Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 17

Archived July 7 2006

This archive relates to HeadleyDown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who attempted to POV edit the article, and was blocked shortly after commencing. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing some rather overlooked problems

Hello. According to NPOV policy, this article has a lot of problems. I understand that some may be sympathetic towards zoophiles, but realistically, the vast majority of people will find it distasteful. This is not handled properly in the article. In short, there is too much argument for arguing zoophilia may be love for animals, and not enough simple straight statements of fact.

I'm sure editors should have noticed the word "however" appears in places in the article, and I see no reason apart from promotionality, that editors have choosen to leave them in. There is also an absence of descriptions of the kind of damage incurred to animals. In fact, the only kind of image that should appear in the article is the xray slide sort, of various injury to animals.

The images are also promotional. As zoophilia involves pornography, I see no way how any such art images can be justifiably used in the article. To place classical art as an illustration will leave the article open to much rancor in future for the majority who find zoophilia abusive and distasteful. There are clearly many more negative images that could be placed in the article. Also, the Michaelangelo is a painting about classical mythology full stop. The swan is not actually a swan, but a greek god (Zeus). The swan is a representation of Zeus.

So I am going to be bold and take action on the problems presented in the article. I understand NPOV policy pretty well, so if anyone has any problems with this, please state specific guidelines. Thank you. JHartley 05:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted these edits. I looked through, and some were improvements, but most were not. These included deleting substantial sections of text, and all the images. The reasoning given for removing hte images (that it glamorizes the subject) is ridiculous. Raul654 06:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm glad you see NPOV on some of those "however" arguments at least. But I cannot see how you can justify placing irrelevant art images on an article that most of humanity would see as sexual perversion. I am open to argument on this, but I sincerely hope you see my point. It is not at all ridiculous to remove the images. Those images are largely about mythology. If an image is to be included, then it should be wholly about zoophilia, and it should be a graphic photograph, not an ancient cave painting (justification) or a metaphorical painting. I'll bet they've cause problems before. They are bound to again. There must be many balancing images of damage to animals that can be placed, or of damage to humans as a result of zoophilia.

The images you see on the article are also in pornographic beastiality material and is used to promote that "lifestyle". Placing them in the article promotes zoophilia and beastiality.

As I see it, according to NPOV policies it is perfectly within my rights to delete any size of text if that text is not accompanied by a proper citation. So your reversion goes against policy in that way (unless you are willing to provide the citation). Zoophilia is not a major part of ancient or modern art. It is a minority sexual activity that most often leads to problems in animals and problems in society one way or another. The notion that zoophilia is only affection is a tiny minority and probably doesn't even need mention. At the very least, it requires far more substantial backup from the literature. I also see there have been problems with this article in the past. Why don't we work towards reducing the chance of future problems? Lets start by me removing any part of the article that is not properly supported by citation. The article size needs reducing anyway. JHartley 06:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The images you see on the article are also in pornographic beastiality material and is used to promote that "lifestyle"? Dude. They're PAINTINGS. Of GREEK MYTHS. They're about as far from pornographic as we can really get on this article. More importantly, if you find some text that's "not accompanied by a proper citation", find a citation, or mark it as needing citation! Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As I explained below to FT2. In the context of this article, the images are erotic art for zoophiles. They emphasize the idea that zoophilia is cool, glamorous, and classy. They are completely inappropriate and bias the article. Solution: Dump the erotic art. JHartley 04:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That's still patently absurd. Out of all four images present in the article, only one is not directly relevant to the section in which it appears - and that's the lead image. The only one who seems to think that they "promote zoophilia" or give the appearance of zoophilia being "cool, glamorous, and classy" is yourself. Zetawoof^(ζ) 05:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Disscussion of JHartley comment on my talk page

I received this note on my talk page, and was going to reply to it on JHartley's own, until I realized there was already discussion here. So instead of splitting the discussion I'll put what I was going to say, here, instead.

Re your note.

I appreciate it. Its no bad thing to have additional information.

You might find the following drafts relevant however, before you assume bad faith or assume that information on harm to animals via abuse is being omitted:

• user:FT2/ap - draft "animal pornography"
• user:FT2/asa - draft "animal sexual abuse"

Since zoophilia is a summary article, it seemed unfeasible to summarize something for which there was no main article. Those are areas I'm working on in the background.

Perhaps if you could help contribute to these, we can then summarize them in the main article. That's the main concern that came up in reviewing the article, namely, sub areas needing in-depth cover should have their own articles separately. I've made a start on both, and put in placeholders for abuse. The 'asa' article's really the one I've been wanting to research most, because that's really needed, and thats the one where your help would be really valued, and some of the points you're making would be likely to be far more appropriate.

I also would like to hammer this out on the 'asa' article because I have concerns reading your note. May I comment on it, to clarify so that you know where I am and we can set about working well together on it.

• "I understand that some may be sympathetic towards zoophiles"

Sympathy is not the aim. But nor is pandering to repugnance or distaste. Most researchers into it also seem sympathetic which is probably rather more relevant.

• "Realistically, the vast majority of people will find it distasteful."

The like or dislike of people is noted, in several places, and its made clear it is strongly disapproved. But beyond that, we've had this discussion and asked others for clarification. The consensus is clear -- beyond that, the "feelings of people in general" do not guide how a matter is represented. Clinically, if zoophilia is harmful, or can be, then thats important to note, but that would be because it is harmful, not because people find it uncomfortable as a concept. The "distaste" is noted, but otherwise of low importance.

• "This is not handled properly in the article. In short, there is too much argument for arguing zoophilia may be love for animals, and not enough simple straight statements of fact."

"Too much" by what standard exactly? Your personal opinion?

My concern here is the implication that this is not handled "properly". The article is fairly full of "statements of fact", and carefully researched, a fact noticed in its recent peer review by editors not associated with its writing, and also supported by its long term stability. Assuming you mean that it is missing statements of fact about harm to animals, rather than statements of fact in general, then I would agree more, however then the concern is that the authorities on the subject make clear their view that harm seems minimal to them. So we may have to distinguish what harm is possible under certain circumstances, from judgement of a sexual act. That is an important aspect of writing in this field.

• "the only kind of image that should appear in the article is the xray slide sort, of various injury to animals."

This is where your approach starts to disturb me. Why would this be the "only kind" which should appear? This statement concerns me more than the previous. Omitted statements of fact are easy to judge. This one suggests editorship with an agenda, which is not what Wikipedia is about.

• "The images are promotional. As zoophilia involves pornography, I see no way how any such art images can be justifiably used in the article."

And again, this word "promotional". Summarizing research may not be your viewpoint, but it is Wikipedia's, and labels don't change this. Please carefully read WP:NPOV, the guiding policy for how articles are balanced. Wikipedia is not a traditional source, and has a strict line on how differing views are balanced. We call this Original research, meaning it is for the most part likely to be personal view rather than validated fact. I'm not aware that zoophilia must "involve" pornography, any more than say, homosexuality must. From what I've read this is not an especial feature, and may not even be a norm. Can you please explain this statement?

• "To place classical art as an illustration will leave the article open to much rancor in future for the majority who find zoophilia abusive and distasteful"

Classic art is Wikipedia's standard solution when wishing to illustrate some kinds of topic and subject. You'll see that elsewhere too. We're an encyclopedia. We draw on a variety of sources, not just literal ones. I'm not seeing any "rancor" except your personal disapproval as yet, and several of those images you cite have been up for around 2-3 years.

• "So really, the article you have worked on is far from neutrally presented. I intend to remedy this rather big and obvious set of problems"

The agenda again. When you do so, please remember to cite relevant sources, and that zoophilia is not the same as animal abuse in any dictionary or research on the field which I have seen, or have access to. There may be animal abuse, or not. But Wikipedia is not a place for agendas and many editors have worked hard to ensure that agendas -- on both sides -- are not as major feature of this article. Please respect that.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking further, I see edits to the article. I also see that User:Raul654, am editor who has not been associated with the editing of this article except in his role in Featured Article decisions and cleanup of proposed F.A.'s, has reverted them, which suggests to me that they were probably agenda based or unsupported. My comments follow:

• "On the other hand, the 2004 conviction of a man in Florida" the "on the other hand" here is a comment about legal systems, not zoophilia. Some states have laws. On the other hand those that don't seem not to need them.
• "fencehopping often condemned by zoophiles and non-zoophiles alike" - confirmed from reading of zophile notice boards and the like.
• Deletion of PETA statement details -- explanation?
• Deletion of cave painting from historical and cultural view - explanation why a cave painting is not relevant to history or cultural perspectives?
• "Production and mere possession appear to be legal, however." - again, the "however" is a contrastive comment on the legal systems. Distribution is illegal, however possession is not.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll tend to agree on the classic artwork part. Though I realise actually posting bestiality is out of the question, the artwork may portray it a bit too... colorful. Then again, removing all of it would make the article look rather bare. Anyway, I think a compromise can be found here. As for disregarding the suffering of animals, I guess the sexual abuse of animals article will cover that. It may be worth noting though that ignorance may also lead to pain or injury for the animal. BabyNuke 18:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

We typically don't use 'pornographic images' in our articles, look at pornography for example, why don't you make the case - and a far stronger one you can - for that article?. And why should an article with only a loose connection with pornography have pornographic images? Should will put pornography in heterosexuality? Skinnyweed 19:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I never said the article should include pornographic images, all I said was that I can understand the reasoning that the classic art used now presents zoophilia in a rather colorful and unrealistic way. BabyNuke 20:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I was responding to JHartley, sorry. Skinnyweed 21:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually would value help on the animal sexual abuse article. If that one could be collaborated on... the animal porn one I'm happy on, but that one I want more input and co-authoring please. Anyone? Please! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can add. BabyNuke 16:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Reply to FT2:

Zoophilia is seen as unethical because it is always against the welfare of the animal, regardless of intention. This ethical point has been de-emphasized throughout the article, and has been argued against using non-ethical psychological facts. This is inappropriate and creates a pro-zoophilia article. Furthermore, the article is presently set up to appeal to zoophiles. It displays a complete lack of empathy for animals, and shows that it is possible for pro-zoophiles to promote and emphasize their arguments on Wikipedia. The article needs a lot of work to balance this out. I understand I must work on this cooperatively with all editors here, and I also realize there are going to be pro-zoophilia editors. So I will do my duty to point out editor's biases in this correctional activity.

FT2: Sympathy is not the aim. But nor is pandering to repugnance or distaste. Most researchers into it also seem sympathetic which is probably rather more relevant.

JH: Pandering is not my intention. Neutrally explaining why there is repugnance is important. Most research here is psychological an not ethical or legal. The psychological research generally makes no moral decision on zoophilia, and it is inherently sympathetic to zoophiles because they often have problems getting on in society. A good deal of the ethics and legal papers are not sympathetic. Most of humanity finds it very distasteful, bizarre, or just ridicules the "preference". So the article is extremely skewed already. There is insufficient explanation for why humanity finds it repugnant, abusive, or ridiculous. The ethical side has not been handled at all well. This, together with the religious side, connects strongly with law. As law makes up a great deal of humanity, it requires a much larger portion of the article with full rationales for why zoophilia is illegal. This can all be handled within the reasonable file size (a third of what the article is now). Once all the rambling excuses for abuse and ethically lax illegality have been cut down to size, the real views of the world can be represented. I would like to emphasize this is all to be done perfectly neutrally. Above anyone here, I don't want the article to seem like it is written by by a bunch of fanatical tea swilling animal loving tree huggers (like myself:) Once the views of the intelligent world have been presented neutrally, the reader can make up their own mind.

JH:* "Realistically, the vast majority of people will find it distasteful."

FT2: The like or dislike of people is noted, in several places, and its made clear it is strongly disapproved. But beyond that, we've had this discussion and asked others for clarification. The consensus is clear -- beyond that, the "feelings of people in general" do not guide how a matter is represented. Clinically, if zoophilia is harmful, or can be, then thats important to note, but that would be because it is harmful, not because people find it uncomfortable as a concept. The "distaste" is noted, but otherwise of low importance.

JH: There are reasons why people intuitively find it distasteful. This may be based upon various scenarious in the minds of people (would you allow someone to do that to your rabbit, chicken, swan, cat, horse, gerbil, ? etc). There are ethical reasons behind these intuitions and they exist somewhere in the literature. So lets dig them up and ignore the promoters when they say they don't exist.

JH:* "This is not handled properly in the article. In short, there is too much argument for arguing zoophilia may be love for animals, and not enough simple straight statements of fact."

FT2 "Too much" by what standard exactly? Your personal opinion?

JH Neutral editing is the goal. Lets focus on that, rather than cast aspersions on my intentions.

FT2: My concern here is the implication that this is not handled "properly". The article is fairly full of "statements of fact", and carefully researched, a fact noticed in its recent peer review by editors not associated with its writing, and also supported by its long term stability. Assuming you mean that it is missing statements of fact about harm to animals, rather than statements of fact in general, then I would agree more, however then the concern is that the authorities on the subject make clear their view that harm seems minimal to them. So we may have to distinguish what harm is possible under certain circumstances, from judgement of a sexual act. That is an important aspect of writing in this field.

JH: There are many spurious and argumentitive statements in the article that seriously need chopping out. If you want to defend them, then add citations.

JH: * "the only kind of image that should appear in the article is the xray slide sort, of various injury to animals."

FT2: This is where your approach starts to disturb me. Why would this be the "only kind" which should appear? This statement concerns me more than the previous. Omitted statements of fact are easy to judge. This one suggests editorship with an agenda, which is not what Wikipedia is about.

JH: Again, what is my agenda? Please point out exactly what I am here for. Take your pick: I hate zoophiles, I am just here to cause trouble, I am stupid and don't understand NPOV policy, I am only interested in poking fun at those who prefer animal erotica, I am here to create a nasty and deliberately biased article.

Which image would you like to give me?

Its time to point out your biases, FT2. I'm a new editor here, and I've made some suggestions to make the article more neutral. An xray of damage to an animal is one neutral consequence of zoophilia. The present images are in no way neutral. Right now I suggest there should be no images at all in the article.

JH: * "The images are promotional. As zoophilia involves pornography, I see no way how any such art images can be justifiably used in the article."

FT2: And again, this word "promotional". Summarizing research may not be your viewpoint, but it is Wikipedia's, and labels don't change this. Please carefully read WP:NPOV, the guiding policy for how articles are balanced. Wikipedia is not a traditional source, and has a strict line on how differing views are balanced. We call this Original research, meaning it is for the most part likely to be personal view rather than validated fact. I'm not aware that zoophilia must "involve" pornography, any more than say, homosexuality must. From what I've read this is not an especial feature, and may not even be a norm. Can you please explain this statement?

JH: I am here because I see some editors (especially you) have found the present state of the article to be satisfactory. I disagree entirely and see that it needs a lot of work to balance it out. You are even now defending the present state of the article. So what do I think of you now? I know precisely what OR is. I can read. I did not say that zoophilia must involve porn. Zoophilia is strongly associated with pornography. Zoophiles often use animal erotica and porn and there is a porn industry supporting this activity. In fact some pedophiles also like animal porn (and yes many of the issues and arguments overlap). The article has actually tried to erroneously seperate too many factors here. Zoophilia is a paraphilia and there is often overlap. There is no distinct difference between zoophilia and zoosexuality. That hasn't been represented much at all. The image promote the idea that it is glamorous and a "god given" right to be a zoophile. This goes against common feeling, it goes against common morality, in the context of the subject, it encourages a disregard for the welfare of animals, and the presence of all of those images shows that there are promoters here, and shows that any non promoters have been irresponsible in allowing those images. The practical problem also is that if they are there, a lot of conflict will result. So ditch the tacky erotic art ASAP!

JH: * To place classical art as an illustration will leave the article open to much rancor in future for the majority who find zoophilia abusive and distasteful"

FT2: Classic art is Wikipedia's standard solution when wishing to illustrate some kinds of topic and subject. You'll see that elsewhere too. We're an encyclopedia. We draw on a variety of sources, not just literal ones. I'm not seeing any "rancor" except your personal disapproval as yet, and several of those images you cite have been up for around 2-3 years.

JH: As above! The images are inappropriate in this context. It is a zoophile's erotic art.

JH: * "So really, the article you have worked on is far from neutrally presented. I intend to remedy this rather big and obvious set of problems"

FT2: The agenda again. When you do so, please remember to cite relevant sources, and that zoophilia is not the same as animal abuse in any dictionary or research on the field which I have seen, or have access to. There may be animal abuse, or not. But Wikipedia is not a place for agendas and many editors have worked hard to ensure that agendas -- on both sides -- are not as major feature of this article. Please respect that.

JH: So far I have only seen your resistance to balance, resistance to responsible editing, and resistence to getting the article into shape. I intend to encourage neutrality, to represent the views in proportion to the world in general (as opposed to zoophiles' angle on the subject), and to encourage responsible editing.

Right now, the article is just as zoophiles would have it. It needs to be as Wikipedia and the world would have it. JHartley 04:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to JH: You state it is always against the welfare of the animal. I find that a rather bold claim. Assume a woman invites a dog to have sex with her (in more simple wording: she bends over for Rover), and the dog is willing - how is the dog harmed? And how does a person sexually abuse a dolphin - a highly intelligent, heavy and very muscular marine mammal? The only way for sex to be possible is if the dolphin is actively involved. Yes, abuse DOES happen and the line may not always be clear but it is not abusive by definition. The moral aspect is mentioned in the article, but even if the majority believes that sex with animals is wrong and abusive than that still doesn't mean the majority is right. The article should present it in a neutral way and not the way it is seen by the general public if their view isn't neutral, though that view can be mentioned of course. Also, a thousand years ago the majority believed the world was flat and if you dared claim otherwise you'd end up dead.

I will agree with you that the classic art paints a rather colorful picture of sex with animals however so perhaps one or two could be replaced with better alternatives, assuming acceptable ones can be found. Also, I should note that pornography is not a very good representation of sex with animals (pornography is never a good representation of sex in general), the actors are paid and usually not zoophiles themselves and it aims largely at an audience looking for something that's new, unusual and more extreme - kind of like the many American teenagers that cross the Mexican border during spring break to watch a donkey show - and not at zoophiles.

An X-ray image of an animal's injuries after sexual contact would fit in the animal sexual abuse article being worked on at the moment, so if you have one add it there as that article is there to elaborate on sexual abuse. I also agree with you that the difference between zoophilia and zoosexuality is not clear enough, if it even exists, for them to need seperate articles, as I've indicated before. It only makes the subject more confusing. BabyNuke 14:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello BabyNuke. I agree that zoophilia and zoosexuality are not different and do not need seperate articles. The issues are easy to contain in one article as long as there are no rambling excuses for either (the present state of the article).

"Colourful" is quite an understatement. Here is just one ethical argument from an ethics professor (Andrew Linzey) http://godandanimals.com/PAGES/edits/linzey.html

The religious view is mentioned in the article. Furthermore, Christianity hardly promotes animal welfare, especially in the case of bestiality. Let's face it, this is how the bible wants people to deal with bestiality (Levi 20):

15 " 'If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal.

16 " 'If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

The bible doesn't give a damn about the animal as its to be killed with the person in question. BabyNuke 16:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This argument is used in many areas such as ethics, animal care, law, and social policy. It has been underrepresented in the article. I will make the adjustments. As you can see from the argument above (which is repeated many other areas of law and ethics) they often use the pedophilia argument. This is core to explaining why zoophilia is legislated against. The older laws against zoophilia activity may be based upon morals and religious beliefs, and they are still used as such. However, modern thinking has highlighted care for animals. So even in the case you mention of woman and dog, it is still abuse.

So, the dog enjoys it, the woman enjoys it and there are no consequences in the long term for either one of them. I do not see how this is abuse. It can't really be properly compared with pedophilia, as children will grow up to have the same ideas as most people about sex and sexuality which are likely to turn even a pleasurable experience at the time in to an experience they'll resent later. Besides that, a child is not sexually mature and an animal is (assuming sex with a mature animal obviously). That makes a big difference as a dog will know what to do when a woman bends over for him and a young boy will not. BabyNuke 16:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello BabyNuke. The normal ethical response compares this with pedophilia. If a 2 year old boy starts humping your leg, are you perfectly within your rights to have sex with the boy? JHartley 06:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The morality of zoophilia really isn't at question. It may be, it may not be - that's your personal point of view, which really isn't relevant here. Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Its a matter of what is in the literature. I am using an argument from the literature in order to explain something to BabyNuke. Morality does need more of a clearer mention in the article (with reasoning). JHartley 05:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

@JH: An unrealistic sketch, it would never happen. A young boy has no sex drive; it doesn't desire or need sex. Animals on the other hand do, which makes for a big difference between the two. BabyNuke 12:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello BabyNuke. Some pro-zoophilia editors may be reluctant to admit it, but childhood sexuality is about as common as zoophilia. Eg:[www.devon.gov.uk/sexual_deg_for_websitebook.pdf]. So what is the drill when a child or infant starts humping your leg? Procreation and need for sex are not an issue. The duty of care is upon the owner of the leg! The same applies to pets. This is not my argument. Our views are not to be included in the article. The views and reasoning of significant sources are relevant. The reasoning for zoophilia as an unethical behaviour is presently being censored from the opening by a pro-zoophilia editor (FT2) in favour of reasoning for pro-zoophilia viewpoints. JHartley 05:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Without the defense of criminal prosecution, all kinds of abuses may occur, such as animal snuff movies, brothels using trained or even specially bred animals, and so on. So those arguments need proper representation. Again, the argumentative arrangement of phrasing needs to be removed from the article using re-arrangement. I will NPOV the opening in order to achieve this. Simple statements, with no howevers, buts, or on the other hands etc.

An animal snuff movie would be illegal anyway. Animal cruelty law would apply in that case. Some goes for other kinds of abuse in which there is obvious injury. I'll agree, these laws may not cover everything I'd consider to be unacceptable, but they cover most of it. I'll also agree that words such as "however" may be used a bit too often, it does make the article sound a bit defensive. BabyNuke 16:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably most importantly, I have a responsibility to emphasize this: Many people consider zoophilia to be the same or similar to pedophilia. There are no pieces of erotic art on the pedophilia article. It would be tacky and offensive if it happened. Any such images should be absent from this article also. The article will be improved (become more neutral), and future conflict will be averted. JHartley 05:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've looked around a bit and the pederasty article uses quite a bit of ancient art to get its point across. And as I've said before, this article needn't conform to the opinion of the general public, it needs to be as accurate and neutral as possible but believe me, the opinion of the general public is anything BUT neutral. BabyNuke 16:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi again BabyNuke. Thanks. But critics and animal lovers compare zoophilia with pedophilia, not pederasty. It is unwise and offensive to have the images in the article, especially as they are so biased towards promoting zoophilia. Also, zoophilia is mostly about men and animals, not animals having sex with women. 3 our of 4 images are animals and women. If the images were to be representative, only the man and the quadraped would be shown. JHartley 06:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"Zoophilia is mostly about men and animals." Where do you get that idea from? It's absurd. One might as well say that "homosexuality is mostly about anal sex". (And, if one draws conclusions based on popular pornography - which is a flawed methodology, but an illustrative one here - one would conclude that zoophilia was mostly about women and animals, as perhaps 90% of human-animal pornography involves women and male animals.) More importantly, though, there's no requirement that this article's usage of images mirror in any way the usage of images in any other given article. Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello again Zetawoof. According to Beirne (one of the proper citations you removed for whatever reason), male sexual activities towards animals in rural areas, and in urban areas are the most common form. Sex with animals is predominantly male activity towards animals. Concerning porn, yes a lot of females feature in zooporn. But also a great deal of it is about humiliating women. Either way, it is abusive to animals according to many people. Placing images of animals as the sexual initiator, is completely biased and disproportional representation. The easy solution is to remove those disproportionate and promotional images. The horse humper is still offensive, but at least it is representitive of zoophilia. It doesn't glamorize so much as the other erotic art. But of course, the easiest way around this is to remove all images. The fact remains, zoophilia is similar to pedophilia according to a great deal of the literature. It is predominantly what humans do to animals, and what males do to animals. The images bias and misrepresent the facts. Your inclusion of anal sex and homosexuals is quite off base. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality (I believe). Two communicating and consenting adults having sex, specifically communicating their desires during sex, being able to call for help if they are abused, is not at all like someone in power coercing a life form that cannot communicate its desires, that has no defense, and having sex with that animal. I'm sure most homosexuals would agree with me. Homosexuals do not generally have sex of any kind with infants, animals or in fact any creature who has no way to express consent or any creature for which they have a fiduciary duty of care. Zoophilia is mostly about a male's advances towards animals according to the research. The images in general have it all the wrong way round. In this regard, the whole article is biased. There are lengthy and in detail descriptions of animals trying to hump biologists, and long rather OR descriptions of alleged miscitations. I'm sure if I tried to add a similarly lengthy description of a zoophile trying to have sex with a rabbit dog or chicken, I would be accused of POV pushing. There are also lengthy arguments for why zoophiles think it is fine to have sex with animals including all reasoning. The majority view (against zoophilia) does not have the reasoning properly represented at all. Any minor reasoning there has been relegated to the notes section at the bottom. So the article needs a lot more balancing to make it close to NPOV ideals. No significant research needs be deleted, and all views will get a good airing. Neutrality is the ultimate objective here. JHartley 05:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Several spurious arguments listed, have been and gone on this talk page before, as have many spurious attempts to switch it from an article on what's known, to an article on popular and less informed perceptions, in the name of "neutrality":

FT2, tell me who is less informed? Legislators? Ethics professors?JHartley 06:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

1. In order to prevent abuse, I must bias the article. ("Without the defense of criminal prosecution, all kinds of abuses may occur... So those arguments need proper representation")

FT2, You are talking about me biasing the article? Look at your muddling and deliberately biasing of issues in the opening, see below. JHartley 06:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

1. I don't like what research into zoophilia actually says. So it must be "argumentative". ("Again, the argumentative arrangement of phrasing needs to be removed from the article using re-arrangement")

I have no problem at all with psychological research. But it is a neutral view, and says nothing about the legal or ethical side of zoophilia and does not explain at all why most of the world does not like the idea. You have it written in a way that it looks like psychologists support zoophilia. JHartley 06:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Having expressed bias in every post, my edits, which coincidentally achieve said bias, are all "NPOV" and I *will* do them, with or without consensus. ("I will NPOV the opening in order to achieve this")

I have said that I will point out your bias in order to get this article into shape. You are a pro-zoophile editor. Your edits show that you are willing to write argumentatively and reduce the knowledge level of the article.JHartley 06:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Subject A is said by many uninformed people to be similar to subject B in their minds. Subject B doesn't have images of sexual material, although other sexually oriented articles do, so this one shouldn't either. Interesting logic..... ("Many people consider zoophilia to be the same or similar to pedophilia. There are no pieces of erotic art on the pedophilia article")

FT2, who are we to say that a source is uninformed or not? Are Linzey and others uninformed? Look at their credentials. They are perfectly suitable for the opening. Your writing seems to infer that psychologists support zoophilia and they are informed, whereas all others are not. The article needs to show exactly why there are laws against zoophilia, and it needs to say why some believe those laws should remain. (Care of animals). JHartley 06:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Doing all this unilaterally will reduce the conflict that isn't happening until I tried to push my own viewpoint. ("The article will be improved (become more neutral), and future conflict will be averted")

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

FT2 The article is not neutral because pro-zoophile editors such as yourself, are pushing the fantasy that psychologists generally support sex with animals.

I will be more precise: In this para: “Sexual acts with animals are often condemned as "crimes against nature" and animal abuse. However some, such as philosopher and animal rights author Peter Singer, argue that this is not inherently the case. Although research has broadly been supportive of at least some of zoophiles' central claims, common culture is generally hostile to the concept of animal–human sexuality.”

Now it says “However”. That is argumentative. Does Singer say that it is not always a crime against nature? No! He actually says it is not natural. In the issue of cruelty, he says that if a dog rubs itself on your leg it is not cruel. Then you say research is broadly supportive. Supportive of what? Crimes against nature? Animal abuse? Sex with animals? That line on research is so vague and transparently biased, the writer must think the reader is dumb. The research says nothing about why people in general are hostile to the idea of zoophilia. As a paragraph it is entirely biased towards zoophilia, and it is misleading.

“There is presently considerable debate over whether some aspects of zoophilia are better understood as an aberration or as an 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. Critics point out that that DSM-IV says nothing about acceptability or the well-being of the animal, and many critics outside the field express views that sexual acts with animals are always either abusive or unethical. Defenders of zoosexuality argue that a human/animal relationship can go far beyond sexuality, and that animals are capable of forming a genuinely loving relationship that can last for years and which is not functionally different from any other love/sex relationship.”

OK, then you start with research again (splitting research into two paras is misleading). Then you have critics again, and well being. Well actually, the wellbeing argument spreads throughout the whole legal-ethical field, rather than just the psychological. Many critics outside the field? So you are inferring that psychologists don’t consider zoophilia to be always abusive. As far as I’ve read, they really make no judgment on ethics or law. They simply present figures and facts. Then you add a nice big fat conclusion: Zoophiles are into deep loving relationships with their animals.

That is a couple of highly biased paragraphs. Now compare that with this:

"There is presently a debate in psychology whether some aspects of zoophilia are better understood as an abberation or as an 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. Defenders of zoosexuality argue that a human/animal relationship can go beyond sexuality, and research exists that supports that perspective. There is also the belief among zoophiles that animals are capable of forming what is claimed to be a genuine loving relationship that can last for years and is not considered functionally different from any other love/sex relationship."

"Common culture is generally hostile to the concept of animal/human sexuality. Sexual acts with animals are often condemned in law and society as immoral, a "crimes against nature" and animal abuse. Philosopher and animal rights author Peter Singer, argues that zoophilia is not unethical if there is no harm or cruelty to the animal. Legal and ethical experts such as Belliotti (1993:231), Beirne (2000:328) and Lindzey (2000:29) say that, similar to pedophilia with infants, zoophilia is always abusive and coercive, and in order to reduce the likelihood of animal abuse in the short and long term, zoophilia should be illegal."

There is no argument in the latter. The issues are separated (first para: psych and what zoophiles say, and second para: Legal and ethical reasoning for why it is generally seen as bad, harmful, and illegal. The facts are informed by the literature. The literature is very solid on this. Zoophilia is seen as abuse by significant sources no matter what the intention. It is widely seen as similar to pedophilia. This latter version is without bias, without argumentative phrasing, and deals with the issues as they exist in the literature. No information has been deleted. FT2, your recent edits are clear evidence that you are here to bias the article towards promotion of pro-zoophilia argument. JHartley 06:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The biggest issue I personally have with your version is that it brings in a lot of irrelevant information. One of the paragraphs, for example, is a discussion of the "debate in psychology" (as you put it) over whether zoophilia should be considered a pathology. Bringing in "legal and ethical experts" is, frankly, a non sequitur. Their opinions that "zoophilia is always abusive and coercive" and that "zoophilia should be illegal" are, in general form, covered elsewhere in the article. As such, I'm going to be switching those last two paragraphs of the opening to a version which I believe represents a middle ground between yours, FT2's version, and the one which I put together from yours. I'd like to see any further changes discussed here before they're applied to the page, and I'd really like to avoid any further blind reversions. They really aren't particularly constructive. Neither are a lot of the personal attacks I'm seeing. Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Zetawoof. Firstly, I agree with your compromise. I felt it was quite reasonable, and more importantly, fairly neutral. Its a shame FT2 had to go and screw it up. In my first edits here I did actually delete that line on debate. I clarified it in the opening later in order to be cooperative. Raul also mentioned the legal and ethical experts line, and I cooperatively adjusted it according to his helpful suggestion. I understand that some of these aspects are covered elsewhere, but so is the fact that zoophiles believe animals can have loving sexual relationships. Why is that not also deleted from the opening? Or Singer's view? The opening needs proper clear accurate and unconfusing representation. I agree, reversion is unconstructive. I will however, replace those key citations in the references, in order for the readers to have at least some access to the facts and views. I am open to constructive and cooperative editing in order to make this article closer to the NPOV ideal. JHartley 05:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I see legal and ethical being used to advance a point of view. In effect the logic of your edits is, "never mind that people who actually know most about zoophilia and have studied it in depth, conclude it's not as commonly stereotyped, let's give primacy to the legal side and philosophers, who have no specialist qualifications, as 'the right view'." Which, by strange coincidence is the view you personally make clear you want to push into the article. Now... go read the literature of those who have actually researched it, before making personal belief statements about what psychologists and professionals do or don't hold as consensus.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

FT2, you have misrepresented the issues in the article, and have misrepresented my constructive and cooperative actions.

• My recent edits [1] clearly show the subject in a way that is far more neutral than your recent edits [2].
• I enrolled the help of another more independent editor (Raul), and made adjustments based upon his helpful recommendations and am open to more input.
• Zetawoof made a constructive and quite neutral compromise [3], and I am willing to accept it - it seemed quite reasonable and cooperative.
• I am here because the article is in dire need of NPOVing and reducing to a reasonable size.
• I am not deleting any core information from psychologists. Only clarifying it. And I am including properly cited sources.

• You have now biased the article towards the erroneous notion that "Psychologists and broadly support zoophiles central claims". You are behaving in an anti-NPOV way.
• You want to present argument and reasoning for zoophilia (eg Singer, and zoophiles think animals are caring etc), but you remove reasoning for why significant sources say zoophilia is unethical and should be illegal.
• You are promoting zoophilia by twisting the facts. Psychologists only agree that there are affectionate relations from some zoophiles towards their "mates". Your version is unclear. You have presented the opening as confusingly as possible in order to promote zoophilia.
• I did not remove any significant views. I clarified them. You confused them by inferring that psychology researchers broadly support zoophilia. That support needs clarification.
• You removed the points about law and ethics, these are significant viewpoints and you are stating that they are uninformed. According to NPOV policy, their views, properly cited as they were are perfectly appropriate. You removed them in favour of pro-zoophilia argument.
• The line about pedophilia is highly significant in the zoophilia research. Zoophilia is explicitly compared to pedophilia in most papers and books I have read on the subject, including the psychology research. You removed it.
• You biased the opening. Your edits are argumentative and promotional. You are working against other editors who are trying to cooperatively NPOV the article. Your efforts are antagonistic and against Wikipedia policies of balance and neutrality. Again, this article is in need of NPOVing and making concise. Your edits show you are acting against that effort. JHartley 05:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible OR

Who's view is it that the young offender's research is mis-cited? There is a whole section on mis-citing of research. It looks like a criticism of animal welfare workers. If an editor here is the only person saying that there is a mis-citation, then it is OR, and the whole sections should be removed. JHartley 05:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What? Sorry, I'm not even sure what you're talking about here. Zetawoof^(ζ) 06:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a whole section on miscitation of research. Unless it is the view of a reliable expert, the whole section is OR. Who says that those animal welfare links are misciting research? An editor here, or a reliable source? If there is a reliable source, it should be presented. The size or even existence of the section should be dependent upon who says it is so. JHartley 06:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if there is no reliable source that states this research on offenders has been miscited, then it should be deleted from the article on the grounds that it is OR. JHartley 05:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Further HeadleyDown posts (as user:FFodor)

I'm not certain that it is significant that tribes X,Y and Z practice zoophilia. Isn't this a question-begging position in an ethical discussion. It is interesting from a anthropological standpoint that certain cultures practice zoophilia but it has no bearing on a discussion of the morality of zoophilia. Both of you (Chibiabos and FT2) appear to be entangling a positive non-normative matter (i.e. some cultures practice zoophilia) with a purely normative matter (i.e. it is good/right to practice zoophilia). Also, the position regarding de-sexing and breeding versus copulation with animals misses the point. You may just as well argue that having sex with a cow is morally prefereable to killing and eating that cow and that vegetarian zoophiles are therefore morally superior to meat eating exclusive heterosexuals. Animals can be trained to engage in coitus or cunnilingus with humans but that doesn't constitue their consent. I don't know of any bioethicists or animal psychologists that deem animals capable of providing consent (on any matter). If animals can be deemed capable of providing informed consent then they can also be deemed able to form intent in which case we should reintroduce animal trials. An unneutered dog will "hump" anything (as any dog owner will attest). Using the naive animal for sexual gratification is plainly exploitative -- the animal is not providing consent in any sense of the term. It is only (adult) humans that have morality and codes of conduct so only humans can be expected to act morally i.e. non-exploitatively (towards the naive and hence vulnerable eg. children, animals, and the mentally impaired). You may repsond that using animals for food is exploitative. I would agree but I'd add that is for a good cause, namely our phyical nourishment and sustenance. Eating meat is consistent with our physiological project i.e. survival (and eventual reproduction). Copulating with animals is disconnected from our phyisological project and reproductive design. It is entirely exploitative and decadent serving only to satisfy a misguided reproductive drive. Additionally, zoophilia and other paraphilias are correlated with physiological and/or neurological dysfucntion. I'm not contending that zoophiles are sick because they copulate with animals. Rather, I'm contending (with substantial scientific support) that zoophiles are sick that is why they have sex with animals. Paraphilias result from developmental disturbances (I have around 15 citations from peer-reviewed publications that support this contention). FFodor 13:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That quote is highly questionable. There is a substantial body of criminological research that suggests otherwise. Many zoophiles are mentally retarded and practice numerous other paraphilias. See

Duffield G, Hassiotis, Vizard E. Zoophilia in young sexual abusers. Journal Forensic Psychiatry 1998;9;294-304

Williams CJ, Weinberg MS. Zoophilia in men: a study of sexual interest in animals. Arch Sex Behav 2003;32(6):523-35

Earls CM, Lalumiere ML. A case study of preferential bestiality (zoophilia) Sex Abuse 2002;14(1):83-8

Ressler RK, Burgess AW, Douglas JE. Sexual homicide: patters & motives. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1988.

Prins Herschel, Offenders, Deviants or Patients?, 3rd ed. London, Routledge, 2005 p.233 FFodor 12:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions by FFodor

Hello all. Most of this article reads well, it is largely balanced and encyclopedic in style but there are a few areas that do read like advocacy. The "Health and Safety" section is quite inconsisent with the balance of the article. What authority contends that humans and animals are anatomically compatible for coitus? Also the sub-section on mis-citation of research is little more than a pre-emptive dimissal of any critical research findings. It too is unsubstantied. I have some references and a brief synpses drawn from the criminology and abnormal psychology literature:

Duffield G, Hassiotis, Vizard E. Zoophilia in young sexual abusers. Journal Forensic Psychiatry 1998;9;294-304

Finds an assocoaition between zoophilia and mental retardation.

Williams CJ, Weinberg MS. Zoophilia in men: a study of sexual interest in animals. Arch Sex Behav 2003;32(6):523-35

Finds that exclusively heterosexual men are underrepresented amongst zoophilic men.

Earls CM, Lalumiere ML. A case study of preferential bestiality (zoophilia) Sex Abuse 2002;14(1):83-8

Reports a case of a zoophilic man that inserted his arm into the vagina of a mare causes her vaginal rupture and subsequent death in response to her interest in a stallion that he had a competitve interst in.

Ressler RK, Burgess AW, Douglas JE. Sexual homicide: patters & motives. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1988.

Reports that sadistic serial killers have a preference for paraphillic pornography including that depicting zoophilia.

Prins Herschel, Offenders, Deviants or Patients?, 3rd ed. London, Routledge, 2005 p.233

"Duffield et al. (1998) describe and discuss the cases of seven young patients referred to an adolescent psychiatric service dealing with sex abusers. On the basis of their own study and the work of others, they concluded that bestiality was frequently accompanied by other paraphilias (disorders of sexual preference). In summary, the behaviour is most likely to occur mainly in males who may be mentally disturbed or impaired, be socially isolated, have difficulties in making relationships and showing other forms of sexually deviant behaviour."

As far as I know the resarch based on deviant populations does not specify a causal connection between zoophilia and these populations neurological, endocrinological and psychological deficits. Insead they find an association between zoophilia and these deficits. This is worthy of mention. Also, the ethical dimension of zoophilia isn't given the treatment it deserves. Instead the reader is treated to numerous NAMBLA-esque apologies. The ethical concern is a large one. Singer isn't the only bioethicist with an opinion on zoophilia. There is also a body of research on serial murderers that documents their paraphilias (not all sadistic) and zoophilia is included. -FFodor 12:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose one expects meatpuppet recruitment next. This being the sort of thing HeadleyDown's do. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please. Will the accusation of impersonation and recruitment become your standard response to any editorial contribution that is inconsisntent with your worldview? I can't prove that I'm not someone or that I'm not associated with someone. That is impossible to do. The onus is on you -- the accuser -- to demonstrate that I am part of some mythical cabal or that I am someone you have had previous encounters with. My contributions should be assessed on their own merits just as you expect your own to be. By posting to the discussion first I am trying to be courteous and cooperative. I will proceed with the edits I deem appropriate to balance the article unless you can offer good reasons otherwise. -FFodor 04:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Pack it in, Headley/Hartley/whatever name you use next. You are not permitted to edit on this site, under any name, or with any sock, as you well know. Thank you. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going anywhere and I'm not Headley/Hartley nor am I affiliated with that person. I'm not obliged to prove myself to you. The onus is on you to substantiate your suspicions. As a courtesy you should haved obtained and presented evidence for your allegations before publicizing them. You are in effect harassing me on the basis of your unfounded suspicions. You have started off on a bad foot but I am going to re-extend the courtesy I offered at the outset. I am offering you and your fellow editors (which to use your standard of evidence I could a priori, without any substantiation, characterise as your acquaintances drawn from one or more paraphilia IRC channels and zoophile WWW fora) to substantiate the lurid claims in the article. I don't want a revert war but I will make my edits unless you can persuade me to do otherwise. Claiming that I am some banned editor or that I am affiliated with said editor (without an iota of evidence) won't help your cause. There are numerous unsubstantiated claims in the article (that are propagandist) and much reserach into paraphilia isn't even mentioned. I aim to correct this deficiency. I have surveyed your edits to numerous articles and you present as an argumentative bully with an agenda. You seem incapable of editing without editorialising. People don't come to Wikipedia to read your opinions and that isn't the purpose of the project nor do you have license to "soap box" regardless of how long you have been editing (read editorialising). All of my edits will be substantiated and will reflect expert opinion. I will strive to adhere to Wikipedia policy and procedure and that is all I need do. So either substantiate or leave me alobe. FFodor 09:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Goodbye Headley. Thank you. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)