Talk:Zoophilia

Leda and the swan is not zoophilia

Its merely a painting and not meant to reference animal sex. Please consider removing that image as its not really relevant. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 04:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Zoophilia does not always refer to bestiality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FireWolf Flux (talk • contribs) 07:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

References

Reference 95 goes to a dead link.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontdontoperate (talk • contribs) 21:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Bias

This article appears to have an agenda - that of elevating a social paradigm previously identified as a perversion into a sexual orientation. The actual role of Zoophilia in anglophonic society today is hereby spun by this article instead of being elucidated by it. There is a refusal to faithfully depict the highly unpopular nature of zoophilia. The article omits to develop the negative side of zoophilia, there is insufficient evidence that it is quite rare, dangerous, deviant, and repugnant to large numbers in the world's population. As it stands, this article appears to advance pro-zoophilic propaganda and insidiously refers to it as a sexual orientation. What is next? Inclusion of references to Mr. Appel and his apologetic vision of sexual deviance is highly manipulative. There is no balancing counter view which would introduce more tradition, and more common opinions of sexual perversion. I suspect that some people who are quite supportive of zoophilia have manipulated the neutrality of this article to it detriment. While I perceive the temptation to do this, I must petition Wikipedia to force this article to adhere to a more unbiased standpoint. Please, alter the article to inclue the fact that many feel that this is horrific, sick behavior. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by VaniNY (talk • contribs) 03:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"horrific, sick behavior" "rare, dangerous, deviant, and repugnant" sounds like you are the one with bias against the article.
Alusky (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Zoophilia and Furry

The section including the Furry and therian communities has a considerable number of problems.

First, it is unclear why numbers for zoophilia should be selectively reported for these two communities (fandoms). Why are there not also numbers on zoophilia among Trekkies, Harry Potter, and Twilight fans? As such, the entire paragraph should be deleted because it does not bear materially upon the topic of zoophilia.

Second, while the paragraph begins by citing the Furry and therian communities, no further mention is made of the therian community. If numbers cannot be provided for the therian community, then reference to it should be deleted because the claim is not validated in any way.

Third, the statement that "zoophiles make up around a fifth of the furry fandom" is not supported by the evidence cited. Of the two sources cited (Note 28: http://www.furcenter.org/pubs/SF_2008.pdf and Note 29: http://www.visi.com/~phantos/furrysoc.html ), the first reports 17.1% either positively or extremely positively identify as zoophiles, while the second reports 2% answered "yes" to "Zoophile?".

Fourth, by citing note 28 and note 29 sequentially, this suggests that both surveys agree on the "one fifth" number.

Fifth, unlike he author of the survey in note 28, the paragraph does not contextualize the 17.1% finding against numbers for zoophilia in the general population, which may run from 10-15% or "much higher in rural areas" (http://www.furcenter.org/pubs/SF_2008.pdf, p. 26, note 11).

Taking items three through five into account, for the reasons noted above, I suggest that the sentence “The exact size of this group is not known, but zoophiles make up around a fifth of the furry fandom[28][29]” be rewritten as, “Surveys of the Furry community estimate that from 2[29] to17.1[28] percent of people polled identified as zoophiles, though neither poll clarifies if this identification indicates they are practicing zoophiles. In any case, these percentages are generally in the range of zoophiles in the population at large.[30]” [Note 30: http://www.furcenter.org/pubs/SF_2008.pdf, note 11, p. 26]."

At this point, it would be premature to offer edits for the remainder of the paragraph if it is going to be deleted entirely. But if a decision is reached for it to remain, then I will have further edits to propose.

Talastra (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

First, I somewhat agree with you. I do believe this paragraph does call into view the common perception that the two fandoms, furry in particular, do have a part to play with zoosexuality. However, it would be interesting to see which other fandoms do include a large portion of zoosexuals as members. While I believe that the article does play a role in the article as a whole, I do agree that there are major additions and edits to be made.

Second, I agree with your view on the Therian community. As there is no real documentation, it should be omitted. However, if more information can be provided, it might be apropos to divide the information into new sections, as the Therian and Furry fandoms are entirely separate entities.

Third, it might be best for any surveys (as they are typically taken at conventions and, while advertised online, are not always taken) should be taken into some form of context. While the exact numbers may not be given, it should be known that the numbers might reflect a smaller pool of individuals polled.

Fourth and Fifth: I agree with these points and additions and edits should be made.

However, I do agree with your suggested edit as it does mention the fact that it was not a global poll (and it should be noted as to the countries participating in said polls) of all furries, and as such the numbers could be higher or lower, depending. This way the information can be as accurate and neutral as possible. However, unless these changes are made, it might be best to remove this paragraph entirely as the information is either incomplete, irrelevant, or inflammatory.

--Ampersandestet (talk) 06:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional reference: Bagemihl's Biological Exuberance

In a paragraph almost at the end of this article is a description of various "meanings" of animal sexuality, such as the "pragmatic" belief that animal sexuality exists only for procreation. The discussion describes animal masturbation, sexual pleasure in animals without procreation, and other behaviors.

I suggest that a reference be made in this paragraph to the Wikipedia entry for Bruce Bagemihl, which states that his book Biological Exuberance "proposes a theory of sexual behavior in which reproduction is only one of its principal biological functions." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexlange (talk • contribs) 14:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Format

Right now, the end of the article has the sections "Criticism of zoophilia" and the subsection "animal advocacy concerns", which include arguments for and against zoophilia. It might be more helpful to the reader if these arguments were sorted, with arguments in favor of zoophilia put into one section and arguments against it put into another. Instead of "Criticism of zoophilia", there would be an "arguments for zoophilia" section and an "arguments against zoophilia" section.Plateau99 (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Unable to get rid of "cite error" message

I have tried and tried to get rid of a "cite error" message, but every time I try to fix the reference a "spam filter notice" message appears and because of this I cannot get rid of the "cite error" message. Does anybody know how to fix this problem? Perhaps there is someone who has the ability to override the "spam filter notice" in this case since the problem is clearly caused by a bug and not by a spam-related link.Plateau99 (talk) 11:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a "cite error" message in the article page anywhere. Where does it appear for you? Depending on the spam-filter involved, there is likely no way to override it. However, there may be a way to find an alternate or comparable site that is not a problem. And if the filter really is mis-behaving, having a specific example of the problem would help the filter-maintainers diagnose and hopefully fix it. DMacks (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ahah, was fixed a half hour ago:) You can see in that edit what was done...it was a true syntax error in the ref-tag. DMacks (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.237.179.132, 2 May 2011

usually non-abusive - this is incorrect! Since an animal cannot speak how can it defend itself fro such an ACT? This is not what wikipedia wants to turn into to, this editor did not provide an objective assesment of the definition - but instead found some dorky and i might add gross article praising animal abusers.

98.237.179.132 (talk) 07:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: articles are built based on verifiable and reliable sources to ensure a neutral point of view. Personal opinion is not a reason to change the article. Thank you for understanding! — Bility (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)