Animal passions: Why would anyone want to have sex with an animal?

Note: A shortened version of this article was first published in The Independent.

Last month, Denmark passed a law making bestiality a criminal offence from July 1st in a move to tackle animal-sex tourism. Bestiality (also known as zoophilia) is typically defined as relating to recurrent intense sexual fantasies, urges, and sexual activities with non-human animals. At present, there are still a number of countries where zoophilia is legal including Brazil, Mexico, Thailand, Finland, Hungary, and Romania. In the US there is no federal law against zoophilia although most states class it as a felony and/or misdemeanour although in some states it is technically legal (for example, Texas, Kentucky, Nevada, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Wyoming, West Virginia, and New Mexico).

Over the last few years I have written articles on the psychology of many different types of zoophilia including those who have engaged in sexual activities with dogs (cynophilia), cats (aelurophilia), horses (equinophilia), pigs (porcinophilia), birds (ornithophilia), dolphins (delphinophilia), lizards (herpetophilia), worms (vermiphilia), and insects (formicophilia). Dr. Alfred Kinsey shocked the US back in the 1950s when his infamous ‘Kinsey Reports’ claimed that 8% of males and 4% females had at least one sexual experience with an animal. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there was a much higher prevalence for zoophilic acts among people that who worked on farms (for instance, 17% males had experienced an orgasmic episode involving animals). According to Kinsey, the most frequent sexual acts that humans engaged in with animals comprised calves, sheep, donkeys, large fowl (ducks, geese), dogs and cats.

In the 1970s, world renowned sexologist Professor John Money claimed that zoophilic behaviours were usually transitory occurring when there is no other sexual outlet available. However, research carried out in the 2000s shows this not be the case. Up until the advent of the internet, almost every scientific or clinical study reported on zoophilia were case reports of individuals that has sought treatment for their unusual sexual preference. However, the internet brought many like-minded people together and there are dozens of websites where zoophiles chat to each other online and share their videos including the Beast Forum, the largest online zoophile community in the world with tens of thousands of members.

Almost all of the recently published studies have collected their data online from non-clinical samples. All of these studies report that the overwhelming majority of self-identified male and female zoophiles do not have sex with animals because there is no other sexual outlet but do so because it is their sexual preference. The most common reasons for engaging in zoophilic relationships were attraction to animals out of either a desire for affection, and a sexual attraction toward and/or a love for animals.

For instance, a study by Dr. Hani Miletski surveyed 93 zoophiles (82 males and 11 females). Only 12% of her sample said they engaged in sex with animals because there were no human partners available, and only 7% said it was because they were too shy to have sex with humans. For the females, the main reasons for having sex with animals was because they were sexually attracted to the animal (100%), had love and affection for the animal (67%) and/or because they said the animal wanted sex with them (67%). Most of Miletski’s sample preferred sex with dogs (87% males; 100% females) and/or horses (81% males; 73% females). Only 8% of males wanted to stop having sex with animals and none of the females. Unlike case study reports of zoophilia published prior to 2000, the studies published over the last 15 years using non-clinical samples report the vast majority of zoophiles do not appear to be suffering any significant clinical significant distress or impairment as a consequence of their behaviour.

In 2011, Dr Anil Aggrawal published a comprehensive typology of zoophilia in the Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine. Dr. Aggrawal’s claimed there were ten different types of zoophile based on both the scientific and clinical literature, as well as some theoretical speculation. For instance:

• Human–animal role-players – those who never have sex with animals but become sexually aroused through wanting to have sex with humans who pretend to be animals.
• Romantic zoophiles – those who keeps animals as pets as a way to get psychosexually stimulated without actually having any kind of sexual contact with them.
• Zoophilic fantasizers – those who fantasize about having sexual intercourse with animals but never actually do.
• Tactile zoophiles – those who get sexual excitement from touching, stroking or fondling animals or their genitals but do not actually have sexual intercourse with animals.
• Fetishistic zoophiles – those who keep various animal parts (especially fur) that are used as erotic stimuli as a crucial part of their sexual activity (typically masturbation). (See my previous blog on the use of an animal part as a masturbatory aid)
• Sadistic bestials – those who derive sexual arousal from the torturing of animals (known as zoosadismhttps://drmarkgriffiths.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/stuff-love-a-beginners-guide-to-plushophilia/) but does not involve sexual intercourse with the animal.
• Opportunistic zoosexuals – those who have normal sexual encounters but would have sexual intercourse with animals if the opportunity arose.
• Regular zoosexuals – those who prefer sex with animals than sex with humans (but are capable of having sex with both). Such zoophiles will engage in a wide range of sexual activities with animals and love animals on an emotional level.
• Homicidal bestials – those who need to kill animals in order to have sex with them. Although capable of having sex with living animals, there is an insatiable desire to have sex with dead animals.
• Exclusive zoosexuals – those who only have sex with animals to the exclusion of human sexual partners.

Personally, I don’t view human-animal role players as zoophiles as this would include those in the Furry Fandom (individuals that dress up and interact socially as animals). There is no official definition of what a ‘furry’ actually is although most furries would agree that they share an interest in fictional anthromorphic animal characters that have human characteristics and personalities and/or mythological or imaginary creatures that possess human and/or superhuman capabilities. The furry fandom has also developed its own vocabulary including words such as ‘fursona’ (furry persona), ‘plushie’ (person who has sex with cuddly toys), and ‘yiff’ (furry pornography). A study by David J. Rust of 360 members of the furry community suggested less than 1% were plushophiles and that 2% were zoophiles.

Many zoophiles believe that in years to come, their sexual preference will be seen as no different to being gay or straight. This is not a view I adhere to especially because animals cannot give consent (although many zoophiles claim the animals they have sexual relationships with do give ‘consent’). The one thing we do know is that the internet has revolutionised the way we carry out our research and get access to ‘hard to reach’ groups. Thanks to online research, zoophilia is just one of many sexually atypical behaviours that we now know more about both behaviourally and psychologically.

Dr. Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Further reading

Aggrawal, A. (2011). A new classification of zoophilia. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 18, 73-78.

Beetz, Andrea (2002). Love, Violence, and Sexuality in Relationships between Humans and Animals. Germany: Shaker Verlag.

Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C.E., Gebhard, P.H. (1953). Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Company.

Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C.E., (1948). Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Company.

R.J. Maratea (2011). Screwing the pooch: Legitimizing accounts in a zoophilia on-line community. Deviant Behavior, 32, 918-943.

Miletski, H. (2000). Bestiality and zoophilia: An exploratory study. Scandinavian Journal of Sexology, 3, 149–150.

Miletski, H. (2001). Zoophilia – implications for therapy. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 26, 85–89.

Miletski, H. (2002). Understanding bestiality and zoophilia. Germantown, MD: Ima Tek Inc.

Williams, C. J., & Weinberg, M. S. (2003). Zoophilia in men: A study of sexual interest in animals. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 523–535.

Blog-nitive psychology: 500 articles and counting

It’s hard for me to believe that this is the 500th article that I have published on my personal blog. It’s also the shortest. I apologise that it is not about any particular topic but a brief look back at what my readers access when they come across my site. (Regular readers might recall I did the same thing back in October 2012 in an article I wrote called ‘Google surf: What does the search for sex online say about someone?’). As of August 26 (2014), my blog had 1,788,932 visitors and is something I am very proud of (as I am now averaging around 3,500 visitors a day). As I write this blog, my most looked at page is my blog’s home page (256,262 visitors) but as that changes every few days this doesn’t really tell me anything about people like to access on my site.

Below is a list of all the blogs that I have written that have had over 10,000 visitors (and just happens to be 25 articles exactly).

• Coprophilia (40,001)
• Urophilia (38,933)
• Somnophilia (22,291)
• Trampling fetishes (20,651)
• Urethral manipulation (20,234)
• Scrotal infusion (20,041)
• Genital bisection (18,715)
• Felching (18,193)
• Vorarephilia (16,566)
• Insect sting fetishes (16,236)
• Transformation fetishes (15,731)
• Amputee fetishes (15,467)
• Macrophilia (15,322)
• Sexual masochism (13,937)
• Formicophilia (13,655)
• Eproctophilia (13,295)
• Lactophilia (12,656)
• Equinophilia (12,434)
• Spit fetishes (12,259)
• Menophilia (11,855)
• Paraphilic infantilism (11,590)
• Zoophilia (11,235)
• Transvestic fetishism (10,661)
• Forniphilia (10,046)
• Necrophilia (10,020)

The first thing that struck me about my most read about articles is that they all concern sexual fetishes and paraphilias (in fact the top 30 all concern sexual fetishes and paraphilias – the 31st most read article is one on coprophagia [7,250 views] with my article on excessive nose picking being the 33rd most read [6,745 views]). This obviously reflects either (a) what people want to read about, and/or (b) reflect issues that people have in their own lives.

I’ve had at least five emails from readers who have written me saying (words to the effect of) “Why can’t you write what you are supposed to write about (i.e., gambling)?” to which I reply that although I am a Professor of Gambling Studies, I widely research in other areas of addictive behaviour. I simply write about the extremes of human behaviour and things that I find of interest. (In fact, only one article on gambling that I have written is in the top 100 most read articles and that was on gambling personality [3,050 views]). If other people find them of interest, that’s even better. However, I am sometimes guided by my readers, and a small but significant minority of the blogs I have written have actually been suggested by emails I have received (my blogs on extreme couponing, IVF addiction, loom bands, ornithophilia, condom snorting, and haircut fetishes come to mind).

Given this is my 500th article in my personal blog, it won’t come as any surprise to know that I take my blogging seriously (in fact I have written academic articles on the benefits of blogging and using blogs to collect research data [see ‘Further reading’ below] and also written an article on ‘addictive blogging’!). Additionally (if you didn’t already know), I also have a regular blog column on the Psychology Today website (‘In Excess’), as well as regular blogging for The Independent newspaper, The Conversation, GamaSutra, and Rehabs.com. If there was a 12-step ‘Blogaholics Anonymous’ I might even be the first member.

“My name is Mark and I am a compulsive blogger”

Dr. Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Further reading

Griffiths, M.D. (2012). Blog eat blog: Can blogging be addictive? April 23. Located at: https://drmarkgriffiths.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/blog-eat-blog-can-blogging-be-addictive/

Griffiths, M.D. (2012). Stats entertainment: A review of my 2012 blogs. December 31. Located at: https://drmarkgriffiths.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/stats-entertainment-a-review-of-my-2012-blogs/

Griffiths, M.D. (2013). How writing blogs can help your academic career. Psy-PAG Quarterly, 87, 39-40.

Griffiths, M.D. (2013). Stats entertainment (Part 2): A 2013 review of my personal blog. December 31. Located at: https://drmarkgriffiths.wordpress.com/2013/12/31/stats-entertainment-part-2-a-2013-review-of-my-personal-blog/

Griffiths, M.D. (2014). Top tips on…Writing blogs. Psy-PAG Quarterly, 90, 13-14.

Griffiths, M.D. (2014). Blogging the limelight: A personal account of the benefit of excessive blogging. May 8. Located at: https://drmarkgriffiths.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/blogging-the-limelight-a-personal-account-of-the-benefits-of-excessive-blogging/

Griffiths, M.D., Lewis, A., Ortiz de Gortari, A.B. & Kuss, D.J. (2014). Online forums and blogs: A new and innovative methodology for data collection. Studia Psychologica, in press.

Horseplay: An introduction to equinophilia

In previous blogs I have examined many different types of zoophilia. Today’s blog takes a more in-depth look at equinophilia (i.e., a sexual paraphilia where individuals are sexually attracted to horses and/or have sex with horses and is also known by the alternative – and somewhat confusing – name of hippophilia). This has nothing to do with ‘pony-play’ (which I examined in a previous blog) as this is a form of ritualized bondage that involves a person dressed as a “pony” and a rider where sex may take place between the two of them. Some have argued that ‘pony-play’ is a more sexualized form of the Furry Fandom but neither of these is a form of equinophilia.

In an essay that I wrote on Adam Ant’s songs about sexual paraphilias for Headpress: The Journal of Sex, Death and Religion, I mentioned that one of his songs Why Do Girls Love Horses? was about women who get sexually aroused from riding horses (i.e., they experience clitoral stimulation while riding on horses to the point where some women will have an orgasm). Whether this is equinophilia or a sub-type of it is highly debatable. However, there is certainly empirical evidence that both men and women have engaged in sexual relationships with horses. Before I get to the empirical research, I did come across a small article on equinophilia at the Kinky Questions website that claimed:

“There are women who enjoy being penetrated by a horse due to his large penis. It has not only a great staying power; but also a large volume of semen what makes it attractive to a person for various sexual games. As all other sexual acts with animals it is prohibited an illegal in most countries. In Washington [US] the law was put in place only after the death of a man who had anal sex with a stallion (2005).
(The horse was penetrating man’s anus; not the other way around!). The man ended up with a perforated colon and he died in the emergency room. It is easy to understand he didn’t want to go to the hospital despite internal injuries. The incident was also videotaped. In 2006 an Australian woman (aged 35) was charged with having sex with a horse near Sydney”.

As I have noted in a few of my previous articles on zoophilia, most of the recent studies of zoophilia since 2000 have typically collected their data online from non-clinical samples. This has included studies by Dr Andrea Beetz (on 32 zoophiles), Dr Colin Williams and Dr Martin Weinberg (on 114 zoophiles), and Dr Hani Miletski (on 93 zoophiles). For instance, Hani Miletski used the internet to find zoophiles, and recruited them via advertisements in a zoophile magazine (i.e., Wild Animal Review). These studies all reported that both male and female self-identified zoophiles were attracted to animals out of either a desire for affection, a sexual attraction toward, and/or a love for animals including horses.

Miletski’s study comprised 82 male and 11 female zoophiles. Most of the sample preferred sex with dogs (87% males; 100% females) and/or horses (81% males; 73% females).  A total of 91% engaged in sex with animals because they were sexually attracted to it. Only 12% said it was because no human partners were available, and only 7% said it was because they were too shy to have sex with humans Andrea Beetz’ study comprised 32 male zoophiles. Like Miletski’s study, sex had occurred mainly with dogs (78%) or horses (53%). Many of the zoophiles said they had a very close emotional attachment to their animals and reported that they love their animal partner as others love their human partner. In all three studies, the most commonly preferred animals were either dogs or horses. However, it must be noted that these three studies, while extensive compared to the case reports published since Alfred Kinsey’s pioneering studies, collected data from non-clinical samples. Therefore, and unlike case study reports, the participants did not appear to be suffering any significant clinical significant distress or impairment as a consequence of their love for animals (mostly dogs and/or horses).

In one of the many essays on the pro-zoophilia website Vivid Random Existence (VRE), the anonymous author (himself a self-admitted zoophile) penned an article on equinophilia. The following verbatim text is reported to give you an idea of the position that most zoophiles would probably take. The author wrote:

“If you are sexually attracted to horses, there is nothing wrong with you. There are hundreds of thousands of people just like you who are sexually attracted to horses. In fact, for many of them, just the sight of a horse’s rear end get them sexually aroused. Unfortunately, most of these people are hiding in the zoosexual closet because they are afraid of being persecuted by delusional/irrational laws, and they are afraid of being socially rejected…Equine zoosexuality is one of the more tangible forms of zoosexuality. On the zoosexual orientation wheel, there are various types of attractions (such as to dolphins) that and intangible. But because horses and ponies are so common, it is not difficult to live an equine zoosexual lifestyle. All it takes is a rural environment (i.e. a house in the countryside), a place to keep livestock, a horse or pony, and secure area (i.e. a place where nobody will be able to spy on you and tip off people in the area about your supposedly “immoral” activities). As I have discussed in previous posts, having sex with an animal is not immoral, it is not abusive, and it is not sick. After all, humans ARE animals. If an animal is too small, then it is abusive – but because horses and ponies are so large, having sex with them is almost always non-abusive”.

I am not sure there is any empirical evidence that there are “hundreds of thousands” of equinophiles out there although I admit that there are most likely thousands worldwide assuming that the studies of people like Beetz and Miletski (and even Kinsey) are the ‘tip of the iceberg’. (If not we are more likely talking in the hundreds rather than the thousands). I also take issue with the ‘abuse and size’ argument. Just because an animal may not be physically harmed, does not mean it hasn’t been abused. For me, the issue is one of consent, and animals simply can’t give consent for sexual behaviour even if they are engaged in the sexual act. The author of the VRE essay then goes on to say:

“There are many options in terms of equine zoosexuality. A human male can penetrate a horse or pony of either gender (either vaginally or anally). A human male can also be anally penetrated by a male horse, but this act is dangerous and has at least once resulted in the death of the person…A human female can be vaginally or anally penetrated by a male horse, but again this a risky act. Human males and females can also engage in oral sex with a horse, either by stimulating the horse’s penis or by allowing to horse to stimulate the genitals of the human”

The equinophilia essay then does what I do in my own blogs when there is a lack of empirical data (i.e., flesh out the article with self-confessed online accounts). The VRE essay includes three very long extracts of equinophiles’ experiences with horses (if you want to read them – and it will take a while – you can click on the link here). The essay then uses the quotes as ‘evidence’ that the horses are enjoying the sexual experience. The author states (and I’ve kept in the author’s own emboldened emphases:

“Although opponents of bestiality often claim that animals don’t enjoy having sex with humans, the [long quote cited in the essay] show that this is not case, and that most animals do enjoy having sexual encounters with humans. Some animals (such as dolphins) are even fully sexually attracted to humans. There are obviously exceptions (i.e. when the animal is forced to have sex in a cruel manner), but that type of situation is rare because most zoosexuals are not cruel to animals, and most zoosexuals have a genuine compassion for animals. Remember, most heterosexual people wouldn’t rape someone; there are bad people in every group, but most are good. Also, the quote above shows that it is unfair to label bestiality as ‘rape’ because in many cases (probably most cases) the animal consents to (or rejects) sex in a non-verbal way”…Whenever anybody claims that having sex with a horse is automatically abuse, it makes me angry because that is not true. As already mentioned, horses enjoy sexual activity with humans, and the only reason it is prohibited is because of delusional unfair laws and irrational social taboos. Otherwise, people would be having sex with horses all the time, because there are a lot of people out there who get aroused by horses and find them incredibly sexy (and there are a lot of horses that find people incredibly sexy)…The [quotes from eqinophiles] prove several things; it proves zoophiles do not just have sex with animals for their own enjoyment – they do it for the enjoyment of themselves and their non-human lover. Secondly, it supports the idea that most zoophiles are not abusive towards their animals. Thirdly, it proves (once again) that non-human animals can consent to sex in their own way. All those bigots out there who condemn bestiality/zoosexuality fail to realize that in most cases (such as the one above), sexual relationships between humans and non-human animals are mutually satisfying – in other words, both enjoy the sex, one is not taking advantage of the other, no injury is occurring, and the animal (in this case a horse) clearly wants to engage in sex with the human”.

Although this final extract might appear very long, it is actually a relatively short snippet from the full essay and it uses many of the discourse techniques that I outlined in a previous blog on how the zoophilic community justify their behaviour. These justification techniques were outlined in an excellent 2011 paper in the journal Deviant Behavior by Dr. R.J. Maretea. He claimed that his data (collected from an online zoophilic forum) suggest that zoophiles routinely justify their actions through four particular types of argument: (i) denial of injury, (ii) justification by comparison, (iii) claims of benefit, and (iv) condemning of condemners. He also asserts that zoophiles produce what is termed “neutralizing accounts”. More specifically, these three types were categorized as (i) appeals to enlightenment, (ii) claims of cultural diffusion, and (iii) neutralization by comparison. Interestingly, nearly all of these techniques are used in the extract I included in this blog.

Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Further reading

Beetz, Andrea (2002). Love, Violence, and Sexuality in Relationships between Humans and Animals. Germany: Shaker Verlag.

Griffiths, M.D. (1998). Cak-watch (continued): A return to Animal Farm. Headpress: The Journal of Sex, Death and Religion, 17, 65-66.

Griffiths, M.D (1999). Adam Ant: sex and perversion for teenyboppers. Headpress: The Journal of Sex, Death and Religion, 19, 116-119.

Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C.E., Gebhard, P.H. (1953). Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Company.

Kinky Questions (2012), Equinophilia. Located at: http://www.kinky-sex-questions.com/equinophilia.html

Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C.E., (1948). Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Company.

R.J. Maratea (2011). Screwing the pooch: Legitimizing accounts in a zoophilia on-line community. Deviant Behavior, 32, 918-943.

Miletski, H. (2000). Bestiality and zoophilia: An exploratory study. Scandinavian Journal of Sexology, 3, 149–150.

Miletski, H. (2001). Zoophilia – implications for therapy. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 26, 85–89.

Miletski, H. (2002). Understanding bestiality and zoophilia. Germantown, MD: Ima Tek Inc.

Vivid Random Existence (2011). Equinsexuality (or equinophilia): The sexual attraction to horses. July 26. Located at: (http://vividrandomexistence.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/equinosexuality-or-equinophilia-the-sexual-attraction-to-horses/

Williams, C. J., & Weinberg, M. S. (2003). Zoophilia in men: A study of sexual interest in animals. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 523–535.