Bestiality, Zoophilia and Human–Animal Sexual Interactions (original) (raw)
Related papers
Bestial Humans and Sexual Animals: Zoophilia in Law and Literature
Animalities, ed. M Lundblad, 2017
The paper contrasts the recriminalization of zoophilia at the instigation of animal rights organisations with the revelation of diverse animal sexualities. It posits the existence of a 'stallion/gelding complex' that expects animals to be either unremittingly sexual or wholly sexless. The paper then examines the representation of zoophilic relationships in David Garnett's 'Lady into Fox', Marian Engel's 'Bear' and Robinson Devor's film 'Zoo'.
Zoophilia and Bestiality: International Legal Approaches towards Human-Animal Sexual Conduct
Bharati Law Review, Volume VIII, Issue 4 (April – June, 2020) PP 114-124 ISSN 2278-6996; e-ISSN 2457-0567, 2020
The notion of humanity is no longer limited to human beings; it is beginning to stretch to the lower animals, as in the ancient times it has gradually been extended to the slaves and savages." In common law, the crime was enclosed in religious terms, with phrases such "abominable" and "unnatural" used to illustrate the apparent unethical aspect of the felony. Humans are among the higher animals in whom the sexual instinct is highly developed, sensitive, and multifaceted in its manifestations. With the advancement of culture and civilization, sex desires have gradually grown to a higher degree of expression. Moral and physical degeneracy are common attributes in contemporary so-called civilized societies. For ages, various paraphilias have existed. Individuals have recurring profound sexual desires and sexually arousing hallucinations involving either humans (e.g. aged, children) or non-humans-(e.g. corpses, animals, etc.). Responses to bestiality differ internationally amidst an upsurge in the number of such instances. Human-animal sexual contact is licit in Chile, Japan, Hungary, Russia, etc. and obscure or unknown in countries like Peru, Greenland, Libya, and Egypt. Despite the prevalence of anti-bestiality legislation, such as criminalizing bestiality, ban on sale, distribution, and ownership of zoophilic pornography, the crime rate against nature is mushrooming. The paper attempts to study sodomy laws (limited to bestiality) of common and civil law countries along with international approaches using desk-based research besides suggesting modification in statutes to reconcile current terminology, newer forensic risk assessment, and with the objective of addressing animal welfare concerns and prosecution.
Social Scientific Analysis of Human-Animal Sexual Interactions
Animals
An ontological shift has led to a revitalisation of the research area that, within the social sciences, deals with the interactions between humans and animals. However, there are topics which are still taboo: interspecies sexuality. Sexual practices between humans and animals have been fundamentally analysed from a medical perspective, failing to consider the influence of cultural context. Departing from a thorough bibliographical revision, here we revise the approaches that, both from sociology and anthropology, have been used to analyse this phenomenon from different perspectives, including bestiality, zoophilia, and zoosexuality.
Pound Town: A Defense of the Moral Permissibility of Bestiality
Here is a draft of my essay exploring the circumstances under which bestiality is morally permissible. Follow me on Substack for daily writing. https://maistvanjr.substack.com/p/pound-town-a-defense-of-the-moral Pound Town: A Defense of the Moral Permissibility of Bestiality 1. Introductory Remarks Rare it is to come across someone who would argue openly for the moral permissibility of bestiality, the sexual contact between human and nonhuman animals.[2] The prevailing view is that bestiality is immoral under all circumstances. The central rationale has long been that bestiality debases our special dignity as humans, tarnishes our privileged status as deliberative agents whose rationality frees us from the instincts that puppeteer animals. In our era of animal-rights activism, this rationale has been reinforced by the notion that animals have inherent moral worth and so should not be subject to indignities and cruelties.[3] I contend, on the contrary, that under certain circumstances sexual activity with animals is morally permissible. Especially when the wants and welfare and moral worth and autonomy of all parties are respected, especially when the interaction is voluntary and non-distressing and non-exploitative and mutually enjoyable and mutually opt-out-able, bestiality is merely a benign form of nontraditional living. It is much more benign, in fact, than many popular practices whose moral permissibility largely remains unquestioned: grooming animals to serve as our tools and playthings, or castrating them into docility, or fondling their teats and vaginas to get them in the breeding mood while tied up to what are known as “rape racks,” or sticking electric rods up their rectums to produce reliable ejaculations—or, of course, putting them through literal meat grinders and then onto our grills. The burden of proof, I take it, falls upon me—yes, despite the fact that most of us regard as unproblematic various barbarities inflicted upon animals, even when they dissent through skin-crawling screams and heart-wrenching attempts to flee. Although sexual activity with animals has been happening as long as humans have been around, and although pro-bestiality organizations and forums are gaining popularity in the digital age (especially in progressive countries like Germany, Denmark, and Norway), bestiality remains condemned across a variety of cultures.[4] Laws prohibiting sexual contact between humans and animals, which range back to the Hittites in 1650 BCE, are widespread across western nations (with noted exception of Hungary and a few other countries). These laws have become increasingly stringent especially in the US since the turn of the millennium, where such contact—unless carried out for husbandry or veterinary or research or educational purposes—is an offense in all states except New Mexico and West Virginia (some of which—like Texas and Florida—have laws according to which the mere observing of bestiality is a criminal offense).[5] There are enticing reasons behind the longstanding criminalization of bestiality. Bestiality violates our intuitions concerning right and wrong while also seemingly violating both the commands of the Abrahamic God and the so-called “natural way of things” (issues I discuss in sections 3 through 5). Cutting even deeper than that, many argue that bestiality endangers both animal and human welfare (issues I discuss in sections 6 and 7). However compelling these reasons might seem, my intention is to show that—perhaps in some sense reflecting how often in history lawmakers banned bestiality in the same breath not only as masturbation and anal sex, but also as witchcraft and sorcery[6]—solid foundation is lacking for our moral opprobrium here. By no means do I intend to promote bestiality. I simply hope to bring into relief the possibility of humans and animals engaging in morally unproblematic sexual interactions.
Commentary: Zoophilia and the law
The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 2014
We support the observation of Holoyda and Newman that common definitions of zoophilia are confusing and that legal definitions of bestiality and sentencing implications are inconsistent. We take issue with their contention that the finding of a history of sex with animals may be a significant risk factor for future harm to humans. We oppose their recommendation for new laws against bestiality to improve psychiatric knowledge about zoophilia. Instead, we advocate for better diagnostic criteria than are provided by the DSM-5, together with the provision of treatment to promote healthful sexual interests and activities by humans and the safety of animals. We believe this is best accomplished by not treating sexual interactions with animals simply as risk factors. Instead they should be assessed as signs of zoophilia, which is a psychiatric disorder for which treatment is available.
(Monterey, Calif.) -Bestiality, one aspect of Zoophilia, causes cancer of the penis documented in a Brazilian interdisciplinary study.
terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: Abstract and Keywords Unlike most species of animals, dogs appear to be potentially consenting and enthusiastic participants in human-animal sexual relations. This has led utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer to argue that some forms of bestiality do not involve cruelty and are morally acceptable. This chapter builds on feminist critical animal studies critiques of utilitarian approaches to animal ethics to show the inadequacy of a utilitarian analysis of human-canine sexual relations, and of zoophilia more generally. Highlighting the power relations involved in domesticating dogs, as well as the gendered (male) and racialized (white) nature of the zoophile phenomenon, this chapter argues that a more nuanced and intersectionalist understanding of the forms of coercion involved in human-canine sexual relations is needed. Such an analysis suggests that zoophilia—most often manifested in human-canine relations today—is not so much a sexual identity or a paraphilia, but part of what feminists have described as a rape culture.