Homosexual inclinations and the passions: A Thomistic theory of the psychogenesis of same-sex attraction disorder

Contemporary understanding of zoophilia - A multinational survey study

INTRODUCTION

People with paraphilias have sexual interests that are unusual, including inanimate objects, places, or individuals (children, corpses). This study explores zoophiles (=PSA, people who have sex with animals) recruited from the Internet.

METHOD

We administered a survey of own design via the Internet on popular discussion forums targeting the communities of PSA. All responses were quantified as the percentage of agreeing with one of the possible answer choices, plus the interpretation of qualitative data that may have been supplied in additional space.

RESULTS

Survey questions were thematically categorized into four groups - worldview, personal space, sex life, and online space. PSA are remarkably self-aware of their sexuality and recognize that their behavior is illegal (even though they perceive it as an expression of love); they often relate their struggles with finding social acceptance to homosexuality, believing that one way of de-stigmatizing them would be to remove zoophilia from the list of disorders listed in the DSM. Concerning sex life, PSA believe that the quality of sex with animals is much higher than with humans, and physical features, such as the presence of a fur, can be sexually arousing to PSA, especially when seeing animals in public. PSA utilize the Internet to network and connect with other PSA; these Internet-based friendships usually do not extend beyond online conversations, given that PSA tend to be mistrustful of other zoophiles particularly in the area of personal safety.

CONCLUSIONS

One of the most essential basis of zoophilia is relationship seeking behavior as well as interest in forming a long-term relationship with an animal partner.

Normality, therapy, and enhancement

According to human enhancement advocates, it is morally permissible (and sometimes obligatory) to use biomedical means to modulate or select certain biological traits in order to increase people's welfare, even when there is no pathology to be treated or prevented. Some authors have recently proposed to extend the use of biomedical means to modulate lust, attraction, and attachment. I focus on some conceptual implications of this proposal, particularly with regard to bioconservatives' understanding of the notions of therapy and enhancement I first explain what makes the proposal of medicalizing love interesting and unique, compared to the other forms of bioenhancement usually advocated. I then discuss how the medicalization of love bears on the more general debate on human enhancement, particularly with regard to the key notion of "normality" that is commonly used to define the therapy-enhancement distinction. This analysis suggests that the medicalization of love, in virtue of its peculiarity, requires bioconservatives to reconsider their way of understanding and applying the notions of "therapy" and "enhancement." More in particular, I show that, because a non-arbitrary and value-free notion of "therapy" cannot be applied to the case of love, bioconservatives have the burden of either providing some new criterion that could be used for drawing a line between permissible and impermissible medicalization, or demonstrating that under no circumstances-including the cases in which love is already acknowledged to require medical intervention-can love fall within the domain of medicine.