The thing is, it's almost always bad science to allow the subjects being studied define the questions they are asked. Because study subjects will not be objective about the questions they suggest and will only present questions that they feel they can answer in a good and positive light.
At the very best testers can spent some time investigating the subjects... but the worry is always that it will taint the viewpoint of the tester so that they cannot be entirely objective about the data in the end because it will be colored by their personal experiences. This is why 99.99% of the time if you reach out to the researcher and ask to provide them with more information they will decline.
Naturally a lot of people think 'well you'd get more information so that'd be good', the reality is... while it is more information, it's not objective so shouldn't be relied on. Only through mass anon questioning can researchers hope to arrive at a general truth of something devoid of individual biases and colorization of their own personal experience.
Good points, but how do you "study" the subject? Do you read all the other studies that have been done before, thus including any of their biases? And asking for input does not mean you have to accept it verbatim.
I saw some common biases poking out in the kinds of questions asked. For example, they asked about "consent." That old chestnut was invented out of whole cloth by the anti-zoo elements years ago. It is not even a reasonable question because it usually presupposes that consent requires verbal communications. That is not only silly, but leads to all kinds of unrealistic conclusions like not allowing mute people to have sex, and having animals agree to being slaughtered. A better question would be "do you believe your animal partners show signs of consent, and if so how? The one good thing was that they did there was to allow comments.
Also, it seems they were obsessed about low self-esteem and negative self judgments and to some extent about VD. However, they did not ask if we thought zoo sex was the more dangerous or less dangerous alternative with regards to VD. So what good was a question about whether or not we were afraid of VD, if you don't know what we perceive as the safest alternative. It looked to me like they believed the other old chestnut about sex with animals having larger health risks than straight sex (to say nothing of gay sex).
To me, it seemed like they were trying to figure out why
anyone would resort to zoo sex over the clearly superior experience of human sex. To ask that, they should first establish if zoophilia is inferior, at least in the mind of the subject.
And how about the danger of pregnancy and our attitude toward becoming parents? I cannot remember that being asked, though the question about VD was asked several times. Or how about the danger of human sex leading to an expensive divorce. Like I say, I think they missed the mark from my perspective.