From a53be2f6a664a9b78d8501ce462e4994e6dd5bbf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nick White Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 00:14:35 +0000 Subject: Add indexes to publications --- writing/consent/consent.txt | 273 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 273 insertions(+) create mode 100644 writing/consent/consent.txt (limited to 'writing/consent/consent.txt') diff --git a/writing/consent/consent.txt b/writing/consent/consent.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..dd93d19 --- /dev/null +++ b/writing/consent/consent.txt @@ -0,0 +1,273 @@ +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