 | This is an archive of past discussions about Zoophilia. 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. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Responses to Ciz' comments on zoophilia/paraphilia
(by FT2
Let's look at your comments, Ciz:
In summary, key points:
- Dictionary.com, you ignored or misread critical qualifiers on every single definition.
- Links and sources - you still have trouble with the idea that a link within an article is not necessarily the source of that article.
- You wanted APA not IPT, and the "father" of Animal Rights - possibly the most POV people you could wish for - and yet both have turned round and said bluntly and officially, you're wrong. APA says Zoophilia isnt a big deal clinically, Peter Singer says bestiality can be "mutually satisfying", and speaks out against the popular misconception it is necessarily abusive.
(In fact, Peter Singer, who you dared people to ask what he thought, says bestiality "does not always involve cruelty", dogs can and do solicit sex from humans, and that in his opinion a sexual relationship could at times be "mutually satifying" for both)
- When did I say I wanted Singer's view on this? I knew before I even stumbled upon Wikipedia his views on the subject. Almost everyone else involved in animal rights has condemned him for those remarks. Furthermore, Singer has also said it is ok to kill your baby if its under 28 days. And as for the APA; their site has no mentions of zoophilia. --Ciz 20:53, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Again, I think you are missinformed. I have not read all of his views yet but as one article on his website put it.
- "His most controversial stance is his belief that it's not always morally wrong to kill a severely disabled infant who is not rational, self-aware and autonomous -- the three morally significant qualities, he argues, when considering the life of a sentient being." http://www.salon.com/books/it/1999/07/02/philosopher/index.html
- Which is closer to an extension of the assisted suicide not infanticide. The way you say it misrepresents what he said.--Steele 02:58, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Again, I think you are missinformed. I have not read all of his views yet but as one article on his website put it.
- When did I say I wanted Singer's view on this? I knew before I even stumbled upon Wikipedia his views on the subject. Almost everyone else involved in animal rights has condemned him for those remarks. Furthermore, Singer has also said it is ok to kill your baby if its under 28 days. And as for the APA; their site has no mentions of zoophilia. --Ciz 20:53, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Detailed research
(1) About a week after the dictionary definition of Zoophilia is explained to you, you finally look it up. This is what you found:
- "Affection or affinity for animals": you mysteriously ignored their very 1st definition. Not sexual enough?
- That was the original definition. Just like the original definition of gay is happy. --Ciz 20:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- "Erotic attraction to or sexual contact with animals": quoted but qualifier ignored. It doesn't say zoophiles must have sex with animals, it says one meaning can be sexual contact.
- Third definition: Same as first, ignored twice.
- "An erotic fixation on animals that may result in sexual excitement through real or fancied contact": quoted, but qualifiers ignored.
- Please. You're bending over backwards trying to prove me wrong. I'll play your game. Pedophile-An erotic fixation on children that may result in sexual excitement through real or fancied contact. --Ciz 20:53, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
(2) Please try and grasp the concept of "links" finally: Wiki LINKS are not the same as Wiki SOURCES. LINKS are not what is used to source the article, they are merely sites of relevance or interest. SOURCES are historic, academic, or official information which can be reviewed and NPOV'ed, for Wikipedia.
(3) As a side note, I don't know if you're aware, I just checked my copy of DSM-3. It appears that the APA was using the word Zoophilia even back before 1979. That was before the IBM PC, before the internet, and before "Dearest Pet". Was this due to "bestialists who just wanted it to sound nice"? There were no public bestialists before the net.
- The word zoophilia existed before the bestials appropiated it. --Ciz 20:53, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
(4) Academic research is like any scientific research. It doesn't "run out" after X years. It remains valid until superseded. Researchers still regularly cite studies going back to 1900 and earlier for their current research, it's not like the news which is dead 24 hours later. Do you really think much has changed in sociology in the mere 11 years since 1993?
(5) The APA. Whether or not they have "more clout" is a personal opinion, but let's assume you are right. I hope the APA are fiercely against zoophilia and equate it to animal abuse and bestiality, don't you? They should – according to you. But in 1994, the APA downgraded zoophilia and stated that they no longer consider it a clinical problem unless it is connected to some other more serious issue as well.
- Once again, I'd like to see this article. --Ciz 20:53, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
(6) "Most animal rights organizations believe zoophilia to be animal abuse" – then most animall rights organisations are misinformed about zoophilia, aren't they.
- They're not the ones who are misinformed. --Ciz 20:53, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Considering that these are the same people who firebomb research stations, threaten researchers, and as others pointed out about are hardly neutral, I'm not sure how much that means - asking animal rights activists for opinions on this subject is a bit like asking a bishop if condoms are acceptable. Wouldn't you say its true that animal rights people mostly only see abusive bestiality, and non-abusive bestiality and zoophilia won't be drawn to their attention very much?
- PETA is the group largely responsible for the stuff you mention (firebombing, ect). Yet you wave around their approval of bestiality like a trophy. --Ciz 20:53, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I need to correct both of you. FT2, the people who resort to those tactics are in the minority of animal rights activist. In fact any type of violence is unacceptable and falls outside the bounds of the Animal Rights philosophy. That is because humans are animals too, therefore Animal Rights encompasses humans and there rights. Some groups have resorted to violence like the “Justice Department” but they use small forms of terrorism like verbal and written threats to key people insides animal abusing industries. Ciz, Animal Liberation Front is the one responsible for firebombing and vandalism not PETA. They use illegal direct action to economically sabotage the industries that support animal abuse. Since they only resort to property damage they still fall within the Animal Rights movement as long as no one (human or non-human animal) is harmed in the process.--Steele 02:58, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- PETA is the group largely responsible for the stuff you mention (firebombing, ect). Yet you wave around their approval of bestiality like a trophy. --Ciz 20:53, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
(7) "You should check with ... the "father" of the Animal Rights movement (Peter Singer) to see what they think about bestiality/zoophilia." So I did. He says the opposite of what you are claiming:
- "...sex with animals does not always involve cruelty..."
- "The host usually discourages such activities, but in private not everyone objects to being used by her or his dog in this way, and occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop"
(Source – remember what "source" means? [1])
- I've already mentioned Singer repeatedly. But fine, you want more.
http://www.animalrights.net/archives/year/2001/000040.html http://www.animalrights.net/archives/year/2001/000042.html http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_23singerglobalethics.html http://www.chninternational.com/singer_gap.htm
- Those are all partisan sources with little to no credibility. No wonder you are misinformed, you are getting information from groups with blatant agendas. You can find what ever you want on the internet, that doesn’t mean its right.--Steele 02:59, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
(8) And last, this demonstration of prejudice and ignorance: "I'd make a comment about the intelligence of the good ol' godfearin' citizens of the South, but I'll just keep my thoughts to myselves". I don't suppose you bothered to check, but most of the research was not from the South, or indeed localised to any one place.
- So? The article stated how it was common among farmboys. I dont find that too hard to believe. --Ciz 20:53, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
FT2 19:55, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Comments:
http://www.psyeta.org/sa/sa10.1/fleming.shtml Characteristics of Juvenile Offenders Admitting to Sexual Activity with Nonhuman Animals
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) classifies bestiality among the paraphilic disorders - deviant, but essentially victimless, forms of sexual gratification. According to Cerrone (1991), this classification suggests that bestiality is not a psychiatric problem in and of itself. Alvarez and Freinhar, (1991) found that bestiality may be more prevalent among psychiatric patients with major mental disorders than in the general population.
An alternative viewpoint on bestiality has emerged from the criminal justice literature. Beirne (1997) has proposed the notion of "interspecies sexual assault," arguing that sexual relations with animals parallel sexual assault against women and children, because in both instances there are issues of coercion, pain, and lack of consent. Studies of adult sex offenders appear to support the co-occurrence of sexual offenses against humans and animals among some offenders, with increasing numbers of incidents and animal victims occurring as offenders age (Abel, Osborne, & Twig, 1993).
This study compared the family characteristics, victimization histories, and number of perpetration offenses of three groups of juvenile offenders: (a) those who admitted to sex with animals (Animal Offenders), (b) those who admitted to sexual offenses against humans but not to bestiality (Sex Offenders), and (c) those who admitted to neither sex offenses against humans nor sex with animals (Non Sex Offenders). These three groups were identical in age and racial composition.
The data suggest that juvenile Animal Offenders should be considered a sub-group of Sex Offenders in that 23 of 24 juveniles (96%) who admitted to bestiality also admitted to sexual offenses against humans. These figures are based on the juveniles' self reports and almost double their actual adjudication rates for sex offenses. This is not unusual in that the number of adjudicated sex offenses in the general population falls far below the actual number committed. It appears that Animal Abusers may be further advanced than other juvenile sex offenders, in that they report substantially more perpetration offenses against humans than do other sex offenders (6.86 compared to 5.10, respectively).
Animal Offenders and Sex Offenders also shared a number of other commonalities. Both come from families with less affirming communication, more incendiary communication, lower attachment, less adaptability, and less positive environments than juvenile offenders who admit no sexual offenses. Also, the victimization histories of Animal Offenders and other Sex Offenders are similar. Animal Offenders and Sex Offenders had been victimized by more physical abuse, more emotional abuse, more sexual abuse, and more emotional neglect than Non Sex Offenders. They also had higher numbers of "victimization events" than Non Sex Offenders.
The study found that Animal Offenders actually report more problems than other Sex Offenders. Animal Offenders reported less affirming communication and less positive environments in their families than other Sex Offenders. Animal Offenders also reported more emotional abuse and neglect than other Sex Offenders, though not more physical and sexual abuse. The number of victimization events was substantially higher for Animal Offenders than for other Sex Offenders (6.13 compared to 4.23, respectively).
The purpose of this study was to shed light on the question of who engages in bestiality and whether this behavior should be considered "normal." It is difficult to assess "normality" in a study where all 381 participants were adjudicated juvenile offenders living in state facilities. However, within this population, the data indicate that the 6% of juvenile offenders who admitted to bestiality reported more problematic family characteristics and more traumatic victimization histories. They also reported having committed more sex offenses against humans than did other juvenile offenders. These findings suggest that sex with animals should not be considered normal or benign among the juvenile population.
The findings of this study would seem to support Beirne's (1997) contention that bestiality actually is a form of "interspecies sexual assault," at least among adjudicated juvenile offenders. It is difficult to say whether the juveniles who had committed sex acts with animals would consider their behavior as a sex offense, but this would be a productive study to conduct in the future. The current authors believe that most juveniles, like adults, consider bestiality as deviant behavior, but not necessarily as a form of sexual assault. Public education programs might be necessary to bring this awareness to the general public. An entire body of research in the last few years has shown that those who engage in cruelty against animals are more likely to engage in violence against humans (Ascione & Arkow, 1999; Raupp, Barlow, & Oliver, 1997). The findings of the current study suggest that this link might be extended to include sex with animals, at least among some populations. The current study is limited in making this as an absolute generalization, because bestiality among populations other than male juvenile offenders was not examined. Juvenile offenders are, by definition, adjudicated for aggressive and violent offenses. It is possible that among other populations (single women and their pets), sex acts with animals might be performed out of love, the need for consolation, or other motivations. In these and other populations, there might not be any link whatsoever to offenses against humans. It is difficult to understand how the humans in these situations might view their own behaviors in terms of "mutual consent," or how they consider the pain, if any, to the animal participant, but this would be a worthwhile topic for future study.
The findings of the current study have important implications for violence intervention and prevention programs that are based on the link between animal cruelty and human violence (Jory & Randour, 2000; Flynn, 2000). These programs are postulated on the idea that early detection of animal abuse opens the door to psychological and social intervention, particularly among juveniles and young adults. The current study suggests that juveniles who engage in bestiality come from families with more severe problems and more emotional abuse than the "average" sex offender. This raises the questions of what neediness animal offenders may be acting out. Perhaps they are trying to resolve attachment conflicts and anger problems by turning to animals for sexual gratification and release of tension. Further studies should explore the precise links between abusive and problematic family environments and sex acts with animals.
Few states have laws specifically prohibiting sexual contact with animals. However, the current study suggests that juvenile offenders who engage in bestiality are likely to be offending against humans as well. Those who promote legislation to curb social violence and protect the rights of animals might consider seeking extension of animal cruelty laws to include bestiality.
--Ciz 00:35, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
“It is difficult to assess "normality" in a study where all 381 participants were adjudicated juvenile offenders living in state facilities.”
- Obviously this study didn’t take into account the zoophiles living outside of detention. This study is stacked against, zoophiles in the say way it would be if you interview 381 gay adjudicated juvenile offenders living in state facilities. Had they interviewed people who have sexual relations outside such an environment they would have come to drastically different conclusions. Non, the less, this article does provide good information on animal sexual abuse from a credible organization that could contribute to the topic.--Steele 03:26, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
“It is possible that among other populations (single women and their pets), sex acts with aniamals might be performed out of love, the need for consolation, or other motivations. In these and other populations, there might not be any link whatsoever to offenses against humans. It is difficult to understand how the humans in these situations might view their own behaviors in terms of "mutual consent," or how they consider the pain, if any, to the animal participant, but this would be a worthwhile topic for future study.”
- In there own words their study does not fairly represent the many people who do have sexual intercourse.--Steele 03:26, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- If you stuudied 381 people doing 5-10 for wife-beating (domestic assault), most people would not conclude this was an argument that heterosexuality and marriage were inherently abusive. There are studies of zoophilic individuals who are not imprisoned for juvenile criminality, victims of broken homes, and adults doing 20-life for rape. The psychiatric profession has studied them in depth, and drawn its conclusions. FT2 03:45, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
vegetarian speak out on bestiality (among other things)
http://www.veggieboards.com/boards/showthread.php?t=14797
http://www.veggieboards.com/boards/showthread.php?t=14858 (continuation of previous post)
http://www.veggieboards.com/boards/showthread.php?t=4250 (on PETA) --Ciz 00:35, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I think I missed the point of these three links. These are just a bunch of message board opinions. I could point you in the direction of a bunch of pro-zoophile message boards but that doesn’t actually prove anything or really contribute to the topic.--Steele 03:26, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The posters had a lot of good points. And there were also a few 'zoos' there who argued for it. Also, I posted them to point it out that PETA and Singer arent as highly regarded among the AR people as you think they are. --Ciz 04:53, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I don’t have time to read through all there post right now. Post the points if you want, otherwise I might read the links later. This is actually a vegetarian message board, which doesn’t necessarily mean they support animal rights. I am not quite sure what you think I am thinking. There hasn’t ever been a movement that has had consensus on everything so of course you can find people who would contradict what the key people from the movement said.--Steele 05:41, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The posters had a lot of good points. And there were also a few 'zoos' there who argued for it. Also, I posted them to point it out that PETA and Singer arent as highly regarded among the AR people as you think they are. --Ciz 04:53, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
RfM reminder
Ciz, please have a look at requests for mediation and respond there, and tell us if you are willing to mediate in this issue. Thank you. --Conti|✉ 18:42, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Ciz, please see the message on your talk page regarding mediation before editing again here. Thank you -- sannse (talk) 23:16, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee)
- sannse - does Ciz know how to find his talk page? Just a thought, he seems a bit new to Wiki, he actually might not. FT2 05:17, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Please do not break the page
Ciz, please try to avoid messing up the page completely when you try to edit it. -- Schnee 22:11, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
??? --Ciz 00:35, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)