I would also like to add that the beastie part of the definition is not quite right too.

I am a "beastie" but there's as much chance of me harming an animal as there is of me harming my own children.

Although I use animals as an addition to my human sex life it is always by mutual consent. I never penetrate a female animal as I can't be assured that their consent is genuine, therefore I only use male animals.

What they do is obviously voluntary as I don't force them or even train them. If they lick or mount then they do so because they want to.

So I take exception to the assertion that beasties have no interest in the animals themselves, and are only interested in what they can do for me.

this is a copy and a paste of the taboo subject thread that is located in the stickie section! just so everyone is clear on the sites definition that the site holds near and dear :wub:

BEAST ZOO DEFINITIONS: We have working definitions for this site for these terms - WE DON'T CARE what any dictionary defines them as - let me repeat - WE DON'T CARE -these are the definitions that stand for this site:

zoo - one who is exclusive in thier relationship(s) with animals and is "in love" with animals like the traditional sense of humans being in love.

beast - one who loves and cares for animals -engages in sexual activities with animals -but is not exclusive -and is not 'in love" with thier animal.

THESE ARE IN STONE -and have been argued on this forum way too many times - DO NOT refer to our members who consider themselves beast by our definition as raapist -or not "true zoos" or somehow less than a zoo exclusive - THIS IS A FORUM for EVERYONE interested -there are different interest here -some members may be here because they have a significant other who is interested -there are lots of members who are here because they are sexually aroused by those who are active but not active themselves and have genuine motives - there are many reasons why members are here - ANYONE making ANY comment that they are not as valuable of members to this forum because of thier lack of being active -or level of involvment will be BANNED IMMEDIATELY! It is NOT UP FOR CONVERSATION OR DEBATE! JUST DON'T DO IT!


if you will notice.. this thread is actually exactly 2 years old :) intelligent none abusive conversation is welcomed and allowed :)

This post has been edited by wyldfyre67 on Mar 24 2006, 10:54 AM

Oh Oh,

Ive got a stupid question. Youre gonna hate me. :crazy:

I love animals, I have dog friends that I know.
Some of them I take for walks, rub their belly, playfight and so on; no sex. I love these individuals. However, some of the unfixed boys have enjoyed some wonderful mutual pleasure-play. This all sounds like beastiality by this site's definition. No problem.

But I have also been "in love" and still miss in my heart some of both kinds (sexual and non-sexual partners) Ive had. There have a been a couple I definitely bonded with and definitely was lovingly attached to them. Every interlude I ever have had and will have will contain a powerful personal fondness component, some even will include real "in love" love not just a general love of animals. So this seems to drift away from the beastiality definition. The zoo definition doesnt seem to fit either though, because I still am attracted to Human males (some anyway!) yet the Bestiality description sounds more like playing Racquette Ball with a co-worker, than what I experience.
NOTE!! This is not an evaluation of anyone's actual sexuality or interest. Please dont misunderstand and ban this newbie. Im simply trying to say that the definitions though great seem a little mutually exclusive, which may well have been the intent.

But for me at least I would have to overlap the definitions a little or use a ratio system. That is "Im mostly Bestial by this sites definition, but with zoo tendencies." Maybe its like saying a guy who is married (and loves his wife) with kids and has a male lover he sees every month and dearly loves, is heterosexual with homosexual tendencies. What happens if I ever settle in with a gay man and a sweet dog who I definitely would be deeply attached to and hopefully engaging in some randy play. More likely, when I have my own dog friend again, I will see him as my partner in life, but i may still have a human over now and again and thats not exclusive either. For me I guess the pinch point might be the word "exclusive" in the Zoo definition, or the non-inclusion of the possibilities of personal love between a beast person and their animal play-mate. But it is abundantly clear that those are the definitions here and thus the point of departure for conversation about the same. Anyway I appreciate your efforts to maintain good manners and open-mindedness. Thanx for a very exciting and excellent site! :beer:

Singing Dog

Below is a New Guinea Singing Dog

This post has been edited by Singing Dog on Mar 24 2006, 01:47 PM

Attached Image ( Click on thumbnail to view full size image )

that would be me :diablo:

why would you assume that this is the thread that got Spirit banned? a little presumptious don't ya think?

no thanX - I'll just use my quote here that I used to someone else who made such a suggestion...

:o

heres your clue -and I'll requote:

yes - it's VERY apparent that you have NO idea how things work here - and again - are quite presumptious...

did it ever occur to you that these "long time members" broke SERIOUS rules - and were given break after break after break? did it ever occur to you that they may have posted copyright images or kp or underage references and endangered the entire existance of the forum? ummm - let me answer that for you - NO - apparently you have given NOTHING ANY thought - and have immediately suggested that the staff mod and admin team here might be on an ego trip?

you have broken more rules in this one thread than carter has liver pills -and look - you haven't recieved an official warn - doesn't seem like an ego trip to me - sounds like a mod needs to straighten your assETS out from the get go - errr and that would be me ;)

you come in here with 17 post - and manage to dig out this old thread and start whistling dixie? -_- one does have to wonder :thinking: I'll be looking into your account when I'm finished with this post - in the mean time I think you may need a very long and deliberate read of the rules - I suggest that you get to it ;)


:huh: what? - this was me being nice :D

:ruck:

concerning your second post - the definitions were created on this forum because there are several "official definitions" that are very degrading towards people who consider themselves non-exclusive and non-zoophile - the definitions go on to indicate that they abuse - that of course doesn't work for this site - we don't consider any person here who would harm an animal a member - just someone we have yet to ban...

so for the site there are zoos (those exclusive who love animals like a traditional human/human relationship -and beasties - those who love animals but are not "in love" with them

I think the definitions are very clear and workable for a zoo site...

we don't care if they don't work for you or anyone else - everyone is welcome to use any ideas or definitions they want to give themselves a title - but it's un-necesary to make that a public post and stir up controversy and hard feelings on the forum...

we have members that have NO interest in animal sex - they are EQUALLY valued members of this community - no less or more important than the grand poohba of zoo exclusives - who ever that legend of thier own mind might be :lol:

South Florida!

Lots was communicated and I understand your points, but there has been a terrible misunderstanding about one statement I made. I can see how you read it would have gotten your ruff up. Here's my original quote:

"... he/she was a long time member and having seen this with a few others, Im a little surprised.
Or maybe thats just it; some people get their 'rank' and they go a little gaga with the ego trip.
I dont know how far Spirit went over the top, but in some ways I wouldnt have minded locking horns with him/her. It would have been interesting to test the dimensions and flexibility of the person AFTER we got all the huffing ang puffing done. But others shouldnt have to endure that."

Here is your quote:
"you have broken more rules in this one thread than carter has liver pills -and look - you haven't recieved an official warn - doesn't seem like an ego trip to me - sounds like a mod needs to straighten your assETS out from the get go - errr and that would be me wink.gif "

and

"NO - apparently you have given NOTHING ANY thought - and have immediately suggested that the staff mod and admin team here might be on an ego trip?"


YIKES! I wasnt saying the MODERATORs or STAFF were on an ego trip!! I was saying that maybe how long time members with lots of votes get themselves banned is owing to the member getting egotistical after being here for a long time. I was speculating on how it happens that such members screw up and get banned. I was answering my own question with the ego comment. In as much I was admitting my ignorance.

Man Alive! No wonder you let me have it if thats how it was read!

And thats why I said the "Anyway, somebody hold me back and stop me if I grow imperious!" bit. I was saying to fellow members, in effect
"Dont let me become this way" :crazy:

Also: My first impressions of the site was one where it seemed like there was very little contoversy and what seems like a very tolerant and friendly community. And indeed I have met some wonderfully friendly people and enjoyed a virtually pain free experience. But I also now see there is some really intense feelings that result in some pretty significant eruptions between members. It has been through this thread mostly that I have seen these past problems. Almost everywhere else I have been in this site Ive seen next to none of the vitriol, so when I stumbled across this thread, it piqued my curiosity. Its apparent to me now that the vigilance of the moderators and staff has been the reason my experience has been largely free of hateful and ugly postings(sounds like asskissing, but only because I just got an asskicking! :lol:)

I also want to make it clear that Im not into flaming or judgment of others reasons for being here. My sexual dimensions have already been expanded by some truly wonderful postings, this site, in the short time Ive been here has been amazing for me.

As for the definitions part. I wholly support the site's definition and Im not challenging them. As per the Staff Post, I just was wanting to discuss the nature of the definitions as they apply to me. Not challenge the house rules. I used the supplied definitions to explore the subject.

I apologize if I came off as presumptuous and ignorant, as I said, I am new. But please note that I didnt insult the staff here. And wouldnt.

I hope this clears up at least the worst of this issue, and I really appreciate your restraint in not giving me a warning despite the misapprehension you had. It would warrant one in MY books for being so rude to someone, especially the staff. Ive enjoyed your thread headings and wisdom and look forward to more.

Thanks for your time in looking into this. I'll be in dread till this post finds you; it couldnt have made your day to think I insulted you guys so brazenly.

Cheers

Singing Dog

This post has been edited by Singing Dog on Mar 24 2006, 11:47 PM

:blush: my bad :pinch:

thanX for explaining - and thanX understanding how I could have mis-interpreted

:ph34r:

and I was wondering why wyld was being so candy sweet :lol: :lol: :lol:


:pinch:


:ph34r:

^_^ What a relief! Thanx!

I think this thread has bad juju in it. I think I may just let it rest. -_-

See ya out there SoFla! :beer:

Singing Dog

PS. Im reminded of a recent occasion in a health food store where I saw this girl up to her elbow in the dried mango bulk bin. She was rummaging around and mango bits were falling on the floor. I thought I was watching a real class act; a completely rude and thoughtless customer who wanted the fresh stuff in the back of the bin (as they rotate the stock.) So I fixed her with my hottest wilt-vision I have on my settings: Complete Contempt; and just stared. She looked up at me and my gaze and she just started looking appalled and frightened and started to shrink away. "Well, GOOD!" I thought. She ought to...oh...wait.. :huh: ...is that an apron she has on?...and ..oh no!!.. :pinch: Is that an employee tag?? I apologized like a madman and tried to explain, but by that point, I think she just wanted me to go away, upon which, I obliged her. Im still wincing! :crying:
(And I dont even have the excuse of being a busy moderator trying to sort out forum problems!)

Anyway...

This post has been edited by Singing Dog on Mar 26 2006, 05:23 AM

I am always candy sweet :blush: at least that is what many of my men have said :wub:

anyways.. I read it differently than you.. that is why I wasnt my normal bi :censored: chy self :heart:

This post has been edited by wyldfyre67 on Mar 26 2006, 08:11 AM

thanks