Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 17

message: Archived July 7 2006
This archive relates to  who attempted to POV edit the article, and was blocked shortly after commencing. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

message: Who's view is it that the young offender's research is mis-cited?  There is a whole section on mis-citing of research.  It looks like a criticism of animal welfare workers.  If an editor here is the only person saying that there is a mis-citation, then it is OR, and the whole sections should be removed.  JHartley 05:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Sorry, I'm not even sure what you're talking about here. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if there is no reliable source that states this research on offenders has been miscited, then it should be deleted from the article on the grounds that it is OR.  JHartley 05:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible OR

message: :Hello all.  Most of this article reads well, it is largely balanced and encyclopedic in style but there are a few areas that do read like advocacy.  The "Health and Safety" section is quite inconsisent with the balance of the article.  What authority contends that humans and animals are anatomically compatible for coitus?  Also the sub-section on mis-citation of research is little more than a pre-emptive dimissal of any critical research findings.  It too is unsubstantied.  I have some references and a brief synpses drawn from the criminology and abnormal psychology literature:
::Duffield G, Hassiotis, Vizard E.  Zoophilia in young sexual abusers.  Journal Forensic Psychiatry 1998;9;294-304
:::Finds an assocoaition between zoophilia and mental retardation.
::Williams CJ, Weinberg MS.  Zoophilia in men: a study of sexual interest in animals.  Arch Sex Behav 2003;32(6):523-35
:::Finds that exclusively heterosexual men are underrepresented amongst zoophilic men.
::Earls CM, Lalumiere ML.  A case study of preferential bestiality (zoophilia) Sex Abuse 2002;14(1):83-8
:::Reports a case of a zoophilic man that inserted his arm into the vagina of a mare causes her vaginal rupture and subsequent death in response to her interest in a stallion that he had a competitve interst in.
::Ressler RK, Burgess AW, Douglas JE. Sexual homicide: patters & motives.  Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1988.
:::Reports that sadistic serial killers have a preference for paraphillic pornography including that depicting zoophilia.
::Prins Herschel, Offenders, Deviants or Patients?, 3rd ed. London, Routledge, 2005 p.233
:::"Duffield et al. (1998) describe and discuss the cases of seven young patients referred to an adolescent psychiatric service dealing with sex abusers. On the basis of their own study and the work of others, they concluded that bestiality was frequently accompanied by other paraphilias (disorders of sexual preference). In summary, the behaviour is most likely to occur mainly in males who may be mentally disturbed or impaired, be socially isolated, have difficulties in making relationships and showing other forms of sexually deviant behaviour."
:As far as I know the resarch based on deviant populations does not specify a causal connection between zoophilia and these populations neurological, endocrinological and psychological deficits.  Insead they find an association between zoophilia and these deficits.  This is worthy of mention.   Also, the ethical dimension of zoophilia isn't given the treatment it deserves.  Instead the reader is treated to numerous NAMBLA-esque apologies.  The ethical concern is a large one.  Singer isn't the only bioethicist with an opinion on zoophilia.  There is also a body of research on serial murderers that documents their paraphilias (not all sadistic) and zoophilia is included. -FFodor 12:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose one expects meatpuppet recruitment next. This being the sort of thing HeadleyDown's do. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please.  Will the accusation of impersonation and recruitment become your standard response to any editorial contribution that is inconsisntent with your worldview?  I can't prove that I'm not someone or that I'm not associated with someone.  That is impossible to do.  The onus is on you -- the accuser -- to demonstrate that I am part of some mythical cabal or that I am someone you have had previous encounters with.  My contributions should be assessed on their own merits just as you expect your own to be.  By posting to the discussion first I am trying to be courteous and cooperative.  I will proceed with the edits I deem appropriate to balance the article unless you can offer good reasons otherwise. -FFodor 04:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pack it in, Headley/Hartley/whatever name you use next. You are not permitted to edit on this site, under any name, or with any sock, as you well know. Thank you. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going anywhere and I'm not Headley/Hartley nor am I affiliated with that person.  I'm not obliged to prove myself to you.  The onus is on you to substantiate your suspicions.  As a courtesy you should haved obtained and presented evidence for your allegations before publicizing them.  You are in effect harassing me on the basis of your unfounded suspicions.  You have started off on a bad foot but I am going to re-extend the courtesy I offered at the outset.  I am offering you and your fellow editors (which to use your standard of evidence I could a priori, without any substantiation, characterise as your acquaintances drawn from one or more paraphilia IRC channels and zoophile WWW fora) to substantiate the lurid claims in the article.  I don't want a revert war but I will make my edits unless you can persuade me to do otherwise.  Claiming that I am some banned editor or that I am affiliated with said editor (without an iota of evidence) won't help your cause.  There are numerous unsubstantiated claims in the article (that are propagandist) and much reserach into paraphilia isn't even mentioned.  I aim to correct this deficiency.  I have surveyed your edits to numerous articles and you present as an argumentative bully with an agenda.  You seem incapable of editing without editorialising.  People don't come to Wikipedia to read your opinions and that isn't the purpose of the project nor do you have license to "soap box" regardless of how long you have been editing (read editorialising).  All of my edits will be substantiated and will reflect expert opinion. I will strive to adhere to Wikipedia policy and procedure and that is all I need do.  So either substantiate or leave me alobe. FFodor 09:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Goodbye Headley. Thank you. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions by FFodor