Him and Her Sex Blog

We talk about sex and sexuality


Leave a comment

Topic #29: Genital Piercing

Genital piercing is a form of body piercing. It involves piercing a part of the genitalia, thus creating a suitable place for wearing different types of jewellery. Genital piercings can be done in men or women, with various forms of piercings available.

History

The traditional heritage place of genital piercings is assumed to be South East Asia, with traditional piercings being found in tribes ranging from Indiato Borneo. Piercings of the genitals have a long tradition, with sources mentioning the Apadrayva, a male genital piercing, as early as in the Kama Sutra (second century).

The ampallang, a similar piercing (which passes horizontally through the glans instead of vertically), is found in different tribes throughout Sarawak and Sabah on the island of Borneo. Genital piercings became first introduced in western countries by ethnographic report, done by explorers such as in the 19th century. The Dutch explorer Anton Willem Nieuwenhuis described in his ethnographic record In Centraal Borneo: reis van Pontianak naar Samarinda – documenting his travel through Borneo 1897 – the procedure of an ampallang piercing:

The young men through the tattoo, because it is performed by them only to a limited extent, much less than women to suffer for it but they must in order to gain their full manhood, subject of another test, namely the through-hole the glans penis. This operation procedure is as follows: First, the glans made anemic by pressing between the two arms of a folded over strip of bamboo. At each of these arms are opposite each other where needed openings through which one after the round pressed glans become less sensitive to an acute kapfernen pin; formerly was used for this purpose a pointed bamboo sticks. The bamboo and the clamp is removed by means of a cord attached to pin left in the opening until the channel is healed. Later, the copper pin (utang) by another, usually through a tin, replaced, which is worn at all times, making only heavy work or strenuous operations of the metal pin a wooden square. Particularly brave men enjoy with the chief’s prerogative to be allowed to wear the penis a ring in the scales of the pangolin cut and blunt teeth is occupied; sometimes they can also be crossed with the first channel, a second by the glans . Drill In addition to the Kayan themselves, engage in many Malays from the upper Kapuas this art. The pain during surgery do not seem to be very violent, and it has only rarely serious consequences, although until recovery can often take a month.

Unlike the nipple piercing, that became a short lived fashion trend at the end of the 19th century, genital piercings were uncommon in the western world until the second half of the 20th century. In the 1970s, genital piercings were introduced to the emerging body modification community in Los Angeles by the early piercings pioneers like Jim Ward and Doug Malloy. Genital piercings were sported by the modern primitives movement that developed during the 1980s. Only until the recent years, genital piercing was confined to a body modification subculture.

With the beginning of the 21st century, genital piercing became increasingly more popular, with celebrities such as Janet Jackson,Christina Aguilera, Karina Bacchi, Fantasia Barrino, and Pete Dohertyconfessing to have or planning to have genital piercings. Genital piercings nowadays have a growing demand, especially in a young adult, college-aged population.

Types of genital piercings

Male bodied genital piercings

Possible piercing sites on the Male bodied genitalia include the glans, the skin of the penis shaft, the scrotum or the perineum.

Glans penis

Piercings through the glans of the penis include the ampallang, which passes horizontally, and the apadrayva, that passes vertically through the glans. The Prince Albert piercing is situated on the dorsal side while the reverse Prince Albert piercing passes through the ventral side of the glans. The dydoe pierces through the coronal rim of the glans. With the exception of the dydoe, all these piercings pass through the urethra.

These piercings provide increased stimulation during intercourse to the Male bodied individual (who is carrying the piercing) as well as to the partner. Piercings through the head, or the glans, are the genital piercings with the best-documented historical evidence.

Skin of the penis shaft and scrotum

The foreskin piercing passes through the penile prepuce on the dorsal, ventral or lateral side. It can only be applied if the Male is not circumcised. The frenum piercing passes through the penile frenum, a small skin bridge that connects the glans with the shaft skin. This anatomical part is also often missing in circumcised Male bodied individuals. The hafada piercing is situated on the skin of the scrotum. As an intermediate version between frenulum and hafada, the lorum piercing (low frenum) sits at the point where penis and scrotum connect. These piercings play a lesser role in adding stimulation and more or less fulfill only a decorative purpose.

Female Bodied genital piercings

In female bodied individuals as well, various anatomical parts can be suitable for piercings. These incluse the mons pubis, the clitoris (including the clitoral hood), the (inner and outer) labia and the vulval vestibule (which is the area surrounding the vaginal opening).

Clitoris and clitoral hood

The glans of the clitoris itself can be pierced. Since this anatomical part is too small in many women, this piercing is not very common. In contrast, the clitoral hood piercing is the most common genital piercing for female bodied individuals. It can be applied horizontally and vertically. Both, the Deep hood piercing and the Triangle piercing are variations of the clitoral hood piercing that pass deeper through the clitoral hood, with the triangle situated under the glans towards the inner labia. All these piercings are very pleasurable to the woman wearing them.

Labia and vulval vestibule

The Labia piercing can be applied at the labia majora or the labia minora. Through the dorsal rim of the vulval vestibule passes the Fourchette piercing. A less common version of the Fourchette is the Suitcase piercing, which can be considered as a deep Fourchette (it enters on the perineum). Also rather uncommon is the Princess Albertina piercing, the female version of the Prince Albert piercing, that passes through the dorsal wall of the urethra.

Mons pubis

The Christina piercing is a surface piercing, situated on the lower part of the mons pubis. It is Similar to the Nefertiti piercing, that can be seen as a combination between vertical clitoral hood piercing and Christina piercing.

Unisex

Some genital piercings can be worn by both genders, men as well as women. These include the pubic piercing, which is situated above the penis in men and on the mons pubic in women (comparable to the Christina piercing, but horizontally). The guiche piercing passes horizontally through the perineum while the anal piercing passes through the anus. These type of piercings are usually the most painful ones. These piercings are not popular in some countries.

In India these types of piercings are done by only one Udaipur based person named Dr. Gaurav Bhatt

Motives

Like all other types of body piercing, genital piercings basically fulfill a decorative purpose, appealing to the people wearing them. This can be restricted purely aesthetic taste or express a sense of uniqueness and non-conformism. Additional to these cosmetic purposes, genital piercings can enhance sexual pleasure during intercourse and masturbation. While female genital piercings do this only to the women wearing them, male genital piercings can enhance stimulation in men and women alike. Different piercings differ in the degree of pleasure enhancement. For males, the piercings of the glans are known to provide additional stimulation to men and women during intercourse. For the woman, this is achieved by the extra pressure that the jewelry puts on the vaginal wall, especially where the G-Spot is reported to be located. Women of the Dayak in Sarawak prefer men with an Ampallang piercing, claiming that intercourse without would be dull:

The Dayak women have a right to insist upon the ampallang and if the man does not consent they may seek separation. They say that the embrace without this contrivance is plain rice; with it is rice with salt.

For men, the sensitive urethra is stimulated by the jewelry. Female genital piercings that are known to give pleasure are the piercings that pass through or close to the clitoris, i.e. the clitoris piercing and the clitoral hood piercing. The triangle piercing is known to be quite pleasurable by providing stimulation of the underside of the clitoral glans, an area that is usually not stimulated at all.

Legal Considerations

In the United States, it is illegal for anyone under 18 to get one. This is actually due to laws against what is legally considered molestation of minors, and has nothing to do with the actual piercing process itself. Laws in other countries vary. In many European countries, minors are required to bring a signed consent form from or to be escorted by a legal guardian. Even in countries that have no laws regulating genital piercing in minors, many piercers refrain from doing them (since physiological development is not completed in minors).

 


Leave a comment

Her: Topic #28: Bestiality

Bestiality is a fascinating fetish to me. I do not like or agree with the act, but research about the topic intrigues me. The act really disturbs me and upsets me because of the animals involved.

As far as I know, there isn’t anything different concerning brain chemistry in the individuals who partake in bestiality. The attraction to animals is there, that is different than typical, socially accepted fetishes, but as far as I  know, nothing is mentally wrong with these people.

I really do not like how often and how bold people are becoming when we hear about another scandal with animals. I’m going to have to disagree with Him and say that the laws in place are just. I feel that even though we have no way of determining consent in animals, we still should not allow or become lenient with this kind of animal abuse. Sometimes the animal might not be harmed by the intercourse, but more often than not, the animal is hurt and the person committing the act does not care.

I’m always disappointed and angered when I hear about more animals being abused, but it’s really sad when a human is severely injured or killed.

I completely agree with Him when he said that fetishes and kinks need to be safe and have fail proof plans.  I can’t personally see a sex act worth dying for, unless homosexuality was going to get me killed. Let’s remember to keep it safe for everyone and not break reasonable laws while we’re at it.


Leave a comment

Him: Topic #28: Bestiality

Woof, woof.

I’ll come right out and say it, bestiality isn’t my favorite sexual fetish/philia. I am a very sex positive person, I mean I write a blog about sex and sexuality…so I kind of have to be right? Even so, there have been a few times in the last couple years where video’s have come along that really disturb me and put me off my game. One such video was the “Mr. Hands” Video, where the man perforated his colon via the penis of a very large stallion. That video bothered me to my core for a couple of reasons.

The first being that the man died, which is just horrible. The second reason that video bothered me so much was how depraved, and I don’t use this word lightly, the whole thing was. A man was so controlled by his sexual desires that he let himself be sodomized by a horse…which led to his death. If a sexual fetish leads to, or can lead to, someones death I have a major issue with that fetish. I feel the same way about Autoerotic asphyxiation, if it cannot be done safely, then it shouldn’t be done at all.

There is an entirely different aspect to this whole thing to be taken into consideration as well, what about the animals? I mean, there are people that have sex with their dogs, and I read an article about a man that tried to sleep with a cat, only to throw it out of a seventh story window when that didn’t work out so well. This is a hard one for me because with the way our society treats animals, I don’t see how having sex with them should be a big deal. We raise cattle to be slaughtered without asking for their consent. We test chemicals and other products on them without asking if they might not like that. So really, I have to wonder, how is not asking for an animal’s consent any different?

I myself am not really into the idea of fucking an animal, that just doesn’t do much for me personally. I know people who have slept with animals, and they are generally normal, decent folks. Does that mean I think that they should be doing it all the time or hurting the animals they sleep with or something? No. Do I want to hear about it every time they fuck their dog or horse or something? Of course not. Do I think it is my place to tell them that what they are doing is sick and wrong? How could I when there are people that say my own sexuality is ‘sick and wrong’?

At the end of the day, if nobody gets hurt, I guess I don’t really have a problem with animals and people having sex. When it starts getting dangerous though is when I start getting standoffish on the topic. I don’t have any political or emotional investment in this weeks topic, but I do think that people should be allowed to express themselves sexually however the fuck they want. I don’t know, this is a hard one. I’m curious to know what the readers think, Leave a comment below or email me at himandhersexblog@gmail.com


Leave a comment

Topic #28: Bestiality

Terminology

There are three terms that are most commonly used in regards to the subject: zoophilia, bestiality, and zoosexuality. The terms are usually relatively interchangeable. Zoosadismsodomy, zooerasty and zooerastia are other terms closely related to the subject but are less synonymous with the former terms and/or are not commonly used. “Bestiosexuality” was discussed briefly by Allen (1979), but never became established.

The term “zoophilia” was introduced into the field of research on sexuality in Psychopathia Sexualis (1886) by Krafft-Ebing, who described a number of cases of “violation of animals (bestiality)”, as well as “zoophilia erotica”, which he defined as a sexual attraction to animal skin or fur.

Zoophilia can refer to sexual activity with non-human animals (bestiality), the desire to do so, or to the paraphilia (atypical arousal) of the same name which indicates a definite preference for animals over humans as sexual partners.

Some zoophiles and researchers draw a distinction between zoophilia and bestiality, using the former to describe the desire to form sexual relationships with animals, and the latter to describe the sex acts alone.

Bestiality is frequently misspelled as “beastiality”. Even when spelled “bestiality”, the word has two common pronunciations, (/ˌbestʃiˈæləti/ or /ˌbistʃiˈæləti/), with the first syllable sounding either like “best” or “beast”, The latter is more frequently used in the United States.

Masters (1962) uses the term “bestialist” specifically in his discussion of zoosadism, which refers to deriving sexual pleasure from cruelty to animals. Stephanie LaFarge, an assistant professor of psychiatry at the New Jersey Medical School, and Director of Counseling at the ASPCA, writes that two groups can be distinguished: bestialists, who rape or abuse animals, and zoophiles, who form an emotional and sexual attachment to animals. Colin J. Williams and Martin Weinberg studied self-defined zoophiles via the internet and found they saw the term as involving concern for the animal’s welfare and pleasure, and an emphasis on believing they obtained consent, as opposed to the zoophile’s concept of bestialists, who zoophiles defined as a group who focused only on their own gratification. Williams and Weinberg also quoted a British newspaper as saying that zoophilia is the term used by “apologists” of bestiality.

Zoosexuality

The term “zoosexual” was cited by the researcher Miletski in the year 2002. It was seen as a value-neutral term which would be less susceptible to being loaded with emotion or rhetoric. Usage of the noun “zoosexual” can be applied to both a “zoosexual (person)” which is synonymous with zoophile, and a “zoosexual act”, meaning a sex act between a human and an animal. The term “zoosexuality” is often used by zoophile forums and support groups, which manifests as a person being romantically and/or sexually attracted to animals.

Zoosadism and zooerasty

Ernest Bornemann (1990, cited by Rosenbauer 1997) coined the separate term “zoosadism” for those who derive pleasure from inflicting pain on an animal, sometimes with a sexual component. Some horse-ripping incidents may have a sexual connotation.

Krafft-Ebing, the same author who introduced the term zoophilia, used the term “zooerasty” for the paraphilia of exclusive sexual attraction to animals, but the term has fallen out of use.

Extent of occurrence

The Kinsey reports rated the percentage of people who had sexual interaction with animals at some point in their lives as 8% for men and 3.6% for women, and claimed it was 40–50% in people living near farms, but some later writers dispute the figures, because the study lacked a random sample in that it included a disproportional amount of prisoners, causing sampling biasMartin Duberman has written that it is difficult to get a random sample in sexual research, and that even when Paul Gebhard, Kinsey’s research successor, removed prison samples from the figures, he found the figures were not significantly changed.

By 1974, the farm population in the USA had declined by 80 percent compared to 1940, reducing the opportunity to live with animals; Hunt’s 1974 study suggests that these demographic changes led to a significant change in reported occurrences of bestiality. The percentage of males who reported sexual interactions with animals in 1974 was 4.9% (1948: 8.3%), and in females in 1974 was 1.9% (1953: 3.6%). Miletski believes this is not due to a reduction in interest but merely a reduction in opportunity.

Nancy Friday‘s 1973 book on female sexualityMy Secret Garden, comprised around 190 fantasies from different women; of these, 23 involve zoophilic activity.

In one study, psychiatric patients were found to have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55 percent) of reported bestiality, both actual sexual contacts (45 percent) and sexual fantasy (30 percent) than the control groups of medical in-patients (10 percent) and psychiatric staff (15 percent). Crépault and Couture (1980) reported that 5.3 percent of the men they surveyed had fantasized about sexual activity with an animal during heterosexual intercourse. A 1982 study suggested that 7.5 percent of 186 university students had interacted sexually with an animal.

Sexual fantasies about zoophilic acts can occur in people who do not have any wish to experience them in real life. Nancy Friday notes that zoophilia as a fantasy may provide an escape from cultural expectations, restrictions, and judgements in regard to sex. A frequent interest in and sexual excitement at watching animals mate is cited as an indicator of latent zoophilia by Massen (1994). Masters (1962) says that some brothel madams used to stage exhibitions of animals mating, as they found it aroused potential clientele, and that this may have encouraged the clients to engage in bestiality.

Several studies have found that women show stronger vaginal responses to films depicting bonobo copulation than to non-sexual stimuli. Zoophiles have been described as “occupying [many] different demographic categories: white, black, Asian, Mormon, Amish, Catholic, atheist, pagan, Jewish, male and female.”. In addition, people who “grew up in the country around animals were no more likely to become zoophiles than those who grew up in the city without them.”

Perspectives on zoophilia

Psychological, psychiatric, and research perspectives

Zoophilia has been partly discussed by several sciences: Psychology (the study of the human mind), sexology (a relatively new discipline primarily studying human sexuality), ethology (the study of animal behavior), and anthrozoology (the study of human-animal interactions and bonds).

The nature of animal minds, animal mental processes and structures, and animal self-awarenessperceptionemotion in animals, and “map of the world”, are studied within animal cognition and also explored within various specialized branches of neuroscience such as neuroethology.

Zoophilia is placed in the classification “paraphilias not otherwise specified.” in the DSM-III and IV. The World Health Organization takes the same position, listing a sexual preference for animals in its ICD -10 as “other disorder of sexual preference”. The DSM-IV (TR) (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association) recommends that the individual does not receive treatment of zoophilia, as with most other paraphilias, unless it is accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the individual.

Zoophilia may also be covered to some degree by other fields such as ethics, philosophy, law, animal rights and animal welfare. It may also be touched upon by sociology which looks both at zoosadism in examining patterns and issues related to sexual abuse and at non-sexual zoophilia in examining the role of animals as emotional support and companionship in human lives, and may fall within the scope of psychiatry if it becomes necessary to consider its significance in a clinical context. The Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine (Vol. 18, February 2011) states that sexual contact with animals is almost never a clinically significant problem by itself; it also states that there are several kinds of zoophiles:

  1. Human-animal role-players
  2. Romantic zoophiles
  3. Zoophilic fantasizers
  1. Tactile zoophiles
  2. Fetishistic zoophiles
  3. Sadistic bestials
  1. Opportunistic zoophiles
  2. Regular zoophiles
  3. Exclusive zoophiles

Additionally, zoophiles in categories 2, 3, and 8 (romantic zoophiles, zoophilic fantisizers, and regular zoophiles) are the most common, while zoophiles found in categories 6 and 7 (sadistic bestials and opportunistic zoophiles) are the least common.

Zoophilia may reflect childhood experimentation, sexual abuse or lack of other avenues of sexual expression. Exclusive desire for animals rather than humans is considered a rare paraphilia, and sufferers often have other paraphilias with which they present. Zoophiles will not usually seek help for their condition, and so do not come to the attention of psychiatrists for zoophilia itself.

The first detailed studies of zoophilia date from prior to 1910. Peer reviewed research into zoophilia in its own right started around 1960. However, a number of the most oft-quoted studies, such as Miletski, were not published in peer-reviewed journals. There have been several significant modern books, from Masters (1962) to Beetz (2002); their research arrived at the following conclusions:

  • Most zoophiles have (or have also had) long term human relationships as well or at the same time as zoosexual ones, and that zoosexual partners are usually dogs and/or horses (Masters, Miletski, Beetz)
  • Zoophiles’ emotions and care for animals can be real, relational, authentic and (within animals’ abilities) reciprocal, and not just a substitute or means of expression. Beetz believes zoophilia is not an inclination which is chosen.
  • Society in general at present is considerably misinformed about zoophilia, its stereotypes, and its meaning. The distinction between zoophilia and zoosadism is a critical one to these researchers, and is highlighted by each of these studies. Masters (1962), Miletski (1999) and Weinberg (2003) each comment significantly on the social harm caused by misunderstandings regarding zoophilia: “This destroy[s] the lives of many citizens”.

Beetz also states the following:

“The phenomenon of sexual contact with animals is starting to lose its taboo: it is appearing more often in scholarly publications, and the public are being confronted with it, too.[...] Sexual contact with animals – in the form of bestiality or zoophilia – needs to be discussed more openly and investigated in more detail by scholars working in disciplines such as animal ethics, animal behavior, anthrozoology, psychology, mental health, sociology, and the law.”

More recently, research has engaged three further directions – the speculation that at least some animals seem to enjoy a zoophilic relationship assuming sadism is not present, and can form an affectionate bond. Similar findings are also reported by Kinsey (cited by Masters), and others earlier in history. Miletski (1999) notes that information on sex with animals on the internet is often very emphatic as to what the zoophile believes gives pleasure and how to identify what is perceived as consent beforehand. For instance, Jonathan Balcombe says animals do things for pleasure. But he himself says pet owners will be unimpressed by this statement, as this is not news to them.

Beetz described the phenomenon of zoophilia/bestiality as being somewhere between crime, paraphilia and love, although she says that most research has been based on criminological reports, so the cases have frequently involved violence and psychiatric illness. She says only a few recent studies have taken data from volunteers in the community. As with all volunteer surveys and sexual ones in particular, these studies have a potential for self-selection bias.

Medical research suggests that some zoophiles only become aroused by a specific species (such as horses), some zoophiles become aroused by multiple species (which may or may not include humans), and some zoophiles are not attracted to humans at all.

Religious perspectives

Passages in Leviticus 18 (Lev 18:23: “And you shall not lie with any beast and defile yourself with it, neither shall any woman give herself to a beast to lie with it: it is a perversion.” RSV) and 20:15–16 (“If a man lies with a beast, he shall be put to death; and you shall kill the beast. If a woman approaches any beast and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the beast; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.” RSV) are cited by Jewish, Christian, and Muslim theologians as categorical denunciation of bestiality. However, the teachings of the New Testament has been interpreted by some as not expressly forbidding bestiality.

In Part II of his Summa Theologica, medieval philosopher Thomas Aquinas ranked various “unnatural vices” (sex acts resulting in “venereal pleasure” rather than procreation) by degrees of sinfulness, concluding that “the most grievous is the sin of bestiality.” Some Christian theologians extend Matthew‘s view that even having thoughts of adultery is sinful to imply that thoughts of committing bestial acts are likewise sinful.

There are a few references in Hindu scriptures to religious figures engaging in symbolic sexual activity with animals such as explicit depictions of people having sex with animals included amongst the thousands of sculptures of “Life events” on the exterior of the temple complex at Khajuraho. The depictions are largely symbolic depictions of the sexualization of some animals and are not meant to be taken literally. In the Hindu tradition, having sex with a sacred cow is believed to bring good fortune. However, the Hindu scriptures like the Bhagavata Purana and the Devi Bhagavata Purana having sex with animals, especially the cow, leads one to Hell, where the person is tormented by rubbing their bodies on trees with razor-sharp thorns.

Historical and cultural perspectives

The phenomenon of sexual intercourse with animals is not new. Instances of this behavior have been found in the Bible. In a cave painting from at least 8000 BC in the Northern Italian Val Camonica a man is shown about to penetrate an animal. Raymond Christinger interprets that as a show of power of a tribal chief, and so we do not know if this practice was then more acceptable, and if the scene depicted was usual or unusual or whether it was symbolic or imaginary. The Cambridge Illustrated History of Prehistoric Art says the scene may be humorous, as the penetrating man seems to be waving cheerfully with his hand at the same time. Potters seem to have spent time depicting the practice, but this may be because they found the idea amusing. Dr “Jacobus X”, said to be a nom-de-plume for a French author, said this was clearly “before any known taboos against sex with animals existed.” Marc Epprecht states that authors such as Jacobus X do not deserve respect because their methodology is based on hearsay, and was designed for voyeuristic titilation of the reader. Masters said that since pre-historic man is prehistoric it goes without saying that we know little of his sexual behaviour, depictions in cave paintings may only show the artist’s subjective preoccupations or thoughts.

Masters feels that in antiquity bestiality was widespread, and believed it was often incorporated into religious ritual. He believes it to have taken place in ancient Egypt, claiming that the zoomorphic forms of Ancient Egyptian gods ensures that bestiality would have been part of their rites. There is no evidence that the presence of gods with zoomorphic attributes ensures this in itself. However, Pindar, Herodotus, and Plutarch claimed the Egyptians engaged in ritual congress with goats. Such claims about other cultures do not necessarily reflect anything about which the author had evidence, but be a form of propaganda or xenophobia, similar to blood libel.

Bestiality was accepted in some North American and Middle Eastern indigenous cultures. Sexual intercourse between humans and non-human animals was not uncommon among certain Native American indigenous peoples, including the Hopi. Voget describes the sexual lives of young Native Americans as “rather inclusive,” including bestiality. In addition, the Copper Inuit people had “no aversion to intercourse with live animals”.

Several cultures built temples (Khajuraho, India) or other structures (Sagaholmbarrow, Sweden) with zoophilic carvings on the exterior, however at Khajuraho these depictions are not on the interior, perhaps depicting that these are things that belong to the profane world rather than the spiritual world, and thus are to be left outside.

In the West, the most explicit records of sex involving humans and animals activity 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. Masters believes 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. Representations of scenes from the sexual lives of the gods, such as Pasiphaë and the Bull, were highly popular, often causing extreme suffering, injury or death. On occasion, the more ferocious beasts were permitted to kill and (if desired) devour their victims afterwards.

In the Church-oriented culture of the Middle Ages zoophilic activity was met with execution, typically burning, and death to the animals involved either the same way or by hanging, as “both a violation of Biblical edicts and a degradation of man as a spiritual being rather than one that is purely animal and carnal. Some witches were accused of having congress with the devil in the form of an animal. As with all accusations and confessions extracted under torture in the witch trials in Early Modern Europe, their validity cannot be ascertained.

Legal status

In many jurisdictions, all forms of zoophilic acts are prohibited; others outlaw only the mistreatment of animals, without specific mention of sexual activity. In the UK, Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (also known as the Extreme Pornography Act) outlaws images of a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive). Countries such as Belgium, Germany, and Russia are somewhere in between: they permit sexual activity with animals, but prohibit the promotion of animal-oriented pornography.

Laws on zoophilia are often triggered by specific incidents. While some laws are very specific, others employ vague terms such as “sodomy” or “bestiality,” which lack legal precision and leave it unclear exactly which acts are covered. In the past, some bestiality laws may have been made in the belief that sex with an animal could result in monstrous offspring, as well as offending the community. Current anti-cruelty laws focus more specifically on animal welfare while anti-bestiality laws are aimed only at offenses to community “standards”. Notable legal views include Sweden, where a 2005 report by the Swedish Animal Welfare Agency for the government expressed concern over the increase in reports of horse-ripping incidents. The agency believed current animal cruelty legislation was not sufficient in protecting animals from abuse and needed updating, but concluded that on balance it was not appropriate to call for a ban. In New Zealand, the 1989 Crimes Bill considered abolishing bestiality as a criminal offense, and instead viewing it as a mental health issue, but they did not, and people can still be prosecuted for it. Under Section 143 of the Crimes Act 1961, individuals can serve a sentence of seven years duration for animal sexual abuse and the offence is considered ‘complete’ in the event of ‘penetration’

Some countries once had laws against single males living with female animals, such as Alpacas. Copulating with a female alpaca is still specifically against the law in Peru.

As of 2012, having sex with animals is illegal in 37 U.S. states. Most of the individual anti-zoosexual state laws were created recently (between 1999 and 2012). Until 2005, there was a farm near Enumclaw, Washington that was described as an “animal brothel”, where people paid to have sex with animals. After an incident on 2 July 2005, when a man was pronounced dead in the emergency room of the Enumclaw community hospital after his colon ruptured due to having been sodomized by a horse, the farm garnered police attention. The state legislature of the State of Washington, which had been one of the few states in the United States without a law against bestiality, within six months passed a bill making bestiality illegal.

Joe Arpaio of Arizona, Bob Lynn of Alaska and Nan Rich of Florida were responsible for banning bestiality in their respective states. When such laws are proposed, they are never questioned or debated. Laws which prohibit non-abusive bestiality have been criticized for being discriminatory, unjust and unconstitutional.

 

Pornography

Ancient Greek sodomizing a goat, plate XVII from ‘De Figuris Veneris‘ by F.K. Forberg, illustrated by Édouard-Henri Avril.

 

 

Pornography involving sex with animals is widely illegal, even in most countries where the act itself is not explicitly outlawed.

 

In the United States, zoophilic pornography would be considered obscene if it did not meet the standards of the Miller Test and therefore is not openly sold, mailed, distributed or imported across state boundaries or within states which prohibit it. Under U.S. law, ‘distribution’ includes transmission across the Internet. Production and mere possession appear to be legal, however. U.S. prohibitions on distribution of sexual or obscene materials are as of 2005 in some doubt, having been ruled unconstitutional in United States v. Extreme Associates (a judgement which was overturned on appeal, December 2005).

 

Similar restrictions apply in Germany (see above). In New Zealand the possession, making or distribution of material promoting bestiality is illegal.

 

The potential use of media for pornographic movies was seen from the start of the era of silent filmPolissons and Galipettes (re-released 2002 as “The Good Old Naughty Days“) is a collection of early French silent films for brothel use, including some animal pornography, dating from around 1905 – 1930.

 

Material featuring sex with animals is widely available on the Internet, due to their ease of production, and because production and sale is legal in countries such as Denmark. Prior to the advent of mass-market magazines such as Playboy, so-called Tijuana Bibles were a form of pornographic tract popular in America, sold as anonymous underground publications typically comprising a small number of stapled comic-strips representing characters and celebrities. The promotion of “stars” began with the Danish Bodil Joensen, in the period of 1969–72, along with other porn actors such as the Americans Linda Lovelace (Dogarama, 1969), Chessie Moore (multiple films, c. 1994), Kerri Downs (three films, 1998) and Calina Lynx (aka Kelly G’raffe) (two films, 1998). Another early film to attain great infamy was “Animal Farm“, smuggled into Great Britain around 1980 without details as to makers or provenance. The film was later traced to a crude juxtaposition of smuggled cuts from many of Bodil Joensen’s 1970s Danish movies.

 

Into the 1980s the Dutch took the lead, creating figures like “Wilma” and the “Dutch Sisters”. In 1980s, “bestiality” was featured in Italian adult films with actresses like Denise Dior, Francesca Ray, and Marina Hedman, manifested early in the softcore flick Bestialità in 1976.

 

Today, in Hungary, where production faces no legal limitations, zoophilic materials have become a substantial industry that produces numerous films and magazines, particularly for Dutch companies such as Topscore and Book & Film International, and the genre has stars such as “Hector”, a Great Dane starring in several films. Many Hungarian mainstream performers also appeared anonymously in animal pornography in their early careers. For example, Suzy Spark.

 

In Japan, animal pornography is used to bypass censorship laws, often featuring Japanese and Russian female models performing fellatio on animals, because oral penetration of a non-human penis is not in the scope of Japanese mosaic censor. Sakura Sakurada is an AV idol known to have appeared in animal pornography, specifically in the AV The Dog Game in 2006. While primarily underground, there are a number of animal pornography actresses who specialize in bestiality movies. A box-office success of the 1980s, 24 Horas de Sexo Explícito featured zoophilia.

 

In the UK Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 criminalises possession of realistic pornographic images depicting sex with animals (see extreme pornography), including fake images and simulated acts, as well as images depicting sex with dead animals, where no crime has taken place in the production. The law provides for sentences of up to two years in prison; a sentence of 12 months was handed down in one case in 2011.

 

Pornography of this sort has become the business of certain spammers such as Jeremy Jaynes and owners of some fake TGPs, who use the promise of “extreme” material as a bid for users’ attention.

 


Leave a comment

Her: Topic #27: Pedophilia

This post is a difficult one for me to write about.  I have mixed emotions about pedophiles for many reasons.  There are the pedophiles that prey on children and attack them and then there are the pedophiles that go to great lengths to repress their urges and actively seek help. 

When doing some research on pedophilia, I became aware of the different names and categories, if you will, of pedophilia.  Pedophilia is technically an adult 16 or older with an exclusive sexual interest in children 13 and younger.  The offender must be 5 or more years older than the child to be classified as a pedophile.  There is Hebephilia, the interest in children 11to 14.  There is also Ephebophilia, the attraction to teenagers 14 to 19.

When I was 15, I was sexually assaulted by my ex-girlfriend.  I have always referred to her as a pedophile, but I have realized that she is technically a Ephebophile.  She was 21 when I was 15, so I think that it’s valid that she is an ephebophile and a pedophile.  It’s filth like her that makes me hate pedophiles.  She is a monster and, hopefully, karma will kick her in the ass. 

Some pedophiles act on their urges.  These people hurt children of all ages, depending on their preference.  These people need the most severe of punishments because the ones that refuse to change will repeat offend until they are caught again.  Not all pedophiles give in to their urges, some go to great lengths to stop themselves at all costs. 

The people that stop themselves are the responsible and unfortunate people who move far away from schools and parks, they chemically castrate or find other ways to harm themselves to prevent attacks, and they seek treatment.  These kinds of people are so unfortunate; they never wanted to be attracted to children or teenagers.  I think that they need protection from the public if people find out that they are sex offenders and living in their neighborhood.  I feel as though, with the proper therapy and precautions, that they can attempt to lead a semi-functional life.  The pedophiles that don’t act on their urges give me hope within humanity that we can be better than our carnal instincts and our lust.

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 127 other followers