Loving Animals: On Bestiality, Zoophilia and Post-Human Love

by Joanna Bourke

Sex with animals is one of the last taboos but, for a practice that is generally regarded as abhorrent, it is remarkable how many books, films, plays, paintings, and photographs depict the subject. So, what does loving animals mean? In this book the renowned historian Joanna Bourke explores the modern history of sex between humans and animals. Bourke looks at the changing meanings of “bestiality” and “zoophilia,” assesses the psychiatric and sexual aspects, and she concludes by delineating an ethics of animal loving.

Genres: Nonfiction, History

184 pages, Hardcover

Published December 2, 2020

About the author

Joanna Bourke (born 1963 in New Zealand) is an historian and professor of history at Birkbeck, University of London.

Reviews

[Evita · Rating 3 out of 5]

A lot of interesting concepts, ideas and cases but because of the interdisciplinary focus it sometimes becomes a bit of a tedious read imo

[El Rato Pequeño · Rating 4 out of 5]

A short primer on this contentious subject that, though by no means exhaustive, opens up some of its big debate topics without picking a side (though naysayers would argue that one is already picking a side by deciding to write about it). It's bountifully sourced from news outlets and past literature (e.g. Dearest Pet: On Bestiality), and given the nature of the topic, too often refers to sensational reports and statistical studies, which even by the author's own admission were frequently tarnished by bias, though it redeems itself by the final, more philosophical chapter. It's a bit too much "discussing beliefs of a group without asking the group itself", and including some direct testimonies (with further commentary) or research from within the zoophile communities could've smoothed out some of the rough edges.

[Esther O. Lee]

via Amia Srinivasan's review.

[Cate Andrews · Rating 1 out of 5]

I don't think this is a responsible title nor a book I want to read...
The problem with "post-human " is that it implies we need to go beyond "human" with a knowledge that we reached something theoretically labelled "human" that has been agreed upon. What does it mean to be human has been dominated by privileged communities. The damage to others, appropriated and colonised suggests "human" was denied them thus the perspectival shift doesn't alter this damage nor neglect of others right to claim humanity. The reality, the screams and cries of an other like in the documentary The Cove and animals in shelter as well people in camps experiencing war, torture and abject poverty and neglect is a reality some might suggest is inhuman or post-humanitarian. I dont find the title responsible or with care and suggests a celebration of harm to others.

How can it be an ethics if it ultimately suggests that lonely people deserve to express their personal socialised understanding of love. If a child has only known abuse and keeps returning to the abuser and expressing that knowledge is that love? Can an animal truly express its freedom if its owner trains it in a way that hasn't understood or ever known love? An author, or a thinker (who has studied western psychology) who are they to say its right to go beyond care, patting and keeping safe an animal as a pet and companion? Love is not for the unquestioned to define. A happy society cant have as its foundations sex abuse. Sex abuse victims have testified to that statement. A perspective without healthy boundaries is a lack of knowledge of others and their right to safe care. The support of the sale of bestial pornography is the same as child pornography. Its not love its an industry and the industry isolates and maintains loneliness as a way of capitalist life. Neurobiology plays a role in ethics then why not examine the lack of social and emotional intelligence in this irresponsible title. To steal a life is colonialism, to decolonise is to offer acknowledgment to others their rights to refuse colonisation and its discontents (loneliness). Overblown entitlement suggests all is there for someone to appropriate.
We use science to construct disease free children for breeding and play at home, without cycstic fibrosis for example. We have constructed dog breeds for show and the home. All this construction means waste. What is not sold is destroyed. Is that love, breeding for sale and play without knowledge or understanding that the living creatures have sentience just as a lobster and a tree does. Do no harm is an ethos for counselling, why not for life and love...to question who you are in relation with others is not to suggest you come out binary constructing success/fail or win/lose. It does suggest the existence of others and existence needs an ethics of love, with the other.

[Dara · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was not an easy read in the slightest, especially chapter 2, which discusses the exploitation & abuse of non-human animals for human pleasure or commercial gain. It IS very questionable that the dairy industry is allowed to thrive on the extensive use of invasive sexual practices on both cows & bulls. Not to mention people who orchestrate matings between racehorses to produce champion offspring, dogs for both cosmetic & working purposes, & domestic sheep that produce such an unnatural amount of wool that left unshorn, will die of heat exhaustion. & all of this is 100% legal, while bestiality is not, & stands as one of the most taboo topics one can speak of.

Overall I think what makes the topic of bestiality, or sex between species, questionable for humans is domestication. Because our closest companion animals, like dogs, cats, horses, & cattle, now depend so heavily on us for food, care, & shelter, it’s difficult to say whether they’re choosing out of free will to engage sexually with a human or not. I will not be discussing the topic of whether non-human animals can consent (to humans) in this review, but I don’t think it’s entirely black & white. If two animals from different species, say a dog & a cat, have a (seemingly) willing sexual interaction, they have two completely different communication styles as well. So was their interaction consensual or not?

I love books like this because they allow radical or taboo topics to be shown & talked about in a neutral space. My takeaway from the book was this: while yes, there are many examples of animal sexual abuse through coercion, outright force, grooming, etc., I wouldn’t write off every person who has ever had a sexual encounter with a non-human animal as a rapist, nor would I take the law or any religion’s stance on bestiality as the end-all-be-all. It’s an incredibly nuanced topic that requires a lot of discernment.

[Holden Caulfield · Rating 1 out of 5]

What a remarkable literary achievement! A book that boldly redefines ‘love’ in ways no sane person ever asked for. Loving Animals: On Bestiality, Zoophilia, and Post-Human Love—a title that, if nothing else, efficiently warns the reader of the abyss they are about to stare into. One might think that certain boundaries exist not out of arbitrary taboo, but out of an ancient, collective understanding of sanity. The author, however, is determined to prove otherwise.

Because, of course, in an age where moral boundaries are treated like clay, someone was bound to ask: But what if we just nudge them a little further? And so, here we are—with a book that, instead of discussing how to protect animals from harm, waxes poetic on how such harm might, in some twisted framework, be rebranded as ‘love.’ It’s the sort of argument that makes you want to check if the floor beneath you is still solid.

It's also worth reading Casey's review on the book's Goodreads page—a doppelgänger of the author, performing an elegant dance of feigned disgust and suspiciously measured approval. "Though this argument makes sense to me," she writes, right before assuring us she found it horrific. How reassuring! One imagines a restaurant critic reluctantly praising a dish of spoiled meat—"Though the chef’s use of decay is thought-provoking, I must admit I was nauseated for 99% of the meal."

But perhaps we are simply too old-fashioned, too constrained by trivial notions like consent, dignity, and psychological health. Perhaps, in some enlightened corner of the universe, this is what intellectual progress looks like. If so, one can only wish these explorers of post-human love a safe journey—far, far away from the rest of us.

[Casey · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting, though not exhaustive, look at beastiality. The author brings up many good points for Zoophilia, for example, we exploit animals on many different levels for human comfort- companion animals, farm animals etc,, doing absolutely horrendous things to pigs and dogs, but having intimate relationships with them is where we draw the line? Not to mention the power dynamics that exist in all human-animal relationships and where consent in all accepts of our dominion over them is questionable.

Though this argument makes sense to me I still found this book, especially the experience of actual zoos, absolutely horrific. And I must admit I was disturbed for 99% of the book.

I think if you’re interested in this aspect of human-animal relationships it’s a good starter.

[Arno · Rating 4 out of 5]

While Bourke has a somewhat dry writing style (which I don't mind luckily), there's quite enough horrible transgressive stuff to read for those who are interested in that. But I think the book (and Bourke herself) really shines in the last chapter, where she talks about a queer perspective on animal love (in it's broadest terms, not just sexual). Central in this discussion is the bridging of the communications gap between sentient human animals, and those other creatures essentially 'unknowable' to us - which, as Bourke also notes, is actually an extension of a similar problem between human beings themselves. Great stuff. I'd even go so far as to claim that this last chapter is very insightful for everyone who likes animals or has pets.

[E.T. Bowen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wildly uncomfortable and exciting. Revisit.

[Easter · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love this book

It's so well written that i will happily listen to it so many more times. I love and fully agree with the author

[Forked Radish]

Proof that humans have outlived their usefulness. A post-human world will be the same paradise as the pre-human world once was.

[Sayna · Rating 1 out of 5]

1 star for the author’s stance and lgbt comparison. I also couldn't suspend my disbelief any longer after octopuses were involved and a donkey got acquitted