Women and Zoophilia (an experience)

[littlejohn]

The (few) zoo women I've met aren't particularly masochistic.  They, like I, enjoy being dominated by the dog or stallion, but as a transitory thing which is part of the lust of being tied or covered.  One often holds the tease pony while her little stallion covers me.  Another has carried on a couple of conversations while I was tied.  Neither seem to want to be 'used' or 'dominated'.

[30-30]

"One often holds the tease pony...."  For me, that simple half sentence shows that this is not at all about zoophilia , but solely about bestiality and tricking your "loved one" into fucking you...real zoophilia does NOT need any "tease" animal. Just plain disgusting for a zoophile and damn close to abuse. And by the way, enjoying to be "dominated" indeed IS in its very nature one core element of masochism...and it doesn´t matter whether the practicioners identify it as that or are, like you and your little "fuck crew", in denial about it. Any form of "domination" doesn´t mix well with zoophilia per definition.




PS: To anticipate the usual upheaval whenever I make harsh statements, I have to clarify that the above solely reflects my opinion about this. And my opinion is that we should keep that s/m and dom/sub crap out of zoophilia completely or we shouldn´t act so pissed off when society accuses us of abusing animals for our personal pleasures. Especially when you clearly need a "tease" animal to commit the act.

[silverwolf1]

Hm. The only woman I know who I'd call a "zoo" refuses that label, and I knew her long before I knew the label. She loves her GSDs, and turned Tippy and I into a couple, yet considers herself only a bestialist because she enjoys having sex with her dogs. 




I've long been a mouthpiece against seeing visual porn as representative of any zoophilic ideals or beliefs. Even the home-made is distributed for reasons of stimulation of others, not love of your partner, no matter why it was originally made. My own is witness to that. Even written porn should be judged with a grain of salt for what it represents or projects.




I too believe males far outnumber females IN THE ONLINE ZOO COMMUNITY. I doubt these numbers hold true in real life. I believe the same for gay/ bi versus straight. I do not know why this is, but it is my experience online, and common sense in real life, that make me believe it.




I don't believe the sex represents the zoophilia, nor the other way round. Read into that what you will, but I've had sex with many animals (and women in my case) I've had no romantic attachment to or for, and a few I have had such for. Any who say they haven't done I suspect to be either a virgin or a liar.




On Topic- I find your experiences in hormone therapy and their relation to zoophilic feelings interesting. I wonder if this would hold true in other experiments.




sw

[battlecrops]

I've known/talked to quite a few zoo women who experience their attraction the same way most of the men we hear from online do.  Nothing to do with masochism, just love and attraction.  There are also bisexual and lesbian zoophiles who are attracted to female animals.




One of my good friends tried to get involved in zoo communities repeatedly but would constantly get creepy messages or talked down to, so she gave up.

[caikgoch]

2 hours ago, 30-30 said:




"One often holds the tease pony...."  For me, that simple half sentence shows that this is not at all about zoophilia , but solely about bestiality and tricking your "loved one" into fucking you...real zoophilia does NOT need any "tease" animal. Just plain disgusting for a zoophile and damn close to abuse. And by the way, enjoying to be "dominated" indeed IS in its very nature one core element of masochism...and it doesn´t matter whether the practicioners identify it as that or are, like you and your little "fuck crew", in denial about it. Any form of "domination" doesn´t mix well with zoophilia per definition.




PS: To anticipate the usual upheaval whenever I make harsh statements, I have to clarify that the above solely reflects my opinion about this. And my opinion is that we should keep that s/m and dom/sub crap out of zoophilia completely or we shouldn´t act so pissed off when society accuses us of abusing animals for our personal pleasures. Especially when you clearly need a "tease" animal to commit the act.

There is "dominant" as in S&M with abuse and degrading, like you refer to, and the "dominant" as in strong with protecting and nurturing.       I doubt anyone here has a problem with the second kind in a Zoo relationship.

[30-30]

I don´t care what definition of "dominant" you make up...as long as there´s a "tease" animal involved, your definitions are irrelevant. Tricking an animal into sexual intercourse with you is wrong and not at all zoophilia as you´re not only "cheating" the male, but also abuse the female animal...(removed trolling attempt- sw) If anyone in here needs ANY means to trick, coerce or whatever the animal into intercouse, please don´t use the word zoo anymore...except you´re referring to an actual zoological garden. If an animal isn´t VOLUNTARILY doing it with you, without ropes, restraints, "tease" animals etc. ,  it´s abuse. Period.

[Cat]

7 hours ago, silverwolf1 said:




Hm. The only woman I know who I'd call a "zoo" refuses that label, and I knew her long before I knew the label. She loves her GSDs, and turned Tippy and I into a couple, yet considers herself only a bestialist because she enjoys having sex with her dogs. 




I've long been a mouthpiece against seeing visual porn as representative of any zoophilic ideals or beliefs. Even the home-made is distributed for reasons of stimulation of others, not love of your partner, no matter why it was originally made. My own is witness to that. Even written porn should be judged with a grain of salt for what it represents or projects.




I too believe males far outnumber females IN THE ONLINE ZOO COMMUNITY. I doubt these numbers hold true in real life. I believe the same for gay/ bi versus straight. I do not know why this is, but it is my experience online, and common sense in real life, that make me believe it.




I don't believe the sex represents the zoophilia, nor the other way round. Read into that what you will, but I've had sex with many animals (and women in my case) I've had no romantic attachment to or for, and a few I have had such for. Any who say they haven't done I suspect to be either a virgin or a liar.




On Topic- I find your experiences in hormone therapy and their relation to zoophilic feelings interesting. I wonder if this would hold true in other experiments.




sw

Given my experiences I'd say that it is a fairly accurate representation but some truth still holds as why there would be less females; in fact I'd expect males to far outnumber females in any situation where a highly specific sexuality comes; the reason why lesbians seem far more visible is because there are an about equal amount of girls that would couple up as there are males; if there were much more animals available that you could easy couple up for everyone then you'd expect more female zoos, with the taboo and everything and competition, the female can choose it's easy to see why they'd go for the human more often; that is because the high level of inclusivity that you get with estrogen and the fact that it makes you be more into the available mindset rather than in the taking mindset; the simple fact that we actively search for love, shows it, and the fact is that because forums are usually a representation of activity, you'd expect even LESS females on online forums.




That saying, the whole thing is subjective; with very few studies on this, we can only guess at best.




I tried tinder, once; never really did anything with it, but I felt that way as well, I could basically just choose as apparently guys would just accept any seemingly attractive female; as a woman you get to choose, and with this level of inclusivity of who is the best male and by taking the least friction path it's easy to see why zoo feelings can easily be forgotten when you literally don't feel like searching for nothing specific yourself.




That was actually one of the reasons I stopped it, plus some serious health problems, I knew I was a zoophile, but I couldn't really feel it anymore; I knew I could fall in love with animals, but could I really?... but this guy really wants me... should I let him?... the difference is like day and night now, and seems to work like a switch (given I haven't recovered yet but it seems so clear now), I've gone back to be a hardcore exclusive, whereas I was definitely inclusive with hormones; the difference is incredible, which is why I firmly believe it is possible to erase zoo feelings, or any sense of love, given you purge yourself of  hormones for enough time. (medically an awful idea ofc, no sane doctor would ever try this even on a zoo, lifespan and life quality would be reduced dramatically, and likely aggression and mania would arise, since we weren't mean to work without those)

[littlejohn]

Touched a nerve, huh?  Kind of evokes a 'holier than thou' attitude.  However, to ascribe feeling and motives to people you don't know is usually a really bad idea.  As to definitions, we differ [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/smile.png[/img]/emoticons/[email protected] 2x" title=":)" width="20" />



 




 

[caikgoch]

12 hours ago, 30-30 said:




I don´t care what definition of "dominant" you make up...as long as there´s a "tease" animal involved, your definitions are irrelevant. Tricking an animal into sexual intercourse with you is wrong and not at all zoophilia as you´re not only "cheating" the male, but also abuse the female animal...(removed trolling attempt- sw) If anyone in here needs ANY means to trick, coerce or whatever the animal into intercouse, please don´t use the word zoo anymore...except you´re referring to an actual zoological garden. If an animal isn´t VOLUNTARILY doing it with you, without ropes, restraints, "tease" animals etc. ,  it´s abuse. Period.

I'm sorry I confused you.       The dominant role is usually the masculine role and I have never seen any need for a male "teaser".       




Re the use of teasers, I have historically referred to them as a teaching aid and nothing else.     If you can't give your animal enough pleasure to make them want to come back for more, you are doing something wrong.      Personally, my ratio of "Not Now!" to "Please" to about twenty to one.




On topic, I've been making a similar trip from the opposite direction.      Throughout my life I have usually been the responsible party, the one who makes the decisions and takes the blame.       My time with my stallion is a chance to look up to someone else with greater strength and let him take care of me.      The surrender can't be absolute, of course, but we play the game well enough to make both of us very happy.      Possibly my greatest regret is that I can't be a complete mare for him and give him a foal.

[heavyhorse]

Critters, male or female, have no idea what comes down the road some months later has anything to do with what happens today, so I think you're covered there-- (pun intended  ;-)   ).




As near as I can tell, there are some human populations that haven't even figured out the cause and effect yet . . . .