Mating glances: A brief look at faunoiphilia
According to Dr. Anil Aggrawal’s 2009 book Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices, faunoiphilia is a sexual paraphilia in which individuals derive sexual pleasure and arousal from watching animals mate. Dr. Aggrawal notes that faunoiphilia is therefore a form of zoophilic voyeurism and can also be referred to as mixoscopic zoophilia. At the end of 2011, Dr Aggrawal published a new zoophilia typology in the Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine (and which I examined in a previous blog). In this typology, Aggrawal classed zoophiles into one of ten different types (Class I to Class X).
In this typology, faunoiphiles come under Class III and comprises individuals that Aggrawal describes as zoophilic fantasizers. Aggrawal claims these people fantasize about having sexual intercourse with animals but do not actually have sex with animals. He claims that this type of zoophile may masturbate in the presence of animals, and that both zoophilic voyeurs and zoophilic exhibitionists are subsumed within this particular zoophilic type. Prior to this paper, R.E.L. Masters in his 1962 book Forbidden Sexual Behavior and Morality also noted that interest in and sexual excitement at watching animals mate may be an indicator of latent zoophilia.
There is clearly a difference between being interested in and watching animals mate, and being sexually aroused by such behaviour. For instance, while researching a blog on arachnophilia (individuals who derive sexual pleasure and arousal from spiders), I came across the fact that the orb spider has a detachable penis. I mention this because in the same article it mentioned that the Argonaut octopus also has a detachable penis that actually separates and swims over to the female. I would certainly like to see this – but obviously not for sexual pleasure. While researching my blog on delphinophilia (individuals who derive sexual pleasure and arousal from dolphins), I read that dolphins’ penises are major sense organs, used to feel out objects. Again, this is something I would like to see but not for sexual pleasure. (If you’re really interested in the world’s weirdest animal penises then check out the online article published in an October issue of The Week).
Almost all online references to faunoiphilia simply mention a one-line definition without any further discussion. There are also some websites that provide a paragraph or two on the morality of the behaviour and/or the author’s own personal view without reference to any ‘fact’ or reference to anything published in the clinical or academic literature (such as the short article on Maddy’s Mansion website). In fact, this paragraph I am writing now would be classed along with those I am complaining about as being essentially ‘content free’! However, there are a few exceptions. The online Urban Dictionary also describes faunoiphilia, as a sexual paraphilia and a type of zoophilic voyeurism. It has a more detailed definition than most other academic definitions I have come across and notes:
“[Faunoiphilia] is sexual arousal from watching animals copulate. Arousal from faunoiphilia may be intensified if the animals mating are different in size, age, species, or a combination of the three. It may also be intensified if the sexual organs of one or both animals can be seen. Animals of faunoiphilia interest include, but are not limited to horses, dogs, dolphins, and various rodents”
Given the distinct lack of empirical evidence on faunoiphilia, I am unsure as to where the claims made have come from although I cannot refute any of the assertions made. Similarly, the online Nation Master encyclopedia also describes a variety of different types of faunoiphile behaviours but has no entries in the ‘references’ section to support any of the material in the entry. It claims that faunoiphiles “may” (my emphasis) engage in one or more of the following behaviours:
- May or may not be involved in bestiality
- May have little or no interest in human sexuality
- May purchase animals from pet stores or breeders for the sole purpose of watching them mate
- May write stories about animals mating
- May draw pictures of animals mating
- May masturbate while watching or thinking about animals mating
- May take photographs of animals mating
- May download pictures of animals mating from the internet
Most of the evidence for faunoiphilia existing comes from case studies. In 1991, Dr. Richard McNally and Dr. Brian Lukach published a paper in the Journal of Behavioral Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry. Their case study involved a white 33-year old “mildly mentally retarded man” (who they called ‘Mr. Z’) who was the only child of separated parents – an alcoholic father and a schizophrenic mother who also suffered from epilepsy (and who died when he was 12 years old). Mr. Z had engaged in a series of “satisfactory sexual relationships with women” (and also had a three-year marriage but had ended).
Mr. Z’s preferred sexual behaviour was to expose himself and masturbate in front of large dogs of either sex, and who also liked to rub his penis on large dogs. However, Mr. Z also engaged in zoophilic voyeurism (which in Mr. Z’s case involved sexual arousal from watching dogs engage in sexual behaviour but also was sexually aroused just watching dogs). Various publications have noted situations where people may have voyeuristic fantasies about sexual contact with animals without actually wanting to have sex with them. Nancy Friday in her book My Secret Garden, included 190 fantasies from different women (of which 23 involved zoophilic activity). Friday argues that zoophilic fantasies have the capacity to provide an escape from cultural expectations, restrictions, and judgments in relation to sex.
Given the scarcity of academic literature on faunoiphilia, we know nothing about the incidence, prevalence, or etiology of the behaviour. Maybe it is initiated after watching wildlife documentaries on television or maybe a chance sighting of animals copulating in the wild is enough to spark a sexual interest. We simply do not know. It could just be that faunoiphilia precedes zoophilia and is a stage that zoophiles go through before having actual sex with animals. However, very few of the zoophilic case studies I have read explicitly mention this (although the researchers may simply not have asked). This is certainly an area that should be researched more fully as part of the wider study of zoophilia.
Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK
Further reading
Aggrawal A. (2009). Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Aggrawal, A. (2011). A new classification of zoophilia. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 18, 73-78.
Friday, N. (1973). My Secret Garden. New York, NY; Simon & Schuster
Masters, R.E.L. (1962). Forbidden Sexual behavior and Morality. New York, NY: Lancer Books.
McNally, R.J. & Lukach, B.M. (1991). Behavioral treatment of zoophilic exhibitionism. Journal of Behavioral Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 22, 281-284.
Nation Master (2012). Faunoiphilia. Located at: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/
Posted on June 30, 2013, in Case Studies, Obsession, Paraphilia, Psychology, Sex, Sex addiction and tagged Animal mating, Faunoiphilia, Mixoscopic zoophilia, Sexual compulsion, Sexual paraphilia, Zoophilia. Bookmark the permalink. 2 Comments.
drmarkgriffiths 
With respect to delphinophilia I remember shocked Telegraph readers being treated to this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3322580/Tougher-laws-to-protect-friendly-dolphins.html
As I understand it, this entry was made in 2013. A lot of exposure has happened since, so a lot of research is viable for this still rather underground sexological and psychological subject. There’s also aspects of criminology and law as well to consider, as well the worth of protecting the minority from them being seen legally or socially in the wrong light. So ever more increasingly better information is good information is good to have.
I find that you’re missing quite a huge demographic for faunoiphilia, as you enlist:
* May or may not be involved in bestiality – (definitely true, they seem half and half)
* May have little or no interest in human sexuality – (again extremely true for the three groups I’ve enlisted below, for some it’s even lead to anti-human mentalities/criticism)
* May purchase animals from pet stores or breeders for the sole purpose of watching them mate – (this definitely happens though not as often, even for those who are fantasists, because very often artists need reference of real life content, and don’t always rely on pre-existent artworks)
* May write stories about animals mating – (this is most common that I’ve seen, as I indicate below, there are plenty of people who are vehemently into this, also online roleplay)
* May draw pictures of animals mating – (this is second most common, this ranges from realistic to cartoon, based on a mixture of skill and artistic license / fetishism, as obviously the fantasy-domain is way more permitting and allows intensification of the paraphilia)
* May masturbate while watching or thinking about animals mating – (certainly true, but the content is quite rare / difficult to make, so many rely on fantasy instead)
* May take photographs of animals mating – (certainly this, though as it’s so difficult, usually it’s artists who do this, so they can make it more augmented/impressive for their erotic art audience)
* May download pictures of animals mating from the internet – (this is way the most common way people find real content, though scarce, most people are afraid of doing it themselves, in fear of the association with zoophilia, and how hard it is to film/photograph animals like this)
Faunoiphilia is present in quite a few aspects of the internet.
For example:
* Brazil and Latin America has a considerable base of people who enjoy watching animals mate, they pay for this, and extreme forms of it is present on zoophilic social media. There is media posted by them online also, ranging from natural mating to extreme/sadistic content like horse-on-dog, even exotic animals like tigers made to rape dogs. Also, there is where very young animals are made to have sex with older or other young animals, I believe this is rarer, but it does seem pedophilic or size-difference fetish related. I’m not sure why these countries have such a rich presence of the fetish, but it’s not racial/ethnic, as the ethnicity of these people varies, so I suspect its more localised/geographic/cultural. Perhaps related to poverty or the pre-existence of using animals for entertainment in that demographic (e.g. dog-fighting)? I think also it may be because the websites that host zoophilic content are mostly in countries like these, it’s been impossible for years for governments to take down the extremes. “Perro porn” (a Spanish/Portuguese naming trend to note) seems to indicate that they, like main USA/Europe, prefer dog-oriented bestiality but there’s more a focus on hardcore and faunoiphilic content. Most of their faunoiphilic content involves dogs and equines, this seems pretty much global but I do see exotic animals more common in Brazil, Romania and China for both zoophilia and faunoiphilia. Overall, Germany, USA, UK and Japan seems to lead in autozoophilia, perhaps due to the next groups I enlist, and Brazil has strong faunoiphilia presence but not so much autozoophilia presence. This at least shows some cultural/geographical bias between the cause or perpetuation of faunoiphilia being autozoophilic vs zoophilic directly. This also aligns with Dr Hani Miletski’s research as well on the idea of zoosexuality, because we see clear factors of ETLE, multiple and mono species-preference, etc, meaning zoosexuality is broader than purely zoophilia as being a single fetish/paraphilia, but also breaks her conjecture by highlighting multiple causes and dimensions. So, let me mention the indirect zoosexual groups that are evident on the internet:
* The furry fandom (2 mil+ people) has a tenet of art that is solely dedicated towards lesser anthropomorphic and entirely non-anthropomorphic animal artworks (cartoon, yet the artistic content is becoming increasingly realistic/painterly/3D). They call this “feral furries” (10% of furries) and it is obviously geared towards fantasy but there is strong elements of enacting “animal mating” both visually and as a form of autozoophilia, in both believable and fetishistic forms. Often autozoophilia is stuff like human-on-puppy/pony-player, whereas “feral” roleplayers are usually more into actual animal-on-animal activity. In these circles, faunoiphilia is definitely prevalent, though more-so emulated using artwork and internet roleplay, to an extent some even make fantasy characters. As art became more accessible to learn, so did their artworks become more realistic, but cartoon autozoophilia/faunoiphilia is definitely it’s own thing. This may well also be connected to the MOGIA’s optigenitaliaqueer phenomena (which is ridiculed by some members of the mainstream LGBTQ community), as many of the feral furries express high gender fluidity based on content they view. Perhaps looking at ferals/animals creates a sort of sexual portal for them mentally, in the case of autozoophilic faunoiphiles, eliminating human sexual dimorphism, to experience more gender/sex fluidity. Therefore many of feral roleplayers have varyingly gendered animal characters they play, some that they use as pawns rather than see themselves as, a sort of fantasy faunoiphilic mental game play. Certainly, these people break the mould for how the mainstream views sexuality, and are incredibly creative with realising kinks. Zoosadists who are feral furries seem to be the ones who create a lot of real life necrophiliac and bondage animal content (Kiwi Farms’ Zoosadist Megathread brought awareness to this controversy, as well as Anonymous’ OpBeast activism campaign). This in turn crosses over again with faunoiphilia, when it comes to the sheer amount of what is labelled “interspecies mating”, so looks to me like feral fetishism extremists have created an increasing brew of desire for cross-species content. Furries themselves, who are more into anthropomorphism than “feral” artwork/roleplay, are thought to be roughly 15-18% zoophiles according to Klisoura surveys, whether or not that % declines as it becomes more mainstream is very uncertain/complex.
* There is namely “beast” content common in what is dubbed “rule 34” circles, where people have gratification of realistic 3D and 2D erotic artworks of creatures/animals they’ve seen in popular media. There is a prevalence where they share real animals mating both for gratification and humorous reasons, just like in “feral” and “beast” often crosses with this.
* On 3D metaverses, such as Second Life, VR Chat, Sinespace, etc, there are also people who use avatars or models to see virtual animal copulation, either imagining themselves as the animals or just watching. Certainly in Second Life, people paid 10-40$ for an animal avatar, 10-20$ for 3D genitals and plenty on all kinds of virtual animal sex poses and equipment, so much that people made thousands from this in SL about a decade ago until it was cracked down upon by its administration. There are also, more unrealistic content in VR like the app VR Ferals and a few others I can’t remember the names of, and people demand for more realistic VR animal-on-animal erotic content (though unfortunately for them that’s a difficult/slow venture). And while it’s prominently fantasy many of these people simply enjoy watching and/or being animals copulating. I know very little who roleplay as animals for anything other than sexual gratification, the non-sexual roleplay base seems a lot smaller than the sexual one, least in adults.
I think autozoophilia is a huge mechanic in faunoiphilia, but not always, as many even for fantasy content simply enjoy drawn, animated and real videos of animal copulation for gratification. In the autozoophilic demographic, there’s also an element in say “feral” where there is roleplay gender identity, varying sexual orientation, fetish, etc, meaning roleplayers of those kinds gain intensity from applying unnatural sexual practices to animals.
And on the autozoophilic front as well again, ETLE (erotic-target location error) theory, to me, seems more and more truer. We see people wanting to be other species and age, not just gender or sex. I believe this is due to technology’s advancements making people more mental and wanting to explore the unknown or be unique. There is probably a mental sexual progression towards transhumanism, since the more extreme fantasists tend to also like the idea of bodily modification in general, and creating fetish and visual hybrids. I know that LGBTQ groups have been uppity about the theory of ETLE, but as times have gone by, we can see that it’s much more than just orientation or gender/sex that people fantasise the transition of, as said. I’m not sure if transgender/transsexual mechanics are the same thing, but ETLE definitely exists, and I think the causes varies. Transspeciesism, transageism, are definitely things people exhibit and even get depressed and/or suicidal about, but I think because it seems less natural or more related to say bestiality, people are more likely to prejudice these persons. Obviously transitioning one’s species or age is a lot harder if not entirely modernly impossible at the physical level, but there has been thoughts on transitioning to non-flesh avatars in the transhuman sects of these communities. May be a future part of faunoiphilia then, as a sci-fi as it sounds, will be cybernetic, but for now these groups tend to just stick with artwork, and may be later on VR as technology progresses.
As for non-autozoophilic faunoiphilia, I think this separate classification does exist.
I think there is people who were directly into animal copulation, and others who have taken a more fantasy approach to enacting it. Either way, both of these groups have a massive overlap, and they also overlap massively with bestiality. They however are not all bestialists.
And I can say they’re not all into bestiality (though a huge minority of them are) because they tend to dislike seeing humans in depictions, for example a video or artistic work with a human assisting hand in it is often seen as breaking of immersion. In other words, there is some kind of purity they feel about having no humans in their sexual fantasies. Whereas, bestialists are less likely to care if a human is present. There is however a mix of values here.
Overall, faunoiphiles don’t all nor always seem like they’re always abusive, like the overlap of fantasists/autozoophiles (feral furries, pup/pony-players, rule 34 beast, etc). So it may also be true that faunoiphilia is related to the avoidance of zoophilia as somehow more moral/natural in some cases, too. Some overlap occurs with therians/otherkin as well, where people who are autozoophilic due to believing/feeling they are somehow animals mentally/spiritually, in turn leads also to faunoiphilia and/or zoophilic tendencies. So the world of faunoiphilia, autozoophilia and zoophilism is a very complex one, with the internet exposing ever more and more of it. Faunoiphiles/autozoophiles are to bestiality, as infant paraphilism is to pedophilia. They look similar and share mechanics but aren’t mutually inclusive, and as a a minority are also subject to unfair abuse and mislabelling or the slippery slope argument may be used. However, to my knowledge there are no rules prohibiting non-abusive faunoiphilic practice, but there is a lot of prejudice towards it. I think this is why you won’t see too many open faunoiphiles, but I don’t think it’s true faunoiphilia is always a stage leading to bestiality, it’s just a huge overlap as aforementioned. The autozoophilic mechanics of faunoiphilia certainly point to the fact that, it may well be more common for them to imagine themselves as an animal instead and so they may equally be in un-want of bestiality just as the average non-bestialist.