Talk:Zoophilia and the law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Sexuality  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Pornography (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disclaimer message[edit]

Why do we need it? Shouldn't we just remove it? Skinnyweed 20:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's an article that is claiming to list laws in an obscure area of the law where people might reasonably and foreseeably rely upon it. Even though thers a general disclaimer if they look at the "about" page, it's appropriate for this article to have a disclaimer. if an article on "laws about X activity" shouldn't have a disclaimer, what article should. It doesn't hurt, and legal obligation isn't the issue, informing others clearly on information is. The material in the disclaimer is information for readers. FT2 (Talk) 20:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Tone of article[edit]

The article doesn't read currently like an encyclopedia article. It sometimes has a conversational tone, for example. Some parts lack citations. Andjam 12:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The tone of the article is far from impartial; it is actively promoting bestiality by suggesting that those who oppose it are either brainwashed by religion or by antiquated cultural attitudes. Furthermore, it implies that truly enlightened psychologists and other professionals accept and even endorse such behavior. The rights of the animal are rationalized away or ignored. The arguments presented are unpleasantly similar to those of other groups who promote abusive or exploitative sexual practices, such as NAMBLA. I think that if the page is allowed to remain, some kind of comment about its lack of objectivity should be included. (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This is wikipedia - you can edit the article where incorrect / unbiased or point of specifics if you disagree with them. BabyNuke (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
What 'rights of the animal' are you referring to? In the vast majority of nations, animals have no rights. Depending on your definition of 'abuse' you can say that animals that are *not* treated sexually are abused, because they are denied the pleasures of orgasm. Abuse is a provocative word, and is thus an Appeal To Emotion. If you can not explain your position without resorting to logical fallacies then your view is highly questionable at best. And if you cannot find citations to support your case then your views do not belong on the article pages of wikipedia.ANTIcarrot (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV and content[edit]

The tone and content are severely biased, so much so that editing would not be sufficent to correct it, most notably in the section "Impact of anti-zoosexuality laws" which contains whole passages of POV,and orginal research. The "impact of the law" is all centrered on the "suffering" of the Zooaphilicas rather than any other impact of the law, or lack of it. Points 1 to 4 are strongly POV and without citation. Point 1 states that a law creates fear and ignorance. ? A law can or cannot create fear according to an individuals reaction/ belief to it. Also the citated similarity with UK section 28 law is unfounded. Point 2. What statistics support an increase/decrease in zoosexuals reporting animal abuse?Also Anyone who breaks a law is vunerable to blackmail, and again what evidence of the proportion of "human ex-partners" taking advantage of the law? Also the term "human ex-parnter gives the impression that a partner could also be not human. I could continue but this wole section is biased and needs a cmplete overhaul/ deletion.Truedat2000 (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

OK,here are some points that aren't considered in the article. I don't have sources for this, but as reasonable as thy seem there ought to be some if someone does more research. Obviously having sex with a trained animal such as a horse would damage the training and reduce the value of the animal for work. It could even make a stallion very dangerous, as it might try to mount people etc. Also, animals that are raised for food would become much less valuable and appetizing were they used for sex prior to slaughter. Do you want to eat food contaminated with human pathogens? Or how about just the ick factor? If it is known to be allowed, couldn't it damage the meat industry? How about the potential for spread of disease? None of thses are considered, along with the very real possibility of injury to humans by attempting sex with animals. In the Wisconsin case cited in the article, the young man shoots someone's horse so he can have "sex" with it. It seems bestiality is a particular motive in that case for criminal damage to property. The absence of these obvious points contributes to article bias.Brechbill123 (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Bias is not as such against wiki policies. It is not 'bias' to say that the KKK was an evil organisation. For the article to be biased in the way you mean it must deliberately ignore or repress all citable sources stating the alternative point of view. The problem in this case is that there are no citable opposing views giving legitimate moral or scientific reasons that would contradict this list. Individuals saying, "It should be wrong because I want it to be wrong," and laws saying that it is wrong but without giving a reason do not count here, as this section is about reasons.
  • I also point out that citations are only needed ONCE in an article. Citations 3, 13, 14, and 15 (and others) all support the statements here. Yes it is preferably that the citations appear at the first introduction of a concept, but given the nature of wikipedia edits, that is not always possible. If you wish to change the location of the citations or double up by placing them here as well, you are welcome to.
  • You might be correct that this section contains original research. But the only way a layperson such as yourself can determine that is by reading up on the official research in this area. I suggest you do so before throwing such claims about. You have a point though that the article focuses uniquely on the humans. But to change that to examine the impact on animals in non-abusive relationships woudl be origonal research on my part, wouldn't it? Still, point 5 added.

Lastly if you really think that laws cannot create or enhance discrimination then you really need to read up on the Nuremberg Laws.ANTIcarrot (talk) 12:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

World map[edit]


I've made a world map showing, to the best of my knowledge, where it is and isn't legal. Might add to the article? Green indicating legal, blue indicating the act is legal however pornography featuring bestiality is not, yellow indicating that the appropriate laws in this country vary at state or regional level and finally red indicating that bestiality is illegal both in practice and pornography. I stress that I can and will not garuantee its accuracy nor will it ever be complete. It should only serve as an indication.

Sources for countries not listed in the article yet:

  • South Africa: illegal (source: [1], "Bestiality is a criminal offence. Charges can be laid under the Criminal Procedure Act and also in terms of the Animals Protection Act.")
  • India: Homosexuality in India article, India seems to have a sort of crime against nature law (confirmed it seems: "Sec 377 remains ambiguous about which sexual acts it seeks to prescribe. For some reason, sodomy between males and male and female and bestiality has been considered 'carnal intercourse' against the order of nature." [2])
  • Switzerland: bestiality seems legal (source: [3]. Listed blue as I'm not entirely sure if pornography is as well)

The following found on interpol website: ( [4] , search term bestiality)

  • Trinidad and Tobago: illegal (source: Sexual Offences Act N° 27 of 1986 as amended by Sexual Offences Act N° 31 of 2000)
  • Latvia: pornography illegal (source: Latvian law Article 166, section 1 and 2. Seems to apply only to import, distribution and production and advertising, possesion could be legal)
  • Finland: pornography illegal (source: Finnish law, article 18 section 17)

Note that Greenland uses the Danish legal system. Because of this, bestiality should be legal as well there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BabyNuke (talkcontribs)

What about this link?
"In Mexico, Colombia, Brazil and many other Latin American countries, scandalous sex "education" programs which parallel those of the U.S. and even surpass them, are unabashedly teaching children that sexual aberrations such as homosexual activity and even bestiality are viable, normal options of sexual expression. In fact, masturbation and bestiality are being proposed as "safe sex" alternatives."
Published at least recently (1998 onwards) from the dates on citations. (but comes from an extremist text, may not be a representation of the law)
Its also legal in Cambodia, there was a case there [5] FT2, partly legal in lebanon, oman, iran and thailand [6] (accurate or dubious?)
Note that in Canada and the UK, the act is illegal but the pornography is *legal*. So all 4 combinations are needed. Maybe a color for legality of the act, and some kind of hatching or such to indicate illegality of porn? Or is it better to have 2 separate maps -- for the act, and for the pornography -- and use a color on the former to mean "legal with restrictions" (eg legal for men, not women, or some castes or circumstances not others)?
(Talk) 02:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Map updated. To my knowledge, a law was recently passed in the UK which bans several kinds of pornography, including bestiality. BabyNuke 19:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Incorrect. A law is being examined. They haven't even published the responses to the initial proposal yet, let alone drafted a law. FT2 (Talk) 21:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 bans sex with animals but it doesn't mention pornography. Skinnyweed 21:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, can we have 2 maps? One for the act (which may be legal / illegal / legal in some circumstances / varies by state), and one for the pornography (which may be legal / illegal to distribute / illegal). That way the porn map can be used separately on the porn article, and on this one you have one map in each section. Plus it stops it being confusing as there are more combinations when porn + act are on one map. I've copied your work (which is excellent) to try and do this:

legality of the act - legal, illegal, varies by state, legal in some circumstances
legality of the porn - legal, illegal, may be illegal to distribute

I hope you don't mind me having a go – I thought a map was a good idea, but the actual laws are maybe best shown on 2 maps, not one. And maybe you can see why they aren't thumbnailing too!

FT2 (Talk) 21:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Possession, producing and importing animal pornography is legal in Finland, selling and other trading is illegal (source: Finnish law, article 18 section 17). The colour brown on the map 2 should be changed to light green (legal with restrictions). (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it can't resize the .png file format automatically? .gif is probably better for maps anyway since it produces smaller files with no loss in quality. And I thought the law had already been passed in the UK, but if not my bad. BabyNuke 09:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Known new bug – appears on bugzilla and reported by other users here.
Hopefully fixed shortly due to importance. FT2 (Talk) 14:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible Stylistic Approaches[edit]

Just to improve, th article, I daresay it reads more like a law textbook than an encyclopædia article.--Whytecypress 22:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Move page to Bestiality and the law[edit]

I'm suggesting we change the name to either Zoophilia and the law, or Bestiality and the law with my preference to the latter. While I don't know the zoophilia community TOO well, I believe they believe that "zoosexual" tends to mean more sexual orientation than the sex act. While I suppose it would be consistent with pages such as homosexuality and the law and... such pages, the page has to do essentially with "having sex with animals and the law", I think "bestiality" is the word that best represents that as "zoophilia" does not necessarily mean the person is having sex with animals, same goes for zoosexual. Kind of how like while all child molesters are paedophiles not all paedophiles are child molesters. i.e. some are just attracted, but don't act on the attraction. As far as I can see, there is no laws that have anything to do with "zoophilia" and "zoosexual" as in, it isn't illegal or such to be attracted to animals. The laws deal with the act, which while "zoophile" and "zoosexual" can sometimes be defined like that "bestiality" is the word most associated with the act.

So yep, vote! :) If I get absolutely no input I will be "being bold" and moving in maybe around 1-2 weeks, so there's your notice. Avalik (talk) 06:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I support a switch to both however would prefer it goes to bestiality and the law, obviously Avalik (talk) 06:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Current name works for me, but renaming to "zoophilia and the law" (for consistency with the head article zoophilia) would work too. Throwing in the alternate term "bestiality" doesn't strike me as much of a help, though - the encyclopedia doesn't generally refer to the topic by that term, so there's no need to start confusing things more than necessary. Nothing wrong with a redirect from that title, though. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Beasiality is a loaded term, so the move would go against NPOV standards. The problem with the current title is that the article sometimes talks about zoosexuality and sometimes about having sex with animals. A person who is not a zoosexual or a zoophile can have sex with animals and a person who is one can live one's life in obstinance. A better apploach would be to create a new article Human-nonhuman sex and the law and move some of the content there... but the articles need to be heavily synchronised, so the practical approach would be just to keep it as is. Beta M (talk) 10:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • How about changing the name to "Zoosexual acts and the law" as the acts are the ones illegal in some places, to my knowledge, nowhere in the world you can be punished for having an traction to animals but they may punish you for the sex acts. Alusky (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that making love to your girl or boy animal should be legal, and why not, who are we/you to say who another can or cant love, the assholes of this world say its cruel and it should not be, thats just because they would not do it, thats like saying if i don't like to eat egg then no one should eat egg, i think its ok to love even if it is your animal, and before anyone says it, i think that the one\'s that do harm to the animals should be put in jail, and so on, but it don't mean all out there don't truly love our animals, but just because some out there do harm why should we all pay the price for there wrong, you get child abusers and rapists and other sex crimes but yet you/they don't ban humans having sex to try to stop the bad things happening, so why stop those who truly love the animals.............. IT SHOULD BE MADE LEGAL WORLD WIDE AND THE BAD ONES DELT WITH LIKE NORMAL.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynx200 (talkcontribs)


Any objection to use of maps modified from those above? (i.e. including new info such as 2010 Netherlands ban) 35th4gv834 (talk) 05:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say, go ahead and use them, maybe it would be nice to have a map just for USA? Alusky (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Some links that may be useful[edit]

They talk about why the current laws against zoosex have no logical reasons to support their existence. That animal abuse laws already protect animals from abusive sex. That zoosex in private and without abuse should be protected under the same reasons as "Lawrence_v._Texas" protects homosexual acts. And how these laws are also punishing innocent people. Maybe some information from these documents could be used to spice up the wikipedia article.
Alusky (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


I placed a POV tag on the article as I'm a fairly uninterested reasonable dude who just happened on this subject and started following some links around the Wiki maze. And came to this and was astonished at the pro-bestiality/pro-zoosexuality content and tone. I'm hoping someone knowledgeable finds the article and does something about it, as this type of stuff could be used against us in the mainstream media. "OMG WIKIPEDIA PROMOTES SEXUALLY ABUSING ANIMALS" would be the headline etc. Personally I got about halfway through the article and got so disgusted I stopped reading. Seemed like something straight out of an apologist how-to and why book about the subject. As far as my bias is concerned, I really don't care what you do in the privacy of your own home as long as it's between consenting adults. I have yet to hear or see a legal opinion in any current country that says an animal can give informed consent. *Woof woof* does not qualify in my decidedly non-legal and non-expert opinion.Pär Larsson (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Places where bestiality is legal is only when it's "ethical bestiality" (no animal abuse involved) those places still punish unethical bestiality (where animal abuse is involved) so wikipedia is not promoting "animal abuse" that would be a lie. PS: Animals can give consent that is informed enough to avoid any kind of harm, which is why ethical bestiality is possible and legal in many places. Alusky (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Considering that just after stumbling on this article I specifically checked the talk page to see if anyone has mentioned its obvious bias, I think it's safe to re-place the NPOV check tag. In particular, the "Impact of laws" section, which not only appears biased, but is uncited and reads like unencyclopedic original research for a persuasive paper. The section needs a rewrite, or barring one, the axe. Ibm2431 (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
What obvious bias? "Impact of laws" is not biased, lack of citations yes, but not bias, what is mention in there is true, so how can that be bias? Alusky (talk) 09:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I've added a {{cn}} tag to the "Impact of laws" section (actually, before I even saw this discussion). Not only is the section desperately lacking in citations, it comes over as extremely one-sided special pleading, which is not the tone a WP article should be conveying. Jheald (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes[edit]

I removed a ton of content from the article that were obviously pushing a non-neutral POV using unsourced original research. Other changes included rewording for a neutral tone and removal of bold claims or statements that were not in the sources used to cite. This article and the Zoophilia article is in serious need of neutrality checking and citation verifications. Someone963852 (talk) 02:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You can't just remove giant chunks of information from an article, even if that information is not properly cited. I'm not going to argue with you because you never listen to me. All I'm saying is that you can't just erase entire portions of an article. The notion that such much material is "POV" is your opinion -- it does not mean that such information should be removed. Your editing is disruptive. Do not revert the most recent version of the article. Plateau99 (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The article was and still is an absolute mess. It's loaded with OR and synth and grossly violates WP:NPOV. It reads like an amateurish personal essay. I would advocate deleting it entirely and starting from scratch. Massive changes are indeed needed. The changes made were well thought out and desperately needed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Nice work someone. This article was being used to advance an argument by fans of having sex with animals and you're fixing it.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Stop altering this article to fit an anti-zoophile bias. Restore it to the way it was. The citation issues should be addressed, but the solution is not to erase and/or reword sections to make it more anti-zoosexual. The most recent edits are clearly anti-zoosexual and do not fit the alleged reason for the edits (i.e. to fix POV) Plateau99 (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
People with a pro sex-with-animals agenda don't get their way every day. All that's been done has been to cut down on the "sex with animals is awesome!" stuff that's been here since it was started by User:FT2.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Plateau, I don't know where you get the idea that content can't be removed but you are mistaken. Sometimes, when content is good but unsourced we can use a citation needed template, but when the content is violating various policies - WP:NPOV in this case - we remove. That material was inappropriate for an encyclopedia and I would be astonished if another regular WP editor agreed with your take on the matter. In other words, you're probably not gonna win this one. Sædontalk 02:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

See Dispute resolution and the Admin Noticeboard. Someone963852 (talk) 04:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Animal porn - unclear article[edit]

The article deals with bestiality, but a perosn watching an animal porn video isn't commiting bestiality! So my question is, is it a criminal offense in Quebec/Canada to have in your possession a porn video of humans having sex with animals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the USA was meant to be the year 1920, not 1290. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Seriously in need of cleanup[edit]

I just checked this article and cleaned up a few minor things (not much) and tagged the anecdotes section for unreliable sources. I'm not an expert but this article needs a lot more cleanup.

This article has some serious content issues - since this is somewhat controversial, it would be good to elaborate on why people think bestiality is/should be legal/illegal. Otherwise, I think it should be rewritten to be a list about bestiality laws and a (short) explanation why they exist. Anything that isn't law-related belongs in other articles.

Also, citations. Too much of this article has bad references. E.g. the first reference "sciamer") has two different websites/sources(?) for "original" and archived, is used three times, one of those times (first time) in an irrelevant place.

I'll go through the sources and tag any that seem questionable/insufficient. I won't remove any content yet (unless I can prove that it's wrong), for now I want to assess and clean up. Zombie45764 (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Zoophilia and the law. 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.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Zoophilia and the law. 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.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Zoophilia and the law. 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}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)