Okay, let's settle this. I read this comment here and didn't want to go even more off topic there, that was supposed to be a thread for support, not to be pedantic and argue semantics: https://np.reddit.com/r/SuicideWatch/comments/3ezwpe/im_a_zoophile/ctli9s8
Here is the text, in case it gets deleted or something:
Just to check this for my own understanding: You say that it´s NOT an orientation but a fetish if people still want/have human sexual relationships. Zoophilia is seen as a genuine orientation by more and more psychologists these days, so the logical conclusion would be that you´re NOT a zoophile if you still are interested in human relationships. Did I get this right? If yes, then I want to thank you for your insightful sentence. It proves my point that true zoophilia will cut off any possibility to engage in more "normal" relationships with humans. I wish that the so called "zoo" community had your insight and would start to getting things right... Still interested in humans = animal fetishism NOT interested in humans = genuine zoophile Swallow this, you wannabes...
The tone was harsh, so I have a harsh reply: To me that sounds like the bullshit bisexual people have to listen to. Why can't you have a sexual orientation towards two or more "groups"?
Does it work the other way too? If you are mainly into humans and you are still interested in animal relationships, is your human-oriented sexuality also not "true"? What if you feel equally attracted to humans and dogs? Do you even have a sexual orientation then or do you only have two fetishes?
I think I'm so in agreement with you I can't add much.
can we all just agree to ignore 30-30 and move on... <.<
I've said it before, I'll say it again: We DO NOT need to split the community more. We've already nearly murdered it doing that, it's time to be more accepting, or at least die trying...
You can have have a sexual attraction to as many groups as you want! It's all about how you self-identify. Nobody can define your sexual orientation but you!
Zoophilia is the attraction to animals right? So if you're attracted to animals; you're a zoophile. Set and point.
I totally agree with you. I just wish others would see and understand your logic.
Everyone has their own definition of sexuality and orientations, and to force any way of thinking on other people is, in my opinion, wrong. If you have any sort of attraction to animals beyond a sexual "lust" you qualify to be zoo in my mind.
Sorry, but the only reason I wouldn't want someone in this community to be involved is if they are doing reprehensible things like injuring animals or keeping them chained up, forcing someone else into zoo sex, etc. Anything else (race, religion, exclusivity, gender, politics, or opinions of any sort) is irrelevant to the discussion, or at worst bizarre enough to foster discussion.
So yes, 30-30's exclusion of people with both attractions is hurtful and elitist. At best, he might be able to say that people who haven't been exclusively involved with animals don't "get it" like him and those who agree with him, but what difference does that make?
This might best be compared to a belief among hardcore evangelical Christians that liking anything non-Christian like Star Wars or Harry Potter makes you not a Christian, or the more laughable claim that you can't be a furry if you don't have a fursuit. If you want an exclusive club, found one, but no individual is the arbiter of social categories in general.
I also made a thread about this: https://www.reddit.com/r/zoophilia/comments/3ela08/the_term_zoophile/
It reminds me of the bisexual thing as well and I mentioned that there. I already hear enough of this being bisexual (mostly from other members of the LGBT community actually) and I hate having the same situation happening in the zoo community too. He left a comment there as well (almost everything I said went right over his head, apparently) you might be interested in seeing.
So he thinks that if you're not zoo-exclusive it's a fetish and we're "wannabes"??? Yikes... That's even worse than I thought to be honest.
Oops, I thought I read that thread and that it was about something different. Turns out I mixed it up and haven't seen the thread at all.
Sorry everyone, this thread was indeed unnecessary then. :)
No worries!! I probably should've titled mine better too, haha.
That is an incredibly stupid argument they made there. Also quite insulting.
I can want to get fucked by humans and also want to get knotted by hundreds of dogs. The thought that I am somehow not "really" into either because I like both, or I don't "Understand" it because I like what I like is just insulting.
TLDR; I know what dick I like.
Well put!
Not going to give too many of my few remaining fucks over some nut who wants to create some kind of legal State Of Zoophilia that he can allow people in or kick them out.
Look through the comment history, his favorite phrase is "you're wrong" or some variant. Dude can't freakin chill out and relax. Just ignore, Don't engage in any kind of deep debate. It just makes these discussions into a circus.
Yes, this is exactly the same thing as bisexuals hear. While I do recognise that exclusive zoophiles probably face some other issues than non-exclusives do (such as being unable to find a partner that is socially acceptable at all), the attraction is still real. This really sounds the same as when lesbians accuse bisexual women for being "actually straight, just slutty" or similar.
It's perfectly possible to be attracted to several categories. Say, even if you are a heterosexual, human-attracted (anthrophile?) woman, you are probably attracted to men with different hair or skin colours, without ever feeling conflicted about which attraction is more "real".
I'm new to this sub, but have been lurking here for a while. It seems to me that the author of that comment doesn't really understand how sexual orientation works. To say that someone MUST be exclusive to one group they find sexually attractive makes no sense. There are plenty of people who are bisexual and pansexual who prove this argument to be baseless. Also, this kind of exclusivity is toxic to any group, especially those marginalized by mainstream society. I am transgender and bicurious. I have been lurking on this thread because, while I was never particularly into bestiality porn, the idea of actually having sex with an animal has never been something I've seen as inherently wrong. To see the same exclusive, elitist, "pureblood" attitude I've seen in other communities I've been a part of is immediately troublesome. It's good to see the community as a whole doesn't feel that way.