Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 2

Previous - Talk:Zoophilia/Archive2 - Next

Vandalism / Protection

The page has been protected for now due to the persistent vandalism by the anon user with IP address 66.30.122.120. See WP:VIP. -- Schnee 19:05, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

=== Vandalism, part 2 ===

I just got an email regarding the article, probably from the user who's been doing the vandalism. I'm putting it up here for discussion:

From: Ciz <diabolicpotato@yahoo.com>
To: Schneelocke
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 19:25:34 GMT
Subject: Bestiality

The zoophililia article was in overwhelmingly in support of bestiality. It was not neutral. Furthermore, zoophilia is a term coined 
by bestials, just like boylover is a term coined by pedophiles. Most animal experts consider bestiality to be abusive towards 
animals. This isnt the same as homosexuality, which is two consenting adults of the same gender instead of the opposite gender.  Just
as it is wrong to have sex with someone underage, it is also wrong to have sex with an animal.

I'm not gonna reply to it; if you (Ciz) want to discuss this, please do so here. My own view (and probably that of most if not all others) is that the article does not contain any POV or opinion on zoophilia at all. -- Schnee 19:55, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Comment: My arguments are in italics, following Ciz's and before Ralesk's. PMC 01:28, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My comments are in bold.--Ciz 02:05, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)Ciz

---

1) Just the fact that its called zoophilia shows that it is biased.Zoophilia was a term coined by bestials. 'Just as pedophiles differentiate between those who abuse children and those who love children--placing themselves, of course, in the latter group--zoophiles distinguish between animal sexual abusers (bestialists) and those who love animals (zoophiles). In each of these cases the distinctions are only self-justifications.'

Zoophilia is a vaild term. "Zoo" (animal) + "philos" (to love) = lover of animals, or the love of animals. It's a completely NPOV descriptive term. Pedophiles didn't make up the term, but that's what we call them. It too is an appropriate descriptive term - "pedo" (young child) + "philos" (again, to love) = love or the love of young boys. Neither term is justifying anything - both are literal descriptors of the paraphilia in question.

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.

2)"Zoophilia as a lifestyle" is obviously in favor of bestiality.

Give us evidence that it is. Quote where the article favors bestiality. The title is once again a literal desctiptive term - the section describes zoophilia as a lifestyle, and the title is therefore completely appropriate. Alternatively, give us a better title to use.

All the arguments speak supportively of it. Someone said that if we removed groups we didnt like, we'd have to remove groups like the Nazis as well. Yet the page on Naziism speaks negatively of it.

So stop complaining about it and add a section called Arguments Against! It'd be a valuable contribution to the article for sure, and then this silly fight could end.

3) While there are arguments in favor of bestiality, it offers none of the arguments against it. Arguments used by all major animal rights organizations say that bestiality is harmful and abusive towards animals.

The obvious solution is to add a section labeled Arguments Against, or Criticisms Of, or the like.

Nonetheless, the current entry is biased.

Once again I repeat myself: the obvious solution is for you to make it unbiased. One can do so, on a Wiki. When I see an article that's biased or untrue, I change it, because I can. Stop fighting with me here and make a valuable contribution!

4)Just as a pedophile is an adult taking advantage of a child, bestiality is an adult who takes advantage of an animal.

Once again, add that to Arguments Against.

Its not an argument; its the truth. And I did add the negative aspect of it. I got banned because my statement was not neutral.

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. Don't assume your way has to be right.

5) "A higher proportion than average of zoophiles appear to be engaged in supportive work for animal welfare, SPCA, conservation organisations, and so on." But for what reasons? I know of a bestial who works at a stud farm so he can have sex with the horses when no one else is there.

We didn't specify why. The article just says that it happens. We're not saying why , we're just making a note of it.

Without saying why, you leave the reader to think they're doing it out of the goodness of their heart, not for sexual reasons. I could say, 'A higher proportion than average of pedophiles appear to be engaged in supportive work for children.

I reiterate my point: don't bitch about it here, insert a properly thought-out, unbiased, "Against" section.

6) The comparision of bestials to homosexuals is offense, as well. "Belief that animals and humans are not so different in many ways, similar to the way that homosexuals feel the gender gap is not a major issue." The difference is that instead of having two adults of different genders, it's two adults of the same gender. Its not something as drastically different as a man and an animal.

It's not so much comparing gays to zoos as it is comparing the belief. "...similar to the way that homosexuals feel..." The article is comparing the feeling of gender gap to species gap, as many zoophiles have expressed that particular opinion. Once again, we're noting it, not advocating it.

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.

9) "My own view (and probably that of most if not all others) is that the article does not contain any POV or opinion on zoophilia at all"

All the comments complaining about it make me think otherwise.

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.

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 don’t understand what you mean with 7. On 8, let me tell you that an animal can and will do harm if he or she does not agree with the treatment.

It doesnt matter if they agree or not. They are not intelligent enough to fully consent. Its the same as children.

Then what do you say to animals in the wild? They have sex all the time but they don't have the "intelligence". Are all the animals in the wild raping each other by your logic? Take the breeding of dogs for the AKC. Do they somehow become intelligent when they are breed with other dogs? -Steele

They have a far easier task in defending themselves than a child.

Yet animals continue to be abused by their owners. Furthermore, some animals are trained to fight eachother. Its cruel and inhumane, yet the animals dont know its wrong.

Animals who are used in inhumane and cruel fighting is obviously wrong but that was something that they are forced to do through brutal training and abuse. They don't naturally get into dog fights unless it is a territorial/food dispute. -Steele

On 1, zoophilia seems to be the official name in things like the DSM and I can definitely see the difference between dominating another creature (and sorry if this doesn’t agree with the meaning of the word in BDSM terms) and caring for it but also having sex with it (and that isn’t likely to happen if it objects).

So I can have sex with a child as long as its ok with me doing it?

Not when it causes Psychological and physical damage. The same goes both ways. -Steele

On 5, they might care about the animals more than the average person and I’m pretty sure they won’t have sex with all of them.

All of them? Just the fact that they molest even one is wrong.

That is assuming that the person you are talking about is harassing or assaulting them sexually in the first place. -Steele

On 2, suggest an alternative wording then. 3, and religious people tell you masturbation is a sin — I’m interested in actual research papers as in how exactly an animal is harmed by this “malpractice”, if he or she is otherwise well kept and not actually raped (see 8, again). I see your point in 6, but I don’t think I’m offended -- Ralesk 01:21, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So it would be ok for me to have sex with my son as long as he was ok with it and I took good care of him? Both bestials and pedophilies use the same reasoning; they're doing it out of love.

I also fail to see the comparision you're trying to make of animal experts saying bestiality is harmful to animals, to religion saying that masturbation is immoral. Fact and theology are two different things.

But in defense of Heterosexual and Homosexual intercourse those groups would also make the same arguments. If you have a problem with Pedophilia then that is another issue but we are talking about Zoophilia. Bestiality is harmful to animals is not a fact. You can prove that bestiality CAN be harmful to animals but not in all cases. --Steele 01:55, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore, no more modifications can be added because its protected from "vandalism."--Ciz 04:25, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

LiveNude

One more thing, on another subject

20-30 years ago "society" said all kinds of mean and bad things about homosexuality and now society is starting to change why should it not change also be for us? Homosexuals know what we are going through because they have gone through for centuries as well always on the outside .So have we. We all should work together to build a more tolerate socitey were all expressions of love are recongized and no differences are made LiveNude 23:19, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Do not compare gays to bestials. Not only is it insulting and offensive to be linked with animal abusers, but it it also helps conservatives with their claim of saying letting gays marry will ultimately legalize bestiality.

Furthermore, the only reason why homosexuality was treated wrongly was because of Judeo-Christianity, which said it was immoral. As people started to become more secular and stopped relying heavily on what a book said, they started to accept it. Religion is the main opposition to homosexuality.

On the other hand, most people oppose bestiality not on the grounds of religion, but on the grounds that having sex with animals is abusive, just like a pedophile having sex with children is abusive. It doesnt matter if the animal doesnt care that you're molesting it; just like children the animal is not intelligent enough to fully consent. Do not compare a human molesting an animal to two consenting adults who happen to be of the same gender. --Ciz 04:37, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You've been making a lot of blunt assertions of moral claims, apparently expecting others to just start agreeing with you. That usually doesn't work. Saying "you're wrong!" over and over again does not convince others, and it only reduces the chance that a valuable Wikipdia article will emerge. Can I make a suggestion for a tactic that might work better to improve Wikipedia? Rather than just asserting here over and over that "having sex with animals is wrong and harmful", you might try some of the following:

Documenting the history of bestiality taboos and laws. A lot of people agree with your position. They've written religious and legal codes that punish people who have sex with animals. What are they? What reasons are given in law for these prohibitions? Where are these laws phrased like sodomy laws, and where are they phrased like animal-protection laws?

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).

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.

(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, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The user was editing as an anon (66.30.122.120), inserted his own POV to this article, got reverted and started a little edit war with a few users. He ignored any comments and warnings on his talk page and was therefore blocked for 24 hours. As the user is now participating in the discussion on this talk page, and because his block is expired anyways, I don't see why he should be blocked again.

Oh, and I changed the vandalism protection template to the normal one, as this is clearly a content dispute. --Conti|✉ 18:04, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

OK. Given the offending user's behaviour, though (and his current behaviour on this talk page), I still think it was justified to vprotect instead of protect, though. -- Schnee 19:42, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree, I also thought of vandalism as I first saw the edits.. but now there's a discussion. --Conti|✉ 19:58, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

For a certain definition of "discussion", yes. ^_~ -- Schnee 21:00, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)