The context of my question are these comments: https://np.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2x3p9d/cmv_like_homosexuality_society_should_stop_being/coxkw6i?context=1
an opinion based on a generally-regarded-as-crackpot premise
and
there probably aren't reasons, even though a few crackpots think there are.
and
Crackpot positions are those that their colleagues don't take seriously when one or two academics argue for them. According to Wikipedia, "Miletski's study has never been published in any peer-reviewed journal." (But it appears that no source is given. The source for a nearby statement is behind a paywall, so it may cover both.)
The last thing I read about the topic was in a german article for which I have found no english version. It was from Brian Jory and titled "Was ich über Sodomie & Zoophilie weiß: Mehr als ich möchte und weniger als ich sollte", ("What I know about sodomy & zoophilia: More than I want and less than I should"). The article is arguing against zoophilia, but is - at least in some parts - quite differentiated.
Here is the relevant quote in german:
Ausgerechnet während dieses Gipfeltreffens der American Humane Association im Jahre 2000 hörte ich von einigen führenden Mitgliedern der Tierschutz- und Tierrechtsbewegung, dass sie sexuelle Handlungen mit Tieren nicht grundsätzlich ablehnen. Einige hielten Sodomie dann für vertretbar, wenn keine Gewaltakte verübt wurden. Andere vertraten die „liberalistische" Ansicht, dass Zoophilie - definiert als sexuelle Anziehung und Ausdruck derselben gegenüber Tieren - eine rechtmäßige und einfühlsame Umgangsform für Menschen sein könnte - und vielleicht auch für die Tiere. Soweit ich mich erinnere, waren es in erster Linie Psychologen, die diese liberale Ansicht äußerten. Ihr Standpunkt findet sich im Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) wieder. Dort wurde Sodomie von der Liste der sexueller Paraphilien gestrichen und somit wird Zoophilie in den meisten Fällen als ein Gegenstand außerhalb der psychiatrischen Intervention bewertet.
Obwohl ich mich selbst dem politisch liberalen Spektrums zurechnen würde, pro testierte ich so heftig gegen diesen liberalen Ansatz, dass einige meiner Freunde sich genötigt fühlten, beruhigend auf mich einwirken zu müssen) Anscheinend ereiferte ich mich so sehr gegen das, was ich als eindeutiges Verbrechen gegenüber Tieren ansah, dass ich andere in ihrem Standpunkt verletzte. Für mich ist die gesellschaftliche Anerkennung der Sodomie und Zoophilie ein Schritt in die falsche Richtung, weil dadurch einer weiteren tierlichen Ausbeutung Tür und Tor geöffnet wird - dies brachte ich vehement zum Ausdruck. Obwohl meine Argumente mehr durch Gefühle als durch ruhige, sachliche Überlegungen bestimmt waren, provozierte dies eine lebhafte Diskussion über Sodomie und Zoophilie, die intellektuell anregend, aber zugleich auch spannungsgeladen war. Um das Bild zu vervollständigen, muss ich jedoch auch von dieser seltsamen Atmosphäre von Unwissenheit und Ablehnung berichten, die während der Diskussion im Raum herrschte. Ein Phänomen, das ich innerhalb dieser Gruppe namhafter Tierrechtler nicht erwartet hätte. Die Auseinandersetzung, geprägt durch Emotionalität, Liberalismus und Voreingenommenheit, führte den Mangel an einer fundierten wissenschaftlichen Grundlage klar vor Augen. Quintessenz des Tages war, dass selbst unter führenden Tierrechtlern keine Einigung über den sexuellen Missbrauch von Tieren erreicht werden konnte, sondern völlig konträre Standpunkte vertreten wurden.
You can put that in a translator, but you can also trust my summary: In 2000 he went to a HSUS summit meeting/conference. He was surprised to learn some of the leading members of the animal welfare and animal rights movements were not opposed to sex with animals per se. He instead very vocally opposed any sexual acts with animals because he believes it leads too easily to animal exploitation [??]. He acknowledges he was more driven by emotion than by calm and rational thoughts, but he says he inspired intellectual, but suspenseful discussion. He says the atmosphere was characterized by lack of knowledge and rejection/refusal. He decries the lack of scientific basis which had as a result that there was no consensus. He claims to since have a better understanding of his reasons to be against sex with animals.
There's some weird stuff in that article, but I'll limit it to this to focus on the question at hand:
I have no trouble believing that some scientists/researchers consider Hani Miletski, Andrea Beetz, etc. to be "crackpots". But is it a general consensus? I have still a lot of reading to do but from everything I have read so far I do not believe there is such a consensus.
Can people who have more inside knowledge of the world of psychology and animal welfare / animal rights researchers offer more insight or is that it?
To be honest, reading what he's written it won't matter what proof or evidence you provide. As for those authors being crackpots, he didn't address any of the arguments in those papers... rather just said there aren't any. You asked for a critique and he just ignore the works entirely.
Unfortunately, he is currently in control of the argument, dismissing any evidence you might want to bring forward out of hand. The "everyone knows" arguement is just downright strange. Did you consider pointing out that "everyone doesn't know" gay sex is moral per se. Over a third of the US population and much much more of the world do not think gays are moral.
Social/psycological science doesn't work quite the same way as the hard sciences. Peer review is one theory going off against another theory, so pick your theory and there you go. It's not like anyone can argue the data was collected incorrectly, or the math was wrong.. the purpose of peer review....
I think he means it in that way that what "everyone knows" is supposedly a consensus that the experts hold and Miletski & co. are crackpots because they go against that consensus, supposedly being ignored because their work is not "good enough" (or whatever causes one to be considered a crackpot).
Thus my question: Is that really the case or what's the opinion among experts?
All I can tell you is that my direct experience with my practicing psychologist seems to back up Miletski's opinion. To be completely honest, the only real work has been done by Beetz, and Miletski so how could they be "crackpots" when following established ways to do things... As I quoted above, they are introductory works that don't go far enough.
The "everyone knows" thing comes from a how-to-do-research 101 instruction. I still have it on my shelf here. It boils down the more complicated way how research goes: You don't every day disprove Einstein or blow up Erlenmeyer beakers. Usually you sit at a desk and diligently verify tiny details in topics so finely branched most normal people would call it bean-counting. This is since real knowledge can only be generated by disproving things: E.g. in an experiment or a survey - the only field where you can positively prove something by holding up a thing and say "this proves..." is mathematics. Everywhere else you need to disprove all alternatives all the time continuously. And yeah, often researchers look at things where "everyone knows". Everyone knows a cold is caused by being cold and wet. That's why it is called a cold, duh? But is it? Research in 'is colds associated with being cold?'... processing... experiments... disproving... making alternative hypothesis... disproving those... wait for it... finally discover some statistically significant things, or realize there are some strange patterns (hey, everyone with a cold met with some other guy who developed a cold)... more hypothesis... more disproving... almost there... BAMM someone discovers the cold-virus. Tadaa! Are we at the end? No... now trying to check that... check it again... check it again... test alternative hypothesis... test it again... get into a fight with a colleague which hypothesis is supported better... evidence a virus causes the cold solidifies... Yeap, pretty damn sure it is a virus.
Now everyone knows it is a virus. But is it? Starting research... the whole thing from above... finding that being in the cold and the warm inside intermittently wreaks your nasal barrier and makes the cold virus pass into your body much easier. BAMM explanation why the cold is somewhat associated with being cold. Also another possible way to heal or prevent it. And so on and so on ad infinitum.
Well he, the anti, seems to be using it oppositely. Your description is what I understood it should mean in regards to the scientific method. edit:spelling gud
Also, Miletski's did publish an abstract of her work in a peer reviewed journal.
Miletski, H. (2000) Bestiality and Zoophilia: An Exploratory Study. Scandinavian Journal of Sexology. Vol. 3 (4), pp 149–150:
Of her work....
Review by Vern Bullough (distinguished professor emeritus at SUNY, Outstanding Professor at California State University, past president of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex, and winner of the Alfred Kinsey Award for distinguished sex research) published in Journal of Sex Research, May 2003: "In sum, this study is a path-breaking one and gives us a better understanding of the topic. Much work still needs to be done, but Miletski should be complimented for her pioneering efforts..."
Basically the position that until everyone studies it, it is crackpot is just a dumb way to do science.
Edit: added more info
No - for your crackpot question here.
Also, one of the problems when publishing in this fairly obscure topic - I have found - is that peer review is almost not functional (the fact that peer review is often not functioning aside). If you submit a deeply investigated zoophilia paper, the journal now has the job to find 2 or 3 academically suited, believable experts on the topic to tell them (the journal) whether the paper is good.
Try and find 3 absolute experts on the topic in academia, who'll do this for free (nope, reviewers are not paid by the journal). I wrote to some people once, and even the three I suspected to be THOSE experts told me they don't see much going on and/or don't plan to continue in that direction at all (money and harassment issues). So often even if such papers are submitted, a general psychologist, a veterinary researcher, and a zoologist end up reviewing it. I have been involved in peer-review and this whole research thing firsthand. And since that I don't even trust peer-review any longer (2/3 of ALL papers at least are outright bullshit or useless for one or the other reason), and as I said it is worse in research of zoophilia, a topic that is either dead, or highly likely to be worked on by newbies or students or other such people.
For your question there under the link: You have granted too much weight to some guy flatly telling you that he stubbornly refuses for "reasons" by letting him push you. It is in fact his job to bring real evidence to stand upon for refuting your initial statement. I am not even sure he's really addressing your question directly, I think he also got it into his throat sideways because he goes for the researchers already. I guess pretty much everyone got it into their throat sideways:
Of course people should "accept" that these things exist. Because they do in fact exist. I can't say I don't accept that dinosaurs had feathers because when I was a kid they didn't. That is simply unreasonable. Worse, this "public refusal", or this "maximum zero tolerance stance" make things worse, don't they?
Take the (although I dislike bringing it up) case of pedophilia. If people in general wouldn't flip their shit in a nanosecond of learning that someone has it, more people with it would dare to visit preventive therapy where techniques to control oneself are taught. Such a program was started under the radar in a German city, and it is going really well as far as I know. Still, if it became known widespread, people would "refuse to accept this exists", and probably burn the facility it takes place in down. That means there'll be more raped children, as people who just need a monthly reminder don't get it any longer. So good job society.
Or in our case - we all know teens are going to experiment whatever the state of the law, or society's current comdemn-it-level. With all information purged, all lines to find a community of peers cut, and everyone being hammered not even to reveal they might have zoophilia - some of those teens are going to fuck up. They'll hurt themselves badly, or the animal. In addition of course: If people don't flip their shit so badly, the "rescued" "abuse victims" perhaps are not put down any longer immediately by well meaning but completely confused vets and shelter workers. That is one thing that always bothered me extremely. Because people freak out so much about such a thing being a thing, a "rescued" dog is put down because his penis at some point was in a human. ...
Thanks for your insight that seems to be in line with everything I read so far.
I don't think I want to commit to a full debate with someone when it is clear that there will be no common ground reached. It's more or less throwing some thoughts into it just to see what people say in response. Another example is here. When someone says
then I wonder first what this guy does in /r/ChangeMyView and secondly I know that it won't lead to anything to "debate" with him...
"Kein Täter werden"? I thought that was a really well known program. I was looking for a specific interview but it seems that many major newspapers have covered it like spiegel, zeit, tagesschau, wdr, süddeutsche, etc. etc.
To expand on another point: In a society that wouldn't lynch me immediately (figuratively or directly), the animals would be safer.
I might indeed be inclined to help police understand this thing better. If it catches one more horse-ripper, I would be glad to help on that.
I might indeed give people tips to secure their stables better against fence-hoppers, and to have more awareness of it.
I would indeed accept to be inspected by an appointed vet, or to have the vet make an entry into his patient's file. In fact, for all I care the vet can life and run his business next to my house, and come over and watch all day in order to write some good texts on it. And to be able to see that animals indeed can consent.
The last thing would evaporate in a heart beat once people relaxed a tiny bit about this. Just come over and watch, it's fairly obvious for those that look at it instead of freaking out and trying to torch the place.
Someone wrote this on the wikipedia talk page, years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zoophilia/Archive_24#Uncredible_article
But unfortunately he did not reply back and did not offer support for his allegations...