Why is this? (self.zoophilia)
submitted 2015-07-28 05:45:07 by ursusem
Hey peeps! I've come to notice that it seems like a majority of the members of the zoo community would not describe themselves as what we would call "zoo-exclusive." I think everybody knows what that means. My understanding of the concept of "zoo exclusivity" is that it means that somebody is ONLY attracted to non-humans. Whereas somebody who is zoo but not exclusively zoo would be attracted to both non-human animals and humans. To those of you who are not zoo-exclusive, my question is- are you really attracted to humans? Why are you attracted to humans?
I am sort of zoo-exclusive, but won't rule humans out. (Had a lot of problems trying to date people.)
They speak English (or whatever). There aren't any classes yet about speaking "dog".
" I am sort of zoo-exclusive, but won´t rule humans out."
Then you´re NOT exclusive. " I´m sort of vegan, but won´t rule out a steak... sigh
It´s exactly this kind of semantic mumbo jumbo that has brought us to this desolate situation. When words stop meaning something, they don´t mean anything anymore. I can´t answer the OP´s question, but can tell you why "exclusive" zoos are not attracted to humans: for us, having sex with one of these furless monkeys is equally repulsing as having sex with an animal for non-zoo, normal people. The only thing that comes into my mind when a girl undresses and says " I´ll do whatever you want" is saying "Put your clothes back on and don´t let the door hit you from behind". When a girl lies in front of me naked, the only fluid she will be able to extrude from my body would be vomit. Most "exclusive" zoos are repulsed by the thought of having sex with yoomans and that´s why we don´t want to fit into your little "zoophilia" definitions.... "Life is a lot like being the long brick from Tetris. If you fit it, you disappear."
...excuse me?
Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but I'm detecting a true-Scot superiority complex here, and that's unwelcome and inappropriate.
Zoo-exclusives are no more or less zoophilic than non-zoo-exclusives, and neither are they better or worse. There is no "desolate situation", and others' "little 'zoophilia' definitions" should be of no concern to you.
You ought to worry more about yourself and less about trying to make others conform to your world views. Speak for yourself and stop thinking you're better than others just because they're different.
From Kinsey's work, 50% of humans in rural America have tried something with a non-human; the stereotype when I was growing up was that such people were "desperate" or "lonely", and were merely making do with what sex they could get.
I am the reverse. I desire dogs and horses, but humans suffice.
fair enough, but do you call yourself a zoo-exlusive?
Sometimes. Mostly I think it's making too clique a distinction, yet it's true that non-humans are the only ones whose appearance, on it's own, gives me erections. (Humans can stimulate me, but not from their appearance).
i don't consider being zoo exclusive being part of a clique. it's just what i am. there's nothing wrong with zoophiles who are attracted to humans as well. people who believe there is aren't part of a clique.. they're just jerks. i joke about it ("ew, humans!"), but it's not my intention to be judgemental, just to express my tastes in (hopefully) a humorous way.
Are you sure you don't have ... issues?
They're probably just sex-repulsed when it comes to human beings, which isn't an issue in and of itself - not any more than say, being repulsed by broccoli is an issue. It would really only be an issue if they feel distressed about it (e.g. if they were attracted to and wanted to have sex with humans, but felt held back by their repulsion). But that doesn't seem to be the case with them.
I can see your point, but unless you can see into the future theres no way you can say you will never have a girlfriend.
Im as zoo exclusive as they come, but even I haven't completely ruled out having a GF and having sex with her at some point in my life, even though the chance of that happening is so slim its pretty much impossible.
Life isnt as cut and dry as 'im zoo exclusive and will be for the rest of my life'. Be careful that your zoo-exclusivity doesnt end up defining you, as opposed to just being a piece of your identity.
Stop. To put it bluntly, you're being an asshole.
The same reason I'm attracted to animals, I suppose? People can't really help what they're attracted to, it's usually just an intrinsic thing. I'm very attracted to humans, both physically and romantically. I just happen to be as attracted to people as I am to animals. I 'realized' my attraction to both humans and animals around the same time, they developed side by side when I was a kid.
For me, the ideal situation would be to be in both a relationship with a human and a relationship with an animal. I have different emotional needs for both human and animal relationships, and I'll be at my happiest and healthiest if I can have both.
I'm attracted to many different animal species. And humans are one of them...
As a zoo-exclusive I just don't find humans sexually attractive. They don't have fur, muzzles or the correct ears.
I actually giggled when I read this, Love that fur and them ears <3
Humans provide intimate conversation and I can interact with them on a different level. I can't really compose music with a dog. I can't take my dog with me to the movies, nor can I discuss said movie with the dog, etc.
Even if animals could do all of those things, I still think I'd be attracted to humans. I'm not attracted to many humans to begin with actually, most of them repulse me.
Luckily I am in a relationship with another zoo who is by far the most awesome human I've met so far.
Even though I am zoo exclusive, it's for these same type of things that I hang around humans. Hanging around just chatting about random things and binging on TV series on netflix are things that I enjoy with people that I can't share the same way with my dog. I also care a great deal emotionally for my close friends; I'm just not sexually attracted to them (much the same way many normal pet owners view their animals).
[deleted]
it may have been worded poorly.. but the sentiment is definitely there among some zoo-exclusives (using myself and 2 friends i can think of atm as examples). just as "normal" humans can't understand why zoophiles are attracted to animals, zoo-exclusive zoophiles are a bit befuddled by non-zoo-exclusive zoophiles' attraction to humans.
shrug it just is what it is. hopefully no one is ever a jerk to you (or other non-zoo-exclusives) about it.
[deleted]
who says you can't have friends that meet your social/emotional needs without having any sexual desire for humans? they're entirely separate things. if you think you might be zoo-exclusive, there's no reason to run from it, thinking you'll never have any opportunities to interact with humans.
conversely.. as i said, there's nothing wrong if you are sexually attracted to humans. just don't assume that you can't have both zoo-exclusivity and a social life with humans. IMO, it does make it a little harder, perhaps, because you have to be careful what you say/do and you have to make sure the dog/horse/etc. understands that "sexy tiemz" is only for alone time (i've heard there are viable training methods for this).
again. nothing wrong with zoophiles who find other humans attractive (sorry if i'm a little defensive).
also, duh.
I started out thinking I was zoo-exclusive because average humans didn't look right to me, but then I met a human or two that I found really appealing, and as others have said, "who knows why we're attracted to what we are attracted to?"
After all, sexual orientation is understood to be a somewhat fluid thing.
And the person I'm dating has similar "interests" as well.
[deleted]