Welcome to Gaia! ::

I thought this would be an interesting subject because alot of people disagree on it while people who actually do it find it okay. Give your opinions.





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 and frequently but incorrectly seen as a synonym), 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 are sexually interested in animals.

Modern society is generally hostile to the concept of animal/human sexuality. While some, such as philosopher and animal rights author Peter Singer, argue that zoophilia is not unethical if there is no harm or cruelty to the animal, this view is not widely shared; sexual acts with animals are generally condemned as "crime against nature" and/or animal abuse.

There is presently considerable debate in psychology over whether certain aspects of zoophilia are better understood as an aberration or as a sexual 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, and research has broadly been supportive of at least some of zoophiles' central claims. Critics point out that that DSM-IV says nothing about acceptability or the well-being of the animal, and many critics outside the field express views that sexual acts with animals are always either abusive or unethical. Defenders of zoosexuality argue that a human/animal relationship can go far beyond sexuality, and that animals are capable of forming a genuinely loving relationship that can last for years and which is not functionally different from any other love/sex relationship.



The general term zoophilia was first introduced into the field of research on sexuality by Krafft-Ebing in his book Psychopathia Sexualis (1886). In sexology, psychology and popular use, it has a variety of meanings, revolving around affinity, affection, or erotic attraction between a human being, and a (non-human) animal. It can refer to either the general emotional-erotic attraction to animals, or (less commonly) to the specific psychological paraphilia of the same name.[1]

The terms zoosexuality, signifying the entire spectrum of emotional or sexual attraction and/or orientation to animals, and zoosexual (as in, "a zoosexual [person]" or "a zoosexual act"), have been used since the 1980s (cited by Miletski, 1999). Technical discussion of zoosexuality as a sexual orientation in psychology is discussed in that article.

Individuals with a strong affinity for animals but without a sexual interest can be described as "non-sexual" (or "emotional") zoophiles, but may object to the zoophile label. They are commonly called animal lovers instead.

The ambiguous term sodomy, usually referring to non-procreative sex,[2] is sometimes used in legal contexts to include zoosexual as well as homosexual acts. Zooerasty is an older term, not in common use, for objectified sex with animals in a masturbatory manner. In pornography, human–animal sex is occasionally described as farmsex, dogsex, or animal sex; these terms are often used regardless of the context or species involved.

Bestiality signifies a sexual act between humans and animals. It does not by itself imply any given motive or attitude. It is not always certain whether acts such as kissing, intimate behavior, frottage (rubbing), masturbation, or oral sex are considered 'bestiality' in all cultures or legal systems, or whether the term implies sexual intercourse or other penetrative activity alone. In a non-zoophilic context, words like bestial or bestiality are also used to signify acting or behaving savagely, animal-like, extremely viciously, or lacking in human values. The spelling beastiality is nonstandard.

Amongst zoophiles and some researchers,[3] the term bestialist has acquired a negative connotation implying a lower concern for animal welfare. This usage originated with the desire by some zoophiles to have a way to distinguish zoophilia as a fully relational outlook (sexual or otherwise), from simple "ownership with sex." Others describe themselves as zoophiles and bestialists in accordance with the dictionary definitions of the words. [citation needed]

Finally, zoosadism refers to the torture or pain of animals for sexual pleasure, and also includes willfully abusive zoosexual activity.


The extent to which zoophilia occurs is not known with any certainty, largely because feelings which may not have been acted upon can be difficult to quantify, lack of clear divide between non-sexual zoophilia and everyday pet care, and reluctance by most zoophiles to disclose their feelings due to fear of both social and legal persecution. Instead most research into zoophilia has focused on its characteristics, rather than quantifying it. [4]

Scientific surveys estimating the frequency of zoosexual activity, as well as anecdotal evidence and informal surveys, suggest that more than 1-2% -- and perhaps as many as 8-10% -- of sexually active adults have had significant sexual experience with an animal at some point in their lives. Studies suggest that a larger number (perhaps 10-30% depending on area) have fantasized or had some form of brief encounter. Larger figures such as 40-60% for rural teenagers (living on or near livestock farms) have been cited from some earlier surveys such as the Kinsey reports, but some later writers consider these uncertain.[4] Anecdotally, Nancy Friday's 1973 book on female sexuality My Secret Garden comprised around 190 women's contributions; of these, some 8% volunteered a serious interest or active participation in zoosexual activity.[5]

Not all people live near animals. Urban dwellers, who usually lack contact with animals, were estimated by Kinsey (194 cool to have only one zoosexual contact for every 30 of the average rural dweller. By 1974, the farm population in the USA had reduced by 80% compared to 1940, causing a greatly reduced opportunity for living with animals; Hunt's 1974 study suggests that the demographic changes affecting this one group led to a significant change in overall reported occurrence.[6]

Sexual fantasies about zoosexual acts can occur in people who do not wish to experience them in real life, and may simply reflect normal imagination and curiosity. Latent zoophile tendencies may be common; the frequency of interest and sexual excitement in watching animals mate is cited as an indicator by Massen (1994) and commented on by Masters (1962).[7]




Zoosexual acts are illegal in many jurisdictions, while others generally outlaw the mistreatment of animals without specifically mentioning sexuality. Because it is unresolved under the law whether sexual relations with an animal are inherently "abusive" or "mistreatment", this leaves the status of zoosexual activity unclear in some jurisdictions.

Laws on zoosexuality in modern times are often triggered by specific incidents or by peer pressure.[8] Whilst some laws are very specific, others employ vague terms such as "sodomy" or "bestiality" which lack legal precision and leave it unclear which exact acts are covered. Other factors affecting the operation of law include enforced assumptions as to abuse, creative use of alternative laws, and the impact of uncodified cultural norms, prohibitions, and social taboos. In the past, bestiality laws were mainly put in place for religious reasons and the assumed possibility that sex with an animal could result in monstrous offspring, and were primarily concerned with the offense to community standards.[9]

Currently, the legality of bestiality varies greatly around the world. It is legal in some countries, such as Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands, while it is illegal in Great Britain (for penetrative acts), Canada, and much of the United States and Australia. Countries such as Belgium, Germany and Russia are in between the two as they permit sexual activity with animals but strictly prohibit the promotion of animal-oriented pornography.

Notable legal views include Sweden, where a 2005 report by the Swedish Animal Welfare Agency for the Swedish government expressed strong concerns over the increase in reports of horse-ripping incidents, and gave as its opinion that current animal cruelty legislation needed updating as it was not sufficiently protecting animals from abuse, but concluded that on balance it was not appropriate to call for a ban. [21], New Zealand where the 1989 Crimes Bill considered abolition of bestiality as a criminal offence, and for it to be treated as a mental health issue.[10] In some countries laws existed against single males living with female animals. For example, an old Peruvian law prohibited single males from having a female alpaca (a relative of the llama).[citation needed]

A more detailed list of countries and laws can be found at zoosexuality and the law.



Zoophilia as a lifestyle
Separate from those whose interest is curiosity, pornography, or sexual novelty, are those for whom zoophilia might be called a lifestyle or orientation. A commonly reported starting age is at or before puberty, around 9 - 11, and this seems consistent for both males and females.[citation needed] Kinsey found that the most frequent incidence of human/animal intercourse was more than eight times a week, for the under-15 years age group. Those who discover an interest at an older age often trace it back to nascent form during this period or earlier. As with human attraction, zoophiles may be attracted only to particular species, appearances, personalities or individuals, and both these and other aspects of their feelings vary over time.

Zoophiles tend to perceive differences between animals and human beings as less significant than others do. They often view animals as having positive traits (e.g. honesty) that humans often lack, and to feel that society's understanding of non-human sexuality is misinformed.[11] Although some feel guilty about their feelings and view them as a problem, others do not feel a need to be constrained by traditional standards in their private relationships.[citation needed]

The biggest difficulties many zoophiles report are the inability to be accepted or open about their animal relationships and feelings with friends and family, and the fear of harm, rejection or loss of companions if it became known[11] [12] This situation is comparable to "outing" and "the closet" of homosexuality. Other major issues are hidden loneliness and isolation (due to lack of contact with others who share this attraction or a belief they are alone), and the impact of repeated deaths of animals they consider lifelong soulmates (most species have far shorter lifespans than humans and zoophiles cannot openly grieve or talk about feelings of loss).[13] [14] Some of these concerns may be qualitatively similar to historical perceptions in other sexual groups that have been legal or illegal at different times in history. Zoophiles do not usually cite internal conflicts over religion as their major issue, perhaps because zoosexual activity, although seemingly condemned by some religions, is not a major focus of their teachings.[citation needed]

Zoophilic sexual relationships vary, and may be based upon variations of human-style relationships (eg Monogamy), animal-style relationships (each make own sexual choices), physical intimacy (non-sexual touch, mutual social grooming, closeness), or other combinations.

Zoophiles may or may not have human partners and families. Some zoophiles have an affinity or attraction to animals which is secondary to human attraction; for others the bond with animals is primary. Miletski argues that a scale similar to Kinsey's could be applied for this.[15] In some cases human family or friends are aware of the relationship with the animal and its nature, in others it is hidden. This can sometimes give rise to issues of guilt (as a result of divided loyalties and concealment) or jealousy within human relationships [22]. In addition, zoophiles sometimes enter human relationships due to growing up within traditional expectations, or to deflect suspicions of zoophilia, and yet others may choose looser forms of human relationship as companions or housemates, live alone, or choose other zoophiles to live with.[citation needed]

Not all zoophiles are able to keep animals, or at least not those animals that they feel attracted to, and because of this some resort to trespassing on property to have sexual contact with animals. This practice, known as fence hopping, is often condemned by other zoophiles.[



Non-sexual zoophilia
Although the term is often used to refer to sexual interest in animals, zoophilia is not necessarily sexual in nature. In psychology and sociology it is sometimes used without regard to sexual implications. Definitions of zoophilia include "Affection or affinity for animals", "Erotic attraction to or sexual contact with animals", "Attraction to or affinity for animals", or "An erotic fixation on animals that may result in sexual excitement through real or fancied contact" [16]

The common feature of "zoophilia" is some form of affective bond to animals beyond the usual, whether emotional or sexual in nature. Non-sexual zoophilia, as with animal love generally, is generally accepted in society, and although sometimes ridiculed, it is usually respected or tolerated. Examples of non-sexual zoophilia can be found on animal memorial pages such as petloss.com, in-memory-of-pets.com (memorial, tribute and support sites), by googling "pet memorials", or on sites such as MarryYourPet.com and other pet marriage sites.



Zoophiles and other groups
Zoophiles are often confused with furries or therians (or "weres"), that is, people with an interest in anthropomorphism, or people who believe they share some kind of inner connection with animals (spiritual, emotional or otherwise). While the membership of all three groups probably overlap in part, it is untrue to say that all furs or therians have a sexual interest in animals (subconscious or otherwise). Many furs find anthropomorphic adult art erotic and enjoy the companionship of animals, but have no wish to extend their interest beyond an affinity or emotional bond to sexual activity. Those who consider themselves both zoophiles and furries often call themselves zoo-furs or fuzzies. The size of this group is not known, although the few surveys that exist together with their editors' comments might support a figure of 2 - 5% of furries[17], which is not dissimilar to typical estimates of the percentage within the population generally. Expressions of fur fetishism such as fursuiting, are usually considered a form of costuming, rather than an expression of zoosexual interest and are usually legal.

Finally, zoophilia is not related to sexual puppy or pony play (also known as "Petplay") or animal transformation fantasies and roleplays, where one person may act like a dog, pony, horse, or other animal, while a sexual partner acts as a rider, trainer, caretaker, or breeding partner.[citation needed] These activities are sexual roleplays whose principal theme is the voluntary or involuntary reduction or transformation of a human being to animal status, and focus on the altered mind-space created. They have no implicit connection to, nor motive in common with, zoophilia. They are instead more usually associated with BDSM. Zoosexual activity is not part of BDSM for most people, and would usually be considered extreme, or edgeplay.




Zoophilia is in the main covered by four sciences: Psychology (the study of the human mind), sexology (the study of human sexuality), ethology (the study of animal behavior), and anthrozoology (the study of human-animal interactions and bonds)[citation needed]

The nature of animal minds, animal mental processes and structures, and animal self-awareness, perception, emotion in animals, and "map of the world", are studied within animal cognition and also explored within various specialized branches of neuroscience such as neuroethology.[citation needed]

Zoophilia may also be covered to some degree by other (non-science) fields such as ethics, philosophy, law, animal rights and animal welfare. It may also be touched upon by sociology which looks both at zoosadism in examining patterns and issues related to abuse and at non-sexual zoophilia in examining the role of animals as emotional support and companionship in human lives, and may fall within the scope of psychiatry if it becomes necessary to consider its significance in a clinical context.




[edit] Mythology and fantasy literature
Europa and the Bull by Gustave Moreau, c. 1869From cave paintings onward and throughout human history, zoophilia has been a recurring subject in art, literature, and fantasy.

In Ugaritic mythology, the god Baal is said to have impregnated a heifer to sire a young bull god. In Greek mythology, Zeus appeared to Leda in the form of a swan, and her children Helen and Polydeuces resulted from that sexual union. Zeus also seduced Europa in the form of a bull, and carried off the youth Ganymede in the form of an eagle. The half-human/half-bull Minotaur was the offspring of Queen Pasiphae and a white bull. King Peleus continued to seduce the nymph Thetis despite her transforming into (among other forms) a lion, a bird, and a snake. The god Pan, often depicted with goat-like features, has also been frequently associated with animal sex.[citation needed] As with other subjects of classical mythology, some of these have been depicted over the centuries since, in western painting and sculpture. In Norse mythology, Loki had intercourse with a stallion, in the form of a mare, and gave birth to Sleipnir. The Sagaholm, a Swedish barrow from the Nordic Bronze Age, contains a number of Petroglyphs, some of which depict Zoophilia.[citation needed]

Fantasy literature has included a variety of seemingly zoophilic examples, often involving human characters enchanted into animal forms: Beauty and the Beast (a young woman falls in love with a physically beast-like man), William Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream (Queen Titania falls in love with a character whose head is transformed into that of a donkey's), The Book of One Thousand and One Nights (a princess champions a man enchanted into ape form), the Roman Lucius Apuleius's The Golden a** (explicit sexuality between a man transformed into a donkey and a woman), and Balzac's A Passion in the Desert (a love affair between a soldier and a panther). In more modern times, zoosexual relations of a sort has been a theme in science fiction and horror fiction, with the giant ape King Kong fixating on a human woman, alien monsters groping human females in pulp novels and comics, and depictions of tentacle rape in Japanese manga and anime.

Modern erotic furry fantasy art and stories are sometimes associated with zoophilia, but many creators and fans disagree with this, pointing out that the characters are predominantly humanoid fantasy creatures who are thinking, reasoning beings that consider and consent to sex in the same manner humans would. "Furry" characters have been compared to other intelligent and social non-human fictional characters who are subjects of love/sexuality fantasies without being commonly regarded as zoophilic, such as the Vulcans and Klingons in Star Trek, or elves in fantasy fiction. Animals and anthropomorphs, when shown in furry art, are usually shown engaged with others of similar kind, rather than humans

Well see the way they see it as its okay because animals are also people to, like individuals. People say it is considered abuse, but if it was wouldn't the animal do something? I mean thats my opinion. Cuz I mean if they didn't like it I would think they wouldn't allow it and bite the person who is doing it to them.

Yeah but the thing about it is though, the animals are enjoying it. If they didn't enjoy it then they wouldn't allow the humans to do it to them. Which there for even though it goes against that, what if it is from the love that it happens. After all some dogs to hump humans because they like who they live with so it is not always the humans who have those feelings, they do to. They may be different from us, but that does not mean that they do not feel love or affection towards one they care about. I my self would not do it but...I do see both sides of the page here of how people feel about it. I personally happen to be under the opinion if the animals didn't like it they wouldn't try to hump a human nor would they allow a human to do such a thing to them. I also think to that it is more then just instict, its about love and how they care for the one that they stay with. I do not believe that wild animals would do this, but house animals I do believe so because they have adopted our human traits to a certain extent and they can also feel our emotions so that would also transfer in to them thus causing this to happen.

I also see your point to, that it is truly against such the natural law since it does not apply to nature and its natural way of producing offspring.

Actually interspecies breeding is part of what drives evolution; of course this pertains to something like say a zebra and a donkey (though pretty much all hybrids are infertile), not a human and a dog, somthing which wouldn't produce any offspring anyway (though there is debate as to whether a human-chimp hybrid can be created).

Anyway, I personally think zoosexuality is wrong, as boku_wa_kage mentioned, it makes no biological sense. Then again, maybe it is biology that causes this to happen, who knows.

The thing with interspecies breeding is that it can only produce offspring if the two are closely related genetically. Dogs and humans, for example, can never produce any offspring. Lions and tigers can produce offspring, but they are infertile and have a few mental issues. Of course, sometimes closely related species will produce fertile offspring, like the world's only known wholphin (whale-dolphin hybrid) who gave birth to a calf.

Yes I did.

I consider it a mental illness that causes severe anthromorphism (seeing human characteristics in animals). This leads people to treat them as humans, and develop attractions for them as they would a human. So, in short, I think it is a result of a person with a ******** up brain. It's no coincidence that the majority of zoophiles grow up around animals (therefore seeing animals as family members) or are sidelined from the majority of human society (finding the company of animals a refuge).

In the same way that some abused children become serial killers but not all, not all children who grow up around animals become zoophiles. 90% of zoophilic activity occurs among people who grew up on farms. It's hardly a coincidence.

I don't see them as a lower life form. All life is equal. But I don't see them as humans, possessing human characteristics, because they don't. You ascribe them human traits inadvertantly. You see them as human because you see human traits in them (even though many humans will debate the reality of these, and I am one of these humans). All animals see things differently due to different visual organs.

Nature's way of creating a new species? Most zoophiles ******** domesticated animals incapable of breeding with humans. It is impossible to create a new species. In fact, one of the definitions of a species is its ability to mate. Species are "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups". Meaning NO breeding between such genetically seperated animals could POSSIBLY happen. Making it not a law of nature, but a destruction of rational mind.

If it was natural, all humans would feel this attraction. I find it startling that you're glorifying animal abuse, mental illness and sexual deviancy out of your own anthromorphism. I have heard of people who are against promiscuous sex among humans, but see no problem with ******** animals. WHAT.