Talk:Human–goat sexual intercourse/Archive 1

The "Studies in the Psychology of Sex" citation does appear to support the "fact"

First of all, EW! Anyway, had to get that out of the way.

The sentence where it asserts that bestiality among goat herders is so common in Italy that it is a "national practice" does not appear to be supported by the reference. I looked up the book on Project Gutenberg, since it is from 1927 and is now public domain, and I see no such mention of goat sex in Italy, either on page 33, or anywhere else. See this.

If somebody doesn't satisfy my suspicions in a couple days, I am going to erase the sentence. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Its actually on page 34: "In south Italy and Sicily, especially, bestiality among goatherds and peasants is said to be almost a national custom". Oh and sorry about the confusion, I am using volume five published in 2004.[1] -Icewedge (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick clarification! When I see an article like this, I'm always a little (well, a lot) suspicious -- but it looks like everything is on the up and up. Keep up the good (even if disgusting) work! ha ha ha ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I actually think the merge should be the other way around (Sudanese goat marriage incident merged into this one), as I believe this article is more comprehensive and somewhat interesting. That thing about the Egyptian priests is fascinating if true. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. That would be appropriate I think, merging Sudanese goat marriage incident into this article. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree neither should be merged; the marriage incident has stand alone notability. Merging this article to the Sudanese marriage incident makes even less sense however, what significance does most of the material on this page have to the marriage incident? Certainly the Egyptian ritual worship has none. -Icewedge (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree. I think rather that a subheading should be added in the article about the Sudanese goat sex incident, which provides a short summary and links to the other page. Sort of like the heading under the Wal-Mart article that discusses Wal-Mart's history and links to the History of Wal-Mart. The Sudanese goat-sex article is too long to incorporate with good faith into the Human-goat sexual intercourse page.Elsweyn (talk) 04:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Actually, Animal worship#Goat is the grandparent section, then comes Human-goat sexual intercourse as the parent, which is a way to animal worship (but the intercourse doesn't always mean worship). Then comes (Sudanese goat marriage incident as an example of Human-goat sexual intercourse/animal worship. There probably is more "family" out there, but I can't deal with this topic any more. It's not as bad as writing economics articles, but it's close. Bebestbe (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Organization

The article appears to have received more attention since I last visited it. There's more information and more citations.

However, the organization is off. Does someone think they can introduce some relevent subheadings that can add to the clarity of the article? Right now it reads like a collection of random facts about goat sex, e.g. information about Club Dread followed by the Sudanese goat-sodomy incident. Elsweyn (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The organization looks good. 216.67.49.183 (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

why are people do paranoid about the section titles?

Hey, if you are editing, please be more considerate about the actual content of the article, not petty mistakes on the subtitles and such. This article is off to a great start and it needs more facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidwithshirt (talk • contribs) 21:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to wait until the article is finished to check the spelling? Bob98133 (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

The article starts off by using the more neutral 'zoophile' instead of 'bestialist' or any number of loaded alternatives, and yet every actual reference to sexual activity between goats and humans is phrased in the form of 'using a goat for sex'; goats aren't inanimate objects. Forms like 'had sex with a goat', 'had intercourse with a goat', 'performed sex acts on a goat', or the like would both read more naturally and carry less of an implied cultural judgment about the practice. 69.61.98.139 (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You cannot be serious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.64.184.21 (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll bet his name isn't Shirley, either ... Paul (talk) 07:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)