Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are used, especially with exhibitionists, non-offending pedophiles, and compulsive masturbators. They are proposed to work by reducing sexual arousal, compulsivity, and depressive symptoms. However, supporting evidence for SSRIs is limited.

Pharmacological treatments can help people control their sexual behaviors, but do not change the content of the paraphilia. They are typically combined with cognitive behavioral therapy for best effect.

Zoophilia is a paraphilia involving a sexual fixation on non-human animals. Bestiality is cross-species sexual activity between human and non-human animals. The terms are often used interchangeably, but some researchers make a distinction between the attraction (zoophilia) and the act (bestiality).

Although sex with animals is not outlawed in some countries, in most countries, bestiality is illegal under animal abuse laws or laws dealing with buggery or crimes against nature.

Three key terms commonly used in regards to the subject — "zoophilia", "bestiality", and "zoosexuality" — are often used somewhat interchangeably. Some researchers distinguish between zoophilia (as a persistent sexual interest in animals) and bestiality (as sexual acts with animals), because bestiality is often not driven by a sexual preference for animals. Some studies have found that a preference for animals is rare among people who engage in sexual contact with animals. Furthermore, some zoophiles report that they have never had sexual contact with an animal. People with zoophilia are known as "zoophiles", though also sometimes as "zoosexuals", or even very simply "zoos". Zooerasty, sodomy, and zooerastia are other terms closely related to the subject but are less synonymous with the former terms, and are seldom used. "Bestiosexuality" was discussed briefly by Allen (1979), but never became widely established. Ernest Bornemann (1990, cited by Rosenbauer, 1997) coined the separate term "zoosadism" for those who derive pleasure – sexual or otherwise – from inflicting pain on animals. Zoosadism specifically is one member of the Macdonald triad of precursors to sociopathic behavior.

In the first reported case study, the patient had started keeping ants in a cupboard of his room as a hobby when he was nine. At this age he enjoyed "the ticklish feeling" of the ants crawling on his legs and thighs. At age ten, he had a sexual relationship with another boy, and was beaten when his father discovered this. By the age of 13 or 14, he had added snails and cockroaches to his collection, and was becoming increasingly preoccupied with it. He had begun masturbating while the ants crawled on his legs. At age 28, he was masturbating several times a week while cockroaches crawled on his thighs and testicles, and snails crawled over his nipples and penis. Sometimes he would hold a frog against his penis and enjoy the vibrations as it tried to escape. The patient was disgusted by his habit, but derived no pleasure from normal sexual activities. John Money suggested that the paraphilia developed as an alternative outlet after his normal sexual expression became associated with the trauma of his father's punishment.

Another case was described in 2012. At the age of 14, the patient saw an ice-cream stick covered with ants, and wondered how it would feel if his penis was in place of the stick. He began letting ants crawl on his genitals, especially fire ants, a practice he found sexually exciting and that continued into adulthood. The patient was socially and intellectually competent. He was also attracted to dogs and goats.

Formicophilia, a form of zoophilia, is the sexual interest in being crawled upon or nibbled by insects, such as ants, or other small creatures. This paraphilia often involves the application of insects to the genitals, but other areas of the body may also be the focus. The desired effect may be a tickling, stinging or in the case of slugs, slimy sensation, or the infliction of psychological distress on another person. The term was coined by Ratnin Dewaraja and John Money in 1986 from the Latin "formica" (ant) + the Greek "philia" (love).

Animal hoarding is keeping a higher-than-usual number of animals as domestic pets without ability to properly house or care for them, while at the same time denying this inability. Compulsive hoarding can be characterized as a symptom of mental disorder rather than deliberate cruelty towards animals. Hoarders are deeply attached to their pets and find it extremely difficult to let the pets go. They typically cannot comprehend that they are harming their pets by failing to provide them with proper care. Hoarders tend to believe that they provide the right amount of care for them. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals provides a "Hoarding Prevention Team", which works with hoarders to help them attain a manageable and healthy number of pets.

In the United States, animal hoarders can be prosecuted under state animal cruelty laws for failing to provide a certain level of care to their animals. The following provides some examples of the standards currently in effect. In Alaska, the cruelty statute defines a minimum standard of care for animals that includes (1) food and water sufficient to maintain each animal in good health; (2) an environment compatible with protecting and maintaining the good health and safety of the animal; and (3) reasonable medical care at times and to the extent available and necessary to maintain the animal in good health. Likewise, in Colorado, a person commits cruelty to animals if he or she knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence deprives an animal of necessary sustenance, neglects any animal, allows the animal to be housed in a manner that results in chronic or repeated serious physical harm, or fails to provide the animal with proper food, drink, or protection from the weather consistent with the species, breed, and type of animal involved. In Colorado's animal cruelty statute, “neglect” means failure to provide food, water, protection from the elements, or other care generally considered to be normal, usual, and accepted for an animal's health and well-being consistent with the species, breed, and type of animal.

Since failure to provide proper care for animals is an act of omission or neglect rather than an affirmative act, the failure to care for an animal is considered a misdemeanor offense in most states. For instance, in Alaska, if an animal owner fails to provide the aforementioned standards of care, the state has prima facie evidence of a failure to care for an animal. If the prosecutor can prove the owner’s failure to care for an animal was done with criminal negligence and the failure to care for the animal caused its death or severe physical pain or prolonged suffering, then the owner may be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. In Colorado, failure to provide an animal with the proper standard of care is a Class 1 misdemeanor. In Virginia, each owner must provide for each of his companion animals: adequate feed; adequate water; adequate shelter that is properly cleaned; adequate space in the primary enclosure for the particular type of animal depending upon its age, size, species, and weight; adequate exercise; adequate care, treatment, and transportation; and veterinary care when needed to prevent suffering or disease transmission. Violation of these standards is a Class 4 misdemeanor. A second or subsequent violation may result in a higher grade misdemeanor. Likewise, under Virginia's animal cruelty statute, any person who deprives any animal of necessary food, drink, shelter or emergency veterinary treatment is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

However, some states, like California and New Hampshire, may provide felony provisions for depriving an animal of necessary sustenance, drink, and shelter. In Colorado, it is a class 6 felony upon a second or subsequent conviction of animal cruelty. In Maine, a person who is guilty of cruelty to animals may face criminal or civil charges at the discretion of the state’s attorney.

Although no specific treatment for acute infection with SuHV1 is available, vaccination can alleviate clinical signs in pigs of certain ages. Typically, mass vaccination of all pigs on the farm with a modified live virus vaccine is recommended. Intranasal vaccination of sows and neonatal piglets one to seven days old, followed by intramuscular (IM) vaccination of all other swine on the premises, helps reduce viral shedding and improve survival. The modified live virus replicates at the site of injection and in regional lymph nodes. Vaccine virus is shed in such low levels, mucous transmission to other animals is minimal. In gene-deleted vaccines, the thymidine kinase gene has also been deleted; thus, the virus cannot infect and replicate in neurons. Breeding herds are recommended to be vaccinated quarterly, and finisher pigs should be vaccinated after levels of maternal antibody decrease. Regular vaccination results in excellent control of the disease. Concurrent antibiotic therapy via feed and IM injection is recommended for controlling secondary bacterial pathogens.

SuHV1 can be used to analyze neural circuits in the central nervous system (CNS). For this purpose the attenuated (less virulent) Bartha SuHV1 strain is commonly used and is employed as a retrograde and anterograde transneuronal tracer. In the retrograde direction, SuHV1-Bartha is transported to a neuronal cell body via its axon, where it is replicated and dispersed throughout the cytoplasm and the dendritic tree. SuHV1-Bartha released at the synapse is able to cross the synapse to infect the axon terminals of synaptically connected neurons, thereby propagating the virus; however, the extent to which non-synaptic transneuronal transport may also occur is uncertain. Using temporal studies and/or genetically engineered strains of SuHV1-Bartha, second, third, and higher order neurons may be identified in the neural network of interest.