Hello everyone this is my first post so be nice ^_^
There is something I have noticed, it is that zoophilia is really sexed up, while this is not really a problem I believe that the line between zoophile and bestalist is sometimes blurred.
This is actually a bad thing, because a quick google search of zoophilia comes up with loads and loads of porn sites and people saying they are zoophiles when their actions speak otherwise.
Like I went on one site, the owner said he was a zoophile, he mentioned nothing about love :inlove: but nothing but getting horny from animal sex.
I scrolled down and low and behold :pick7: there is a woman sticking a fish up her cunt *facepalm* this is a very bestalist act and you all know why.
But why do people who express no love for animals and do very bestalist things call themselves zoophiles?

welcome to forum!

Of course we will be nice no reason not to be. Think you make a valid point on the differences between the two.

Maybe not everyone knows the difference but just presume that they are two words for the same thing. Which it is not as you so eloquently explained.

Think you will find that most of up are zoo and love our animals not just have sex with them.

ditto what was said above

Why do so many beasties refer to themselves as zooies? Well I think it actually has a lot to do with the internet. In ancient times, before the internet and wikipedia befouled the earth, a person would have to be interested enough to poor through library tomes to find any kind of discussion on our lifestyle predilictions. And the reality is, most of those reference materials where various sorts psychological texts. That discussed our lifestyle with terms like zoophilia and bestiality and differentiated clearly between the two. But with the advent of the internet, and all the opinion sites and porn sites where less than learned people can post opinions and gossip as if they were verified facts, a boom of misinformed statements and posting has resulted. Coupled with the fact that the near death of print media, and places like libraries where they can be browsed, most people now get their information from the internet. They also blandly accept what ever post they read as God's own truth. This is no direct fault of the readers. After all its instinct to be trusting and for people to think, "Why would anybody go to the trouble of printing it if it wasn't true?" The reality is, publishing on the internet is no trouble at all. So it makes the means of spreading misinformation, misinterpretations, and sometimes outright lies very easy. But most people, not realizing this, still want to automatically trust what they read for the aforementioned reasons. In short, people have incorrectly learned the terms from incorrect sites and posters on the internet, plain and simple.

Well said enenrgy dog. For all the good the internet has done in some areas its also done so much harm to others.

What energydog said -_-



TWW

Its always easier to just lump everyone together in one category then it is to differentiate between the separate [SPAM].

kinda like society today would be lost without the remote control for the TV.

G.S.

I've noticed this too, and it's a line that is very commonly blurred.

I agree with Energydog in saying the internet is largely responsible for this. You can try to convince someone all you want about the legitimate differences between zoophilia and bestiality, but a quick Google search will probably convince them otherwise. Half the results on the first page are porn sites or links to them. One porn site actually calls commercial bestiality the same thing as zoophilia. It's just another keyword to get more hits from search engines.

Other terms like bestialist sometimes carry a slightly negative connotation in the zoo community, and I think that's part of the reason why some people go ahead and call themselves zoophiles when they really aren't.

In the spirit of helpfulness and :welcome: to our new members I thought it prudent to bring everyone up to speed and keep anyone from inadvertently getting banned...

from the Sticky titled Taboo Subjects
http://www.beastforum.com/index.php?showtopic=63639

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 their 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 their 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 involvement will be BANNED IMMEDIATELY! It is NOT UP FOR CONVERSATION OR DEBATE! JUST DON'T DO IT!

Thank you :)

Welcome new members.
Please take the time to read the rules :D

Well I don't think the OP was questioning the boards definitions of the terms bestiality or zoophilia. But rather why those terms seemed to be incorrectly applied on so many other boards and by other people. Also the history of how those misapplications came about.

The RULES don't say we cannot discuss as long as we are genuine about it all and not offensive or dereogatory to anyone.

I can see what the OP was trying to make and it does differ slightly from the BF Definitions but only as far as the exclusive part is concerned, definitions stats zoo is exclusive only.

The BF definition is great and gives a standard for us all anyways. I don't consider myself either to be honest I am what I am

AND WHAT I AM NEEDS NO EXPLAINING....!!!!! Ahem song tunes over.

The two terms are used interchangeably pretty often. To simplify things, I usually just say, "Those of us involved in the zoo/beast lifestyle" when making a reference to anyone.
I feel it fairly represents both, without directly labeling someone as one or the other.

Besides, people worry too much about the label. Isn't who you are more important than what you're called??

This post has been edited by Skyrune on Sep 29 2008, 01:36 PM

My intent is always to help the new folks get the most out of the community and help rather than hinder... ;)

...as far as misapplication of terms etc, I don't give a rats ass about any of that...
:P

I guess a rose by any other name will still smell as sweet.
But on this site the definition of those words are not up for discussion.
"Beaker laws", to which we all have to respect.