chico chupacabra wrote:
> wrote:
> > chico chupacabra wrote:
> >
> >
> >>It's classified in DSM-IV as a paraphilia.
> >
> >
> > "There is presently considerable debate in psychology over whether
> > certain aspects of zoophilia are better understood as an aberration or
> > as an orientation.
>
> It's not very considerable.
What are your qualifications to speak about the matter? How much
psychological or psychiatric literature have you read?
> As it was with declassification of
> homosexuality, which was listed in prior DSMs as a paraphilic disorder,
> there is a very small group of activists bent on re- or declassifying
> paraphilias in toto. This activism is based on politics, not on science.
>
Whereas classifying paraphilias as mental disorders is based on
science, is it? These scientists have found some way to transcend the
cultural mores they live in and come up with some objective scientific
basis for saying homosexuality which causes clinically significant
distress is not a mental disorder, heterosexuality which causes
clinically distress is not a mental disorder, but sadomasochism which
causes clinically significant distress is. Well, it could be. Perhaps
you can tell us a bit about the scientific basis for it.
> > The activity or desire itself is no longer
> > classified as a pathology under DSM-IV (TR) (the Diagnostic and
> > Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association) unless
> > accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the
> > part of the person,
>
> Meanwhile, other disorders like psychopathy and sociopathy are diagnosed
> per axes rather than how the patient feels about himself and how he's
> functioning.
>
Quite. Could it be you're suggesting that the psychiatric community
sometimes allows its scientific objectivity to be influenced by
socio-cultural factors? Why don't you tell us what the objective
scientific basis is for saying something is or is not a disorder. I'm
dying to know. Then maybe we'd know what the point was of your bringing
up DSM-IV in the first place, in response to a request for objective
evidence of harm.
> > and research has broadly been supportive of at
> > least some of zoophiles' central claims. Critics point out that that
> > DSM-IV says nothing about acceptability or the well-being of the
> > animal,
>
> Which is irrelevant. The sexually-depraved patient doesn't get brownie
> points for feeding the dog he just raped -- and, absent the dog's
> consent, that's exactly what it is: rape.
>
If the dog was willing, what's the problem?
> > and many critics outside the field express views that sexual
> > acts with animals are always either abusive or unethical. Defenders of
> > zoosexuality argue that a human/animal relationship can go far beyond
> > sexuality, and that animals are capable of forming a genuinely loving
> > relationship that can last for years and which is not functionally
> > different from any other love/sex relationship."
>
> You mean aside from the fact that your sheep can't drive to the store
> for aspirin after you've abused it the way a real girlfriend, from your
> own species, would.
>
The fact that sheep can't drive is certainly one difference between
sheep and humans. I don't think defenders of zoosexuality would feel
this significantly bears on their thesis. I make no comment about the
thesis itself, I don't claim any great insight into zoosexual
relationships.
> > (Wikipedia, "Zoophilia")
>
> I wish Wikipedia would list authors/contributors so we'd know exactly
> who wrote that.