Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 12

message: And as for Sonic the Hedgehog; the Sonic series is not related to furries at all --Ciz 22:27, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sonic 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article Length 

message: Further to previous matters and continuing vandalism (, 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)
thread_title: Arbitration re Ciz

message: 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)
thread_title: 2-8%?

message: "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 They exist, you note they exist (although you slag them off) but you do not quote them.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)
thread_title: Fantasies