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

Who is considered a Zoo?

P

paleonor

Self requested
BANNED USER
I have been deeply interested in zoo or beastiality for over 20 years. I am not into sex between an animal amd myself. My ideal scenario would be a wife or gf to share this lifestyle with, her interacting with a male k9 and me part of it as a spectator and threeway.

This situation has not come to pass. I live my experiences vicariously through those who have created videos to share and their typed experinces. Do I qualify as a zoo or just a perverted guy whose here lurking?

Each persons kink in this lifestyle defines how they are perceived. If your kink henges on seeing another actively engaged with an animal but you are not, you are a perv, not a true zoo?

Just wondering where I stand.
 

Definitions

There is a lot of confusion around terms used in the zoo community, so here is how science defines these terms: Bestialist: There are the “bestialists” who have one or a few sexual contacts with an animal, or they use animals when a more “normal” outlet is not available. (2002, Understanding...
www.zoovilleforum.net www.zoovilleforum.net
paleonor said:
Do I qualify as a zoo or just a perverted guy whose here lurking?
Click to expand...
Fetishist: An individual interested in watching someone else having sex with an animal but having no desire to have sex with a non-human animal him/herself.
(When I use this term in the forum, this is what I mean).
 
It's very unlikely that I would consider you a zoo.

You don't have to have sex with an animal to be zoo, but your focus has to be the animal. In the wishes you describe, it's pretty clear, that the animal is just a tool to get you satisfied. The important part is not the animal, it's the wife interacting with the animal.
 
Unfortuneately? If a couple posts a video here, the guy is not a "zoo" although hes involved but since the dog is not mounting him he is just a fetishist (pervert wanting to watch) and not really welcome. How many people would visit this site if werent for porn posted here. Maybe get verified zoos only and keep out the perverts.
 
mojocas said:
How many people would visit this site if werent for porn posted here.
Click to expand...
The site works as it works and I do not have to necessarily like it. Therefore I have that opinion.
How many people visit the site is not a useful metric for anything relating to building a zoophile forum. The quality of those visitors is more important.
As the site is today, zoophiles here are a minority and that is unfortunate.
I would like to see more actual zoos here.
 
mojocas said:
So most here are voyeurs and some real zoos.
Click to expand...
most seem to be here just for the porn so you're probably correct...
you can count on maybe two hands how many ppl regularly participate in discussions. discussions that aren't "which dog has the best cock?!?!". in that sense it is kinda unfortunate.
 
ISexual fetishism or erotic fetishism is a sexual fixation on a nonliving object or nongenital body part.[1] The object of interest is called the fetish; the person who has a fetish for that object is a fetishist.

Fetishism Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

Fetishism definition, belief in or use of fetishes. See more.
www.dictionary.com www.dictionary.com


I accept voyeur but festishist is the wrong term. I guess some might want to see a woman and dog plastic statue go af it but not likely or maybe those here who use fetishist mean they look at dead animals and women, who knows. But Im not a fetishist.
A true zoo person doesnt have an interest in watching the porn, they just make and post it and discuss non-sex related topics in the meaniful sections of the site. The ones who post content are happy to see comments from the mass voyeur presence here.

Just zoos alone here wouldnt be watching each others porn so they wont get categorized as a voyeur. Without the voyeurs here they wouldnt have to post their videos and pics and would have more zoos to talk about their dogs new chew toys and how the new shampoo makes their coats shine. Definitely nothing to do with sex because its not about the sex its all about quality time with the animal to discuss their plans for the future and current events.
 
Last edited:
mojocas said:
Unfortuneately? If a couple posts a video here, the guy is not a "zoo" although hes involved but since the dog is not mounting him he is just a fetishist
Click to expand...
Or maybe he is just vicariously sharing the joy the animal is having, and the lady is just a tool ?
mojocas said:
(pervert wanting to watch) and not really welcome. How many people would visit this site if werent for porn posted here. Maybe get verified zoos only and keep out the perverts.
Click to expand...
Fetishist does not necessarily mean pervert, even if they many times overlap and words are sometiment used as equivalents
 
Everyone here is interested in sex and to talk about it. If not then why be here, join the conservation department website or humane society and discuss animals on a non sexual platform. Trying to distinguish whether the voyeur is wrong for wanting to watch or if the illustrious zoo is right for actually doing the deed is silly. Hating on guys for wanting a mate thats into what he is and call a perv while posting your content cracks me up.

We are sitting next to each other in the same boat. Someone outside of our secret lifestyle would put us right there in that boat together. No one would throw rocks any harder at the filthy voyuer any harder than the one taking the knot.

I just saw a video where a beautiful black women was talking about what man she would want. There were two other options she was contemplating but one was, "white men who fetishizes me". This is 2023 and still people label you and put you on a shelf where they see fit. Anything outside of what people consider normal is a Fetish in the eyes of the masses, this is no different. It is what it is why try to rise above others and label.
 
To wonder what defines one as zoophilic is a valid question. Sure under the law it gives a definition of human with non-human animal sexual interactions to define bestiality as an action. However, to be seen as “zoophilic“ can be subjective. For some this might be exclusive to an attraction to other placental mammals humans tend to have daily interactions with such as dogs, cats, or mammalian livestock. Wild or exotic placental mammals might be considered depending their proximity to human relation. Some might not consider primates or anthropoids to be within the realm of zoophilia since humans are are primates (We’re placental mammals too but this is generalizing). Some may or may not consider those outside the placental mammal groups due to functionality of the sex organs, or size (concerns of size exist with mammals as well). I guess it comes down to self identification at that point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top