Does a gay stop being gay if he lets a woman use him?
Does a heterosexual stop being heterosexual if he works on a gay porno?
Does a zoosexual exclusive stop being a zoosexual exclusive if he willingly lets a human use him sexually?
The answer to the second one might be more difficult then to the first and third question, but only because "acting" doesn't imply real life preferences. There is for example a gay actor I have in mind, who, in his role, is pansexual and hits on everything that has a pulse. Doesn't mean he isn't gay off-camera.
In the cases of the first and third questions though the answer might be "yes". If it happens willingly and they get enjoyment out of it, then they aren't as exclusive to their orientation as they thought.
Which is totally fine btw. A zoo doesn't have to be exclusive, a guy liking men doesn't have to be exclusively gay. I don't, as usual, get, why people care so much about labels. You do you. If every involved party wants it and likes what you do and nobody gets hurt, it's fine. Who in the end really cares about what you call yourself? That's what I never get.
A immature person said to me: Zoo Exclusive means only animals. Should be easy to understand with your 135 IQ. You are not at all into humans and let another man fuck you. I think there is something seriously seriously wrong with you but I already knew that before you said that.
I would agree with his definition, not with his conclusion though. Yes, exclusivity in this case means "only animals". But if you like humans as well (and even if you just stomach them enough to have sex with them) you just aren't exclusive anymore. Nothing of value lost and also nothing wrong with you either.
So, what is wrong with wanting a friend to be happy? What is wrong with letting human use you sexually? I explain my situation a bit better in here. →
https://www.zooville.org/threads/bestiality-vs-human-sex.770/page-3
Nothing is. Why should it be? Who is saying it is?
I'm sure I'm not the only zoosexual exclusive who is in a human relationship nor the last one.
Surely depends on how platonic the human relation in this case is. In any other case it's just a non-exclusive zoosexual in a relationship with a human.
I can only climax with dogs, I only fall inlove with dogs. I still have my canine wife next to me. I can't climax with humans, I can't love humans like I love my canine wife or my past canine husband. I can't get any more zoosexual exclusive than that. If I let a human fuck me to make that human happy, my exclusive zoosexual orientation does not change, I'm still only attracted to dogs, I still only love dogs. Right?
Feel free to state your opinions.
You are still attracted to and love dogs, yet, you don't mind humans fucking you. If that works for you, why questioning it? Why do you care so much for a specific label?
What you think about heteros who work in gay porn or gays that work in heterosexual porn? Do they also stop being gay or hetero because of the sexual acts that they do at work?
Nope. Like I explained above. Just look at the actor John Barrowman for example. In real life he is gay. In the show "Doctor Who" he plays the role of Captain Jack Harkness, a pansexual time traveller from the 51st century. The doctor once described people of that time period in which humans expand across the stars with the phrase "too many species, too little time". Meaning that people from that period basically fall in love with (and lust for) almost anything that moves. So, of course, the character flirts with both, males and females on screen. That doesn't make him less gay in real life, though.
Let me ask you a question in return. If you consider the sexuality of an individual being compromised by the role the individual plays in an act or a show, or a movie, would that mean, that otherwise monogamous actors cheat on their partners, when having different actors as partners in plays or shows or movies? Or would you say "it's just a role, it doesn't count"? Because the same would apply to the sexual orientation.
What if a lesbian gets raped by a heterosexual? Is she no longer a lesbian?
Rape is a non-consensual act. Just because a lesbian woman has genitals that are anatomically compatible with a mans genitals doesn't mean she is inviting men to fuck her. If one does so anyway against her will, that doesn't change her orientation, even if she orgasms. Being able to orgasm doesn't mean you are into something, it just means somebody hijacked a part of your body for their pleasure which might result in mutual orgasms. The lesbian doesn't stop being lesbian just because somebody forced her to have sex with a man in the same way as a heterosexual woman wouldn't enjoy herself when being fucked against her will.
It's all a question of the mindset, not if the body is ready or not.
Just because anything can happen to you, it doesn't mean it changes who you are. Unless you want and allow it to happen.
What about 2 married lesbians that wanted to make a baby for them as a family and one of them let a dude donate sperm in the old way (though heterosexual sex) is she no longer a lesbian?
That's just an act out of necessity, a one time thing both of them would have to agree on. Just with the example above, being lesbian doesn't stop their bodies being able to have sex with men. But being lesbian means, they can't produce babies. So in order for a baby to happen they have to find a compromise. If it's a one-time-thing it wouldn't really change much at all about their arrangement. If the woman getting impregnated having not only fun but has sex with the guy frequently, then she just isn't a lesbian but bisexual. Still, if her wife doesn't mind all that, it wouldn't be important. "Lesbian" is just a word just as "bisexual" is. People might rather wonder how open their relationship is if it allows outsiders to have sex with one of them, rather if the promiscous one is gay or not.
I mean, I can understand why heterosexual people worry about "being gay" and stuff like that. They might have considered themself to be part of the majority and might be afraid to accept, that they aren't.
But I have never understood why gay people fear being "bisexual" or why esclusive zoophiles fear being... just zoophiles.
I once heard a guy saying "The pic I just saw was hot, but, I can't like it, I just can't. It was a hot woman, but I'm gay. I have to hate it!" and I just shake my head. Being in denial is one thing, when it comes to heterosexual people who fear that they could be attacked or hated for "being different". Being in denial is weird, when it comes to people who already exist in a minority.
Another example: When I grew up, I was convinced I was gay. I was convinced throughout my 20s, even when I briefly had a rather platonic relationship with a girl of my age back then. Gay friends of me said "Would have never worked out, you are gay as a three dollar bill." In the end they were wrong though, and I was as well. I learned that I didn't mind women as much as I thought I would. And nowadays I'm like a western saloon door, I swing in both directions and consider myself bisexual rather than gay.
To me it just feels alien to cling to the idea to be "gay" and to make it part of my identity to such a degree that I start to deny who I truely am just so I can consider myself being something that I am truely not.
That's why I find it hard to understand, why people just
want to remain "gay" instead of accepting to be "bisexual" or why people feel the need to remain "zoo-exclusive" even if they aren't that exclusive. What do you get out of that specific label, that the other label can't give you? Why do you feel the need to remain "exclusive" to the world, even though you may not really be it? What difference does it really make? Do you fear people might swarm you to have sex with you, if you don't claim to be exclusive? Do you fear zoos accept you less if you aren't totally and exclusively devoted to their cause? Because nothing of that sort will happen.
Please don't get me wrong, this isn't really criticism of your person or a personal attack or anything, I just desire to understand why it seems to matter so much for you to remain "exclusive" even if it's in name only.
