What do you think?
Rate this book
Loving Animals: On Bestiality, Zoophilia and Post-Human Love
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.
- GenresNonfictionHistory
184 pages, Hardcover
Published December 2, 2020
About the author
Joanna Bourke
38 books58 followersJoanna Bourke (born 1963 in New Zealand) is an historian and professor of history at Birkbeck, University of London.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
January 15, 2024
A lot of interesting concepts, ideas and cases but because of the interdisciplinary focus it sometimes becomes a bit of a tedious read imo
July 26, 2023
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.
Want to read
December 4, 2021via Amia Srinivasan's review.
August 30, 2022
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.
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.
January 20, 2024
Wildly uncomfortable and exciting. Revisit.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews