Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 8

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 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

To Ciz

I have refrained from personal communication, and you will to date find only information intended to help you understand Wiki policy, conduct, NPOV and some reasons why others including myself no matter their personal feelings are seeing this article in a way you feel is "positive". But I think it would be helpful to summarise the issues you have as a wiki-ist.

(1) The first difficulty we have (speaking as a group) is your style. You have the look of someone used to forums and places which have a "whoever shouts loudest wins" approach. You interrupt and chop up others points, so that at the end, what could be read, digested and understood becomes a mess of jumped up "he said/she said". Thats not acceptable. You need to adopt a style where your comments (NOT in bold) are added civilly underneath an entire post (except for maybe the odd one-liner) so people can follow a thread.

(2) Second, you appear to not master the art of civil talk. You have done this in several ways, and pretty much each of them seriously breach wiki policy:

Personal (ad hominen) attacks (myself and several others) ("you sicko")

Did you even read FinalGamer's post? --Ciz 12:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Poisoning the well" attacks (the ludicrous "I googled schnee")

You were asking for proof for my allegations. --Ciz 12:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Unsourced or laughable allegations
Libellous misdescriptions (Schnees 100x100 cartoon avatar described as "photos of animals having sex")

It was a drawing of a wolf with a penis. And that wasnt the only image.--Ciz 12:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ascribing dark motives to anyone who doesn't agree with you
Getting banned and forcing an edit war
Some wonderful opinions on furries (which I'm not one of):

- "You keep on saying I'm 'spamming.' "

- "I say it. At least 2 other users say it. 2 sysops say it. And 3 pages of ranting that attribute fictional incorrect sources to quotes which had sources named, and smear others, say it. Don't."

- "All of whom are furries who defend zoophilia!"

More on furries:

"even though not all furries molest animals". Interesting implication about most furries here. I looked up furry's to check the imformation on them. They are people who are interested in anthropomorphism, which may or may not include anthropomorphism in erotic art.

All the zoos I've seen have been furries. --Ciz 12:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC) (says a lot for your clinical knowledge of zoophilia - FT2)

I prefer to avoid those type of sites, as they disturb me. I find it wrong to be erotically attracted to animals. Just like its disturbing to see a 70 yearold man say how hot a teenager was (which I have seen, incidentally)--Ciz 17:16, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zoo's that are furries are in the minority of Zoo's--Steele 03:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(3) You seem to seriously lack an understanding of Wiki NPOV:

For example, you had said "animals can't consent" and that was taken as an example to show why it was not sufficienlty proven and too POV for an article. Your response: "Bet you have sex with your pets huh?"
Demanding that the title be interpreted in one very extreme way, rather than the way defined in the dictionary, used in the article, used in psychological research, used by the APA since the '70's and used by those directly involved.
In fact you alleged that this meaning was "invented by the bestialists" to make it sound nice, which is not in accordance with any facts a responsible professional would assert.
Massive assumptions - your response more than once to people attempting to keep to NPOV is typically to attack them personally, then dismiss it by saying "If someone defends the sexual abuse of animals (like this entry does) I assume they do [have sex with animals]".

If someone's talking about how its ok to stick your dick into certain animals like horses, I have to wonder. --Ciz 12:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(4) Irrelevancy and ignoring others valid contributions:

You go off on on long rants which end up fillibustering (blocking by excessive verbal rambling) the artciles development
You ignore many items which are valid for NPOV and should not in my view and in the view of several others have been ignored.
You also more seriously have little respect for any material, however accurate sourced or authoritative, which does not suit your own personal POV.

Example: you wanted information on Zoophiles, this was sourced from the Institute for Psychological Therapies.
You denied they had any professional standing (which is untrue) and changed your demand, saying that only something from the APA was good enough.
The APA also have downgraded Zoophilia clinically and state it is not considered an issue other than with minor exceptions. This was told to you.

They stated that while it is not normal, it is victimless. THe criminal justice literature later said this wasnt the case. --Ciz 12:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Correction: APA also said zoophilia per se is not prima facie a clinical issue - FT2)

You ignored it other than to ask for yet other information. Sufficient reference information was given which you could check yourself, like most people would do.
You ignored it.

You have also made a habit of asking for unreasonable verification. Some material is simply not on the web and cannot be shown there, you need to go look for it yourself. Other information you will personally have to review the original research to understand fully, if capable. Examples:

The above information from IPT.
The above information from APA.
How a specific scientific research was performed (I seriously doubt on current performance that you are an appropriate judge of what is good or bad research, wheeras others who peer review articles for publication are)

Im sorry for finding it hypocritic to say "Zoophiles are erotically attracted to animals, but they dont act on it" --Ciz 12:14, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That isn't hypocritical.--Steele 08:10, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes it is. And the point is moot since most zoos 'practice bestiality'--Ciz 14:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hypocrisy: adjective: when someone pretends to believe something that they do not really believe or that is the opposite of what they do or say at another time

Just because you have an sexual attraction to animals does not mean you have to or will act on it. Many Zoos don’t have the money to care for or live in places that won’t allow them to have animals. Thus they are Zoophiles but they are not practicing bestiality. For someone to be hypocritical you would have to be advocating one thing while doing another that contradicts it. Say like if you practiced bestiality while condemning it on this form, -then- you would be a Hypocrite.--Steele 03:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So they cant do it because they dont have the resources. That doesnt mean they wouldnt if they could. --Ciz 00:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that is one of many examples. Regardless, it is not hypocritical to use these words in the way they are defined.--Steele 00:50, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're bending over backwards. --Ciz 01:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am doing what? See the dictionary for yourself.-Steele

You're saying that zoos dont have sex with animals because most zoos cant afford the money to have one. --Ciz 19:38, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, are you listening? Re-read what I said. I didn’t say how many zoos do what. I said you don’t have to have sex with something just because you are sexually attracted to it. For example, many heterosexuals practice abstinence. --Steele

Those that do are in the minority. --Ciz 17:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(5) Ignoring appropriately sourced material

An existing NPOV status quo had been pretty much reached. You ignored all the work of some very careful people, and have to date still not demonstrated a true NPOV grasp of their efforts or its results.
Dismissing serious and substantial points made by contributors, because (of all things) user:FinalGamers post didnt say that(!)
Dismissal of academic sources in favour of quotes from googled web forum quotes of your choosing, and assertations about what you believe some people might think who are not experts in the sociology history and affinity which is the topic of this article. here's your dismissal of Beetz, a major review published internationally, peer reviewed and impartial:

"Love, Violence, and Sexuality in Relationships between Humans and Animals, which you cited? Once again, dont make me laugh"

I have unable to been get that much info, seeing how as the author is German and no english bookstores have it. I will say I found the book listed on the infamous zoophilia.net to justify their actions --Ciz 12:14, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC) (which should suggest something about zoophilia, not something about the report, maybe? - FT2)

As in what? That a site that has a 'guide to having sex with your pet' mentions the book? How is it different than the boylove book? --Ciz 17:16, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Was it created by this website? If not, then the authors have no control over what webpages link to there book. Thats like saying Global Climate change reports from the government are biased because Greenpeace linked to them from there webpage.--Steele 08:10, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, but it supports the message zoophilia.net is trying to send. --Ciz 14:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You mean it is used as evidence to back up their message. That is how you use persuasive arguments to prove you are right. Maybe you could learn something from them.--Steele 03:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just like a pedophile would use the boyloving book I mentioned. --Ciz 00:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Does that book actually have any scientific studies or evidence they are pointing too? If not then you are making a flawed comparison.--Steele 00:50, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Many researchers is the fields of Psychology *snip* Steele:see this or which could create any legal liability. --Ciz 01:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Looks like you left out the part that Amazon called it “amateurishly produced”. Also that was a book produced by an advocate of pedophilia containing his interpretations of the studies. It wasn’t made by a psychologist, like the book on zoophilia. --Steele

And Im sure Amazon gave your book raving reviews, huh? --Ciz 19:37, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do you just ignore everything I type? I already told you I have not contributed to this article. --Steele

You're still sourcing that book. --Ciz 17:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I never sourced it, Ciz! Pay attention, this was about you not me anyways. You never discredited it in the first place.--Steele

Its a book that advocated bestiality. Amazon.com doesnt even have it. --Ciz 12:11, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How would you know that it advocates bestiality when you don't even have access to it? Amazon does have it, just not on that particular website.--Steele

Because 'Love, Violence, and Sexuality in Relationships between Humans and Animals' sounds as reliable as 'Loved boys and the men who love them.--Ciz 14:44, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia sources are not left to the discretion of what random people think it “sounds like”. Books aren’t judge by there cover, and even if they where the first sounds allot more objective then the second example you gave. --Steele

Give me a break. And if the pedophile book had a title like "'Love, Violence, and Sexuality in Relationships between Men and Boys' it'd be ok? --Ciz 03:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You then quoted a book by an acknowledged paedophile saying "check out this, its just as valid"

The "Institute for Psychological Therapies" article:

The article started "Zoophilia, which is reputed to be a traditional activity among farm boys...". Your comment? "I'd make a comment about the intelligence of the good ol' godfearin' citizens of the South, but ..."
It also said "Contrary to popular opinion, zoophilics do not generally have sexual intercourse with animals; rather, their main source of gratification comes from hugging, cuddling, and talking — in a manner similar to a child with a pet", which you likewise ignored.

Except the child does not get orotically gratified by being with his pets. What if a man got turned on by doing the same stuff with his daughter? Would that be ok as well? --Ciz 12:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That doesn't really have anything to do with what the study says.--Steele 08:10, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Replace animal with child. --Ciz 14:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We are talking about Zoophilia, not pedophilia.--Steele 03:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The same logic applies to both. --Ciz 00:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Apples and oranges.--Steele 00:50, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

are both fruit.--Ciz 01:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Right, just like they are both sexualities but that is irrelevant. The point of the statement above is that sex isn’t everything to a zoo, it is just one aspect of a loving relationship. The person may or most likely not become erotically gratified by such mundane activities. --Steele

You're still having sex with the animal. --Ciz 19:37, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that’s what bestiality is. Your point doesn’t address the issue above. --Steele

Zoos have sex with animals. What else is there? --Ciz 17:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What the study says. --Steele

I doubt surveying some zoos is going to be so reliable. --Ciz 12:11, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just as reliable as surveying any other group. We arn't going by peoples personal feelings.

Saying most zoos dont have sex with animals is like saying most people are abstinent. Some are, but they do not represent a large part of the group. --Ciz 14:44, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You concern over trivial sexual relations compared to the real harm that comes to animals by the corporations. --Steele

Changing the subject? "Saying most zoos dont have sex with animals is like saying most people are abstinent. Some are, but they do not represent a large part of the group." And I dont consider sexual abuse to be trivial. --Ciz 03:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(6) Selecting POV private websites as key sources:

In the current talk page your citations are posts on the forum boards of: veggieboards.com, animalrights.net and lifeissues.net.

To show you that the AR community does not consider what Singer and PETA said to be valid. Furthermore, the VeggieBoards link had several good points on how bestiality was harmful and immoral. --Ciz 12:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The first one is a vegetarian board, not animal rights.

They're vegeterians because they care strongly about animal rights. And you forgot animalrights.net--Ciz 14:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just because they are vegetarians doesn’t mean they are pro animal rights. I would know better then you, unless you are a vegetarian too. No I did not forget about animalrights.net, they are a partisan misleading anti animal rights group. If they made a good point post it here.--Steele 03:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Those people on the veggieboards are pro-animal rights. They're against bestiality because they support animals and believe having sex is abusive and therefore wrong. --Ciz 04:25, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A handful of people on a message board hardly qualifies as the opinion of “the AR community”. Anybody can point to someone else that agrees with them. That doesn’t really support the argument.--Steele 00:50, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And I bet you think most animal-rights supporters think having sex with animals is ok? --Ciz 00:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, maybe you shouldn’t be making those assumptions. I have already debated this with many of them on this, so of course that is not the case.--Steele 00:50, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Of course you've debated them, because most people who support animal rights are repulsed and believe it to be animal abuse. --Ciz 01:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Regardless, your “sources” prove nothing and they are no accurate measure of public opinion and don't really contribute anything to the article. --Steele

Public opinion? You yourself said most people dont like bestiality. --Ciz 19:37, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What does that have to do with you lack of sources? --Steele

You're saying that my links "are no accurate measure of public opinion" that most people believe bestiality is abusive, even though you admit yourself most people do. --Ciz 17:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I never denied that a majority didn’t. Regardless, the above are not credible sources and what sad is that’s pretty much the best you have done. --Steele

Its pretty sad that you think having sex with animals is ok. I merely posted a link to show what other Animal Rights people have to say about bestiality. There were several good arguments on that link --Ciz 12:11, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pretty said thats all you really seem to care about when it comes to animals.--Steele

And you're basing this on what? --Ciz 03:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"All the zoophiles I've seen on the internet were furries as well"

(7) Vandalism and ranting

You reverted multiple times material a sysop had indicated was inappropriate edits.
You filled up several archive pages, and mostly this was you, with ranting and long long quotes which were as often as not irrelevant, but distracted the efforts of those who were involved in building consensus for a complex article.

All my replies are in reply to others. --Ciz 12:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You deleted others comments several times. Some people find it hard to see some of these as other than more vandalism.

When? --Ciz 12:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sometime in your editing. I have had to replace some missing text.--Steele 08:10, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You were probably trying to post when I was posting. I've gotten 'conflict' messages sometimes when someone is posting when I am. --Ciz 14:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It doesn’t let me post if someone changed the article before I do.--Steele 03:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

When that happens I just post it again. --Ciz 04:25, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ignoring the need for consensus building

(8) Inventing false arguments and statements which you attributed to others

Persistently (and falsely) claiming that the article was sourced from websites, faiing to grasp the difference between a source and an external link.
"Bestialist was a coined term for animal raper by the zoo community"
"Zoophilia is a term invented by Bestialists used to make it sound nice"

Most people believe that. The words bestiality and zoophilia are as interchangable as Nazi and National Socialist. Even typing in bestiality here redircects you to the zoophilia page. --Ciz 12:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Please read Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms)

Then why does typing in bestiality redirect you this page? --Ciz 17:16, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good question, that should be changed.--Steele 08:10, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The two are as different as boylove and pedophilia, and as the National Socialist party and the Nazi party. --Ciz 14:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Again, bestiality is an action, zoophilia is an emotional attraction.--Steele 00:26, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why are you denying it? You yourself think its ok to have sex with pets. --Ciz 01:26, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Because I go by the facts, not by “what people believe”. The fact is that the dictionaries define bestiality as an action and zoophilia as an attraction.--Steele 03:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd noticed that but hadn't much thought about it, and I do think it's a valid question - where does bestiality belong in wiki? Thats a genuine question, not a red herring. It should be discussed somewhere, along with viewpoints from at least these people:

Those who say it is necessarily and always abusive
Those who say it need not be
Zoophile and animal rights views fairly summarised
Information from research and from others who know about animals
Critiques of points made
Analysis of claims that animals can or can't find sex enjoyable/desirable

I'd be willing to discuss that, and (probably to Ciz's surprise) I'd partly agree with what I think he would say: Logically I'd say it does belong in this article, mainly because of 2 reasons: its daft having them separate when they overlap so much, and because many people do confuse them, so a joint article can clarify that confusion. Ciz I would be broadly willing to agree that discussion of bestiality as a section belongs in this article.

But if I do, it's on the basis we agree to stick by Wiki NPOV terms, which may mean that it includes information in support of those who say it can be okay, as well as information against it, and fairly reflects both views. What I mean is, if the article is amended to have a section on Bestiality, and explains carefully that some people mean zoophilia to include it while others dont, will you accept that the rest of the article is not all about bestiality and let other aspects be given fair treatment even if you don't agree every last detail 100%? And that if we have an argument in it, then you'll be guided by a mediator, or get a neutral advocate to help argue for your side (see Advocate information) so you and we can all be sure it's wiki-fair and stop arguing.

If I am willing to meet you halfway on Steele's question, are you willing to concede that strong arguments and points of view that others believe have the same right to be fully represented, and try to help this article capture all information fairly not just "your way only"? FT2 12:17, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

PS - one last thing.

Either way, the argument that "bestiality is like paedophilia" will probably come out something like "Some people claim animal sex is always abusive because they see it as functionally similar to sex with children, and that bestiality is therefore similar to paedophilia by analogy. The basis of these claims seem to be that bestialists seek weaker victims. However the following refutations by zoophiles, breeders and psychological researchers suggest this is not the case *list*. There is also a large volume of serious research showing that in most cases zoophilic and paedophilic motives are fundamentally different, so no serious psychological research currently draws this conclusion." Thats just so you know, fair warning and no surprises. FT2 12:17, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Pedophiles are sexually attracted to children. Zoophiles are sexually attracted to animals. Pedophiles do not consider the children to be victims. They believe it ok as long as its loving and consensual. The same applies to the zoophiles' views on animals. --Ciz 14:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ciz, you've said which part you disagree with. Which parts can you agree with? FT2 16:19, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

That it's unnatural and animal abuse. --Ciz 17:30, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FT2 I think that is a very good idea. Very good points and I appreciate your neutrality and fairness. Ciz, I think he wants to know if you are okay with and would participate in the methodology described above. Save your opinions for the article that would result.--Steele 03:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(9) Lack of understanding of english

Words such as "maybe", options such as "A or B", or "multiple definitions", where you invariably pick out the one word you like most, ignore the rest, and attribute the most extreme meaning you can to it and claim thats "proof" of what it's saying. Example from talk page explaining the subject of the page:

"Some expressions of disapproval of the act of bestiality were posted and discussed, however the subject of this article is Zoophilia, which covers as has been stated in previous discussion, affection, affinity, attraction or sexual contact"
Your response - "Yes. Sexual contact. With animals. Which is illegal. And animal abuse."

Replace animal with child and you'd have a pedophile. --Ciz 12:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC) (this article isn't about peadophilia, you can replace it with homosexuality too - FT2)

Except homosexuality isnt legal and abusive. If two adults do it consensually, theres nothing wrong with it. But animals and children lack the adult's maturity. --Ciz 17:16, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See our discussions above.--Steele 08:10, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yep. Once again, there's no comparision between homosexuality and bestiality/zoophilia. Two men having sex is different than a man having sex with a dog. I hope you know that--Ciz 14:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yep, just as two men having sex is just as different as a man and a woman having sex. I can make all the comparisons I want as long as they are logical.--Steele 03:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Its still two human adults. They have far more in common with eachother than a man having sex with a dog. A man having sex with dog has far more similiarites with a man having sex with a child.--Ciz 00:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Now you are changing your argument to commonality? An animal is not a child.

But their intelligence is closer to that of a child than that of an adult. --Ciz 01:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, intelligence, I have already addressed that. --Steele

Not properly. --Ciz 19:37, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See disscusion on chlidren --Steele

Many animals are capable of handling sex without being hurt. --Steele

The same can be said for children. --Ciz 01:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A child hasn’t sexually matured. --Steele

Animals do not have to worry about social guilt and mental stress because they had sex with a human. --Steele

Yes, because they lack the intelligence to do so. And a mentally retarded child would 'not have to worry about social guilt and mental stress because they had sex with an adu;lt'

It is not because they lack intelligence, it is that they aren’t part of the human social environment, they have there own. Retarded children can’t consent. --Steele

If they dont try stopping me, I'll assume they dont have a problem with it. --Ciz 19:37, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That is still not consent.--Steele

No less than your idea of consent is. --Ciz 17:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well that is certainly not my idea of consent. --Steele

What if the child starts grabbing my leg? using your logic, that means he wants it. --Ciz 14:44, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, it isn’t. That isn’t my idea of consent.--Steele

yes it is. --Ciz 03:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So I can have sex with mentally retarded children all I want! hurrah --Ciz 01:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Animals do not have to have informed consent because that falls within the judgment of the guardian. --Steele

No, they do have to have informed consent. Stuff like that doesnt fall within the judgement of a guardian. If a father lets a his son have sex with an adult, its still abuse.--Ciz 01:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Animals aren’t children. --Steele

Whats your point? Saying consent falls within the person having sex with them is aburd. --Ciz 19:37, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No I was talking about “informed consent”. Animals just need consent. --Steele

No, they need informed consent just like everyone else. --Ciz 17:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, they aren’t like everyone else, as Oruborus pointed out. --Steele

So that means its ok to rape them? If theyre not like everyone else, maybe that means you shouldnt be able to have sex with them just because you can have sex with everyone else. --Ciz 14:44, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have never supported rape. So I have no idea what you are talking about. If you think people shouldn’t be able to have sex with them the burden of proof is on you. You can’t ask others to prove a negative, which is a fallacy. --Steele

No, if you think people should have sex with them the burden of proof is on you. And you missed this point "If theyre not like everyone else, maybe that means you shouldnt be able to have sex with them just because you can have sex with everyone else" --Ciz 03:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Animals are also sexually mature and enjoy sex just as much if not more then the average adult human does.--Steele 00:50, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I doubt that. Most animals will have sex for the purpose of procreating. Sex doesnt have the emotional attatchment like it does for us. And they'd enjoy it more with their own kind.--Ciz 01:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Boy, you are out of the loop. You really don’t know animals then. Try breaking up two lovers (dogs) and see the stress they go through. I have first hand. How do you know what they think, did you ask them? Or try it yourself? ;) You could make the same baseless claims against humans. Wow, seriously, “no emotional attachment” really tells me allot about what you know about animals, or lack of. Not that you are the only person to have that perpetuated speciesist view of animals.--Steele

I said they dont attach an emotional attatchment to sex itself. --Ciz 19:37, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Which shows how little you know.--Steele

You're just trying to justify your molestation of animals. --Ciz 17:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ouch! More character assassination. Well then, you’re just trying to justify your bigotry! Let’s see who the other belief; one that think animals aren’t emotional creatures or another that does. =)--Steele

Stop acting like you're a poor, persecuted minority. You rape animals. --Ciz 12:11, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Stop acting like you are right. (You rape children.)--Steele

You're the one justifying bestiality. When I start portraying pedophiles as poor innocent victims accused of being sexual predators by evil witchhunters like you do with bestials ("zoos") then you can talk. --Ciz 14:44, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

haha, we ARE talking! Yes, I am justifying bestiality when it is consensual and mutually satisfying relationship.

So you are justifying bestiality. When did I say otherwise? --Ciz 03:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Stop using personal attacks against me, and I will stop using them on you.--Steele

My attacks are grounded in fact. --Ciz 03:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Let’s see who the other belief; one that think animals aren’t emotional creatures or another that does. =)--Steele

I never denied animals werent emotional. Just that they werent as intelligent as us and that having sex with them is abusive. --Ciz 12:11, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Which is it, they do or they don’t, you have already contradicted yourself once above--Steele

Once again, I have never said that animals werent emotional. --Ciz 14:44, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Except when it comes to sex.--Steele

Yes. It is a known fact that the only other animals that view sex the way we do are dolphins and apes. --Ciz 03:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(10) Weasle Words

"Most people agree with me in saying..."
"Only a fringe few support it..."

(research now suggests ~ >= 50% of clinicians feel it is not a clinical condition)

Most people do agree with me. --Ciz 12:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Please read Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms)

(11) Odd comments:

"He's not defending anything, he's refuting your point with actual research. If you perhaps had some actual neutral points to share, I would listen to you, as would the rest of us. But you don't, and not only that, you can't even argue without resorting to personal attacks. Why would you think we'd want to even speak with you when all you can do is rant?" (PMC)

Was this in response to my post criticising someone for saying how when dogs humped someone's legs, therefore they wanted sex and it was consensual? --Ciz 12:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"By the way, you've really got to quit assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is into this whole boinking-their-pets hobby" (FOo)

Apologies if any duplication, I thought it was worth summarising the above for once. Ciz - add any comments BELOW this, in accordance with Wiki style, and without massive quotations being needed. FT2 07:12, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Do you believe animals to be near our level of intelligence? Yes or no. --Ciz 12:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have an opinion on that rather loaded question. It isn't very complimentary to your intelligence though, you wouldn't like it. My radar says that it's more an attempt to change the subject and say (in effect) "none of what I've done matters because you're all either with me or against me". My personal views are irrelevant on Wiki. Your conduct is not. My personal views on subjects would be POV (which is why I don't go into them). Your conduct is heavily against Wiki policy.

The arguments we have here are about your conduct and advocacy, your personal attacks and disrespect for quality research. We just aren't interested in your "he said/she said", or unsupported accusations. We don't care what cartoons schnee might use as avatars, and we ignore the weasel words "it wasnt the only image" because if there was a genuine photo of the kind you describe you would have linked that instead. We don't care what is "popularly imagined" if its born of ignorance without substance, then you have to consider it may be suspect in terms of neutrality.

So you're saying those who believe having sex with animals is rape are ignorant? Give me a break. --Ciz 14:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, just those that can't argue a point and fallow the wiki policy.--Steele 00:26, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think its because you dont like the fact that I think having sex w/animals is abusive. --Ciz 01:26, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I don't like that idea because it is a reckless assumption that can end up costing good people there livelihoods, freedom, and even get their companions killed. However, that is not the reason I said that. Do you want me to post what the top of this section ("Too Ciz") says in its introduction? It is about you and your actions, not zoophilia/bestiality. They want you to fallow the Wiki-policy.--Steele 03:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am against the killing of animals to get evidence that they were molested.I find it hypocritical to punish someone for hurting the animal and then killing said animal. Besides that; cry me a river. Having sex with animals will always be abuse no matter what they think about the animals. I hope they get arrested so no more animals will be harmed. --Ciz 04:25, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for proving another one of my points. In your campaign (and others) against bestiality you don’t even have the foresight to think about what really happens to the animal after the “owner” is convicted of that crime. Let me give you a hint, after seizing the animal the government (which could care less) doesn’t bother looking for a nice home so the animal can live “happily ever after”. The animal is either killed or thrown in the shelter where it will most likely die anyways.

Or where someone will adopt it. Furthermore, there would be more spaces in the shelter if people neutered their pets, but you bestiality advocates oppose it because you cant have sex with a neutered animal. --Ciz 00:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And where does the government put animals to be adopted? In shelters! Where I just pointed out they are dieing by the millions. You are listening, right? When did I say I was against Spaying and Neutering? Maybe you don’t know most “bestiality advocates” as well as you think you do. First of all I have gotten many animals SandN. Secondly, the Zoophilies who do voice their opinion on SandN offer an alternative, vasectomies, which are healthier for the animal anyways.--Steele 00:50, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They want vasectomies because you can still have sex with an animal that has had a vasectomy.--Ciz 01:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is possible to have sex with spayed animals. Actually it is sexual mutilation, you wouldn’t like your genitals cut off either.

Considering how neutering animals makes them happier and less agressive, I dont think they mind.

Makes them happier? What is that based on what!? --Steele

They are more agitated and aggressive when they are not neutered. This is common knowledge. So's how much you know. --Ciz 17:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That’s like saying men would be less aggressive and violent if they had there balls removed (must be all that testosterone). If you are such a believer in that why don’t you serve as an example? Maybe it would reduce your spam on this board, lol ;)--Steele

Because (and I know this is hard for you to believe) animal are not human. --Ciz 14:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But humans (“and I know this is hard for you to believe”) are animals. The difference between the male of one species to another is very moot when we are talking about castration.--Steele

Yes, but not all animals are humans. --Ciz 15:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You already said that. --Steele

Yes. What was your previous point? --Ciz 03:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That and it is healthier for the animal. If it was just about sex for them, they wouldn’t be advocating it. They can after all just buy there own in tact animal. BTW I know the person who does ASAIRS was referring to. They think a few Zoos (3 or 4) equals a big anti-spay zoo conspiracy. --Steele

A neutered animal wont go into heat, ect. And most vetenerians and animal rights organizations advocate neutering and spaying your animals. --Ciz 19:37, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, it’s because it makes them better servile playthings for the average human. That reduces the amount of owner abandoned dogs at shelters. --Steele

As opposed to sex objects for people like you? Almost everyone advocates neutering. A fringe few wackos like you dont because you want to have sex with them. --Ciz 17:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Characters assignation again! Right I commodity the animals be treating them as my equals, now that makes sense. This is probably coming from someone who eats meat and participates in supporting all the other cruel industries. What was that word now? Hypocrite?--Steele

If treating them as equals involves sexually abusing them, than yes. --Ciz 14:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If by “sexually abusing them” you mean having mutually enjoyable sex then yes but doesn’t require.--Steele 23:55, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It doest matter. Just like it doesnt matter if a 15 year-old throws herself at you. Its still abuse. --Ciz 15:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am not talking about 15 year olds and throwing herself at be doesn’t automatically qualify as a sexual advance. --Steele

Its statuatory rape. --Ciz 03:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is a good illustration of how anti-bestiality advocates are just more worried about people having sex with animals then they are for the actual animal. On top of that, you would want others to “cry you a river” if someone killed your lover and equal too.

Since the owner is responsible for most of the animal's wellbeing (feeding, taking them outside, taking them to the vets) they are cetainly not equal. And if I cared less about the animals I wouldnt care that they were being molested. Most anti-bestiality people are against because they are concerned for the animals and believe its animal abuse. Stop crying victim, because if anyone's a victim its the poor animals being sexually assaulted by perverts like you. --Ciz 00:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A wife caring for her sick or injured husband is still an equal to him.

Most wives dont have to take care of their husbands. All owners have to take care of their pets. A normal pet will need to be taken care of. A normal husband can take care of himself. --Ciz 01:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well I wasn’t talking about most wives, so that doesn’t refute my example or point.--Steele

Yes it does. A normal pet cant take of itself. A normal husband can. --Ciz 19:37, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Again, I wasn’t talking about a normal husband. See discussion on feral cats.--Steele

Feral cats do not represent most cats. Once again, you are missing the argument. Every pet cat needs to be taken care of. They are not equals.--Ciz 17:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wasn’t talking about most cats; do you know how to stick to the subject at hand? Obviously, not because the point was not how many cats are feral but are they capable of taking care of themselves. --Steele

Feral cats are usually domesticated cats born in the wild. If you released your pet cat it would not survive for as long. --Ciz 14:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That’s moot, the point is cats are capable of taking care of themselves. --Steele

Only if they're born on the streets. And its moot, because most pet cats do not take care of themselves; their owner does. They are more similiar to children than to spouses, which you compare them to. --Ciz 15:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There are many housecats that can learn to live in the streets.

And there are many more who cant and who die. --Ciz 03:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cats ARE capable of taking care of themselves, that’s all I needed to make my point. Whether or not someone is cared for is moot, I didn’t say we where the same, I said they are our equals. Unlike others I don’t put my own interest above other animals.--Steele

Then let your cats fend for themselves. If a cat escapes and cant find its way back (and isnt found by another person), it will most likely starve, be eaten, or be run over. Thats the sad truth. --Ciz 03:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Again I don’t “own” any animals, they are my companions. --Steele

You bought them, right? --Ciz 01:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, I have never nor will I ever buy any animal. My animals are all rescued from certain death. --Steele

So you didnt pay anything for them. --Ciz 19:37, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What part of, “I have never nor will I ever buy any animal” don’t you understand?--Steele

You might think that you are “caring about the animals” but the more you respond the more it seems like you are more motivated out of disgust and dislike then in the animals interest. --Steele

You can believe what you want. I support animal rights a lot. I love animals and I dont like seeing them hurt or abused. I believe, as do most people, that having sex is abusive. --Ciz 01:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do you eat meat, do you buy leather, drink milk, ever buy an animal, give any money, do any work or activism for them? What most people think hasn’t always been right. --Steele

Zoophilia has just as much a chance of being accepted as pedophilia is. This isnt something like saying the earth is flat. --Ciz 19:37, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That doesn’t refute my point, which was the status quo isn’t always right. Of course it is unlikely to be accepted. Dodging my questions?--Steele

So what are you trying to say? That because of that, having sex with animals is ok even though most people believe its abusive? Once again, no. Just because most people once believed the earth is flat doesnt change it.--Ciz 17:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You keep bringing up “what most people think” which isn’t a defense for your argument, the masses have been wrong before. --Steele

Using your logic, I can say theyre wrong about thinking murder and rape is ok., because most think its wrong --Ciz 14:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That’s not what I said. Re-read my statement.--Steele

You keep bringing up “what most people think” which isn’t a defense for your argument, the masses have been wrong before. --Ciz 03:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you support the government confiscating the animal, then it is apparent that you don’t. --Steele

Most animals are adopted via a shelter. And if you support molesting animals, I assume you dont. --Ciz 01:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It isn’t a matter of what I believe. If you support that policy then its people like you we need to worry about not most zoos. A vast majority of the animals that are born die in those same shelters. There you go with your assumptions again.--Steele

Most pets are adopted from shelters. And people should be worried about sexual predators like you who prey on animals and justify it by saying its love, just like pedophiles who molest young boys do. --Ciz 19:37, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dodge the issue again, and with character assassination too. Most animals still die at those shelters and my point still stands that you are supporting an unnecessary cretin death policy for animals.

Some animals do die, but its not 'most of them.' And one could think being put to sleep is better than being raped by some pervert every night. --Ciz 17:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Most of them die, maybe you would know if you actually had any experience. Thanks for proving my point, you are more infatuated with stopping any interspecies sex no matter the cost to the animal. --Steele

I don’t want the animals to be molested. It’s abusive, and just like any case when the owner is abusive, the pet needs to be removed from the household. --Ciz 14:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fathers need to keep there daughters safe from people like you who bang them up and get them pregnant.--Steele

When I start fervently advocating and justifying pedophilia like you advocate bestiality then you can say that. Unlike you, I dont believe in sexually abusing people or animals. --Ciz 17:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That’s not what it sounds like to me, you are so obsessed with it, PEDOPHILE! (lol)--Steele

Like I said, when you see me start to justify it you'll have something you can stand on. Unlike you, I have never advocated pedophilia because its sexually abusing children and I dont believe in sexual abuse (unlike you) --Ciz 14:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Probably because you can’t find a way to defend it. Still doesn’t change the fact you still like to molest little kids.--Steele

Actually, Im sure all of your arguments for bestiality would work just fine for pedophilia as well. :) --Ciz 15:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No they wouldn’t because I don’t defend screwing prepubescent animals like Pedophiles do.

Your arguments would still work for them. Zoos and pedophiles use similiar arguemtns. --Ciz 03:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is not like you can in the first place. Your argument works well for any witch hunter. --Steele

Please. Its no more of a witchhunt than going after NAMBLA members. Stop molesting animals if you want to be left alone. --Ciz 03:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fathers need to keep there daughters safe from people like you who bang them up and get them pregnant.--Steele

When I start fervently advocating and justifying pedophilia like you advocate bestiality then you can say that. Unlike you, I dont believe in sexually abusing people or animals. --Ciz 17:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That’s not what it sounds like to me, you are so obsessed with it, PEDOPHILE! (lol)--Steele

Funny. My accusations are grounded in fact (i.e. you wholely endorse bestiality). Yours just come out of nowhere. --Ciz 15:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Like how you like to accuse people of screwing animals because they don’t agree with you. Yeah, good track record. Where are these facts now? --Steele

If they advocate bestiality I start to wonder. You yourself said you have several zoos as friends. --Ciz 03:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

People you speak of assume it is wrong because it is so taboo. It is not like the average person would even come to the defense of the Zoo. --Steele

Because the average person has enough braincells to realize f*cking animal is abuse. --Ciz 01:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not to long ago “the average person” had “enough brain cells to realize” homosexuality was wrong. (or is that lack of) --~~`

For religious reasons. Most people object to homosexuality for religious reasons. Most people object to bestiality because its abusive. --Ciz 19:37, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, its religion for the same reasons and disgust--Steele

People do not object to it on grounds of religion. They object to it because its abuse. --Ciz 17:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fine, religious based prejudice masquerading as animal welfare.--Steele

No, its because people believe it to be abusive. The Bible says nothing about pedophilia, yet most people believe it to be abusive. You cant blame everything on the Bible. When most people argue against homosexuality, they use stuff like “The Bible says blah blah.” When people argue against bestiality, they say how its abusive towards the animal. --Ciz 14:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In there own words, it is the same reasoning: http://www.carm.org/1-questions_sex.htm --Steele

Most people who are against bestiality aren't religious groups but animal rights people. And none of the AR sites Ive been to use the Bible to condemn it. Most arguments against homosexuality use religion; most arguments against bestiality are because because its abusive.

And the Bible says nothing about pedophilia. --Ciz 15:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Like how you like to accuse people of screwing animals because they don’t agree with you. Yeah, good track record. Where are these facts now?--Steele

??? --Ciz 03:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why should I stop, you still have not ever proven your own position. Now you are resorting to personal attacks? There you go again, attack other with the “you must have sex with animals” argument. Didn’t the other people here ask you not to do that?--Steele 00:50, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The other posters havent come out and defended it outright like you have. --Ciz 01:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. So what that I have? That doesn’t give you the right to order me to stop or attack me like that. --Steele

You dont have the right to have sex with animals, yet that doesnt stop you. --Ciz 19:37, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Changing the subject again. I notice most of your defenses require that you deflect the issue to some other irrelevant issue.--Steele

Its not irrelevant. The topic is bestiality. --Ciz 17:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The topic reads “to Ciz” not “Ciz, debate zoophilia here”.--Steele

The url is ‘’’talk: zoophilia’’’ --Ciz 14:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And the section under “talk:zoophilia” is “to Ciz”, started to talk about your conduct. Or at least it was BEFORE you deleted the first piece of the section. Now, it’s back. --Steele

I deleted it because this topic is becoming too large and stuff needs to be deleted. The stuff adds nothing to the current conversation and it can always be viewed in history. --Ciz 15:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You have yet to ever prove that bestiality is intrinsically abusive. That is of course because you can’t. That is why they have to pass bestiality laws, because there is no abuse to prosecute them under in the first place! Animal welfare laws already protect animals from harm but you are advocating more then that.--Steele 19:46, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, many states that dont have anti-bestality laws can still arrest you on grounds of animal abuse if you are caught having sex with animals.

As for the abuse part. http://asairs.net/medical_concerns.htm --Ciz 00:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You don’t listen do you? A majority of sexual relations between humans and non-human animals don’t cause any damage to either participant. --Steele

If I wore a condum and made a mentally retarded child suck my cock, I dont see how he would be harmed. The condum would prevent any supposed stds, and since he's retarded he wouldnt worry about social guilt and mental stress. --Ciz 01:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So you forced the child to do that? Enough said. --Steele

So if I didnt force the underage person to have sex with me, then its ok? If you think all underage people are forced into having sex with adults, you have a lot to learn. --Ciz 19:37, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Right, because children are know for their sexual promiscuity unlike animals. LOL--Steele

Ever hear of the increasing rate of teen pregnancies??? --Ciz 17:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ever hear the actual definition of Pedophilia(prepubescent)!?--Steele

So you believe its ok to have sex with underage teenagers because they’re not prepubescent?? (which most people and the law regard as pedophilia) --Ciz 14:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, It depends. 17 to 19 year olds? --Steele

I thought you said pedophilia only applied to prepubscents. Once they enter puberty (in their early teens) its ok, right? If its not, you need to change your definition of pedophilia. --Ciz 15:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You obviously don’t know what most people think because a majority of anti-bestiality laws haven’t been passed by animal rights groups. They are too busy with real issues, like actual animal abuse (clue: asairs doesn’t count). You seem to be basing this off your own personal experience. If you want to see where a majority of the complaints about bestiality come from surf the conservative/right news groups. --Steele

Umm... no. ASPCA and HSUS both oppose bestiality. --Ciz 03:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ASAIRS, is a partisan hack job on zoos that was founded by two disgruntled and disturbed zoophiles. Both have quit and handed the website over to other people. --Steele

I wouldnt expect you to support such a site that is against animal sexual abuse. Though its funny that you accuse me of slandering my opponent with accusations.

Duh, because they are which hunters!

That is an irrelevant term. The witch hunt was based on false accusations that the women were witches who worshipped Satan practiced witchcraft, when none of them did that. People do have sex with animals. The two arent comparable. --Ciz 19:37, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you captain obvious. Maybe I wasn’t talking about the literal definition. Witch-hunt; the searching out and deliberate harassment of those (as political opponents) with unpopular views.--Steele

If you dont want to be arrested, dont molest animals. --Ciz 17:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good, cause I don't. --Steele

Your friends do. --Ciz 14:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You don’t know who my friends are.--Steele

You've mentioned how they've had sex with animals. --Ciz 15:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I haven’t given out the specifics of my friends. --Steele

You've said enough. --Ciz 03:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The new management is better, though. Are you trying to say it isn’t partisan? Don’t believe me? Maybe you should go meet the guys or read up on their stalking of zoos. --Steele

I dont doubt its not partisan. Then again, neither is PETA or other organizations. And I could care less if they stalk zoos. Since innocent animals are in danger of being molested, its necessary. I dont find it anymore wrong than the CIA going after NAMBLA members. --Ciz 19:37, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So you don’t believe in civil liberties. Good to know where you stand on issues like that.--Steele

I dont believe in animal abuse either. You do. --Ciz 17:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

...Says the hypocrite.--Steele

Says the person who advocates molesting animals. --Ciz 14:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Says the person who actually perpetuates real harm on animals through his participation of the animal exploiting industries.--Steele

Dodging the topic? --Ciz 15:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No more then you are while pointing out your misappropriated priorities. --Steele

Like I said... --Ciz 03:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The examples they listed on there websites are things that CAN happen as a result from bestiality. These things can also happen in any other form of sex like human - human or animal - animal intercourse.

Not even half of that stuff happens in normal sex. The bodily fluids of animals contain many proteins that are foreign to humans. Introducing foreign proteins into the body can cause a strong immune and allergic reaction. This is also true in the opposite direction. Animals can have severe allergic reactions to the fluids of the human body, causing them immense discomfort and could possibly even be life threatening to them if the reaction is strong enough. Animals were designed by nature to have specific limited duration breeding cycles with their own kind. The females come into breeding estrus twice per year, the rest of the time the female is in a period of diestrus for repair and rest. Females are only drawn to the males for breeding, and can actively breed during a limited time of each of these cycles. --Ciz 01:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That would be news to the people and animal participating in it! Key words “can” like some humans “can” die from eating peanuts because of allergic reactions. Just like you “can” get an STD from sex.

You can only get an std if your partner has one.

Seeing as how STDs are species specific.--Steele

Even though AIDS was spread by a man having sex with a monkey. --Ciz 17:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Except, it wasn’t.--Steele

Except, it was. --Ciz 14:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

http://www.avert.org/origins.htm Where is your evidence?

AIDS is caused by HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus). This disease is...*snip* ...could have been possible by either drinking the blood of monkeys, eating raw monkeys, or perhaps another direct exposure of monkey blood into humans. --Ciz 15:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yep, thats right. --Steele

"perhaps another direct exposure of monkey blood into humans." --Ciz 03:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gee, a dog at the park got its bodily fluids (drool) on me last time, should I worry about it?

Not unless his bodily fluids mixed with yours.--Ciz 19:37, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Damn, no more doggie kisses?--Steele

That depends on whether or not you're passionately making out with the dog. The dog licking you wont give you stds no more than someone with an std will by kissing you. --Ciz 17:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Strange, one of my colleagues huskies came up to me and passionately licked me on the mouth while I sat there and smiled. I wonder why I didn’t break out and suffer from some horrible disease as they claim.--Steele

Once again, licking your face is different than having a blowjob. --Ciz 14:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

”exchange of bodily fluids.”--Steele

So kissing a person is just as serious as having sex with a person? --Ciz 15:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That’s not what we are talking about, according to asairs I should be sick from my regular interaction with dogs. It is nothing but fear mongering as they are presenting the (most unlikely) worse case scenario. I take bigger risk driving to work each day. --Steele

Thats not what ASAIRS is saying. Getting licked by your dog isnt the same as giving it a blowjob. --Ciz 03:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Last time I check zoos and their companions where not breaking out in rashes and getting sick. --Steele

What, do you attend a fanclub or something? --Ciz 19:37, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I know enough of them to know better then someone who gets their info from ASAIRS.--Steele

That doesnt surprise me. I bet you all have mass orgies. --Ciz 17:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And I bet you rape little children in your basement.--Steele

Why would you get that idea? Im not the one portraying pedophiles as poor, innocent victims of a witch hunt ran by narrow-minded bigots. Im not the one portraying pedophilia as acceptable. Yet you have for bestiality. I have stated that I believe pedophilia to be abusive. I have pointed out the thin line between pedophilia and bestiality, and how they are extremely similar. You have advocated bestiality, saying it is acceptable and that there’s nothing wrong with having sex with an animal. . --Ciz 14:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Except, we aren’t talking about pedophilia. Unless we where talking about raping puppies that would be different. Sexual maturity.--Steele

So its ok to rape someone who's sexually mature? And you dodged the rest of my point--Ciz 15:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I didn’t say that, I don’t know why you think I wood (then again you seem to keep making these wild assumptions). Point? You had a point to that? I already told to you the difference, what else do you want? I can’t read your mind. --Steele

You're saying its ok to have sex with animals if they're sexually mature. Teenagers are sexually mature, yet it'd still be abuse and statutary rape. --Ciz 03:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Female humans also have those same cycles too, but that doesn’t stop them from having sex. --Steele

Yeah, but they usually have sex with another human. And once again, animals dont place the same emotional attachment to sex that humans do.--Ciz 19:37, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That is the rumor. Actually it’s thanks to meat eaters. Just like SARS and avian bird flu. They believe it was contracted after someone killed a monkey and ate it. Not unlikely in an area where monkey brains are a delicacy.--Steele

Mm hm. And didnt you say there was a lot of bestiality there? --Ciz 17:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes Ciz... Because. Of. AIDs.

I could demonize heterosexual intercourse with some fundamentalist website but that doesn’t make it accurate or truthful. ASAIRS doesn’t point out that you don’t have to worry about unwanted pregnancy and the common dangerous STDs that humans get from each other.--Steele 00:50, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You can't get pregnant, but you can get stds. Dont humour yourself. It is far more dangerous. And one word for unwanted pregnancy: abortion. --Ciz 01:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lol, you sound like you think people are getting on with every wild filthy animal in sight. Yeah, you can get STDs from “sharing” an animal with a person who already has one which is an uncommon action anyways. No, it’s actually safer because the stds and germs are designed for dog not humans and same for the other way around (aka, why there is an increase in bestiality in Africa).

Thats how AIDS was spread. --Ciz 19:37, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That is the rumor.--Steele

That is assuming you think it is okay to have abortions and the woman will have one in the first place. --Steele

Thats their problem. And the answer to reducing unwanted pregnancy is "Condoms/birth control" not "Molesting your dog" --Ciz 19:37, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That wasn’t your point. You where making the argument that you shouldn’t have sex because of stds/diseases.--Steele

And because its molesting the animal. --Ciz 17:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can’t stick to the topic? --Steele

We are. You said I said you shouldnt have sex with animals because of stds. I said its also because you're molesting the animal. --Ciz 03:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We want a change in your approach now, which respects others, and the above list is a summary at present of your shortcomings as a wiki-ist. FT2 15:39, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

It had to do with the topic in hand. Do you believe animals are as intelligent as us? The answer is no. Their intelligence is similiar to that of a child's. Since they are not of similiar intelligence, having sex would be wrong and abusive. --Ciz 17:16, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ciz, he is talking about your conduct not the issue of this article.--Steele 03:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

...all of which is pretty much advocacy and not relevant to the topics at hand, which are in order of priority for Wikipedia right now:

1. Your conduct and its major repeated breaches of wiki policy

2. The progress of the article, specifically its focus versus your present obsession with what you believe it should be about.

FT2 17:59, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, just dodge my point. --Ciz 18:48, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ciz, your point is not relevant to the article. PMC 00:45, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's related to bestialit/'zoophilia.' --Ciz 12:15, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thats not what this section is about. It is about your conduct. Whether you are right or not, that does not exclude you from fallowing Wiki-policy.--Steele 03:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What is relevant is this wiki editng guideline:

"Please note: be bold in updating pages does not mean that you should make deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects... In many such cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. An incautious edit to such an article can be akin to stirring up a hornet's nest, and other users who are involved in the page may react angrily

"If you encounter an article on a controversial subject that you would like to edit, first read the comments on the talk page and view the Page history to get a sense of how the article came into being and what its current status is. Then, if you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, you should either:

If the material in question is a sentence or so in length, copy it to the Talk page and list your objections there.
If the material is longer than a sentence, list your objections on the Talk page but leave the main article as it is.

"Then, wait a bit for responses. If no one objects, proceed."

Just maybe Ciz didn't realise this was a guideline, and maybe he did think honestly that he was doing right by editing it all. But please, read the above and understand its a co-operative effort. Like raising a family, we do it together, and work together so the resulting article is a good one meeting the high editorial quality common in wikipedia. FT2 01:14, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

I highly doubt he even knew that page existed until now. -- Schnee 16:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Plenty of people objected to the 'lifestyle' entry. It's still there. --Ciz 17:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But we can't change it untill we debate it, and you wont fallow guidlines so we can't debate until then.--Steele 03:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)