Zoophilia

Natural law theories often claim that there is a universal moral code acknowledged by all peoples in all times and places, derivable from nature. Bestiality would seem to be a good test case: Natural law arguments against bestiality are pretty straightforward, and then there’s the “natural” recoil that we all have when we hear of human-animal sex.

It turns out, not all of us recoil. In Understanding Bestiality and Zoophilia and in the introductory essay to Bestiality and Zoophilia, Hani Miletski assembles the evidence to show that “human sexual relations with animals has been part of the human race throughout history” (all quotations from Bestiality and Zoophilia, here at p. 1).

It is attested in ancient Babylon and among the Hittites and ancient Egyptians. Miletski thinks that the Greek mythological interest in bestiality, as well as the bull worship of Crete, indicate that “bestiality was a fairly common occurrence in daily life” (3). Despite evidence of bestiality among the Romans, especially among the more decadent upper classes when decadent emperors ruled, the Romans eventually punished bestiality by death (4).

Bestiality in the middle ages was usually “connected with black magic and witchcraft” (5). Officially, the church “made the Hebrews’ laws against bestiality

stricter, since bestiality did not serve reproduction (Dekkers 1994), and formal
conciliar decrees began regulating sexual behavior, prescribing various
penalties for bestiality” (5). In the later middle ages and Renaissance, bestiality was a common topic for preachers, and there were hundreds of court cases (7). It’s hard to know how to read the evidence, of course: Are these charges part of a witch hysteria? Was bestiality actually on the rise? Whatever the reality, Protestants and Catholics both officially forbade it.

Ancient Hindu law forbids bestiality, but “in ancient India, the belief in transmigration of souls between animals and humans was combined with acceptance toward bestiality” (10). Miletski claims that “During the Hindus’
celebrations at the Holi festival, to honor the Goddess Vesanti, open human
sexual relations are said to be wildly practiced, and Hindu women are
reported to masturbate and perform fellatio on bulls in order to be closer to
God” (11).

Islam prohibits bestiality, but it has been “tolerated in Islam and widely practiced. Arabs “have long
practiced bestiality. They practice bestiality primarily with goats, mares,
sheep, sows, asses, and camels, if the latter cooperate. Arab women reportedly
have oral sex and intercourse with dogs whenever men are not available
to please them. . . . Arab men believe that
intercourse with animals increases virility, cures diseases, and enlarges their
penises” (11).

If this were only a catalog of sexual perversions, it would prove nothing more than “people in every age have engaged in perverse sexuality.” But the relevant point regarding natural law is that bestiality has not been universally condemned. What we find is a range of moral reactions – from official condemnation combined with relaxed enforcement; to official condemnation linked to mechanisms of penance; to moral indifference; to genial approval of bestiality as a rite of passage or divine prerogative.

Whatever we say about natural law, we need to reckon with this variability, a variability of principle as well as practice.