skullprotogen
Tourist
Is it offensive, a scientific term like "homossexual" or just a word?
Do you consider "zoophile" an offensive term?
- Thread starter skullprotogen
- Start date
Zoophile means someone thats attracted to animals. Only thing thats offensive is when someone says it's just a fetish, while the ones that only come for porn are the fetishists.
M
mrbig
Guest
I personally hate labels and labeling myself. I am just me, a human being.
dartel
Prized Citizen of ZV
I can't think of a worse label to embrace.
Meh ?
Zoophile, Zoosexual, a Zoo... All pretty much work. There's certainly worse things to be called like a "zoofag."
Zoophile, Zoosexual, a Zoo... All pretty much work. There's certainly worse things to be called like a "zoofag."
Thisisnotabot
Tourist
I would say that the intent behind the word is what could make it offensive, since by itself its just a word.
skullprotogen
Tourist
that sounds like a futile attempt to insult a zoo, buuuuut...Meh ?
PurpleRain
Tourist
No way, if anything Im proud of it since it took me too long to accept thats who I am 
zoo is simpler and sounds nicer tho
zoo is simpler and sounds nicer thoThatGirlAmber
Tourist
not offensive at all. id rather be called that then a dog fucker or something lol. but then again the fact people in general are so offended by words is what bothers me i mean come on get over yourself " o i was called this im gonna be pissed and make a huge deal about it" seriously who thinks they are that special to be like that it solves nothing never has never will just makes that person a whiney little bitch racial stuff i get but racial as in color NOT as in a sexual reference for example gays lesbians etc etc lol sorry <3
Reconscope
Supreme Citizen of ZV
Zoo=animal
Phile=love for.
Phile=love for.
Erraneous_bocephus
Tourist
I accepted the term early on and am quite alright with it.
According to historian Joanna Bourke (in her book Loving Animals, 2020) the terms zoophilia and zooerastie were introduced by Austrian psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing in his extremely influential diagnostic textbook Psychopathia Sexualis (first edition 1886; between its first publication and Krafft-Ebing's death in 1902 the book went through 12 editions and changed from a relatively slim little volume to a fat book of 500 pages).
So for Krafft-Ebing zoophilia was a kind of fetish that involved a longing (whether sexual or not) for animals, while zooerastie was a pathological form of sexual desire.
We are talking about terms from the Golden Age of transforming sexual activities into thousand different types of pathological, abnormal and unnatural "sexualities", a transformative work mostly done in medicine, psychiatry and psychology in the period 1870-1920, and Krafft-Ebing being one of the most central figures in this process.
Biologist Joan Roughgarden argues in her brilliant book Evolution's Rainbow (2004, 2nd ed 2009) that medicine (including psychiatry) and psychology are disciplines hell-bent on pathologizing diversity. There's a strong tendency to portray diversity in sexuality and gender as something wrong as such.
Reconscope
Supreme Citizen of ZV
People make things complex for no reason.
Sate&Sinder
Lurker
<3
BearlyAxel
Tourist
Better than dog-fucker or *insertAnimalHere*-fucker. But with things they way they are, it does have a negative connotation
Panda Chen
Zooville Settler
Words are useful for communication and understanding. Some may not like labels but they are useful as long as they don't solely define. Like an individual person can be a parent, a partner, a worker, a child, a lover, a cook and many more things but not one of those completely defines and describes that individual. Agreeing on a term that gives a general explanation of a trait is useful however we shouldn't let ourselves be defined by that. It is what concerns me about all this defining gender and orientation. That is one aspect of an individual it shouldn't ever be the only thing that makes that person who they are.
HateMakingUsernames
Tourist
in it's literally meaning I think it's a fine term. The problem with it is people seem to use it interchangable with beastiality, which it's not. zoophilia implies the want to ensure the animal is also happy. beastiality has no such concern.
I definitely don't like the sound of the word, so I just don't consider myself one. I don't need labels to know who I am.
ShanoirII
Zooville Settler
ill agree the sound of the word is off-putting on its face, because the term "phile" usually denotes a mere paraphilia instead of a real attraction. the word sounds uncomfortably close to pedophile or necrophile to some people, so i can understand wanting to differentiate.
but... you say youre not a zoo... you are attracted to animals in some way right, given that youre on this forum?
I am definitely sexually attracted to animals, I'm just not entirely sure if I'd be romantically attracted. I'm not a fence hopping freak, though! I'm very loving towards animals and all that, so I'm not dangerous or anything like that if that's a concern you may be having.
My mother language relies heavily on intonation. Thus, he can treat an ugly word as kind and treat a beautiful word as evil.
I don't have a problem with the word zoophile, although it is true that it is too similar to words that mean a sexual disease (pedo, necro etc.), while zoophilia is not a disease.
I don't have a problem with the word zoophile, although it is true that it is too similar to words that mean a sexual disease (pedo, necro etc.), while zoophilia is not a disease.