May be it is my mistake, but i think if anybody made 1 step to any pervertion (animalsex, bdsm, incest etc), it is easy for him to make second step to other pervertion/

That argument is a bit of a slippery slope - one often used against our subculture. People like to think that zoophilia is a step away from necrophilia, pedophilia, and so on when it's in no way related. The kinks and fetishes that a person becomes interested and involved in are a product of their natural curiosity and open-mindedness. They can be introduced to the prospect of a new fetish through a supporting medium (such as this forum) but that is a different matter altogether.

This post has been edited by secret_admirer on Nov 12 2009, 12:55 AM

:heart:

Yes I do find the idea of sex with a family member a major turn on, more so then beast

I think you are have the right concept there. Its a fact that once somone breaks a known social taboo its easier to break another. The first one is key. However this is usualy applied to persons who have no real guidance or have found that thier beleif structure has betrayed them for oen reason or another. Thus leaving them adrift. I don't think this really applies to the majority of us here. This might apply to beastlists (sex with animals no relatonship or emotion), but i doubt it holds bearing for true zooiphiles (love and relationships including physical expressions of emotion)


I have noticed that our oreintation has usualy been thrown around along side other sexualities that society as a whole finds undesirable. I think its a fear factor that if somone says that a particular group of ppl are a certian way then everyone will beleive them. Come on,we know tha we are not all zoos and :CENSOR: or ped... or ga... or BD... or etc.. (not to say you can't be but one doesn't inherantly lend itself to the other)

But society wants the world to think that. Its easy to hate something when you can put blame on it. There have been a couple of studies on zooiphillia that have shown shocking results. There was one study that claimed that there were no zooiphiles, all beastlists (see above) and furthermore that all beastists were violent offenders.

Upon review of the references and cooperating agencies and pupulation survied I noticed that 100% of the persons who contributed to the data pool were from state prisions. Worse yet, ther were all CURRENTLY SERVING!

Sadly noone cares about the flawed study, just the numerical results. :( And a horribly mis-guided thought is formed.



I am not condeming somone elses lifestyle here. If you feel that I have I am sorry, it was not my intent. Please feel free to PM me.

ok... thanks..

But poll says.. 50% vs 49%...

:heart:

Eh? Well I'm a zoo, I interbreed, it's totally the opposite to inbreeding :P.
No, I don't share it, interbreeding feels positive, inbreeding feels negative.

I'd never have sex with any human, anyway.
Just don't find a human sexy. I find furries and zoons sexy, that's all.

male, straight

According to most people, if you're zoo, that is, being 'zoo' makes non-straight lol.

All zoo for me not into sex with humans at all been many years since I been with own speices. Just feel safer with animals they didn't miss with your mind and love you for who you are. They don't judge you

Very true, they don't.

Hmmm so far its 50/50. I really think this proves that if you are a zoo you are half as likely to hold another 'fetish' ( I hate using that since I beleive zooiphilisim is a oreintation) Hmmmm..... Off to research for mroe data on sexual devaitions.........

Depends on whether the person expresses zoophilia as a kink/fetish or it is actually their real orientation, doesn't it?
Since I've had my sexuality since I remember as a baby, I doubt it's a fetish/kink - since I cannot be attracted to anything but a canine or an animal with similar features, even furries.

It'll always be 50/50, clearly some are here with exploration of deviancy.
Others are real zoosexuals who wish to express their sexuality with others online, respectively to both groups.

I happen to be a zoophile and a zoosexual, a k9 exclusive.
I personally think it's great that this community is large and has a macrocosm of members, after all, it shows how many are interested, whatever the background.

But I'll stick to my sexuality and morals ;).

I think these two groups are defined as zoophiles and beastlists.

The first group exhibits more of a sexual oreintation while the later is intrested injust sex, much like a fetish.

Its eaziest to see zoophiles on the forum - they are most of the ppl you see posting. The Beastlists are jsut as easly counted. Thoes who don't post but are members (excluding thoes who are genuinly intrested but, are to shy to post).

Overall this is an intresting survey. I would be cuirous to know who here feels an atraction to the the same sex(human) and are also zoos (sex doesn't matter)

Off to the posts!

Beast-lists o.O?
I think 'bestialists' is the accusative term for someone who the anti-zoo claim to be 'animal rapists', since 'bestial' sounds disrespective to the animal (or even you), some zoosexuals prefer to be labelled as 'zoophiles', to the respect they have a genuine sexual (if not romantic) sexual affinity to their select favoured species / partner(s).

Though, 'zoophilia' by 'Andrea Beetz' defines someone who is animal exclusive, whereby '-philia' is the incidental preference of a paraphilia. However, exclusion mediates the object, as one can by polyspecific to more than one non-human animal species, since humans are animals, they may or may not be attracted to humans. Specification depends on certain visual/auditory/texture/aroma susceptibility. One can train the mind to be stuck into these 'paraphilias' over these certain stimulation characterised by certain gender/species/age, and such persons can be accusatively classed as 'bestialists', if another believes they are that specific orientation since birth/puberty (a zoophile). But how do you know if it's conditioned to you or not? Sure, I started at a very young age, as a true loving, romantic, canine exclusive zoophile, but how do I know it wasn't conditioned to me? Is it fate? Is it my destiny to be like I am? I know for certain I am a reality and I have every right to exist as a universal, and I will fight for all that fate has to offer me over my rights as a zoo.

Zoophilia is not actually the sexual attraction, though, the DSM adds its secondary definition as a notable 'paraphilia'. When in truth, that's merely a nickname for 'specific orientation'. It's not a sexual orientation as 'sex' pertains to gender, not species. Though, since species supers gender, when one likes, let's say - human females, but only male canines, he is actually bisexual, though, the reason why he alters between gender in species is because they have a gender/species role disorder, perhaps even a multiple personality disorder. So with one of their personalities liking female humans, the other likes male canines.
It has even been observed in brain scans, though, most participants were bestialist, hence their reason of specification was actually mental deviancy - the crave over a fetish or kink. I'm not saying that's bad, at least not any more than any one is to their own uniquity. Since I only am canine exclusive, down the male; I know I have a single personality, I like only one species, one gender. May be that's a case of 'truer zoosexuality' - who knows...

To be a minority is to be unique, but may be with the tabu growing and people thinking and acting like they are actually zoophiles may bloat our true population and one day reward us with a vote over majority in a legal consensus, as we'd become social acceptable, as a majority, we'd be apart of the social ideology. I'm sure in about thirty years we'll have rights, too.
For our own sakes I hope more and more people become bestialists.

How does one tell if you're a bestialist or a zoophile, anyhow?
May be there's no such thing as a zoophile and we're all delusional - in a nihilistic atomic universe, I've no doubt that is so, but it also applies to everyone and everything else. And what is the point of continuing reproduction, anyway? What goal has life got to continue? It's like hell, an immortal agony. For every comfort you have, another life must suffer - even if it's bacterial. Not going into my philosophies, though lol.

So should we stop calling it a 'sexual orientation' - course it pertains the act of sex and finding one sexy, but if an animal had gender absence it would make it a fetish, anyhow.

If we write a simple diagram for sexual/specific orientation, it'd perhaps look like...

Specific: Canine.
Sexual: Male.

I'd say chronophilia would be a fetish, though, so I shan't include that.
So sexuality is two dimension, do you think? If you have more than one of those sexualities you have multiple role personalities? Doesn't that make it three-dimensional? Isn't this a three dimensional universe, after all?

Well, albeit, all I know is I love my partner, and he is not human, rather canine.
He is male, I am male. I am human, and we make love together.

It's so simple, why do people write contradictory philosophies when the animal mind is supposed to work so simple?

What do you think?
Why do we seek knowledge?