2024 RMC Zoophilia Ethic's Study - Ground Breaking!

ZTHorse

ZTHorse

Retiree
Staff member
Hello Zooville,

This is a new ground breaking survey and study looking into the ethic's of zoophilia and zoosexuality. Here is the details.

Thank you to the RMC and alexandra for continuing to support further research into zoophilia.

-also of note, this is the FIRST study we worked with that included the ZETA principles. This is monumental for studies going forward.
_____________________________________________________

You are invited to participate in a research study called “Examining the Mental Health, Social Supports, and Attitudes of Zoophiles.” As the title suggests, we are interested in better understanding individuals with a sexual interest in animals. Given the taboo associated with individuals with a sexual interest in animals, it is important to gain a better understanding of zoophiles and how to best support them. The study will take approximately 40-60 minutes and is completely anonymous.

To qualify, you must be 18 years of age or older, identify as someone with a sexual interest in animals, and be able to read and write in English well enough to complete the survey.

If you would like more information about the study or require assistance, please contact the researcher, Alexandra Zidenberg (alexandra.zidenberg@rmc-cmr.ca), Department of Military Psychology and Leadership, Royal Military College of Canada. This research received approval from the RMC Research Ethics Board on March 13, 2024.

Click the link below to begin the study:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/FBWX55J
 
Last edited:
Im curious on how the general consensus is when brought into focus. Is this that breakthrough?

Will the pessimism we all feel regard them as objects be real or will they be better treated as the majority?
 
I just finished the "survey". Here is MY OPTION about it. A lot of the questions are asked in a manner and worded that might make a person willing to take it, feel like they are being looked down on. It is definitely written from a point of view that seems like the person who wrote the questions has ZERO understanding of human/animal attractions. The questions are very "text book" to all other questions from other surveys. A lot of the questions are based around your own mental health and a few are based on the actual attractions of a person might or do have towards animals. I personally have found most surveys/research focuses on the person's mental health rather then their interest in human/animal relationships. One reason I feel that research that has been is not complete or dose not tell the whole story is because of this style of questions asked. A researcher that is looking to get into the thick of it should be asking questions about how you care for your animal partners or your interactions with them. Ask about how we understand consent between the parties involved. As I am trying to keep this short this is just a brief description of MY OPTIONS.
 
ZPLS7171 said:
It is definitely written from a point of view that seems like the person who wrote the questions has ZERO understanding of human/animal attractions.
Click to expand...
Dr. Zidenberg is not an expert on zoophilic relationships. Almost nobody is, except for zoos. This followup research exists because her previous study revealed a huge amount of nuance and complexity which needs exploration. She and other researchers are learning as they work, and that is why this study exists :)

ZPLS7171 said:
The questions are very "text book" to all other questions from other surveys. A lot of the questions are based around your own mental health and a few are based on the actual attractions of a person might or do have towards animals.
Click to expand...
The study contains a number of standardized measures to help make the data relatable to other populations who have been asked exactly the same questions, exactly the same way. This might be boring and repetitive, but it's VERY important to have, especially in a community sample like ours, which are extremely rare and difficult to get.

ZPLS7171 said:
I personally have found most surveys/research focuses on the person's mental health rather then their interest in human/animal relationships
Click to expand...
It's possible that zoos have a lot in common with other marginalized groups with regard to intenalized stigma and shame, and are vulnerable to the same range of health consequences. There is a strong correlation between self-acceptance and social success. It's important to have data showing these similarities (or not showing them!)

ZPLS7171 said:
A researcher that is looking to get into the thick of it should be asking questions about how you care for your animal partners or your interactions with them. Ask about how we understand consent between the parties involved.
Click to expand...
I agree, and this project is a major step in that direction. Notice the length is about an hour to complete though. There needs to be a balance between thoroughness and accessibility, or too many participants might walk away before they finish. Concerning consent, while I think that is important to have on record, I want you to consider whether you and your zoo friends have already settled that matter for yourselves and how often the subject is brought to you in an adversarial context. I know in my own life, consent is rule #0, and there are more interesting things to talk about.

Anyway I'm glad you took the time
 
Last edited:
I mean, certainly interesting the RMC is conducting this, (can't wait to see what the headlines look like when the conservatives get wind of this - I live in Canada). But idk it felt like every other professional survey.

The only thing I disliked, is a lot of the questions were phrased as if you only had a sexual attraction to animals, and it wasn't asked until the demographics information at the end about human attraction. Which is... Weird.
 
Max13 said:
I mean, certainly interesting the RMC is conducting this, (can't wait to see what the headlines look like when the conservatives get wind of this - I live in Canada). But idk it felt like every other professional survey.

The only thing I disliked, is a lot of the questions were phrased as if you only had a sexual attraction to animals, and it wasn't asked until the demographics information at the end about human attraction. Which is... Weird.
Click to expand...
It's interesting that you mention conservatives, before I go any further I do not, have not and will not claim I belong to any political parties, but I have conservative view points but I also agree with some liberal views as well. I do not want to turn this into a political debate (there is already enough of that on here) but it doesn't matter what party you align yourself with, they are both the problem.
 
ZPLS7171 said:
It's interesting that you mention conservatives, before I go any further I do not, have not and will not claim I belong to any political parties, but I have conservative view points but I also agree with some liberal views as well. I do not want to turn this into a political debate (there is already enough of that on here) but it doesn't matter what party you align yourself with, they are both the problem.
Click to expand...
No, I understand that. I mean, my sister in law says she's "socially liberal fiscally conservative". It's just in general, if you support the cons here in Canada, you're also likely from Alberta, and have strong stances on anything "sexually amoral".
 
Pretty good basic study. Looks like some basic groundwork was done at least with them putting the ZETA principles in. Also seems like the questions are worded with more consideration for the professional side of things. Overall its inoffensive and just okay which is fine. Just wish there were some more interesting questions to respond to.

Anyways, look forward to seeing more studies!

:gsd_grin:
 
Personally, I find it somewhat incomplete in specific definitions, the age and educational formation of each individual should be taken into account; and many points, if not clarified (and this cannot be done through marking circles), lead to confusion.

On the other hand, knowledge of the English language is necessary to be able to go into details. The curiosity of masturbating an animal at 12 years old is not the same as at 24 years old, it can obtain results that are somewhat more harmful than positive.

It's interesting, that the would have developed the scores a little more, many thanks anyway.
 
Done, better than most zoo-related surveys I've done. Still feels like they're trying to diagnose us all with a disease or mental disorder as all of them do. Almost every question was negative. I think the question: "how often do you think of killing yourself?" came up like five times. Would be nice for someone to ask about the positive aspects of the zoophile lifestyle for once or not address the topic like they're analysing a serial killer but that's a pipe dream I suppose.

Hope we get to see a report or something once they've finished going over all the results.
 
Done, though my perspective probably isn’t all that helpful considering how unlikely it is that I’ll be able to have a non-human partner myself, thus I don’t really bother getting into this much. At the same time though, I do hold out some hope that studies like that help change public opinion enough to make the lifestyle a bit more practical, or at least less worrying for me personally.
 
Done, even though it starts off with "penetrating animal with an object" questions, which was a bit jarring, verging on squick. Oh well.

If you feel some of the questions feel repetitive or similar, that's because they try to make sure you pay close attention, hardening their data set. Looks scientifically sound and worth participating in. You get some space to voice your own thoughts, please enjoy.

One or two of the questions seemed phrased in a way I could hardly make sense of. Please tell me I'm not the only one.

[comment written w/o reading thru thread first, apologies]
 
Max13 said:
The only thing I disliked, is a lot of the questions were phrased as if you only had a sexual attraction to animals, and it wasn't asked until the demographics information at the end about human attraction. Which is... Weird.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, missed this bit - I'm not zoo-exclusive, even bi with humans, so would have liked to shower them with data regarding that. And I missed the opportunity to tell them so in the study.

That is actually the richest, most promising field of research - love towards humans who talk and argue and are creative, versus animals who communicate much differently ... Also the questions which most confound, bug and stump the narrow-minded antis.

Heck dang and gosh darn, I guess.
 
I think this is improved from previous studies' surveys I've taken here. This one asked our perspective on sexual abuse as opposed to sexual contact. It's making more progress toward looking at our perspective of our own legitimacy than previous surveys.
 
I don't know why so many people here are that sceptical. They want to support us, that's great if not groundbreaking ;-)
But I'm not abusive and/or kind of depressed, they spend too much time with that. Would be the same under humans, without animals.
 
I'm triggered by the grammar error in the topic. The apostrophe makes ethic possessive, not plural. That's what we have to look at for months! Lol.
 
ZPLS7171 said:
I just finished the "survey". Here is MY OPTION about it. A lot of the questions are asked in a manner and worded that might make a person willing to take it, feel like they are being looked down on. It is definitely written from a point of view that seems like the person who wrote the questions has ZERO understanding of human/animal attractions. The questions are very "text book" to all other questions from other surveys. A lot of the questions are based around your own mental health and a few are based on the actual attractions of a person might or do have towards animals. I personally have found most surveys/research focuses on the person's mental health rather then their interest in human/animal relationships. One reason I feel that research that has been is not complete or dose not tell the whole story is because of this style of questions asked. A researcher that is looking to get into the thick of it should be asking questions about how you care for your animal partners or your interactions with them. Ask about how we understand consent between the parties involved. As I am trying to keep this short this is just a brief description of MY OPTIONS.
Click to expand...
I agree with your response. Questions are often cold ones, with a lack of interest or understanding from the people asking them. There is only one way to overcome ignorance, and that IS with questions, but you are correct, the nature of HOW they ask the questions should be more warm. The reason for this is, I believe these researchers, don't want to find themselves becoming open to the aspect of zoophile's being accepted, but that is what research and science is about. It is the pursuit of truth, and if you want to know what the truth is, that also means having some sense of understanding and respect for it. This should not be a mental health evaluation, because actually, zoophile's can be even more mentally healthy and stable than some ordinary people. We are actually very good people, and are usually the one's that most often stay out of trouble, because we have something so amazing going on in our lives with our animal companions, we have something so amazing and beautiful to live for. People like us can be exceptionally respectful and empathic, the only real issue is the misunderstanding of others, that causes many of us to shy away, even become aggressive towards people inside our minds. In a lot of cases, feeling this way towards animals is a "gift". It's something that you are born into. It is something that develops with you during your own personal development as an individual, and its easy to be open about who you are, when you are still ignorant and don't yet realize that the world hates you for being that way. Some learn that the hard way, others, catch onto how people react to it, and then just keep it to themselves for the rest of their lives, only sharing their life with their special animal. Animals are intelligent too and also have feelings. I think the one thing that holds people back from understanding this lifestyle is that family and religion is still such a glorified subject. People still don't get the concept of embracing the other side of life as we do ourselves. I see the evidence of this everywhere I look. The killing of the wolves, the decimation of the forests, and just the lack of genuine respect for nature and the circle of life, it goes much deeper than merely condescending someone who gets a hard on when a gorgeous dog walks by. We are ALL connected to nature in a deeper way than we realize, but people are taught to only respect and revere other humans. For some of us, our genes express this deep emotion and connection to the non human side of life, I think there is something more to it than any of us realize.
 
ZTHorse said:
Hello Zooville,

This is a new ground breaking survey and study looking into the ethic's of zoophilia and zoosexuality. Here is the details.

Thank you to the RMC and alexandra for continuing to support further research into zoophilia.

-also of note, this is the FIRST study we worked with that included the ZETA principles. This is monumental for studies going forward.
_____________________________________________________

You are invited to participate in a research study called “Examining the Mental Health, Social Supports, and Attitudes of Zoophiles.” As the title suggests, we are interested in better understanding individuals with a sexual interest in animals. Given the taboo associated with individuals with a sexual interest in animals, it is important to gain a better understanding of zoophiles and how to best support them. The study will take approximately 40-60 minutes and is completely anonymous.

To qualify, you must be 18 years of age or older, identify as someone with a sexual interest in animals, and be able to read and write in English well enough to complete the survey.

If you would like more information about the study or require assistance, please contact the researcher, Alexandra Zidenberg (alexandra.zidenberg@rmc-cmr.ca), Department of Military Psychology and Leadership, Royal Military College of Canada. This research received approval from the RMC Research Ethics Board on March 13, 2024.

Click the link below to begin the study:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/FBWX55J
Click to expand...
ZTHorse said:
Hello Zooville,

This is a new ground breaking survey and study looking into the ethic's of zoophilia and zoosexuality. Here is the details.

Thank you to the RMC and alexandra for continuing to support further research into zoophilia.

-also of note, this is the FIRST study we worked with that included the ZETA principles. This is monumental for studies going forward.
_____________________________________________________

You are invited to participate in a research study called “Examining the Mental Health, Social Supports, and Attitudes of Zoophiles.” As the title suggests, we are interested in better understanding individuals with a sexual interest in animals. Given the taboo associated with individuals with a sexual interest in animals, it is important to gain a better understanding of zoophiles and how to best support them. The study will take approximately 40-60 minutes and is completely anonymous.

To qualify, you must be 18 years of age or older, identify as someone with a sexual interest in animals, and be able to read and write in English well enough to complete the survey.

If you would like more information about the study or require assistance, please contact the researcher, Alexandra Zidenberg (alexandra.zidenberg@rmc-cmr.ca), Department of Military Psychology and Leadership, Royal Military College of Canada. This research received approval from the RMC Research Ethics Board on March 13, 2024.

Click the link below to begin the study:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/FBWX55J
Click to expand...

RMC is Royal Military College. Can’t help but be suspicious.
 
I meant to do the survey last week, but finally got around to it. I'd say this was definitely one of the better surveys out of the bunch, that's for sure. A lot of the other ones just weren't hitting the mark and not asking the correct questions, and this one does do a better job at that. That said, it definitely wasn't all encompassing, and could have been formatted better. There were several instances where I couldn't answer a question because the question itself was irrelevant. And while I'm allowed to skip questions, I do hope that my results don't get tossed out because I "failed to answer enough questions." when in reality said questions were just irrelevant to me.

While I did help in the background of this study, and definitely did help point the researcher in the correct direction with what questions they should be asking, unfortunately the researcher is not a zoo and can only form hypothesis while looking from the outside in. So, it's definitely not perfect. There will always be faults and shortcomings with any study relating to this complex matter due to this reason. It's hard to compress such a complex topic and sexual orientation such as ours in a short XX question questionnaire.

As for the repeated questions, or same questions asked in a different manner, that's quite typical with these kinds of studies. It's basically to rule out bad data. If someone answers the question e.g. "What should the punishment for sexual abuse be?" in two completely different ways, it either concludes that the person either isn't paying attention, or doesn't understand the question being asked. So it can be omitted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top