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

Official Zoophilia study by Michael Bailey.

Status
Not open for further replies.
RexAndMe said:
Because certain people have better knowledge over the stuff they are talking about. I would never let people who hurt animals join this group, let alone people with bad reputation within the zoo community.
Click to expand...
A lot of these pro zoo advocates have a very bad reputation within the zoo community. So I don’t quite get your point there. Once again, there is a way to vet people without prioritizing a minority voice.
 
RandomEquine said:
DO NOT advocate for pro zoo bullshit.
Click to expand...
This right here is likely the issue. It's been stated that if you aren't pro zoo you're anti-zoo and possibly just here to disrupt the community. Unfortunately some of the pro zoo folks on this site have drank too much of the koolaid and if you don't share their views you are the enemy.
 
knottyguymke said:
This right here is likely the issue. It's been stated that if you aren't pro zoo you're anti-zoo and possibly just here to disrupt the community. Unfortunately some of the pro zoo folks on this site have drank too much of the koolaid and if you don't share their views you are the enemy.
Click to expand...

Agreed, hence why I am voicing my concern. A loud and vocal minority is not a good representation of the overall community.
 
raks said:
Unfortunately, I doubt it is used for anything more than to help make a name for himself or further his agenda on finding the root cause for "deviant" behaviors. If the guy is not a zoo himself, why on Earth would he be motivated to help those of us who are? We as a group are generally not looked upon favorably by others and I've yet to come across any "zoo allies" - those that support our lifestyle but don't practice it. The only result from such an objective survey is to further reinforce preconceived perceptions non zoos have about us.
Click to expand...
After reading his previous work, I doubt he's doing this just to make a name for himself.
 
Seriously though, if you truly wanted to research zoophilia, why would you not want as large a sample size as possible? What good does constraining the participant demographic do? Unless your research was very narrow for example: what makes zoophiles who produce porn tick? But what good does that do for the rest of a community? I don't think this Michael guy's intentions are honorable in my opinion
 
raks said:
Seriously though, if you truly wanted to research zoophilia, why would you not want as large a sample size as possible? What good does constraining the participant demographic do? Unless your research was very narrow for example: what makes zoophiles who produce porn tick? But what good does that do for the rest of a community? I don't think this Michael guy's intentions are honorable in my opinion
Click to expand...
Exactly what i am thinking. There is a high probability he might make us look like abusers. The study should include more people
 
raks said:
Seriously though, if you truly wanted to research zoophilia, why would you not want as large a sample size as possible? What good does constraining the participant demographic do? Unless your research was very narrow for example: what makes zoophiles who produce porn tick? But what good does that do for the rest of a community? I don't think this Michael guy's intentions are honorable in my opinion
Click to expand...

That's a drawback seen in almost all psychology studies, and it's a drawback that's always made explicit in published articles.

As much as I don't like the idea of vetting, I think it's the only way to make sure that the subjects he's getting are not just trolls. I think it will just have to be addressed as a caveat in his study. Also, you do realize that this constraint has been placed not by Dr. Bailey, but by ZTHorse, right?
 
FutureSugarDaddy said:
That's a drawback seen in almost all psychology studies, and it's a drawback that's always made explicit in published articles.

As much as I don't like the idea of vetting, I think it's the only way to make sure that the subjects he's getting are not just trolls. I think it will just have to be addressed as a caveat in his study. Also, you do realize that this constraint has been placed not by Dr. Bailey, but by ZTHorse, right?
Click to expand...
I basically have 2 problems with the survey:
1. Constraining the sample size. I agree, we don't want trolls to skew the results, but those who don't have content, or are lurkers, or don't participate on the forums shouldn't be denied their response.
2. I don't like this Michael Baily guy. Period. Everything I've read about him is filled with controversy. He also claimed in a published work that homosexuality is inherited! Really! How can one be so definitive? It goes against
nature versus nurture. It takes both. Polarization doesn't help. And a statement that certain can only lead to trouble. Does that mean there is a gene associated with homosexuality? Then does that mean it can be tested? If so, then can parents test an unborn child to find out if they are homosexual? And then if they don't like it, can they get it aborted? These are dangerous ideas.
 
raks said:
Does that mean there is a gene associated with homosexuality? Then does that mean it can be tested? If so, then can parents test an unborn child to find out if they are homosexual? And then if they don't like it, can they get it aborted? These are dangerous ideas.
Click to expand...

"In an article coauthored with Aaron Greenberg, he suggested that allowing parents to choose the sexual orientation of their children is morally acceptable, provided the means used to accomplished that goal are themselves morally acceptable.[17] (For example, killing infants who will become homosexual would obviously be wrong. The acceptability of aborting "gay fetuses" or "straight fetuses" would depend on whether one believed that abortion, per se, is morally acceptable.) Alice Dreger criticized Greenberg's and Bailey's argument[18] and they responded."

As per the wiki.
 
1) I think it's the best solution given the circumstances. I don't like it either, but I can't think of another better way to go about this.

2) I'm a researcher too, although I'm on the more molecular/genetic side. From everything I've read concerning the biology of same-sex behavior, the conclusion is there's an inherited component behind it all, we're just not sure what it is. That also doesn't mean the "nurture" doesn't play a role, it means there's play on both sides. It's not a dangerous idea, it's just an attempt at an explanation.
 
I should also add that this is probably the main reason I don't want to have kids; I'm scared they may turn out zoo. Not that I think it's wrong, but most of you have had to deal with the fallout of others finding this out about you. Whether you've been exposed or not, it's hard to lead a normal life (ask me how badly it's affected mine). I wouldn't want this for my kids.
 
knottyguymke said:
The inherited component isn't what they meant by "dangerous ideas" the fact that some would seek to use that knowledge to affect the sexuality of their children to be socially acceptable is
Click to expand...

But the alternative is we never publish this research, and advancements won't be made to understand this sexual orientation.

Besides, I doubt we'll be able to "test" for it. From what I've read, it's not a single gene at all.
 
FutureSugarDaddy said:
1) I think it's the best solution given the circumstances. I don't like it either, but I can't think of another better way to go about this.

2) I'm a researcher too, although I'm on the more molecular/genetic side. From everything I've read concerning the biology of same-sex behavior, the conclusion is there's an inherited component behind it all, we're just not sure what it is. That also doesn't mean the "nurture" doesn't play a role, it means there's play on both sides. It's not a dangerous idea, it's just an attempt at an explanation.
Click to expand...
1. I'm definitely not disagreeing with you there. I'm usually not the type to complain about an issue without a potential alternative. I will admit, I don't have one.
2. I don't disagree that the results might point to that conclusion. But such information can be weaponized by those that think differently. I can't remember the movie, it was from a few years ago, but it pivoted around the idea that "criminals" could be detected before birth. I worry if the likelihood of homosexuality or even zoosexuality can be detected before birth, then certain parties could use that to their advantage to control or eliminate conflicting ideaologies.
 
FutureSugarDaddy said:
But the alternative is we never publish this research, and advancements won't be made to understand this sexual orientation.

Besides, I doubt we'll be able to "test" for it. From what I've read, it's not a single gene at all.
Click to expand...
My biggest worry is that even the possibility of testing is enough to drive more efforts to figure it out and even find a "cure"

But yeah, believe me, I would love to participate in a zoophilia survey, just not one tied to someone who is so controversial.
Perhaps one managed by someone who pioneered for increased LGBTQ rights.
 
Mare Lover 1975 said:
Why not just join the survey group if you have concerns about who's been asked to take part?
Click to expand...

I’ve joined the group, but I still have concerns about prioritizing a minority voice rather than allowing a more representative cross section to take part in the survey. Having someone who’s blatantly involved in pro-zoo advocacy be the guy who’s screening for who can and cannot participate just seems like a bad idea to me. I would much rather see invitations disseminated by the author of the survey, than be granted or rejected based on how pro-zoo you are, or if you are a porn producer.
 
raks said:
Seriously though, if you truly wanted to research zoophilia, why would you not want as large a sample size as possible? What good does constraining the participant demographic do? Unless your research was very narrow for example: what makes zoophiles who produce porn tick? But what good does that do for the rest of a community? I don't think this Michael guy's intentions are honorable in my opinion
Click to expand...

This can be only used in the case where you expect a large pool where you can expect that any intentional misrepresentation will be shown inside error margin, in case that you have a quite limited pool (like for example zoos) you have to take measures elsewhere because of the influence of a few intentional misrepresentations can invalidate the whole sample.
 
Gigelina said:
If one chooses his participants amongst focus group then its a made up and non scientific study. Possibly even ordered by someone.
Click to expand...
The normal way of solving this is by making a study where you already expect some answers that has to be answered in such way to fall into target group and then discarding rest of them, which require previous knowledge of the field which this person lack.
 
FutureSugarDaddy said:
You guys keep forgetting that he isn't the one vetting participants.
Click to expand...
I can't speak for the other folks in this thread, but no I'm not forgetting. I think we're all well aware that it is being pushed by the pro zoo advocacy of an admin here on the site.

In fact, here was my original statement:

knottyguymke said:
Purity test by the site
Click to expand...
 
raks said:
Unfortunately, I doubt it is used for anything more than to help make a name for himself or further his agenda on finding the root cause for "deviant" behaviors. If the guy is not a zoo himself, why on Earth would he be motivated to help those of us who are? We as a group are generally not looked upon favorably by others and I've yet to come across any "zoo allies" - those that support our lifestyle but don't practice it. The only result from such an objective survey is to further reinforce preconceived perceptions non zoos have about us.
Click to expand...
He could have just come to this forum and studied what people post and how it’s posted he could just be a lurker and not tell us anything of what he was doing and publish a study that way a lot of ways to read how people are when they don’t think anybody is looking. I will if selected proceed carefully at least I can see something of what he’s doing in the study and can bail anytime I want.
 
Chefdan said:
He could have just come to this forum and studied what people post and how it’s posted he could just be a lurker and not tell us anything of what he was doing and publish a study that way a lot of ways to read how people are when they don’t think anybody is looking. I will if selected proceed carefully at least I can see something of what he’s doing in the study and can bail anytime I want.
Click to expand...
exactly! silent observation. Collect enough data, then form a more structured and educated survey.
 
RandomEquine said:
Why are people going to be selected based on content creation, or being active in pro- zoo activism? Those two categories are an extreme minority within these communities, and definitely does not represent the majority of people who have this interest. This seems like gatekeeping to me.
Click to expand...
Of course its gate keeping!

Thats why im screening the wheat from the chaff.

And if you have content, long post history or a long history of zoo activism, there is a good chance you are a legit zoophile and understand the gravity of research.

So yeah. Damn right its gatekeeping.
 
Replying just because im interested to see where this ends up going
 
ZTHorse said:
Of course its gate keeping!

Thats why im screening the wheat from the chaff.

And if you have content, long post history or a long history of zoo activism, there is a good chance you are a legit zoophile and understand the gravity of research.

So yeah. Damn right its gatekeeping.
Click to expand...
Gatekeeping is great for your own private club, but it’s not good for legitimate scientific research. Gatekeeping does more harm than good when you only showcase one viewpoint, especially when that viewpoint is in the minority. The “zoo community“ is not well represented by porn producers, or pro zoo activists. I’ve been involved in the “zoo community” for 20+ years, met hundreds of like-minded people in person, and everyone I know loathes the “pro zoo movement”. Most zoos want to keep a low profile, and the only reason they are coming to websites like this is for socializing with other like-minded people. To prevent those kinds of people from being able to participate in scientific research because they don’t make porn, or advocate for pro zoo rights, does not lead to an accurate representation of this community.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top