Zoo are you born or are you made?
- Thread starter RetriverD
- Start date
There is a difference between zoophilia as your sexual orientation and "zoos" who came to like having sex with animals in some different way.
Anyone who is not sexually attracted to animals but is in fact attracted to humans but also has sex with animals was obviously not born a zoophile.
Zoophilia also does not need to be genetic, probably is not even likely do be genetic, since actual zoophiles do not tend to reproduce, but could be a mistake in development during puberty.
Anyone who is not sexually attracted to animals but is in fact attracted to humans but also has sex with animals was obviously not born a zoophile.
Zoophilia also does not need to be genetic, probably is not even likely do be genetic, since actual zoophiles do not tend to reproduce, but could be a mistake in development during puberty.
Refresh the page, I added some more information there.
I do not know.
But you can have a look here and see what science thinks about it:
A collection of studies on zoophilia
I have collected a number or studies, books and articles dealing with zoophilia over the past years. So here I would like to share them with whoever is interested.
www.zoovilleforum.net
In my opinion zoophilia as a sexual orientation is either a genetic disorder. This idea is based on research showing actually measurable and visible physical differences between a homosexual brain and a normal heterosexual brain.
Or it is a developmental mistake that comes to be as a person matures.
In all cases it is not normal, since it does not lead to reproduction. It is a dead end and a mistake that a species can afford because it happens rarely enough so that it does not have a significant effect on our survivability.
Or it is a developmental mistake that comes to be as a person matures.
In all cases it is not normal, since it does not lead to reproduction. It is a dead end and a mistake that a species can afford because it happens rarely enough so that it does not have a significant effect on our survivability.
I think it could still show some relevant information.
For example how many people here think themselves to have always been zoos.
JazzyPaws
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
I've honestly believed a part of the increase in non-procreating sexual orientations could be a natural response to our population vs available resources. But that's just a personal belief.
As far as the topic goes, I'm with Pes. There's a "curiousity" spectrum of people who fantasize and never do, or might, but a human has to be involved, some of which discover an orientation.... Which leads me to.... then there's a phile side, which is more the "orientation" and that I don't believe you have a choice in.
RetriverD
Tourist
thanks for the information. i did not know about that
I can probably tell you the exact moment I think I became zoo. It may be bullshit but I think at that moment which was me holding a puppy in my hands for the first time, I felt something change in me. This was in no way sexual though, but since that point I love animals.
RetriverD
Tourist
wow that is very interesting
petite-pony
Citizen of Zooville
I think they're both equally true for different people.
I'm certain people are born zoo. I feel like I was. I know a lot of people who are. It's a sexuality just like being gay or straight or bi. I don't think you can just 'become' zoo out of nowhere, I don't think exposure to it alone will 'make' someone zoo, no. I think the impulse has to exist in the first place to feel it, to act on it.
HOWEVER.
I do think it's possible for some people to turn to zoo, and I mostly see this with people who were abused, neglected, etc by humans as a child. We naturally turn towards animals for comfort, something that doesn't hurt us, judge us, speak ill of us. I definitely think in certain circumstances someone might choose an animal for some sort of deep psychological reason like this, where humans cause stress and pain to the person, relating more to their four-legged lovers and friends.
I think I'm personally a mixture of both. I've felt zooey thoughts since my earliest years, feeling something change in me when I met and pet my first dog and horse, but I also went through a lot of abuse and really clung on to the animals around me for some sort of port in a storm so to speak.
I think it's a deep question that there's a lot of ways to answer, with a lot of things to consider.
I'm certain people are born zoo. I feel like I was. I know a lot of people who are. It's a sexuality just like being gay or straight or bi. I don't think you can just 'become' zoo out of nowhere, I don't think exposure to it alone will 'make' someone zoo, no. I think the impulse has to exist in the first place to feel it, to act on it.
HOWEVER.
I do think it's possible for some people to turn to zoo, and I mostly see this with people who were abused, neglected, etc by humans as a child. We naturally turn towards animals for comfort, something that doesn't hurt us, judge us, speak ill of us. I definitely think in certain circumstances someone might choose an animal for some sort of deep psychological reason like this, where humans cause stress and pain to the person, relating more to their four-legged lovers and friends.
I think I'm personally a mixture of both. I've felt zooey thoughts since my earliest years, feeling something change in me when I met and pet my first dog and horse, but I also went through a lot of abuse and really clung on to the animals around me for some sort of port in a storm so to speak.
I think it's a deep question that there's a lot of ways to answer, with a lot of things to consider.
amorousdog5
Citizen of Zooville
Born. Hints that I had attraction to animals were present long before I started taking an active interest in my own sexuality. As far as incidents that absolutely confirmed it, one of the first times I decided to look up porn (maybe the first time?) I on a whim chose to look for humans having sex with wolves. What I found was close enough, and opened my eyes to the world of zoo. In my case it doesn't mean I'm not also attracted to human women, I have had human GFs before and certainly found them sexually appealing.
RetriverD
Tourist
for me i would say so
RetriverD
Tourist
very interesting answer. thank you
Randydoggo
Citizen of Zooville
I feel like I was born attracted to animals and it progressed from a strong affinity to something more intimate. I've always been asexual with people, Yet I got aroused by seeing dogs mate before I even fully understood what they were doing and the why behind those feelings. Not gonna get too specific about my age then due to forum rules but I can say it's why I believe zoo sexuality can be a life long orientation for a lot of people.
Labraflyerdor
Tourist
Personally, I can say that I've always been gay (I knew that I preferred/was interested in other males for as long as I can remember), and I (like many others) had my first zoo experience at a young age. As for whether or not I was born with zoo tendencies or they were the product of social/psychological influences, I voted "born", but I can't really say for certain.
Horselover27SA
Citizen of Zooville
I would like to say born cause I always loved animals ...just only developed into sexual side later
TL;DR: I definitely recall some moments that "opened my eyes" to animals, but I don't think it explains how much I'm sexually attracted to every bit of a female dog's body.
I don't know... I don't recall anything particularly making me zoo, in the very literal sense. I definitely liked humans first.
Mostly I recall one faithful day walking past the stables and seeing a mare's beautiful plump lips and thinking to myself "You know, that's a vagina. It's funny I'm not turned on by that?" Not much long later, well, I was. Not much later I definitely prefer dogs though. I don't know why, they're beautiful in every way to me.
One signifficant thing I do remember is a rainy day walking my aunt's dogs, with her, who is absolutely dog obsessed, like her entire life revolves around dogs and her career and education reflects that.
Basically, I was trying to tell her well-trained poodle to sit, and he refused, kinda looking at me confused. I sort of thought he absolutely understood me but didn't know why he wasn't sitting. Then my aunt turned towards me and said "Look at him! He doesn't want to get his butt wet! He's looking at you like I'm standing still aren't I? Why can't you put the leash on my like this?"
And I sort of recall that moment absolutely opening my eyes to the dogs sentience and personality. That it was all there, that he was trying to communicate to me in his own way, and that he had wants and opinions too. On that day the division in my mind between a person and an animal slowly started eroding away until it practically no longer existed. And to this day, when I look at a dog, I view it as more of a person than an animal if that make sense, and when I look at a pretty female dog I view of it as a potential partner or girlfriend.
I still don't know how that explains that I'm definitely turned on my female dogs. Like, people who would hear about my zoosexuality I'd imagine would think "Why? You have a girlfriend don't you?" As if being attracted to dogs is more desparation, but it isn't. I think they're absolutely beautiful and sexually attractive. Every bit of them.
I don't know... I don't recall anything particularly making me zoo, in the very literal sense. I definitely liked humans first.
Mostly I recall one faithful day walking past the stables and seeing a mare's beautiful plump lips and thinking to myself "You know, that's a vagina. It's funny I'm not turned on by that?" Not much long later, well, I was. Not much later I definitely prefer dogs though. I don't know why, they're beautiful in every way to me.
One signifficant thing I do remember is a rainy day walking my aunt's dogs, with her, who is absolutely dog obsessed, like her entire life revolves around dogs and her career and education reflects that.
Basically, I was trying to tell her well-trained poodle to sit, and he refused, kinda looking at me confused. I sort of thought he absolutely understood me but didn't know why he wasn't sitting. Then my aunt turned towards me and said "Look at him! He doesn't want to get his butt wet! He's looking at you like I'm standing still aren't I? Why can't you put the leash on my like this?"
And I sort of recall that moment absolutely opening my eyes to the dogs sentience and personality. That it was all there, that he was trying to communicate to me in his own way, and that he had wants and opinions too. On that day the division in my mind between a person and an animal slowly started eroding away until it practically no longer existed. And to this day, when I look at a dog, I view it as more of a person than an animal if that make sense, and when I look at a pretty female dog I view of it as a potential partner or girlfriend.
I still don't know how that explains that I'm definitely turned on my female dogs. Like, people who would hear about my zoosexuality I'd imagine would think "Why? You have a girlfriend don't you?" As if being attracted to dogs is more desparation, but it isn't. I think they're absolutely beautiful and sexually attractive. Every bit of them.
MN Knotty Wolf
Tourist
For me, I think I was definitely born. My first erection I remember was looking at a dog lick his sheath.
K_9River_rat
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
It is a dead end if one doesn't reproduce.
But what if we put this in a prehistoric scenario?
Say in a situation of a small group living in a cave or what have you, where the men might be gone days if not weeks or more hunting.
I noticed my wolf mix became even more protective of my family after he pushed things into the sexual realm.
If I were in this imagined prehistoric situation where I as a man had to go off with the other able-bodied men for an extended period of time to hunt, I for one would absolutely want several wolves to be hanging around back at home to watch out for my family. If at this point I had noticed said wolves being more protective of my family due to sexual encounters, I would be an idiot to have a problem with it, since that would give my own offspring a better chance at survival.
None of us were there to witness any of this to be able to say absolutely one way or the other, but I think what I proposed here has a better chance of being likely rather than unlikely.
I believe we had a much more symbiotic relationship with k9s in the distant past.
I'd like to believe that scenarios like I listed above are part of the reasons that some of us even exist today to even talk about it.
I'm about equally attracted to animals and women, and any lack of attraction to women these days more than likely is because of how modern society has changed us in recent years.
JazzyPaws
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
Part of me has often wondered, if all of this deviation from the standard survival model of consume/reproduce, is actually a result of nature sending signals that we are getting close to a population level that is no longer sustainable in nature.
So our code began to deviate. There are accounts going farther back than I even care to research of homosexual and acts of bestiality, but it, at least to me, seems that deeper bonds, such as love, and mate pairing to genders or species, that would not create more humans, is becoming much more common. Almost becoming a form of species oriented survival evolution, in and of itself.
It could also be why transgendered code is appearing more and more often. Evolution slowing down our growth by creating non-reproductive relationships/humans.
Of course this is just my own theory.
K_9River_rat
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
I've had similar thoughts.
I can attest to the fact that being around too many people messes with my head, and also too many people getting into my own personal business gets me uptight.
In my mind, there absolutely must be something genetic to this.
I mean, if you look at the history of humans and domesticated animals, k9s take the lead. I find it interesting that when you look at animal preferences amongst zoos, same thing. Could be a coincidence, sure.
But there's also been enough evolutionary time since it all started for some kind of mutual favoritism to have naturally evolved into both us and them.
And from an evolutionary standpoint, it could make sense. There is no doubt that we have helped each other as a species to get to where we are now. When you look at how much they have evolved since then, and considering that our relationships certainly contributed to survival of the fittest...
In my head, that seems to be the most plausible...