Add indexes to publications

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 273 deletions

diff --git a/writing/consent.txt b/writing/consent.txt
deleted file mode 100644
index dd93d19..0000000
--- a/writing/consent.txt
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,273 +0,0 @@
-Issues of consent in human-animal sexual relations
-=======================================================================
-
-### Nick White  
-### 2008
-
-Introduction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-This paper arose from a talk I gave for the Lampeter Anthrozoology
-society, which I did not expect to seriously pursue. However in the
-preparation and subsequent discussion of the talk I stumbled upon a
-host of issues that I found very interesting indeed. This paper is an
-attempt to follow up on one of the thorniest issues raised, that of
-consent in human-animal sexual relations; how it may be judged, and
-why it matters.
-
-I'll start by giving a little information on key terms, and how I'm
-using them here. I will then go on to explain in greater detail the
-question that this paper addresses. Next will be a review of relevant
-anthropological theory, and how it may be applied to better understand
-the debate. I will follow this with an examination and deconstruction
-of some of the justifications given for the special treatment of
-zoophilia compared to other areas of human-animal interaction, and
-then conclude with a discussion of the implications of research in
-this area for anthropology.
-
-The conversations upon which this work is based are responses are
-gathered from entirely informal discussions friends; they are not
-informed by any fieldwork or rigorous methodology.
-
-
-Key Terms
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-First an explanation of potentially the most ambiguous term I'm using
-here: zoophilia. Different scholars have put this term to many
-different uses over the years, but with the emergence of a
-self-identified zoo community the word has taken a more definite and
-stable form. Zoophilia, as used by members of the community, refers to
-the romantic love of non-human animals, which while not necessarily
-entailing sexual expression, does tend to imply it. I will be focusing
-on the sexual aspect of such relationships in this paper.
-
-The term bestiality refers more strictly to sexual acts between human
-and non-human animals. Whether use of the term is appropriate to refer
-to sexual contact as part of a loving relationship is not widely
-agreed upon.
-
-'Zoo' is a self-identifying and self-created term for members of the
-community of zoophiles which grew up and thrived in the more anonymous
-and safe spaces offered by Fidonet and the Internet.
-
-
-Question Addressed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-Zoophilia is often referred to as 'one of the last taboos' in Western
-Europe and America, and problematic as such an assertion may be it is
-undeniable that many people feel uncomfortable about the topic, in
-many cases considering intra-species sex as an abhorrent and
-incomprehensible activity. When pressed beyond answers along the lines
-of "it's just gross" and "it's wrong," the reasons people gave me for
-their objections often revolved around issues of consent. Zoophiles
-often respond to accusations of non-consensual sex by pointing to the
-great physical strength of the animals they engage with and the
-resultant ease with which the animal could end the sex act if it so
-chose. However this answer fails to address the issue of informed
-consent and coercion, which are at the heart of the argument. An
-animal can not be understood definitely enough to know if it consents,
-and even if it could it is doubtful that such consent could be
-considered 'informed.'
-
-The question which interests me in the response of my informants is
-why consent is seen as necessary at all. Consent is not considered as
-important in a great many human-animal interactions, from sleeping
-arrangements to reproductive activity (in the case of neutering or
-artificial insemination) to killing and consuming for reasons of
-dietary preference, all of which would be considered utterly
-unacceptable in human-human interactions without the consent of each
-party. (Whether human-human killing is acceptable if consent is
-granted is a controversial issue, as can be seen in debates
-surrounding euthanasia.)
-
-
-Review of Relevant Theory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-A reasonable place to start to examine and answer these questions is
-in a review of relevant anthropological theory. In particular I'll be
-looking at how Ingold's model of Trust and Domination and Milton's
-work on Egomorphism are useful in understanding the varying reactions
-of people to zoophilia.
-
-First, though, it's worth quickly reviewing the idea of a dichotomy
-between humanity and 'nature' (which includes animals). Put simply,
-this model conceives humans as a combination of two distinct parts,
-part nature and part transcendent of nature (expressed in theology as
-the body and the soul). According to this belief system humans are
-fundamentally different from their surroundings, and moreover "it is
-the proper destiny of human beings to *overcome* the condition of
-animality to which the life of all other creatures is confined"
-(Ingold 1994: 2 [original emphasis]). The mark of a 'civilised'
-person, to which all should aspire, is the extent to which they have
-cultivated their transcendent self, suppressing that which is
-identified with nature.
-
-It is quite simple to see why Zoophilia would be problematic in such a
-model. In sexually engaging with an animal, a person necessarily
-rejects their transcendent self - and all that their 'civilised
-society' has been built to overcome - and instead embraces their
-animal nature. Simultaneously to this the 'wildness' of the animal is
-compromised, thus also unfairly disturbing its place in the order of
-things.
-
-Such ideologies are alive and well today - with arguments frequently
-framed in terms which make it difficult to think outside of them (Bell
-and Russell 2000: 192) - but they are little help in addressing issues
-of consent. Under such models animals are so unquestionably
-oppressable by and different from humans that they are simply not
-empowered to give or refuse consent regarding any human action.
-Arguments for the importance of consent, which I am focusing on here,
-cannot then rest upon such a model.  
-
-A more illuminating model for our purposes may be found in Tim
-Ingold's theory of trust and domination, which he elaborates in
-considering the different engagements with non-human animals of
-hunter-gatherers and pastoralists.
-
-In his model hunter-gatherers do not seek to entirely control their
-food supply, but rather trust that appropriate engagements with the
-animals they wish to eat will provide a good and reasonable amount of
-food, in quantities and qualities acceptable both to the animal and
-the hunter. Such a view attributes agency to all actors, and
-presupposes an active and participatory engagement between species
-(Ingold 1994: 13-15).
-
-Pastoralists, by contrast, seek to entirely control and manage their
-food supply, by means of domination. Consent of an animal is not
-considered as relevant to the task of food production. Animals
-pastorally managed "are cared for, but are not themselves empowered to
-care," with the herdsman taking the role of "protector, guardian and
-executioner" (Ingold 1994: 16). While animals are allowed some
-freedoms, this is only within the bounds defined by the humans
-'managing' them. In the words of Bill Hicks, "You are free (to do what
-we tell you)."
-
-This turns out to be a quite nice way of contrasting different views of
-zoophilic engagements with animals. Zoophiles, on the one hand,
-generally see their relations with animals as based on trust, in which
-the animal is empowered to give or refuse consent, and each party in
-the relationship may offer themselves freely to the other. Those who
-argue against zoophilia on grounds of consent, however, view such
-engagements as inevitably dominated by the will of the human - the
-animal being powerless to resist - and any human 'interference' is
-therefore necessarily exploitative.
-
-The most useful theory for examining consent in zoophilia however is
-Kay Milton's model of egomorphism. Here Milton suggests that rather
-than anthropomorphically stating that people perceive animal
-characteristics as like humans' (and thereby implying that they really
-can not be), it is far more accurate to talk of people perceiving
-individual characteristics of an animal as similar to certain of their
-own characteristics. She then goes further, noting, with Ingold, that
-one will perceive quite different characteristics and meanings based
-on how one interacts with the environment.
-
-The large variety of meanings which may be interpreted from the
-perception of similar situations will inevitably result in different
-ethical implications. While consent may be easily recognised by many
-people in many situations, its recognition will be dependant on how
-one interacts with their surrounding environment. Where a zoophile may
-perceive an animal raising its tail as a clear invitation, a
-non-zoophile may perceive it as an automatic reaction, an example of
-confusion, or equally likely will not notice it at all. Here then we
-also encounter the tricky problem of 'only seeing what you want to
-see'.
-
-The lack of any significant weighing in of the scientific
-establishment on the psychological capabilities and limitations of
-animals (at least in the public consciousness), coupled with the
-increased difficulty most feel in communicating with an animal which
-is not able to speak their language, leads to a large range of
-observed characteristics in animals between different people. This
-correspondingly leads to a significant difference of moral
-implications, and hence to increased conflict.
-
-
-Deconstruction of Justifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-All of this good theory has however yet to completely address the
-central question of this paper; why is consent more important for
-human-animal sex than interactions such as human-animal killing?
-
-Bolliger and Goetschel, both lawyers, argue in a recent essay (2005)
-that animals should be legally protected from sexual advances made by
-humans. Their arguments are not unique. The most relevant part of the
-article follows:
-
-> One should act on the assumption that the animal's consent is
-> forced, either through an *artificial* fixation on a person or by
-> use of other *psychological methods*... Admittedly, in our society
-> many animals are used against their will for other purposes, such as
-> animal testing or the production of food... However, different to
-> zoophilia, most of these actions can be *socially justified*.  
-> (Bolliger and Goetschel 2005: 40 [added emphasis])
-
-Firstly it's worth quickly examining the contention that animals could
-only give consent after 'psychological methods' were used by humans.
-It seems odd that psychology is presented as a particularly unfair and
-manipulative part of a relationship; psychology is after all generally
-considered a completely inevitable facet of human relationships.
-Furthermore, to deny the acceptability of any power differentials -
-which are of course present in any relationship - is hardly reasonable
-or realistic.
-
-The argument that industries such as animal testing and food
-'production' may be 'socially justified,' but zoophilia may not, is
-also rather odd. Zoophilia is, after all, inherently social, and
-moreover is argued to be an attempt at the pinnacle of social
-relationships for zoophiles, namely a relationship of love and
-fulfilment which may not even be possible for them with other humans.
-To argue then that this is less 'socially justified' than the desire
-to have a larger variety of food, cosmetics and cleaning products,
-doesn't seem to me to be reasonable, at least not without further
-justification.
-
-
-Conclusion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-It is difficult to find many detailed examinations of why consent is
-more important in areas of sex than other human-animal interactions in
-literature, and this presents itself therefore as a good area to
-conduct research. This paper in particular suffers from a very
-unfocused and vague sample of people, whom I fear I may be speaking
-more for than of, as well as the quite frequent and unsupported citing
-of the beliefs of an unqualified 'majority.'
-
-The issue of zoophilia, sparse as serious discourse on it may be,
-proves particularly capable at illuminating the models of
-classification through which people interpret the animals in their
-environment, in prompting people to confront the reasons for views
-which had previously been simply assumed.
-
-Works Cited
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-- Ingold, T. (1994) 'From Trust to Domination', Animals and Human
-  Society: Changing Perspectives (ed. Manning, A & Serpell, J),
-  London: Routledge, pp 1-22
-- Bell, A & Russell, C. (2000) Beyond Human, Beyond Words:
-  Anthropocentrism, Critical Pedagogy, and the Poststructuralist Turn,
-  Canadian Journal of Education, 25: 3, pp 188-203
-- Bolliger, G & Goetschel, A (2005) 'Sexual relations with animals
-  (zoophilia): An unrecognised problem in animal welfare legislation',
-  Anthrozoös: Bestiality and Zoophilia (ed. Beetz, A & Podberscek, A),
-  Indiana: Purdue University Press, pp 23-45
-
-
-Further Works
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-- Beetz, A & Podberscek, A (eds.) (2005) Anthrozoös: Bestiality and
-  Zoophilia Indiana: Purdue University Press
-- Cassidy, R (2007) Zoosex, Stimulus Respond, 18, pp 83-92
-- Ingold, T (ed.) (1988) What is an Animal London: Unwin Hyman
-- Miletski, H (2002) Understanding Bestiality and Zoophilia Maryland:
-  East-West Publishing
-- Singer, P (2001)
-  [Heavy Petting](http://www.nerve.com/opinions/singer/heavypetting),
-  Nerve