Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Zoophilia classed as a mental disorder by psychiatrists in DSM-IV

This paragraph in the intro is problematic:

There is presently considerable debate in psychology over whether certain aspects of zoophilia are better understood as an aberration or as a sexual orientation. The activity or desire itself is no longer classified as a pathology under DSM-IV (TR) (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association) unless accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the person.

1. Please provide evidence of the debate you cite. If the debate is "considerable" it should be easy to provide links to articles.
2. The position of DSM-IV is misleadingly stated. See discussion of this on Zoosexuality talk page.
3. Please define "normal functioning". I would take normal functioning as the ability to relate intimately (emotionally and sexually) to your fellow human being. Skopp (Talk) 09:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

   You might. The DSM-IV does, in fact, exist in order to define "normal functioning" from a behavioral perspective, and zoophilia does not imply inability to "relate intimately (emotionally and sexually) to your fellow human being"— which would make that statement quite consistent. — Coren ^(talk) 21:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• That dumb comment earned my opposition to your adminship. Way to go. Skopp (Talk) 23:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Might there be a place for this

File:Man has sex with mare.jpg

A man has sex with a mare (artistic depiction)

Might there be a place in the article for this? I found it in the commons, when looking for more illustrations.--68.240.252.104 14:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Checking the copyright status of the image, it's a no-go. BabyNuke 17:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Question on the legality

The article says that posession and distribution is banned in many countries but does that include artwork depicting Zoophilia, such as the goat image up there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.82.5.105 (talk • contribs).

Generally not. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Animal sex

Animal sex redirects here. Now what exactly is 'animal sex' supposed to mean? Sex with an animal? Sex between animals (of the same species)? The sex of an animal? I thought it would have redirected me to mating, where copulation redirects. The reason I ended up here in the first place was that the category in Commons is called 'animal sex' (about copulation between animals), and I wanted to check the two projects were on 'the same page', so to speak. Should one of the pages be be moved/renamed? Richard001 07:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Good call, Richard. I've rewritten that page now - better? Are there any other meanings you would expect it to have, still missing? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice job. I might look at moving the Commons page some day too - a lot of the pages there are named poorly. Richard001 05:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The guy who died from horse sex

I'm wondering if in the health concerns or affects, it should be noted that there was that story of the guy who died after sex with a horse (google it). His colon was ruptured and his lower organs were too, and then he just bled out and died. Perhaps it should be noted this could happen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.239.143 (talk) 21:14, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Already covered comprehensively at Kenneth Pinyan. Nobody's quite certain what the exact mechanics of the fatal injury were, but most reports agree that the cause of death was peritonitis, most likely resulting from a ruptured colon. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this the guy in the recent movie called I think "the barn" is about? there was a write up about the movie in newsweek about 6 mo ago? I guess its sorta a love story with a sad end of the horse being "punised" by cutting off its balls. The poor Stallian. Quite sad the way if was filmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.169.227.248 (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's decline

this used to be a respectable organization, but all this information on perversions. yuck! Olliekamm (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Just for you, wikipedia from now on will stick to articles about teddybears, and not mention things like tribadism or incest again. Yes, I'm being sarcastic - but the point is simple obviously. Just because a subject may be considered distasteful by some doesn't mean that it shouldn't have an article. BabyNuke (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Informed consent

Animals like children are not capable of informed consent indeed. How many of those who apply this philosophy, apply the same philosophy to eating them? As usual "most people" are very selective about applying moral philosophy viz. when it suits them. Mike Hayes (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Morality rarely makes sense. Also, I'm kinda feeling that informed consent isn't such great wording anyway as it is a legal term aimed at humans, not animals. Beyond that animals can consent to it I'd say - but since there's a lot of debate on that we'll keep that as being just that, debated. BabyNuke (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Morality, as in this case, makes perfect sense. Animals can suffer (though their suffering is not as serious as human suffering, the (despotic, if you like) consensus is that it matters), and are in very unequal situations of power vis a vis humans, who are moreover notorious for and cognitively designed such that they frequently misunderstand animal signals and behavior. (We've got a special cognitive apparatus for modelling what's going on in the minds of other humans-- which is VERY faulty when applied to animals, partly because instincts and signals differ vastly between species, especially homo sapiens who is sexually quite abnormal as mammals go, but mainly because it relies on the assumption of a reciprocal ability to model what's going on in the observer's mind.) Because we have not and are unlikely to develop the infrastructure to assure that animal *owners* do not abuse animals for sexual gratification, which is the very likely outcome of a permissive attitude absent supervision or scrutiny, we categorically ban human-animal sex contact. The net risk of harm to animals with a permissive attitude toward bestiality is much greater than the deprivation of human-animal sex contact.

The reason of course that animal suffering doesn't matter as much as human suffering, to the consensus, is that animals have a very limited capacity to cooperate intelligently and prove themselves more useful than as a food source. The major difference between bestiality and meat-eating is that nutrition is widely regarded as much more necessary and socially neutral, than sexual gratification. --Enantiodromos (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Though debates don't contribute much to the article, just to reply: In the end, having a permissive attitude allows for people to speak more openly about the matter. This helps spread information on animal welfare and also possible risks to humans. Meat-eating, in the end, isn't really needed for human survival. We just like the taste of it. But because it's so deeply rooted in our culture it's much more difficult to give up, while bestiality is culturally seen as wrong. BabyNuke (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

We might be able to survive without eating meat but that doesn't mean we just eat it for the taste: it is a wonderful source of protein. Being a vegetarian body builder is extremely difficult.--172.189.102.34 (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This is untrue, but irrelevant to the article. -kotra (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

source needed

I removed this line "which is not dissimilar to typical estimates of the percentage within the population generally." from the zoophiles and other groups section, as it had no citation to backup this claim and is also clearly inaccurate. I think one can assert this line was trying to push a particular point of view more than state a fact. If we look at raw numbers of U.S. population (http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html) 303,000,000*.035=10,605,000 zoophiles in the country. If this information is accurate regarding the general number of zoophiles in the country I will literally eat my own face off.

24.88.103.234 (talk) 07:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Timmy

It's extremely difficult to get to a good estimate. It isn't always clear what truely is a zoophile - a person that has sex animals needn't be a a zoophile and a zoophile needn't have sex with animals. Some people may find it attractive to watch other people have sex with animals but do not actually desire this themselves. Some people have sex with animals but are purely opportunistic and thus aren't truely zoophile. And then there's the problem of many people finding it difficult to be honest about, even in an anonymous poll I'd doubt the results would be very accurate. The extent of occurance section refers to some online polls but it's hard to say if these are accurate. Further, percentages may vary from place to place. However, 3.5% of the population in the western world having some interest in sex with animals would not really surprise me from what I've seen. BabyNuke (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You raise valid points that I agree with. I will, however, contend the claim that the estimate of zoophilia among the furry group is equal to the general population is deserving of a definite citation, which it does not have. In the extent section another problem is illustrated:

"Scientific surveys estimating the frequency of zoosexual activity, as well as anecdotal evidence and informal surveys, suggest that more than 1–2% — and perhaps as many as 8–40% — of sexually active adults have had significant sexual experience with an animal at some point in their lives. Studies suggest that a larger number (perhaps 10–30% depending on area) have fantasized or had some form of brief encounter."

This information has NO citation and is therefore invalid. The citation 4 is referring specifically to the Kinsey report and some dispute over it, not the "Scientific surveys" referenced in the above passage.

"Larger figures such as 40–60% for rural teenagers (living on or near livestock farms) have been cited from some earlier surveys such as the Kinsey reports, but some later writers consider these uncertain.[4]"

If there is no valid information (I agree with your pov that the internet and other surverys were a little dubious) anywhere on the page estimating that zoophilia in the general population matches the subgroup's percentage, than it is up to them to backup that claim with a reference next to their statement. I completely agree with you that it would be very difficult to find an accurate survey. But it is still the responsibility of the editor to provide verifiable sources for the information they present, and none is available. I'm going to leave things as they are for now, let me know what you think. I really think the "scientific surveys" part and the section i originally deleted should go.

24.88.103.234 (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Timmy

Put in a {{Fact}} tag, if the original editor is still watching the page he may recall where those figures come from. BabyNuke (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Will do. 24.88.103.234 (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Organization for Animal Dignity added

I added a link to the Organization for Animal Dignity, www.animaldignity.org which looks at sexual behaviors such as masturbation, homosexuality and zoosexuality (zoophilia) in animals. Since one of the partners in zoophilia is an animal, it's only fair to add a link about the animals' perspective on zoosexuality / zoophilia. ----B.Y. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.238.132.90 (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't sound like it's presenting "the animals' perspective". It sounds like it's presenting one human being's perspective -- that "Organization" appears to be one person, Mark Schmid. --FOo (talk) 06:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Beetz

I don't have access to this source. The material I restored was originally added with just a general reference to her book, and I don't doubt its accuracy. Miletski says:

The personality tests Beetz conducted revealed that participants had more difficulties in interpersonal relationships, had the same degree or fewer signs of psychopathy, were more sympathetic and helpful than most people, and had a typical need for control and dominance. Moreover, 34.5 percent of the participants reported being active in animal protection organizations.

--AnotherSolipsist (talk) 07:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah... the specific text of the <ref> was "Beetz (2002). 34.5% of participants were involved in animal protection organizations.", which sounds to me like the author was making a bit of a leap from involvement in animal protection organizations to the other claims. If it turns out that the rest is citable to the same source, though, then feel free to reinsert it with a clearer cite. Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Change the introduction?

This article defines zoophilia as a human's love for an animal, however the animal article is a broad classification which also includes humansm, which would make humans love for humans a form of zoophilia. This has never been used this way, so could the article perhaps specify 'human for a non-human animal'? Tyciol (talk) 04:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, yes. However, in general, most people understand "animal" to mean "animal other than humans"; and making the distinction explicit generates a surprising (and disruptive) amount of venom from those whose spiritual or religious beliefs draw a sharp line in the sand separating homo sapiens sapiens from the rest of the eukaryotes. Given that there is no effective ambiguity in meaning, I don't think it's useful (or a good idea) to make the change. — Coren ^(talk) 21:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Legal status

I've removed wording suggesting illegality because of laws agains nature is less common. It was unsourced and I have my doubts it's true. Considering there are still a large number of countries with conservative views (and laws) on sexuality, particularly developing countries (e.g. in South+Central America, Asia, Africa), and that many of these countries are still behind the developed world in laws protecting animal welfare it seems easily possible that there it is banned in more countries because of laws against nature (or similar). In fact, even in some countries with animal welfare laws, I suspect in some instances a prosecution because of laws against nature may be more common. In any case, it doesn't seem that important and is probably impossible to know since it's not something commonly tested in courts. Nil Einne (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Bestiality

An anon removed the explaination from the intro that bestiality is commonly misspelled [1]. I have no problem with this but I think the explaination in the article body (not removed by anon, not sure intentional or not) should remain. While this is the article on zoophilia, it is also the article on bestiality (since that redirects here and it's unlikely that it needs its own article). Explaination of the various terms, including misspellings as appropriate for an encylopaedic article (as opposed to a dictionary) should remain. Since bestiality is not the main focus of the article, I don't think we need to go into depth in the intro so I've fine with 71's action but thought I'd post here in case anyone wants to remove it from the body. Nil Einne (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

ATT refference section broken

I noticed the references section is broken. And I do not know the system used for it in this article --Walter (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

fixt --Walter (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Depictions for consideration

File:Dolphin Zoophilia.png

Intimate relations with a dolphin (artistic depiction)

File:Dolphin Zoophilia (2).png

Intimate relations with a dolphin (artistic depiction)

File:Dolphin Zoophilia (colored).png

Intimate relations with a dolphin (artistic depiction)

File:Dolphin Zoophilia (2) (colored).png

Intimate relations with a dolphin (artistic depiction)

I've uploaded a couple of graphics I made to the commons. Thought I'd mention it here if you want to use them.

--Brallion (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you absolutely, totally sure those images are entirely your original work? I seem to remember a case a few years ago where some similar images turned out to be tracings of video stills. Zetawoof_(ζ) 18:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are my own work. I did use photographic images as a visual reference when vectoring these graphics, but only as references for parts of anatomy and proportions. This was so I could get a good feel for what this act might look like. These pieces are not tracings and they are of my own creation. I also offer my talents if there is a specific depiction that this page would benefit from. Brallion (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The first one... Maybe... The second one seems a bit unusual. Besides, we don't need two drawings of the same thing. Possibly, people will complain about the fact that it's a dolphin. I know there's people that have sex with dolphins (don't ask me to source that, I just know the dolphin "community" well enough to say that people do), but they are a very exotic species to say the least. Dogs and horses would be more "common". edit: Though looking at that first one again, it seems like a male dolphin attempting anal with a male human with both facing each other. That wouldn't work too well now would it? BabyNuke (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No, actually the picture depicts a female dolphin, but I can see how you might think my shading is the dolphin's penis. My intent was to draw the pictures in an artistic style, as if a fantasy-- I chose a stylistic off-center approach, but I realize that does bug some people. I can revise them, however, if you want a picture that is centered, and not cut off on one end. One is drawn with a background and the other is not, but that won't be hard to rework if you want a background or want no background on either picture. The option is there so it doesn't have to be the focus of the picture. Let me know if you are interested in any form of revision. I also have the ability to color the pictures easily if you would like that. You are free to use one picture, none, or both-- that's why I offered; this way the option is there if it can be used to enhance the page. Brallion (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, you can look at this as what I'm capable of as an artist. Would this page have interest in depictions done in this style? I have an interest in illustrating these acts and I offer my talents to the wikipedia community. Brallion (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy for the last image to be used as a thumb. In my opinion it fulfils the purpose of depicting how it is possible for the act to take place. forestPIG^(grunt) 07:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

In reality, this would be cumbersome and near impossible way of doing it. It'd almost be extremely difficult to sustain a position like this for very long. If the image is to show how it can be done, this isn't a very good way... BabyNuke (talk) 10:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It also looks a hell of a lot like an autotraced copy of a JPEG image or MPEG still - the blocky-looking shadows on the walls are a pretty definite tip-off that this wasn't drawn up out of thin air. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that too, but on the other hand, I'd be surprised if there was such a video, simply because the whole pose is so unlikely... You can have sex with dolphins, but this just seems too tricky. Possibly altered a bit to suit the purpose? BabyNuke (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The look was created intentionally. I'm a digital artist and I created this piece in GIMP. I applied a number of effects to the completed image, including posterize. If you would like a different look let me know. Better yet, if there is a pose that would be better let me know and I can create a new piece to your liking. --Brallion (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

What kinds?

What types of animals are targets of zoophilia? Which kinds are safe from abuse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.175.50.34 (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the majority of sexual encounters with animals involve dogs, probably followed by horses / ponies and donkeys. I doubt there's any figures on it, but I'd say those account for the vast majority of such encounters. The remaining few percent is probably farm animals (cows, pigs etc.) and some more exotic animals such as dolphins and deer. BabyNuke (talk) 12:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Bestiality Redirect

Why does bestiality redirect to this page, when there are separate pages for homosexuality and sodomy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.25.77.119 (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Frequent comparisons with homosexuality

While I have no interest in condemning or shaming people who experience closeness with animals—as long as cruelty is not involved—I have noticed that this article seems to make an overly close comparison between zoophilia and homosexuality. At least three such comparisons are made within the article. Now, zoophiles face societal disapproval, and it is understandable that their need to maintain an extreme level of personal privacy causes them anxiety. This may reasonably be comparared to the plight of gays and lesbians in oppressive nations such as Zimbabwe and Saudi Arabia (or Great Britain and the United States in the 1940s and '50s).

However, it is false to imply that, in the developed Western world, gays face a level of stigma that comes comes even close to that which zoophiles are subjected to. Gays are pretty much normalized these days, thanks to decades of tireless effort and organization, and they didn't spend all that time and energy to end up as the world's universal "acceptability gague" for every imaginable sexual deviance that comes down the pike. I suggest that only one comparison—between zoophiles and closeted gays—is sufficient. Any more than that absurdly overstates the case. Rangergordon (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

I'm boldly adding auto-archiving and indexing for threads stale for 45+ days; a minimum of 7 threads will be kept so the page doesn't empty. -- Banjeboi 05:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Arguments about zoophilia or zoosexual relations- style

This section needs to be more in an encyclopedic style- proper paragraphs or sentences, rather than note form. You could also respond to each con with a pro or whatever. We don't tend to have lists of opposing views like this in the more tightly written articles on WP, in my humble opinion. Sticky Parkin 01:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there any point in having a separate article on Zoosexuality? I was thinking of merging the content and redirecting that title to this one. User2009 (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need so many separate articles on these subjects. But some of them are very thorough, (or long at least.) Here are some others I found:-

Zoosexuality and the law Historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia Zoosadism Zoophilia and health Sticky Parkin 02:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say we should try to merge all or most of these. I think if we tighten the writing and remove repetition, it won't make this article much longer, if longer at all. User2009 (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The "arguments" section definitely needs fixing. There are a bunch of references on specific arguments that could probably be used to summarize views in prose.

Some of the articles you've mentioned could be merged - zoosexuality, for instance. Others probably belong separately... Zoosexuality and the law is a big table of countries and laws, so merging it would just make a mess, and zoosadism is a different enough topic (it doesn't necessarily involve sex, just abuse) that it should probably stay broken out. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for the edit conflict situation. I pressed save eight or nine times, and nothing appeared, either in article history or in my contribs, and it was a big edit so I had to keep over-writing anything else. Then when it did finally save, it wasn't the edit I had made, but something else. But I think it saved eventually, though I've not checked that it's all there. User2009 (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. It looks like we got a little tangled up there. Hopefully nothing got lost in the shuffle. Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the Zoosadism bit. Why not just have an article on cruelty to animals? Is this analogous to pedophiles creating a separate page on Paedosadism e.g., so as to separate the idea of sex with children from sexual cruelty to children? There are a number of cases to consider. (1) Outright cruelty to animals, not involving sexual perversion (2) Sadistic cruelty non involving sexual acts but from which sexual pleasure is derived (3) Sadistic cruelty involving sexual activity (4) Sexual activity with animals which causes suffering to the animal, but where the human perpetrator either does not realise the suffering, or is in denial about it (5) Sexual activity which arguably does not cause suffering, but which is inherently abusive. This group of articles needs a lot of tidying. Peter Damian (talk) 09:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Read the article. Most of the researchers agree that there's a clear distinction in most cases between people who have sex with animals and people who harm animals through sexual acts; although there may in some cases be overlap (as in the case you describe under #4 above), it's uncommon. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

This revert back to the original intro refers. It now reads "Zoophilia, from the Greek ζῷον (zṓion, "animal") and φιλία (philia, "friendship" or "love"), also known as bestiality, refers to the practice of human beings engaging in, or being aroused by, sexual relations with animals. " Comments:

• Many of my edits were to remove the fat. Why 'refers to'? The word 'Zoophilia' has no quote marks around it so it should read "Zoophilia is". And why the lumpy "practice of human beings engaging in, or being aroused by, sexual relations with animals"? Why "practice of human beings engaging in sexual relations" when "practice of sexual relations" would be sufficient?
• Why not just refer to it as practice, since the rest of the article seems to be about the practice? For example, since it is not illegal to be aroused by [the thought of] sexual relations with animals, why a section on legal aspects? Referring to it as a condition rather than an activity is comparable to pedophiles saying pedophilia is simply a condition of arousal or desire, rather than an activity. Let's call a spade a spade.
• Why the removal of the quote by Kraft-Ebing, and the reference to his terminology? Did he introduce the term 'Zoophilia' - my source suggests not. What is your source?
• "Although sexual interactions with animals is not outlawed in some countries" needs grammatical attention.

Peter Damian (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

In order of appearance:

• "Removing the fat" is one thing. Deleting several large sections of the article as "complete rubbish" and "absolute nonsense" is quite another, and it is this that I was primarily reverting. I've noticed that you've removed a large section ("Zoophilia as a lifestyle") again, describing it as a "personal essay". Although some parts of this section need sources, a lot of it still appears to be well-referenced, and it certainly doesn't appear to be a personal account. May I ask why you've made this edit?

It reads like a personal essay. Do you know the history of this part of the article by the way? Peter Damian (talk) 10:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• As above; the target of my reverts was elsewhere. Moreover, characterizing zoophilia merely as a sexual practice is at odds with both the following section which we've hashed out so thoroughly (which defines it as both a sexual practice and a sexual attraction) and with your own example: the intro to pedophilia notes that pedophilia is defined jointly as a practice and an attraction. (And, by way of a more palatable example, we define heterosexuality as "sexual behavior with, or attraction to, people of the opposite sex".)
• I removed the K- E quote primarily because it wasn't really relevant to the section. The section is on terminology, and the text quoted didn't use any of the terms being defined. He did use the term "zoophilia" in the book, but it was actually in reference to a different case altogether - I think I've clarified matters in the current revision, but I must admit that I have no evidence that he was the first to use the term. In case you'd like to check for yourself, incidentally, Psychopathica Sexualis is out of copyright and is available online.

The example he gives is a useful one, because it contrasts with the idea of 'Zoosadism' - see my remarks above. The boy's pathology would be the case where perhaps no harm was intended, and clearly the object was not physical harm or cruelty in itself. The object was purely sexual, the harm (death) was an unfortunate side-product. Peter Damian (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree, and it's not a great introduction for the article at any rate. Any suggestions?

Zetawoof_(ζ) 10:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reworked the introduction. I haven't included the bit which seems to deny that it is a practice. On the point about 'heterosexuality', clearly heterosexuality is an orientation. Zoophilia is a practice, primarily. I know that Beetz claims that it is an attraction, but this is clearly a secondary meaning, and the introduction should reflect this. Peter Damian (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I've got to say that your style of commenting makes replies difficult. Can you try to avoid interweaving your comments with mine in the future? Thanks.

Anyways - with regard to the lifestyle section, I'm not specifically familiar with the history of that section. (Mind enlightening me?) Whatever its history may be, though, you haven't really addressed my question.

As far as the zoosadism quote goes - that might be relevant in a section (or an article) on zoosadism, but it's out of place when all that's being discussed is the meaning of the words. Even elsewhere, I'm not sure it'd be hugely useful - your interpretation that "no harm was intended" isn't really borne out by the text, and I suspect that much better references could be found that give more insight into the offender's state of mind.

Finally, as far as orientation versus practice goes... it's really not clear to me that orientation is a "secondary meaning", particularly taking into account some of the definitions given in the terminology section.

Zetawoof_(ζ) 11:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

OK I'll use your commenting convention. On the definition, you can't use the article itself as a reliable source. The question is about the actual meaning of 'zoophilia' which it is not really possible to address without a degree of original research. I have checked Kraft-Ebing's work and it is unclear whether he intended the meaning of 'zoophilia' in anything like the sense intended here. I shall check out a few more sources.

Regarding 'no harm intended' I am sure many pedophiles intend no harm to their victims, because of their habit of rationalising their actions. The 'Zoo code' which is referenced in the article (or was) makes it plain that zoophilia covers sexual relations with many other species than the usual household variety, for whom sexual practice of any sort is invariably harmful (e.g. birds, reptiles, small animals and so on). If someone is possessed of uncontrollable urges to penetrate any kind of small animal, and succeeds, I don't see why that should be qualified as 'sadistic'. For it to be so, the pleasure must be derived from the suffering itself, not from the sexual act of which the suffering is a sad by-product. Peter Damian (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I already disagree with zoophilia and bestiality being used here synonymously, but zoosexuality being treated as a seperate term. If anything, zoophilia and zoosexuality are the synonymous terms (both referring to the attraction), and bestiality being the seperate term (referring to the act). It's all one big mess - not just this article, the related ones, too. As an example, there's an article about zoosexuality and the law. Since zoosexuality refers to the attraction, the law has nothing to do with it. Save perhaps a few extremely religious countries (where you'd probably be insane to admit to it - not that anyone would admit to it very quickly anywhere...), in most places it is only the actual ACT that causes legal problems - but a person cannot be charged with a crime for the mere desire. It'd be like a thought crime. Hence the article name would make more sense as bestiality and the law. A person could be considered as being a zoophile or zoosexual, but not as a "bestiality". Picture a situation where a person has been forced into sexual contact with an animal (this sadly sometimes happens) - I think nobody here would label that as being zoophilia (which by definition refers to an attraction) but the way this article defines zoophilia, it should (obviously incorrectly) be.

If homosexuality and homophilia are synonymous, then will someone please explain to me why zoosexuality and zoophilia aren't? I've done a lot of work on this before to try and change it only to have all my work reverted, hence I am not going to do it again unless people finally get the point and realise that the way it is now, it is quite simply WRONG. BabyNuke (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Your point that it is inconsistent to define something as a mere attraction then have a legal section about it is quite correct, and I have already pointed that out. The question is whether 'zoophilia' means the condition, the practice, or both. I have looked up Kraft-Ebing's definition but this while of historical interest is hopelessly out of date. Why not just have an article about 'bestiality' which has a clear and unambiguous meaning (i.e. the practice)? Peter Damian (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I very much agree that it is pretty clear that bestiality refers to the act, from all sources and possible interpretations. It should certainly be separate from this article - or if part of this article be made clear that is NOT synonymous with zoophilia. With zoophilia, I merely follow the "rules". To quote: "Suffixes with the common part -phil- (-phile, -philia, -philic) are used to specify some kind of attraction or affinity to something, in particular the love or obsession with something."

To me, that makes the definition of zoophilia quite clear. I do not see at what point the actual act comes into the word zoophilia. I believe phrases like "engaging in zoophilia" are thus incorrect. I am under the impression some people - especially those that enjoy having Rover on top of them themselves - just prefer to use the term zoophilia for the act too simply because the term bestiality has a very negative undertone, which resulted in this twisted use of terminology. BabyNuke (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that "bestial" has its own very specific and unrelated definition (beast-like, brutish, depraved...) is undoubtedly a part of it. Zetawoof_(ζ)

Probably, yeah. Though in the end that is entirely irrelevant. Let me make a new section and see if we can get consensus from editors regarding some changes. BabyNuke (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Back to Damian - can we get back to the lifestyle section for a bit? You still haven't properly explained why you removed it. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Kraft-Ebing's definitions

I checked Kraft-Ebing (pp 566-70) and while he does use the term 'Zoophilia' in a quite different context (of fetishism), he uses the term 'Zooerasty' and 'bestiality' exclusively for 'violation of animals' [i.e. sexual violation]. 'Bestiality' is the non-pathological variety caused by 'low morality and great sexual desire', 'Zooerasty' is the pathological variety. 'Sodomy' covers both pederasty and bestiality/zooerasty. Peter Damian (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That seems a more or less accurate description of Krafft-Ebing's usages of the terms. (I'd be more inclined to gloss "sodomy" as "any form of unconventional sex", as that's more or less what it meant at the time, but that's details.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Article restructuring

As mentioned, the terminology as defined and used in this and some other articles in incorrect and leads to confusing situations. So I propose as main changes:

• Zoophilia and zoosexuality become one article (called Zoophilia, since it's the most common term used).
• Bestiality becomes a seperate article (with zooerasty as a possible re-direct), dealing with the actual ACT and not the sexuality.
• Current sections and information from both the existing Zoophilia and Zoosexuality articles are spread out over the two "new" articles. Information regarding the sexual attraction and psychology goes towards Zoophilia, information regarding the actual act goes towards bestiality. Partial rewrites may be needed and some discussion to establish what goes where.
• The article Zoosexuality and the law is renamed to Bestiality and the law, likewise Zoophilia and health becomes Bestiality and health.
• Less usage of mythological images of bestiality. In that section it is appropriate, but not elsewhere in the article. They do not provide a realistic representation. Better have no images than unrealistic ones, WP is not an art gallery.

Please discuss and add own suggestions, additions or tweaks to the above! BabyNuke (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Generally agree with this. Zetawoof asked about my (and others) removing the section of 'lifestyle'. My view (and this applies to some other parts of the article) is that it presents a romanticised view of zoophilia (sorry, bestiality) that is based on no sources at all (or selective use of sources). This article should be reduced to basis, verifiable information and no more. Most of this rubbish was written in the 'cowboy' days of Wikipedia before people had any notion of how to use reliable sources and in particular, how to use WP:DUE Peter Damian (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Merge zoophilia and zoosexuality: support. The distinction between these articles is unclear as it stands.
• Splitting out bestiality: strongest possible oppose. This has been discussed in the past and struck down. I don't remember exactly where in the archives it showed up, but the consensus at the time was that there was no basis for a split, particularly as the definitions of the terms vary from source to source.
• Renaming existing articles: oppose, for the sake of consistent naming.
• Mythology: Support, I suppose, as long as the section stays in some form. Removing it entirely is a bizarre move, and I'm now left wondering why yet another new editor has shown up with the exact same edit.

Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Mainly agree with ZetaWoof. Merge zooph and zoosex, but I don't see the point in changing things to bestiality, we can just make it clear that zooph includes both the act and the fantasy or whatever. I have no prob with a section on mythology (not read it all yet) as long as the context is made clear. And the leda pic shouldn't be the top/main illustration for the page as it doesn't depict the act or anything related to it, it doesn't add anything, it's just packaging. If it were in a mythology section, that would be better, at least it would have some slight relevance in that context. We don't need more articles on this- some need to be merged if anything. "Bestiality" is a stigmatising word, (although accurate). I thought it was the most commonly used word in which case it should be in titles, but apparently it's not. Charity (Talk) 00:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oooh it is the far more commonly used term actually, twice as often or more [2][3] Wonder what I did wrong when I looked it up in the past? Must've spelt bestiality with two a's or something. In that case, all the articles should be changed to 'bestiality' as it's the most commonly used term, per WP:MOS. Zoophiliacs who don't actually act on their desires, if any, could be a section in that/those articles. Charity (Talk) 01:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Reading the Google tealeaves is a questionable way to determine common usage - especially given that the term "bestiality" is commonly used in pornography, which is represented disproportionately online. See WP:GOOGLE for details. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

But precisely- we are merely seeking to acertain the most commonly used word. For such purposes, I would say a google search is entirely valid. If I want to find WP:RS I go to google books or news. The numbers reflect there that bestiality' is far more common than zoophilia. [4][5] in fact even more of a difference than on the web; with 'zoophilia' used 1/4 as often as bestiality in books, rather than 1/2 as many times. [6][7] In the news stories, 'bestiality' is used 14,000 times, compared to around 200 for zoophilia. There is an active zoophilia community on the internet who like to use that term, maybe also using it for their porn as well as their sexual identity communities, so that term is the one that's overrepresented on the internet/with a web search, as can be seen by the difference from the books and news mentions.:) Charity (Talk) 02:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I can tell you right now that Google results from the online zoo community are unlikely to be playing any large role in these search results, as they're being drowned out entirely by results from porn sites. This sort of thing is a pretty well-documented effect in any porn-related searches; the relative magnitude of numbers only indicates who's been more effective at getting their pages indexed.

Beyond that, though - the most commonly used word for what? In the legal world, "bestiality" is probably the more common term (along with more generic ones like "sodomy" and "the unspeakable crime against nature"), which explains the bulk of the news results, but, in sexology, "zoophilia" is the preferred term. Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

We're not a sexology or zoophilia wiki, this is a general wiki so we should use the most commonly used word by people in the world in general. Unless you think 'zoophilia' 'bestiality' and whatever other terms should each have their own article, which seems a bit unnecessary as although there are some differences we're talking about the same act or thoughts of that act. This is not a big deal though as far as I'm concerned. Call bestiality zoophilia if it makes you feel happier about it.:) All I want is the article to be WP:NPOV. Charity (Talk) 13:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but Britannica - which is just as much a general encyclopedia as we are - calls their article "zoophilia" as well: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/657995/zoophilia Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: All but one of the articles on alternate editions that have intelligible titles (i.e, not Arabic, Japanese, or Chinese) have titles that transliterate to something akin to "zoophilia": "Zoofília", "Зоофилија", "Zoofilio", etc. The sole exception is the Indonesian article ("Bestialitas"). Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I won't really oppose it if zoophilia and bestiality are in one and the same article, provided a clear distinction is made in the article between the two! I would still like for the renaming of those two articles though. You (ZW) say you oppose it to maintain consistent naming, though right one one is zoophilia and the other is zoosexuality, so there's no consistency right now either and bestiality quite simply is more accurate in context. BabyNuke (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

As I've already noted, I'd fully support a merger of zoosexuality into zoophilia. If I have some time, I might get started on that myself. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It is here User:Charity_Shopaholic/Bestiality I shoved the two together last nite. Feel free to edit it there bearing in mind WP:NPOV. The zoosex stuff is at the bottom, it was hard to copy well as I can't get in the edit window there as the article is protected due to page move vandalism. When we're ready, we'll ask for it to be unprotected. Charity (Talk) 01:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Rm more unsourced material

I removed a whole section of unsourced material about 'zoosexual communities'[8]. This is interesting personal research but it should go under WP:OR. Please don't even think about reinstating it without discussing here first. Peter Damian (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC) I'm working on digging up some refs. Here's a first stab at it. Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Draft (already implemented)

Whether there is such a thing as a "zoophile community" or monolithic subculture, in the same sense as the gay community or any other alternative lifestyle communities, is a controversial question. Whether or not it should be construed as a "community", the following outline is a rough description of the social world of zoophiles, as it has existed to date. Prior to the arrival of widespread computer networking, most zoophiles would not have known others, and for the most part engaged secretly, or told only trusted friends, family or partners. (This almost certainly still describes the majority of zoophiles; only a small proportion are likely to socialize with others on a wider scale). Thus it could not be said there was a "community" of any kind at that time, except perhaps for small sporadic social networks of people who knew each other by chance. As with many other alternate lifestyles, broader networks began forming in the 1980s when networked social groups became more common at home and elsewhere, and as the internet and its predecessors came into existence, permitting people to search for topics and information in areas which were not otherwise easily accessible and to talk with relative safety and anonymity. The popular (top 1%) newsgroup alt.sex.bestiality (reputedly started in humor), personal bulletin boards and talkers, were among the first group media of this kind in the late 1980s and early 1990s, rapidly drawing together zoophiles, some of whom also created personal and social websites and forums. By around 1992–1994 it became accurate to say that a wide social net had evolved. This was initially centered around the above newsgroup which during the six years following 1990 had matured into a discussion and support group. Because the zoophile community came into existence via the internet, Weinberg and Williams (2003) observe that rather than the online community adapting to a wider offline culture (as happened with other internet subcultures), the online culture itself will become the wider norm. They observe in this context that the internet can "socially integrates an incredibly large number of people". There also exist websites providing support and social assistance to zoophiles (including resources to help and rescue abused or mistreated animals), but these are not usually publicized. Such work is often undertaken as needed by individuals and friends, within social networks, and by word of mouth. One exception is the German support group "Interessengemeinschaft Zoophiler Menschen ("zoophile interest group")

Draft comment

This looks OK. The length is exactly right. Regarding the rest of the article, there is much to trim. E.g. the huge section with a list of arguments. There needs to be a section merged with the section on ethics, that should discuss the pros and cons of the ethical arguments. (singer vs linzey and others). Peter Damian (talk) 09:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)g

Excellent. I've put it into place, with trivial changes (one expanded ref). Zetawoof_(ζ) 10:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)