• Suddenly unable to log into your ZooVille account? This might be the reason why: CLICK HERE!

2022 University of Massachusetts Lowell Zoophilia Study & Survey

Status
Not open for further replies.
I like scientific studies on zoosexuality because that can help us earn a better reputation, at least in science.
 
I always like to participate in these in hopes that it helps show that a decently educated, employed, straight, white male who didn't grow up in a broken or impoverished family and doesn't have any significant childhood trauma's, crippling self-loathing or substance abuse problems, nor any criminal record other than some traffic violations can be a happy and content pro-contact zoosexual\beastialist who has respect, consideration, love and appreciation for non-human partners. That any "average" person (by majority opinion) could be a zoophile, it doesn't have to be the result or consequence of something in their life, childhood, etc., since it seems like these studies are often trying to figure out "How does this happen? What makes a person sexually attracted to animals?". Kinda like the old "What causes gayness?" question. To my knowledge, nothing causes it, you either are or you aren't.
 
IHO said:
Kinda like the old "What causes gayness?" question. To my knowledge, nothing causes it, you either are or you aren't.
Click to expand...
From what I recall there actually are a certain set of mutated genes that, if the person has them, means they are more likely to exhibit homosexual tendencies. Of course this is based off of memory from studies I had looked into years ago.

But just as a homosexual person can lead an ordinary life of stability and sensibility, so too can someone that is a zoophile. It stands to reason that homosexuality and zoosexuality are both counterproductive traits, as the goal of most lifeforms is to reproduce and yield offspring. Something that gay people and zoophiles cannot obviously achieve. There likely is something faulty with our genetics when compared to the sexual behaviors of "normal" or "typical" individuals.

If accurate, this also means there isn't a way to just "fix" neither homosexual nor zoosexuality. We are just the way we are, we're genetic dead-ends as far as nature is concerned, if one doesn't have any attraction to the opposite sex of the same species whatsoever.
 
FloofyNewfie said:
From what I recall there actually are a certain set of mutated genes that, if the person has them, means they are more likely to exhibit homosexual tendencies. Of course this is based off of memory from studies I had looked into years ago.

But just as a homosexual person can lead an ordinary life of stability and sensibility, so too can someone that is a zoophile. It stands to reason that homosexuality and zoosexuality are both counterproductive traits, as the goal of most lifeforms is to reproduce and yield offspring. Something that gay people and zoophiles cannot obviously achieve. There likely is something faulty with our genetics when compared to the sexual behaviors of "normal" or "typical" individuals.

If accurate, this also means there isn't a way to just "fix" neither homosexual nor zoosexuality. We are just the way we are, we're genetic dead-ends as far as nature is concerned, if one doesn't have any attraction to the opposite sex of the same species whatsoever.
Click to expand...
So.... In the end we all have a gene that drives us to reproduce like everyone and everything else. And if I recall, then we can trace that gene back to when life first began to form on the planet.

It isnt also much different then what we see in the animal kingdom too. If I recall, then there is one male insect (I think it was) that petty much just grow up and then just reproduce until it gets so exhausted that it dies. Life can be fascinating
 
Studies like this provides useful and beneficial information for everyone. Thank you for you efforts, be safe and good luck!
 
FloofyNewfie said:
It stands to reason that homosexuality and zoosexuality are both counterproductive traits, as the goal of most lifeforms is to reproduce and yield offspring. Something that gay people and zoophiles cannot obviously achieve.
Click to expand...

if that were entirely true, we wouldn't exist, because the genes would never have been passed on. keep in mind the pressure to conform to normal hetero society. the genes _do_ still get passed on by some.

it's been my theory for a while that it isn't as specific as "this gene makes you gay/bi/zoo/etc.", but possibly something more along the lines of "this gene makes you queer", and the details are shaped by life experience. of course... this doesn't account for people who never grew up around animals but are zoophiles. \*shrug\* hopefully science will one day find the answer. hopefully we'll be alive to see it. hopefully it won't get used against us.. <.<
 
juan_doe_drei said:
if that were entirely true, we wouldn't exist, because the genes would never have been passed on. keep in mind the pressure to conform to normal hetero society. the genes _do_ still get passed on by some.
Click to expand...
As I mentioned above, and from what I recall, it was a certain group/set of genetic mutations that seems to correlate with an increased chance of expressing homosexual tendencies. But that doesn't necessarily mean that said person is guaranteed to turn out homosexual, nor does it mean that said person wouldn't end up producing offspring with the opposite sex (such as if they were bisexual, or suppressed their homosexual desires to fit in with societal norms.) There's plenty of bad genetics that get passed around from generation to generation, and aren't Darwined out of existence because we humans have basically built a society that caters to keeping the "weak" sustaining life and even thriving in it. I'm definitely not an exception to this. Had I been born in a hunter/gatherer society I likely wouldn't even be alive at the age I currently am, if I had been born at all.

If my brother and I fail to reproduce then my father's direct linage stops >here<. We're pretty much the end of the line for that branch of the family tree, but there are other interconnected branches that will continue to reproduce.

juan_doe_drei said:
hopefully it won't get used against us.. <.<
Click to expand...
I wouldn't think so, in fact possibly the opposite. It would at least indicate that there is a biological reason as to why we are the way we are, something inherent.


Buuut.... I should probably stop derailing this thread. Lol
 
FloofyNewfie said:
It stands to reason that homosexuality and zoosexuality are both counterproductive traits, as the goal of most lifeforms is to reproduce and yield offspring.
Click to expand...

I disagree; both of those can easily be quite productive. A non-reproductive member of a group can provide all the benefits of a functioning adult for protection, resource gathering, etc without the added load of creating extra offspring. It's an older book, but has stood the test of time "The Selfish Gene" spends a lot of time explaining the mechanics and it's an excellent read, but to quote "...it should save more than two siblings (or children or parents), or more than four half-siblings (or uncles, aunts, nephews, neices, grandparents, grand-children), or more than eigth first cousins, etc". An organism which does this will increase the distribution of its genes as if it had reproduced itself, so there is a measurable benefit to supportive non-reproductive roles.

As for homosexuality, the genetic basis for that is pretty well documented. We might not know the exact relation of which genes and alleles (or might, it's not my field and I'm not up to date) but the evidence is there. For me the most compelling was the twins studies and much that's come out of it. It's important to keep in mind we don't have genes "for" something, DNA is a recipie which instructs cells to do this, release that hormone then, another one now, and yet another later, to build bodies. It's simple to refer to a gene for this and that, but it's far more complicated in reality.


Edit: Added link to the book after @paZ00 's comment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
egoldstein said:
I disagree; both of those can easily be quite productive. A non-reproductive member of a group can provide all the benefits of a functioning adult for protection, resource gathering, etc without the added load of creating extra offspring. It's an older book, but has stood the test of time "The Selfish Gene" spends a lot of time explaining the mechanics and it's an excellent read, but to quote "...it should save more than two siblings (or children or parents), or more than four half-siblings (or uncles, aunts, nephews, neices, grandparents, grand-children), or more than eigth first cousins, etc". An organism which does this will increase the distribution of its genes as if it had reproduced itself, so there is a measurable benefit to supportive non-reproductive roles.

As for homosexuality, the genetic basis for that is pretty well documented. We might not know the exact relation of which genes and alleles (or might, it's not my field and I'm not up to date) but the evidence is there. For me the most compelling was the twins studies and much that's come out of it. It's important to keep in mind we don't have genes "for" something, DNA is a recipie which instructs cells to do this, release that hormone then, another one now, and yet another later, to build bodies. It's simple to refer to a gene for this and that, but it's far more complicated in reality.
Click to expand...
Agree ?
The Selfish Gene
 
egoldstein said:
As for homosexuality, the genetic basis for that is pretty well documented. We might not know the exact relation of which genes and alleles (or might, it's not my field and I'm not up to date) but the evidence is there. For me the most compelling was the twins studies and much that's come out of it. It's important to keep in mind we don't have genes "for" something, DNA is a recipie which instructs cells to do this, release that hormone then, another one now, and yet another later, to build bodies. It's simple to refer to a gene for this and that, but it's far more complicated in reality.
Click to expand...
I'll have to put a pin in this for now. The original episode of SciShow which peeked my curiosity in the first place appears to have been removed by Hank Green. Perhaps due to one or more scientific inaccuracies that could have been discovered after it was released. I'm also many many years out of college, and as such, I no longer have access to their extensive digital library of peer reviewed articles and studies. Man, do I miss having access to that sometimes.

Doing a quick search, perhaps it was Hamer's research into the Xq28 genetic marker on the x chromosome being one of the resources I looked into when this topic initially peeked my curiosity.
 
This is a test that determines how likely family violence, harassment, and mental problems are to cause zoophilia.
I don't agree with such tests, but since I don't have any mental problems and my childhood was fine, my parents loved me and there is/wasn't any factor that changed my sexual development in my childhood, I filled out the test, thus proving (and telling the truth) zoophilia it does not develop because someone had a bad childhood. Of course, there are certainly many such cases, but this is not the only reason. In addition, I am exclusive, which is another oddity within zoophilia, even though I had a normal childhood and youth and my sexual development was also normal.
 
Reading over the previous comments about how it looks half assed, and then this...

"Could being in this research hurt me?

Participation in this research may result in undesired changes in thought processes and emotion (e.g., episodes of depression, feelings of stress, guilt or loss of self-esteem). You can decline to engage with any questions you don't want to answer or stop the research at any time."

The only thing I'm changing my thought process is if this is really meant to be helpful or constructive in any way. Regardless, I still took it. Good luck to us I guess....
 
Let's hope their ethics committee doesn't toss the study if it doesn't give the results they want...
 
Whay I love the most, besides the fact that they decided to study more this sexual taste, is how open minded are the researchers about the gender identity. I think this is a very important datum as well as, of course also the rest. However, there are many questions that I think could be misunderstanding because of the lack of information associated with those questions. For example, the lack of consciousness about the situation of the person who fills the survey about what is happening in their life last week. Maybe their life last week was especially the worst because an external incident happens like the death of a loved one, a work demand, a personal accident, surgery, etc.

Wish this, or at least coming surveys and studies could improve for more accurate conclusions.

Please, share with us the results. I would like to take a look to them!!
 
Twelvepaws said:
A big problem with these studies is that no one can verify the credibility of the respondents. So the final result does not guarantee that it reflects reality.
Click to expand...
any attempt at "verifying" skews the results. you just need to look at the data and weed out the ones that look like fakes. it's the nature of such study. it's not easy.
 
Last edited:
Twelvepaws said:
A big problem with these studies is that no one can verify the credibility of the respondents. So the final result does not guarantee that it reflects reality.
Click to expand...

True, and unfortunately as long as zoophiles have to remain anonymous for their own safety these studies will be limited by the accuracy of self-reporting. And in fairness to the researchers, that would probably skew the results towards more ethical zoos as sadists and those with significant trauma are much less likely to volunteer information.
 
i guess they are looking for problems because if you have them they think it explains everything. :LOL:
anybody every get lost at sea wanting the brightest star to point the way home?
 
Last edited:
Done it. Basic "outcast" psych questions. Abuse, violence, drugs or alcohol, mental illness, aggression and social integration. None if it applied to me, wonderful upbringing, heterosexual man who's masculine, wonderful life and the head of a stable family of 5 with a supportive and open minded partner. I have been attracted to animals since before I even knew what my dick was for, we had lots of horse and lots of dogs around and since I was around 5-6 I knew I was attracted to them. I loved horse wee, I loved it's smell, I loved the smell of horses in general, I still do, I liked watching dogs mate (too young to do anything with dogs or horses sexually but you get the idea). I wasnt attracted sexually to girls until I hit puberty and started masterbating at 11-12. They don't understand that we don't have to be odd balls, abuse victims or mentally retarded, that's NOT the issue, there is no issue, it's been in humans since time in memorial and well documented in art and literature. Id love to know "why", sure, but these stupid questionairs painting me as violent, abused, mentally unstable from a broken home and suffer substance abuse issues is myopic and outdated. Give me something biochemical, give me something tangible.... or leave me alone
 
Will they think I am a social outcast if I do the test on Christmas Eve or are they open-minded enough to know that some folks simply don't care about such kinds of holidays?
 
Couldn't download the pdf with my responses at the end of the study either (502 bad gateway). Tried to go back to the summary of my answers to download that page, but that wasn't possible, I got back to the start of the study.
All in all there's really not much contents, I found it rather "boring". Dr Joseph Gonzales seems to do a lot of statistical research if I got it right from the university webpage (https://www.uml.edu/fahss/psychology/faculty/gonzales-joseph.aspx). I wonder what they can really derive from the answers but well, if it helps in any way to understand more about zoophilia the better for all, I hope.
 
As far as I know, it's not the ethics committee's job to reject a study if the results do not following expectations. Grant-making organisations and publishers on the other hand...

Anyway, data collected in studies like this one will always be skewed, because the moment you conduct a study online, you already exclude those zoos who don't participate in forums like this one, let alone people who don't have access to the internet at all.

As for reflecting reality, it is up to the researchers to strengthen validity of their questions by throwing in some control questions (to be sure the respondent actually reads the question before ticking the boxes) and through asking the same question in different ways. The moment you get different answers to these same questions asked differently, then alarm bells should sound.

Even better would be to link up these quantitative questions with a more ethnographic approach or open (interview) questions. That way, you can even better weed out the fake replies and to learn more about the reasons and motivations behind the answers. However, that would mean more time investment and/or meeting up somehow with zoos and obviously that's not something every zoo wants to arrange.
 
I really don't think that any of my childhood trauma has anything to do with me sexual preference. I am probably more sexual because of it but I don't think my feelings for my pets has ever been impacted because of my past. also I am not sexually excited by all animals. It is specific to the individual animal.
 
Merete said:
I completed it. I hope knowledge breeds understanding.
Click to expand...
I did the survey as well, the childhood abuse thing is what my thought was, but in the end my feeling was I hope they gain something from it, though just felt, " what are they going to get out of this ? ".
 
The questions regarding childhood abuse are the same ones any therapist will give you when evaluating trauma- it's called an adverse childhood experience (aces) score. They're likely just researching the correlation between high ACEs & deviant sexual behavior, not causation. Similar research is being conducted within BDSM circles. It seems like their study is pretty simplistic and gathering of preliminary information.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top