Spay/Neuter education

0 views
Skip to first unread message

sham...@inferno.com

unread,
May 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/12/96
to

CN>Please consider telling the Citizens Stamp Advisory Committee you would buy
CN>$.32 stamp showing a kitten & puppy with the words "Spay/Neuter - Save a Lif
CN>Their address follows. This simple act will help tremendously to educate th
CN>public. Write:

CN>
CN> James Tolbert, Jr.
CN> Stamp Management
CN> Citizen's Stamp Advisory Committee
CN> US Postal Service
CN> 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW
CN> Washington, DC 20260-2435

CN>
CN>BTW, if you are interested in spay/neuter stickers, rubberstamps or any othe
CN>educational tools, please contact me. I will gladly slip some ideas and/or
CN>and ideas in the mail to you.
CN>
CN>Meanwhile, if you aren't using SPAY USA to network for you, you're missing a
CN>golden opportunity. Give them a holler....
CN>
CN> SPAY USA
CN> 14 Vanderventer Avenue
CN> Port Washington, NY 11050
CN>
CN> 1-800 248-SPAY
CN>
CN>Kat Chaplin - ik...@msg.ti.com
CN> Prevention, not destruction!

I would love some stickers. My annual donation to my local humane
society always is designated for their low cost spay/neuter clinic.

Kate


CNLEWMC2

unread,
May 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/13/96
to

Please consider telling the Citizens Stamp Advisory Committee you would buy a
$.32 stamp showing a kitten & puppy with the words "Spay/Neuter - Save a Life!"
Their address follows. This simple act will help tremendously to educate the
public. Write:


James Tolbert, Jr.
Stamp Management

Citizen's Stamp Advisory Committee

US Postal Service


475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW

Washington, DC 20260-2435


BTW, if you are interested in spay/neuter stickers, rubberstamps or any other good
educational tools, please contact me. I will gladly slip some ideas and/or samples


and ideas in the mail to you.

Meanwhile, if you aren't using SPAY USA to network for you, you're missing a

golden opportunity. Give them a holler....

SPAY USA
14 Vanderventer Avenue
Port Washington, NY 11050

1-800 248-SPAY

Kat Chaplin - ik...@msg.ti.com
Prevention, not destruction!

Malcolm McMahon

unread,
May 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/21/96
to

On 13 May 1996 03:16:17 GMT, CNLEWMC2@ wrote:

>Please consider telling the Citizens Stamp Advisory Committee you would buy a
>$.32 stamp showing a kitten & puppy with the words "Spay/Neuter - Save a Life!"
>Their address follows. This simple act will help tremendously to educate the
>public. Write:
>

Hmm.. Wouldn't "Save a death" be a more accurate slogan? It's
difficult to see how preventing the birth of animals a proportion of
which are likely to die young is "saving lives". You're not saving
lives but preventing them.

---------------------------------+----------------------------------
I was born weird: This terrible | Like Pavlov's dogs we are trained
compulsion to behave normally is | to salivate at the sound of the
the result of childhood trauma. | liberty bell.
---------------------------------+----------------------------------
Malcolm

Equesse

unread,
May 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/21/96
to

>>:"Spay/Neuter - Save a Life!"

>>Hmm.. Wouldn't "Save a death" be a more accurate slogan? It's
>>difficult to see how preventing the birth of animals a proportion of
>>which are likely to die young is "saving lives". You're not saving
>>lives but preventing them.

Well, it's my opinion that you're picking nits a bit, even if you ARE
on the mark with your comment. But, for the record:

Spaying and neutering has been proven to have other health benefits
to animals, including preventing deaths caused by cancers, STDs and
other diseases, whelp trauma, etc. Also, since it often supresses
hormonal activity and sex drive, neutering (spaying) may curb
wanderlust somewhat, thereby avoiding deaths by automobiles to
some degree.

Also, there are some that hold the theory that if unwanted pups
are prevented from ever being born, then those dogs who are without
a home for whatever reason, would have a much better chance of
surviving their visit to the impound and being re-placed in a home.
That *is* a life SAVED, in the proper context.

As you can see, population control isn't the only benefit to
neutering (spaying).

Like with anything else, there are parts of the language of any
given topic that you can pick apart. The polio vaccine didn't save
lives. It prevented deaths. But in cancer research, scientists are
working on studies, the results of which may both save lives AND
prevent deaths. It's a shakey analogy, but the act of spaying and
neutering can both save a life and prevent death simultaneously.

Anyhow, what does "save" REALLY mean?

Ferrari

unread,
May 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/21/96
to

CNLEWMC2@ wrote:

>Please consider telling the Citizens Stamp Advisory Committee you would buy a

>$.32 stamp showing a kitten & puppy with the words "Spay/Neuter - Save a Life!"

I don't think this is going to work. I mailed a post card awhile back
and received a form letter saying they are not considering this design
for a stamp.

"Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes!"


Malcolm McMahon

unread,
May 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/22/96
to

On 21 May 1996 13:10:02 -0400, equ...@aol.com (Equesse) wrote:

>
>Spaying and neutering has been proven to have other health benefits
>to animals, including preventing deaths caused by cancers, STDs and
>other diseases, whelp trauma, etc.

I wonder about that. It seems to me that vets, having decided that
spay/neuter is a Good Thing deploy every argument they can come up
with to persuade owners who often have very genuine moral qualms. Has
anyone done a double blind trial on mortality? I doubt it. Sure if you
don't have gonads you are not going to get cancer of the gonads but
what physiological effects of the change in hormones? Would you not
expect a slight movement towards osteoporosis in spayed bitches for
example? Why do post-menopausal women generally benefit from hormonal
replacement?


> Also, since it often supresses
>hormonal activity and sex drive, neutering (spaying) may curb
>wanderlust somewhat, thereby avoiding deaths by automobiles to
>some degree.
>

But then again if it decreases activity does it not increase the risk
of obesity and ill-health?

>Also, there are some that hold the theory that if unwanted pups
>are prevented from ever being born, then those dogs who are without
>a home for whatever reason, would have a much better chance of
>surviving their visit to the impound and being re-placed in a home.
>That *is* a life SAVED, in the proper context.
>

A life saved for a life never lived. A gain?

I understand the desire for population control but I do not accept
that there is much evidence that neutering can truly be said to be for
the benefit of the animal in question. It may be for the benefit of
the species and it is certainly of benefit to the owners.

My personal belief is that vets should offer sterilisation as an
alternative to neutering. Once an owner has committed to sterilisation
_then_ the vet can try and sell them on the additional benefit he or
she believes exists in neutering. sterilisation should be as easy or
easier than neutering in involves far less moral questions. While vets
offer neutering or nothing many owners will take nothing.

Katie with an E

unread,
May 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/22/96
to

mal...@pigsty.demon.co.uk (Malcolm McMahon) wrote:

>Hmm.. Wouldn't "Save a death" be a more accurate slogan? It's
>difficult to see how preventing the birth of animals a proportion of
>which are likely to die young is "saving lives". You're not saving
>lives but preventing them.

You are also preventing deaths -- the deaths of unwanted puppies and
kittens. Yes, because they won't have been born.
It's logical. Cope with it.

Do we really need to go into the ramifications of spay/neuter on
overpopulation, on feral population, and so forth? No? Good.


Kevin Shubert

unread,
May 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/23/96
to

>Also, there are some that hold the theory that if unwanted pups
>are prevented from ever being born, then those dogs who are without
>a home for whatever reason, would have a much better chance of
>surviving their visit to the impound and being re-placed in a home.
>That *is* a life SAVED, in the proper context.

>As you can see, population control isn't the only benefit to
>neutering (spaying).

>Anyhow, what does "save" REALLY mean?


It means we as human beings are "saved" from having to put these
animals down. These animals (unborn) are potentially "saved" from
having to live a life of pain and degradation.

I worked in an SPCA for a year, and saw many unwanted pets come and
go. A fair bit of the people who came in looking for an animal,
wanted a "pretrained, trouble free" pet, and were suprised when they
had to fill out a fairly revealing adoption form. I saw many animals
that had to be put down from lack of space (or disease, or major
injuries) because no one wanted them. Ever since then, any animal I
have owned has been neutered/spayed.....I do not want their pups going
through the same things I saw other animals go through.

If anyone doubts this, go to your local SPCA and work there for a
month. Then you'll get a good idea of what cruelty people really are
capable of, and why spaying/neutering really is the way to go.

Susan


Seetoh Wai Keong

unread,
May 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/23/96
to

Malcolm McMahon (mal...@pigsty.demon.co.uk) wrote:

: On 13 May 1996 03:16:17 GMT, CNLEWMC2@ wrote:

: >Please consider telling the Citizens Stamp Advisory Committee you
: > would buy a $.32 stamp showing a kitten & puppy with the words

: >"Spay/Neuter - Save a Life!" Their address follows.

: > This simple act will help tremendously to educate the public.

: Hmm.. Wouldn't "Save a death" be a more accurate slogan?

Paradoxically, this is both more accurate and misleading.
Life creates death, and with spaying there is both no life
and no death. It is one side of the same coin.

: It's difficult to see how preventing the birth of animals a


: proportion of which are likely to die young is "saving lives".
: You're not saving lives but preventing them.

In your suggestion "Save a death", the word "Save" is used to
mean "prevent". In the same sense, the word "Save" in the
slogan "Save a Life" is used to mean prevent. It appears there
is more agreement than disagreement.

seetoh

Equesse

unread,
May 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/23/96
to


:>Spaying and neutering has been proven to have other health benefits


:>to animals, including preventing deaths caused by cancers, STDs and
:>other diseases, whelp trauma, etc.

Malcolm McMahon writes:
>I wonder about that. It seems to me that vets, having decided that
>spay/neuter is a Good Thing deploy every argument they can come up
>with to persuade owners who often have very genuine moral qualms. Has
>anyone done a double blind trial on mortality? I doubt it. Sure if you
>don't have gonads you are not going to get cancer of the gonads but
>what physiological effects of the change in hormones? Would you not
>expect a slight movement towards osteoporosis in spayed bitches for
>example? Why do post-menopausal women generally benefit from >hormonal
replacement?

Again... picking nits. You definately have some valid arguments, and
your questions are eloquent and well thought-out. I don't have any
data to provide you arguing my side (for spaying and neutering of
animals) that might convince you. But it's a *fact* that if a dog does
not copulate with (or is born to) a STD infected dog, then that dog
will not become infected. It is a *fact* that a spayed female dog
will not die or have serious complications that harm her or her
pups during whelping. And as you stated before, without certain
reproductive organs, cancer cannot grow where they don't exist.

As far as trade-offs, or health problems ASSOCIATED with spaying
and neutering, I assure you they are minimal compared to an
irresponsibly cared-for intact animal.

Veterinarians don't become more successful financially by "selling"
the idea of spay/neuter to pet owners. If they simply wanted to make more
money, without genuine concern for the welfare of animals,
they'd PROMOTE breeding, so they could perform *expensive*
procedures on dogs who are suffering from complications relating to
indiscriminate breeding... which is what sexually intact animals do
when "left to their own devices". Alt. sterilization proceedures are
conducted on animals as we speak. But sterilizing an animal doesn't
keep the animal from copulating or trying to copulate. There are
many hazards associated with THIS that you have failed to address,
and one that veterinarians HAVE addressed. Thus, the promotion of
spaying/neutering over sterilization.

Hormones? Yes. Very valid point. I've often wondered about that
myself. But animals everywhere go through menopause without any
surgical procedure, nor any artificial hormonal adjustments. It's
a topic that I'm sure is being researched as we speak. Calcium
supplements for dogs? Not needed if they're properly fed.

:> Also, since it often supresses


:>hormonal activity and sex drive, neutering (spaying) may curb
:>wanderlust somewhat, thereby avoiding deaths by automobiles to
:>some degree.

>But then again if it decreases activity does it not increase the risk
>of obesity and ill-health?

That's a common misconception about spaying and neutering.
Spaying/neutering does not always, nor does it ever HAVE to
"decrease activity" in animals. If you're a responsible pet owner,
you should be seeing to it that your pet has adequate exercise or
caloric intake/exercise ratio. Responsibility on the part of the owner
is the key in this argument. BTW, my two spayed bitches and
neutered male dog are all MORE active, focused, fit, than my intact
bitch and my best friend's intact male. Ill-health? I think not.

>>A life saved for a life never lived. A gain?<<

Depends on where you come from, morally and ethically. I happen
to think the phrase "life never lived" is completely preposterous.
It's like saying eating a poppy seed roll is "destroying flowers that
never were". Preposterous. A life that has already entered the world
is commonly (rightly so, in my opinion) held in higher regard than
one that has never even existed at all.

>I understand the desire for population control but I do not accept
>that there is much evidence that neutering can truly be said to be for
>the benefit of the animal in question. It may be for the benefit of
>the species and it is certainly of benefit to the owners.

You're right there. But as guardians of animals, we're entrusted with
their welfare, and for the AVERAGE citizen, spaying and neutering
as a preventative for breeding, birth, disease, is the most humane and
cost effective procedure currently widely available. Until people
get their collective crap together and become RESPONSIBLE pet
owners, to the point where there are no health concerns, population
concerns, etc. (like THIS will happen), I will be a strong proponent
for spaying and neutering of pets.

>My personal belief is that vets should offer sterilisation as an
>alternative to neutering. Once an owner has committed to sterilisation
>_then_ the vet can try and sell them on the additional benefit he or
>she believes exists in neutering. sterilisation should be as easy or
>easier than neutering in involves far less moral questions. While vets
>offer neutering or nothing many owners will take nothing.

Well, as far as the PROCEDURES are concerned, I think that
altering by removal of organs and altering by crippling of organs
are slightly different. But as far as MORALITY of said procedures,
it's completely arbitrary. Again, where you see spaying as an
unnecessary procedure, I see the agony of possible complications
to an unbred bitch's reproductive tract, without benefit of
having litters, as completely unnecessary and bordering on cruel.
Where you see the the removal of testicles as unnecessary, I see
the frustrations, aggressive behaviors, and lack of focus of an
unneutered non-breeding male as unnecessary. It's all a matter of
opinion that varies from person to person. But I must say you present
a good argument for alternative options in sterilization procedures.

My compliments to a well-presented, flame-free debate!


Todd Andrews

unread,
May 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/23/96
to

Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>
> On 13 May 1996 03:16:17 GMT, CNLEWMC2@ wrote:
>
> >Please consider telling the Citizens Stamp Advisory Committee you would buy a
> >$.32 stamp showing a kitten & puppy with the words "Spay/Neuter - Save a Life!"
> >Their address follows. This simple act will help tremendously to educate the
> >public. Write:
> >
>
> Hmm.. Wouldn't "Save a death" be a more accurate slogan? It's

> difficult to see how preventing the birth of animals a proportion of
> which are likely to die young is "saving lives". You're not saving
> lives but preventing them.
>
> ---------------------------------+----------------------------------
> I was born weird: This terrible | Like Pavlov's dogs we are trained
> compulsion to behave normally is | to salivate at the sound of the
> the result of childhood trauma. | liberty bell.
> ---------------------------------+----------------------------------
> Malcolm

Hmmmm... An interesting thought I've had (scary, I know).

Why isn't it okay per AR logic to use an Elephant as a circus animal,
but it IS okay to cut off its testicles?

Dianne Schoenberg

unread,
May 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/28/96
to

Todd Andrews <tand...@deltanet.com> wrote:
>Why isn't it okay per AR logic to use an Elephant as a circus animal,
>but it IS okay to cut off its testicles?

Actually, I attended a talk by an elephant trainer just a couple of
weeks ago and this very subject came up. Elephants are *not* typically
castrated, since male elephants carry their testicles internally, near
their kidneys. Therefore castration requires two major abdominal
surgeries, typically done a year apart--since it is not possible to
turn an anesthetized elephant over, first one testicle is done, then
the one on the other side. Actually, male elephants are almost never
kept in captivity at all, as they are very dangerous animals. So
since castrating an elephant has very seldom been done, your example
isn't really a very good one :-).

Followups set.

Dianne

Malcolm McMahon

unread,
May 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/28/96
to

On 23 May 1996 02:03:20 -0400, equ...@aol.com (Equesse) wrote:

>
>Again... picking nits. You definately have some valid arguments, and
>your questions are eloquent and well thought-out. I don't have any
>data to provide you arguing my side (for spaying and neutering of
>animals) that might convince you. But it's a *fact* that if a dog does
>not copulate with (or is born to) a STD infected dog, then that dog
>will not become infected. It is a *fact* that a spayed female dog
>will not die or have serious complications that harm her or her
>pups during whelping. And as you stated before, without certain
>reproductive organs, cancer cannot grow where they don't exist.
>

Why are the same arguments not applicable to human beings?


>
>Veterinarians don't become more successful financially by "selling"
>the idea of spay/neuter to pet owners.

Don't get me wrong. I don't question their, or your, sincerity. But
the advantages of neutering has become so much the established
orthodoxy that I do doubt that it has been sufficiently examined,
either from a medical or an ethical standpoint.

I do feel that the orthodoxy that neutering is a major health benefit
to the animal is, at least to a degree, an article of faith which
exists to simplify a genuine moral dilema, rather like the animal
rights faith that animal experiments never produce genuinely useful
results. It's something which there is too much incentive to believe.


>But sterilizing an animal doesn't
>keep the animal from copulating or trying to copulate. There are
>many hazards associated with THIS that you have failed to address,
>and one that veterinarians HAVE addressed. Thus, the promotion of
>spaying/neutering over sterilization.
>

I can't help suspecting that the "hazzard" at the back of many minds
is more of a moral than a physical nature. That the neutering
orthodoxy is, to a degree, the imposition of Christian erotophobia on
our familiars.


>Hormones? Yes. Very valid point. I've often wondered about that
>myself. But animals everywhere go through menopause without any
>surgical procedure, nor any artificial hormonal adjustments.

Well, no, I don't think you'll find they do. The facts, as I
understand them, are that only in the human race has evolution found a
useful function for post-reproductive grandparents. Only humans
females have a substantial post-reproductive life expectancy.

>
>Depends on where you come from, morally and ethically. I happen
>to think the phrase "life never lived" is completely preposterous.
>It's like saying eating a poppy seed roll is "destroying flowers that
>never were". Preposterous. A life that has already entered the world
>is commonly (rightly so, in my opinion) held in higher regard than
>one that has never even existed at all.
>

Yes, but is this really defensible? If we focus on suffering and death
alone then all lives come out to have a negative value and the most
moral course would be to nuke the whole planet. We must offset the
suffering that enters every life by regarding _any_ life, however
short as having an innate positive value.

>
>>My personal belief is that vets should offer sterilisation as an
>>alternative to neutering. Once an owner has committed to sterilisation
>>_then_ the vet can try and sell them on the additional benefit he or
>>she believes exists in neutering. sterilisation should be as easy or
>>easier than neutering in involves far less moral questions. While vets
>>offer neutering or nothing many owners will take nothing.
>
>Well, as far as the PROCEDURES are concerned, I think that
>altering by removal of organs and altering by crippling of organs
>are slightly different. But as far as MORALITY of said procedures,
>it's completely arbitrary.

I think not. In one case you are preventing a specific _event_, vis
pregnancy. In the other you are deliberately altering the whole nature
of the animal, largely to suite your own convenience.

Kathi Mills

unread,
May 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/29/96
to

mal...@pigsty.demon.co.uk (Malcolm McMahon) wrote:

>On 23 May 1996 02:03:20 -0400, equ...@aol.com (Equesse) wrote:

>>But it's a *fact* that if a dog does
>>not copulate with (or is born to) a STD infected dog, then that dog
>>will not become infected. It is a *fact* that a spayed female dog
>>will not die or have serious complications that harm her or her
>>pups during whelping. And as you stated before, without certain
>>reproductive organs, cancer cannot grow where they don't exist.

>Why are the same arguments not applicable to human beings?

Humans have lawyers.

-----

"Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes!"

red.f...@atl.mindspring.com


Sandy Witham

unread,
May 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/30/96
to

>mal...@pigsty.demon.co.uk (Malcolm McMahon) wrote:
>
>>On 23 May 1996 02:03:20 -0400, equ...@aol.com (Equesse) wrote:
>
>>>But it's a *fact* that if a dog does
>>>not copulate with (or is born to) a STD infected dog, then that dog
>>>will not become infected. It is a *fact* that a spayed female dog
>>>will not die or have serious complications that harm her or her
>>>pups during whelping. And as you stated before, without certain
>>>reproductive organs, cancer cannot grow where they don't exist.
>
>>Why are the same arguments not applicable to human beings?
>
But they are. Women have bilateral mastectomies to prevent them getting
breast cancer if they believe they are at a high risk of the disease.
Women are sterilised without having children to prevent the
complications of childrbirth or producing unwanted children. Male
castration is practised where a man has had cancer of one testicle to
prevent it spreading to the other one. The difference here is that
humans give their consent, whereas animals can't.

Sandy Witham
"Life is not a rehearsal" sa...@rescue.demon.co.uk

Malcolm McMahon

unread,
May 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/31/96
to

On Thu, 30 May 1996 19:23:44 +0100, Sandy Witham
<sa...@rescue.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>
>But they are. Women have bilateral mastectomies to prevent them getting
>breast cancer if they believe they are at a high risk of the disease.
>Women are sterilised without having children to prevent the
>complications of childrbirth or producing unwanted children. Male
>castration is practised where a man has had cancer of one testicle to
>prevent it spreading to the other one. The difference here is that
>humans give their consent, whereas animals can't.
>

No, the difference it that it's only done as an act of desperation
when it's believed there's substantial danger to life.

Dianne Schoenberg

unread,
May 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/31/96
to

Malcolm McMahon <mal...@pigsty.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Sandy Witham <sa...@rescue.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>But they are. Women have bilateral mastectomies to prevent them getting
>>breast cancer if they believe they are at a high risk of the disease.
>>Women are sterilised without having children to prevent the
>>complications of childrbirth or producing unwanted children. Male
>>castration is practised where a man has had cancer of one testicle to
>>prevent it spreading to the other one. The difference here is that
>>humans give their consent, whereas animals can't.
>>
>No, the difference it that it's only done as an act of desperation
>when it's believed there's substantial danger to life.

Actually, you're wrong about that. More-or-less elective hysterectomies
are not uncommon, actually, and prophylactic mastectomies are also being
performed at increasing rates. These procedures are being undergone
voluntarily by the women involved for the *prevention* of disease, not for
its treatment--so in that sense they are quite comparable to having a
bitch spayed. Now, I've never heard of the elective removal of normal
testes in a human, but unilateral and bilateral orchidectomies for the
treatment of testicular cancer are probably rather more common than most
men would like to think about. It is also routine in people (as it is in
dogs) to remove undescended testicles due to the high risk of cancer
involved.

Dianne (who has reviewed a LOT of medical records)

Sandy Witham

unread,
Jun 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/1/96
to

In article <31ae9f5...@news.demon.co.uk>, Malcolm McMahon
<mal...@pigsty.demon.co.uk> writes
>On Thu, 30 May 1996 19:23:44 +0100, Sandy Witham

><sa...@rescue.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>
>>But they are. Women have bilateral mastectomies to prevent them getting
>>breast cancer if they believe they are at a high risk of the disease.
>>Women are sterilised without having children to prevent the
>>complications of childrbirth or producing unwanted children. Male
>>castration is practised where a man has had cancer of one testicle to
>>prevent it spreading to the other one. The difference here is that
>>humans give their consent, whereas animals can't.
>>
>
>No, the difference it that it's only done as an act of desperation
>when it's believed there's substantial danger to life.
>
>---------------------------------+----------------------------------
>I was born weird: This terrible | Like Pavlov's dogs we are trained
>compulsion to behave normally is | to salivate at the sound of the
>the result of childhood trauma. | liberty bell.
>---------------------------------+----------------------------------
>Malcolm

Not necessarily, as women (myself included) do not want to have children
and also do not want to have to worry about pregnancy. This is not a
danger to life, it is a conscious choice not to use certain organs for
the purpose for which they were intended. Sterilisation is an option
which does not include the taking in of chemicals into the body or using
other contraceptive measures which are less safe than the chemical ones
(especially as no-one really knows the side effects of such drugs). I
was not sterilised as an act of desperation, but as a positive choice.

Susan Mudgett aka little gator

unread,
Jun 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/2/96
to


: >>>But it's a *fact* that if a dog does


: >>>not copulate with (or is born to) a STD infected dog, then that dog
: >>>will not become infected.


Not according to my vet. Brucellosis usually eneters a kennel or
household when a dog gets it by copulating with an infected dog, but
once it enters entire kennels can catch it and be killed by
it. Non-sexual close contact (such as happens when sharing a house or
kennel) can spread canine brucellosis, which is primarily, but not
always, and STD.

Malcolm McMahon

unread,
Jun 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/2/96
to

On Sat, 1 Jun 1996 21:59:34 +0100, Sandy Witham
<sa...@rescue.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
>Not necessarily, as women (myself included) do not want to have children
>and also do not want to have to worry about pregnancy. This is not a
>danger to life, it is a conscious choice not to use certain organs for
>the purpose for which they were intended. Sterilisation is an option
>which does not include the taking in of chemicals into the body or using
>other contraceptive measures which are less safe than the chemical ones
>(especially as no-one really knows the side effects of such drugs). I
>was not sterilised as an act of desperation, but as a positive choice.

Steralisation is not the same thing as neutering.

Wilkinson K F (Kimberly)

unread,
Jun 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/4/96
to

Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>
> On 23 May 1996 02:03:20 -0400, equ...@aol.com (Equesse) wrote:
> >But it's a *fact* that if a dog does
> >not copulate with (or is born to) a STD infected dog, then that dog
> >will not become infected. It is a *fact* that a spayed female dog
> >will not die or have serious complications that harm her or her
> >pups during whelping. And as you stated before, without certain
> >reproductive organs, cancer cannot grow where they don't exist.
> >
> Why are the same arguments not applicable to human beings?

Well, for one thing, SEX for a dog is instinctive, and hormonally
driven. If my (male) dog has been neutered, he won't go looking
for copulation. If my (female) dog has been spayed, she won't
go looking for copulation or be laying down "in heat" scent for
other dogs to follow. With HUMANS, it's also hormonally driven,
but, "neutered" or not, humans will have sex. So, yeah, you can
take the impregnating equipment out of both male & female humans,
but that won't keep them from copulation.

The cancer argument is valid, and HAS been used on humans. I've
heard of / read / talked to people who have had, for example,
double mastectomies where only ONE breast was cancerous, because
they were at high risk to develop cancer in the other one.

> >Veterinarians don't become more successful financially by "selling"
> >the idea of spay/neuter to pet owners.
>
> Don't get me wrong. I don't question their, or your, sincerity. But
> the advantages of neutering has become so much the established
> orthodoxy that I do doubt that it has been sufficiently examined,
> either from a medical or an ethical standpoint.

OK, how do you *THINK* it should be examined? (Notice, I do not
say "how do you FEEL.." I'm not interested in "feelings". "Feelings"
have been at the root of many a crusade, holy or otherwise, and
I'd really rather stay away from the emotional end of things.)
What tests would you like run? How would these tests be conducted?
Blind tests? Obviously that won't work -- a vet can tell if a
dog's been neutered.

>
> I do feel that the orthodoxy that neutering is a major health benefit
> to the animal is, at least to a degree, an article of faith which
> exists to simplify a genuine moral dilema, rather like the animal
> rights faith that animal experiments never produce genuinely useful
> results. It's something which there is too much incentive to believe.

And what do you THINK is the incentive, here? And what do you THINK
should be the (equally strong) incentive NOT to neuter / spay?

>
> >But sterilizing an animal doesn't
> >keep the animal from copulating or trying to copulate. There are
> >many hazards associated with THIS that you have failed to address,
> >and one that veterinarians HAVE addressed. Thus, the promotion of
> >spaying/neutering over sterilization.
> >
>
> I can't help suspecting that the "hazzard" at the back of many minds
> is more of a moral than a physical nature. That the neutering
> orthodoxy is, to a degree, the imposition of Christian erotophobia on
> our familiars.

Interesting thought. I REALLY have to question this..."Christian
erotophobia"? How can you make thiskind of general sweeping statement?
Do you really think that EVERY Christian has some innate "fear" of ANY
copulation? Come on. I had MY dog neutered, at the
urging of the Rescue Society I got him from (who does NOT get a
kickback from my vet - as a matter of fact, they RETURNED $50 to
me for doing so!). Why? Huskies, as a whole, are roamers. Much
of this is hormone-driven. I'd like to keep him in my own
backyard. AND I don't want to have a call saying "Your dog just
impregnated mine...get ready for half a litter of puppies..."
AND he's a lot happier than the NON-neutered dogs in the neighborhood!
He's content to stay at home, get pats from the neighborhood
kids, and generally pretend he's still a puppy -- the "intact" dogs
in the neighborhood are whining, unhappy, kept inside, trying
to get out, breaking their outdoor tie-outs, escaping, wandering
the neighborhood, running the risk of getting hit by cars, bitten
or worse from the other dogs in the neighborhood, etc. twice a
year JUST to get to the female in heat (or, if it's a female,
she's trying to get to an "intact" male). I've seen both
sides of that equation, and, on the whole, my dog is happier
neutered than he was "intact". And no, that's not my "erotophobia"
speaking -- I really couldn't care less about SEEING the dogs
"doing it"; I just have a big problem with the idea that my
dog would WANDER a lot!

> >Hormones? Yes. Very valid point. I've often wondered about that
> >myself. But animals everywhere go through menopause without any
> >surgical procedure, nor any artificial hormonal adjustments.
>
> Well, no, I don't think you'll find they do. The facts, as I
> understand them, are that only in the human race has evolution found a
> useful function for post-reproductive grandparents. Only humans
> females have a substantial post-reproductive life expectancy.

???? Are you saying that dogs kill any "post-reproductive" dogs in
their midst? (And, yes, there are female dogs that are post-
reproductive. Don't know about males.)



> >
> >Depends on where you come from, morally and ethically. I happen
> >to think the phrase "life never lived" is completely preposterous.
> >It's like saying eating a poppy seed roll is "destroying flowers that
> >never were". Preposterous. A life that has already entered the world
> >is commonly (rightly so, in my opinion) held in higher regard than
> >one that has never even existed at all.
> >
>
> Yes, but is this really defensible? If we focus on suffering and death
> alone then all lives come out to have a negative value and the most
> moral course would be to nuke the whole planet. We must offset the
> suffering that enters every life by regarding _any_ life, however
> short as having an innate positive value.

But you're making the argument for lives that don't exist. NOT
"abnormally short"; NON-EXISTENT. "Nuking the whole planet", as you
say, would TERMINATE lives that have already been brought into existence.
PREVENTING copulation is NOT "terminating a potential life"; it's
PREVENTING lives from ever coming into being. You can't assume that
there's XXXXXX number of "lives" out there, and if we "prevent" pregnancy
(either by abstinence, sterilization, or spay/neuter) then one of those
XXXXX number "won't ever happen; we've prevented one of those XXXXXX lives
from being fulfilled". If it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist, no matter
HOW it's prevented.

> >>My personal belief is that vets should offer sterilisation as an
> >>alternative to neutering. Once an owner has committed to sterilisation
> >>_then_ the vet can try and sell them on the additional benefit he or
> >>she believes exists in neutering. sterilisation should be as easy or
> >>easier than neutering in involves far less moral questions. While vets
> >>offer neutering or nothing many owners will take nothing.
> >
> >Well, as far as the PROCEDURES are concerned, I think that
> >altering by removal of organs and altering by crippling of organs
> >are slightly different. But as far as MORALITY of said procedures,
> >it's completely arbitrary.
>
> I think not. In one case you are preventing a specific _event_, vis
> pregnancy. In the other you are deliberately altering the whole nature
> of the animal, largely to suite your own convenience.

And, I suppose, wanting my dogs to NOT get hit by cars and mauled by
other dogs, and NOT get worms, and NOT wander around getting hungry &
thirsty, and NOT get kicked by people, and NOT get shot at by my
neighbors BECAUSE they're wandering around BECAUSE they're looking
for the only bitch in heat for 50 miles BECAUSE they weren't neutered
is "for my convenience"?
Wanting my dogs to be SAFE and HAPPY instead of UNSAFE and / or
MISERABLE is "for my own convenience"? Come on. Try again.

>
> ---------------------------------+----------------------------------
> I was born weird: This terrible | Like Pavlov's dogs we are trained
> compulsion to behave normally is | to salivate at the sound of the
> the result of childhood trauma. | liberty bell.
> ---------------------------------+----------------------------------
> Malcolm

--
Kim Wilkinson <*> (kwil...@mailhost.pd4.ford.com)

"Dog. A kind of additional or subsidiary Deity
designed to catch the overflow and surplus of the
world's worship." -Ambrose Bierce

My opinions do not come from my employer. Heck,
I don't know *where* they come from. Vorlons,
maybe...

Malcolm McMahon

unread,
Jun 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/4/96
to

On Tue, 04 Jun 1996 08:48:03 -0400, "Wilkinson K F (Kimberly)"
<kwil...@mailhost.pd4.ford.com> wrote:

>
>Well, for one thing, SEX for a dog is instinctive, and hormonally
>driven. If my (male) dog has been neutered, he won't go looking
>for copulation. If my (female) dog has been spayed, she won't
>go looking for copulation or be laying down "in heat" scent for
>other dogs to follow. With HUMANS, it's also hormonally driven,
>but, "neutered" or not, humans will have sex. So, yeah, you can
>take the impregnating equipment out of both male & female humans,
>but that won't keep them from copulation.
>

I think you'd find the effect on humans would be complete if you
caught them at the same age that pets are typically neutered. The
sexual habits wouldn't have time to form.

>The cancer argument is valid, and HAS been used on humans. I've
>heard of / read / talked to people who have had, for example,
>double mastectomies where only ONE breast was cancerous, because
>they were at high risk to develop cancer in the other one.
>

The breast is neither a primary sexual nor a hormone secreting organ.
People don't have themselves neutered unless the risk of death is
substantial.


>>
>> Don't get me wrong. I don't question their, or your, sincerity. But
>> the advantages of neutering has become so much the established
>> orthodoxy that I do doubt that it has been sufficiently examined,
>> either from a medical or an ethical standpoint.
>
>OK, how do you *THINK* it should be examined?

You'd have to do a comparison of mortality statistics between neutered
and intact animals in similar environments. This is complicated
because there may be other systematic differences between owners who
do and don't neuter. Perhaps a comparison between Greek dogs and those
of some ecconomically compatible contry. Neutering is looked on with
horror in Greece. Unfortunately for the proposed experiment so is
mercy killing but that might be compensated for.

>
>>
>> I do feel that the orthodoxy that neutering is a major health benefit
>> to the animal is, at least to a degree, an article of faith which
>> exists to simplify a genuine moral dilema, rather like the animal
>> rights faith that animal experiments never produce genuinely useful
>> results. It's something which there is too much incentive to believe.
>
>And what do you THINK is the incentive, here?

The incentive is that believing in the health benefits to the animals
you can get the undoubted benefits of neutering as an owner with a
clear conscience. "It's for your own good Fido/Tiddles."

>> >
>>
>> I can't help suspecting that the "hazzard" at the back of many minds
>> is more of a moral than a physical nature. That the neutering
>> orthodoxy is, to a degree, the imposition of Christian erotophobia on
>> our familiars.
>
>Interesting thought. I REALLY have to question this..."Christian
>erotophobia"? How can you make thiskind of general sweeping statement?

From some appreciation of the Christian tradition. It's a statement
about Christianity not necessarilly applicable to all Christians.
Individual Christians take on different parts of the Christian world
view to differing degrees.

But on further reflection it may go deeper than that. Pets get into
our lives, as friends do, by plugging into our troop animal wiring.
They take the roles of low status troop members or children. Now don't
people tend to find it profoundly disturbing to regard their children
as (even potential) sexual beings?


>
>???? Are you saying that dogs kill any "post-reproductive" dogs in
>their midst? (And, yes, there are female dogs that are post-
>reproductive. Don't know about males.)
>

No, I'm saying that animals generally don't have a life expectancy
much longer than their reproductive lifespan.



>>
>> Yes, but is this really defensible? If we focus on suffering and death
>> alone then all lives come out to have a negative value and the most
>> moral course would be to nuke the whole planet. We must offset the
>> suffering that enters every life by regarding _any_ life, however
>> short as having an innate positive value.
>
>But you're making the argument for lives that don't exist. NOT
>"abnormally short"; NON-EXISTENT. "Nuking the whole planet", as you
>say, would TERMINATE lives that have already been brought into existence.

OK, so let's invent a virus that renders all vertebrates infertile.
Acceptable?

>
>And, I suppose, wanting my dogs to NOT get hit by cars and mauled by
>other dogs, and NOT get worms, and NOT wander around getting hungry &
>thirsty, and NOT get kicked by people, and NOT get shot at by my
>neighbors BECAUSE they're wandering around BECAUSE they're looking
>for the only bitch in heat for 50 miles BECAUSE they weren't neutered
>is "for my convenience"?

Or, put anotherway, to reduce the chances of your dog wandering off
and getting killed to the point where you don't feel you need to use
physical containment.

Neutering in this repect is just one way of imposing your needs over
the desires of your dog. It may be more humane than a chain but the
purpose is the same.

0@0.0

unread,
Jun 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/7/96
to

]Well, for one thing, SEX for a dog is instinctive, and hormonally


]driven. If my (male) dog has been neutered, he won't go looking
]for copulation. If my (female) dog has been spayed, she won't
]go looking for copulation or be laying down "in heat" scent for
]other dogs to follow. With HUMANS, it's also hormonally driven,
]but, "neutered" or not, humans will have sex. So, yeah, you can
]take the impregnating equipment out of both male & female humans,
]but that won't keep them from copulation.

When a male dog gets neutered, his testicles are removed. Please cite when any human male has allowed his testicles to be removed. Male human vascetimies (sp?) simply sever the tube from the testicles to the output port, which doesn't relieve the "hormonal" drive. My guess is that if a male human's testicles were removed, he'd no longer desire or be capable of having sex.


J. Collier-Flory

unread,
Jun 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/8/96
to

In article <4pa6gj$8...@mksrv1.dseg.ti.com>, 0@0.0 wrote:

> ]Well, for one thing, SEX for a dog is instinctive, and hormonally


> ]driven. If my (male) dog has been neutered, he won't go looking
> ]for copulation. If my (female) dog has been spayed, she won't
> ]go looking for copulation or be laying down "in heat" scent for
> ]other dogs to follow. With HUMANS, it's also hormonally driven,
> ]but, "neutered" or not, humans will have sex. So, yeah, you can
> ]take the impregnating equipment out of both male & female humans,
> ]but that won't keep them from copulation.
>

> When a male dog gets neutered, his testicles are removed. Please cite
when any human male has allowed his testicles to be removed. Male human
vascetimies (sp?) simply sever the tube from the testicles to the output
port, which doesn't relieve the "hormonal" drive. My guess is that if a
male human's testicles were removed, he'd no longer desire or be capable
of having sex.

Not meaning to barge into you conversation or debate or whatever... Many
men are unfortunate to have testicular cancer and have had to have their
testicles removed. I remember a news story recently about a man being
released from prison -- agreed to or asked for the surgery, in hopes that
it would not allow him to continue as a sex offender. Removal of the
testicles does not eliminate the ability to have intercourse.

--
Joella
Brazos River in CA
ECS & GSP

Malcolm McMahon

unread,
Jun 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/8/96
to

On 7 Jun 1996 21:21:23 GMT, 0@0.0 wrote:

>
>]Well, for one thing, SEX for a dog is instinctive, and hormonally


>]driven. If my (male) dog has been neutered, he won't go looking
>]for copulation. If my (female) dog has been spayed, she won't
>]go looking for copulation or be laying down "in heat" scent for
>]other dogs to follow. With HUMANS, it's also hormonally driven,
>]but, "neutered" or not, humans will have sex. So, yeah, you can
>]take the impregnating equipment out of both male & female humans,
>]but that won't keep them from copulation.
>

>When a male dog gets neutered, his testicles are removed. Please cite when
>any human male has allowed his testicles to be removed. Male human
>vascetimies (sp?) simply sever the tube from the testicles to the output
>port, which doesn't relieve the "hormonal" drive. My guess is that if a
>male human's testicles were removed,
> he'd no longer desire or be capable of having sex.
>

Men do lose their testicles from time to time by accident or cancer
surgery. From what I hear it makes remarkably little difference
behaviourally. Sex is mostly in the brain and by the time you're an
adult your pattern seems to be pretty much set. It doesn't even
prevent erections.

OTOH there's an increasing interest in male hormone replacement
therapy which may increase drive and longevity as the natural
testosterone production falls off in middle age. This is one of the
reasons why I'm dubious about claims of net health benefits from
castration.

Probably castration would have prevented the lamentable advance of
male pattern baldness in my case but I can't say I seriously
considered it :-)

David Arno

unread,
Jun 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/8/96
to

In article <4pa6gj$8...@mksrv1.dseg.ti.com> 0@0.0 writes:

:
: ]Well, for one thing, SEX for a dog is instinctive, and hormonally


: ]driven. If my (male) dog has been neutered, he won't go looking
: ]for copulation. If my (female) dog has been spayed, she won't
: ]go looking for copulation or be laying down "in heat" scent for
: ]other dogs to follow. With HUMANS, it's also hormonally driven,
: ]but, "neutered" or not, humans will have sex. So, yeah, you can
: ]take the impregnating equipment out of both male & female humans,
: ]but that won't keep them from copulation.

:
: When a male dog gets neutered, his testicles are removed. Please cite when any


: human male has allowed his testicles to be removed.

Um, what about eunuchs?

: Male human vascetimies


: (sp?) simply sever the tube from the testicles to the output port, which
: doesn't relieve the "hormonal" drive. My guess is that if a male human's
: testicles were removed, he'd no longer desire or be capable of having sex.

:
Yep, I would agree here: castrate rather than sterilize a man and he will loose
the desire and ability to have sex. It is possible to achieve this result
through chemical castration also. This involves taking injections of some
kind of testosterone inhibitor; which is effectively what happens when the
testicles are removed.

--
David Arno
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five billion people: five billion opinions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jessica Snyder

unread,
Jun 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/8/96
to

mal...@pigsty.demon.co.uk (Malcolm McMahon) wrote:
>On 7 Jun 1996 21:21:23 GMT, 0@0.0 wrote:

>>When a male dog gets neutered, his testicles are removed. Please cite when

>>any human male has allowed his testicles to be removed. Male human

>>vascetimies (sp?) simply sever the tube from the testicles to the output
>>port, which doesn't relieve the "hormonal" drive. My guess is that if a
>>male human's testicles were removed,
>> he'd no longer desire or be capable of having sex.
>>
>

>Men do lose their testicles from time to time by accident or cancer
>surgery. From what I hear it makes remarkably little difference
>behaviourally. Sex is mostly in the brain and by the time you're an
>adult your pattern seems to be pretty much set. It doesn't even
>prevent erections.

Agreed... by adulthood, castration has less effect (at least with
animals), but still has some. Castration was attempted with male
criminals at some point, but was found to be ineffective. I suspect
because so much of sex is learned behavior, and by the time the
testes are removed, the brain already has those patterns set. Horses
are the same... gelding an older stallion will usually not stop
him from talking to/breeding mares.

Jessica

------------------------------------------------------------
jrsn...@students.wisc.edu in Madison, WI and the crew:
Kosh (Touchstonešs Harbinger) the Belgian Tervuren pup,
Liza (Padronšs Starlight) the Arabian mommy mare,
Nikki (Fathead), Pixel (Fuzzhead) and Voodoo (Blerthead),
Demon Cats from Hell,
and Keith, the wonderful husband who puts up with all of us.
------------------------------------------------------------

Bj347

unread,
Jun 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/8/96
to

In article <sportngk9s-07...@news.earthlink.net>,
sport...@earthlink.net (J. Collier-Flory) writes:

> Please cite
>when any human male has allowed his testicles to be removed.

It is done not infrequently in the treatment of testicular tumors as well
as prostate cancer and is done perhaps not willingly but with consent as
better than the alternative.

Cheryl L Perkins

unread,
Jun 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/8/96
to

Bj347 (bj...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <sportngk9s-07...@news.earthlink.net>,
: sport...@earthlink.net (J. Collier-Flory) writes:

Which is death from cancer. I'm female, but I have had a male relative
who had to make such a choice. It was too late for him - he died from
cancer.

I don't really see how this compares to castrating cats. They don't
father starving kittens after the operation. And an intact tom will
father kittens at every opportunity. A sterilized cat, as opposed to a
neutered one, will continue to try to mate. FRUSTRATION!!

I'd rather neuter/spay the cat. No kittens, no frustrated cats looking
for females.....

Cheryl

--
Cheryl Perkins
cper...@calvin.stemnet.nf.ca

Wilkinson K F (Kimberly)

unread,
Jun 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/10/96
to

David Arno wrote:
>
> In article <4pa6gj$8...@mksrv1.dseg.ti.com> 0@0.0 writes:
>
> :
> : ]Well, for one thing, SEX for a dog is instinctive, and hormonally

> : ]driven. If my (male) dog has been neutered, he won't go looking
> : ]for copulation. If my (female) dog has been spayed, she won't
> : ]go looking for copulation or be laying down "in heat" scent for
> : ]other dogs to follow. With HUMANS, it's also hormonally driven,
> : ]but, "neutered" or not, humans will have sex. So, yeah, you can
> : ]take the impregnating equipment out of both male & female humans,
> : ]but that won't keep them from copulation.
> :
> : When a male dog gets neutered, his testicles are removed. Please cite when any

> : human male has allowed his testicles to be removed.

> Um, what about eunuchs?

And there are also certain types of cancer that seem to be worsened, or have
their progress accelerated by, testosterone. I *personally* know of at least
one case where a man *did* have his testicles removed to try to slow down
or halt the progress of his cancer.

Testicular cancer, as well - remove the "offending parts".

Three cites enough for ya?

> David Arno

thanks David!

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Five billion people: five billion opinions.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--

Ray

unread,
Jun 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/10/96
to

"Wilkinson K F (Kimberly)" <kwil...@mailhost.pd4.ford.com> wrote:

>David Arno wrote:
>>
>> In article <4pa6gj$8...@mksrv1.dseg.ti.com> 0@0.0 writes:
>>
>> :
>> :

>> : When a male dog gets neutered, his testicles are removed. Please cite when any
>> : human male has allowed his testicles to be removed.

>> Um, what about eunuchs?

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

I don't think eunuchs generally volunteered but we have some serious
music students in the group, perhaps they could enlighten us about the
*castrati* from Italy who wanted to keep their pre-pubescent voices.

Manga, Dudu, Ray & Rashida Girven, Nanaimo, B.C. Canada
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
A closed mouth gathers no feet.


J.

unread,
Jun 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/11/96
to

gir...@mail.island.net (Ray) wrote:

>I don't think eunuchs generally volunteered but we have some serious
>music students in the group, perhaps they could enlighten us about the
>*castrati* from Italy who wanted to keep their pre-pubescent voices.

Hi Ray, since you asked... <taken from *The Practical Encyclopedia of
Sex and Health* by Stefan Bechtel, p. 51>

The Palace Punishment

In ancient days, castration was known as "the palace punishment"
because shearing off the genitals of male slaves, captured enemies or
other unlucky young men was thought to be the only way to make them
safe for service in the harem. There were several variations on this
odious operation. Some castrati, or eunuchs, as they were called (in
Greek, the word means "he who has charge of the bed"), were simply
shaved of all their external sex organs, so that they had to urinate
through a quill. Others were relieved of only their penises, leaving
the testes intact; sometimes only the testes were removed. Whatever
method was used, the risk of infection and death was high. In fact, in
Reay Tannahill's *Sex in History*, a delightful romp through five
millennia of sexual practices, she reports that "in the seventeeth
century on the Upper Nile, the main source of supply for fully shaved
eunuchs in the West, only one in four could be relied on to survive."
But although lost, the severed genitalia were not forgotten. Chinese
eunuchs treasured their dismembered members like small children who've
lost a tooth, secreting them carefully "in common pint measures
hermetically closed, and placed on a high shelf." Even in the late
nineteenth century, Tannahill reports, in order to show that he was
qualified for a palace promotion, the aspiring eunuch might have to
present his "pickled precious" to the chief eunuch in order to
demonstrate his fitness for the job. Sometimes they were even buried
with the poor fellow in his coffin. ...until 1878, eunuchs were
employed in the Papal Choir of the Sistine Chapel...

Castration as Cure

But castration is not always a crude ancient rite of death and
domination, in modern medicine, it's used to save lives. Today, many
older men whose prostate cancer has spread throughout their bodies are
shorn of their testicles (the operation is called an orchiectomy) in
order to slow the spread of the disease.

---------------

Here's your answer, modern "eunuchs" volunteer. There's not much info
here about eunuchs from years ago, but hey, wasn't this all
interesting?

J.


Ray

unread,
Jun 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/11/96
to

ka...@interlog.com (J.) wrote:

>gir...@mail.island.net (Ray) wrote:

>>I don't think eunuchs generally volunteered but we have some serious
>>music students in the group, perhaps they could enlighten us about the
>>*castrati* from Italy who wanted to keep their pre-pubescent voices.

>Hi Ray, since you asked... <taken from *The Practical Encyclopedia of
>Sex and Health* by Stefan Bechtel, p. 51>

<snip>


..until 1878, eunuchs were
>employed in the Papal Choir of the Sistine Chapel...

<snip>


>Here's your answer, modern "eunuchs" volunteer. There's not much info
>here about eunuchs from years ago, but hey, wasn't this all
>interesting?

>J.
Very interesting indeed. Thanks for the research. What I recalled
though was one of those strange CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corp.)
programs that feature _very_ rare recordings. They played the only
known recording of singing by the last surviving castrati (circa 1916
I think). I didn't think the atyle worth saving!.

Ray

Diane Stapley

unread,
Jun 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/13/96
to 0@0.0

0@0.0 wrote:
>
> ]Well, for one thing, SEX for a dog is instinctive, and hormonally

> ]driven. If my (male) dog has been neutered, he won't go looking
> ]for copulation. If my (female) dog has been spayed, she won't
> ]go looking for copulation or be laying down "in heat" scent for
> ]other dogs to follow. With HUMANS, it's also hormonally driven,
> ]but, "neutered" or not, humans will have sex. So, yeah, you can
> ]take the impregnating equipment out of both male & female humans,
> ]but that won't keep them from copulation.
>
> When a male dog gets neutered, his testicles are removed. Please cite when any human male has allowed his testicles to be removed. Male human vascetimies (sp?)

Two citations: (1) the castrati in 17th century Italy and (2) the
eunichs who were harem guards in ancient cultures.

Diane Stapley

unread,
Jun 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/14/96
to Ray

Ray wrote:

> wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww


>
> I don't think eunuchs generally volunteered but we have some serious
> music students in the group, perhaps they could enlighten us about the
> *castrati* from Italy who wanted to keep their pre-pubescent voices.
>

> Manga, Dudu, Ray & Rashida Girven, Nanaimo, B.C. Canada
> wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
> A closed mouth gathers no feet.

Ray,

While some of the castrati did volunteer to become so, many were also
brought into it by their parents--especially those who were poor or
those of the aristocracy that had sons competing for the role of main
heir (anyone here read "Cry to Heaven"?).

Diane

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages