So, I wanted to hear what others thought on this issue (though it's not something I really care to get in a heated argument over).
I'm of the opinion that, ideally, sexual education ought to be very comprehensive - far, far more than it is today. And considering the state of sexual education now, where we still have arguments about "abstinence-only education", I recognize that this is completely unrealistic - but consider it my endgame for an "ideal world".
So! With that in mind, sex education in an ideal world should include, among other things:
- STD information and prevention.
- How the plumbing and processes work.
- Birth control methods and their success rates.
- Information on rape, assault, and consent.
- Gender issues for both men and women.
- Homosexuality and bisexuality.
- Trans* issues.
- Critical examination of concepts related to sex (such as what "virginity" means, what "sex" means, what "orientation" means, and so on).
- Current research, and the differences between cultures. Third genders, and different conceptions of "homosexuality", and so on. An interesting example.
- An overview of the diversity of sexual practices, kinks, and so on.
This last category is where various things are addressed which help to illuminate the diversity of human sexuality, and also where things with "special considerations" come into play.
By special considerations, I mean things which could easily be abusive if care is not taken. Zoophilia is a good example, but not the only example. BDSM would be another practice addressed here, since there are important things which need to be addressed to keep a BDSM relationship clearly in the "healthy" spectrum, and not in the abusive, "50 Shades of Gray" spectrum.
Zoophilia likewise requires some special considerations. The importance of understanding body language very well (since so few people understand it), the dangers of certain sexual practices and items (allergies and whatnot)...
I don't think that these sorts of things individually should make up a large portion of the class, but I do think that there should be an overview that at least makes students aware that there are potential issues they must understand, and then, further information ought to be anonymously available for students to check out if they want.
I think such a thing would be very useful for avoiding accidental abuse or injury, and that's worthwhile in its own right. But hey, like I said, this is completely 100% unrealistic in our current state in the world, so take it as more of a thought exercise.
What sort of things do you think ought to be taught in sex education? Do you think zoophilia has any place at all in ideal circumstances?
I agree with most things.
But I feel like that things like 'trans issues' and 'kinks' don't really belong here.
Also, it's indeed very unrealistic that zoophilia would be a part of this.
Even if zoophilia would be legal and accepted, it would still be uncommon and won't be useful to anyone.
But I'd be very happy if zoophilia was a part of sex education so people would understand what it actually is.
But honestly, if that were to happen today it would be abused like shit.
As in, it would probably spread these dumbass myths and lies about zoophilia.
Well, even if they have issues, some studies have found a prevalence for sex with animals at around 3-6% of the population at some point in their lives. Given a classroom of 20 students or so, you'd expect the information to be useful to one of them, and in that case if it could prevent that encounter from being an abusive one, I think that's worthwhile.
Even beyond that though, I think there's value in learning about things even if they don't directly apply to you. I took a class in high school that taught us about various religions - including Buddhism, which is .7% of the American population. Still valuable to understand others even if not personally applicable.
To be honest, I don't think it would really prevent a case of abusive sex with an animal.
First, I don't think that 1 out of 20 people will ever have sex with an animal.
Hell, I wouldn't even think that more than 2 people out of 400 would have sex with an animal.
Second, people who were going to sexually abuse an animal in the first place wouldn't let a teacher's advice stop them.
Although, accidental animal abuse happens so I agree with you.
Though, my other points still stand.
You might want to learn about stuff that may not be useful to you.
But I've seen a lot of people who don't want to learn something because it's not important to them.
Most people refuse to learn about something because they simply just don't like it.
There, another reason Zoophilia is looked down upon.
Well, no offense meant, but it doesn't really matter all that much what you think the prevalence rate is, so much as what studies have shown the prevalence rate to be. And that's the prevalence rate I've read for sexual contact with animals (I.E., bestiality, as distinct from zoophilia).
Accidental abuse is more what this would be aimed at stopping. If someone specifically wants to abuse an animal, they very well might anyway (though I think there may be ways to mitigate that, this wouldn't be one of them). But I think this would help for stopping accidental abuse, at least.
See now though, that's the thing about a school. A school doesn't care much about what you want to learn. A school just teaches you things. I know plenty of people who insisted they didn't want to learn math, it was pointless, that they'd never use it, and so on, but there they were, sitting in class, learning the material. Kind of amusing when you think about it.
What studies are you referring to? The old Kinsey ones that are falsified a long time ago? Kinsey also had an agenda and manipulated data to suit this.
The Kinsey study only asked whether there was sexual contact with an animal, it failed to ask what form of contact and it also missed on pointing out the circumstances leading to the contact. So, a farm boy groping an animal for the lack of access to a human girl is equally seen as a "zoophile" as someone with animals as his primary or even exclusive sexual attraction. It also misses out on frequency and persistence of these contacts. A "once in a lifetime" experience or genuine sexual orientation? Kinsey hasn´t asked ...
From my longtime online experience, I´d say roughly about 2,5 % of men and slightly above 1% of women are "into" this. In this figures, every form of "zoophilia" is included, from mixoscopia bestialis (the common "I wanna see a girl get fucked by doggie" "zoos") to genuine zoophilia for life.
I´d say that genuine zoophilia can be found in around 0.3 % of men and 0.1 % in women. These figures correspond with the realities found in Beastforum, online "zoo" communities and other places where "zoophiles" use to gather...just sayin´
There are a lot of issues here, and I don't feel like going into them all, so I'm going to only address the main major misunderstanding.
It does not matter to me whether someone is, as you say, a "genuine zoophile" in this context. The point of this would be to reduce accidental abuse. The motivations behind that are entirely irrelevant.
It is no different than explaining the importance of condoms for male/male anal sex for preventing STDs. It doesn't matter why someone is engaging in such activities in the slightest. It doesn't matter whether they're gay, experimenting, or whatever else. The information still would be useful to them.
I remember some girl (or prankster, never can tell, probably) wrote in on our anonymous "ask anything" question hat in sex ed "Can I get pregnant from sex with a dog?"
My sex ed teachers answer? He read the card aloud. Let the class laugh, and then said "I'm not going to dignify that with an answer."
I remember thinking "Sure, it's probably a joke, but just in case you could've given the obvious answer to the fucking question instead of making fun of the person."
As it is, they not only don't discuss the issue, but actively avoid it. And this is in a state that is almost european-level liberal.
I feel like a lot of people are missing the point where I said, multiple times, that I recognize that this is not realistic in our current societal state.
Oh I know. Just thought the story was somewhat on topic.
Ah, okay. That's fair then.
I had a similar one, where a teacher read an anonymous question "What does 'douchebag'" mean?" and got very annoyed, thinking the student was trolling.
The girl who asked eventually spoke up and said "I was the one who asked, and it was a serious question. I hear people say it and I don't know what it means". The teacher seemed rather embarrassed at his outburst, and answered the question, though I'm still annoyed at him for how embarrassing it must have been for the student to have to speak up to defend her anonymous question.
So long that sex with animals are illegal I doubt it's a very good idea to bring it up in a class. And even if it were legal it would be a major taboo so don't think the subject ever would come up, or even be allowed at that given school. In Denmark schools are pretty open and tolerant, but I wouldn't count on the support of the leader/headmaster when angry parents came and said that their children learn about zoophilia and sex with animals...
Hence why I said, multiple times, that I recognize that this isn't a suggestion for our current state of society, but an ideal state / goal / whatever.
Even then, in a "zoo utopia", this is a bad idea. The moment the normals get the idea of unnormal things being normalised, we lost and the "zoo utopia" won´t last longer than a snowball in hell.
A lot of these things (not current research, not differences between cultures and not kink) are included in Swedish sex ed. Well, or should be. Some teachers skim over certain parts. But science books for students in their late teens often bring up:
The priority is usually given to anatomy, STDs and safer sex and birth control. But the new curriculum explicitly states: Naturvetenskapliga aspekter på, reflektion över och diskussion kring normer, rörande människans sexualitet, lust, relationer och sexuella hälsa.
"Scientific views on, reflection about, and discussion about norms surrounding human sexuality, lust, relationships and sexual health".
I often bring up kink in a passing, and also trans (when discussing different views on gender). The big restricting factor for me is time, not conservative parents or principals. I don't have time to bring up everything I wish teenagers knew, neither in sex ed or general health or source criticism. I only a have a certain amount of lessons, and I need to get my students to pass the course in that time.
I do not think it's realistic to include zoophilia, seeing as zoophiles are such as small minority, and bestiality is illegal in Sweden and many other countries. Before, when bestiality was technically legal, I asked a question about it during a volunteer lecture about safe sex I listened to at an LGBTQ organisation. But the only comment I got was "animals can't consent, so I won't discuss that".
I'm curious how big of a section of time you have to teach on the subject. Is the sex-ed class a class in its own right, or part of a larger general health class or something?
Because I think it's reasonable to suggest that it should be a class in its own right. And if that's the case - I had a college class on sexuality a while back that did have time to go over those various things - and actually did briefly address zoophilia (and other things) as well, so I know there can be time.
It's a part of science class. Although it is recommended to bring up sexuality in other subjects - history of sexuality and marriage in history class, for instance - I know that it is very rarely done. Traditionally sex ed in Swedish schools have been part of science/biology, and it still for the most part is.
And only recently has the curriculum explicitly stated that gymnasium (non-mandatory education, ages 16-18) has to have sex ed in their their science subject. Earlier, it was once around age 11-12 (usually focusing on puberty and "how are babies made") and once around age 14 (focusing on anatomy and safer sex). I like that they've added this third round of sex ed for older students. Although a gymnasium education is not mandatory, about 99% of Swedish teens enroll. And when you are 17, you are far less embarrassed to talk about sex than when you are 14...
I teach science class and I feel like I'm constantly worried about how to get the time to do everything in the curriculum. In 40 hours, I need to cover the scientific method, health, sex ed and environmental issues. With teenagers who sometimes are more interested in their phones than doing assignments, and whose background level may vary dramatically.
I personally see this "open" approach as equally wrong and potentially conflicting with the "normal" people as exaggerated LGBT education. It´s surely nice when kids are taught there are variances in sexual attraction, but I doubt anyone benefits from an aggressive promotion. The repercussions of the conservative folks to that "LGBT education" are already felt and adding interspecies sexual contact only reassures them in their "opening Pandora´s box" point of view.
What I would emphasize on is the correct and complete education of the sex ed teachers. Students need to be able to trust them, need to be able to find an open ear when (and only when) they discover unusual sexual attraction in themselves.
Sex ed teachers should have the ability to give advice on bestiality/zoophilia, but this orientation should never be treated like it´s just another segment of human sexuality because it isn´t. A sex ed teacher should give out advanced info about zoophilia ONLY in a personal conversation; he surely can drop a semi sentence hinting at the possibility someone feels attracted to animals as an example how vast human sexuality is, but publicly advertising it would be totally detrimental. For me, trust is more essential than spreading out the entire "catalogue" of sex in front of the students.
I honestly doubt that, in an era in which all info is quickly accessible via technology, this kind of official sex ed should cover anything ; the ones interested in more "special" forms of sexuality will rather consult the net than discuss unusual sex practices openly in class.
There´s nothing wrong in teaching kids how this sex stuff works. The general knowledge about anatomy, sexual functions etc. has to be increased for sure...sometimes, I´m shocked how little the younger generations know although they are living in an era of easily accessible information. But covering it from alpha to omega, with all that irritating, shocking and dubious stuff that only serves to disorientate young ones with a sexuality that is only just developing, is doing more harm than good. You won´t have to wait for accusations of trying to normalise unnnormal behaviour for long.
Summary: IMHO, teaching about zoophilia in school is a no-no. But the sex ed teacher needs to be tolerant and open enough for a student confessing to him in a private conversation. No open advertising for zoophilia, no "how zoophiles fuck animals 101" in class, but decent support and help when a student asks about zoophilia in a four-eye conversation. Zoophilia doesn´t belong into the public, but it shouldn´t be such a enormous taboo either.
I rather like your answer here, but I have a few points to make.
I'm not suggesting an aggressive promotion here. Zoophilia would be one of several subjects addressed, and the section addressing it would be short. It wouldn't be encouraged or promoted.
The problem I see with this is that it is unrealistic to expect someone to be comfortable talking to their teacher about something like this, so I think instead more nuanced information should be available in some anonymous manner. The teacher should be able to talk to their students privately about the matter, but I don't think that should be the only way to get such information, because talking in person about such a subject would be too great of a barrier for most.
I don't know what you consider to be "advanced information", but in my opinion the section would be more or less:
No greater than would be given for other less common interests. I don't think any of that is unreasonable. It's not specifics about how things are done, but which does bring to the attention of the students "If is something you've thought about, you need to know that there are potential issues" in a neutral manner.
I know you´re not directly aiming at "how to fuck an animal 101", but you also have to realise that even mentioning zoophilia/bestiality is seen as aggressively promoting such behaviour by many. " Don´t talk about it to prevent people from getting the wrong ideas"..and I have to admit that online activities of any kind regarding animals sex DO have an advertising effect. You´d be surprised by how many "zoophiles" would never even thought about sex with animals if there wasn´t material about it out there...the myth of "you´re only interested in animal sex because you´re a zoo" is completely false. Exposure leads to demand...like in every other sexual kink and deviation.
If you are realistic here, then there´s effectively no need for teachers to break "zoophilia" down to their students...the info is out there, only a quick google search away. And that is exactly how most folks get anonymous info about zoophilia. No need to add another "anonymous" source that, btw, won´t surely be well received when an authority hands out that info....you know, the tin foil hat crew won´t hesitate to jump in when info that doesn´t fit the online "zoos" agenda...just take a look at the fuzz all those "I want my safe space" special snowflakes make about me...and you expect them to accept info from a complete outsider?
On "advanced information": You have to understand that everything, even mentioning the possibility to have sex with an animal is seen as too much. As I said, zoophilia/bestiality does NOT belong in the "sex supermarket" shelf for anyone to take.
I strongly suggest sticking to "zoophilia info on demand". Without a direct demand for info, silence about it is preferrable. By forcing it onto the public, you might help maybe one or two closeted young zoos, but you surely will make things even more difficult for the enbtire community. Basically the same self foolery as cutting off both of your hands to get a ring...
The same applies to contraception information - indeed, that's much more readily available - and yet if you bother to look at the data you'll find that discussing contraceptives in a class has a major impact on the rates of teen pregnancy. How is this different?
Also, do remember that I'm saying that this would be an ideal "end state" for sexual education - I am not proposing it as a realistic solution for the current day, nor do I think this would fit at all given our current societal mores. Your objections seem to be mostly based on "how zoophilia is seen right now", which isn't really applicable to what I'm saying.
Info on contraceptives is RELEVANT to everyone ,info on zoophilia isn´t even to 2 % of the population. Even in your ideal state, this won´t help as much as it will destroy. The concept of "normality" is essential for society. You can´t eradicate this basic human need by declaring everything "normal" and treat it like this. Insofar, your whole concept leaves out the only detail that counts....the human mind.
Interesting discussion, though.
You are weighing two things against each other. One is the prevention of abuse of animals, the other is public perception of zoophilia.
Apparently I put more weight on the former while you put more weight on the latter.
Well, let me put it that way: Not a single word from anyone, not from me, not from you, not from a teacher or anybody else can and will prevent that harm is done to animals. "Penis erectus non compos mentis". You totally overestimate reason when sex is involved.
You can put it any way you like, but I'm going to be honest here, if something is going to harm the public perception of zoophiia, it's going to be your sort of attitude of not even considering attempting to mitigate unintended harm.
...and you still make the mistake of treating zoophilia like any other orientation. For the "one in a million" zoo who actually quits or adapts his behaviour, you introduce probably ten thousand horny teenagers to the concept of having sex with animals. "Oh, my teacher is talking about it publicly in class, so it must be okay when I cure my raging boner in Fido tonight...." This isn´t preventing any harm, this is creating new harm that wouldn´t exist without this being taught publicly. It´s funny though that you accuse me of distorting public perception of zoophilia with my "attitude"...anyone who cares for an animal, who claims to truly love it will surely be able to gather all necessary info himself, ´cause that is what the idea behind zoophilia forces you to do. Your proposal is indeed nothing more than creating bestialists and spoonfeed them things they surely will forget the moment their pants are dropped and hormones are steaming. The way it is today isn´t the worst: you have to show some initiative, you have to take actions yourself. The fact alone that one is too lazy to look up correct behaviour (and it´s really nothing else than lazyness, all info is out there) disqualifies him and he shouldn´t be allowed around animals at all.
Besides that, a bestialist won´t listen to anybody, not you and especially not some random teacher in school. What you´re trying is honorable in some sense, but you cannot discuss around the fact that this isn´t exactly about reducing harm for animals, it´s about trying to normalise your own special orientation and force it into public.
I once watched a psychologist cover non standard sexual practices in a Government sponsored sexual education class. He made a list of common non-standard orientations and paraphilias, including homosexuality, zoophilia, sadism, masochism, fetishisms and so on. Then he explained to the students that homosexuality was the only one that should be considered "normal", and the other were twisted deviations.
Had it been some years earlier, homosexuality would have been listed as a twisted deviation too.
I personally don't see much need for school programs that include sexual education since parents should be the ones providing it. Besides, such programs are easily subverted into political weapons, propaganda machines, and misinformation distribution platforms. Schools are not a replacement for parental education. If you want your kids to know about these issues, just sit down with them and have a talk about the subject.
There are too many pro-zoo and anti-zoo responses to these questions all over the net I'd like to see a more neutral, truthful stance provided. Such as.
Yes, you can catch std from animals. Yes, you can get physically hurt having sex with animals. However it is your responsibility to turn these Yes's into No's, not by avoiding sex but by being smart about it.
Sex education is very important. Especially if you are a homosexual male being mounted by a dog. No matter how much people claim so, the anus was not meant to be penetrated. There's no harm in doing so but there are precautions that must be taken. If people didn't know before, you're rectum CAN be perforated or ripped if you're not prepared...stretched or relaxed, wrong angles etc. A dog that is too big can overreach your rectum and pierce the natural curve that occurs before the colon.
Horses kick. If you're not aware of a horses body language then you're better of just staying away from them.
Parasites and viruses are real. Know the animals medical history, signs and symptoms. Most animals and pets are required inspection and vaccinations.
There is no yes or no answer, that is not a yes or no for somebody else. If you won't educate yourself, don't ignore people when they try to teach you. It can save you a lot of problems. It can save your health.
It would be nice (in sex ed) if the subject of zoo were treated in a tolerant and non-hostile way. What would occur, ideally, would be for current anti-zoo attitudes (such as the notion of all zoosex being "sexual assault") to be discredited and viewed as not true. Ideally, people would be told that it's OK if they want to have sex with a non-human.
I agree with WarCanine, that if zoo were a main part of sex ed today, it would be abused and the bigotry, lies and propaganda about zoo (such as the already-mentioned lie about zoosex being "sexual assault" in all cases, and the commonly-said wrongful notion of non-humans not being able to "consent") would be spread in an out-of-control manner, as they already are elsewhere.
I think you need to be more clear about what you mean by "sex ed." For example, in no way do primary-school-aged kids need to "learn how to keep a BDSM relationship healthy" or know about various kinks. I doubt many university students would even want to know!
I'm not seeing the abuse prevention angle. In order to cover any physical animal-related topic, the instructor would have to cover a large amount of specific information, far more intimately than it's covered now with humans, in a subject area where they probably have no experience, so even ignoring our current world, I don't think it would be realistic.
That said, better, more available information, which was less stigmatized... that could really help in all those ways.
Body language of various common animals should perhaps be a socializing class of its own for young people, right now!
Primary school? Certainly not. I was thinking highschool, personally.
As for abuse prevention, really I think some issues can be solved with something even as short as a sentence or two, as long as there are resources available which contain the specifics.
Say, if the teacher says something like "Some animals react badly to certain types of personal lubricants or condoms". That's something that wouldn't cross most people's minds with no information, but even just that single sentence could make someone think "oh jeez! I didn't know that. I better take a look in that book-o-specifics after all".
Not that that's the only issue that could crop up, but I think even general statements along those lines, of the sorts of things that can be a problem, even without any species-specifics, could be helpful.