Talk:Zoosexuality

Merge with Zoophilia attempt 2
I'm putting this just above the other one so the old one can be easily read. The old arguments to keep were:
 * 1) It isn't exactly the same.
 * 2) Zoophilia, meaning the affective bond with an animal, is not a "sexual orientation"

To address 1.: Zoosexuality and zoophilia are very heavily overlapping each other. They are not EXACTLY the same, though I personally have a hard time telling the difference. Zoophilia means sexual, romantic, affinity for animals and/or sexual orientation. Zoosexuality means sexual, romantic, affinity for animals and/or sexual orientation.

Wikipedia isn't a dictionary (we even have a policy on it, go click!). We don't need an article on "big", "large", "massive" and "giant" in example. Per WP:NOTDIC policy, "Articles whose titles are different words for the same thing (synonyms): are duplicate articles that should be merged. For example: petrol and gasoline."

It even talks about the The dictionary definition trap: "Good definitions: Both dictionaries and encyclopedias contain definitions" It is nearly impossible to find references to zoosexuality in even online forms let alone reputable dictionaries or encyclopedies. "Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic (or a few synonymous or otherwise highly related terms)". Also see: Fallacies of definition, "If one concept is defined by another, and the other is defined by the first, we have a pair of circular definitions, somewhat similar to a question-begging argument: neither offers us enlightenment about the thing we wanted to be enlightened about."

They mean slightly different things but the article is going to cover the same thing over and over again as the other one. The zoosexual article as far as I'm concerned half of it could technically be deleted as it shouldn't refer to zoophilia or bestiality or basically unrelated things. The "History of terminology" in example. The majority of it talks about bestiality and zoophilia. The article is about zoosexuality. Zoophilia and bestialiy are discussed on their own article. If we deleted everything irrelvant there, we ould be only left with the very short sub-section of "Zoosexuality" in there. The article consistently is citing studies and quotes regarding zoophilia and treating them the same as zoosexuality, such as the "Professional views of zoosexuality as a sexual orientation" section... "Donofrio[8] (doctoral dissertation, 1996), investigating zoophilia, reported that his findings supported the ..." and then goes on forever despite it is referring to zoophilia. ... and again, "... and Donofrio (1996) reports that the concept of zoophilia, being a sexual orientation..." and again it does this, "A 2005 paper Zoophilia, between pathology and normality[12] by doctors at the Munich Polyclinic for Psychiatry".

If these terms are so different that they should have different articles then they shouldn't be treated the same in the articles. If we took out the zoophilia-references here, we would be left with a single line quote from Kinsey and the short quote from Andrea Beetz in this section.

The "Forms of zoosexual activity" can be easily called "Forms of zoophilic activity", completely interchangable here. The "Miscellaneous comparisons with other orientations" again refers to zoophilia and not zoosexuality. If they are so different they shouldn't be so interchangable I will repeat this. The "Emotion in zoosexuality" refers to bestiality studies and quotes instead of zoosexuality. All the books listed refer to zoophilia or bestiality.

They are interchangable words, they belong together in a thesaurus. The zoophilia article can easily fit the one little paragraph that can be salvaged as "different/unique" from the zoosexuality article.

As far as I can see, zoosexuality is just a form of an attempt of political framing. It means the exact same thing as zoophilia, however "___sexuality" such as heterosexuality or homosexuality is associated with more acceptable terms as well as more accepted as an 'orientation' while "___philia is" associated with a paraphilia, which it is currently seen as by medical professionals. It's forcing one to accept it as a sexual orientation or at least word it that way, similar to pro-choice/anti-choice pro-life/anti-life. If the article could stand on its own then fine, it would just be controversial, but it can't. This can probably be shown by the main reasons for it wanting to be kept is it "addresses the sexual orientation aspect".

Addressing issue 2.: According to the zoosexuality and zoophilia article, they both mean sexual orientation. "Donofrio ... investigating zoophilia, reported that his findings supported the American Psychiatric Association's view ... Studying the matter further, he also concluded that the concept and recognition of a sexual orientation towards animals (as opposed to simple classification as paraphilia) was supported by his study." - zoosexuality article referring to a study that says zoophilia is a sexual orientation. And then, "And Donofrio (1996) reports that the concept of zoophilia, being a sexual orientation," - zoosexuality article, explicity saying zoophilia also means sexual orientation. I could go on with these examples.

... so, unless there is other arguments then they are minutely different definitions (see WP:NOTDIC or that zoosexuality infers sexual orientation while zoophilia does not (the articles and all studies contradict this) then I think it should be merged.

(edited thrice) That's all, thankies for listening Avalik (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support. Avalik (talk) 10:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Zoophilia
Why? They're both exactly the same thing. Zoophilia is sexual and/or romantic attraction to animals. Zoosexuality is sexual and/or romantic attraction to animals. I suggest taking any information this article has that the zoophilia article doesn't and merging it with with the zoophilia article since the term zoophilia is much more recognised than the term zoosexuality. Beno1000 23:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * They aren't "exactly the same". Re-read the full definitions carefully noting the differences not just the surface similarities.


 * To add more perspective, zoophilia and/or zoosexuality covers many areas (similar to BDSM or LGBT). There is said by multiple sources to be a sexual orientation called zoosexuality. This is unusual. Traditionally only 3 sexual orientations, perhaps 4, have been recognized. This article focusses upon the sexual orientation 'zoosexuality'. What is a sexual orientation? Does this meet the criteria for one? Where is research evidence of reciprocity? Who objects to its classification as a sexual orientation, and why? And so on. These are technical questions related to an orientation in psychology, only. So that is the target of this article. Also look at the contents of this page, and note its focus there too.


 * There are many other areas related to this subject, all at present within the more general article on 'Zoophilia'. (Religion is one, social perspectives another, subculture a third, media representation a fourth, legal a fifth, and so on). Zoophilia, meaning the affective bond with an animal, is not a "sexual orientation". For example, zoosadism may be part of zoosexuality, whereas it is very much not part of zoophilia.


 * What is clear are 3 things:
 * Most of the subject matter is in the single 'zoophilia' article, but this is too long and ultimately several discreet smaller articles will be broken out of it.
 * The zoosexuality article is appropriately focussed and tightly defined.
 * The topic is likely to develop.
 * Hope that helps. FT2 (Talk) 01:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC).


 * I can see what you mean here, but I'd still like to see what a few other people think on this first. Beno1000 17:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Edit I have clarified in zoophilia the confusing mis-statement in the introduction. It now makes clear the distinction, a bit better. FT2 (Talk) 20:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. --Brand  спойт  17:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. --Steele the Wolf 23:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Zoophile article is already as long as it needs to be.  Further contributions to the "zoo" subject should strive to have their own article if possible.


 * Oppose. As above. Skinnyweed 16:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. --J D Smith (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Zoosexuality is a big subject, to cram everything about it and its similar terminologies is impossible, especially with studies into it ever much growing - already it takes ages to load on a portable device. Zoophilia is not formally 'zoosexuality' - it is the affinity towards animals (may be zoosexual, but also may not be). Zoosexuality, which zoophilia is sometimes used to mean (as a paraphilia), is the sexual orientation towards animals. I must take note that even most dictionaries have this error - it is of err, not formality. If you want to merge the articles, call it 'Zoosexuality'. A zoosexual may or may not be a zoophile. And a zoophile may or may not be a zoosexual, etc.

Dunno if a newbie like me has a place in this discusssion but I would like to point out some tecnicalities I happen to have knowledge about:


 * the -philia suffix does not automatically imply sexualness. One could, for example, be an audiophile without engaging in earphone sex.  Come to think of it, it sounds like rather a silly interpretation :P.  Basically, this is a counterexample.
 * -philia technically means "to like". Sorta like -phobia means "to fear".  As in, acrophobia is fear of hights.

Additionally, I read an external hardcopy discussion on soap, and how its' made up of a "hydrophillic" and a "hydrophobic" end. This by itself kinda ruins the hard connection between "sex" and "-philia"

Oh, and I think we should work on "subsectioning" the massive zoophilia article first. It would probably make it easier to relocate it later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.39.190.200 (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

shentino —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.39.190.200 (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

DSM-IV sees Zoophilia as a DISORDER
If you have proof that the DSM-IV does NOT class this paraphilia as a disorder, please present it. Here's some of my evidence from eMedicine:

You may wish to put some of this data into the article (it needs it), but change the wording a lot to stop claims of plagiarism. Skoppensboer 21:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Pretty much every definition of Paraphilia (including our own one) says that, in order to become a disorder, the paraphilia has to cause suffering in some way or otherwise be in the way of a normal, healthy life. Otherwise, every person having a fetish and every person who's into BDSM would have a disorder. --Conti|&#9993; 21:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We are not talking about your definition or mine, but the DSM-IV. The section under discussion is Professional Views of zoophilia. It's a distinct topic with a definite classification in the DSM-IV. It's not an area for opinions. Skoppensboer 21:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 2007 ICD-9-CM Diagnosis 302.1, note the word use. Deviation is the only word used, the word disorder is not mentioned. Compare that to for example the entries on exhibitionism or pedophilia, which are specifically called disorders. Furthermore, from the paraphilia article: "Likewise, zoophilia was clinically re-evaluated between DSM-III and DSM-IV as a result of research, and is now not considered a clinical problem unless distress is caused." Your quote covers a lot of paraphilias at once and not zoophilia in specific. I stand by what I see: it is only mentioned as a deviation and in the paraphilia article it is stated that it is not considered a clinical problem unless distress is caused. I assume your view is that zoophilia is per definition a clinical problem? BabyNuke 21:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) The icd9data.com site to which you linked is difficult to evaluate as to value, what is it? It certainly isn't the DSM-IV, which is not carried in full anywhere on the internet unless I am mistaken. You have to buy it, or read it at a library, perhaps. 2) I cannot take wikilinks as proof of anything, unfortunately. 3) As far as I can tell, zoophilia is quite definitely classed as a "paraphilia NOS" i.o.w. a paraphilia that falls into a big bin with other rare paraphilias. I can find many sites that talk of it in terms of "treatment" and "disorder", which implies pathology, not normality or health. And it stands to reason that someone who orients themselves preferentially emotionally and sexually towards animals is not mentally healthy, I would have thought. Example of the psychiatric view of paraphilias, and there are numerous more. I think unless someone can come up with a reliable and verifiable quote from an official or medical (psychiatric) site that explicitly states that zoophilia is seen simply as a benign condition, it's safer to go with the more obvious conclusion. Who wants to visit their local medical library and get the definitive answer? :-) Skoppensboer 22:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see how that example says anything we didn't already know - it references the DSM as categorizing zoophilia as a "paraphilia not otherwise specified", which we already knew - from Zoophilia:
 * 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".
 * Zetawoof(&zeta;) 23:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Back from Medical Library, I now have the data, such as it is (no ref. to zoo* in the index, and no bestia* in the index either). But it's definitely classed as a "disorder" not a "condition" in DSM-IV. ICD-9-CM is even more explicit, calling it a "Sexual Disorder not otherwise specified" which is hard to parse in any other way, isn't it? I'll put up a small table anon that shows how it's classified .... Skoppensboer 00:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we're running into a terminology issue here. "Disorder" is a broad term in psychology; it's used to describe anything which causes distress, not specifically "bad" things. For example, bedwetting is considered a form of sleep disorder, but this doesn't reflect a medical view that bed-wetters are horrible people. More importantly, though, conditions are only considered sexual disorders when they "prevent an individual or couple from enjoying sexual activity". As I mentioned earlier, it isn't a clinical problem on its own. An unqualified statement that "zoophilia is a DISORDER" places an unintended interpretation on the term. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 01:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * People have campaigned to have conditions removed from DSM-IV precisely because of the stigma associated with listing. Anything listed there is by definition a disorder. Until it's removed from DSM-IV and ICD-9-CM, that descriptor must remain, whether or not we agree with it or like it. I don't mean to describe zoophilia as bad, so please don't put words in my mouth. I have a degree is psychology and I'm not an unsophisticate in this area. But to imply on the wiki page that zoophilia is not seen as a disorder by psychiatrists is simply factually dishonest and should not be allowed to stand. Skoppensboer 01:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll pop in to my local medical library and see what DSM-IV actually says. Stand by. I'll access Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders : DSM-IV-TR. American Psychiatric Association, c2000. 4th ed., text revision Skoppensboer 22:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Actual DSM-IV data:

* Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV)
 * Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders
 * Paraphilia NOS (ICD-9-CM equivalent of "Sexual Disorder NOS") :
 * Telephone scatalogia (obscene phone calls), necrophilia (corpses), partualism (exclusive focus on one part of the body), zoophilia (animals), coprophilia (feces), klismaphilia (enemas), urophilia (urine). Skoppensboer 00:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In that case, the paraphilia article needs editing. Mind you, this creates a problem as what is claimed now is not supported by the quotes later. Further it means that someone in the paraphilia article has been making up very specific information out of thin air. If I may ask, what exactly is the entry on zoophilia in the DSM-IV? You looked it up, so it might be interesting to know what it actually says beyond the index.


 * It says nothing beyond a description. The DSM really doesn't explore issues at all. I'll look at the paraphilia article now. Skoppensboer 17:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Fixed the paraphilia article, which was clearly wrong. Some of the editing on zoo-related topics looks terribly slanted to the point of blatant dishonesty. Skoppensboer 17:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A second point in the revert was that you state that "not a clinically significant problem" means "not common". I think it means exactly what it says - zoophilia is not a significant problem from a clinical point of view. Otherwise, from your reasoning, losing a limb wouldn't be "clinically significant". See how this term is used in other articles. BabyNuke 16:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The term "significance" is usually used by scientists in a statistical sense, where it denotes incidence. I'd be very, very surprised if that scientist meant to say that having sex with animals was a trivial (in the sense of insignificant) problem. Because it clearly isn't. Skoppensboer 17:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * First, that it isn't is your opinion on the matter. Second, from the pallor article as an example:
 * "Unless it happens accompanied by pale lips, tongue, palms, mouth and other regions of mucuous membranes, (that is, a general pallor) it is probably not clinically significant and does not require any treatment."
 * Significance is not used in a mathematical sense. BabyNuke 17:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It probably is. Unless you can provide the actual sentence in context, how will we know? I tried to find the study but it does not seem to have been published (PubMed), and if so it should not be referenced here at all. Apparently the sample size was only eight people (some website claims), which makes it so underpowered as to be useless (perhaps why it was never published?). Basically, DSM-IV says that zoophilia is one of the rarest disorders, so my preference at this stage for the interpretation of "clinical significance" should stand until other evidence is presented to countervail. BTW, "clinical significance" can also refer to incidence. Skoppensboer 17:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This might be interesting:
 * "According to the multiaxial system of the DSM-IV (APA, 1994) though, the person, in addition to the usual criteria, also has to show clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning.
 * Though we know from recent research that the majority of people engaging in sex with animals do not suffer in a clinically significant extent, and their social and occupational life etc. is not necessarily impaired, I will call those people “zoophiles”, or short “zoos”, because that is what they call themselves."
 * Andrea M. Beetz, University of Erlangen, Germany. Source: - very interesting read in any case.


 * I read that. "Half of the men and 55 % of the women have been in psychotherapy." That's from Miletski's study. Then Beetz reports the same figures (roughly). I'd suggest that that is much higher than the normal population. "22% of the men tried to commit suicide" -- this is far higher than the normal population, fully justifying the inclusion of zoophilia as a paraphilia and suggesting that the orientation is very likely to cause the person psychological distress, if only because of the serial deaths of shorter-lived animal mates. But once again, the Beetz work has never been published according to PubMed, so it should not be used on the Wikipedia. Skoppensboer 22:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I did do a search for recent published research on zoophilia. Here is one study from a reputable source that suggest people in mental hospitals are far more likely to have such fantasies:

How about including that sort of finding? Is it too far off the agenda? Skoppensboer 22:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * While bestiality and zoophilia are somehow mentioned as being synonymous, this is not so. Obviously, bestiality can very much be related to serious psychological problems. However, is everyone that practices bestiality a zoophile? No. The word bestiality purely describes an act, it does not suggest motive. People may have or desire sex with animals for various reasons, sexuality being one of the options but not the only one. Not that such figures aren't worth mentioning however, but it's a shame that despite having asked for it more than once and even have seperated the articles myself bestiality and zoophilia are currently still thrown together in one article. Things that may apply to bestiality need not apply to zoophilia. I feel the terms should be seperated more strictly. BabyNuke 22:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems a fine distinction to me. Is a person who has sex with boys a pedophile (loves the boy) or a pederast (just wants sex with the boy)? The law does not discriminate. The same person may be both things on different occasions.


 * I've noticed with some alarm that there is absolutely NO peer-reviewed published research in this area. The people (Beetz, Miletski, Donofrio) who are constantly referenced as if they are sources of reliable knowledge are in fact scientifically unpublished, all of them! A published doctorate is not the same thing. So there is no evidence-based medicine to rely on in this field, just opinion, speculation and "studies" that have not reached the standard required for journal inclusion. Readers should beware. Skoppensboer 22:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As a psychologist and sexologist, I can say for certain that there is not enough research into 'zoosexuality' and 'zoophilia', as to say whether they are disorders or not. Zoophilia is the affinity, sometimes mistakenly or pejoratively classed as a primary terminology over 'zoosexuality'. Is the act of having sex with an animal or wanting to (zoosexuality) related to psychological problems? No - there is no evidence in either way. Judging from the studies of people like Dr Miletski, etc, a zoosexual actually has physical stimulation, though, there are those whom resort to an animal because of underlying psychological or neurological problems. This is why APA dropped 'zoophilia' (which should say 'zoosexuality'; as it would be etymologically incorrect to call it that), it is now logged under the ex-paraphilias section. 'Zoosexuality' is no longer classed as a clinically significant problem in itself, and therefore has been removed - meaning it may or may not be caused by a psychological problem, anymore than 'homosexuality' is. It has also been noted that sexual fetish (zooerasty) towards animals is also a big cause of zoosexuality, for example, the fur and perhaps even the more 'alienated' and 'differential' parts of the body, for example, the shape and size of the genitals of other animals, may be the reason why some have sexual contact with animals. Since this data could be easily biased or 'massaged', we should note this data is possibly 'unstable' - only noting the fact of the DSM's opinion, rather than using it as a reliable citation. Please read the DSM IV, and you should see what the APA was trying to pertain to, even if they have got the name wrong - zoophilia is not zoosexuality. And the affinity towards animals is common in 'pet lovers', which is about 40% or more of the worldwide population - so they are 'zoophiles', if not mildly. Thus, that cannot be classed as a problem anyway. As you can see now, the DSM means 'zoosexuality' when it states 'zoophilia'. The APA used a small survey, of only a few zoosexuals - this is not hard evidence. J D Smith (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on DSM
It is important to note that wording is causing some confusion, resulting in some degree of misinformation (or lack of clear distinction at least) in the article section on DSM.

DSM exclusively focusses on a fixated and pathological zoophilia -- one which meets very specific criteria. It is far from clear and far from confirmed that all persons who practice zoosexuality, are what we might call "DSM-zoophiles" (of a fixated, pathological nature), even if in everyday and clinical speech the word "zoophile" is regularly used for them.

In clinical (DSM) terms "zoophile" has a specific, clinical, technical meaning. like many technical words that have non-technical lay-meanings, it is important not to confuse the two. Far from nit-picking, this is a crucial distinction, a form of linguistic slippage often responsible for confusion even within the psychological field itself. For example, according to Beetz - "Authors write about zoophilia, and though they do not explicitly define it, it must be assumed that they at least do not include all persons who have sex with animals, but rather restrict their comments to a real, permanent, exclusive, fixated zoophilia as defined in the DSM-IV."

Where this leaves the article:

DMS-IV states an opinion upon fixated clinical zoophilia meeting its criteria. What it does not state is a view that all zoosexuality will meet this criterion. According to significant research (which was not around in the 1980s when DSM-IV was drafted), it seems that much zoosexual activity turns out to be outside this form. We need to consider carefully the implications of this for the article wording. FT2 (Talk 18:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

DSM cannot even get their terminology right - and what kind of zoosexuals are they talking about, as everything the APA does not match the image of an average zoosexual. J D Smith (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV
This article read like an advertisement for sex with animals. Its ridiculous, should the article about pedophilia be promoting that. --75.50.44.254 (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually tend to agree, although the above comment is not very WP-ey.Aroundthewayboy (talk) 03:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Any specific problems? BabyNuke (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What an offensive and vile article
This article seems to be written for one main purpose: to try to use the cause of gay rights to justify sexual abuse of animals. I have been going through the article to remove its disgusting comparisons of homosexuality to sex with animals, and trying to get rid of its pro-animal screwing bias, but there remains much work to be done. Skoojal (talk) 07:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the effort. I've personally given up on "zoo" related articles, since it's always been a mess and most of my efforts just get reverted to the point where I can't be bothered. It already makes no sense that zoophilia and zoosexuality are seperate articles, while I don't really see the difference between the terms - while bestiality is not a seperate article. This is just entirely confusing. I've tried to change it before but as said, it all just got reverted and changed back to the mess it is now. I wouldn't say offensive and vile, I'd just say messy and at times biased. BabyNuke (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Many readers may find this (and other) articles disgusting or repulsive, but that does not mean that an objective statement of facts should not be presented. In truth, most arguments against zoosexuality are based on an instinctive repulsion and moral objections. Neither of which are scientific. Because of how repulsive it is to many, few researchers want to study the phenomenon due to the extremely low chance it will be published. There is also likely fear that if an article is publish the researcher will be forever marked as a zoosexual or person focusing on zoosexuality. The result of which is that there is little academic research on the topic. There are many articles on Wikipedia that are disgusting in nature to most people. However, encyclopedias are supposed to contain thing that are disgusting by virtue of the fact they are supposed to contains all things. O76923 (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I can understand that groups like LGBT are worried that zoosexuals are trying to use them as an excuse for potential legalisation, leading to people possibly looking upon LGBT as bad as they do with zoosexuality. This worry is actually classed as psychological wrong, but the article is trying to propose as much neutrality on the matter as much as possible. Zoosexuals are not trying to use LGBT as an excuse, LGBT exists inside and out of zoosexuality. You can have a gay, lesbian, straight, bi or trans zoosexual. Zoosexuals usually prefer a specific species and sex. It is unusual for them not to. However, more historically, in Greek artworks you can see LGBT and Zoosexuality were closely related and expressed as 'primeval difference', a form of art that is now called 'obscene'. LGBT is attempting to seperate themselves from zoosexuality to prevent the possible future of becoming 'illegal' again. This is a political issue, Wikipedia tries to offer neutrality. I see no pro-zoosexual bias on the page whatsoever, nor does it affect LGBT. If you're attempting to add anti-zoosexual bias, it is no wonder that your attempts are being reverted. The article doesn't require much change, to improve it, the quality needs changing, not the content. I have no clue what part of the article pertains to being against homosexuality. Please keep the article neutral. J D Smith (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)