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

Has anyone else been zoo from the start?

I think i was born zoo too, always was interested in animal crotches even before i started getting hard. Now i admit that i am a true zoophile boy. And proud.
 
Knottykid said:
I think i was born zoo too, always was interested in animal crotches even before i started getting hard. Now i admit that i am a true zoophile boy. And proud.
Click to expand...
Sir I couldn't have said it better myself! I have always loved beast crotches
 
Disanima said:
nekdoneco123 said:
and growing up in a religious house doesn't really change who you really are. yes, it might suppress it for some time, but it is still there.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I agree that for the strongest is just a temporary suppression, but for others it's too much of a shame and they give up on this part of themselves forever...
Click to expand...

i think disanima's point is that even if it's supressed, zoophilia is still a part of you. even if you never act on it, it's still a part of you. you may not realize it's there until later in life, but you've always been a zoo. it's somewhat of a semantic issue, but it's important to think about. one doesn't "become" zoo, they simply come to realize it somehow.

Disanima said:
nekdoneco123 said:
we are simply born that way (be it a brain defect or "nature's population control" or something else entirely)
Click to expand...
I don't think it's entirely true, the sexual identity of an individual is not established at birth, but shaped on personal experiences and other factors (a newborn can't have "sexual feelings" since he's not fully developed...)
Click to expand...

again, i think you mostly agree with each other, just see it slightly differently. i don't think disanima is talking about the sexual attraction aspect of zoophilia but simply being drawn to animals spiritually or socially or however you want to think of it.

also, i tend to believe that people can be born with the _potential_ to be different... not necessarily specifically gay or zoo or whatever, but just "different", and that personal experiences can narrow it down to something more specific.
basically nature vs. nurture -- in this case, nature (genetics) being a bit more vague, and nurture (upbringing, experiences) honing it in to something more specific (zoophilia, homosexuality, etc.)
 
juan_doe_drei said:
i think disanima's point is that even if it's supressed, zoophilia is still a part of you. even if you never act on it, it's still a part of you. you may not realize it's there until later in life, but you've always been a zoo. it's somewhat of a semantic issue, but it's important to think about. one doesn't "become" zoo, they simply come to realize it somehow.

again, i think you mostly agree with each other, just see it slightly differently. i don't think disanima is talking about the sexual attraction aspect of zoophilia but simply being drawn to animals spiritually or socially or however you want to think of it.

also, i tend to believe that people can be born with the _potential_ to be different... not necessarily specifically gay or zoo or whatever, but just "different", and that personal experiences can narrow it down to something more specific.
basically nature vs. nurture -- in this case, nature (genetics) being a bit more vague, and nurture (upbringing, experiences) honing it in to something more specific (zoophilia, homosexuality, etc.)
Click to expand...
Yeah, basically I wanted to point out that for some zoos it was never a problem to understand their identity, but for others it's really hard to figure it out until later (especially if there are psychological and ethical restraints in between)...
I don't believe there is something wrong in our heads, I believe that if a behaviour is not a destructive behaviour it isn't pathological. Nature tells to all the living beings that they should mate with their opposite to continue offspring, but it's the free will of the individual who chooses, in the end, what one will become and which one he will love...
 
Disanima said:
Yeah, basically I wanted to point out that for some zoos it was never a problem to understand their identity, but for others it's really hard to figure it out until later (especially if there are psychological and ethical restraints in between)...
I don't believe there is something wrong in our heads, I believe that if a behaviour is not a destructive behaviour it isn't pathological.
Click to expand...

if i gave the impression i thought there was something wrong with us, i didn't mean to. just different from others.

Disanima said:
Nature tells to all the living beings that they should mate with their opposite to continue offspring, but it's the free will of the individual who chooses, in the end, what one will become and which one he will love...
Click to expand...

i have to admit i disagree with the free will comment. it also doesn't fit with being born a zoo...
 
juan_doe_drei said:
i have to admit i disagree with the free will comment. it also doesn't fit with being born a zoo...
Click to expand...
If we wouldn't have the free will to be what we want, we would be just controlled by our DNA, so we basically would only be drawn to our similars for the purpose of reproduction...
 
What's weird is that I always knew I was interested in men, but I never knew I was interested in animals until around puberty. In a way, zoophilia is my sexuality and being gay is just part of who I am.
 
Disanima said:
If we wouldn't have the free will to be what we want, we would be just controlled by our DNA, so we basically would only be drawn to our similars for the purpose of reproduction...
Click to expand...

DNA doesn't do that in such a black-and-white manner. It's very likely that homosexuality is an epigenetic response.
 
DogMichael said:
DNA doesn't do that in such a black-and-white manner. It's very likely that homosexuality is an epigenetic response.
Click to expand...
It's really simplified, but basically the natural purpose of life is to multiply itself, so what's written in your genetic code is that you have to reproduce yourself, that's undeniable. But individuals aren't controlled just by genes... it's more complicated...
 
Disanima said:
It's really simplified, but basically the natural purpose of life is to multiply itself, so what's written in your genetic code is that you have to reproduce yourself, that's undeniable. But individuals aren't controlled just by genes... it's more complicated...
Click to expand...

What's important to realize is that a species' survival isn't based on their ability to have children, but rather on enough of them to have grandchildren. People of alternative sexualities tend to also be more focused on helping their family, so it's actually an evolutionary advantage, which is why our genetic code allows for it.
 
DogMichael said:
What's important to realize is that a species' survival isn't based on their ability to have children, but rather on enough of them to have grandchildren. People of alternative sexualities tend to also be more focused on helping their family, so it's actually an evolutionary advantage, which is why our genetic code allows for it.
Click to expand...
I can't agree on this, genes are not "altruistic", a male lion kills the cubs of a female lion conceived with another male because they would not be his lineage. When whales mates they flush other contendants sperms because of competition (usually, the last who mates is the luckiest because he flushes other contendants sperms and has a better chance to impregnate the female).
My thinking is that the idea of being born with a sexual orientation from the start is undoubtely romantic and naive, but I think that in this development there is a big part given by external influences...
 
Disanima said:
I can't agree on this, genes are not "altruistic", a male lion kills the cubs of a female lion conceived with another male because they would not be his lineage. When whales mates they flush other contendants sperms because of competition (usually, the last who mates is the luckiest because he flushes other contendants sperms and has a better chance to impregnate the female).
My thinking is that the idea of being born with a sexual orientation from the start is undoubtely romantic and naive, but I think that in this development there is a big part given by external influences...
Click to expand...

While in simple terms that might tend to be the case, in social animals things get a lot more complicated. If I never reproduce, but my added effort allows my siblings to raise more children to adulthood, my genes still get selected for as my siblings share a significant portion of those genes. The minimum requirement for such a gene to be successful without my reproduction would be that it save more than two siblings or more than four half-siblings, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces, etc or more than eight first cousins, etc. In such a case the gene would increase in the gene pool. (The Selfish Gene, Ch 6).

There is significant evidence that sexual preference has a strong genetic base; that may or may not apply to zoophilia though as there just isn't enough data to do more than speculate where it is concerned.
 
That's interesting, but I still believe that we, as humans, have a lot more of potential compared to others animals, because we have the ability (our free will) to not be guided only by instincts (that are the expression of our natural programmation).
I believe that our seeking for a path that is different from the one already traced for us is greatly influenced by the way we grow or by experience.
I've always been asexual in regards to my species, probably because I was surrounded by people who expected me to have a girlfriend. It was a concept so old and boring that I never cared about other humans, males or females...
I was naturally fascinated by animals, I guess that the majority of kids love animals, but it's important also the education that parents give you (if you grow with bad influences probably you would have only aggressive behaviour towards animals, or people).
Well... anyway, the fascination became attraction when the right time came.
I wanted to add just a thing: it's not really important if I'm right or wrong, or if we have been zoo from the start or we denied it in the first place and accepted it later. The important is to be in peace with ourselves, to be proud for what we have become and to always treat our partners with respect (animals or humans, whatever you choose to share your life with).
 
IHO said:
Same as what ZetaGirl said; I was attracted to female animals before I even knew why. When I saw "Bambi" as a kid I had what I can only describe as a childhood crush on Faline. ?? More so when I read the original story by Felix Salten. I lost my virginity in my early teens with a GSD in-heat that flagged me while I was petting her... I'm quite sure I was born this way.
Click to expand...
Yes! I had a huge crush on Bambi too! way cool!
 
  • Like
Reactions: IHO
I had no idea this was actually a thing until I first got on the internet when I was around 20, and then it became a strange obsession, and I was totally fascinated.
I've always loved animals but it hadn't crossed my mind until I was on the internet.
 
I lost my virginity to a very seductive ewe way back when I was a kid.
I started because I never had opportunity to fuck a girl, and got the idea that maybe I could make it with sheep, so I did. Like alot of you, it was years of ewe mating before I got my first human pussy. Although I started because it was easier for me, it is now my preference.
 
For myself I had a few fantasies about it at a young age. First encounter was camping. Our family friend brought his dogs, and while off in the woods to piss I noticed one of the dogs started licking up my urine. I took the opportunity to get a quick bj, but didn't do anything for a few years after. When my grandparents got a golden and he matured I was asked to watch him while they went out of town. Every time I used the chance to get a few licks and a rimming for myself. Tried getting him to mount but it never happened. After a few years he lost interest, and I haven't had another since. I still fancy humans, but the feeling of K9 was nice and I'd like to have it again.
 
If I am honest I have had the attraction from a very early age just did not realise until a lot older I can remember growing up in the country surrounded by farms at the age of 10 or maybe even younger and eyeing the bulls and horses
 
I felt attraction to animal genitals sincei was kid. For years i thought it just a curious phase, then maybe im bitnof a freak and supressed it for a while but now i realised i am a true zoophile boy since childhood and now happy about it.
 
Barb Dwyer said:
Sometimes the question arises, When or how did you become zoo?
Click to expand...

Never. :D I was born a zoo I just did not know it until I was about maybe 13-14. I was never romantically interested in people and the few sexual experiences I gathered over the past few years tell me that human sex is not my cup of tea either. :D
Visually most animals are stunningly beautiful some even more that other. I just can not say that about people of any gender.
 
Grew up with a dog in the family, so I had a natural affinity toward them. Grew more curious of their "bits" when I was considerably younger. Then as puberty hit, I found out how much fun a dog tongue is ;) Been a zoo ever since
 
Same here, that's just the way I am. I know it about me since like 12/13... It just felt more natural to try "that" with dog, than to seek for human. Tbh I often don't even get allong very well with humans... I don't understand some of them, they don't understand me..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was always more comfortable around animals compared to people, and I first had sex with my dog when I was 12. So I'd say I was probably zoo from the start.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top