Jump to content

Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

Contents: ShadowH/Ciz sockpuppet Nov'05, Satanism, recent edits of User:Wahkeenah, removed links about-bestiality.com, zoophilia.net and NYTimes (zooskool.com notes KEPT as may still be relevant), ingrid newkirk quote clarification/discussion.

Archived Nov 27 2005

More people associate the topic with the name 'Bestiality' than 'Zoophilia'. ShadowH 19:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Oppose. Compare their definitions: zoophilia, bestiality. I contest the claim that people use bestiality more.—jiy (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Bestiality-Sexual relations between a human and an animal. Zoophilia-Erotic attraction to or sexual contact with animals. --ShadowH 21:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, the two definitions are distinct and the article itself points out their distinction: "not all sexual acts with animals are performed by zoophiles, not all zoophiles are interested in being sexual with animals." This is further addressed in the Terminology section: "Amongst zoophiles, the term "bestialist" has acquired a negative connotation implying a lower concern for animal welfare. This arises from the desire by some zoophiles to distinguish zoophilia as a fully relational outlook (sexual or otherwise), from simple "ownership with sex."—jiy (talk) 01:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Was moved and redirected in April of 2003, and the reasons remain valid now: the article is primarily concerned with the underlying psychology and social issues, not the mechanics of the act itself. --Zetawoof 22:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose In this field the term "bestiality" is viewed by many as being POV, similarly to how in black-white relationships the old word "nigger" is viewed as POV by blacks. And as others point out, the article would need to be about the full emotional and erotic field anyway, and this is the right term for that subject. Wikipedia tends to use the appropriate term plus a redirect from more familiar terms if unfamiliar, in such situations. (Plus, if some readers get educated on the subtleties of terminology, can that be a bad thing?) FT2 02:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
You are not being compared to anything. The common dislike of African Americans of the term "nigger" is being compared, and probably with reasonable accuracy, to the common dislike of zoophiles to the term "bestialist/bestiality". FT2 06:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
So you're comparing the persecution of African Americans to people who believe having sex with animals is abuse? --ShadowH 12:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I think thats a statement that is looking for a basis for an argument. I'm supposed to say "yes" and you're supposed to get angry? That's not how it goes. Any group of people, called by a name they find inappropriate, historically perjorative and misleading, will view that name as POV. Wikipedia is sympathetic to such issues and tries to avoid them where a more appropriate term exists. (Which is why we describe Al-Qaeda as a "fundamentalist campaign" and not a "terrorist organization"). You have complete choice whether to feel upset or not, but yours is not the only group to have been called by names that they don't like. You can learn from it, and try to avoid imposing it upon other groups, or not, but for various reasons (not least accuracy of titling) the consensus last time was not to so impose. FT2 22:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
And I am sure pedophiles find the term pedophlia insulting and would prefer something more npov such as boylove instead?
To associate a group of people enslaved and persecuted for hundreds of years, to a group of people who are unpopular for raping animals, is deeply offensive to me. --ShadowH 22:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Theres a difference. Pedophilia is a clinical term, which is why we use it. Guess what? Zoophilia is also a clinical term, which is partly why we use that. (And if you read carefully - and I advise you do so - I compared not two groups of people, or even two persecutions. I compared two dislikes. The fact that you, personally, are offended by a comparison I did not in fact make, is not a significant reason for me to change my view). Anyway, you wanted users opinions, you have it. Describing zoophiles under "bestiality" is 1/ evidently unnecessarily offensive to those it describes, 2/ not the correct clinical term since for more than 40 years zoophilia has been the preferred standard term used by clinicians, psychologists, in DSM, and in clinical study titles, 3/ misleading since this article is about the orientation "zoophilia" which whatever you may think is not the same as the sex act "bestiality", and 4/ factually inaccurate in that it reduces an emotional and erotic orientation to a sex act which clinical research (see article: Masters 1962, Miletski 1999, Beetz 2002) says repeatedly is a critical thing not to do. So that is my vote. If you have a complaint, I suggest to recount the votes and see if I'm the only one to think so, because to me the present title is more neutral and although I have looked for a reason to change the title, you have so far failed to convince me by your arguments to do so. FT2 23:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and m:polls are evil. First, let's move Protestantism to Heresy? :) --FOo 06:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the two are related, but far from identical. Owen× ☎ 16:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - they are different, in a similar way to how paedophilia and rape of children is different. "philia" means "love" and does not necessarily imply sex. Just like how many paedophiles never have sex with children, similarly many zoophiles never have sex with animals. Beastiality means raping an animal, and is different. Beastiality is commonly used in the media to refer to zoophilia by people who are trying to make zoophilia sound bad, while zoophilia is commonly used by people who want to make it sound good. However, a link from one to the other would be a good idea, and in addition have a link to furry. Zordrac 14:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments
  • To take a (very!) tongue in cheek analogy, we don't name the Homosexual article to "Faggots" or "C***suckers", or move Lesbian to "Muff divers", even though many people might feel these are more familiar terms. :)
    The reason is the same: because homosexuality and lesbianism cover a lot more than just the sexual act, and also labelling such people by reference to their sexual acts is considered derogatory and offensive, and hence POV. FT2 02:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, its more like redirecting gay to homosexuality. Gay is the term most people associate it with, while homosexuality is the correct term. And some could argue that using the zoophilia term is POV in support. --ShadowH 03:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Considering the definitions, it's more like redirecting "gay" to "anal sex". We have had this debate before. The problem is, there is, as a matter of objective clinical and social fact, a subject called zoophilia. Its scope is "affinity and attraction for animals". This article documents it. Bestiality does not have the same meaning as zoophilia either in the dictionary, or clinically, or socially. So the subject matter of zoophilia would be incorrect to list under bestiality. What it sounds like you are asking for is another, separate article, specifically on bestiality, because the material here would be incorrect to put there. But wikipedia policy expressely states that when two subjects cover similar ground, there isn't always a need for both. Thus, as people have said, there are several reasons why it's been covered here instead. FT2 06:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Note for ShadowH

As you will see from the header of this page, about 9 months ago, we had a visitor. His name was "Ciz" and he was a vandal and POV warrior.

The Arbitration Committee stated that he was not to return to this article, and that they were not throwing the book at him "this time".

I think you're the same person back again.
So the next thing that needs to happen, ShadowH, is either:

  • If you ARE "Ciz" then you need to leave this article and subject NOW.
  • If you ARE NOT "Ciz", you need to say so NOW so I don't ask ArbCom to deal with it.

Either will be okay. Let me know which it is.

If you post on the subject of zoophilia again, and have not posted a statement that says you are not "Ciz", then I will assume you are and go direct to ArbCom without further discussion that same day.

Apologies for being unsubtle this way, but I think it's important to clear up this possible matter first. The reason for this notice and for not going direct to "Request for Administrator Enforcement" or "Request for Arbitration" is to give you a chance to state your side.

FT2 11:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Satanism

I would like to point whoever made the recent edit under religious perspectives to the Church of Satan's literature. Zoophilia is condemned in the Satanic bible, any attempts to suggest otherwise are simply introducing non-factual information.

I made the edit. Thank you for reposting with further information. Since you have been courteous, let me explain what's up and why.
Your first post made a statement, with no citation or evidence. The only evidence I could find when I went to verify it, was a letter, that confirmed at least some saatanists of that church viewed it that way. So I amended your addition to what was verifiable. Now you have added a source (and if you can quote here the exact wording of the section it would help), so that helps a lot and I have less concern now whether or not it is actually accurate.
However the rest still stands. The church of satan is a group of people who have also made a commitment to individualism, and to sexual exploration. Do you have any information that would suggest that satanists are none the less about as likely to engage in zoosexual activity as non-satanists? That's why the last sentence is added back; because it is a factor to a reader who might rely on that comment, and one they may want to take into account. if you feel this is unreasonable however, please discuss here more. Note that I am neutral -- if I'd been hostile I could easily have deleted or slanted it, instead of just seeking a neutral statement of what is verifiable.
You will find that I am also a significant editor of the articles on Satanism too, as well as many other religions, religious artciles, and related fields. That may help reassure you that it's neutral, not bias. I would have done the same for the pope and his cardinals, if there was a factor that might suggest he had an unusual and exploratory view on unusual forms of sex compared to other people.
I hope this helps and reassures. FT2 00:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I've in fact handled it a bit more elegantly, I think. I have amended the word orrder very slightly to make clear that the Satanic Bible states they are to be treated that way, rather than assert that we know what individual Satanists do or don't do. This is also better because it's how other religions are treated too. As satanists, do CoS members or the CoS itself get unusually many serious accusations of sex with animals? I'm curious. FT2 00:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
As is to be expected of a religion which is controversal in nature many accusations are often made against Satanists. I cannot speak officially on behalf of the CoS, but would like to thank you for the current state of the article which is a reasonable description of the Satanic view of zoophilia. I would also like to add that the few you may have found who viewed zoophilia as alright are not representative of Satanism - should they be members of the CoS and state this in public they will have their membership revoked, the same as should happen with the paedophiles in the catholic church. These paedophiles are not representative of catholicism, any more than zoophiles claiming to be satanists representative of Satanism. Again, thankyou for your reasonable correction.

Recent edits

I'm a bit confused by the recent edits of User:Wahkeenah. First he mades extremely POV edits, then quite slowly changes his wording so we can find a compromise he also agrees upon. Then he removes that wording completely and again adds extremely POV stuff into the article. What is the point of that? --Conti|✉ 18:33, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

I was fine with your wording. But then someone else messed with it, and I came back at them. How about I revert this to your last version, where we were in agreement on wording, and then you can move the section to the bottom of the page as you see fit. I do have this concern about the wording, though. It is all presented from the human viewpoint, in the typical patronizing way that humans have of saying someone else should not object to being victimized. I claim that any defense of zoophilia in this article is an inherently biased Point of View, because the objects of the behavior have no defense, no voice in the matter. It would be best to simply define what zoophilia is and leave out the junk that tries to rationalize and justify it. Wahkeenah 19:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I put it back to where it was where we both seemed to agree, plus a minor grammatical change, a roboted link that was added later, and ironically an attempt on my part to soften the POV by taking away the implication that all pedophiles use this argument. Speaking of which, in looking through the pedophile page, I see a lot of facts, and reports of sites that defend it, but offhand I don't see any overt defense of the behavior within the article. Perhaps that page's approach should be used as a model for this page? Wahkeenah 19:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

In other words, your edits are good because you are Right(tm), and if "someone else" (I guess that refers to me) tries to remove *your* POV from the article, then that's bad? Let's not start with this again. We've gone through several edit wars over this article, and the current form is pretty much one that people have agreed on. So let's make a deal - you keep your POV out of the article, everyone else keeps their POV out of the article, and we all just try to make it NEUTRAL - in other words, not in favour of anything, but also not frowning upon anything. Deal? -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 22:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know anything about whatever "edit wars" might have gone on on this page. All I know is that the unrefuted assertion that some self-styled expert says it's OK for humans to fuck animals as long as the humans feel OK about it is absolute garbage and has no place in something that alleges itself to be a serious work. Wahkeenah 22:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, here we go again.. So, what is POV about the statement (and fact) that zoophilia is not listed in the DSM-IV anymore, in your opinion? The rest you removed was pretty much exactly what we have agreed upon. If you don't like a minor wording change, change that back instead of removing the whole paragraph. It seems to be that you also don't really understand the argumentation of the pro side. The point is that animals can have a relationship and can (in their way) disagree with things they don't like. Now, we don't want to say this is correct or not, but this is a widely used argument, so it should be included. The (also widely used) counterargument is that pedophiles use the same kind of argumentation. I think we should include both arguments, they are made quite often. So where is the problem with this? --Conti|✉ 22:46, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

I just added back the reference you cite, MINUS the biased POV statement that if the human feels good about it, then it's OK. The problem otherwise is that other guy, Schneelocke or whatever, keeps qualifying a statement that should be obvious to anyone with more than a double digit IQ. What does the alleged fact that an argument is "widely used" got to do with anything? In Hitler's Germany, the argument that the Jews were the cause of all their troubles was also "widely used". Anyway, tell HIM to stop it! Wahkeenah 22:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's not a POV statement, it's what the DSM-IV actually says. You can of course disagree with it, but that's the way the American Psychiatric Association sees it. The "unless accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning" sentence is as far as I know a standard sentence, that also can be read at pretty much any other paraphilia. Personally, I agree that this is quite badly worded in this case, but it's still a fact that you can read that in the DSM-IV. And I do think that widely used arugments for and against something should be added to controversial pages. I do not think that we should write that either of them are correct or wrong, and I do not want to make this a "these peoeple are sick" article. And if you disagree with the edits of some wikipedians, tell them so, they'll hopefully tell you the reasoning behind their edits. If you both disagree over the wording (as it seems to be the case), there is no point in starting an edit war, the page will only get protected in the end and you'll be forced to discuss the whole matter anyways. --Conti|✉ 23:23, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the term "widely used" is also POV. What exactly does that mean? Nothing, is what. A percentage would be meaningful, not a comment like "widely". But I would surprised if you would find any scientifically conducted poll asserting that a significant percentage (whatever that might be) would agree that fucking animals is OK. My specific objection to the "unless accompanied by..." is that it only speaks to what the humans are feeling and expresses no concern at all for what the animals might be going through. Citing it without pointing out the irony of it IS PUSHING A POV. And the lack of a negative reaction on a victim's part does NOT imply approval or consent. Most of the Nazi holocaust victims went to the gas chambers quietly. Using the same logic, it must have been OK with them, because they did not speak up. As far as what the APA thinks, keep in mind they know which side their bread is buttered on: "You want to fuck animals? Oh, there-there, it's OK. There's nothing wrong with you. You're perfectly normal! Feel better about yourself now? Good! $100 please! Same time next week?" Wahkeenah 23:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, you are invoking Godwin's law quite a lot. I'm not keen on discussing whether sexual intercourse with animals is ok or not. I think it would be ok to add something like "critics of this mention that the DSM-IV says nothing about the well being of the animal" or something like that. But NOT something like "yeah, just like with the jews!!!11".. And.. wouldn't the APA be smarter to make the range of sick people wider instead of smaller, so they get more work? --Conti|✉ 23:44, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Never heard of Godwin's Law until now. If the shoe fits, wear it. But wouldn't put that in the article. The comparisons to pedophilia and slavery are sufficient, but that guy won't let them stand. And I agree with you that the article should not be taking a position on the issue. The problem is that IT IS taking a position. But if I add your comment, which sounds like a good way to phrase it, and which I tried to say (apparently clumsily) when this all started, then that other guy will add his own comment which attempts to refute it. It's a no-(God)-win situation. However, I'm going to add your comment, and see if it fuels the flames any further or if it will stand as is. Wahkeenah 23:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Wahkeenah - I think what you really fail to understand is that the fact that we don't want the article to argue AGAINST it does not actually mean that we think it should argue FOR it, and that the absense of a negative POV is not the same as a positive POV. All that Wikipedia articles are supposed to contain are FACTS - verifiable facts. So, for example, "it's not listed in DSM-IV" is a verifiable fact (and thus should probably be included); "critics argue that XYZ" is also a verifiable fact and should be included; and "defenders argue that ABC" *also* is a verifiable fact that should be included. What should NOT be included is XYZ or ABC itself (referring to the respective arguments that opponents or proponents make).
If you feel that the article is overly positive, then please discuss your concerns here on the Talk page in a civilised manner; editing the article to push your own point of view is not going to accomplish anything. State your personal opinions on your own webpage, if you want to, but do keep them out of Wikipedia - we're about facts and neutrality only. If you feel you're being treated unfairly, also feel free to use Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 14:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

There you go again, throwing in that one-sided argument. You can't argue for the human side without also pointing out that the animals have no voice in it! Wahkeenah 17:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Reasonable people can disagree over the ethical status of (nonviolent) sexual acts with other species, just as reasonable people can disagree over the ethical status of eating meat. It isn't Wikipedia's purpose to defend one side of this debate or the other, or to castigate anyone as insane or morally corrupt. Wikipedia is neutral, and when we write for Wikipedia we need to set aside disagreements and write about the facts that we can agree upon.
I hope you understand, by the way, that this article has had a serious problem with "POV-pushing" (what a silly expression!) in the past, and that other editors here will be acutely sensitive to edits that whiff of it. The topic is one that provokes strong feelings of revulsion and condemnation in many people (apparently including yourself) -- and that is a fact that the article needs to state. However, Wikipedia is not disgusted -- Wikipedia is neutral; and when we step into the role and write for Wikipedia (by editing an article) we must set aside our personal reactions and write neutrally. --FOo 17:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I gather that there has been a lot of debate. I didn't see anything comparable on the pedophilia page overtly defending pedophilia. My guess is that it's because pushing that viewpoint would evoke a huge firestorm. Animals, however, are apparently fair game (pardon the irony) for the self-centered wants of humans who want to justify their treatment of animals. I don't object to defining what zoophilia is, or even citing those who support it. What I object to is the ONE-SIDED presentation of some HUMAN's idea of why it's OK, just because it's something the HUMAN wants, without pointing out the obvious fact that animals HAVE NO VOICE in the matter. Wahkeenah 17:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

It may simply be a brute fact of the matter that "animals have no voice" in public debates, simply because they don't have the ability to use language or to formulate their likes and dislikes in the form of statements about rights. But it is certainly not the case that they are without (a) ways to express themselves, or (b) people who insist that they speak for them.
On matter (a): I, personally, have neither experience nor interest in gaining intimate knowledge of a dog. But I'm willing to defer to those who do in the question of whether a dog can express consent (or at least, desire) regarding sex. I've never had a dog sexually mount my leg, but many people have. (Most, I believe, don't desire sexual contact with dogs.) Those who describe this experience generally seem to believe that the dog had sexual desires, or at least an instinct toward sexual activity. Likewise, a dog is quite capable of expressing distaste, rejection, or refusal -- for instance, by attempting to escape, expressing pain vocally, or by using natural defenses such as claws and teeth. Therefore, I am quite willing to believe the reports of those who claim to have consensual sex with dogs (or other animals of similar capacities).
On matter (b), it seems that while you state that "the animals have no voice", you seem willing to, yourself, speak for them. You purport to offer the "other side" to match a "one-sided" presentation. I hear the zoophile saying, "If these animals could speak, they would say they consent" and I hear you saying, "If these animals could speak, they would say otherwise -- and besides, the animals have no voice, so you can't claim to speak for them." All in all, it seems that your position is self-defeating: if the animals have no voice -- that is, no accurate representation -- then how can you accurately represent them? --FOo 19:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, tell ya what... I'll add the following comment to the pedophilia page, and we'll see how far that flies: Defenders of pedophilia claim that an adult/child relationship can go far beyond sexuality, and that children are (if allowed) capable of forming a loving relationship that can last for years, and that they do not consider it functionally different from any other love/sex relationship. Wahkeenah 19:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I hope you won't. Wikipedia policy forbids disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.
Moreover, the suggested parallel is weak. We have the testimony of people who were sexually molested as children, who state clearly that they did not consent and that they were harmed. Nobody need pretend to speak in their voice: they have their own voice.
By the way, I believe your position would be strengthened if you would respond to my points, rather than to make an irrelevant and trollish threat. Threatening to break the rules is very rarely effective in convincing anyone you're right -- usually, it just convinces people you're not interested in working together with others. --FOo 20:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

And I'm sure you could find some adults willing to testify that being molested was *good* for them. I'm sure the NAMBLA site would have plenty such testimony. As far as breaking "rules", that comment I quoted was clearly a POV editorial comment posted by someone who supports fucking animals. Why are you allowing that anonymous assertion to stand unchallenged? Wahkeenah 20:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Trying to throw attention on others' conduct rather than responding substantively is not usually a very successful thing to do in a discussion. Do you have any response with substance, or are you more interested in casting aspersions at your fellow editors? --FOo 21:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

ContiE and I HAD discussed and HAD reached a reasonable compromise, and then that other guy Schneelocke kept putting that unsubstantiated, uncited editorial comment back in. Why don't you talk to HIM??? Wahkeenah 21:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and since you want response to your specific arguments... surprise: I DO NOT claim to speak for animals. I would argue that whatever they are going through is NOT KNOWABLE. I think of fucking and animal as being on rougly the same level as fucking a retarded human. My complaint about the POINT OF VIEW BEING PUSHED IN THE ARTICLE is that it is TOTALLY HUMAN CENTERED. That is, that it's about WHAT THE HUMANS WANT, and they invent theories to support the idea that the animals are having a good time too. Wahkeenah 21:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I hate to be the bearer of bad news sweetheart but animals aren't people. They don't have a voice because they don't need one. They are fucking chattel and they belong to whoever owns them. The reason the article is "human-centered" (what a ridiculous statement) is because we're human. Lord of Creation, Top of the Food Chain. Animals are for use, companionship, and food. Sexual activity with them falls under these categories. If I own a dog and I want to have sex with it that isn't your or PETA's business. If you want to protect the dog offer me a fair price and I'll sell him to you. Its the same thing as fucking a blow-up doll I bought, I own it its mine.

Ummm shouldn't "References to zoosexuality are not uncommon in some media, especially cartoon series such as Family Man and South Park, satirical comedy such as Borat,..." say "References to zoosexuality are not uncommon in some media, especially cartoon series such as Family Guy ..."? Family Guy is the animated and Family Man is something else...

Removed two links - one to about-beastiality.com because it was, surprise surprise, heavily pornographic - in fact, I didn't see anything there that wasn't pornographic - and one to tailhole.org, because I'm pretty certain it was added by its own author. He may respond here if I'm mistaken, or if he believes that it should be linked here anyway.

Also, anyone mind if I archive this page again? --Zetawoof 00:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

this link to the New York Times

this is not inherently the case, a view that was endorsed by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals president Ingrid Newkirk [1]

redirects to a page that needs a username/password to access. I strongly reccomend an alternative link to be placed.Lacrymology 15:21:33, 2005-08-03 (UTC)

The credentials that are requested can be obtained through a free registration process, or through bugmenot. Yes, it's a bit of a pain, but c'est la NYT. --Zetawoof 21:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
this doesn't change thte fact that I don't believe it's what the average user wants to do (go to an webpage that stores (illegal in some way, I'm sure) username/password of websites. The one I was given was "nytsux44/sucks") and I'm sure Ms. Newkirk has been quoted by someone else online. On the other hand, the Times is, I guess, one of the most reliable sources you get. 'tis a hard one, huh.. --Lacrymology 03:07:38, 2005-08-04 (UTC)
Well, if you have any better ideas, tell us... --Zetawoof 09:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Ingrid Newkirk - Anon 218.244.225.180

Ingrid Newcrap has changed her mind, why give these dips any coverage or publicity http://canadafreepress.com/2005/rubin072105.htm

It is almost as shocking to read my comments about non-assaultive sexual contact as some endorsement by me or PETA of sexual assault on animals. Let me be clear—as the writer was shamefully not—that PETA and I are totally opposed to any exploitation and all bestiality. Philosophical musings on whether there is cruelty when a girl experiences sexual pleasure from riding a horse who is oblivious to that fact or when someone allows a dog to hump their leg are a far cry from an endorsement of bestiality. Bestiality is cruelty to animals and PETA pushes for laws to outlaw it and prosecution when it occurs.
Please correct the hideously false impression that Alexander Rubin gave in his guest column.
Very truly yours,
Ingrid E. Newkirk
President
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

-- Comment by User:218.244.225.180

What? --Zetawoof 05:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
The zoophilia page here has an outdated quote by Peta, read the link to the newspaper story, Ingrid's letter to the editor condeming all bestiality was published along with a retraction by the newspaper for citing the previously published quote that appears here on the article page.
The retraction follows Ingrid's letter to the paper, in case it expires it says this
Editor’s Note:
Neither canadafreepress.com editors nor its guest columnist, student Alexander Rubin intended in any way to infer that PETA President Ingrid Newkirk approved of bestiality. PETA, whose mission is dedicated to animal welfare, abhors bestiality and cruelty of any kind to animals.
-- Comment by User:218.244.225.180
There's no conflict there. Read carefully: Ingrid appears to be denying any endorsement of "sexual assault on animals", but leaving "non-assaultive sexual contact" up for grabs. In light of this, however, I've removed the reference to these comments from the leading text of the article. --Zetawoof 05:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I have read it, several times in fact, she quite clearly makes two statements which leave no doubt, the two statements are:
"PETA and I are totally opposed to any exploitation and all bestiality."
"Bestiality is cruelty to animals and PETA pushes for laws to outlaw it and prosecution when it occurs."
What part of "totally opposed to... to all bestiality" isn't clear?
I don't know how you can take that as condoning any form of sex with animals. She once cited a woman getting sexual pleasure riding a horse, that's not bestiality, I hate to say it but it's using the moving saddle as a sex toy or fettish.
"Non assaultive bestiality" was in reference to the previous quote which she clearly refuted in this recently published letter as being misconstrued, and it's pretty clear she was mildly threatening the newspaper into printing an apology and retraction.
Is there some personal reason you want this anti zoo freak group in the article with misleading and now refuted quotes? They are anti zoo, for that matter, they are anti animal anything.
Zoos don't need this lunatic group either supporting or condeming bestiality, we should either use the new updated material published in that newspaper and let readers come to their own conclusion, or remove references to Peta's quotes entirely since there seems to be a conflict.
-- Comment by 218.244.225.180
Returning to this page after some time, my observations:
  • As said many times above, first and foremost wikipedia is not partisan. So it is inappropriate to discuss or edit based on what "Zoos need" or "Zoos don't need", "PETA wants" or "PETA doesn't want" or even personal opinion such as "PETA are lunatics". The article seems broadly neutral, as evidenced by the fact it's mostly stable and in fine tuning only for the last 8 months, a substantial period of time for an emotive subject. Many peoples hard editing and discussion went into achieving this. Again, as many people have reiterated above, when we write for wikipedia, we describe factual information (even if they happen to be facts about uncertain or speculative matters, and even if the subject matter is not easy)
  • It seems from the original quote and later amendment (some considerable time later in fact), that what has been said by Newkirk is as follows:
    1. Abusive conduct to animals is always wrong
    2. If sexual conduct with animals were (hypothetically) shown to not always be abusive, then perhaps it would not be morally wrong.
    3. Newkirks personal belief is that it is always wrong, however she has not (in saying this) addressed the "what if" above, merely made an assertation that to her it is always wrong regardless.
    4. Logically this probably means she does not believe it cannot be abusive, which would remove the contradiction. But her initial comment, the hypothetical "if... then..." which she described, has not in fact been taken back. She has not said "even if it were shown to not be abusive it would still be wrong". She has simply asserted two statements, one that if non-abusive then it is perhaps not wrong, the other that it is in her view always wrong. There seems to be an unspoken assumption "always abusive" backing the latter.
    5. It is clear she did not intend her comments to be interpreted to mean "bestiality is okay", rather she was commenting on the logic of "if not abusive then perhaps not wrong" which she agreed with, and later sought to avoid the mis-interpretation "so its okay then is it?" which in fact does not logically follow from her initial statement either.
  • The wikipedia article cites the "if .. then.." issue raised by Singer, as a philosophical one. Newkirk has not said she disagrees with this logic or withdrawn her support for this hypothetical analysis, if it so transpired. She has merely clarified separately her belief that sex with animals is not okay (perhaps because she believes it is always abusive and therefore Singers hypothetical starting point cannot be the case).
Hope that clarifies. FT2 16:35, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

It's given me a major headache but thanks for the article. Okay let's do this then, if you want to see what this group is doing to zoos today, a recent news article clearly shows how screwed up thinking that Peta condones any kind of zoo contact is, just point your mouse to this newpaper article: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45995 Peta has gone after a blind guy for inviting a girlfriend to have sex with his male dog and the authorities took the dog away as a "victim" of "animal rape" Peta's non assaultive bestiality "support" letter to the prosecutors urging throwing the book at him as an "animal rapist" is here: http://www.peta.org/mc/NewsItem.asp?id=6838

Maybe that shows how absurd keeping the old Newkirk quote is since it's easy to misunderstand, especially without the update to show the facts and the truth, but you keep whatever version you like best, false or not, I'm done with this. (Added by: 218.244.225.180)

I have updated the article, and hope Ive done justice to 2 things that seemed to need fixing or referencing:
  1. The "newkirk" business above, making clear the nature of her statement (we dont need the full darn letter and signoff lines quoted), to state clearly what it said, and why she said it, and what it means and what it doesnt. It should be quite NPOV now.
  2. The 50% statistic was removed by an editor, with the explanation "uncertain stats should not be quoted". This is incorrect in this context. The exact size of the number is questioned by some, but not anecdotal. It is a figure in the resuults of some major and reputable research, and often quoted, but there is in recent decades doubt as to the exact number. These were the figures reported by Kinsey et al, a reputable survey. To state them, and also to state they are uncertain, is classic wikipedia handling of such information sources.
FT2 10:37, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Removed sites: zoophilia dot net and zooskool dot com

Upon inspection of the site, I noticed a number of hidden links (style="text-decoration:none; color:black") on the site leading to various pornographic sites hosted at the same location. The content, also, is available in full in other locations. What information from that site do we believe to be indispensable to the article? The sources for the subpages, in full, are:

  • This article (index)
  • "Causes of Zoophilia": Muse's Zoo Research (archived)
  • "Zoophilia in Society": ibid.
  • "A historical overview": Usenet
  • "Kurrelgyre's Report": Classic Usenet-era text. No link found, but I'm absolutely certain I've seen it elsewhere.
  • "Zoosexual Information": Essay by Ebonlupus
  • "What's it like to be a zoophile": Usenet, probably older than this
  • "The Secret Life Of Zoophiles": like it says - "this article is excerpted from a book she is currently writing concerning her study on bestiality and zoophilia". And which has been published.
  • "The potential downside of acceptance": Usenet again
  • "Sexual contact with animals": Penthouse and elsewhere
  • "The joy of beasts": The Independent; probably copied from here.
  • "Insight: confession to love with animals": Another old text that's been copied around
  • "Insight: consent": As above

There was also one duplicate link to one of the subpages, which was removed as well.

((Zooskool.com notes KEPT IN CURRENT TALK PAGE as still relevant to discussion))

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoophilia/Archive_15&oldid=1137345236"