[00:04] Narrator: Yle talk on Tuesdays at one a clock Perttu Häkkinen.
[00:13] Häkkinen: And a very triumphant afternoon to you all and warm welcomes to todays start of the day talk. I am Perttu Häkkinen.
[00:23] Häkkinen: Today we will meet Jenna, a around twenty year old student and single parent, who loves her dog. She loves her dog so much that she even has intercourse with him.
[00:37] Häkkinen: Animal love or animal cruelty? That is what we are pondering today, when we are discussing the aspects of Finnish zoophilia.
[00:49] Häkkinen: On the subject matter in the studio with me is talking sexpo-foundations executive manager Tommi Paalanen. A very warm welcome to the show.
[00:58] Paalanen: Hello, hello, and good to be here.
[01:01] Häkkinen: Well, lets start with the basics. What kind of a person is a zoophile? How do you define a zoophile?
[01:09] Paalanen: Well, actually that question what kind of a person he is can’t be given a good answer because there are many kinds of people who might have some form of sexual interest towards animals and there we have the definition as well. 
[01:21] Paalanen: So, zoophilia is a preference to some kind of sexual interaction with animals, but it can appear for example as fantasies, so not everybody necessarily do it.
[01:31] Häkkinen: So there can be this kind of latent zoophilia or passive zoophilia or then active.
[01:37] Paalanen: Yeah, often-used terms are such as this kind of all-encompassing or partial.
[01:49] Paalanen: So if one has partial sexual preference it is so that they have also other manifestations of their sexuality.
[01:53] Paalanen: So that it isn’t necessarily such an important part of ones sexuality, but it still is there, but when a person has a all-encompassing sexual preference
[02:00] Paalanen: then it is often so that one can’t even properly get aroused unless this were present this preference.
[02:06] Häkkinen: So in other words there are people who necessarily can’t get aroused from other people, instead their sexual orientation is so all-encompassingly zoophilic.
[02:17] Paalanen: Yes, It is exactly like this.
[02:20] Paalanen: This is of course a fairly rare group all in all. So that overall this kind of all-encompassing or exclusive fetishism in all its forms is a very rare phenomenon,
[02:29] But yes they are in numerous ways among us. 
[02:34] Häkkinen: Well, ööm, Finland is one of the last, or actually lets continue a bit more on this.
[02:42] Häkkinen: How large of a percentage of people are zoophiles? Has the subject matter been researched in Finland or abroad?
[02:50] Paalanen: This has quite a scarcity of research and it scattered, but we are talking about a fraction of a percent when we are looking for the actual amount.
[03:00] Paalanen: But considerably more people have sexual fantasies. In the imagery of sexual fantasies animal sex in its different forms is downright common.
[03:09] Paalanen: So it can indeed be found by browsing say sex stories or peoples self told fantasies, so yes it always pops up. 
[03:16] Paalanen: And then we can take notice that in certain these kinds of agriculture driven, less industrialized societies there can be a quite high percentage of this for example among young men.
[03:29] Paalanen: Even to as high as some fifty percent that have had sexual experience with animals.
[03:34] Häkkinen: How about then has this been researched from the point of view of gender distribution? Is zoophilia more common among men or women? 
[03:44] Paalanen: It also varies a lot depending on the societal structures. 
[03:50] Paalanen: Typically in countryside areas, these kinds of less developed lands, young boys are the largest group that does it with farm animals as a form of substitute sex.
[04:02] Paalanen: They don’t necessarily have a special preference rather it is at that phase when sexuality starts to develop and they are in the middle of a hormonal storm.
[04:09] Paalanen: That which is nearby and available. And the relationship to the animals can be very close in these kinds of situations. 
[04:14] Paalanen: But then in urbanized societies it has been noted that young and a bit older women are those who do it with pets. 
[04:23] Paalanen: So it has been a more predominantly female phenomenon in urbanized societies.
[04:27] Paalanen: And then nowadays as well it is some sort of a warm hearted relationship to the pet overall, so that is a very typical pattern.
[04:35] Häkkinen: This is interesting. I would like to ask one more thing before we continue onwards.
[04:42] Häkkinen: So you mentioned popular cultures sexualized imagery. 
[04:46] Häkkinen: And for myself what comes to mind is a classic like “beauty and the beast”, “Kaunotar ja hirviö”  
[04:53]: Häkkinen: Which perhaps however, “Beast” is a sort of predator or animal actually etymologically more than a monster/beast.
[05:02] Paalanen: Yes, yeah here is flirtation with very interesting crossings when we are talking about even Disney’s films. 
[05:12] Paalanen: There is flirting with bestial love and with pretty strong powers that go with it, perceptions about this kind of primal power and some kind of sexuality that springs from there.
[05:24] Paalanen: And bestiality is always very strongly visible in certain type of humor.
[05:28] Paalanen: You don't use that kind of humor or keep in your conversation, a matter that doesn't in any way fascinate or interest. So this two-fold or ambivalent relationship people have with this topic, 
[05:39] Paalanen: where it at the same time disgust many, but at the same time fascinates on some level.
[05:43] Häkkinen: Yeah, and here is one such archetype where this Finnish rustic old boy with gumboots and sheep in the pasture,
[06:00] Häkkinen: so this is very traditional archetype, there is in Finnish humor about these kinds of topics for example in Brother Half-moon series in the 80's.
[06:11] Häkkinen: And today we test the validity of this archetype or stereotype as well, but one more question before we listen to the first part of Jenna's interview.
[06:22] Häkkinen: Finland is one of the last European countries where the law doesn't prohibit sexual acts towards animals.
[06:28] Häkkinen: At this moment of all the EU-countries, only Finland, Hungary and Romania allow bestiality if it doesn't cause suffering, pain or agony to the animal.
[06:36] Häkkinen: Elsewhere even the act is criminalized so why does our law differ in this regard?
[06:44] Paalanen: Well the deal actually is, that we haven't had that kind of certain political pressure to further this matter. 
[06:53] Paalanen: In some countries like in the mainstream countries, Germany and Denmark there has been this kind of political panic 
[07:00] Paalanen: around this topic. Maybe because of a one-off case and then there have been circulating some whopping, but unverified arguments for example about animal brothels and others.
[07:09] Paalanen: It has been this kind of so-called ad-hoc lawmaking, ergo the topic has popped out from somewhere and then they've had to do something with great distress.
[07:18] Paalanen: Finnish law started off in the 70's on the topic that
[07:24] Paalanen: zoophiles are rather in need of treatment than punishment, and so we started to examine this topic in a humane way.
[07:31] Paalanen: Sure we have now arrived in sexual therapy to a conclusion that actually they aren't even in need of treatment. 
[07:39] Paalanen: So there are no specific strong grounds on this kind of criminalization. 
[07:44] Paalanen: Except some kind of disgust and anxiety regarding this topic, but I don't think that it is a valid justification for criminalization.
[07:51] Häkkinen: And about these justifications for criminalization and other similar topics we'll talk about later in this program. So, in the studio are Perttu Häkkinen and Sexpo-foundations executive manager, Tommi Paalanen. Now we go to meet Jenna.
[08:09] Häkkinen: I have arrived here in Pirkanmaa to interview a student-single parent at her twenties, Jenna.
[08:17] Häkkinen: If we start at the basics, when did you notice that you are a zoophile, that is sexually attracted to animals?
[08:28] Jenna: Well, this probably started sometime in the junior high when my own sexuality started to develop then I clearly noticed it, 
[08:40] Jenna: but maybe at that age I didn’t know how to process the subject matter as well as nowadays. So there it began.
[08:48] Häkkinen: Do you remember from your own childhood, how did you relate with animals or what feelings did animals stir up in you?
[08:56] Jenna: Well I have always been very animal loving, like I remember from a very young age that I have always gone to pet and ask bravely from dog-owners if I can come pet their dogs. 
[09:08] Jenna: They have always brought great joy to me, the dog’s basic nature, which is what it is, so happy tailwaggers and stuff,
[09:18] Jenna: so I have always related to them very fondly and vice versa.
[09:23] Häkkinen: What do you think are the biggest misconceptions that are associated with zoophilia and it's practicers?
[09:31] Jenna: Well, definitely that many people think it's only physical intercourse with animals and that nothing else happens. 
[09:41] Jenna: Because it is a lot deeper with a lot of emotions in it and definitely also that people think animals are being hurt in some way.
[09:52] Jenna:  That is never the zoophiles intention in any way. It is more like shared enjoyment and time spend together and that involves a lot of things
[10:06] Jenna: but harming and anything negative is definitely not a part of it.
[10:11] Häkkinen: How you know if the animal enjoys it?
[10:14] Jenna: Animals do have, dogs for example, have different levels of feelings and animas in general do have a sexual drive.
[10:26] Jenna: Dogs also have this behavioral model that if the dog does not like a certain thing, it tries to avoid it, so yes animals can avoid if they want to
[10:38] Jenna:  so you can easily notice from the animal that nothing will happen if you start to force it. 
[10:42] Häkkinen: You indicated that the sexual intercourse, physical contact, is only one part of zoophilia,
[10:51] Häkkinen: could you describe that these feelings you have towards, for example a dog or dogs that those feelings are by nature romantic?
[11:00] Jenna: How, more specifically, you would define a romantic feeling?
[11:04] Häkkinen: Well, lets say like this. If I look at my wife, I get that certain warm fuzzy feeling inside of me,
11:14] Häkkinen: which includes the burning desire to be with that person, but also this kind of sexual feeling. 
[11:24] Häkkinen: I just can't verbalize this better, but what I mean with my question is that you have had relationships with humans and also with animals, 
[11:36] Häkkinen: so have these relationships been similar to each other’s.  Do they resemble each other these feelings that arise in you?
[11:45] Jenna: Yes, there are similarities as well as feelings that cannot be compared with each other. 
[11:53] Jenna: Like for example with a dog I enjoy a lot of that kind of active interaction, doing something together, like if we are training or something, 
[12:05] Jenna: the connection you get with the dog, if for example the dog falls sick, and needs to go to the vet, it will get me really worried, in a similar way as I would worry for my own child’s well being. 
[12:16] Jenna: So the feelings are really profound. A dog is like a family member to me. 
[12:21] Jenna: Generally speaking for me any animal is like a member of the family, so I do all my best to take care of them and provide it the best way I can.
[12:30] Häkkinen: Do you remember your first time with an animal, in a physical sense, and what it was like, what feelings it raised
[12:39] Jenna: Yes, I remember. It was very exciting and I was definitely frightened too. It was a bit hassle on both our parts. I could aptly compare it to my first time with another human,
[12:55] Jenna: as in it was quite a similar combination of excitement and fear, like how and what we should do, but yes, it was very much well, really incredible and memorable anyway, so yes it stays on my mind. 
[13:09] Häkkinen: Have had these feelings of guilt or anything similar?
[13:15] Jenna: Yes, about this matter in general yes. It is of course difficult to start to accept this kind of a thing when society is so harshly against it. 
13:26] Jenna: And I feel that most of the people just do not understand that it is not just only the physical interaction.
[13:34] Häkkinen: Do you know other people who have similar feelings and desires?
[13:40] Jenna: Yes I do know, some of them are total strangers, but some of them are very close acquaintances of mine.
[13:34] Häkkinen: Do you have some kind of a community, virtual or a more of a classic communion related one?
[13:59] Jenna: there is a lot of anonymously chatting and talking over the Internet. There are these Finnish and also foreign forum sites
[14:08] Jenna: which can be found in the Internet, so anyone can find them easily. Then there are these more closed sites where you can access them only through knowing someone already a member of the site.
[14:19] Häkkinen: In these sites are there users that you do not approve of, like for example people who want to hurt animals?
[14:26] Jenna: Well, hurting animals does not belong to zoophilia. It is often mixed up with this nasty kind of sub category called zoosadism,
[14:34] Jenna: where the main purpose is to actually hurt animals, and that is not the part of the zoophilia at all. I definitely do not tolerate those kinds of people at all.
[14:42] Häkkinen: If you had to tell a total average Joe what zoophilia is about in its entirety, how would you describe it? 
[14:57] Jenna: Deeply caring about the animal is probably the easiest way to at least start the conversation.
[15:03] Jenna: That It is mainly emotion based and that the physical aspect is really a very small part of it 
[15:10] Jenna: And that some zoophiles don’t for example practice this physical aspect at all. That for them it is only the feeling of togetherness with their pets that matters. 
[15:20] Häkkinen: But if we compare these feelings, these experiences - my closest point of comparison is a relationship to another person - so if we compare these and I'll try to understand in that way
[15:34] Häkkinen: for example we humans have multiple friends and partners - is it so for zoophiles?
[15:44] Jenna: There are certainly lots of friends. It takes a lot more than just getting quickly acquainted or meeting a couple of times to forge a partnership...
[16:00] Jenna: Personally I couldn't imagine physical contact with an unknown animal.
[16:09] Jenna: It requires a certain kind of deeper connection, one where the animal trusts you and you know and trust it too.
[16:19] Häkkinen: Have you been able to speak about this to your relatives and loved ones, to people who possibly don't know about your zoophilia.
[16:30] Jenna: No, I haven't. It's such a tough topic; such a big taboo and many people won't ever be able to understand it, even if you tried to explain it. 
[16:40] Jenna: Many people immediately make up their minds and stick to some particular issue, for example physical contact and after that they won't...
[16:50] Jenna: After they've made up their minds, I think it's useless trying to explain anything.
[16:55] Häkkinen: That was Jenna, a twenty-something year old woman who I spoke to last week. When I started the interview by asked about Jenna's motives - her name and voice have been altered, as you might've guessed. 
[17:15] Häkkinen: When I asked about her motives to agreeing to an interview, speaking about a topic, that's so heavy and hushed about in society, why would she want to do it in the first place? She said she wanted to, in a way, educate people about the subject.
[17:31] Häkkinen: Here in the studio I, Perttu Häkkinen and the executive manager of the Sexpo-foundation, Tommi Paalanen are discussing zoophilia, that used to be referred to as bestiality.
[17:47] Häkkinen: Well Tommi, since you work for the Sexpo-foundation, are you contacted by a lot of zoophiles?
[17:56] Paalanen: We are contacted from time to time, though they aren't usually directed to me, but our counseling service gets contacted by people,
[18:04] Paalanen: who either fantasize or who already have had sexual interaction with an animal...
[18:10] Paalanen: Some are confused and are looking for a... person to talk to, for the same reason Jenna mentioned,
[18:18] Paalanen: that there often aren't any people who you can open to about these things.
[18:23] Paalanen: Also, there's a lot of worry about outside reactions and feelings of abnormality. These kinds of issues are what people contact us about.
[18:37] Paalanen: Lately, because of this reformation of the Animal Protection Law, we've been contacted by some...
[18:42] Paalanen: representatives of zoophiles, asking about what's going on and is there anything they can do about it.
[18:52] Paalanen: They're afraid of becoming labeled as criminals due to the new law, which is obviously an understandable fear.
[18:59] Häkkinen: At this point in the broadcast I must mention, that if you have any comments about the subject, or questions for Tommi, leave them in the shoutbox at yle.fi/puhe.
[19:13] Häkkinen: So you could say, that these emotions that zoophiles feel about the amendment have, in a way - or, it's fair to say that the discussion has been heating up at your end as well?
[19:27] You're being contacted more often after this information became public?
[19:31] Paalanen: Yes, it's had some minor effect. There hasn't been a torrent of contacts due to the sensitive nature of the topic and people...
[19:41] Paalanen: There aren't a ton of zoophiles in Finland. So in a positive way the amount of contacts hasn't been huge, but it's definitely something constant.
[19:51] Paalanen: In our counseling service it's also visible outside the legislation issue as a need for counseling and support.
[20:01] Häkkinen: Then we will discuss about laws.
[20:06] Häkkinen: You do not support this law amendment on that part. Why?
[20:11] Paalanen: My stance as an ethical sexologist is that
[20:18] Paalanen: harming animals is strictly forbidden and should be,
[20:25] Paalanen: but animal sex is such broad and varied topic that,
[20:33] Paalanen: we cannot begin to inspect human-animal sexual relations solely from perspective of causing harm.
[20:37] Paalanen: More of what we should tell apart is which relations and aspects are harmful and which are not,
[20:42] Paalanen: and we can outlaw those harmful interactions for good reasons, and they are already outlawed with the current legislation,
[20:46] Paalanen: So no reform is required on that part.
[20:50] Paalanen: But then these sexual relations and situations that are not harmful to the animal,
[20:54] Paalanen: Where is the benefit from outlawing them, is there any?
[21:02] Paalanen: Is it beneficial that a certain group's sexual preference is altogether outlawed in this manner?
[21:06] Paalanen: What legal good are we protecting, what good for the society are we aiming at?
[21:10] Paalanen: Answers to these questions out there are more or less on flimsy premises.
[21:14] Paalanen: That in favor of outlawing, outlawing altogether very poor arguments can be found.
[21:19] Paalanen: One can reason here right now, should we really make a police affair out of Jenna's actions.
[21:26] Paalanen: Put her in jail and in court or if we had a teen girl who wants to experiments along her sexual development
[21:35] Paalanen: or is doing and playing something with her pet dog.
[21:42] Paalanen: Is that a matter where the police should be brought into, raise charges in court.
[21:45] Paalanen: Who stands to gain from that?
[21:47] Paalanen: To satisfy people's anxiety and disgust, we shouldn't need legislation designed to undermine an already marginalized group.
[21:57] Häkkinen: Yes and generally animals' rights and what is beneficial activity and what is harmful,
[22:04] Häkkinen: for example fur farming is a legitimate profession in this country.
[22:09] Paalanen: A very good comparison. Factory farming overall,
[22:12] Paalanen: When we go to dog shows, there's that sort of trimming
[22:16] Paalanen: and honing and training that in no way can be said to be beneficial in all cases to the dogs involved.
[22:23] Paalanen: This is an area full of myths and imagination that should be dealt with just calm analytical thinking.
[22:31] Häkkinen: Well, do you think this calm analytical thinking, taking the topic
[22:37] Häkkinen: and its starkness into account in a certain manner - is possible in this society?
[22:42] Paalanen: It looks like possible in this studio right this moment, and its good
[22:47] Paalanen: that we can be an example that one can have a discussion of any
[22:52] Paalanen: phenomena happening in society, that you can have a calm, fact-based discussion
[22:58] Paalanen: and really think from different perspectives about how this happens, who stands to gain and what sort of dynamic is at work.
[23:06] Paalanen: In sexology this has been one of the long-term goals for many other things.
[23:12] Paalanen: We could be talking here just in the same manner about any other sexual phenomena, when we go back by few decades,
[23:19] Paalanen: how spirited discussion it was back then about, for example, can women go to the restaurant without escorts at evening.
[23:25] Paalanen: There definitely were passionate opinions of the matter and we have come so far from it now.
[23:28] Häkkinen: Before we pick up from could, should women go alone to restaurants, let us listen to 
[23:38] Häkkinen: historian Teemu Keskisarja who was interviewed by Panu Hietaneva.
[23:42] Häkkinen: Keskisarja has researched in his thesis about history of Finnish zoophilia and punishments given out for it.
[23:48] Hietaneva: Zoophilia has probably happened throughout the history of humanity.
[23:53] Hietaneva: Docent Teemu Keskisarja has researched the subject from a Finnish perspective in his thesis, which is titled 'On mixing with mindless creatures' (Secoituxesta järjettömäin luondocappalden canssa).
[24:03] Hietaneva: Right at the beginning we must ask the historian about his personal motives:
[24:07] Hietaneva: Why is zoophilia such interesting topic that it has to be researched?
[24:11] Keskisarja: Because the history of zoophilia is just not a curiosity.
[24:17] Keskisarja: Zoophiles in Finland have been persecuted far more worse and far longer than for example, witches or gays.
[24:25] Keskisarja: Zoophile was a major politico-criminal problem in the 18th century.
[24:29] Keskisarja: Hundreds and even thousands of our ancestors have been sentenced to at least cruel corporeal punishment, some to death.
[24:39] Hietaneva: In the old world, people used to make secular laws based on the Bible.
[24:44] Hietaneva: Can anything be found there that condemns zoophilia?
[24:49] Keskisarja: Yes, there is. In the books of Moses, zoophilia is punishable by death in the same context and sequential verses as homosexuality is.
[25:02] Hietaneva: Lets talk then a bit about your researches backgrounds. What kinds of sources did you use? 
[25:07] Keskisarja: Transcripts from trials. There are from the 1700s quite a few well-preserved ones already. In them are even detailed descriptions of bestiality crimes.
[25:18] Keskisarja: The judges really couldn't, or the civil law notaries couldn't abide modesty. Instead they had to for the sake of provability note down all the smallest of details on paper of that grotesque act.
[25:29] Hietaneva: How many cases do you know of? 
[25:32] Keskisarja: I had in my doctors thesis, if I remember correctly, only about three hundred court cases, so those were the more serious ones that had gone all the way to the supreme court of Turku or Vaasa.
[25:47] Keskisarja: So even more cases could have been found for sure with fairly little effort. 
[25:51] Hietaneva: So from here you cannot directly draw conclusions on how common this bestiality has been in the 1700s?
[25:57] Keskisarja: Not directly, but you can make conclusion indirectly. Trials concerning bestiality were a lot more common than for example rape trials
[26:08] Keskisarja: and approximately a hundred times more common than trials raised against homosexuals, which Finland didn't have nearly at all.
[26:15] Keskisarja: So at least as a juridical phenomenon bestiality was very common in 1700's Finland. 
[26:23] Hietaneva: Were all of the convicted or accused men?
[26:27] Keskisarja: In my doctoral thesis that had a few hundred example-cases all of them were male, except for one.
[26:37] Keskisarja: A certain daughter from Lapua, named Maria, was accused of having sex with a dog. 
[26:46] Keskisarja: But that accusation as well was dropped in court and on the contrary Maria got compensation from the people who had slandered her as a animal fucker. So bestiality is therefore distinctively a crime of men.
[26:57] Hietaneva: In my doctoral theses it reads that as a juridical and as a folk cultural phenomenon bestiality wounded the 1700s Swedish and Finnish people more than any other nationality. What does this mean?
[27:12] Keskisarja: Probably that bestiality has appeared in all cultures from the stone ages to modern days in all parts of the world,
[27:20] Keskisarja: but only in Sweden and Finland the juridical system was so damn interested in it.
[27:27] Hietaneva: What is the reason behind it? Why was the juridical system around these parts of the world interested in the subject matter? 
[27:30] Keskisarja: That is a very difficult question. When legislators had already from the Middle Ages taken special notice on bestiality crimes 
[27:39] Keskisarja: and it had precise terms and definitions, when on the other hand homosexuals were not persecuted in Sweden or Finland at all. 
[27:47] Keskisarja: To put it bluntly continental Europe, Paris or London chased homosexuals in the 1700s and Amsterdam as well, while in the Nordic countries bestiality was the focus of criminal policy. 
[28:01] Hietaneva: What do we know about zoophiles of that time? Is there some kind of archetype?
[28:08] Keskisarja: We know quite a lot about them in fact, because in court they were interrogated on how old you are, what occupation do you have. Some questions were asked about one's childhood and on their life situations as well from the point of view of determining soundness of mind. 
[28:21] Keskisarja: There is actually no archetype of a zoophile; they were in my opinion pretty normal people, average Finns.
[28:29] Keskisarja: So as representatives of the population, strangely in fact, minorities were not overly represented in this perversion. 
[28:34] Keskisarja: The typical Finnish zoophile was a youthful farmhand or shepherd boy who didn't have previous offenses to his name. 
[28:45] Keskisarja: But in the group there were as well men with families who had learned in their childhood a habit of bestiality that had been left on. At a later more matured age they were caught for the first time of the crime.
[29:03] Hietaneva: In times of witch-hunts people were reported without proof and accusations were pulled out of thin air. Did similar things happen with bestiality?
[29:11] Keskisarja: Sometime, but the burden of proof was very heavy in the 1700s. 
[29:19] Keskisarja: For a verdict on bestiality, at least for ones leading to the death sentence required two unchallengeable witnesses' testimony and preferably the accused's confession.
[29:28] Keskisarja: And when bestiality of course was not readily publically practiced it was very difficult to gather the evidence together. 
[29:38] Keskisarja: And basically the informer took quite a big risk, in that if the accusation is left unproven 
[29:44] Keskisarja: then he himself will get a severe punishment, even the same punishment that would have befallen the zoophile.
[29:51] Keskisarja: There were some unfounded accusations, but probably a hundred times or a thousand times more were such cases where the witness didn't dare go talk to the authorities. 
[30:01] Hietaneva: Bestiality up to this day, is a taboo that is not commonly talked about but how it was responded during 1700's among the people?
[30:08] Keskisarja: It was a terrible crime and a death sin,
[30:13] Keskisarja: but not human dignity degrading. 
[30:18] Keskisarja: sexual perversion, when the entire word perversion was not been invented in 1700's.
[30:24] Keskisarja: That taboo, it was not really a taboo because there was so much talk about bestiality. 
[30:28] Keskisarja: Legal courts were public as well as the bans by authorities. 
[30:33] Keskisarja: the “non taboo” nature of bestiality is told in the old folklore
[30:39] Keskisarja: there are lots of poems about bestiality even though there aren't as many like that about homosexuality.
[30:46] Keskisarja: Old folklore Kalevala's omitted poems that told about Väinämöinen's relation to bestiality
[30:51] Keskisarja: that means the taboo has lived among us very long time.
[30:56] Radio channel: Perttu Häkkinen.
[30:58] Hietaneva: What about the punishments then? Was death penalty the most common or were there less restrictive options available?
[31:05] Keskisarja: In principle, the law in most cases ordered the death penalty
[31:12] Keskisarja: but in Finland the penalty was relaxed from reason to another, for example to life sentence of work and 40 whip lashes.
[31:25] Keskisarja: That was because maybe the magistrates thought that not all of them could be executed, there would be too many.. 
[31:30] Keskisarja: would be.. blood flowing, but you could die from it. ..all things swept... were incriminating.
[31:39] Keskisarja: So most of the zoophiles remained closed before their 50th or 100th time in the act
[31:49] Keskisarja: many years they practiced the sin more or less frequently and some point all the sudden some were caught by accident.
[31:56] Keskisarja: That was.. ..their way was commonplace.
[32:02] Keskisarja: Almost every other crime, including sex offenses were done while being inebriated but zoophiles were almost always sober.
[32:09] Hietaneva: Was the sentenced convicted to pay to compensate for the acts to the animal owners and what happened to the animals that were being used sexually?
[32:17] Keskisarja: I think that was probably the biggest injustice about the bestiality trial cases, the fate of the animals.
[32:24] Keskisarja: Animals received death penalty with the person or even in the case where the human was pardoned.
[32:33] Keskisarja: the animals were slaughtered publically for being involved in bestiality.
[32:38] Keskisarja: It was a sad case if a farmer retrospectively confessed for doing the sin
[32:43] Keskisarja: for ten years with the whole village's cattle. In that case the executioner had to escort about 30 animals of different species to their graves
[32:54] Keskisarja: and that lead the villagers to big financial losses.
[32:58] Keskisarja: In principle the zoophile had to pay these losses for the owner from his own funds
[33:05] Keskisarja: but the poor farmer hands or shepherds in most cases did not have anything to out measure.
[33:10] Hietaneva: In your thesis you write that the prevalence of bestiality can be explained by sexual frustration, could you tell a little more about this? 
[33:19] Keskisarja: Of course it can be explained that marriage was basically the only legal route to pursue a carnal intercourse and 
[33:29] Keskisarja: there was birth control but they were quite ineffective.
[33:34] Keskisarja: And also farmer hands and maids had the risk of getting punished or at least shamed if they went in the barn together.
[33:41] Keskisarja: And one very important thing that raised the popularity of bestiality was that masturbation, onanism was regarded in the 1700s
[33:50] Keskisarja: as a huge sin at least with the magistrates and the public alike.
[33:58] Keskisarja: And these young men who always were involved did not necessarily have any safe and easy way to satisfy their needs.
[34:07] Hietaneva: How then did the judiciary take on bestiality cases change during the next 1800 century then?
[34:14] Keskisarja: First Monarch Gustav III ceased the death penalties during end of 1700 century from bestiality crimes
[34:22] Keskisarja: and after that the sin and crime started to crawl in the darkness.
[34:27] Keskisarja: That meant that the habits remained common but the trials became less frequent.
[34:32] Keskisarja: and the authorities did not pay attention to bestiality cases anymore.
[34:38] Keskisarja: That silent and hushing policy then little by little extinguished the interest among common people.
[34:47] Hietaneva: Nowadays zoophilia is still legal in Finland but has anyone been convicted during 1900 century for it anymore?
[34:54] Keskisarja: Of course, after the last war there have been a few hundred cases of animal sex crimes.
[35:01] Keskisarja: And Bestiality was removed from the penal code in the beginning of 1970 at same time in conjunction with homosexuality.
[34:54] Keskisarja: Yes. Actually, even after the past few wars, hundreds of zoophiles were sentenced
[35:01] Keskisarja: And zoophilia wasn't legalized until the 1970s, concurrently with homosexuality.
[35:10] Hietaneva: Let's ask your opinion as a historian: Should zoophilia be illegal in this day and age?
[35:18] Keskisarja: Well, zoophilia absolutely sucks and is against the common sense of justice, so in that sense it should be criminalized
[35:26] Keskisarja: however - even in the 18th century the authorities and courts noticed that severe public punishments
[35:35] Keskisarja: didn't help in rooting out the sin, but on the contrary only stirred up the interest of the common people.
[35:40] Keskisarja: So maybe we too should avoid waking the slumbering beast and hope, that zoophilia stays in the darkest depths of the Internet, and doesn't find its way into our daily life.
[35:54] Häkkinen: That was historian Teemu Keskisarja in an interview with Panu Hietaneva.
[36:00] Häkkinen: Here in the studio now the executive manager of the Sexpo-foundation, Tommi Paalanen and I, Perttu Häkkinen will be discussing the faces and general view of Finnish zoophilia.
[36:12] Häkkinen: How did all of this sound to you Tommi, or actually... while listening to Keskisarja's interview I started thinking,
[36:23] Häkkinen: that are we Finns as a people simply just eager to "get in on" with animals,
[36:29] Häkkinen: or is the reason for this high representation of zoophilia in the 18th century due to the fact, that the criminal policy was focused against the sin?
[36:43] Paalanen: Well, the background of the matter is, that in the past, when it came to crimes of a sexual nature, 
[36:53] Paalanen: unnaturality was a grave sin in the Christian legal philosophy, and like Teemu mentioned of the severity of the sin of onanism,
[37:00] Paalanen: zoophilia was comparably a worse crime than rape, since rape was a product of natural desire where as zoophilia was a product of unnatural desire,
[37:07] Paalanen: so I don't know why the representation was so high - especially if Teemu doesn't know either
[37:11] Paalanen: so the reason must be buried quite deep, but certainly such a hard stance on zoophilia in Scandinavia - in Finland and Sweden
[37:17] Paalanen: must have grown in part from the traditions of Middle Age Christianity.
[37:24] Paalanen: So I think it's somewhat unreasonable to claim, that the presence of zoophilia was especially large in Scandinavia.
[37:30] Paalanen: Or course, one factor could be, that in the Finnish countryside life was somewhat isolated sometimes due to long distances, difficult journeys... the long and cold winter...
[37:42] Paalanen: people don't necessarily meet as many other people and generally travel during winter, so isolation could've caused
[37:48] Paalanen: people's sexual interests to drift more towards animals,
[37:51] Paalanen: but the fact is bestiality is present in the history of all cultures that have kept animals, so in that sense us Fins aren't in any way especially perverted.
[38:02] Häkkinen: Indeed, take for example in Japanese classical art, the famous painting "Tako to Ama"
[38:08] Häkkinen: I can't remember if it was from the 18th or 19th century - that pictures a woman in the embrace of an octopus.
[38:20] Häkkinen: In any case... is zoophilia - since we've discussed the side of criminal policy
[38:30] Häkkinen: in your opinion, is zoophilia in general a question of ethics or an ethical problem?
[38:38] Paalanen: Well it isn't per se, like when we ask about whether or not humans and animals are allowed have sexual contact with each other
[38:48] Paalanen: the answers and analyses don't reveal anything of interest in terms of ethics.
[38:55] Paalanen: The only question that can really be pondered ethically - in addition of injuring the animal, which is obviously an important issue
[39:02] Paalanen: but the other than that, the question is whether or not the animal can give consent.
[39:09] Paalanen: And there's two lines of thinking to that, which Jenna already brought up, that obviously the animal communicates and is active
[39:15] Paalanen: for example a male dog in heat will mount stools and stuffed animals and if you offer yourself to be mounted
[39:26] Paalanen: it really can't be argued that the animal is in any way being forced to the act, so in these kinds of cases you could say there is consent.
[39:36] Paalanen: But on the other hand, when dealing with the ethics of handling animals in general, instead of consent it's usually viewed from the point of goodwill, benevolence
[39:45] Paalanen: because most pets aren't able to give consent at all or even understand the concept of it, so that makes the matter of consent meaningless.
[39:56] Paalanen: Even in animal rights philosophy it's the responsibility of the human to respect the rights of the animal, which originating from the goodwill of humans.
[39:56] Paalanen: Even in animal rights philosophy it's the responsibility of the human to respect the rights of the animal, which originates from our basic good willing nature. 
[40:06] Paalanen: Philosopher Peter Singer started his work from the idea, that causing unnecessary suffering to an animal is wrong,
[40:12] Paalanen: which is also based on the idea of benevolence, not on what the animal wants or consents to.
[40:21] Häkkinen: Indeed, Singer was the arch philosopher of a new kind of animal rights movement.
[40:26] Paalanen: Yes.
[40:27] Häkkinen: I was just thinking, that is there a general opinion towards zoophilia in animal rights philosophy or has there been any discussion on the topic?
[40:37] Paalanen: Well, it hasn't really been addressed, because classic philosophers have often shied away from topics of sexual nature.
[40:45] Paalanen: If I remember correctly, Singer had something to say on the topic, as well as Igor Primoratz and Alan Sobel, both of whom have discussed the topic.
[40:52] Paalanen: A couple of people have been bringing up the issue and in general you could say, that because of this philosophy of suffering we've identified the fact,
[41:00] Paalanen: that a sexual relationship isn't in itself in any way meaningful.
[41:05] Paalanen: What is ethically interesting is the repercussions of the sexual relationship, the possible harm or maltreatment of the animal.
[41:15] Paalanen: By contrast, anal sex or homosexuality by themselves aren't ethically interesting questions, but rather whether the act was consensual or not.
[41:21] Paalanen: We should apply the same logic to animals as well, and ask whether an act is rape or consensual sex.
[41:33] Häkkinen: Jenna did indeed mention this kind of an opposite of a zoophile, a zoo-sadist,
[41:43] Häkkinen: which refers to a person, who seeks pleasure in hurting animals sexually.
[41:53] Häkkinen: So, is this a real subculture of bestiality? Do these kinds of activities actually take place or is it just a myth like the snuff-movies of the 70s?
[42:10] Paalanen: Zoo-sadism, deliberately hurting animals, is - like Teemu Keskisarja put it - a part of the deepest abyss of the Internet.
[42:19] Paalanen: And I don't mean bestiality in general, which is surprisingly mainstream and quite easy to find.
[42:29] Paalanen: I wouldn't say that there is any uniform subculture or zoo-sadism outside some very specific Internet forums
[42:38] Paalanen: where the subject is discussed. It's more about isolated individuals with woefully deranged relationships to animals,
[42:48] Paalanen: who exploit animals' lack of defense and ability to express themselves.
[42:53] Paalanen: The reason why zoo-sadism is always so strongly on display when animal rights activists and vets are concerned
[43:07] Paalanen: is because zoo-sadism is, unfortunately, perhaps the only side of bestiality that comes up when animals have clearly been hurt.
[43:12] Paalanen: The damages of it are easily visible and verified, although you can't always be sure of the specifics.
[43:19] Paalanen: For example, if the animal's genital area has tears or something similar, it's most likely due to violent sexual acts or such.
[43:29] Paalanen: This type of misrepresentation is common in many other sexual topics, having these sorts of unpleasant byproducts,
[43:38] Paalanen: however rare - come up and greatly affect the whole discussion.
[43:46] Häkkinen: This was Perttu Häkkinen and the executive manager of the Sexpo-foundation here in the studio. At this point we will listen to the second part of the interview with twenty-something Jenna.
[43:59] Häkkinen: Could you imagine living without zoophilia or that side of yourself?
[44:08] Jenna: I could offer a counter question to everyone actually. Could you imagine that you were not straight or gay? 
[44:16] Jenna: For example it probably could work but how true life would be for you afterwards?
[44:24] Jenna: It is a part of you; based on research zoophilia is a character trait and it is a attribute you are born with. 
[44:34] Jenna: So it is not just a think that comes from somewhere over there, out of nothing.
[44:39] Häkkinen: Our society is based very much on the abuse of animals. 
[44:44] Häkkinen: We kill animals for food, we make clothing out of animals. These things are comparatively normal but zoophilia is not.
[44:53] Häkkinen: How do you see other animal rights questions? Are you a vegetarian, do you use leather shoes?
[45:01] Jenna: I'm not a vegetarian, but I am for example a member of different animal protection associations.
[45:08] Jenna: I work as a volunteer and I strive to do what ever I can for animals.
[45:20] Jenna: This amendment that's being pushed, banning zoophilia in Finland - I think it's a pretty absurd and dumb law.
[45:30] Jenna: How would it be monitored? How could it be stopped?
[45:34] Jenna: Starting from the fact, that nobody can ever know for sure what happens within the walls of someone else's apartment - surely a lot of things happen in everyone's homes
[45:47] Jenna: this is certainly one of the things the amendment won't affect in any way, and I think this is a...
[45:54] Jenna: A kind of attempt by politicians to be like "now let's do something good for animals so that animal lovers and everyone else is satisfied with the issue", when in fact they should be focusing on
[46:08] Jenna: a lot, lot, lot more severe and significant issues that are happening to animals, like for example, intensive livestock production.
[46:15] Jenna: Intensive livestock production is something that should really be intervened with as well as, if for example someone decides to
[46:25] Jenna: neglect all of their 50 cows, which are then found dead in the barn and the person gets fined
[46:31] Jenna: these are issues that should be interfered with more harshly, rather than zoophilia, that doesn't...
[46:40] Jenna: There are no victims in this. It feels like the goal here is to just forcefully do something, so that you can pat your belly afterwards and say: "we sure made a great amendment, didn't we", when in fact it's not...
[46:54] Jenna: It's not going to affect anything and there are no victims in it.
[46:58] Häkkinen: In these virtual communities you have, has there been talk about uniting Finnish zoophiles
[47:07] Häkkinen: to some official extent and start advocating for your own rights in case this amendment is passed?
[47:15] Jenna: I don't know. I can honestly say that I don't know about that.
[47:19] Jenna: There hasn't been that much discussion on this topic yet.
[47:23] Häkkinen: When you've talked to other Finnish zoophiles on forums, has the other party been mostly men or women or has the ratio been 50-50 (fifty-fifty)?
[47:36] Jenna: It's been pretty much 50-50 (fifty-fifty), it hasn't...
[47:41] Jenna: Based on the picture I have, it's pretty much 50-50 (fifty-fifty).
[47:45] Häkkinen: Is there some kind of loyalty towards certain species amongst zoophiles, in the sense
[47:53] Häkkinen: that some people are attracted to dogs for example and others to some other species?
[48:00] Jenna: Yes. It very much depends on the individual what animal they prefer and personally I'm only attracted to dogs.
[48:10] Häkkinen: What other species or animals have been mentioned in these discussions?
[48:16] Jenna: Horses, for example.
[48:18] Häkkinen: Are these the two most common ones?
[48:19] Jenna: I believe so.
[48:23] Häkkinen: Is it then so, that if someone prefers horses or dogs, that identity doesn’t change?
[48:30] Jenna: I'd say that it could change.
[48:34] Jenna: Can't say for sure about myself.
[48:37] Jenna: For example, I don't see horses in a sexual manner the same way I see dogs.
[48:44] Jenna: It's probably is due to the fact, that I can understand dogs the best.
[48:52] Jenna: I'd argue I know when a dog doesn't like something and during my life I've also spent the most time with dogs, so it's also the safest thing.
[49:02] Häkkinen: In a dog, what kind of characteristics and physical traits appeal to you?
[49:08] Jenna: Well, definitely the base characteristics of a dog, like happiness and positivity, like for example when you go meet your friends dogs
[49:20] Jenna: they meet you at the door happily wagging their tail, so...
[49:26] Jenna: There really isn't anything specific, so...
[49:32] Häkkinen: Sociality then?
[49:34] Jenna: Definitely sociality.
[49:36] Jenna: The dog has to be a dog and it can't be...
[49:42] Jenna: For example, if I'm considering physical intercourse with a dog, then dog can't be bashful or scared.
[49:51] Häkkinen: Jenna, in your opinion, is zoophilia a moral question or a moral problem?
[49:58] Jenna: Moral is definitely strongly tied to it, but I don't see anything morally wrong in it - I was born this way
[50:11] Jenna: it's a trait I have and I'm my opinion you shouldn't moralize or punish yourself about who you are, especially when nobody is getting hurt, like with zoophilia.
[50:23] Häkkinen: So in your opinion there is no victim.
[50:27] Jenna: Absolutely not. It is about intense caring, intimacy, and affection.
[50:35] Jenna: Yes, also the physical side, but hurting anyone involved is not part of it.
[50:45] Häkkinen: You are a zoophile and a mother. Is this inconvenient situation?
[50:52] Jenna: Definitely in some way. As a family we're always with the dog just like any other family,
[51:08] Jenna: we're no different in any way as far as that's concerned. But, if I want physical contact with the dog,
[51:17] it will take place so that my child is not aware.
[51:25] Häkkinen: People are said to be "serially monogamous", i.e. they fall in love and at some point the feelings may fade away and then they find a next partner or lover.
[51:40] Häkkinen: Does this apply among zoophiles as well? Is it possible to fall in love with a dog and at some point to realize that the feelings have faded?
[51:50] Jenna: I would say that at least infatuation is possible. I can't really say whether feelings fade away or not, because it's a personal trait,
[52:02] Jenna: but it's possible in theory at least. You could feel attraction towards a certain animal, only to later realize that it wasn't your thing after all.
[52:16] Häkkinen: Some people from our audience may be speculating, that are you teaching physical interaction or aim to condition your dog to be, as it were, some sort of sex servant?
[52:28] Jenna: Certainly not. That's not part of being a zoophile at all. The initiative comes from both the human and animal. I would say that it is clearly obvious if the dog has interest in you, and it will surely make it clear.
[52:50] Häkkinen: Well lets think about some very eager and kind-hearted dog owner. Like a canine-fancier actively taking a part in pet fairs or Facebook-groups.
[53:05] Häkkinen: Do any of these "ordinary dog enthusiasts" ever come off to you as someone that might actually be a zoophile?
[53:15] Jenna: Well, sometimes they do, but I wouldn't necessarily claim that they actually are zoophiles. This is only my own assumption, but many people probably don't understand,
[53:28] Jenna: that if they're experiencing such strong emotions, that sometimes just the feeling of love and affection you feel for your dog is enough to make you cry,
[53:36] Jenna: that they are experiencing exactly the same feelings I have for my dog.
[53:46] Häkkinen: That was the portrait of the Finnish zoophile, as told by the twenty-something year old Jenna.
[53:57] Häkkinen: So, are zoophilic tendencies genetic as Jenna put it, or are they a perversion?
[54:08] Paalanen: First off, these days perversion is a word that that's only really used by zealous Christians or people otherwise clueless about the subject,
[54:18] Paalanen: so rather than genetic, I'd call it innate sexual traits.
[54:23] Paalanen: The prevailing theory on how different sexual preferences develop, is that humans might be genetically inclined to develop strong sexual fetishes.
[54:37] Paalanen: In any case, these fetishes are formed during early childhood for various reason and can't be altered whether they're genetic or not.
[54:49] Häkkinen: What events can trigger these changes? Have there been studies on the subject?
[54:55] Paalanen: There isn't a prevailing theory on the subject yet, as there hasn't been any "this is how it goes" kind of breakthrough.
[55:04] Paalanen: So far one of the dominant theories is imprinting, that certain pleasurable experiences during early childhood start linking that pleasure to sexual satisfaction as well. It's a very, should I say, Freudian theory, but it's the strongest we currently have.
[55:29] Häkkinen: Meaning that there are some grounds to the claim that it's triggered by a childhood event.
[55:38] Paalanen: Yes, you could say that. Specifically when talking about very exclusive and strong preferences,
[55:44] Paalanen: as people can have very diverse sexual repertoires when it comes to overall sexual preferences.
[55:50] Paalanen: There can be a degree of pansexuality, experiencing sexuality in a plethora of things and zoophilia can be a part of bigger picture.
[56:00] Häkkinen: Indeed. There are people who identify as object sexuals, if that was the correct term.
[56:09] Häkkinen: One more question that comes to mind, is all zoophilia the same? For example, zoophilia has often been thought of, in a way, as substitute sex.
[56:20] Paalanen: That is correct, but for example Jenna strongly represents what is called "zoo-romantic" thinking.
[56:28] Paalanen: What that means is that her relationship with her animal could be classified as a love affair,
[56:35] Paalanen: ... Regardless, traditionally zoophilia is about sexual attraction and arousal.
[56:42] Paalanen: Based on my experiences zoo-romance is quite common, but there are also lots of zoophiles, that aren't after romance, but rather are only sexually aroused by animals.
[56:54] Paalanen: And then perhaps the most common form of zoophilia is so called substitute sex.
[57:00] Paalanen: By which I mean people having sex with animals when no other alternatives are available.
[57:11] Häkkinen: Then should there be a clearer distinction between bestiality, zoophilia and zoo romance?
[57:25] Paalanen: If you want to understand the phenomenon, which is essential in sexology, you must obviously understand, that it's not all the same.
[57:32] Paalanen: It would be tacky to generalize people’s relationships like that, like there wasn't any difference between a lifelong marriage and prostitution. That's not how it is at all.
[57:47] Häkkinen: Tommi Paalanen, thank you for visiting.
[57:49] Paalanen: Thank you.