Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 24

This is an archive of past discussions about Zoophilia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Zoosexuality merged

I posted a merge notice a few weeks ago. Received no opposition nor support so as suggested assumed consensus and went ahead with the merge. See reasoning here: Talk:Zoosexuality#Merge_with_Zoophilia_attempt_2. Help channel suggested I change the zoosexuality article into a redirect though I'm unsure what I'll do with the talk pages, will sort that out soon.

As for the integration... the terminology aspect was mostly integrated here. "Professional views of zoosexuality as a sexual orientation" is largely covered here with the word 'zoosexual' replaced with 'zoophilia'. The "Further discussion Forms of zoosexual activity" didn't seem to be needed to be integrated as it discussed it throughout the article in parts. "Miscellaneous comparisons with other orientations" was trivial and most content was quote. "Emotion in zoosexuality" covered already in zoophilia and Emotion in animals. "Intersubjective emotion" again mostly quote and only like one line.

So, mostly integrated in my opinion. Avalik (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Adds: Ah, I forgot. I'll be removing "Zoosexual" links and such tomorrow, not today just in case it gets reverted and disputed which would have me change everything back. Avalik (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Well, that's not what 'zoophilia' actually is, during my times of sexological studies, we've treat 'zoophilia' as the romantic, sometimes even 'sexual' paraphilia that a Human can have, which attracts them to another species (usually specific). Also, 'zoophilia' is conceptual, it doesn't really exist as a singleton matter, it is a category of sexual attraction towards certain animal species, i.e. a dog lover is not a cow lover.

I understand that the DSM has caused some confusion in the last few years for doctors. This is why Hani Miletski promoted the term 'zoosexuality'. As 'zoo' (animal) + 'philia' (love) does not mean 'zoo' (animal) + 'sexuality' (sexualitas, sexual attraction). Of course, that matter is biologically disputed, besides.

Not all zoophiles are zoosexuals, and not all zoosexuals are zoophiles. The most common kind of zoophile is the standard pet lover.

Wouldn't it be better to rename this whole article as 'Zoosexuality'? Or would it be right to call love, sexuality?

Bestiality is the interspecific sexual activity between a Human and an individual of another species. Colloquially, I have seen 'zoophiles' like to be called 'zoophiles', and call any zoosexual that is not a zoophile, a 'bestialist'. The word 'bestialist' isn't exactly a real term, it is a neological adaption of accusative verbal noun 'bestiality'.

Secondary usage of 'zoophile' is 'erotic zoophilism', 'zoosexuality'. I think it is very accusative to use the secondary meaning of 'zoophile' on such an official information website like Wikipedia, for the article.

Zoophilia is usually platonic, zoosexuality may or may not feature zoophilia, and vice versa.

I hope this helps. J D Smith (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little unsure what you are trying to say, you contradicted what you said too many times i.e. "we've treat 'zoophilia' as the romantic, sometimes even 'sexual' paraphilia that a Human can have" and then, "The most common kind of zoophile is the standard pet lover" and... I really, really just don't understand what you are trying to say or your point. Please try to rephrase it -- and also bring to my talk page instead please, as I don't check article talk pages I have said something on often. If you are trying to say the definition of "zoosexual[ity]" is not synonymous with "zoophilia[c]" then please address what I had said in my argument linked above or read that if you haven't already Avalik (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I dispute the neutrality of this merge. Zoosexuality was said to be the popular terminology for 'sexual zoophilia' in the last decade to avoid the confusion of the 'affinity for animals' from the 'sexual attraction towards animals', the term derived from Dr Miletski's work as cited in the article. The zoophilia article should have remained seperate from the zoosexual one.

The first line is: "Zoophilia, from the Greek ζῷον (zṓion, "animal") and φιλία (philia, "friendship" or "love") is the practice of sex between humans and animals (bestiality), or a preference or fixation on such practice. A person who practices zoophilia is known as a zoophile" - However, zoophilia is directly the sexual attraction and/or affinity towards animals. Zoosexuality being 'sexual zoophilia', referred to 'sexual zoophilia', whereas 'zoophilia' itself may or may not involve sexual relation. Also, the term, 'zoophilia' does not refer to the 'sexual activity', 'bestiality' does - this is no doubt an archaic terminology no longer used. Neutrality is thus disputed. The articles should have never merged since the terms refer to two different things, even if the categories do align somewhere.

There are two definitions for zoophilia, these also even exist on Wikipedia's side-project, Wiktionary, "1. An affinity or fondness for animals. 2. A paraphilia involving sexual attraction to animals." What valid reference states that 'zoophilia' (affinity / sexual attraction) is 'zoosexuality' (sexual orientation/identification) or 'bestiality' (sexual interaction)?

I have reasons to believe 'zoophilia' references human-animal love, not the sexuality, however, the document should also refer to the sexuality, since culturally, love is often relative to sexuality (passion). Either the article should be changed so 'zoophilia' refers to the 'affinity and/or sexual attraction', and 'bestiality' refers to the 'sexual activity', etc or seperated into the seperate articles (since, after all, this is a very broad field of research). Other terms such as 'zoosexuality', 'zooerasty', 'zoosadism' with their respective sections, etc. Since the article would be large with such a compilation, I recommend the seperation of the articles and citation to more modern research definitions (the article is getting clumsy and old). FireWolf Flux (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Zoophilia in fantasy section?

I thought it might be a good idea to add the 'zoophilia in fantasy' section. My friend's favourited new film is called 'Coming Soon', and its a mockumentary, it's commercial and very interesting - since it is so popular and is even going to have its premiere at the world famous 'Living Theatre' museum in New York City, I thought it would be worthy of mention in such a section. I can see that there's a bit of an issue about it on the talk page, so as a friend, I'd thought I'd clarify that. Unless Coming Soon has international success, I don't think it's 100% worthy of an argument, after all it has been in circulation since 2006.

Whatever the decision, just my idea ;). Does anybody know of any other good fictional arts over zoophilia? J D Smith (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an old excerpt of the 'Coming Soon' on Wikipedia... "# Coming Soon (2006, Sir Tijn Po, released by Devilhead Films):: Won a special award for "Originality and Support for Suppressed Minorities" at the Festivalu Finále Plzeň. [27] The film takes the form of a documentary about E.F.A., the world's first zoophile-rights organization,[28] thereby exploring "civilization's eternal quest for the perfect balance between love, tolerance, morality, censorship, tradition, experimentation, etc." The film is currently released in the Czech Republic and an English version is being prepared for international distribution. Official website, imdb entry" - it doesn't look like spam to me and has good references - it just needs cleaning up. [27] http://www.filmfestfinale.cz/cz/ [28] http://www.equalityforall.net/. Since this is a popular film in the zoosexual community, I ask why it was removed. I cannot edit the article as it is locked, per se. J D Smith (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think if you want fictional zoophile art all you have to do is browse some furry website for a while ;) BabyNuke (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There were many attempts here and at other articles to promote the film, which simply isn't notable enough (yet) to be mentioned. In addition, the spam we received was often based on false claims (that it is an actual documentary; one person using multiple accounts, claiming to be different people; etc.), and whoever tried to get the film into this article tried very hard, ignoring any kind of argument, avoiding blocks, bans and the edit filter, showing clearly that s/he wasn't interested in actually improving the article. If the film becomes notable, we can think about adding it here, but so far, I don't see it happening. --Conti|✉ 20:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I heard about the multiple accounts, my friend got banned for being called a sock puppet even though he wasn't one. EFA is a popular offline/online secret organization - so it's likely that it was many members trying to publicise to same issue, respectively. It shouldn't be advertised, it just requires little mention seen as it takes up 10% of Google for the keyword 'zoophilia', enter "zoophilia" in the Google search engine, for what videos/sites are excerpted first? Coming Soon trailers. The EFA webmaster is a female as I have just contacted her, she was apparently nothing to do with it. Judging from the many users there you can see it was simply an article request or one of their members pushing it too far. Living Theatre is hosting the pre-releasing film currently, they haven't hosted a moving picture in a while as they are museum. The website also says so: http://www.livingtheatre.org/ It has been in the major news papers in Czech on second pages. May be the Czech Wikipedia would be more suffice? Only it's an English art with several languages, that's all, so it's hard to make the decision as to where is most appropriate. The film is apparently non-profit, with all proceeds going to fund the EFA project and animal charities - whether that is true or not is another case. But if it is so, the promotion is neutral. I can see a lot more unknown films than this one on Wikipedia, though, which adds to the confusion to them, I suppose, respectively. J D Smith (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe the neutrality here may be disputable, for Coming Soon may have been advertising (despite the fact it was clear that EFA's members and film viewers were adding promotions), but there are many sources on the internet that cite the film. I suggest a removal of the other minor documentaries, since there may be media competence between these documentaries, and the prevention of them being added that of it's media rivals. Neutrality disputed in both directions. FireWolf Flux (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Other minor documentaries, such as which? I only see three or four listed in the references section. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Such as the ones recently removed, and 'Vase de Noces' which didn't form as much controversy in the media as Coming Soon did. Coming Soon has also won many more awards and has entered much more popular film festivals (i.e. http://www.filmfestfinale.cz/en/year-19/), etc. Also remarked by famed English people, such as Peter Singer. Was notable on known radios http://www.rozhlas.cz/mozaika/film/_zprava/295803 It gained a #1 place in several of the Amazon best-seller charts. Cited in http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2009-08-20/news/animal-instincts-zoophiles-love-and-have-sex-with-animals-will-the-world-ever-accept-them/5 Also where is the mention on EFA over 'bestiality rights' FireWolf Flux (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Those aren't reliable sources. And the Miami Newtimes article apparently thinks that the EFA organization is real. It's a hoax, which even the filmmakers themselves have admitted at various places. --Conti|✉ 22:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The film is a mockumentary, EFA is real, but not as depicted by the actors in the film, the Coming Soon film's title says it all, what's next for organizations like 'EFA' in the world of zoophile-rights that's why it's called 'Coming Soon' and not 'The History of Zoophilia', it is a mockumentary by all due fact since it is filmed and written in a comedic way, this is often considered artistic by old world media. Those are reliable sources, just they are Czech and not English. EFA, is an idea rather than a company, an organization, it started off local and became inspired by the film. They opened their English website at the same time as the film development, their Czech one is a year older. EFA is a stereotype and should not be worth discussion, I believe. It is Coming Soon that is the subject. Wikipedia is not a rational source of information, if news sources say that, they may be cited, hoax or no hoax, it is data. I'd understand it if the film was fake and never was recorded. It is probably not as well known in the Americas, but Wikipedia English is shared with the English Czechs, is it not? Also, you cannot prove that organization is false. Neutrality is disputed. FireWolf Flux (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Soo.. as a result of a mockumentary making fun of them, EFA (an "idea", not an organisation) starts their English language website? That's.. odd. Apologies if I'm a tad bit suspicious, but there's been dozens of new accounts trying (and claiming) everything to get that film mentioned in this article. At first they claimed it was a genuine documentary, then that it was some kind of satire, now it's a mockumentary. We do not report things just because a source says so, we, as human beings, are allowed to use our brain to decide whether something is noteworthy or not, or whether we should be cautious, or whether we should require high quality sources. In this case, I'm firmly opposed to any mention of the film anywhere until we do have high quality sources about it. --Conti|✉ 06:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not the meaning of 'mockumentary', sometimes mockumentaries are made to mock, this one was made in question in a probably future.

EFA and Coming Soon is very popular in the zoophile and sexological community, if you Google 'zoophile rights' or 'bestiality rights', you would see them in at least the top ten of the results. Zoophiles and sexologists researching the topic of zoophile rights who may be seeking the docu-mockumentary may like to look at other resources, it's simple that Coming Soon is worth a single line of mention due it's impact on news, (hoax or not). People come to Wikipedia seeking such information. Consider 'EFA' a prototype, it is very much alive and its members are pretty much kicking about, especially online. Of course, activism is controversial on sites like this, which is why it should not mentioned sinced that'd make the information possibly biased. imdb pro also reviews the film. For example on what an example is, you just need to read Wikipedia's article, alone "Mockumentary (also known as a mock documentary) is a genre of film and television in which fictitious events are presented in a non-fiction or documentary format; the term can also refer to an individual work within the genre. Such works are often used to analyze or comment on current events and issues by using a fictitious setting." - 'Coming Soon' depicts the future, the future does not exist yet, thus is fictious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FireWolf Flux (talk • contribs) 18:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It's really simple. When there are no high quality sources present (and we definitely need those on an article like this one), then that's it. Whoever's been spamming this film has spammed it on Wikipedia, IMDB, Amazon and practically everywhere on the internet. Genuine reviews I have not yet found, alas, only the "OMG best film ever!!11"-spam that you find everywhere. --Conti|✉ 19:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The film has been to several film festivals, you can see this from their own site, as published on the official websites of those film festivals, etc.

Coming Soon also went to the historic Living Theatre in New York City, as presented here. Nobody has spammed on Wikipedia, IMDB, Amazon, etc, amongst artists, the film has had a lot of popularity and controversy in Czechoslovakia. I have looked at the sock puppet page and examined that there are only a few users, all of which I know for a fact are different people. May be it is the EFA members that are keen, I understand that those members have been digging a hole in this issue since they tried promoting it, no doubt they are eager due to their fanatic activism in zoophile rights, knowing that Coming Soon would be an easy icon to push. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FireWolf Flux (talk • contribs) 20:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Zoophilia and Bestiality Definitions and Image Relevance

There seems to be two problems with this article in it's current form, although the latter is dependent on the former.

First, the terms used. As mentioned in the article's own terms section, there has been, more frequently as of lately, a line drawn between zoophilia and bestiality. The former is generally defined as a paraphilia or orientation towards animals, whereas the latter is defined as either simply the act, with no regard to the emotion present, or, on occasion, the act when there is specifically no emotion present. Generally it is the former.

However, the article itself ignores it's own term section and tends to regard the terms as interchangeable, where, those familiar with the terms (as those who are unfamiliar with the terms should be discounted: Misuse of a term does not change it's definition) do draw such a distinction between the two phenomona.

As such, without the distinction being drawn properly, I believe the terms are not properly communicating information in the article. I propose an edit to the article that makes a distinction between the two terms. When speaking of the act itself, the term bestiality would be used. when speaking of the orientation or paraphilia, the term Zoophilia would be used.

Second, with the difference in terms in mind, I believe many of the images are out of place on an article about zoophilia, since they depict what would generally be accepted as nothing more than bestiality, rather than the orientation or paraphilia behind the act.

(Also, please forgive any errors I might have made here. It's my first time doing this) XCTI (talk) 08:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

perhaps another way of saying it is that we should make the distinction between zoophilia and zoosexulaity(or zooerotica)-DJLO (talk) 07:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly. The difference between zoophilia and zoosexuality are not all that large. They both describe the orientation (although with different connotations to them). However, bestiality is a separate, albeit very closely related phenomona. XCTI (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Zoophilia, zoosexuality and bestiality have all been referred to as the 'sexual conduct', sometimes just the 'sexual attraction'. The terminology is ambigious since meaning tends to vary from person to person, due to it's 'underground' and etymological constraints. I've noted the zoophile community now treats 'zoophilia'/'zoo love' as the 'romantic love' amongst zoosexuals, 'zoosexuality' the sexual attraction/orientation, and 'zoo sex' or 'bestiality' as the sexual activity. FireWolf Flux (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

An important distinction between zoophilia and bestiality at this point is that zoophilia can be adopted as an identity (i.e., zoophile) whereas bestiality generally is yet without bestialists. This distinction is confirmed explicitly in http://www.furcenter.org/pubs/SF_2008.pdf, p. 26. Whether or not one wants to incorporate a specialized sense of zoophilia/zoophile in this sense or not, the distinction from bestiality is not simply one of an activity or sexual activity one does. Talastra (talk) 05:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Question

A television program (can't remember which) mentioned zoophilia as referring to people sexually attracted to people pretending to be animals (wearing dog collars, acting like a dog, etc), as distinct from bestiality. Is there such a distinction in the definition? Or what is the correct alternative term?--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

That television program was wrong. What you're describing sounds like animal roleplay, which is pretty much unrelated (and definitely not covered by the term "zoophilia"). Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks. It was something like Jerry Springer (not specifically, but one of those kind of shows), so it doesn't surprise me that it wasn't at the forefront of technical accuracy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Animal roleplay is also known as 'bestiality' in its archaic definition, "the stupid brutal quality of a beast", as applied to a human (as opposed to anthropomorphism applied to an animal, thus giving it human qualities). 'Bestiality' has been used to refer to 'sexual activity with animals', this terminology is perhaps wearing off a little with people naming it 'zoophilia', instead, since 'zoophilia' sounds less pejorative, in the sense that the animal isn't derogatively classed as a beast. The fetish of animal roleplay may also be considered reverse anthropomorphism, something notable in furry yiff role-players whom also do this (by fursuiting or by the use of online interactive virtual reality or MUCKs (i.e. like those in Second Life). The interest in yiff, sexual human-animal roleplay and bestiality, etc, may be collectively caused by mixed fetishes and/or paraphilias towards animal traits or simple lifestyle incorporation, although scientists are now debating over whether the sexual attraction to animal traits is a real sexuality or not, and if it is, on re-thinking sexuality altogether, as written in a recent article by the Scientific American. FireWolf Flux (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Cross-species sex reference irrelevant to Zoophilia

Under the heading "Criticisms of zoophilia or zoosexual relations" there appears the statement that cross-species sex sometimes occurs in nature, and it's supported by a citation (currently #81) identified as "Mating toads cross the species barrier". The source describes two "species" of toad mating with each other to produce offspring. Now I realize that the precise meaning of "species" can be debated, but if this article is about sexual activity, it's about that kind of activity between human beings and animals, i.e. creatures of different taxonomic families or groups who are incapable of reproduction with each other. By definition, that puts the subject beyond the taxonomic group of "species". The reference in question would only be relevant if, for example, it described toads who mated with fish. Of course it does not do that; it doesn't even go far enough to describe toads of genus Spea mating with toads of genus Bufonidae.
This article is concerned with activities between human beings and animals, i.e. between creatures of different taxonomic families or even groups, who are incapable of sexual reproduction with each other. Therefore, a mention of different species who are entirely able to mate and produce viable offspring fails to provide any support or enlightenment to the subject. It's not relevant. I've therefore removed the sentence entirely rather than try to hunt down an example that is more relevant to this article. JH49S (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Bestiality usually refers to the cross-species sexual interaction between a human and a non-human animal (as coined, archaically, a 'beast'). 'Zoo' also refers to a non-human animal, so thus a human sexually attracted to non-human animals is a 'zoosexual', however, since both non-human animal parties in a cross-species (without a human party) are already non-human, the term is contradictory. That would mean all non-human animals with cross and non-cross species orientation would be 'zoosexual' - this is perhaps the case, but the terms seem odd to apply. This article should link into the correct section of the 'Animal sexual behaviour' article on the subject of cross-species sexuality where humans are not involved. Shouldn't this content be moved from this article from that one? For Wikipedia encapsulation, shouldn't the article just link to the cross-species sexuality page(s)?

I believe that zoosexuality comes under cross-species sexuality (the difference being a human is explicitly described as being involved), not the other way around. FireWolf Flux (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Beastiality versus Bestiality

Ok, so I know it is just a matter of spelling but calling it "bestiality" really irks me. I have heard people use this spelling in order to support the right of a person to have sex with an animal. I say it should be spelled as "beastiality" for at least one reason. For one, it has the term "beast" instead of "best" in it.
The word's spelled bestiality regardless of what you or others think should be implied by the word. --Conti|✉ 13:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Because it is derived from Latin bestia = "beast". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It is also spelled beastiality, despite peoples complaints. It's just that it's also, but not as commonly in relation to MODERN beastiality, called "bestiality" because the practice has been around since it was first named in Latin. Ignore those attempting to get out of it, they probably still think calling someone a "bitch" means you insulted them as a female dog. 203.59.59.226 (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane

No, it's bestiality and not beastiality. My spellchecker already flags it up, and if that's not proof enough, just grab a dictionary and convince yourself. BabyNuke (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It has never, ever been called beastiality. And in fact, 'bestiality' has only been ever used as a derogative term, really. This is why the online zoophile community, subject to free speech, call it 'zoosexuality' or 'zoophilia', instead. FireWolf Flux (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Is bestiality from "bestial" not from "beast"
Alusky (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Leda and the swan is not zoophilia

Its merely a painting and not meant to reference animal sex. Please consider removing that image as its not really relevant. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 04:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Zoophilia does not always refer to bestiality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FireWolf Flux (talk • contribs) 07:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

References

Reference 95 goes to a dead link.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontdontoperate (talk • contribs) 21:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Bias

This article appears to have an agenda - that of elevating a social paradigm previously identified as a perversion into a sexual orientation. The actual role of Zoophilia in anglophonic society today is hereby spun by this article instead of being elucidated by it. There is a refusal to faithfully depict the highly unpopular nature of zoophilia. The article omits to develop the negative side of zoophilia, there is insufficient evidence that it is quite rare, dangerous, deviant, and repugnant to large numbers in the world's population. As it stands, this article appears to advance pro-zoophilic propaganda and insidiously refers to it as a sexual orientation. What is next? Inclusion of references to Mr. Appel and his apologetic vision of sexual deviance is highly manipulative. There is no balancing counter view which would introduce more tradition, and more common opinions of sexual perversion. I suspect that some people who are quite supportive of zoophilia have manipulated the neutrality of this article to it detriment. While I perceive the temptation to do this, I must petition Wikipedia to force this article to adhere to a more unbiased standpoint. Please, alter the article to inclue the fact that many feel that this is horrific, sick behavior. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by VaniNY (talk • contribs) 03:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"horrific, sick behavior" "rare, dangerous, deviant, and repugnant" sounds like you are the one with bias against the article.
Alusky (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Zoophilia and Furry

The section including the Furry and therian communities has a considerable number of problems.

First, it is unclear why numbers for zoophilia should be selectively reported for these two communities (fandoms). Why are there not also numbers on zoophilia among Trekkies, Harry Potter, and Twilight fans? As such, the entire paragraph should be deleted because it does not bear materially upon the topic of zoophilia.

Second, while the paragraph begins by citing the Furry and therian communities, no further mention is made of the therian community. If numbers cannot be provided for the therian community, then reference to it should be deleted because the claim is not validated in any way.

Third, the statement that "zoophiles make up around a fifth of the furry fandom" is not supported by the evidence cited. Of the two sources cited (Note 28: http://www.furcenter.org/pubs/SF_2008.pdf and Note 29: http://www.visi.com/~phantos/furrysoc.html ), the first reports 17.1% either positively or extremely positively identify as zoophiles, while the second reports 2% answered "yes" to "Zoophile?".

Fourth, by citing note 28 and note 29 sequentially, this suggests that both surveys agree on the "one fifth" number.

Fifth, unlike he author of the survey in note 28, the paragraph does not contextualize the 17.1% finding against numbers for zoophilia in the general population, which may run from 10-15% or "much higher in rural areas" (http://www.furcenter.org/pubs/SF_2008.pdf, p. 26, note 11).

Taking items three through five into account, for the reasons noted above, I suggest that the sentence “The exact size of this group is not known, but zoophiles make up around a fifth of the furry fandom[28][29]” be rewritten as, “Surveys of the Furry community estimate that from 2[29] to17.1[28] percent of people polled identified as zoophiles, though neither poll clarifies if this identification indicates they are practicing zoophiles. In any case, these percentages are generally in the range of zoophiles in the population at large.[30]” [Note 30: http://www.furcenter.org/pubs/SF_2008.pdf, note 11, p. 26]."

At this point, it would be premature to offer edits for the remainder of the paragraph if it is going to be deleted entirely. But if a decision is reached for it to remain, then I will have further edits to propose.

Talastra (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

First, I somewhat agree with you. I do believe this paragraph does call into view the common perception that the two fandoms, furry in particular, do have a part to play with zoosexuality. However, it would be interesting to see which other fandoms do include a large portion of zoosexuals as members. While I believe that the article does play a role in the article as a whole, I do agree that there are major additions and edits to be made.

Second, I agree with your view on the Therian community. As there is no real documentation, it should be omitted. However, if more information can be provided, it might be apropos to divide the information into new sections, as the Therian and Furry fandoms are entirely separate entities.

Third, it might be best for any surveys (as they are typically taken at conventions and, while advertised online, are not always taken) should be taken into some form of context. While the exact numbers may not be given, it should be known that the numbers might reflect a smaller pool of individuals polled.

Fourth and Fifth: I agree with these points and additions and edits should be made.

However, I do agree with your suggested edit as it does mention the fact that it was not a global poll (and it should be noted as to the countries participating in said polls) of all furries, and as such the numbers could be higher or lower, depending. This way the information can be as accurate and neutral as possible. However, unless these changes are made, it might be best to remove this paragraph entirely as the information is either incomplete, irrelevant, or inflammatory.

--Ampersandestet (talk) 06:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional reference: Bagemihl's Biological Exuberance

In a paragraph almost at the end of this article is a description of various "meanings" of animal sexuality, such as the "pragmatic" belief that animal sexuality exists only for procreation. The discussion describes animal masturbation, sexual pleasure in animals without procreation, and other behaviors.

I suggest that a reference be made in this paragraph to the Wikipedia entry for Bruce Bagemihl, which states that his book Biological Exuberance "proposes a theory of sexual behavior in which reproduction is only one of its principal biological functions." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexlange (talk • contribs) 14:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Format

Right now, the end of the article has the sections "Criticism of zoophilia" and the subsection "animal advocacy concerns", which include arguments for and against zoophilia. It might be more helpful to the reader if these arguments were sorted, with arguments in favor of zoophilia put into one section and arguments against it put into another. Instead of "Criticism of zoophilia", there would be an "arguments for zoophilia" section and an "arguments against zoophilia" section.Plateau99 (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Unable to get rid of "cite error" message

I have tried and tried to get rid of a "cite error" message, but every time I try to fix the reference a "spam filter notice" message appears and because of this I cannot get rid of the "cite error" message. Does anybody know how to fix this problem? Perhaps there is someone who has the ability to override the "spam filter notice" in this case since the problem is clearly caused by a bug and not by a spam-related link.Plateau99 (talk) 11:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a "cite error" message in the article page anywhere. Where does it appear for you? Depending on the spam-filter involved, there is likely no way to override it. However, there may be a way to find an alternate or comparable site that is not a problem. And if the filter really is mis-behaving, having a specific example of the problem would help the filter-maintainers diagnose and hopefully fix it. DMacks (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ahah, was fixed a half hour ago:) You can see in that edit what was done...it was a true syntax error in the ref-tag. DMacks (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.237.179.132, 2 May 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

usually non-abusive - this is incorrect! Since an animal cannot speak how can it defend itself fro such an ACT? This is not what wikipedia wants to turn into to, this editor did not provide an objective assesment of the definition - but instead found some dorky and i might add gross article praising animal abusers.

98.237.179.132 (talk) 07:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Not done: articles are built based on verifiable and reliable sources to ensure a neutral point of view. Personal opinion is not a reason to change the article. Thank you for understanding! — Bility (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Japanese Bestiality Restaurant is an Urban Myth

The japanese bestiality restaurant referred to in this article is an urban myth.

See: http://aki-akiaki.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-beastiality-restaurant-was-made.html

For details. Someone should remove that reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.123.99.48 (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Where do you see that myth referred to in this article? I can't find it. I've definitely heard that myth before, and the page you linked does raise considerable doubt (to a story that was already sounding pretty dubious), and I'd be glad to remove it if you can point it out. :) Zetawoof (ζ) 02:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Belgium

Bestiality is illegal in Belgium since 2007. See http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zo%C3%B6filie#Belgi.C3.AB (Dutch site). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbuvens (talk • contribs) 10:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Japanese Bestiality Restaurant is an Urban Myth

The japanese bestiality restaurant referred to in this article is an urban myth.

See: http://aki-akiaki.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-beastiality-restaurant-was-made.html

For details. Someone should remove that reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.123.99.48 (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Where do you see that myth referred to in this article? I can't find it. I've definitely heard that myth before, and the page you linked does raise considerable doubt (to a story that was already sounding pretty dubious), and I'd be glad to remove it if you can point it out. :) Zetawoof (ζ) 02:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Belgium

Bestiality is illegal in Belgium since 2007. See http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zo%C3%B6filie#Belgi.C3.AB (Dutch site). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbuvens (talk • contribs) 10:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Uncredible article

This article is full of non-truths, as an academic professor in sexology I was very well surprised and shocked at how much this article had warped figures largely, and how many users who "made" the article are actually zoophiles, perhaps even zoosadists themselves. Dr Miletski for one person is not a reliable person, considering their many fake aliases such as Dr Smith and association with the zoophile/pornographic industry. Indeed it could be argued that the article can be respected as neutral - but about 8 in 10 of the article is cramped with bias that is enough to confuse any student that I or anyone else is teaching. Please can some neutral review these errors since it is unhealthy considering how many curious teenagers and adults have access to this content, with the affirmation of non-truths promoting that there is nothing to worry about in the sexual activity with animals. Another note is that zoophilia has never been used in the higher studies to refer to bestiality. The article speaks of bestiality, and while in translation, the term is somewhat in correct usage, it is not English. I am pleased "coming soon" was kept from the article, it is a mockumentary and not to be referenced as it is not a genuine documentary, despite some "twisted facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NigelForsyth (talk • contribs) 22:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

How do you figure that Hani Miletski has used aliases? She's got a pretty well-documented academic background (see her wiki article, linked previously) for details. I'm aware of one individual online that's identified himself as a sexologist by the name of "J. D. Smith", among various other names. He may have also fraudulently identified himself as Dr. Miletski, but as far as I'm aware there's nothing to suggest that there's any actual relation. Zetawoof (ζ) 04:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The article isn't "biased" -- just because multiple points-of-view are presented in an article doesn't mean it is biased. Many of the things you say are assumptions and personal opinions; for example, your use of the word "unhealthy" is a subjective opinion. Also, your use of the term "non-truth" is subjective and inaccurate. Remember that Wikipedia is not censored, and there may be ideas or beliefs presented which conflict with your own. Plateau99 (talk) 10:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Mental disorder — "established view"?

The Psychological, psychiatric, and research perspectives section states "The established view in the field of psychology is that zoophilia is a mental disorder." and then goes on to claim that the DSM-IV-TR does not consider zoophilia a mental disorder unless "it is accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the individual". No references are provided to support the claim that most specialists consider zoophilia (as defined by the article — "the practice of sex between humans and non-human animals (bestiality), or a preference or fixation on such practice" — i.e. not necessarily causing distress/impairment) a mental disorder per se and it is contradicted by the DSM. Should we remove the "established view" statement? Valaggar (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You might want to dig back in the article history (possibly even sample revisions over a few years of the article history) to find where this phrasing came from. There may be something in the history to explain how sentences that appear to contradict each other landed right next to each other in the article. But as it stands, it doesn't sound like there is a cited source for the "established view ... mental disorder" claim; and the DSM, which is pretty much the "established" source, appears to contradict. --FOo (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)