Misplaced Pages

Zoophilia: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:51, 20 May 2006 view sourceFT2 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators55,546 edits Psychological and research perspectives← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:55, 31 December 2024 view source Tassedethe (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators1,369,064 editsm Disambiguate Martin Weinberg to Martin S. Weinberg using popups 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|Paraphilia involving a sexual fixation on non-human animals}}
{{otheruses}}
{{Distinguish|Zoophily}}
{{pp-semi-indef}}
{{pp-move}}
{{Lead too short|date=November 2023}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=October 2021}}
]}} by F.K. Forberg, illustrated by ]]]
'''Zoophilia''' is a ] in which a person experiences a sexual fixation on non-human animals.<ref name="DSM 5" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=P. Rafferty |first=John |date=21 September 2022 |title=Zoophilia |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/zoophilia |access-date=9 January 2023 |website=Encyclopedia Britannica}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Krause |first1=Caitlin E. |title=Encyclopedia of Sexual Psychology and Behavior |date=2023 |publisher=Springer, Cham |isbn=978-3-031-08956-5 |pages=1–4 |url=https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-031-08956-5_88-1 |language=en |chapter=Zoophilia |doi=10.1007/978-3-031-08956-5_88-1}}</ref> '''Bestiality''' instead refers to cross-species sexual activity between humans and non-human animals.{{efn|name=Note01|The terms are often used interchangeably, but it is important to make a distinction between the attraction (zoophilia) and the act (bestiality).<ref name="ranger">{{cite journal |last1 = Ranger |first1=R. |last2=Fedoroff |first2=P. | year = 2014 | title = Commentary: Zoophilia and the Law | journal = Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online | volume = 42 | issue = 4 | pages = 421–426 | url = http://www.jaapl.org/content/42/4/421.full | pmid = 25492067}}</ref>}} Due to the lack of research on the subject, it is difficult to conclude how prevalent bestiality is.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Holoyda |first1=Brian |last2=Sorrentino |first2=Renee |last3=Hatters Friedman |first3=Susan |last4=Allgire |first4=John |date=2018 |title=Bestiality: An introduction for legal and mental health professionals |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30306630/ |access-date=8 January 2023 |journal=Behavioral Sciences & the Law|volume=36 |issue=6 |pages=687–697 |doi=10.1002/bsl.2368 |pmid=30306630 |s2cid=52957702 }}</ref> Zoophilia, however, was estimated in one study to be prevalent in 2% of the population in 2021.<ref name=":0" />


== History ==
]'', a 16th century copy of a lost painting by ], 1530 (])]]
{{See also|History of zoophilia}}

The historical perspective on zoophilia and bestiality varies greatly, from the ], where depictions of bestiality appear in European ],<ref name="Bahn1998" /> to the Middle Ages, where bestiality was met with execution. In many parts of the world, bestiality is illegal under ] laws or laws dealing with ] or ].
'''Zoophilia''', from the ] Ζωο (''zôon'', "animal") and φιλία (''philia'', "friendship" or "love"), is a ], defined as an affinity or ] by a ] to a (non-human) ]. Such individuals are called '''zoophiles'''. The more recent terms '''''zoosexual''''' and ''''']''''' describe the full spectrum of human/animal ]. A separate term, '''''bestiality''''' (more common in mainstream usage), refers to human/animal sexual activity. To avoid confusion about the meaning of ''zoophilia'' — which may refer to the affinity/attraction, paraphilia, or sexual activity — this article uses ''zoophilia'' for the former, and ''zoosexual activity'' for the sexual act. The two terms are independent: not all sexual acts with animals are performed by zoophiles; and not all zoophiles exercise their philia.

Sexual acts with animals are often condemned as ] and/or outlawed as "]". However some, such as philosopher and animal rights author ], 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 whether some aspects of zoophilia are better understood as an abberation or as an orientation. The activity or desire itself is no longer classified as a pathology under ] (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the ]) unless accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the person. Critics point out that that DSM-IV opinion says nothing about acceptability or the well-being of the animal; defenders, on the other hand, argue that a human–animal relationship can go far beyond sexuality, that research supports their perspective, and that animals are capable of forming what is claimed to be a genuine ] that can last for years and is not considered functionally different from any other love–sex relationship.


== Terminology == == Terminology ==
===General===
{{Wiktionarypar3|Zoophilia|Zoosexuality|Bestiality}}
Three key terms commonly used in regards to the subject—''zoophilia'', ''bestiality'', and ''zoosexuality''—are often used somewhat interchangeably. Some researchers distinguish between zoophilia (as a persistent sexual interest in animals) and bestiality (as sexual acts with animals), because bestiality is often not driven by a sexual preference for animals.<ref name="ranger" /> Some studies have found a preference for animals is rare among people who engage in sexual contact with animals.<ref name="earls">{{cite journal |doi=10.1177/107906320201400106 |pmid=11803597 |title=A Case Study of Preferential Bestiality (Zoophilia) |year=2002 |last1=Earls |first1=C. M. |last2=Lalumiere |first2=M. L. |journal=Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment |volume=14 |issue=1 |pages=83–88|s2cid=43450855 }}</ref> Furthermore, some zoophiles report they have never had sexual contact with an animal.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Maratea, R. J. |year=2011 |title=Screwing the pooch: Legitimizing accounts in a zoophilia on-line community |journal=Deviant Behavior |volume=32 |issue=10 |page=938 |doi=10.1080/01639625.2010.538356| s2cid=145637418}}</ref> People with zoophilia are known as "zoophiles", though also sometimes as "zoosexuals", or even very simply "zoos".<ref name="ranger" /><ref name="Handbookth">{{Cite book |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=G_MwT9OHj4AC&q=zoophilia&pg=PA201 |title=The International Handbook of Animal Abuse and Cruelty: Theory, Research, and Application |chapter=Bestiality and Zoophilia: A Discussion of Sexual Contact With Animals |isbn=978-1-55753-565-8 |editor=Ascione, Frank |author=Beetz, Andrea M. |year=2010| publisher=Purdue University Press}}</ref> ''Zooerasty'', '']'', and ''zooerastia''<ref>{{cite web |title=zooerastia definition |url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/zooerastia |website=Dictionary.com|access-date=13 December 2011}}</ref> are other terms closely related to the subject but are less synonymous with the former terms, and are seldom used. "Bestiosexuality" was discussed briefly by Allen (1979), but never became widely established.{{citation needed|date=February 2014}}] depicting ] having sex with a fawn, dated after 500 BC.]]
The general term ''zoophilia'' was first introduced into the field of research on sexuality by ] in his book ] (1894). In ], ] and popular use, it has a variety of meanings, revolving around affinity, affection, or erotic attraction between a human being, and a (non-human) ]. Notably, it can refer to either the general emotional-erotic attraction to animals, or (less commonly) to the specific ] ] of the same name.
] coined the separate term ''zoosadism'' for those who derive pleasure – sexual or otherwise – from inflicting pain on animals. Zoosadism specifically is one member of the ] of precursors to ].<ref name="MacDonald">{{cite journal |last=MacDonald |first=J. M. |title=The Threat to Kill |journal=American Journal of Psychiatry |year=1963 |volume=120 |issue=2 |pages=125–30 |url=http://journals.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=149172 |access-date=19 January 2013 |doi=10.1176/ajp.120.2.125 |archive-date=26 July 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140726125253/http://journals.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=149172}}</ref>


===Zoophilia===
The terms ''']''', signifying the entire spectrum of emotional or sexual attraction and/or ] to animals, and '''zoosexual''' (as in, "a zoosexual " or "a zoosexual act"), have been used since the 1980s (cited by ], 1999). Technical discussion of zoosexuality as a ] in ] is discussed in that article.
The term ''zoophilia'' was introduced into the field of research on sexuality in '']'' (1886) by ], who described a number of cases of "violation of animals (bestiality)",<ref>Richard von Krafft-Ebing: ], p. 561.</ref> as well as "zoophilia erotica",<ref>Richard von Krafft-Ebing: ], p. 281.</ref> which he defined as a sexual attraction to animal skin or fur. The term ''zoophilia'' derives from the combination of two nouns in ]: '''''ζῷον''''' (''zṓion'', meaning "animal") and '''''φιλία''''' ('']'', meaning "(fraternal) love"). In general contemporary usage, the term ''zoophilia'' may refer to sexual activity between human and non-human animals, the desire to engage in such, or to the specific ] (''i.e.,'' the atypical arousal) which indicates a definite preference for animals over humans as sexual partners. Although Krafft-Ebing also coined the term ''zooerasty'' for the paraphilia of exclusive sexual attraction to animals,<ref name="deviance 391">D. Richard Laws and William T. O'Donohue: , Sexual Deviance, page 391. ], 2008. {{ISBN|978-1-59385-605-2}}.</ref> {{citation needed span|date=July 2021|text=that term has fallen out of general use}}.]
]<!--Katsushika is the family name so it is put first, BUT he is called by his given name-->'s (1760–1849) '']''|220x220px]]
===Zoosexuality===
The term ''zoosexual'' was proposed by ] in 2002<ref name="Handbookth"/> as a ''value-neutral'' term. Usage of ''zoosexual'' as a noun (in reference to a person) is synonymous with zoophile, while the adjectival form of the word – as, for instance, in the phrase "zoosexual act" – may indicate sexual activity between a human and an animal. The derivative noun "zoosexuality" is sometimes used by self-identified zoophiles in both support groups and on internet-based discussion forums to designate ] manifesting as sexual attraction to animals.<ref name="Handbookth"/>


===Bestiality===
Individuals with a strong affinity for animals but without a sexual interest can be described as "non-sexual" (or "emotional") zoophiles, but may object to the ''zoophile'' label. They are commonly called ''']rs''' instead.
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.<ref>{{cite web |author=Cory Silverberg |date=12 March 2010 |title=Zoophilia |url=http://sexuality.about.com/od/glossary/g/zoophilia.htm |website=Sexuality.about.com |access-date=13 May 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120321175334/http://sexuality.about.com/od/glossary/g/zoophilia.htm |archive-date=21 March 2012 |url-status=deviated}}</ref> Confusing the matter yet further, writing in 1962, William H. Masters used the term ''bestialist'' specifically in his discussion of zoosadism.{{Citation needed|reason=There is no source for this statement|date=July 2021}}


Stephanie LaFarge, an assistant professor of psychiatry at the ], and Director of Counseling at the ], writes that two groups can be distinguished: bestialists, who rape or abuse animals, and zoophiles, who form an emotional and sexual attachment to animals.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.riverfronttimes.com/1999-12-15/news/all-opposed-say-neigh/ |author=Melinda Roth |work=Riverfront Times |date=15 December 1991 |title=All Opposed, Say Neigh |access-date=24 January 2009 |archive-date=4 May 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150504031547/http://www.riverfronttimes.com/1999-12-15/news/all-opposed-say-neigh/}}</ref> ] and ] studied self-defined zoophiles via the internet and reported them as understanding the term ''zoophilia'' to involve concern for the animal's welfare, pleasure, and consent, as distinct from the self-labelled zoophiles' concept of "bestialists", whom the zoophiles in their study defined as focused on their own gratification. {{harvp|Williams|Weinberg|2003}} also quoted a British newspaper saying that ''zoophilia'' is a term used by "apologists" for ''bestiality''.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Williams CJ, Weinberg MS |title=Zoophilia in men: a study of sexual interest in animals |journal=Archives of Sexual Behavior |volume=32 |issue=6 |pages=523–35 |date=December 2003 |pmid=14574096 |doi=10.1023/A:1026085410617|s2cid=13386430 }}</ref>
The ambiguous term ''']''', usually referring to non-procreative sex,<ref name="sodomy_law">'']'' ruling - "Early American sodomy laws were not directed at homosexuals as such, but instead sought to prohibit nonprocreative sexual activity more generally"</ref> is sometimes used in legal contexts to include zoosexual as well as homosexual acts. '''''Zooerasty''''' is an older term, not in common use, for ] sex with animals in a ] manner. In ], human–animal sex is occasionally described as ''farmsex'', ''dogsex'', or ''animal sex''; these terms are often used regardless of the context or species involved.
{{anchor|Faunoiphilia}}


Sexual arousal from watching animals mate is known as ''faunoiphilia''.<ref>Aggrawal, Anil. . CRC Press, 2008.</ref>
'''Bestiality''' does not by itself imply any given motive or attitude. It signifies just a sexual act. In a non-zoophilic context, words like ''bestial'' or ''bestiality'' are also used to signify acting or behaving savagely, animal-like, extremely viciously, or lacking in human values.


==Extent of occurrence==
Amongst zoophiles and some researchers,<ref name="bestialist">Masters (1962) uses the term "Bestialist" specifically in his discussion of Zoosadism, in the section "related perversions". Elsewhere he tends to use other terms. Likewise Dr. LaFarge, an assistant professor of Psychiatry at the New Jersey Medical School, who is the Director of Counseling at the ] and works with the ] correctional system, is quoted as commenting that: ''"it's important to make the distinction between bestialists and zoophiles, because zoophiles try not to hurt their animals, whereas bestialists do"'' </ref> the term '''''bestialist''''' has acquired a negative connotation implying a lower concern for animal welfare. This usage originated with the desire by some zoophiles to have a way to distinguish zoophilia as a fully relational outlook (sexual or otherwise), from simple "ownership with sex." Others describe themselves as zoophiles and bestialists in accordance with the dictionary definitions of the words.
]'' ] from ]'s series, "Eight Canine Heroes of the House of Satomi", 1837 ]]
The ]s of 1948 and 1953 estimated the percentage of people in the general population of the United States who had at least one sexual interaction with animals as 8% for males and 5.1% for females (1.5% for pre-adolescents and 3.6% for post-adolescents females), and claimed it was 40–50% for the ] and even higher among individuals with lower ]al status.<ref name="deviance 391" /> Some later writers dispute the figures, noting that the study lacked a random sample in that it included a disproportionate number of prisoners, causing ]. ] has written that it is difficult to get a random sample in sexual research, but pointed out that when ], Kinsey's research successor, removed prison samples from the figures, he found the figures were not significantly changed.<ref>Richard Duberman: {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090111215816/http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/publications/duberman.html |date=11 January 2009 }}, Kinsey's Urethra ''The Nation,'' 3 November 1997, pp. 40–43. Review of ''Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life.'' By James H. Jones.</ref>]By 1974, the farm population in the US had declined by 80 percent compared with 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.<ref>Hunt 1974, cited and re-examined by Miletski (1999)</ref>


]'s 1973 book on ], '']'', comprised around 190 fantasies from different women; of these, 23 involve zoophilic activity.<ref>{{cite book|author=Nancy Friday|title=My Secret Garden|publisher=Simon and Schuster|edition=Revised|year=1998|isbn=978-0-671-01987-7|pages=180–185|chapter=What do women fantasize about? The Zoo|orig-year=1973|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=J9ZKmplu4agC&pg=PA180}}</ref>
Finally, ] refers to the torture or pain of animals for sexual pleasure, and also includes willfully abusive zoosexual 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).<ref name="psych">{{cite journal |pmid=1778686 |year=1991 |last1=Alvarez |first1=WA |last2=Freinhar |first2=JP |title=A prevalence study of bestiality (zoophilia) in psychiatric in-patients, medical in-patients, and psychiatric staff |volume=38 |issue=1–4 |pages=45–7 |journal=International Journal of Psychosomatics}}</ref> {{harvp|Crépault|Couture|1980}} reported that 5.3 percent of the men they surveyed had fantasized about sexual activity with an animal during heterosexual intercourse.<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1007/BF01542159 |title=Men's erotic fantasies |year=1980 |last1=Crépault |first1=Claude |last2=Couture |first2=Marcel |journal=Archives of Sexual Behavior |volume=9 |issue=6 |pages=565–81 |pmid=7458662 |s2cid=9021936}}</ref> In a 2014 study, 3% of women and 2.2% of men reported fantasies about having sex with an animal.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Joyal |first1=C. C. |last2=Cossette |first2=A. |last3=Lapierre |first3=V. |year=2014 |title=What Exactly Is an Unusual Sexual Fantasy? |journal=The Journal of Sexual Medicine |volume=12 |issue=2 |pages=328–340 |doi=10.1111/jsm.12734 |pmid=25359122 |s2cid=33785479}}</ref> A 1982 study suggested that 7.5 percent of 186 university students had interacted sexually with an animal.<ref>{{cite journal |pmid=7164870 |year=1982 |last1=Story |first1=M. D. |title=A comparison of university student experience with various sexual outlets in 1974 and 1980 |volume=17 |issue=68 |pages=737–47 |journal=Adolescence}}</ref> A 2021 review estimated zoophilic behavior occurs in 2% of the general population.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last1=Campo-Arias |first1=Adalberto |last2=Herazo |first2=Edwin |last3=Ceballos-Ospino |first3=Guillermo A. |date=March 2021 |title=Review of cases, case series and prevalence studies of zoophilia in the general population |url=http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/rcp/v50n1/0034-7450-rcp-50-01-34.pdf |journal=Revista Colombiana de Psiquiatría |language=es |volume=50 |issue=1 |pages=34–38 |doi=10.1016/j.rcp.2019.03.003 |pmid=33648694 |s2cid=182495781 |issn=0034-7450 |archive-date=2022-02-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220204073102/http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/rcp/v50n1/0034-7450-rcp-50-01-34.pdf}}</ref>
== Extent of occurrence ==
{{Main|Demographics of sexual orientation}}

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. <ref name="kinsey_research">], reviewing the ]s stated that: ''... as for the call for a "]," a team of independent statisticians studying Kinsey's procedures had concluded as far back as 1953 that the unique problems inherent in sex research precluded the possibility of obtaining a true random sample, and that Kinsey's interviewing technique had been "extraordinarily skillful." They characterized Kinsey's work overall as "a monumental endeavor."'' The controversial results were hotly debated, especially by some who felt that inclusion of prison results had allowed sampling bias to distort the conclusions. Gebhard, who investigated these claims and later "cleaned up" Kinsey's large quantities of data in response to these issues, stated that to his surprise, the 1960's "cleaning" of Kinsey's data had not in fact changed any of kinsey's findings significantly.</ref>

Scientific surveys estimating the frequency of zoosexual activity, as well as anecdotal evidence and informal surveys, suggest that more than 1-2% -- and perhaps as many as 8-10% -- of sexually active adults have had significant sexual experience with an animal at some point in their lives. Studies suggest that a larger number (perhaps 10-30% depending on area) have fantasized or had some form of brief encounter. Larger figures such as 40-60% for rural teenagers (living on or near livestock farms) have been cited from some earlier surveys such as the ]s, but some later writers consider these uncertain.<ref name="kinsey_research" /> Anecdotally, ]'s 1973 book on ] '']'' comprised around 190 women's contributions; of these, some 8% volunteered a serious interest or active participation in zoosexual activity.<ref name="Nancy_Friday">''Nancy Friday'': - '']'' contains around 190 fantasies:
* 15 represented zoosexual activity as an actual interest or major fantasy, either past or present:
::''Jeanne (p.85), Lisa (p.87), Kate (p.89 **), Jo (p.161), Rosie ( p.163), Dawn (p.163), Wanda (p.163), Raquel (p.168), Felicia (p.195 **), Sonia (p.196), Trudy (p.198:**), Nina (p.202 **: youthful experimentation), Jocelyn (p.279 **), Esther (p.288 **), Anon (p.300)''. <br />(** - actual activity or strong stated interest in actual activity)
* For a further 8 (23 total = 12%) it was represented as one of multiple fantasies:
::''Madge (p.18: humiliation), Hilda (p.48: size), Esther (p.69: fantasy), Alexandra (p.218: fantasy/domination), Gelda (p.230: fantasy), Tina's husband (p.244: both interested in animal mating), Bobbie (p.256: fantasy/horses), Paula (p.259: sex on horseback)''
* It should be noted these figures are for sexually interested aspects only. Non-sexual zoophilia is excluded from the above book.
* Various sources comparing genders in zoophilia, express an expectation that the rate for zoosexual activity in men would be expected to be higher than the rate in women.</ref>

] 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. ] zoophile tendencies may be common; the frequency of interest and sexual excitement in watching animals ] is cited as an indicator by Massen (1994) and commented on by Masters (1962).<ref name="watching">From Masters (1962) section 'Psychical bestiality' -- "Sexual arousal at the sight of animals copulating has been reported by a great many persons, both famous and obscure, who have added that such arousal leads sometimes to acts of bestiality, sometimes to masturbation, and occasionally to heterosexual coitus with anyone available. (That the latter result may be forthcoming has always been well known to operators of houses of prostitution, who have staged exhibitions of animal coitus and of bestiality for the express purpose of stimulating the carnal appetites of their patrons...)"</ref>

== Legal status ==
{{main|Zoosexuality and the law}}
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.

Laws on zoosexuality in modern times are often triggered by specific incidents or by peer pressure.<ref>In ] USA, the motive for legislation was a "spate of recent cases" , and the Arizona legislator is quoted in that source as stating:
:"Arizona appears to be in the minority of states that does not make sex with animals a crime. That doesn't necessarily mean we're wrong. But why shouldn't we be in line with everybody else if the rest of the nation thinks it's a problem?"</ref> Whilst some laws are very specific, others employ vague terms such as "]" or "bestiality" which lack legal precision and leave it unclear which exact acts are covered. Other factors affecting the operation of law include enforced assumptions as to abuse, creative use of alternative laws, and the impact of uncodified ], prohibitions, and social ]s. Posner (1996) states:
:"here is some evidence that bestiality was particularly reviled because of fear that it would produce monsters... At early ], there was no offense of cruelty to animals... The focus of <nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki> statutes is different from that of the traditional sodomy statute; anticruelty statutes are concerned with both the treatment of the animal and with the offense to community standards, while antibestiality provisions embodied in the sodomy statutes are aimed only at offenses to community standards." <ref name="posner">Posner, Richard, A Guide to America's Sex Laws, The University of Chicago Press, 1996. ISBN 0-226-67564-5. Page 207.</ref>

Whilst zoosexuality is legal in a few ] countries, such as ] and the ], it is illegal in ], ], and much of the ] and ] amongst others. Countries such as ], ] and ] are in between the two as they permit zoosexual activity but strictly prohibit the promotion of animal-oriented pornography. A detailed list of countries and laws can be found at ].

* In ], a 2005 report by the ] for the Swedish government expressed strong concerns over the increase in reports of ] incidents, although noting that "the rise in documented cases did not necessarily mean that there was a de facto increase", and distinguished zoosexual 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.
* In ], the 1989 Crimes Bill considered abolition of bestiality as a criminal offence, and for it to be treated as a ] issue. In ''Police v Sheary'' (1991) 7 CRNZ 107 (HC) Fisher J considered that "he community is generally now more tolerant and understanding of unusual sexual practices that do not harm others.
* In the ], many state laws against "sodomy" (usually in the context of male homosexuality) were repealed or struck down by the courts in ], 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 ({{Derefer|1=http://pet-abuse.com/cases/2206/FL/US/1 State vs. Mitchell}}) demonstrated that even in states with no specific laws against zoosexual acts, animal cruelty statutes would instead be applied, and ] 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.<ref name="MuthvFrank">From main article '']'' - "The grounds for dismissal, that Lawrence had dealt specifically with homosexual sodomy and not other consensual private sexual activity between adults, were considered "narrow and strained" by at least one newspaper, the ''Boston Globe'' . As legal scholar Matthew Franck observed, the writer of the opinion, Judge Daniel Manion, must have been "desperate to avoid the plain consequences of the Court's recent precedents on sexual liberty". "</ref> Finally, the 1999 ] case showed that when a self-confessed zoophile is assaulted and the assault is motivated by his zoophilia (ie ]), a jury can convict the assailant and a judge give a stern sentence, despite the controversial nature of the cause.
* In some countries laws existed against single males living with female animals. For example, an old ]vian law prohibited single males from having a female ] (]).

== Zoophiles ==
=== Zoophilia as a lifestyle ===

Separate from those whose interest is curiosity, pornography, or sexual novelty, are those for whom zoophilia might be called a lifestyle or orientation. A commonly reported starting age is at or before ], around 9 - 11, and this seems consistent for both males and females. ] found that the most frequent incidence of human/animal intercourse was more than eight times a week, for the under-15 years age group. Those who discover an interest at an older age often trace it back to nascent form during this period or earlier. As with human ], zoophiles may be attracted only to particular species, appearances, personalities or individuals, 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. ]) that humans often lack, and to feel that society's understanding of non-human sexuality is misinformed.<ref name="zoophiles_views">"Masters (1966) also remarked, that most zoophiles do not feel guilty about their sexual practices and do not think, that what they do is immoral or wrong, but mainly fear the legal and social consequences." (cited by Beetz 2002, section 5.2.13)</ref> 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<ref name="zoophiles_views" /> <ref name="ullerstam">
Beetz (2002) section 5.2.13 comments on the findings of Ullerstam (1966, p.119) in Sweden, where zoophilia has been legal since 1944: "It has to be noted in this context, that not having laws against a behavior and acceptance of it by society are two completely different matters... no acceptance of the persons engaging in this kind of sexual activity was adopted by the population. Furthermore, Ullerstam referred to alleged evidence that showed, that many remarkable men had sexual experiences with animals and had to live a life in constant fear because of that. Those man had been widely respected, but would have lost everything if their activities would have become known; all their great contributions would have been forgotten due to a 'primitive moral reaction'."</ref> This situation is comparable to "]" and "]" of homosexuality, with ] of the closet sometimes humorously referred to as "coming out of the stable". Other major issues are hidden loneliness and isolation (due to lack of contact with others who share this attraction or a belief they are alone), and the impact of repeated deaths of animals they consider lifelong soulmates (most species have far shorter lifespans than humans and they cannot openly ] or talk about feelings of ]).<ref>For example this description of the loss of a dog to ] kidney disease despite being able to confide in his wife: "I thought I was O.K., and then I burst into tears in the kitchen and couldn't stop crying. I didn't have any idea how much I loved until she was gone. I was depressed for a long time. My work was suffering and my relationship with my wife was suffering. People I knew would make comments that on the surface were quite harmless, but cut me deeply - "You got rid of one of your dogs, didn't you?", and "Look, it was only a dog. You'll get over it!" After I found myself idly wondering how I'd commit suicide (just as an intellectual exercise, you understand), I realized that something had to be done.... Eventually my doctor referred me to a free counselling service.... Eventually I told him of my sexual relationship with . I have to confess that I was expecting him to denounce me and wheel out a straight-jacket. But he surprised me by declaring happily that THAT was the reason I was so feeling so damned rotten. I hadn't lost a dog, I had lost a lover! And I couldn't express that pain to my friends because of the social taboo. Even my wife couldn't fully comprehend the extent of the loss I had suffered. So I was being forced to carry the pain of my loss all alone. That man saved my sanity, and possibly my life." </ref> Some of these concerns may be qualitatively similar to historical ] that have been legal or illegal at different times in history. Zoophiles do not usually cite internal conflicts over ] as their major issue, perhaps because zoosexual activity, although seemingly condemned by some religions, is not a major focus of their teachings.

Zoophilic sexual relationships vary, and may be based upon variations of human-style relationships (eg ]), animal-style relationships (each make own sexual choices), ] (non-sexual touch, mutual ], closeness), or other combinations.

Zoophiles may or may not have human partners and families. Some zoophiles have an affinity or attraction to animals which is secondary to human attraction; for others the bond with animals is primary. ] argues that a scale similar to Kinsey's could be applied for this.<ref name="miletski_orientation">Miletski, Hani: ''"The findings of this question... clearly indicate that different people have different levels of sexual inclination toward animals. "Is there a sexual orientation toward nonhuman animals?" — yes, so it appears...it very clearly shows that some people...have feelings of love and affection for their animals, have sexual fantasies about them, and admit they are sexually attracted to them. Sexual orientation, as we know it, can be fluid and changing with time and circumstances...We can place people on all levels of the ], even when we apply this scale to sexual orientation toward animals. It is logical to assume that the majority of the human race will be placed around the zero point of this Kinsey-like scale...but the current study shows that there are some humans whose place on this Kinsey-like scale is definitely not zero. In fact, there are some...individuals whose place on this scale would be the other extreme (6=sexual inclination exclusively with animals)."'' (Miletski ch.13 pp.171-172)</ref> In some cases human family or friends are aware of the relationship with the animal and its nature, in others it is hidden. This can sometimes give rise to issues of ] (as a result of divided loyalties and concealment) or ] within human relationships . In addition, zoophiles sometimes enter human relationships due to growing up within traditional expectations, or to deflect suspicions of zoophilia, and yet others may choose looser forms of human relationship as companions or 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 ]ing 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 ] and ] 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" <ref></ref>

The common feature of "zoophilia" is some form of affective bond to animals beyond the usual, whether emotional or sexual in nature. Non-sexual zoophilia, as with ] generally, is generally accepted in society, and although sometimes ridiculed, it is usually respected or tolerated. Examples of non-sexual zoophilia can be found on animal memorial pages such as , (memorial, tribute and support sites), by ] "pet memorials", or on sites such as and other ] sites.

=== Zoophiles and other groups ===

Zoophiles are often confused with '']'' or '']s (or "weres")'', that is, people with an interest in ], or people who believe they share some kind of inner connection with animals (spiritual, emotional or otherwise). While the membership of all three groups probably overlap in part, it is untrue to say that all furs or therians have a sexual interest in animals (subconscious or otherwise). Many furs find anthropomorphic adult art erotic and enjoy the companionship of animals, but have no wish to extend their interest beyond an affinity or emotional bond to sexual activity. 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 dissimkilar to typical estimates of the percentage within the population generally. Expressions of ] such as ]ing, are usually considered a form of costuming, rather than an expression of zoosexual interest and are usually legal.

Finally, zoophilia is not related to sexual ] (also known as "Petplay") or ], where one person may act like a dog, pony, horse, or other animal, while a sexual partner acts as a rider, trainer, caretaker, or breeding partner. These activities are ] whose principal theme is the voluntary or involuntary reduction or transformation of a human being to animal status, and focus on the altered mind-space created. They have no implicit connection to, nor motive in common with, zoophilia. They are instead more usually associated with ]. Zoosexual activity is not part of BDSM for most people, and would usually be considered extreme, or ].

=== Sciences studying zoophilia===
Zoophilia is in the main covered by four sciences: ] (the study of the human ]), ] (the study of ]), ] (the study of ]), and ] (the study of ])

The nature of animal minds, animal ]es and structures, and animal ], ], ], and "map of the world", are studied within ] and also explored within various specialized branches of ] such as ].

Zoophilia may also be covered to some degree by other (non-science) fields such as ], ], ], ] and ]. It may also be touched upon by ] which looks both at ] in examining patterns and issues related to ] and at non-sexual zoophilia in examining the role of animals as emotional support and companionship in human lives, and may fall within the scope of ] if it becomes necessary to consider its significance in a clinical context.


==Perspectives on zoophilia== ==Perspectives on zoophilia==
=== Psychological and research perspectives ===


=== Research perspectives ===
] (APA, 1987) stated that sexual contact with animals is almost never a clinically significant problem by itself (Cerrone, 1991), and therefore both this and the later ] (APA, 1994) subsumed it under the residual classification "]s not otherwise specified".
Zoophilia has been discussed by several sciences: ] (the study of the human ]), ] (a relatively new discipline primarily studying ]), ] (the study of ]), and ] (the study of human–animal interactions and bonds).


In the fifth edition of the '']'' (DSM-5), zoophilia is placed in the classification "other specified paraphilic disorder"<ref name="DSM 5">{{cite book | title = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition | chapter = Other Specified Paraphilic Disorder, 302.89 (F65.89) | editor = American Psychiatric Association | year = 2013 | publisher = American Psychiatric Publishing | page = 705}}</ref> ("]s not otherwise specified" in the DSM-III and IV<ref name=DSM>
The first detailed studies of zoophilia date from prior to 1910. Peer reviewed research into zoophilia in its own right has happened since around 1960. There have been several significant modern studies, from Masters (1962) to Beetz (2002), but each of them has drawn and agreed on several broad conclusions:
{{cite book |title= Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-IV | publisher = ] | location=Washington, DC |year=2000 |isbn=978-0-89042-025-6 |oclc=43483668 | title-link = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders }}
# The critical aspect to study was emotion, relationship, and motive, it is important not to just assess or judge the sexual act alone in isolation, or as "an act", without looking deeper. (Masters, Miletski, Beetz)
</ref><ref name = Milner2008>
# Zoophiles' emotions and care to animals can be real, relational, authentic and (within animals' abilities) reciprocal, and not just a substitute or means of expression. (Masters, Miletski, Weinberg, Beetz)<ref>Beetz 2002, section 5.2.4, comments on Massen's views on zoosexuality stating: "Not clearly named in this list is the form of zoophilia, that is characterized by an emotional as well as a sexual attraction respectively love to an animal, which is called zoosexuality by other authors (Donofrio, 1996; Miletski, 1999). Such an attraction is experienced and not deliberately chosen, and the animal does not serve as a surrogate in such a relation"</ref>
{{cite book | editor1 = Laws, D. R. | editor2 = O'Donohue, W. T. | last = Milner | first = J. S. | author2 = Dopke, C. A. | title = Sexual Deviance, Second Edition: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment | publisher = ] | location = New York | year = 2008 | pages = |isbn=978-1-59385-605-2 |oclc=152580827| chapter = Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified: Psychopathology and theory}}
# Most zoophiles have (or have also had) long term human relationships as well or at the same time as zoosexual ones(Masters, Beetz)<ref name="human_partners">Beetz 2002 section 5.2.4: "Studies (Donofrio, 1996; Miletski, 1999) showed, that in the majority of zoophile cases besides the zoosexual activities also sex with human partners takes place... Even if there is an – often very intense – emotional involvement with the animal, sometimes sexual or nonsexual human partners can be found among zoophile persons (Miletski, 1999; Money, 1986)."</ref>
</ref><ref name = Lovemaps>
# Society in general at present is considerably misinformed about zoophilia, its stereotypes, and its meaning (Masters, Miletski, Weinberg, Beetz)<ref name="common_understandings">As described by Beetz (2002) section 5.2.7, after a discussion of common perceptions:
{{cite book |author=Money, John |author-link = John Money |title=Lovemaps: Clinical Concepts of Sexual/Erotic Health and Pathology, Paraphilia, and Gender Transposition in Childhood, Adolescence, and Maturity |publisher=] |location=Buffalo, N.Y |year=1988 |isbn=978-0-87975-456-3 |oclc=19340917 }}
:"Peven claimed that zoophiles/bestialists derive pleasure from the defenselessness of the animal or victim, like necrophiles or pedophiles. They'' '...have failed completely at the challenge of relationships, have given up all hope of equality, and have rejected society and the social field entirely. They apparently have lost all hope of mutually satisfying cooperative sexual pleasure.' ''Peven drew a very dark picture about zoophile persons. It has to be noted here, that not only in older literature, but also in new books and articles the information on zoophilia/bestiality that is available today is often neglected. Authors write about zoophilia, and though they do not explicitly define it, it must be assumed that they at least do not include all persons who have sex with animals, but rather restrict their comments to a real, permanent, exclusive, fixated zoophilia as defined in the DSM-IV (Kockott et al. 1997; Peven, 1996 p.403)."</ref>
</ref><ref name = Seto2000>
# Contrary to popular belief, there is in fact significant popular or "latent" interest in zoophilia, either in fantasy, animal mating, or reality (Nancy Friday, Massen, Masters)
{{cite book |editor1 = Hersen, M. |editor2 = Van Hasselt, V. B. | title = Aggression and violence: an introductory text |publisher= ] |location=Boston |year=2000 |pages= 198–213 |isbn=978-0-205-26721-7 |oclc=41380492 | last = Seto| first = MC| author2 = Barbaree HE | chapter = Paraphilias}}
# The distinction between zoophilia and ] is a critical one, and highlighted by each of these studies.
</ref>). The ] takes the same position, listing a sexual preference for animals in its ] ] as "other disorder of sexual preference".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/ |title=International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10, F65.8 Other disorders of sexual preference |website=Who.int |access-date=13 May 2012}}</ref> In the DSM-5, it rises to the level of a diagnosable disorder only when accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning.<ref name="DSM 5" /><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Miletski |first1=H. |s2cid=146150162 |year=2015| title=Zoophilia – Implications for Therapy |journal=Journal of Sex Education and Therapy| volume=26 |issue=2| pages=85–86 |doi=10.1080/01614576.2001.11074387}}</ref>
# Masters (1962), Miletski (1999) and Weinberg (2003) each comment significantly on the social harm caused by these, and other common misunderstandings: "This destroy the lives of many citizens".


Zoophilia may be covered to some degree by other fields such as ethics, philosophy, law, ] and ]. It may also be touched upon by sociology which looks both at zoosadism in examining patterns and issues related to ] and at non-sexual zoophilia in examining the role of animals as emotional support and companionship in human lives, and may fall within the scope of ] if it becomes necessary to consider its significance in a clinical context. The ''Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine'' (Vol. 18, February 2011) states that sexual contact with animals is almost never a clinically significant problem by itself;<ref name="Aggrawal">{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.jflm.2011.01.004 |title=A new classification of zoophilia |year=2011 |last1=Aggrawal |first1=Anil |journal=Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine |volume=18 |issue=2 |pages=73–8 |pmid=21315301}}</ref> it also states that there are several kinds of zoophiles:<ref name="Aggrawal"/>
More recently, research has engaged three further directions - the findings that at least some animals appear to thrive in a zoosexual relationship,<ref>Masters, in 1962, wrote:
:"Where ] is not present, there is considerable room for doubt as to whether there is any cruelty. It has always been noted in fact, by ancient historians and up through Kinsey in our own time, that animals tend to become affectionately attached (not only physically) to humans who have sex relations with them, and sometimes have even been known to forsake intercourse with their own kind in testimony to their preference for relations with humans. Whatever one may think of bestiality, this does not sound as if it were an act of cruelty so far as the animal is concerned."
And ultimately speculated that:
:"One seems forced to conclude, the animal derives a considerable psychical and/or emotional pleasure from sexual contact with a being of a higher nervous, emotional, and intellectual organization, who is somehow able to provide the animal with non-material rewards which another animal is not able to offer."
Similar findings are also reported by Kinsey (cited by Masters 1962), and others earlier in history. Likewise Miletski (1999) notes that information on sex with animals on the internet is often very emphatic as to how to give pleasure and identify ] beforehand, to the point that "one can find instructions on how to tell if the animal is in the mood for sex."</ref> the weight of psychological research that zoosexuality is closer to a sexual orientation than a sexual fetish, and the finding that science apparently is closing in on confirming the capacity for authentic ], and their enjoyment and choice of actions (including sex) driven by an internal feeling that certain things are pleasurable.<ref>] ''"]"'' (2006) discusses the "possibility of positive feelings in creatures," including "play, sex, touch, food, anticipation, comfort, aesthetics, and more." In response the President and CEO of the ] (HSUS) comments about recognition of animal emotion: "Dr. Balcombe convincingly argues that animals are individual beings with a wide range of emotions and feeling. If he is correct — and I believe he is — it follows that we must grapple with the ethical consequences of his important insights."</ref>


{{div col|colwidth=20em}}
====Mis-citation of research====
*Human-animal role-players
At times, research has been cited based upon the degree of zoosexual or zoosadistic related history within populations of juvenile and other persistent offenders, prison populations with records of violence, and people with prior psychological issues. Such studies are not viewed professionally as valid means to research or profile zoophilia, as the results would be based upon populations pre-selected as knowingly having high proportions of criminal records, abusive tendencies and/or psychological issues. This approach (used in some older research and quoted to demonstrate ]) is considered discredited and unrepresentative by researchers.
*Romantic zoophiles
*Zoophilic fantasizers
*Tactile zoophiles
*Fetishistic zoophiles
*Sadistic bestials
*Opportunistic zoophiles
*Regular zoophiles
*Exclusive zoophiles
{{div col end}}


''Romantic zoophiles'', ''zoophilic fantasizers'', and ''regular zoophiles'' are the most common, while ''sadistic bestials'' and ''opportunistic zoophiles'' are the least common.<ref name="Aggrawal"/>
An example of such a statistic is a dubious<ref>"Dubious" because, in fact, its findings have not been replicated by other large-scale studies even amongst offender populations, it did not explore zoosexuals in general but only those who had committed sufficient abuse and other offences to obtain a serious sentence including youth detention, it failed to take into account prior knowledge in zoosexuality research but instead (and incorrectly according to then-current knowledge) asserted as given facts the authors' ] on what might or might not be possible, it failed to distinguish zoophilic activity (animal as friend or companion) from zoosadistic activity (animal as surrogate victim), it ignored well-known research confounds in the field as at ], and it categorized every activity with an animal, from kissing onward, as equivalent to the rape of an animal, without distinction as to motive or nature of relationship. Thus for example, in this study, no distinction or allowance was made between a young troubled person's only friend with a kissing relationship and a zoosadist's traumatized victim, and no enquiry was made as to the nature of conduct and attitudes towards the animal(s). Beetz cautions in her study of sex and violence towards animals: "This emotional relation or at least the respect they show towards the will of the involved animal should be more closely investigated, when conducting research that includes bestiality. Because this, the ''quality'' of the interaction and the relationship – that may be loving, neutral, or violent – and not the fact of a sexual interaction is important."</ref> statement cited frequently<ref>Examples of PETA citation: , {{Derefer|1=http://www.peta.org/mc/NewsItem.asp?id=6838}}</ref> by ] that "96% of people who commit bestiality will go on to commit crimes against people", which is sourced from a of such a population.


Zoophilia may reflect childhood experimentation, sexual abuse or lack of other avenues of sexual expression. Exclusive desire for animals rather than humans is considered a rare paraphilia, and they often have other paraphilias<ref name="LawsO'Donohue2008">{{cite book |author1=D. Richard Laws |author2=William T. O'Donohue |title=Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yIXG9FuqbaIC&q=zoophilia+rare&pg=PA391 |date=January 2008 |publisher=Guilford Press |isbn=978-1-59385-605-2 |page=391}}</ref> with which they present. Zoophiles will not usually seek help for their condition, and so do not come to the attention of psychiatrists for zoophilia itself.<ref name="Roukema2008">{{cite book |author=Richard W. Roukema |title=What Every Patient, Family, Friend, and Caregiver Needs to Know About Psychiatry, Second Edition |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=t7Mg3iuc9ygC&q=zoophilia+other+paraphilias&pg=PA133 |date=13 August 2008 |publisher=American Psychiatric Pub |isbn=978-1-58562-750-9 |page=133}}</ref>
When read in full however, the study also includes the following caution regarding interpretation of their results: ''"It is difficult to assess 'normality' in a study where all 381 participants were adjudicated juvenile offenders living in state facilities ... It is possible that among other populations ... sex acts with animals might be performed out of love, the need for consolation, or other motivations. In these and other populations, there might not be any link whatsoever to offenses against humans."'' This qualification by the authors regarding misinterpretation of their paper is not mentioned by PETA.


The first detailed studies of zoophilia date prior to 1910. Peer-reviewed research into zoophilia in its own right started around 1960. However, a number of the most oft-quoted studies, such as Miletski, were not published in ] journals. There have been several significant modern books, from psychologists William H. Masters (1962) to Andrea Beetz (2002);<ref name="Beetz2002">Beetz 2002, section 5.2.4 – 5.2.7.</ref> their research arrived at the following conclusions:
A further source of misinterpretation is that the 96% statistic is a highly controversial figure even amongst offender populations. The choice of survey quoted ignores contradictory evidence and clarifications from other studies. It is based upon a total of 24 individuals who admitted to serious sexual assault on humans, and the headline finding has not been replicated in any other large scale study of either offending or non-offending populations.


*Most zoophiles have (or have also had) long term human relationships as well or at the same time as bestial ones, and bestial partners are usually dogs and/or horses.<ref name="Beetz2002"/><ref name="Aggrawal2008">{{cite book|author=Anil Aggrawal|title=Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=uNkNhPZQprcC&q=zoophilia+most+common+animal&pg=PA257|access-date=13 May 2012|date=22 December 2008|publisher=CRC Press|isbn=978-1-4200-4309-9|page=257}}</ref>
=== Religious perspectives===
*Zoophiles' emotions and care for animals can be real, relational, authentic and (within animals' abilities) reciprocal, and not just a substitute or means of expression.<ref>(Masters, Miletski, Weinberg, Beetz)</ref> Beetz believes zoophilia is not an inclination which is chosen.<ref name="Beetz2002"/>
Several organized religions take a critical or sometimes condemnatory view of zoophilia or zoosexual activity, with some variation and exceptions.
* Society in general is considerably misinformed about zoophilia, its stereotypes, and its meaning.{{Clarify|date=November 2024}}<ref name="Beetz2002"/> The distinction between zoophilia and zoosadism is a critical one to these researchers, and is highlighted by each of these studies. Masters (1962), Miletski (1999) and Weinberg (2003) each comment significantly on the social harm caused by misunderstandings regarding zoophilia: "This destroy the lives of many citizens".{{Clarify|date=November 2024}}<ref name="Beetz2002"/>


More recently, research has engaged three further directions: the speculation that at least some animals seem to enjoy a zoophilic relationship assuming ] is not present, and can form an affectionate bond.<ref>Masters, 1962.</ref>
Passages in ] (Lev 18:23: "And you shall not lie with any beast and defile yourself with it, neither shall any woman give herself to a beast to lie with it: it is a perversion." RSV) and 20:15-16 ("If a man lies with a beast, he shall be put to death; and you shall kill the beast. If a woman approaches any beast and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the beast; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them." RSV) are cited by ], ], and ] theologians as categorical denunciation of bestiality. Some theologians (especially Christian<ref name="christianview">In Judaism and Islam, having desirous sexual thoughts is not considered, theologically, a major sin. In Judaism it is subsumed within the category of '']'', as a failing of emotional control (Judaism focuses more on wrongful acts than wrongful thoughts in its theology). Christianity often takes a notably more rigid line in this area; compare ] ] "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away."</ref>) extend this, to consider ]ful thoughts for an animal as a sin, and the Christian theologian ] described it along with homosexuality as the worst sexual sins "because use of the right sex is not observed." Alternatively, many Christians and some non-Orthodox Jews do not regard the full Levitical laws as binding upon them, and may consider them irrelevant. Some zoophiles take this injunction to indicate that sex with animals in the ] is forbidden, but that other positions are not specifically mentioned nor apparently against the divine will.


Beetz described the phenomenon of zoophilia/bestiality as being somewhere between crime, paraphilia, and love, although she says that most research has been based on ] reports, so the cases have frequently involved violence and psychiatric illness. She says only a few recent studies have taken data from volunteers in the community.<ref>. Scie-SocialCareOnline.org.uk. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101115133416/http://www.scie-socialcareonline.org.uk/profile.asp?guid=fac3acab-5377-4f9a-a9f0-007248ee2e43 |date=15 November 2010 }}</ref> As with all volunteer surveys and sexual ones in particular, these studies have a potential for ] bias.<ref name="Slade2001">{{cite book|author=Joseph W. Slade|title=Pornography and Sexual Representation: A Reference Guide|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Opv9nz2M5c0C&q=%22volunteer+selection%22+sex&pg=PA980|year=2001|publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group|isbn=978-0-313-31521-3|page=980}}</ref>
Views of zoophilia's seriousness in ] seem to cover a wide spectrum. This may be because it is not explicitly mentioned or prohibited in the ], or because sex and sexuality were not treated as ] in Muslim society to the same degree as in Christianity. Some sources claim that sex with animals is abhorrent, others state that while condemned, it is treated with "relative indulgence" and in a similar category to ] and ]ism (Bouhdiba: Sexuality in Islam, Ch.4 ). A book "]", cited on the Internet, which quotes the ] approving of sex with animals under certain conditions, is unconfirmed and possibly a forgery.


Medical research suggests that some zoophiles only become aroused by a specific species (such as horses), some zoophiles become aroused by multiple species (which may or may not include humans), and some zoophiles are not attracted to humans at all.<ref name="earls" /><ref>{{cite journal |pmid=15895645 |year=2005 |last1=Bhatia |first1=MS |last2=Srivastava |first2=S |last3=Sharma |first3=S |s2cid=5744962 |title=1. An uncommon case of zoophilia: A case report |volume=45 |issue=2 |pages=174–75 |journal=Medicine, Science, and the Law |doi=10.1258/rsmmsl.45.2.174}}</ref>
There are a few unsubstantiated references in ] scriptures to religious figures engaging in sexual activity with animals (e.g. the god ] lusting after and having sex with a bear, a human-like sage being born to a deer mother), as well as explicit depictions of people having sex with animals included amongst the thousands of sculptures of "Life events" on the exterior of the ] at ]. Some ] rituals actually involve zoosexual activity, such as the ]. Orthodox Hindu doctrine holds that sex should be restricted to married couples, thereby forbidding zoosexual acts. A greater punishment is attached to sexual relations with a sacred cow than with other animals.

] addresses sexual conduct primarily in terms of what brings harm to oneself or to others, and the admonition against sexual misconduct is generally interpreted in modern times to prohibit zoosexual acts, as well as ], ], ], or ]. Various sexual activities, including those with animals, are expressly forbidden for Buddhist monks and nuns.

In the ], sexual acts involving children and/or animals are universally condemned, as are those in which a human who is too naive to understand is involved. The Satanic Bible states (p.66) that animals and children are treated as sacred as they are regarded as the most natural expression of life.

===Animal studies perspectives===
{{Main|Animal sexuality}}

The common concept of animals as heterosexual and only interested in their own species, is seen as scientifically inaccurate by researchers into animal behavior. Animals are, in the main, considered as sexual opportunists by science, rather than sexually naive. ] such as ] who study animal behavior, as well as formal studies, have consistently documented significant masturbation and homosexuality in a wide range of animals, apparently freely chosen or in the presence of the opposite gender, as well as homosexual animal couples, homosexual raising of young, and cross-species sexual advances. Peter Singer reports of one such incident witnessed by ] (a notable ethologist considered by many the world's foremost authority on ]):
:''"While walking through the camp with Galdikas, my informant was suddenly seized by a large male orangutan, his intentions made obvious by his erect penis. Fighting off so powerful an animal was not an option, but Galdikas called to her companion not to be concerned, because the orangutan would not harm her, and adding, as further reassurance, that "they have a very small penis." As it happened, the orangutan lost interest before penetration took place, but the aspect of the story that struck me most forcefully was that in the eyes of someone who has lived much of her life with orangutans, to be seen by one of them as an object of sexual interest is not a cause for shock or horror. The potential violence of the orangutan's come-on may have been disturbing, but the fact that it was an orangutan making the advances was not."''

=== Animal rights, welfare and abuse concerns===

One of the primary critiques of zoophilia is the argument that zoosexual activity is harmful to animals. Some state this categorically; that any sexual activity is necessarily abuse. Critics also point to examples in which animals were clearly abused, having been tied up, assaulted, or injured. Defenders of zoophilia argue that animal abuse is neither typical of nor commonplace within zoophilia, and that just as sexual activity with humans can be both abusive and not, so can sexual activity with animals.

], PhD. in her book "Love, Violence, and Sexuality in Relationships between Humans and Animals" (2002) reports: "In most references to bestiality, violence towards the animal is automatically implied. That sexual approaches to animals may not need force or violence but rather, sensitivity, or knowledge of animal behavior, is rarely taken into consideration."

In comment on ]'s article , which controversially argued that zoosexual activity need not be abusive and if so relationships could form which were mutually enjoyed, Ingrid Newkirk, then president of the ] ] group ], added this endorsement: "If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you ] your dog and he or she thinks it's great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong. If it isn't exploitation and abuse, it may not be wrong."

(A few years later, Newkirk wrote to the editor of the Canada Free Press in response to a , making clear that she was strongly opposed to any exploitation, and all sexual activity, with animals. This was necessary since some had sought to interpret her former statement as condoning zoosexual activity. Accordingly, the response was a clarification of her position regarding zoosexual acts, rather than a different response ''per se'' to Singer's actual philosophical point, namely "if it isn't exploitation and abuse ")

Dr. LaFarge, an assistant professor of Clinical Psychiatry at the New Jersey Medical School, who is the Director of Counseling at the ] and works with the ] correctional system, is quoted in a media article (1999) as reporting that:
:''"it's important to make the distinction because zoophiles try not to hurt their animals..."''
:''"There is no evidence yet that zoophilia leads to sexual deviation, but that's not to say that's not the case. We do make the link between other forms of physical violence against animals as being a predicator of physical violence against women and children. I would go on to say that someone who is sexually violent with an animal ... is a predator and might very well do that toward people."''

] (1990, cited by Rosenbauer 1997) coined the separate term ''"]"'' for those who derive pleasure from inflicting pain on an animal, sometimes with a sexual component. Some extreme examples of zoosadism include ], the sexual enjoyment of killing animals (similar to "]" in humans), sexual penetration of fowl such as hens (fatal in itself) and strangling at orgasm, mutilation, sexual assault with objects (including screwdrivers and knives), interspecies ], and ] on immature animals such as puppies. Some horse-ripping incidents have a sexual connotation (Schedel-Stupperich, 2001). The link between sadistic sexual acts with animals and sadistic practices with humans or lust murders has been heavily researched. Some murderers tortured animals in their childhood and also sexual relations with animals occurred. Ressler et al. (1986) found that 8 of their sample of 36 sexual murderers showed an interest in zoosexual acts. (Main article: '']'')

Sexology information sites (if sufficiently detailed) are usually careful to distinguish zoosadism from zoophilia: and .


===Historical and cultural perspectives=== ===Historical and cultural perspectives===
{{Main|Historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia}}
]'', Italy, circa 8000 BC]]
{{main|Historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia}}
''Caveat - It is important to be aware that some of the descriptions in antiquity, may have been written from a political agenda, that is, with the intent of portraying a given target group intentionally negatively. Reader judgement is necessary.''


]. This German illustration shows Jews performing bestiality on a '']'', while Satan watches.]]
Prior to and outside the influence of the major ]s (], ], ]), sex with animals was sometimes forbidden, and sometimes accepted.
Instances of zoophilia and bestiality have been found in the Bible,<ref name="aggrawal_2009_16_3">{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.jflm.2008.07.006 |title=References to the paraphilias and sexual crimes in the Bible |year=2009 |last1=Aggrawal |first1=Anil |journal=Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine |volume=16 |issue=3 |pages=109–14 |pmid=19239958}}</ref> but the earliest depictions of bestiality have been found in a cave painting from at least 8000 BC in the Northern Italian ] a man is shown about to penetrate an animal. Raymond Christinger interprets the cave painting as a show of power of a tribal chief,<ref>, Link to web page and photograph, archaeometry.org</ref> it is unknown if this practice was then more acceptable, and if the scene depicted was usual or unusual or whether it was symbolic or imaginary.<ref name="Bevan2006">{{cite book|author=Lynne Bevan|title=Worshippers and warriors: reconstructing gender and gender relations in the prehistoric rock art of Naquane National Park, Valcamonica, Brecia, northern Italy|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WzxmAAAAMAAJ&q=Coren+del+Valento+animal|year=2006|publisher=Archaeopress|isbn=978-1-84171-920-7}}</ref> According to the Cambridge Illustrated History of Prehistoric Art, the penetrating man seems to be waving cheerfully with his hand at the same time. ] of the same time period seem to have spent time depicting the practice, but this may be because they found the idea amusing.<ref name="Bahn1998">{{cite book|author=Paul G. Bahn|author-link=Paul Bahn|title=The Cambridge Illustrated History of Prehistoric Art|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xwm_D1u_UTsC&q=%22prehistoric+art%22+bestiality&pg=PA188|year=1998|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-45473-5|page=188}}</ref> The anthropologist Dr "''Jacobus X"'',{{efn|name=Note02|Professor Marc Epprecht states that authors such as ''Jacobus X'' do not deserve respect because their methodology is based on hearsay, and was designed for voyeuristic titillation of the reader.<ref>{{cite journal|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dJdErRqoBeQC&q=%22Jacobus+X%22+taboos&pg=PA193|title="Bisexuality" and the politics of normal in African Ethnography|journal= Anthropologica|volume=48|pages=187–201|number=2|year=2006|author=Marc Epprecht|jstor=25605310|doi=10.2307/25605310}}</ref>}} said that the cave paintings occurred "before any known taboos against sex with animals existed".<ref>''Abuses Aberrations and Crimes of the Genital Sense'', 1901.</ref> William H. Masters claimed that "since pre-historic man is ] it goes without saying that we know little of his sexual behavior";<ref>Masters, Robert E. L., ''Forbidden Sexual Behavior and Morality'', p. 5.</ref> depictions in cave paintings may only show the artist's subjective preoccupations or thoughts.{{citation needed|date=June 2023}}


], ], and ] claimed the Egyptians engaged in ritual congress with goats.<ref name="BulloughBullough1994">{{cite book|author1=Vern L. Bullough|author2=Bonnie Bullough|title=Human Sexuality: An Encyclopedia|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=y5HFtMkmFMYC&q=bestiality+%22ancient+egypt%22+religious&pg=PA61 |date=1 January 1994|publisher=Taylor & Francis|isbn=978-0-8240-7972-7|page=61}}</ref> Such claims about other cultures do not necessarily reflect anything about which the author had evidence, but may be a form of propaganda or ], similar to ].{{citation needed|date=March 2016}}
Prehistoric man probably was not bound by any self-image in regard to sexuality, and "was likely to have made many such attempts", and in recorded history, "Bestiality... existed as a rather widespread practice in all the nations of antiquity of which we have adequate records. Where it is not specifically mentioned, it may be legitimately inferred on the basis of the over-all evidence."<ref>Masters, "Prehistory of bestiality", part of his 1962 paper, 1966 edition</ref> It was often incorporated into religious ritual.


Several cultures built temples (], India) or other structures (], ], Sweden) with zoophilic carvings on the exterior, however at ], these depictions are not on the interior, perhaps depicting that these are things that belong to the profane world rather than the spiritual world, and thus are to be left outside.{{citation needed|date=March 2016}}
Some cultures, principally in the ] and ], were more open about sexuality than the West, whilst in others (for example herding and nomadic cultures in parts of ] and the ]) it was considered a normal phase that most ]s went through but adults usually outgrew. Several cultures built temples (], ]) or other structures (], ], ]) with zoosexual carvings on the exterior.


In the Church-oriented culture of the ], zoophilic activity was met with execution, typically burning, and death to the animals involved either the same way or by hanging, as "both a violation of ] and a degradation of man as a spiritual being rather than one that is purely animal and carnal".<ref>Masters (1962)</ref> Some witches were accused of having congress with the devil in the form of an animal. As with all accusations and confessions extracted under torture in the ], their validity cannot be ascertained.<ref name="BulloughBullough1994"/>
In the West, the most explicit records of sex involving humans and animals activity are associated with reports of the murderous ], ] and ] of the ] and ], in which some authors estimate that several hundreds of thousands died.<ref>Masters (1962) reports: "Beasts were specially trained to copulate with women: if the girls or women were unwilling then the animal would attempt rape. A surprising range of creatures was used for such purposes - bulls, giraffes, leopards, cheetahs, wild boar, zebras, stallions, jackasses, huge dogs, apes, etc. The beasts were taught how to copulate with a human being either via the ] or via the ]."</ref> Representations of scenes from the sexual lives of the gods, such as ], were highly popular, often causing extreme suffering, injury or death. On occasion, the more ferocious beasts were permitted to kill and (if desired) ] afterwards. <ref>R.E.L. Masters, "The Prostitutes In Society"</ref> Being sentenced to ] by dogs and horses as a method of ] punishment or ] also occurred in the ].


===Religious perspectives===
In the Church-oriented culture of the ], zoosexual activity was met with execution, typically burning, and death to the animals involved either the same way or by hanging, as "both a violation of ] and a degradation of man".<ref>Masters (1962): "Theologians, bowing to Biblical prohibitions and basing their judgements on the conception of man as a spiritual being and of the animal as a merely carnal one, have regarded the same phenomenon as both a violation of Biblical edicts and a degradation of man, with the result that the act of bestiality has been castigated and ]tized "</ref>
Passages in ] (Lev 18:23: "And you shall not lie with any beast and defile yourself with it, neither shall any woman give herself to a beast to lie with it: it is a perversion." RSV) and 20:15–16 ("If a man lies with a beast, he shall be put to death; and you shall kill the beast. If a woman approaches any beast and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the beast; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them." RSV) are cited by Jewish, Christian, and Muslim theologians as categorical denunciation of bestiality. However, the teachings of the ] have been interpreted by some as not expressly forbidding bestiality.<ref name="Plummer">{{cite conference |last=Plummer |first=Keith |title=To beast or not to beast: does the law of Christ forbid zoophilia? |year=2001 |url=http://place.asburyseminary.edu/trenpapers/892 |conference=53rd National Conference of the Evangelical Theological Society |location=Colorado Springs, CO}}</ref>


In Part II of his '']'', medieval philosopher ] ranked various "unnatural vices" (sex acts resulting in "venereal pleasure" rather than procreation) by degrees of sinfulness, concluding that "the most grievous is the sin of bestiality".<ref> Aquinas on Unnatural Sex</ref> Some Christian theologians extend ]'s view that ] to imply that thoughts of committing bestial acts are likewise sinful.
In the ], the ] took much that had been under the field of religion, and brought it under the field of science. As with ] a variety of mixed views resulted<ref>Views in this period were typically that it was a very rare medical illness, sexual pathology, sign of degeneracy or lower level of humanity to be found in "primitive" (ie non-Western or tribal) cultures, or ].</ref> which persisted through until around 1950, when researchers such as ] followed by ] began researching sexuality and sexually fringe topics (including zoophilia) on their own terms.


]]]
== Health and safety ==


There are a few references in ] temples to figures engaging in symbolic sexual activity with animals such as explicit depictions of people having sex with animals included amongst the thousands of sculptures of "Life events" on the exterior of the ] at ]. The depictions are largely symbolic depictions of the sexualization of some animals and are not meant to be taken literally.<ref>Swami Satya Prakash Saraswati, ''The Critical and Cultural Study of the Shatapatha Brahmana'', p. 415.</ref> According to the Hindu tradition of erotic painting and sculpture, having sex with an animal is believed to be actually a human having sex with a god incarnated in the form of an animal.<ref name="PodberscekBeetz2005">{{cite book|first1=Anthony L. |last1=Podberscek |first2=Andrea M. |last2=Beetz |title=Bestiality and Zoophilia: Sexual Relations with Animals |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Z-GbOvrbniQC&pg=PT12 |access-date=4 January 2013 |date=1 September 2005 |publisher=Berg |isbn=978-0-85785-222-9 |page=12}}</ref> However, in some Hindu scriptures, such as the '']'' and the '']'', having sex with animals, especially the cow, leads one to ], where one is tormented by having one's body rubbed on trees with razor-sharp thorns.<ref name = "mani">{{cite book|author = Mani, Vettam|title = Puranic Encyclopaedia: A Comprehensive Dictionary With Special Reference to the Epic and Puranic Literature|url = https://archive.org/details/puranicencyclopa00maniuoft|publisher = Motilal Banarsidass|year = 1975|location = Delhi|isbn = 978-0-8426-0822-0|oclc=2198347|pages = }}</ref> Similarly, the ] in verse 11.173 also condemns the act of bestiality and prescribes punishments for it: <blockquote>A man who has had sexual intercourse with nonhuman females, or with a menstruating woman,—and he who has discharged his semen in a place other than the female organ, or in water,—should perform the ‘Sāntapana Kṛcchra.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://gyaandweep.com/manusmriti/11/ | title=Gyaandweep &#124; Manu Smriti , Adhyaya - 11 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.academia.edu/31478379 | title=Manu Smriti Sanskrit Text with English Translation | last1=Ganth | first1=Srimani }}</ref></blockquote>
Humans and other animals cannot make each other pregnant. There have been speculations that humans and ]s may be capable of cross-fertilization, thus producing a ], but not one verified case has ever been shown. 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 ] (known as ]) such as ] can be transferred. ] 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.


== Legal status ==
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 ] has a broad bulb at the base which can cause injury if forcibly pulled from a body orifice, and ]s can thrust suddenly and "]", and many animals bite as part of sexual excitement and foreplay. In July 2005, a 45 year old aerospace engineer, ], died in ], ] from internal injury after being ] by a stallion.<ref>Pinyan was highly experienced at this activity. Sources cited in that article add: "The prosecutor's office says no animal cruelty charges were filed because there was no evidence of injury to the horses." </ref>
<!-- PLEASE DO NOT ADD THE IMAGE Legality of bestiality by country.png TO THIS ARTICLE. tHE IMAGE IS CONSIDERED IMPROPERLY SOURCED/VERIFIED AND WILL BE REMOVED. IF YOU WISH TO DISCUSS THIS MATTER, PLEASE USE THE TALK PAGE. -->
{{Sex and the Law}}
In many jurisdictions, all acts of bestiality are prohibited; others outlaw only the mistreatment of animals, without specific mention of sexual activity. In the United Kingdom, ] (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 another animal (whether dead or alive).<ref name=opsisect63>{{cite web|url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/section/63|work=Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008|title=Section 63 – Possession of extreme pornographic images|year=2008}}</ref> Despite the ]'s explanatory note on extreme images saying "It is not a question of the intentions of those who produced the image. Nor is it a question of the sexual arousal of the defendant",<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/extreme_pornography/ |title=Extreme Pornography |publisher=Crown Prosecution Service |access-date=23 September 2015}}</ref> "it could be argued that a person might possess such an image for the purposes of satire, political commentary or simple grossness", according to '']''.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Jackman |first1=Myles |author-link=Myles Jackman |date=21 September 2015 |title=Is it illegal to have sex with a dead pig? Here's what the law says about the allegations surrounding David Cameron's biography |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/is-it-illegal-to-have-sex-with-a-dead-pig-heres-what-the-law-says-about-the-allegations-surrounding-10510743.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20230123023727/https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/is-it-illegal-to-have-sex-with-a-dead-pig-heres-what-the-law-says-about-the-allegations-surrounding-10510743.html |archive-date=23 January 2023 |url-access=subscription |access-date=23 January 2023 |newspaper=]}}{{cbignore}}</ref>


Many laws banning sex with non-human animals have been made recently, such as in the United States (]<ref name="Newhampshire">{{cite news |title=New Hampshire HB1547 – 2016 – Regular Session |url=http://legiscan.com/NH/text/HB1547/id/1286995 |access-date=17 April 2017 |website=Legiscan.com}}</ref> and ]<ref name="Ohio">{{cite web |title=Ohio SB195 – 2015–2016 – 131st General Assembly |url=http://legiscan.com/OH/text/SB195/2015 |access-date=16 November 2017 |website=Legiscan.com}}</ref>), Germany,<ref>{{cite web |url=https://dejure.org/gesetze/TierSchG/3.html|title=§ 3 TierSchG |website=Dejure.org|access-date=20 October 2018}}</ref> Sweden,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.webpronews.com/sweden-joins-an-increasing-number-of-european-countries-that-ban-bestiality-2013-06|title=Sweden Joins An Increasing Number of European Countries That Ban Bestiality|website=Webpronews.com|date=13 June 2013|access-date=16 November 2017}}</ref> ],<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.mbl.is/monitor/frettir/2014/04/07/stundar_kynlif_med_hundinum_sinum/|title=Stundar kynlíf með hundinum sínum|website=www.mbl.is}}</ref> ],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://politik.tv2.dk/2015-04-21-flertal-for-lovaendring-nu-bliver-sex-med-dyr-ulovligt|title=Flertal for lovændring: Nu bliver sex med dyr ulovligt|date=21 April 2015|access-date=20 October 2018}}</ref> ],<ref> {{dead link|date=October 2018}}</ref> ],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.elpais.cr/2016/03/09/diputados-aclaran-alcances-y-limites-de-la-nueva-ley-de-bienestar-animal/|title=Diputados aclaran alcances y límites de la nueva Ley de Bienestar Animal |website=Elpais.cr|date=10 March 2016|access-date=16 November 2017}}</ref> ],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.derechoteca.com/gacetabolivia/ley-no-700-del-01-de-junio-de-2015/ |title=LEY No 700 del 01 de Junio de 2015 |website=Derechoteca.com |access-date=16 November 2017}}</ref> and ].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://gt.transdoc.com/articulos/archivos-leyes/Ley-de-Proteccin-y-Bienestar-Animal/62680 |title=Ley de Protección y Bienestar Animal |website=Transdoc Archivos Leyes |language=es |access-date=16 November 2017 |archive-date=2 December 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201202194637/https://gt.transdoc.com/articulos/archivos-leyes/Ley-de-Proteccin-y-Bienestar-Animal/62680}}</ref> The number of jurisdictions around the world banning it has grown in the 2000s and 2010s.
== Arguments about zoophilia or zoosexual relations ==


West Germany legalized bestiality in 1969<ref>{{cite news |title=Animal welfare: Germany moves to ban bestiality |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-20523950 |access-date=28 May 2021 |work=] |date=28 November 2012}}</ref> but banned it again in 2013.<ref>{{cite web |title=Tierschutzgesetz § 3 |url=https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tierschg/__3.html |language=de |publisher=Bundesministerium der Justiz |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190129114917/https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tierschg/__3.html |archive-date=29 January 2019 |url-status=live}}</ref> The 2013 law was unsuccessfully challenged before the ] in 2015.<ref>{{Cite press release |date=18 February 2016 |url=https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2016/bvg16-011.html |publisher=Bundesverfassungsgericht |language=de |title=Erfolglose Verfassungsbeschwerde gegen den Ordnungswidrigkeitentatbestand der sexuellen Handlung mit Tieren |website=www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de |access-date=26 February 2020 |trans-title=Unsuccessful constitutional complaint against the administrative offense of sexual acts with animals |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200129211855/https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2016/bvg16-011.html |archive-date=29 January 2020|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://apnews.com/5f6ffb7e5cd2472f9bc5b5e1f6cf8e37 |access-date=26 February 2020|title=Top German court rejects challenge to law against bestiality |date=18 February 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200129222233/https://apnews.com/5f6ffb7e5cd2472f9bc5b5e1f6cf8e37|archive-date=29 January 2020|url-status=live |website=AP NEWS}}</ref><ref>{{Cite magazine |url=https://time.com/4230863/germany-sex-animals/ |title=German Court Rules Sex With Animals Still Illegal |magazine=Time|access-date=26 February 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161229005235/http://time.com/4230863/germany-sex-animals/|archive-date=29 December 2016|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35611906 |title=Bid to end German animal-sex ban fails |work=BBC News |date=19 February 2016 |access-date=26 February 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180131051614/http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35611906 |archive-date=31 January 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.thelocal.de/20160218/top-court-throws-out-bid-to-legalize-bestiality |title=Top court throws out bid to legalize bestiality |newspaper=The Local Germany |date=18 February 2016 |access-date=29 January 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200129211847/https://www.thelocal.de/20160218/top-court-throws-out-bid-to-legalize-bestiality |archive-date=29 January 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref>{{Excessive citations inline|date=November 2021}}
] 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:


Romania banned zoophilia in May 2022.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |title=LEGE (A) 205 26/05/2004 - Portal Legislativ |url=https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/255132 |access-date=2024-01-18 |website=legislatie.just.ro}}</ref>
* "Sexual activity between species is ]."
* "Sexual activity between species is (or should be) naturally repugnant to anyone in their right mind", sometimes called the "yuck factor". ''(For contrasting view see: ])''
* "Animals are not sapient, and therefore unable to consent." (similar to arguments against sex with human minors)
* "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 constitute 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.'" (cf. the UK ] review on sexual offences, 2002)<ref>http://www.archive2.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm56/5668/5668.pdf (section 79, p.33)</ref>
* "It offends human dignity<ref name="argument_from_dignity">An example of ''argument from human dignity'' is given by Wesley J. Smith, a senior fellow and ] proponent at the ] of the conservative Christian ]: - "such behavior is profoundly degrading and utterly subversive to the crucial understanding that human beings are unique, special, and of the highest moral worth in the known universe--a concept known as ']' ... one of the reasons bestiality is condemned through law is that such degrading conduct unacceptably subverts standards of basic human dignity and is an affront to humankind's inestimable importance and intrinsic moral worth." and </ref> or is forbidden by religious law."


Laws on bestiality are sometimes triggered by specific incidents.<ref>Howard Fischer: ,
Defenders of zoophilia or zoosexuality state that:
''Arizona Daily Star'', 28 March 2006. In Arizona, the motive for legislation was a "spate of recent cases."</ref> While some laws are very specific, others employ vague terms such as "]" or "bestiality", which lack legal precision and leave it unclear exactly which acts are covered. In the past, some bestiality laws may have been made in the belief that sex with another animal could result in monstrous offspring, as well as offending the community. Modern anti-cruelty laws focus more specifically on ] while anti-bestiality laws are aimed only at offenses to community "standards".<ref name="posner">Posner, Richard, A Guide to America's Sex Laws, The ], 1996. {{ISBN|978-0-226-67564-0}}. Page 207.</ref>


In Sweden, a 2005 report by the Swedish Animal Welfare Agency for the government expressed concern over the increase in reports of ] incidents. The agency believed animal cruelty legislation was not sufficient to protect animals from abuse and needed updating, but concluded that on balance it was not appropriate to call for a ban.<ref>{{cite web |title=Sweden highlights bestiality problem |date=29 Apr 2005 |website=TheLocal.se |url=http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=1357 |access-date=13 May 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130515124451/http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=1357 |archive-date=15 May 2013}}</ref> 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. Under Section 143 of the Crimes Act 1961, individuals can serve a sentence of seven years duration for animal sexual abuse and the offence is considered 'complete' in the event of 'penetration'.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM329260.html |title=Crimes Act 1961 No 43 (as at 01 October 2012), Public Act |publisher=New Zealand Legislation |date=1 October 2012 |access-date=4 January 2013}}</ref>
* "'Natural' is debatable; it's also not necessarily relevant." ''(ie, ])''
* "Animals are capable of sexual consent - and even initiation - in their own way." <ref>Miltski, 1999, p.50: "it is not an uncommon practice for dogs to hump on the legs of
people of both genders, and to perform coital movements (Cauldwell, 1948 & 1968; Queen, 1997). Rosenberger (1968) emphasizes that as far as cunnilingus is concerned, dogs require no training, and even Dekkers (1994) and Menninger (1951) admit that sometimes animals take the initiative and do so impulsively."</ref>
* "Animals do form mutual relationships with humans."
* "Many zoophiles appear to have human partners and relationships<ref name="human_partners" />; many others simply do not have a ] to humans."
* "Many zoophiles have an attraction to species which are relatively inaccessible, such as ]; tending to oppose the view that they are simply 'looking for easy sex'."
* "It is a misperception that zoosexual relations need necessarily be inherently harmful/abusive. Usually it needs only sensitivity, mutuality, and understanding of everyday animal behavior."<ref>Beetz (2002), ''Love Sex and Violence with Animals'', section 5.2.8: "In most references to bestiality violence towards the animal is automatically implied. That sexual approaches to animals may not need force or violence but rather a sensitivity or knowledge of animal behavior... is rarely taken into consideration." Beetz also states there is significant evidence that violent zoosadistic approaches to sex with animals, often characterized by "binding, roping, threatening, beating", are linked to "violent behavior" and could be a "rehearsal for human-directed violence", however she notes ''inter alia'' that in existing research " never explicit questions about the degree of violence used had been asked."</ref>
* "Instinct does not exclude enjoyment, volition or learning."
* "Animal and human ] is flexible enough both to allow for different species in it and can easily encompass dynamically changing roles and leads."
* "People choosing to take responsibility for an animal, have to also take responsibility for its sexual drive. ] and ignoring are a failure to accept animals as they are, often used to avoid facing an uncomfortable aspect of animal reality or 'best care'." <ref name="neutering.org">See , an advocative site discussing the view that spay and neuter, far from helping animals, is a lazy and harmful way to manage sexuality and is practiced more for its human convenience than because of its ethical appropriateness. Also see subpage (adult content/parental tagged) for alternatives.</ref>
* "Both male and female domestic animals of several species can experience the physical sensation of ], and can unambiguously solicit and demonstrate appreciation for it in their body language. Animals of many species also ], even if other sexual partners are accessible." <ref name="animal_masturbation">See ] for more information on animal's sexuality, and both male and female masturbation in the animal kingdom and natural world.</ref>
* "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."


As of 2023, bestiality is illegal in 49 U.S. states. Most state bestiality laws were enacted between 1999 and 2023.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Wisch |first=Rebecca F. |date=2022 |title=Table of State Animal Sexual Assault Laws |website=Animal Legal & Historical Center |url=https://www.animallaw.info/topic/table-state-animal-sexual-assault-laws |access-date=2022-09-30 |publisher=Michigan State University College of Law}}</ref> Bestiality remains legal in ], while 19 states have statutes that date to the 19th century or even the ]. The recent statutes are distinct from older sodomy statutes in that they define the proscribed acts with precision.<ref>{{cite magazine |url=https://newrepublic.com/amp/article/160448/meat-bestiality-artificial-insemination |title=The Meat Industry's Bestiality Problem |magazine=] |author1=Jan Dutkiewicz |author2=Gabriel N. Rosenberg |date=11 December 2020}}</ref>
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). ]'']


=== Pornography ===
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.
{{Main|Obscenity|Legal status of Internet pornography}}
{{category see also|Animal pornography}}
{{more citations needed section|date=May 2021}}
]
In the ], zoophilic pornography would be considered ] if it did not meet the standards of the ] and therefore is not openly sold, mailed, distributed or imported across state boundaries or within states which prohibit it. Under U.S. law, 'distribution' includes transmission across the Internet.{{Citation needed|date=November 2023}} The state of Oregon explicitly prohibits possession of media that depicts bestiality when such possession is for erotic purposes.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_167.341| title=ORS 167.341 - Encouraging sexual assault of an animal | access-date=27 April 2024}}</ref>


Similar restrictions apply in ] (see ]). In ], the possession, making or distribution of material promoting bestiality is illegal.{{Citation needed|date=November 2023}}
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)


While bestiality is illegal across ], the first state to also ban zoophilic pornography was ].<ref>{{cite web | url=https://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw-law-bans-crush-bestiality-fetish-content-080141149.html | title=First Aussie state passes law banning 'sickening' fetish videos | date=25 November 2021 }}</ref>
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 ], who are unsympathetic to ] in general, or who know little about zoophilia, often regard it as an extreme form of ] and/or indicative of serious psychosexual issues.<ref name="herek_ATLG">The finding that attitudes to alternate sexualities correlate strongly with nature of contact and beliefs, is stated in a variety of research into zoophilia and also mirrored in ], which have been more thoroughly researched over a longer time period. Thus Herek, who established the Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale in psychology, states ''"The ATLG and its subscales are consistently correlated with other theoretically-relevant constructs. Higher scores (more negative attitudes) correlate significantly with high religiosity, lack of contact with gay men and lesbians, adherence to traditional sex-role attitudes, belief in a traditional family ideology, and high levels of dogmatism (Herek, 1987a, 1987b, 1988, 1994; Herek & Glunt, 1993; Herek & Capitanio, 1995, 1996)"'' , and that ''"the strongest predictor of positive attitudes toward homosexuals was that the interviewee knew a gay man or lesbian. The correlation held across each demographic subset represented in the survey--sex, education level, age--bar one: political persuasion. "'' </ref> Mental health professionals and personal acquaintances of zoophiles who see their relationships over time tend to be less critical, and sometimes supportive.<ref name="herek_ATLG" /> '']'' who study and understand animal behaviour and body language, have documented animal sexual advances to human beings and ], and tend to be matter-of-fact about animal sexuality and animal approaches to humans; their research is generally supportive of some of the claims by zoophiles regarding animal cognition, behaviour, and sexual/relational/emotional issues. 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.


The potential use of media for ]s was seen from the start of the era of ]. ''Polissons and Galipettes'' (re-released 2002 as "]") is a collection of early ] silent films for brothel use, including some zoophilic pornography, dating from around 1905 – 1930.{{Citation needed|date=November 2023}}
<!-- Note for references: Animal sexual advances have been documented by ethologists such as ] and ] -->


Material featuring sex with non-human animals is widely available on the internet. An early film to attain great infamy was "]", smuggled into Great Britain around 1980 without details as to makers or provenance.<ref>{{cite web|title=The Dark Side of Porn Season 2 (2006) – Documentary / TV-Show|url=http://crimedocumentary.com/dark-side-porn-season-2-2006/|website=Crimedocumentary.com|access-date=28 May 2018}}</ref> The film was later traced to a crude juxtaposition of smuggled cuts from many of ]'s 1970s Danish movies.{{Citation needed|date=November 2023}}
== Mythology and fantasy literature==
<!-- Unsourced image removed: ] copulating with a goat; marble sculpture from the ancient city of ]]] -->
] and the Bull'' by ], c. 1869]]


In 1972, ], the star of the film "]", appeared in the film "Dogorama" (also released under the titles "Dog 1," "Dog Fucker" and "Dog-a-Rama") in which she engages in sexual acts with a dog.<ref name="Bourke-2019">{{cite journal |last1=Bourke |first1=Joanna |title=Bestiality, Zoophilia and Human–Animal Sexual Interactions |journal=] |date=March 2019 |volume=42 |issue=1 |pages=91–115 |doi=10.3366/para.2019.0290 |url=https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/22369/ |access-date=20 May 2024 |issn=0264-8334}}</ref>
From cave paintings onward and throughout human history, zoophilia has been a recurring subject in art, literature, and fantasy.


In ], although zoophilia was officially banned in May 2022,<ref name=":1" /> there are no laws which prohibit zoophilic pornography. However, creating sites that present zoophilic pornography is not allowed per Article 7.3 of ''Law 196/2003'',<ref>{{Cite web |title=LEGE 196 13/05/2003 - Portal Legislativ |url=https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/43795#:~:text=(3)%20Se%20interzic%20realizarea%20%C5%9Fi%20administrarea%20site-urilor%20av%C3%A2nd%20caracter%20pedofil,%20zoofil%20sau%20necrofil. |access-date=2024-06-01 |website=legislatie.just.ro}}</ref> but no punishment is defined for doing so.
In ] mythology, the god ] is said to have impregnated a ] to sire a young bull god. In ], ] appeared to ] in the form of a ], and her children ] and ] resulted from that sexual union. Zeus also seduced ] in the form of a ], and carried off the youth ] in the form of an eagle. The half-human/half-bull ] was the offspring of Queen ] and a white bull. King ] continued to seduce the nymph ] despite her transforming into (among other forms) a lion, a bird, and a snake. The god ], often depicted with goat-like features, has also been frequently associated with animal sex. As with other subjects of ] mythology, some of these have been depicted over the centuries since, in western painting and sculpture. In ], ] had intercourse with a stallion, in the form of a mare, and gave birth to ]. The ], a ] ] from the ], contains a number of ]s, some of which depict Zoophilia.


In ], where production faces no legal limitations, zoophilic materials have become a substantial industry that produces a number of films and magazines, particularly for Dutch companies such as ''Topscore'' and ''Book & Film International'', and the genre has stars such as "Hector", a ] dog starring in several films.{{Citation needed|date=November 2023}}
Fantasy literature has included a variety of seemingly zoophilic examples, often involving human characters enchanted into animal forms: '']'' (a young woman falls in love with a physically beast-like man), ]'s '']'' (Queen Titania falls in love with a character whose head is transformed into that of a donkey's), '']'' (a princess champions a man enchanted into ape form), the ] ]'s '']'' (explicit sexuality between a man transformed into a donkey and a woman), and ]'s '']'' (a love affair between a soldier and a panther). In more modern times, zoosexual relations of a sort has been a theme in science fiction and horror fiction, with the giant ape ] fixating on a human woman, alien monsters groping human females in pulp novels and comics, and depictions of ] in Japanese ] and ].


In ], zoophilic pornography is used to bypass censorship laws, often featuring models performing ] on non-human animals, because oral penetration of a non-human penis is not in the scope of Japanese ] censorship. While primarily underground, there are a number of zoophilic pornography actresses who specialize in bestiality movies.{{Citation needed|date=November 2023}}
]'', an 1820 ] woodcut depicting a woman being sexually molested by a pair of ]]]


In the ], ] criminalises possession of realistic pornographic images depicting sex with non-human animals (see ]), including fake images and simulated acts, as well as images depicting sex with dead animals. The law provides for sentences of up to two years in prison; a sentence of 12 months was handed down in one case in 2011.<ref>, '']'', 26 January 2011.</ref>
Modern erotic ] fantasy art and stories are sometimes associated with zoophilia, but many creators and fans disagree with this, pointing out that the characters are predominantly humanoid fantasy creatures who are thinking, reasoning beings that consider and consent to sex in the same manner humans would. "Furry" characters have been compared to other intelligent and social non-human fictional characters who are subjects of love/sexuality fantasies without being commonly regarded as zoophilic, such as the ] and ]s in '']'', or ] in fantasy fiction. Animals and ], when shown in furry art, are usually shown engaged with others of similar kind, rather than humans.


==Zoophiles==
== Media discussion ==


=== Non-sexual zoophilia ===
Because of its controversial standing, different countries and medias vary in how they treat discussion of zoosexual activity. Often sexual matters are the subject of legal or regulatory requirement. For example, in 2005, the UK broadcasting regulator (]) updated its code stating that:
The love of animals is not necessarily sexual in nature. In ] and sociology the word "zoophilia" is sometimes used without sexual implications. Being fond of animals in general, or as pets, is accepted in Western society, and is usually respected or tolerated. However, the word zoophilia is used to mean a sexual preference towards animals, which makes it<ref name="CraigheadNemeroff2002">{{cite book|editor1=W. Edward Craighead|editor2=Charles B. Nemeroff|title=The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology and Behavioral Science|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JQMRmyOfpJ8C&q=zoophilia+meaning|date=11 November 2002|publisher=John Wiley & Sons|isbn=978-0-471-27083-6|page=1050}}</ref> a ]. Some zoophiles may not act on their sexual attraction to animals. 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.<ref name="Delaney2003">{{cite book|author=David Delaney|title=Law and Nature|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZjqWw-9ZQfYC&q=zoophilia+romantic&pg=PA252|year=2003|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-1-139-43700-4|page=252}}</ref>
:"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 ] 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 ] and manner."


===Zoophile community===
The contrasting views between cultures are highlighted by the case of '']'', a ] ], which was simultaneously the subject of a raid by ] police for pornographic depiction of bestiality (as noted, furry art is not usually considered "bestiality"), and the subject of praise by the ] government committee on import of printed material for its mature depiction of relationships and sexuality.
An online survey which recruited participants over the Internet concluded that prior to the arrival of widespread ]ing, most zoophiles would not have known other zoophiles, and for the most part, zoophiles engaged in bestiality 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.<ref>Montclair, 1997, cited by Miletski, 1999, p .35.</ref> As with many other ], broader networks began forming in the 1980s when participating in ] became more common at home and elsewhere.<ref name="Weinberg and Williams">{{harvp|Williams|Weinberg|2003}}</ref> 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.<ref>Markoff, 1990.</ref> The popular newsgroup ].bestiality, said to be in the top 1% of newsgroup interest (i.e. number 50 out of around 5000), – and reputedly started in humor<ref>Miletski p. 35.</ref> – along with personal ]s and ]s, chief among them ''Sleepy's multiple worlds'', ''Lintilla'', and ''Planes of Existence'', were among the first group media of this kind<!-- Clarify: Of what kind? Of all internet groups? Or of zoophilia-related Internet groups? --> in the late 1980s and early 1990s. These groups rapidly drew together zoophiles, some of whom also created personal and social websites and ]s. By around 1992–1994, the wide social net had evolved.<ref>Miletski (1999)</ref> This was initially centered around the above-mentioned ], ''alt.sex.bestiality'', which during the six years following 1990 had matured into a discussion and support group.<ref>Milteski (1999), p. 35.</ref><ref>Andriette, 1996.</ref><ref>Fox, 1994.</ref><ref>Montclair, 1997.</ref> The newsgroup included information about health issues, laws governing zoophilia, bibliography relating to the subject, and community events.<ref>Donofrio, 1996.</ref>


{{harvp|Williams|Weinberg|2003}} 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 {{harvp|Williams|Weinberg|2003}} surmised its aims and beliefs would likely change little as it grew. Those particularly active on the Internet may not be aware of a wider subculture, as there is not much of a wider subculture, {{harvp|Williams|Weinberg|2003}} felt the virtual zoophile group would lead the development of the subculture.<ref name="Weinberg and Williams"/>
References to zoosexual activity or bestiality are not uncommon in some media, especially ] series such as ] ''(episode: "]")'' and ] ''(])'', ] such as ], and films (especially shock ]s), although a few broadcasters such as ] (who joked about bestiality dial-a-date on NBC) and ] (whose ] Breakfast Show resulted on one occasion in a live discussion about the ethics of zoosexual pornographic movies at peak child listening time) have been reprimanded by their stations for doing so. In literature, American novelist ] refers to a photo of a woman attempting sexual intercourse with a Shetland Pony in '']'', '']'', and '']'', while ]'s novel '']''repeatedly mentions a pornographic photograph depicting oral sex on a pony.

== Pornography ==
:''Main articles: ], ], ]''
] involving sex with animals is widely illegal, even in most countries where the act itself is not explicitly outlawed. In the ], zoosexual pornography (in common with other pornography) would be considered ] if it did not meet the standards of the ] and therefore is not openly sold, mailed, distributed or imported across state boundaries or within states which prohibit it. Under U.S. law, 'distribution' includes transmission across the ]. Production and mere possession appear to be legal, however. U.S. prohibitions on distribution of sexual or obscene materials are ] in some doubt, having been ruled ] in '']'' (a judgement which was overturned on ], December 2005). Similar restrictions apply in Germany (cf. §184 StGB ).

Using animal fur or ] in erotic photography (in a sense, the combination of ] and zoophilia) doesn't seem to be ], nor do photographs of nude models posed with animals provided no sexual stimulation is implied to the animal. Stuffed animals are sometimes used in glamour erotic photography with models touching their sexual organs against such animals, and likewise models may be posed with animals or on horseback. The subtext is often to provide a contrast: animal versus sophisticated, raw beast versus culturally guided human. (Nancy Friday comments on this, noting that zoophilia as a fantasy may provide an escape from cultural expectations, restrictions, and judgements in regard to sex.)

Materials featuring sex with animals are widely available on the ], however, because of their ease of production, and because production and sale is legal in countries such as the ] and ]. The promotion of "stars" began with the Danish ], in the period of 1970-72, along with other well-known porn stars such as the ] ] (''Dogarama'', 1969), and ] (multiple films, c.1994). Another early film to attain great infamy was "]", smuggled into ] around 1970 without details as to makers or provenance.<ref name="animal_farm_documentary">''The Search for Animal Farm'' (documentary, part of the ] series) (April 2006, Channel 4, UK): - ''"Investigates the story behind one of the most infamous films in porn history, and reveals how it came to be made."'' The film was smuggled into ] around 1970. No one was quite sure where the film came from or how it was made. The Search for Animal Farm traced the people who made the film, the impact it had on Britain's porn industry and the woman who became known for a time as 'the queen of bestiality.' </ref> Into the 1980s the ] took the lead, creating figures like "Wilma" and the "Dutch Sisters". Today, in ], where production faces no legal limitations, zoosexual materials have become a substantial industry that produces numerous films and magazines, particularly for ] companies, and the ] has stars such as "Hector" (a ] starring in several films). Many Hungarian and ] mainstream performers also appeared anonymously in zoophilia pornography in their early careers. Prior to the advent of mass-market full-color glossy magazines such as ], so-called ]s were a form of pornographic tract popular in America, sold as anonymous underground publications typically comprising a small number of stapled comic-strips representing characters and celebrities.<ref>An example digitized Tijuana Bible entitled ''The Pet'' from the 1960s is linked at (also see and ).</ref>

Pornography of this sort has become the business of certain ]mers such as ] (8th most prolific spammer, sentenced to 9 years for spamming) and owners of some fake ]s, who use the promise of "extreme" material as a bid for users' attention.

==Social community==

Whether there is such a thing as a "zoophile community" or ], in the same sense as the ] or any other ] communities, is a controversial question. Some zoophiles point to the number and quality of computerized meeting-places in which zoophiles can meet and socialize, the manner in which this extends to ] social networks, and the trend of social and cultural evolution of community consensus over time, or use the term to imply "the community of zoophiles in general". Others point to the differing viewpoints and attitudes, the trust issues and risks due to lack of safety inherent in socializing, and lack of any true commonality between zoophiles beyond their orientation. Whether or not it should be construed as a "community", the following outline is a rough description of the social world of zoophiles, as it has existed to date.

Prior to the arrival of widespread computer ], most zoophiles would not have known others, and for the most part engaged secretly, or told only trusted friends, family or partners. (This almost certainly still describes the majority of zoophiles; only a small proportion are visible online). Thus it could not be said there was a "community" of any kind at that time, except perhaps for small sporadic ]s of people who knew each other by chance. As with many other ], broader networks began forming in the 1980s when networked social groups became more common at home and elsewhere, and as the ] and its predecessors came into existence, permitting people to search for topics and information in areas which were not otherwise easily accessible and to talk with relative safety and anonymity. The ] '']'' (reputedly started in humor<ref>Miletski p.35 "Alt.sex.bestiality (A.S.B.) was one such Internet news group which started around 1990 as someones idea of a joke."</ref>), personal ]s and ]s, were among the first group media of this kind in the late 1980s and early 1990s, rapidly drawing together zoophiles, some of whom also created personal and social ]s and ]s. By around 1991 - 1993 it became accurate to say that a wide social net had evolved.

This changed significantly around 1995-96 (due to the double impact of Miletski's research and the unrelated mid/late-1990s boom in zoosexual pornography), and then a few years later again around 1998-2000 in the wake of the controversy over the first proposed public US appearance of a zoophile on the ] show ("I married a horse", 1998, pulled before viewing), which was followed by the 1999-2000 ] case (in which a plaintiff petitioned the court to let his dog attend judgement as his "wife"). Whilst some zoophiles saw these as attempts to state a personal viewpoint or encourage debate, others saw them in a negative light as ill-advised, futile, harmful, or ultimately egoistic attempts to obtain a public hearing which could only backlash strongly both legally and otherwise against zoophiles. There was also a perception that as knowledge of zoosexuality as a lifestyle became wider spread, the smaller but more formative social groups were being diluted by large numbers of newcomers who had not grown up within the same "culture" or communal values, and many website owners came to be less interested compared to the past. In 1996, a zoophile version of the ] was created, known as the ], intended as a shorthand "]" for zoophiles to describe themselves, their ], and their stances on certain common issues such as ] and ]. It achieved some degree of popularity for a time and is still occasionally encountered today, having also been translated into ] and ].

In the wake of these changes, a number of the older pro-zoophile websites and forums were voluntarily removed or vanished from the net between 1995 and 2001, and many of the more established individuals and social groups at that time withdrew<ref name="GAFIAted">This is an established and common pattern in other ] and subcultures too, as people (typically in their 30's) develop more diverse ] lives or commitments over time. Often they return from time to time, or retain an irreglar presence; sometimes they leave the net completely. See ].</ref> from the online community, perceiving the risks and benefits to no longer be worth it, as they already had sufficient ] friends amongst other zoophiles. This led to a period of change and consolidation during the late 1990s and early 2000s as old sites closed and the older and newer 'generations' mingled. Most of the major "talkers" ] too, especially following the increasing popularity of ] chat and an ] on "Planes of Existence" (Germany, 2000). At the same time, many other social groups online drew lessons from these and other incidents, leading to a maturing consensus which tended to replace the previous divides on common topics such as the desirability vs. harmfulness of public debate and acceptance, ethics, and conduct.

Websites catering to zoosexuality at present can be broken down into several categories. Some sites restrict or prohibit explicit material (such as pictures, stories, contacts, etc), while others embrace these explicit aspects. Some zoophilic websites are run by professional or amatuer ]s, marketing pictures, stories and videos. A few provide personal perspectives and information relating to it.

There also exist sites providing support and social assistance to zoophiles (including resources to help and rescue abused or mistreated animals), but these are not usually publicized. Such work is often undertaken as needed by individuals and friends, within social networks, and by word of mouth.


== 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 ()
* 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 Normalität: Darstellung dreier Kasuistiken und einer Internetbefragung (Zoophilia as a special case of paraphilia: presentation of three case reports and an Internet survey)'' - in: Der Nervenarzt : Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychiatrie, Psychotherapie und Nervenheilkunde; Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Neurologie, 2004, June 10 2004 ()
* ], ''Studies in the psychology of sex, Vol. V'' (1927) ch.4<br> covering Animals as Sources of Erotic Symbolism--Mixoscopic Zoophilia--Erotic Zoophilia--Zooerastia--Bestiality--The Conditions that Favor Bestiality--Its Wide Prevalence Among Primitive Peoples and Among Peasants--The Primitive Conception of Animals--The Goat--The Influence of Familiarity with Animals--Congress Between Women and Animals--The Social Reaction Against Bestiality.
* Ellison, Alfred, ''Sex Between Humans & Animals: The Psycho-Mythic Meaning of Bestiality'', San Diego: Academy Press, 1970.
* Harris, Edwin. ''Animals as Sex Partners'', 1969

=== Other books ===
* Midas Dekkers: ''Dearest Pet: On Bestiality'', ISBN 1859843107
* Mark Matthews: ''The Horseman: Obsessions of a Zoophile'', ISBN 0-87975-902-X<br> (German translation: ''Der Pferde-Mann'', 2nd Print 2004, ISBN 3833408642)
* Marjorie B. Garber: ''Dog Love'', ISBN 0641042728
* Brenda Love: ''The Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices'' (1994), ISBN 1569800111
* Nancy Friday: ''My Secret Garden'' (ISBN 0671019872), ''Forbidden Flowers'' (ISBN 0671741020), "Women on Top" (ISBN 0671648446), notable for readability, and neutral treatment of a wide scope of women's sexuality including zoophilia.
* Raymond A. Belliotti: ''Good Sex; perspectives on sexual ethics'' (1993), ISBN 0700606041 or ISBN 070060605X
* Bram Dijkstra: ''Idols of Perversity: Fantasies of Feminine Evil in Fin-De-Siecle Culture'', zoophilic art
* Gaston Dubois-Dessaule: ''Etude sur la bestialité au point de vue historique, médical et juridique (The Study of Bestiality from the Historical, Medical and Legal Viewpoint)'' (Paris, 1905)
* A.F. Neimoller:
** ''Bestiality and the Law: A Resume of the Law and Punishments for Bestiality with Typical Cases from Fifteenth Century to the Present'' (1946)
** ''Bestiality in Ancient and Modern Times: A Study of the Sexual Relations of Man and Animals in All Times and Countries'' (1946)
* Marie-Christine Anest: ''Zoophilie, homosexualite, rites de passage et initiation masculine dans la Greece contemporaine'' (Zoophilia, homosexuality, rites of passage and male initiation in contemporary Greece)'' (1994), ISBN 2739421466
* Gaston Dubois-Desaulle: ''Bestiality: An Historical, Medical, Legal, and Literary Study'', University Press of the Pacific (November 1, 2003), ISBN 1410209474 (Paperback Ed.)
* Robert Hough: ''The Final Confession Of ]'' (Stark was the worlds premier tiger trainer of the 1920s, specializing in highly sexualized circus acts. She wore white to hide the tiger's semen during mating rituals and foreplay which the audience took to be vicious attacks)
* Otto Soyka: ''Beyond the Boundary of Morals''

=== Print and online media ===

* ''The Joy Of Beasts'' (3 December 2000, Independent on Sunday, UK)
* ''Heavy Petting'' (2001, Peter Singer )
* ''Laying with Beasts'' (March 1996, )
* ''Sexual Contact With Animals '' (October 1977, Pomeroy Ph.D.) (co-author of the ])
* ''Wet Goddess: Recollections of a Dolphin Lover'' (2002, ]) "A novel about a man's love affair with a ]. (Online version)"
* '''' (1999, RiverFront Times, discussing the British documentary and Missouri's legislation)
* '''' (May 2004) "Tanya Gold, reviewing the Edward Albee play, finds that love affairs with pets are not as unusual as you'd think"
* ''Liking it Ruff'' (July 2005, , follow-up to original article )
* ''Depraved Indifference'' (2006, Steven Rinella, published on )

=== Television and radio ===
* ''Animal passions'' (part of the Hidden Love series) (1999, follow-up sequel 2004, Channel 4, UK)
:: Ofcom reported that: "This was a serious documentary exploring a rare minority sexual orientation. Although the programme gave an opportunity for zoophiles to express their opinions, the effect was neither to sensationalise nor normalise their behaviour."
* ''Sexe et confidences'' (April 2002, CBSC Decision C01/02-329, Canada)
:: Hour-long sex information program hosted by sexologist Louise-Andrée Saulnier discussing zoosexuality. Covered folklore, academic studies and general information, plus telephone call-in from viewers describing their zoosexual experiences and stories they had heard.
* ''Talk Sport Radio'' (December 2002, UK)
:: Live talkshow interview with lifelong zoophile, followed by call-in discussion.
* ''Animal Love'' (1995, Ulrich Seidl, Austria)


Websites 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.<ref>Miletski (1999), p. 22.</ref>


Zoophiles tend to experience their first zoosexual feelings during adolescence, and tend to be secretive about it, hence limiting the ability for non-Internet-based communities to form.<ref>{{cite web |author=Thomas Francis |url=http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2009-08-20/news/those-who-practice-bestiality-say-they-re-part-of-the-next-gay-rights-movement/2/ |title=Those Who Practice Bestiality Say They're Part of the Next Sexual Rights Movement – Page 2 |work=The New Times Broward-Palm Beach |date=20 August 2009 |access-date=13 May 2012 |archive-date=2 December 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141202031406/http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2009-08-20/news/those-who-practice-bestiality-say-they-re-part-of-the-next-gay-rights-movement/2/}}</ref>


==See also== ==See also==
{{Col-begin}}
* Animal studies: ] -- ] -- ] -- ] -- ]
{{Col-break}}
{| class="wikitable floatright" style="margin-right:.5em; font-size:95%;"
* Human sexuality and sexual orientation: ] -- ] -- ] -- ] -- ] -- ] -- ] -- ] -- ]
|-
! Human/nonhuman<br/>interaction
|
* ] from male animals
** ]
** ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
** ]
** ]
|-
! Human sexuality<br />
|
* {{section link|Animal roleplay|Erotic scenarios}}
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
|}
{{Col-break}}
{| class="wikitable floatleft" style="margin-left:.5em; font-size:95%;"
|-
! Ethics, morality<br/>and philosophy
|
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
|-
! Animal studies
|
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
|-
! Animal welfare
|
* ]
* ]
* ]
|-
! Other
|
* ]
* ] (a ])
|}


<br />&nbsp;<br />
* Human/nonhuman interaction: ] -- ] -- ] -- ] -- ]
{{col-end}}


==References and footnotes==
* Ethics, morality and philosophy: ] -- ] -- ] -- ]
<!--This article uses the Cite.php citation mechanism. If you would like more information on how to add references to this article, please see http://meta.wikimedia.org/Cite/Cite.php -->
{{Reflist|30em}}
{{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}


==External links==
* Other: ] -- ] () -- ] case -- ] (a zoosadist)
{{Wiktionary|zoophilia|zoosexuality|bestiality}}

{{Commons category|Zoophilia}}
== External links ==
<!--Please do not add commercial links or links to your own website--> <!--Please do not add commercial links or links to your own website-->
* at Sexology Department of Humboldt University, Berlin.
;Websites supportive of zoophilia
* Bestiality and zoosadism criminal executions.
* , the Ultimate Zoo Page, general resources
* {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171211203524/http://www.pet-abuse.com/database/ |date=11 December 2017 }} search form for the U.S. and UK.
* zoophile community and support site
* by writer Manawolf
* information on survey and research work on zoosexuality, prologue provided for future book published on work.

;Websites against zoosexual activity
* {{Derefer|http://www.nmanimalcontrol.com/aco_fo/sex_abuse/ Humane Society of the U.S. viewpoint and "First Strike" campaign Fact Sheet}}
* {{Derefer|http://verschwiegenes-tierleid-online.de/ Animal rights site, Germany}} ('''')

;Research
*
*
*
*

; Other / Art
* {{Derefer|http://www.pet-abuse.com/database/ Pet-Abuse.Com Database}} bestiality and zoosadism legal cases from the U.S. and UK.
* an online museum of zoophilic representation in art, from prehistoric to modern.

==References==
<!--
****
**** The footnotes for this article are automatically generated using the
**** <ref>...</ref> tags. The <references /> tag indicates where they are
**** to be placed.
****
**** Quick explanation: Leave this section as it is. Where you want a footnote,
**** include the footnote text in the article, between tags <ref> and </ref>.
****
**** See ] for a full explanation of how to generate footnotes
**** using the <ref>,</ref> and <references /> tags.
****
-->
<div style="font-size: 90%">
<references />
</div>


{{Zoophilia}}
]
{{Paraphilia}}
]
{{Sex}}
]
{{Sex fetish}}
]
{{Authority control}}
]


]
]
]
]
] ]
]
]
]
]
] ]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 21:55, 31 December 2024

Paraphilia involving a sexual fixation on non-human animals Not to be confused with Zoophily.

This article's lead section may be too short to adequately summarize the key points. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. (November 2023)

"Ancient Greek sodomising a goat", plate XVII from De Figuris Veneris by F.K. Forberg, illustrated by Édouard-Henri Avril

Zoophilia is a paraphilia in which a person experiences a sexual fixation on non-human animals. Bestiality instead refers to cross-species sexual activity between humans and non-human animals. Due to the lack of research on the subject, it is difficult to conclude how prevalent bestiality is. Zoophilia, however, was estimated in one study to be prevalent in 2% of the population in 2021.

History

See also: History of zoophilia

The historical perspective on zoophilia and bestiality varies greatly, from the prehistoric era, where depictions of bestiality appear in European rock art, to the Middle Ages, where bestiality was met with execution. In many parts of the world, bestiality is illegal under animal abuse laws or laws dealing with sodomy or crimes against nature.

Terminology

General

Three key terms commonly used in regards to the subject—zoophilia, bestiality, and zoosexuality—are often used somewhat interchangeably. Some researchers distinguish between zoophilia (as a persistent sexual interest in animals) and bestiality (as sexual acts with animals), because bestiality is often not driven by a sexual preference for animals. Some studies have found a preference for animals is rare among people who engage in sexual contact with animals. Furthermore, some zoophiles report they have never had sexual contact with an animal. People with zoophilia are known as "zoophiles", though also sometimes as "zoosexuals", or even very simply "zoos". Zooerasty, sodomy, and zooerastia are other terms closely related to the subject but are less synonymous with the former terms, and are seldom used. "Bestiosexuality" was discussed briefly by Allen (1979), but never became widely established.

A kylix depicting Silenus having sex with a fawn, dated after 500 BC.

Ernest Bornemann coined the separate term zoosadism for those who derive pleasure – sexual or otherwise – from inflicting pain on animals. Zoosadism specifically is one member of the Macdonald triad of precursors to sociopathic behavior.

Zoophilia

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. The term zoophilia derives from the combination of two nouns in Greek: ζῷον (zṓion, meaning "animal") and φιλία (philia, meaning "(fraternal) love"). In general contemporary usage, the term zoophilia may refer to sexual activity between human and non-human animals, the desire to engage in such, or to the specific paraphilia (i.e., the atypical arousal) which indicates a definite preference for animals over humans as sexual partners. Although Krafft-Ebing also coined the term zooerasty for the paraphilia of exclusive sexual attraction to animals, that term has fallen out of general use.

Roman oil lamp dating from 1st–3rd century AD depicting a zoophilic act
Hokusai's (1760–1849) The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife

Zoosexuality

The term zoosexual was proposed by Hani Miletski in 2002 as a value-neutral term. Usage of zoosexual as a noun (in reference to a person) is synonymous with zoophile, while the adjectival form of the word – as, for instance, in the phrase "zoosexual act" – may indicate sexual activity between a human and an animal. The derivative noun "zoosexuality" is sometimes used by self-identified zoophiles in both support groups and on internet-based discussion forums to designate sexual orientation manifesting as sexual attraction to animals.

Bestiality

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. Confusing the matter yet further, writing in 1962, William H. Masters used the term bestialist specifically in his discussion of zoosadism.

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. Colin J. Williams and Martin Weinberg studied self-defined zoophiles via the internet and reported them as understanding the term zoophilia to involve concern for the animal's welfare, pleasure, and consent, as distinct from the self-labelled zoophiles' concept of "bestialists", whom the zoophiles in their study defined as focused on their own gratification. Williams & Weinberg (2003) also quoted a British newspaper saying that zoophilia is a term used by "apologists" for bestiality.

Sexual arousal from watching animals mate is known as faunoiphilia.

Extent of occurrence

Japanese ukiyo-e woodblock print from Utagawa Kunisada's series, "Eight Canine Heroes of the House of Satomi", 1837

The Kinsey reports of 1948 and 1953 estimated the percentage of people in the general population of the United States who had at least one sexual interaction with animals as 8% for males and 5.1% for females (1.5% for pre-adolescents and 3.6% for post-adolescents females), and claimed it was 40–50% for the rural population and even higher among individuals with lower educational status. Some later writers dispute the figures, noting that the study lacked a random sample in that it included a disproportionate number of prisoners, causing sampling bias. Martin Duberman has written that it is difficult to get a random sample in sexual research, but pointed out that when Paul Gebhard, Kinsey's research successor, removed prison samples from the figures, he found the figures were not significantly changed.

An 18th-century Indian miniature depicting women practicing zoophilia in the bottom register

By 1974, the farm population in the US had declined by 80 percent compared with 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 & Couture (1980) reported that 5.3 percent of the men they surveyed had fantasized about sexual activity with an animal during heterosexual intercourse. In a 2014 study, 3% of women and 2.2% of men reported fantasies about having sex with an animal. A 1982 study suggested that 7.5 percent of 186 university students had interacted sexually with an animal. A 2021 review estimated zoophilic behavior occurs in 2% of the general population.

Perspectives on zoophilia

Research perspectives

Zoophilia has been discussed by several sciences: psychology (the study of the human mind), sexology (a relatively new discipline primarily studying human sexuality), ethology (the study of animal behavior), and anthrozoology (the study of human–animal interactions and bonds).

In the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), zoophilia is placed in the classification "other specified paraphilic disorder" ("paraphilias not otherwise specified" in the DSM-III and IV). The World Health Organization takes the same position, listing a sexual preference for animals in its ICD -10 as "other disorder of sexual preference". In the DSM-5, it rises to the level of a diagnosable disorder only when accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning.

Zoophilia may be covered to some degree by other fields such as ethics, philosophy, law, animal rights and animal welfare. It may also be touched upon by sociology which looks both at zoosadism in examining patterns and issues related to sexual abuse and at non-sexual zoophilia in examining the role of animals as emotional support and companionship in human lives, and may fall within the scope of psychiatry if it becomes necessary to consider its significance in a clinical context. The Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine (Vol. 18, February 2011) states that sexual contact with animals is almost never a clinically significant problem by itself; it also states that there are several kinds of zoophiles:

  • Human-animal role-players
  • Romantic zoophiles
  • Zoophilic fantasizers
  • Tactile zoophiles
  • Fetishistic zoophiles
  • Sadistic bestials
  • Opportunistic zoophiles
  • Regular zoophiles
  • Exclusive zoophiles

Romantic zoophiles, zoophilic fantasizers, and regular zoophiles are the most common, while sadistic bestials and opportunistic zoophiles are the least common.

Zoophilia may reflect childhood experimentation, sexual abuse or lack of other avenues of sexual expression. Exclusive desire for animals rather than humans is considered a rare paraphilia, and they often have other paraphilias with which they present. Zoophiles will not usually seek help for their condition, and so do not come to the attention of psychiatrists for zoophilia itself.

The first detailed studies of zoophilia date prior to 1910. Peer-reviewed research into zoophilia in its own right started around 1960. However, a number of the most oft-quoted studies, such as Miletski, were not published in peer-reviewed journals. There have been several significant modern books, from psychologists William H. Masters (1962) to Andrea Beetz (2002); their research arrived at the following conclusions:

  • Most zoophiles have (or have also had) long term human relationships as well or at the same time as bestial ones, and bestial partners are usually dogs and/or horses.
  • Zoophiles' emotions and care for animals can be real, relational, authentic and (within animals' abilities) reciprocal, and not just a substitute or means of expression. Beetz believes zoophilia is not an inclination which is chosen.
  • Society in general is considerably misinformed about zoophilia, its stereotypes, and its meaning. The distinction between zoophilia and zoosadism is a critical one to these researchers, and is highlighted by each of these studies. Masters (1962), Miletski (1999) and Weinberg (2003) each comment significantly on the social harm caused by misunderstandings regarding zoophilia: "This destroy the lives of many citizens".

More recently, research has engaged three further directions: the speculation that at least some animals seem to enjoy a zoophilic relationship assuming sadism is not present, and can form an affectionate bond.

Beetz described the phenomenon of zoophilia/bestiality as being somewhere between crime, paraphilia, and love, although she says that most research has been based on criminological reports, so the cases have frequently involved violence and psychiatric illness. She says only a few recent studies have taken data from volunteers in the community. As with all volunteer surveys and sexual ones in particular, these studies have a potential for self-selection bias.

Medical research suggests that some zoophiles only become aroused by a specific species (such as horses), some zoophiles become aroused by multiple species (which may or may not include humans), and some zoophiles are not attracted to humans at all.

Historical and cultural perspectives

Main article: Historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia
The taboo of zoophilia has led to stigmatized groups being accused of it, as with blood libel. This German illustration shows Jews performing bestiality on a Judensau, while Satan watches.

Instances of zoophilia and bestiality have been found in the Bible, but the earliest depictions of bestiality have been found in a cave painting from at least 8000 BC in the Northern Italian Val Camonica a man is shown about to penetrate an animal. Raymond Christinger interprets the cave painting as a show of power of a tribal chief, it is unknown if this practice was then more acceptable, and if the scene depicted was usual or unusual or whether it was symbolic or imaginary. According to the Cambridge Illustrated History of Prehistoric Art, the penetrating man seems to be waving cheerfully with his hand at the same time. Potters of the same time period seem to have spent time depicting the practice, but this may be because they found the idea amusing. The anthropologist Dr "Jacobus X", said that the cave paintings occurred "before any known taboos against sex with animals existed". William H. Masters claimed that "since pre-historic man is prehistoric it goes without saying that we know little of his sexual behavior"; depictions in cave paintings may only show the artist's subjective preoccupations or thoughts.

Pindar, Herodotus, and Plutarch claimed the Egyptians engaged in ritual congress with goats. Such claims about other cultures do not necessarily reflect anything about which the author had evidence, but may be a form of propaganda or xenophobia, similar to blood libel.

Several cultures built temples (Khajuraho, India) or other structures (Sagaholm, barrow, Sweden) with zoophilic carvings on the exterior, however at Khajuraho, these depictions are not on the interior, perhaps depicting that these are things that belong to the profane world rather than the spiritual world, and thus are to be left outside.

In the Church-oriented culture of the Middle Ages, zoophilic activity was met with execution, typically burning, and death to the animals involved either the same way or by hanging, as "both a violation of Biblical edicts and a degradation of man as a spiritual being rather than one that is purely animal and carnal". Some witches were accused of having congress with the devil in the form of an animal. As with all accusations and confessions extracted under torture in the witch trials in Early Modern Europe, their validity cannot be ascertained.

Religious perspectives

Passages in Leviticus 18 (Lev 18:23: "And you shall not lie with any beast and defile yourself with it, neither shall any woman give herself to a beast to lie with it: it is a perversion." RSV) and 20:15–16 ("If a man lies with a beast, he shall be put to death; and you shall kill the beast. If a woman approaches any beast and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the beast; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them." RSV) are cited by Jewish, Christian, and Muslim theologians as categorical denunciation of bestiality. However, the teachings of the New Testament have been interpreted by some as not expressly forbidding bestiality.

In Part II of his Summa Theologica, medieval philosopher Thomas Aquinas ranked various "unnatural vices" (sex acts resulting in "venereal pleasure" rather than procreation) by degrees of sinfulness, concluding that "the most grievous is the sin of bestiality". Some Christian theologians extend Matthew's view that even having thoughts of adultery is sinful to imply that thoughts of committing bestial acts are likewise sinful.

Man having intercourse with a horse, pictured on the exterior of a temple in Khajuraho

There are a few references in Hindu temples to figures engaging in symbolic sexual activity with animals such as explicit depictions of people having sex with animals included amongst the thousands of sculptures of "Life events" on the exterior of the temple complex at Khajuraho. The depictions are largely symbolic depictions of the sexualization of some animals and are not meant to be taken literally. According to the Hindu tradition of erotic painting and sculpture, having sex with an animal is believed to be actually a human having sex with a god incarnated in the form of an animal. However, in some Hindu scriptures, such as the Bhagavata Purana and the Devi Bhagavata Purana, having sex with animals, especially the cow, leads one to hell, where one is tormented by having one's body rubbed on trees with razor-sharp thorns. Similarly, the Manusmriti in verse 11.173 also condemns the act of bestiality and prescribes punishments for it:

A man who has had sexual intercourse with nonhuman females, or with a menstruating woman,—and he who has discharged his semen in a place other than the female organ, or in water,—should perform the ‘Sāntapana Kṛcchra.

Legal status

Sex and the law
Social issues
Specific offences
(varies by jurisdiction)
Sex offender registration
Portals

In many jurisdictions, all acts of bestiality are prohibited; others outlaw only the mistreatment of animals, without specific mention of sexual activity. In the United Kingdom, 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 another animal (whether dead or alive). Despite the UK Ministry of Justice's explanatory note on extreme images saying "It is not a question of the intentions of those who produced the image. Nor is it a question of the sexual arousal of the defendant", "it could be argued that a person might possess such an image for the purposes of satire, political commentary or simple grossness", according to The Independent.

Many laws banning sex with non-human animals have been made recently, such as in the United States (New Hampshire and Ohio), Germany, Sweden, Iceland, Denmark, Thailand, Costa Rica, Bolivia, and Guatemala. The number of jurisdictions around the world banning it has grown in the 2000s and 2010s.

West Germany legalized bestiality in 1969 but banned it again in 2013. The 2013 law was unsuccessfully challenged before the Federal Constitutional Court in 2015.

Romania banned zoophilia in May 2022.

Laws on bestiality are sometimes 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 another animal could result in monstrous offspring, as well as offending the community. Modern anti-cruelty laws focus more specifically on animal welfare while anti-bestiality laws are aimed only at offenses to community "standards".

In Sweden, 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 animal cruelty legislation was not sufficient to protect 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. Under Section 143 of the Crimes Act 1961, individuals can serve a sentence of seven years duration for animal sexual abuse and the offence is considered 'complete' in the event of 'penetration'.

As of 2023, bestiality is illegal in 49 U.S. states. Most state bestiality laws were enacted between 1999 and 2023. Bestiality remains legal in West Virginia, while 19 states have statutes that date to the 19th century or even the colonial period. The recent statutes are distinct from older sodomy statutes in that they define the proscribed acts with precision.

Pornography

Main articles: Obscenity and Legal status of Internet pornography See also: Category:Animal pornography
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
Miniature painting showing a Persian woman copulating with an animal, 9th century

In the United States, zoophilic 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. The state of Oregon explicitly prohibits possession of media that depicts bestiality when such possession is for erotic purposes.

Similar restrictions apply in Germany (see above). In New Zealand, the possession, making or distribution of material promoting bestiality is illegal.

While bestiality is illegal across Australia, the first state to also ban zoophilic pornography was New South Wales.

The potential use of media for pornographic movies was 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 zoophilic pornography, dating from around 1905 – 1930.

Material featuring sex with non-human animals is widely available on the internet. An early film to attain great infamy was "Animal Farm", smuggled into Great Britain around 1980 without details as to makers or provenance. The film was later traced to a crude juxtaposition of smuggled cuts from many of Bodil Joensen's 1970s Danish movies.

In 1972, Linda Lovelace, the star of the film "Deep Throat", appeared in the film "Dogorama" (also released under the titles "Dog 1," "Dog Fucker" and "Dog-a-Rama") in which she engages in sexual acts with a dog.

In Romania, although zoophilia was officially banned in May 2022, there are no laws which prohibit zoophilic pornography. However, creating sites that present zoophilic pornography is not allowed per Article 7.3 of Law 196/2003, but no punishment is defined for doing so.

In Hungary, where production faces no legal limitations, zoophilic materials have become a substantial industry that produces a number of 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 dog starring in several films.

In Japan, zoophilic pornography is used to bypass censorship laws, often featuring models performing fellatio on non-human animals, because oral penetration of a non-human penis is not in the scope of Japanese pixelization censorship. While primarily underground, there are a number of zoophilic pornography actresses who specialize in bestiality movies.

In the United Kingdom, Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 criminalises possession of realistic pornographic images depicting sex with non-human animals (see extreme pornography), including fake images and simulated acts, as well as images depicting sex with dead animals. The law provides for sentences of up to two years in prison; a sentence of 12 months was handed down in one case in 2011.

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 as pets, is accepted in Western society, and is usually respected or tolerated. However, the word zoophilia is used to mean a sexual preference towards animals, which makes it a paraphilia. Some zoophiles may not act on their sexual attraction to animals. 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.

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, zoophiles engaged in bestiality 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, the 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.

Williams & Weinberg (2003) 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 Williams & Weinberg (2003) surmised its aims and beliefs would likely change little as it grew. Those particularly active on the Internet may not be aware of a wider subculture, as there is not much of a wider subculture, Williams & Weinberg (2003) felt the virtual zoophile group would lead the development of the subculture.

Websites 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.

Zoophiles tend to experience their first zoosexual feelings during adolescence, and tend to be secretive about it, hence limiting the ability for non-Internet-based communities to form.

See also

Human/nonhuman
interaction
Human sexuality
Ethics, morality
and philosophy
Animal studies
Animal welfare
Other


 

References and footnotes

  1. ^ American Psychiatric Association, ed. (2013). "Other Specified Paraphilic Disorder, 302.89 (F65.89)". Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. American Psychiatric Publishing. p. 705.
  2. P. Rafferty, John (21 September 2022). "Zoophilia". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 9 January 2023.
  3. Krause, Caitlin E. (2023). "Zoophilia". Encyclopedia of Sexual Psychology and Behavior. Springer, Cham. pp. 1–4. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-08956-5_88-1. ISBN 978-3-031-08956-5.
  4. ^ Ranger, R.; Fedoroff, P. (2014). "Commentary: Zoophilia and the Law". Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online. 42 (4): 421–426. PMID 25492067.
  5. Holoyda, Brian; Sorrentino, Renee; Hatters Friedman, Susan; Allgire, John (2018). "Bestiality: An introduction for legal and mental health professionals". Behavioral Sciences & the Law. 36 (6): 687–697. doi:10.1002/bsl.2368. PMID 30306630. S2CID 52957702. Retrieved 8 January 2023.
  6. ^ Campo-Arias, Adalberto; Herazo, Edwin; Ceballos-Ospino, Guillermo A. (March 2021). "Review of cases, case series and prevalence studies of zoophilia in the general population" (PDF). Revista Colombiana de Psiquiatría (in Spanish). 50 (1): 34–38. doi:10.1016/j.rcp.2019.03.003. ISSN 0034-7450. PMID 33648694. S2CID 182495781. Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 February 2022.
  7. ^ Paul G. Bahn (1998). The Cambridge Illustrated History of Prehistoric Art. Cambridge University Press. p. 188. ISBN 978-0-521-45473-5.
  8. ^ Earls, C. M.; Lalumiere, M. L. (2002). "A Case Study of Preferential Bestiality (Zoophilia)". Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. 14 (1): 83–88. doi:10.1177/107906320201400106. PMID 11803597. S2CID 43450855.
  9. Maratea, R. J. (2011). "Screwing the pooch: Legitimizing accounts in a zoophilia on-line community". Deviant Behavior. 32 (10): 938. doi:10.1080/01639625.2010.538356. S2CID 145637418.
  10. ^ Beetz, Andrea M. (2010). "Bestiality and Zoophilia: A Discussion of Sexual Contact With Animals". In Ascione, Frank (ed.). The International Handbook of Animal Abuse and Cruelty: Theory, Research, and Application. Purdue University Press. ISBN 978-1-55753-565-8.
  11. "zooerastia definition". Dictionary.com. Retrieved 13 December 2011.
  12. MacDonald, J. M. (1963). "The Threat to Kill". American Journal of Psychiatry. 120 (2): 125–30. doi:10.1176/ajp.120.2.125. Archived from the original on 26 July 2014. Retrieved 19 January 2013.
  13. Richard von Krafft-Ebing: Psychopathia Sexualis, p. 561.
  14. Richard von Krafft-Ebing: Psychopathia Sexualis, p. 281.
  15. ^ D. Richard Laws and William T. O'Donohue: Books.Google.co.uk, Sexual Deviance, page 391. Guilford Press, 2008. ISBN 978-1-59385-605-2.
  16. Cory Silverberg (12 March 2010). "Zoophilia". Sexuality.about.com. Archived from the original on 21 March 2012. Retrieved 13 May 2012.
  17. Melinda Roth (15 December 1991). "All Opposed, Say Neigh". Riverfront Times. Archived from the original on 4 May 2015. Retrieved 24 January 2009.
  18. Williams CJ, Weinberg MS (December 2003). "Zoophilia in men: a study of sexual interest in animals". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 32 (6): 523–35. doi:10.1023/A:1026085410617. PMID 14574096. S2CID 13386430.
  19. Aggrawal, Anil. Forensic and medico-legal aspects of sexual crimes and unusual sexual practices. CRC Press, 2008.
  20. Richard Duberman: KinseyInstitute.org Archived 11 January 2009 at the Wayback Machine, Kinsey's Urethra The Nation, 3 November 1997, pp. 40–43. Review of Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life. By James H. Jones.
  21. Hunt 1974, cited and re-examined by Miletski (1999)
  22. Nancy Friday (1998) . "What do women fantasize about? The Zoo". My Secret Garden (Revised ed.). Simon and Schuster. pp. 180–185. ISBN 978-0-671-01987-7.
  23. Alvarez, WA; Freinhar, JP (1991). "A prevalence study of bestiality (zoophilia) in psychiatric in-patients, medical in-patients, and psychiatric staff". International Journal of Psychosomatics. 38 (1–4): 45–7. PMID 1778686.
  24. Crépault, Claude; Couture, Marcel (1980). "Men's erotic fantasies". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 9 (6): 565–81. doi:10.1007/BF01542159. PMID 7458662. S2CID 9021936.
  25. Joyal, C. C.; Cossette, A.; Lapierre, V. (2014). "What Exactly Is an Unusual Sexual Fantasy?". The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 12 (2): 328–340. doi:10.1111/jsm.12734. PMID 25359122. S2CID 33785479.
  26. Story, M. D. (1982). "A comparison of university student experience with various sexual outlets in 1974 and 1980". Adolescence. 17 (68): 737–47. PMID 7164870.
  27. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-IV. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. 2000. ISBN 978-0-89042-025-6. OCLC 43483668.
  28. Milner, J. S.; Dopke, C. A. (2008). "Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified: Psychopathology and theory". In Laws, D. R.; O'Donohue, W. T. (eds.). Sexual Deviance, Second Edition: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment. New York: The Guilford Press. pp. 384–418. ISBN 978-1-59385-605-2. OCLC 152580827.
  29. Money, John (1988). Lovemaps: Clinical Concepts of Sexual/Erotic Health and Pathology, Paraphilia, and Gender Transposition in Childhood, Adolescence, and Maturity. Buffalo, N.Y: Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-0-87975-456-3. OCLC 19340917.
  30. Seto, MC; Barbaree HE (2000). "Paraphilias". In Hersen, M.; Van Hasselt, V. B. (eds.). Aggression and violence: an introductory text. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. pp. 198–213. ISBN 978-0-205-26721-7. OCLC 41380492.
  31. "International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10, F65.8 Other disorders of sexual preference". Who.int. Retrieved 13 May 2012.
  32. Miletski, H. (2015). "Zoophilia – Implications for Therapy". Journal of Sex Education and Therapy. 26 (2): 85–86. doi:10.1080/01614576.2001.11074387. S2CID 146150162.
  33. ^ Aggrawal, Anil (2011). "A new classification of zoophilia". Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine. 18 (2): 73–8. doi:10.1016/j.jflm.2011.01.004. PMID 21315301.
  34. D. Richard Laws; William T. O'Donohue (January 2008). Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment. Guilford Press. p. 391. ISBN 978-1-59385-605-2.
  35. Richard W. Roukema (13 August 2008). What Every Patient, Family, Friend, and Caregiver Needs to Know About Psychiatry, Second Edition. American Psychiatric Pub. p. 133. ISBN 978-1-58562-750-9.
  36. ^ Beetz 2002, section 5.2.4 – 5.2.7.
  37. Anil Aggrawal (22 December 2008). Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices. CRC Press. p. 257. ISBN 978-1-4200-4309-9. Retrieved 13 May 2012.
  38. (Masters, Miletski, Weinberg, Beetz)
  39. Masters, 1962.
  40. "Bestiality/Zoophilia: A Scarcely-Investigated Phenomenon Between Crime, Paraphilia, and Love". Scie-SocialCareOnline.org.uk. Archived 15 November 2010 at the Wayback Machine
  41. Joseph W. Slade (2001). Pornography and Sexual Representation: A Reference Guide. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 980. ISBN 978-0-313-31521-3.
  42. Bhatia, MS; Srivastava, S; Sharma, S (2005). "1. An uncommon case of zoophilia: A case report". Medicine, Science, and the Law. 45 (2): 174–75. doi:10.1258/rsmmsl.45.2.174. PMID 15895645. S2CID 5744962.
  43. Aggrawal, Anil (2009). "References to the paraphilias and sexual crimes in the Bible". Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine. 16 (3): 109–14. doi:10.1016/j.jflm.2008.07.006. PMID 19239958.
  44. Archaeometry.org, Link to web page and photograph, archaeometry.org
  45. Lynne Bevan (2006). Worshippers and warriors: reconstructing gender and gender relations in the prehistoric rock art of Naquane National Park, Valcamonica, Brecia, northern Italy. Archaeopress. ISBN 978-1-84171-920-7.
  46. Marc Epprecht (2006). ""Bisexuality" and the politics of normal in African Ethnography". Anthropologica. 48 (2): 187–201. doi:10.2307/25605310. JSTOR 25605310.
  47. Abuses Aberrations and Crimes of the Genital Sense, 1901.
  48. Masters, Robert E. L., Forbidden Sexual Behavior and Morality, p. 5.
  49. ^ Vern L. Bullough; Bonnie Bullough (1 January 1994). Human Sexuality: An Encyclopedia. Taylor & Francis. p. 61. ISBN 978-0-8240-7972-7.
  50. Masters (1962)
  51. Plummer, Keith (2001). To beast or not to beast: does the law of Christ forbid zoophilia?. 53rd National Conference of the Evangelical Theological Society. Colorado Springs, CO.
  52. Fordham.edu Aquinas on Unnatural Sex
  53. Swami Satya Prakash Saraswati, The Critical and Cultural Study of the Shatapatha Brahmana, p. 415.
  54. Podberscek, Anthony L.; Beetz, Andrea M. (1 September 2005). Bestiality and Zoophilia: Sexual Relations with Animals. Berg. p. 12. ISBN 978-0-85785-222-9. Retrieved 4 January 2013.
  55. Mani, Vettam (1975). Puranic Encyclopaedia: A Comprehensive Dictionary With Special Reference to the Epic and Puranic Literature. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 368–70. ISBN 978-0-8426-0822-0. OCLC 2198347.
  56. "Gyaandweep | Manu Smriti , Adhyaya - 11".
  57. Ganth, Srimani. "Manu Smriti Sanskrit Text with English Translation".
  58. "Section 63 – Possession of extreme pornographic images". Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. 2008.
  59. "Extreme Pornography". Crown Prosecution Service. Retrieved 23 September 2015.
  60. Jackman, Myles (21 September 2015). "Is it illegal to have sex with a dead pig? Here's what the law says about the allegations surrounding David Cameron's biography". The Independent. Archived from the original on 23 January 2023. Retrieved 23 January 2023.
  61. "New Hampshire HB1547 – 2016 – Regular Session". Legiscan.com. Retrieved 17 April 2017.
  62. "Ohio SB195 – 2015–2016 – 131st General Assembly". Legiscan.com. Retrieved 16 November 2017.
  63. "§ 3 TierSchG". Dejure.org. Retrieved 20 October 2018.
  64. "Sweden Joins An Increasing Number of European Countries That Ban Bestiality". Webpronews.com. 13 June 2013. Retrieved 16 November 2017.
  65. "Stundar kynlíf með hundinum sínum". www.mbl.is.
  66. "Flertal for lovændring: Nu bliver sex med dyr ulovligt". 21 April 2015. Retrieved 20 October 2018.
  67. "Diputados aclaran alcances y límites de la nueva Ley de Bienestar Animal". Elpais.cr. 10 March 2016. Retrieved 16 November 2017.
  68. "LEY No 700 del 01 de Junio de 2015". Derechoteca.com. Retrieved 16 November 2017.
  69. "Ley de Protección y Bienestar Animal". Transdoc Archivos Leyes (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2 December 2020. Retrieved 16 November 2017.
  70. "Animal welfare: Germany moves to ban bestiality". BBC. 28 November 2012. Retrieved 28 May 2021.
  71. "Tierschutzgesetz § 3" (in German). Bundesministerium der Justiz. Archived from the original on 29 January 2019.
  72. "Erfolglose Verfassungsbeschwerde gegen den Ordnungswidrigkeitentatbestand der sexuellen Handlung mit Tieren" [Unsuccessful constitutional complaint against the administrative offense of sexual acts with animals]. www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de (Press release) (in German). Bundesverfassungsgericht. 18 February 2016. Archived from the original on 29 January 2020. Retrieved 26 February 2020.
  73. "Top German court rejects challenge to law against bestiality". AP NEWS. 18 February 2016. Archived from the original on 29 January 2020. Retrieved 26 February 2020.
  74. "German Court Rules Sex With Animals Still Illegal". Time. Archived from the original on 29 December 2016. Retrieved 26 February 2020.
  75. "Bid to end German animal-sex ban fails". BBC News. 19 February 2016. Archived from the original on 31 January 2018. Retrieved 26 February 2020.
  76. "Top court throws out bid to legalize bestiality". The Local Germany. 18 February 2016. Archived from the original on 29 January 2020. Retrieved 29 January 2020.
  77. ^ "LEGE (A) 205 26/05/2004 - Portal Legislativ". legislatie.just.ro. Retrieved 18 January 2024.
  78. Howard Fischer: Lawmakers hope to outlaw bestiality, Arizona Daily Star, 28 March 2006. In Arizona, the motive for legislation was a "spate of recent cases."
  79. Posner, Richard, A Guide to America's Sex Laws, The University of Chicago Press, 1996. ISBN 978-0-226-67564-0. Page 207.
  80. "Sweden highlights bestiality problem". TheLocal.se. 29 April 2005. Archived from the original on 15 May 2013. Retrieved 13 May 2012.
  81. "Crimes Act 1961 No 43 (as at 01 October 2012), Public Act". New Zealand Legislation. 1 October 2012. Retrieved 4 January 2013.
  82. Wisch, Rebecca F. (2022). "Table of State Animal Sexual Assault Laws". Animal Legal & Historical Center. Michigan State University College of Law. Retrieved 30 September 2022.
  83. Jan Dutkiewicz; Gabriel N. Rosenberg (11 December 2020). "The Meat Industry's Bestiality Problem". The New Republic.
  84. "ORS 167.341 - Encouraging sexual assault of an animal". Retrieved 27 April 2024.
  85. "First Aussie state passes law banning 'sickening' fetish videos". 25 November 2021.
  86. "The Dark Side of Porn Season 2 (2006) – Documentary / TV-Show". Crimedocumentary.com. Retrieved 28 May 2018.
  87. Bourke, Joanna (March 2019). "Bestiality, Zoophilia and Human–Animal Sexual Interactions". Paragraph. 42 (1): 91–115. doi:10.3366/para.2019.0290. ISSN 0264-8334. Retrieved 20 May 2024.
  88. "LEGE 196 13/05/2003 - Portal Legislativ". legislatie.just.ro. Retrieved 1 June 2024.
  89. 'Acts of depravity' found on dad's computer, Reading Post, 26 January 2011.
  90. W. Edward Craighead; Charles B. Nemeroff, eds. (11 November 2002). The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology and Behavioral Science. John Wiley & Sons. p. 1050. ISBN 978-0-471-27083-6.
  91. David Delaney (2003). Law and Nature. Cambridge University Press. p. 252. ISBN 978-1-139-43700-4.
  92. Montclair, 1997, cited by Miletski, 1999, p .35.
  93. ^ Williams & Weinberg (2003)
  94. Markoff, 1990.
  95. Miletski p. 35.
  96. Miletski (1999)
  97. Milteski (1999), p. 35.
  98. Andriette, 1996.
  99. Fox, 1994.
  100. Montclair, 1997.
  101. Donofrio, 1996.
  102. Miletski (1999), p. 22.
  103. Thomas Francis (20 August 2009). "Those Who Practice Bestiality Say They're Part of the Next Sexual Rights Movement – Page 2". The New Times Broward-Palm Beach. Archived from the original on 2 December 2014. Retrieved 13 May 2012.
  1. The terms are often used interchangeably, but it is important to make a distinction between the attraction (zoophilia) and the act (bestiality).
  2. Professor Marc Epprecht states that authors such as Jacobus X do not deserve respect because their methodology is based on hearsay, and was designed for voyeuristic titillation of the reader.

External links

Zoophilia
Zoophilia
Related subjects
Category
Paraphilias
List
See also
Outline of human sexuality
Physiology
and biology
Health and
education
Identity and diversity
Law
History
Relationships
and society
By country
Sexual activities
Sex industry
Religion and
sexuality
Sexual fetishism
Actions, states
Body parts
Clothing
Objects
Controversial / illegal
Culture / media
Race
Related topics
Categories: