B
BlueBeard
Guest
I've been thinking about this off/on for a while. I'll put what I have so far for discussion. I'm sure you can help me come up with better subheads and descriptions, expose my biases. It would be cool if this became something useful to read instead of just my initial, self-centered musings.
We so often use the label zoophilic as if it were one thing, and just as commonly we are labeled with the term as if we were all the same. Among ourselves we at best distinguish ourselves as either bestialist (and use that word as a pejorative) or zoophile (a less objectionable term used in our defense).
But it seems obvious to me that we are many, many shades of zoo. And although I use the word “spectrum” in my title, to think of us as being on a continuum may be more convenient but perhaps just as inaccurate.
Any means of trying to pigeonhole us this, that or the other, in my way of thinking, just doesn’t work. I’ve got notions in my head of various zoozexual identities or behaviors, and I’ll give them descriptive labels. But I do not mean for them to be limitations with firm boundaries. In fact, if you’re like me, more than one applies to you. During your lifetime, again like me, I’m guessing you’ve tended to be more like one than another, but found yourself moving more from one to another, then another, or back again -- and are more than one at the same time.
Zoosexuality, like all sexuality, ebbs and flows with our situation, our experiences, our encounters, our stage of life. None of us are a fixed thing, I think.
For the most part I avoided working the bestiality/zoophilia distinction, just using zoo to cover the spectrum. Here's a list of the sections to see what's here.
NON-ZOO
Although there are some of us who can’t recall a time we were “never zoo,” for most people there is a time when it just never entered their minds, or if it did, they don’t remember it. Some people remain non-zoo their whole lives. I’m not thinking of people who “repress it,” which might underly the hostility of some of those who express the greatest contempt for zoosexuals. I’m just thinking of those for whom interspecies sexual fantasies or inclinations have not existed yet. The idea might even turn them off at this point in their lives.
This is the only kind of zoosexual I do not ever remember being. The moment I had any sexual “awareness” it was in regard to a horse and soon after, a dog. But my wife’s zoosexual awakening came in her 30s. Prior to that, no connection there at all.
ZOO CURIOUS
At some point in our lives we had no zoosexual experience yet. But it entered our minds. Whether we were barely old enough to grasp that the horses in the paddock had “parts” that were male or female, same as we had parts that identified us as male or female, or encountered bestiality on the Web, stumbling across it in our surfing or introduced to it by a friend, we noticed something that stuck in our minds.
EXPERIMENTAL BESTIALIST
At some point, those of us with experience moved beyond just having it “on our minds” and crossed the threshold of experience. Even this happens a variety of ways.
One version would be a child (or adolescent or grownup) whose dog submits to close inspection and touching its penis or vagina. It might just be seeing what’s in the sheath, or feeling its knot firm up, or if a female, probing its vagina.
Another may be a child (adolescent, grownup) who invites/allows a dog to lick his or her own genitals. In the heat of the moment, maybe it involves oral sex on the animal, or even penetrative sex.
VICARIOUS ZOO
For any number of reasons, this zoo-friendly person is not personally active zoosexually, and perhaps may never be. He or she may fantasize about being active, however, and is drawn to zoo stories of others. Maybe only reads the stories, biographical or fiction. Maybe is drawn to bestial pornography. They might even like to play the voyeur, or actively assist. But they themselves have not yet dared to venture into zoosexual activity personally.
DESPERATE ZOO
This is a little different, I think, than just those who “crossed the threshold” with the family pet. These are those of us who become obsessed with the idea of “doing it” with an animal that we take measures most zoos – and almost all non-zoos – frown upon.
We may opportunistically seize the moment with an animal we’ve been left alone with, or we may negotiate arrangements with an owner to “finally get to do it.”
It may be we acted out while pet-sitting or while left with the animal when the owner has been called away or with a friendly stray behind a building. It might be we finally “find an owner” while on a zoosexual forum, like this one, who can hook us up to pop our zoophile cherry.
We may be a person who’s become so intent on fulfilling our fantasy that we’ve been watching for the right moment to “hop a fence” or coax the neighbor’s dog into a private place, and then did.
This is the person desperate to put a checkmark in the box, panicked by the thought they may never get the chance.
FACILITATOR ZOO
A number of motivating factors fuel this person's interest in acquiring and/or maintaining animals for others to use. Could be the owner of a single dog, mini stallion, donkey or horse; might have a number of animals in a rural, private location and are willing to "share"; or might simply be someone who's gotten access to animals.
Usually men, sometimes couples, much more rarely women -- the facilitators advertise themselves as being able in general to service anyone who would like take them up on it: novices, for instance, who are looking for their first time; or experienced zoos looking for a different species, such as a bitch lover, for instance, who's always wanted to try a mare. Others may limit the offer with a specific "clientele" in mind: only women or only men, or perhaps just women or couples but no single men.
The facilitator might be altruistically motivated, acting out of compassion to help out those in despair, those who feel hopeless that they'll ever get a chance to finally "do it," make their fantasy come true. They might have gotten tired of "everybody talking zoo but nobody doing anything about it." So they've stepped in to make things "real," not just online threads of wishful thinking.
Naturally, some of the men who offer others animals are in it for their own pleasure, ingratiating themselves on those they target as a personal guide and safeguard. But it may be, for some, just "bait" to lure a person, usually a woman, to perform zoosexually for them up close and personal. They might ask to photograph or video the action. One facilitator invited my wife to have her first encounter with a horse (we turned him down) on the condition he got to video it. He wanted to post it to the internet, gaining his pornographer creds that way. Another's proposal was predicated on the man getting to have "sloppy seconds," a huge fantasy for him. We *almost* went through with that one. We were new to zoo back then, too inexperienced with the zoo spectrum to detect dishonesty. We learned the horse was not his nor did he have legitimate access to it. He offered to substitute a German Shepherd in its place, which wasn't his either, but he was going to pet-sit for a neighbor that weekend. This man represents only one type of facilitator some might be wary of. But there are, as described earlier, altruistic facilitators who are legit and genuinely want to be helpful in sharing their animals.
Note that "sharing" animals is a point of contention between some members of the larger zoo community.
SWEET ROMANTICS
One early definition of romance was “fiction.” Romance stories were those that, sometimes heavy handedly, always have a happy ending.
Were you ever a “lovesick teenager”? Have you ever seen a lovesick teenager? What teenagers call love, we often call mere infatuation. We suspect that they’re not really “in love with” the person they have a crush on; they’re just in love with the “idea” of being in love. They’ll just die if they don’t have someone to be their boyfriend or girlfriend. They have to “be in a relationship.” So they grab another person and invent one. The other person "fills the bill"and their Facebook pages are filled each day with all these “sweet” pictures of the perfect couple.
We see the same thing among some zoosexuals. Not a person riding shotgun this time but their dog or horse or other animal. They are so desperate to be romantically involved that they impose a uniquely human construct – that of spouse – upon an animal.
I’m not judging them, I swear. All of us do this, I think, at some point or another. Whether its another human or a different species. And it’s so much “easier” to do this with another species, since an animal has absolutely no ability to comprehend the complexity of human romance. They simply crave attention, a bond they have with you and your warmth and affection, and they get it. So, whatever. Dress them in little clothes or talk mushy to them – it’s meeting their needs just fine, though they don’t understand at all what you’re making it out to be. Works out great for you because, hey, no chance of rejection. No arguments, really (though animals absolutely can be defiant or bullheaded!). They will never throw the ring at you and say either you or they have to go, and they're getting the kids. They don’t ever judge you or condemn you the way we humans do at times.
For me, this isn't as much a distinction of one zoophile from another but an insightful glimpse on human relationships -- any kind. The healthiest human romances are built on interdependent commitment, a term created to distinguish them from unhealthy liaisons based on “mutual dependency” fictionalized as “romance.” But really, how many relationships around us are this type? I think most of us fall short of this in our relationships. You can no more call a romantic zoophile's relationship “silly” for the fiction they may represent than the so-called "romantic" relationships most humans have with each other.
Almost any romance is exactly what it originally was: a sweet fiction. So.. enjoy the story! Love stories rock!
Still, just as human-human love is so much more mutually beneficial when each partner is committed to the “genuine other,” I really admire zoosexuals in this category who focus intently on learning exactly who their animals are, and then loving them for their genuine selves. Their animals are not their wives nor husbands nor little children – though they may playfully call them that for the sake of others who can’t understand it any other way. But bottom line, to them, their animals are distinct beings, each with their own unique personality. And that’s exactly who they love them for. Not some character they construct for them but who they are themselves.
PANSEXUAL ZOO
Pan is a Greek suffix that means “all.” But Pan is also a Greek pastoral god, an entertaining fun little god of shepherds and nature.
Both work in this sense. For some pansexuals, sex might be an option for any or all relationships, since their sexual attraction isn’t limited by gender or sexual identity: cisgender, transgender, intersex and androgynous, ad infinitum. Participating in sexual activity solely depends on a prospective partner’s inclination and, of course, whether they’re sexually monogamous or not. (Pansexual doesn’t mean you are promiscuous; just means who you tie the knot with isn’t limited by sexuality).
In the case of a pansexual zoo, sexual attraction is also not restricted to human-human relationships. It includes the attraction to interspecies sex.
Naturally there are many, many shades of pansexual zoo as well. Some are monogamous and loyal to and having sex solely with their current partner, a lifelong partner perhaps; while others that we know are involved in various lifestyle communities and/or are in open relationships. And their zoosexual activities span the zoo spectrum, ranging from “open invitation” for the animal to participate if it’s inclined to, to soliciting for and procuring an animal they can use objectively and temporarily for their sexual gratification.
(My wife and I are the former, allowing our pets to join with us when we have sex but not focusing on having sex with them. They may participate however suits them or not at all. It’s left up to them).
SUPPORTIVE NON-ZOO MALE
Have you noticed how many men are not zoo themselves, but they relish bestiality porn featuring a woman and a horse, dog, pig or other animal? Have you see how many men post their desire to find and marry a woman who’ll have sex with animals?
I initially sub-headed this “CHAUVINIST ZOO.” At first glance that seemed totally appropriate, if you focus on some of the posts guys have made that got the most reaction. But I realized the term was unnecessarily offensive, since chauvinist is generally a pejorative. I also realized after only a moment’s reflection that it represents just one faction of the men in this class who – like even me, I admit – are turned on by seeing a woman and an animal together. (Even just this morning I searched for and found some I thoroughly enjoyed.)
Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure they exist – but I don’t think I’ve yet seen a single post by a non-zoo woman, not interested in having sex with animals herself, was desperately seeking a man that was into having sex with animals. She just couldn't see herself being married to a man that wasn't into having sex with her dog or horse.
I don't think I'm alone. Look how many of those men who eventually do find a zoosexual woman to talk to are suddenly suspicious she's not real. They can’t resist the urge to interrogate her, even demand she prove she's real. That's how much they just can't believe one exists, or that they were fortunate enough to run across one. It might be because the vast body of bestial porn that’s available is so fake. It’s hard to overcome the notion that women would do such things only if they were paid lots of money.
That’s got to be a special class of “zoo” by itself. And it’s not a small group: abound on the Net.
Why even include this as a category of zoo (non-zoo men in search of a woman who likes bestial sex)? Because in this group are also those men who are truly supportive. They are searching for a soulmate who, if zoo-sexual, they will offer safety, security, confidence, and appreciation. They're offering a zoosexual woman a human life partner that they do not have to hide anything from, that they can trust their whole being with, an ally standing with them against those in society who stand ever ready to persecute or exploit them.
Maybe I should have made two separate categories, then? Suggest how to revise it and let’s make it open to discussion.
CONFLICTED ZOO
Any person can be a conflicted zoo due to his or her zoosexual orientation, whichever place on the spectrum they may be. It’s because their zoosexuality is at odds with something else in their identity. A clash of values. First to come to mind is religion, but it could be, “My parents would not be proud of me for this” – no matter what age the person is right now! If fact, there are members of this forum I’ve communicated with who are in their late 50s and are suffering inner turmoil. A couple of them, it’s just because it seems to them what they do ‘is’ exploitation or abuse, their personal perception of it. Or it might be, "I can't be zoo and feel like I'm a mother/father my children can be proud of." Or my spouse. Or... self-hatred: "I hate the idea of people having sex with animals. I want to have sex with animals. I hate myself."
For some, it’s not wholly about being zoosexual but about certain things that they have done. Maybe they feel guilt about times when they were too coercive, or too “creepy” about it, or the animal for some reason is wary of them now and they know something they did has caused it.
At some point, most of us have probably been a conflicted zoo. But this is true of all sexualities, isn’t it? Sex is just a part of being human that easily becomes a lot of baggage we carry around. Some of us, for life.
We so often use the label zoophilic as if it were one thing, and just as commonly we are labeled with the term as if we were all the same. Among ourselves we at best distinguish ourselves as either bestialist (and use that word as a pejorative) or zoophile (a less objectionable term used in our defense).
But it seems obvious to me that we are many, many shades of zoo. And although I use the word “spectrum” in my title, to think of us as being on a continuum may be more convenient but perhaps just as inaccurate.
Any means of trying to pigeonhole us this, that or the other, in my way of thinking, just doesn’t work. I’ve got notions in my head of various zoozexual identities or behaviors, and I’ll give them descriptive labels. But I do not mean for them to be limitations with firm boundaries. In fact, if you’re like me, more than one applies to you. During your lifetime, again like me, I’m guessing you’ve tended to be more like one than another, but found yourself moving more from one to another, then another, or back again -- and are more than one at the same time.
Zoosexuality, like all sexuality, ebbs and flows with our situation, our experiences, our encounters, our stage of life. None of us are a fixed thing, I think.
For the most part I avoided working the bestiality/zoophilia distinction, just using zoo to cover the spectrum. Here's a list of the sections to see what's here.
- NON-ZOO
- ZOO CURIOUS
- EXPERIMENTAL BESTIALIST
- VICARIOUS ZOO
- DESPERATE ZOO
- FACILITATOR ZOO
- SWEET ROMANTICS
- PANSEXUAL ZOO
- SUPPORTIVE NON-ZOO MALE
- CONFLICTED ZOO
NON-ZOO
Although there are some of us who can’t recall a time we were “never zoo,” for most people there is a time when it just never entered their minds, or if it did, they don’t remember it. Some people remain non-zoo their whole lives. I’m not thinking of people who “repress it,” which might underly the hostility of some of those who express the greatest contempt for zoosexuals. I’m just thinking of those for whom interspecies sexual fantasies or inclinations have not existed yet. The idea might even turn them off at this point in their lives.
This is the only kind of zoosexual I do not ever remember being. The moment I had any sexual “awareness” it was in regard to a horse and soon after, a dog. But my wife’s zoosexual awakening came in her 30s. Prior to that, no connection there at all.
ZOO CURIOUS
At some point in our lives we had no zoosexual experience yet. But it entered our minds. Whether we were barely old enough to grasp that the horses in the paddock had “parts” that were male or female, same as we had parts that identified us as male or female, or encountered bestiality on the Web, stumbling across it in our surfing or introduced to it by a friend, we noticed something that stuck in our minds.
EXPERIMENTAL BESTIALIST
At some point, those of us with experience moved beyond just having it “on our minds” and crossed the threshold of experience. Even this happens a variety of ways.
One version would be a child (or adolescent or grownup) whose dog submits to close inspection and touching its penis or vagina. It might just be seeing what’s in the sheath, or feeling its knot firm up, or if a female, probing its vagina.
Another may be a child (adolescent, grownup) who invites/allows a dog to lick his or her own genitals. In the heat of the moment, maybe it involves oral sex on the animal, or even penetrative sex.
VICARIOUS ZOO
For any number of reasons, this zoo-friendly person is not personally active zoosexually, and perhaps may never be. He or she may fantasize about being active, however, and is drawn to zoo stories of others. Maybe only reads the stories, biographical or fiction. Maybe is drawn to bestial pornography. They might even like to play the voyeur, or actively assist. But they themselves have not yet dared to venture into zoosexual activity personally.
DESPERATE ZOO
This is a little different, I think, than just those who “crossed the threshold” with the family pet. These are those of us who become obsessed with the idea of “doing it” with an animal that we take measures most zoos – and almost all non-zoos – frown upon.
We may opportunistically seize the moment with an animal we’ve been left alone with, or we may negotiate arrangements with an owner to “finally get to do it.”
It may be we acted out while pet-sitting or while left with the animal when the owner has been called away or with a friendly stray behind a building. It might be we finally “find an owner” while on a zoosexual forum, like this one, who can hook us up to pop our zoophile cherry.
We may be a person who’s become so intent on fulfilling our fantasy that we’ve been watching for the right moment to “hop a fence” or coax the neighbor’s dog into a private place, and then did.
This is the person desperate to put a checkmark in the box, panicked by the thought they may never get the chance.
FACILITATOR ZOO
A number of motivating factors fuel this person's interest in acquiring and/or maintaining animals for others to use. Could be the owner of a single dog, mini stallion, donkey or horse; might have a number of animals in a rural, private location and are willing to "share"; or might simply be someone who's gotten access to animals.
Usually men, sometimes couples, much more rarely women -- the facilitators advertise themselves as being able in general to service anyone who would like take them up on it: novices, for instance, who are looking for their first time; or experienced zoos looking for a different species, such as a bitch lover, for instance, who's always wanted to try a mare. Others may limit the offer with a specific "clientele" in mind: only women or only men, or perhaps just women or couples but no single men.
The facilitator might be altruistically motivated, acting out of compassion to help out those in despair, those who feel hopeless that they'll ever get a chance to finally "do it," make their fantasy come true. They might have gotten tired of "everybody talking zoo but nobody doing anything about it." So they've stepped in to make things "real," not just online threads of wishful thinking.
Naturally, some of the men who offer others animals are in it for their own pleasure, ingratiating themselves on those they target as a personal guide and safeguard. But it may be, for some, just "bait" to lure a person, usually a woman, to perform zoosexually for them up close and personal. They might ask to photograph or video the action. One facilitator invited my wife to have her first encounter with a horse (we turned him down) on the condition he got to video it. He wanted to post it to the internet, gaining his pornographer creds that way. Another's proposal was predicated on the man getting to have "sloppy seconds," a huge fantasy for him. We *almost* went through with that one. We were new to zoo back then, too inexperienced with the zoo spectrum to detect dishonesty. We learned the horse was not his nor did he have legitimate access to it. He offered to substitute a German Shepherd in its place, which wasn't his either, but he was going to pet-sit for a neighbor that weekend. This man represents only one type of facilitator some might be wary of. But there are, as described earlier, altruistic facilitators who are legit and genuinely want to be helpful in sharing their animals.
Note that "sharing" animals is a point of contention between some members of the larger zoo community.
SWEET ROMANTICS
One early definition of romance was “fiction.” Romance stories were those that, sometimes heavy handedly, always have a happy ending.
Were you ever a “lovesick teenager”? Have you ever seen a lovesick teenager? What teenagers call love, we often call mere infatuation. We suspect that they’re not really “in love with” the person they have a crush on; they’re just in love with the “idea” of being in love. They’ll just die if they don’t have someone to be their boyfriend or girlfriend. They have to “be in a relationship.” So they grab another person and invent one. The other person "fills the bill"and their Facebook pages are filled each day with all these “sweet” pictures of the perfect couple.
We see the same thing among some zoosexuals. Not a person riding shotgun this time but their dog or horse or other animal. They are so desperate to be romantically involved that they impose a uniquely human construct – that of spouse – upon an animal.
I’m not judging them, I swear. All of us do this, I think, at some point or another. Whether its another human or a different species. And it’s so much “easier” to do this with another species, since an animal has absolutely no ability to comprehend the complexity of human romance. They simply crave attention, a bond they have with you and your warmth and affection, and they get it. So, whatever. Dress them in little clothes or talk mushy to them – it’s meeting their needs just fine, though they don’t understand at all what you’re making it out to be. Works out great for you because, hey, no chance of rejection. No arguments, really (though animals absolutely can be defiant or bullheaded!). They will never throw the ring at you and say either you or they have to go, and they're getting the kids. They don’t ever judge you or condemn you the way we humans do at times.
For me, this isn't as much a distinction of one zoophile from another but an insightful glimpse on human relationships -- any kind. The healthiest human romances are built on interdependent commitment, a term created to distinguish them from unhealthy liaisons based on “mutual dependency” fictionalized as “romance.” But really, how many relationships around us are this type? I think most of us fall short of this in our relationships. You can no more call a romantic zoophile's relationship “silly” for the fiction they may represent than the so-called "romantic" relationships most humans have with each other.
Almost any romance is exactly what it originally was: a sweet fiction. So.. enjoy the story! Love stories rock!
Still, just as human-human love is so much more mutually beneficial when each partner is committed to the “genuine other,” I really admire zoosexuals in this category who focus intently on learning exactly who their animals are, and then loving them for their genuine selves. Their animals are not their wives nor husbands nor little children – though they may playfully call them that for the sake of others who can’t understand it any other way. But bottom line, to them, their animals are distinct beings, each with their own unique personality. And that’s exactly who they love them for. Not some character they construct for them but who they are themselves.
PANSEXUAL ZOO
Pan is a Greek suffix that means “all.” But Pan is also a Greek pastoral god, an entertaining fun little god of shepherds and nature.
Both work in this sense. For some pansexuals, sex might be an option for any or all relationships, since their sexual attraction isn’t limited by gender or sexual identity: cisgender, transgender, intersex and androgynous, ad infinitum. Participating in sexual activity solely depends on a prospective partner’s inclination and, of course, whether they’re sexually monogamous or not. (Pansexual doesn’t mean you are promiscuous; just means who you tie the knot with isn’t limited by sexuality).
In the case of a pansexual zoo, sexual attraction is also not restricted to human-human relationships. It includes the attraction to interspecies sex.
Naturally there are many, many shades of pansexual zoo as well. Some are monogamous and loyal to and having sex solely with their current partner, a lifelong partner perhaps; while others that we know are involved in various lifestyle communities and/or are in open relationships. And their zoosexual activities span the zoo spectrum, ranging from “open invitation” for the animal to participate if it’s inclined to, to soliciting for and procuring an animal they can use objectively and temporarily for their sexual gratification.
(My wife and I are the former, allowing our pets to join with us when we have sex but not focusing on having sex with them. They may participate however suits them or not at all. It’s left up to them).
SUPPORTIVE NON-ZOO MALE
Have you noticed how many men are not zoo themselves, but they relish bestiality porn featuring a woman and a horse, dog, pig or other animal? Have you see how many men post their desire to find and marry a woman who’ll have sex with animals?
I initially sub-headed this “CHAUVINIST ZOO.” At first glance that seemed totally appropriate, if you focus on some of the posts guys have made that got the most reaction. But I realized the term was unnecessarily offensive, since chauvinist is generally a pejorative. I also realized after only a moment’s reflection that it represents just one faction of the men in this class who – like even me, I admit – are turned on by seeing a woman and an animal together. (Even just this morning I searched for and found some I thoroughly enjoyed.)
Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure they exist – but I don’t think I’ve yet seen a single post by a non-zoo woman, not interested in having sex with animals herself, was desperately seeking a man that was into having sex with animals. She just couldn't see herself being married to a man that wasn't into having sex with her dog or horse.
I don't think I'm alone. Look how many of those men who eventually do find a zoosexual woman to talk to are suddenly suspicious she's not real. They can’t resist the urge to interrogate her, even demand she prove she's real. That's how much they just can't believe one exists, or that they were fortunate enough to run across one. It might be because the vast body of bestial porn that’s available is so fake. It’s hard to overcome the notion that women would do such things only if they were paid lots of money.
That’s got to be a special class of “zoo” by itself. And it’s not a small group: abound on the Net.
Why even include this as a category of zoo (non-zoo men in search of a woman who likes bestial sex)? Because in this group are also those men who are truly supportive. They are searching for a soulmate who, if zoo-sexual, they will offer safety, security, confidence, and appreciation. They're offering a zoosexual woman a human life partner that they do not have to hide anything from, that they can trust their whole being with, an ally standing with them against those in society who stand ever ready to persecute or exploit them.
Maybe I should have made two separate categories, then? Suggest how to revise it and let’s make it open to discussion.
CONFLICTED ZOO
Any person can be a conflicted zoo due to his or her zoosexual orientation, whichever place on the spectrum they may be. It’s because their zoosexuality is at odds with something else in their identity. A clash of values. First to come to mind is religion, but it could be, “My parents would not be proud of me for this” – no matter what age the person is right now! If fact, there are members of this forum I’ve communicated with who are in their late 50s and are suffering inner turmoil. A couple of them, it’s just because it seems to them what they do ‘is’ exploitation or abuse, their personal perception of it. Or it might be, "I can't be zoo and feel like I'm a mother/father my children can be proud of." Or my spouse. Or... self-hatred: "I hate the idea of people having sex with animals. I want to have sex with animals. I hate myself."
For some, it’s not wholly about being zoosexual but about certain things that they have done. Maybe they feel guilt about times when they were too coercive, or too “creepy” about it, or the animal for some reason is wary of them now and they know something they did has caused it.
At some point, most of us have probably been a conflicted zoo. But this is true of all sexualities, isn’t it? Sex is just a part of being human that easily becomes a lot of baggage we carry around. Some of us, for life.
Last edited by a moderator:
but the fear of exposure limits their life experience.
would you say that counts as zoo curious or romantic zoo, or something else? i feel like nothing really fits
