You fuck dogs but aren't 'Zoo'?

[BlueBeard]

Sometimes it's necessary to use labels. I understand. But I try very hard to avoid defining myself by them, and I don't like other people so cursorily defining me.

In *here*, I don't mind referring to myself as a "zoophile" or "zoo." In here, it's not a term used to pigeonhole me. Walk through these doors, announce you are a zoophile, people say, "Well, hi! So, who are you? Introduce yourself." This is not a 12-step meeting. Merely saying you are zoo is not taken as a sufficient, or even necessary, introduction.

Outside of here? I'm not zoo, I'm just me. Because outside of here the label *does* have dismissive power, reduces me to someone's constrictive assumptions, a little box. Outside of here I would be "only a zoo."

And in my own mind, I am never a zoo. I am me: "Sexually? Hmm...let's see. Oh, I have zoophilic inclinations, interests, attractions... lust, passion, play." How 'bout that!

It's not just the label zoo. I resist labeling of all kinds. I am a unique human being, worth knowing no matter how we differ, politically, philosophically, in social status, ethnicity or nationality.

Even in that I am a man. I am not just a man. I am a soul who was assigned a male flesh suit. So to have met another man, or many men, or a million men -- and especially if you yourself are a man -- you do not know me.

I am a man, but I do manhood my way, Bluebeard's way.

In here, being zoo in here is a transparent label. Merely the club uniform.

But there are so many ramifications associated with how we use any label: psychosexual, interpersonal, political, social/cultural....

It's trite, I know, but "your mileage may vary." So I'm interested in your take on this: How much do you consider you yourself to be a zoo? How much does it define you?

What do you consider the most healthy way to look at labeling yourself a zoo? Do you mind when people define you as zoo? What's the advice you might give a new, questioning zoo (or even us old veterans) how much to let the label zoo define who *they* are?

*edited to shrink it down a bit, and even then, it's still too long! ("wordy" is a label that defines me more than anything)

 

[Pillar]

IMO zoo simply means that you have a sexual attraction to animals. Nothing more, nothing less.

Edit: I also do want to note that zoosexuality can also be hetero, bi, gay or lesbian, and those are just preferences. Some people like male animals, others like female animals, some like both, etc. To each their own.

 

[FloofyNewfie]

I classify myself as Zoosexual. As for me the term means, being romantically and sexually attracted to animals. But outside the "zoo community." I'm just a regular Joe who goes on with their day to day life as a normal human being.

 

[ZTHorse]

Labels are just a way to condense information quickly so others who do not know you can have a basis of your ideals.

So if your a democrat, its held that you support welfare programs, unions and generally the working people. If republican, you support businesses, entrepreneurship and less regulations.

So if your a zoophile, that means to me you love animals and allow yourself to be sexually involved with them in an ethical fashion. Thats as far as the label goes for me, everything else i have to learn about you.

 

[FeralLovin']

I like the term zoo. It's short, simple, and everyone here knows what you mean by it. I haven't once seen "zoo" used here get confused for an establishment which maintains a collection of wild animals, typically in a park or gardens, for study, conservation, or display to the public. It just means that person is interested in animals sexually.

 

[Andriodog]

Zoophilia is simply your attracted to animals (emotionally, sexually, and otherwise) yes but once ya have relations with those said animals then its the act of beastiaity.

 

[kerijane]

I understand the need to label ourselves but to me we're all animals and sex is sex. I want what I want, and when I want it things like species and gender aren't crossing my mind. So...I know labels apply to me too. I just don't think about stuff that way.

 

[Pillar]

Zoophile = animal love, both emotionally and sexually. Bestialst = no strings attached sex with animals.

 

[IHO]

Outside of here? I'm not zoo, I'm just me. Because outside of here the label *does* have dismissive power, reduces me to someone's constrictive assumptions, a little box. Outside of here I would be "only a zoo."
And in my own mind, I am never a zoo. I am me: "Sexually? Hmm...let's see. Oh, I have zoophilic inclinations, interests, attractions... lust, passion, play." How 'bout that!

Yeah, I'd say I'm just "me" IRL. I like the term "zoosexual" once I heard it, and it's very applicable (a "pro-contact" zoophile) I guess, but I'm not gonna wear it on a baseball hat or anything. Outside of a sexuality-specific discussion group, my sexuality is nobody's business unless I choose to make it their business, and I would think it odd (and maybe a little rude/inappropriate) for anyone to flat out ask me what my sexual affiliation is. I'm a pretty average dude and I've had girlfriends in the past, so I'm sure most people just assume I'm a "normal" straight male. Still not sure what I'd say if a close family member or friend asked what I was into, but it hasn't really come up. Seems to still be kind of a taboo subject with anyone you're not actually involved with. If it did, I'd probably just say I'm straight and not offer up the zoosexual part, especially since it may need further explanation for the unknowledgable or those subscribing to the stigmas. Who has that kinda time? ?

 

[Andriodog]

I say its better if all labels were abolished but that is wishful thinking.