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

What finally tipped you into the zoo exclusive life?

DogLover09 said:
I feel that I was born this way I've always felt safer and happier around animals than people especially dogs I grew up with a dog in the bed and eating at the table to commemorate my birth my dad bought a german shepard mix and we were raised together even though i was young the bond i held with her was far beyond anything ive had with people even my own siblings
Click to expand...
That sounds really amazing. German Shepards can be great companions to live with.
 
Exlcusive does have a dual-meaning.

1. A Zoo whom currently is only in relationships with animals.

2. A zoo whom only has attactions to animals.
 
ZTHorse said:
Exlcusive does have a dual-meaning.

1. A Zoo whom currently is only in relationships with animals.

2. A zoo whom only has attactions to animals.
Click to expand...
it doesn't and can't have two meanings. exclusive and "currently only with animals" directly contradict each other by definition.. how can one be exclusive to one thing and then just switch to something else? that's not "being exclusive" to anything.

this might be the only thing i firmly believe is black and white.. you either are a zoo-exclusive or not. there's no such thing as "i can't find a girlfriend so i'm currently zoo-exclusive". you're a zoo who is also into humans, just not with one at the moment.
 
One can choose to only share intimate relationships with non-human animals even though one is also attracted to humans. In terms of attraction one would not be zoo exclusive then, but in terms of partnerships one would live exclusively zooey.

I think the question is valid as it asks for the zoo exclusive life.
 
nekdoneco123 said:
it doesn't and can't have two meanings. exclusive and "currently only with animals" directly contradict each other by definition.. how can one be exclusive to one thing and then just switch to something else? that's not "being exclusive" to anything.

this might be the only thing i firmly believe is black and white.. you either are a zoo-exclusive or not. there's no such thing as "i can't find a girlfriend so i'm currently zoo-exclusive". you're a zoo who is also into humans, just not with one at the moment.
Click to expand...

In a dictionary, tons of words have multiple meanings. Why can't zoo exclusive have multiple definitions also?

In practice, both participants in my definitions equally are doing the same thing, they are only having sex with animals. The motivations are different but the end result is zoo exclusivity.
 
ZTHorse said:
In a dictionary, tons of words have multiple meanings. Why can't zoo exclusive have multiple definitions also?

In practice, both participants in my definitions equally are doing the same thing, they are only having sex with animals. The motivations are different but the end result is zoo exclusivity.
Click to expand...
it's not the end result to a person that's "exclusive" because of no human partner at the moment tho.. that's my whole point
 
nekdoneco123 said:
it's not the end result to a person that's "exclusive" because of no human partner at the moment tho.. that's my whole point
Click to expand...

Zoo exclusive is a status, it is a zoo who is not having sex with humans.

Now the reasons behind that are various like i'm not attracted to humans or I don't have a human partner at this time, or whatever but the end result is zoo exclusivity.
 
guess that's where our opinions differ, i just don't see it as a status.. just something you are, like right-handed.. not a thing one "currently" is. going by that logic, i could call myself "shirt-exclusive" just because i was too lazy to pick a sweater today
 
nekdoneco123 said:
guess that's where our opinions differ, i just don't see it as a status.. just something you are, like right-handed.. not a thing one "currently" is. going by that logic, i could call myself "shirt-exclusive" just because i was too lazy to pick a sweater today
Click to expand...

Its more like...

Animals are my only attraction ---> Only interested in animals ---> only has sex with animals = Zoo Exclusivity.

Doesn't want to have a human relationship ---> interested in humans & animals ----> only has sex with animals = Zoo Exclusivity.

The end result is the same, a human only having sex with animals. The reasons why is irrelevant in my book.
 
Sorry if I appear from nowhere, but I can not avoid to smile by reading this xD. It's for this reason that I made that thread on the zoo exclusivity discussions, there will always be someone who says that zoo exclusivity can only be claimed by who "shared the bed" only with animals and someone who says that it can be interpreted in many ways... for me it's just a pointless battle ?
 
ZTHorse said:
Its more like...

Animals are my only attraction ---> Only interested in animals ---> only has sex with animals = Zoo Exclusivity.

Doesn't want to have a human relationship ---> interested in humans & animals ----> only has sex with animals = Zoo Exclusivity.

The end result is the same, a human only having sex with animals. The reasons why is irrelevant in my book.
Click to expand...
and not wanting a relationship while being interested in humans doesn't make a whole lot of sense in my book... then again, i never really understood other humans so i guess i'll just let this topic be. i just fail to see your point of view as much as you seem to not see mine.
 
Hey @nekdoneco123, I see your point, and I see the one of @ZTHorse. You are defending the value "exclusive" of the term, while zt is more flexible on this concept.
I also have my personal opinion in which a zoo exclusive is a person who has always shared his bed with only animals, but also a person who tried both worlds and, after that, decided to stay on the zoo exclusive path for life (I do not believe in people swithing continuously, they are simply into both animals and humans and maybe are too insecure to admit it).
My opinion is wrong? Probably. Is it really so important if I'm wrong or right? Absolutely not :)
 
Some people use 'exclusive' to mean 'only', but that's informal language. 'Exclusive' means you exclude all else, so someone who's truly zoo exclusive will exclude all non-zoo. It's more active.

A relationship could be exclusive in some way. Then the relationship could end and each participant would be free to create new relationships, either exclusive or not.
 
I strongly agree with @nekdoneco123 on this matter. It's important to clearly define the term with no ambiguity or else the term on its own is entirely useless. Two people could have a conversation about zoo exclusive and end up with completely different take aways.

For comparison, consider the term biweekly. In a sentence: "Let's meet on a biweekly cadence."
What is the take away from this statement? Do we meet twice a week or every other week? The correct answer is we can never tell and need more context or a follow up question. Hence, the term biweekly must never be used in a sentence and a different word or phrase must be used in its place.

So, the choice is either to permit one crystal clear definition for zoo exclusive or never use the term as a description.

So, may we please create and agree upon one definition for zoo exclusive? This is our opportunity to drive and define the conversation for those to come

- K9FurLife


ZTHorse said:
Exlcusive does have a dual-meaning.

1. A Zoo whom currently is only in relationships with animals.

2. A zoo whom only has attactions to animals.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
K9FurLife said:
I strongly agree with @nekdoneco123 on this matter. It's important to clearly define the term with no ambiguity or else the term on its own is entirely useless.
Click to expand...
It's worse than that. As I mentioned before, not only do a lot of people use the term incorrectly in casual conversation, but they also don't really make the distinction whether their relationship or they themselves are exclusive.

Same thing with non-practicing, really.
 
ZTHorse said:
KISS. Keep it simple stu....

1. Zoo exclusives only have sex with animals.

Done.
Click to expand...
Sure, but I disagree that people who only have sex with non-humans because they can't get anything else to be zoo exclusive; they're opportunists. Provided they are treating the non-human well I don't have a problem with them, but I personally don't consider that a zoo-exclusive. The labels aren't usually used to define action, but to describe preference; since the preference isn't for non-humans, the label doesn't accurately apply.

A straight guy who can't find a woman and fucks a fleshlight isn't into fleshlights, it's just conveniently available. I think the distinction is the desire, if a person prefers same-sex they are gay, if they're just having homosexual sex out of lack of availability they're not gay, just opportunistic. Again, no harm no foul, but I think it's an important distinction.
 
The loyalty you get from an animal you can genuinely tell it’s real! Being greeted when you get home, the random cuddles! The times your napping and someone comes to the door and they bark to protect you! They always put you first! The cute looks they give you when they know you’re clueless as well!
 
Dog have always just showed such affection and love. Just wanting to be with you and actually caring for you. It’s so sweet and so cute I just want to snuggle with them and kiss them
 
egoldstein said:
Sure, but I disagree that people who only have sex with non-humans because they can't get anything else to be zoo exclusive; they're opportunists. Provided they are treating the non-human well I don't have a problem with them, but I personally don't consider that a zoo-exclusive. The labels aren't usually used to define action, but to describe preference; since the preference isn't for non-humans, the label doesn't accurately apply.



A straight guy who can't find a woman and fucks a fleshlight isn't into fleshlights, it's just conveniently available. I think the distinction is the desire, if a person prefers same-sex they are gay, if they're just having homosexual sex out of lack of availability they're not gay, just opportunistic. Again, no harm no foul, but I think it's an important distinction.
Click to expand...


So what would you call a person who tried sex with a female as a teenager, didn't like it, then later tried sex with animals in his 20s and stuck with animals for the rest of his life? Sexuality can change as a result of experience.

Your analogy with the fleshlight doesn't work, because people don't define sexuality based on nonliving things. You say the distinction is the desire, but how is a fleshlight even comparable to a living creature? It's a cold nonliving object, not a warm living breathing creature. By your definition, an opportunist is a person unable to empathize or love and only takes their own sexual desires into consideration, seeing the other only as an object.

This seems like the same can of worms that bisexuality opens. You have to always and only be attracted to one thing but never two, according to the straight / gay definitions.
 
I grew up on a farm so for me it was not so difficult to get into it. we had a German shepard and a labrador. Both male but only one was somehow interested. so I started out of curiosity..and never got back from it.
I still like men sonot to exclusive at all but I prefer the zoo
 
RuffRough said:
So what would you call a person who tried sex with a female as a teenager, didn't like it, then later tried sex with animals in his 20s and stuck with animals for the rest of his life? Sexuality can change as a result of experience.
Click to expand...
If he's not into animals as an opportunistic outlet for sexual tension, I'd probably call him a zoophile.

RuffRough said:
Your analogy with the fleshlight doesn't work, because people don't define sexuality based on nonliving things.You say the distinction is the desire, but how is a fleshlight even comparable to a living creature? It's a cold nonliving object, not a warm living breathing creature.
Click to expand...
But there are people who can and do focus on non-living things, sometimes exclusively. The point remains though that there's a distinction between someone fucking a toy because they prefer it and someone fucking it because it's all that's available.

RuffRough said:
By your definition, an opportunist is a person unable to empathize or love and only takes their own sexual desires into consideration, seeing the other only as an object.
Click to expand...
It's important to note that this is *my distinction*, these labels aren't one size fits all and not everyone agrees and that's A-OK and why I'm being careful to indicate that these are *my* perception and not *the* definition.
That said, let me use myself as an example.
Growing up I struggled with denial quite a bit, I had numerous sexual encounters with men and women and while the physical functions operated as one would expect (spurt, spurt) I was never attracted to either, but very much attracted to some animals (not all). My desire is/was mostly for dogs and I seem to be unable to make those sorts of relationships with other humans. I'm not anti-social, I get along well with others and make friends easily, but I don't look at a human and think "Man I'd like to fuck that!" and I am not happy in long term relationships with them, I've tried.

RuffRough said:
This seems like the same can of worms that bisexuality opens. You have to always and only be attracted to one thing but never two, according to the straight / gay definitions.
Click to expand...
Totally, the labels aren't especially useful except when one is painting with a broad brush and the terms have a long history of abuse in the community.

The reason I use them this way is to describe the following people who might engage in sex with a non-human animal....

Person A who isn't attracted to animals, but due to lack of contact with their preferred partner does so out of frustration. If provided with their preferred partner would not continue with non-humans.

Person B who isn't primarily attracted to animals but actively chooses to have sex with them because they enjoy the feelings (excitement, physical, etc) while still maintaining their other, perhaps primary, interests.

Person C who is primarily attracted to non-humans, but occasionally has sex with other humans.

Person D who is only attracted to non-humans and does not have sex with other humans, even when there is opportunity.

How does one classify these 4 distinct groups? Once you start diving them up, you find not everyone fits even into these groups as there are more and more distinctions one could make. In all cases the person may or may not care romantically about the non-human, even with person D.

My objection is to person A being grouped with person D, as their entire reason for engaging in bestility differs enormously, ergo the distinction. Again, so long as nobody is harmed or forced I'm OK with any of them doing their thing. But you agree that there's a distinction between person A and person D, as well as the others? It isn't action, as in all 4 cases it's bestiality, so is desire/preference not the distinction?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I like women a lot, I think some of them are incredibly beautiful. I've experienced love at first sight, even mutual. But that is all. Sexually, I feel nothing with a woman. I gave women a last chance this year, but it didn't work neither. I don't know if it will work some time, I doubt it. I blame it on my male dogs, they keep me more than satisfied, sexually and emotionally speaking. I can think about a woman all day long, but never in a sexual way. My sexual interest is totally focused on male animals. I never stopped practicing zoo sex when I was interested in women. That's what led me to reafirm my zoo exclusivity, and I won't go out of there voluntarily.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top