A word from our sponsors...
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
Ok I'm tired of this, some people don't know the difference from beastialty and Zoophila!We here we go, this is the definition's of both.Zoophila: Is a person that has contacted with an animal were they love them more then anything in the world and would never let anything come to harm them or force them.We do not sell or trade our loved ones, there are, as far as I'm concerned is a part of our life!Beastiality: Is a person that only loves the animals for sexual releaf and thinks that there animals are expanable once they reach old age, they force them and harm them at the same time there doing it!Beast's are people who would sell there mare for a "better" mare! WtfThere is even ranks amon zoophile's!
thank you for the definitions, spirit <3
Ranks amon Zoophila's.True Zoophile: Is a person that has contacted with an animal were they love them more then anything in the world and would never let anything come to harm them or force them.We do not sell or trade our loved ones, there are, as far as I'm concerned is a part of our life!Zoophile: Is a person that has contacted with an animal were they love them more then anything in the world and would never let anything come to harm them or force them.Semi-Zoophile: Is a person that loves them and would never let anything come to harm them or force them.Pending Zoophile: Is a person that is not looking for a relationship but a sexual relationship and loves them and makes sure that they wont be harmed or forced.Zoophile curous: A person that has not had an experince but is interested into zoophile and that person cares for animals and would not let anything happen unrightful happen.
Hello. I don't think that I could have defined them better. Thanks for that Spirit.
I agree, you got that very good How about this one?Would this be zoo or best?Zoo/Bestiality-fetish: Getting off by looking at act of sex between human and animal, though not being interested in actual sex with animals ??
QUOTE (Svadilfari @ Mar 21 2004, 03:22 PM) I agree, you got that very good How about this one?Would this be zoo or best?Zoo/Bestiality-fetish: Getting off by looking at act of sex between human and animal, though not being interested in actual sex with animals ?? Hello. In my own interpretations as well as opinion I would believe that to be beast. As no love or even care is shown towards the animal. By watching you care not for both the animal and person. It becomes more of a sexual interest or fetish. I am not even sure if you could classify it as beastiality, but it definately does not fall onto the side of zoophilia.
Hi folks,I've agonised a lot over making this post - I hope everyone takes it in the spirit of community in which I am trying to make it and that I manage to make the words say what I mean.Spirit, much as I agree with you on the definitions of "zoophile" and "bestialist" I would be very wary of trying to split up the zoophiles into "x is more of a zoo than y" - I can see what you're trying to do and of course those of us who are zoos all aspire to love our partners but, not wanting to come the old f**t who's been there and seen that, I have seen these things turn into "I'm more zoo than you" and then the problems startMy personal opinion is that we as zoos have enough problems in the world with all the difficulties and predjudices that we have to face. It would be sad if we turned against people in our own community because they "weren't zoo enough" - after all who is to judge one love stronger than another?Spirit - I know that not for a minute have you, or anyone here, has even suggested that some zoos are "better" than others but I think we should all be aware of what slitting us up into categories could lead to - and try to make sure it doesn't. If we love our animal partners, even if we haven't been intimate yet, then we are zoos. To love, I hope, is enough.Dracunculus
Posted already in the general forum, so I'll copy/paste it here too.Actual definitions:Zoophile: One who "loves" animals. (It can be, and has been, used in many more contexts than that this forum sees.) Fr. [Zoophilia] 1) The forming of a strong emotional bond with animals 2) A sexual deviation involving a fetish with animals 3) An emotional deviation transferring emotion commonly directed to other humans onto animals 4) An inordinant display of emotion for animalsBestialist: One who engages in sexual activity with animals (beasts) Fr. [Bestiality] The act of engaging in sexual activity with beastsThats all there is to either term. Your own use of, or refusal to use, either term is based solely on personal definition of self. Therefor, those personal definitions are only binding to self.I will add this much, wether you call yourself "Zoo" or not, if you've had sex with a non-human, you are by definition a bestialist. That term carries niether positive or negative connotation. It is simply one who engages in the act.--------------------silverwolf- Tippys mate
As some of the people in BF said, we make our own religin and I also make my own defenation's!This is all my own way of explaning who I am and how I am apart from the beasts.We can not all be beasts just because there is people who force sex and what not, so therefore we make up a word devideing us.I'm not gonna follow on what some fucken book says!I make my own religin and my own words thank you!(I forgot to putt this is in my own opinon, that is my fault!)I'm sorry you do not agree with me silver but hell you can go ahead and follow on what the book says by all means go ahead.We are a community and hell almost a nation! We build the tools, we make the rules!Thank you all for posting but weather you like it or not, we have created another way so apart us from the unrightous.This is all my own opinon and everything is so please do not flame me cause I do not want to be flamed or flame anyone, you want to say something make sure you say, "In my own opinon"
Nice childish outburst Spirit. Read my post before attacking it, rather than let your own insecurities see enemies where there are none. I also note how you flame anothers opinion while demanding acceptance of your own. "Tolerance" huh? Kinda like the tolerance in the "this is my own opinion, but you must accept it" (paraphrase) part of your post.Here are the facts Spirit. "We" are not a "religion". We are not held or bound to your personal definitions of bestiality or zoophilia. We are not a "Nation" under your or any other leadership. We are not even "like-minded" on most things. We ARE individuals, with individual opinions, feelings, thoughts and beliefs. "We" already have adequate terms to define those who abuse, [CENSOR] etc. without further dividing those who don't. You and I both follow very similar personal beliefs on what makes us who we are and how that guides our relationship(s). There are two huge differences though. You refuse to tolerate any "zoo" who doesn't fit your mold, insisting they are not "True zoo", and you would rather attack than educate on abuse. We don't need divisions and intolerance, or re-definition.The point of my post was, and remains, you can call yourself whatever you like, but we are under no obligation to call ourselves any of your definitions, nor to call you your own.
Ok, Silver.I am not a leader of anygroup shape or size or form.You belive were individuals, with individual opinions, thats your own opinon!Silver I do not wish to fight but post on this how you wish, but regardless of what book or law says on defination's there wrong.Sorry it's just the way I am, I have alot to say on this.And I did not flame you for you have falmed me I can only return the asshole favor back thanks.QUOTE Thats all there is to either term. Your own use of, or refusal to use, either term is based solely on personal definition of self. Therefor, those personal definitions are only binding to self.I will add this much, wether you call yourself "Zoo" or not, if you've had sex with a non-human, you are by definition a bestialist. That term carries niether positive or negative connotation. It is simply one who engages in the act.Like I said before I do not want to be flamed and do not wish to flame but hell if you so wish to start fights go somewere eles please I don't want to.QUOTE Nice childish outburst Spirit.Did I call you childish? By you saying this you further the flame.Did I direct a inslat to you?NO!But I end this and I am not going to flame post on this and for if there is anymore flaming going on I will personaly ask the MOD to remove this POSt and shell never be speaken of again! BOTTOM LINE!We all have our own thoughts and beliefs and even opinons, I thank you for your opinon but again my was an opinon, that is what I think, in my own mind.Do not try to convert me! Hell if I don't belive in some law or rule or defination I'm not gonna belive what you think is right!QUOTE Here are the facts Spirit. "We" are not a "religion". We are not held or bound to your personal definitions of bestiality or zoophilia. We are not a "Nation" under your or any other leadership. We are not even "like-minded" on most things. IT'S MY OWN OPINON! GET OFF YOURSELF! PLEASE!I am a simple person do not further my life with disagreements and agurments about that.I request that you leave it as be! You have a differnet opinon on that, Don't flame me, you think otherwize don't flame me, you have something to fight about don't talk to me, I do not wish to fight with anyone period! I have my own opinons thanks and if you don't agree then you can go off and fight with other people cause I am not in the mood to fight about that stuff, so please back off or help me god this post will be gone before you can say "MOD!!" I do not wish to fight.I posted this, I can very well end it!This is my little fantasy world I can belive whatever the hell I want.My own opinon is like my own god! I do not expect for you to agree on it! Simply it's just my opinon you have something bad to say then say nothing at all.
Like J.B.Tito said: "Everyone is what he/she feels that he/she is." I believe that we should just be ourselves and don't get too concerned about definitions or labels.Personally, I hate labels! I strongly feel against classification of people into categories: it seems that it often leads into discrimination or fruitless im-better-than-you-cause-im-thisandthis-and-you-are-not discussions.As for those who force animals into sex, there is a clear and simple expression to describe them clearly: "animal r*pists" (please excuse my use of the r-word). Just my two bits.
Hmm, i though long - very long - if i should add something or not... Im with what dracunculus said. We are way to few to split us up into 'good' ones and 'bad' ones...I can understand and respect your opinons about the topic Spirit. I allways have to force myself from thinking in 'lables'! Its to damn easy to do it...Everyone is a individual and makes rules to live by for his own. There will allways be someone who sais this is right and this is wrong and there will allways be someone who agrees and disagrees with one of both...Some might call this politics! And whats the final step of politics? Right - War!This is almost allways the end where debates - when someone dont wants to concider to think of a second choice - like this are made.You might want to disagre with Silverwolf, its your choice and to me its ok to defend them. I know its hard to choose the right words sometimes and when your emotional in situations like this it never turns out the way it should be. Thats the reason i allways try to take time and think very long before i make a proper answer...Silverwolf only pointed out the defenition of what is written - the deffenition by others have to judge us and all of our kind. And even if his words might have sounded hars or unwelcome, dont repay it the same way. There is no need for a thinking like 'An eye for an eye! To soon we all would be blind Thats the reason why i dont call myself only zoophile! I am what i am, label me how you like. Im zoo because i love my mates and every animal, im a beasty because i also have sex with them. Allways remember those are only words!!Of course we need to seperate us from those who only 'use' their animals but not by lableing or usage of words! Allways seperate yourself from them by what you're doing and how you are! I know from zoos who think someone who watches movies and pictures with sex between animals and humans is a 'beasty'. I also read on a long gone zooforum from someone who said every zoo who has sex with an animal is a 'beasty' In the eyes of that guy everyone on this forum who has or had sex with his mate is a 'beasty'I doupt that you would share this opinion - or do you? Just curious!I think we are many, but we are a comunity of likeminded and conceted by our loves, likings and desires. But does that turn us into a relegion or a nation? I dont think so, but still we are something like that!Only our believes and motives are different to them - again they both are only a defenition someone made some day in the past. Infact both are just a connection of a couple of people who follow a selfmade goal! Nothing more nothing less!I dont hesitate to say we all are only humans! And humans tend to make mistakes, thats ok as long as one can accept that mistake and learn from it! *sigh* I guess i totaly missed the point of this posting but i got the words from my soul.Spirit my friend dont k!ll the bearer of bad news Get those who made the news!
You'd think I started this post, but no, I'm not part of this one
Jeeeez! I wanted to engage this discussion, but Spirit has been banned. I guess over cyber rageand abuse. I agree with Silverwolf for what it is worth. Sounds like wisdom to me. Spirit had spoken his/her truth, but I thought it smacked of dogmatism (forgive me!) too. Nobody likes to be defined by someone else even if they agree with the definition. Also: It seems there runs through the "community", as in many communities, a sense of self-righteous possessiveness (wow! 6 S's in that last word!) over the expression of its nature. (See? im doing it RIGHT now!) It behooves (snigger) us to remind ourselves of the diverse nature that ANY community is and not flaunt our own dogma. Share...sure....flaunt...? While I am a newbie myself and I dont really know how things work here, I still have been a little disturbed by the expulsion of certain longer time members. Spirit certainly had reached beyond declamatory, but he/she was a long time member and having seen this with a few others, Im a little surprised. Or maybe thats just it; some people get their 'rank' and they go a little gaga with the ego trip. I dont know how far Spirit went over the top, but in some ways I wouldnt have minded locking horns with him/her. It would have been interesting to test the dimensions and flexibility of the person AFTER we got all the huffing ang puffing done. But others shouldnt have to endure that. Maybe there should be a thread called ARENA, where itinerancy gets moved to by the moderators if things get gnarly. Anyway, somebody hold me back and stop me if I grow imperious! Ahhh! Finally! All the emoticons I always wanted to use!so....alright then... Singing Dog...strikes again! Below for your viewing pleasure is the very endangered New Guinea Singing Dog.
I would also like to add that the beastie part of the definition is not quite right too.I am a "beastie" but there's as much chance of me harming an animal as there is of me harming my own children.Although I use animals as an addition to my human sex life it is always by mutual consent. I never penetrate a female animal as I can't be assured that their consent is genuine, therefore I only use male animals. What they do is obviously voluntary as I don't force them or even train them. If they lick or mount then they do so because they want to.So I take exception to the assertion that beasties have no interest in the animals themselves, and are only interested in what they can do for me.
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
this is a copy and a paste of the taboo subject thread that is located in the stickie section! just so everyone is clear on the sites definition that the site holds near and dear BEAST ZOO DEFINITIONS: We have working definitions for this site for these terms - WE DON'T CARE what any dictionary defines them as - let me repeat - WE DON'T CARE -these are the definitions that stand for this site:zoo - one who is exclusive in thier relationship(s) with animals and is "in love" with animals like the traditional sense of humans being in love. beast - one who loves and cares for animals -engages in sexual activities with animals -but is not exclusive -and is not 'in love" with thier animal.THESE ARE IN STONE -and have been argued on this forum way too many times - DO NOT refer to our members who consider themselves beast by our definition as raapist -or not "true zoos" or somehow less than a zoo exclusive - THIS IS A FORUM for EVERYONE interested -there are different interest here -some members may be here because they have a significant other who is interested -there are lots of members who are here because they are sexually aroused by those who are active but not active themselves and have genuine motives - there are many reasons why members are here - ANYONE making ANY comment that they are not as valuable of members to this forum because of thier lack of being active -or level of involvment will be BANNED IMMEDIATELY! It is NOT UP FOR CONVERSATION OR DEBATE! JUST DON'T DO IT! if you will notice.. this thread is actually exactly 2 years old intelligent none abusive conversation is welcomed and allowed
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
Oh Oh, Ive got a stupid question. Youre gonna hate me. I love animals, I have dog friends that I know.Some of them I take for walks, rub their belly, playfight and so on; no sex. I love these individuals. However, some of the unfixed boys have enjoyed some wonderful mutual pleasure-play. This all sounds like beastiality by this site's definition. No problem. But I have also been "in love" and still miss in my heart some of both kinds (sexual and non-sexual partners) Ive had. There have a been a couple I definitely bonded with and definitely was lovingly attached to them. Every interlude I ever have had and will have will contain a powerful personal fondness component, some even will include real "in love" love not just a general love of animals. So this seems to drift away from the beastiality definition. The zoo definition doesnt seem to fit either though, because I still am attracted to Human males (some anyway!) yet the Bestiality description sounds more like playing Racquette Ball with a co-worker, than what I experience. NOTE!! This is not an evaluation of anyone's actual sexuality or interest. Please dont misunderstand and ban this newbie. Im simply trying to say that the definitions though great seem a little mutually exclusive, which may well have been the intent. But for me at least I would have to overlap the definitions a little or use a ratio system. That is "Im mostly Bestial by this sites definition, but with zoo tendencies." Maybe its like saying a guy who is married (and loves his wife) with kids and has a male lover he sees every month and dearly loves, is heterosexual with homosexual tendencies. What happens if I ever settle in with a gay man and a sweet dog who I definitely would be deeply attached to and hopefully engaging in some randy play. More likely, when I have my own dog friend again, I will see him as my partner in life, but i may still have a human over now and again and thats not exclusive either. For me I guess the pinch point might be the word "exclusive" in the Zoo definition, or the non-inclusion of the possibilities of personal love between a beast person and their animal play-mate. But it is abundantly clear that those are the definitions here and thus the point of departure for conversation about the same. Anyway I appreciate your efforts to maintain good manners and open-mindedness. Thanx for a very exciting and excellent site! Singing DogBelow is a New Guinea Singing Dog
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
QUOTE Anyway, somebody hold me back and stop me if I grow imperious! that would be me QUOTE I wanted to engage this discussion, but Spirit has been banned. I guess over cyber rageand abuse.why would you assume that this is the thread that got Spirit banned? a little presumptious don't ya think? QUOTE dont know how far Spirit went over the top, but in some ways I wouldnt have minded locking horns with him/her. It would have been interesting to test the dimensions and flexibility of the person AFTER we got all the huffing ang puffing done. But others shouldnt have to endure that. Maybe there should be a thread called ARENA, where itinerancy gets moved to by the moderators if things get gnarlyno thanX - I'll just use my quote here that I used to someone else who made such a suggestion...QUOTE SOUTHFLORIDA: however - concerning non-zoo topics and debate - well -you seem to be correct here for the first time - yes - we are quite stern about what gets debated on our boards - theres the obvious reason - this is a zoo site - and there is enough controversial subjects with members who take different stances - but here's a better answer - click down on the bigboards link - go ahead I dare ya - and start looking through all the sites - I did - and you know what I found on nearly EVERY single site that I visited - I found threads attacking blacks (almost EVERY board) - and I found threads attacking gays (every last one) - and I found threads on attacking catholics - and I found threads attacking jews - the list goes on and on -ohh and I found threads attacking zoos - maybe that's one you understand - ey? Is this the friendly banter your subscribing to? Might these be some of the subjects (religion race alternative sexuality) you find so essential to debate in order for our forum to be 'worth visiting" -umm no thanX - we'll stay "not best" as you describe us as -and not have flame wars of bigotry on our boards. The moderators here will be content to take the blame for being thinned skinned QUOTE While I am a newbie myself and I dont really know how things work here, I still have been a little disturbed by the expulsion of certain longer time members. Spirit certainly had reached beyond declamatory, but he/she was a long time member and having seen this with a few others, Im a little surprised. Or maybe thats just it; some people get their 'rank' and they go a little gaga with the ego trip. heres your clue -and I'll requote:QUOTE While I am a newbie myself and I dont really know how things work hereyes - it's VERY apparent that you have NO idea how things work here - and again - are quite presumptious... did it ever occur to you that these "long time members" broke SERIOUS rules - and were given break after break after break? did it ever occur to you that they may have posted copyright images or kp or underage references and endangered the entire existance of the forum? ummm - let me answer that for you - NO - apparently you have given NOTHING ANY thought - and have immediately suggested that the staff mod and admin team here might be on an ego trip?you have broken more rules in this one thread than carter has liver pills -and look - you haven't recieved an official warn - doesn't seem like an ego trip to me - sounds like a mod needs to straighten your assETS out from the get go - errr and that would be me you come in here with 17 post - and manage to dig out this old thread and start whistling dixie? one does have to wonder I'll be looking into your account when I'm finished with this post - in the mean time I think you may need a very long and deliberate read of the rules - I suggest that you get to it what? - this was me being nice
concerning your second post - the definitions were created on this forum because there are several "official definitions" that are very degrading towards people who consider themselves non-exclusive and non-zoophile - the definitions go on to indicate that they abuse - that of course doesn't work for this site - we don't consider any person here who would harm an animal a member - just someone we have yet to ban... so for the site there are zoos (those exclusive who love animals like a traditional human/human relationship -and beasties - those who love animals but are not "in love" with them I think the definitions are very clear and workable for a zoo site...we don't care if they don't work for you or anyone else - everyone is welcome to use any ideas or definitions they want to give themselves a title - but it's un-necesary to make that a public post and stir up controversy and hard feelings on the forum...we have members that have NO interest in animal sex - they are EQUALLY valued members of this community - no less or more important than the grand poohba of zoo exclusives - who ever that legend of thier own mind might be
South Florida! Lots was communicated and I understand your points, but there has been a terrible misunderstanding about one statement I made. I can see how you read it would have gotten your ruff up. Here's my original quote: "... he/she was a long time member and having seen this with a few others, Im a little surprised.Or maybe thats just it; some people get their 'rank' and they go a little gaga with the ego trip.I dont know how far Spirit went over the top, but in some ways I wouldnt have minded locking horns with him/her. It would have been interesting to test the dimensions and flexibility of the person AFTER we got all the huffing ang puffing done. But others shouldnt have to endure that."Here is your quote:"you have broken more rules in this one thread than carter has liver pills -and look - you haven't recieved an official warn - doesn't seem like an ego trip to me - sounds like a mod needs to straighten your assETS out from the get go - errr and that would be me wink.gif " and "NO - apparently you have given NOTHING ANY thought - and have immediately suggested that the staff mod and admin team here might be on an ego trip?"YIKES! I wasnt saying the MODERATORs or STAFF were on an ego trip!! I was saying that maybe how long time members with lots of votes get themselves banned is owing to the member getting egotistical after being here for a long time. I was speculating on how it happens that such members screw up and get banned. I was answering my own question with the ego comment. In as much I was admitting my ignorance. Man Alive! No wonder you let me have it if thats how it was read!And thats why I said the "Anyway, somebody hold me back and stop me if I grow imperious!" bit. I was saying to fellow members, in effect"Dont let me become this way" Also: My first impressions of the site was one where it seemed like there was very little contoversy and what seems like a very tolerant and friendly community. And indeed I have met some wonderfully friendly people and enjoyed a virtually pain free experience. But I also now see there is some really intense feelings that result in some pretty significant eruptions between members. It has been through this thread mostly that I have seen these past problems. Almost everywhere else I have been in this site Ive seen next to none of the vitriol, so when I stumbled across this thread, it piqued my curiosity. Its apparent to me now that the vigilance of the moderators and staff has been the reason my experience has been largely free of hateful and ugly postings(sounds like asskissing, but only because I just got an asskicking! ) I also want to make it clear that Im not into flaming or judgment of others reasons for being here. My sexual dimensions have already been expanded by some truly wonderful postings, this site, in the short time Ive been here has been amazing for me. As for the definitions part. I wholly support the site's definition and Im not challenging them. As per the Staff Post, I just was wanting to discuss the nature of the definitions as they apply to me. Not challenge the house rules. I used the supplied definitions to explore the subject. I apologize if I came off as presumptuous and ignorant, as I said, I am new. But please note that I didnt insult the staff here. And wouldnt. I hope this clears up at least the worst of this issue, and I really appreciate your restraint in not giving me a warning despite the misapprehension you had. It would warrant one in MY books for being so rude to someone, especially the staff. Ive enjoyed your thread headings and wisdom and look forward to more. Thanks for your time in looking into this. I'll be in dread till this post finds you; it couldnt have made your day to think I insulted you guys so brazenly.CheersSinging Dog
my bad thanX for explaining - and thanX understanding how I could have mis-interpreted
and I was wondering why wyld was being so candy sweet
What a relief! Thanx! I think this thread has bad juju in it. I think I may just let it rest. See ya out there SoFla! Singing DogPS. Im reminded of a recent occasion in a health food store where I saw this girl up to her elbow in the dried mango bulk bin. She was rummaging around and mango bits were falling on the floor. I thought I was watching a real class act; a completely rude and thoughtless customer who wanted the fresh stuff in the back of the bin (as they rotate the stock.) So I fixed her with my hottest wilt-vision I have on my settings: Complete Contempt; and just stared. She looked up at me and my gaze and she just started looking appalled and frightened and started to shrink away. "Well, GOOD!" I thought. She ought to...oh...wait.. ...is that an apron she has on?...and ..oh no!!.. Is that an employee tag?? I apologized like a madman and tried to explain, but by that point, I think she just wanted me to go away, upon which, I obliged her. Im still wincing! (And I dont even have the excuse of being a busy moderator trying to sort out forum problems!)Anyway...
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
QUOTE (southflorida @ Mar 25 2006, 08:16 PM) and I was wondering why wyld was being so candy sweet I am always candy sweet at least that is what many of my men have said anyways.. I read it differently than you.. that is why I wasnt my normal bi chy self
Last modified on July 5th, 2009 | Zoodestiny.com | © 2003-2005 - All Rights Reserved