I am not a zoophile, but I do not like the current zoophilia terminology. It lacks in the self descriptive department causing a need to explain further. Additionally the zoophile term itself makes people assume it is something mentally wrong with the person, much like the term homophile before homosexual was a word and makes comparing zoophilia and pedophilia hard to combat in an argument, because people seem to think since only these have the -philia a the end, they are related somehow. Anyway here is my suggestion for a way to organize it verbally. First the accepted term for the whole group would be zoosexual (as others have adopted already). Then we could add in the prefixes such as hetero- homo- so we would have hetero-zoosexual for somebody who is attracted to opposite gender animals and so on. Then we could have suffixes at the end for species specific attractions, as many zoos have specific animal species they are attracted to. These organizational pieces could then also be attached other terms like such as zoosodomy and bestialty (and perhaps a new term like beastsodomy for those into the fetish, who get involved in the harming in animals).
Edit 1: I almost forgot to mention it would also help identify between those who may just be zooromanitc, and not zoosexual, which is possible, but trying to explain it here would be opening a whole other can of worms about beliefs and organization of terms.
This is all something I came up with on my own, and I have no right to say this is the correct way of saying it or anything (espcially not being a zoo), but I think it is better than the current system. What do you all think?
CONCLUSION: So I have read through you comments, and decided it is probably best just to leave it where it is, at least for now. Perhaps when zoophilia is more socially accepted, a better system will be developed, but until now, I suppose it does not matter, similar how asexuals such a myself only need to specify the sexuals vs the asexuals in most case, rather than specifying hetero- homo- etc. as the meaning of the issue does not usually change with different prefixes.
That's pretty similar to what I do now. I don't know if the prefixes are required, once zoo most people don't care same or other sex. I also wonder how you would handle those who are zoosexual, but not exclusively so(the bisexuals of the zoo world so to speak) People always look at me funny when I say I'm zoosexual and have a wife.
I guess just say zoosexual and heterosexual/homoromantic/zooexclusive/etc. I tried to think of a better organizational system, but I can not come up with a better system that prevents confusion and is not overly complex. I thought maybe an extra prefix system, like hetero-zoo-hetero-sexual for somebody who is into opposite gendered animals and humans, but that seems like it would cause too much confusion and end up being too complex. The organizations otherwise will likely become more relevant as I have noticed zoophilia topics are gradually creeping there way into the public eye and better terms may help prevent confusion.
So I see this is being downvoted, do we have a mad downvoter problem in the /r/zoophilia?
Also, here is a link to the other thread started on the subject just recently.
http://redd.it/2hhv4d
I downvoted it because its a thinly veiled piece of tumblr writing that actually has nothing to do with zoophilia.
Until the attaching of species specific suffixes, the idea is not really new. Things like homozoosexual have been tried. Further attaching makes it quite long, compare homozoosexualequus. I wouldn't need to specify myself with one word to everybody. And then they needed to learn that system. As most people are doofusses and probably think that bibliophiles fuck books, i doubt it. Also, a lot of zoos have a preferred species, yes, but they also wouldn't say no to approaches by several more. My fav. Are horses. I wouldn't say no to dogs and cows. I can't see what some see in sheep. That'll be a complicated word. Do you know the zoocode?
Further to this, zoosexual should be the umbrella term. Zoophiles is for those with partnerships. The attachment of homo- hetero- works. Someone once proposed you could then use partner- and the animal attached to clarify in further talks where your heart is.
I don't think your ideas are bad, but it's worth bringing up /u/thousandcows' advice given when I suggested bringing about another form of name change last year.
I am of the view that, if someone does not understand zoophile is derived from the medical term but that an identical suffix to pedophilia does not show relation (any more than audiophile does), then they will not accept the sexuality under any other name. Conversely, anyone who does understand the sexuality looks beyond the name.
Edited for clarity
This sums it up best for me, I think. You can call yourself whatever you like, but at the end of the day, people aren't going to look more favourably on zoophiles just because they use a different name. Of course, people are free to use any label they want for themselves, but there comes a point where you sacrifice clarity for accuracy. An example would be describing your computer as "dual core, 1.3GHz, 4GB GeForce GTX 690 GDDR5 PCIe 3.0, 1TB SSDHD" etc. etc. when you could just say "a desktop." Sure you're being more specific, but in almost all cases, the specificity serves no purpose except to confuse and alienate people.
My opinion would be that instead of worrying that the current terminology is misunderstood and warrants changing to a new one, a better approach would be to educate people. Sure, "zoophile" may have connotations of some sort of mental illness, but there is a growing consensus among mental health professionals with experience in the area that it's nothing of the sort. Actually letting people know this fact, rather than trying to somehow obfuscate matters by saying "oh, no, they're talking about zoophiles but I'm a zoosexual" seems like a more constructive approach. When all's said and done, it's what the majority call you that shapes how you're viewed, not what you call yourself, so if the prevailing trend is to refer to people with an attraction to animals as zoophiles, I say damn right, I am a zoophile, and I'm a perfectly normal, nice guy.
EDIT: Just to add another thought, that while one person might decide to call themselves a "homo-zoo-hetero-sexual" there's absolutely nothing to stop someone else with exactly the same preferences just calling themselves a zoophile. Terminology is only as useful as it is consistent, and if every other person has a different name for what they are, you just end up with a confusing mess. It's all well and good saying "First the accepted term for the whole group would be zoosexual..." but what if someone wants to be called a zoophile, but by your definitions would be a zoosexual? You can't police what people call themselves, so there's no way ensure uniform terminology through the community.
I disagre with you for your very reasons. Ask yourself why not homophilia? Hetrophilia?
I completely agree that we don't need extra terminology but the fact remains that zoophilia IS a disease in the DSM-V and DSM-VI when it causes problems. Zoosexual is a much less value laden term when someone first sees it, it does not imply a connection to the other philia.
Arguing that zoophilie will be looked at like audiophile seem disingenuous to me.... Especially once you have to explain the sexual aspect of your love to avoid the "oh, i like animals too" confusion.
I agree with danpetman - any new labels bestowed upon the zoo community simply shouldn't be dreamt up by us. I do not say homo or hetero-philia because I'm happy to follow the status quo, not because I see specific or individual merits in any particular suffix.
It is worth mentioning that homosexuality is listed as a mental illness under the same circumstances as zoophilia. Paraphilic disorders: not otherwise specified is more or less a 'too hard basket' - a holding bay for what they cannot yet remove, but do not consider an issue worth documenting to any sort of depth. I would not be surprised if, in the near future and with continued exposure, zoophilia is removed altogether.
I never said that zoos would/should be looked at like audiophiles - it was simply an example to show that not all -philia terms need be associated with pedophilia. Sure, it's easy for one to assume that philia+sex=pedophilia, but that's only an initial reaction that disappears with some explanation. What's more, we'll have to offer that explanation regardless of what we call ourselves, because our society says animals are furry children, pure and innocent - far from being adults themselves.
Edited because I reread your comment.
[deleted]
I remember reading somewhere that the only reason why homosexuality was removed from its classification in the DSM as a mental illness was due to the extreme pressure they were receiving from gay rights activists. I can't find any links to back that up, though I've tried :0p
Thing is, homosexuality also used to be considered a mental illness. Changing what it was called wouldn't have changed people's opinion of it. It's not the name that causes people to associate zoophilia with mental illness, it's the fact that, under any name, sex with animals is considered by many to be the result of some kind of mental problem. Most people have never even heard of the DSM-V and are unaware of the medical definition of zoophilia as a pathological condition, they just assume that for anyone to want to have sex with an animal, they must be mentally ill.
The -philia suffix has nothing to do with psychology per se, it's just that when defining things, medical people tend to default to certain standard forms. Any sexual interest that is highly atypical is defined as a paraphilia, which is NOT the same as a mental illness (which would be termed a paraphilia disorder). I don't think anyone could really argue that zoophilia isn't a paraphilia by this definition, since it's demonstrably very rare. The fact that zoophilia can be a mental illness, if it causes severe problems to the person, should not have an effect on the meaning of the word when used by people for whom it isn't pathological, in the same way that a person can be narcissistic without having a narcissistic personality disorder. Personally, I don't feel that changing how you refer to yourself will have any real impact on how people view you, since it's what you do that they judge, not what you call it. If you need any evidence (and it does make me cringe a little to make this comparison), simply look at people who advocate "child love," or the members of "NAMBLA." Their re-branding of pedophilia hasn't won them any more acceptance whatsoever.
There was an extensive code that was in use for a little while in the mid- to late-90s on some older forums, used to describe all the points you mentioned and more, even getting into specific species preferences. It was extremely lengthy, and probably why it's no longer used. There was even software created to find what your code was. An example would look like this:
It even had an entry in Wikipedia, but it was deleted 4 years ago. The code can be found here:
http://zeta.woofle.net/zoocode-1.47.html
The humble days of ASB... It's still used on knotty.
Though it is pretty convoluted and difficult to remember. I have one though I've never published it.
Its a bit tumblr-esque for me. Theres bigger things to worry about than what your prefix/suffix/whatever is and trying to figure one out for everyone who has some sexuality thats slightly different to the other person.
If it makes you feel better then feel free to call yourself whatever you want but I think specifying petty differences is pretty useless in the grand scheme of things.
Well, im just an animal fucker i guess. :)
[deleted]
That is an excellent idea