Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 20

Archived June 09, 2007

Use of Internet survey in the extent section

I made the deletion of the internet survey paragraph (Jan 18, 2007) but it was reverted by Red Director. Is the given reason commonly accepted criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia? Specifically, if a topic doesn't have an abundance of credible resources, a disclosed use of non-credible source is encouraged?

Most importantly, Zoophilia is being presented as a social and medical phenomenon. It's within a field that is professionally researched and other material on this page have been from published sources. This differs from, say, the latest video game, which is unlikely to have professional research performed and in which case the use of a large internet survey could possibly be justified. (Where the internet survey would be the most authoritative source).

I haven't done this much so if there's already an established consensus on this, I'd appreciate being pointed in the general direction.24.225.163.103 06:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this helps:In an ideal world, there would be reliable sources for everything. Even without an ideal world, with a bit of work, sources which we can agree are of good quality, can be found for many things. In some fields and questions, there are few (or no) formal sources.

Sexual demographics are one of those - see Demographics of sexual orientation. We still don't find it easy to measure how many Iranians are gay, because it's a very serious crime there, to take one simple example. In such cases, we publish what information we can, so that at least what is known, is available in lieu.

The main problem with sources such as surveys (of any kind) is, we may lack reassurance of scientific control. That is, we don't know for sure what it means. However here we have an advantage. It's a bit like the statement "Newton was the most important mathematician ever". We don't know if that's true. But we do know if it's true that "Einstein described Newton as the most important mathematician ever". That's checkable - we call it "verifiability", and the policy on "neutral reporting" is very clear on this: we can't state "Y is true" but we can state "X says Y is true". We can't say "sugar is bad for you" (a definitive claim), but we can say "in the 2005 dental survey of ireland, 95% of dentists concurred that sugar is bad for you" (a report of a definitive claim made by others).

The difference is, one is asserting facts, the other is reporting (others) statements. One is making a claim. the other is reporting others claims, which we can verify they made, and report faithfully the circumstances of their making.

In the present case, nobody knows how widespread zoophilia or zoosexual acts are. Society will probably never truely know, due to many uncertainties, some of which are noted in the article - poor definition of "what counts", motive to privacy, difficulty sampling and so on.

But we can provide such information as is available, notable, and verifiable, and that is all that exists, and for someone seeking information on occurrance, it might be all they can find out about it. We cannot say exactly how many there are. But by making utterly clear the basis of survey, the exact question, the site making the claim, and the fact that the survey is said to have many tens of thousands of respondents, it is likely this information could be of value. We check against our policies:

• Is it verifiable that site X made the claim of these results in a survey - yes.
• Is it neutrally stated exactly what the basis was and the results, so that people are not fooled into believing it is worth more (or less) reliance than it really is? - yes.

Because it's an inherently uncertain question, we cite all the answers we can that seem like they might have some utility, to try and reduce the risk of picking the one answer that's an abberation, and also to give an idea how consistent or otherwise the answers are. A reader can clearly evaluate any answer, and decide for themselves what value to place on it, what meaning to draw from it. And that is itself, utterly a viewpoint-neutral result, exactly as it should be.

It would be nice to have more. But lacking that, we do the best we can and disclose everything needed to give purported data a chance for fair reader evaluation without our reinterpretation.

Late night answer, hope it helps somehow. Glad to discuss further if there are more questions. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Original poster here. That was useful, thanks. 74.71.35.143 20:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm a complete newbie to the process, so apologies if this sounds a bit confused (as I am), especially after I have reviewed English Wikipedia official policy and guidelines on this issue.

At very best, this "survey" should presented with a much stronger caveat, and only as anecdotal evidence, i.e. "based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers", without the pseudo-scientific mask. The very basis of science and of statistical analysis is that it carried out under an establish set of controls. This was not.

If the consensus for this article is that "purported data", generated without any controls whatsoever, can and should be included, what is to stop anyone from creating "survey results", anonymously posting them online and appealing to this argument for inclusion?

~~pd henriksson 07:16 UTC 28 April 2007 ~~

NPOV and edits

I'm a bit concerned about some of the edits that have gone in, the last two days, mostly by babyNuke.

The things that concern me are:

• Cited useful material removed (including valid useful material), with the deletion slipped in under innocuous edit summaries.

Example: An edit of the term "Common Culture" in the intro modified to "Western Culture" and edit summary "Weasel construction, tweak". Its unclear whether this is "weasel construction", because it is common throughout much of the world (not just "Western culture"). But in the same edit, a cited quote was removed that removes from the introduction a notable balancing point of view, that some notable people consider it not unethical if no harm were done. That is not a trivial view, and was in the intro to balance the clearly stated majority view that "all zoophilia is abusive". Removing it under an inaccurate edit summary and without discussion is not really ok.

Western Culture is not "Common Culture" and there are, in fact, several tribal cultures that tolerate or even include zoosexual activity. Unless you have documented evidence that a majority of different cultures expressly forbid it, the claim of "common" is unsupported. --Chibiabos 08:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• The quote from Posner was reduced to a sentence, which is fine, but in doing so a key point was deleted carelessly, that early laws were primarily concerned with the offense to community standards.
• Notable cited legal views were removed. Abbreviation might be appropriate, but complete removal of the factual cited statement that a country's consultation over the law with their own veterinary body, concluded no evidence to support a ban, is not really ok. It's relevant to this article, not just to the legal article.
• The size estimates for the furry/zoophile crossover were removed. This is a question of notable interest to a significant number of people (including non-zoophiles) who regularly ask whether and to what extent furries are zoophiles. In fact the footnote was inserted originally because of the feeling actual data was needed, and the data and its presentation was discussed on the talk page to ensure a reasonable consensus and neutral presentation. As far as I'm aware the facts have not changed, and even if we don't know precise figures, we have at least two surveys making insightful comments on the matter, both of which we can cite for whatever use as data they are to readers. The bottom line percentage is unknown and uncertain, but we can certainly cite the sourced and known survey results for such surveys (performed by non-zoophiles) which do exist. Readers can then draw their own conclusions from that data.
• An entire section of material is deleted. The justification given is that the section title (which could have been edited if a problem) was biased. There is no discussion of the data, nor attempt to fix any perceived bias in title, just mass deoletion of entire section of material. Reinstated. If title needs fixing then fix the title.

I'd also like discussion of what kind of picture should be in this article. The subject of the image was changed from leda and swan to a line art sketch. I don't have strong feelings about it but I'm not convinced this is accurate. The article is about a lot more than just sex, and to use a sexual image reinforces a viewpoint that may correspond to popular perception rather than accurate knowledge. Discussion appreciated but no change made.

Last, the subject of NPOV has come up many times, and usually stems from a mis-perception of some reader new to the subject, about the subject, its facts and research, and a perception that pushing a popular viewpoint is more appropriate than covering 5the actual sourced science and knowledge. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy either of zoophiles views or popular perceptions' views. It is a place for neutral presentation of views. I, personally, and others, regularly remove zoophile hyperbole as well as its opposite. If there is still any major NPOV issue, which is unlikely given the intense review this has had over the last 2 years, then to clear it up will need clear discussion and specifics, not just underhand deletions of valid useful cited material. (Also see comment/discussion thread above, on neutrality.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I sadly see you've decided to revert some of the edits I made, so let me clarify why I made them:

• The "some, such as Peter Singer, argue" line is almost a text book example of a weasel word construction. To quote the wikipedia policy: "Weasel words don't really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague or indirect syntax."
• The furry percentage I disagree on. We've had the discussion and no conclusive numbers came up, with polls coming up with radically different outcomes. This makes any such number unreliable. And even if is noted that a number is unreliable, as soon as you put it in the text people will start using it.
• The mis-citation of research seems to only be about discrediting the argument that those practicing bestiality will in nearly all cases go on to commit violence against humans because this claim is based on mis-cited research. This can be said in two sentences and doesn't require an entire section. Wikipedia is not aimed at monitoring the neutrality of other organisations. It's worth noting the number given is not accurate, but by making this section which suggests this is common for organisations to mis-cite research on the matter despite only giving one example it could create the impression that animal welfare organisations in general manipulate research to support their agenda. I feel this section only has a right to exist if you could find half a dozen more examples of such mis-cited research. BabyNuke 11:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don’t see your explanation as satisfactory justification of what you removed from the article. You say that you removed something that was a classic case of “weasel word” construction, which is a way to spread hearsay. However the sentence you removed cited Peter Singer as an example. Not only does that show that there are people who are arguing that point but that it is an important fact to this entire article that a very well known ethics philosopher supports this view. That isn’t spreading hearsay or couching personal opinions in vague or indirect syntax. If there wasn’t any citable sources (like Peter) then you would have a case. I would sympathize if you reworked the sentence to make it sound less similar to a weasel worded sentence, but you deleted the whole thing (along with an important fact).

There's truth to that I suppose. BabyNuke 21:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge. It is not the wiki’s responsibility to make sure what facts people do and do not use. If the wiki has information that is dramatically different or is “unreliable”, and that article openly states that to be the case, then people risk carelessly using that information at their own risk. Wiki can not police what other people do. Normally I would choose a better set of information over this one but do to the lack of studies, this is the best information we have so far.

What the article says as per current revision: "The size of this group is not known, although the few surveys that exist together with their editors' comments might support a figure of 2 - 5% of furries." Not even the reference it uses for that backs up that claim since one of the mentioned surveys has a percentage of 28%. I feel it is safe to say zoophiles are still a minority amongst furries, however, exact numbers quite simply aren't known because the results from surveys vary too greatly. BabyNuke 21:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If the 28% figure comes from data collected in Locandez's Furvey, one should be aware that those were limited to the group found on alt.lifestyle.furry (furry lifestylers)—a distinctly seperate group—and not furry fans in general, which was Rust's survey. —Xydexx 06:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that one of the researchers at the Domestic/Wildlife department (Dan Paden) at PETA has and continues to mis-site this information in action alerts. As someone who regularly works with these organizations (PETA), I tried to contact this person to let him know of his mistake, more then once. These concerned seem to have fallen on death ears, which can be made evident through the archives on their webpage of them consistently re-quoting the same study incorrectly over and over again. Other organizations like the SPCA or HSUS use more graphically shocking and emotional appeal in their case against bestiality and don’t even support their argument with any evidence or facts that show inherent harm or abuse. I hate to admit it (as someone who works with these organizations and expects better of them) but in this case, they are mis-citing research. --Steele the Wolf 20:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd find it a fitting section if various examples could be given. Right now, the section just seems to function as criticism towards PETA on what they base their views on bestiality on, this based on the mis-citing of one article. Perhaps it is worth mentioning, but an entire section I feel gives it too much weight. If you can provide more examples that shows various organisations are actively manipulating research to come to obviously false conclusions, feel free to add it and perhaps make it deserve its own section. BabyNuke 21:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I find this article isn't balanced at all, IMO. It seems to be promoting bestiality rather than describing it in a neutral fashion, giving more weight to the defenders of this sick practice rather than its opponents and making them out to look like stupid religious fundamentalists, and focusing on the idea that there is a "social community" of people, who, to put it bluntly, enjoy having SEX WITH ANIMALS! This article should perhaps talk about the physical and psychological damage caused to animals or at least balance the article out, at the moment it looks like it's written by apologetics for "zoosexuality" or whatever these perverts are calling themselves this week! YaAsehShalom

"there is a "social community" of people, who, to put it bluntly, enjoy having SEX WITH ANIMALS!" WAO!! I can't believe it, it's mind-blowing!!!! --Michael Retriever 13:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what this comment is doing here, as it isn't really relevant to this particular discussion. In any case, though, talking about "the physical and psychological damage caused to animals" would require the citation of reliable sources documenting this damage - of which there is none that I know of. Although I'm sure that the subject must horrify you, it is not Wikipedia's purpose to pass judgement. A neutral point of view is paramount to the site's goals. Zetawoof^(ζ) 22:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Modern society is generally hostile to the concept of animal/human sexuality. While some, such as philosopher and animal rights author Peter Singer, argue that zoophilia is not unethical if there is no harm or cruelty to the animal, this view is not widely shared; sexual acts with animals are generally condemned as "crime against nature" and/or animal abuse.

I don't know nor am I bothering to find out what "weasel words" are, but the abovequoted is intentionally misleading.

What the paragraph plainly sets out to do is to contrast an ambiguous hostility, a "crime against nature," with a much narrower PoV re: utilitarian ethics and bestiality. Sentiment should be contrasted with sentiment, and ethics with ethics, and this is nothing but a bald-faced strawmanning of society's legitimate concerns with sexual abuse of animals. It would be more accurate to say:

Modern society generally regards animal/human sexuality as an unacceptable risk factor for animal abuse and cruelty. Some, such as Peter Singer, have pointed out "sex with animals does not always involve cruelty," and that sexual contact between animals and people should not be judged on the basis of conventional shock or and horror, but based on the harm it causes.

--Enantiodromos

Hmm, well - I think society's dislike of bestiality has very little to do with abuse concerns in the very basis. I like your way of putting it, but I'd keep the first sentence as it was. BabyNuke 14:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that society's repugnance is not *directly* relevant to concerns with abuse. But society definitely rejects 'zoophilia' because of its concern that bestiality is a key risk factor in animal abuse. So if what you mean is that you don't think society has weighed the risk of animal abuse that goes along with bestiality and rejected it for that reason, I definitely disagree.

But that's the essence of why the paragraph is strawmanning "society." Society has ethically sound reasons for rejecting bestiality; as a practice, it tends to result in a lot of harm to animals. I know wikipedia doesn't involve itself in research, but if we asked a large sample of U.S. society, for example, "Is the likelihood of animals being harmed by acts of bestiality sufficient reason to criminalize it," my confidence is very high you'd have an overwhelming majority say "yes."

I mention "shock or horror," because that's among the things Singer actually said, and the paragraph in question not only draws a false and misleanding contrast between pro-bestiality's ethical position on one hand, and public sentiment on the other, but because it doesn't even fully represent the position Singer forwards in the article cited; Singer closely examines and acknowledges that human/animal sexual contact includes a definite and prominent incidence of abuse. He rightly isn't presenting exact data (that I presume he doesn't have) on how often such relations are abusive-- but he does highlight that abusive human/animal sex relations definitely exist. I frankly don't even think it's accurate of the paragraph to say that Singer's view is not widely accepted; getting somebody to give a knee-jerk "Eeew! That's disgusting!" is not the same as getting them to say "I reject Peter Singer's position that harmless sex acts between humans and animals are not unethical."

The paragraph is badly misleading and definitely needs to be rewritten. --Enantiodromos

An interesting rewording. We clearly are not here to judge why society disapproves. It's probably a combination of emotive repugnance, traditional understandings about animals and people-animal relationships, and possible harm caused. If I had to guess I'd note that the former two were active for thousands of years before animal welfare ever became an issue, and most people disapprove on a basis of dislike, and rarely seem to get round to neutrally asking "well, does it do harm?" That seems fairly good evidnece that the harm issue is ex post facto rationalization for the emotional reaction -- as so often the case. (Note - this is personal hypothesizing, not cited research.)

Version 1 (current)	Version 2 (Proposed)
Modern society is generally hostile to the concept of animal/human sexuality.	Modern society generally regards animal/human sexuality as an unacceptable risk factor for animal abuse and cruelty.
While some, such as philosopher and animal rights author Peter Singer, argue that zoophilia is not unethical if there is no harm or cruelty to the animal, this view is not widely shared; sexual acts with animals are generally condemned as "crime against nature" and/or animal abuse.	Some, such as Peter Singer, have pointed out "sex with animals does not always involve cruelty," and that sexual contact between animals and people should not be judged on the basis of conventional shock or and horror, but based on the harm it causes.

My concerns with this rewording are:

• The proposed reword presumes a main basis for societal disapproval, and sets Singer up specifically against that one basis. It's very likely that the argument it puts him him against is a straw man -- indeed his main objection is that if no harm results it may not be unethical, which implies his main objection is an assumption it would be unethical even if there was no harm. It's accurate to say that society is hostile, which doesn't make any assumption.
• The current version reflects Singer's argument (that if no harm is done the act need not be unethical) quite accurately. Beyond that do the two versions say anything significantly different?
• The current version sets this in its appropriate context - a societal view that is concerned with abuse and crime against nature (or similar basis), not just the former alone.

It's no bad thing to look at closely, but it needs more discussing to see a good reason to consider the present version "misleading" in my impression. Hope that helps. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't dispute that my rewording has issues; I'd have to take the time to think about it and review your concerns with it. But for the moment: the reason the current paragraph is misleading, to repeat, is that it presents apples and oranges for no obvious reason-- society's 'hostility' on one hand, versus Singer's position on the ethics, on the other. It would be straightforward to contrast Singer's hostility with society's hostility (if hostility is itself relevant), and society's ethical stance, which is that human/animal sexual contact is an unacceptable risk factor for animal abuse, with Singer's ethical stance-- that human/animal sexual contact is not necessarily abuse. But presenting *only the distate* of society (the current paragraph does NOT present society's ethical position re: bestiality) against *only the ethical view* of Singer falsely marginalizes society's concern as merely an aesthetic one. Society's legitimate ethical concern with animal/human contact as an unacceptable risk factor in animal abuse is abundandly clear, and every bit as evident as its hostility/distaste/horror. Possibly by Wikipedia's standards, it's unacceptable to state either of these things about society without citation; I don't really know. But if you can say the one, you can say the other.--Enantiodromos

Let me put this more simply. The point of the paragraph is to remark on the utilitarian ethics of bestial contact. Remarking-- that is, speculating about-- society's hostility is not the proper context at all UNLESS the point of the paragraph is to implicitly contend that society's hostility is NOT based on utilitarian ethical grounds. And that is completely unwarranted speculation about society's reasons for rejecting bestiality. Either chitchat about what we think society as a whole thinks is fair game, or it isn't. --Enantiodromos

This page is a WP:POVFORK from Bestiality. I recommend starting drafts to condense it to a paragraph or two to re-merge as a section reflecting the opinions of practicioners of bestiality.

Bestiality isn't a distinct article - it redirects here. There's nothing to merge to. Zetawoof^(ζ) 23:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The section "Psychological and research perspectives" contains the statement

"Peer reviewed research into zoophilia in its own right has happened since around 1960."

and then goes on to cite both Miletski and Nancy Friday, neither of whom have published

any peer reviewed studies on the subject of zoophilia.

Shouldn't either the statement be edited or Miletski and Friday be removed?

~~pd henrikkson 07:34 UTC 28 April 2007~~

Arguments about zoophilia relations

I like how many citations there are in this section and I am not liking how it is just kind of, well a list... which for me violaties [WP:NOT#IINFO], and just listing off a bunch of pro and con arguements is sort of balanced, but still a soapbox [WP:NOT#SOAPBOX].

As a first step, I propose removing some of the more preachy ones (on both sides) and slimming the section down, then turning it into an actual paragraph reporting on concerns of Zoophilia and reported positive aspects of it.Sethie 04:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This section came up for criticism on that exact basis during its review, so it's good if someone plans to look into it.

The issues and arguments are valid, the problem is more that this needs its own sub-article, something like "Societal views on zoophilia" or "Ethics of zoophilia", where they can be explored in a non-list format and in more depth. This section would then summarize that sub-article.

You like? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

A sub-article is probably the way to go, the section is large.

I disagree that they're all valid. Listing a bunch of opinions like: # "Sexual activity between species is unnatural." "Sexual activity between species is (or should be) naturally repugnant to anyone in their right mind", sometimes called the "yuck factor". (For contrasting view see: Wisdom of repugnance) "Animals are incapable of relating to or forming relationships with humans." "Zoosexual relations are simply for those unable/unwilling to find human partners." and on the pro side: # "Instinct does not exclude enjoyment, volition or learning." "Animal and human social structure is flexible enough both to allow for different species in it and can easily encompass dynamically changing roles and leads." * "Perspectives on human dignity and religious viewpoints differ and are personal; many individuals do not consider them relevant."

First off, they're uncited. By wiki policy anyone can just take them out. Regardless, some of them just read to me like "Things people say." Why not just have the main ones. Some of them are well cited and significant. Sethie 18:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, arguments for and against are exactly that - they're what people say. In its own article though, I agree, we could probably do some of them better than sounding like a list of forum quotes. Mopst of these were shortened versions of genuine arguments, and in their own article could be replaced with more credible discussion

As an example, the argument "Its disgusting and nobody in their right mind would do it" is a genuine argument. It regularly comes up in pages and papers covering the subject. People actually do say that and consider it a good reason to prohibit such actions, and that is their view. Emotionally it can carry great weight. But it just doesn't sound like it signifies much, when it's just in a list as a bullet point. In its own article it would probably be below "Ethical reasons" and "Animal welfare reasons", in a section called "Emotional reasons", and it would say something like:

"There is strong emotion involved in the debate. As a result, strong visceral feelings of disgust are themselves sometimes cited as sufficient reason for rejection, on the basis that something so strongly embedded in human emotions should be accepted as a guide of moral behavior.^{[1] [2] [3]} In the study of philosophy and ethics, the wisdom of using strong emotions as a guide is considered fallacious (See: Wisdom of repugnance),^{[4] [5]} and as a result this argument is considered similarly to other arguments against alternative lifestyles based upon personal dislike, and usually rejected by both academic researchers and zoophiles.^{[6] [7] [8]} "

This might then lead into a short paragraph and cross-references to articles and papers where the philosophy of using strong feelings to guide moral decisions, are discussed.

(Edit: as a sidenote, the statement you tagged as "cite needed", agreed needs citing. In fact thats a nudge for me to start working on summarizing the research in general a bit better, but I can find a few strong cites in the meantime. Good call. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC))

Well, when you link them all together like that, I read something that strikes me a lot more as an encyclopedia article! Sethie 21:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a good thing, right?? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If it works for you, then we could quite easily expand the arguments out that way. The items in the list were each added as bullets for brevity, but based upon sources which can be looked up again and therefore easily rewritten in balanced prose style. So maybe the question is, we agree a fork article would be good, but what exactly should that article cover? An article simply called "Arguments for/against" is not really encyclopedic as a subject, it's more likely to re-enact a debate or list viewpoints, than describe it in a context.

Maybe something along the lines of "Societal views on zoophilia" or "Ethics of zoophilia"?

For inspiration and ideas, maybe look briefly at Societal attitudes towards homosexuality might also give some ideas how to make it encyclopedic. We basically need to decide "what will this new sub-article's focus be". Then it gets much easier to write. Your thoughts next? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think we have the overall topic, now we just need a name. How does "Ethic and Social views of Zoophilia" sound? Sethie 01:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

---

It sounds pretty good. These are my outstanding queries before going ahead, the things I needed to figure out before I felt happy how it was forked myself. They are sections or subtopics I would like to see forked out, and what forks are created seems a good question to consider first. (Ie, there are some areas of potential crossover that're worth clarifying beforehand, rather than having headaches after):

1. I'm going at some stage to fork the media section out, maybe as "representations of zoophilia", to cover media representations (the list of films is getting quite long), editorial and media representations, fictional and non-fictional representations in the media, etc. See User:FT2/media for a rough schemata of what I figured such an article might cover. There might well also be a section on zoophiles in society.
   
   I also have tried to figure out how best to fork out societal views in general. Again, see User:FT2/society for what this might cover.
   
   Are there any major crossovers between either of these and "Ethic and Social views of Zoophilia"? If so are they problematic crossovers or are they separate topics covering basically distinct subject matter , and appropriate non-problematic overlap? Really the question is, what articles are needed and how should they be distinguished?

    

2. Will the proposed forked article(s) also be likely to cover group viewpoints relative to "arguments for and against" such as "how ethologists see it" or similar? (These are currently in the same "arguments" section of the main article)

The above are the points I myself have tried to decide, which is why that section and others related to zoophilia/society haven't yet been touched. can you take a look and let me know what you think? They are my two questions before saying "yes it sounds fine".

The other thing I'd like (if you feel up to it) is, what the proposed forked articles will cover. Is it just expanding on that list of arguments, or is there some broader perspective or context, or similar, that come into focus when we look at "Ethic and Social views of Zoophilia" overall? Thoughts?

(Sorry this is a bit messy!) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Legality - possession vs publication?

The article says: "Pornography involving sex with animals is widely illegal, even in most countries where the act itself is not explicitly outlawed." - is this possession or publication? Obscenity laws typically only cover publication. I find it hard to believe that possession is widely illegal, in fact, I'm not aware of any western countries at least which criminalise possession of anything other than child porn. Can this be clarified?

What about some examples of countries where the act is not explicitly outlawed, but pornography is? Mdwh 14:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

See the draft article on animal pornography. And feel free to edit it if you can imrpove it. And yes, that sentence in this article may be suspect come to think of it. Some countries do, but equally many don't. Usually treated as independent. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Religious views of zoophilia

In the article it says that some Christians and non-orthodox Jews don't regard all the laws of Moses as binding upon them. This is true, I am a practising reform Jew who happens also to be gay and I do not believe that it is clear from the text that homosexuality is forbidden. The same cannot be said for bestiality. It specifically states in the Bible that anyone, man or woman, who sleeps with an animal is committing a sin. It is also true that a lot of the Bible has been reinterpreted by liberal Jews and Christians and new meanings found within it. Our understanding of the Bible now fits in better with our understanding of evolution. However it cannot be extrapolated from this that non-orthodox Jews and Christians allow bestiality. I have NEVER known any religious person (and very few atheists, for that matter) say that God allows humans to sleep with animals. Please tell me where in the Torah or in the Christian bible it allows bestiality and what denominations of Christianity and Judaism allow humans to have sex with animals otherwise I will just conclude that someone made it up. Someone deleted my edit to the article and I would like to know what basis there was for deleting it and a source which states which Jews and Christians consider it to be acceptable. Thank you. ya'aseh shalom

Thanks. I hope this will reassure. You may be making an assumption there. Read it very carefully. here it is statement by statement:

• "Passages in Leviticus 18 ..... are cited by Jewish, Christian, and Muslim theologians as categorical denunciation of bestiality." - factual, not questioned I hope.

• "Some theologians (especially Christian) extend this, to consider lustful thoughts for an animal as a sin, and the Christian theologian Thomas Aquinas described it along with homosexuality as the worst sexual sins 'because use of the right sex is not observed'." - I hope this is also agreed to be accurate and not a concern.

• "Alternatively, many Christians and some non-Orthodox Jews do not regard the full Levitical laws as binding upon them, and may consider them irrelevant." - this is probably the one you have difficulty with. There are two statements. It is accurate that nmany non-orthodox jews and christians do not consider the levitical laws binding. I hope we agree there. The latter statement uses the word "may" - implying "it is possible". That's all that "may" means. We don't know how many do, or don't, or what views chritian and jewish zoophiles may hold. So we cannot say that they all consider them relevant. Some seem to consider them irrelevant for this reason. This statement is not just discussing mainstream views, but any christians and jews who do not believe in the levitical laws, and may be some who don't believe in levitical laws, who therefore don't find them relevant. Not knowing, we use the word "may" not "are".

Hope this helps. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It is true that not every Jew and obviously most Christians do not consider most of the Torah to be binding. I personally do not interpret the Torah entirely literally and I am a reform Jew. We allow homosexuality, and women take an equal role in services and rituals, otherwise I would not belong to this denomination. However this does not extend to bestiality. I have never heard of a Jew saying that bestiality is OK and I cannot believe that any Christian organisation would endorse it because they tend to take a much tougher line on issues to do with sex than we do. I imagine that maybe one or two people have believed that it might be OK, but I really don't think that all non-orthodox Jews and Christians can be tarred with the same brush simply because alot of us think SOME of the prohibitions are outdated and irrelevant. None of the Jewish references to animals in our tradition contain the idea that it is OK to sleep with them, and humane treatment and concern for the animal is ALWAYS emphasised. ya'aseh shalom

The difficulty is that most of what you say either doesn't address the wording used (which was quite carefully reviewed), and is in the main, personal beliefs and impressions alone. This is how your comment stands, from an encyclopedic viewpoint, which I'm happy to explain so that if there is a real error of statement here it can be pinned down and corrected:

1. It is true that not every Jew and obviously most Christians do not consider most of the Torah to be binding. I personally do not interpret the Torah entirely literally and I am a reform Jew. We allow homosexuality, and women take an equal role in services and rituals, otherwise I would not belong to this denomination. -- Sounds reasonable. But it's not especially germane so far. No mis-statement is shown in this sentence.
2. However this does not extend to bestiality. -- again, likely true. But note the article doesn't say in the first place that any denominations endorse bestiality. Merely that (factually speaking) a number of Christian and Jewish individuals do so. So again, not germane.
3. I have never heard of a Jew saying that bestiality is OK and I cannot believe that any Christian organisation would endorse it because they tend to take a much tougher line on issues to do with sex than we do. I imagine that maybe one or two people have believed that it might be OK, but I really don't think that all non-orthodox Jews and Christians can be tarred with the same brush simply because alot of us think SOME of the prohibitions are outdated and irrelevant. --

   This boils down to 1/ I personally have never known a Jewish or Christian zoophile and have not checked how they reconcile their faith with their activities. 2/ I personally do not think it is other than 'one or two people'. 3/ This article tars all of us.

   Well... no. The first part is what we call original research - your personal impressions rather than genuine research in the field. The second part reflects your own discomfort that 1/ you feel a statement about how some individuals reconcile the matter reflects on others who reconcile their beliefs with similar logic, and that 2/ saying how some people reconcile the matter with their religions, constitutes a statement about all Christians and Jews' views on bestiality.

4. None of the Jewish references to animals in our tradition contain the idea that it is OK to sleep with them, and humane treatment and concern for the animal is ALWAYS emphasised. -- repeats the first point above, and adds an irrelevancy, because the view of Judaism on animal care is not relevant to how some zoophiles reconcile it with their beliefs, the topic of this paragraph.

Essentially, I don't yet see a mis-statement here. This paragraph is commenting on how individuals reconcile zoophilia with Leviticus. A common view is (like Homosexuality) that leviticus is non-binding or parts are outdated. That view is all that is reported here. Not any kind of consensus by any group or church or synagogue body. Hope that clarifies a bit. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point your attention on this un-reverted [edit by Nssa]. I didn't read the Qur'an - so I cannot decide on the validity of the edit. But I recognize that it is bad in style and spelling. Furthermore I don't see the particular relevance of the quoted verses from the sura to the article. The original version seemed more balanced to me. Ocolon 18:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No objections? Okay. I changed it to the previous version. — Ocolon 10:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

DSM

The article says:

DSM-III-R (APA, 1987) stated that sexual contact with animals is almost never a clinically significant problem by itself (Cerrone, 1991), and therefore both this and the later DSM-IV (APA, 1994) subsumed it under the residual classification "paraphilias not otherwise specified".

Well, really? 'Cause I can't see that anywhere being mentioned.

http://allpsych.com/disorders/paraphilias/index.html

http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/dsm4TRclassification.htm#Sexual

Well, here it is. Does anyone actually have an original DSM-IV? Ocolon 17:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, so I've checked MASSON's Spanish translation of the DSM IV and DSM IV-TR and this is what I get:

DSM IV under section "Sexual disorders and disorders of the sexual identity"

Paraphilias all have in common intense and repetitive urges, sexual fantasies or behaviors referred to objects, activities or unusual situations. These disorders cause clinically significant discomfort or social determent, determent in the work place or in other important areas of the every day life of the individual. Paraphilias include exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteurism, pedophilia, sexual masochism, sexual sadism, transvestic fetishismm, voyeurism, and paraphilias not otherwise specified.

DSM IV-TR under section "Sexual disorders and disorders of the sexual identity"

The main characteristic of paraphilias is the presence of repetitive, intense, arousing sexual fantasies, impulses or sexual behaviours that generally involve

1) non-human objects,
2) suffering or humiliation of oneself or the partner, or
3) children or other non-consenting persons

that are present for 6 months or more (criteria A). For some individuals, fantasies or stimuli of paraphilic nature are compulsory in order to obtain arousal and are included invariably in the sexual activity. In other cases, the preferences of paraphilic nature appear only sporadically (e.g., during stressing periods), and sometimes the individual is capable of sexually functioning without fantasies nor stimuli of this kind. The behaviour, sexual impulses or fantasies cause clinically significant discomfort or social determent, determent in the work place or in other important areas of the every day life of the individual (criteria B). Paraphilias include exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteurism, pedophilia, sexual masochism, sexual sadism, transvestic fetishismm, voyeurism, and paraphilias not otherwise specified.

DSM IV and DSM IV-TR under section "Paraphilias not otherwise specified"

This category exists to include paraphilias that don't agree with the criteria of the previously specified paraphilias. As an example for these we can mention telephone scatalogia (obscene calls), necrophilia (cadavers), partialism (attention centered exclusively on one part of the body), zoophilia (animals), coprophilia (feces), klismaphilia, (enema) and urophilia (urine)

It would be a matter of looking for bestiality in DSM-III-R, but I still can't believe myself that Cerrone's comment was included in this version of the DSM, since his comment was made in 1991 according to this article, while the article for the DSM states DSM-III-R being published in 1987. Citation needed. --Michael Retriever 15:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

ICD 10

I suggest including that zoophilia is listed in WHO's ICD 10 under F65.8 Other disorders of sexual preference. Are there any objections? Ocolon 17:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

None at all. Suit yourself. --Michael Retriever 18:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Ocolon 22:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Advertising porn sites

I am concerned that the section on pornography is used to advertise porn movies and websites. Does this belong into an article on zoophilia? The article states that zoophilia shall not be confused with bestiality. Furthermore I see a problem with sourcing information in this section. Every once in a while someone comes and adds a person's name claiming the one is an actor in animal porn movies. I don't know if that's true. I won't verify it. But I think this stuff should be verified if it is kept in the article. Well, it shouldn't be kept here in my opinion. This article is about an orientation/paraphilia and we list porn actors. I hope we can find a consensus here. — Ocolon 17:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed this happening as well. I'm not quite sure what to do with it. At least some of the names appear to be legitimate. But there's a definite question as to whether they're notable enough to be given as examples here. Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they are notable enough for an article about zoophilia. I'm inclined to delete a large part of the pornography section. No objections where posted here in a week. I'm only hesitating because this is marked as a controversial article, so I would have preferred to hear some more opinions.

Actually I'd like to delete the whole pornography section. You don't find such a section in heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality… — Ocolon 20:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes Ocolon. I see what you mean. I believe some of the information there is important, but not to warrant a section. There is also what I believe to be strange terminology (unencyclopedic). For example there is a line about felatio that uses the term "non-human animals". Apart from the fact that the present line seems biased, its more encyclopedic to state "humans" or "human males", or even "men/boys". Suggestion: It would make the article more concise if the pornography section was merged with the fantasy/mythology one. I believe it may also be more neutral to term it generally as "erotica and pornography" or "erotic and pornographic material". Docleaf 08:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the terminology is a bit strange. It sounds complicated. "non-human animals" could be replaced by "animals" (not by "humans though ;-)). The animal article states that the term "non-human animal" is used in a biological context to differentiate between humans and other members of the biological [Kingdom_%28biology%29|kingdom]] Animalia, but that "animal" in everyday life usage excludes humans as well. I think we could simply use "animals" in the article. But English isn't my mother tongue and I'm not sure enough about this to do the changes. — Ocolon 08:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel it would be best that we keep it since bestiality redirects here not just Zoophilia. - 72.185.136.96 01:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I still suggest that sections should be merged. There is quite some unifying required in this article. I'm not saying there are forks, but its pretty close. There is also the question of presentation. Presently I believe the article is presented in quite a frilly way. Its a bit one sided towards anti feminist art erotica. I mean on a face value level. Docleaf 15:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately bestiality redirects here. I've read through the discussion on splitting the article into two seperate articles, zoophilia and bestiality. It's a pity the decision was 2:1 against that by the time, as I find BabyNuke's arguments convincing and more appropriate for an encyclopedia.

I do not support such an agreement, but if there is an agreement that the zoophilia article should include bestiality, then we ought have notes about pornography here. Nevertheless we shouldn't list unconfirmed names of assumed porn actors engaging in bestiality.

I see a major difference between mythology and modern pornography. I'm not convinced that merging both would be good. — Ocolon 08:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

as for notable websites how about Beasttube the bestiality video sharing community? It's free, and anyone can view and upload videos. Someone did not like it being in other/art links because of it being a porn site, so maybe it should be mentioned in social community. It’s rather explicit and contains hundreds of videos. It's kind of hard to describe without POV, all I can say is just take a look before voicing your opinion.- 72.185.136.96 03:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain what this link would add to the article? How does this provide factual information, that adds to the article in an encyclopedic manner? As I see it now, it would be mere advertisement. While pornography is not prohibited here (→ WP:NOT#CENSOR), pornography sites are usually no reliable sources for information. Links to them are almost always promotion that Wikipedia rejects, be the promoted site commercial or not (→ WP:NOT#LINK, Links to be avoided (3)). — Ocolon 08:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've started removing unsourced/inappropriate information from the pornography section. I'll continue to do so, but this will require some research first. :-/ — Ocolon 09:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Unrelated question

I need some help. I went to login to my original account Redcommander27, and it wouldn't accept my password. I only use three passwords for my internet accounts and have tried all of them. I need someone in Wikipedia who can restore my aconut. Is there any tech support.

You're asking in the wrong place. Here's a quick answer, though: If you set an email address on your account, you can have a new password sent to that address at the login page. Otherwise, you're out of luck. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unencyclopedic passages

When beginning to edit and shorten the pornography section I came across some sentences that sounded quite unencyclopedic to me. I'd appreciate if a native English speaker reviews them and rephrases them if necessary:

• Using animal fur or stuffed animals in erotic photography doesn't seem to be taboo

• Production and mere possession appear to be legal, however.

• The subtext is often to provide a contrast: animal versus sophisticated, raw beast versus culturally guided human. (Nancy Friday comments on this, noting that zoophilia as a fantasy may provide an escape from cultural expectations, restrictions, and judgements in regard to sex.)

  Could the information in the parentheses be presented differently?

• Material featuring sex with animals is widely available on the Internet, due to their ease of production

Ungrammatical - corrected version below - Omar

• Into the 1980s the Dutch took the lead, creating figures like "Wilma" and the "Dutch Sisters".

  — Ocolon 18:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Ocolon. I think you are doing good work simply identifying them. I'll have a doublecheck. Docleaf 09:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Should be correctly worded as Material featuring sex with animals is widely available on the Internet, owing to its ease of production. Due to should only be used before the gerund. Other passages are grammatical, and the Nancy Friday quote is Ok stylistically. 58.136.58.124 (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Omar Charles