I'm not sure if this is the right subreddit to post this in. The man I'm seeing has been very open about discussing his sexual fantasies with me, and he's very into taboo sex, all kinds of it. For example, he enjoys dom/sub play, enjoys having sex with other men, and occasionally has incest fantasies. His biggest fantasy right now, however, is to watch a woman have sex with his dog. Is this something common amongst the zoophile community? Have any of you experienced this type of fantasy? I apologize if this question is too invasive.
I understand there is a huge difference between fantasy and reality, and he knows this is a boundary for me. I'm just trying to better understand his inner workings I guess. I really care about him and I love how open and unashamed he is about who he is, although I don't think he's told anyone else this particular fantasy. I want him to continue to feel comfortable opening up this way with me, and any insights would be greatly appreciated.
This is as good a place to ask this as any. The short answer is no, this isn't common among zoos. Some people like the idea of sex with animals because it's taboo or even degrading somehow. Others (those who might call themselves zoo) are into it for the animals themselves, because they find the animals attractive or want to make them happy. Your boyfriend sounds like he fits into the former kinkster category.
If he does it right, making sure the animal and you are both into it and safe, and giving you a safeword or other way to stop, then I don't see any problem with it personally. A quick warning, though: when dogs mate, they have a gland at the base of their penis, which we call a "knot", that'll swell up inside you when they finish. This will tie you and the dog together for some minutes afterwards. I'm told that it can feel great for a woman, but if you aren't prepared for it, it might shock you. Once that happens, you should wait for him to exit naturally, and not try to pull it out.
I'll admit I've had such voyeuristic fantasies, very rarely. But there's no need to do anything you aren't comfortable with. You're the only one who can decide whether that's OK for you, though.
yep, definitely research it a bit to make sure everyone knows what to expect if you do actually do it. And if he ever does happen to call it zoophilia, correct him because it very much isn't.
Thank you for the advice, greatly appreciated
Nope. Body language says it all. Specifically, even in the most difficult case to judge (penetration from behind), a relaxed body stance, pushing back, looking back and wagging their tail, for example. It's even easier if they're humping at you. Kind of hard to do that if you don't want to.
"Oh hey I'm raping my dog her back is arched and she's wagging her tail she's loving it amiright guys?" How delusional can you freaks be?
The real question is, if I'm using ethological study to determine consent, and you're assuming that it's rape regardless of what she does, which of us is delusional about the situation?
Animals can't consent to anything.
Do you think it's ok to give a dog alcohol? Tobacco? Heroin? Cocaine? What if they really want it?
You don't see dogs penetrating other animals. They see people as a part of their pack but they don't know better. They can't understand that you're a different species just like they can't understand the drug they're addicted to is dangerous.
I hope you all seriously consider this. I'm not judging you all for your tastes, but it's animal abuse.
First, define consent for purposes of this conversation, because when I use the term, I tend to use the colloquial definition, meaning two beings share a desire for some activity, and communicate this desire to each other. You probably mean something more stringent, of the sort used in contract law for example, but I won't presume to know.
The difference between giving a dog drugs and having sex with them is that the drugs generally have harmful effects, while the sex (when done properly with attention to their behavior) generally has few, if any. Now, if a dog were given sexual attention in such a way as to develop an addiction or obsession, that might be unhealthy. But otherwise, the comparison is a weak one.
Also, we do see dogs attempting to penetrate other animals (source). In what sense are the most important people in a dog's life not a part of their pack in all respects relevant to the dog? In what respect is the species divide relevant unless it is claimed that the only healthy sex is procreative? And if that is the case, how come so many different species engage in homosexuality or oral sex? (source)
Also, if there is no coercion, harm, or neglect to the animal, it cannot be abusive. The only way around this is to redefine abuse to include interspecies sex, in which case the word becomes a loaded term used to justified banning something for reasons of personal dislike.
Just a heads up - the people here have actually thought about these issues before. They are commonly brought up. If you want to convince anyone of anything - or heck, even if you just want to troll - you better do better than that.
Basically you don't even qualify as a troll right now, because your game is so weak that you couldn't even get anyone upset.
How delusional do you have to be to think animals can't want sex from humans?
Breaking news: dogfucker thinks OTHER people are delusional
Breaking news: person hanging out on a zoophile forum pretends they're better than everyone else
Why are you here?
I've read all the replies and people seem to think they are the sole person to define what a zoo is or isn't. Just because he likes to see it doesn't make him non zoo anything else is just hog wash! Zoo and cuckolding both have spectrums. Some people are visual zoos meaning if they see a horse or dog ect. They become aroused by the spectre of what it's genitalia might look like and or how it would mate with a human male/female. While some actually have a relationship with an animal and are monogamous with the animal itself. Don't let these people define what a zoo is or isn't nor let them cast a veil over your own eyes. There are a lot of people on the internet that think they know everything. So my advice to you is to sit and talk with him openly about it. If you're open minded and would like to try it then by all means please do it and try to enjoy it you might be surprised. The fact that you chose to be with a man with these desires shows that you yourself might have a "kinky" side yourself. Enjoy your life and please remember what I said.
I agree with Kynophile. There is a difference between this type of fantasy your boyfriend has, and zoophilia. I would compare it to how many straight men enjoy watching "lesbian porn". It doesn't make those guys lesbian, it doesn't even necessarily mean they support lgbtq rights. They just like watching.
Similarly, I think there are a lot more men who fantasize about watching an attractive woman having sex with a dog, than there are men who are genuinely attracted to dogs sexually/romantically. If he has no attraction to animals himself, he is not a zoophile.
A personal anecdote: as a female who is attracted to dogs, I've sometimes searched for porn on the subject matter. (I prefer drawings, seeing as I don't trust the way the porn industry might treat real animals). I was so confused to why the drawings focused so much on the female, why the dogs were so ugly... until I realised that this type of porn was made for people like your boyfriend, who are into it because of the taboo aspect, not because of pretty dogs.
But, congrats on having that level of trust that he feels comfortable with sharing his intimate fantasies with you!
Thank you for the reply. I want him to keep feeling comfortable enough to share his deepest thoughts with me, and I with him.
He's not zoophile, he like taboo sex and women degrading themselves.
One thing : Don't do anything stupid for him.
Fucking a dog while you don't like it is something very stupid.
I didn't think he was a zoophile, but I was unsure where else to ask the question. Don't be judgemental, I'm sure you don't like when people judge your sexual preferences. I also said I was trying to understand him better, which is why I am asking questions. I posted in this forum because you guys, better than anyone, should understand how vulnerable you make yourself when you tell someone else your deepest fantasies, and how terrible it feels to be judged negatively.
Sorry, zoos can also be a little put off sometimes because a large amount of the negative social stigma that we receive can be generated largely in part to people who treat what is essentially a lifestyle for us as a kink or fetish. With that mindset tends to follow a lack of invested interested or care into less invested care of their animals and an over-sexualization of those who are zoophiles.
If sex is a lifestyle for you (especially if it's sex with innocent animals who can't stop you) you need to seriously rethink your lifestyle, freak.
Just like with any other sexuality, there is a whole lot more to love and a relationship than sex.
[removed]
There's a really, really easy way to see if he's a zoophile vs. if he's just into kinky degradation-fantasy:
"If you do it, I'll do it."
Over-sharing time: speaking as a (straight male, but non-practicing) zoophile I would be into sucking a dog dick whether there was a girl involved or not if the dog was into it... and to put a small bit of support on your boyfriend's side I have most of his other really out-there kinks, but I'm into both the S and M sides.
There isn't anything wrong with having "kinky degradation-fantasies" as long as they stay consensually planned out and fantasies... but crossing the line into actual bestiality--which is probably illegal where you are and major blackmail material--is something that needs to happen as a couple (or as a trio, since actual zoophiles want to take the dog's point of view into account), not with one partner degrading themselves for the other's pleasure.
If he was a zoophile then his fantasy would be to have sex with a dog himself.
Your boyfriend is to a zoophile what a food-network viewer is to a chef.
Personally, I don't like the sorts of people who are into watching women having sex with dogs, because in my experience, their motives are very...
Well, let me put it this way. The most common reasons I hear from those with fantasies like that is that they like seeing women degrade themselves, or seeing them so lustful that they would do anything - even an animal. With those reasons, it puts the animal in an incredibly low status. He degrades the human. He is a lower beast. He is a last resort.
I can't stand any of that. It portrays the animal in such a negative light. And when someone thinks so lowly of the animal, I don't trust them to be moral about how they go about treating it either, especially in sexual circumstances.
Now, your boyfriend might have different reasons than those. Perhaps, if I heard his reasons, I'd not be so negative towards him. Indeed, that's happened before. So if that's the case, I'm not talking about him right now. However, those are my general thoughts on most of the people with that fantasy, and if they are applicable to him, then I do not apologize.
If you want some insight on zoophilia itself (though this won't provide any insight on your boyfriend), it might be easiest to think of it as an orientation. Think about how you see homosexuality - the things you know, the arguments you hear, and so on. Most of those are applicable to zoophilia as well. Though the subject of our attractions differ, there are enough similarities that you can get a reasonable understanding just like that.
Though that said, think more about homosexuality in the 1950s than now.
Shelby, there is indeed a spectrum between people who like to watch and people who like to do.
There is also a spectrum between people who think interspecies sex is beautiful and spiritual and people who think it is nasty and degrading.
Any individual who is interested in sex with animals can be anywhere on those two spectra. By which I mean, you CAN be a watcher who thinks it is beautiful, not degrading.
People who say it is an either/or thing are just making stuff up, or trying to define themselves in a way that helps them cope with the emotional confusion that comes with having a taboo sexuality.
Then there are also the people who just believe (or know from experience) that sex with dogs feels really good and who just want to do it for fun.
So in my case, I mostly like to watch, because as a man I cannot do what a woman can do in the way that she does it with a dog. But I am also at the end of the spectrum of people who really love and admire dogs in all the ways possible for people who accept animals for what they are (and are not).
So just because your boyfriend is a watcher it doesn't neccessarily folow that he is a kinkster.
Furthermore, he might not paricularly love dogs, but it doesn't necessarily follow that he finds bestiality degrading. He might like to watch it because he think it looks like a very intensely pleasurable experience for a woman (and many, many women say it is) and he loves the idea of you having a really good time. This for me is also part of the appeal.
The thing to do is to talk to him and find out more about how it feels. It would also be a good idea if you could persuade him to do something (non-invasive) with a dog himself. He could let himself be licked in the genital area/anus, give oral sex to a male dog, or at least kiss it on the mouth. That way you are in it together to a greater degree.
Ideally, do not let him film or photograph the action, it could land you in trouble. If you must produce video or images, wear a mask, hide any recongisable objects on view in your home and any recognisable jewelry, tattoos etc.
Edited to add that in this particular forum, people have decided that to be a zoophile you have to be terribly serious about having a sexual relationship with an animal. They find it helpful as a way to differentiate themselves from those who just do it for fun. However I know plenty of genuine, committed, lifelong zoophiles for whom sharing the joys of interspecies sex with their friends and lovers is one of life's joys. This does not stop them being zoophiles, but a few snooty people here will try to tell you that there are special rules for what makes a zoophile. Those rules are an invention, and are only representative of a subset of the total range of people who are thoughtful, compassionate and sensitive about the subject of interspecies sex. Again, talk to your BF and find out more about how he is. He might be a zoophile (by my standards) or he might just be into it for fun, in which case he probably would not identify as a zoophile but that would be up to him, not the opionionistas of this forum.
Thank you for your reply, I appreciate the thought you put into it. My bf has actually admitted he would have sex with a canine as well. He really enjoys sex and sees it as a free expression, and he enjoys taboo sex because of the "against the grain" factor. I'm fine with fantasizing with him, but I'm pretty sure that's as far as it will go. I agree that there is a spectrum, and he is definitely into taboo sex for the "fun" factor, not the emotional one. Although he absolutely a dog person, and has two of them. Again, thank you for your thoughtful response. I do love him very much, and I want to understand him as well as I can!
Oooh,look what we have here...a rainbow unicorn pooping, rosewater scent farting, "it´s all just zoophilia, no matter what others say" , inexperienced moron trying to define so he can fit in...yawn
FYI, moron: zooPHILIA is exactly about emotional relationships and sex "for fun" (who said it isn´t "fun" for a zoophile as well,huh?) is just a teeny,tiny part of the whole orientation. What people like you don´t seem to get, no matter how drastic the consequences of your bullshit definitions weigh upon us zoophiles: you are to blame for the fact that zoophilia has become a synonym for "fucks animals" and literally no one cares for the emotional part. Not you self defined "zoophiles", not society, not even the few scientists actually researching this topic. Again, FYI: the distinction between zoophiles, bestialists and voyeurs has been made more than 20 years ago as one of the first things the newly born 90s IRC community has done...and it has been done for a reason. We did this to establish a "trademark" for those among us who see more in it than just fucking animals "for fun". But you dickheads felt excluded and so you started to make up definitions in your own style....funnily always in a way that includes your own kind of "zoophiles". Basically, you asswipes are to blame for all the shabangabang that followed...fencehoppers proclaimed they are "zoophiles" in front of courts and judges, porn fiends and voyeurs alike, plain bestialists not interested in the animals at all also instrumentalized what wasn´t rightfully theirs; and today, the z-word has become what it is now...a tern totally mistaken.
By the way: you´re also nothing more than an opinionista displaying your own opinion as a fact. Once again, I call your definition bullshit and can only point to the huge repercussions your "all inclusive" attitude has inflicted upon our community.
No true zoo will "share" (a.k.a. prostitute) his animal to "friends"....IDK if you´re just dumb or suffer from the common illness of "not understanding love". If you can´t tell the difference between a bestialist and a real zoophile, it´s your problem. But don´t try to infect others with your bullshit definitions...´cause exactly that´s why the z-word has become devoid of any meaning. Stop taking us real zoos hostage to push your bs agenda onto everyone else. Go and google some greek words instead, like philos, for example. And then tell me, how can someone seeing his/her animal as a live sex toy be a friend of an animal? How can someone who literally would fuck anything be a zoophile? Maybe you should learn the actual definitions and understand them before you write bullshit in here.If we all adapt your crap, this place would mutate into a second beastforum in no time, with all of the "glorious zoophiles" you can witness in there...the voyeurs, the pron fiends, the fantasizers, the plain ass perverts, the amateur animal pimps, the porn makers and finally the ones who are tryin´to make some happy bucks out of all. There already IS a forum for such folks like you. Just go there and enjoy your stay with likeminded fucktards, okay?
Before we zoos will see change, we need to get rid of all these backstabbing, "all inclusive" dickheads...our worst enemies aren´t the antis....it´s folks like you with your apologetic rubbish, totally unaware of what this attitude has caused. Zoophilia has rules as everything else has rules. If you don´t like it, then sod off.
Is it a coincidence that you only have sex with beings who lack the means to tell you what a silly sausage you are?
Thanks for making me laugh with that one. :)
Oh, what a nice couple you two beasties make...maybe exchange phone numbers, meet up and then you can screw each other as hard as you two screw zoophilia over...
Bad idea. They might trade animals.
Zoophile: noun, used self-referentially by self-hating animal fuckers to help themselves hate themselves less, sometimes at the expense of their fellow animal fuckers.
Zooprahphilia: term that denominates the "all inclusive" attitude of many bestialists desperately trying to qualify for the usage of the z-word. derived from US talkmaster Oprah Winfrey and her habit of handing out unwanted, undeserved gifts to her audience "You get zoophilia, you get zoophilia, everyone gets zoophilia for free tonight!"
The term should be used as a substitute for the commonly misinterpreted word "zoophilia". Compared to zoophilia, zooprahphilia excludes any rules, any obligations and any certain state of mind that the other term includes in an obligatory way. You can be a zooprahphile, no matter if you´re treating your animals like shit, pimp them out to "friends" and random strangers you just met on so called "zoo forums". You also don´t disqualify as a zooprahphile if you keep your animal solely for sex and despise the ones actually depending on an intimate, emotional relationship with an animal as their only means of emotional-sexual expression.
The usage of the new word is meant to lower the tension between people misusing the z-word as a general descriptive and those who depend on having their "own" adaequate term for their orientation as a part of their deeply felt identity as true zoophiles. It´s not a matter of elitism, but a matter of actual different realities of life as a true zoophile´s life hugely differs from the life of a zooprahphile.