Tomokato: Well i said what i think. To me sex is the final and most powerfull way to express love (another would be to die for your beloved) You might get the impression im a moralist, well yes in some cases i am! And i dont feel bad because of that!!
I dont ment that you should have to feel love for you lover everytime you have sex with him. *I* only have sex because i love my mate! Is my way to express my deepest feelings for him - like i said the final and most powerfull way i can express it to him! I just cant understant how someone can f*ck someone without these feelings!
Like i said sex doesnt means much to me, i could happily live with out it but i could never live without love!!
Some people might be able to live with sex alone, like some are able to live with only one partner or completly alone. I cant!
You might be right, i might have over reacted a bit but you havent read and seen what i have over the last four years! I've read from people who sold time with their dogs for sex and they said the same things like Bighorse - its ok for them, they dont get harmed, i read from people who tied their animals up to have sex with them - and it was done with force!there was absolutly no love included, i've read from someone who fed his bithces hormons(or whatever) so they were allways willing!
Dont get me wrong, i dont accuse anyone here to do this kind of things! But those expiereances have shaped me and my way of thinking about some things!
I cant f*ck a animal just to get of, sorry i just couldnt no matter how goddamn horny i am!! I could never have sex with a animal i dont love or atleast feel something for...
You are right, lust is probably the most powerfull force in nature, its the reason why the species were able to spread all over the world and reproduce. But does lust alone gives you the right to do as you like? To "use" a animal for your own gratitude?
Bighorse said he could give away all of his lovers in a second (except of some special ones). Take a look in the real world, everone is doing this! Today its true love, tomorrow just a decent fuck-and-forget!
I've seen dogs that were loved today and given away tomorrow, no matter if they are given into a new and good home. They are able to love, fear, hate and love! Could you give away your child just because you are fed up with it? I dont think so, very few humans can do that, but almost everyone is able to give his dog away because he doesnt loves it anymore!
It doesnt matters if that dog is given to a family that loves him, he will allways remember who raised him first, who loved him first, who cared for him first and he will feel pain because he was forced to leave! This has happend to my own mate, he was raised and loved from his owners but from one day to another he was just replaceable, he had to sleep in a car because he wasnt allowed to sleep inside the house. Those poeple who loved him and cared for him now left him outside in the cold and wanted to give him away the next day!
Now and then we meet his former owners and everytime this happens his eyes start to glow, he gets happy in a way he never does for me or anyone else in my family! He knows who those people are and what they have done for him, but he also remembers what they have done to him! He rarly lets them touch him, no matter how happy he is, he avoids there touch!
I might sound a bit oldschool - no im not a saying-sex-before-marriage-is-wrong-guy, hell no! But the way humanity is behaving towards its own kind and others shows that something is seriously wrong with our sepcies! No other being on this planet is as cruel as we are, yes animals do k1ll, yes animals do fuck-and-forget but thats the way they are!!! Thats the way its ment to be for them, thats the only way for them to survive! Bu we are different, atleast in some parts, we can do things out of love out of hate out of lust, but we are also able to control it!!
We are able to treat our own species and every other too with more respect.
I was a bit harsh on Bighorse, he treats his animals with respect and cares for them but he also sais he could replace them without a second of hesitiation! And its like in hostory, the bad things allways overweight the good things... If a animal is good enough to have sex with then its good enough to show some kind of love to it. Even if its only the acceptence that this animal loves you, no matter if you love it and no matter what you do to it. And its your *duty* to return this love because the animal isnt able to understand why you just stopp loving it!
I know all of what i wrote might sound a bit of, but this is how i think and how i rate things on my way...
And if youre still looking for some intentions why i am like this take a look into the "Woe is me" Thread by Shane J and read my story. If you are able to understand my feelings for that specific animal then you might be able to understand why i feel this way today!

*sigh* I have a complete feeling of deja-vu here. Yes, this discussion has been up before - several times. And yes, it has ended with people taking an "holier than thou" position, and yes, it has actually almost ended with people getting banned for flaming other members.

First; animals having sex with other animals, do they love eachother? With a few exceptions, there are no such thing as monogamy between animals. Second, its fully possible to have sex with an animal, and the animal have great pleasure as well as the human, without any love from the human, nor the animal. Some dogs will hump everything, even "dead" things like chairs and trees and so on....Is it love that makes the animal do this? I doubt it :rolleyes:

If we transfer this to human relationships; In an ideal world one would find ones soul mate at first try - but its not an ideal world now, is it? Many need to experiment for a while to find out f.ex. if they are gay and so on. Many bad marriages would have been avoided if more people took their time to figure out their sexuality BEFORE getting married. There is also a matter of not being compatible in bed, simply. How would you find out if you dont try? So its not allways a question of a quick "wham, bam thank you ma'm" and anyone that has some years of experience and life wisdom knows this. My best friend says; "you have to kiss a lot of frogs before you find your prince", and she is right. People change their ideals, they develope their personalities and the kind of person you would want when you are 20 may not be the one you want when you are 30.


THAT said; I hate seeing animals hurt in any way. I have basically grown up with dogs, and I love them. BUT - I WOULD NEVER ever put my self as a judge over people that have a different view on how to practise sex with their animals, as long as the animal is not hurt, nor coerced into something.


Therefore, IMHO, bighorse is doing nothing wrong here. He voiced his opinion, (kudos to him, for daring to do so in a "zoo" community!!) and got sabled down, with words like "disgusting", "users" "negative" and so on.

How on earth is this -philia EVER gonna get socially accepted, if we cant even stop lableing eachother? If we cant live together in peace in a zoo forum?


LadyR

lady r,thank you although i feel i do not need no defense for the way i feel,we are all in this forum because we have sex with our animals or enjoy watching other people have sex with them its that simple,wether we do it out of love or not is a persons own preferance i do appreciate this forum be cause i can give my opinions tell my stories on a subject i have kept to myself for years i used to think i was the only person who did this sort of thing now we seem to be all over the world ,and even though we have our differances we have one thing in common

bighorse, it was not a defence reply, actually. It was a reply to the post in general, and in particulary to those who has replied in a not so nice manner (not only this time around but before as well). It was also a reminder to not judge anyone and for seeing zoophilia as so much better than beastiality, when it is really only lables that the outside community has put on us.

I also wanted the members to see that there is a reason for all shit that happends in the world - it serves as an example when the people in here cant even keep their peace.

I hope that cleared up my somewhat "wollen" 1st reply B)

LadyR

LadyR, what you are saying makes so much sense...as long as we keep fighting
each-other [zoo v.s. bestialist] theres no way we can ever band together to stop
society from so easily destroying us one by one! B)

HR, I know full well that there are r*pists out there committing atrocious acts of cruelty in their quest for sexual satisfaction with animals. Having sex with animals without regard for their wellfare and consent is morally reprehensible. Somewhat less reprehensible but more common is neglect. Neglect is abuse, raising a dog trapped in a kennel all of its life, not giving him or her the vet care and food they need... these things are all abuse and are also morally wrong.

The simple act of having sex with animals however, is not.

In a human-animal partnership, the bulk of the responsibility rests with the human, for he posesses the "gift of reason." We have the power and responsibility to shape every aspect of their lives in a positive manner, and we have the power and repsonsibility to behave appropriately in a given sexual situation. That's as far as it goes in my opinion. When a person brings any animal into their lives, they are taking on an enormous responsibility to take care of that animal. They do not have to love every animal they own.

And speaking of love, do you know what it is? Do you know if animals are even capable of it? Is your answer in the afirmative a belief (feeling) or a cold hard fact?

If the definition of love itself is so fleeting how can we ask it of everyone who has sex with animals to be in love with every animal they f*ck?

LadyR: Like i said in my first post in this thread i've seen threads like this very very often over the time since im online and around zooboards. And ALL of them went this way, everyone thought he was right and the other one was wrong. And after some time those threads ended up in a flamewar between boths sides. I dont see that this thread is about to go the same way! There have been said some rough things - mostly by me - and i still stand in for what i said! But sofar i have allways tried to be polite and to keep this as a debate and not to let it turn into a flamewar...

The behavior - to use a being, no matter if human or animal - of some people is disgusting to me! I've said this a couple of times allready and i will say it again. This is one reason - among a lot of others - why i despise humanity!! Yes im also a human and most of the time im sad about that...
We wouldnt have this debate if it werent dogs we talk about but instead humans. What if he would do the same thing with women or men? How would we call him and people who do this? How would we treat them?

I hate lables but they are nesecarry! Its the only way to seperate two groups from each other. Its done this way all over the world and like you said: in a perfect world this wouldnt be nesecarry but the world isnt perfect!
And i dont want to be put into the same group like people who tread their animals like the way Bighorse does.
Yes this might sound like im better but i aint! Im just different then he is! My life goes by other rules then his, i value other things then he does - i am different from him... And i KNOW that many people here and around the world see it the same way. All those threads i read over the time are a prove for that, if it wasnt the reason then those threads and the question would have never apeared!

Besides, you mentiont "zoo"comunity... Well i think this is partly a zoophiliaforum (or alteast this little place of the forum itself is, its even named Zoophilia ;)) Yes, i agree he deserves cudos for saying what is on his mind. Everyone deserves it who is not affraid to do... Sadly history shows us that those people mostly die or disapear from the surface of earth...
Anyways, many have given a description of what "Zoophilia" and "Beastility" means, many agree that the first is the love for a animal and the second is the act of having sex. Well to me Love and Sex go hand in hand, like i said in all of my posts here Sex is to me the finaly and most powerfull way to express love. Therefore its still love... But i guess we can debate weeks or even months about this point.
Some time ago i found the rules of Z-E-T-A - Zoophiles for Ethical Treatment of Animals. And their rules very much fit to my believes about Zoophilia and the way i live it. I think that a real zoo thinks first about his animal lover, and if he/she is having fun is allright and secondly about his own pleasure. A zoophile takes pleasure out of the pleasure of his animal lover, to me that is the way i allways lived and allways will live...
For those of you who care for this i will post the rules:
1. Treat your animal with the same respect that you want to be treated with
2. Consider the welfare of your animal partner as important as your own
3. Remember the welth of your animal is more important then your desire for sexual pleasure
4. Help those who have questions with your knowledge but dont abet someone to zoophilia
5. Dissuade those who are looking for a 'sexual kick' from sex with animals
6. Fight against the sexual exploitation of animals for financial profit
7. Fight against those who abuse animals and those who abet others to do

Sadly i couldnt find a english version of those rules so i had to translate them from German into english. If you want i can post a link to the original rules in german...

As for getting accepted by society if cant even accept each other. All in all we are just humans! Its sad but its true! Its our nature to act like that towards things we dont understand (and like i said in my second post [im not sure but i think it was my second...] i dont understand how someone can act like that) Atleast we arnt able to lead wars here or sooner or later we would start to fight agains each other (another point why i despises humanity...)
Besides, zoophilia isnt better then beastiality - its just different and it they are lables given to us by the society which just dont wants to understand. IMHO i doestn matters if we fight agains each other, they will bring us down one by one if they get the chance.
Aganin i say it depends on what you value how you live and for what you live!

I agree with you that dogs do hump dead things, its their way to musterbate. If we couldnt reach down there with our hands we woul also find other ways to get of. Is this a reason why we should say they arnt able to love...
And i also agree that some people might love one today and in two or three years they cant anymore. Its sad but thats reality, yes, but do i have to like it? No i dont think so. Its not impossibel to find the right one right away on the frist date or on the second! I found my first mate and greates love in the same second i saw her for the first time! There are many here who had a similar expiereance...
Yes, some poeple need to have many partners before they find the perfect one. I can only agree on that, a recent happening just showed that to me again! Im not able to say anything against those facts ;) And i dont even want to try to!

Tomokato: Yes i know what love is. I expiereanced it before and i expierance it again now, im in love with a dog and i was before. The kind of love he gives me is the only i know, i dont know the love between two humans cause i never had any human lovers in my life. I think animals are able to love, the same way we are. They just lack the ability to express it in the way we can. A dog is happy when you come home from work after he had to be alone for a long time. Is this love? Yes it is, its a kind of love the dog is able to show. If he would be a human he would greet you at the door, shake your hand or give you a welcom kiss.
A dog cant like any other animal, he only has his few ways to express his love towards you and other people.
But what is love? Im pretty sure humanity trys to find this out since its able to think! Neither i nor everyone else on this board could tell you what love is exactly! Some might say its a chemical thing, chemicals and hormos are spread in you body to make you happy and care for a special person - like a mother will (or atleast should) defend her child and care for it no matter what happens. Or like a lover will (or atleast should) care and defend his lover at all costs. Some will say its a way to protect the possible mother or father of your possible children from harm...
To me love is a feeling, i dont seek a way to explain it nor do i want to let others tell me... I think it should be up to everyone on his own to find out what love is!

Again, i dont demand that everyone should love the animal/human he/she has sex with, this would be plain impossibel. Humans arnt able to do that, nor am animals... And i know that humans are animals, we only deny it to us and everyone around us! But still we show so many similaritys to animals...

Again im sorry if anyone feels atackt or bashed by what i write and wrote, but its the way i am and think! And i cant change who i am...

I agree with a lot of Honeyraptor's comments. It's important to differentiate who's who in the zoo-stew!

I mean we've got a lot of different people on this planet in the entire zoo-community's melting pot, all with varying ideas of how things are/should be, which is perfectly fine. I think though that there are those self-proclaimed "zoos" out there who are purely bestialists (those who have no love for the animals they fu**) and tend to "sour" the stew if you know what I mean. It gives a very bad rep to the true zoophile community, and provides nifty targets of focus for the media/anti-zoo community to zoom in on and say to the public "...see? THIS is what zoophiles do to animals! SEX is all they care about...they're nothing but sexual predators!!!".

I don't think it is (or should be anyway) a matter of splitting up into different camps over simply the way we think about things. I do believe, however, that it is important to discriminate between those who harm animals out of sexual frustration and those who care for their animals' well-being. We all may have varying beliefs on this, that and the other, but whether you are a moralist or any other kind of -ist, I think what being a "zoophile" comes down to is one thing is...your animal's feelings and quality of life.

In my own personal view, it would have to be both how the individual feels as well, not just how they act towards them. But that's just me. In reality, and within the realm of plain common sense(which isn't always all that common) how you treat another being, non-human and human alike, affects them.

Many of the animals we zoophiles love/are attracted to (dogs, horses, etc) are SOCIAL animals, and SEX is NOT the only form of social activity they crave. It is a known fact that canines, out of EMOTIONAL frustration/lack of attention/love, will resort to sexual-release by humping and things of the sort. I myself have seen it many times. Many breeds of dogs also are very driven to PLEASE their people. No matter what it is. If they get the clue from you that you like it when they lick you or hump you, then that is the behavior they will continue, even when they dont really feel up to it...unless, that is, you indicate to the dog/animal early on that they don't have to do anything they don't want to do (except when it comes to a few things, for their own safety). If you have a Dutch Shepherd or a Malenois, for example, you have a VERRRRRYY intense, work-driven animal who desperately wants and NEEDS a job in life. And if you indicate to that dog that his "job" is to fu** as many girls as he can as often as he can, well...he's going to do the best damn fu**ing job he/she can do at just that (hence, the famous Dutch Shepherd movies)! Regardless of whether or not he/she really wants to.

My point in this is...a "zoophile" is at least compassionate enough and cares enough about the animal(s) to respect animal's feelings and show them that their wants are just as important by using respective body language to "ask" the animal (rather than physically coorsing, or forcing by going right for the goods) if they really want to, and if not, BACKING OFF...and go jack off alone in the corner somewhere. A "zoo" cares enough to not take advantage of an emotionally-frustrated dog, cares enough to learn about the animal, their wants, their needs..so as not to break trust or create mentally/emotionally unhealthy habits within the animal. If your animal is craving love (and they all do!) and the only form of love and caring attention you are giving him/her is through sex, then that is the channel they will go through in order to get what they are truly seeking from you (love), as a pacifier--it's plain animal psychology. All of us animals crave love and attention. But if a purely-sexual relationship is the only form of "love" you ever show your animal(s) and your main purpose in having the animal(s) in your life is for sexual gratification, then you are a "bestialist", by definition of the word.

If all you ever do and care about is what kind of hole you can stick your di*k into or what kind of di*k you can stick into your hole with every animal you can get your hands on, then you are, by definition of the word, a sexual predator.

In either case, NOT a zoophile (by actual definition of the word). If you say you're a zoophile, do your actions meet your words. If so, fine. Your a zoophile. Pure and simple.

Yes, this debate HAS gone on for years because there's a lot of "grey area" between the two. But what it all comes down to and what decides it all is the answer to these questions:

What is the quality of life your animal(s) living with you? Is he/she truly happy and content? If you think they're content, how do you really know for sure?

All I'm getting at here is that it's not about YOU or ME. It's about the animals. Period.

WH, I think you miss the mark somewhat. Your use of the word Bestialist seems to suggest that you are not one. That would mean you do not have sex with animals.

Bestiality is having sex with animals.
Zoophilia is the love of animals.
Bestialists commit bestiality.
Zoophiles express zoophilia.

You can be one without being the other (they are not mutually exclusive) or you can be both.

Most of the pubic hears news stories involving bestialists who, in addition to having sex with aniamls, abuse them whether it be r*pe, mutilation, killing or otherwise disregarding the animal's well being and or consent. That's what gives 'having sex with animals' (bestiality) a bad name.

I don't believe for a second that this is all "we" are up against. In my experience there are quite a few arguments against having sex with animals and anyone who tries to explain themselves will run into something like this:

1. "Can't you see it's just wrong?"
2. "They are dirty animals: dogs roll in dead things and eat poop, how can you kiss and have sex with something like that? You might get a disease or something."
3. "It's against the law. Surely there's some merit to that. You don't want to be thrown in jail do you?"
4. "It's socially unacceptable. Surely people en masse must know what they are talking about... you don't want to be socially ostracized do you?
5. "There's such a power dynamic, you give them food, water, shelter, attention... they are so eager to please, they'd do anything... It's wrong to take advantage of the power dynamic for your own gratification."
6. "They are like children, unable to consent and completely dependant upon you for everything. People who have sex with animals are just like pedophiles."
7. "It's against religion. By committing an act of bestiality, you are going against god's word, you don't want to burn in hell do you?"
8. "There's a hierarchy to life. God - Humans - Higher Animals (Dogs, Horses etc.) - Lower Animals (Sponges, snails etc.) - Plants - Bacteria. There is an order to all things. Lowering yourself to a lower sphere goes against nature. You were not meant to have sex with someone outside of your sphere."

Needless to say WH, it's an uphill battle. Attaching a negative connotation to bestiality as you do by calling it a purely sexual relationship will not help and in truth is not really the definition people en masse work with (see above or consult your local dictionary.)

Notice you can find quite a bit of your diatribe against "bestialists" in there. Consider the idea of the power dynamic. Dogs are eager to please, they are not as intelligent as us humans when it comes to context so it would be easy for a human to abuse that power dynamic and take advantage of the situation for their own gratification. Of course, coercion really disregards consent which brings us back to the definition of r*pe doesn't it? Bestialist don't by definition coerce animals into having sex with them.

We all know animals can give consent. You can ask if they are in the mood, and visa versa (though when they ask, it seems to be more of a command than a careful approach to the subject) and there's nothing wrong with that. If a human and animal engage in sex with one another and they are both consenting to it, then I don't see how you can have a problem with their relationship based on that fact alone.

HR: I think those are great sayings to live by as a zoo:

"1. Treat your animal with the same respect that you want to be treated with
2. Consider the welfare of your animal partner as important as your own
3. Remember the welth of your animal is more important then your desire for sexual pleasure
4. Help those who have questions with your knowledge but dont abet someone to zoophilia
5. Dissuade those who are looking for a 'sexual kick' from sex with animals
6. Fight against the sexual exploitation of animals for financial profit
7. Fight against those who abuse animals and those who abet others to do"

It doesn't say anything here about love though and I think bestialists don't necessarily fall outside of these axioms.

Do you consider yourself to be a bestialist HR? Do you have sex with animals? That last fact alone is what society focuses on most and is what will get you into trouble should you try and force your way out in society. There is no distinction in the minds of the public between people who have sex - and people who have sex and love.

As I was being groomed this morning by my four legged malamute-mix partner, I thought to myself: Is this her way of expressing love? Do I love her? Do we love one another the same way?

By your own words, I think you would be hard pressed to differentiate between love and obsession.

I think, rather than attributing a human trait to her behavior (since she isn't human,) I'll let her speak for herself... the ways she expresses her bond (what ever that is) toward me are many, varied and often subtle. They seem to be expressions of familiarity, family and pleasure. She is possessive of me, and her trust is not easily won by a stranger. She is selective in who and how she gives her attention. I am obviously a part of her pack-thinking, a part of her family, someone she trusts, someone she seeks the company of and pleasure from, and someone in her mind, who is predictable and dependable. I do not think this constitutes "love" in the strict sense, but in my romantic mind, it seems to qualify as a kind of love and that is satisfying enough for me.

There's another dog here who I intimately interact with who expresses some of the same things, the mutual grooming nuzzling and cuddling... -familiarity, family and pleasure seeking... and I gladly reciprocate. It's clear somehow that his bond with me does not run as deep. I have seen him express these same things to a complete stranger he likes. Puzzling is it not? At the very least it is not as unique to him as it is to her. And I would have to say I do not feel as deeply attached with him as I do with her. I feel the same way toward him as I do towards a friend or buddy, but toward her I feel as though we are lovers.

There is a difference in my relationship between both animals, and yet in both relationships we've committed acts of bestiality. Thus, by definition, I am a bestialist. Oddly enough, my love of her qualifies me as a zoophile aswell.

Sorry to go off topic here but HOLY SH** TOMO! *LONG* time no type!

Hobbes

This post has been edited by HobbesDawg on Jun 17 2004, 03:55 PM

Well said Lady R people taking a ...holier than thou...position is what lead me to start this post in the first place
That said... some great comments have been made that will help new comers
There is no right and wrong here we are all equal
I was unsure what to call myself and would have to say that im proud to be a zoophile and i am also just as proud to be a beastialist
I have loved an animal more deeply then i can describe yet i have also been waking through a padock and had sex with a mare that i had never met before

My intention here is not to stir any kind of defensiveness or make myself (or any group) out to be holier than thou, as thowra stated. I have ONE concern and one concern only. The animals involved. That is IT. Plain and simple.

The reason I'm so concerned about others inner-feelings toward their animals is quite simply because--and correct me if I'm wrong at this--thoughts and feelings directly affect conscious and unconscious action. And our actions affect our animals, not just physically, but mentally as well.

Now as far as your statements on the actual word "bestialist", yes I do agree with you. I have had sexual relations with canines in the past, therefore I did "commit" acts of "bestiality". I's have to say though, that MOST/ALL of us are bestialists. Fewer among us are "zoophiles". I don't know...maybe we should be calling ourselves "zoophilic-bestialists"...or maybe "best-o-philes". Kinda lengthy odd terminology but...olay. Fine.

Although there is a bit of difference, evidently, between a bestialist and a zoophile, and I (and probably other as well) feel that the term zoophile describes a more love-based relationship with animals for this reason....


bes·ti·al·i·ty n. pl. bes·ti·al·i·ties
1)The quality or condition of being an animal or like an animal.
2)Conduct or an action marked by depravity or brutality.
3)Sexual relations between a human and an animal.

zo·o·phil·i·a also zo·oph·i·lism (z - f -l z m)
n.
1)Affection or affinity for animals.
2)Erotic attraction to or sexual contact with animals.
3)Biology. A tendency to feed or grow on animal tissue.
(nevermind that 3rd one *giggles*)


Note the first definition under each word. As far as there being no difference what-so-ever between the two, I suggest you read over the above definitions (copied and pasted from Dictionary.com, since I was too lazy to get up and check my physical dictionary..wherever it is) #2 and #5 of the Z.E.T.A. proclaimation once more and really think about it for a while. And #6 as well. If one really does feel AND act that way toward their animal(s)..if there is no intention to obtain a "sexual kick" (or in other words: selfish, sexual self-gratification) and really does TREAT their non-human partner as they would want to be treated, and the animal is in-fact seen and treated as an EQUAL in the relationship...then YES, the person OBVIOUSLY feels at least some kind of significant love/affection for the animal(s)...which--by definition--makes him/her a "zoophile". Which, I believe, makes for a more fully content and all-around happy animal. But that's just me.

I think that's all I'll say on the subject, since this worn-out topic tends to make many persons' eyes start to twitch..and/or bleed...from the redundancy of it all. And I personally need mine :P

But just to reitterate on my little disclaimer, I don't speak with people to try and "make them good like me". I don't think/feel that way, because it's not about ME or YOU or anyone else. It's about the animals, and their quality of life. Period.

WH, I think -now- our definitions and understanding of zoophile and bestialist are similar to one another's. I never asserted that they were one in the same. Merely that bestialists and zoophiles were not mutually exclusive groups. Yet, at the same time, they could be inclusive of one another, depending on the person and their behavior.

The quoted 'ZETA rules to live by' do not exclude bestialists from being morally correct. My relationship with the male dog, as I described it above, is not a mutually loving relationship. I do care for him, for his well being; and I take pleasure in giving him pleasure. I am not a zoophile because of my relationship with him. If he was the only dog I ever interacted with, I would be simply a bestialist. It's splitting hairs yes, but it's important to understand so that "we" do not contribute to the negative connotations society already attributes to that word and to sex with animals in general.

Basically, what it boils down to is that a person can care for an animal without actually being in love with him or her.

TK

tomokato,pretty good statement,i guess i am a hardcore bestilalist i have had dogs for years mostly hounds and hunting dogs there are swap meets and trade days all over the country people sell dogs all the time this is how i got interested in sex with dogs when i was young i had coondogs and had sex with the females over the years there have been many unlike HR i never was in love with any of them it was pure lust ,i never forced any of them,mostly they where in season and very willing believe me they welcomed my advances and on occasin they werent my dogs there is nothing hotter than than a willing bitch if every one fell in love with there pets than there would be no puppies for sale

Personaly the thread was rather confusing at this late hour with loads of other things on my mind but this stuff is rather important for me!

I realy don't want to judge people and I've got no bad feelings towards beastialist since I've been one! And bighorse I don't feel any grudge towards you at all. I can understand bestialist and when they take care for their pets and don't force them their's nothing wrong for me.
But hearing the part where you said that you would sell them if you got bored with them or stuff , I seriously got angry and disappointed. This even has nothing to do with bestialist :angry: personaly it would make me feel like an abuser or pimp!
You just don't trade animals becuz you get fed up them <_<