Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What psychological harms do survivors of bestiality experience?
Executive summary
Available peer-reviewed reporting links bestiality to survivors’ prior childhood sexual abuse and to downstream problems including depression, stress, impaired relationships, and sexual-function difficulties; the literature stresses limited data and causal uncertainty [1]. The single provided review finds that some people who experienced childhood sexual abuse may later use animals as a sexual outlet and that survivors of CSA commonly report depression, stress, relationship problems, and impaired sexual functioning [1].
1. What the reviewed research actually studied
The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law review treats bestiality as a poorly understood behavior with little systematic evidence about prevalence, motivations, or risk for other violence; its discussion mainly synthesizes prior studies and clinical observations rather than presenting large prospective datasets [1].
2. Common psychological harms reported among survivors of childhood sexual abuse cited in the review
The review summarizes prior literature indicating that victims of childhood sexual abuse (CSA) often experience depression, stress, difficulties establishing relationships, and problems with normal sexual functioning—effects the authors link as possible contributors to later atypical sexual outlets, including bestiality [1].
3. How the review connects CSA sequelae to later bestiality
Authors report an association in available studies between histories of CSA and later engagement in sexual acts with animals, proposing that trauma survivors may perceive animals as “safer” or less emotionally threatening sexual partners; they emphasize this as a potential explanatory pathway rather than definitive causation [1].
4. Behavioral patterns and overlap with other atypical sexual behavior
The review notes that individuals with histories of bestiality frequently engage with dogs and that some may use animals as an instrument of cruelty; it also finds evidence of “crossover” into other atypical sexual behaviors among these individuals, implying complex and varied motivations [1].
5. Limits of the evidence and what is not shown
The article explicitly states there is a dearth of scientific research on prevalence, motivations, and risk for interpersonal/nonsexual violence, and that the time course (whether CSA precedes bestiality) could not be established from available data—underscoring uncertainty about directionality and mechanisms [1].
6. Alternative interpretations and clinical implications
While the review links CSA sequelae—depression, stress, relational and sexual-function problems—to possible later use of animals as sexual outlets, it presents this as one explanatory model rather than the only one; motivations may also include cruelty, deviant sexual preference independent of trauma, or other psychosocial factors [1].
7. What this means for survivors and professionals
Given the reported associations, clinicians and policymakers should consider trauma-informed assessment and treatment for individuals involved in bestiality allegations, attend to common CSA sequelae (depression, stress, relationship and sexual-function difficulties), and be cautious about assuming a single causal pathway given the review’s stated data limits [1].
8. Takeaway and recommended next steps for research and policy
The authors call for more systematic, longitudinal research to establish prevalence, clarify motivations, and determine temporal relationships between CSA and bestiality; until such work exists, conclusions about causality remain provisional and interventions should be guided by the documented psychological harms of CSA while recognizing heterogeneity among individuals [1].