Just the two options?

D

doggyw

Tourist
Ive been on here a while and ive come to notice that there seems to be only two main groups. You've got the zoo exclusives, forgive me if im wrong but i assume zoo exclusive is where someone doesn't find humans attractive, only animals. Then you have the fetishists? The ones, i assume, that see intimacy with animals as hot, but are for the most part, human attracted.

I've been interested in animals and humans my entire adult life. I dont see any difference between falling in love with a human or falling in love with, for example, a dog. Dogs are my favourite species. Though i do also find other large mammals attractive.
I dont consider myself a zoo fetishist nor do i consider myself a zoo exclusive. Im wondering would my view of the world be considered an oddity or am i not that unusual in the way i see things?
 
No, there is a third group or rather a spectrum.
You can have nonsexual zoophiles.
People who treat animals nicely but are only into watching other have sex with them and so on.
But the two mentioned groups seem to be the most opposite in nature and therefore clash the most.
 
Zoo exclusive and bestiality fetishes are just two stops on a whole line of sexual orientations. The amount of varying factors in sexual orientation makes the whole idea of a label, kind of moot, but we live in a world of labels.

Those two are just the most prevalent as most will identify with a fixed label instead of figuring out their place in the spectrum.

As an example. I'm zoo exclusive, but I've had relations and sex with people in the past, but that's the easiest label to stick on me. Its not WHOLLY accurate.

Just live your life, and enjoy it. As it harm none, do what ye will.
 
Personally I am not tecnically zoo exclusive. I find both humans and animals attractive, however iv been in relatively few human relationships due to a lack of women I find emotionally attractive so sometimes I feel zoo exclusive. I could meet a women that that from the outside is an absolute 10 but still be an absolutely disgusting person so to me they are a 0 overall and I wouldn't waste my time even talking to them. I can't tell you how many of those iv met.

I prefer to form relationships that have some sort of depth. Sex is great don't get me wrong, it feels good but it does me no REAL good if there isn't some kind of foundation. Some people can be happy with just sex and realistically I guess there is nothing wrong with that but to me it's not enough.

Iv been with my girl (dog) for 14 years and even before we had sex there was a fundamental relationship in place. Basically I don't wanna just fuck you because "dick goes in hole" I wanna invest in something that's going to mean something for the both of us and thus far I haven't found much of that in humans. Is what it is.
 
I would see myself as equally attracted to human and k9 males. i don't think i have a preference of one over the other. I might be the odd man out on that but that's how I work. I love man dick as much as dog dick.
 
doggyw said:
Ive been on here a while and ive come to notice that there seems to be only two main groups. You've got the zoo exclusives, forgive me if im wrong but i assume zoo exclusive is where someone doesn't find humans attractive, only animals. Then you have the fetishists? The ones, i assume, that see intimacy with animals as hot, but are for the most part, human attracted.

I've been interested in animals and humans my entire adult life. I dont see any difference between falling in love with a human or falling in love with, for example, a dog. Dogs are my favourite species. Though i do also find other large mammals attractive.
I dont consider myself a zoo fetishist nor do i consider myself a zoo exclusive. Im wondering would my view of the world be considered an oddity or am i not that unusual in the way i see things?
Click to expand...
I enjoy both. I don't date but often play both men/women owners plus their dogs. I have experience with boars and horses too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top