The assumptions held by the researchers prior to doing the research, IMHO, render the findings/conclusions highly suspect as horridly skewed. The way it was conducted, the data source, immediately taints the conclusions reached.
No doubt there *are* people like the researchers describe below. But... I'm going to wager there are 100 X more people like *me* and *my wife*. Maybe 1000 X.
We're never included in "I-wanna-be-famous" psych studies. Because... doesn't occur to us we need any attention. We're not broken. There's nothing tragic in our past. We're not on drugs, not sex addicts, not as children sexually precocious .... We're normal fuckin' people, busy working, raising kids, having bonfires on Friday nights, paying taxes.... Living the dream. Busy with life.
We're not in therapy over it and never will be.
-- And we refuse to be classified as "abnormal" sexually. We're normal as all get out. If we're *not* in your norm, something's wrong with your sampling. Start there.
Fuckin' psychologists don't seem to realize that the "squeaky wheels," psychosexually, are extremes. Tormented souls who are looking to be understood or validated and easy to find. Easy to interview. Afraid to be interviewed? Fat chance. They seem to crawl out of the woodwork at the slightest proffer of a microphone.
The rest of us aren't volunteering for surveys, aren't attending rallies, aren't political.... because we're HAPPY AND SATISFIED. Nothing to talk about. Doesn't occur to us. Minding our own business, not running to be part of quack surveys. Didn't even know they had this one, so therefore, we're not included in it. People like us don't make these surveys.
My wife, for instance -- not on Internet for zoofilic discussions. How MANY people out there like her? (You'll never know, if you only look on the Net for zoophiles. It's not a social club she needs validation from. We are who we are. Period).
Not all zoophiles are *broken*. So stop talking about what our "underlying problems" are and trying to fix us. (I think the vast majority of zoophilic couples, specifically, have never, ever been characterized correctly by any study anywhere).
Didn't read the study yet? Here's how zoos look to these quacks (quoted from study):
--
"The strength of sexual interest and the current zoophilic sexual exclusivity may be associated with negative events in childhood, early onset of sexual interest in animals, and higher sexual impulsiveness, characteristics commonly seen among paraphilic persons.
"We must not consider this latter group more or less problematic; we should offer treatment possibilities to those who wish to change some aspects of their sexuality or help them understand how this type of sexual interest developed.
"We must also consider that zoophilia is commonly associated with other atypical sexual interests [63,64], although this aspect was not investigated in this study."
--
Other "atypical interests"??? Are YOU atypical because you're interested in it? It's interesting BECAUSE IT'S ABOUT SEX, you voyeuristic research peeps. And you CHOSE the topic because you knew the *majority* of people WOULD BE interested in it.
No ....just normal fuckin' people! -- And we refuse to be considered "abnormal" for our conclusion that penises and vaginas of any species are not any more moral/immoral than snouts, paws or ears. Got an itch? Scratch it without fearing lightning bolts and hell. Animals don't demonize sexual pleasure. We take our cue from them.
