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

Definitions

pes

pes

Moderator
Staff member
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 Bestiality and Zoophilia, Hani Miletski, page 5)
Zoophile: The second class are the “zoophiles.” These are the people who prefer an animal as a sex partner, often forming deep emotional relationships with it (Matthews, 1994)"
(2002, Understanding Bestiality and Zoophilia, Hani Miletski, page 5)

According to Kurrelgyre (1995), “zoophilia” is an emotional attachment to an animal that causes a human being to prefer a non-human animal as a companion and/or sexual partner.
(2002, Understanding Bestiality and Zoophilia, Hani Miletski, page 6)
Zoo exclusive: Class X, “exclusive zoosexuals” have sexual activity primarily or exclusively with animals and prefer animals to humans, consistent with Earls and Lalumiere’s (2009) criteria for exclusive zoophilia. (quoted below)
(2022, Measurement and Correlates of Zoophilic Interest in an Online Community Sample, Alexandra M. Zidenberg, Mark E. Olver, page 3)

Earls and Lalumiere’s criteria for exclusive zoophilia:
Preference for sex with nonhuman animals (preferential bestiality - zoophilia).
A clear case of preferential bestiality would meet the following criteria:
(1) the individual reports intense and recurrent sexual fantasies and urges about having sexual interactions with nonhuman animals, or reports repeated sexual interactions with nonhuman animals accompanied by strong sexual arousal;
(2) the individual chooses sexual interactions with nonhuman animals even when willing human partners are available;
(3) using objective measures, the individual shows greater sexual arousal to images of members of a nonhuman species than to images of humans, or shows greater sexual arousal to descriptions of sexual interactions with members of a nonhuman species than to descriptions of sexual interactions with humans.
(2002, A Case Study of Preferential Bestiality (Zoophilia), Christopher M. Earls, Martin L. Lalumiere, page 84)
Click to expand...

"I am zoo exclusive and the very thought of having sex with a human disgusts me. Ask a homosexual if he wants to have sex with someone of the opposite gender."
(2002, Understanding Bestiality and Zoophilia, Hani Miletski, page 162)

I then add one more definition commonly used on the forum:
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.
 
I'm going to have to disagree. I really get tired of this "zooier than thou" stuff. The term zoophile sounds like a way to signal that someone is more enlightened than people who do it just for sex. One problem is that this is unnecessarily divisive. Congratulations then - you're a sophisticated pervert and I'll be a plain old pervert :) Another problem is that the term zoophilia actually was invented by the super-prude sex researcher Krafft-Ebing as a way to say that this desire is a mental disorder. To him, every kink was an ugly perversion, except the one he liked, which is women who stand up and piss.
 
labsareawesome said:
I'm going to have to disagree. I really get tired of this "zooier than thou" stuff. The term zoophile sounds like a way to signal that someone is more enlightened than people who do it just for sex. One problem is that this is unnecessarily divisive. Congratulations then - you're a sophisticated pervert and I'll be a plain old pervert :) Another problem is that the term zoophilia actually was invented by the super-prude sex researcher Krafft-Ebing as a way to say that this desire is a mental disorder. To him, every kink was an ugly perversion, except the one he liked, which is women who stand up and piss.
Click to expand...

Isn't a collective working together to shift perception of derogatory terms to one that holds positive values a good thing? There is a difference in perversion and romantic or intimate attraction and I think that holier than thou attitude isn't so offensive at all. Unless it is a means to treat a relationship as inherently equal and equivalent to human partnerships without acknowledging the complexity of human and animal companions. I do think shared definitions are helpful. The kinsey scale test being in the bestiality as fetish section is interesting to me, for example.
 
CanineRomantic said:
Isn't a collective working together to shift perception of derogatory terms to one that holds positive values a good thing? There is a difference in perversion and romantic or intimate attraction and I think that holier than thou attitude isn't so offensive at all. Unless it is a means to treat a relationship as inherently equal and equivalent to human partnerships without acknowledging the complexity of human and animal companions. I do think shared definitions are helpful. The kinsey scale test being in the bestiality as fetish section is interesting to me, for example.
Click to expand...
In general, there's already been too much redefining things to fit into agendas. We don't have to do that too.

If we redefine zoophilia as "loving animals", it loses clarity. Suppose there's a church lady who loves her cat, but the kinkiest she ever gets is riding her husband in the cowgirl position. By that definition, she's a zoophile, even though nobody else uses the term that way. Most pet owners are zoophiles by that standard, including ones who never had a sexual thought about them, but that's not what the word really means.

What I see going on here a lot is making an artificial distinction between zoophilia, considered to be something pure, and bestiality which is for horny bastards. I do love my pets, which according to the redefinition makes me a zoophile. I've never had sex with them, and I'm not inclined to do so, but I do enjoy watching adventurous women having fun with it. Here, that makes me one of those horny bastards. So do I jump onto the pedestal and claim my gold star, or do I hang my head in shame for being a dirty old man? Heck if I know. The thing is, though, that society considers all of us perverts.
 
I don't know why this makes me sad to read...I'm pan and to me that mean I love all that come my way and are deserving of my ❤️ love and understanding
 
labsareawesome said:
In general, there's already been too much redefining things to fit into agendas. We don't have to do that too.

If we redefine zoophilia as "loving animals", it loses clarity. Suppose there's a church lady who loves her cat, but the kinkiest she ever gets is riding her husband in the cowgirl position. By that definition, she's a zoophile, even though nobody else uses the term that way. Most pet owners are zoophiles by that standard, including ones who never had a sexual thought about them, but that's not what the word really means.

What I see going on here a lot is making an artificial distinction between zoophilia, considered to be something pure, and bestiality which is for horny bastards. I do love my pets, which according to the redefinition makes me a zoophile. I've never had sex with them, and I'm not inclined to do so, but I do enjoy watching adventurous women having fun with it. Here, that makes me one of those horny bastards. So do I jump onto the pedestal and claim my gold star, or do I hang my head in shame for being a dirty old man? Heck if I know. The thing is, though, that society considers all of us perverts.
Click to expand...
You defined the distinction in your explanation. You love your pets and care for them. You aren't about to whore them out to a woman just to satisfy your "dirty old man" side. Are you? I'd hazard a guess at no, of course not. You aren't into it because of the peversion so much as the enjoyment of both participants? You wouldn't be in to it if you believed your pets were bound by some obligation on your or the woman's part rather than their own needs, would you? Or are you into commanding your pet to obey your instruction to pound a woman who just wants to be used by them for her own desires?

There is always a middle ground between black and white. And my examples above are a little unfair or "loaded" if you like in that sense. That's why my first comment specified that blindly treating a relationship with animals as indistinguishable from that of one with humans is not appropriate. There are distinctions to be made there and acknowledged and managed. Just like your black and white self definition is unfair on yourself. If you didn't care for your pets then maybe it's relevant but you acknowledge loving them. Your "heck if I know" comment cedes your point. You know it's complicated and you know that pretending it isn't is a recipe for harm. You are willing to give in to the fact that society will treat you just the same as if you did not understand the distinction as how you do understand it.

What you have is self-acceptance. Self-assuredness. Even pride in your convictions. You are who you are and society will judge you regardless of the distinctions you make but you still make them. The fact you tend to side with the "perverts" more than the ignorant bigots is a credit to your willingness to protect our animal companions at your own expense. What good does it do to relegate the perverts to the abusive category with no option to lift them up and give them a way to enjoy who they are not at the expense of the animal but in tandem?

You go ahead and be a plain old perv and I'll sound more like a sophisticated one. The failure is mine to judge you for not using the fancy words and definitions rather than instead to judge your actions and beliefs that align with why I use those fancy definitions.

I suppose I wrote all this as a zooier than thou way to say you are right. So long as you don't harm your animal companion and further their wants and needs at no expense - and ideally at the benefit of - others then we are on the same page. I just make it sound more complicated and you are probably just more sure of who you are and who you protect and care for. I make these definition distinctions not for the high and mighty high horse appearance but for the technical clarity in my own mind (and the minds of others so inclined) of what is right and what is wrong by the animal companions in question. If I let them get in the way of your living the reality of those definitions then you are absolutely right - the words complicate, are counter-productive and harmful. By the same turn if your decision to simplify instead provide cover for harm then the lasseiz faire approach you take is harmful. Neither I think are really applicable in each of our cases. We just have two different approaches.

What matters most is that we apply them consistently and don't see them as conflicting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top