{Consider it a given that these statements are my own opinions. I don't expect anyone else to share them and definitely don't expect anyone else to be judged by them}

    I have heard and read a lot of discussion about what a zoophile is and what bestiality is. While I see many valid points for some of the discussions, I don't really see the need to diferentiate between the two. The distinction is clear in the definitions. I do not see bestiality as evil and zoophilia as good. For many, the two labels intermingle and in that fuzzy grey area where both meet is another perspective of this reality.

    For me, zoophilia and bestiality are intertwined. The zoophilia is the label for my love, yet bestiality is the label for my actions; to have one without the other would be unthinkable. Some would argue that this is an illness, a fault in my character, but I see it as yet another display of the diversity in life.

    To many, the term bestiality carries negative connotations, reminiscent of Bob the farmer getting his rocks off in the barn. While I will not argue the fact that bestiality can and does include this behavior, it does not necessarily imply it. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, bestiality is defined as thus....

  • Bestiality: bes�ti�al�i�ty

  • 1 : the condition or status of a lower animal

  • 2 : display or gratification of bestial traits or impulses

  • 3 : sexual relations between a human being and a lower animal

    • Obviously, it is the third entry here that is of importance to the current discussion. All that it states is sexual intercourse; nothing more, nothing less. So, by definition, I practice bestiality. This does not insinuate that I do or do not care for my partner, only that I have sexual contact with him/her. An important note here is that the word sex covers an equally broad spectrum as bestiality. Either word, sex or bestiality, can exist with or without any concern for the partner. Those two seemingly different words describe the same thing, they describes the physical act alone. As a final staement before moving on, heterosexual, homosexual, etc, all describe a sexual preference - again, nothing more or less.

        Zoophilia, which originates from the word zoophily (love of animals), does not necessitate sexual contact, just a love for animals. By definition, it could be applied to many; even those who will never even consider having sexual contact with an animal. However, in current culture it has become synonymous to sexual contact with animals.

        I view myself as both a zoophile and as one who practices bestiality (bestialist). My love and concern for my mate far outweigh any sexual desires I may have.. Humans, like the other animals, experience pleasure and find sex pleasurable. So as long as both of us enjoy intimate moments there should be no issue with my sexuality or with whom or what I choose to share my love with.

        Zoo, has become a sort of shorthand for indicating that the particular person experiences love and sexual contact with their animal partner. It has no real definition, it is simply a slang term which means many things to many people. I refer to myself with this bastardized label simply because it is convenient and is understood by many. As with all things, just because a person assumes the mantle of a particular tilte doesn't mean they actually display every, or any, characteristic that another may attribute to it.

    With that said, what it means to me to be a zoo is to love without question. Being a zoo does not mean abuse or sheer lust, it is a love that reaches beyond the bounds of species. It is a simple love untethered by social trappings and distractions. It is finding beauty where many cannot see and embracing that beauty with all your heart.

    Labels are sticky objects, be careful where and how you place them.

    by Tache