Bestiality and Zoophilia (Encyclopedia Entry)

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.

(Monterey, Calif.) -Bestiality, one aspect of Zoophilia, causes cancer of the penis documented in a Brazilian interdisciplinary study.

Those who lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. Blackfoot proverb.

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.

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’?

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.

Journal American Acad. of Psychiatry and the Law, 2019

Bestiality is an uncomfortable topic about which there is limited scientific literature. Prevalence research has focused on self-reported acts, and no research has established the actual frequency and nature of deliberate sex acts with animals. This quantitative, descriptive study examined 456 arrests for bestiality-related incidents in the United States from 1975 to 2015 to explore patterns of offending, offender characteristics, and how cases were adjudicated. The results suggest that animal sex offending may be linked to other criminal behavior, and involves a spectrum of sexual acts, including coercive, violent, and non-violent penetration; solicitation for sex with animals; and deviant behavior including torture and necrophilia. Findings of concern were that 31.6% of animal sex offenders also sexually offended against children and adults; 52.9% had a prior or subsequent criminal record involving human sexual abuse, animal abuse, interpersonal violence, substances, or property offenses; and only 39.1% of arrests involving the direct sexual abuse of animals resulted in prosecution. The broad range of sexual assault patterns and varied legal outcomes suggest that bestiality is more pervasive and more serious than previously thought and point to a need for additional research to aid in detection, intervention, sentencing, treatment, and supervision methods. Although there is evidence that zoophilia and besti-ality have existed for millennia, 1 we still do not have reliable information on the prevalence of the behavior or what significance it might have. Academic research and reliable statistics are scant largely because zoophilia (i.e., the human sexual interest in or attraction to an animal) and bestiality (i.e., the deliberate use of animals for human sexual purposes) are generally considered rare and unworthy of serious research or debate. 2 Additionally, reports of animal cruelty are often perceived as less important to investigate or prosecute. 3 As a result, zoophilia and besti-ality are understudied, and usable statistics are artificially low or not available at all. The primary goal of this study was to create a baseline of reliable and verifiable data through a detailed examination of 456 bestiality-related arrests that occurred in the United States over a 40-year period. Literature Review Estimates of Prevalence

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'.

Those who lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. Blackfoot proverb.