Why zoo exclusivity is always a cause of discussions?

Disanima

Disanima

Esteemed Citizen of ZV
I have read many threads where zoos argues on the zoo exclusivity matter and I've come to a conclusion: there are basically two factions, the ones that I will call zoo exclusive "purists", which consider zoo exclusive only those who only had relationships with animals, and the other faction, the zoo exclusive "switchers", who chose to be exclusive with animals after (usually)delusional relationships with humans.
So... the main question is:
Is it really so important in which way one is exclusive or not?
We call ourselves zoos when probably no one of us is 100% zoo (being zoophile, literally means to love ALL animals, from the ant to the whale, so, if you only love dogs, it would be more appropriate to call yourself a cinophile or cinosexual, for example... but it's easier and more immediate to say: I'm a zoophile) so why bothering if someone is a purist or a switcher?
It seems an old concept, like the distinction between virgins and not virgins xD
 
Definitions for terms such as "Zoo," "Zoophile," "Zoo Exclusive," "Zoosexual," and etc. Will always vary from person to person.

In my personal opinion "Zoo-Exclusive" means that you would never touch another person sexually with a 50 meter pole! That the zoo in question only has a sexual affinity for non-human animals. But not everyone would agree with me on that, and that's okay. I won't fight someone if they consider the term to mean, "I tried human relationships in the past and it was not for me, I'm just going to stick with animals." or even "I'm open to a relationship with the right person, but for right now, I'm exclusively in a relationship with an animal only."

Also, personally I don't see being a "Zoophilie" as necessarily loving nor having an affinity for "All" animals. Only that you have a sexual attraction or relationship with some animals. Some critters might not tickle your fancy though. I cannot see myself getting intimate with an elephant if my life depended on it, for example.
 
Last edited:
Disanima said:
Is it really so important in which way one is exclusive or not?
Click to expand...
To me, it's not important either way. Maybe the motives of the switchers reason for going to the hounds (or other critters) would make me raise an eyebrow or cause some concern for me. As long as everyone isn't being forced and is happy with their partner(s), than it doesn't really matter if they've boinked a human before going zoo exclusive or were a zoo puritist like myself from the start.
 
FloofyNewfie said:
Definitions for terms such as "Zoo," "Zoophile," "Zoo Exclusive," "Zoosexual," and etc. Will always vary from person to person.

In my personal opinion "Zoo-Exclusive" means that you would never touch another person sexually with a 50 meter pole! That the zoo in question only has a sexual affinity for non-human animals. But not everyone would agree with me on that, and that's okay. I won't fight someone if they consider the term to mean, "I tried human relationships in the past and it was not for me, I'm just going to stick with animals." or even "I'm open to a relationship with the right person, but for right now, I'm exclusively in a relationship with an animal only."

Also, personally I don't see being a "Zoophilie" as necessarily loving nor having an affinity for "All" animals. Only that you have a sexual attraction or relationship with some animals. Some critters might not tickle your fancy though. I cannot see myself getting intimate with an elephant if my life depended on it, for example.
Click to expand...
I may agree with most of what you said, but what I don't get is why the zoo exclusivity is seen like a sort of status symbol, we are not more special than the ones who tried firstly relationships with humans...
On the other end I wonder if I am more limited than someone who was able to try both worlds and truly decide which was better for him (I have always been asexual towards humans, so, basically, I didn't have this kind of choice...)
And yes, the way you see the zoophile term is the common generalisation. I took that for example, because it's an improper use of the term (like the term zoologist, a zoologist doesn't study only a couple of animals, but the whole animal realm), but is widely accepted as you said.
Pillar said:
Much ado about nothing.
Click to expand...
I can assure you that in other threads this discussion was more heated (I'm actually surprised for the politeness showed till now xD)
 
you seem to have all the terms wrong... zoophile nor zoologist is a term used to describe someone being into or researching ALL animals (where did you even got that idea?) it's just an umbrella term for animals being their focus group.. ie: every cinophile is a zoophile, but not every zoophile is a cinophile

to me zoo-exclusivity is not really a "status symbol" or whatever.. it's just kinda annoying to read ppl who seem to think it's like an easier way to live or something.. "my gf cheated on me, oh bother! guess i'll be just into dogs now..." well, or it being a choice for some. i mean, why? if i ever had the choice i'd most likely not be 100% exclusive
 
nekdoneco123 said:
you seem to have all the terms wrong... zoophile nor zoologist is a term used to describe someone being into or researching ALL animals (where did you even got that idea?) it's just an umbrella term for animals being their focus group.. ie: every cinophile is a zoophile, but not every zoophile is a cinophile
Click to expand...
Trust me, the word zoophile comes from two latin words (I'm italian, so I know something of that) which are zoon (animal) and philia (love), zoologist is compounded of the same word zoon, but with the addition of logos (discussion).
If we really want to dig deep into this a zoophile was initially intended as someone who loves animals in a more generic way than we intend it nowadays...
Whatever...
nekdoneco123 said:
to me zoo-exclusivity is not really a "status symbol" or whatever.. it's just kinda annoying to read ppl who seem to think it's like an easier way to live or something.. "my gf cheated on me, oh bother! guess i'll be just into dogs now..." well, or it being a choice for some. i mean, why? if i ever had the choice i'd most likely not be 100% exclusive
Click to expand...
What I wanted to point is this... why someone should point out in which measure he is zoo exclusive?
100% zoo exclusive, acquired zoo exclusive... why we have to give labels to every kind of people? :unsure:
It's like a peacock who want to show his feathers to the others...
 
Disanima said:
Trust me, the word zoophile comes from two latin words (I'm italian, so I know something of that) which are zoon (animal) and philia (love), zoologist is compounded of the same word zoon, but with the addition of logos (discussion).
If we really want to dig deep into this a zoophile was initially intended as someone who loves animals in a more generic way than we intend it nowadays...
Click to expand...
why trust when it's so easy to do my own research in this day and age? one quick search debunks this pretty easily... apparently it comes from greek zṓion+ philia and was coined in 1886 by austro-german psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing to describe people "violating animals" (do note it's "animals" not "all animals") and people attracted to animal skin/fur (doesn't that make all furries zoophiles?).

Disanima said:
What I wanted to point is this... why someone should point out in which measure he is zoo exclusive?
100% zoo exclusive, acquired zoo exclusive... why we have to give labels to every kind of people? :unsure:
It's like a peacock who want to show his feathers to the others...
Click to expand...
and what i wanted to point out was how insincerely ppl who label themselves as "zoo-exclusives" out of current relationship status seem to me. i believe (i do hope i'm wrong tho) you can find ppl on this site who'd label themselves as exclusives one day and the next you see them bugging some poor female coming out as such in search of a "zoo wife". i'm not really sure how are you reading that as peacocking. i mean, i wouldn't mind not being exclusive (there's just literally no attraction towards humans in me so i quit trying a while ago), i'm not trying to bring anyone down or something...
 
nekdoneco123 said:
why trust when it's so easy to do my own research in this day and age? one quick search debunks this pretty easily... apparently it comes from greek zṓion+ philia and was coined in 1886 by austro-german psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing to describe people "violating animals" (do note it's "animals" not "all animals") and people attracted to animal skin/fur (doesn't that make all furries zoophiles?).
Click to expand...
So you may agree with me that the etimological meaning of the term has changed during the centuries (millenias?), but in the origins the term had not a negative connotation, and well... you don't explicitely write all animal, but is implicited (zoologist example: same term, same meaning, only etimologically speaking though).
nekdoneco123 said:
and what i wanted to point out was how insincerely ppl who label themselves as "zoo-exclusives" out of current relationship status seem to me. i believe (i do hope i'm wrong tho) you can find ppl on this site who'd label themselves as exclusives one day and the next you see them bugging some poor female coming out as such in search of a "zoo wife". i'm not really sure how are you reading that as peacocking. i mean, i wouldn't mind not being exclusive (there's just literally no attraction towards humans in me so i quit trying a while ago), i'm not trying to bring anyone down or something...
Click to expand...
I'm not attacking you, it was just a personal opinion, because I had the impression that it meant a lot for you to punctualize that someone is zoo exclusive only if he is 100% exclusive (so, not the people who switched from humans to animals) and that is often the sparkle who feeds this argument.
As for the discussion around people who are not sincere, yeah, they will always exist, but probably because they are insecure on which side they would choose so they switch on the first occasion or because they are only looking for fun, and whenever the occasion rises, they would change idea.
I am not really a zoo (probably a good mix between zoo and bestialist), but for commodity I use that term in an improper manner, because it's easier and more understandable (bestialoo or zoostialist probably wouldn't sound really good xD)
 
Disanima said:
I'm not attacking you, it was just a personal opinion, because I had the impression that it meant a lot for you to punctualize that someone is zoo exclusive only if he is 100% exclusive (so, not the people who switched from humans to animals) and that is often the sparkle who feeds this argument.
As for the discussion around people who are not sincere, yeah, they will always exist, but probably because they are insecure on which side they would choose so they switch on the first occasion or because they are only looking for fun, and whenever the occasion rises, they would change idea.
I am not really a zoo (probably a good mix between zoo and bestialist), but for commodity I use that term in an improper manner, because it's easier and more understandable (bestialoo or zoostialist probably wouldn't sound really good xD)
Click to expand...
no worries, i'm not feeling attacked.. we're just having a discussion.
i feel like it just boils down to me enjoying calling ppl out on their bullshit... i have nothing against folk who genuinely tried "both worlds" and decided they like animals more and just stick with them and don't pursue the "other world" anymore. i don't like when it's used as a sort of facade to get close to someone else... acting like a "textbook zoo-exclusive" only to switch gears when a female comes out us such seems so fake and wrong, so i guess i'm just very reserved about others claiming to be exclusives, yet stating "i'm also bi to humans" on other threads
 
I see, and I agree with you in this case. It's really annoying when people pretend to be what they are not.
 
I find it sometimes useful to help convey how one feels *generally*, but like all self-appointed labels it's only useful (for what little utility it has) when used honestly.
I'm zoo exclusive, I tried with humans but they just don't really do it for me. It doesn't make me special, it doesn't make anyone else more or less special. Like humans and non-humans? Cool, that's great, treat everyone well and be happy. Like just humans? That's cool, treat everyone well and be happy.
I largely give few shits what anyone else does so long as everyone is a willing and mature partner.

There are aspects where it does matter a bit though, such as when a zoo exclusive loses a non-human companion. It's not always the case, but typically it means something different than when a non-zoo or non-zoo-exclusive does (again generally, labels don't dictate, they help describe)
 
i admit to being one of those people for whom the distinction between a "real" zoo exclusive and someone calling themselves zoo exclusive simply due to their current state/dating status is important. the problem is that the latter often seem to be very bitter and/or just plain misogynistic. THAT is why i want to make the distinction -- to point out that i'm _not_ a dick to all women because i've had some bad relationships or couldn't make one work in the first place. he hasn't been around in a long while, but people like alphadog. yeah, no doubt -- i want to separate myself from people like that.

(good god. one typo and one complete omission that left that first sentence kindof ... odd. fixed.)
 
Last edited:
egoldstein said:
I find it sometimes useful to help convey how one feels *generally*, but like all self-appointed labels it's only useful (for what little utility it has) when used honestly.
I'm zoo exclusive, I tried with humans but they just don't really do it for me. It doesn't make me special, it doesn't make anyone else more or less special. Like humans and non-humans? Cool, that's great, treat everyone well and be happy. Like just humans? That's cool, treat everyone well and be happy.
I largely give few shits what anyone else does so long as everyone is a willing and mature partner.

There are aspects where it does matter a bit though, such as when a zoo exclusive loses a non-human companion. It's not always the case, but typically it means something different than when a non-zoo or non-zoo-exclusive does (again generally, labels don't dictate, they help describe)
Click to expand...
I couldn't say it better, and I mostly agree with you :)
 
People like validation on having a label, but it shouldn't be viewed as a "token of authenticity" that some people make it out to be. "Oh you slept with a human? You can't be exclusivvveeee"
 
Katelyn said:
People like validation on having a label, but it shouldn't be viewed as a "token of authenticity" that some people make it out to be. "Oh you slept with a human? You can't be exclusivvveeee"
Click to expand...

and that's not what i'm saying. people that have tried to have a relationship with a human but eventually realized they just weren't attracted, then switching to animals, is entirely different from having a relationship end poorly and switching to animals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top