Meeting other zoophiles in real life(self.zoophilia)
submitted 2017-09-13 08:02:21 by [deleted]
[deleted]
BamTwigBlack Lab Owner 4 points on 2017-09-13 14:17:43
Yes, I have met one, I will be meeting up with another in a month or so.
I met the first on KiK, the second found me through Beast Dating.
The first saved my life, I was not in a good state of mind or place, they went out of their way to actually help me, she offered me a place to stay for a week. We talked and did nothing sexual with my dog until she came to stay with me after I moved.
The second I've been talking with for over a month, we've not revealed faces yet, but that is going to be soon and then we shall meet after that.
Meeting others is a bad idea if it's a 5 minute job. The age old saying. If it's too good to be true, it probably is!
You will have to talk online first so you can trust each other...
There is no easy road to take to achieve what you want.. You will have to be patient.
SCP_2547 -7 points on 2017-09-13 15:12:40
No and I hopefully never do.
I don't see the point of it. We can talk online if we really want.
I have a girlfriend who I know is against zoophilia
Yeaaah buddy you aren't a zoophile.
Can it be against the rules to be a wannabe zoophile?
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 3 points on 2017-09-13 15:48:47
Can it be against the rules to be a wannabe zoophile?
no, for many, many reasons.
Swibblestein 6 points on 2017-09-13 16:11:12
Can it be against the rules to harass non-exclusive zoos about the fact that they are attracted to humans as well as animals?
Oh, and just to be clear, I'm zoo-exclusive. But to me what you're doing is no different from bisexual erasure. I think it's out of line when a gay person tells a bisexual person "you're not really bisexual, you're gay and you just haven't admitted it," and to me this is pretty much the same thing.
SCP_2547 -5 points on 2017-09-13 16:12:52
I can't really take anyone seriously when they say they're zoophilic yet they have a ''girlfriend.''
Too many wannabes so it's really fucking hard to see the real zoophiles. But in the end, they're inexperienced fake zoophiles is what they are.
Swibblestein 6 points on 2017-09-13 16:27:20
Zoophilia is not an exclusive club and you are not the bouncer.
SCP_2547 -2 points on 2017-09-13 16:29:31
Yeah, very funny.
Still, what I said is still true.
30-30amator equae -3 points on 2017-09-13 18:08:06
"Zoophilia is not an exclusive club"...but zoophilia also isn´t a playground. We´ve been through two decades of this "all inclusive" attitude...and look where it has brought us.
The definition of zoophilia literally speaks of a FIXATION on animals and for me, a fixation is something exclusive.
The so called "bisexual erasure" can also work the opposite way: too much bisexuals claiming they´re gay and being gay loses any meaning, right? Identity theft, that´s what comes into my mind.
Would you call grey a "darker white"? Surely not, because people would think you´ve lost it now. White is white, grey is grey and black is black.
This insensitive usage of the z-word is what degraded the z-word to a mere synonym for bestiality, it´s even used by scientists that way now. Is this what you as an exclusive zoo yourself want? One of my friends once said regarding the controversy about the z-word: "If everyone is a zoo, nobody is a zoo." and I fully subscribe to his point. It´s even utterly ridiculous that zoophilia is the only orientation that has to use the word "exclusive" or have you ever heard about "hetero exclusives" and homosexual exclusives"? Why do many in this community , you as an "exclusive" yourself included, feel the need to grind down on our identity, our perspective, our culture? I´m an exclusive by heart, I don´t want to have sex with humans and I don´t want to hear about sex with humans from a "fellow zoo". We even discussed the term "exclusive" in the past and it went stright to insanity by many claiming that "exclusive" doesn´t say you have to abstain from sex with humans at all. You´re destroying language if you defile words of their meaning, proof of that can be found in every dictionary in which zoophilia is listed as "has sex with animals".
I also wonder why all these non exclusives are so eager to label them zoo...why don´t they call themselves "normal" then? Following your logic, this would be equally correct, wouldn´t it?
Look, we ALL are bestialists. Everyone who performs actual sexual actions with an animal is. You are, WarCanine is, I am. To qualify for zoophilia, you have to meet more criteria than just sexually engaging with an animal. If you don´t meet them, you´re not a zoo. Among these criteria, there´s exclusivity...and not for some selfish or elitist reasons, but to protect and preserve what we, the exclusives by heart feel, think, went through. The life of a non exclusive "zoo" is nowhere near the life of an "exclusive" zoo, there are so many things and details that don´t match, don´t fit and also hurt.
The example you gave with the homosexual calling a bisexual gay is a rather inappropriate one, in my experience, it´s way more common for a homosexual to be infuriated about bisexuals calling themselves gay. And they absolutely have the right to do so if you ask me. Not the "outsiders" , the people waiting in front of the "exclusive club" should have the say on who is allowed to enter, it´s the ones inside the club, the ones running the party.
BTW, can YOU answer why everyone is so goddamn inclined to call himself a zoo? Do you get free fucks when you call yourself that? Or what are the reasons trying to force the way into what many seem to perceive as an "elite"? Why isn´t being a bestialist enough? Is there any other reason than the obvious self centeredness, the fear that you "miss out" on something when you´re not a "zoo"?
I have no problems talking with non exclusive bestialists in here, sometimes I even get along with them just fine. I can accept bestialists when they meet a minimum of criteria such as handling their animals properly and with care. No problem. But it gets problematic when they start calling themselves what they are NOT. Why is there a "zoo pride" , but no "beasty pride"? Why is it almost impossible to find someone who proudly calls himself a beasty although we all know that beasties outnumber zoophiles by far? Where are all those? And why is it so goddamn important to use the z-word? Why do only a few see where this unhinged use of the z-word leads us true "exclusive zoos" to, towards complete marginalisation? We "exclusive" zoos are a minority in here, in other forums, practically everywhere. Is this the way you deal with minorities? And why are you surprised when "normal" society does exactly the same with us as a community of bestialists, marginalisation, silencing, making us disappear?
Something goes terribly wrong, it went terribly wrong for ages and we still seek the cause somewhere out there, in society, while the cause of our demise is right here, visible and in front of everyone´s eyes.
Coca Cola isn´t Pepsi. Non exclusives are no zoophiles. Someone with 1/16 of Native American heritage is not a Native American. Someone who leads a "normal" life with his wife on workdays, but lets himself get fucked by anonymous men on an Autobahn parking space at Saturday night isn´t homosexual.Black isn´t just a "dark white" and white isn´t just a "brighter black". We bestialists fuck animals. Isn´t that enough? Do we have to fuck (with) language and words, too?
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-09-13 18:34:53
[deleted]
Battlecropscat kisser extraordinaire 3 points on 2017-09-13 19:28:12
Why don't you seem to understand that non-exclusives are romantically attracted to animals?? That's the difference between being non-exclusive and a bestialist. It's not about having sex with animals, but falling in love with animals, like all zoos do. I do not think someone who just has sex with animals without romantic feelings is zoo, but every person I've talked to who calls themselves non-exclusive zoo has romantic attraction. If someone only has sex with animals and no romance I would agree that they are a bestialist and not zoo. I'm sure plenty exist who do that and call themselves zoo (which I would disagree with). But that doesn't make that the case for everyone who says they are non-exclusive.
30-30amator equae -1 points on 2017-09-14 01:56:16
Ahem...EVERY fucking animal owner has some degree of "romantical" attraction to their animal...or why do you think they say "I love my dog very much" although they have no intent to drop their pants and get it on with doggie? Romantic attraction alone does say NOTHING.
I tried to explain it so many times now: the z-word NEVER was intended to be a label for the vast majority of our community, its intention was to provide an aequivalent to "faithful and loving husband/spouse" instead. That was and to me still is the original meaning of the z-word. You aren´t a faithful and loving partner, even when you genuinely feel love for your partner, but cheat on him/her. You aren´t a faithful and loving partner if you actually are faithful, but deep inside feel nothing for him/her. As I said , we´re ALL bestialists technically, anyone who actually has or had sex with an animal is. Is it really so hard to understand that this isn´t about "beasties = not in love, zoos = in love". Why do you think the definition says that zoophilia is an emotional AND sexual fixation towards animals? The "AND" means that BOTH criteria have to be met, plus the fixcation criterium. You also denied answers to what I was asking in my post. Like usual. Like almost everybody in here. Why is the z-word so important? Would the world come down for you if you´d call yourself a beasty from now on? Or isn´t this just what I assume, fear of "not being with the "elite" anymore? Honestly, what would change if you were a beasty from now on? The feelings for your animal? And why is zoophilia the only orientation that needs the word "exclusive" to describe certain individuals? No other orientation needs that...why?
Falling in "love" with an animal...let´s talk about that l-word that´s dropped so often, but seldom understood. What is love? Can you explain, please? Everybody claims to "love" animals, even non zoos/non beasties. Do you think those understand love the same way as you do, as I do? A wise man once said that people often and too quickly speak of "love" for someone, something. "I love ice cream"...is this actual love for ice cream or is the true thing that is "loved" here the act of consumption and what YOU experience during the consumption? I really think that question is what you all need to answer before you can ever speak of love at all. That´s the fundamental question here. What IS love?
"I love my car"...do you? Or do you actually mean "I love using my car" instead? "I love my computer"...really? Or do you love to use your computer instead? "I love Tolkien"...if you´re not a necrophile, you should rather say "I love reading Tolkien´s stories". Consumption. Capitalism. Is anybody out there who really can love at all anymore and does not mistake love the way you seem to do?
IMHO, that´s the real issue here. True love isn´t consumerism, it should destroy the ego and transcend the self of the one claiming to "love". Love conquers all, even the harsh realities a zoo faces. Lovers don´t whine and complain about circumstances. They accept what is given to them and try to make the best of it. Do you see lots of "zoos" of that specific type?
We REALLY need to sort things out. What happens when we don´t you can see in the dictionaries. We, the veterans, had a certain effect in mind when we introduced (or rather were forced to introduce by snitching assholes) the z-word to our sommunity. We wanted to establish a "trademark" for us and the outside world, for easier connection and communication with the outsiders. People like you, people with that "Oh, excluding someone would be SOOO intolerant!" attitude ruined it and ruined any chance to gain tolerance from society en passé. You created chaos by sawing off the branch you´re sitting on. Without a specific word for us exclusives, we are marginalised...and, as I said it before, even if we, the "exclusives" come up with another word for us, I bet my ballsac it wouldn´t take more than a year until we arrive at exactly the same point of total confusion again. All you "openminded" persons are sooo concerned about stuff like "transgender identity" and stuff, but you honestly give a rat´s ass about OUR identity. You steal, appropriate, take hostage and destroy. Society treats you like you treat US. Capitalistic mindfuck...everything is "lifestyle" and consumable. What you consume is what you are, right? Simplicistic degeneration. Pleas show me one, just one "non exclusive gay", just one "non exclusive hetero"...why do we need that crap despite the fact we actually HAVE words to name everything properly already. Why is there no "beasty pride"? Think about it for a while and tell me what the result of your thought process is...
btwIAMAzoophileDogs are cute. 4 points on 2017-09-14 03:19:20
Oh hun, you're doing that drama thing we talked about...
Battlecropscat kisser extraordinaire 2 points on 2017-09-14 14:06:11
Yeeeeah that was a wild nonsensical ride. I've officially given up on trying to talk to you about this topic lol, have fun.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-09-17 01:31:03
Pleas show me one, just one "non exclusive gay", just one "non exclusive hetero"
There's a word for that. Bisexual. And of course, there are such things as heteroflexible and homoflexible.
Rannoch2012Deer Zoo 1 point on 2017-09-15 09:56:31
Jesus christ have you gone off the deep end.
SCP_2547 1 point on 2017-09-15 10:42:54
Welcome.
You can partially thank a handful of users here. A part of my behavior is revenge, but the majority is caused by my depression. That depression? Oh, a lot of users here thought it was very funny to make it worse. Thank them, but also thank a little of nature.
But honestly, I may would have behaved better if the users here weren't so toxic and loved my suffering. I repeat: It's mostly uncontrollable.
Thank. Them.
Rannoch2012Deer Zoo 1 point on 2017-09-15 10:53:31
I don't credit others for ones own bad behavior. If this place bothers you so, there is always the option not to come.
Honestly, given how it seems to be driving you to some kind of horrid mental state, that may be advisable.
SCP_2547 1 point on 2017-09-15 13:48:50
I don't credit others for ones own bad behavior.
Oh? I guess those children working for ISIS simply could've known better.
And I guess those murderers who were abused could've known better too.
You can blame me partially because I'm kind of aware of what I'm doing, but at the same time it really is hard to control. And honestly, you wouldn't act so nice either if you were attacked by others and that they spread lies about you, wishing your depression would never be fixed and taunting you with something. Something you would kill for and something they have.
Yes, I really am to blame for simply asking help and then being betrayed over and over again. Then hoped I would get my life ruined. Truly, that is my fault that I misbehave after that.
If this place bothers you so, there is always the option not to come.
This sounds stupid, but I just can't. There's some reasons.
One reason is that I may still find an answer for what I seek so badly even though it's unlikely.
Another reason is that I just can't refuse to look back. It's only a part here that bothers me.
I just want to talk about this subject, but yes it is hard if I do it with a group I despise so much. I kind of do it for the animals, too. I just wish I could make a difference for some animals to prevent them from being harmed.
And also, to me this community deserves someone like me. Talk about deserving things, because apparently I don't deserve anything according to them. That's why I'm so grateful and I still say they deserve something, and that would be me of course.
Rannoch2012Deer Zoo 1 point on 2017-09-17 10:50:50
Oh? I guess those children working for ISIS simply could've known better.
And I guess those murderers who were abused could've known better too.
Do any of the above not go to trial for their actions if caught?
This is going nowhere, so I'm done. Have fun destroying yourself.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 3 points on 2017-09-14 11:52:30
Can it be against the rules to harass non-exclusive zoos about the fact that they are attracted to humans as well as animals?
I'm seriously considering it.
SCP_2547 -1 points on 2017-09-14 15:03:50
Can it be against the rules to harass non-exclusive zoos about the fact that they are attracted to humans as well as animals?
''harass''
Crocodile tears.
I think it's out of line when a gay person tells a bisexual person "you're not really bisexual, you're gay and you just haven't admitted it," and to me this is pretty much the same thing.
No it isn't. That's a bad comparison.
The only similarity would be that bisexuals could have given gays a bad name, but they don't since there's two very different terms for them.
''Bisexual'' and ''Gay'' or ''Homosexual''. Not really that similar.
''Inclusive zoophile'' and ''Exclusive zoophile''. Really similar, not to mention they just use the word ''zoophile'' instead of ''inclusive zoophile'' which adds extra confusion.
I do not want to be confused for a human fucker, thank you.
Also, do gays have to face with individuals who call themselves gay but aren't? Like I said, it's hard to see the difference between a real zoophile and a fake one.
There's a lot of fetishists who call themselves zoophiles while they aren't.
Your comparison is also bad because:
"you're not really bisexual, you're gay and you just haven't admitted it"
I don't say it like that. A better comparison would be: ''You're not really gay, you're just (insert anything else here) and you just haven't admitted it.''
In my earlier comment I was in a rush, here's what I had to say in detail.
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-09-19 09:53:57
[deleted]
SCP_2547 1 point on 2017-09-19 10:02:41
Yeah, I don't like being compared to inclusive "zoos".
EDIT: No.
the_egoldstein 2 points on 2017-09-14 02:13:15
Can it be against the rules to be a wannabe zoophile?
No more than it can/should be against the rules to have an opinion many others reject.
You want people to accept your love of another species and yet you are apparently unable to allow that same acceptance to others. How about just being happy that there's another person who understands that one can love a non-human? Is there no room in your mind or heart to think that someone else could find love where you cannot?
SCP_2547 1 point on 2017-09-14 14:40:10
You want people to accept your love of another species and yet you are apparently unable to allow that same acceptance to others. How about just being happy that there's another person who understands that one can love a non-human?
I don't? What an assumption, because I actually give zoophiles a bad name on purpose.
I love weaponizing it by telling others my stories and pissing them off.
And why would I even give a single shit what others think about us? It's our relationship, not theirs.
If it's a problem to them, it's their problem, not ours. I really couldn't care less and I don't see why anyone would.
Also, fuck this community is strange.
When I actually gave a shit back then, everyone told me to stop caring.
Now I stopped giving a shit and it's assumed that we all suddenly care.
I may be crazy, but right now I know I'm not. Seriously, I can't be crazy now, can't anyone else see this? Wtf.
What's with this community and it's damn humans?
the_egoldstein 1 point on 2017-09-14 16:50:06
And why would I even give a single shit what others think about us? It's our relationship, not theirs.
Then why do you give a shit who someone else loves? You are the one making judgements about other people.
I really couldn't care less and I don't see why anyone would.
And yet you cared enough to go out of your way to harass someone for feeling differently than you.
I may be crazy, but right now I know I'm not. Seriously, I can't be crazy now, can't anyone else see this? Wtf.
When you're at odds with so many others, it's always worth taking time to examine not only your own position in detail, but your opponent's as well. There's almost always something to be learned in the difference between the two.
What's with this community and it's damn humans?
Perhaps it is due to your apparent rejection of humans as somehow inferior coloring your perception? There's good and bad in everything.
SCP_2547 1 point on 2017-09-14 17:02:25
Then why do you give a shit who someone else loves? You are the one making judgements about other people.
I don't? I'm just simply stating that they aren't a real zoophile.
And so what if I did? Maybe I care about other's relationships?
And yet you cared enough to go out of your way to harass someone for feeling differently than you.
''harass''
No, stop making OP the victim here. We're all adults who can handle something like that.
If that's harassment to the users here, then I must have been harassed so fucking bad.
I just simply stated facts, that's it.
Perhaps it is due to your apparent rejection of humans as somehow inferior coloring your perception?
No it isn't.
the_egoldstein 1 point on 2017-09-14 17:17:40
And so what if I did? Maybe I care about other's relationships?
Then don't insist that you don't care, or at least accept that someone may come along and call you out for being a hypocrite/dishonest/dickish/etc.
I just simply stated facts, that's it.
No, you stated your opinion. There's a significant difference between an opinion and fact.This is the core of what you continually fail to grasp, that while you may feel or believe something very much, it doesn't necessarily make it a fact.
You can redefine terms as much as you like, that doesn't mean any of the rest of us are compelled to accept your definition.
SCP_2547 1 point on 2017-09-14 17:45:43
Then don't insist that you don't care
I said that I don't care what others think of our relationships.
or at least accept that someone may come along and call you out for being a hypocrite/dishonest/dickish/etc.
I recommend reading first.
Should I paste it here for you? Here's a hint: Use your eyes.
And if that don't work, use more eyes. ''And why would I even give a single shit what others think about us? It's our relationship, not theirs.
If it's a problem to them, it's their problem, not ours. I really couldn't care less and I don't see why anyone would.''
If you read it properly, maybe you'd know. I wasn't going to spoil it because I hate being nice as absolutely no one here deserves it, but:
I'm saying that I don't care what others think about our relationships. This does not mean I don't care about their relationships.
You can redefine terms as much as you like, that doesn't mean any of the rest of us are compelled to accept your definition.
''redefine''
Nah mate.
the_egoldstein 1 point on 2017-09-14 19:50:09
I recommend reading first.
Should I paste it here for you? Here's a hint: Use your eyes.
That's some good advise, you should heed it.
Too bad you pasted snippets I wasn't referring to. I'd bother explaining it to you, but it's become clear you aren't interested in honest discourse.
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-09-19 09:55:33
[deleted]
SCP_2547 1 point on 2017-09-19 10:03:09
None of us are since we all suffer from a mental illness?
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-09-19 10:24:40
[deleted]
SCP_2547 1 point on 2017-09-19 10:29:17
No.
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-09-19 09:47:03
[deleted]
SCP_2547 1 point on 2017-09-19 10:02:05
What an assumption, mate.
EDIT: How many times are you going to edit your comments and add wall of texts in the last second?
I'm not a troll, autistic nor a manchild. It seems you're trying to put the blame on me, too.
Quite funny you're calling me autistic, yet we're all "zoophiles."
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-09-19 10:30:34
[deleted]
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-09-19 10:33:40
[deleted]
SCP_2547 1 point on 2017-09-19 10:37:52
Holy shit mate. You keep deleting or editting your comments.
Here's a tip: Use your brain when you type, not after.
Your original comment:
My guess, it's correct. I'm not going to argue with someone I can't see the face of.
You've got literally no evidence.
I already explained why I'm not a troll in my post history. You can assume all you want, but in the end you know you're not correct but can't admit that I'm genuine for whatever reason.
I guess you won't argue with me because you know I'm right, too. You can just admit it because I don't see the problem.
Swibblestein 2 points on 2017-09-13 16:07:11
Met one, and will be meeting with another at the end of the year.
I felt fairly safe because I've known each of them for many, many years (probably about a decade for the one I'm going to go meet at the end of this year).
Battlecropscat kisser extraordinaire 3 points on 2017-09-13 20:15:31
I met up with a friend I made in the zoo community who turned out to be somewhat local. We had already been friends online for a long time though, I wouldn't recommend meeting someone you don't already know well. We met up at a public animal event and a few other public outings before hanging out privately. I'd do that for anyone I meet online though, to be safe.
KynophileDog lover 1 point on 2017-09-13 21:29:51
Well, I've met a couple. One was through the personals section of BF after months of skype chats. We haven't really kept in touch, because we live too far apart and don't have much in common otherwise. The other I stumbled into on a furry dating site, and now we're dating. To be fair, I lucked out in the extreme in finding someone with whom I'm so compatible, but it is possible to find local people who you get along with. It's just really difficult and may take a long time.
UntamedAnomaly 2 points on 2017-09-14 00:06:35
When I was younger, and laws/law enforcement were a bit more relaxed and I was actively seeking them out, I met my 1st zoo almost 11 years ago and we started dating. Through him, I met a couple of other ones, but we never talked really. I dated another one about 8-9 years ago too. Both of these zoos were awful people, so the relationships didn't last very long though. The only zoo that I got along with, now lives on the other side of the country from me, so we don't see each other unfortunately and they are drunk like 95% of the time so it's hard to have conversations with them, but we still talk on occasion. I've met quite a few online when I had my zoo related blogs/groups running, some of those people are in this subreddit even lol. Most were pretty cool, I've met a few super creepy people who were admitted child molestors though, and that's no beuno.
I wouldn't advise trying to seek them out though, cops do lie, and run undercover sting operations. Sheriff Joe Arpaio comes to mind as one of the leading sting operation runners who has a hankering for luring zoos into getting arrested. Not only that, but gay people and transgender people sometimes get lured into dangerous situations specifically because people hate them and want them dead, so I can't imagine the chances a zoo openly seeking companionship would fare much better - and at least gay and trans people get sympathy after they've been bashed or killed, no one would mourn or fight for us if something were to happen. They'd call that person a hero for harming us.
phiner 1 point on 2017-09-18 14:05:30
Yeah. Ultimately, your primary goal should never be to meet people for sex. Regardless of the reasons. Just don't do it. Meet people to meet people and their pets. Number one, that's a better way to go about it anyway. You want to make sure that both the other people and the animals can be comfortable around you and enjoy your company. Secondly, it's always a good idea to get to know each other before going to that point. So just don't meet up for sex with anyone until you actually talk to them and get to know them. That should be just common sense at this point. Meeting up with people is not illegal, meeting up with people for the express interest of having sex can be.
the_egoldstein 2 points on 2017-09-14 02:32:17
I've met a little over a dozen over the years from various places. That said, I'm usually very cautious about meeting folks and calling me a little paranoid wouldn't be an overstatement. Realistically, if you don't commit crimes which they witness there isn't a lot (legally) they can do.
For the most part, if you follow some basic precautions there's relatively little risk involved.
don't incriminate yourself (making porn, offers of sex, etc)
meet in public places, preferably not too close to home. The Zoo in nearby big cities is a win.
keep your IRL info to yourself.
It's like meeting any new friends, trust builds with time. I have friends I've known for years who have come to visit (and no, not for dogsex orgies). It's nice being able to really and let your guard down. Some of these friends I've known online for upwards of 20 years before meeting in person, don't be in a rush.
On the flipside, there are some real trainwrecks of human beings out there and being very cautious is wise. Always use your head and don't allow yourself to get into a position where you can be abused (phsyically, mentally, ecconomically, etc).
That said, I've met some real characters; a few I didn't keep in contact with, but the vast majority have been people who I am very happy to call friends.
SusitarCanidae 1 point on 2017-09-14 11:37:05
Many years ago, before I had any actual sexual experience with non-human animals, and before bestiality was banned in Sweden.
I had a coffee with another non-exclusive zoophile. A man about ten years older than me.
While there is something nice about knowing for sure that you are not alone, that these people on the other side of the computer screen are real, that was also the only thing I learnt. I hardly even remember the guy now, what his name or story was.
I've also happened upon other (non-active) zoophiles by chance, first getting to know them in other circumstances and then later finding out they are attracted to animals too. My boyfriend, for instance, is into felines. But since he is allergic to cats AND prefers wild, large felines, he will probably never have such a relationship. Still nice to be able to discuss fantasies together.
Aluzky 1 point on 2017-09-14 17:08:31
I'm past the point where I need to meet and chat with other zoophiles, as a teen I really needed to meet other zoos. Plus, is safer to do that anonymously over the net. If I ever meet some one in person (and I have) it was only after corroborating beyond doubt that they where also zoophiles. I guess if you want a human partner, is best to meet other zoos who also want human partners. Do as I do and only meet those who can prove to be a zoos. Else, you are taking a risk that can back fire badly.
HBOTB2Horse and Hoof 1 point on 2017-09-16 00:46:04
I've never met another Zoo in person. You have to be careful, because you might be meeting a Law Enforcement Officer instead of a Zoo.
/r/zoophilia archive
Yes, I have met one, I will be meeting up with another in a month or so.
I met the first on KiK, the second found me through Beast Dating.
The first saved my life, I was not in a good state of mind or place, they went out of their way to actually help me, she offered me a place to stay for a week. We talked and did nothing sexual with my dog until she came to stay with me after I moved.
The second I've been talking with for over a month, we've not revealed faces yet, but that is going to be soon and then we shall meet after that.
Meeting others is a bad idea if it's a 5 minute job. The age old saying. If it's too good to be true, it probably is!
You will have to talk online first so you can trust each other...
There is no easy road to take to achieve what you want.. You will have to be patient.
No and I hopefully never do.
I don't see the point of it. We can talk online if we really want.
Yeaaah buddy you aren't a zoophile.
Can it be against the rules to be a wannabe zoophile?
no, for many, many reasons.
Can it be against the rules to harass non-exclusive zoos about the fact that they are attracted to humans as well as animals?
Oh, and just to be clear, I'm zoo-exclusive. But to me what you're doing is no different from bisexual erasure. I think it's out of line when a gay person tells a bisexual person "you're not really bisexual, you're gay and you just haven't admitted it," and to me this is pretty much the same thing.
I can't really take anyone seriously when they say they're zoophilic yet they have a ''girlfriend.''
Too many wannabes so it's really fucking hard to see the real zoophiles. But in the end, they're inexperienced fake zoophiles is what they are.
Zoophilia is not an exclusive club and you are not the bouncer.
Yeah, very funny.
Still, what I said is still true.
"Zoophilia is not an exclusive club"...but zoophilia also isn´t a playground. We´ve been through two decades of this "all inclusive" attitude...and look where it has brought us. The definition of zoophilia literally speaks of a FIXATION on animals and for me, a fixation is something exclusive. The so called "bisexual erasure" can also work the opposite way: too much bisexuals claiming they´re gay and being gay loses any meaning, right? Identity theft, that´s what comes into my mind. Would you call grey a "darker white"? Surely not, because people would think you´ve lost it now. White is white, grey is grey and black is black. This insensitive usage of the z-word is what degraded the z-word to a mere synonym for bestiality, it´s even used by scientists that way now. Is this what you as an exclusive zoo yourself want? One of my friends once said regarding the controversy about the z-word: "If everyone is a zoo, nobody is a zoo." and I fully subscribe to his point. It´s even utterly ridiculous that zoophilia is the only orientation that has to use the word "exclusive" or have you ever heard about "hetero exclusives" and homosexual exclusives"? Why do many in this community , you as an "exclusive" yourself included, feel the need to grind down on our identity, our perspective, our culture? I´m an exclusive by heart, I don´t want to have sex with humans and I don´t want to hear about sex with humans from a "fellow zoo". We even discussed the term "exclusive" in the past and it went stright to insanity by many claiming that "exclusive" doesn´t say you have to abstain from sex with humans at all. You´re destroying language if you defile words of their meaning, proof of that can be found in every dictionary in which zoophilia is listed as "has sex with animals".
I also wonder why all these non exclusives are so eager to label them zoo...why don´t they call themselves "normal" then? Following your logic, this would be equally correct, wouldn´t it? Look, we ALL are bestialists. Everyone who performs actual sexual actions with an animal is. You are, WarCanine is, I am. To qualify for zoophilia, you have to meet more criteria than just sexually engaging with an animal. If you don´t meet them, you´re not a zoo. Among these criteria, there´s exclusivity...and not for some selfish or elitist reasons, but to protect and preserve what we, the exclusives by heart feel, think, went through. The life of a non exclusive "zoo" is nowhere near the life of an "exclusive" zoo, there are so many things and details that don´t match, don´t fit and also hurt. The example you gave with the homosexual calling a bisexual gay is a rather inappropriate one, in my experience, it´s way more common for a homosexual to be infuriated about bisexuals calling themselves gay. And they absolutely have the right to do so if you ask me. Not the "outsiders" , the people waiting in front of the "exclusive club" should have the say on who is allowed to enter, it´s the ones inside the club, the ones running the party. BTW, can YOU answer why everyone is so goddamn inclined to call himself a zoo? Do you get free fucks when you call yourself that? Or what are the reasons trying to force the way into what many seem to perceive as an "elite"? Why isn´t being a bestialist enough? Is there any other reason than the obvious self centeredness, the fear that you "miss out" on something when you´re not a "zoo"? I have no problems talking with non exclusive bestialists in here, sometimes I even get along with them just fine. I can accept bestialists when they meet a minimum of criteria such as handling their animals properly and with care. No problem. But it gets problematic when they start calling themselves what they are NOT. Why is there a "zoo pride" , but no "beasty pride"? Why is it almost impossible to find someone who proudly calls himself a beasty although we all know that beasties outnumber zoophiles by far? Where are all those? And why is it so goddamn important to use the z-word? Why do only a few see where this unhinged use of the z-word leads us true "exclusive zoos" to, towards complete marginalisation? We "exclusive" zoos are a minority in here, in other forums, practically everywhere. Is this the way you deal with minorities? And why are you surprised when "normal" society does exactly the same with us as a community of bestialists, marginalisation, silencing, making us disappear? Something goes terribly wrong, it went terribly wrong for ages and we still seek the cause somewhere out there, in society, while the cause of our demise is right here, visible and in front of everyone´s eyes.
Coca Cola isn´t Pepsi. Non exclusives are no zoophiles. Someone with 1/16 of Native American heritage is not a Native American. Someone who leads a "normal" life with his wife on workdays, but lets himself get fucked by anonymous men on an Autobahn parking space at Saturday night isn´t homosexual.Black isn´t just a "dark white" and white isn´t just a "brighter black". We bestialists fuck animals. Isn´t that enough? Do we have to fuck (with) language and words, too?
[deleted]
Why don't you seem to understand that non-exclusives are romantically attracted to animals?? That's the difference between being non-exclusive and a bestialist. It's not about having sex with animals, but falling in love with animals, like all zoos do. I do not think someone who just has sex with animals without romantic feelings is zoo, but every person I've talked to who calls themselves non-exclusive zoo has romantic attraction. If someone only has sex with animals and no romance I would agree that they are a bestialist and not zoo. I'm sure plenty exist who do that and call themselves zoo (which I would disagree with). But that doesn't make that the case for everyone who says they are non-exclusive.
Ahem...EVERY fucking animal owner has some degree of "romantical" attraction to their animal...or why do you think they say "I love my dog very much" although they have no intent to drop their pants and get it on with doggie? Romantic attraction alone does say NOTHING. I tried to explain it so many times now: the z-word NEVER was intended to be a label for the vast majority of our community, its intention was to provide an aequivalent to "faithful and loving husband/spouse" instead. That was and to me still is the original meaning of the z-word. You aren´t a faithful and loving partner, even when you genuinely feel love for your partner, but cheat on him/her. You aren´t a faithful and loving partner if you actually are faithful, but deep inside feel nothing for him/her. As I said , we´re ALL bestialists technically, anyone who actually has or had sex with an animal is. Is it really so hard to understand that this isn´t about "beasties = not in love, zoos = in love". Why do you think the definition says that zoophilia is an emotional AND sexual fixation towards animals? The "AND" means that BOTH criteria have to be met, plus the fixcation criterium. You also denied answers to what I was asking in my post. Like usual. Like almost everybody in here. Why is the z-word so important? Would the world come down for you if you´d call yourself a beasty from now on? Or isn´t this just what I assume, fear of "not being with the "elite" anymore? Honestly, what would change if you were a beasty from now on? The feelings for your animal? And why is zoophilia the only orientation that needs the word "exclusive" to describe certain individuals? No other orientation needs that...why?
Falling in "love" with an animal...let´s talk about that l-word that´s dropped so often, but seldom understood. What is love? Can you explain, please? Everybody claims to "love" animals, even non zoos/non beasties. Do you think those understand love the same way as you do, as I do? A wise man once said that people often and too quickly speak of "love" for someone, something. "I love ice cream"...is this actual love for ice cream or is the true thing that is "loved" here the act of consumption and what YOU experience during the consumption? I really think that question is what you all need to answer before you can ever speak of love at all. That´s the fundamental question here. What IS love? "I love my car"...do you? Or do you actually mean "I love using my car" instead? "I love my computer"...really? Or do you love to use your computer instead? "I love Tolkien"...if you´re not a necrophile, you should rather say "I love reading Tolkien´s stories". Consumption. Capitalism. Is anybody out there who really can love at all anymore and does not mistake love the way you seem to do?
IMHO, that´s the real issue here. True love isn´t consumerism, it should destroy the ego and transcend the self of the one claiming to "love". Love conquers all, even the harsh realities a zoo faces. Lovers don´t whine and complain about circumstances. They accept what is given to them and try to make the best of it. Do you see lots of "zoos" of that specific type?
We REALLY need to sort things out. What happens when we don´t you can see in the dictionaries. We, the veterans, had a certain effect in mind when we introduced (or rather were forced to introduce by snitching assholes) the z-word to our sommunity. We wanted to establish a "trademark" for us and the outside world, for easier connection and communication with the outsiders. People like you, people with that "Oh, excluding someone would be SOOO intolerant!" attitude ruined it and ruined any chance to gain tolerance from society en passé. You created chaos by sawing off the branch you´re sitting on. Without a specific word for us exclusives, we are marginalised...and, as I said it before, even if we, the "exclusives" come up with another word for us, I bet my ballsac it wouldn´t take more than a year until we arrive at exactly the same point of total confusion again. All you "openminded" persons are sooo concerned about stuff like "transgender identity" and stuff, but you honestly give a rat´s ass about OUR identity. You steal, appropriate, take hostage and destroy. Society treats you like you treat US. Capitalistic mindfuck...everything is "lifestyle" and consumable. What you consume is what you are, right? Simplicistic degeneration. Pleas show me one, just one "non exclusive gay", just one "non exclusive hetero"...why do we need that crap despite the fact we actually HAVE words to name everything properly already. Why is there no "beasty pride"? Think about it for a while and tell me what the result of your thought process is...
Oh hun, you're doing that drama thing we talked about...
Yeeeeah that was a wild nonsensical ride. I've officially given up on trying to talk to you about this topic lol, have fun.
There's a word for that. Bisexual. And of course, there are such things as heteroflexible and homoflexible.
Jesus christ have you gone off the deep end.
Welcome.
You can partially thank a handful of users here. A part of my behavior is revenge, but the majority is caused by my depression. That depression? Oh, a lot of users here thought it was very funny to make it worse. Thank them, but also thank a little of nature.
But honestly, I may would have behaved better if the users here weren't so toxic and loved my suffering. I repeat: It's mostly uncontrollable.
Thank. Them.
I don't credit others for ones own bad behavior. If this place bothers you so, there is always the option not to come.
Honestly, given how it seems to be driving you to some kind of horrid mental state, that may be advisable.
Oh? I guess those children working for ISIS simply could've known better.
And I guess those murderers who were abused could've known better too.
You can blame me partially because I'm kind of aware of what I'm doing, but at the same time it really is hard to control. And honestly, you wouldn't act so nice either if you were attacked by others and that they spread lies about you, wishing your depression would never be fixed and taunting you with something. Something you would kill for and something they have.
Yes, I really am to blame for simply asking help and then being betrayed over and over again. Then hoped I would get my life ruined. Truly, that is my fault that I misbehave after that.
This sounds stupid, but I just can't. There's some reasons.
One reason is that I may still find an answer for what I seek so badly even though it's unlikely.
Another reason is that I just can't refuse to look back. It's only a part here that bothers me.
I just want to talk about this subject, but yes it is hard if I do it with a group I despise so much. I kind of do it for the animals, too. I just wish I could make a difference for some animals to prevent them from being harmed.
And also, to me this community deserves someone like me. Talk about deserving things, because apparently I don't deserve anything according to them. That's why I'm so grateful and I still say they deserve something, and that would be me of course.
Do any of the above not go to trial for their actions if caught?
This is going nowhere, so I'm done. Have fun destroying yourself.
I'm seriously considering it.
''harass''
Crocodile tears.
No it isn't. That's a bad comparison.
The only similarity would be that bisexuals could have given gays a bad name, but they don't since there's two very different terms for them.
''Bisexual'' and ''Gay'' or ''Homosexual''. Not really that similar.
''Inclusive zoophile'' and ''Exclusive zoophile''. Really similar, not to mention they just use the word ''zoophile'' instead of ''inclusive zoophile'' which adds extra confusion.
I do not want to be confused for a human fucker, thank you.
Also, do gays have to face with individuals who call themselves gay but aren't? Like I said, it's hard to see the difference between a real zoophile and a fake one.
There's a lot of fetishists who call themselves zoophiles while they aren't.
Your comparison is also bad because:
I don't say it like that. A better comparison would be: ''You're not really gay, you're just (insert anything else here) and you just haven't admitted it.''
In my earlier comment I was in a rush, here's what I had to say in detail.
[deleted]
Yeah, I don't like being compared to inclusive "zoos".
EDIT: No.
No more than it can/should be against the rules to have an opinion many others reject.
You want people to accept your love of another species and yet you are apparently unable to allow that same acceptance to others. How about just being happy that there's another person who understands that one can love a non-human? Is there no room in your mind or heart to think that someone else could find love where you cannot?
I don't? What an assumption, because I actually give zoophiles a bad name on purpose.
I love weaponizing it by telling others my stories and pissing them off.
And why would I even give a single shit what others think about us? It's our relationship, not theirs.
If it's a problem to them, it's their problem, not ours. I really couldn't care less and I don't see why anyone would.
Also, fuck this community is strange.
When I actually gave a shit back then, everyone told me to stop caring.
Now I stopped giving a shit and it's assumed that we all suddenly care.
I may be crazy, but right now I know I'm not. Seriously, I can't be crazy now, can't anyone else see this? Wtf.
What's with this community and it's damn humans?
Then why do you give a shit who someone else loves? You are the one making judgements about other people.
And yet you cared enough to go out of your way to harass someone for feeling differently than you.
When you're at odds with so many others, it's always worth taking time to examine not only your own position in detail, but your opponent's as well. There's almost always something to be learned in the difference between the two.
Perhaps it is due to your apparent rejection of humans as somehow inferior coloring your perception? There's good and bad in everything.
I don't? I'm just simply stating that they aren't a real zoophile.
And so what if I did? Maybe I care about other's relationships?
''harass''
No, stop making OP the victim here. We're all adults who can handle something like that.
If that's harassment to the users here, then I must have been harassed so fucking bad.
I just simply stated facts, that's it.
No it isn't.
Then don't insist that you don't care, or at least accept that someone may come along and call you out for being a hypocrite/dishonest/dickish/etc.
No, you stated your opinion. There's a significant difference between an opinion and fact.This is the core of what you continually fail to grasp, that while you may feel or believe something very much, it doesn't necessarily make it a fact.
You can redefine terms as much as you like, that doesn't mean any of the rest of us are compelled to accept your definition.
I said that I don't care what others think of our relationships.
I recommend reading first.
Should I paste it here for you? Here's a hint: Use your eyes.
And if that don't work, use more eyes.
''And why would I even give a single shit what others think about us? It's our relationship, not theirs. If it's a problem to them, it's their problem, not ours. I really couldn't care less and I don't see why anyone would.''
If you read it properly, maybe you'd know. I wasn't going to spoil it because I hate being nice as absolutely no one here deserves it, but:
I'm saying that I don't care what others think about our relationships. This does not mean I don't care about their relationships.
''redefine'' Nah mate.
That's some good advise, you should heed it. Too bad you pasted snippets I wasn't referring to. I'd bother explaining it to you, but it's become clear you aren't interested in honest discourse.
[deleted]
None of us are since we all suffer from a mental illness?
[deleted]
No.
[deleted]
What an assumption, mate.
EDIT: How many times are you going to edit your comments and add wall of texts in the last second?
I'm not a troll, autistic nor a manchild. It seems you're trying to put the blame on me, too.
Quite funny you're calling me autistic, yet we're all "zoophiles."
[deleted]
[deleted]
Holy shit mate. You keep deleting or editting your comments.
Here's a tip: Use your brain when you type, not after.
Your original comment:
You've got literally no evidence.
I already explained why I'm not a troll in my post history. You can assume all you want, but in the end you know you're not correct but can't admit that I'm genuine for whatever reason.
I guess you won't argue with me because you know I'm right, too. You can just admit it because I don't see the problem.
Met one, and will be meeting with another at the end of the year.
I felt fairly safe because I've known each of them for many, many years (probably about a decade for the one I'm going to go meet at the end of this year).
I met up with a friend I made in the zoo community who turned out to be somewhat local. We had already been friends online for a long time though, I wouldn't recommend meeting someone you don't already know well. We met up at a public animal event and a few other public outings before hanging out privately. I'd do that for anyone I meet online though, to be safe.
Well, I've met a couple. One was through the personals section of BF after months of skype chats. We haven't really kept in touch, because we live too far apart and don't have much in common otherwise. The other I stumbled into on a furry dating site, and now we're dating. To be fair, I lucked out in the extreme in finding someone with whom I'm so compatible, but it is possible to find local people who you get along with. It's just really difficult and may take a long time.
When I was younger, and laws/law enforcement were a bit more relaxed and I was actively seeking them out, I met my 1st zoo almost 11 years ago and we started dating. Through him, I met a couple of other ones, but we never talked really. I dated another one about 8-9 years ago too. Both of these zoos were awful people, so the relationships didn't last very long though. The only zoo that I got along with, now lives on the other side of the country from me, so we don't see each other unfortunately and they are drunk like 95% of the time so it's hard to have conversations with them, but we still talk on occasion. I've met quite a few online when I had my zoo related blogs/groups running, some of those people are in this subreddit even lol. Most were pretty cool, I've met a few super creepy people who were admitted child molestors though, and that's no beuno.
I wouldn't advise trying to seek them out though, cops do lie, and run undercover sting operations. Sheriff Joe Arpaio comes to mind as one of the leading sting operation runners who has a hankering for luring zoos into getting arrested. Not only that, but gay people and transgender people sometimes get lured into dangerous situations specifically because people hate them and want them dead, so I can't imagine the chances a zoo openly seeking companionship would fare much better - and at least gay and trans people get sympathy after they've been bashed or killed, no one would mourn or fight for us if something were to happen. They'd call that person a hero for harming us.
Yeah. Ultimately, your primary goal should never be to meet people for sex. Regardless of the reasons. Just don't do it. Meet people to meet people and their pets. Number one, that's a better way to go about it anyway. You want to make sure that both the other people and the animals can be comfortable around you and enjoy your company. Secondly, it's always a good idea to get to know each other before going to that point. So just don't meet up for sex with anyone until you actually talk to them and get to know them. That should be just common sense at this point. Meeting up with people is not illegal, meeting up with people for the express interest of having sex can be.
I've met a little over a dozen over the years from various places. That said, I'm usually very cautious about meeting folks and calling me a little paranoid wouldn't be an overstatement. Realistically, if you don't commit crimes which they witness there isn't a lot (legally) they can do.
For the most part, if you follow some basic precautions there's relatively little risk involved.
don't incriminate yourself (making porn, offers of sex, etc)
meet in public places, preferably not too close to home. The Zoo in nearby big cities is a win.
keep your IRL info to yourself.
It's like meeting any new friends, trust builds with time. I have friends I've known for years who have come to visit (and no, not for dogsex orgies). It's nice being able to really and let your guard down. Some of these friends I've known online for upwards of 20 years before meeting in person, don't be in a rush.
On the flipside, there are some real trainwrecks of human beings out there and being very cautious is wise. Always use your head and don't allow yourself to get into a position where you can be abused (phsyically, mentally, ecconomically, etc).
That said, I've met some real characters; a few I didn't keep in contact with, but the vast majority have been people who I am very happy to call friends.
Many years ago, before I had any actual sexual experience with non-human animals, and before bestiality was banned in Sweden.
I had a coffee with another non-exclusive zoophile. A man about ten years older than me.
While there is something nice about knowing for sure that you are not alone, that these people on the other side of the computer screen are real, that was also the only thing I learnt. I hardly even remember the guy now, what his name or story was.
I've also happened upon other (non-active) zoophiles by chance, first getting to know them in other circumstances and then later finding out they are attracted to animals too. My boyfriend, for instance, is into felines. But since he is allergic to cats AND prefers wild, large felines, he will probably never have such a relationship. Still nice to be able to discuss fantasies together.
I'm past the point where I need to meet and chat with other zoophiles, as a teen I really needed to meet other zoos. Plus, is safer to do that anonymously over the net. If I ever meet some one in person (and I have) it was only after corroborating beyond doubt that they where also zoophiles. I guess if you want a human partner, is best to meet other zoos who also want human partners. Do as I do and only meet those who can prove to be a zoos. Else, you are taking a risk that can back fire badly.
I've never met another Zoo in person. You have to be careful, because you might be meeting a Law Enforcement Officer instead of a Zoo.
[deleted]