I was wondering how you all felt about the term zoophile being used to describe your orientation. I have heard some just go with 'zoos' and others go with 'zoosexual' instead and I have heard a few others I can not remember right now, but I am not sure what the consensus is, if there even is one. I personally think zoosexual is the best I have heard, as it describes what they are, without the negative connotation of the -phile at the end, but since I am not a zoophile, or zoo, or what have you, I have no room to talk.
I would also like to link another discussion I have started more specifically with terminology, as I have gotten the information I needed here. http://www.reddit.com/r/zoophilia/comments/2hzrqp/a_suggestion_for_zoophilia_terminology/
-phile has no negative connotation as far as I'm aware. People call themselves technophiles, bibliophiles etc. and there's no negative association. To me, zoosexual doesn't quite address the affectionate/romantic aspect of zoophilia, so it feels a little more lusty and closer to just straight bestiality. "Zoos" is just a shorthand for "zoophiles" as far as I'm aware, so they're pretty much interchangeable. As for the word "zoophile," it's the official medical term, so I have no issues self-identifying as it, since it has a clear definition and lets people know what you mean. That's just me though, I'm finicky about words.
Most of the time, the romantic and sexual orientations are separated. As a member of the asexual community I see it all the time. Somebody is asexual, but homoromatic, or heteromantic, or panromantic, etc. or sometimes somebody is heterosexual but homoromantic. I guess that just adds an extra word if you are both the sexual and romantic orientation though. I am usually finicky about words as well, hence me starting this whole conversation.
That's a fair point. I think with zoophilia though, if it's solely a romantic thing, the line between it and just really liking your pet gets a little blurred. I'd argue that there are plenty of people whose level of affection toward their pets matches that of zoophiles but who lack the sexual aspect. Since the non-sexual stuff might be considered at worst a little eccentric, I'm not sure if it warrants a specific descriptor. I freely admit that I'm pretty naive and uninformed when it comes to issues faced by asexual people though, so feel free to correct me.
There is a line between romantic attraction, and just deep love though. I am not sure how to describe it though. The line is harder to define with something like zoophilia, as a dog can not say "Yeah, this human is my girlfriend" just like a human can say that about their human partner. I guess it would be up to how the human defines it in the human to non-human relationship then, to determine the difference. The main issues that asexuals face is people just deny that they exist (you just have not found the right person yet, etc), much like how people deny the existence of bisexuals. (just pick a side already, etc.).
Wow, people are assholes eh? I'll never understand why people care so much about the sexual and gender orientations of others. It's not like it effects them in any way.
Most of my experience as an asexual is people just have a hard time understanding that I just do not want to have sex with anybody, ever. Society is highly over-sexualized and you are trained from a very young age to think you have to want to have sex, because that is what humans do. If you look closely at even just cartoons, you can see it. The asexuals who get treated the worst are usually those that are also aromatic, because everybody seems to think having a date is crazy important, when it just simply is not to some people. It is more so that people try to force 'normal' (whether it be consciously or unconsciously) even though normal does not exist, nobody knows what it is, and nobody is normal, they just think they are.
I'd have to suggest that while the phile ending in and of itself has no negative connotation in practical usage. It also, then, does not describe in full what I am. A bibliophile doesn't slip his appendage into the cover of a book. I would argue, in popular opinion, that zoophilia will always convey sickness due to the technical description of the term in the DMS-V and how it has become well known.
I don't have an issue with the term zoophile, though I use zoo a lot for convenience, more than anything else. I used zoosexual quite heavily at one point, but I've reverted back to using zoophile of late.
I think we, more than any orientational minority that I can think of, should be aware that actions speak louder than words. Our partners do not speak our tongue; body language, which is chiefly action-based, is what we share with those we love. Although it's hopelessly romantic to suggest we need not have a word ourselves, keeping those we love in mind should aid us in keeping these words in perspective. Go give your loved one a cuddle and kiss, and remember what's important.
I prefer the term zoosexual as coined early this century. In the same way someone might be interested romantically, or sexually in someone of the same or other gender I have, always have been, attracted to equines. I think there is three reasons to adopt this term really:
edit:typo or two or three
Perhaps zoosexual to describe the whole group, and then sub categories such as hetero-zoosexual, for attraction to opposite gendered animals, and then sub-sub categories for if there are specific species the person is into, such as you for example say you specifically prefer equines. Seems like the easiest way to do it. Then perhaps use the zoosodomy for those who do it harmfully (as it is the term I have heard other zoosexuals, or zoos, or what have you use) and bestiality for those who just have the fetish and not the full attraction, as that already fits just fine. This is all just brainstorming, but it seems like it could be a more accurate way to categorize it in my opinion.
I prefer zoosexual because of the negative association of -phile. People I've chatted with online seem to automatically think of a mental illness when I use zoophile as opposed to when I use zoosexual.
Never mattered much to me in practice, and I don't care about the public. But internally zoophile has a ton of baggage, DSM or not. Traditionally you've had the bestialists vs zoophiles two-party system, where zoophile ends up meaning 'sainthood and everything good'. It gets mangled by ideas of love; sometimes it's defined purely on basis of relationships; either case sometimes sex gets removed entirely. Who even reads the DSM?
If you only want to communicate you're sexually attracted to animals, it takes more imagination to misinterpret 'zoosexual' (though apparently some people manage to), it's in line with homosexual, seems more useful and less ambiguous/suggestive for the zoo or even layman.