Ruling out ‘orangutan kickboxing’ a good start to limit harmful animal objectification

A new study co-led by Griffith University has highlighted extreme examples—such as orangutan kickboxing for the entertainment of tourists—do little to educate or develop conservation motivation for myriad animal species around the world.

The study “What’s Wrong with Orangutan Kickboxing Shows? Scrutinizing Wildlife Tourism as a Form of Visual Consumption” has been published in the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics.

As urbanization and habitat destruction erode opportunities for humans to meaningfully interact with wild animals in their natural environments, the growing wildlife tourism industry has emerged as a key space for these encounters.

However, the new discussion paper, co-authored by Griffith’s Associate Professor Georgette Leah Burns, raised serious ethical concerns about the use of non-human animals in tourism contexts, particularly in captivity.

The study explored how non-consumptive wildlife tourism—where animals were not hunted or killed—could still result in significant harm.

Beyond welfare concerns such as stress or poor living conditions, these encounters had the potential to distort the public perception of animals and the broader human-animal relationship.

The authors called for moving past an “anthropocentric viewpoint” and examining how animals were positioned in tourism through the lens of objectification and visibility, and predominantly for the sake of their agency.

A stark example was the orangutan kickboxing shows at Safari World Bangkok and similar parks.

“Here, orangutans are costumed in bikinis or uniforms and forced to perform human-like tricks with often sexualized undertones, such as imitating intercourse or dancing provocatively—all for the amusement of tourists,” Associate Professor Burns said.

“These practices not only harm animal welfare but also constitute profound violations of dignity and respect.

“Such objectification reduces sentient beings to spectacles, denying their subjectivity and autonomy.”

The team emphasized that the problem was not captivity itself, but the specific ways animals were made visible and consumed by the tourist gaze.

To address these issues, Associate Professor Burns urged wildlife tourism that aligned with an “ethics of sight,” an approach that fostered respectful, meaningful encounters and portrayed animals as subjects rather than objects.

“Activities should be structured to encourage understanding of animals as individuals with intrinsic value, rather than as mere entertainment,” she said.

“As wildlife tourism continues to grow, this work challenges the industry to reassess its ethical foundations and move toward more compassionate and respectful models of engagement.”