Betty Dodson with Carlin Ross

Better Orgasms. Better World.

 0 items

• Login
• Join

Search this site:

I've just been thinking about this post today and the issue of cruelty and consent. Dogs will try and fuck your leg so if some people let them fuck them there seems to be mutual consent there. I'm not an expert on other species psychology but as to humans penetrating other species, consent seems far less clear. 

Zoophilia isn't statistically typical, but it isn't extremely rare, either. I remember seeing excerpts from a BBC (?) documentary about zoophilia. What struck me was how ordinary and next-door and nice the participants were---people just like most of us, except for being into zoophilia. They did not strike me as 'bad people' at all, in other words. I have also encountered several persons with a history of bestiality in my hospital work. There's an Israeli-American social worker/sexologist called Hani Miletski who took the brave step of doing some research into zoophilia despite the huge taboo in the US against even discussing it.

I believe that the severe anti-bestiality laws in many states are attempts by fundamentalist-leaning legislators to exact harsh and humiliating 'Biblical' punishments for what is, to me as a clinician, a compulsion or orientation these people cannot help. I don't know what to say about consent, except to note that animals can't give literal consent to anything we do to them, including their diets, veterinary treatments, euthanasia, castration, artificial insemination, or slitting their throats during slaughter---all of which are legal, everyday occurences. In other words, the stated reasons for making bestiality illegal (cruelty to the animal) are a smokescreen for the real agenda ("The Bible says it's wrong, therefore these evildoers must be punished!") Personally I'd argue not in favor of zoophilia (I think it's problematic on many levels), but in favor of a compassionate approach to zoophiles. It's not that zoophilia is 'right', it's that cruel punishments are wrong.

if a dog is spontaniously humping your leg it's already consenting :) Beyond that embarressing experience I'm not an expert :)

That a dog is humping your leg is, if anything, is only a consent for what it's doing at the present and nothing more. Furthermore, dogs hump because of many things including boredom, anxiety, domination and aggression. If there's sexual motivation behind it, it doesn't mean it actually wants to have sex with you but that it's frustrated and projects it wherever.
You cannot project our ideas of sex and sexual consent on animals. Their motivation is many times completely different from what we interpret.

yes, it´s quite a big taboo - also for me (because my zoophilia or incest phantasies troubled me for a very long time). 
i think there is a wide spectrum of zoophilia/-sexuality from letting your dog lick you to penetrating and torturing small animals like cats, rabbits and so on.
as a vegetarian the animal as an autonomous being is very important. and the question of consent is difficult. i think it depends how people try to understand the way of communication.
e.g. the humping of the leg is - i learned this a few weeks ago in a german psychology forum concerning zoophilia - that it´s a gesture of power and not of desire. i always thought that dogs maybe don´t care who or what they are humping ;)
allthough here dont exist any bestiality laws (since the 60s or 70s) - only in case of sexual torture (means death or severe bodily damage of the animal) - there is also this zoophilia taboo.
as a woman i think (especially with a dog that is sniffing your croth in a second) it´s easier, because you might be the licked or penetrated part (allthough i know, that women can also penetrate/hurt,..., i assume women would be the receiving part of a sexual contact with an animal). with men penetrating animals i have more troubles regarding the consent of the animal.

yes, you are right. you put it in better words than me - thank you!

Hi Sequoia,

Thank you for being so open about this. I think it's important to make the point that animal consent cannot exist in the same sense as it does in humans, nor do they posess the same kind of sexuality we do.
A dog licking your private parts probably doesn't relate it to sex at all. It's more possible it has to do with showing their submissive to you. If you than reward the dog this behaviour, they learn it's a good thing. Their apparent willingness than isn't consent, but obedience. Not saying it's necessarily harmtful to them, but it's not sexual consent and the animal is used as a tool for getting off.
It is a big taboo. But I don't see there's a good reason not to talk about it. It's only healthy to learn more about the sexual spectra of our own species and others.

'Forbidden' fantasies such as incest or zoophilia are actually very common. and zoophilia itself isn't that unusual. Zoophiles are human beings who need understanding, not prosecution. That's why I believe that harsh legal penalties for non-painful human-animal sexual contact are unjustified even if the question of consent is a difficult one.

The other factor is the hypocrisy of the anti-bestiality laws. Every day, stud farms and dog breeders masturbate thousands of animals for sperm collection. But because the motive here is to make money, it's acceptable in American culture. If exactly the same thing were done because the person happened to enjoy it, they could conceivably be prosecuted. For all we know, some breeders may get a lot of enjoyment out of the sexual contacts they have with their animals, but they're left alone because their rationale is to make a profit. The question of consent remains a tricky one. However, from what I've read, animals do feel a lot of obvious distress and anxiety when they're being herded into the slaughterhouse. That's hardly indicative of consent. Some are killed in very painful ways, like having their throats cut. I'm not sure how an animal would "consent" to sex, but I am sure that no creature would voluntarily let itself be slaughtered like that. And yet this sort of undoubted cruelty to animals is perfectly legal and commonplace. The anti-bestiality laws exist not because human-animal sexual contact is necessarily cruel, painful, or non-consensual, but because it's sexual.

Patrick,

In response to your post, I'd like to say that I agree with much you say, but not all.

Just because zoophiles "need understanding", doesn't mean that it should be legal to have sex with animals. As a principle, you cannot justify not taking legal action because the "perpetrator" needs understanding. Furthermore, what is painful to an animal? How do you know? Is it not possible that sexual contact can reate emotional stress? Many people will say that they experience that the animal's experience is also positive. Obviously, we need real research on that, as people like to believe what they want and may not be properly informed and trained to pick up on the animal's signals. I agree the taboo isn't rational or actually has much to do with the safety of animals, but let's try to keep focus on that anyway.

And even though we masturbate animals for breeding, bring them up and slaughter them in a cruel way, doesn't mean that we should legalize having sex with them as well. Rather, fight against the breeding and meat industry.

But all that aside: From what I understand, it's not illeagal to have sex with animals in the U.S, unless they take direct physical harm. I have no idea what these "harsh legal penalties" you talk about are. 

Beyond the amusment of people keeping their own chickens for fucking :) I don;t like all the things we do to other species and I'd like to be vegan but my body says otherwise, and so I'm veggie but I eat fish. I'd love to have the option of single cell animal protien or in vitro fish and that's a real possibility in the future. Fucking other species that don't want it is as horrible as hurting them or stressing them in other ways. I'm sure someone could have a mutual sexual relationship with a higher order pet like a dog as there are people who have very empathic intuative relationships with dogs, but I'm sure most of those sexual relationships that exist nobodies gonna find out about very easily :) 

Elin,

Many US states have anti-bestiality laws that make human-animal sexual contact a felony. More and more states have passed them in recent years---it's been in the news. I'm not advocating for zoophilia or saying that it's harmless. I think the punishments in the US legal system are excessive and designed to humiliate the person and do maximum harm to their lives, even if there were no demonstrable harm to the animal. This is in contrast to the gross cruelty in, say, the meat processing industry. There are, properly, laws against a private individual's torturing animals. But make that a whole industry torturing millions of animals for profit, and it's all legal. I still believe that the opposition to bestiality is not because it may be cruel (there are far greater examples of cruelty), but because religiously motivated legislators find it 'ungodly' and forbidden in the Bible. A woman in (I believe) Iowa was prosecuted because someone found a brief video of her encouraging her dog to lick her genitals. This may not have been 'right' on her part, but the harm to this woman and her family in publicly humiliating her and trying to make her a felon far exceeds any conceivable harm she may have done to her dog. She could have received a warning for a first offense, say, or a referral to a therapist. There was no need to try to ruin her life---and that's what's wrong with these laws.

Hey Patrick,

Sorry, I didn't think it was illegal. Well, if that's what's happening, I agree with you.
But was it the punishment that was humiliating, or the public's and media's reaction to the whole deal? Because there's a big difference there.

Jake,

I seriously doubt you can have a mutual sexual relationship with a dog. I'm sure you can teach them by encouragement, and they may associate it with positive feelings as it pleases their owner, but like I wrote above - that's obedience, not consent. Especially if it's a female dog, as their bodies are only programmed to be sexually active once every year (same goes for f ex female farm animals).
And it is not mutual unless the animal has a genuin sexual attraction for you in kind.

Unfortunately, because of US law about public access to arrest records (which differs from the more protective laws in most European countries) it's hard to separate the severity of the punishment from the media coverage and public reaction. Someone accused of a crime---not convicted but merely accused---will often have their 'mug shot' picture published in the local newspaper for all to see. That is deliberate humiliation.  Even an accusation of something like bestiality can be very harmful in our culture. The penalties can include years in prison. I believe this is all unnecessarily cruel, and that part of the intent of these laws is to make a public spectacle of someone and give them a damaging, lifelong criminal record. People were once branded or forced to wear 'scarlet letters'---this is the modern equivalent. We are not talking about murder here, but (quite possibly) about compulsive or impulsive behavior that needs treatment, not punishment.

Elin I think my point goes back to Patricks about us thinking anything to do with sex is 1st  bad by default. If the sex act with a dog had a word and the dog reacted to that word the same as if you said they were going for a walk, then I can't see it as cruel. Wether the dog got any sexual satisfaction from it or not, if the dog enjoyed it for any reason they would indicate that pretty demonstrably and if they react with delight I can't see the evil. I pet dogs all the time, those that don't want it growl before you get your hand close and those that do, like it. if I got a sexual satisfaction from petting dogs does it then make it wrong? 

When it comes to people who rape other species and if you have suspicions,  just put the person and dog in a room together and observe and I could tell you pretty soon if not instantly if there's cruelty. If a dog hates you or is disgusted with you or afraid they show it. If guilty of cruelty and proven rape with forensic evidence then the punishment is for cruelty. If you have the same evidence but the dog reacts with excitement at the prospect of sex then can there be guilt just because it's sex and not roll about contact playing? :) There's a big eww factor but because our gut reaction is disgust it doesn't always make something wrong and if groups of other species were granted their own a bill of rights then a decision to equit the dog fucker wouldn't set any legal precedent for behaviour between humans. I'm not arguing a corner on this it's how at the moment I see the moral logic.  I welcome thoughts on it.

Patrick,

I don’t think it’s hard to differ
the punishment of the law from the punishment of the public and media. It seems
clear to me the humiliation you speak of is not executed by the law, but public
and media. You might argue that the same stigma that dictates the public’s
reaction is the same that has set the laws. This might be true, but from what
you’ve told me, I don’t see that.

The penalties can include years in prison. I believe this is all
unnecessarily cruel, and that part of the intent of these laws is to make a
public spectacle of someone and give them a damaging, lifelong criminal
record. "

Obviously, if the penalty is
unnecessarily cruel depends of the severity of what happened?Putting someone
in prison is not making a public spectacle of someone. And if they have committed
a crime, a lifelong criminal record is a part of that no matter what crime you
commit.

Finally, I’m surprised when you
write “We are not talking about murder here, but
(quite possibly) about compulsive or impulsive behaviour that needs treatment,
not punishment.”

Where did you get
the idea that it’s a compulsive/impulsive behaviour and not a sexual
orientation?

[= small]And one could[/]
[= small]argue that much of criminal behaviour needs treatment, not punishment. Paedophiles,
murderers, rapists, wife beaters... To not give treatment when needed (if it’s
needed), is not unique to people who have sex with animals. So, from a legal
perspective, I really don’t see how there’s any negative special treatment. But I agree that the system is fucked up. [/][/]

Jake,
It's not so easy to detect an animal's resentment or fear from the outside or even by their owner. People are generally ignorant when it comes to the signals animals give. And I don't think you could bring someone in on suspicion of cruelty without physical evidence or an eye witness, and I doubt you could convict someone for cruelty because their animal is afraid of them without the same. And there might not even be conclusive physical damage. So the animals are left completely unprotected.
I never said I thought it was wrong by default. But your reasoning is built on "what ifs" that we don't know are applicable in real life. We don't know that this is the way dogs actually react, we don't know how they react in the long term, and dogs certainly aren't the only animals. This concerns all kinds of animals and sex constitutes all kinds of sexual contact that they can be exposed to by humans. We also know that animals by nature don't have sex in the same way that we do, and we don't know if there are species that even interests in sex with humans. So to legalize sex with animals as a general law without proper info and research seems really irresponsible to me.

Elin,

For some zoophiles, compulsion is exactly what is going on. One of Dr Hani Miletski's first patients was a young man who could not stop himself from having sex with male dogs. He would allow the dogs to penetrate him and would go from house to house allowing dogs to do this. He considered himself a Christian and was extremely unhappy about his behavior because he believed it was sinful, but he was unable to stop himself. That is a classic compulsion.

Our legal system is a mess, as you say. I believe that the motivation for punishing some offenses is because of irrational disgust that has its roots in punitive religious traditions. Zoophilia or bestiality is one of those offenses. (In some US states one can be arrested and potentially jailed for purchasing a vibrator---that is crazy, religiously based hatred of sexual pleasure simply because it is sexual pleasure!) I do object to many legal punishments as cruel when more humane alternatives such as treatment, probation, or community service are often not even considered. Having said that, the public does have to be protected from persons who are dangerous. To me that is almost the only justifiable use of a prison---to segregate from society people who are too dangerous to be allowed to go free. But our legal system releases thousands of people who ARE still dangerous every year because their sentences are up, while it keeps others in prisons indefinitely who have truly reformed and who could be an asset to society if given a chance. In the US, media coverage of trials complete with extensive photos and videos of the accused or convicted person do ensure a public spectacle, because the law allows this sort of thing in this country.

What is considered cruel punishment varies from time to time and place to place. In England until well into the 19th century, children were sometimes executed---hanged or worse---for stealing and other crimes. An 8-year-old child, John Dean, was executed in 1629. An 11-year-old child, Alice Glaston, is believed to have been the youngest girl put to death. This appalls us today, but children were not given any 'special treatment' back then because they were children or because there were extenuating circumstances such as starvation. They were put to death not because it was 'right' but because that's what the rigid, cruel laws of the day said. Even today, 12-year-olds have been sentenced to life in an adult prison in the US. My point is that everyone is an individual and should be treated as such, with all circumstances taken into account. If there is a more humane alternative to harsh punishment, then I believe that it needs to be considered---simply as a matter of compassion. Western society is more compassionate than it used to be, with its brandings and drawings-and-quarterings and public executions as family entertainment. But in my view we are not nearly compassionate enough. I believe that future societies will be as shocked at the mindless cruelty of the legal system we now have as we are shocked by the cruelties of the past.

Patrick, 

I can't say much but that I agree with what you say. But I don't see how it shows that the sentences for bestiality in are unnecessarily cruel in particular in today's society.

And I'll just have to take your word on the compulsion thing. But that one doctor, as you demonstrate, had a patient that had compulsive behaviour is not any evidence of this being a general or even common trait in zoophiles whatsoever.

animatronics :) Lol

Elin,

I think we agree more than we disagree on this subject. As to compulsion, I know that it happens but I am not certain how often it happens relative to other factors such as orientation. I do truly believe that a penalty of years in prison for someone like the woman in Iowa who let her dog lick her is excessive. Compared to the penalties for cutting an animal's throat or slicing off its testicles without anaesthetic (this happens every day and there are absolutely NO penalties for it), years in prison for non-sadistic sexual contact with an animal is unjust. I don't believe that bestiality is desirable or right---I believe that the penalties for it in the US are unjustified as they stand.

Jake, you may be on to something in a general sort of way, if androids reach a certain level of sophistication! There was an old 'Twilight Zone' episode about this very scenario. Seriously, it would be hard to argue that it was a criminal offense to do acts of various kinds with a machine. Unless, of course, you live in Alabama.

and for some a 3some with 2 animatronic chickens would be better than real sex :)

Patric,

I think so, too.

But in other words, you can't say that compulsion is a

[= 13pt; font-family: Tahoma]part of zoophilia more (or less for that matter) than any other orientation.[/]

[= 13pt; font-family: Tahoma]If the woman got several years in prison, I too think
that would be excessive. However, I understand this is just a hypothesis of
yours and we don't know if the "years in prison" part applies to
cases such as hers. [/]

[= 13pt; font-family: Tahoma]And yes, if you compare it to what happens in the meat
industry, any penalty for physically unharmful sexual contact is ridiculous.
But that we have one form of legal cruelty towards animals doesn't mean we
should legalize the other.[/]