Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 12
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
(NOTE: this is an archive of older material from Talk:Zoophilia)
Update to page and ArbCom
1) Page: I have added summaries of some research on the subject, and reorganised it a bit more than a "list of subjects". Its a delicate subject with a tricky balance, I'm a bit jittery at having added such material but I know its bona fide. I'd really appreciate a careful read, detailed feedback and comments if this has done good and if theres NPOV issues arising or any wording that make it sound advocating or inappropriate. Thanks. FT2 00:35, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
2) Opposing views: Should there be a section "views against zoophilia" for NPOV? If so what belongs in it? Can we get contributions which show that side fairly without getting into edit wars with people who dont understand wikiquette? FT2 00:35, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think so. There isn't a strong enough opposition to zoophilia, there isn't more than occasional persecution. A few words about social status of zoophilia would, of course, be relevant, but a whole section... There simply wouldn't be much to write about there. The only time the public "opposes" zoophilia is when a guy has sex with goat in front of a train full of people and gets busted by the police, i.e. when it's in the news. Even then, most people don't feel strongly about it either way. Paranoid 01:00, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Are you serious? Do you really think most people are ok with bestialty? A lot of people are hot and bothered about letting two men marry, but they're ok with having sex with your dog? The only reason its not discussed that much is because most people already think its wrong so they feel there's no need to argue about it. --Ciz 22:24, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Well, I still think enough people would have the same response that it's worth taking note of. Whether this is important enough to deserve its own section, I don't know. Zetawoof 03:18, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I'm fairly sure enough people have a view against it, and would feel the article didn't represent that view fully, to be cautious. Individually a lot of people may not care much but collectively I'm sure there is a big "against" view as well. Can we be that sure we are representing it fully as is? FT2 04:08, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
- I definitely think we should have some kind of "Arguments Against" or "Opposition to Zoophilia" section. What article is complete without an opposing view, because there certainly is one. Your average Joe thinks zoophilia is wrong. Your average religion agrees. Your average law does too. There's lots of views against it, we should include them [[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]] 07:19, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- "Common views against zoophilia"? "Common perceptions of zoophilia"? "Arguments against zoophilia"? I'm thinking if we add such a section, it can be done cleanly by having paragraphs for each main "kind" of argument (thus, religious, consent, distaste, human dignity...). Would be categorise them by "view", or by "line of argument"? They aren't quite the same, which one will be better for NPOV? I'm tempted to go for "argument" because its a harder word which doesnt downplay the fact these are arguments not just odd opinions. FT2 07:49, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
3) Tag: For the same reason, I've switched the tag from Controversial2 ("discussed and consensus reached") to Controversial3 ("some have reached a consensus and some may be disputed"). This is not because I am aware of any dispute. Its just a lot of research has been added and I don't want to unilaterally assert it's still good consensus for a while. If it becomes obvious there is not problem in a while, we can switch it back to Controversial2, but I just feel safer and more sure of respecting NPOV this way. FT2 00:35, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
4) ARBCOM: With a 9-0 vote and most of the major contributors and sysops for this page having voted, I have started drafting an ArbCom brief User:FT2/Arbitration re Ciz. If supportive please (a) research the history of the article and talk page, adding clear evidence and details as needed to make it clear to the ArbCom why editors feel as they do, and (b) add a statement to the "people in favour" section too. Any comments or discussion, on the related talk page. Thanks. FT2 00:35, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
5) To Ciz: I have left a section for Ciz in the ArbCom post, but I suggest he waits to see what he is replying to, and thinks VERY carefully about how he replies, using this as a final opportunity to show that he can understand Wiki policies, ettiquette, and can rebut points logically and to the point without ad hominem attacks or non sequiturs, and read instructions. The first instruction is - do not edit anyone elses words, or add comments to the case itself. You have your own section to say whatever you like, and that is your space only. FT2 00:35, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
Introduction: Zoosexuality "has been" condemned, "is often" condemned or "is often strongly" condemned? to say it "has been" implies it mostly isnt now, which isnt the case. FT2 13:12, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
- "is often". No need for "strongly", because "condemned" on its own is a very strong word. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]] 20:58, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sonic
And as for Sonic the Hedgehog; the Sonic series is not related to furries at all --Ciz 22:27, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Bias
This article is becoming more and more in support of 'zoophilia.' --Ciz 17:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Ciz - If you feel this is a personal attack then I'm sorry. That said, your conduct and general manner here, suggests that you are probably very unlikely to understand bias, because you yourself are unable to see outside it. FT2 22:11, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
- You biased in support of it. Im biased against it. The only thing is, the topic is something that is illegal and is larglely considered to be animal abuse. --Ciz 01:30, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Uh... would this be connected with the VfD you created? Zetawoof 22:15, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Article Length
The article's >32KiB. Any ideas on how we can split it up to bring the size down a bit? The research sections seem an obvious target. Zetawoof 22:15, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Split the research into Zoophilia research perhaps? It is a valid fork, I think. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]] 00:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I dont see a problem. I dont see any new major areas likely to be added, and whats there is appropriate. Many articles are >32. Leave it, unless it bloats, Id say. FT2 08:50, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
Incorrect with DSM-IV
The article says that like homosexuality, zoophilia was removed from the paraphilias in DSM-IV. That's incorrect. Zoophilia is specifically listed as an example of "Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified," DC 302.9. It does not have its own, separate DC because it is relatively rare and it was felt that not every rare paraphilia deserved its own separate listing. --Ciz 01:51, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- No, the article says that, like homosexuality, zoophilia was downgraded from a disease requiring treatment (like - for example - depression or a phobia) to a paraphilia with a severity on the level of (for example) a foot fetish. (Disclaimer: I'm running off second- and third-hand knowledge; can someone with copies of DSM-III and DSM-IV verify this?)
- Congratulations, you're almost making useful edits now. Zetawoof 06:41, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- No. DSMIV does not regard homosexuality as a paraphilia at all anymore. It still lists zoophilia, but it did not have its own listing because 'it is relatively rare and it was felt that not every rare paraphilia deserved its own separate listing.' Thats it. --Ciz 12:10, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I can't find zoophilia at http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/paraphilias.htm. --Conti|✉ 13:41, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
- http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3127.htm "The most rare paraphilia is zoophilia." --Ciz 17:13, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- That's interesting. Is there some official source or list? These are all websites that could be wrong (or not). However, the article states: "As with BDSM and homosexuality, the activity is no longer classified as a pathology by DSM-IV when taken by itself", this seems to be true in any case. It is "only" a paraphilia, like Masochism is one as well, at least officially.. --Conti|✉ 17:30, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
Trouble is, that this conflicts with whats already very well known information elsewhere, namely that zoophilia is not rare. My question trying to make sense of that is, was this information based (for example) upon people admited into care, or a quote from some other paper, as opposed to practitioners?
I have therefore looked deeper into where that statement came from. It appears that quote is in fact a direct "lift" from another paper, and may be inaccurate. I will do some digging and find out more shortly. FT2 18:23, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
The looks like a fun talk page, I think I'll contribute. After reading the relevant sections of the DSM III, III-R, IV, and IV-TR as well as the accompanying publications (such as case books and pure diagnostic manuals), this is what I've found:
Zoophilia is listed under "Paraphilias: NOS" in the current (IV-TR) version of the DSM. It has been there since DSM III-R. In the DSM III, zoophilia had its own section (as section 302.10), but was moved for DSM III-R and was retained in its new position for all subsequent editions of the DSM. In the new versions it is grouped with paraphilas such as urophilia, coprophilia, partialism, klismaphilia, telephone scatologia and necrophilia. While most of these are rather innocuous acts (as innocuous as a paraphilia can be, at any rate), the inclusion of necrophilia and telephone scatologia in the list would seem to contradict Zetawoof's claim that zoophilia is considered no more severe than a foot fetish. Further, a summary book accompanying the DSM III-R notes that zoophilia was moved because it was a rare disorder, and that very little research had been done on it - mirroring what Ciz claims.
However, for someone to be classified as a pathological zoophile, two criteria must be met. The individual must have had strong, sexual feelings towards animals for an extended period of time (the DSM IV-TR diagnostics manual suggests six months as a minimum for paraphilias - but does not discuss zoophilia in particular) and the individual must feel distressed by these feelings, or by the acts (if any are being performed) or these feelings/acts must be interfering with that individual's normal functioning. That someone has an attraction to animals, or is undertaking any form of sexual relations with them, is not enough for classification as pathological zoophilia according to the DSM. Even the DSM III makes this distinction, giving alternate criteria for diagnosis as "nonpathological zoophilia".
This may explain the problems surrounding claims about the rarity of the disorder noted by FT2. If some people count all instances of fixation with animals as zoophilia, ignoring the second criterion (distress or interference with functioning), they will undoubtably get a higher count than the APA, which only counts cases matching both criteria.
It is also interesting to note that, in the case book which accompanies the DSM III (both the first edition and III-R), the only example concerning zoophilia ends with the rejection of the diagnosis of zoophilia despite the patient's long history of sexual activity with animals. No examples concerning zoophilia can be found in the case book accompanying the DSM IV-TR. I cannot comment on the DSM IV case book as I don't have access to a copy.
Ciz is correct that zoophilia is classified as a paraphilia in the DSM. However the edit removing the claim that "As with BDSM and homosexuality, the activity is no longer classified as a pathology by DSM-IV when taken by itself" (emphasis on "when taken by itself") removed a statement which is paritally supported by the current version of the DSM. Perhaps it would be beneficial to note the specific situation under which zoophilia is still considered pathological, in addition the the current statement in the article. Maybe something like this in the current statement's stead: "The activity is not classified as a pathology under the DSM IV-TR unless it is accompanied by distress in the individual or causes interference with the individual's normal functioning ..." Tachusvelox 19:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Wow. That's way more information than I expected to get, thanks! I agree with your changes of the text in the article. It might be also noteworthy that BDSM is still in the list (as "sadism" and "masochism"), but with the same criteria as zoophilia (it has to be accompanied by distress or cause interference with the "normal" functionig). --Conti|✉ 20:24, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
Ciz had posted in a web based bulletin board I also participate in. I was the one who originally made the comment about DSM-IV, and Ciz adopted it. I don't know Ciz, and do not in any way support misbehavior by him. But I would strongly prefer having the current statement replaced-- possibly as Tachusvlox has suggested: "The
activity is not classified as a pathology under the DSM IV-TR unless it is accompanied by distress in the individual or causes interference with the individual's normal functioning ..."
BenAlias 03:00, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Arbitration re Ciz
Further to previous matters and continuing vandalism ([1], also see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Ciz
Ciz has been notified as required. FT2 22:34, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Now moved to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ciz Zetawoof 09:42, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2-8%?
How do you arrive at these figures for people who have sex with animals? It's suggested they are a "reasonable estimate". Reasonable in whose view? I think they're entirely unreasonable. Most estimates for homosexuality are lower than 8%. You are suggesting that it's a reasonable guess that more people have sex with dogs than with people of the same sex? I'm not saying whether they do or do not -- I have no idea. What I am saying is that "reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder, IOW, highly POV, and this should be thoroughly sourced.Dr Zen 01:24, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Fantasies
"Sexual fantasies about bestiality seem to be relatively frequent." What are you basing this on? I think "seem to be" is the worst sort of weasel word. From my POV, I think they are entirely infrequent, actually nonexistent, and I don't know of anyone in my acquaintance who has expressed an interest.
"In some cases the human partner or family is aware of animal partners." This is entirely POV. The suggestion that an animal "partner" is on a par with a human "partner" is preposterous, not just extremely biased.
Where are the long quotes from the studies that do not support your POV? They exist, you note they exist (although you slag them off) but you do not quote them. It is extremely unusual for an NPOV article to only give one side of an argument in such detail. Note also that the studies do not seem to be investigative, so that the arguments you make against the earlier studies apply equally to these. They all give the impression of simply being discussions of a priorly held POV rather than discussions of the outcomes of any actual "research".
"there does not appear to be found any credible, serious, peer reviewed research into zoophiles per se - as opposed to offenders and animal abusers" Why are "animal abusers" not "zoophiles per se"? It is precisely the line of the antizoophiles that zoophiles abuse animals!
"sexual interest (whether fantasy or reality) is highly controversial and for many people an emotive topic bound up with many deep social traditions" This is extremely POV. It makes antizoophiles, who are, you ought to be reminded, very much the majority, sound like hysterical sheeple who cannot think for themselves.
"Privately, as with many sexual matters, views vary more widely." And yet the only evidence you proffer for this view is a 30-year-old study. I'd suggest anecdotally that in fact privately people are equally as condemnatory. I wouldn't write this into an article, though.
"In addition there are strong "double standards" over animals (as utilities and property vs. as independent living beings worthy of respect)" This is not a "double standard" at all. It's two different standards held by different people. Most people who believe that animals are utilities do not believe they are worthy of respect. Were this the only reason you gave for opposition to zoophilia, this would be a point. Since it wasn't, it isn't, and should be struck out. In any case, it's perfectly possible to believe an animal is a utility, and one's property, without that necessarily entailing that one can be cruel to it. For those who believe animal sex is cruel, clearly this view does not involve a double standard.
"so often people are unconvinced that animals can consent, enjoy or understand sex in a meaningful way." This is entirely a nonsequitur. It doesn't follow from your "double standard". Animals cannot consent to sex in the same way as humans, that's obvious. You must assume they do. Is that "meaningful"? It's at least arguable that it isn't. Whether an animal is enjoying it is entirely moot. Does a dog "understand" sex? I don't think it's possible to even begin to claim it does but if you do, you need to be citing research into dog psychology. I can't see that it will show an understanding of sex that is in any way similar to our own, particularly for bitches for the obvious reasons.
"Psychological and sexology research concludes beyond this, that far from being "profoundly disturbed behaviour", zoophilic feelings and relationships are common, latent in many people, and can be authentic, relational, and genuine." Nancy Friday put an ad in the paper, put all the racy ones in her book and binned the rest. Nancy includes interracial sex in her bestiality chapter! Ahem.Dr Zen 01:57, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)