Zoophilia in Society - A 2000 Survey - Revision history

Bloit at 23:37, 29 March 2026

2026-03-29T23:37:37Z

Goonson at 19:20, 26 March 2026

2026-03-26T19:20:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:20, 26 March 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Allah is faggot		Allah is faggot
	Muhammed is ~~pedophile~~		Muhammed is pe{{Template:Col-break}}dophile
	Churkis is fags		Churkis is fags

Jewson 1448: Replaced content with "Allah is faggot Muhammed is pedophile Churkis is fags"

2026-03-26T18:12:01Z

Replaced content with "Allah is faggot Muhammed is pedophile Churkis is fags"

Show changes

ZooWiki at 04:22, 1 December 2023

2023-12-01T04:22:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:22, 1 December 2023
Line 95:		Line 95:

	This article is the very nice work of Muse's Zoo Research and can be read here in it's full context.		This article is the very nice work of Muse's Zoo Research and can be read here in it's full context.

			{{People}}
	[[Category:Surveys]]		[[Category:Surveys]]

ZooWiki at 18:55, 9 April 2023

2023-04-09T18:55:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:55, 9 April 2023
Line 95:		Line 95:

	This article is the very nice work of Muse's Zoo Research and can be read here in it's full context.		This article is the very nice work of Muse's Zoo Research and can be read here in it's full context.
			[[Category:Surveys]]

SkunkyMidnight: add essay template, fix wiki Formatting

2023-04-08T18:00:58Z

add essay template, fix wiki Formatting

Show changes

ZooWiki: The LinkTitles extension automatically added links to existing pages (https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles).

2021-06-14T20:19:04Z

The LinkTitles extension automatically added links to existing pages (<a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles">https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles</a>).

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:19, 14 June 2021
Line 4:		Line 4:

	===Gender===		===Gender===
	As might be expected, the majority of survey respondents were male. But perhaps a little more surprising is that only 5 (10.2%) of the 49 respondents were female, while according to 'net statistics a figure closer to 37% should have been expected. Some of this could be accounted for by the fact that this survey asked only zoophiles to respond, and the previous survey showed that fewer females claimed to be zoophiles than males. However, I suspect most of this is accounted for by the small sample size.		As might be expected, the majority of survey respondents were male. But perhaps a little more surprising is that only 5 (10.2%) of the 49 respondents were female, while according to 'net [[statistics]] a figure closer to 37% should have been expected. Some of this could be accounted for by the fact that this survey asked only zoophiles to respond, and the previous survey showed that fewer females claimed to be zoophiles than males. However, I suspect most of this is accounted for by the small sample size.
	[[File:gender2000.png\|center]]		[[File:gender2000.png\|center]]

ZooWiki: The LinkTitles extension automatically added links to existing pages (https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles).

2021-06-07T16:34:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:34, 7 June 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
	===Introduction===		===Introduction===
	A brief word of introduction. The following document is in no way official, and these figures should not be taken as universal fact. There are doubtless many factors that I've not accounted for, which significantly affect the data. Also, this survey was aimed specifically at zoophiles (though this is a self-classification thing, and of the 25 respondents to complete both surveys, only 10 responded as not at all bestialist in the other survey).		A brief word of introduction. The following document is in no way official, and these figures should not be taken as universal fact. There are doubtless many factors that I've not accounted for, which significantly affect the data. Also, this survey was aimed specifically at [[zoophiles]] (though this is a self-classification thing, and of the 25 respondents to complete both surveys, only 10 responded as not at all bestialist in the other survey).
	This version of the document was compiled on the 27th May 2000, at which point the total number of respondents stood at 49. This small sample size means only a brief analysis.		This version of the document was compiled on the 27th May 2000, at which point the total number of respondents stood at 49. This small sample size means only a brief analysis.

Line 8:		Line 8:

	===Approximate age===		===Approximate age===
	The table below shows the age distribution of respondents. Age distribution relevant to this sexuality was analysed in the Causes of Zoophilia (survey). What's interesting here is that there appears to be a greater number of young respondents, 26.5% aged between 17 and 20 as opposed to 23.1% in the Causes of Zoophilia survey (of which this sample population should be a subset). Also, 67.3% of respondents are under 30 here, as opposed to 51.61% in the Causes of Zoophilia data.		The table below shows the age distribution of respondents. Age distribution relevant to this [[sexuality]] was analysed in the Causes of [[Zoophilia]] (survey). What's interesting here is that there appears to be a greater number of young respondents, 26.5% aged between 17 and 20 as opposed to 23.1% in the Causes of Zoophilia survey (of which this sample population should be a subset). Also, 67.3% of respondents are under 30 here, as opposed to 51.61% in the Causes of Zoophilia data.
	I assume from this that older respondents aren't so concerned with the legalities of their sexuality as younger respondents, due to apathy or something similar.		I assume from this that older respondents aren't so concerned with the legalities of their sexuality as younger respondents, due to apathy or something similar.
	[[File:agepprox.png\|center]]		[[File:agepprox.png\|center]]
Line 36:		Line 36:
	Looking at the above data, it's interesting to see that the country with the highest density is New Zealand, (something supported by common rumour) where there seem quite severe legal implications. And the country with the lowest density is Germany, where it seems from the survey (and my memory) that there is no legal penalty. See the next question for more on this. It's worth reminding you though that these two examples are not supported at all well by the small sample size.		Looking at the above data, it's interesting to see that the country with the highest density is New Zealand, (something supported by common rumour) where there seem quite severe legal implications. And the country with the lowest density is Germany, where it seems from the survey (and my memory) that there is no legal penalty. See the next question for more on this. It's worth reminding you though that these two examples are not supported at all well by the small sample size.

	An additional note, the highest zoophile densities in the US seem to be in Colorado (6.2 respondents/10 million), Arkensas (4.3 respondents/10 million), Oregon (3.7 respondents/10 million) and Florida (2.6 respondents/10 million). There were respondents from only 16 states in the US though.		An additional note, the highest [[zoophile]] densities in the US seem to be in Colorado (6.2 respondents/10 million), Arkensas (4.3 respondents/10 million), Oregon (3.7 respondents/10 million) and Florida (2.6 respondents/10 million). There were respondents from only 16 states in the US though.

	===Legal penalties===		===Legal penalties===
Line 90:		Line 90:

	===Additional comments===		===Additional comments===
	As was suggested by several respondents to the previous survey, an option was included for respondents to include additional comments, and I was suprised to find that almost two thirds used it. Also, a lot of the feedback I got through this was quite relevant and useful. It seems the general feeling amonst respondents is one of defiance; the famous quote "love knoweth no locksmiths" seems to apply here.		As was suggested by several respondents to the previous survey, an option was included for respondents to include additional comments, and I was suprised to find that almost two thirds used it. Also, a lot of the feedback I got through this was quite relevant and useful. It seems the general feeling amonst respondents is one of defiance; the famous quote "[[love]] knoweth no locksmiths" seems to apply here.
	But at the same time there's a lot here that doesn't sound the words of people with choices. One respondent stated that he was unable to be around the species he was attracted to, and that if he couldn't by 45 he'd commit suicide. (He and I talked soon after) Other respondents talk of how they couldn't imagine themselves being anything other than zoophiles, one stating quite succinctly, "Love conquours all, and for the rest of my life when I think of something I love it will always be a Horse."		But at the same time there's a lot here that doesn't sound the words of people with choices. One respondent stated that he was unable to be around the species he was attracted to, and that if he couldn't by 45 he'd commit suicide. (He and I talked soon after) Other respondents talk of how they couldn't imagine themselves being anything other than zoophiles, one stating quite succinctly, "Love conquours all, and for the rest of my life when I think of something I love it will always be a [[Horse]]."

	This article is the very nice work of Muse's Zoo Research and can be read here in it's full context.		This article is the very nice work of Muse's Zoo Research and can be read here in it's full context.

ZooWiki at 03:30, 7 June 2021

2021-06-07T03:30:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:30, 7 June 2021
Line 73:		Line 73:
	This question, one of the more revealing here, asked whether respondents believed zoophilia should be legalised or not. The results shown below indicate that the general consensus is a resounding definite yes. I suspect that most people's instant reaction to this is a yes, but the next two questions which ask for respondents to substantiate their stance show that most were able to come up with significant disadvantages to legalisation.		This question, one of the more revealing here, asked whether respondents believed zoophilia should be legalised or not. The results shown below indicate that the general consensus is a resounding definite yes. I suspect that most people's instant reaction to this is a yes, but the next two questions which ask for respondents to substantiate their stance show that most were able to come up with significant disadvantages to legalisation.

	[[File:legalizationzoo\|center]]		[[File:legalizationzoo.png\|center]]

ZooWiki: /* Gender */

2021-06-07T03:27:21Z

Gender

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:27, 7 June 2021
Line 5:		Line 5:
	===Gender===		===Gender===
	As might be expected, the majority of survey respondents were male. But perhaps a little more surprising is that only 5 (10.2%) of the 49 respondents were female, while according to 'net statistics a figure closer to 37% should have been expected. Some of this could be accounted for by the fact that this survey asked only zoophiles to respond, and the previous survey showed that fewer females claimed to be zoophiles than males. However, I suspect most of this is accounted for by the small sample size.		As might be expected, the majority of survey respondents were male. But perhaps a little more surprising is that only 5 (10.2%) of the 49 respondents were female, while according to 'net statistics a figure closer to 37% should have been expected. Some of this could be accounted for by the fact that this survey asked only zoophiles to respond, and the previous survey showed that fewer females claimed to be zoophiles than males. However, I suspect most of this is accounted for by the small sample size.
	[[File:~~gender~~.png\|center]]		[[File:gender2000.png\|center]]

	===Approximate age===		===Approximate age===