Category talk:Zoosexuality
Renaming proposal
editI would like to suggest renaming this category from Zoosexuality to Zoophilia, which is a more commonly-used term and a better catch-all for these types of articles. Does anyone have an opinion on this? Elonka 22:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
It is my opinion that the Zoosexuality (zoophilia) does not belong as a subcategory in the Category:Sexual orientation and identity. The two that are assigned to it, "Category:Human-animal relationships" and "Category:Subcultures" should be enough to accurately categorize this topic. Zoosexuality is illegal, and it is POV to place such a subcategory among legitimate social identities.
Zoosexuality is definitely a subculture, and not something that most of us "identify" with. Besides, it does not seem a very important category, as it is not well populated with articles. GilliamJF 12:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- It should definitely be included somewhere in the "Sexuality" category tree. "Sexual orientation and identity" seems appropriate to me, as practicitioners of zoosexuality do clearly get identity off of it. As for "legitimacy" as a pre-requisite, that doesn't seem like a valid criterion, as homosexuality is illegal in plenty of places. But regardless, how are other "fringe" sexualities categorized? If there's a common method, we should follow that one. --Elonka 19:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
A sexual orientation or identity is not the same thing as a "subculture". From Sexual orientation:
- "Hani Miletski, a sexologist and author, argued that zoosexuality should be understood as a sexual orientation: "According to Francoeur (1991), sexual orientation consists of three interrelated aspects: Affectional orientation - who or what we bond with emotionally; sexual fantasy orientation - about whom or what we fantasize; and erotic orientation - with whom or what we prefer to have sex. Miletski concludes that all three criteria are met by zoosexuals."
From Miletski's citation:
- "This was the basic research question for my study. The definition of "sexual orientation" was adapted from Francoeur (1991) in his discussion of homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality. According to this definition, sexual orientation consists of three interrelated aspects: (1) affectional orientation — who or what we bond with emotionally; (2) sexual fantasy orientation — with whom or what we fantasize having sex; and (3) erotic orientation — with whom or what we prefer to have sex. The findings of this question, supported by the above related questions, clearly indicate that different people have different levels of sexual inclination toward animals. "Is there a sexual orientation toward nonhuman animals?" — yes, so it appears. This study did not provide the prevalence rate for the people who have this sexual orientation, nor did it provide the causes for having such a sexual orientation. However, it very clearly shows that some people (the majority of the participants in the current study) have feelings of love and affection for their animals, have sexual fantasies about them, and admit they are sexually attracted to them. Sexual orientation, as we know it, can be fluid and changing with time and circumstances. People are not "black or white." We can place people on all levels of the Kinsey scale, even when we apply this scale to sexual orientation toward animals. It is logical to assume that the majority of the human race will be placed around the zero point of this Kinsey-like scale (sexual inclination exclusively with human beings), but the current study shows that there are some humans whose place on this Kinsey-like scale is definitely not zero. In fact, there are some (probably very few) individuals whose place on this scale would be the other extreme (6=sexual inclination exclusively with animals)."
A subculture is the social culture, moores and lifestyles created by people with a common interest, thus trekkies, furries, BDSM, etc. Zoosexuals may have a subculture, in fact they almost certainly do. But the psychological viewpoint is that the current standard of study into zoosexuality itself, as a sexual orientation, concluded it was. FT2 (Talk) 00:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- I have observed that some American members of the far-right use the topic of zoophilia in their uphill battle to justify limiting the rights of same-sex couples to marry. Their argument is simple: If gays are allowed to marry, then it could become difficult to prevent those who want to marry their family pet (or sibling). I suspect that someone with this legal strategy put "Zoosexuality" into the category sexual orientation and identity. That's why I felt it was POV, a maneuver to justify LGBT rights opposition. GilliamJF 08:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Its worth checking, but I don't think that's the case. Enough people have seen this and it's sufficiently noticable, that if it didn't actually have a place, it would have become obvious to others already. As well as the citation above, you might find the edits listed on this page interesting: Special:Contributions/TBP. Thats the quick reply for now, as its late here. FT2 (Talk) 02:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)