Talk:Zoophilia

Split Zoophilia and Bestiality

Research about this topic unanimously agree that zoophilia and bestiality are different things, yet this article is clumsily trying to talk about the both of them at the same time (sometimes confusing people who engage bestiality with zoophiles, despite research saying that these are different groups of people). Bestiality is redirecting to here right now, if anyone wants to write an article there, I recommend that you use these sources right here (doi).

• doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2368
• doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12306
• doi.org/10.1300/J158v04n02_01
• Beetz, Andrea M. "New insights into bestiality and zoophilia." Anthrozoos-Journal of the International Society for Anthrozoology 18 (2005): 98-119. (free pdf on google scholar). SparklyNights (t) 22:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Just for clarity's sake: if I'm getting this correctly, zoophilia is sexual excitement at the idea of sex acts involving animals, whereas bestiality is actually engaging in sex acts with actual animals? Is that right? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly it. SparklyNights (t) 01:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Neutral to weak support this page about this area of discussion is generally complete but not necessarily big enough that it 100% needs to be split. Wikipedia is not a WP:DICTIONARY and it will usually make more sense to cover several related ideas under one heading where they are overlapping even if they are slightly different. However I think there is potentially enough here to support two pages and to have a link between them somehow if someone wants to do the work of grabbing the different parts for a new page. Jorahm (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Not only does zoophilia need to be distinguished from bestiality as a separate entry, but the entire article needs to be re-written to remove incorrect, un-cited, and heavily biased claims.

Zoophilia is (mis)understood as several different things that ought to be addressed on this page (among many other things);

• A paraphilia (correct: zoophilia is an atypical erotic interest, as stated by the American Psychiatric Association (APA))
• A clinical condition (incorrect: paraphilias are not to be diagnosed according to the APA)
• A mental disorder (incorrect: "Zoophilic Disorder" is a separate thing to zoophilia and falls under the Other Specified Paraphilic Disorder category of the Diagnostic Manual. The details regarding this illness are complex enough to warrant its own section, with copious links to related wiki articles)
• Sexual activity between human and animal (incorrect: the word for this is bestiality, which has its own history and debate)
• Illegal (incorrect: bestiality is legislated against, not zoophilia; all legal context needs to be in the article for bestiality)
• A sexual identity/sexuality (Complicated: people use the term "zoo" as an identity to the extent that this page probably should have a section for this. There is no good scientific literature on this (yet), but does that matter? There are plenty of sources available from the community)
• The desire to have sex with animals (Complicated: as previously stated, there are people who use the term as an identity, and there's significant nuance to how people feel about bestiality even within the zoo community. This ought to be recognised on this page to help inform people better and reduce stereotyping people who may even have a mental illness resulting from their unwanted attraction)

Conflict of interest:

I am a researcher and social support advocate from the "zoo community", but this page has repeatedly been referenced as a source for great misunderstanding regarding both zoophilia and the zoophilic disorder condition. I do have an interest in seeing people treated better as a whole, but I think there's enough wrong here that even if I weren't a part of the community, I'd still be voicing my concerns. I'm more than willing to help write a neutral and well-sourced article for this page, and undergo any and all scrutiny to achieve something that can be agreed upon. Fillthymutt (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, as I generally don't support giving people a hard time over their username, but you for sure could've made a better choice if advocating for people who have sex with animals is your priority here. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 08:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

In this article, I don't see many references to publications that show zoophilia in a neutral light - and even the ones that do, the wiki author appears to have been subject to interpretation bias. I feel this has harmed the accuracy of your information. For example, the APA reworded the DSM(5) with the hopes that it would destigmatize paraphilias and related research, but even though that happened, the sections which reference the APA and updated DSM (#Research_perspectives) continue to call zoophilia a disorder. The APA explicitly stated in several DSM5-accompanying documents that paraphilias are not inherently paraphilic disorders, so whoever wrote that section completely misunderstood that "zoophilia" (the attraction to animals) is not even included in their references. I would very much like to help repair this article for objective accuracy.

Do you know the incidence rate of bestiality, and how that correlates with zoophilia? I'm sorry, but I think you're proving my point by suggesting zoophiles are "people who have sex with animals". It's implied in the very article we're discussing; most zoophiles do not have sex with animals. Despite my complaints, I think that is one thing this article gets right (albeit with incomplete and outdated information). Zoophilia is an attraction. Nothing else should be inferred, because nothing else seems to correlate. The community itself doesn't agree on much - but they tend to agree on that.

As for my name, this is not the place for such discussion, but I also don't want to be reprimanded for a misunderstanding; in short: *I* am the mutt (it's a joke reference to other names I go by). I originally picked it because I thought it was appropriately disturbing for such a community, but found myself pleasantly surprised that most of them despise fetishists. I keep it now because I have become well known for my extensive research, surveys and debates. My hope is to publish something peer-reviewed under my full name someday - but for now, this is what several thousand people know me by, and I don't want to be accused of trying to covertly manipulate wikipedia, so I have chosen to create this new wiki account with the same screen name. I hope this explains. Fillthymutt (talk) 10:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Suggested correction on German legal situation

The article states in the "Legal status" section that Germany supposedly banned all human-animal sexual intercouse in 2013 which is incorrect. Presently, such sexual acts are not illegal unless the animal is being forced.

Germany's court of constitution (Bundeverfassungsgericht) clarified the interpretation in their verdict against a challenge of said law in 2015 (https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2016/bvg16-011.html). The court specifically commented that the law has a condition to it. As long as the animal is not "forced" the law is not being broken. According to the court "forcing" an animal is only possible with "physical violence" and actions that are "comparable to the use of physical violence".

Unfortunately, many sources quote both the original law from 2013 as well as the verdict from 2015 incorrectly or at least incompletely (Sources 72 to 75 on the article), adding to the confusion.

It would be advisable to correct the article by replacing the two paragraphs "Many laws banning sex with non-human animals..." and "Germany legalized bestiality..." with the following:

Many laws banning sex with non-human animals have been made recently, such as in New Hampshire, Ohio, Sweden, Iceland, Denmark, Thailand, Costa Rica, Bolivia, and Guatemala. The number of jurisdictions around the world banning it has grown in the 2000s and 2010s.

Germany legalized bestiality in 1969, and banned forced acts of bestiality in 2013. The 2013 law was unsuccessfully challenged before the Federal Constitutional Court in 2015. However, the court's verdict emphasizes that the law in question only applies on the condition of "forcing" an animal to "behavior contrary to its kind" where "forcing" entails either the use of "physical violence" or "actions that are comparable to the use of physical violence". In conclusion, German law allows non-forced acts of human-animal sexual intercourse to some extent. In spite of that, the current legal situation and the 2015 verdict are often misrepresented in media as a total ban of bestiality in Germany. Fijexaw931 (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

None of the sources you cite for the claim that 'German law allows non-forced acts of human-animal sexual intercourse to some extent' even remotely supports it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

See the third paragraph of the official press release of the Federal Constitutional Court (https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2016/bvg16-011.html; Its's linked as "[12]" above). The second sentence reads "Der Tatbestand des § 3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 TierSchG wird in doppelter Hinsicht durch die Merkmale der „sexuellen Handlung“ und des „Zwingens“ zu einem „artwidrigen Verhalten“ begrenzt.".

This translates to "The offense of [the law against bestiality] is limited in two aspects by the characteristics of the "sexual act" and the "forcing" to engage in "behavior contrary to [the animal's] kind."

The court specifically describes how the law that forbids bestiality is limited to situations where someone is "forcing" an animal. The verdict leaves no room for interpretation about the existence of this limitation.

To put it simply: There is a law that forbids certain sexual acts. This law is limited by certain conditions. If these conditions are not met the law does not apply. "Forcing" the animal to something is one of these conditions. Fijexaw931 (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not base content on contributors personal readings of legislation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

As it should be. That's why the primary source of information is the one to be considered here, which is the German Federal Constitutional Court. The literal quote of the court states this law's limitation. Fijexaw931 (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Fijexaw931: Please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template again. M.Bitton (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for misunderstanding. I was led to believe that it was required to gain the attention of someone responsible as there was absolutely no reaction when I had raised the topic months prior. Fijexaw931 (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Cherry-picking a quote from ruling that German law against bestiality was constitutional to assert that bestiality was in fact legal under some circumstances isn't going to work. Per Wikipedia:No original research, we require that such sources are only used to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source. The only thing that can really be 'verified' in such terms, as I see it, is that the court ruled the law constitutional. Which is all they were asked to rule on. 'Verification' that requires extracting implications from a primary-source text that doesn't say something directly simply isn't permissible under Wikipedia policy. If that is what the ruling implies, find a secondary source that says so unambiguously. As of now, we cite multiple secondary sources suggesting the contrary.AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I see now that the wording "in conclusion" in my initial proposal was poorly chosen as it implies an attempt at interpreting the source. My intent was to rephrase the source while retaining its original meaning which is specifically mentioned to not fall under the Wikipedia:No original research requirement. Changing a sentence from "the offense of [the law that bans X] is limited in two aspects [...]" to "X is allowed under certain conditions" is a rephrasing by switching from negative to positive logic (comparable to changing "A is bigger than B" to "B is smaller than A", different wordings, same meaning). However, even if we can not agree on that we do not strictly need the rephrased text and can just let the more literal quote from the court stand on its own.

There was also a broken archive link in the article that is fixed below.

I propose the following revised change to the Wikipedia article. The paragraph "Germany legalized bestiality in 1969 [...]" should be replaced with:

Germany had legalized bestiality in 1969, but has banned it again in 2013. The 2013 law was unsuccessfully challenged before the Federal Constitutional Court in 2015. While the law was ruled constitutional, the court recognizes in their reasoning behind this verdict that the law in question only applied on the condition of "forcing" an animal to "behavior contrary to its kind" where "forcing" entailed either the use of "physical violence" or "actions that are comparable to the use of physical violence". Fijexaw931 (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

No. Still not compliant with Wikipedia policy, see my previous reply. We have multiple sources that contradict what you are claiming, and you are clearly cherry-picking the source to promote your own reading of it. Please don't waste our time by repeating the same arguments. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The proposed text does not make any claim, no interpretation, no own research. Everything is directly verifiable from the linked sources as required.

To address your claim of cherry-picking, we can add more sources that agree with the court on the exitence of the mentioned limitation. The revised article below does not promote any particular reading but provides multiple independent sources addressing the verdict in different ways.

The proposed article text after revision would look like ths:

Germany had legalized bestiality in 1969, but has banned it again in 2013. The 2013 law was unsuccessfully challenged before the Federal Constitutional Court in 2015. While the law was ruled constitutional, there is unanimosity about the full extent of this law. The court notes in their reasoning behind this verdict that the law in question only applied on the condition of "forcing" an animal to "behavior contrary to its kind" where "forcing" entailed either the use of "physical violence" or "actions that are comparable to the use of physical violence". Sources referencing the verdict either do not mention the law to be limited, or recognize it but claim "voluntary and species-appropriate" bestiality to be "improbable", or recognize it. Fijexaw931 (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not going to permit you to publish your own personal analysis of German law on bestiality here. You have had our policy explained to you, repeatedly. If you can't understand it, that's your problem, not ours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

"Personal analysis" implies a personal point of view. Please verify your accusation against the proposed text so I can remove all remaining traces of personal opinion that are not merely a neutral description of publicly available sources. Fijexaw931 (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I have explained Wikipedia policy. That is all that is required here. In principle, you could ask for a second opinion, or otherwise make use of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution processes, though I'd strongly advise against this, as a complete waste of your time, and that of others. There is no room for ambiguity here - you simply cannot contradict multiple published sources by selectively quoting a court press release. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh. I think I know now why you think I was trying to make a claim in the current text proposal. I apologize for the confusion this must have caused.

I made a major typo which heavily warps the meaning of the text to about the opposite of what was actually intended. The proposal reads "there is unanimosity about the full extent of this law". Correct would be "there is no consensus on the full extent of this law", followed by the quote of the court and how/if the differnt sources pick up on that. Fijexaw931 (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Given your repeated refusal to take the slightest bit of notice of what I have been telling you with regard to Wikipedia policy, I shall not be responding further. If you add this content, or anything resembling it to the article, I will revert you. If you persist, I will request you be blocked for abusing Wikipedia to promote your own personal agenda. Wikipedia Will not under any circumstances include your personal interpretation of German law on bestiality in the article. This is not open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your past efforts to uphold Wikipedia's policies. The quality of the proposed text has improved substantially over the first draft thanks to that. However, your more recent comments show a lack of concern about those policies.

Cherry picking is a practice that "neglects, overlooks or directly suppresses evidence that could lead to a complete picture". Adding more sources here is not cherry picking as we do not have a good reason to ignore those sources. So far you could not bring forth such a reason either but adamantly demand to neglect the additional sources solely based on the fact that they don't support the perspective of the already presented ones. This is a picture book example of cherry picking. (Not to mention moving the goalposts earlier from "find a secondary source that says so unambiguously" to refusing these sources altogether.)

Furthermore you have claimed that the proposed text breaks Wikipedia's policies about own research/interpretations but refused to answer the direct question about how it does so.

Instead of just giving a sensible reason you

• assume bad faith by calling this proposal to be under some sort of "agenda",
• threaten to start an edit war,
• resort to coersion by making personal threats in what seems to be an attempt at scaring me out of participating.

All of these are harmful to a reasonable discussion.

I wish you would just answer the question so I could improve the text but if you decide to disengage, a third opinion seems like the next reasonable step.

For the record, the current text proposal, including the correction from earlier, is this:

Germany had legalized bestiality in 1969, but has banned it again in 2013. The 2013 law was unsuccessfully challenged before the Federal Constitutional Court in 2015. While the law was ruled constitutional, there is no consensus on the full extent of this law. The court notes in their reasoning behind this verdict that the law in question only applied on the condition of "forcing" an animal to "behavior contrary to its kind" where "forcing" entailed either the use of "physical violence" or "actions that are comparable to the use of physical violence". Sources referencing the verdict either do not mention the law to be limited, or recognize it but claim "voluntary and species-appropriate" bestiality to be "improbable", or recognize it. Fijexaw931 (talk) 11:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

You will not under any circumstances be permitted to use Wikipedia to promote your own personal interpretation of German law with regard to the sexual abuse of animals. Not with this account, not with your previous one, and not under any new one you create. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I have requested a third opinon to help in resolving this dispute: Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements Fijexaw931 (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing whatsoever to discuss. Your proposal is pure and unadulterated original research, and will not under any circumstances be permitted on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Finally, I have time to come back to this.

As SmittenGalaxy said, conflicting sources are not necessarily to be excluded because of the conflictingness alone, as long as an appropriate weighting between the sources is maintained. Allegedely, the previously proposed text still contained original research, so I decided to scrap it. Instead, the new proposal just adds a single sentence: "A small number of sources suggest this law might be conditional." This takes into account the sources' different weights and can easily be verified by any reasonably educated person with access to the cited sources, as required.

Does this proposal still contain original research?

Germany legalized bestiality in 1969 but banned it again in 2013. The 2013 law was unsuccessfully challenged before the Federal Constitutional Court in 2015. A small number of sources suggest this law might be conditional. Fijexaw931 (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

This is a strange 3O request, being on a topic that is over 3 months old, and seems to have moved on. It's tempting to wholesale disregard under WP:STICK, however to ensure clarity, I will go over this discussion in full: Firstly, the summary on WP:3O feels a bit strange and leading towards one side of the argument, so I'll be basing my opinion on the discussion as a whole. The original issue seems to stem from disagreement with the statement that Germany has a total ban on bestiality. This was supported by citing the legal interpretation from the German courts. Upon reading subsequent comments, this source appears to be contradicted by other sources. However, this does not necessarily mean the information would not be included per WP:DUE; it would merely just be a minority opinion, and require less weighting. However, this does not seem to be the case. The law nor its interpretation does not say anything that bestiality is legal; it merely suggests that it is conditional. To interpret the text as saying it is legal would constitute original research; we do not publish interpretations of law, we can only publish what is directly said by secondary sources. Therefore I see no reason to add the original statement to the article, as it not only does not agree with other sources, it is original research. I hope this can help both editors move on from this discussion towards more productive areas. Thanks. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 02:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input.

The fact that so much time has passed since the last interaction was merely making use of Wikipedia not having a deadline (WP:DEADLINE).

Please note that the the most recent proposed change has evolved substantially from its initial draft. It nowhere claims that bestiality is legal. At least, that is not the intention. The current proposal cites several sources which interpret the law as being either conditional or unconditional. This interpretation lies solely in those sources. Fijexaw931 (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This does NOT seem an uncontroversial change, and so the "Edit Request" process isn't the right one to use. PianoDan (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2024

Most bestiality offenders are white people. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Bestiality-related-arrests-in-the-United-States-1975-2015_fig4_325497782 103.167.234.31 (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2024 (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. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Title change

I'm afraid calling the article as just "Zoophilia" might confuse other Wikipedians. Can you change the title to either "Zoophilia and Bestiality" or "Zoophilia/Bestiality"? If the decision is made to keep "Zoophilia", despite the possible confusion to the other Wikipedians, why? FSlolhehe (talk) 09:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Suggested correction on the Swedish legal situation.

Sweden has outlawed sexual acts with animals in 2014 in accordance with kap 2. 10 § djurskyddslagen. Which translates to chapter 2. 10 § animal welfare law. The Swedish Wikipedia page of zoophilia correctly states this, provided below is a source directly from the horse's mouth, a website run by the Swedish Parliament (riksdag) outlining the animal welfare act/law, it scrolls to chapter 2 but a bit further down is part 10 which is the relevant part. The law provides exceptions for veterinarian work, breeding and others with a proper justification.

https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/djurskyddslag-20181192_sfs-2018-1192/#K2 Albl1122 (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Will update when I have some time. Thanks. Zenomonoz (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)