How do zoophiles feel about bestiality as a kink?
- Thread starter jackalz
- Start date
SacWolf
Tourist
People who identify as zoophiles generally view their attraction to animals as a deep-seated, emotional, and often romantic or affectionate orientation towards animals. For them, it's not merely a kink or fetish but a significant part of their sexual and emotional identity.
Regarding the idea of people participating in bestiality as a kink or fetish without identifying as zoophiles themselves, opinions among zoophiles can vary widely:
And yes. ChatGPT helps a lot for people that have a hard time expressing feelings in text. Although I'm not sure if I'm technically zoo because I do want a relationship with another human but only if they are zoo as well.
Regarding the idea of people participating in bestiality as a kink or fetish without identifying as zoophiles themselves, opinions among zoophiles can vary widely:
- Disapproval: Many zoophiles might strongly disapprove of bestiality being treated as a kink or fetish. They might see it as trivializing or sensationalizing something they consider a serious and ethical aspect of their identity.
- Concern for Animal Welfare: Zoophiles who prioritize animal welfare and consent are likely to be particularly critical of any form of bestiality that does not prioritize the well-being and consent of the animal involved.
- Stigma and Misconceptions: Some zoophiles might fear that any association with bestiality as a kink or fetish could perpetuate negative stereotypes and misunderstandings about their own orientation.
- Legal and Ethical Issues: Many zoophiles advocate for legal and ethical frameworks that protect animals from harm and ensure that any interactions with animals are consensual and respectful. They might be concerned that the portrayal of bestiality as a kink could undermine efforts to protect animals.
And yes. ChatGPT helps a lot for people that have a hard time expressing feelings in text. Although I'm not sure if I'm technically zoo because I do want a relationship with another human but only if they are zoo as well.
CritterFunatic
Citizen of Zooville
Given that bestiality is the act of having sex with animals and having sex with animals might be a kink for some, this sounds like a thing that surely happens, but I feel we have to distinguish between zoophilia, bestiality and a fetish first.
I only take the official definitions of the words, wherein zoophilia is defined as a sexual attraction towards animals and bestiality is the act of having sex with animals and not the definitions some zoos invented for themselves. So a zoophile, a person sexually attracted towards animals, can, but doesn't have to be a bestialist. A bestialist, most likely would be a zoophile though. So the question shouldn't really be, if bestiality is a kink (as it only describes a specific act of sex) but if zoophilia (which might have caused said specific act of sex to happen in the first place) is a kink.
So by default a bestialist might be a zoophile, if they feel sexually attracted towards animals. The only instance where a bestialist wouldn't be a zoophile would probably be a person who's more inclined to take an opportunity, rather to act out on attraction, along the lines of: "I'm horny. Oh look, there's a mare over there and she's presenting. Well, a hole is a hole, let's do this!". But then again, if they didn't feel the attraction, it would hardly be a kink. So bestiality in itself is not a kink, but might be a part of a kink.
So the question is, is sexual attraction towards animals, which is what zoophilia is, a kink in and on itself? I guess this very question is, why many zoos try so hard to change the definition of a zoophile, because it might be easy to construe that a specific sexual attraction is a kink. The term zoophilia stems from a list of paraphilias, which invites some less zoo-inclined people to draw this conclusion, which in turn causes some zoos to redefine zoophilia by either changing the definition of the word, or by transporting the original definition to new, different words like "zoosexuality", while also trying to cement it as a proper sexual orientation, like homo-, hetero-, bi- or pansexuality are. And while I see the appeal to want to claim it's a certain thing like a proper sexual orientation, it isn't publicly defined as such. Maybe it happens some day, maybe it won't. But it's certainly not the case as of today.
So zoophilia remains a sexual attraction towards animals, which might mean many things for many people. An orientation for some, a fetish for others. It may indeed be both for different people, given that zoos are just as diverse as anybody else and not many share the exact same views of anybody else.
An additional question would be: Would a kink be that bad? I guess this also depends on who you ask as well, but I give you my opinion here: sexual attraction towards and a sexual act with an animal could be bad, if it only served for human sexual gratification. Sexual gratification is a large motivator that might make some people try to get it no matter the cost. In this case an animal might be abused as a sex toy and not much thought would be wasted on the wellbeing of the animal. That's certainly a form of abuse and should be discouraged. But not every person is driven by this motivator. A common complaint is to train an animal to endure sex against their will. Sadly I have seen this kind of behavior among zoos before and have also been asked a few times if I had any tips on how to train an animal, for example a castrated, male dog who lost his libido with his balls, to have sex with said person, to which my answer always is: "No, I do not know how to train an animal to have sex with you. And if I did, I wouldn't tell, because something like this shouldn't be happening. If your pet is not interested, then simply take that as a 'no' and leave it at that." Sadly, some people can't take a "no" for an answer.
Someone else who fetishizes about having sex with animals and eventually doing so might actually like or even love animals and would think twice about the wellbeing of the animal in question. Someone who is more considerate and compassionate might still tempt an animal to have sex with them, but would be fine with the animal rejecting the offer and wouldn't force it. I've seen examples of such people among zoos as well and I don't mind them at all. I remember someone telling me they had the hots for some local bulls and visiting them regularly, but never doing anything illegal to them and just enjoyed being close to them, maybe fondling them, but only as long as the bulls seemed comfortable with it. If this was the whole truth, then I obviously wouldn't have any problem with that, as long as the place where those encounters happen were public of course. Trespassing is something I can't condone as well, but that's partially unrelated to the ethical treatment of the animal in question. People with those fetishes easily could also own pets or have legal access to the animal in question, so in those cases there's no objection from me.
TL;DR:
To me it's less important if the sexual attraction towards an animal is a fetish or not, than if the person having said fetish is a good person and treats the animal well and can also deal with rejection by said animal. If people treat an animal well, I couldn't care less if it was a fetish or not. If people treat an animal badly, they could even claim to have a legitimate orientation, I'd still condemn them for mistreating an animal.
I only take the official definitions of the words, wherein zoophilia is defined as a sexual attraction towards animals and bestiality is the act of having sex with animals and not the definitions some zoos invented for themselves. So a zoophile, a person sexually attracted towards animals, can, but doesn't have to be a bestialist. A bestialist, most likely would be a zoophile though. So the question shouldn't really be, if bestiality is a kink (as it only describes a specific act of sex) but if zoophilia (which might have caused said specific act of sex to happen in the first place) is a kink.
So by default a bestialist might be a zoophile, if they feel sexually attracted towards animals. The only instance where a bestialist wouldn't be a zoophile would probably be a person who's more inclined to take an opportunity, rather to act out on attraction, along the lines of: "I'm horny. Oh look, there's a mare over there and she's presenting. Well, a hole is a hole, let's do this!". But then again, if they didn't feel the attraction, it would hardly be a kink. So bestiality in itself is not a kink, but might be a part of a kink.
So the question is, is sexual attraction towards animals, which is what zoophilia is, a kink in and on itself? I guess this very question is, why many zoos try so hard to change the definition of a zoophile, because it might be easy to construe that a specific sexual attraction is a kink. The term zoophilia stems from a list of paraphilias, which invites some less zoo-inclined people to draw this conclusion, which in turn causes some zoos to redefine zoophilia by either changing the definition of the word, or by transporting the original definition to new, different words like "zoosexuality", while also trying to cement it as a proper sexual orientation, like homo-, hetero-, bi- or pansexuality are. And while I see the appeal to want to claim it's a certain thing like a proper sexual orientation, it isn't publicly defined as such. Maybe it happens some day, maybe it won't. But it's certainly not the case as of today.
So zoophilia remains a sexual attraction towards animals, which might mean many things for many people. An orientation for some, a fetish for others. It may indeed be both for different people, given that zoos are just as diverse as anybody else and not many share the exact same views of anybody else.
An additional question would be: Would a kink be that bad? I guess this also depends on who you ask as well, but I give you my opinion here: sexual attraction towards and a sexual act with an animal could be bad, if it only served for human sexual gratification. Sexual gratification is a large motivator that might make some people try to get it no matter the cost. In this case an animal might be abused as a sex toy and not much thought would be wasted on the wellbeing of the animal. That's certainly a form of abuse and should be discouraged. But not every person is driven by this motivator. A common complaint is to train an animal to endure sex against their will. Sadly I have seen this kind of behavior among zoos before and have also been asked a few times if I had any tips on how to train an animal, for example a castrated, male dog who lost his libido with his balls, to have sex with said person, to which my answer always is: "No, I do not know how to train an animal to have sex with you. And if I did, I wouldn't tell, because something like this shouldn't be happening. If your pet is not interested, then simply take that as a 'no' and leave it at that." Sadly, some people can't take a "no" for an answer.
Someone else who fetishizes about having sex with animals and eventually doing so might actually like or even love animals and would think twice about the wellbeing of the animal in question. Someone who is more considerate and compassionate might still tempt an animal to have sex with them, but would be fine with the animal rejecting the offer and wouldn't force it. I've seen examples of such people among zoos as well and I don't mind them at all. I remember someone telling me they had the hots for some local bulls and visiting them regularly, but never doing anything illegal to them and just enjoyed being close to them, maybe fondling them, but only as long as the bulls seemed comfortable with it. If this was the whole truth, then I obviously wouldn't have any problem with that, as long as the place where those encounters happen were public of course. Trespassing is something I can't condone as well, but that's partially unrelated to the ethical treatment of the animal in question. People with those fetishes easily could also own pets or have legal access to the animal in question, so in those cases there's no objection from me.
TL;DR:
To me it's less important if the sexual attraction towards an animal is a fetish or not, than if the person having said fetish is a good person and treats the animal well and can also deal with rejection by said animal. If people treat an animal well, I couldn't care less if it was a fetish or not. If people treat an animal badly, they could even claim to have a legitimate orientation, I'd still condemn them for mistreating an animal.
Last edited:
CritterFunatic
Citizen of Zooville
Zoophilia is first and foremost a sexual attraction towards animals. If you feel this attraction, you are a zoo. If this attraction persists if you are in a relationship with a human, you are still a zoo. People who have a relationship ONLY with animals are called "zoo exclusive". You don't have to be exclusive to be a zoo. Most zoos aren't exclusive either.
dartel
Prized Citizen of ZV
I would argue that it doesn't even have to be a sexual attraction. Relationships, between human and human or human and animal do not have to be built on sex. They can just as well be built on non-sexual attributes. So I'd say it's attraction towards and/or connection with animals on a deeper emotional level.
CritterFunatic
Citizen of Zooville
Many zoos like to argue that, but that doesn't change the official definition. Relationships, real or imagined, aren't part of the official definition, sexual attraction is. This is the official definition of zoophilia the majority of the world knows (and therefore uses):
Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/zoophilia
If this one example isn't enough, feel free to look it up on any other encyclopedia, online or offline. You will always find the same definition.
Any other definition you heard about has been made up by zoos who try to either give zoophilia a less controversial sounding definition or to shift it's original definition into other words, like "zoosexuality" for example, which would make it sound like it's an officially recognized sexual orientation (which it isn't, at least not currently).
Unfortunately this confusion about the proper definition shows up again and again in most zoo communities and I had already two other discussions about this very topic in this forum during this week alone, so I'll leave it at that.
Feel free to disagree with the official definition if you like, but please try not to convince me of a different, "better" definition, instead try to convince those who are in charge to officially decide on those definitions.
Polkizzz
Tourist
idk if I can call myself a 'zoophile,' but I did start out with a beastiality kink/fetish for a while,
however it wasn't until I started perusing here, and understanding the deeper emotional/intimate connections of zoo, that I started to accept and be more comfortable with this whole area/part of me, because while I do like the kinkier side of it, I feel like having that connection and affection is important, at least to me it is
however it wasn't until I started perusing here, and understanding the deeper emotional/intimate connections of zoo, that I started to accept and be more comfortable with this whole area/part of me, because while I do like the kinkier side of it, I feel like having that connection and affection is important, at least to me it is
johnnysn0w
Tourist
I think it’s normal and fine.
LittIePuppy
Tourist
Well it's fine but it depends on how you see the animal
If you see it as an object then don't agree with beastiality
If you see them as a living being deserving of respect care and love.
Bext thing is to get consent and let the animals have fun with you.
Don't let yourself become okay with using animals for sex or others using animals for sex.
Having sex with animals is fine with consent as long as you arnt using them.
If you see it as an object then don't agree with beastiality
If you see them as a living being deserving of respect care and love.
Bext thing is to get consent and let the animals have fun with you.
Don't let yourself become okay with using animals for sex or others using animals for sex.
Having sex with animals is fine with consent as long as you arnt using them.
1Ostwind1
Zooville Settler
A difficult question, since the line between a real zoo and a fetishist is visible only in action.
In my opinion, a real zoo puts his/hers partner and his/hers well-being (clearness, pleasure and finally consent) first, while a fetishists thinks only about themselfs - the satisfaction of his/hers desires and precisely the moment of “intimacy”.
An example of a fetishist would be hundreds of videos where a man has sex with a mare who is not washed, is trying to leave, has not received her orgasm, etc. A real zoo always thinks about the future of his/hers partner: “Is she clean?, Will I give her an infection?, Does she like it?, etc.” Therefore, the only difference is that the fetishists thinks about now and themselfs, and the real zoo thinks about the future and about his partner. Therefore, the attitude towards them is not very good...
In my opinion, a real zoo puts his/hers partner and his/hers well-being (clearness, pleasure and finally consent) first, while a fetishists thinks only about themselfs - the satisfaction of his/hers desires and precisely the moment of “intimacy”.
An example of a fetishist would be hundreds of videos where a man has sex with a mare who is not washed, is trying to leave, has not received her orgasm, etc. A real zoo always thinks about the future of his/hers partner: “Is she clean?, Will I give her an infection?, Does she like it?, etc.” Therefore, the only difference is that the fetishists thinks about now and themselfs, and the real zoo thinks about the future and about his partner. Therefore, the attitude towards them is not very good...
labsareawesome
Citizen of Zooville
Ah, this old debate again. I love my dogs and cats just because. I just happen to think that certain kinds of interspecies sex is hot.