From a53be2f6a664a9b78d8501ce462e4994e6dd5bbf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nick White <git@njw.me.uk>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 00:14:35 +0000
Subject: Add indexes to publications

---
 writing/consent/consent.txt | 273 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 writing/consent/index.txt   |  26 +++++
 2 files changed, 299 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 writing/consent/consent.txt
 create mode 100644 writing/consent/index.txt

(limited to 'writing/consent')

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
diff --git a/writing/consent/index.txt b/writing/consent/index.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d0670b6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/writing/consent/index.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+Issues of consent in human-animal sexual relations
+==================================================
+
+Abstract
+--------
+
+> This essay examines why many people cite consent as the primary
+> reason for discomfort regarding human-animal sexual relations. It
+> is specifically concerned with why consent is considered
+> important in the sexual arena of human-animal relations, but not
+> for many other areas including reproduction (for example in cases
+> of artificial insemination or sterilisation), choice of living
+> arrangements, for which consent is considered important in
+> human-human relationships. Zoophilia and bestiality are
+> considered with particular reference to Tim Ingold's model of
+> trust and domination and Kay Milton's ideas of Egomorphism. The
+> essay concludes that the study of reactions to zoophilia is
+> useful in better understanding how people relate to their
+> environment.
+
+Forthcoming in 2008, in
+[Learning and Teaching (LATISS)](http://www.berghahnbooks.com/journals/ltss/)
+
+[html](consent.html)
+[pdf](consent.pdf) 
+[txt](consent.txt) 
-- 
cgit v1.2.3