Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 19

message: This article needs to be brought up to wikipedia Cite your sources standards and a references section. The following assertations need some digging to check for appropriate citations, and ideally the context, the entire paragraph or full details, as useful background, not just the soundbite:
* The ambiguous term sodomy has sometimes been used in legal contexts to include zoosexual acts jurisdictions like UK is one example, are there others?
* The extent to which zoophilia occurs is not known with any certainty probably in one of the researches
* most research into zoophilia has focused on its characteristics, rather than quantifying it. probably in one of the researches, most likely beetz
* Scientific surveys estimating the frequency of zoosexuality, as well as anecdotal evidence and informal surveys, suggest that more than 1-2% -- and perhaps as many as 8-10% -- of sexually active adults have had significant sexual experience with an animal at some point in their lives a mix of many sources, anyone got any for starters?
* Studies suggest that a larger number (perhaps 10-30% depending on area) have fantasized or had some form of brief encounter
* NZ:  It is interesting to note that in the 1989 Crimes Bill considered abolition of beastiality as a criminal offence, and for it to be treated as a mental health issue can we get hold of a copy of the crimes bill review, the whole section thats relevant?
* NZ:  In Police v Sheary (1991) 7 CRNZ 107 (HC) Fisher J considered that "[t]he community is generally now more tolerant and understanding of unusual sexual practices that do not harm others." can we get hold of a report of this case and his full comment?
* For example, an old Peruvian law prohibited single males from having a female alpaca (llama). 
* A commonly reported starting age is at puberty, around 9 - 11, and this seems consistent for both males and females. Those who discover an interest at an older age often trace it back to nascent form during this period or earlier. there was an informal survey on some website, but researchers may have accurate information
* zoophiles may be attracted only to particular species, appearances, personalities or individuals, and both these and other aspects of their feelings vary over time.
* Zoophiles tend to perceive differences between animals and human beings as less significant than others do. 
* They often view animals as having positive traits (e.g. honesty) that humans often lack
** and to feel that society's understanding of non-human sexuality is misinformed. 
* The biggest difficulties many zoophiles report are the inability to be accepted or open about their animal relationships and feelings with friends and family, and 
** the fear of harm, rejection or loss of companions if it became known (see outing and the closet, sometimes humorously referred to as "the stable"). 
** Other major issues are hidden loneliness and isolation (due to lack of contact with others who share this attraction or a belief they are alone), 
** and the impact of repeated deaths of animals they consider lifelong soulmates (most species have far shorter lifespans than humans and they cannot openly grieve or talk about feelings of loss). 
* Zoophiles do not usually cite internal conflicts over religion as their major issue, perhaps because zoophilia, although condemned by many religions, is not a major focus of their teachings.
* zoophiles sometimes enter human relationships due to growing up within traditional expectations, or to deflect suspicions of zoophilia, 
** and yet others may choose looser forms of human relationship as companions or housemates, live alone, or choose other zoophiles to live with.
* Page citations and context for these:
** The critical aspect to study was emotion, relationship, and motive, it is important not to just assess or judge the sexual act alone in isolation, or as "an act", without looking deeper. (Masters, Miletski, Beetz)
** Zoophiles' emotions and care to animals can be real, relational, authentic and (within animals' abilities) reciprocal, and not just a substitute or means of expression. (Masters, Miletski, Weinberg, Beetz)
** Most zoophiles have (or have also had) long term human relationships as well or at the same time as zoosexual ones. (Masters, Beetz)
** Society in general at present is considerably misinformed about zoophilia, its stereotypes, and its meaning (Masters, Miletski, Weinberg, Beetz)
** Contrary to popular belief, there is in fact significant popular or "latent" interest in zoophilia, either in fantasy, animal mating, or reality (Nancy Friday, Massen, Masters)
** The distinction between zoophilia and zoosadism is a critical one, and highlighted by each of these studies.
** Masters (1962), Miletski (1999) and Weinberg (2003) each comment significantly on the social harm caused by these, and other common misunderstandings: "This destroy[s] the lives of many citizens".
* At times, research has been cited based upon the degree of zoosexual or zoosadistic related history within populations of juvenile and other persistent offenders, prison populations with records of violence, and people with prior psychological issues. Such studies are not viewed professionally as valid means to research or profile zoophilia ... This approach (used in some older research and quoted to demonstrate pathology) is considered discredited and unrepresentative by researchers.
* Source for Ingrid Newkirk's 1st quote
FT2 00:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cite sources

message: Just came across this:
:"Emotionally and psychologically, research suggests that zoophiles have above average empathy. It is unclear yet from research whether this is a cause or a result of zoophilia. In other words, they may be close to animals because they empathize well, or have developed empathic skills because of intimate closeness with animals. As a group they have a lower level of psychopathy and need for control than average, and a higher level of sensation seeking and involvement in animal protection than average. They also have an above average level of social individualism, which can be either inhibitive (eg, shyness) or empowering (eg, independence of thought). Other research gives similar findings." 
FT2 (Talk | email | contribs) 23:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess there's no reason why that wouldn't be valid anymore. I even recall there being a more extensive list of traits, but I can't seem to find it in the article's history. Perhaps it was mentioned elsewhere. BabyNuke 21:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed in old "ciz" vandalism days. 

message: The multiple definitions in the field bother me, not least because they lead to the article titles being ambiguous too. I think we need to make it easier to see them compared. The following is a bit long, but what do people think about the following as a possible way of summarizing and contrasting them? Can we use something like this?
:
Term                   	Usage                                                                                                 	Primary users                   	Notes
Zoophilia              	A sexual attraction towards animals, or a person who has sex with animals                             	Popular usage                   	Individuals with a sexual attraction to animals, or who have sex with animals
Zoophilia              	A psychological paraphilia, defined by strict criteria such as exclusivity and psychological suffering	Psychologists and psychiatrists 	Technical term for a sexual fixation meeting specific clinical criteria
Zoophilia              	An affinity for (or affective bond between) humans and animals.                                       	Sociologists and anthropologists	Anyone closer to animals or more bonded to them than "the norm". Anyone with an affinity for animals. The nature of the interest (sexual or non-sexual) is not significant.
Zoophilia              	A relational attraction to animals                                                                    	Zoophiles and sexologists       	Individuals with an emotional attraction or sexual orientation to animals, of a relational, lifestyle or non-experimental nature.
Zoosexuality/ zoosexual	A person who has sex with animals                                                                     	Popular usage                   	Individuals with a strong sexual interest or attraction towards animals.
Zoosexuality/ zoosexual	A sexual orientation towards animals                                                                  	Psychologists and sexologists   	Technical term for a sexual orientation towards animals that meets strict criteria for an orientation, comparable to heterosexuality and homosexuality, regardless of nature or whether acted upon. According to Beetz (2002) "Not all people who have sex with animals are zoosexuals", but this is not clarified. Presumably she means to exclude those whose interest is not relational.
Zoosexuality/ zoosexual	A spectrum of erotic and sexual attraction towards animals                                            	Zoophiles                       	A spectrum of sexual or emotional attraction or erotic interest in animals, of whatever nature
Bestiality             	A sexual act between a human and an animal                                                            	Universal                       	Applies to the act not the person. Ambiguous as to which acts are included. Out of favor with both zoophiles and professionals, the former considering it pejorative, the latter because it problematically confuses two different groups, severing the act from the intra-subjective context needed to interpret it.
Edits to the above table welcome. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just had a though, is their a way to do a mini table or something that can be put to the side?  If you look at animal rights  they have a table for links to the related topics on the side (note is doesn't use up a whole new section.  Maybe we could do something like that with these definitions?  If not that it would be worth considering using that tool to help organize this topic (when we start splitting them off into their own sections.)--Steele the Wolf 17:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I feel the difference between a sexual orientation and a sexual attraction is not obvious, hence making the difference confusing. Also, since the term zoosexuality is hardly ever used, I feel the term "popular usage" does not apply. Keep zoophilia and zoosexuality as synonyms, I feel it has been sufficiently shown that these terms are nearly always used as such and this will keep things transparant. BabyNuke 18:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points all, Nuke. I agree the distinctioon's not obvious to most. I'm not sure that zoosexuality is "hardly ever used", because in this context it's not *that* uncommon, but its a confusing set of distinctions for sure. As for synonyms, I can see both sides... I don't really know what to think. The words we have in English just arent very helpful. In an ideal linguistical world, I suppose we could take "homosexuality" as a parallel: - zoosexuality would be the main term, and zoophilia would be a deprecated technical term in psychology (much as zooerastry, or homophilia are not well used terms). There's times that calling it all just "human-animal intimate relationships" seems so appealing :)  FT2 (Talk | email) 21:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The word zoosexuality does not appear in any dictionary and gives me less than 900 hits on google (compared to well over a million for zoophilia), and I should note that a considerable amount of those 900 hits are from duplicates or excerpts of wikipedia articles. So, I would say that it isn't used much. An uncommon term with an unclear definition that I have not seen used in any other way but as a synonym for zoophilia - I do not believe that warrants a different definition, let alone its own article as it is now. As said, keep it simple. BabyNuke 09:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This question comes up regularly. The answer has been discussed quite often in the past. The difficulty is that we (all editors on Wikipedia) are here discussing what is verifiable and known, and the facts about the opinions held under each significant view. It is undeniable that the main lines of debate are roughly as stated, but there is no one "editor". Its a communally created article, worked over by dozens of people for and against, over a period of some 3 years, and it is unfortunately the case that while it discusses popular stereotypes, it also covers in much more depth the actual known information in the field. This is presumably what you find troublesome. Perhaps reading up the research pointed to will help (that's true of any subject). In the meantime it's hard to discuss such a generalized question.  If you have specific edits or points that seem needed or comments in the article which seem incorrect or poorly representing either side, or you wish to bring to discussion, that's probably best. Wording improvements are always a good thing. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've put it up for peer review - hopefully that will result in more suggestions on how especially the neutrality can be improved. BabyNuke 14:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions