Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 5

Discussion style

Ciz, I'd like to kindly ask to switch to a more civilized style of discussion. Please read Wikipedia:Wikiquette, Wikipedia:Talk Etiquette FAQ and Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks, and be advised that continued abuse and ignorance of these policies may lead to you being blocked or banned.

Furthermore, I'd like to ask you to not insert your own comments into other people's comments; the proper way to respond to someone is like this:

(some comment someone made)

(a reply to the comment above)

(a reply to the reply)

(another reply to the original comment)

(another comment)

etc. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia:Talk page. Also, I'd like you to try to read and understand Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; Wikipedia does not have an opinion on or judge *ANYTHING*, and this certainly includes zoophilia. If you have specific complaints about the article (i.e., if you feel that parts of it are opinionated, factually inaccurate etc.), then please state on this talk page exactly which parts you think this applies to and why. Be as specific as possible; that is, don't say "this section is POV" or "the entire article is POV" or other such things, but rather point to the exact statements made in the article that you think are problematic.

Thank you. -- Schnee 21:15, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

An interesting comparision

Someone on another forum made an interesting comparision concerning bestiality...

Freud had a theory about sexuality in infants. That infants can feel sexual pleasure. Babies often masturbate, little boys get erections, etc...

If you agree with Freud, then in this respect, you could compare this to animals. Like a baby, animals react to certain stimuli, and get pleasure from this. Like an animal, a baby does not know what is right or wrong, or what the actions/response means.

Now if we take away any physical harm: ie no acts would be done that could physically injure the baby. Would the baby suffer any emotional damage if an adult purposefully solicited a sexual response from a baby, in order to gain sexual pleasure for themselves? Unlikey. A baby wouldn't know what was going on, and most likely would have no recollection of the event when they got older.

Does this mean it is moral for adults to do things of a sexual nature to a baby? IMO, no. It is still disgusting, and immoral. And so, it is my opinion that it is wrong and immoral to get sexual pleasure from animals. Whether or not physical injury occurs, whether or not the baby/animal receives pleasure/becomes aroused, I think that it is wrong. --Ciz 01:56, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The point is not whether zoophilia is wrong or not. Most of us here agree that zoophilia is animal abuse. I don't really care who does think its okay, so do not even get started on that. The point is whether or not your inclusion is valid for an encyclopedia such as the Wiki. At the moment, consensus is that it isn't, because you are too emotionally attached to the subject to edit this page in an unbiased manner. Unless you can prove to those involved that you can add your "Zoophilia As Animal Abuse" (Or whatever the case may be) section without destroying the section of the article that you disagree with (Generally "Zoophilia As A Lifestyle"), we're probably never going to change our opinions. So why not take a break, calm down, and come back and edit when you can do so undestructively? PMC 02:45, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Most of us agree that its animal abuse? Schnee doesnt. He changed the word bestiality to zoophilia because bestiality had 'negative connotations (among other things). --Ciz 02:59, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can't you read? "I don't really care who does think its okay, so do not even get started on that." The point is NOT who defends zoophilia or not, the point is whether your "contributions" (and I use that in the loosest possible sense) are valid for an encyclopedia. PMC 03:13, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No less valid than the current entry. :p --Ciz 04:05, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yet again, smearing and twisting people's words. "Most of us agree that its animal abuse? Schnee doesnt. He changed the word bestiality to zoophilia because bestiality had 'negative connotations (among other things)". But Schnee didn't. (Nor did he express a personal opinion as to acceptability, another smear of yours). The article was titled "Zoophilia" long long ago.

The hypothesis that he did this non-existent act is then imputed to imagined motives which you state as fact, but which are in fact purely your own imagination, as anyone who reads this debate can see.

I will spell it out once again Ciz: This is an article collating social, psychological, legal and related information on a human/animal attraction emotion or affinity known as 'Zoophilia'. It is not a place for personal POV and hobby horses. It is not a place for advocacy, POV or distorting and deleting others contributions. It is not a place for smearing people who disagree with your advocacy by attributing "conspiracy theory" motives.

You need to read all the above and WP:NPOV, and respect that. FT2 07:33, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

WRONG. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Zoophilia&action=history&limit=500&offset=0

17:15, 5 Sep 2003 Schneelocke (Add some minor bits of info, and do some NPOV editing (bestiality -> zoophilia, since bestiality is a term with very negative connotations)) I know what Im talking about.

And if you check the archives, you'll see Schnee agreeing with zoophiles and calling a person who thinks its animal rape a flamer. --Ciz 12:04, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What on Earth is going on in here?

Right. It seems to me there has been a hot debate raging for a good time now, and any resolution to it is not in sight. Since we are all here to help make the article the best it can be, I'd wish to make a feeble attempt in resolving this by having all concerned list what they consider the problems here and, if applicable, how they could be solved.

Ciz: Please listen. One of the very basest principles of Wikipedia is that it must remain impartial. NPOV. It cannot take sides. Regardless of what zoophilia is, Wikipedia must remain neutral. 'Zoophilia' is used here because it is an existing, sensible, well-used (check online dictionaries) and neutral term. Bestiality, while it may well be entirely accurate, is not.-- Kizor 07:48, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is not a neutral term. It was created by bestials to make it more acceptable to the public --Ciz 12:05, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

<sarcasm>A bit like how there shouldn't be articles discussing "Abortion", "Gay" or "Capitalism" because these arent real words, they were invented by baby killers, homosexual paedophilic predators and greedy ruthless social parasites respectively, to sound more attractive? Good job we have people to spot these imaginary words in the dictionary :P</sarcasm>

Whether you like it or not, it's clear that a word exists for the aspects of human/animal relationships such as affinity, attraction and the like, that do *not* consist of sticking tab A in slot B. This is that word, and this is the article discussing knowledge about such things, correctly named by the word that describes its contents. As pretty much said above:

It is not an article on bestiality or animal abuse, whatever you may wish it to be, any more than a post on gayness, gay sociology, gay law and gay psychology is a post about anal sex.

I'd like you to learn to deal with neutrality, Ciz, because its a sine qua non for Wikipedia, and patience with your inability to handle Wiki-quette or NPOV is fast running out. FT2 16:24, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the correct word is 'homosexuality,' which I believe is the one wikipedia uses. Same goes for abortion.' Furthermore, the term 'homosexual' and 'pedophile' are not related. A homosexual is someone attracted to their own gender. A pedophile is someone attracted to children. Both bestials and zoophiles are people attracted to animals. Its the same thing. Heck, type in bestiality and you get redirected to this page. Furthermore, you linking the term ‘bestiality’ to ‘baby killers, homosexual paedophilic predators and greedy ruthless social parasites’ makes me wonder how neutral you ‘’really’’ are.

Don't try to compare calling it bestiality to calling gays ' homosexual paedophilic predators.' That has never been the official term for gay people.

If I'm attracted to children, I'm still a pedophile whether or not I act on those feelings. The same applies to bestials. Furthermore, it is unnatural (unlike homosexuality, which occurs in the wild).

What you dont understand is: any sexual relationship with animal will always be bestiality, and it will always be abuse. This has nothing to do with two adults of the same gender in a sexual relationship.

One more time. It is not neutral. It is no more neutral than having an entry called "The Boylove Movement" (which, incidentally, Wikipedia does have) --Ciz 19:00, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(Revert incorrect formating in contravention of wiki policy)

"It's interesting to note that ignorant people will often ramble on and on about topics that they know nothing about. PMC 00:52, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)"

I guess I should have read How to give your dog a blowjob without your dad walking in when I had the chance, huh? Having sex with animals will always be abuse, no matter how you slice it. Thinking otherwise proves your own ignorance.--Ciz 20:37, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't. In fact, I've argued to the contrary in this discussion and on my user page, if you would bother to read my posts in full. PMC 00:19, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yet arguing that is is ignorant. Furthermore, you believe it to be animal abuse yet you dont care if someone does it? --Ciz 00:51, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"No, I acknowledge that you are repeating yourself again and again. It is NOT a valid argument, because whether or not Schneelocke is a zoo has nothing to do with the point at hand. PMC 00:52, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)"

It it is too. We aren't discussing ceramic plates here. --Ciz 20:37, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I still see nothing except your own smear that says he is or isn't. You quote a livejournal interest, which shows "zoophilia" as an "interest", but as several people point out and a look at LJ shows, most people have interest in subjects they are not involved in. Give schnee a rest until you find something more concrete - its getting tiresome seeing you accuse everyone, Ciz. FT2 21:30, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

I've listed other reasons why I believe he's one. The livejournal was one of many clues. --Ciz 23:56, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lesson #500 on NPOV Ciz. The Livejournal was "one of many clues" you claim. Weasel words. How many is "many"? List the others one by one, citing exact quotes and taking careful note that correcting clear POV, or telling people if they contravene wikiquette, is part of any contributor's support, and not a "clue" of anything more than a good job well done by a responsible wiki-ist. FT2 00:56, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

I've already listed the clues in previous posts. --Ciz 01:35, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No you haven't. If you think you have, then humour me, and list them properly below, so we can all see these "many clues". FT2 01:42, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Yes I have.You can check the archives if you dont believe me. And Im tired of reposting stuff because someone ignored it the first time (like when one of you said having sex with a horse wouldnt harm it, just after I posted a link showing a case where a horse was emotionally traumatized and had suffered internal damage after someone did.)--Ciz 12:01, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Then humor us and post them again, in one summary. And don't even think of trying to change the subject. The matter on which you said there were "many clues" was an allegation about schnee. I'd like to see a summarised list of these "many clues" which you say you have, and an attempt to avoid the subject with more weasel words (Oh, I posted them before!) does not add anything much about your likely libel of schnee. Summarise them. To quote above:

"How many is "many"? List the others one by one, citing exact quotes and taking careful note that correcting clear POV, or telling people if they contravene wikiquette, is part of any contributor's support, and not a "clue" of anything more than a good job well done by a responsible wiki-ist" FT2 12:38, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Whether Schnee is or is not a zoophile is not what's at question here. Ciz - get that into your head. We're not interested whether Schnee is a zoo - we're interested in neutrality for the Wiki. Go take your libelous bs someplace else. (By the way, we're doing libel in law right now...technically with all you've said without actual evidence, Schee has every right to sue you for libel, if he cared to.) PMC 00:19, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That would be like a man who defended NAMBLA suing someone for calling him a pedophile. And I have given evidence. Also, check out one of his avatars. http://schneelocke.net/nakeearctic.jpg

yes. All together now. Schnee is a furry. Some furrys like anthro art, some of which is sexual. Sexual anthro art is common, legal and irelevant. This is a rather undetailed icon of a wolf in a sexual pose. Big flipping "so bloody what". FT2 01:23, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

You can see the wolf's cock. o_O --Ciz 01:35, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore, Schnee has yet to deny he does. --Ciz 00:51, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See above for my comment. You made the libel, and the vandalism. You have also at some time or other accused pretty much everyone of being a closet bestialist. You have pretty much equated "allows NPOV" with "Bet he f**ks dogs, huh?". Schnee on the other hand has both track record and rep in the wiki community for neutral adminship and is trusted in sysop'ing. So right now your credibility is zip, schnee's is probably quite high. Maybe you should apply to be a sysop yourself, the link is here. FT2 01:15, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

I've accused people who defended bestiality of doing it. If someone argues that animals can consent to sex and that a dog humping your leg is a sign he wants to you-know-what makes me wonder what's going on. --Ciz 01:35, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And furthermore, you have yet to explain what bearing this has on the content of the article. PMC 01:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"I don't really give a rat's ass what Schee gets his jollies off on. PMC 00:52, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)"

So I could get my jollies off naked five year-olds, and that would be ok with you. --Ciz 20:37, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Didn't say it was okay, I just said it's not the matter at hand. Stop making it so. PMC 00:19, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"You have yet to answer whether or not you have sex with animals. --Ciz 19:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You have yet to explain why we should care. PMC 00:52, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)"

So if you walked in and saw your son having sex with your dog, you wouldnt care? --Ciz 20:37, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't have children, and never plan to. And I don't like dogs.=) PMC 00:19, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

...said PMC, as he dances around my main point once again --Ciz 00:51, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you can do it, so can I. And PMC is a she. PMC 01:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whould you mind if you saw you child having sex with an animal? --Ciz 01:35, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"(He doesn't get it. The bit about me going in for surgery...it was a joke. I think Ciz lacks a sense of humor.) Once again I don't give a rat's bum whether or not Schee likes looking at wolves or women in bondage. Get. New. Rhetoric. PMC 00:52, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)"

I knew you were joking. I said you were in the minority for defending zoophilia yet not being a furrie. --Ciz 20:37, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

...said Ciz, as he dances around my main point once again. PMC 00:19, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So, would you care if I looked at child porn? What if your father did? --Ciz 00:51, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would be very concerned for your mental health, however it has no bearing on the substance pedophilia article whatsoever. Whether or not Schnee (or, in fact, anyone, because you've accused pretty much all of us of boinking our pets at some point) is a zoophile is not relevant to the content of this article. I don't care what you think, it is completely irrelevant. PMC 01:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If someone abuses animals its not irrelevant. --Ciz 01:35, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To the substance of the article, it is! PMC 01:42, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ciz, a couple of points:

- The vast majority, including you and me, consider bestiality-aka-zoophilia to be wrong and condemnable. Others do not. Due to the NPOV policy, the article can't take sides; regardless of how wrong the subject is, the article must remain impartial. Without this policy the whole Wikipedia would collapse.

- You say that 'zoophilia' is not a neutral word because it was invented by bestials to normalize bestiality. This may be so, but as a word it carries no positive nor negative connonations, making it neutral.

- Your arguments as of late seem to revolve around whether some contributors are zoophiles or not. Why? We're here to make a good article - what does that have to do with it?-- Kizor 04:33, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Then why don't you call Nazism 'National Socialism' then? Nazism has negative connotations too. Furthermore, zoophilia is just as neutral as the term boylove.

Hmm. Nice point. 'Nazism' is the established word for both professionals - historians and the like - and the laypeople. For this, 'zoophilia' is the established psychological term according to dictionary.com. As we're building an encyclopedia, we probably should run with the 'official' scientific definition - while probably making a note on the article that it's also known as bestiality. Which has been done.

About your second claim, why? 'Boylove' sounds positive. 'Zoophilia', as I've said a few times, is a clinical definition. -- Kizor 09:52, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And the lifestyle article was not neutral. --Ciz 11:55, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The changes you made to it were far from neutral, too. What about listing the specific things you have grievances with here, so we can look them over? -- Kizor 09:52, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

- Look, guys and girls. We try to make this topic neutral, and we try hard. I may be a new user compared to most of you. But I will say this. Love exists in many forms. I have heard a mixture of good stories of love between human and animal, and tragic tales of trauma and rape. If the animal is not harmed or damaged or traumatised, I don't see a problem. Love and honesty are two things animals can give in spades. Zoophilia was a term invented to separate those who LOVE

more likely a perverted form of lust. I love animals too. I dont want to have sex with them, though. --Ciz 22:54, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

animals, from those who RAPE animals (the bestialists), as far as I can tell.

having sex with animals will be always rape, whether or not they do it consentingly. Because its not informed consent. If a child lets me have sex with him, it's still rape because he is not intelligent enough to consent. --Ciz 22:54, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why this fixation on animals' incapabilities to consent on a human informed level? The question of fully informed voluntary consent has always seemed strange to me when considering animals. What does one mean when talking about fully informed? Would your marital status matter to a dog? Why would we expect their decision in this case to be based on more than any other decisions they make in life? And why on Earth do we idealise our own level of communication over other species, who by definition have a different capacity and requirement for understanding the world? To expect the human of the non-human is to expect the unneccesary - animals communicate all their needs only at the level necessary to be effective for them. Humans are more than capable of communicating with animals on their own terms, understanding the many subtleties of body language is the key to this, as any good dog behaviorist will state. -- Oruborus

So, it comes to the conclusion of the motives of the human. If it is selfishness, intent of harm, and so forth, then it's bestiality.

Wrong. No definition of bestiality says anything about it having to be selfish, intent to harm, or whatever. Bestiality is Sexual relations between a human and an animal. Thats it.

Sorry to dispute this but bestiality does in fact have more than one definition. Besides the above, others have variously been worded: A brutal act mindless of inflicted pain or suffering. and The state or quality of being bestial. Also many Thesaurus entries for brutality interchange it with bestiality. So therein lies the non-neutral very negative connotations. -- Oruborus

That's apples and oranges. The two terms arent related anymore than homosexual and happy are. The name bestiality has negative connotations because most people associate it with having sex with animals. It has nothing to do with the 'brutal' term. --Ciz 15:19, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If it's love, intent to care, and no intention to harm, then it's zoophilia. --FinalGamer 21:33, 4 Nov 2004.

I dispute this aswell. Since zoophilia clinically is defined as a paraphilia which just means a person needs to use animals for their own sexual arousal and gratification, still without consideration for the animal. So zoophilia could also be a non-neutral term. When you describe care for the animal in this context you are defining a non-existent term, referred to by some as zoosexuality. -- Oruborus

It doesnt matter whether not its your intention to harm them. You still do. --Ciz 22:54, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)´

I can see why you wish to defend this, but we're not really supposed to be discussing whether it's wrong or not. -- Kizor 09:52, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

You make me want to vomit.

The boylovers *cough*pedophiles*cough* use the same argument. There are pedophiles who genuinely believe that having sex with children is ok if its love. The same argument applies to you; I dont care if you think you love them. Having sex with animals will be animal abuse no matter what you think about them while you're sticking your dick into its hole.

In the second kind of bestiality, fixated sex, an animal becomes the exclusive focus of a human's sexual desires. Although many medical terms have been applied to a fixation on sex with animals, those who engage in this kind of sex prefer to be known as "zoophiles," a word borrowed, ironically, from the animal protection community. The zoophile's worldview is similar to the rapist's and child sexual abuser's. They all view the sex they have with their victims as consensual, and they believe it benefits their sexual "partners" as well as themselves.

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.

Sicko. --Ciz 22:54, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please have a look at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Personal attacks (like "sicko") are not allowed in Wikipedia. Please accept that and stop making personal attacks of any kind. Thank you. --Conti|✉ 23:03, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)