Misplaced Pages

Talk:Zoophilia: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:13, 18 November 2006 editZetawoof (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers9,441 edits more replies← Previous edit Latest revision as of 10:13, 26 December 2024 edit undoDimadick (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers806,691 edits Added the WikiProjects which cover paraphilias 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|archives=no|search=no}}
{{controversial}} {{controversial}}
{{facfailed}} {{censor}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{oldpeerreview}}
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=mid}}
<div style="padding:1em;border:4px dotted black"><font size="+1"><strong>ARBCOM RULING JAN 10 2005 MODIFIED JAN 26 2006 (DrBat/Ciz indefinite ban)</strong></font>
{{WikiProject Animal rights |importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Law |importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Pornography |importance=Mid}}
{{WP Psychology|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=mid|psychiatry=yes|psychiatry-imp=mid}}
}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=FAC
|action1date=10:55, 23 May 2006
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Zoophilia/archive1
|action1result=not promoted
|action1oldid=54197210


|action2=PR
Ciz was a sock-puppet of ], a repeat sock-puppeteer who engaged in strong POV warfare on zoophilia/bestiality issues. Significant aspects of the ruling (as amended):
|action2date=00:32, 29 October 2006
# ] is placed on personal attack parole.
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Zoophilia/archive1
# ] (using whatever account or IP address) is ''prevented indefinitely'' from editing Zoophilia and its closely-related articles, or any editing related to the subjects of zoophilia, bestiality, animal sexuality, or human-animal relationships in any article, including their talk pages.
|action2result=reviewed
Whether an article or page concerns these subjects shall be determined by the enforcing administrator. Such changes may be ''reverted'' by any editor and any administrator may, at his/her discretion, briefly ''block'' Ciz (up to a week in the case of repeat violations). After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to ''one year''.
|action2oldid=84175374


|currentstatus=FFAC
Link references for the Arbcom rulings and evidence on both cases:
}}
* ''Jan 2005'': 1st Arbcom case and full rulings at ], details and links for 1st case are in that page.
{{User:MiszaBot/config
* ''Jan 2006'': 2nd Arbcom case at , with details and links for that case at ]
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
</div>
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 27
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Zoophilia/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=no
}}
{{merged from|Zoosexuality}}
{{Translated|it|Zoofilia}}
{{archives}}


== Split ] and ] ==
* Old talk:
*: ]
*Archived talk Oct-Dec 2004, related to ], aka ] (Personal attacks on editors and furries, POV warring, vandalism):
*: ] ... ] ... ] ... ] ... ] ... ] ... ] ... ] ... ] ... ] ... ] ... ]
* Later archived talk:
:* ]: unprotection, ethology, JAQ's rewrite, bestiality v. zoosexuality, non-sexual zoophilia, removal of porn links and AnimalDB.com, query if legal in Holland.
:* ]: ShadowH/Ciz sockpuppet Nov'05, Satanism, recent edits of ], removed links about-bestiality.com, zoophilia.net and NYTimes (zooskool.com notes '''KEPT''' as may still be relevant), ingrid newkirk quote clarification/discussion.
:* ]: Linkage to gay rights, zooskool link, discussion of Zoo Code and talkers, ] question re articles against zoophilia, NPOV, Actaeon's site, "Animal" v. "Non-human animal" in intro, Peter Singer quote correction, Seus Hawkins discussion of arguments for/against, use of term 'exogamy', stallion masturbation citation, placement of 'legality by state', ] debate whether listing arguments for and against creates bias, canine pair bonding POV "pro" edit, dolphin novel, use of term "consensus" in article.
:* ]: Archive of blocked {{vandal|HeadleyDown}} attempt to POV slant and warfare on the article.


Research about this topic unanimously agree that zoophilia and bestiality are different things, yet this article is clumsily trying to talk about the both of them at the same time (sometimes confusing people who engage bestiality with zoophiles, despite research saying that these are different groups of people). Bestiality is redirecting to here right now, if anyone wants to write an article there, I recommend that you use these sources right here (doi).
==Cite sources==


* doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2368
This article needs to be brought up to wikipedia ] standards and a references section. The following assertations need some digging to check for appropriate citations, and ideally the context, the entire paragraph or full details, as useful background, not just the soundbite:
* doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12306
* doi.org/10.1300/J158v04n02_01
* Beetz, Andrea M. "New insights into bestiality and zoophilia." Anthrozoos-Journal of the International Society for Anthrozoology 18 (2005): 98-119. (free pdf on google scholar). ] (]) 22:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


:Just for clarity's sake: if I'm getting this correctly, zoophilia is sexual excitement at the ''idea'' of sex acts involving animals, whereas bestiality is actually engaging in sex acts with actual animals? Is that right? ] (]) 00:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
* The ambiguous term sodomy has sometimes been used in legal contexts to include zoosexual acts '''jurisdictions like UK is one example, are there others?'''
::Yes, that's exactly it. ] (]) 01:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
* The extent to which zoophilia occurs is not known with any certainty '''probably in one of the researches'''
* most research into zoophilia has focused on its characteristics, rather than quantifying it. '''probably in one of the researches, most likely beetz'''
* Scientific surveys estimating the frequency of zoosexuality, as well as anecdotal evidence and informal surveys, suggest that more than 1-2% -- and perhaps as many as 8-10% -- of sexually active adults have had significant sexual experience with an animal at some point in their lives '''a mix of many sources, anyone got any for starters?'''
* Studies suggest that a larger number (perhaps 10-30% depending on area) have fantasized or had some form of brief encounter
* NZ: It is interesting to note that in the 1989 Crimes Bill considered abolition of beastiality as a criminal offence, and for it to be treated as a mental health issue '''can we get hold of a copy of the crimes bill review, the whole section thats relevant?'''
* NZ: In Police v Sheary (1991) 7 CRNZ 107 (HC) Fisher J considered that "he community is generally now more tolerant and understanding of unusual sexual practices that do not harm others." '''can we get hold of a report of this case and his full comment?'''
* For example, an old Peruvian law prohibited single males from having a female alpaca (llama).
* A commonly reported starting age is at puberty, around 9 - 11, and this seems consistent for both males and females. Those who discover an interest at an older age often trace it back to nascent form during this period or earlier. '''there was an informal survey on some website, but researchers may have accurate information'''
* zoophiles may be attracted only to particular species, appearances, personalities or individuals, and both these and other aspects of their feelings vary over time.
* Zoophiles tend to perceive differences between animals and human beings as less significant than others do.
* They often view animals as having positive traits (e.g. honesty) that humans often lack
** and to feel that society's understanding of non-human sexuality is misinformed.
* The biggest difficulties many zoophiles report are the inability to be accepted or open about their animal relationships and feelings with friends and family, and
** the fear of harm, rejection or loss of companions if it became known (see outing and the closet, sometimes humorously referred to as "the stable").
** Other major issues are hidden loneliness and isolation (due to lack of contact with others who share this attraction or a belief they are alone),
** and the impact of repeated deaths of animals they consider lifelong soulmates (most species have far shorter lifespans than humans and they cannot openly grieve or talk about feelings of loss).
* Zoophiles do not usually cite internal conflicts over religion as their major issue, perhaps because zoophilia, although condemned by many religions, is not a major focus of their teachings.
* zoophiles sometimes enter human relationships due to growing up within traditional expectations, or to deflect suspicions of zoophilia,
** and yet others may choose looser forms of human relationship as companions or housemates, live alone, or choose other zoophiles to live with.
* Page citations and context for these:
** The critical aspect to study was emotion, relationship, and motive, it is important not to just assess or judge the sexual act alone in isolation, or as "an act", without looking deeper. (Masters, Miletski, Beetz)
** Zoophiles' emotions and care to animals can be real, relational, authentic and (within animals' abilities) reciprocal, and not just a substitute or means of expression. (Masters, Miletski, Weinberg, Beetz)
** Most zoophiles have (or have also had) long term human relationships as well or at the same time as zoosexual ones. (Masters, Beetz)
** Society in general at present is considerably misinformed about zoophilia, its stereotypes, and its meaning (Masters, Miletski, Weinberg, Beetz)
** Contrary to popular belief, there is in fact significant popular or "latent" interest in zoophilia, either in fantasy, animal mating, or reality (Nancy Friday, Massen, Masters)
** The distinction between zoophilia and zoosadism is a critical one, and highlighted by each of these studies.
** Masters (1962), Miletski (1999) and Weinberg (2003) each comment significantly on the social harm caused by these, and other common misunderstandings: "This destroy the lives of many citizens".
* At times, research has been cited based upon the degree of zoosexual or zoosadistic related history within populations of juvenile and other persistent offenders, prison populations with records of violence, and people with prior psychological issues. Such studies are not viewed professionally as valid means to research or profile zoophilia ... This approach (used in some older research and quoted to demonstrate pathology) is considered discredited and unrepresentative by researchers.
* Source for Ingrid Newkirk's 1st quote


: '''Neutral to weak support''' this page about this area of discussion is generally complete but not necessarily big enough that it 100% needs to be split. Misplaced Pages is not a ] and it will usually make more sense to cover several related ideas under one heading where they are overlapping even if they are slightly different. However I think there is potentially enough here to support two pages and to have a link between them somehow if someone wants to do the work of grabbing the different parts for a new page. ] (]) 19:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
] 00:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
::Not only does zoophilia need to be distinguished from bestiality as a separate entry, but the entire article needs to be re-written to remove incorrect, un-cited, and heavily biased claims.
::Zoophilia is (mis)understood as several different things that ought to be addressed on this page (among many other things);
::* A paraphilia (correct: zoophilia is an atypical erotic interest, as stated by the American Psychiatric Association (APA))
::* A clinical condition (incorrect: paraphilias are not to be diagnosed according to the APA)
::* A mental disorder (incorrect: "Zoophilic Disorder" is a separate thing to zoophilia and falls under the Other Specified Paraphilic Disorder category of the Diagnostic Manual. The details regarding this illness are complex enough to warrant its own section, with copious links to related wiki articles)
::* Sexual activity between human and animal (incorrect: the word for this is bestiality, which has its own history and debate)
::* Illegal (incorrect: bestiality is legislated against, not zoophilia; all legal context needs to be in the article for bestiality)
::* A sexual identity/sexuality (Complicated: people use the term "zoo" as an identity to the extent that this page probably should have a section for this. There is no good scientific literature on this (yet), but does that matter? There are plenty of sources available from the community)
::* The desire to have sex with animals (Complicated: as previously stated, there are people who use the term as an identity, and there's significant nuance to how people feel about bestiality even within the zoo community. This ought to be recognised on this page to help inform people better and reduce stereotyping people who may even have a mental illness resulting from their unwanted attraction)
::Conflict of interest:
::I am a researcher and social support advocate from the "zoo community", but this page has repeatedly been referenced as a source for great misunderstanding regarding both zoophilia and the zoophilic disorder condition. I do have an interest in seeing people treated better as a whole, but I think there's enough wrong here that even if I weren't a part of the community, I'd still be voicing my concerns. I'm more than willing to help write a neutral and well-sourced article for this page, and undergo any and all scrutiny to achieve something that can be agreed upon. ] (]) 06:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Not to put too fine a point on it, as I generally don't support giving people a hard time over their username, but you for sure could've made a better choice if advocating for people who have sex with animals is your priority here. ] ] 08:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
::::In this article, I don't see many references to publications that show zoophilia in a neutral light - and even the ones that do, the wiki author appears to have been subject to interpretation bias. I feel this has harmed the accuracy of your information. For example, the APA reworded the DSM(5) with the hopes that it would destigmatize paraphilias and related research, but even though that happened, the sections which reference the APA and updated DSM (#Research_perspectives) continue to call zoophilia a disorder. The APA explicitly stated in several DSM5-accompanying documents that paraphilias are not inherently paraphilic disorders, so whoever wrote that section completely misunderstood that "zoophilia" (the attraction to animals) is not even included in their references. I would very much like to help repair this article for objective accuracy.
::::Do you know the incidence rate of bestiality, and how that correlates with zoophilia? I'm sorry, but I think you're proving my point by suggesting zoophiles are "people who have sex with animals". It's implied in the very article we're discussing; ''most zoophiles do not have sex with animals''. Despite my complaints, I think that is one thing this article gets right (albeit with incomplete and outdated information). Zoophilia is an attraction. Nothing else should be inferred, because nothing else seems to correlate. The community itself doesn't agree on much - but they tend to agree on that.
::::As for my name, this is not the place for such discussion, but I also don't want to be reprimanded for a misunderstanding; in short: *I* am the mutt (it's a joke reference to other names I go by). I originally picked it because I thought it was appropriately disturbing for such a community, but found myself pleasantly surprised that most of them despise fetishists. I keep it now because I have become well known for my extensive research, surveys and debates. My hope is to publish something peer-reviewed under my full name someday - but for now, this is what several thousand people know me by, and I don't want to be accused of trying to covertly manipulate wikipedia, so I have chosen to create this new wiki account with the same screen name. I hope this explains. ] (]) 10:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)


== Suggested correction on German legal situation ==
== Balance in anti/pro ==


{{Edit semi-protected|Zoophilia|answered=yes}}
Coming from a pretty neutral viewpoint, I do have to admit that the article seems very "pro" as opposed to "anti". Whatever "anti" statements are made are immediately countered and (seemingly) refuted by "pro" arguments. The "anti" arguments are written in a style that seems condescending, implying that the "anti" view is naive at best and downright discriminatory at worst. ]


The article states in the "Legal status" section that Germany supposedly banned all human-animal sexual intercouse in 2013 which is incorrect. Presently, such sexual acts are not illegal unless the animal is being forced.
* I can confirm this, as I surfed-by this page for the first time. I was somewhat astounded (not to say shocked) about the size of this article. This article is larger than most of all of the rest of the articles I've seen or edited on Misplaced Pages. So reading the article, I also noticed that contra-arguments are being mentioned, only to be superseded by neutral or pro-arguments. There is also a strong tendency of ''romanticizing''! And reading through the list of states where 'Zoophilia' is forbidden, I got the impression that it would be a pretty handy tool for people who actually (and sadly) perform such actions to have a checklist, to see whether their state allows them to do so, or not - which is also slightly 'pro'. ] 08:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


Germany's court of constitution (Bundeverfassungsgericht) clarified the interpretation in their verdict against a challenge of said law in 2015 (https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2016/bvg16-011.html). The court specifically commented that the law has a condition to it. As long as the animal is not "forced" the law is not being broken. According to the court "forcing" an animal is only possible with "physical violence" and actions that are "comparable to the use of physical violence".
:: I'll agree, the article does tend to focus more on the positives; there is no mention of fence hopping (trespassing on someone's property to have sex with animals) for example, which is sadly a fairly common practice. But overall, I don't feel that it's very biased. As for mentioning legality, there is an entire article on the legal status of cannabis so I don't feel it's out of place to mention it, especially because there are obviously very contrasting views on this. ] 14:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
:::(Note: Fencehopping since added) ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 20:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


Unfortunately, many sources quote both the original law from 2013 as well as the verdict from 2015 incorrectly or at least incompletely (Sources 72 to 75 on the article), adding to the confusion.
::: I third this, this article is alarmingly pro-Zoophelia, and it might give people the wrong impression as to it's stance in society. I think that people who are zoophiles are editing this to try to distort zoophelia into something more natural than it is. ]


It would be advisable to correct the article by replacing the two paragraphs "Many laws banning sex with non-human animals..." and "Germany legalized bestiality..." with the following:
::::I feel one reason causing this seems to be the extensive use of ]. Just as an example, search for the word "some" in the article and you'll find heaps. There's room for improvement there. Also, the article should at no point draw a conclusion on if it is right or wrong, regardless of what the opinion of the editor may be. The current attitude of the article seems to be however that those who oppose it do so mainly out of ignorance (to quote: "People's views appear to depend significantly upon the nature of their interest and nature of exposure to the subject. People who have been exposed to zoosadism, who are unsympathetic to alternate lifestyles in general, or who know little about zoophilia, often regard it as an extreme form of animal abuse and/or indicative of serious psychosexual issues."). While I tend to agree that that's the case, the article should not come to any conclusions on the matter. ] 09:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


Many laws banning sex with non-human animals have been made recently, such as in ],<ref name="Newhampshire">{{cite news |title=New Hampshire HB1547 – 2016 – Regular Session |url=http://legiscan.com/NH/text/HB1547/id/1286995 |access-date=17 April 2017 |website=Legiscan.com}}</ref> ],<ref name="Ohio">{{cite web |title=Ohio SB195 – 2015–2016 – 131st General Assembly |url=http://legiscan.com/OH/text/SB195/2015 |access-date=16 November 2017 |website=Legiscan.com}}</ref> Sweden,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.webpronews.com/sweden-joins-an-increasing-number-of-european-countries-that-ban-bestiality-2013-06|title=Sweden Joins An Increasing Number of European Countries That Ban Bestiality|website=Webpronews.com|date=13 June 2013|access-date=16 November 2017}}</ref> ],<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.mbl.is/monitor/frettir/2014/04/07/stundar_kynlif_med_hundinum_sinum/|title=Stundar kynlíf með hundinum sínum|website=www.mbl.is}}</ref> ],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://politik.tv2.dk/2015-04-21-flertal-for-lovaendring-nu-bliver-sex-med-dyr-ulovligt|title=Flertal for lovændring: Nu bliver sex med dyr ulovligt|date=21 April 2015|access-date=20 October 2018}}</ref> ],<ref> {{dead link|date=October 2018}}</ref> ],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.elpais.cr/2016/03/09/diputados-aclaran-alcances-y-limites-de-la-nueva-ley-de-bienestar-animal/|title=Diputados aclaran alcances y límites de la nueva Ley de Bienestar Animal |website=Elpais.cr|date=10 March 2016|access-date=16 November 2017}}</ref> ],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.derechoteca.com/gacetabolivia/ley-no-700-del-01-de-junio-de-2015/ |title=LEY No 700 del 01 de Junio de 2015 |website=Derechoteca.com |access-date=16 November 2017}}</ref> and ].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://gt.transdoc.com/articulos/archivos-leyes/Ley-de-Proteccin-y-Bienestar-Animal/62680 |title=Ley de Protección y Bienestar Animal |website=Transdoc Archivos Leyes |language=es |access-date=16 November 2017 |archive-date=2 December 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201202194637/https://gt.transdoc.com/articulos/archivos-leyes/Ley-de-Proteccin-y-Bienestar-Animal/62680}}</ref> The number of jurisdictions around the world banning it has grown in the 2000s and 2010s.
::::: The article's been round in this form for the best part of 1.5 years now, a long time of near total stability for a controversial topic. The issue of balance has come up before. There's roughly as many that view it as neutral and informative, as view it as biased, and inappropriate or unhelpful pro-zoophilia edits get removed often, as do against-zoophilia edits, if the edit history is checked.


Germany legalized bestiality in 1969, and banned forced acts of bestiality in 2013.{{efn|Bestiality had previously been legalised in 1969.<ref>{{cite news |title=Animal welfare: Germany moves to ban bestiality |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-20523950 |access-date=28 May 2021 |work=] |date=28 November 2012}}</ref>}}<ref>{{cite web |title=Tierschutzgesetz § 3 |url=https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tierschg/__3.html |language=de |publisher=Bundesministerium der Justiz |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190129114917/https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tierschg/__3.html |archive-date=29 January 2019 |url-status=live}}</ref> The 2013 law was unsuccessfully challenged before the ] in 2015.<ref>{{Cite press release |date=18 February 2016 |url=https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2016/bvg16-011.html |publisher=Bundesverfassungsgericht |language=de |title=Erfolglose Verfassungsbeschwerde gegen den Ordnungswidrigkeitentatbestand der sexuellen Handlung mit Tieren |website=www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de |access-date=26 February 2020 |trans-title=Unsuccessful constitutional complaint against the administrative offense of sexual acts with animals |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200129211855/https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2016/bvg16-011.html |archive-date=29 January 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> However, the court's verdict emphasizes that the law in question only applies on the condition of "forcing" an animal to "behavior contrary to its kind" where "forcing" entails either the use of "physical violence" or "actions that are comparable to the use of physical violence". In conclusion, German law allows non-forced acts of human-animal sexual intercourse to some extent. In spite of that, the current legal situation and the 2015 verdict are often misrepresented in media as a total ban of bestiality in Germany.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://apnews.com/5f6ffb7e5cd2472f9bc5b5e1f6cf8e37 |access-date=26 February 2020|title=Top German court rejects challenge to law against bestiality |date=18 February 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200129222233/https://apnews.com/5f6ffb7e5cd2472f9bc5b5e1f6cf8e37|archive-date=29 January 2020|url-status=live |website=AP NEWS}}</ref><ref>{{Cite magazine |url=https://time.com/4230863/germany-sex-animals/ |title=German Court Rules Sex With Animals Still Illegal |magazine=Time|access-date=26 February 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161229005235/http://time.com/4230863/germany-sex-animals/|archive-date=29 December 2016|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35611906 |title=Bid to end German animal-sex ban fails |work=BBC News |date=19 February 2016 |access-date=26 February 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180131051614/http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35611906 |archive-date=31 January 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.thelocal.de/20160218/top-court-throws-out-bid-to-legalize-bestiality |title=Top court throws out bid to legalize bestiality |newspaper=The Local Germany |date=18 February 2016 |access-date=29 January 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200129211847/https://www.thelocal.de/20160218/top-court-throws-out-bid-to-legalize-bestiality |archive-date=29 January 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref> ] (]) 21:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
::::: Part of these issues probably comes down to this: Popular impression differs strongly from such research as has been done. Most of this article has been gone over with a fine toothcomb at some time or other, and most editors have carefully ''avoided'' bias towards any given view. We have to be careful to report the public perception, which is done in many places (it's very very clearly stated that it is condemned very strongly). But we also must accept that pretty much ''all'' those who have actually and seriously researched zoophilia in general separate from a criminal justice system prior context (and there are a fair number of serious peer-reviewed studies now) report that certain popular perceptions are not in accordance with reality. This is in part why the notes are long -- exactly recognizing it's '''not''' what one would intuitively expect from stereotypes.
:None of the sources you cite for the claim that 'German law allows non-forced acts of human-animal sexual intercourse to some extent' even remotely supports it. ] (]) 22:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

::See the third paragraph of the official press release of the Federal Constitutional Court (https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2016/bvg16-011.html; Its's linked as "" above). The second sentence reads ''"Der Tatbestand des § 3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 TierSchG wird in doppelter Hinsicht durch die Merkmale der „sexuellen Handlung“ und des „Zwingens“ zu einem „artwidrigen Verhalten“ begrenzt."''.
::::: For example, the serious psychological profiling of zoophiles in the psychological community says that zoophiles are on the whole, ''more'' empathic, ''less'' pathological, and ''less'' interested in power and control than the average citizen (discussed on this talk page some long time ago). To say "Research says that zoophiles are generally more empathic and less manipulative than the average person" might well sound "alarmingly pro-zoophile" to the average lay-person, but it's nothing more nor less than the current scientific findings. That's in part why the subject is controversial. That's the function of science, to test and form views on matters of popular belief and interest.
::This translates to ''"The offense of is limited in two aspects by the characteristics of the "sexual act" and the "forcing" to engage in "behavior contrary to kind."''

::The court specifically describes how the law that forbids bestiality is '''limited''' to situations where someone is "forcing" an animal. The verdict leaves no room for interpretation about the existence of this limitation.
::::: As to weasel words: There are indeed a large number of "some people". That's because we know from research that such views exist and are notable. But research has been qualitative not quantitative (as stated) so we do ''not'' know exact numbers. So "some" is often the best we can do. So we know tendencies more often than exact percentages for many features of the topic. That's inherent in the subject (as with other sexual topics) and discussed carefully under "extent" so that the reader understands the issue.
::To put it simply: There is a law that forbids certain sexual acts. This law is limited by certain conditions. If these conditions are not met the law does not apply. "Forcing" the animal to something is one of these conditions. ] (]) 14:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

:::Misplaced Pages does not base content on contributors personal readings of legislation. ] (]) 14:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
::::: I imagine it will leave questions but that's the nature of the topic. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 20:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::::As it should be. That's why the primary source of information is the one to be considered here, which is the German Federal Constitutional Court. The literal quote of the court states this law's limitation. ] (]) 19:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

:::::{{re|Fijexaw931}} Please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template again. ] (]) 19:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
:::: Perhaps it could benefit from a peer review especially requesting a look at neutrality. Get some fresh looks at it. ] 21:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::Ok, sorry for misunderstanding. I was led to believe that it was required to gain the attention of someone responsible as there was absolutely no reaction when I had raised the topic months prior. ] (]) 00:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

:::::Cherry-picking a quote from ruling that German law against bestiality was constitutional to assert that bestiality was in fact legal under some circumstances isn't going to work. Per ], we require that such sources are only used {{tq| to make straightforward, descriptive '''statements of facts''' that can be '''verified by any educated person with access''' to the primary source}}. The only thing that can really be 'verified' in such terms, as I see it, is that the court ruled the law constitutional. Which is all they were asked to rule on. 'Verification' that requires extracting implications from a primary-source text that doesn't say something directly simply isn't permissible under Misplaced Pages policy. If that is what the ruling implies, find a secondary source that says so unambiguously. As of now, we cite multiple secondary sources suggesting the contrary.] (]) 21:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Part of the difficulty is that Misplaced Pages reports facts, rather than individual editors opinions. The facts are substantially drawn from research, since research is in general the main source of knowledge on this subject. In its way, it is a huge subject. Partly why the article is long is that it is covering the view of experts as opposed to only lay people or media beliefs, and expert information is a view with some 50 - 100 years of research behind it. You can see that from the biliography. Most articles are shorter because they are split into many sub articles (eg look at BDSM or '''homosexuality '''or such: homosexuality and religion, choice and homosexuality, gay culture, societal views on homosexuality, gay rights, homophobia, LGBT history, ex-gay, homosexuality and christianity, homosexuality and psychology, homosexuality in china, anti-gay, LGBT media, timeline of LGBT history, gay news, gay agenda, gay friendly, gay pornographic magazines, homosexuality in ancient greece, homosexual laws of the world, homosexuality and medical science, gay stereotyping, ... or '''BDSM''': BDSM, dominant (BDSM), slave (BDSM), consent (BDSM), play (BDSM), list of BDSM terms, domination and submission (BDSM), list of BDSM organizations, power exchange (BDSM), subspace, list of BDSM equipment, BDSM activists, BDSM film-makers, fantasy, pornography, BDSM contract, defence of masochism, edgeplay, erotic denial, fear play, female dominance, foot worship, greenery press, handkerchief code, gorean BDSM, ... 187 articles and 12 subcategories...)
::::::I see now that the wording "in conclusion" in my initial proposal was poorly chosen as it implies an attempt at interpreting the source. My intent was to rephrase the source while retaining its original meaning which is specifically mentioned to not fall under the ] requirement. Changing a sentence from "the offense of is limited in two aspects " to "X is allowed under certain conditions" is a rephrasing by switching from negative to positive logic (comparable to changing "A is bigger than B" to "B is smaller than A", different wordings, same meaning). However, even if we can not agree on that we do not strictly need the rephrased text and can just let the more literal quote from the court stand on its own.

::::::There was also a broken archive link in the article that is fixed below.
So there is a lot more being said or to incorporate than meets the eye, and a lot more than people would think to the issues surrounding it, which the article touches on. If you feel there is research which is not represented, then that's worth adding... which is of course how this and most articles mature. ] (]) 23:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
::::::I propose the following revised change to the Misplaced Pages article. The paragraph "Germany legalized bestiality in 1969 " should be replaced with:

::::::Germany had legalized bestiality in 1969, but has banned it again in 2013.{{efn|Bestiality had previously been legalised in 1969.<ref>{{cite news |title=Animal welfare: Germany moves to ban bestiality |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-20523950 |access-date=28 May 2021 |work=] |date=28 November 2012}}</ref>}}<ref>{{cite web |title=Tierschutzgesetz § 3 |url=https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tierschg/__3.html |language=de |publisher=Bundesministerium der Justiz |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190129114917/https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tierschg/__3.html |archive-date=29 January 2019 |url-status=live}}</ref> The 2013 law was unsuccessfully challenged before the ] in 2015.<ref>{{Cite press release |date=18 February 2016 |url=https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2016/bvg16-011.html |publisher=Bundesverfassungsgericht |language=de |title=Erfolglose Verfassungsbeschwerde gegen den Ordnungswidrigkeitentatbestand der sexuellen Handlung mit Tieren |website=www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de |access-date=26 February 2020 |trans-title=Unsuccessful constitutional complaint against the administrative offense of sexual acts with animals |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200129211855/https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2016/bvg16-011.html |archive-date=29 January 2020|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://apnews.com/5f6ffb7e5cd2472f9bc5b5e1f6cf8e37 |access-date=26 February 2020|title=Top German court rejects challenge to law against bestiality |date=18 February 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200129222233/https://apnews.com/5f6ffb7e5cd2472f9bc5b5e1f6cf8e37 |archive-date=29 January 2020|url-status=live |website=AP NEWS}}</ref><ref>{{Cite magazine |url=https://time.com/4230863/germany-sex-animals/ |title=German Court Rules Sex With Animals Still Illegal |magazine=Time|access-date=26 February 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161229005235/http://time.com/4230863/germany-sex-animals/ |archive-date=29 December 2016|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35611906 |title=Bid to end German animal-sex ban fails |work=BBC News |date=19 February 2016 |access-date=26 February 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180131051614/http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35611906 |archive-date=31 January 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.thelocal.de/20160218/top-court-throws-out-bid-to-legalize-bestiality |title=Top court throws out bid to legalize bestiality |newspaper=The Local Germany |date=18 February 2016 |access-date=24 March 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231210172403/https://www.thelocal.de/20160218/top-court-throws-out-bid-to-legalize-bestiality |archive-date=10 December 2023 |url-status=live}}</ref> While the law was ruled constitutional, the court recognizes in their reasoning behind this verdict that the law in question only applied on the condition of "forcing" an animal to "behavior contrary to its kind" where "forcing" entailed either the use of "physical violence" or "actions that are comparable to the use of physical violence". ] (]) 13:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

:::::::No. Still not compliant with Misplaced Pages policy, see my previous reply. '''We have multiple sources that contradict what you are claiming, and you are clearly cherry-picking the source to promote your own reading of it.''' Please don't waste our time by repeating the same arguments. ] (]) 14:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
::It doesn't help the antis that there is, what, Dr. Laura on their side, who is not only not a psychologist (her doctorate's is in Biology), but considers homosexuality a disease requiring a cure as much as zoosexuality. I have yet to see an anti-zoo argument that actually holds water, from "unnatural" to "can't consent" to "animals=children." Really, I think spaying/neutering children is not such a bad idea ... --] 13:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
::::::::The proposed text does not make any claim, no interpretation, no own research. Everything is directly verifiable from the linked sources as required.

::::::::To address your claim of cherry-picking, we can add more sources that agree with the court on the exitence of the mentioned limitation. The revised article below does not promote any particular reading but provides multiple independent sources addressing the verdict in different ways.
:::Welcome, Chibiabos. Its important on this debate to read the various policies about content. The problem is, it doesn't matter what "you or I" think, but what is verifiable and notable. We may agree with it or not, but we don't have the right to base editorial decisions upon what seems right to 'us'. We instead base them upon what seems to be representative perspectives of credible research and the like. We also don't tend to think in terms of "pro" or "anti"s. They are simply, different viewpoints on the same debate, two of many views that we have documented. Three good pages to read: ], ] and ]. They guide our editing here, and I hope they give you some ideas how to help this article be better! :)
::::::::The proposed article text after revision would look like ths:

::::::::Germany had legalized bestiality in 1969, but has banned it again in 2013.{{efn|Bestiality had previously been legalised in 1969.<ref>{{cite news |title=Animal welfare: Germany moves to ban bestiality |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-20523950 |access-date=28 May 2021 |work=] |date=28 November 2012}}</ref>}}<ref>{{cite web |title=Tierschutzgesetz § 3 |url=https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tierschg/__3.html |language=de |publisher=Bundesministerium der Justiz |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190129114917/https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tierschg/__3.html |archive-date=29 January 2019 |url-status=live}}</ref> The 2013 law was unsuccessfully challenged before the ] in 2015.<ref>{{Cite press release |date=18 February 2016 |url=https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2016/bvg16-011.html |publisher=Bundesverfassungsgericht |language=de |title=Erfolglose Verfassungsbeschwerde gegen den Ordnungswidrigkeitentatbestand der sexuellen Handlung mit Tieren |website=www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de |access-date=26 February 2020 |trans-title=Unsuccessful constitutional complaint against the administrative offense of sexual acts with animals |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200129211855/https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2016/bvg16-011.html |archive-date=29 January 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> While the law was ruled constitutional, there is unanimosity about the full extent of this law. The court notes in their reasoning behind this verdict that the law in question only applied on the condition of "forcing" an animal to "behavior contrary to its kind" where "forcing" entailed either the use of "physical violence" or "actions that are comparable to the use of physical violence". Sources referencing the verdict either do not mention the law to be limited,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://apnews.com/5f6ffb7e5cd2472f9bc5b5e1f6cf8e37 |access-date=26 February 2020|title=Top German court rejects challenge to law against bestiality |date=18 February 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200129222233/https://apnews.com/5f6ffb7e5cd2472f9bc5b5e1f6cf8e37 |archive-date=29 January 2020|url-status=live |website=AP NEWS}}</ref><ref>{{Cite magazine |url=https://time.com/4230863/germany-sex-animals/ |title=German Court Rules Sex With Animals Still Illegal |magazine=Time|access-date=26 February 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161229005235/http://time.com/4230863/germany-sex-animals/ |archive-date=29 December 2016|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35611906 |title=Bid to end German animal-sex ban fails |work=BBC News |date=19 February 2016 |access-date=26 February 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180131051614/http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35611906 |archive-date=31 January 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.thelocal.de/20160218/top-court-throws-out-bid-to-legalize-bestiality |title=Top court throws out bid to legalize bestiality |newspaper=The Local Germany |date=18 February 2016 |access-date=24 March 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231210172403/https://www.thelocal.de/20160218/top-court-throws-out-bid-to-legalize-bestiality |archive-date=10 December 2023 |url-status=live}}</ref> or recognize it but claim "voluntary and species-appropriate" bestiality to be "improbable",<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.anwalt-suchservice.de/rechtstipps/sex_mit_tieren_sodomie_bleibt_unzulaessig_22142.html |access-date=24 March 2024|title=Sodomie: Ist Sex mit Tieren erlaubt? |date=27 July 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240324113607/https://www.anwalt-suchservice.de/rechtstipps/sex_mit_tieren_sodomie_bleibt_unzulaessig_22142.html |archive-date=24 March 2024 |website=Anwalt-Suchservice}}</ref> or recognize it<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://taz.de/!5279681/ |access-date=24 March 2024|title=Kein Zwangs-Sex mit Tieren |date=19 February 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160808102604/https://taz.de/!5279681/ |archive-date=8 August 2016 |website=taz}}</ref>. ] (]) 16:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
:::One way you can help is, you posted the following in an edit summary: "Religious perspectives - 'Most' is inaccurate. In fact, most religions in the world are still tribal, and many tribes in South America and Africa are known to practice forms of bestiality". is this verifiable from third party writings or sources? Do you have research or a soruce to back it? Or is it simply personal belief? if it has some form of credible backing or source, can you say more below, for possible inclusion. :) ] (]) 14:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::No. '''Misplaced Pages is not going to permit you to publish your own personal analysis of German law on bestiality here.''' You have had our policy explained to you, repeatedly. If you can't understand it, that's your problem, not ours. ] (]) 16:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

::::::::::"Personal analysis" implies a personal point of view. Please verify your accusation against the proposed text so I can remove all remaining traces of personal opinion that are not merely a neutral description of publicly available sources. ] (]) 17:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
::::My source was actually a college anthropology class I took about 10 years ago. Our study was Chagnon's Yanomomo, and we watched part of a video documentary of Chagnon's return to the Yanomomo tribe, and class discussions included how procreative heterosexual sex was actually viewed as something of a sacrifice on the part of the man, and that before marriage, sex between men and women was frowned upon. The professor answered questions from several of my classmates that tribal cultures in many parts of the world are remarkably similar in their approach. It is a fact that Judeo-Christianity is still found in only a fraction of the world's population and while Western culture continues to destroy what tribal cultures are left, there are still quite a few left. Judeo-Christians remain a highly ethnocentric bunch, and still tend to regard other cultures as "primitive" and "barbaric," and readily discount the value of their beliefs. The sense that most people in the world are Judeo-Christian (which is false; Judeo-Christianity is a minority), that there are no more tribal cultures in the classic sense (also false), that what few people there were have all been 'successfully converted' by Missionaries and no longer engage in these acts of "barbarism" (also false, though the trend continues and any true and blue anti-ethnocentric anthropologist will tell you that the permanent loss of cultures in this way is a loss to us all) is the basis I see for such arrogant and unsupported claims that 'most cultures in the world abhor bestiality' and other similar claims. I do not recall what the title of the video was. I could probably drag up my Chagnon book on Yanomomo, I think its buried with my stuff in the basement presently, if you aren't familiar with it, but Chagnon is a fairly noteworthy name in the field of anthropology.
:::::::::::I have explained Misplaced Pages policy. That is all that is required here. In principle, you could ask for a second opinion, or otherwise make use of ] processes, though I'd strongly advise against this, as a complete waste of your time, and that of others. There is no room for ambiguity here - you simply '''cannot''' contradict multiple published sources by selectively quoting a court press release. ] (]) 18:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

::::::::::::Oh. I think I know now why you think I was trying to make a claim in the current text proposal. I apologize for the confusion this must have caused.
::::An NPOV does not necessarily mean you should dress up one side to make it seem sensible; the anti-zoophilia crowd has yet, from all that I have seen, to come up with a genuine explanation as to why sexual mutilation in the form of forced (and by definition anti-consentual) spays and neuters and forced sex in the form of breeders for profit is okay and acceptable, yet consentual activity is not (and then rely on the argument that humans are the only species of animal capable of expressing like or dislike, which there is no reasonable basis for). Further, I don't view NPOV as necessary in discussions on the Talk page.
::::::::::::I made a major typo which heavily warps the meaning of the text to about the opposite of what was actually intended. The proposal reads "there is '''unanimosity''' about the full extent of this law". Correct would be "there is '''no consensus''' on the full extent of this law", followed by the quote of the court and how/if the differnt sources pick up on that. ] (]) 23:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Given your repeated refusal to take the slightest bit of notice of what I have been telling you with regard to Misplaced Pages policy, I shall not be responding further. If you add this content, or anything resembling it to the article, I will revert you. If you persist, I will request you be blocked for abusing Misplaced Pages to promote your own personal agenda. Misplaced Pages ''Will not under any circumstances include your personal interpretation of German law on bestiality in the article.'' This is not open to negotiation. ] (]) 23:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
::::Further, is there any evidence to support the original term of 'most'? Did anyone count cultures? I challenge any such claim that there was any basis or reasoned thought into the word "most" used there. --] 05:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I appreciate your past efforts to uphold Misplaced Pages's policies. The quality of the proposed text has improved substantially over the first draft thanks to that. However, your more recent comments show a lack of concern about those policies.

::::::::::::::] is a practice that "neglects, overlooks or directly suppresses evidence that could lead to a complete picture". Adding more sources here is not cherry picking as we do not have a good reason to ignore those sources. So far you could not bring forth such a reason either but adamantly demand to neglect the additional sources solely based on the fact that they don't support the perspective of the already presented ones. This is a picture book example of cherry picking. (Not to mention ] earlier from "find a secondary source that says so unambiguously" to refusing these sources altogether.)
Now those are good points. If you can drag it up and quote whatever you think relevant here, with a page/s and book/s citation, it'd be good, as you say most of us are not anthropologists so we probably are not aware. One of the good things, everyone brings some new information. Some solid quotes on this, and indeed on the prevalence of judeo-christianity vs tribal beliefs, wouldnt hurt either, to educate us. ] (]) 09:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Furthermore you have claimed that the proposed text breaks Misplaced Pages's policies about own research/interpretations but refused to answer the direct question about how it does so.

::::::::::::::Instead of just giving a sensible reason you
== Notes from Featured Article page ==
::::::::::::::* ] by calling this proposal to be under some sort of "agenda",
{{main|Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Zoophilia}}
::::::::::::::* threaten to start an ],
Major points carried over from FAC page comments:
::::::::::::::* resort to coersion by making personal threats in what seems to be an attempt at scaring me out of participating.
# Several sections should be moved to their own articles (legal and religion especially)
::::::::::::::All of these are harmful to a reasonable discussion.
# Lists should not be used, or not used in some sections at any rate, in favor of "prose" style (arguments and religion especially) (part done by ], thanks!)
::::::::::::::I wish you would just answer the question so I could improve the text but if you decide to disengage, a third opinion seems like the next reasonable step.
# Title change to "books and documentaries" (done)
::::::::::::::For the record, the current text proposal, including the correction from earlier, is this:
# Legal status omits large parts of the world.
::::::::::::::Germany had legalized bestiality in 1969, but has banned it again in 2013.{{efn|Bestiality had previously been legalised in 1969.<ref>{{cite news |title=Animal welfare: Germany moves to ban bestiality |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-20523950 |access-date=28 May 2021 |work=] |date=28 November 2012}}</ref>}}<ref>{{cite web |title=Tierschutzgesetz § 3 |url=https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tierschg/__3.html |language=de |publisher=Bundesministerium der Justiz |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190129114917/https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tierschg/__3.html |archive-date=29 January 2019 |url-status=live}}</ref> The 2013 law was unsuccessfully challenged before the ] in 2015.<ref>{{Cite press release |date=18 February 2016 |url=https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2016/bvg16-011.html |publisher=Bundesverfassungsgericht |language=de |title=Erfolglose Verfassungsbeschwerde gegen den Ordnungswidrigkeitentatbestand der sexuellen Handlung mit Tieren |website=www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de |access-date=26 February 2020 |trans-title=Unsuccessful constitutional complaint against the administrative offense of sexual acts with animals |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200129211855/https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2016/bvg16-011.html |archive-date=29 January 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> While the law was ruled constitutional, there is no consensus on the full extent of this law. The court notes in their reasoning behind this verdict that the law in question only applied on the condition of "forcing" an animal to "behavior contrary to its kind" where "forcing" entailed either the use of "physical violence" or "actions that are comparable to the use of physical violence". Sources referencing the verdict either do not mention the law to be limited,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://apnews.com/5f6ffb7e5cd2472f9bc5b5e1f6cf8e37 |access-date=26 February 2020|title=Top German court rejects challenge to law against bestiality |date=18 February 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200129222233/https://apnews.com/5f6ffb7e5cd2472f9bc5b5e1f6cf8e37 |archive-date=29 January 2020|url-status=live |website=AP NEWS}}</ref><ref>{{Cite magazine |url=https://time.com/4230863/germany-sex-animals/ |title=German Court Rules Sex With Animals Still Illegal |magazine=Time|access-date=26 February 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161229005235/http://time.com/4230863/germany-sex-animals/ |archive-date=29 December 2016|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35611906 |title=Bid to end German animal-sex ban fails |work=BBC News |date=19 February 2016 |access-date=26 February 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180131051614/http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35611906 |archive-date=31 January 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.thelocal.de/20160218/top-court-throws-out-bid-to-legalize-bestiality |title=Top court throws out bid to legalize bestiality |newspaper=The Local Germany |date=18 February 2016 |access-date=24 March 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231210172403/https://www.thelocal.de/20160218/top-court-throws-out-bid-to-legalize-bestiality |archive-date=10 December 2023 |url-status=live}}</ref> or recognize it but claim "voluntary and species-appropriate" bestiality to be "improbable",<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.anwalt-suchservice.de/rechtstipps/sex_mit_tieren_sodomie_bleibt_unzulaessig_22142.html |access-date=24 March 2024|title=Sodomie: Ist Sex mit Tieren erlaubt? |date=27 July 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240324113607/https://www.anwalt-suchservice.de/rechtstipps/sex_mit_tieren_sodomie_bleibt_unzulaessig_22142.html |archive-date=24 March 2024 |website=Anwalt-Suchservice}}</ref> or recognize it<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://taz.de/!5279681/ |access-date=24 March 2024|title=Kein Zwangs-Sex mit Tieren |date=19 February 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160808102604/https://taz.de/!5279681/ |archive-date=8 August 2016 |website=taz}}</ref>. ] (]) 11:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
# Consistent citation method should be used.
:::::::::::::::You will not under any circumstances be permitted to use Misplaced Pages to promote your own personal interpretation of German law with regard to the sexual abuse of animals. Not with this account, not with your previous one, and not under any new one you create. ] (]) 11:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
# Add paragraph summaries under blank sections, not just an article link. (done)
::::::::::::::::I have requested a third opinon to help in resolving this dispute: ] ] (]) 21:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
# Add citations to sections such as "zoophilia and other groups".
:::::::::::::::::There is nothing whatsoever to discuss. Your proposal is pure and unadulterated ], and will not under any circumstances be permitted on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 21:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
] (]) 10:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Finally, I have time to come back to this.

::::::::::::::::::As ] said, conflicting sources are not necessarily to be excluded because of the conflictingness alone, as long as an appropriate weighting between the sources is maintained. Allegedely, the previously proposed text still contained original research, so I decided to scrap it. Instead, the new proposal just adds a single sentence: "A small number of sources suggest this law might be conditional." This takes into account the sources' different weights and can easily be verified by any reasonably educated person with access to the cited sources, as required.

::::::::::::::::::Does this proposal still contain original research?
:Followup to work done by ] on the article:
::::::::::::::::::Germany{{which|date=July 2024}} legalized bestiality in 1969<ref>{{cite news |title=Animal welfare: Germany moves to ban bestiality |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-20523950 |access-date=28 May 2021 |work=] |date=28 November 2012}}</ref> but banned it again in 2013.<ref>{{cite web |title=Tierschutzgesetz § 3 |url=https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tierschg/__3.html |language=de |publisher=Bundesministerium der Justiz |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190129114917/https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tierschg/__3.html |archive-date=29 January 2019 |url-status=live}}</ref> The 2013 law was unsuccessfully challenged before the ] in 2015.<ref name="German FCC 2015">{{Cite press release |date=18 February 2016 |url=https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2016/bvg16-011.html |publisher=Bundesverfassungsgericht |language=de |title=Erfolglose Verfassungsbeschwerde gegen den Ordnungswidrigkeitentatbestand der sexuellen Handlung mit Tieren |website=www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de |access-date=26 February 2020 |trans-title=Unsuccessful constitutional complaint against the administrative offense of sexual acts with animals |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200129211855/https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2016/bvg16-011.html |archive-date=29 January 2020|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://apnews.com/5f6ffb7e5cd2472f9bc5b5e1f6cf8e37 |access-date=26 February 2020|title=Top German court rejects challenge to law against bestiality |date=18 February 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200129222233/https://apnews.com/5f6ffb7e5cd2472f9bc5b5e1f6cf8e37|archive-date=29 January 2020|url-status=live |website=AP NEWS}}</ref><ref>{{Cite magazine |url=https://time.com/4230863/germany-sex-animals/ |title=German Court Rules Sex With Animals Still Illegal |magazine=Time|access-date=26 February 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161229005235/http://time.com/4230863/germany-sex-animals/|archive-date=29 December 2016|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35611906 |title=Bid to end German animal-sex ban fails |work=BBC News |date=19 February 2016 |access-date=26 February 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180131051614/http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35611906 |archive-date=31 January 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.thelocal.de/20160218/top-court-throws-out-bid-to-legalize-bestiality |title=Top court throws out bid to legalize bestiality |newspaper=The Local Germany |date=18 February 2016 |access-date=29 January 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200129211847/https://www.thelocal.de/20160218/top-court-throws-out-bid-to-legalize-bestiality |archive-date=29 January 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref>{{Excessive citations inline|date=November 2021}} A small number of sources suggest this law might be conditional.<ref name="German FCC 2015"/><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.anwalt-suchservice.de/rechtstipps/sex_mit_tieren_sodomie_bleibt_unzulaessig_22142.html |access-date=24 March 2024|title=Sodomie: Ist Sex mit Tieren erlaubt? |date=27 July 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240324113607/https://www.anwalt-suchservice.de/rechtstipps/sex_mit_tieren_sodomie_bleibt_unzulaessig_22142.html |archive-date=24 March 2024 |website=Anwalt-Suchservice}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://taz.de/!5279681/ |access-date=24 March 2024|title=Kein Zwangs-Sex mit Tieren |date=19 February 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160808102604/https://taz.de/!5279681/ |archive-date=8 August 2016 |website=taz}}</ref> ] (]) 18:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:Thanks for the work, it does show. A couple of edits only cause me concern, in part because there wasn't discussion and I do have real concerns about the information removed. A quick review of the article as it stands:
{{Outdent|:::::::::::::::::}}
# The intro header, highlighted that zoosexuality covers the field from a point of view of "sexual orientation". There's a subtle and important distinction between two articles (same subject area, different aspects, technical term). I've clarified the terms better in the "terminology" section to cover the ambiguity.
{| style="border-top: solid thin lightgrey; background: transparent; padding: 4px;"
# I understand you prefer "see also" sections removed, and I grant you have more knowledge and experience than I do by far. But even so, I do not see any proposed solution for others to find these useful articles, nor do I yet see editor consensus on this one issue or a serious breach of style guides by including it. I am therefore proposing to revert it for now, and perhaps discuss it here, and hope that you will be willing to see it discussed and alternative ways to provide the same information identified if necessary, before simply deleting the information.
| ] '''Response to ]:'''
#:(As a quick aside I just opened 20 featured articles at random from throughout ]. 16 featured articles had "see also" sections. By contrast with some, the section in this article is useful, relevant, and short.)
# Points raised by others, such as inline links, inline cites, and certain italicised quotes, need addressing.
# I would like to see two fairly easy sections substantively moved to their own articles: legal (done: ]), and religion.
# I would also like to ask for discussion of a separate article, ''Society and zoophilia'' or ''Societal attitudes towards zoophilia''. The sections on society and zoophilia are long, and perhaps better in their own article, much as arguments for/against homosexuality are summarized in that article and have their own articles discussing in more detail. The exact scope of that article would determine its title, hence discussion.
#A nagging concern that the shape of the debate is such that article structure would now benefit from editors' review. The material's good but is that all. I'd like to bring forward the abberation v orientation issues a bit sooner, since they provide a context for the entire subject and its development.
# Finally and a big project, it would be sensibel to have an article, "research into zoophilia" -- a neutral summary of the research and exactly who concluded what where, will mean that common information doesn't have to be repeated so much.
:] (]) 13:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

==Mythology==
I think it's important to change the wording around Zeus and his so called "seduction" of Lena and Europa: which is more accurately described as rape.
I really believe it's important not to play down and consequently normalise the sexual violence against women that permeates the classics.
However, I'm not knowledgeable enough to pin down the exact terminology and events - can anyone help out?
:Try reposting the question on the appropriate ] reference desk. Its exactly their kind of question.

=="Zoophilia" in Greek==
Was "zoophilia" another artificial splice of Greek by Krafft-Ebing, or is it derived from something actually encountered in Ancient Greek? ] 00:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
:You know, I'm not sure. Did he invent the term, reinvent an existing word, or was it already in use and borrowed/adapted for the purpose? Don't know. I'd suspect "borrowed or reinvented", since in Greek it apparently retains the meaning "animal lover", which suggests that was its original meaning in that language at least (if K-E had invented it, surely it'd mean what he invented in Greek too?). But I'm not sure. ] (]) 07:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
: I believe the term was already in use, but referred to a non-sexual attraction. ]<sup>(])</sup> 08:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

== Own page for bestiality? ==

Seeing as zoosexuality got its own article (though I must say that the difference between zoophilia and zoosexuality isn't made very clear), perhaps bestiality could also be given its own article since I'd consider the difference between bestiality and zoophilia a lot bigger than the difference between zoosexuality and zoophilia. Sections like legal status, health and safety, mythology, media discussion and pornography would all fit in this bestiality article, so little new content would have to be written. It'd also reduce the length of the zoophilia article, as it's a bit lengthy at the moment. ] 13:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

:I've been thinking about the "what belongs in what article" issue myself a bit. It doesn't help that history has left us with ambiguous terms. In an ideal world (!) "zoophilia" would cover the paraphilia. But in reality, it also covers sex and relational bonding with animals in all senses. I can see how in an ideal world there could be a separate article on "zoosexual acts", and that it would cover the acts, their legality, health, and similar.

:I think overall, given the confusion, the main article should be called "zoophilia". This is the term widely used for all aspects of sexual and relational bonding between people and animals. Given that, do we need a separate article on "sex"? I don't think so. We might benefit from articles on "legal", or "views on", or "religion and" ... but the sexual act itself? Not really.

:Zoosexuality has a technical meaning. Perhaps that article could benefit if renamed "zoosexuality (orientation)" to clarify this. But as sex, eroticism, and intimate relationships with animals are so closely tied up, it would make sense to me, that we handle all those in one article. Thoughts? ] (]) 14:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

::First of all, zoosexuality is a very rarely used term. To put it in perspective, zoosexuality gives 960 hits on google while zoophilia gives 1.6 million hits on google. Besides this, zoosexuality does not appear in the dictionary. These two things combined make it hard for me to truely figure out the meaning of the term zoosexuality. In most cases where I've seen it used, it's pretty much a synonym for zoophilia. I guess zoosexuality could be seen as a purely sexual attraction, while zoophilia goes beyond that.

::I would just include zoosexuality in the zoophilia page as currently, the seperate articles in my opinion only confuse the reader as the exact difference does not become clear. Bestiality would become a seperate article, containing the topics of legal status, religious perspectives, animal rights, historical and cultural perspectives, health and safety, mythology, media discussion and pornography. In short, all topics dealing with the actual act fall under the bestiality article, while all topics dealing with the sexual orientation fall under the zoophilia / zoosexuality article. Only the arguments section kind of goes both ways. ] 16:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Read the article on zoosexuality. It is notable in its own right, and defined within sexology, as distinct and separate from a general article on "people and animals". Google hits are (in this case) not a good uindication of notability. You don't need to "guess" how they differ. Read that article and you'll see. If it's still not clear, how the two articles differ, say so?

That said, if the subject didn't have such conflicting definitions, I would broadly say that much of zoophilia would belong in an artiicle titled "zoosexuality". But as it is, zoophilia is the more recognised term for much of it, and it helps to have the article on the orientation kept "clean" and just about the orientation as an orientation". I think just leave it as it is, and focus on cleanup and missing areas in the field, is best, for now. ] (]) 21:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

::No less than four definitions of zoophilia are given on the zoosexuality page. Further, this is how the difference is defined in the beginning of the zoophilia article: "Zoophilia, from the Greek ??? (zôon, "animal") and f???a (philia, "friendship" or "love"), is a paraphilia, defined as an affinity or sexual attraction by a human to a (non-human) animal. Such individuals are called zoophiles. The more recent terms zoosexual and zoosexuality describe the full spectrum of human/animal orientation." However, the definition here of zoosexuality doesn't match up with the definition given on the zoosexuality page itself where it is noted that zoosexuality only covers the sexual orientation, and so not the "full spectrum" (which would also include the emotional aspects).

::And then there's this part from the professional views section: "Zoosexuality implies a sexual orientation toward animals... And Donofrio (1996) reports that the concept of zoophilia, being a sexual orientation, was supported by his doctoral study." The way I read that sentence, zoophilia is used as a synonym for zoosexuality. A little further down in the same section, this happens again, even more obviously so: "Not clearly named in this list is the form of zoophilia, that is characterized by an emotional as well as a sexual attraction respectively love to an animal, which is called zoosexuality by other authors (Donofrio, 1996; Miletski, 1999)."

::I find it strange for two terms that are obviously VERY closely related to have seperate articles, while bestiality which is obviously not the same as zoophilia or zoosexuality does not get its own article, even though this would be a good way to reduce the length of the zoophilia article. ] 11:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

First, just to clarify, the main "zoophilia" article is being split out into sub articles. That became clear from 3rd party editors on the Featured Article review. So the main article will be simplified a lot over the next while. That will help in part, by allowing excessively long sections such as porn to be moved to separate articles and summarized instead. That will help a lot.

On the issue you're raising, it's not ideal, but given the range of terminology and the historical conflicts in usage I'm not sure we can change that. To take an analogy from another orientation, if there was any commonsense we'd have 3 articles, on 1/ homosexuality in psychology (re its classification as a sexual orientation), 2/ gay culture, lifestyle, legal, societal views, and related stuff (overview split out to subarticles), and 3/ anal sex (legality, consequences, safety etc). That would be sensible. But I just don't see Misplaced Pages having an article on "how to have sex with your animal", and we have a separate legal article, so the latter isn't likely to happen. (Also "bestiality" is seen as pejorative in the field and Misplaced Pages tries to avoid pejoratives where a more neutral accepted term exists). So the little that is said on the act itself is best folded into the general one on the lifestyle, people, views, etc. ] (]) 13:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

:Obviously the bestiality article wouldn't be some sort of "how to" article, it'd be largely made up out of existing text from the zoophilia article. And I must say that currently, the seperation between the zoophilia and zoosexuality articles only confuses readers and does not make the topic any more transparant, this because you can't get around the fact that the terms zoophilia and zoosexuality are very close to being synonyms and are normally used that way as well. The nitpicking over definitions has only made the entire subject more vague. I personally strongely suggest having only one zoophilia / zoosexuality article, as the article was a lot better in that construction, together with a bestiality article (instead of splitting up the zoophilia article in a dozen smaller sub-articles, again making the topic less transparant for the reader). As for bestiality being a pejorative - it is a commonly used word and the most likely word people will search for on wikipedia (people are unlikely to go and search for a term like "zoosexual acts"). ] 13:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, as you can see, I'm having a go at putting the section into that sort of format. Setting aside the actual choice of article name, it's obvious that whatever article discusses zoosexuality as a sexual orientation, is likely to be of a size and definition to need an article of its own, with a brief summary + link within the main article. That's the usual approach for articles covering a whole field: - subarticles covering identifiable major aspects, and a main article summarizing it all with links for more details to each.

Once that's done, I think we will broadly agree, one main article to cover it all, whatever its title may be. But that can't be done until the major chunks are farmed out, which is what's happening in the background, and which takes time. The reason it takes time is that when a subject such as "zoo and the law" becomes a separate article, at that point it must have its own balance and cover its own sub-areas. You can see this in zoo and the law, which covers issues such as how zoo laws come to exist, and their backgrounds, which was new material. So that's why it's a bit slow. But I think broadly that's a direction that's good, and when more of the bulk is moved to subarticles, then creating the main article (under whatever name) to cover it all, will be much easier.

As far as I'm aware, about 4 or 5 articles are being worked on in this way, as subarticles to the main article referencing them, as the Featured Article review suggested. The problem is that you can't fit the whole subject into one article, and nor (as I see it) should you try. A one article summary, yes. But subarticles will then be needed to expand on that. Thoughts? ] (]) 15:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

:Well, that's one of the reasons why I suggested an article for bestiality in the first place. The current article is too long and a bestiality article could take over a lot of its content, without having to create even more subarticles. ] 16:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
::Problem there is, merely moving material from article title A to article title B doesn't change anything much. Let's let the subarticles get done, which will shorten stuff, then see what's left and how it looks, and make decisions, I reckon. There's one I'm working on if you'd like to help on it? ] (]) 18:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
:::The porn article I assume? I don't know if you need any, but I'll read it and perhaps leave some comments on the talk page or add a bit if I can. ] 20:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Thats the one. And yes please. ] (]) 00:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

== Removed in old "ciz" vandalism days. ==

Just came across this:
:"Emotionally and psychologically, research suggests that zoophiles have above average empathy. It is unclear yet from research whether this is a cause or a result of zoophilia. In other words, they may be close to animals because they empathize well, or have developed empathic skills because of intimate closeness with animals. As a group they have a lower level of psychopathy and need for control than average, and a higher level of sensation seeking and involvement in animal protection than average. They also have an above average level of social individualism, which can be either inhibitive (eg, shyness) or empowering (eg, independence of thought). Other research gives similar findings."

] <sup>(] | ] | ])</sup> 23:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

::Well, I guess there's no reason why that wouldn't be valid anymore. I even recall there being a more extensive list of traits, but I can't seem to find it in the article's history. Perhaps it was mentioned elsewhere. ] 21:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

==JHartley edits==
{{vandal|JHartley}} has been formally identified as a sockpuppet of a known Misplaced Pages POV vandal. as has {{vandal|FFodor}} .

The user concerned has caused serious POV damage to other articles, including forged cites, removal of valid facts, attacking of other editors as "biased", and imposition of own preferred POV via selective cites, often non-notable.

His talk page entries, as on the other article, are mostly intended to sway POV on the article and contain many personal attacks; I've archived them at ] if needed.

] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 18:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

== Suggestion for zoophilia and bestiality pages ==

Right now, it's a bit chaotic and vague, with a long page on zoophilia which contains some sections which do not really belong to it. Already, some new pages are in the works. So, here's my suggestion for the articles on all things zoophilia and bestiality related:
*Zoophilia / zoosexuality article (no seperate articles anymore), contains all sections regarding the sexuality: lifestyle, non-sexual zoophilia, zoophiles and other groups, sciences studying zoophilia, mythology and fantasy literature, social community and finally books, articles etc.
*Bestiality article, contains sections regarding the sexual act: perspectives on bestiality, health and safety, arguments, media discussion and pornography.
*Bestiality and the law article, contains information the legal status of bestiality around the world.
*Animal sexual abuse article, contains information on the sexual abuse of animals. I could see this article being incorporated in the bestiality article as well if it's not too long.

Little new content would have to be made and little content would be lost. It's largely a matter of improving the organisation. Some key changes here are that the terms zoophilia and zoosexuality will be used as synonyms as that is how they are most commonly seen. The term bestiality is used in those cases where the actual sexual act is being discussed, and thus something like arguments for / against sex with animals would fall under bestiality and not zoophilia. Also note that I did not include animal pornography as a seperate article but included it with bestiality, though if needed this can be kept as a seperate article as it is being worked on now. All related pages could have a little box somewhere showing the other related pages. Feedback is welcome, I think this would greatly improve the situation on zoophilia / bestiality. ] 19:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

:I've started making the changes needed. ] 17:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
:edit: moved the first few sections, ones that were easy to move without any serious modifications. Other sections will require more work as to make sure it fits the article and no content is lost or misplaced. ] 17:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

::I understand the changes you're suggesting. What I'd ask is, go slowly to allow time for reflection and assessment, and consensus, if you're able. Myself, I'm going to read and then think how it looks now, and will comment more in a day or 2. I'd like to see what consensus says so far, before more editing, to see if people like the direction it's gone in. As I said a while back my own instinct is to do little until the fork sub-articles are more complete. I'm still pondering, I can see the sense of it but still have some concerns that I want to think through before concluding if I'm happier this way or have questions. The one aspect of it I'm not sure at all of, and therefore don't want to be done at this point without much more discussion, is merging from zoosexuality, because that's a technical term and a well defined topic, it's not a duplication even if the title might suggest it to lay-people. Either way it is a set of brave edits. The question how it looks now is what I'd like to check consensus on, befoire more's done though. Thanks! :) ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 21:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

:I decided to go ahead with the changes since there was much talk but little action. As for the zoosexuality / zoophilia merger - I've said it before: the referenced literature states TWICE that zoophilia and zoosexuality are synonyms. And I am not a lay-person and I don't get the difference either. Though perhaps it has been used differently on occasion, in general it is not and I am under the impression that that is also the consensus when looking at the referenced literature, references you added if I'm not mistaken. Plus, I feel the zoosexuality article doesn't contain much new information. ] 10:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The difference would roughly be the same as a difference between two articles called "gay" and "homosexuality", or between "homosexuality (as lifestyle)" and homosexuality (as orientation)".

Basically zoosexuality has a technical meaning, as an orientation, and within that are questions such as, What is an orientation? What research is there each way on it? Why is it classified as an orientation? Thats very different from an overview of zoosexuality as a ''lifestyle''. it's worth looking at the article on ] for a similar situation, where a word with one commonly-understood meaning actually is a technical term in philosophy, and the article on the general or popular meaning is a separate philosophical term in everyday use. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 10:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

:The problem is that literature does not support your point of view as it considers the two to be synonyms, at least in the references provided. Zoosexuality is NOT commonly seen as different from zoophilia and if I have problems finding the difference then it must be even more confusing for the average reader. All I want is for the subject to be as transparant as possible and trying to differentiate zoophilia from zoosexuality in complex wording while contradicting the references mentioned does not help. ] 20:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

:: I understand. The thing is, unfortunately *all* terminology is problematic, because of its origins:
::# Zoophilia is the common term, but also denotes a specific psychological condition of a much stricter definition
::# Bestiality is an act only, not a lifestyle or orientation, and has POV connotations according to consensus of past editors (see early talk history)
::# Zoosexuality is an unfamiliar "newer" term, that is technically more accurate but is both not in common use, and also is used in psychology with a specific meaning as an ''orientation'', which zoophilia is not.
:: That's why I want the "terminology" article completed. Because of these complexities. Can we do that?

::I do also have a possible answer in mind for article titling, but would like to think a day or 2 first on it. And it'd need consensus. Is that okay? ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 00:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

:Sure. ] 09:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
:edit: Could you provide some sources using the term zoosexuality in the manner you describe? Terminology should not be a seperate article btw, if that's what you were planning. Not worth it. ] 19:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
:@FT2: so did you make up your mind yet? ] 15:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


Hiya, and yes, I have.

I wanted to give it some time, for two reasons, first because its a good way to see others reactions, and ones own over time, second because I've edited a lot on this article and its important not to act as if it is in any way ]ed. So I've stayed away from editing in this area, to see how it goes, see what others say and edit, focus on other areas (mainly the '''Misplaced Pages:''' workspace), and come back to it. I have a few thoughts, but I'm clearer now on them.

We probably agree that one way or another we need to split off sizable chunks of content from the main article. So I see the main issue as being '''what main articles should exist''' (zoophilia, zoosexuality, bestiality, sex acts with animals, ...), and '''what content should be in each'''.

Basically, my feeling is that yes we need to split the article out. But not by fracturing it into two. I don't think a split into "zoosexual acts" (bestiality, sex acts, legal, health, porn) v. "zoosexual lifestyle" (lifestyle, societal views, myth, religion) is going to work well, and instead we ought to consider forking off carefully chosen sections that are well defined, such as "zoosexuality and law", "zoosexuality and religion", "zoosexuality and health", etc instead.

This will make the main article more concise and give focussed sub-articles their own space. It leaves one master article with summary sections, not two parallel master articles. The only question then will be what name to give that article.

I don't think a separate "bestiality" lead article is going to be best, long term, even though its one way to keep it shorter, and reading it, I don't really think the split has worked that well in practice. For that reason I'd suggest we re-merge bestiality back -- but then shorten it by forking out substantial sections which we agree by consensus are worth their own article, keeping the main article shorter. In other words, individual sections get forked if theres consensus, but the article as a whole (which overviews the entire field whatever name it's given) doesnt split into 2 along an acts/lifestyle line.

I will come back to the question of "What titles should articles have" and "What do we do with the zoosexuality article" later if needed, because that's an important part of the problem, but first, this question:

There are two approaches, keep one master article for all aspects of zoosexuality/zoophilia/bestiality and fork out substantial content areas, or fork the article itself into lifestyle v. sexual acts. I'd like to hear thoughts on that before going further. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 08:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

:The bestiality article at least should not be merged with zoophilia again as the two are not the same. Zoophilia describes a sexuality, bestiality describes an act and those who practice bestiality needn't be zoophiles (and the other way around). I still favour having these two as the main articles, possibly with a few sub-articles where needed. I feel some things need to be partially rewritten and can then be moved to the bestiality page. For example, the arguements section in this article belongs more to the bestiality article, afterall, the issue of "right or wrong?" has to do with the act, not the sexuality. The same goes for religious and historical perspectives, they also deal with the act. However, the current wording does not support this view, so these sections require editing.

:I am not in favour of many sub-articles. I do not believe the subject warrants it, as someone commented on the pornography article, the articles needn't go that deep. So I am still in favour of two main articles: sexuality and bestiality. This way, you keep it simple and transparant. Splitting it up in to a dozen articles that perhaps give more information than the reader needs does not. As for titles: Zoophilia and bestiality are to the point and the most likely terms a person would look for. ] 09:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

:: The way I see it, there's two main topics we're really looking at:
::* Zoophilia, aka. bestiality - the sexual act.
::* Zoosexuality - the sexual orientation.
:: This would suggest ''another'' possible way of logically splitting the topic - have those two as main articles, and a redirect from ] to ] (which it's most closely related to).
:: However, I don't think this is the right way to go. The biggest issue is that there isn't much independent usage of ] as a sexual orientation distinct from ] - a quick Google check, for example, shows that it mostly shows up on Misplaced Pages mirrors (!), with some uses as a synonym for zoophilia. Quite honestly, I don't think there's a strong distinction between the three in practice. ]<sup>(])</sup> 01:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Zoophilia is NOT aka bestiality, though it may occasionally be used that way by some. Bestiality refers to the act, zoophilia to the sexuality, being pretty much synonymus with zoosexuality. A zoophile does not per definition practice bestiality, and someone who does is not per definition a zoophile. Hence, I feel the need to seperate the articles. It may be worth noting in the bestiality article that it is used as a synonym for zoophilia by some though, though in my opinion incorrectly so. To quote the encarta dictionary:

:::zo·o·phil·i·a
:::noun
:::Definition: desire for animals: a sexual attraction to animals

:::bes·ti·al·i·ty
:::noun
:::Definition: (note: only the sexual definition given here)
:::sex with animal: sexual activity between a human being and an animal

:::A fundamental difference if you ask me. ] 14:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

::::It is a difference. But is it a helpful difference to split the article with? Most people see the whole subject as one area, attraction and acts alike. The term "zoophilia" gets used for both attraction and sexual activity (rightly or wrongly), as does zoosexuality (spectrum and activity).

::::The term "bestiality" is unambiguous; however past consensus firmly concluded that this is a term implying a specific viewpoint. It places all acts in a "purely sexual" context, separate from any other relevant factor disclosed by research, separate from any relational motive or wider lifestyle choices. By placing the two separately, it conveys the same message as separating "gay lifestyle" from "gay sex", and the term itself has a distinct "specific viewpoint" flavor, as discussed in the past. You weren't here for that with Ciz I don't think, but it was a major decision.

::::So maybe that will help explain my view. The main terminologies which are inherited in the field ''all'' have problems. But a split between "the act" and "the rest" seriously de-contextualizes both in a field where experts who have written already say that is a major miscontext.

::::Hence why I came to feel that I don't mind a split, or forking of sections, but this way I feel is not a good decision. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 14:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

:::So, in an attempt to summarize, here's basically the two options then:
:::-One main article dealing with zoophilia / zoosexuality AND bestiality with most major topics handled in detail in their own article.
:::-Two articles, one on sexuality and one on the act, with possibly one or two subarticles.

:::As I've stated, my preference goes towards the second option, this to keep the subject as transparant as possible (information not spread over several articles) and to keep the sexuality and the act clearly seperated. ] 16:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Basically, what it comes down to in my mind is this. Yes, some zoos do separate out "zoophilia" and "zoosexuality" and "bestiality" and whatnot. However, few of them agree on exactly what the differences are, and most outsiders neither know nor care - inclusive of the psychological community, for the most part. Thus, to me it makes a lot more sense to handle this like most of the other large articles on Misplaced Pages and split out subtopics, rather than using this weird two-article structure. ]<sup>(])</sup> 08:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::(Minor observation to the above: to my mind the important thing is that this is true for people in general. It matters since the article should not be cast to represent zoophiles view any more than views of those against zoophilia. The fact ''both'' sides have similar issues is what makes it important. Just wanted to clarify that, if it matters. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 17:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC))

::I guess that makes it two to one then, so I suppose we'll stick with that lay-out. ] 13:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

hello people. perhaps its not my place but I'd say that a single article would probably give a easier hierarchy to work with. i don't see the difference really. In the toon world, bestiality is a more exciting word because its more naughty but I dont think thats a good reason to split articles. also can somebody send me the ref for the opening (incorrect to say bestiality is synonymous with zoophilia). I'm going to write a piece on this for a toon article. ] 08:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

:Earlier in this discussion I posted the encarta dictionary definitions of the words, zoophilia being a sexual attraction and bestiality the sexual act. The main need to split articles comes from the fact that the zoophilia article is / was too long. ] 13:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

::Summary style's a good way to take care of that; you're right, and that point came out also during the FAC review. So no question there and agreed. Summary style'll take care of that. Once thats done, the article will probably cease to be too long. That's that way I was thinking to approach it. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 18:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)



I think I can understand where Babynuke comes from. Originally I was in favor of having two separate articles, one for bestiality and then another for zoophiles. It makes sense, keeping the definition and explanation between zoophilia and bestiality in separate articles. If I was in charge of organizing the article from the beginning, that is how I would have originally done it.

However, there are some problems with that method and conflicts that would arise with what we already currently have. Right now what we have is one big umbrella topic where the others merge out of. As far as the flow of information goes, this seems very practical and much easier to follow as opposed to two separate articles where a user would have to search for (or not even know about) the information in the other article. I don’t think the article being too technical is going to be a problem at the level it is as long as it is comprehendible. There are many other articles in wikipedia that deal with complex and sophisticated math and science issues that many of use might not be able to understand just from reading the articles (and that hasn’t been an issue as long as those articles were accurate.)

Zoophilia and bestiality may not be the same thing (as baby nuke pointed out in the definition) but I don’t think that automatically warrants the division of this information on the same topic to be divided and split up under two definitions. I think there is a way we can address BabyNukes concern without having to massively change the format of the articles. This article is more of a general topic of interspecies sex and if necessary you could have little sections specifically on the various definitions (but I thought it was already addressed well in the article.)

Anyways, I just wanted to say that I see where BabyNuke comes from but I think it would be better to improve on the direction that the article is already going in. It reflects the same method that is already the standard that many other articles are using in wikipedia.--] 05:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


:I've re-merged the split, since the consensus was unanimous in the end (noting ] concerns and the like). There's two outstanding concerns from this, and they are important not to be overlooked:
:# First, that this is part of an ''overall direction'' for the article, which was ''also'' an equal part of the above discussion -- namely there was consensus that some sections need to be pulled out via summary style, and possibly the article titles to be reviewed (zoophilia/zoosexuality ambiguity) once that's more achieved, and maybe even a different split in future once we've done that as best we can.
:# Second, a minor cleanup point: a prior definition of bestiality contained some repetition (''"Bestiality signifies a sexual act between humans and animals, regardless as to motive or intent. It does not by itself imply any given motive or attitude."''). Any preferred versions how to keep the sense of it and remove the duplication?
:] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 10:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

== Definitions ==

The multiple definitions in the field bother me, not least because they lead to the article titles being ambiguous too. I think we need to make it easier to see them compared. The following is a bit long, but what do people think about the following as a possible way of summarizing and contrasting them? Can we use something like this?

:{| border="1" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" style="border: 2px solid #5C5C5C"
|- bgcolor="#E0E0E0" align="center"
| '''Term'''
| '''Usage'''
| '''Primary users'''
| '''Notes'''
|-
| rowspan="4" style="border-top: 2px solid #5C5C5C" | '''Zoophilia'''
| style="border-top: 2px solid #5C5C5C" | A sexual attraction towards animals, or a person who has sex with animals
| style="border-top: 2px solid #5C5C5C" | Popular usage
| style="border-top: 2px solid #5C5C5C" | Individuals with a sexual attraction to animals, or who have sex with animals
|- |-
| style="padding-left: 1.6em;" |
| A ] ], defined by strict criteria such as exclusivity and psychological suffering
This is a strange 3O request, being on a topic that is over 3 months old, and seems to have moved on. It's tempting to wholesale disregard under ], however to ensure clarity, I will go over this discussion in full:
| Psychologists and psychiatrists
* Firstly, the summary on ] feels a bit strange and leading towards one side of the argument, so I'll be basing my opinion on the discussion as a whole. The original issue seems to stem from disagreement with the statement that Germany has a total ban on bestiality. This was supported by citing the legal interpretation from the German courts.
| Technical term for a sexual fixation meeting specific clinical criteria
* Upon reading subsequent comments, this source appears to be contradicted by other sources. However, this does not necessarily mean the information would not be included per ]; it would merely just be a minority opinion, and require less weighting.
|-
* However, this does not seem to be the case. The law nor its interpretation does not say anything that bestiality is legal; it merely suggests that it is conditional. To interpret the text as saying it is legal would constitute original research; we do not publish interpretations of law, we can only publish what is directly said by secondary sources.
| An affinity for (or affective bond between) humans and animals.
Therefore I see no reason to add the original statement to the article, as it not only does not agree with other sources, it is original research. I hope this can help both editors move on from this discussion towards more productive areas. Thanks. <!-- Template:Third opinion response --> ] <span style="font-weight:bold">&#124;</span> ] 02:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
| Sociologists and anthropologists
| Anyone closer to animals or more bonded to them than "the ]". Anyone with an affinity for animals. The nature of the interest (sexual or non-sexual) is not significant.
|-
| A relational attraction to animals
| Zoophiles and sexologists
| Individuals with an emotional attraction or sexual orientation to animals, of a relational, lifestyle or non-experimental nature.
|-
| rowspan="3" style="border-top: 2px solid #5C5C5C" | '''Zoosexuality/<br> zoosexual'''
| style="border-top: 2px solid #5C5C5C" | A person who has sex with animals
| style="border-top: 2px solid #5C5C5C" | Popular usage
| style="border-top: 2px solid #5C5C5C" | Individuals with a strong sexual interest or attraction towards animals.
|-
| A sexual orientation towards animals
| Psychologists and sexologists
| Technical term for a sexual orientation towards animals that meets strict criteria for an orientation, comparable to ] and ], regardless of nature or whether acted upon. According to Beetz (2002) "Not all people who have sex with animals are zoosexuals", but this is not clarified. Presumably she means to exclude those whose interest is not relational.
|-
| A spectrum of erotic and sexual attraction towards animals
| Zoophiles
| A spectrum of sexual or emotional attraction or erotic interest in animals, of whatever nature
|-
| style="border-top: 2px solid #5C5C5C" | '''Bestiality'''
| style="border-top: 2px solid #5C5C5C" | A sexual act between a human and an animal
| style="border-top: 2px solid #5C5C5C" | Universal
| style="border-top: 2px solid #5C5C5C" | Applies to the act not the person. Ambiguous as to which acts are included. Out of favor with both zoophiles and professionals, the former considering it pejorative, the latter because it problematically confuses two different groups, severing the act from the intra-subjective context needed to interpret it.
|} |}


:Thank you for your input.
Edits to the above table welcome. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 12:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
:The fact that so much time has passed since the last interaction was merely making use of Misplaced Pages not having a deadline (]).

:Please note that the the most recent proposed change has evolved substantially from its initial draft. It nowhere claims that bestiality is legal. At least, that is not the intention. The current proposal cites several sources which interpret the law as being either conditional or unconditional. This interpretation lies solely in those sources. ] (]) 23:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
I think it might be good to use more definitions for bestiality to help show the reason why it is considered to carry a bias with it (as well as the range of opinions on it). For example the inhumane acts (usually in warfare) version of it. Also do you think a table like will draw criticism if it was included in the article? I remember when the article was nominated for featured article status, some people criticized it for that (or was that cleared up?). Just some quick thoughts for consideration. --] 17:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

:Just had a though, is their a way to do a mini table or something that can be put to the side? If you look at ] they have a table for links to the related topics on the side (note is doesn't use up a whole new section. Maybe we could do something like that with these definitions? If not that it would be worth considering using that tool to help organize this topic (when we start splitting them off into their own sections.)--] 17:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You're thinking of section template indexes, for sections such as "sexuality" or "jesus" or "mathematics" where a sort of sidebar index to the main subject areas is useful. A subject needs a certain size and range before that kind of index and "quick finder" is really needed. As to the other, what you're describing is a look at the term bestiality, and how it's perceived. I'm not sure we can say much on "why is bestiality seen as bad" that isn't already said. What I was asking was, about looking at the meanings of different terms that have multiple contradictory meanings and confuse the subject area, and a way to summarize the different meanings for the main words used. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 17:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

:I feel the difference between a sexual orientation and a sexual attraction is not obvious, hence making the difference confusing. Also, since the term zoosexuality is hardly ever used, I feel the term "popular usage" does not apply. Keep zoophilia and zoosexuality as synonyms, I feel it has been sufficiently shown that these terms are nearly always used as such and this will keep things transparant. ] 18:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

::Good points all, Nuke. I agree the distinctioon's not obvious to most. I'm not sure that zoosexuality is "hardly ever used", because in this context it's not *that* uncommon, but its a confusing set of distinctions for sure. As for synonyms, I can see both sides... I don't really know what to think. The words we have in English just arent very helpful. In an ideal linguistical world, I suppose we could take "homosexuality" as a parallel: - zoosexuality would be the main term, and zoophilia would be a deprecated technical term in psychology (much as zooerastry, or homophilia are not well used terms). There's times that calling it all just "human-animal intimate relationships" seems so appealing :) ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 21:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

:The word zoosexuality does not appear in any dictionary and gives me less than 900 hits on google (compared to well over a million for zoophilia), and I should note that a considerable amount of those 900 hits are from duplicates or excerpts of wikipedia articles. So, I would say that it isn't used much. An uncommon term with an unclear definition that I have not seen used in any other way but as a synonym for zoophilia - I do not believe that warrants a different definition, let alone its own article as it is now. As said, keep it simple. ] 09:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree fully with the point that this is certainly a more pro than con article. It should be taken into consideration that this is a subject matter more likely to be looked up by zoo's than those apposed to it (Unless they have a strong moral objection to it, in which case they are equally dangerous editors). I also agree that this article uses more waeasel words than the Fox News Network. The Pro's and Cons section is without a doubt the most biased. It is clear that the editor is attempting to make the pro section look ignorant. I respectfully request this be seriously looked into and considered. {{unsigned|Losthwy}}

: This question comes up regularly. The answer has been discussed quite often in the past. The difficulty is that we (all editors on Misplaced Pages) are here discussing what is verifiable and known, and the facts about the opinions held under each significant view. It is undeniable that the main lines of debate are roughly as stated, but there is no one "editor". Its a communally created article, worked over by dozens of people for and against, over a period of some 3 years, and it is unfortunately the case that while it discusses popular stereotypes, it also covers in much more depth the actual known information in the field. This is presumably what you find troublesome. Perhaps reading up the research pointed to will help (that's true of any subject). In the meantime it's hard to discuss such a generalized question. If you have specific edits or points that seem needed or comments in the article which seem incorrect or poorly representing either side, or you wish to bring to discussion, that's probably best. Wording improvements are always a good thing. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 21:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

:: I've put it up for peer review - hopefully that will result in more suggestions on how especially the neutrality can be improved. ] 14:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

==Link to AnimalDB.com==
Someone recently removed the link to AnimalDB.com I added. I would like to put it back on the page but I will wait pending the result of a discussion I would like to see about this subject.
Someone reverted my external link addition (AnimalDB.com) to the Zoophilia article. The first reason given by the reverter was that the contribution to the page would be questionable. I beg to differ. AnimalDb.com is a searchable database containing information on bestiality publications such as movies, magazines, books and websites. The zoophilia article on wikipedia is, among more, about bestiality. Several (or possibly all) persons and movies named in the pornography section are also in the database. The database is the largest in his kind.
The second argument given, by the reverter, for removing the link was that the database possibly has illegal content for some countries. I believe this fact itself is correct in that some of the websites content might be illegal in some countries, because the database contains cover images for the movies and magazines. But again I have a different opinion about this being a reason for not mentioning the link in the wikipedia article. A lot ot the other sources and external links on this articles page do also contain the same kind of material. If you think this argument is valid then you should remove al those other links also (and not just in this article but throughout wikipedia on all subjects that might be illegal in some countries). I think adding a warning behind the link should be enough. ] 18:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
:Also in reply to the comment left on my talk page (I reverted the addition), the site seems to be nothing more than a huge bestiality porn database. Is it relevant for the average reader of this article to know that the movie "A Hot Dog night" lasts 60 minutes? Of the other sites listed in the article, none are purely aimed at pornography. Furthermore, as mentioned, bestial pornography itself is already illegal in many countries. Linking to a site which may contain illegal content for a large amount of visitors isn't wise, though I could live with a disclaimer. The site seems only useful for those looking for bestial pornography and I do not believe that is the goal of this article. I won't further protest it if the link is added WITH a suitable disclaimer, though I do not really feel it adds much to the article. ] 21:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

::The reason for the revert, which was done by others and I would support, is not because of modesty nor (il)legality. It's because ], nor a place where links are put to advertize a place, nor a site of resource links for people seeking information on pornography. This is a reference article, on a large subject, and porn site links or indexes do not usually add much essential information on zoosexuality and zoophilia. if you view the page history, you'll see that most porn site type links are removed, by most editors, upon addition, as well as a private request in the text of the page at various times, not to add spam or self-promotion links. AnimalDB.com falls under all of these, the same as zooskool.com (a porn/educational site) did, same as many other sites did. ] 07:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Misplaced Pages is also not censored. AnimalDb.com is a resource for information on zoophilia/bestiality publications. It is a database like IMDb.com is. Many actrices and movies named in this article can be found in this database with additional information. ] 16:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

:::: The essential question is always "does this add anything to the article"? The answer is "no" - information on (as BabyNuke puts it) who starred in "A Hot Dog Night" and how long it ran doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding of zoophilia. ]<sup>(])</sup> 20:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

== Inaccurate/Unfounded claim ==

This is a minor detail, but an important one nonetheless. It wouldn't be correct to say that 5% of furries are zoophiles. Many of them claim to have practiced zoophilia at some point in their lives, and even more do not consider it taboo. The sentence quoted below is most definately unfounded and should be removed. (discuss)

''"The size of this group is not known, although an oft-cited figure is 5% of furries, which is not dissimilar to typical estimates of the percentage within the population generally."''
03:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC) <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small>

: I'll turn that on its head. Where does your claim that "many claim to have practiced zoophilia at some point in their lives, and even more do not consider it taboo" come from? That would require significantly more citation, as it flies in the face of all common wisdom on the topic.
: Back to the point, though: The sentence you've pulled out doesn't cite sources. However, it fails to do so because ''there are no sources available'' - to the best of my knowledge, there have been no large-scale surveys of the furry fandom which collected relevant data. There was an informal ongoing survey on alt.lifestyle.furry known as the "Furvey", but it appears to have been inactive since 2000 or so, and no statistics are available. ]<sup>(])</sup> 03:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


Anecdotal evidence of how the zoo/furry overlap works comes from 2 main sources:
# Zoophilia is usually marginalized and often not approved of in the furry community. In forum posts about the subject, views against are strongly put, and usually (and consistently) seem to outweigh those for.
# In polls about zoo and/or furry in the furry community, of those who are both, around 75% say they were already zoophiles and later decided they liked furry too. But the number who don't approve still significantly seems to outweigh this.
One assumes on such posts, those with a specific interest are more likely to post a comment. So it is likely that those posting are not representative of furries as a whole, but more tend to represent those with some specific interest in the topic.

Taken together these tend to support (for me) that most furries are not zoophiles and those who are, were before discovering the furry community, which is why I haven't much challenged the point. I wouldn't be surprised (personally) to find a higher proportion than in "everyday society" but that's not what the anecdotal word says (as best I can tell). I'm not sure what one can say ''in an encyclopedia'' except that anecdotally this is what's said. There just aren't any decent sources to draw on other than "anecdotal evidence", so that is the source cited. If there is something thats more, it would be useful to know. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 09:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

One question -- is there a source for the "many claim"? Or an indication of the proportion, to show that its a larger proportion and not just that they are more open talking about it (or other confounds)? That would help. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 09:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'll agree that the 5% figure seems unfounded. I would say that zoophilia is more common amongst furries (and the other way around) than in the rest of society, however, estimates are hard to give. Possibly also because sex with real animals doesn't seem to be tolerated or is a taboo subject in many furry communities. But it is obvious that furry is very much aimed at animals and I feel an overlap with zoophilia is only to be expected. ] 09:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

:: Coming back to this, I do think that our visitor has a valid point. I don't see evidence for "many furries are zoophiles". But what is certain is that the article makes an assertation, namely that its "not many" and "5% is oft-cited", and it's up to the article to substantiate that, or at the least give whatever information editors do have on it, to the reader. If this is indeed "oft-cited" presumably there should be places in the furry community it's cited? or is it only cited verbally by individual furries when the topic comes up? Can we find some pointers to better sources than an anonymous "it's oft-cited" (that lacks a citation), from anyone who knows more of the furry community? ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 10:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Ok, these are numbers I got from a poll on alt.lifestyle.furry, part of the "furvey" zetawoof mentioned: ()
:::* "Yes, I am a zoophile" : 65 furs = 28%
:::* "No, I am not a zoophile" : 146 furs = 63%
:::* "No, but I'm curious about it" : 21 furs = 9%
:::That number supports my claim that zoophilia is more common amongst furries. I feel the group questioned (232 individuals) is sufficiently large for it to be representative. ] 14:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

::::I don't think we should include any numbers. The same question asked on alt.fan.furry would probably give a much lower rate of zoophiles, it all depends where and when (That survey is 8 years old!) you ask. --]|] 15:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I agree, but it does show that zoophilia is more common amongst furries than the general public, which is something that could be mentioned without giving any numbers. Eight years old or not, there's no reason why this would no longer be the case now. ] 16:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

:::: We don't know that's so. Here are some examples of "confounds" (issues which could influence the apparent interpretation of the results):
::::# It might be that although the same proportion of furries are zoophiles as in the general public, they feel more able to discuss it, so those who are zoophiles are more likely to speak up?
::::# It might be that those who believe in "live and let live" form a higher proportion of furries than of the general culture (eg if furries themselves are a minority and contain many alternate sexualities) and therefore a large number of those who are not zoophiles did not post or have an interest in expressing an opinion?
::::# It might be that many zoophiles tell their friends or ask them to vote, when the topic comes up, either because it's of special interest or to give the appearance of a higher proportion of zoophiles? It wouldn't take many to significantly influence the result.
::::# It might be that there's a more subtle confound, a causuality relationship -- perhaps surveys on zoophilia/furry are much more likely to take place in furry communities with a significant zoophile presence (not an unreasonable possibility), ''because'' of being the one furry community that accepted zoophiles, or where zoophiles congregated, and ''therefore'' the few furry communities with such surveys are by definition very atypical of furry communities as a whole?
:::: How about this as a footnote: "No definitive statistics exist, and much of the information is either anecdotal or swayed by questions of representativeness. (For example, do those who have no interest respond to such surveys as much as those who do?) Surveys such as LINK LINK LINK have consistently suggested that even allowing for positive bias, zoophiles are still a small minority amongst furries. Opinions are divided because of such questions, whether furries contain a higher than usual proportion of zoophiles, or about the same proportion. But either way it appears clear it is a minority either way." ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 21:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

::::: I don't see how a minority or majority could be clear either way. If you mean minority as less than 50% then I would agree, but 'minority' is up to interpretation. That footnote would be good and unbiased, minus that last sentence. ] 01:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

:How about '''', which cites a 2% value? It is probably as close to a reliable source as you will get for a survey specifically of furry fans, and it states its methods. ] 20:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

::It surprises me is that this number is very different from the results from the "furvey". ] 20:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly believe that this link should not be added. It is nothing more than an ad site to purchase animal porn, and has nothing of educational substance to offer. zooskool is an excellent site because, while it does offer porn, it also offers valuable information about why zoo's are interested in the zoo lifestyle. Please do not readd this link.

==Long article tag==
I've removed this tag. The article body itself is well within the bounds of ], because its very specific that it's the main body of text, and readibility concerns that are at stake. A rough breakdown of article length is as follows:
:* Counted within the size calculation:
::* Main text -- 48 KB (7600 words)
:* Excluded from the size calculation:
::* Lists in the main text -- 9 KB (1350 words)
::* Footnotes -- 25 KB (4000 words)
::* Other reference sections -- 9 KB (1400 words) (books and articles, see also, links)
::* Non-counted characters -- about 8 KB (formatting, links, unicode, other language links, etc - my word counter reports 93 KB of actual displayed text, whereas there is about 101 KB of markup)
According to ] the long article warning is not for technical purposes, but for stylistic (readability) reasons. Stylistically it's the main text (excluding reference information and lists) that is relevant to length, per ]. With these excluded an article should be around 6 - 10k words (roughly 30 - 50 KB) before being considered "long", and this article is 7.6k words long, so the warning tag seems unnecessary.

== Zoophilia & Islam! ==

in "Religious perspectives" is written:

"Views of zoophilia's seriousness in Islam seem to cover a wide spectrum. This may be because it is not explicitly mentioned or prohibited in the Qur'an, or because sex and sexuality were not treated as taboo in Muslim society to the same degree as in Christianity. Some sources claim that sex with animals is abhorrent, others state that while condemned, it is treated with "relative indulgence" and in a similar category to masturbation and lesbianism (Bouhdiba: Sexuality in Islam, Ch.4 link). A book "Tahrirolvasyleh", cited on the Internet, which quotes the Ayatollah Khomeini approving of sex with animals under certain conditions, is unconfirmed and possibly a forgery."

This is not right. zoophilia is Haram(forbidden)in islam; as stated:

"Passages in Leviticus 18 (Lev 18:23: "And you shall not lie with any beast and defile yourself with it, neither shall any woman give herself to a beast to lie with it: it is a perversion." RSV) and 20:15-16 ("If a man lies with a beast, he shall be put to death; and you shall kill the beast. If a woman approaches any beast and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the beast; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them." RSV) are cited by Jewish, Christian, and '''Muslim''' theologians as categorical denunciation of bestiality."

"sex and sexuality were not treated as taboo in Muslim society to the same degree as in Christianity" is also wrong.

"Some sources claim that sex with animals is abhorrent, others state that while condemned, it is treated with "relative indulgence" and in a similar category to masturbation and lesbianism " is also wrong. musturbation and lesbianism are also forbidden in Islam, and have punishment. I also didn't find it in the cited resource (Bouhdiba: Sexuality in Islam, Ch.4 )

"A book "Tahrirolvasyleh", cited on the Internet, which quotes the Ayatollah Khomeini approving of sex with animals under certain conditions, is unconfirmed and possibly a forgery."

yes, it is a forgery. I have seen the "Tahrirolvasyleh", and zoophobia is not permitted under any condition, and even the animal should be killed in some conditions.


: Given that this seems to be a serious book on sexuality in Islam, it's worth noting what it says:
::''"Female homosexuality (musahaqa), while equally condemned, is treated with relative indulgence ... only the same reprimand as those condemned for ... bestiality..."''
: A plain reading of that text implies that bestiality is "treated with relative indulgence" too. That is the view of one author, but it suggests, taken together with other sources, that views in Islam "seem to cover a wide spectrum". That is why the article states as it does. It's also notable that bestiality was widely condoned in Bedoin and Arab tribes. We can't be sure those were Muslim, but again, it is visible that it was never condoned in Christian or Jewish cultures. I'm not an ethnic expert though, to know if such cultures were Muslim. But taken together they do suggest that sexual acts with animals may at least have been treated somewhat differently under Arabic/Islamic cultures, than Christian ones, historically. It's also common for law and practice to differ. That is why it's described that way.
: The possible forgery is stated as such, but at the last time the section was reviewed, no clear authority was found to confirm that either way. It seemed worth noting in case it was a forgery, that others would not be misled, and in case it was true that it was documented. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 19:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm telling you, I have the book(Tahrirolvasileh), and I searched for the sentence above, but there wasn't such thing in the book! It's fake. bogus. forgery.

:"...bestiality was widely condoned in Bedoin and Arab tribes. We can't be sure those were Muslim, but again, it is visible that it was never condoned in Christian or Jewish cultures. I'm not an ethnic expert though, to know if such cultures were Muslim..."
If some of the Cristians do something in contrary to the Cristian jurisprudence -as there are many instances in the past history, and at present-, would it be right to say "cristianity is such..."?! Even if it's true that "bestiality was widely condoned in Bedoin and Arab tribes", and if they were Muslims -and these claim are not verifiable ], and thus can be deleted from wikipeadia- this doesn't mean that Islam accepts it. In all of the islamic jurisprudences(and even in Tahrirolvasileh!) zoophilia is Haram (forbidden). Maybe it was condoned in Arabs before Islam, but Islam prohibited and outlawed it.--] 11:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


: That's helpful. Could you do a favor and check the copy of the book you have. make sure it's the right volume or version, and provide the publisher, date of publication, and ISBN number. That's for verifiability purposes, so others can check it is bogus, as it is reported on the net and others will want to double check it.

: However, I don't see a basis for deletion of valid information. That text is cited on the web, at the most what we now need to do is edit the text to say "confirmed false" rather than "possibly false". The rest of it, you have deleted without good reason, and this is why it's being reinstated.

: As background, you are mistaken in your assumption. Bestiality was confirmed as tolerated by Arab/Bedouin cultures well into the 18 - 19th centuries, a thousand years after the rise and dominance of Islam in the region, by a variety of anthropologists. Sources for this are in the related article '']''. What is being stated of Islam is the same as was stated of Christianity -- the range of opinions of writers on the religion and sexuality, and observation:
:* Authors on sex and Islam state a range of views from "abhorrance" to "relative indulgence". For Christianity and Judaism, I am not aware of any writer who stated "relative indulgence" is permissible.
:* In Christianity almost all incidents of bestiality in the culture were treated as a very serious offence, with death or at least 10+ year imprisonment the norm for persons found to engage in such acts, of any age. In a variety of Arabic/Bedouin cultures it was commonplace or accepted that young herders would have sexual relationships with animals. This was confirmed by a variety of anthropologists and sexologists such as Miner and DeVos, Havelock-Ellis, Kocher, Mondiere and can be checked on the Berlin sexuality institute's encyclopedia of sexual practices.

: What is stated of Islam is quite specific. It is stated that bestiality is not specifically mentioned in the Qur'an. You haven't disagreed with this. If it is, please cite a chapter or verse or section. It states that although not explicitly mentioned, bestiality is nonetheless generally denounced by Muslim theologians, the same as Christian and Jewish theologans. This is no different from what you say above so I assume it's not disputed. It states that views of those writers cover a wide range, that some treat it with "abhorrance", and others treat it with "relative indulgence". This seems accurate, especially as an example of that wide range by a writer on Islam and sexuality has been quoted. So I'm not really seeing anywhere that the current text is in error. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 11:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The OBVIOUS wrong state is "views of those writers cover a wide range, that some treat it with "abhorrance", and others treat it with "relative indulgence". This seems accurate, especially as an example of that wide range by a writer on Islam and sexuality has been quoted."

AND "Views of zoophilia's seriousness in Islam seem to cover a wide spectrum...Some sources claim that sex with animals is abhorrent, others state that while condemned, it is treated with "relative indulgence" and in a similar category to masturbation and lesbianism (Bouhdiba: Sexuality in Islam, Ch.4 http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/bouhdiba.htm). A book "Tahrirolvasyleh", cited on the Internet, which quotes the Ayatollah Khomeini approving of sex with animals under certain conditions, is unconfirmed and possibly a forgery."

1. I didn't find it in the cited resource (Bouhdiba: Sexuality in Islam
None of the Islamic sources http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/bouhdiba.htm)

2. I have seen Tahrirolvasileh from the right publisher. There's no such thing in the book.--] 06:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

...and I didn't find the "Berlin sexuality institute's encyclopedia of sexual practices" book. neither in http://www.amazon.com , nor http://books.google.com. I also searched http://www.chapters.indigo.ca . Does this book exists?!


:This is why I ask you to check more carefully.
:# The cite you say "I didn't find" is not only quoted above, it's also in the 6th paragraph of the page link you give too. Please recheck. <br />In addition, note that in the 5th it says "Homosexuality (liwat) incurs the strongest condemnation. It is identified with zina and it is advocated that the most horrible punishment should be applied." But in the 6th paragraph it says as quoted above, that bestiality is not so heavily punished, and is considered on a par with masturbation. This contrast also tends to support that statement.
:# This is why I asked, ''"Could you do a favor and check the copy of the book you have. make sure it's the right volume or version, and provide the publisher, date of publication, and ISBN number."'' You still haven't. It's the 4th volume that's relevant. The one that some people say exists, others say does not. That is why I would like enough information to verify this myself. At present the article says "could be a forgery", which is accurate. And you do need to re-read comments rather than just react, that this is widespread and noted on the net, so deletion is inappropriate. This was mentioned before.
:# As for the Berlin source, you need to read the whole article. The sources are provided there, as well as (above) a link to the other article with other relevant sources. I can't make you read them, though. You have the links. Go use them and research carefully. Ask if you have more questions.
: ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 07:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

== Line drawings ==

68.88.200.230 added some line drawings found on commons, a change which was reverted. Now, I can understand the reason for the revert, on the other hand, the images aren't exactly hardcore pornography and are a more realistic depiction of bestiality than the current artwork. I'd incorporate them in to the article, even if I do understand people finding this objectionable. Feelings? ] 13:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

: My primary concern is that the line drawings in question look a lot like they were scanned from a printed source - in other words, a probable copyvio. (Yes, I'm aware that the images in question are tagged with a free license - but I'm still kind of suspicious, and curious where they came from if they ''are'' freely licensed.) Beyond that, I'm honestly not that sure how well those four images represented the variety of things which zoophiles do. ]<sup>(])</sup> 10:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

:: Hmm, perhaps - obviously it's impossible to say for sure what the source is. Possibly the uploader could elaborate. As for the acts - the goat image seems a bit odd but the others seem reasonable. ] 10:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added the source info you requested to the drawing's information page

"There has been some concern as to where this line art came from. I can assure you that I (Human_sexuality78) am the originator of this work. This is my drawing that I have provided. And I turn it over to the wikipedia commons for any sort of use."

<gallery>
Image:Zoophilia Man Sex with Dog.png|Man having sex with a female dog
Image:Zoophilia Woman Sex with Dog.png|Male dog mating with a woman
Image:Zoophilia Man Sex with Goat.png|Man having sex with a doe goat
Image:Zoophilia Man Sex with Pony Mare.png|Man mating with a pony mare
Image:Zoophilia Stallion Oral Sex from Woman.png|Stallion receiving oral sex from a woman
image:Zoophilia Man Oral Sex from Cow.png|Man receiving oral sex from a cow
</gallery>

I hope this reduces the confusion. If you have any requests for additional drawings I'll see what I can do. (Note: My user ID is from the commons). Human_sexuality78 12 November 2006

: You'll have to excuse me for remaining somewhat skeptical about the sources of these images. How were they created? ]<sup>(])</sup> 08:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

:I drew them. There is no source and I'm afraid that because of this, it makes it very hard to prove. I suppose you could have me draw something, then you'd see that I'm the creator of these works. Human_sexuality78 (commons) 13 November 2006

::Fair enough in my opinion. ] 14:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

== Health and Disease Issues ==

Health and Disease issues must not be trivialised, minimized or glossed over. Many of the edits made to this section have attempted to hide the consequences of the behaviour from readers. First the markers that defined subheadings for each disease were removed, then text was amended to imply that the threat is small. But the threat is NOT small. For instance, while Brucellosis infections are relatively rare in the USA (~100 per year), they are very common in many other countries (it causes more than 500,000 infections per year worldwide), and in these countries sexual contact with, say, a dog, would <i>most likely</i> lead to infection. Brucellosis can kill but more commonly, it disables --a truly horrible disease! It is a chronic debilitating illness with extensive morbidity. ] 19:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
:I wonder about that. None of the diseases mentioned seem to be a true STD, so I wonder if they can be seen as risks specific to sexual contact with animals, or if you could also just get them from frequent close contact with animals in general. I'd believe so. I suppose research on it isn't available though. ] 19:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
:: Wonder no longer. Animal semen is a potent vector for some of these diseases, and fellating or rimming an animal exposes humans to many times the number of, for instance, toxocara larvae, than would normally be the case in everyday life. The only call toxocariasis a mild disease in adults because they do not expect adults to be eating dirt like a child would, and so the exposure is expected to be small. I suspect the CDC would give far more urgent guidelines about this disease, which can threaten eyesight, if they knew that it could be an STD. ] 19:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

* I need to add that the edits I removed had an inexplicably US-centric slant, as if all the readers of this page are US residents. That is not the case. Just because a disease is relatively rare in the USA does not mean the WP should be written to suit that one audience. This is ethnocentrism at its worst. There are about 192 other countries to consider. ] 19:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:There's without a doubt healthrisks, but it can't be said this view can be considered neutral either. By deleting the statement that "Most of these are transmissible in everyday life, and are known to farmers and the like, and occasionally seen by vets." it makes it seem that these diseases are bestiality-specific. Dog roundworm is labelled as a "major problem", whilst it is in general considered to be benign and can be obtained in various ways, sexual contact probably not being the most common one. I am not interested in fighting a POV war, so I am not going to edit the section again. Criticism is welcome as this article often tends to be a bit pro-bestiality, but be careful not to push it to the other side either. ] 21:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
:: I have no problem with you inserting a statement along the lines that these diseases can be contracted in various ways, not only through sexual contact, although it must be highlighted that <i>the intimacy of sexual contact makes transmission much more likely</i>, as explained above. In the case of the nastiest disease, brucellosis, semen and blood are specific risk factors, so sexual contact greatly increases the risk. ] 21:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

-----

I think you're misrepresenting the issue. The majority of the edits you reverted were ones which gave ''specific information'' regarding the relevance of these diseases to bestiality. For example, in the section on brucellosis, you removed the text:
: "It is most common amongst ], and in ]s and breeding establishments lacking proper medical controls, with the secretions of pregnant animals being a common carrier."
- which gave relevance to the disease in this article - with some generic text describing treatment for brucellosis, which really belongs in an article on brucellosis in general, as it's in no way specific to brucellosis contracted through sexual contact. Let's continue: Above that, you removed a citation (!) on zoonotic diseases. Below the section on brucellosis, you reinserted some totally redundant content ("ocular involvement can cause loss of visual acuty" - gee, really? worms in your eye can cause you to not see well?) and reinserted another redundant sentence at the end ("allergic reactions may include a severe allergic reaction" - no kidding?).

The US-centrism which you're citing as a reason for reverting is a red herring. Inserting information about the relevance of these diseases in the US isn't "US-centrism" - it's adding context where none existed. Please read before you revert. The main changes made were ''cleaning up'' and expanding upon your contribution, not "whitewashing" it. ]<sup>(])</sup> 01:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

:: 1) Brucellosis is vectored by semen. It's a major threat to anyone handling animal semen, such as people doing animal husbandry in the form of artificial insemination. Do some research before spouting off. Talking solely about "puppies" and "pregnant animals" minimizes the risk and must not stand. It is extremely common in dogs in many countries, so citing cattle is <u>irrelevant </u>and tends to minimize risk, once again 2) The effects on the eye are very important and <i>should not be deleted</i>. 3) The possibility of ], a reaction that can cause death, to animal secretions is a serious health threat and should be mentioned. It is not a vanishingly rare occurrence either. 4) Modifying this international encyclopaedia for the US audience is not wise unless you preface such comments with text that allows non-US readers to realize you are talking about a particular country. Please discuss all future edits here first. ] 04:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

::: The term "]" is most commonly used to refer to ''Brucella abortis'', a bacterium which affects cattle and other ruminants: see the eponymous article. ''Brucella canis'' - which is, in fact, a separate organism from ''Brucella abortis'' - is most common in dogs involved in breeding programs (references available if necessary), as it spreads primarily "through breeding and contact with aborted fetuses" (again, quoted directly from ]). It's virtually unknown in the household pet population in the US - this is probably worth mentioning, just as one might mention that, while mosquitoes can carry ], it's only a threat in certain regions such as sub-Saharan Africa.
::: Mentioning that an allergic reaction can cause ] is redundant. Anaphylaxis is a term used to refer to the immune response present in any allergic reaction. ''Anaphylactic shock'' may be what you mean, but that's still really a non-sequitir - anaphylactic shock can occur as a response to any severe allergy; there's nothing specific about animals' bodily fluids (semen, vaginal secretions, etc) which makes the risk any different or any worse than any other allergy. Animal allergies can cause anaphylactic shock, but so can any other allergy.
::: ]<sup>(])</sup> 04:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


]&nbsp;'''Not done for now:''' please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> This does NOT seem an uncontroversial change, and so the "Edit Request" process isn't the right one to use. ] (]) 17:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
-----
:]&nbsp;'''Not done for now:''' please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 15:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


* The exact texts that are in contention are below:


{{talk-ref}}
<b>While standard STDs &ndash; syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes &ndash; are human-to-human, not animal-to-human, any zoonotic diseases that people could get through casual contact with animals, they could also get through sex.</b>


== Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2024 ==
: The problem with this reassuring sentence is that it misses the point that the intimacy of sexual contact vastly increases the transmission of many diseases. ] 04:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
:: That's not the point. That sentence already says more or less what you're recommending: Human STDs don't exist in animals, but some zoonotic diseases can be transmitted through sex. I don't exactly see how you're reading this as "reassuring". ]<sup>(])</sup> 04:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


{{Edit semi-protected|Zoophilia|answered=yes}}
<b>... that sometimes gives false negatives, and double testing is required .</b>
Most bestiality offenders are ].
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Bestiality-related-arrests-in-the-United-States-1975-2015_fig4_325497782 ] (]) 01:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> Happy Editing--''']]''' 01:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


== Title change ==
: This text must stay, for it alerts people to the possible inadequacy of simple blood tests. I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but this is reality. ] 04:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
:: I'm still not sure how it's directly relevant, though. The source doesn't even say that this is due to the "inadequacy" of such tests - it just recommends that two tests be performed. For all we know, the test could be perfect, and the double testing could be there to exclude the possibility of reinfection. In any case, that's general information which probably belongs on ], not here. ]<sup>(])</sup> 04:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


I'm afraid calling the article as just "Zoophilia" might confuse other Wikipedians. Can you change the title to either "Zoophilia and Bestiality" or "Zoophilia/Bestiality"? If the decision is made to keep "Zoophilia", despite the possible confusion to the other Wikipedians, why? ] (]) 09:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
<b>Most of these are not sexually transmitted diseases and therefore not specific to zoophilia; for example, rabies is transmitted through the bite of an infected animal, and Lyme disease is transmitted when ]s are brought into the home by pets.</b>


== Suggested correction on the Swedish legal situation. ==
: Keep that sentence if you add that zoophilia increases the risk of transmission, or else the effect is to minimise the perception of risk, and encourage risky behavior. ] 04:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
:: So, then, why did you remove it rather than fixing it? More to the point, though, the assertion that the risk of transmission is increased by sexual contact is unsubstantiated. There is, for example, no verifiable evidence that ] can be transmitted sexually at all, even in humans; evidence of transmissibility between animals and humans is entirely lacking. ]<sup>(])</sup> 04:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


Sweden has outlawed sexual acts with animals in 2014 in accordance with kap 2. 10 § djurskyddslagen. Which translates to chapter 2. 10 § animal welfare law. The Swedish Misplaced Pages page of zoophilia correctly states this, provided below is a source directly from the horse's mouth, a website run by the Swedish Parliament (riksdag) outlining the animal welfare act/law, it scrolls to chapter 2 but a bit further down is part 10 which is the relevant part. The law provides exceptions for veterinarian work, breeding and others with a proper justification.
<b>and these may include a severe allergic reaction or ]</b>


https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/djurskyddslag-20181192_sfs-2018-1192/#K2 ] (]) 15:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
: Why would you want to remove this simple medical fact? Unless, of course, you have an agenda here. ] 04:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
:: Answered this one above. Anaphylaxis ''is'' an allergic reaction. ]<sup>(])</sup> 04:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


:Will update when I have some time. Thanks. ] (]) 13:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
::An interesting question would be: are the health risks of intercourse with animals greater than that of intercourse with humans? Especially if you want to use it as an arguement against bestiality, this would be interesting to know. ] 22:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 10:13, 26 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Zoophilia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Censorship warningMisplaced Pages is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAnimal rights Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLaw Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPornography Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPsychology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMedicine: Psychiatry Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
Former featured article candidateZoophilia is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 23, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 29, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

The contents of the Zoosexuality page were merged into Zoophilia. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
This article contains a translation of Zoofilia from it.wikipedia.
Archiving icon
Archives
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21
Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Split Zoophilia and Bestiality

Research about this topic unanimously agree that zoophilia and bestiality are different things, yet this article is clumsily trying to talk about the both of them at the same time (sometimes confusing people who engage bestiality with zoophiles, despite research saying that these are different groups of people). Bestiality is redirecting to here right now, if anyone wants to write an article there, I recommend that you use these sources right here (doi).

  • doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2368
  • doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12306
  • doi.org/10.1300/J158v04n02_01
  • Beetz, Andrea M. "New insights into bestiality and zoophilia." Anthrozoos-Journal of the International Society for Anthrozoology 18 (2005): 98-119. (free pdf on google scholar). SparklyNights (t) 22:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Just for clarity's sake: if I'm getting this correctly, zoophilia is sexual excitement at the idea of sex acts involving animals, whereas bestiality is actually engaging in sex acts with actual animals? Is that right? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly it. SparklyNights (t) 01:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Neutral to weak support this page about this area of discussion is generally complete but not necessarily big enough that it 100% needs to be split. Misplaced Pages is not a WP:DICTIONARY and it will usually make more sense to cover several related ideas under one heading where they are overlapping even if they are slightly different. However I think there is potentially enough here to support two pages and to have a link between them somehow if someone wants to do the work of grabbing the different parts for a new page. Jorahm (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Not only does zoophilia need to be distinguished from bestiality as a separate entry, but the entire article needs to be re-written to remove incorrect, un-cited, and heavily biased claims.
Zoophilia is (mis)understood as several different things that ought to be addressed on this page (among many other things);
  • A paraphilia (correct: zoophilia is an atypical erotic interest, as stated by the American Psychiatric Association (APA))
  • A clinical condition (incorrect: paraphilias are not to be diagnosed according to the APA)
  • A mental disorder (incorrect: "Zoophilic Disorder" is a separate thing to zoophilia and falls under the Other Specified Paraphilic Disorder category of the Diagnostic Manual. The details regarding this illness are complex enough to warrant its own section, with copious links to related wiki articles)
  • Sexual activity between human and animal (incorrect: the word for this is bestiality, which has its own history and debate)
  • Illegal (incorrect: bestiality is legislated against, not zoophilia; all legal context needs to be in the article for bestiality)
  • A sexual identity/sexuality (Complicated: people use the term "zoo" as an identity to the extent that this page probably should have a section for this. There is no good scientific literature on this (yet), but does that matter? There are plenty of sources available from the community)
  • The desire to have sex with animals (Complicated: as previously stated, there are people who use the term as an identity, and there's significant nuance to how people feel about bestiality even within the zoo community. This ought to be recognised on this page to help inform people better and reduce stereotyping people who may even have a mental illness resulting from their unwanted attraction)
Conflict of interest:
I am a researcher and social support advocate from the "zoo community", but this page has repeatedly been referenced as a source for great misunderstanding regarding both zoophilia and the zoophilic disorder condition. I do have an interest in seeing people treated better as a whole, but I think there's enough wrong here that even if I weren't a part of the community, I'd still be voicing my concerns. I'm more than willing to help write a neutral and well-sourced article for this page, and undergo any and all scrutiny to achieve something that can be agreed upon. Fillthymutt (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Not to put too fine a point on it, as I generally don't support giving people a hard time over their username, but you for sure could've made a better choice if advocating for people who have sex with animals is your priority here. Just Step Sideways 08:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
In this article, I don't see many references to publications that show zoophilia in a neutral light - and even the ones that do, the wiki author appears to have been subject to interpretation bias. I feel this has harmed the accuracy of your information. For example, the APA reworded the DSM(5) with the hopes that it would destigmatize paraphilias and related research, but even though that happened, the sections which reference the APA and updated DSM (#Research_perspectives) continue to call zoophilia a disorder. The APA explicitly stated in several DSM5-accompanying documents that paraphilias are not inherently paraphilic disorders, so whoever wrote that section completely misunderstood that "zoophilia" (the attraction to animals) is not even included in their references. I would very much like to help repair this article for objective accuracy.
Do you know the incidence rate of bestiality, and how that correlates with zoophilia? I'm sorry, but I think you're proving my point by suggesting zoophiles are "people who have sex with animals". It's implied in the very article we're discussing; most zoophiles do not have sex with animals. Despite my complaints, I think that is one thing this article gets right (albeit with incomplete and outdated information). Zoophilia is an attraction. Nothing else should be inferred, because nothing else seems to correlate. The community itself doesn't agree on much - but they tend to agree on that.
As for my name, this is not the place for such discussion, but I also don't want to be reprimanded for a misunderstanding; in short: *I* am the mutt (it's a joke reference to other names I go by). I originally picked it because I thought it was appropriately disturbing for such a community, but found myself pleasantly surprised that most of them despise fetishists. I keep it now because I have become well known for my extensive research, surveys and debates. My hope is to publish something peer-reviewed under my full name someday - but for now, this is what several thousand people know me by, and I don't want to be accused of trying to covertly manipulate wikipedia, so I have chosen to create this new wiki account with the same screen name. I hope this explains. Fillthymutt (talk) 10:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Suggested correction on German legal situation

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The article states in the "Legal status" section that Germany supposedly banned all human-animal sexual intercouse in 2013 which is incorrect. Presently, such sexual acts are not illegal unless the animal is being forced.

Germany's court of constitution (Bundeverfassungsgericht) clarified the interpretation in their verdict against a challenge of said law in 2015 (https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2016/bvg16-011.html). The court specifically commented that the law has a condition to it. As long as the animal is not "forced" the law is not being broken. According to the court "forcing" an animal is only possible with "physical violence" and actions that are "comparable to the use of physical violence".

Unfortunately, many sources quote both the original law from 2013 as well as the verdict from 2015 incorrectly or at least incompletely (Sources 72 to 75 on the article), adding to the confusion.

It would be advisable to correct the article by replacing the two paragraphs "Many laws banning sex with non-human animals..." and "Germany legalized bestiality..." with the following:

Many laws banning sex with non-human animals have been made recently, such as in New Hampshire, Ohio, Sweden, Iceland, Denmark, Thailand, Costa Rica, Bolivia, and Guatemala. The number of jurisdictions around the world banning it has grown in the 2000s and 2010s.

Germany legalized bestiality in 1969, and banned forced acts of bestiality in 2013. The 2013 law was unsuccessfully challenged before the Federal Constitutional Court in 2015. However, the court's verdict emphasizes that the law in question only applies on the condition of "forcing" an animal to "behavior contrary to its kind" where "forcing" entails either the use of "physical violence" or "actions that are comparable to the use of physical violence". In conclusion, German law allows non-forced acts of human-animal sexual intercourse to some extent. In spite of that, the current legal situation and the 2015 verdict are often misrepresented in media as a total ban of bestiality in Germany. Fijexaw931 (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

None of the sources you cite for the claim that 'German law allows non-forced acts of human-animal sexual intercourse to some extent' even remotely supports it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
See the third paragraph of the official press release of the Federal Constitutional Court (https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2016/bvg16-011.html; Its's linked as "" above). The second sentence reads "Der Tatbestand des § 3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 TierSchG wird in doppelter Hinsicht durch die Merkmale der „sexuellen Handlung“ und des „Zwingens“ zu einem „artwidrigen Verhalten“ begrenzt.".
This translates to "The offense of is limited in two aspects by the characteristics of the "sexual act" and the "forcing" to engage in "behavior contrary to kind."
The court specifically describes how the law that forbids bestiality is limited to situations where someone is "forcing" an animal. The verdict leaves no room for interpretation about the existence of this limitation.
To put it simply: There is a law that forbids certain sexual acts. This law is limited by certain conditions. If these conditions are not met the law does not apply. "Forcing" the animal to something is one of these conditions. Fijexaw931 (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages does not base content on contributors personal readings of legislation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
As it should be. That's why the primary source of information is the one to be considered here, which is the German Federal Constitutional Court. The literal quote of the court states this law's limitation. Fijexaw931 (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
@Fijexaw931: Please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template again. M.Bitton (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Ok, sorry for misunderstanding. I was led to believe that it was required to gain the attention of someone responsible as there was absolutely no reaction when I had raised the topic months prior. Fijexaw931 (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Cherry-picking a quote from ruling that German law against bestiality was constitutional to assert that bestiality was in fact legal under some circumstances isn't going to work. Per Misplaced Pages:No original research, we require that such sources are only used to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source. The only thing that can really be 'verified' in such terms, as I see it, is that the court ruled the law constitutional. Which is all they were asked to rule on. 'Verification' that requires extracting implications from a primary-source text that doesn't say something directly simply isn't permissible under Misplaced Pages policy. If that is what the ruling implies, find a secondary source that says so unambiguously. As of now, we cite multiple secondary sources suggesting the contrary.AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
I see now that the wording "in conclusion" in my initial proposal was poorly chosen as it implies an attempt at interpreting the source. My intent was to rephrase the source while retaining its original meaning which is specifically mentioned to not fall under the Misplaced Pages:No original research requirement. Changing a sentence from "the offense of is limited in two aspects " to "X is allowed under certain conditions" is a rephrasing by switching from negative to positive logic (comparable to changing "A is bigger than B" to "B is smaller than A", different wordings, same meaning). However, even if we can not agree on that we do not strictly need the rephrased text and can just let the more literal quote from the court stand on its own.
There was also a broken archive link in the article that is fixed below.
I propose the following revised change to the Misplaced Pages article. The paragraph "Germany legalized bestiality in 1969 " should be replaced with:
Germany had legalized bestiality in 1969, but has banned it again in 2013. The 2013 law was unsuccessfully challenged before the Federal Constitutional Court in 2015. While the law was ruled constitutional, the court recognizes in their reasoning behind this verdict that the law in question only applied on the condition of "forcing" an animal to "behavior contrary to its kind" where "forcing" entailed either the use of "physical violence" or "actions that are comparable to the use of physical violence". Fijexaw931 (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
No. Still not compliant with Misplaced Pages policy, see my previous reply. We have multiple sources that contradict what you are claiming, and you are clearly cherry-picking the source to promote your own reading of it. Please don't waste our time by repeating the same arguments. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
The proposed text does not make any claim, no interpretation, no own research. Everything is directly verifiable from the linked sources as required.
To address your claim of cherry-picking, we can add more sources that agree with the court on the exitence of the mentioned limitation. The revised article below does not promote any particular reading but provides multiple independent sources addressing the verdict in different ways.
The proposed article text after revision would look like ths:
Germany had legalized bestiality in 1969, but has banned it again in 2013. The 2013 law was unsuccessfully challenged before the Federal Constitutional Court in 2015. While the law was ruled constitutional, there is unanimosity about the full extent of this law. The court notes in their reasoning behind this verdict that the law in question only applied on the condition of "forcing" an animal to "behavior contrary to its kind" where "forcing" entailed either the use of "physical violence" or "actions that are comparable to the use of physical violence". Sources referencing the verdict either do not mention the law to be limited, or recognize it but claim "voluntary and species-appropriate" bestiality to be "improbable", or recognize it. Fijexaw931 (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
No. Misplaced Pages is not going to permit you to publish your own personal analysis of German law on bestiality here. You have had our policy explained to you, repeatedly. If you can't understand it, that's your problem, not ours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
"Personal analysis" implies a personal point of view. Please verify your accusation against the proposed text so I can remove all remaining traces of personal opinion that are not merely a neutral description of publicly available sources. Fijexaw931 (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
I have explained Misplaced Pages policy. That is all that is required here. In principle, you could ask for a second opinion, or otherwise make use of Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution processes, though I'd strongly advise against this, as a complete waste of your time, and that of others. There is no room for ambiguity here - you simply cannot contradict multiple published sources by selectively quoting a court press release. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Oh. I think I know now why you think I was trying to make a claim in the current text proposal. I apologize for the confusion this must have caused.
I made a major typo which heavily warps the meaning of the text to about the opposite of what was actually intended. The proposal reads "there is unanimosity about the full extent of this law". Correct would be "there is no consensus on the full extent of this law", followed by the quote of the court and how/if the differnt sources pick up on that. Fijexaw931 (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Given your repeated refusal to take the slightest bit of notice of what I have been telling you with regard to Misplaced Pages policy, I shall not be responding further. If you add this content, or anything resembling it to the article, I will revert you. If you persist, I will request you be blocked for abusing Misplaced Pages to promote your own personal agenda. Misplaced Pages Will not under any circumstances include your personal interpretation of German law on bestiality in the article. This is not open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate your past efforts to uphold Misplaced Pages's policies. The quality of the proposed text has improved substantially over the first draft thanks to that. However, your more recent comments show a lack of concern about those policies.
Cherry picking is a practice that "neglects, overlooks or directly suppresses evidence that could lead to a complete picture". Adding more sources here is not cherry picking as we do not have a good reason to ignore those sources. So far you could not bring forth such a reason either but adamantly demand to neglect the additional sources solely based on the fact that they don't support the perspective of the already presented ones. This is a picture book example of cherry picking. (Not to mention moving the goalposts earlier from "find a secondary source that says so unambiguously" to refusing these sources altogether.)
Furthermore you have claimed that the proposed text breaks Misplaced Pages's policies about own research/interpretations but refused to answer the direct question about how it does so.
Instead of just giving a sensible reason you
  • assume bad faith by calling this proposal to be under some sort of "agenda",
  • threaten to start an edit war,
  • resort to coersion by making personal threats in what seems to be an attempt at scaring me out of participating.
All of these are harmful to a reasonable discussion.
I wish you would just answer the question so I could improve the text but if you decide to disengage, a third opinion seems like the next reasonable step.
For the record, the current text proposal, including the correction from earlier, is this:
Germany had legalized bestiality in 1969, but has banned it again in 2013. The 2013 law was unsuccessfully challenged before the Federal Constitutional Court in 2015. While the law was ruled constitutional, there is no consensus on the full extent of this law. The court notes in their reasoning behind this verdict that the law in question only applied on the condition of "forcing" an animal to "behavior contrary to its kind" where "forcing" entailed either the use of "physical violence" or "actions that are comparable to the use of physical violence". Sources referencing the verdict either do not mention the law to be limited, or recognize it but claim "voluntary and species-appropriate" bestiality to be "improbable", or recognize it. Fijexaw931 (talk) 11:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
You will not under any circumstances be permitted to use Misplaced Pages to promote your own personal interpretation of German law with regard to the sexual abuse of animals. Not with this account, not with your previous one, and not under any new one you create. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
I have requested a third opinon to help in resolving this dispute: Misplaced Pages:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements Fijexaw931 (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
There is nothing whatsoever to discuss. Your proposal is pure and unadulterated original research, and will not under any circumstances be permitted on Misplaced Pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Finally, I have time to come back to this.
As SmittenGalaxy said, conflicting sources are not necessarily to be excluded because of the conflictingness alone, as long as an appropriate weighting between the sources is maintained. Allegedely, the previously proposed text still contained original research, so I decided to scrap it. Instead, the new proposal just adds a single sentence: "A small number of sources suggest this law might be conditional." This takes into account the sources' different weights and can easily be verified by any reasonably educated person with access to the cited sources, as required.
Does this proposal still contain original research?
Germany legalized bestiality in 1969 but banned it again in 2013. The 2013 law was unsuccessfully challenged before the Federal Constitutional Court in 2015. A small number of sources suggest this law might be conditional. Fijexaw931 (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request:

This is a strange 3O request, being on a topic that is over 3 months old, and seems to have moved on. It's tempting to wholesale disregard under WP:STICK, however to ensure clarity, I will go over this discussion in full:

  • Firstly, the summary on WP:3O feels a bit strange and leading towards one side of the argument, so I'll be basing my opinion on the discussion as a whole. The original issue seems to stem from disagreement with the statement that Germany has a total ban on bestiality. This was supported by citing the legal interpretation from the German courts.
  • Upon reading subsequent comments, this source appears to be contradicted by other sources. However, this does not necessarily mean the information would not be included per WP:DUE; it would merely just be a minority opinion, and require less weighting.
  • However, this does not seem to be the case. The law nor its interpretation does not say anything that bestiality is legal; it merely suggests that it is conditional. To interpret the text as saying it is legal would constitute original research; we do not publish interpretations of law, we can only publish what is directly said by secondary sources.

Therefore I see no reason to add the original statement to the article, as it not only does not agree with other sources, it is original research. I hope this can help both editors move on from this discussion towards more productive areas. Thanks. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 02:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input.
The fact that so much time has passed since the last interaction was merely making use of Misplaced Pages not having a deadline (WP:DEADLINE).
Please note that the the most recent proposed change has evolved substantially from its initial draft. It nowhere claims that bestiality is legal. At least, that is not the intention. The current proposal cites several sources which interpret the law as being either conditional or unconditional. This interpretation lies solely in those sources. Fijexaw931 (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This does NOT seem an uncontroversial change, and so the "Edit Request" process isn't the right one to use. PianoDan (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


References

  1. "New Hampshire HB1547 – 2016 – Regular Session". Legiscan.com. Retrieved 17 April 2017.
  2. "Ohio SB195 – 2015–2016 – 131st General Assembly". Legiscan.com. Retrieved 16 November 2017.
  3. "Sweden Joins An Increasing Number of European Countries That Ban Bestiality". Webpronews.com. 13 June 2013. Retrieved 16 November 2017.
  4. "Stundar kynlíf með hundinum sínum". www.mbl.is.
  5. "Flertal for lovændring: Nu bliver sex med dyr ulovligt". 21 April 2015. Retrieved 20 October 2018.
  7. "Diputados aclaran alcances y límites de la nueva Ley de Bienestar Animal". Elpais.cr. 10 March 2016. Retrieved 16 November 2017.
  8. "LEY No 700 del 01 de Junio de 2015". Derechoteca.com. Retrieved 16 November 2017.
  9. "Ley de Protección y Bienestar Animal". Transdoc Archivos Leyes (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2 December 2020. Retrieved 16 November 2017.
  10. "Animal welfare: Germany moves to ban bestiality". BBC. 28 November 2012. Retrieved 28 May 2021.
  11. "Tierschutzgesetz § 3" (in German). Bundesministerium der Justiz. Archived from the original on 29 January 2019.
  12. "Erfolglose Verfassungsbeschwerde gegen den Ordnungswidrigkeitentatbestand der sexuellen Handlung mit Tieren" . www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de (Press release) (in German). Bundesverfassungsgericht. 18 February 2016. Archived from the original on 29 January 2020. Retrieved 26 February 2020.
  13. "Top German court rejects challenge to law against bestiality". AP NEWS. 18 February 2016. Archived from the original on 29 January 2020. Retrieved 26 February 2020.
  14. "German Court Rules Sex With Animals Still Illegal". Time. Archived from the original on 29 December 2016. Retrieved 26 February 2020.
  15. "Bid to end German animal-sex ban fails". BBC News. 19 February 2016. Archived from the original on 31 January 2018. Retrieved 26 February 2020.
  16. "Top court throws out bid to legalize bestiality". The Local Germany. 18 February 2016. Archived from the original on 29 January 2020. Retrieved 29 January 2020.
  17. "Animal welfare: Germany moves to ban bestiality". BBC. 28 November 2012. Retrieved 28 May 2021.
  18. "Tierschutzgesetz § 3" (in German). Bundesministerium der Justiz. Archived from the original on 29 January 2019.
  19. "Erfolglose Verfassungsbeschwerde gegen den Ordnungswidrigkeitentatbestand der sexuellen Handlung mit Tieren" . www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de (Press release) (in German). Bundesverfassungsgericht. 18 February 2016. Archived from the original on 29 January 2020. Retrieved 26 February 2020.
  20. "Top German court rejects challenge to law against bestiality". AP NEWS. 18 February 2016. Archived from the original on 29 January 2020. Retrieved 26 February 2020.
  21. "German Court Rules Sex With Animals Still Illegal". Time. Archived from the original on 29 December 2016. Retrieved 26 February 2020.
  22. "Bid to end German animal-sex ban fails". BBC News. 19 February 2016. Archived from the original on 31 January 2018. Retrieved 26 February 2020.
  23. "Top court throws out bid to legalize bestiality". The Local Germany. 18 February 2016. Archived from the original on 10 December 2023. Retrieved 24 March 2024.
  24. "Animal welfare: Germany moves to ban bestiality". BBC. 28 November 2012. Retrieved 28 May 2021.
  25. "Tierschutzgesetz § 3" (in German). Bundesministerium der Justiz. Archived from the original on 29 January 2019.
  26. "Erfolglose Verfassungsbeschwerde gegen den Ordnungswidrigkeitentatbestand der sexuellen Handlung mit Tieren" . www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de (Press release) (in German). Bundesverfassungsgericht. 18 February 2016. Archived from the original on 29 January 2020. Retrieved 26 February 2020.
  27. "Top German court rejects challenge to law against bestiality". AP NEWS. 18 February 2016. Archived from the original on 29 January 2020. Retrieved 26 February 2020.
  28. "German Court Rules Sex With Animals Still Illegal". Time. Archived from the original on 29 December 2016. Retrieved 26 February 2020.
  29. "Bid to end German animal-sex ban fails". BBC News. 19 February 2016. Archived from the original on 31 January 2018. Retrieved 26 February 2020.
  30. "Top court throws out bid to legalize bestiality". The Local Germany. 18 February 2016. Archived from the original on 10 December 2023. Retrieved 24 March 2024.
  31. "Sodomie: Ist Sex mit Tieren erlaubt?". Anwalt-Suchservice. 27 July 2022. Archived from the original on 24 March 2024. Retrieved 24 March 2024.
  32. "Kein Zwangs-Sex mit Tieren". taz. 19 February 2016. Archived from the original on 8 August 2016. Retrieved 24 March 2024.
  33. "Animal welfare: Germany moves to ban bestiality". BBC. 28 November 2012. Retrieved 28 May 2021.
  34. "Tierschutzgesetz § 3" (in German). Bundesministerium der Justiz. Archived from the original on 29 January 2019.
  35. "Erfolglose Verfassungsbeschwerde gegen den Ordnungswidrigkeitentatbestand der sexuellen Handlung mit Tieren" . www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de (Press release) (in German). Bundesverfassungsgericht. 18 February 2016. Archived from the original on 29 January 2020. Retrieved 26 February 2020.
  36. "Top German court rejects challenge to law against bestiality". AP NEWS. 18 February 2016. Archived from the original on 29 January 2020. Retrieved 26 February 2020.
  37. "German Court Rules Sex With Animals Still Illegal". Time. Archived from the original on 29 December 2016. Retrieved 26 February 2020.
  38. "Bid to end German animal-sex ban fails". BBC News. 19 February 2016. Archived from the original on 31 January 2018. Retrieved 26 February 2020.
  39. "Top court throws out bid to legalize bestiality". The Local Germany. 18 February 2016. Archived from the original on 10 December 2023. Retrieved 24 March 2024.
  40. "Sodomie: Ist Sex mit Tieren erlaubt?". Anwalt-Suchservice. 27 July 2022. Archived from the original on 24 March 2024. Retrieved 24 March 2024.
  41. "Kein Zwangs-Sex mit Tieren". taz. 19 February 2016. Archived from the original on 8 August 2016. Retrieved 24 March 2024.
  42. "Animal welfare: Germany moves to ban bestiality". BBC. 28 November 2012. Retrieved 28 May 2021.
  43. "Tierschutzgesetz § 3" (in German). Bundesministerium der Justiz. Archived from the original on 29 January 2019.
  44. ^ "Erfolglose Verfassungsbeschwerde gegen den Ordnungswidrigkeitentatbestand der sexuellen Handlung mit Tieren" . www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de (Press release) (in German). Bundesverfassungsgericht. 18 February 2016. Archived from the original on 29 January 2020. Retrieved 26 February 2020.
  45. "Top German court rejects challenge to law against bestiality". AP NEWS. 18 February 2016. Archived from the original on 29 January 2020. Retrieved 26 February 2020.
  46. "German Court Rules Sex With Animals Still Illegal". Time. Archived from the original on 29 December 2016. Retrieved 26 February 2020.
  47. "Bid to end German animal-sex ban fails". BBC News. 19 February 2016. Archived from the original on 31 January 2018. Retrieved 26 February 2020.
  48. "Top court throws out bid to legalize bestiality". The Local Germany. 18 February 2016. Archived from the original on 29 January 2020. Retrieved 29 January 2020.
  49. "Sodomie: Ist Sex mit Tieren erlaubt?". Anwalt-Suchservice. 27 July 2022. Archived from the original on 24 March 2024. Retrieved 24 March 2024.
  50. "Kein Zwangs-Sex mit Tieren". taz. 19 February 2016. Archived from the original on 8 August 2016. Retrieved 24 March 2024.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Most bestiality offenders are white people. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Bestiality-related-arrests-in-the-United-States-1975-2015_fig4_325497782 103.167.234.31 (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Title change

I'm afraid calling the article as just "Zoophilia" might confuse other Wikipedians. Can you change the title to either "Zoophilia and Bestiality" or "Zoophilia/Bestiality"? If the decision is made to keep "Zoophilia", despite the possible confusion to the other Wikipedians, why? FSlolhehe (talk) 09:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Suggested correction on the Swedish legal situation.

Sweden has outlawed sexual acts with animals in 2014 in accordance with kap 2. 10 § djurskyddslagen. Which translates to chapter 2. 10 § animal welfare law. The Swedish Misplaced Pages page of zoophilia correctly states this, provided below is a source directly from the horse's mouth, a website run by the Swedish Parliament (riksdag) outlining the animal welfare act/law, it scrolls to chapter 2 but a bit further down is part 10 which is the relevant part. The law provides exceptions for veterinarian work, breeding and others with a proper justification.

https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/djurskyddslag-20181192_sfs-2018-1192/#K2 Albl1122 (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Will update when I have some time. Thanks. Zenomonoz (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Categories: