Does anyone think the tendency towards zoo/beast may be genetic ? (self.zoophilia)
submitted 2017-06-28 14:50:39 by Prey119
Do you know or suspect anyone else in your families attracted to animals ? I worry about my kids sometimes - hate for them to have the same struggles I do. I can't pinpoint why I feel the way I do - so can't say if I was "born this way " or if it was environmental/upbringing factors that played into it. Theories ?
My dad very likes birds, but have never told anything suggestive about them. I think it's epigenetic.
There is no clue about a genetic factor to sexual orientation.
I've wondered if perhaps sexual opportunism or flexibility is perhaps genetic in itself. I'm bisexual - and so are a surprising amount of my female relatives as well, while I so far have not encountered any blood relative who is 100% homosexual. My mother is into bdsm, and so am I (although our preferences are different, and I didn't know she was into it until I was an adult). She isn't a zoophile at all though, she doesn't particularly care about animals.
A lot of traits, such as personality, food preferences, build and so on are a mix of nature and nurture. Sexuality probably is too. And I'm wondering - perhaps some people are born very susceptible to all kinds of sexual influences. Some kind of "genetic perverts", who imprint on whatever is at hand. While others (such as exclusive zoophiles, or totally homo- or heterosexual) are born with a strict sexual preference.
Just a very wild guess.
thank you for expressing so well what i really didn't know how to describe. this is what i've always felt might be the case. zoophilia, homosexuality, etc., may not be directly inherited, but a predisposition to develop some kind of alternate sexuality, IMO, might be inheritable.
[removed]
There have been studies of twins raised apart that make a strong case for a genetic influence on sexual orientations BUT no one has every managed to find a "gay gene" or any other physical evidence. I will say that whether the desire is genetic or not, the practice is very much environmental. You need private access to the right animal and some training/experience interacting with that species or you aren't going to be able to do much. And the decision to act on any desire will always be ethical/moral which is always learned.
that doesnt mean anything. genetics is beyond complex, and there likely isnt a single gene for it, its likely a combination, meaning it would be even harder to find.
I agree. That's why I mentioned the twin studies. I think there is a genetic component that gives individuals the tools to relate to completely different species. The major lack of people looking for things like that (fear of being too controversial??) might be why there is no proof either way.
No, it's extremely unlikely as real zoophiles wouldn't reproduce with humans.
Oh, should I replace the word ''real'' with ''exclusive'' because others don't like my definitions?
Still, such a thing doesn't transfer to your children.
If you want to get pedantic about it, you should probably replace the word "real" with "so-called" since, as mentioned ad nauseum in other threads, the word zoophile has nothing to do with one's orientation, and even less to do with their exclusivity.
Yes yeah yeah yeah.
I'd rather choose the path of truth.
EDIT: Ouch, the inclusive zoo nazis. Sorry, sorry that I'm a true zoophile.
being zoo exclusive doesnt make you a real zoophilie, loving animals does
Oh, I guess our opinions greatly differ.
I'll just stay with my facts that I'm a true zoophile along with every other true exclusive zoo who's not planning to fuck with the naked monkeys.
I get that you struggle alot because of your sexuality, but you're burning bridges within what is in some ways a support group for you with this kind of rhetoric.
It's petty, toxic, subjective, and not a hill worth dying on.
You mean... I'm struggling because of THEIR sexuality?
From their definition, there's chance that I would have sex / have a relationship with a human. That's not me.
You see, like how most zoophiles try to our improve zoophilia's image, I want to improve both zoophilia's image and the one of exclusive zoophiles.
If I have to die in this hill alone because I tried defending my spot as a zoo exclusive, then so be it.
You know, I'll probably give up some day because I've got my own problems with my own relationship and life. And also because I know that they aren't ever going to work together with me. It's how humans work: Most humans that agree with you already held that opinion to begin with. It's extremely hard to convince others.
It's not just because I am offended this community refused to make a real definition of what zoophile exclusives really are, but because zoophiles like them need to clear their mind and start accepting such definitions.
We suffer from the lack of real definitions greatly. And I mean c'mon, if we can't even decide on definitions how are we all going to work together at all?
They're goddamn words ffs.
There's no chance if you don't want to do it. You know, I just finished lecturing Aluzky about this very thing. As long as you make sense, that's all that matters. Words are just a way to get a point across, and there's no point in bickering over meaning if we understand eachother and clarify when we need to without malice.
Oh yes I've seen that. I really enjoyed it on how he takes definitions so literal.
Anyways, I'm with 30-30 on this one. The word's kinda been stolen in a way.
And ''understand eachother''?
Oh my dear, but you don't get it. I AM misunderstood if exclusive zoophiles are expected to still have sex / have a relationship with humans because ''omggg oppression and shit im an adult i cant decide for myyyseeeelf :(((.''
You see, I'm being generous because I'd accept it if we had a new definition for humans like me instead of just replacing ''exclusive zoophile''. But nobody here seems to give me either one of those options so I don't really have an option.
Here is a picture of a kitten to cheer you up
But I don't like cats.
See, you bots do this on purpose, don't you? Everyone always sends me things that I hate or don't like on purpose.
Even you bots started picking up human behavior. Ergh.
I hate robots now too, adding that to my list.
Damn, what is your hate/not hate things ratio then?
I don't know man.
But I do have a list of 6% of what I hate.
I hate optimism.
I hate itches.
I hate crowded places.
I hate public restrooms.
I hate sewers.
I hate spaying and neutering.
I hate mondays.
I hate cigarettes.
I hate smoke.
I hate the French language.
I hate idiocy.
I hate podcasts.
I hate the future.
I hate fear.
I hate the color cyan.
I hate radios.
I hate lies.
I hate insects.
I hate markets.
I hate fireworks.
I hate weddings.
I hate alarms.
I hate clocks.
I hate numbers.
I hate math.
I hate cash registers.
I hate lines.
I hate ceremonies.
I hate cults.
I hate football.
I hate laws.
I hate bots.
I hate fictional books.
I hate Virtual Reality.
I hate actual reality.
I hate brightness.
I hate boats.
Do you know what I hate too?
I hate humans.
To be more specific (I hate being unspecific):
I hate the human body, it's mostly ugly and works like shit.
I hate human germs.
I hate human odor.
I hate humanists.
I hate human supremacists.
I hate hunters.
I hate humans who reproduce.
I hate opinionated humans.
I hate sheeple.
I hate rapists.
I hate neuter nazis.
I hate cops.
I hate narrow minded humans.
I hate humans who see animals as nothing.
I hate smokers.
I hate people who walk slow.
I hate construction workers.
I hate humans who can't shut the fuck up.
I hate humans who force their religion down your throat.
And to top it off, I probably hate you too.
And do you know what I hate too? Incomplete lists, especially when they're far from done, just like this one.
That means you hate everything within reality too... And that would include your partner.
Considering I see our ''love'' and our ''relationship'' as forced, questionable and a quite fictional, I guess it might be.
But it was more meant on reality really is. I just wish reality was different.
I still think that's the depression talking. It definitely isn't forced for her, at any rate.
It really isn't.
I've always ignored it, but I think quite negative of zoo relationships and always did. I just didn't really admit it.
It IS forced because they don't consent to such a thing, nor do they understand such a thing as romance.
This is what I honestly think: Having a ''relationship'' with an animal is nothing but a lie. It's only the human who decides.
A zoophile who doesn't have sex with their so called partner and is a romantic-only zoo is nothing but just another normal animal owner with a special coat slapped on it.
The animals of zoophiles don't even act different. I've never seen any evidence that they love us differently at all.
It feels and looks very fake.
This is actually one of the things I hate about actual reality.
Perhaps the two aren't as different as we may be led to believe.
Indeed, there's zero difference for the animals in a romantic ''relationship'' and a normal pet. Kind of defeats the purpose of zoophilia a little as it's mostly a thing only the human experiences, and zoophilia is mainly about animals.
Purpose? You want a purpose of zoophilia? As long as nobody induces it, it will remain a natural phenomenon, with reason, but not purpose. But don't worry, in macro scale nothing really have a purpose. Everything leads to one condition: omnipresent void.
Quiet, man, the "true zoophile" police will hear you!! :(
For sure there is a wide spectrum of human emotions that animals at least cannot express as well, if they experience them at all. How can you tell the difference between love or close friendship? Loyalty or pack/herd instinct? Or is there even a difference that matters in the first place?
I for one appreciate a more thoughtful and "challenging" post here, because while we're busy getting distracted about group think as it relates to word choice, I think we often forget about the other smaller elephants in the room.
Another subtle one that came up a couple days ago was discussing attraction versus sexuality versus love. I noticed the replies went right to criticism of people who found some kind of physical attribute attractive... without acknowledging that most people are (so I understand) attracted to dogs, horses, dolphins, whatever, because of physical attributes.
Here is a picture of a kitten to cheer you up
Maybe a true zoophile would know that there's no such thing as romance with animals?
I'm actually surprised this was never brought up, because this has been killing me for quite a time, even if I tried ignoring it most of the time.
But yeah, you became quite childish lately. Sorry man, but I only think it's funny and foolish of you.
Indeed, we don't know if they experience love. By how logic works, this means they don't experience it at all as there's no evidence of it and also how consent logic works: If they can't consent it's always a ''no'' no matter what.
Here is a picture of a kitten to cheer you up
I think you just need some more experience to base your judgements on. Start with the simplest and most direct love, mother love. You can say it's reproductive instinct that drives mothers to protect their young but that doesn't explain the grieving after the offspring is gone. Or why unrelated members of the group will fight for and grieve over the young. Just watch a herd of horses when a yearling is sold. It takes them weeks to get over it.
My guy is a 15 HH Paint stallion. I know he cares about me because he is careful and protective of me. I have been very sick recently and when he saw how sick I was he became very disturbed. When I got better he showed obvious signs of joy. While I use examples out of my own life, British researchers have proven that horses respond positively to people that they liked after a 20 year absence. That does prove memory and attachment.
Then there's that "consent" bugaboo. My guy romances me every chance he gets and I signal my consent by accepting his advances. This is how horses naturally do it. Why else is there a market for hobbles and twitches for humans that don't want to respect the animals' choices?
So maybe you're not feeling the love from 1 particular animal. I have always had this rule that the animal has to come to me and initiate the sex. I can give hints or court them in the manner of their species but they have to follow when I walk away. I work at understanding them and being understandable to them but in the final determination it's how they act later that confirms my accuracy. Do they seek me or avoid me? If they come to me and ask for more, I fell confident that I got both the romance and the consent right.
There is a world of metaphysical arguments just a few pages over where no one is sure of what they feel much less what someone else feels. We multiply that question by the differences in species. BUT! One of the things that I like about animals is that they are all very "duck" oriented people. "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck." So I try to be as "duck" oriented as they are when dealing with any of them. The practicality has served me well over the years.
All the things you said didn't have to do much with romance. That's just plain caring about the other or just sex.
Just because a friend cares for you doesn't mean that friend is in love with you either.
Y'know, only now I understand why the antis make fun of us, especially when ''love'' is mentioned. Makes me question why we're even trying so hard to make ourselves look better if zoophilia isn't actually much at all. Just animal owners who do one thing different.
Also wakes me up that everyone here is just trying to be some kind of snowflake of sorts, making it all seem bigger than it is.
It's funny that zoophiles seek for the evidence that bestiality is right and never seek for evidence that ''real love'' happens between us, yet the ''real love'' is much more grayer area. If I were in charge I'd say fuck the whole studies on bestiality thing and focus on this instead.
Where the most humor comes from is that zoos prefer evidence yet there isn't any, but also because love seems to be more important than sex.
But hey, sounds like you've really got a nice, affectionate animal there, though. Makes me jealous.
[removed]
Exclusive zoophiles aren't expected to do anything.
The thing here is that humans can still expect for zoo exclusives to have sex / have a relationship with humans.
It has been proven that they think so and you were even there in that one thread of the human who died.
C'mon you know what I mean...
I only saw one person do that and it was because they were skeptical about exclusive zoophilia in the first place as I recall.
Ehm, it was a bigger number of humans.
Am I allowed to name them? You, zootrashcan, Kynophile, silverwolf, longestusername.
[removed]
What's wrong with "exclusive zoophile" until better words are created?
As I said elsewhere, I find 30-30s argument quite hypocritical, since The Community has been trying to "steal" the word zoophile from the Greeks and medical community in a way it was not intended since the early 90s. Just because you do something for a long time does not make it right, or better than other choices.
Use Roman or Sanskrit or Hebrew for heaven's sake, if nobody is creative enough to make up a word from scratch that works.
Frankly I have bigger issues in my life than to worry about what people call me or what I call myself. It just annoys me when people get a stick up their butt about how a word is used, and insist on a use which can objectively be shown to be wrong. Especially when they mostly seem to be doing it to file down the pointy tips of their snowflake, if you know what I mean... no derogatory sense intended, I can't think of a better way to say it.
But maybe that's the same problem people had with "gay," I don't know. "The dictionary says it already means happy, don't appropriate those words!"
Wait,wait,wait....so you say that the victims of a theft should "get over it and find another word"? Are you really saying that the victims are to blame, because "Well, yes, I stole your car, but you just can buy another one, so stop complaining about the theft"???
And: If words are so irrelevant, why are you all feeling so entitled to use the z-word, then? If it´s so irrelevant how you´re called, why don´t you use the b-word instead of our word?
Sorry, but this is just another example of how mindless, how ruthless and how careless you are. And talking about identities: maybe for you, it isn´t important , but for us zoos, it is OUR IDENTITY. And what other sexual orientation needs to include the word "exclusive"? Have you ever heard about exclusive gays?
What you don´t seem to get is the fact that this is not about "filing it down the pointy tips of our snowflake", it´s about what we are and how we want to be perceived by others. When someone who doesn´t wualify for using the z-word uses it, it´s practically the same as white guys using the hiphop n-word , the one that´s spelled with an "a" at the end...it´s not YOUR word and using it, appropriating it just shows how little you understand of us and how little respect you pay us. As I said before: you´re all so into this "tolerance" crap and demand it yourselves everytime and everywhere, but when you are confronted with a situation that demands tolerance from you, you just bail. Just like spoiled "wanna have it all" kids, egocentric and self absorbed..with the ZSanctum "incident", it all became clear what really is going on with you folks. The very moment you feel you´re excluded from anything, you start throwing tantrums. And let´s talk about how the z--word became nothing more than a synonym for fucking animals. It wasn´t OUR, the true zoos´fault, it was the fault of you folks. And now, you really are proposing "we just need to use our imagination and come up with another word"? Let me ask you: What if we do? How long until this new word will be appropriated by you folks again? What you guess? One day, one week? If there´s a new word , you´ll steal it, that´s for sure. And why don´t YOU , you non zoos, come up with a new word if you don´t like the b-word? "Only cowards steal from the poor"
If you can give me a coherent answer to what exactly justifies your behaviour and why you guys always feel you´re getting excluded from the "cool guys" club if you are not allowed to use the z-word, I will gladly debate with you about a new order , including definitions and words. But if you´re insisting on keeping a blind eye for your theft, your appropriation of our culture and words, I don´t see any base for real discussion. Your answer just showed how insensitive you are for what you do to us true zoos when you are unjustly using our words. You don´t even get why we zoos are so angry, right? Your "Well, just invent another word" is basically the same attitude as saying "Oh, these gays just need some pussy to become normal"...well, if nothing matters anymore, why not allow the most promiscuous idiots to call themselves "faithful and caring husband"? Why not allow rapists to use that term,too? Hell, why not allowing animal sadists to call themselves "zoophiles" (BTW, they already do....so much for your "Oh, don´t be snowflakes")? Why don´t call a chair a table and a car a cactus? And the worst of it: you beasties are doing this for no other reason but to feel "elite", for your ego and just that. Nobody would have a different idea of you and your sexuality if you´d call yourself bestialists. Your attempt to give a better, more justifiable picture of yourselves by using the z-word has not only failed, it additionally has destroyed what you stole and made it impossible for anyone to see differences and make distinctions. That´s why there are many brown sodas, but only one "Coca Cola"...we true zoos should really have made our word a trademark and sue the living shit out of anyone who misuses this word and mislabels himself. Basically, you´re not so different from Aluzky...he fucks any dog he can get a hold of and you fuck anything zoo you can get a hold of...
For one thing, you're not a victim, you're a perpetrator of the theft. The word is already defined in the DSM and dictionary, as you've previously acknowledged.
Words are not physical objects, so the comparison to stealing a car is not very solid. A better analogy is that you're trying to sell apples at a tree fruit stand you stole from an orange grower, and loudly complaining to other farmers who bring oranges, lemons, or even other apples, that they don't belong in your tree fruit stand because the apples some of them have aren't even Granny Smith apples, which are obviously the only true apples. And the citrus fruit? That's just perverse! (Although the sign on the cart still says "tree fruit")
I already answered this in another thread. The male/female orientation spectrum has names for all three spots on the spectrum (0% straight, 100% straight, or somewhere in between). Zoophilia, DSM-wise, describes a degree of sexual attraction to animals - whether or not love is involved, by the way - but not EXCLUSIVE interest in animals. So now "normal" (zero sexual attraction towards animals) is defined, and "zoophile" (a sexual attraction towards animals) is defined, but no 100% attraction toward animals is defined.
If there were only two categories, "heterosexual" and "not heterosexual", the latter term could be accurately applied to a bisexual person or gay person, but a gay person might call themselves "exclusively not heterosexual" to clarify further.
I still don't understand why "zoosexual" is not used more widely, as it has no other meaning, and it makes the aspect of sexual orientation clear. I suppose some communities feel it is too in-line with other "sexualities" (asexual, demisexual, pansexual, etc.) but I don't see how "zoophile" is any less so. In fact maybe worse since it conjures images of psycho-sexual deviance.
I don't recall what tantrum I threw about zsanctum, and I don't recall telling you anything about being more tolerant. I do say that many people here (exclusive or not) face the same challenges, fears, problems, etc., and deserve to post and respond to those topics without harassment. If you disagree with them, feel free to say so... but do it in a productive, solution-oriented manner, not with ad-hominem attacks and attempts to put yourself on a pedestal.
No, it's the same attitude as saying "let's stop calling same-sex attracted people homophiles, and come up with another word, like gay." And it worked fine, with nobody having a breakdown over the loss of the term homophile.
The last half of your response seems mostly like a less-comprehensible rehashing of points we've already discussed, so I'll turn it back over for rebuttal, now.
And where you think the DSM has the z-word from? Did they come up with it or do you think they just took what they were able to read on the internet or from Miletski et al.?
And your Granny Smith apple analogy also is weak...especially when all the other vondors are calling their Braeburn apples Granny Smith. This is not about exclusion of anybody, it is about using the correct terms. All else is just conning your customers, isn´t it? The term "zoosexual" is despised for it´s intention to sound like zoophilia while is very often has nothing to do with zoophilia. A animal sadist who´s murdering and mutilating an animal for sexual lust is also a "zoosexual". A fencehopper who doesn´t even know the name of his "love" is also a "zoosexual". Zoophilia always was more about feeling a real connection to an animal, not about just genital contact. The term "zoosexual" was intentionally created to sound like zoophilia, but without all the duties and obligations involved..and that is, especially when you know what the word zoophilia was created for, just an affront. Why "zoosexual" and not animalsexual? Why not beastsexual?
The DMS describes a non exclusive sexual interest in animals, yeah...but let´s go back even further, to the first appearance of the z-word. It was in Krafft-Ebing´s book psychopathia sexualis and back then, it very well described an erotic FIXATION on animals.By the way, many other zooforums and sites, even the commerical porn platform Beastforum have definitions that emphasize the exclusivity in zoophilia. The DSM just picked up what all the internet folks were misunderstanding and using wrong. AS I said, the z-word has become a synonym for bestiality by mindless spewing the z-word, regardles of what you really are.If you don´t call yourself a zoophile because you don´t have an animal centered fixation on them, kudos to you...but you are just one person to correctly use terms then. Hop over to BF and find me one, just ONE person who frankly admits that he isn´t a "zoo"...the z-word has lost its meaning due to idiots. And ,as I wrote before, just finding another word will be NO solution for that problem; the moment one person says it out loud in one of these forums, it will be picked up by everyone, just for the sake to be in the "supreme group" again.
There´s only one way to prevent this and it isn´t a pleasant and "tolerant" one. Our only chance to protect this new term for us would be the same as the Hell´s Angels are practicing. If they see you with their logo tattooed although you´re not a member, they will cut it out or force you to do it yourself. If you´re just a normal soldier, but call yourself Marine and a true Marine hears it, he will beat the living shit out of you. That´s how you protect your name...do you want us to do so?
Regarding the ad hominem attacks, what are you expecting from us? We´re fed up with all that definition bending, fed up with all the bullshit we have to endure from OUR OWN "SUPPORT" GROUP. Can you really blame us for getting angry, after all the years we calmly took truckloads of this bullshit? And you wonder why we´re coming across so militant....we tried to talk it into you, we tried to make you aware of what the z-word was meant for, and what not, we tried everything to stop the abuse of this word. Did you listen? No. Not in the slightest. Quite the opposite, you started calling us "intolerants" and " accused us of a "holier than thou" attitude. But that´s not true and you know it. No one has ever said that all non zoos should piss off because they´re not zoos. I gladly talk to a beasty, but only when he shows some honesty and understanding of MY position as an exclusive zoo. I don´t want to hear about how he includes his dog into his bedroom adventures with his wife or man. I don´t want to hear about how this self proclaimed zoo is just in it for the thrill of fucking animals. Is this so hard to understand? And about the "better than you" accusations: I´m getting tired of this generic response. In the eyes of the public, I´m just another animal fucker, but I have built my life around horses. I could have studied, but I gave away this chance to earn more and decided to be a riding instructor instead. I´m not better than anyone, I´m just different, have a different perspective, have a different life than most of you and take my love for my equine lady more serious than most of those so called "zoos". Aren´t these accusations not just a symptom of an inferiority complex deeply buried in all of you self proclaimed "zoos"? At least, that´s what it seems to me..
So, all your accusations are baseless and you additionally fail to actually understand what this is meaning for us true zoos. Instead of trying to understand, you choose to disrespect and spew random accusations. And now you might take a second look at why we´re so militant...
The ones who yell loudest and the most often are the most heard but least listened to.
It seems you provided one possible answer yourself: "It was in Krafft-Ebing´s book psychopathia sexualis and back then, it very well described an erotic FIXATION on animals"
An erotic fixation is more or less what DSM-V claims, too, which is why I find it so ironic that people want to be associated with that word. One of the defining aspects you have of "true zoos" is that they actively have sex with animals (are bestialists), while "zoosadists" may well be zoophiles, since that term has nothing whatsoever to do with "genuine love" or the wellbeing of the animal in any recognized definition.
Yet you ARE excluding people from "your" word, which makes it about using the terms YOU THINK are the correct ones, and defining it in the way you personally think is appropriate.
Only if they have a sexual orientation toward animals, much like some men who murder and mutilate women for sexual lust are "heterosexual."
Nobody questions what the Hells Angels or Marines are, and membership is objective and provable.
Again you invoke "us" to attempt to make my gripe against some group. It's not. I'm not calling any group intolerant, I'm saying that you, in particular, are often disrespectful. This IS true, and can be easily demonstrated.
... case in point, as far as putting yourself on a pedestal.
You can take away whatever message you want, but I'm not hearing anyone except you voicing this opinion.
While we're on the topic, can you please tell me some ways in which you differentiate me from one of "us true zoos" in your expert understanding of my opinions and sexual history? I'm just curious.
I am happy that you are happy. Spread the happiness around.
This doggo demands it.
Because apparently ''exclusive zoophile'' means you're ONLY attracted to animals and not humans, yet there's a chance we will have sex / have a relationship with a human.
Do I really need to explain to everyone: Hi, I'm an exclusive zoophile! I assure you that I won't have sex with humans or have romantic relationships with them for any kind of reason except if there's a gun put to my dog's head or maybe even my own.
But that's not even the biggest problem, this is just not correct. I seriously doubt that's what ''exclusive zoophile'' really meant. It makes no sense.
Still... WHEN will these ''better words'' be created? Everyone refuses to accept certain definitions and we can't work together. You can not convince me it'll happen because of how any zoo community is.
Find me some humans who give a shit about this.
You know what actually matters right now? It's now an actual word used to describe us. That's what I want to prevent with the definition of ''exclusive zoophile'' (the definition of this community) to become a real word.
Exclusive zoophile is not a popular word outside of zoo communities, (Hell, even the word zoophile/zoophilia is unkown by quite a number. I've had someone tell me bestiality is an illness and someone acted as if it was the name of an attraction. And that's not even all...) and we need to change this community's definition of it before it's too late. Of course ahem... ''''''''''''''''zoophiles'''''''''''''''' like Aluzky claim to be exclusive yet fuck humans, as if that wasn't bad enough.
You may not give a shit, but some do.
Why call yourself even a zoophile then? Why call yourself even by your own name? Why even call yourself anything at all?
What if ''zoophile'' was a synonym for rapist? Wouldn't you want to change that because of all the confusion and such?
But lmao, it's quite funny that you don't think things like this are important. Definitions are extremely important things.
You also must realize that if we find a new word for true zoophile exclusives or if we change back to the real definition it would improve this community greatly? This would mean we could work together and could go forward better. But hey, that's called ''success'' and I've barely had that in my life. I don't expect shit from anyone any more, because the last optimism I've had was months ago. And as a bonus: We have Aluzky and nobody is even willing to do anything against him. He's basically like what ISIS is to muslims.
Thinking they're doing it right, yet they're doing the opposite by going against the idea of being a real zoo/muslim and destroying their image.
And humans like him make others fear the muslims/zoophiles. Sadly no one ever looks at it like this, which is why my last hope is shredded into pieces.
Imagine the majority of muslims not being against ISIS or not doing anything to prevent them, even though ISIS is gaining a lot of attention and destroys their religion. Oh wait... that's... that's exactly like us! Oooooh, I wonder why we're so discriminated against.
Yeah, you're right. Words don't matter. Have I ever told you that I was an animal rapist? I rape them on purpose for my own enjoyment and sometimes I even kill them!
Oh why are you all frowning? They're all synonyms for love and such, don't you get it? And hey, I just happened to be acting like a human mentioned before in my post, who could that be?
But, aren't you refusing to accept certain definitions, and refusing to work together because you're the "true one"? Or am I misunderstanding?
If you want to create a word, create a word, and see if it sticks.
I usually don't call myself a zoophile, actually, because I don't feel that I have an animal-centric paraphilia. "Zoosexual" was used by many for a while, but lots of people roll their eyes or look down on people for that because it sounds too contrived. Since, you know, ending a word with *sexual automatically means it's invalid.
Again, I don't see how you can call definitions "extremely important" but then refuse to acknowledge established definitions.
I agree definitions are important, but if I don't fit your, 30-30's, Amore's, or the cheer-up-bot's personal interpretation of a zoophile (a word which already means something else entirely), or even "true zoophile"... well, I can't really bring myself to lose sleep over it.
Also I think people are missing how there's also a slippery slope in the opposite direction. At some point someone will come along claiming you're not a true zoophile if you ever kissed your mother, or you're not a true zoophile if you got an erection at the beach, or you're not a true zoophile if you've ever had an animal euthanized, or if you masturbate, or whatever other stupid and irrelevant point. This becomes just as insulting and harmful as diluting the word, in my opinion.
By the way, zoophile already is a synonym for animal rapist in most places. That has less to do with our semantic infighting and more to do with issues about public perception, which aren't going to change without some motivating force, and that motivating force won't exist as long as coming forward is likely to have disastrous consequences in a large percentage of cases.
So are they. It's basically an endless cycle.
But hey, I'm actually willing to make up some definitions and accept them.
Definitions were discussed in the past and I've already seen that no one here will cooperate.
And I'm not even sure what to call it, nor do other zoos want such a definition for true zoo exclusives so I'm very alone on this one.
Because they need to be changed, or at least new ones should be added. I want that because definitions are important.
Also, you're the one who seems to defend this so much lmao.
''Definitions uhhh who cares?'' Proceeds to argue about it.
Now you're starting to annoy me because you're acting like the others here:
''Uhhh sex isn't that important!'' Proceeds to have sex every day.
''You should be more careful!'' Proceeds to take big risks.
''You should stop insulting others, it won't make us progress further!'' Proceeds to make a lot of useless posts.
Classic sub.
Then whatever you call yourself. You get the point.
You know that humans get offended when they're mistaken for the opposite gender for some reason? This is extremely common and I see no one judging them, this here's the same thing.
I'm pretty sure they started using that word because most humans think it's bad if it had ''philia'' at the end of it. Makes sense in the eyes of a dummy: Necrophilia, Pedophilia and Zoophilia. And then we have the ''safe'' attractions such as: Heterosexuality, Homosexuality and Bisexuality.
Most zoophiles who use ''zoosexual'' instead mostly have a dumb reason and they're mostly attention seekers. What's the point? It's an exact synonym anyways.
I personally don't care, though. But hey, I'd support the word if it was possible. I mean... what else is there to do in this community? Oh right, nothing.
I refuse them because they're incorrect, and that's important.
If the community won't work with me I'll just use ''real zoophiles'' instead. Society already bosses and pushes us around with their definitions and their opinions, and now my own ''kind''? My ass. This isn't going to happen.
We both know that doesn't make any sense and that it's extremely unlikely.
These aren't romantic or sexual relationships with humans, so that's very exaggerated.
I've never heard of that. It doesn't even make any sense, even if bestiality was rape. Humans are rapists for having an attraction these days?
Even then, we're talking about the actual meaning here.
Right,
Maybe if we could work together and even may do something simple like getting our definitions organized, we'd be able to cooperate more and change their definitio- oh wait. Nevermind.
And hey...
''It's only
gaynon-zoo if the balls touch.'' Am I right?I made exactly the same observation here several months ago in one of the semantics threads.
But while you're of the same mindset, you're steadfast in wanting to stick to "zoophile" or "true zoophile", so I think that kind of shows the point. That's why I think the compromise of finding different words altogether is not a bad idea, that way nobody loses, or at least everyone loses equally.
Yeah I'd be willing to work together if I at least gain something from it too. And you know exactly what that is.
But I doubt that even if the community was willing to accept new definitions, they probably wouldn't accept mine because it's not important or ''I'm just whining and overreacting.'' I don't know, but that's just a wild guess that is based on how this community acts and works.
Maybe because I have no other word for it or don't have another choice?
Have you realized how this community knows what it means because I kept using it that way? I may get negative attention, but it IS attention.
For me that's still better than nothing. If they won't work together well then this is all I can do.
I'm not even going to try to make a thread. AB and someone else did sometime and it didn't work, not to mention I'm afraid of this community in different ways.
Most people understand those words most of the time, when used casually, in clear context (like /r/zoophilia), but when threads turn into arguments and start to get in depth, it leads to confusion and further argument.
The classic example is that, as defined by dictionaries and psychologists, "zoophiles" are the ones with an animal fetish irrespective of their regard for love or the animal's wellbeing, and "bestialists" are people who are active with their animal partners (which some people think is mandatory to be a "true zoo").
Yes, there is a different community definition, but so far nobody can say what that definition really is, which makes it rather useless for in-depth discussion.
The gripe I have with "true zoophile" is that it not only doesn't solve the problem (true thing-we-already-can't-agree-on), but it now adds the drama of implying that anyone who disagrees with the speaker's own definition is a FALSE zoophile, so now they all feel a need to defend themselves.
This spot on the internet does seem oddly judgmental. As much as I'm not much of a Rule 7 fan, as it's written, I do hope focusing on idea exchange rather than verbal bashing will eventually make that better. But sometimes I wonder if the damage is already done, since people with new or challenging ideas don't speak up too frequently.
You just told me to make a new definition. That is my new definition.
It's like punishing someone because they did what you told them to do.
Why doesn't it solve the problem, exactly?
Yeah and how do you think we feel? I also feel very fucking offended with the current definition of ''exclusive zoophile'' by this community.
I feel like it's stolen: What is the point of this definition if it still means there's a chance that they will still have sex / a relationship with a human? It doesn't make sense for such a human to do something like that, so I feel like it's original meaning has been forcibly changed. I also feel left out because there's no definition for exclusive zoophiles such as me.
If they don't change it, I won't change my definitions either. Look deeper into it and realize this is only fair. Eye for an eye.
Oh believe me it isn't the rules that prevent such things.
I don't dare to make a thread ever again. If you think I'm not afraid to talk, I actually am keeping more things from this community but I'm too scared to even talk about it.
I have to ask a few questions about all of this but first, my credentials: I started calling myself "Exclusive Zoophile" shortly after I left the "young and dumb" stage of life because I could not maintain an erection while screwing a human unless I closed my eyes and imagined a non-human. It seemed the term that best fit but I've always had reservations.
"Zoophile" seems to fit because I have had an affinity for animals since birth. My parents thought I had an unusual number of imaginary friends because I named the animals that I had regular contact with. It is possible that my sexuality was shaped in part by the fact that all of my early sexual experiences were simply co-operating with horny animals that approached me.
But there was always this question of how "zoosexual" fit in with hetero/bi/homosexual scheme. A zoosexual could be hetero, homo, or both. That put it on a different level somehow. "Zoophile" has the same issues and refers to mental attachments of some sort (witness that I was zoophile long before I had a clue about sex). And I have no problem having non-sexual relationships with humans (other than a low tolerance for dumbass) so "exclusive" is confusing too.
So no matter what definition you follow among the current contenders, something is broken. I guess the only question left is "where do we go from here".
Yeah and I don't think none of those reasons really make sense.
First, you were having a sex with a human. Second, I don't think erections have much to do with it because I can't get one even if it's a human or an animal, only when any kind of sexual act is done. Doesn't matter if it's a human or an animal, no matter how disgusting I think it is or if I'm not attracted to them.
Why zoosexual and not zoophile, though? It's a synonym and kind of pointless. We might as well just use zoophile because it was the original word.
But for your question, same could be said for anything with ''-philia'' and the end of it.
I'm actually quite confused with this too, most zoos don't seem to talk much about what gender they're attracted to. I'm a part of that group myself, but that's because I'm bi myself and don't have to be specific about it.
But for that reason I don't think gender is that important, the fact that we're attracted to animals is the most important thing. If it really was important we could just easily slap hetero, bi or homo on the word zoophile. (Heterozoophile, bizoophile, homozoophile.)
I'm willing to make that a real thing if we could.
Indeed, that already makes you a non-exclusive zoophile very obviously in my book. A relationship is still a relationship.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say but so was I.
Doesn't mean we can ignore this problem.
Where do we go from here? Keep thinking of definitions and work together.
[deleted]
Not sure if this is related to me, but I've suggested making a new word which is clearly defined, not redefining another word that already confuses people.
I still don't see where anyone's said that "exclusive zoophile" identifies people who do things with humans. Maybe you can link me to where that was discussed, but even so, I'd tell them the same thing: You can't redefine established words (like "exclusive") by using them in a different way a few times on the internet.
Some others also told me to.
And like I said ''exclusive zoophile'' was changed. Also I created my own (temporary?) definition such as: ''Real zoo.''
It's what we've been arguing about all this time.
Their definition of ''exclusive zoo'' implies that exclusive zoophiles are only attracted to animals, yet to them they can still participate in sex with humans or having a relationship with humans. Not only does that break the logic of being an exclusive zoophile, there's no reason the original definition meant this. What's the point of the definition even if it mean that?
This just isn't how attraction works. No, just no.
But this is also where I feel left out: Inclusive zoos have a definition that perfectly defines them, but not exclusive zoos such as me.
And here's the thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/zoophilia/comments/6gkglq/og_dogdoodler_writer_artist_programmer_forum/?utm_content=comments&utm_medium=hot&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=zoophilia
"Exclusive zoophile" to me (and I think everyone else) means that someone is only attracted to animals. Nobody has redefined this, to my knowledge.
I think what you are getting at in that thread is having sham relationships for the sake of appearance. I've never seen this done, but I assume that just like gay men can live with a woman, "zoo exclusive" people can live with a human. And why not. Two people can cover the bills easier than one, etc. They can sleep in separate beds.
I can't imagine wanting children myself, so I can't put myself in a position to understand reasons people might do so, but if they really were feeling social pressure to do so, there's always adoption, fertility labs, or other choices which have nothing to do with sex with each other.
There is a bit of a gray zone where one's sexual behavior may differ from their sexual identity. I guess I see it like how a dark-haired person can bleach their hair because they think it will look better to others. It doesn't change what their hair color really is, they may not even like it, but they do it because it's what their spouse wants, or what their friends think they should do, etc. Kind of a loose analogy but the point is that doing something cosmetic for appearances' sake doesn't suddenly change who you are, and doesn't mandate that you wish you were blond.
Another example is that people often will put up with some sexual activity they don't like in order to make a partner happy. I'm not sure how it impacts exclusivity if they're not interested but go along with it to make someone else happy. To me, it's more about who you fundamentally are than what you do. But I'm sure attitudes differ.
I keep asking this: Then what's the point of it existing if it still implies they'll end up in a human romantic / sexual relationship? That's the definition according to the community.
Even then, it's not fair because inclusive zoos have a definition that really defines them, humans such as me don't.
That's not called a sexual or a romantic relationship. Just because someone lives with their mom or their friend doesn't mean they're in a relationship.
That's what I kept saying.
But still, having kids is a part of your attraction. I want to reproduce, I just don't want to reproduce with humans nor do I want humans as babies. I want to do it with animals and want animal babies like an actual exclusive.
I've covered this ten thousand fucking times in the thread I mentioned earlier. Goddamn.
Sexuality / attraction is VERY different. You can't compare it to the situation you just brought up. Like, not at all.
That's just not how it works.
And if you are an exclusive zoo there is no such thing as a human partner.
If you do it for these dumb reasons then you aren't an exclusive zoophile. You are in some way attracted to the thing you're having sex with because that's how it works. You have NO urges to mate with a human if you aren't attracted to them for whatever dumb reason humans make up.
It's still having sexual interest in something, and that is your attraction. This does not make any sense.
And this is kind of fucked up. In this case you are raping yourself because you don't like it at all. I think someone who does such a thing can't be taken seriously, as they really need some treatment if they are forcing themselves to do something they don't like, especially if it's sex.
And you know what even sounds more suspicious? How can you love a human SO MUCH that you'd have sex with them even though you're greatly disgusted by it and doing it against your will?
This obviously hints at some romantic relationship between them, which is impossible for an exclusive zoophile.
It is not the definition according to the community, that is my point. At most it is the definition of a couple people, but I don't even think they're saying this, it just got picked up on, extrapolated from, and blown out of proportion.
I think you will find that reproduction is not typical of exclusive zoophiles' desires.
You say sexuality and attraction are different, so are attraction, sexuality, and behavior.
People often force themselves to do things they don't like because of circumstances ("dumb reasons") they perceive as more important overall. It's called adult life. :) It's not even a matter of loving a human so much you do something, it's just a matter of being a good actor.
As said before, this phenomenon was WIDELY documented in the gay community in the mid 20th century. It doesn't make such people less gay, or attracted to women, or in relationships... it just indicates the lengths some were willing to go, to cover their tracks (or perhaps remain in denial).
It's very obvious they're saying this.
Or at least that there's a chance exclusive zoos will. And I don't want that nor do I understand why that would be the original definition, it still doesn't make much sense.
I have yet to see evidence of that.
If I did, then I lied. They're synonyms to me.
And guess what attractions / sexualities do? They influence your behavior. That's enough evidence that what's said by you / them is straight up BS.
You know what's called adult life? Making your own choices and deciding for yourself.
Yeah and they aren't real gays either, they're bis.
Any ''exclusive zoophile'' who claims to have any urge (no invalid excuses like ''oppression'' or ''I have to hide it'' (there's many ways to hide it, and raping yourself is the least one that makes sense)) mate with humans is not a damn exclusive.
As I already said, your attraction / sexuality influences your behavior. If you somehow mate with a human, you are attracted to them.
It's really that simple that anyone can understand it.
Ask around :)
Influence, not unilaterally dictate.
Exactly my point. Sometimes people "decide for themselves" and arrive at different conclusions.
Believe whatever you want, decades of discussion and thought on the matter suggest that behavior is not a 100% indicator of orientation, and vice versa.
Making things up and then strictly enforcing your opinion in a holier-than-thou matter-of-fact way is not a very effective way to solve this problem.
Better than nothing imo.
Atleast I'm waking others up about it.
This topic comes up all the time already. Needling people to wake them up after they're already awake and well aware of the problem is redundant at best, and at worst is an annoying distraction.
I think it may actually be worse than nothing, because it's likely to just cause people to get more entrenched in their current beliefs and/or leave to find a place where people talk about actual issues, and not how one subgroup is more worthy of something than another subgroup.
Now you got me interested...what actual issues besides the usual mutual pampering, the mutual assurance of each other´s "zoophilia" and the vast number of complaints about the "unjust society" are you hinting at?
Your post is a distraction from the real issues at best. Those issues won´t solve themselves by just looking the other way until they´re gone. They won´t be gone miraculously, they are here since this whole online zoophilia community began. And in case you don´t know, excatly the mentality you have shown with your post is what has driven MANY good guys off, not everyone is willing to take blow after blow for decades like me. Especially when you realise that the very foundation of all of this has been created by folks you today would massively insult with the mindless usage of the z-word, with the general "sex equals love" attitude, with the support of exploitative behaviour etc., your post radiates denial and cynicism all over the place.
Unawareness, egotism, the hug box mentality, ethics of zoophilia watered down in the name of "tolerance", these all are actual issues that need to be tackled before any thought of collaboration can thrive. Or do you expect me to go out into the public and babble about the chivalrous motives underlying zoophilia, just to be viciously kicked in the balls with a simple click? Fact is: if I weren´t a zoo myself, I wouldn´t buy any of what most "zoophiles" usually say. It very often just doesn´t match with what they actually do.Trustworthyness is what this entire community lacks; what can happen when you are such an "intolerant" asshole as me, speaking up according to the ethics and morals zoophilia is based on, even some members from a hate group can somehow connect to us "vile animal rapists".
Another question that arises is that of "What other places/platforms are you talking about?" Fact is that all of those "zoo forums" are practically the same...or could you point me to a forum where my views aren´t an exception, but the rule? Fact is, there is not one...and if there was one, it surely got infested with you "tolerant" folks in weeks. You are just as blind to your own minority in your middle as society is blind to zoophiles and bestialists as a minority.
Fact is that you guys immediately start shitting your pants whenever there´s some group trying to do their own thing. You immediately start with your "I feel excluded!" and "Let me in, you intolerant assholes!" screeching. As you did in here when AB introduced the ZSanctum, among various other occasions. It must be a very hard thing to bear for you if there are "cool kids" who don´t want you as a part of their group. What makes you think that this group of people HAS TO BE in a clone like unison? Why do you think everyone needs to be a drone, obeying to your "tolerance" hive queen? And addressing this is being a "traitor" or a "troublemaker" to you? Really? Look, if YOU want to live your life in denial, fine with me. But when you try to keep the few who see what is wrong with us as a community from doing their thing, tell me, where´s the difference to any totalitarian sect?
What I´m also wondering about is this excessively annoying attitude of "Just continue on our path" attitude...tell me, what has to happen to make you get a slight glimpse of the ideal that NOT everything is right with us? How much has to happen until you actually start questioning your attitudes, guys? 10 new laws banning sex with animals? 20? 100? When will you start questioning the direction we´re heading, when we´re just one meter away from the abyss? Or will you choose to walk blindeyed into the abyss, just to "prove your point"?
It isn´t long ago that a bunch of users in here stated that exclusive zoophilia also includes a few occasional fucks with furless monkeys. This didn´t only proved my point of necessary fundamental renewal of our entire community, it also unveiled how little tolerance you oh so tolerant "zoos" have left for us, the exclusives. You don´t even get why we´re mad and irate and I don´t know whether this is because of sheer ignorance or pure malice. The usurpation, the word twisting, the attempted marginalisation of your very own subgroup within your subgroup, all of that just leaves me speechless about your obvious bigotry. You demand tolerance for YOUR kind, but you don´t give even a single bit of tolerance for anyone not your kind, be it us exclusives or "normal" society. Your whole attitude nadly needs to be revised and reconstructed because you fell into the same trap as all those "tolerant" liberals, you became self absorbed and lost the principles you are claiming to have long ago. Falsehoods and half truths passed on as "zoo gospel" have replaced the desire to find out the actual truth. You erected a nice little filter bubble and cannot stand anyone to endanger this cosy little enclave for all kinds of animal fuckers of all kinds. As the Catholic church , you have lost what once was the base on which all has been built. And WE are the ones who disturb your peace?
Not a single one of us true zoos has forced you to occupy our spaces and take our vocabulary hostage, but you did anyway. So, who´s the real problem here, the occupiers or the resistance? Trying to silence us so you can have your comfort zone is just another example of how little you are able and willing to see different perspectives. You know what keeps this sub from turning into just another one of "those" forums where porn is welcome and any kind of perversion, any inacceptable conduct is defended? Guys like me. If you don´t want to turn into a BF clone in here, if you don´t want all the detrimental effects that are involved in this process, you shouldn´t disencourage us dissidents, you should support us. But I think all I write is in vain just because you are what you wrote in your post, already too entrenched , too obedient to the hivemind to understand what you are really proposing with your reply.
You masked it with your wording, but basically you´re just saying "Shut up and swallow what the majority in here is serving you"...am I the only one to recognise certain similarities to how zoophiles are treated by society?
Probably not
Last time you were in favor of such laws because they protected animals, and anyone afraid of being prosecuted by such laws was being stupid and needlessly afraid.
Also your arguments seem to have gone beyond having anything to do with me or my opinions, and into arguing with abstract notions of what you think I am, or people you think I'm aligned with.
So until consistency and objectivity are restored, I think any response from me will just be a waste of time for both of us.
[removed]
I think "brain types" are somewhat genetic. You can be more likely to think a certain way, like be more aggressive, more emphatic, etc, but it doesnt guarantee it. You might be genetic predisposed to like animals a bit more than the average person, and combined with the right experiences in life, you become a zoophile.
My feeling is that it is fundamentally neurochemical. I won't say "hereditary" because who knows, it may be some errant hormone(s), or any number of other aspects.
There may be an upbringing aspect to whether someone is thoughtful and problem-solving enough to realize it about themselves... and as said earlier, whether you choose and/or are able to act on any feelings is likely tied to upbringing at least a bit... what values you have about sex, for example.
I think you just cannot identify a single "reason" as there are so many different types of "zoophilia" out there; in many so called "zoophiles", I can see the "learned" aspect, in others I myself wonder if it´s genetics that push them towards animals. But there´s also a third option, imprinting. I´ve come across a lot of "zoos" who said have been "introduced" and "got hooked ever since". Did you know the first sexual experience has a deep effect on your future choices of your sexual partner? The first time you experience a special thing, your mind gets imprinted and impressions will form certain think patterns. My childhood friend, who never was into redheads before his premiere, is predominantly into redheads now because his first girlfriend was one. He doesn´t even seem to realise his preferrence himself. When I asked him whether he is a redhead admirer, he refused this, but almost 75% of his girls were redheads.
Having said this, I can easily identify examples of "learned" zoophilia, you just have to think of all those "zoos" who have "discovered" their "attractions" later in life, after a quite normal sex life with humans. You can also easily see many of us who claim to "be like that forever", what would hint at some kind of "genetic prepositioning". I myself am one of those, I cannot remember I ever had sexual interest in humans, not before my puberty, not during puberty (although I experienced some kind of crush on a girl when I was 11 or 12, but I guess that was some kind of social pressure that gave me the temporary impression to be in "love" with her...it quickly wore off) and not after puberty. And you can see examples of "imprinting", such as the proverbial young man coming from a rural area who had no feelings for any of the "available" lifestock, but made his first sexual experiences with a cow, a pig, a horse, a sheep etc. ,got imprinted on that and "developed" "love" only after his imprinting process.
I guess you just cannot work out a single "reason" for engaging in bestiality acts. Reasons why someone is into this are manifold and vary largely in motive. Whether learned, imprinted or genetic, it really doesn´t matter what "causes IT", it matters what you are doing with "IT".
Whenever I come across questions like the one the OP has brought up, I think this is fishing for an excuse. When it´s genetic, then no one is responsible for his orientation, that´s the hope that shines through when discussing any possible genetic predisposition. But in the end, it really doesn´t matter what "caused" your zoophilia, because we all are responsible for what we choose to do. And if you understand zoophilia as what this word was meant to describe, any hereditary aspects exclude themselves from the equation because a zoo doesn´t have human kids. In developing sexuality, there are so many different elements involved that make me think this question the OP brought up has any "single word" answer. In my case, I believe there´s some predisposition for equines, it was like that since I can remember. I always had sympathy for them, I always felt they´re somewhat close to me, but I wouldn´t say this is based on genetics , the only one in my family who was a rider was my grandpa and he only learned horsemanship because he was fighting against the Soviet Union in WW2 on horseback. As far as I know, I´m the first one in my family to make a living with horses and am not aware of any zoophile ancestor. My family seems pretty normal to me, what totally would negate any genetic predispositions. But something I somehow believe in is , and I´ll use this word for the lack of a better one, destiny. I always felt that horses are my destiny, that I could have chosen the paths of my life differently, but with the same outcome, horses. I cannot give any proof for that, but this belief is resinating in me since I became aware of my special attraction. It just seems that it couldn´t be any other way than what it is now. I had to overcome lots of resistance toi live my life the way I am living it now, I had a hell of a struggle with my mom because she always wanted me to study something and wasn´t at all content with the choice of my profession. I had to struggle with my friends mocking me for my job, because "horses are for girls and gays...and you don´t look like a girl, dude..."; I had to overcome so much opposition to do what I´m doing now.
To sum this up, I really don´t put any belief in my orientation originating in the DNA, I would put my bet on the metaphysical concept of destiny although I do not believe in that.But my life always felt like someone is leading me through it, confronting me with meaningful impressions and experiences to set my path of life the way it is now. Don´t know whether this contributes anything to this discussion, but I just wanted to mention that I believe there are more than the two options , learned or genetic.
I definitely agree on this point. Even beyond our own semantic discussions, there are people who grew into it, people who've always been that way, people who had some weird negative sexual experience with humans, bored rural people, control freaks, fetishists interested in something different or something taboo... the list goes on.
I took the question to mean people who've had an animal "orientation" forever.
Not in my case.
I've suspected this for a while now. I knew I wasn't straight by the time I was 9, my half brother is gay and my half sister is trans. I'm also trans. My mom was into kinky things, but only light kink like bondage. I'm probably more kinky and more queer than any member of my family though.
I have thought on this some more and have a sort of "addendum". We know that we have been shaping the evolution of a number of species under the color of domestication. Is it possible that we have been "pushing" our own evolution at the same time?
Up until very recently it could be a major advantage to have enhanced skills in the handling and manipulation of animals. (think horse soldier) Perhaps a Zoophile is simply someone that got a "double dose" of whatever gene complex is involved in this?
It could certainly explain how a genetic "dead-end" like Exclusive would be passed on or even selected for.
I like the concept and thinking-through, whether it's true or not!
I'm 99,99% sure there's nothing genetic about it. Sexual orientations are socially constructed, I don't think they exist in nature or in genetics.
The following is just how I understand all of this, I might be wrong but this is what convinces me the most so far: Animals aren't heterosexual or homosexual or anything, maybe some can develope some similar behavior to one of those, but they would learn it, not get it from their genes. The only thing us and animals have from genes or nature itself is sex drive, libido, and some smell stimulation (although I have no idea if the smell stimulation can happen through species or not, but if it happens it would only be an accident, and wouldn't mean the human or whatever other species got the attraction from their genes).
We humans are strictly either heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc because we learn these behaviors from society and culture. A lot of animals also develope societies but they aren't nearly as big and complex as the human one. Literally every dog I've met would fuck anything that suits him. If there's no female dog around, they will try to fuck their siblings or whatever thing that has 4 legs it doesnt matter if its also male or not. If there's none of that they will try to fuck you, or maybe they will try it the other way around even if the "legit partner" is present, they can completely ignore it anyway, unless there's hormone stimulation I suppose.
If you wonder why some humans are zoophilic, it also has to do with society an psychology. Not everything works "as intended" in society, some messages can be interpreted differently, and if you know a zoophile that has relatives with zoophile tendences too, it can only mean that they share something in common in their family culture that might lead to finding some animals sexually appealing. Some kind of influence, but it can be anything and should be studied separatedly and not as a general rule I suppose.
[removed]
[removed]
I don't think zoophilia specifically itself is entirely genetic, but I do think there is likely a genetic component that increases how likely someone is to imprint sexually on alternative targets. For me and quite a few other zoos, zoophile tendencies showed up before puberty, so any environmental factors would have happened early in life.
I don't know, my uncle was a zoophile, I learned and understood that later, he however got into woman later in life, before he got murdered (for other reasons), I only saw him once when I was a kid.
Since I have memory I am a zoophile too, from the moment I got into puberty I could only imagine myself with animals; I didn't understand what or why I was thinking that then.
But I don't know, I just think any sexual attraction is no different from any other, we are just apes, trying to get into some social role that fits, and trying to get the affection we need; it'll work for others differently based on random chance, brain wiring and experiences; sexuality is probably just like any other personality trait, affected by the environment but still just a random probability.