Hello, I am looking for volunteers willing to answer anonymously questionnaires concerning their experiences with sexual contact with animal partners. I am a doctoral student in psychology and my thesis is designed to investigate these contacts. If you would like to contribute to the advancement of knowledge on a subject affecting you personally and you are 18 years of age or older, you can participate by clicking on the following link: https://gre.recherchedoctorale.com/en/ . You can contact me at any time at the following email address : fannie.allard@umontreal.ca .
Thank you in advance for your participation!
Bonjour, Je cherche des volontaires prêts à répondre de manière anonyme et confidentielle à des questionnaires sur leurs expériences de contacts sexuels avec des partenaires animaux. Je suis étudiante au doctorat en psychologie et ma thèse porte sur ces contacts. Si vous souhaitez faire avancer les connaissances scientifiques sur un sujet par lequel vous vous sentez concerné et que vous êtes âgé de 18 ans ou plus, vous pouvez participer en cliquant sur le lien suivant : https://gre.recherchedoctorale.com/ . L’étude ne nécessite aucun déplacement et vous pouvez me contacter en tout temps à l’adresse courriel suivante : fannie.allard@umontreal.ca . Merci d’avance de votre participation!
Fannie Allard, M.Sc., Doctorante en psychologie à l'Université de Montréal
Hey, Chris Earls, someone whose name we've seen before, is involved.
As always, my usual warnings apply. Use a VPN and keep anonymous. We don't know really know anything about this except they have an internet presence. Having a bit of a hard time validating anything else.
from the web page...
Chris Earls is noteworthy because he was involved in two papers where he actually recanted a bit of the stereotype of zoophilia in the second paper based on further contact. (Both papers are in the biblography, btw)
[deleted]
Further to this, a potential paper by the poster...
https://papyrus.bib.umontreal.ca/xmlui/handle/1866/11522
It is a long weekend so I will not expect to hear back from the dept. until next week to verify this is a legit study. I have taken the study and will say it seems very well made compared to what I've answered in the past.
So I heard back, very professional, but I haven't been able to validate the study through any official channel yet.
Let us know if this is legit. I will take it for sure!
Not so much a zoophilia survey as a psychology survey to determine if you're sick mentally or emotionally. I'd much prefer a survey that doesn't assume bestiality and zoophilia an anomaly of behavior and a disease that must have psychological causation and cannot be simply an expression of love and companionship. Too few queries on your actual sexual behavior (and half of those on wether your a rapee/ rapist, pedophile or voyeur) and too many on substance abuse, depression, suicidal tendancies and loneliness. Kinda sorry I participated, honestly...
I'm curious, aren't those the myths we have portrayed of us? Isn't that what the title suggests, mildly, are the myths they are trying to "go beyond"? I'm happy you filled it out, personally, because most of us should test normal.
Also, please send the author your comments and suggestions as they are very professional and just may use them to further the research.
Not that I've portrayed, no. To me the study was poorly constructed to go 'beyond' any of the pre-conceived notions that we're a bunch of sickos fucking animals because we can't get a human partner, or because we're high, abused or just plain nuts.
I'd like to have seen a chance to actually explain ourselves in the answers. For instance, I'm both depressed and have been suicidal, both however are recent and due to the loss of two of my lovers/ mates. Neither are a reason I chose those two individuals as mates, but that's the way it will look based on the studies overt preconceptions. Nor will my PTSD be related to my military experiences, but to some non-existent childhood trauma that 'caused' my zoophilia.
The study, like all before it, looks only to excuse, not understand, zoophilic and bestial behaviours because they've already decided they are not and cannot be anywhere with-in the norm.
As to e-mailing my concerns to the authors, I don't e-mail an unknown. They can read them here. Maletski was smart enough at least to stay in some contact with the community she studied, they should do the same.
Well, I do not get the impression they are pre-judging, rather making a broad survey of typical mental health issues, which I know a lot of us suffer. She(?) is a psychologist student after all. So we'll just have to disagree.
I'm sorry for your loss, btw. It hurts and sucks and ain't nothing I can say.
I'd argue Miletski was horribly biased as a result.
Depends on the researcher. Jane Goodall wasn't romanticizing the Gombe chimp colonies despite having a heavy emotional and personal investment -- and she didn't even go into it with a formal education or any training to account for familiarity bias.
Yes, I am aware of that.
That being said, I still think Miletski had a massive pro-zoophile bias and it probably had to do with the fact that she became too well acquainted with some of them over the course of her research.
The real problem with Miletski´s study isn´t the fact she actually made some friends from the "zoo" community, Miletski´s real mistake was being a gullible chicken buying into everything the self proclaimed "zoos" told her. No validation, no verification of the gathered data. As a researcher, you CAN be biased and you CAN befriend some of your research subjects...but what you cannot do is to neglect scientific methods....and that was Miletski´s real mistake. Familiarity with your research subjects isn´t bad per se, in some cases, people will only open up completely when they feel comfy and accepted by the researcher....but refusing to validate and verify the stories is what makes Miletski´s work irrelevant.
Miletski´s study is basically as reliable as trying to find out your nation´s average penis size by asking men for their dick size via internet...you surely get an assload of "data", but no one would ever think that any of this is accurate, has relevance or is reflecting actual truth. Miletski didn´t research the real life realities of zoophiles, she only researched the image "zoophiles" have of themselves.
It's important that they approach every line of inquiry to gain a full understanding of zoophilia. However, that means that they have to approach the issue in a compartmentalized fashion.
One thing I would like to say about this survey is the question regarding physical abuse might be answered differently by different people. Someone who was spanked might answer that yes, they were physically abused, while another person in the exact same circumstances, with a different outlook, would answer that no, they were not. It kind of renders the answers to that question a bit meaningless.
Furthermore, why are the questions about dating members of the opposite sex mandatory? I don't wish to date anyone, and yet that question forces me to indicate that I would.
Actually, the entire "sensation seeking scale" I don't feel like I was able to answer a single question honestly. Rarely, if ever, did any of the questions get close to my own opinion.
So UdeM's IM guys thought Easter weekend would be a great time to update the website. LOL. So it took a while for me to find an appropriate contact but I am waiting to hear back from a third party listed on the UdeM's psychology dept. list who should be able to confirm that this is legit research.
Personally, I'm not worried but for those of you without VPN or other security tools who might be. :)
Merci.
Ça fait vraiment bizarre considérant le fait que j'habite tout près de l'Université de Montréal :P
LOL, apparently a lot of us do.
Wow, that was fast.... so I contacted this person via the UdeM Dept of psychology website. Here is their response, I've redacted phone and e-mail which I can give you or you can find on the website:
Hello,
Thank you for your inquiry. I can confirm that Ms. Fanny Allard is conducting her Ph.D. thesis on the subject of zoophilia. Her research has been approved by the Department of Psychology at the University of Montreal as well as the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
Her research requires her to seek participants from a variety of Internet sources and as mentioned in the consent forms every effort is made to insure the anonymity of participants. We greatly appreciate any cooperation we receive from these sources.
Liinks:
In French: https://gre.recherchedoctorale.com/
In English: https://gre.recherchedoctorale.com/en/
If you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me agaiin.
Sincerely,
Christopher Earls, Ph.D Professor, University of Montreal
As always, protect yourself as you see fit but this study is as legit as I've ever seen.
Looks like this is legit.
Email correspondence quoted from /u/Yearningmice, here:
EDIT: I also recieved email confirmation direct from her. Doesn't get more legit than this.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
Speaking as a biologist, no research is useless, and it's extremely offensive when someone says that about data you spent dozens or even hundreds of hours compiling and parsing. I get that you've got alot of baggage right now, but that doesn't mean it's open season to start degrading genuine scientific efforts. Normally I only perform removals after three warnings, but this warrants a breach of protocol. Consider this your first warning for rule 7.
I'm a little curious where they got the idea that furry was a sexual orientation.