Research perspectives Zoophilia has been 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). In the fifth edition of the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), zoophilia is placed in the classification "other specified paraphilic disorder" ("
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". In the DSM-5, it rises to the level of a diagnosable disorder only when accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning. Zoophilia may 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: 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 prior to 1910. Peer-reviewed research into zoophilia in its own right started around 1960. A number of the most oft-quoted studies, such as Miletski, were not published in
peer-reviewed journals. There have been several significant books, from psychologists William H. Masters (1962) to Andrea 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 bestial ones, and bestial partners are usually dogs and/or horses. • 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. 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 become aroused by multiple species (which may or may not include humans), and some are not attracted to humans at all.
Historical and cultural perspectives . This German illustration shows Jews performing bestiality on a
Judensau, while Satan watches. Instances of zoophilia and bestiality have been found in the Bible, but the earliest depictions of bestiality have been found 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 the cave painting as a show of power of a tribal chief. It is unknown if this practice was then more accepted, if the scene depicted was usual or unusual, or if it was symbolic or imaginary. According to the Cambridge Illustrated History of Prehistoric Art, the penetrating man seems to be waving cheerfully with his hand at the same time.
Potters of the time period seem to have spent time depicting the practice, but this may be because they found the idea amusing. The anthropologist Dr "Jacobus X", said that the cave paintings occurred "before any known taboos against sex with animals existed". William H. Masters claimed that "since pre-historic man is
prehistoric it goes without saying that we know little of his sexual behavior"; depictions in cave paintings may only show the artist's subjective preoccupations or thoughts.
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 may be a form of propaganda or
xenophobia, similar to
blood libel. Several cultures built temples (
Khajuraho, India) or other structures (
Sagaholm, Sweden) with zoophilic carvings on the exterior. At
Khajuraho these depictions are not on the interior, perhaps depicting them as things that belong to the profane world rather than the spiritual world, and thus are to be left outside. 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. 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 temples to 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. According to the Hindu tradition of erotic painting and sculpture, having sex with an animal is believed to be actually a human having sex with a god incarnated in the form of an animal. In some Hindu scriptures, such as the
Bhagavata Purana and the
Devi Bhagavata Purana, having sex with animals, especially the cow, leads one to
hell, where one is tormented by having one's body rubbed on trees with razor-sharp thorns. Similarly, the
Manusmriti in verse 11.173 also condemns the act of bestiality and prescribes punishments for it: A man who has had sexual intercourse with nonhuman females, or with a menstruating woman,—and he who has discharged his semen in a place other than the female organ, or in water,—should perform the ‘Sāntapana Kṛcchra. (Sāntapana Kṛcchra is a six-day expiatory fast where one consumes cow’s urine, dung, milk, curd, and ghee on successive days, followed by complete fasting (nirāhāra) on the sixth day to purify body and mind. Manusmṛti 11.213–215) == Legal status ==