What're your thoughts on 'virgin' zoos (self.zoophilia)
submitted 2014-12-01 06:07:40 by actuallynotazoophile ok, I lied
So im curious how people feel about others calling themselves a zoo if theyve never actually been with a non-human. Do you think any less of them? do you think theyre not real zoos? maybe you dont care?
A bit of background about me. Ive never had sexual relations with an animal (jerked off a dog once when I was younger but I dont really think that counts, I was young and an idiot.) but i'd still call myself a zoo as thats how I feel inside. Two things off the top of my head that make me realise that I'm probably a zoo: I was a lot closer to the dogs I grew up with than my brother, and the fact I cant help checking out the sexy doggies when I'm out and about.
Let me know what you think.
I definitely believe the thought and willingness to even consider it should warrant our acceptance. Even if someone has never done anything with an animal, if their love is true and they're open to the ideas of animal romance or sex, they are zoophiles, and we should help them on the path, or away from it if they discover otherwise about themselves. What's key though, is to take them under the wing to teach and encourage. I do not believe one is less of a zoophile because they have experience; in fact I almost think that objectifies the relationship somewhat, turning it into a status symbol or rite of passage, which I think devalues the true nature of the relationship.
We don't say a man isn't heterosexual until he's been with a woman. I see no reason this is any different.
Excellent summary, chapeau.
yeah this is pretty much how I saw it. im glad it seems to be the agreed upon viewpoint.
Same here.
agreed (er... with myoki and duskwuff, i mean). depending on how you define it, i was a virgin 'til the ripe old age of ... ahem ... 39 ... (still rather embarrassed about that fact...), but to say i wasn't a zoophile would just be silly, IMO. i did have sexual contact with several animals, just never had full penetrative sex with an animal 'til earlier this year (i.e. i didn't know what the hell i was doing/didn't have access to intact animals).
This question really is self explanatory and kinda unnessesary, but again, to put this in perspective.
Is a homosexual man gay only if he has partaken in sex?
Is a transexual transexual only when they are fully passable and have corrected their genitalia?
Is a bisexual only bisexual if he has had sex with both men and women?
likewise, Is a zoosexual only a zoo if he has made love to a non-human animal.
In regards to thinking any less of them, If anyone actually does then they would be a complete douche.
eh, I figured at the very least it would be nice to spark a bit of conversation in here. Maybe someone will be in this position and stumble across this post hopefully answering some questions they have.
anyway, I feel zoosexuals are a bit different to the rest of your examples as society still tells us we're are absolutely unacceptable in this day and age. They say you cannot be a zoosexual full stop.
Pffft, you're not a REAL zoo! Aha haha! Everyone point and laugh!
/s
Of course you are, if zoo is your attraction - I've absolutely been zoo as long as I've been a concious human being.
I think the difference so far between you and I is our levels of activity/participation in that kind of fun
So I was a little bit of a late bloomer and definitely did not feel accepted into the zoo community until I had my first encounter and word was spread around. I think that is silly and we need, as a group, to stamp that kind of thinking out. I know of at least two people attracted to animals who keep questioning if they are zoo for no good reason. It weights on them because they feel pressure to do something, but not in it's own good time.
Having been in that boat and made my mistakes, I would recommend waiting and trying hard to ignore those "complete douches" as Sapphire_seam calls them.
Now, if you went around talking about dogs and horses like you had, and were constantly saying dumb things that weren't true or obviously pointed out you hadn't made any effort in learning I might question your ... perspective. But an effort to understand, learn or even just ask questions as they come to you should never make you feel less zoo.
There's also platonic zoos, and other reasons not to have sex. Zoophilia means loving an animal, not penis-in-vagina.
I don't think any 'lower' of them, or see myself as better or 'more seasoned' or something like that. Granted, it is a bit weird if you chat and at some point realize you are the only one who can talk about experiences, the other side can't, but then just change the topic. There is still lots to talk about. A similar simply mechanistic thing is a few 'inner' circles in some places that won't let you in if they believe or know you never did it. But I mean, that's just the rules of it, isn't it. If there is a club for people who did it, then those that didn't can't join. That's also not a judgement likewise those people can't join the 'didn't do it' club any longer.
Hey, I know a few horse people ("normal" people) who could call themselves platonic zoos. They'd never think of sex, but the time and money they spent on their horses... that could only be a good thing to soak up the platonic zoos. So - I am friendly and helpful to those that seem reasonable, interested, or ask questions. I don't see why it should bother me in any way if someone says he never did it. But I shun those who seem to simply want quick sex, or come over as otherwise unruly, insane or douchy.
yeah i need to brush up on my terminology. The more involved I get the more I get the meaning of these terms pointed out to me. I still use zoophile when I guess I should use zoosexual. shame on me :P
So this is kinda what led to me asking this question. Over on the chat on ZF theres everyone talking about there mates and im just there like, "er...yeah". I didnt think they mind me being there at all but its just a nagging thought that rests in the back of ones head.
But that is just a problem of ... conversation dynamics. If you mention early on, then no weirdness can grow. And not many people will mind or be bothered. If you always flaunt it, go along, and after half an hour when it becomes detailed "finally must admit it", then it is a bit weird to the chat partner. Just mention it early.^+
^+ I myself don't have a mate atm, btw. :(
IMO those terms are still rather arbitrary. some people define them very differently from how others define them. some people use two or all three of those interchangeably. i recently listened to someone define all three of those terms in great detail and i could only shake my head.
and no, nobody minds having more people in that chat room. for a long time it was pretty rare to see more than 4 or 5 people in there, and lately there've been 10 a couple days per week.
I consider myself zoo-exclusive, and I've never had sex with an animal. I'm just not attracted to humans. I don't see how it's different from any other person who knows what their sexuality is before they've had sex.
highfive brother
Highfive. Although I'd probably miss. :P
i was in the same boat 'til earlier this year.
I can't believe this shit is still going on. Secret "inner circles", "rules", requiring "experience" and stuff.
That's not a community I want to belong to.
If it's about protecting your identity, sure, that's something I understand well. But all the shenanigans around it... That's just WTF to me. Why are zoophiles behaving as if they belong to some special secret club? It's just a sexual orientation, people! Nothing more. Just talk about it like normal people do.
(But to be fair: Many people here actually do that, so it's not as bad as I said)
No, I never have had sex with a nonhuman animal yet. So what? I know for a fact that I am sexually attracted to human and nonhuman animals and that's all I need to know.
Well, I'm rambling but it's kind of going on my nerves. Recently I created this thread because I wanted to know what people think about Douglas Spink and I haven't really got many answers that really illuminate the controversy around him, but especially replies like https://np.reddit.com/r/zoophilia/comments/2n6mxo/douglas_spinks_case/cmb3bg1 make me wonder what the fuck is going on? What's the point of all this vague secretiveness?
I would point out my experience was 20 years ago regarding this, and the feeling of being outsiders tend to be self-inflicted as far as I can see.
There are a few childish exceptions are involving the usual folks who never grew up past the school yard, but they generally have little to offer except porno.... So no loss.
As for DS ive heard all kinds of stuff... Big personalities do tend to polarize people... But I have no facts.
Spink is infamous, and the number of rumours around him are unbelievable. It's not that we're being secretive, so much as everyone seems to have a separate view of him and their own take on events. What's more, many of his old enemies have disappeared - only one remaining zoo comes to mind, and he isn't active on reddit.
Old zoos who were active on newsgroups such as alt.sex.bestiality in the 90s and subsequent forums in the early 2000s are the only ones who can answer your questions directly. Remnants of html and text files from that era accuse ol' Fausty of all sorts of things, most grimly, sweeping exposure of zoos' personal information, leading to the outing and arrest of those who rejected him. I can't vouch the accuracy of these stories, and I wasn't active early enough to see any of it for myself. Then, there's the cocaine and subsequent drug busts that landed him in prison the first time.
With Spink, I really think, and I'm not alone here, that we should let the dead bury the dead. Put him aside, forget about him, don't unearth past tensions. I'm sorry that everyone has kept him under wraps, but now you may understand why.
The zoo tendency to form a superiority complex is a separate issue. My disliking of the vividrandomexistence blog was largely due to the way it placed zoos on a pedestal, and that mentality is prevalent. It has occurred because any community that is underground, static and cynical breeds sentiment against the outside, which eventually leads to the a sense of exclusivity when we forget why we're underground in the first place. I maintain that the only way to prevent this insular, parochial elitism is to remain in touch with the standing of our sexuality, and balance viewing inward with outward.
Edit: typo
Of course virgin zoos are zoos. Zoophilia is an attraction, not necessarily a practice, and I don't think any less of those who haven't been with nonhumans sexually. After all, there's a large number of reasons why people may not have acted on thier attractions, and I get that.
Not to mention, how, exactly, do we define virginity? There are so many different definitions that it becomes difficult to say what exactly a virgin is. I recall one humorous definition of what sex is (and therefore how it pertains to virginity) in the book *The Ethical Slut" that demonstrates that the issue can be very complicated when you ponder it.
And while I'm thinking about it, if you are going to draw the line at virginity in zoos, then why draw the line between humans and nonhumans? I find it interesting that, given the wide variety of species a single zoo could be interested in, (including humans) that we draw the virginity issue onto only two axes. While I can understand such a division, I personally prefer a much more detailed model that offers more information.
[deleted]
I'm fine with 'virgin' zoos, but I'd have to be — I've never had sex with a non-human. I'm still a zoo because dogs and horses turn me on more than humans do.
I'll drink to that.
thanks for the interesting responses guys. they were pretty much what I had envisioned for this thread. I always find it interesting reading different peoples thoughts and perspectives perspectives regarding certain topics. It also makes me realise what a great little community we've got. cheers all :)
I struggle with this all the time. My family didn't own dogs when I was a kid, and I haven't actually interacted with many in my life. I most definitely fantasize about it, as my post history reveals. When I do encounter dogs, I feel attraction to them. I remember in particular being jumped on by a big Labrador Retriever, and discovering later that I had an erection.
What I know for sure, then, is two things: I am aroused by the fantasies, and by the dogs themselves. I'm pretty sure that if both of these things make me hyperventilate, then I'm a zoophile. Even if I haven't consummated yet.
closes door Sorry I'm late.
To echo what others have said, I don't think sexual activity is a validator of sexual orientation.
Remember that sexual orientation is comprised of sexual and romantic attraction - it is who you desire to share a sexual relationship with that determines your sexual orientation, not who you screw (or lack thereof). Similarly, having sex with those who do not correspond to your sexual orientation does not change it.
It's somewhat of a no true Scotsman for someone to suggest that virgin/abstinent zoos are less worthy of the orientation than those who have had sex with animals. I generally avoid people who are so far up themselves, zoos or not.