• 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.
RandomEquine said:
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.
Click to expand...
To look at the other perspective, do you want the people who like the stuff at FORBIDDEN_WEBSITE! to appear as a representation of the community?
 
Pillar said:
To look at the other perspective, do you want the people who like the stuff at FORBIDDEN_WEBSITE! to appear as a representation of the community?
Click to expand...

Data is data. Honestly I don’t think those sorts of people are too interested in participating in scientific research. That said, the folks who view FORBIDDEN_WEBSITE! are a much larger majority than those advocating for pro zoo rights.
 
RandomEquine said:
Data is data. Honestly I don’t think those sorts of people are too interested in participating in scientific research. That said, the folks who view FORBIDDEN_WEBSITE! are a much larger majority than those advocating for pro zoo rights.
Click to expand...
As most zoos will remain hidden, it's also unfair to make the FORBIDDEN_WEBSITE! types as the entire representation of the community, especially when they commit crimes. The reality of it is that zoos come from all walks of life around the globe, and most won't say a peep - why have a bunch of abusers like those from FORBIDDEN_WEBSITE! participate when, for all we know, most zoos are just regular people leading everyday lives, just like everyone else?
 
RexAndMe said:
You see where the problem is?
Click to expand...
Nope. If you cherry pick the data, you have no data. I would feel a hell of a lot better about this gate keeping if it wasn’t giving positive points to those who are least representative of what the “zoo community” actually is. Once again, most zoos do not make porn, and do not care for the pro zoo movement. There are ways to screen people without artificially inflating the data by favoring a vocal minority.
 
RandomEquine said:
Nope. If you cherry pick the data, you have no data. I would feel a hell of a lot better about this gate keeping if it wasn’t giving positive points to those who are least representative of what the “zoo community” actually is. Once again, most zoos do not make porn, and do not care for the pro zoo movement. There are ways to screen people without artificially inflating the data by favoring a vocal minority.
Click to expand...
Then what's your suggestion?
 
Anyone who wants to participate can submit a request. If they have a decent enough post history, or are known within the community, then there shouldn’t be any questions asked. If somebody is an unknown, they should have to write out a paragraph or two explaining why they want to take the survey. This way it is open to anybody who wants to take it, and the participants won’t be as cherry picked by a biased entity.
 
RandomEquine said:
Anyone who wants to participate can submit a request. If they have a decent enough post history, or are known within the community, then there shouldn’t be any questions asked. If somebody is an unknown, they should have to write out a paragraph or two explaining why they want to take the survey. This way it is open to anybody who wants to take it, and the participants won’t be as cherry picked by a biased entity.
Click to expand...
You think writing a paragraph or two won't stop trolls determined to make zoos look bad?
 
Pillar said:
You think writing a paragraph or two won't stop trolls determined to make zoos look bad?
Click to expand...
I think you and RandomEquine both have valid points. How do you get honest, inclusive feedback from the whole community, but filter out the obvious trolls and those with less honorable intentions.
If you make the effort intense, time consuming, and thoughtful, you'll loose the interest of both good and bad intentioned audiences. Albeit, you're more likely to get honest, thoughtful responses, but there would nonetheless still be those trolls who live for nothing more than making other's lives miserable
 
In my humble opinion I can't see any point to it. We know who we are and what we like and I personally do not need to be analysed as I feel that I am a very well-adjusted person and a pillar of my community. So my question would be – what is in it for me?

If this Michael Bailey is going to write a paper on our chosen lifestyle then it is only going to be for his own benefit in the world of academia. He will never lobby for our life choices to become legal and the only conclusion that I can come to is that his paper will be purely condemning if not voyeuristic.

HD
 
I think we keep forgetting that there are trolls on the pro zoo side as well. A lot of the people who are incredibly vocal about zoo rights have no skin in the game outside of their reputation. If you’re selecting strictly based on people who advocate for pro zoo rights, or produce porn, you’re alienating a majority of zoos who are just around for the comradery and socialization. This is my biggest gripe with how this is being handled. I’m all for keeping the trolls out, but I don’t like seeing a vocal minority getting special treatment over your average zoo.
 
Let's also not pretend that the person in charge of this site would benefit greatly from more exposure if the zoo movement took off. This is currently the largest zoo community is it not?
 
I kind of like the idea of a massive poll.
A huge multiple choice survey geared to provide an in depth look into those of us who are zoo.
But it would be purely objective based, not "feeling" based. no short answer or essay questions.
However, it would also be structured in such a way that even trolls wouldn't be able to skew the results too much.
Then after the survey is done, the results are published and everyone is able to see the results and form their own opinions.
my only worry is it could lead to stereotyping.
But for one, I could give a rats a$$ what some hoity toity psych professor from academia thinks about us.
This would be information for us by us. (man I hope I don't get sued by Fubu now!)
 
Hounddawg06 said:
In my humble opinion I can't see any point to it. We know who we are and what we like and I personally do not need to be analysed as I feel that I am a very well-adjusted person and a pillar of my community. So my question would be – what is in it for me?

If this Michael Bailey is going to write a paper on our chosen lifestyle then it is only going to be for his own benefit in the world of academia. He will never lobby for our life choices to become legal and the only conclusion that I can come to is that his paper will be purely condemning if not voyeuristic.

HD
Click to expand...
amen
 
LightningGShep said:
But why content creators?
Click to expand...
We are a specific subset. I have a feeling that this would be discussed in how the results are analyzed. I am deliberately NOT a "content creator," but I AM an activist, VERY different group with vastly different beliefs. Apparently, content creators are a higher interest group. In some ways, we are practically opposites, though, and I think that that would interest a researcher.
 
Last edited:
RandomEquine said:
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.
Click to expand...

I suggested publishing the survey in 3 steps.

1. only via private messaging. So a few people will get it first and they will spread the study among people they know are zoophile
2. via zoo communities. So everyone here will get to participate in the study.
3. via public places like the furry fandom, twitter, etc.

The idea of this strategy is to get a "baseline" for zoophile responses an being able to filter out false flag participants in step 2 and 3.
 
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...
It is, unfortunately, necessary because results have been thrown off in the past by people that were not legit.
 
calikennelmaster said:
Identifying common behaviors among self proclaimed zoophiles with a substantial posting history in online bestiality forums.
-Or-
Observing how members of zoophile boards online react online when being asked if they want to participate in an academic study
Click to expand...
Going by that parameter the results are mixed.
 
There's no way to avoid a sample bias here that I can see. it's vetted- or it's ZooyMcZooFace... There is unavoidable 'self selection' bias just from people choosing to 'help'. So long as the bias is objectively less then the current standard of only studying "bottom of the barrel" tried and convicted sex offenders and sexual predators, I'd say this likely has value.

IMHO if "content producers" means only activists and people who make porn, then that's a tragically misguided limitation- Porn producers are putting themselves and their animals at risk- they are either ignorant of the state of computer security, or the world, or they simply don't care. As others have pointed out, activist views often contrast the rest of the group. Not saying either group should be excluded- just that they shouldn't not exclusively represented. People should be considered on the merits of their posts, and posting porn or zoo activism content should NOT be a requirement.

Anyone care to explain the reasoning behind this limitation- or do I misunderstand it? is it due to a suspected level of trolls/agent provocateurs among text only posters?

From reading his wiki, Bailey does have a bit of controversy around him... Personally I find the 'live sex show for students' thing kinda ballsy and forward thinking...sounds like something a modern Kinsey would do.
 
I kind of like the idea of participating in this if I can genuinely remain anonymous. Especially if it's a truly objective study, and produces something similar to the one by Hani Miletski. I think it would be good to have a more recent, in-depth study of zoosexuals and zoosexuality out there by a non-zoo scholar provided it doesn't have a "bad" tone to it, or portray it like a sexual perversion or disorder.
Where being a "content producer" is concerned, my assumption is it doesn't mean for-profit production, but rather those who enjoy sharing their personal pic/vids in forums such as these, effectively "proving" they engage with their partner(s) sexually. But by that I don't mean there isn't probably 1000-times over the number of zoos who are sexually active that don't create and share their own content or even participate in discussions, only that those of us who do might be considered a "sure thing".
I also don't think ZTHorse would allow such a thing here if he thought the researcher was being disingenuous or had malicious intentions.
 
Why is zoo-sexual experience required?

I'm sure there are many more zoos out there that simply haven't had the opportunity to experience love with an animal for numerous reasons.

I've considered myself zoo for well over a decade, but have never had a sexual experience. Don't have the space, time or money for a mare partner. Also the legal consequences are far too strict where I'm at.
 
ZTHorse said:
I've confirmed and emailed with the researcher J. Michael Bailey of Northwestern University. (using his official University .edu email)

He is planning a study of a limited number of zoophiles and has submitted a letter of intent to be posted publicly.

If you wish to participate in this survey, please click for an invitation to this group. I will curate based on your post history and if your a content creator, your more likely to be approved.

-Since i'm being swarmed with requests, if there is a special reason like previous zoo activism, zoo twitter activist, or content creator please send me a PM about it ontop of your group request. This is meant to point out your profile better as i have to scan all your posts quickly, if you sent me a PM with the key ones in detail, that would help me alot.

I'd like to add that I'm looking for posts that prove that a user has had a zoo-sexual experience in the past and mostly current tense. Since i curate so many posts, I can generally tell if a user has been active or currently active (preferred).


ZT

Update #1 - He has attached his cirriculum vitea and recent research into the furry fandom. I'm attaching both below.

View attachment 69142
Click to expand...
Please ask him if there's any guarantee of anonymity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top