User:FT2/Research
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
FOR NOTES AND UNUSED MATERIAL, SEE DISCUSSION PAGE
Research into zoophilia is a summary of the present state of scientific knowledge and understanding of zoophilia, the emotional or sexual attraction of humans to non-human animals.
Zoophilia joins other subjects, such as creationism (intelligent design), and evolution, as a subject where views within society are strongly polarized and emotionalized, and where the current state of scientific understanding is often less familiar to those engaged in the debate itself.
This article tries to summarize the current state of research, as well as common issues and flaws perceived in research. It does not attempt to examine the moral, religious or metaphysical aspects of zoosexuality.
Because of the controversial nature of the subject matter, papers are summarized section by section, to ensure clarity and fidelity, and key aspects are extracted to sections of their own.
[edit] Overview
[edit] History of research and knowledge
In fact, as Miletski states of Peretti and Rowan (1983)[citation needed], most studies which thought they were studying zoophilia, were not. They were studying "chronic bestiality". Comparatively few studies had been done on zoophiles (people with a relational or orientational interest), as opposed to bestialists (people who saw animals in terms of safety and convenience), and many of those which were purported studies were "pseudo-scientific".
[edit] Issues surrounding research into zoophilia
[edit] Studying of hidden sexuality
Lack of groups, visible communities, etc... unlike many sexual orientations, by nature there need be no need to find or tell others.
(For a good coverage of this area, see: Demographics of sexuality)
[edit] Issues of population access and sampling
[edit] Issues to do with observer bias
[edit] Types of study
As with many other areas of human sexuality and psychology, it is not possible to determine with great certainty the full range of people who participate in any given activity, or the nature and degree of their involvement. This affects many aspects of human life, such as monogamy and affairs, paraphilias such as voyeurism and transvestitism, or lifestyle sexual interests such as BDSM.
Two main approaches have emerged to deal with this. The first looks at people in general, studying the population as a whole and accepting that there will be issues of representativeness and uncertainty of demographics. The other is to study known populations of special interest, and acknowledge that these may not be representative or give any information about other populations.
... OLD TEXT ...
There are two main types of structured, organized study that attempt to identify zoosexual activity in human populations. Each has its own issues:
Studies of set populations (prison, psychiatric patients) etc, where the population can be identified with certainty, but it cannot be said at all to be representative of the many who are not in the criminal justice or mental health systems. This is directly acknowledged in the conclusions of some of these papers. Even so, such papers often include assumptions generalized without stated justification.
Studies based upon volunteers, where (similar to many other studies in sexology) issues of representativeness and population demographics are uncertain.
... OLD TEXT ...
In both cases the population of people practicing zoosexuality is unknown. Studying a fixed group such as offenders gives much information on offenders, but that information may be completely inapplicable to the vast majority who are (presumably) non-offenders. Studying the population in general by means of volunteers, is an accepted method of avoiding this and the potential biases of this approach are well known and taken account of.
... OTHER OLD TEXT ...
Studies of set populations, such as schools, prisons, psychiatric patients, where the population can be identified with certainty.
Many older studies of zoophilia were based upon youth offender, criminal abuser, or psychiatric populations. Very few were based upon study of zoophiles per se. this led to significant criticism on the grounds of self-fulfilling conclusions, lacking in generality.
Studies based upon abusive or offender populations tend to have as their motive or goal, the investigation of indicators and correlations with human abuse. As such, they are universally criticized within the papers of virtually all modern researchers into zoophilia for its own sake, as unrepresentative and a dangerous proposition, to extrapolate to zoophiles in general (much as any findings in a study of convicted spouse-abusers would be considered unrepresentative of the conduct of married people or the ethics of marriage in general). This is a criticism of this class of study in general, rather than any one study within that class.
Studies based upon volunteer subjects
The major studies on zoophiles have tended to be of those zoophiles willing to be studied. This is similar to many other studies in sexology, where issues of representativeness and population demographics are uncertain, and is a known and accepted issue with many population studies in many subjects.
The alternate studies (which look at a set identifiable population and study the presence of zoosexual activity within it) suffer from the opposite problem: namely that they exclude an unknown and large number of people, and the sample studied is likely to be highly misrepresentative of the population in general.
As with all studies, the problem is a known and accepted one: most zoosexuals (like many other groups) are not in the criminal justice system, nor have come to professional attention, nor are easily identifiable by usual sampling methodologies. The majority are perhaps are not accurately represented by those who are. Similar issues attach to studies of homosexuality, BDSM, transvestitism, and many other private interests. As a result such studies have focussed on qualitative studies, rather than quantitative.
[edit] Zoophilia and zoosadism
[edit] Key studies
It is interesting and perhaps significant, that studies split between those which studied zoophiles vs. those which studied zoosexuality in offenders and abusers, perfectly mirror a divide between those which conclude zoophilia is not harmful with those who consider it indicative of an abusive personality.
In other words, those who have already shown a predisposition to violence and abuse sufficient to bring them to the attention of the criminal justice system, are found (perhaps not surprisingly) to be abusive to animals when they have that interest, and a tendency to seek out animal and weaker humans as victims, too.
Various older (pre-1950) books and studies, such as Havelock Ellis' 1927 study of sexuality, and Kraft von Elbing's 1894 book on sexual pathology, are omitted since their findings, research methodologies and analyses are by modern standards visibly outdated and little more than notes on odd cases, combined with author assumption. Since the 1960's they have rarely been cited as credible sources in their own right, for an understanding of zoophilia, but only as historical background.
[edit] General studies on human sexuality
[edit] Kinsey Reports (1948, 1953)
The Kinsey Reports were the first two large scale studies into male and female sexuality respectively, and established much of the foundation of sexology. Although highly controversial at the time, and some methodlogical aspects were questioned in the 1960s (leading to a purge on certain data), in fact they were found to be "remarkably skillful" and Gebhard, who investigated these claims and later "cleaned up" Kinsey's large quantities of data in response to these issues, stated that to his surprise, the 1960's "cleaning" of Kinsey's data had not in fact changed any of Kinsey's findings significantly.[1] Major findings were:
[edit] Kinsey et al, 1948 (male sexuality)
Study of 5300 white American males:
8% have had zoosexual experience, however in general "few times" in a lifetime. Largely confined to farm youths, 50% (some areas 65%) of whom have experience. Actual values likely to be underestimated due to suggestions of reticence or "cover-up". 1/3 of these had their first experience by age 9, percentages drop to 1 - 4 % by 20's, suggestive of impact of social taboos leading to cessation and denial. The highest proportion in late teenages was amongst intelligent and educated rural youths. 28% had zoosexual experience (vaginal, anal or oral activity to orgasm) prior to to age 15, dropping to 17% between ages 16-20. Urban youths have far fewer contacts (estimated 1 for every 30 - 70 that rural youths had), and mostly when visiting rural areas, leading to suggestions that they would have a similar norm save for reduced possibilities.
Kinsey noted that "In most cases, the contacts with animals last for two or three years, although there are contacts that extend over several years, or even throughout a lifetime."[2]
[edit] Kinsey et al, 1953 (female sexuality)
Study of 5793 white American females:
A lower occurance of zoosexual activity was reported by females than males. 1.5% of females reported pre-adolescent contact, and much of that not deliberately planned. Sexual contact post-puberty was around 5%,[3] with 1.2% reporting repeated contacts. 95 females (1.6%) reported contact into adulthood, but around half of these were single experiences.
Most female contact was single, well educated women. Only three reported sexual intercourse, the rest were general or oral contact. Most women who did reported zoosexual experiences had relatively few (only 25% had 6 or more), and those few were mostly within a short time frame (under one year).
[edit] Friday (circa. 1970)
Whilst not a scientific paper in any sense, Nancy Friday's studies of female sexuality and fantasy are highly regarded in the field of sexology. Her findings and conclusions, although written for a lay audience, are not disputed by science.
With regard to zoosexuality, her 1973 book My Secret Garden comprising around 190 case reports, showed a rate of between 8 - 12%[4] for actual zoosexual activity or fantasy directed towards actual activity. In regard to women and animals, Ms Friday comments:
- "I suggest that next time you see that pretty female face with the Mona Lisa smile, you consider, just consider, that she may not be thinking of the knight on a horse -- just the horse." (p.63 - 64)
[edit] Hunt (1974)
American survey of 982 men and 1044 women, on sexual habits and lifestyles, random and representative, performed for Playboy by an independent research company.
Proportion with zoosexual experience sharply declined since Kinsey: males: 4.9% (1948: 8.3%) females 1.9% (1953: 3.6%). Believed genuine by Miletski, correlating with decline in rural farming (1940: 23.2%, 1970: 4.8%). Hunt concurs with Kinsey that the majority of zoosexual activity is childhood or teenage experimentation, mostly (80%) happening prior to age 15 (or for females between late teens and 21), and usually self-terminates with adulthood. Other findings tended to mirror Kinsey.[5]
[edit] Donofrio (1996)
Doctoral thesis including 6 case histories (20-54 years old, mostly married and with families) drawn from a heterogeneous group of volunteers who had experienced sexual relations with animals. Despite the small size, Miletski classifies this as "significant" since it is both recent, and encompasses "relationships" with animals.
In each case, initial sexual contact with an animal was prompted by curiosity or sexual exploration, and recurred due to the resulting satisfaction. Donofrio relates that the case histories presented in his study lead him to support the notion that human/animal sexual contact is not a clinically significant problem, and states that the concept of zoophilia being a sexual orientation is supported by his study.
[edit] Shere Hite
[edit] Studies based upon zoophile populations
[edit] Masters
[edit] Miletski
[edit] Weinberg and Williams
[edit] Beetz
[edit] Studies based primarily upon offender, abuser, or psychiatric populations
[edit] Gebhard, Gagnon, Pomeroy and Christenson (1965) [offender]
Study of "different types of sex offender", all white adult males. Compared 1000+ sex offenders, 881 non-sex offenders and 471 non-offenders (control). "Animal contact" definition restricted to post-puberty penetrative activity.[6]
The control group and sex offenders whose offenses did not involve violence or minors, had similar levels of zoosexual contact as Kinsey had found in the general population (8.3%). The proportion was increased in offender groups with more serious categories of sex offence (incest offenders against children 22%, pedophiles who used threats or violence 33%). Kinsey's findings on rurality and increaasing activity were supported in ost categories. Interestingly, offenders tended to act than fantasize, and for these groups of serious offenders, "this lack of psychological involvement lead[s] the researchers to suggest that animal contact is closely related to self-masturbation."
[edit] Peretti and Rowan (1983) [psychiatric]
Structured questionaire to 27 men and 24 women aged 17 - 28 who had sought to admit bestiality to their doctor or pychiatrist. Stated purpose was to identify the motives involved. Although stated to be a study of 'zoophilia', Miletski comments in fact it is a study of "chronic bestiality" only, and it seems few if any were actually zoophiles.
For men, "sexual expressiveness" was the most common motive: it "lacked the civilized pretense." For women "emotional involvement" was the most common reason. "No negotiation" was common for both, in that it was "simple and straightforward without the need to bargain and play mind games," and also that it did not involve humans as friends or relationships. Both the men and women stated that it was "comparable to a form of masturbation; it was helpful during depressive periods or when they had no human sexual partner available. It provided them with a level of pleasure hard to achieve in a conventional sexual manner, and it was helpful for married subjects in keeping them from seeking extramarital sexual experiences."
[edit] Alvarez and Freinhar (1991) [psychiatric]
Sexual habits questionnaire, of 20 psychiatric in-patients, 20 medical in-patients, and 20 psychiatric staff. 45% of the psychiatric patients had fantasized (medical: 15%, staff: 20%) and 30% had had sex with animals (medical and staff: 0%). Authors conclude this "clearly and unquestionably indicate a higher use of bestiality as a sexual outlet (both in fantasy and actuality)"
[edit] Fleming Jory & Burton
[edit] Alvarez and Freinhar
[edit] Abel, Osborne, & Twig
[edit] Ascione and Arkow
[edit] Duffield, Hassiotis and Vizard
[edit] Other, questionable, and minor studies
- Rosenfeld (1967) [questionable]
Rosenfeld taped interviews with 246 men and women who had written to him following publication of a previous book on sexual pathology, admitting to sexual acts with animals. According to Miletski, his work includes many conflicting and non-objective messages, lack of formal analysis or review, lack of peer review, lack of details of interview questions, and excessive claims. Miletski considers his study's validity and reliability "questionable", and notes assorted unsupported assumptions and errors in the work.[7]
Rosenfeld concludes that most zoosexuals have normal to high IQ, that they are "not moral psychopaths" but feel there is nothing morally wrong with such activity, and enjoy it enough to compensate for its inherent social risks. All but 3 had other more significant sexual outlets, and many were sexually experimental (swinging, incest, women and men who had sex with minors, etc). He surmises that "(1) There are some people for whom bestiality is a way of life, and they see no reason to change. (2) We cannot label any sexual practice 'perverted' simply because the majority does not engage in it.[7] (3) While the practice of bestiality is disgusting to the average person, the bestialist harms no one: not himself, not the animal, nor society."
- Grassberger (1968) [minor/historical cases]
Dekkers (1994) reports this study of the 50 people sentenced for bestiality between 1923 - 1965 in Austria. He considers it minor but prima facie useful. The author estimates that 3 or 4 people practised for each one caught, estimating an overall rate of 1-2%. Miletski cites Dekkers' comment: "Grassberger believed that between 49 and 57 percent of those who committed bestiality were mentally retarded or morons."
- Waine (1968) [questionable]
Purports to be interviews with people who breed dogs for human sexual activity, described by Miletski as "pseudo-scientific": "supposedly written with the hope that it will help the reader avoid sexual involvement with dogs by recognizing the 'evil invoked'." No details of numbers or sources, sample interview provided.
Waine reports that "those who indulge in sexual relations with dogs generally see no perversion in what they are doing; it is simply a pleasurable experience with an intimate and a faithful friend... physically satisfying, mentally stimulating, and causes no physical harm to either party... they do not give up human relationships, but enhance them with the spice of variety." Waine further states that most zoosexually active couples are said to be 30-35, mature, well educated, and financially secure, and both parties (male and female) are interested.
- Trimble (1969) [questionable]
A thinly described and speculative pornographic titillation, described as pseudo-scientific by Miletski. Presents 14 out of a supposed 100 interviews, mostly fantasy or reported hearsay, with minimal other details.
- Dumont (1970) [questionable]
A review of "many" case studies from the "upper crust" women of society. Unsourced, unverified, described by Miletski as appearing in a "pseudo-scientific book". Dumont states there are six major reasons for women to seek bestiality: (1) a loosening of morals, (2) financial freedom, (3) boredom, (4) outgrowth of other sexual aberrations, (5) sexual experimentation during youth, and (6) substitution for human sexual partners.
- Monter (1981) [minor]
Review of "several dozen" sodomy trials from the 15 - 18th centuries in two Swiss towns. Agrees with Kinsey's comment on effects of rurality, insofar as men were charged more often with homosexuality in cities and more often for bestiality in rural areas.
- Zillmann, Bryant and Carveth (1981) [other/minor]
Included for completeness: not a study on zoosexuality.[8]
- Davies (1982) [other/social taboos]
Davies compared a large number of Western societies and institutions, and found that the strong taboos that exist against homosexuality, bestiality, and transvestism in the West are the result of attempts to establish and defend strong ethnic, religious, or institutional boundaries. In places where such pressures are weak or absent, the taboos against these forms of sexual behaviors are also weak or absent.
- Liliequist (1988) [minor]
Analyzed 1074 death penalties cases in Sweden between 1634 and 1756. Far more individuals were executed for bestiality than for witchcraft, and lmost all convicted individuals were young men and adolescents males.
- Morris (1988) [minor]
Study into history of attitutes to sodomy based upon legal records from England, between 1740 and 1850. 25 men were charged with bestiality. No evidence of blackmail exists (unlike for homosexuality), possibly since the low spocial classes involved (laborers) made them inappropriate targets.
- Cameron, Cameron and Proctor (1989) [minor]
Extensive sexuality questionnaire to 4,340 adults in five metropolitan areas in the United States. Identified that sexually non-conforming individuals had a higher incidence of bestiality than heterosexuals.
- Leal (1989) [minor]
Study of Gauchos on the Brasil/Uruguay border. The gauchos understand bestiality as a legitimate sanctioned practice and tradition.
- Cerrone (1991) [other/attitudes]
Interviews with 20 women in a psychology class. Found that sex with animals is "more common than clinically reported" and "their reports illustrate a culturally ‘acceptable’ practice which may seem unusual or strange but which gets little attention in rural mental health clinics."
- Penyak (1993) [minor]
Study of sociosexual norms in 1750-1850 Mexico including 33 cases of Church-identified bestiality. Humans (despite seriousness) were not put to death but jailed, typically for 3-10 years, animals routinely killed.
[edit] Major areas of findings
[edit] Psychological profile of zoophiles
(For psychological profile of zoosadists, see that article instead)
[edit] What kind of people are zoophiles
[edit] Why do people become zoophiles
[edit] How common is zoophilia
See section #Extent of occurrence in the main Zoophilia article.
[edit] Zoophiles and other human relationships
[edit] Zoophiles in society
[edit] Zoophile subculture and community
[edit] Other relevant research
[edit] Animal viewpoint
See Non-human animal sexuality, animal cognition and the like, for information on human scientific understanding of these subjects.
[edit] Books papers and sources
See section #Books, articles and documentaries in the main Zoophilia article.
- Alavarez, W. & Freinhar, J. (1991). A prevalence study of bestiality (zoophilia) in psychiatric in-patients International Journal of Psychosomatics, 38, 45-57.
- Abel, G., Osborne, C., & Twigg, D. (1993). Sexual assault through the life span: adult offenders with juvenile histories In H. Barbaree, & W. Marshall (Eds). The juvenile sex offender (pp. 104-117). New York: Guilford Press.
- Ascione, F. & Arkow, P. (Eds.). (1999). Child abuse, domestic violence, and animal abuse: Linking the cirlces of compassion for prevention and intervention West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
- Duffield, G., & Hassiotis, A., & Vizard, E. (1998). Zoophilia in young sexual abusers Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 9, 294-304.
- Flynn, C. (2000). Why family professionals can no longer ignore violence toward animals Family Relations, 49, 87-95.
- Raupp, C., Barlow, M., & Oliver, J. (1997). Perceptions of family violence: Are companion animals in the picture? Society and Animals 5, 219-237.
[edit] See also
- Animal studies: Ethology -- Non-human animal sexuality -- Animal cognition -- Animal communication
- Human sexuality and sexual orientation: Category:Human sexuality -- Sexology -- Sexual orientation -- Environment, choice, and sexual orientation -- Gender and sexuality studies -- Paraphilia -- Kinsey Reports
- Human/nonhuman interaction: Anthrozoology -- Animal love -- Exogamy
- Ethics, morality and philosophy: Wisdom of repugnance -- Argument from incredulity -- Anthropocentrism
- Sampling and statistical issues: Bias -- Response bias -- Sampling (statistics) -- Selection bias
[edit] External links
[edit] References
- ^ Martin Duberman, reviewing the Kinsey Reports stated that: ... as for the call for a "random sample," a team of independent statisticians studying Kinsey's procedures had concluded as far back as 1953 that the unique problems inherent in sex research precluded the possibility of obtaining a true random sample, and that Kinsey's interviewing technique had been "extraordinarily skillful." They characterized Kinsey's work overall as "a monumental endeavor." [1] The controversial results were hotly debated, especially by some who felt that inclusion of prison results had allowed sampling bias to distort the conclusions. This was the reason for Gebhard's "clean-up".
- ^ Cited by Miletski, p. 56.
- ^ Miletski p.56 "An additional 3.6%" [beyond the 1.5% pre-adolescence]
- ^ Nancy Friday: - My Secret Garden contains around 190 fantasies:
- 15 represented zoosexual activity as an actual interest or major fantasy, either past or present:
-
- Jeanne (p.85), Lisa (p.87), Kate (p.89 **), Jo (p.161), Rosie ( p.163), Dawn (p.163), Wanda (p.163), Raquel (p.168), Felicia (p.195 **), Sonia (p.196), Trudy (p.198:**), Nina (p.202 **: youthful experimentation), Jocelyn (p.279 **), Esther (p.288 **), Anon (p.300).
(** - actual activity or strong stated interest in actual activity)
- Jeanne (p.85), Lisa (p.87), Kate (p.89 **), Jo (p.161), Rosie ( p.163), Dawn (p.163), Wanda (p.163), Raquel (p.168), Felicia (p.195 **), Sonia (p.196), Trudy (p.198:**), Nina (p.202 **: youthful experimentation), Jocelyn (p.279 **), Esther (p.288 **), Anon (p.300).
- For a further 8 (23 total = 12%) it was represented as one of multiple fantasies:
-
- Madge (p.18: humiliation), Hilda (p.48: size), Esther (p.69: fantasy), Alexandra (p.218: fantasy/domination), Gelda (p.230: fantasy), Tina's husband (p.244: both interested in animal mating), Bobbie (p.256: fantasy/horses), Paula (p.259: sex on horseback)
- It should be noted these figures are for sexually interested aspects only. Non-sexual zoophilia is excluded from the above book.
- Various sources comparing genders in zoophilia, express an expectation that the rate for zoosexual activity in men would be expected to be higher than the rate in women.
- ^ One in eight women having 6+ experiences, most experiences within a short time span, very few (in this case no) cases of intercourse between women and animals, and so on). Cited by Miletski.
- ^ Also reported: that sexual experimentation, such as masturbation of animals by humans, "is a not infrequent experiment by juveniles"
- ^ a b Miletski notes on Rosenfeld: For example, Rosenfeld opines sex with male canines to be "almost impossible", and without evidence states that people who perform oral sexual acts upon animals suffer from "a severe sexual neurosis". His work includes both claims of "complete objectivity" and simultaneous advocacy, and is claimed by him to be "the most complete information on the scope and practices of bestiality". Miletski highlights his 2nd conclusion (that such activity should not be labelled 'perverted'), insofar as she notes that the author repeatedly does this himself "throughout the book".
- ^ The study was on effects of pornography on aggression (sample: 40 unsergraduate subjects), rather than a study of zoosexuality. Concluded that exposure to pornography of a "disturbing" nature including "bestiality or sado-masochism" may promote increased aggression levels in the short term afterwards (in this case, if provoked by a confederate after watching).
