The Elements of Animal Sexual Assault (‘Bestiality’)
Nội dung
60 P Beirne et al religious documents and in polite company, accordingly, it has often been referred to as ‘that unmentionable vice’ or ‘among Christians a crime not to be named’ In what follows, we outline and discuss (1) the elements of animal sexual assault (henceforth, ‘ASA’); (2) the prevalence of ASA and the methodological issues involved in determining its incidence and prevalence; (3) several approaches to understanding the various forms of ASA; and (4) the societal reactions to ASA In general, the focus of this chapter is on ASA in England and Wales The Elements of Animal Sexual Assault (‘Bestiality’) From the outset Judaeo-Christianity applied austere standards and strict discipline to bestiality According to the leading Judaic scholar Jacob Milgrom (2000), the motive behind the Mosaic ban on bestiality was that, if left unchecked, it would destroy the proper use of seed in the patriarchal family Exodus (18:23), for example, stated: ‘You shall not have sexual relations with any animal to defile yourself thereby; nor shall any woman give herself to an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion’ Deuteronomy (27:21) declared: ‘Cursed be he that lieth with any manner of beast’, while Exodus (22:19) commanded: ‘Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death’ (‘whosoever’ here applying, at least in Leviticus (20:15–16), to both men and women) Leviticus mandated death for bestiality not only for guilty humans but also for offending animals On conviction, both human and animal were usually put to death, often by burning at the stake but occasionally by beheading, by hanging or from blows to the head (‘knocking’) The bodies of the condemned, both human and animal, were finally burned or butchered and buried together Perhaps it was thought that offending animals needed to be put to death because, had they been allowed to live, then they would have served as an unwelcome reminder of shameful acts and thereby have tempted others to sin Perhaps the burning of both guilty parties was a ritual purification and it was believed that a fiery death would deprive them both of a decent burial In her well-known historical analysis in the book Purity and Danger, the social anthropologist Mary Douglas demonstrates the important position occupied by the concept of ‘holiness’ is in the Mosaic commandments As Douglas shows, to the ancient Hebrews holiness is exemplified by completeness, by keeping the categories of divine creation distinct and by defining the