From 0d57bf7780e7dcf978193c80db1282a68113728a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nick White Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 12:19:32 +0100 Subject: Move publications to pubs --- publications/2008-consent.txt | 273 ------------------------------------------ 1 file changed, 273 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 publications/2008-consent.txt (limited to 'publications/2008-consent.txt') diff --git a/publications/2008-consent.txt b/publications/2008-consent.txt deleted file mode 100644 index dd93d19..0000000 --- a/publications/2008-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 -- cgit v1.2.3