This is another of the spaying and neutering pages Psychobuster may be
referring to. Pro_animate has been working hard into closing sites of
relevance since it ruins Randy's egotripping. The previous one was
written by Pro_Animal himself before he bacame a psycopathic maniac
calling himself an ARA.
Underdog
Reposted With Permission
ADULT content warning. if your under 18 take leave.
Table of Contents.
1. Introduction: Spaying/Neutering and human-canine sexuality
a) Overview and introduction to zoosexuality.
2. A matter of reproductive choices
a) How zoos feel about pet-overpopulation.
b) The killing must end but not this way, respecting diversity
in both us and dogs.
3. The current birth-control methods for dogs.
a) Spaying or nothing.
b) Neutering or nothing.
c) Health concerns are overblown, a double-edged sword.
d) General esthetic concerns and neuticals.
e) Other reasons why we don't want to do this, frank talk about
human-canine sex.
4. Future technology: Non-Surgical Neutering.
a) Neutersol and exactly what it does.
b) Several reasons why this remains unacceptable to us.
5. Additional options that are not even talked about.
a) Morning-after birth control pill.
b) Vasectomy.
c) Tubal-ligation.
d) How about we leave them alone: Why is it our husbands and
wives must be forced to be "fixed"?
6. Facing reality
a) What non-zoos, animal shelters and vets must understand
about us.
b) What we must understand about pet-overpopulation, the
population dynamics and economics behind the current state of
affairs.
c) A time for compromise.
7. In conclusion.
Dedication:
A dog looks into the eyes of man and sees God,
A man sees his reflection in the eyes of a dog and knows God is there.
Do dogs have souls? Yes, God's love makes it so and it is to all dogs
that this is respectfully dedicated.
muttnik
"It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than
to put out on the troubled seas of thought." J. K. Galbraith, The
Affluent Society
1. Introduction: Spaying/Neutering and human-canine sexuality
a) Overview and introduction to zoosexuality.
Much thought went into trying to write a report such as this
without owning up to the reality of human-animal sexuality. In the end
I didn't see where it was possible to speak against spaying/neutering
in such a way simply because for 99.8% of the population it's the very
best way to go while also respecting and honoring our beloved pets.
The sole purpose of this report is to try to help this 99.8% to
understand the diversity of the other 0.2% and the need for
reproductive choices for dogs.
Now most people have at least heard about others that have sex
with animals but virtually no one realizes that there are two
completely different "approaches" to it if you want to call it that.
There is what is called "bestiality" and again most know about this,
but there is also what is called "zoophilia/zoosexuality." For a
variety of reasons the word zoophilia is being phased out and
zoosexuality is replacing it and that is what I call it here.
Now for some standard definitions and I will borrow this from
Kurrelgyre's Report as it's the best I've seen: ( Thanks Kurrelgyre )
"Zoophilia, by textbook definition, is an emotional attachment
to an animal that causes a human being to prefer a non-human animal as
a companion and/or sexual partner. You, undoubtedly, have now made a
quick mental connection to bestiality. They are not quite the
same, however - bestiality, by textbook definition, is sexual contact
between a human being and a non-human animal. Notice that bestiality
does not require an emotional attachment, while zoophilia does. A
bestialist is not necessarily a zoophile, nor is a zoophile necessarily
a bestialist."
Zoophilia and zoosexuality are basically the same but using the
word zoosexuality removes the above ambiguity. Zoosexuals really do
love them very deeply and make love with them too. The word "zoo" can
refer to either. The diversity within this 0.2% of the population is
almost beyond comprehension. Almost every conceivable human-animal
combination is represented somewhere and some combinations that
scarcely can be imagined at all are very real. I don't mean to
downplay the variety and beautiful nature of all this for those many
zoos that read this but for now I will focus on human-canine couples.
I also know this subject the best as well and can go into details. I
also think because of this very real diversity there is a great deal of
misunderstanding about us. It's very easy hearing about this for the
first time to think we have no morals and will screw anything in our
path including human children. The reality is nothing can be further
from the truth and this is also part and parcel of what seperates us
from those that practice bestiality. What I'm talking about here is
pleasurable, mutual sex between consenting adults. Each word in that
sentence it critically important to understanding us so I will examine
each in turn:
1) Pleasurable: We don't hurt anybeing and the communication between
us is excellent, further assuring we're not hurting them in any way.
I'm very out-of-the-closet so I know this is the very first question
asked almost every time, and once most people understand the very
pleasurable nature of the activity most are very tolerant of us. In
fact the goal of many of us is to pleasure the animal first and
ourselves only secondarily. Under most conditions the pleasuring is
wonderfully given and received by each partner, we see each other as
equal as we go through life together, it is completely mutual.
2) Mutual: The animal just laying there like a lump is a turn-off to
just about every zoo I know although the bestiality folk probably think
this is a great stroke of luck! They participate with us and enjoy the
lovemaking as much as we do. For this reason the animals can really
get into it with us, male and female both and together we determine our
favorite positions to use over time. The great joy and fun is returned
to us 10 fold this way, no matter what position is used during sex.
3) Sex: The great diversity with our partners translates into great
diversity in our sexuality. Oral, vaginal, and anal sex given and
received are all common, sometimes exclusively, mostly in some kind of
combinations. Depending on the size of the lover, non-penetration
positions can *only* be used while with other animals non-penetration
positions would be difficult to use. The frequency of the lovemaking
can be just as varied from almost never to multiple times per day
depending on the individual animal. The animal controls this when they
consent.
4) Consenting: This single word needs a 500 page book written about it
as there is so much confusion regarding this. Unlike in bestiality our
partners are unrestrained and free to do whatever is necessary to stop
us. Trust me if they're not in the mood or if we're doing something
they don't like they will stop us too. They are not "trained" to
blindly summit each time and they sure as heck don't react to us out of
fear. That would be another major turn-off. The fact is they react to
our sexuality as does any human adult.
5) Adults: This should go without saying but unfortunately many people
see and treat adult animals as human children and therefore tend to
equate our sexuality with them as being the same as pedophilia.
WRONG. All the way around wrong. Adult animals are not human children
nor are they the same as immature animals. Adults are very aware of
the sexual nature of the activity unlike immature animals of *any
species.* They are aware, they have input and they can make up their
own mind about being with us this way.
For many that read this report for the first time I've just
open your eyes to a whole new world that you didn't know existed. It
is a world very different, where humans and animals get together in
bonds identical to human-human marriage, where animals are treated as
equals to humans and given all the respect and dignity and deep love
that goes with that. We never blame them that they weren't born human
and don't hold this accident of birth against them. Strangest of all
we embrace their sexuality for exactly what it is and can accept it
when it is so freely given as part of our mutual love for each other.
At least 260,000 people in America regard animals in this way and it is
for these people that this report needed to be written. 1
"Under conditions of tyranny it is far easier to act than to think."
Hannah Arendt, quoted in W. H. Auden, A Certain World.
2. A matter of reproductive choices
a) How zoos feel about pet-overpopulation.
As surprising as this might be given that most of us prefer to
keep our lovers sexually intact, the reality is we are as committed to
stopping pet-overpopulation as the very strongest advocate of blanket
spaying/neutering. Now that you understand more about us I think you
can understand why. We see each unwanted and unloved animal killed in
a shelter much like our own flesh and blood being
slaughtered. "Family" is dying there, they might as well be killing
people. Many canine-zoos fall deeply in love with dogs at a very young
age actually before we realize just how may dogs die in shelters each
day. When we finally do realize the extent of the carnage it hits us
like a ton of bricks. It's very hard to describe to a non-zoo the
emotions that went through me at this time but I will try.
All I remembered was just wanting dogs to feel wanted and
loved, each one of them. I could not think of a more horrid way to die
then to die unloved and without a kind and gentle companion near them
and touching them as they passed away. A companion that they had
shared a life with together. Each and every dog born deserves this
much and it really doesn't matter if they are sexually active or not,
that is different matter compared to just feeling loved minute by
minute, hour by hour and day by day. I don't know perhaps many non-
zoos feel this way too but I cannot speak for them, only myself.
As you can see the motivation to end pet-overpopulation is very
strong in us, at least as strong as in anyone reading this. Only our
methods differ. I also must point out that we see *human*
overpopulation as just as much of a problem, not just because of the
feelings of equality I mentioned above but because human overpopulation
is the main reason for habitat destruction. That affects all animals
on the planet and is a main cause of animal extinctions as well. One
of the great joys of being zoo is it's such a wonderful method of birth
control for *both* partners.
b) The killing must end but not this way, respecting diversity
in both us and dogs.
In the end this is all we ask for, it's just a matter of
reproductive choices. As it stands right now there are none in many
cases. If we don't agree to forced spaying/neutering when we go to a
shelter and/or humane society to adopt a dog we simply don't get the
dog anymore. We are put in the terrible personal dilemma of saving a
beautiful life but one possibly devoid of lovemaking vs. going on to
look elsewhere and *maybe* the dog we left lives and *maybe* the dog
dies. It is unknown at this time how many dogs die because of this but
even if it was just one extra dog that is too many for me. Yet to
respect the diversity in us and dogs a remarkable number of things have
to happen first, all of them difficult for most zoos to do right now
because there is still a lot of fear and misunderstand all around. I
will outline what needs to take place in the chapter on "Facing
Reality" but for now let me just say the single highest priority to
solve this is simply a matter of education. Only with that will the
fear go away in time and the dialog between all concerned parties take
place in any kind of "normal" way. In a very real sense we must all
grow-up in how we regard human-animal sexuality and put a end to the
last taboo, it isn't like this hasn't been going on all along behind
closed doors, it just hasn't been talked about until now. Once this
happens progress on all fronts can be made but until then nothing will
change.
"Love the animals. God has given them the rudiments of thought and joy
untroubled. Don't trouble it, don't harass them, don't deprive them of
their happiness, don't work against God's intent." Dostoevsky, The
Brothers Karamazov
3. The current birth-control methods for dogs.
a) Spaying or nothing.
This is a quick surgical procedure that removes virtually all
of the female reproductive apparatus. I wish I could be specific on
exactly how much is removed but that seems to vary a great deal
depending on who is doing the operation. I've heard reports that the
uterus will be removed leaving the vagina completely intact and I've
heard other reports that a good part of the vagina might be removed as
well. Not good at all. In all cases it must be done using some kind
of anesthesic, which in itself can be some danger and in the case of
breeds/individuals with hereditary blood clotting problems or heart
disease there is additional risk. Depending on what stage of the
normal menstrual cycle is being considered once the ovaries are removed
circulating blood levels of several hormones all but disappear. A
spayed female never again cycles nor ever again comes on heat.
Strangely one circulating hormone is not affected by this, namely
testosterone! Most people don't realize but in both males and females
there exist other organs that make testosterone at low levels. In the
female the affect of testosterone is usually masked by estrogen etc.,
however, once those are gone the affect of the small amount of
testosterone in her can make itself apparent. She might start
to "hump" and/or lift a leg while urinating just as males do. For the
vast majority of people in this country this is the only birth control
method shelters/humane societies give them the option of using for
female dogs, without exception.
b) Neutering or nothing.
This is the complete surgical removal of the scrotum and
testicles of male dogs, in other words castration. As above in all
cases it must be done using some kind of anesthesic, and the attendant
blood clotting problems and heart disease risk remain depending on the
individual. In some cases the dog may be very lethargic for several
days after the operation. Removing the testicles stops sperm
production perfectly, however, it also reduces circulating levels of
testosterone to a low level. As with spayed females a small amount of
testosterone is always present, generated by other organs in the body
and in a parallel manor once the level of testosterone is reduced way
down, low levels of *female* hormones produced in the male by other
organs can make themselves apparent by changes in his behavior. With
the exception of just a few humane societies and individual vets
currently running field-trials of neutersol this is the only birth
control option given to most for male dogs that I know of.
c) Health concerns are overblown, a double-edged sword.
Setting aside the direct risks of surgery mentioned above lets
consider for a moment the risks of being a sexually active adult. At
one point or another the following have all been given as "reasons" for
spaying/neutering other then simple birth control: It prevents Urinary
tract infections, Pyometra, Mammary cancers, Ovarian cancers, Ovarian
cysts, Prostate enlargement, Prostate infection, Testicular and
Prostate cancers. This is all well and good but all sexually active
adult mammals share these risks to one extent or another including us.
Now if you don't care and don't want the animal to be sexually active
to begin with it is very easy to blow these "reasons" way out of
proportion to the risks. Kind of like the ancient Romans telling a
person about to become a eunuch that at least he will never have to
worry about going bald when he gets older and he should be very happy
with that! Since human-human relationships share the same risks when
both remain sexually intact there is another way to look at this as
well. Have you noticed a great surge of male humans going to get
castrated, or female humans running out to get spayed, or human-human
sexuality stopping so that we can gain these advantages? So obviously
all the health benefits to
be gained by doing all of this are completely lost on 99.9% of the
human population. All you people out there don't seem to worry about
this too much either. This fact alone gives zoo couples a pretty good
reason not to worry about any of this too much as well. This is the
nature of the double-edged sword I speak of, yes there are risks but
those are very much balanced on the other side by the great benefits
and pure joy of being sexually active. All we want is to be that way
*without* the associated risk of unwanted puppies and that is what this
report is all about.
d) General esthetic concerns and neuticals.
This section of the report is already a concern to many people,
zoos and non-zoos alike. Millions of Americans and even more in other
countries have a problem with the "esthetics" of a castrated male.
Lets not mince words, I'm sexually active with both male and female
dogs and I have no trouble freely admitting how much fun it is to walk
behind a intact male dog and watch the family jewels bouncing around!
I don't know how many non-zoos really want to admit to enjoying this
kind of scenery but I do know a great many furs that do and that's a
million extra people right there! Now even though this all remains
rather unspoken, at least one company has decided to address this
problem and is producing something called "neuticals." These are just
a synthetic replacement for the testicles when they are removed and
thus give the same outward appearance and feel to the touch back to the
scrotum after surgery. They are completely non-functional otherwise,
they don't make any testosterone. This is a more complex procedure
then simple castration so be assured it costs more when combined with
the additional cost of the neuticals themselves. Still I believe they
will be popular and I see good sales growth potential as more and more
people can just admit to themselves and others that they like what they
see when walking behind a intact male dog. Until people can start to
admit this to others I don't think neuticals will sell well as just
asking the vet to do this procedure and paying the extra money is
pretty much telling the vet that you like to look at canine balls! I
tell you, as soon as I get a chance to go for a ride with a musher and
his/her husky sled team, I'm *gone* and that musher sure will know
exactly what "scenery" I'll be scoping out as we sled along!
e) Other reasons why we don't want to do this, frank talk about
human-canine sex.
Just about a year ago a zoo friend and myself took our dogs to
the local vet for routine checkups and shots. We looked all the world
like a married couple bringing our dogs in. Since the state I was in
at the time still has a major anti-gay/zoo law on the books I wasn't
about to "out" us to any vets. Still the vet treating our lovers was
*very* surprised to learn that the 10 year old neutered male remained
very interested in sex and had mated and tied with the on heat female
dog we had just adopted from a poor family giving away all their pets
at a farmers market. He was even more surprised when we told him the
male dog had been neutered at about the age of 1 year. I didn't have
the heart to tell him the the dog had been sexually active with both
other dogs and humans for all that time and that *might* be the reason
he stayed active. Maybe. The vets incredible surprise made me realize
just how rare it must be for them to retain their sexuality. I had no
way of knowing before that, as all other male dogs I had been with
prior were intact. My situation with females is different however.
About half have been spayed and half not. I haven't been able to tell
any real difference in female canine sexuality spayed vs. unspayed
except that a spayed females vulva and vagina tend to shrink-up very
badly. Other then that they can be horny as any intact male! In fact
the very yiffest mate I've every had, male, female, spayed/neutered or
not was a spayed female. ( until just recently ) So in my case there
is no "hard" evidence that spaying/neutering distroys their sexuality.
So what does it do?
What it does do is completely change the nature of it and
changes it in a direction most zoos DON'T like. For example the
neutered male I spoke of above couldn't "cum." There was no indication
that he could even have a orgasm. He was a wonderful lover to me,
just fantastic, yet I couldn't really repay the favor though I did my
best to try. Also the lack of semen is sadly missed if your into oral
as it tastes so good! Additionally that vets great surprise when we
told him about this dogs sexual activity clearly indicates how rare it
must be for them to want to "hump" others after castration. The large
reduction in the circulating testosterone levels is the cause of
this. Anal/vaginal sex with male dogs ( male/female human on the
receiving end ) is extremely common, probably even more so then vaginal
sex with female dogs and is wonderful fun for all. No zoo wants to
risk the loss of this behavior by castrating a lover.
In the case of spayed females, as indicated above they tend to
shrink-up so badly that it can all but permanently rule out penetration
positions. Some zoos don't mind but most like them. What's wrong
with keeping the options open? In the case of a intact female, if she
*likes* the penetration positions, excellent, if not you still have the
non-penetration positions to use and almost all dogs like one or the
other or both. This keeps the options open and that's all we ask.
In the end, whether a dog has been castrated/spayed or not has
little impact on how much we love them and how much they love us. The
relationship between us goes way beyond what specific parts of our
bodies remain functional. If I were forced to choose between having my
canine wife taken away from me, or me being castrated and allowed to
keep her, I would choose the latter in a second. It says reams about
the society we live in that we need to make this kind of choice at
all.
"I do not feel "chosen" and I do not want to be "chosen" separate
from my animal mate. The other species on this planet are my equals in
the very deepest sense of the word. To hell with arrogance, we sink
or
swim together and I, for one, want to help toss out the life-
preservers.
After all, any one of them might have been my lover, or might still
be."
muttnik
4. Future technology: Non-Surgical Neutering.
a) Neutersol and exactly what it does.
Neutersol is an injectable drug that is a chemical composite of
the mineral Zinc plus Arginine a naturally occuring amino acid. This
is just going into field-trials now and is not widely available as
yet. A few drops of the solution is injected directly into each
testicle, it takes only minutes, no anesthetic is needed and within two
days the dog is effectively sterile. It works by shrinking and
hardening the testicle itself until it's just a small, hard nodule that
cannot produce either sperm nor much in the way of testosterone if used
on puppies. The scrotum and these small nodules remain with the dog.
As you can see this address a number of the issues I pointed out above
that keeps many people, zoos and non-zoos alike from really liking
surgical neutering and this should be a wildly popular method of birth
control as long as the field-trials don't turn up a major problem/side-
effect. For now it is really unknown just how long the low
testosterone production levels will stay that way when this is
administered on puppies, however, when used on older dogs the effect on
testosterone levels seems to be minimal! Regardless of age in all
cases the animal is permanently sterile. Additional details on this
new method of neutering can be found in the Novermber 1998 issue of
DogFancy.
b) Several reasons why this remains unacceptable to us.
As you can see this is a vast improvement in birth control
technology, especially for people in many other countries and zoos in
this country that like to have a sexually active yet a sterile dog.
The problem remains that in *this* country the prime targent for this
method of sterilization will be puppies and it's effect on their
sexuality when they mature is really almost completely unknown this is
so new. Many if not most zoos prefer to get a puppy so it can be
raised as a full member of the family, with all the rights and
privileges that go with that, straight from the beginning. If USA
shelters and humane societies simply switch from forcing neutering to
forcing neutersol on puppies then we are likely back to square one.
Yet there is still another major concern for some zoos even if puppies
retain their sexuality as adults if neutersoled young.
As mentioned in the previous chapter some zoos very much enjoy
oral sex ( including myself) and the feeling/taste of the penis and
scrotum/testicles in our mouths. If the testicles are reduced to small
hard nodules this will still be a profound change regarding all this,
although of course, nothing like castration. Now some zoos might not
mind this at all while others will greatly mind this ( including
myself ) given that vasectomy is 100% effective as birth control,
cheap, easily done, needs no field-trials, and is a minor insult on the
male canine reproductive system. It controls exactly what it has to
control and leaves everything else alone. When pushing for
reproductive choices for dogs this method of birth control has to be at
the top of the list because as it stands right now I don't know anyone
who does it. Even if neutersol turns out to be the greatest thing
since sliced bread and is accepted by everyone including all zoos it
still solves only half of the problem. What about the females?
As anthropologist Margaret Mead so
beautifully said, "Never doubt that a
small group of thoughtful citizens
can change the world: indeed it is the
only thing that ever has."
5. Additional options that are not even talked about.
a) Morning-after birth control pill.
I was very surprised to hear from a zoo friend when he told me
that his vet told him that a morning-after pill didn't exist for
dogs! Even more so when you realize that a morning-after pill *is*
available for people in this country now. It's very hush-hush and most
people don't know about it yet. ( Can't get it over-the-counter here
but the local drug store chain does have it ) Given that the
reproductive biochemistry is basically identical I can't imagine there
would need to be much of a difference between the human and canine
versions of this, other then the dosage and some other minor changes.
Anyone know what the hold-up with this is? This would be a wonderful
help for zoos since most of us would know *right* away if our spouses
had mated as we tend to keep a sharp eye on them when they are on heat.
b) Vasectomy.
In humans this is a fast, safe, effective and cheap operation
to do. The tubes carrying the sperm to the prostate are tied off.
Since the vast majority of the ejaculate is prostate fluid and not
sperm there is little noticed change during sex. As a kid in high
school bio class once put it: "All juice and no seeds!" The
testicles are not touched and continue to produce testosterone as
before. With humans it's done in clinics and as far as I know takes
only about 10 or 15 minutes under a local anesthetic. For animals
this has the same basic advantages as neutersol, no general anesthetic
is needed and not much risk of blood cloting problems, and/or lethargy
after the operation. It's 100% effective and I was told by a vet that
it shouldn't even cost much more then simple castration as it's not
much more complicated to do. I suspect that it will remain rather
more costly then neutering simply because, unlike with human doctors
that can specialize in doing this procedure, it's not going to be done
very often by vets and without the speed gained by practice, it will
take more of the vets time to do even though it's simple.
c) Tubal-ligation.
This is the female equivalent of the above but a much more
complex operation to do. Just as in vesectomy it is minimally invasive
and nearly 100% effective. Once the tubes are tied off, no eggs can
make their way to the uterus. The uterus and everything else remain in
place and all hormone balances/cycles remain as before. They will come
on heat and attract male dogs as well. There are three downsides to
this procedure that I can think of, all related to it's complexity.
1) It's always going to be expensive.
2) Going to a shelter and insisting on a tubal-ligation is just about
the same as telling them you have sex with animals. This is not the
case when requesting non-castration birth control methods for males as
many millions of people don't like castrating male dogs. A double
standard true but even humans are still stuck with this.
3) To ask for it to be done your going to have to be out-of-the-closet
to your vet too and have to trust him/her extremely well. I can't
think of many non-zoos that would ask for this procedure and once it is
done there is no way for the average person to tell if a spaying was
done or a true tubal-ligation. Unless your "out" and trust your vet
very well it would be very tempting for them to do a simple spaying,
save all the work and pocket all the extra money. They would have no
reason to think you would care one way or the other unless you were
*very* clear about it. You would never realize what they just did to
your wife for up to 6 months and who could you safely complain to
afterwards especially if you weren't "out" to begin with? A level of
trust must be built up before this is tried.
d) How about we leave them alone: Why is it our husbands and
wives must be forced to be "fixed"?
It is easy to forget that while in our society husbands and
wives take a great deal of time and consider the options of vasectomy
and tubal-ligation very carefully before doing it, most non-zoos don't
even give it a second thought to inflict surgery much more damaging on
animals of all kinds and give it the wonderful sounding name
of "fixing." It's often done so casually zoos just call it what it
is, "sexual mutilation." This is all well and good if you see animals
as "lower" life forms but as you now realize we don't. The decision to
do this is as painful and carefully considered by us as any human-human
married couple would treat it. It is a sad commentary on the species
bigotry pervasive in our culture that while a small fortune in cold
hard cash will be spent to save just one young person from loosing
their reproductive ability accidentally through illness or misfortune,
*zero* money would be spent to do the same with our animal spouses
unless we make a major scene about it. Only those very, very few
canine zoos that are out to our vets can expect anywhere near the same
kind of treatment regarding this as human-human couples see as routine
treatment from their doctors. Amazing when one realizes that a very
strong case can be made that human overpopulation is really *more* of a
global problem then pet-overpopulation is. Is this really so difficult
to understand? Is it any wonder that the very first clinic designed
to treat and care for smaller animals opened in India? Yet is anyone
really surprised that many poorer people in America will make sure
their animals get better health care then they themselves can afford?
That is how much like family they are. I believe most people can
understand and respect our diversity and the truly serious nature of
all decisions we have to make regarding birth control methods for us
and our animal spouses. For us it will always be this way and the
current situation completely ignores this, it treats everyone the same
and assumes we all want to put an end to the sexuality of our "pets."
This must change.
"Talk about reality? Ok lets talk about the reality of canine-canine
sex when dogs are allowed to run loose, of dogfights and torn flesh and
blood and stitches and scars. Of real pain and hurt and bitches
getting pregnent and unwanted puppies that have to be killed. And
should the same dogs meet up with a zoo instead? A great deal of
pleasuring, little risk of injury to either party and no unwanted
puppies. You would never know what happened when your dog returned
home."
muttnik
6. Facing reality
a) What non-zoos, animal shelters and vets must understand
about us.
This will always boil down to respecting diversity and deciding
not to discriminate against a sexual minority group. You have to ask
yourself if you can do this. If the answer is no then you've just
wasted some time reading this report, however, if your sitting on the
fence about this issue or already understand most of what I'm talking
about then we can both start to face reality.
That reality is about choices, as much as any human-human
couple wants reproductive choices ( and complain that there really are
so few ) we want them too. As it stands right now, July 25, 1999 in
most parts of the country we have exactly zero choices for our mates.
Why?
Answer: Fear.
Merely to ask for any other birth control method implies that
we want to keep our animals sexually active. Just this simple
implication strikes fear in many of us and raises some questions in
just a few of you and that is enough to have stopped all progress for
decades. We have to put a end to the last taboo and we have to start
talking to each other. We must educate. Then things can start to
change.
I must ask shelters and humane societies not to listen to
anyone that wants to start a witch hunt. ( see below too ) It won't
work the way the anti-zoos make it sound. I'd much rather see "Rent-A-
Dog" programs like the one in the Los Angeles shelter go nationwide
instead. (See March 1999 issue of DogFancy page 14 for details)
Programs such as these actually take the exact opposite approach
proposed by the anti-zoo crowd and I cannot even begin to tell you how
many extra lives are saved both canine and human. Even if the dog is
not adopted right away all the extra human-canine contact in such a
program is priceless to help both live happier lives.
When talking with vets one thing is clear, they are trained in
vet school about zoosexuality and most seem very accepting of it. Many
of them, if not most of them would do a vasectomy if you asked them
too, yet to a person they think the odds of getting shelters throughout
the country to accept the reality of cross-species sexuality as very
slim. It would seem the USA is going to have to grow-up some more
before this is all sorted out. I hope dogs all over come out the
better for it.
In the end what non-zoos, animal shelters and vets have to
understand about us is how much we love.
b) What we must understand about pet-overpopulation, the
population dynamics and economics behind the current state of affairs.
The mathmatics behind population dynamics are very interesting
and any reader that wants to know more about it can find it it a book
titled "And Replenish the Earth" that came out in the mid 1970's. One
of the problems that quickly turns up when you look at the math is even
with 60% or 70% of a population completely sterile you will still end
up with a overpopulation problem. Even with that many animals
spayed/neutered the killing in shelters will continue almost
unchanged. Only when better then 80% to 90% of all animals are sterile
will anyone *begin* to see relief. The pure physics of population
dynamics force the need for a *very* tough stance against letting *any*
breeding animals out of shelters/humane societies. All zoos must
realize this and be prepared to compromise regarding birth control
methods. As much as some of us want 100% intact dogs the reality of
the situation is that they will become even harder to find in the
future outside of making private arrangments. The economics of this
and of spaying/neutering itself also drive these decisions. It cost a
lot to keep a lot of dogs safe and healthly in a shelter if they are
allowed to live and the big push is on for more and more shelters to
become non-kill facilities, thank God. Standard neutering, as fast as
it is, is still slow and likely more expensive then neudersoling so
expect neudersol to almost completely take over. It also offers the
other advantages to neutering spoken about above. Still castration
will likely continue to be offered for those that really want to stop
the sex related behaviors of their animals and we will just have to
deal with this. For us to use any *other* birth control method expect
to pay big bucks for it. Even as easy and simple as vasectomy is it
will undoubtly be more expensive then any other procedure for male dogs
(except perhaps installing neuticals) and tubal-ligation for females
will likely always cost many hundreds of dollars vs. $25 or less for
spaying.
c) A time for compromise.
One doesn't have to spend much time on the Usenet Newsgroups,
to see what happens when this subject comes up. The knee-jerk
reactions on both sides of this issue have to end. Publications that
take a world view, such as DogFancy, do understand the complexity of
this issue as countries outside America treat their dogs very
differently then we do. It is not unusual at all for a person and
their pet to visit here from Europe and the first words out of his/her
mouth is "You people hate your dogs!" So many of the things they are
use to doing together as a couple they simply cannot do here because of
our backward laws. In other countries dogs are considered *food.*
This all makes the heated arguments over minor points such as the
method of birth control seem rather silly but it gets worse. Some will
even argue that not only should other methods *not* be allowed but
anyone that requests them should be turned into the cops as some kind
of animal-abuser. Given how many non-zoos don't like castration and
it's risks to begin with this has to be the most counter-productive
argument I've ever heard. It would result in the deaths of untold
numbers of the very animals they are trying so hard to protect if
implemented. Clearly a compromise is in order.
This is my proposal.
Given the diversity in the world it really is best not to try
to force anyones morals on anyone else and make this purely an economic
choice. Shelters really cannot charge much money to let animals be
brought in because if they did the animals would just be killed
outright or abandoned, so recouping the cost of caring for unwanted
animals will have to be done at the other end, when they leave. Since
each intact male and female dog that leaves a shelter is likely to
produce a certain number of unwanted puppies, depending on whether it's
a mutt vs. purebred etc., the cost of caring for them (and their
unwanted offspring and so on) can be calculated and that cost charged
to the person wanting a completely intact animal. This might be a
rather high cost but some people will be willing to pay it. ( I
estimate at the *lowest* around $2,000 to $3,000 dollars! ) For those
willing to use *ANY* method of effective birth control this additional
cost should be removed and only the cost of the specific method of
birth control left to help sway the decision one way or another. Since
there is likely to be a tremendous difference between the cost of a
completely intact animal vs almost any birth control method you can bet
that very *few* animals will leave the shelter fully intact. This is
simple, it is fair and it doesn't discriminate against any sexual
minorities, they can still get exactly the kind of animal they want if
they have the money. Most importantly no one can start a witch hunt
this way, the only result of which would be to accuse mostly non-zoos
of things they don't do to begin with and will scare so many people
away from shelters and humane societies that hundreds of dogs that
might have had good homes will be left to die. The really crazy part
is the target of these witch hunts, namely us, already have excellent
methods to circumvent all of this so should they start they don't stand
a chance to catch many of us. As with any attack against a ill defined
and very dispersed group it's everyone else that suffers.
For now, in my opinion, the most important thing that has to
happen first is the zoo must be out-of-the-closet to their local vet.
(If they're in a situation that permits this without undue risk) This
way arrangements can be made for a vasectomy *ahead* of time and this
paperwork can be presented to the shelter and/or humane society when
they try to force neutering on us. Another great advantage to this is
if the anti-zoo crowd has already "gotten to" the local humane society,
the above paperwork will protect the zoo and if the shelter doesn't
refuse on the spot they will likely place a call to the vet for a
explanation. Then the vet can calmly tell them about all the non-zoos
that don't like neutering. Then it's up to that specific shelter to
honor the request by the vet. For now something in the back of my mind
tells me many would not but I might be wrong about this. I think much
would depend on how much damage the anti-zoos have done first. In any
case the zoo would be protected and not at great risk given a nice long
chat with their vet first. That's risk enough.
"I wonder how different the world would be if everytime we ate a
hamburger we had to make love to the animal it came from first."
muttnik
7. In conclusion.
I have to admit, for my readers who never even realized that
humans and animals can get it on in suchs ways before now this must all
be a rather large amount of information to digest. Regardless of the
birth control issue, most Americans *want* to stop the sexuality of
their dogs to end the wandering, territory marking and menstrual
cycles, so it must be a culture shock to finally know that a whole
segment of the population wants to do the exact opposite! What I'm
talking about here really is that a CULTURAL difference, nothing more.
Other people in other cultures understand exactly what I'm talking
about be they zoo or non-zoo. Partly it's because their culture may be
much more advanced in the understanding of human sexuality as a whole
but unquestionably the religion of the majority plays a factor as well
as local traditions. In some places in the world bestiality is
actually encouraged in the young adult but please don't confuse this
behavior with zoosexuality. While the former will always be a matter
of opportunity the latter is always a matter of love and none of us can
control who we fall in love with. There is still something to be
learned in the story of Romeo and Juliet even after all these
centuries.
Sincerely,
muttnik
Important additional reading:
Please see the Commentary in June 1994 "Discover" magazine.
Feel free to distribute this to all veterinarians and anyone else you
feel should see it.
1. Kinsey's data indicates that at least 18 million males in this
country have had sex with a animal at least once and roughly 9 million
women have done the same. This number has to be highly refined as it
still lumps together the two groups. Dearest Pet refines this down to
1% to 2% and also indicates on page 149 that those having "sex
exclusively with animals" would be far below 1%. I'm not worried
about strict exclusivity with animals so I'm not going to go too far
below 1%. Examining Kinsey's data closer and taking only those that
checked the highest box ( achieving orgasm with a animal 1,000 or more
times ) you would get about one person in 25,000 to 30,000 people.
This now gives us a reasonable bracket between 0.5% ( 1.3 million) and
1 in 30,000 ( about 9,000 ) A reasonable inbetween is 0.1% to 0.2% and
my own personal outing experience tells me this is likely a very
consevative number so it is acceptable to me. This also jives well
with the number of books Hossie has sold. The final word on all this
math is really on pages 142 to 143 of Dearest Pet by Midas Dekkers. It
the definitive answer right there.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
|
