Only attracted to zoo-exclusive girls? Oh the irony!

I've imagined it as being very dog-centric, focused on the male or female dog's happiness and pleasure. Male dogs love me just as much as female dogs so not sure what you meant there. As long as the animal partner understands that I'm not intervening in their relationship with their human and getting in between them, causing jealousy, but rather that I'm just adding to the happiness of both of them. More or less as an accessory to their relationship, as she would also be for me if I have my own canine partner, unless I have a bitch mate and the woman isnt into pleasing bitches. Me and her male dog could work as a unit to increase her pleasure and same on my end. Or it could just be me and her as a unit for him. Two mouths on a dogs body is better than one lol

Though if I really think about it, I don't honestly know if I'd want to be with a woman without dogs involved. Because that's where I feel like the core of my attraction to women lies.
The way you write about dogs and jealousy makes me realize that you think of them as basically human like. Dogs have a wide range of emotions but its us humans who translate them to human emotions witch they are not. You compare a Human Dog relationship to a Human Human relationship witch some zoos do but is definitely just an illusion of humans and has not a lot to do with the actual reality of Dog Human Relationships. By the way it doesn´t mater what kind of Animal your thinking about. I have noticed that trend to Humanize Animal Partners, to basically think of them as we would about Human partners, to indulge in the Illusion they love us like we love them. Its just not the case, we search for patterns in their behaviours that we can read as something we recognize as being similar to what we know but it is by all accounts just an illusions. Dogs have a wide variety of emotions and instincts, love in a romantic sense is not one of them. A dog can be a companion, in life as in sexuality, a "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" in sense of partner he is most definitively not.
 
Dogs have a wide range of emotions but its us humans who translate them to human emotions witch they are not.
The old thinking of "only humans can have emotion X, pain Y or logic processing capacity to do Z because humans are more developed". Humans are actually backward-developed and lost control over many aspects of communication, subliminal, subconscious signs which only a few learn to read anymore. And don't care about those basic aspects of clear interspecies communication.

Dogs possess the same emotions as humans, the same discomforts, enjoyments. Envy, greed, hate, curiosity, enjoyment, disliking, love, respect, carelessness, happiness, fear, discomfort and lots more. Individually, just not in a prejudging way of thinking, conditioning through negative events in the past aside.

Humans don't possess a prejudgement and risk assessment in their childhood, up until they begin to combine not only experience and command based ways to their goals, but technical reflections with abstract projections through science-based analysis, which dogs can't use due to the missing scientific understanding. We just can't teach them this sort of mathematical and abstract analysis, even if they would be capable to understand quite a few things.

A dog doesn't know that a car weights 1,5 to 2,5 tons, there are no ways to teach a dog exact metrics as example. As such they just analyze what they understand: noise, vibrations, smell, movement, effects on things, appearance. Some dogs abstract from this that a car might be dangerous, some see it as harmless, as it doesn't show a threat to them directly. And hopefully those never experience a collision which would surely enough let Pavlov's classical conditioning do its work, but might end deadly.

Yes, canids can love. No, they won't make the morning coffee or care for your morning routine, they are quite egocentric in that behalf.

They can actually communicate ways better than we humans could with other humans that speak different languages. They need only a few days to find ways to communicate clearly with humans of all languages and even understand specific languages very well, just not scientifically analyzed (no grammars, but words and strings).

As such we don't have to search "patterns in their behaviors", they do the exact same and are masters of manipulation if a human is not careful, as their goal is still based on egocentric profit. But also related with respect, careful handling, knowing the physical differences of humans and dogs and so on.

The funny thing I see each other day is, that humans are in many cases the exact same. Staying together to not have to bear loneliness, while telling their partner humans just lies of attraction, love, whatever, while they are often incapable of feeling those. Keeping multiple partners and telling each one that they really love just them. They feel better in a relationship out of a self worthiness stance. They are often able to forget the partner after a few weeks and don't care much about the loss after splitting up, as their goal lays in finding another one removing that "loneliness".

Many are even less emotionally loving than you can experience from dogs. Less emotionally bound, caring for, willing to sacrifice life time for the other one and so on. There's no "higher" human love standard, neither an universal scale for "love" or relationships.

No idea how anyone could ever conclude that dogs are not able for love, for being a boy- or girlfriend, for dependence and emotion based connections if even most humans absolutely fail on this terms and nobody tells them that their "love" is a bad joke of selfish decisions.
 
The old thinking of "only humans can have emotion X, pain Y or logic processing capacity to do Z because humans are more developed". Humans are actually backward-developed and lost control over many aspects of communication, subliminal, subconscious signs which only a few learn to read anymore. And don't care about those basic aspects of clear interspecies communication.

Dogs possess the same emotions as humans, the same discomforts, enjoyments. Envy, greed, hate, curiosity, enjoyment, disliking, love, respect, carelessness, happiness, fear, discomfort and lots more. Individually, just not in a prejudging way of thinking, conditioning through negative events in the past aside.

Humans don't possess a prejudgement and risk assessment in their childhood, up until they begin to combine not only experience and command based ways to their goals, but technical reflections with abstract projections through science-based analysis, which dogs can't use due to the missing scientific understanding. We just can't teach them this sort of mathematical and abstract analysis, even if they would be capable to understand quite a few things.

A dog doesn't know that a car weights 1,5 to 2,5 tons, there are no ways to teach a dog exact metrics as example. As such they just analyze what they understand: noise, vibrations, smell, movement, effects on things, appearance. Some dogs abstract from this that a car might be dangerous, some see it as harmless, as it doesn't show a threat to them directly. And hopefully those never experience a collision which would surely enough let Pavlov's classical conditioning do its work, but might end deadly.

Yes, canids can love. No, they won't make the morning coffee or care for your morning routine, they are quite egocentric in that behalf.

They can actually communicate ways better than we humans could with other humans that speak different languages. They need only a few days to find ways to communicate clearly with humans of all languages and even understand specific languages very well, just not scientifically analyzed (no grammars, but words and strings).

As such we don't have to search "patterns in their behaviors", they do the exact same and are masters of manipulation if a human is not careful, as their goal is still based on egocentric profit. But also related with respect, careful handling, knowing the physical differences of humans and dogs and so on.

The funny thing I see each other day is, that humans are in many cases the exact same. Staying together to not have to bear loneliness, while telling their partner humans just lies of attraction, love, whatever, while they are often incapable of feeling those. Keeping multiple partners and telling each one that they really love just them. They feel better in a relationship out of a self worthiness stance. They are often able to forget the partner after a few weeks and don't care much about the loss after splitting up, as their goal lays in finding another one removing that "loneliness".

Many are even less emotionally loving than you can experience from dogs. Less emotionally bound, caring for, willing to sacrifice life time for the other one and so on. There's no "higher" human love standard, neither an universal scale for "love" or relationships.

No idea how anyone could ever conclude that dogs are not able for love, for being a boy- or girlfriend, for dependence and emotion based connections if even most humans absolutely fail on this terms and nobody tells them that their "love" is a bad joke of selfish decisions.
Were completely on the same page regarding the emotional capacity of dogs, that's why I am zoo exclusive. Because, beside the sexuality, I find an instinctual and super emotional companion in them witch I highly prefer. For me that goes even a bit further but thats not the point here. And I'm totally on the same page with you that dogs are more egotistical in their base makeup than Humans, witch is not saying dogs cant be very caring towards even strangers. But you also made the point in terms of Not being a Boy or Girlfriend. The point is not that dogs can´t love, witch given I'm not totally sure I would actually call love, the human language is lacking in that department in my opinion. But their social structure, the way they socialize with dogs or Humans is not comparable to the Concept of Human relationships. They don´t understand the Idea of a Boy or Girlfriend. They might have an preferred social contact and even sexual partner, this partner might even be Human, but its in no way comparable to the Concept of a Human Romantic Relationship. And basically that's what I see more and more of. That some Zoos treat and see their Animal Companion in the same light as a Human Lover in terms of romantic relationship and even Live Building capacity. Even in a Idealized way, being better than Human in that regard. Witch by all accounts is Bull... . And yes dogs for me personally make better companions even better packmembers, and in lack of a very good other word even Partners, but not in the same romantic and Live Building way witch I could get from a Human. Its something I personally don´t need and its something a dog or any animal just can´t provide. Because the way a Human thinks about relationships is deeply impacted by socialization, a socialisation an animal doesn´t have in the same way or is even able to get. And humanizing them is a problem, because dogs need their space, their way of doing things, their way of expressing and building bonds, witch can be very different, even massively contrary, in a lot of regards to Humans.
 
The point is not that dogs can´t love, witch given I'm not totally sure I would actually call love, the human language is lacking in that department in my opinion. But their social structure, the way they socialize with dogs or Humans is not comparable to the Concept of Human relationships.
Depends, the "human way" of relationships is infinitely variable. "A concept like how dogs form a pack" is possible for humans, but rarely applied.

They prefer their own ways of nonsensical dating including loads of manipulation, even if at the end all that thrives them is sexual desire.

Love of dogs is not bound by contracts, just by experiences together. The enjoyment of life time together, compared to humans who often care the most about financial, stress-free, funny entertaining and good looking life without much hassles, where everything solves somewhat magical by throwing enough cash on the problems. Not sure if that is "more" or "less" in the direction of "true love", but it's more human like, true.

That some Zoos treat and see their Animal Companion in the same light as a Human Lover in terms of romantic relationship and even Live Building capacity.
You talk about the "breeding puppies" aspects? That won't work and I hope most people know it from a scientific look. 🤷‍♂️ But as the remaining "human partner" standards and ways of life are absolutely variable, handling your dog like a human relationship, talking with them, caring for them, going on travels with them (as stress free as possible for the animals) and so on is not a bad aspect in my opinion. It's one of many variable ways how humans could have a relationship.

And dogs are variable in their needs, wishes and taking of chances as well. Not every dog of a breed known for running three hours a day prefers running three hours a day before chilling on the couch and watching animal documentaries, they are still individuals.

.. but not in the same romantic and Live Building way witch I could get from a Human.
To be honest: I see the "life building aspects" of human relationships as a big curse for the future of this planets whole life forms. There's nothing worse for nature than a modern technology advanced "locust swarm plague" reproducing itself to no end. Already 7,8 billions of people on this planet.

If humans would've the capacity to see the big picture, they would praise, share, talk about the advantages of loving human-animal relationships. They would even pay bonus for each human who freely skips creating more human life on earth. It's as simple as this. The world doesn't need more locusts / humans which at the end destroy them self and most of the animal life with them.

But you are right that most humans search for some sort of human relationship including offspring and family. This will reach a problematic circumference soon enough..

Because the way a Human thinks about relationships is deeply impacted by socialization, a socialisation an animal doesn´t have in the same way or is even able to get.
Then you could say that quite a few humans don't want the human socialization standards as their own partnership founding or that they prefer the animal socialization ways. Or you could say that those are as well a possibility of human socialization standards, just not the most visible ones used nowadays.

Doesn't matter much, humans and animals have to live in a world which is too often based on human technology, require human social standards to survive. Animals including dogs are very good at adapting to those unknown, not understood standards, like cars, dangerous speeds, lights, sounds and so on.

At the end it is a compromise. Most dogs I know and cared for were actually happy and enjoying the advantages of human life standards and didn't want too much of their primordial instinct driven wilderness surviving standards. Even a dog enjoys comfort and peace, reliable safety.
 
I'm sort of busy so I will come back to this thread and ZV soon. Have fun talking shit about me in the meantime 🤣 jk
 
if only, having an online lady-friend is the closest that i may be able to have. location is a helluva thing.
 
This word exclusive causes very big problems in zoo life as I see it.... The word exclusive means only, one thing. One.

If you are exclsuive, you will not have sex with a person, you will not fall in love with a person. If so, then you are not exclusive, you just don't have a human companion at the given moment. Then maybe it lasts so long that you grow old and die without ever having had human contact, but in your soul you wanted human contact. So not exclusive.

You feel endless emptiness and indifference, zero, (or possibly nausea) when you think about sex with a person or human genitals. Even if you think about love with a person.

Regardless, there may be people you like, this is called friendship. No sex, no love, no cohabitation. Just friends. Everything that is a hair more than this is no longer exclusive.

An exclusive-zoophile is lives alone because he WANTS to live that way. In the other version, he is alone because he CAN'T FIND someone he likes (because it's very rare, you won't find it on the planet), but if she had, she would live with her.

I know I'm being raw, but the word exclusive means only 1 thing. Animal and human attraction are 2 things, so they cannot be exclusive.

Of course, this can also be complicated by the fact that someone had a human connection out of compulsion, social expectations, (or only later realized that he was actually exclusive) and subsequently became exclusive, this can be divided into several parts. But I don't want to overcomplicate it. :husky_laughing:

Recommended test:

https://www.zoovilleforum.net/threads/kinsey-zoo-scale-test.26275/
 
When it comes to my interest in human relationships, I find myself in a little bit of a pickle. I'm curious how many of you can relate. I am kind of zoo exclusive and kind of not, the only times I'm not is with other zoo-exclusive females because of their love, dedication, a greater awareness of their equality with their partners and typically their love for all other animals too. Which is the most attractive quality to me aside from being a spiritual and unselfish person. Which is why I'll probably never have another human partner again. 😂

In all seriousness though have any of you who are or were zoo exclusive ever decided to allow a zoo human—or zoo furry—to join your little pack or herd? If not, would you even consider it if you met someone with compatible traits?
I'm in this boat. I currently have a human in my pack, she's not exclusive but we get along really good. She's the only person I've ever had feelings like this for.
 
Back
Top