Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 19

Archived January 26, 2007

Cite sources
This article needs to be brought up to wikipedia Cite your sources standards and a references section. The following assertations need some digging to check for appropriate citations, and ideally the context, the entire paragraph or full details, as useful background, not just the soundbite:


 * The ambiguous term sodomy has sometimes been used in legal contexts to include zoosexual acts jurisdictions like UK is one example, are there others?
 * The extent to which zoophilia occurs is not known with any certainty probably in one of the researches
 * most research into zoophilia has focused on its characteristics, rather than quantifying it. probably in one of the researches, most likely beetz
 * Scientific surveys estimating the frequency of zoosexuality, as well as anecdotal evidence and informal surveys, suggest that more than 1-2% -- and perhaps as many as 8-10% -- of sexually active adults have had significant sexual experience with an animal at some point in their lives a mix of many sources, anyone got any for starters?
 * Studies suggest that a larger number (perhaps 10-30% depending on area) have fantasized or had some form of brief encounter
 * NZ: It is interesting to note that in the 1989 Crimes Bill considered abolition of beastiality as a criminal offence, and for it to be treated as a mental health issue can we get hold of a copy of the crimes bill review, the whole section thats relevant?
 * NZ: In Police v Sheary (1991) 7 CRNZ 107 (HC) Fisher J considered that "[t]he community is generally now more tolerant and understanding of unusual sexual practices that do not harm others." can we get hold of a report of this case and his full comment?
 * For example, an old Peruvian law prohibited single males from having a female alpaca (llama).
 * A commonly reported starting age is at puberty, around 9 - 11, and this seems consistent for both males and females. Those who discover an interest at an older age often trace it back to nascent form during this period or earlier. there was an informal survey on some website, but researchers may have accurate information
 * zoophiles may be attracted only to particular species, appearances, personalities or individuals, and both these and other aspects of their feelings vary over time.
 * Zoophiles tend to perceive differences between animals and human beings as less significant than others do.
 * They often view animals as having positive traits (e.g. honesty) that humans often lack
 * and to feel that society's understanding of non-human sexuality is misinformed.
 * The biggest difficulties many zoophiles report are the inability to be accepted or open about their animal relationships and feelings with friends and family, and
 * the fear of harm, rejection or loss of companions if it became known (see outing and the closet, sometimes humorously referred to as "the stable").
 * Other major issues are hidden loneliness and isolation (due to lack of contact with others who share this attraction or a belief they are alone),
 * and the impact of repeated deaths of animals they consider lifelong soulmates (most species have far shorter lifespans than humans and they cannot openly grieve or talk about feelings of loss).
 * Zoophiles do not usually cite internal conflicts over religion as their major issue, perhaps because zoophilia, although condemned by many religions, is not a major focus of their teachings.
 * zoophiles sometimes enter human relationships due to growing up within traditional expectations, or to deflect suspicions of zoophilia,
 * and yet others may choose looser forms of human relationship as companions or housemates, live alone, or choose other zoophiles to live with.
 * Page citations and context for these:
 * The critical aspect to study was emotion, relationship, and motive, it is important not to just assess or judge the sexual act alone in isolation, or as "an act", without looking deeper. (Masters, Miletski, Beetz)
 * Zoophiles' emotions and care to animals can be real, relational, authentic and (within animals' abilities) reciprocal, and not just a substitute or means of expression. (Masters, Miletski, Weinberg, Beetz)
 * Most zoophiles have (or have also had) long term human relationships as well or at the same time as zoosexual ones. (Masters, Beetz)
 * Society in general at present is considerably misinformed about zoophilia, its stereotypes, and its meaning (Masters, Miletski, Weinberg, Beetz)
 * Contrary to popular belief, there is in fact significant popular or "latent" interest in zoophilia, either in fantasy, animal mating, or reality (Nancy Friday, Massen, Masters)
 * The distinction between zoophilia and zoosadism is a critical one, and highlighted by each of these studies.
 * Masters (1962), Miletski (1999) and Weinberg (2003) each comment significantly on the social harm caused by these, and other common misunderstandings: "This destroy[s] the lives of many citizens".
 * At times, research has been cited based upon the degree of zoosexual or zoosadistic related history within populations of juvenile and other persistent offenders, prison populations with records of violence, and people with prior psychological issues. Such studies are not viewed professionally as valid means to research or profile zoophilia ... This approach (used in some older research and quoted to demonstrate pathology) is considered discredited and unrepresentative by researchers.
 * Source for Ingrid Newkirk's 1st quote

FT2 00:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Notes from Featured Article page
Major points carried over from FAC page comments: FT2 (Talk) 10:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Several sections should be moved to their own articles (legal and religion especially)
 * 2) Lists should not be used, or not used in some sections at any rate, in favor of "prose" style (arguments and religion especially) (part done by user:Raul654, thanks!)
 * 3) Title change to "books and documentaries" (done)
 * 4) Legal status omits large parts of the world.
 * 5) Consistent citation method should be used.
 * 6) Add paragraph summaries under blank sections, not just an article link. (done)
 * 7) Add citations to sections such as "zoophilia and other groups".


 * Followup to work done by Raul654 on the article:
 * Thanks for the work, it does show. A couple of edits only cause me concern, in part because there wasn't discussion and I do have real concerns about the information removed. A quick review of the article as it stands:


 * 1) The intro header, highlighted that zoosexuality covers the field from a point of view of "sexual orientation". There's a subtle and important distinction between two articles (same subject area, different aspects, technical term). I've clarified the terms better in the "terminology" section to cover the ambiguity.
 * 2) I understand you prefer "see also" sections removed, and I grant you have more knowledge and experience than I do by far. But even so, I do not see any proposed solution for others to find these useful articles, nor do I yet see editor consensus on this one issue or a serious breach of style guides by including it. I am therefore proposing to revert it for now, and perhaps discuss it here, and hope that you will be willing to see it discussed and alternative ways to provide the same information identified if necessary, before simply deleting the information.
 * (As a quick aside I just opened 20 featured articles at random from throughout WP:FA. 16 featured articles had "see also" sections. By contrast with some, the section in this article is useful, relevant, and short.)
 * 1) Points raised by others, such as inline links, inline cites, and certain italicised quotes, need addressing.
 * 2) I would like to see two fairly easy sections substantively moved to their own articles: legal (done: Zoosexuality and the law), and religion.
 * 3) I would also like to ask for discussion of a separate article, Society and zoophilia or Societal attitudes towards zoophilia. The sections on society and zoophilia are long, and perhaps better in their own article, much as arguments for/against homosexuality are summarized in that article and have their own articles discussing in more detail. The exact scope of that article would determine its title, hence discussion.
 * 4) A nagging concern that the shape of the debate is such that article structure would now benefit from editors' review. The material's good but is that all. I'd like to bring forward the abberation v orientation issues a bit sooner, since they provide a context for the entire subject and its development.
 * 5) Finally and a big project, it would be sensibel to have an article, "research into zoophilia" -- a neutral summary of the research and exactly who concluded what where, will mean that common information doesn't have to be repeated so much.
 * FT2 (Talk) 13:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed in old "ciz" vandalism days.
Just came across this:
 * "Emotionally and psychologically, research suggests that zoophiles have above average empathy. It is unclear yet from research whether this is a cause or a result of zoophilia. In other words, they may be close to animals because they empathize well, or have developed empathic skills because of intimate closeness with animals. As a group they have a lower level of psychopathy and need for control than average, and a higher level of sensation seeking and involvement in animal protection than average. They also have an above average level of social individualism, which can be either inhibitive (eg, shyness) or empowering (eg, independence of thought). Other research gives similar findings."

FT2 (Talk 23:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess there's no reason why that wouldn't be valid anymore. I even recall there being a more extensive list of traits, but I can't seem to find it in the article's history. Perhaps it was mentioned elsewhere. BabyNuke 21:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Definitions
The multiple definitions in the field bother me, not least because they lead to the article titles being ambiguous too. I think we need to make it easier to see them compared. The following is a bit long, but what do people think about the following as a possible way of summarizing and contrasting them? Can we use something like this?


 * {| border="1" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" style="border: 2px solid #5C5C5C"


 * - bgcolor="#E0E0E0" align="center"
 * Term
 * Usage
 * Primary users
 * Notes
 * rowspan="4" style="border-top: 2px solid #5C5C5C" | Zoophilia
 * style="border-top: 2px solid #5C5C5C" | A sexual attraction towards animals, or a person who has sex with animals
 * style="border-top: 2px solid #5C5C5C" | Popular usage
 * style="border-top: 2px solid #5C5C5C" | Individuals with a sexual attraction to animals, or who have sex with animals
 * A psychological paraphilia, defined by strict criteria such as exclusivity and psychological suffering
 * Psychologists and psychiatrists
 * Technical term for a sexual fixation meeting specific clinical criteria
 * An affinity for (or affective bond between) humans and animals.
 * Sociologists and anthropologists
 * Anyone closer to animals or more bonded to them than "the norm". Anyone with an affinity for animals. The nature of the interest (sexual or non-sexual) is not significant.
 * A relational attraction to animals
 * Zoophiles and sexologists
 * Individuals with an emotional attraction or sexual orientation to animals, of a relational, lifestyle or non-experimental nature.
 * rowspan="3" style="border-top: 2px solid #5C5C5C" | Zoosexuality/ zoosexual
 * style="border-top: 2px solid #5C5C5C" | A person who has sex with animals
 * style="border-top: 2px solid #5C5C5C" | Popular usage
 * style="border-top: 2px solid #5C5C5C" | Individuals with a strong sexual interest or attraction towards animals.
 * A sexual orientation towards animals
 * Psychologists and sexologists
 * Technical term for a sexual orientation towards animals that meets strict criteria for an orientation, comparable to heterosexuality and homosexuality, regardless of nature or whether acted upon. According to Beetz (2002) "Not all people who have sex with animals are zoosexuals", but this is not clarified. Presumably she means to exclude those whose interest is not relational.
 * A spectrum of erotic and sexual attraction towards animals
 * Zoophiles
 * A spectrum of sexual or emotional attraction or erotic interest in animals, of whatever nature
 * style="border-top: 2px solid #5C5C5C" | Bestiality
 * style="border-top: 2px solid #5C5C5C" | A sexual act between a human and an animal
 * style="border-top: 2px solid #5C5C5C" | Universal
 * style="border-top: 2px solid #5C5C5C" | Applies to the act not the person. Ambiguous as to which acts are included. Out of favor with both zoophiles and professionals, the former considering it pejorative, the latter because it problematically confuses two different groups, severing the act from the intra-subjective context needed to interpret it.
 * }
 * Zoophiles
 * A spectrum of sexual or emotional attraction or erotic interest in animals, of whatever nature
 * style="border-top: 2px solid #5C5C5C" | Bestiality
 * style="border-top: 2px solid #5C5C5C" | A sexual act between a human and an animal
 * style="border-top: 2px solid #5C5C5C" | Universal
 * style="border-top: 2px solid #5C5C5C" | Applies to the act not the person. Ambiguous as to which acts are included. Out of favor with both zoophiles and professionals, the former considering it pejorative, the latter because it problematically confuses two different groups, severing the act from the intra-subjective context needed to interpret it.
 * }
 * }

Edits to the above table welcome. FT2 (Talk 12:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be good to use more definitions for bestiality to help show the reason why it is considered to carry a bias with it (as well as the range of opinions on it). For example the inhumane acts (usually in warfare) version of it. Also do you think a table like will draw criticism if it was included in the article? I remember when the article was nominated for featured article status, some people criticized it for that (or was that cleared up?). Just some quick thoughts for consideration. --Steele the Wolf 17:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just had a though, is their a way to do a mini table or something that can be put to the side? If you look at animal rights  they have a table for links to the related topics on the side (note is doesn't use up a whole new section.  Maybe we could do something like that with these definitions?  If not that it would be worth considering using that tool to help organize this topic (when we start splitting them off into their own sections.)--Steele the Wolf 17:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You're thinking of section template indexes, for sections such as "sexuality" or "jesus" or "mathematics" where a sort of sidebar index to the main subject areas is useful. A subject needs a certain size and range before that kind of index and "quick finder" is really needed. As to the other, what you're describing is a look at the term bestiality, and how it's perceived. I'm not sure we can say much on "why is bestiality seen as bad" that isn't already said. What I was asking was, about looking at the meanings of different terms that have multiple contradictory meanings and confuse the subject area, and a way to summarize the different meanings for the main words used. FT2 (Talk 17:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I feel the difference between a sexual orientation and a sexual attraction is not obvious, hence making the difference confusing. Also, since the term zoosexuality is hardly ever used, I feel the term "popular usage" does not apply. Keep zoophilia and zoosexuality as synonyms, I feel it has been sufficiently shown that these terms are nearly always used as such and this will keep things transparant. BabyNuke 18:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good points all, Nuke. I agree the distinctioon's not obvious to most. I'm not sure that zoosexuality is "hardly ever used", because in this context it's not *that* uncommon, but its a confusing set of distinctions for sure. As for synonyms, I can see both sides... I don't really know what to think. The words we have in English just arent very helpful. In an ideal linguistical world, I suppose we could take "homosexuality" as a parallel: - zoosexuality would be the main term, and zoophilia would be a deprecated technical term in psychology (much as zooerastry, or homophilia are not well used terms). There's times that calling it all just "human-animal intimate relationships" seems so appealing :) FT2 (Talk 21:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The word zoosexuality does not appear in any dictionary and gives me less than 900 hits on google (compared to well over a million for zoophilia), and I should note that a considerable amount of those 900 hits are from duplicates or excerpts of wikipedia articles. So, I would say that it isn't used much. An uncommon term with an unclear definition that I have not seen used in any other way but as a synonym for zoophilia - I do not believe that warrants a different definition, let alone its own article as it is now. As said, keep it simple. BabyNuke 09:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree fully with the point that this is certainly a more pro than con article. It should be taken into consideration that this is a subject matter more likely to be looked up by zoo's than those apposed to it (Unless they have a strong moral objection to it, in which case they are equally dangerous editors). I also agree that this article uses more waeasel words than the Fox News Network. The Pro's and Cons section is without a doubt the most biased. It is clear that the editor is attempting to make the pro section look ignorant. I respectfully request this be seriously looked into and considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Losthwy (talk • contribs)


 * This question comes up regularly. The answer has been discussed quite often in the past. The difficulty is that we (all editors on Wikipedia) are here discussing what is verifiable and known, and the facts about the opinions held under each significant view. It is undeniable that the main lines of debate are roughly as stated, but there is no one "editor". Its a communally created article, worked over by dozens of people for and against, over a period of some 3 years, and it is unfortunately the case that while it discusses popular stereotypes, it also covers in much more depth the actual known information in the field. This is presumably what you find troublesome. Perhaps reading up the research pointed to will help (that's true of any subject). In the meantime it's hard to discuss such a generalized question. If you have specific edits or points that seem needed or comments in the article which seem incorrect or poorly representing either side, or you wish to bring to discussion, that's probably best. Wording improvements are always a good thing. FT2 (Talk 21:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've put it up for peer review - hopefully that will result in more suggestions on how especially the neutrality can be improved. BabyNuke 14:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Balance in anti/pro
Coming from a pretty neutral viewpoint, I do have to admit that the article seems very "pro" as opposed to "anti". Whatever "anti" statements are made are immediately countered and (seemingly) refuted by "pro" arguments. The "anti" arguments are written in a style that seems condescending, implying that the "anti" view is naive at best and downright discriminatory at worst. 24.207.209.176


 * I can confirm this, as I surfed-by this page for the first time. I was somewhat astounded (not to say shocked) about the size of this article. This article is larger than most of all of the rest of the articles I've seen or edited on Wikipedia. So reading the article, I also noticed that contra-arguments are being mentioned, only to be superseded by neutral or pro-arguments. There is also a strong tendency of romanticizing! And reading through the list of states where 'Zoophilia' is forbidden, I got the impression that it would be a pretty handy tool for people who actually (and sadly) perform such actions to have a checklist, to see whether their state allows them to do so, or not - which is also slightly 'pro'. LIllIi 23:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll agree, the article does tend to focus more on the positives; there is no mention of fence hopping (trespassing on someone's property to have sex with animals) for example, which is sadly a fairly common practice. But overall, I don't feel that it's very biased. As for mentioning legality, there is an entire article on the legal status of cannabis so I don't feel it's out of place to mention it, especially because there are obviously very contrasting views on this. BabyNuke 14:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * (Note: Fencehopping since added) FT2 (Talk 20:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I third this, this article is alarmingly pro-Zoophelia, and it might give people the wrong impression as to it's stance in society. I think that people who are zoophiles are editing this to try to distort zoophelia into something more natural than it is. Altffour


 * I feel one reason causing this seems to be the extensive use of weasel words. Just as an example, search for the word "some" in the article and you'll find heaps. There's room for improvement there. Also, the article should at no point draw a conclusion on if it is right or wrong, regardless of what the opinion of the editor may be. The current attitude of the article seems to be however that those who oppose it do so mainly out of ignorance (to quote: "People's views appear to depend significantly upon the nature of their interest and nature of exposure to the subject. People who have been exposed to zoosadism, who are unsympathetic to alternate lifestyles in general, or who know little about zoophilia, often regard it as an extreme form of animal abuse and/or indicative of serious psychosexual issues."). While I tend to agree that that's the case, the article should not come to any conclusions on the matter. BabyNuke 09:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The article's been round in this form for the best part of 1.5 years now, a long time of near total stability for a controversial topic. The issue of balance has come up before. There's roughly as many that view it as neutral and informative, as view it as biased, and inappropriate or unhelpful pro-zoophilia edits get removed often, as do against-zoophilia edits, if the edit history is checked.


 * Part of these issues probably comes down to this: Popular impression differs strongly from such research as has been done. Most of this article has been gone over with a fine toothcomb at some time or other, and most editors have carefully avoided bias towards any given view. We have to be careful to report the public perception, which is done in many places (it's very very clearly stated that it is condemned very strongly). But we also must accept that pretty much all those who have actually and seriously researched zoophilia in general separate from a criminal justice system prior context (and there are a fair number of serious peer-reviewed studies now) report that certain popular perceptions are not in accordance with reality. This is in part why the notes are long -- exactly recognizing it's not what one would intuitively expect from stereotypes.


 * For example, the serious psychological profiling of zoophiles in the psychological community says that zoophiles are on the whole, more empathic, less pathological, and less interested in power and control than the average citizen (discussed on this talk page some long time ago). To say "Research says that zoophiles are generally more empathic and less manipulative than the average person" might well sound "alarmingly pro-zoophile" to the average lay-person, but it's nothing more nor less than the current scientific findings. That's in part why the subject is controversial. That's the function of science, to test and form views on matters of popular belief and interest.


 * As to weasel words: There are indeed a large number of "some people". That's because we know from research that such views exist and are notable. But research has been qualitative not quantitative (as stated) so we do not know exact numbers. So "some" is often the best we can do. So we know tendencies more often than exact percentages for many features of the topic. That's inherent in the subject (as with other sexual topics) and discussed carefully under "extent" so that the reader understands the issue.


 * I imagine it will leave questions but that's the nature of the topic. FT2 (Talk 20:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it could benefit from a peer review especially requesting a look at neutrality. Get some fresh looks at it. BabyNuke 21:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Part of the difficulty is that Wikipedia reports facts, rather than individual editors opinions. The facts are substantially drawn from research, since research is in general the main source of knowledge on this subject. In its way, it is a huge subject. Partly why the article is long is that it is covering the view of experts as opposed to only lay people or media beliefs, and expert information is a view with some 50 - 100 years of research behind it. You can see that from the biliography. Most articles are shorter because they are split into many sub articles (eg look at BDSM or homosexuality or such: homosexuality and religion, choice and homosexuality, gay culture, societal views on homosexuality, gay rights, homophobia, LGBT history, ex-gay, homosexuality and christianity, homosexuality and psychology, homosexuality in china, anti-gay, LGBT media, timeline of LGBT history, gay news, gay agenda, gay friendly, gay pornographic magazines, homosexuality in ancient greece, homosexual laws of the world, homosexuality and medical science, gay stereotyping, ... or BDSM: BDSM, dominant (BDSM), slave (BDSM), consent (BDSM), play (BDSM), list of BDSM terms, domination and submission (BDSM), list of BDSM organizations, power exchange (BDSM), subspace, list of BDSM equipment, BDSM activists, BDSM film-makers, fantasy, pornography, BDSM contract, defence of masochism, edgeplay, erotic denial, fear play, female dominance, foot worship, greenery press, handkerchief code, gorean BDSM, ... 187 articles and 12 subcategories...)

So there is a lot more being said or to incorporate than meets the eye, and a lot more than people would think to the issues surrounding it, which the article touches on. If you feel there is research which is not represented, then that's worth adding... which is of course how this and most articles mature. FT2 (Talk) 23:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't help the antis that there is, what, Dr. Laura on their side, who is not only not a psychologist (her doctorate's is in Biology), but considers homosexuality a disease requiring a cure as much as zoosexuality. I have yet to see an anti-zoo argument that actually holds water, from "unnatural" to "can't consent" to "animals=children."  Really, I think spaying/neutering children is not such a bad idea ... --Chibiabos 13:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Welcome, Chibiabos. Its important on this debate to read the various policies about content. The problem is, it doesn't matter what "you or I" think, but what is verifiable and notable. We may agree with it or not, but we don't have the right to base editorial decisions upon what seems right to 'us'. We instead base them upon what seems to be representative perspectives of credible research and the like. We also don't tend to think in terms of "pro" or "anti"s. They are simply, different viewpoints on the same debate, two of many views that we have documented. Three good pages to read: WP:NOR, WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. They guide our editing here, and I hope they give you some ideas how to help this article be better! :)


 * One way you can help is, you posted the following in an edit summary: "Religious perspectives - 'Most' is inaccurate. In fact, most religions in the world are still tribal, and many tribes in South America and Africa are known to practice forms of bestiality". is this verifiable from third party writings or sources? Do you have research or a soruce to back it? Or is it simply personal belief? if it has some form of credible backing or source, can you say more below, for possible inclusion. :) FT2 (Talk) 14:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * My source was actually a college anthropology class I took about 10 years ago. Our study was Chagnon's Yanomomo, and we watched part of a video documentary of Chagnon's return to the Yanomomo tribe, and class discussions included how procreative heterosexual sex was actually viewed as something of a sacrifice on the part of the man, and that before marriage, sex between men and women was frowned upon.  The professor answered questions from several of my classmates that tribal cultures in many parts of the world are remarkably similar in their approach.  It is a fact that Judeo-Christianity is still found in only a fraction of the world's population and while Western culture continues to destroy what tribal cultures are left, there are still quite a few left.  Judeo-Christians remain a highly ethnocentric bunch, and still tend to regard other cultures as "primitive" and "barbaric," and readily discount the value of their beliefs.  The sense that most people in the world are Judeo-Christian (which is false; Judeo-Christianity is a minority), that there are no more tribal cultures in the classic sense (also false), that what few people there were have all been 'successfully converted' by Missionaries and no longer engage in these acts of "barbarism" (also false, though the trend continues and any true and blue anti-ethnocentric anthropologist will tell you that the permanent loss of cultures in this way is a loss to us all) is the basis I see for such arrogant and unsupported claims that 'most cultures in the world abhor bestiality' and other similar claims.  I do not recall what the title of the video was.  I could probably drag up my Chagnon book on Yanomomo, I think its buried with my stuff in the basement presently, if you aren't familiar with it, but Chagnon is a fairly noteworthy name in the field of anthropology.


 * An NPOV does not necessarily mean you should dress up one side to make it seem sensible; the anti-zoophilia crowd has yet, from all that I have seen, to come up with a genuine explanation as to why sexual mutilation in the form of forced (and by definition anti-consentual) spays and neuters and forced sex in the form of breeders for profit is okay and acceptable, yet consentual activity is not (and then rely on the argument that humans are the only species of animal capable of expressing like or dislike, which there is no reasonable basis for). Further, I don't view NPOV as necessary in discussions on the Talk page.


 * Further, is there any evidence to support the original term of 'most'? Did anyone count cultures?  I challenge any such claim that there was any basis or reasoned thought into the word "most" used there.  --Chibiabos 05:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Now those are good points. If you can drag it up and quote whatever you think relevant here, with a page/s and book/s citation, it'd be good, as you say most of us are not anthropologists so we probably are not aware. One of the good things, everyone brings some new information. Some solid quotes on this, and indeed on the prevalence of judeo-christianity vs tribal beliefs, wouldnt hurt either, to educate us. FT2 (Talk) 09:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Just throwing in my 2 cents to add that after reading through this, I believe that this article is alarmingly biased in favor of zoophilia. Counter-arguments are shot down quickly and the imagery and tone of the text sounds more like a pro-zoophilia editorial than a wikipedia entry. (Please refer to the Neutral Point of View article for more information on this.) Furthermore after reading things here I come to discover that this article has existed in this fashion for over a year, thanks in no small part to pro-zoophile people. I personally believe this article too far gone, as it reminds me of NAMBLA editorializing in an attempt to normalize sex with children. An article of this nature should have no place in wikipedia, and it is a crying shame that it has existed in this state for so long. 68.5.45.126 22:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Gerald M.


 * Though I won't say "too far gone", I'll agree with you in general. Perhaps when I find the time / motivation in the upcoming days I'll try to rewrite certain sections. Especially the arguements section could be improved, since it's more or less a random list of arguements against it which are then countered again. I'm sure a better format can be found for this. The line drawings I also find worth including since they paint a much more realistic image of bestiality than "Lena and the Swan" does without being too explicit. As mentioned before, weasel words are an issue and need ironing out. edit: I've added a NPOV dispute template for now. BabyNuke 16:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion it needs severe editing to the point that it would practically unrecognizeable from its current incarnation. It should also be very considerably shorter than it is, since the bulk of it consists of unecessary romanticizing of zoophilia. I will admit that the subject of beastiality makes me physically ill so I have my own bias, but this current article is still a terrible emberassment to wikipedia. In fact I actually found out about it because someone linked it as an example of how wikipedia can get really biased due to POV manipulation by obsessive biased authors with an agenda to wage. In this case, internet beastialists using their group-jargon to butter up the article with heavy romanticizing and POV abuse over a prolonged campaign attempting to 'normalize' an incredibly biased article. To me this would be like creationists manipulating the "science" wiki page to include frequent counter-arguments against the scientific method. Or as previously stated, like pedophiles manipulating the wiki pedophilia page to make child molestation seem more normalized. This is wrong, and I hope someone with a strong sense of neutrality puts their foot down to stop it. Additionally, I would like to add that the current wikipedia entry for "homosexuality" is only slightly shorter than this one is - and that one is currently flagged for being too long. Something is terribly, disagreeably wrong here, and it needs to be addressed as soon as possible.66.75.238.69 13:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Gerald M.


 * I've made a first set of changes. The sections "Perspectives on zoophilia" and "Arguments about zoophilia or zoosexual relations" require massive work but I'm not too clear yet on how best to rework them. BabyNuke 15:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The newcomer's question "I just read this and it sounds biased" has come up before. Whilst understandable, the problem is that Wikipedia has to represent what's actually researched and known, not just echo popular beliefs. In this article, where a view is required, the majority view is clearly stated or indicated to be the majority view, and the minority view is clearly stated to be the view of a specific (relevant) minority. Where actual factual information on zoophilia is required, such as how zoophiles feel, what kinds of people zoophiles are, how arguments are perceived, and how peer reviewed researchers view the subject, this is sourced from research, and presents the majority view (from credible peer reviewed research by acknowledged respected specialists in the field) as the majority view, and presents the views of specific (relevant) minorities as minority views.


 * It is understandable that newcomers may not be familiar with the Wikipedia approach and expectation of neutrality. Such readers may be reassured by the fact that this article has already been through a full 3rd party (non-article-editor) review process and critique on the Featured Article page. In this process, editors who have no connection with the article or subject critically review it and look for flaws, for whether it meets the highest level of Wikipedia policies (including neutral presentation and citing of credible and bona fide source material), and whether it meets the highest standards on these counts. The article has not significantly changed in approach or balance between then and now. The criticisms on that review are given in the section below, and are all to do with layout issues, including presentation and use of lists, summarisation and moving of some topics to their own articles, and the like. Neutrality questions were not rated as an issue of any real significance by the time a consensus formed on the article. The highly experienced Wikipedia editor Raul654 (who has acted on Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee and is also in charge of maintenance and selection of Featured Articles, themselves Wikipedia's top accolade for editorial quality) was actively involved in the above process personally. Had there been any serious question by any third party editor in that review as to neutrality or quality, or by Raul himself, he would have certaintly made clear that Neutrality and Sources were an issue.  He didn't. His comment was that "I've made a number of fixes to this article and I think it is looking good now." At the end of the review process, he had only three remaining issues (listed below) -- none of which were to do with neutrality or sources. Hope this helps. If you want to address specific concerns in more detail, or discuss the article and where you feel it's not representing the facts appropriately, then of course this is the page to do it, and editors (on all sides) will listen and try to help. FT2 (Talk 03:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

FT2, I find your condescension unwarranted and rather hypocritical. This article was very recently reviewed and rejected by reviewers in late october 2006 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Zoophilia ) for reasons similar to what I am stating here - it is overlong, and a mess that is not even worth reading until it is considerably reduced in size and drastically improved in clarity. This is why I am advocating it be rewritten from scratch and simplified - then the POV or lack thereof can be properly addressed. 66.75.238.69 09:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Eh? You obviously haven't noticed the pro-zoophile edits also removed over time. What I have done, is to be careful about critically reviewing edits on both sides, and those which are emotively or agenda based (on both sides) have been critically examined, with care to explain the exact issue and encourage neutral contributions, and these have not been carelessly removed or edited without careful explanation. A quick example can be found here (Talk:Zoophilia/Archive16) which was removed, then re-added fixed by the author, and re-removed again, due to pro-zoophile non-neutrality issues.


 * As for the peer review, you're mistaken. Zoophilia was put up for peer review by BabyNuke, himself a contributor here, to state his own personal concerns and seek review, which is both his right as an editor, and is rarely a bad idea. The article length is in fact appropriate, for WP:SIZE says the important length is the main body, excluding footnotes, and if you look at Archive 18 you'll find the article length was exactly in the middle of the stated acceptable level (6-10k words expected, 7.6k words in this article main body). The reviewer concerned is mistaken, or possibly not familiar with that guideline. The only other reviewer to comment stated as their view that summary format should be more used, which was a conclusion of the FA review, which I noted as conclusion #1 in this talk page myself (below); we have been doing that on this article since the FA review. Those are the only two comments, and both relate to length and not neutrality.  FT2 (Talk 09:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's but one example of the POV abuse I'm talking about: "People's views appear to depend significantly upon the nature of their interest and nature of exposure to the subject. People who have been exposed to zoosadism, who are unsympathetic to alternate lifestyles in general, or who know little about zoophilia, often regard it as an extreme form of animal abuse and/or indicative of serious psychosexual issues." The citation for this statement is also sloppy and has more to do with people's attitudes towards homosexuality than zoophilia. The segment preceeding it consists of one-line arguments that are given neither credence nor depth in the form of soundbitten quotes. This makes the segment read like a pro-zoophilia page lining up anti-zoophilia arguments to be shot down. I could go through the article with a fine-toothed comb to find more examples, but that is not my place - instead I feel very strongly that this article would be better served if it were started again from scratch. 66.75.238.69 09:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This mess of an article is very biased in favor of zoophilia. Many of the points of view regarding zoophilia in this article come from obscure sources and seem to be using a lot of the jargon common among those in zoophilia communities. (Such as referring to "zoosexual" as a "recent term" to "describe the full spectrum of animal/human orientation", when there is no evidence of this term being used outside anything but among zoophiles. Also, the misuse of the term "orientation" which refers to gender, not species.  This is a blatant attempt to normalize bestiality as an "orientation.")  Many of the views in this article while possibly interesting for debate, are not ones reflective of a current academic understanding of zoophilia, and are inappropriate for the article at least in how prominently they are displayed. This article should be deleted and started again from scratch. --68.111.70.104 13:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a common question by people unfamiliar with the article history and scientific research. As a subject that is uncommon, little described outside its own research, and highly emotive, this question comes up regularly. Rather than retype answers each time, take a careful read of the first section in the article FAQ, which is at: Talk:Zoophilia/Neutrality. if you have questions after digesting that information, which is basically previous answers given in the past, then plerase do bring them back here. Many thanks. FT2 (Talk 16:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)