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

2024 RMC Zoophilia Ethic's Study - Ground Breaking!

Status
Not open for further replies.
the survey largely disregards the distinction between consensual/pleasurable and non-consensual/painful which is kind of important

also yea being able to engage in both relationships / attractions is definitely a possibility lol..
 
lisalaura said:
Done. But i have often the feeling that these studies come from a negative angle.
Click to expand...

It sucks because it is very difficult for academics without lived experience of being zoo to not approach things from a "in what way are they sick?" angle. By necessity they have to approach it from a "what are the common traits of the respondents" and they always have those series of questions that make me feel like they have zero trust in me having a genuine sexual preference for animals over humans. Even done professionally and subtley the combination of all these manage to create a feeling of the researchers not being on "our side". And that is before we add in the communal trauma of knowing being zoo is pretty much being a discriminated minority which means generally we feel people are pretty anti-zoo. Even if we trust the academics, we don't trust the research won't be used against us.

The other side of the argument that this study in particular has started to convince me to lean toward is that over time the academic research is actively changing and showing signs of genuine ability to improve on innate discrimination. I have responded to one or two of these in the past that were much less zoo-friendly. OP, my other post in this thread and others have already gone over the improvements.

I definitely empathize that there is a sense of futility when participating in this kind of research but when I consider why I respond to them if it seems doomed to be treated from the negative angle that you and I can sense underlying the questions? My answer is in the hope that my responses will form part of a change in attitude. It may be small but the reason I am rambling in response to your observation is because I want to point out that there is a lot of strength in that hope. Hope doesn't exist without belief in the idea that sparks it. If you can find that driving factor that overcame the sense of negativity and got you through to completing the study then you change the narrative from a sense of futility to a belief in this part of yourself and your identity.
 
CanineRomantic said:
It sucks because it is very difficult for academics without lived experience of being zoo to not approach things from a "in what way are they sick?" angle. By necessity they have to approach it from a "what are the common traits of the respondents" and they always have those series of questions that make me feel like they have zero trust in me having a genuine sexual preference for animals over humans. Even done professionally and subtley the combination of all these manage to create a feeling of the researchers not being on "our side". And that is before we add in the communal trauma of knowing being zoo is pretty much being a discriminated minority which means generally we feel people are pretty anti-zoo. Even if we trust the academics, we don't trust the research won't be used against us.

The other side of the argument that this study in particular has started to convince me to lean toward is that over time the academic research is actively changing and showing signs of genuine ability to improve on innate discrimination. I have responded to one or two of these in the past that were much less zoo-friendly. OP, my other post in this thread and others have already gone over the improvements.

I definitely empathize that there is a sense of futility when participating in this kind of research but when I consider why I respond to them if it seems doomed to be treated from the negative angle that you and I can sense underlying the questions? My answer is in the hope that my responses will form part of a change in attitude. It may be small but the reason I am rambling in response to your observation is because I want to point out that there is a lot of strength in that hope. Hope doesn't exist without belief in the idea that sparks it. If you can find that driving factor that overcame the sense of negativity and got you through to completing the study then you change the narrative from a sense of futility to a belief in this part of yourself and your identity.
Click to expand...

I also understand if they look at negative aspects. But often these studies are 98% questions about "nagative things".
 
Not a terrible survey. They are on the right track with this and I hope that more progress is made in understanding the community and ZETA principles. Glad I took the time to fill it out and add one more data point.
 
ZTHorse said:
Hello Zooville,

This is a new ground breaking survey and study looking into the ethic's of zoophilia and zoosexuality. Here is the details.

Thank you to the RMC and alexandra for continuing to support further research into zoophilia.

-also of note, this is the FIRST study we worked with that included the ZETA principles. This is monumental for studies going forward.
_____________________________________________________

You are invited to participate in a research study called “Examining the Mental Health, Social Supports, and Attitudes of Zoophiles.” As the title suggests, we are interested in better understanding individuals with a sexual interest in animals. Given the taboo associated with individuals with a sexual interest in animals, it is important to gain a better understanding of zoophiles and how to best support them. The study will take approximately 40-60 minutes and is completely anonymous.

To qualify, you must be 18 years of age or older, identify as someone with a sexual interest in animals, and be able to read and write in English well enough to complete the survey.

If you would like more information about the study or require assistance, please contact the researcher, Alexandra Zidenberg (alexandra.zidenberg@rmc-cmr.ca), Department of Military Psychology and Leadership, Royal Military College of Canada. This research received approval from the RMC Research Ethics Board on March 13, 2024.

Click the link below to begin the study:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/FBWX55J
Click to expand...
I have to say this was the worst survey I have ever taken in the realm of sexuality. Terms where poorly or not at all defined, which made many of the questions difficult or impossible to answer without accepting what often appeared to be a pejorative attitude. I don't know what ZETA principles are, and like so much about this survey that too goes undefined. I rarely regret taking a survey. I did with this one. It also was way too long. I have no idea what of any value will be gleaned from it.
 
BeastyMaster said:
I have to say this was the worst survey I have ever taken in the realm of sexuality. Terms where poorly or not at all defined, which made many of the questions difficult or impossible to answer without accepting what often appeared to be a pejorative attitude. I don't know what ZETA principles are, and like so much about this survey that too goes undefined. I rarely regret taking a survey. I did with this one. It also was way too long. I have no idea what of any value will be gleaned from it.
Click to expand...
these are the ZETA Principles

ZETA Principles - ZETA

In the context of the ZETA principles, the term “ZETA” is an acronym for “Zoophiles for Ethical Treatment of Animals“. Those principles were created in the ’90s by the american zoophile community. Aim was to [...]
www.zeta-verein.de

Also as far as what value can be gleaned I want to point you to this video where the woman conducting the survey speaks about some of her findings from it

- YouTube

W YouTube możesz cieszyć się filmami i muzyką, które lubisz, przesyłać oryginalne treści i udostępniać je swoim bliskim, znajomym i całemu światu.
youtu.be youtu.be
 
ZPLS7171 said:
I just finished the "survey". Here is MY OPTION about it. A lot of the questions are asked in a manner and worded that might make a person willing to take it, feel like they are being looked down on. It is definitely written from a point of view that seems like the person who wrote the questions has ZERO understanding of human/animal attractions. The questions are very "text book" to all other questions from other surveys. A lot of the questions are based around your own mental health and a few are based on the actual attractions of a person might or do have towards animals. I personally have found most surveys/research focuses on the person's mental health rather then their interest in human/animal relationships. One reason I feel that research that has been is not complete or dose not tell the whole story is because of this style of questions asked. A researcher that is looking to get into the thick of it should be asking questions about how you care for your animal partners or your interactions with them. Ask about how we understand consent between the parties involved. As I am trying to keep this short this is just a brief description of MY OPTIONS.
Click to expand...
I quit B4 I finished it. Kinda nosey
 
The survey seems to have botched question 37 on the Zeta Principles part. By the format of that section, the question should have been analogous to question 31, but it instead copied the text of a different question.

Whoops.
 
Canisamas said:
these are the ZETA Principles

ZETA Principles - ZETA

In the context of the ZETA principles, the term “ZETA” is an acronym for “Zoophiles for Ethical Treatment of Animals“. Those principles were created in the ’90s by the american zoophile community. Aim was to [...]
www.zeta-verein.de

Also as far as what value can be gleaned I want to point you to this video where the woman conducting the survey speaks about some of her findings from it

- YouTube

W YouTube możesz cieszyć się filmami i muzyką, które lubisz, przesyłać oryginalne treści i udostępniać je swoim bliskim, znajomym i całemu światu.
youtu.be youtu.be
Click to expand...
Thanks much for that. Helps explain things. I still don't like the survey, but at least some points are clarified.
 
All done :) loved how it was more concerned with welfare and caring for animal health than how often we watch porn. It looks like research is starting to inch forward :)
 
Spanish speakers are left out, because the translator can make us say what we don't say.
 
Thank you to everyone that participated in this survey! Your participation is invaluable towards the study and understanding of zoophilia on an academic level! This survey is now closed, therefore this thread will be closed as well.

Dog speed, everyone!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top