentative by researchers. Religious perspectivesMost organized religions take a critical or sometimes condemnatory view of zoophilia or zoosexuality, with some variation and exceptions. Animal rights and welfare concernsOne of the primary critiques of zoophilia is the argument that zoosexuality 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. In comment on Peter Singer's article "Heavy Petting", which controversially argued that zoosexuality need not be abusive and if so loving relationships could form, Ingrid Newkirk, then president of the American animal rights group PETA, added this endorsement: "If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you French kiss your dog and he or she thinks it's great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong. If it isn't exploitation and abuse, [then] it may not be wrong." Bornemann (1990, cited by Rosenbauer 1997) coined the separate term "zoosadism" for those who derive pleasure from inflicting pain on an animal, sometimes with a sexual component. Some extreme examples of zoosadism include necrozoophilia, the sexual enjoyment of killing animals (similar to "lust murder" in humans), sexual penetration of fowl such as hens (fatal in itself) and strangling at orgasm, mutilation, sexual assault with objects (including screwdrivers and knives), interspecies rape, and sexual assault on immature animals such as puppies. Some horse-ripping incidents have a sexual connotation (Schedel-Stupperich, 2001). The link between sadistic sexual acts with animals and sadistic practices with humans or lust murders has been heavily researched. Some murderers tortured animals in their childhood and also sexual relations with animals occurred. Ressler et al. (1986) found that 8 of their sample of 36 sexual murderers showed an interest in zoosexual acts. Sexology information sites (if sufficiently detailed) are usually careful to distinguish zoosadism from zoophilia: Humboldt Berlin University Sexology Dept sex-lexis.com and sexualcounselling.com. Cultural perspectives Among the Masai, it was customary for older boys to have sexual relations with she-asses. Young Riffian boys also had sexual liaisons with female asses (Ford and Beach, 1951, pp. 147-148). Among the Tswana of Africa, boys assigned to the care of cattle frequently engaged in zoosexual activity. It was also common in the Gusti tribes and considered rather harmless, but boys were reprimanded and warned against this activity. Health and safetyHumans and animals cannot make each other pregnant, but infections due to unclean partners could be an issue for either party. Most diseases are specific to particular species and cannot be sexually transmitted, so humans and animals cannot catch many diseases from zoosexual acts, however a few uncommon but treatable infections such as Brucellosis can be transferred. The AIDS virus is fragile and only lives in primates (humans, apes and monkeys) and is not believed to survive long in other species. Animals' and humans' bodily fluids are not normally harmful to the other, but allergic reactions occasionally occur (rare). In terms of physical compatibility and injury, many medium/large domesticated species appear to be physically compatible with humans. The main non-deliberate physical risks are of injury, either through ignorance of physical differences, forcefulness, or for female animals, excessive friction or infection. Humans may also be at substantial physical risk and seriously harmed by sexual activity with animals. Larger animals may have the strength and defensive attributes (e.g. hooves, teeth) to injure a human, either in rejecting physical or sexual contact, or in the course of sexual arousal. For example, the penis of a sexually aroused dog has a broad bulb at the base which can cause injury if forcibly pulled from a body orifice, equines can thrust suddenly and "flare", and many animals bite as part of sexual excitement and foreplay. Arguments about zoophilia or zoosexualityPlatonic love for animals is usually viewed positively, but most people express concern or disapproval of sexual interest. Criticisms come from a variety of sources, including moral, ethical, psychological, and social arguments. They include:
People's views appear to depend significantly upon the nature of their interest and nature of exposure to the subject. People who have been exposed to zoosadism, who are unsympathetic to alternate lifestyles in general, or who know little about zoophilia, often regard it as an extreme form of animal abuse, and/or indicative of serious psychosexual issues. Mental health professionals and personal acquaintances of zoophiles who see their relationships over time tend to be less critical, and sometimes supportive. Ethologists who study and understand animal behaviour and body language tend to be matter-of-fact about animal sexuality and animal approaches to humans, and their research is generally supportive of some of these claims regarding animal cognition, behaviour, and sexual-relational-emotional issues. Because the majority opinion is condemnatory, individuals may be more accepting privately than they present to the public. Regardless, there is a clear consensus which regards zoophilia with either suspicion or outright opposition. Mythology and fantasy literaturecopulating with a goat; marble sculpture from the ancient city of Herculaneum Zoophilia has been a recurring subject in art, literature, and fantasy. In Ugaritic mythology, the god Baal is said to have impregnated a heifer to sire a young bull god. In Greek mythology, Zeus appeared to Leda in the form of a swan, and her children Helen and Polydeuces resulted from that sexual union. Zeus also seduced Europa in the form of a bull, and carried off the youth Ganymede in the form of an eagle. The half-human/half-bull Minotaur was the offspring of Queen Pasiphae and a white bull. King Peleus continued to seduce the nymph Thetis despite her transforming into (among other forms) a lion, a bird, and a snake. The god Pan, often depicted with goat-like features, has also been frequently associated with animal sex. As with other subjects of classical mythology, some of these have been depicted over the centuries since, in western painting and sculpture. and the Bull by Gustave Moreau, c. 1869 Modern erotic furry fantasy art and stories are sometimes associated with zoophilia, but many creators and fans disagree with this, pointing out that the characters are predominantly humanoid fantasy creatures who are thinking, reasoning beings that would be as capable of giving consent as any human. "Furry" characters have been compared to other intelligent and social non-human fictional characters who are subjects of love/sexuality fantasies without being commonly regarded as zoophilic, such as the Vulcans and Klingons in Star Trek, or elves in fantasy fiction. PornographyPornography involving sex with animals is widely illegal, even in most countries where the act itself is not explicitly outlawed. In the United States, it is thought to be very likely considered obscene and therefore it is not openly sold, mailed or imported. In any prosecution, however, pornography involving sex with animals would still be subject to the Miller Test. (Production and mere possession appear to be legal, however.) However, this law is presently (January 20 2005) in some doubt, having been ruled unconstitutional in United States v. Extreme Associates (note, though, that the case is still in review and may be referred for further appeal). Similar restrictions apply in Germany (cf. §184 StGB [1]). Curiously, using dead animals in erotic photography (in a sense, the combination of necrophilia and zoophilia) doesn't seem to be taboo. Stuffed animals are sometimes used in glamour erotic photography with models touching their sexual organs against such animals. Materials featuring sex with animals are widely available on the Internet, however, mainly because their production and sale is legal in countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark. The promotion of "stars" began with the Danish Bodil Joensen, in the period of 1970-72. Into the 1980s the Dutch took the lead, creating figures like "Wilma" and the "Dutch Sisters". Today, in Hungary, where production faces no legal limitations, zoosexual materials have become a substantial industry that produces numerous films and magazines, particularly for Dutch companies, and the genre has stars such as "Hector" (a Great Dane starring in several films). Pornography of this sort has become the business of certain spammersmers and owners of some fake TGPss, who use the promise of "extreme" material as an "anchor" for user's attention. Books, articles and documentariesAcademic and professionalOther booksPrint and online media
|
|
|
This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. |
|
| © 2008 Chamas Enterprises Inc. |
