Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:39, 18 November 2006

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

Zoophilia received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Ciz was a sock-puppet of user:DrBat, a repeat sock-puppeteer who engaged in strong POV warfare on zoophilia/bestiality issues. Significant aspects of the ruling (as amended):

1. DrBat is placed on personal attack parole.
2. DrBat (using whatever account or IP address) is prevented indefinitely from editing Zoophilia and its closely-related articles, or any editing related to the subjects of zoophilia, bestiality, animal sexuality, or human-animal relationships in any article, including their talk pages.

Whether an article or page concerns these subjects shall be determined by the enforcing administrator. Such changes may be reverted by any editor and any administrator may, at his/her discretion, briefly block Ciz (up to a week in the case of repeat violations). After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.

Link references for the Arbcom rulings and evidence on both cases:

• Jan 2005: 1st Arbcom case and full rulings at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Ciz, details and links for 1st case are in that page.
• Jan 2006: 2nd Arbcom case at RFArb#Motions in prior cases (26 Jan 2006), with details and links for that case at WP_talk:RFArb/Ciz

• Old talk:

  /Archive1

• Archived talk Oct-Dec 2004, related to Ciz, aka DrBat (Personal attacks on editors and furries, POV warring, vandalism):

  Archive2 ... 3 ... 4 ... 5 ... 6 ... 7 ... 8 ... 9 ... 10 ... 11 ... 12 ... 13

• Later archived talk:

• /Archive14 Aug 28 2005: unprotection, ethology, JAQ's rewrite, bestiality v. zoosexuality, non-sexual zoophilia, removal of porn links and AnimalDB.com, query if legal in Holland.
• /Archive15 Nov 27 2005: ShadowH/Ciz sockpuppet Nov'05, Satanism, recent edits of User:Wahkeenah, removed links about-bestiality.com, zoophilia.net and NYTimes (zooskool.com notes KEPT as may still be relevant), ingrid newkirk quote clarification/discussion.
• /Archive16 May 14 2006: Linkage to gay rights, zooskool link, discussion of Zoo Code and talkers, user:Zordrac question re articles against zoophilia, NPOV, Actaeon's site, "Animal" v. "Non-human animal" in intro, Peter Singer quote correction, Seus Hawkins discussion of arguments for/against, use of term 'exogamy', stallion masturbation citation, placement of 'legality by state', user:Angrynight debate whether listing arguments for and against creates bias, canine pair bonding POV "pro" edit, dolphin novel, use of term "consensus" in article.
• /Archive17 July 7 2006: Archive of blocked HeadleyDown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) attempt to POV slant and warfare on the article.

Cite sources

This article needs to be brought up to wikipedia Cite your sources standards and a references section. The following assertations need some digging to check for appropriate citations, and ideally the context, the entire paragraph or full details, as useful background, not just the soundbite:

• The ambiguous term sodomy has sometimes been used in legal contexts to include zoosexual acts jurisdictions like UK is one example, are there others?
• The extent to which zoophilia occurs is not known with any certainty probably in one of the researches
• most research into zoophilia has focused on its characteristics, rather than quantifying it. probably in one of the researches, most likely beetz
• Scientific surveys estimating the frequency of zoosexuality, as well as anecdotal evidence and informal surveys, suggest that more than 1-2% -- and perhaps as many as 8-10% -- of sexually active adults have had significant sexual experience with an animal at some point in their lives a mix of many sources, anyone got any for starters?
• Studies suggest that a larger number (perhaps 10-30% depending on area) have fantasized or had some form of brief encounter
• NZ: It is interesting to note that in the 1989 Crimes Bill considered abolition of beastiality as a criminal offence, and for it to be treated as a mental health issue can we get hold of a copy of the crimes bill review, the whole section thats relevant?
• NZ: In Police v Sheary (1991) 7 CRNZ 107 (HC) Fisher J considered that "he community is generally now more tolerant and understanding of unusual sexual practices that do not harm others." can we get hold of a report of this case and his full comment?
• For example, an old Peruvian law prohibited single males from having a female alpaca (llama).
• A commonly reported starting age is at puberty, around 9 - 11, and this seems consistent for both males and females. Those who discover an interest at an older age often trace it back to nascent form during this period or earlier. there was an informal survey on some website, but researchers may have accurate information
• zoophiles may be attracted only to particular species, appearances, personalities or individuals, and both these and other aspects of their feelings vary over time.
• Zoophiles tend to perceive differences between animals and human beings as less significant than others do.
• They often view animals as having positive traits (e.g. honesty) that humans often lack
  • and to feel that society's understanding of non-human sexuality is misinformed.
• The biggest difficulties many zoophiles report are the inability to be accepted or open about their animal relationships and feelings with friends and family, and
  • the fear of harm, rejection or loss of companions if it became known (see outing and the closet, sometimes humorously referred to as "the stable").
  • Other major issues are hidden loneliness and isolation (due to lack of contact with others who share this attraction or a belief they are alone),
  • and the impact of repeated deaths of animals they consider lifelong soulmates (most species have far shorter lifespans than humans and they cannot openly grieve or talk about feelings of loss).
• Zoophiles do not usually cite internal conflicts over religion as their major issue, perhaps because zoophilia, although condemned by many religions, is not a major focus of their teachings.
• zoophiles sometimes enter human relationships due to growing up within traditional expectations, or to deflect suspicions of zoophilia,
  • and yet others may choose looser forms of human relationship as companions or housemates, live alone, or choose other zoophiles to live with.
• Page citations and context for these:
  • The critical aspect to study was emotion, relationship, and motive, it is important not to just assess or judge the sexual act alone in isolation, or as "an act", without looking deeper. (Masters, Miletski, Beetz)
  • Zoophiles' emotions and care to animals can be real, relational, authentic and (within animals' abilities) reciprocal, and not just a substitute or means of expression. (Masters, Miletski, Weinberg, Beetz)
  • Most zoophiles have (or have also had) long term human relationships as well or at the same time as zoosexual ones. (Masters, Beetz)
  • Society in general at present is considerably misinformed about zoophilia, its stereotypes, and its meaning (Masters, Miletski, Weinberg, Beetz)
  • Contrary to popular belief, there is in fact significant popular or "latent" interest in zoophilia, either in fantasy, animal mating, or reality (Nancy Friday, Massen, Masters)
  • The distinction between zoophilia and zoosadism is a critical one, and highlighted by each of these studies.
  • Masters (1962), Miletski (1999) and Weinberg (2003) each comment significantly on the social harm caused by these, and other common misunderstandings: "This destroy the lives of many citizens".
• At times, research has been cited based upon the degree of zoosexual or zoosadistic related history within populations of juvenile and other persistent offenders, prison populations with records of violence, and people with prior psychological issues. Such studies are not viewed professionally as valid means to research or profile zoophilia ... This approach (used in some older research and quoted to demonstrate pathology) is considered discredited and unrepresentative by researchers.
• Source for Ingrid Newkirk's 1st quote

FT2 00:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Balance in anti/pro

Coming from a pretty neutral viewpoint, I do have to admit that the article seems very "pro" as opposed to "anti". Whatever "anti" statements are made are immediately countered and (seemingly) refuted by "pro" arguments. The "anti" arguments are written in a style that seems condescending, implying that the "anti" view is naive at best and downright discriminatory at worst. 24.207.209.176

• I can confirm this, as I surfed-by this page for the first time. I was somewhat astounded (not to say shocked) about the size of this article. This article is larger than most of all of the rest of the articles I've seen or edited on Misplaced Pages. So reading the article, I also noticed that contra-arguments are being mentioned, only to be superseded by neutral or pro-arguments. There is also a strong tendency of romanticizing! And reading through the list of states where 'Zoophilia' is forbidden, I got the impression that it would be a pretty handy tool for people who actually (and sadly) perform such actions to have a checklist, to see whether their state allows them to do so, or not - which is also slightly 'pro'. Ran J. 08:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree, the article does tend to focus more on the positives; there is no mention of fence hopping (trespassing on someone's property to have sex with animals) for example, which is sadly a fairly common practice. But overall, I don't feel that it's very biased. As for mentioning legality, there is an entire article on the legal status of cannabis so I don't feel it's out of place to mention it, especially because there are obviously very contrasting views on this. BabyNuke 14:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

(Note: Fencehopping since added) FT2 20:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I third this, this article is alarmingly pro-Zoophelia, and it might give people the wrong impression as to it's stance in society. I think that people who are zoophiles are editing this to try to distort zoophelia into something more natural than it is. Altffour

I feel one reason causing this seems to be the extensive use of weasel words. Just as an example, search for the word "some" in the article and you'll find heaps. There's room for improvement there. Also, the article should at no point draw a conclusion on if it is right or wrong, regardless of what the opinion of the editor may be. The current attitude of the article seems to be however that those who oppose it do so mainly out of ignorance (to quote: "People's views appear to depend significantly upon the nature of their interest and nature of exposure to the subject. People who have been exposed to zoosadism, who are unsympathetic to alternate lifestyles in general, or who know little about zoophilia, often regard it as an extreme form of animal abuse and/or indicative of serious psychosexual issues."). While I tend to agree that that's the case, the article should not come to any conclusions on the matter. BabyNuke 09:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The article's been round in this form for the best part of 1.5 years now, a long time of near total stability for a controversial topic. The issue of balance has come up before. There's roughly as many that view it as neutral and informative, as view it as biased, and inappropriate or unhelpful pro-zoophilia edits get removed often, as do against-zoophilia edits, if the edit history is checked.

Part of these issues probably comes down to this: Popular impression differs strongly from such research as has been done. Most of this article has been gone over with a fine toothcomb at some time or other, and most editors have carefully avoided bias towards any given view. We have to be careful to report the public perception, which is done in many places (it's very very clearly stated that it is condemned very strongly). But we also must accept that pretty much all those who have actually and seriously researched zoophilia in general separate from a criminal justice system prior context (and there are a fair number of serious peer-reviewed studies now) report that certain popular perceptions are not in accordance with reality. This is in part why the notes are long -- exactly recognizing it's not what one would intuitively expect from stereotypes.

For example, the serious psychological profiling of zoophiles in the psychological community says that zoophiles are on the whole, more empathic, less pathological, and less interested in power and control than the average citizen (discussed on this talk page some long time ago). To say "Research says that zoophiles are generally more empathic and less manipulative than the average person" might well sound "alarmingly pro-zoophile" to the average lay-person, but it's nothing more nor less than the current scientific findings. That's in part why the subject is controversial. That's the function of science, to test and form views on matters of popular belief and interest.

As to weasel words: There are indeed a large number of "some people". That's because we know from research that such views exist and are notable. But research has been qualitative not quantitative (as stated) so we do not know exact numbers. So "some" is often the best we can do. So we know tendencies more often than exact percentages for many features of the topic. That's inherent in the subject (as with other sexual topics) and discussed carefully under "extent" so that the reader understands the issue.

I imagine it will leave questions but that's the nature of the topic. FT2 20:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it could benefit from a peer review especially requesting a look at neutrality. Get some fresh looks at it. BabyNuke 21:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Part of the difficulty is that Misplaced Pages reports facts, rather than individual editors opinions. The facts are substantially drawn from research, since research is in general the main source of knowledge on this subject. In its way, it is a huge subject. Partly why the article is long is that it is covering the view of experts as opposed to only lay people or media beliefs, and expert information is a view with some 50 - 100 years of research behind it. You can see that from the biliography. Most articles are shorter because they are split into many sub articles (eg look at BDSM or homosexuality or such: homosexuality and religion, choice and homosexuality, gay culture, societal views on homosexuality, gay rights, homophobia, LGBT history, ex-gay, homosexuality and christianity, homosexuality and psychology, homosexuality in china, anti-gay, LGBT media, timeline of LGBT history, gay news, gay agenda, gay friendly, gay pornographic magazines, homosexuality in ancient greece, homosexual laws of the world, homosexuality and medical science, gay stereotyping, ... or BDSM: BDSM, dominant (BDSM), slave (BDSM), consent (BDSM), play (BDSM), list of BDSM terms, domination and submission (BDSM), list of BDSM organizations, power exchange (BDSM), subspace, list of BDSM equipment, BDSM activists, BDSM film-makers, fantasy, pornography, BDSM contract, defence of masochism, edgeplay, erotic denial, fear play, female dominance, foot worship, greenery press, handkerchief code, gorean BDSM, ... 187 articles and 12 subcategories...)

So there is a lot more being said or to incorporate than meets the eye, and a lot more than people would think to the issues surrounding it, which the article touches on. If you feel there is research which is not represented, then that's worth adding... which is of course how this and most articles mature. FT2 (Talk) 23:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't help the antis that there is, what, Dr. Laura on their side, who is not only not a psychologist (her doctorate's is in Biology), but considers homosexuality a disease requiring a cure as much as zoosexuality. I have yet to see an anti-zoo argument that actually holds water, from "unnatural" to "can't consent" to "animals=children." Really, I think spaying/neutering children is not such a bad idea ... --Chibiabos 13:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome, Chibiabos. Its important on this debate to read the various policies about content. The problem is, it doesn't matter what "you or I" think, but what is verifiable and notable. We may agree with it or not, but we don't have the right to base editorial decisions upon what seems right to 'us'. We instead base them upon what seems to be representative perspectives of credible research and the like. We also don't tend to think in terms of "pro" or "anti"s. They are simply, different viewpoints on the same debate, two of many views that we have documented. Three good pages to read: WP:NOR, WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. They guide our editing here, and I hope they give you some ideas how to help this article be better! :)

One way you can help is, you posted the following in an edit summary: "Religious perspectives - 'Most' is inaccurate. In fact, most religions in the world are still tribal, and many tribes in South America and Africa are known to practice forms of bestiality". is this verifiable from third party writings or sources? Do you have research or a soruce to back it? Or is it simply personal belief? if it has some form of credible backing or source, can you say more below, for possible inclusion. :) FT2 (Talk) 14:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

My source was actually a college anthropology class I took about 10 years ago. Our study was Chagnon's Yanomomo, and we watched part of a video documentary of Chagnon's return to the Yanomomo tribe, and class discussions included how procreative heterosexual sex was actually viewed as something of a sacrifice on the part of the man, and that before marriage, sex between men and women was frowned upon. The professor answered questions from several of my classmates that tribal cultures in many parts of the world are remarkably similar in their approach. It is a fact that Judeo-Christianity is still found in only a fraction of the world's population and while Western culture continues to destroy what tribal cultures are left, there are still quite a few left. Judeo-Christians remain a highly ethnocentric bunch, and still tend to regard other cultures as "primitive" and "barbaric," and readily discount the value of their beliefs. The sense that most people in the world are Judeo-Christian (which is false; Judeo-Christianity is a minority), that there are no more tribal cultures in the classic sense (also false), that what few people there were have all been 'successfully converted' by Missionaries and no longer engage in these acts of "barbarism" (also false, though the trend continues and any true and blue anti-ethnocentric anthropologist will tell you that the permanent loss of cultures in this way is a loss to us all) is the basis I see for such arrogant and unsupported claims that 'most cultures in the world abhor bestiality' and other similar claims. I do not recall what the title of the video was. I could probably drag up my Chagnon book on Yanomomo, I think its buried with my stuff in the basement presently, if you aren't familiar with it, but Chagnon is a fairly noteworthy name in the field of anthropology.

An NPOV does not necessarily mean you should dress up one side to make it seem sensible; the anti-zoophilia crowd has yet, from all that I have seen, to come up with a genuine explanation as to why sexual mutilation in the form of forced (and by definition anti-consentual) spays and neuters and forced sex in the form of breeders for profit is okay and acceptable, yet consentual activity is not (and then rely on the argument that humans are the only species of animal capable of expressing like or dislike, which there is no reasonable basis for). Further, I don't view NPOV as necessary in discussions on the Talk page.

Further, is there any evidence to support the original term of 'most'? Did anyone count cultures? I challenge any such claim that there was any basis or reasoned thought into the word "most" used there. --Chibiabos 05:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Now those are good points. If you can drag it up and quote whatever you think relevant here, with a page/s and book/s citation, it'd be good, as you say most of us are not anthropologists so we probably are not aware. One of the good things, everyone brings some new information. Some solid quotes on this, and indeed on the prevalence of judeo-christianity vs tribal beliefs, wouldnt hurt either, to educate us. FT2 (Talk) 09:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Notes from Featured Article page

Major points carried over from FAC page comments:

1. Several sections should be moved to their own articles (legal and religion especially)
2. Lists should not be used, or not used in some sections at any rate, in favor of "prose" style (arguments and religion especially) (part done by user:Raul654, thanks!)
3. Title change to "books and documentaries" (done)
4. Legal status omits large parts of the world.
5. Consistent citation method should be used.
6. Add paragraph summaries under blank sections, not just an article link. (done)
7. Add citations to sections such as "zoophilia and other groups".

FT2 (Talk) 10:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Followup to work done by Raul654 on the article:

Thanks for the work, it does show. A couple of edits only cause me concern, in part because there wasn't discussion and I do have real concerns about the information removed. A quick review of the article as it stands:

1. The intro header, highlighted that zoosexuality covers the field from a point of view of "sexual orientation". There's a subtle and important distinction between two articles (same subject area, different aspects, technical term). I've clarified the terms better in the "terminology" section to cover the ambiguity.
2. I understand you prefer "see also" sections removed, and I grant you have more knowledge and experience than I do by far. But even so, I do not see any proposed solution for others to find these useful articles, nor do I yet see editor consensus on this one issue or a serious breach of style guides by including it. I am therefore proposing to revert it for now, and perhaps discuss it here, and hope that you will be willing to see it discussed and alternative ways to provide the same information identified if necessary, before simply deleting the information.

   (As a quick aside I just opened 20 featured articles at random from throughout WP:FA. 16 featured articles had "see also" sections. By contrast with some, the section in this article is useful, relevant, and short.)

3. Points raised by others, such as inline links, inline cites, and certain italicised quotes, need addressing.
4. I would like to see two fairly easy sections substantively moved to their own articles: legal (done: Zoosexuality and the law), and religion.
5. I would also like to ask for discussion of a separate article, Society and zoophilia or Societal attitudes towards zoophilia. The sections on society and zoophilia are long, and perhaps better in their own article, much as arguments for/against homosexuality are summarized in that article and have their own articles discussing in more detail. The exact scope of that article would determine its title, hence discussion.
6. A nagging concern that the shape of the debate is such that article structure would now benefit from editors' review. The material's good but is that all. I'd like to bring forward the abberation v orientation issues a bit sooner, since they provide a context for the entire subject and its development.
7. Finally and a big project, it would be sensibel to have an article, "research into zoophilia" -- a neutral summary of the research and exactly who concluded what where, will mean that common information doesn't have to be repeated so much.

FT2 (Talk) 13:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Mythology

I think it's important to change the wording around Zeus and his so called "seduction" of Lena and Europa: which is more accurately described as rape. I really believe it's important not to play down and consequently normalise the sexual violence against women that permeates the classics. However, I'm not knowledgeable enough to pin down the exact terminology and events - can anyone help out?

Try reposting the question on the appropriate Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Humanities reference desk. Its exactly their kind of question.

"Zoophilia" in Greek

Was "zoophilia" another artificial splice of Greek by Krafft-Ebing, or is it derived from something actually encountered in Ancient Greek? JayW 00:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, I'm not sure. Did he invent the term, reinvent an existing word, or was it already in use and borrowed/adapted for the purpose? Don't know. I'd suspect "borrowed or reinvented", since in Greek it apparently retains the meaning "animal lover", which suggests that was its original meaning in that language at least (if K-E had invented it, surely it'd mean what he invented in Greek too?). But I'm not sure. FT2 (Talk) 07:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe the term was already in use, but referred to a non-sexual attraction. Zetawoof 08:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Own page for bestiality?

Seeing as zoosexuality got its own article (though I must say that the difference between zoophilia and zoosexuality isn't made very clear), perhaps bestiality could also be given its own article since I'd consider the difference between bestiality and zoophilia a lot bigger than the difference between zoosexuality and zoophilia. Sections like legal status, health and safety, mythology, media discussion and pornography would all fit in this bestiality article, so little new content would have to be written. It'd also reduce the length of the zoophilia article, as it's a bit lengthy at the moment. BabyNuke 13:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about the "what belongs in what article" issue myself a bit. It doesn't help that history has left us with ambiguous terms. In an ideal world (!) "zoophilia" would cover the paraphilia. But in reality, it also covers sex and relational bonding with animals in all senses. I can see how in an ideal world there could be a separate article on "zoosexual acts", and that it would cover the acts, their legality, health, and similar.

I think overall, given the confusion, the main article should be called "zoophilia". This is the term widely used for all aspects of sexual and relational bonding between people and animals. Given that, do we need a separate article on "sex"? I don't think so. We might benefit from articles on "legal", or "views on", or "religion and" ... but the sexual act itself? Not really.

Zoosexuality has a technical meaning. Perhaps that article could benefit if renamed "zoosexuality (orientation)" to clarify this. But as sex, eroticism, and intimate relationships with animals are so closely tied up, it would make sense to me, that we handle all those in one article. Thoughts? FT2 (Talk) 14:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, zoosexuality is a very rarely used term. To put it in perspective, zoosexuality gives 960 hits on google while zoophilia gives 1.6 million hits on google. Besides this, zoosexuality does not appear in the dictionary. These two things combined make it hard for me to truely figure out the meaning of the term zoosexuality. In most cases where I've seen it used, it's pretty much a synonym for zoophilia. I guess zoosexuality could be seen as a purely sexual attraction, while zoophilia goes beyond that.

I would just include zoosexuality in the zoophilia page as currently, the seperate articles in my opinion only confuse the reader as the exact difference does not become clear. Bestiality would become a seperate article, containing the topics of legal status, religious perspectives, animal rights, historical and cultural perspectives, health and safety, mythology, media discussion and pornography. In short, all topics dealing with the actual act fall under the bestiality article, while all topics dealing with the sexual orientation fall under the zoophilia / zoosexuality article. Only the arguments section kind of goes both ways. BabyNuke 16:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Read the article on zoosexuality. It is notable in its own right, and defined within sexology, as distinct and separate from a general article on "people and animals". Google hits are (in this case) not a good uindication of notability. You don't need to "guess" how they differ. Read that article and you'll see. If it's still not clear, how the two articles differ, say so?

That said, if the subject didn't have such conflicting definitions, I would broadly say that much of zoophilia would belong in an artiicle titled "zoosexuality". But as it is, zoophilia is the more recognised term for much of it, and it helps to have the article on the orientation kept "clean" and just about the orientation as an orientation". I think just leave it as it is, and focus on cleanup and missing areas in the field, is best, for now. FT2 (Talk) 21:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No less than four definitions of zoophilia are given on the zoosexuality page. Further, this is how the difference is defined in the beginning of the zoophilia article: "Zoophilia, from the Greek ??? (zôon, "animal") and f???a (philia, "friendship" or "love"), is a paraphilia, defined as an affinity or sexual attraction by a human to a (non-human) animal. Such individuals are called zoophiles. The more recent terms zoosexual and zoosexuality describe the full spectrum of human/animal orientation." However, the definition here of zoosexuality doesn't match up with the definition given on the zoosexuality page itself where it is noted that zoosexuality only covers the sexual orientation, and so not the "full spectrum" (which would also include the emotional aspects).

And then there's this part from the professional views section: "Zoosexuality implies a sexual orientation toward animals... And Donofrio (1996) reports that the concept of zoophilia, being a sexual orientation, was supported by his doctoral study." The way I read that sentence, zoophilia is used as a synonym for zoosexuality. A little further down in the same section, this happens again, even more obviously so: "Not clearly named in this list is the form of zoophilia, that is characterized by an emotional as well as a sexual attraction respectively love to an animal, which is called zoosexuality by other authors (Donofrio, 1996; Miletski, 1999)."

I find it strange for two terms that are obviously VERY closely related to have seperate articles, while bestiality which is obviously not the same as zoophilia or zoosexuality does not get its own article, even though this would be a good way to reduce the length of the zoophilia article. BabyNuke 11:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

First, just to clarify, the main "zoophilia" article is being split out into sub articles. That became clear from 3rd party editors on the Featured Article review. So the main article will be simplified a lot over the next while. That will help in part, by allowing excessively long sections such as porn to be moved to separate articles and summarized instead. That will help a lot.

On the issue you're raising, it's not ideal, but given the range of terminology and the historical conflicts in usage I'm not sure we can change that. To take an analogy from another orientation, if there was any commonsense we'd have 3 articles, on 1/ homosexuality in psychology (re its classification as a sexual orientation), 2/ gay culture, lifestyle, legal, societal views, and related stuff (overview split out to subarticles), and 3/ anal sex (legality, consequences, safety etc). That would be sensible. But I just don't see Misplaced Pages having an article on "how to have sex with your animal", and we have a separate legal article, so the latter isn't likely to happen. (Also "bestiality" is seen as pejorative in the field and Misplaced Pages tries to avoid pejoratives where a more neutral accepted term exists). So the little that is said on the act itself is best folded into the general one on the lifestyle, people, views, etc. FT2 (Talk) 13:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the bestiality article wouldn't be some sort of "how to" article, it'd be largely made up out of existing text from the zoophilia article. And I must say that currently, the seperation between the zoophilia and zoosexuality articles only confuses readers and does not make the topic any more transparant, this because you can't get around the fact that the terms zoophilia and zoosexuality are very close to being synonyms and are normally used that way as well. The nitpicking over definitions has only made the entire subject more vague. I personally strongely suggest having only one zoophilia / zoosexuality article, as the article was a lot better in that construction, together with a bestiality article (instead of splitting up the zoophilia article in a dozen smaller sub-articles, again making the topic less transparant for the reader). As for bestiality being a pejorative - it is a commonly used word and the most likely word people will search for on wikipedia (people are unlikely to go and search for a term like "zoosexual acts"). BabyNuke 13:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, as you can see, I'm having a go at putting the section into that sort of format. Setting aside the actual choice of article name, it's obvious that whatever article discusses zoosexuality as a sexual orientation, is likely to be of a size and definition to need an article of its own, with a brief summary + link within the main article. That's the usual approach for articles covering a whole field: - subarticles covering identifiable major aspects, and a main article summarizing it all with links for more details to each.

Once that's done, I think we will broadly agree, one main article to cover it all, whatever its title may be. But that can't be done until the major chunks are farmed out, which is what's happening in the background, and which takes time. The reason it takes time is that when a subject such as "zoo and the law" becomes a separate article, at that point it must have its own balance and cover its own sub-areas. You can see this in zoo and the law, which covers issues such as how zoo laws come to exist, and their backgrounds, which was new material. So that's why it's a bit slow. But I think broadly that's a direction that's good, and when more of the bulk is moved to subarticles, then creating the main article (under whatever name) to cover it all, will be much easier.

As far as I'm aware, about 4 or 5 articles are being worked on in this way, as subarticles to the main article referencing them, as the Featured Article review suggested. The problem is that you can't fit the whole subject into one article, and nor (as I see it) should you try. A one article summary, yes. But subarticles will then be needed to expand on that. Thoughts? FT2 (Talk) 15:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's one of the reasons why I suggested an article for bestiality in the first place. The current article is too long and a bestiality article could take over a lot of its content, without having to create even more subarticles. BabyNuke 16:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem there is, merely moving material from article title A to article title B doesn't change anything much. Let's let the subarticles get done, which will shorten stuff, then see what's left and how it looks, and make decisions, I reckon. There's one I'm working on if you'd like to help on it? FT2 (Talk) 18:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The porn article I assume? I don't know if you need any, but I'll read it and perhaps leave some comments on the talk page or add a bit if I can. BabyNuke 20:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats the one. And yes please. FT2 (Talk) 00:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed in old "ciz" vandalism days.

Just came across this:

"Emotionally and psychologically, research suggests that zoophiles have above average empathy. It is unclear yet from research whether this is a cause or a result of zoophilia. In other words, they may be close to animals because they empathize well, or have developed empathic skills because of intimate closeness with animals. As a group they have a lower level of psychopathy and need for control than average, and a higher level of sensation seeking and involvement in animal protection than average. They also have an above average level of social individualism, which can be either inhibitive (eg, shyness) or empowering (eg, independence of thought). Other research gives similar findings."

FT2 23:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess there's no reason why that wouldn't be valid anymore. I even recall there being a more extensive list of traits, but I can't seem to find it in the article's history. Perhaps it was mentioned elsewhere. BabyNuke 21:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

JHartley edits

JHartley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been formally identified as a sockpuppet of a known Misplaced Pages POV vandal. block log as has FFodor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) .

The user concerned has caused serious POV damage to other articles, including forged cites, removal of valid facts, attacking of other editors as "biased", and imposition of own preferred POV via selective cites, often non-notable.

His talk page entries, as on the other article, are mostly intended to sway POV on the article and contain many personal attacks; I've archived them at /Archive17 if needed.

FT2 18:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for zoophilia and bestiality pages

Right now, it's a bit chaotic and vague, with a long page on zoophilia which contains some sections which do not really belong to it. Already, some new pages are in the works. So, here's my suggestion for the articles on all things zoophilia and bestiality related:

• Zoophilia / zoosexuality article (no seperate articles anymore), contains all sections regarding the sexuality: lifestyle, non-sexual zoophilia, zoophiles and other groups, sciences studying zoophilia, mythology and fantasy literature, social community and finally books, articles etc.
• Bestiality article, contains sections regarding the sexual act: perspectives on bestiality, health and safety, arguments, media discussion and pornography.
• Bestiality and the law article, contains information the legal status of bestiality around the world.
• Animal sexual abuse article, contains information on the sexual abuse of animals. I could see this article being incorporated in the bestiality article as well if it's not too long.

Little new content would have to be made and little content would be lost. It's largely a matter of improving the organisation. Some key changes here are that the terms zoophilia and zoosexuality will be used as synonyms as that is how they are most commonly seen. The term bestiality is used in those cases where the actual sexual act is being discussed, and thus something like arguments for / against sex with animals would fall under bestiality and not zoophilia. Also note that I did not include animal pornography as a seperate article but included it with bestiality, though if needed this can be kept as a seperate article as it is being worked on now. All related pages could have a little box somewhere showing the other related pages. Feedback is welcome, I think this would greatly improve the situation on zoophilia / bestiality. BabyNuke 19:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've started making the changes needed. BabyNuke 17:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

edit: moved the first few sections, ones that were easy to move without any serious modifications. Other sections will require more work as to make sure it fits the article and no content is lost or misplaced. BabyNuke 17:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand the changes you're suggesting. What I'd ask is, go slowly to allow time for reflection and assessment, and consensus, if you're able. Myself, I'm going to read and then think how it looks now, and will comment more in a day or 2. I'd like to see what consensus says so far, before more editing, to see if people like the direction it's gone in. As I said a while back my own instinct is to do little until the fork sub-articles are more complete. I'm still pondering, I can see the sense of it but still have some concerns that I want to think through before concluding if I'm happier this way or have questions. The one aspect of it I'm not sure at all of, and therefore don't want to be done at this point without much more discussion, is merging from zoosexuality, because that's a technical term and a well defined topic, it's not a duplication even if the title might suggest it to lay-people. Either way it is a set of brave edits. The question how it looks now is what I'd like to check consensus on, befoire more's done though. Thanks! :) FT2 21:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I decided to go ahead with the changes since there was much talk but little action. As for the zoosexuality / zoophilia merger - I've said it before: the referenced literature states TWICE that zoophilia and zoosexuality are synonyms. And I am not a lay-person and I don't get the difference either. Though perhaps it has been used differently on occasion, in general it is not and I am under the impression that that is also the consensus when looking at the referenced literature, references you added if I'm not mistaken. Plus, I feel the zoosexuality article doesn't contain much new information. BabyNuke 10:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The difference would roughly be the same as a difference between two articles called "gay" and "homosexuality", or between "homosexuality (as lifestyle)" and homosexuality (as orientation)".

Basically zoosexuality has a technical meaning, as an orientation, and within that are questions such as, What is an orientation? What research is there each way on it? Why is it classified as an orientation? Thats very different from an overview of zoosexuality as a lifestyle. it's worth looking at the article on Pragmatism for a similar situation, where a word with one commonly-understood meaning actually is a technical term in philosophy, and the article on the general or popular meaning is a separate philosophical term in everyday use. FT2 10:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that literature does not support your point of view as it considers the two to be synonyms, at least in the references provided. Zoosexuality is NOT commonly seen as different from zoophilia and if I have problems finding the difference then it must be even more confusing for the average reader. All I want is for the subject to be as transparant as possible and trying to differentiate zoophilia from zoosexuality in complex wording while contradicting the references mentioned does not help. BabyNuke 20:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand. The thing is, unfortunately *all* terminology is problematic, because of its origins:

1. Zoophilia is the common term, but also denotes a specific psychological condition of a much stricter definition
2. Bestiality is an act only, not a lifestyle or orientation, and has POV connotations according to consensus of past editors (see early talk history)
3. Zoosexuality is an unfamiliar "newer" term, that is technically more accurate but is both not in common use, and also is used in psychology with a specific meaning as an orientation, which zoophilia is not.

That's why I want the "terminology" article completed. Because of these complexities. Can we do that?

I do also have a possible answer in mind for article titling, but would like to think a day or 2 first on it. And it'd need consensus. Is that okay? FT2 00:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure. BabyNuke 09:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

edit: Could you provide some sources using the term zoosexuality in the manner you describe? Terminology should not be a seperate article btw, if that's what you were planning. Not worth it. BabyNuke 19:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

@FT2: so did you make up your mind yet? BabyNuke 15:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hiya, and yes, I have.

I wanted to give it some time, for two reasons, first because its a good way to see others reactions, and ones own over time, second because I've edited a lot on this article and its important not to act as if it is in any way WP:OWNed. So I've stayed away from editing in this area, to see how it goes, see what others say and edit, focus on other areas (mainly the Misplaced Pages: workspace), and come back to it. I have a few thoughts, but I'm clearer now on them.

We probably agree that one way or another we need to split off sizable chunks of content from the main article. So I see the main issue as being what main articles should exist (zoophilia, zoosexuality, bestiality, sex acts with animals, ...), and what content should be in each.

Basically, my feeling is that yes we need to split the article out. But not by fracturing it into two. I don't think a split into "zoosexual acts" (bestiality, sex acts, legal, health, porn) v. "zoosexual lifestyle" (lifestyle, societal views, myth, religion) is going to work well, and instead we ought to consider forking off carefully chosen sections that are well defined, such as "zoosexuality and law", "zoosexuality and religion", "zoosexuality and health", etc instead.

This will make the main article more concise and give focussed sub-articles their own space. It leaves one master article with summary sections, not two parallel master articles. The only question then will be what name to give that article.

I don't think a separate "bestiality" lead article is going to be best, long term, even though its one way to keep it shorter, and reading it, I don't really think the split has worked that well in practice. For that reason I'd suggest we re-merge bestiality back -- but then shorten it by forking out substantial sections which we agree by consensus are worth their own article, keeping the main article shorter. In other words, individual sections get forked if theres consensus, but the article as a whole (which overviews the entire field whatever name it's given) doesnt split into 2 along an acts/lifestyle line.

I will come back to the question of "What titles should articles have" and "What do we do with the zoosexuality article" later if needed, because that's an important part of the problem, but first, this question:

There are two approaches, keep one master article for all aspects of zoosexuality/zoophilia/bestiality and fork out substantial content areas, or fork the article itself into lifestyle v. sexual acts. I'd like to hear thoughts on that before going further. FT2 08:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The bestiality article at least should not be merged with zoophilia again as the two are not the same. Zoophilia describes a sexuality, bestiality describes an act and those who practice bestiality needn't be zoophiles (and the other way around). I still favour having these two as the main articles, possibly with a few sub-articles where needed. I feel some things need to be partially rewritten and can then be moved to the bestiality page. For example, the arguements section in this article belongs more to the bestiality article, afterall, the issue of "right or wrong?" has to do with the act, not the sexuality. The same goes for religious and historical perspectives, they also deal with the act. However, the current wording does not support this view, so these sections require editing.

I am not in favour of many sub-articles. I do not believe the subject warrants it, as someone commented on the pornography article, the articles needn't go that deep. So I am still in favour of two main articles: sexuality and bestiality. This way, you keep it simple and transparant. Splitting it up in to a dozen articles that perhaps give more information than the reader needs does not. As for titles: Zoophilia and bestiality are to the point and the most likely terms a person would look for. BabyNuke 09:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it, there's two main topics we're really looking at:

• Zoophilia, aka. bestiality - the sexual act.
• Zoosexuality - the sexual orientation.

This would suggest another possible way of logically splitting the topic - have those two as main articles, and a redirect from bestiality to zoophilia (which it's most closely related to).

However, I don't think this is the right way to go. The biggest issue is that there isn't much independent usage of zoosexuality as a sexual orientation distinct from zoophilia - a quick Google check, for example, shows that it mostly shows up on Misplaced Pages mirrors (!), with some uses as a synonym for zoophilia. Quite honestly, I don't think there's a strong distinction between the three in practice. Zetawoof 01:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Zoophilia is NOT aka bestiality, though it may occasionally be used that way by some. Bestiality refers to the act, zoophilia to the sexuality, being pretty much synonymus with zoosexuality. A zoophile does not per definition practice bestiality, and someone who does is not per definition a zoophile. Hence, I feel the need to seperate the articles. It may be worth noting in the bestiality article that it is used as a synonym for zoophilia by some though, though in my opinion incorrectly so. To quote the encarta dictionary:

zo·o·phil·i·a

noun

Definition: desire for animals: a sexual attraction to animals

bes·ti·al·i·ty

noun

Definition: (note: only the sexual definition given here)

sex with animal: sexual activity between a human being and an animal

A fundamental difference if you ask me. BabyNuke 14:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a difference. But is it a helpful difference to split the article with? Most people see the whole subject as one area, attraction and acts alike. The term "zoophilia" gets used for both attraction and sexual activity (rightly or wrongly), as does zoosexuality (spectrum and activity).

The term "bestiality" is unambiguous; however past consensus firmly concluded that this is a term implying a specific viewpoint. It places all acts in a "purely sexual" context, separate from any other relevant factor disclosed by research, separate from any relational motive or wider lifestyle choices. By placing the two separately, it conveys the same message as separating "gay lifestyle" from "gay sex", and the term itself has a distinct "specific viewpoint" flavor, as discussed in the past. You weren't here for that with Ciz I don't think, but it was a major decision.

So maybe that will help explain my view. The main terminologies which are inherited in the field all have problems. But a split between "the act" and "the rest" seriously de-contextualizes both in a field where experts who have written already say that is a major miscontext.

Hence why I came to feel that I don't mind a split, or forking of sections, but this way I feel is not a good decision. FT2 14:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

So, in an attempt to summarize, here's basically the two options then:

-One main article dealing with zoophilia / zoosexuality AND bestiality with most major topics handled in detail in their own article.

-Two articles, one on sexuality and one on the act, with possibly one or two subarticles.

As I've stated, my preference goes towards the second option, this to keep the subject as transparant as possible (information not spread over several articles) and to keep the sexuality and the act clearly seperated. BabyNuke 16:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Basically, what it comes down to in my mind is this. Yes, some zoos do separate out "zoophilia" and "zoosexuality" and "bestiality" and whatnot. However, few of them agree on exactly what the differences are, and most outsiders neither know nor care - inclusive of the psychological community, for the most part. Thus, to me it makes a lot more sense to handle this like most of the other large articles on Misplaced Pages and split out subtopics, rather than using this weird two-article structure. Zetawoof 08:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

(Minor observation to the above: to my mind the important thing is that this is true for people in general. It matters since the article should not be cast to represent zoophiles view any more than views of those against zoophilia. The fact both sides have similar issues is what makes it important. Just wanted to clarify that, if it matters. FT2 17:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC))

I guess that makes it two to one then, so I suppose we'll stick with that lay-out. BabyNuke 13:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

hello people. perhaps its not my place but I'd say that a single article would probably give a easier hierarchy to work with. i don't see the difference really. In the toon world, bestiality is a more exciting word because its more naughty but I dont think thats a good reason to split articles. also can somebody send me the ref for the opening (incorrect to say bestiality is synonymous with zoophilia). I'm going to write a piece on this for a toon article. Toondreams 08:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Earlier in this discussion I posted the encarta dictionary definitions of the words, zoophilia being a sexual attraction and bestiality the sexual act. The main need to split articles comes from the fact that the zoophilia article is / was too long. BabyNuke 13:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Summary style's a good way to take care of that; you're right, and that point came out also during the FAC review. So no question there and agreed. Summary style'll take care of that. Once thats done, the article will probably cease to be too long. That's that way I was thinking to approach it. FT2 18:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I can understand where Babynuke comes from. Originally I was in favor of having two separate articles, one for bestiality and then another for zoophiles. It makes sense, keeping the definition and explanation between zoophilia and bestiality in separate articles. If I was in charge of organizing the article from the beginning, that is how I would have originally done it.

However, there are some problems with that method and conflicts that would arise with what we already currently have. Right now what we have is one big umbrella topic where the others merge out of. As far as the flow of information goes, this seems very practical and much easier to follow as opposed to two separate articles where a user would have to search for (or not even know about) the information in the other article. I don’t think the article being too technical is going to be a problem at the level it is as long as it is comprehendible. There are many other articles in wikipedia that deal with complex and sophisticated math and science issues that many of use might not be able to understand just from reading the articles (and that hasn’t been an issue as long as those articles were accurate.)

Zoophilia and bestiality may not be the same thing (as baby nuke pointed out in the definition) but I don’t think that automatically warrants the division of this information on the same topic to be divided and split up under two definitions. I think there is a way we can address BabyNukes concern without having to massively change the format of the articles. This article is more of a general topic of interspecies sex and if necessary you could have little sections specifically on the various definitions (but I thought it was already addressed well in the article.)

Anyways, I just wanted to say that I see where BabyNuke comes from but I think it would be better to improve on the direction that the article is already going in. It reflects the same method that is already the standard that many other articles are using in wikipedia.--Steele the Wolf 05:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I've re-merged the split, since the consensus was unanimous in the end (noting BabyNuke's concerns and the like). There's two outstanding concerns from this, and they are important not to be overlooked:

1. First, that this is part of an overall direction for the article, which was also an equal part of the above discussion -- namely there was consensus that some sections need to be pulled out via summary style, and possibly the article titles to be reviewed (zoophilia/zoosexuality ambiguity) once that's more achieved, and maybe even a different split in future once we've done that as best we can.
2. Second, a minor cleanup point: a prior definition of bestiality contained some repetition ("Bestiality signifies a sexual act between humans and animals, regardless as to motive or intent. It does not by itself imply any given motive or attitude."). Any preferred versions how to keep the sense of it and remove the duplication?

FT2 10:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Definitions

The multiple definitions in the field bother me, not least because they lead to the article titles being ambiguous too. I think we need to make it easier to see them compared. The following is a bit long, but what do people think about the following as a possible way of summarizing and contrasting them? Can we use something like this?

Term	Usage	Primary users	Notes
Zoophilia	A sexual attraction towards animals, or a person who has sex with animals	Popular usage	Individuals with a sexual attraction to animals, or who have sex with animals
	A psychological paraphilia, defined by strict criteria such as exclusivity and psychological suffering	Psychologists and psychiatrists	Technical term for a sexual fixation meeting specific clinical criteria
	An affinity for (or affective bond between) humans and animals.	Sociologists and anthropologists	Anyone closer to animals or more bonded to them than "the norm". Anyone with an affinity for animals. The nature of the interest (sexual or non-sexual) is not significant.
	A relational attraction to animals	Zoophiles and sexologists	Individuals with an emotional attraction or sexual orientation to animals, of a relational, lifestyle or non-experimental nature.
Zoosexuality/ zoosexual	A person who has sex with animals	Popular usage	Individuals with a strong sexual interest or attraction towards animals.
	A sexual orientation towards animals	Psychologists and sexologists	Technical term for a sexual orientation towards animals that meets strict criteria for an orientation, comparable to heterosexuality and homosexuality, regardless of nature or whether acted upon. According to Beetz (2002) "Not all people who have sex with animals are zoosexuals", but this is not clarified. Presumably she means to exclude those whose interest is not relational.
	A spectrum of erotic and sexual attraction towards animals	Zoophiles	A spectrum of sexual or emotional attraction or erotic interest in animals, of whatever nature
Bestiality	A sexual act between a human and an animal	Universal	Applies to the act not the person. Ambiguous as to which acts are included. Out of favor with both zoophiles and professionals, the former considering it pejorative, the latter because it problematically confuses two different groups, severing the act from the intra-subjective context needed to interpret it.

Edits to the above table welcome. FT2 12:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be good to use more definitions for bestiality to help show the reason why it is considered to carry a bias with it (as well as the range of opinions on it). For example the inhumane acts (usually in warfare) version of it. Also do you think a table like will draw criticism if it was included in the article? I remember when the article was nominated for featured article status, some people criticized it for that (or was that cleared up?). Just some quick thoughts for consideration. --Steele the Wolf 17:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Just had a though, is their a way to do a mini table or something that can be put to the side? If you look at animal rights they have a table for links to the related topics on the side (note is doesn't use up a whole new section. Maybe we could do something like that with these definitions? If not that it would be worth considering using that tool to help organize this topic (when we start splitting them off into their own sections.)--Steele the Wolf 17:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You're thinking of section template indexes, for sections such as "sexuality" or "jesus" or "mathematics" where a sort of sidebar index to the main subject areas is useful. A subject needs a certain size and range before that kind of index and "quick finder" is really needed. As to the other, what you're describing is a look at the term bestiality, and how it's perceived. I'm not sure we can say much on "why is bestiality seen as bad" that isn't already said. What I was asking was, about looking at the meanings of different terms that have multiple contradictory meanings and confuse the subject area, and a way to summarize the different meanings for the main words used. FT2 17:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel the difference between a sexual orientation and a sexual attraction is not obvious, hence making the difference confusing. Also, since the term zoosexuality is hardly ever used, I feel the term "popular usage" does not apply. Keep zoophilia and zoosexuality as synonyms, I feel it has been sufficiently shown that these terms are nearly always used as such and this will keep things transparant. BabyNuke 18:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Good points all, Nuke. I agree the distinctioon's not obvious to most. I'm not sure that zoosexuality is "hardly ever used", because in this context it's not *that* uncommon, but its a confusing set of distinctions for sure. As for synonyms, I can see both sides... I don't really know what to think. The words we have in English just arent very helpful. In an ideal linguistical world, I suppose we could take "homosexuality" as a parallel: - zoosexuality would be the main term, and zoophilia would be a deprecated technical term in psychology (much as zooerastry, or homophilia are not well used terms). There's times that calling it all just "human-animal intimate relationships" seems so appealing :) FT2 21:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The word zoosexuality does not appear in any dictionary and gives me less than 900 hits on google (compared to well over a million for zoophilia), and I should note that a considerable amount of those 900 hits are from duplicates or excerpts of wikipedia articles. So, I would say that it isn't used much. An uncommon term with an unclear definition that I have not seen used in any other way but as a synonym for zoophilia - I do not believe that warrants a different definition, let alone its own article as it is now. As said, keep it simple. BabyNuke 09:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree fully with the point that this is certainly a more pro than con article. It should be taken into consideration that this is a subject matter more likely to be looked up by zoo's than those apposed to it (Unless they have a strong moral objection to it, in which case they are equally dangerous editors). I also agree that this article uses more waeasel words than the Fox News Network. The Pro's and Cons section is without a doubt the most biased. It is clear that the editor is attempting to make the pro section look ignorant. I respectfully request this be seriously looked into and considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Losthwy (talk • contribs)

This question comes up regularly. The answer has been discussed quite often in the past. The difficulty is that we (all editors on Misplaced Pages) are here discussing what is verifiable and known, and the facts about the opinions held under each significant view. It is undeniable that the main lines of debate are roughly as stated, but there is no one "editor". Its a communally created article, worked over by dozens of people for and against, over a period of some 3 years, and it is unfortunately the case that while it discusses popular stereotypes, it also covers in much more depth the actual known information in the field. This is presumably what you find troublesome. Perhaps reading up the research pointed to will help (that's true of any subject). In the meantime it's hard to discuss such a generalized question. If you have specific edits or points that seem needed or comments in the article which seem incorrect or poorly representing either side, or you wish to bring to discussion, that's probably best. Wording improvements are always a good thing. FT2 21:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've put it up for peer review - hopefully that will result in more suggestions on how especially the neutrality can be improved. BabyNuke 14:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Link to AnimalDB.com

Someone recently removed the link to AnimalDB.com I added. I would like to put it back on the page but I will wait pending the result of a discussion I would like to see about this subject. Someone reverted my external link addition (AnimalDB.com) to the Zoophilia article. The first reason given by the reverter was that the contribution to the page would be questionable. I beg to differ. AnimalDb.com is a searchable database containing information on bestiality publications such as movies, magazines, books and websites. The zoophilia article on wikipedia is, among more, about bestiality. Several (or possibly all) persons and movies named in the pornography section are also in the database. The database is the largest in his kind. The second argument given, by the reverter, for removing the link was that the database possibly has illegal content for some countries. I believe this fact itself is correct in that some of the websites content might be illegal in some countries, because the database contains cover images for the movies and magazines. But again I have a different opinion about this being a reason for not mentioning the link in the wikipedia article. A lot ot the other sources and external links on this articles page do also contain the same kind of material. If you think this argument is valid then you should remove al those other links also (and not just in this article but throughout wikipedia on all subjects that might be illegal in some countries). I think adding a warning behind the link should be enough. Ik.pas.aan 18:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Also in reply to the comment left on my talk page (I reverted the addition), the site seems to be nothing more than a huge bestiality porn database. Is it relevant for the average reader of this article to know that the movie "A Hot Dog night" lasts 60 minutes? Of the other sites listed in the article, none are purely aimed at pornography. Furthermore, as mentioned, bestial pornography itself is already illegal in many countries. Linking to a site which may contain illegal content for a large amount of visitors isn't wise, though I could live with a disclaimer. The site seems only useful for those looking for bestial pornography and I do not believe that is the goal of this article. I won't further protest it if the link is added WITH a suitable disclaimer, though I do not really feel it adds much to the article. BabyNuke 21:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason for the revert, which was done by others and I would support, is not because of modesty nor (il)legality. It's because Misplaced Pages is not an index of indiscrimiate links, nor a place where links are put to advertize a place, nor a site of resource links for people seeking information on pornography. This is a reference article, on a large subject, and porn site links or indexes do not usually add much essential information on zoosexuality and zoophilia. if you view the page history, you'll see that most porn site type links are removed, by most editors, upon addition, as well as a private request in the text of the page at various times, not to add spam or self-promotion links. AnimalDB.com falls under all of these, the same as zooskool.com (a porn/educational site) did, same as many other sites did. 87.114.1.61 07:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is also not censored. AnimalDb.com is a resource for information on zoophilia/bestiality publications. It is a database like IMDb.com is. Many actrices and movies named in this article can be found in this database with additional information. Ik.pas.aan 16:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The essential question is always "does this add anything to the article"? The answer is "no" - information on (as BabyNuke puts it) who starred in "A Hot Dog Night" and how long it ran doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding of zoophilia. Zetawoof 20:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate/Unfounded claim

This is a minor detail, but an important one nonetheless. It wouldn't be correct to say that 5% of furries are zoophiles. Many of them claim to have practiced zoophilia at some point in their lives, and even more do not consider it taboo. The sentence quoted below is most definately unfounded and should be removed. (discuss)

"The size of this group is not known, although an oft-cited figure is 5% of furries, which is not dissimilar to typical estimates of the percentage within the population generally." 03:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.164.93.193 (talk • contribs) .

I'll turn that on its head. Where does your claim that "many claim to have practiced zoophilia at some point in their lives, and even more do not consider it taboo" come from? That would require significantly more citation, as it flies in the face of all common wisdom on the topic.

Back to the point, though: The sentence you've pulled out doesn't cite sources. However, it fails to do so because there are no sources available - to the best of my knowledge, there have been no large-scale surveys of the furry fandom which collected relevant data. There was an informal ongoing survey on alt.lifestyle.furry known as the "Furvey", but it appears to have been inactive since 2000 or so, and no statistics are available. Zetawoof 03:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence of how the zoo/furry overlap works comes from 2 main sources:

1. Zoophilia is usually marginalized and often not approved of in the furry community. In forum posts about the subject, views against are strongly put, and usually (and consistently) seem to outweigh those for.
2. In polls about zoo and/or furry in the furry community, of those who are both, around 75% say they were already zoophiles and later decided they liked furry too. But the number who don't approve still significantly seems to outweigh this.

One assumes on such posts, those with a specific interest are more likely to post a comment. So it is likely that those posting are not representative of furries as a whole, but more tend to represent those with some specific interest in the topic.

Taken together these tend to support (for me) that most furries are not zoophiles and those who are, were before discovering the furry community, which is why I haven't much challenged the point. I wouldn't be surprised (personally) to find a higher proportion than in "everyday society" but that's not what the anecdotal word says (as best I can tell). I'm not sure what one can say in an encyclopedia except that anecdotally this is what's said. There just aren't any decent sources to draw on other than "anecdotal evidence", so that is the source cited. If there is something thats more, it would be useful to know. FT2 09:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

One question -- is there a source for the "many claim"? Or an indication of the proportion, to show that its a larger proportion and not just that they are more open talking about it (or other confounds)? That would help. FT2 09:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree that the 5% figure seems unfounded. I would say that zoophilia is more common amongst furries (and the other way around) than in the rest of society, however, estimates are hard to give. Possibly also because sex with real animals doesn't seem to be tolerated or is a taboo subject in many furry communities. But it is obvious that furry is very much aimed at animals and I feel an overlap with zoophilia is only to be expected. BabyNuke 09:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Coming back to this, I do think that our visitor has a valid point. I don't see evidence for "many furries are zoophiles". But what is certain is that the article makes an assertation, namely that its "not many" and "5% is oft-cited", and it's up to the article to substantiate that, or at the least give whatever information editors do have on it, to the reader. If this is indeed "oft-cited" presumably there should be places in the furry community it's cited? or is it only cited verbally by individual furries when the topic comes up? Can we find some pointers to better sources than an anonymous "it's oft-cited" (that lacks a citation), from anyone who knows more of the furry community? FT2 10:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, these are numbers I got from a poll on alt.lifestyle.furry, part of the "furvey" zetawoof mentioned: ()

• "Yes, I am a zoophile"  : 65 furs = 28%
• "No, I am not a zoophile"  : 146 furs = 63%
• "No, but I'm curious about it" : 21 furs = 9%

That number supports my claim that zoophilia is more common amongst furries. I feel the group questioned (232 individuals) is sufficiently large for it to be representative. BabyNuke 14:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should include any numbers. The same question asked on alt.fan.furry would probably give a much lower rate of zoophiles, it all depends where and when (That survey is 8 years old!) you ask. --Conti|✉ 15:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but it does show that zoophilia is more common amongst furries than the general public, which is something that could be mentioned without giving any numbers. Eight years old or not, there's no reason why this would no longer be the case now. BabyNuke 16:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't know that's so. Here are some examples of "confounds" (issues which could influence the apparent interpretation of the results):

1. It might be that although the same proportion of furries are zoophiles as in the general public, they feel more able to discuss it, so those who are zoophiles are more likely to speak up?
2. It might be that those who believe in "live and let live" form a higher proportion of furries than of the general culture (eg if furries themselves are a minority and contain many alternate sexualities) and therefore a large number of those who are not zoophiles did not post or have an interest in expressing an opinion?
3. It might be that many zoophiles tell their friends or ask them to vote, when the topic comes up, either because it's of special interest or to give the appearance of a higher proportion of zoophiles? It wouldn't take many to significantly influence the result.
4. It might be that there's a more subtle confound, a causuality relationship -- perhaps surveys on zoophilia/furry are much more likely to take place in furry communities with a significant zoophile presence (not an unreasonable possibility), because of being the one furry community that accepted zoophiles, or where zoophiles congregated, and therefore the few furry communities with such surveys are by definition very atypical of furry communities as a whole?

How about this as a footnote: "No definitive statistics exist, and much of the information is either anecdotal or swayed by questions of representativeness. (For example, do those who have no interest respond to such surveys as much as those who do?) Surveys such as LINK LINK LINK have consistently suggested that even allowing for positive bias, zoophiles are still a small minority amongst furries. Opinions are divided because of such questions, whether furries contain a higher than usual proportion of zoophiles, or about the same proportion. But either way it appears clear it is a minority either way." FT2 21:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how a minority or majority could be clear either way. If you mean minority as less than 50% then I would agree, but 'minority' is up to interpretation. That footnote would be good and unbiased, minus that last sentence. 68.164.94.111 01:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

How about The Sociology of Furry Fandom, which cites a 2% value? It is probably as close to a reliable source as you will get for a survey specifically of furry fans, and it states its methods. GreenReaper 20:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It surprises me is that this number is very different from the results from the "furvey". BabyNuke 20:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly believe that this link should not be added. It is nothing more than an ad site to purchase animal porn, and has nothing of educational substance to offer. zooskool is an excellent site because, while it does offer porn, it also offers valuable information about why zoo's are interested in the zoo lifestyle. Please do not readd this link.

Long article tag

I've removed this tag. The article body itself is well within the bounds of WP:SIZE, because its very specific that it's the main body of text, and readibility concerns that are at stake. A rough breakdown of article length is as follows:

• Counted within the size calculation:

• Main text -- 48 KB (7600 words)

• Excluded from the size calculation:

• Lists in the main text -- 9 KB (1350 words)
• Footnotes -- 25 KB (4000 words)
• Other reference sections -- 9 KB (1400 words) (books and articles, see also, links)
• Non-counted characters -- about 8 KB (formatting, links, unicode, other language links, etc - my word counter reports 93 KB of actual displayed text, whereas there is about 101 KB of markup)

According to WP:SIZE the long article warning is not for technical purposes, but for stylistic (readability) reasons. Stylistically it's the main text (excluding reference information and lists) that is relevant to length, per WP:SIZE. With these excluded an article should be around 6 - 10k words (roughly 30 - 50 KB) before being considered "long", and this article is 7.6k words long, so the warning tag seems unnecessary.

Zoophilia & Islam!

in "Religious perspectives" is written:

"Views of zoophilia's seriousness in Islam seem to cover a wide spectrum. This may be because it is not explicitly mentioned or prohibited in the Qur'an, or because sex and sexuality were not treated as taboo in Muslim society to the same degree as in Christianity. Some sources claim that sex with animals is abhorrent, others state that while condemned, it is treated with "relative indulgence" and in a similar category to masturbation and lesbianism (Bouhdiba: Sexuality in Islam, Ch.4 link). A book "Tahrirolvasyleh", cited on the Internet, which quotes the Ayatollah Khomeini approving of sex with animals under certain conditions, is unconfirmed and possibly a forgery."

This is not right. zoophilia is Haram(forbidden)in islam; as stated:

"Passages in Leviticus 18 (Lev 18:23: "And you shall not lie with any beast and defile yourself with it, neither shall any woman give herself to a beast to lie with it: it is a perversion." RSV) and 20:15-16 ("If a man lies with a beast, he shall be put to death; and you shall kill the beast. If a woman approaches any beast and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the beast; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them." RSV) are cited by Jewish, Christian, and Muslim theologians as categorical denunciation of bestiality."

"sex and sexuality were not treated as taboo in Muslim society to the same degree as in Christianity" is also wrong.

"Some sources claim that sex with animals is abhorrent, others state that while condemned, it is treated with "relative indulgence" and in a similar category to masturbation and lesbianism " is also wrong. musturbation and lesbianism are also forbidden in Islam, and have punishment. I also didn't find it in the cited resource (Bouhdiba: Sexuality in Islam, Ch.4 link)

"A book "Tahrirolvasyleh", cited on the Internet, which quotes the Ayatollah Khomeini approving of sex with animals under certain conditions, is unconfirmed and possibly a forgery."

yes, it is a forgery. I have seen the "Tahrirolvasyleh", and zoophobia is not permitted under any condition, and even the animal should be killed in some conditions.

Given that this seems to be a serious book on sexuality in Islam, it's worth noting what it says:

"Female homosexuality (musahaqa), while equally condemned, is treated with relative indulgence ... only the same reprimand as those condemned for ... bestiality..."

A plain reading of that text implies that bestiality is "treated with relative indulgence" too. That is the view of one author, but it suggests, taken together with other sources, that views in Islam "seem to cover a wide spectrum". That is why the article states as it does. It's also notable that bestiality was widely condoned in Bedoin and Arab tribes. We can't be sure those were Muslim, but again, it is visible that it was never condoned in Christian or Jewish cultures. I'm not an ethnic expert though, to know if such cultures were Muslim. But taken together they do suggest that sexual acts with animals may at least have been treated somewhat differently under Arabic/Islamic cultures, than Christian ones, historically. It's also common for law and practice to differ. That is why it's described that way.

The possible forgery is stated as such, but at the last time the section was reviewed, no clear authority was found to confirm that either way. It seemed worth noting in case it was a forgery, that others would not be misled, and in case it was true that it was documented. FT2 19:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm telling you, I have the book(Tahrirolvasileh), and I searched for the sentence above, but there wasn't such thing in the book! It's fake. bogus. forgery.

"...bestiality was widely condoned in Bedoin and Arab tribes. We can't be sure those were Muslim, but again, it is visible that it was never condoned in Christian or Jewish cultures. I'm not an ethnic expert though, to know if such cultures were Muslim..."

If some of the Cristians do something in contrary to the Cristian jurisprudence -as there are many instances in the past history, and at present-, would it be right to say "cristianity is such..."?! Even if it's true that "bestiality was widely condoned in Bedoin and Arab tribes", and if they were Muslims -and these claim are not verifiable WP:V, and thus can be deleted from wikipeadia- this doesn't mean that Islam accepts it. In all of the islamic jurisprudences(and even in Tahrirolvasileh!) zoophilia is Haram (forbidden). Maybe it was condoned in Arabs before Islam, but Islam prohibited and outlawed it.--Seraj 11:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That's helpful. Could you do a favor and check the copy of the book you have. make sure it's the right volume or version, and provide the publisher, date of publication, and ISBN number. That's for verifiability purposes, so others can check it is bogus, as it is reported on the net and others will want to double check it.

However, I don't see a basis for deletion of valid information. That text is cited on the web, at the most what we now need to do is edit the text to say "confirmed false" rather than "possibly false". The rest of it, you have deleted without good reason, and this is why it's being reinstated.

As background, you are mistaken in your assumption. Bestiality was confirmed as tolerated by Arab/Bedouin cultures well into the 18 - 19th centuries, a thousand years after the rise and dominance of Islam in the region, by a variety of anthropologists. Sources for this are in the related article Historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia. What is being stated of Islam is the same as was stated of Christianity -- the range of opinions of writers on the religion and sexuality, and observation:

• Authors on sex and Islam state a range of views from "abhorrance" to "relative indulgence". For Christianity and Judaism, I am not aware of any writer who stated "relative indulgence" is permissible.
• In Christianity almost all incidents of bestiality in the culture were treated as a very serious offence, with death or at least 10+ year imprisonment the norm for persons found to engage in such acts, of any age. In a variety of Arabic/Bedouin cultures it was commonplace or accepted that young herders would have sexual relationships with animals. This was confirmed by a variety of anthropologists and sexologists such as Miner and DeVos, Havelock-Ellis, Kocher, Mondiere and can be checked on the Berlin sexuality institute's encyclopedia of sexual practices.

What is stated of Islam is quite specific. It is stated that bestiality is not specifically mentioned in the Qur'an. You haven't disagreed with this. If it is, please cite a chapter or verse or section. It states that although not explicitly mentioned, bestiality is nonetheless generally denounced by Muslim theologians, the same as Christian and Jewish theologans. This is no different from what you say above so I assume it's not disputed. It states that views of those writers cover a wide range, that some treat it with "abhorrance", and others treat it with "relative indulgence". This seems accurate, especially as an example of that wide range by a writer on Islam and sexuality has been quoted. So I'm not really seeing anywhere that the current text is in error. FT2 11:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The OBVIOUS wrong state is "views of those writers cover a wide range, that some treat it with "abhorrance", and others treat it with "relative indulgence". This seems accurate, especially as an example of that wide range by a writer on Islam and sexuality has been quoted."

AND "Views of zoophilia's seriousness in Islam seem to cover a wide spectrum...Some sources claim that sex with animals is abhorrent, others state that while condemned, it is treated with "relative indulgence" and in a similar category to masturbation and lesbianism (Bouhdiba: Sexuality in Islam, Ch.4 http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/bouhdiba.htm). A book "Tahrirolvasyleh", cited on the Internet, which quotes the Ayatollah Khomeini approving of sex with animals under certain conditions, is unconfirmed and possibly a forgery."

1. I didn't find it in the cited resource (Bouhdiba: Sexuality in Islam None of the Islamic sources http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/bouhdiba.htm)

2. I have seen Tahrirolvasileh from the right publisher. There's no such thing in the book.--Seraj 06:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

...and I didn't find the "Berlin sexuality institute's encyclopedia of sexual practices" book. neither in http://www.amazon.com , nor http://books.google.com. I also searched http://www.chapters.indigo.ca . Does this book exists?!

This is why I ask you to check more carefully.

1. The cite you say "I didn't find" is not only quoted above, it's also in the 6th paragraph of the page link you give too. Please recheck.
   In addition, note that in the 5th it says "Homosexuality (liwat) incurs the strongest condemnation. It is identified with zina and it is advocated that the most horrible punishment should be applied." But in the 6th paragraph it says as quoted above, that bestiality is not so heavily punished, and is considered on a par with masturbation. This contrast also tends to support that statement.
2. This is why I asked, "Could you do a favor and check the copy of the book you have. make sure it's the right volume or version, and provide the publisher, date of publication, and ISBN number." You still haven't. It's the 4th volume that's relevant. The one that some people say exists, others say does not. That is why I would like enough information to verify this myself. At present the article says "could be a forgery", which is accurate. And you do need to re-read comments rather than just react, that this is widespread and noted on the net, so deletion is inappropriate. This was mentioned before.
3. As for the Berlin source, you need to read the whole article. The sources are provided there, as well as (above) a link to the other article with other relevant sources. I can't make you read them, though. You have the links. Go use them and research carefully. Ask if you have more questions.

FT2 07:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Line drawings

68.88.200.230 added some line drawings found on commons, a change which was reverted. Now, I can understand the reason for the revert, on the other hand, the images aren't exactly hardcore pornography and are a more realistic depiction of bestiality than the current artwork. I'd incorporate them in to the article, even if I do understand people finding this objectionable. Feelings? BabyNuke 13:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

My primary concern is that the line drawings in question look a lot like they were scanned from a printed source - in other words, a probable copyvio. (Yes, I'm aware that the images in question are tagged with a free license - but I'm still kind of suspicious, and curious where they came from if they are freely licensed.) Beyond that, I'm honestly not that sure how well those four images represented the variety of things which zoophiles do. Zetawoof 10:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps - obviously it's impossible to say for sure what the source is. Possibly the uploader could elaborate. As for the acts - the goat image seems a bit odd but the others seem reasonable. BabyNuke 10:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added the source info you requested to the drawing's information page

"There has been some concern as to where this line art came from. I can assure you that I (Human_sexuality78) am the originator of this work. This is my drawing that I have provided. And I turn it over to the wikipedia commons for any sort of use."

• Man having sex with a female dog Man having sex with a female dog
• Male dog mating with a woman Male dog mating with a woman
• Man having sex with a doe goat Man having sex with a doe goat
• Man mating with a pony mare Man mating with a pony mare
• Stallion receiving oral sex from a woman Stallion receiving oral sex from a woman
• Man receiving oral sex from a cow Man receiving oral sex from a cow

I hope this reduces the confusion. If you have any requests for additional drawings I'll see what I can do. (Note: My user ID is from the commons). Human_sexuality78 12 November 2006

You'll have to excuse me for remaining somewhat skeptical about the sources of these images. How were they created? Zetawoof 08:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I drew them. There is no source and I'm afraid that because of this, it makes it very hard to prove. I suppose you could have me draw something, then you'd see that I'm the creator of these works. Human_sexuality78 (commons) 13 November 2006

Fair enough in my opinion. BabyNuke 14:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Health and Disease Issues

Health and Disease issues must not be trivialised, minimized or glossed over. Many of the edits made to this section have attempted to hide the consequences of the behaviour from readers. First the markers that defined subheadings for each disease were removed, then text was amended to imply that the threat is small. But the threat is NOT small. For instance, while Brucellosis infections are relatively rare in the USA (~100 per year), they are very common in many other countries (it causes more than 500,000 infections per year worldwide), and in these countries sexual contact with, say, a dog, would most likely lead to infection. Brucellosis can kill but more commonly, it disables --a truly horrible disease! It is a chronic debilitating illness with extensive morbidity. Skoppensboer 19:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I wonder about that. None of the diseases mentioned seem to be a true STD, so I wonder if they can be seen as risks specific to sexual contact with animals, or if you could also just get them from frequent close contact with animals in general. I'd believe so. I suppose research on it isn't available though. BabyNuke 19:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Wonder no longer. Animal semen is a potent vector for some of these diseases, and fellating or rimming an animal exposes humans to many times the number of, for instance, toxocara larvae, than would normally be the case in everyday life. The CDC (see page on toxocara) only call toxocariasis a mild disease in adults because they do not expect adults to be eating dirt like a child would, and so the exposure is expected to be small. I suspect the CDC would give far more urgent guidelines about this disease, which can threaten eyesight, if they knew that it could be an STD. Skoppensboer 19:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• I need to add that the edits I removed had an inexplicably US-centric slant, as if all the readers of this page are US residents. That is not the case. Just because a disease is relatively rare in the USA does not mean the WP should be written to suit that one audience. This is ethnocentrism at its worst. There are about 192 other countries to consider. Skoppensboer 19:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There's without a doubt healthrisks, but it can't be said this view can be considered neutral either. By deleting the statement that "Most of these are transmissible in everyday life, and are known to farmers and the like, and occasionally seen by vets." it makes it seem that these diseases are bestiality-specific. Dog roundworm is labelled as a "major problem", whilst it is in general considered to be benign and can be obtained in various ways, sexual contact probably not being the most common one. I am not interested in fighting a POV war, so I am not going to edit the section again. Criticism is welcome as this article often tends to be a bit pro-bestiality, but be careful not to push it to the other side either. BabyNuke 21:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with you inserting a statement along the lines that these diseases can be contracted in various ways, not only through sexual contact, although it must be highlighted that the intimacy of sexual contact makes transmission much more likely, as explained above. In the case of the nastiest disease, brucellosis, semen and blood are specific risk factors, so sexual contact greatly increases the risk. Skoppensboer 21:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you're misrepresenting the issue. The majority of the edits you reverted were ones which gave specific information regarding the relevance of these diseases to bestiality. For example, in the section on brucellosis, you removed the text:

"It is most common amongst cattle, and in puppy farms and breeding establishments lacking proper medical controls, with the secretions of pregnant animals being a common carrier."

- which gave relevance to the disease in this article - with some generic text describing treatment for brucellosis, which really belongs in an article on brucellosis in general, as it's in no way specific to brucellosis contracted through sexual contact. Let's continue: Above that, you removed a citation (!) on zoonotic diseases. Below the section on brucellosis, you reinserted some totally redundant content ("ocular involvement can cause loss of visual acuty" - gee, really? worms in your eye can cause you to not see well?) and reinserted another redundant sentence at the end ("allergic reactions may include a severe allergic reaction" - no kidding?).

The US-centrism which you're citing as a reason for reverting is a red herring. Inserting information about the relevance of these diseases in the US isn't "US-centrism" - it's adding context where none existed. Please read before you revert. The main changes made were cleaning up and expanding upon your contribution, not "whitewashing" it. Zetawoof 01:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

1) Brucellosis is vectored by semen. It's a major threat to anyone handling animal semen, such as people doing animal husbandry in the form of artificial insemination. Do some research before spouting off. Talking solely about "puppies" and "pregnant animals" minimizes the risk and must not stand. It is extremely common in dogs in many countries, so citing cattle is irrelevant and tends to minimize risk, once again 2) The effects on the eye are very important and should not be deleted. 3) The possibility of anaphylaxis, a reaction that can cause death, to animal secretions is a serious health threat and should be mentioned. It is not a vanishingly rare occurrence either. 4) Modifying this international encyclopaedia for the US audience is not wise unless you preface such comments with text that allows non-US readers to realize you are talking about a particular country. Please discuss all future edits here first. Skoppensboer 04:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The term "brucellosis" is most commonly used to refer to Brucella abortis, a bacterium which affects cattle and other ruminants: see the eponymous article. Brucella canis - which is, in fact, a separate organism from Brucella abortis - is most common in dogs involved in breeding programs (references available if necessary), as it spreads primarily "through breeding and contact with aborted fetuses" (again, quoted directly from Brucellosis). It's virtually unknown in the household pet population in the US - this is probably worth mentioning, just as one might mention that, while mosquitoes can carry malaria, it's only a threat in certain regions such as sub-Saharan Africa.

Mentioning that an allergic reaction can cause anaphylaxis is redundant. Anaphylaxis is a term used to refer to the immune response present in any allergic reaction. Anaphylactic shock may be what you mean, but that's still really a non-sequitir - anaphylactic shock can occur as a response to any severe allergy; there's nothing specific about animals' bodily fluids (semen, vaginal secretions, etc) which makes the risk any different or any worse than any other allergy. Animal allergies can cause anaphylactic shock, but so can any other allergy.

Zetawoof 04:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• The exact texts that are in contention are below:

While standard STDs – syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes – are human-to-human, not animal-to-human, any zoonotic diseases that people could get through casual contact with animals, they could also get through sex.

The problem with this reassuring sentence is that it misses the point that the intimacy of sexual contact vastly increases the transmission of many diseases. Skoppensboer 04:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point. That sentence already says more or less what you're recommending: Human STDs don't exist in animals, but some zoonotic diseases can be transmitted through sex. I don't exactly see how you're reading this as "reassuring". Zetawoof 04:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a separate concern with this. It's got too much loose wording for an alarmist statement. "Vastly increases" for "many" diseases is a very strong expression. Does it? For "many" diseases? Which ones are at "vastly" increased risk (however this is defined) compared to intimate but non-sexual contact (farming, animal care, usual pet ownership or animal love, etc)? FT2 04:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

... that sometimes gives false negatives, and double testing is required according to the CDC.

This text must stay, for it alerts people to the possible inadequacy of simple blood tests. I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but this is reality. Skoppensboer 04:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not sure how it's directly relevant, though. The source doesn't even say that this is due to the "inadequacy" of such tests - it just recommends that two tests be performed. For all we know, the test could be perfect, and the double testing could be there to exclude the possibility of reinfection. In any case, that's general information which probably belongs on brucellosis, not here. Zetawoof 04:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Details on brucellosis testing regime belong in brucellosis. This is excessive and remote detail for the main zoophilia article. There's no conspiracy -- other material (on both sides of the debate) is brevified too, for identical reasons. FT2 04:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of these are not sexually transmitted diseases and therefore not specific to zoophilia; for example, rabies is transmitted through the bite of an infected animal, and Lyme disease is transmitted when ticks are brought into the home by pets.

Keep that sentence if you add that zoophilia increases the risk of transmission, or else the effect is to minimise the perception of risk, and encourage risky behavior. Skoppensboer 04:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

So, then, why did you remove it rather than fixing it? More to the point, though, the assertion that the risk of transmission is increased by sexual contact is unsubstantiated. There is, for example, no verifiable evidence that Lyme disease can be transmitted sexually at all, even in humans; evidence of transmissibility between animals and humans is entirely lacking. Zetawoof 04:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence that ownership plus sex increases the risk of rabies and lyme disease, compared to (say) ownership without sex? This sentence seems entirely accurate, our concern here is not to bias our articles in order to encourage or discourage any activity, but rather, it is simply to provide information. The diseases where increased risk seems plausible or documented should state this; but those where it is not at increased risk or there is no (or inadequate) evidence or increased risk should not be exaggerated to say that such increase exists. FT2 04:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

and these may include a severe allergic reaction or anaphylaxis

Why would you want to remove this simple medical fact? Unless, of course, you have an agenda here. Skoppensboer 04:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Answered this one above. Anaphylaxis is an allergic reaction. Zetawoof 04:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

An interesting question would be: are the health risks of intercourse with animals greater than that of intercourse with humans? Especially if you want to use it as an arguement against bestiality, this would be interesting to know. BabyNuke 22:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Allergies to animal fluids can include allergic reaction. But this seems relatively uncommon, and relatively few people report "severe" allergies to animal fluids, much less anphylactic shock as this sentence seems to imply. Again, there is a strong sense of exaggeration of risk and severity when I read the present suggested edits. FT2 04:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages featured article candidates (contested)
• Old requests for peer review