I know it shouldn't really bother me all that much, but it does...not too long ago I wrote another rant in the personals section about how pervy guys take things the wrong way., well I'm here again to give some people a little edumacation...too many times i've heard the phrases "i'm into zoo" or "are you into zoo?"....people, people, people...."zoo" is NOT something you are into, being zoo is a sexual orientation just like being straight or bi or gay or whatever....it's not a fetish, it's not about sex...however bestiality is, beastiality is a carnal act that you see in most commercial porn vids, there is no emotional attachment other than "thats my dog"...and most of the time it's not even your own dog! or horse...or whatever...I wish people would get thier facts straight and not look at me funny or go "huh?" when i tell them that being a zoo is not about sex, it's about love and compassion...and even when i tell people this they soon right after ask a dumb question like "so tell me your experiences"....and then they don't understand why i don't want to talk about my experiences...because my experiences are special, you don't go around telling everyone on the net what you and your husband or wife do every night do you?..it's not just some fling you know >_<...i'm done now.... :zipped:

Actually according to BF rules the terms are interchangable... in order to prevent the "us" and "them" syndrome...

And I too put them in the same catagory. I think they are the same, just one group trying to differentiate themselves from another.

I think you're getting worked up over a couple of terms that to a certain degree are not necessarily interchangeable, but do have some overlap. Its too simplistic to say a given person is one way or another. Also how we view our own leanings is what dictates whether we see ourselves as zoo or beast and how we view others.

I am not saying any one is better than the other here, the point i am trying to make is that there is a difference..you either :censored: animals or you romantically love them and :censored: is an added perk....i just wish people would know the difference because it bothers me when i'm trying to tell someone who i am and their not getting it because they think zoo means i just :censored: animals for the hedoublehockeysticks of it., and it's insulting to me....not to mention mundanes already think we are a bunch of wildly sex crazed idiots who go around raping other peoples pets and prey upon children as well...i wish NOT to be associated with someone who would do such a thing...

I've worked with animals a long time. I've seen people who treated their animals like they were people. People who would put other zoophiles' devotion to shame. Yet these people never had sex with their animals, and would recoil from the thought of it. Are these people zoophiles? My point to all this is that there are large gray areas with both terms and it serves no helpful purpose to try an pigeon hole one person from the other. The only other thing I can see being perturbed about is how the term is used simply within the context of this board/community. If that's the case then I can understand your frustration that some people don't thoroughly read the board rules before posting.

As energygog explained it, there is a very large overlapping gray area between zoo's and beasts.
Having said that I agree that some people will never get their mind set past the fact that some people love their pets like fellow beings.
These people would die of embarrassment if you were to say that they were molesting their pet.
But how many times have we heard of people physically abusing their pets without any mention rap or sex violations.
I realize that it is impossible to enlighten those who do not wish to understand the difference between companionship and lovers.

Hi there Zoolove. While I can certainly understand how seemingly ignorant questions from other BF members upset you, the mods of this forum welcome anyone from the curious to zoo exclusives with just one loving partner and everyone in between, and personally I'm glad they do. When I first joined this forum, I wasn't at all sure whether I was a zoo or not, and whether I'd even be considered a zoo by the members of this forum since my activity was pretty much limited to french kissing dogs, although I'd allowed a couple of them to lick my dick occasionally. But the longer I stayed on this forum, I realized that I agreed with so many of the thoughts and feelings that long time zoo exclusives often expressed, so I decided that certainly the potential was there for me to become a full time zoo if I met the right dog. Most of the ladies that I had enjoyed experienced with were current and former guide dogs so they were obviously spayed.

I think that it's really good that this forum welcomes a wide variety of individuals with varrying sexual orientations. After all, if the forum was limited to zoo exclusives, there wouldn't be a quarter of the number of people on this forum that there are, and it's the large number and variety of members that this forum has, which keeps the discussions lively.

I was reading a thread last night that was started by a member who decided he wanted to have a wolf hybred dog and he considered himself a real dog expert. But several members here pointed out to this members that wolf behavior is very different from dog behavior and then when you mix a dog with a wolf, you get an animal with a very strong hunting instinct that unlike wolves, is not timid around people and won't back down from them. Several people provided very useful and worth while links to articles about dog hybreds but this person remained very stubborn and adamant that he was still going to get himself one despite the advice of forum members. This stubborness and unwillingness to listen to these member's good sound advice made them all frustrated and annoyed with his stubborn attitude. I'm sure that a number of people wanted to call this guy an a-hole but everybody kept their cool and was really polite to this guy until he quietly disapeared.

You wrote:

"I wish people would get thier facts straight and not
look at me funny or go "huh?" when i tell them that being a zoo is not about sex,
it's about love and compassion...and even when i tell people this they soon right
after ask a dumb question like "so tell me your experiences"....and then they don't
understand why i don't want to talk about my experiences...because my experiences
are special, you don't go around telling everyone on the net what you and your husband
or wife do every night do you?"

I certainly agree that these experiences are very special and are not to be shared with just anyone. On the other hand, if nobody ever shared any of their experiences with us members, it would be a pretty dull forum. Still your points are well taken.

Shy

I believe there is something in the rules about not having this discussion. I have seen several threads of this type and they always seem to cause hard feelings.
LTD

Im still of the opinion that labels belong on canned foods, not people.
However were i to label myself i would go with the one i started using way back in 98 when the talkers were a booming place to meet with like minded folks. when i was asked if i was Bi, Straight, zoo exclusive etc i would simply say that im an Omni-Sexual
Loosely translated; Im open to most things and never say never without having tried it myself (other than some personal exceptions like scat, kid stuff and anything forced)

I never needed to call myself anything other than "me, myself or I" to fit in with a group period.

So label me whatever you choose, in the end its what I believe that really counts.

G.S.

Ever since I read the OPs post I've been thinking about it ......

And overall I'd say this .....

While I accept the point ..... to a certain degree does it matter ? Isn't it just semantics how people define themselves ? There is definitely a scale shall we say from zoo curious ....... right the way up to zoo exclusive ..... and many varying points / levels from one "extreme" to the other.

Although I smile sometimes at the complete inaccuracy of some of the "terms" people use when you read their whole post .... personally I get a lot more frustrated / angry at the type of questions that are asked at times then how people define or label themselves.

Anyone can call themselves what they want in my book as long as they're not using / abusing an animal ....... realise the obligations that come with animal ownership etc ..... as opposed to ... I wanna f**k my dog ...... or even worse .... someone else's ! :angry:

On a final note ..... you cannot reeducate those that clearly don't want to learn ..... so why try ? Plus in relation to your experiences ..... I added into my profile ..... don't waste your time asking ..... cos I won't answer ...... worked wonders for me ! ;)

If it bothers you so much, stop talking to someone that obviously isn't on the same page as you. The chances of you truly enlightening these people to your personal views and beliefs are slim, and will only cause you frustration and pain. Whether or not you perceive yourself to be better than them, many people of the forum define themselves differently than you and could be offended by your words.

I agree with you to a point but there is no reason to get upset. People will eventually learn the difference. But being a zooaphile can also mean your attracted to people as well. Thats why I use the term "true zoo" to describe myself, I love animals only and never felt any attractions twords people. ^_^

To each his own my friend and the best you luck to you. B)

So people who have attractions to other humans can't truely be zoos?

Zoolove does have a point here. Being zoo is about genuine love for animals. It starts there and flows from there to other levels of interaction. Being a Beasty is often about instant gratification (or so it seems to us). For us it is about the love of animals so we are Zoo. But we understand the Beasties out there, and have little in common with them because the drivers at work are not the same. We respect them, but are not part of them.

Make sense?

;)

Its only words but words are important.

I am both, though I do view zoo and bestial in different ways, but it's all esoteric and subjective to each and every person who chooses one referance over the other.

My viewpoint is 'zoophilia' being the classic 'love of animals', and 'love with animals'; an intimate approach wherein the animal is an equal partner and goes far beyond the basic sexual interaction.
Bestiality to me is more the carnal approach with more emphasis on the sexuality of the animal than the emotional depth to it, though that is as subjective as any other definition without any less importance on the emotional or spiritual connection.

It all depends on the person, to be truthful.