When I was first coming to terms with my zoosexuality, I explored other related aspects of sexuality, which I identified mainly through stories I read online. I noticed that one thing which I would expect to be more connected to zoophilia doesn't seem to have much influence in the community: autozoophilia.
To be fair, I didn't know the term until about a year ago, but every so often when researching zoophilia I would find references to people roleplaying as certain kinds of animals, often sexually but also sometimes as a sort of lifestyle. The most explicit connection I ever found was in a series of stories on BF called "Living Like A Dog," by Sinnkissed, in which a woman (purportedly) related how she in effect became her dog's mate through a complete change in lifestyle to be entirely doglike, culminating in her rejecting human society entirely except for occasional legal and medical matters. I'm not sure if I believe it, but I find the whole concept fascinating.
The BDSM community and the zoo community pretty much keep each other at arm's length, and for obvious reasons. But I do think that they might have some things to learn from each other, particularly about nonverbal consent through body language and witholding thereof. There are, of course, also connections to therianthropy and the furry community (of which we clearly have no shortage).
My question is this: are these two zoophilias, auto and regular, related in more than a superficial way, particularly psychologically? And if so, what might we learn from each other in terms of ethics and the way that animals and their simple, joyful mindsets make us feel? Also, on a less serious note, do any of you roleplay as your lovers' species in some minor way, such as barking or nuzzling during intimacy?
Interesting, I've never heard the word autozoophilia before but it actually describes how I approached the relationships I've had with the dogs in my life and how I'll approach my future dogly relationships. Its not that I feel as though I'm a dog trapped in a human body, I feel human through and through, but it just feels good to me to pretend to be more dogly around dogs. Its fun and feels nice to be on their level, figuratively and literally. I'll bark at them, make panting noises, roll on my back while im playing with them, play bow etc. I tried grooming them with my tongue once but being german sheps I just got a mouthful of hair so that kinda took the coolness out of it but i'd still nuzzle them all evening.
I was still pretty young at this point so I guess no one though anything of it. Hell, I didnt think anything of it at the time, most of this was pre-puberty so there wasnt a sexual element, it just felt right.
so yeah, basically, I really enjoy pretending to be a dog when Im around dogs and I believe the dogs enjoy it as well. I think they appreciate it when we try speak their (body) language.
god, i'd forgotten how much i miss those dogs :/
Are the two zoophilias related? I really dont know, I thought all of my actions were what zoophiles did as standard practise but you say its not? I'd be interested to hear if other zoos think I'm a weirdo by pretending to be a dog :P
heh.. i used to crawl around on my hands and knees.. naked.. pretending to be a horse. this was when i was 6 or 7 iirc.
I can relate to this. I'm a therian and do find the idea of being in my feline form with a dog arousing. I think it is an interesting concept and the line between it and zoophilia is a pretty big grey zone.
Therian here as well. I became interested in zoophilia when I discovered that I was a wolf. I pursue what seems natural to me.
I'm a fictionkin and I do act the same way naturally, I don't force it etc. Just nuzzling, licking, make little grunts here and there and biting is just what I do. Nothing to do with roleplaying which people seem to believe. It just...happens.
I don't think I'd ever pretend to be like an animal. I like this idea about cross-species relationships and if I try to make myself more like a non-human then that is not in keeps with my liking for inter-species connection. I like that in zoophilia, perhaps vastly different creatures are needing to learn to love each other (not that they don't naturally)... That's one aspect of zoophilia that I really like. All the creatures should come together and love one another.
That being said I don't think it is "bad" for anyone to do this autozoophilia of which you describe. My sister always used to dress up and act like a dog when we were kids.. she would even do this in town. She would be in the various dog suits that she had, walk around on all fours and bark at people! Sometimes I felt like I had a dog rather than a sister! Lol it was fun.
i agree. the idea of bridging a gap to a different but interesting/beautiful creature is one of the things that drives my zoophilia.
needs emphasis
why do you say this? Are you thinking adults can't or shouldn't do this?
Oh you're free to do it. Just don't expect to be taken seriously. Much less when you start comparing your make-believe to real issues.
There is no logical reason to be against it so therefor being mistreated for it is still a problem. Who cares if somebody wants to dress up and act like a dog in public? I have a hard time seeing any negatives to that.
I think I developed from Autozoophilia to (nearly) exclusive zoophilia, but I did find the Therian community around the same time as zoo.
I frequently display stereotyped canine behaviour (nuzzling, licking, woofing) to some degree, even outside of sexual context. I think all the cybersex role play I've done has involved me being a wolf, never a human.
pfff hahahah 10/10
learn to stay away maybe
fuck you. Dude we're talking about having relationships with animals. Like I say, it makes sense to use the same body language as animals when communicating with them. Also, grooming and stuff is also how they form bonds in the wild I dont see how its so bad when I do it how they do.
that's the spirit, kid.
there's no reason to recognize your masqueraded psychological defects as some intrinsic part of my sexual orientation.
\>masqueraded psychological defects
\>posting in /r/zoophilia
kek, ok mate.
I get that this form of behavior can be silly and easy to make fun of, but why dismiss it as nuts when your own proclivities (fucking dogs) are harder for mainstream society to accept, even as a joke?
Personally, I don't buy into some of the more serious parts of therianthropy (being a wolf in spirit, for example) because they don't fit in with how I view the world. But the lifestyle around it? The choices people make to emulate species they admire or love? I find them to be wonderful expressions of minds less shackled to tradition than usual. And if people find ways even to live out these fantasies as fully as possible, for instance living as a dog pretty much full-time, I say good for them so long as they can survive in that way either with the support of friends or just on their own savings.
In short, go ahead and laugh. I'll laugh with you. But to see yourself as better than many people here for not being a weirdo, while posting on this subreddit with that username, is either non-self-aware to the point that I have to wonder whether you recognize your own reflection in the mirror, or it's troll behavior. I can't say which it is.
Exactly my thoughts about that guy
This sexual orientation is a real attraction to real beings. It is not fantasy and it's an enormous disservice to associate it with these people's total make believe.
As someone once pointed out to me, there is absolutely no reason I am required to entertain this complete nonsense. It is not any part of this sexual orientation. These literal autists and manchildren are those who are imposing their delusions onto a serious subject. Why the fuck are you helping them. The only thing it can serve is turn it into an even bigger joke.
Im honestly supprised it isnt more common. How does bonding to an animal they same way they do in their species mean im an austist. Im not saying I walk around pretending to be a dog all the time. Please enlighten me as to how you act around dogs in the privacy of your own home. Do you just crate them until you want to bang them or something? who needs to build a loving bond anyway....
Because NOBODY HERE is attempting to see any line between interspecies communication and pretending to be another species in their little heads. You're using the former to excuse all forms of the latter.
surely its the same thing? Its well known animals communicate using body language so how are you supposed to do that without appearing to pretend to be a dog?
I agree that autozoophilia is not itself a sexual orientation. But like it or not, it is associated with zoophilia. It's included in a broad classification of different types of zoophilia. Here's the full list, in brief:
Class I: Petplayers/autozoophiles. People who dress up and/or pretend to be animals.
Class II: Romantic zoophiles. People who get warm fuzzies around animals.
Class III: Zoophilic fantasizers. People who get off thinking about sex with animals.
Class IV: Tactile zoophiles. People who like the feel of animals' bodies.
Class V: Fetishistic zoophiles. People who like the feel of animals' fur, without needing the animal itself to be present.
Class VI: Sadistic bestials. People who like the animals to suffer.
Class VII: Opportunistic zoosexuals. People who have sex with animals when no one else is around.
Class VIII: Regular zoosexuals. People who aren't zoo-exclusive, but prefer animal sex to human sex.
Class IX: Homicidal bestials. People who need to kill animals to get off with them.
Class X: Exclusive zoosexuals. People who only have sex with animals, not humans.
Now, this classification isn't exclusive, and is largely based on a previously existing classification for necrophiles, but I think there is evidence for the existence of every one of these types. And their association with each other in the minds of educated people is not hard to figure out.
If you don't like being associated with people you think make us look bad, the first thing you should probably address in the public sphere is the pedophilia association, which is itself based on a false analogy and therefore invalid. Our bad PR goes far worse than just men on leashes: it extends to nymphomaniacs, people who rip horses with knives, and idiot hicks banging livestock because they can't get laid otherwise. To paraphrase the book of Matthew, we should remove the stick from the horse's vagina (or the horse's ass, as the case may be here) before worrying about a speck of dust on someone else's fake tail.
cool link, hadnt seen that before. the expanded definition of Class 1 maybe excludes me then seeing as:
I'm thinking one can be categorized in more than one class but at the bottom it says:
Which implies that you can only be one kind of zoophile (ignoring the fact that they think we need treatment :/ ).
If I had to categorise myself I'd be either a class 8 if it didnt have the condition that they also have sex with humans, or a class 10 if it involved the condition of a romantic part of the relationship.
Yeah, this blog is generally a good source for academic information on a bunch of fetishes, as well as zoophilia.
I'm getting tired of this, goddamn, Class I does not belong in zoosexuality. It has no bearing on any of its implications. Those people don't matter. I reject this monstrous subjective classification as long as it's there. For all practical purposes zoosexuality is about attraction and intercourse with real animals. I see no reason to think otherwise and nothing more to say.
You've clearly misunderstood what we're talking about. It's not that they're the same thing, it's that they're related conceptually, and that there are good reasons to see them as related psychologically. A desire for nurturing and simplicity, love for the behavior of an animal, and nonverbal communication are prevalent in both, to name a few examples.
Personally, I'm offended that we get lumped in with class VI and class IX, since those have more to do with power, feelings of inadequacy, or just fucked up psychotic rage than with love or a healthy sexuality. But they exist, and so long as we both exist, those of us who love animals will have to understand at least something about even our most despised representatives to the general public, if only to better see why it's important to draw these distinctions in the first place, and why the worst cases (blinding horses with a spike, for example) do not necessarily justify a blanket ban.
No one is saying, "Welcome everyone in this group as equal to you," or at least I'm not. I'm saying that calling people like this nuts when you don't really know them is identical to calling people who like to fuck animals nuts without any more information than a news story about their arrest. Your judgement is welcome, and may have validity, but crying about people you don't understand rarely ends well for anyone.
No, you're gone on a tangent. It's irrelevant. You can get any armchair psych with too much time to relate almost any two things psychologically. Find me someone who hasn't had a 'desire for nurturing and simplicity'. 'Love for the behavior of an animal', in other words 'furries like animal traits too', yeah great find doc.
Nothing changes that a zoo's object of affection is a real animal, a furry's is not nor do they usually fantasize about them as a whole. For all useful purposes, one criteria creates a large enough distinction (fantasy vs reality) between them to say it's useless to relate them by any other. Put it this way. Furries might possess a subset of a zoo's mental processes. So you're wasting your time studying an incomplete being having an object of affection that doesn't concern you and that's highly distorted. There's nothing there to learn.
Hmm, you raise a good point about class 1. While I agree with you that that on its own might not be zoophilia, that doesnt mean if you enjoy autozoophilia you cant also be a zoo who loves animals.
My problem with you (apart from the personal attacks) is that you seem to be hung up the fact that someone who is a zoo (in that they love animals) but also pretends to be an animal for whatever reason, apparently isnt a zoo in your eyes...?
The two dont have to be exclusive. Youre allowed to be a zoo AND and furry or whatever. Theres no hard rules.
It'd be much appreciated by myself and others if you stopped being antagonistic.
Differing opinions are welcome and encouraged in our community, but condescension and passive aggression are not. Your snide comments are unacceptable.
If you wish to continue participating here, please offer others the respect they deserve.
~ T-V
Oh go fuck yourself, Tundrovvy. The kid's the one who started down the fuck yous, in case you hadn't kept track. If you're going to ban people over sarcastic comments, selectively, after the censorship (a.k.a. voting) system already hides anything that triggers the slightest stolen crayon childhood memory, then all this is is one more URL disgracing the word zoophilia, and you can keep your damn fish. I can smell the australian all the way from here.
For the record, I would gladly fuck myself.
ANOZ is a constructive and valued member of the community. I can't say what he said was acceptable, but I can say that he is more entitled to leeway than you are. You've been here, what? 3 days?
You treat zoophilia like it's some cherished and elitist entity. It isn't. There's nothing particularly special about us; there is no reputation to tarnish or word to disgrace. The way a few furry zoos choose to have fun has no further negative impact whatsoever on us. The world hates us because it finds us disgusting and immoral, not because it thinks we're disorientated and unrealistic.
And don't you think it's ironic that you tell others not to "disgrace the word zoophilia"?
Leeway, of sarcastic comments? What is this, junior high? come to think of it...
3 days? Please tell me you're not that naive. Fuzzy dates say, might be longer than you both. A reddit account a day keeps the psychos and downvote brigade at bay.
You really don't get it. Comparing furry to zoo even remotely is like an emo kid skipping breakfast saying 'now I know what those unicef kids must feel like'. Zoo is a serious topic with serious real-world implications. 'Furryness' is not. It's fantasy, it's a joke, and no zoo has any moral obligation to respect it, which might be quoting someone. I can't believe you'd write reputation doesn't matter. Of course it matters. How zoo is presented to newbies is one of the most important things a place like this does.
And you're doing a TRULY FANTASTIC job of that. Good job.
Wow, hard exchange of arguments here. On one hand, I can totally relate to dogfucker´s criticism and do not see any beneficial connections between people in love with animals and pretending to be one. One thing about the latter that disturbs me most is that you can CHOOSE your "furry/anthro/therian" personality. When I had sex with a mare, a beautiful Haflinger, the first time in my life in 1987, I already had come to terms with being a zoophile. So there was no guilt and shame afterwards...but my "performance" really managed to shock me. I had never seen a horse mating before at that point of time and was puzzled what I was doing. For around one and a half year, I really thought I´d end up in a mental asylum; then, I had to help in a horse mating for the first time. When the action started, I blushed and had to turn away. Not because I was embarrassed of seeing two horses mate, but because suddenly I recognized the similarities. I have to add that I never was into this furry/anthro/therian stuff.But obviously I do it like a stallion, it seems to be perfectly natural for me. Still I wouldn´t describe myself as a "horse in a human body".
After that, my interest in animal-human transformation concepts awoke. Around 1991, I developed an interest in shamanism because the shamans claim to have a possibility to meet your "spirit animal", your nonhuman guide. So I found a group of practicing psychedelic shamans at Heidelberg, Germany, a very wellknown location for psychonauts. They strictly clinged to the teachings of Carlos Castaneda and Maria Sabina, a female mexican shaman known for the usage of Teonanacatl, the holy magic mushroom. After a certain span of time, in which I was prepared and instructed for my "spiritual journey", I finally got invited to participate in a ritual. To abbreviate it: I swallowed 1500 micrograms of pure liquid LSD onto an empty stomach and what followed is beyond comprehension. Before the ritual I was told that I have to call my spirit animal and have to wait what species would answer. It exactly turned out this way. I won´t annoy you with acidhead stories, but when I nearly got desperate because there was no spirit guide answering me, I started to panic. And just at the moment when the panic began to overwhelm me, contact was established: a grey and white horse formed before me. It stared at me and after a while of staring, it ran over and began attacking me, biting me, ripping me apart and finally swallowing my body. Anyone with experience in usage of psychedelics knows that images induced by drugs are not "real" in a conventional sense, but when under the influence, these things are more "real" than reality itself. When eaten by this horse, I plunged into utter chaos of mind and it took me around 24 hours to get my feet firmly back on the ground. A few days later, the shaman group reinvited me, this time for talking only. One of the experienced shamans took me aside and encouraged me to tell what I have seen during the ritual. I told him everything I remembered and when I finished telling him that I had been "eaten" by this horse, he only nodded and said: "Horse chose you". He then explained that this is the most common way for a spirit animal to bond with a "seeker", ripping him apart and eating him entirely. The symbolism underlying here is that of death and rebirth into another consciousness/life.
I know, all of this was drug induced. For anyone without experience with psychedelics, it surely sounds like totally bogus and made up. But I assure you that, while in this alternate state of mind induced by the LSD, it was absolutely real for me; it even had some "superreal" qualities.
So, I´ll come back to what I wrote at the beginning. I can relate to the criticism because those furries play games IMHO. They PRETEND to be an animal, it is entirely made up by their own wishes. In opposition to that, I never wanted to be a "horse in a human body", I haven´t chosen to be this way. The furries can switch it on and off as they wish, I can´t. They can put off their fursuits and masquerade and live their "normal" human lives, I can´t. I whinny, grunt and snort when I´m alone or alone with horses. I still don´t say I´m a "therian" or anything else, it´s just what I am and always was. I do agree to dogfucker´s opinion that all of this playing around with alternate personalities is basically not beneficial for zoophilia to be taken seriously. I do agree that these "fursonae" are more connected to infantile games where YOU, the "player", has total control. But beyond role playing, there´s another level, one that denies control of what is happening. In comparison to the furries and anthros, this isn´t a game, but serious and dangerous business. Real alteration of the mind, without an "emergency off" button to press when it gets tough.
I don´t see this as part of zoophilia, this has nothing to do with my sexual orientation as a hetero horse exclusive. Well, a little bit maybe, but this goes deeper than being aroused by a mare and feeling the urge to pretend being a stallion. You can only pretend to be what you aren´t. If you already are, there´s no need of pretending, fursuits, masks and so on. It´s inside me. I live with it 24/7.
Over the years, my behavior got more and more horselike. I still have sex with my mare like a stallion would, grunting, teasing her, biting reflex, although I´m a bit short to reach her neck with my teeth. I communicate with horses without any effort. I´ve been called by people "Natural", "half a horse himself" and "born for horses" more times than I can count. Still I refuse to see myself as an anthro/furry/therian. I don´t know what exactly I am, but it doesn´t matter anyways.
I hope I got across my point here. I´m not a furry hater, I only feel the furries are deceiving themselves in a certain way when choosing their animal form. It´s role play, nothing more. There´s a difference between PLAYING ,let´s say, a medieval barbarian in a RP friendly environment and actually BEING one, regardless if the environment is friendly or hostile.
Just my two cents....
Explaining my side more: For me it's not based on choice. But for all the wolf and cat therians there is obviously something a bit odd when that's ALL 'everyone' associates with. I might be skeptical about this but it feels like people make it more of a trend then in all seriousness. (Not to say every wolf and cat person is a phony).
For me, I didn't choose to be the way I am. I explored further into my species dysphoria because I already acted different from the standard human. Even though I'm still exploring that side I would relate closely to a parasitic being of darkness (something like that) after various encounters with entities and studies on the subject.
Identifying my 'phantom' limbs, my lust and desire of darkness and noticing my increase of the desire for meat especially raw and human flesh is something that was already present in my personality same with my violent nature and not something I decided "Hey it would be cool if I acted like this". I might growl, hiss, make weird noises etc. When I look at stuff of things snuff or zombies eating people makes me hungry with the desire and passion of wanting to eat the organs of a creature. Usually nothing 'exotic' happens when I'm passive but once I get pissed off or have one of my panic attacks that's when everything really comes into effect (embarrassing but true).
I do agree though, I don't really like those who choose to be a certain animal and treat it as the new best thing because most of those people act like they are all high and mighty and tell me off as being a fake because I'm not the millions of wolf and feline people that they are.
Personally the otherkin subculture has become more of a fad to me and I prefer not to consider myself one because of that. I feel that most people don't take the 'species dysphoria' seriously and many I see are not anything other then a human being.
I don't mean to sound stuck-up and I don't know why but I feel like my English has become very broken lately, even though that's the only language I speak..
My girlfriend and I frequently emote licking/nuzzling/barking/pinning each other down/play wrestling/wagging our tails (no real life parallel to this, unfortunately, aside from wearing a tail accessory) on Skype and we've expressed interest in carrying on these behaviors into real life when we're together as right now we're in a LDR.
We also call each other by the name of the animal we associate with most (both are canines) and refer to our hands/feet as forepaws/hindpaws, our nails as claws, our lower faces as muzzles, and our mouths as maws, which is a bit silly honestly but we both think it's adorable.
Lol grunting like a stallion while rubbing the flanks of a mare in heat.
[deleted]
Honestly I do enjoy and it becomes a habit for me acting like a non-human animal. I don't pretend nor force myself to be alert constantly, licking, nuzzling etc. It just became habit. Idk when or why I am this way and I only can conclude it's in a more spiritual sense.
I do not do this to please any non-human animal, it's just the way I am and what feels comfortable for me.