Talk:Zoophilia and health
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives:
- /Archive1 - initial creation note, introduction needing to cover all areas not just zoonoses, human-human STD missing, degree of detail for allergies (agreed to cover zoophilia-related not all possible allergies), rabies necessary detail (saliva-to-skin), format of zoonosis table, and a clumsy brucellosis wording fix.
[edit] Brucellosis antigen issues
A comment on talk:Zoophilia suggests that in places where zoonoses such as brucellosis are common, the majority of the population will have developed antigens through meeting the condition as part of their everyday life and exposure, and (I would imagine) will also have increased resistance (similar to natives of malaria countries being more resistant to their native zoonoses).
Can we do some digging on this? Is the increased endemic rate of some zoonoses balanced out by the widespread exposure and antigen presence in the human population? If so, then are conditions such as brucellosis in fact just parts of everyday life in some countries that people will often be exposed to anyhow, and where the majority already having antigens are not in fact at risjk in the same way a visitor would be?
I guess what I'm after is information on how widespread resistance or immunity to zoonoses is, as well as how widespread the zoonoses are themselves.
One byproduct is that visitors to an area (as with many diseases) may be the ones at risk, and far less so natives, regardless whether the zoonosis is endemic or rare, and regardless whether sexually transmitted or otherwise vectored.
Expert views? FT2 (Talk | email) 21:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant antibodies to antigens, not simply antigens. The sera of most vets in the USA contains antibodies to dog brucellosis, and about 57% of men and 70% or women do likewise, in the USA. This would suggest far more animals carry the bacterium than we would think. Now the presence of antibodies means exposure, not necessarily infection. Infection depends on many things, including the genetic make-up of the person being exposed, his/her health at the time, but mostly on the degree of exposure (was it one bacterium that landed in the mouth from an aerosol, or was it billions of bacteria that sat in the vagina for hours?), etc. If this topic interests you, follow it up with this study. Skoppensboer 19:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Perhaps it's because you're confused about the difference between antibody and antigen Skoppensboer 15:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Title
Still not sure the title works for me. (In part because not all sex with animals is "zoophilia".) Should we come up with some alternatives and RFC it? On a side, I've also linked this from zoonosis and sexually transmitted disease, and added appropriate categories. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Update: I've temporarily moved this from "zoophilia and health" to a new title, because the term "zoophilia" is sufficiently unknown and marginal that its hard to link it from places such as sexually transmitted disease without causing editorial and reader difficulty. (ie, it needs an explanation to clarify what its about, and Wikipedia tends not to have explanations in "see also" sections.)
- I don't have a problem with further discussion or even a revert back to the original title if discussion finds that a consensus, but at present it seems problematic to me, and I'm hoping this title will work better, at least as a working title, until we can discuss it more. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Please, the way to go with a page I started and on which I requested discussion (see above) before major changes is FIRST to discuss the page name THEN make a change once we agree, not change it against my express request and then say that it is "problematic". "Zoophilia" is the new name for bestiality, bestiality redirects to zoophilia, so "Zoophilia and health" it will remain. Skoppensboer 15:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Strange that I had absolutely no difficulty inserting a clear link in places where people can't grok "zoophilia" by typing: [[Zoophilia and health|Health implications of having sex with animals]]
- Where there's a will there's a way, as they say. Skoppensboer 16:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Region info
I'm less convinced of having region info in the table since most is "worldwide". So, should I remove the column or in some other way indicate those few diseases (rabies, brucella etc) that have restricted distribution? Skoppensboer 19:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the regional info. Simple and effective, and it doesnt look like a waste presented that way, even if many have the same entry. Also keeps it simple for those which do need it. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Propagandic tone
-
- You begin by saying the article is propagandic in tone (note: there is no such word as "propagandic" -- I think you mean propagandistic) but give no reason why other than your dislike of a pic of an organism discussed on the page. Absurd comment, on the face of it. Skoppensboer 19:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
A few notes about this page, from a disinterested third party perspective:
1) Including a picture of a virus on the "headline page" borders on shock tactics. I would suggest that this picture be moved to a relevant sub-section. --Action Jackson IV 18:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Why don't you suggest a better graphic? And just fyi, it's a bacterium, not a virus. Skoppensboer 19:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
2) In the table, it would help to add a "Hu" in species. This way, one could seperate diseases that are exclusively the result of human-animal intercourse with those that can also be passed on through human-human sexual relations (fleas, for instance). --Action Jackson IV 18:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Fleas would be the only one, so it would be overkill to add that wrinkle. Skoppensboer 19:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
3) HIV (the "AIDS" virus) was originally a zoonosis acquired from animals in Africa[7]. It only lives in primates (humans, apes and monkeys) and is not believed to survive long in other species. Conversely, sexual intercourse with an animal will not avoid or cure AIDS -- first off, the word "conversely" is used unintelligently (reminds me of when people write "irregardless"). Secondly, this statement should be qualified - sex with an ape or a monkey will not prevent AIDS, and sex with an animal with multiple partners will not. However, since the virus does not live long in non-primates, sex with a dog, goat, sheep, donkey, horse, tarauntula, cockatoo, what have you, within the context of a monogamous relationship, would in fact be a way of avoiding the AIDS virus. Of course, there is no known cure for AIDS, so yes, sex with an animal will not cure the AIDS virus. --Action Jackson IV 18:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- "Conversely" is perfectly correctly used, according to dictionary.com. conversely, adv : with the terms of the relation reversed; "conversely, not all women are mothers" So the meaning is: AIDS came from animals to humans. Conversely, humans with AIDS having sex with animals will not cure AIDS. It's the obverse of the issue. But if you find it confusing, I'll change it. Skoppensboer 19:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Oh, and BTW, I'd already removed the "avoid" part of the sentence before I read this, so that is no longer a concern. Skoppensboer 19:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Just my $0.02. --Action Jackson IV 18:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- That much? :) Skoppensboer 19:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Outstanding issues
The only issues I have left with the page are:
- The title, which I still think would be better as "health aspects of sexual acts with animals"
- The shades of pink, eg on the "rabies" line, do we really want to use two shades of the same color (eg lighter and darker pink), is this best? Comments? (I'm 50/50 on it, are you ok with it?)
- Those zoonoses labelled as "worldwide"... a number of those zoonoses are probably worldwide in the sense that they occur in many countries. But are often eliminated, absent or rare in many others. Can you review the "worldwide"s and see if we can find a better way to describe. Maybe a code for "worldwide" and a separate code for that?
Other than those I'm reasonably happy with how it looks. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- That would be a good subtitle, I'd agree. I know you're sensitive about the politics of using zoophilia in the title, and not because people find it confusing to make links. They have to learn what it means, don't they? Or do you want them to keep using "bestiality", because zoosexual is even more obscure, possibly a neologism (not in a database that covers all published studies in psychiatry), and frankly a clumsy word. To me, the key thing is that we are talking about bestiality here. That's the word that has been used for centuries, and it's still what 95%+ of people think its called. I'm okay in putting Bestiality and health as the title. That would be WP acting as a true third source, not setting the pace, but following, which is what Jimbo wants. I think the title you propose is awkward, ungainly, & overly wordy. I think that if we accept a dumbed down title like that, then we should rename all the pages along the same lines. The zoophilia page could become something like "Love or attraction of humans to other species" -- hey, that's much easier to understand than zoophilia, right? Then the page titled Zoonoses should be renamed "Diseases that animals can transmit to man". See where I'm going? So I'm pretty much set on keeping the title as is. We can get more disinterested opinions if you like.
- I'll check it out. I chose that pink bec. it's a "web safe color", but some other shade (light yellow?) may be better. I'll experiment and you comment.
- You know, I'm all for dropping the regional distribution thing. The paragraph on Brucellosis points out that it's rare in the US, and the rest of the zoonoses are so widely distributed, including in the US, that it may be better letting readers research that complex detail in the fact sheets or other wiki pages. I'm for removing the whole region column, perhaps replacing it with another, more informative column. Skoppensboer 15:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Points taken. (1) I like the present color scheme and infill, thats that one solved. (2) I think regional distribution may not be needed fully, but it does encourage accurate representatiion in the event that some zoonosis is added or ranges change. Sometimes its leaving a space for certain information that makes people aware that information is there, whether it is merely to confirm worldwide spread, or to think about range rather than assume it. (3) I do see where you're going on the title, but that one I don't yet agree. The issue for me isn't political correctness, its that this page ranges wider than just zoophilia and to tag it with the title of a paraphilia suggests its only relevant to that paraphilia. It will get it marginalised perhaps a little. In fact its a page which is relevant to any sexual contact, possibly including vets, breeders, zoologists and doctors, and I think if it was titled slightly differently, it would be far more explanatory and visible to those who need it. That one I'm happy to RFC in a while though, its not a huge thing, but seems a good idea to me. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Good, then, when you have the time to insert the RfC, let's RfC it for a few months to garner some decent comments. There's no hurry on this, and I think we'll both benefit from the insight of others. It takes a while to get diverse comments on this fairly obscure topic. I'm open to persuasion by other minds. I hope we don't only get paraphilics commenting though :( Skoppensboer 20:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Agreeable to rfcing for a decent period. I doubt that 3 months will tell us much more than one month would, but some weeks certainly, maybe an RFC reminder, and we'll probably get a feel for responses as the few we get arrive. And you'd be surprised, the likelihood is you'll get almost entirely independent commentors who have never or rarely edited on such a topic. The Wikipedia community is pretty good that way, bias tends to be hard to sustain and those who watch out for posted requests by editors are usually doing so because they like to patrol and assist whatever catches their eye, not because they're watching out for specific subjects. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re-summarizing back to main zoophilia article
Now we have what looks like it could be a stable version here, the summary back on Zoophilia needs updating to reflect improvements and facts noted here. The current wording states:
- "Infections that are transmitted from animals to humans are called zoonoses. Some zoonoses may be transferred through casual contact, but others are much more readily transferred by activities that expose humans to the semen, vaginal fluids, urine, saliva, feces and blood of animals. Brucellosis is one such disease, since it is transmitted by semen, vaginal fluids and urine. Brucellosis is rare in the USA but is widespread in many other parts of the world. Therefore sexual activity with animals is, in some instances, a high risk activity. It is thus advisable for practitioners of zoophilia to assess their relative risk based on geographic location and the species involved."
- "Allergic reactions to animal semen may occur. Bites and other trauma from penetration or trampling may occur. Likewise animals may be injured by humans through ignorance of physical differences, forcefulness, or, for female animals, excessive friction or infection."
It's pretty good, but there are a couple of things needing a brief mention - pregnancy and human STDs being the two obvious ones, but there might be others (AIDS cant be cured being one). Can you suggest an update and put it here, see if we agree on it? Thanks. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll leave this in your hands. You seem to have a good grasp of it. Skoppensboer 15:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] References and External links placement
It's not written in stone, but Help does say that we should "add a list of external links at the end of an article". See WP:LINKS Skoppensboer 17:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
BTW that's how it's done on all the main pages, eg Cancer Skoppensboer 17:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- See Wikipedia_talk:Guide_to_layout#Order_of_appendices - this is the definitive guide to article layout, and the identical matter's been discussed there by others too.
-
- But even without review, the MOS takes priority over WP:LINKS and it states Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Standard_appendices:
- "It is okay to change the sequence of these appendices [ie: See also, Notes, References, Further reading (or Bibliography), External links], but the Notes and References sections should be next to each other. For example, you may put 'Further reading' above 'Notes and references' or vice versa."
- It also currently states that:
- "A footnote is a note placed at the bottom of a page of a document that comments on, and may cite a reference for, a part of the main text."
- And you've only partly cited WP:LINKS above. The full quote is, "The most common is to add a list of external links at the end of an article". No "shoulds", no mandatory placement, only a statement of what is commonly done by some editors.
- But even without review, the MOS takes priority over WP:LINKS and it states Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Standard_appendices:
-
- I think it's simply that with the introduction of cite.php based references using ref.../ref, reference sections are now considerably longer than they were in the past so it's more of an issue. A year ago most articles didn't seem to have much if any real referencing because it was so cumbersome to add and maintain.
- Hope that helps. In the present article the references are short enough that at present its not an issue. But that might change in future. Thoughts if it does? FT2 (Talk | email) 09:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Most of what you've quoted here seems to support having the external links placed last, and to me that seems logical too, because they take the reader away from the page, perhaps permanently. Can you find other major pages like the cancer one that don't place external links last? IMO the zoophilia article is one of the only ones I've seen with that format. I'll follow the pack on this one. Skoppensboer 15:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] This is a unique page on the web
If I'm not mistaken, this is the only page on the entire web that covers this topic (zoophilia/bestiality and health/disease) exclusively and in such depth. I believe it may be unique. That is surely an achievement. Skoppensboer 18:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Article now submitted for peer review, and comments received. Skopp (Talk) 06:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sources
I'm not sure that citing the brucellosis sources as it is, is sufficiently "close" to the relevant section, to make it clear that section is sourced. I'd be much happier with a note under that section, or a section labelled "sources". Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FT2 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
-
- Well, the section itself has numerous citations. Secondly, from my reading of how citations of sources are done, you simply cite it at the end if you have used a source in a general way, or you'd have inline citations on every line. If you can come up with a WP page that explains how it should be done differently, I'm interested, I really am, because I want to know. Skopp (Talk) 06:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wider applicability?
If the 1st paragraph was changed to read:
- "This article describes the health implications of sexual contact with animals, either by people engaging in sexual acts (see: Zoophilia), or in the context of animal breeding."
and the title was changed appropriately as well, then this article could be a useful resource for animal breeders and such. The same issues arise there and there won't be too many articles discussing what can be transmitted by animal semen or secretions, for example. Thoughts? FT2 (Talk | email) 15:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Hmm. Zoonoses are well known to veterinarian and animal husbandry practitioners, and there are many sources for this information on the web (we link to a few) including WP itself. Moreover I think that group of people (vets, farmers, professional breeders) would be very disturbed if they had to get their info from a page dealing with zoophilia. I suspect if we lure them to this page with a title that suggest this page is appropriate for them, we shall face constant IP vandalism from disgusted/angry people who work with animals. I foresee running warfare. I don't think it's a good idea, FT2, I sincerely don't. I think the page has a tight focus: zoophilia, the health and disease aspects thereof. Skopp (Talk) 17:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Hmm indeed. I see what you mean. But given that information on animals sexual activities and human risk, is relevant there, do we self-exclude it on the basis "they might get angry and say negative things"? It's the same as any article, if it's factual we deal with the negative responses when they arrive, as indeed on zoophilia itself.
-
-
-
- The point which carries weight with me therefore, is not the question "what will people think if we do that". It's more like, "Are such people adequately catered for, with summarized good quality information covering this specific area, in Wikipedia, already?" And I look at zoonoses and animal husbandry etc and feel, "no, they aren't".
-
-
-
-
- I agree with you that the pages on zoonoses and the details at animal husbandry on WP are inadequate. But I think the solution is to beef up those pages with information pertinent to the type of people who will read those pages, rather than asking them to get the information from a page we've built, which is absolutely certain to enrage a goodly percentage of that rather large audience. So if you're looking for something to do, I see a lot of potential work at zoonoses and animal husbandry ...... :) Skopp (Talk) 00:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Do you think basically copying the zoonoses and bites sections, from here, to "zoonoses", and making sure that is then adequately linked from "animal husbandry", is enough? or do you reckon instead a new article, along the lines of "zoonoses and animal ownership / breeding / husbandry"? FT2 (Talk | email) 02:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Indepth site on the topic
Hey, I found this link (http://www.midnitecrowproductions.com/petlovers/resourcecenter/plfhealth.html) on the web, it seems a very full coverage of zoophilia and health and the stated author is the owner of www.zoophile.org (probably one of the oldest and best reputed zoophilia information and support sites). Thought you might find it relevant to the article. Thanks. Anon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.91.16.235 (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
- Comment: Seems a credible source/author for the field, notable viewpoint given the subject, and cites in turn its sources. I'll have a go at figuring what's useful to say. probably summarize the viewpoint/perspective, and cite sources, since actual clinical info is already pretty much in the article. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- The content on that page, linked BTW to a porn-sharing forum, is a cut and paste of other pages on the internet (for instance, this one). It will not be cited on the WP page. Skopp (Talk) 23:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- The view of a notable group, by a credible member of that group, is significant. (The relevant credentials are "ability to speak for zoophiles on the topic of zoophilia and health" btw, and not "ability to speak for epidemologists and clinicians".) In other words, it's not the medical info that is relevant in this link, but the perspective on it. We have the health info already and its good and stable. But as with many subjects, the scientific viewpoint is not the only notable viewpoint or only involved group in the field. We may need a summary of the participants' view on the health issues, plus if there are notable criticisms of it those too. In other words, the actual medical info is cited to other places and we already cover it enough. It's the general view on zoophilia and health expressed that is notable, not the medical info per se. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dead Citation Link
Footnote/citation [11] is dead and therefore invalid. Needs replacement with a valid source, or the information is null. --70.238.118.99 05:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Article criticism - suggest deletion
I've been having a look at this and it doesn't add up. Many if not pretty much all of these diseases you could catch also from a heavy petting session and not just from sexual acts. Some comments on the diseases / infections:
- Brucellosis: Virtually non-existant in North America and most of Europe. "With approximately 500,000 zoonotic infections a year worldwide (source:CDC), brucellosis places a large burden on humanity." - how many of those 500,000 cases are due to sexual intercourse? This number and mentioning that it's a "large burden on humanity" is pointless as the cases due to sexual intercourse will almost certainly be a very, very, very small fraction of this. Considering by far most sexual contact is with dogs and horses, the Brucella Canis strain is the most relevant one (horses are not infected). Human response to infection with Brucella Canis is usually mild with quick response to anti-biotics. This disease can be obtained merely from having close contact with a dog, not just intercourse. All in all, I find stating "Brucellosis in humans is a potentially life-threatening multisystem disease that can be extremely difficult to treat." in an article regarding sexual intercourse with animals is nothing but an attempt to make this sound very dangerous. Sources: eMedicine as listed, IVIS
- Leptospirosis: According to article, "complicated to treat; easily misdiagnosed; requires urgent hospitalization at specialist center". However, according the source there (eMedicine) 90% only develops a mild form of the disease. Only in 5-10% does it take a more serious form. According the the Health Protection Agency: "Complete recovery is the usual outcome after leptospirosis and there are unlikely to be any long term effects.". Again, this disease could just as well be caught from other forms of more intimate contacts besides sex.
- Q Fever: Though it can be transmitted via semen, vaginal fluids and urine as the article here mentions, it is left out here that this is also an airborne disease. In short, ANY contact with or even just being near an infected animal would mean a very high risk of catching this disease. Sexual contact does not seem to add any more risk. So it is utterly pointless of listing this as a sex-specific disease.
- Rabies: Spreads via saliva. Sexual contact won't really make a person get in more contact with animal saliva. How many people would actually be insane enough to even try to have sex with a rabid dog? Again, hardly a sex-specific disease.
- Flea tapeworm: Very easy to treat. Spreads via FLEAS. According to source: "For a person to become infected with Dipylidium, he or she must accidentally swallow an infected flea." Again, there is NO reason why this would be a sex-specific disease.
- Echinococcosis: Fecal-oral transmission. The most likely cause of getting this disease is listed by the source as "petting". Anal sex with animals doesn't happen too much and even when it does then the feces are still not in the person's mouth. Again, this mode of transmission is very far from sex-specific, so why list it as such?
- Campylobacter: Pretty much the same as the above in transmission.
- Cryptosporidium: According to the source this occurs mainly with children under five (which aren't likely to be having sex with animals). Mode of transmission is similar to the above and thus similar criticism applies.
- Cysticercosis: People don't have much sex with pigs but besides that, AGAIN fecal-oral transmission. And pigs often aren't the cleanest of animals so again this is far from a sex-specific disease.
- Giardia: Again, fecal-oral transmission. Same story as the others.
- Salmonella: Again, fecal-oral transmission. Same story as the others.
- Toxocariasis: Again, fecal-oral transmission. Same story as the others.
In short, this article is utterly useless. ALL of the above diseases are far more likely to be caught from reasons OTHER than sexual contact. While I won't say that sexual contact will never result in there being a slightly bigger risk, if your pet has any of the following diseases / infections then any kind of heavy petting will already put a person at risk, not merely sexual acts. Obviously, bites or other injuries may occur - but this alone does not sufficiently warrant the need for this article as that can just be mentioned in the zoophilia article (which in my opinion needs to be split between zoophilia and bestiality, but that's a different matter). Allergic reactions are very real but not really sex specific either.
I will put this article up for deletion, moving all information that is relevant to the zoophilia article. For now, I'll give it an NPOV dispute tag as the sole purpose of this article seems to be to paint a picture of sex with animals being a very big health risk. Please do not remove the tag until having discussed that here first, thank you. BabyNuke 15:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- edit: I'll wait with suggesting deletion until some other people share their views. BabyNuke 16:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that these diseases may be caught in ways other than sexual contact (which includes "heavy petting" as you put it) is absolutely besides the point. Sexual contact exposes to infection, and sometimes greatly enhances the risk of infection: that is the point. You are wrong on so many levels that I'll take one of your first errors and show you why an in depth response to you is tedious and worthless: Brucellosis is "virtually non-existent" in US and Europe. Even the paper you cite says that it is found in the USA in "7-8% of stray dogs". But even if it were truly "non-existent" in the US/Europe (and BTW it is very prevalent in parts of Europe!), it's a pointless statement, since WP is a worldwide encyclopaedia, and moreover if everyone in the US and Europe were having sex with animals, there'd be a huge incidence, since sexual fluids (like semen) transmit brucellosis very efficiently. "Mild and quick" human response? I have read numerous resources, including veterinary texts, that state it is a serious infection that is difficult to eradicate. I trust these resources over you, if you don't mind. Example "Although infection in humans is not common, it can be serious and may often go unrecognized because it is quite difficult to diagnose. Persons who get infected can develop fevers, enlarged liver, infection of the bones, lung disease, inflammation of the heart and heart valve problems." [1] Now the other comments you make, in brief: "not sex-specific" - no, but much more easily caught during intimate contact with infected animals, eg Q Fever: chance of catching from airborne particles is extremely low, chance from sex is extremely high! Rabies: not all rabid animals are snarling and insane — that's an end stage condition. Flea tapeworms: easily transmitted during kissing with infected animal (see refs on page). Fecal-oral route: animals lick their butts (and other animals' butts), then a zoofetishist will kiss the animal open-mouthed (common): hey presto, fecal oral. Didn't that occur to you? Pig sex is more common than you think, and several cases of serious injury from pig sex are in the medical literature. I'm sorry, you are simply misinformed and rather ignorant, and I see no reason to delete this page at all as it provides timely and useful advice to many people. Moreover you did not raise these objections when the page was under construction, although you have been a long-time habitué of the zoophilia/bestiality area of WP. Did you simply wait until the page looked abandoned to make your move? Well rest assured, I shall not abandon this page. Skopp 01:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- A person that kisses his dog isn't always a zoophile, plenty of people do that. Other more intimate contact needn't be sexual contact, most dog owners have very close contact with their animal. I didn't wait for the page to become abandoned to "make my move" - I got fed up with the subject. Mainly the fact that people refuse to seperate the zoophilia and bestiality articles - they are two seperate terms and need to be treated at such. Failing to convince people of that and having a lot of work reverted I gave up. Different subject though. Mind you, I also labelled the zoophilia article as NPOV a while ago because I felt it was showing a too POSITIVE image. So I am not out to promote sex with animals.
- If your HUMAN partner has the flu, obviously intimate contact will put you at greater risk of catching it also. Yet would we consider the flu a sex-related health risk? No. But that's what this page is doing. All sorts of diseases that are not sex specific and can just as well be caught from ANY form of (more intimate) contact with animals. Stating people don't have much sex with pigs was in relation to Cysticercosis, not injuries due to penetration.
- With Brucellosis, I'll agree that perhaps "virtually non-existant" isn't the best choice of words. With regards to severity, I suppose I am limiting myself too much to the B. Canis strain in my reasoning. While dogs are the most common sexual partner amongst animals in the west I suppose in the areas where the more dangerous B. Melitensis strain is found goats/sheep may be a more common choice. But also with Brucellosis, it doesn't seem to be sex-specific. BabyNuke 13:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- The bottom line is that this page does collect together a lot of disparate information on an emerging issue, and if I were a zoophile (I'm not, needless to say), I'd find it very useful, simply because it makes one much more aware of the health issue. The general line amongst zoophilia enthusiasts on the zoophilia/bestiality health issue on the net is that it is no problem at all. In the course of helping compose this WP page, I came across web pages, very popular web pages, that state that there is no health risk whatsoever, because animals are not human! This is almost criminally negligent advice. Other points you raise:
- I think it's unusual to see anyone open-mouth kiss an animal. I think that denotes a degree of zoophilia, even if only latent.
- Bestiality vs zoophilia: bestiality redirects to the zoophilia page, so until and unless that changes, this page's title is appropriate.
- The quote I gave above on the possible severity of brucellosis actually was in relation to b. canis
- I accept that you find the page irritating, but I also think you should consider the people who may become more cautious about zoophilic activities as a result of reading this page, and what heartache and potential tragedy that may avert for them. Skopp 15:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Agreed, caution is always needed. I guess from that point of view, this article does serve a good function as any harm prevented is good. But I disagree with the article creating the image of sexual contact being considerably more dangerous than other forms of close contact. By making this article focus on the sexual aspect, it seems a covert attempt to argue against the practice. These health risks exist also for people who just have a very close and physical but not sexual relationship with their animal (which does go for a lot of pet owners) or people practicing animal husbandry. Obviously, any site stating there is NO health risk is not telling the truth, either knowingly or out of ignorance.
-
- With regards to Brucellosis, I am merely stating what the source I used states (IVIS). I'll quote here: "Humans are susceptible to B. canis, but infections are uncommon and they are usually mild. Approximately 40 cases of human infection have been reported in several countries, however the actual number is unknown since cases are rarely diagnosed, or reported. Symptoms are usually vague - prolonged febrile illness with lymph node enlargement. Most natural infections have been acquired through close contact with infected dogs. Laboratory infections also have been reported. Unlike the dog, infected humans usually respond rapidly to antibiotics (tetracyclines or tetracyclines + streptomycin)." - that goes very much against what you state on B. Canis then.
-
- Oh, and bestiality hasn't always redirected to the zoophilia article (see history). But that's all been reverted and it's a redirect page once more. BabyNuke 17:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I have sources on b.canis that state it is not a trivial disease in humans, but I'll partially conceed that it is one of the less severe forms of zoonotic brucellosis. But while it is arguably true that, in most cases, b. canis infections in humans is milder than brucellosis acquired from other animals, b. canis is highlighted here because of the high incidence, relatively speaking, of canine zoophilia/bestiality. But it is not really such a trivial infection, if only because it is difficult to diagnose, which makes it an insidious underminer of health. The few cases I've read about saw the patients spending years looking for a correct diagnosis. Even a blood test for b. canis is very difficult to obtain. In addition, brucellosis is a major health health risk in people involved sexually with animals of almost all kinds. Some animals transmit extremely dangerous forms of the bacterium.
- Now on the issue of whether or not sexual contact is more dangerous than casual contact: this exact point was extensively debated with FT2 some time back, so you may want to peruse the archives of this page and the main Zoophilia talk page. Suffice to say, any medical person will attest to the hugely increased risk of acquiring zoonotic infections when animals' secretions and excretions (sperm, vaginal fluids, saliva, fecal matter) are allowed to dwell in the vagina, rectum or mouth of a human sexual partner. I have a medical orientation and some training, so I do know what I am talking about.
-
-
-
- Is this article a covert attempt to proselytize against the practice of human-animal sex? No. Knowledge and information empowers people. I think you are reading too much into it. the information here is sobering, granted, but it is not conjured up from nowhere. And there are many editors who argue that the main page on Zoophilia is doing exactly the opposite, so there you go. Skopp 23:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Dog Brucellosis in Two Boys
This paper highlights the non-trivial complications of canine brucellosis in humans:[1]
/
| Pediatr Radiol. 2000 May;30(5):355-7.
Brucellosis: unusual presentations in two adolescent boys. Piampiano P, McLeary M, Young LW, Janner D. Department of Radiology, Loma Linda University Children's Hospital, CA 92354, USA. Two boys presented with variable signs and symptoms of infectious disease that challenged diagnosis. One of the two patients had aortic valve vegetations and lower extremity aneurysms, and the other had calvarial osteomyelitis, epidural abscess, pleural effusions, and pulmonary nodules. Only after a battery of bacterial and fungal agglutination tests was the unsuspected diagnosis made in each of brucellosis from Brucella canis. PMID: 10836605 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE |
- ^ Piampiano P, McLeary M, Young LW, Janner D (2000). "Brucellosis: unusual presentations in two adolescent boys". Pediatric radiology 30 (5): 355-7. PMID 10836605.

