Esteemed Zoos, I found myself in a discussion about zoophilia recently and I would like to summarize it here, hoping for enlightening feedback from people with actual experience. Society tends to see zoophilia as a purely sexual thing. Actually, though, it seems to me, it's more of an inherent sexual orientation like homosexuality or pedophilia rather than a choice. But that would imply, that there are people who feel a deep monogamous emotional connection to one animal, people who romantically love a member of a different species. Sexual desire being part of it, but never as the main aspect of the relationship. As part of our school curriculum, we learned that many pedophiles would never dare to molest a child because they feel honest affection and respect for them, just like no civilized heterosexual man would molest random attractive women. Is there a similar mindset in zoophilia, scince consent between humans and animals is an objectively difficult topic? We also talked about biological implications, like detecting different pheromones, making people attracted to one gender of one species. I belive that (sub-)cultural influence can open up any mind to find anything sexually appealing. The big question is: Who does one love in their heart?
Thank You for unbiased explanations!
A) I'm glad your school was good enough to explain that pedophile =/= child rapist. That's some nuance that's sorely lacking here in the U.S.
B) Speaking for myself, I would never deal with an animal sexually when they didn't want it. Of course, there are often physical and legal things in the way too (e.g., the dog belongs to an acquaintance that doesn't know about my attraction). But I try to pay attention and, if they show discomfort or fear, adjust accordingly or even stop if it comes to that.
C) Consent is difficult, but not objectively so. It's based on our understanding of animal behaviors as well as a shifting social landscape which is redefining consent in an attempt to make rape/sexual assault easier to detect. We basically use two definitions of consent in ordinary life: for everyday, routine stuff, we use an intuitive form where we make our best guess with the behavior of those around us to figure out whether we're both OK with what's happening. For example, when one person offers up a hug and the other responds by hugging them, that's this simpler form of consent.
There's another form of consent that's required in complex legal or medical matters. It basically requires a full understanding of the consequences of an interaction by both parties before agreement. When someone goes to the hospital and signs a form consenting to surgery to take out their appendix, that's this second form.
There's been a lot of attention in recent years to consent, particularly on college campuses, and an attempt to get consent closer to this second form when it comes to sex. This is, in my opinion, impossible to implement fully, because its difficult to reasonably know whether someone else really understands what they're about to do in the best of circumstances. When you mix drugs, sex, and relationships in, it simply can't be done without totalitarian control of human interaction, which almost no one wants.
When someone claims that animals can't consent, they usually use this second form. But in that case, it's clear that for virtually all sex between humans, this second form of consent is not given before hand. It's arguably impossible to provide it in most cases anyway, depending on how much information about the sexual interaction is deemed to be enough for this.
I'd say that the first form, reading body language and other such signals, is sufficient with animals. The consequences of sex with them are so much lower for both parties than with humans (no pregnancy, little disease, almost no chance of social changes) that we don't need that much info other than how our partners feel about the situation for it to be perfectly fine.
Hello and welcome. Thank you for being so polite and respectful of us; I think I speak for others here when I say it's greatly appreciated. <3
I think your premise is good, if I'm correct in interpreting it that the relationships zoos have with animals goes further than sex and desire, onwards to enduring love and romance. That's not to say that different zoos don't have different priorities (and there's no moral wrong in a shallower relationship), but for the most part we do desire that romantic element.
Because of a love of animals a sound-minded zoo would not rape an animal any more than a sound-minded hetero man would rape a woman, as you said. However, it's not fair to compare sex with animals to sex with children, because the animals we're dealing with are adults themselves.
Without going into obscene detail, adult animals have signals of consent they apply within their own species, and zoos can learn to read them to establish consent within interspecies relationships. I can elaborate on these signals from my own knowledge and experience with dogs and other species should you ask, but I'll spare you the details unless you do so.
Again, thank you for your tact and let me know if you have any questions, as I'd be happy to answer them.
Is it not fair to compare sex with animals to sex with children? Sure, sexually mature nonhuman animals are biologically mature adults but our modern day understanding is that the intellect of adult nonhuman animals is thought to be close to the level of intellect that we find in prepubescent human children. So there is a similarity there.
You play a good devil's advocate, but saying that a dog has the mental acuity of a child and therefore must have the same ability to consent to sex is like saying that humans are smarter than cats and therefore we are better at climbing trees.
An animal's faculties for sex are advanced enough for the sex they have, so as long as a human does not manipulate or subvert the expectations of said animal and performs the act to which they consented, no harm is done. A child is a non-sexual being and therefore has no capacity for sex and no capacity to consent to it. Moreover, childhood sexual abuse in humans has strong links to lifelong trauma, whereas no such link exists for adult animals provided the above is true.
I agree with you. If only the public as a whole thought the same.
The last time someone on reddit wanted me to convince that "intellectually" dogs are just like toddlers they linked to http://www.livescience.com/5613-dogs-smart-2-year-kids.html and I actually like that article because it says
The takeaway for me is that you can't just compare it 1:1 like that.
It was actually quite easy to find detailed instructions on how to detect consent in specific species and what to do if consent is present. They also talk about the overall needs of specific species. They treat their partners approproatly, contrary to the average pet-holder. It's sad to see how some people treat animals simply due to ignorance. Sadly, reading through this subreddit I came across individuals suffering from the same ignorance. I would have expected them to be especially interestet in not torturing their partner. As 30-30 has pointed out, consent from pets still seems a little fuzzy scince they might have social obligations to their human master (deliberate choice of words). When I read about wild animals, however, I totally get Your point. Thank You, but at this point I don't feel like any question has been left unaddressed. Everyone has been very helpful on their individual topics of expertise. Unless You knew to tell of someone being attracted to a predator like tigers or alligators and how they dealt with that.
This is a good point, and an interesting one. It's one that I've spent a lot of time considering in the past, and I've found there are two approaches that can be taken to resolve it. You can choose whichever seems the most logical to you.
The first view, and my preferred one, is that domestic pets will always communicate, at the very least, disliking or unwillingness, even to their owners. Anybody who has actively tried to make a dog do something they don't want to (take a bath, swallow a pill, walk somewhere undesired, etc.) knows how clearly they communicate their opposition, even if they won't fight the human doing it. So it stands to reason that the same would apply to sex, and that any attuned person would be able to read signs of discontent that may undermine the given consent.
The second approach is one cited often in utilitarian philosophy, for one: that we already act as guardians of our animals, and therefore so long as sex doesn't present any harm beyond what would otherwise be considered harmful, then it is permissible. For example, a dog cannot consent to being a pet in the first place, nor being collared, nor trained, nor fed kibble, etc. Yet, these are things we consider perfectly acceptable because the dog appears healthy and content, and the same rationale is applied to having sex with them. So as long as the animal presents no signs of suffering, it can be judged that they are not.
I hope either of these approaches clarify your thoughts a little.
I definitely think you are on the right track, but I would not really say that monogamy is really a necessary aspect of being a zoophile. It is definitely possible to have a close connection with more than one animal simultaneously in my eyes. After being caretaker of my dog for several years, I decided to adopt a second dog for several reasons. One, because it would give my first dog another friend that he can socialize with in a more "natural" and more available way. Just like people should ideally have regular socialization, so should dogs. I also just wanted more to love. I don't look at owning both of them as being a relationship as you'd think of a traditional human relationship, because it is not easily comparable to that. It's not really a whole lot different from regular dog ownership(active dog ownership, not just having a dog around the house). We're not dating, we're a family. As a zoo, I'd like to think that I observe my dogs' needs a little bit more, and show a bit more care, but realistically I don't know if one can measure that and I don't think the level of care(again, as someone playing an active role in dog ownership) matters.
Your form of zoophilia and my form are far apart.
"I also just wanted more to love"....that might be the most complete summary of the common "zoo´s" mindset. It´s mainly about what "I" want...the antis may not be so wrong as the "zoos" like to portray it, huh? Yes, monogamy might be a predominatly human approach, but sexual greed also is...so what now? By the way: in nature, monogamy seems to be equally "natural" and many species form monogamous bonds, some even for their entire life. In horses, for example, the herd structure with only one stallion allowed to mate until he is challenged by a younger one and expelled from the herd when he loses against the new contender, is some kind of natural monogamy and can be witnessed in most prey animals.
My alarm went off when you said this: "..as you´d think of a traditional human relationship, because it is not easily compared to that." Well, exactly that is what stands between the zoophiles and society, don´t you realize? The incredible entitlement of zoos trying to declare their relationships as "normal", but within the same breath insisting that "it´s not like a traditional human relationship and thus, no traditional rules apply"...picking the cherries, isn´t it?
I doubt this knowledge will ever be installed in the zoo community´s minds...it is what distances EVERY uncommon sexual orientation from society, just take a look at the gay scene: two gays living in monogamy is not what arouses the anger of "homophobes" (god, how I hate that shitty word...), it´s the notion that people try to evade every common morals with the poor excuse of their "special" orientation. Gays living in monogamous realtionships? Fine, nobody bats an eye. Gays using their orientation as an excuse for an orgiastic lifestyle (sic!), darkroom parties, gangbang bullshit etc., they´re the ones the "normal" people´s hate is aimed at...at least,. that´s what I experienced a lot when talking to "normals".
If we all like it or not, but the monogamous relation is estimated way higher than all this poly crap and there´s a reason for this apart from all the BS babble about religion or prudishness. Unless we are willing to adapt to the "normals", there is NO chance for zoophilia to be tolerated. If your relationships can be summarized by "I just wanted more to love", we don´t stand a chance against the accusations that zoophilia is just an euphemism for egocentrism and it´s truly the human zoophilia is all about, not the animals. And before you pull out your usual defensive sermon, just think about what I typed here for, let´s say, a day. BTW: I too have more than one mare now and although I have faced advances from all three, I only sleep with my Irish Tinker mare. I practice what I preach, you know...
You have a very poor understanding of what "love" is if you think that equates to my sexual appetite. That is an assumption that you made, not something that actually follows practice in my life. There is so much more to owning a dog than sex.
No, it isn't picking cherries. It is a fact. The dynamic is much different especially so with dogs. Like it or not, just because one is zoo, it is still a caretaker-pet relationship. Just because I am zoo, doesn't mean that the way I need to manage care is somehow super special to the point that they are like my boyfriends, even saying that sounds silly. Many many aspects of it go right back to regular dog ownership because if you boil it down, that's what it is, with a bit more acute attention to needs. And in that aspect, it is a normal relationship. A normal caretaker-pet relationship. I wouldn't say that having sex with animals is specifically normal currently either, just that it is not morally wrong, and that is what I am pushing for.
How many people have you come out to? I have several friends that I have and they are all perfectly understanding because they have seen and understand my day-to-day interaction and understand the dynamic of the relationship, and they understand my deep emotional love for my animals. I don't know about you, but my approach is definitely functional.
Edit: I wanted to append a little detail because I don't really interact with horses that often so I couldn't say whether this is the case with them, but for a dog, sex is not a big deal. At all. Dogs do not idolize sex in the way that some other animals do, they only tend to have sex because it feels good to get off. It's like playing fetch, honestly. It's just a fun, mutually enjoyable thing that we do together. We don't only have sexual contact because they especially love me or anything like that. I understand that which is why I would hesitate to ever refer to my dog as a boyfriend(or girlfriend), because they don't look at it the same way. For me to say they did would require me to project my own emotions onto their psychology. I feel like you may be trying to project aspects of your relationship onto others as ideals more, but they do not logically fit.
So the other horse ladies that you live with never get any love? They never get to have a "man?" And you're trying to say that you are the one that puts the animals first? Ha!
Although there are monogamous zoophiles around, I experienced the vast majority of people engaging in sex with animals as promiscuous. Many describe their orientation as if it were a sexual playground with no rules and limitless space to experiment in.
Let´s be perfectly clear: monogamy and love more emotional than sexual isn´t what many people seek when they act on their animal desires.The term "zoophilia" has been corrupted over time and what once was the word for having a deep emotional love for one animal now is nothing more than a synonym for "having sex with animals".
Even within the zoophile scene, there are many who argue that monogamy, deep emotional love and refraining from cheating on your quadruped partner is totally neglectable. Maybe this tendency towards a more "libertarian" sexual morale can be explained with "Once you transgress one taboo, transgressing the next one will be easier". When you already do something deemed as perverted and immoral by everyone, it doesn´t matter anymore if you do other stuff that´s seen as immoral. Some promiscuous "zoos" even insist that monogamy and this special emotional love keeping you from cheating on your animal partner is totally irrelevant for the animal and thus, there is no reason to hold back; it´s way more common for "zoos" to have several animals and we, the ones fitting into the original interpretation of zoophilia as an aequivalent to being a faithful, caring, gentle husband are a minority within a minority.
Many of us think that animals don´t care if you fuck another one right in front of them, but I experienced something in my mare that kept me from doing other mares the entire 22 years she was my partner. After a few years, she totally lost her interest in males of her own species; I often took her for a walk and we had to walk by a pasture with two stallions. When she was in her heat, the stallions recognized that...of course, they did and tried to get her attention . Her reaction to that was hiding behind me, as if she wanted to say "Get lost, fools, I know where I belong." Some would argue that I am delusional, misinterpreting her behavior and she still was "just a horse", but I believe that, in some zoo relationships, both partners can develop a deep emotional love for each other, transforming both of the "participants". The "human" will be transformed into something less human and a bit more "animal" and the "animal" will acquire some behavior, turning it into something less "animal" and more "human". Both parties adapt. But this is only possible when the character of human and animal really match each other....this kind of perfect love is as rare as it is in common, human-on-human relationships.
Another thing to mention: "zoophilia/the zoo community" today is a cess pool of individuals with greatly differing motives and attitudes. It includes the ones doing it for the "perverted", taboo breaking nature, it also includes the ones doing it solely for the convenient and easily inducable sex acts: There are folks doing it with animals for the "special" physical features an animal has to "offer" (the knot of a dog´s penis, the "winking" action of a mare´s vagina etc...) or for the "animalistic" force a mating animal displays (the vigorously humping dog, the dominant stallion etc...). Only a tiny fraction of the "zoo community" would fit into what you described in your question above, although when asked, everyone will insist on being a "real zoo", but if you read carefully, listen to them and how they describe their sex/emotional life, you can easily identify who really means it and who´s not.
The genuine zoophiles will ALWAYS question their own actions since the "consent" issue remains unsolved. A German zoo I know even has ended his sex life because he could not figure out for himself if he could continue to have intercourse with his mare; to continue, he said, he needed to be 100% sure that he isn´t a rapist...and since this 100% certainty cannot be reached , he decided to end it once and for all.
Even I cannot say for sure if I´m not "raping" my mare, but I can live with that remaining 1 % of uncertainty as my experience of living with horses for nearly 30 years and my job as a riding instructor gave me enough expertise on horse behavior to exclude becoming a "horse rapist".
You see, your question cannot be answered in a few sentences; there are many variables involved, many different individuals with their own motives and attitudes. But there are some zoophiles out there living in an exclusive (no human sexual contact), monogamous and deeply emotional relationship with their animal. We´re just not the majority...sadly.
Just saying but my dogs don't care if im being sexual with one rather than the other in a given context. Like at all lol. They even will try and sneak some licks in lol. They like each other and they like me, there's no issues, but it is not monogamy. You shouldn't apply the behavior of your specific horse to all relationships and animals. I mean you can, but it'd be in bad taste lol.
You seem to put an odd amount of focus on monogamy.
There are monogamous species, and there are non-monogamous species. There are other variations as well, such as those who engage in serial monogamy.
Even among humans, there are those who engage in polyamorous relationships, and they would object incredibly strongly to the idea that their form of relationship is less perfect than monogamous relationships.
You may prefer monogamous relationships - that's fine. I'm the same way. But you are confusing your personal values with morals, I think.
To be fair, I did ask about monogamy in particular
I meant more that he put an odd amount of focus on monogamy as a key part of a perfect relationship, but yes I could have worded that far better.
Everyone engaging with others bears a small risk of making them do something they do not want. Even I "assaulted" my human girl once, and she knows the word 'no' in like 23 languages. This is why we need trust in our relationships to know both, that our partner won't hurt us and that they will forgive us if we do so by accident.
I disagree with that a bit too. Take a look around the /r/topsandbottoms, /r/gaybros, etc. subreddits and people going to bathhouses and hookups with apps like grindr are quite common. Few people would argue "Oh they aren't actually homosexual, since they have several changing partners". There is also discussion about how different aspects of sexuality and attraction may not be one and the same. For example Sexual orientation may not be the same as Romantic orientation. Also there are discussions about to what degree humans are really "naturally" monogamous and to what degree it is a remnant of hundreds of years of religious oppression that still produces some societal pressure. Take for example the huge thread yesterday here.
That said, some (or many?) zoos are monogamous like our 30-30 here.
Sure. Some time ago some people have thought out some "ZETA rules". So far I couldn't find the original on the internet, but googling it I just found http://editthis.info/zoosexuality_resource_wiki/The_ZETA_Rules and it seems a good starting point.
I don't think the consent question is so difficult. When observing e.g. a dog, is it really so difficult to see whether a dog does something grudgingly because he was trained or coerced to do something he'd rather not do or whether he does something because he really likes it?
One of the things I've been meaning to read up is the "canine consent test" by Chirag Patel. It's supposed to be a training methodology that encourages dogs to make and communicate their own decisions. For some reason you don't find much on it with google, just for example stuff like http://www.rover-time.com/should-your-dog-be-allowed-to-say-no/. I think this seems like a good way, not only trying to read the communication of a dog, but also teaching the dog how to communicate as clearly as possible, and that the only real challenge is to teach the dog that sex is also his decision that he can refuse - and that nothing bad happens if he does.
Oh, I forgot where I was going with that. Nonhuman animals have sex among themselves all the time. Sometimes they refuse, sometimes they actively seek it out. To me this is obviously some kind of consent. The question is: What harm is done when humans have or don't have sexual contact with animals according to this kind of expressed consent? I just don't see it...
Because there are subreddits dedicated to a special behavior, it is normal now? Are you trying to say that? Well, then cannibalism should also be considered "normal" from now on.
You still seem to miss out on the original meaning of zoophilia. The word was introduced by us to make a distinction between the bestialists mainly interested in sex and the few of us who had a different idea about what a relationship with an animal should be like. Zoophilia never was meant as a descriptive word solely for the sexual aspects, it was introduced as an aequivalent to "faithful, gentle, caring husband". No one would say that being a faithful, gentle, caring husband excludes you from being a heterosexual/homosexual/whateversexual...the word "zoophilia" originally aimed at morality rather than sexuality. Since you "next generation zoo bastids" introduced your ridiculous new "zoosexual" word, I propose this: Call yourselves "zoosexual" as much as you want...this would at least be an appropriate aequivalent to hetero-/homo-/whateversexual. But leave the word "zoophilia" to those who actually try to live their realtionship with a quadruped as an aequivalent to a perfect marriage. That´s what zoophilia originally meant. It also would help our cause if this retarded habit of trying to adjust reality to your mindset would cease one day and be replaced with willingness to adapt your mindset to reality. Stop arguing against what is real and out there, stop trying to "normalize" everything, no one will buy it since the entire society seems already fed up with what the LGBT is trying to do. Stop this gender BS, stop trying to "normalize" things that aren´t normal at all. Would you pleaaaauuzz realize that polyamory, gender crap and even zoophilia/bestiality are not normal and trying to shove it down the throats of society won´t create benefits for anyone?
Oh, and stop simplifying the consent issue. It isn´t so easy to figure out what an animal really wants. All this "consent´s not a big issue" narrative only reassures anybody else outside our community that we just grasp at every single little straw to keep us from drowning, okay? Animal behavior is complex, many "normal" dog owners and even "zoos" fail miserably in identifying the animal´s true will daily. It also neglects the truth that dogs can be beat into obedience, I´ve had the "pleasure" to see several examples of that in my life. It isn´t so easy as you like to see it. Until genuine research about animal-human communication surfaces, we all are just believe in what suits us the best, never forget that.We should be very clear on that and never try to display our beliefs as truths, this will only eliminate our own trustworthyness. BTW, I always cringe whenever a "system" of human-animal communication is mentioned...no matter is it´s the one Patel describes or the "join up" crap from this US "horse whisperer". There is NO system that is perfectly working as animals are adaptive way more than humans are and obedience to humans, although it is "consentual obedience", is the ultimate goal of these systems. Additionally, Patel tries to "teach" dogs to communicate "more clearly" with humans and thus, this system is damn near to simple training of the animals for the convenience of humans...just transfer it to learning a foreign language: how fucked up must one be if he tries to teach native speakers how to communicate more effectively although he isn´t fluent in the foreign tongue...that takes balls..."balls" as in "self obsessed idiocy", of course.
Give it 5-10 years. Maybe 20. I expect to see some changes in society, for the better. Unless the conservatives get a big revival...
It is a sad development. Most philias undergo this language change. But the change in meaning of zoophilia does not change what You are. You can afford to observe unimpassioned.
As was discussed before, the word was introduced by psychologists trying to make a distinction about a given type of paraphilia. Maybe "the word was re-appropriated by us..." is what you are trying to say.
Anyway, it is fairly clear that orientation is distinct from behavior. There are heterosexual, homosexual, and zoosexual rapists, I'm sure. There are heterosexual, homosexual, and zoosexual people interested in monogamy, and others interested in open relationships.
And there are people whose orientation with animals differs from that of humans - including being asexual with humans... or asexual with animals... and this has no inherent bearing on the rest of their set of values.
I think the prior point is that obedience and voluntary, enthusiastic behavior are generally pretty easy to distinguish. Either way, that discussion is irrelevant to relationships where the animal initiates something, especiallly when the human has not deliberately trained-in any behavior.
Human interaction is complex, too. I don't need to wait until there is "genuine research" about human interaction to know how to interact, or know when someone can be trusted or believed. If anything, my experience is that humans are much more effective at lying and coercion.
In short, consent is "an issue" but I would side with those claiming it is an overstated barrier by those similarly grasping at straws on the other side of the argument.
Thank you very much for the website. :) It was a great read and the websites included in them were also very great. I learned a lot from them. So thanks very much!
Sure, we see the whole spectrum from anstinent monogamous love to meaningless one night orgies in human behavior. It's just that the existence of examples for true love would be evidence for an actual sexual orientation. As I mentioned in the original post, I believe anyone could get into mere sexual bestiality given an interest to do so.
re: http://www.rover-time.com/should-your-dog-be-allowed-to-say-no/ olala, Shedd aquarium, zoo and aquarium trainers as gentle and loving.. and their training of course most positive thing invented under Sun. such bullshit :/ One thing I recently was forced to reevauate was ...all those 'exotic animal' places invariably linked to exploitation (I was asked by friend why I so dislike those professianal trainers and vets and others working there). Yeah, even 'pet industry' is exactly this nowadays..industry about making pets.But none keep dolphins captive out of some (completely misguided) personal desire - they all kept there only because there is way to make public pay for all those quite expensive (and failing anyway) artificial structures, and even food alone. So, if you work there you develop specific mindset - allowing to justify unjustifable..and main driving factor remain profit, be it money or 'scientific papers' (and money lately crushed everything else)....
Also, reading this subreddedit I found myself thinking about those 'fencehopping' cases...sure, jumping at someone (horses are someone, too nowhere near polite, but all those 'horse owners' get their horses for first time mostly due to riding or some equivalent? So (few?) hopefully moved away from it, but most ....This is not way of saying 'if one wrong was done lets add just tiny bit more" - but very sad line of thinking about how high and near absolute level of 'background, everyday' (and thus barely detectable) exploitation in modern society (it was quite sad in times before, sure, but now basically same thing covered with much more coloriful wording ....)
I think you are getting so few replies because of your language your point is somewhat hard to understand. For example you said "re: http://www.rover-time.com/should-your-dog-be-allowed-to-say-no/ olala" but I'm still not exactly sure what you think about it...
Well, we can agree on that "dolphinariums" are generally terrible and that we don't like how humans value animals only by the value they provide for the humans and that we would much rather see humans see inherent value in animals. There are many likeminded people on /r/vegan and /r/AnimalRights etc., but unfortunately these people are usually very anti zoo, so if you want to participate there, best make a separate reddit account for that.
I think I agree with idea and practice of allowing dogs (and others) to say no, but this absolute fixation on one type of training (and I know for sure main trainer at shedd aquarium quite big fan of this training stuff - I've printed one of his early books here in ru while I was in somewhat better relations with dolphinarium people) coupled with fact whole stuff nowhere as nice as it pictured..this drive me mad. I'm not sure I want to meet animal rights ppl one more time right now (i still have some around, as legacy? or as bridge ..just not sure to where. Because talk become quite decoupled with walk) - I was on this road for more than 10 years and now it come to some ...crash.
I appologize for asking this, but what do you think "fencehopping" means?
I ask this as I had trouble understanding exactly what you meant, but I would like to.
I am uncertain as to exactly what explotation you are referring to, do you have some examples so that I can make sure I understand what you are referring to?
Certainly living in captivity is inferior to living in the wild, but some of the non-human animals at the Shedd are there because of injuries which prevent them from being able to survive on their own.
I think this term means 'jumping into fenced off area' (in this case with owned animals.... By exploitation I mean..basically using someone. I mean main reason for 'standart' humans to try and own (pardon) horse started with idea of riding them, in other word using their power for transport /or some fun/. And on this way some quite bad devices were invented and widely used :/ Still, even ifthis hypothetical someone not using any of those pain-inflicting devices - they still mostly see horses as something to use, not someone for whom you literally live. Ok, sorry I probably overconcentrated on horses, but most domesticated animals first were domesticated for quite harsh (until death) use - and this remains mostly same now...very bad legacy I once hoped to avoid in dolphin (and co) case, but... their captivity already installed :// For less than century, but unfortunately even this timeframe is big enough for 'normalizing' it.
For me it is more romantic than sexual. But still both.
There are monogamous zoophiles, like myself; but there are many zoophiles with as many different lifestyles as there are hetero, homo, and other -sexuals. What you need to understand in this is that it is a human concept, and not nessicarily one shared by our mate(s). Can there be indications of monogamy in, say, a dog, to their human partner? I believe so, but it remains conjecture on my part.
On consent there will also always be conjecture, until we speak the same language, but you can of course tell if an animal is distressed by or bored with the activity.
Are there biological influences on our attractions? I'm attracted only to female canines, and not even most of them. Like a "normal" male human, there are body types and personalities I find more attractive, and ones that I find repulsive. I doubt however that I'm biologically wired to be a zoophile. It is, IMO, a choice, as is any philia when acted upon.
The answer to your big question: I love, in my soul and heart, the individual that each of my mates were. Not that they were dogs, not that they were females, simply that they were who they were...
Yes, I figured that could be a problem. Humans (as far as we know) are monogamous. Not every species is.
If zoophilia was never about romance then there wouldn't be people who fall in love with birds.
I didn't know there were people who fell in love with birds. It's a very good point. Speaking of swarm animals: Obviously one would want to have several individuals in order to assure species-appropriate conditions. How does one react when ones partner naturally mates with others of their species?