Official Zoophilia study by Michael Bailey.
- Thread starter ZTHorse
- Start date
- Status
wolf-fucker
Tourist
Well, it was also mostly shared in closed groups.
irbyz
Tourist
Don't know about the majority: I'm sure she must've done for some but I remember that well on multiple public boards as an open request. And inevitably, as now, received with no small amount of wariness by quite a few people!
The issue of who's being selected and how is always going to be there no matter how that's done.
Was it really that long ago, though. Sheesh.... ?
IHO
Citizen of Zooville
However, most of the stricter laws around "sexual abuse" weren't so prominent when her's was being researched. There was probably less fear of persecution/prosecution.
That's part of the reason why @ZTHorse is gatekeeping.
What about Ms Fannie Allard thesis in 2017 conducted under Christopher Earls supervision?
gre.recherchedoctorale.com
www.recherchedoctorale.com
There used to have a poll to fill in there.
Some info about this Fannie Allard:
papyrus.bib.umontreal.ca
Université de Montréal | Département de Psychologie
Chers participants, Nous vous remercions sincèrement d’avoir participé en si grand nombre à notre étude. Ayant atteint notre objectif de participation, nous arrêtons maintenant la collecte de données. Dès qu’il nous sera possible de vous partager les résultats, des documents vous seront...
gre.recherchedoctorale.com
Université de Montréal | Département de psychologie | Projet de recherche doctorale
www.recherchedoctorale.com
There used to have a poll to fill in there.
Some info about this Fannie Allard:
Browsing Faculté des arts et des sciences – Département de psychologie by Author "Allard, Fannie"
papyrus.bib.umontreal.ca
zoodude553
Lurker
So it's not cool for the whole community to be represented by just prison inmates, but it's totally fine for it to be represented solely by people who are zealously pro-zoo/content creators, even though they make up just as small a minority as inmates? Even if the research provides anything positive(which isn't likely, given the current social climate), it's still only going to be a back-handed, pyrrhic victory in the community itself, since it was driven by a biased and unrepresentative focus group. I think this professor should just forget the survey completely and use the forum threads for reference. It's the most comprehensive and genuine collection of what the zoo community is as a whole, and has no ability for bias or abuse besides what the community naturally brings, and what the professor brings to it. Honestly, there's no need for a survey when everyone's thoughts and feelings are already neatly collected on an easy to navigate forum. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
S
Sun&Seed
Guest
As best I recall and was aware, Miletski's study required at least that the questionnaire be mailed to a physical address, if not done in person face to face. Dr. Ted McIlvenna personally interviewed me face to face when I took part in this- he was kind and open minded and had some fascinating stories to share, we talked for several hours and it was a fun and memorable experience.
I would say Miletski's study was more vetted then this study is due to it's online anonymous nature- people don't even need to give there home address with this... There wasn't nearly so much hatred and push back against zoo back then- the chance of 'agent provocateur' or 'poison welling' was very negligible at the time....now- who knows.... Anyone pretending to be zoo to try and entrap people would likely be re-posting porn to legitimize themselves- and reading one anti-zoo site out there (which I won't mention the name of due to search indexing) I wouldn't put it past them to try and poison something like this.
As to why the IASHS was not accredited- in there own words:
“We don’t take federal money and that’s why we won’t be accredited by the traditional state agencies. We don’t want to be handcuffed as to what we can provide, say and do. We’ve been approached by accrediting bodies run by Mormons and Roman Catholics that wanted us to change our code of ethics to promote contraception and change our name to reflect ‘family and marriage counseling’ instead of sexuality. We won’t do it,” according to IASHS founder Dr. Ted McIlvenna.
They also had a public porn museum which caused all kinds of controversy and drama for them.
IMHO they where way ahead of their time, and much better then any accredited school could have been due to political circumstances.
I would say Miletski's study was more vetted then this study is due to it's online anonymous nature- people don't even need to give there home address with this... There wasn't nearly so much hatred and push back against zoo back then- the chance of 'agent provocateur' or 'poison welling' was very negligible at the time....now- who knows.... Anyone pretending to be zoo to try and entrap people would likely be re-posting porn to legitimize themselves- and reading one anti-zoo site out there (which I won't mention the name of due to search indexing) I wouldn't put it past them to try and poison something like this.
As to why the IASHS was not accredited- in there own words:
“We don’t take federal money and that’s why we won’t be accredited by the traditional state agencies. We don’t want to be handcuffed as to what we can provide, say and do. We’ve been approached by accrediting bodies run by Mormons and Roman Catholics that wanted us to change our code of ethics to promote contraception and change our name to reflect ‘family and marriage counseling’ instead of sexuality. We won’t do it,” according to IASHS founder Dr. Ted McIlvenna.
They also had a public porn museum which caused all kinds of controversy and drama for them.
IMHO they where way ahead of their time, and much better then any accredited school could have been due to political circumstances.
juan_doe_drei
Citizen of Zooville
i do not recall any giving out of physical address or anything else like that being required. i did the (miletski) survey online.
S
Sun&Seed
Guest
Some one just DM'd me about this, and I realized- I actually was in an earlier group she researched for her initial dissertation, well before she wrote the book...was 97 irrc.
foxywoxy
Lurker
LOL i just wrote a 4000 word essay in response to this. I can't even believe how much I just wrote that was clearly expressed in the first page in one sentence. Good writing practice. If you want it I will PM it I'm not going to force my 4000 word argumentative paper as my first post on a site I just lurk occasionally
i managed to get it down to three paragraphs here: the more selective you are the less deviation there can be from a standard and the more standard the behaviors they are looking for/expect will probably be, which is negative for the community as a whole, but generally they already account for that and other psychologists account for this sample bias when considering the paper, but regular folks won't and the news certainly won't if it gets anywhere near there
i don't think there's any danger in giving your info, even, i know it's a paranoia fest but the police have guns and CP traffickers to go entrap, not zoo folks. Entrapment via a research paper/survey is also illegal as fuck no one will get that through the supreme court or relevant organization (there is already precedent against it, it will not happen again) and if you live in a country where that is worrisome anyway then you know not to already, I would hope.
more participants = more obfuscated data in either way, pre-selecting them via a heuristic is just accelerating them to the point instead of making them find it from an open request/survey. the fact that there is more access to these communities than 20 years ago is more important than any witchhunting, and the former just leads to the latter, rather than more aggression in policy leading to a more selective group. I would posit it's simply awareness, rather than attention. You need to be aware at all to be attentive of it, but for most people awareness does not result in more than a scoff or shrug. If you want to be anti-zoo, you can just composite all the posts available and then database out common words/phrases and make personality inferences based on that. I'm sure that would be a great measure of it; not asking for personal stories/self-reporting.
k my hands are numb thanks for reading my summarized summary of my summarized essay
i managed to get it down to three paragraphs here: the more selective you are the less deviation there can be from a standard and the more standard the behaviors they are looking for/expect will probably be, which is negative for the community as a whole, but generally they already account for that and other psychologists account for this sample bias when considering the paper, but regular folks won't and the news certainly won't if it gets anywhere near there
i don't think there's any danger in giving your info, even, i know it's a paranoia fest but the police have guns and CP traffickers to go entrap, not zoo folks. Entrapment via a research paper/survey is also illegal as fuck no one will get that through the supreme court or relevant organization (there is already precedent against it, it will not happen again) and if you live in a country where that is worrisome anyway then you know not to already, I would hope.
more participants = more obfuscated data in either way, pre-selecting them via a heuristic is just accelerating them to the point instead of making them find it from an open request/survey. the fact that there is more access to these communities than 20 years ago is more important than any witchhunting, and the former just leads to the latter, rather than more aggression in policy leading to a more selective group. I would posit it's simply awareness, rather than attention. You need to be aware at all to be attentive of it, but for most people awareness does not result in more than a scoff or shrug. If you want to be anti-zoo, you can just composite all the posts available and then database out common words/phrases and make personality inferences based on that. I'm sure that would be a great measure of it; not asking for personal stories/self-reporting.
k my hands are numb thanks for reading my summarized summary of my summarized essay
Hounddawg06
Zooville Settler
May I ask a simple question? What is the title of this study going to be? The title might confirm whether the “research” is in order to confirm or deny a pre conceived idea about what our little community gets up to.
I personally do not want to be judged and if this study is not going to be put to any positive use for our beliefs and practices I might suggest that it is pointless any of us becoming involved in this so called “academic” study.
HD
I personally do not want to be judged and if this study is not going to be put to any positive use for our beliefs and practices I might suggest that it is pointless any of us becoming involved in this so called “academic” study.
HD
Trans-Animalka
Tourist
Po przeczytaniu Waszych postów i rozważań zacząłem się zastanawiać co w moim młodym życiu było takiego, że zawsze bardziej kochałam Psy niż ludzi.Byłam gówniarą lecz wyraznie widziałem, że zawsze wokół ludzi jest zło a wokół zwierząt harmonia i dobr
d tak wielkiej miłości do Psów jak moja jest tylko malutki kroczek do zoof.Nikt nigdy nie dał mi tyle miłości i rozkoszy co dały mi Psy.Za to Je kocham i nie wstydzę się moich preferencje.
d tak wielkiej miłości do Psów jak moja jest tylko malutki kroczek do zoof.Nikt nigdy nie dał mi tyle miłości i rozkoszy co dały mi Psy.Za to Je kocham i nie wstydzę się moich preferencje.
sirfaq
Tourist
I love the idea of this please add me to the list I'm so tired of trying to hide the fact that I'm not attracted to humans for the most part honestly I want to ask the population what they're afraid of ....my only explanation is evolutionI'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.
Update #2 - As of 5/2/2020, The questionnaire is being re-worked to increase precision and this could delay it by several weeks. However screenings will continue meantime. Plz apply.
View attachment 69142
Hounddawg06
Zooville Settler
Sirfaq,
With all due respect there is plenty to be afraid of if not just a little bit worried. Obviously it is important that for anyone who is interviewed they would have to have their true identities kept secret because in most countries this sort of practice is illegal if not frowned upon. This raises two issues. Firstly how can the researcher actually be sure that the information he is getting is not pure fantasy and secondly if it is not pure fantasy what is to say that this person is a typical example of our community?
This is not evolution and I can guarantee you that this “study” will not help anyone outside our community to understand or to embrace our lifestyles in any way, shape or form.
We should not be judged, we should be accepted.
HD
juan_doe_drei
Citizen of Zooville
do you mean you think evolution made us zoophiles?
i have often wondered about an evolutionary advantage to being attracted to or at least interested in the world around us, let alone zoophilia. probably just a romantic notion of environmentalism, but i admit it's appealing to me as an idea.
IMO, we need to be understood to be accepted; that's what this kind of study is for.
LeftFilly
Zooville Philanthropist
I often wonder if zoo attraction did not at some point enter into the equation around domestication in the first place. Someone in early history went quite out of their way to keep animals alive and around them. I am sure it's not the whole story, but I imagine it at some point impacted the process.
So it's been about a month since this whole thing started, any updates on how the questions are coming along? Is there a updated time estimate on when this will be ready?
I wouldn't see any evolutionary advantage of being a Zoophile. The whole point of copulation is to pass along your genetic information to your offspring. The only reason it's pleasurable, is to entice us mammals to engage in the activity, by releasing endorphins and dopamine. So that we want to copulate in the first place. While having sex with animals will release these very same chemicals in you and your animal partner's brain. The very fact that we cannot make babies with them doesn't make any evolutionary sense. If you're zoo-exclusive, you've pretty much ended your own bloodline, though not necessarily your family's bloodline if you have siblings.
But humans have long broken the natural cycle of evolution. The very fact that the weak, stupid, and disabled and freely produce children and not have nature bump them off proves it. Which I know sounds very harsh, but nature doesn't play nice. The very fact that we have means of birth control, to take advantage of the joys from having sex without producing offspring proves we've broken evolution. Man-made society isn't natural.
Last edited:
LeftFilly
Zooville Philanthropist
Evolution is more complex than just the rate of reproduction, it also involves survival behaviors that can improve longevity, or social behaviors that result in some benefit. There are examples of inter-species bonds in other animals. (A certain Narwhal that likes to hang out with Belugas comes to mind which I don't feel like finding the original source for right now) Considering the behavior is fairly rare and tends to occur primarily among animals that already have something in common. (Equines, Canines and Dolphins all being other social mammals being a start) I'd imagine that a study of this factor would just result in some evolutionary noise except for the very rare creation of fertile hybrids, learning new survival techniques from another species (Though this would effectively be the same as general exposure to the species at all, in which case all exposure to new animals generally has some evolutionary impact) and possibly a small role in early domestication as I asked about in my earlier post.
T
Tailo
Guest
I think it is important to realize that early domestication is not just something that humans did to animals, but something that happened to humans too—it was a process in which both humans and animals were involved together and changed. If I understand you correctly, you see the zooey attraction as a possible motivation for domestication. I am convinced that it is also the other way around. The benefits of cooperation gave those who saw animals as allies or partners instead of as prey, threat or competitors a huge evolutionary advantage.
LeoHusky01
Citizen of Zooville
When and where will the results of the survey be posted?
UniqueAmerican
Tourist
I would approach this individual with a sense of caution. His motives may not be entirely altruistic.
Per Wikipedia: "In 2011, Bailey's human sexuality class at Northwestern made the headlines of major news organizations after he allowed a female guest speaker and her male partner to perform an impromptu live mechanized sex toy demonstration using a "fucksaw"[54][55]—a modified reciprocating saw[56] converted into a sex toy by attaching a "phallic object" instead of a blade[57][58]—to bring the woman to orgasm in front the audience.[55][56] Students were advised beforehand of the nature of the demonstration in this optional after-class event on kinky sex and female orgasm.[57][58] In the aftermath, Northwestern University President Morton Schapiro criticized Bailey for "extremely poor judgment" and launched an investigation.[55]["
The last person who claimed to be a visible researcher into zoophilia turned out to be a fake.
Per Wikipedia: "In 2011, Bailey's human sexuality class at Northwestern made the headlines of major news organizations after he allowed a female guest speaker and her male partner to perform an impromptu live mechanized sex toy demonstration using a "fucksaw"[54][55]—a modified reciprocating saw[56] converted into a sex toy by attaching a "phallic object" instead of a blade[57][58]—to bring the woman to orgasm in front the audience.[55][56] Students were advised beforehand of the nature of the demonstration in this optional after-class event on kinky sex and female orgasm.[57][58] In the aftermath, Northwestern University President Morton Schapiro criticized Bailey for "extremely poor judgment" and launched an investigation.[55]["
The last person who claimed to be a visible researcher into zoophilia turned out to be a fake.
Which are? Thanks for the info about Bailey.
RedRocky
BANNED
That's too bad, because I know at least 40 guys who have those same fuck machines... and one guy fell asleep while using it and woke up 4 hours later on the other side of the room!!!
Vanillalatte
Tourist
The Kinsey Report is a VERY iffy base for a solid agrmuent in our favor. Kinsey had recruited a 'serious researcher' for much of his conclusions, a man who had fucked just about everything from his grandmother to anything else with a pulse and a hole. A man who had sex with kids ranging from six months to 18 years for 'research' and carefully documented all of it, for Kinsey. The details are nightmarish. Kinsey lobbied for years to abolish statuary rape and age of consent laws, to no avail, as well as abolish laws on bestiality. The Kinsey Report is just about the WORST argument you can use.
- Status