Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 11

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 5

←

Archive 9

→

(NOTE: this is an archive of older material from Talk:Zoophilia).

can someone put up some pictures?

Could someone put some pictures up on the topic. That would be great. Thanks.

There are a lot right here: [1] -- Schneelocke (cheeks clone) [[]] 16:21, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Exactly what sort of pictures would you be interested in? Wikipedia isn't a pr0n site, you know... Zetawoof 00:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nothing illegal, I'd hope... --Ciz 03:42, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I suppose you're probably looking for this or this or this or maybe this. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 19:12, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

.

(Made you look.)

The last one was cute. ^^ -- Schneelocke (cheeks clone) [[]] 03:43, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mediation again

Just to make sure everyone is informed... mediation has ended without success I'm afraid. If problems continue, you may want to consider arbitration. Sorry this didn't help -- sannse (talk) 13:54, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC) (meditation committee)

Thanks for your effort anyway...we all appreciate it. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|P M C]] 20:07, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'll second PMC - thanks a lot for trying. We'll see how things continue from here; if things go back to the state they were in prior to mediation, arbitration seems inevitable, but I hope we won't have to go there. -- Schneelocke (cheeks clone) [[]] 02:20, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I had to remove another comment signed by Ciz, placed without context in the center of the article. I doubt he's done trolling, either. I'd also recommend arbitration. -- temujin9 19:22, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The rest is silence

Unless there are things going on I'm not hearing about, nothing appears to be happening. Can we have the page unlocked so that modifications can continue? Zetawoof 22:34, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's been protected for about 2 weeks now, not much discussion happened the last few days, so I'm going to unprotect this and hope that everything will be fine. If not, I can only think of arbitration.. --Conti|✉ 23:09, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Nice work JAQ. FT2 03:28, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

I want to explain a little what I was trying to accomplish with my edit: The list of zoophile traits, although apparently based on research, really read like a pamphlet published by a pro-zoo organisation to show what swell folks they are. I oughta know; I used to write pieces like that about my own class of social outcasts. :) I half expected to see comments about how they pay taxes and sing in the choir at church. Keeping the description brief and limited to somewhat obvious points makes it less of a target for criticism, while still making the general informative point of why some people pursue a zoophile lifestyle. The rest was just my compulsion to copyedit; I'm a scribophile. JAQ 03:52, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And thats exactly why I said 'nice work', for exactly those reasons. Good call, effective and appropriate. FT2 08:47, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Page name

I'm confused about the name for this page. The page says that "bestiality" is the dictionary term, and it seems to be the most common term in mainstream publications. Would it be more NPOV to use that? -- Creidieki 14:51, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. In fact the page is a redirect from "bestiality. The reason, as best I understand it - and I have to say I agree - is that "zoophilia" covers a far wider range of information, for which this is the correct term used by psychologists, sociologists and practitioners themselves.

Many zoophiles are not in fact inclined to be sexually involved with animals and therefore titling this as "bestiality" would have limited the article to discussion of one aspect of the subject, namely a sexual act. FT2 16:22, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

To draw a comparison, it would be a little bit like titling our Homosexuality article "Sodomy", or Gay as "Buggery". The titles "Homosexuality" and "Zoophilia" refer to a preference, tendency, or orientation; the names "Sodomy" and "Bestiality" refer (in old-fashioned and somewhat derogatory terms) to a sex act.

Despite the fact that many laws refer to homosexuality as "sodomy", we wouldn't subsume the former under the latter in its Wikipedia titling. --FOo 17:24, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Stop comparing the two; they are not related. And sodomy just means anal sex; Homosexuality is the offical term, just like bestiality is the official term.

Zoophilia is just a term coined to make it more acceptable, just like childlove was coined by the pedophiles. --Ciz 19:31, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fine! Naming zoophilia "Bestiality" would be like naming heterosexuality "Fucking". How's that for you, then? [[User:Premeditated Chaos|P M C]] 23:21, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's not a fair comparison. "Fucking" is a vulgarity. "Bestiality" is what a lot of people call "dogfucking" and "horsefucking".Dr Zen 23:46, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The biggest issue of their lifestyle is often an inability to be accepted in their relationships?

The biggest issue of their lifestyle is often an inability to be accepted in their relationships. This is not usually an issue of religion, as many zoophiles find religion and zoophilia to be compatible What religion, may I ask?

Other difficulties include the inevitable death of their partners and a society which dismisses animals as being less important than humans Umm.... most people object to it because they believe its abusive towards animals, not because they ' dismiss animals as being less important than humans.' Get the facts straight. --Ciz 16:56, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That sentence is not describing "how others see them". Its describing difficulties they face, for whatever reason. Thats non sexual zoophiles as well as sexual ones. Read the heading please. FT2 19:44, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Those that do are in the minority, just as celibate straights and gays are. And the fact is; people give 'zoos' grief because they believe its animal abuse, not because they dismiss animals as less important. Big difference. And stop victimising them; Im sure pedophiles face difficulties too because they molest children --Ciz 20:16, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

If I recall, the reason why the POV tag was removed was because JAQ made it so it wasnt romanticized anymore (the crap about empathy). Well, now its back again'

And do not compare gays to bestials. It is offensive and derogatory to be compare the two. Most gays would agree with that, and would not want to be compared to these types of people.--Ciz 19:34, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please don't claim to speak for homosexuals as a group; I, for one, find it offensive. :) JAQ 01:29, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You don't have to "recall". Its about 20 lines up the page. If you read his comment, he was quite careful to explain what he intended:

"I want to explain a little what I was trying to accomplish with my edit: The list of zoophile traits, although apparently based on research, really read like a pamphlet ... keeping the description brief and limited ... makes it less of a target for criticism, while still making the general informative point" (JAQ)

In other words his complaint was with the style, and I agree. This is academic, verified, peer reviewed and sourced. It's previously consensus-agreed and neutrally presented. Apologies if you personally can't handle that, but as we have seen, being blunt you have a bias here which is decidedly not neutral. If you want to call academic research agreed here by consensus, "crap", then you really need to go and do it on some forum which is more suited to unbalanced point of view postings. FT2 19:48, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Unbalanced? Most people would agree that if anyone here is inbalanced, its the person who has sex with their dog. And this whole wikipedia entry on 'zoophilia' is no more neutral than the wikipedia entry on 'boylove.'

Furthermore, JAQ removed a lot of stuff when he removed the POV tag. Now the stuff is up again--Ciz 20:19, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Would you mind not insinuating that contributors to this article and/or participants in this discussion have sex with their animals? We've gone over this before, Ciz, personal attacks aren't nice and they aren't Wiki-policy. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|P M C]] 23:24, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For the record, *I* didn't remove the POV tag, since I didn't feel I should unilterally declare it NPOV. At the time, I would have described it as "fairly balanced". In its current form I do think the article is shifting back toward being a pro-zoo apologia. (Albeit one sprinkled with anti-zoo retorts.) It isn't so much a question of whether the material is scientific, but whether the purpose it serves in this article is to inform :) or to persuade :(. Researchers do argue positions in their work; it's expected, especially in their conclusions, because is demonstrates that whatever they were researching was worth learning about. For example, putting quotation marks and a citation on "Remember that less than half a century ago, all states but one criminalized homosexual acts..." doesn't make it any less argumentative. And when there's limited research on a subject, you can't really cite it as definitive. The Kinsey Reports alone didn't establish that {insert once-shocking revelation here}; it took lots of follow-up research to make it something you could state as fact in an encyclopedia article. If I were editing an article about philately and wished to counteract the assumption that stamp collectors were asocial and obsessive, I wouldn't quote paragraphs from studies explaining how generally gregarious and whimsical we... I mean... they are. For one thing, it'd read as if the lady doth protest too much. If I felt the point really needed to be made - and not just for the sake of Philatelist Pride - I'd just brieflystate that some research suggests that they're generally gregarious and whimsical, cite the source, and move on. JAQ 01:22, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article is strikingly unbalanced. I don't agree at all with the way Ciz has gone about it, but there's no doubt this is as POV as articles get on Wikipedia. Just about every pro statement is allowed to pass without needing to be substantiated, while any anti statement is reverted with demands that it be sourced. Quoting Nancy Friday is akin to quoting a pressure group. She is hardly unbiased, since her mission was to liberate women's sexuality. Ciz is hard to like and his tone is disgusting, but frankly, he's nothing like wrong about the bias of this article. Dr Zen 02:05, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Research - request for neutrality check

In an attempt to put the article back on a footing of good quality sources rather than the previous arguments due to Ciz, I've just added two sections. One's on violence, because I do think this needs to be in there, and the other is a summary of some of the better known research which is cited in the talk pages.

I have summarised the research and if there is a lot more on that to add, it can go in a separate page, which was proposed and not argued in talk archive page 1.

Meantime, could someone (I mean, someone who understands NPOV) review the article as it now stands, and let me know if anything should be done to ensure the page remains NPOV now? Just to reassure me that what is there, although verifiable and accurate, is not somehow unbalancing it. FT2 21:26, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

At a quick glance, it looks fine to me. Sillydragon 22:10, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Read it over. Looks good to me too. Nice job. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|P M C]] 23:26, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're joking. Take just one sentence: "People's views appears to depend significantly upon the nature of their interest and nature of exposure to the subject."

What the...? Appears from what? What substantiates that? Where is the broad survey of a large number of people that you cite that correlates their views with their "interest" and "nature of exposure" to [sic] the subject? You are just saying so. Nearly all of this article consists of just saying so. You barely substantiate a thing. What you do substantiate, you do so with Nancy Friday! Not exactly an unbiased source. I don't personally have a view one way or the other on "zoophilia". I understand that human desire is a very broad and deep subject. However, lots of people do have views, and they are either misrepresented or distorted here. Dr Zen 02:13, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Edit request

"Lifestyle zoophiles tend to share a combination of attitudes that differ in general from non-zoophiles..."

Not happy with the wording. the point isnt they share a combination. Its that these are characteristics which are distinct, measurable, and more common amongst zoophiles than non zoophiles. typical traits, if one will.

Although it can be risky to say "a person from group X is like Y", when it is a commonality and a tendency, and supported by research and other evidence, it becomes worth highlighting.

Can anyone sugggest below options to improve the wording of this sentence for accuracy? FT2 02:29, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

One of your sources (Miletski) and the review she reprints of her recent book, both emphasize the fact that there was almost no prior research on the subject out there. What I've found so far about Beetz's study indicates that it was "ground breaking". So this is pretty much first-generation research. In light of that, I think you'd be hard pressed to justify language as strong as you want. Even the phrasing you dislike is probably overstating the case a bit. I'm not saying it's untrue, but given the difficulty of even identifying zoophiles to study (making the samples very small), and the tendency of willing subjects to be nonrepresentative of the larger population (e.g. they're comfortable acknowledging it to another person, which is almost certainly unusual), I don't see a basis for saying that these traits are "typical". They might be, they might not. Until there's more research on the subject, all you can really say authoritatively is that some zoophiles have these traits. JAQ 05:03, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thoughts in response (long)

I am pondering this one, but ultimately, I don't think it can be considered 1st generation research any more.

Miletski's was, as far as I can tell, the first genuine research on the subject as a whole. But even so, it built on significant other previous research which addressed the subject from other angles. Thats important, look at the studies she in turn cites. I don't think that the other two would consider themselves 1st generation at all, and their views coincide with hers. When every single modern piece of research agrees on their core assessments over a significant time-span, thats not trivial evidence. It's also Weinberg, then Beetz's assessment, 8 years after Miletski, that zoophiles (as a group) tend to share these psychological features.

Put another way, there is not one piece of academic research I have been able to locate, that contradicts their core findings. I have looked.

I am also looking at other sources or issues which indicate the feeling of the profession or others:

Zoophiles themselves have their views. They are well placed to say if research is accurate or inaccurate, and have at times in this article done so.
Therapists and other advisors who deal with zoophiles have opinions.
Beetz is a primary source of zoophile psychology, and Beetz is not breaking especially new ground. She wrote a peer reviewed thesis and the first rule of peer review is, you don't make controversial claims "as read" because they will be challenged and you will be ripped to pieces. Page 1 of her thesis states and takes for granted how the profession views zoophiles "as read". She wouldn't have done that, nor been allowed to do it, if it wasn't so. Other literature backs her up. Theres a lot of it here and there.

I'm also thinking of what Nancy Friday said when she wrote in the early 1970s about the response to "My Secret Garden", in an era when most men and therapists thought women fantasising was a sign as sickness because "women dont do that or need to". She wrote:

"...And yet, the anxiety that the subject aroused would not abate. 'But all the women you talked to volunteered to do so,' was the way this objection usually ran. 'They are a self selected sample. How can you extrapolate from what these exhibitionistic volunteers tell you? How can you say that their experiences are also shared by their sisters in the silent majority?' "

"This same argument was used against Kinsey and Masters and Johnson when their research was published, but time has proven that their studies not only voiced the views of the people who volunteered but also spoke for the broad spectrum of Americans in general. In addition, I note no reluctance in the works of psychoanalysts themselves, beginning with Freud, to base their theories upon that tiny proportion of humanity that has laid itself bare on the analytic couch. The vast majority of humanity has never figured in any psychoanalytic survey or clinical documentation, of human behaviour..." ("Forbidden Flowers" pp.4-5)

I think the information's pretty valid. Its been 10 years since Miletski, 5 since Weinberg & Williams, 60 since the first sexology research that mentioned zoophilia, 10 years since the APA downgraded zoophilia in DSM-IV saying it wasnt (by itself) now considered a clinical issue. If it was controversial in the profession, we'd know it. Thats not what the profession is saying of zoophiles, nor what zoophiles say of themselves. I'm thinking there is a consensus there to date, and the fact it just doesn't seem to be a subject of controversy in the mainstream profession is not unimportant.

That aside, yes to any suggestion on the article. If you can feel a good way to improve the current wording can you suggest a better form of words to reflect a good balance? Once we get it sorted out here on the talk page, we can edit the article accordingly. And thanks - nice one for spotting that. I want it reviewed with care and rigor to ensure it's balanced. FT2 09:36, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Actually you know? Ive just figured it out what to do. Its not a "combination" of attitudes, its a "cluster". Combination implies "usually all of them", and you are right, thats not exactly what the research is saying. Duh! Thanks for the nudge, hope the above is of interest though anyhow! FT2

So far as I can make out, Miletski "studied" a hundred people, mostly middleaged men. She only met some. Miletski herself accepted that her study was descriptive and that she could not generalise from it, and yet you feel you should.Dr Zen 02:18, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration

In view of the fact that

Ciz has little idea of Wiki policy and has shown this for some time now
The article has had to be protected from vandalism by Ciz several times now
Progress on the article is stalled by the inability of Ciz to grasp basic wiki concepts such as "logic" and "rational impersonal discussion"
Mediation was attempted and failed
Within minutes of adding academic mainstream material to the article Ciz's responses have been:
- Delete/revert [2]
- Add comment in article body "Dont compare gays to bestials"
  (twice above, once in article body same link)
- Label academic research "crap"
  (above)
- Weasel words
  (above, "Most gays...")
- More POV/weasel words, this time added to the article itself
  ([3] "unless you believe having sex with animals is abusive in itself, as most do")

To which one can now add

Removal of evidence and citations from above list, including the complete deletion of the last point in toto. [4]

I am inclined to take the matter of Ciz to the Arbitration Committee, with the request they order that Ciz will be banned from this article.

Please vote below if you would be supportive, against, or have other opinions on this matter at this time. Note that ArbCom does not in fact require a consensus to accept a matter, so this is more a "straw poll" of feeling. (Sock puppets and suspected sock puppets, including unknown anon IPs, may be ignored)

FT2 23:21, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Would support if it was taken to ArbCom:

Support. FT2 20:03, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
Support. And in fact, given that Ciz has neither made any other contributions nor shown that he's even willing to accept Wikipedia's guidelines and principles, I'd support asking to ban him completely from Wikipedia, too. -- Schneelocke (cheeks clone) [[]] 20:21, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Support. Sillydragon 22:10, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Although I'm a bit unsure whether arbitration is the right thing here, it seems to be the only thing left to do. Maybe we should not collect evidence on this case until arbitration actually begins, tho.. --Conti|✉ 23:13, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
Regardless of one's opinion of zoophilia, there is no excuse for Ciz's conduct as a Wikipedia editor. Since virtually all his "contributions" to Wikipedia appear to be on this dispute (and see below), it would seem he has little interest in contributing usefully to Wikipedia. This guy, at least under the Ciz account, literally does nothing on Wikipedia other than fight about zoophilia. Therefore, I concur with Schneelocke. --FOo 23:14, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Support, and agree with Schneelocke in asking for a ban. Basically, I agree with all the reasons we've already stated. Ciz is only interested in an endless revert war on zoophilia, evident from his lack of contributions elsewhere. We need to get him out of here. He's only wasting all of our time, and if we could sort this out once and for all it'd be fantastic. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|P M C]] 23:19, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Support. There is simply no reason to pretent that Ciz is anything more than a persistant vandal. While I in no way favour blanket bans, he was given a lot of leeway, certainly enough to make his blocking/banning justifiable. Paranoid 23:23, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Support. This nonsense has gone on way too long. Zetawoof 23:38, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Support. Although he makes some valid complaints, Ciz seems unwilling to edit constructively and unable to understand - let alone tolerate - other POVs. JAQ 00:14, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Would be against:

Other:

Mainstream? This? Dont make me laugh. This was when you compared the isolation and persecution gays endure to the way 'zoos' are treated because the public doesnt like animal abuse. Most gays would find this offensive, just like they do when NAMBLA links their movement to Gay Rights. --Ciz 20:27, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Other evidence requested to be included in any ArbCom referral

(Items must have brief description, date and link to a DIFF or HIST entry for ease of review)

[5] (Nov 21) in which Ciz runs through the entire talk page adding one liners and weasels like they are going out of fashion. FT2 22:19, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
In this edit, he submitted a zoophilia-related vandalism to a user's talk page, but reverted it a few minutes later. In this edit and this one, practically his only contributions outside of the Zoophilia fight, he deleted a relevant category from some video game characters. Since the category (Furry) can be considered tangential to zoophilia (furry fans are often accused of being zoophiles) I have to suspect this conduct is part of the same syndrome. --FOo 23:14, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)