Hi all,
Being a bit tired to see people use the wrong words, I think it could be a good idea to give them "official" definitions so that we could communicate more easily. If we are to be accepted in the society, the first step would be to act more as a real community that has strong ideas than a group of people who globally want the same things, but can't even agree on such simple things as the use of words. Let me lead the way :
Bestiality: when people have sex with other animals absolutely not caring about their will. Bestiality is basically cruel animal rape, most bestialists are turned on by the fact that they do it with an "inferior being". The vast majority of zoo porn websites are wrong because they're bestialists, this is a real issue and is what should be banned all over the world.
Zoophilia: when you're sexually attracted to other animals, and do it with them in total respect. They consent to it as much as you do, but it's more a kink than a sexual orientation since you can't fall in love.
Zoosexuality: when you're romantically and sexually attracted to other animals. Of course, zoosexuals make love with their partners in total respect, and the emotional bond is as much if not more important than the sexual part, just like in a regular couple. Zoosexuality can be considered as a real sexual orientation.
As you can see, I like to give strong differences between these words that are too often considered as synonyms. It is best that way, because I consider our sexuality to be very vast and thus in need of precise words.
I hope you mostly agree and would love to read your feelings on the subject.
[deleted]
Nothing has changed since this question was brought up last week:
This is rubbish. Zoophilia just a kink? As a zoophile you can´t fall in love?
What you´re trying here is really a despicable attempt to recoin already defined words so they probably fit YOU the best.
Bestiality: the act of having sex with an animal. It doesn´t make a difference whether you do it out of love or entirely for abusive and/or selfish reasons. Anyone who has or had sex (any kind of sex, even fingering) is a bestialist.
Among these are the Zoophiles: individuals who predominantly or exclusively choose animals as their partners. Usually includes heavy emotional attachment to the animal, love for the animal is more important than love for sex with an animal. Real longtime relationships are the predominant form of zoophilia.
"Zoosexuality" is a word made up by Hani Miletsi. She explicitly stated that this word does NOT include ANY moral/ethical evaluation. So, an animal ripper violently hurting or killing animals for his sexual gratification is equally "zoosexual" as someone who has a steady, longtime , non abusive relationship with his animal. This word is cancer to our community.
What I don´t understand: you´re obviously aware of those among us who "do animals" as a fallback or substitute for human company, for fetishistic needs, as a means of degradation etc....but your proposed "new" grid of definitions really is nothing more than a humiliation for zoophiles and elevates the beasties to "genuine zoosexuals". Quite contradictory, right?
The so called "zoo community" probably is the only one that is changing definitions like underpants...once a day.... shakes head
Your definitions looks good. Well, "zoosexuality" is described a little bit too unofficial, but general meaning is fine.
Does someone forces you to speak so aggressively? That's one of the things I don't understand here, we're supposed to be on the same side, yet we can't discuss calmly.
I don't really care about what Hani Miletski said. You can't claim the invention of a so simple and logical word. Heterosexuality, homosexuality, zoosexuality, it's in the continuity, right?
My point is, bestiality and zoophilia are both words with very negative undertones. Pronounce them in front of anyone out of this community and you'll immediately see it on their face. So, to help our cause, let's attribute them to negative things such as rapers and kinks and get rid of them. Then, let's use a word that's never been used among ordinary people and that has less of a negative undertone. It would be a way for these people to begin seeing love and sex with other animals as a real sexual orientation, and not just as a disgusting kink like they do know. To us, it would be the same respectful thing it ever was (at least for most of us, I sincerely hope), but to them, it would be some other thing. See what I mean?
I understand that someone who considers himself a zoophile (in your definition of the word) can be offended reading my definition. But if a simple change of habits can help the cause, it's clearly worth it.
Plus, I must say that I really don't like the word bestialist, it's completely speciesist and disrespectful of our lovers. Humans are as much "beasts" as dogs or horses.
Aggressively? Well, let´s imagine someone nobody has ever heard of in here comes in and wants to redefine from scratch what is commonly accepted in here, even in shitty porn dispensers like BF and generally basic knowledge globally, at least for everyone not living under a stone for the last 25 years. Wouldn´t you call that a very aggressive "Hello!"...with resinating impressions of "Well, here I am and ...fuck your definitions!"?
Offended by a single word from another, but blind to the own forms of aggression..how I love that. Your bs definition takes away the true z-word from us zoophiles...AGAIN! We´ve been there and don´t need some newcomer to do that to us again.
As you said: Society creates definitions. So when someone new appears here with own definitions like Orcan's, sees ours and adjusts his, there is one person more who uses those words like our community. One more person in society. So if you really think we don't need to discuss it with newcomers... There will be more and more mess, because no one will clean it.
...and if someone with enough expertise and experience comes in and clears it, 90% of the folks are pissed off bigly...
BTW, you´re missing the point entirely here. Nothing against newcomers or new approaches, but when someone calls zoophilia a kink and states that "zoophiles can´t love", that´s just one little bit too much. If that´d be the first time somebody takes a shit on zoophilia, I´d be less embarrassed, but with the history of that word, annected by the beasties and held hostage to such a severe degree that the wrong usage of the z-word even spread into science (guess where all the Miletskis,Beetz etc got that word from...), some things simply aren´t negotiable. How often should we zoos be the last in line....even on our own territory? How often do you allow others to steal from you or destroy your stuff before you go berzerk?
"This is what I am not, therefore I am better than This"
Labels create a definition for people to compare themselves to as being better than. Therefore, if they are the best then they commit "Best"iality.
More definitions help to locate those people who commit bestiality by observing how they will jump to the "best" definition to avoid feeling guilty.
It's just sex. Really. People have to stop being so special about this.
I think people turned this whole thing into something too special even for themselves. It's just sex.
No bestiality. No zoophilia. No Zoosexuality. Nothing.
It's just sex and it doesn't require thinking.
Let's just shag 'em without thinking! No consent, no special snowflakes and no thinking! I vote 4 Sheppy!!
Yoooo I' are ur bigest fan :O xDDD rawr :3!
I mean rape doesn't exist if I don't think about it and just fuck 'er rly hard RIGHT XXXDXDXDXXXDDD??!!!
Get zoophilia in the publec pepole we r going to get fredom and fuck them outside !!!!
PS: remembemer: no thinking xD!!!!
PSS: i think i might have caught a std from fucking like 50 diferent animals :O wowie
You're not from around here are you?
If you're acting like sex is something special then you are probably not as knowledgeable as you claim to be.
I said bestiality, not all sex.
You know what? You're completely right.
Bestiality is common.
I'm glad you changed my mind without any facts at all.
Finally this worked out.
If a rational person reads this, that was obviously not true, so ignore this.
Why can't you just call it sex? Why so specific?
well, you see, there are different forms of sex. people have leisure sex, sex of love, sex because its a job, sex because friends and so on.
With these forms there are different feelings. yes, the physical act is sex, but there is more to it. So, that's why
That's why there's already terms called "casual sex" and "making love." We shouldn't be obscuring it with other "alien life" definitions that people are obviously afraid of.
Being so difficult with the labels based on who we have sex with is just a waste of effort by attempting to point out who is more special than who.
It's a penis measuring contest.
But in here it is very useful to explain what form you're talking about specific.
And to the outside world, I do not talk of sex, it is a subject that doesn't interest me at all. And to me it is not a contest to who is most special, it just makes me understand how someone feels and acts within the subject.
For one a fetishist will have different attitude and feelings to it than someone genuinely in love with an animal. So it's not a pissing contest in any way unless you make it a pissing contest. Which, in my humble opinion is a rather pathetic thing.
Oh yeah pathetic is right.
"I'm better than that guy, because that guy has sex with animals without love. He's a fetishist and doesn't deserve it"
heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, zoosexual.
why is this so hard to understand?
heterosexual people can be abusers as well, doesnt make the term any less valid.
You've got a point there, I didn't thought it that way. Then I guess a zoosexual can do bestiality acts as well.
It's just sex. The animals don't care what it's called so why should we?
Well, I´m not dumb and know that this is exactly what Miletski intended that word to be , a descriptive term for "gets sexual gratification from animals in any shape or form". Accepting this faked z-word is accepting being thrown into the same basket as sadists and rapists with a faíble for quadrupeds. Since rape and abuse are the usual accusations we´re facing, how can accepting a term that sets us onto the same level as an animal ripper who jerks off while killing an animal be a thing in here? Accept being called the same ? Really? In our delicate position, with "rapist" metaphorically written on everyone´s forehead? If you like that term, well, use it. But imagine me spitting out whenever I have to say or write that fake ass z-word. Zoophilia is the only philia that involves non human living beings...and this simple fact turns it into something incomparable to all the other sexualities/orientations. This is different.
To be fair, you say yourself that you can't just fake your way to changing perception. Part of it is honesty, acknowledging that there are bad eggs, is it not?
Yup, you´re right...from an objective viewpoint. But objectivity isn´t working on the Planet of the Apes, the furless monkeys understand zoophilia better when two words are offered. We´re not in the position to demand adaption from society.If we ever want to install a final distinction, society needs separate words for "good" and "bad animal fuckers" and we should provide that to them. From an operational perspective, it is way more promising to feed only small bits to an unwilling eater than trying to shove an entire meal down his throat. What we as a global community are in dire need to learn is that we´re NOT the ones to dictate the terms of tolerance , it is society and their way of thinking that dictates the terms. WE have to adapt, not THEM, not society.
There shouldn't be any special words for sexual attractions.You're attracted to something then great. Love your animal more than others great. Have sex with animals great it's just sex. That's all.
Unless it's rape. Rapists are rapists. There should be no other word for a rapist. Any other label, a sexuality or attraction cannot define the rapist. Rape is being obscured into other words for no good reason other than to demonize any group of people who doesn't do sex the way someone else does. If they're using any other word to define rapist then there is an obvious disconnection problem when they have to be so specific to reconnect through other people. Rape doesn't actually require specifics because it is what it is.
I wouldn't try adapting to societies problems unless I'm looking to adopt guilts and self-loathing personality types. It's much healthier to distance yourself from societies diseases. Don't adapt to hating yourself like they hate themselves. It's like plugging a fork into an outlet trying to connect to the main line. It kinda works too well.
Blah blah blah...anything else to offer than the broken and scratched record in your head? You obviously like to talk much...how it comes no one knows anything about you? And how it comes you seem to be completely ignorant of the core issues of zoophilia although you´re the top dog "normaliser" ? Could it be you´re just an internet loudmouth? Even one of the dangerous kind handing out false advice that can get folks incarcerated and animal killed...
Wow wow wooow stop right there.
He's going to accuse you of being a spy soon enough because you're trying to know more about him in his logic.
It's strange though.
What do we know about him?
Is it even a him? What is he even attracted to? What's his IP, phone number and addr- oh whoopsies, almost blew my cover!
No I'm going to accuse him of being a simple, special, little person. Spies are better at what they do.
30-30, nobody knows anything about me because In not stupid. I'm not special and I don't pretend to be special. I'm not using zoo as a step stool to heighten my ego like some "loudmouths" here, because I don't have to. I'm happy with my penis size.
"Hey, my name is (insert here(30-30 or otherwise)) I have this and this and that and I do this because I work for these people and and I've traveled the world and I'm just so perfect and special and everybody loves me. I feel it is my rightful place to be king of the zoos because I have degrees in quantum physics and nutrition, and I play polo, I own stocks, and I beat Super Mario 64 in five minutes."
... but you can't see your own penis?
"Blah blah blah blah!! Are you calling me a spy!? Your head is wrong. You need tinfoil! Blah blah blah I can't hear you! I can't understand you! Tinfoil, tinfoil...(stroke)"
Uhm..No thank you. I'm telling people how to avoid appearing to be so very super special. People love their animals. People have sex with their animals. It's nothing special. It's been going on forever and ever.
Sex with animals shouldn't require a genius. Maybe you guys and girls are just better off being gay?
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Reply to your comment below.
Well yeah! Sometimes even I wonder why you keep responding. What, you never saw a person who knows what they're talking about? Am I that interesting?
Treating sex with animals as if it's something special is an obvious sign that someone has never been around animals or ever had sex before in their life. That's like people who live in a desert acting like life itself was something special. "Wha..what?? It's alive? Life is wrong!" A castrated pig would be under the impression that sex itself was something special. "Sex? Huh? What's sex? That doesn't make sense!"
"OMG we found life on Mars!! It's evil!!!"
It's nothing special. Seen it done it, expand your horizons. People don't lie very good about knowing things when it's very obvious they don't have the experience. Acting like something is special is the key bullshit factor.
I don't trust special people or their special intentions.
You're right, this is so common.
I really agree so much, I literally met 100+ people who shagged their pets like dude can you imagine if fuckin' em was not special at all?
Like dude, let's give that a name!
Reality.
I sometimes ask myself why I even bother to reply to you.
Bestiality is uncommon and zoophilia is even more rare.
As for the other things you said, I'll just do my best to ignore it.
You must have come from a place with low IQ or a desert where the existence of life itself was something special. Yes yes...Those are "trees" you silly city people.
Not knowing that sex with animals is common is like a castrated pig not knowing that sex itself is common.
Sometimes I even wonder why you keep responding. What, you never seen a person who knows what they're talking about?
No, thinking bestiality is common like a mentally-ill zoophile who goes on the internet forcing opinions down people's throats.
But yes, I've seen people who know what they're talking about.
And there's a big difference between you and them.
Why don't you talk about the taste of bullshit, since it's flowing out of your mouth so much? You probably know all about the taste of it!
I wonder why you keep replying to that jerk, too.
We both know that having sex with animals is uncommon and I bet a lot of other members know exactly what this troll is all about. Maybe we should propose that next sunday, Shepp takes his dog to his local church and fucks it during the Sunday morning mass...we´ll see how "normal" fucking a dog REALLY is in an instant...;) And we´ll be able to read about it , too.
He vividly reminds me of Roman Czyborra, the former, "first non zoo" ZETA member who was a member of the German pirate party, called himself a "sexual pirate" and sounded a whole goddamn lot like our weirdo forum pet you cannot stop agruing with. ....he was arrested for dancing naked on an altar and masturbating...he supported the two pedo organisations "Krumme 13" and "Martijn"...
We could even ask our looney why little kids who are too young to understand or develop morality and ethics are traumatized by accidentally watching thier parents copulate. This isn´t "religious indoctrination", this isn´t something that depends on tolerance or intolerance , it is imprinted into every human. Sex isn´t normal, not even hetero sex with the same species. That´s why there is obscenity laws, even for heterosexuals.
Somehow I envy him. His world is so simple. The others are to blame and everyone who´s not agreeing with him MUST be a drug addict, religious fanatic, castrated.....as Volker Pispers , a German cabaret artist once said: "Wer morgens aufwacht und genau weiss, wen er hassen muss, dessen Tag hat wenigstens Struktur." ( The day of someone who wakes up in the morning and knows exactly whom he has to hate at least has some structure)
If I were you, I´d stop wasting my time with the worst troll this sub might ever have had. Reading through but a few posts of him suffices to leave an impression of what type of guy we´re dealing with here...
This last bit encapsulates the struggle I think. Lots of people gave up on society, though, and that kinda throws a wrench in all that.
True that. But nonetheless, we as a rather marginalised group simply cannot afford that kind of passive aggression. You simply cannot approach some guy, say "Fuck you and your whole goddamn intolerant society" and "Pleeeeauuuzee tolerate me!" within one breath and expect this guy to turn into an avid advocator for "zoo rights"...in the end, even zoophiles depend on society, more than they like to admit. If zoos really were so independent, why this constant whining about "being tolerated"...?!?
If you want tolerance from society, giving up on it is NOT an option if you honestly expect some positive results.
Misanthropy in zoophiles has become quite chic although such an attitude further extends the massive trench between "us " and "them", furthermore it even serves as a legit criticism towards zoophilia in whole. I remember when Michael Kiok, the ex-chairman of ZETA stated in a leaked conversation with another ZETA member that , if led to it, he would press the " mankind extinction button" immediately....even with the utmost understanding for people who have to take some shit from society, voicing such ideas basically is the "mother of detrimental".
Many so called zoos simply can´t imagine how traumatising and shocking our orientation is for society. What worries me the most with that: if you cannot feel empathy for your own species, how can you expect anyone to buy that "special form of empathy" for ANOTHER species zoophilia truly is?
"An eye for an eye....until we´re all blind...."
I agree. Sexuality is whatever anybody is sexually attracted to. There's no denying it because it is what it is and we don't really have to label anyone.
first I disagree,
second, didn't work last time.
Third, there was a thread like this literally just now.
[deleted]
Zoophilia refers to a paraphilic sexual interest in animals. It's not a kink, it's a paraphilia. The concept of zoophilia already encompasses every aspect of the eroticization of animals, from purely physical attraction to "romantic" feelings. I really don't understand the need for the concept of zoosexuality. To me, it just comes across as a cheap and disingenuous attempt to legitimize zoophilia by distancing it from its juxtaposition to the pejorative philia.
Plus, it's cringy as fuck.
Sex > Bestiality > Zoophilia > Zoosexuality > ??
What's next?
It's just sex. Why does sex have to be so complicated and exclusive?
People love animals, people have sex with animals, the animals don't care what you call it they just do it. Why should anybody care? It's nothing special.
See, with community made terms and rare words it all just gets stuck in one pipe.
Not everyone's definition of words are the same here.
I mean, I'm absolutely shocked by your definitions...
Bestiality is having sexual contact with an animal. It doesn't specifically mean cruel or bad. There's good bestiality where both animal and human give consent to it and enjoy it.
Zoophilia IS a sexual orientation as you can fall in love.
That is the main thing about zoophilia. This is what 'being attracted to' means.
As for zoosexuality, I just see it as a synonym for zoophilia.
I'm probably the only one who thinks we can live with default definitions as we're a small community, but since the others aren't cooperative, I have no choice but to leave it.
All the terms can get thrown out. No such thing as bestiality. It's just sex. Nothing special. People love their animals. Nothing special. The animals don't care what it's called they just do it.
People have been doing it forever so what changed to make this so complicated and criminal?
I really wonder, why does it matter so much?
Bestiality and zoophilia are real words, the definition stays and it won't change.
We still use the words because they're the correct words to use.
And even then, yes zoophilia and bestiality are different compared to the default human sexuality.
In the end it all may just be sex and love, but it's still different. Especially since we're doing it with animals and not humans.
Is this some kind of attempt to make zoophilia and bestiality look normal?
And indeed, it's just a term. Animals don't care what it's called so we can just use the words zoophilia and bestiality if we want to.
I think we should be happy that bestiality's definition doesn't say that it's rape or abuse specifically. Never thought about that...
The words are not used correctly. Very super special people call Bestiality rape or "wrong" because they're using the term as a step-stool to make their own penis look larger.
If they're not smart enough to use it properly then we have to "simplify" it back to Sex- or -rape. Two simple terms for simply special people.
Per the DSM, zoophilia is a paraphilia.
And also a sexual orientation.
Iirc, paraphilia is only about sexual stuff.
And even if it isn't, it can be both as the definition of 'sexual orientation' perfectly fits zoophilia.
Could you please clarify where you are reading that it is "also a sexual orientation" in the DSM. The closest I can find where the line between a paraphilia and orientation is ambiguous would be regarding pedophiles: "...if [individuals] report an absence of feelings of guilt, shame, or anxiety about [sexual interest in children], and their self-reported and legally recorded histories indicate that the have never acted on their impulses, then these individuals have a pedophilic sexual orientation but not pedophilic disorder."
Furthermore, "the term paraphilia denotes any intense and persistent sexual interest other than sexual interest in genital stimulation or preparatory fondling with phenotypically normal, physically mature, consenting human partners."
Granted whether something is a "paraphilic disorder" per their definition is another matter, but "zoophilia" is never said to be an orientation. That is why people use the word "zoosexuality."
Ehhh what?
It doesn't have to be in the DSM to be true.
Sexual orientation is what you are romantically and sexually attracted to, other than an object or body part.
We aren't just sexually attracted, but also romantically. Because if it isn't, I definitely have been at the wrong sub for a long time now.
I don't even have persisent or intense sexual interest. Probably exactly the opposite.
And that's not a good reason to call it zoosexuality, because it's just a synonym of zoophilia.
I don't believe I ever said it has to be but it is. Can you show me another authoritative or "scholarly" source where the word is defined unambiguously?
The whole point here is that without agreed definitions, words are literally meaningless. Multiple people throwing scattered ideas out there does not magically redefine how the word is actually defined.
Until a consistent standard usage similar to what you suggest emerges, all people are doing is applying made-up definitions to a word already defined to mean something else. Perhaps if we are some day consistent, a descriptive resource might pick up on that definition and document it.
I'm leaving the "sexual orientation" topic out of the picture right now, I just included it as part of the quote for illustrative purposes.
[deleted]
If it were up to me it would be called Sex or A Relationship and there would be no labels for anything in particular. All the labels are good for is diagnoses and prosecutions. Like let's go have sex with the dog... Not "let's go do zoosex" or "let's go do beast" And I'm in a relationship with the dog... Not "I have a zoophile relationship" or "beasty relationship" It's just sex and they're just relationships.
Rape is rape, we don't need a special word for rape either. Rape shouldn't be applied to "not rape" stuff.
Why does everybody want to feel so special in their actions? It's nothing special it's just love and sex. The animals don't care what it's called they just do it.
Thats not bad. But i like more technical terms.
Bestiality: Any intentional sexual contact with a non human animal.
Zoophilia: Intentional sexual contact with animals that takes into consideration the animals well being, consent and feelings. (It is still bestiality, but a sub group of it. Like how all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.)
Zoosexuality: Sexual or romantic attraction to animals.
People can be as special as they want to be, it doesn't really matter to the animals.
true. but it does matter to other people
That's because they are so so special.
Reading the comments below, there appear to be two primary positions: one, a group which wants the definitions to be as they are treated by society (whether that means society as a whole or by the zoo community), and two, a group which wants useful definitions for the words that will either push a zoo political agenda or divide categories of people who have sex with non-human animals in a useful way.
With the first point of view, I would suggest these for definitions that best align with general society's definitions:
Bestiality: sex with non-human animals;
Zoophilia: a sexual fixation on non-human animals;
Zoosexuality: a sexual attraction to non-human animals.
In the zoophile community, the definitions are a lot more subjective, but these seem to be the most commonly used:
Bestiality: sex with non-human animals;
Bestialist: someone who either has sex with non-human animals but does not have a romantic attraction to non-human animals (e.g. lonely farm boys, fetishists) or has a sexual fixation/attraction to non-human animals but not a romantic attraction;
Zoophilia: a sexual and romantic attraction to non-human animals;
Zoosexuality: synonym for zoophilia;
Zooromantic: a romantic attraction to non-human animals, especially those without a sexual attraction.
Using the first view, whether or not these are descriptive definitions does not depend on whether one thinks they are useful, but on how accurately they portray the average definition used by members of their respective groups.
In the second view, the definitions are primarily judged on their utility towards the public perception of zoophiles (where I am using the romantic and sexual attraction definition). Specifically, the primary purpose of the definitions appears to be to separate the group of people who have sex with animals, have a sexual attraction to animals, or have a romantic attraction to animals into two categories: the "good" ones and the "bad" ones. In particular, the line between the categories is drawn to claim that people (in the aforementioned group) who have romantic relations to animals are "good", and people who don't have romantic attractions are "bad."
It should be clear this moral judgement is incorrect under a moral theory based on consequences of actions: the reasons for sex are not a valid indicator of the morality of said sex. Whether or not someone has sex with an animal due to romantic attraction or if it's just "mutual masturbation" makes no difference on whether or not the sex was ethical. Yet, if the point of the second view is not to actually create a moral judgement of certain types of bestiality, but to promote zoophiles in politics and general society, then it might be successful.
Personally, I prefer the first set of definitions because they allow ease of communication with general society and are less as debated as the set which is used by zoophiles (partially because of the limited number of non-zoophiles who are willing to discuss zoophilia).
Give them "official" definitions is one thing but redefining the words is another and just adds more confusion.
In my understanding the words you mentioned are and have been defined as this:
Beastiality IS what we all engage in. Period. The word existed as far back as bible times and meant simply, Someone that has sex with animals. This does not mean said person abuses the animal or was ever really given any definition of the reason behind the sexual act or how it was done. The Romans preformed such acts in public theater as entertainment and many gods of long ago where some sort of animal or cross of. From what I remember when I started lingering about the net was many who began to be offended and sickened by how animals where being used for sex and profit, the videos where the animal was tied up and simply raped, where you can see the fear and pain in its eyes. This even includes the breeding videos where humans tie and force a mare to stand still so the stallion can rape her. Those of us who truly have love and caring concern for animals and seen them as more than just objects to be used soon found ourselves not liking being regarded in the same category as those other type. Not saying either that all beastist types are abusive as many may take proper care of the animal even if their only purpose is to use it for sex. So you have the beastist type who might go out to buy a horse to train for sex rather than train it to ride or what not. The beastist type are really not much different than your "normal" animal lover to where the animal is an object, a piece of property which at any time can outlive it's usefulness or just get rid of it when it becomes to much of a burden to take care of or afford.
Zoophile came along when those who truly love and see animals as equals wanted to show they where different from the normal animal lovers of the world and the beastists. To a zoophile, you can have very deep love and concern for the animal in question because to you, that is your family, your life partner, your mate or herd. You take it upon yourself as their personal care takers and devote your life and everything you do for their benefit. You make that life long commitment to take care of them till their last breath or yours. Because to you, giving them up IS NOT an option so you do all in your power to not let that happen and provide them with with the level of care they need. Intimacy may happen and then again it may not as to a zoophile, the love came long before the sexual attraction was felt and just as with any relationship you never know if that sort of connection would be made without the passing of time and getting to know them better. Again, they are equals with just as equal feelings. Zoophile is not a kink but a life long devotion to the animal you confess to have love for.
Zoosexual is no different than bisexual, homosexual, Heterosexual, or Asexual. Just denotes a sexual preference. There is no devotion of love or commitment in this word as it is not much different than bestiality. No different than someone who is BI might have sex with anyone they come across in a bar or any Heterosexual just having sex with anyone of the opposite sex so would a zoosexual just like to have sex with any animal they might find a liking to in a petting zoo, hopefully with at least taking them out for a nice dinner and drive in movie first.
LOVE and SEX are not the same thing. You do not need love to have sex and do not need sex to love. If you think these two are to go hand in hand then your thinking way to much with your penis. I love all horses, but I do not go out to have sex with everyone I see nor have I been intimate with every horse that I was owned by. I also love nature but I am not going to go hug a tree let alone have sex with it. . . . Because that would make me Treesexual I guess?
I have not been sexual with every animal that I met either. In reference to zoosexuality, personal rules have more validity behind them than societies rules when determining a true sexuality from a free-for-all. Everybody cannot and should not be the same.
I agree. Love and sex are not the same thing however there is nothing wrong with acting on one or the other or both at the same time as long as they respect personal boundaries and do not become extremely polarized to a free-for-all for any single instance.
For instance, I do not believe that it should be a requirement to love an animal before having sex with them because that might disrespect the animals intentions and personal feelings of the circumstance. Similar to humans, some animals just want the sex. They might not want love or long term clinging. Forcing the human and the animal to love is very disrespectful of the animal and humans circumstance. Forcing love, similar to forcing sex, is an abusive violation of the animal.
I appreciate your well-thought-out response, with the exception that the DSM defined "zoophile" as a paraphilia well before the internet re-appropriated the word to mean, well, any of the 15 or so things it's been said to mean here. :)
This is true, I guess I should have worded it more specifically as being a term adopted and not created!
The term "zoosexual" is inappropriate, due to the definitions of the suffixes "-philia" and "-sexual". Specifically, "-sexual" refers to a common sexual attraction, while "-philia" refers to an uncommon sexual attraction. "Bestiality," meanwhile, specifically refers to an act, whether or not the attraction exists.
It's also important to note that "-philia" and "-sexual" do not dictate the terms of the relationship. Those terms are specifically separate, because they are not intrinsically linked. Someone who performs an act without consent already has a term, "rapist". There are also terms for casual and romantic relationships. So, if you want to "define terms," those are the official definitions, whether the community uses them properly or not.
Your definition of philia is wrong. A philia is something that includes extensive emotional attachment, that´s why there is a difference between , for example, a child rapist and a pedo-phile. I admit that these two are used as synonyms in everyday language, but scientifically, this is equally wrong as calling everyone that has or had sex with an animal a zoophile. "Philia" does dictate terms of relationship. "Ho philos" is greek and translates to "friend"; a true friend does NOT exploit, abuse or hurt the ones he claims to love.
Whether this matches with the "official" definitions or not is basically meaningless, ´cause the "official" definitions have been massively influenced by myriads of self proclaimed "zoo" bestialists and scientists just took that directly from our community, for granted and carved it in stone in their studies. Society uses the terms wrong because bestialists used the terms wrong and scientists failed to gather enough introspection into our scene to realise they have been fooled by the bestialists. That´s what happens when true zoos don´t protect their turf with the utmost vigilance.
There´s a kids game called "Stille Post" (Silent mail) in Germany; you sit in a circle and one kid starts whispering a sentence in his/her neighbor´s ear. This newly informed kid will do the same with his neighbor...until the message sent out returns to its originator. Very often, the original message and the message received aren´t the same, mostly they´re completely unrelated to each other. And exactly the same happened to the z-word...like playing "Stille Post", but with lots of malevolent, egocentric and narcicisstic folks who intentionally distort the original message. As I said many times before: our community has been taken hostage by the beasties, our definitions and words have been defiled and made public up to the point where undoing the wrong is harder than inventing another word separating beasties and zoos.
There are two definitions of -philia: The non-psychological one is, as you say, a love or strong attachment, for example audiophiles love stereo equipment. The psychological one is a suffix denoting a paraphilia, for example pedophilia, zoophilia, or as homosexuality was previously called, homophilia.
The latter use of -philia has been in use for decades, and if you call a child-loving primary school teacher a pedophile you will discover that the first description is very rarely used in serious conversation.
You said a few days ago that using correct language was important, and that words should be traced back to their authoritative source lest they be "abused" so I guess it should be important to use official definitions, right? Can you perhaps offer an example of the word "zoophile" in the context you intend, prior to the mid-20th century? I was unable to find such a case.
No, it isn't. It's the definition of "-philia" used by the people who use the words in a professional context. Words have meanings beyond and separate from their roots.
How about....
Zoophilia, a disease, abnormal or unusual sexual attraction to animals. Characterized by emotional distress(internal and external), law breaking, and inability to fit into social norms and situations. (APA, DSM, etc.) First used in the context of sexual contact with animals in 1912. The dictionary also defines this word as an unusually strong non-sexual love of animals but I think the medical definition is more accurate since sex seems to play a role for most of us.
Zoophile, someone who suffers from the above disease.
Zoosexual, someone who's primary sexual attraction is to animals. This individual has an integrated sexuality and personality and has little internal distress. Typically self-identifies as a zoosexual or zoo. A zoosexual may be on a spectrum of sexuality, may be abstinent due to moral or ethical concerns, may have romantic relationships, feel love, etc. (first coined in 1998 before Miletski's work, I believe Beetz used the term but would have to do more investigation to cite the reference. I vaguely recall a 1948 reference but I might be imagining that one) These people may be under intense external pressure to conform and as such often have other emotional issues such as depression, anxiety, etc. however they would not be considered zoophiles as the sexual attraction is not the distressing factor, rather the external social reaction to the attraction is the distressing factor. That, at least, is what my clinical psychologist figured out after reading the literature I provided.
Bestialist, a person who's primary attraction is not to animals but may include animals in his sexual or fantasy life. They typically would not describe themselves as zoo but might call themselves fetishists, kinky, or "enjoy degradation". This term is one which is not typically used outside of political arguments as often in the literature it is assumed they fall under the zoophilia category.
Bestiality, the act of sex with an animal. This act can be consensual or not and performed by a zoophile, zoosexual or bestialist.
The above seems to agree with what I read in modern literature. As you go back in time zoophilia the disease is used more and more as an overarching term because they didn't really have another one which separated animals sex from gay or kinky sex. It also allowed a moral expression for the authors so they could claim their interest was purely professional.
At this time I'd just like to point out that a heterosexual can be a sexual sadist, be a rapist, pay for sex, etc. So can a homosexual. It might be instructive for you guys to review why they don't usually use the term homophlia/homophile anymore. A hint, it's not just because the gays didn't like it.
The only sexuality/philia I'm aware of that spends so much time on "love" as a concept of their core sexuality are pedophiles.
On another note I see this conversation cropped up on three different zoo sites I am aware of, all at or around the same time. I have often been curious is there is a trolling anti-zoo going around and creating sock puppets trying to get the community to fall apart. A good way to do that is to make people angry with each other when they try to gatekeep. We face the same stigma but a different world than the homosexual. Not only did they have more to bind them together(they have to date each other) but much of the organizing and heavy lifting was done before the internet. It was much harder to infiltrate a small local group than these public forums we all seem to run nowadays.
I saw someone say a while back that other minorities don't have these same kinds of ideological fights as we do but it was obvious just how little they've experienced other groups. For example, "gold star lesbians" or "platinum gays" who have never ever touched the opposite sex are often terms used to exclude bisexuals or asexuals from the queer community. (TERFS, "BROS", MGTOWs, Christ my OS/2 user group had this problem in the 90s:lord help you if you ran windows in a VM)
I remember in the 80s when all these old zoos were so upset with the internet allowing "unpure zoos" (ie not "real zoos") to start getting involved in the community and questioning what was being done. I remember the intense pressure put on me for waiting to have sex with a horse rather than making my bones at the earliest opportunity. I walked out of several barns when things got hot and heavy and I expect that got around. I also saw 100s of zoos who were excluded slowly grow to be a part of the community, get to a place where owning their own animal was possible and enjoying wonderful relationships with their animals. The exclusion of those people was almost criminal as I know some people looking for a home amongst us never found one. Maybe they would have been "bad people" but maybe they wouldn't have been. Many of us made an effort in the day to welcome people who just didn't know, were questioning or just curious. I do not really see this same welcoming today. The zoos I once respected have gone off, gotten their own lives. Some have told me it was just not worth the constant bickering to them. After all, they have their animals.
I can only say do not let someone else tell you whether or not you are a "real zoo". They simply do not have that right and are acting on an agenda to make themselves feel better or to protect their sharing of animals, porn network, position in the community or whatever.
Anyhow, most of the above are my opinion and you guys can keep telling each other you are better than "those guys" all you want. In the end you really aren't any different than the heteros, homos, or whatever who came before you.
At the risk of a "me too" post, this pretty well sums up my feelings on the matter, but written better than I probably could, with many good tie-backs to the real world.
"No, no, no, falling in love with animals is not a mental illness"....then uses arbitrary definition from the DSM to explain what zoophilia is. Do you really let shrinks define what zoophiles are? And Krafft-Ebing used the term zoophilia long before 1912, although not in the same sense as we use it today, but still there were huge sexual connotations...Krafft-Ebing´s "zoophilia" today is "tactile zoophilia", a form of arousal from petting animals.
And who said that anyone wants to exclude anyone? If you´re a beasty and treat your animal well, every zoo is fine with that.Even I. But don´t call yourself a zoophile, for god´s sake. Where´s "beasty pride" and why is everyone so desperate for using words that start with a z?
Why do you think we zoophiles only do this "bitching" because we want to elevate us above all the others? Haven´t I explained before several times that this isn´t elitism, but owed to a true zoophile´s different life reality? Haven´t I explained before that one shouldn´t compare the entire "animal sex complex" with homosexuality because we face issues the gay folks never had?
Since the fancy "new" word zoosexuality has been proposed by Miletski, has anything changed? Has our situation improved? Or is this entire discussion about words not just a semi-clever decoy, a tool to impose a unity onto our community that doesn´t exist in reality? "We´re all a group of happy animal shaggers, one for all and all for one?"
So, "Nobody has the right to tell you you´re not a real zoo"? What about the huge group of folks clearly and demonstrably using animals as sex toys? Don´t I as a zoophile have the right to point out these folks are not like me? Don´t I have the right to point out when someone isn´t complying to our moral values?
Yes, the undertone within our community has changed. But have you ever shed a thought on why this is so? If you´re truly one of the veterans who was participating in the IRC´s back in the late 80s/beginning of the 90s, how it comes you haven´t realised that things have become completely different now, compared to the former times? Or, as Silke Lautenschläger has put it, "what once was a tolerable, yet rare form of deviance, has now become a sport for a vast group of online pervos. What once was done mostly in the privacy of your own home has now deteriorated into a porn fest, an internet fuck cult that cannot be tolerated anymore".
I appreciate your eloquent reply, yearningmice. But you´re missing out on so many details, so many facts with it. You´re wrong if you think that this is all about elitism or feeling superior. It never was. And is it elitism when, for example, a heterosexual calls himself a faithful and caring husband/spouse to separate from all the people who cheat on their partners? You´re completely misinterpreting what the introduction of the original z-word was all about. And why is elitism bad per se? Every marine is a soldier, but not every soldier is a marine...yes, elitism, but for a reason. Marines can do what other soldiers can´t. Why is this bad? Your internal impuls to merge us "animal fuckers" into one big community under the "zoosexual" label might look like a good idea, but in fact, it´s not. Again, this isn´t about "being better than others", although I admit it might look like this for unintitiates. What really was intended? Well, you should know my story by now...been forced to public stables for two decades, but never ran into trouble because I am a friggin´ "elitist" who doesn´t discard values and ideas as soon as pants are unzipped. "Zoophilia" was introduced by us "elitists" for a certain reason....and if you haven´t figured out yet what this reason is, you´re not reading my posts.
20 years of realtionship with my mare directly in front of the eyes of accumulatively 350 - 450 people..outsiders without any sympathy for animal fuckers. Add the years my T.Z.A.R. comrades have lived a peaceful life with their horses, dogs and cows and it´ll add up to approxiamtely 170 years of "zoophilia in public", right in front of the allegedly "hateful" and "intolerant" normals. This isn´t about an agenda to make us feel superior, this is about giving a picture the normals can live with and tolerate. Will you please realise that and stop with these silly accusations of self elevation?
That´s the problem, yeaningmice. People don´t know history of zoophilia, they don´t know what the origins are and due to the lack of knowledge, they jump to assumptions like you did. What your approach brought us? Well, Willard, Spink, to name but a few. All "genuine zoosexuals", as you would refer to them...
Again: why is it so important for you who don´t share the zoophile values of the original zeta rules? Why do you feel so entitled to ruin things you apparently don´t know and don´t understand properly? Why do you think this zoophilia schism is about feeling superior? Doesn´t that give away how little you really understand? Why aren´t you content with being a beasty instead of a "zoo"? Is this truly about superiority of zoophiles...or isn´t it more about the subconscious feeling of being inferior? Why is it so important to belong to the "cool kids"? Why is being a beasty so bad? I´d love seeing you explain that...you accuse us zoos of partisanship, of elitism, of whatever...but have you ever wondered why there is no one who proudly states that he is a beasty? I have no problems when you´re a beasty as long as you treat the animals right. But can´t you understand that non exclusivity always leaves a bad taste in the mouths of any outside observer for whom "non exclusive zoophilia" isn´t more than advanced deviancy he cannot get a hold of? Can´t you understand that people like Willard/"Matthews" and the ones that were bullshitting Miletski and Beetz with their fake ass stories are the origin of what is written in the DSM today?
Can´t you understand the z-word was created and coined by us veterans as an attempt to install an icon our activism needed to make our uncommon and far out orientation more accessible by the outside world? Gosh, I´m so sick and tired of this...hurt egos ("Whaaaa, He..sniff sniff told me I´m NOT a zoophile!Whaaaaa!") and a false sense of belonging? Does wearing a tutu make you the primadonna of the Bolshoi ballett? And if sdomeone tells you that, do you bitch about "elitism" and declare the Bolshoi ballett fake?
Fact is: although you bring up some good points in here, you miss out on the relevant ones. Your accusations are no more than decoys. Again: WHY IS IT SO GODDAMN important what you are called? Beasty, zoosexual, zoophile, krxlsexual, hgrnfmdphile, whatever...society won´t accept it in the state our scene presents itself today. There was a group of people back in the 90s, with an idea on how to get access to people´s minmds, to society...and all you "I make up my own definitions, with blackjack and hookers" folks have destroyed it, made it kaputt...not for a greater good, but out of sheer egoism and the feeling of "being left out". Egosim is one of the worst personal traits when you´re with animals, it causes lots of harm and suffering. Not being able to step back (like we true zoophiles have been forced to in the last two decades by you folks) from your ego is bad, especially when you´re a part of our worldwide community of animal shaggers. You realise that egoism, selfish abuse, often executed without realisation, is one main point of criticism towards zoophilia?
Please, yearningmice, do your homework? Things aren´t as they seem to you, I promise...and if you want proof for my theories, just take a look at the "zoophilia" (sic!) section of BF...is that what you really want?
Thought this was relevant having known many a self-proclaimed "real zoophile", particularly the ones bulling others, knowing which words to use to appear good. Stolen from someone else talking about the ideological fighting in their own group.
The Good People Rules I see people who concerned about perfecting language to the exclusion of all else and I find this troubling and dangerous.
There is no set of rules that you can follow that will make you A Good Person. Being good is action. It is trying to do the best you can. Sometimes it will not always be clear what the right thing to do is, and reasonable people of good faith may disagree.
That is ok. There are going to be times when the path forward is not clear. There will be times when you may hurt people. You try not to, but even with the best intentions, hurt will happen.
There are serious problems with the SJ capital D “discourse” (or as I like to think about it- the Good People Rules).
For one, the people involved in perfecting and refining the Good People Rules don’t seem to care that they are removing the ability to engage in nuance in discussions. That there are no set of rules that can cover every situation or life experience. By trying not to hurt people ever, you will inevitably hurt people.
The Good People Rules are also dangerous because by focusing everything on words and not on actions over time, you are giving people a roadmap to pretend to be A Good Person while not really being one.
If people can gain trust simply by following a set of rules for how to speak, then there will be people who are perceived as trustworthy that aren’t. People who everyone can see acting in ways that are abusive, but they get a pass for saying all the right things.
We need to shift some of the energy we spend micro-examining people’s talk to seeing if they are actually walking the walk.
People’s actions over time will ALWAYS tell you who they are and what they are about.
Our communities will be safer for our current members and more welcoming to new people that want/need to be here if we can make this shift.