Another helpful (?) zoo analogy for you

"Bestiality vs. Zoophilia."

To the outsider it sounds like Trekkies vs. Trekkers, poaching vs. hunting, or phreakers vs. hackers. You have to be on the inside to understand the difference. Unfortunately, I'm in all four categories, so I have to do a lot of explaining. :) (Well, not zoo stuff, though.)

To most non-zoos, zoophilia and bestiality are the same thing: humans engaging in sexual behavior with non-humans. To a zoo, however, there is a distinction, even if it is somewhat gray. Apologies if it's so gray I get it wrong here. :)

[In fact, as a postscript to this, I lay no claims to these opinions being more "right" than others'. There is no clear distinction between what constitutes "bestiality" vs. "zoophilia." So take the following definitions with a large grain of salt.]

A zoophile, OTOH, places at least as much emphasis on the well-being of the animal as he does on himself. While he may have "one-night stands," he does his best to ensure the animal is having a good time, or that at least it doesn't mind the attention. Restraining the animal is against his nature; if the animal refuses his attentions, he gives it a break and tries again later, or not at all. He'd rather persuade with words and a gentle touch than with brute force. And when finished, he is grateful to the animal and may stay with it long after the sex is over. To a zoo, it's part of his psyche: not just physical, but often spiritual. A zoo is often so attached emotionally to animals in general, and to one or a few in particular, that zoophilia takes the place of the afore-mentioned "mainstream" lifestyle.

Okay. If you ask a non-fan what a Star Trek fan is called, most will say "Trekkie." Ask a fan, however, and you may hear "Trekker," with the term "Trekkie" producing a look of disdain and possibly a shudder. Again, it's somewhat gray, but there are three main classes of Star Trek fans:

Trekkists are people who like the show, but if they miss an episode it's no big deal. They may have a few ST books or maybe go to a convention if it's convenient, but they have far more important things to do with their time, and they know it. Trekkists are probably the sanest of the three. :)

Trekkies are those annoying little twerps, usually acne-ridden teens or pre-teens, who believe the characters are real, who think Spock (or Kirk, or Picard, or Troi, or whatever) is absolutely divine, who deluge the actors with fan mail and requests for autographs, and have memorized every piece of meaningless trivia imaginable.

Trekkers are the movers and shakers. They organize the conventions, write the books, and discuss the deeper meanings of the episodes, yet deep down they know it's just a TV show, with present-day humans speaking lines they didn't even know a week ago, and through technical wizardry it comes out looking pretty cool.

Then there's hackers. Ask a non-computer literate person what a hacker is, and you'll probably hear "oh, that's someone who breaks into other peoples' computers and spreads viruses or steals information." But the term "hacker" used to mean someone who designed and built (or re-built) computers. They were at the forefront of technology, and designed the computers we use today. Today a hacker is, loosely, someone who pushes the limits of his computer and trips it out with all sorts of fancy utilities to make it do things he couldn't do as easily without it. The computer criminals are called just that: criminals. A law-breaker is a law-breaker, whether he breaks a car window or a PGP key.

And if you ask a non-hunter the proper term for a person who goes into the woods with a gun and a six-pack, you'll likely just get "hunter." A real hunter, however, will call that person a "slob hunter"...or something less polite (but far more accurate, IMHO). A person who takes the head and leaves the meat to rot is still a "hunter" to many outside the sport. But a "hunter" calls it poaching, as does the law.

Every activity has subcategories which can be understood only by the participants, and every activity has people who declare themselves part of that group, when others there don't agree with that classification. There are "birdwatchers" who will dash madly across a field, crushing nests in their wake, just to be the first to see a _Whosiwhatsis canadensis_. "Scientists" who will slant data to justify their research grants. "Politicians" who will lie to the voters to get re-elected. "Baseball players" who cork their bats. The list is endless.

We may never be able to explain to the public the difference between zoos and beasties, any more than we can explain to AOL-ers not to post .gifs or me-toos on ASB. :) But understanding is the first step.

As for me, I think I'm probably mostly zoo, with just a hint of beast. I don't restrain the animals, and take no pleasure in the encounter unless they also enjoy it or at least cooperate freely, but I don't believe I'm emotionally attached to any of them yet. I like them, and I enjoy their company, but as far as having a "relationship," I can't say that's happened yet.

Of course, that may be simply because I haven't met the right animal. :)

I'm also a Trekker, a hacker, and a hunter, and 'nuff said about those. :)