05.29.06
Posted in information, zoophilia at 5:02 pm by zoophilia
Zoophilia, from the Greek Ζωο (zôon, “animal”) and φιλία (philia, “friendship” or “love”), is a paraphilia, defined as an affinity or sexual attraction by a human to a (non-human) animal. Such individuals are called zoophiles. The more recent terms zoosexual and zoosexuality describe the full spectrum of human/animal orientation. 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 animal abuse and/or outlawed as “crimes against nature”. However some, such as philosopher and animal rights author Peter Singer, 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 DSM-IV (TR) (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association) 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 loving relationship that can last for years and is not considered functionally different from any other love–sex relationship.
Permalink
05.22.06
Posted in articles, information, zoophilia at 4:23 pm by zoophilia
This essay is intended for those who are new to the subject of zoosexuality or the act called bestiality. Those zoosexuals who know the ropes are also welcome to read this document but please understand that I’m not trying to tell anyone what to do or how to live their lives. Please note that this is not intended to be a sex guide but a reference of what to beware of during the sex act to avoid harm and injury to either participant. Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
05.12.06
Posted in articles, information, zoophilia at 1:30 pm by zoophilia
Introduction
A brief word of introduction. The following document is in no way official, and these figures should not be taken as universal fact. There are doubtless many factors that I’ve not accounted for, which significantly affect the data. Also, this survey was aimed specifically at zoophiles (though this is a self-classification thing, and of the 25 respondents to complete both surveys, only 10 responded as not at all bestialist in the other survey).This version of the document was compiled on the 27th May 2000, at which point the total number of respondents stood at 49. This small sample size means only a brief analysis.
Gender
As might be expected, the majority of survey respondents were male. But perhaps a little more surprising is that only 5 (10.2%) of the 49 respondents were female, while according to ‘net statistics a figure closer to 37% should have been expected. Some of this could be accounted for by the fact that this survey asked only zoophiles to respond, and the previous survey showed that fewer females claimed to be zoophiles than males. However, I suspect most of this is accounted for by the small sample size.
Approximate age
The table below shows the age distribution of respondents. Age distribution relevant to this sexuality was analysed in the Causes of Zoophilia (survey). What’s interesting here is that there appears to be a greater number of young respondents, 26.5% aged between 17 and 20 as opposed to 23.1% in the Causes of Zoophilia survey (of which this sample population should be a subset). Also, 67.3% of respondents are under 30 here, as opposed to 51.61% in the Causes of Zoophilia data.I assume from this that older respondents aren’t so concerned with the legalities of their sexuality as younger respondents, due to apathy or something similar.
Time been a zoophile
Unfortunately, due to the way in which the Causes of Zoophilia questionnaire was designed, the only way to compare the two sets of data is to subtract the age the respondent realised their sexuality from their current age, which means these figures are only approximate. Nonetheless, it’s the only way a comparison can be made.After the data has been processed as outlined above, for this survey the average time a respondent had been aware of their sexuality is 13.9 years, while for the Causes of Zoophilia survey the figure was 12.9 years. This isn’t a significant enough difference when given the error margin to mean much of anything, in my opinion.
About the only interesting feature of this data is the difference between times for men and women; an average of 13.6 and 16.4 years respectively. This time gap of 2.8 years is matched in the Causes of Zoophilia survey by a gap of 1.8 years.
Activity Online
The table below shows the online activity of respondents, divided again by gender. It’s interesting from this to see that more people are a member of a mailing list than exchange five or more e-mails a day. It also seems that there’s a mailing list being run for every five people who claim to be members of one! I can only conclude from this that people very active in the ‘zoo community’ are more likely to have responded to this survey than zoophiles who aren’t.Something else quite interesting, though perhaps just a result of so few respondents, is quite how active females seem to be online. Only ten percent of respondents are female, though 1 in 4 mailing-list owners and 1 in 5 web-site owners are female. Also, 18.2% of respondents exchanging more than 5 e-mails a day are female.
Country and area of residence
The graph to the left shows the estimated density of zoophilia by country. This has been calculated using that country’s population and the survey respondents. Of course this isn’t an accurate picture, as there are varying degrees of Internet access in different countries, and language and similar barriers to consider. Also, with the small number of respondents the only reasonable figures are those for the USA, the UK and Canada (29, 5 and 4 respondents respectively). This data is summarised below in table format.
Looking at the above data, it’s interesting to see that the country with the highest density is New Zealand, (something supported by common rumour) where there seem quite severe legal implications. And the country with the lowest density is Germany, where it seems from the survey (and my memory) that there is no legal penalty. See the next question for more on this. It’s worth reminding you though that these two examples are not supported at all well by the small sample size.
An additional note, the highest zoophile densities in the US seem to be in Colorado (6.2 respondents/10 million), Arkensas (4.3 respondents/10 million), Oregon (3.7 respondents/10 million) and Florida (2.6 respondents/10 million). There were respondents from only 16 states in the US though.
Legal penalties
This question looked at the legal penalties that respondents faced in their country and area. This information could’ve been obtained from legal documents on the Internet, but this manner of research shows to what extent the law affects zoophiles, and how aware of it they are.
Worth note is that in the above table all of the US states have been grouped together, while in reality the laws differ quite markedly between them. The most obvious fact here is just how little zoophiles know about the laws that affect their sexuality, 25 of the 49 respondents indicating that they don’t know what laws apply. As far as I know, all countries besides the US have a single set of laws governing all areas, but still not once do you get 100% agrement.
Also apparent is that the UK is the most severely penalising country, with respondents indicating a monetary fine, ban on keeping animals and prison sentence all possible. I live in the UK, and as far as I know this prison sentence can in theory be a life sentence. The most liberal countries here appear to be Germany and Poland, both of which most likely have legislation in place to prevent animal cruelty.
I intend to embark on some research to establish the facts on this issue, and I will publish my findings separately.
Acceptance of homosexuality and zoophilia
Doubtless there will be those who disagree with even the mention of homosexuality here, but being both homosexual and a zoophile myself I can see there are parallels, and I believe where society’s attitudes are concerned they’re similar enough.Regardless, this question looked at the level of acceptance that each respondent saw towards homosexuality and zoophilia in their country and area. The responses are summarised in the table below, showing responses by both country and US state. (The figures are achieved by equating responses with values, and from this deriving an average figure which indicates how accepting an area is)
In the above data, the USA, UK, Canada and Australia are the most statistically reliable countries, and California, Florida, Colorado and Ohio the most reliable states. I’ll concentrate on these, using the data sorted by average value and comparing the positions of countries and states between the two sets of data.
The USA came 5th in the first set of data and 7th in the second set of data, moving only two places. The UK moved more significantly, rising from 10th to 5th. Canada and Australia moved less, from 4th to 6th and 3rd to 1st respectively. In the states, there seems to be more movement. California moved from 7 places from 1st to 8th, Florida stayed at 6th place in both sets, Colorado moved from 5th to 8th, and Ohio moved from 14th to 12th. It’s worth pointing out that because a lot of the states had similar averages, the sorting order is less significant.
Active as a zoophile
The above table shows the portion of respondents, male and female, who claimed to be “active as a zoophile”. In retrospect this is a somewhat ambiguous question, but I assume most understood that I meant sexually active. In the Causes of Zoophilia survey, almost a third (33.1%) of respondents claimed to not be sexually active. In this survey though, the figure here is only 2%, which suggests very strongly indeed that respondents to this survey (who are probably concerned about the issue) are those who are sexually active as zoophiles.
A second question looked at how concerned respondents were about their sexuality, the results of which are shown above. The relative high number of respondents not answering this question indicates that there was indeed some ambiguity to the previous question. But ignoring this for now, it’s obvious that few respondents concern themselves so much with their sexuality, probably because of a deliberate separation from society and relatively small legal risk.
Legalisation of Zoophilia
This question, one of the more revealing here, asked whether respondents believed zoophilia should be legalised or not. The results shown below indicate that the general consensus is a resounding definite yes. I suspect that most people’s instant reaction to this is a yes, but the next two questions which ask for respondents to substantiate their stance show that most were able to come up with significant disadvantages to legalisation.
Advantages of wider acceptance
These next two questions were worded slightly differently to the previous (a wider acceptance as opposed to legalisation), not deliberately but with interesting result.Most respondents could come up with plenty of valid advantages to a wider acceptance, the most common of course being essentially selfish in motivation, including an ability to be more open about sexuality, and reduced or no legal penalties if caught. Other advantages mentioned included a better understanding of zoophilia, animal rights and animal needs. One particular respondent talked of the practice of some animal owners hiring out their animals to men for sex, and suggested that a wider acceptance of zoophilia would reduce this practice, though I must say I think the reverse might be the case.
There were five respondents who stated that they couldn’t think of any real benefits, and of these two had only seconds earlier said that zoophilia should definitely be legalised. Of the remaining three, two said it shouldn’t be legalised, and one didn’t answer the previous question.
Disadvantages of wider acceptance
Again most respondents here had disadvantages that were selfishly motivated. I’m not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, it’s what you would expect in a survey of this nature. What was a bad thing in my opinion though is just how few respondents cited increased animal abuse as a disadvantage. Only 10 of the 38 who responded to this question mentioned this. Of course it’s possible that I’m wrong, and that there isn’t a risk of increased animal abuse, but it’s a disadvantage that swings my decision.The most common disadvantages quoted include increased attacks on zoophiles, and reduced privacy. I’m not sure about the privacy thing, but it’s certainly true any wider acceptance would mean that zoophilia becomes a real target for those who believe it’s a problem, whereas at present it’s largely not even acknowledged. There certainly aren’t any organised campaigns against zoophilia that I know of.
Willingness to stand for acceptance
The above table shows a summary of respondents asked how willing they were to stand for increased acceptance. The responses here match the responses to the earlier question on how concerned zoophiles were about their sexuality; 38% of respondents who are not concerned about their sexuality are also not willing to stand for greater acceptance, compared with only 25% of those who are very concerned.
Additional comments
As was suggested by several respondents to the previous survey, an option was included for respondents to include additional comments, and I was suprised to find that almost two thirds used it. Also, a lot of the feedback I got through this was quite relevant and useful. It seems the general feeling amonst respondents is one of defiance; the famous quote “love knoweth no locksmiths” seems to apply here.But at the same time there’s a lot here that doesn’t sound the words of people with choices. One respondent stated that he was unable to be around the species he was attracted to, and that if he couldn’t by 45 he’d commit suicide. (He and I talked soon after) Other respondents talk of how they couldn’t imagine themselves being anything other than zoophiles, one stating quite succinctly, “Love conquours all, and for the rest of my life when I think of something I love it will always be a Horse.”
This article is the very nice work of Muse’s Zoo Research and can be read here in it’s full context.
Permalink
05.08.06
Posted in articles, information, zoophilia at 4:15 pm by zoophilia
© 2000 Hani Miletski (M.S.W., Ph.D. - psychotherapist and an AASECT-certified sex therapist based in Bethesda, MD) This article is excerpted from a book she is currently writing concerning her study on bestiality and zoophilia.
It all started when my client, I’ll call him Christian, told me he could not find any literature about bestiality/zoophilia. I had been seeing him, in my psychotherapy practice, because he could not stop having sex with dogs. He was a very religious man and believed it was wrong to have sexual relations with anything other than women, and even then, only when you are married to that woman. However, he could not control his urges to have sex with the dogs in his neighborhood.
I asked the librarian at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) to conduct a literature search for me (at that time I was not connected to the Internet), which resulted in very disappointing findings. There was nothing out there about bestiality and zoophilia other than one autobiography by Mark Matthews: The Horseman: Obsessions of a Zoophile. In this book, the author describes his struggles to accept the fact that he loved his horse more than he loved his wife. He portrayed himself as an intelligent, professional individual who was sexually attracted to horses and eventually, after admitting to himself his love for his horse, he married his horse.
I was intrigued with the idea that there are people who may be sexually attracted to animals and may even prefer animals as sex partners to humans. I decided to dedicate my doctoral dissertation to this topic and began to study bestiality and zoophilia. Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
04.25.06
Posted in articles, information, Howto, zoophilia at 2:35 pm by zoophilia
We seek to reach a state close to full equality with our animals. At the present time this can only be done in private and on a small scale but we can still treat ever animal we meet as a feeling being that has the right to accept or reject whatever it is offered. It is the duty of each Purist/Edenist to protect the animals they have around them from humans with bad intent, from disease, from harm from other animals, from hunger, from injury, and from any unneccessary distress or discomfort.
Each animal that we take under our wings is a responsibility that must be honored at all times. They are not things that can be put on a shelf until one feels like taking time for it. The animal comes first. It is far better for us to be late getting somewhere, miss a meal, etc. than that an animal go hungry, uncleaned, or unsheltered. We can know and accept the reasons for doing without but they can not. We will not knowingly allow someone to abuse any animal. Abuse must be stopped or the animal removed. Reporting such abuse to responsible parties and following up to see that action is taken is a duty.
The animal sets the rules and we must respect its decision except where that action would expose it to danger.
We must always behave in a way that is understandable to the animal(s) involved. Unpredictable behavior causes fear or hostility. You must spend time with your animal(s) doing various things. Playing, working around them, talking to them, even just sitting quietly and reading. You must become a natural part of their surroundings/life. Respect when they want their own space or to be alone. Do not force youself on an unwilling animal in any way, even if it is just with your presence. Know their moods and respect them. It avoids stress and aggression.
Protect your right to make decisions involving your animals. You can only make choices if your right of exclusive ownership is retained. When that right is removed, becomes a privilege, is conditional on the granting of permission in exchange for adherence to someone else’s opinion of how you should keep, interact, maintain, breed, or sterilize your animals you are no longer in control and can lose your animals at the whim of others. Work to protect others animal rights, even if you do not agree with them. Your rights will only last as long as theirs. Respect the rights of others. Do not let your animals or your activities become a nuisance.
Be discrete. Do not try to “freak the mundanes” or draw attention to activities they may find objectionable. You do not know what they do in private and they should not know more about you either.
Respect the property rights of others. Do not intrude on their property or possessions, especially their animals. Do not let your animals intrude either. They should stay on your property or under your control.
Permalink
04.20.06
Posted in articles, information, zoophilia at 2:28 pm by zoophilia
There is no concrete, accurate answer to this question. However, here are a few ideas that have come across in history.
The Kinsey Report - This now-famous report has been used as the basis of many theories on human sexuality since the day it was published. Some of the information in it is accurate, but it suffers from huge statistical errors, some of which can be corrected and many which cannot. According to Kinsey, 8% of men and 3.5% of women have had some kind of sexual experience with an animal at some time in their lives. In rural areas, the figure for males rises to as much as 50% of those surveyed. It’s important to note that this report is now over 50 years old.
Masters & Johnson - They have relatively little to say on the subject, but their statistics show that 2-4% of men and about 2% of women have had some sexual contact with an animal.
There are other factors to consider when making estimates. Who would fall into the category? Many of those who claimed to have sexual contact with animals did so only once, or perhaps a few times during adolescence, but never continued the practice. Some surveys have found that people have different definitions of sex–for example, some who only received oral sex from an animal did not think that to be “sexual contact”.
Bottom line: It’s impossible to say, but it is thought that the number of zoosexuals in the general population is less than 0.1%, or less than one person in 1,000. The number of zoo-exclusive (those who only have relationships with animals) is probably significantly less.
Permalink
04.17.06
Posted in articles, information, zoophilia at 9:21 pm by zoophilia
Let’s begin with the textbook definitions.
Bestiality - sexual contact between a human being and a non-human animal.
Zoophilia - an emotional attachment to an animal that causes a human being to prefer a non-human animal as a companion and/or a sexual partner.
Zoosexuality - a term very similar to zoophilia, but having somewhat different connotations (see detailed explanations, below).
Now that we have some words to define, let’s examine them more closely. These three words and their meanings have been a constant source of debate within the zoo community. No matter how much is written on the subject of definitions, the fact remains that each person has her or his own interpretation of what these terms mean. Some view them only as labels and many reject the use of any type of label at all. “Zoo” means something different to each individual, and each is zoo in his or her own way. This section does not proclaim to be the universal truth, but only to explain the basic differences in terminology. Be advised that the author’s opinion may surface within this section.
Zoosexuality, by the very structure of the word, implies sexual activity, or at least sexual attraction. In the case of this word and that of zoophilia, the Greek prefix “zoo” means “pertaining to animals.” Because of negative connotations applied to the term zoophilia, the term zoosexuality was coined a number of years ago to help distance zoos from any more negative light than already exists. In very fine terms, all zoosexuals are zoophiles, but not all zoophiles are zoosexuals.
Zoophilia has two very distinct uses today. The one most people are familiar with is the use made by the psychological sphere. To many mental health professionals, zoophilia is a clinical term that describes a mental sickness in which the patient suffers from emotional and/or sexual attraction to animals. As has been the case with homosexuality, zoophilia is very slowly beginning to be seen as something other than an illness. This process has been very slow, and will probably continue to be so.
The second usage of zoophilia is the more literal translation of the Greek words “zoo” (see above), and “philos,” which means “to love,” or “love of.” In this definition, there are literally millions of zoophiles all over the world. All zoosexuals are zoophiles, as are all those who have a true love and respect for animals. Zoophilia need not have anything to do with physical attraction, though in the case of zoosexuality it often does. A perusal of the vast body of work written in tribute to beloved pets, assistance animals, or animals in general will provide many superb examples of the love humans can feel for animals.
Bestiality has long been used as the “dirty” word to define sexual contact between humans and animals. Oddly enough, it also can be used to define “beastly” behavior in humans which has nothing to do with sex, and in fact describes behavior that no self-respecting animal would ever engage in. Within zoosexual circles, the term bestiality usually refers to a sexual relationship in which the human is primarily interested in the sexual aspect and often has little or no emotional attachment to their animal partner.
There is a fourth term that is more universal and less confusing, but should be mentioned in order to help define the others. That term is rape. Rape is, by definition, non-consensual sex. The gender, age, or species of the beings involved is of no consequence. Are there people who rape animals? Sadly, yes. There are a number of very ugly things done to animals in the name of sexual gratification for humans. These include:
- Restraining animals so they can’t get away during sex
- Denying animals food or water to train them for sex
- Physically abusing animals if they won’t engage in sex
- Sexual practices that injure or kill the animal
This list could get long and very graphic, which is not the point here. The most important point is the difference between a bestialist and a rapist. A bestialist would not do any of the things listed above, while a rapist might do any or all of them. These definitions will be important to know for the discussion of legality.
Permalink
04.16.06
Posted in information, Guides, Howto, zoophilia at 10:10 pm by zoophilia
This is an how-to guide for all the women out the there that have considering engaging in canine-human sex but were unsure of just how to go about it and those women who would like to enjoy it more.I consider myself an expert on the subject as I have been practicing it for over the past twenty years. In that time I have made love with hundreds of dogs and have found many exciting and satisfying methods. I have also introduced manyother women and several men to the pleasures of canine sex. I hope that this how-to guide will help you enjoy your lovemaking more.
There are three areas that I will cover in the guide and they are, Oral sex, Vaginal sex and Anal sex.
Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
04.14.06
Posted in articles, information, zoophilia at 1:31 pm by zoophilia
Today I found a site with alot of information about human/animal diseases. This is the most comprehensive essay on the subject of human/animal health that I have ever seen done and it was put together in order to further the understanding of those who may have concerns. It is an exceptional piece of work!
Check out: Zoophilia and Health
Permalink
04.10.06
Posted in information, Guides, Howto, zoophilia at 11:10 am by zoophilia
Disclaimer: The author assumes no responsibility for any action inspired by this guide. All information herein is supplied without liability.Too many people know too less about us zoophiles so I will guide you to zoophilia.
I. Definition
Zoophilia is either essential love of animals or love of animals including sexuality between humans and animals. Both definitions exclude all violence to animals, i. e. zoophilia is not to be confused with cruelty to animals nor with animal abuse. Every true zoophile does never harm an animal.
II. Categorization
The zoophiles´ categories are as manifold as their favorite species. Some of them are exclusively into animals while others are hetero, homo and bisexual as well. The species they prefer are particularly dogs and horses, but also cats, cattle, rodents, birds, reptiles, fishes, dolphins, whales and a lot of other species count to their repertoire; the more exotic an animal the harder to approach to.
III. Practice
In general, it is possible to do the same with animals as with other humans: cuddling, petting; vaginal, anal or oral copulation and so on. Furthermore, it depends on the respective species; do what you and your partner want.
IV. Extent
As you still has to fear being persecuted by your conviction, there is no provable knowledge of how many zoophiles exist. All we know is they are numerous, and they are everywhere.
V. History
The Greek word zoophilia solely means love of animals. Select animals within the Hellenistic culture were predestinated to have sexual intercourses with humans, e. g. the Aesculapian snake. The Romans adopted such customs and added their own ones so that there were diverse zoophile rituals with sacrificial animals in honor of Jupiter.In the Middle Ages, the people saw animals only as utilizable objects; zoophilia was obscene.
That prudery changed a little, when they began respecting animals again. The famous lapdog, for instance, was nothing else than a small dog licking or penetrating his mistress´s lap, he virtually functioned as vibrator.
Even though many countries legalized it in the twentieth century, zoophilia has been remaining taboo till today almost everyplace in the world.
VI. Law
The juridically most decisive question for zoophiles is their state of law that can be highly difficult cos it differs from one country to another.Accordingly, in Germany, France, Spain and most of the European Union´s other member countries as well as in Switzerland, Poland and even Russia, zoophilia is legal whereas trading with zoophile material is forbidden in the greater part of those countries.
Contrarily, zoophilia is illegal in countries like Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand where it is punished with prison sentence for several years or for life.
In the United States of America, though, the situation varies thruout the states.
VII. Morality
“And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death; and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall surely be upon them (Lev. 20.15 - 16).”That is written in the Holy Bible. The Old Testament says zoophilies shall be put to death, psychologists define them as paraphile which means they behave sexually deviating from the social standard, and plenty of people call them perverted or sick and compare them with pedophiles.
Zoophiles wage a neverending war against prejudices and ignorance to convey their morality. Those who have heard nothing of zoophilia yet can hardly understand why a number of humans are used to having sex with animals. At first glance, it seems to be unnatural that certain men love animals more than anyone else, but if you look deeper, you should recognize since our forefathers commenced domesticating wild animals, our relationship has steadily been getting closer and closer.
Nowadays, most people accept animal lovers, blacks, homosexuals, Jews and other minorities as well as they ought to approve zoophiles who have nothing to do with child abusers cos there is an evident difference between making love to adult animals without damaging their minds and forcing minor persons to sex whereafter those children may be traumatized for all times.
And if you believe in the Lord whose prophets cursed zoophilia as a capital crime, consider that it is love, one of the Son´s main messages.
Permalink
