![]() | This 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. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
This paragraph in the intro is problematic:
There is presently considerable debate in psychology over whether certain aspects of zoophilia are better understood as an aberration or as a sexual orientation. The activity or desire itself is no longer classified as a pathology under DSM-IV (TR) (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association) unless accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the person.
Might there be a place in the article for this? I found it in the commons, when looking for more illustrations.-- 68.240.252.104 14:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The article says that posession and distribution is banned in many countries but does that include artwork depicting Zoophilia, such as the goat image up there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.82.5.105 ( talk • contribs).
Animal sex redirects here. Now what exactly is 'animal sex' supposed to mean? Sex with an animal? Sex between animals (of the same species)? The sex of an animal? I thought it would have redirected me to mating, where copulation redirects. The reason I ended up here in the first place was that the category in Commons is called ' animal sex' (about copulation between animals), and I wanted to check the two projects were on 'the same page', so to speak. Should one of the pages be be moved/renamed? Richard001 07:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Nice job. I might look at moving the Commons page some day too - a lot of the pages there are named poorly. Richard001 05:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering if in the health concerns or affects, it should be noted that there was that story of the guy who died after sex with a horse (google it). His colon was ruptured and his lower organs were too, and then he just bled out and died. Perhaps it should be noted this could happen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.239.143 ( talk) 21:14, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
Is this the guy in the recent movie called I think "the barn" is about? there was a write up about the movie in newsweek about 6 mo ago? I guess its sorta a love story with a sad end of the horse being "punised" by cutting off its balls. The poor Stallian. Quite sad the way if was filmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.169.227.248 ( talk) 12:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
this used to be a respectable organization, but all this information on perversions. yuck! Olliekamm ( talk) 14:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Animals like children are not capable of informed consent indeed. How many of those who apply this philosophy, apply the same philosophy to eating them? As usual "most people" are very selective about applying moral philosophy viz. when it suits them. Mike Hayes ( talk) 20:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I removed this line "which is not dissimilar to typical estimates of the percentage within the population generally." from the zoophiles and other groups section, as it had no citation to backup this claim and is also clearly inaccurate. I think one can assert this line was trying to push a particular point of view more than state a fact. If we look at raw numbers of U.S. population ( http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html) 303,000,000*.035=10,605,000 zoophiles in the country. If this information is accurate regarding the general number of zoophiles in the country I will literally eat my own face off.
24.88.103.234 ( talk) 07:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Timmy
I added a link to the Organization for Animal Dignity, www.animaldignity.org which looks at sexual behaviors such as masturbation, homosexuality and zoosexuality (zoophilia) in animals. Since one of the partners in zoophilia is an animal, it's only fair to add a link about the animals' perspective on zoosexuality / zoophilia. ----B.Y. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.238.132.90 ( talk) 19:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't have access to this source. The material I restored was originally added with just a general reference to her book, and I don't doubt its accuracy. Miletski says:
--AnotherSolipsist ( talk) 07:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This article defines zoophilia as a human's love for an animal, however the animal article is a broad classification which also includes humansm, which would make humans love for humans a form of zoophilia. This has never been used this way, so could the article perhaps specify 'human for a non-human animal'? Tyciol ( talk) 04:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I've removed wording suggesting illegality because of laws agains nature is less common. It was unsourced and I have my doubts it's true. Considering there are still a large number of countries with conservative views (and laws) on sexuality, particularly developing countries (e.g. in South+Central America, Asia, Africa), and that many of these countries are still behind the developed world in laws protecting animal welfare it seems easily possible that there it is banned in more countries because of laws against nature (or similar). In fact, even in some countries with animal welfare laws, I suspect in some instances a prosecution because of laws against nature may be more common. In any case, it doesn't seem that important and is probably impossible to know since it's not something commonly tested in courts. Nil Einne ( talk) 20:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
An anon removed the explaination from the intro that bestiality is commonly misspelled [1]. I have no problem with this but I think the explaination in the article body (not removed by anon, not sure intentional or not) should remain. While this is the article on zoophilia, it is also the article on bestiality (since that redirects here and it's unlikely that it needs its own article). Explaination of the various terms, including misspellings as appropriate for an encylopaedic article (as opposed to a dictionary) should remain. Since bestiality is not the main focus of the article, I don't think we need to go into depth in the intro so I've fine with 71's action but thought I'd post here in case anyone wants to remove it from the body. Nil Einne ( talk) 20:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I noticed the references section is broken. And I do not know the system used for it in this article -- Walter ( talk) 23:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I've uploaded a couple of graphics I made to the commons. Thought I'd mention it here if you want to use them.
-- Brallion ( talk) 16:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I would be happy for the last image to be used as a thumb. In my opinion it fulfils the purpose of depicting how it is possible for the act to take place. forestPIG (grunt) 07:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
What types of animals are targets of zoophilia? Which kinds are safe from abuse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.175.50.34 ( talk) 04:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Why does bestiality redirect to this page, when there are separate pages for homosexuality and sodomy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.25.77.119 ( talk) 18:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
While I have no interest in condemning or shaming people who experience closeness with animals—as long as cruelty is not involved—I have noticed that this article seems to make an overly close comparison between zoophilia and homosexuality. At least three such comparisons are made within the article. Now, zoophiles face societal disapproval, and it is understandable that their need to maintain an extreme level of personal privacy causes them anxiety. This may reasonably be comparared to the plight of gays and lesbians in oppressive nations such as Zimbabwe and Saudi Arabia (or Great Britain and the United States in the 1940s and '50s).
However, it is false to imply that, in the developed Western world, gays face a level of stigma that comes comes even close to that which zoophiles are subjected to. Gays are pretty much normalized these days, thanks to decades of tireless effort and organization, and they didn't spend all that time and energy to end up as the world's universal "acceptability gague" for every imaginable sexual deviance that comes down the pike. I suggest that only one comparison—between zoophiles and closeted gays—is sufficient. Any more than that absurdly overstates the case. Rangergordon ( talk) 15:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm boldly adding auto-archiving and indexing for threads stale for 45+ days; a minimum of 7 threads will be kept so the page doesn't empty. -- Banjeboi 05:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
This section needs to be more in an encyclopedic style- proper paragraphs or sentences, rather than note form. You could also respond to each con with a pro or whatever. We don't tend to have lists of opposing views like this in the more tightly written articles on WP, in my humble opinion. Sticky Parkin 01:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Zoosexuality and the law Historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia Zoosadism Zoophilia and health Sticky Parkin 02:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand the Zoosadism bit. Why not just have an article on cruelty to animals? Is this analogous to pedophiles creating a separate page on Paedosadism e.g., so as to separate the idea of sex with children from sexual cruelty to children? There are a number of cases to consider. (1) Outright cruelty to animals, not involving sexual perversion (2) Sadistic cruelty non involving sexual acts but from which sexual pleasure is derived (3) Sadistic cruelty involving sexual activity (4) Sexual activity with animals which causes suffering to the animal, but where the human perpetrator either does not realise the suffering, or is in denial about it (5) Sexual activity which arguably does not cause suffering, but which is inherently abusive. This group of articles needs a lot of tidying. Peter Damian ( talk) 09:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
This revert back to the original intro refers. It now reads "Zoophilia, from the Greek ζῷον (zṓion, "animal") and φιλία (philia, "friendship" or "love"), also known as bestiality, refers to the practice of human beings engaging in, or being aroused by, sexual relations with animals. " Comments:
Peter Damian ( talk) 09:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I have reworked the introduction. I haven't included the bit which seems to deny that it is a practice. On the point about 'heterosexuality', clearly heterosexuality is an orientation. Zoophilia is a practice, primarily. I know that Beetz claims that it is an attraction, but this is clearly a secondary meaning, and the introduction should reflect this. Peter Damian ( talk) 10:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I checked Kraft-Ebing (pp 566-70) and while he does use the term 'Zoophilia' in a quite different context (of fetishism), he uses the term 'Zooerasty' and 'bestiality' exclusively for 'violation of animals' [i.e. sexual violation]. 'Bestiality' is the non-pathological variety caused by 'low morality and great sexual desire', 'Zooerasty' is the pathological variety. 'Sodomy' covers both pederasty and bestiality/zooerasty. Peter Damian ( talk) 14:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
As mentioned, the terminology as defined and used in this and some other articles in incorrect and leads to confusing situations. So I propose as main changes:
Please discuss and add own suggestions, additions or tweaks to the above! BabyNuke ( talk) 22:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Mainly agree with ZetaWoof. Merge zooph and zoosex, but I don't see the point in changing things to bestiality, we can just make it clear that zooph includes both the act and the fantasy or whatever. I have no prob with a section on mythology (not read it all yet) as long as the context is made clear. And the leda pic shouldn't be the top/main illustration for the page as it doesn't depict the act or anything related to it, it doesn't add anything, it's just packaging. If it were in a mythology section, that would be better, at least it would have some slight relevance in that context. We don't need more articles on this- some need to be merged if anything. "Bestiality" is a stigmatising word, (although accurate). I thought it was the most commonly used word in which case it should be in titles, but apparently it's not.
Charity
(Talk)
00:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed a whole section of unsourced material about 'zoosexual communities' [8]. This is interesting personal research but it should go under WP:OR. Please don't even think about reinstating it without discussing here first. Peter Damian ( talk) 23:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC) I'm working on digging up some refs. Here's a first stab at it. Zetawoof( ζ) 03:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Draft (already implemented)
|
---|
Whether there is such a thing as a "zoophile community" or monolithic subculture, in the same sense as the gay community or any other alternative lifestyle communities, is a controversial question. Whether or not it should be construed as a "community", the following outline is a rough description of the social world of zoophiles, as it has existed to date. Prior to the arrival of widespread computer networking, most zoophiles would not have known others, and for the most part engaged secretly, or told only trusted friends, family or partners. [1] (This almost certainly still describes the majority of zoophiles; only a small proportion are likely to socialize with others on a wider scale). Thus it could not be said there was a "community" of any kind at that time, except perhaps for small sporadic social networks of people who knew each other by chance. As with many other alternate lifestyles, broader networks began forming in the 1980s when networked social groups became more common at home and elsewhere, and as the internet and its predecessors came into existence, permitting people to search for topics and information in areas which were not otherwise easily accessible and to talk with relative safety and anonymity. [1] [2] [3] The popular [4] (top 1%) newsgroup alt.sex.bestiality (reputedly started in humor [5]), personal bulletin boards and talkers, were among the first group media of this kind in the late 1980s and early 1990s, rapidly drawing together zoophiles, some of whom also created personal and social websites and forums. By around 1992–1994 it became accurate to say that a wide social net had evolved. [6] This was initially centered around the above newsgroup which during the six years following 1990 had matured into a discussion and support group. [7] Because the zoophile community came into existence via the internet, Weinberg and Williams (2003) observe that rather than the online community adapting to a wider offline culture (as happened with other internet subcultures), the online culture itself will become the wider norm. They observe in this context that the internet can "socially integrates an incredibly large number of people". [8] There also exist websites providing support and social assistance to zoophiles (including resources to help and rescue abused or mistreated animals), but these are not usually publicized. Such work is often undertaken as needed by individuals and friends, within social networks, and by word of mouth. [9] One exception is the German support group "Interessengemeinschaft Zoophiler Menschen ("zoophile interest group") [10]
|
This looks OK. The length is exactly right. Regarding the rest of the article, there is much to trim. E.g. the huge section with a list of arguments. There needs to be a section merged with the section on ethics, that should discuss the pros and cons of the ethical arguments. (singer vs linzey and others). Peter Damian ( talk) 09:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)g
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
This paragraph in the intro is problematic:
There is presently considerable debate in psychology over whether certain aspects of zoophilia are better understood as an aberration or as a sexual orientation. The activity or desire itself is no longer classified as a pathology under DSM-IV (TR) (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association) unless accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the person.
Might there be a place in the article for this? I found it in the commons, when looking for more illustrations.-- 68.240.252.104 14:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The article says that posession and distribution is banned in many countries but does that include artwork depicting Zoophilia, such as the goat image up there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.82.5.105 ( talk • contribs).
Animal sex redirects here. Now what exactly is 'animal sex' supposed to mean? Sex with an animal? Sex between animals (of the same species)? The sex of an animal? I thought it would have redirected me to mating, where copulation redirects. The reason I ended up here in the first place was that the category in Commons is called ' animal sex' (about copulation between animals), and I wanted to check the two projects were on 'the same page', so to speak. Should one of the pages be be moved/renamed? Richard001 07:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Nice job. I might look at moving the Commons page some day too - a lot of the pages there are named poorly. Richard001 05:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering if in the health concerns or affects, it should be noted that there was that story of the guy who died after sex with a horse (google it). His colon was ruptured and his lower organs were too, and then he just bled out and died. Perhaps it should be noted this could happen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.239.143 ( talk) 21:14, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
Is this the guy in the recent movie called I think "the barn" is about? there was a write up about the movie in newsweek about 6 mo ago? I guess its sorta a love story with a sad end of the horse being "punised" by cutting off its balls. The poor Stallian. Quite sad the way if was filmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.169.227.248 ( talk) 12:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
this used to be a respectable organization, but all this information on perversions. yuck! Olliekamm ( talk) 14:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Animals like children are not capable of informed consent indeed. How many of those who apply this philosophy, apply the same philosophy to eating them? As usual "most people" are very selective about applying moral philosophy viz. when it suits them. Mike Hayes ( talk) 20:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I removed this line "which is not dissimilar to typical estimates of the percentage within the population generally." from the zoophiles and other groups section, as it had no citation to backup this claim and is also clearly inaccurate. I think one can assert this line was trying to push a particular point of view more than state a fact. If we look at raw numbers of U.S. population ( http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html) 303,000,000*.035=10,605,000 zoophiles in the country. If this information is accurate regarding the general number of zoophiles in the country I will literally eat my own face off.
24.88.103.234 ( talk) 07:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Timmy
I added a link to the Organization for Animal Dignity, www.animaldignity.org which looks at sexual behaviors such as masturbation, homosexuality and zoosexuality (zoophilia) in animals. Since one of the partners in zoophilia is an animal, it's only fair to add a link about the animals' perspective on zoosexuality / zoophilia. ----B.Y. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.238.132.90 ( talk) 19:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't have access to this source. The material I restored was originally added with just a general reference to her book, and I don't doubt its accuracy. Miletski says:
--AnotherSolipsist ( talk) 07:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This article defines zoophilia as a human's love for an animal, however the animal article is a broad classification which also includes humansm, which would make humans love for humans a form of zoophilia. This has never been used this way, so could the article perhaps specify 'human for a non-human animal'? Tyciol ( talk) 04:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I've removed wording suggesting illegality because of laws agains nature is less common. It was unsourced and I have my doubts it's true. Considering there are still a large number of countries with conservative views (and laws) on sexuality, particularly developing countries (e.g. in South+Central America, Asia, Africa), and that many of these countries are still behind the developed world in laws protecting animal welfare it seems easily possible that there it is banned in more countries because of laws against nature (or similar). In fact, even in some countries with animal welfare laws, I suspect in some instances a prosecution because of laws against nature may be more common. In any case, it doesn't seem that important and is probably impossible to know since it's not something commonly tested in courts. Nil Einne ( talk) 20:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
An anon removed the explaination from the intro that bestiality is commonly misspelled [1]. I have no problem with this but I think the explaination in the article body (not removed by anon, not sure intentional or not) should remain. While this is the article on zoophilia, it is also the article on bestiality (since that redirects here and it's unlikely that it needs its own article). Explaination of the various terms, including misspellings as appropriate for an encylopaedic article (as opposed to a dictionary) should remain. Since bestiality is not the main focus of the article, I don't think we need to go into depth in the intro so I've fine with 71's action but thought I'd post here in case anyone wants to remove it from the body. Nil Einne ( talk) 20:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I noticed the references section is broken. And I do not know the system used for it in this article -- Walter ( talk) 23:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I've uploaded a couple of graphics I made to the commons. Thought I'd mention it here if you want to use them.
-- Brallion ( talk) 16:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I would be happy for the last image to be used as a thumb. In my opinion it fulfils the purpose of depicting how it is possible for the act to take place. forestPIG (grunt) 07:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
What types of animals are targets of zoophilia? Which kinds are safe from abuse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.175.50.34 ( talk) 04:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Why does bestiality redirect to this page, when there are separate pages for homosexuality and sodomy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.25.77.119 ( talk) 18:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
While I have no interest in condemning or shaming people who experience closeness with animals—as long as cruelty is not involved—I have noticed that this article seems to make an overly close comparison between zoophilia and homosexuality. At least three such comparisons are made within the article. Now, zoophiles face societal disapproval, and it is understandable that their need to maintain an extreme level of personal privacy causes them anxiety. This may reasonably be comparared to the plight of gays and lesbians in oppressive nations such as Zimbabwe and Saudi Arabia (or Great Britain and the United States in the 1940s and '50s).
However, it is false to imply that, in the developed Western world, gays face a level of stigma that comes comes even close to that which zoophiles are subjected to. Gays are pretty much normalized these days, thanks to decades of tireless effort and organization, and they didn't spend all that time and energy to end up as the world's universal "acceptability gague" for every imaginable sexual deviance that comes down the pike. I suggest that only one comparison—between zoophiles and closeted gays—is sufficient. Any more than that absurdly overstates the case. Rangergordon ( talk) 15:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm boldly adding auto-archiving and indexing for threads stale for 45+ days; a minimum of 7 threads will be kept so the page doesn't empty. -- Banjeboi 05:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
This section needs to be more in an encyclopedic style- proper paragraphs or sentences, rather than note form. You could also respond to each con with a pro or whatever. We don't tend to have lists of opposing views like this in the more tightly written articles on WP, in my humble opinion. Sticky Parkin 01:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Zoosexuality and the law Historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia Zoosadism Zoophilia and health Sticky Parkin 02:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand the Zoosadism bit. Why not just have an article on cruelty to animals? Is this analogous to pedophiles creating a separate page on Paedosadism e.g., so as to separate the idea of sex with children from sexual cruelty to children? There are a number of cases to consider. (1) Outright cruelty to animals, not involving sexual perversion (2) Sadistic cruelty non involving sexual acts but from which sexual pleasure is derived (3) Sadistic cruelty involving sexual activity (4) Sexual activity with animals which causes suffering to the animal, but where the human perpetrator either does not realise the suffering, or is in denial about it (5) Sexual activity which arguably does not cause suffering, but which is inherently abusive. This group of articles needs a lot of tidying. Peter Damian ( talk) 09:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
This revert back to the original intro refers. It now reads "Zoophilia, from the Greek ζῷον (zṓion, "animal") and φιλία (philia, "friendship" or "love"), also known as bestiality, refers to the practice of human beings engaging in, or being aroused by, sexual relations with animals. " Comments:
Peter Damian ( talk) 09:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I have reworked the introduction. I haven't included the bit which seems to deny that it is a practice. On the point about 'heterosexuality', clearly heterosexuality is an orientation. Zoophilia is a practice, primarily. I know that Beetz claims that it is an attraction, but this is clearly a secondary meaning, and the introduction should reflect this. Peter Damian ( talk) 10:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I checked Kraft-Ebing (pp 566-70) and while he does use the term 'Zoophilia' in a quite different context (of fetishism), he uses the term 'Zooerasty' and 'bestiality' exclusively for 'violation of animals' [i.e. sexual violation]. 'Bestiality' is the non-pathological variety caused by 'low morality and great sexual desire', 'Zooerasty' is the pathological variety. 'Sodomy' covers both pederasty and bestiality/zooerasty. Peter Damian ( talk) 14:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
As mentioned, the terminology as defined and used in this and some other articles in incorrect and leads to confusing situations. So I propose as main changes:
Please discuss and add own suggestions, additions or tweaks to the above! BabyNuke ( talk) 22:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Mainly agree with ZetaWoof. Merge zooph and zoosex, but I don't see the point in changing things to bestiality, we can just make it clear that zooph includes both the act and the fantasy or whatever. I have no prob with a section on mythology (not read it all yet) as long as the context is made clear. And the leda pic shouldn't be the top/main illustration for the page as it doesn't depict the act or anything related to it, it doesn't add anything, it's just packaging. If it were in a mythology section, that would be better, at least it would have some slight relevance in that context. We don't need more articles on this- some need to be merged if anything. "Bestiality" is a stigmatising word, (although accurate). I thought it was the most commonly used word in which case it should be in titles, but apparently it's not.
Charity
(Talk)
00:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed a whole section of unsourced material about 'zoosexual communities' [8]. This is interesting personal research but it should go under WP:OR. Please don't even think about reinstating it without discussing here first. Peter Damian ( talk) 23:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC) I'm working on digging up some refs. Here's a first stab at it. Zetawoof( ζ) 03:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Draft (already implemented)
|
---|
Whether there is such a thing as a "zoophile community" or monolithic subculture, in the same sense as the gay community or any other alternative lifestyle communities, is a controversial question. Whether or not it should be construed as a "community", the following outline is a rough description of the social world of zoophiles, as it has existed to date. Prior to the arrival of widespread computer networking, most zoophiles would not have known others, and for the most part engaged secretly, or told only trusted friends, family or partners. [1] (This almost certainly still describes the majority of zoophiles; only a small proportion are likely to socialize with others on a wider scale). Thus it could not be said there was a "community" of any kind at that time, except perhaps for small sporadic social networks of people who knew each other by chance. As with many other alternate lifestyles, broader networks began forming in the 1980s when networked social groups became more common at home and elsewhere, and as the internet and its predecessors came into existence, permitting people to search for topics and information in areas which were not otherwise easily accessible and to talk with relative safety and anonymity. [1] [2] [3] The popular [4] (top 1%) newsgroup alt.sex.bestiality (reputedly started in humor [5]), personal bulletin boards and talkers, were among the first group media of this kind in the late 1980s and early 1990s, rapidly drawing together zoophiles, some of whom also created personal and social websites and forums. By around 1992–1994 it became accurate to say that a wide social net had evolved. [6] This was initially centered around the above newsgroup which during the six years following 1990 had matured into a discussion and support group. [7] Because the zoophile community came into existence via the internet, Weinberg and Williams (2003) observe that rather than the online community adapting to a wider offline culture (as happened with other internet subcultures), the online culture itself will become the wider norm. They observe in this context that the internet can "socially integrates an incredibly large number of people". [8] There also exist websites providing support and social assistance to zoophiles (including resources to help and rescue abused or mistreated animals), but these are not usually publicized. Such work is often undertaken as needed by individuals and friends, within social networks, and by word of mouth. [9] One exception is the German support group "Interessengemeinschaft Zoophiler Menschen ("zoophile interest group") [10]
|
This looks OK. The length is exactly right. Regarding the rest of the article, there is much to trim. E.g. the huge section with a list of arguments. There needs to be a section merged with the section on ethics, that should discuss the pros and cons of the ethical arguments. (singer vs linzey and others). Peter Damian ( talk) 09:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)g