Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

→

Removed {{NPOV}} tag

The tag's been in place for months, but I haven't seen any discussion in quite a while. As such, I'm removing the tag. Feel free to replace it iff you've got specific concerns you'd like to discuss here. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Zetawoof. I'm sure editors will get around to NPOVing (WP:NPOV) the article. Docleaf 05:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the tag to begin with due to constant dispute. And though there's been a lot of talking, many of the core issues were never taken care of. Some large problems I still see:

The section Arguments about zoophilia or zoosexual relations is more or less a debate inside of the article. Wikipedia shouldn't care for this.
Mis-citation of research also kind of "debates" and does not provide sufficient evidence of such practices.
Though reverted and I will not do it again as it will probably just be reverted again, zoophilia and bestiality are not the same, one does not imply the other is also there (not all zoophiles have sex with animals and not all those that practice bestiality are zoophiles) - and thus should NOT share the same article. BabyNuke 15:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello BabyNuke. Are you saying there is no source saying zoophilia is the same as bestiality? Also, I agree with you about the miscitations of research. I can't see any evidence for the assertion. Docleaf 09:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's unclear to me how the distinction between zoophilia and bestiality is significant enough to warrant separate articles for the two. Using the definitions present in this article:

Zoophilia without bestiality is a sexual attraction to animals that hasn't yet been consummated, whether for religious, moral, or practical reasons. This doesn't seem like a particularly useful distinction to me.
Bestiality without zoophilia is a sexual act committed with an animal in the absence of sexual desire. I'm not quite sure what this would mean - rape, perhaps?

In light of this, the last sentence in the lead paragraph of the article ("not all sexual acts with animals are performed by zoophiles; and not all zoophiles are sexually interested in animals") seems kind of useless. The last clause, in fact, contradicts the definition given above ("an affinity or sexual attraction by a human to a non-human animal"), so it should probably go.

But I'll throw the question back at you, BabyNuke: How would this division take place? What content would be present in one but not the other? Is there a useful distinction to be made, or would the division be arbitrary? Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Zetawoof. I see the inconsistency you are pointing out. The article doesn't need to be consistent though. It only needs to present the sourced views and facts. If there are inconsistencies it is only because of differing views. Docleaf 10:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, given that the last sentence is meant to be a clarification of the definition, it seems important that the article is at least consistent in the application of its own definitions... Zetawoof_(ζ) 10:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Bestiality without the person being a zoophile isn't rape if the animals isn't forced or harmed. What is actually being done decides if it's rape or not, the actual motivation isn't relevant. The devision is quite simple: the bestiality article would include everything related to the actual act: legality, health & safety, historical views, religious views, animal studies, animal welfare, mythology and fantasy literature, pornography. Zoophilia would include everything related to the sexuality: Zoophiles (what is included under that header right now), psychology and research perspectives, social community. In places, the current sections would need some minor changes. The "arguments" section in my opinion can go all together, it's useless. The literature / documentaries section can be present in both articles, though not with the exact same entries. BabyNuke 11:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Tombe the Goat Man

I have the news that more than a year ago, a Sudanese man by the name of Tombe was caught having sex with a goat named Rose and had to pay for his crimes on trial by paying her owner 15,000 dinars and marrying her. Tombe now gets to keep custody of her baby goat upon hearing that Rose died this week. Here's the link for this weird news so you should definitely update it, okay? --Angeldeb82 18:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There's actually a separate article on that topic: Rose (goat), which covers it in more detail than this one. Zetawoof_(ζ) 18:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

wtf wos the kid lol

Peer Reviewed studies in this area

Here is a comment I made on the Zoosexuality talk page about 8 months ago:

I've noticed with some alarm that there is absolutely NO peer-reviewed published research in this area. The people (Beetz, Miletski, Donofrio) who are constantly referenced as if they are sources of reliable knowledge are in fact scientifically unpublished, all of them! A published doctorate is not the same thing. So there is no evidence-based medicine to rely on in this field, just opinion, speculation and "studies" that have not reached the standard required for journal inclusion. Readers should beware.

It is still true. Please note: in academic circles, "peer review" is not the same as simply publishing a book and getting comments on it. Neither is having a doctoral dissertation approved. It is a formal and rigorous process that scientific research has to withstand before it gets published in a reputable journal. The more reputable the journal, the more rigorous the peer review and the more believable the study. Many (most?) studies fail this process. If you want to know if the study was published in a journal, look it up on Medline (Pubmed). Skopp (Talk) 00:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

FT2 already noted (in an edit summary) that Nancy Friday's My Secret Garden isn't an academic source, so it definitely can't be peer-reviewed. I'm hesitant to refer to a single study (Miletski) as "a number of the most oft-quoted studies". Oft-quoted by whom? Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

"Oft-quoted" on the WP pages concerning zoosexuality and zoophilia. Nancy Friday's books are pure pulp fiction, with most of those "fantasies" so similar in style and diction that she probably authored the majority herself. And of course her work of fiction, like the books put out by the other "researchers" mentioned on these pages, does not rise to the level of an academic paper that has had peer review (note: this is a very specific process, look it up) and subsequent publication in a journal of psychology or medicine. Skopp (Talk) 03:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit-war about that fact tag, as that's probably not going to be productive. I will say this, though: right now, the article is making a claim that "a number of the most oft-quoted studies ... were not published in peer-reviewed journals." This claim is not sourced. In fact, as far as I can tell, it's your own conclusions based on the citations which you see in this article: in other words, it's your original research. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. It's a simple conclusion based on the facts at hand. Once again, I invite you to peruse Medline. There are some peer reviewed, published studies on this topic in the literature, as you'll see there, but they seemingly do not warrant inclusion on the Zoophila and Zoosexuality pages on WP, the reasons for which I'll allow you to conclude. Unfortunately, quite a few areas in psychology and medicine are plagued by this lack of quality research. This fact should not be hidden; if the research is missing, let us not laud the opinions and writings that stand in its place. Skopp (Talk) 02:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You may also find this study helpful in understanding why we need to make sure to distinguish between the "grey" literature and proper research. And BTW, I had this same discussion with a doctor on the Prostatitis page on WP, with him insisting (rightly) that the page only cite evidence-based, peer-reviewed, journal-published studies. This is not an issue specific to Zoophilia. Skopp (Talk) 02:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the same situation arises in regard to many subtopics that fall within (but are not core to) sexology, psychology, sociology, ethology and the like.

Nonetheless you're mistaken regarding lack of review overall. The majority of the key studies were formal theses, both doctoral and post-doctoral, and as such there are controls which are not always operational in the USA. For example:

Beetz' thesis was in Germany, where (as best I understand it) unlike some countries, an expert in the field from another university is always part of the examining body, and the thesis is published some time before in order to allow critique and attacks upon it by others in the field.

Miletski's thesis was reviewed by a renowned figure in the field of sexology before being published. In the many years since being published it has retained its credibility in its field, and is still cited as a major work of repute by other authors in this and related fields.

Beetz's follow-up work was published (along with cites of Miletski) in the Journal of the International Society for Anthrozoology, which is a peer reviewed publication, as part of an extended series on zoosexuality (2005-06). This series, published and reviewed by specialists in human-animal relationship, also appears to have been completely accepted as the work of credible and reputed experts in the field, reporting findings that were not especially considered controversial in the field judging by the style. Views on zoosexuality (ethics, appropriateness, etc) were hotly debated and disagreed with by some contributors, but the findings of research reported by the major names in the field and their place in the field as foundational studies, and their basis as a core part of the debate, were not.

I'm not sure that we should attach a greater expectation to research than those experts actually writing in the field do. Miletski, Beetz, Donfrio, and others, are constantly cited in academia when the topic is written on, and both they and their work is treated invariably as credible, accepted-as-common-knowledge-by-the-consensus, carefully written, and reputable, by others writing in the field. The writings have been published and used by their peers now for a significant number of years. In addition I have found no notable minority of writings from within the field by others denouncing them for bias or poor research - a quite remarkable absence for such a controversial topic and conclusion if the research was even slightly questioned. Instead of doubt, they are treated as foundational and accepted-as-obvious, and cited accordingly. I find it hard to conclude we as reporters of the topic, should do otherwise. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

FT2, the points you make do not refute the point I made. If you disagree with me, I suggest you ask someone who is a true medical or psychological expert for comment. In the last decade, there has been a big swing towards evidence-based medicine (please read that wikipage). Under the new regime, much of the preceding research is inadequate, and not only in this area -- far from it! The fact that someone is published in the field, or has a doctorate, or is well-known, or has had their writings vetted by somebody else of note, is utterly irrelevant. Much higher standards now apply for the publication of research, especially in august and pre-eminent journals. I think your understanding of this point is seriously flawed, especially when you point to journals like the one put out by The International Society for Anthrozoology. This is not a recognised journal. It is not indexed by Medline and is not formally recognized in the fields of medicine or psychology. And lastly, it is not a peer-reviewed journal. From the journal's own website [1] we see they state: "Each issue contains (non-refereed) articles on topics related to the human-animal relationship, interviews with key figures in the field, book announcements, conference news and so forth." Skopp (Talk) 23:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've read that link too - I think you linked a note on it elsewhere. It's a good thing, I think. However it doesn't change the facts, which are that the experts in this field, have for whatever reason, set a standard (as noted above from all the evidence both positive and negative). There are no notable calls in the field to re-evaluate any findings or conclusions in this field. Despite the call to tighter econtrols, and despite the controversial feelings about in the field, there are no notable voices saying the current basic views to date are no longer considered acceptable to experts in that field, or should be considered questionable.

The long and short of this for us is, we are here, not as researchers and opinion formers, but as reporters on a field, and encyclopedists. The views of experts in this field seem very obvious to assess, to me, and judging by the writings, which are easy to obtain, there is a quite obvious and strong consensus of opinion as to the findings and the credibility of the authors at this point. If there is a notable voice saying such-and-such studies are possibly flawed or in need or re-evaluation before reliance is placed on them, or that the authors are second rate, I can't find it. If that changes in future then so be it, and then it becomes relevant. Until then, to say that it should, and therefore assume it has... Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball applies.

Lacking that, what we have here is basically WP:OR -- it seems you feel that your view of the subject and what constitutes validated information, should nonetheless outweighs the evident view of those who are experts in the field, and who have had many many adequate chances to say very clearly if they felt as you feel they should. But they haven't.

Instead, they clearly disagree with your view that present research is a matter of "alarm" ... and if it were a matter for alarm then it is to the field you would need to protest, not to an encyclopedia that just documents that field's present views. This is a controversial field, should any significant voice/s in the field feel this was a problem I have no doubt their voice would be raised and heard. But (see above) we find exactly the opposite. These include people with decades of experience in the field, and of very strong academic repute, from notable organizations.

I obviously applaud a move to more tight control on evidence in medicine. But thats for outside Wikipedia. We aren't the decision makers in the field here. You're effectively asking to impose your own views on validity of research over experts in the field, and at the end of the day, that's inappropriately OR. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, this personal view, using words like "beware" or "alarm", brings to mind nearly identical earlier times that you likewise presented yourself as "alarmist" in style on this very same page and sought to insert your own exaggerated expression of view into the article [2][3] using terms like "vastly", "infinitely more", exaggeration of risk, and so on. Your reply then was that the hyperbole you gave was "for effect", justified because this was not the artcle but only "the discussion page" [4]. At that time I tried to explain that we are here only to report what is "out there" in the field, not our own research, not our own views and syntheses on what the field "should" be saying, not hyperbole for effect. That's still how it stands. I thought we had dealt with this aspect to wikipedia editing, over time. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Back on topic, and resisting responding to the inevitable personal jibes, this conversation is about whether or not readers need to know that the expert opinions frequently referenced on the zoophilia page (and related pages) are not published in peer-reviewed journals. I say they do need to know. The paucity of good, evidence-based research is a fact, not OP or crystal ball gazing. There are peer reviewed studies out here, even recent ones, such as this one (quoted below), but nobody seems to want to include these studies here. I wonder why? A few scientifically-oriented editors are required to work on this page, updating it with recent research, no matter whether their personal views are contradicted or not. Skopp (Talk) 04:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

J Interpers Violence. 2006 Jul;21(7):910-23.

Exploring the possible link between childhood and adolescent bestiality and interpersonal violence.
Hensley C, Tallichet SE, Singer SD.
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, 37403, USA.

Bestiality is a serious although less frequently occurring form of animal cruelty that may be linked to subsequent aggression against humans. This investigation examines whether a perpetrator's race, childhood residence, education, commission of a personal crime, and the number of personal crimes committed affects acts of bestiality committed during childhood or adolescence among a sample of incarcerated males. The results show that respondents with less education and those who had been convicted of committing crimes against people on one or more occasions were more likely to have had sex with animals during their childhood or adolescence than other respondents in the sample. These findings lend some support to the sexually polymorphous theory that among these perpetrators sex and aggression have become mutually inclusive and that bestiality as a form of animal cruelty may be linked with interpersonal human violence.

PMID: 16731991 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

And BTW yes, this IS pertinent to zoophilia, for just as "bestiality" redirects to this page, so do these acts fall under the "zoophilia" rubric. To deny this shows that you have a political agenda on this page and you should therefore resile from further editorship for the sake of Wikipedia. Skopp (Talk) 04:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I notice you are now singling out the page on zoophilia to have a disclaimer that it's articles are not “peer reviewed”. You say you haven't an agenda but thats not how it seems. This is kind of like the issue were school slapped stickers on science textbooks saying “Evolution is just a theory” where one topic (article) or viewpoint is given special negative treatment or extra demands different from others because of a person's focus or belief. E.g. you added this fact to the article as being a verifiable fact, but no evidence to support it.

Additionally, this is not a place for advocating. It seems like you are working with a goal in mind to have the article reflect what you believe it should without first understanding (or following) the wikipedias process and purpose (from what I know it to be). This really shows up where you pretty much state that all the editors here are slanted for not including information you want to see here and if they disagree, it's only further proof that they have a political agenda. Steele the Wolf 01:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Mr Wolf, I am not advocating anything. The simple fact that the ideas of the so-called cognoscenti referenced in this and related articles are not published in peer-reviewed journals has deep significance to anyone of a scientific bent. It is of little import to the general reader, that is so. But psychologists, psychiatrists and researchers are entitled to know the status of research in this area, and my small addition of the caveat about the extent of evidence-based research should not be excluded on specious grounds. Comparing me to an anti-evolutionist is ironic, since I am taking the stance of enlightened scientific research, not mumbo-jumbo, grey literature and religion. Skopp (Talk) 04:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy at the moment, I'll come back to this topic later this week, when I've got more time free (it's a bit busy the next few days till the weekend). (So you know it's not ignored.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That study you reference is terrible for these purposes, whether it's included in the journal or not. Sometimes the quality of the studies speak for themselves. That study was conducted on incarcerated males by it's own admission, and for that reason alone, it should never try to be applied to the general population. I doubt even the original author would argue for that usage. If you are trying to apply it to zoophiles as a universal group (as this article does) I consider it worse than any of the studies done by others, regardless of whether they were published in highly recognized journals or not. It's quality for this article is poor, for that reason alone, and it has nothing to do with bias. If you can show us some other ones though (you claim there are a few), they may warrant inclusion. That studides sample group though is just awful for what you are tying to apply it to.

Zoophilia not Zoosexuality

If Zoophilia is not Zoosexuality, why are there three Zoosexual pictures presented in this article. Some authors here obviously have very sinister objectives.82.6.114.172 19:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The former is a valid point; it hasn't come up before. What might be nice is a suggestion of a good picture that would be appropriate to illustrate non-sexual zoophilia? Maybe something related to other animal lovers that would count as "zoophilia"? Probably not myth and legend though, we already have some imagery from that sphere. Does Category:Human-animal relationships provide any ideas? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(comment reverted - reincarnation of known banned editor) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't need the goat-rape picture

We need to get rid of the goat sex painting. It is depicting a forceful act that has no place here.--68.88.66.227 23:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(comment reverted - reincarnation of known banned editor) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph #2 NPOV, Weasel Words

I strongly object to the following paragraph:

Modern society is generally hostile to the concept of animal/human sexuality. While some, such as philosopher and animal liberation author Peter Singer, argue that zoophilia is not unethical if there is no harm or cruelty to the animal, this view is not widely shared; sexual acts with animals are generally condemned as "crime against nature" and/or animal abuse.

While fairly clever at doing so only indirectly, this paragraph exemplifies what Wikipedia is getting at by inventing the term 'weasel words.' What the paragraph does is contrast the utilitarian ethical stance of an individual with a loaded, unverifiable characterization of society's specific reasons for objecting to bestiality.

While this private opinion about society's "hostility" may or may not be accurate, it is not to the point, because the weasel word "hostility" completely misconstrues why society objects to bestiality. And then goes right ahead with comparing this 'hostility' with actual ethical concerns. As anyone who loathes harmless insects should know, ethics and hostility are dubiously related at best.

This original research on society's objections to bestiality, and contrasting it with a more relevant matter-- the views of a noteworthy utilitarian ethicist-- have the effect of lending authority to one view and withdrawing it from the other. That isn't neutral point of view.

The reason the ploy's clever is that the obvious remedies are to either

1) Contrast society's utilitarian ethical concerns re: bestiality (sourceable remarks to the effect that it is a major risk factor in animal abuse), by saying:

Modern society regards animal-human sex relations as an unacceptable risk factor in animal sexual abuse, and therefore inherently unethical, but Singer points out that they need not necessarily be unethical.

or 2) by omitting the point of view of society altogether, as inappropriate to any contrast with an ethical stance.

And you know? Either it's fair game to bring in what society in general thinks, or it's not. Calling it 'hostility' is a very strong characterization of why society objects to it. Are we allowed as wikipedians to testify to why society objects to things, or not?

The paragraph also misconstrues Singer's actual position-- his argument is not aimed at showing that, under some circumstances, zoophilic acts are not unethical. He discusses it as a possibility in the course of a broader exposition of his thoughts. This is another example of weasel words-- the paragraph uses poor interpretations and misleading language like "argues" to suggest that there is an authority saying zoophilic acts are ethical-- and Singer's just not a case of that.

This article needs to be tagged NPOV dispute as soon as possible.--Enantiodromos

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but "hostile" is not in fact a reason "why" anything, any more than noting someone feels anger or happiness towards something is the same as giving a reason for the feeling. So when you say that "the weasel word 'hostility' completely misconstrues why society objects to bestiality" and that "calling it 'hostility' is a very strong characterization of why society objects to it" ... you are missing that "hostile" is a description how society feels (and not why it feels that way). It is a word for a specific felt emotion and a felt response, and characterizes society's general emotion and response rather accurately - society is as a fact, in general hostile.

In simple terms, to say someone or something is "hostile" to someone or something else, is not, and cannot ever try to be, an explanation "why" a feeling is felt (as you are trying to interpret it). It can't be, whether grammatically or psychologically. It is a word for how something is, not why that something is that way.

In the present usage, it is not a weasel word at all, it is not a slippery excuse for "why". It's a very accurate summary and characterization of the broad feeling and response of most of society to the notion of human-animal sexuality. What society thinks in general, is "we absolutely don't like or approve of it, and feel it's wrong and shouldn't ever happen". (In fact much of society would word it stronger than that, not weaker.) That is indisputably how society broadly feels. It is accurate, and precise.

The following part gives a notable and widely discussed commentators' contrasting take of the subject, that in his view such acts need not always be of necessity unethical (ie "wrong" in a philosophical sense), then without a break, notes without prevarication, society's broad rejection of that view, broad grounds how society actually sees it, and two of the most common reasons why people do in practice say they condemn it.

More in-depth discussion of a fuller range of notable cited reasons and opinions (both ways) are presented - again neutrally and with sample cites - in the body of the article.

So in response to your summing up comment that: "Either it's fair game to bring in what society in general thinks, or it's not ... Are we allowed as wikipedians to testify to why society objects to things, or not?", the article editors to date have very completely brought in both of these points you ask rhetorically about: both what society in general thinks (intro), and why society objects (summary + key reasons in intro, detail in arguments section). And the latter are cited to other sources, so that we are not relying on Wikipedians "testifying" (which would be original research). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

(and see above, busy this week, will try to get back on any reply after the weekend, along with a reply to the other comments.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Objecting that 'hostile' is not a weasel word because it does not *explicitly* present society's reasons for objection, completely misses the concept of weasel words. The second paragraph clearly suggests (not explicitly states) that repugnance is the only reason for society's objections to bestiality, and that society has no actual utilitarian ethical concerns with bestiality.

If the article wants to bring up the limitations of repugnance as an ethical criterion, it should do so explicitly.

You're correct but missing the point when you assert that "'hostile' is not in fact a reason 'why' anything." Which is why I didn't say it was presented explicitly as the reason-- I instead described it as 'misconstruing' and 'characterizing' the 'why'-- which you implicitly recognize by sticking to the binary question 'does/does not explicity state why.' As I understand it, the terminology 'weasel words' was developed in recognition of this very kind of misleading use of language to lend flaky personal opinions about questions (such as the reasons for the public objecting to bestiality) the weight of authority. That's precisely what's going on with the assertion that the public's opinion is 'hostile.' 'Hostility' has an overwhelming connotation of irrational prejudice. Any comparison of phrases: 'object to' and 'are hostile to' shows this plainly.

You're also right but missing the point to call it a 'description of how society feels.' Yes, it does (purport to) describe how society feels. (My personal observations even confirm this description.) That does not mean it doesn't insinuate why-- it does insinuate why. Characterizes why. May, and in fact does, misconstrue why.

When you note that it accurately describes something, you're right, of course, but then not all true statements are equally relevant, and given the universal expectation of relevance in communication, true statements can be, are, and are here, being used to create a misunderstanding.

If 'hostile' is purely a description of the affective manifestations of society's objections to bestiality, how is it even relevant? Answer: it's not. It is lent the appearance of relevance exactly and only insofar as it speaks to why society objects, which is made plain by its immediate contrast with other reasons why one might not necessarily object.

Needless to say, my question about testimony of wikipedians was rhetorically seeking consensus on the view that we do not as wikipedians testify (OR).

I would also disagree with you if you feel that the latter section of the article adequately treats the question of society's primary objection-- the one based on risk of animal abuse. That section baits with the anonymous view that 'zoophilia' (ambiguously defined) is 'categorically' harmful to animals, a view that is absurd prima fascie-- clearly a straw man. Then the section goes on to slay that man of straw, providing views contrary to the question of whether all cases of zoophilia, categorically, are harmful to animals. This grossly misconstrues the primary objection to bestiality, which is the unacceptable risk of abuse of animals as objects of human sexual interest with negligable oversight and advocacy, and is another major problem with the article's NPOV. --Enantiodromos 16:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comment: "Objecting that 'hostile' is not a weasel word because it does not *explicitly* present society's reasons for objection, completely misses the concept of weasel words. The second paragraph clearly suggests (not explicitly states) that repugnance is the only reason for society's objections to bestiality, and that society has no actual utilitarian ethical concerns with bestiality."
Contrast with actual content of 2nd paragraph referred to: "Society is generally hostile to the concept of animal/human sexuality. While some, such as philosopher and animal liberation author Peter Singer, argue that zoophilia is not unethical if there is no harm or cruelty to the animal, this view is not widely shared; sexual acts with animals are generally condemned as 'crime against nature' and/or animal abuse."

More specifically:

Your comment: "The second paragraph clearly suggests that repugnance is the only reason for society's objections"
Actual content of 2nd paragraph, stated rather bluntly: "Sexual acts with animals are generally condemned as 'crime against nature' and/or animal abuse."

I don't know how much more factually incorrect your comment could be. The 2nd paragraph not only does not (as complained) suggest that "repugnance is the only reason" and does not state (or imply) that "society has no actual utilitarian ethical concerns". It goes so far in contradicting your comment as to name the specific down-to-earth ethical concerns most commonly encountered - that it is a crime against nature, and/or animal abuse.

On a side issue, although not relevant here so much, the notion that zoosexual acts are inherently abusive (or as you say, "categorically harmful") is not a straw man. You state that in your view this is "absurd prima fascie-- clearly a straw man". That is another error of assumption in your comment. It is the legislated view of several (not just one or two) states, it is encoded in a significant number of laws, it is routinely presented in some court hearings by bodies such as PETA, is presented in seriousness in senates as a basis for criminalization, and is the official stance of the HSUS, the RSPCA and many animal welfare bodies on the topic. See footnote 11 of Zoosexuality and the law for some examples from that article. That (to you) it is "absurd prima facie" to make such a claim, is more a reflection on your openmindedness to topics others dislike/despise, than an informed statement about the range of society's evidenced views. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

PS: Last before I head off, I just noted your comment "If the article wants to bring up the limitations of repugnance as an ethical criterion, it should do so explicitly." It seems you have not carefully read the article, or noted my comment (above) that "more in-depth discussion of a fuller range of notable cited reasons and opinions (both ways) are presented - again neutrally and with sample cites - in the body of the article."

Had you done so, you would have found repugnance correctly listed as one of the notable arguments against such acts (Arguments for/against: "Sexual activity between species is (or should be) naturally repugnant to anyone in their right mind"). In that same line, it is already linked to what is clearly (and accurately) described a "contrasting view", the article on Wisdom of repugnance, which indeed does "bring up the limitations of repugnance as an ethical criterion" and does so "explicitly". I cannot see how you can have missed that, if you read the article carefully.

Again, this article has not come together by chance. It has been carefully reviewed by a huge number of editors over time (for and against), and this is another point which you assert in error. I mention this since like your errors above, it was already covered, had you checked before asserting/implying it was not. It would help to assume good faith. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Your view that my remarks about last week's paragraph #2 are 'factually incorrect' proceed from misunderstanding-- and not mine. To clarify: it simply doesn't follow that IF a paragraph ends with a statement: not-A, that it never asserted A. The paragraph was blatantly phrased to paint society's concerns with bestiality as friovlous and a knee-jerk reaction. Hence opening with an inappropriate characterization of why society doesn't like it, in the word 'hostile.' And actually, that sense was strongly reinforced by the last sentence, which explicitly put forward a deprecated term liable to be dismissed by conventional thinkers ('crime against nature,') tacking on 'animal abuse' in exactly the manner people expect to see ideas that are dubiously coherent elucidated for the sake of fair treatment.

In supposing that I'm wrong about whether society's primary reason for rejecting bestiality is that it regards categorically all such contact as unethical and abusive, you turn to evidence about what the law has criminalized. The mistake there is that criminality and abuse/ethics are quite distinct. The former isn't sufficient to show the latter. In fact, ordinary people regard AT LEAST the kind of sexual contact that routinely goes on spontaneously between dogs and humans, to be funny-- it's a frequent source of ribalt humor. Most people would be amused or even laugh aloud at calling such things "abuse," "unethical," "sinning" or "criminal!" Since that's one kind of human-animal sexual contact, yes, it *is* absurd prima fascie to suppose that society regards categorically all such acts as abuse-- it's a straw man. Furthermore, drawing attention (in the article) to whether society regards categorically all animal-human sex contact as abusive, rather than whether society has taken the measure of prohibiting all animal-human sex contact because doing otherwise is an unacceptable risk of animal abuse, may appeal to anarchists and the amoral since it sidesteps having to consider that society may have some desirable function, but except to them, it's also a straw man for that reason.

I neglected to reiterate, when I remarked that repugnance as an ethical criterion should be brought up explicitly, that I was talking about the second paragraph. Naturally, that is what I meant. The 2nd paragraph is not simply one more of many paragraphs in the article-- it's right there at the top where the broad concept is introduced.

When you say:

this article has not come together by chance. It has been carefully reviewed by a huge number of editors over time (for and against), and this is another point which you assert in error. I mention this since like your errors above, it was already covered, had you checked before asserting/implying it was not. It would help to assume good faith.

I don't know what new point you regard me to have made an error in, here. I'm aware the article's seen many revisions by many authors in many incarnations. It's been in abominable shape for a long time, and in fact I've been contributing to its talk for a year or so, on and off. That talk is apparently lost, however, thanks to various movings-about of the article which I find dubious in the first place. The article's been chock-full of systematically misleading remarks for as long as I've known about it, and as a matter of fact nothing about Wikipedia's policy on assuming good faith (intentions of authors new on the scene) obliges me to regard acts or apparent bad-faith based on persistent bad efforts, as good faith. If I'm not allowed to point out that the article's got NPOV issues (which it has had for a while in various iterations)... why again did Wikipedia elucidate a philosophy of NPOV? Seems sort of assuming bad faith, to elucidate a NPOV philosophy. (My sarcasm's never as innocent and funny as I want it to sound.) --Enantiodromos 01:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Revert of edits

Two edits reverted:

Original	As modified
Society is generally hostile to the concept of animal/human sexuality. While some, such as philosopher and animal liberation author Peter Singer, argue that zoophilia is not unethical if there is no harm or cruelty to the animal, this view is not widely shared; sexual acts with animals are generally condemned as "crime against nature" and/or animal abuse.	All modern societies do not accept the concept of animal/human sexuality. There are a few people, such as philosopher and animal liberation author Peter Singer, who argue that zoophilia is not unethical if there is no harm or cruelty to the animal, but this view is in the tiny minority; sexual acts with animals are generally condemned as crime against nature and/or animal abuse. [5][6]

and

Original

As modified

The activity or desire itself is no longer classified as a pathology under DSM-IV (TR) (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association) unless accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the person, and research has broadly been supportive of at least some of zoophiles' central claims.

The activity or desire itself is no longer classified as a pathology under DSM-IV (TR) (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association) unless accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the person, such as the replacement of human-human emotional and sexual relationships, and research has broadly been supportive of at least some of zoophiles' central claims.^{[citation needed]}

Factual errors/OR/NPOV issues:

Not "all modern societies" reject the concept. At one extreme, some have even had laws attempted to be imposed, and proposed in their legislature, which were themselves rejected. Given there is in law and practice a significant number of societies whose legislature rejects that law and retains the legality of the act, the change to "all modern societies" is clearly false. It's also uncited OR.
Adding words like "there are a few people", "all modern societies", "tiny minority" is OR/POV... these are clearly from the evidence of research, at best unverifiable and dubious, at worst untrue, and in either case uncited and probably OR. It is hard to not notice the choice to cast such views in terms of an expression that WP:NPOV would then deem ignorable.
It is unclear whether the 1st cite does in fact (when read) support any statement of society's general view, or reviews the general reasons society and people condemn the act. It does not seem to, from the summary at least. (If there is more content to that effect, please quote it, as its not visible from here right now).
In this context and given previous edits, the insertion of the emphatic "such as the replacement of human-human emotional and sexual relationships" is not a mere DSM cite. It's a POV motivated inclusion. (And misleading in implication too, since in the great majority of cases and according to repeated research cited in the article, zoosexual acts do not "replace" such matters.)
The tagging of "fact" on material well cited from research and referenced in depth elsewhere in the article is again clearly more about POV than encyclopedia-writing.

For these reasons, I have reverted these two edits. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It is the sort of editorship above that has made this page (Zoophilia) a prime example of the sort of page Wikipedia needs to edit extensively to get it back to required standards. In quick rebuttal, 1) the rejection of laws against bestiality does not imply an acceptance of these acts, but is based on the low conviction rate and difficulty of policing, 2) the phrases "there are a few people", "all modern societies", "tiny minority" is no more POV/OR than the words which they replace, where outliers of opinion like Singer are given equal weight to societies worldwide, 3) the citations I gave show that recent peer-reviewed research supports society's view of the pathology of many forms of zoophilia/bestiality, and they are thus highly germane, 4) the phrase "such as the replacement of human-human emotional and sexual relationships" qualifies the psychiatric view of zoophilia. Psychiatrists DO view zoophilia as a pathology when it supplants normal human interactions, and they DO view this as "interference with normal functioning" (it's known as "preferential bestiality" ) -- please show otherwise if you wish to continue this reversion. Skopp (Talk) 03:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. 1) Four examples - Denmark and Sweden which both examined the matter as a legal review anticipating a possible need for legislation due to high publicity and pressure, but decided after expert review that none was needed as the issue was not by necessity abusive; Brasil which is one of the largest producers of animal pornography (refuting the "low rate") yet does not make the matter illegal, Germany which sees enough of a concern to make the pornography illegal yet steadfast refuses to criminalize the act. 2) Disagree, there is no evidence of the size you claim, and the wording of at least one of these (unsupported) is drawn directly from WP:NPOV as the criteria for removal of a viewpoint. Singer is a notable contrasting view, it is made more than clear in the same sentence that his views are rejected (strongly) by most. But the fact there are opposing views and notable exponents of them, in some areas, is notable. 3) They are not spokespeople for society. You need research that comments on society's views, not the views of specific researchers into individuals drawn from subgroup populations of criminals, offenders and psychiatric patients. As current research repeatedly states, these are to be considered far from representative. 4) "When it supplements" and causes distress, but your insertion seems in line with various other impositions of non-neutral edits to the article. Also see Talk:Zoosexuality - it is far from clear whether the interpretation (and more importantly the implication of that interpretation) which you add, is the best interpretation borne out by the sources. Other editors have challenged this too. On the whole, given POV/OR/inaccuracies, I do not feel your comments have supported your stance in any significant way. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1) your point simply underlines mine. The only countries in the world where zoophilia is not illegal are some of the Nordic countries, known to be the most permissive countries in the world, and Brazil. And in some of these countries they still punish the distribution of pictures dealing with bestiality (and pedophilia) with a fine or imprisonment. None of this denotes acceptance or approval. Moreover, there are active lobbies in these countries trying to get the laws changed and the practices banned once again. 2) Singer is the one and only notable person with this view. Why does he have adequate weight to be set against society? Is he a lone voice, and if so, why should he be mentioned in this paragraph? Who are the other notables? 3) "You need research that comments on society's views," - no I don't, I need journal-published research that demonstrates that the practice is seen as abusive by society in the person of its researchers. Now if you have journal-published research that shows the opposite, please declare it, and set it in countervailing stance in the article. 4) Are you are supporting the argument that a human-animal sexual and emotional relationship that supplants human-human interactions is not interfering with normal functioning? I just want to clear that up. Skopp (Talk) 04:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1) Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Mexico, parts of the US (see Zoosexuality and the law), Austria and Brazil are more than "some of the Nordic countries". There are far more than hundred countries we do not have information about. There might be others where it is legal. "known to be the most permissive countries in the world" — Where are you heading? Is information on liberal countries less important than information on others? I am convinced these examples are enough to demonstrate, that not all modern societies reject the concept of animal/human sexuality.

The question whether distribution of animal pornography is illegal or not is different from the question whether zoosexual acts are accepted or not and should not be mixed in the discussion. There are reasons why notable nations have separate laws on it.

Please discuss questions on pedophilia on the article's talk page. This is irrelevant here.

Ocolon 22:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've re-edited, striving to be NPOV. I also see a need for citations on some of the sweeping statements about animal-human relationships that look like personal opinions. Skopp (Talk) 08:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)