How often will you offer us this rubbish? "Zoosexual" and "zoophile" are NOT interchangable. While "zoosexuality" is just another new buzzword that "luckily" sounds just like what the "cool kids" name themselves, it is nothing more than a bona fide synonym for bestiality. Anybody who has sex with an animal is "zoosexual"; a genuine zoophile, a bestialist for whom the animal is just a fourlegged sex toy, so called frotteurs , even such vile individuals like dog killer Janis Benda is by Miletski´s definition, a "zoosexual".

The word "zoophilia" always was and still is a term that EVALUATES the "zoos" attitude, conduct and emotional involvement; zoosexuality by no means does that, the term was chosen as a completely neutral one on purpose by Miletsi.

The confusion actually STARTED only when people like you do their "definition limbo " game...setting the bar lower and lower in each round.

If self proclaimed "experts" who contributed a very inaccurate "zoowiki" with lots of evidence of complete inexperience not even well hidden in it to the world try to "explain" things, without even reading the original Miletsi text, let alone correctly understanding everything, we´re seriously lost, folks. Skg... wants so much to be a part of the solution that he doesn´t realise how much he and his definition limbo is a true part of the whole problem. Again, Zwqm7, these two words are NOT interchangeable, they´re not synonyms and the only real link between these two is the "zoo-" syllable."Zoosexual" menas nothing more than "has sex with animals"...and that applies to an entire variety, from the most tolerable conduct to the most abhorrend and vile. There are "zoosexual" rapists out there, but you won´t find even one single zoophile rapist because zoophile and rapist exclude each other. If you´re one, you cannot be the second anymore.Rapist? Then no zoophile. Zoophile? Then no rapist.

Zoophile: a person who is sexually and emotionally attracted to other species, often preferring sexual contact with animals over or even excluding any human sexual contact,(Although my personal view leans much more towards exclusivity, as many already know...for a very stringent reason: an exclusive zoo lives in an entirely different world than non exclusives.) I know, the z-word makes beasty pants wet...how lucky you were that some completely unknown researcher with enormous methodical problems in her study incidentally invented a word that, when abbreviated, perfectly takes the original word hostage, fucks it up the ass ten times a day (and those who righteously use that word, too) , kills it, fucks it up the ass another ten times and then throws it out in the open to miserably suffer and die for a second time. If you want to educate others, get educated properly first, Zqwm7. Read the whole thing, not only the fragments that suit you.And please take down this parody of an educational page about zoophilia you created. This entire conglomerate of inaccuracy, fantasizing and parroted info you read elsewhere and understood only rudimentarily is a disgrace...and proof you´re a complete virgin regarding animals, too.

Well, it's very similar to how people use the word "animal" to refer to people of a different race. Racists referring to black people in particular...

Like, hey dog! (Referring to another male human being)

People will also mistake the word "beast" for someone they view as being a disgusting human being.

In drug slang, the word "Horse" means heroin and "Grass" means marijuana. I'm also sure there are people who think that zoophile means "person who loves the zoo, or zoo animals" Or "people who like caged animals'

What happens when people rely on slang used by their own ethnic or hate groups to dehumanize human beings? Complete confusion, false confessions and convictions.

I honestly believe the term zoophile should be revoked and bestiality no longer applied because people are changing their meanings despite any of them being listed in the dictionary.

Nobody ever said anything about Bestialists who ride a flying Rhinoceros. Actually, somebody did... Can you guess who it was?

It sounds to me as if "The Horseman" and your hero Falabella has given you the wrong impression. I'm sorry that reading about another person's storybook adventures had such a traumatizing effect on you. Sometimes its better to stop reading fiction as if it was fact, especially when the fantasy is being wrongly applied to reality. I've known people who divorced their spouses because they were following in the footsteps and influenced by the actions of characters from a storybook to do so.

For the sake of integrity, you shouldn't be relying on proofs from novels and "magical beasts" to form your conclusions on what true zoophilia is. Otherwise you would be voluntarily doing something by pretending to be "the miracle authority on all zoophile related issues" and come to believe it in an instant as true. Monkey see monkey do, so what makes it right for you?

Zoophilia encompasses more than one's own demographic and just because a man like Willard or otherwise might have misused the label in association with an action does not make it proof that all similar actions are any less zoophile. It's up to the actor themselves and nobody else to admit or factually have no interest in the animals themselves for the zoophile label to be misused.

However this poses a problem. Deliberately removing a zoophiles choices for the purpose of others to claim the zoophile had "no other choice" does not disqualify the zoophile from the label of zoophile, because the deceptive perspectives of others were wrongly fabricated against the attractions of the zoophile and should not apply. Deceptive behavior and false-proofs by the deception of others can not factually de-legitimize zoophilia. Instead, those people who abuse the zoophile label to de-legitimize other zoophiles are in danger of commiting enough proof to de-legitimize their own zoophilia as a mere weapon or "war on morality."

True zoos are ALL zoos, not just the few who misuse the label for status or destruction of others.

If you want another persons scratch-n-sniff storybook as proof to my claims, I cannot do that. However, you can go read the Bible, Mein Kampf, Alice in Wonderland or a transcript of the reasons for the laws behind zoophilia and bestiality if you so choose. Proof is only as good as the opinion who wrote it and the fanclub, who by some instance of fanaticism fell to believe in it.

So you’re currently working on an essay? I’d definitely appreciate if you’d make it accessible to the community as soon as it’s finished. Nevertheless, be warned that your efforts to educate people about the true nature of Willard’s approach towards zoophilia are likely to be in vain. Those who have read The horseman and still don't realize the obvious truth are not going to make an 180° degree turn if you confront them with your essay. Indeed, Willard’s book already features more valid arguments against his cause than you could ever include in your text – every second page gives proof of the hypocrisy which was inherent to his lifestyle. With regards to my personal opinion on the book, I can only repeat how disappointed and disgusted I felt when I read the horseman in 2010. Indeed, my expectations were high – I was in search of a role model, a way of living that I could identify with. I believed that this book would help me deal with my newly discovered passion for horses and give me a realistic view on how a relationship with a mare would feel. Instead, Willard confronted me with disturbing tales about the sexual adventures of his youth and passages such as the one you have cited. Looking back from a distance of nearly seven years, four and a half of which I have been living with my own mare, his story appears even more unrealistic and inconsistent to me.

You misunderstood my last sentence. What I meant is that zoophiles (by your definition) already voluntarily do the right thing in terms of what you would call zeta rules, etc. Therefore voluntarily doing the right thing and using self-restraint and discipline with words should not be hard.

I did not see a response to my main point, which is that per the dictionary definition, any sex with an animal is bestiality. Per DSM, if you are a person (human-oriented or otherwise) who gets their kicks out of a pathological enjoyment of animal sex, you are a zoophile.

Any other purpose for these words is "abusing the word" as you put it, and is a meaningless interpretation, as you also put it. Notice these words, as authoritatively defined, have nothing to do with motive, orientation, abusiveness, kindness, etc.

Is a new, appropriate word useful? Sure. Re-use a new word from French, German, Latin, Sanskrit, etc. if needed, but "zoophile" is already taken, at least in English.

Changing times require new definitions. Racists refer to people of different races as "animals" all the time and it's becomes a chore to refer specifically to actual "animals"... the "Non-human animals that walk on four legs, have a tail, and enjoy squeaky toys, and belong to the (insert Latin classification here)"

Without specific definitions people keep making dumb mistakes on account of their racially fueled hatred for other people.

No different than how people call gays "fags" or change the meaning of "gay" to mean something else.

Ever notice how the website "GayBeast" uses Gay and Beast to refer to something that might not actually be Gay or Beast?

Imagine, you're texting a friend about the 1000lb horse you bought...Next thing you know you have police with a warrant breaking down your door in a drug bust because they mistook it for 1000lb or heroin. Horse in heroin in drug slang. Imagine the same thing would happen for people trying to buy "Grass" for their horse.

White people are referred to as "serial killers" and blacks are referred to as "rapists" as racial slurs. Imagine people are being added to a watch lists and confused with the real serial killers and rapists.