People who claim to be "zoophiles" and who think they are really animals on the inside, to me, seem as though they are people who believe in the same old thing that everyone who is not zoo believes: That is that, "species should stick with their species," and "creatures should be with their own kind." The battle cry of the antis might as well be "Stay in your species!" Well, we've all heard about that!
Think about it. If you think you are an animal on the inside, then what you really are saying is that if not for your physical body you would otherwise be the specie of your affection. So let's say you were then given the "correct body" and there you go- you are fully a non-human animal now. So what next? Now you enter the animal world and you form social relationships with the species you like. You are now completely indistinguishable from the other animals and of course, this would surely mean that the other animals would accept you. But why, pray tell, is it that they would accept you? Well, the reason why the animals would accept you is because the animals are PREJUDICED. They are speciesist and believe the same old EVIL mantra that "kind should be with its own kind."
If you really believe you are an animal on the inside, why would you be in favor of zoophilia/consensual bestiality/INTERspecies romance and sexuality? If you say "I'm not a human really, and therefore my species of choice will love me" I would say your understanding about what zoophilia is is wrong!
One of my most favorite things about the concept of the sexuality that is zoophilia is that it is a sexuality that is supposed to CROSS borders. It is supposed to enlighten humans as well as all other species onto a path of having love for your fellow earthlings DESPITE being different from one another. One of the most beautiful messages within zoophilia is that we are encouraged to learn how to love beings that are a lot different from how we ourselves are. Therefore "I'm like an animal so they will like me" misses the point entirely. In a perfect world, creatures should empathize with other creatures from vastly different genetic/evolutionary lineages.
Thoughts? The animals should like you because you are you not because you are "like them." They should accept you in your current HUMAN form, they should be sexually attracted to your human form- not wanting you to be different at all. And likewise you should love them exactly the way that they are. That is the essence of TRUE interspecies romantic relations, folks!
That's not why I'm pro zoophilia. That's just why I believe I am a zoophile. And I'm attracted to both humans and canines, so depending on your view, I'm attracted to another species nevertheless. You are building a strawman here. I am just saying: I feel like I should be a wolf, therefore, it's not that strange that I am attracted to canines. I do not use my identity to argue about the morality of zoophilia, only to make sense of my own personal sexuality and identity.
Animals in the wild mate across species boundaries as well. It's rare, but it does happen. Also, I believe people should do whatever they want to do, as long as it doesn't harm anyone. Those are the reasons why I'm pro-zoo.
So... stop strawmanning, please?
Another reason why I'm pro is because I believe people should be able to do as they want to as you say. Would you say that sexual attraction occurring between two different species is wrong if it never occurred "naturally" aka in the wild? As someone who thinks they should be a wolf, does that mean you believe that species should stay in their species aka that species should mate only with their own kind? In other words if you felt comfortable as a human and felt that your identity was fully human and you were only attracted to other species and not to humans would you consider that to be wrong?
Well, the fact that it happens in nature, where no human can 'force' them to do that, proves that animals can do it by free will.
And if I had identified as 100% human and yet be zoo-exclusive? No, there wouldn't have been anything wrong with it. Why would there be?
I am not saying it's MORE okay for me to do sexy stuff with dogs than it is for someone who doesn't identify as a canine. It's okay for anyone, as long as both dog and human want to do it, and it's done without harming anyone.
I'm just saying that I believe my attraction is linked to my species identity. Just like for some, zoophilic attractions are linked to them growing up with the animal. Doesn't mean that zoos who didn't grow up around animals are wrong. We just have different backgrounds, and some of us try to explain to ourselves how come we have this unusual sexuality, perhaps in order to find some comfort in it. Because unlike homosexuality, there isn't much research about the causes of zoophilia. Most non-zoos think we chose this, that we can stop being attracted to animals if we are told to. Obviously not the case, but there is too little research to really prove them wrong.
Okay. I just wondered if some people within the zoo community felt that their zoophilia would be more okay/morally right if it were the case that they believed themselves to be the species of their attraction. It seemed as if the belief may have been ironically that "interspecies sexuality is generally bad and best to steer away from if possible but since I can't do that it's best to compensate and identify with the species I'm attracted to and count myself among that species." That is an interesting viewpoint and it suggests one doesn't fully accept this form of sexuality or loving or whatever you want to call it, in my view. As I've expressed earlier I feel that zoophilia is a beautiful sexuality specifically because it requires that vastly genetically different individuals love one another. Yes, I'm sappy..
I've never heard of anyone actually thinking in that manner, but I've heard several people claim that people like me are like that. So, I'm figuring it's just a misunderstanding.
If interspecies sex is harmful, it's harmful no matter how the person identifies. If interspecies sex is harmless, it's harmless no matter how the person identifies.
And even if I think I should have been born a wolf, the cold hard fact is that I was born a human. I have a human body, a human upbringing, human intellect. So it's still interspecies if I would engage with a canine.
On the other hand, many arguments against interspecies sex ("they only act on instinct! They can't speak human language!") kind of fail when I point out that at times, I am like at. I sometimes experience times when I think very much like an animal, cannot speak, wouldn't recognize myself in the mirror etc, but I've still enjoyed sex in that state of mind and been able to communicate that through body language. YMMV if you believe this state of mind is truly comparable to a non-human animal's, maybe you think it's a form of auto-suggestion or mental illness. But nevertheless, I've had sex during times where I'm very instinctual and cannot speak, and those are fond memories for me. Therefore, I don't buy the anti-zoo argument that consent can only be communicated through words or human sign language.
Perfect answer. I couldn't have said this better myself.
[deleted]
This pre-supposes that therianthropic zoophiles are only attracted to one species. I know at least one such person* who is attracted to at least two species.
\*(other than u/Susitar — I think we know each other with different pseudonames, but I'm not sure, but regardless Susitar and the person I'm talking about are definitely different people).
Adding my own perspective here. I have a nonhuman identity and there is a flaw in assuming people like me can't be zoosexual/zoophiles.
Being animal on the inside doesn't negate the many years we've spent being raised as human, the human neurology we have, and being immersed and woven into that culture. Because of our nonhuman identities we won't fit into the human mold 100%, but our upbringing means we'll never fit in with the animal 100% either. We would have had to have been born that way from the start to avoid the blending.
I did write a blog about this topic, likening a therian being attracted to animals like a transman being attracted to women. Being a man and liking women makes him hetero, so then by that principal a therian being attracted to humans would make them a zoophile (vs falling for their identified species).
I actually disagree with the assessment that animals are "speciesist". I don't think that's the case at all, I think if they had the freedoms and luxury the human race has they would use sex more liberally and recreationally. I believe they stick to their own species because it's practical. It serves a purpose and fulfills the drive living things poses to preserve their lineage.
Among big cats (lions being the exception), the parents will meet, bang each other, then part ways. There's no love there, it's all about carrying on the species and surviving. Humans are in a unique and naturally abnormal position to be able to procreate out of love instead of need, instinct, or survival drive.
Who one is attracted to and what one's personal stance on the acceptability of interspecies sexual and romantic relationships are two different things. It is a bit presumptious to assume that all people who identify as non-humans in some form inherently disapprove of interspecies relationships. Which leads me to wonder: are there any instances you saw of this happening? Did you see someone express this view in the zoo community?
I was really just bringing this topic up as a point for discussion. It isn't that I believed that anyone with such an identity also held such views about the acceptability of interspecies relationships. But I could see how one MAY believe that interspecies sexuality is bad especially if they feel that they are the same species as the one they are attracted to. For instance, let's say someone believed they were really a giraffe but then they were exclusively attracted to wolves... I would be less apt in that instance to suspect that perhaps that person feels that interspecies relationships is wrong. It is also entirely possible that one feels they are the species that they are attracted to on the inside but the person who feels this way also sees nothing wrong with interspecies sexuality.... The point is this is a type of thing that should lead one to wonder whether such persons are truly in support of interspecies relationships. For example, my mother knew that I was sexually attracted to bears/ wanted to have sex with a bear- so she would used to tell me, "you're not a bear," or she'd say about me, "Emily wants to be a bear" (her thinking is really that, 'no one wants to have such relations with creatures that are not of their own kind' but the truth is that I'm different and I WANT to stray away from MY kind [humans] and have these sorts of relationships with beings that are SPECIFICALLY NOT of my kind. This has nothing to do with wanting to be the animal of my attraction- it has everything to do with staying as a human). The thing about her comments were that, I've never believed myself to be a bear and I don't wish to be a bear. I'm great and happy as a human. The kicker is, I firmly believe that different species should mingle together... I've always believed this strongly and held it dear. I love the interspecies aspect of the whole thing! My lover and I are meant to be different species entirely, in my view.
While we are to stay the creatures that we are (we meaning me and my lover), that doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't learn about the other side- learn about how the species of our lover thinks and does things. And we should attempt to assimilate our lover's "species culture."
Okay, thanks for clarifying.
This can be said for anyone with preferences though. If you're homosexual, you can think it's bad for someone to be heterosexual; if you're attracted to people only of the same race as you, you can think it's bad for someone to be attracted to people of a different race. Now, how prevalent these beliefs are is unknown, though I think it's in the minority.
Yes, but I think we should call out people in this community who claim to be zoophiles and also claim to really be an animal inside but also maybe apparently hold the belief that REAL interspecies sexuality is wrong. If someone was born into the wrong species I don't consider that to be zoophilia. If you make the claim that "your species of attraction will know you and accept you if you're one of them" I would say you are just as bigoted against other species as any non-zoo person who hates zoophilia.
Since this seems to be aimed specifically at me, here´s my statement:
It´s funny you come up with this kind of argumentation. Am I a zoophile when I define myself as a horse in a human shell? Well, I still don´t know exactly. When the original IRC online zoo community began to dissolve and mutate into the gutter uniting animal porn fiends, manchilds, nonexperienced "experts" etc. it is today, I turned my back and told myself that, in the end, technically I´m not even a zoophile. I don´t know if this was only an expression of anger or actually the truth, but the way I see it today is this:
"White man go into church and talk about god. Red man go into woods, eats holy plant and talks with god." (Unknown native american) According to that, I would define as someone who has been granted the ability to go even further than the common zoophile. Someone who is able to connect to a specific species, can get closer to it than others. Why? I don´t know: destiny, random, spiritual/religious causes, nature itself creating people like me, trying to reestablish unity of all life...insert your own assumptions here). I never opposed the idea of humans having a relationship with animals; I actually have helped some zoophiles who don´t identify as animal-in-human-shell to realize their wishes and expectations and recently I´m helping a close friend of mine to come to terms with himself and to improve the relationship with his cow which he bought because I didn´t stop to encourage him to buy her. I´m not at all opposed to the idea of zoophilia. As a professional rider and a riding instructor, I teach non-zoos how to gain better understanding of their horses instead of scaring ´ em away from my species. As an AIHS (I don´t like the anthro/therian term) I helped some zoos to be confident enough to turn fantasy into reality, helped improve their understanding of their animal companion. I don´t do this because I´m so damn human friendly; I do it because I like animals and love horses. My main reason to do this is the wellbeing of the animals, I don´t care if their companion is human or non-human, I only care about the wellbeing of the animal. In the case of my friend with the cow, encouraging him to buy her was her lifesaver. If he hadn´t bought her, she already would have been slaughtered by now. In another case of a guy from Vienna, I helped him to buy his mare so she can live a pleasant life in a secure and loving relationship instead of being used as a schooling horse with up to 6 different riders a day. I´m not opposed to zoophilia at all. I see it from the animal´s perspective rather that from the zoo´s. But I have an instinct of protecting my herd mates, too and thus I do put the aspirant´s motives and attitude to the test; I´m not blinded by the z-word as many members of the community are. There are more than enough examples of self proclaimed zoos with dubious motives and insufficient knowledge to lead a mutually beneficial relation with an animal. Those I abhor and try everything to fend off the "unworthy". There´s a certain mindset, certain keywords, certain type of attitude that helps me identifying those who actually can provide a loving and secure environment for an animal partner. There are certain "virtues" you have to posess: reliability, responsibility, respect, etc. , anything that is involved with owning an animal ethically(!). Way too many are spitting out the z-word too quick, without consideration, only to get laid easily and cheap. The fundamental idea of zoophilia I support, but I don´t support flexing, bending and twisting it so it fits into almost everyone´s definitions. In the end, the animals depend on you. They can´t just say "Well, our relationship turned out to be hell for me" and leave. Applying strict definitions isn´t meant to make me look like a "super-zoo", flattering my own ego...it´s meant as a defense line for the animals who cannot withdraw from an unfulfilling relationship due to flawed human nature, with all the self foolery, the cheap excuses and the lies told to others and oneself. I´m glad to see an animal living in a mutually beneficial relationship, absolutely no problem with that regardless of what I consider myself to be, human or animal. But if you turn out to be a selfish prick using/abusing your quadruped companion, then I´ll be the first to open my mouth. It´s protective instinct, especially when it comes to "my" own species...I protect my herd when necessary.
Okay. Thank you for providing your input on this issue.