Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 6

Request for mediation

A request for mediation was filed yesterday by FT2. I hope this will lead somewhere; if it doesn't, either FT2 or I will file a request for arbitration. -- Schnee 00:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please get involved in the mediation process

I'd like to ask everyone who's involved in this discussion (in particular, User:Ciz) to check out the filed request for mediation on WP:RFM, read User:Sannse's comment and get involved in the mediation process. -- Schnee 15:52, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"may require setting aside preconceptions and media impressions"

"It may require setting aside preconceptions and media impressions"? What are you trying to say?

See below, the popular concept of Zoophilia is highly inaccurate. FT2 14:09, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

And for the whole 'is zoophilia a nonpov term' debate; just read Finalgamer's response to prove my point on how 'neutral' the term really is. --Ciz 02:10, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ciz, I think it's been made fairly clear by several members that Wikipedia articles must carry a neutral point of view, and this means that all views on a subject must be addressed. While I understand your dislike of the matter, it is your own opinion, Wikipedia is trying to be a definitive place for knowledge, not personal opinions. Stating that the name is biased, the article is biased, et al is biased, using other people's opinions or interests as foundations of arguments, etc. is not productive and looping this conversation. Are there any other grounds that are reasonable and well thought-out for your arguments? Xanadu 07:23, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Paraphilia" and "Zoophilia", definitions

Oroborus (150.101.115.68) says: "... zoophilia clinically is defined as a paraphilia which just means a person needs to use animals for their own sexual arousal and gratification, still without consideration for the animal..."

I have to call you on that one, that's one made-up definition too many. "Paraphilia" does not mean what you state at all. The definition of paraphilia in DSM (the formal clinicians diagnostic manual) is "the presence of repeated and intense sexually arousing fantasy, sexual urge or behavior that generally involve [any of]: 1) nonhuman objects... 2) ..."

The following warnings are given against improper assumptions:

• "Paraphilias are ... sexual fantasies, urges and behaviors that are considered deviant with respect to cultural norms..."
• "Although several of these disorders can be associated with aggression or harm, others are neither inherently violent nor aggressive"
• "The boundary for social as well as sexual deviance is largely determined by cultural and historical context. As such, sexual disorders once considered paraphilias (e.g., homosexuality) are now regarded as variants of normal sexuality; so too, sexual behaviors currently considered normal (e.g., masturbation) were once culturally proscribed"

As many people have explained elsewhere, Zoophilia covers a far wider range than "tab A into slot B", in any dictionary, clinical, sociological or psychological sense, and that is what this article is about. This is very clear in the various studies on the subject - formal research studies referenced in prior discussion using the term "Zoophilia" are far more focussed on these aspects than on the sexual one (which is not seen psychologically on its own as a major issue). Ciz for example has been told repeatedly by several people to read the prior discussion.

For example, "Institute for Psychological Therapies" volume 5 no.2 has an article which discusses certain paraphilias. Under Zoophilia it says:

• "Zoophilia, which is reputed to be a traditional activity among farm boys, also provides for sexual release when other outlets are not available. It may also be attractive to those who may have fears and inhibitions regarding overtures to females who are more unpredictable than animals regarding their sexual receptivity."

Not surprising. I'd make a comment about the intelligence of the good ol' godfearin' citizens of the South, but I'll just keep my thoughts to myselves. --Ciz 03:03, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• "Contrary to popular opinion, zoophilics do not generally have sexual intercourse with animals; rather, their main source of gratification comes from hugging, cuddling, and talking — in a manner similar to a child with a pet."

FT2 14:09, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Thankyou for that response FT2 and I wholeheartedly concede that I used a narrow scope of meaning when referring to Zoophilia in a sexual context. It seems the term is evolving to include much more than the direct substitution of affection and emotional bonding to humans too. I welcome research efforts that proved my "improper assumption" of it as an outdated term was wrong. I look forward to more of it in the form of scientific studies into oxytocin and neurochemical systems involved in the bonding process common to all mammals, and hope that others here that seem stuck on their own assumptions also manage to see fit to acknowledge that the "interesting comparison" with other philias is pointless irrelevance serving no informational purpose and does not belong in a neutral article. -- Oruborus

I'd like to know where they got that information, and how they got it.Most zoophile sites state the opposite, including the ones linked on the zoophilia entry.Even the finalgamer poster admits it.--Ciz 22:56, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And that, with respect, is why you have got it wrong all the way, Ciz. You first assumed zoophilia means abusive sex, instead of researching it: in fact you assumed it was a word "bestialists used to make it sound nice". Then you ignore the many people who have contributed their research and thoughts. You ignore the dictionary, the psychiatric profession, then the reference books. Your preferred sources were web pages which have so much rubbish on them that you can always find a quote to support whatever you want to believe, instead of clinical research, and then finally you ask "I'd like to know where they got that information, most zoophile sites state the opposite."

Life would be so much easier if you understood the concept that your assumptions about zoophilia have led you to look at amateurish POV sites as your bible. I assume by zoophile sites you mean "sites you looked for on the web". Really. You led yourself up the garden path royally, didn't you?

Well, welcome to Wiki. This is not a porn site. This is where quality, sourced information comes first. This is exactly the kind of information you were told to read and digest first from previous discussion, before diving in.

Maybe you'd like to ask the Institute for Psychological Therapies that question, and see if they've got it wrong too. If they don't agree, quote your standard references of zoophilia.net and FinalGamer at them. FT2 01:04, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

---

Doing anything sexual with an animal is abusive, just like doing anything sexual with a child is abusive. --Ciz 03:03, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) Yes, like the artificial collection and insemination of animals?--Steele 06:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That would depend on whether or not he was getting a sick thrill out of jacking off to the animals. If it's purely professional in the attempt to breed more animals, fine. But I know this one guy (a horse furrie, incidentally) whose job is to work at a stud farm. He gets aroused jacking off to the horses, and when no one is looking he has sex with them. --Ciz 17:31, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That’s not even remotely practical. How are you going to prove intentions? The idea almost sounds Orwellian (thought police!) It is also a glairing double standard. It is okay to do it to an animal for money but not for pleasure? As if that is going makes a difference to the animal. What you find “sick” is subjective, which is a poor measure of guidance in the world.--Steele 19:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The guy actually told me over an e-mail. --Ciz 20:30, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not every zoophile is going to divulge their intentions to others.--Steele 02:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thats besides the argument. You dont always know if the people are doing the insemination for sexual pleasure, but you do know if the man actually sticks his dick up the dog's hole. --Ciz 05:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What difference does it make to the horse if the person is ejaculating them for business or personal gratification? Your point has change from all sex with animals is wrong because they have a lower intelligence too a matter of the persons intentions. So now, what if some guy (even if he thought it was sick) was force/paid to screw a dog? By your own (new) logic, that would be okay because “it’s just business” and he didn’t have sick intentions. Meanwhile, someone else who cares about and loves their non-human partner is wrong for having mutually enjoyable sex.--Steele 06:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Except children arent usually erotically attracted to their pets. --Ciz 03:03, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The point was that the erotic attraction comes in addition to the typical gratification the average pet guardian has in making his/her companion happy.--Steele 06:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Then its sick. If you're being sexually aroused by playing with your pets, its sick. If a father got aroused playing with his little girl, would you find it ok? --Ciz 17:31, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, there is that “sick” argument again. You obviously where not listing, because I made it clear that “erotic attraction comes in addition”. I never said anything about being sexually aroused by playing with your pets. But since you mentioned it, it is not even an issue. People shouldn’t be judged for their internal feelings, most of which you have little control over. Would you even tell me Ciz that you have never felt malice or hatred towards people? Or had a feeling, good or bad, that would not represent you as a person? No, it is not my issue of some father “getting turned on” by his own daughter. Personally, I find it sick and disgusting but just as long as he is not acting on those feelings or letting them compromise his choices then it isn’t my problem.--Steele 19:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Would you mind if that man babysat your child? --Ciz 20:30, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your question is vague and I don’t know anything about this person so I would err on the side of caution. No I would not let him, same with the other examples above.--Steele 02:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dictionary.com says "Erotic attraction to or sexual contact with animals" and "an erotic fixation on animals that may result in sexual excitement through real or fancied contact." What don't you get? Furthermore, if a man is erotically attracted to children, is he a pedophile?

Furthermore, how did they get the information that most 'zoophiles' dont molest their animals? Did they take a survey or something? What? --Ciz 03:03, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That would be your burden of proof if you want the rest of us to assume that--Steele 06:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're the one who posted their link. it's your burden to prove they're valid. --Ciz 17:31, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No actually, I haven’t changed anything in this article nor did I post that link. You must have an interesting imagination. Even if I did post that link it is irrelevant to whether the source is credible or not. If you have issue with the sources credentials then show us what it is. Don’t ask us to prove a negative. (Guilty until proven innocent?)--Steele 19:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you cant prove its valid, dont cite it-Ciz

Are you listening? I didn’t cite it.--Steele 02:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thats what I get for checking out Wikipedia's links on this page, huh? --Ciz 03:03, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is not unreasonable to suggest that someone chose a few links without really looking closely at their contents. More to the point, links on the article are not definitive, they are partisan, subject to change without notice, etc. Please find some authoritative foundations for your arguments and criticisms. --Xanadu 07:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Right. --Ciz 20:30, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

More to the point, links on the article are not definitive, they are partisan,

Just like the article itself :) --Ciz 20:30, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

subject to change without notice, etc. Please find some authoritative foundations for your arguments and criticisms. --Xanadu 07:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Its all the animal rights groups condemning Singer for his comments. Just like I said. --Ciz 05:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That information is dated from 1993. Furthermore, when the American Psychological Association endores zoophilia, then you can talk. They certainly have more clout than the IPT does. Most animal rights organizations believe zoophilia to be animal abuse.-Ciz

What’s wrong with the fact that it was done in 1993? APA doesn’t have anything on Zoophilia from what I saw so IPT results still stand.-Steele Are they a valid organization? Where did they get their facts? Did they do a survey with bestials or something? --Ciz 15:15, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It seems like they are credible to me, I mean, it is not like if find there definition of zoophilia flattering. They obviously got their information from one of the sources they listed at the bottom of there page. Yes it does look like it came from a survey.--Steele 19:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to see the survey, and what type of group was surveyed. --Ciz 20:30, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Then go look it up. We are not here to hold your hand.--Steele 02:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's your article; the burden of proof is one your hand. Besides, you just said most zoophiles practice bestiality. --Ciz 05:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

???? What are you talking about, I thought I already told you that I didn’t cite these sources. In fact I haven’t cited any sources or contributed anything to the article yet.--Steele 06:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

When another more reputable organization hasn’t said anything that doesn’t mean they agree with you or that another sources information is wrong. Just because an Animal Rights organization says or does something doesn’t make them right (this is coming from one of there activist). --Steele You're just an activist because animals arouse you. --Ciz 15:15, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bwahaha! Good one! Yeah right, I go vegetarian, protest and hand out fliers because it “arouses me”. That’s a good one! Wait, maybe you are right, I am an activist because I care about and love animals even more then you do. =) Seriously now, you aren’t one to judge me, you don’t even know me. Actually, my activism gets in the way. Most of the volunteer work I do just takes up my own personal time and the welfare work I do for one of the local rescues is counter productive to my lifestyle (seeing as how they spay and neuter all their animals). It would have been allot easier and cheaper to buy a dog of my choice from a breeder. In conclusion your flaky personal attack doesn’t even make sense.--Steele 19:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But in what way? --Ciz 20:30, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In both ways. Caring and loving.--Steele 02:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But how do you love them? --Ciz 05:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wow, when did you become so interested in me? I feed them, keep them healthy, pet them, play with them, give them tummy rubs, take them on walks, groom them, take them to the dog park, cuddle with them and give them lost of kisses. Is that okay with you or is the latter going too far? ;)--Steele 06:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You should check with the largest Animal Rights organization in the world (PETA) or the “father” of the Animal Rights movement (Peter Singer) to see what they think about bestiality/zoophilia.-Steele

A lot of animal rights group have condemned Singer and PETA for those remarks, actually. Furthermore, PETA is an extremist group, and Peter Singer compares having pets to slavery and says that its ok to kill a living baby up to 28 days after its birth. He has also stated that it its ok to have sex with an animal if its not harming it, which contradicts you saying they dont have sex with the animal.-Ciz

''So what, someone disagrees with them, is that new to the world? And lets see whose opinion carries more weight. One of the founders of the Animal Rights movement and the largest most successful Animal Rights organization in the world or one of your many obscure little organizations. Neither of them are any more extreme then the AR organizations that condemned those quotes, which by the way, they probably did because they were afraid that people like you would use it against them and attack the movement. I am not even going to bother addressing your Singer quotes as they are not even accurate in the first place, they are the worst case scenarios taken out of context, they don’t dismiss my point, and it is a distraction from the issue at hand.--Steele 19:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

PETA is considered to be an extremist group. They once handed out comics to children whose parents wore fur. The comics were called "Your mommy kills animals" and it showed a cartoon of a woman stabbing a rabbit. Inside were photos of gutted animals. (btw, I am against fur. But traumatising children is not the way to go) Most people dont take them seriously. And I did not take Singer's comments out of context. --Ciz 20:30, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So, is their a problem with the truth? Who is really to blame for those pictures, PETA or the people who are supporting the industry which cause the violence in the first place? Why should they be able to hide from the violence they produce? PETA has been using these tactics for years, this isn’t anything new. It is much easier to get your message out from free coverage by the press. Since the media loves sensationalism, humor and outlandish tactics that is what PETA uses to get there attention. It doesn’t matter if most people don’t take them seriously; of all the non-profits out there they are one of the best marketers. As Malcolm-X pointed out, when a group suffers from extreme conditions, it cannot be cured by moderate action.-Steele

Their actions cause more harm than good for the Animal Rights movement. People mock them and dont take animal rights seriously because of them. People also cite Singer's infanticide comments when going against animal rights arguments. Furthermore, I dont see how traumatising children will help stop furs. If you want to do those ads with the celebs holding the carcasses, fine. -Ciz

People wouldn’t know about the animal rights movement in the first place if it wasn’t for PETA. Ask anyone you know to name an Animal Rights organization. Without fail, they will almost always say first PETA (assuming they can even think of any others). Maybe people do mock the Animal Rights movement because of it, but at least they are thinking about animal issues because of that. Ask them and a majority of those people will say they think PETA is to radical but they will also agree that animals are treated badly and something needs to be done. That is better then nothing at all, wouldn’t you agree? If people keep citing Singer incorrectly, help us correct them instead of perpetuating the problem. It's an ad hominen attack anyways.--Steele 06:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I prefer groups like the ASPCA. --Ciz 12:12, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The ASPCA is a good group but they mainly focus on helping animals directly. PETA focuses on outreach, undercover investigations and activism while the HSUS does allot of the lobbing and legislative work. In the short run groups like the ASPCA are important but if you are thinking long term goals then the latter two are better.--Steele 22:56, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As for Malcom X; who accomplished more; his ideals or Martin Luther King's moderate ones? --Ciz 05:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would say they both had allot of influence, but Malcom X had a little more. However, near the end of both of there lives Malcom started becoming more moderate and MLK started becoming more militant. They both sort of met in the middle. Our history books like to prop up the MLK method of singing “coombiyah”, and “we shall overcome” because they prefer obedient. Download or read Howard Zinn's A Peoples History if you want to see what I mean.--Steele 06:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Near the end of his life Malcom X discovered that orthodox Islam preached racial equality (as opposed to the Nation of Islam's standpoint) and he changed his message to fit that. One of his followers felt betrayed and shot him. Thats what happened.-Ciz

Or so the story goes. Yeah, I saw the biography on him but allot of people think that their might have been others behind his assassination.--Steele 22:56, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I believe Martin Luther King accomplished more than Malcom X did. However, comparing PETA to either one is an insult to them both. --Ciz 12:12, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I sympathise with Malcom X and understand why he was angry. But his message of violence and separation didnt help the Civil Rights movement in the long run. And as for MLK is an easy hero for white America to embrace. Isnt that a good thing? If he's able to appeal to white people more than Malcom is, who is going to get his message spread better and make it more acceptable? Furthermore, King promoted racial equality and X promoted racial superiority.--Ciz 01:52, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As I recall, Malcom X wasn’t exactly Pro-Violence but meant use self defense even if that required the use of violence to defend oneself. One of the things that Malcom taught was self reliance and independence for the black community. Something I think had allot of truth to it. He also inspired allot of African Americans to be more then they are and helped empowered them to take action. I would agree, in that I don’t believe in racial separation and incited violence as a solution to everything. As for MLK, they wouldn’t have bothered to “spread his message” if there wasn’t an incentive for them to do that in the first place. That incentive was that if they didn’t support the lesser of two evils they would have violent revolution on there hands.--Steele 03:52, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -- John F. Kennedy --Steele 03:52, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Uh, no it’s not an insult. Of course I didn’t compare PETA to people in the first place; I was comparing the two movement’s tactics.--Steele 22:56, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You did take Singers comments out of context, he didn’t say in either case that it was okay, just that it might not be wrong in some cases. Pets are like slaves; they are property under legal terms. Just because we care and love for them doesn’t change the law or our there status in society.--Steele 02:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So you believe in abolishing pets? Furthermore, unlike the African Americans enslaved, they are not as intelligent as us. I will say that I believe pets and animals in generals should have more rights, and that killing a pet should have a bigger punishment, but dont compare pets to slavery. --Ciz 05:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are putting words into my mouth. No I do not believe in “pets” I believe in companion animals. I am a guardian of my dogs, I do not own them. The law might work the other way around but I do not recognize those laws and wish to see them changed. My companions are like equals to me. Enslavement has nothing to do with intelligence so again that point is moot. Slavery has to do with ownership, which is what the word “pet” implies (at least under the law).--Steele 06:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I view them like I would a child, not an equal. I dont treat them any less because of that. In fact, I let them get away with stuff others wouldnt, like going on the table. However, having sex with them would be abusive. Since I love my cats, I would not harm them. Just like a father wouldnt have sex with his daughter.

If you think they're your equals, does that mean you let them fend for their selves? Or is it your responsiblilty to feed them and take care of them? --Ciz 12:12, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I didn’t say that I meant that in absolute terms. I mean equal as in animals have the right to equal consideration of their interests. In addition to that, I don’t think you will find any zoophiles that try to have sex with something the size of a common house cat. I already pointed out that I feed and take care of them but that doesn’t mean they are the same thing as a child. It may be similar but not the same.--Steele 22:56, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore, your logic doesnt hold. If you are sexually attracted to animals , you're a bestial. If you're sexually attracted to children, you're a pedophile. Regardless of whether or not you act on it. Also, would you feel comfortable letting a man stay with your child, if he said he was sexually attracted to children but he didnt act on it? --Ciz 15:15, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but you are confusing the terms. If you are just sexually attracted to something, whether or not you act on it, you are a hetero, homo, zoophile, pedophile, etc (respective to your affiliation). Bestialist was a coined term for animal raper by the zoo community. How does my logic not hold, you never explained what was wrong with it logically.--Steele 19:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bestial. Not bestialist. Bestialist was the term coined by the 'zoophiles,' just like zoophiles was. You said a person could be erotically attracted to animals, but he's not a bestial unless he does anything. And if I have sex with a child consensually, its still rape because he's not intelligent enough to fully consent. So having sex with a child will always be rape. Same goes for animals. --Ciz 20:30, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, I never used the term bestial, which was your coined term. There are allot of trailer park hicks that are breeding like rabbits, so obviously intelligence is not the issue. What if a pre-pubescent child was a genius according to the IQ test? Would that be okay, by your logic for an old man to have sex with him then? By the way all these animals are sexually mature, which makes this sort of an apples and oranges argument anyways.--Steele 02:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He'd still be a child (and would you have sex with a child with a genius IQ? do you think its ok?) And animals may be sexually mature, but their minds are more similiar to that of a child's. You are more intelligent than them, so having sex would be taking advantage of them.--Ciz 05:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So now you are changing your argument to a matter of age instead of intelligence. No you right I don’t think it would be okay to have sex with a child even if he had a very high intelligence. But then you say with animals it is a matter of intelligence, which is it? If it is an intelligence argument then (again) breeding dogs, police dogs, sled dogs and racing dogs are also being taken advantage of. Dog owners are more intelligent then the dogs so in any case of working dogs (or any other mutual actions between the two) they are being taken advantage of by your own logic.--Steele 06:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Its not sexual, is it? How is training a dog to help out the police the same as sticking your dick up its ass? --Ciz 12:12, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It was your logic. I was only using what you where going by. You seem to keep juggling your reasons whenever it’s convenient to you. Now you are saying that it is wrong because of sex but sex is wrong because they don’t have the intelligence. That sounds like circular logic.--Steele 22:56, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How would I feel about that scenario (ignoring that I don’t plan to have a wife or child)? Probably the same if a straight was watching my wife or daughter, a gay watching over my male friend, and a zoophile watching over my dog. If I didn’t know them most likely I would not feel comfortable approving any one of those scenarios. I would have to know this person closely (including history) if they wanted to take care of someone I love. I would expect them to meet a very high standard before I would ever allow something like that.--Steele 19:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But unless they are also pedophiles, they wouldnt be attracted to your children. A more appropiate example would be having a pedophile watch over your child--Ciz 05:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I already know that, but I don’t think you understood what my point was. I was extrapolating off your example to show that it wouldn’t be any different with the other sexualities.--Steele 06:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But the other sexualites wouldnt be sexually attracted to your children, unlike the 'zoo' being attracted to your pet. --Ciz 12:12, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, just like gays arn't attracted to members of the opposite sex. Of course, that wasn't even my point, read what I said again. I was extrapolating off your example. It may be a different sexuality but it is the same issue in every case.--Steele 22:56, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would agree with you that yes, bestiality is different from zoophilia. Personally I see bestiality as the act of sex with animals and zoophilia as just the love of animals (sexually). You can be a zoophile without bestiality (just be attracted without having sex) and you can also do the act of bestiality without being a zoophile (have no love/attraction to animals but use them for a sexual outlet).--Steele 06:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But what if I sexually love animals, and have sex with them? Am I a zoophile or a bestial?-Ciz

Then you would be a zoophile that is practicing bestiality.--Steele 19:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That is pathetic. "Practicing?" Anyway, I guess most zoophiles practice bestiality then. :p --Ciz 20:30, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that was my point Ciz. Zoophilia is “the attraction of” while bestiality is “the action of”. So yes, most zoophiles practice bestiality.

So you finally admit it. --Ciz 05:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Uh, I guess so but I never denied “it” in the first place. I am just going by the textbook definition of the words.--Steele 06:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How intelligent is your pet compared to you? They're intelligent, but not in our area. Pets and animals are more comparable to children than adults. And like children, they dont know any better. They usually cant speak for themselves and so its up to us to care for and protect them. But since they are not our equals, we should not have sex with them. --Ciz 05:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would disagree, my companions are my equals. In many ways I even look up to and admire them but that’s just me. So by your logic, what if one dog had sex with another dog? Would that be like a child having sex with another child? No, it is similar but not the same. Children are not sexually mature while adult animals are.--Steele 06:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, because the two dogs are at relatively the same intelligence and it is natural for two dogs to have sex. --Ciz 12:12, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

First of all the word “natural” is just a description, not an argument. Not only that but natural is a very subjective word. In some cultures, it is natural to eat dogs, here that is illegal. So what if a Grey wolf (50% smarter then the smartest domesticated dog) breed with a wolfhound (possibly one of the dumbest breeds). Rape? What if a really stupid hick breeds with one of the smartest people in the world? Rape? What if a person with the same intelligence of a dog (lets say he was really dumb) had sex with a dog. Again, it isn’t really about intelligence.--Steele 22:56, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Let's get the facts straight. If I am attracted to the opposite gender, I am a heterosexual. If I am attracted to the same gender, I am a homosexual. If I am attracted to both genders, I am bisexual. If I am attracted to children, then I am a pedophile. If I am attracted to animals, then I am a bestial. Whether or not I act on these attractions doesnt change that. --Ciz 15:15, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We haven’t been talking about “bestial” because it doesn’t have anything to do with this. According to onelook.com it means “resembling a beast; showing lack of human sensibility”. Again the only thing remotely close to that is “Bestialist” meaning continuous attraction to animals specifically without the love part. You can’t be a Bestialist and a Zoophile because they are mutually exclusive.--Steele 19:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That is one definition. Just like one definition of gay is 'happy.' --Ciz 20:30, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Go look on Onelook.com, none of the dictionaries (including the other definitions) have the definition you are using it as.--Steele 02:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

if If they don't agree, quote your standard references of zoophilia.net and FinalGamer at them. FT2 01:04, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

---