I am unsure if I would call myself a zoophile for the main reason that I don’t find animals romantically attractive, but rather I am only sexually attracted to them. Consent and taking the animals needs into consideration is a requirement of course, but love is something that I simply don’t feel when viewing a canine being kissed by their owner, I simply see it as erotic. Is this a bad viewpoint or does anyone else have this viewpoint other than me?
I am only into animals sexually, is that wrong?
- Thread starter zoofen
- Start date
E
egoldstein
Guest
Well, let's unpack that.
What do we consider wrong? There are many ethical systems one can choose, I tend to default to a modified utilitarianism myself, but there's a whole range of options from religious though the philosophical.
I tend to think that causing strife and harm tend to be things we want to avoid and spredaing happiness and pleasure to be good things.
So long as all parties are adults, ready and willing to engage in a behavior, all have the option of nope'ing out, nobody harmed or coerced, what is there left to criticize?
I am a zoo exclusive, I seek only non-humans as partners, I treat them well and their well being, physical as well as mental, are important factors in all of my decision making.
John Stuart Mill wrote in hiis "On Liberty" (1859):
"If he displeases us, we may express our distaste, and we may stand aloof from a person as well as from a thing that displeases us; but we shall not therefore feel called on to make his life uncomfortable. We shall reflect that he already bears, or will bear, the whole penalty of his error; if he spoils his life by mismanagement, we shall not, for that reason, desire to spoil it still further: instead of wishing to punish him, we shall rather endeavour to alleviate his punishment, by showing him how he may avoid or cure the evils his conduct tends to bring upon him."
...
"But with regard to the merely contingent, or, as it may be called, constructive injury which a person causes to society, by conduct which neither violates any specific duty to the public, nor occasions perceptible hurt to any assignable individual except himself; the inconvenience is one which society can afford to bear, for the sake of the greater good of human freedom."
What do we consider wrong? There are many ethical systems one can choose, I tend to default to a modified utilitarianism myself, but there's a whole range of options from religious though the philosophical.
I tend to think that causing strife and harm tend to be things we want to avoid and spredaing happiness and pleasure to be good things.
So long as all parties are adults, ready and willing to engage in a behavior, all have the option of nope'ing out, nobody harmed or coerced, what is there left to criticize?
I am a zoo exclusive, I seek only non-humans as partners, I treat them well and their well being, physical as well as mental, are important factors in all of my decision making.
John Stuart Mill wrote in hiis "On Liberty" (1859):
"If he displeases us, we may express our distaste, and we may stand aloof from a person as well as from a thing that displeases us; but we shall not therefore feel called on to make his life uncomfortable. We shall reflect that he already bears, or will bear, the whole penalty of his error; if he spoils his life by mismanagement, we shall not, for that reason, desire to spoil it still further: instead of wishing to punish him, we shall rather endeavour to alleviate his punishment, by showing him how he may avoid or cure the evils his conduct tends to bring upon him."
...
"But with regard to the merely contingent, or, as it may be called, constructive injury which a person causes to society, by conduct which neither violates any specific duty to the public, nor occasions perceptible hurt to any assignable individual except himself; the inconvenience is one which society can afford to bear, for the sake of the greater good of human freedom."
E
egoldstein
Guest
I've had no problem falling in love wth a non-human, obviously it's different for everyone, but I've had stronger emotional ties to most of my dogs than I have had with any other human. It's not that I don't make good bonds with humans, I just don't see them in a sexual manner.
KadeBoltz
Zooville Settler
No. I personally don't see it as "Bad" viewpoint and neither should you! There is NOT nor has there EVER BEEN a living breathing soul that is/was allowed to Dictate what you are romantically attracted to OR what you chose to be sexually attracted too. You admitted that you respect and seek consent from an animal partner, that is all that is needed in a sexual relationship. If you are a "Pet Owner" than giving your pet the basic love any domestic creature desires is all you need to reciprocate.
I have noticed on this site and other sites, that the term Fetishist is used to describe someone that EITHER likes to see/watch Bestiality without engaging in the actual act. NOW I COULD BE WRONG AND IF I AM I APOLOGIZE TO ANYONE THAT FEELS DIFFERENTLY.
But I do consider myself a Zoophile that is strictly Zoosexual, I have no place to judge anyone on their desires and lifestyle choices. So from my opinion I would say that you could identify yourself as a Zoophile, in my point of view since you sound like you are sexually active with animals. That makes you a Zoophile, if you were just watching Zoo Porn and pleasuring yourself without an animal. Then you would be a FETISHIST in my opinion.
I think it is a sad world we live in where ANYONE thinks their opinion on how people should conduct their lives is relevant, just because a bunch of Ancient Men made a rule that said WE SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THIS... and that WE SHOULD FEEL GUILTY ABOUT THAT... shouldn't be something we continue to enforce. It's a Societal Tool for people with power and authority to use to manipulate and control the masses!
Don't let yourself feel bad because you have a clear idea of what you are sexually attracted to and what you are romantically desiring.
Feel bad for those that have to make rules and use shame to enforce their own sexual/romantic ideals onto others, just so they can say that what they are doing is "NORMAL" or "RIGHT"! As long as you are being good to any of your sexual partners, then you are a good person that doesn't need to feel bad for anything and if you are actively having sex with animals in your life, then in my opinion you are a Zoophile.
No it's not wrong, love is love
dartel
Prized Citizen of ZV
What's that have to do with it? Sex is not love.
You can love to have sex. Lol. Also I make love with my dogs
D
Deleted member 76481
Guest
Humans do have sex without love as well. As long as you take care of your partner and have their clear consent, I can't see anything wrong with engaging in sex with them
J
J0hnD0e1738
Guest
Yeah it's totally within our nature to have sex for pleasure without the involvement of love. And we're not the only animals that do. Dolphins have sex for pleasure all the time. Also, I am a bi dude myself, but I can't see myself having a romantic relationship with another man, and the same goes with animals.
So no, nothing's wrong here pal and don't let anyone tell you otherwise
So no, nothing's wrong here pal and don't let anyone tell you otherwise
Jeniwfer
Tourist
I understand you, I am also sexually attracted to them, especially horses and dolphins, they seem so beautiful to me and especially their way of doing it with them, is so different from that of a human, I am not attracted to men at all, so much malice, falsehood and deceit in people... Nothing compared to the fidelity of an animal companion, my dog welcomes me when he arrives, He can't do anything and gives me all his love and affection, and when he needs love he tells me and I give it to him. My horse more of the same, but if he is hornier, It's been many years riding and being ridden, so there are plenty of looks. In short, I do consider myself a zoophilic and the truth is that I do not regret or be ashamed of it, loving and being loved by creatures with a pure soul makes me happy every day.
canecorso
Citizen of Zooville
Is it that much of a surprise that you don't feel romantic attraction to an anonymous photo on the internet?
You can only realistically gauge romantic attraction based on what you feel during an animal encounter in real life, nothing less will do. Realistically you fall in love with an individual, not a whole species.
Jeniwfer
Tourist
I am lucky to be able to say that it is not the case, I have only had one partner in my life, it was not bad at all, but it did not attract me, as for personality, it is something that I notice generalizing a bit, the human being can become cruel even if he is a good person
Abelard
Zooville Settler
Maybe humans share more subtile things than animals, what makes their relations more complex. A dog gives you love and take pleasure. The relation is simpler. Isn't it ?
Jeniwfer
Tourist
apart from being simpler, there is no malice involved, that's what I like the most
Jeniwfer
Tourist
I like to be subdued, I would never initiate something that the animal does not want.
It's not wrong to feel a certain way. It's what you do that counts.