fchan

>>954
So because you cannot be bothered with reading this entire thread you ask me to repeat myself and make the thread even longer?  Just as I stated in post 953: Links have been provided previously in this discussion.  Now go find them!   Take a look at post >>710 for instance.

Here is one review about a few studies (it's been posted before in this discussion as well, it's an excerpt from Hani Miletski's study):  "Fox (1994) believes that sexual relations with animals is as valid a sexual preference as homosexuality is.  Cauldwell (1948 & 1968) relates that bestiality is a result of an inherent passion, and Donofrio (1996) reports that the concept of zoophilia being a sexual orientation was supported by his doctoral study.  He, therefor, suggests using a scale resembling Kinsey's sexual orientation scale, which was also offered by Blake (1971).  Donofrio's model suggests that those who have no interest whatsoever in sexual contact with animals would appear at the Zero point of the scale.  Those individuals whose sole sexual outlet and attraction are animals, would be assigned the Six position. Along that continuum, between these two extremes, would be individuals who include animal sexual contact in their fantasy, or have had incidental experiences with animals, have had more than incidental contact with animals, place their sexual activity with animals equal to that involving humans, prefer animal contact but engage in more than incidental contact with humans, and those who engage primarily in contact with animals, with only incidental human sexual contact."

The chapters on the sexual orientation bit is too long type out here, so I advice you to buy the study.  It is a worthwhile read.