Bestiality: Omission in Penile Cancer and Other Studies Promoting Circumcision (original) (raw)
Related papers
(Monterey, Calif.) -Bestiality, one aspect of Zoophilia, causes cancer of the penis documented in a Brazilian interdisciplinary study.
Bestiality, Zoophilia and Human–Animal Sexual Interactions
Paragraph
From the earliest human cultures, nonhuman animals have been central to the sexual imaginary of humans. This article traces the modern history of bestiality from the nineteenth century, culminating in ‘zoo’ communities today. It explores the changing ideas about the ‘wrongness’ of such acts. It asks: what do human–animal sexual relations tell us about gender, sexuality, violence, psychiatry and concepts of consent? What are the possibilities for humans and nonhuman animals becoming true ‘companion species’?
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.
What (if Anything) Is Wrong with Bestiality?
Journal of Social Philosophy, 2003
Peter Singer is used to controversy-indeed, he seems to court it-but nothing could have prepared him for the reaction which followed his recent review of Midas Dekker's Dearest Pet for the on-line version of Nerve magazine. 1 Dekker's book is a social, historical, and psychological examination of bestiality, and Singer's review has been widely perceived as condoning the practice. The horrified reaction from the mass media was almost immediate. Singer was denounced in the editorial pages of newspapers across the United States and beyond. Condemnation came from the right and the left alike: "Animal Crackers," the opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal was entitled, 2 while the Village Voice declared that it was Singer himself who was the animal. 3 Singer claims that he was not in fact defending bestiality, merely examining the reasons for the taboo against it. 4 But this is a little disingenuous. Clearly Singer believes that the taboo is irrational, 5 the product of our superstitious belief that "a wide, unbridgeable gulf" separates us humans from other animals. In fact, Singer points out, we are very much like them, and nowhere more so in than in our sexuality: "We copulate as they do." Since with this realization the usual supports of the taboo fall away, we must look elsewhere for reasons supporting the banning of bestiality-or give up the prohibition altogether. From Singer's utilitarian viewpoint, to establish that bestiality is wrong we would have to be able to show that it would have harmful consequences, for the participants or for others. But it is difficult to believe that such harms will characterize all acts of bestiality. Hence, Singer clearly implies, there is nothing wrong with bestiality. Of course, Singer's critics are far from conceding the point. Interestingly, many of them do not seem to think that the taboo against bestiality needs any defense at all (for The Wall Street Journal, for instance, the mere fact that Singer was defending the practice ought to "come as a tremendous embarrassment to professional ethicists"). But some of Singer's critics do put forward arguments. In what follows, I will examine the arguments against bestiality, from newspapers and philosophers alike. As we shall see, none of them are very convincing. Nevertheless, I am not willing to conclude, with Singer, that the taboo against bestiality is simply the last residue of a fundamentally superstitious worldview. I therefore devote the last part of the paper to a reconsideration of the taboo. As we shall see, though Singer is right in thinking that bestiality is not immoral, it does not follow from this fact that giving up the taboo is rational.
Deviant Behavior, 2002
The present study focused on the ways in which a small subset of sadomasochistically-oriented males have incorporated, during the last 12 months, the use of animals into their sexual practices. The respondents (12 men or 7.3% of the entire sample) were derived from a larger survey into the sexual practices and characteristics of sadomasochistically oriented individuals. A matched control group of 12 individuals was also selected from the initial sample. The bestialic participants had both become aware of their sadomasochistic interests and started practising sadomasochistic sex relatively late. Compared to previous studies, they had seldom
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.