Talk:Bestiality

Gomen Nasai
Grrr. Sorry if my edit was not appropriate. Some troll vandalized the Furry Fandom page on Wikipedia by linking to this article. I didn't notice I had been taken off site. Please revert if you really want to have the page like that. But I really hope you don't. Perri Rhoades 08:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. Is it not true? If it is true, then we should probably say it, as it is relevant to the page. WikiFur isn't about whitewashing the fandom, after all. It could perhaps do with qualification of exactly how much of a minority it is, or give examples of prominent people (such as Manawolf) who advocate it as a practice. --GreenReaper(talk) 14:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * More specifically, who advocate that it is not in and of itself an immoral activity. --GreenReaper(talk) 14:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This line has popped up again...is it or is it not a 'minority'? Spaz Kitty


 * The only statistics we have to go by put it at 2% of the fandom.Perri Rhoades 07:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the survey link. Clears things up. Spaz Kitty


 * There's no way to really tell, though I would imagine the statistics are similar to that of society in general. That survey link, while interesting, is very outdated, and not geographically diverse. Leam 20:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

pretty decent revision
Reorganized a lot. Removed things that were redundant, more applicable to (and occasionally present in) Zoophilia... reduced the slang usage, explained the origin of the slang use, pointed out the limitations of the survey... it's a bit more encyclopedic and relevant. Leam 20:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Fail.
This new edit just ignores large chunks of what was already there and re-introduces the slang as something "furry." It also contains a number of pro-zoo assertions: "It is often incorrectly seen as a synonym for zoophilia, but this is not the case," "On occasion, those engaging in sex with animals without a specific emotional attraction towards them are called bestialists, or beasties for short, within the zoophile and furry community." This hinges on only one definition of zoophilia as well: "Bestiality does not suggest a motive for why the person engages in the sexual act, this may be the result of a sexual attraction towards that animal, in which case it would be the result of zoophilia, but that needn't be so." It also focuses on zoophilia, which I tried to make secondary in my revision by where I split my paragraphs. This revision fails, and I'm reverting it. If anonymous wants to put in pro-zoo stuff, I challenge him to remove the slang, assertions, et cetera. Leam 18:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps look up certain things and you'd discover that bestiality is not a paraphilia, your wording is incorrect and misleading. It's the act and nothing more, though zoos tend to associate it with negative intentions on the human's side. 213.222.158.152 20:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So blind me with science. But be aware that this page isn't a place for the propaganda, like in Zoophilia talk.  If "zoos" tend to do it, differentiate between traditional zoophiles (like Jane Goodal) and then zoos that support human-animal sexual contact, and THEN go into the DSM stuff with citations.  Maybe in the Zoophiles article, even.  I was just stepping on eggshells but being lazy about it.  Leam 20:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, you should avoid speaking for the fandom as though your community IS the fandom, because it clearly isn't. The "beastie" slang bit was the reason I cleaned up the article in the first place.  I find it highly unlikely most furries would even be involved with people who support human-animal sex to the point that said slang would be common use. Leam 20:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Key Interest of Zoophiles: Bestiality
It's important to make clear that there are additional terms by which bestiality and interest therein is known: zoophiles/zoophilia is very much that, in the conventional usages of the fandom and in conventional english. The efforts of bestialists to hide their interests behind obfuscatory langauge borrowed from technical language in psychology and misused here, is not a good rationale for removing vital contextual information from the article.

Hiding information, which was the evident rationale for the latest edit, is contrary to wiki norms. -Furthling 21:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And, to be clear, I am undoing the edit. -Furthling 21:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)