Talk:Zoosexuality/Archive 1

Definition of bestiality

From the article: "Bestiality means simply, the sexual act of a human having sex with a (non-human) animal." This definition sounds rather strange to me and the sentence doesn't flow too well in my opinion. The dictionary definition (bestiality: "Sexual relations between a human and an animal") I also find dodgy. In my eyes, bestiality means: "a person performing sexual acts with or on an animal." BabyNuke 20:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

A good point. Is this any better? Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That sounds more like it BabyNuke 09:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Technically that would have to be "A sexual act", as it refers to the act not the person. FT2 (Talk) 10:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Rvt of edits 128.192.81.3

Two small edits, reverted. Explanation below:

1. The article means "frottage", not "frotteurism", as did the source it's from. Read the definition of each to see why. The original was correct. Frottage (sexualised contact/rubbing) is not the same as #9 sexual partner though.
2. The use of anal sex rather than gay sex is accurate. Reducing zoosexuality and all that's known about it (orientation) to bestiality (stereotypical sexual act of zoosexuals) is analogous to reducing homosexuality and all thats known about it, to anal sex (stereotypical sexual act of homosexuals). Both are being said to be in error, for the exact valid reasons that user:128.192.81.3 gives, namely, they have bodies, brains, culture, interests, and so on, and are not just walking stereotypical sex acts.

Hope that clarifies why the revert, and thanks! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Besiality (in my understanding) is zoosexual sexual activity regardless of technique, I am unaware of any sterotypical means of a person having sex with an animal and I think "gay sex" is adequately reductive to make the comparison with homosexuality.

If you compare the frottage and frotteurism articles the distinction is made that frottage is something someone does with a sexual partner (including to climax), for right now I'll change the link but not the text,

128.192.81.11 17:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Jun 25 1:33

You're mistaken on frottage, I think.

• Frottage - "consensual sexual rubbing", "sexual activity without penetration that can include any form of sexual rubbing"
• Frotteurism - "a specific sexual disorder involving rubbing against a nonconsensual person to achieve sexual arousal or even orgasm, discreetly without being discovered, typically in a public place"

The source is a 1994 psychological paper, which one assumes knows exactly the term it intends and uses it in the current sense. It's frottage that's intended in this context, I think, (ie, a person rubbing oneself against an animls body). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a book originally published in 1996, "Eccentric and Bizzare Behaviors" is the title, that uses the term frottage as a title of a chapter describing what's defined here a frotteurism. For a zoosexual that would be rubbing against a random animal. But I can't discount the possiblity that the writer of the original paper was simply being unintentionally heterosexist. How about no internal link for the time being? 128.192.81.3 17:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC) 1:56 26 June 2006

Inappropriate. An internal link says "go here to read more on this subject". The article "Frottage" is where one goes to read more on the subject "Frottage". So a "no link" is pointless.

A book of "eccentric and bizarre behaviors" is probably not nearly as authoritative in the field as an accepted study specifically of the sexual psychology and behavior of zoosexual practitioners, which is what Massen is. I wouldn't be guided by it or by its chapter headings.

The definition of "Frottage" focusses on simply the act of enjoyment of sexual rubbing, or contact as being stimulating, and is regardless of gender or species. That's exactly what's being described by Massen. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)