Talk:Zoophilia

From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

Page protection[edit]

This page has been constantly target of vandalism. I suggest adding protection to this article in order to avoid future attacks. --Josesk Volpe (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2024 (EDT)

But what of the fandom?[edit]

Is there not also a significant portion of furries that are into bestiality? Throw a rock at a furry convention, and I think probably a third of the time, you'd hit a (most likely closet) zoophile.

I'm not saying this to defame. I'm simply saying this from my experience with others within the fandom that seem to share this fetish-- if you can call it that, as some have taken it to heights of "I CAN ONLY LOVE ANIMALS BECAUSE HUMANS DON'T UNDERSTAND ME!!!". Verix 04:07, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)

So now we know who the Mystery Rock-Thrower of AnthroCon '02 was! ;-)
I don't fully understand those people that you describe, either. But then I've not had the experience of meeting many such people myself. Maybe I should go to more conventions!
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "closet" - do you mean you're aware that they have sex with animals but don't tell people about it, or do you just suspect it, or do you just think they want to have sex with animals, or would if they got the chance? --GreenReaper(talk) 06:15, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Hate to break it to you, but your parents had sex with animals. Homo sapiens are a species of the animal kingdom, last time I checked. --Chibiabos 11:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Haha, someone threw a rock at AC '02? My first AC was '05, so that wasn't me. ;>
And like with most anything embarassing or reprimanded by the majority comes the idea of "being in the closet" about something. Hence, since so many furries believe that zoophilia has nothing to do with funny animals-- myself included-- and will fight against any accusations and claims, one would assume that to come out like this , they would be reprimanded. Of course, this is assuming that our embarassed fellow is still "in the closet" about this, and not raving from the tops of his lungs about how HE LOVES MARES HOORAY HOORAY.
So when I say they're in the closet, I don't mean that I believe that I the all-knowing, all-seeing, goose-stepping master of that who can understand a zoophile from miles, miles, miles away-- no. I'm just basing this off of how many people have personally come out to me and said "hey you know I'm into this k." But then again, maybe I attract those kind of people, so my opinion is biased? I dunno. The immense amount of people in #zoo on FurNet somewhat backs up my opinions, but not by much. From the popularity of that channel, and both reflecting a little bit more, I'll back down and say that probably less than a third of people are into it. Hell, it's probably about as popular as fursuit sex-- which is more popular than most people think. Verix 06:36, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Fursuit sex is probably limited by lack of materials. That plush fur doesn't come cheap, you know! --GreenReaper(talk) 06:42, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)
That hasn't stopped many from buying cheap materials. ;) Verix 06:47, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)

WikiFur the right place for the zoo morality discussions?[edit]

I was going to add some simple conterpoints to the pro-zoo arguments here, but then I realized that additional sides of the morality argument would immediately be added, eventually turning this article into a duplicate of the one on Wikipedia. I'm not certain if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but if it's a good, then the article at the very least needs additional structure. If it's bad (which is how I feel due to redundancy and less information overall), then I think removing the moral arguments altogether would be wise and keeping the focus of the article restricted to the involvement with the furry fandom. In otherwords, if folks want to find out a wealth of information on the pros and cons of zoophilia, they can go to the Wikipedia link in the Exteral Links section. If they want to see how it relates to the fandom, they can read this article. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, because for a change, I'm not trolling the zoos.  ;-) Also, lollin' at how some of my troll threads (I recognize those quotes) somehow made it to the definition. Leam 20:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What I don't get is why zoophiles who have sex with animals make a distinction between themselves and beastlialists. Beastiality is beastiality - which is to say, sex with animals. No matter if someone claims to have some bullshit "spiritual fulfillment" you're still fucking an animal. It's like NAMBLA claiming they aren't child molestors, but child "lovers." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.5.45.126 (talkcontribs) .

There's a link in the original Wikipedia Zoophilia article Related Links about some intellectual/researcher who coined the term to distinguish and elevate that supposedly more moral form of animal abuse you speak of above normal animal abuse. Leam 17:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this matter. However, as the person above you noted, it is probably a bad idea to start the morality argument here. As much as you might think you have original thoughts on the matter, I'm quite sure this argument has been hashed out before, repeatedly. This being the internet, it is probably archived in multiple locations for everyone to see and draw their own conclusions.
Well, it's not on the article. Leam 17:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest linking to a (good, rational; not a contentless flamewar) debate archive somewhere...if such a thing exists. Point being there's no reason to rehash it here. Simba B 17:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Leam 18:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The NAMBLA bit is a straw man (as NAMBLA tends to be in most debate). I hope you realize that. Simba B 01:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious why you think that particular comparison is a strawman. Leam 17:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Mainly because children != animals...not to get too deep into the debate, but a) NAMBLA has about the same use in a debate as "God kills a kitten when you do X", e.g. it's more emotion than rational thought and arguement, and b) the research you mentioned above...don't know the details but it's possible that the argument that it is _not_ abuse could be made.
Assuming the pejorative overrides the value of the comparison. Given that the topic is sexual contact with animals, I don't think that Godwin-esque logic quite applies. Anyway, to keep it short, I have yet to hear a rational argument that animals can give informed consent any more than children. If the comparison is invalid, I would most certainly want to know (link to my talk page). Leam 18:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I should point out that I myself have no interest in this personally but I dislike seeing people demonized because of their interests or personality. Standing up for those who might be afraid/ashamed to do so, if you will. Simba B 17:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between being born with a certain sexual disorder and actually acting up on it. Whether "spiritual attachment" is involved or not, you're still fucking an animal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.112.158.213 (talkcontribs) .

Essay link[edit]

I hope this is all right - I know there are many essays out there dealing with pro/anti stances on zoophilia, but I've never heard/seen of the argument put forth in the essay I added as a link (is zoophilia any worse than eating animals?). What are others' opinions on linking zoophilia essays (of both POVs): is there such a thing as too many links? Spaz Kitty 19:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

See above; the pro needs a con. I support the link if I can put the link to New Mexico Humane Society's stance on Zoophilia there as well.  ;-) Leam 19:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Screw them, you can't judge based on popular wisdom, you have to know what you're talking about. Not all zoophiles are abusers. One must know the meaning of "consent" and "abuse". Try http://www.firstlight.net/~chythar/manawolf/articles/zooessay.htm and read it fully, you should get a better idea of judging :). I'm not ashamed of who I am, neither would I hurt an animal or do against their will, I hope you can come to understand this. 213.222.158.152 14:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, said popular wisdom is formed by a near-unanimous consensus by vets, zoologists, biologists, researchers, ethicists, politicians, philosophers, and intellectuals who form said opinion based on their professional education, experience, logic, and empirical observation. If you're trying to redefine consent and abuse while ignoring all that, don't be surprised when the Humane Society fursecutes you when your justification is an argument of assertion backed up by flimsy philosophy. If you'd like to talk more about this, feel free to leave a message in my user talk. Leam 18:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Doubt it's worth it, you seem like you can't be convinced. Anyways, a group of snazzy smartypants won't tell me what's right and what's wrong when my common sense seems to be the one that's right. If I don't hurt, restrain or otherwise act against an animal, they can't damn say I'm an abuser. Or, if I would, say, let them mount me, then the above is even more true. I extended my range of relationships beyond my species, that's all. Don't try to tell me I abuse anyone when people out there beat their wives, children, or who knows what else they do, and I'm taking good care of animals. I don't even eat meat, if you also plan to strike diet-wise. :) I care for my peer's wellbeing and feelings more than people do in today's usual relationships, and "important people" label it as abusing. Hmpf- 213.222.158.152 20:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
You're entitled to your opinion, but just don't break any local laws and don't expect anti-intellectualism to be very persuasive.  :3 Leam 20:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

But what is it?[edit]

I can't help but notice that the definition of zoophilia never clearly states what it is, or how the term is used within furry. This makes the moral arguments rather moot. The ALF FAQ (remember this was written, in part, by furs who call themselves zoo) gives this definition:

Within furrydom zoophilia simply means a love of animals, and a zoophile is someone who loves animals. It's probably best to apply the same principle we used for toonophiles: a zoophile feels for non-humans in the same way that humans generally feel for each other. Zoophilia can mean sexual attraction, but one shouldn't assume that is the case if someone tells you 'I'm a zoo'. Many furries are zoos in the non-sexual sense of the word. Some furries are also sexual zoophiles.

I suggest that the opening paragraph be changed to reflect this and that within furry the statement "zoophilia is a paraphilia" is false (within clinical diagnosis it is true). Dingotush 09:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's where it gets tricky. I agree with most everything you say, but in the context of the furry fandom, "zoophilia" is synonymous with "sexual zoophilia," thanks to the actions of notorious past bestialists in zoophiles' clothing. As a result, "zoophilia" has since become synonymous with "bestiality." Looking at it from a fair perspective, a WikiFur article should reflect this. While I don't necessarily agree that we're there yet, a whitewash of zoophilia would be worse. Leam 18:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
In my dealings with these people who claim to be "non-sexual zoophiles" I always ask them why they don't just refer to themselves as "animal lovers" or "dog lovers." I have yet to hear a convincing response as to why they choose to endorse this "zoo" community that supports the morality of human-animal sexual contact (I've seen their "training manuals"), instead of so easily dodging the associated stigma. Leam 18:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Vague?[edit]

I know this is sorely in need of a rewrite, but pointing out which statements are vague would be of enormous help for occasional editors like me. Leam 23:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The lack of defintion is what makes the article (at this point) vague. The term 'paraphilia' should simply not be used-- the intended audience of wikifur is not the psychiatric community and either zoophilia in our sense can be made plain without an education in that field, or the term ('zoophilia') and article don't belong here. On the other hand, even outside that profession, the term does very much refer to specifically sexual interest in animals (terms ending in -philia/-phile in english refer to biological impulses regarding a thing, or 'abnormal' attraction to a thing) and does not mean just any kind of positive regard for animals whatsoever, a concept that is readily expressed in english already. Nor is it being used to mean that in the fandom, where love of animals is nigh ubiquitous. The two elephants in the room are as follows: 1) Zoophilia is a subset of bestiality-- one with an emotional connotation. 2) Zoophiles have invented the term because they don't like the social censure (and criminality) that attaches to the word 'bestiality.'
To me, the only question is, are we going to put the defintion: Zoophilia is interest in bestiality, with a connotation of emotional depth, in there, or is wikifur in the business of keeping things (like the bestiality of zoophiles) hidden? --Furthling 03:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's audience is not psychologists, and they use the word paraphilia too, because that's the best word to describe the concept. You don't dumb down your content just because you're afraid they won't understand what it means. Assume your readers are, at the least, willing to read a link providing information for a word they don't understand
As for "keeping things hidden" - some people (some of whom are members of the furry fandom) claim that they are zoophiles but are not interested in bestiality. Now, there's an argument that they are using the word incorrectly - at least according to the paraphilia definition - but it's not our job to stop them from doing so. As a third party, we report on the actual situation, so we should say that some use it in this manner - as someone who has a deep and abiding but not necessarily sexual interest in animals. To take an example - I'm a furry fan but I don't have a deep and abiding interest in animals in general - at least, not to that extent. I have an interest in animals that are also (somewhat intelligent) people. Zoophiles, in the use of the word described in this paragraph, are the kind of people who devote lots of time to their "animal friends", and leave all their money to them in their wills. --GreenReaper(talk) 04:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Last Edit[edit]

In contemplating the recent vandalism of the page and other, sometimes slightly more maturely expressed views preferring some distance be maintained between Furry culture and and interest in bestiality, I tried to create a more neutral paragraph regarding what self-identified zoophiles think about zoophilia and bestiality, which I think was easily misread to say that the views attributed zoophiles were broadly accepted in the fandom, which is at least unclear. --Furthling 13:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

WRONG!!![edit]

I don't know how many of you are using other sites or what you've just heard to describe Zoos, but I NEED to fix this. Zoophilia =/= Bestiality. I'm a Zoophile, I do not have sex with animals. Not all zoos are sexually attracted to animals. Some only feel emotional love for them (the way humans feel emotional love for other humans) and would never even dream of having sexual contact with them. Period. I'm fixing the page.98.18.25.169 02:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Zoophilia, from which Zoophile derives, is definitely about sexual interest in animals. Nobody's mistaken to say that it's about sexual attraction. If you misunderstood whether the term zoophile applies to you as somebody with no sexual attraction to animals, your dismay is understandable. But zoophilia definitely references sexual interest. --Furthling 21:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
On reviewing the edits made I'm going to seek guidance from an admin on reverting the edit made, because it definitely harms the integrity of the article. --Furthling 21:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Is that really the case? Where's your reference? Wikipiedia's version of this article suggests the term has a wider usage. The American Heritage Dictionary also gives sexual attraction as the second definition, not the first. Compare plushophilia. I appreciate that you may believe otherwise; but if so, this is an opinion, and needs to be stated as such - not as accepted fact. --GreenReaper(talk) 22:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Factually, zoophilia is, by definition, always, about sexual attraction of humans to animals. Yes, I'm sure. See any copy of the DSM; that (psychology) is where the term in its present usage comes from-- it's a technical term that explicitly involves sexual attraction. See also Wikipedia's article on the same term. Zoophilia
Moreover, the edit that was done fails exactly the test you propose, as you should be able to see by reading it-- it was done, as the anonymous editor has clearly stated was his/her intent, to *obfuscate* a meaning, NOT to present another point of view about zoophilia. You're defending people destroying information in the Wiki, GR.
(Incidentally, until wikifur has a stated, applicable standard of verifiability, asking questions about 'reference' is irrelevant as far as I know, though a quick check of Wikipedia makes the issue plain. Where's the editor's 'reference'? I mean, really, what *is* the Wiki supposed to be? Because I'm tired of trying to help develop Wikifur in good faith when what it seems to relish most is reinventing terms that have precious little to do with the fandom before or after reinvention, to try and hide any meaning that anybody may find embarassing or unpleasant to hear said aloud.)--Furthling 01:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
We're both pointing at Wikipedia's article, but I'm obviously seeing something different in it than you are. Reading right from the top: "This article is about zoophilia, the emotional and (optionally) sexual attraction of humans to animals." This appears rather different to "Zoophilia is [a] technical term for sexual attraction of humans to (nonhuman) animals."
I saw the anonymous edit as a person who saw an article presenting one point of view and changing it to show two. Was this new point of view too forcefully expressed? Perhaps. But calling it "obfuscation" means that there is a clear truth to the matter and they are hiding it, which I think is inaccurate. There are truths to be stated, certainly, but we need to draw the line more finely around them.
The reality of the situation is that some people use the word differently. If a body of people are doing this, then we need the equivalent of "some people use this word to mean X" in the article - even if that is not the clinical definition in one particular source (and if we give that, we need to say which one - there are many such sources and they may have differing views). We don't judge whether they're right or wrong, because we don't have to; it's not our job to decide "ultimate truth". We just have to represent their view accurately along with all other views - not necessarily in equal proportion, but without disagreeing with any particular viewpoint - and let the reader make up their own mind.
References are not required for most articles or most assertions on WikiFur. However, when there is disagreement, it becomes the word of one person against the word of another. Edit wars are unsatisfactory, so what we do is ask that if one person wants a piece of the article to stick the way that it is, they have to provide a reference - they have to back up their claims with evidence from other sources. Typically the result is that the claims made in the article become more specific, because everyone can agree on their truth.
If you want to be definite, make specific claims attributed to others, such as "X is defined in Y as Z", rather than blanket claims such as "X is Z". That means it is not us who is making the assertion - and that makes the article better, because it does not rely on unattributed assertions which no reader can evaluate. --GreenReaper(talk) 09:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
GR, the first paragraph of the article on wikipedia makes inescapably clear that zoophilia is a definitionally sexual matter. The line you refer to references the disambig page; that line is not part of the text of Wikipedia's actual Zoophilia article. The article over and over discusses zoophilia as specifically sexual in nature, and the only thing that contradicts this view in that article is a section about word usage whose only supporting reference is dictionary.com! (More about cherry-picking meaning out of dictionaries below.) Throughout the entire rest of the article, it clearly assumes that zoophilia is definitionally sexual. Read the article, or don't, but don't pretend the wikipedia Zoophilia article reads as though "nonsexual zoophilia" was a meaningful subject, because it plainly does not.
You are wrong about whether it's inaccurate to call what the anonymous edit obfuscation-- in fact, that's too weak a term. They plainly set out to obliterate a view on what zoophilia is-- that it is definitionally sexual. And indeed, they obliterated it! Intentionally! It's nothing to do with how forcefully expressed the view was-- it's to do with the fact that they intentionally overwrote information with different information. They did NOT change the article to show two views, they just overwrote one. If you read the edit, you know that. Please advise whether you support that kind of information-obliterating edit. I don't want to contribute to a wiki where information obliteration is generally held to be a good idea, and my doubts about your support for such behavior are strong and legitimate.
Regarding your remark: "The reality of the situation is that some people use the word differently,": of course that's true, but absent any standard of verifiability, it's at *least* irrelevant, and at worst a major disaster for the integrity of the Wiki. Seriously: I and some other people I know use the word "zoophile" to describe persons who rape and abuse animals. That's exactly what I think the word actually amouts to. If you include every view on a given word, in a given article, you will have a meaningless hodgepodge of contradictory definitions.
So when you say: "We don't judge whether they're right or wrong, because we don't have to; it's not our job to decide 'ultimate truth'." You're setting up and cutting down a straw man. I've not suggested there's some kind of revelatory ultimate truth, and my views don't depend on that idea. Nevertheless, there ARE views that are correct on the preponderance of the evidence, and that *does* have a lot to do with whether they're proper or improper for inclusion on the wiki.
Insisting on disputed views only being included with a reference *is* judging, for this purpose, whether they're right or wrong-- by policy that you've just stated, you DO judge whether views are right or wrong for the purpose of inclusion here.
I've not seen this policy applied on Wikifur, but I'm not the most industrious article reviewer, so maybe I've missed it. Regardless, either you have a standard for what constitutes a good reference, or you don't. If you don't, I'm sure I can find references to support the following views: all furries are homosexual, all furries are child abusers, furries never bathe, and so on. Ought I include these views in the article on Furry? You know that I shouldn't-- that's because you know that, even though those are fairly common views, they're unsupported by credible references because they're wrong. It's the wrongness and unsupportedness of them that merit their exclusion.
Also, I meant to take you to task for cherrypicking your dictionary definition of zooophilia. At dictionary.reference.com, there are five listed definitions for zoophilia. Two refer exclusively to sexual attraction to animals. A third refers to the technical use in psychology without mentioning that it's understood to be sexual in that context (this definition also gives an unrelated technical meaning from botany.) The fourth does include "affection or affinity for animals" along with the sexual meaning (and a technical usage from biology.) The fifth is from a medical dictionary-- written for an audience with a specialized education; it refers to the psychology and biology terms, relevant here being the psychological one. That's four out of five entries for which sexual attraction to animals is the ONLY relevant definition. I mean unless you think the article should cover pollination and parasitism. --Furthling 15:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I look at the edit and I see "that may or may not include sexual contact." Doesn't seem like they're saying it doesn't, just that it doesn't have to - as opposed to the prior lede, which specified it solely as "an interest in bestiality".
Regarding the "meaningless hodgepodge of contradictory definitions", some of which may not be viewed as "good" as others, I specifically disagree with your assertion that "[I] know that [you] shouldn't" add such references. It is not a problem if some definitions contradict one another, or that some references are viewed by some people as being higher-quality than others. That simply means that some sources have a different definition of the word, and that people have differing opinions of sources. As a practical matter, the potential definitions are likely to collapse down to two or three, supported by a variety of sources - some more than others. That does not mean we should present only the first one.
In the given example of alternate views of furry fandom, you most likely should provide those views - in the form of a reference attributed to a specific group or organization. We do not provide just the furry view of things here, as established quite clearly on stereotype (another article which could do with references, if only to provide examples). There are some rare cases where we have specifically excluded references, but this is when the source itself states that it is not a true opinion, but merely one put out for the sake of amusement without regard to truth (see Encyclopedia Dramatica).
The problem comes when you assert that a particular view or shared set of views are the correct view, based on preponderance of the evidence, and that therefore it can be stated without reference to who holds it. In cases where there is no contention between opinion-holders, there is no real problem with this. This is true for the majority of pages on WikiFur, and it is why many pages lack any reference.
In cases of contention, it is appropriate to specify your references - and by this, I mean that all disputed views should be given with references, or specifically tagged with {{fact}} as lacking them. The reader will then be able to judge the quality of the views for themselves by judging the quality (and, perhaps, quantity) of the attributed sources. If no source is provided for a definition, or that provided is not credible in their eyes, or there is only one credible source that gives it as opposed to five that prefer another, then they will probably rely more on the other definitions offered. But that is their decision to make.
No attempt was made to "cherry-pick" definitions. I simply went to Google, typed in "zoophilia" and clicked the "[definitions]" link to the right. There, I found three definitions. All three included non-sexual aspects as part of their definition - the first two also included sexual ones. In the actual dictionary entry given, this non-sexual aspect was the first sub-definition as opposed to the second. There may well be other methods of looking up definitions that give other results. I encourage you to add those definitions to the article as well, with appropriate citations attributing their source, in order to provide a broader view of scholarly opinion.
In defense of non-sexual definitions, such definitions do appear to derive closely from its Greek root, "philia". This means friendship, in its various forms - not sensual attraction, which has its own word (eros). Indeed, Wikipedia specifies that according to Aristotle it could apply to pets, and I presume that not all Greeks were having sex with their pets.
I don't want to get hung up too much on what the Greek definition is, though it is probably worth mentioning for the sake of those who claim it as an example of why sexual definitions are "wrong". What really matters is how that word is used now - and, as there appears to be differences of opinion on that, the authorities you appeal to need to be cited in the article, especially if you seek to give one definition preeminence over others. Only then can we truly claim that the article relies on the opinions of others, rather than our own. --GreenReaper(talk) 13:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this vandalism?[edit]

"They sometimes refer to those who have sexual contact with animals without emotional bonds as "beasties," or, more often, "rapists.""

Not really up on this subject, but that last word just sounded wrong. Perri Rhoades 19:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)