Zoophilia - Bestiality
Man having intercourse with a horse, pictured on the exterior of a temple in Khajuraho.
Zoophilia, from the Greek ζῷον (zṓion, "animal") and φιλία (philia, "friendship" or "love") is the practice of sexual activity between humans and non-human animals (bestiality), or a preference for or fixation on such practice. People who practice zoophilia are known as zoophiles, zoosexuals, or simply "zoos". Zoophilia may also be known as zoosexuality.
Although sex with animals is not outlawed in some countries, it is not explicitly condoned anywhere. In most countries, zoophilic sexual acts are illegal under animal abuse laws or laws dealing with "crimes against nature"; however, the notion that such acts are "abusive" is disputed.
Although sex with animals is not outlawed in some countries, it is not explicitly condoned anywhere. In most countries, zoophilic sexual acts are illegal under animal abuse laws or laws dealing with "crimes against nature"; however, the notion that such acts are "abusive" is disputed.
Hokusai, Katsushika (葛飾北斎) (1760–1849) The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife
|
Art by Franz von Bayros depicting oral sex between a woman and a deer
|
Terminology
There are three terms that are most commonly used in regards to the subject: zoophilia, bestiality, and zoosexuality. The terms are usually relatively interchangeable. Zoosadism, sodomy, zooerasty and zooerastia are other terms closely related to the subject but are less synonymous with the former terms and/or are not commonly used. "Bestiosexuality" was discussed briefly by Allen (1979), but never became established.
The term "zoophilia" was introduced into the field of research on sexuality in Psychopathia Sexualis (1886) by Krafft-Ebing, who described a number of cases of "violation of animals (bestiality)", as well as "zoophilia erotica", which he defined as a sexual attraction to animal skin or fur.
Zoophilia can refer to sexual activity with non-human animals (bestiality), the desire to do so, or to the paraphilia (atypical arousal) of the same name which indicates a definite preference for animals over humans as sexual partners.
Some zoophiles and researchers draw a distinction between zoophilia and bestiality, using the former to describe the desire to form sexual relationships with animals, and the latter to describe the sex acts alone.
Bestiality is frequently misspelled as "beastiality". Even when spelled "bestiality", the word has two common pronunciations, (/ˌbestʃiˈæləti/ or /ˌbistʃiˈæləti/), with the first syllable sounding either like "best" or "beast", The latter is more frequently used in the United States.
Masters (1962) uses the term "bestialist" specifically in his discussion of zoosadism, which refers to deriving sexual pleasure from cruelty to animals. Stephanie LaFarge, an assistant professor of psychiatry at the New Jersey Medical School, and Director of Counseling at the ASPCA, writes that two groups can be distinguished: bestialists, who rape or abuse animals, and zoophiles, who form an emotional and sexual attachment to animals. Williams and Weinberg studied self-defined zoophiles via the internet and found they saw the term as involving concern for the animal's welfare and pleasure, and an emphasis on believing they obtained consent, as opposed to the zoophile's concept of bestialists, who zoophiles defined as a group who focused only on their own gratification. Williams and Weinberg also quoted a British newspaper as saying that zoophilia is the term used by "apologists" of bestiality.
Zoosexuality
The term "zoosexual" was cited by the researcher Miletski in the year 2002. It was seen as a value-neutral term which would be less susceptible to being loaded with emotion or rhetoric. Usage of the noun "zoosexual" can be applied to both a "zoosexual (person)" which is synonymous with zoophile, and a "zoosexual act", meaning a sex act between a human and an animal. The term "zoosexuality" is often used by zoophile forums and support groups, which manifests as a person being romantically and/or sexually attracted to animals.
Zoosadism and zooerasty
Ernest Bornemann (1990, cited by Rosenbauer 1997) coined the separate term "zoosadism" for those who derive pleasure from inflicting pain on an animal, sometimes with a sexual component. Somehorse-ripping incidents may have a sexual connotation.
Krafft-Ebing, the same author who introduced zoophilia, used the term "zooerasty" for the paraphilia of exclusive sexual attraction to animals, but the term has fallen out of use.
Anthropomorphism
While in practice the terms "non-human" and "animal" are identical, fiction is filled with anthropomorphic characters and races that sit in-between them, such as the various aliens from Star Trek, or Neytiri from Avatar. While the network censors and the majority of people accept anthropomorphic non-humans as legitimate targets for romantic affection, not everyone does. Technically this view is in conflict with legal definitions of bestiality, because the same legal systems define animals as 'vertebrates that aren't human', but no one has ever challenged such imagery being broadcast at prime time. Care should be taken that when discussing fictional or hypothetical cases, both parties are using the same dividing line between person and non-person.
Ancient Greek sodomizing a goat, plate XVII from 'De Figuris Veneris' by F.K. Forberg, illustrated by Édouard-Henri Avril.
Extent of occurrence
The Kinsey reports controversially rated the percentage of people who had sexual interaction with animals at some point in their lives as 8% for men and 3.6% for women, and claimed it was 40–50% in people living near farms, but some later writers dispute the figures, because the study lacked a random sample, and because the prison population was included, causing sampling bias .Martin Duberman has written that it is difficult to get a random sample in sexual research, and that even when Paul Gebhard, Kinsey's research successor, removed prison samples from the figures, he found the figures were not significantly changed.
By 1974, the farm population in the USA had declined by 80 percent compared to 1940, reducing the opportunity to live with animals; Hunt's 1974 study suggests that these demographic changes led to a significant change in reported occurrences of bestiality. The percentage of males who reported sexual interactions with animals in 1974 was 4.9% (1948: 8.3%), and in females in 1974 was 1.9% (1953: 3.6%). Miletski believes this is not due to a reduction in interest but merely a reduction in opportunity.
Nancy Friday's 1973 book on female sexuality, My Secret Garden, comprised around 190 fantasies from different women; of these, 23 involve zoophilic activity.
In one study, psychiatric patients were found to have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55 percent) of reported bestiality, both actual sexual contacts (45 percent) and sexual fantasy (30 percent) than the control groups of medical in-patients (10 percent) and psychiatric staff (15 percent). Crépault and Couture (1980) reported that 5.3 percent of the men they surveyed had fantasized about sexual activity with an animal during heterosexual intercourse. A 1982 study suggested that 7.5 percent of 186 university students had interacted sexually with an animal.
Sexual fantasies about zoophilic acts can occur in people who do not have any wish to experience them in real life. Nancy Friday notes that zoophilia as a fantasy may provide an escape from cultural expectations, restrictions, and judgements in regard to sex. A frequent interest in and sexual excitement at watching animals mate is cited as an indicator of latent zoophilia by Massen (1994). Masters (1962) says that some brothel madams used to stage exhibitions of animals mating, as they found it aroused potential clientele, and that this may have encouraged the clients to engage in bestiality.
Several studies have found that women show stronger vaginal responses to films depicting bonobo copulation than to non-sexual stimuli.
Legal status
Main article: Zoophilia and the law
In many jurisdictions, all forms of zoophilic acts are prohibited; others outlaw only the mistreatment of animals, without specific mention of sexual activity. In some countries, such as Denmark, bestiality is not outlawed. It is currently illegal in Canada, Netherlands, 32 U.S. states, Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Turkey and Ghana. In the UK, Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (also known as the Extreme Pornography Act) outlaws images of a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive). Countries such as Belgium, Germany, and Russia are somewhere in between: they permit sexual activity with animals, but prohibit the promotion of animal-oriented pornography.
Laws on zoophilia are often triggered by specific incidents. While some laws are very specific, others employ vague terms such as "sodomy" or "bestiality," which lack legal precision and leave it unclear exactly which acts are covered. In the past, some bestiality laws may have been made in the belief that sex with an animal could result in monstrous offspring, as well as offending the community. Current anti-cruelty laws focus more specifically on animal welfare while anti-bestiality law are aimed only at offenses to community standards.
Notable legal views include Sweden, where a 2005 report by the Swedish Animal Welfare Agency for the government expressed concern over the increase in reports of horse-ripping incidents. The 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. In New Zealand, the 1989 Crimes Bill considered abolishing bestiality as a criminal offense, and instead viewing it as a mental health issue, but they did not, and people can still be prosecuted for it.
Some countries once had laws against single males living with female animals, such as Alpacas. Copulating with a female alpaca is still specifically against the law in Peru.
Until 2005, there was a farm near Enumclaw, Washington that was described as an “animal brothel”, where people paid to have sex with animals. After an incident on July 2, 2005, when a man was pronounced dead in the emergency room of the Enumclaw community hospital after his colon ruptured due to having been sodomized by a horse, the farm garnered police attention. The state legislature of the State of Washington, which had been one of the few states in the United States without a law against bestiality, within six months passed a bill making bestiality illegal.
Health and safety
Main article: Zoophilia and health
Infections that are transmitted from animals to humans are called zoonoses. Some zoonoses may be transferred through casual contact, but others are much more readily transferred by activities that expose humans to the semen, vaginal fluids, urine, saliva, feces and blood of animals. Examples of zoonoses are Brucellosis, Q fever, leptospirosis, and toxocariasis. Therefore sexual activity with animals is, in some instances, a high risk activity. Allergic reactions to animal semen may occur, including anaphylaxis. Bites and other trauma from penetration or trampling may occur.
Zoophiles
Non-sexual zoophilia
The love of animals is not necessarily sexual in nature. In psychology and sociology the word "zoophilia" is sometimes used without sexual implications. Being fond of animals in general or pets in particular is accepted in Western society, and although sometimes ridiculed, it is usually respected or tolerated. However, the word zoophilia is usually used to mean a sexual preference towards animals which is acted upon, a paraphilia. People who identify as zoophiles may feel their love for animals is romantic rather than purely sexual, and say this makes them different from those committing entirely sexually motivated acts of bestiality. They may not act on their sexual attraction to animals.
Zoophile community
An online survey which recruited participants over the internet concluded that prior to the arrival of widespread computer networking, most zoophiles would not have known other zoophiles, and for the most part engaged in zoophilia secretly, or told only trusted friends, family or partners. The internet and its predecessors made people able to search for information on topics which were not otherwise easily accessible and to communicate with relative safety and anonymity. Because of the diary-like intimacy of blogs and the anonymity of the internet, zoophiles had the ideal opportunity to "openly" express their sexuality. As with many other alternate lifestyles, broader networks began forming in the 1980s when participating in networked social groups became more common at home and elsewhere. Such developments in general were described by Markoff in 1990; the linking of computers meant that people thousands of miles apart could feel the intimacy akin to being in a small village together. The popular[ newsgroup alt.sex.bestiality, said to be in the top 1% of newsgroup interest (i.e. number 50 out of around 5000), - and reputedly started in humor - along with personal bulletin boards and talkers, chief among them Sleepy's multiple worlds, Lintilla, and Planes of Existence, were among the first group media of this kind in the late 1980s and early 1990s. These groups rapidly drew together zoophiles, some of whom also created personal and social websites and internet forums. By around 1992–1994 it became accurate to say that a wide social net had evolved. This was initially centered around the above-mentioned newsgroup, alt.sex.bestiality, which during the six years following 1990 had matured into a discussion and support group. The newsgroup included information about health issues, laws governing zoophilia, bibliography relating to the subject, and community events. Since the 1990s, other zoophile websites have been created and have grown in size; for example, the zoophile website and internet forum "beastforum.com" had nearly one million members as of December 2011.
Weinberg and Williams observe that the internet can socially integrate an incredibly large number of people. In Kinsey’s day contacts between animal lovers were more localized and limited to male compatriots in a particular rural community. Further, while the farm boys Kinsey researched might have been part of a rural culture in which sex with animals was a part, the sex itself did not define the community. The zoophile community is not known to be particularly large compared to other subcultures which make use of the internet, so Weinberg and Williams surmised its aims and beliefs would likely change little as it grew. Unlike what Ross et al. (2000) suggested about gay men, that those particularly active on the internet may not be aware of a wider subculture, as there is not much of a wider subculture, Weinberg and Williams felt the virtual zoophile group would lead the development of the subculture.
There also exist websites which aim to provide support and social assistance to zoophiles (including resources to help and rescue abused or mistreated animals), but these are not usually well publicized. Such work is often undertaken as needed by individuals and friends, within social networks, and by word of mouth. One notable early attempt at creating a zoophile support structure focused on social and psychological support was the newsgroup soc.support.zoophilia, which was proposed in 1994 but narrowly failed to meet the 2/3 majority needed to be created. There was also a German support group called "Interessengemeinschaft Zoophiler Menschen ("Zoophile Interest Group").
Source: WIKIPEDIA
The Kinsey reports controversially rated the percentage of people who had sexual interaction with animals at some point in their lives as 8% for men and 3.6% for women, and claimed it was 40–50% in people living near farms, but some later writers dispute the figures, because the study lacked a random sample, and because the prison population was included, causing sampling bias .Martin Duberman has written that it is difficult to get a random sample in sexual research, and that even when Paul Gebhard, Kinsey's research successor, removed prison samples from the figures, he found the figures were not significantly changed.
By 1974, the farm population in the USA had declined by 80 percent compared to 1940, reducing the opportunity to live with animals; Hunt's 1974 study suggests that these demographic changes led to a significant change in reported occurrences of bestiality. The percentage of males who reported sexual interactions with animals in 1974 was 4.9% (1948: 8.3%), and in females in 1974 was 1.9% (1953: 3.6%). Miletski believes this is not due to a reduction in interest but merely a reduction in opportunity.
Nancy Friday's 1973 book on female sexuality, My Secret Garden, comprised around 190 fantasies from different women; of these, 23 involve zoophilic activity.
In one study, psychiatric patients were found to have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55 percent) of reported bestiality, both actual sexual contacts (45 percent) and sexual fantasy (30 percent) than the control groups of medical in-patients (10 percent) and psychiatric staff (15 percent). Crépault and Couture (1980) reported that 5.3 percent of the men they surveyed had fantasized about sexual activity with an animal during heterosexual intercourse. A 1982 study suggested that 7.5 percent of 186 university students had interacted sexually with an animal.
Sexual fantasies about zoophilic acts can occur in people who do not have any wish to experience them in real life. Nancy Friday notes that zoophilia as a fantasy may provide an escape from cultural expectations, restrictions, and judgements in regard to sex. A frequent interest in and sexual excitement at watching animals mate is cited as an indicator of latent zoophilia by Massen (1994). Masters (1962) says that some brothel madams used to stage exhibitions of animals mating, as they found it aroused potential clientele, and that this may have encouraged the clients to engage in bestiality.
Several studies have found that women show stronger vaginal responses to films depicting bonobo copulation than to non-sexual stimuli.
Legal status
Main article: Zoophilia and the law
In many jurisdictions, all forms of zoophilic acts are prohibited; others outlaw only the mistreatment of animals, without specific mention of sexual activity. In some countries, such as Denmark, bestiality is not outlawed. It is currently illegal in Canada, Netherlands, 32 U.S. states, Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Turkey and Ghana. In the UK, Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (also known as the Extreme Pornography Act) outlaws images of a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive). Countries such as Belgium, Germany, and Russia are somewhere in between: they permit sexual activity with animals, but prohibit the promotion of animal-oriented pornography.
Laws on zoophilia are often triggered by specific incidents. While some laws are very specific, others employ vague terms such as "sodomy" or "bestiality," which lack legal precision and leave it unclear exactly which acts are covered. In the past, some bestiality laws may have been made in the belief that sex with an animal could result in monstrous offspring, as well as offending the community. Current anti-cruelty laws focus more specifically on animal welfare while anti-bestiality law are aimed only at offenses to community standards.
Notable legal views include Sweden, where a 2005 report by the Swedish Animal Welfare Agency for the government expressed concern over the increase in reports of horse-ripping incidents. The 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. In New Zealand, the 1989 Crimes Bill considered abolishing bestiality as a criminal offense, and instead viewing it as a mental health issue, but they did not, and people can still be prosecuted for it.
Some countries once had laws against single males living with female animals, such as Alpacas. Copulating with a female alpaca is still specifically against the law in Peru.
Until 2005, there was a farm near Enumclaw, Washington that was described as an “animal brothel”, where people paid to have sex with animals. After an incident on July 2, 2005, when a man was pronounced dead in the emergency room of the Enumclaw community hospital after his colon ruptured due to having been sodomized by a horse, the farm garnered police attention. The state legislature of the State of Washington, which had been one of the few states in the United States without a law against bestiality, within six months passed a bill making bestiality illegal.
Health and safety
Main article: Zoophilia and health
Infections that are transmitted from animals to humans are called zoonoses. Some zoonoses may be transferred through casual contact, but others are much more readily transferred by activities that expose humans to the semen, vaginal fluids, urine, saliva, feces and blood of animals. Examples of zoonoses are Brucellosis, Q fever, leptospirosis, and toxocariasis. Therefore sexual activity with animals is, in some instances, a high risk activity. Allergic reactions to animal semen may occur, including anaphylaxis. Bites and other trauma from penetration or trampling may occur.
Zoophiles
Non-sexual zoophilia
The love of animals is not necessarily sexual in nature. In psychology and sociology the word "zoophilia" is sometimes used without sexual implications. Being fond of animals in general or pets in particular is accepted in Western society, and although sometimes ridiculed, it is usually respected or tolerated. However, the word zoophilia is usually used to mean a sexual preference towards animals which is acted upon, a paraphilia. People who identify as zoophiles may feel their love for animals is romantic rather than purely sexual, and say this makes them different from those committing entirely sexually motivated acts of bestiality. They may not act on their sexual attraction to animals.
Zoophile community
An online survey which recruited participants over the internet concluded that prior to the arrival of widespread computer networking, most zoophiles would not have known other zoophiles, and for the most part engaged in zoophilia secretly, or told only trusted friends, family or partners. The internet and its predecessors made people able to search for information on topics which were not otherwise easily accessible and to communicate with relative safety and anonymity. Because of the diary-like intimacy of blogs and the anonymity of the internet, zoophiles had the ideal opportunity to "openly" express their sexuality. As with many other alternate lifestyles, broader networks began forming in the 1980s when participating in networked social groups became more common at home and elsewhere. Such developments in general were described by Markoff in 1990; the linking of computers meant that people thousands of miles apart could feel the intimacy akin to being in a small village together. The popular[ newsgroup alt.sex.bestiality, said to be in the top 1% of newsgroup interest (i.e. number 50 out of around 5000), - and reputedly started in humor - along with personal bulletin boards and talkers, chief among them Sleepy's multiple worlds, Lintilla, and Planes of Existence, were among the first group media of this kind in the late 1980s and early 1990s. These groups rapidly drew together zoophiles, some of whom also created personal and social websites and internet forums. By around 1992–1994 it became accurate to say that a wide social net had evolved. This was initially centered around the above-mentioned newsgroup, alt.sex.bestiality, which during the six years following 1990 had matured into a discussion and support group. The newsgroup included information about health issues, laws governing zoophilia, bibliography relating to the subject, and community events. Since the 1990s, other zoophile websites have been created and have grown in size; for example, the zoophile website and internet forum "beastforum.com" had nearly one million members as of December 2011.
Weinberg and Williams observe that the internet can socially integrate an incredibly large number of people. In Kinsey’s day contacts between animal lovers were more localized and limited to male compatriots in a particular rural community. Further, while the farm boys Kinsey researched might have been part of a rural culture in which sex with animals was a part, the sex itself did not define the community. The zoophile community is not known to be particularly large compared to other subcultures which make use of the internet, so Weinberg and Williams surmised its aims and beliefs would likely change little as it grew. Unlike what Ross et al. (2000) suggested about gay men, that those particularly active on the internet may not be aware of a wider subculture, as there is not much of a wider subculture, Weinberg and Williams felt the virtual zoophile group would lead the development of the subculture.
There also exist websites which aim to provide support and social assistance to zoophiles (including resources to help and rescue abused or mistreated animals), but these are not usually well publicized. Such work is often undertaken as needed by individuals and friends, within social networks, and by word of mouth. One notable early attempt at creating a zoophile support structure focused on social and psychological support was the newsgroup soc.support.zoophilia, which was proposed in 1994 but narrowly failed to meet the 2/3 majority needed to be created. There was also a German support group called "Interessengemeinschaft Zoophiler Menschen ("Zoophile Interest Group").
Source: WIKIPEDIA
Zoophilia and the law
Historical and cultural context
Main article: Historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia
Historically, European and western views on zoophilia can often be traced back to religious influences and more specifically to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions under which it was viewed as an abomination and breach of God's will. During the Middle Ages this led to people being burned for zoophilia activity, viewed on a par with homosexuality under the term "sodomy", as one of the most horrific acts possible from a religious point of view. Animals suspected were also put on trial and faced being killed if found guilty (See:Animal trial).
In other cultures, it was at times accepted, or tolerated, and at other times taboo or punished, and this varied very widely.
However an examination of Hittite and Near Eastern Laws (Akkadian/Sumerian) shows the bestiality was punished in these ancient cultures as well. For instance a Hittite law reads "If anyone has sexual relations with a pig or dog, he shall die. He shall bring him to the palace gate (i.e., the royal court). The king may have them (i.e., the human and the animal) killed or he may spare them, but the human shall not approach the king. If an ox leaps on a man (in sexual excitement) the ox shall die; the man shall not die. They shall substitute one sheep for the man and put it to death. If a pig leaps on a man (in sexual excitement), it is not an offense." Additionally "If a man has sexual relations with either a horse or a mule, it is not an offense, but he shall not approach the king, nor shall he become a priest." For further information Martha Roth's 'Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor' is an essential text. Because many cultures in Africa and the Americas did not leave written records, the evidence for zoophilia activity arrives to us through the observations of westerners. This can be problematic for creating an overall idea of practice vs. law in these cultures, just as observation among the practice of Bedouins in the 19th century may lead to incorrect conclusions regarding Islamic law since the former did not widely practice the latter despite being considered Muslims. Thus written records are the best indication for what other cultures, such as India or China, have felt about human sexual activities with animals through the ages. Further research needs to be done in these areas but aversions to bestiality are not found only in the West, but also have been documented throughout the world, just as the widespread practice has been documented as existing side by side with laws condemning the activity.
In more recent centuries the subject was studied as a medical aberration, some formof throwback or degeneracy within medicine, and finally within the 20th century, came to be recognized as a sexual orientation in many cases.
Zoophilia and Jewish lawThe important citations for bestiality in the Hebrew Bible can be found in the following laws: ‘Whoever lies with a Beast shall be put to death’ Exodus 22:19 ‘Do not have carnal relations with any beast and defile yourself thereby; and let no woman lend herself to a beast to mate with it; it is perversion.’ - Leviticus 18:23 ‘If a man has carnal relations with a beast, he shall be put to death; and you shall kill the beast.’ – Leviticus 20:15 ‘If a woman approaches any beast to mate with it, you shall kill the woman and the beast; they shall be put to death - their bloodguilt is upon them.’ – Leviticus 20:16 ‘accursed is one who lies with any animal.’ And the entire people shall say ‘amen’. – Deuteronomy 27:21
The Mishnah elaborates: Sanhedrin 7:4 “These are they that are to be stoned: he that has a connection with a beast, and the woman that suffers connection with a beast”
These important passages provide a basis for some understanding of the interpretation of Bestiality that is found later in various legal codes throughout Europe and the United States. Many of them will also appear in some form among legal codes in 17th century Europe.
Clinical and scientific context
In discussing arguments for and against zoophilia 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."
People's views appear to depend significantly upon the nature of their interest and nature of exposure to the subject. People 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, 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 into animal behavior, emotion and sexuality is generally supportive of some of the claims by zoophiles regarding animal cognition, behaviour, and sexual/relational/emotional issues.
Legal context
Laws on bestiality tend to be shaped by three main factors:
- Animal welfare concerns
- Personal moral views of shapers of opinion
- Cultural beliefs about the act
Issues confusing the matter are that such research as is available is not widely known, and that cases which come to public light may not be representative of the whole spectrum of this behavior.
Posner (1996) states, "there is some evidence that bestiality was particularly reviled because of fear that it would produce monsters... At early common law, there was no offense of cruelty to animals... The focus of [cruelty to animals] statutes is different from that of the traditional sodomy statute; anticruelty 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."
Animal welfare bodies usually, but not always, view zoophilia as a matter of animal abuse, or at the least, of concern. A notable exception is the Swedish Animal Welfare Agency, which in 2005 addressed concerns over a surge in horse-ripping incidents by reviewing the matter and concluded that although animal cruelty legislation needed updating, a ban on zoophilia activity was not justified by research.
Difficulty in assessing laws on zoophilia
There are two main reasons why it is hard to be certain whether zoophilia acts are legal in a country or area. The terminology used in law may be vague, so it is not clear what is covered, and whilst it is usually clear if a specific law prohibits zoophilia activity, it is not always so clear (for several reasons) whether the absence of an obvious law means the opposite.
Vagueness of terms
Some countries list laws very clearly, such as the United Kingdom, which specifically prohibits penetration of a human being by the penis of an animal, and penetration of an animal by a human's penis.
By contrast many countries are quite vague about the exact scope of law. Terms such as "sex with animals", "sexual contact","sodomy", "crime against nature", or "bestiality" are significantly lacking in legal precision, and as with many laws, what may seem very straightforward from a distance is very vague close-up in a courtroom. This also makes them indeterminate and leaves it unclear what exact activities such terms might encompass.
Difficulty in establishing legality
It is difficult to state with certainty which countries beyond these accept zoophilia actions in law. This is for many reasons, the main ones of which are:
Assumption of cruelty
Even if bestiality is not explicitly prohibited, there are often many other laws which can be used to effectively prosecute cases. For example, most countries have animal cruelty laws, and a prosecutor will argue that all zoophilia activity is animal abuse, even if no harm was done to the animal. In some U.S. states, a person who engages in bestiality can be charged with animal "cruelty" even if the animals involved are not injured.
Creative law use
Some countries have a range of historic but vague laws on their statute books (for example sodomy laws, "crime against nature" laws, or other laws based upon the historical religious beliefs of the culture), and will prosecute under that. Even when these type of laws do not exist, it is often the case that a prosecution will be found on some ground or other, however contrived. Three examples:
- In one case, prosecutors charged the individual with "sex with a minor".
- In the case of Kenneth Pinyan, reports suggest that despite seizing and examining carefully a large number of such videos from the property, no evidence of abuse was found. Not only was there no abuse found, but the state had no law against zoophilia activity at the time. Nonetheless, as one news source comments:
- In a 2005 Florida case, media reports state: "Florida has no law prohibiting sex with animals, so [the defendant] is charged with ... disorderly conduct, specifically a 'breach of the peace by engaging in sexual activity with a dog'..."
Non-codified cultural prohibitions and social taboos
Often there are traditions or unwritten cultural beliefs, such as tribal law or custom, which although not codified as legislation, carry an equal weight to any other law. These are sometimes called customary law, and are one of the main four legal systems in the world.
Finally, whether or not legal, there are often social mores and taboos which frown strongly upon it. For example, even in Sweden, where zoophilia has been legal since 1944, Beetz comments on the findings of Ullerstam:
"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 men 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'."For these reasons, this article only asserts legality where it is both confirmed and openly acknowledged custom and law that bestiality is legal, and where in fact it is openly confirmed, acknowledged or able to be practiced.
Common reasons given for laws
Laws in the West are in flux at the moment. Some countries such as the UK have recently (2002) relaxed their laws, whilst others (several US states) have recently introduced new ones where none previously existed.
A key factor seems to be the motive behind the change: in the UK the motive was a complete review of all sex offences, which concluded that a life sentence was inappropriately harsh. By contrast in Arizona USA, the motive for legislation was a "spate of recent cases" , and the Arizona legislator is quoted in that source as stating:
"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?"However, in addition to specific events, much of the motivation behind banning human-animal sex is the personal opinions of single intolerant politicians; Joe Arpaio of Arizona, Bob Lynn of Alaska and Nan Rich of Florida were all responsible for banning zoophilia in their respective states (because of their own personal beliefs). Because bestiality is a taboo subject, the ban proposals made by the lone politicians were approved without any debate and without anyone questioning the bans.
In cultures with a strong background in Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), personal or cultural beliefs about God'sBiblical laws or God's plans for human sexuality are a strong influencing factor. These beliefs are caused by speciesism (a bias in favor of humans over other species) and anthropocentrism. Religious-based beliefs are of Abrahamic origin and not of Hindu or Buddhist origin, since eastern religions are more tolerant of zoophilia.
Against the Abrahamic tradition, in some countries (notably the United States), courts have ruled that views on morality are not sufficient justification for law (Lawrence vs. Texas). In other cases (Muth v. Frank) have ruled adversely to a broader reading of that case. In two U.S. states, laws prohibiting the act of having sex with an animal were ruled unconstitutional.
A second major reason is the strong desire of society to outlaw and punish what is perceived to be animal cruelty and animal abuse. Cultural assumptions and cases of zoosadism have left society as a whole wary or hostile towards any belief that animals may engage in sex with humans on a mutual or non-abusive basis. This is partly because of erroneous studies; prior research was performed only on violent, incarcerated abuser populations and mis-cited by parties with vested interests -- this was described by professor emeritus Vern Bullough as "more a pseudo-science than serious research". According to Bullough, this assumption of zoophilia was used for many decades as "proof" that zoosexual activity should be classified as a rare but profound sexual pathology. Although there have been a few cases of zoosadism, there is no link between animal cruelty and non-abusive zoosexual activity. Recent studies suggest that the majority of zoophiles are not cruel to animals:
"In recent surveys, the majority of zoophiles scoffed at the notion that they were abusive toward animals in any way — far from it, they said. Many even consider themselves to be animal welfare advocates in addition to zoophiles."
A major social factor in the proposed introduction of laws is the coming to light of specific cases to public attention; this was the case in Washington, Missouri and Arizona USA, and also behind recent attempts in 2004 to change the law in the Netherlands. In such cases it often does not seem to matter whether there was abuse or not, or how rare or commonly such matters arise. Rather it seems to be a case of moral panic, or "not in my back yard."
Overall much of the concern can be summarized as coming from lack of knowledge, combinedwith repugnance at the concept of human-animal sexuality, presented in a societal context of religious or social abhorrance, and a desire to reduce what is perceived to be abuse. Because laws against zoophilia have been created as a result of moral panic and not rationality, the reasons for creating these laws have been called "not compelling" and have been described as being "an unjust and unconstitutional infringement on individual liberty."
Laws against zoophilia
Aggrawal has discussed extensively on laws against zoophilia. It is permitted in a few countries, such as Sweden and Denmark, although ordinary animal treatment laws apply. In other countries, such as Germany and Russia, bestiality is legal, but zoophilia pornography is illegal (2008 in Germany).
Elsewhere in the developed world, it is a prudent assumption that it is illegal or at the very least, against social custom.
There are also commonly laws against forcing another person to engage in zoophilia activity, especially minors (usually considered equivalent to rape), and laws related to exposing others (either non-consensually or minors) to the sight of a sexual act. In some jurisdictions, laws against zoophilia conduct also include provisions for seizure of animals where convicted.
Sexual handling of an animal for the purposes of veterinary practice, or animal husbandry (breeding), is normally exempted where such laws exist. In public discussion for the recently passed Oregon law, however, one animal shelter's spokesperson wanted the husbandry exemption kept out, as he was concerned that someone might use these "accepted farming practices" as a legal loophole to then have (legal) sexual contact with an animal only for personal enjoyment. One of the legislators responded by asking if they were trying to outlaw an act (of sexual contact), or a state of mind. The veterinary and husbandry exemption was left out of Oregon's law in the final, enacted version.
National laws - Legality
Australia
Laws are determined at the state and territory level. Illegal in all of them (the definition of the act is derived from case law and varies for each province) though for 23 years in the Australian Capital Territory between 1988 and 2011 it was not a crime.
Belgium
Legal. However, the spreading of zoophilia pornography is not, according to a court ruling in 2006 against a man who frequently had sex with dogs in a shelter he had worked for. He was acquitted from the charge of animal abuse and was only found guilty of violating public decency by spreading zoophilia pornographic material he had made at the shelter, which he did mainly via his website under the nickname Freki. The Belgian animal rights organisation Gaia, which filed the complaint, appealed unsuccessfully against the court ruling.
Cambodia
Legal. As of 2005, police released a man suspected of zoophilia activity stating that while unusual, falling in love with a dog is not illegal.
Canada
Illegal. Section 160 forbidding "bestiality". In addition 'Compelling the commission of bestiality' and 'Bestiality in presence of or by child'(under the age of 16) are also separate crimes and all of these offenses are subject to imprisonment up to 10 years.
Denmark
Legal. A 2006 bid by the Danish People's Party to outlaw bestiality failed after the a report by the Danish Animal Ethics Council determined that existing laws were sufficient protection against abuse.
Ethiopia
Illegal. "In Ethiopian law bestiality is punishable by law"
Finland
Legal, as long as no physical harm is made to the animal; formerly illegal but made legal in 1971. Making and importing zoophilia pornography is legal, any trading is illegal.
France
Illegal since 2004, upheld by the Court of Cassation. It had been legal since 1791. Before 1791, bestiality was punished by death to the human and animal perpetrators.
Germany
Legal. Sex with animals is not specifically outlawed (but trading pornography showing it is, cf.). In West Germany, the law making it a crime (§175b StGB) was removed in 1969. East Germany before reunification had no law against bestiality; zoophilia pornography, however, was very restricted. Certain barriers are set by the Animal Protection Law (Tierschutzgesetz).
Ghana
Illegal. As of 2006 "Unnatural carnal knowledge" is not permitted under the Ghana criminal code.
Hong Kong
Illegal
Hungary
Legal, as long as no physical harm is made to the animal.
India
Section 377 of the IPC (Indian Penal Code) makes it illegal for a person to have sexual contact with an Animal. "Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." The punishment is tougher than the punishment for rape, however only penetration is considered under this section.
Japan
Legal, according to Japanese law.
Mexico
Legal. (Carl Franz, "The People's Guide to Mexico", 1988. pg. 398)
Netherlands
In 2010 in the process of being made illegal, art. 254 Wetboek van Strafrecht.
New Zealand
Illegal, under a variety of sections contained in the Crimes Act 1961. Section 143, makes "bestiality" an offence, but as in Canada, the meaning of bestiality is derived from case law. There are also associated offences of indecency with an animal (section 144) and compelling an indecent act with an animal (section 142A). It is interesting to note that in the 1989 Crimes Bill considered abolishing bestiality as a criminal offence, and for it to be treated as a mental health issue. In Police v Sheary (1991) 7 CRNZ 107 (HC) Fisher J considered that "[t]he community is generally now more tolerant and understanding of unusual sexual practices that do not harm others." According to the recent New Zealand Book of Lists (2007, p59), however, only one offender apiece are currently serving prison sentences under Sections 142A and 144.
Norway
Illegal. A law was made in November 2008
Philippines
Legal. In 2010 a Filipino farmer was jailed for raping another person's dog, but this was covered by existing animal cruelty laws (there are no anti-zoophilia laws)
Singapore
Illegal. Penal Code Sexual penetration with living animal377B. —(1) Any person (A) who --
(a) penetrates, with A’s penis, the vagina, anus or any orifice of an animal; or
(b) causes or permits A’s vagina, anus or mouth, as the case may be, to be penetrated by the penis of an animal, shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (1) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Any person (A) who --
(a) causes any man (B) to penetrate, with B’s penis, the vagina, anus or any orifice of an animal; or
(b) causes the vagina, anus or mouth, as the case may be, of another person (B) to be penetrated with the penis of an animal,
shall be guilty of an offence if B did not consent to the penetration.
(4) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (3) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 20 years, and shall also be liable to fine or to caning.
Sweden
Legal. It was formerly illegal, but made legal in 1944. A 2005 report by the Swedish Animal Welfare Agency for the Swedish government expressed strong concerns over the increase in reports of horse-ripping incidents, although noting that "the rise in documented cases did not necessarily mean that there was a de facto increase", and distinguished zoophilia activity from incidents involving physical injury (zoosadism). The Animal Welfare Agency gave as its opinion that current animal cruelty legislation needed updating as it was not sufficiently protecting animals from abuse, but concluded that on balance it was not appropriate to call for a ban.
Switzerland
Illegal. As in Germany, pornography involving animals is illegal.
Thailand
Legal, under Thai law.
Turkey
Illegal, Animal Rights issue
United Kingdom
Anal and vaginal penetration of or by an animal is illegal, and carries a sentence of up to 2 years imprisonment. Historically an unspecified range of acts were illegal, however the Sexual Offences Act 2003 which followed a major review of all sexual offences in UK law clarified this, removing the ambiguous activities from the scope of the law, and changing the sentence from life imprisonment (which had been criticized as over-harsh) to two years.Possession of pornography was criminalized in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. The law on pornography is broader than that of actual acts: it also covers oral sex; it applies to dead animals as well as living; images are illegal even if they are faked. Thus an image of a legal act may be illegal to possess. The first prosecutions for bestiality pornography occurred in 2009.
United States
Laws are determined at the state level. Many U.S. states explicitly outlaw sex with animals (sometimes under the term of "sodomy" or "unnatural crime against nature"). Others do not.Many U.S. state laws against "sodomy" (generally in the context of heterosexual sodomy, oral sex, anal sex and all homosexual conduct) were repealed or struck down by the courts in Lawrence v. Texas, which ruled that perceived moral disapproval on its own was an insufficient justification for banning a private act. On the other hand, the 2004 conviction of a man in Florida (State vs. Mitchell) demonstrated that even in states with no specific laws against zoophilia acts, animal cruelty statutes would instead be applied. Similarly, in 2011 a Shelby, Ohio zoophile who regularly had sex with his dogs was arrested and charged with animal "cruelty", even though no harm was done to his animals and there are no laws specifically prohibiting bestiality in Ohio. The man's dog was confiscated and given to someone else.
Muth v. Frank showed that some courts might be "desperate to avoid the plain consequences" of Lawrence and may make "narrow and strained" efforts to avoid seeing it as relevant to other consensual private acts beyond the realm of homosexuality.
Finally, the 1999 Philip Buble case showed that when a self-confessed zoophile is assaulted and the assault is motivated by his zoophilia (i.e., hate crime), a jury can convict the assailant and a judge give a stern sentence, despite the controversial nature of the cause.
Zoosexual activity (bestiality) is officially illegal in 32 states. Zoosexual activity is a misdemeanor in the following states:
Zoosexual activity (bestiality) is a felony in the following states:
The remaining 18 states (and DC) do not have laws prohibiting zoosexual activity. Two states had laws against zoophilia that were declared unconstitutional by state courts and were subsequently invalidated: Montana and North Carolina. In Kansas, a law against zoophilia was repealed. In the District of Columbia, a law against zoophilia (listed under "sodomy") was repealed.
Bestiality is a felony in Puerto Rico and is illegal in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Zambia
Illegal. Penal code Cap 87 Section 115 forbids "Unnatural Offences" including "carnal knowledge of an animal".
Pornography laws
Main articles with legal sections: Obscenity, Pornography, Legal status of internet pornography
Animal pornography is governed in the United States by the same Miller test and obscenity laws as any other form of pornography. In many countries such as Canada, Hungary and the Netherlands, such material is legal, although in some countries where zoophilia acts are legal, zoophilia pornography is not (Belgium, Germany, Russia).
Legality of any given pornographic material has three components: legality of production, legality of sale and transportation, and legality of ownership.
In general, animal pornography is legal to produce anywhere that zoophilia activity and the creation of pornography in general are both legal. Laws concerning sale, transmission and ownership vary more widely.
Erotic art, such as animal pornography in cartoons and the like, which does not require the recording of an actual sexual incident, are not usually considered sex with animals by the law, and so their status depends upon more general laws such as legal limits upon obscenity or pornography alone, and the thin line between erotic art and pornography.
Religious laws
main articles: Religious law
In certain religions, sex with animals was part of the legal framework of a theocratic state, and as such the matter also falls under religious law. This is particularly the case for Abrahamic religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam, although many other religions and traditions such as Hindu, Buddhism and even Satanism have religious views and rules on the matter which did not form part of a national legislative regime.
Historical and other laws
In some countries laws existed against single males living with female animals. For example, an old Peruvian law prohibited single males from keeping a female alpaca in their residence.
Impact of laws
Impact of zoophilia laws has been in four main areas:
- A culture of fear, ignorance or witch-hunting, in which the presence of a law becomes evidence that a group are inherentlydeserving of a law. (A similar effect was noted in respect of the UK's Section 28 law on homosexuality when passed).
- The placing of such people outside the law has led to inhibitions on zoophile's ability to report animal abuse (due to unwillingness to come to legal attention as a witness or otherwise), or alternatively increases zoophile's vulnerability to blackmail (a proportion are reported by vindictive human ex-partners and the like, or the threat used to obtain advantage).
- Reduced ability to determine what, if any, support, counselling or other assistance may be appropriate, or to provide or seek the same openly. (A notable exception is in Germany where bestiality is legal, and a telephone based charitable crisis support service similar to Samaritans is available)
- The personal impact of living with such fears - of loss of partners, or criminal charges - and the need to maintain secrecy even from loved ones (due to lack of legal protection), is a stressor to zoophiles and their relationships.
- Even perfectly healthy animals in non-abusive relationships can be at higher risk of certain diseases (and lower risk of others) because they are kept unneutered for sexual purposes. Owners may visit a vet less frequently than they would otherwise, fearing awkward question, or discovery of their secret (leading to criminal prosecution to themselves and the death of their pet) which could theoretically jeopardize the health of their animal. To obtain an intact animal a zoophile may unwillingly and/or unwittingly lend support to abusive animal practices like puppy mills.
- It is argued that because humans are animals, laws prohibiting zoosexual activity are speciesist and irrationally keep humans separated from other animals.
Brian Cutteridge states the following regarding the above issues:
"Animal sexual autonomy is regularly violated for human financial gain through procedures such as [artificial insemination]. Such procedures are probably more disturbing physically and psychologically than acts of zoophilia would be, yet the issue of consent on the part of the animal is never raised in the discussion of such procedures. To confine the 'right' of any animal strictly to acts of zoophilia is thus to make a law [against zoophilia] based not on reason but on moral prejudice, and to breach the constitutional rights of zoophiles to due process and equality before the law [...] Laws restricting the private conduct of individuals in which 'a person's conduct affects the interests of no person but himself, or need not affect them unless they like,' unjustly constrain the legal and moral rights of such individuals. Laws which criminalize zoophilia based on societal abhorrence of such acts rather than any real harm caused by such acts are an unjust and unconstitutional infringement on individual liberty."
Connected with this, fear of consequences is reported to prevent zoophiles from seeking clinical advice, for example, by raising zoophilia or losses connected to it with doctors or therapists.This is similar to the manner in which homosexuals' issues are under reported in countries where homosexuality is punishable.
Bioethicist Jacob Appel of New York University, an opponent of anti-bestiality laws, has stated that such laws are discriminatory; he also states that such laws keep zoophiles "in the shadows" and prevent an accurate assessment of their numbers.
Notable cases
There are many cases of zoophilia and the law, so only the most notable are related here.
- "Freddie the Dolphin" (1991, UK) - man accused of masturbating a well known tame dolphin at sea. Charged with a "lewd act". Acquitted. Expert witnesses testified male dolphins use their erections not just sexually, but socially as well, and no sexual inference could be drawn. Judge summing up said of the £30,000 trial cost, "this has been the most expensive lesson in dolphin sociology that he has ever heard of".
- Kenneth Pinyan (2005, USA) - man died following anal penetration by a stallion. Police determined that no cruelty took place. Nonetheless, moral panic led to rapid introduction of laws in the state involved and a search for grounds to charge someone videotaping the incident with at least an offence of some kind.
- Sudan (February 2006) - man caught having sex with a neighbour's goat, is ordered by the council of elders to pay the neighbour a dowry of 15,000 Sudanese dinars ($50) and marry the animal.
- Cambodia (2005) - man caught having a "passionate embrace" in bed with dog, by wife, confessed he loved the dog more and they separated. Cambodian police commented: "As police, we could only solve the problem of his wife then wanting a divorce. We cannot solve the problem of his relationship with his dog, because under Cambodian law it is not strictly illegal... It is amazing, but this husband is not crazy. It seems he is a passionate human being who looked at a dog, and the more he looked, the more passionate he became."
- Wisconsin, USA (2007) - Bryan James Hathaway was convicted for having sex with a dead deer. The court case raised some interesting legal issues because the statute prohibits sex with animals, but not carcasses. The defence raised the issue that if a dead animal was an animal, at what point would it cease to be an animal.
Source: Wikipedia
