Talk:Zoophilia

• Old talk:

  /Archive1

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

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

• Later archived talk:

• /Archive14 Aug 28 2005: unprotection, ethology, JAQ's rewrite, bestiality v. zoosexuality, non-sexual zoophilia, removal of porn links and AnimalDB.com, query if legal in Holland.
• /Archive15 Nov 27 2005: ShadowH/Ciz sockpuppet Nov'05, Satanism, recent edits of User:Wahkeenah, removed links about-bestiality.com, zoophilia.net and NYTimes (zooskool.com notes KEPT as may still be relevant), ingrid newkirk quote clarification/discussion.
• /Archive16 May 14 2006: Linkage to gay rights, zooskool link, discussion of Zoo Code and talkers, user:Zordrac question re articles against zoophilia, NPOV, Actaeon's site, "Animal" v. "Non-human animal" in intro, Peter Singer quote correction, Seus Hawkins discussion of arguments for/against, use of term 'exogamy', stallion masturbation citation, placement of 'legality by state', user:Angrynight debate whether listing arguments for and against creates bias, canine pair bonding POV "pro" edit, dolphin novel, use of term "consensus" in article.
• /Archive17 July 7 2006: Archive of blocked HeadleyDown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) attempt to POV slant and warfare on the article.
• /Archive18 November 25 December 15 2006: temporary split of article into a zoophilia article and a bestiality article (later reversed following discussion), a question of whether Leda and the Swan should be described as "rape", use of the word "zoophilia" before Krafft-Ebbing, another couple of socks of a blocked POV vandal, links to AnimalDB.com, size of zoophile/furry overlap, long article tag removal, sources and discussion of zoophilia and Islam

Archive updated, added: copvio lineart tracings, and discussion/dispute over zoonoses and health resulting in creation of Zoophilia and health.

• /Archive19 January 26 2007: old stuff - Cite Your Sources comments from 2005, FA commentary, definitions, anti/pro discussion

Use of Internet survey in the extent section

I made the deletion of the internet survey paragraph (Jan 18, 2007) but it was reverted by Red Director. Is the given reason commonly accepted criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia? Specifically, if a topic doesn't have an abundance of credible resources, a disclosed use of non-credible source is encouraged?

Most importantly, Zoophilia is being presented as a social and medical phenomenon. It's within a field that is professionally researched and other material on this page have been from published sources. This differs from, say, the latest video game, which is unlikely to have professional research performed and in which case the use of a large internet survey could possibly be justified. (Where the internet survey would be the most authoritative source).

I haven't done this much so if there's already an established consensus on this, I'd appreciate being pointed in the general direction.24.225.163.103 06:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this helps:In an ideal world, there would be reliable sources for everything. Even without an ideal world, with a bit of work, sources which we can agree are of good quality, can be found for many things. In some fields and questions, there are few (or no) formal sources.

Sexual demographics are one of those - see Demographics of sexual orientation. We still don't find it easy to measure how many Iranians are gay, because it's a very serious crime there, to take one simple example. In such cases, we publish what information we can, so that at least what is known, is available in lieu.

The main problem with sources such as surveys (of any kind) is, we may lack reassurance of scientific control. That is, we don't know for sure what it means. However here we have an advantage. It's a bit like the statement "Newton was the most important mathematician ever". We don't know if that's true. But we do know if it's true that "Einstein described Newton as the most important mathematician ever". That's checkable - we call it "verifiability", and the policy on "neutral reporting" is very clear on this: we can't state "Y is true" but we can state "X says Y is true". We can't say "sugar is bad for you" (a definitive claim), but we can say "in the 2005 dental survey of ireland, 95% of dentists concurred that sugar is bad for you" (a report of a definitive claim made by others).

The difference is, one is asserting facts, the other is reporting (others) statements. One is making a claim. the other is reporting others claims, which we can verify they made, and report faithfully the circumstances of their making.

In the present case, nobody knows how widespread zoophilia or zoosexual acts are. Society will probably never truely know, due to many uncertainties, some of which are noted in the article - poor definition of "what counts", motive to privacy, difficulty sampling and so on.

But we can provide such information as is available, notable, and verifiable, and that is all that exists, and for someone seeking information on occurrance, it might be all they can find out about it. We cannot say exactly how many there are. But by making utterly clear the basis of survey, the exact question, the site making the claim, and the fact that the survey is said to have many tens of thousands of respondents, it is likely this information could be of value. We check against our policies:

• Is it verifiable that site X made the claim of these results in a survey - yes.
• Is it neutrally stated exactly what the basis was and the results, so that people are not fooled into believing it is worth more (or less) reliance than it really is? - yes.

Because it's an inherently uncertain question, we cite all the answers we can that seem like they might have some utility, to try and reduce the risk of picking the one answer that's an abberation, and also to give an idea how consistent or otherwise the answers are. A reader can clearly evaluate any answer, and decide for themselves what value to place on it, what meaning to draw from it. And that is itself, utterly a viewpoint-neutral result, exactly as it should be.

It would be nice to have more. But lacking that, we do the best we can and disclose everything needed to give purported data a chance for fair reader evaluation without our reinterpretation.

Late night answer, hope it helps somehow. Glad to discuss further if there are more questions. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Original poster here. That was useful, thanks. 74.71.35.143 20:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and edits

I'm a bit concerned about some of the edits that have gone in, the last two days, mostly by babyNuke.

The things that concern me are:

• Cited useful material removed (including valid useful material), with the deletion slipped in under innocuous edit summaries.

Example: An edit of the term "Common Culture" in the intro modified to "Western Culture" and edit summary "Weasel construction, tweak". Its unclear whether this is "weasel construction", because it is common throughout much of the world (not just "Western culture"). But in the same edit, a cited quote was removed that removes from the introduction a notable balancing point of view, that some notable people consider it not unethical if no harm were done. That is not a trivial view, and was in the intro to balance the clearly stated majority view that "all zoophilia is abusive". Removing it under an inaccurate edit summary and without discussion is not really ok.

Western Culture is not "Common Culture" and there are, in fact, several tribal cultures that tolerate or even include zoosexual activity. Unless you have documented evidence that a majority of different cultures expressly forbid it, the claim of "common" is unsupported. --Chibiabos 08:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• The quote from Posner was reduced to a sentence, which is fine, but in doing so a key point was deleted carelessly, that early laws were primarily concerned with the offense to community standards.
• Notable cited legal views were removed. Abbreviation might be appropriate, but complete removal of the factual cited statement that a country's consultation over the law with their own veterinary body, concluded no evidence to support a ban, is not really ok. It's relevant to this article, not just to the legal article.
• The size estimates for the furry/zoophile crossover were removed. This is a question of notable interest to a significant number of people (including non-zoophiles) who regularly ask whether and to what extent furries are zoophiles. In fact the footnote was inserted originally because of the feeling actual data was needed, and the data and its presentation was discussed on the talk page to ensure a reasonable consensus and neutral presentation. As far as I'm aware the facts have not changed, and even if we don't know precise figures, we have at least two surveys making insightful comments on the matter, both of which we can cite for whatever use as data they are to readers. The bottom line percentage is unknown and uncertain, but we can certainly cite the sourced and known survey results for such surveys (performed by non-zoophiles) which do exist. Readers can then draw their own conclusions from that data.
• An entire section of material is deleted. The justification given is that the section title (which could have been edited if a problem) was biased. There is no discussion of the data, nor attempt to fix any perceived bias in title, just mass deoletion of entire section of material. Reinstated. If title needs fixing then fix the title.

I'd also like discussion of what kind of picture should be in this article. The subject of the image was changed from leda and swan to a line art sketch. I don't have strong feelings about it but I'm not convinced this is accurate. The article is about a lot more than just sex, and to use a sexual image reinforces a viewpoint that may correspond to popular perception rather than accurate knowledge. Discussion appreciated but no change made.

Last, the subject of NPOV has come up many times, and usually stems from a mis-perception of some reader new to the subject, about the subject, its facts and research, and a perception that pushing a popular viewpoint is more appropriate than covering 5the actual sourced science and knowledge. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy either of zoophiles views or popular perceptions' views. It is a place for neutral presentation of views. I, personally, and others, regularly remove zoophile hyperbole as well as its opposite. If there is still any major NPOV issue, which is unlikely given the intense review this has had over the last 2 years, then to clear it up will need clear discussion and specifics, not just underhand deletions of valid useful cited material. (Also see comment/discussion thread above, on neutrality.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I sadly see you've decided to revert some of the edits I made, so let me clarify why I made them:

• The "some, such as Peter Singer, argue" line is almost a text book example of a weasel word construction. To quote the wikipedia policy: "Weasel words don't really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague or indirect syntax."
• The furry percentage I disagree on. We've had the discussion and no conclusive numbers came up, with polls coming up with radically different outcomes. This makes any such number unreliable. And even if is noted that a number is unreliable, as soon as you put it in the text people will start using it.
• The mis-citation of research seems to only be about discrediting the argument that those practicing bestiality will in nearly all cases go on to commit violence against humans because this claim is based on mis-cited research. This can be said in two sentences and doesn't require an entire section. Wikipedia is not aimed at monitoring the neutrality of other organisations. It's worth noting the number given is not accurate, but by making this section which suggests this is common for organisations to mis-cite research on the matter despite only giving one example it could create the impression that animal welfare organisations in general manipulate research to support their agenda. I feel this section only has a right to exist if you could find half a dozen more examples of such mis-cited research. BabyNuke 11:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don’t see your explanation as satisfactory justification of what you removed from the article. You say that you removed something that was a classic case of “weasel word” construction, which is a way to spread hearsay. However the sentence you removed cited Peter Singer as an example. Not only does that show that there are people who are arguing that point but that it is an important fact to this entire article that a very well known ethics philosopher supports this view. That isn’t spreading hearsay or couching personal opinions in vague or indirect syntax. If there wasn’t any citable sources (like Peter) then you would have a case. I would sympathize if you reworked the sentence to make it sound less similar to a weasel worded sentence, but you deleted the whole thing (along with an important fact).

There's truth to that I suppose. BabyNuke 21:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge. It is not the wiki’s responsibility to make sure what facts people do and do not use. If the wiki has information that is dramatically different or is “unreliable”, and that article openly states that to be the case, then people risk carelessly using that information at their own risk. Wiki can not police what other people do. Normally I would choose a better set of information over this one but do to the lack of studies, this is the best information we have so far.

What the article says as per current revision: "The size of this group is not known, although the few surveys that exist together with their editors' comments might support a figure of 2 - 5% of furries." Not even the reference it uses for that backs up that claim since one of the mentioned surveys has a percentage of 28%. I feel it is safe to say zoophiles are still a minority amongst furries, however, exact numbers quite simply aren't known because the results from surveys vary too greatly. BabyNuke 21:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If the 28% figure comes from data collected in Locandez's Furvey, one should be aware that those were limited to the group found on alt.lifestyle.furry (furry lifestylers)—a distinctly seperate group—and not furry fans in general, which was Rust's survey. —Xydexx 06:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that one of the researchers at the Domestic/Wildlife department (Dan Paden) at PETA has and continues to mis-site this information in action alerts. As someone who regularly works with these organizations (PETA), I tried to contact this person to let him know of his mistake, more then once. These concerned seem to have fallen on death ears, which can be made evident through the archives on their webpage of them consistently re-quoting the same study incorrectly over and over again. Other organizations like the SPCA or HSUS use more graphically shocking and emotional appeal in their case against bestiality and don’t even support their argument with any evidence or facts that show inherent harm or abuse. I hate to admit it (as someone who works with these organizations and expects better of them) but in this case, they are mis-citing research. --Steele the Wolf 20:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd find it a fitting section if various examples could be given. Right now, the section just seems to function as criticism towards PETA on what they base their views on bestiality on, this based on the mis-citing of one article. Perhaps it is worth mentioning, but an entire section I feel gives it too much weight. If you can provide more examples that shows various organisations are actively manipulating research to come to obviously false conclusions, feel free to add it and perhaps make it deserve its own section. BabyNuke 21:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I find this article isn't balanced at all, IMO. It seems to be promoting bestiality rather than describing it in a neutral fashion, giving more weight to the defenders of this sick practice rather than its opponents and making them out to look like stupid religious fundamentalists, and focusing on the idea that there is a "social community" of people, who, to put it bluntly, enjoy having SEX WITH ANIMALS! This article should perhaps talk about the physical and psychological damage caused to animals or at least balance the article out, at the moment it looks like it's written by apologetics for "zoosexuality" or whatever these perverts are calling themselves this week! YaAsehShalom

Modern society is generally hostile to the concept of animal/human sexuality. While some, such as philosopher and animal rights 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.

I don't know nor am I bothering to find out what "weasel words" are, but the abovequoted is intentionally misleading.

What the paragraph plainly sets out to do is to contrast an ambiguous hostility, a "crime against nature," with a much narrower PoV re: utilitarian ethics and bestiality. Sentiment should be contrasted with sentiment, and ethics with ethics, and this is nothing but a bald-faced strawmanning of society's legitimate concerns with sexual abuse of animals. It would be more accurate to say:

Modern society generally regards animal/human sexuality as an unacceptable risk factor for animal abuse and cruelty. Some, such as Peter Singer, have pointed out "sex with animals does not always involve cruelty," and that sexual contact between animals and people should not be judged on the basis of conventional shock or and horror, but based on the harm it causes.

--Enantiodromos

Hmm, well - I think society's dislike of bestiality has very little to do with abuse concerns in the very basis. I like your way of putting it, but I'd keep the first sentence as it was. BabyNuke 14:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Arguments about zoophilia relations

I like how many citations there are in this section and I am not liking how it is just kind of, well a list... which for me violaties [WP:NOT#IINFO], and just listing off a bunch of pro and con arguements is sort of balanced, but still a soapbox [WP:NOT#SOAPBOX].

As a first step, I propose removing some of the more preachy ones (on both sides) and slimming the section down, then turning it into an actual paragraph reporting on concerns of Zoophilia and reported positive aspects of it.Sethie 04:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This section came up for criticism on that exact basis during its review, so it's good if someone plans to look into it.

The issues and arguments are valid, the problem is more that this needs its own sub-article, something like "Societal views on zoophilia" or "Ethics of zoophilia", where they can be explored in a non-list format and in more depth. This section would then summarize that sub-article.

You like? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

A sub-article is probably the way to go, the section is large.

I disagree that they're all valid. Listing a bunch of opinions like: # "Sexual activity between species is unnatural." "Sexual activity between species is (or should be) naturally repugnant to anyone in their right mind", sometimes called the "yuck factor". (For contrasting view see: Wisdom of repugnance) "Animals are incapable of relating to or forming relationships with humans." "Zoosexual relations are simply for those unable/unwilling to find human partners." and on the pro side: # "Instinct does not exclude enjoyment, volition or learning." "Animal and human social structure is flexible enough both to allow for different species in it and can easily encompass dynamically changing roles and leads." * "Perspectives on human dignity and religious viewpoints differ and are personal; many individuals do not consider them relevant."

First off, they're uncited. By wiki policy anyone can just take them out. Regardless, some of them just read to me like "Things people say." Why not just have the main ones. Some of them are well cited and significant. Sethie 18:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, arguments for and against are exactly that - they're what people say. In its own article though, I agree, we could probably do some of them better than sounding like a list of forum quotes. Mopst of these were shortened versions of genuine arguments, and in their own article could be replaced with more credible discussion

As an example, the argument "Its disgusting and nobody in their right mind would do it" is a genuine argument. It regularly comes up in pages and papers covering the subject. People actually do say that and consider it a good reason to prohibit such actions, and that is their view. Emotionally it can carry great weight. But it just doesn't sound like it signifies much, when it's just in a list as a bullet point. In its own article it would probably be below "Ethical reasons" and "Animal welfare reasons", in a section called "Emotional reasons", and it would say something like:

"There is strong emotion involved in the debate. As a result, strong visceral feelings of disgust are themselves sometimes cited as sufficient reason for rejection, on the basis that something so strongly embedded in human emotions should be accepted as a guide of moral behavior.^{[1] [2] [3]} In the study of philosophy and ethics, the wisdom of using strong emotions as a guide is considered fallacious (See: Wisdom of repugnance),^{[4] [5]} and as a result this argument is considered similarly to other arguments against alternative lifestyles based upon personal dislike, and usually rejected by both academic researchers and zoophiles.^{[6] [7] [8]} "

This might then lead into a short paragraph and cross-references to articles and papers where the philosophy of using strong feelings to guide moral decisions, are discussed.

(Edit: as a sidenote, the statement you tagged as "cite needed", agreed needs citing. In fact thats a nudge for me to start working on summarizing the research in general a bit better, but I can find a few strong cites in the meantime. Good call. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC))

Well, when you link them all together like that, I read something that strikes me a lot more as an encyclopedia article! Sethie 21:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a good thing, right?? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If it works for you, then we could quite easily expand the arguments out that way. The items in the list were each added as bullets for brevity, but based upon sources which can be looked up again and therefore easily rewritten in balanced prose style. So maybe the question is, we agree a fork article would be good, but what exactly should that article cover? An article simply called "Arguments for/against" is not really encyclopedic as a subject, it's more likely to re-enact a debate or list viewpoints, than describe it in a context.

Maybe something along the lines of "Societal views on zoophilia" or "Ethics of zoophilia"?

For inspiration and ideas, maybe look briefly at Societal attitudes towards homosexuality might also give some ideas how to make it encyclopedic. We basically need to decide "what will this new sub-article's focus be". Then it gets much easier to write. Your thoughts next? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think we have the overall topic, now we just need a name. How does "Ethic and Social views of Zoophilia" sound? Sethie 01:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

---

It sounds pretty good. These are my outstanding queries before going ahead, the things I needed to figure out before I felt happy how it was forked myself. They are sections or subtopics I would like to see forked out, and what forks are created seems a good question to consider first. (Ie, there are some areas of potential crossover that're worth clarifying beforehand, rather than having headaches after):

1. I'm going at some stage to fork the media section out, maybe as "representations of zoophilia", to cover media representations (the list of films is getting quite long), editorial and media representations, fictional and non-fictional representations in the media, etc. See User:FT2/media for a rough schemata of what I figured such an article might cover. There might well also be a section on zoophiles in society.
   
   I also have tried to figure out how best to fork out societal views in general. Again, see User:FT2/society for what this might cover.
   
   Are there any major crossovers between either of these and "Ethic and Social views of Zoophilia"? If so are they problematic crossovers or are they separate topics covering basically distinct subject matter , and appropriate non-problematic overlap? Really the question is, what articles are needed and how should they be distinguished?

    

2. Will the proposed forked article(s) also be likely to cover group viewpoints relative to "arguments for and against" such as "how ethologists see it" or similar? (These are currently in the same "arguments" section of the main article)

The above are the points I myself have tried to decide, which is why that section and others related to zoophilia/society haven't yet been touched. can you take a look and let me know what you think? They are my two questions before saying "yes it sounds fine".

The other thing I'd like (if you feel up to it) is, what the proposed forked articles will cover. Is it just expanding on that list of arguments, or is there some broader perspective or context, or similar, that come into focus when we look at "Ethic and Social views of Zoophilia" overall? Thoughts?

(Sorry this is a bit messy!) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Legality - possession vs publication?

The article says: "Pornography involving sex with animals is widely illegal, even in most countries where the act itself is not explicitly outlawed." - is this possession or publication? Obscenity laws typically only cover publication. I find it hard to believe that possession is widely illegal, in fact, I'm not aware of any western countries at least which criminalise possession of anything other than child porn. Can this be clarified?

What about some examples of countries where the act is not explicitly outlawed, but pornography is? Mdwh 14:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

See the draft article on animal pornography. And feel free to edit it if you can imrpove it. And yes, that sentence in this article may be suspect come to think of it. Some countries do, but equally many don't. Usually treated as independent. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

religious views of zoophilia

In the article it says that some Christians and non-orthodox Jews don't regard all the laws of Moses as binding upon them. This is true, I am a practising reform Jew who happens also to be gay and I do not believe that it is clear from the text that homosexuality is forbidden. The same cannot be said for bestiality. It specifically states in the Bible that anyone, man or woman, who sleeps with an animal is committing a sin. It is also true that a lot of the Bible has been reinterpreted by liberal Jews and Christians and new meanings found within it. Our understanding of the Bible now fits in better with our understanding of evolution. However it cannot be extrapolated from this that non-orthodox Jews and Christians allow bestiality. I have NEVER known any religious person (and very few atheists, for that matter) say that G-d allows humans to sleep with animals. Please tell me where in the Torah or in the Christian bible it allows bestiality and what denominations of Christianity and Judaism allow humans to have sex with animals otherwise I will just conclude that someone made it up. Someone deleted my edit to the article and I would like to know what basis there was for deleting it and a source which states which Jews and Christians consider it to be acceptable. Thank you. ya'aseh shalom

Thanks. I hope this will reassure. You may be making an assumption there. Read it very carefully. here it is statement by statement:

• "Passages in Leviticus 18 ..... are cited by Jewish, Christian, and Muslim theologians as categorical denunciation of bestiality." - factual, not questioned I hope.

• "Some theologians (especially Christian) extend this, to consider lustful thoughts for an animal as a sin, and the Christian theologian Thomas Aquinas described it along with homosexuality as the worst sexual sins 'because use of the right sex is not observed'." - I hope this is also agreed to be accurate and not a concern.

• "Alternatively, many Christians and some non-Orthodox Jews do not regard the full Levitical laws as binding upon them, and may consider them irrelevant." - this is probably the one you have difficulty with. There are two statements. It is accurate that nmany non-orthodox jews and christians do not consider the levitical laws binding. I hope we agree there. The latter statement uses the word "may" - implying "it is possible". That's all that "may" means. We don't know how many do, or don't, or what views chritian and jewish zoophiles may hold. So we cannot say that they all consider them relevant. Some seem to consider them irrelevant for this reason. This statement is not just discussing mainstream views, but any christians and jews who do not believe in the levitical laws, and may be some who don't believe in levitical laws, who therefore don't find them relevant. Not knowing, we use the word "may" not "are".

Hope this helps. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It is true that not every Jew and obviously most Christians do not consider most of the Torah to be binding. I personally do not and I am a reform Jew. We allow homosexuality, and women take an equal role in services and rituals, otherwise I would not belong to this denomination. However this does not extend to bestiality. I have never heard of a Jew saying that bestiality is OK and I cannot believe that any Christian organisation would endorse it because they tend to take a much tougher line on issues to do with sex than we do. I imagine that maybe one or two people have believed that it might be OK, but I really don't think that all non-orthodox Jews and Christians can be tarred with the same brush simply because alot of us think SOME of the prohibitions are outdated and irrelevant. ya'aseh shalom