Talk:Zoosexuality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pornography Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Pornography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Sexology and sexuality
Sexuality Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Archive
Archives
Archive 1


Contents


[edit] Merge with Zoophilia

Why? They're both exactly the same thing. Zoophilia is sexual and/or romantic attraction to animals. Zoosexuality is sexual and/or romantic attraction to animals. I suggest taking any information this article has that the zoophilia article doesn't and merging it with with the zoophilia article since the term zoophilia is much more recognised than the term zoosexuality. Beno1000 23:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

They aren't "exactly the same". Re-read the full definitions carefully noting the differences not just the surface similarities.
To add more perspective, zoophilia and/or zoosexuality covers many areas (similar to BDSM or LGBT). There is said by multiple sources to be a sexual orientation called zoosexuality. This is unusual. Traditionally only 3 sexual orientations, perhaps 4, have been recognized. This article focusses upon the sexual orientation 'zoosexuality'. What is a sexual orientation? Does this meet the criteria for one? Where is research evidence of reciprocity? Who objects to its classification as a sexual orientation, and why? And so on. These are technical questions related to an orientation in psychology, only. So that is the target of this article. Also look at the contents of this page, and note its focus there too.
There are many other areas related to this subject, all at present within the more general article on 'Zoophilia'. (Religion is one, social perspectives another, subculture a third, media representation a fourth, legal a fifth, and so on). Zoophilia, meaning the affective bond with an animal, is not a "sexual orientation". For example, zoosadism may be part of zoosexuality, whereas it is very much not part of zoophilia.
What is clear are 3 things:
  1. Most of the subject matter is in the single 'zoophilia' article, but this is too long and ultimately several discreet smaller articles will be broken out of it.
  2. The zoosexuality article is appropriately focussed and tightly defined.
  3. The topic is likely to develop.
Hope that helps. FT2 (Talk) 01:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC).
  • I can see what you mean here, but I'd still like to see what a few other people think on this first. Beno1000 17:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Edit I have clarified in zoophilia the confusing mis-statement in the introduction. It now makes clear the distinction, a bit better. FT2 (Talk) 20:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --Steele the Wolf 23:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Zoophile article is already as long as it needs to be. Further contributions to the "zoo" subject should strive to have their own article if possible.
  • Oppose. As above. Skinnyweed 16:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


Dunno if a newbie like me has a place in this discusssion but I would like to point out some tecnicalities I happen to have knowledge about:

  • the -philia suffix does not automatically imply sexualness. One could, for example, be an audiophile without engaging in earphone sex. Come to think of it, it sounds like rather a silly interpretation :P. Basically, this is a counterexample.
  • -philia technically means "to like". Sorta like -phobia means "to fear". As in, acrophobia is fear of hights.

Additionally, I read an external hardcopy discussion on soap, and how its' made up of a "hydrophillic" and a "hydrophobic" end. This by itself kinda ruins the hard connection between "sex" and "-philia"

Oh, and I think we should work on "subsectioning" the massive zoophilia article first. It would probably make it easier to relocate it later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.39.190.200 (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

shentino —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.39.190.200 (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DSM-IV sees Zoophilia as a DISORDER

If you have proof that the DSM-IV does NOT class this paraphilia as a disorder, please present it. Here's some of my evidence from eMedicine:

Paraphilia is a rare disorder, and the best criteria for diagnosis come from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) or the International Statistical Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10). The disorder is characterized by a 6-month period of recurrent, intense, sexually arousing fantasies or sexual urges involving a specific act, depending on the paraphilia..... These disorders are not well recognized and often are difficult to treat for several reasons. Often, people who have these disorders conceal them, experience guilt and shame, have financial or legal problems, and can (at times) be uncooperative with medical professionals. Some psychiatrists discuss whether paraphilias are a part of the impulse control disorders or if they fall within the spectrum of obsessive-compulsive disorders. The more common paraphilias include voyeurism and frotteurism, and the most rare paraphilia is zoophilia.

You may wish to put some of this data into the article (it needs it), but change the wording a lot to stop claims of plagiarism. Skoppensboer 21:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much every definition of Paraphilia (including our own one) says that, in order to become a disorder, the paraphilia has to cause suffering in some way or otherwise be in the way of a normal, healthy life. Otherwise, every person having a fetish and every person who's into BDSM would have a disorder. --Conti|✉ 21:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
We are not talking about your definition or mine, but the DSM-IV. The section under discussion is Professional Views of zoophilia. It's a distinct topic with a definite classification in the DSM-IV. It's not an area for opinions. Skoppensboer 21:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
2007 ICD-9-CM Diagnosis 302.1, note the word use. Deviation is the only word used, the word disorder is not mentioned. Compare that to for example the entries on exhibitionism or pedophilia, which are specifically called disorders. Furthermore, from the paraphilia article: "Likewise, zoophilia was clinically re-evaluated between DSM-III and DSM-IV as a result of research, and is now not considered a clinical problem unless distress is caused." Your quote covers a lot of paraphilias at once and not zoophilia in specific. I stand by what I see: it is only mentioned as a deviation and in the paraphilia article it is stated that it is not considered a clinical problem unless distress is caused. I assume your view is that zoophilia is per definition a clinical problem? BabyNuke 21:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
1) The icd9data.com site to which you linked is difficult to evaluate as to value, what is it? It certainly isn't the DSM-IV, which is not carried in full anywhere on the internet unless I am mistaken. You have to buy it, or read it at a library, perhaps. 2) I cannot take wikilinks as proof of anything, unfortunately. 3) As far as I can tell, zoophilia is quite definitely classed as a "paraphilia NOS" i.o.w. a paraphilia that falls into a big bin with other rare paraphilias. I can find many sites that talk of it in terms of "treatment" and "disorder", which implies pathology, not normality or health. And it stands to reason that someone who orients themselves preferentially emotionally and sexually towards animals is not mentally healthy, I would have thought. Example of the psychiatric view of paraphilias, and there are numerous more. I think unless someone can come up with a reliable and verifiable quote from an official or medical (psychiatric) site that explicitly states that zoophilia is seen simply as a benign condition, it's safer to go with the more obvious conclusion. Who wants to visit their local medical library and get the definitive answer? :-) Skoppensboer 22:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how that example says anything we didn't already know - it references the DSM as categorizing zoophilia as a "paraphilia not otherwise specified", which we already knew - from Zoophilia:
DSM-III-R (APA, 1987) stated that sexual contact with animals is almost never a clinically significant problem by itself (Cerrone, 1991), and therefore both this and the later DSM-IV (APA, 1994) subsumed it under the residual classification "paraphilias not otherwise specified".
Zetawoof(ζ) 23:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Back from Medical Library, I now have the data, such as it is (no ref. to zoo* in the index, and no bestia* in the index either). But it's definitely classed as a "disorder" not a "condition" in DSM-IV. ICD-9-CM is even more explicit, calling it a "Sexual Disorder not otherwise specified" which is hard to parse in any other way, isn't it? I'll put up a small table anon that shows how it's classified .... Skoppensboer 00:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I think we're running into a terminology issue here. "Disorder" is a broad term in psychology; it's used to describe anything which causes distress, not specifically "bad" things. For example, bedwetting is considered a form of sleep disorder, but this doesn't reflect a medical view that bed-wetters are horrible people. More importantly, though, conditions are only considered sexual disorders when they "prevent an individual or couple from enjoying sexual activity". As I mentioned earlier, it isn't a clinical problem on its own. An unqualified statement that "zoophilia is a DISORDER" places an unintended interpretation on the term. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
People have campaigned to have conditions removed from DSM-IV precisely because of the stigma associated with listing. Anything listed there is by definition a disorder. Until it's removed from DSM-IV and ICD-9-CM, that descriptor must remain, whether or not we agree with it or like it. I don't mean to describe zoophilia as bad, so please don't put words in my mouth. I have a degree is psychology and I'm not an unsophisticate in this area. But to imply on the wiki page that zoophilia is not seen as a disorder by psychiatrists is simply factually dishonest and should not be allowed to stand. Skoppensboer 01:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll pop in to my local medical library and see what DSM-IV actually says. Stand by. I'll access Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders : DSM-IV-TR. American Psychiatric Association, c2000. 4th ed., text revision Skoppensboer 22:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Actual DSM-IV data:

* Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV)

  • Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders
  • Paraphilia NOS (ICD-9-CM equivalent of "Sexual Disorder NOS") :
Telephone scatalogia (obscene phone calls), necrophilia (corpses), partualism (exclusive focus on one part of the body), zoophilia (animals), coprophilia (feces), klismaphilia (enemas), urophilia (urine). Skoppensboer 00:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
In that case, the paraphilia article needs editing. Mind you, this creates a problem as what is claimed now is not supported by the quotes later. Further it means that someone in the paraphilia article has been making up very specific information out of thin air. If I may ask, what exactly is the entry on zoophilia in the DSM-IV? You looked it up, so it might be interesting to know what it actually says beyond the index.
  • It says nothing beyond a description. The DSM really doesn't explore issues at all. I'll look at the paraphilia article now. Skoppensboer 17:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Fixed the paraphilia article, which was clearly wrong. Some of the editing on zoo-related topics looks terribly slanted to the point of blatant dishonesty. Skoppensboer 17:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
A second point in the revert was that you state that "not a clinically significant problem" means "not common". I think it means exactly what it says - zoophilia is not a significant problem from a clinical point of view. Otherwise, from your reasoning, losing a limb wouldn't be "clinically significant". See how this term is used in other articles. BabyNuke 16:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The term "significance" is usually used by scientists in a statistical sense, where it denotes incidence. I'd be very, very surprised if that scientist meant to say that having sex with animals was a trivial (in the sense of insignificant) problem. Because it clearly isn't. Skoppensboer 17:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
First, that it isn't is your opinion on the matter. Second, from the pallor article as an example:
"Unless it happens accompanied by pale lips, tongue, palms, mouth and other regions of mucuous membranes, (that is, a general pallor) it is probably not clinically significant and does not require any treatment."
Significance is not used in a mathematical sense. BabyNuke 17:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It probably is. Unless you can provide the actual sentence in context, how will we know? I tried to find the study but it does not seem to have been published (PubMed), and if so it should not be referenced here at all. Apparently the sample size was only eight people (some website claims), which makes it so underpowered as to be useless (perhaps why it was never published?). Basically, DSM-IV says that zoophilia is one of the rarest disorders, so my preference at this stage for the interpretation of "clinical significance" should stand until other evidence is presented to countervail. BTW, "clinical significance" can also refer to incidence. Skoppensboer 17:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
This might be interesting:
"According to the multiaxial system of the DSM-IV (APA, 1994) though, the person, in addition to the usual criteria, also has to show clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning.
Though we know from recent research that the majority of people engaging in sex with animals do not suffer in a clinically significant extent, and their social and occupational life etc. is not necessarily impaired, I will call those people “zoophiles”, or short “zoos”, because that is what they call themselves."
Andrea M. Beetz, University of Erlangen, Germany. Source: [1] - very interesting read in any case.
  • I read that. "Half of the men and 55 % of the women have been in psychotherapy." That's from Miletski's study. Then Beetz reports the same figures (roughly). I'd suggest that that is much higher than the normal population. "22% of the men tried to commit suicide" -- this is far higher than the normal population, fully justifying the inclusion of zoophilia as a paraphilia and suggesting that the orientation is very likely to cause the person psychological distress, if only because of the serial deaths of shorter-lived animal mates. But once again, the Beetz work has never been published according to PubMed, so it should not be used on the Wikipedia. Skoppensboer 22:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I did do a search for recent published research on zoophilia. Here is one study from a reputable source that suggest people in mental hospitals are far more likely to have such fantasies:
Int J Psychosom. 1991;38(1-4):45-7.
'A prevalence study of bestiality (zoophilia) in psychiatric in-patients, medical in-patients, and psychiatric staff.'
Alvarez WA, Freinhar JP. Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, California College of Medicine, University of California, Irvine 92717.
The prevalence of bestiality (both actual sexual contacts and sexual fantasy) was investigated in an experimental group (psychiatric in-patients) and two control populations (medical in-patients and psychiatric staff). Psychiatric patients were found to have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55%) of bestiality than the control groups (10% and 15% respectively). Implications of these findings are discussed. It is recommended that due to the obvious prevalence of this condition, questions exploring this previously ignored topic should be routinely included in the psychiatric interview.

How about including that sort of finding? Is it too far off the agenda? Skoppensboer 22:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

While bestiality and zoophilia are somehow mentioned as being synonymous, this is not so. Obviously, bestiality can very much be related to serious psychological problems. However, is everyone that practices bestiality a zoophile? No. The word bestiality purely describes an act, it does not suggest motive. People may have or desire sex with animals for various reasons, sexuality being one of the options but not the only one. Not that such figures aren't worth mentioning however, but it's a shame that despite having asked for it more than once and even have seperated the articles myself bestiality and zoophilia are currently still thrown together in one article. Things that may apply to bestiality need not apply to zoophilia. I feel the terms should be seperated more strictly. BabyNuke 22:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems a fine distinction to me. Is a person who has sex with boys a pedophile (loves the boy) or a pederast (just wants sex with the boy)? The law does not discriminate. The same person may be both things on different occasions.
  • I've noticed with some alarm that there is absolutely NO peer-reviewed published research in this area. The people (Beetz, Miletski, Donofrio) who are constantly referenced as if they are sources of reliable knowledge are in fact scientifically unpublished, all of them! A published doctorate is not the same thing. So there is no evidence-based medicine to rely on in this field, just opinion, speculation and "studies" that have not reached the standard required for journal inclusion. Readers should beware. Skoppensboer 22:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification on DSM

It is important to note that wording is causing some confusion, resulting in some degree of misinformation (or lack of clear distinction at least) in the article section on DSM.

DSM exclusively focusses on a fixated and pathological zoophilia -- one which meets very specific criteria. It is far from clear and far from confirmed that all persons who practice zoosexuality, are what we might call "DSM-zoophiles" (of a fixated, pathological nature), even if in everyday and clinical speech the word "zoophile" is regularly used for them.

In clinical (DSM) terms "zoophile" has a specific, clinical, technical meaning. like many technical words that have non-technical lay-meanings, it is important not to confuse the two. Far from nit-picking, this is a crucial distinction, a form of linguistic slippage often responsible for confusion even within the psychological field itself. For example, according to Beetz - "Authors write about zoophilia, and though they do not explicitly define it, it must be assumed that they at least do not include all persons who have sex with animals, but rather restrict their comments to a real, permanent, exclusive, fixated zoophilia as defined in the DSM-IV."

Where this leaves the article:

DMS-IV states an opinion upon fixated clinical zoophilia meeting its criteria. What it does not state is a view that all zoosexuality will meet this criterion. According to significant research (which was not around in the 1980s when DSM-IV was drafted), it seems that much zoosexual activity turns out to be outside this form. We need to consider carefully the implications of this for the article wording. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] NPOV

This article read like an advertisement for sex with animals. Its ridiculous, should the article about pedophilia be promoting that. --75.50.44.254 (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)