Dearest Pet: On Bestiality by Midas Dekkers, translated by Paul Vincent, Verso, © 2000.

Not so long ago, any form of sexuality not leading to the conception of children was seen as, at best, wanton lust, or worse, a perversion. One by one, the taboos have fallen. The idea that it could be wrong to use contraception in order to separate sex from reproduction is now merely quaint. If some religions still teach that masturbation is "self-abuse," that just shows how out of touch they have become. Sodomy? That's all part of the joy of sex, recommended for couples seeking erotic variety. In many of the world's great cities, gays and lesbians can be open about their sexual preferences to an extent unimaginable a century ago. You can even do it in the U.S. Armed Forces, as long as you don't talk about it. Oral sex? Some objected to President Clinton' choice of place and partner, and others thought he should have been more honest about what he had done, but no one dared suggest that he was unfit to be President simply because he had taken part in a sexual activity that was, in many jurisdictions, a crime.
     But not every taboo has crumbled. Heard anyone chatting at parties lately about how good it is having sex with their dog? Probably not. Sex with animals is still definitely taboo. If Midas Dekkers, author of Dearest Pet, has got it right, this is not because of its rarity. Dekkers, a Dutch biologist and popular naturalist, has assembled a substantial body of evidence to show that humans have often thought of "love for animals" in ways that go beyond a pat and a hug, or a proper concern for the welfare of members of other species. His book has a wide range of illustrations, going back to a Swedish rock drawing from the Bronze Age of a man fucking a large quadruped of indeterminate species. There is a Greek vase from 520 BC showing a male figure having sex with a stag; a seventeenth-century Indian miniature of a deer mounting a woman; an eighteenth-century European engraving of an ecstatic nun coupling with a donkey, while other nuns look on, smiling; a nineteenth-century Persian painting of a soldier, also with a donkey; and, from the same period, a Japanese drawing of a woman enveloped by a giant octopus who appears to be sucking her cunt, as well as caressing her body with its many limbs.
     How much of this is fantasy, the King Kong-ish archetypes of an earlier age? In the 1940s, Kinsey asked twenty thousand Americans about their sexual behavior, and found that 8 percent of males and 3.5 percent of females stated that they had, at some time, had a sexual encounter with an animal. Among men living in rural areas, the figure shot up to 50 percent. Dekkers suggests that for young male farm hands, animals provided an outlet for sexual desires that could not be satisfied when girls were less willing to have sex before marriage. Based on twentieth-century court records in Austria where bestiality was regularly prosecuted, rural men are most likely to have vaginal intercourse with cows and calves, less frequently with mares, foals and goats and only rarely with sheep or pigs. They may also take advantage of the sucking reflex of calves to get them to do a blowjob.
     Women having sex with bulls or rams, on the other hand, seems to be more a matter of myth than reality. For three-quarters of the women who told Kinsey that they had had sexual contact with an animal, the animal involved was a dog, and actual sexual intercourse was rare. More commonly the woman limited themselves to touching and masturbating the animal, or having their genitals licked by it.
     Much depends, of course, on how the notion of a sexual relationship is defined. Zoologist Desmond Morris has carried out research confirming the commonplace observation that girls are far more likely to be attracted to horses than boys, and he has suggested that "sitting with legs astride a rhythmically moving horse undoubtedly has a sexual undertone." Dekkers agrees, adding that "the horse is the ideal consolation for the great injustice done to girls by nature, of awakening sexually years before the boys in their class, who are still playing with their train sets . . . "
     The existence of sexual contact between humans and animals, and the potency of the taboo against it, displays the ambivalence of our relationship with animals. On the one hand, especially in the Judeo-Christian tradition — less so in the East — we have always seen ourselves as distinct from animals, and imagined that a wide, unbridgeable gulf separates us from them. Humans alone are made in the image of God. Only human beings have an immortal soul. In Genesis, God gives humans dominion over the animals. In the Renaissance idea of the Great Chain of Being, humans are halfway between the beasts and the angels. We are spiritual beings as well as physical beings. For Kant, humans have an inherent dignity that makes them ends in themselves, whereas animals are mere means to our ends. Today the language of human rights — rights that we attribute to all human beings but deny to all nonhuman animals — maintains this separation.
     On the other hand there are many ways in which we cannot help behaving just as animals do — or mammals, anyway — and sex is one of the most obvious ones. We copulate, as they do. They have penises and vaginas, as we do, and the fact that the vagina of a calf can be sexually satisfying to a man shows how similar these organs are. The taboo on sex with animals may, as I have already suggested, have originated as part of a broader rejection of non-reproductive sex. But the vehemence with which this prohibition continues to be held, its persistence while other non-reproductive sexual acts have become acceptable, suggests that there is another powerful force at work: our desire to differentiate ourselves, erotically and in every other way, from animals.
     Almost a century ago, when Freud had just published his groundbreaking Three Essays on Sexuality, the Viennese writer Otto Soyka published a fiery little volume called Beyond the Boundary of Morals. Never widely known, and now entirely forgotten, it was a polemic directed against the prohibition of "unnatural" sex like bestiality, homosexuality, fetishism and other non-reproductive acts. Soyka saw these prohibitions as futile and misguided attempts to limit the inexhaustible variety of human sexual desire. Only bestiality, he argued, should be illegal, and even then, only in so far as it shows cruelty towards an animal. Soyka's suggestion indicates one good reason why some of the acts described in Dekkers book are clearly wrong, and should remain crimes. Some men use hens as a sexual object, inserting their penis into the cloaca, an all-purpose channel for wastes and for the passage of the egg. This is usually fatal to the hen, and in some cases she will be deliberately decapitated just before ejaculation in order to intensify the convulsions of its sphincter. This is cruelty, clear and simple. (But is it worse for the hen than living for a year or more crowded with four or five other hens in barren wire cage so small that they can never stretch their wings, and then being stuffed into crates to be taken to the slaughterhouse, strung upside down on a conveyor belt and killed? If not, then it is no worse than what egg producers do to their hens all the time.)
     But sex with animals does not always involve cruelty. Who has not been at a social occasion disrupted by the household dog gripping the legs of a visitor and vigorously rubbing its penis against them? The host usually discourages such activities, but in private not everyone objects to being used by her or his dog in this way, and occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop. Soyka would presumably have thought this within the range of human sexual variety.
     At a conference on great apes a few years ago, I spoke to a woman who had visited Camp Leakey, a rehabilitation center for captured orangutans in Borneo run by Birute Galdikas, sometimes referred to as "the Jane Goodall of orangutans" and the world's foremost authority on these great apes. At Camp Leakey, the orangutans are gradually acclimatised to the jungle, and as they get closer to complete independence, they are able to come and go as they please. While walking through the camp with Galdikas, my informant was suddenly seized by a large male orangutan, his intentions made obvious by his erect penis. Fighting off so powerful an animal was not an option, but Galdikas called to her companion not to be concerned, because the orangutan would not harm her, and adding, as further reassurance, that "they have a very small penis." As it happened, the orangutan lost interest before penetration took place, but the aspect of the story that struck me most forcefully was that in the eyes of someone who has lived much of her life with orangutans, to be seen by one of them as an object of sexual interest is not a cause for shock or horror. The potential violence of the orangutan's come-on may have been disturbing, but the fact that it was an orangutan making the advances was not. That may be because Galdikas understands very well that we are animals, indeed more specifically, we are great apes. This does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural, whatever those much-misused words may mean, but it does imply that it ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings.

©2001 Peter Singer and Nerve.com, Inc.

重度「寵」愛

何春蕤翻譯

2001年三月，動物權運動之父、《動物解放》一書的作者Peter Singer，為荷蘭著名的生物學家Midas Dekkers的動物戀專書《親親寵物》撰寫書評（Dearest Pet: On Bestiality，1992年出版，1994年由Paul Vincent翻譯成英文出版，2000年由Verso重新發行）。這是Singer針對動物戀的少見發言，措詞謹慎但論點清晰，不但指出了動物戀的現實存在，也指出動物戀禁忌背後的人類中心主義。這篇文章發表後引發軒然大波，反對動物戀的動物權組織甚至嚴詞批評Singer（＜大猩猩權益聲明＞的原始簽署者之一）沒有資格再過問大猩猩的權益問題。Singer則認為這些爭議主要是一種歇斯底里的反應，「美國現在陷入了清教徒式世界觀的掌握中」，他說。

才不久之前，任何無法生殖繁衍後代的性行為都被視為（說好聽一點）縱慾，或者（更糟的則是）變態，但是這些禁忌已經隨著歷史一個一個的倒下。當年認為用節育的方式把性和生殖分開是一件大錯特錯的事情，現在看來，這個說法才是老古板得稀奇。如果有些宗教還在教導信徒說手淫就是「自我殘害」，那也只不過顯示這些宗教早已完全與時代脫節。肛交？那是性愉悅的一部份，許多追求情慾多樣化的伴侶都推薦使用。在全球許多大城市中，男女同志們公開自己的性傾向到了在一個世紀以前完全想像不到的程度。你甚至可以在美國軍中搞同性戀──只要你不公開宣揚。口交？有些人認為美國前總統柯林頓的口交醜聞是選錯了對象和地方，也有人認為他應該更誠實交代自己做了什麼，但是沒人敢說只因為他進行了這種很多州的法律都視為罪行的性活動就不適任總統。

當然不是每個禁忌都垮臺了。你最近有沒有在派對中聽人說和自己的寵物狗狗搞的時候有多爽？多半沒有。和寵物做愛絕對還是個禁忌。不過，要是《親親寵物》的作者Midas Dekkers說得對的話，這決不是因為動物戀很少見。Dekkers是荷蘭的生物學家和博物學家，他在書中收集了很多證據顯示人類的「動物之愛」往往超過拍拍或擁抱或其他關切動物的正當表現方式。書中收集了很多插圖，包括：一幅青銅時期瑞典的石畫，畫中的男人正在和一隻不明種屬的四足動物肛交；一隻西元前520年的希臘花瓶，瓶上畫的男人正在和一隻公鹿性交；一隻17世紀的印第安芻像顯示一隻鹿趴在女人身上性交；一幅18世紀歐洲的銘刻描繪了一個狂喜忘形的修女在和驢子性交，其他的修女則笑著在一旁觀看；同一時期還有一幅日本畫，畫中的女人被一隻巨大的章魚整個抱住，章魚看起來是用一隻腳插入她的陰道，其他的腳則撫摸著她的軀體。

這些圖像有多少成份是狂想，是過去時代留下的巨猩金剛似的原型思考？1940年代性學家金賽研究了兩萬個美國人的性行為，其中男性有8%、女性有3.5%承認他們曾經和某個動物有過性接觸。若是農村區域的男人，比例則升高到50%。Dekkers認為在女性不願接受婚前性行為的年代，對年輕的男性農莊工人而言，動物提供了性慾的出口。20世紀澳洲法院就經常起訴動物戀的案例，根據記錄顯示，農村男性最有可能和母牛及小牛進行陰道性交，次之則是母馬、小馬和山羊，只有很少人會和綿羊或豬性交，這些男人也可能利用小牛的吸吮本能來為自己口交。

另一方面，女性和公牛或公羊性交則可能是神話多過事實。向金賽承認曾和動物有過性接觸的女性中，三分之二說她們的對像是狗，真正的插入式性交則很少聽說，通常女人會侷限於碰觸或者給動物手淫或者讓動物舔舐自己的陰部。

這其中的關鍵當然是性關係如何被定義。動物學家Desmond Morris的研究證實了一般人的觀察，女孩子比男孩子更容易被馬所吸引，他甚至認為「雙腿跨乘一匹節奏性起伏前進的馬，毫無疑問的有其性的暗含」。Dekkers也同意這個說法，他還補充：「女孩子不幸天生就比同年齡的男孩子來得性早熟，而當男孩還在玩玩具火車時，馬其實是女孩的理想安慰…….」。

人和動物之間的性接觸，以及針對這種關係的禁忌強度，都顯示我們和動物之間的複雜矛盾情結。一方面──特別是猶太基督教傳統（東方則不如此）──我們總是把自己和動物劃清界線，想像我們和牠們之間有著寬廣的、無法跨越的鴻溝；只有人才是按照神的形象創造的；只有人才有不朽的靈魂。在創世紀中，神讓人掌管萬物；文藝復興時期「萬物之鏈」的觀念把人放在天使和禽獸中間；我們既是屬靈的，也是屬肉體的。對哲學家康德而言，人類有一種天生的尊嚴，使得他們自成目的，而動物則只是達成我們目的的手段工具。今日，人權（人類獨有而其他非人動物沒有的權利）的語言也一直維繫著這個區分。

然而在很多方面，我們都無法避免和動物──至少和哺乳動物──的相似性，性就是其中一個明顯的例子。我們性交，牠們也如此，牠們和我們一樣有陰莖和陰道，而小牛的陰道能讓一個男人感到性滿足，這就凸顯了這些器官是如何的相似。我已經說過，有關人與動物性交的禁忌，源自對非生殖性行為的廣泛拒斥，但是當其他非生殖的性行為都已經被社會接受，而有關動物戀禁忌的強大仇視卻持續到今日，其屹立不搖很可能顯示，有另外一個強而有力的力量在其中：我們渴望自己和動物在情慾以及其他每一方面都截然不同。

約一世紀之前，當佛洛伊德剛剛發表他驚天動地的〈性學三論〉時，維也納作家Otto Soyka發表了一本熱情洋溢的小冊，名為《超越道德的界限》。知道這本小冊的人很少，現在則更已被人遺忘，但是這本小冊的論辯所針對的，就正是對於那些「違反天性」的動物戀、同性戀、戀物、以及其他非生殖的性愛所設立的各種禁忌。Soyka認為這些禁忌只是在嘗試限制人類性慾的無窮多樣性，不但徒然無功也是搞錯目標的。他認為在上述性愛形式中，只有當動物戀牽涉到對動物的殘暴行為時才應該被視為非法。照這個說法來看，Dekkers書中提到的某些性行為顯然有問題，而且應該被當成罪行：例如書中提到有些男人用母雞作為性對象，把自己的陰莖插入母雞排泄和下蛋的多功能出口（洩殖腔），而這種動作往往會使母雞致命；有些人甚至有意在自己射精的那一刻斬掉母雞的頭，好體驗牠的括約肌突然收縮。這些都是明顯的、毫無疑問的殘暴行為。（但是，這隻母雞和其他四、五隻母雞擠在光禿禿的鐵絲籠裡一整年，空間小到母雞完全無法展翅，然後被裝在箱子裡運到屠宰場，倒掛在輸送帶上被殺被支解──相較於母雞在養雞場裡的這種命運，前面說的那種性殘暴真的那麼可怕嗎？然而養雞商卻長年都對母雞進行殘暴可怕的虐待。）

事實上，與動物進行性接觸並不都牽涉到殘暴行為。很多人可能都有下列經驗：在社交場閤中，主人家的狗抱住客人的腿，用力的摩擦自己的陰莖。通常主人都會阻止這種狗兒失態的行為，但是私底下很多人並不拒絕被自己的寵物這樣利用，有時，雙方互慰的活動也可能發生。Soyka應該也會把這種行為包含在人類性慾的多樣性之中。

幾年前我參加一個有關大猩猩的學術研討會，遇到一位女士剛剛參觀過婆羅洲李基營的紅毛猩猩重返自然中心，這個中心的主任就是有時被成為「紅毛猩猩的珍古德」的Birute Galdikas女士，她也是世界級的大猩猩權威。在李基營裡，被捕獲飼養的紅毛猩猩將逐漸練習適應叢林的生活，當他們快要完全獨立時就可以自由來去。參加會議的這位女士和Galdikas主任在營中散步時，突然被一隻巨大的雄性紅毛猩猩抓住，它堅挺的陰莖宣告了明顯的企圖。想要推開這樣強壯的動物是不太可能的，但是Galdikas主任叫這位女士不要擔心，因為紅毛猩猩並不會傷害她，她還安慰這位訪客的心情，說：「牠們的陰莖很小。」結果，紅毛猩猩在射精以前就喪失了興趣。

這個故事令我驚訝的是，對這位長年和紅毛猩猩為伍的Galdikas女士而言，被紅毛猩猩當成性對象，並不是什麼值得驚訝和恐怖的事情。紅毛猩猩求歡舉動的潛在暴力可能令人憂心，但是紅毛猩猩的求歡舉動並不令她憂心。這可能是因為Galdikas主任很清楚瞭解：我們都是動物。更明確的說，我們都是大猩猩。這個事實並不使跨種性愛「正常化」或者「自然化」──不管這些常常被誤解的字眼是何意義──但是至少暗示，承認這個事實並不會冒犯到我們人類的地位或尊嚴。

（原文請見http://www.nerve.com/aboutus/Contributors/S.asp#SingerP）