 |
IC :
BDSM Dictionary : Zoophilia : history
A,
B,
C,
D,
E,
F,
G,
H,
I,
J,
K,
L,
M,
N,
O,
P,
Q,
R,
S,
T,
U,
V,
W,
X,
Y,
Z
This entry is part of the BDSM Dictionary hosted
by Informed Consent.
Zoophilia
The most popular use of the term Zoophilia is synonymous with the
more common/mainstream term Bestiality: a
paraphilia defined as an affinity, affection
or sexual attraction between humans and
animals.
"Zoophilia" is also used in psychology in the context of
sexual orientation toward animals but
the term
'zoosexuality' is becoming more common for this.
"Zoophilia" can also mean literally "love of animals". This is the
strictest meaning of the word, as it derives from the Greek "zo´on"
("animal") and "philia" ("friendship" or "love")
Not to be confused with "Zoophily", a botanical term referring to the
tendency to feed or grow on animal tissue.
In many countries, any sexual activity involving animals is illegal. In
most countries it is a taboo subject and sexual acts with animals are
often condemned as animal abuse and/or outlawed as crimes against
nature. However some, such as philosopher and animal rights author Peter
Singer, argue that this is not inherently the case. Although research
has broadly been supportive of at least some of zoophiles' central
claims, common culture is generally hostile to the concept of
animal-human sexuality.
There is presently considerable debate in psychology over whether
certain aspects of zoophilia are better understood as an aberration or
as a sexual orientation. Defenders of zoosexuality argue that a
human/animal relationship can go far beyond sexuality, and that animals
are capable of forming a genuinely loving relationship that can last for
years and which is not functionally different from any other love/sex
relationship.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. Instead most research into zoophilia has focused on its
characteristics, rather than quantifying it.
Sexual fantasies about zoosexual acts can
occur in people who do not wish to experience them in real life, and may
simply reflect normal imagination and curiosity. Latent zoophile
tendencies may be common; the frequency of interest and sexual
excitement in watching animals mate is cited as an
indicator by Massen (1994) and commented on by Masters (1962).Legal status
Zoosexual acts are illegal in many jurisdictions, while others generally
outlaw the mistreatment of animals without specifically mentioning
sexuality. Because it is unresolved under the law whether sexual
relations with an animal are inherently "abusive" or "mistreatment",
this leaves the status of zoosexual activity unclear in some jurisdictions.
Whilst zoosexuality is legal in a few liberal countries, such as Sweden
and the Netherlands, it is illegal in Great Britain, Canada, and much of
the United States and Australia amongst others. Countries such as
Belgium, Germany and Russia are in between the two as they permit
zoosexual activity but strictly prohibit the promotion of
animal-oriented pornography.Zoophiles
Zoophilia as a lifestyle
Separate from those whose interest is curiosity, pornography, or sexual
novelty, are those for whom zoophilia might be called a lifestyle or
orientation. A commonly reported starting age is at or before puberty,
around 9 - 11, and this seems consistent for both males and females.
Alfred Kinsey found that the most frequent incidence of human/animal
intercourse was more than eight times a week, for the under-15 years age
group. Those who discover an interest at an older age often trace it
back to nascent form during this period or earlier. As with human
attraction, zoophiles may be attracted
only to particular species, appearances, personalities or individuals,
and both these and other aspects of their feelings vary over time.
Zoophiles tend to perceive differences between animals and human beings
as less significant than others do. They often view animals as having
positive traits (e.g. honesty) that humans often lack, and to feel that
society's understanding of non-human sexuality is misinformed. Although
some feel guilty about their feelings and view them as a problem, others
do not feel a need to be constrained by traditional standards in their
private relationships.
The biggest difficulties many zoophiles report are the inability to be
accepted or open about their animal relationships and feelings with
friends and family, and the fear of harm, rejection or loss of
companions if it became known. Some of these concerns may be
qualitatively similar to historical perceptions in other sexual groups
that have been legal or illegal at different times in history. Zoophiles
do not usually cite internal conflicts over religion as their major
issue, perhaps because zoosexual activity, although seemingly condemned
by some religions, is not a major focus of their teachings.
Zoophilic sexual relationships vary, and may be based upon variations of
human-style relationships (eg monogamy), animal-style relationships
(each make own sexual choices), physical
intimacy (non-sexual touch, mutual social grooming, closeness),
or other combinations.
Zoophiles may or may not have human partners and families. Some
zoophiles have an affinity or attraction to animals which is secondary
to human attraction; for others the bond
with animals is primary. Hani Miletski argues that a scale similar to
Kinsey's could be applied for this. In some cases human family or
friends are aware of the relationship with the animal and its nature, in
others it is hidden. This can sometimes give rise to issues of guilt
(as a result of divided loyalties and concealment) or jealousy within
human relationships
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Relationship/story?id=.... In
addition, zoophiles sometimes enter human relationships due to growing
up within traditional expectations, or to deflect suspicions of
zoophilia, and yet others may choose looser forms of human relationship
as companions or housemates, live alone, or choose other zoophiles to
live with.
Not all zoophiles are able to keep animals, or at least not those
animals that they feel attracted to, and because of this some resort to
trespassing on property to have sexual contact with animals. This
practice, known as 'fence hopping', is often condemned by both zoophiles
and non-zoophiles alike, however.
Non-sexual zoophilia
Although the term is often used to refer to sexual interest in animals,
zoophilia is not necessarily sexual in nature. In psychology and
sociology it is sometimes used without regard to sexual implications.
Defintions of zoophilia include "Affection or affinity for animals",
"Erotic attraction to or sexual contact with animals", "Attraction to or
affinity for animals", or "An erotic fixation on animals that may result
in sexual excitement through real or fancied contact".
The common feature of "zoophilia" is some form of affective bond to
animals beyond the usual, whether emotional or sexual in nature.
Non-sexual zoophilia, as with animal love
generally, is generally accepted in society, and although sometimes
ridiculed, it is usually respected or tolerated. Examples of non-sexual
zoophilia can be found on animal memorial pages such as
petloss.com,
in-memory-of-pets.com
(memorial, tribute and support sites), by googling
"pet memorials", or on sites such as
MarryYourPet.com and other pet
marriage sites.
Zoophiles and other groups
Zoophiles are often confused with "furries"
or "therians (or "weres")",
that is, people with an interest in anthropomorphism, or people who
believe they share some kind of inner connection with animals
(spiritual, emotional or otherwise). While the membership of all three
groups probably overlap in part, it is untrue to say that all furs or
therians have a sexual interest in animals (subconscious or otherwise).
Many furs find anthropomorphic adult art erotic and enjoy the
companionship of animals, but have no wish to extend their interest
beyond an affinity or emotional bond to sexual activity. Those who
consider themselves both zoophiles and furries, often call themselves
"zoo-furs" or "fuzzies". The size of this group is not known, although
an oft-cited figure is 5% of furries, which is not dissimilar to typical
estimates of the percentage within the population generally. Expressions
of fur fetishism such as
fursuiting, are usually considered a form of
costuming, rather than an expression of zoosexual interest and are
usually legal.
Finally, zoophilia is not related to sexual puppy or pony play (also known as "Petplay") or
animal transformation fantasies and
roleplays, where one person may act like a dog, pony, horse, or
other animal, while a sexual partner acts as a rider, trainer,
caretaker, or breeding partner. These activities are
sexual roleplays whose principal
theme is the
voluntary or involuntary reduction or transformation of a human being to
animal status, and focus on the altered mind-space created. They have no
implicit connection to, nor motive in common with, zoophilia. They are
instead more usually associated with BDSM. Zoosexual
activity is not part of BDSM for most people, and would usually be
considered extreme, or edgeplay.Health and safety
Humans and other animals cannot make each other pregnant. Infections
due to improper cleaning could be an issue for either party. Most
viruses are specific to particular species and cannot be transmitted
sexually, so humans and animals cannot catch many viral diseases from
zoosexual acts. However, a few uncommon but treatable infectious
disease|infections (known as zoonoses) such as Brucellosis can be
transferred. HIV (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 incompatible, but allergic reactions can
sometimes occur.
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, and equines can thrust suddenly
and "flare", Bodil Joensen commented in a 1980's
interview that
"I was afraid to let other women do the same with the [stallion] as I.
It requires a special technique. When they cum, their glans swells up,
and it can split your vagina. I have had some stitches once I didn't
pull it out in time" and many animals bite as part of sexual excitement
and foreplay. In July 2005, a 45 year old aerospace engineer, Kenneth
Pinyan, died in Enumclaw, Washington from internal injury after being
anally penetrated by a stallion. Pinyan was
highly experienced at this activity. Sources cited in that article add:
"The prosecutor's office says no animal cruelty charges were filed
[against the other man present] because there was no evidence of injury
to the horses."Arguments about zoophilia or zoosexual relations
Platonic love for animals is usually viewed
positively, but most people express concern or disapproval of sexual
interest, sometimes very strongly. Criticisms come from a variety of
sources, including moral, ethical, psychological, and social arguments.
They include:
- "Sexual activity between species is unnatural."
- "Sexual activity between species is (or should be) naturally
repugnant to anyone in their right mind", sometimes called the "yuck
factor".
- "Animals are not sapient, and therefore unable to consent."
(similar to arguments against sex with human minors) The HSUS states:
:"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'."
:"Bestiality is by nature sexual coercion because animals are incapable
of genuinely saying 'yes' or 'no' to humans in forms we can readily
understand."
- "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."
- "Animals mate instinctively to produce offspring, hence they are
deceived when these activities are performed."
- "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.'"
- "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 Intelligent Design proponent at the Center for Science
and Culture of the conservative Christian Discovery Institute: - "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 'human
exceptionalism' ... 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."
wesleyjsmith.com
and
weeklystandard.com
Aug 31 2005</ref> or is forbidden by religious law."
Defenders of zoophilia or zoosexuality state that:
- "'Natural' is debatable; it's also not necessarily relevant."
"(ie, naturalistic fallacy)"
- "Animals are capable of sexual consent - and even initiation - in
their own way."
- "Animals do form mutual relationships with humans."
- "Research shows the majority of zoophiles appear to have human
partners and relationships many others simply do not have a
sexual attraction to humans."
- "Many zoophiles have an attraction to species which are
relatively inaccessible, such as dolphins; tending to oppose the view
that they are simply 'looking for easy sex'."
- "It is a misperception that zoosexual relations need necessarily
be inherently harmful/abusive. Usually it needs only sensitivity,
mutuality, and understanding of everyday animal behavior."
- "Instinct does not exclude enjoyment, volition or learning."
- "Animal and human social structure is flexible enough both to
allow for different species in it and can easily encompass dynamically
changing roles and leads."
- "People choosing to take responsibility for an animal, have to
also take responsibility for its sexual drive. Neutering and ignoring
are a failure to accept animals as they are, often used to avoid facing
an uncomfortable aspect of animal reality or 'best care'."
- "Both male and female domestic animals of several species can
experience the physical sensation of orgasm, and
can unambiguously solicit and demonstrate appreciation for it in their
body language. Animals of many species also masturbate, even if other
sexual partners are accessible."
- "The psychological profession consensus does not consider it
intrinsically pathological. Academic and clinical research consistently
tends to substantiate rather than deny zoophiles' claims."
- "Perspectives on human dignity and religious viewpoints differ
and are personal; many individuals do not consider them relevant."
They also assert that some of these arguments rely on double standards,
such as expecting informed consent from animals for sexual activity (and
not accepting consent given in their own manner), but not for surgical
procedures including aesthetic mutilation and castration, potentially
lethal experimentation and other hazardous activities, euthanasia, and
slaughter. Likewise, if animals cannot give consent, then it follows
that they must not have sex with each other (amongst themselves).
Critics of this reasoning state that animals can communicate internally
(hence consent) within their own species, but cannot communicate
cross-species. Others state that animal communication is clear and
unambiguous cross-species as well.
In discussing arguments for and against zoosexual activity, the
""British Journal of Sexual Medicine"" commented over 30 years ago, "We
are all supposed to condemn bestiality, though only rarely are sound
medical or psychological factors advanced." (Jan/Feb 1974, p.43)
People's views appear to depend significantly upon the nature of their
interest and nature of exposure to the subject. People who have been
exposed to zoosadism, who are unsympathetic to
alternate lifestyles in general, or who know little about zoophilia,
often regard it as an extreme form of animal abuse and/or indicative of
serious psychosexual issues. 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
societal attitudes towards homosexuality, 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)""
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/atlg.... 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. Conservative men and women""
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/articles/n... 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, have documented animal sexual advances to human beings
and other species, and tend to be matter-of-fact about animal sexuality
and animal approaches to humans; their research is generally supportive
of some of the claims by zoophiles regarding animal cognition,
behaviour, and sexual/relational/emotional issues. Because the majority
opinion is condemnatory, many individuals may be more accepting in
private than they make clear to the public. Regardless, there is a
general societal view which regards zoophilia with either suspicion or
outright opposition.Mythology and fantasy literature
From cave paintings onward and throughout human history, zoophilia has
been a recurring subject in art, literature, and fantasy.
In Ugarit|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. In Norse mythology, Loki had
intercourse with a stallion, in the form of a mare, and gave birth to
Sleipnir. The Sagaholm, a Swedish barrow from the Nordic Bronze Age,
contains a number of Petroglyphs, some of which depict Zoophilia.
Fantasy literature has included a variety of seemingly zoophilic
examples, often involving human characters enchanted into animal forms:
"Beauty and the Beast" (a young woman falls in love with a physically
beast-like man), William Shakespeare's "A Midsummer Night's Dream"
(Queen Titania falls in love with a character whose head is transformed
into that of a donkey's), "The Book of One Thousand and One Nights" (a
princess champions a man enchanted into ape form), the Roman Lucius
Apuleius's "The Golden As]" (explicit sexuality between a man
transformed into a donkey and a woman), and Balzac's "A Passion in the
Desert" (a love affair between a soldier and a panther). In more modern
times, zoosexual relations of a sort has been a theme in science fiction
and horror fiction, with the giant ape King Kong fixating on a human
woman, alien monsters groping human females in pulp novels and comics,
and depictions of tentacle rape in Japanese manga
and anime.
Modern erotic furry fantasy art and stories
are sometimes associated with zoophilia, but many creators and fans
disagree with this, pointing out that the characters are predominantly
humanoid fantasy creatures who are thinking, reasoning beings that
consider and consent to sex in the same manner humans would. "Furry"
characters have been compared to other intelligent and social non-human
fictional characters who are subjects of love/sexuality fantasies
without being commonly regarded as zoophilic, such as the Vulcans and
Klingons in "Star Trek", or elves in fantasy fiction. Animals and
anthropomorphs, when shown in furry art, are usually shown engaged with
others of similar kind, rather than humans.Media discussion
Because of its controversial standing, different countries and medias
vary in how they treat discussion of zoosexual activity. Often sexual
matters are the subject of legal or regulatory requirement. For example,
in 2005, the UK broadcasting regulator (OFCOM) updated its code stating
that:
:"Freedom of expression is at the heart of any democratic state. It is
an essential right to hold opinions and receive and impart information
and ideas. Broadcasting and freedom of expression are intrinsically
linked. However, with such rights come duties and responsibilities ...
The focus is on adult audiences making informed choices within a
regulatory framework which gives them a reasonable expectation of what
they will receive, while at the same time robustly protecting those too
young to exercise fully informed choices for themselves ...
:"OFCOM sets out a watershed and other precautions for explicit sexual
material, to protect young people, and specifies that discussion of
zoosexual activity along with other sexual matters may take place, but
in an appropriate context and manner."
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/codes/bcode/?a=87...
The contrasting views between cultures are highlighted by the case of
"Omaha the Cat Dancer", a furry comic book,
which was simultaneously the subject of a raid by Toronto police for
pornographic depiction of bestiality (as noted, furry art is not usually
considered "bestiality"), and the subject of praise by the New Zealand
Office of Film and Literature Classification for its mature depiction of
relationships and sexuality.
References to zoosexual activity or bestiality are not uncommon in some
media, especially cartoon series such as Family Guy "(episode: "Screwed
the Pooch")" and South Park, satirical comedy such as Borat, and films
(especially shock exploitation films), although a few broadcasters such
as Howard Stern (who joked about bestiality dial-a-date on NBC) and Tom
Binns (whose Xfm London Breakfast Show resulted on one occasion in a
live discussion about the ethics of zoosexual pornographic movies at
peak child listening time) have been reprimanded by their stations for
doing so. In literature, American novelist Kurt Vonnegut refers to a
photo of a woman attempting sexual intercourse with a Shetland Pony in
"The Sirens of Titan", "Slaughterhouse Five", and "God Bless You, Mr.
Rosewater", while John Irving's novel "The Cider House Rules" repeatedly
mentions a pornographic photograph depicting oral sex on a pony.Pornography
Pornography involving sex with animals is
widely illegal, even in most countries where the act itself is not
explicitly outlawed. In the United States, zoosexual pornography (in
common with other pornography) would be considered obscene if it did not
meet the standards of the Miller Test and therefore is not openly sold,
mailed, distributed or imported across state boundaries or within states
which prohibit it. Under U.S. law, 'distribution' includes transmission
across the internet. Production and mere
possession appear to be legal, however. U.S. prohibitions on
distribution of sexual or obscene materials are as of 2005 in some
doubt, having been ruled unconstitutional in "United States v. Extreme
Associates" (a judgement which was overturned on appeal, December 2005).
Similar restrictions apply in Germany (cf. *§184 StGB
http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/184.html).
Using animal fur or stuffed animals in erotic photography (in a sense,
the combination of necrophilia and zoophilia)
doesn't seem to be taboo, nor do photographs of nude models posed with
animals provided no sexual stimulation is implied to the animal. Stuffed
animals are sometimes used in glamour erotic photography with models
touching their sexual organs against such animals, and likewise models
may be posed with animals or on horseback. The subtext is often to
provide a contrast: animal versus sophisticated, raw beast versus
culturally guided human. (Nancy Friday comments on this, noting that
zoophilia as a fantasy may provide an escape from cultural expectations,
restrictions, and judgements in regard to sex.)
The potential use of media for pornographic movies was also seen from
the start of the era of silent film. "Polissons and Galipettes"
(re-released 2002 as "The Good Old Naughty Days") is a collection of
early French silent films for brothel use, including some animal
pornography, dating from around 1905 – 1930.
Materials featuring sex with animals are widely available on the
Internet, however, because of their ease of
production, and because production and sale is legal in countries such
as the Netherlands and Denmark. Prior to the advent of mass-market
full-color glossy magazines such as Playboy,
so-called Tijuana Bibles were a form of pornographic tract popular in
America, sold as anonymous underground publications typically comprising
a small number of stapled comic-strips representing characters and
celebrities.
The promotion of "stars" began with the Danish Bodil Joensen, in the
period of 1969-72, along with other well-known porn stars such as the
Americans Linda Lovelace ("Dogarama", 1969), and Chessie Moore (multiple
films, c.1994). Another early film to attain great infamy was "Animal
Farm", smuggled into Great Britain around 1980 without details as to
makers or provenance. "The Search for Animal Farm" (documentary, part of
the Dark Side of Porn 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 Great Britain 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.'
http://www.channel4sales.com/programming-and-sch....
The film was later traced to a crude juxtaposition of smuggled cuts from
many of Bodil Joensen's 1970's Danish movies. Into the 1980s the Dutch
took the lead, creating figures like "Wilma" and the "Dutch Sisters". In
1980s, "bestiality" was a central theme in Italian adult films featuring
actresses like Denise Dior and Marina Hedman, manifested early in the
softcore flick "Bestialit* " in 1976.
Today, in Hungary, where production faces no legal limitations,
zoosexual materials have become a substantial industry that produces
numerous films and magazines, particularly for Dutch companies such as
"Topscore" and "Book & Film International", and the genre has stars such
as "Hector" (a Great Dane starring in several films). Many Hungarian
(Suzy Spark, Silvi Anderson et al) and Russian (Pantera aka Jordan
Elliot, various girls filmed by "Club Seventeen") mainstream performers
also appeared anonymously in zoophilia pornography in their early
careers. For example:
Suzy
Spark (horsebang.com). Club Seventeen is a label of the Dutch
pornographic company "Video Art Holland", specialising in "barely legal"
teens. Best-known current performers in Europe include Andy, Bilara,
Adilia "the Sinful Lady". In Japan, zoophilia pornography is used to
bypass censorship laws, often featuring Japanese and Russian female
models performing fellatio on non-human animals,
because oral penetration of a non-human penis is not in the scope of
Japanese mosaic censor. Brazil is also a substantial producer of
zoophilia pornography, many films featuring "she-males".
Pornography of this sort has become the business of certain spammers
such as Jeremy Jaynes (8th most prolific spammer, sentenced to 9 years
for spamming) and owners of some fake TGPs, who use the promise of
"extreme" material as a bid for users' attention.Social community
Whether there is such a thing as a "zoophile community" or subculture,
in the same sense as the gay community or any other alternative
lifestyle communities, is a controversial question. Some zoophiles point
to the number and quality of computerized meeting-places in which
zoophiles can meet and socialize, the manner in which this extends to
offline social networks, and the trend of social and cultural evolution
of community consensus over time, or use the term to imply "the
community of zoophiles in general". Others point to the differing
viewpoints and attitudes, the trust issues and risks due to lack of
safety inherent in socializing, and lack of any true commonality between
zoophiles beyond their orientation. Whether or not it should be
construed as a "community", the following outline is a rough description
of the social world of zoophiles, as it has existed to date.
Prior to the arrival of widespread computer networking, most zoophiles
would not have known others, and for the most part engaged secretly, or
told only trusted friends, family or partners. (This almost certainly
still describes the majority of zoophiles; only a small proportion are
visible online). Thus it could not be said there was a "community" of
any kind at that time, except perhaps for small sporadic social networs
of people who knew each other by chance. As with many other alternate
lifestyles, broader networks began forming in the 1980s when networked
social groups became more common at home and elsewhere, and as the
internet 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 newsgroup "alt.sex.bestiality]"
(reputedly started in humor Miletski p.35 "Alt.sex.bestiality (A.S.B.)
was one such Internet news group which started around 1990 as someones
idea of a joke."), personal bulletin boards and talkers, 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 websites and forums. By around 1991 - 1993 it became accurate
to say that a wide social net had evolved.
This changed significantly around 1995-96 (due to the double impact of
Miletski's research and the unrelated mid/late-1990s boom in zoosexual
pornography), and then a few years later again around 1998-2000 in the
wake of the controversy over the first proposed public US appearance of
a zoophile on the Jerry Springer show ("I married a horse", 1998, pulled
before viewing), which was followed by the 1999-2000 Philip Buble case
(in which a plaintiff petitioned the court to let his dog attend
judgement as his "wife"). Whilst some zoophiles saw these as attempts to
state a personal viewpoint or encourage debate, others saw them in a
negative light as ill-advised, futile, harmful, or ultimately egoistic
attempts to obtain a public hearing which could only backlash strongly
both legally and otherwise against zoophiles. There was also a
perception that as knowledge of zoosexuality as a lifestyle became wider
spread, the smaller but more formative social groups were being diluted
by large numbers of newcomers who had not grown up within the same
"culture" or communal values, and many website owners came to be less
interested compared to the past. In 1996, a zoophile version of the Geek
Code was created, known as the Zoo Code, intended as a shorthand
"signature" for zoophiles to describe themselves, their philosophies,
and their stances on certain common issues such as animal welfare and
vegetarianism. It achieved some degree of popularity for a time and is
still occasionally encountered today, having also been translated into
French and German.
In the wake of these changes, a number of the older pro-zoophile
websites and forums were voluntarily removed or vanished from the net
between 1995 and 2001, and many of the more established individuals and
social groups at that time withdrew. This is an established and common
pattern in other online communities and subcultures too, as people
(typically in their 30's) develop more diverse offline lives or
commitments over time. Often they return from time to time, or retain an
irreglar presence; sometimes they leave the net completely. See GAFIA.
from the online community, perceiving the risks and benefits to no
longer be worth it, as they already had sufficient offline friends
amongst other zoophiles. This led to a period of change and
consolidation during the late 1990s and early 2000s as old sites closed
and the older and newer 'generations' mingled. Most of the major
"talkers" too, especially following the increasing popularity of instant
messenger chat and an incident on "Planes of Existence" (Germany, 2000).
At the same time, many other social groups online drew lessons from
these and other incidents, leading to a maturing consensus which tended
to replace the previous divides on common topics such as the
desirability vs. harmfulness of public debate and acceptance, ethics,
and conduct.
Websites catering to zoosexuality at present can be broken down into
several categories. Some sites restrict or prohibit explicit material
(such as pictures, stories, contacts, etc), while others embrace these
explicit aspects. Some zoophilic websites are run by professional or
amatuer pornographers, marketing pictures, stories and videos. A few
provide personal perspectives and information relating to it.
There also exist sites providing support and social assistance to
zoophiles (including resources to help and rescue abused or mistreated
animals), but these are not usually publicized. Such work is often
undertaken as needed by individuals and friends, within social networks,
and by word of mouth.Books, articles and documentaries about zoophilia
Academic and professional
- Andrea Beetz Ph.D.: "Bestiality and Zoophilia" (2005), ISBN
1557534128
- Andrea Beetz Ph.D.: "Love, Violence, and Sexuality in
Relationships between Humans and Animals" (2002), ISBN 3832200207
- Profesors 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
- 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.: "Understanding Bestiality and Zoophilia",
2002, available at Hani
Miletski's Homepage
(Book
review by Journal of Sex Research, May 2003)
- Josef Massen: "Zoophilie - Die sexuelle Liebe zu Tieren
(Zoophilia - the sexual love of/for animals)" (1994), ISBN 3-930387-15-8
- 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
- Roland Grassberger Ph.D.: "Die Unzucht mit Tieren (Sex with
Animals)" (1968)
- Hans Hentig Ph.D.: "Soziologie der Zoophilen Neigung (Sociology
of the Zoophile Preference)" (1962)
- Gunther Hunold Ph.D.: "Abarten des Sexualverhaltens:
Ungewohnliche Ersheinungsformen des Trieblebens (Perverse Sexual
Behaviour)" (1978)
- Mandetta and Gustaveson: "Abortion to Zoophilia: A Sourcebook of
Sexual Facts" (1976), ISBN 0-89055-114-6
- Davis and Whitten: "The Cross-Culture Study of Human Sexuality"
(Annual Review of Anthropology 1987, Volume 16, pp. 69-98), ISSN 00846570
- S. Dittert, O. Seidl amd M. Soyka: "Zoophilie zwischen Pathologie
und Normalit*¤t: Darstellung dreier Kasuistiken und einer
Internetbefragung (Zoophilia as a special case of paraphilia:
pres
This entry is published under the terms of the
GFDL. People with profiles on
Informed Consent can improve
this entry: see the BDSM Dictionary
help page for details.
|
|
Donate!
