Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 4

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I have read the previous posts. Nothing really changed my mind. There were people who believed that advocating animal sex was disgusting, people like you defending it, and then the others decided to leave. You didnt convince anyone of your cause. Nothing was resolved. Furthermore, some of your information is innacurate (if a dog humps your leg it wants to have sex with you, so its ok to **** it)

Furthermore, the Zoophilia as a lifestyle category was biased. Calling it zoophilia instead of bestiality is also biased. None of it was neutral. And several sources (as I previously listed) were books written by bestials themselves. I could justify the holocaust if I picked the right book. --Ciz 12:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey, I'm just curious: You cite sources that say that when a dog humps your leg, it's trying to express dominance over you. That jibes very well with the common feminist claim that rapists are motivated not by sexual desire, but rather by power. Dogs, being pack animals with a strong (and sometimes violently enforced) social hierarchy are then seen as using sexual acts against humans in the same way that uncivilized, criminal humans do to other humans: to exert dominance. In other words, even though the dog is not expressing sexual desire towards the person whose leg he (or she) is humping, the dog is in some sense trying to rape that person. Horrifying, no?

By the way, you've really got to quit assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is into this whole boinking-their-pets hobby. Heck, I don't even have any pets, and I wouldn't know what to do with one if I did. :) ?FOo 15:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that wolves do not express dominance in this way, so I think it is unlikely at least that this behaviour in dogs is an expression of dominance. -- Schnee 15:26, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dogs

Then how come dogs will still hump your leg even if they are neutered? When animal is neutered, it wont want to have sex anymore. Furthermore, the people who made the statements were experienced veterinarians whose jobs are to work w/animals. They know what they're taking about.

Also, dogs and wolves may be related but they are very different animals. What applies to one doesnt necessarily apply to the other. http://www.wildsentry.org/hybrid.html This site shows how wolves differ from dogs in how they show dominance.

Shnee, do you think bestiality is ok? --Ciz 15:44, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Does such a question really matter to this discussion at all? And please, don't start a new section every time you add to this discussion, it does not make things easier to read --Conti|✉ 17:11, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

It should. The topic is bestiality, isnt it? --Ciz 17:41, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why that should matter. We are discussing the content of the article about zoophilia. What difference would it make if one would think it is ok? And why have you removed a part my signature? I hope that was just a mistake. --Conti|✉ 17:50, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

He actually removed the second half of your comment. It was put back later, but apparently only in part. -- Schnee 17:56, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It was. I thought I had just copied your comment, so I deleted the part I wasnt replying to. When I saw I had actually removed the comment, I put it back.

What difference would it make if one would think it is ok? It would make more sense why the person would be defending it. And I do have to wonder, because Schnee is a furrie (even though not all furries molest animals)Furthermore, when another zoophile said (concerning the "Zoophilia as a lifestyle" topic) "I'm a zoo, and I don't have any particular issues with the page content.) So I'm removing the NPOV tag. Everyone fine with this?" Schnee said he was ok. Then, when someone said, "Stop raping animals guys, forget about the spiritual aspects, what about the rights of the animal. Disgraceful." Schnee told the person to 'stop flaming.'

And Schnee- do you think its ok? You havent answered the question. --Ciz 19:25, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, Ciz, the subject of this article is not bestiality, not matter what you may think. Without being an advocate on either side, this may help explain why you are confused:

There is a distinction between "Bestiality" and "Zoophilia" according to the dictionary, and this article is one covering Zoophilia, and in which NPOV information regarding Zoophilia belongs. "Bestiality" is a sexual act. "Zoophilia" is defined (dictionary.com) as "Affection or affinity for animals" or "Erotic attraction to or sexual contact with animals". So one of your misconceptions may be that you are actually misunderstanding the subject matter (or are reading the wrong article). This article is one that provides a range of information concerning affection, affinity, attraction or sexual contact, and is used by those seeking to understand and learn in a neutral sense, what is known of these things.

What it is most definitely not, is a forum for your (or anyone elses) personal POV, or for you to misrepresent, throw 'red herrings', or actually edit other users contributions to change what they have plainly said. FT2 19:27, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Bestiality-Sexual relations between a human and an animal. Zoophilia-Erotic attraction to or sexual contact with animal. It's pretty much the same thing (and if you notice, if you type in bestiality you get redirected to this page).

Let's replace the word 'animal' with child, shall we? Sexual relations between an adult and a child. Erotic attraction to or sexual contact with a child

Now, wouldnt both definitions apply to a pedophile?

Furthermore, the 'Zoophilia as a lifestyle' section is NOT neutral. It speaks positively of having sex with animals.

Did some searching; Shnee:bestiality -> zoophilia, since bestiality is a term with very negative connotations. Thank you for proving my point. Just as pedophiles have used the term 'boylove' since 'pedophilia' has "very negative connotations" bestials use the term 'zoophilia' because 'bestiality' has "very negative connotations."

And FT2; you were the person who submitted the 'Lifestyle' topic??

--Ciz 20:53, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok. I googled "schneelocke." I am seriously disturbed. There's this bsmd-ish picture of a humanoid fox on a leash. WTF? And the person who drew it has her own site which contains drawings of humanoid animals in sexual poses. ( http://vcl.ctrl-c.liu.se/vcl/Artists/Alexandra-Herakai/Adult/ )

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://werewolf.schneelocke.net/~schnee/images/gifts/schnee_badge2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.livejournal.com/users/schnee/129387.html&h=591&w=800&sz=80&tbnid=El-2c0BzofAJ:&tbnh=104&tbnw=140&start=11&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2522Schneelocke%2522%2B%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN

THen you're signed up on http://www.fur.com/wfire/home/ where you describe yourself as an 'arctic wolf slave.'

Do you have sex w/animals or not? --Ciz 21:40, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

WTF indeed. What the heck are you doing here? Do you try to win the argument through "exposing" how perverted or whatever the others are..? To save you some work with further research: I'm Gay, I'm Furry and I'm into BDSM. Oh, and you asked for my age once, I'm 19. So fucking what? It is really hard to take you seriously at all as long as you show such a behaviour. --Conti|✉

Oh, for crying out loud. Furries are a regular subject of ridicule at a message board I go to, and even I've picked up enough to know that whatever they are, they're not affiliated with zoophiles. -- Kizor 18:08, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some are. Some arent. All the zoophiles I've seen on the internet were furries as well. --Ciz 19:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do you have sex with animals? If you dont, I could care less what you do. --Ciz 22:09, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ciz, let us summarise your approach to this debate:

You take a topic on which a good NPOV consensus is mostly approached.

yet the entries arent

[in your opinion, not in the opinion of most others]

Most others? Most people agree with me in saying bestiality is animal abuse.

You decide that the title of the topic should be interpreted in your own way, and in fact, prefer to ignore the dictionary. ("I know thats what its called but I want it called something else because I can argue about something else" sort of logic)

I've already posted both deffinitions and have showed how they are interchangable

[if they are interchangeable then you are setting up straw men again. But they are not interchangeable. They mean very different things, see the dictionary]

No they dont. Both bestials and zoophiles engage in sexual intercourse with animals.

Yes but the difference is in the precise meaning of the word. Bestiality is the actual ACT of sex with an animal. Zoophilia is the attraction to said act. PMC 03:32, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That logic is pathetic. If someone is attracted to little boys, it doesnt matter whether he acts on it or not. He's still a pedophile.

If Im sexually attracted to animals, Im just a zoophile. But if I have sex with animals, Im a bestial? Using that logic, most zoophiles are bestials as well.--Ciz 19:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You spam your way through about 3 pages of archives (a week ago there was under 1 page of archiving)

Each of my comments are replies to existing comments.

[at great length and with great rhetoric, and repeated. Sorry, thats spam]

Because my points cant be addressed in one sentence like yours

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)

You are reverted multiple times, including by sysops, and ignore this, until the sysops are obliged to protect the page from this vandalism
Continuing to see only what you want to, you take comments of mine out of ciontext, attribute sexual sources I have not cited which flatly ignore and contradict the actual sources (which I had given), so that you can set up straw men to knock down.

Im using the sources listed in the Sources section.

[which are sources of further information on the subject both for and against, but are not the sources for the information provided, as is clear in the original discussions. What you have done is looked at the links, picked the external link most aligned to the side you don't like, ignored the actual sources given, deemed the information to have come from the source you chose, claimed these were the sources quoted (which they weren't) - then having invented a source of your own choice, ranted about how poor a source it is!]

In English? No, the sources themselves (Dearest Pet, Zoophilia.net, ect) are PRO-BESTIALITY

Your response to the effort to keep NPOV is "I bet you have sex with your pets, huh?"

If someone defends the sexual abuse of animals (like this entry does) I assume they do.

[quite]

Schnee has yet to answer if he does or not, btw. And considering his interests are zoophilia (as stated in his livejournal profile) I can safely assume he does.

Hey, look, it's a talking parrot! Oh wait, it's only Ciz, repeating the same argument one more time. PMC 03:32, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So you acknowledge it? --Ciz 19:06, 2 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)

Your response to the sysop's attempt to help you keep wiki-quette is to smear him by saying he is a furry "even though not all furries molest animals". I have looked up furry's to check the imformation on them. They are people who are interested in anthropomorphism, which may or may not include anthropomorphism in erotic art, hence this smear seems pretty unfounded.

There is a specific group of furries called "Burn Fur" which frown upon bestiality. However, there are a lot of furries who support zoophilia.

[which entitles you to make that personal attack how exactly?]

Schnee is a furrie who defends bestiality. It doesnt take a genius to figure out whats going on.

I think a correction is needed here. First of all, the group was called "burnt furs", not "burn fur"; second, they don't exist anymore; and third, they were not opposed to zoophilia, they were opposed to anything that involved both furry and sexuality (artwork, in particular). It's also worth pointing out that they were not much more than a small group of extremely loud-mouthed ranters, I think. Kind of a déjà vu. -- Schnee 23:26, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fine. So you get your jollies off seeing furry wolve-men in bondage, and they dont like being associated with that stuff. I get it.

Sweetie, just like there are different factions within Christianity (Protestants, Catholics, etc) there are different factions within the furry fandom. Some of them get off on X-rated anthro artwork; some of them just like animals a lot. There's a difference. PMC 03:32, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

'And Schnee gets his jollies off of wolf-men in bondage. --Ciz 19:06, 2 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)

Your reply to the other sysop's attempt to cool things is "Do you have sex with animals? If you dont, I could care less what you do"

That is true. I could care less if you're a furry if you dont have sex with actual animals. But there are furries that do. And if someone fervently defends bestiality (like Schnee has) and then he turns out to be a furrie... well, I put two and together. Furthermore, one Schnee's interests on his LiveJournal entry is 'zoophilia.'

[But read the article. That person hasn't "fervently" anything. The aim of Wiki, one more time, is to pool knowledge. Not to advocate POV positions]

Like I said, I did some research. Schnee's livejournal profile says one of his interests is zoophilia. Furthermore, when someone asked the bestials to stop raping animals, Schnee told him to stop flaming.

Heey, he did research for once! Pity it's on something as petty as what Schnee likes to put in his livejournal. PMC 03:32, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But it's basically irrelevant, another pointless attack. I kept a journal some years back, and it listed each of Christianity, Judaism and Buddhism as "interests", as well as some things that were listed in friends journals and sounded unusual. I don't recollect anyone saying this "meant" I must be one of those. 81.86.166.33 04:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You can deny it all you want. Your journal, your erotic drawings of wolf-men, and your advocation of bestiality in this forum leads me to believe otherwise. 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)

Then you ride your hobby horse back into town - still having failed to grasp "read the archives", still failing to understand NPOV, and still failing to understand the subject of this article, and the meaning of sourced information.

I have read the archive. I even posted a quote from there serving my point, where one of you says zoophilia.net is a valid source. I have also adressed your comments regarding the archives. Go up and read my post regarding them

["one of you". I assume this means "anyone who doesn't agree with me"?]

Actually, it was Paranoid. Check out the first archive.

Several people have asked you to avoid ad hominen and personal attacks, I myself have pointed out at length the purpose of Wikipedia. You have ignored all these for the most part and carried on with increasingly uncontrolled and unreasoning flaming and smearing of contributors and blatent misrepresentation of their contributions.

You keep on saying I'm 'spamming.' I have made several points, none of which you have replied to. --Ciz 22:31, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[I say it. At least 2 other users say it. 2 sysops say it. And 3 pages of ranting that attribute fictional incorrect sources to my quotes which had sources named, and smear others, say it. Don't.]FT2 22:16, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

All of whom are furries who defend zoophilia. And Im going by the sources listed on the zoophilia entry. --Ciz 03:13, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

WHAT are you talking about? I am not a furry: where did you get that idea? My guess is that you've simply run out of arguments and are now expanding on your previous attacks. (Next thing you know, I'll not only be a furry zoophile, I'll be a furry zoophile who's going in for for trans-species surgery.) Come back with new rhetoric, please. PMC 03:19, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Then congratulations on being in the minority. People like Schnee are furry zoophiles. His profile states he's an 'Arctic Wolf' furrie and his livejournal account says he's a zoophile. --Ciz 11:56, 2 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)

 +   Sources listed on the main page    
 +   
 +  Midas Dekkers: Dearest Pet: On Bestiality    
 +   
 +  Mark Matthews: The Horseman: Obsessions of a Zoophile   
 +   
 +  Andrea Beetz: Love, Violence, and Sexuality in Relationships between Humans and Animals   
 +   
 +  Marjorie B. Garber: Dog Love   
 +

And then we have the links; most of which are made my zoophiles. One of these, the 'purehumanimal' site, says that if you want to visit you must not be 'an officer, agent, or acting on behalf of a law enforcement organization or agency.' Now, why would that be? --Ciz 03:22, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Offensive behavior

Hey, I just got done buggering the cutest giraffe, and I'm wondering, does anyone know where I can find a humpback whale? They sound really sexy, I mean, humpback ... no, wait, that's not right. I don't have to learn how to screw horses and dogs just because this guy "Ciz" thinks I must. Geez, the things you find on Wikipedia, you might get the impression that everyone who doesn't run screaming at the sound of the word "zoophilia" has a thing for the hind ends of pets and livestock.

No, but if you defend the molestation of animals as several users here have... --Ciz 12:01, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This guy has been breaking just about every rule we have here on Wikipedia. POV nonsense is just the start — he's gone through insulting other editors, vandalizing their comments with his BOLDFACE SHOUTING, even bordering on libel and defamation a couple of times. (Look it up, Ciz, if you're going to go throwing accusations of notorious, infamous criminal conduct around, you'd better read up on libel law eventually.)

This behavior has got to stop. —FOo 05:57, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. FT2 listed him on WP:RFC; we'll see what happens now. -- Schnee 15:57, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Notorious, infamous criminal conduct? But I thought bestiality was just another expression of love! Stop bein g so mean-spiritied!!

Schnee's livejournal account says one of his interests is zoophilia. Im not making that up. And Im sure there are others posting here just like him. --Ciz 12:01, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC):

'You can deny the truth all you want. Anyone who googles your name can see the type of stuff you're into. And you have yet to answer the question on whether you have sex with animals or not. Considering your profile says you like zoophilia, Im guessing you do.

C'onsensus on NPOV was broadly reached to date I dont recall seeing the users reaching an agreement

but this article has now had to be protected due to one user's attempt in the last week, to follow their own agenda. The subject of this article is broadly speaking, social, psychological, legal, historic and other information regarding emotional/sexual bonds between humans and animals

Most people will agree in saying any sexual behavior related with an animal is sexual abuse. Most people will also agree that the correct term is bestiality, and not zoophilia.

There appears to be a user who wants to convert it to an animal sexual abuse page and deems any discussion of his disliked POV, an animal abuser. Issues arising - POV,

Im not the only pov.

ranting, name calling (including 2 sysops) Who advocate sex with animals (Schnee does, at least) ,

and mis-quoting of others sources to discredit previous comments.

Show me when. The sources as listed are pro-bestiality.I actually listed the pro-bestial sources just now.

Discussion not making progress.

You mean, me agreeing with you in that showing bestiality is positive light is ok? --Ciz 17:27, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Look; I'm a newcomer in this discussion, and what this discussion looks like to me is a large mire of pointless arguments that is getting nowhere. Please don't put words in other people's mouths. -- Kizor 19:07, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ciz: One last time. Wikipedia is not a place for adocacy. I've reviewed the previous debate rather carefully. Specifically in respect of your concerns:

If you look at the debate prior to 10 days ago, you will see that broad consensus was reached. The prior discussions in July resulted in an amicable debate and sourcing, the topic was left open with a "disputed" tag for some 3 months due to its nature. The dispute was not however a major NPOV one, it was a question on one small area of the article, which was being resolved quite amicably by discussion and consensus.

I dont recall seeing any of the protesters concede. I saw people saying it was animal rape, to which Schnee replied "Take your flaming somewhere else."

Some expressions of disapproval of the act of bestiality were posted and discussed, however the subject of this article is Zoophilia, which covers as has been stated in previous discussion, affection, affinity, attraction or sexual contact,

Yes. Sexual contact. With animals. Which is illegal. And animal abuse.

and is used by those seeking to understand the social, legal and psychological aspects of this affinity. 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 law or gay psychology is a post about anal sex.

That is an invalid comparision. Furthermore, unless you're trying to argue that most 'zoophiles' do not have sex with animals, then your point is moot

Whatever you may wish or think, this affinity/attraction exists, and information on its psychology, emotional and social aspects (known as "Zoophilia" in the dictionary) is what this article is about.

Like I said earlier; if a man is attracted to children, it is pedophilia. Regardless on whether or not he has sex with children, he is still a pedophile. The same applies to bestials.

Please provide sources for the information prefaced by weasel words "most people..."

You're kidding me, right? Bestiality is held in the same light as pedophilia. Conservatives use the argument that allowing gay marriage will legalize bestiality to scare voters. Even liberals condemn the comparision. In a world where two consenting adults of the same gender is hotly contested, do you honestly think a man and and an animal is accepted? Please. You have just as much a chance as NAMBLA does (which wikipedia also supports. boylove movement, anyone?)

You are the only person who is persistently ignoring guidelines and wiki-quette, engaging in vandalism, banned, persistently editing or removing others contributions to suit your own wishes, and failing to grasp what NPOV means. As several people have said, this needs to stop.

The Zoophilia as a lifestyle is not NPOV.

From FOo - "This guy has been breaking just about every rule we have here on Wikipedia. POV nonsense is just the start — he's gone through insulting other editors, vandalizing their comments with his BOLDFACE SHOUTING, even bordering on libel and defamation a couple of times. (Look it up, Ciz, if you're going to go throwing accusations...) This behavior has got to stop"

Re misquoting: Your reply on sourcing was "Sources"? are you referring to such sites as zoophilia.net? Dont make me laugh". But the actual source under discussion was not sourced from a website, but from peer-reviewed academic research. You were told to read the prior debate before proceeding, to understand how NPOV had been basically achieved. But you didn't, else you would have spotted that.

THen what are you referring to, pray tell? Love, Violence, and Sexuality in Relationships between Humans and Animals, which you cited? Once again, dont make me laugh. While you're at, check out http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0967699703/qid=1099429637/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-4852354-6117510?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 . It's just as valid.

On at least two occasions you have deleted talk contributions made by others, or twisted them to show them in a bad light. I haven't checked for others.

How so?

You also mis-quote people and those who wish to add information germane to this article, you allege are bestialists. You have done this to myself and to others by way of smear. Your reply to one attempt to keep NPOV and calm debate was "I bet you have sex with your pets, huh?"

I'v made more points than just that, yet that's the only one you've replied. Furthermore, that was after you had a list of reasons saying how animals want sex from humans.

And yes. Showing full NPOV information on a topic is okay. That is what Wikipedia is for. You've been asked to understand that now, more than a few times and by more than a few people. Lets try once more:

You will read points of view in wikipedia that do not support your own ideas, and provided they are sourced information and not personal stances, that is as it should be.

Once again. The zoophilia article was not neutral. Most of the sources were, as I said earlier, pro-bestial. Links that were against had comments like strongly anti-zoophile site and "Bestiality" cases from the US and England (notice the quotation marks. because, as schnee says, bestiality is such a negative term)

To give you examples, there will be posts in Wiki describing how to commit suicide, even if one does not believe in euthenasia.

Moral or not, euthanisia is one's own choice.

 There will be posts in Wikipedia pointing out the positive aspects of gays, even if one is a homophobe. There will be information regarding Blood Sports and Abortion, even if one is vehemently anti hunting or pro life.

All are which are legal.

Do you finally understand what Wikipedia and NPOV is about, Ciz? FT2 20:08, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

All the points you've mentioned are topics that are hotly debated. Bestiality isnt. Why? Is it because its as unthinkable as pedophilia, and only a fringe few support it --Ciz 21:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)