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

Are all you folks already on the new forum (Zoocadia)?

UR20Z said:
Your first mistake is in imagining that we're a "community". Sorry, bud, but who/what you fuck/wanna fuck doesn't make a community, any more than 6 randomly chosen people wearing purple paisley cardigans makes them the royal family of England.
Click to expand...
but some latin word says they are a family or something!
 
dominic-toretto-cars-in-fast-furious.jpg
 
UR20Z said:
Erm... Cute, but what's your point?? (Beyond Vin Diesel still be one of the ugliest fuckers I've ever laid eyes on, I mean)
Click to expand...
Every third word Toretto says in the movies is family. His family. In a deep, hoarse, slow voice.
 
CritterFunatic said:
Well, the official definitions are:
Zoophile = Someone who is (sexually) attracted to animals.
Bestiality = The act of having sex with animals.

Anything else is being made up by the community to change or distort those definitions.
Click to expand...
and being I was stating community based definitions and not official, I sure as hope the hell so.

and no official definitions zoophile simply states strong attraction. sex is left out.
 
Wolfspirit said:
Maybe I didn't do a perfect job of getting that accross in the first post but I don't see why you felt the need to talk shit behind my back
Click to expand...
Damn. He found out about my secret plan to talk shit about him "behind his back" on a public forum, in a thread that he himself started. If only I could have predicted that he would have access to these messages.
 
CritterFunatic said:
View attachment 591765
Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/zoophi
Click to expand...

ah you are one of those where I got to be hyper pedantic for, ok noted.

Zoophile is referencing the attraction not act thus community saved time of referring to the two separately Zoophile / bestialist and thus coined zoo sexual to indicate some one is both attracted to more than just sex, and all so engages in actual sex.

Zoophilia is simply a broad umbrella term to general attraction and not specifically active sexual contact, one can be a zoophil whilst not having any interest in sex.



that is it, I really can't think of any way to make it simpler for you.
 
OffgridK9lover said:
ah you are one of those where I got to be hyper pedantic for, ok noted.
Click to expand...
Not hyper pedantic, just factual.

OffgridK9lover said:
Zoophile is referencing the attraction not act (...)
Click to expand...

Correct so far. I haven't said anything else.

OffgridK9lover said:
(...) thus community saved time of referring to the two separately Zoophile / bestialist and thus coined zoo sexual to indicate some one is both attracted to more than just sex, and all so engages in actual sex.
Click to expand...

The "more than just sex" part is irrelevant for the outside world. They didn't coin a word for that because they aren't interested in that.

Anything else still would be a zoophile. A zoophile is sexually attracted towards animals, a bestialist acts out on this attraction. It is likely that a bestialist is a zoophile as well, otherwise they might not seek intercourse with animals, while a zoophile doesn't necessarily needs to be a bestialist, as not every zoophile acts out on their attraction.

OffgridK9lover said:
Zoophilia is simply a broad umbrella term to general attraction and not specifically active sexual contact, one can be a zoophil whilst not having any interest in sex.

that is it, I really can't think of any way to make it simpler for you.
Click to expand...

You didn't really made it simpler but overcomplicated it.

An asexual person, for example, can still also indulge in sexual activities without feeling sexually attracted towards anyone. Not being attracted towards someone or something doesn't mean they aren't able to have sexual activities, likewise being attracted towards something doesn't necessarily mean that someone has to act out on said attraction. Attractions and actions also aren't mutually exclusive concepts either that warrant extra terms, so your point is moot. I showed you one (of many) examples that clearly state that zoophilia (as part of paraphilias) IS the sexual attraction towards animals. Sexual attraction doesn't mean having sex. That's why the term bestialist exists, because this denotes a person who IS having sex with animals.

Zoosexuality is, as you correctly stated, a made up term by the community, but not for the reasons you mentioned. Zoo communities tried for a long time to drift away from the association with paraphilias and towards recognition of zoophilia as a proper sexual orientation, since words ending on "sexuality" usually indicate an orientation, but the outside world hasn't recognized zoophilia as a sexual orientation yet, so zoosexuality for the outside world just means the same as zoophilia.

If you go to the more extreme parts of the community, you will experience rather delusional statements like "zoophilia" not being associated with "paraphilia" at all, but rather with "love", some people go to those extremes to claim that anyone loving animals would be a "zoophile", which led to at least one case I heard about (anecdotal evidence, I know) where a person not knowing the term "zoophilia", who was (and still is) a person loving animals got convinced to wear a shirt stating "I'm a zoophile", thinking it meant "I ❤️ animals". Someone who knew what "zoophilia" meant asked him if this was true and told him what the word truely meant, to which said person reacted shocked and threw away the shirt in question in disgust. Stuff like that happens when people come up with their own definition of words rather than abiding by (or challenging) the official definitions.

Which in turn also led people back when I was new in zoo communities, almost 30 years ago, to claim that "bestialists" were "dirty animal abusers", absolutely misrepresenting the meaning of said word.

So if you let this happen, in the end you get people to think that words have entirely different meanings than they have. They'll prefer to give "zoophilia" a more positive, less polarizing meaning, make up a new word for the official definition of zoophilia, rebrand the word "bestiality" into something negative and think they can fool the whole world if they pretend just hard enough that their interpretation and definition will turn official somehow in the end. But that's not how language works. And that's not what outsiders believe. Nobody falls for that. It's just delusional and gets treated as such. I've seen that happening time and time again. Outsiders don't buy into the "it's all about looove" stuff while some zoos deceive themselves into thinking that this is exactly what the word "zoophile" means (it is not, though).
 
MashaSobaka said:
Every third word Toretto says in the movies is family. His family. In a deep, hoarse, slow voice.
Click to expand...
Ahhh... I wasn't aware of that, having avoided all of them beyond the first, which, honestly, I can (mercifully) barely remember anything about beyond it having to do with idiotic-looking rice-burners with obnoxious fart-can exhaust systems.
 
CritterFunatic said:
Not hyper pedantic, just factual.



Correct so far. I haven't said anything else.



The "more than just sex" part is irrelevant for the outside world. They didn't coin a word for that because they aren't interested in that.

Anything else still would be a zoophile. A zoophile is sexually attracted towards animals, a bestialist acts out on this attraction. It is likely that a bestialist is a zoophile as well, otherwise they might not seek intercourse with animals, while a zoophile doesn't necessarily needs to be a bestialist, as not every zoophile acts out on their attraction.



You didn't really made it simpler but overcomplicated it.

An asexual person, for example, can still also indulge in sexual activities without feeling sexually attracted towards anyone. Not being attracted towards someone or something doesn't mean they aren't able to have sexual activities, likewise being attracted towards something doesn't necessarily mean that someone has to act out on said attraction. Attractions and actions also aren't mutually exclusive concepts either that warrant extra terms, so your point is moot. I showed you one (of many) examples that clearly state that zoophilia (as part of paraphilias) IS the sexual attraction towards animals. Sexual attraction doesn't mean having sex. That's why the term bestialist exists, because this denotes a person who IS having sex with animals.

Zoosexuality is, as you correctly stated, a made up term by the community, but not for the reasons you mentioned. Zoo communities tried for a long time to drift away from the association with paraphilias and towards recognition of zoophilia as a proper sexual orientation, since words ending on "sexuality" usually indicate an orientation, but the outside world hasn't recognized zoophilia as a sexual orientation yet, so zoosexuality for the outside world just means the same as zoophilia.

If you go to the more extreme parts of the community, you will experience rather delusional statements like "zoophilia" not being associated with "paraphilia" at all, but rather with "love", some people go to those extremes to claim that anyone loving animals would be a "zoophile", which led to at least one case I heard about (anecdotal evidence, I know) where a person not knowing the term "zoophilia", who was (and still is) a person loving animals got convinced to wear a shirt stating "I'm a zoophile", thinking it meant "I ❤️ animals". Someone who knew what "zoophilia" meant asked him if this was true and told him what the word truely meant, to which said person reacted shocked and threw away the shirt in question in disgust. Stuff like that happens when people come up with their own definition of words rather than abiding by (or challenging) the official definitions.

Which in turn also led people back when I was new in zoo communities, almost 30 years ago, to claim that "bestialists" were "dirty animal abusers", absolutely misrepresenting the meaning of said word.

So if you let this happen, in the end you get people to think that words have entirely different meanings than they have. They'll prefer to give "zoophilia" a more positive, less polarizing meaning, make up a new word for the official definition of zoophilia, rebrand the word "bestiality" into something negative and think they can fool the whole world if they pretend just hard enough that their interpretation and definition will turn official somehow in the end. But that's not how language works. And that's not what outsiders believe. Nobody falls for that. It's just delusional and gets treated as such. I've seen that happening time and time again. Outsiders don't buy into the "it's all about looove" stuff while some zoos deceive themselves into thinking that this is exactly what the word "zoophile" means (it is not, though).
Click to expand...
you really haven't paid attention, the left has defined them selfs into wins all the time, they destroyed the word woman, so yes, we can force it into common parlance, and will.
 
CritterFunatic said:
And now we get into socio-political conspiracy theories? Alright. You win. I'm out!
Click to expand...
Correction, Fact, it has been demonstrated ad-nuasium.

and Zoosexual is a much more accurate label for a good chunk of us here, vs the awkward old labeling.

more efficient terminology that is more precise only has benefits, unlike the leftist ilk who take all ready good labels and bastardize them, as all they can do is co-opt and destroy, never create.
 
The same arguing on zoo morals that occurs here would occur over there, if enough interest grows in it. I don't think there will be so it'll just be like a small quiet club. No porn is at least an objective rule and will probably change some things.

Anyone who thinks they'll create a site for real zoos is going to come into a world of complexity, willingly or not, as everyone will deviate. I happen to find exploring that complexity important for developing down-to-earth testable morality.

Edit: to put it another way, I think the realz-iest zoos are the ones that actually agonize over this stuff and don't let their emotions take charge. Not the animal anthropomorphists or spiritualists or other probably really good people that just don't challenge and refine their beliefs.
 
Last edited:
omniscientfluffer said:
like a small quiet club
Click to expand...
That's why I'm there most of the time.
But yeah, discussions, more or less fervent, arise from time to time on a bunch of themes yada yada but the cool part is that we can focus on that instead of the low quality porn that is constantly reposted and the endless posts on meetups.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top