Narrator: Yle talk on Tuesdays at one a clock Perttu Häkkinen.
Häkkinen: And a very triumphant afternoon to you all and warm
welcomes to todays start of the day talk. I am Perttu Häkkinen.
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.
Häkkinen: Animal love or animal cruelty? That is what we are pondering
today, when we are discussing the aspects of Finnish zoophilia.
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.
Paalanen: Hello, hello, and good to be here.
Häkkinen: Well, lets start with the basics. What kind of
a person is a zoophile? How do you define a zoophile?
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.
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.
Häkkinen: So there can be this kind of latent
zoophilia or passive zoophilia or then active.
Paalanen: Yeah, often-used terms are such as
this kind of all-encompassing or partial.
Paalanen: So if one has partial sexual preference it is so
that they have also other manifestations of their sexuality.
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
Paalanen: then it is often so that one can’t even properly
get aroused unless this were present this preference.
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.
Paalanen: Yes, It is exactly like this.
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,
But yes they are in numerous ways among us.
Häkkinen: Well, ööm, Finland is one of the last,
or actually lets continue a bit more on this.
Häkkinen: How large of a percentage of people are zoophiles?
Has the subject matter been researched in Finland or abroad?
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.
Paalanen: But considerably more people have sexual fantasies. In the imagery
of sexual fantasies animal sex in its different forms is downright common.
Paalanen: So it can indeed be found by browsing say sex stories
or peoples self told fantasies, so yes it always pops up.
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.
Paalanen: Even to as high as some fifty percent
that have had sexual experience with animals.
Häkkinen: How about then has this been researched from the point of view
of gender distribution? Is zoophilia more common among men or women?
Paalanen: It also varies a lot depending on the societal structures.
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.
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.
Paalanen: That which is nearby and available. And the relationship
to the animals can be very close in these kinds of situations.
Paalanen: But then in urbanized societies it has been noted
that young and a bit older women are those who do it with pets.
Paalanen: So it has been a more predominantly
female phenomenon in urbanized societies.
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.
Häkkinen: This is interesting. I would like to
ask one more thing before we continue onwards.
Häkkinen: So you mentioned popular cultures sexualized imagery.
Häkkinen: And for myself what comes to mind is a classic
like “beauty and the beast”, “Kaunotar ja hirviö”
Häkkinen: Which perhaps however, “Beast” is a sort of predator
or animal actually etymologically more than a monster/beast.
Paalanen: Yes, yeah here is flirtation with very interesting
crossings when we are talking about even Disney’s films.
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.
Paalanen: And bestiality is always very strongly visible in certain type of humor.
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,
Paalanen: where it at the same time disgust many,
but at the same time fascinates on some level.
Häkkinen: Yeah, and here is one such archetype where this
Finnish rustic old boy with gumboots and sheep in the pasture,
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.
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.
Häkkinen: Finland is one of the last European countries
where the law doesn't prohibit sexual acts towards animals.
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.
Häkkinen: Elsewhere even the act is criminalized
so why does our law differ in this regard?
Paalanen: Well the deal actually is, that we haven't had that
kind of certain political pressure to further this matter.
Paalanen: In some countries like in the mainstream countries,
Germany and Denmark there has been this kind of political panic
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.
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.
Paalanen: Finnish law started off in the 70's on the topic that
Paalanen: zoophiles are rather in need of treatment than punishment,
and so we started to examine this topic in a humane way.
Paalanen: Sure we have now arrived in sexual therapy to a
conclusion that actually they aren't even in need of treatment.
Paalanen: So there are no specific strong grounds on this kind of criminalization.
Paalanen: Except some kind of disgust and anxiety regarding this topic,
but I don't think that it is a valid justification for criminalization.
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.
Häkkinen: I have arrived here in Pirkanmaa to interview
a student-single parent at her twenties, Jenna.
Häkkinen: If we start at the basics, when did you notice that
you are a zoophile, that is sexually attracted to animals?
Jenna: Well, this probably started sometime in the junior high when
my own sexuality started to develop then I clearly noticed it,
Jenna: but maybe at that age I didn’t know how to process
the subject matter as well as nowadays. So there it began.
Häkkinen: Do you remember from your own childhood, how did you
relate with animals or what feelings did animals stir up in you?
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.
Jenna: They have always brought great joy to me, the dog’s basic
nature, which is what it is, so happy tailwaggers and stuff,
Jenna: so I have always related to them very fondly and vice versa.
Häkkinen: What do you think are the biggest misconceptions
that are associated with zoophilia and it's practicers?
Jenna: Well, definitely that many people think it's only
physical intercourse with animals and that nothing else happens.
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.
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
Jenna: but harming and anything negative is definitely not a part of it.
Häkkinen: How you know if the animal enjoys it?
Jenna: Animals do have, dogs for example, have different levels
of feelings and animas in general do have a sexual drive.
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
Jenna: so you can easily notice from the animal
that nothing will happen if you start to force it.
Häkkinen: You indicated that the sexual intercourse,
physical contact, is only one part of zoophilia,
Häkkinen: could you describe that these feelings you have towards, for
example a dog or dogs that those feelings are by nature romantic?
Jenna: How, more specifically, you would define a romantic feeling?
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,
Häkkinen: so have these relationships been similar to each other’s.
Do they resemble each other these feelings that arise in you?
Jenna: Yes, there are similarities as well as
feelings that cannot be compared with each other.
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,
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.
Jenna: So the feelings are really profound. A dog is like a family member to me.
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.
Häkkinen: Do you remember your first time with an animal, in a
physical sense, and what it was like, what feelings it raised
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,
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.
Häkkinen: Have had these feelings of guilt or anything similar?
Häkkinen: Do you know other people who have similar feelings and desires?
Jenna: Yes I do know, some of them are total strangers,
but some of them are very close acquaintances of mine.
Häkkinen: Do you have some kind of a community,
virtual or a more of a classic communion related one?
Jenna: there is a lot of anonymously chatting and talking over the
Internet. There are these Finnish and also foreign forum sites
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.
Häkkinen: In these sites are there users that you do not
approve of, like for example people who want to hurt animals?
Jenna: Well, hurting animals does not belong to zoophilia. It is often
mixed up with this nasty kind of sub category called zoosadism,
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.
Häkkinen: If you had to tell a total average Joe what zoophilia
is about in its entirety, how would you describe it?
Jenna: Deeply caring about the animal is probably
the easiest way to at least start the conversation.
Jenna: That It is mainly emotion based and that the
physical aspect is really a very small part of it
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.
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
Häkkinen: for example we humans have multiple
friends and partners - is it so for zoophiles?
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...
Jenna: Personally I couldn't imagine physical contact with an unknown animal.
Jenna: It requires a certain kind of deeper connection, one
where the animal trusts you and you know and trust it too.
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.
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.
Jenna: Many people immediately make up their minds and stick to some
particular issue, for example physical contact and after that they won't...
Jenna: After they've made up their minds, I
think it's useless trying to explain anything.
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.
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.
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.
Häkkinen: Well Tommi, since you work for the
Sexpo-foundation, are you contacted by a lot of zoophiles?
Paalanen: We are contacted from time to time, though they aren't usually
directed to me, but our counseling service gets contacted by people,
Paalanen: who either fantasize or who already
have had sexual interaction with an animal...
Paalanen: Some are confused and are looking for a...
person to talk to, for the same reason Jenna mentioned,
Paalanen: that there often aren't any people
who you can open to about these things.
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.
Paalanen: Lately, because of this reformation of the
Animal Protection Law, we've been contacted by some...
Paalanen: representatives of zoophiles, asking about what's
going on and is there anything they can do about it.
Paalanen: They're afraid of becoming labeled as criminals due
to the new law, which is obviously an understandable fear.
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.
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?
You're being contacted more often after this information became public?
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...
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.
Paalanen: In our counseling service it's also visible outside
the legislation issue as a need for counseling and support.
Häkkinen: Then we will discuss about laws.
Häkkinen: You do not support this law amendment on that part. Why?
Paalanen: My stance as an ethical sexologist is that
Paalanen: harming animals is strictly forbidden and should be,
Paalanen: but animal sex is such broad and varied topic that,
Paalanen: we cannot begin to inspect human-animal sexual
relations solely from perspective of causing harm.
Paalanen: More of what we should tell apart is which
relations and aspects are harmful and which are not,
Paalanen: and we can outlaw those harmful interactions for good
reasons, and they are already outlawed with the current legislation,
Paalanen: So no reform is required on that part.
Paalanen: But then these sexual relations and
situations that are not harmful to the animal,
Paalanen: Where is the benefit from outlawing them, is there any?
Paalanen: Is it beneficial that a certain group's sexual
preference is altogether outlawed in this manner?
Paalanen: What legal good are we protecting,
what good for the society are we aiming at?
Paalanen: Answers to these questions out there are more or less on flimsy premises.
Paalanen: That in favor of outlawing, outlawing
altogether very poor arguments can be found.
Paalanen: One can reason here right now, should we
really make a police affair out of Jenna's actions.
Paalanen: Put her in jail and in court or if we had a teen
girl who wants to experiments along her sexual development
Paalanen: or is doing and playing something with her pet dog.
Paalanen: Is that a matter where the police
should be brought into, raise charges in court.
Paalanen: Who stands to gain from that?
Paalanen: To satisfy people's anxiety and disgust, we shouldn't need
legislation designed to undermine an already marginalized group.
Häkkinen: Yes and generally animals' rights and
what is beneficial activity and what is harmful,
Häkkinen: for example fur farming is a legitimate profession in this country.
Paalanen: A very good comparison. Factory farming overall,
Paalanen: When we go to dog shows, there's that sort of trimming
Paalanen: and honing and training that in no way can be
said to be beneficial in all cases to the dogs involved.
Paalanen: This is an area full of myths and imagination
that should be dealt with just calm analytical thinking.
Häkkinen: Well, do you think this calm analytical thinking, taking the topic
Häkkinen: and its starkness into account in a
certain manner - is possible in this society?
Paalanen: It looks like possible in this studio right this moment, and its good
Paalanen: that we can be an example that one can have a discussion of any
Paalanen: phenomena happening in society, that
you can have a calm, fact-based discussion
Paalanen: and really think from different perspectives about how this
happens, who stands to gain and what sort of dynamic is at work.
Paalanen: In sexology this has been one of the long-term goals for many other things.
Paalanen: We could be talking here just in the same manner about
any other sexual phenomena, when we go back by few decades,
Paalanen: how spirited discussion it was back then about, for
example, can women go to the restaurant without escorts at evening.
Paalanen: There definitely were passionate opinions
of the matter and we have come so far from it now.
Häkkinen: Before we pick up from could, should
women go alone to restaurants, let us listen to
Häkkinen: historian Teemu Keskisarja who was interviewed by Panu Hietaneva.
Häkkinen: Keskisarja has researched in his thesis about history
of Finnish zoophilia and punishments given out for it.
Hietaneva: Zoophilia has probably happened throughout the history of humanity.
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).
Hietaneva: Right at the beginning we must ask
the historian about his personal motives:
Hietaneva: Why is zoophilia such interesting
topic that it has to be researched?
Keskisarja: Because the history of zoophilia is just not a curiosity.
Keskisarja: Zoophiles in Finland have been persecuted far
more worse and far longer than for example, witches or gays.
Keskisarja: Zoophile was a major
politico-criminal problem in the 18th century.
Keskisarja: Hundreds and even thousands of our ancestors have been
sentenced to at least cruel corporeal punishment, some to death.
Hietaneva: In the old world, people used to make secular laws based on the Bible.
Hietaneva: Can anything be found there that condemns zoophilia?
Keskisarja: Yes, there is. In the books of Moses, zoophilia is punishable
by death in the same context and sequential verses as homosexuality is.
Hietaneva: Lets talk then a bit about your researches
backgrounds. What kinds of sources did you use?
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.
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.
Hietaneva: How many cases do you know of?
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.
Keskisarja: So even more cases could have been
found for sure with fairly little effort.
Hietaneva: So from here you cannot directly draw conclusions
on how common this bestiality has been in the 1700s?
Keskisarja: Not directly, but you can make conclusion indirectly. Trials
concerning bestiality were a lot more common than for example rape trials
Keskisarja: and approximately a hundred times more common than trials
raised against homosexuals, which Finland didn't have nearly at all.
Keskisarja: So at least as a juridical phenomenon
bestiality was very common in 1700's Finland.
Hietaneva: Were all of the convicted or accused men?
Keskisarja: In my doctoral thesis that had a few hundred
example-cases all of them were male, except for one.
Keskisarja: A certain daughter from Lapua, named
Maria, was accused of having sex with a dog.
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.
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?
Keskisarja: Probably that bestiality has appeared in all cultures
from the stone ages to modern days in all parts of the world,
Keskisarja: but only in Sweden and Finland the
juridical system was so damn interested in it.
Hietaneva: What is the reason behind it? Why was the juridical system
around these parts of the world interested in the subject matter?
Keskisarja: That is a very difficult question. When legislators had
already from the Middle Ages taken special notice on bestiality crimes
Keskisarja: and it had precise terms and definitions, when on the other
hand homosexuals were not persecuted in Sweden or Finland at all.
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.
Hietaneva: What do we know about zoophiles of
that time? Is there some kind of archetype?
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.
Keskisarja: There is actually no archetype of a zoophile;
they were in my opinion pretty normal people, average Finns.
Keskisarja: So as representatives of the population, strangely in
fact, minorities were not overly represented in this perversion.
Keskisarja: The typical Finnish zoophile was a youthful farmhand
or shepherd boy who didn't have previous offenses to his name.
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.
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?
Keskisarja: Sometime, but the burden of proof was very heavy in the 1700s.
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.
Keskisarja: And when bestiality of course was not readily publically
practiced it was very difficult to gather the evidence together.
Keskisarja: And basically the informer took quite a
big risk, in that if the accusation is left unproven
Keskisarja: then he himself will get a severe punishment, even
the same punishment that would have befallen the zoophile.
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.
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?
Keskisarja: It was a terrible crime and a death sin,
Keskisarja: but not human dignity degrading.
Keskisarja: sexual perversion, when the entire
word perversion was not been invented in 1700's.
Keskisarja: That taboo, it was not really a taboo
because there was so much talk about bestiality.
Keskisarja: Legal courts were public as well as the bans by authorities.
Keskisarja: the “non taboo” nature of bestiality is told in the old folklore
Keskisarja: there are lots of poems about bestiality even
though there aren't as many like that about homosexuality.
Keskisarja: Old folklore Kalevala's omitted poems
that told about Väinämöinen's relation to bestiality
Keskisarja: that means the taboo has lived among us very long time.
Radio channel: Perttu Häkkinen.
Hietaneva: What about the punishments then? Was death penalty the
most common or were there less restrictive options available?
Keskisarja: In principle, the law in most cases ordered the death penalty
Keskisarja: but in Finland the penalty was relaxed from reason to
another, for example to life sentence of work and 40 whip lashes.
Keskisarja: That was because maybe the magistrates thought that
not all of them could be executed, there would be too many..
Keskisarja: would be.. blood flowing, but you could die
from it. ..all things swept... were incriminating.
Keskisarja: So most of the zoophiles remained
closed before their 50th or 100th time in the act
Keskisarja: many years they practiced the sin more or less frequently
and some point all the sudden some were caught by accident.
Keskisarja: That was.. ..their way was commonplace.
Keskisarja: Almost every other crime, including sex offenses were
done while being inebriated but zoophiles were almost always sober.
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?
Keskisarja: I think that was probably the biggest injustice
about the bestiality trial cases, the fate of the animals.
Keskisarja: Animals received death penalty with the
person or even in the case where the human was pardoned.
Keskisarja: the animals were slaughtered
publically for being involved in bestiality.
Keskisarja: It was a sad case if a farmer retrospectively confessed for doing the sin
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
Keskisarja: and that lead the villagers to big financial losses.
Keskisarja: In principle the zoophile had to pay
these losses for the owner from his own funds
Keskisarja: but the poor farmer hands or shepherds
in most cases did not have anything to out measure.
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?
Keskisarja: Of course it can be explained that marriage was
basically the only legal route to pursue a carnal intercourse and
Keskisarja: there was birth control but they were quite ineffective.
Keskisarja: And also farmer hands and maids had the risk of getting
punished or at least shamed if they went in the barn together.
Keskisarja: And one very important thing that raised the popularity of
bestiality was that masturbation, onanism was regarded in the 1700s
Keskisarja: as a huge sin at least with the magistrates and the public alike.
Keskisarja: And these young men who always were involved did not
necessarily have any safe and easy way to satisfy their needs.
Hietaneva: How then did the judiciary take on bestiality
cases change during the next 1800 century then?
Keskisarja: First Monarch Gustav III ceased the death
penalties during end of 1700 century from bestiality crimes
Keskisarja: and after that the sin and crime started to crawl in the darkness.
Keskisarja: That meant that the habits remained
common but the trials became less frequent.
Keskisarja: and the authorities did not pay attention to bestiality cases anymore.
Keskisarja: That silent and hushing policy then little
by little extinguished the interest among common people.
Hietaneva: Nowadays zoophilia is still legal in Finland but
has anyone been convicted during 1900 century for it anymore?
Keskisarja: Yes. Actually, even after the past
few wars, hundreds of zoophiles were sentenced
Keskisarja: And zoophilia wasn't legalized until
the 1970s, concurrently with homosexuality.
Hietaneva: Let's ask your opinion as a historian:
Should zoophilia be illegal in this day and age?
Keskisarja: Well, zoophilia absolutely sucks and is against the
common sense of justice, so in that sense it should be criminalized
Keskisarja: however - even in the 18th century the authorities
and courts noticed that severe public punishments
Keskisarja: didn't help in rooting out the sin, but on the
contrary only stirred up the interest of the common people.
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.
Häkkinen: That was historian Teemu Keskisarja
in an interview with Panu Hietaneva.
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.
Häkkinen: How did all of this sound to you Tommi, or actually...
while listening to Keskisarja's interview I started thinking,
Häkkinen: that are we Finns as a people simply
just eager to "get in on" with animals,
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?
Paalanen: Well, the background of the matter is, that
in the past, when it came to crimes of a sexual nature,
Paalanen: unnaturality was a grave sin in the Christian legal philosophy,
and like Teemu mentioned of the severity of the sin of onanism,
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,
Paalanen: so I don't know why the representation was
so high - especially if Teemu doesn't know either
Paalanen: so the reason must be buried quite deep, but certainly such
a hard stance on zoophilia in Scandinavia - in Finland and Sweden
Paalanen: must have grown in part from the traditions of Middle Age Christianity.
Paalanen: So I think it's somewhat unreasonable to claim, that
the presence of zoophilia was especially large in Scandinavia.
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...
Paalanen: people don't necessarily meet as many other people and
generally travel during winter, so isolation could've caused
Paalanen: people's sexual interests to drift more towards animals,
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.
Häkkinen: Indeed, take for example in Japanese
classical art, the famous painting "Tako to Ama"
Häkkinen: I can't remember if it was from the 18th or 19th
century - that pictures a woman in the embrace of an octopus.
Häkkinen: In any case... is zoophilia - since
we've discussed the side of criminal policy
Häkkinen: in your opinion, is zoophilia in general
a question of ethics or an ethical problem?
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
Paalanen: the answers and analyses don't reveal
anything of interest in terms of ethics.
Paalanen: The only question that can really be pondered ethically - in
addition of injuring the animal, which is obviously an important issue
Paalanen: but the other than that, the question
is whether or not the animal can give consent.
Paalanen: And there's two lines of thinking to that, which Jenna already
brought up, that obviously the animal communicates and is active
Paalanen: for example a male dog in heat will mount stools
and stuffed animals and if you offer yourself to be mounted
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Paalanen: Philosopher Peter Singer started his work from the
idea, that causing unnecessary suffering to an animal is wrong,
Paalanen: which is also based on the idea of benevolence,
not on what the animal wants or consents to.
Häkkinen: Indeed, Singer was the arch philosopher
of a new kind of animal rights movement.
Paalanen: Yes.
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?
Paalanen: Well, it hasn't really been addressed, because classic
philosophers have often shied away from topics of sexual nature.
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.
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,
Paalanen: that a sexual relationship isn't in itself in any way meaningful.
Paalanen: What is ethically interesting is the repercussions of the
sexual relationship, the possible harm or maltreatment of the animal.
Paalanen: By contrast, anal sex or
homosexuality by themselves aren't ethically
interesting questions, but rather whether the act was consensual or not.
Paalanen: We should apply the same logic to animals as
well, and ask whether an act is rape or consensual sex.
Häkkinen: Jenna did indeed mention this kind
of an opposite of a zoophile, a zoo-sadist,
Häkkinen: which refers to a person, who seeks pleasure in hurting animals sexually.
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?
Paalanen: Zoo-sadism, deliberately hurting animals, is - like Teemu
Keskisarja put it - a part of the deepest abyss of the Internet.
Paalanen: And I don't mean bestiality in general, which
is surprisingly mainstream and quite easy to find.
Paalanen: I wouldn't say that there is any uniform subculture
or zoo-sadism outside some very specific Internet forums
Paalanen: where the subject is discussed. It's more about isolated
individuals with woefully deranged relationships to animals,
Paalanen: who exploit animals' lack of defense and ability to express themselves.
Paalanen: The reason why zoo-sadism is always so strongly on
display when animal rights activists and vets are concerned
Paalanen: is because zoo-sadism is, unfortunately, perhaps the only
side of bestiality that comes up when animals have clearly been hurt.
Paalanen: The damages of it are easily visible and verified,
although you can't always be sure of the specifics.
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.
Paalanen: This type of misrepresentation is common in many other
sexual topics, having these sorts of unpleasant byproducts,
Paalanen: however rare - come up and greatly affect the whole discussion.
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.
Häkkinen: Could you imagine living without zoophilia or that side of yourself?
Jenna: I could offer a counter question to everyone actually.
Could you imagine that you were not straight or gay?
Jenna: For example it probably could work but
how true life would be for you afterwards?
Jenna: It is a part of you; based on research zoophilia is
a character trait and it is a attribute you are born with.
Jenna: So it is not just a think that comes from somewhere over there, out of nothing.
Häkkinen: Our society is based very much on the abuse of animals.
Häkkinen: We kill animals for food, we make clothing out of animals.
These things are comparatively normal but zoophilia is not.
Häkkinen: How do you see other animal rights questions?
Are you a vegetarian, do you use leather shoes?
Jenna: I'm not a vegetarian, but I am for example a
member of different animal protection associations.
Jenna: I work as a volunteer and I strive to do what ever I can for animals.
Jenna: This amendment that's being pushed, banning zoophilia
in Finland - I think it's a pretty absurd and dumb law.
Jenna: How would it be monitored? How could it be stopped?
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
Jenna: this is certainly one of the things the amendment
won't affect in any way, and I think this is a...
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
Jenna: a lot, lot, lot more severe and significant issues that are
happening to animals, like for example, intensive livestock production.
Jenna: Intensive livestock production is something that should really
be intervened with as well as, if for example someone decides to
Jenna: neglect all of their 50 cows, which are then
found dead in the barn and the person gets fined
Jenna: these are issues that should be interfered with
more harshly, rather than zoophilia, that doesn't...
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...
Jenna: It's not going to affect anything and there are no victims in it.
Häkkinen: In these virtual communities you have, has
there been talk about uniting Finnish zoophiles
Häkkinen: to some official extent and start advocating
for your own rights in case this amendment is passed?
Jenna: I don't know. I can honestly say that I don't know about that.
Jenna: There hasn't been that much discussion on this topic yet.
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)?
Jenna: It's been pretty much 50-50 (fifty-fifty), it hasn't...
Jenna: Based on the picture I have, it's pretty much 50-50 (fifty-fifty).
Häkkinen: Is there some kind of loyalty towards
certain species amongst zoophiles, in the sense
Häkkinen: that some people are attracted to dogs
for example and others to some other species?
Jenna: Yes. It very much depends on the individual what
animal they prefer and personally I'm only attracted to dogs.
Häkkinen: What other species or animals have been mentioned in these discussions?
Jenna: Horses, for example.
Häkkinen: Are these the two most common ones?
Jenna: I believe so.
Häkkinen: Is it then so, that if someone prefers
horses or dogs, that identity doesn’t change?
Jenna: I'd say that it could change.
Jenna: Can't say for sure about myself.
Jenna: For example, I don't see horses in a sexual manner the same way I see dogs.
Jenna: It's probably is due to the fact, that I can understand dogs the best.
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.
Häkkinen: In a dog, what kind of characteristics
and physical traits appeal to you?
Jenna: Well, definitely the base characteristics of a dog, like happiness
and positivity, like for example when you go meet your friends dogs
Jenna: they meet you at the door happily wagging their tail, so...
Jenna: There really isn't anything specific, so...
Häkkinen: Sociality then?
Jenna: Definitely sociality.
Jenna: The dog has to be a dog and it can't be...
Jenna: For example, if I'm considering physical intercourse
with a dog, then dog can't be bashful or scared.
Häkkinen: Jenna, in your opinion, is zoophilia
a moral question or a moral problem?
Jenna: Moral is definitely strongly tied to it, but I don't
see anything morally wrong in it - I was born this way
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.
Häkkinen: So in your opinion there is no victim.
Jenna: Absolutely not. It is about intense caring, intimacy, and affection.
Jenna: Yes, also the physical side, but hurting anyone involved is not part of it.
Häkkinen: You are a zoophile and a mother. Is this inconvenient situation?
Jenna: Definitely in some way. As a family we're
always with the dog just like any other family,
Jenna: we're no different in any way as far as that's
concerned. But, if I want physical contact with the dog,
it will take place so that my child is not aware.
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.
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?
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,
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.
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?
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.
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.
Häkkinen: Do any of these "ordinary dog enthusiasts" ever
come off to you as someone that might actually be a zoophile?
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,
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,
Jenna: that they are experiencing exactly the same feelings I have for my dog.
Häkkinen: That was the portrait of the Finnish zoophile,
as told by the twenty-something year old Jenna.
Häkkinen: So, are zoophilic tendencies genetic
as Jenna put it, or are they a perversion?
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,
Paalanen: so rather than genetic, I'd call it innate sexual traits.
Paalanen: The prevailing theory on how different sexual preferences develop, is
that humans might be genetically inclined to develop strong sexual fetishes.
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.
Häkkinen: What events can trigger these changes?
Have there been studies on the subject?
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.
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.
Häkkinen: Meaning that there are some grounds to the
claim that it's triggered by a childhood event.
Paalanen: Yes, you could say that. Specifically when
talking about very exclusive and strong preferences,
Paalanen: as people can have very diverse sexual
repertoires when it comes to overall sexual preferences.
Paalanen: There can be a degree of pansexuality, experiencing sexuality
in a plethora of things and zoophilia can be a part of bigger picture.
Häkkinen: Indeed. There are people who identify
as object sexuals, if that was the correct term.
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.
Paalanen: That is correct, but for example Jenna strongly
represents what is called "zoo-romantic" thinking.
Paalanen: What that means is that her relationship
with her animal could be classified as a love affair,
Paalanen: ... Regardless, traditionally zoophilia
is about sexual attraction and arousal.
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.
Paalanen: And then perhaps the most common
form of zoophilia is so called substitute sex.
Paalanen: By which I mean people having sex with
animals when no other alternatives are available.
Häkkinen: Then should there be a clearer distinction
between bestiality, zoophilia and zoo romance?
Paalanen: If you want to understand the phenomenon, which is essential
in sexology, you must obviously understand, that it's not all the same.
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.
Häkkinen: Tommi Paalanen, thank you for visiting.
Paalanen: Thank you.