Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27

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

Forgive me if I've got this wrong, but didn't Mr. Cutteridge manage to obtain a precedent-setting plea bargain grounded at least in part on his prosecutor's admission, in court, that in fact he'd caused no harm to any of his animals?
If so, might not the above unsigned comment not in fact constitute a violation of WP:BLP?
Just a thought.  :^) :^)
Cheers, ༺།།ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ།།འཚེར།།xeltifon།།སར་ཝ་མང་ག་ལམ།།༻  {say it} { ζ(3) } {did it} 12:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again.

User Plateau99 is again adding materials that fit his pro-zoophilia POV by covering it up with sources that do not even support or mention the claims.

1. No where does the cited article mention zoophilia being discussed as a sexual orientation. He block-quoted:

"Having been unable to locate clues suggesting some other motive, Miletski concluded the single explanation for the behavior was the conscious one that zoophiles offered: It was an orientation they were born with."

The quote does not even fit or is relevant with the previous claim that it is being discussed. He's again twisting the quotes so it fits his POV.

2. No where in the article does it mention Miletski being critical of zoophilia being compared to pedophilia. (Only in the comments, which is an unreliable opinion, and maybe Plateau99 himself.) He block-quoted Miletski, but again, that quote does not even fit or is relevant with the claim that "Hani Miletski has been critical of allegations that zoophilia is similar to pedophilia." Now he changes it to "abuse." Hmm. Seems to me that he knows he's adding non-neutral POV pro-zoophilia content with incorrect sources. The claim, even when changed to abuse, is still not mentioned anywhere in the source.

It is not like I removed all of the content that he has added, I did not. Only the ones that do not match the Wikipedia guidelines. Too bad he thinks any removal of his additions to the article is an attack on zoophilia, and consequently reverts the changes without any explanation. Someone963852 (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about, the quotes definitely came from the cited sources. Maybe I should screencapture the article to prove that is where it came from, but it would be much simpler to just read the article.
You shouldn't be making personal attacks claiming that I'm inserting "POV"; this is an article about zoophilia and as such the quotes cited are entirely relevant.Plateau99 (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Stop trying to act all naive. Of course the quotes were in the article, but they had nothing to do with the claims (your opinions) that were placed before it. Someone963852 (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
They're not my "opinions", they are sentences created based on the self-evident information in the quotes. For example, because Miletski says that the claim that zoophilia is a "threat to children" is unjust, it is not unreasonable to then write a sentence which reflects Miletski's view. This happens on Wikipedia all the time. I changed the wording "abuse" because you were not satisfied with the original sentence, so I don't know what kind of sentence will satisfy you.Plateau99 (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)22:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Do not insert your personal opinions and use random quotes in the article (any with one word that matches what is in your opinion) to falsely back it up.
Tell me how that first quote from Miletski has anything to do with "zoophilia currently being discussed as a sexual orientation"?
or how her second quote has anything to do with her being "critical of the comparison between zoophilia and pedophilia"? Someone963852 (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
The first quote emphasizes the possibility that zoophilia is a sexual orientation. Although it is obviously not a fully recognized orientation as of 2012, the fact that people like Miletski have discussed it should be mentioned in the section on zoosexuality. It is obvious from the second quote that Miletski disapproves of the association being made between zoophilia and pedophilia; although she doesn't specifically use the word "pedophilia", the fact that she says the notion that zoophilies are a "threat to children" is unjust evidence which supports the original premise, that Miletski disapproves of the association being made.
Perhaps those two quotes should be removed and each replaced with only a single sentence each, but I feel that the quotes add depth (and evidence) which would be lacking without quotes. Plateau99 (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
You may need to take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research.

Quote 1:

"Having been unable to locate clues suggesting some other motive, Miletski concluded the single explanation for the behavior was the conscious one that zoophiles offered: It was an orientation they were born with."

How does that harmless last sentence all of a sudden became "good" source material for "There has also been discussion about whether zoosexuality counts as a sexual orientation"? Nothing from the quote implicates that zoophilia is being discussed as a sexual orientation. You're coming up with ways to twist their words now, aren't you.

Quote 2:

"When told of Senator Rich's remarks about people who commit bestiality being a threat to children, Miletski says, 'I think it's real bullshit for people to say that. There's no connection that we know of. If you said that to zoophiles, they would be so offended.' That's because Miletski says nearly all the zoophiles she interviewed expressed moral revulsion for sex with animals that had not fully matured."

How does that all of sudden became the source for: "Hani Miletski has been critical of allegations that zoophilia is similar to pedophilia"?

You don't know for sure that Miletski is hinting at pedophilia. That's your wishful thinking because you don't want zoophilia being compared to pedophilia. The only thing mentioned in the quote was a threat to children, not abuse, not pedophilia. Do not try to come up with your own conclusions using quotes that do not even support them.

Again, take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

Someone963852 (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not "original research", and you are once again making accusations against me which are false. If you can think of better sentences to reflect the quotes, go for it and write sentences which you think are more appropriate. However, I feel that the sentences added were entirely appropriate for reasons I already discussed. I am not inventing these things out of thin air, they are entirely verifiable in the sources I provided. Plateau99 (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Again, I was talking about the claims you added, not the verifiability of the quotes. The quotes do not even mean anything without proper context/ and are unnecessary to the article as a whole, so there's no need to "think of better sentences to reflect the quotes" if you can't even think of one that fits it, yourself. Someone963852 (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I have thought of sentences which reflect the quotes, but you haven't, perhaps because you don't want the quotes in there at all. You've accused me of POV, but isn't what you're doing POV? The best non-POV solution would be to create sentences in reference to the quotes which are reasonable. I believe that the sentences I wrote (the ones preceding the quotes) are reasonable, but if you feel they need to be modified, then go for it.Plateau99 (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Why is it my job to come up with a better premise for those quotes, when I don't think the quotes belong in the article at all? First quote, Miletski said zoophiles did not choose to be the way they are and harmlessly used the word "orientation." and why does this belong in the article? Her second quote is just a reply to one senator's comment. And why does this need to be in the article? Should we add everything that Miletski says and who she replies to in the article?
Just because you see something mentioning zoophilia does not mean it should automatically belong in the article. Someone963852 (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
It is only your "job" to rewrite the sentences because you're the one who isn't satisfied with them. I'm tired of you using the terms "false claims" and "original research". As I've said before, because the quotes are verifiable, that automatically nullifies your "original research" argument. And as for the term "false claims", I still don't know what you mean because the "claims" I am supposedly making aren't false (and they aren't my "opinion"), they are summaries of the quotes.Plateau99 (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Why is it my job to come up with a better premise for those quotes, when I don't think the quotes belong in the article in the first place?
First quote, Miletski replied to someone and said zoophiles did not choose to be the way they are and harmlessly used the word "orientation." And why does this belong in the article? Right because you want something about zoophilia being a sexual orientation in the article. The quote used the word orientation, even though it is in the wrong context? Who cares, it seemed like good citation doesn't it? No one would notice?
Her second quote is just a reply to one senator's comment. And why does this need to be in the article? Wait, because you don't want zoophilia being compared to pedophilia. I guess you should just use this quote as a citation, even though it does not support the abuse/ pedophilia claim at all.
Should we add everything that Miletski says and who she replies to in the article?
Just because you see something mentioning zoophilia does not mean it should automatically belong in the article.
And stop coming up with your own conclusions and OR, and use quotes from articles (that do not even support your claims) to cite it. Someone963852 (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Someone963852 (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I said numerous times that the quotes were verifiable (did you even read?), and you keep using that "argument" over and over again because you don't have any other arguments. Keep reverting without a good explanation on the talk page. I am honestly sick of repeating myself. Someone963852 (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
The way you make it sound, these quotes were just randomly chosen out of a hat. This is not the case. The first quote represents the idea that zoophilia may be a sexual orientation, nothing more. The second quote reflects the idea the zoophilia is not similar to pedophilia. There is nothing wrong with these quotes.Plateau99 (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
The first quote represents the idea that zoophilia may be a sexual orientation. No it doesn't. The second quote reflects the idea the zoophilia is not similar to pedophilia. Not it doesn't. Simple enough for you? That's why I'm removing it. Someone963852 (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Your assumptions are incorrect. That is why I'm adding them back.Plateau99 (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
The first quote represents the idea that zoophilia may be a sexual orientation. No it doesn't. The second quote reflects the idea the zoophilia is not similar to pedophilia. Not it doesn't. Why doesn't it? Read all that I wrote above. Is that simple enough, because I honestly don't think I should waste my time typing all of this out when you can't comprehend and just repeat yourself.
And your assumptions are incorrect. That's why I'm removing it. Someone963852 (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
The fact that you keep reverting my edits is proof that your are unwilling to compromise. Remember, you're the one who started this edit war, and you have made no attempt to compromise at all. You're idea of "compromise" is to simply erase what others have done.Plateau99 (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
And what have you done? Besides adding false claims, OR, and quotes that do not even back those claims up, that is. Why don't you try and compromise by removing them for being unnecessary and trivial? or try coming up with a better premise since it's your idea in the first place to add it in? It's not my job to make it sound better when I don't even think it should be in the article in the first place. Someone963852 (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


"When such laws are proposed, they are never questioned or debated" -- more biased rubbish.Stealstrash (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Treatment of Unverified and Fake content (or Biased content)

In the "Religious Perspectives", some content is included which is not verified as the links given are fake/ don't support the content.

1. "In the Hindu tradition, having sex with a sacred cow is believed to bring good fortune."

For the above line, the reference given is "http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5037624458" which opens up citing a book on beastiality. However, this book neither opens and upon further research I found that this book doesn't even exist. Moreover, for the kind of claims made in above sentence, specific references should be given instead of links to fictitious books.

2. "In the Dharmaśāstra tradition, the Hindu Visnu Smrti says that having sex with an animal is not wrong if certain conditions are met"

For the above line, the reference given is "http://eforum6.cari.com.my/mobile/index.php?tid-324993.html" which seems like an odd and less known website. Its something more like a forum and seems to be a fake reference. And upon doing further research on Visnu Smrti, there is no such point to justify beastiality. Such ancient texts often are subject to biased translations in other languages so much so that their meaning gets altered. So also, this line should be removed.

3. "And in the Manusmrti, mating between humans and animals is permitted"

For the above line, reference given is "http://books.google.com/books?id=bk-rDk_OyvwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=religion+and+the+body+by+sarah+coakley&source=bl&ots=cqFbBehfjH&sig=oMdrJx5VpnV-usg67mcEpxNM5jY&hl=en&ei=mQmkTbb4IYm0sAOm8IX6DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false". The link leads to a book. Upon further detailed perusal of the book, I found the book to not be related to Zoophilia at all. And also biased. And most importantly, the book neither mentions that the above verse permits mating between humans and animals. Also from reading of the verse, one can make out that it does not support mating between humans and animals. It's merely a case of faulty and wrong interpretation.


With due respect and for sake of maintaining authenticity and neutrality, I recommend to remove the above lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.15.90 (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Just thought I'd point out that this source explicitly says the following in the "South and East Asia and Oceania" section:
"According to the Hindu tradition of erotic painting and sculpture, a human copulating with an animal is actually a human having intercourse with a God incarnated in the form of an animal. Copulation with a sacred cow or monkey is believed to bring good fortune."
I decided to see if it was real or not, and indeed, it is real. Since I realise that people might question it, it might be worth putting in the quote above rather then a sentence.MarkB40n (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


Books like these are written by foreign authors and probable pro-zoophiles. The book talks about Zoophilia as if it is common and evident throughout civilization. Apart from being written by western authors, it interprets people around the whole world from country to country. After all, how reliable can such interpretations be. It gives references to other authors' books. Verifying the authenticity of such books is a very impossible task. For sake of genuine referencing, such claims in the books cannot be taken literally. Moreover, western authors cannot be said to interpret non-western cultures. There may be bias, there may be misinterpretation.

More importantly, religion is a very specific concept and cannot be interpreted broadly and freely. It has to be interpreted specifically. For example, if someone wants to mention an aspect about a particular religion, he has to quote the specific line from the most genuine religious scriptures. It has to be for sake of maintaining authenticity and genuineness. Please don't pay heed to foreign author's interpretations on alien cultures and civilizations. 114.143.15.90 (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the book Beastiality by Joseph Rosenberger, which is often referenced in other books, and is used in the Wikipedia article, it is OCLC 500032104. I would like more info about the author, as the publisher of the book (Medco Books) doesnt appear to be an academic publisher.[1] Also, the work by Andrea Beetz is a thesis; therefore it is not published. It shouldnt be used for non-controversial assertions. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the book, Religión and the Body by Sarah Coakley, the author isnt a pro-zoophile ;-) However it is likely that pro-zoophile people have noticed the passage doesnt explicitly reject their worldview, so they use it to support their worldview.
The passage in question primarily discusses the questions that arise regarding monogamy and ethics and offspring, and only very briefly mentions that sex between different species has no offspring, and only in-passing indicates that sex between humans and animals has happened in the past. It does not give any indication of how frequently, and it does not say that it is "permitted". Also the passage of the Manusmrti appears to be saying that offspring have occurred with mating between human and animals, which puts the passage in the realms of legend rather than science. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Locked, can't make minor corrections

I'm pretty sure a better caption can be constructed than "A drawing from the 15th century sexual book in Iran, depicting the dog humping the woman" but I'm more than halfway through reading an article about dogs humping women, so what do I know. 24.118.120.223 (talk) 04:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

lol. i agree. hopefully the caption i came up with to replace that one'll survive the round of edits currently underway, but we'll see. i've had my fun editing here for a bit; time for me to step back and let others make whatever they will of it. disagreements notwithstanding, i really do assume good faith, and trust that at least a few real improvements i've made will be let stand here on their own. i'll get back around here later on. after all, there's no deadline here, and there are plenty of other less controversial articles for me to play around with editing until then.
cheers, ༺།།ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ།།འཚེར།།xeltifon།།སར་ཝ་མང་ག་ལམ།།༻  {say it}  {contribs} { ζ } 20:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Donkey Sex in Colombia

Not at all an expert or even remotely knowledgeable on this topic, but I just stumbled onto this hilarious/disturbing documentary and think it's pretty interesting as a cultural phenomenon. Seeing as I didn't find any mention of this or similar things in the article, I'll just leave here if anyone wants to incorporate it (specifically in the historical and cultural perspectives section and article, which make no mention of modern cultures). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonfaridere (talk • contribs) 20:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

YouTube generally does not count as a WP:Reliable source (though there are a few exceptions, such as using a clip from a news channel's official YouTube page to report what they are reporting, or using YouTube to source some aspects of a Wikipedia article about an Internet/YouTube celebrity; Chris Crocker, for example).
Also, remember to sign your user name when you comment. To sign your user name, all you have to do is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. As you can see above, a bot signed your user name in that instance. Flyer22 (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Sure, but that's not just any YouTube video, it's an journalistic piece by Vice magazine. I wouldn't really know how to assess the extent to which they are "well-established" as a source of information, but their documentaries tend to be well made and this one seems to be believable. They interview many people from the area who say donkey sex is a common practice in that area of Colombia, many more who admit to having taken part in it, and one man who has sex with a donkey on camera. That said, every single one of them could be a paid actor. I guess we'll have to wait for National Geographic to do a piece on this, lol.
Also, don't know why I didn't sign before, I must've forgotten about it. Nonfaridere (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
We have the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard to help assess how reliable, if reliable at all, a source is for whatever information. Flyer22 (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Images

I want to suggest the removal of the first graphic picture on this page because it is not work-safe and needs to have a warning to it. I think wikipedia is a platform to share knowledge with. There is a difference between knowing what is "zoophilia" and being exposed to graphic portrayals of it in pictures. Although those displayed on this page are considered as forms of "art" by some people, it does not justify it's display on this page because it does not explain the concept any better. I went to this page to seek information about the topic, not to be traumatized by these unwarranted graphic images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Wintermelon (talk • contribs) 06:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTCENSORED and related pages. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Let me get this straight: You're concerned that people might be looking up "zoophilia" at work and are traumatized by the photo? - SummerPhD (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Zoophilia among other animals, and animals having sex with humans

Are there any other species besides humans that have sex with non-members of their species, like say a moose with a cow? I don't think hybrids such as mules, donkeys, beeflo, hinny, wholphin, cama, counbecause even though they are sterile offspring, their parents would be of the same species, since they are able to successfully produce offspring. And is it still zoophilia if the animals intiate the sex with humans, like sometimes a dog will attempt to hump a human's leg? 66.189.38.183 (talk) 04:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

"Pig Sty"

This was the English title of an Italian(?) film about the sexual obsession of a male character with pigs. There seems to be no entry for the film that I can find, only an unrelated TV series. It was not a pornographic film and contained no explicit scenes (probably disappointing a proportion of its audience). It is as worthy of inclusion in the article as other references. 121.99.84.227 (talk) 04:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I would say "no" considering that you are not providing any details about the film and do not seem to have them.69.125.134.86 (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Studies

First, I can't believe I'm even looking at this article. A documentary led me here.

Second, after citing all of these stats saying that this sexual practice is more common for those who live among animals, the Extent section ends with:

"In addition, people who 'grew up in the country around animals were no more likely to become zoophiles than those who grew up in the city without them.'"

This comment is from a newspaper article, not a scientific study and it contradicts what had just been argued in the rest of this section. Can these last two sentences be put more in context as representing a contrary point of view? I think their placement at the end of the section will be the final information that lingers in the reader's mind, not all of the studies that were cited earlier.

Now on to more normal topics. :-( 69.125.134.86 (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

No one is objecting; you should go ahead and change it. Someone963852 (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I honestly wonder if such practices are common with those who are living along with the animals, on other hand, the people who live with animals probably respect them more. That can be a point too. OccultZone (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Exclusive zoophiles

The article can be quoted as saying, under the subheading "Perspectives on zoophilia", that "Exclusive desire for animals rather than humans is considered a rare paraphilia, and sufferers often have other paraphilias[33] with which they present." However, the scholarly article from which citation 33 recalls makes no reference to exclusive zoophiles, but only to zoophiles in general, and thus the information is misleading. I suggest that it be changed to "Exclusive desire for animals rather than humans is considered a rare paraphilia." without the addition of misleading text, or that the sentence be removed from the article altogether unless a proper citation can be found for the claim. Zoohope (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: I'm not understanding your point. You seem to be indicating that the source does not talk about exclusive zoophiles, then retaining the exclusive part of the existing text. The current text merely expands the thought that exclusive zoophiles are rare by saying that those individuals usually present multiple paraphilias. I'll see if I can find a copy of the book to verify, but it seems ok for now. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Exclusive zoophiles: a clarification

I apologise for my ambiguity. I should have said the following:

The article can be quoted as saying, under the subheading "Perspectives on zoophilia", that "Exclusive desire for animals rather than humans is considered a rare paraphilia, and sufferers often have other paraphilias[33] with which they present." However, the scholarly article from which citation 33 recalls [2] makes no reference to exclusive zoophiles, but only to zoophiles in general, and thus the information is misleading. I suggest that the sentence be removed from the article altogether unless a proper citation can be found for the claim.

Partly done: I have marked the source as needing verification. I have to assume that the original editor was acting in good faith and since you are challenging that, it is better to get a third set of eyes to settle the issue. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Paraphilia is not an activity

The definition in the beginning should be changed, paraphilias are sexuality traits that some people have, defined by the arousal to atypical objects or situations, not a sexual activity. I think the intetion was to show, that the term zoophilia is being used in different meanings, that it's often used for an activity. But than the definition should says, that it's used either for paraphilia or for sexual activity. Lunruj (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The Paraphilia makes clear with WP:Reliable sources that paraphilia may also refer to the sexual activity, and the Zoophilia article, past the lead, addresses the paraphilia and sexual activity distinction that is sometimes made with regard zoophilia. Flyer22 (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Islam and Zoophilia

Please correct the religious section with this article Sudan man forced to 'marry' goat and insert this hadith!

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: There is no prescribed punishment for one who has sexual intercourse with an animal.

— Sunan Abu Dawood, 38:4450

This is the correct position of Islam on this issue.--79.192.42.177 (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: We're just Wikipedia. We're not the BBC. We can't add stuff to their news article. Our page doesn't mention the article, so we can't do anything about it there. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2014

"Bestiosexuality" was discussed briefly by Allen (1979), but never became widely established. Not sure who Allen is Devicehandler (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

tagged it with a [citation needed] as the article has no source for this. Cannolis (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Redirect and hatnote

At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 5#Animal rape there is a discussion about whether the "Animal rape" redirect should point to this article, and, if it should, whether it should be mentioned in a hatnote. Please comment in the linked discussion rather than here to keep everything in one place. Thryduulf (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Coming soon movie


Please include Coming soon (2006) from director Sir Tijn Po to Film, television and radio - section.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0810806/

Movie is available to watch legal way on their website also.


Justhorses1 (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  23:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Zoophilia vs. bestiality

  • "Zoophilia is a paraphilia involving cross-species sexual activity between human and non-human animals or a fixation on such practice. "
    A paraphilia is, by definition, a sexual fixation (rather than a behavior). I assume this sentence was intended to say that zoophilia is either the fixation or the act. I feel we should defer to the DSM's definition and clearly distinguish zoophilia (paraphilia) from bestiality (act), because although some people use the words interchangeably, they are distinct phenomena.

KateWishing (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

This was addressed before; see Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 26#Paraphilia is not an activity; in that brief discussion, I pointed to the Paraphilia article, stating, "The Paraphilia makes clear with WP:Reliable sources that paraphilia may also refer to the sexual activity, and the Zoophilia article, past the lead, addresses the paraphilia and sexual activity distinction that is sometimes made with regard zoophilia." As the Zoophilia article makes clear, the terms are commonly used interchangeably, not only by the general public but by researchers. This is why, per WP:Content fork, these two terms should not be separate articles. Zoophilia will likely concern sexual activity with a non-human animal, so given that, and paraphilia referring to the sexual activity by some definitions (including the DSM-IV-TR definition), I don't see much of a problem (meaning a huge problem) with the previous sentence. But what you did with the lead and changed lower is better. It's certainly good that you added the WP:Alternative title to the lead; it was there before and I've been meaning to add it back. See toward the end of Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 25#Zoophilia as a sexual orientation. Flyer22 (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect claim in Arguments for zoophilia

In the section here, it claims that 'Defenders of zoophilia argue that "consent" is irrelevant because...' This can be conceived as a hasty generalization, and should be changed to, 'Some defenders of zoophilia argue that "consent" is irrelevant because...' in order to eliminate that ambiguity. Guywithcable (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; I changed the wording into something more NPOV. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 22:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Woodblock print by Kunisada

The woodblock print isn’t from a series but a book illustration; also a link to Nansō Satomi Hakkenden should be added. --Horst Gräbner (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Zoophilia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

R E L Masters

The article freely cites various of this author's works, none of which should be considered a reliable, scholarly source. A google search identifies no scholarly peer-reviews of his work; he's a pulp-writer, a self-styled sexologist with a penchant for lurid speculation, exaggeration and "beliefs" based on... quite what is hard to say. It might be worth mentioning here that Wikipedia has an article on his (sometime) co-author Allen Edwardes, whose work is described as "pseudo-scholarship". Haploidavey (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

In particular, an entire paragraph on the Roman Games is sourced to Masters; it concerns the use of beasts in elaborate, "mythologicaly based" capital punishments. It's replete with error and exaggeration. And it says nothing about Zoophilia. I'm removing it. Haploidavey (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly either way on the inclusion of the Masters text, but it definitely should not be presented as "history." It could fit in an "Other views" or "Theories" type of section if this article ever has one of those. For documentation here on this talk page, this is what Haploidavey removed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Then again, the section is called "Historical and cultural perspectives"; I suppose that the Masters text was included in that section because it's his perspective. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Zoophilia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Extent of occurrence

In the last paragraph of the above heading, the editor wrote :

"Zoophiles have been described as "occupying [many] different demographic categories: white, black, Asian, Mormon, Amish, Catholic, atheist, pagan, Jewish, male and female".
The source cited for this claim is: Thomas Francis (20 August 2009). "Those Who Practice Bestiality Say They're Part of the Next Sexual Rights Movement". New Times Broward-Palm Beach. p. 3. Retrieved 13 May 2012.

This is clearly wrong. The editor who wrote that is trying to give us the impression that some notable scholars have described this practice as occurring in the demographic categories above. That is not what the source/article said. The editor has practically regurgitated what Ron (a zoophile and one of the subjects of that article) said. Also, the subjects of the article are trying to get laws passed in order to legalise this practice. I am removing that content because that is clearly unreliable and simply a quote of someone who practice this. Here is a full transcript of that section:

"United States who also asked to speak under a pseudonym. Ron, as we'll call him, uses an internet connection and email that make it nearly impossible to track his IP address. Our interview occurred through Yahoo Messenger. Ron tells of a fantasy about horses when he was teenager, but acting it out seemed impossible to him. It remained that way through his teens and almost his 20s, "until the day I found by accident a porn site with pictures of men and women having intimacy with horses," Ron says. "I realized that it was possible, and I have not looked back since."
"In fact, he has an attraction to several animals — among them: dogs, horses, and goats. Raised a Southern Baptist, Ron says his first struggle was with bisexuality and that after some soul-searching, he ultimately decided that "God is more concerned with how we treat others than what sex we have."
"Both Ron and James interact with fellow zoophiles through websites, and neither has found patterns that typify the discovery of one's attractions nor commonalities in background or life experiences. James rattles off a long list of zoophiles he's known who occupy different demographic categories: "white, black, Asian, Mormon, Amish, Catholic, atheist, pagan, Jewish, male and female, and two who are legally blind." [3]

Senegambianamestudy (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing

Material recently added in good faith uses "Bestiality and Religion" as a source; the same source has been used in the article to replace other sources relevant to Religion and Zoophilia. It's published by academia.edu, which means, in effect, "self-published", with no oversight or peer review. Its claimed author - and I'm not convinced that the claim is genuine - a Dr. Richard Mateoli, has an MA degree in dentistry.[4]

The work is full of errors, and quite badly written. For example - "Aphrodite and Venus, where horticultural Pan and Priapus played a large factor in their bestial rituals also required castrated priests. Donkeys figured predominately in the Roman Bacchanalia. The Greek work of fiction The Golden Ass is of human transformation into a donkey with sexual encounters.[22]

Many goddesses were known as the Lady of the Beasts where nymphomania was cured. Women had snakes coil around their thighs and insert their heads vaginally. Also, including Crete, women went into a wooden cow to have bull intercourse. Hermaphroditus with Pan and Priapus shared psychosexual social functions."

This is definitely not a reliable source, and should be removed along with what it claims to support. Haploidavey (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Additions now reverted, along with list-type material on Bestiality in Islam - scholarly commentary on primary source would be preferable, as ever. Haploidavey (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I see what you reverted. I agree with that revert. That editor has also been an issue at the Zoophilia and the law article. And I also started a move discussion at Talk:Zoophile rights by country or territory#Move request: Change title to "Legality of bestiality by country or territory"? regarding an article that editor created. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Instances in Ancient Greece?

In the history part, only a bit about Ancient Rome and Middle East is mentioned. There are quite a few depiction of zoophilia in Ancient Greek literature including mythology, so maybe that can be added.

In general the mythic beasts are considered symbolic rather than literal. For example the Egyptian gods had animal forms, to consider this was intended to represent zoophila is a misconception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguyintobooks (talk • contribs) 14:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Its prevalence among those of European descent

I think a stand-alone article about its prevalence among those of European descent would be useful. I notice an editor mentioned Ancient Greece above, but I don't even have to go that far back - talking about right now. If not a stand-alone at least a section in this article. It seems to be on the rise among those of European descent. [5] [6] Senegambianamestudy (talk) 12:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Both sources you offer are published in countries whose inhabitants are of predominantly European descent; but neither of them offers any ethnic or "racial" statistics, or anything like a worldwide or comparative view of the topic. Neither says anything about prevalence, either past or present. I see nothing here to justify a separate article on Zoophilia's supposedly increasing "prevalence among those of European descent". We can't base articles on personal impressions. Haploidavey (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Just a further observation; at least some practising Zoophiles seem more prepared than before to openly dicuss their practices in open media; that's not evidence of a rise in the practice. Conversely, non-publication or censorship of such discussion doesn't indicate an absence of the practice. Haploidavey (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I have to disagree with you on that. Almost all the countries where this practice is legalised are predominantly white countries or with a huge community of European descent. Although that link is scewed, looking at the countries legality of it in detail sheds light on the matter - a good example being America. All the people advocating for its legalisation are predominantly if not exclusively white. To quote Overall, "Significantly, William and Weinberge also note that all 114 men in their study were white (2003, 525). As they observe, the zoophiles in Miletski's study were also "predominantly White" (532)" Pets and People: The Ethics of Companion Animals, edited by Christine Overall, p. 238, Oxford University Press (2017). Podberscek et al. citing Kinsey, Pomeroy and Martin notes that: "The famous Kinsey reports on the sexual behaviour of the American male and female also include data on sexual contacts with animals. Kinsey and his colleagues interviewed about 5300 adult, white men and 5800 adult, white women about their sexual experiences. Although the objectivity of the methods employed is sometime scrutinized, the studies provide important information. Kinsey and his colleagues found that in rural areas about 40% to 50% of the males had had at least one sexual encounter with an animal, and 17% had even experienced an orgasm as a result of sexual contact with animals during adolescence. Amongst all the American men in the study, however, the prevalence was much lower, about 8% (Kinsey, Pomeroy and Martin 1948)-still substantial number, though. With such a sensitive subject as bestiality, behaviours were probably under - rather than over-reported." They went on to write: "For the female population, Kinsey et al. (1953) found a prevalence rate of 3% for sexual contact with animals. The frequency of the contacts ranged from just one to several times a year to several times a week, and sometimes these contacts occurred over a period of several years or even a whole lifetime." "Bestiality and Zoophilia: Sexual Relations with Animals", editors: Anthony L. Podberscek, Andrea M. Beetz, p. 41, Berg (2005) I can go on for ever but for the purposes of copyright and time it let's not. It is not surprising therefore countries legalising or decriminalising this practice are all predominantly white countries or with a huge white community. Notable broadcasters like the BBC etc., have done countless documentaries on this subject, and almost all those engage in bestiality sex parties or practices are of white European descent. Here are some videos you may find useful, with white subjects talking about how they like to have sex with animals [7]. This one is on ABC 2 News [8]. There has been much academic study done by several scholars, some of whom I've named above. I think it would be useful to have a stand-alone article on this topic. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
If you can find RS specifically saying that bestiality is more common among people of European descent than among other groups, then it could be worth mentioning in this article. I hardly see enough for a separate article, though, unless there are a lot of sources and a lot to say about it.
Justin Kunimune (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Garbled

What does "The IPT was replaced after the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act in 1993, replaced with bodies designed to allow both more debate and increased consistency, and possession and supply of material that it is decided are objectionable was made a criminal offence." And what is IPT? 31.48.245.88 (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Miscegenation as zoophilia

Historically, miscegenation was considered to be a form of zoophilia by polygenists and others who did not consider other races (such as blacks) to be human. This should be mentioned in the article; a good source would be [9]. White supremacists still make this claim today, by the way. 63.231.141.132 (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Please update this article (edit request)

In the section "Legal status" it is stated "Countries such as Belgium and Sweden are somewhere in between: they permit sexual activity with animals, but prohibit the promotion of animal-oriented pornography.[69]

 Done: removed

This is outdated: Sweden banned it in 2014 [10]. In Belgium it also appears to be illegal; according to this BBC article from 2015 "Hungary, Finland and Romania are now the only EU countries where bestiality, or zoophilia, is legal." [11]

 Done: See above. Added sentence specific to Hungary, Finland, & Romania.

In the subsection "Pornography" the phrase "Material featuring sex with animals is widely available on the Internet, due to their ease of production, and because production and sale is legal in countries such as Denmark", must be removed because zoophilia was banned in 2015 in Denmark, as stated above.[12]

 Done: Removed ", and because production and sale is legal in countries such as Denmark", left {{cn}} template.

Also the claim (in the same subsection) that "Today, in Hungary, where production faces no legal limitations[...]" is a very strong one, and it really needs sourcing. While zoophilia remains legal in Hungary, a claim the zoophilic porn production has "no limits" is vague and quite sensational, and must be sourced.

 Not done Please see if you can find a source. I am moving onto other tasks. Peaceray (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

188.27.67.44 (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Under the legal status section there is an ambiguous sentence " In Canada, a clarification of the anti-bestiality law was made in 2016 which legalizes most forms of sexual contact with animals other than penetration.[82] Canada revised the law in 2019. Now All sexual acts with animals now illegal in Canada with new bestiality law. [1] Shiloh6555 (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Zoophilia and the law

Killarnee keeps reverting my edits. I have provided citations https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-84/royal-assent#ID0EZC https://www.thompsoncitizen.net/all-sexual-acts-with-animals-now-illegal-in-canada-with-new-bestiality-law-1.23862878 It is you who is performing disruptive editing. Cease or you will be reported. Shiloh6555 (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

___

References

  1. ^ https://www.vancourier.com/all-sexual-acts-with-animals-now-illegal-in-canada-with-new-bestiality-law-1.23862878

Remove redundant qualifier

The opening sentence should be edited to remove the redundant "non-human" qualifier. The way it currently reads is akward. 80.184.230.143 (talk) 03:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Humans are animals as well. Because of this, as seen at WP:MEDSECTIONS, we use "Other animals" instead of simply "Animals" for headings in our medical articles. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Imprecise dates

Quote: “Rosenberger (1968) emphasizes that as far as cunnilingus is concerned, dogs require no training [...]” - Actually, this is mentioned by Havelock Ellis as early as 1927: “There can be no difficulty in believing that, so far as cunnilinctus is concerned dogs would require no training.” - http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13614/13614-h/13614-h.htm --176.72.29.131 (talk) 02:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The article states that the word 'bestiality' has three pronunciations.

First, I'm not really sure that there is such a distinction between American and British pronunciation of the '-ti-'; I think the ti sound is common in the US, and tʃi would be possible in the UK.

Second, if it can be established that such a distinction actually exists, I'm not sure it would qualify as an actual pronunciation difference rather than a mere subtlety of accent.

Third, bistiˈæləti is in fact a mispronunciation, often accompanied by a misspelling ('beastiality') which is common throughout the Anglosphere and should be noted as such. 2A01:CB04:326:AC00:3DCF:A13C:4A85:ACEF (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Article title

Given that this article discusses both zoophilia ("a sexual fixation on non-human animals") and bestiality ("cross-species sexual activity between humans and non-human animals"), shouldn't the title reflect this? A change to either 'Zoophilia and bestiality' or 'Bestiality and zoophilia' might seem appropriate. The advice offered in Wikipedia:Article titles regarding "closely related or complementary concepts" seems relevant here.. The topic is both the act, and the motivation for it, and they clearly need to be discussed together. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Supposed legality of bestiality in the EU

The article currently contains the following text:

The only EU countries where zoophilia remains legal are Finland, Hungary, and Romania. It is also legal in Malta but not desired to remain so."

For the first statement, a BBC article from 2015 is cited, which states that "Hungary, Finland and Romania are now the only EU countries where bestiality, or zoophilia, is legal" [13] For the second, an article in the English-language 'Lovin Malta' website is cited, which, if it is correct, seems to indicate that bestiality not causing injury to the animal concerned is not (or was not, when the article was written in September 2020) expressly illegal under Maltese law. [14] Since Malta has been a member of the EU since 2004 both statements cannot possibly be true. I will offer no opinion as to which, if any source is correct, since I am in no way qualified to do so, but will instead suggest that since the sources contradict each other, and since they are in any case, hardly suitable sources for current legal status in a context where legislation has undergone revision in so many countries worldwide in recent years, neither source should be cited, and Wikipedia should not be making such sweeping assertions about the current situation without much better sources.

Unless someone can come up with better sources, or an explanation as to why Wikipedia should contain such self-evidently contradictory statements, I shall be removing the content in the next few days. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Since nobody has responded, I've now removed both statements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
There's a shortcut for that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Cite error

Someone needs to add {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} or {{notelist}} to a Notes section. There's a bloody great big error message at the bottom of the page. 92.5.2.97 (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I tried the first one,and the error message is now gone. I don't have a clue what it actually does but I guess that worked? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Someone created a note, but didn't then create the notelist, it's the same as if you create references but not a reference list. If you look right at the bottom of the references there's now a note "a". Thanks for fixing. 92.5.2.97 (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Canada Legal status addition

I didn't see Canada mentioned in the legal status section. Can an editor please add that Canada made bestiality illegal in 2016. https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/animals/beastiality-laws-animal-sexual-acts-illegal-canada-1944245 Shiloh6555 (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

It would seem reasonable enough, given how the section on legal status, to add content on Canada, as suggested. I'm a little doubtful though as to whether this section is structured is actually the best way of discussing this particular aspect of the subject, given that we are unlikely to be able to find definitive sources for many legislations. This will leave the section both incomplete and liable to mislead readers into assuming that where laws aren't explicitly mentioned, the practice might be legal. This probably needs further thought though, so if someone wants to add Canada for now, I won't object. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Zoosadism into Zoophilia. Zoosadism is ultimately a subset of zoophilia that specifically derives pleasure from the torture of animals, and I don't exactly see what it deserves its own page when it could be covered under a header on this page. All the information on zoosadism provided could easily be slotted here Paragon Deku (talk) 06:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose, I see no evidence (sources) for the claim that zoosadism is necessarily sexual, or that equate zoosadism and zoophilia. Crossroads -talk- 05:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I agree that the other article is brief enough for merger, I don't agree that it is essentially the same topic. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Zoophilia and zoosadism are not ultimately the same topic.
晚安 14:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

'Debate over zoophilia or zoophilic relations' section.

To my mind, the way this section is structured is utterly bizarre. Clearly there is debate over the extent to which zoophilia (being sexually attracted to animals) can be considered just another example of human diversity in regards to sexuality, and another, closely related, debate over whether bestiality (cross-species sexual activity) is morally acceptable and/or should be subject to legislation outlawing the practice. This isn't however a 'for/against bestiality' debate. It is a debate about whether people who wish (or perhaps feel compelled) to carry out certain acts should be permitted to do so. They aren't (at least as far as I'm aware) suggesting that people who aren't zoophiles should also participate. They aren't therefore arguing 'for' bestiality. They are arguing that they should be permitted to practise it.

Beyond this bizarre use of subsection header use, there appears to me to be a fundamental problem in the manner that the 'two sides' of the debate are presented independently. It appears to me to be at best, an attempt to achieve 'balance', though I have to suggest that in practice it has led to the 'for' section being used to present arguments in a decontextualised manner, through cherry-picking of sources, and through the use of subject matter not actually directly discussing the subject to present 'evidence' for that side of the debate. As an example consider the statement that "[r]esearch has proven that non-human animals can and do have sex for non-reproductive purposes (and for pleasure)". This is undoubtedly true. It is however a complete non-sequitur, since it has no bearing on the question at hand.

I suspect one of the sources apparently cherry-picked for that section (Maratea, R. J. (2011). "Screwing the Pooch: Legitimizing Accounts in a Zoophilia On-line Community") [15] may provide a clue as to what has been going on here, judging from the abstract. I should clearly read the full article, but the Wikipedia subsection to me reads more than a little like the attempts to "justify their actions through the production of neutralizing accounts" that Maratea seems to be documenting.

Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of causes, good or otherwise. Any content regarding a 'debate' needs to be based on what reliable sources directly discussing the subject at hand have to say, and not on random arguments pulled from nowhere by Wikipedia contributors. And such content should be presented for what it actually says, rather than reductionist evidence 'for' or 'against'. This is a complex question, and not one best served by pretending it isn't. There are more than two possible perspectives on the issues discussed, and pretending otherwise does a disservice to readers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I just cut a bunch of garbage from the 'arguments for' section, including the non-sequitur you mention. Yes, there is not a doubt in my mind that zoophiles have in the past edited this article tendentiously to legitimize their behavior. The same thing used to happen with pedophilia before WP:CHILDPROTECT and some ArbCom blocks gradually mostly ended that. This edit, for example, cut a source that was an unpublished paper by a guy who, if you google his name, you'll find he's been arrested for bestiality, unsurprisingly. I also tagged the subsection for now so other editors can look at the sources or make other changes as they see fit. A closer look at the rest of the article is definitely warranted by anyone so inclined. Crossroads -talk- 04:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Further to my comments above, there is clearly also an issue with the way Peter Singer is cherry-picked, and represented as someone who is arguing 'for bestiality'. In the article cited for Singer's views, [16] he certainly appears to be arguing that bestiality need not always involve cruelty, and that it may sometimes be mutually pleasurable, but neither statement is an argument in favour of the practice. In the same article, Singer writes that evidence that other species may on occasion attempt to copulate with humans "...does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural, whatever those much-misused words may mean..." Singer isn't arguing 'for' bestiality, or 'against' it. He is describing sociocultural reactions to it, and to some extent at least suggesting that they are based on false premises. Nowhere in the article cited however does Singer make any direct statement regarding his own views on the legality of such activities. Other people have clearly been taking Singer's views and using them to support a pro-bestiality position, but he can't be cited for that. In my opinion, representing him as a 'supporter' of bestiality on the basis of what he wrote in the article cited may even constitute a violation of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

As you have pointed out previously "This isn't however a 'for/against bestiality' debate. It is a debate about whether people who wish [...] to carry out certain acts should be permitted to do so.". In his article Singer analyzes the discourse around Bestiality and finding that the taboo stems from a very anthropocentric point of view and when talking about Otto Soyka he seems to voice approval and even asking the question of weather some clearly abusive acts of bestiality are really any worse than what is (legally) done to animals (in this case chickens) on a daily basis. While he's not arguing "for" bestiality (whatever that even means) he's clearly arguing that the taboo / laws against it are unfounded.KuchenHunde (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not base content on what advocates of a particular PoV wish to claim a source is 'clearly arguing'. If Singer wants to state a position on the legality of bestiality, he can do so. Until then, Wikipedia will not (cannot, under WP:BLP policy) interpret his words to imply he has taken a position he hasn't. This is not open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Given the WP:BLP concerns, and the complete lack of cited evidence that Singer 'supports' bestiality, I have now removed the relevant content. I would very strongly advise anyone against restoring it without prior consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry, what? Just google "peter singer bestiality" and you'll find plenty of sources talking about his argument that Bestiality is only wrong if it involves cruelty towards an animal. And no they're not PoV as plenty of them argue against his view of moral permissibly.
"QUARTZ".: "Bestiality that involves cruelty to animals is immoral, but perfectly ok where it involves “mutually satisfying activities.”"
"the Conversation".: "Professor Peter Singer, the renowned Australian philosopher at Princeton University, believes that the taboo on bestiality is an anomaly, a prohibition that will crumble like all the others"
"currentaffairs".:"Singer is also offering a variation on his own prior arguments in favor of bestiality, which work because Singer believes disabled people and animals are the same for purposes of ethical analysis"
Even some stuff puplished by "Springer".:"This essay confronts PeterSinger's (2001a) controversial suggestion that human-animal sexual relations should betolerated if they do not involve cruelty"
It's pretty clear that this isn't just some zoophiles interpretation but the main thing people take away from his book review "Heavy petting" KuchenHunde (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I asked for evidence that Singer 'supports' bestiality. Other people commenting on his (clearly controversial) opinions regarding the matter aren't evidence for that. You need to find a source where he states that he supports it. Or at least, you would if 'supporting it' actually made any sense. The entire section is based on a ridiculous premise, and doesn't belong in the article. Singer's views on the topic may be relevant to a discussion, but it is simply a falsehood to claim that what he wrote in the book review is evidence that he has 'argued for' bestiality. He may have argued for tolerance, and against legal prohibitions (though neither is really stated explicitly), but that is another thing entirely. And any discussion of Singer's views would clearly also require balancing commentary from his numerous critics. Which the ridiculous structure of the present section quite conveniently makes difficult. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I just rewrote this part to alleviate your WP:BLP concerns and and marked the one argument for prohibiting bestiality that references and disagrees with Singer as such to, at least somewhat, address your concern about adding some of his critics (thou so far I haven't seen an argument against him than doesn't boil down to "animals can't consent" or the very same human exceptionalism singer talks about in his review)KuchenHunde (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
That you yourself apparently don't think arguments against Singer are valid is no reason whatsoever to exclude them. Even if your revisions now more accurately reflect what Singer wrote than the previous version (which is probably true, though I still think Singer is being cherry-picked), it doesn't alter the fact that the whole section is based on an entirely false premise: that there is a 'debate' over 'zoophilic relations/bestiality which involves nothing beyond two sides arguing over whether specific practices should be illegal or not. This is of course a reflection of the way the debate was misrepresented if the now-deleted largely fictitious 'Legality of bestiality by country or territory' Wikipedia article, which (amongst its many other failings) managed to suggest that bestiality in Russia was legal. From what I have been to figure out (actual English-language sources are rare) the statement is possibly 'true' in a literal sense, in that people caught having sex with animals in Russia seem not to be charged with any specific criminal offense of bestiality. They are instead apparently liable to be either charged with animal cruelty, or confined to a mental health facility, on the basis that such acts are evidence of mental illness. The debate isn't just about whether specific acts should be 'legal', but about how society should appropriately react when confronted with behaviour that has for so long, in so many different contexts, been seen as taboo. Acts which even Singer characterises as not "normal, or natural, whatever those misused words may mean..." Though I have to suggest that there really isn't much of a debate at all, since the overwhelming trend, as far as legislation goes, seems to be to prohibit such acts, and beyond the 'zoophile community', there has been little opposition to such legislation at all. It is a misrepresentation to present this as some sort of abstract 'debate' over legislation. And to represent Singer's comments in a book review written 20 years ago as evidence that even he considers it a matter of any great significance. He doesn't appear to have written on the topic since (if he had, I suspect his many critics would have drawn attention to it), and if his arguments are the best evidence for 'support' from beyond those wishing to engage in such practices, this can really only be seen as evidence for how little real support there is. Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of fringe perspectives, and misrepresenting the views of a tiny self-motivated minority as one side of a balanced 'debate' is both dishonest, and a disservice to Wikipedia's readers, who deserve better than the blatant spin and outright falsehoods that they have previously been presented with. Those who wish to advocate legalisation of bestiality will have to do so elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
On further consideration, I have a simple question which I thinks deserves answering: if there is actually a 'debate over zoophilia or zoophilic relations', where is this debate taking place? The section seems to suggest that there is extensive ongoing discussion of the topic, but doesn't actually present any citations to support this. Instead, it presents arguments that contributors themselves seem to think represent 'for' and 'against' arguments. Which might well lead one to the conclusion that the only place a 'debate' of any significance is actually occurring is in the Wikipedia article itself. And if that is the case, the only appropriate course of action is to remove the section entirely. Wikipedia describes itself as an encyclopaedia, not a debating society. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Hmm you might be right that "debate" is the wrong title and perhaps should be changed to "discourse" or another synonymous term. I do however believe that the common reactions of rejection to the topic and the ways people justify this positions as well as deconstructions of these justification and the moral taboo surrounding bestiality are an important part of maintaining WP:NPOV. As an example of this discourse taking place I just read an interesting "essay". by an Israeli researcher taking a closer look at the reaction to the subject in Israel and applying a similar deconstruction of these reactions as peter singer did in his book review.
P.s. I never meant to imply "arguments against Singer" should be excluded but merely meant to point out that both types of arguments I've so far seen used to oppose singer were already present. KuchenHunde (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
My issue isn't just with the section title. It is the way the section gives the appearance of being used as a platform by proponents. And since you cite WP:NPOV, I have to suggest you take note of what the section on WP:WEIGHT has to say about giving undue prominence to fringe viewpoints.
There clearly is discourse over zoophilia and bestiality, both within academia and with regards to legislative aspects, and to some extend elsewhere: e.g. when the mass media cover the subject (though they rarely seem to, and when they do, it adds generally little of substance). Such discourse can however quite adequately be covered in the relevant sections of the article without any need for Wikipedia to itself provide a platform for further 'discourse' in a separate section. The section needs to go, since it either decontextualises content that if it belongs anywhere could be better placed and responded to (e.g. so those who have criticised Singer's position can be discussed), or simply duplicates material already presented. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I completely agree and have removed the section. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Animal porn ban in Germany

You may want to cite the law that bans animal porn in Germany in the article, section 184a criminal law: https://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/184a.html --2A02:908:1460:CF80:D525:1DD9:31E3:19D6 (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2021

A study from The Journal of Sexual Medicine linked bestiality to penile cancer. Sex with animals was found to be a risk factor for penile cancer and may be associated with venereal diseases. https://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/article/S1743-6095(15)34027-3/fulltext Samueljnieves (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Further to this, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Wikipedia generally avoids using primary-source medical research as source material for articles. Well-sourced systematic reviews are generally better suited, being likely to give a broader perspective. Citing a single article on a specific risk factor might give a misleading impression regarding other possible risks not discussed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Troll claim

"and Swedish[citation needed] female models" is clearly a troll insertion in the section about Japanese pornography. Just reduce to "models", please. -- 84.188.174.182 (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Done, though I'll note that much of the section on pornography is unsourced, and should probably be removed entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Opinion on Faunoiphilia

I feel like Faunoiphilia should be separated from zoophilia, because it's not the animals that your attracted to, it's the animals mating. Furthermore faunoiphilia involves no beastiality or intercourse with a human 174.235.210.254 (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

There appears to be all of one sentence n he subject in this article, so I'm not seeing a good case for splitting it off. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

stereotypes category

It's not nonsense, it's a common stereotype that white women have sex with dogs. The stereotype is probably just a stereotype so in that regard yeah, nonsense, but it IS a well known stereotype. Pythiaesque (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Add offensive unsourced crap like that again, and I will report the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Andythegrumps removals

The note at the top says the lede is too short and all my sources were from top publishers you are removing information without any valid reason. Foorgood (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I have perfectly good reasons for removing the material. For a start, your first two sentences (In religion, the Bible explicitly prohibits bestiality. Some tribes in Africa, India and China tolerated bestiality to some extent) are poorly sourced, hopelessly vague, making a dubious comparison, and frankly obnoxious, for reasons which should be obvious.
The third sentence (Examples of accusations of bestiality include the trials of Thomas Weir and John Atherton) violates WP:LEDE, since neither Weir nor Atherton are discussed in the article body, seem to have been cherry-picked for no obvious reason, and are questionable examples of anything beyond the tendency of 17th-century British persecutions of those who fall from favour to include random accusations of bestiality along with witchcraft etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
And please read Wikipedia:Citing sources. A Google Books search result URL is not a proper citation to anything. We need authors, titles, publishers, publication dates, and pages. Not an URL that returns whatever Google thinks is appropriate at the time - the same result can later return entirely different results, or nothing at all, making verification impossible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I provided top sources for the two accusations and they are also mentioned on their own Wikipedia articles so you are obviously removing them simply because you don't like their mention.Foorgood (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
The only thing that seems obvious here is that you have very little grasp of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, or of how to write encyclopaedic content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
There are plenty of sentences throughout the article that are unsourced.Foorgood (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
The article needs improvement, certainly. Your edits were not an improvement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2022

Change "buggery" to "sodomy". Unless the article is primarily written in British English, then I think "sodomy" is more clear and unambiguous. 122.60.234.33 (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thank you Peaceray (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Remove Aggrawal's classification of Zoophilia

Aggrawal's paper speculating these categories is based on practically nothing, except a 2009 paper he wrote to classify necrophilia. He provides examples of case studies for individuals who fall into some of the categories but provides no evidence of individuals who fall into other categories. Despite claiming multiple times that the classification system is "mathematical" or even that "no classification [of zoophilia] is as mathematical and as precise as the current one", there is, literally speaking, no math involved. The paper is entirely speculative. Recently, a 2022 paper Measurement and Correlates of Zoophilic Interest in an Online Community Sample by Zidenberg & Olver attempted to classify zoophiles according to their responses to a survey. They said:

"The present data corroborate the claim that a heterogeneous phenomenon such as zoophilic interest will likely profit from a multidimensional description as we have proposed. Likewise, it is unlikely that a hypothetical 10-prototype categorical classification system (obviously construed along a forensic severity dimension) such as that proposed by Aggrawal (2011) will be empirically supported in community samples."

The Wikipedia article presents the classification system as purely categorical, but really the categories are laid out as being on a spectrum and Aggrawal posits that clinical treatment should be given according to an individual's place in this spectrum, which is very strange considering that zoophilic interest (ranging from individuals who claim to be romantically attracted to animals, to voyeurs, to those who gain pleasure from physically harming animals) simply does not lay on a linear spectrum like this. I don't think his classification system should be included here at all. CusCoze (talk) 06:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

About legal status of beastiality

I looked up on Google about what places are legal for beastiality, and it turns out there are actually four states, Hawaii, Wyoming, west Virginia and New Mexico have no laws for the act as of June 2021 174.215.241.185 (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Kinsey report

Although we've already had the same discussion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_zoophilia#Kinsey_report, I am restarting here before we move to dispute noticeboard. Here Kinseys reports with figures are already mentioned as well as the criticism of it. I am simply adding a Bloomsbury book source that states "Although the research indicated that about eight million US citizens had engaged in zoophilia, this can only be a mere fraction of the actual number": https://www.google.com/search?q=eith+million+zoophiles+america&client=ms-android-uscellular-us-revc&biw=360&bih=627&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ALiCzsaxHXEun1PvyF6Fvtr6IRouZQ1g1w%3A1669849634728&ei=IuKHY9mDLMKmptQPqMWz8AI&oq=eith+million+zoophiles+america&gs_lcp=Cg9tb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXNlcnAQA1C3BljVDGCVDmgAcAB4AIAB8gGIAdcLkgEFMC41LjOYAQCgAQGqARltb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwLW1vZGVzwAEB&sclient=mobile-gws-serp Foorgood (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

And have you bothered to do a little research on the subject before insisting that this particular (rather uninformative) number merits inclusion? I rather doubt it, given your bizarrely assertive recent claim that the Kinsey Report is "still considered to be trustworthy". [17] This is far from the case, and anyway a raw figure tells readers little, since few readers would be expected to know when Kinsey's research was carried out, or what the U.S. population was at the time. The percentage figure (as a disputed estimate) is informative, and meaningful. Raw numbers really aren't. Not without some indication of what they are a proportion of. The source we cite already is perfectly adequate (better than the new one), and citing a second source (which you seem rather keen to include, though quite why, you have yet to explain) achieves nothing of any merit.
Furthermore, I'd prefer it if you didn't attempt to pre-empt a proper discussion by suggesting this is going to go (back) to dispute resolution. Other people may wish to comment, and it it is entirely possible we can collectively resolve the matter here. I for one would rather wait to see what other people have to say, both on the merits of the source you cite, and on the proposed new text. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
The total amount is equally noteworthy. You don't get to exclude it just because your opinion is that percentages are "more meaningful".Foorgood (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Like I said, I'd rather wait to see what other people have to say. How about you do the same? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Ok but please don't canvas and neither will i. Foorgood (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
For some reason in sexology some people are eager to cite 70-year-old research as authoritative. No, we should be citing recent research, per WP:RS AGE. Crossroads -talk- 06:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. And prior to my recent edits [18] the article failed to give any date for Kinsey at all. Not just citing 70-year-old research, but giving readers the impression that it was more recent. Most likely unintentional, but this sort of thing is common on Wikipedia, where many contributors (not just Foorgood above) are more keen to add material to an article than to actually look at the article as a whole, as something a reader new to the subject will be expected to understand. There is a lot more to writing good content than finding stuff on Google, and shoe-horning it into whatever article it might vaguely fit. When writing on subjects as significant as this, our readers deserve better. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Crossroads, so youre saying it's not allowed to add one piece of data to a sentence that already discusses that data in this article? Foorgood (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
The data' in question is an estimate. From seventy-year-old research that has been the subject of much debate since. Why is it so important that the result of multiplying Kinsey's percentage estimate by the then U.S. population (which I assume is how the number was arrived at - Kinsey certainly didn't interview eight million zoophiles) should be included in the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Beastforum membership

After andythegrump blocked any addition of data from the Kinsey Report, I have found newer information which is from Barry Londeree of The Humane Society in support of Curt McCormack's legislation, the pdf is written by Londeree not Mccormack. I provided a secondary source from the Bluegrass Animal Welfare Advocacy Group which he also reverted. It is now obvious he is simply blocking all information except what he allows. Foorgood (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I have no intention to responding to anything which isn't a direct explanation as to why Wikipedia should be citing Curtis McCormack's submission to the Vermont House of Representatives as a reliable source regarding membership of an internet forum. As far as I'm aware 'a politician said it' isn't listed in WP:RS as an infallible indicator of reliability.
As for the second source, It is from an advocacy group, and doesn't actually support the edit, since it states that the forum 'claimed' a membership of over a million. Not that it actually had one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Since you have no intention of realizing it is a written testimony by Barry Londeree who is a director of The Humane Society that Curt simply used to enact bestiality legislation, this will indeed go to dispute resolution.Foorgood (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
That would seem unwise, given what happened last time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Yup you have already exclaimed you have no intention to accept a source from a director of the Humane Society and a secondary source so you are simply blocking an improvement because you feel like itFoorgood (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Read WP:BRD. 'Discuss'. Which requires actually waiting for responses before running off to dispute resolution. Responses, plural. Other people may wish to comment. In fact I would very much appreciate it if they do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Not seeing that this is WP:DUE; not only is the "claimed" part highly relevant, but of course a random internet forum advocating for this sort of thing would be incentivized to claim high numbers. Stick to mainstream academic estimates please, namely secondary sources that can evaluate the quality of any estimate. Crossroads -talk- 00:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

"Human goat sexual intercourse" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect Human goat sexual intercourse and it has been listed for discussion. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 10 § Human goat sexual intercourse until a consensus is reached. Liz Read! Talk! 04:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoophilia/Archive_26&oldid=1182262136"