Talk:Zoophilia and health/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents

Page created December 3 2006, first pass

The page is a stub. If possible, please discuss proposed changes here before wholesale editing unless you are making a minor tweak for accuracy. Coming up: the table will be made wider and include other columns and rows to make it more useful.

Now significantly more than a stub, in fact close to complete, unless each disease is teased out into a paragraph, which doesn't seem warranted for this rare paraphilia. Skoppensboer 00:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

There is an inconsistency in the article and its introduction right now. The present introdsuction is all about zoonoses, but the article is about "zoophilia and health" covering several other aspects too. I see two solutions:

  1. The article just becomes about zoonoses, and the intro is then right.
  2. The article is about all health aspects, in which case the intro isn't a match for the article right now.

I prefer the latter approach, keeping the article broader. But I'm not sure how best to do this. I like the current intro, which is a very good summary. But it isn't really an intro to zoophilia and health in general. This is the best I've come up with for a more general intro:

This article covers some of the significant health issues and considerations which are relevant in the context of sexual acts between human beings and animals. (For more on this subject see: Zoophilia).
From a health perspective, the two main issues are zoonoses (infections that can be transmitted between animals and humans) and physical injury. Certain other concerns, including pregnancy, are not relevant to this form of sexual act.

Can these two approaches be combined somehow? FT2 (Talk | email) 10:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to see the absurd stuff on pregnancy removed. But I don't otherwise see any discontinuity between the title and page content. If you want to add some text to the intro to make the intro cover the other aspects the article covers, what would you add? The lines above simply pre-limit the scope of the article and restate the title. Skoppensboer 15:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Tweaked intro, reads better now. Talk about problematic, the terms zoosexual and zoosexuality are not to be found on dictionary.com, a vast online dictionary I've used for years. How on Earth has this crystal ball gazing neologism made its way into WP? Skoppensboer 16:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Dictionaries regularly lag behind usage. "zoosexuality" has been used and cited in a significant number of academic, governmental and sexology documents. That it's missing in dictionaries is a reflection on the production of dictionaries, not a reflection on its (non-)recognition by credible bodies as a word and usage. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Both Miriam Webster and the OED deny knowledge of the word too. I suspect it's a neologism (expressly forbidden in WP) originating amongst zoophiles to cloak the more explicit aspects of their paraphilia. And I don't want it littering this medically oriented article. Skoppensboer 21:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Further to this, far from "zoosexuality" being an academic term with which the stodgy old dictionaries simply haven't had time to catch up, I find that when I search for "zoosexual" or "zoosexuality" on the world's premier research database, the U.S. National Library of Medicine (that includes over 16 million citations from MEDLINE and other life science journals for biomedical articles back to the 1950s) I get a number of hits not dissimilar to zero. In fact, zero hits. The term therefore is a neologism and has no place on WP, and it's another example, perhaps, of what that other editor called "internet bestialists using their group-jargon to butter up articles with heavy romanticizing and POV abuse". Skoppensboer 17:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
No neologisms on WP WP:NEO
Read that policy carefully. It's not really applicable when the neologism is an accepted term in the field. The neologism "zoosexuality" has been used in most research by sexologists into the field since 1990, and cited by some of them as used by others, as well as recognized and used by the government reports of Denmark and the Netherlands. So it's passed into recognized usage. That dictionaries haven't caught up is the nature of dictionaries.
Your awareness of research and studies in this field is possibly not as extensive as your knowledge of disease. Some facts need checking before assuming your own opinion and beliefs, because they aren't always matching whats consensus in the field. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


I'm still a bit concerned over the intro. The article covers several aspects of health but the intro states "this is a health aspects article" then goes into a description of zoonoses only. That still doesn't feel like its reflecting other bits. They may just need a sentence or two in a 2nd paragraph ("other health aspects include..."?) or a prequel ("major aspects are..."). The introduction isn't really an intro to zoophilia and health generally, as it stands, just an intro on zoonoses. As above, this is my stab at an approach for a more general intro:

  1. This article covers some of the significant health issues and considerations which are relevant in the context of sexual acts between human beings and animals. (See: Zoophilia).
  2. From a health perspective, the main issues are zoonoses (infections that can be transmitted between animals and humans), physical injury, and - for some people - allergies. Pregnancy and common human STDs are not usually issues.

Additional to that, should the intro just identify the risk areas and put the overview of zoonoses in the zoonoses section as a lead paragraph??

Overall, can you take a look at this apect of the intro and let me know what you reckon? FT2 (Talk | email) 01:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I see what you mean. I'll take a stab at it. Shouldn't be difficult, or controversial. Skoppensboer

Missing info

The following 2 points need to be in there somewhere:

  1. Most zoonoses are animal diseases that humans can catch. Animals cannot be infected with certain human STDs (they're species specific), and those which can are not endemic amongst animals, therefore as a rule sex with animals does not carry a risk of infection with many major human STDs such as HIV, herpes, etc.
  2. Caveat: Should an animal engage sexually with more than one person then there is a risk that human STDs such as HIV may survive long enough in the fluids from the first person, to infect the second person. This risk depends on the two people having sex within a time frame that allows survival. There is no research how the time frame allowed correlates with residual risk (ie how risk of infection dies away over time for various agents and acts), for the purposes of safety.

FT2 (Talk | email) 10:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  • The fact that animals do not carry human STDs is not worthy of mention. An encyclopedia is not there to tell people what something isn't. The only purpose of telling people this extraneous and clearly self-evident information (the diseases would be listed if they could be transmitted, not so?) would be an attempt to minimize the import of the zoonoses themselves. Now why would we be trying to do that? Skoppensboer 15:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. I'm sorry, but the article needs that thing called balance. What is known to be not an issue is as important as what is known to be an issue. Sorry, on this one I think you're wrong, and the grounds for exclusion are wrong too. It is valuable information that belongs in the artcile. Our place is not to censor which credible and significant information readers should not be allowed to be told because of speculative worries about what some readers would do if they knew. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • One sentence: Animals do not transmit most human-to-human STDs. Skoppensboer 21:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Allergies

The article exists to highlight zoophilia and health. Making statements about general allergies and pet allergies is OT. Skoppensboer 00:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


In fact, I'm for completely removing the OT text: Allergies to tiny dried airborne particles of animal saliva, airborne skin flakes (''dander'') and animal urine are very common<ref name="acaai">{{Cite web|url=http://www.acaai.org/public/advice/pets.htm|title=Advice from Your Allergist...Pet Allergy|accessdate=2006-12-06|publisher=American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology|year=2006|format=html}}</ref>. Skoppensboer 00:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


I'm not fully sure what you're thinking of, here (maybe I am a bit fuzzy-minded today). Allergies in the context of zoosexual activity are relevant, although allergies to hair/dander, and possibly saliva and urine, are not specifically sexually related. On this basis, do we want to mention them, or exclude them?
The edit I put in was more because the present text had a problematic duplication, two lists with different contents:
  • First sentence: "Sensitization and resulting allergic reactions to animal saliva and semen may occur"
  • Last sentence: "Allergies to tiny dried airborne particles of animal saliva, airborne skin flakes (dander) and animal urine are very common"
So we're repeating ourselves, and the 1st list excludes dander and urine which are in the 2nd list; the 2nd list excludes semen which is in the 1st list. That's the aim of that edit.
To solve that I followed the following structure:
  1. Allergies are fairly (not "very") common
  2. Sensitization can occur, from mild to serious.
  3. Common allergens are (list), although allergies to semen are also reported.
  4. Allergy rates are (rate)
  5. Repeated exposure can lead to Anaphylaxis which is is higher risk
I think that order makes sense, and isn't changing the content any. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree there's repetition, and I've been unhappy with that. Yes, you're right, the not-specifically-zoophilia related stuff is OT and should go. It is making the allergy section a bit unfocused. I'll re-edit and try to keep some of the interesting allergy stuff you unearthed. Skoppensboer 01:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
That's worked for me. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm getting a good feeling about this page. I think it has a nice tone, not proscriptive, not condemnatory of zoophilia, but cautionary, which is what you want in these circumstances. This page may save lives, may help people avoid sickness and trauma. We can be proud. Skoppensboer 01:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I have to say I'm thinking similarly. Not so much proud, just that it contains valid information, that is useful and those who might surreptitiously need or seek information (health practitioners, people who have undertaken such activity, concerned others) will have a resource thats actually able to inform them. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Rabies

Isnt rabies not just saliva to membrane, but also saliva to skin breaks? A person licked on the skin is at risk if theres a break in the skin (overt or microscopic?? Thoughts and update? FT2 (Talk | email) 02:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Pick your wording and update it :) FT2 (Talk |

email) 03:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I see you've already updated it. I wanted to put that data in all along, but excluded it bec. it isn't really sex-related, and because of space constraints, which I see you've encountered too. With the tiny font, I'm concerned about access issue for visually impaired. Comments? Skoppensboer 04:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Answered my own question by simplifying it. Readers know that saliva is the vector, then they see Blood and Mouth-to-mouth in the risky column, it's not hard to work out that kissing and getting saliva near your bloodstream are the key things. And if that escapes them, there's always the Fact sheet. Skoppensboer 06:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Zoonosis table

Originally in this table you put comments such as "vaccine available". I liked that, I've put a column in for further information (splitting fact sheets to their own column which works well).

The table now goes over width, but against that its much more immediately visible some medical information about the conditions named.

Can you review, see if it looks good, and maybe see if there is a creative way to narrow it back towards usual width? FT2 (Talk | email) 02:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Hehe. It's RUINED!! Ha. No, I can drop the font of the whole table if you like. Or we can wrap all the lines so that you can have chunky comments. Skoppensboer
Oh god, he's joking now! Hey - you aren't allowed to relax. Remember you're supposed to be watching out for those sneaky bestialists trying to slant every article out there :) FT2 (Talk | email) 03:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, however you think best, or whatever strikes you as the best way (or leave it if you like it) - go for it. My own feeling is to keep it one line per entry (nowrap) though, if itas a choice between width and height. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

And please check out comment under "intro" section above. Thats my other current concern. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I see you've been busy, and I like the solution, but my reservations are: 1) dark grey obscures the text for people with poor eyesight and 2) the Comments column looks extraneous now, and should perhaps be dropped. Comments? Skoppensboer 04:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I also think that the treatment colspan cell should be inserted for every zoonosis, what? Skoppensboer 05:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • In the light of our co-operation on this page, it may be best to drop the dispute. My future involvement with the entire field of zoophilia will only be to maintain this particular page roughly as is, unless significant new data crops up, in which case you'll be party to that. Skoppensboer 04:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Tweaked the colors, font sizes and put the colspan cell in for all diseases. Those cells need to be filled in, but life calls ... perhaps you can do it, or I can tomorrow. Skoppensboer 06:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


Brucellosis wording fix needed

"Brucellosis causes a large burden on human life..."

maybe "places" instead of "causes"? concern here is it implies a large death toll, wherwas what we (and the source) means is, it is an infection that due to scale and such is significantly burdensome to societies where it exists. can you reword this, I can't think of a good wording for it. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That wording was taken verbatim from a medical site, I think. It is clumsy and I'll reword. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skoppensboer (talkcontribs) 19:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC).