Conclusion
There are many insights which a sensitive and intelligent reader can draw from a collection of case histories. I shall only dwell, therefore, on what seem to me the most salient and important points to be gleaned from the accounts given by the five women who are the subjects of this book.
First and foremost is the fact that bestiality, like all forms of so-called deviant behavior, is a very heterogeneous phenomenon. There is no one reason that women engage in sexual relations with animals. There is no one personality type that can be associated with an inclination towards this form of sexual activity. Cindy Mae of the first case was an essentially healthy individual. Christine Y. of the final case was a girl with deep-seated neurotic problems which long antedated her involvement with animal sex. And to one degree or another, important differences are to be found in the psychological makeup of all the females studied here.
-likewise, there is no one specific motivating factor which leads to the first incident of sexual contact with an animal. If Cindy Mae was simply feeling sexually frustrated, Julie V. of the third case wished above all to get revenge on her mother, and Suzanne T. of the second case allowed a dog's penis into her vagina in order to please her boyfriend Bart.
Does this mean that we err in using a term like "bestiality" at all? Is it a term which imposes a wholly false unity in our minds on a subject marked by the utmost diversity? I would say no.
Although the various cases show marked differences, there are important similarities, too. Of these, the most important is physical desire. All of the girls in question were made more receptive to the idea of animal sex by the fact that they were in a state of sexual excitation.-likewise, all of them received physical satisfaction from the animal, though this satisfaction was in many cases followed almost immediately by strong feelings of guilt.
While the amount of guilt felt varied greatly, it is noteworthy that it was present to some degree in all the cases except that of farm-girl Cindy Mae of the first case. It was absent in her case because rural cultural patterns have always emphasized a much freer acceptance of sexual desire than have urban ones.
In all cases where there was some kind of pathological element present, the bestiality was secondary and symptomatic, rather than primary and causal. The girl wanted to get revenge because of feelings of insecurity. Or of hostility towards men. Or she had a pathological need to subordinate her desires to those of her boyfriend. In the particular circumstances each girl was in, this led to bestiality. But in somewhat different circumstances, quite different forms of behavior would have resulted. What if Suzanne T.'s boyfriend had had a hang-up about, say, leather instead of girls and dogs? What if Julie V. had been presented with another, different way of getting revenge on her mother? What if Christine Y. had not decided some time previously to earn money walking dogs? The pathological elements in the personalities would have still been present, but the symptoms would have been quite different.
This point is extremely important, because the therapist must treat the underlying psychological problem rather than its mere manifestations if he wishes to succeed. Otherwise, if the symptoms are simply repressed (which is all that can be done with symptoms qua symptoms), the underlying malady will simply manifest itself in another, equally destructive way.
Certain individual such as Cindy Mae engage in bestiality for reasons that are non-pathological in nature, and thus are not within the scope of a psychologist's duties. But the therapist should always be on the lookout for symptoms of real emotional disturbance, because these are almost always inimical to the patient's happiness. One does not treat bestiality because it is "wrong". One treats whatever prevents the patient from fulfilling herself, and bestiality is often a good clue to this. Having sex with dogs was not making Christine Y. unhappy. But hating men prevented her from hoping for a fully satisfying emotional life, and it was through her sex with dogs that this hatred was made manifest. I acted accordingly, both in recommending that she undergo therapy, and in deciding just what form the therapy should take.
Thus, women who engage in sex with animals are not some special breed of strange and perverse individuals. Rather, they are people just like anyone else, who, like most other people, often have emotional problems. The fact that their symptoms violate an ancient taboo invalidates neither their need for help, nor their right to our understanding and compassion.