Talk:Zoophilia

Zoophilia and Bestiality Definitions and Image Relevance

There seems to be two problems with this article in it's current form, although the latter is dependent on the former.

First, the terms used. As mentioned in the article's own terms section, there has been, more frequently as of lately, a line drawn between zoophilia and bestiality. The former is generally defined as a paraphilia or orientation towards animals, whereas the latter is defined as either simply the act, with no regard to the emotion present, or, on occasion, the act when there is specifically no emotion present. Generally it is the former.

However, the article itself ignores it's own term section and tends to regard the terms as interchangeable, where, those familiar with the terms (as those who are unfamiliar with the terms should be discounted: Misuse of a term does not change it's definition) do draw such a distinction between the two phenomona.

As such, without the distinction being drawn properly, I believe the terms are not properly communicating information in the article. I propose an edit to the article that makes a distinction between the two terms. When speaking of the act itself, the term bestiality would be used. when speaking of the orientation or paraphilia, the term Zoophilia would be used.

Second, with the difference in terms in mind, I believe many of the images are out of place on an article about zoophilia, since they depict what would generally be accepted as nothing more than bestiality, rather than the orientation or paraphilia behind the act.

(Also, please forgive any errors I might have made here. It's my first time doing this) XCTI (talk) 08:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• perhaps another way of saying it is that we should make the distinction between zoophilia and zoosexulaity(or zooerotica)-DJLO (talk) 07:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly. The difference between zoophilia and zoosexuality are not all that large. They both describe the orientation (although with different connotations to them). However, bestiality is a separate, albeit very closely related phenomona. XCTI (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Zoophilia, zoosexuality and bestiality have all been referred to as the 'sexual conduct', sometimes just the 'sexual attraction'. The terminology is ambigious since meaning tends to vary from person to person, due to it's 'underground' and etymological constraints. I've noted the zoophile community now treats 'zoophilia'/'zoo love' as the 'romantic love' amongst zoosexuals, 'zoosexuality' the sexual attraction/orientation, and 'zoo sex' or 'bestiality' as the sexual activity. FireWolf Flux (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

An important distinction between zoophilia and bestiality at this point is that zoophilia can be adopted as an identity (i.e., zoophile) whereas bestiality generally is yet without bestialists. This distinction is confirmed explicitly in http://www.furcenter.org/pubs/SF_2008.pdf, p. 26. Whether or not one wants to incorporate a specialized sense of zoophilia/zoophile in this sense or not, the distinction from bestiality is not simply one of an activity or sexual activity one does. Talastra (talk) 05:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Question

A television program (can't remember which) mentioned zoophilia as referring to people sexually attracted to people pretending to be animals (wearing dog collars, acting like a dog, etc), as distinct from bestiality. Is there such a distinction in the definition? Or what is the correct alternative term?--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

That television program was wrong. What you're describing sounds like animal roleplay, which is pretty much unrelated (and definitely not covered by the term "zoophilia"). Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks. It was something like Jerry Springer (not specifically, but one of those kind of shows), so it doesn't surprise me that it wasn't at the forefront of technical accuracy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Animal roleplay is also known as 'bestiality' in its archaic definition, "the stupid brutal quality of a beast", as applied to a human (as opposed to anthropomorphism applied to an animal, thus giving it human qualities). 'Bestiality' has been used to refer to 'sexual activity with animals', this terminology is perhaps wearing off a little with people naming it 'zoophilia', instead, since 'zoophilia' sounds less pejorative, in the sense that the animal isn't derogatively classed as a beast. The fetish of animal roleplay may also be considered reverse anthropomorphism, something notable in furry yiff role-players whom also do this (by fursuiting or by the use of online interactive virtual reality or MUCKs (i.e. like those in Second Life). The interest in yiff, sexual human-animal roleplay and bestiality, etc, may be collectively caused by mixed fetishes and/or paraphilias towards animal traits or simple lifestyle incorporation, although scientists are now debating over whether the sexual attraction to animal traits is a real sexuality or not, and if it is, on re-thinking sexuality altogether, as written in a recent article by the Scientific American. FireWolf Flux (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Cross-species sex reference irrelevant to Zoophilia

Under the heading "Criticisms of zoophilia or zoosexual relations" there appears the statement that cross-species sex sometimes occurs in nature, and it's supported by a citation (currently #81) identified as "Mating toads cross the species barrier". The source describes two "species" of toad mating with each other to produce offspring. Now I realize that the precise meaning of "species" can be debated, but if this article is about sexual activity, it's about that kind of activity between human beings and animals, i.e. creatures of different taxonomic families or groups who are incapable of reproduction with each other. By definition, that puts the subject beyond the taxonomic group of "species". The reference in question would only be relevant if, for example, it described toads who mated with fish. Of course it does not do that; it doesn't even go far enough to describe toads of genus Spea mating with toads of genus Bufonidae.
This article is concerned with activities between human beings and animals, i.e. between creatures of different taxonomic families or even groups, who are incapable of sexual reproduction with each other. Therefore, a mention of different species who are entirely able to mate and produce viable offspring fails to provide any support or enlightenment to the subject. It's not relevant. I've therefore removed the sentence entirely rather than try to hunt down an example that is more relevant to this article. JH49S (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Bestiality usually refers to the cross-species sexual interaction between a human and a non-human animal (as coined, archaically, a 'beast'). 'Zoo' also refers to a non-human animal, so thus a human sexually attracted to non-human animals is a 'zoosexual', however, since both non-human animal parties in a cross-species (without a human party) are already non-human, the term is contradictory. That would mean all non-human animals with cross and non-cross species orientation would be 'zoosexual' - this is perhaps the case, but the terms seem odd to apply. This article should link into the correct section of the 'Animal sexual behaviour' article on the subject of cross-species sexuality where humans are not involved. Shouldn't this content be moved from this article from that one? For Wikipedia encapsulation, shouldn't the article just link to the cross-species sexuality page(s)?

I believe that zoosexuality comes under cross-species sexuality (the difference being a human is explicitly described as being involved), not the other way around. FireWolf Flux (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Beastiality versus Bestiality

• Ok, so I know it is just a matter of spelling but calling it "bestiality" really irks me. I have heard people use this spelling in order to support the right of a person to have sex with an animal. I say it should be spelled as "beastiality" for at least one reason. For one, it has the term "beast" instead of "best" in it.
• The word's spelled bestiality regardless of what you or others think should be implied by the word. --Conti|✉ 13:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
• Because it is derived from Latin bestia = "beast". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It is also spelled beastiality, despite peoples complaints. It's just that it's also, but not as commonly in relation to MODERN beastiality, called "bestiality" because the practice has been around since it was first named in Latin. Ignore those attempting to get out of it, they probably still think calling someone a "bitch" means you insulted them as a female dog. 203.59.59.226 (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane

No, it's bestiality and not beastiality. My spellchecker already flags it up, and if that's not proof enough, just grab a dictionary and convince yourself. BabyNuke (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It has never, ever been called beastiality. And in fact, 'bestiality' has only been ever used as a derogative term, really. This is why the online zoophile community, subject to free speech, call it 'zoosexuality' or 'zoophilia', instead. FireWolf Flux (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Is bestiality from "bestial" not from "beast"
Alusky (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

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)