By Maham Majeed

July 16, 2009

Incest refers to sexual activity between biological relatives and Pedophilia is a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children. I would say these are bad and sick enough. But Zoophilia would clearly fall into a similar category; one which refers to abnormal and sick sexual activities. Some people fear that if Zoophilia were made legal, it may be a slippery slope towards permitting sex between adults and children. I can’t say what’s worse! This surpasses everything in my opinion, and obviously not in a positive way. Humans are not enough apparently. Believe it or not, different species seem more appealing, and that’s where animals come in.

Zoophilia is defined as an affinity, attraction or sexual attraction by a human to animals. Human/animal sexual interaction is referred to as zoosexuality or bestiality. The quite ambiguous term sodomy has also sometimes been used for bestiality. Zoophilia is usually considered to be unnatural, and zoosexuality is often condemned as animal abuse. The established view in the field of psychology is that Zoophilia is a mental disorder. It may reflect childhood experimentation or lack of other avenues of sexual expression. Webster’s New World College Dictionary refers to Zoophilia as an abnormal attraction to animals. It is obvious that this is unnatural and clearly out of the ordinary. However, zoophiles exist and practice Zoophilia, acting on their ‘instincts.’ It goes without saying that life is not easy for them but how could it be? A person owning an animal/pet might be using it for sexual intercourse. An animal that has no say in this, that does not get to say yes or no and thus give consent, or have an opinion. If the animal is even slightly unwilling to participate, it is not a problem for a person to take advantage of it. Since animals don’t have the same mental capacity, man can easily over-power them using brains as well as physical strength. Such a scenario sounds horribly wrong and brutal to me.

Research by psychologists and sexologists is in general supportive of some claims made by zoophiles, however this is not generally known or accepted, and so most people's knowledge is drawn from stereotypes, personal beliefs, or media. The extent to which zoosexuality occurs is controversial. Zoophilia advocates claim that the human/animal relationship goes far beyond sexuality, and that they are capable of forming a loving relationship with an animal that can frequently last several years and that is not functionally different from any other love/sex relationship. I find this hard to believe. How can someone form a relationship with an animal that is unable to express its feelings and think at our level, is unable to talk and only eats, sleeps, expresses personality to a very limited extent and mates? This is basically the general routine animals follow. Why would humans consider themselves part of it is beyond me.

Zoophila did not just emerge suddenly as a consequence of the abnormal and unnatural desires/fetishes of some people. It is a significant part of history. A cave painting from at least 8000 BC in the Northern Italian Val Camonica depicts a man about to penetrate an animal. In the West the most explicit records of sex involving humans and animals are associated with reports of the murderous sadism, torture and rape of the Roman games and circus, in which some authors estimate that several hundreds of thousands died.. Zoophilia is often associated with rape as well, proven by many past cases and incidents. According to Masters, beasts were specially trained to copulate with women: if the girls or women were unwilling then the animal would attempt rape. A surprising range of creatures was used for such purposes, and taught how to copulate vaginally or anally. On occasion, the more ferocious beasts were permitted to kill and (if desired) devour their victims afterwards. Being sentenced to forcible sex by dogs and horses are a method of torturous punishment or execution Far East. As disgusting and sick as this particular part of history sounds, we need to accept that this is part of what humans have done.

The term wisdom of repugnance, or the "yuck factor”, describes the belief that an intuitive negative response to some thing, idea or practice should be interpreted as evidence for the intrinsically harmful or evil character of that thing. It is common for many people to instinctively feel repulsed by the idea, and this may be a sign the idea is not a good one. Instinctive or knee-jerk reactions may not always be correct, however. But in the case of Zoophilia, many experience a negative response as indicated. I believe that proves to certain extent that Zoophilia is wrong, abnormal and unnatural. It is something out of the ordinary and I definitely don’t mean that in a positive way.

Zoophilia is often incorporated in pornography. Although such porn is usually illegal, it is widely available due to large-scale production by many countries and also a big market. Disgusting pornographic websites are a click away, even for innocent children. Watching such things can seem appealing to them, but it can impair their minds permanently. Many, including those who are not Zoophiles and those who are curious, find such pornography sexually appealing. A reason for this can easily be the fact that things that are forbidden usually appeal to people. That is a part of human nature. However, science clearly describes Zoophilia as a mental disorder. And disorders are not normal.

The fact that Zoophilia is becoming acceptable is alarming. I can’t imagine parents would want their children looking up websites related to the practice and indulging in it by experimenting due to natural curiosity. Will the sick perversions of humans never come to an end? What’s next…Humans marrying animals? Attending the wedding of a Mr. X joined in holy matrimony with Dog called Bingo? I hope that sounds as bizarre to everyone as it sounds to me.


Back to Article List