We tend to use the terms bestiality and zoophilia interchangeably when they have meant and currently mean different things. Even researchers use them interchangeably. Byrd in his work 'the joy of beasts', 2000, states 'bestiality/zoophilia' throughout his book.
It wasn’t until Beetz in 2002 with his doctoral dissertation, 'love, violence and sexuality in relationships between humans and animals' That the idea of the two terms meaning different things started to gain some traction. (It should be noted that this is the study that has sponsored much of the hate towards us as the sample population was currently serving violent offenders! Just a tad skew and hardly a reliable pool.)
Zoophilia, love of animals, was the scientific term for anyone who had a loving relationship with animals (Rosenbauer, 1997 - 'sexuller' German). Obviously as the Internet gained popularity and allowed the average person to meet up and discuss individual feelings we see a rise in individuals identifying themselves as having like-minded interests (Andriette 1996 - 'laying with the beasts').
It was Munro-Thursfield who recognized two distinct groups amongst 'heavy petters'. Their work 'battered pets' was the first work to consider a loving relationship versus a perverse or sexually driven one. The authors were a team of vets in the UK who studied suspected cases of sexual abuse. (The ultimate conclusion of the research was to stimulate open discussion of what constuted abuse).
Now the stage is set for these thoughts to come together and advance perception. Enter, Dr. Hani Miletski.
His article, 'Is Zoophilia a sexual orientation? A study'. It is within this article that Dr. Miletski proposes, proves, and defines his thesis question (above).
There are three components that must be present to define an orientation. There must be the presence of 1, love and affection, 2, sexual fantasies, and 3 sexual attraction. This is the definition of a sexual orientation. NOTE: Actively engaging in sex is not a requirement for two reasons. Someone can have an orientation and not be having sex (like saying you’re not gay because you have never slept with a guy/girl). Also someone can have sex and not be oriented that way (it’s not true to say that because you had sex with a guy/girl you are gay).
Dr. Miletski catorgised his participants into two groups. Zoophiles (zoosexuals) who hold the orientation. And bestialists whom only have a 'fetish' with bestality - just eroticism. He reported that about 11% of his surveyed population was categorized as bestialist, about 80% zoosexual, and 8% were no longer having relations of a sexual nature with animals (they were 'reforming' through a religion).
I know that allot of people take offence to labels as they do not want to become part of a pre-defined lifestyle or any other variety of reasons - that are all valid. I am not directly calling or labeling anyone or saying you have to conform and/or choose a label or identifaction. We are all individuals. I am merely presenting the scholarly material as I have found and understand it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment