D
doggo_deer
Guest
It’s very early in the morning and I’m sure this is just me and my tired brain being dumb, but does anyone else get the vibe that zooville isn’t as zoo-ey as it’s supposed to be? It feels more like another beast forum to me and dominated by people here just for the porn and taboo.
I’m just as horny and sexual as the next degenerate, but I can’t seem to find the people having a gushing moment of “holy shit animals are so pretty I’m soft for them” y’know? I’m not saying people here are fakers just because they focus on the porn. Tbh I come here mostly for that too so call me a hypocrite (hippo-crite because animals haha I’m tired), but you’d think a zoo site would be less beast forum and more zoo forum with a bit more of a quote end-quote, “wholesome” area than beast forums. Idk what the word I’m looking for is. It’s not wholesome but it’s really the only thing I can think of atm. I have no clue if anything I’m saying is making sense XD
Like. It feels like just another site to get off to animals more than it feels like a site where actual zoos can talk about not just their sexual side but also their romantic. Y’know?
I’m probably looking in the wrong places, though, so who knows. ?
EDIT:
Now that my brain is more or less functioning again, I think what I was more or less feeling initially was surprise that everyone experiences their attraction to animals differently and people express those attractions even MORE differently.
It should have been common sense from the get go, if I'm honest, and I did a poor job of explaining that to begin with. But something I'd like to go ahead and throw out there is that:
A.) I never really had a problem with the porn here or lewdness to begin with. Is this site perfect? Of course not. But what site is? And my grievances don't really have anything to do with lewdness in and of itself. I'm fine with the mature content and discussion here. That was never in doubt.
B.) I don't have a problem with anyone here "just being in it for the porn" or anything like that. And I'm firmly against people calling others "fake zoos" or "posers" or telling them "they're being a zoo wrong." Of course if they're advocating the harm of animals or harming animals, that's one thing. But what I'm talking about is labeling someone a "fake zoo" because they don't talk about the "wholesome" side of being a zoo or have that attraction. Someone pointed out that being a zoophile is strictly about being attracted to animals. It doesn't really specify much outside of that. I think what I was more expecting were those who were more of what people are now saying, "zoosexuals" (something I myself identify with.) The difference (to the best of my knowledge thus far and how I identify with the term) is someone who is also ROMANTICALLY attracted to them and capable of an emotional bond.
I think THAT'S what I was mostly expecting and was surprised when I didn't see it at first. Was I upset about that discovery? Nope. Not even a little bit. Just surprised because, like I said, I didn't realize that people can experience attractions differently.
NOTE: If I define something incorrectly, please let me know c
I’m just as horny and sexual as the next degenerate, but I can’t seem to find the people having a gushing moment of “holy shit animals are so pretty I’m soft for them” y’know? I’m not saying people here are fakers just because they focus on the porn. Tbh I come here mostly for that too so call me a hypocrite (hippo-crite because animals haha I’m tired), but you’d think a zoo site would be less beast forum and more zoo forum with a bit more of a quote end-quote, “wholesome” area than beast forums. Idk what the word I’m looking for is. It’s not wholesome but it’s really the only thing I can think of atm. I have no clue if anything I’m saying is making sense XD
Like. It feels like just another site to get off to animals more than it feels like a site where actual zoos can talk about not just their sexual side but also their romantic. Y’know?
I’m probably looking in the wrong places, though, so who knows. ?
EDIT:
Now that my brain is more or less functioning again, I think what I was more or less feeling initially was surprise that everyone experiences their attraction to animals differently and people express those attractions even MORE differently.
It should have been common sense from the get go, if I'm honest, and I did a poor job of explaining that to begin with. But something I'd like to go ahead and throw out there is that:
A.) I never really had a problem with the porn here or lewdness to begin with. Is this site perfect? Of course not. But what site is? And my grievances don't really have anything to do with lewdness in and of itself. I'm fine with the mature content and discussion here. That was never in doubt.
B.) I don't have a problem with anyone here "just being in it for the porn" or anything like that. And I'm firmly against people calling others "fake zoos" or "posers" or telling them "they're being a zoo wrong." Of course if they're advocating the harm of animals or harming animals, that's one thing. But what I'm talking about is labeling someone a "fake zoo" because they don't talk about the "wholesome" side of being a zoo or have that attraction. Someone pointed out that being a zoophile is strictly about being attracted to animals. It doesn't really specify much outside of that. I think what I was more expecting were those who were more of what people are now saying, "zoosexuals" (something I myself identify with.) The difference (to the best of my knowledge thus far and how I identify with the term) is someone who is also ROMANTICALLY attracted to them and capable of an emotional bond.
I think THAT'S what I was mostly expecting and was surprised when I didn't see it at first. Was I upset about that discovery? Nope. Not even a little bit. Just surprised because, like I said, I didn't realize that people can experience attractions differently.
NOTE: If I define something incorrectly, please let me know c
Last edited by a moderator: