In 2006/07 the New Zealand Centre for Human-Animal Studies administered a nationwide survey exploring the perspectives and experiences of cruelty-free consumers. New Zealand is a small country (human population just over 4 million), whose economy since European settlement around 200 years ago, has been heavily reliant on agriculture (and therefore nonhuman animal exploitation). There is a popular saying in New Zealand – it was around when I was a child and is still going strong – that “farming is the backbone of our nation”. It is also considered ‘unpatriotic’ to refuse meat or other animal products in New Zealand: you are not a ‘true kiwi’ if you don’t support the animal farming, meat, dairy and wool industries here. As a vegan kiwi, however, I have been particularly interested in the ways in which subcultural (or non mainstream) identity in New Zealand is linked to ethical consumption and the refusal to eat meat.

While the survey on ethical consumption in New Zealand attracted a few omnivores – who were mainly concerned about intensive farming practices in NZ and/or the use of animals in experimentation here (and it is perhaps not surprising to note that animal experimentation in NZ is linked predominantly to agricultural research) – the majority of respondents were vegetarian or vegan. To download and read the full 108 page report on this study, please refer to the website for the NZ Centre for Human-Animal Studies (http://www.nzchas.canterbury.ac.nz/news.shtml).

One aspect of this study generated huge media interest, both nationally and internationally around August 2007. This related to the preference of a small number of vegetarian and vegan women to be sexually intimate – or in primary relationships – only with other vegetarians and vegans. This preference, which I term ‘vegansexuality’, pertained to those who refused on ethical grounds to have intimate relations with non-vegetarians. I did not propose vegansexuality as an innate form of sexuality or desire; instead vegansexuality may be understood as a disposition (or inclination, or preference) towards those who also practice a cruelty-free lifestyle. Importantly, it is an embodied ethical form of sexuality.

The connection between food and sex is not a new phenomenon. I would argue that a spectrum exists in relation to cruelty-free consumption and sexual relationships: at one end of the spectrum, vegansexuality entails an increased likelihood of sexual attraction towards those who do not consume animals or animal products. At the other end, it manifests as a strong sexual aversion to the bodies of those who consume animals and animal products; for these people, avoidance of sexual intimacy with omnivorous bodies is manifesting at a much more visceral level.

As a vegan, it makes sense to me that some vegans might experience sexuality on a fundamentally ethical level. A person who is dedicated to cruelty-free living may well extend this ethical commitment beyond consumption of food into other aspects of their life, and especially into such an important arena as intimate relationships. It is not surprising, or extreme (as has been suggested), when considered according to such rationale. What astounded me more was the way in which mainstream and some alternative media across the world picked up on the identification of this phenomenon; and also the ferociousness of the public backlash against those vegans who stated they preferred intimate relationships with non-meat eaters (this backlash was prompted by the extensive media coverage). Overnight there were hundreds of responses posted on blogs and elsewhere, the majority of these postings were immensely negative and/or derogatory towards ‘vegansexuals’.

While there may be several reasons for such an immediate and outraged reaction from meat-eaters discovering they are off the sexual/pleasure menu for strict vegetarians (and I am currently analyzing hundreds of these disparaging responses to see what factors motivated such a reaction), it is the vehement opposition voiced by some vegans that interests me most. For example, PETA was soon brought into the picture, and asked to comment on vegans who preferred sexual relationships with non-meat eaters. A prominent PETA spokesperson declared that vegans who chose other vegans for partners were unhelpful because sex was an important strategy in the conversion of meat-eaters to veganism!

I wonder if one of the reasons some vegans were challenged by vegansexuality is that they were concerned this would become a new kind of sexual imperative: in order to be ‘truly’ vegan it would be necessary to expand their commitment to cruelty-free living to the bedroom. This kind of dilemma ultimately rests with oneself, however. As someone who is personally critical of sexual and other ‘imperatives’, it was not my intention in proposing the existence of this ethical form of sexuality that it should be viewed as, or become, a new demand on vegans; nor that all vegans should feel this way or be ultimately moving towards vegansexuality, or that vegans who are in relationships with omnivores are somehow not vegan enough! Highlighting the existence of ethical intimacy of this nature was more about allowing those participants in the New Zealand study who felt strongly about their own relationships to express their preferences for practicing cruelty-free sex as well as cruelty-free consumption. In my opinion, those who were frank and courageous in voicing their unconventional approaches to intimate relationships certainly did not deserve the malice this provoked from omnivores or other vegans.