Talk:Zoophilia

Recent changes/ slant of the article

I see someone has compared this to homosexuality, with the implication that animals are A) not harmed by sexual behavior with humans and B) that animals can give consent, either because they have the level of sentience required or that we can clearly understand their intentions. I would argue that this is not provable one way or the other and that the situation differs little if at all from that of a person engaging in sexual relations with a person of diminished capacity, the ability of whom to consent to such acts is in doubt under the law. It would appear that the burden of proof otherwise is upon the person who initiated engaging in the sexual act. There seems to be a pro-bestiality undercurrent in the article that would create an outcry if similarly found in an article on pedophilia, which is considered to be a crime due to the vulnerability of the minor party involved and their inability to give informed consent. I can see no difference between the two situations except that animals are even less able to express their consent to engage in sexual activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.3.63 (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed it. 1) The basis of the argument is already mentioned in the support section. There is no need to be redundant about it. 2) Why does every zoophile feel the need to compare it to homosexuality? Comparing it to or mentioning homosexuality does nothing to further or justify its arguments.

I also changed zoosexuality, zoosexuals, and zoosexual to zoophilia, zoophiles, and zoophilic (respectively) for consistency and a neutral, unbiased tone.

Jezebel is not a reliable source. Someone963852 (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Stating that someone or something is "zoosexual" is not POV -- it is simply a more specific way of referring to zoophilia. Zoophilia is the generalized attraction to animals, and zoosexual refers to the specific person's attractions. Stating that someone or something is "zoosexual" does not imply a pro-zoophilia tone. Zoosexual is also a term used when referring to groups. Here are a few links which use the term "zoosexual":

http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/A_Case_Study_of_a_Male_Sex_Offender_with_Zoosexual_Interests_and_Behaviours.pdf

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=G_MwT9OHj4AC&oi=fnd&pg=PA201&dq=zoosexuality&ots=ZKK70QSpFz&sig=DIaqtKljqhEWI1lElbFMv-UoA-A

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Da6puODWxrQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA91&dq=zoosexuality&ots=iaUeewA_yB&sig=LbwOSGqtBU9MxgimNJRAFmYpvm0

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=G_MwT9OHj4AC&oi=fnd&pg=PA201&dq=zoosexual&ots=ZKK70QSrxF&sig=Tlc1vESkOKuK8qFLsHSGyzBmwIE

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2004-15900-001

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DBsFXPewfXAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA109&dq=zoosexual&ots=KhoKTOdMS6&sig=2gVL1ZvxfCkEQ2Zg1Yj8Gxbd2yQ

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1752928X11000102

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DBsFXPewfXAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA109&dq=zoosexual&ots=KhoKTOdMS6&sig=2gVL1ZvxfCkEQ2Zg1Yj8Gxbd2yQ

http://www.springerlink.com/index/XJW2736170737347.pdf

http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/146179/

http://www.springerlink.com/index/45wh01u1j717t33v.pdf

As these sources show, the terms "zoosexual" and "zoosexuality" are used, and prove that "zoosexual" is not just some urban dictionary slang word; on the contrary, it is a legitimate term used by many professionals. Also keep in mind that "zoophilic" is not an accurate term when describing zoophilia-related terms. For example, "zoophilic" is generally used in a biological sense, as in these sources:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2230.1993.tb02176.x/abstract

http://www.aaem.pl/pdf/aaem0021.pdf?referer=www.clickfind.com.au

When referring to zoophilia, it is misleading to use the term "zoophilic" because it can be used in definitions such as those above (i.e. "Ecophysiology of zoophilic pollen" and "Control of zoophilic malaria vectors"). Zoophilic is a word that is used in microbiology, whereas "zoosexual" specficially addresses the human sexual attraction to animals.

Just because "zoophilia" and "zoosexual" are spelled differently doesn't mean they're inconsistent. In fact, they are completely consistent.

Constant reverting is not productive to Wikipedia.Plateau99 (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

"zoosexual refers to the specific person's attractions."

"Zoosexual is also a term used when referring to groups."

That's the thing, the article is not talking about specific groups, it is talking about zoophilia and zoophiles as a whole.

I kept the terms the way I did: Zoosexuals as zoophiles and zoosexuality as zoophilia to be consistent with the article's name. If the terms are completely consistent like you said it was, you would have no problem with the changes. Zoophilic can also be used to describe the zoophile's activity, the same way "pedophilic" can used to describes a pedophile's (not the term pedosexual).

Other changes:

Jezebel.com is not a reliable source.

An opinion article such as this one does not represent the whole Libertarian community. Also, it is not reliable.

That is unsourced and obviously non-neutral POV so it is removed.

The linked Wikipedia article are named with the term Zoophilia (e.g. Zoophilia and the law) so changed for consistency.

- Do not go nitpicking and finding every little detail to put in the article just because it seems like it supports zoophilia. And do not summarize an article and cite it with an unreliable source that doesn't even support the claim.

This source is no longer available for referencing

Find the actual page number and reference it correctly. 'Hustler', September 2001

http://www.neutering.org/ This does not even support zoophilia.

http://www.breezejmu.org/opinion/columnists/article_f08fbb0c-42ca-11e0-ab43-00127992bc8b.html This article is an opinion piece.

[1] isn't even worthy of being referenced.

Where in this article did you get "Although there are many arguments for zoophilia, when people (for example politicians) are confronted with the issue in public venues, the arguments for zoophilia are rarely or never mentioned because of the social taboos associated with zoophilia and the prejudice against it"?

From the Wikipedia article:

According to the Scientific American, the majority of zoophiles are not cruel to animals

From the source that that statement supposedly came from: In other recent surveys, the majority of zoophiles scoffed at the notion that they were abusive toward animals in any way—far from it, they said.

Where exactly did the Scientific American article stated that "the majority of zoophiles are not cruel to animals"?

Thebigview.com mentions nothing about zoophilia </ref> so I removed the section.

Also, actually look at the changes before you revert everything to fit your POV. That is not productive to Wikipedia.

Someone963852 (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

As stated in WP:NPOV:

As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased.

For a controversial subject such as this one, arguments for and against it are likely to come up in most of the sources acquired for it -- it is inevitable. To simply remove huge chunks of information just because it seems to be "biased" is akin to censorship, and Wikipedia is not censored.Plateau99 (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed them because they weren't in the sources. You seem to have a thing for adding your own opinions and using random articles as sources when they do not even support the claim.

Also, this article is full of non-neutral POV which I removed. Removing non-neutral POV is not censorship. Do not use that as an excuse to revert my changes.

In the Arguments against zoophilia:

- The belief that bestiality is "unnatural" may be subject to the naturalistic fallacy.

- It has been proved that the HIV virus cannot be transmitted from animals to humans.

- But if the approach is conducted with kindness and care and stopped if the animal shows signs of discomfort, as zoophiles describe ideal sexual interactions with animals, Beetz believes there is no need for trauma to result

- (Then the against section is followed by the materials and opinions in favor of zoophilia that isn't backed up by any sources.)

You're providing arguments against zoophilia but then counter it by adding your own opinions all in the same few sentences. My edits and changes are trying to keep the article fair and balanced.

Your edits, on the other hand, are not and are slanting the article towards one side. Someone963852 (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed the pro-zoophilia content from the "arguments against zoophilia" section; note though that the HIV sentence is not pro or anti zoophilia, it is simply a fact.

If you have a relevant argument against zoophilia, add it to the "arguments against zoophilia" section, but do not remove entire chunks of information just because it appears to be biased. As I said before, bias of any kind (pro or anti-zoophilia) is inevitable in this kind of article.Plateau99 (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't the only problem. The "chunks of information" are not supported by the sources provided and/or the sources are not reliable. It's original research. Someone963852 (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It would appear that nothing I say can convince you that what you are trying to do to the article is wrong. The information you keep removing, which you claim to be original research, is cited thoroughly and does not need to be removed. Perhaps modified, but not removed altogether. The fact that you keep placing a citation tag on the "arguments for zoophilia" section, but not on the "arguments against zoophilia" section would seem to suggest that you have more of a problem with the "arguments for" section, which would explain why you keep erasing content from that section. Stop doing this and stop constantly reverting my edits.Plateau99 (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sick and tired of your constant and relentless reverting and edit warring, so I am going to request an arbitration.Plateau99 (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

1) The information was poorly cited. 2) Some materials weren't cited at all. 3) Claims were not supported in the source provided. Original research and personal opinion were added and used random sites as references. 4) Changed zoosexuality to zoophilia, zoosexuals to zoophiles for consistency. 5) Article was not neutral and had a pro-zoophilia tone.

Stop reverting my edits because it doesn't fit your pro-zoophilia point of view. Someone963852 (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Notice: errors / missing refernce

• the provided references in the following line do not name dolphins:

"Because there is scientific evidence that interspecies sex often occurs in nature, critics argue that it is unfair to label bestiality as "unnatural";[105] also, individuals of various species (such as dolphins) appear to be sexually attracted to humans; this is known as "reverse bestiality".[106]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.222.19.83 (talk) 09:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The majority of the sources do not back up the statements presented in this article. I'll remove it. Someone963852 (talk) 12:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Full Protection

I full protected the article for a week in response to the ongoing edit war. In the meantime, please try to discuss the issue. thanks--Guerillero | My Talk 03:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Zoophilia". Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Additional legal info for Sweden

The following link may be of interest: http://www.thelocal.se/37614/20111128/. Allens (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Zoophilia as a sexual orientation

Since zoophilia is not officially recognized as a sexual orientation, there does not need to be much discussion about. However, it is a fact that both commoners on the Internet and PHD researchers (such as Miletski and Beetz) believe that zoophilia could be treated as if it were a sexual orientation, hence the term "zoosexuality". Since it exists, it needs to be mentioned.

Also, the following statements are opinions:

[Quote] By who? Vague statement, used title from source. I still think it has nothing to do with the arguments for zoophilia.

pro-zoophilia statement that has nothing to do with "Legal status" and is not in source; statement that has nothing to do with arguments for zoophilia.

Removed; zoosexuality does not fit the definition for sexual orientation

Has nothing to do with legal status; doubt it's in the source

sexual orientation describes attraction towards which sex/gender, not animals, children, shoes, etc.; not all sexual interests are considered sexual orientations.

These are opinions which contradict the findings of Miletski and Beetz. -- Plateau99 (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

What does "The fight against zoosexual discrimination has been described as being the "new frontier" of civil rights" have anything to do with arguments for zoophilia? And how does my opinion of that statement being irrelevant to the section "contradict the findings of Miletski and Beetz"? Did they even claim that "the fight against zoosexual discrimination has been described as being the "new frontier" of civil rights"? No, the zoophiles did.

"Sexual orientation describes attraction towards which sex/gender, not animals, children, shoes, etc.; not all sexual interests are considered sexual orientations." That is a fact. And when did those facts contradict any of the findings of Miletski and Beetz?

What are you trying to argue here? Someone963852 (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason why the "child, shoes etc." argument isn't valid is because (at least in this case) sexual fetishes are used to assert an aspect of something (for example, the age of an individual [i.e. pedophilia], or the feet of an individual [i.e. foot fetish]). However, zoophilia does not rely on any "aspect" of anything -- it simply is (which is why Milektski, Beetz, Masters and Weinberg concluded that zoophilia may in fact not be in the "fetish" category). As such, it is debated as to whether it is a sexual orientation. You are correct in asserting that it is not officially a sexual orientation, but the fact that researchers have discussed the matter should be mentioned.

Also, I should have clarified when I said the above statements contradicted Miletski and Beetz -- I meant to also include the author of the "Broward Palm Beach" article (which is where the "civil rights" sentence came from). In the case of that sentence, proper citation would be attributed to the author of that article. The sentence is relevant to the "arguments for zoophilia" section because it represents a shift in societal thinking patterns, a set of patterns which stand in contrast to the arguments against zoophilia.

In addition, some of the information added about zoosexuality was added by User:MsBatfish in addition to myself. Plateau99 (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

That last statement is irrelevant, since the materials I removed were added directly by you.

Also, only zoophiles claim that "zoosexuality" is a legitimate sexual orientation. Other than that, there has been little to no debate on the issue. Unless the topic is currently being debated and discussed by notable, respectable researchers or research institutions/ organizations (such as the American Psychological Association (APA) for example), and not by few people (Miletski and Beetz) and zoophiles, it does not belong in the article. Read Wikipedia:FRINGE WP:UNDUE Someone963852 (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the revision MsBatfish added (which you reverted):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoophilia&action=historysubmit&diff=463811416&oldid=463438877

The findings of researchers such as Miletski do not count as "Fringe", and mentioning their findings regarding zoosexuality is definitely not "undue weight". Also, "Fringe" has more to due with pseudoscience, and the claims made by the research were done with the scientific method and are not outlandish. Your claim that there is "Fringe" involved is invalid primarily for this reason: it is not just Milektski who is discussing the issue, but there are multiple people discussing it. -- Plateau99 (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Besides Miletski and the zoophile community (obviously), who else is discussing the topic and whether "zoosexuality" should be recognize as a sexual orientation?

Also, I didn't "revert" the edit, I simply removed sexual orientation. There is a difference.

Someone963852 (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"undue weight" is not valid because the researchers are prominent and have all drawn similar conclusions. In addition, Cutteridge, Taylor & Francis, JC Adams, Weinberg, Michael Roberts and Masters are other people (in addition to Miletski) who agree (at least to some extent) on this issue. Because so many people agree about it (to some extent), it is not "Fringe", and because it is mentioned (and those mentioned are prominent), it is not "undue weight". The notion that such information is "Fringe" and "undue weight" is an unjustified opinion. -- Plateau99 (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, those views are held by an extremely small minority from the same field and the "so many people agree about it" are the zoophiles, which do not make those views any more legitimate.

Given your past history of adding original research by using random sources as cover-ups and the hesitation to your statement ("who agree (at least to some extent)") I doubt those people actually did discuss the topic in great detail to make it credible enough to belong in the article.

Unless reliable sources with discussion and information from valid, notable researchers/organizations are provided, it does not belong in the article to avoid undue weight.

Relevant past discussion on the Sexual Orientation article.

Someone963852 (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it does not belong in the sexual orientation article and that that would be giving it undue weight. But I do think it can and should be mentioned in the zoophilia article, it just has to be clear who thinks that and not give it a disproportionate amount of space in the article. We can't say, "zoophilia is a sexual orientation". -MsBatfish (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• While I don't agree with all of Plateau99's edits to the article, in fact I have reverted or altered some of them myself, I do feel that it is important to mention that zoophiles, zoophile support groups, and some researchers describe it as a sexual orientation.

I added the following statement to the article:

The term "zoosexuality" is often used by zoophile forums and support groups, which define it as a sexual orientation, which manifests as a person being romantically and/or sexually attracted to animals.

which was altered by Someone963852 to remove which define it as a sexual orientation.

I do not see what is wrong with mentioning the feelings of a lot of zoophiles in an article about zoophiles and I do not believe that it gives the statement undue weight. It is clearly attributed and its coverage is proportional to more mainstream views on the subject (meaning the latter are given much more space and weight in the article). I had hoped that my edit would help put a stop to this ongoing edit war between you two.

My thoughts for Plateau99 are that perhaps people would take you more seriously and not be so quick to revert your edits if you didn't make such frequent and sweeping changes to the article, and that all tend to put zoophilia in a more positive light than is currently accepted by the majority of the non-zoophile public. When you repeatedly make edits that misrepresent the source material or are WP:original research or WP:SYNTH, it becomes easy for people to assume any edit you make does that and see a red flag every time they see your username in the edit history.

It may not be good practice for editors to do that - as we should deal with the message (whether it belongs in the article) and not the messenger (whether we like them or their editing methods or agree with their presumed beliefs) - but it happens nonetheless. I would suggest you (Plateau99) try making smaller edits at a time that strictly comply with Wikipedia policy/guidelines and/or bringing up proposed edits here on the talk page first.

I have to stress to everyone involved here to remember that it doesn't matter what our individual personal beliefs or opinions are on the subject and to stick to discussing relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and that goes for edit summaries too.

My thoughts for Someone963852 would be that when you don't agree with an edit it is much more helpful to try whenever possible to alter the content as opposed to just reverting, which I see you have done in some cases. And to try to make sure you are not just reverting because of past experiences with another editor or because you think they might have an "agenda". And please try to have clearer edit summaries. You could also bring up suspect edits here on the talk page first, especially when they are not clear complete violations, in order to get input from others about if and how they might be changed in order to avoid complete removal.

Thanks. MsBatfish (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

And the article is full protected again. If you can flesh something out via this discussion then I will unlock the article --Guerillero | My Talk 02:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if I over-stepped my editing too much; for some of the things I added, I can understand how such additions could be interpreted as WP:OR. However, there are also edits I've made which are clearly not WP:OR and not WP:DUE (such as the mention of zoosexuality). I cannot re-add the zoosexuality info for the next 24 hours because if I did I would be breaking WP:3RR (and due to the article's protection). -- Plateau99 (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You can not edit the page. It is locked so only admins can edit the page --Guerillero | My Talk 02:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• I asked Guerillero to look over this matter as it appears that nothing has changed (regarding this edit war) since the last time he edit-protected the article. His decision was to protect the article again. Hopefully Plateau99 and Someone963852 can come to an agreement or compromise here on the talk page so that Guerillero has a bit of confidence that if he un-protects the article the edit war will not just start back up again. Plateau99, you can still have an edit war even if you have not broken the 3 Revert Rule. An edit war is when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Any edit warring behavior can lead to sanctions regarding the article and/or the editors involved. So, do either of you have any ideas on how we can avoid this happening in the future? And what do you think about the suggestions I made above? MsBatfish (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Uh?

Uhmmm something is not right. Etymologically, shouldn't "zoophilia" mean the orientation of agreeing, having appetite to, being in favor with or even just being interested in something that is about animals? Example: animalists loves animals and nature, so they're zoophiles. The term described in the page is only the zooerasty, which is explained to be only some sort of synonym "fallen out of use".. This sounds waaay incorrect to me. :/ Greek radicals are incontestable, and the page itself describes them perfectly.. Why is there such a contradiction? Plus, I noticed that every other language (except for one or two) describes the term as it is here :T btw: my apologizes if my English is not that good xd --Nickotte (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

PETA

Actually, PETA (specifically Ingrid Newkirk) has said pro-zoophilia comments -- but PETA as a whole still doesn't really approve of bestiality. I think Nprieve's edits should be un-reverted with the mention that Newkirk is the one who said it, not PETA. And since this is an article about zoophiles, it's only fair that articles from the zoophile's perspective are used as sources. This is a quote from one of Nprieve's sources:

While he [Singer] came under heavy fire for his comments, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk not only defended Singer, but also bestiality. "If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you French kiss your dog and he or she thinks it's great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong… If it isn't exploitation and abuse, it may not be wrong."

While the quote came from a guest column, there are other sources out there that have the same information. Plateau99 (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

If there are "other sources out there that have the same information," find the reliable ones and don't use the unreliable ones. Someone963852 (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Brian Cutteridge

Those of you citing Brian Cutteridge's pro-zoophilia paper might be interested to know that Cutteridge has been arrested for animal cruelty pertaining to zoophilia. A veterinarian alerted authorities because Cutteridge's animals were in poor condition; one of them had a genital infection and vaginal bruising. A vet commenting on acts of zoophilia cited detached retinas and urinary tract infections as two other outcomes of those acts. The Cutteridge case has gone to trial: http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20120225/bc_vancouver_man_bestiality_charge_120225/20120226/?hub=BritishColumbiaHome