If they flat out asked me that question I'd play dumb. If they continued to press for an answer I'd throw it back in their face and call them a sicko for even having those thoughts. put them on the defensive a bit. Unless of course I knew them in which case I'd be a bit more sensitive but I'd still imply that they're a bit odd for thinking those things.

Its a bit of a shitty and sneaky thing to do but when the only other option is to give them some evidence youre an animal rapist (their thoughts not mine) you dont have much choice.

I'm not good at dealing with this. I was asked once by someone who knows at least a little bit that I somewhat like furries, and I just stared at him and shook my head a little and went back to talking about what we talked about before. He likely suspects it, but whatever, I don't really care what people suspect.

or I am somebody who is into objectively sick things (and therefore it would be right for me to be rebuked and despised by society) or...?

That is not true. Everyone deserves to be happy and accepted. At least as long as they do no intentional harm. You are empathic and considerate. If society rebukes wonderful people like you just because you are a bit different, the problem lies within society, not within you. Who decides what is "objectively" sick? I am not aware of such an authority. Would it "still" be sick if the majority of people somehow had always been attracted to other species? Is it only numbers? Where does it start? Where does it end?

How can we know whether this thing is a mental illness or is objectively sick or is even an alternate sexual orientation like being gay?

It's just a case of definitions. Miletski wrote:

IS THERE A SEXUAL ORIENTATION TOWARD ANIMALS?

This was the basic research question for my study. The definition of “ sexual orientation” was adapted from Francoeur (1991) in his discussion of homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality. According to this definition, sexual orientation consists of three interrelated aspects: (1) affectional orientation — who or what we bond with emotionally; (2) sexual fantasy orientation — with whom or what we fantasize having sex; and (3) erotic orientation — with whom or what we prefer to have sex. The participants in the current study were asked a variety of questions throughout the questionnaire in an attempt to gather some information about these three major aspects of their relations to animals.

[...]

The findings of this question, supported by the above related questions, clearly indicate that different people have different levels of sexual inclination toward animals. “ Is there a sexual orientation toward non- human animals?” — yes, so it appears. This study did not provide the prevalence rate for the people who have this sexual orientation, nor did it provide the causes for having such a sexual orientation. However, it very clearly shows that some people (the majority of the participants in the current study) have feelings of love and affection for their animals, have sexual fantasies about them, and admit they are sexually attracted to them.

Sexual orientation, as we know it, can be fluid and changing with time and circumstances. People are not “ black or white.” We can place people on all levels of the Kinsey scale, even when we apply this scale to sexual orientation toward animals. It is logical to assume that the majority of the human race will be placed around the zero point of this Kinsey-like scale (sexual inclination exclusively with human beings), but the current study shows that there are some humans whose place on this Kinsey-like scale is definitely not zero. In fact, there are some (probably very few) individuals whose place on this scale would be the other extreme (6=sexual inclination exclusively with animals).

I have brought this up in a discussion on reddit once and then someone complained that she didn't use the "right" definition for sexual orientation and Francoeur's is supposedly outdated and all wrong.

Tl;dr: It will be a sexual orientation as soon as the majority of experts in the field accept it as such. Right now it just is what it is. Poorly understood and poorly defined.

It's no real consolation, but I still think it's noteworthy that interspecies sex has always been occurring in most (?) animal species: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-reproductive_sexual_behavior_in_animals#Inter-species_sex. Whether some of them have a real sexual preference for animals of the other species... Who knows? But it may suggest that the sexual attraction is not some strange deviance born out of the human psyche, but something that can occur all over nature.

Why would one be attracted to another species? What reproductive purpose does that serve? It must be a perversion because why would a normal psychology find attraction in another species?

You could really ask the same thing about homosexuality. There are these theories about group selection and how it may be beneficial to have family members who do not have children of their own, but then why homosexuality instead of asexuality?

We do not have final answers, but it's probably because nature doesn't have a masterplan. Things are the way they are because they just happen to work that way so far.

You really need to trust the person to tell them. You need to trust them without a doubt. Because you posted on reddit asking for our opinion I don't think you trust the other person well enough to tell them your secret. Be safe and don't tell.

Holy shit, use paragraphs dude!

But seriously, I think the a mental illness is only a trait that causes negative impact to someone. Mainstream disaproval of an act in society does not make it "objectively sick." At one time homosexuality was a mental illness and almost universally decried (and still is in some parts of the world). Is it objectively sick?

On the subject of the reproductive purpose of cross-species sex, I can't really tell... but let's just say almost everything humans have done for the past millennium served absolutely no direct biological purpose whatsoever and leave it at that.

I don't know how I'd react if someone asked me about my sexual "idiosyncrasies." I have little to no interest in humans. I have never dated or had any kind of non-platonic relation with a human. At my age, I think it's normal for people to already suspect something is "off" with me. This will probably become even more of a problem when I wind up living alone with a big dog.

Zoosexuality isn't "objectively" sick, it's "subjectively" sick. The taboo relating to it is entirely on society. Some nonhuman animals do take part in interspecies sex for various reasons. Anthropocentrism is a real problem in society, and is one of the 3 leading arguments against zoosexuality.

Zoosexuality is exactly where homosexuality was in the early 1900s. Originally people, even scientists, thought homosexuality was an illness. It got the same knee jerk reaction zoosexuality does now. People were ostracized at best, some were locked up in institutions, others were kept hidden away by their families. Ghandi actually said something that perfectly illustrates the progression of a "strange new phenomena" like any non-hetero sexuality.

“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.”

You can see this very clearly in the LGBT struggle, and the recent victory for them in the US. Right now Zoos are in the ridicule stage, and it will probably last for along time yet, but I suspect eventually society will put on it's big boy pants, so some serious, unbiased study, and come to the conclusion that we are a sexuality like any other....then the fight begins.

As for people making comments like you mentioned, I haven't had it happen to me, not really anyway. But I've planned out what to do if it does happen. I don't plan to lie, I would rather be true to me, and live a good life than put on a facade. So I won't throw zeta glitter in their face and shout my zoosexuality from the rooftops, but if anyone asks if I'm attracted to animals in THAT way, I'll say "Yeah. Some of them."

I've told some people... some of them I told as a teen, before I understood exactly how taboo zoophilia is. I thought it was more on the level of having an unusual kink, so while I didn't tell everyone, I did tell some people. Because of my young age, if some of them asked me again about it now, I could always tell them it was just a phase.

I do think zoophilia is difficult to live with. I don't think it's a mental illness, not any more than other sexual preferences. I think the same mechanics that make people like whatever they like, also creates zoophilia. I don't know, genetics, ethology, psychology? It seems so weird to classify some preferences as mentally ill just because of whether it is acceptable in society to act on it. Like, even if I think sex with children is wrong and harmful, I still don't call pedophilia mental illness. Just a sexual preference that needs to stay in fantasy.

Anyway, I'm getting off-topic...

Find people you really, really trust. I've found some people I can trust with this. Everything does feel easier when someone you like listens and tells you "it's not your fault, you're not ill, you're a good person".

But until you can feel that level of trust, I'd advice you not to tell. At least not if bestiality is illegal where you live.

Coming from somebody who is not a zoophile, I really do not see why it should be considered a mental illness. A mental illness is defined by the DSM as something that causes the person distress or something like that (sorry rusty on my definition) and really the animal and human both gain from the relationship, so really it is more symbiotic than anything else. People are attracted to many things that have no evolutionary gain, breast that are too big to be practical in survival, bodies that are so skinny they could not actually bear children, I watched a show about a real person who is literally attracted to a concrete wall and considers it their boyfriend and others such as myself simply have no sexual attraction to anything (asexual). Sexual attraction is complexe and much of what is and should be considered a mental illness is subject to cultural influence quite heavily. I really can not think of a good reason to be against sexual actions with animals. I mean the only real reason people are is because for some reason people think sex is super special and different than all other actions, when really it is just another action if you ask me. Holds only the amount of value one thinks it does.

As far as questioning goes, I am not a zoophile so I can not say for sure, but I am an open book and do not believe in lying (both a waste of time in my belief and for psychological reasons is very difficult for me), so if they asked I would just be honest. Might not go over well for me if I were a zoophile, but I am who I am, and nothing they can do to me will change that.