Reliable statistics

heroku

heroku

Lurker
Hello from Spain :)

I have been looking for statistics concerning zoophilia: what kind of persons, in which context, initiating age, common practices, publicity, etc. However, my search has been a bit disappointing.

Is there any reliable source about how zoophilia is spread among society?

Thank you in advance!
 
I'm not surprised you're having no luck. The subject is so toxic that nobody in their right mind will touch it as a proper research project.

There basically are no zoo/beasty statistics that can be called "reliable". The closest you're likely to find are Hani Miletski's work, or the old Kinsey material (but the Kinsey stuff has been shown to be hopelessly inaccurate in several ways, so I'd start by pitching that one out the window) Hani's stuff is suspect (although well-intended) because the data set is primarily zoos/beasties who saw her "I want to interview people who fuck animals" postings and responded - Her sample population is so heavily skewed because of this that it's nothing that bears even a passing resemblance to anything that might approach having a chance at being called a statistically valid sample.

What we've got are a handful of guesses, some more reasonable than others, but all still guesses. We don't even have a valid "This percentage of the population has sex with animals" number, never mind any more detailed info that can be trusted.
 
Tough question. Lets lowball whay kinsey and miletski said which was around 5-3% of people were sexually active with animals.

So 1-.1% of the human population are zoo. Thats 70 million to 7 million zoos out of the population of 7 billion people on earth. Some dismiss this idea but really, its just because there is alot of humans on planet earth that the numbers get big.

I accept those big numbers and in time hopefully we could do something with that mass amount of people.
 
Because of the "taboo" nature of the topic, many would never admit to having participated in such an act.
Just look at the "introductions" area here at ZV, you can get a pretty good perspective of the folks who are not only "willing" to talk about the topic, but also seem nearly desperate to talk to someone.
just know that that group, is the Anomaly.
 
You're both missing the most important part of any statistic, sample/source. All those number are from Euro Christian populations. Other parts of the world have other views, Colombia for instance.
 
caikgoch said:
You're both missing the most important part of any statistic, sample/source. All those number are from Euro Christian populations. Other parts of the world have other views, Colombia for instance.
Click to expand...

to do this right, we need to set up a "Drake equation" like formula, with fully loaded variables. then we could make a better "guess " about what the statistical probabilities MIGHT be.
 
I agree that Mr. Kinsey and Ms. Miletski's data is skewed, though I respect her enormously.
Would .002%-.005% even be remotely justifiable? Being a zoo is extremely rare, but to be honest that might be my own cognitive bias speaking.
 
UniqueAmerican said:
I agree that Mr. Kinsey and Ms. Miletski's data is skewed, though I respect her enormously.
Would .002%-.005% even be remotely justifiable? Being a zoo is extremely rare, but to be honest that might be my own cognitive bias speaking.
Click to expand...

I think therein lies the problem in that there isn't any good data.
Anecdotally, I think it's closer to the ranges Kinsey reported, possibly higher for men who would try it if nobody else would ever know. I can only speculate for women.

The idea of it never occurred to my brother, but when informed he immediately said he wished he'd thought of it at the time. I have had other friends who after hearing of it weren't interested in trying it and others who, when given an opportunity, didn't hesitate to try it. But the problem with anecdotal evidence is it's terribly unreliable and effectively useless.

I'm willing to bet that if you had 100,000 young guys and they all watched a beasty porn and were then asked if they would engage in such if given the chance you would get different reporting than if those same 100,000 guys had viewed the same porn and could act, believing nobody would ever know. I think you would also see different results if they were polled, either directly for bestiality or indirectly without the stimulation of porn. For this kind of thing I think mental state and social pressure have a significant impact.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
egoldstein said:
The idea of it never occurred to my brother, but when informed he immediately said he wished he'd thought of it at the time. I have had other friends who after hearing of it weren't interested in trying it and others who, when given an opportunity, didn't hesitate to try it. But the problem with anecdotal evidence is it's terribly unreliable and effectively useless.
Click to expand...

I think you can safely strike the word "effectively" there near the end. Perhaps, but only if you feel like it, replace it with "thus".

Jes' Sayin' ;)
 
Once read that 3% and upwards to 8% of the population is zoo active. The same writer stated that sex with the family pet could be so common that It is believed, that some people didn't count it as bestiality.
Reason, was a family member.
I wish I could remember where I read this information.

People will not tell,or they will lie. Ask a group of guys how large they are,you will get a number from them. Take out a tape measure, see how many really add up.
 
Zoo is propably as common or more common than homosexuality. There are no reliable studies since its a taboo subject.
Facts like Kinseys are over half a century old and wont reflect nowadays society where pets are way more common and live closer to people.
 
UR20Z said:
I think you can safely strike the word "effectively" there near the end. Perhaps, but only if you feel like it, replace it with "thus".

Jes' Sayin' ;)
Click to expand...

Not quite, it does still have value from a research perspective, just not much. Take a bunch of low quality studies and do some meta analysis on them and you can sometimes tease out some signal that rises above any one of them alone so not *entirely* useless, but it's splitting hairs in this context.

I have wanted for years to assemble a questionaire linking every answer to a specific user, identified only by a randomly generated ID so that the individual answer can be referenced to a specific individual, without having any identifying info about *who* that individual is. Then deeper questions can be safely queried from the data without risk to anyone's identity. I am interested in the usual questions of sexuality, but I'm also interested in the social and economic demographics. That X% of respondents have had sex with speciesY isn't as interesting as seeing how we, as a group, compare with the rest of the society we're embedded in. Perhaps someday I will sit down and invest time time and effort, but I don't think it will be anytime soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top