path: root/publications/2008-consent.txt

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](www.nerve.com/opinions/singer/heavypetting),
  Nerve