|
性行為的基本類型
|
|
4.
與動物的性接觸 |
|
有關人與動物的性接觸文化史
2
|
|
 |
|
腓特烈二世
（Frederick
II，即腓特烈大帝，1712-1786）普魯士國王，曾不理睬嚴厲譴責人與動物性接觸的宗教傳統。
|
|
Frederick II (the Great, 1712-1786), King of Prussia, ignored the religious tradition of severely condemning human sexual contact with animals. |
|
 |
|
奧伽斯特·福勒爾 （Auguste
Forel，1848-1931）強烈要求廢除（禁止）人與動物性接觸的法律。
|
|
Auguste Forel
(1848-1931) demanded the abolition of laws against human sexual contact with animals. |
|
|
在18世紀，一個“啟蒙時代”，在多數西方國家對與動物的性接觸的宗教責難和犯罪起訴逐漸變得不那麼嚴厲了。例如，普魯士的腓特烈大帝（Frederick
the Great，普魯士第三位國王），自詡為開明之君，他自我覺得不受宗教教條的束縛，而且在性的事物方面，只取務實的態度。當他的騎兵隊中的一名士兵被發現與他的母馬發生性交時，這位國王頒佈了一個簡單的處罰令：“小夥子應該被調到步兵團”。
19世紀是宗教影響力加諸於歐洲民法和刑法影響穩步減弱的時期，而直到最後，到了20世紀早期，傑出的瑞士精神病學家奧伽斯特·福勒爾（Auguste
Forel）非常激烈地為廢除所有的反“雞奸法律”辯護：
l
“當一位可憐的智障者……與一隻母牛性交，後者沒有以任何方式受到傷害，它的所有者也沒有受到傷害……。更何況，……甚至當這名犯人擁有這頭母牛時，法官還要懲罰他的雞奸行為。這樣的法律如何擁有權力來處罰一種並沒有造成任何傷害的行為？顯然是一種宗教神秘主義的遺痕，有幾分像懲罰反對聖靈的舉動。”[2]
的確，在隨後的數十年裏，許多西方國家開展了對刑法典的批判性的梳理行動，並最終廢除了反與動物性接觸的法律。今天，這樣的法律只存在於極少數地方
|
|
Basic Types of Sexual Behavior |
|
4. Sexual Contact with Animals |
|
History 2 |
In the18th century, the “age of enlightenment”, the religious condemnation and criminal prosecution of human sexual contact with animals gradually became less severe in most Western countries. For example,
Frederick the Great of Prussia, who considered himself an enlightened ruler, did not feel bound by religious dogmas, and in sexual matters he was simply pragmatic. When one of his cavalry soldiers was
discovered having intercourse with his mare, the king meted out a simple punishment: “The fellow shall be transferred to the infantry”.
The 19th century saw a steadily
diminishing religious influence
|
|
on
European civil and criminal legislation, and finally, in the early 20th century, the eminent Swiss psychiatrist
Auguste Forel very drastically pleaded for the abolition of all “sodomy” laws: “When a poor imbecile… copulates with a cow, the latter is not injured in any way; neither is the owner.…Moreover,... the judge punishes sodomy even when the culprit owns the animal. How does the law obtain the right to punish an act which does no harm to anyone? It is evidently a vestige of religious mysticism, something like punishment for sinning against the Holy Ghost.”1
Indeed, in the following decades, many Western countries began a critical review of their penal codes and eventually abolished their laws against sexual contact with animals. Today, such laws continue to exist only in very few places.
1. Forel, A.
The Sexual Question (German original edition.1905), engl ed: New York 1926., p. 400 |
