• Suddenly unable to log into your ZooVille account? This might be the reason why: CLICK HERE!

A definition/philosophical problem

U

UniqueAmerican

Tourist
Hello,

I'm posting here because an issue is really driving me mad.

A friend of mine, whom I know well, and I were debating what precisely a zoophile is. I know, obviously, that a zoophile is "a person who is sexually and romantically attracted to animals"; this cannot be argued.

However, my friend insists an individual can still call themselves a zoophile even if they spay and neuter their animals, and even have zero sexual interest in animals...this is patently absurd.
What differentiates a zoophile from a non-zoophile is they possess a romantic and sexual attraction to animals.

What does the community think about this? Or is it simply illegitimate?
 
I can't imagine being "romantically attracted" to an animal and still wanting to cut out its genitalia. Words like "psychopath" come to mind for that.

For that matter, to me, "romantically attracted" implicitly includes sexual attraction. Actually engaging in sex, especially with a particular animal, isn't strictly required, but in order to be a "zoophile" the interest or desire, at least in general, is. Otherwise it's companionship or just plain old pet ownership.

If someone doesn't have sexual attraction to any animals at all, then that person isn't a zoophile, just an "animal lover".
 
Porky said:
I can't imagine being "romantically attracted" to an animal and still wanting to cut out its genitalia. Words like "psychopath" come to mind for that.

For that matter, to me, "romantically attracted" implicitly includes sexual attraction. Actually engaging in sex, especially with a particular animal, isn't strictly required, but in order to be a "zoophile" the interest or desire, at least in general, is. Otherwise it's companionship or just plain old pet ownership.

If someone doesn't have sexual attraction to any animals at all, then that person isn't a zoophile, just an "animal lover".
Click to expand...
I fully agree.

Hell yes it does. Absolutely spot on.

Yes. Thank you.

I don't want to preconfirm my existing biases, but when it comes to zoophilia, I will never compromise.
 
UniqueAmerican said:
However, my friend insists an individual can still call themselves a zoophile even if they spay and neuter their animals, and even have zero sexual interest in animals...this is patently absurd.
Click to expand...
If sex must be involved in an attraction/relationship then that negates the very existence of anyone who identifies as asexual or demisexual. No can want a relationship and even love a person without sex being central or even remotely prominent in the relationship/attraction.
 
A zoophile that doesn't actively engage in sexual activities with their partner IS STILL A ZOOPHILE. Those who disagree answer me thus then......does one just stop being a zoophile when they reach a certain age and sexual activities become unsafe? What if they have cancer and lose their sex drive?? I can think of hundreds of situations where sex isn't involved but they can still give/receive pleasure from each other. Making sex a must to define one's sexual orientation doesn't make it so because someone has their own opinions. 2 95 year old gay men don't stop considering themselves gay just because sex isn't happening as frequently anymore. I'm never going to consider myself anything other than zoosexual forever. Exclusively zoo at that....
 
Rottynme said:
A zoophile that doesn't actively engage in sexual activities with their partner IS STILL A ZOOPHILE. Those who disagree answer me thus then......does one just stop being a zoophile when they reach a certain age and sexual activities become unsafe? What if they have cancer and lose their sex drive?? I can think of hundreds of situations where sex isn't involved but they can still give/receive pleasure from each other. Making sex a must to define one's sexual orientation doesn't make it so because someone has their own opinions. 2 95 year old gay men don't stop considering themselves gay just because sex isn't happening as frequently anymore. I'm never going to consider myself anything other than zoosexual forever. Exclusively zoo at that....
Click to expand...
Thus the attraction has to be at least romantic.
 
In the land of 100 genders and 200 sexual (or non sexual) orientations, what about an ACE person, who loves their animals? Are the automatically excluded from being a zoophile, if there is never sex, or even a desire for sex? Gets more and more obscure from here on out...
 
Interesting post, i think it should be put on other section of the forum, but whatever.

I'm gonna say, debating something that is about words/definition/concepts without taking a "center" from where to speak with, is like arguing with numbers if -2 and 1 are negative numbers, and why can we say if they're like that? because we have a "common point" which is 0, meaning that you gotta agree with a term before starting using a certain concept.

Etymologically, the word zoophilia means what caikgoch mentioned up there, this means "love", there are different ways to love, and we all know that. But looking at the word itself, it means a strong fixation(like, obsessed) on a love feeling towards a Zoo, which means animal. So it's basically a strong fixated love to animals and such.

Now, when it comes to love, sex isn't actually something that comes with it. You may feel a strong obsession/love with someone and yet don't want to partake in sexual activities with the subject that's related to that love (the neutering part isn't about sex, but health in most cases, it's not something selfish we do to ourselves, but for them as well, at least if I'd take responsibility to neuter an animal that's the main focus and not doing any harass to the animal).

But yeah, then again, some terms sometimes are given certain definitions, which actually are "questionable", the link that caikgoch posted i.e you see that someone who is tend to be vorarephillic the concept says that person is SEXUALLY ATTRACTED but someone who's a Nyctophillic is someone who just loves dark places or the night itself.

Sometimes it just depends on the concept
 
DaneLover1 said:
The only way I am going to spay my doggie girl is if is to save here life. For example, if she gets pyometra. I would spay her in this instance because it would be a matter of life or death.
Click to expand...
Valid point. That's an argument the spay-and-neuter crowd likes to throw out there, though -- "you're saving them from ever getting testicular/uterine cancer!" They ignore the slight difference between using that as an excuse vs. doing it because it's medically necessary.
 
Rottynme said:
A zoophile that doesn't actively engage in sexual activities with their partner IS STILL A ZOOPHILE. Those who disagree answer me thus then......does one just stop being a zoophile when they reach a certain age and sexual activities become unsafe? What if they have cancer and lose their sex drive?? I can think of hundreds of situations where sex isn't involved but they can still give/receive pleasure from each other. Making sex a must to define one's sexual orientation doesn't make it so because someone has their own opinions. 2 95 year old gay men don't stop considering themselves gay just because sex isn't happening as frequently anymore. I'm never going to consider myself anything other than zoosexual forever. Exclusively zoo at that....
Click to expand...
Of course they are. No, they would not stop being a zoophile. It's philosophical, ingrained into who you are.

I'm asserting that one is not a zoophile if they are not romantically attracted to animals, and by extension not sexually attracted to them. You do not need to have sexual relations regularly to be zoo, of course not. It doesn't depend on frequency of activities.

I'm a zoophile, and I always will be. And yes, I'm honored to be exclusive too.
 
dartel said:
If sex must be involved in an attraction/relationship then that negates the very existence of anyone who identifies as asexual or demisexual. No can want a relationship and even love a person without sex being central or even remotely prominent in the relationship/attraction.
Click to expand...

An individual does not have to actively engaged in sexual intercourse to be considered a zoophile, but obviously they have to be romantically (and by extension) physically attracted to animals.

If someone is not romantically/sexually attracted to an animal, they are not a zoophile.

Hani Miletski, the world's foremost expert on the subject, established this many decades ago.
 
The common definition amongst 99%% of humans is a zoophile is someone who is sexually attracted to animals

someone who is ROMANTICALLY attracted is probably just gonna be called crazy right up there with weebs who marry anime characters
 
MacRumble said:
The common definition amongst 99%% of humans is a zoophile is someone who is sexually attracted to animals

someone who is ROMANTICALLY attracted is probably just gonna be called crazy right up there with weebs who marry anime characters
Click to expand...
There are also the people who just don’t understand us or zoo or anything
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top