Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 27

Still plenty of summarising and trimming to do, but

When you go in the edit window in the article it no longer tells you the article is so long you should consider splitting it into more separate ones due to its length.:) Charity (Talk) 01:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

lists of articles, books, papers etc

These should be much shorter, listing only the most pertinent ones. Charity (Talk) 01:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Pic- leda and swan

(This is User:Sticky Parkin, I've made this account to work on some articles- just letting you know so you don't think I'm pretending to be a different person. :) ) The Leda and the Swan pic should not be used. It depicts rape by a god, Zeus, so it is not even depicting sex with an animal as an animal, plus do zoophiliacs really want to be associated with rape? It is actually I imagine pretty impossible to have sex with a swan, they don't even have a proper penis. As said earlier on this page, most zoophilia is for dogs or horses and other mammals, not a bird, so it's not even accurate. It is pretty, but for this subject that makes it a purely illustrative pic, a type of article adornment which as wikipedians we are told not to use. As someone who studied classics at uni I find it quite wrong to use this pic in this way. A lot of cultures have myths where the gods take various shapes to interact with humans- that doesn't mean they were endorsing zoophilia in those instances, it could be just to show the power of the gods over the physical world. For instance, God came to Mary; is that depicting sex with oxygen, with a hallucination or incubus? Is Zeus coming in the form of a shower of gold to Danae meaning the gods loved and encouraged golden showers? No. To describe it as doing so is inaccurate and to imply that it did or use it to adorn those pages would be both misleading and purely illustrative/aesthetic. [[User:Charity Shopaholic|Charity]] [[User talk:Charity Shopaholic|(talk)]] (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Will try and fix sig in a bit..... fixed :) Charity Talk 17:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll gross you out for a moment by noting that geese are actually one of the few species of birds that do have penises, along with ducks and some ratites (IIRC). But that's neither here nor there.

Trying to remove that section on the grounds that the various myths listed depicted figurative sex with animals seems a rather weak point, and one which hinges rather strongly on the theory that mythological or figurative sex is somehow not actually sex... or something. Even if we agree that it's not exactly the same, this article still seems like the most appropriate place to list those myths together, unless someone wants to create an article on sex with animals (except not really) in fiction.

Also, can you explain why I've seen several brand-new accounts all trying to make the exact same edit recently? Not accusing, just wondering... Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I've not tried to remove any section, I just thought the pic at the top was not relevant to that position. As explained at various places, some of the accounts are different established users who just don't want their main account associated with an article with this stigma/reputation, so have made accounts for the purpose of editing controversial subjects, in accordance with policy. They are not pretending to be anyone else or backing up themselves. I don't think people have made the same edits, if so maybe they just agree with parts of other's edits. Charity (Talk) 01:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have so far seen the following three users all make edits to remove the mythology section:

• User:La Mejor Ratonera (three edits, all to this article)
• User:Dave Chaparral (14 edits since December 2007, two of which are to this article)
• User:Drum Scope (three edits, all to this article)

As of right now, the section is still missing in action following Dave Chaparral's most recent edit. Unless he can present some reason to leave the section out that's stronger than describing it as "sheer nonsense" (or "don't Puck with Shakespeare"), I can't see any reason to leave it out... Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know these people and hadn't seen what they got upto to have an opinion (there's a lot to catch up on.) This article has received substantial discussion on a certain forum recently which often draws some new attention to articles- new input is usually good for an article. If you think they are socks of each other (are the same person), you could make a WP:SPI request. Charity (Talk) 02:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A god with human like mind, makes his body be like the body of an animal, while retaining his mind, in my opinion, is anthropomorphism, or more accuratly (though less often used) zooanthropomorphism, in the less strict sense (meaning with human and animal characteristics, not necessarily just shapes), some people might call it furry (a word that has plenty of different but somewhat related definitions depending on who you ask), but regardless of the exact terms, it doesn't belong in this article IMO. --TiagoTiago (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with illustrative pictures? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images says nothing against them, indeed I think that would be the point of using images!93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"Coming Soon" POV pushing

A checkuser has just confirmed that all the users showing up to remove or minimize claims that the film was a fictional depiction were - surprise, surprise - sockpuppets of a single user. As there appears to be reasonably strong evidence that the film was fictional, and no evidence that it was a factual documentary, I've edited the section to reflect the evidence accordingly. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the film really notable enough to be mentioned at all? --Conti|✉ 11:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, it's probably not. Blam. Zetawoof_(ζ) 11:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Just received an e-mail confirmation from Dr. Peter Singer about his COMING SOON blurb. (His quote was ""A film that manages to be both hilarious and disturbing, to entertain while it raises deep questions about the things we are, and are not, prepared to tolerate regarding the treatment of nonhuman animals.") This itself makes this film one of the most important discussions about Zoophilia. Somna —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC).

Just out of curiosity, have any of the censors watched the film at all? You can do so for free via Google. I can't see how anyone remotely interested in Zoophila can dismiss this film as irrelevant. User Conti keeps writing about better sources. I recommend visiting comingsoon cz and click on the Praise/Critiques section for a huge list of sources including Czech national radio, tv, politicians, universities, German, Swedish, French sources, etc. What exactly is it you're looking for? I don't particularly care much about the film but I do care about E.F.A., since it's the only organisation I know about who is fighting for equality for non-abusive zoos. What about it makes this too taboo for Wikipedia - especially in an article ABOUT ZOOPHILIA? I don't want to write this under my regular Wikipedia username because of the sensitive topic but I am long-term contributor to Czech Wikipedia and I think this film, or at least E.F.A. should be mentioned in one way or anther. MorticiansInc —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC).

I have been reserachimg this film for the past few days, ever since hearing about it on PetForum, and it seems like Zetawoof is the one guilt of POV pushing. I Googled the names in the credits and it turns out that the Psychiatrist in the film, Dr. Martin Holly is the head of the largest Psychiatric hospital in the Czech Republic. The Journalist is one of the head editors of Czech National Radio. Hardly a spoof. The other names didnt come up yet. As per E.F.A., I, too, am a mamber and have been in touch with other mambers and its certainly not fake. Try joining and see! Yours truly, AnimalsForPres

Since edit-warring with sockpuppets is no fun, can we get a definite consensus on whether we should include this film in the article or not? My !vote is nay, considering there are no reliable sources about it, combined with dubious POV-pushing by sockpuppets. --Conti|✉ 18:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Nay: no need for WP:UNDUE/promotion of this one work of fiction on this fairly broad topic. And without WP:RS, it's not viable content at all (per WP:V removal of unsupported claims). DMacks (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Half the films, books etc should go as there are too many and they can't all have equal notability. It doesn't seem as long as it did though. Charity (Talk) 21:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

To Charity Shopaholic, you seem to like Oxfam. Great Charity. One of your biggest supporters, Dr. Peter Simger, had this to say about COMING SOON, "A film that manages to be hilarious and disturbing, to entertain while raising deep questions about the things we are and are not willing to tolerate regarding the treatment of non=human animals." Still think the film¨s irrelevant? Yours trul, AnimalsForPres

Hello Folks, I am the user formally known as Kalifona. They blocked me from editing for some reason, so I made a new account. There must be a problem with checkuser, since I am not the same person, and do not share anz IP address or network with the people, who made the first edits about this film.

I found out about these deletings through www.equalityforall.net (of which I am a member) and tried to come up with a compromise. Look at my entry, no POV pushing there:

• www comingsoon cz Coming Soon] (2006, Sir Tijn Po, released by Devilhead Films): The film uses a documentary-like structure about E.F.A., a group claiming to be the world's first zoophile-rights organization. The film follows their views, trials and tribulations - thereby exploring "civilization's eternal quest for the perfect balance between love, tolerance, morality, censorship, tradition, experimentation, etc." (The true nature of Coming Soon and E.F.A. have been disputed. ) The film had its international premiere at Berlin's Kino Babylon (Mitte) on Good Friday, 2008. Online viewing, as well as the official DVD launch, started on Independence Day, July 4th, 2008. Won a special award for "Originality and Support for Suppressed Minorities" at the Finále Festival in Plzeň, Czech Republic, where it premiered. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zetapuppy (talk • contribs) 10:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The E.F.A. organization is certainly not fictional and has members from all over the world.

Whether or not the film is a "real" documentary or not seems to be pretty irrelevant since most of the film included in this article are fiction. But I would certainly recommend putting back information about the film. Why dont you just leave out the words documentary and get it over with??? This film means a lot to many people, particularly Zoos, and I dont see why you would vandalise it because of a few Spammers. Vandalism and censorship only invites more vandalism and censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zetapuppy (talk • contribs) 10:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I realize this investigation was closed last month: The sockpuppets have been duly verified and blocked, a vandalized article about a legitimate 1982 film by the same title has been restored, and deletions have been scheduled and/or carried out. I just wanted to briefly note, for the benefit of any who may still be interested, that whoever's promoting this video seems now to have moved on to the Huffington Post comment board. (Out of 95 of the user Flagrantlover's total comments on that site, I counted at least 54 that provided links to the mockumentary.) So ... just in case there was still any doubt ... Rangergordon (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see the connection between Wikopedia Spammer and Huffington Post Spammer. I found at least 30 discussions (in English, French, Swedish and German) on the Internet about this film. Some look like ads and some look sincere. I don't think they can all be from same person or group. It looks like the best way to get something deleted from Wikipedia is to write a lot of Spam IN FAVOR of the same thing. If I Spam about Ron Paul will you delete the whole article :-) I agree with some other opinions here that it is beginning to look like censorship but I can't see if it is because of the pro-zoophili position of this film and E.F.A. or because of the anti animal abuse position of Coming Soon and E.F.A.? MorticiansInc

History repeats itself. Take a look at the history of another similarly named film around February 2007. Incidentally, someone should set up a proper disambig between the two films. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

To Zetawoof: Good job with disambiguation. I think there should be another section, however, Coming Soon (2006 film) or 2008 if you only count English versions.MorticiansInc

No. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are you asking it? DIY! Somna

Add one more voice in favor of COMING SOON being included. One of the most acclaimed Czech films in years and a source of great pride to us! Antifiducia —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC).

If this is actually "one of the most acclaimed Czech films in years", I weep for the Czech film industry. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I, in turn, weep for the future of Wikipedia when people as coarse and uninformed as you have the slightest editorial power over its content. (See your User Page for why I call you coarse and uninformed.) Somna —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC).

Hokusai - The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife

I have added this image, which is probably the most famous modern image of Zoophilia. I hope it is in the right place. Image:Tako.jpg Hokusai]], Katsushika（葛飾北斎) (1760–1849)The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Anthropophilia???

• Is that possible? This article does not mention that but I am just wondering is it possible for an animal to feel attraction to a human? I heard once that a dog was trying to rape a girl, a friend told me but still wondering if that is possible. 03:15, 22 February 2009 User:207.248.40.6
• In breeding falconry birds, if a young nestling is raised in the nest by humans, it may grow up sexually imprinted to humans, resulting in the opposite to zoophilia. The imprint goshawk is common. If a human wants to breed from a pair of such imprints, he may do this:
  1. Let the male bird court him, resulting in the male bird trying to copulate with his head, while he is wearing a special hat which has pockets to catch the bird's semen.
  2. Suck up the semen into a pipette, or a hypodermic syringe without a needle.
  3. Court the female bird; at "intercourse" he places one hand flat on the female bird's back while squirting the semen into her cloaca with the pipette or syringe with the other hand.
  4. Make sure that any resulting eggs are incubated.

  This technique is well known in breeding falconry birds. It is not zoophilia in the man, because he gets no sexual pleasure from it.

  • I read that attempts to breed from London Zoo's giant panda Chi Chi (giant panda) failed because she was sexually imprinted on humans and refused the advances of Moscow's male giant pands An An, and (embarrassingly) sexually presented her rear end to a Russian zookeeper who came with An An. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• It is undecided, and no real references bare whether anthrophilia should exist, but androphilia and gynephilia already exists, androphilia sometimes means both human man and human woman though, so it can be used as anthrophilia, but androphilia is to man, as gynephilia is to woman. But the key fact is animals liking humans, it is technically anthrozoophilia, but with the animal as one that is attracted. PhD Jay D (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If both humans and animals can be homosexual, I don't see why they couldn't be zoosexual as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.226.201 (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Naturalistic fallacy

I liked the argument "The belief that bestiality is unnatural may be subject to the naturalistic fallacy. Cross species sex does sometimes occur in nature". Which is itself a version of the naturalistic fallacy. Peter Damian (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol. So the writer had interpreted the NF as being the opposite to what it actually is? Charity (Talk) 21:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, they cleary misunderstood it; see Naturalistic fallacy. It is the fallacy that because something is natural, it is OK. The second sentence, if true, shows only that the belief that bestiality is unnatural is false (not that the belief commits the fallacy). And it rather invokes the fallacy in perhaps implying there is nothing wrong with bestiality, because it is not unnatural.

I'm going to have a go at the ethics section once I have got hold of Linzey's paper. Peter Damian (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This goes against every book I have ever read, interspecies copulation has actually been successful in past, this has enabled hybrids to exist today, in fact every animal genus you see today is apart of a hybrid. Without interspecies, there would be no 'swapping' of features. If interspecies copulation is wrong, why is interspecies human-animal embryos allowed? Its only been the last few million years most animals you see today haven't been cross-breeding over an interspecies scale, because of the DNA protection in modern day cells. Interspecies is still very much successful, and hybrids are often appearing in the deepest of jungles, and the rarest of places, even the Amazon forest is a good example. I believe whoever wrote those sections was being completely self-opinionated and stating no real fact (hence forcing their very own opinion down our throats. --86.7.230.41 (talk) 11:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Furries vs. Plushies? where does it says there is any frowning?

The furry community even frowns on "plushies", people who are aroused by soft toy animals.

in the linked reference I only found someone mentioning furries have been wrongly mistaken with plushies, basicly just stating the definition of the two words doesn't match, I didn't find anywhere saying that the majority of furries have a negative opinion about plushies, nor that the two groups don't overlap. I removed the phrase from the article and I believe it should remain removed untill someone finds somthing that actually says what the phrase says and not just barelly bump into a couple of the elements involved. --TiagoTiago (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

And in any case, it isn't all that relevant, as this article is centered on neither the furry fandom nor plushophilia. Agreed. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe in any shape or form, that plushies should be placed here, they perhaps should be mentioned, but unlike real animals, they are not alive, let alone are they apart of the genus 'animalia' that this article is allocated for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.230.41 (talk) 11:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Scientific terminology - Disputed text

Disputed text: The legal and moral definition of zoophilia (sex with animals) is somewhat problematic from a scientific perspective, since humans are animals. Technically it is as contradictory as saying that sex between humans is okay, but sex between a human and a man, or between a human and a woman, is morally wrong. The closest scientific term would be 'interspecies sex', but this includes all such couplings, not just those committed by humans, or those disapproved of by some humans. Uploaded by me. Deleted by Webhamster twice and by an anonymous user. Replaced twice, once by myself and once by Subverted. The cited video is a comprehensive explanation of the way science views the tree of life and the animal kingdom; which includes us. 'Sex with animals' is thus unavoidable unless you live a life of chastity. If we're going to discuss the terminology, what is wrong with saying the whole concept has a severe flaw from a scientific viewpoint? Would Webhamster care to add his viewpoint? OR is a cheap shot. Be more specific please. ANTIcarrot (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of reasons why I've deleted the above text. Firstly Youtube is not classed as a reliable source and secondly it's editorialising and a mixture of original research and synthesis. This article is not a venue to soapbox your own thoughts on the subject. --WebHamster 07:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Other more relevant wiki rules specify that citation is required for material that is likely to be challenged. Are you seriously challenging the idea that humans are a species of animal? Are you saying this idea is so revolutionary to you that you cannot possible accept it without seeing it in a peer reviewed scientific journal? WP:RS is about the reliability of the information contained within any given source. If you're not disputing the information, then that objection is irrelevant. And once again I ask for an explanation of your OR claim, otherwise it's as meaningless as an accusation of witchcraft. In hindsight the sentence regarding interspecies sex probably was stepping over the line, but you didn't just delete that, but the whole section. Zoophilia is sex with animals. According to science humans are animals, as stated in the source. According to science any attempt to separate humans from the rest of the animal kingdom is false, as stated in the source. OR requires that I've gone an extra step, made an intuitive leap not present in the original source. I do not believe I have. According to 100 year old scientific knowledge any phrase or question that implies that humans are separate from the animal kingdom is nonsense from a scientific point of view. Which shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone, given how many other old ideas science has shown to be nonsense. Yes I put that in my own words, but I am required to do so under wiki rules about copyright. So do you withdraw your objection? Can you specify the error in my logic? Or do I take this to dispute resolution? ANTIcarrot (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are 2 errors in your logic, both of which are your failure to comprehend something. The first being that you cannot use YouTube for any citation as it is not regarded on Wikipedia as being a reliable source. For example, how do we know that the narrator's voice isn't yours? The second thing is your failure to comprehend that you are talking total bollocks. --WebHamster 19:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Animal Porn

I came here to find out more about Animal Porn. "Animal Porn" redirects here, but the article doesn't reallly mention it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.234.159.97 (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I know that this is a very wrong practice but what many people want to know is how beastility is defined. A question i am asking is: is it beastility for a dog to lick your genitals? There are many other questions like this that need to be answered and made clear. Please help, people need to be informed about this stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.201.134 (talk) 09:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Pornography of all kinds is a seperate paraphilia, called 'voyeurism'. It is true that voyeurism could do with a little mention, but it would require minor mention, seen as most real zoophiles consider voyeurism wrong. Though, there are plenty of zoosexuals calling themselves zoophiles, on sites like BeastForum, etc. Also, to advertise such sites here would be illegal, as you'd be hotlinking to a site that has not passed the Miller's test - which could potentially get Wikipedia sued. J D Smith (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As for the second segment, it depends on the definition of sex. Yes, it is oral intercourse. But Wikipedia states aforementioned information of other articles, not all of it is its own, Wikipedia is a community and thus doesn't have its own voice on the matter. If you want to add it, add it. That side of zoosexuality isn't exactly educational to the sexological student. But as a standard user, feel free to add it yourself. J D Smith (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Seperate Zoophilia from Bestiality

Well, zoosexuality got its own page, why can't zoophilia and bestiality? People get confused between zoophilia and bestiality most often. I would also like to add these differences because 'bestiality' is psychologically associated with rape, which isn't at all what zoophilia means, its your own opinion to decide whether 'zoosexuality' and 'bestiality' is rape though. But zoosexuality on zoo websites is classed as the love and lust, and bestiality is lust with no love. I believe this change would be benefitial and what is already here is against nearly every other encyclopedia in the world. In zoophilia, love comes first, and there's the add-on that comes with it, that is lust. But in bestiality, lust comes first, and love perhaps never comes, some bestialists have to force their advances on the animal to have sex with it (rape). In my own humble opinion, I believe bestiality is wrong when the animal has to be forced, especially if sadism gets enforced, that is cruelty. I am in no way a zoosexual myself, but I do believe in alternative sex, and what's wrong with zoophilia? Its bestiality that's so bad (common sense). Note: I mean no harm to any party with any opinion, this is simply a suggestion, and without these opinions it would be wise also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.230.41 (talk) 11:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer 'bestiality' bounced to zoophilia. People familiar with the subject make the distinction that you do, but I believe the vast majority of the english speaking world still uses it as a pejorative term, with an unavoidable connection to rape. This view cannot be substantiated by science, because it is based on myths (some old, some new) rather than reality. If it can't be proven it certainly can't be cited because there will be no reliable documents to cite from. You might write it in a similar way to the 'nigger' page, but I believe it would be largely redundant.ANTIcarrot (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Bestiality isn't defined as rape, though. It is defined as sex with non-human animals. Sex is sex, animals are animals. Sex with animals is sex with animals. When a zoophile has sex with an animal, he is having sex with an animal.

It doesn't get much more simpler than that. You'll have to edit the sex and/or animal articles first if you want to change the definition of 'sex' with 'animal'. Avalik (talk) 10:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Zoophilia is Greek for 'animal love'. Someone who commits bestiality is either a zoosexual or was forced to do so. Zoosexuality is a neologism showing corrective parody of 'zoophilia'.

A zoosexual may or may not be a zoophile (love animals). And a zoophile may or may not be a zoosexual (have a sexual attraction towards animals).

The zoosexual community tend to label themselves as 'zoophiles'. As the zoosexual zoophile community label themselves as 'zoophiles' and those zoosexuals who aren't, just 'bestialists' or 'zoosexual'.

The act in English is just 'sex' - it is 100% sex (with animals), 'bestiality' is the dyslogistic term, as ANTIcarrot states. It is archaic and colloquial, against all the fundamentals of modern social science. Whether you want to use 'bestiality' or not is up to you, but after all, like Dr Singer said, its just two animals rubbing body parts, pleasuring each other's sexual desires.

I don't even have 'bestialist' in any of my official dictionaries, so it is a very modern, accusative word. Someone who has sex with animals is not a 'bestialist', they are a 'person', usually a 'zoosexual person'.

After examination, since this article is about 'lust', I believe we should label it under the 'lust' side of things. The title of this article should be 'Zoosexuality' - 'Zoophilia' is the love, which can lead to 'Zoosexuality', but it is not 'Zoosexuality' itself, and nor is 'Zoosexuality' necessarily involved.

Since we are grouping everything psychologically with the prefix 'zoo', may be we could 'zoolagnia', 'zoology' and 'zoological garden' in the same article as well, since it's all to do with the manias and loves of animals. Why not include 'zoosadism' as well? Wait, isn't sadism the opposite of philia? J D Smith (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The simple fact everyone also is ignoring is the fact that "Zoophilia" used to describe enthusiastic lovers of Zoos... you know, those places where they keep the wrong animals behind bars? Look at the term Zoology, Zoomorphic and counltess others. The proper term is "Zoosexual" as that conforms to all of the other PARAphilia definitions (my emphasis on the "para" of paraphilia to point out a fallacy that just becuase a term ends in "philia" does not mean SEX. It means love). By all means, seperate Zoophilia from Bestiality and add the further note to the disambiguation that links it back the wiki article on Zoo/Zoos/Zoological Garden. Ryu Darragh (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've already expressed my displeasure with the global replacement of the wording "sexual relations with an animal" with "sexual use of an animal". Simply put, it implies the editorial comment that all sexual contact between humans and animals is inherently abusive, whereas "sexual relations" or "sexual intercourse" simply states the matter and leaves it to the reader to make up their mind. I can see how "relations with" might be seen as implying the existence of a bilateral emotional relationship or something, but that's much more subtle and easier to read around.

Moreover, the extent to which this change has been made is kind of absurd. There is no possible way that the caption "Man using a horse for sexual pleasure" is clearer or more descriptive than "Man having intercourse with a horse". Indeed, it's a categorically worse caption, as the implied transitivity ("man with horse", rather than "horse with man") is lost. :)

There's some other issues I noted, though:

• First: A ton of paragraph breaks were removed, seemingly at random, which totally broke the internal diff. Please, either change the paragraph breaks or change the content with any given edit; don't do both. It just makes it harder to tell what you're doing.
• One change from "the desire to form sexual relationships with animals" to "a person's desire to form what they believe to be sexual "relationships" with animals" (complete with scare quotes on "relationships"). There's really no need to use this many circumlocutions here, and the intent to discredit the existence of such relationships on the part of the author is clear.
• Similarly, "concern for the animal's welfare and pleasure" to "concern for the animal's purported welfare and pleasure" (italics mine to emphasize the addition). This doesn't even make sense as written: "concern for" already implies that the mental state of a zoophile is being discussed, and "purported" just makes a hash of that by applying someone else's viewpoint to that.
• "to some people it can drive them to acts of bestiality" to "to some people it can encourage them to engage in bestiality". I have no objection to this one - it's less lurid than the original.
• Most of the section on "Non-sexual zoophilia" disappeared. Why?
• Removing the link to come out and replacing it with the bland "reveal"? Unless the goal is to attempt to portray zoophilia as an illegitimate sexual orientation (running in the face of a number of authors, cited here, who have stated quite the opposite), I see no purpose in this change.

Please discuss these on a case-by-case basis, rather than trying to slip them in as part of a larger edit. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

As opposed to your large edit that makes it difficult to revert portions? What is apparent is your inability to see that you are also not being neutral. Your use of "relationship" and "relations" etc presupposes that it's a two way street. This is not neutral by any stretch of the imagination. It is generally accepted by anyone, other than zoophiles, that animals do not give consent so to imply that they do is PoV. Later I will be going through the article and reverting your use of implied consent. Additionally "having sex with" is neutral, it's used for vanilla sex with humans and is perfectly acceptable to use with animals. It does not imply in any way shape or form "abuse". Or do you think that if I said "I want to have sex with my girlfriend" I was actually planning to abuse her?

The levels to which you are going to defend your notions of neutrality is, quite frankly, ridiculous. So much so that you are going in the opposite direction and you are making the article seem that this activity is acceptable. I make no comment on whether it is or not acceptable, merely that by making it seem acceptable you are making the article non-neutral. The article is supposed to be factual with no leanings in either direction. Now given your username, your obvious passion for this subject and your desire to change it to a non-neutral version (whether you realise it or not), I don't believe you have a neutral attitude to begin with and as such you will be blinkered with your editing. --WebHamster 10:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The only edits I've made to the article have been ones which reverted a set of edits by User:Whatever404 to a previous, largely stable version which hadn't seen any major edits in months or more. My edits were difficult to revert by dint of containing just as many changes as the edits that they were reverting - but my whole purpose is that the changes be made piecemeal anyway.

I have no objection to the wording "having sex with". It's somewhat less professional than "sexual relations", but I suppose it gets the point across. My concerns were primarily with User:Whatever404's changing "sexual relations" throughout to "making sexual use of", which is pretty clearly POV in the other direction. (If someone said that "I want to make sexual use of my girlfriend", I would be rather worried.)

Again, to reiterate: The "sexual relations" wording is not mine. It's simply a better choice than the alternative which has been presented. Zetawoof_(ζ) 15:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

In that case we are agreed. The "using" was indeed non-neutral and although, as you say, "sexual relations" is more professional it is also non-neutral when describing sex other than sex between humans. Sex between a person and an animal can never be reliably described as a relationship because the animal can never 100% declare consent nor agree that something is being shared, at least not until they develop a language sophisticated enough to remove all doubt. To me, although not syntactically/aesthetically perfect, "having sex" is as neutral as one can get. --WebHamster 17:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

How about just "...is sex between..." or "...is sexual intercourse between..."? – ukexpat (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"Between" implies a shared agreement, "sexual intercourse" only refers to penetrative sex and as such doesn't cover oral sex or finger 'diddling'. --WebHamster 17:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Are "scare quotes" seen as weasel words or otherwise NPOV? WookMuff (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It depends on context I suppose, but most often they are indeed used to point someone in a direction "either" side of neutral. ;) --WebHamster 09:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:ALLEGED states that words such as "so-called" and "alleged" "have a similar effect to scare quotes, and such usage should be avoided". While this doesn't specifically state that scare quotes are also to be avoided, the intent is clear. Zetawoof_(ζ) 18:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Sentence Structure

"In 1980s, "bestiality" was featured in Italian adult films with actresses like Denise Dior, Francesca Ray, and Marina Hedman, manifested early in the softcore flick Bestialità in 1976." Maybe its just me, but this seems like a wrong sentence but, for the life of me, I can't figure out how it might be fixed WookMuff (talk) 04:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

"Manifested" sounds like a translation error from Italian wikt:manifestare. The most likely intent was something like "debut" or "exemplified", but it's unclear whether the referent is the Italian adult films or one of the actresses. Zetawoof_(ζ) 18:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm still wondering why the article is missing at least one mention of the popular expression in the Zoo community, i.e. "dildogging". :) --WebHamster 18:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This is what it looks like to me 'Around the 1980s, bestiality was featured in Italian adult films i.e. the softcore flick, Bestialità (1976), with actresses like Denise Dior, Francesca Ray, and Marina Hedman.' J D Smith (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No evidence of female animal masturbation?

Animals of many species also masturbate, even if other sexual partners are accessible. Male animals can achieve orgasm, and Beetz claims that female animals of some species can too. However, there is no evidence for this in most female animals.

No evidence of female animal masturbation?? Really now?--99.179.21.44 (talk) 04:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Discovery channel says different. But I've seen a lot of female animal masturbate in my time of zoological and sexological studies. It's not exactly a rare thing, especially in long-tongued animals, cunnilingus masturbation is quite common in female Primates, Canines and Felines. J D Smith (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Section Out of Place

The part about Zoophilia and Other Groups seems out of context with the rest of the article. It seems as though someone associated with fur fandom wrote it in sheer retaliation. Unless there is any reason to believe such groups would be confused with each other, and valid sources can prove it, I believe it should be removed. --Our Lady Overkill (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That's actually a good point, it doesn't seem to fit in with the rest. Drebin893 (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Anybody going to mention that alt.sex.bestiality was made by a furry? Or would I get yelled at? J D Smith (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there is also a survey here: http://www.klisoura.com/ot_furrysurvey.php

Furry fetish is considered 'zoophilic', thus 'autozoophilia' - the sexual attraction toward part-human/part-animal (usually humanoid) species. It may also be considered 'therianthropic'. I note that 18% of furries on a survey of 8290 called themselves 'zoophile'. Before the lulz started banning the mention of zoophilia, this figure used to be just above 32%. J D Smith (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)