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

2022 Sigmund Freud University Vienna Zoophilia Study.

Status
Not open for further replies.
ZTHorse

ZTHorse

Retiree
Staff member
The University of Sigmund Freud University Vienna is conducting an anonymous zoophilia study using an online survey that will take no more than 30 minutes to complete.

Here is the link: Study is completed

Research staff:

Birgit U. Stetina
Armin Klaps
Lisa Emmett - Lead Researcher

Zooville.org has been in conversation and has verified that the study is legitimate with a proper letter of intent of using this forum as a survey base. If possible, we highly suggest that you conduct the survey as truthfully as possible and within your margins of personal anonymity. Scientific research into our sexual orientation is always welcomed, and I am glad to have aided them in opening up Zooville to them.

The Letter of Intent is posted below.

Letter.Zooville.SFU_page-0001.jpg

Best Regards,
ZTHorse
 
Last edited:
I thought it was mostly ok, it asked to elaborate on things via writing a paragraph, where other studies had multiple choice for those questions... Perhaps giving more clarity. It also seemed more direct with some questions.

But the last section was super repetitive, tedious, and felt like rephrasing 10 questions over and over. It also had some questions that seemed to have went through a translation program and had weird grammar or punctuation, maybe because of my VPN.
 
Aside from the things mentioned above, like a couple of questions being worded weird, and the last questions being tedious (though it didn't really bother me) this was probably the best study as far as questions go I've taken part in out of all of them so far. Finally some good questions!

It was nice to be able to write in some answers instead of being forced into multiple choice answers that might not really fit the bill. Was also nice that for once, I got to break down some instances of consent, and other questions about my animal partner and our relationship. I didn't find the word limit but it was starting to seem like I was trying to. It'll be cool to see where this one goes I think.

My only suggestions would be to add an open box at the end to type in anything you might want to add or maybe even ideas for future questions or improving current ones.
 
Long story short what kind of questions do they ask?

Is it just a multiple choice or there is a explain here
 
  • Like
Reactions: Duk
I saw at least one typo in the questionnaire and some of the questions do not make sense. They look like they were created by automatically replacing parts of sentences. That does not raise my confidence in this study.
 
The biggest problem I think was the lack of open text field at the end. There are several valid items I suspect they will interpret as contradictions.

For example:
I repeatedly attempt to stop certain sexual actions and fail, vs I have made efforts to stop certain sexual actions and failed. I used to, I do not any longer.

There were several others that were repeating including concepts of control vs satisfaction. The state of my sex life (but not my orientation...do they include that?) is absolutely the result of my actions, actions I took when rejecting my orientation that will take some time to responsibly change.
 
Filed mine, in the name of love ?

Looks good to me.
Zoophilia against self steem and empathy towards others. Looks for correlations for present personal situation rather that a cause to end up beeing zoo, like the last one.

Repetitive, which is fine for this sort of questionary, but I wonder how they will process the paragraph ones.
 
Based on the questions asked... it seems like they are trying to draw a link between unsatisfactory sexual experiences and/or emotional problems and being a zoo. I can't see why they'd as so many questions about dealing with negative emotions in a survey about being intimate with animals... unless they are trying to argue some form of causality between the two.
 
allyfitz said:
Based on the questions asked... it seems like they are trying to draw a link between unsatisfactory sexual experiences and/or emotional problems and being a zoo. I can't see why they'd as so many questions about dealing with negative emotions in a survey about being intimate with animals... unless they are trying to argue some form of causality between the two.
Click to expand...
I'd say correlation of animal sexuality / with or withour human with:
- Empathy with other humans
- How worthy we consider ourselves
-Feelness of being inferior / powerless

Then how happy we are with the sexuality we declared.

And a last part to clasdify porn addicts.
There is also a good point trying to separate acting zoos from fantasy ones
 
I also completed it. The redundancy was even worse than I expected from reading comments, but I assume it will be used to get closer to the truth. I really think there should have been more questions that differentiated between one's relations with humans and animals. I think they should have consulted us about good questions to ask. Still, it was not bad. Apparently they are most interested in issues of low self esteem and self loathing.
 
Old Zoo said:
I think they should have consulted us about good questions to ask.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Well... I don't think they are really interested in our relationship with animals. They're psychologists, after all, and I think that they're more interested on how our minds work than how zoosexuality works. :unsure:
That's why they seem to be more interested in how we feel about ourselves, or if we hate other humans, and so on...
With this, I'm not saying that this study is totally pointless, but it shows only a little part of what we'd like to show to people who doesn't understand us...
 
Disanima said:
Well... I don't think they are really interested in our relationship with animals. They're psychologists, after all, and I think that they're more interested on how our minds work than how zoosexuality works. :unsure:
That's why they seem to be more interested in how we feel about ourselves, or if we hate other humans, and so on...
With this, I'm not saying that this study is totally pointless, but it shows only a little part of what we'd like to show to people who doesn't understand us...
Click to expand...
That is completely ture. but that does not mean they don't care about us. They are professionals who work for everyone's mental health. I am not ashamed to admit that I'm currently in the hands of a psychologist trying to work out how to be happy with who I am, and I can tell you she is truly helping me out. I can only imagine that the more information they can get, the accurate an essay they will be able to make that other psycologists around the world could use to help some folks better, since having this kind of weight on your shoulders is not something all of us can handle on our own, the fear of being socially repudied is sometimes too high a burden to bear.
 
Alpha-Fox said:
That is completely ture. but that does not mean they don't care about us. They are professionals who work for everyone's mental health. I am not ashamed to admit that I'm currently in the hands of a psychologist trying to work out how to be happy with who I am, and I can tell you she is truly helping me out. I can only imagine that the more information they can get, the accurate an essay they will be able to make that other psycologists around the world could use to help some folks better, since having this kind of weight on your shoulders is not something all of us can handle on our own, the fear of being socially repudied is sometimes too high a burden to bear.
Click to expand...
Well... I'm glad that you have an expert who follows and supports you :)
I've not said that they don't care about us (they wouldn't have asked for our participation in this study, if that was the case), but that probably they are more interested in our way of thinking than how zoosexuality works.
 
Oh, I see your point... sorry, my main language is not english after all.
some day will come that they will try to comprehend that aspect same way they do with homosexuality, or so I hope xDD
 
allyfitz said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
allyfitz said:
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.
Click to expand...
Double blind it, poke the eyes of both the researchers and subjects. Only way to get good data.

Science can be so cruel...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top