Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 3

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Older talk:

Talk:Zoophilia/Archive1 June 27, 2003 - Oct 21, 2004
Talk:Zoophilia/Archive2 Oct 21, 2004 - Oct 29, 2004

Previous - Talk:Zoophilia/Archive3 - Next

Note: please see Talk:Zoophilia/Archive2 for the beginning of the current discussion.

The harmful effects of bestiality

Documenting the harm caused to the animal. You state pretty clearly that you believe that a human having sex with an animal is comparable to child molestation, that it is abuse and harmful to the animal. The harm caused by child molestation is very well-documented; specifically, we have molestation survivors who describe their suffering, and psychological research into the nature of this suffering. There are an awful lot of animal-psychologists in the world; surely someone has done some research on the harm caused to bestiality survivors (that is, the animals). One, the aftereffects are only half of it. It is illegal to have sex with children because THEY ARE NOT INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO FULLY CONSENT. Now, do you believe an animal is more intelligent than a child, let alone an adult? NO. Would it be ok if I had sex with someone who was mentally retarded, if the person didnt mind? That being said: First of all, our body anatomy is too large for the animals. Whether you're sticking your penis in the animal's vagina or anus, its too big. Bestiality has caused internal damage to animals. It has also torn the vagina for animals.

Two :http://pet-abuse.com/cases/2206/FL/US/1 "A veterinary examination later showed injury to the dog and that the animal appeared to be frightened, Henry said."

http://www.humaneconcepts.com/"small animals often experience torn rectums and internal bleeding after being sexually assaulted" "It is always animal abuse. Relationships of unequal power cannot be consensual. In human-animal relationships, the human being has control of many--if not all--of the aspects of an animals' well being. sexual relationships should occur between peers where consent should be possible. Consent is when one can say no, and that no is accepted. Clearly animals cannot do that. Bestiality is the model case of circumventing consent on the one hand, while confusing affection for consent on the other" "On June 2, when John and Kandi Bever went to feed their pregnant Arabian mare, Kyss, they discovered the horse laying on her side in distress. Nearby was a pack of cigarettes and bootprints that later turned out to match Rachwal's. A veterinarian determined that Kyss was in shock from severe penetration injuries to the anal and vaginal areas....Kandi Bever reports that although Kyss' injuries are healing and she is doing wonderfully, the mare was clearly affected psychologically by the assault. The foal appears to be in good health but whether or not Kyss will be able to give birth normally is still unknown."

"Many animal sexual abusers fit the profile of pedophiles,"says Kim Roberts, manager of The HSUS's First Strike? campaign, which focuses on the link between animal cruelty and human violence. "They may defend their actions by stating their victims' consent, but obviously no child or animal is capable of consenting to sexual activity with an adult. And unfortunately, these victims have no way of calling attention to their pain."As Roberts notes, children who sexually abuse animals may be victims of sexual, physical, or emotional abuse themselves, perpetuating the cycle."

While the blunt assertions you've posted above are not eligible for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, perhaps your strong views could lead you to do some real research for this article rather than just repeating yourself over and over in the talk page. I've done plenty of research. You're the child who believes its ok to sexually assault animals.

(Incidentally, you mention in passing above that you were "banned". Did you mean that you were banned from Wikipeida? If you were and still are, then your posting here may well be a criminal offense, since you are accessing a computer system without authorization. Wikipedia bans apply to individuals, not to usernames.) ?FOo 06:07 Bestiality is a much serious criminal offense, yet you furtively support it. Furthermore, the moderator stated, "Im not gonna reply to it; if you (Ciz) want to discuss this, please do so here." Anyway, Im not banned anymore --Ciz 19:40, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

More fun with PMC and Ciz

I love animals. Doesnt make me a zoophile. Furthermore, only pedophiles use the term boylover and only bestials use the term zoophilia. The rest of the public uses the terms bestiality and pedophilia

Don't assume the rest of the public goes by what you do - I refer to it as zoophilia. You're in the minority. Most people refer to it as bestiality. And nonetheless, the term is invalid as there are plenty of people who love children and animals but dont want to rape them Minority or not, I differ from you - do NOT make sweeping generalizations such as "only besitals use..." and "the rest of the public uses..." because they are inherently untrue. You can't say "All Americans are stupid", so why can you say, "Everyone calls sex with animals bestiality"?

Yes, the Wiki must be NPOV and from what I saw, you were making it POV against from what you say is POV for. Therefore - add your "Against" section while keeping the "For" section, and we will be nicely balanced. And while it may be your truth, it certainly isn't the truth to practicioners. You could say the same for pedophiles. Oops, I mean boylovers You most certainly could. I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, because (see my user page) I believe that on a controversial topic, ALL viewpoints MUST be presented, whether I agree with them or not. Therfore, on Nazism, there should be a section explaining why the Nazis thought it was good, and why non-believers think it's bad. On pedophilia, there should be an explanation - and this is the key here, an explanation without advocation - of why pedophiles think its good, and then an explanation of why most of society thinks its bad. I agree with you that zoophilia is animal abuse, but I am NOT going to bring my own bias into an article that should be written with a purely clinical perspective.

Don't assume your way has to be right. Thats the thing; the entry on bestiality was not neutral, and did not say it was arguing in support. If my entry is removed for having a pov, so should that one.

I reiterate my point: don't bitch about it here, insert a properly thought-out, unbiased, "Against" section. Yet the entry here is already biased. Here being the article? Can't you hear me what I'm saying to you? If you think an article is biased: change it to NPOV. Don't make it YOUR POV, make it NON-POV. That's what the Wiki is aiming for. NPOV.

Its people like you that let conservatives use the argument of saying gay marriage will lead to legalized bestiality.

No ad hominem attacks, please! Attack my point if you must, but not me. its the truth. Conservatives use the argument that legalizing gay marriage will ultimately lead to legalized bestiality. Whether it be true or NOT, an ad hominem attack doesn't make your argument any stronger, and it doesn't make mine invalid. And while they use that argument, I think it's bunk. We're not even going to get started on that though.

Yes, three months ago there was quite a bit of POV. Read the timestamps on the talk page, most (if not all?) of that controversy has since been cleared up. I doubt that. I don't care.

The article has a mark saying that it is not neutral.

So MAKE it so. Fix what you're complaining about, or stop complaining. I cant. If I give my pov, it gets removed. Im allowed to preach about the wonders of having sexual intercourse with my pet, yet if I say its abusive I get removed, ?? Well, you do have to present your arguments clinically. As far as I can tell, you're pretty damn emotional about this whole thing, so perhaps calm down and then add the Arguments section.

First of all, please don't argue so emotional. I can understand that this is a very emotional topic for many many people, but behaving so emotional does not help anyone here.

I'm not sure whether "Zoophilia" or "Bestiality" are the more common terms, google searches aren't very useful here because the term bestiality seems to be 90% porn-sites. But I think zoophilia is the more NPOV term, like pedophilia is a NPOV term for pedophiles.

I could go and surf some pro-zoophile websites, finding comments from people that tell me how much they love and care for their animals. But that's not the point. I don't say that there is no animal abuse and there are no people that hurt animals for their own sexual pleasure, but I do say that not 100% of all zoophiles do that, and that indeed (and that's just my POV) many do love and care for their animals.

Your main argument seems to be that zoophilia is like pedophilia. I disagree with that. An (adult) animal is, unlike a child, sexually active. And an animal can and will defend itself if someone does something to it what it does not want. You can force an animal to have sexual intercourse, like you can force a child. But you can also force an adult human person to do such things, and no one says that sex between humans is bad because rape exists. The rape itself is of course a bad thing, but we don't forbid sexual intercourse, we forbid rape.

You say: "Whether you're sticking your penis in the animal's vagina or anus, its too big". This of course depends on what kind of animal we are talking about. A horse shouldn't even notice a human, and some dogs are also big enough. So there is not always a problem from a techical point of view.

You say: "If I give my pov, it gets removed". You got reverted not because you inserted your own pov, but because you removed pretty much everything that you did not agree with and made the article extremly one-sided. You are free to add a "Criticism" section, as long as you keep it as NPOV as it can be. (Saying that all "bestialists" are animal abusers is not npov, not even for a criticism section.)

Just my two (unsorted) cent. --Conti|✉ 21:15, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Don't assume the rest of the public goes by what you do - I refer to it as zoophilia.

You're in the minority. Most people refer to it as bestiality. And nonetheless, the term is invalid as there are plenty of people who love children and animals but dont want to rape them

Minority or not, I differ from you - do NOT make sweeping generalizations such as "only besitals use..." and "the rest of the public uses..." because they are inherently untrue. You can't say "All Americans are stupid", so why can you say, "Everyone calls sex with animals bestiality"?

Yes, you usually cannot use blanket statements. However, I can say that most people referr to having sex with animals to be bestiality, and not zoophilia. And I can say that most people believe bestiality to be animal abuse. And until the day bestiality becomes accepted (which will not happen until animals evolve into having a human-like intelligence) that will be the case.

I agree with you here. Zoophilia is animal abuse because the animal cannot give its consent. However - "zoophilia" is also the appropriate clinical term for this particular paraphilia and therefore is the term that the Wiki community has agreed upon for this article.

Yes, the Wiki must be NPOV and from what I saw, you were making it POV against from what you say is POV for. Therefore - add your "Against" section while keeping the "For" section, and we will be nicely balanced. And while it may be your truth, it certainly isn't the truth to practicioners.

You could say the same for pedophiles. Oops, I mean boylovers

You most certainly could. I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, because (see my user page) I believe that on a controversial topic, ALL viewpoints MUST be presented, whether I agree with them or not. Therfore, on Nazism, there should be a section explaining why the Nazis thought it was good, and why non-believers think it's bad. On pedophilia, there should be an explanation - and this is the key here, an explanation without advocation - of why pedophiles think its good, and then an explanation of why most of society thinks its bad. I agree with you that zoophilia is animal abuse, but I am NOT going to bring my own bias into an article that should be written with a purely clinical perspective.

Fine then. Go into the Naziism section and add a pro-part where you say how Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, and the like are all inferior and should be thrown into gas chambers. If you dont, it'll be one-sided.

Did you miss the part where I said "explanation without advocation"? That's vital to NPOV. I can explain the motives and beliefs of the Nazi party without believing any of it. I can also explain the motives and beliefs of a zoophile while I myself believe it's wrong. To explain is not to believe - if you don't agree, look in the thesaurus. Explain is not listed as a synonym for believe.

Its people like you that let conservatives use the argument of saying gay marriage will lead to legalized bestiality.

No ad hominem attacks, please! Attack my point if you must, but not me.

its the truth. Conservatives use the argument that legalizing gay marriage will ultimately lead to legalized bestiality.

Whether it be true or NOT, an ad hominem attack doesn't make your argument any stronger, and it doesn't make mine invalid. And while they use that argument, I think it's bunk. We're not even going to get started on that though.

Its not ad homein. People comparing gay rights to bestiality give conservatives the ammunition they need.

That is not the point I'm adressing here and you know it. "People like you..." is an ad hominem attack.

Im allowed to preach about the wonders of having sexual intercourse with my pet, yet if I say its abusive I get removed, ??

Well, you do have to present your arguments clinically. As far as I can tell, you're pretty damn emotional about this whole thing, so perhaps calm down and then add the Arguments section.

I am emotional. The fact that animals are going through all this has me enraged. The fact that its illegal, yet there are hundreds of sites with images with people ****ing animals and no one's stopping them has me enraged.

Hey, it pisses me off too but the last time that I checked, this wasn't an animal rights Wiki - it's an encyclopedia, the purpose of which is to educate the masses from a clinical perspective. Leave your personal bias at the door.

First of all, please don't argue so emotional. I can understand that this is a very emotional topic for many many people, but behaving so emotional does not help anyone here. I am emotional. The fact that animals are being molested has me greatly disturbed, worried, and saddened

I'm not sure whether "Zoophilia" or "Bestiality" are the more common terms, google searches aren't very useful here because the term bestiality seems to be 90% porn-sites. But I think zoophilia is the more NPOV term, like pedophilia is a NPOV term for pedophiles. No, it is not. The correct, legal term is bestiality. Zoophilia was a term created by bestials to make it more acceptable, just like boylover was created by pedophiles.

I could go and surf some pro-zoophile websites, finding comments from people that tell me how much they love and care for their animals. Lets say I have a daughter. As long as I love her, take care of her, and be a good parent its alright for me to have sex with her? What if she's mentally retarded, so I know having sex with her wont traumatize her? She cant speak, but she giggles when I fondle her vagina and breasts, so I assume she's ok with it. If she didn't want me to, she would scream and try pushing me away. So its not like Im doing something she's uncomforable with it. I love my daughter, and she loves me. How is love wrong?

Are you sickened? Then you know how I feel.

But that's not the point. I don't say that there is no animal abuse and there are no people that hurt animals for their own sexual pleasure, but I do say that not 100% of all zoophiles do that, and that indeed (and that's just my POV) many do love and care for their animals. Any body who has sex with their pet is abusing them. No matter how much they love them, animals lack the intelligence to fully consent. They are like children. They are innocent, naive, and they usually cannot speak for themselves.

Your main argument seems to be that zoophilia is like pedophilia. I disagree with that. An (adult) animal is, unlike a child, sexually active. Yes, and when it does that it will go into heat and call out on of its own. The two will then procreate and try having a child.

And an animal can and will defend itself if someone does something to it what it does not want. I have already given you several sources where an animal has been traumatized and injured as a result of having sex with a human.

You can force an animal to have sexual intercourse, like you can force a child. But you can also force an adult human person to do such things, and no one says that sex between humans is bad because rape exists. The rape itself is of course a bad thing, but we don't forbid sexual intercourse, we forbid rape. That is apples and oranges. If two adults decide to have consensual sex, its alright. Children and animals lack the intelligence to properly consent. Even if the animal is grown up, it is still not intelligent enough (and they will never be intelligent enough for sexual intercourse with humans until the day they evolve to have human-like intelligence

You say: "Whether you're sticking your penis in the animal's vagina or anus, its too big". This of course depends on what kind of animal we are talking about. A horse shouldn't even notice a human, and some dogs are also big enough. You're making me sick. How old are you? I've already posted an example about a horse.

On June 2, when John and Kandi Bever went to feed their pregnant Arabian mare, Kyss, they discovered the horse laying on her side in distress. Nearby was a pack of cigarettes and bootprints that later turned out to match Rachwal's. A veterinarian determined that Kyss was in shock from severe penetration injuries to the anal and vaginal areas....Kandi Bever reports that although Kyss' injuries are healing and she is doing wonderfully, the mare was clearly affected psychologically by the assault. The foal appears to be in good health but whether or not Kyss will be able to give birth normally is still unknown.

So there is not always a problem from a techical point of view. No.

You say: "If I give my pov, it gets removed". You got reverted not because you inserted your own pov, but because you removed pretty much everything that you did not agree with and made the article extremly one-sided. It was already extremely one-sided.

You are free to add a "Criticism" section, as long as you keep it as NPOV as it can be. (Saying that all "bestialists" are animal abusers is not npov, not even for a criticism section. Just my two (unsorted) cent. --Conti|✉ 21:15, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC) Anyone who has sex with an animal is an animal abuser. Having sex with animals is animal abuse. There arent any exceptions. I dont care if the bestial truly loves the animal. Pedophiles believe that they truly love children. Take a the bestial's argument and replace 'animal' with 'child' and you got the pedophile's arguments.

Also, since animal lover is a term used by thousands of people who love animals without wanting to engage in sexual intercourse with them (more than those who do want to) the word animal-lover should not be linked to the idea of having sex with them. --Ciz 23:26, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is interesting. The original article, up to a couple of days ago, seemed fairly neutral. There was a NPOV section being discussed, which had been enquired about. This section and its NPOV removal after some 3 months was the topic of discussion. It now looks like we have a sudden deluge of ranting by what appears to be a POV contributor, and the page has been protected.

Unless I'm mistaken, the original NPOV question is the item that needs discussing; most of the recent POV ranting seems to be the work of a single vandal who cannot handle the level headed debate which was going on.

The various arguments can be summarised clinically and reviewed/discussed for neutrality.

In the meantime, to pull the debate back to where it was before the recent vandalism:

"There has been ample time and opportunity (over 3 months) for this article and its sources to be reviewed and discussed, and this was quite appropriate given the content. The "generalisations" are academically sourced conclusions, based upon research, and comprise as valid material as any.

It's worth remembering that even on contentious issues, individuals personal feelings on topics are not the way to decide if it is valid information and are not a deciding factor for what belongs in some article. Mysteronald's stated reason for adding the tag are that the material is general, not that its inaccurate or unsourced. Vote: removal of tag, inappropriate" FT2 08:50, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

"Sources?"

"Sources"? are you referring to such sites as zoophilia.net? Dont make me laugh. Furthermore, most if not all of the books listed on the entry also support bestiality.

"like we have a sudden deluge of ranting by what appears to be a POV contributor" Oooh, a sudden delugue of ranting. Furthermore, the entry 'Zoophilia as a lifestyle' was also biased, submitted by a POV contributor. The fact that people (and this site) would support such disgusting abuse of animals is horrible. Do you support bestiality as well? --Ciz 21:11, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thats about what I thought. Not only vandalism, but ignorance. It seems that you spammed the entire of this topic without caring to read the existing debate beforehand.

If you would go back, and absorb the existing debate before posting again, and remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and that a large number of different people work together to contribute their various knowledges (not points of view), you may be able to contribute to this and other articles in a more positive manner. FT2 23:45, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

All I know is that you have you an entry showing bestiality in a positive light. Furthermore, Im not spamming the topic. All my posts have been replies to other posts. And I'd like you to debunk any of the contributions I made to the bestiality article. Everything I said was true. Bestiality is illegal, its harmful towards the animals, the animals are not intelligent enough to consent, ect ect. Furthermore, I have read the archives.

"Please give a credible source for the extraordinary claims made in the "Zoophilia as a lifestyle" section."

"A casual glance at some materials at http://www.zoophile.net/ or other similar sites will confirm most of it and in any case, a lot of the claims are really just common sense."

"So http://www.zoophile.net/ is a neutral website then, is it. First heading on the front page: "Guides to Sex with Animals" Ect, ect. I've also read your comments. --Ciz 01:46, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you'd like to add more sources, feel free to do so. Once the page's unprotected, at least. However, there was no call for removing large portions of the article, including most of the references that did exist!

To sum things up, we don't have anything against the specific things you tried to write in the modified article. Parts of what you put there, in fact, would make for a good section for the article. As it stood, there may have been some POV skewing. As others have said, though, your changes didn't make for NPOV - instead, you replaced one POV with another, stronger one. Not good. -- Zetawoof 04:57, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ciz, what you have just said is completely a personal view. You need to read the previous debate to see whats already been discussed and take each side seriously. A lot of thought seems to have gone into both. Thats how Wikipedia works. As someone who works in fringe sexualities, I have personal views, but like yours and most people's, many of them are just that - my personal views. You're entitled to hold them, but if you make a statement here, it needs to be NPOV.

Example

The statement "animals cannot consent" makes a good example of why people feel you are posting POV:

No evidence or neutral source is offered for this assertation.
In the course of research, it transpired that a large number of people including animal breeders and most animal care books, state that animals can and do choose to engage, solicit or indulge in sexual activity of their own wish.
It is common knowledge that dogs and primates (and therefore presumably other species) will readily solicit or demand sex from different species (including humans), act sexually towards them, seek repeat encounters if allowed.
If denied, they will often turn to inanimate objects such as furniture and attempt to solicit sex from these.
It is also well known that many animals masturbate and that by all accounts they obtain enjoyment from choosing sexual contact, which would make common sense as well.

This is neutrally verifiable, and sources and examples are available for each of these. These include substantial academic research, animal welfare and other books, anecdotal evidence and photographs. This is what is meant by sourced information.

A statement that basically says "I, of my own thinking, cannot believe X is true or right", is POV, and should be left out, however strongly you personally may feel it is relevant or true.

I am going to suggest we revert the page to how it was before your recent edits, and that if you then have any contributions, they can be discussed here one by one. I also think you need to read and understand the points made in the original discussion page, so we don't rehash them again, and that you understand why these were by and large felt to be appropriate discussions where yours were not. FT2 14:13, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

You're disgusting. I bet you have sex with your pets, huh?

1)Informed consent Now, do you honestly think an animal is more intelligent than an a child, let alone an adult? No. It doesnt matter if the animal does want to, its not intelligent enough. If two animals decide to, its ok because they are of relatively the same intelligence. That it is not the case with a human and another animal. It is always animal abuse. Relationships of unequal power cannot be consensual. In human-animal relationships, the human being has control of many--if not all--of the aspects of an animals' well being.

As for the humping...

http://ncbuy.com/news/2002-03-04/1003460.html

http://www.bbrescue.org/Articles/DogPeopleTalk.html

It doesnt mean they want to have sex with you, you sicko.

And also; presumably other species... Have you ever heard "To assume makes an ass out of you and me?"

This is neutrally verifiable, and sources and examples are available for each of these. These include substantial academic research, animal welfare and other books, anecdotal evidence and photographs. This is what is meant by sourced information. Neutrally verifiable? One, do any of those sources support having sex with your pet? Because most psychologists and animal rights organizations dont. Second, most of the sources listed were pro-bestiality (Dearest Pet: On Bestiality is pro-bestiality; The Horseman: Obsessions of a Zoophile is pro-bestiality, Dog Love is pro-bestiality, ect ect) --Ciz 17:56, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ciz, are you incapable of debating without the use of ad hominem attacks? Just because FT2 is arguing against your point, he must have sex with animals? Hmm, yes, I can see how that must be true. Oh wait. No I can't, because it makes no sense. Sort of like me telling a history teacher that because he teaches that the Holocaust happened, he must be a Nazi. Or because my English teacher explained what Puck was doing in A Midsummer Night's Dream, he must believe in faeries? Both conclusions are non sequitur. It just doesn't follow. PMC 19:27, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No. but if my history teacher defended the Nazis,that would be something different, wouldnt it? --Ciz 20:54, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

He's not defending anything, he's refuting your point with actual research. If you perhaps had some actual neutral points to share, I would listen to you, as would the rest of us. But you don't, and not only that, you can't even argue without resorting to personal attacks. Why would you think we'd want to even speak with you when all you can do is rant? Come back when you can argue your point like a rational person. PMC 22:17, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've done much more than just insult people. I've made plenty of points, and barely any have been refuted. Furthermore, his research is incorrect. He said thats its ok to have sex with dogs because they hump your leg. WTF?! Also, most people would agree with me that anyone who thinks its ok to have sex with animals is not rational at all.

And have a nice day. --Ciz 23:42, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In addition to "cannot read prior debate" and "argues rhetorically and ad hominem", and a sysop's report for vandalism, it seems one can now add "invents opinions to attribute to people you disagree with" and "still fails to grasp point of wikipedia". You have not done as suggested and studied the prior debate, where many points were discussed and a working NPOV consensus in many areas reached prior to your vandalism.

For Wikipedia, handling factual information matters more than personal opinion. We are not so much advocates for a single "right" POV, as compilers of common knowledge. An example of exactly what 'sourced information' means in Wikipedia was actually given above, to help you understand and contribute productively as others have.

Ciz please understand - Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. You need to learn that and fast if you are going to make any meaningful contribution to the content of any articles. Inventing opinions to attribute to others will not work here, neither will emotive rhetoric which lack substance, nor will ignoring NPOV material and trying to invent dialog or POV material to attack fellow contributors who see neutrality as important. Please don't do these things. FT2 03:51, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

I dunno, FT...I can't see "please" really working with this guy. There's no hope here.

And Ciz - I am having a nice day, but thanks for the sentiment. PMC 06:36, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)