Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:13, 22 January 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Zoophilia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27Auto-archiving period: 45 days

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.

Sexology and sexuality B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Zoophilia is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 23, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted October 29, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Bestiality

An anon removed the explaination from the intro that bestiality is commonly misspelled . I have no problem with this but I think the explaination in the article body (not removed by anon, not sure intentional or not) should remain. While this is the article on zoophilia, it is also the article on bestiality (since that redirects here and it's unlikely that it needs its own article). Explaination of the various terms, including misspellings as appropriate for an encylopaedic article (as opposed to a dictionary) should remain. Since bestiality is not the main focus of the article, I don't think we need to go into depth in the intro so I've fine with 71's action but thought I'd post here in case anyone wants to remove it from the body. Nil Einne (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

ATT refference section broken

I noticed the references section is broken. And I do not know the system used for it in this article --Walter (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

fixt --Walter (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Depictions for consideration

I've uploaded a couple of graphics I made to the commons. Thought I'd mention it here if you want to use them.

--Brallion (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you absolutely, totally sure those images are entirely your original work? I seem to remember a case a few years ago where some similar images turned out to be tracings of video stills. Zetawoof_(ζ) 18:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are my own work. I did use photographic images as a visual reference when vectoring these graphics, but only as references for parts of anatomy and proportions. This was so I could get a good feel for what this act might look like. These pieces are not tracings and they are of my own creation. I also offer my talents if there is a specific depiction that this page would benefit from. Brallion (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The first one... Maybe... The second one seems a bit unusual. Besides, we don't need two drawings of the same thing. Possibly, people will complain about the fact that it's a dolphin. I know there's people that have sex with dolphins (don't ask me to source that, I just know the dolphin "community" well enough to say that people do), but they are a very exotic species to say the least. Dogs and horses would be more "common". edit: Though looking at that first one again, it seems like a male dolphin attempting anal with a male human with both facing each other. That wouldn't work too well now would it? BabyNuke (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No, actually the picture depicts a female dolphin, but I can see how you might think my shading is the dolphin's penis. My intent was to draw the pictures in an artistic style, as if a fantasy-- I chose a stylistic off-center approach, but I realize that does bug some people. I can revise them, however, if you want a picture that is centered, and not cut off on one end. One is drawn with a background and the other is not, but that won't be hard to rework if you want a background or want no background on either picture. The option is there so it doesn't have to be the focus of the picture. Let me know if you are interested in any form of revision. I also have the ability to color the pictures easily if you would like that. You are free to use one picture, none, or both-- that's why I offered; this way the option is there if it can be used to enhance the page. Brallion (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, you can look at this as what I'm capable of as an artist. Would this page have interest in depictions done in this style? I have an interest in illustrating these acts and I offer my talents to the wikipedia community. Brallion (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy for the last image to be used as a thumb. In my opinion it fulfils the purpose of depicting how it is possible for the act to take place. forestPIG 07:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

In reality, this would be cumbersome and near impossible way of doing it. It'd almost be extremely difficult to sustain a position like this for very long. If the image is to show how it can be done, this isn't a very good way... BabyNuke (talk) 10:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It also looks a hell of a lot like an autotraced copy of a JPEG image or MPEG still - the blocky-looking shadows on the walls are a pretty definite tip-off that this wasn't drawn up out of thin air. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that too, but on the other hand, I'd be surprised if there was such a video, simply because the whole pose is so unlikely... You can have sex with dolphins, but this just seems too tricky. Possibly altered a bit to suit the purpose? BabyNuke (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The look was created intentionally. I'm a digital artist and I created this piece in GIMP. I applied a number of effects to the completed image, including posterize. If you would like a different look let me know. Better yet, if there is a pose that would be better let me know and I can create a new piece to your liking. --Brallion (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

What kinds?

What types of animals are targets of zoophilia? Which kinds are safe from abuse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.175.50.34 (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the majority of sexual encounters with animals involve dogs, probably followed by horses / ponies and donkeys. I doubt there's any figures on it, but I'd say those account for the vast majority of such encounters. The remaining few percent is probably farm animals (cows, pigs etc.) and some more exotic animals such as dolphins and deer. BabyNuke (talk) 12:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Bestiality Redirect

Why does bestiality redirect to this page, when there are separate pages for homosexuality and sodomy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.25.77.119 (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Frequent comparisons with homosexuality

While I have no interest in condemning or shaming people who experience closeness with animals—as long as cruelty is not involved—I have noticed that this article seems to make an overly close comparison between zoophilia and homosexuality. At least three such comparisons are made within the article. Now, zoophiles face societal disapproval, and it is understandable that their need to maintain an extreme level of personal privacy causes them anxiety. This may reasonably be comparared to the plight of gays and lesbians in oppressive nations such as Zimbabwe and Saudi Arabia (or Great Britain and the United States in the 1940s and '50s).

However, it is false to imply that, in the developed Western world, gays face a level of stigma that comes comes even close to that which zoophiles are subjected to. Gays are pretty much normalized these days, thanks to decades of tireless effort and organization, and they didn't spend all that time and energy to end up as the world's universal "acceptability gague" for every imaginable sexual deviance that comes down the pike. I suggest that only one comparison—between zoophiles and closeted gays—is sufficient. Any more than that absurdly overstates the case. Rangergordon (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

I'm boldly adding auto-archiving and indexing for threads stale for 45+ days; a minimum of 7 threads will be kept so the page doesn't empty. -- Banjeboi 05:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

beastiality

my pastor says beastiality is having sex with a jew.

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Mid-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• Old requests for peer review