I think it's completely absurd to claim that someone who's not zoo-exclusive isn't a zoophile. The idea that one's membership in a minority group is mostly determined by how much related suffering that person has gone through is an idea that I've only noticed popping up online in the last few years, but I just don't see why thinking that way is productive at all.

The only people I've seen claim that zoophiles must be zoo-exclusive or you can't say you're a zoophile until you have physical 'experience' or whatever have been, quite frankly, assholes who were rude and abrasive to other people in the community they had entered. I'm not especially inclined to put much weight behind what people who behave like that say.

The whole zoophile/bestialist separation is a little bit more legitimate, in my mind-- there's a large number of people who're more interested in watching/participating in sexual acts between humans and animals than they are in the animals themselves. Since that's a significant difference between actually feeling a romantic/physical attraction to an animal and wanting to interact with it sexually for that reason, I think it makes sense to differentiate between the two.

start calling them bi-zoosexuals? :P bi-speciesial maybe.

I dunno, I think zoo exclusive/non zoo exclusive works if we want to get more in depth into people sexuality. ive never thought theres anything wrong with non exclusives calling themselves zoos, but ive never really thought about it before.

I'm not really interested in defining the terminology used to describe what I am, just like how straight people who are exclusively attracted to human women aren't really interested in defining the criteria of "straightness" when it applies to situations that might involve members of the same sex or transsexuals.

Why do we need more divisive lines in an already small community?

I think the term zoophile should include both exclusive and non-exclusive people. As you stated both share the same struggles so they should share the same name and the same community.

I think the last thing the zoophile community(s) need is any splitting or dividing into different groups. Spread to thin you will all be crushed. Additionally I see no need to change the existing words for it. Sure being able to pass as non-zoo may have its advantages, but that does not mean you do not face the same struggles. Plus the same argument could be made that zoo-exclusives could pass for asexual given the need to be secretive about the attraction.

I don´t agree on all of this.

• The " our community´s so small, we don´t need differentiations" argument: bogus. Since when is the quantity of a group relevant?
• " ... non-exclusives face the same struggle": How do you know if you don´t know how being an "exclusive" zoophile feels like? Well, the "zoo"-sadists are also facing the same struggle. Why don´t we count them in?
  • The LGBT argument: So, if gay, lesbian and bisexual basically is the same, as you implied, why does LGBT not read GGGT? Why are bisexuals pissed off by calling them homosexuals then? Why do lesbians not like to be called gay? Why are there two words for what basically is the same thing, interest in the same sex? Can you imagine that it´s LGBT because this is about pride and identity?
• "Just because I can be in human relationships too doesn´t mean I can suppress the part in me...": Yeah, but for you, it´s an OPTION, not your entire emotional and sexual life. We "exclusives" do not have this option, we don´t share your views, our lives are entirely different from yours. It´s NOT about the "suffering".
• "Just because I could pass as non-zoo doesn´t mean I should. It´s not healthy for me.": So, this isn´t about the emotional and sexual aspects, it´s about being part of a group. Or would it change much for you in your relationship(s) with animals? Is the sex and love worse when you can´t call yourself a "zoo" anymore? I sense a kind of "If I don´t fit into the definitions, then the definitions have to fit me" attitude here.
• I don´t think the term zoophile should be applied to anyone. Even one of the worst places you can visit, BF, has a very clear distinction of zoo and beasty. Even they agree on the exclusivity needed to call yourself a zoo.

A short question: Are there "exclusive" homosexuals? Or "exclusive" heteros? No, the exclusiveness is already included in these terms; if you´re NOT an exclusive homo-/heterosexual, you´re a bisexual. So, who came up with this "exclusive" BS? I can tell you: those who were eager to use the z-word although they don´t meet the definitions. It was the "exclusives" who came up with the zeta and the zeta rules, it was the "exclusives" starting to organize. You all are literally standing on the shoulders of those pioneers and the only thing you "non-exclusives" think of doing is to shit and piss on those holding you up on their shoulders while also pickpocketing them. You managed to steal almost everything we had. You stole our ideas, our identity and our name. Solidarity is a nice thing, but turns into a pile of shit when it´s only working one way. Only because the z-word sounds so enticingly scientific compared to the rough "beasty" term. But remember: Everyone having sex with an animal is a beasty. Bestiality is the act of having sex with an animal.

• About the labels: What happens when labels are used wrong can be seen in every article about caught fencehoppers and /or animal rippers. When the scientists became interested in researching this strange orientation, almost everyone labeled him-/herself a "zoo", regardless of what they did with the animal(s) and their motives. So, the scientists made the z-word into a synonym for fucking animals and the emotional aspect of the word was lost; now, the word has become hollow and empty. If we can´t apply terms correctly, then why the hell do we expect society to apply them properly?

I can see how this upsets you ´cause you fear being excluded from the "elite club". But it was your kind illegaly forcing your way in; and as genuine party crashers, you don´t even realize that your "fun" is the cause of the accelerated slip down the downward spiral into desperation for the original zoophiles. Of course, only old farts/ veterans of the IRCs like myself speak like this because you young folks have been taught wrongs as rights from people never having any clue themselves, just parroting the shit they have heard from another malinformed, self proclaimed "zoo expert". But there are young folks out there, "exclusive" and fed up with the shit this tendency to blur words until they fit the masses. We "exclusives" know that we are a minority within an minority, commonly only 10 - 15 percent of the "zoos" are "exclusive zoos". We´re not angry, but we will come up with another word exactly describing OUR lives, OUR identities, OUR beliefs. And this time, we won´t be so fucking stupid to shout it out for others to steal. We will keep it secret and reveal it only to those who have shown they´re worthy. We´ll come up with a new, unspoiled symbol; so you guys can keep on playing with the zeta and the z-word, pouring out the last remains of what it once meant. Your replies have clearly shown that the time for debates is over, once and for all. Now we will start to act and it won´t be very pleasant for you, we promise. Let´s see how you feel like if you´re "excluded" from the "elite", but this time you won´t have the chance to crash our party by redefining terms ad libenter. Have a nice day, you "zoophiles"...

Over and out 30-30/ T.Z.A.R.

"Going the path of least resistance is what makes rivers and men crooked."

If anything, the one "real" definition of zoophile seems to be that of the psychological paraphilia. Only in the last maybe 15-20 years has the word come to mean anything about "romantic" animal love, typically contrasted with bestiality which is implied to be the abusive or apathetic use of an animal for sex... an equally wrong use of that term.

It's important to not over-fragment the sex-with-animals community, but I think it's fair and in fact necessary to differentiate those whose relationships with animals go beyond head-petting from those out to exploit or dominate or sexually objectify animals.

But I don't really like using the word zoophile to make that differentiation, since that's not what the word means!