Original Communication
A new classification of zoophilia

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2011.01.004Get rights and content

Abstract

Zoophilia is a paraphilia whereby the perpetrator gets sexual pleasure in having sex with animals. Most jurisdictions and nations have laws against this practice. Zoophilia exists in many variations, and some authors have attempted to classify zoophilia previously. However unanimity does not exist among various classifications. In addition, sexual contact between humans and animals has been given several names such as zoophilia, zoophilism, bestiality, zooerasty and zoorasty. These terms continue to be used in different senses by different authors, creating some amount of confusion. A mathematical classification of zoophilia, which could group all shades of zoophilia under various numerical classes, could be a way to end this confusion.

Recently a ten-tier classification of necrophilia has been proposed to bring an end to a similar confusion extant among various terms referring to necrophilia. It is our proposition that various shades of zoophilia exist on a similar continuum. Thus, each proposed class of zoophilia can be “mapped” to a similar class of necrophilia already proposed. This classification has an intuitive appeal, as it grades all shades of zoophilia from the least innocuous behavior to the most criminal. It is hoped that it would also bring an end to the existing confusion among several zoophilia related terms. In addition, since each proposed class of zoophilia can be exactly “mapped” to classes of another paraphilia (necrophilia), it may point to an “equivalence” among all paraphilias not yet explored fully. This area needs further exploration.

Introduction

Human sexual contact with animals has been known since Biblical times.1 Several shades of zoophilic behavior are known, and several terms have been used to describe them. Some terms that have been used are zoophilia, zoophilism, zooerasty, zooerastia, bestiality, and bestiosexuality. The range of sexual behaviors with animals include not just coitus, but a whole range of other sexual activities, including fellatio, cunnilingus, masturbation of animals,2 anal intercourse,3 exhibitionism, frotteurism and voyeurism.4 Various terms currently used to describe these behaviors may be confusing, especially as different writers tend to use them differently. It may be useful to take a look at the most common meanings of these terms.

It was Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing (1840–1902), who introduced the terms zoophilia erotica and zooerasty in 1894.5 Many authors use the terms zoophilia, zoophilism, zooerasty, zooerastia, bestiality, and bestiosexuality interchangeably, there is supposed to be a subtle difference between them. Zoophilia and zoophilism (Greek, zoon, animal; philia, love) are usually considered synonymous. These terms refer to a perversion, where the affected individual is both emotionally and sexually attracted to animals. Individuals engaged in this behavior – known as zoophiles, or simply zoos – begin to love the animals as their own family members and form a deep emotional bond with them. Sexual union with the animals arises as a part of that emotional bonding. Ebing talked about a similar condition zoophilia erotica fetischistica, in which a person is sexually aroused by just being close to animals, but he need not be interested in the animal’s genitalia.6 The traditional use of the term bestiality refers to sexual contact between a human and animal, without the human developing any kind of emotional bonding with the animal. The animal is used simply as a vehicle for satisfying the lust. A bestialist is often seen more or less as an opportunist. He uses the animal for sex, when for instance, normal outlets for sex are not available.

Zooerasty or zoorasty is almost the same as bestiality, with the additional fact that here the offender, the zooerast, has a decidedly pathological component, i.e. he may prefer an animal even when other normal sexual outlets, e.g. women were available.

A number of other terms have been used for zoophilia, one of the most common being sodomy. Originally, the term sodomy, was used to refer only to male homosexuality or pederasty.7 However later it came to include several abnormal sexual acts and perversions especially bestiality. In fact, the term sodomy came to be used to denote any sexual activity that was non procreative, such as masturbation, oral-genital contact, oral-anal contact, anal intercourse and bestiality.6 In most modern jurisdictions however the term sodomy is reserved for anal intercourse only. Buggery is another term that has been used in the past, as a synonym for bestiality. The more recent term zoosexuality describes the full spectrum of human-animal orientation.

Some variants on the theme of zoophilia (involving another co-existing paraphilia) are necrozoophilia, sexual attraction to dead animals (also known as necrobestiality) and zoosadism, zoophilic sadism or bestialsadism (torture of animal during sexual contact). Zoosadism is partly explained by the hypothesis that some aggressive children and adolescents, who get less chance to live out their aggression in interpersonal relations turn to zoosadism.8 Sometimes there is a desire to be transformed into the animal, the paraphiliac has had contact with.9 This can be understood as a narcissistic tendency and is not necessarily related to lycanthropy (a mental illness in which a patient believes he or she is, or has transformed into, an animal and behaves accordingly).

The various terminologies that are currently used to describe various shades of zoosexual behavior are at best vague and are not used universally in the same sense by all authors. The terms zoophilia, zoophilism, zooerasty, zooerastia, bestiality and bestiosexuality have been used by different authors to describe different shades of zoosexual behavior. Similar situation exists for some other paraphilias of which necrophilia is a notable example. To address this issue, a ten-tier classification system for necrophilia has been proposed, which classifies various shades of necrophilia mathematically into ten classes.10 This classification groups all necrophiliacs into a continuum with pathologically least deviant being grouped in class I and the most deviant in class X (Table 1).

From a study of literature on zoosexual behavior and reported cases, it appears that zoosexual behaviors could be similarly classified, with each zoophiliac class being conveniently “mapped” to a distinctive necrophilic class. It must be kept in mind that cases from all these classes may not be reported in literature simply because the “aggrieved party” is an animal, which is unable to complain. Cases belonging to more severe classes are more often reported in literature. A more complete listing of individual cases belonging to each class is mentioned elsewhere.11The proposed classification is as follows:

Class I zoosexuals do not use animals for sex at all, just as class I necrophiles do not have sex with dead people. In other words, they are mere role-players. They would rather want their human partners to act as animals during sex, because the thought of having sex with animals excites them. Also known as pet play, pony play, ponyism or pup-play, human–animal role-play thus involves one participant taking on the role of a real or imaginary animal in character, including appropriate mannerisms and behavior. Thus it is a kind of sexual role-play.

The principal theme of human-animal role-play is usually the voluntary or involuntary reduction (or transformation) of a human being to animal status, and focus on the altered mind-space created. The most common examples of “conversion” are canids (pup, dog, wolf), felines (cat, kitten, lion) and equines (pony, horse). The activity is common among people with a transformation fetish (A form of sexual fetishism where a person becomes sexually aroused by descriptions or depictions of transformations, usually the transformations of people into other beings, animals or objects). Human-animal role-play is also used in a BDSM context, where the partner is reduced to the status of an animal as a symbol of showing authority and dominance.

Would keep an animal as a pet in order to get a psychosexual stimulation. Would not actually indulge in sex with the animals. Ebing’s zoophilia erotica fetischistica would fall under this class.

These people fantasize intercourse with animals, but do not indulge in actual intercourse. May masturbate in the presence of animals. Zoophilic voyeurism (also called mixoscopic zoophilia or faunoiphilia) and zoophilic exhibitionism would fall under this category.

Interest in animals increases to the level of touching them. These are the people, who get sexual excitement by touching, stroking or fondling an animal or their erotic parts, such as genitals or anal and perianal area. Some would rub their genitals against animals, as a source of pleasure (zoophilic frotteurism).

People belonging to this class may be called animal fetishists. They preserve parts of animals, especially furs and use this as a fetish for their zoophilic activities. The touch of soft and silky fur of animals may act as an erotic stimulus, just as ordinary fur does for a fetishist. Other common fetish objects such as shoes would not sexually stimulate this group. The fetish object must be part of an animal. Randall and associates12 narrate an interesting case, where the tongue of a deer was used as a masturbatory tool.

Sexual pleasure comes from sadistic activities with an animal, such as torturing it (zoosadism, zoophilic sadism or bestialsadism). People up to this class, use animals for sexual excitement, without actually engaging in intercourse with them. Bartmann and Wohlsein13 describe traumatic injuries in 193 horses over a four year period, out of which at least ten cases were due to acts of zoophilism and zoosadism. The injuries were caused by gunshots, or by spear like instruments or knives. Only seven could be saved by surgical or medical treatment. Wochner and Klosinski8 studied 1502 aggressive children and adolescents who had been presented and treated at the Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at the University of Tübingen, and found that out of them 25 had been zoosadists. These were exclusively boys (23 out of 25). The age distribution of the zoosadists showed an increased incidence in 13, 17 and 18 year olds which could be connected with problems of puberty, group constraints and proving virility. Compared with a control group of “only aggressive” patients, organic brain damage owing to complications of pregnancy or delivery, difficult and harsh upbringing by the parents and absence of a positive father figure could be demonstrated in the zoosadists. One third of the zoosadists showed additional disorders of sexual behavior and the sexual-sadistic component was manifested in the zoosadistic action.

Actual sexual activity with animals starts from this class. Normally these zoosexuals would be content to have sexual intercourse with the living, but if an opportunity arose, would not refrain from having sexual intercourse with animals. Such activity may be seen in incarcerated or stranded persons, or when the individual sees an opportunity to have sex with an animal with no one around (e.g. a shepherd taking cattle away for grazing on a lonely farmland). Attendants of animal houses also belong to this class. People belonging to this class do not love animals at an emotional level.

The so-called “classic” zoophiles. They do not enjoy sexual intercourse with humans and prefer animals for intercourse. They can however have sex with both humans and animals. In this sense they differ from class X zoophiles, who can have sex only with animals. This class has subclasses including activities such as fellatio, cunnilingus, masturbation of animals and anal intercourse with animals. These are the people, who love animals at an emotional level, and express their love through sexual intercourse. They have sex with animals, as one would normally have with human partners. These people tend to love animals, and by and large do not hurt or harm animals.

A subclass exists within this class, which may be called “regular zoophilia by proxy”. In this case, the person – instead of himself having sexual intercourse with an animal - may force his or her partner to have a sexual act with an animal. This happened in R v Bourne (1952) 36 Cr App R 125 (CCA), in which the husband forced his wife to submit to a dog inserting its penis into her vagina. The husband was convicted of aiding and abetting his wife to commit buggery and sentenced to eight years in prison. The wife was not punished, since she acted under duress. In R v. Tierney (1990) 12 Cr. App. R.(S) 216, the defendant took photographs of his wife having intercourse with his Alsatian dog for his own continuing satisfaction. In this case, three months’ imprisonment was given to the accused, but not to his wife, because she consented to perform the act in desperation in order to retain her husband’s affections.

These zoophiles need to kill an animal in order to have intercourse with it (necrozoophilics). They are however capable of having sexual intercourse with living animals, but the need for sexual intercourse with the dead animals is so great that they must kill animals in order to have sexual intercourse with their dead bodies. The noted killer Jeffrey Dahmer (1960–1994) is reported to have collected animal carrion from road, dissected them and masturbating, as he found the glistening viscera of animals sexually arousing.14 In November 2006, Bryan James Hathaway, 20, of Douglas County, Minnesota was arrested for having sex with a deer carcass he found on the side of the road while bicycling. He was charged with violating a law against “sexual gratification with an animal.” He was placed on probation, and was also sentenced to be evaluated as a sex offender and treated at the Institute for Psychological and Sexual Health in Duluth.

Sexual intercourse is possible only or mostly with animals, with virtually a complete exclusion of human partners. This group has been called zooerasts by some writers.

Section snippets

Discussion

Bestiality and zoophilia are not mentioned in the first two editions of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), published by the American Psychiatric Association.15, 16 Zoophilia as a paraphilia made its first appearance in DSM-III, and was categorized as mental disorder number 302.10.17 Under the diagnostic criteria for zoophilia the following description was given, “The act or fantasy of engaging in sexual activity with animals is a repeatedly preferred or exclusive method of achieving

Conclusion

This paper attempts to classify various shades of zoosexual behavior in ten classes. Hopefully this classification would put an end to some confusion that is currently present among various terminologies used to describe zoosexual behavior. Furthermore this classification also hints at a kind of “paraphilic equivalence” that exists between necrophilia and zoosexuality and perhaps other classes of paraphilias too.

Conflict of interest

None

Funding

None

Ethical approval

None

References (23)

  • A. Aggrawal

    References to the paraphilias and sexual crimes in the Bible

    J Forensic Leg Med

    (2009)
  • R.J. McNally et al.

    Behavioral treatment of zoophilic exhibitionism

    J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry

    (1991 Dec)
  • A. Aggrawal

    A new classification of necrophilia

    J Forensic Leg Med

    (2009)
  • V.L. Codispoti

    Pharmacology of sexually compulsive behavior

    Psychiatr Clin North Am

    (2008 Dec)
  • L.S. London et al.

    Sexual deviations

    (1950)
  • P.O. Peretti et al.

    Zoophilia: factors related to its sustained practice

    Panminerva Med

    (1983 Apr–Jun)
  • H. Oosterhuis

    Stepchildren of nature: Krafft-Ebing, psychiatry, and the making of sexual identity

    (2000)
  • A. Aggrawal

    Forensic and medico-legal aspects of sexual crimes and unusual sexual practices

    (2009)
  • B. Karpman

    The sexual offender and his offenses

    (1962)
  • M. Wochner et al.

    Child and adolescent psychiatry aspects of animal abuse (a comparison with aggressive patients in child and adolescent psychiatry)

    Schweiz Arch Neurol Psychiatr

    (1988)
  • S. Dittert et al.

    Zoophilia between pathology and normality. Presentation of 3 case reports and an internet survey

    Nervenarzt

    (2005 Jan)
  • Cited by (44)

    • Contemporary understanding of zoophilia — A multinational survey study

      2019, Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine
      Citation Excerpt :

      It would be interesting to determine whether having scars is sexually arousing to PSA, or that PSA recognize these injuries as a kind of painful byproduct of their sexual life. We did not seek to clarify these nuances, but future studies should evaluate whether PSA engage in kinky sex with animals to confirm whether sadistic PSA do indeed exist, as suggested by specific analyses.22 While over 50% of participants report feeling aroused by dogs in public, they do not feel distressed by the fact that they cannot pursue these animals sexually.

    • Toward a classification of animal maltreatment

      2023, Animal Abuse and Interpersonal Violence: A Psycho-Criminological Understanding
    • Internet in The Function of Promotion of Bestiality: Profiling Zoophiles

      2023, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text