Only attracted to zoo-exclusive girls? Oh the irony!

[Wolfspirit]

When it comes to my interest in human relationships, I find myself in a little bit of a pickle. I'm curious how many of you can relate. I am kind of zoo exclusive and kind of not, the only times I'm not is with other zoo-exclusive females because of their love, dedication, a greater awareness of their equality with their partners and typically their love for all other animals too. Which is the most attractive quality to me aside from being a spiritual and unselfish person. Which is why I'll probably never have another human partner again. ?

In all seriousness though have any of you who are or were zoo exclusive ever decided to allow a zoo human—or zoo furry—to join your little pack or herd? If not, would you even consider it if you met someone with compatible traits?

 

[Wolfspirit]

The only way I see it playing out successfully in my mind is if that 3rd person understands they are essentially entering a polygamist relationship and treating each member of that relationship as equals, no feelings of superiority or competition. Only coming in with a desire to bring more love, pleasure and joy to the human and animal partner in question, with the animal partner's approval ofc, and to be with both of them intimately in a way that doesnt take away from their original relationship before that 3rd person entered the picture. If the person comes in with selfish ulterior motives like to become the primary partner in the relationship and make the animal partner the "3rd wheel", then that's just wrong. Yet we see that attitude a lot in zoo chats including here on ZV, that all too familiar male testosterone and ego driven desire to make himself feel superior to this sub-human creature before him that threatens his "manhood".

Gawwd. I feel like puking in my mouth just typing that LOL!

 

[AriesAngyl]

Wow, that sounded complicated!

It’s hard for me to comprehend being in a situation where I could open up to someone and invite them into my little pack. It would have to be a really precise set of circumstances where I could even feel comfortable to open up let alone invite someone in.

It took me a long time just to be open here. In real, that would be a scary proposition.

 

[Bitchesonly]

so youre not zoo exclusive - and you need to stop harassing women

 

[nekdoneco123]

you're not "kinda exclusive, kinda not" if you're actively looking for human partner. nothing wrong with that, it just makes you "not-exclusive"
i'm not sure why is this in the zoo-exclusive section tho... i doubt you'll find someone who can relate in this specific subsection considering it's for ppl with no sexual interest in other ppl.

 

[Wolfspirit]

so youre not zoo exclusive - and you need to stop harassing women

Um harassing? Wtf are you smoking?? You need to chill bruh I haven't harassed anyone. I'm curious whos felt the same way as me. I'm perfectly happy being zoo exclusive like I've been for many years. I'm just open to the idea yet questioning the complexities. Please read and think before you type. I'm not your whipping boy.?

 

[Wolfspirit]

you're not "kinda exclusive, kinda not" if you're actively looking for human partner. nothing wrong with that, it just makes you "not-exclusive"
i'm not sure why is this in the zoo-exclusive section tho... i doubt you'll find someone who can relate in this specific subsection considering it's for ppl with no sexual interest in other ppl.

So let's define zoo-exclusive then. Does it really have to exclude ALL thoughts and even the slightest "what if" questioning in one's mind? Is it really that strict? Because all the definitions I've found basically come down to are you zoo and only zoo by choice? If the answer is yes then that applies to me. I dont NEED a human in my life. I'm not searching for one. But I'm open to the possibility. Who knows what the future holds. I dont see it as a loss not having a human in other words. Its more a curiosity and questioning how it could work if...IF I took that path and IF I could even find someone who was open minded like me. Does that open mindedness make me no longer zoo exclusive? Because everything else points clearly to me being exclusive.

 

[Wolfspirit]

you're not "kinda exclusive, kinda not" if you're actively looking for human partner. nothing wrong with that, it just makes you "not-exclusive"
i'm not sure why is this in the zoo-exclusive section tho... i doubt you'll find someone who can relate in this specific subsection considering it's for ppl with no sexual interest in other ppl.

So let's define zoo-exclusive then. Does it really have to exclude ALL thoughts and even the slightest "what if" questioning in one's mind? Is it really that strict? Because all the definitions I've found basically come down to are you zoo and only zoo by choice? If the answer is yes then that applies to me. I dont NEED a human in my life. I'm not searching for one. But I'm open to the possibility. Who knows what the future holds. I dont see it as a loss not having a human in other words. Its more a curiosity and questioning how it could work if...IF I took that path and IF I could even find someone who was open minded like me. Does that open mindedness make me no longer zoo exclusive? Because everything else points clearly to me being exclusive

Wow, that sounded complicated!

It’s hard for me to comprehend being in a situation where I could open up to someone and invite them into my little pack. It would have to be a really precise set of circumstances where I could even feel comfortable to open up let alone invite someone in.

It took me a long time just to be open here. In real, that would be a scary proposition.

Yah frankly I'd feel the same way with my canine bf or gf. Plus another thing I just thought of. I'd need my private 1 on 1 time with my k9 mate and what if that time I feel I need exceeds the time I'm giving to my human partner? Then there's jealousy, fights. It is complex at least in theory. But I guess for the right human things would just mesh and it would just work. It would probably have to be with a long time zoo friend so we'd know the compatibility is there, each others quirks.

That or better yet, we each have our own partners and whenever we get together in whatever combination between us 4 we just let it happen. That's probably the only way 2 zoo exclusives could come together.

 

[nekdoneco123]

So let's define zoo-exclusive then. Does it really have to exclude ALL thoughts and even the slightest "what if" questioning in one's mind? Is it really that strict? Because all the definitions I've found basically come down to are you zoo and only zoo by choice? If the answer is yes then that applies to me. I dont NEED a human in my life. I'm not searching for one. But I'm open to the possibility. Who knows what the future holds. I dont see it as a loss not having a human in other words. Its more a curiosity and questioning how it could work if...IF I took that path and IF I could even find someone who was open minded like me. Does that open mindedness make me no longer zoo exclusive? Because everything else points clearly to me being exclusive.

i mean, you can also hit up the dictionary what the term "exclusive" means... there are no rules, it's just what it is. you're either sexually interested only in non-human animals (ie: exclusive) or not (and aren't exclusive). it's really not that difficult of a concept.

also, you're a zoo "by choice"? how did that happen?

 

[Bitchesonly]

Um harassing? Wtf are you smoking?? You need to chill bruh I haven't harassed anyone. I'm curious whos felt the same way as me. I'm perfectly happy being zoo exclusive like I've been for many years. I'm just open to the idea yet questioning the complexities. Please read and think before you type. I'm not your whipping boy.?

yes harassing as your targeted list of women are the ones that dont want you

 

[Wolfspirit]

i mean, you can also hit up the dictionary what the term "exclusive" means... there are no rules, it's just what it is. you're either sexually interested only in non-human animals (ie: exclusive) or not (and aren't exclusive). it's really not that difficult of a concept.

also, you're a zoo "by choice"? how did that happen?

Well I guess if you really want to get technical about this, I'm in some sort of in-between world because I'm not attracted to humans typically. I'm just trying to be open minded about the possibility of having a human mate again. I need a canine mate, I don't need a human mate and I'm not really looking for one. I'm simply not being closed-minded and shutting off my myself completely to the possibility. So if that open-mindedness makes me no longer zoo exclusive then fine so be it. I dont care about human labels anyway.

 

[Bitchesonly]

so please stop posting to zoo exclusive lifestyle section then - this thread was a complete miss from the start

 

[Wolfspirit]

yes harassing as your targeted list of women are the ones that dont want you

I'm trying to understand your negativity here and I'm having a hard time. Maybe the title triggered you? I guess I could've worded that differently, but I indicate throughout the thread that this is a philosophical discussion, not an attempt to find a mate soooo...yah. Anyways if you continue your rude replies I will avoid further interaction. You're bringing a lot of unnecessary negative energy into here.

 

[Bitchesonly]

I'm trying to understand your negativity here and I'm having a hard time. Maybe the title triggered you? I guess I could've worded that differently, but I indicate throughout the thread that this is a philosophical discussion, not an attempt to find a mate soooo...yah. Anyways if you continue your rude replies I will avoid further interaction. You're bringing a lot of unnecessary negative energy into here.

so im toxic now for telling you whats real - ok thnx

 

[pes]

In all seriousness though have any of you who are or were zoo exclusive ever decided to allow a zoo human—or zoo furry—to join your little pack or herd? If not, would you even consider it if you met someone with compatible traits?

I kind of understand your situation. I am in a similar but possibly more complicated position.
I still consider myself zoo exclusive (you guys can assess that further in the comments ).

I do not feel any desire to have a loving relationship with another human of any gender. In other words I do not want a human partner in the usual sense of the word. I am just fine loving animals.
But I recognize the advantage and usefulness of having someone who you can rely on in life. Plus some degree of social contact is quite healthy and enjoyable.

So I can imagine being able to live with someone in pretty much the exact same situation. Where it would be clear that we do not sleep together, we do not love each other, we are just good zoo friends very compatible in the way we both think (which is where it gets really complicated ).

 

[Wolfspirit]

Yah we definitely overlap there

 

[FloofyNewfie]

I'd be fine with the premise of going into a relationship with a woman where we basically fall in love and our pack becomes one. I would also equally be fine with the premise of getting into a relationship where we are each other's "beards." Essentially fake dating each other (but more like just being good friends) just to cover up the fact that our animals are our love partners. I'd have a "girlfriend" that I could tell my friends and family about. She'd have a "boyfriend" that she could tell her friends and family about. But in reality our respective animal partners would be our actual love partners.

If the person comes in with selfish ulterior motives like to become the primary partner in the relationship and make the animal partner the "3rd wheel", then that's just wrong.

To me that's one of the scarier aspects of my first scenario. I'd hate to get into a relationship only for my partner to become jealous of my animal partner when I show my animal partner love and affection, up to and including sex. I'd of course show my human partner love and affection like anyone should in a relationship. But if she started demanding 60/40 or 70/30 of the love and attention instead of 50/50 that would become a deal breaker. Breaking things off can become a nightmare if one of the parties becomes vengeful.

 

[nekdoneco123]

I kind of understand your situation. I am in a similar but possibly more complicated position.
I still consider myself zoo exclusive (you guys can assess that further in the comments ).

I do not feel any desire to have a loving relationship with another human of any gender. In other words I do not want a human partner in the usual sense of the word. I am just fine loving animals.
But I recognize the advantage and usefulness of having someone who you can rely on in life. Plus some degree of social contact is quite healthy and enjoyable.

So I can imagine being able to live with someone in pretty much the exact same situation. Where it would be clear that we do not sleep together, we do not love each other, we are just good zoo friends very compatible in the way we both think (which is where it gets really complicated ).

seems like you're just looking for a roommate. i don't see that interfering in any way with considering oneself zoo-exclusive.... i mean, you can appear to be a couple to the outside world, but that's it.

 

[Wolfspirit]

I'd be fine with the premise of going into a relationship with a woman where we basically fall in love and our pack becomes one. I would also equally be fine with the premise of getting into a relationship where we are each other's "beards." Essentially fake dating each other

Brilliant! I actually never thought of it that way but thats true that could help in certain circumstances.

But if she started demanding 40/60 or 30/70 of the love and attention instead of 50/50 that would become a deal breaker. Breaking things off can become a nightmare if one of the parties becomes vengeful.

Yah and I feel like I'd automatically give preference with time to my dogmate or bitchwife anyway so I can totally see me causing problems right there LOL and yes the backlash in a zoo relationship. That's a fear I've had too. We might as well be "bearding" roomates or something and have dedicated relationships with our own dogs, but a casual relationship with each other and each others dogs.

 

[YanchaOkami]

In all seriousness though have any of you who are or were zoo exclusive ever decided to allow a zoo human—or zoo furry—to join your little pack or herd? If not, would you even consider it if you met someone with compatible traits?

No. Won't in a term of relationship-based way, never.

Testosterone is a good thing, my dog - a female dog - is quite testosterone filled as well (I have a hard time beating that), we even play practical jokes about being naturally selfish and sarcasm is a good way to understand that at the end each living being is "selfish". ?‍

Surely respectful with each other and working towards their personal desires, requirements as well - very important for healthy relations. No looking down onto anyone. At the end testosterone doesn't tell anything about personal traits.

So let's define zoo-exclusive then. Does it really have to exclude ALL thoughts and even the slightest "what if" questioning in one's mind?

It defines exactly that: no, absolutely no interest in humans in term of a relationship which includes anything erotic. And probably low interest in anything outside the erotic categories as well, not unusual. No "what if": If the cutest female human on the world would offer me a free night with her or even a relationship: no interest, no chance.

A male / female dog without any sexual interests I would take into my pack at any time if circumstances allow it. So it's not just about erotic aspects as well. ?‍

 

[sarahsingletono98]

i don’t fully understand the question, but if you are talking about two zoo exclusive people coexisting or cohabitating then ok sure. Like you are using the human for conversation going to movies and an excuse pawn at family events then ok sure makes sense. If you are talking about any form of sexuality with one another then no it is not zoo exclusive - it’s zoo focused but no exclusive by definition

 

[MaikaDog]

I am Zoo exclusive, and well. What your describing makes no sense to me. Seeing that I'm only attracted to animals what exactly would sexuality with you, a human, look like? And how in all the world would an animal consent to a absolutely Human Relationship Concept like Poly? And after that how would you be intimate with the two originals partners witch one is in all likelihood a male animal so has no sexual interest in you and a female zoo exclusive...that again has no interest in you. Okay there would be the possibility to have like an Owner, slave, animal relationship. I know those lived in them too, they work because the owner gets the joy of owing two "animals" without actual sexuality with both of them. But on the same level? Not making the animal partner der 3red wheel? Like again Zoo exclusive, if anything you would be the third wheel. Being on the same level? Like ..... this is not even real with animals to animals not does it survive a reality check with human to animal.
Sorry your Ideas just do not work in the way you describe it.
And if your interested in Humans at all, your not zoo exclusive. Even if the Humans your interested in are only Zoo exclusive Females they are still Humans. Zoo exclusivity means exactly that. I can asses a human in terms of recognizing he is attractive but that's it for me. Sexual traits that get me going are the smell of a dog male or the way he moves or the muscles under his fur or his paws or his bark or any other mix of dog related traits.

 

[Wolfspirit]

It defines exactly that: no, absolutely no interest in humans in term of a relationship which includes anything erotic. And probably low interest in anything outside the erotic categories as well, not unusual. No "what if": If the cutest female human on the world would offer me a free night with her or even a relationship: no interest no chance.

A male / female dog without any sexual interests I would take into my pack at any time if circumstances allow it. So it's not just about erotic aspects as well. ?‍

The reason I'm questioning the labels and lack thereof is because when a person has been of a certain sexual orientation for a long time without any desire to change, they are considered that sexual orientation, correct? If they deviate from that and start considering new additional options as possibilities then they are "(additional orientation)-curious" right? There's no label that applies to someone like me anyway it seems because I've been with a woman a long time ago but it's not what I want in the way someone who's heterosexual with humans would typically want. It's totally dog-centric. Everything falls apart, except the desire for friendship, without the dogs. What do you even call that? Shall we make up a new label just fur me? Zoo-prefurred? ?

 

[Wolfspirit]

i don’t fully understand the question, but if you are talking about two zoo exclusive people coexisting or cohabitating then ok sure. Like you are using the human for conversation going to movies and an excuse pawn at family events then ok sure makes sense. If you are talking about any form of sexuality with one another then no it is not zoo exclusive - it’s zoo focused but no exclusive by definition

Zoo focused. Hmm that might be a good term to describe me. lol

 

[nekdoneco123]

The reason I'm questioning the labels and lack thereof is because when a person has been of a certain sexual orientation for a long time without any desire to change, they are considered that sexual orientation, correct? If they deviate from that and start considering new additional options as possibilities then they are "(additional orientation)-curious" right? There's no label that applies to someone like me anyway it seems because I've been with a woman a long time ago but it's not what I want in the way someone who's heterosexual with humans would typically want. It's totally dog-centric. Everything falls apart, except the desire for friendship, without the dogs. What do you even call that? Shall we make up a new label just fur me? Zoo-prefurred? ?

really sounds like it's just a "i wanna be a special snowflake" kind of thing... use that as your "label" if you really need one.

 

[Wolfspirit]

I am Zoo exclusive, and well. What your describing makes no sense to me. Seeing that I'm only attracted to animals what exactly would sexuality with you, a human, look like? And how in all the world would an animal consent to a absolutely Human Relationship Concept like Poly? And after that how would you be intimate with the two originals partners witch one is in all likelihood a male animal so has no sexual interest in you and a female zoo exclusive...that again has no interest in you. Okay there would be the possibility to have like an Owner, slave, animal relationship. I know those lived in them too, they work because the owner gets the joy of owing two "animals" without actual sexuality with both of them. But on the same level? Not making the animal partner der 3red wheel? Like again Zoo exclusive, if anything you would be the third wheel. Being on the same level? Like ..... this is not even real with animals to animals not does it survive a reality check with human to animal.
Sorry your Ideas just do not work in the way you describe it.
And if your interested in Humans at all, your not zoo exclusive. Even if the Humans your interested in are only Zoo exclusive Females they are still Humans. Zoo exclusivity means exactly that. I can asses a human in terms of recognizing he is attractive but that's it for me. Sexual traits that get me going are the smell of a dog male or the way he moves or the muscles under his fur or his paws or his bark or any other mix of dog related traits.

I've imagined it as being very dog-centric, focused on the male or female dog's happiness and pleasure. Male dogs love me just as much as female dogs so not sure what you meant there. As long as the animal partner understands that I'm not intervening in their relationship with their human and getting in between them, causing jealousy, but rather that I'm just adding to the happiness of both of them. More or less as an accessory to their relationship, as she would also be for me if I have my own canine partner, unless I have a bitch mate and the woman isnt into pleasing bitches. Me and her male dog could work as a unit to increase her pleasure and same on my end. Or it could just be me and her as a unit for him. Two mouths on a dogs body is better than one lol

Though if I really think about it, I don't honestly know if I'd want to be with a woman without dogs involved. Because that's where I feel like the core of my attraction to women lies.

 

[YanchaOkami]

.. because when a person has been of a certain sexual orientation for a long time without any desire to change, they are considered that sexual orientation, correct? If they deviate from that and start considering new additional options as possibilities then they are "(additional orientation)-curious" right?

No. And yes. Maybe they are curious, but if someone male and heterosexual regarding humans gets to the idea of trying out getting penetrated in the anus by some other male, then he is not longer heterosexual, if he actually enjoys this. Couldn't be more simple. Then he's bisexual and that's fully fine, but not heterosexual anymore.

If he doesn't enjoy it and just tried it out to basically verify his own thoughts and emotions regarding being heterosexual, there speaks nothing against being further heterosexual, he didn't enjoy his homosexual experiences and as such his sexual preference is and stays on female humans. No "what if".

If you even think about founding a relationship with sexual experiences as well with a human, then you are not zoo exclusive (anymore), how would that else work? If you tried sex with humans once, maybe even multiple times and found nothing positive in it, nothing of interest, nothing which gains your attention - then you can still be zoo exclusive, as you still are just interested in animals.

It depends on what you enjoy, search for, like, love.. not what you did once to try something out. But if you can see a relationship including sexual aspects with humans as a working, emotionally positive concept, then you are not zoo exclusive, else you wouldn't see erotic adventures with humans as something of worth or relevance.

 

[Wolfspirit]

I'm just conflicted I guess.

 

[Wolfspirit]

No. And yes. Maybe they are curious, but if someone male and heterosexual regarding humans gets to the idea of trying out getting penetrated in the anus by some other male, then he is not longer heterosexual, if he actually enjoys this. Couldn't be more simple. Then he's bisexual and that's fully fine, but not heterosexual anymore.

If he doesn't enjoy it and just tried it out to basically verify his own thoughts and emotions regarding being heterosexual, there speaks nothing against being further heterosexual, he didn't enjoy his homosexual experiences and as such his sexual preference is and stays on female humans. No "what if".

If you even think about founding a relationship with sexual experiences as well with a human, then you are not zoo exclusive (anymore), how would that else work? If you tried sex with humans once, maybe even multiple times and found nothing positive in it, nothing of interest, nothing which gains your attention - then you can still be zoo exclusive, as you still are just interested in animals.

It depends on what you enjoy, search for, like, love.. not what you did once to try something out. But if you can see a relationship including sexual aspects with humans as a working, emotionally positive concept, then you are not zoo exclusive, else you wouldn't see erotic adventures with humans as something of worth or relevance.

What am I then? What label belongs to this weirdo you're chatting to ?

 

[YanchaOkami]

Zoophilia is not the sex with animals, but the love to animals including erotic / sex aspects, a difference.

But "zoo exclusive" means "only sexual interest in animals, not in anything else", as it is used to describe the sexual / erotic relationship aspect of the person (and even if humans are animals as well, they don't count in this specific classification, as it was founded as a way to separate sexual interest in animals from that towards humans), as it is a platonic description of the "sex" / erotic aspects, not of the overall love for something.

So you're a zoophile with.. no idea, do you like both sexes on animals for erotic constellations? Then a bisexual zoophile, with heterosexual interest in humans as well. But not a zoo exclusive, that excludes the "heterosexual interest in humans".

None of those terms actually judge, value, label! Nobody is worth more, less or anything like this. It is just a description of the sexual interests, nothing more. So being a "zoophile with exclusive interest in animals" is not something elitist or better, it just means: no sexual tendencies towards humans. At all.

You could even clarify it more: Bisexual caninophile with heterosexual interest in humans as example if you are only into canines on a zoo sexual aspect.