2024 RMC Zoophilia Ethic's Study - Ground Breaking!

While I finished what was there I am disappointed in it being another case of "ask overly vague questions and make it a sliding scale with no way to elaborate or justify your answer" survey. Would have at the least liked to see them not ask the same question ten times in slightly different wording or ask something that doesn't leave me wanting to say "context matters" all the time. What can I do or say, I guess?

Really though, who or what defines small creature? Even the dictionary (as little worth it is) cant define it as more then subjective. I personally know people who think full grown pony stallions that are up to their chest is "small" or another who believes any pet bigger then a rat is "large". Hope the next one at least elaborates where the lines are for all of these things.
 
Ill pass on the survey thanks; my mental health is fine because I don't let societies hate bother me anymore 🤷

Simply put acceptance of yourself is independent of the approval of others if you want to be content being a zoophile in this harsh intolerant world!
 
Last edited:
I enjoyed the survey, did some introspection, I wish they would have touched on more interesting questions though. avanti per la scienza!

My critique is probably it does not touch on relations per say, it seems its mostly about self perception and perception of what laws should be.
 
Interesting survey. Also wanted to share this: 1712359018395.png

(It's about harmful sexual abuse (harm to the animal in pursuit of sexual gratification for the human), not normal and harmelss sexual act like the survey shows at the start)
 
this study was a dumpster fire, and I certainly hope you're not considering associating this site's name with anything further from these researchers. just my 2c...
 
5legs said:
Interesting survey. Also wanted to share this: View attachment 550244

(It's about harmful sexual abuse (harm to the animal in pursuit of sexual gratification for the human), not normal and harmelss sexual act like the survey shows at the start)
Click to expand...
This. I haven't been posting here but after this survey I might be a little more active because I enjoyed the opportunity to respond to these sorts of questions and the fact that they did distinguish between sexual abuse and consensual sexual activity was impressive to me. I agree that there should be penalties, especially equivalent to human on human penalties, the only exception would be to account for the fact there is a total lack of education and support and in those cases rehabilitation and re-education might be more suitable. I have more to say but it might align too closely with my responses.

I was also pleased to see those seven principles were something that seems to match my values and were made so long ago. It is a tragedy that this kind of academic thinking and organizing for zoophiles has been so suppressed I have to learn it from a study.
 
I liked this survey alot more than the previous highlighted one. Was it the Vienna-study?

The only problem I see with these surveys, is that they assume all sexual encounters with animals have to be some kind of abuse? I mean, there are diffirent ways to determine what is abuse? I don't think its abuse if a male dog mounts a naked woman while some do... But most male on female anmials looks like abuse, but I'm sure it isn't even tho I never had the pleasure, yet.
 
wibke.zeta said:
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]
Click to expand...
I've never heard that word. read or learned/knew of either. thank you. i always enjoy learning new vocabulary.

Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more





squick
/skwik/
verb
INFORMAL

  1. cause (someone) to feel intense disgust.
    "we get that bodily fluids can squick people out"
 
coyotespirit said:
this study was a dumpster fire, and I certainly hope you're not considering associating this site's name with anything further from these researchers. just my 2c...
Click to expand...
all of the surveys here have been dumpster fire. And frankly I dont think people should jump out on a limb just because an admin posts a link, in which information is collected by a government entity.
 
Done. Sadly as has been said, it seems like the focus was on mental health rather than how/why zoos are who we are. I did think the section about Zeta principles was important though.
 
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...
I don’t speak much English, helping me with a translator... but I would have participated with Pleasure ;).
 
I went ahead and did this questionnaire. My only concerns were that it seemed very heavy on the "will mental health help you?" stuff, as if I should assume my zoophilia isn't "normal". Honestly, I don't really care if it's "normal" or not, it's who I am and I'm a more enlightened person because of it. :giggle:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top