Is “dildogging” a dogwhistle term?

[ArkiOtt]

By “dogwhistle” I mean it in the context of a term only zoos would use to identify each other, without setting off red flags to anyone who’s not a zoo. I’ve been roleplaying recently with someone who uses an anthro (furry) canine character, and during the roleplay his character mentioned Dildogging. Up till now I had no indication that he’s a zoo, I thought he was just a furry. But I’ve never heard the term dildogging outside of zoo contexts. I don’t want to just come out and ask if he’s a zoo cause if he’s not it would really harm our friendship and my reputation within the community, but I’m wondering if he used that term specifically to signal to me that he’s a zoo. Cause that feels like a term most furries wouldn’t be able to identify as a zoo term, but zoos would identify as a zoo term, ya know?

Additionally, are there any other dogwhistle/signal terms I should be on the look out for, or that I could possibly use myself with anyone I think is a zoo?

 

[dartel]

If he's using dildogging in a "positive" light then he certainly isn't a zoo. Bestialist or fetishist MAYBE, but no zoo would dildog.

 

[ArkiOtt]

If he's using dildogging in a "positive" light then he certainly isn't a zoo. Bestialist or fetishist MAYBE, but no zoo would dildog.

I don’t think there was positivity or negativity behind it. He was using it to describe what his character wanted mine to do to his character’s cock, basically just a stranger way to say that within the roleplay he wanted me to ride him. I wasn’t sure if just… knowledge of that word made him more likely to be zoo, even if he wouldn’t advocate dildogging irl

 

[pes]

If he's using dildogging in a "positive" light then he certainly isn't a zoo. Bestialist or fetishist MAYBE, but no zoo would dildog.

So it is likely an indication that this person is into sex with animals. Or porn with animals. It does not have to mean they would have sex with an animal if they could.
Discovering potential zoophiles is in my experience done by observing their interaction and how they talk about animals. This does not immediately make someone a sexual zoophile.
But if you ask a question about animal consent and you do not immediately get a "no" answer, it is in my opinion a good evidence.

 

[ArkiOtt]

So it is likely an indication that this person is into sex with animals.
Discovering potential zoophiles is in my experience done by observing their interaction and how they talk about animals. This does not immediately make someone a sexual zoophile.
But if you ask a question about animal consent and you do not immediately get a "no" answer, it is in my opinion a good evidence.

Gotcha. I have… 0 clue how to bring that up in conversation haha

 

[UR20Z]

Oh, yay.... Yet another variation on the tired old theme of "what is the secret sign to look for that says somebody is zoo/beasty?"

And, as usual, the response is the same: Unless they say it straight-up (And that may be a lie) there simply is no way to know for sure that doesn't involve you seeing, with your own little eyeballs, the "someone" with an animal dick inserted into their body, or inserting their dick into an animal's body. *ANYTHING ELSE* is a guess, and endangers both them (from exposure) and you (from the possible backlash against the accusation you're making by asking (No, it doesn't matter that you don't INTEND it to be an accusation - it only matters that whoever you ask feels it to be an accusation)) due to the nearly universal hatred of even the IDEA that a person might have sex with an animal, whether as "pitcher" or "catcher".

 

[UR20Z]

He had a specific situation to ask about so it isn't the same.

The only diffreence I can see is one of degree - his post can be boiled down to "How can I tell if "X" is a zoo/beasty?". For the post itself, X = one person. Most of the time, X = "whoever I run into out there in the world."

The specificity doesn't change the basic fact that this is just another way of asking "What's the secret Zoo handshake?" (To which, the only accurate answer possible is either "There isn't one." or "There are so many that there might as well not be one.")