Jump to content

Talk:History of zoophilia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


November 2005

When the article is done, and we can see what shape it ends up and what it contains, maybe a better more exact title can be chosen. But not till its better developed, so we don't change title too much. Thoughts:

  • "Zoophilia in art and culture"
  • "Sociology of zoophilia"
  • "Cultural perspectives on zoophilia"

FT2 19:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The content of this article seems to have been entirely taken from various sources, many of them doubtful or outdated. The author also has also used only sources that prove the widespread existence of zoophilia in both currently and throughout history including almost anything against this opinion. Finally, many of the statements in the article aren't backed by any source: "...is said to be...”, "They probably do continue albeit less visibly and fewer", etc. I would ask of someone who is knowledgeable on the subject to review the article because large parts of it seem very dubious at the moment.Kostja 17:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Quick reply:
The article is acknowledged incomplete at present. Did you see the note "This article is being drafted at present and may be incomplete" at the top?
However, whilst incomplete it is fully sourced. It is not attempting to "prove" anything. rather, it is documenting the prevalence and place of the subject matter in cultures across time. Thus a summary of how and where it takes place is exactly the starting point. As fully referenced and cited material, that makes clear it was both common, but often and usually unacceptable, it is hardly "one sided". For example, what we know of human-animal sex in the middle ages is broadly: it happened, certain cases were documented, and that the church objected on theological and moral grounds and executed them where proven. That is literally, what we know from citable verifiable sources.
An article on "birdwatching in history and culture" would probably sound like birdwatching happened everywhere too, and for the same reason -- its looking at where it did occur, not where it didn't. That is probably why you feel as you do, but it's appropriate for the article.
Secondly, the neutrality of this article is shown by the very quotes you comment about. The expression "...is said to be..." you complain about occurs precisely twice. It is not an evasive statement, however, rather, both times is an exact literal citation from an original verifiable source, which is precisely how wikipedia says sources should be reported (WP:V and WP:CITE). "X says Y".
Likewise, "they probably do continue" is verifiable. We know they were taking place at least in recent decades from various credible sources (not yet cited in depth), and you can look up anecdotal accounts of all these activities on google (I've checked that already) claiming they still continue. Since such incidents are generally anecdotal they are hard to cite, but since the accounts exist and we have no citable credible source saying these practices have suddenly all ceased, it is a fair statement for an incomplete article to say that they "probably" do continue.
I hope you will see that in fact most statements are backed by sources. Especially considering that your chosen example is itself a direct source citation. What is missing at present, and I will agree, is a broader perspective of other sources views on it over time. But I am adding in all those I can find online, so it's hhard to see what is missing there. Perhaps you could do some research on that if you feel strongly some verifiable, notable information on specific cultural or historical views (as opposed to your own personal feelings) is missing? There is a limit to what one person can do to document an entire subject.
In the meantime the points made are not supported by the text as it stands. So I have reverted the tags. FT2 22:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

comments on people by their enemies

A lot of these accounts seem to be by enemies of the group; e.g. anti-egyptians claiming that egyptians had sex with crocodiles and so on.

Noted, and added as a caveat to the intro. FT2 (Talk) 02:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Racism

I find it vaguely racist the way African/Native American/Pacific Island cultures are all dumped under "tribal".Sinatra Fonzarelli 06:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Wording tweaked. "Tribal and Other" --> "Other". FT2 (Talk) 20:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hoax Pictures

I have removed both pictures that came from the wanadoo site, as they are most likely hoaxes.

The only "source" for them is somebody's homepage, and just calling the folders "museum" doesn't make it any more official...

The first graphic (presumably a cave painting, but more likely a Photoshop filter) just stands there in space, without any background (where are the cave walls?), and the second one has a big crack in the middle that shows no traces whatsoever on the depicted deer. --Frescard 02:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I can see cracks on the deer, for what it's worth. Greta 00:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Dream of the Fisherman's Wife

Is "molest" really the best word to describe the actions in the Dream of the Fisherman's Wife? I was under the impression the print depicted the wife's willing fantasy. She does seem to be embracing the amorous octopuses. Greta 00:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bestiarii (EUR Museum).jpg

The image Image:Bestiarii (EUR Museum).jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Masters nonsense

I would be interested to know who this "Masters" is (his first name is not given), and what his sources were. Our article on chimpanzees reports that they were only known to Europeans starting in the 16th or 17th century. "Chimps as well as other apes had also been purported to have been known to Western writers in ancient times, but mainly as myths and legends on the edge of European and Arab societal consciousness, mainly through fragmented and sketchy accounts of European adventurers." The word "chimpanzee" was only coined in 1738. So it's hard to imagine that chimpanzees, along with various other species from sub-Saharan Africa, were imported to the Roman Empire and trained to perform sexual acts. It sounds like modern fiction to me, perhaps inspired by ancient myths. -- Tim Starling (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be some Robert Masters (but not this one), here is a website about him [1], but there is no Wikipedia article on him (not that I am requesting one). Maybe people more knowledgeable in that matter may decide to remove the citations from his book (or books? at least two are mentioned in this article), as the website does not necessarily suggest a skeptical scientist and reliable source. --denny vrandečić (talk)
I'm going to delete it in the aim of improving accuracy; this guy doesn't look like a credible historian. If anyone has any other sources, or an explanation for his credibility, feel free to revert it. Nick012000 (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Classical References

These are all terribly done. The specific poem, work, and/or lines are never mentioned. Juvenal never wrote anything titled "The Mysteries of the Bona Dea," the work being referenced is in fact Satire VI. And the fact that he wrote satire is just a little relevant. The section on the Ancients needs to be completely rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.68.243.225 (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

90% of the Classical references don't cite the work in question at all, but use a secondhand interpretation of the work. This is extremely questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.68.243.225 (talk) 03:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Blanking of cited info by User:Joe_Roe and another IP adress

  • The most explicit recorded incidents of public sex involving humans and animals activity are associated with the murderous sadism, torture and rape of the Roman games and circus.[1] Masters reports: "Beasts were specially trained to copulate with women: if the girls or women were unwilling then the animal would attempt rape. A surprising range of creatures was used for such purposes - bulls, giraffes, leopards, cheetahs, wild boar, zebras, stallions, jackasses, huge dogs, apes, etc. The beasts were taught how to copulate with a human being [whether male or female] either via the vagina or via the anus."[1] Representations of scenes from the sexual lives of the gods, such as Pasiphaë and the Bull, were highly popular, often causing extreme suffering, injury or death.[1] On occasion, the more ferocious beasts were permitted to kill and (if desired) devour their victims afterwards.[1] Chimpanzees and mandrills, both in fact ferocious and very powerful species of primate, "made drunk by wine and inflamed by the odor of females of their kind, were loosed upon girls whose genitals had been drenched with the urine of female chimps and mandrills."[1] The victims were often virgins and not infrequently young children.[1] One spectacle is said to have included "a hundred tiny blonde girls being raped simultaneously by a horde of baboons."[1]

This got blanked by User:Joe Roe here [[2]] with no reason to justify the user's blanking of the cited info. Also, where's the rule that blanking a year ago should be accepted or have limitations of timeframe as to revert the vandalism? It got deleted by some random IP user a while back [[3]].

Please, explain since you seem to accept the blanking from that ip user with no fuss, which is suspect. Also, Joe Roe... Get your facts straight about me breaking WP:3RR, because I reverted twice the blanking/vandalism a year ago and once recently. --Jack

It's hard to distinguish different people when it's just IPs editing. What I see is that the section was first removed last January [4], and this prompted an edit war that lasted a couple of months: [5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. So maybe it isn't technically breaking 3RR, but it's an edit war nonetheless and not a constructive way to go about improving this article. You say you were involved in that, yet your edit summary mischaracterised it as vandalism. And here you are again mischaracterising my edit as "blanking" without justification when, as I plainly said, I was reverting what I saw as continuing an edit war to encourage discussion per WP:BRD.
So, shall we talk about the actual content? Your cited info has precisely one citation, to Masters 1973, as most of the article did before I made some major changes back in February. I haven't been able to access Masters' book—it doesn't seem to have been widely circulated—but judging from the state of this article last year, either an editor has gone through and cherry-picked the most outlandish stories, or else Masters was solely in the business of repeating myth, hearsay and insults from the historical and ethnographic literature as fact. To me the above sounds like exactly the same thing, liberally mixed with old stereotypes about Roman cruelty and sexual immorality.
I don't think we should be using Masters at all. At the very least, he is not a reliable source on classical antiquity. These are exceptional claims that require exceptional sources; something from a bona fide classical scholar would be best, but to start with can you come up with a single other source that makes these claims? joe•roet•c 08:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

___

  1. ^ a b c d e f g Masters, Robert E.L. (1973). The hidden world of erotica: Forbidden sexual behaviour and morality. Lyrebird Press, University of Melbourne. p. 14-16.

History of bestiality in Asia

Too bad the article doesn't say anything about bestiality's history in Asia, specifically in Japan, where shinto ruled over the land, and since it doesn't really care about the morality of sex acts, and since all things have kami, I presume bestiality wasn't unheard of in ancient Japan. Also, that painting with the fisherman's(?) wife and the octopus strongly supports my belief. --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Zoophilia and bestiality

The opening sentence "The history of zoophilia (also known as bestiality)" does not appear to be accurate. Zoophilia is often used to describe sexual attraction to animals, while bestiality is used to describe sexual actions with animals regardless of attraction. I think it would be better if it said "The history of zoophilia and bestiality". Should this be changed? Sega31098 (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Sega31098 (talk · contribs), since the terms are commonly used interchangeably, as made clear at the Zoophilia article, I don't see that it matters much. But feel free to implement your suggestion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of zoophilia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on History of zoophilia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of zoophilia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_zoophilia/Archive_1&oldid=1026012536"