Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Benjiboi (talk | contribs) at 05:59, 18 January 2009 (→Archiving: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

	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

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, 27

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present.

Possibly unencyclopedic passages

When beginning to edit and shorten the pornography section I came across some sentences that sounded quite unencyclopedic to me. I'd appreciate if a native English speaker reviews them and rephrases them if necessary:

• Using animal fur or stuffed animals in erotic photography doesn't seem to be taboo

• Production and mere possession appear to be legal, however.

• The subtext is often to provide a contrast: animal versus sophisticated, raw beast versus culturally guided human. (Nancy Friday comments on this, noting that zoophilia as a fantasy may provide an escape from cultural expectations, restrictions, and judgements in regard to sex.)

  Could the information in the parentheses be presented differently?

• Material featuring sex with animals is widely available on the Internet, due to their ease of production

Ungrammatical - corrected version below - Omar

• Into the 1980s the Dutch took the lead, creating figures like "Wilma" and the "Dutch Sisters".

  — Ocolon 18:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Ocolon. I think you are doing good work simply identifying them. I'll have a doublecheck. Docleaf 09:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Should be correctly worded as Material featuring sex with animals is widely available on the Internet, owing to its ease of production. Due to should only be used before the gerund. Other passages are grammatical, and the Nancy Friday quote is Ok stylistically. 58.136.58.124 (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Omar Charles

Removed {{NPOV}} tag

The tag's been in place for months, but I haven't seen any discussion in quite a while. As such, I'm removing the tag. Feel free to replace it iff you've got specific concerns you'd like to discuss here. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Zetawoof. I'm sure editors will get around to NPOVing (WP:NPOV) the article. Docleaf 05:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the tag to begin with due to constant dispute. And though there's been a lot of talking, many of the core issues were never taken care of. Some large problems I still see:

• The section Arguments about zoophilia or zoosexual relations is more or less a debate inside of the article. Misplaced Pages shouldn't care for this.
• Mis-citation of research also kind of "debates" and does not provide sufficient evidence of such practices.
• Though reverted and I will not do it again as it will probably just be reverted again, zoophilia and bestiality are not the same, one does not imply the other is also there (not all zoophiles have sex with animals and not all those that practice bestiality are zoophiles) - and thus should NOT share the same article. BabyNuke 15:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello BabyNuke. Are you saying there is no source saying zoophilia is the same as bestiality? Also, I agree with you about the miscitations of research. I can't see any evidence for the assertion. Docleaf 09:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's unclear to me how the distinction between zoophilia and bestiality is significant enough to warrant separate articles for the two. Using the definitions present in this article:

• Zoophilia without bestiality is a sexual attraction to animals that hasn't yet been consummated, whether for religious, moral, or practical reasons. This doesn't seem like a particularly useful distinction to me.
• Bestiality without zoophilia is a sexual act committed with an animal in the absence of sexual desire. I'm not quite sure what this would mean - rape, perhaps?

In light of this, the last sentence in the lead paragraph of the article ("not all sexual acts with animals are performed by zoophiles; and not all zoophiles are sexually interested in animals") seems kind of useless. The last clause, in fact, contradicts the definition given above ("an affinity or sexual attraction by a human to a non-human animal"), so it should probably go.

But I'll throw the question back at you, BabyNuke: How would this division take place? What content would be present in one but not the other? Is there a useful distinction to be made, or would the division be arbitrary? Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Zetawoof. I see the inconsistency you are pointing out. The article doesn't need to be consistent though. It only needs to present the sourced views and facts. If there are inconsistencies it is only because of differing views. Docleaf 10:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, given that the last sentence is meant to be a clarification of the definition, it seems important that the article is at least consistent in the application of its own definitions... Zetawoof_(ζ) 10:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Bestiality without the person being a zoophile isn't rape if the animals isn't forced or harmed. What is actually being done decides if it's rape or not, the actual motivation isn't relevant. The devision is quite simple: the bestiality article would include everything related to the actual act: legality, health & safety, historical views, religious views, animal studies, animal welfare, mythology and fantasy literature, pornography. Zoophilia would include everything related to the sexuality: Zoophiles (what is included under that header right now), psychology and research perspectives, social community. In places, the current sections would need some minor changes. The "arguments" section in my opinion can go all together, it's useless. The literature / documentaries section can be present in both articles, though not with the exact same entries. BabyNuke 11:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Tombe the Goat Man

I have the news that more than a year ago, a Sudanese man by the name of Tombe was caught having sex with a goat named Rose and had to pay for his crimes on trial by paying her owner 15,000 dinars and marrying her. Tombe now gets to keep custody of her baby goat upon hearing that Rose died this week. Here's the link for this weird news so you should definitely update it, okay? --Angeldeb82 18:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There's actually a separate article on that topic: Rose (goat), which covers it in more detail than this one. Zetawoof_(ζ) 18:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

wtf wos the kid lol

Peer Reviewed studies in this area

Here is a comment I made on the Zoosexuality talk page about 8 months ago:

I've noticed with some alarm that there is absolutely NO peer-reviewed published research in this area. The people (Beetz, Miletski, Donofrio) who are constantly referenced as if they are sources of reliable knowledge are in fact scientifically unpublished, all of them! A published doctorate is not the same thing. So there is no evidence-based medicine to rely on in this field, just opinion, speculation and "studies" that have not reached the standard required for journal inclusion. Readers should beware.

It is still true. Please note: in academic circles, "peer review" is not the same as simply publishing a book and getting comments on it. Neither is having a doctoral dissertation approved. It is a formal and rigorous process that scientific research has to withstand before it gets published in a reputable journal. The more reputable the journal, the more rigorous the peer review and the more believable the study. Many (most?) studies fail this process. If you want to know if the study was published in a journal, look it up on Medline (Pubmed). Skopp (Talk) 00:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

FT2 already noted (in an edit summary) that Nancy Friday's My Secret Garden isn't an academic source, so it definitely can't be peer-reviewed. I'm hesitant to refer to a single study (Miletski) as "a number of the most oft-quoted studies". Oft-quoted by whom? Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

"Oft-quoted" on the WP pages concerning zoosexuality and zoophilia. Nancy Friday's books are pure pulp fiction, with most of those "fantasies" so similar in style and diction that she probably authored the majority herself. And of course her work of fiction, like the books put out by the other "researchers" mentioned on these pages, does not rise to the level of an academic paper that has had peer review (note: this is a very specific process, look it up) and subsequent publication in a journal of psychology or medicine. Skopp (Talk) 03:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit-war about that fact tag, as that's probably not going to be productive. I will say this, though: right now, the article is making a claim that "a number of the most oft-quoted studies ... were not published in peer-reviewed journals." This claim is not sourced. In fact, as far as I can tell, it's your own conclusions based on the citations which you see in this article: in other words, it's your original research. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. It's a simple conclusion based on the facts at hand. Once again, I invite you to peruse Medline. There are some peer reviewed, published studies on this topic in the literature, as you'll see there, but they seemingly do not warrant inclusion on the Zoophila and Zoosexuality pages on WP, the reasons for which I'll allow you to conclude. Unfortunately, quite a few areas in psychology and medicine are plagued by this lack of quality research. This fact should not be hidden; if the research is missing, let us not laud the opinions and writings that stand in its place. Skopp (Talk) 02:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You may also find this study helpful in understanding why we need to make sure to distinguish between the "grey" literature and proper research. And BTW, I had this same discussion with a doctor on the Prostatitis page on WP, with him insisting (rightly) that the page only cite evidence-based, peer-reviewed, journal-published studies. This is not an issue specific to Zoophilia. Skopp (Talk) 02:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the same situation arises in regard to many subtopics that fall within (but are not core to) sexology, psychology, sociology, ethology and the like.

Nonetheless you're mistaken regarding lack of review overall. The majority of the key studies were formal theses, both doctoral and post-doctoral, and as such there are controls which are not always operational in the USA. For example:

• Beetz' thesis was in Germany, where (as best I understand it) unlike some countries, an expert in the field from another university is always part of the examining body, and the thesis is published some time before in order to allow critique and attacks upon it by others in the field.

• Miletski's thesis was reviewed by a renowned figure in the field of sexology before being published. In the many years since being published it has retained its credibility in its field, and is still cited as a major work of repute by other authors in this and related fields.

• Beetz's follow-up work was published (along with cites of Miletski) in the Journal of the International Society for Anthrozoology, which is a peer reviewed publication, as part of an extended series on zoosexuality (2005-06). This series, published and reviewed by specialists in human-animal relationship, also appears to have been completely accepted as the work of credible and reputed experts in the field, reporting findings that were not especially considered controversial in the field judging by the style. Views on zoosexuality (ethics, appropriateness, etc) were hotly debated and disagreed with by some contributors, but the findings of research reported by the major names in the field and their place in the field as foundational studies, and their basis as a core part of the debate, were not.

I'm not sure that we should attach a greater expectation to research than those experts actually writing in the field do. Miletski, Beetz, Donfrio, and others, are constantly cited in academia when the topic is written on, and both they and their work is treated invariably as credible, accepted-as-common-knowledge-by-the-consensus, carefully written, and reputable, by others writing in the field. The writings have been published and used by their peers now for a significant number of years. In addition I have found no notable minority of writings from within the field by others denouncing them for bias or poor research - a quite remarkable absence for such a controversial topic and conclusion if the research was even slightly questioned. Instead of doubt, they are treated as foundational and accepted-as-obvious, and cited accordingly. I find it hard to conclude we as reporters of the topic, should do otherwise. FT2 20:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• FT2, the points you make do not refute the point I made. If you disagree with me, I suggest you ask someone who is a true medical or psychological expert for comment. In the last decade, there has been a big swing towards evidence-based medicine (please read that wikipage). Under the new regime, much of the preceding research is inadequate, and not only in this area -- far from it! The fact that someone is published in the field, or has a doctorate, or is well-known, or has had their writings vetted by somebody else of note, is utterly irrelevant. Much higher standards now apply for the publication of research, especially in august and pre-eminent journals. I think your understanding of this point is seriously flawed, especially when you point to journals like the one put out by The International Society for Anthrozoology. This is not a recognised journal. It is not indexed by Medline and is not formally recognized in the fields of medicine or psychology. And lastly, it is not a peer-reviewed journal. From the journal's own website we see they state: "Each issue contains (non-refereed) articles on topics related to the human-animal relationship, interviews with key figures in the field, book announcements, conference news and so forth." Skopp (Talk) 23:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've read that link too - I think you linked a note on it elsewhere. It's a good thing, I think. However it doesn't change the facts, which are that the experts in this field, have for whatever reason, set a standard (as noted above from all the evidence both positive and negative). There are no notable calls in the field to re-evaluate any findings or conclusions in this field. Despite the call to tighter econtrols, and despite the controversial feelings about in the field, there are no notable voices saying the current basic views to date are no longer considered acceptable to experts in that field, or should be considered questionable.

The long and short of this for us is, we are here, not as researchers and opinion formers, but as reporters on a field, and encyclopedists. The views of experts in this field seem very obvious to assess, to me, and judging by the writings, which are easy to obtain, there is a quite obvious and strong consensus of opinion as to the findings and the credibility of the authors at this point. If there is a notable voice saying such-and-such studies are possibly flawed or in need or re-evaluation before reliance is placed on them, or that the authors are second rate, I can't find it. If that changes in future then so be it, and then it becomes relevant. Until then, to say that it should, and therefore assume it has... Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball applies.

Lacking that, what we have here is basically WP:OR -- it seems you feel that your view of the subject and what constitutes validated information, should nonetheless outweighs the evident view of those who are experts in the field, and who have had many many adequate chances to say very clearly if they felt as you feel they should. But they haven't.

Instead, they clearly disagree with your view that present research is a matter of "alarm" ... and if it were a matter for alarm then it is to the field you would need to protest, not to an encyclopedia that just documents that field's present views. This is a controversial field, should any significant voice/s in the field feel this was a problem I have no doubt their voice would be raised and heard. But (see above) we find exactly the opposite. These include people with decades of experience in the field, and of very strong academic repute, from notable organizations.

I obviously applaud a move to more tight control on evidence in medicine. But thats for outside Misplaced Pages. We aren't the decision makers in the field here. You're effectively asking to impose your own views on validity of research over experts in the field, and at the end of the day, that's inappropriately OR. FT2 02:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, this personal view, using words like "beware" or "alarm", brings to mind nearly identical earlier times that you likewise presented yourself as "alarmist" in style on this very same page and sought to insert your own exaggerated expression of view into the article using terms like "vastly", "infinitely more", exaggeration of risk, and so on. Your reply then was that the hyperbole you gave was "for effect", justified because this was not the artcle but only "the discussion page" . At that time I tried to explain that we are here only to report what is "out there" in the field, not our own research, not our own views and syntheses on what the field "should" be saying, not hyperbole for effect. That's still how it stands. I thought we had dealt with this aspect to wikipedia editing, over time. FT2 03:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Back on topic, and resisting responding to the inevitable personal jibes, this conversation is about whether or not readers need to know that the expert opinions frequently referenced on the zoophilia page (and related pages) are not published in peer-reviewed journals. I say they do need to know. The paucity of good, evidence-based research is a fact, not OP or crystal ball gazing. There are peer reviewed studies out here, even recent ones, such as this one (quoted below), but nobody seems to want to include these studies here. I wonder why? A few scientifically-oriented editors are required to work on this page, updating it with recent research, no matter whether their personal views are contradicted or not. Skopp (Talk) 04:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

And BTW yes, this IS pertinent to zoophilia, for just as "bestiality" redirects to this page, so do these acts fall under the "zoophilia" rubric. To deny this shows that you have a political agenda on this page and you should therefore resile from further editorship for the sake of Misplaced Pages. Skopp (Talk) 04:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I notice you are now singling out the page on zoophilia to have a disclaimer that it's articles are not “peer reviewed”. You say you haven't an agenda but thats not how it seems. This is kind of like the issue were school slapped stickers on science textbooks saying “Evolution is just a theory” where one topic (article) or viewpoint is given special negative treatment or extra demands different from others because of a person's focus or belief. E.g. you added this fact to the article as being a verifiable fact, but no evidence to support it.

Additionally, this is not a place for advocating. It seems like you are working with a goal in mind to have the article reflect what you believe it should without first understanding (or following) the wikipedias process and purpose (from what I know it to be). This really shows up where you pretty much state that all the editors here are slanted for not including information you want to see here and if they disagree, it's only further proof that they have a political agenda. Steele the Wolf 01:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Mr Wolf, I am not advocating anything. The simple fact that the ideas of the so-called cognoscenti referenced in this and related articles are not published in peer-reviewed journals has deep significance to anyone of a scientific bent. It is of little import to the general reader, that is so. But psychologists, psychiatrists and researchers are entitled to know the status of research in this area, and my small addition of the caveat about the extent of evidence-based research should not be excluded on specious grounds. Comparing me to an anti-evolutionist is ironic, since I am taking the stance of enlightened scientific research, not mumbo-jumbo, grey literature and religion. Skopp (Talk) 04:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy at the moment, I'll come back to this topic later this week, when I've got more time free (it's a bit busy the next few days till the weekend). (So you know it's not ignored.) FT2 12:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That study you reference is terrible for these purposes, whether it's included in the journal or not. Sometimes the quality of the studies speak for themselves. That study was conducted on incarcerated males by it's own admission, and for that reason alone, it should never try to be applied to the general population. I doubt even the original author would argue for that usage. If you are trying to apply it to zoophiles as a universal group (as this article does) I consider it worse than any of the studies done by others, regardless of whether they were published in highly recognized journals or not. It's quality for this article is poor, for that reason alone, and it has nothing to do with bias. If you can show us some other ones though (you claim there are a few), they may warrant inclusion. That studides sample group though is just awful for what you are tying to apply it to.

Zoophilia not Zoosexuality

If Zoophilia is not Zoosexuality, why are there three Zoosexual pictures presented in this article. Some authors here obviously have very sinister objectives.82.6.114.172 19:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The former is a valid point; it hasn't come up before. What might be nice is a suggestion of a good picture that would be appropriate to illustrate non-sexual zoophilia? Maybe something related to other animal lovers that would count as "zoophilia"? Probably not myth and legend though, we already have some imagery from that sphere. Does Category:Human-animal relationships provide any ideas? FT2 12:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(comment reverted - reincarnation of known banned editor) FT2 23:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't need the goat-rape picture

We need to get rid of the goat sex painting. It is depicting a forceful act that has no place here.--68.88.66.227 23:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(comment reverted - reincarnation of known banned editor) FT2 08:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph #2 NPOV, Weasel Words

I strongly object to the following paragraph:

Modern society is generally hostile to the concept of animal/human sexuality. While some, such as philosopher and animal liberation author Peter Singer, argue that zoophilia is not unethical if there is no harm or cruelty to the animal, this view is not widely shared; sexual acts with animals are generally condemned as "crime against nature" and/or animal abuse.

While fairly clever at doing so only indirectly, this paragraph exemplifies what Misplaced Pages is getting at by inventing the term 'weasel words.' What the paragraph does is contrast the utilitarian ethical stance of an individual with a loaded, unverifiable characterization of society's specific reasons for objecting to bestiality.

While this private opinion about society's "hostility" may or may not be accurate, it is not to the point, because the weasel word "hostility" completely misconstrues why society objects to bestiality. And then goes right ahead with comparing this 'hostility' with actual ethical concerns. As anyone who loathes harmless insects should know, ethics and hostility are dubiously related at best.

This original research on society's objections to bestiality, and contrasting it with a more relevant matter-- the views of a noteworthy utilitarian ethicist-- have the effect of lending authority to one view and withdrawing it from the other. That isn't neutral point of view.

The reason the ploy's clever is that the obvious remedies are to either

1) Contrast society's utilitarian ethical concerns re: bestiality (sourceable remarks to the effect that it is a major risk factor in animal abuse), by saying:

Modern society regards animal-human sex relations as an unacceptable risk factor in animal sexual abuse, and therefore inherently unethical, but Singer points out that they need not necessarily be unethical.

or 2) by omitting the point of view of society altogether, as inappropriate to any contrast with an ethical stance.

And you know? Either it's fair game to bring in what society in general thinks, or it's not. Calling it 'hostility' is a very strong characterization of why society objects to it. Are we allowed as wikipedians to testify to why society objects to things, or not?

The paragraph also misconstrues Singer's actual position-- his argument is not aimed at showing that, under some circumstances, zoophilic acts are not unethical. He discusses it as a possibility in the course of a broader exposition of his thoughts. This is another example of weasel words-- the paragraph uses poor interpretations and misleading language like "argues" to suggest that there is an authority saying zoophilic acts are ethical-- and Singer's just not a case of that.

This article needs to be tagged NPOV dispute as soon as possible.--Enantiodromos

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but "hostile" is not in fact a reason "why" anything, any more than noting someone feels anger or happiness towards something is the same as giving a reason for the feeling. So when you say that "the weasel word 'hostility' completely misconstrues why society objects to bestiality" and that "calling it 'hostility' is a very strong characterization of why society objects to it" ... you are missing that "hostile" is a description how society feels (and not why it feels that way). It is a word for a specific felt emotion and a felt response, and characterizes society's general emotion and response rather accurately - society is as a fact, in general hostile.

In simple terms, to say someone or something is "hostile" to someone or something else, is not, and cannot ever try to be, an explanation "why" a feeling is felt (as you are trying to interpret it). It can't be, whether grammatically or psychologically. It is a word for how something is, not why that something is that way.

In the present usage, it is not a weasel word at all, it is not a slippery excuse for "why". It's a very accurate summary and characterization of the broad feeling and response of most of society to the notion of human-animal sexuality. What society thinks in general, is "we absolutely don't like or approve of it, and feel it's wrong and shouldn't ever happen". (In fact much of society would word it stronger than that, not weaker.) That is indisputably how society broadly feels. It is accurate, and precise.

The following part gives a notable and widely discussed commentators' contrasting take of the subject, that in his view such acts need not always be of necessity unethical (ie "wrong" in a philosophical sense), then without a break, notes without prevarication, society's broad rejection of that view, broad grounds how society actually sees it, and two of the most common reasons why people do in practice say they condemn it.

More in-depth discussion of a fuller range of notable cited reasons and opinions (both ways) are presented - again neutrally and with sample cites - in the body of the article.

So in response to your summing up comment that: "Either it's fair game to bring in what society in general thinks, or it's not ... Are we allowed as wikipedians to testify to why society objects to things, or not?", the article editors to date have very completely brought in both of these points you ask rhetorically about: both what society in general thinks (intro), and why society objects (summary + key reasons in intro, detail in arguments section). And the latter are cited to other sources, so that we are not relying on Wikipedians "testifying" (which would be original research). FT2 01:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

(and see above, busy this week, will try to get back on any reply after the weekend, along with a reply to the other comments.) FT2 01:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Objecting that 'hostile' is not a weasel word because it does not *explicitly* present society's reasons for objection, completely misses the concept of weasel words. The second paragraph clearly suggests (not explicitly states) that repugnance is the only reason for society's objections to bestiality, and that society has no actual utilitarian ethical concerns with bestiality.

If the article wants to bring up the limitations of repugnance as an ethical criterion, it should do so explicitly.

You're correct but missing the point when you assert that "'hostile' is not in fact a reason 'why' anything." Which is why I didn't say it was presented explicitly as the reason-- I instead described it as 'misconstruing' and 'characterizing' the 'why'-- which you implicitly recognize by sticking to the binary question 'does/does not explicity state why.' As I understand it, the terminology 'weasel words' was developed in recognition of this very kind of misleading use of language to lend flaky personal opinions about questions (such as the reasons for the public objecting to bestiality) the weight of authority. That's precisely what's going on with the assertion that the public's opinion is 'hostile.' 'Hostility' has an overwhelming connotation of irrational prejudice. Any comparison of phrases: 'object to' and 'are hostile to' shows this plainly.

You're also right but missing the point to call it a 'description of how society feels.' Yes, it does (purport to) describe how society feels. (My personal observations even confirm this description.) That does not mean it doesn't insinuate why-- it does insinuate why. Characterizes why. May, and in fact does, misconstrue why.

When you note that it accurately describes something, you're right, of course, but then not all true statements are equally relevant, and given the universal expectation of relevance in communication, true statements can be, are, and are here, being used to create a misunderstanding.

If 'hostile' is purely a description of the affective manifestations of society's objections to bestiality, how is it even relevant? Answer: it's not. It is lent the appearance of relevance exactly and only insofar as it speaks to why society objects, which is made plain by its immediate contrast with other reasons why one might not necessarily object.

Needless to say, my question about testimony of wikipedians was rhetorically seeking consensus on the view that we do not as wikipedians testify (OR).

I would also disagree with you if you feel that the latter section of the article adequately treats the question of society's primary objection-- the one based on risk of animal abuse. That section baits with the anonymous view that 'zoophilia' (ambiguously defined) is 'categorically' harmful to animals, a view that is absurd prima fascie-- clearly a straw man. Then the section goes on to slay that man of straw, providing views contrary to the question of whether all cases of zoophilia, categorically, are harmful to animals. This grossly misconstrues the primary objection to bestiality, which is the unacceptable risk of abuse of animals as objects of human sexual interest with negligable oversight and advocacy, and is another major problem with the article's NPOV. --Enantiodromos 16:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Your comment: "Objecting that 'hostile' is not a weasel word because it does not *explicitly* present society's reasons for objection, completely misses the concept of weasel words. The second paragraph clearly suggests (not explicitly states) that repugnance is the only reason for society's objections to bestiality, and that society has no actual utilitarian ethical concerns with bestiality."
• Contrast with actual content of 2nd paragraph referred to: "Society is generally hostile to the concept of animal/human sexuality. While some, such as philosopher and animal liberation author Peter Singer, argue that zoophilia is not unethical if there is no harm or cruelty to the animal, this view is not widely shared; sexual acts with animals are generally condemned as 'crime against nature' and/or animal abuse."

More specifically:

• Your comment: "The second paragraph clearly suggests that repugnance is the only reason for society's objections"
• Actual content of 2nd paragraph, stated rather bluntly: "Sexual acts with animals are generally condemned as 'crime against nature' and/or animal abuse."

I don't know how much more factually incorrect your comment could be. The 2nd paragraph not only does not (as complained) suggest that "repugnance is the only reason" and does not state (or imply) that "society has no actual utilitarian ethical concerns". It goes so far in contradicting your comment as to name the specific down-to-earth ethical concerns most commonly encountered - that it is a crime against nature, and/or animal abuse.

On a side issue, although not relevant here so much, the notion that zoosexual acts are inherently abusive (or as you say, "categorically harmful") is not a straw man. You state that in your view this is "absurd prima fascie-- clearly a straw man". That is another error of assumption in your comment. It is the legislated view of several (not just one or two) states, it is encoded in a significant number of laws, it is routinely presented in some court hearings by bodies such as PETA, is presented in seriousness in senates as a basis for criminalization, and is the official stance of the HSUS, the RSPCA and many animal welfare bodies on the topic. See footnote 11 of Zoosexuality and the law for some examples from that article. That (to you) it is "absurd prima facie" to make such a claim, is more a reflection on your openmindedness to topics others dislike/despise, than an informed statement about the range of society's evidenced views. FT2 00:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

PS: Last before I head off, I just noted your comment "If the article wants to bring up the limitations of repugnance as an ethical criterion, it should do so explicitly." It seems you have not carefully read the article, or noted my comment (above) that "more in-depth discussion of a fuller range of notable cited reasons and opinions (both ways) are presented - again neutrally and with sample cites - in the body of the article."

Had you done so, you would have found repugnance correctly listed as one of the notable arguments against such acts (Arguments for/against: "Sexual activity between species is (or should be) naturally repugnant to anyone in their right mind"). In that same line, it is already linked to what is clearly (and accurately) described a "contrasting view", the article on Wisdom of repugnance, which indeed does "bring up the limitations of repugnance as an ethical criterion" and does so "explicitly". I cannot see how you can have missed that, if you read the article carefully.

Again, this article has not come together by chance. It has been carefully reviewed by a huge number of editors over time (for and against), and this is another point which you assert in error. I mention this since like your errors above, it was already covered, had you checked before asserting/implying it was not. It would help to assume good faith. FT2 01:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Your view that my remarks about last week's paragraph #2 are 'factually incorrect' proceed from misunderstanding-- and not mine. To clarify: it simply doesn't follow that IF a paragraph ends with a statement: not-A, that it never asserted A. The paragraph was blatantly phrased to paint society's concerns with bestiality as friovlous and a knee-jerk reaction. Hence opening with an inappropriate characterization of why society doesn't like it, in the word 'hostile.' And actually, that sense was strongly reinforced by the last sentence, which explicitly put forward a deprecated term liable to be dismissed by conventional thinkers ('crime against nature,') tacking on 'animal abuse' in exactly the manner people expect to see ideas that are dubiously coherent elucidated for the sake of fair treatment.

In supposing that I'm wrong about whether society's primary reason for rejecting bestiality is that it regards categorically all such contact as unethical and abusive, you turn to evidence about what the law has criminalized. The mistake there is that criminality and abuse/ethics are quite distinct. The former isn't sufficient to show the latter. In fact, ordinary people regard AT LEAST the kind of sexual contact that routinely goes on spontaneously between dogs and humans, to be funny-- it's a frequent source of ribalt humor. Most people would be amused or even laugh aloud at calling such things "abuse," "unethical," "sinning" or "criminal!" Since that's one kind of human-animal sexual contact, yes, it *is* absurd prima fascie to suppose that society regards categorically all such acts as abuse-- it's a straw man. Furthermore, drawing attention (in the article) to whether society regards categorically all animal-human sex contact as abusive, rather than whether society has taken the measure of prohibiting all animal-human sex contact because doing otherwise is an unacceptable risk of animal abuse, may appeal to anarchists and the amoral since it sidesteps having to consider that society may have some desirable function, but except to them, it's also a straw man for that reason.

I neglected to reiterate, when I remarked that repugnance as an ethical criterion should be brought up explicitly, that I was talking about the second paragraph. Naturally, that is what I meant. The 2nd paragraph is not simply one more of many paragraphs in the article-- it's right there at the top where the broad concept is introduced.

When you say:

this article has not come together by chance. It has been carefully reviewed by a huge number of editors over time (for and against), and this is another point which you assert in error. I mention this since like your errors above, it was already covered, had you checked before asserting/implying it was not. It would help to assume good faith.

I don't know what new point you regard me to have made an error in, here. I'm aware the article's seen many revisions by many authors in many incarnations. It's been in abominable shape for a long time, and in fact I've been contributing to its talk for a year or so, on and off. That talk is apparently lost, however, thanks to various movings-about of the article which I find dubious in the first place. The article's been chock-full of systematically misleading remarks for as long as I've known about it, and as a matter of fact nothing about Misplaced Pages's policy on assuming good faith (intentions of authors new on the scene) obliges me to regard acts or apparent bad-faith based on persistent bad efforts, as good faith. If I'm not allowed to point out that the article's got NPOV issues (which it has had for a while in various iterations)... why again did Misplaced Pages elucidate a philosophy of NPOV? Seems sort of assuming bad faith, to elucidate a NPOV philosophy. (My sarcasm's never as innocent and funny as I want it to sound.) --Enantiodromos 01:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Revert of edits

Two edits reverted:

and

Factual errors/OR/NPOV issues:

1. Not "all modern societies" reject the concept. At one extreme, some have even had laws attempted to be imposed, and proposed in their legislature, which were themselves rejected. Given there is in law and practice a significant number of societies whose legislature rejects that law and retains the legality of the act, the change to "all modern societies" is clearly false. It's also uncited OR.
2. Adding words like "there are a few people", "all modern societies", "tiny minority" is OR/POV... these are clearly from the evidence of research, at best unverifiable and dubious, at worst untrue, and in either case uncited and probably OR. It is hard to not notice the choice to cast such views in terms of an expression that WP:NPOV would then deem ignorable.
3. It is unclear whether the 1st cite does in fact (when read) support any statement of society's general view, or reviews the general reasons society and people condemn the act. It does not seem to, from the summary at least. (If there is more content to that effect, please quote it, as its not visible from here right now).
4. In this context and given previous edits, the insertion of the emphatic "such as the replacement of human-human emotional and sexual relationships" is not a mere DSM cite. It's a POV motivated inclusion. (And misleading in implication too, since in the great majority of cases and according to repeated research cited in the article, zoosexual acts do not "replace" such matters.)
5. The tagging of "fact" on material well cited from research and referenced in depth elsewhere in the article is again clearly more about POV than encyclopedia-writing.

For these reasons, I have reverted these two edits. FT2 01:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• It is the sort of editorship above that has made this page (Zoophilia) a prime example of the sort of page Misplaced Pages needs to edit extensively to get it back to required standards. In quick rebuttal, 1) the rejection of laws against bestiality does not imply an acceptance of these acts, but is based on the low conviction rate and difficulty of policing, 2) the phrases "there are a few people", "all modern societies", "tiny minority" is no more POV/OR than the words which they replace, where outliers of opinion like Singer are given equal weight to societies worldwide, 3) the citations I gave show that recent peer-reviewed research supports society's view of the pathology of many forms of zoophilia/bestiality, and they are thus highly germane, 4) the phrase "such as the replacement of human-human emotional and sexual relationships" qualifies the psychiatric view of zoophilia. Psychiatrists DO view zoophilia as a pathology when it supplants normal human interactions, and they DO view this as "interference with normal functioning" (it's known as "preferential bestiality" ) -- please show otherwise if you wish to continue this reversion. Skopp (Talk) 03:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. 1) Four examples - Denmark and Sweden which both examined the matter as a legal review anticipating a possible need for legislation due to high publicity and pressure, but decided after expert review that none was needed as the issue was not by necessity abusive; Brasil which is one of the largest producers of animal pornography (refuting the "low rate") yet does not make the matter illegal, Germany which sees enough of a concern to make the pornography illegal yet steadfast refuses to criminalize the act. 2) Disagree, there is no evidence of the size you claim, and the wording of at least one of these (unsupported) is drawn directly from WP:NPOV as the criteria for removal of a viewpoint. Singer is a notable contrasting view, it is made more than clear in the same sentence that his views are rejected (strongly) by most. But the fact there are opposing views and notable exponents of them, in some areas, is notable. 3) They are not spokespeople for society. You need research that comments on society's views, not the views of specific researchers into individuals drawn from subgroup populations of criminals, offenders and psychiatric patients. As current research repeatedly states, these are to be considered far from representative. 4) "When it supplements" and causes distress, but your insertion seems in line with various other impositions of non-neutral edits to the article. Also see Talk:Zoosexuality - it is far from clear whether the interpretation (and more importantly the implication of that interpretation) which you add, is the best interpretation borne out by the sources. Other editors have challenged this too. On the whole, given POV/OR/inaccuracies, I do not feel your comments have supported your stance in any significant way. FT2 04:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1) your point simply underlines mine. The only countries in the world where zoophilia is not illegal are some of the Nordic countries, known to be the most permissive countries in the world, and Brazil. And in some of these countries they still punish the distribution of pictures dealing with bestiality (and pedophilia) with a fine or imprisonment. None of this denotes acceptance or approval. Moreover, there are active lobbies in these countries trying to get the laws changed and the practices banned once again. 2) Singer is the one and only notable person with this view. Why does he have adequate weight to be set against society? Is he a lone voice, and if so, why should he be mentioned in this paragraph? Who are the other notables? 3) "You need research that comments on society's views," - no I don't, I need journal-published research that demonstrates that the practice is seen as abusive by society in the person of its researchers. Now if you have journal-published research that shows the opposite, please declare it, and set it in countervailing stance in the article. 4) Are you are supporting the argument that a human-animal sexual and emotional relationship that supplants human-human interactions is not interfering with normal functioning? I just want to clear that up. Skopp (Talk) 04:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1) Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Mexico, parts of the US (see Zoosexuality and the law), Austria and Brazil are more than "some of the Nordic countries". There are far more than hundred countries we do not have information about. There might be others where it is legal. "known to be the most permissive countries in the world" — Where are you heading? Is information on liberal countries less important than information on others? I am convinced these examples are enough to demonstrate, that not all modern societies reject the concept of animal/human sexuality.

The question whether distribution of animal pornography is illegal or not is different from the question whether zoosexual acts are accepted or not and should not be mixed in the discussion. There are reasons why notable nations have separate laws on it.

Please discuss questions on pedophilia on the article's talk page. This is irrelevant here.

Ocolon 22:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've re-edited, striving to be NPOV. I also see a need for citations on some of the sweeping statements about animal-human relationships that look like personal opinions. Skopp (Talk) 08:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Zoophilia classed as a mental disorder by psychiatrists in DSM-IV

This paragraph in the intro is problematic:

There is presently considerable debate in psychology over whether certain aspects of zoophilia are better understood as an aberration or as a sexual orientation. The activity or desire itself is no longer classified as a pathology under DSM-IV (TR) (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association) unless accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the person.

1. Please provide evidence of the debate you cite. If the debate is "considerable" it should be easy to provide links to articles.
2. The position of DSM-IV is misleadingly stated. See discussion of this on Zoosexuality talk page.
3. Please define "normal functioning". I would take normal functioning as the ability to relate intimately (emotionally and sexually) to your fellow human being. Skopp (Talk) 09:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

   You might. The DSM-IV does, in fact, exist in order to define "normal functioning" from a behavioral perspective, and zoophilia does not imply inability to "relate intimately (emotionally and sexually) to your fellow human being"— which would make that statement quite consistent. — Coren  21:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• That dumb comment earned my opposition to your adminship. Way to go. Skopp (Talk) 23:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Might there be a place for this

Might there be a place in the article for this? I found it in the commons, when looking for more illustrations.--68.240.252.104 14:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Checking the copyright status of the image, it's a no-go. BabyNuke 17:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Question on the legality

The article says that posession and distribution is banned in many countries but does that include artwork depicting Zoophilia, such as the goat image up there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.82.5.105 (talk • contribs).

Generally not. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Animal sex

Animal sex redirects here. Now what exactly is 'animal sex' supposed to mean? Sex with an animal? Sex between animals (of the same species)? The sex of an animal? I thought it would have redirected me to mating, where copulation redirects. The reason I ended up here in the first place was that the category in Commons is called 'animal sex' (about copulation between animals), and I wanted to check the two projects were on 'the same page', so to speak. Should one of the pages be be moved/renamed? Richard001 07:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Good call, Richard. I've rewritten that page now - better? Are there any other meanings you would expect it to have, still missing? FT2 08:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice job. I might look at moving the Commons page some day too - a lot of the pages there are named poorly. Richard001 05:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The guy who died from horse sex

I'm wondering if in the health concerns or affects, it should be noted that there was that story of the guy who died after sex with a horse (google it). His colon was ruptured and his lower organs were too, and then he just bled out and died. Perhaps it should be noted this could happen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.239.143 (talk) 21:14, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Already covered comprehensively at Kenneth Pinyan. Nobody's quite certain what the exact mechanics of the fatal injury were, but most reports agree that the cause of death was peritonitis, most likely resulting from a ruptured colon. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this the guy in the recent movie called I think "the barn" is about? there was a write up about the movie in newsweek about 6 mo ago? I guess its sorta a love story with a sad end of the horse being "punised" by cutting off its balls. The poor Stallian. Quite sad the way if was filmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.169.227.248 (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's decline

this used to be a respectable organization, but all this information on perversions. yuck! Olliekamm (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Just for you, wikipedia from now on will stick to articles about teddybears, and not mention things like tribadism or incest again. Yes, I'm being sarcastic - but the point is simple obviously. Just because a subject may be considered distasteful by some doesn't mean that it shouldn't have an article. BabyNuke (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Informed consent

Animals like children are not capable of informed consent indeed. How many of those who apply this philosophy, apply the same philosophy to eating them? As usual "most people" are very selective about applying moral philosophy viz. when it suits them. Mike Hayes (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Morality rarely makes sense. Also, I'm kinda feeling that informed consent isn't such great wording anyway as it is a legal term aimed at humans, not animals. Beyond that animals can consent to it I'd say - but since there's a lot of debate on that we'll keep that as being just that, debated. BabyNuke (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Morality, as in this case, makes perfect sense. Animals can suffer (though their suffering is not as serious as human suffering, the (despotic, if you like) consensus is that it matters), and are in very unequal situations of power vis a vis humans, who are moreover notorious for and cognitively designed such that they frequently misunderstand animal signals and behavior. (We've got a special cognitive apparatus for modelling what's going on in the minds of other humans-- which is VERY faulty when applied to animals, partly because instincts and signals differ vastly between species, especially homo sapiens who is sexually quite abnormal as mammals go, but mainly because it relies on the assumption of a reciprocal ability to model what's going on in the observer's mind.) Because we have not and are unlikely to develop the infrastructure to assure that animal *owners* do not abuse animals for sexual gratification, which is the very likely outcome of a permissive attitude absent supervision or scrutiny, we categorically ban human-animal sex contact. The net risk of harm to animals with a permissive attitude toward bestiality is much greater than the deprivation of human-animal sex contact.

The reason of course that animal suffering doesn't matter as much as human suffering, to the consensus, is that animals have a very limited capacity to cooperate intelligently and prove themselves more useful than as a food source. The major difference between bestiality and meat-eating is that nutrition is widely regarded as much more necessary and socially neutral, than sexual gratification. --Enantiodromos (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Though debates don't contribute much to the article, just to reply: In the end, having a permissive attitude allows for people to speak more openly about the matter. This helps spread information on animal welfare and also possible risks to humans. Meat-eating, in the end, isn't really needed for human survival. We just like the taste of it. But because it's so deeply rooted in our culture it's much more difficult to give up, while bestiality is culturally seen as wrong. BabyNuke (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

We might be able to survive without eating meat but that doesn't mean we just eat it for the taste: it is a wonderful source of protein. Being a vegetarian body builder is extremely difficult.--172.189.102.34 (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This is untrue, but irrelevant to the article. -kotra (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

source needed

I removed this line "which is not dissimilar to typical estimates of the percentage within the population generally." from the zoophiles and other groups section, as it had no citation to backup this claim and is also clearly inaccurate. I think one can assert this line was trying to push a particular point of view more than state a fact. If we look at raw numbers of U.S. population (http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html) 303,000,000*.035=10,605,000 zoophiles in the country. If this information is accurate regarding the general number of zoophiles in the country I will literally eat my own face off.

24.88.103.234 (talk) 07:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Timmy

It's extremely difficult to get to a good estimate. It isn't always clear what truely is a zoophile - a person that has sex animals needn't be a a zoophile and a zoophile needn't have sex with animals. Some people may find it attractive to watch other people have sex with animals but do not actually desire this themselves. Some people have sex with animals but are purely opportunistic and thus aren't truely zoophile. And then there's the problem of many people finding it difficult to be honest about, even in an anonymous poll I'd doubt the results would be very accurate. The extent of occurance section refers to some online polls but it's hard to say if these are accurate. Further, percentages may vary from place to place. However, 3.5% of the population in the western world having some interest in sex with animals would not really surprise me from what I've seen. BabyNuke (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You raise valid points that I agree with. I will, however, contend the claim that the estimate of zoophilia among the furry group is equal to the general population is deserving of a definite citation, which it does not have. In the extent section another problem is illustrated:

"Scientific surveys estimating the frequency of zoosexual activity, as well as anecdotal evidence and informal surveys, suggest that more than 1–2% — and perhaps as many as 8–40% — of sexually active adults have had significant sexual experience with an animal at some point in their lives. Studies suggest that a larger number (perhaps 10–30% depending on area) have fantasized or had some form of brief encounter."

This information has NO citation and is therefore invalid. The citation 4 is referring specifically to the Kinsey report and some dispute over it, not the "Scientific surveys" referenced in the above passage.

"Larger figures such as 40–60% for rural teenagers (living on or near livestock farms) have been cited from some earlier surveys such as the Kinsey reports, but some later writers consider these uncertain."

If there is no valid information (I agree with your pov that the internet and other surverys were a little dubious) anywhere on the page estimating that zoophilia in the general population matches the subgroup's percentage, than it is up to them to backup that claim with a reference next to their statement. I completely agree with you that it would be very difficult to find an accurate survey. But it is still the responsibility of the editor to provide verifiable sources for the information they present, and none is available. I'm going to leave things as they are for now, let me know what you think. I really think the "scientific surveys" part and the section i originally deleted should go.

24.88.103.234 (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Timmy

Put in a {{Fact}} tag, if the original editor is still watching the page he may recall where those figures come from. BabyNuke (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Will do. 24.88.103.234 (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Organization for Animal Dignity added

I added a link to the Organization for Animal Dignity, www.animaldignity.org which looks at sexual behaviors such as masturbation, homosexuality and zoosexuality (zoophilia) in animals. Since one of the partners in zoophilia is an animal, it's only fair to add a link about the animals' perspective on zoosexuality / zoophilia. ----B.Y. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.238.132.90 (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't sound like it's presenting "the animals' perspective". It sounds like it's presenting one human being's perspective -- that "Organization" appears to be one person, Mark Schmid. --FOo (talk) 06:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Beetz

I don't have access to this source. The material I restored was originally added with just a general reference to her book, and I don't doubt its accuracy. Miletski says:

The personality tests Beetz conducted revealed that participants had more difficulties in interpersonal relationships, had the same degree or fewer signs of psychopathy, were more sympathetic and helpful than most people, and had a typical need for control and dominance. Moreover, 34.5 percent of the participants reported being active in animal protection organizations.

--AnotherSolipsist (talk) 07:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah... the specific text of the <ref> was "Beetz (2002). 34.5% of participants were involved in animal protection organizations.", which sounds to me like the author was making a bit of a leap from involvement in animal protection organizations to the other claims. If it turns out that the rest is citable to the same source, though, then feel free to reinsert it with a clearer cite. Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Change the introduction?

This article defines zoophilia as a human's love for an animal, however the animal article is a broad classification which also includes humansm, which would make humans love for humans a form of zoophilia. This has never been used this way, so could the article perhaps specify 'human for a non-human animal'? Tyciol (talk) 04:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, yes. However, in general, most people understand "animal" to mean "animal other than humans"; and making the distinction explicit generates a surprising (and disruptive) amount of venom from those whose spiritual or religious beliefs draw a sharp line in the sand separating homo sapiens sapiens from the rest of the eukaryotes. Given that there is no effective ambiguity in meaning, I don't think it's useful (or a good idea) to make the change. — Coren  21:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Legal status

I've removed wording suggesting illegality because of laws agains nature is less common. It was unsourced and I have my doubts it's true. Considering there are still a large number of countries with conservative views (and laws) on sexuality, particularly developing countries (e.g. in South+Central America, Asia, Africa), and that many of these countries are still behind the developed world in laws protecting animal welfare it seems easily possible that there it is banned in more countries because of laws against nature (or similar). In fact, even in some countries with animal welfare laws, I suspect in some instances a prosecution because of laws against nature may be more common. In any case, it doesn't seem that important and is probably impossible to know since it's not something commonly tested in courts. Nil Einne (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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