Do you stop being zoo exclusive if you let a human use your sexualy?

Aluzky

Citizen of Zooville
Does a gay stop being gay if he lets a woman use him?
Does a heterosexual stop being heterosexual if he works on a gay porno?
Does a zoosexual exclusive stop being a zoosexual exclusive if he willingly lets a human use him sexually?

A immature person said to me: Zoo Exclusive means only animals. Should be easy to understand with your 135 IQ. You are not at all into humans and let another man fuck you. I think there is something seriously seriously wrong with you but I already knew that before you said that.

So, what is wrong with wanting a friend to be happy? What is wrong with letting human use you sexually? I explain my situation a bit better in here. → https://www.zooville.org/threads/bestiality-vs-human-sex.770/page-3

I'm sure I'm not the only zoosexual exclusive who is in a human relationship nor the last one.

I can only climax with dogs, I only fall inlove with dogs. I still have my canine wife next to me. I can't climax with humans, I can't love humans like I love my canine wife or my past canine husband. I can't get any more zoosexual exclusive than that. If I let a human fuck me to make that human happy, my exclusive zoosexual orientation does not change, I'm still only attracted to dogs, I still only love dogs. Right?

Feel free to state your opinions.

What you think about heteros who work in gay porn or gays that work in heterosexual porn? Do they also stop being gay or hetero because of the sexual acts that they do at work? What if a lesbian gets raped by a heterosexual? Is she no longer a lesbian? What about 2 married lesbians that wanted to make a baby for them as a family and one of them let a dude donate sperm in the old way (though heterosexual sex) is she no longer a lesbian?
 
I guess this is reliant on how one wishes to classify themselves in this manner. I myself am zoo exclusive but not necessarily by choice. Rather I call myself heterosexual zoophile who also happens to have an interest in both female dogs and women. But for me I'm less choosy about my canine partner than I am with a woman partner. If I had a friend with benefits and also my doggy girls, I would personally would classify myself as a zoo non-exclusive individual. But some people might call themselves non-exclusive, just based on the sex alone, and not based off of romantic partners. While others might not do so, like I would.
 
It's interesting :unsure:

@Aluzky I'd say that you are zoosexuality exclusive since you state-
I can only climax with dogs, I only fall inlove with dogs. I still have my canine wife next to me. I can't climax with humans, I can't love humans like I love my canine wife or my past canine husband.
You're only sexually attracted to animals. You're only romantically attracted to animals. I'm very much the same way. Only I don't have any human partners.

You on the other hand...

You have a boyfriend. Which means, you're not exclusively in a relationship with your animals. Claiming to be exclusive in your position is like my brother claiming to exclusively drive Ford's when he also drives a Chevy. So relationship wise, you're not exclusive, but sexually you are. Depending on how you define zoo exclusivity, you can fall under being exclusive or not.

My own personal way of defining zoo exclusivity is someone physically and romantically involved with just animals. They can also be attracted to humans, but being together with both humans and animals loses the exclusive part of being zoo exclusive. But being with another human doesn't make anyone less of a zoosexual. Just not exclusive.
 
Interesting topic. I'm in a similar boat where I only really feel arousal around animals but I'm not opposed to oral or hand stuff for human partners. But it's more of being congenial then sexual. Thinking about it semantically I was looking up bi-curious and thinking zoo-curious. Then I came across Heteroflexibility. So maybe Zooflexible is a good word?
 
You have a boyfriend. Which means, you're not exclusively in a relationship with your animals.

But I don't have a "real relationship" with him (at leasdt not from my point of view) I don't love him (like wife or husband) I love him as a very good friend or like a father. And I do stuff for him to ensure his happiness, just like any friend would do stuff to make his friends or family happy. And I still have my relationship with my canine girl who I love.

Claiming to be exclusive in your position is like my brother claiming to exclusively drive Ford's when he also drives a Chevy. So relationship wise, you're not exclusive, but sexually you are. Depending on how you define zoo exclusivity, you can fall under being exclusive or not.

Well, I would define zoo exclusive as only being capable of loving and climaxing with animals, if you can't fall in-love with a human or climax with a human, then in my opinion, you are a zoosexual exclusive. Same way as I would define a gay "exclusive" as a person who is only capable of loving and climaxing with other gays, if a gay can't climas or love women, he is a gay exclusive. Even if a gay marries a woman that he does not love to appear "normal" to the outside world, and has sex with her (while imagining he is fucking a dude ass) and has babies with her to again, appear "normal" to the outside world, in my opinion that gay person is still 100% gay, 100% gay exclusive, and his acts do not change his orientation exclusiveness for the the same sex.

My own personal way of defining zoo exclusivity is someone physically and romantically involved with just animals.

If a person who is zoo exclusive (by your opinion) gets raped by a human, would he no longer be a zoo exclusive because he was physically involved with a human?

What if some one in their teen years did many tings with humans out of curiosity but realized that he only loves animals sexually and emotionally and has lived for 80 years with animal relationships. Is that person not a zoo exclusive just because he had a bit of sex with humans in their teens?

They can also be attracted to humans, but being together with both humans and animals loses the exclusive part of being zoo exclusive. But being with another human doesn't make anyone less of a zoosexual. Just not exclusive.

To me zoo exclusive is about the person orientation, not about the person sexual acts.
A zoosexual who has never done a single sexual act and has never been involved with animals, he would still be a zoo exclusive if he knows that he only loves animal and that only animals arouse him.

It seem the confusing stems from people thinking that sexual acts define sexual orientation. When in reality, sex is not even a requirement to be part of any sexual orientation. This is why virgin gays or zoos exist. They are zoo or gay even if they have never done anything.
 
I'd say it's either defined in attraction, or in activity. Attraction is the more important defining term in my opinion, since you can do something for someone else that you'd never do on your own, or that don't enjoy, but you can't go claiming you've never done it. I would say I've always been zoo exclusive, but I was too dumb to realize it for the longest time. I had more than one girlfriend who left because I would not participate in any physical intimate contact. I wouldn't even hold hands. I always told myself when getting into those relationships that I would force myself straight and to stop thinking about animals sexually. But when they wanted to make out, I I just couldn't do it, it felt wrong. It's definitely not for me. Relationships don't last long if someone wants intimate contact and the other person refuses to on all levels. A few months ago I accepted that I am only attracted to animals, both sexually, and romantically. Having a girlfriend was like having a really good friend for me. Nothing more, I have no problem with women, in fact I like everyone equally, I base it on personality, choices, and just in general how well we get along. I never had a boyfriend, my family scared me enough to make sure that one would never happen. So while I'm not sexually or romantically attracted to any humans, I am attracted to them in a friendly way, I'm not sure if there's a term for that? There's some people I really like, and enjoy spending time with. I just don't want to cuddle with them, if you get what I mean. I do want someone with equivalent zoo feeling to share my life with, but they would have to understand my feelings and intentions going into it. I also limit myself there only to the opposite sex. My family is not okay with gay, and I'm not gay, so I don't want people to think I am. I would be fine with people thinking I'm straight, even though I'm not, since that is nothing. It is normal to the vast majority, and seeing as a have no plans to come out as zoo any time soon, I would prefer the vast majority of society think I am normal. It is just better for my job, and life in general. Check out the thread on the usage of labels. Why worry about it too much? Exclusive has a definition, but the definition of zoo is contested so I question whether you can put a hard line definition on zoo exclusive. I wouldn't feel right if I had any sexual contact with a human. Even kissing, it doesn't matter to me that I wouldn't be into it, I would feel like I went against my preferences and beliefs, like I gave up on what I feel and stand for. I think you can be exclusively attracted to animals, have sex with a human, and still be exclusively attracted to animals. You cannot exclusively have sex with animals, have sex with a human, and continue to claim you exclusively have sex with animals. You can say after you had sex with a human you switched to exclusively have sex with animals, but you cannot do that every time you have sex with a human, I'd say you can only go back to exclusive after trying something and deciding it wasn't for you once. Same idea with virginity. You can define different types of virginity, each requiring different actions to no longer be a virgin, but for the classic definition sex, you either are a virgin or you aren't. You can't go back if you didn't like it. You can't say you're still a virgin because you weren't into it. The act happened, and that's a fact. I exclusively listen to one type of music, I would never seek out music outside of this type, but when I walk into a store, and a song is playing, that doesn't fit in that group, I don't plug my ears and run out screaming. I just go shopping and probably don't even notice the music is playing after a few seconds. I would still tell anyone I'm exclusive to this type of music, despite other music having entered my ears, and being registered by my brain. If someone wants to show me a song they swear I'll love, I kindly inform them that I only listen to one type of music, and I would not consider anything outside that type. When they still insist I'll love it, I let them play it, and every time, without fail, I don't enjoy it. I know what I like far better than anyone else. There's big differences between sex, romance, and music, but there's still a comparison to be made. Do what you feel comfortable with, no one but you will have any problem with whether you are zoo exclusive, you have to decide if that is something you value, and care about. If you don't consider your exclusivity something of value, then you shouldn't care about losing that card, but your post sounds like it is something you value. You can go back to being exclusive if it's not for you, but you will never be able to go back to a time where you didn't have sex with a human. That's the reason I never kissed any girlfriends. I didn't even know about zoophilia until years later, but I knew I liked animals, and without all the terms and confusing definitions, I made a simple choice that reflected my values, and what I wanted in a relationship.
 
Does a gay stop being gay if he lets a woman use him?
Does a heterosexual stop being heterosexual if he works on a gay porno?
Does a zoosexual exclusive stop being a zoosexual exclusive if he willingly lets a human use him sexually?

The answer to the second one might be more difficult then to the first and third question, but only because "acting" doesn't imply real life preferences. There is for example a gay actor I have in mind, who, in his role, is pansexual and hits on everything that has a pulse. Doesn't mean he isn't gay off-camera.
In the cases of the first and third questions though the answer might be "yes". If it happens willingly and they get enjoyment out of it, then they aren't as exclusive to their orientation as they thought.

Which is totally fine btw. A zoo doesn't have to be exclusive, a guy liking men doesn't have to be exclusively gay. I don't, as usual, get, why people care so much about labels. You do you. If every involved party wants it and likes what you do and nobody gets hurt, it's fine. Who in the end really cares about what you call yourself? That's what I never get.

A immature person said to me: Zoo Exclusive means only animals. Should be easy to understand with your 135 IQ. You are not at all into humans and let another man fuck you. I think there is something seriously seriously wrong with you but I already knew that before you said that.

I would agree with his definition, not with his conclusion though. Yes, exclusivity in this case means "only animals". But if you like humans as well (and even if you just stomach them enough to have sex with them) you just aren't exclusive anymore. Nothing of value lost and also nothing wrong with you either.

So, what is wrong with wanting a friend to be happy? What is wrong with letting human use you sexually? I explain my situation a bit better in here. → https://www.zooville.org/threads/bestiality-vs-human-sex.770/page-3

Nothing is. Why should it be? Who is saying it is?

I'm sure I'm not the only zoosexual exclusive who is in a human relationship nor the last one.

Surely depends on how platonic the human relation in this case is. In any other case it's just a non-exclusive zoosexual in a relationship with a human.

I can only climax with dogs, I only fall inlove with dogs. I still have my canine wife next to me. I can't climax with humans, I can't love humans like I love my canine wife or my past canine husband. I can't get any more zoosexual exclusive than that. If I let a human fuck me to make that human happy, my exclusive zoosexual orientation does not change, I'm still only attracted to dogs, I still only love dogs. Right?

Feel free to state your opinions.

You are still attracted to and love dogs, yet, you don't mind humans fucking you. If that works for you, why questioning it? Why do you care so much for a specific label?

What you think about heteros who work in gay porn or gays that work in heterosexual porn? Do they also stop being gay or hetero because of the sexual acts that they do at work?

Nope. Like I explained above. Just look at the actor John Barrowman for example. In real life he is gay. In the show "Doctor Who" he plays the role of Captain Jack Harkness, a pansexual time traveller from the 51st century. The doctor once described people of that time period in which humans expand across the stars with the phrase "too many species, too little time". Meaning that people from that period basically fall in love with (and lust for) almost anything that moves. So, of course, the character flirts with both, males and females on screen. That doesn't make him less gay in real life, though.

Let me ask you a question in return. If you consider the sexuality of an individual being compromised by the role the individual plays in an act or a show, or a movie, would that mean, that otherwise monogamous actors cheat on their partners, when having different actors as partners in plays or shows or movies? Or would you say "it's just a role, it doesn't count"? Because the same would apply to the sexual orientation.

What if a lesbian gets raped by a heterosexual? Is she no longer a lesbian?

Rape is a non-consensual act. Just because a lesbian woman has genitals that are anatomically compatible with a mans genitals doesn't mean she is inviting men to fuck her. If one does so anyway against her will, that doesn't change her orientation, even if she orgasms. Being able to orgasm doesn't mean you are into something, it just means somebody hijacked a part of your body for their pleasure which might result in mutual orgasms. The lesbian doesn't stop being lesbian just because somebody forced her to have sex with a man in the same way as a heterosexual woman wouldn't enjoy herself when being fucked against her will.
It's all a question of the mindset, not if the body is ready or not.
Just because anything can happen to you, it doesn't mean it changes who you are. Unless you want and allow it to happen.

What about 2 married lesbians that wanted to make a baby for them as a family and one of them let a dude donate sperm in the old way (though heterosexual sex) is she no longer a lesbian?

That's just an act out of necessity, a one time thing both of them would have to agree on. Just with the example above, being lesbian doesn't stop their bodies being able to have sex with men. But being lesbian means, they can't produce babies. So in order for a baby to happen they have to find a compromise. If it's a one-time-thing it wouldn't really change much at all about their arrangement. If the woman getting impregnated having not only fun but has sex with the guy frequently, then she just isn't a lesbian but bisexual. Still, if her wife doesn't mind all that, it wouldn't be important. "Lesbian" is just a word just as "bisexual" is. People might rather wonder how open their relationship is if it allows outsiders to have sex with one of them, rather if the promiscous one is gay or not.

I mean, I can understand why heterosexual people worry about "being gay" and stuff like that. They might have considered themself to be part of the majority and might be afraid to accept, that they aren't.
But I have never understood why gay people fear being "bisexual" or why esclusive zoophiles fear being... just zoophiles.
I once heard a guy saying "The pic I just saw was hot, but, I can't like it, I just can't. It was a hot woman, but I'm gay. I have to hate it!" and I just shake my head. Being in denial is one thing, when it comes to heterosexual people who fear that they could be attacked or hated for "being different". Being in denial is weird, when it comes to people who already exist in a minority.

Another example: When I grew up, I was convinced I was gay. I was convinced throughout my 20s, even when I briefly had a rather platonic relationship with a girl of my age back then. Gay friends of me said "Would have never worked out, you are gay as a three dollar bill." In the end they were wrong though, and I was as well. I learned that I didn't mind women as much as I thought I would. And nowadays I'm like a western saloon door, I swing in both directions and consider myself bisexual rather than gay.

To me it just feels alien to cling to the idea to be "gay" and to make it part of my identity to such a degree that I start to deny who I truely am just so I can consider myself being something that I am truely not.

That's why I find it hard to understand, why people just want to remain "gay" instead of accepting to be "bisexual" or why people feel the need to remain "zoo-exclusive" even if they aren't that exclusive. What do you get out of that specific label, that the other label can't give you? Why do you feel the need to remain "exclusive" to the world, even though you may not really be it? What difference does it really make? Do you fear people might swarm you to have sex with you, if you don't claim to be exclusive? Do you fear zoos accept you less if you aren't totally and exclusively devoted to their cause? Because nothing of that sort will happen.

Please don't get me wrong, this isn't really criticism of your person or a personal attack or anything, I just desire to understand why it seems to matter so much for you to remain "exclusive" even if it's in name only.
 
Well, I'm sure if a gay had sex with a lesbian to "donate his sperm for a good cause" he (the gay) would feel offended and discriminated if his fellow gays members where to attack him with words, stating that "you are no longer gay to us" "there is somethig every wrong with you" just because he fuck a woman to donate sperm.

I feel it is unfair that I'm attacked in that exact same way just because I donate my body for sex to make a human friend happy, despite me being 100% not into humans. Know what I'm saying?
 
I can only climax with dogs, I only fall inlove with dogs. I still have my canine wife next to me. I can't climax with humans, I can't love humans like I love my canine wife or my past canine husband. I can't get any more zoosexual exclusive than that. If I let a human fuck me to make that human happy, my exclusive zoosexual orientation does not change, I'm still only attracted to dogs, I still only love dogs. Right?
No, you're either stupid or psycho. Can't climax with a human is Zoo Exclusive. Can't love a human is sociopath. Those are two completely different things.

But there's hope yet. If you are letting a human fuck you because you want them to be happy, you must feel something for them. If you didn't, you'd let them suffer.

So in the end you are, as usual, confused.
 
If a person who is zoo exclusive (by your opinion) gets raped by a human, would he no longer be a zoo exclusive because he was physically involved with a human?
No. That's a tragic event for that individual and I wouldn't in a million years state that they couldn't be exclusive with whatever because of something like that happened. I can most certainly understand why someone's turn to zoo exclusivity would happen after such a horrible event like that though.
What if some one in their teen years did many tings with humans out of curiosity but realized that he only loves animals sexually and emotionally and has lived for 80 years with animal relationships. Is that person not a zoo exclusive just because he had a bit of sex with humans in their teens?
They'd still be zoo exclusive if they aren't actively involved with a human. Being in a relationship can happen lots of times. Just because someone was someone else's boyfriend, doesn't mean they can't change their relationship status back to single when it's over. I had a girlfriend in school before puberty, but that doesn't mean I can't be in an exclusive relationship with a dog because of that over half of my life ago.
To me zoo exclusive is about the person orientation, not about the person sexual acts.
I'm referring more to relationships. Sex can happen or not happen in these. For the sake of zoo exclusivity, I'm going to assume some form of sexual physical contact happens since saying you're zoo exclusive, but not having sex with your pets, would classify a lot of normal people who live alone with their animals as a zoo exclusive person, when in reality they just own a dog.

Example: If a guy were in a relationship with a man and a woman, that would be a polyamorous relationship. They couldn't accurately define themselves as being in an exclusive homosexual or heterosexual relationship since they were in both.
But I don't have a "real relationship" with him (at leasdt not from my point of view) I don't love him (like wife or husband) I love him as a very good friend or like a father. And I do stuff for him to ensure his happiness, just like any friend would do stuff to make his friends or family happy. And I still have my relationship with my canine girl who I love.
You said he was your boyfriend.
20200219_131321.jpg
That's a term used to imply that you are in a relationship with this male. Love or not (though sad) you're in a relationship with him and are broadcasting it by defining him as your "boyfriend." Being in a multiple species relationships wouldn't make you exclusively in a relationship with just your dog (see example above). The only thing complicated here would be the Facebook relationship status.
 
No, you're either stupid or psycho. Can't climax with a human is Zoo Exclusive. Can't love a human is sociopath. Those are two completely different things.

Sociopath definition: A person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.

Nope. Last time I check, a gay not being able to love a woman like he loves another gay is not the mental illness that you describe as sociopath. You are very wrong.

But there's hope yet. If you are letting a human fuck you because you want them to be happy, you must feel something for them. If you didn't, you'd let them suffer.

Like I said, a feel affection for him as a friend or a relative. Same way I feel affection for my relatives and other friends or affection for a cat.

So in the end you are, as usual, confused.

I'm confused about what?
 
I can't love humans
Can't feel familial love, can't feel friendly or platonic love, can't feel romantic love, can't feel divine love, or hospitality, even empathy? Because those are all included in "can't feel love" and that's the textbook definition of "sociopath". So we're back to either that IQ test you keep waving about is way out of calibration or you are a lying troll. Looking at
But I don't have a "real relationship" with him (at leasdt not from my point of view) I don't love him (like wife or husband) I love him as a very good friend or like a father. And I do stuff for him to ensure his happiness, just like any friend would do stuff to make his friends or family happy. And I still have my relationship with my canine girl who I love.
I can only conclude that you are definitely lying possibly even to yourself. You might be zoosexual but you are definitely both stupid and trolling.
 
Well, I'm sure if a gay had sex with a lesbian to "donate his sperm for a good cause" he (the gay) would feel offended and discriminated if his fellow gays members where to attack him with words, stating that "you are no longer gay to us" "there is somethig every wrong with you" just because he fuck a woman to donate sperm.
Very few people will behave like this and the instances I heard of homosexuals impregnating women involved one of these fellas.71sdnZJYF8L._AC_SL1500_.jpg
I feel it is unfair that I'm attacked in that exact same way just because I donate my body for sex to make a human friend happy, despite me being 100% not into humans.
Before you worry your little head anymore about whether or not you're zoo exclusive (which you aren't), you might want to work out whatever clusterfuck your relationship is with your boyfriend. Because you make it out as though he's some kind of charity case that you also happen to have no love or attraction to. Is he blackmailing you? Then you sprinkled this tidbit in-
I love him as a very good friend or like a father.
Like I said, a feel affection for him as a friend or a relative.
*retches*
Is this some kind of parent/child relationship? Is this some kind of relationship based off of an insest kink? You know the average person doesn't view someone they're fucking like their actual dad, right? Are you fucking your dad?
Anybody with a shred of sence can see something very fucky is going on here.
 
@Aluzky, if you are zoo exclusive by your definition but not zoo exclusive by someone else's definition, you guys don't actually have a dispute, you just have a different vocabulary. There is no good reason to be upset about this.
 
Can't feel familial love, can't feel friendly or platonic love, can't feel romantic love, can't feel divine love, or hospitality, even empathy? Because those are all included in "can't feel love" and that's the textbook definition of "sociopath". So we're back to either that IQ test you keep waving about is way out of calibration or you are a lying troll. Looking at

I can only conclude that you are definitely lying possibly even to yourself. You might be zoosexual but you are definitely both stupid and trolling.

Do you what context is? I said that I can't love humans in the same way I would love a dog husband/wife. Also, I already clarified several times that I love him as a friend or relative. I have not said anything that would even hint that I'm a sociopath. Gosh.. your mental medical condition is really annoying to deal with...

I have took several IQ tests in my life. A few as a child, other as adults. I really REALLY doubt that an IQ test that is standardized would give an erroneous result 9+ times. And by erroneous I mean, me scoring from 131 to 139 multiple times through life. Those result are clearly not an error.


FYI: I can feel love for family, friends, and romantic love for dogs. I can't feel divine love as I'm agnostic, I do feel empathy, for fuck sake I'm even vegan because I have to much empathy for animals. Seriously, get a grip on reality.


I'm not a troll (I hate those) and I'm not lying either. Ironically, you are the one telling lies about me and trying to get me angry, in which case, that would make you a troll. Seem that calling me a liar and a troll is you doing projection.
 
I have took several IQ tests in my life. A few as a child, other as adults. I really REALLY doubt that an IQ test that is standardized would give an erroneous result 9+ times. And by erroneous I mean, me scoring from 131 to 139 multiple times through life. Those result are clearly not an error.
That statement is clearly an admission of a lack of knowledge about IQ tests. I've taken a few too and I happen to know that they are "standardized" in the sense that they are fitted to your age and culture to create a median score of 100. There is no chance that you would score the same on my test that you do on yours. We are too different in age and education.

If you want a comparison, go with educational tests like SAT or ACT. Knowledge and comprehension can be measured and compared.
 
That statement is clearly an admission of a lack of knowledge about IQ tests.

What lack of knowledge about IQ tests are you talking about?


There is no chance that you would score the same on my test that you do on yours. We are too different in age and education.

Thanks for the info, captain obvious. Did I said anything that contradicts that? Nope.

If you want a comparison, go with educational tests like SAT or ACT. Knowledge and comprehension can be measured and compared.

Knowledge does not translate to intelligence. An idiot savant could memorize 1000s of books and have insane knowledge about almost anything, yet his IQ would be below average.
 
What part of
I happen to know that they are "standardized" in the sense that they are fitted to your age and culture to create a median score of 100.
as opposed to "standardized" to a universal number that compares different people from different backgrounds don't you understand?

Or maybe
comprehension
is a mystery to you?

For funsies, what did you score on the SAT? Or did you take one?
 
Well, I'm sure if a gay had sex with a lesbian to "donate his sperm for a good cause" he (the gay) would feel offended and discriminated if his fellow gays members where to attack him with words, stating that "you are no longer gay to us" "there is somethig every wrong with you" just because he fuck a woman to donate sperm.

First of all I'd say he needed better friends if someone would pull that stuff on him, especially the "something wrong with you" part. Nothing is wrong with people being gay, nothing is wrong with people being non-gay. If someone thinks like that, they have a very narrow view of the world and should expand their horizon.
Although one might wonder why the hypothetical gay in this example would want to donate sperm not in the usual sperm donors way but by having sex with a woman. That might indeed hint at bisexual tendencies. One might say the same about the receiving woman. But the argument may be invalid, since they might just want to cut out the middleman. Still, being gay but wanting to impregnate a woman directly might feel a bit different, than being a lesbian and wanting to get pregnant in the usual way. Probably just because I can think of many different ways to donate sperm, but not about so many non-invasive ways (no way in fact) to get pregnant.
So while the gay nature of the guy in this example might be questionable, it shouldn't change a thing about him. He is no better or worse man for being like he is. So anybody getting problems with him for him wanting to father a baby is the actual person who has a problem, but certainly not the gay guy in question.

I feel it is unfair that I'm attacked in that exact same way just because I donate my body for sex to make a human friend happy, despite me being 100% not into humans. Know what I'm saying?

Does it feel like an attack to you if someone says "You're a zoophile, just not an exclusive one"? Because to me it just sounds like the statement of a fact rather than any kind of attack (unless you are a non-zoophilic person feeling insulted for being called a zoophile, which happened in this forum before regarding furries with a preference for feral animal art).

My question still stands, why does it matter so much to you to consider yourself a "zoo exclusive" rather than just a "zoo"? It doesn't change a thing about you. In the end, all of those things are just words that try to describe you, not attacks on your person.

Has anybody actually attacked you for being "not exclusive enough" for them to like or accept you among your fellow zoos? If so, then the person attacking you was (and probably still is) a bigoted moron.
 
Does a gay stop being gay if he lets a woman use him?
Does a heterosexual stop being heterosexual if he works on a gay porno?
Does a zoosexual exclusive stop being a zoosexual exclusive if he willingly lets a human use him sexually?

A immature person said to me: Zoo Exclusive means only animals. Should be easy to understand with your 135 IQ. You are not at all into humans and let another man fuck you. I think there is something seriously seriously wrong with you but I already knew that before you said that.

So, what is wrong with wanting a friend to be happy? What is wrong with letting human use you sexually? I explain my situation a bit better in here. → https://www.zooville.org/threads/bestiality-vs-human-sex.770/page-3

I'm sure I'm not the only zoosexual exclusive who is in a human relationship nor the last one.

I can only climax with dogs, I only fall inlove with dogs. I still have my canine wife next to me. I can't climax with humans, I can't love humans like I love my canine wife or my past canine husband. I can't get any more zoosexual exclusive than that. If I let a human fuck me to make that human happy, my exclusive zoosexual orientation does not change, I'm still only attracted to dogs, I still only love dogs. Right?

Feel free to state your opinions.

What you think about heteros who work in gay porn or gays that work in heterosexual porn? Do they also stop being gay or hetero because of the sexual acts that they do at work? What if a lesbian gets raped by a heterosexual? Is she no longer a lesbian? What about 2 married lesbians that wanted to make a baby for them as a family and one of them let a dude donate sperm in the old way (though heterosexual sex) is she no longer a lesbian?
Why the fuck do labels matter at all?
WHO GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR WHAT IF'S!

This is why labels will never die or racisum, you can't just accept yourself or others for who you are.. Its all about what you are to anyone born 2000+

Fuck oh mighty
 
Last edited:
Knowledge does not translate to intelligence. An idiot savant could memorize 1000s of books and have insane knowledge about almost anything, yet his IQ would be below average
Haha,, what!!
Knowledge is intelligence... Wisdom is different! But you would know this if you had it.

Knowledge is understanding, not just the ability to recite word's or pages of words on cue. Like a computer! Computer=knowledge- to an extent(these can give understanding)
Ghandi=wizdom
 
Last edited:
Their what if's do matter. Its obvious they've come at a cross roads and are looking towards the community for clarity and understanding. So instead of bashing them telling them that their questions don't matter how about being a bit more supportive and giving them advice, or stay the hell out of the conversation entirely.

BTW Mahatma Gandhi was a hardcore sexist and racist that did not like the company of black people at all. Just because some guy says something profound doesn't make him anymore the wiser.
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was an Indian lawyer, anti-colonial nationalist, and political ethicist, who employed nonviolent resistance to lead the successful campaign for India's independence from British Rule, and in turn inspire movements for civil rights and freedom across the world.

If you are gonna talk out of your ass turn around so we can inderstand you.
 
Yes, and just because he did all those things doesn't make him any greater or wiser of a person. Mahatma Gandhi was once literally quoted saying "black people are troublesome, very dirty and live like animals"
Lol.. And you believe that!
Are you Mormon?

Also if you would have had the capacity to understand my post. You would have agreed with me!

All these labels don't matter! The only thing that matters is if you are happy with yourself.

Further more if Ghandi did say that, I will bet he was referring to the way of life that the Africans have had to deal with ever since we can remember.

Not them as a ppl.
 
Last edited:
Like I said if you had the capability of understanding what I said..

This is why labels and racisum will never die!
To ppl like you it only matters what you are, not who you are..

Or these questions about sexuality would never be an issue! If you knew who you were and were happy with yourself you wouldn't be worried about(where do I fit in).

Sexual orientation and skin color mean nothing!!!!!

Labels mean nothing! Only if you let them.
You would have gotten that from my first post if you had half a brain
 
:husky_eyeroll: enjoy your pointless soapbox that has no point being in this thread
It has every right to be here.

If you had a brain you would see that.
But it only matters to you to classify as this or that. Thats why racisum and sexual prejudice will never die.

Cause of ppl that have to belong to this or that group.. Y'all are missing the point!

None of this label shit matters!!!! What matters is if you are happy with yourself.

Thats the only thing that matters
 
BTW Mahatma Gandhi was a hardcore sexist and racist that did not like the company of black people at all. Just because some guy says something profound doesn't make him anymore the wiser.
And that matters because? He brought the mightiest military that existed to its knees with almost no casualties using little but ideas. That is an accomplishment that surely outweighs any faults he may have had.
 
Their what if's do matter. Its obvious they've come at a cross roads and are looking towards the community for clarity and understanding
And that is exactly what is wrong with scociety! Instead of soul searching, finding out who you are.. Most of you turn to someone and say.. Who am I? Where do I fit in?

Who knows this better than yourself?

If you are asking yourself these types of questions that means you don't know who the Hell you are!

Me, I don't give a shit what any of y'all think:
I know who I am and what I like, what I want.

Once you truly know who you are, you will see why these questions are so trivial.
And why labels mean nothing.

If you don't get that and or can't see it, you are blind, a sheep.

If you realy KNOW who you are, other ppls oppion means nothing on ceirtan subjects.
Sexuality being one of them.
 
It doesn't matter, I couldn't give 2 shits about the guy, it was in simple response to @Hewflungpew when he randomly started spouting about the guy and racism never dying, points that have no relation to this post at all. Was simply pointing out the fact that a man's name does not automatically mean wisdom. There have been some profoundly evil people in history that have said some wise things, but it doesn't make them a poster child for wisdom by any sense
If you can't see how labeling ppl is the same as racisum you are dumber than I think you are.

What is lableisum? Putting ppl in a class fitting to their behavior and or believes.
What am I white.. Is that a label? Sure as shit it is.

Not much differance, all it is is judgment on a different subject.
 
Back
Top