The Morals of Zoophilia

by Joey  E.

              Sex, as we all know, can spark a lot of discussion. For something that everyone does, and has done since humans first got here, it seems that people need a lot of help figuring out just how to do it. Of course, people don’t agree.  Is it all right to have sex before you’re married? Is it all right to have sex with different people once you’re married? What about while wearing women’s clothing? As if it wasn’t bad enough for your parents and your favorite magazine to contradict each other, sex has very different rules in different cultures.

Germany has had a recent argument on acceptable sexuality.  As most arguments on sexuality, it has gotten heated.  The current issue? Zoophilia. Zoophilia is the practice of sexual relations with animals.  Animal rights groups are arguing that zoophilia, more commonly known as bestiality, counts as a form of animal abuse and should be outlawed.  Zoophiles, on the other hand, counter that zoophilia should not be outlawed when it does not violate the animal protection laws already in place.

                As it stands, zoophilia is legal in Germany.  It is also legal in Denmark, Sweden and Thailand. However, in many other cultures it is seen as taboo- strongly taboo. While many sexual practices such as homosexuality earlier classed as ‘deviant’ are now becoming more accepted, zoophilia remains largely taboo. Why?

                Peter Singer, an animal rights philosopher, has several ideas on that.  He suggests that the taboo on human/animal relationships stems largely from our ambivalence towards animals.  He says that particularly in the Judeo-Christian tradition there is a strong line drawn between humans and animals: humans are made in the image of God, with immortal souls, and animals are not. Ergo, human/animal relationships cross a clear boundary (Singer, 2001).

                Interestingly, both sides of the argument in Germany seem to refute that ambivalence.  The animal rights groups do not agree with the Genesis statement that man was given total dominion over animal, or they wouldn’t work so hard to ensure animals have rights.  On the other hand, Michael Kiok, head of the Zoophile Engagement for Tolerance and Information (ZETA) group, claims that their relationships come from a belief that “we see animals as equal to people, and we want to stop the hate”. So both sides claim to have a closer relationship than Genesis might suggest. Yet they have taken opposite views of this matter (Monks, 2012).

                Astrid Behr, head of the German Association of Veterinarians, makes her stance clear: “Perpetrators go unpunished, but sexual acts with animals are always associated with great physical and psychological injury” (Monks, 2012).  ‘Great physical and psychological injury’ to animals would certainly be an excellent reason to outlaw zoophilia. Gradually more and more places are granting rights to animals and making sure they are protected from undue harm under their laws.  In recent years, laws are even willing to discuss psychological harm- a large step from behaviorist theories claiming animals were essentially machines with nothing inside to harm.  However, I tend to be leery of statements including the words ‘always’ and ‘never’; this sounds more like a good political statement than perhaps one strictly true.  I’m also curious as to which sexual acts specifically Behr means.  If humping a human’s leg is a sexual act, there are an awful lot of traumatized dogs.

                Kiok counters with the insistence that zoophiles do not harm or even go against the will of animals.  As animals can show if they are hungry or need to go out, he claims, so can they show if they wish to have sex (Monks, 2012).  Animals certainly can show if they are hungry or need to go out, but I’m not sure humans are always so good at reading these signs.  I spent several days over winter break mopping the floor when I failed to notice just how urgently my dog had to go outside.  In fact, it’s often difficult for humans to tell when other humans wish to have sex.  And with animals, we have the added disadvantage of being unable to ever ask the animal partner if it was indeed consensual.

                There may be something of a middle-ground between these two positions.  Singer mentions Otto Soyka, a rather less well-known contemporary of Freud, who wrote a book titled Beyond the Boundary of Morals.  Soyka pushed against moral dictates in a manner similar to today’s work.  He argued against the prohibition of non-reproductive acts, such as homosexuality, fetishism and bestiality. Bestiality was the only one he considered should be made illegal and only then in the case when it shows cruelty to an animal.  Singer gives two examples to illustrate.  In some situations, he says, men have sexual intercourse with hens.  However, the physiology of hens makes this a usually fatal act- and sometimes the hen will be decapitated just before ejaculation in order to intensify convulsions (this would be the ‘cruel’ example).  Singer also mentions a talk he had about Birute Galdikas, sometimes referred to as “the Jane Goodall of orangutans”.  When walking through the camp, which orangutans had come to regard as their own, a male orangutan grabbed Galdikas and made abundantly clear his intentions.  Galdikas, instead of screaming and ordering the King Kong-like slaying of this orangutan, assured her coworkers that she would not be harmed and added that “they have a very small penis”.  While the orangutan ultimately lost interest, it is a considerably different story than the first.  It is hard to see Galdikas’ calm acceptance as showing any cruelty to the orangutan (Singer, 2001).

                So which side do you come down on? Do you agree with Behr that all sexual acts with animals count as abuse? Do you think Kiok is right in stating zoophiles act only consensually? Do you think it’s somewhere in the middle? And what do you think about zoophilia being legal in twenty states in America (Wisch, 2010)?

Monks, Kieron. (2012, November 28). Bestiality banned in Germany, zoophile speaks out. Metro World News. Retrieved from http://www.metro.us/newyork/life/article/1157046--bestiality-banned-in-germany-zoophile-speaks-out

Singer, Peter. (2001). Heavy Petting. Retrieved from http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001----.htm

Wisch, Rebecca F. (2010). Overview of State Bestiality Laws. Retrieved from http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ovuszoophilia.htm