Zooville 2020 Study is in Peer-Review and has been released.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh and just so you know surveymonkey is definitely not private, so I would not recommend participating if that is how they are going to question you unless you are using a lot of security yourself on your pc.
 
Oh and just so you know surveymonkey is definitely not private, so I would not recommend participating if that is how they are going to question you unless you are using a lot of security yourself on your pc.
Use TOR, don't let the site execute locally (don't download an exe or command file), don't type in personally identifying information. Follow all those rules and you don't need to trust the website.
 
From my observations ~30% of furries I met are zoo's in one way or another. I started as a furry myself. It's just a taboo and people don't often talk about it. It gives furries a bad rep.
 
Hmmm... i dono... give that a read
Is it suprising to find out they had alternative motives? In a society that hates us?? Did you really think this studying was to try and understand us and bring acceptance? Nope. This is just means to further a witch-hunt and wrongly prosecute individuals for something that isn't even "abuse". In all the decades I've been alive I've only came across a few animals that were uninterested so nothing happened, out of too many to count that were and obviously enjoyed it because they continued to seek it from me. Of their own accord. "Abuse" my ass. Don't you think it's strange that most courts don't require legitimate proof of abuse in cases of bestiality. That's because it's a rarity. Zoos love animals and their health and wellness is top priority! So is their willingness to participate in sex before anything happens! But the antizoos don't want you realizing that what they try to convince you is 'wrong' is simply just consensually expressing love 🤫

They desperately want to stick to the narrative of these people are different. Therefore sick in the head, we must get rid of this behavior all together!!! Anyways good luck everyone. Stay safe.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
They desperately want to stick to the narrative of these people are different. Therefore sick in the head, we must get rid of this behavior all together!!! Anyways good luck everyone. Stay safe.

Yeah unfortunately this study has a serious flaw of preconceived outcomes. So all data has been tainted towards sexual abuse not towards sexual activity.

The low intelligence perception of animal sex is that it must be rape as no animal wants sex with a human. It is not functional to rape an animal even if it is physically possible. The bad experience will end all further attempts.

Sex is a partner involved process ie: both are responsible for successful sex. One goat I had would back up to my office chair for sex if she found me in the warehouse. But if she was in heat and I wanted sex she would turn around and head butt me. Sex was a NO with humans when in heat.

We need to weed out these researchers that are close minded and only reading part of their own data.
 
The University of Saskatchewan has reached out to Zooville.org for support for their study on zoophilia.
The study is being completed by

Alexandra Zidenberg, PhD
Department of Psychology

Overseen by Prof. Dr. Mark Olver.

Quote from Alexandra regarding this studys current progress September 27th, 2021

"We currently have a revise and resubmit for the paper in Archives of Sexual Behaviour and we're cautiously optimistic that the paper may be accepted there by the end of the year. Please feel free to post the draft manuscript and identify it as under review, if possible. "

This copy does NOT reflect the future peer review publication as it may change. However, the draft submitted will be posted here and any future updates and official links to the study will be published when available.

Deepest regards,

ZTHorse
Administrator for Zooville.org

The link is here:

This is cool!
 
The University of Saskatchewan has reached out to Zooville.org for support for their study on zoophilia.
The study is being completed by

Alexandra Zidenberg, PhD
Department of Psychology

Overseen by Prof. Dr. Mark Olver.

Quote from Alexandra regarding this studys current progress September 27th, 2021

"We currently have a revise and resubmit for the paper in Archives of Sexual Behaviour and we're cautiously optimistic that the paper may be accepted there by the end of the year. Please feel free to post the draft manuscript and identify it as under review, if possible. "

This copy does NOT reflect the future peer review publication as it may change. However, the draft submitted will be posted here and any future updates and official links to the study will be published when available.

Deepest regards,

ZTHorse
Administrator for Zooville.org

The link is here:

The University of Saskatchewan has reached out to Zooville.org for support for their study on zoophilia.
The study is being completed by

Alexandra Zidenberg, PhD
Department of Psychology

Overseen by Prof. Dr. Mark Olver.

Quote from Alexandra regarding this studys current progress September 27th, 2021

"We currently have a revise and resubmit for the paper in Archives of Sexual Behaviour and we're cautiously optimistic that the paper may be accepted there by the end of the year. Please feel free to post the draft manuscript and identify it as under review, if possible. "

This copy does NOT reflect the future peer review publication as it may change. However, the draft submitted will be posted here and any future updates and official links to the study will be published when available.

Deepest regards,

ZTHorse
Administrator for Zooville.org

The link is here:

This is rather interesting and what was the response of Zooville? I'm rather curious what became of this
 
Positive, Zooville was recommended to the scientific community as a tool for research.
I am not sure that Zooville members like the way this study turned a questionnaire on pictures of animals into Animal Sexual Abuse criteria for Vets to learn from.

The whole language of this study is based in Abuse not sexual interaction.

I made the comment somewhere on this forum that animal rape is the assumption of the uneducated.

From the gay side of Zoophillia the human is the submissive one and is accepting the advances of a male animal.

For the Straight Zoophiles it is a long term plan. Unless you catch a nympho in heat and willing to be screwed by anyone. For the rest of the females you have to work with their comfort level. If you hurt them then they won't come near you. If you frighten them they won't come near you. Sex is by nature fun and desirable. The submission required for sex can limit an animals ability to escape. This means that the female has to trust completely that nothing bad is going to happen.

The research I have seen in all forms Negative and Pro does not look into the consent of the females in a relationship. The gay guys on here are automatically excited by being submissive and will consent to any male though a lot would not have sex with a male human animal. Which is obviously a mental choice not a sexual choice.

So the gay zoophiles fall into a seperate category of deviant gay behaviour as they are consenting to animal sex. It is not seen as Animal Sexual Abuse as they are receiving.

For the straight zoophiles the research assumes that they are unable to have sex with humans and turn to animals as an easy source of relief. Most research paints any male having sex with a female animal as rape due to no understanding of consent. I like Saanen goats as they are a great size and fit and can be great lovers. I had the opportunity to rescue four female Saanen's after their owner accidentally hurt himself badly but did not get treatment early enough and could not be saved. His last words words were what would happen to his goats. I suspected he may have been intimate with his goats but they showed no understanding of sex with humans.

His grand daughter gave them away to the first person to contact her but reneged and gave them to me 10 minutes later after she learned we had goats and a farm suitable. It took 4 long years to gain the trust of the biggest and dominant female goat. Now that she understands sex with humans is fun she is demanding anytime I am with her. This is where the understanding of consent is missing from research, Very few guys would go to the same pub for 4 years to have sex with a girl he saw there. So not any easy alternative to human relationships.

This lack of research into consent is creating a bias in all other research to lean towards sexual abuse. This current thesis considers all contact with animals as Animal Sexual Abuse and perpetrators should be hunted down and prosecuted.

Even on BF there were some members whom considered sex with any female animal smaller than a horse as animal rape.

The lack of knowledge of the whole topic is leading to tainted research. In my own fields of Equine research the old research tactics are causing a limit to proper research.
 
I am not sure that Zooville members like the way this study turned a questionnaire on pictures of animals into Animal Sexual Abuse criteria for Vets to learn from.

The whole language of this study is based in Abuse not sexual interaction.

I made the comment somewhere on this forum that animal rape is the assumption of the uneducated.

From the gay side of Zoophillia the human is the submissive one and is accepting the advances of a male animal.

For the Straight Zoophiles it is a long term plan. Unless you catch a nympho in heat and willing to be screwed by anyone. For the rest of the females you have to work with their comfort level. If you hurt them then they won't come near you. If you frighten them they won't come near you. Sex is by nature fun and desirable. The submission required for sex can limit an animals ability to escape. This means that the female has to trust completely that nothing bad is going to happen.

The research I have seen in all forms Negative and Pro does not look into the consent of the females in a relationship. The gay guys on here are automatically excited by being submissive and will consent to any male though a lot would not have sex with a male human animal. Which is obviously a mental choice not a sexual choice.

So the gay zoophiles fall into a seperate category of deviant gay behaviour as they are consenting to animal sex. It is not seen as Animal Sexual Abuse as they are receiving.

For the straight zoophiles the research assumes that they are unable to have sex with humans and turn to animals as an easy source of relief. Most research paints any male having sex with a female animal as rape due to no understanding of consent. I like Saanen goats as they are a great size and fit and can be great lovers. I had the opportunity to rescue four female Saanen's after their owner accidentally hurt himself badly but did not get treatment early enough and could not be saved. His last words words were what would happen to his goats. I suspected he may have been intimate with his goats but they showed no understanding of sex with humans.

His grand daughter gave them away to the first person to contact her but reneged and gave them to me 10 minutes later after she learned we had goats and a farm suitable. It took 4 long years to gain the trust of the biggest and dominant female goat. Now that she understands sex with humans is fun she is demanding anytime I am with her. This is where the understanding of consent is missing from research, Very few guys would go to the same pub for 4 years to have sex with a girl he saw there. So not any easy alternative to human relationships.

This lack of research into consent is creating a bias in all other research to lean towards sexual abuse. This current thesis considers all contact with animals as Animal Sexual Abuse and perpetrators should be hunted down and prosecuted.

Even on BF there were some members whom considered sex with any female animal smaller than a horse as animal rape.

The lack of knowledge of the whole topic is leading to tainted research. In my own fields of Equine research the old research tactics are causing a limit to proper research.
There is always a fine line in research in controlling bias. The Alexandra study was not the ideal situation nor study however, looking beyound her conclusions, at the actual data, it was positive for zoophiles.

1. A clear distinction between sadism and zoophilia was established.

2. Zooville now is a usable resource for further research.

3. Proves that zoophiles have a deep sense of morality regarding consent with animals.

Its a start to getting the ball rolling and we have to start somewhere.
 
The University of Saskatchewan has reached out to Zooville.org for support for their study on zoophilia.
The study is being completed by

Alexandra Zidenberg, PhD
Department of Psychology

Overseen by Prof. Dr. Mark Olver.

Quote from Alexandra regarding this studys current progress September 27th, 2021

"We currently have a revise and resubmit for the paper in Archives of Sexual Behaviour and we're cautiously optimistic that the paper may be accepted there by the end of the year. Please feel free to post the draft manuscript and identify it as under review, if possible. "

This copy does NOT reflect the future peer review publication as it may change. However, the draft submitted will be posted here and any future updates and official links to the study will be published when available.

Deepest regards,

ZTHorse
Administrator for Zooville.org

The link is here:

Do we have any news about that
 
The University of Saskatchewan has reached out to Zooville.org for support for their study on zoophilia.
The study is being completed by

Alexandra Zidenberg, PhD
Department of Psychology

Overseen by Prof. Dr. Mark Olver.

Quote from Alexandra regarding this studys current progress September 27th, 2021

"We currently have a revise and resubmit for the paper in Archives of Sexual Behaviour and we're cautiously optimistic that the paper may be accepted there by the end of the year. Please feel free to post the draft manuscript and identify it as under review, if possible. "

This copy does NOT reflect the future peer review publication as it may change. However, the draft submitted will be posted here and any future updates and official links to the study will be published when available.

Deepest regards,

ZTHorse
Administrator for Zooville.org

The link is here:

Wow, this is cool.
 
One doesn't need the data, the sentence appears to assert a one way correlation and that is not coherent.

If you have populations (A) 10,000, (B) 1000, (C) 100. A contains B and C. C and B may overlap or they may not. Obviously B is 10 times larger than C.

If B and C don't overlap that is perfect negative correlation, being in B means you are not C, being C means you are not B.

C cannot contain B but B can contain C. If B contains C then being C implies you are B (100% chance), but there is only a 10% chance that a randomly selected B is C. This is maximum positive correlation between different sized groups. In this case being B entails a significantly higher likelihood of being C than the likelihood of being C in the general population (A). To put numbers to that a randomly selected B has a 10% chance of being C, but a randomly selected A has a 1% chance of being C.

One last point of interest is zero correlation. Zero correlation is when knowing that someone is B does not help you predict whether they are C or not. That occurs when the overlap between B and C has the exact same ratio to B as the overlap between C and A. Obviously C is contained in A so the ratio is 100:10,000 = 1:100, which is just a restatement of the 1% chance of A being C.

The zero correlation overlap between B and C is thus 10:1000 = 1:100, that is only 10 people are both C and B. There is a 1% chance that a B is a C and a 1% chance that an A is a C. What about from C to B? 10/100 Cs are Bs so there is a 10% chance that a random C is a B, and in the general population there is a 10% chance of being a B.

All other possibilities exist on a continuum between these three scenarios.

Now let's put some words to the letters.
A = general population
B = furies
C = zoos

The quote was:


Translated to variables:
That is, C indicates a higher likelihood of B, however, B does not necessarily entail a greater likelihood of C.

Note that "greater likelihood" is in reference to the likelihood of being zoo or furry in general i.e. for the general population.

If "C indicates a higher likelihood of B" then C is positively correlated with B, which is to say the overlap between B and C relative to A is greater than the ratio between B and A.

Let the likelihood of being a furry = X. Let the likelihood of being a zoo = Y.
The likelihood of a furry being zoo = Xy. The likelihood of a zoo being a furry = Yx.

Zero correlation between furies and zoos implies: Xy = Y and Yx = X.
Negative correlation between furies and zoos implies Xy < Y and Yx < X.
Positive correlation between furies and zoos implies Xy > Y and Yx > X.

The claim of the quoted statement is: Yx > X, but Xy <= Y. This cannot be as illustrated above. You can have positive correlation or negative correlation or no correlation but you can't have more than one at the same time.

I don't know if anyone has done this poll but it seems like maybe half of zoos would self-ID as furry. I would, with the caveat of complaining that the definition is very loose. Half the general population is not furry. That's positive correlation. Now if the furry group is significantly larger than the zoo group we could be talking insignificant changes in likelihood, but it probably isn't. Let me throw some ballpark figures for example:

Yx = 0.5 [what I just asserted]
Y = 0.005 [Kinsey study said 2% I think probably an overestimate; 0.5% is a nice conservative number]

Now we just need and X, not so easy I found some numbers after a search but they're probably wrong like ~60,000 total. The prevalence of zoosexuality is of course global being an artifact of humanity living in a world with non-humans which is a lot more universal than people brought up on animated anthro animal movies who have access to the internet and can go to conventions in the western world. If you start to count anthro gods, legends, or talking animals in oral tradition you have an argument for a more universal definition of "furry".

So let's pretend that we're only talking about 1st world countries with the appropriate generation for maximum furiness and assert X = 8%. I think it would be fairish to say that 8% of say a modern college campus has some furiness going on.

So:
Y = 0.005
X = 0.08
Yx = 0.5
Xy = Yx * total zoos / total furies = Yx * Y*A / X * A = Yx * Y / X = 0.5 * 0.005/0.08 = 0.03125

Which is to say a furry would have a 3.1% chance of being a zoo while the general public has a 0.5% chance of being a zoo. Or in other words furies are 6x more likely to be zoos than the general population.
No.
 
Just a quick question. How were the variables on the scale operationalized? Cuteness could have numerous subjective definitions depending on the respondent. Can anyone who took the survey answer?
 
I understand the data analysis and the purpose of the study. However, I don't see any controls for extraneous variables, nor every variable being clearly defined. Most of the results are correlational, but that does not equal causation. I would be interested to see if these results can be replicated in another sample.
 
Let me save you the study. It's been done. 1 out of ever 100 does perform or fantasize having sex with animals. Out of that perimeter 1 out of 5 are female. Almost all male and female were interested around the 12 yo range. Sexully awakening. We were born this way, we can't help it, everyone hates us. We are grouped with pedos. Moving on.
 
I don't agree with the TLDR aspect. There were a lot of data collected, so even if there were issues with the analysis or incorrectly inferred results there could still be quite a bit to learn from what was collected.
 
One doesn't need the data, the sentence appears to assert a one way correlation and that is not coherent.

If you have populations (A) 10,000, (B) 1000, (C) 100. A contains B and C. C and B may overlap or they may not. Obviously B is 10 times larger than C.

If B and C don't overlap that is perfect negative correlation, being in B means you are not C, being C means you are not B.

C cannot contain B but B can contain C. If B contains C then being C implies you are B (100% chance), but there is only a 10% chance that a randomly selected B is C. This is maximum positive correlation between different sized groups. In this case being B entails a significantly higher likelihood of being C than the likelihood of being C in the general population (A). To put numbers to that a randomly selected B has a 10% chance of being C, but a randomly selected A has a 1% chance of being C.

One last point of interest is zero correlation. Zero correlation is when knowing that someone is B does not help you predict whether they are C or not. That occurs when the overlap between B and C has the exact same ratio to B as the overlap between C and A. Obviously C is contained in A so the ratio is 100:10,000 = 1:100, which is just a restatement of the 1% chance of A being C.

The zero correlation overlap between B and C is thus 10:1000 = 1:100, that is only 10 people are both C and B. There is a 1% chance that a B is a C and a 1% chance that an A is a C. What about from C to B? 10/100 Cs are Bs so there is a 10% chance that a random C is a B, and in the general population there is a 10% chance of being a B.

All other possibilities exist on a continuum between these three scenarios.

Now let's put some words to the letters.
A = general population
B = furies
C = zoos

The quote was:


Translated to variables:
That is, C indicates a higher likelihood of B, however, B does not necessarily entail a greater likelihood of C.

Note that "greater likelihood" is in reference to the likelihood of being zoo or furry in general i.e. for the general population.

If "C indicates a higher likelihood of B" then C is positively correlated with B, which is to say the overlap between B and C relative to A is greater than the ratio between B and A.

Let the likelihood of being a furry = X. Let the likelihood of being a zoo = Y.
The likelihood of a furry being zoo = Xy. The likelihood of a zoo being a furry = Yx.

Zero correlation between furies and zoos implies: Xy = Y and Yx = X.
Negative correlation between furies and zoos implies Xy < Y and Yx < X.
Positive correlation between furies and zoos implies Xy > Y and Yx > X.

The claim of the quoted statement is: Yx > X, but Xy <= Y. This cannot be as illustrated above. You can have positive correlation or negative correlation or no correlation but you can't have more than one at the same time.

I don't know if anyone has done this poll but it seems like maybe half of zoos would self-ID as furry. I would, with the caveat of complaining that the definition is very loose. Half the general population is not furry. That's positive correlation. Now if the furry group is significantly larger than the zoo group we could be talking insignificant changes in likelihood, but it probably isn't. Let me throw some ballpark figures for example:

Yx = 0.5 [what I just asserted]
Y = 0.005 [Kinsey study said 2% I think probably an overestimate; 0.5% is a nice conservative number]

Now we just need and X, not so easy I found some numbers after a search but they're probably wrong like ~60,000 total. The prevalence of zoosexuality is of course global being an artifact of humanity living in a world with non-humans which is a lot more universal than people brought up on animated anthro animal movies who have access to the internet and can go to conventions in the western world. If you start to count anthro gods, legends, or talking animals in oral tradition you have an argument for a more universal definition of "furry".

So let's pretend that we're only talking about 1st world countries with the appropriate generation for maximum furiness and assert X = 8%. I think it would be fairish to say that 8% of say a modern college campus has some furiness going on.

So:
Y = 0.005
X = 0.08
Yx = 0.5
Xy = Yx * total zoos / total furies = Yx * Y*A / X * A = Yx * Y / X = 0.5 * 0.005/0.08 = 0.03125

Which is to say a furry would have a 3.1% chance of being a zoo while the general public has a 0.5% chance of being a zoo. Or in other words furies are 6x more likely to be zoos than the general population.
I always liked Venn diagrams, and probabilities and statistics.
 
Thank you for sharing. Are there any other peer reviewed studies, or ongoing studies that you are aware of?
 
Great work!! Didn't think I'd ever see something like this in a published article!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top