QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 29th April 2010, 12:52pm)
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Thu 29th April 2010, 11:45am)
Personally, I can't see an issue with those. He's not saying people are actually capable of forming stable (sic) relationships with animals; he's quite carefully worded it to say that they claim it. Since the psychopathology of "why on earth would anyone want to?" is such a fundamental point in all these sexual-deviancy topics, I don't see "this is how they justify it to themselves" equating to condoning it.
Zoophilia Pedophilia advocates also claim that the
human/animal adult-child relationship goes far beyond sexuality, and that they are capable of forming a loving relationship with
an animal a child that can frequently last several years and that they do not consider functionally different from any other love/sex relationship.
It is a very difficult area: in claiming to put forward a neutral point of view, Wikipedia style, you potentially put forward arguments that are not substantiated, but have the basis of "claim" - wisdom of the crowds.
90% of people will read that
Captain Pugwash had a character Roger the Cabin Boy when there was never any such thing. However, the claim gets repeated so frequently that it has become very close to fact in most people's minds. Is it appropriate to repeat false claims in a factual article, or should it be sufficient to say "these are the facts" and leave people to work out for themselves that the false characters are not mentioned.
The problem is by constant presentation of a claim, you give the claim credence. So explaining the self-justification has the difficulty that in reporting it, Wikipedia is in danger of appearing to accept the justification.
Scientists claim global warming is a reality
(and have research to prove it, though it is disputed).
Bestialists claim that sticking willies up the bums of dogs is very satisfying for the animal
(and have few bite marks to prove it).
Repeating a claim without analysis has the danger of implicitly endorsing that claim. Oh, and why did Teh Community accept the self-assigned neologism of zoophilia over bestiality - another implicit endorsement of the animal abuse community.