>.>

[Cat]

13 hours ago, 30-30 said:




I have to contradict you, Silverwolf...exclusivity isn´t just a temporary thing, it isn´t something you choose out of respect for your animal companion. The term "zoo exclusive" was coined for all those among us who simply aren´t attracted to humans at all in entirety.  




And why is everyone so eager to call themselves an "exclusive zoo"? Could it be that many of us still subconsciously think of exclusivity as the "highest form of zoophilia"? What is it anyone achieves by calling himself an exclusive despite having had or still have occasional sex with humans? To me, this seems like a subconscious inferiority complex working here. Why do you feel threatened by exclusives claiming their terms to be used correctly? What is it that angers you when someone says you´re not an exclusive? There´s no "free animal" awarded for being an exclusive. Why can´t we just not twist and flex definitions here ´til almost anyone fits into the "top zoo category"?




So, here´s my proposal: "zoo exclusive" henceforth shall be defined by lack of sexual and emotional attraction towards humans, a lack that makes it impossible for the exclusive to engage in (sexual) relationships with humans. This way, the real meaning of the word exclusive is restored. And be assured that no exclusive feels "superior" about being an exclusive, no one will turn a non exclusive down, belittle his or such things...IF the non exclusive isn´t insisting on a title he/she doesn´t qualify for. I´m not angered by non exclusive zoos, I can talk with anyone without feeling "better than them"  just because they´ve had/still have sex with humans. But what I absolutely despise is being lied to by people, people who lie to soothe their feelings of inferiority to appear as something they´re not. Just be honest, no one´s gonna judge you for not being an exclusive, exclusivity is not the highest form of zoophilia. But exclusives indeed are different from non exclusives, not being able to have relationships with humans beyond a non sexual level of normal friendships is something that immensely shapes the lives of exclusive zoos. It matters what is inside you...feeling attracted to humans in any way is a dead giveaway you´re not an exclusive...exclusivity is not about limiting oneself to animals sexually, it is not about choice, it is about being unable to engage in human-on-human relationships at all for multiple reasons, the most dominant reason being the immense repulsion by humans as sexual and emotional partners.




Why this matters? Mainly because being an exclusive is shaping our lives...our lives heading a path that´s entirely different from those non exclusives. The usual questions exclusives have to face because they´re not showing any interest in fellow humans, for example. For us, having a human partner is NOT an option at all, under no circumstances, without any excuses. Not one exclusive is looking down on you for not being an exclusive, but we get infuriated when you´re trying to sell yourselves as something you´re not, also mocking us exclusives and our lives´ harsh reality with your definition bending. That´s where the hard responses are coming from, from that nagging feeling you folks are deliberately trying to steal our name title/definition to appear more than you really are. What is it that makes you insist on being an "exclusive" despite having had lots of sexual experience with humans? Why do you subconsciously feel inferior to us exclusives so you have to twist and turn the definition of exclusivity until it fits you? Why can´t we just take words for their meaning and call ourselves accordingly to these definitions? If anyone feels sexual and/or emotional interest in humans beyond a normal, non sexual friendship level, this isn´t exclusivity. That´s it...exclusivity is NOT an honorable title, not an achievement, not "superior"...it´s just different and these constant efforts to redefine and reshape the definition to squeeze yourselves into that "highest form of zoophilia" (as the vast majority of you falsely seem to think of it) is not gonna achieve anything besides pampering the egos of all those wannabe "exclusives"...it´s selfish and tremendously disrespectful towards the real exclusives, by the way. So, no one is looking down on you for not being an exclusive, but if you try to water down exclusivity so the definition will fit you, don´t be surprised by the angry responses from actual exclusives who never laid hand on another human with sexual intent. Just my two cents...




PS: Cat, the example of "zoo contracts" is rubbish. If their "real" partner is an animal, why live with another human? To me, this imaginary scenario you described is just an example of cherrypicking.

Eh just like heavyhorse said this is for support reasons, I am going to put you examples of different scenarios where having a zoo partner is really really useful, it might not be the case for you but it would for a lot of people.




1. Sharing land together, also if you marry there are economical benefits in the ownership of that land and the taxes you have to pay.




2. Safety benefits, none is going to question your sexuality and wonder if you are into this or that if you have an open relationship with other human; none is going to wonder if you are a zoophile; it makes it much easier to keep things safe.




3. If you have another zoo partner this one can cover your back, say you have to travel and someone needs to care of your animal; you don't want them to be with random strangers, you want them with someone you trust.




4. Comfort benefits, when something bad happens there will always be someone to discuss details or even to help you go through a loss, you don't have to just swallow it yourself.