Talk:Zoophilia

Zoophilia among other animals, and animals having sex with humans

Are there any other species besides humans that have sex with non-members of their species, like say a moose with a cow? I don't think hybrids such as mules, donkeys, beeflo, hinny, wholphin, cama, counbecause even though they are sterile offspring, their parents would be of the same species, since they are able to successfully produce offspring. And is it still zoophilia if the animals intiate the sex with humans, like sometimes a dog will attempt to hump a human's leg? 66.189.38.183 (talk) 04:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Zoophilia as a sexual orientation

Since zoophilia is not officially recognized as a sexual orientation, there does not need to be much discussion about. However, it is a fact that both commoners on the Internet and PHD researchers (such as Miletski and Beetz) believe that zoophilia could be treated as if it were a sexual orientation, hence the term "zoosexuality". Since it exists, it needs to be mentioned.

Also, the following statements are opinions:

[Quote] By who? Vague statement, used title from source. I still think it has nothing to do with the arguments for zoophilia.

pro-zoophilia statement that has nothing to do with "Legal status" and is not in source; statement that has nothing to do with arguments for zoophilia.

Removed; zoosexuality does not fit the definition for sexual orientation

Has nothing to do with legal status; doubt it's in the source

sexual orientation describes attraction towards which sex/gender, not animals, children, shoes, etc.; not all sexual interests are considered sexual orientations.

These are opinions which contradict the findings of Miletski and Beetz. -- Plateau99 (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

What does "The fight against zoosexual discrimination has been described as being the "new frontier" of civil rights" have anything to do with arguments for zoophilia? And how does my opinion of that statement being irrelevant to the section "contradict the findings of Miletski and Beetz"? Did they even claim that "the fight against zoosexual discrimination has been described as being the "new frontier" of civil rights"? No, the zoophiles did.

"Sexual orientation describes attraction towards which sex/gender, not animals, children, shoes, etc.; not all sexual interests are considered sexual orientations." That is a fact. And when did those facts contradict any of the findings of Miletski and Beetz?

What are you trying to argue here? Someone963852 (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason why the "child, shoes etc." argument isn't valid is because (at least in this case) sexual fetishes are used to assert an aspect of something (for example, the age of an individual [i.e. pedophilia], or the feet of an individual [i.e. foot fetish]). However, zoophilia does not rely on any "aspect" of anything -- it simply is (which is why Milektski, Beetz, Masters and Weinberg concluded that zoophilia may in fact not be in the "fetish" category). As such, it is debated as to whether it is a sexual orientation. You are correct in asserting that it is not officially a sexual orientation, but the fact that researchers have discussed the matter should be mentioned.

Also, I should have clarified when I said the above statements contradicted Miletski and Beetz -- I meant to also include the author of the "Broward Palm Beach" article (which is where the "civil rights" sentence came from). In the case of that sentence, proper citation would be attributed to the author of that article. The sentence is relevant to the "arguments for zoophilia" section because it represents a shift in societal thinking patterns, a set of patterns which stand in contrast to the arguments against zoophilia.

In addition, some of the information added about zoosexuality was added by User:MsBatfish in addition to myself. Plateau99 (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

That last statement is irrelevant, since the materials I removed were added directly by you.

Also, only zoophiles claim that "zoosexuality" is a legitimate sexual orientation. Other than that, there has been little to no debate on the issue. Unless the topic is currently being debated and discussed by notable, respectable researchers or research institutions/ organizations (such as the American Psychological Association (APA) for example), and not by few people (Miletski and Beetz) and zoophiles, it does not belong in the article. Read Wikipedia:FRINGE WP:UNDUE Someone963852 (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the revision MsBatfish added (which you reverted):

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Zoophilia&action=historysubmit&diff=463811416&oldid=463438877

The findings of researchers such as Miletski do not count as "Fringe", and mentioning their findings regarding zoosexuality is definitely not "undue weight". Also, "Fringe" has more to due with pseudoscience, and the claims made by the research were done with the scientific method and are not outlandish. Your claim that there is "Fringe" involved is invalid primarily for this reason: it is not just Milektski who is discussing the issue, but there are multiple people discussing it. -- Plateau99 (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Besides Miletski and the zoophile community (obviously), who else is discussing the topic and whether "zoosexuality" should be recognize as a sexual orientation?

Also, I didn't "revert" the edit, I simply removed sexual orientation. There is a difference.

Someone963852 (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"undue weight" is not valid because the researchers are prominent and have all drawn similar conclusions. In addition, Cutteridge, Taylor & Francis, JC Adams, Weinberg, Michael Roberts and Masters are other people (in addition to Miletski) who agree (at least to some extent) on this issue. Because so many people agree about it (to some extent), it is not "Fringe", and because it is mentioned (and those mentioned are prominent), it is not "undue weight". The notion that such information is "Fringe" and "undue weight" is an unjustified opinion. -- Plateau99 (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, those views are held by an extremely small minority from the same field and the "so many people agree about it" are the zoophiles, which do not make those views any more legitimate.

Given your past history of adding original research by using random sources as cover-ups and the hesitation to your statement ("who agree (at least to some extent)") I doubt those people actually did discuss the topic in great detail to make it credible enough to belong in the article.

Unless reliable sources with discussion and information from valid, notable researchers/organizations are provided, it does not belong in the article to avoid undue weight.

Relevant past discussion on the Sexual Orientation article.

Someone963852 (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it does not belong in the sexual orientation article and that that would be giving it undue weight. But I do think it can and should be mentioned in the zoophilia article, it just has to be clear who thinks that and not give it a disproportionate amount of space in the article. We can't say, "zoophilia is a sexual orientation". -MsBatfish (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• While I don't agree with all of Plateau99's edits to the article, in fact I have reverted or altered some of them myself, I do feel that it is important to mention that zoophiles, zoophile support groups, and some researchers describe it as a sexual orientation.

I added the following statement to the article:

The term "zoosexuality" is often used by zoophile forums and support groups, which define it as a sexual orientation, which manifests as a person being romantically and/or sexually attracted to animals.

which was altered by Someone963852 to remove which define it as a sexual orientation.

I do not see what is wrong with mentioning the feelings of a lot of zoophiles in an article about zoophiles and I do not believe that it gives the statement undue weight. It is clearly attributed and its coverage is proportional to more mainstream views on the subject (meaning the latter are given much more space and weight in the article). I had hoped that my edit would help put a stop to this ongoing edit war between you two.

My thoughts for Plateau99 are that perhaps people would take you more seriously and not be so quick to revert your edits if you didn't make such frequent and sweeping changes to the article, and that all tend to put zoophilia in a more positive light than is currently accepted by the majority of the non-zoophile public. When you repeatedly make edits that misrepresent the source material or are WP:original research or WP:SYNTH, it becomes easy for people to assume any edit you make does that and see a red flag every time they see your username in the edit history.

It may not be good practice for editors to do that - as we should deal with the message (whether it belongs in the article) and not the messenger (whether we like them or their editing methods or agree with their presumed beliefs) - but it happens nonetheless. I would suggest you (Plateau99) try making smaller edits at a time that strictly comply with Wikipedia policy/guidelines and/or bringing up proposed edits here on the talk page first.

I have to stress to everyone involved here to remember that it doesn't matter what our individual personal beliefs or opinions are on the subject and to stick to discussing relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and that goes for edit summaries too.

My thoughts for Someone963852 would be that when you don't agree with an edit it is much more helpful to try whenever possible to alter the content as opposed to just reverting, which I see you have done in some cases. And to try to make sure you are not just reverting because of past experiences with another editor or because you think they might have an "agenda". And please try to have clearer edit summaries. You could also bring up suspect edits here on the talk page first, especially when they are not clear complete violations, in order to get input from others about if and how they might be changed in order to avoid complete removal.

Thanks. MsBatfish (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

And the article is full protected again. If you can flesh something out via this discussion then I will unlock the article --Guerillero | My Talk 02:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if I over-stepped my editing too much; for some of the things I added, I can understand how such additions could be interpreted as WP:OR. However, there are also edits I've made which are clearly not WP:OR and not WP:DUE (such as the mention of zoosexuality). I cannot re-add the zoosexuality info for the next 24 hours because if I did I would be breaking WP:3RR (and due to the article's protection). -- Plateau99 (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You can not edit the page. It is locked so only admins can edit the page --Guerillero | My Talk 02:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• I asked Guerillero to look over this matter as it appears that nothing has changed (regarding this edit war) since the last time he edit-protected the article. His decision was to protect the article again. Hopefully Plateau99 and Someone963852 can come to an agreement or compromise here on the talk page so that Guerillero has a bit of confidence that if he un-protects the article the edit war will not just start back up again. Plateau99, you can still have an edit war even if you have not broken the 3 Revert Rule. An edit war is when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Any edit warring behavior can lead to sanctions regarding the article and/or the editors involved. So, do either of you have any ideas on how we can avoid this happening in the future? And what do you think about the suggestions I made above? MsBatfish (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Oy vey! User:Someone963852 just removed a sexual orientation mentions I'd made, and I came here to say "I respectfully disagree, but clearly have some work to do", only to find it's the top "issue" here on the talk page!

Uhm, yes. I clearly do have some work to do! Thank you.

And happy editing. This will take me some time to unravel, for sure.  :^) :^)

Cheers, ༺།།ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ།།འཚེར།།xeltifon།།སར་ཝ་མང་ག་ལམ།།༻  ^{{say it}  {contribs} { ζ }} 19:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Xeltifon. Someone963852 is simply going by our rules on this. There won't be enough work that you can do to make it acceptable to mention in the lead that zoophilia is a sexual orientation. It has been made extensively clear on this talk page and elsewhere that it is a fringe assertion to call it a sexual orientation, per WP:FRINGE. The Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard would also make this clear if this matter were taken there. Zoophilia either shouldn't be called a sexual orientation in this article at all or can only be called one with WP:DUE WEIGHT; it is already mentioned with due weight lower in this article. You saw where it is mentioned lower, as you added it in; however, such a sexual orientation mention was included lower in the article before at some point (different points in time).

And with regard to what you stated in this edit summary about the lead, that is not exactly what WP:LEAD says. Citations may or may not be allowed in the lead, but are usually advised to be in the lead for controversial topics. Zoophilia is clearly a controversial topic.

And regarding bolding the terms, alternative names should be bolded in the lead. Sometimes, they are also bolded lower in the article at first mention. See WP:BOLDTITLE. I would object to your removal of the alternative names from the lead, per WP:Alternative titles, but, also per WP:Alternative titles, "If there are at least three alternative names, or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended." And, as you know, there is a section in this article to discuss these terms. Still, it is sometimes best to mention the alternative titles in the lead as well, especially if one or more of them is/are very well known as an alternative title.

And going back to this edit, forums are not WP:Reliable sources. Flyer22 (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Just want to say thank you, Flyer22, for the considerable time and effort you clearly put into your response. I've got more work to do now just following the links you've very helpfully provided. Maybe I'll wind up disagreeing with you later on about something fairly substantive, but for whatever it may be worth, here (more-or-less) at the outset, I really don't intend to go and do something like that completely recklessly 'til I've at least begun to go through things around here a lot more systematically. If that means changing commas to semicolons for the time being, then so be it. I can but hope the situation here does not degenerate to the level which has earned Mexican-American War its downright shameful place on the roster of WP:LAME.

Working on far less controversial (and less highly-trafficked) articles has helped me to hone my skills considerably; but where working collaboratively is concerned, well -- let's just say I'm very new to that, although I do look forward to contributing more here in time and certainly meant no offense by my now-several-months delayed revisit to this page. I'm only sorry I haven't had the time since my little one-night editing spree back here in January (which I really only started, if memory serves, entirely haphazardly) to follow up on this particular article with anything even remotely approaching the care and attention which I personally believe the subject matter deserves. On the most superficial level imaginable -- specifically regarding lead sections' stylistic concerns -- please rest assured it wasn't my intent to wreak havoc on anyone's citations, since they are (dare I say it?) the very heart and soul of the core principles around here as I only very imperfectly yet understand them.

I know that Zoophilia's a very controversial topic. It is, in fact, impossible for me not to take personally insofar as even skimming some of the edit war related comments here physically pain me sometimes to the point of near debilitation for some days on end. Maybe I will object to some of your objections later on, once I am better versed in your particular concerns, but for the time being (at least) I see no terribly compelling reason why I should not defer to your considered judgment. One of these days I may even get back around to editing something here on the article itself. In the meantime, though, let me once again repeat my opening statement: thank you.

Very sincerely, ༺།།ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ།།འཚེར།།xeltifon།།སར་ཝ་མང་ག་ལམ།།༻  ^{{say it} { ζ(3) } {did it}} 13:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. And your delayed response is what I would call a "few months late" instead of "several months late," but others would call such distinguishing "semantics." As for my objections to some of your edits, as shown above, I objected to things that contrast Wikipedia guidelines or policies. So objecting to those objections of mine would be objecting to Wikipedia guidelines or policies. Anyway, I appreciate you taking the time to come back here and explain your line of thinking. And, again, you're welcome. Flyer22 (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Brian Cutteridge

Those of you citing Brian Cutteridge's pro-zoophilia paper might be interested to know that Cutteridge has been arrested for animal cruelty pertaining to zoophilia. A veterinarian alerted authorities because Cutteridge's animals were in poor condition; one of them had a genital infection and vaginal bruising. A vet commenting on acts of zoophilia cited detached retinas and urinary tract infections as two other outcomes of those acts. The Cutteridge case has gone to trial: http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20120225/bc_vancouver_man_bestiality_charge_120225/20120226/?hub=BritishColumbiaHome

Forgive me if I've got this wrong, but didn't Mr. Cutteridge manage to obtain a precedent-setting plea bargain grounded at least in part on his prosecutor's admission, in court, that in fact he'd caused no harm to any of his animals?

If so, might not the above unsigned comment not in fact constitute a violation of WP:BLP?

Just a thought.  :^) :^)

Cheers, ༺།།ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ།།འཚེར།།xeltifon།།སར་ཝ་མང་ག་ལམ།།༻  ^{{say it} { ζ(3) } {did it}} 12:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again.

User Plateau99 is again adding materials that fit his pro-zoophilia POV by covering it up with sources that do not even support or mention the claims.

1. No where does the cited article mention zoophilia being discussed as a sexual orientation. He block-quoted:

"Having been unable to locate clues suggesting some other motive, Miletski concluded the single explanation for the behavior was the conscious one that zoophiles offered: It was an orientation they were born with."

The quote does not even fit or is relevant with the previous claim that it is being discussed. He's again twisting the quotes so it fits his POV.

2. No where in the article does it mention Miletski being critical of zoophilia being compared to pedophilia. (Only in the comments, which is an unreliable opinion, and maybe Plateau99 himself.) He block-quoted Miletski, but again, that quote does not even fit or is relevant with the claim that "Hani Miletski has been critical of allegations that zoophilia is similar to pedophilia." Now he changes it to "abuse." Hmm. Seems to me that he knows he's adding non-neutral POV pro-zoophilia content with incorrect sources. The claim, even when changed to abuse, is still not mentioned anywhere in the source.

It is not like I removed all of the content that he has added, I did not. Only the ones that do not match the Wikipedia guidelines. Too bad he thinks any removal of his additions to the article is an attack on zoophilia, and consequently reverts the changes without any explanation. Someone963852 (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about, the quotes definitely came from the cited sources. Maybe I should screencapture the article to prove that is where it came from, but it would be much simpler to just read the article.

You shouldn't be making personal attacks claiming that I'm inserting "POV"; this is an article about zoophilia and as such the quotes cited are entirely relevant.Plateau99 (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Stop trying to act all naive. Of course the quotes were in the article, but they had nothing to do with the claims (your opinions) that were placed before it. Someone963852 (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

They're not my "opinions", they are sentences created based on the self-evident information in the quotes. For example, because Miletski says that the claim that zoophilia is a "threat to children" is unjust, it is not unreasonable to then write a sentence which reflects Miletski's view. This happens on Wikipedia all the time. I changed the wording "abuse" because you were not satisfied with the original sentence, so I don't know what kind of sentence will satisfy you.Plateau99 (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)22:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Do not insert your personal opinions and use random quotes in the article (any with one word that matches what is in your opinion) to falsely back it up.

Tell me how that first quote from Miletski has anything to do with "zoophilia currently being discussed as a sexual orientation"?

or how her second quote has anything to do with her being "critical of the comparison between zoophilia and pedophilia"? Someone963852 (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The first quote emphasizes the possibility that zoophilia is a sexual orientation. Although it is obviously not a fully recognized orientation as of 2012, the fact that people like Miletski have discussed it should be mentioned in the section on zoosexuality. It is obvious from the second quote that Miletski disapproves of the association being made between zoophilia and pedophilia; although she doesn't specifically use the word "pedophilia", the fact that she says the notion that zoophilies are a "threat to children" is unjust evidence which supports the original premise, that Miletski disapproves of the association being made.

Perhaps those two quotes should be removed and each replaced with only a single sentence each, but I feel that the quotes add depth (and evidence) which would be lacking without quotes. Plateau99 (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You may need to take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research.

Quote 1:

"Having been unable to locate clues suggesting some other motive, Miletski concluded the single explanation for the behavior was the conscious one that zoophiles offered: It was an orientation they were born with."

How does that harmless last sentence all of a sudden became "good" source material for "There has also been discussion about whether zoosexuality counts as a sexual orientation"? Nothing from the quote implicates that zoophilia is being discussed as a sexual orientation. You're coming up with ways to twist their words now, aren't you.

Quote 2:

"When told of Senator Rich's remarks about people who commit bestiality being a threat to children, Miletski says, 'I think it's real bullshit for people to say that. There's no connection that we know of. If you said that to zoophiles, they would be so offended.' That's because Miletski says nearly all the zoophiles she interviewed expressed moral revulsion for sex with animals that had not fully matured."

How does that all of sudden became the source for: "Hani Miletski has been critical of allegations that zoophilia is similar to pedophilia"?

You don't know for sure that Miletski is hinting at pedophilia. That's your wishful thinking because you don't want zoophilia being compared to pedophilia. The only thing mentioned in the quote was a threat to children, not abuse, not pedophilia. Do not try to come up with your own conclusions using quotes that do not even support them.

Again, take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

Someone963852 (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not "original research", and you are once again making accusations against me which are false. If you can think of better sentences to reflect the quotes, go for it and write sentences which you think are more appropriate. However, I feel that the sentences added were entirely appropriate for reasons I already discussed. I am not inventing these things out of thin air, they are entirely verifiable in the sources I provided. Plateau99 (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, I was talking about the claims you added, not the verifiability of the quotes. The quotes do not even mean anything without proper context/ and are unnecessary to the article as a whole, so there's no need to "think of better sentences to reflect the quotes" if you can't even think of one that fits it, yourself. Someone963852 (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I have thought of sentences which reflect the quotes, but you haven't, perhaps because you don't want the quotes in there at all. You've accused me of POV, but isn't what you're doing POV? The best non-POV solution would be to create sentences in reference to the quotes which are reasonable. I believe that the sentences I wrote (the ones preceding the quotes) are reasonable, but if you feel they need to be modified, then go for it.Plateau99 (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is it my job to come up with a better premise for those quotes, when I don't think the quotes belong in the article at all? First quote, Miletski said zoophiles did not choose to be the way they are and harmlessly used the word "orientation." and why does this belong in the article? Her second quote is just a reply to one senator's comment. And why does this need to be in the article? Should we add everything that Miletski says and who she replies to in the article?

Just because you see something mentioning zoophilia does not mean it should automatically belong in the article. Someone963852 (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It is only your "job" to rewrite the sentences because you're the one who isn't satisfied with them. I'm tired of you using the terms "false claims" and "original research". As I've said before, because the quotes are verifiable, that automatically nullifies your "original research" argument. And as for the term "false claims", I still don't know what you mean because the "claims" I am supposedly making aren't false (and they aren't my "opinion"), they are summaries of the quotes.Plateau99 (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is it my job to come up with a better premise for those quotes, when I don't think the quotes belong in the article in the first place?

First quote, Miletski replied to someone and said zoophiles did not choose to be the way they are and harmlessly used the word "orientation." And why does this belong in the article? Right because you want something about zoophilia being a sexual orientation in the article. The quote used the word orientation, even though it is in the wrong context? Who cares, it seemed like good citation doesn't it? No one would notice?

Her second quote is just a reply to one senator's comment. And why does this need to be in the article? Wait, because you don't want zoophilia being compared to pedophilia. I guess you should just use this quote as a citation, even though it does not support the abuse/ pedophilia claim at all.

Should we add everything that Miletski says and who she replies to in the article?

Just because you see something mentioning zoophilia does not mean it should automatically belong in the article.

And stop coming up with your own conclusions and OR, and use quotes from articles (that do not even support your claims) to cite it. Someone963852 (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone963852 (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I said numerous times that the quotes were verifiable (did you even read?), and you keep using that "argument" over and over again because you don't have any other arguments. Keep reverting without a good explanation on the talk page. I am honestly sick of repeating myself. Someone963852 (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The way you make it sound, these quotes were just randomly chosen out of a hat. This is not the case. The first quote represents the idea that zoophilia may be a sexual orientation, nothing more. The second quote reflects the idea the zoophilia is not similar to pedophilia. There is nothing wrong with these quotes.Plateau99 (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The first quote represents the idea that zoophilia may be a sexual orientation. No it doesn't. The second quote reflects the idea the zoophilia is not similar to pedophilia. Not it doesn't. Simple enough for you? That's why I'm removing it. Someone963852 (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Your assumptions are incorrect. That is why I'm adding them back.Plateau99 (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The first quote represents the idea that zoophilia may be a sexual orientation. No it doesn't. The second quote reflects the idea the zoophilia is not similar to pedophilia. Not it doesn't. Why doesn't it? Read all that I wrote above. Is that simple enough, because I honestly don't think I should waste my time typing all of this out when you can't comprehend and just repeat yourself.

And your assumptions are incorrect. That's why I'm removing it. Someone963852 (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you keep reverting my edits is proof that your are unwilling to compromise. Remember, you're the one who started this edit war, and you have made no attempt to compromise at all. You're idea of "compromise" is to simply erase what others have done.Plateau99 (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

And what have you done? Besides adding false claims, OR, and quotes that do not even back those claims up, that is. Why don't you try and compromise by removing them for being unnecessary and trivial? or try coming up with a better premise since it's your idea in the first place to add it in? It's not my job to make it sound better when I don't even think it should be in the article in the first place. Someone963852 (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

"When such laws are proposed, they are never questioned or debated" -- more biased rubbish.Stealstrash (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Treatment of Unverified and Fake content (or Biased content)

In the "Religious Perspectives", some content is included which is not verified as the links given are fake/ don't support the content.

1. "In the Hindu tradition, having sex with a sacred cow is believed to bring good fortune."

For the above line, the reference given is "http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5037624458" which opens up citing a book on beastiality. However, this book neither opens and upon further research I found that this book doesn't even exist. Moreover, for the kind of claims made in above sentence, specific references should be given instead of links to fictitious books.

2. "In the Dharmaśāstra tradition, the Hindu Visnu Smrti says that having sex with an animal is not wrong if certain conditions are met"

For the above line, the reference given is "http://eforum6.cari.com.my/mobile/index.php?tid-324993.html" which seems like an odd and less known website. Its something more like a forum and seems to be a fake reference. And upon doing further research on Visnu Smrti, there is no such point to justify beastiality. Such ancient texts often are subject to biased translations in other languages so much so that their meaning gets altered. So also, this line should be removed.

3. "And in the Manusmrti, mating between humans and animals is permitted"

For the above line, reference given is "http://books.google.com/books?id=bk-rDk_OyvwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=religion+and+the+body+by+sarah+coakley&source=bl&ots=cqFbBehfjH&sig=oMdrJx5VpnV-usg67mcEpxNM5jY&hl=en&ei=mQmkTbb4IYm0sAOm8IX6DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false". The link leads to a book. Upon further detailed perusal of the book, I found the book to not be related to Zoophilia at all. And also biased. And most importantly, the book neither mentions that the above verse permits mating between humans and animals. Also from reading of the verse, one can make out that it does not support mating between humans and animals. It's merely a case of faulty and wrong interpretation.

With due respect and for sake of maintaining authenticity and neutrality, I recommend to remove the above lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.15.90 (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Just thought I'd point out that this source explicitly says the following in the "South and East Asia and Oceania" section:

"According to the Hindu tradition of erotic painting and sculpture, a human copulating with an animal is actually a human having intercourse with a God incarnated in the form of an animal. Copulation with a sacred cow or monkey is believed to bring good fortune."

I decided to see if it was real or not, and indeed, it is real. Since I realise that people might question it, it might be worth putting in the quote above rather then a sentence.MarkB40n (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Books like these are written by foreign authors and probable pro-zoophiles. The book talks about Zoophilia as if it is common and evident throughout civilization. Apart from being written by western authors, it interprets people around the whole world from country to country. After all, how reliable can such interpretations be. It gives references to other authors' books. Verifying the authenticity of such books is a very impossible task. For sake of genuine referencing, such claims in the books cannot be taken literally. Moreover, western authors cannot be said to interpret non-western cultures. There may be bias, there may be misinterpretation.

More importantly, religion is a very specific concept and cannot be interpreted broadly and freely. It has to be interpreted specifically. For example, if someone wants to mention an aspect about a particular religion, he has to quote the specific line from the most genuine religious scriptures. It has to be for sake of maintaining authenticity and genuineness. Please don't pay heed to foreign author's interpretations on alien cultures and civilizations. 114.143.15.90 (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the book Beastiality by Joseph Rosenberger, which is often referenced in other books, and is used in the Wikipedia article, it is OCLC 500032104. I would like more info about the author, as the publisher of the book (Medco Books) doesnt appear to be an academic publisher.[1] Also, the work by Andrea Beetz is a thesis; therefore it is not published. It shouldnt be used for non-controversial assertions. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the book, Religión and the Body by Sarah Coakley, the author isnt a pro-zoophile ;-) However it is likely that pro-zoophile people have noticed the passage doesnt explicitly reject their worldview, so they use it to support their worldview.

The passage in question primarily discusses the questions that arise regarding monogamy and ethics and offspring, and only very briefly mentions that sex between different species has no offspring, and only in-passing indicates that sex between humans and animals has happened in the past. It does not give any indication of how frequently, and it does not say that it is "permitted". Also the passage of the Manusmrti appears to be saying that offspring have occurred with mating between human and animals, which puts the passage in the realms of legend rather than science. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Locked, can't make minor corrections

I'm pretty sure a better caption can be constructed than "A drawing from the 15th century sexual book in Iran, depicting the dog humping the woman" but I'm more than halfway through reading an article about dogs humping women, so what do I know. 24.118.120.223 (talk) 04:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

lol. i agree. hopefully the caption i came up with to replace that one'll survive the round of edits currently underway, but we'll see. i've had my fun editing here for a bit; time for me to step back and let others make whatever they will of it. disagreements notwithstanding, i really do assume good faith, and trust that at least a few real improvements i've made will be let stand here on their own. i'll get back around here later on. after all, there's no deadline here, and there are plenty of other less controversial articles for me to play around with editing until then.

cheers, ༺།།ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ།།འཚེར།།xeltifon།།སར་ཝ་མང་ག་ལམ།།༻  ^{{say it}  {contribs} { ζ }} 20:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Donkey Sex in Colombia

Not at all an expert or even remotely knowledgeable on this topic, but I just stumbled onto this hilarious/disturbing documentary and think it's pretty interesting as a cultural phenomenon. Seeing as I didn't find any mention of this or similar things in the article, I'll just leave here if anyone wants to incorporate it (specifically in the historical and cultural perspectives section and article, which make no mention of modern cultures). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonfaridere (talk • contribs) 20:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

YouTube generally does not count as a WP:Reliable source (though there are a few exceptions, such as using a clip from a news channel's official YouTube page to report what they are reporting, or using YouTube to source some aspects of a Wikipedia article about an Internet/YouTube celebrity; Chris Crocker, for example).

Also, remember to sign your user name when you comment. To sign your user name, all you have to do is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. As you can see above, a bot signed your user name in that instance. Flyer22 (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but that's not just any YouTube video, it's an journalistic piece by Vice magazine. I wouldn't really know how to assess the extent to which they are "well-established" as a source of information, but their documentaries tend to be well made and this one seems to be believable. They interview many people from the area who say donkey sex is a common practice in that area of Colombia, many more who admit to having taken part in it, and one man who has sex with a donkey on camera. That said, every single one of them could be a paid actor. I guess we'll have to wait for National Geographic to do a piece on this, lol.

Also, don't know why I didn't sign before, I must've forgotten about it. Nonfaridere (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

We have the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard to help assess how reliable, if reliable at all, a source is for whatever information. Flyer22 (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Images

I want to suggest the removal of the first graphic picture on this page because it is not work-safe and needs to have a warning to it. I think wikipedia is a platform to share knowledge with. There is a difference between knowing what is "zoophilia" and being exposed to graphic portrayals of it in pictures. Although those displayed on this page are considered as forms of "art" by some people, it does not justify it's display on this page because it does not explain the concept any better. I went to this page to seek information about the topic, not to be traumatized by these unwarranted graphic images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Wintermelon (talk • contribs) 06:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTCENSORED and related pages. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: You're concerned that people might be looking up "zoophilia" at work and are traumatized by the photo? - SummerPhD (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"Pig Sty"

This was the English title of an Italian(?) film about the sexual obsession of a male character with pigs. There seems to be no entry for the film that I can find, only an unrelated TV series. It was not a pornographic film and contained no explicit scenes (probably disappointing a proportion of its audience). It is as worthy of inclusion in the article as other references. 121.99.84.227 (talk) 04:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)