Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 1

removed comment by multiple hard-banned user regarding image on the article page.

I'm not sure what you mean. The picture is licensed under the GNU FDL, so you are free to make copies of it for whatever purpose you like. So, yes, if you want to "do the download thingy", I guess you can do that. -- Wapcaplet 17:03 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

The picture seems not to be very relevant, since Pan is not a human but a god who is half goat. Leda with the swan would fit better. AxelBoldt 00:24 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Sure, feel free to replace it. The Pan image is already linked from the Erotic art in Pompeii pages anyway. But in absence of a better one, I would like to keep it here. --Eloquence 02:16 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Not sure if this is relevant: The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife. A-giau 06:33, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

The term zoosexuality cannot be non-existent if the community involved in the practice uses it - can we get this settled before it turns into an edit war? PMC 01:02, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

'Zoosexuallity' doesn't exist in any dictionary or encyclopedia, it was fabricated and nonsensical. Also, I wonder why a 15 year old minor is involved with a bestiality page here??? What is the legality of "PMC" whose profile says she is 15 years old being involved with editing this particular subject here or getting involved with zoosexuality enough she knows all the terminology and 'community'??

Her profile says 'I'm a 15-year-old high school kid with'

I should remind you that bestiality is a crime in all of Canada, do your parents know of your involvement with this?

Let's stow the reactionary comments. This girl hasn't claimed zoosexualism, only defended its existence. If she did claim it, her age and sexual preference should have nothing to do with the presence of the term in the article. She is merely trying to present the facts: there exists a group of individuals who identify themselves as 'zoosexual'. Written only from a clinical perspective, the article makes a massive NPOV error - it excludes the point of view of those it's written about. Methylsoy 04:18, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not involved with the page. You don't have to be involved with a page to make an edit to the appropriate article. Neither am I involved in bestiality. Again, to make an edit to an article, one need not necessarily practice what is detailed within. Please stop with the ad hominem attacks; they make you look immature. I'm also curious as to your legitimacy, it being that you haven't signed your attack on me.

Either way, this is an old issue - my post is dated January 18, and I'm no longer interested in the article. I was interested mainly in averting a revert/edit war, which I managed to do. PMC 04:22, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For the record, "zoosexuality" (with one l) *is* a standard term amongst zoophiles at least. Claiming it shouldn't be in the article because it's not in a regular dictionary is nonsense - it just proves that the dictionaries in question are lagging behind the actual use of words. I'm quite sure Wiktionary will have the term eventually at least. ;) -- Schnee 08:24, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This should be legal Now. Loving another being should not matter if it is a human or not. 20 years from zoophilia will be consider like homosexuality is now a normal loving union of two beings someday we will even be able to marry our animal partners too. It is a loving form of a relationship LiveNude

This is insulting to me. Please tell me you are not serious. Mike H 22:57, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Yes I am serious we should have the same rights as everyone else . Why should you feel insulted? It is our lives to it what we want to we are not hurting anyone. What we do with animals is between us and the animal. All forms of love should be valid and no differences should be made in a tolerate society LiveNude 23:03, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I choose not to argue with such logic. Mike H 23:04, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

So why reply than? 20-30 years ago "society" said all kinds of mean and bad things about homosexuality and now society is starting to change why should it not change also be for us? Homosexuals know what we are going through because they have gone through for centuries as well always on the outside .So have we. We all should work together to build a more tolerate socitey were all expressions of love are recongized and no differences are made LiveNude 23:19, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Let's get one thing straight. Zoophilia does not fit under the rubric of "two consenting adults," since one of the parties involved is an animal. Whether or not an animal is even capable of consent is another question. So if we're going to talk about moral equivalence IMHO it's more analogous to pedophilia or so-called "child love" than to homosexuality, since there are serious questions about consent and there is certainly not the same balance.

Zoophilia as a lifestyle

Please give a credible source for the extraordinary claims made in the "Zoophilia as a lifestyle" section, Otherwise it will have to be removed or modified a lot. pir 17:53, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Don't be prudish, pir. And there is no need to call for GBWR, I don't think he is the best choice for a mediator on a controversial topic. As for the claims, I don't see anything extraordinary there. A casual glance at some materials at http://www.zoophile.net/ or other similar sites will confirm most of it and in any case, a lot of the claims are really just common sense. If you have any specific questions, please list the claims you are most concerned about on this Talk page and we will try to reach the consensus on the facts. And let's avoid unnecessary edit wars, shall we? Paranoid 18:04, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not prudish and I don't call for a mediator either. My question is what evidence for example this list is based on:

• Some form of social individualism. This can be either inhibitive (eg, shyness) or empowering (eg, independence of thought). Zoophiles tend not to be people who unquestioningly follow a peer group.
• An emotional respect for animals. Examples of human emotion towards animals in everyday society are common (google: pet memorials); in some cases this will become akin to a partnership, or become sexual.
• Belief that animals and humans are not so different in many ways, similar to the way that homosexuals feel the gender gap is not a major issue.
• A sense that humans can be deceptive and manipulative (even if only white lies), such people respect animals and their company is sought for not having this trait and for not requiring protective social barriers.
• A "romantic" nature, the desire to have a bond for life, and a partner to devote oneself to fully. (Relationships of this quality are hard to depend upon with humans, as human partners often come to demand heavy compromise of the romantic relationship over time)
• Above average awareness of feelings (empathy). This may be cause or effect, it isn't clear which. In other words, they may be close to animals because they empathize well, or have developed empathic skills because of intimate closeness with animals. Either way, zoophiles are often described by those who do not realise their sexuality as being caring individuals aware of others feelings.
• Loneliness, insofar as others of like kind are hard to find.
• An open view on sexuality. Sex is commonly seen as "just part of life". Zoophiles tend also to be highly accepting of bi/homosexuality, but less accepting of abusive activities.
• A higher proportion than average of zoophiles appear to be engaged in supportive work for animal welfare, SPCA, conservation organisations, etc.
• That the ideal life would be an animal as lifelong mate, and a human as a companion (with or without the possibility of sexual relationship).

pir 18:11, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So http://www.zoophile.net/ is a neutral website then, is it. First heading on the front page: "Guides to Sex with Animals". Also, if I had any intention of an edit war I would just have deleted the entrey rather than asked for evidence.

The views in this article seem to be hotly contested by some people. Academics apparently classify bestiality as animal abuse and there is a strong connection with child abuse:

emphasis above mine. - I don't think there are sufficient grounds to make such a statement. As for the edit war issue, I read your comment on GBWR's page and he tends to be overly aggressive which doesn't help in editing controversial articles. Paranoid 21:37, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"[...] He says animal maltreatment can include physical abuse and neglect, including acts of commission and omission, and sexual abuse that may involve bestiality. In common with definitions of child abuse, definitions of animal abuse vary across time, place, and societies. [...] Loar (1999) observed that animal abuse could be triggered by the same behaviours as child abuse. The need for high level of supervision, activity, noise, resistant or destructive behaviours and toileting accidents can trigger abuse of both children and animals in circumstances where the caregivers have difficulties in responding to these demands." [1]

BBC article: "[...]In 1971, American researchers profiled the typical animal harmer as being a nine-and-a-half-year-old boy, with an IQ of 91 and a history of gross parental abuse. Dr Eileen Vizard, a child psychiatrist from the NSPCC Young Abusers Project, says a "significant minority" of children referred to her have engaged in cruel or sexual behaviour with animals.Set up in 1992, and with a national caseload, the Young Abusers Project sees children as young as five who have a record of sexual offences or "extremely" violent behaviour. "The average age of the children is twelve-and-a-half. A high proportion have a learning disability and many are interested in sex with animals or are cruel to animals," says Dr Vizard."These are very disturbed childen in any event, with many having been sexually and physically abused.""[2]

"Common sense"?? The items are highly debateable! It's common sense that people who commit bestiality have above average empathy??? Buying an animal for the purpose of using it as a sexual plaything (as recommended on Zoophile.net) doesn't sound too empathetic to me. This is an encyclopedia article; there should be some solid evidence behind the claims. Surely there are some sexological studies that we can cite. But as it stands, the whole Zoophilia as a lifestyle section should be cut. Rosemary Amey 19:28, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's just one item. OK, they may not have above average empathy - what about the rest? That said, I agree with some of what you say. The list can probably be removed with some of the content condensed and used for the explanation of what kind of people choose zoophilia lifestyle. It seems pretty clear that there actually ARE some people who have >100 IQ, haven't been abused and live normal lives, who actually choose to have sex with animals. There are enough examples of that (they are more often publicised on zoophilia sites and not in the mainstream media, but this is understandable). So the section should stay (albeit be edited) because there is a subject for it. As for the retarded kids who choose to fuck animals out of desperation (or after being fucked by their parents, whatever), there is truth to that too - some zoophiles are like that - and this should be added to the article. Paranoid 21:37, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

discussion

If it helps, the evidence for the above list are primarily as follows.

The first is Beetz's PhD thesis on zoophilia and abuse, which profiles zoophiles quite carefully. It contains substantial detail into the psychological profile of zoophiles, and ties in well with what are now more than a few other psychological researches in the field in other countries. Its available if folks want a summary posted here. In addition I have had occasion to follow this up in some detail, as part of previous work with fringe sexuality counselling.

Paranoid: Its no surprise that the bestiality site you found is sexually oriented. If one judged heterosexual relationships by the web, you'd probably conclude from the inundation of porn sites, porn popups, penis enlargement emails, etc, that heterosexual love wasn't exactly caring either. Ditto gay websites. Its not good evidence either way as to what zoophiles would really be like, since a lot of non-zoophile websites are similarly explicit with "how to" on everything from oral sex to BDSM. At most it shows that sex sites for zoophiles are not dissimilar to sex sites for non-zoophiles in their approach to the nuts and bolts of sex.

Supporting quote on empathy (since this specific issue was raised by Rosemary and discussed by Paranoid): "Empathy: Scores on the CPI-scales "psychological mindedness" and "femininity/masculinity" indicated that the zoophile men investigated here were even somewhat better judges of what and how people feel and think, and were more sympathetic and helpful.... Integrating these results leads to the conclusion, that zoophile men seem to be rather more, though not very much more, empathic than the average population. That zoophiles indeed could need such a better empathic ability is obvious. They need to understand the nonverbal signs of the involved animals, in order to respect the nonverbally expressed will of the animal, as they claim they do, and also in order not to get hurt themselves or to hurt the animal. It may be that the zoophiles developed this empathic ability by interacting with animals more than the average population." (Andrea Beetz PhD, Love, Violence, and Sexuality in Relationships between Humans and Animals, published 2001)

As referenced on the BDSM page, practitioners of many minority sexual activities commonly reject a view of themselves as "automatically" damaged or abusive. Realistically, some are abusive, some are not. I think this point is clearly stated in the page. The additional section then relates to those practitioners who are not abusive, its then of common interest to ask "what kind of person does that?". This was the intent of the addition - to shed light on a topic which is quite prone to impressions based upon lack of genuine information. (FT2)

Thanks for the information and references, FT2. Since it turns out that the list in question is actually based on research, not just someone's opinion, there seems to be no reason to remove that information. The one thing that may improve that section, though, would be to rewrite some of the items as continuous text. Another question is whether there were any findings in that research that weren't as flattering :) to zoophiles as these. And of course, it would be good to clarify the source of that information in the text (even though there is a reference to Beetz' book in the end). Paranoid 18:49, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Paranoid, agreed. I was actually thinking it might be better to just add the psych profile in summary from Beetz and others, but as a newcomer to Wikipedia and a controversial topic, I didnt want to put to much in at once, but to see if the additional information was useful.

There's also short but key citations somewhere, on whether humans and animals can be said to "relate" (Stern), and on whether a genuine sexual orientation can be said to exist to animals, based upon existing professional criteria for an "orientation" (Miletski Ph.D.)

I'll put a clarifying "sources" note to the list, I think thats a good idea, but it'll take a few days to review the thesis fully, since in electronic form it's about 102,000 words long. Probably what ought to be done is summarise the actual research on zoophilia and add it as a separate page, distinct from general background, but that would be a significant amount of work to do carefully. (FT2)

'Zoophilia as a lifestyle' does seem rather an odd heading. Zoophilia is a description of a sexual preference. To associate people with this particular sexual preference with a list of personal characteristics is a serious mistake: it's no different from claiming that homosexual people are or tend to be effeminate (thankfully the only time that 'camp' appears on the 'homosexual' page is under 'campaign's). Furthermore, of the attributes listed (apart the last), I know many people who would fall into many or all of those categories (thus practicing 'Zoophilia as a lifestyle' while finding the idea of zoophilia itself distasteful - i.e. not being zoophilic. People who practice zoophilia may feel that they share a sense of community: I'm not denying that gay communities exist or that zoophilic communities exist. But they still need to earn a living presumably outside their sexuality. Most people's lifestyle simply isn't defined by their sexuality: whether zoophilic or not, I would believe. 'Zoophilia as a lifestyle' seems inappropriate for a headline article on Zoophilia since it doesn't actually describe anything about zoophilia.

Mysteronald 11:46, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You know, thinking and rereading that, it makes sense.

Reading the section, it's more an insight into the kind of people who have a significant long term interest in zoophile relationships or sexuality, being a combination of personality traits and views which often seem to be common amongst zoophiles (or are identified as such by academic research) and give some degree of insight into such people, their lives and etiology, as opposed to impressions from personal beliefs or tabloids. As can be seen, even amongst open minded people there is significant lack of genuine up to date knowledge, hence the need for some "de-mything". A title change would probably be more accurate - what did you have in mind? FT2 22:38, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

An informal poll of a group of zoophiles has shown that most agree with the traits listed under 'Zoophilia as a lifestyle', and there don't seem to be any remaining POV issues. (I'm a zoo, and I don't have any particular issues with the page content.) So I'm removing the NPOV tag. Everyone fine with this? --Zetawoof 07:24, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am. -- Schnee 10:43, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My same objection still really applies... it's a generalization the same as saying blondes are sometimes dumb. --Mysteronald 12:52, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Can you explain why that would be comparable? -- Schnee 18:46, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Read the article for a laugh, am leaving sickened. Stop raping animals guys, forget about the spiritual aspects, what about the rights of the animal. Disgraceful. Ôã¿ç®± 04:43, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Take your flaming somewhere else. -- Schnee 14:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There has been ample time and opportunity (over 3 months) for this article and its sources to be reviewed and discussed, and this was quite appropriate given the content. The "generalisations" are academically sourced conclusions, based upon research, and comprise as valid material as any.

It's worth remembering that even on contentious issues, individuals personal feelings on topics are not the way to decide if it is valid information and are not a deciding factor for what belongs in some article. Mysteronald's stated reason for adding the tag are that the material is general, not that its inaccurate or unsourced. Vote: removal of tag, inappropriate FT2 02:42, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)