Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 6

Request for mediation

A request for mediation was filed yesterday by FT2. I hope this will lead somewhere; if it doesn't, either FT2 or I will file a request for arbitration. -- Schnee 00:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please get involved in the mediation process

I'd like to ask everyone who's involved in this discussion (in particular, User:Ciz) to check out the filed request for mediation on WP:RFM, read User:Sannse's comment and get involved in the mediation process. -- Schnee 15:52, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"may require setting aside preconceptions and media impressions"

"It may require setting aside preconceptions and media impressions"? What are you trying to say?

See below, the popular concept of Zoophilia is highly inaccurate. FT2 14:09, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

And for the whole 'is zoophilia a nonpov term' debate; just read Finalgamer's response to prove my point on how 'neutral' the term really is. --Ciz 02:10, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ciz, I think it's been made fairly clear by several members that Wikipedia articles must carry a neutral point of view, and this means that all views on a subject must be addressed. While I understand your dislike of the matter, it is your own opinion, Wikipedia is trying to be a definitive place for knowledge, not personal opinions. Stating that the name is biased, the article is biased, et al is biased, using other people's opinions or interests as foundations of arguments, etc. is not productive and looping this conversation. Are there any other grounds that are reasonable and well thought-out for your arguments? Xanadu 07:23, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Paraphilia" and "Zoophilia", definitions

Oroborus (150.101.115.68) says: "... zoophilia clinically is defined as a paraphilia which just means a person needs to use animals for their own sexual arousal and gratification, still without consideration for the animal..."

I have to call you on that one, that's one made-up definition too many. "Paraphilia" does not mean what you state at all. The definition of paraphilia in DSM (the formal clinicians diagnostic manual) is "the presence of repeated and intense sexually arousing fantasy, sexual urge or behavior that generally involve [any of]: 1) nonhuman objects... 2) ..."

The following warnings are given against improper assumptions:

• "Paraphilias are ... sexual fantasies, urges and behaviors that are considered deviant with respect to cultural norms..."
• "Although several of these disorders can be associated with aggression or harm, others are neither inherently violent nor aggressive"
• "The boundary for social as well as sexual deviance is largely determined by cultural and historical context. As such, sexual disorders once considered paraphilias (e.g., homosexuality) are now regarded as variants of normal sexuality; so too, sexual behaviors currently considered normal (e.g., masturbation) were once culturally proscribed"

As many people have explained elsewhere, Zoophilia covers a far wider range than "tab A into slot B", in any dictionary, clinical, sociological or psychological sense, and that is what this article is about. This is very clear in the various studies on the subject - formal research studies referenced in prior discussion using the term "Zoophilia" are far more focussed on these aspects than on the sexual one (which is not seen psychologically on its own as a major issue). Ciz for example has been told repeatedly by several people to read the prior discussion.

For example, "Institute for Psychological Therapies" volume 5 no.2 has an article which discusses certain paraphilias. Under Zoophilia it says:

• "Zoophilia, which is reputed to be a traditional activity among farm boys, also provides for sexual release when other outlets are not available. It may also be attractive to those who may have fears and inhibitions regarding overtures to females who are more unpredictable than animals regarding their sexual receptivity."

Not surprising. I'd make a comment about the intelligence of the good ol' godfearin' citizens of the South, but I'll just keep my thoughts to myselves. --Ciz 03:03, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• "Contrary to popular opinion, zoophilics do not generally have sexual intercourse with animals; rather, their main source of gratification comes from hugging, cuddling, and talking — in a manner similar to a child with a pet."

FT2 14:09, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Thankyou for that response FT2 and I wholeheartedly concede that I used a narrow scope of meaning when referring to Zoophilia in a sexual context. It seems the term is evolving to include much more than the direct substitution of affection and emotional bonding to humans too. I welcome research efforts that proved my "improper assumption" of it as an outdated term was wrong. I look forward to more of it in the form of scientific studies into oxytocin and neurochemical systems involved in the bonding process common to all mammals, and hope that others here that seem stuck on their own assumptions also manage to see fit to acknowledge that the "interesting comparison" with other philias is pointless irrelevance serving no informational purpose and does not belong in a neutral article. -- Oruborus

I'd like to know where they got that information, and how they got it.Most zoophile sites state the opposite, including the ones linked on the zoophilia entry.Even the finalgamer poster admits it.--Ciz 22:56, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And that, with respect, is why you have got it wrong all the way, Ciz. You first assumed zoophilia means abusive sex, instead of researching it: in fact you assumed it was a word "bestialists used to make it sound nice". Then you ignore the many people who have contributed their research and thoughts. You ignore the dictionary, the psychiatric profession, then the reference books. Your preferred sources were web pages which have so much rubbish on them that you can always find a quote to support whatever you want to believe, instead of clinical research, and then finally you ask "I'd like to know where they got that information, most zoophile sites state the opposite."

Life would be so much easier if you understood the concept that your assumptions about zoophilia have led you to look at amateurish POV sites as your bible. I assume by zoophile sites you mean "sites you looked for on the web". Really. You led yourself up the garden path royally, didn't you?

Well, welcome to Wiki. This is not a porn site. This is where quality, sourced information comes first. This is exactly the kind of information you were told to read and digest first from previous discussion, before diving in.

Maybe you'd like to ask the Institute for Psychological Therapies that question, and see if they've got it wrong too. If they don't agree, quote your standard references of zoophilia.net and FinalGamer at them. FT2 01:04, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)