| 761Report |
at 6 Jun 2006: 20:56
>>752
Part 4
"Rather, it displays to the dog that you are a willing, and receptive partner with whom he or she can reproduce with, so naturally the behavior continues."
Oh, Good GRAVY! I just love how you people keep on asuming that dogs are cognisent enough to have sex for purly reproductive reasons. Yes, they are smart enough to realise that not having sex means the extinction of there species. Bull shit!
You know, this idea that sex is only for reproduction is nothing new. It's a long standing tradition of the Catholic Church, for example, and probably places it's earliest origins in Greek Stoisism. That's right, even the modern Catholic Church says that people should only have sex for reproduction and not for pleasure. It's one of the reasons why they have such tight restrictions on birth control and preach against masterbation and "wasting seed". Don't think for a second that the Catholic Church has had no impact on your line of thinking. They were once a significant part of Western Culture for hundreds of years. Trust me, they have left a mark big enough to affect how people think, even today. I don't think you are an exception.
Call me stupid, but it seems to make more sense to me that the dog sees the humanas a means to release sexual tension rather than "somebody I can have puppies with". If dogs only screwed for reproductive purposes, they would not attempt to mate with cats, human, or even stuffed animals when denyed access to reseptive bitch. Is this not both an equaly logical and, yet, simpler explanation to assume that the dog repeats the behavior based on positive reenforcement (pleasure) rather because the behavior fulfills some type of obscure reproductive need required to maintain the species? Using Occam's razor, my explanation is the better.
"I have to say, I thought about this for a good deal. I'm curious how many self-proclaimed zoos are having sex with neutered and spayed animals...animals which are NOT acting based on the instinct [need] to reproduce. It would seem to me that, with the desire to reproduce gone, an animal that continued to have sex with his or her partner, is truly doing so because they enjoy the activity, whereas the unnetuered or unspayed animal is acting solely because of instinct and the drive to reproduce."
What you take away is there desire is to have sex, not reproduce. It's a lot like how a frontal labotomy removes much of your ability to think. Remember that reproduction is pertinant to the species, not to the individual. Sex is not pertinent to the species, but to the individual. Again, animals are not smart enough to conect sex with offspring.
As for neutered vs. intact animals, here is what I have found out. Neutered males are able to have erections, but they never thrust nor do they ejaculate like intact males, even with prolonged stimulation. While intact males are energetic when stimulated, neutered males become relaxed and even trainquile once there knot has become fully engoraged. Once fully engoraged, they seem rather content to just stand motionless while being held comfortably. Bitches spayed before puberty have perminent juvinial or hypotrophic genitalia. This makes them incompatible for any type of sexual encounter (human or dog), however, some indiviuals have contradicted this statment by saying that some spayed individuals are able and willing to have sex with a human. Even though they may have underdeveloped genitalia, they do have a very sensative clitoris and will thrust like an intact male when stimulated. I've always been facinated by female pelvic thrusting because it seems so pointless because they don't have a penis to thrust with, nor do intact bitches thrust when penitrated by a stud. Once a spayed bitch has had enough, she will pull away and may run around a bit and even leap in the air. From what I understand, this is normal post-coital behavior for a bitch, intact or otherwise. My experience has shown that, even though a pre-puberty spayed bitch has suposedly had her sex drive removed, they aquire a desire for sexual stimulation. Once they learn that a human can sexualy stimulate them, they begin to request stimulation of there own accord in the form of raising there tail to one side with ther butts pointed at you. How could such behavior even happen if sex is supposed to be purely seasonal? To me, this seems like an aquired desire for sex.
Some people seem to think that a bitch's desire for sex (or aquired desire for sex) and her ability to accomodate a human male, depends more on the individual than the fact that a spay was performed. I've been told that some spayed bitches will in fact occomodate a male and will even get "wet" when given sufficient forplay, while some intact bitches can actualy be too small for a human, unable to get wet and have absolutly no interest in any kind or type of stimulation, what so ever. Like human women, some bitches love sex more than others. Some actualy detest it. It's a very individual thing, they say.
Unfortunatly for my own personal report, I have little or no experience with intact bitches.
|
| 762Report |
at 6 Jun 2006: 20:56
>>752
Part 5
"But that's getting off-topic for my particular response...which is simply to inform that allowing a female to have a litter before spaying is NOT beneficial to her health, nor does it prevent reproductive cancers later in life."
Okay, you've almost got me there. I did some fact checking, and you are right for the most part. I could have sworn I saw information on it before (so I'll keep checking), but it seems that I must have been thinking of something else. The best I could find was one reference to a study that showed that beagles who became pregnant every heat cycle do seem to be protected from the cancer. Althought this suggest that other breeds may benifit from per-cycle pregnancies, it isn't proven untill other breeds are studied. Also, noted was the fact that estrogen treatments seem to increase the risk of breast cancer (and pyometra). Other than that, I can't find much else to suport or debunk the notion. You get a gold star for pointing out that I didn't double check my facts.
What I do know, however, is that bitches who are kept fit and trim are at lower risk of getting breast cancer than those that are overweight. Of course, this is true for humans, too. Fat people are at more risk of cancer (in general) than fit people. Fat bitches are four times more likely to get aggrerssive malignant breast cancer than fit ones. Low-fat, high protein diests improve the prognosis of those diagnosed, and bitches that were underweight as puppies are half as likely to develop breast cancer as bitches that were normal and overweight as puppies. As for high-fat diets the jury is still out. Some studies say "yes", and others say "no". Bitches feed comercial diets were also at lower risk of developing breast cancer than whose who were given "homemade" and "red meat" diets. I would suggest the comercial diets are probably more rich in anti-oxydents, vitamins and minerals, which have all been shown to have anti-mutogenic properties.
Mutts are also less likely to get breast cancer than pure breeds. Like pyometra, genetics and breed seem to play a significant roll in the risk of developing cancer. I, therefore, conclude that the dissision to spay should be made, at least in part, based on breed. Some breeds may actualy be naturaly resistent.
|
| 763Report |
at 6 Jun 2006: 20:57
>>752
Part 6
"Likewise, allowing a male dog to ejaculate a few times a week doesn't benefit his health nor prevent cancers either. The only thing that prevents reproductive cancers and diseases is the removal of the hormones which trigger them...testosterone and estrogen, respectively, and the only way to remove those hormones is through neutering and spaying -before- they're prominent in the body (sexual maturity)."
That's debatable. If you read int he essay it says, "Another cancer Dr Hahn discusses that deserves mention is prostate cancer because a lot of people erroneously believe that castration prevents this. In reality, it does not. In fact, castrated dogs have up to a 4 times greater risk of developing prostate cancer than intact animals. At the same time, spayed or neutered dogs have a 1.5 to 3 times greater chance of developing bladder cancer. Because of this, rectal examinations and abdominal palpation should always be part of a routine veterinary physical examination."
And there you have it! Who would have guessed prostate cancer is more likely in neutered males? As I recall, there was a human study done that showed men who masterbate reduce there prostate cancer risk. The scientists who did the study offered the "flushing out" hypothesis. The idea is that by frequently flushing out the prostate at an early age, you remove carcinogenic agents that could mutate cells into cancer. Thust, masterbation reduces exposure to these compounds. Although I haven't foud a study that links masterbation to a reduced risk of testicular cancer, it would be interesting to see the results if such a study were done. Also, if the principles work the same, perhaps "flushing out' of a dog may also have a protective effect. Of course, the only way to prove that is to collect data on populations of dogs and monitor them over a 10 year period so that the ones that were masterbated can be compared to those that were never allowed to have sex. If the flushing out theory holds true, the study should repeat the human model.
|
| 764Report |
at 6 Jun 2006: 21:37
>>757
Now your getting into that whole, "there are no absolutes" mess. Never mind the fact that saying there are no absolutes is an absolute!
I think that there is a right and there is a wrong for nearly every situation (less moments when there are only worng choices, only right choices, and only neutal choices.)
Figuring out what your choices are and what is right and what is wrong is a very tricky thing. I think that is why people like religion, because it gives people clarity as to what right and wrong are.
|
| 765Report |
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 6 Jun 2006: 23:05
Using Occam's razor, my explanation is the better.
Doesn't Occam's razor state that the simpler explaination is *usually* true? And doesn't that call for all arguments under comparison to be reduced to the point of irreducible complexity?
Now your getting into that whole, "there are no absolutes" mess. Never mind the fact that saying there are no absolutes is an absolute!
This link never gets old; http://tinyurl.com/kucgg
Figuring out what your choices are and what is right and what is wrong is a very tricky thing. I think that is why people like religion, because it gives people clarity as to what right and wrong are.
Not necessarily. There's been debate for some time now about whether Paul banned all homosexuality, or just underaged boys kept as sex slaves.
|
| 766Report |
at 7 Jun 2006: 00:12
First, thanks for the links regarding spay and neuter. very insightfull read and excellent ammo in various pursuits and circumstances.
Personal right verses wrong - instead of a universal right or wrong. ah yes those sorts of things are often argued from personal veiwpoints much as this thread is to certain extent argued from the same. although the links mentioned above give credence to it being healthier to keep a dog intact/vasectomized
and allow them to have sex than to neuter them from blind faith and or whatever drives an individual.
|
| 767Report |
at 7 Jun 2006: 20:32
>>765
"Doesn't Occam's razor state that the simpler explaination is *usually* true?"
Yes.
"And doesn't that call for all arguments under comparison to be reduced to the point of irreducible complexity?"
Not in any version I have heard. The way I've heard it discribed is like this: If given two equaly valid theories, choose the simpler. I've also heard it like this: The simplest explanation is often the corect one.
"Not necessarily. There's been debate for some time now about whether Paul banned all homosexuality, or just underaged boys kept as sex slaves."
I'm not privy to that discussion, so you'll need to enlighten me. As far as I've understood it, the ban on homosexuality goes back clear to the days of Moses. But, if you read "The Law" very carfuly, it focuses on homosexual men, not women. It isn't untill the New Testiment where women are forbiden to eat each other's clams.
More interestingly, The Law is much harsher on women who "entice" animals to mate with them, rather than men who mate with animals.
|
| 768Report |
at 7 Jun 2006: 20:58
Eww! Politics!
|
| 769Report |
at 7 Jun 2006: 21:07
that most likely stems from the aspect of men principly writing laws during those periods - "boys club and all that"
|
| 770Report |
at 7 Jun 2006: 21:23
>>766
Some people think that it is best to not vasectomize the male because of the possibility of developing an "auto antibody" as seen in humans. Vasectomies expose the body to more sperm cells than normal. This can lead to the body actualy attacking the sperm. One idea is that this auto immune reaction causes inflamation, and any time you have inflamation, there is an increased cell turn-over rate, that is, cells are dying and being replaced faster than normal. Rapid turnover rates mean lots of cell division and any time you have lots of cell division, the risk of cancer becomes greater.
The most effective way to preven puppies without ripping out a bitch's sex organs is to give a bitch a tubal ligation. If you had a bitch and a dog, but didn't want them to breed, but where okay with them having sex, you could give the male dog a vasectomy, but in the rare even that another dog got to the bitch, puppies could still happen. Alternatively, if the bitch were tubaly ligated you could leave the male untouched and still be without fear of puppies. Plus, the side effects of tubal ligations are minimal.
All that is left for me to say on this matter is that, once upon a time, doctors actualy though it was healthy for a woman to have her sex organs removed. Even today, there are doctors who insist that castration will make men live longer! But who wants to live a long boring life wihout sex? At some point, quality becomes more important than quantity.
What we need is more study into this matter, but as previously stated, quests for such information are blocked and supressed by an zelous emotional public and an establishment that cares more about not killing puppies than for the quality of life for the individual. Information that favors the individual dog over the goals of pro-spay groups is dangerous to them. It is truly sad that such crap continues and legitimate studies much be forced to publish in journals unrelated to vet medicine.
Here is a link to a companion essay to the one I quoated here:
http://www.mmilani.com/commentary-200511.html
This is a web site that promotes alternatives to spaying an neutering:
http://www.petrights.org/
And here is another essay from a more controvercial site. One click and you'll see why, because it isn't work safe. I post it mostly because the author's philosophies are similar to my own:
http://www.neutering.org/
I hope you find those links helpful.
|
| 771Report |
at 7 Jun 2006: 21:34
>>769
Those dirty Romans and ther sexism! How dare they!
|
| 772Report |
at 8 Jun 2006: 08:50
anyone have any guestumates / statistics on how deep zoophillia and its ilk run in furry?
|
| 773Report |
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 8 Jun 2006: 11:11
>>772
No. We can't even get good stats on the amount of gays, or even the amount of people in the fandom.
|
| 774Report |
at 8 Jun 2006: 17:29
okay, so no stats, how abought some guesses?
|
| 775Report |
at 8 Jun 2006: 18:15
Are there any rich furries who could pay Galup to conduct such a poll?
I'm going to guess that the number of gays is about the same in furry as it is in real life. Maybe a little higher because of the "conversion factor" I've seen. For some people, furry just seems to turn them gay. Other's seem unchangable.
I'll also guess that there are probably more people with zoophile tendencies than we realise, both in the fandom and in real life. It's just not something people usualy admit to. Not every body who is a zoophile actualy practices having sex with animals. Some people just like the idea and that's all the turnning on they need.
|
| 776Report |
at 8 Jun 2006: 18:46
The general opinion is that admitting you're a furry opens you to admitting you're gay. Or possibly the other way around.
So we seem to have more gay people, but actually we have the same amount; ours are just more comfortable with themselves, presumably. :P
The same may work for other... oddities.
|
| 777Report |
at 8 Jun 2006: 19:51
The art talks. I'd say there's more "gay" furry art to be found than "straight" furry art. Any refutal on that point?
Being into furry fandom usually comes with a fondness and empathy for animals. For example, the child who'd prefer to pet the stay cat rather than use it for target practice. This implies a certain sensitivity of the soul, so it's not surprising that many furry fans are gay, or have gay inclinations.
|
| 778Report |
at 8 Jun 2006: 20:20
good thoughts, one of the major, or perhaps the predominant, theme in furry is animals mixed with humans that would on its own suggest a much higher rate or zoophiles, closet zoos or simaler.
|
| 779Report |
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 8 Jun 2006: 23:21
>>777
The art talks. I'd say there's more "gay" furry art to be found than "straight" furry art. Any refutal on that point?
Check the post rate of /m/, compared to /f/, or /s/.
This implies a certain sensitivity of the soul, so it's not surprising that many furry fans are gay, or have gay inclinations.
This fandom tolerates almost anything, that's all. The mindset is that since it's persecuted by the "outside world", any internal criticism is tatamount to external assault. Kill the infidel. Winger be praised.
|
| 780Report |
at 9 Jun 2006: 05:28
>>779 The post rate of /m/ is mostly bumping and conversation that should be happening here in /dis/.
|
| 781Report |
at 9 Jun 2006: 14:32
779 there is a valid argument that is often raised that zoo and or related themes are at the very heart of furry. and far less something that is simply accepted and more a part of where we grew from.
|
| 782Report |
at 9 Jun 2006: 15:30
>>779 The post rate of /m/ was the highest on fchan up until the latest goof with the server that wiped out the numbers. But look at other sources as well, F.A.P. for example, or a convention dealer's room.
>>778 and >>781 I'd argue that the sex appeal of anthropomorphic characters is one of the core facets of furry. It's at the heart of what sets "furry" apart from the more familiar allegorical fiction and children's entertainment. However, zoophilia has more to do with real animals and very little to do with anthropomorphic fiction. It's a related interest, but most fans are not "zoos" and for most of us it's not where we grew from.
|
| 783Report |
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 9 Jun 2006: 16:03
>>781
I'm just here for the pretty pictures, and most furries, contrary to popular belief, aren't zoos. And that's not an argument, it's just a statement.
|
| 784Report |
at 9 Jun 2006: 16:57
but isnt they way it seems nearly as important as any such statement regarding the way things are, especially when dealing with something such as the moraility of zoo in connection to furries?
|
| 785Report |
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 9 Jun 2006: 17:31
What? Would you like to try that again with proper grammar? Capitalization, segmenting, all that good stuff?
|
| 786Report |
at 9 Jun 2006: 19:08
Nope, not really needed. and before you jump all over that, let me remind you of deductive reasoning over being a grammer nazi.
|
| 787Report |
Kupok#BY.QtDIz06 at 9 Jun 2006: 19:34
>>785
Translation:
"Wah! I cannot come up with a good argument, So I shall resort to whining about grammer and spelling to derail the discussion!"
Here, Just for you, I'll clean up his punctuation a bit.
--------------
But isn't they way it seems
--------------
Okay, Fuck it, You're right Juberu after all, That post was way~ way unintellagable.
I retract my translation. Carry on!
|
| 788Report |
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 9 Jun 2006: 21:49
>>786
Nope, not really needed.
Welcome to the Internet, a text-based medium.
>>787
His >>786 has me headscratching too.
|
| 789Report |
at 9 Jun 2006: 23:43
But didn't you know that furries come from animals and humans fucking? It must be true, those words are stright from the mouth of my bible thumping grandma, and they never lie!
>.>
I agree though. Some people may like bestiality, some do not. I like it a bit, though it really dosn't belong on a furry site.
Joy
|
| 790Report |
at 9 Jun 2006: 23:52
Text should be simple and concise enough to able to convey exact meanings .
Sadly text seldomn meets those simple goals, this thread shows that well, The above thoughts show that well.
You have been misunderstood regularly as well by various people.
|
| 791Report |
DragonFlame at 10 Jun 2006: 12:56
Hey guys sorry, I have been away from the computer for a few days.
>>754
Its nice to know that you are talking to me.
At first I thought it was just ethically wrong but that really never bothered me because rules change and are not always correct. Now I believe after reading over 20 different dictionary’s that it is in fact Morally wrong.
And yes I think I would be talking about personal ethics thanks for pointing that out.
>>757
I think we have the definition of Morality wrong. I thought that it meant absolute right and wrong but it doesn’t.
This is just an example of Morality taken from Dictionary.com. I have read 20 or more Dictionary’s and they all say something similar to this.
1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.
Morality is a word made by man to describe rules that they have set according to what they believe is the right way to live. E.g. Religion, Government and the General Population.
I think morality is the wrong word to use in this post because I believe that it does change depending on what others think.
On to the second part of your post. If the general population does not decide on what is right and wrong then who does. You can not possible say that each individual decides for them self. Many people do terrible things thinking that they have done nothing wrong. The morality that you have described does not exist unless you believe that there is a god and he has set rules that we must follow. The problem is that know one on this earth truly knows what is right and what is wrong as an absolute. They know what they believe to be right and wrong but that is different. Because of this the only way for Morality to actually work is for a general population of people to say “hey you can’t do that”.
I think a lot of people read the heading of this post and think ok we are talking about if Bestiality is right according to the rules of the universe, or some other thing like that. That is not really what morality is.
|
| 792Report |
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 10 Jun 2006: 15:59
>>790
You have been misunderstood regularly as well by various people.
Largely a result of me not phrasing myself improperly, and their projections of their viewpoints onto what I was saying. (To be fair, I did that too.) Not poor grammar. My grammar good.
>>791
So, we've actually been discussing ethics. Huh.
|
| 793Report |
at 10 Jun 2006: 18:37
>>792 ""Largely a result of me not phrasing myself improperly,""
*triple huh?*
does that imply that the only way others can understand you properly is if you say things wrong?
Ethics, morality, furry and zoo.
More personal morals in regards to things one does I would tend to think.
|
| 794Report |
DragonFlame at 11 Jun 2006: 12:45
>>792
Im not sure if that was supposed to be sarcastic so I will just assume you wernt. We have not really discussed ethics in this thread. Morality is best described as the rules which are decided by the majority of the population as good conduct. The reason we have a word such as Morality is to describe the values of that society and the rules that protect it. Ethics on the other hand even tho closely related to Morals is better descibed as the standard in which we enforce those rules.
So we actually have not really discussed Ethics or Morality. Except for those that have mentioned Law or Religion.
To recap Morality is not some devine law of the universe that say you are doing something wrong. Morality is heavily based on Standards, Ideals and Concepts of Right and Wrong. These Standards, Ideals and Concepts are decided and enforced by the General Population (this is where ethics comes in).
So for some thing to be Moraly right you would have to convince the general population that what you are doing is the correct way to do something.
At this moment in time Sex With Animals is no where near accepted as proper behaviour and in my opinion never will. In fact I dont think Homosexuality will ever be considered Moral either.
After saying all this it does not mean that I am against peoples rights to be Gay or Zoo's Im just saying that if we are talking about Morals then there is absolutely no way you can win.
This thread should be renamed from Morality of Beastiality to Should Beastiality be Accepted.
|
| 795Report (sage) |
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 11 Jun 2006: 17:24
>>793
does that imply that the only way others can understand you properly is if you say things wrong?
No, that was a simple error. I retyped the sentence, and forgot to delete the "not". Move along, nothing to see here.
|
| 796Report |
at 11 Jun 2006: 21:55
>>725
You know, it is ironic to point out that the telescope almost got Davinci burned at the stake, because it proved some of Aristotle's asumptions wrong.
>>794
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
Reading these, it seems like morality is about what is right and what is wrong, while ethics have more to do with customs and accepted practices. Yet when I read the page on religious ethics, it says that ethics in this context are about right vs. wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_in_religion
Now I'm confused.
Maybe we need to specify what kind of morality we are taling about and in what context. If you consider bestiality under a religious conext, then it is both moraly and ethicaly wrong, but what about in the context of The Enlightenment?
Should it be accepted? In what context? Accepted as a legitimate lifestyle or accepted as in tolleration?
|
| 797Report (sage) |
at 11 Jun 2006: 22:50
Going for 800 posts of absolutly nothing new.
|
| 798Report |
at 12 Jun 2006: 00:06
>>>796 pretty darn sure not going away especially within the furry community, You may very well be right, it may need to be specified in what contextual setting morality is being spoken of.
>>>797 there is nothing really new in life. its all been done and said, so your point would be ?
|
| 799Report |
Guan at 12 Jun 2006: 00:43
The 800th post is just ahead! Go get it boys and girls! What fun. After that, 200 more to go before we get to start all over again. :P
|
| 800Report |
at 12 Jun 2006: 01:12
800! Yay, ME!!!
|
| 1003Add Reply |
This thread is threadstopped. You can't reply anymore. |