2022 University of Massachusetts Lowell Zoophilia Study & Survey

Status
Not open for further replies.

ZTHorse

Administrator
Staff member
The University of Massachusetts Lowell is conducting an anonymous zoophilia study using an online survey that will take no more than 30 minutes to complete.

Study Title: Predictive Factors in the Emergence of Zoophilic Tendencies (IRB Protocol 22-168-GON-XPD)

Research staff:

Dr. Joseph Gonzalez, faculty supervisor and primary investigator

Patrick Barrasso, student 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.

Best Regards,
ZTHorse

Study Link - https://umasslowell.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_7QDYZ6A7VqLqt8O

Letter of Intent.jpg
 
Last edited:
Will this research help or harm us?
Is there even any way to know if giving out perspective will help them understand us, or help them persecute us?
Looking for predictive factories brings to mind thoughts of finding young people "at risk" of zoophilia, and working to nip it in the bud, whatever that may entail.
Forgive my paranoia, but i already suffer from a mental illness that would've gotten me put in an asylum or abusive therapy a little while ago.
I dont want people going to therapy in 5 years, only for the therapist to be checked off the "red flags" we gave them, and then...
 
I completed the survey. It's pretty bare bones. They ask about generic red flags in childhood, things that are much more likely to result you fucked up in a hundred different ways besides zoophilia. Then they ask about how you are as a human, mental stability, POS or not, etc. Their zoo related questions could be better, for example there's nothing about what species participants are interested in, if participants are only sexually, romantically or sexually and romantically attracted to animals. I do hope they realize that their sample is scientifically biased, necro isn't allowed here and ditto with injuring animals, with people being banned instantly for that.

For the section about "sexual aspects" It's pretty clear they grabbed some generic validated survey about sexual aspects and decided it was good enough to use with zoo's without considering the unique aspects of zoophilia and how survey questions validated for heteronormatives might not even apply and certainly won't be providing any insights.

It feels so half baked. The most interesting part of the study is the demographics section and that alone might be good enough to publish (assuming it's interesting) and make a great study, but beyond that it's useless garbage that won't yield any conclusions or provide insight as it's too generic. Creating a novel questionnaire based on existing questionnaires blended with content discovered in this forum alone would make the questions 1000X more targeted, useful, and relevant. This kind of research could mean a lot to us, earn our gratitude, interest and make us more willing to participate in future research. Or it can be disregarded as a master student's training wheels project and lead to derision, disatisfaction, and alienation.

P.S. Thank you for having the balls to take a look at this subject.

Mosteel, this research has absolutely no power to do either, but I would still encourage everyone to participate.
 
If I had to take a guess their angle is likely going to be "childhood trauma in relation to those that practice bestiality." It seems like many of the questions leaned towards that conclusion. I also have a couple of bones to pick with some of the wording when it came to a few of the questions...

Such as "Were you punched, slapped, kicked, or spanked as a child by your parents?" with the answers choices being "Never", "Once", "A few times" and "Often." And while I'd very occasionally receive a light slap to the back of the head if I was being naughty, or a spanking if I did something really REALLY bad, I definitely was not punched nor kicked by either of my parents. They really ought to have broken that up into 4 separate questions. Because I couldn't realistically answer "Never" to that question despite the way it was phrased. I'm hoping they don't take the response "A few times" and spin it into "The majority of zoophiles we surveyed were physically and violently abused as children." Because that's far from the truth in my case. But that remains to be seen I guess.

There was also a couple of other questions that kind of rubbed me the wrong way as it felt like they were attempting to "lead" you into a spinnable narrative, but that's the main one that bugged me off hand.
 
They should have expected that some individuals would not be able to load the page when connecting via a VPN, Tor, or a different non-traditional method. I am unable to even load up the survey webpage.
 
They should have expected that some individuals would not be able to load the page when connecting via a VPN, Tor, or a different non-traditional method. I am unable to even load up the survey webpage.
I can't speak of TOR because I seldom use it, but I'm on a VPN using a random American server in Saint Louis and had no issues taking the survey.
 
I havent taken the survey, as I dont think I would be allowed to do it (From the other side of the big pond, and they most likely only looking at US)

But Im more worried of what way this research could go, or how some people or groups that are against Zoophilla could use this research and twist it to get their points across.

I mean, I had seen alot of politicans or groups or people that using researches on a topic that they are against, to twist said results of research to get their points across. Environment is just one said topic that I had seen this kind of behaviour in
 
If I had to take a guess their angle is likely going to be "childhood trauma in relation to those that practice bestiality." It seems like many of the questions leaned towards that conclusion. I also have a couple of bones to pick with some of the wording when it came to a few of the questions...

Such as "Were you punched, slapped, kicked, or spanked as a child by your parents?" with the answers choices being "Never", "Once", "A few times" and "Often." And while I'd receive a light slap to the back of the head if I was being naughty, or a spanking if I did something really REALLY bad, I definitely was not punched nor kicked by either of my parents. They really ought to have broken that up into 4 separate questions. Because I couldn't realistically answer "Never" to that question despite the way it was phrased. I'm hoping they don't take the response "A few times" and spin it into "The majority of zoophiles we surveyed were physically and violently abused as children." Because that's far from the truth in my case. But that remains to be seen I guess.

There was also a couple of other questions that kind of rubbed me the wrong way as it felt like they were attempting to "lead" you into a spinnable narrative, but that's the main one that bugged me off hand.

I imagine that most of the researchers consider zoo to be an erroneous development, so they are going look for causes of such. I would guess the same was done with early research on homosexuality.

I think repeated, demonstrable lack of correlation with the 'simple' answer they're hoping to find will eventually lead research in more productive directions.
 
I havent taken the survey, as I dont think I would be allowed to do it (From the other side of the big pond, and they most likely only looking at US)

But Im more worried of what way this research could go, or how some people or groups that are against Zoophilla could use this research and twist it to get their points across.

I mean, I had seen alot of politicans or groups or people that using researches on a topic that they are against, to twist said results of research to get their points across. Environment is just one said topic that I had seen this kind of behaviour in
from the letter they sent, it sounds like they want anybody and everybody, no matter what country they're from.

as for what the data will be used for, that can be said of a lot of psychological studies. i'm with Carandae -- we have to start somewhere or we definitely will never be understood.
 
Well, after going through the survey I feel the same as most above. After participating in a few of these now, I feel like they're asking the wrong questions. Maybe looking at or even assuming the wrong kind of things to be a "cause" for someone to be a zoo from the get go as well. It's kind of strange actually, to me anyway, to see questions about animal abuse in most of them. Sad too. Those questions do not apply to zoo's, but another group entirely. One I would much rather never be in any kind of data pool with. But, it is what it is. A way to divide answers into two groups I suppose.

In a way each survey is not only giving a glimpse (however small) into someone who is a zoo, but also a glimpse into how someone who isn't but is curious enough to learn might view one. Interesting to see just how differently we look at things. I might not mind actually knowing a cause for being zoo. The one thing I know forsure is no matter what anyone decides that cause might be, there's nothing I can do about my love for animals. Even if there was, I wouldn't want to.
 
If I had to take a guess their angle is likely going to be "childhood trauma in relation to those that practice bestiality." It seems like many of the questions leaned towards that conclusion. I also have a couple of bones to pick with some of the wording when it came to a few of the questions...

Such as "Were you punched, slapped, kicked, or spanked as a child by your parents?" with the answers choices being "Never", "Once", "A few times" and "Often." And while I'd very occasionally receive a light slap to the back of the head if I was being naughty, or a spanking if I did something really REALLY bad, I definitely was not punched nor kicked by either of my parents. They really ought to have broken that up into 4 separate questions. Because I couldn't realistically answer "Never" to that question despite the way it was phrased. I'm hoping they don't take the response "A few times" and spin it into "The majority of zoophiles we surveyed were physically and violently abused as children." Because that's far from the truth in my case. But that remains to be seen I guess.

There was also a couple of other questions that kind of rubbed me the wrong way as it felt like they were attempting to "lead" you into a spinnable narrative, but that's the main one that bugged me off hand.
I agree, it does have that 'flavor' to it. However, its a proper Zoo study and if people are open and honest I cant see why it wont be a power for good
 
from the letter they sent, it sounds like they want anybody and everybody, no matter what country they're from.

as for what the data will be used for, that can be said of a lot of psychological studies. i'm with Carandae -- we have to start somewhere or we definitely will never be understood.
Im doing it now, and I can already see two questions that I cant really answer. One of which I really cant
 
I take the survey!🎀….it noooo like thinking people are crazy… I mean it thinking people are crazy with old problems 🤷‍♀️
 
I participated, and agree with the above assessments. The questions seemed too general on some topics. The 'often' to 'never' questions needed to be more specific. like "Were you ever hit in a malicious manner?" is different from "Did you get spanked because you did something bad?", but both fall under "Were you ever hit as a kid?".
Overall, I am happy to see that there is research being done, but I also am skeptical given the general population's outlook on our choices.
 
I participated, and agree with the above assessments. The questions seemed too general on some topics. The 'often' to 'never' questions needed to be more specific. like "Were you ever hit in a malicious manner?" is different from "Did you get spanked because you did something bad?", but both fall under "Were you ever hit as a kid?".
Overall, I am happy to see that there is research being done, but I also am skeptical given the general population's outlook on our choices.
I do like two of the question which I think personally should be deepen more. Like about if you had lost concentration in the past x times. I mean, yeah, but some people can have ADHD where they cant sit and focus on a task for long. Some might not even had been tested for it. I know that I can sit and concentrate, but I can also suddenly loose that concentration. The other is about being social. What about those that are introvert or just shy to talk? I feel like those can taint the research abit too
 
I do like two of the question which I think personally should be deepen more. Like about if you had lost concentration in the past x times. I mean, yeah, but some people can have ADHD where they cant sit and focus on a task for long. Some might not even had been tested for it. I know that I can sit and concentrate, but I can also suddenly loose that concentration. The other is about being social. What about those that are introvert or just shy to talk? I feel like those can taint the research abit too
Yes exactly, and it is a fine line. Plus additional considerations like how my loss of concentration may be different from yours. Or how in touch with myself that I think I am, and how I actually am.
 
I completed the survey finding it somewhat lacking, especially considering some of the other research I've participated in. Some of us simply feel more connected to non-humans than humans. I believe that some are born zoophiles while others life experiences strongly influence their choosing to be. Coming from a vocation as a consulting training specialist in a very technical industry I'm left to wonder the percentages of each along with the margin of error. I am considering contacting the researchers via Proton mail and asking if either has watched any of the zoo documentaries, especially the 2001 version of Animal Passions that my ex and I participated in.

Many thanks to ZT Horse for his advocacy for us!
 
I took it, but they’re mostly trying to link childrhood trauma / being a shit human being to zoophilia. So I don’t see this one helping us much.
 
Also completed the questionnaire but I hoped there had been an open field there too for other remarks. If so, I would have been able to say that the questions were steering towards the often-assumed correlation between zoo interests and trauma, and that the questionnaire doesn't cater for zoo-exclusives. But well, hopefully they'll see that assumed correlations aren't always correct.
 
Completed the survey, very barebones compared to other ones that have been presented before. Also a focus on childhood abuse and generic "trauma" questions. Barely any questions on sexuality or the subject at hand which is "zoophilia", I was expecting at least the standard questions about if I had any experience or how old I was when I had my first zoo experience, and stuff like that.

I would conclude that this survey is barely useful and unfocused, so maybe it will be used to defuct future hypotesis and papers trying to relate "mental illness" to zoophilia.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top