Opentokink
Tourist
Oh and just so you know surveymonkey is definitely not private, so I would not recommend participating if that is how they are going to question you unless you are using a lot of security yourself on your pc.
Use TOR, don't let the site execute locally (don't download an exe or command file), don't type in personally identifying information. Follow all those rules and you don't need to trust the website.Oh and just so you know surveymonkey is definitely not private, so I would not recommend participating if that is how they are going to question you unless you are using a lot of security yourself on your pc.
Is it suprising to find out they had alternative motives? In a society that hates us?? Did you really think this studying was to try and understand us and bring acceptance? Nope. This is just means to further a witch-hunt and wrongly prosecute individuals for something that isn't even "abuse". In all the decades I've been alive I've only came across a few animals that were uninterested so nothing happened, out of too many to count that were and obviously enjoyed it because they continued to seek it from me. Of their own accord. "Abuse" my ass. Don't you think it's strange that most courts don't require legitimate proof of abuse in cases of bestiality. That's because it's a rarity. Zoos love animals and their health and wellness is top priority! So is their willingness to participate in sex before anything happens! But the antizoos don't want you realizing that what they try to convince you is 'wrong' is simply just consensually expressing loveHmmm... i dono... give that a read
Toward a Greater Understanding of the Assessment, Psychological Correlates, and Management of Human Perpetrated Sexual Behaviour Toward Animals
Sexual interest in and contact with animals has existed throughout history with varying levels of practice and acceptance. Despite this long history, very little is actually known about human sexual interest in animals and sexual behavior targeting nonhuman animals. The present dissertation aims...harvest.usask.ca
They desperately want to stick to the narrative of these people are different. Therefore sick in the head, we must get rid of this behavior all together!!! Anyways good luck everyone. Stay safe.
This is cool!The University of Saskatchewan has reached out to Zooville.org for support for their study on zoophilia.
The study is being completed by
Alexandra Zidenberg, PhD
Department of Psychology
Overseen by Prof. Dr. Mark Olver.
Quote from Alexandra regarding this studys current progress September 27th, 2021
"We currently have a revise and resubmit for the paper in Archives of Sexual Behaviour and we're cautiously optimistic that the paper may be accepted there by the end of the year. Please feel free to post the draft manuscript and identify it as under review, if possible. "
This copy does NOT reflect the future peer review publication as it may change. However, the draft submitted will be posted here and any future updates and official links to the study will be published when available.
Deepest regards,
ZTHorse
Administrator for Zooville.org
The link is here:
Zoo Research and Data - 2020 Zooville.org Study - Measurement and Correlates of Zoophilic Interest Online - OUTDATED
Old release, kept for records. The current peer reviewed and accepted paper is located here. https://www.zoovilleforum.net/resources/2022-zooville-org-study-measurement-and-correlates-of-zoophilic-interest-online-peer-reviewed.98/...www.zoovilleforum.net
The University of Saskatchewan has reached out to Zooville.org for support for their study on zoophilia.
The study is being completed by
Alexandra Zidenberg, PhD
Department of Psychology
Overseen by Prof. Dr. Mark Olver.
Quote from Alexandra regarding this studys current progress September 27th, 2021
"We currently have a revise and resubmit for the paper in Archives of Sexual Behaviour and we're cautiously optimistic that the paper may be accepted there by the end of the year. Please feel free to post the draft manuscript and identify it as under review, if possible. "
This copy does NOT reflect the future peer review publication as it may change. However, the draft submitted will be posted here and any future updates and official links to the study will be published when available.
Deepest regards,
ZTHorse
Administrator for Zooville.org
The link is here:
This is rather interesting and what was the response of Zooville? I'm rather curious what became of thisThe University of Saskatchewan has reached out to Zooville.org for support for their study on zoophilia.
The study is being completed by
Alexandra Zidenberg, PhD
Department of Psychology
Overseen by Prof. Dr. Mark Olver.
Quote from Alexandra regarding this studys current progress September 27th, 2021
"We currently have a revise and resubmit for the paper in Archives of Sexual Behaviour and we're cautiously optimistic that the paper may be accepted there by the end of the year. Please feel free to post the draft manuscript and identify it as under review, if possible. "
This copy does NOT reflect the future peer review publication as it may change. However, the draft submitted will be posted here and any future updates and official links to the study will be published when available.
Deepest regards,
ZTHorse
Administrator for Zooville.org
The link is here:
Zoo Research and Data - 2020 Zooville.org Study - Measurement and Correlates of Zoophilic Interest Online - OUTDATED
Old release, kept for records. The current peer reviewed and accepted paper is located here. https://www.zoovilleforum.net/resources/2022-zooville-org-study-measurement-and-correlates-of-zoophilic-interest-online-peer-reviewed.98/...www.zoovilleforum.net
Positive, Zooville was recommended to the scientific community as a tool for research.
This is rather interesting and what was the response of Zooville? I'm rather curious what became of this
I am not sure that Zooville members like the way this study turned a questionnaire on pictures of animals into Animal Sexual Abuse criteria for Vets to learn from.Positive, Zooville was recommended to the scientific community as a tool for research.
There is always a fine line in research in controlling bias. The Alexandra study was not the ideal situation nor study however, looking beyound her conclusions, at the actual data, it was positive for zoophiles.I am not sure that Zooville members like the way this study turned a questionnaire on pictures of animals into Animal Sexual Abuse criteria for Vets to learn from.
The whole language of this study is based in Abuse not sexual interaction.
I made the comment somewhere on this forum that animal rape is the assumption of the uneducated.
From the gay side of Zoophillia the human is the submissive one and is accepting the advances of a male animal.
For the Straight Zoophiles it is a long term plan. Unless you catch a nympho in heat and willing to be screwed by anyone. For the rest of the females you have to work with their comfort level. If you hurt them then they won't come near you. If you frighten them they won't come near you. Sex is by nature fun and desirable. The submission required for sex can limit an animals ability to escape. This means that the female has to trust completely that nothing bad is going to happen.
The research I have seen in all forms Negative and Pro does not look into the consent of the females in a relationship. The gay guys on here are automatically excited by being submissive and will consent to any male though a lot would not have sex with a male human animal. Which is obviously a mental choice not a sexual choice.
So the gay zoophiles fall into a seperate category of deviant gay behaviour as they are consenting to animal sex. It is not seen as Animal Sexual Abuse as they are receiving.
For the straight zoophiles the research assumes that they are unable to have sex with humans and turn to animals as an easy source of relief. Most research paints any male having sex with a female animal as rape due to no understanding of consent. I like Saanen goats as they are a great size and fit and can be great lovers. I had the opportunity to rescue four female Saanen's after their owner accidentally hurt himself badly but did not get treatment early enough and could not be saved. His last words words were what would happen to his goats. I suspected he may have been intimate with his goats but they showed no understanding of sex with humans.
His grand daughter gave them away to the first person to contact her but reneged and gave them to me 10 minutes later after she learned we had goats and a farm suitable. It took 4 long years to gain the trust of the biggest and dominant female goat. Now that she understands sex with humans is fun she is demanding anytime I am with her. This is where the understanding of consent is missing from research, Very few guys would go to the same pub for 4 years to have sex with a girl he saw there. So not any easy alternative to human relationships.
This lack of research into consent is creating a bias in all other research to lean towards sexual abuse. This current thesis considers all contact with animals as Animal Sexual Abuse and perpetrators should be hunted down and prosecuted.
Even on BF there were some members whom considered sex with any female animal smaller than a horse as animal rape.
The lack of knowledge of the whole topic is leading to tainted research. In my own fields of Equine research the old research tactics are causing a limit to proper research.
Do we have any news about thatThe University of Saskatchewan has reached out to Zooville.org for support for their study on zoophilia.
The study is being completed by
Alexandra Zidenberg, PhD
Department of Psychology
Overseen by Prof. Dr. Mark Olver.
Quote from Alexandra regarding this studys current progress September 27th, 2021
"We currently have a revise and resubmit for the paper in Archives of Sexual Behaviour and we're cautiously optimistic that the paper may be accepted there by the end of the year. Please feel free to post the draft manuscript and identify it as under review, if possible. "
This copy does NOT reflect the future peer review publication as it may change. However, the draft submitted will be posted here and any future updates and official links to the study will be published when available.
Deepest regards,
ZTHorse
Administrator for Zooville.org
The link is here:
Zoo Research and Data - 2020 Zooville.org Study - Measurement and Correlates of Zoophilic Interest Online - OUTDATED
Old release, kept for records. The current peer reviewed and accepted paper is located here. https://www.zoovilleforum.net/resources/2022-zooville-org-study-measurement-and-correlates-of-zoophilic-interest-online-peer-reviewed.98/...www.zoovilleforum.net
Wow, this is cool.The University of Saskatchewan has reached out to Zooville.org for support for their study on zoophilia.
The study is being completed by
Alexandra Zidenberg, PhD
Department of Psychology
Overseen by Prof. Dr. Mark Olver.
Quote from Alexandra regarding this studys current progress September 27th, 2021
"We currently have a revise and resubmit for the paper in Archives of Sexual Behaviour and we're cautiously optimistic that the paper may be accepted there by the end of the year. Please feel free to post the draft manuscript and identify it as under review, if possible. "
This copy does NOT reflect the future peer review publication as it may change. However, the draft submitted will be posted here and any future updates and official links to the study will be published when available.
Deepest regards,
ZTHorse
Administrator for Zooville.org
The link is here:
Zoo Research and Data - 2020 Zooville.org Study - Measurement and Correlates of Zoophilic Interest Online - OUTDATED
Old release, kept for records. The current peer reviewed and accepted paper is located here. https://www.zoovilleforum.net/resources/2022-zooville-org-study-measurement-and-correlates-of-zoophilic-interest-online-peer-reviewed.98/...www.zoovilleforum.net
how it will be twisted and used against us....Like everything else, you have to take this with a grain of salt!
No.One doesn't need the data, the sentence appears to assert a one way correlation and that is not coherent.
If you have populations (A) 10,000, (B) 1000, (C) 100. A contains B and C. C and B may overlap or they may not. Obviously B is 10 times larger than C.
If B and C don't overlap that is perfect negative correlation, being in B means you are not C, being C means you are not B.
C cannot contain B but B can contain C. If B contains C then being C implies you are B (100% chance), but there is only a 10% chance that a randomly selected B is C. This is maximum positive correlation between different sized groups. In this case being B entails a significantly higher likelihood of being C than the likelihood of being C in the general population (A). To put numbers to that a randomly selected B has a 10% chance of being C, but a randomly selected A has a 1% chance of being C.
One last point of interest is zero correlation. Zero correlation is when knowing that someone is B does not help you predict whether they are C or not. That occurs when the overlap between B and C has the exact same ratio to B as the overlap between C and A. Obviously C is contained in A so the ratio is 100:10,000 = 1:100, which is just a restatement of the 1% chance of A being C.
The zero correlation overlap between B and C is thus 10:1000 = 1:100, that is only 10 people are both C and B. There is a 1% chance that a B is a C and a 1% chance that an A is a C. What about from C to B? 10/100 Cs are Bs so there is a 10% chance that a random C is a B, and in the general population there is a 10% chance of being a B.
All other possibilities exist on a continuum between these three scenarios.
Now let's put some words to the letters.
A = general population
B = furies
C = zoos
The quote was:
Translated to variables:
That is, C indicates a higher likelihood of B, however, B does not necessarily entail a greater likelihood of C.
Note that "greater likelihood" is in reference to the likelihood of being zoo or furry in general i.e. for the general population.
If "C indicates a higher likelihood of B" then C is positively correlated with B, which is to say the overlap between B and C relative to A is greater than the ratio between B and A.
Let the likelihood of being a furry = X. Let the likelihood of being a zoo = Y.
The likelihood of a furry being zoo = Xy. The likelihood of a zoo being a furry = Yx.
Zero correlation between furies and zoos implies: Xy = Y and Yx = X.
Negative correlation between furies and zoos implies Xy < Y and Yx < X.
Positive correlation between furies and zoos implies Xy > Y and Yx > X.
The claim of the quoted statement is: Yx > X, but Xy <= Y. This cannot be as illustrated above. You can have positive correlation or negative correlation or no correlation but you can't have more than one at the same time.
I don't know if anyone has done this poll but it seems like maybe half of zoos would self-ID as furry. I would, with the caveat of complaining that the definition is very loose. Half the general population is not furry. That's positive correlation. Now if the furry group is significantly larger than the zoo group we could be talking insignificant changes in likelihood, but it probably isn't. Let me throw some ballpark figures for example:
Yx = 0.5 [what I just asserted]
Y = 0.005 [Kinsey study said 2% I think probably an overestimate; 0.5% is a nice conservative number]
Now we just need and X, not so easy I found some numbers after a search but they're probably wrong like ~60,000 total. The prevalence of zoosexuality is of course global being an artifact of humanity living in a world with non-humans which is a lot more universal than people brought up on animated anthro animal movies who have access to the internet and can go to conventions in the western world. If you start to count anthro gods, legends, or talking animals in oral tradition you have an argument for a more universal definition of "furry".
So let's pretend that we're only talking about 1st world countries with the appropriate generation for maximum furiness and assert X = 8%. I think it would be fairish to say that 8% of say a modern college campus has some furiness going on.
So:
Y = 0.005
X = 0.08
Yx = 0.5
Xy = Yx * total zoos / total furies = Yx * Y*A / X * A = Yx * Y / X = 0.5 * 0.005/0.08 = 0.03125
Which is to say a furry would have a 3.1% chance of being a zoo while the general public has a 0.5% chance of being a zoo. Or in other words furies are 6x more likely to be zoos than the general population.
I always liked Venn diagrams, and probabilities and statistics.One doesn't need the data, the sentence appears to assert a one way correlation and that is not coherent.
If you have populations (A) 10,000, (B) 1000, (C) 100. A contains B and C. C and B may overlap or they may not. Obviously B is 10 times larger than C.
If B and C don't overlap that is perfect negative correlation, being in B means you are not C, being C means you are not B.
C cannot contain B but B can contain C. If B contains C then being C implies you are B (100% chance), but there is only a 10% chance that a randomly selected B is C. This is maximum positive correlation between different sized groups. In this case being B entails a significantly higher likelihood of being C than the likelihood of being C in the general population (A). To put numbers to that a randomly selected B has a 10% chance of being C, but a randomly selected A has a 1% chance of being C.
One last point of interest is zero correlation. Zero correlation is when knowing that someone is B does not help you predict whether they are C or not. That occurs when the overlap between B and C has the exact same ratio to B as the overlap between C and A. Obviously C is contained in A so the ratio is 100:10,000 = 1:100, which is just a restatement of the 1% chance of A being C.
The zero correlation overlap between B and C is thus 10:1000 = 1:100, that is only 10 people are both C and B. There is a 1% chance that a B is a C and a 1% chance that an A is a C. What about from C to B? 10/100 Cs are Bs so there is a 10% chance that a random C is a B, and in the general population there is a 10% chance of being a B.
All other possibilities exist on a continuum between these three scenarios.
Now let's put some words to the letters.
A = general population
B = furies
C = zoos
The quote was:
Translated to variables:
That is, C indicates a higher likelihood of B, however, B does not necessarily entail a greater likelihood of C.
Note that "greater likelihood" is in reference to the likelihood of being zoo or furry in general i.e. for the general population.
If "C indicates a higher likelihood of B" then C is positively correlated with B, which is to say the overlap between B and C relative to A is greater than the ratio between B and A.
Let the likelihood of being a furry = X. Let the likelihood of being a zoo = Y.
The likelihood of a furry being zoo = Xy. The likelihood of a zoo being a furry = Yx.
Zero correlation between furies and zoos implies: Xy = Y and Yx = X.
Negative correlation between furies and zoos implies Xy < Y and Yx < X.
Positive correlation between furies and zoos implies Xy > Y and Yx > X.
The claim of the quoted statement is: Yx > X, but Xy <= Y. This cannot be as illustrated above. You can have positive correlation or negative correlation or no correlation but you can't have more than one at the same time.
I don't know if anyone has done this poll but it seems like maybe half of zoos would self-ID as furry. I would, with the caveat of complaining that the definition is very loose. Half the general population is not furry. That's positive correlation. Now if the furry group is significantly larger than the zoo group we could be talking insignificant changes in likelihood, but it probably isn't. Let me throw some ballpark figures for example:
Yx = 0.5 [what I just asserted]
Y = 0.005 [Kinsey study said 2% I think probably an overestimate; 0.5% is a nice conservative number]
Now we just need and X, not so easy I found some numbers after a search but they're probably wrong like ~60,000 total. The prevalence of zoosexuality is of course global being an artifact of humanity living in a world with non-humans which is a lot more universal than people brought up on animated anthro animal movies who have access to the internet and can go to conventions in the western world. If you start to count anthro gods, legends, or talking animals in oral tradition you have an argument for a more universal definition of "furry".
So let's pretend that we're only talking about 1st world countries with the appropriate generation for maximum furiness and assert X = 8%. I think it would be fairish to say that 8% of say a modern college campus has some furiness going on.
So:
Y = 0.005
X = 0.08
Yx = 0.5
Xy = Yx * total zoos / total furies = Yx * Y*A / X * A = Yx * Y / X = 0.5 * 0.005/0.08 = 0.03125
Which is to say a furry would have a 3.1% chance of being a zoo while the general public has a 0.5% chance of being a zoo. Or in other words furies are 6x more likely to be zoos than the general population.