Zoosexuality
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- See also: Zoophilia
WikiProject Sociology or the Sociology Portal may be able to help recruit one. If a more appropriate WikiProject or portal exists, please adjust this template accordingly. (July 2008)
Zoosexuality is a term used to describe a sexual orientation towards non-human animals. It has become more commonly referenced in scientific research literature since Hani Miletski's research into the field in the 1990s. It has become the accepted term to describe an orientation towards animals within the sciences of anthrozoology, sexology and psychology.
Contents
[edit] Sexual orientation and zoosexuality
Hani Miletski possibly performed pioneering formal research exploring whether a sexual orientation towards animals existed. The definition of sexual orientation used was based upon the work of Francoeur (1991) in his discussion of homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality.[1] According to this definition, sexual orientation consists of three interrelated aspects:
Alfred Kinsey during the writing for the Kinsey Reports, devised a simple scale for classifying heterosexual-bisexual-homosexual orientation, varying from "exclusively heterosexual" to "exclusively homosexual" in 7 stages (0 to 6), which can also be adapted for zoosexual orientation at the adapter's discretion.
[edit] History of terminology
The study of human sexual activity with animals has evolved through several stages, some of which are documented under historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia. Miletski, in examining the literature on zoosexual research, described what she considered the different viewpoints: "Throughout the literature review, it is very obvious that authors perceive sexual relations with animals in very different ways. Definitions of various behaviors and attitudes are often conflicting, leaving the reader confused. Terms such as "sodomy," "zoorasty," "zoosexuality," as well as "bestiality" and "zoophilia" are often used, each having a different meaning depending on the author."
Three terms are most commonly used: bestiality, zoosexuality, and zoophilia. The term "bestiosexuality" was discussed briefly by Allen (1979), but never became established.
Bestiality
Bestiality refers to a sexual act between a human and an animal.[2] It is a term that does not take into account the nature of the act or motive.
For many hundreds of years, bestiality was considered a religious offence against God, a view still held by many Western religions. During the 21st century, however, it became viewed as a clinical condition - a fetish, compulsion, disorder, or evidence of some kind of throwback - or "profoundly disturbed behavior".[3]
Bestiality was categorized as late at the 1920s and 30s as a mental deficiency attributable to primitive or non-Western minds, and described in one of the foremost sexology references of the time as: "the sexual perversion of dull, insensitive and unfastidious persons. It flourishes among primitive peoples and among peasants. It is the vice of the clodhopper, unattractive to women..."[4]
(Clinicians considered it an abnormal and rare form of aberrative sex act, perhaps masturbatory in nature, up until the 1940s and the publication of the Kinsey Reports). It was mostly reported through rare and occasional sources when it came to clinical, legal, or anthropological attention.)
Zoophilia
In 1894, Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing introduced the term zoophilia in his book Psychopathia Sexualis, and this has become a more common term outside legislative statute, which retains bestiality exclusively. Zoophilia has acquired multiple and sometimes conflicting meanings:
Zoosexuality
The concept of zoosexuality as a sexual orientation, as opposed to a fetish, paraphilia or affective bond, can be traced back to research such as Masters in the 1960s. This was around the time (following Kinsey) that minority sexualities and sexual interests began to be seen as something other than a sign of mental abnormality.
The term 'zoosexual' itself was cited by researchers such as Miletski in the 1990s. It was seen as a value-neutral term which would be less susceptible to being loaded with emotion or rhetoric. Usage of the noun form can be applied to both a "zoosexual (person)", and a "zoosexual act".
[edit] Professional views of zoosexuality as a sexual orientation
Donofrio[10] (doctoral dissertation, 1996), investigating zoophilia, reported that his findings supported the American Psychiatric Association's view in their diagnostic manual DSM-IV that zoophilia was not by itself a "clinically significant problem" by which is meant relatively uncommon in incidence. Studying the matter further, he also concluded that the concept and recognition of a sexual orientation towards animals (as opposed to simple classification as paraphilia) was supported by his study.
In a 1999 study that some described as "monumental"[11] and "pioneering"[12], a comprehensive reference work and analysis combined with further research, Miletski was the first researcher to consider formally the question whether a genuine orientation exists (as opposed to a mere sexual fetish), arguing that a scale similar to Kinsey's could be applied for this, stating that:
- "zoosexuality implies a sexual orientation toward animals... And Donofrio (1996) reports that the concept of zoophilia, being a sexual orientation, was supported by his doctoral study. He therefore, suggests using a scale resembling Kinsey's sexual orientation scale, which was also offered by Blake (1971). Donofrio's model suggests that those who have no interest whatsoever in sexual contact with animals would appear at the Zero point of the scale. Those individuals whose sole sexual outlet and attraction are animals, would be assigned the Six position. Along that continuum, between these two extremes, would be individuals who include animal sexual contact in their fantasy, or have had incidental experiences with animals, have had more than incidental contact with animals, place their sexual activity with animals equal to that involving humans, prefer animal contact but engage in more than incidental contact with humans, and those who engage primarily in contact with animals with only incidental human sexual contact. I therefore conceptualized my basic research question to be: 'Is there a sexual orientation toward nonhuman animals?' "
In her book, she concludes that the answer is 'yes', and that:
- "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 Kinsey scale, 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)
This finding has since also been agreed by Andrea Beetz, who in her 2002 book Love, Violence, and Sex with Animals concurred that there had been an omission in some previous studies, and that:
- "Findings of this study agree with the view of recent authors... that indeed a sexual orientation towards animals - a zoosexuality - exists, even if it is not appropriate to regard all persons who have sex with animals as zoosexuals." (Beetz 2002, section 5.7)
A series of 2005–2006 articles in the Journal of the International Society for Anthrozoology[13], also states this view.
A 2005 paper Zoophilia, between pathology and normality[14] by doctors at the Munich Polyclinic for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, states that "Zoophilia, a sexual preference for animals, has lost its character as a severe mental disorder. In clinical practice it is rarely seen nowadays, particularly since it was decriminalized [in Germany] in 1970 ... Findings from this study do not offer explanations about the causes of zoophilia. It is noteworthy, however, that the subjects in question were socially well adapted and displayed good interpersonal social skills. The authors stress that zoophilia shows a variety of manifestations..."
[edit] Further discussion
[edit] Forms of zoosexual activity
Although its findings go back consistently many decades, the study of zoosexuality with modern research methodologies, is still relatively new. Massen (1994, p. 57) distinguished nine basic forms of zoosexual activity, which he stated frequently overlap:
Beetz later added[15] that this omits the "experienced and not deliberately chosen" emotional-sexual bond of zoophilia and relationship (which had not been widely explored in the literature available to Massen):
- "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."
[edit] Miscellaneous comparisons with other orientations
Akeret (1995) discussed in his book some of his most memorable clients, one of whom was in love with a polar bear. He stated that curing this client from zoophilia "appeared no easier than trying to cure a homosexual." (cited by Miletski, p.41)
On another note, Miletski in her work touches upon a more sombre similarity shared with other minority orientations:[16]
- "It is common knowledge that suicide rates are high among gays and lesbians. They tend to grow up feeling different, lonely, isolated, and unable to talk to others about their homosexual feelings. Since zoophiles have similar experiences, and if zoophilia/zoosexuality is a form of sexual orientation, it may not be surprising that 18 men (22%) and one woman (9%) reported they tried to commit suicide, and six other men and three other women reported they thought about it. Yet, only two men reported the reason for thinking about and/or trying to commit suicide was being a zoo. It is possible that the seven men who provided reasons such as isolation, loneliness, depression, despair, rejection, feeling unloved, low self-esteem, anger, and stress may have experienced these feelings because of being zoos. During the 12 months prior to the study, however, the majority of men (57=69%) and women (9=82%) reported they were pretty happy with their personal life."
[edit] Emotion in zoosexuality
[edit] Emotion in humans
- Main articles: Animal love, Zoophilia
Masters, in 1962, asked "To what extent does the human individual participating in an act of bestiality regard the animal sex partner as a person?" He comments in reply that:
- "[The human] anticipates that the animal will derive gratification from its intercourse with him, as another person would, and he is disappointed if this reaction does not occur", attributes emotional capabilities and some conceptual abilities, and "in short, regards it as a personality, a human-like consciousness which differs from him erotically more in form than in spirit. This is, in part why individuals are able to 'fall in love' with animals, especially with those animals with which they have had repeated sexual experiences...."
He also asked in the same work, "Is it possible for a human being to be in love, in the romantic sense of that expression, with an animal? Is it possible for an animal, within the limitations of its nature, to reciprocate such affection?"
- "In this area the attitudes and emotions with which the (human) subjects approach their (animal) objects are considered decisive..." There is said to be "a genuine feeling for the animal on the part of the human", and may "approximate what is called 'erotic love' when humans only are involved... Though comparatively quite rare, there do occur cases... of human beings who genuinely 'fall in love' with animals, a love which includes sexual relations, but also such 'romantic' elements as tenderness, spiritual affection, and even jealousy."
Likewise Beetz states:
- "That the emotional side indeed plays a role for some people engaging in sexual contact with animals, was acknowledged by several sources, e.g. . Bornemann (1990), Cerrone (1991), Davis (1954), Donofrio (1996), Hentig (1962), Kinsey et al. (1948), and Miletski (1999). For example, Hentig (1962) referred to a patient described by Hirschfeld: The man was deeply in love with a horse, had built a special, luxurious barn for it, pampered it, was according to his own words faithful to the horse and would have killed himself in case the horse died before him. New -- at least in his time -- was the perspective of Ullerstam (1966) who suggested, that emotions as well as erotic feelings can even be reciprocal between man and animals. Also Kinsey (1954) held the opinion, that the sexual contact can lead up to a close emotional attachment to the animal and that in some cases the animal gets used to this interspecies contact so much, that it neglects possible sex partners of its own kind." (Beetz section 5.2.11)
Williams and Weinberg (2003) found that "almost all [of the zoophiles participating in their study] said they had been in love with an animal partner and perceived an animal partner to have been in love with them." Finally, according to Kurrelgyre (1995, cited by Miletski) "Many zoos find satisfaction purely in giving pleasure to the animal."
[edit] Emotion in animals
There have been fewer studies of animal reactions to zoosexual activity. Masters, in 1962, wrote:
- "Where sadism 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."
Masters ultimately speculated that:
- "One seems forced to conclude, the animal derives a considerable psychical[17] 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."
According to Masters, Alfred Kinsey "accepts as factual that animals may develop great fondness for humans who have sexual relations with them".
Miletski (1999) wrote that information on sex with animals on the internet is often very emphatic as to how to give pleasure and identify consent, and how to avoid harm, to the point that she states "one can find instructions on how to tell if the animal is in the mood for sex, and specific suggestions such as to cut one's nails and file them before he/she engages in any sexual act with an animal, lest one physically hurt the animal."
Beetz adds to these her finding that other than "violent sexual acts", sexual contact "of suitable anatomy and size" does not necessarily cause pain or injuries to the animal.[18]
Looking at animal capability to have genuine emotions, Jonathan Balcombe argues in his 2006 book that animals have a highly developed sense of pleasure in life, and not merely basic responses such as pain.[19] Reviewing this book, Wayne Pacelle, the President and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) comments: "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."
[edit] Intersubjective emotion
Beetz (2002, section 5.2.11) comments on the intersubjective bond, "That an emotional attachment to the animal is important, if not more important than the sexual interaction for many zoophile persons, was documented by the research of Miletski (1999)".
She summarizes (section 5.2.8) that: "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."
[edit] Books
- Main bibliography, see: Zoophilia
[edit] See also
