Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

NOTE: the material on this page was archived from Talk:Zoophilia in order to keep that page at a manageable size.


Comments for Dr Zen

Some of these are good questions. And if genuine, they deserve answers. I'll have a go, and see if anyone else can fill in the gaps, and reach a consensus. Sorry this may be a bit long, but thats how research is.... FT2 03:36, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

(1) Numbers: The number of zoophiles is unknown. So if you expect an academic research paper to categorically say how many there are, you will not find one. Much of it is "best estimates. That is what 2 - 8% means. It doesnt mean "8% of people are zoophiles". It means precisely what it says. Somewhere between 2% and 8% is a realistic guess, depending on area and definition. In other words, unlikely less than 1-2%, and unlikely to generally average over 8-10% of people. If you have information that indicates less than 1% of sexually active people have had a degree of zoophilic experience, then you should add the evidence you have. The sources for this are described - accurately - as vague. There are some other indications that the number is not small - none of the few surveys to attempt to measure zoophilia suggest under 2%, online zoo surveys, and Nancy Friday when collecting female fantasy with no focus on zoophilia and before the net found significant interest: the 180 fantasies she collected (and i would not imagine she selected for zoophilia) included 6 reports by people whose description states bluntly they either have had zoophilic activity, or are non-sexual zoophiles. The six are: "kate", "dawn", "felicia", "trudy" ("he co-operated quite nicely"), "Jocelyn" ("always concerned animals and nothing else"), and Esther. NF's book is not about zoophilia in any way, nor is there any evidence of any comment you made, nor have her conclusions or work been discredited in 30 years, and yet not only (a) more than 3-4% of contributors are zoophilic (depending on definition 6-12 women could be classified as such on their own description), but (b) thats just the ones who state it very strongly positively. As I said, there is no academic definitive answer. But the evidence is good that if there were, it would not be under 2% and (probably most places) not over 8%. Some surveys such as Kinsey report up to 50% in some areas, as noted in the article this is somewhat suspect though according to some commentators.

(2) Fantasies: Again, read the research. 10% (Nancy Friday). Massen (1994) also agreed they are "common". And the vast amount of online interest supports the view. (Check out how many hundreds of thousands visit online zoophile chat sites, websites and dating sites, even ignoring pure commercial pornographic sites). I think it's safe to say that nobody is seriously suggesting under 10% latent interest. You have to remember, not all zoophilia is sexual, nor is all zoophilic fantasy acted on. Thats probably why you are underestimating so badly. Or simply, lack of exposure and understanding.

Any internet community will have lots of visitors. Im sure if you searched 'boylove' you'd get a lot of hits too.
To suggest that there are more people who fantasize erotically about animals than there are gays is stupid. --Ciz 16:58, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(3) Animal partner: Im not sure what the issue here is. If two beings are having regular sex, and the human considers the other a "partner" (and you can verify many/most zoophiles appear to do so) then in wikipedia you use the term the people use. They often report in research that they feel the animal is a "partner" and in many cases equal to or more imporatnt than the human one. That is kinda part of the territory, even if for you its as "preposterous" as a guy seeing another guy as a "partner". Wikipedia does not advocate either side, but this is appropriate terminology when describing how they see it. The statement "The suggestion that an animal "partner" is on a par with a human "partner" is preposterous" is your viewpoint and judgement, not that of (for instance) zoophile commentators. Again, check Winberg, Mitelski, beetz, each of them refers to zoophiles treating their pets as "partners". So it is clearly only preposterous in your eyes, which is the definition of POV.

(4) The availability of research is addressed in the page, with a note that is quite descriptive and neutral. If you feel that there is a major paper on zoophilia itself, which contradicts there, please supply details. As for negatives within those papers, they have been addressed. The public views have been described, and more of them than any one member of the public usually thinks of. And if you feel anything is "slagged off" then please cite it, otherwise cease any personal attacks.

(5) Again, you clearly present yourself as having limited knowledge of the research. I visited Beetz to discuss her research with her, Ive read the thesis, and Ive seen the multiple psychological assessments which are used throughout professional practice to assess features such as psychopathy and violence. The research is good, and its been peer reviewed. if you feel this isn't the case then doubtless several people of professional standing will have strongly critiqued it and written a rebuttal. Please locate this for me, as I havent heard of one, or else accept the research is bona fide and accepted in the profession.

(5) Your next point is in fact a circular argument. You appear to be saying, "why not say all zoophiles are animal abusers since that is what anti-zoophiles are saying. Wikipedia is neutral as to the issue. Whatever you feel of professional credible research I am sure of 2 things: (1) the APA have downgraded it, which says something how they see it, (2) no animal rights group or anti zoophile organisation has done any research even attempting to come close or match it, much less professionally peer reviewed in any way. Therefore the primary source for neutral "best knowledge" comes from the profession. Again, you confuse zoophiles with sexual abusers. The profession, after many decades of study, says they are not the same groups. You have to accept that. Research on people convicted of violence, or bestiality, will not teach us much about for example, zoophiles who do not have sex, or who have sex but are not abusive (as the psychologists and sexologists see it). You and I and others may feel that "all sex with animals is abusive". But thats not the "best present knowledge or representation" of human science and inquiry.

Under the law, it is. And what if it is legalized? A guy can rape an animal, and if he goes to court he can say its consensual. How will the dog defend itself? --Ciz 15:08, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(6) Again you are forgetting, this is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia does not hold a specific point of view, other than neutral preseentation of what is known.

"Sexual interest (whether fantasy or reality) is highly controversial" - statement of fact. It is.
"...and for many people an emotive topic" - statement of fact, it is emotive for many people. Your interpretation of "emotive" is flawed. Emotive does not mean hysterical.
"...bound up with many deep social traditions." - statement of fact. Views on zoophilia are strongly bound up with religion and historical tradition. If you were in a culture where these differed, majority view would differ, as they have in other times and places where zoophilia was seen differently.
Most of the people against bestiality are animal rights organizations, not religion. The only time Churches mention bestiality nowadays is when they use the slippery slope argument for gay marriage.--Ciz 15:08, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(7) "Privately, as with many sexual matters, views vary more widely" - This seems perfectly reasonable to me. Do you have evidence it isnt so? The meaning is - that privately people are less universally against than the media and law might otherwise suggest. This is accurate. Again, check the research. (trivial example: You simply cant have the amount of interest there is on it, and simultaneously say that it is "universally hated")

Do you have evidence it is so? That people support zoophilia behind closed doors. True, people might do 'dirtier/kinkie' stuff without wanting others to know because that stuff is private. But most people don't support bestiality/zoo because a.they think its abusive (as most in the animal rights community do) b.they consider the animals to be 'lesser beings' (which isnt an insult; Im sure you could argue a child is lesser than an adult. it's just the 'abuse of power' that goes on) and it would be thus innapropiate --Ciz 17:08, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(8) Double standards: The referent is "society" being seen by zoophiles as having double standards. Given that we live in a society which simultaneously says animals must die for your food coloring and shampoo, and that I can have my dog killed at whim for no reason and nobody can stop me, and yet other people will unhesitatingly tell you how animals "feel" and "love", should have rights, and are not just objects, I think its safe to say that the expression "double standards" to describe how we as a society view animals is clinically accurate.

Umm... no, you cant get your dog killed 'for no whim or reason.' Abusing your pet in any way is illegal in most places. Where do you live?
Furthermore, there are MANY people who believe animals are beings who should have rights and who are capable of love. I'd say there are more that do than those that dont. That doesnt mean they support bestiality. I went to an animal rights message board populated by vegeterians and vegans.These are people who have pets and believe strongly in anmal rights Almost everyone thought bestiality was abusive. Someone was saying, "You should love your pets. Just dont love your pets. I think that suits sums it up. :D A relationship with a pet is more akin to a relationship with a child than anything else, as they need your care and support and protection and that they are pretty much vulnerable.
Saying that condemning bestiality puts you in a category where you view animals as objects and property is warped. --Ciz 15:08, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(9) so often people are unconvinced: this seems faily obvious. if you want to decouple them as two sentences and remove the "so" in between, thats fine by me if others agree.

(10) Animals cannot consent...you must assume they do - Im not sure if I understand you, thats accurate. At least, its no more inaccurate than when one "assumes" your dog wants a walk because its pawing at the door, or "assume" a dog feels at ease when its muscles visibly relax and it chooses to lie down next to you of its own free will. You have to "interpret" many things, wagging tails, crouching and head turned, tail tucked underneath, and there are hundreds of years of research into "interpreting" animal behaviour. I dont think you can pick one behaviour that every animal has in its repertoire and announce that it alone cannot be interpreted... when animal studies and human studies say is readily interpretable and interpreted... and when coincidentally that behaviour just happens to be THE classic one humans don't like to think about. People in animal studies have no trouble discussing animal sexuality. There are huge numbers of studies on interpreting animals body and other language, sexual and otherwise. See Ethology.

source contained comments: "Even my old Gerald Durrel books from the 60's had an explicit 3 line mention of an ape who liked her genitals stimulated by humans, and enjoyed it." and "And ... you did notice the article talks quite accurately that animals and humans differ significantly in seeing sex, I hope. Short answer - animal studies indicate animals are quite capable of soliciting and enjoying sexual attention, and do so at times from both humans or their own kind." Don't know where these came from. Zetawoof 09:48, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(I added them because that is what appears to be the information from animal research I was just looking up online. Then commented them out because I dont like the POV they may be taken to propose. It is far too easy to read a description of what animals may do, and assume it is advocacy that it is right. Animals may solicit sexual interaction (factual). As animal authors write, they can apparently at times show body language consistent with a positive feeling from obtaining sexual interaction (eg, they may repeat soliciting or show stereotypical 'positive' behaviours). That does not necessarily make responding to it ethically right or not. The first and second of these statements is encyclopaedicly relevant. The third is a POV. It is important to state what is verifiable and not a personal opinion. This razor's edge of distinction is easy to misunderstand. [[FT2])
"ethically right" is an inherently POV concept and as such should be kept out of the article. -- Schneelocke (cheeks clone) [[]] 16:54, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Exactly, as you say and I have said (see above). FT2 22:51, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
There is also the argument of 'informed consent.' A 14 yearold can consent to sex with you, but it'd still be wrong and illegal. And while animals may 'enjoy' it while they do it, only dolphins will have sex for the purpose of pleasure (and this is a fact). --Ciz 15:08, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(11) "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 indeed. This is a comment showing your POV colors. Nancy Friday has not been criticised despite 30 years and much ongoing interest for any such thing. But even if she had been selective as you allege (without evidence) and it had never been detected, its not one abberation. Every current research thesis concludes the same. FT2 03:51, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

I admittedly do not know much about the research behind this topic, however, if the claims above are true (and, given the effort FT2 has obviously put in, I see no reason to doubt them - this article intrigues me, I'm going to follow more of the links tomorrow) then, it seems to me, it remains that this passage:
(Important note: Although it may seem that the above are selectively chosen citations, in fact the opposite is the case. The reason for the agreement is that in fact current research over the past 15 years is very consistent, and there does not appear to be found any credible, serious, peer reviewed research into zoophiles per se - as opposed to offenders and animal abusers - that contradicts any of the above in a significant manner.)
is horribly worded. It is apologetic when it (apparantly) need not be, and "in a significant manner" seems to indicate that other peer-reviewed research does exist which at least partially contradicts what is presented - but, strangely, will not be detailed. I agreed with Dr.Zen here for this reason. It seems, tacitly, in this one passage, that the editors of this page are unwilling to disclose contradictory research. If reliable research which even partially contradicts the claims made is not available, then the article should not make it sound as if it is. If the only research which does contradict these claims is unreliable, that should be clearly noted as well. Since I don't know the research well enough, I won't offer a rewrite myself - but I think a rewrite here should be considered. Tachusvelox 04:58, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Probably, I agree it is apologistic, re-reading it. I just wasn't sure what else to do to make sure it read fairly. I looked hard for opposing research views. I looked for anything to say all zoophiles are sick or for a good sound paper to explain why zoophilia of the kind all these studies say exist, is still harmful to animals. I looked for someone credible in the field to say "masters is wrong" or "miletski is wrong" and back it up with serious research. I looked for evidence that was solid and grounded that sex between a human and an animal was always distressing to an animal. I looked for ethological evidence that animals cannot feel in their own way, as zoophiles and research state they can.
I have asked on this page for supported evidence for opposing POV (see above). I've added a full section on the cases we *do* hear of and which animal abuse people cite. It proves there are people who abuse animals sexually, and that these are the majority of cases which come to public attention. We knew this. But fundamentally I am unable to find a serious paper refuting the key assertations of zoophiles and research that in other kinds of cases its different, and that these others are the majority amongst zoophiles.
I can't find an recent academic willing to take what is supposed to be society's "normal" side on these two specific questions (other than perhaps reliance upon older research - not all academics know the current research bear in mind), but I found four (including one from before the net who didnt have zoos online to research) willing to take what is society's "unacceptable" view. I can't find evidence the APA sees it as a major problem, but I found evidence they see it as less of a problem psychologically and that as time passes they dont change that opinion. I can't find a current and informed psychologist who says "zoophiles are prone to pedophilia" but I found a prosecution psychologist who stated to a judge on oath that there wasn't any evidence and didn't add any theoretical warning to counter balance that, but implied it wasnt of much concern. So I felt a note was in order to explain I've looked. FT2 10:55, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for the above - still not quite used to the rules here. Moved my comments to Dr.Zen down here as well.

Re: Animal partners are treated as akin to human partners.

I fail to see how this is either proposterous or biased. (Note, Dr.Zen added: Quite. End of discussion. here - I'm not sure what he means, but I'll leave it in - with the note that it is not my words) Nor do I see how it can be considered POV. The animal (or animals) upon which a zoophile fixates must be refered to by some term - and partner seems as appropriate a term as any other. The passage simply suggests that zoophiles might make their human partners aware of their other activities/fantasies. It does not suggest any form of equality in status between so-called animal partners and human partners. Tachusvelox 02:52, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: claim of rather poorly worded dismissal of opposing research:

I agree in part. Most research offering the opposing view on essentially this topic would most likely not be published as being on "zoophilia", but would rather be on "bestiality", "animal abuse", or "sexual assault" - even if these are not the terms the psychiatric community prefers. If there is no peer-reviewed research on these topics, it should be clearly noted. If there is, then it should be detailed in the article.
That said, I do not agree with classifying animal abusers as zoophiles per ce. If this article is about the clinical term zoophilia, and the research surrounding it, then most animal abusers would likely not be zoophiles, as they would likely not feel distressed by their actions. The main problem with this article, quite frankly, is that it seems to flip between the clinical definition of zoophilia, and a more general definition (which likely includes a much larger segment of the population), depending on which is more convenient for the editor at the time. Tachusvelox 02:52, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: comments on socialisation as a impetus to "antizoophilia"

Not at all. It simply states a well-known fact. Many people accept certain mores simply because that is how they were socialised. Certainly, contributing strongly to the impetus driving "antizoophiles" are religious tradition and basic social mores. And, as an aside, whether or not a majority of people support something is never a valid argument, regardless of the circumstances. Tachusvelox 03:02, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This article is not supposed to be an "argument" for zoophilia. Perhaps you've misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. It is supposed to be an encyclopaedia entry not an apologia. Dr Zen 06:50, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And Tachusvelox never said it was. Read his comment more carefully: "...whether or nor a majority of people support something is never a valid argument". Majority support, not the article, is the argument in question. Zetawoof 09:48, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: comments on public versus private views

Possibly. But, given the opportunity to, I'd wager quite heavily that many people - of those who privately consider sexual fanstasies or activities involving animals to be okay - would be very reluctant to express these views in public. And, as a result, they express opposition in public, regardless of their private beliefs. Still, a citation to more recent work would definitely be preferable. Tachusvelox 03:38, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tachusvelox 03:45, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


I'll leave it to someone else to refute FT2's mishmash of wishful thinking and POV pushing. I started but my PC threw a wobbly and frankly I can't be bothered doing it again. Perhaps someone will explain to him that descriptive studies of self-selected samples cannot be extrapolated to a broader population; that "partnership" among humans is generally taken to mean a great deal more than physical affection, and that you just can't find a sheep who will discuss poetry with you; that using the terminology favoured by one side in a debate is precisely what "POV" is, regardless how fervently that side feels that the term is appropriate (it would be equally POV for a paedophile to describe young children as "lovers" for much the same reasons). While you're at it, point out to him that "I can say it unless you can prove it isn't so" has never been a valid argument here and I would have hoped never will be. Dr Zen 06:50, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No one's saying animals dont feel in their own way. Most animal rights people do think that. They also think bestiality to be abusive. --Ciz 23:17, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, because unlike children animals can't go to the police if someone's molesting them. If a man has sex with his dog and gets caught he'll get in trouble. --Ciz 23:17, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
They argue that dogs (basically the animal used in examples, since other animals like cats dont hump people and furniture) are intelligent enough to consent. These are animals that need to be taken outside to use the bathroom, need to be fed and washed and just taken care of in general by someone else, among other things. Im not saying dogs arent intelligent in their own ways,they are, but they are nowhere near human-like intelligence and are therefore unable to fully consent. Under the law its called informed consent. --Ciz 23:17, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
When they start advocating bestiality like they do gay rights then you can talk. --Ciz 23:17, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why would they be? They're attracted to animals, not children. The two arent related. --Ciz 23:17, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(Ciz stuff moved from elsewhere, still unable to read instructions)

VfD notice

While there is an ongoing VfD discussion, however frivolous the original call, I think it's best that we have the VfD notice displayed. My reasoning is that people seeing the article should be aware of the attempt to delete it and the response of the Wikipedia community (which happens to be unanimous rejection of the deletion call). Please do not remove the notice again--it will be removed in a few days time when the discussion is archived. This is not a fresh VfD call and it is not a vote of support for Ciz.--[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 02:53, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

vprot 17 Dec 04

Arg, another vprotection? I can only hope this one doesn't last several weeks like the last one did. Zetawoof 02:23, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the vandal in question is about to get a temporary injunction against him editing the article (and then... we'll see), so it may not have to last long. In the mean time, I'm going to take advantage of the editing lull to try an overall scrubbing of the article for NPOV, encyclopedic tone, etc, taking into account the comments here and my own sense of where it's straying into advocacy... and hopefully have it ready to submit as a revision when the vprot is removed. I doubt the result will please everybody, but perhaps it'll displease everyone equally. :) JAQ 03:05, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for the protection, but the constant wave of vandalism coming from we-know-who more or less made it necessary. :/ But yeah, as JAQ pointed out, the Arbitration commitee is considering a temporary injuction against Ciz that would forbid him to edit any pages except for his own user and user talk pages; if that goes through, the protection can hopefully be lifted again very soon. -- Schneelocke (cheeks clone) [[]] 05:10, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Like this? Zetawoof 22:18, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What was the vandalism this time? Adding the NPOV? --Ciz 23:20, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

VfD

As the consensus is overwhelmingly on the keep side, I've taken the liberty of de-listing this page early. Vacuum c 18:01, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)


Zoophilia as a lifestyle

I previously placed an NPOV tag over this section and I am rather bemused that it has been removed (after, it seems, a single comment of defence which seems to have been archived pretty quickly). Acting as listed there is neither necessary nor sufficient to define a zoophile, and I don't think the majority of it should feature in the article at all. This article is supposed to neutrally present the facts about zoophilia. This section is clearly not neutral and doesn't present many useful facts. The first two paragraphs describing the thought processes of a typical zoophile.. I think there would be outrage if there was a 'Homosexuality as a lifestyle' section which claimed to declare how zoophiles thought; I think that each person has their own individual thoughts, and these paragraphs prescribe the situation too much. If there is anything worthy of keeping, it needs to be presented more carefully and more neutrally. At the moment it reads like this is the One Path that zoophiles take. The middle paragraph - the comment about homosexuals there also seems misguided... I'm not aware of any particular 'previous centuries' when homosexuals were particularly isolated any more than any other group of people. I am open to discussion on this point. Further, I don't think society's objection to bestiality necessarily relates to the idea that zoophiles may be abusive, and I don't think that is in any way related to the idea that humans are more important than animals (which, anyway, I think is less pronounced than this article makes out) To say that "for most animals, sex carries less importance" is a subjective comment... we can't know what an animal thinks about sex, nor is the human concept of sex universal across all humans. In both cases, sex is primarily there for reproduction - and therefore surely carries the same importance. This paragraph needs to be rewritten. The last paragraph in this section provides neutral, interesting fact.. "As human partnerships are generally encouraged by society" seems rather an odd thing to say, though, and could be removed. (Mysteronald)

Please sign your additions to talk pages with four tildes (~~~~) - thank you. That being said, please state exactly which specific parts / sentences of that section you think are NPOV. -- Schneelocke (cheeks clone) [[]] 05:31, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
with apologies for the omission: the above comment is mine. I have tried to be clear about what I think is NPOV with regard to specific sentences, though. Later anonymous comments are not mine. --Mysteronald 17:13, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The rapid archiving of the comment you mention is probably due to "churn" on this page, coming from a lot of (mostly pointless) debate with a rather vociferous critic/vandal.
While the article's protected for now, I am working on an overhaul of this page, which will (among other things) drop the "human partnerships are generally encouraged" comment as self-evident, and drop the comparison to homosexuals mostly because it invites objections to the comparison. But I have to answer that if you're not aware of any previous centuries in which homosexuals felt more isolated than at present, you're not looking very hard or you don't understand what is meant here by "isolation". An individual feeling of being alone - because one is different, that difference is almost universally condemned, and one is unable to contact similar people because of that - was definitely typical of homosexuals in western society prior to the 20th century (and most of that century as well, depending on location), and I see no reason to doubt that it's typical of zoophiles.
Nonetheless, comparing gay people to people who have sex with animals is offensive.
Only if you think that a comparison means "these two things are the same in every way." But what it really means is "these two things have this one element in common." As a gay person as well, I'm not offended by that any more than I would be offended by someone pointing out elements I have in common with someone who violates the principle of respectul cooperative editing of articles. JAQ 13:55, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
So if someone compared the social isolation of gays to pedophiles, you'd be ok with it? --Ciz 01:16, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why not? If the comparison is accurate (their respective isolation doesn't compare today, but probably did a century ago), it's a valid fact to include. If some idiot thinks that any comparsion means the two are equivalent, that's the idiot's problem, not mine. JAQ 02:28, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Their respective isolation doesn't compare today, but probably did a century ago. Yet it compares today to the isolation that people who do bestiality face? If I recall, bestiality and pedophilia are still both largely illegal and unthinkable, while homosexuality is gradually becoming accepted. Society's attitude towards bestiality is more similiar towards its attitude towards pedophilia than its attitude towards homosexuality. In the US homosexuality is legal almost anywhere, and gay marriage is becoming legal in certain areas. --Ciz 13:43, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There are no victims in a homosexual relationship, as the two people are equals. Most of the objections to homosexuality was due to religion. This is not the case here, where the main concern is of animal abuse. --Ciz 03:56, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If that is the point, then I don't think homosexuality is a good example of isolation. For most of history there have been groups of homosexuals (admittedly sometimes you would say they were 'underground') and open homosexuals throughout the ages. And, isolation defined in this way is something that innately happens to all groups of people who are in a minority all of the time and throughout history - making homosexuality a particularly bad example which has other biases (through the sexuality link) and contributes to POV - in my humble opinion. To be clear, would you compare Zoophiles to Jews? --Mysteronald 17:23, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
A key differences between homosexuals and most other historically-persecuted classes of people is the fact that homosexuals are not born into communities of such people. Jews grow up in Jewish families, etc. But because homosexuals' parents, siblings, friends, etc. are all ostensibly heterosexual, and (at least through most of western history) overtly opposed to homosexuality, homosexuals have experienced individual isolation; this appears to be the pattern for zoophiles as well. JAQ 18:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't think I personally agree with what you have said here regarding homosexuals, but deaf people spring to mind as being particularly "isolated" by this definition. --Mysteronald 05:12, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think you'll find it supported by any mainstream study of homosexuals and their status in western society, especially in the past; "agree with" it or not. {shrug} Anyway... the isolation of deaf people does have some similarities, but it doesn't include the elements of A) friends and family not even knowing about it, and B) the fear of being hated for it (by them and "everyone else"), which is what this article was trying to describe. The deaf people I've known (my school had a program for them, so that's more than a few) have struggled with indifference, pity, and others' discomfort (and of course the practical difficulties of getting along in a hearing world), but they've never described themselves as "persecuted" or fearful of "outing" themselves (as nearly all of the hundreds of homosexuals I know and the several zoophiles I've encountered online have). JAQ 15:09, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You should make clear that the reasons for the treatment are different. While people object to homosexuality for religious reasons, they object to 'zoophilia' because they think it is animal abuse. --Ciz 13:30, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If the article is trying to describe the fact that friends and family may not be aware of or understand zoophiles, and that zoophiles may have a fear of encouraging hate by being open, then the article should explicitly say those things instead of making a poor, unjustified analogy. --Mysteronald 21:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That's a fair point; when the article is unprotected, I'll fix it. But for future reference, a vague assertion that you "don't agree with" the facts presented doesn't help others understand what exactly your objective problem is with the analogy. JAQ 04:32, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't think this is fair comment given the number of paragraphs I have written here in an attempt to explain myself. In this case, I didn't want to say that your personal experiences and feelings are wrong, but mine are different. I don't think homosexuals are particularly persecuted or live in fear when compared to many other groups of people: and I feel that rarely has that been the case in history. Thanks for the debate. --Mysteronald 12:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The generalizations about "how zoophiles think" are condensed heavily from a previous version, which described common traits observed in research. Maybe it needs more qualifiers, but I think it's useful insight.
The chief argument against zoophilia - here on Wikipedia, at least - has focused on the "abuse" question, arguing that animals are incapable of informed consent and therefore it's abusive, so I don't think it can be discounted.
In saying that "sex is primarily there for reproduction" you may be describing it for animals, but I think one can make a very strong case that it means a lot more than that for humans. That's how I read that statement. JAQ 13:21, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You're right... my apologies. My point, though, would be that we can't presume to judge what animals think about having sex with humans (or, indeed, even whether human-animal relationships are abusive to the animals) because we have no sure way of communicating with them. It clearly makes no sense to say /for most animals, sex carries less importance/ because we have no concept of what is important to an animal. I might take reproduction to be the most 'important' aspect of sex, so there is no difference in importance in that sense. --Mysteronald 17:18, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Further, if this is from research, I think it would be important to clearly state references. Research is often refuted and updated, and can be biased itself, of course - hence the importance of referring to the source within the article. I would even want to know how the researcher has managed to draw these conclusions at all. This section is not currently presented as the results of research... it reads very much like someone's biased opinion. --Mysteronald 17:38, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Research

Research into zoophilia in its own right has happened since around 1960-1970, with the first detailed studies dating from prior to 1910. --- That reads like a contradiction to me. --Zero 11:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Could be trying to say that since 1910, research on other topics has been turning up detailed info on zoophilia, but only since the 1960s has research been solely dedicated to the topic. Just a thought. PMC 21:58, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Basically thats about right, PMC, and sorry if it sounds contradictory, Zero. This might be interesting as background. There have 4 main phases of research, from what I can see (warning: I may word parts of this badly as I'm drawing on memory, apologies if I need to correct anything):

  1. There have been occasional studies for a long long time. The earlier back you go, the more they become church centred. The 1905 paper is an example of an early study into the subject, as is the 1894 one, and you can see it is very different in style from the later ones even so. It looks at it as a "medical" issue, because "psychology" was not yet a common term (subjects like masturbation were seem as medical, legal and moral conditions). There are others from last century, but few of them appear to be genuine clinical studies of any significance.
  2. From the Kinsey studies (later refined to remove accusations of bias), around the late 1940 -1950's, and Masters & Johnson, come the first sexology studies in general. Some of these mention this topic, but it's really just noted as one of many minority subjects, "so and so people report this or that", plus commentary. The phenomena is studied in terms of activity (quantitative), not really in terms of meaning (qualitative), so in some cases assumptions were inserted which were not in fact backed by any real research.
  3. Shortly after the publication of these reports, from the mid 1950's onwards (first papers around 1960-62), one starts to see papers specifically on this subject not as a curiosity, but as a sociological psychological or sexual practice in its own right. It is studied as one of many things in its own right, the same way violence was, or other areas. A lot of preconceptions were being re-examined with more care at this time, judging by other literature.
    • Some the papers from this period were later criticised by other psychologists for being inadvertantly self-norming, making assumptions, being based upon samples drawn from violent or troubled groups, etc (what we'd call unverified information or lack of NPOV). Others are quite modern in their approach. This is commented on in the article.
    • There were a few other reports during the 1970's and 1980's, but sexology during that period was progressing by evolution, and information was added gradually over time.
  4. During the 1990s onwards, several studies began to examine the subject by seeking to study a wider sample of subjects, not just those with violence, abuse, or psychologically troubled backgrounds.

The earlier papers are more academic and were not published to a wide audience, so there was a perception that the people who studied this in the 1990s were 1st generation. But that's not supported by the evidence. If you look at their citations lists, and the nature and conclusions of earlier research, it is clear this is a misapprehension caused by the above factors, and by the fact this is not a commonly discussed subject in the first place. There is a lot of earlier research, and most of it points enough in the same direction that psychologists as a community have for some decades had a broad and evolving consensus on the topic.

Part of this is also due to maturing and innovation within the psychological profession itself, if one can call it that:

  • Sexology and psychology were maturing and over time adopted methodologies which did not build in assumptions or rigid beliefs of the researcher.
  • There was increased awareness of the number of people involved (previously believed rare).
  • Curiosity on the part of researchers.
  • Ability to perform full studies (previously difficult).
  • Public and legal focus on the nature of abuse, violence and paedophilia, leading to increased focus to review other practices said to be related to abuse, or indicators of violence.
  • A general reassessment by professional bodies of the best way to view various less common sexual practices.
  • Broader and more open therapeutic approaches which encouraged client-oriented work (such as Transactional analysis, Cognitive therapy or NLP) rather than the previous "one mold fits all" approach of previous approaches.

FT2 05:27, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, but the sentence needs to be rewritten to remove the apparent contradiction. --Zero 06:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, if it reads as you describe, then it could be said better. I wouldnt disagree then. FT2 11:58, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)