Gay but attracted only to female dogs

ApparentlyKnot said:
IDK how they can look so scary and so appealing to me at the same time LOL.

But really, if you identify as a zoo, just work on accepting that as part of your identity, don't worry about your zoo-orientation. That will come in time. As I said, I've been through the same struggle. Your attraction to female dogs doesn't have any bearing on your human sexual orientation.
Click to expand...
tbh being into zoo has been a wild ride for me and I still feel awful when I think about it.
the whole male female orientation thing is just adding onto that
 
welpguessimherenow said:
tbh being into zoo has been a wild ride for me and I still feel awful when I think about it.
the whole male female orientation thing is just adding onto that
Click to expand...
the zoo thing is definetely a struggle to come to terms with, for sure. I find solace in knowing that literally MILLIONS and MILLIONS of people are zoos, we just don't/can't talk about. Its EXCEEDINGLY common. You probably know at least a few zooish people in real life, but they can't come out. It's like being gay was a few decades back. Just know that you're not alone, and as long as you have consent, you're not doing any harm to any being.
 
ApparentlyKnot said:
the zoo thing is definetely a struggle to come to terms with, for sure. I find solace in knowing that literally MILLIONS and MILLIONS of people are zoos, we just don't/can't talk about. Its EXCEEDINGLY common. You probably know at least a few zooish people in real life, but they can't come out. It's like being gay was a few decades back. Just know that you're not alone, and as long as you have consent, you're not doing any harm to any being.
Click to expand...
mhmm, idk. i just feel awful after watching zoo porn. i hated zoos until last week when I found out I am one and it's just. ugh
 
welpguessimherenow said:
well just.
i was part of the "you're abusing animals" crowd
that stuff, yk
Click to expand...
Yeah, I do know. I would suggest you look up some of the threads about animal consent, it gets brought up FREQUENTLY. The way I look at it is like this. No, animals cannot give verbal consent (as we understand verbal consent), but they have NUMEROUS ways of expressing consent nonverbally using queues and body language. A female dog in heat will signal intent with tail flagging and humping, for example. A male dog will literally fuck anything that will hold still long enough.

And then think about it another way. Have you ever tried to bathe a cat who doesn't consent to being bathed? That cat is going to scratch the shit out of you. Now imagine trying to fuck a horse that doesn't consent to being fucked. It's going to kick the shit out of you and could possibly kill out. Those are all non-verbal expressions of non-consent. You just have to expand your concept of what consent really means.

There are more complicated issues such as power imbalance, but those exist in human relationships as well, and it is up to each person and their own morals not to exploit a power imbalance for their own sexual gratification. One could, for instance, withhold food from a dog until the dog allows you to have sex with it. This would be immoral and unethical, and no respectable zoo would do such a thing, just as no ethical person would do the same to another human. It's an issue that has been debated by legitimate philosophers and many of them can't come up with good reasoning why it is wrong or unethical:

In Good Sex, his recent study of sexual ethics, American philosopher Raymond Belliotti uses a post-Kantian ethical framework to discern why bestiality might be morally wrong. With admirable philosophical honesty, he declares himself unable to reach an obvious conclusion as to the immorality of bestiality. Belliotti notes that even though animals have moral status because they have interests, they do not necessarily have a moral status equal to that of humans.


The strongest argument against bestiality is the lack of consent. It is not, however, apparent that animals suffer as a result of bestiality or that their interests are greatly impaired. As a result, Belliotti says, lack of consent seems inadequate to establish the wrongfulness of bestiality. Reflection on the matter does not produce any compelling explanation for why we find bestiality repugnant. This "moral dumbfounding" is not uncommon. When Rolling Stone Keith Richards told an interviewer he had snorted his father’s ashes, the hostile public reaction caused him to hastily announce that he was only joking — although it is not at all clear why snorting one’s father’s ashes should be immoral.


Jonathan Haidt gives the example of the brother and sister who one night in a remote cabin decide to have sex out of curiosity. They take all precautions against pregnancy and enjoy the experience but decide not to do it again and to keep it secret. It is hard to find a good reason to condemn them. They were fully consenting, there was no chance of conception, and both enjoyed the experience. In cases like this we can reach strong moral judgments without a maxim in sight. Haidt argues persuasively that moral reasoning typically occurs after a moral judgment has been made intuitively and is used to rationalize the reaction.
Click to expand...


When you really try to discuss the issue with an anti-zoophile, most of their arguments boil down simply to "ew gross I don't like it."

I'm happy to continue discussing the topic with you, but there are plenty of good resources already out there if you want to learn more
 
Sheppermutt said:
This is simply not true. It is quite the opposite. It is exceedingly rare. 90% of the common animals, cats, dogs, etc, are nothing more than just pets to people. The most common 'animal lover' are the 'pet parents' that see pets in a similar light to children. Chances are you have interacted with a zoo in real life at some point, but you'd never know. Higher chances they're a zoo if they have or work with animals professionally. Still, we are a rare type. Even on this forum, most users are bestialists, not actual zoos.
Click to expand...
For simplicity's sake in this thread, I am using the term "zoo" to be interchangeable with zoophile and bestialist, because the difference between the two are really beyond the scope of this discussion, at this point, though the distinction does become an important one.

Furthermore, your statistic of 90% is quite made up, just as is my estimation. But the number of users here on this forum, the number of subscribers to /r/sexwithdogs while that sub was alive, the users that BF had in it's hayday, the numerous zoo podcasts and blogs, and the sheer amount of zoophilic content available would run counter to your assertion. Alfred Kinsey in his ground breaking study showed that 8% of the male and 3.5% of the female populations of the US had had at least one zoophilic encounter in their lifetimes with a higher prevalence in the rural population, reaching up to 40% -- and that study was conducted in the 1940s! With the ease of access to zoophilic information and content, we can only assume the numbers are only higher now, 80+ years later.

But again, that is beyond the scope of this discussion.
 
Last edited:
ApparentlyKnot said:
Yeah, I do know. I would suggest you look up some of the threads about animal consent, it gets brought up FREQUENTLY. The way I look at it is like this. No, animals cannot give verbal consent (as we understand verbal consent), but they have NUMEROUS ways of expressing consent nonverbally using queues and body language. A female dog in heat will signal intent with tail flagging and humping, for example. A male dog will literally fuck anything that will hold still long enough.

And then think about it another way. Have you ever tried to bathe a cat who doesn't consent to being bathed? That cat is going to scratch the shit out of you. Now imagine trying to fuck a horse that doesn't consent to being fucked. It's going to kick the shit out of you and could possibly kill out. Those are all non-verbal expressions of non-consent. You just have to expand your concept of what consent really means.

There are more complicated issues such as power imbalance, but those exist in human relationships as well, and it is up to each person and their own morals not to exploit a power imbalance for their own sexual gratification. One could, for instance, withhold food from a dog until the dog allows you to have sex with it. This would be immoral and unethical, and no respectable zoo would do such a thing, just as no ethical person would do the same to another human. It's an issue that has been debated by legitimate philosophers and many of them can't come up with good reasoning why it is wrong or unethical:




When you really try to discuss the issue with an anti-zoophile, most of their arguments boil down simply to "ew gross I don't like it."

I'm happy to continue discussing the topic with you, but there are plenty of good resources already out there if you want to learn more
Click to expand...
tysm for the help and resources!
I'm still just weirded out, since yk, going from anti to full zoo in a week gave me whiplash
but I'm trying to get more comfortable with it
 
welpguessimherenow said:
tysm for the help and resources!
I'm still just weirded out, since yk, going from anti to full zoo in a week gave me whiplash
but I'm trying to get more comfortable with it
Click to expand...
definitely understandable! Don't worry friend, we all started out as baby zoos at some point and have gone through similar struggles. :)

There's lots of content regarding the ethics of zoophilia, but if you do go searching for it, just be aware that most stuff that comes up on a google search is written by antis. You can find good discussions about it in /r/philosophy and on this board, of course
 
ApparentlyKnot said:
definitely understandable! Don't worry friend, we all started out as baby zoos at some point and have gone through similar struggles. :)

There's lots of content regarding the ethics of zoophilia, but if you do go searching for it, just be aware that most stuff that comes up on a google search is written by antis. You can find good discussions about it in /r/philosophy and on this board, of course
Click to expand...
okie! I'll defo give it a look
i appreciate this a lot :''') tysm
 
Also gay for humans but I'm mostly into female dogs. I would like to one day play with stallion cock and other female animals but still love female dogs the most.
 
Definitely in the same boat as a lot of you guys here! Gay for humans but dog pussy makes me weak. Ideally wanting to partner up with a guy like me and we share a bitch in our relationship. But open to guys who like boy dogs too lol we can each have a pup lol
 
I'm also gay, and while I can't say that I'm dying for dog pussy, it's definitely way more attractive than human pussy for me. Still much prefer a dog dick, but I think I would fuck a dog if offered, but I don't think I could for a person.
 
welpguessimherenow said:
Title says it all, I'm a gay guy but I only feel attracted to female dogs and it's been really confusing. are there any other guys like that here?
Click to expand...

Well, as you can read in the answers in this thread, its really not uncommon that your zoo preference differs from your human sexual preference. A lot of man like animal sexpartner of the opposite gender then their human partners. Its nothing rare or strange about it.
I myself am hetero to humans and love my wife, but I'm gay with dogs and love to get mounted.
Don't worry, you are allright 👍
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top