Content provided in partnership with
 |
 |
 |
 |
A contemporary look at sex between humans and animals - Understanding Bestiality & Zoophilia - Book Review
Understanding Bestiality & Zoophilia. By Hani Miletski. Bethesda, MD: East-West Publishing Co., 2002, 273 pages. Paper, $30.00.
This is the best overall survey of bestiality that I have read. It is based on a doctoral dissertation at the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco, and is one of the few dissertations from that institution to be published. The title itself is important since Miletski, following the work of Mark Matthews (1994), believes there are two general classes of people who have sex with animals: (a) the bestialists, who have had one or a few sexual contacts with an animal or use animals when a more "normal" outlet is not available; and (b) the zoophiles, who prefer animals as sex partners and often form deep emotional relationships with them. Whereas these definitions are useful for studies of people currently involved in animal relationships and those who can be interviewed, they are not so useful for historical study of such activity, which tends to be confused by use of such terminology as sodomy, unnatural acts, and zooerasty.
Using a wide range of secondary sources dealing with the history of sexuality, Miletski examines animal and human sexual contacts area by area, from prehistoric times to the most recent, all in less than 30 pages. In spite of its brevity, it is the most comprehensive summary listing that I have seen in print. References to actual contacts are not always easy to locate and it is worth noting that some observers, for example, reported animal-human contacts as widespread in China, whereas others claimed they were comparatively rare. Such contradictions only amplify the confused state of and lack of research on this topic.
From surveying the widespread existence of animal-human contact, Miletski then turns to surveying the explanations for such conduct offered by earlier investigators ranging from Krafft-Ebing (1935), Freud (1963), and Menninger (1951), to Kinsey (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948; Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953) and his associates (Gebhard, Gagnon, Pomeroy, & Christensen, 1965), to John Money (1986). The differences in findings are evident in the changing explanations provided in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual from the first edition (published in 1952) to the fourth edition (published in 1994).
It seems clear from Miletski's summary of the existing literature that very little is actually known about bestiality and there is not anything approaching a consensus as to why animal-human sexual contacts occur. Research on the topic, while out of the mainstream of sexuality research, has been further complicated by the growing groups of animal rights advocates who wonder whether animals can consent or whether animal-human sexual contact is harmful to animals, which drives potential respondents further underground. Miletski simply reports the conflicting views of the various positions on this issue and does not take sides.
The investigation of the topic is complicated further still by the fact that many of the existing reports and studies should be classified more as pseudo-science than serious research. As far as data on actual numbers involved, Kinsey's research is probably the most objective attempt to define the extent of the practice, although Miletski believes Morton Hunt's (1974) study was helpful. Unfortunately little survey data on the topic exists since those earlier works.
All of this discussion is by way of introduction to Miletski's own study, which is based on detailed responses from 82 men and 11 women to a mailed questionnaire. The average age of the men was 38 years (range = 19-78, median = 37) and of the women 36 (range = 21-48, median = 35). The major hurdle in conducting the study was obtaining respondents. Miletski received referrals from professionals through advertisements in sexuality newsletters, from references from survey respondents who knew others, and from contacts made via the Internet. It was really the Internet and its vast resources, including chat rooms, that made such research possible. To verify her Internet data, however, Miletski also had face-to-face contacts with a number of individuals in her sample.
Much of the book is devoted to reporting the responses to the lengthy questionnaire. The statistical analyses are simple, generally percentages who responded in particular ways, with no attempt to go beyond a descriptive account. There is also copious quotation from respondents because once they found an interested researcher, many had a lot to say. The author calls her study a descriptive one, and recognizes that it has inherent flaws. This makes Miletski hesitant to claim any generalized significance, in part also because she found that there was little other than their sexual relations with animals that would distinguish her respondents from other Americans. Instead, Miletski indicates the hope that she has opened the door to others, and she describes what kind of future studies are needed. Miletski has given such future researchers a foundation upon which to build.