Sociology Compass 9/10 (2015), 864–875, 10.1111/soc4.

12306

Bestiality: An Overview and Analytic Discussion

John C. Navarro and Richard Tewksbury*
Department of Criminal Justice, University of Louisville

Abstract
Individuals who experience sexual and emotional attractions to animals are widely considered deviant in
American society. Such a condition is frequently referred to as bestiality and zoophilia, which in fact
describe two separate types of sexual behaviors. A multitude of studies have uncovered a range of
prevalence rates across different demographic groups, which may vary due to the terminology and the
type of data collection methods utilized. Dogs and horses are consistently chosen as the preferred animal
to engage in sexual activities by humans, while male animals have been presented as the heavily favored
sex of animal. It is questionable whether one’s sexual orientation corresponds with the preference of the
sex of the animal. Those engaged in human–animal sexual contacts vary in their reasoning behind their
sexual behavior with animals, which are generally environmentally or belief based, and reinforce certain
myths. Since the development of the Internet not only has it promoted an enhanced research perspective
of the sexual behaviors of bestialists and zoophiles, but they have also found an environment populated by
like-minded individuals with similar sexual behaviors/interests.

Introduction
Sexual acts with animals are defined as zoophilia or bestiality. A distinction has developed over
time between these two terms. Yet this is not without controversy. Generally, zoophilia is a
clinical diagnosis, and bestiality is a socially defined label. The difference is important for
understanding estimates of such behavior; as there is a lack of consensus on definitions, so too
do purported rates of such activity vary.
Perhaps most well established are the species of animals humans have engaged with sexually.
Dogs are the most common followed by horses. Proceeding in popularity from these two
animals are other large mammals. Male animals are generally favored; however, it is questionable
whether sexual orientation matches with the preferred sex of the animal. Pet ownership statistics
suggest that accessibility to particular animals may inf luence their likelihood to be sexually
engaged with a human. In general, causes and motivations are wide-ranging, with several factors
such as myths, past sexual/emotional abuse, and animals being viewed as superior to humans in
terms of manageable relationships are indicated as possible correlates and contributors for why
an individual may be inclined to engage in sex with animals.
A majority of the information known about zoophiles and bestialists derived from historical
studies based on in-person interviews. More recent research has exploited the Internet and
offered refreshing information, but this is far and few between. The Internet has been
recognized as an environment conducive to zoophiles and bestialists (Beetz, cited in Beetz
2004; Jenkins and Thomas 2004; Maratea 2011; Miletski 2002; Williams and Weinberg
2003). Yet, few studies have utilized the Internet as a tool to gauge their online behavior.
Consequently, there are still obscurities about bestialists and zoophiles that future research can
fulfill by taking advantage of the rich resource of information offered in the Internet.

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

 Beastiality 865

Literature review

Definition

Throughout the literature multiple terms have been used to define forms of human–animal
sexual contact. However, only recently has zoophilia and bestiality been properly differentiated.
A zoophile is defined as an individual who has an emotional (Aggrawal 2009; Ascione 2008;
Beetz, cited in Beetz 2004; Krafft-Ebing 1892; Masters 1962, 1966; Miletski 2002; Richard
2001) and/or sexual attraction for the animal (Aggrawal 2009; Krafft-Ebing 1892; Richard
2001). Bestiality is the sexual attraction to animals, absent is the emotional bond with the animal.
The individual uses animals merely as a sexual outlet (Aggrawal 2009).
To elaborate, zoophilia made its first appearance as a clinical diagnosis in the third edition of
the American Psychiatric Association (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(DSM) in 1980. Included among the paraphilias, (i.e. an intense sexual interest) (5th ed.;
DSM-5; APA 2013), zoophilia was defined as “[t]he act or fantasy of engaging in sexual activity
with animals is repeatedly preferred or the exclusive method of achievement of sexual
excitement” (APA 1980, p. 270). Later, in the revised third edition of the DSM-III-R (3rd
ed., rev., APA 1987), zoophilia was moved into the category of “paraphilia not otherwise
specified,” where it remains today.
Unlike zoophilia, which has an explicit definition, bestiality has been varyingly defined, but
all definitions include that any sexual interaction with an animal is considered bestiality. This
includes contacts ranging from fondling to actual penetration. Ellis (1905/1931) defined besti-
ality as the “impulse to attain sexual gratification by intercourse, or other close contact, with an-
imals” (p. 79). Similarly, Ascione (2008) defined bestiality as a “sexual interaction between a
human and an animal” (p. 77).
A discussion of these two terms, bestiality and zoophilia, is important as these are two distinct
populations. Simply put, it is important to recognize that these terms contrast from one another.
In fact, bestialists and zoophiles in Miletski’s (2002) focus group clarified and expressed general
agreement in the defining characteristics that distanced both populations from one another.
With that said, individuals that have engaged in sexual acts with animals exhibited different
prevalence rates, preferences for certain animals and sexes of animals, motivations, and online
habits.

Prevalence

Rates of persons engaging in bestiality range from 0.6 percent to 55 percent (Alvarez and;
Freinhar 1991; Duffield et al. 1998; Fleming et al. 2002; Flynn 1999; Harness 2011; Hensley
and Tallichet 2005; Hensley et al. 2006; Hensley et al. 2010; Hunt 1974; Kinsey et al. 1948;
Kinsey et al. 1953; Merz-Perez et al. 2001; Miller and Knutson, 1997; Sandnabba et al. 2002;
Schenk et al. 2014; Story 1982). It is important to note that the purpose of the studies
reporting such activities vary, as do populations, sampling procedures, definitions, and data
collection methods.
Attention to bestiality was first widespread in the United States as a result of the well-known
Kinsey studies. A total of 5300 Caucasian American males (Kinsey et al. 1948) and 5940 females
(Kinsey et al. 1953) were interviewed for Kinsey’s classic studies. Eight percent of American
males reported sexual animal contacts (Kinsey et al. 1948). However, more notable is that
40 percent to 50 percent of rural males reported such acts (Kinsey et al. 1948). A relationship
between bestiality and rural areas is commonly found in the literature (Ellis 1905/Ellis, 1931;

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sociology Compass 9/10 (2015), 864–875, 10.1111/soc4.12306
866 Beastiality

Hensley et al. 2006; Hensley et al. 2010; Kinsey et al. 1948; 1953; Krafft-Ebing 1892; Miletski
2002; Thomas 2011). Females have a much lower rate of sexual involvement with animals, with
“only” 3.6 percent of adult females reporting any such sexual acts after their adolescent period
(Kinsey et al. 1953).
Two decades later, Hunt (1974) examined over 2000 voluntary participants (982 men and
1044 women) about their sexual behaviors and revealed 4.9 percent of men and 1.9 percent
of women reported bestiality. Such rates, much lower than those of Kinsey et al. (1948;
1953), have been interpreted as a result of the decline in the nation’s rural population, where
access to animals for sexual activities are more abundant (Hunt 1974).
Taking a psychiatric perspective, Alvarez and Freinhar (1991) examined a total of 60
individuals (20 psychiatric inpatients, 20 medical inpatients, and 20 psychiatric staff members)
about their sexual relationships and fantasies. In total, 55 percent of the psychiatric inpatients,
10 percent of the medical inpatients, and 15 percent of the psychiatric staff either engaged in
sexual acts with an animal or fantasized about such. However, in regard to actual sexual acts
performed with animals, only psychiatric inpatients (30 percent) reported these activities.
Overall, Alvarez and Freinhar’s (1991) study suggested that those with mental disorders engaged
with or fantasized about animals at a greater rate than the general population. The association
between sexual activities with animals and the stability of one’s mental health (Ascione 2008)
and intellectual deficiencies is not uncommon (Duffield et al. 1998).
A number of studies have examined institutionalized juveniles from psychiatric (Duffield
et al. 1998) or correctional facilities (Fleming et al. 2002; Harness 2011; Schenk et al. 2014)
and questioned their sexual activity history with animals. Duffield et al. (1998) reported that
within the previous year seven of 70 youths (10 percent) that resided at a psychiatric facility for
juvenile sex offenders reported sexual acts with animals. Alternatively, in a study of three
Midwestern juvenile institutions, 6.3 percent of 381 male youths reported at least one sexual
act with an animal (Fleming et al. 2002). Schenk et al. (2014) revealed differences in juveniles’
admissions of sexual activities with animals with and without a polygraph examination.
Whereas 37.5 percent admitted to bestiality, this increased to 81.2 percent when questioned
using a polygraph.
Other researchers have examined the sexual history with animals of undergraduate students
(Flynn 1999; Harness 2011; Miller and Knutson, 1997; Story 1982), which indicated that
bestiality is a sexual activity practiced by all sorts of demographic groups, but at rates lower than
those for the mentally ill or incarcerated. Harness (2011) reported a rate of 4.4 percent. Story
(1982) reported rates of 11 percent and 3 percent for undergraduates in 1974 and 1980. Notably,
there is a decrease of bestiality incidences from 1974 to 1980, which support the conclusion
proposed by Hunt (1974) and Miletski (2005) that bestiality rates have decreased due to a
decline in the rural population. Later research supported this conclusion with yet lower
bestiality rates. Miller and Knutson (1997) and Flynn (1999) questioned undergraduates and
uncovered 2.4 percent of males and 0.6 percent of females engaged in bestiality, respectively.
Research has also been done with adult prison inmates. Miller and Knutson (1997) sur-
veyed 299 Iowa inmates and reported that approximately one in nine inmates (11 percent)
witnessed or committed a sexual act with an animal. Merz-Perez et al. (2001) found
3.3 percent of inmates, but only inmates serving sentences for violent offenses, reported any
sexual contact with animals. More recently, Hensley and Tallichet (2005) examined whether
there was a history of animal cruelty in the childhood or adolescent development of inmates
in three Southern correctional institutions. They report that 14.3 percent had engaged in
bestiality. In later studies, Hensley et al. (2006) and Hensley et al. (2010) surveyed
maximum- and medium-security inmates and reported bestiality rates of 6.1 percent and
12.7 percent, respectively.

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sociology Compass 9/10 (2015), 864–875, 10.1111/soc4.12306
 Beastiality 867

Preferred animals
Although identified rates of bestiality vary, the types of involved animals identified in research
are consistent. Household pets and farm animals are the animals most commonly used as sexual
partners (Ascione 2008). The use of farm animals as sexual objects was first reported prior to
1650 in England (Thomas 2011). In the 20th century, researchers have consistently reported
dogs as the most common sexually involved animal (Beetz, cited in Beetz 2004; Hunt 1974;
Kinsey et al. 1948; 1953; Miletski 2002; Money 1986; Williams and Weinberg 2003). Miletski
(2002) reported that 87 percent of males and 100 percent of females who reported any sexual
contacts with animals reported dogs as their non-human sexual partner. Further, both Beetz
(cited in Beetz 2005) and Williams and Weinberg (2003) reported dogs as the primary sexually
used animals (69.9 percent and 63 percent respectively).
Following dogs in frequency of use as sexual partners are horses (Beetz, cited in Beetz 2004).
In Miletski’s (2002) study, over half engaged in sexual contact with horses. Beetz (cited in Beetz
2004) reported 12 percent of men participated in sexual contact with farm animals, and one-half
of those men reported their animal sexual partners as horses. Of Williams and Weinberg’s (2003)
participants, 37 percent reported they were currently involved in sexual contacts with equines.
Other animals have also been reported to be utilized for sexual purposes. These include farm
animals such as calves, cows (Beetz, cited in Beetz 2004; Kinsey et al. 1948; Menninger 1951;
Miletski 2002) donkeys, goats (Kinsey et al. 1948; Menninger 1951; Miletski 2002), pigs, and
sheep (Kinsey et al. 1948). Other large animals such as camels (Gregersen 1983; Miletski
2002), deer, llamas (Miletski 2002), gorillas (Menninger 1951), and bulls (Beetz, cited in Beetz
2004; Miletski 2002) have also been reported as sexual partners. Even aquatic mammals, such as
dolphins are known to sexually advance onto a human (Dekkers 1994) or be sexually
approached by humans (Dekkers 1994; Williams and Weinberg 2003).
An examination of ownership statistics may suggest why some animals are preferred over
others, with a special focus on accessibility. The American Pet Products Association (APPA)
National Pet Owners Survey reported nearly 82.5 million, or 68 percent of, American homes
owned an animal. The most common animal in US households was a dog. In contrast, although
horses are the second most common animal involved in bestiality (Beetz, cited in Beetz 2004;
Williams and Weinberg 2003), horses were the second least common animal to be owned by
a US household (American Pet Products Association 2014). However, even if an individual
owns an animal themselves, they are more likely to sexually engage with an animal that belongs
to an acquaintance rather than an animal of their own (Duffield et al. 1998; Miletski 2002).

Preferred sex of animal

The literature has shown that dogs and horses are the most common animals to be involved as a
sexual partner with humans; it has also conveyed that there is an inclination that male animals are
more likely to be involved in sexual encounters with humans than female animals. But, there is
some ambiguity as to whether humans have a preference of the sex of the animal in accordance
with their sexual orientation. Thus, it is of interest to examine whether a human’s sexual
orientation is matched to their preference of the sex of the animal.
To begin, Beetz (cited in Beetz 2005), Miletski (2002), and Williams and Weinberg (2003)
produced varying rates of their participants’ sexual orientations. Miletski (2002) used the Kinsey
scale to ascertain sexual orientation of individuals sexually involved with animals and reported
that approximately three-fourths of males (72 percent) and females (73 percent) were
heterosexually inclined. Similarly, Beetz (cited in Beetz 2005) reported that most of her
participants viewed themselves as heterosexuals (44 percent) with less than one-fifth identified

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sociology Compass 9/10 (2015), 864–875, 10.1111/soc4.12306
868 Beastiality

as homosexuals (16 percent) and bisexuals (15 percent). Unlike Beetz (cited in Beetz 2005) and
Miletski (2002), Williams and Weinberg (2003) reported over half of their participants classified
themselves as bisexuals (58 percent), one-quarter (25 percent) as heterosexuals, and nearly
one-fifth as homosexuals (17 percent). According to the results collected by Beetz (cited in
Beetz 2005), Miletski (2002), and Williams and Weinberg (2003), heterosexuals and bisexuals
largely represented those that have engaged in sexual encounters with animals.
Although this may be true, Beetz (cited in Beetz 2005) and Miletski (2002) discovered that
males reported a greater occurrence of sexual encounters with male animals than female animals.
Miletski’s (2002) findings revealed that males have engaged in sexual contacts with male dogs
(90.2 percent) more often than female dogs (72 percent). Similarly, the men in Beetz’s study
(cited in Beetz 2005) reported a greater rate of sexual contacts with male dogs (60.2 percent)
than female dogs (46 percent). Furthermore, Beetz’s (cited in Beetz 2004) male participants
reported a greater rate of sexual contacts with strictly male dogs (33 percent) compared with
only female dogs (13 percent). Regarding horses, Miletski (2002) reported equal proportions
of individuals involved with male (53.7 percent) and female horses (52.4 percent). Conversely,
Beetz (cited in Beetz 2005) reported a greater rate of sexual contacts with female horses
(40.7 percent) than male horses (35.4 percent). The pattern of males selecting male animals over
female animals ended with dogs and horses among Miletski’s (2002) participants and was only
applicable to dogs in Beetz’s (cited in Beetz 2005) study. Men in Miletski’s (2002) study
reported to have engaged in sexual contacts more frequently with female cattle/bovines
(40.2 percent) than male cattle/bovines (18.3 percent), female felines (19.5 percent) than male
felines (17.1 percent), female swine (15.9 percent) than male swine (9.8 percent), and female
goats (13.4 percent) than male goats (9.8 percent). Likewise, the males in Beetz’s (cited in Beetz
2005) study reported a greater rate of sexual contacts with female cattle/other bovines
(6.2 percent) than male cattle/other bovines (3.5 percent). As can be seen, men are more likely
to engage in sexual acts with male dogs (Beetz, cited in Beetz 2005; Miletski 2002) and male
horses (Miletski 2002) than their female animals. The remaining animals that males reportedly
engaged with sexually at a greater rate are consistently females (Beetz, cited in Beetz 2005;
Miletski 2002). Taken all together, Miletski’s (2002) male participants predominantly reported
to be heterosexually inclined, yet males exhibited a higher occurrence of same-sex sexual
encounters with dogs and horses. Comparable to Miletski’s (2002) findings, Beetz’s (cited in
Beetz 2005) sample of male participants were primarily heterosexuals, however, reported a
greater preference for male rather than female dogs.
A more definitive clue of the relationship between human sexual orientation and animal
sexual preference is conveyed by Williams and Weinberg’s (2003) results of their male
participants. Across all sexual orientations there was general agreement that both sexes of animals
were desired, but there existed different rates of desire between each sexual orientation. The
clearest rate of desire was represented by bisexuals, in which they preferred both sexes of animals
(84 percent) compared to strictly male animals (10 percent) and female animals (5 percent).
Heterosexuals also presented a clear distinction of their sexual preference of animals with over
two-thirds (70 percent) indicating a stronger desire for female animals than male animals
(7 percent) and over one-fifth (22 percent) desired both sexes. Homosexuals were somewhat
split between their desire for male animals (42 percent) and both sexes of animals (58 percent).
Williams and Weinberg’s (2003) findings indicated that to some extent one’s human sexual
orientation is matched with the sexual preference of an animal, in which bisexuals significantly
preferred both sexes of animals, heterosexuals generally favored female animals, and homosexuals
did not desire female animals.
The relationship between one’s human sexual orientation and preference for the sex of the
animal became more clear-cut when Miletski (2002) reported the findings from her female

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sociology Compass 9/10 (2015), 864–875, 10.1111/soc4.12306
 Beastiality 869

sample. All of the females in her sample engaged in sexual contacts with a male dog, while nearly
three-quarters (73 percent) of females reported sexual contacts with female dogs. Dogs were the
only female animal species reported by females as having been engaged with sexually. Over half
of the females (55 percent) engaged in sexual contacts with male horses and male felines
(27.2 percent). Generally speaking, females exhibited a stronger preference for male animals
than female animals, unlike their male counterparts. The question then arises why are male
animals typically preferred over female animals? Is a male animal desired because they have
the ability to penetrate or because it is an attraction to the male animal? How is gender involved
in the attraction? Or, is gender an issue at all?
In part, the answer appears to be related to the sexual behaviors males and females engaged in
with animals. With regard to male animals, nearly two-thirds of men and females (64 percent)
reported they always and/or primarily engaged in masturbating the animal. Second most
frequently, almost half of the male (42 percent) and female participants (45 percent) performed
fellatio on the animal. The third most common sexual behavior performed on a male animal by
a male participant was anal intercourse (34 percent), whereas only one female participant
reported this sexual behavior in Miletski’s (2002) study. The male participants in Beetz’s study
(cited in Beetz 2004) reported that nearly two-thirds (64 percent) were anally penetrated by a
male dog. In respect to female animals, men reported they always and/or primarily engaged
in vaginal–penile intercourse (55 percent), followed by masturbation of the animal
(38 percent), and cunnilingus (34 percent), but cunnilingus was the most practiced sexual
behavior by a dog onto the women participants (55 percent) (Miletski 2002). Likewise, half
of the men in Beetz’s (cited in Beetz 2004) study vaginally penetrated a female dog. Notably,
anal intercourse was the least practiced sexual behavior on female animals with only four men
(5 percent) that reported this sexual act (Miletski 2002).
When asked about which sex of animal was most attractive to males and females an additional
pattern emerged among males. Of the 87 percent of men that reported an attraction to dogs,
men reported a greater attraction to male dogs (39.7 percent) than female dogs (19.1 percent),
but most frequently they did not have a preference for the animal’s sex (41.1 percent) (Miletski
2002). Miletski’s (2002) findings corresponded with Beetz’s (cited in Beetz 2005) in that more
than one-half of males have sexually engaged with both sexes of animals. Comparatively, of the
81 percent of males that reported an attraction to horses, two-thirds (60.3 percent) were
attracted to either sex instead of strictly female (17.5 percent) or male (22.2 percent) horses.
Interestingly, males expressed a greater attraction for both sexes of animals yet continued to
prefer male animals over female animals. Nevertheless, females sustained their preference for
male animals when asked which sex of animal was most attractive to them. Nearly all females
reported an attraction to a male dog (90.9 percent), but no females were attracted to female
dogs. Of the females that were attracted to horses (73 percent), more females were attracted
to male horses (87.5 percent) than female horses (12.5 percent) with none reporting an attraction
to both sexes. Not only did Miletski’s (2002) participants report they have been sexually
engaged with male animals at a higher rate but also reported a greater attraction to male animals
than female animals.
Given these points, does the sexual orientation toward humans mirror the sexual preference
for animals? At this time, this question cannot be definitively answered. It is uncertain whether
those that engaged in sexual acts with animals prefer a sex of animal that matches their human
sexual orientation. As Beetz (2005) noted, no particular preference in the sex of the animal was
exhibited in the research conducted by herself, Miletski (2002) and Williams and Weinberg
(2003). With that said, one can say there are stronger and more common inclinations toward
a male animal than a female animal. Having said that, recent research conducted by Maratea’s
(2011) who had analyzed a zoophile-oriented Internet forum possibly cleared up the ambiguity

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sociology Compass 9/10 (2015), 864–875, 10.1111/soc4.12306
870 Beastiality

of the relationship between human sexual orientation and the preference of animal sex.
Specifically, an online poster stated that an individual who prefers one gender yet prefers the
opposite sex of animal is defined as a polysexual. Based on this logic, a human can prefer female
humans yet engage in sex with male dogs or female horses, with the former being recognized as
polysexuality due to the fact it is the opposite sex of the preferred gender.

Associated factors

A discussion of other factors other than ownership statistics and animal sex preferences may help
explain why individuals engage in bestiality and do so at different rates with certain animals.
Mentioned previously, the literature has established that rural backgrounds are commonly
associated with bestiality (Ellis 1905/Ellis 1931; Kinsey et al. 1948; 1953; Krafft-Ebing 1892;
Miletski 2002; Thomas 2011), but other recognized links include the belief that sexual acts with
animals rid venereal diseases (Dekkers 1994; Krafft-Ebing 1892; Masters 1966) or improve
sexual abilities (Dekkers 1994; Edwardes and Masters 1963; Gregersen 1983), ref lect a history
of sexual abuse (Aggrawal 2009; Miletski 2002), and that animals are better sexual partners than
humans (Peretti and Rowan 1982; Richard 2001). Some of the other less established factors that
are linked with bestiality include mere curiosity (Dekkers 1994; Fleming et al. 2002; Kinsey
et al. 1948; Kinsey et al. 1953; Miletski 2002), experimentation (Hunt 1974), strong libido
(Donofrio, cited in Beetz 2004), as a means to violate a taboo (Richard 2001), and for thrills
(Peretti and Rowan 1982). With that said, there is no cardinal reason for why an individual
might engage in bestiality.

Myths promoting bestiality

The myth that bestial intercourse cured or prevented venereal diseases has been prevalent
throughout history (Dekkers 1994; Krafft-Ebing 1892; Masters 1966). Similarly, myth has also
held that sexual relations with an animal can encourage penis enlargement (Dekkers 1994;
Edwardes and Masters 1963; Gregersen 1983). The Persians reportedly engaged in sexual con-
tacts with animals to prevent venereal diseases (Krafft-Ebing 1892). Arab men copulated with
animals in order to enlarge their penises, increase their virility, and cure diseases (Dekkers
1994; Gregersen 1983; Masters 1962; Menninger 1951). Moroccan Muslim fathers encouraged
their sons to copulate with a donkey to enlarge their penises (Dekkers 1994; Edwardes and
Masters 1963). Turks also maintained the same belief, although they viewed it as sinful if a hu-
man copulated with an animal that is suitable for eating (Gregersen 1983).
Other beliefs supporting and encouraging bestiality have included a male practicing sexual
intercourse before marriage so as not to be embarrassed by their sexual ability (Beirne 2000;
Gregersen 1983; Money 1986). Beirne (2000) heard a second-hand story from a colleague that
a male engaged in intercourse with a donkey because he was anxious to have coitus with his
soon-to-be wife. He used the donkey simply to develop his sexual understanding. In like
manner, Money (1986) detailed how Indians off the coast of Colombia practiced sexual
intercourse with a donkey prior to marriage with a female; without doing so males were not
considered fit to be a groom. Gregersen (1983) spoke about the Marquesans, a society located
in the Oceanic region, where males conducted an “emergency practice” with dogs and horses
prior to having intercourse with a human female.

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sociology Compass 9/10 (2015), 864–875, 10.1111/soc4.12306
 Beastiality 871

Sexual and emotional abuse

There is conf licting evidence whether individuals who have been sexually abused are more
likely to engage in bestiality. Emotional abuse appears to be a more common correlate than sex-
ual abuse. In Miletski’s (2002) sample of 89 participants, 17 percent of men and 30 percent of
females reported sexual abuse, whereas emotional abuse comprised the highest abuse rates
among men (42 percent) and women (45 percent). Correspondingly, Duffield et al. (1998)
and Fleming et al. (2002) reported that emotional abuse and neglect were more prevalent
among juveniles that engaged in bestiality than sexual and physical abuse. Others (Sandnabba
et al. 2002) also reported low correlations between bestiality and a history of sexual abuse.
Taken together, and best supported by Miletski’s (2002) research, a majority of her participants
did not suffer from an abusive history. Likewise, nor did they view their sexual acts with animals
as abuse, and some of the participants anthropomorphized and reported animals as their lovers.

Relationships with animals are more maintainable than people

Peretti and Rowan (1982) sampled 51 individuals that engaged in both animal and human
sexual relations at one point in their lives to investigate what variables are likely to assist the
development of zoophilia.1 They discovered that their participants were largely uninterested
in human social contacts. For most this was a general preference, although some zoophiles also
reported that they believed the time and money required for a relationship with a human were
too costly. Relationships with animals were preferred, considered easier, and offered fewer
obstacles than relationships with humans. Males complained that the effort in sustaining a
human relationship is tedious and difficult, and not appealing especially when they are
financially strapped. In a similar vein, Algerian boys copulated with “she-asses” instead of
marrying because marital dowries are too expensive (Dekkers 1994). Subsequent research
(Miletski 2002) reiterated Peretti and Rowan’s (1982) findings that the preference for animals
over humans are multifarious.

Online interactions
The Internet can be a vital instrument to access these populations in order to uncover and obtain
an accurate representation of their sexual behaviors with animals and causes/motivations behind
their paraphilia. Several studies have utilized the Internet as a tool to examine populations
engaged in a variety of deviant sexual practices (Denney and Tewksbury 2013; Jenkins and
Thomas 2004; Maratea 2011; Tewksbury 2003, 2006). Included in this literature are studies that
assessed the online activities of bestialists and zoophiles ( Jenkins and Thomas 2004; Maratea
2011). Others have relied upon the Internet to access bestialists and investigate their behaviors
(Beetz, cited in Beetz 2004; Miletski 2002; Williams and Weinberg 2003). The Internet, among
other functions, has emerged as a sort of sanctuary for numerous sexual minorities, including
bestialists and zoophiles (Beetz, cited in Beetz 2004; Jenkins and Thomas 2004; Maratea 2011;
Miletski 2002; Williams and Weinberg 2003).
The most noteworthy research studies were conducted by Beetz (cited in Beetz 2004),
Miletski (2002), and Williams and Weinberg (2003), in which they accessed and directly
examined online communities of individuals that engaged in sexual activity with animals. Each
gathered demographic and behavior information through an online questionnaire that yielded
around 100 participants per study. Overall, these three studies highlighted that the Internet is an
important asset for purposes of both accessing online communities interested in bestiality and
providing a “community” for those so involved.

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sociology Compass 9/10 (2015), 864–875, 10.1111/soc4.12306
872 Beastiality

Nearing the mid-millennia, Jenkins and Thomas (2004) found and examined 100 websites
dedicated to bestiality in the spring of 2003, which formed into three primary categories:
pornography, online forums, and exhibitionism. Eighty-six percent of the examined websites
were pornography related, and Jenkins and Thomas (2004) opined that the human–animal por-
nography appeared to be oriented toward general porn seekers and not the bestialists/zoophiles
as a majority of the websites depicted degradation of females. In other words, more focus was
given to sexualize the human than the animal.
Most recently, Maratea (2011) examined an Internet forum board oriented toward zoophiles
in fall 2008. An examination of nearly 5000 posts showed that individuals neutralized their
sexual behavior with animals in several ways. For some, denial of injury justified their actions.
For instance, one poster wrote that it is the human being abused, not the animal, especially in
cases that involved larger animals like horses. Another form of neutralization involved claims
of benefits. Some believe that it is abusive to not relieve an animal’s sexual frustration, and by
engaging in sex with the animal they are helping the animal. Others neutralize through
condemning their condemners; they identified themselves as better members of society
compared to those who mistreat their animals and pointed out inconsistencies in society’s logic
as animals are sexually aroused for business-oriented purposes like animal husbandry. In whole,
these online posters did not view their human–animal sexual contacts as abusive and sought to
bolster their viewpoint by legitimizing their sexual contacts with animals. Moreover, Maratea
(2011) acknowledged that the Internet brought together individuals that have sexual interests
of animals and encouraged a supportive community where none otherwise would have existed.
This is similar to the benefits of online sexual communities recognized by Denney and
Tewksbury (2013) and Tewksbury (2006).
Maratea’s (2011) findings are remarkable for three primary reasons. First, his findings built
upon the three primary studies undertaken by Miletski (2002), Beetz (cited in Beetz 2004),
and Williams and Weinberg (2003) that contacted their participants during the emergence of
the Internet. Second, Maratea (2011) examined zoophiles following the height of the popularity
of the Internet as it has become a standard commodity in everyday life in the late 2000s. Third,
this forum offered seemingly honest conveyances of zoophiles’ attitudes about their sexual
engagements with animals.

Future research

While we know some information about who is likely to engage in bestiality, what types of
nimals are commonly involved, and how bestialists and zoophiles conceive of their sexual
attractions and interactions with animals, there remains much that can still be learned.
Additional research should seek a greater understanding of the perceptions bestialists, zoophiles,
and others who engage in human–animal sexual contacts hold of themselves, as well as how,
why, when, and under what circumstances such behaviors were initially considered and
enacted. Additionally, enhancing our understanding of the means by which bestialists and
zoophiles find and construct communities would be a significant step forward.
The Internet has been frequently utilized as a tool to investigate individuals that engage in
forms of sexual deviant behaviors, including those engaged in virtual communities (Denney
and Tewksbury 2013; Jenkins and Thomas 2004; Maratea 2011; Tewksbury 2003, 2006).
One question of interest may be whether the Internet has contributed to a normalization of sex-
ual behaviors previously deemed as deviant? Since the Internet has provided wider communi-
cation with a variety of individuals thereby facilitating access to similar like-minded individuals,
has it potentially altered the means, popularity, and judgements about human–animal sexual

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sociology Compass 9/10 (2015), 864–875, 10.1111/soc4.12306
 Beastiality 873

activities? Additionally, have preferences for certain animals or sex of animals, along with
associated factors, such as myths, past sexual/emotional/physical abuse, or the preference of
animals over humans maintained or changed in today’s society? Such questions, and others,
may provide for broader and more accurate understandings of bestiality to be achieved.

Conclusion
A distinct difference lies between bestialists and zoophiles in regard to their sexual behavior with
animals. As research progressed, these two terms became distinct, but it does explain why
researchers came to different conclusions on an accurate rate of this sexual behavior. Moreover,
as the literature grew it has exhibited patterns and themes, which included favored species of
animals, preferred sexes of animals, dominant environmental and belief inf luences, and with
the Internet introduced a new forum where individuals can openly discuss their sexual
preferences without fear of rejection or stigmatization.
Human–animal sexual contacts are widely practiced and not restricted to particular
populations. A variety of animals have been used as sexual partners, but dogs and horses
are the most common. What is not definite is whether one’s sexual orientation dictates
the chosen sex of animals. That is to say that heterosexuals and bisexuals were the most
dominant sexual orientation, albeit males and females reported to have engaged in same-
sex sexual encounters more often with male animals than female animals. Consequently,
the relationship between sexual orientation and the sex of the animal is uncertain, yet it
is clear that male animals are preferred. One can reason that male animals are favored for
their penetrative abilities, are convenient sexual partners as demonstrated by the ownership
statistics, or as suggested by Williams and Weinberg (2003) the genital size of horses makes
it difficult to engage with sexually. With that said, it is of interest that the theme for the
selection of male animals diminished after dogs and horses in Miletski’s (2002) study and
was only demonstrated with dogs in Beetz’s (cited in Beetz 2005) study, in which female
animals became the preferred sex.
Moreover, rates and preferences may change due to an individual’s access, motivation,
reasoning, or certain factors that may inf luence their decision to engage in bestiality. There
are various factors which may promote an individual to sexually engage with animals some of
which are more predominant than others, such as a rural background. Likewise, there are also
myths that encourage an individual to engage in sexual activities with animals, such as the belief
such actions may remedy diseases, enlarge genitals, and enhance their sexual prowess. Other
reasons to engage sexually with animals beyond those that provide benefits are to address an
individual’s imperfection, such as experiences with emotional abuse and the lack of ambition
to pursue a relationship with a human ( for whatever reason).
Since the advent of the Internet it has provided an additional and significantly larger
environment for individuals to discuss all sorts of activities, including deviant sexual behaviors.
The Internet can accommodate an assortment of pornographic materials oriented toward an
individual’s sexual needs. In this case the Internet has offered animal pornography and commu-
nities to maintain discussions and support for such sexual behaviors. More importantly, the
Internet has offered researchers an avenue to conduct studies in order to better ascertain individ-
uals that sexually engage with animals, which may have not been possible through traditional
data collection methods. Although this may be true, since the early 2000s, no study has utilized
the Internet to question individuals about their sexual activities with animals. The Internet
should be viewed as an essential tool that can update historical research and help to clarify
unanswered and ambiguous questions about human–animal sexual contacts. Altogether, the

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sociology Compass 9/10 (2015), 864–875, 10.1111/soc4.12306
874 Beastiality

Internet has the potential to yield newfound findings about the behavior of those that sexually
engage with animals due to the fact that a grander audience is available, thus facilitating a deter-
mination as to whether the conclusions of past literature hold true today.

Short Biographies

John C. Navarro is a graduate student at the University of Louisville working towards his
Doctorate degree in Criminal Justice. Navarro graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology
with a minor in Criminal Justice Sciences in 2011 and Masters of Science in Criminal Justice
Sciences in 2014 from Illinois State University. Current research interests include sexual deviant
behaviors, mental illness, identity theft, and crime mapping.
Richard Tewksbury is professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Louisville. His work
focuses on issues of sex offender registration, criminal victimization risks, and perceptions of
sexual offenses and deviance.
Notes

* Correspondence address: Richard Tewksbury, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Louisville, KY 40292, USA.
E-mail: tewks@louisville.edu
1
The term zoophilia is used in this instance due to Peretti and Rowan’s (1982) sample they chose to examine.

References
Aggrawal, A. 2009. Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Alvarez, W. A. and J. P. Freinhar. 1991. ‘A Prevalence Study of Bestiality (Zoophilia) in Psychiatric In-patients, Medical In-
patients, and Psychiatric Staff.’ International Journal of Psychosomatics 38(1-4): 45–47.
American Pet Products Association. 2014. Industry Statistics and Trends. Retrieved on August 13th, 2014, from http://
www.americanpetproducts.org/press_industrytrends.asp
American Psychiatric Association. 1980. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 3rd edn.Washington, D.C.:
American Psychiatric Association.
American Psychiatric Association. 1987. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 3rdrev. edn.Washington, D.C.:
American Psychiatric Association.
American Psychiatric Association. 2013. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edn.Washington, D.C.:
American Psychiatric Association.
Ascione, F. R. 2008. ‘Bestiality’ Pp. 77–78 in The Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Violence, Volume 1, edited by J.L. Edleson
and C.M, Renzetti. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Beetz, A. M. 2004. ‘Bestiality/Zoophilia: A Scarcely Investigated Phenomenon Between Crime, Paraphilia, and Love.’
Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice 4(2): 1–36.
Beetz, A. M. 2005. ‘New Insights into Bestiality and Zoophilia’ Pp. 98–119 in Bestiality and Zoophilia, edited by A.L.
Podberscek and A.M. Beetz. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
Beirne, P. 2000. ‘Rethinking Bestiality: Towards a Concept of Interspecies Sexual Assault’ Pp. 313–331 in Companion
Animals and Us, edited by A.L. Podberscek, E.S. Paul and J.A. Serpell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dekkers, M. 1994. Dearest Pet: On Bestiality, (2nd ed.). (P. Vincent, Trans.). New York, NY: Verso.
Denney, A. and R. Tewksbury. 2013. ‘Desired Partner Characteristics and Self-presentation in an Online BDSM
Community.’ Deviant Behavior 34(2): 153–168.
Duffield, G. A. Hassiotis and E. Vizard. 1998. ‘Zoophilia in Young Sexual Abusers.’ Journal of Forensic Psychiatry 9(2): 294–304.
Edwardes, A. and R. E. L. Masters. 1963. The Cradle of Erotica: A Study of Afro-Asian Sexual Expression and an Analysis of Erotic
Freedom in Social Relationships. New York, NY: The Julian Press, Inc.
Ellis, H. 1931. Studies in the Psychology of Sex: Erotic Symbolism, the Mechanism of Detumescence, the Psychic State in Pregnancy
(Vol. 5). Philadelphia, PA: The F.A. Davis and Co. (Original Work Published 1905) Retrieved from http://babel.
hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31158001755866;seq=2;view=1up
Fleming, W. M. B. Jory and D. L. Burton. 2002. ‘Characteristics of Juvenile Offenders Admitting to Sexual Activity with
Nonhuman Animals.’ Society and Animals 10(1): 31–45.

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sociology Compass 9/10 (2015), 864–875, 10.1111/soc4.12306
 Beastiality 875

Flynn, C. P. 1999. ‘Animal Abuse in Childhood and Later Support for Interpersonal Violence in Families.’ Society and
Animals 7(2): 161–172.
Gregersen, E. 1983. Sexual Practices: The Story of Human Sexuality. New York, NY: Franklin Watts.
Harness, S. A. 2011. Exploring the Link Between Interpersonal Violence to Animals Among Juvenile Sexual Offenders.
PhD dissertation, University of Tennessee – Knoxville. Retrieved November 21, 2014, from University of Tennessee
– Knoxville.
Hensley, C. and S. E. Tallichet. 2005. ‘Animal Cruelty Motivations: Assessing Demographic and Situational Influences.’
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 20(11): 1429–1443.
Hensley, C. S. E. Tallichet and E. L. Dutkiewicz. 2010. ‘Examining Demographic and Situational Factors on Animal Cruelty
Motivations.’ International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 55(3): 492–502.
Hensley, C. S. E. Tallichet and S. D. Singer. 2006. ‘Exploring the Possible Link Between Childhood and Adolescent
Bestiality and Interpersonal Violence.’ Journal of Interpersonal Violence 21(7): 910–923.
Hunt, M. 1974. Sexual Behavior in the 1970s. Chicago, IL: Playboy Press.
Jenkins, R. E. and A. R. Thomas. 2004. Deviance Online: Portrayals of Bestiality on the Internet. SYNY Oneta: Center for Social
Science Research.
Kinsey, A. C. W. B. Pomeroy and C. E. Martin. 1948. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders
Company.
Kinsey, A. C. W. B. Pomeroy, C. E. Martin and P. H. Gebhard. 1953. Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Philadelphia, PA:
W. B. Saunders Company.
Krafft-Ebing, R. V. 1892. Psychopathia Sexualis, with Especial Reference to Contrary Sexual Instinct: A Medico-legal Study (C. G.
Chaddock, Trans.). Philadelphia, PA: The F. A. Davis Co. Retrieved from http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiuo.
ark:/13960/t5cc0z51p;seq=5;view=1up
Maratea, R. J. 2011. ‘Screwing the Pooch: Legitimizing Accounts in a Zoophilia Online Community.’ Deviant Behavior
32(10): 918–943.
Masters, R. E. L. 1962. Forbidden Sexual Behavior and Morality: An Objective Re-examination of Perverse Sex Practices in Different
Cultures. New York, NY: Julian Press Publishers. Retrieved from http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b3912428;
seq=9;view=1up;num=iii
Masters, R. E. L. 1966. Sex-driven People. Los Angeles, CA: Sherbourne Press, Inc.
Menninger, K. A. 1951. ‘Totemic Aspects of Contemporary Attitudes Toward Animals’ Pp. 74–42 in Psychoanalysis and
Culture: Essays in Honor of Geza Roheim, edited by G.B. Wilbur and W. Muensterberger. New York, NY:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Merz-Perez, L. K. M. Heide and I. J. Silverman. 2001. ‘Childhood Cruelty to Animals and Subsequent Violence Against
Humans.’ International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 45(5): 556–573.
Miletski, H. 2002. Understanding Bestiality and Zoophilia. Bethesda, MD: East West Publishing, LLC. Retrieved from
http://www.scribd.com/doc/64580960/19/Why-do-People-Engage-in-Sexual-Relations-with-Animals.
Miller, K. S. and J. F. Knutson. 1997. ‘Reports of Severe Physical Punishment and Exposure to Animal Cruelty by Inmates
Convicted of Felonies and by University Students.’ Child Abuse & Neglect 21(1): 59–82.
Money, J. 1986. Lovemaps: Clinical Concepts of Sexual/Erotic Health and Pathology, Paraphilia, and Gender Transposition in Child-
hood, Adolescence, and Maturity, New York, NY: Irvington Publishers, Inc.
Peretti, P. O. and M. Rowan. 1982. ‘Variables Associated with Male and Female Chronic Zoophilia.’ Social Behavior and
Personality 10(1): 83–87.
Richard, D. 2001. ‘Forbidden Love.’ Contemporary Sexuality 35(10): 3–7.
Sandnabba, N. K. P. Santtila, N. Nordling, A. M. Beetz and L. Alison. 2002. ‘Characteristics of a Sample of
Sadomasochistically-oriented Males with Recent Experience of Sexual Contact with Animals.’ Deviant Behavior: An
Interdisciplinary Journal 23(6): 511–529.
Schenk, A. M. C. Cooper-Lehki, C. M. Keelan and W. J. Fremouw. 2014. ‘Underreporting of Bestiality Among Juvenile
Sex Offenders: Polygraph Versus Self-report.’ Journal of Forensic Sciences 59(2): 540–542.
Story, M. D. 1982. ‘A Comparison of University Student Experience with Various Sexual Outlets in 1974 and 1980.’
Adolescence 17(68): 737–747.
Tewksbury, R. 2003. ‘Bareback Sex and the Quest for HIV: Assessing the Relationship in Internet Personal Advertisements
of Men Who Have Sex with Men.’ Deviant Behavior 24(5): 467–482.
Tewksbury, R. 2006. ‘Click Here for HIV: An Analysis of Internet-based Bug Chaser and Bug Giver.’ Deviant Behavior
27(4): 379–395.
Thomas, C. 2011. ‘‘Not Having God Before His Eyes’: Bestiality in Early Modern England.’ The Seventeenth Century 26(1):
149–173.
Williams, C. J. and M. S. Weinberg. 2003. ‘Zoophilia in Men: A Study of Sexual Interest in Animals.’ Archives of Sexual
Behavior 32(6): 523–535.

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sociology Compass 9/10 (2015), 864–875, 10.1111/soc4.12306