Talk:Zoophilia

Zoophilia and Bestiality Definitions and Image Relevance

There seems to be two problems with this article in it's current form, although the latter is dependent on the former.

First, the terms used. As mentioned in the article's own terms section, there has been, more frequently as of lately, a line drawn between zoophilia and bestiality. The former is generally defined as a paraphilia or orientation towards animals, whereas the latter is defined as either simply the act, with no regard to the emotion present, or, on occasion, the act when there is specifically no emotion present. Generally it is the former.

However, the article itself ignores it's own term section and tends to regard the terms as interchangeable, where, those familiar with the terms (as those who are unfamiliar with the terms should be discounted: Misuse of a term does not change it's definition) do draw such a distinction between the two phenomona.

As such, without the distinction being drawn properly, I believe the terms are not properly communicating information in the article. I propose an edit to the article that makes a distinction between the two terms. When speaking of the act itself, the term bestiality would be used. when speaking of the orientation or paraphilia, the term Zoophilia would be used.

Second, with the difference in terms in mind, I believe many of the images are out of place on an article about zoophilia, since they depict what would generally be accepted as nothing more than bestiality, rather than the orientation or paraphilia behind the act.

(Also, please forgive any errors I might have made here. It's my first time doing this) XCTI (talk) 08:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

perhaps another way of saying it is that we should make the distinction between zoophilia and zoosexulaity(or zooerotica)-DJLO (talk) 07:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No evidence of female animal masturbation?

Animals of many species also masturbate, even if other sexual partners are accessible. Male animals can achieve orgasm, and Beetz claims that female animals of some species can too. However, there is no evidence for this in most female animals.

No evidence of female animal masturbation?? Really now?--99.179.21.44 (talk) 04:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Discovery channel says different. But I've seen a lot of female animal masturbate in my time of zoological and sexological studies. It's not exactly a rare thing, especially in long-tongued animals, cunnilingus masturbation is quite common in female Primates, Canines and Felines. J D Smith (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Zoosexuality merged

I posted a merge notice a few weeks ago. Received no opposition nor support so as suggested assumed consensus and went ahead with the merge. See reasoning here: Talk:Zoosexuality#Merge_with_Zoophilia_attempt_2. Help channel suggested I change the zoosexuality article into a redirect though I'm unsure what I'll do with the talk pages, will sort that out soon.

As for the integration... the terminology aspect was mostly integrated here. "Professional views of zoosexuality as a sexual orientation" is largely covered here with the word 'zoosexual' replaced with 'zoophilia'. The "Further discussion Forms of zoosexual activity" didn't seem to be needed to be integrated as it discussed it throughout the article in parts. "Miscellaneous comparisons with other orientations" was trivial and most content was quote. "Emotion in zoosexuality" covered already in zoophilia and Emotion in animals. "Intersubjective emotion" again mostly quote and only like one line.

So, mostly integrated in my opinion. Avalik (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Adds: Ah, I forgot. I'll be removing "Zoosexual" links and such tomorrow, not today just in case it gets reverted and disputed which would have me change everything back. Avalik (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Well, that's not what 'zoophilia' actually is, during my times of sexological studies, we've treat 'zoophilia' as the romantic, sometimes even 'sexual' paraphilia that a Human can have, which attracts them to another species (usually specific). Also, 'zoophilia' is conceptual, it doesn't really exist as a singleton matter, it is a category of sexual attraction towards certain animal species, i.e. a dog lover is not a cow lover.

I understand that the DSM has caused some confusion in the last few years for doctors. This is why Hani Miletski promoted the term 'zoosexuality'. As 'zoo' (animal) + 'philia' (love) does not mean 'zoo' (animal) + 'sexuality' (sexualitas, sexual attraction). Of course, that matter is biologically disputed, besides.

Not all zoophiles are zoosexuals, and not all zoosexuals are zoophiles. The most common kind of zoophile is the standard pet lover.

Wouldn't it be better to rename this whole article as 'Zoosexuality'? Or would it be right to call love, sexuality?

Bestiality is the interspecific sexual activity between a Human and an individual of another species. Colloquially, I have seen 'zoophiles' like to be called 'zoophiles', and call any zoosexual that is not a zoophile, a 'bestialist'. The word 'bestialist' isn't exactly a real term, it is a neological adaption of accusative verbal noun 'bestiality'.

Secondary usage of 'zoophile' is 'erotic zoophilism', 'zoosexuality'. I think it is very accusative to use the secondary meaning of 'zoophile' on such an official information website like Wikipedia, for the article.

Zoophilia is usually platonic, zoosexuality may or may not feature zoophilia, and vice versa.

I hope this helps. J D Smith (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little unsure what you are trying to say, you contradicted what you said too many times i.e. "we've treat 'zoophilia' as the romantic, sometimes even 'sexual' paraphilia that a Human can have" and then, "The most common kind of zoophile is the standard pet lover" and... I really, really just don't understand what you are trying to say or your point. Please try to rephrase it -- and also bring to my talk page instead please, as I don't check article talk pages I have said something on often. If you are trying to say the definition of "zoosexual[ity]" is not synonymous with "zoophilia[c]" then please address what I had said in my argument linked above or read that if you haven't already Avalik (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I dispute the neutrality of this merge. Zoosexuality was said to be the popular terminology for 'sexual zoophilia' in the last decade to avoid the confusion of the 'affinity for animals' from the 'sexual attraction towards animals', the term derived from Dr Miletski's work as cited in the article. The zoophilia article should have remained seperate from the zoosexual one.

The first line is: "Zoophilia, from the Greek ζῷον (zṓion, "animal") and φιλία (philia, "friendship" or "love") is the practice of sex between humans and animals (bestiality), or a preference or fixation on such practice. A person who practices zoophilia is known as a zoophile" - However, zoophilia is directly the sexual attraction and/or affinity towards animals. Zoosexuality being 'sexual zoophilia', referred to 'sexual zoophilia', whereas 'zoophilia' itself may or may not involve sexual relation. Also, the term, 'zoophilia' does not refer to the 'sexual activity', 'bestiality' does - this is no doubt an archaic terminology no longer used. Neutrality is thus disputed. The articles should have never merged since the terms refer to two different things, even if the categories do align somewhere.

There are two definitions for zoophilia, these also even exist on Wikipedia's side-project, Wiktionary, "1. An affinity or fondness for animals. 2. A paraphilia involving sexual attraction to animals." What valid reference states that 'zoophilia' (affinity / sexual attraction) is 'zoosexuality' (sexual orientation/identification) or 'bestiality' (sexual interaction)?

I have reasons to believe 'zoophilia' references human-animal love, not the sexuality, however, the document should also refer to the sexuality, since culturally, love is often relative to sexuality (passion). Either the article should be changed so 'zoophilia' refers to the 'affinity and/or sexual attraction', and 'bestiality' refers to the 'sexual activity', etc or seperated into the seperate articles (since, after all, this is a very broad field of research). Other terms such as 'zoosexuality', 'zooerasty', 'zoosadism' with their respective sections, etc. Since the article would be large with such a compilation, I recommend the seperation of the articles and citation to more modern research definitions (the article is getting clumsy and old). FireWolf Flux (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Section Out of Place

The part about Zoophilia and Other Groups seems out of context with the rest of the article. It seems as though someone associated with fur fandom wrote it in sheer retaliation. Unless there is any reason to believe such groups would be confused with each other, and valid sources can prove it, I believe it should be removed. --Our Lady Overkill (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That's actually a good point, it doesn't seem to fit in with the rest. Drebin893 (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Anybody going to mention that alt.sex.bestiality was made by a furry? Or would I get yelled at? J D Smith (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there is also a survey here: http://www.klisoura.com/ot_furrysurvey.php

Furry fetish is considered 'zoophilic', thus 'autozoophilia' - the sexual attraction toward part-human/part-animal (usually humanoid) species. It may also be considered 'therianthropic'. I note that 18% of furries on a survey of 8290 called themselves 'zoophile'. Before the lulz started banning the mention of zoophilia, this figure used to be just above 32%. J D Smith (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Zoophilia in fantasy section?

I thought it might be a good idea to add the 'zoophilia in fantasy' section. My friend's favourited new film is called 'Coming Soon', and its a mockumentary, it's commercial and very interesting - since it is so popular and is even going to have its premiere at the world famous 'Living Theatre' museum in New York City, I thought it would be worthy of mention in such a section. I can see that there's a bit of an issue about it on the talk page, so as a friend, I'd thought I'd clarify that. Unless Coming Soon has international success, I don't think it's 100% worthy of an argument, after all it has been in circulation since 2006.

Whatever the decision, just my idea ;). Does anybody know of any other good fictional arts over zoophilia? J D Smith (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an old excerpt of the 'Coming Soon' on Wikipedia... "# Coming Soon (2006, Sir Tijn Po, released by Devilhead Films):: Won a special award for "Originality and Support for Suppressed Minorities" at the Festivalu Finále Plzeň. [27] The film takes the form of a documentary about E.F.A., the world's first zoophile-rights organization,[28] thereby exploring "civilization's eternal quest for the perfect balance between love, tolerance, morality, censorship, tradition, experimentation, etc." The film is currently released in the Czech Republic and an English version is being prepared for international distribution. Official website, imdb entry" - it doesn't look like spam to me and has good references - it just needs cleaning up. [27] http://www.filmfestfinale.cz/cz/ [28] http://www.equalityforall.net/. Since this is a popular film in the zoosexual community, I ask why it was removed. I cannot edit the article as it is locked, per se. J D Smith (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think if you want fictional zoophile art all you have to do is browse some furry website for a while ;) BabyNuke (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There were many attempts here and at other articles to promote the film, which simply isn't notable enough (yet) to be mentioned. In addition, the spam we received was often based on false claims (that it is an actual documentary; one person using multiple accounts, claiming to be different people; etc.), and whoever tried to get the film into this article tried very hard, ignoring any kind of argument, avoiding blocks, bans and the edit filter, showing clearly that s/he wasn't interested in actually improving the article. If the film becomes notable, we can think about adding it here, but so far, I don't see it happening. --Conti|✉ 20:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I heard about the multiple accounts, my friend got banned for being called a sock puppet even though he wasn't one. EFA is a popular offline/online secret organization - so it's likely that it was many members trying to publicise to same issue, respectively. It shouldn't be advertised, it just requires little mention seen as it takes up 10% of Google for the keyword 'zoophilia', enter "zoophilia" in the Google search engine, for what videos/sites are excerpted first? Coming Soon trailers. The EFA webmaster is a female as I have just contacted her, she was apparently nothing to do with it. Judging from the many users there you can see it was simply an article request or one of their members pushing it too far. Living Theatre is hosting the pre-releasing film currently, they haven't hosted a moving picture in a while as they are museum. The website also says so: http://www.livingtheatre.org/ It has been in the major news papers in Czech on second pages. May be the Czech Wikipedia would be more suffice? Only it's an English art with several languages, that's all, so it's hard to make the decision as to where is most appropriate. The film is apparently non-profit, with all proceeds going to fund the EFA project and animal charities - whether that is true or not is another case. But if it is so, the promotion is neutral. I can see a lot more unknown films than this one on Wikipedia, though, which adds to the confusion to them, I suppose, respectively. J D Smith (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe the neutrality here may be disputable, for Coming Soon may have been advertising (despite the fact it was clear that EFA's members and film viewers were adding promotions), but there are many sources on the internet that cite the film. I suggest a removal of the other minor documentaries, since there may be media competence between these documentaries, and the prevention of them being added that of it's media rivals. Neutrality disputed in both directions. FireWolf Flux (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Other minor documentaries, such as which? I only see three or four listed in the references section. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Such as the ones recently removed, and 'Vase de Noces' which didn't form as much controversy in the media as Coming Soon did. Coming Soon has also won many more awards and has entered much more popular film festivals (i.e. http://www.filmfestfinale.cz/en/year-19/), etc. Also remarked by famed English people, such as Peter Singer. Was notable on known radios http://www.rozhlas.cz/mozaika/film/_zprava/295803 It gained a #1 place in several of the Amazon best-seller charts. Cited in http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2009-08-20/news/animal-instincts-zoophiles-love-and-have-sex-with-animals-will-the-world-ever-accept-them/5 Also where is the mention on EFA over 'bestiality rights' FireWolf Flux (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Those aren't reliable sources. And the Miami Newtimes article apparently thinks that the EFA organization is real. It's a hoax, which even the filmmakers themselves have admitted at various places. --Conti|✉ 22:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The film is a mockumentary, EFA is real, but not as depicted by the actors in the film, the Coming Soon film's title says it all, what's next for organizations like 'EFA' in the world of zoophile-rights that's why it's called 'Coming Soon' and not 'The History of Zoophilia', it is a mockumentary by all due fact since it is filmed and written in a comedic way, this is often considered artistic by old world media. Those are reliable sources, just they are Czech and not English. EFA, is an idea rather than a company, an organization, it started off local and became inspired by the film. They opened their English website at the same time as the film development, their Czech one is a year older. EFA is a stereotype and should not be worth discussion, I believe. It is Coming Soon that is the subject. Wikipedia is not a rational source of information, if news sources say that, they may be cited, hoax or no hoax, it is data. I'd understand it if the film was fake and never was recorded. It is probably not as well known in the Americas, but Wikipedia English is shared with the English Czechs, is it not? Also, you cannot prove that organization is false. Neutrality is disputed. FireWolf Flux (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Soo.. as a result of a mockumentary making fun of them, EFA (an "idea", not an organisation) starts their English language website? That's.. odd. Apologies if I'm a tad bit suspicious, but there's been dozens of new accounts trying (and claiming) everything to get that film mentioned in this article. At first they claimed it was a genuine documentary, then that it was some kind of satire, now it's a mockumentary. We do not report things just because a source says so, we, as human beings, are allowed to use our brain to decide whether something is noteworthy or not, or whether we should be cautious, or whether we should require high quality sources. In this case, I'm firmly opposed to any mention of the film anywhere until we do have high quality sources about it. --Conti|✉ 06:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not the meaning of 'mockumentary', sometimes mockumentaries are made to mock, this one was made in question in a probably future.

EFA and Coming Soon is very popular in the zoophile and sexological community, if you Google 'zoophile rights' or 'bestiality rights', you would see them in at least the top ten of the results. Zoophiles and sexologists researching the topic of zoophile rights who may be seeking the docu-mockumentary may like to look at other resources, it's simple that Coming Soon is worth a single line of mention due it's impact on news, (hoax or not). People come to Wikipedia seeking such information. Consider 'EFA' a prototype, it is very much alive and its members are pretty much kicking about, especially online. Of course, activism is controversial on sites like this, which is why it should not mentioned sinced that'd make the information possibly biased. imdb pro also reviews the film. For example on what an example is, you just need to read Wikipedia's article, alone "Mockumentary (also known as a mock documentary) is a genre of film and television in which fictitious events are presented in a non-fiction or documentary format; the term can also refer to an individual work within the genre. Such works are often used to analyze or comment on current events and issues by using a fictitious setting." - 'Coming Soon' depicts the future, the future does not exist yet, thus is fictious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FireWolf Flux (talk • contribs) 18:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It's really simple. When there are no high quality sources present (and we definitely need those on an article like this one), then that's it. Whoever's been spamming this film has spammed it on Wikipedia, IMDB, Amazon and practically everywhere on the internet. Genuine reviews I have not yet found, alas, only the "OMG best film ever!!11"-spam that you find everywhere. --Conti|✉ 19:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The film has been to several film festivals, you can see this from their own site, as published on the official websites of those film festivals, etc.

Coming Soon also went to the historic Living Theatre in New York City, as presented here. Nobody has spammed on Wikipedia, IMDB, Amazon, etc, amongst artists, the film has had a lot of popularity and controversy in Czechoslovakia. I have looked at the sock puppet page and examined that there are only a few users, all of which I know for a fact are different people. May be it is the EFA members that are keen, I understand that those members have been digging a hole in this issue since they tried promoting it, no doubt they are eager due to their fanatic activism in zoophile rights, knowing that Coming Soon would be an easy icon to push. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FireWolf Flux (talk • contribs) 20:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Question

A television program (can't remember which) mentioned zoophilia as referring to people sexually attracted to people pretending to be animals (wearing dog collars, acting like a dog, etc), as distinct from bestiality. Is there such a distinction in the definition? Or what is the correct alternative term?--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

That television program was wrong. What you're describing sounds like animal roleplay, which is pretty much unrelated (and definitely not covered by the term "zoophilia"). Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks. It was something like Jerry Springer (not specifically, but one of those kind of shows), so it doesn't surprise me that it wasn't at the forefront of technical accuracy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Animal roleplay is also known as 'bestiality' in its archaic definition, "the stupid brutal quality of a beast", as applied to a human (as opposed to anthropomorphism applied to an animal, thus giving it human qualities). 'Bestiality' has been used to refer to 'sexual activity with animals', this terminology is perhaps wearing off a little with people naming it 'zoophilia', instead, since 'zoophilia' sounds less pejorative, in the sense that the animal isn't derogatively classed as a beast. The fetish of animal roleplay may also be considered reverse anthropomorphism, something notable in furry yiff role-players whom also do this (by fursuiting or by the use of online interactive virtual reality or MUCKs (i.e. like those in Second Life). The interest in yiff, sexual human-animal roleplay and bestiality, etc, may be collectively caused by mixed fetishes and/or paraphilias towards animal traits or simple lifestyle incorporation, although scientists are now debating over whether the sexual attraction to animal traits is a real sexuality or not, and if it is, on re-thinking sexuality altogether, as written in a recent article by the Scientific American. FireWolf Flux (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Cross-species sex reference irrelevant to Zoophilia

Under the heading "Criticisms of zoophilia or zoosexual relations" there appears the statement that cross-species sex sometimes occurs in nature, and it's supported by a citation (currently #81) identified as "Mating toads cross the species barrier". The source describes two "species" of toad mating with each other to produce offspring. Now I realize that the precise meaning of "species" can be debated, but if this article is about sexual activity, it's about that kind of activity between human beings and animals, i.e. creatures of different taxonomic families or groups who are incapable of reproduction with each other. By definition, that puts the subject beyond the taxonomic group of "species". The reference in question would only be relevant if, for example, it described toads who mated with fish. Of course it does not do that; it doesn't even go far enough to describe toads of genus Spea mating with toads of genus Bufonidae.
This article is concerned with activities between human beings and animals, i.e. between creatures of different taxonomic families or even groups, who are incapable of sexual reproduction with each other. Therefore, a mention of different species who are entirely able to mate and produce viable offspring fails to provide any support or enlightenment to the subject. It's not relevant. I've therefore removed the sentence entirely rather than try to hunt down an example that is more relevant to this article. JH49S (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Bestiality usually refers to the cross-species sexual interaction between a human and a non-human animal (as coined, archaically, a 'beast'). 'Zoo' also refers to a non-human animal, so thus a human sexually attracted to non-human animals is a 'zoosexual', however, since both non-human animal parties in a cross-species (without a human party) are already non-human, the term is contradictory. That would mean all non-human animals with cross and non-cross species orientation would be 'zoosexual' - this is perhaps the case, but the terms seem odd to apply. This article should link into the correct section of the 'Animal sexual behaviour' article on the subject of cross-species sexuality where humans are not involved. Shouldn't this content be moved from this article from that one? For Wikipedia encapsulation, shouldn't the article just link to the cross-species sexuality page(s)?

I believe that zoosexuality comes under cross-species sexuality (the difference being a human is explicitly described as being involved), not the other way around. FireWolf Flux (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Beastiality versus Bestiality

Ok, so I know it is just a matter of spelling but calling it "bestiality" really irks me. I have heard people use this spelling in order to support the right of a person to have sex with an animal. I say it should be spelled as "beastiality" for at least one reason. For one, it has the term "beast" instead of "best" in it.

The word's spelled bestiality regardless of what you or others think should be implied by the word. --Conti|✉ 13:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)