The law is some tricky shit, isn’t it?
(Thelma & Louise, 1991)
From her first marriage, Patricia Ann Spann had three children: a boy, then a girl and another boy. Things were not too good, evidently, because Patricia lose custody over them and the children were legally adopted by her mother-in-law.
But in 2008 Patricia met Cody Spann Jr., her oldest son, who at the time was 18. And she married him.
In Lawton, Comanche County, Oklahoma. She signed the papers using both her maiden and her married name, “Patricia Ann Clayton Spann”.
Fifteen moths later, in 2010, at the boy’s request a judge nullified their marriage on the grounds of incest. The Oklahoma laws categorically forbids unions with direct descendants.
In 2014 Patricia met her daughter, at the time 23 years old, Misty Velvet Dawn Spann.
And on March 25, 2016, the two women got married.
They moved in together in Duncan, Stephens County (OK), nearly 30 miles from the Texas border and less than 20 from Lawton where, once again, the wedding had taken place.
To get around the obstacle of their shared family name, Patricia Spann had used her maiden name upon filing the marriage licence application.
Perhaps not all the neighbors were fine with this new, close but reserved couple settling in. So, in August, Patricia and Misty received the visit of a Human Services Child Welfare Division investigator who, while assessing the state of the Spann children, found out that mother and daughter were legally married.
The women admitted both to their biological bond and to being married. Patricia declared to the investigator that she didn’t think they were breaking any law since her name no longer appeared on her daughter’s birth certificate, and that anyway, after being reunited, “they hit it off”.
Thus the authorities came to know of the incestuous relationship. The case was assigned to Duncan Police Detective Dustin Smith, who began the investigations on August 26, 2016, after a warning from the Human Services Division. In September, just months after they had married, in compliance with the law, the Spanns were formally charged.
Felony arrest warrants were issued in Stephens County District Court for both of them. If found guilty, they would face up to 10 years in prison.
After the arrest Misty and Patricia Ann were put in custody in Stephens County Jail. The bail was set at $10,000 for each woman.
As reported by Lawton Constitution, Patricia Spann insisted that she hadn’t had contact with her children until a few years earlier, claim contradicted by court records regarding her former marriage with her biological son. No charges were pressed for that marriage.
At Misty’s request, the marriage with her mother was annulled Oct. 12, 2017, as court records show. In November the girl, who claimed she was fraudulently induced into marriage by her mother, pleaded guilty to her incest charge. She was sentenced to probation for 10 years, two of which to be spent under the supervision of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections.
But after the verdict, a legal technicality emerged, which does not allow deferred senteces – like probation – in incest cases. She was therefore allowed to withdraw her guilty plea and to enter a new plea.
After pleading guilty to the felony count, on March 13, 2018, 46.years-old Spann, born in Norman (OK), was transferred to prison for incest. A judged sentenced her to two years of prison, eight years probation and a $2,791 fine allocated as follows: a $1,500 fine, $300 to the State victims’ compensation fund, and $991 in legal fees. Upon her release, she will also be registered as a sex offender.
In this moment, the woman is held in prison in a Oklahoma State Jail, where she passed her first three months as a recluse.
Thus we have compiled a chronicle of a strange story from the deep South Central. The nature of these facts can amaze and astonish, pushing us to try and guess the inner dinamics that moved its protagonist, Patricia Ann Spann. What were her motivations? Is it possible to really understand?
This is why this is no biography. We can only get a glimpse of the vast array of different interpretation such a story can sustain, of the extent of speculations it suggests, of the powerful, mythical narratives it brings to mind. Where should we start?
Some days ago I was contacted by a pathologist who recently discovered Bizzarro Bazar, and said she was particularly impressed by the website’s “lack of morbidity”. I could not help but seize the opportunity of chatting a bit about her wonderful profession: here is what she told me about the different aspects of this not so well-known job, which is all about studying deformity, dissimilarities and death to understand what keeps us alive.
What led you to become a pathologist?
When I was sixteen I decided I had to understand disease and death.
The pathologist’s work is very articulated and varied, and mostly executed on living persons… or at least on surgically removed parts of living persons; but undoubtedly one of the routine activities is the autoptical diagnosis, and this is exactly one of the reasons behind my choice, I won’t deny it. Becoming a pathologist was the best way to draw on my passion for anatomy, turning it into a profession, and what’s more I would also have the opportunity of exorcising my fear of death by getting accustomed to it… getting my hands dirty and looking at it up close. I wanted to understand and investigate how people die. Maybe part of it had to do with my visual inclination, and pathology is a morphologic discipline which requires sharp visual memory and attention to macro and microscopic details, to differences in shape, to nuances in color.
Is there some kind of common prejudice against your job? How did you explain your “vocation” to friends and relatives?
Actually the general public is not precisely aware of what the pathologist does, hence a certain morbid curiosity on the part of non-experts. Most of them think of Kay Scarpetta, from Cornwell’s novels, or CSI. When people asked me about my job, at the beginning of my career, I gave detailed explanations of all the non-macabre aspects of my work, namely the importance of an hystological diagnosis in oncology, in order to plan the correct treatment. I did this to avoid a certain kind of curiosity, but I was met with puzzled looks. To cut it short, I would then admit: “I also perform autopsies”, and eventually there was a spark of interest in their eyes. I never felt misjudged, but I sometimes noticed some sort of uneasiness. And maybe some slightly sexist prejudice (the unasked question being how can a normal girl be into this kind of things); those female sexy pathologists you find in novels and TV series were not fashionable yet, and at the postgraduate school I was the only woman. As for friends and relatives… well, my parents never got in the way with my choices… I believe they still haven’t exactly figured out exactly what I do, and if I try to tell them they ask me to spare them the details! As for my teenage kids, who are intrigued by my job, I try to draw their attention to the scientific aspects. In the medical environment there is still this idea of a pathologist being some kind of nerd genius, or a person who is totally hopeless in human interactions, and therefore seeks shelter in a specialization that is not directly centered on doctor-patient relationship. Which is not necessarily true anymore, by the way, as often pathologists perform biopsies, and therefore interact with the patient.
Are autopsies still important today?
Let’s clarify: in Italy, the anatomopatologo is not a forensic pathologist, but is closer to what would be known in America as a surgical pathologist. The autopsy the pathologist performs is on people who died in a hospital (and not on the deceased who fell from a height or committed suicide, for instance) to answer to a very specific clinical inquiry, while the legal autopsy is carried out by the legal MD on behalf of the DA’s office.
One would think that, with the development of imaging radiology tests, the autoptic exam would have by now become outdated. In some facilities they perform the so-called “virtual autopsy” through CAT scans. In reality, in those cases in which a diagnosis could not be determined during the deceased’s life, an autopsy is still the only exam capable of clarifying the final cause of death. Besides direct examination, it allows to take organ samples to be studied under the microscope with conventional coloring or to be submitted for more refined tests, such as molecular biology. In the forensic field, direct examination of the body allows us to gather information on the chronology, environment and modality of death, all details no other exam could provide.
There is of course a great difference (both on a methodological and emotional level) between macroscopic and microscopic post mortem analysis. In your experience, for scientific purposes, is one of the two phases more relevant than the other or are they both equally essential?
They are both essential, and tightly connected to each other: one cannot do without the other. The visual investigation guides the following optic microscopy exam, because the pathologist samples a specific area of tissue, and not another, to be submitted to the lab on the grounds of his visual perception of dissimilarity.
In my experience of autopsy rooms, albeit limited, I have noticed some defense strategies being used to cope with the most tragic aspects of medical investigation. On one hand a certain humor, though never disrespectful; and, on the other, little precautions aimed at preserving the dignity of the body (but which may also have the function of pushing away the idea that an autopsy is an act of violation). How did you get used to the roughest side of your job?
I witnessed my first autopsy during my first year in medical school, and I still remember every detail of it even today, 30 years later. I nearly fainted. However, once I got over the first impact, I learned to focus on single anatomical details, as if I were a surgeon in the operating room, proceeding with great caution, avoiding useless cuts, always keeping in mind that I’m not working on a corpse, but a person. With his own history, his loved ones, presumably with somebody outside that room who is now crying for the loss. One thing I always do, after the external exam and before I begin to cut, is cover up the face of the dead person. Perhaps with the illogical intent of preventing him to see what I’m about to do… and maybe to avoid the unpleasant feeling of being watched.
Are there subjects that are more difficult to work with, on the emotional level?
Children.
Are autopsies, as a general rule, open to a non-academic public in Italy? Would you recommend witnessing an autopsy?
No, all forensic autopsies are not accessible, for obvious reasons, since there is often a trial underway; neither are the diagnostic post mortem examinations in hospitals. I wouldn’t know whether to recommend seeing an autopsy to anyone. But I do believe every biology or medicine student should be allowed in.
One of the aspects that always fascinated me about pathological anatomy museums is the vitality of disease, the exuberant creativity with which forms can change: the pathological body is fluid, free, forgetful of those boundaries we think are fixed and insurmountable. You just need to glance at some bone tumors, which look like strange mineral sponges, to see the disease as a terrible blooming force.
Maybe this feeling of wonder before a Nature both so beautiful and deadly, was the one animating the first anatomists: a sort of secret respect for the disease they were fighting off, not much different from the hunter’s reverential fear as he studies his prey before the massacre. Have you ever experienced this sense of the sublime? Does the apparent paradox of the passionate anatomist (how can one be a disease enthusiast?) have something to do with this admiration?
To get passionate, in our case, means to feel inclined towards a certain field, a certain way of doing research, a certain method and approach which links a morphologic phenomenon to a functional phenomenon. We do not love disease, we love a discipline which teaches us to see (Domine, ut videam) in order to understand the disease. And, hopefully, cure it.
And yes, of course there is the everyday experience of the sublime, the aesthetic experience, the awe at shapes and colors, and the information they convey. If we know how to interpret it.
Speaking of the vitality of disease: today we recognize in some teratologic specimens a proof of the attempts through which evolution gropes around, one failed experiment after the other. How many of these maladies (literally, “being not apt”) are actually the exact opposite, an adaptation attempt? Is any example of mutation (which a different genetic drift might have elected to dominant phenotype) always pathological?
What I really mean to ask is, of course, another one of those questions that any pathological anatomy museum inevitably suggests: what are the actual boundaries of the Norm?
The norm is established on a statistical basis following a Gaussian distribution curve, but what falls beyond the 90th percentile (or before the 10th) is not forcibly unnatural, or unhealthy, or sick. It is just statistically less represented in the general population in respect to the phenotype we are examining. Whether a statistically infrequent character will be an advantage only time will tell.
The limits of the norm are therefore conventionally established on a mathematical basis. What is outside of the norm is just more uncommon. Biology undergoes constant transformation (on the account of new medicines or therapies, climatic and environmental change, great migrations…), and therefore we are always confronted with new specimens coming in. That is why our job is always evolving, too.
I didn’t expect such a technical answer… mine was really a “loaded” question. As you know, for years I have been working on the concepts of dissimilarity, exoticism and diversity, and I wanted to provoke you – to see whether from your standpoint a mutant body could also be considered as a somewhat revolutionary space, a disruptive element in a context demanding total compliance to the Norm.
Ask a loaded question… and you’ll get a convenient answer. You’re talking about a culture demanding compliance to a social norm, I replied in terms of the biology demanding compliance to a norm that is established by the scientific community on a frequency-based statistic calculation — which is therefore still conventional. In reality, deformity appears in unexpected ways, and should be more correctly described following a probabilistic logic, and not frequency. But I’m beginning to sound technical again.
I have seen respected professors lighten up like children before some pathological wet specimens. The feeling I had was that the medical gaze in some ways justified an interest for extreme visions, usually precluded to the general public. Is it an exclusively scientific interest? Is it possible to be passionate about this kind of work, without being somehow fascinated by the bizarre?
There could be a little self-satisfaction at times. But in general there is sincere passion and enthusiasm for the topic, and that surely cannot be faked. It is a job you can only do if you love it.
All our discipline is based on the differential diagnosis between “normal” and “pathological”. I could say that everything pathological is dysmorphic in respect to the norm, therefore it is bizarre, different. So yes, you have to feel a the fascination for the bizarre. And be very curious.
The passion for the macabre is a growing trend, especially among young people, and it is usually deemed negative or cheap, and strongly opposed by Italian academics. This does not happen in other realities (not just the US, but also the UK for instance) in which a common element of communication strategies for museums has become the ability of arousing curiosity in a vast public, sometimes playing on pop and dark aspects. Come for the macabre, stay for the science. If young people are drawn to the subject via the macabre imaginary, do you think in time this could lead to the education of new, trustworthy professionals?
Yes, it’s true, there is a growing interest, I’m thinking of some famous anatomical exhibitions which attracted so many visitors they had to postpone the closing date. There is also my kids’ favorite TV show about the most absurd ways to die. I believe that all this is really an incentive and should be used as a basis to arouse curiosity on the scientific aspects of these topics. I think that we can and must use this attraction for the macabre to bring people and particularly youngsters closer to science, even more so in these times of neoshamanic drifts and pseudo-scientific rants. Maybe it could also serve the purpose of admitting that death is part of our daily lives, and to find a way to relate to it. As opposed to the Anglo-Saxon countries, in Italy there still is a religious, cultural and legislative background that partially gets in the way (we have laws making it hard to dissect bodies for study, and I also think of the deeply-rooted idea that an autopsy is a violation/desecration of the corpse, up to those prejudices against science and knowledge leading to grotesque actions like the petition to close the Lombroso Museum).
Has your job changed your relationship with death and dying in any way?
I would say it actually changed my relationship with life and living. My worst fear is no longer a fear of dying. I mostly fear pain, and physical or mental decay, with all the limitations they entail. I hope for a very distant, quick and painless death.
With your twenty years experience in the field, can you think of some especially curious anecdotes or episodes you came across?
Many, but I don’t feel comfortable relating episodes that revolve around a person’s remains. But I can tell you that I often do not wonder how these people died, but rather how in the world they could be alive in the first place, given all the diseases I find! And, to me, life looks even more like a precariously balanced wonder.
Grazie al cinema e alla televisione, oggi tutti possono vantare una certa familiarità con le tecniche di medicina forense: sulla scena del crimine gli esperti si avvalgono di avanzate tecnologie, e le indagini coprono settori interdisciplinari quali la balistica, la chimica, la biologia, l’entomologia, la dattiloscopia, la tossicologia, e via dicendo.
La medicina forense nacque verso la metà dell’800 fra Austria e Germania, quando alcuni medici compresero l’importanza degli studi criminologici e si impegnarono affinché la disciplina adottasse scrupolosamente il metodo scientifico. Eduard von Hoffmann, medico praghese, fu uno dei padri di questa moderna tendenza. Le sue opere fondamentali sono Lehrbuch für gerichtliche Medizin (“Manuale di Medicina Legale”, 1878) e Atlas der gerichtlichen Medizin (“Atlante di Medicina Legale”, 1898).
Quest’ultimo volume, in particolare, è arricchito da 193 fotografie e 56 illustrazioni a colori, per venire incontro alla sempre più pressante richiesta di riferimenti e materiali visivi.
La cromolitografia, tecnica artistica nata a metà secolo, permetteva di rendere con particolare realismo il colorito, la texture e le ombreggiature dei soggetti ritratti, e questo risultava di fondamentale importanza per insegnare agli studenti e ai colleghi le recenti scoperte e i nuovi metodi di analisi.
Le splendide tavole contenute nel libro sono opera di un certo A. Schmitson: nella prefazione Hoffmann loda l’artista, del tutto “digiuno” del tema trattato, per l’abilità esecutiva e l’accuratezza della comprensione. (Per quanto profano, secondo le nostre ricerche Schmitson ha illustrato almeno altri due atlanti medici, in particolare di anatomia patologica e ginecologia).
Ecco dunque una selezione di alcune fra le migliori illustrazioni dell’Atlante.
Neonato. Soffocamento da porzione di membrana.
Omicidio a causa di varie ferite inferte con strumenti differenti (ferro da stiro, coltello, calci, pressione del petto).
Suicidio per sgozzamento.
Suicidio per accoltellamento multiplo.
Ferita circolare da pistola (il proiettile è stato deviato dalla calotta cranica, girando attorno al cervello).
Suicidio per impiccagione; sospensione del corpo per diversi giorni; distribuzione peculiare dell’ipostasi cadaverica.
Suicidio per impiccagione con doppia corda. Posizione asimmetrica del nodo.
Suicidio per impiccagione con vecchia corda arrotolata per cinque volte attorno al collo.
Formazione di Fungo (alga) su un cadavere trovato in acqua. (Stadio iniziale, il neonato è rimasto per 14 giorni nell’acqua corrente).
Lo stesso bambino dell’immagine precedente, rimasto nell’acqua per quattro settimane.
Cauterizzazione delle labbra e della regione attorno alla bocca per ingestione di Lysol.
Avvelenamento da fumi di carbone.
Traumi da caduta al momento della morte.
Situazione anormale del livor mortis come risultato della posizione del corpo.
Estremità inferiore di un neonato rimasto per diversi mesi nell’acqua corrente; formazione di adipocera.
Cadavere mummificato di suicida (scoperto 10 anni dopo la morte).
L’Atlante di Eduard von Hoffmann è consultabile gratuitamente online nella sua traduzione inglese a questo indirizzo. L’analisi forense svolta dall’autore su questi, ed altri, casi è altrettanto interessante delle illustrazioni, e non soltanto dal punto di vista criminologico: vengono infatti svelati diversi dettagli, talvolta terribili e commoventi, delle vicende umane che hanno portato a queste morti violente.
Per la nostra serie di indagini su pratiche e orientamenti sessuali bizzarri o “tabù” (ne trovate traccia alla sezione Sesso Misterioso), affrontiamo oggi un argomento non soltanto controverso, ma spesso ridicolizzato; si tratta infatti di un tema su cui sarebbe fin troppo facile fare umorismo, e che anzi è divenuto nel tempo un topos di barzellette e battutacce volgari. Parliamo della zooerastia, comunemente chiamata zoofilia.
I rapporti sessuali fra uomini e animali sono stati descritti e dipinti fin dall’antichità. Viene naturale pensare alla mitologia greca: agli infiniti travestimenti di Zeus, che per sedurre splendide donne o ninfe assunse le fattezze di aquila, toro, cigno, ecc.; così come alla cretese Pasifae, che per coronare il suo folle desiderio per un toro bianco, dono di Poseidone, si fece costruire una vacca di legno, nascondendosi al suo interno, e una volta inseminata diede alla luce il celebre Minotauro.
Ma non necessariamente dobbiamo rimanere all’interno del bacino del Mediterraneo per incontrare segni di questo antico “amore” fra specie diverse: dipinti ed incisioni mostrano che la pratica, o perlomeno la fantasia zoofila, era ben radicata anche in Estremo Oriente.
Solo recentemente, però, la zooerastia ha cominciato ad essere studiata, seppure sporadicamente, come vera e propria espressione del desiderio sessuale. Attenzione, stiamo parlando qui di vera e propria zoofilia, e non dell’atto sessuale con un animale come sostituto del partner, che anche individui non zoofili possono intraprendere a causa dell’isolamento o di altre contingenze; ci riferiamo cioè alla vera e propria attrazione e preferenza per l’animale rispetto a un partner umano. Di questa è interessante provare a cercare di comprendere le motivazioni.
La prima sorpresa è che un simile orientamento di gusti non è, a differenza della maggior parte delle parafilie, strettamente maschile, anzi: secondo gli studi condotti, l’interesse zoofilo insorgerebbe in età pre-pubere e pubere, senza alcuna differenza fra maschi e femmine.
La seconda sorpresa è che la zoofilia è in realtà un sentimento molto più complesso di quanto ci si possa aspettare. Non si tratta soltanto di trovare una veloce soddisfazione sessuale, o dell’eccitazione del “proibito”. Per quanto sia difficile da accettare o comprendere, la componente emotiva gioca un ruolo molto forte nella psicologia di chi è attratto da un animale. Spesso gli zoofili attribuiscono all’animale delle qualità superiori che non riscontrano negli esseri umani, come l’onestà, la fedeltà, l’innocenza o la saggezza, e così via. Le emozioni degli zoofili verso gli animali possono essere reali, relazionali, autentiche e non solo sostitutive di partner umani. Anzi, il quadro che emerge è composto di persone che molto spesso hanno avuto, o hanno, relazioni umane a lungo termine. Viene quindi a cadere quell’immagine stereotipata del contadino, poco istruito e senza donne che tanto spopola nelle barzellette. Si tratta di persone integrate, che però per qualche motivo sono legate o attratte da una determinata specie – pare che in questo senso i gusti siano molto precisi, chi “ama” i cavalli non lo farebbe mai con un cane e viceversa.
Nel 2002, gli psicologi Earls e Lalumière pubblicarono uno studio su un uomo di 54 anni, incarcerato per la quarta volta a causa della sua passione per i cavalli: in quell’ultimo episodio, era stato accusato di aver ucciso una giumenta colpevole, a sentire lui, di aver fatto gli occhi dolci a uno stallone. L’uomo venne sottoposto a una serie di test con il pletismografo penile, un apparecchio che misura il volume dell’erezione di fronte a uno stimolo visivo. Le immagini di donne o uomini nudi non avevano alcun effetto sul soggetto, il cui pene rimaneva a riposo; lo stesso succedeva con immagini di pecore, mucche, cani, gatti o galline. Ma appena i ricercatori gli mostrarono immagini di cavalli, questa apparente impotenza sparì del tutto, indicando un orientamento sorprendentemente specifico. Per quest’uomo, fare sesso con un cavallo non era di sicuro un ripiego: era il migliore e forse l’unico tipo di rapporto che potesse immaginare.
Sull’onda del loro studio, i due psicologi cominciarono a ricevere una valanga di email e lettere di persone che si autoproclamavano zoofili, raccontando la loro esperienza. Così, nel 2009, Earls e Lalumière pubblicarono un nuovo saggio, che questa volta vedeva come protagonista un uomo di 47 anni, anch’egli attratto dai cavalli, ma nient’affatto disfunzionale come il primo soggetto, anzi perfettamente integrato e dall’alto quoziente intellettivo. Dopo un’adolescenza passata a fantasticare sui cavalli, a guardare film di cowboy (non certo per interesse verso i cowboy), dopo un paio di tentativi malriusciti di fare sesso con le ragazze, finalmente a 17 anni riuscì a comprare una cavalla tutta per sé. Prese lezioni di equitazione e, dopo un lungo corteggiamento, finalmente la giumenta gli si “offrì”:
“Quando quella cavalla nera se ne stette buona, mentre la coccolavo e accarezzavo, quando alzò la coda in alto e di lato appena ne strinsi la base, e quando la lasciò lì, e rimase tranquilla mentre salivo su un secchio, allora, senza fiato, elettrizzato, dolcemente scivolai dentro di lei. Fu un momento di pace e armonia assolute, mi sembrò talmente naturale, fu un’epifania“.
Negli ultimi anni altri studi si sono avvicendati per comprendere qualcosa di più di questa parafilia, e alcuni celebri casi di cronaca hanno contribuito a portare l’argomento all’attenzione pubblica. Nel 2005 Kenneth Pinyan, un ingegnere areonautico di 45 anni, morì in seguito alle ferite interne (perforazione del colon) provocate dal rapporto sessuale avuto con uno stallone. Questa vicenda portò alla luce una specie di “organizzazione” di amanti dei cavalli che si incontravano clandestinamente in varie fattorie per accoppiarsi con gli animali. L’incidente fu largamente pubblicizzato, e divenne noto come il caso di Enumclaw.
Il dibattito sulla zoofilia che ne scaturì, e che continua tuttora, fu alquanto controverso. Comprensibilmente, le associazioni per la protezione degli animali attaccarono duramente gli adepti di queste pratiche. Secondo gli animalisti, si tratta sempre ed esclusivamente di abusi: la “complicità” degli animali nell’atto sessuale è un’invenzione paragonabile a quella dei pedofili che sostengono di assecondare presunti desideri inespressi dei bambini. Gli zoofili ci tengono invece a distaziarsi dagli zoosadici, che fanno del male agli animali, e anzi ribattono che molti di loro sono attivisti proprio fra le file delle stesse associazioni animaliste: a riprova, insomma, che il loro amore non è soltanto sessuale ma a tutto tondo.
Il sesso umano, si sa, è uno degli ambiti psicologici più complessi, e culturalmente stratificati di senso. Per noi, ogni atto sessuale si riempie di mille valori, sottili motivazioni: non si risolve puramente in un contatto fisico ma porta con sé significati e conseguenze pesanti. È davvero un evento eminentemente culturale. Sembra ovvio pensare che tutta questa “sovrastruttura” non interessi l’ambito animale, a cui non sappiamo quanto si possano applicare concetti quali “aggressione”, “violenza e abuso sessuale”, “consenzienza”, “disgusto”, e via dicendo. D’altronde fra gli animali stessi non è affatto infrequente l’avere rapporti sessuali fra specie diverse, come sanno bene i biologi e gli etologi. E lo sa anche chi ha avuto un cane che ha tentato di montargli una gamba: in quel caso, come nel caso di ricercatori fatti oggetto di “assalti sessuali” da parte dei primati che studiavano, chi sarebbe la vittima dell’abuso?
Sembra che gli zoofili da una parte (che si vogliono convincere di vedere negli animali lo stesso desiderio che provano loro), e gli animalisti dall’altra (che vogliono applicare agli animali le categorie concettuali o morali umane), stiano entrambi proiettando sulla bestia un’impronta culturale che essa di per sé non conosce. Vengono in mente le pagine di Baudrillard sull’animale e il bambino come scandalisociali, in quanto sprovvisti di parola: la nostra impossibilità di comprenderli, la barriera che ci separa, li rende vittime della nostra speculazione più violenta, quella che impone loro le categorie del nostro linguaggio.
Quello che rimane, tirate le somme, è una lunga serie di domande senza facile risposta. La bestialità va trattata con condiscendenza o penalizzata legalmente? Quali sono le motivazioni che sottendono questo desiderio, come e perché si sviluppa? Si tratta di una parafilia o di un semplice orientamento sessuale? È davvero possibile l’amore inter-specie?
Alcune brevi note. Il manifesto qui sopra è la locandina del film Bestialità (1976, di V. Mattei), trashissima storia d’amore tra una madre di famiglia e il suo dobermann. Alcune delle informazioni contenute qui provengono da uno splendido articolo (in inglese) di Jesse Bering. Ecco un altro, più succinto articolo in italiano sul tema. Inoltre segnaliamo il film Zoo (2007, di R. Devor), incentrato sul caso di Enumclaw: il documentario è certamente interessante, e nelle intenzioni vorrebbe essere un’imparziale inchiesta e una riflessione sulla condizione umana; di fatto, però, cade nel ridicolo involontario, nel neanche troppo nascosto tentativo di dipingere il suo protagonista come un “martire” della libertà d’amore nei confronti di una società bigotta e ottusa.
