In the current version of the DSM (DSM-IV-TR), zoophilia is not diagnosable as a psychiatric disorder unless it causes distress to the individual or harm to others. The DSM-5 draft adds a terminology distinction between the two cases, stating that "paraphilias are not ipso facto psychiatric disorders", and defining paraphilic disorder as "a paraphilia that causes distress or impairment to the individual or harm to others". This will make a clear distinction between a healthy person with a non-normative sexual behavior and a person with a psychopathological non-normative sexual behavior.
Charles Allen Moser as well as Peggy Kleinplatz criticized aspects of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, arguing for the removal of paraphilias from the manual. They wrote, "The equating of unusual sexual interests with psychiatric diagnoses has been used to justify the oppression of sexual minorities and to serve political agendas. A review of this area is not only a scientific issue, but also a human rights issue." Kleinplatz wrote, "The DSM criteria for diagnosis of unusual sexual interests as pathological rests on a series of unproven and more importantly, untested assumptions"
1) Just because society says it's a nono, doesn't mean it's a nono.
2) Just because you are a phile of some variety, doesn't mean you act on it.
I am a zoophile, and my best friend, she is both a zoophile and pedophile. She doesn't act on the pedophilia, and we both act on our zoophiliac nature. But neither of us would ever force ourself upon an animal that didn't want it. And she would NEVER hurt a child, they are too precious to her.
I actually never knew this. I thought zoophilia was the act of harassing the animal; not just as a sexual preference. But it's nice to know, and I'm ok with it. (If I even understood it correctly... I may still be a bit confused on the topic now.)
Well, as long as people don't harm animals there is nothing wrong I mean. Really, they say that you're zoophil if you think that animals are beautiful or attractive. So I can't say that I think that horses and snakes are beautiful without being a zoophile? Stupid prejudice
Thinking an animal is beautiful isn't necessarily zoophilic. If you had a beautiful mother or sister and thought that they were beautiful, it doesn't mean you want to start having sex with them right?
If you are attracted to animals, then yes it would be. Although "phile" is a derivative of "philos" which means love in greek. So it could be used in that context, but in our common modern language use today would mean sexual and/or romantic attraction to animals.
It's kind of like the word gay. Back in the day, gay used to mean happy and cheerful, but no one uses gay in that context hardly ever these days.
Well. "Stephanie LaFarge, an assistant professor of psychiatry at the New Jersey Medical School, and Director of Counseling at the ASPCA, writes that two groups can be distinguished: bestialists, who rape or abuse animals, and zoophiles, who form an emotional and sexual attachment to animals" (c) Wikipedia I kinda believe professors...
I see nothing wrong with any kind of love or relationship that doesn't include abuse... It doesn't mean that I like it. But if there is no abuse I guess I kinda just ignore or support it