04-02-2018, 07:21 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-02-2018, 07:29 PM by heavyhorse.)
Quote:
1 hour ago, 30-30 said:
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.
No. He described a situation I have seen. Not participated in, but seen. 3 guys pooled resources and rented a farmhouse long term, managed to keep it even after the economy tanked; they could have their animals in a situation that suited them. Official USDA-certified zero-cherrypicking scenario.
In the distant past before I had the resources and stability, I leased an old 40-acre farm to keep my animals on. Boarded some other people's animals to pay the lease. How many may or may not have been zoo wasn't any of my business. Several not broke to ride, so other uses maybe.
I wonder why some of us here are so bound and determined to dictate the absolutes of terms and conditions to others. Less certain of their own? I wonder. [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/wacko.png[/img]/emoticons/ [email protected] 2x" title=":S" width="20" />
Quote:
6 hours ago, Cat said:
However there are also zoo contracts, basically a animal/human / human/animal relationship... basically two zoo couples that decide to live together as couples, while their true lover is the animal, they still have this degree of kinda polyamory in a way where there's a strong bond between both humans, even when it's not romantic; honestly I'd love such a thing, but that's hard to get by because simply finding another zoo interested in that is very rare at least, but specially with people that are into larger animals, owning land as a couple can be more beneficial, and because there's no sex involvement with the human there are no sexual problems and it's usually something done with heavily financial (by marrying) and safety reasons, if you got to travel somoene that you know can care of your partner and so on.
Hearts don't follow intentions. I more or less had a "zoo contract" with that first boyfriend (not counting the friend plus when I was a teenager). We explicitly agreed from the getgo "animals would never come between us." However, they did ... he actually got Covy, pursuing an ad in a paper because he wanted a female German Shepherd. However, he did not spend much time at all with her aside from sex, and in fact would lock her in the garage after a couple of accidents and got angry with her for whining due to separation anxiety when she did this. She was okay with him, but she bonded with me emotionally and he became jealous even though he was more sexually active with her.
My human boyfriend after him also became jealous of my emotional bond with her, even though we had an open relationship mostly because I knew he had a very high libido I could not sate. I tried but found I wasn't that interested in other guys when I was in a relationship ... but he said he was jealous of all the time I spent with Covy and eventually he became angry and an outright alcoholic. We were couchhopping, living on Ramen for food, but the moment I'd get a little money, he'd spend it all on booze and drink it completely in less than an hour, and that made me angry. He passed out drunk at friends' houses after having cleared out their liquor cabinet and I'd have to carry him back to the car and home. I just couldn't deal with that, nor his growing anger and jealousy toward me emotional bond with Covy.
Quote:
6 hours ago, 30-30 said:
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.
Unfortunately, I have seen far too many examples over twenty years of being in the community of zoos using the title abusively. In at least one case, a fake -- I saw someone troll less experienced zoos for their not being "zoo exclusive" and yet the troll had actually previously propositioned me, telling me his "bedroom was open to me." I am not saying you are like this, but there are definitely those who are. Its perhaps unfair for you to get stereotyped based on what others do, but it does happen.
Hell, I knew someone who claimed to be a zoophile seemingly because he wanted to get into the bedrooms of zoophiles ... and he did so with my first boyfriend, but he was a fake through and through. He had a gorgeous sexy female dog, but I found she was a virgin. Not only that, but he completely neglected her ... I had to give her food, water and attention because he did not give her any of those things. He wasn't sexually interested in our goat, dogs or the exotic deer my boyfriend got ... he was only sexually interested in us. And he wouldn't stop harrassing us for sex ... in fact he outright took advantage of me sexually in a situation several of my friends at the time describe as rape. [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/unsure.png[/img]/emoticons/ [email protected] 2x" title=":/" width="20" />
I'd call bullshit on anyone that said that they never experimented while growing up. Between curiosity, raging hormones, and peer pressure kids are expected to try everything at least once.
It isn't where you go that defines you, it's where you come home to.
04-03-2018, 02:46 AM
(This post was last modified: 04-03-2018, 02:47 AM by Cynolove693.)
Quote:
Just now, caikgoch said:
I'd call bullshit on anyone that said that they never experimented while growing up. Between curiosity, raging hormones, and peer pressure kids are expected to try everything at least once.
It isn't where you go that defines you, it's where you come home to.
I didn't first have sex with people until I turned 20, and found out then I wasn't missing anything special, you can call bullshit all you like on that [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/blink.png[/img]/emoticons/ [email protected] 2x" title="O.o" width="20" />
Quote:
1 hour ago, Cynolove693 said:
I didn't first have sex with people until I turned 20, and found out then I wasn't missing anything special, you can call bullshit all you like on that
Quote:
2 hours ago, caikgoch said:
It isn't where you go that defines you, it's where you come home to.
Sounds to me like he just agreed with you, Cyno. . . . .
Eagle, I can assure you that I´m totally not "like this"...to this day, I´m still a virgin with humans, never had any "experiments" with them, never had included them into my sexuality and probably won´t ever until I breathe my last breath. I´m just not interested...if you´re standing on two legs, my bedroom will be forever closed for you.. [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/wink.png[/img]/emoticons/ [email protected] 2x" title=";)" width="20" />
But your story about that "exclusive zoo" impostor is exactly what I´m talking about when demanding more honesty. Just imagine how sick it comes across for a real exclusive zoo to hear from a "fellow exclusive" that "my bedroom is open for you"...to us exclusives, this may be the exact aequivalent of suggesting any Random Joe Average to "come over and nut through my livestock". And to dismantle Heavyhorse´s rather dull suggestion he brought up in his last paragraph, this isn´t about not feeling secure about my own sexuality, this is about sticking to the truth. I know for sure what I am, I know it since I reached puberty, I had my very first sexual excounter in my life with a mare around the age of 15/16 and from there on, things were pretty clear for me. I still wait for an answer why zoo exclusivity is something so desirable and can only assume that it seems so desirable for people who simply have no fucking clue about what it is to be an actual exclusive zoo...this isn´t , as I said before, "the highest form of zoophilia" or anything of comparable reputation, it is just what we exclusives are...and you guys can´t even let us have our own small space to live in the community without quickly getting possessive and overreaching, huh? IN your erronous assumptions that exclusivity is a honorary title or an achievement, you can´t even show any respect for the real exclusives because your ego dictates you to do so...."Bwaaaah, I´m not an exclusive, so I must be a second class zoo! This is offensive! Everyone should have access to this cool kids club! Even though he has a long history of sexual relationships with humans!".
As I said before, not a single exclusive zoo will be feeling any superiority towards non exclusive people. It´s in fact an deeply rooted inferiority complex, paired with the Freudian super ego that desperately wants to make you look better than you are for others (" I´m a faithful husband!" - Steve, divorced for yearlong cheating on his wife). If you knew what it is like to be an exclusive zoo, no one would ever want to self identify as an exclusive anymore. It´s not a fun life. Exclusivity isn´t about "quality", it simply is about being completely unable to have something sexual with humans, anything and everything. And even when 99% of the community thinks otherwise...well, everyone is entitled to his opinion, but not to his own facts. There are no own facts,btw. And it is a simple fact that zoo exclusivity is about being totally immune to sexual attraction towards humans. Not for "experimentation", not in a temporary phase, not because opportunity to get laid easily arose. We exclusives can´t do that, like in I don´t have wings, I can´t fly. We lack these wings...and we simply won´t sit in silence when people misuse our words. This isn´t about dicating things , this is about getting rid of all the blurred stuff our own community has made up throughout several decades, always going for the smallest common denominator. The smallest common denominator trick has failed us, we´re still all lumped together as one homogenous group of animal fuckers from the outside. And, if I may ask, how can anyone in our community expect the outside to draw clear demarkation lines between the "good" and the "bad" "zoos" when our own community can´t even set clear lines? Seems like it´s not the real exclusives who are unsecure about themselves...at least , we´re not the ones trying to bend definitions until they fit us to wear a title we don´t deserve and that is NOT a statement about quality. Being exclusive simply means not having any (sexual and emotional) interest in humans, nothing more. There´s even some exclusive "zoo" abusers out there...so, why are you all so eager to have that "exclusive zoo" title without even knowing what being an exclusive without any option to have "normal" relationships is like? To me, this desperate race for this title is basically one big red flag that makes me guess it´s in fact an issue of feeling inferior to us "glamorous exclusives". Before you attack me yet again by saying I´m probably not sure about my sexuality, maybe try thinking about what I wrote before you utter another deflective wild guess to avoid answering questions, Heavyhorse.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
4 hours ago, Cynolove693 said:
I didn't first have sex with people until I turned 20, and found out then I wasn't missing anything special, you can call bullshit all you like on that [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/blink.png[/img]/emoticons/[email protected] 2x" title="O.o" width="20" />
I did it a while ago, well I am around that age, while as stimulation it was fine, I had lots of trouble with it.
Since he knew me too well (and that's why I allowed him to try he went over my huge barrier of entry) he told me that I was thinking about animals, that I wasn't even into what was happening now, and that I was trying to get into my world and stuff in order to be able to get aroused; to which I had to agree... and while it's kind of cool having cuddles and stuff, there was no spark, I didn't feel in love, I felt it like masturbating with extra steps.
And I mean I can get emotionally attached to people, just, in a very close way, just not in a sexual way; and that sucks.
Not experimenting is actually bullshit from my perspective, whatever that is worth (okay, probably not much).
Everyone gets an idea in their head how something is before actually experiencing it, and only the delusional find the reality of it matches their preconceived notions of it.
Its the exact same mentality racial, religious and sexual orientation supremacists have -- theirs is the one true way, all the others they never closely examined are inferior, nonbelieving heathens, and/or sick and deviant. They will always find the evidence that proves their assertions and ignore or otherwise dismiss anything that contradicts those assertions.
|
