1) Why is that?
2) OK, I'll just address you as "IT", you know the same thing people call their pets after they get their balls cut off.

1) I don't feel the need. If you do, kindly provide the following:

Social Security Number, full legal name, date of birth, sex, full mailing address, credit card information, not limited to, but including, card name, card number, expiration date, card pin or verification number.

2) I'd call mine 'Unfortunate', 'Poor Bastard', 'Sorry', 'Vengeful', or something appropriate. I would definatley change its name if it had been named 'Lucky' up to that point.

Quzah.

1) I know the Internet can be a scary place, but you're sounding a wee bit paranoid, make sure you take your meds. on a daily basis, it might help. Fuck, I was just curious if you had balls or not so I could taylor my reply a little.

2) Mine have cuter names like Clyde, Oscar, and Melvin:p

What's wrong with paranoia? You're one of those people aren't you? I know about you guys! That's it, I'm not posting any more. I'm going to go change my legal name now and move.

Quzah.

"No, seriously, it's because he no longer has any desire to go out and procreate. If it wasn't such a big deal, why wouldn't humans do the same? Find your average male, ask them if you can cut off their testicles. What answer are you going to get? 'Hell no!'"

I think the world might be a better place if some guys did get their nuts cut off.

"Neutering is nothing at all like a vasectomy."

You're correct there, at least. Neutering involves surgically removing both testes through a single incision in the scrotum. And, unlike a human vasectomy, this procedure is not reversible.

Spaying is the equivelant of a oophorectomy. Fairly similar to asking any woman if she'd like a hysterectomy. Again, you'll get a resounding "NO!", or at least I'd assume so.

I've never heard of an oophorectomy, but spaying is an operation, technically known as "ovariohysterectomy", where both the ovaries and uterus are removed permanently. Being a woman I can only address the hysterectomy issue. I venture to say that your assumption that NO woman would willingly want to have one is incorrect. There are millions of women who have had them and millions more who want them.

"Most people wouldn't volunteer for either operation. So why should your pet want it? The fact is, they wouldn't. There is no way in hell that if you could actually talk to them and explain the process, that they'd want it done."

If we had the ability to actually talk to and explain the neuter/spay process to our pets I believe that probably most wouldn't have as big a problem as you apparently do. If we could tell the males that they would be safer, have a much better disposition AND still be able to have all the sex they want, I think they would be OK w/ that. Neutered males are less likely to bite, fight w/ other dogs, wonder, chase cars, bark excessively, display too much aggressiveness, and screw your leg.
If we told the females that would be much healthier and happier AND still be able to have all the sex thay want, I think they'd be OK w/ that too. Spayed females have a much less chance (practically zero if spayed before the age of one year and before having a first litter) of suffering from mammary tumors [I've heard of women actually having their breasts removed as the ultimate form of breast cancer PREVENTION], mastitis (inflammation of the mammary gland), metritis (inflammation of the womb), polyps in the uterus, prolapse, and vaginitis to name a few.

"It would be like asking your average male if you want to remove all sources of testosterone in his body. Because that's what it does. The outcome is an altered thought process. Think of it as a form of lobotomy."

I think the only one here who needs a lobotomy is you, Quzah. :p

I haven't even started on how NOT spaying/neytering your pets is the greatest form of abuse you could impose on them. Watch for that in my next post.

If Lady Syc could handle the surgery and find a doctor willing to do it at her age (33), she'd get it done in a minute.

Precisely my point, thanks Syc. I asked my OBGYN a few years back if I could get one and the reply was NO, end of story. Wouldn't even discuss it w/ me. Said I was too young and even if I was older they still wouldn't do one unless my health was at risk. What a bunch of crap I say.

What the hell are you talking about? Why do you think they had eunuchs in the harems? Because they couldn't have sex. Why do you think they give people with prostate cancer / who have had to have their testicles removed hormone (testosterone) shots?

Not to have sex, but rather so they don't loose their "manlyness" (for lack of a better word).

The reason the chop the nuts off of dogs is so they don't go out and have sex. They can't. They're basicly broken from that point on. They can't procreate. They no longer have the desire to, because they don't have any more testosterone. They don't really care about marking their territory, or being king of the block.

That, like I said, is why they don't run away from home any more. They no longer have the desire to.

Quzah.

Those are all things <i>you</i> consider bad. Are you sure the animal would agree?

How so? (I know you're probably joking, but I wasn't sure. :) )

Just because your nuts are cut off doesn't mean you can't have sex, only that you can no longer procreate because you can no longer produce sperm. Granted, your labido is diminished somewhat, but if you really want to you can still get it on. I'm pretty sure the male attendant's to the harem got their balls cut off by the Sheik 1) because it does reduce sex drive and 2) just in case any one did hook up there would be no offspring to deal with. Of course, if the Big Man on Campus found out, getting your balls cut off would be the least of your worries.

Obviously, you have not gone to a dog beach or a dog park and observed NEUTERED male dogs mounting every female that walks by. They're going throught the motions, but just can't impregnate them.

I have also observed SPAYED female dogs trying to get it on with other males too.

Any WOMAN who has had a hysterectomy can tell you that they still have an active sexlife.

So, in a nutshell, what the fuck are YOU talking about? What's the matter, did I use too many big word for you?:eek3:

My bitch interrupts to say, dog humping isn't sexual. It's just how they work out their pack order.

Same with peoples legs.:)

MY legs don't do that.

It must be nice to live in a fantasy world. Welcome to reality. Your assessment is 100% false on the above pharagraph. The point of removing the testicles of a dog is not so they don't have offspring. It is so they lose all desire to do so. If it were just making sure they didn't procreate, they'd just do a vasectomy. (And yes, they can do them for pets, they just chose not to.)

The reason they have eunuchs is so that there's enough of a man around to be a servent to do this or that task, but not enough of a man left to do the task.

Please go take a high health / school sex education class again, so you can actually find out what the testicles do. Removal of the testicles is just a tad bit more than "slightly diminishing" your sex drive.

[edit]
Your statement that animals would volunteer for either operation is absurd. The entire basis of animal life is to procreate. Why in the hell would they opt not to do so? They're not like humans, in that they (en-masse) take care of their young indefinately. They simply raise them for a year or so, and they're done with them. The point of a dogs life is to produce as many offspring as they can. That's all they do.

Take wolves or cats, or whatever. All they do is get enough food to live, find some place to sleep, and procreate. Their very nature is to simply produce offspring.

Survival of the fittest is how it plays. That's why they have more than one offspring at a time. Have a bunch, raise the ones that survive.

It, as I've stated, would be a basic lobotomy. It alters their very existance. It isn't natural for said operation to happen. It would never occur in nature, and therefore, they wouldn't even grasp the concept. Let alone ask for it.
[/edit]

Quzah.

Well, move your right leg in clockwise circles. Now at the same time write the number 6 in the air with your right hand. If your leg changes direction, you're one of those leg humpers.:D

It must be nice to live in a fantasy world. Welcome to reality.

If I was living in a fantasy world you could be damn sure you wouldn't be in it.

Your assessment is 100% false on the above pharagraph. The point of removing the testicles of a dog is not so they don't have offspring. It is so they lose all desire to do so.

Your assessment is 100% false in the above sentences. The whole fucking point of removing a dog's (or cat's) testicles is so that they don't have offspring, which leads to pet overpopulation which is where the real abuse comes in to play (of which I have yet to expound on due to the unfortunate shift in this conversation). In fact, you yourself are getting caught up in your web of falsehoods, ignorance, and illogical rantings. I quote now from another of your previous posts (including typos which I have noted in italics). Quzah said: "The reason the chop the nuts off of dogs is so they don't go out and have sex. They can't. They're basicly broken from that point on. They can't procreate. They no longer have the desire to, because they don't have any more testosterone. They don't really care about marking their territory, or being king of the block." I do believe that "having sex and procreating" is the exact same thing as "having offspring". You, my friend, have just contradicted the shit out of yourself.

If it were just making sure they didn't procreate, they'd just do a vasectomy. (And yes, they can do them for pets, they just chose not to.)

Yes, for once you're correct. They can perform vasectomies on domestic pets, and some people opt for this procedure for their pets, but it is more evasive and costly so most pet owners go with the standard procedure which has been performed for decades.

The reason they have eunuchs is so that there's enough of a man around to be a servent to do this or that task, but not enough of a man left to do the task.

I will not address this comment any further because it has absolutely nothing to do with spaying or neutering domestic pets, but I will say that I think you are confusing the "act of having sex" with the "ability to procreate". Human example for your feeble little mind: An infertile man can have sex (perform the actual sex act), but is unable to procreate (produce children). BTY, you might want to check your spelling again, 'servent' is incorrect.

Please go take a high health / school sex education class again, so you can actually find out what the testicles do. Removal of the testicles is just a tad bit more than "slightly diminishing" your sex drive.

I'm not sure what a "high health / school sex education class" is, but I do have a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Biology and I think I know what the function of the testes is. Just a suggestion, but maybe you should go back and take a high school English class.

Your statement that animals would volunteer for either operation is absurd. The entire basis of animal life is to procreate. Why in the hell would they opt not to do so?

Well, in keeping with your fucked up logic, why do you feel compelled to consider it "absurd" for an animal to opt for such procedures? There are millions of people (we're animals too) who have opted to sterilize themselves even though "the entire basis of animal life is to procreate" as you would have it. As humans we have the ability to observe and comprehend the results of over-population and many of us simply choose not to procreate for various reasons. In my statement I was stating that "if" pets had this ability that they too might opt NOT to procreate as well.

They're not like humans, in that they (en-masse) take care of their young indefinately. They simply raise them for a year or so, and they're done with them. The point of a dogs life is to produce as many offspring as they can. That's all they do.

I don't know of many humans who take care of their young "indefinitely", but I do know of many who raise them for a short time and then they're done with them. Another reason a few more humans should consider castration. BTY, watch the spelling, 'indefinately' is incorrect.

Take wolves or cats, or whatever. All they do is get enough food to live, find some place to sleep, and procreate. Their very nature is to simply produce offspring.

True enough, but in the example I was discussing I said "what if" we could ask animals to "volunteer" for sterilization. I said they would, you said they wouldn't. Don't you think that in this case some animals might say, "Gee, I am kind of tired of spending all my time procreating and raising offspring, I'd much rather spend my day running around, exploring, doing whatever I want to do"?

Survival of the fittest is how it plays. That's why they have more than one offspring at a time. Have a bunch, raise the ones that survive.

I'm quite familiar with the "survival of the fittest" idea and animals that have several offspring at a time is only one method used by animals to ensure that some of their offspring will survive to reproduce. You are absolutely incorrect in your previous statement. Animals that use this form of reproduction don't "have a bunch" and "raise the ones that survive". They, in fact, spend their energy in producing several offspring at one time and offer little to no parenting afterward. It is by chance alone that at least a few survive to maturity and are able to reproduce. Another method of survival involves producing very few, or even just one, offspring then spending your energy "raising" those offspring for a long period of time, teaching them how to survive and hopefully this knowledge will allow them to live long enough to reproduce. Survival of the fittest affects offspring of both methods of reproduction.

It, as I've stated, would be a basic lobotomy. It alters their very existance. It isn't natural for said operation to happen. It would never occur in nature, and therefore, they wouldn't even grasp the concept. Let alone ask for it.

No one said it was "natural", but domestic pets are in a sense not "natural" in that they are not "wild" creatures. Once humans domesticate an animal they take on the responsibility of caring for that animal and providing the safest most humane environment possible. This includes not allowing them to run all over producing offspring that are unwanted and abandoned or put to death at an animal shelter. Millions of stray pets suffer incredibly as a result of being abandoned. There are simply too many pets and not enough homes for them. They wander the streets sick and starving spreading disease. Many get injured in fights or hit by cars. Many are targets of abuse and torture at the hands of idiots who find it amusing to watch an innocent animal suffer. I think if an animal had the ability to realize the fate of many of its offspring that it would choose not to constantly procreate just because it can. But, since they don't have this ability, it is our responsibility to prevent such acts from occurring. Therefore, any responsible and caring pet owner SPAYS OR NEUTERS their pets!!! BTY, learn how to fucking spell before you attempt to make a bigger asshole out of yourself than you already have, 'existance' is incorrect.

And slavery was practiced for decades also. Does that make it right? It seems that you in your mind equate a vasectomy and castration. They are not even remotely the same.

I will not address this comment any further because it has absolutely nothing to do with spaying or neutering domestic pets, but I will say that I think you are confusing the "act of having sex" with the "ability to procreate".

And yet, you just did address the comment. Please make up your mind. Do or do not. Don't half ass it.

Human example for your feeble little mind: An infertile man can have sex (perform the actual sex act), but is unable to procreate (produce children). BTY, you might want to check your spelling again, 'servent' is incorrect.
Here, let me help you, in your limited ability to tell the difference between castration and a vasectomy:

By removing the testicles, there is little if any desire to have sex at all. It alters the way the brain functions because there is now a lack of testosterone. But since you're supposedly a biologist, you should know the obvious basic shit like this, so why in the fuck is it so hard for you to understand?

No nuts = no desire to have sex.

Let me illustrate another point for you, since you have no grasp of the obvious:

In animals, the common understanding of sexual behavior tells us that the only reason they have sex is to procreate. In humans this is not true in the slightest. Otherwise, why wouldn't they just castrate men instead of doing vasectomies?

Gee, I guess with my feeble mind I have a much better grasp of this concept than your highly skilled Biologist brain.
I'm not sure what a "high health / school sex education class" is, but I do have a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Biology and I think I know what the function of the testes is. Just a suggestion, but maybe you should go back and take a high school English class.
I guess even fucking morons can get degrees now days.

Well, in keeping with your fucked up logic, why do you feel compelled to consider it "absurd" for an animal to opt for such procedures? There are millions of people (we're animals too) who have opted to sterilize themselves even though "the entire basis of animal life is to procreate" as you would have it. As humans we have the ability to observe and comprehend the results of over-population and many of us simply choose not to procreate for various reasons. In my statement I was stating that "if" pets had this ability that they too might opt NOT to procreate as well.
That's a mighty big "if". As I've already explained, animals are not considered to be "like humans" in that they do not follow the same thought patterns. Hell, people even debate if fish can actually feel pain. So now I'm to understand that dogs actually think about if they should procreate or not?

Get fucking real! Put any male dog with a female in heat and he'll be all over her. Cut his nuts of, and he won't. Give him a vasectomy, and he will.

What part of this is hard to understand? Are you a complete idiot, or do you just play one on TV?
True enough, but in the example I was discussing I said "what if" we could ask animals to "volunteer" for sterilization. I said they would, you said they wouldn't. Don't you think that in this case some animals might say, "Gee, I am kind of tired of spending all my time procreating and raising offspring, I'd much rather spend my day running around, exploring, doing whatever I want to do"?
Sterilization is not the same as castration. Please get this through your incredibly thick skull. THAT is why they would not opt for the operation. Because if they actually understood the difference between castration and a vasectomy, there is no fucking way in hell they would opt for castration. Period. No one in their right mind would opt for castration unless it was to do something like spare their life because they had cancer or something else.

No male on earth would volunteer for castration unless it was life a threatening situation, or they were wacked out of their gourd.

One last time, because you're so god damn dense: Castration is nothing at all like a vasectomy. That is my entire point. Castration is not "humane" as you put it. There is nothing humane about it. Here, go look it up. There is nothing humane about castration, because by the very definition of the word there is nothing at all positive about, or humanistic about it at all. Humans do not castrate eachother unless it is a form of punishment.

Why do you hear people say "I'd like to castrate the bastard!"? Because they think it's a fucking reward? Get a clue.

BTY, learn how to fucking spell before you attempt to make a bigger asshole out of yourself than you already have, 'existance' is incorrect.

Why bother? I have the spelling Nazi correcting my work for me.

Quzah.

Quz, I don't agree with your argument because I think you're anthropomorphizing the dog.

To the dog, the choice between castration and vasectomy is like the choice between a coffee mug and a bicycle. It's simply not something he ever ponders.

Nor is the loss of his sexuality a burden. He simply doesn't sit there and ponder all the poon he could have gotten. Did you ever see a dog with three legs? He doesn't care, not one bit. It causes him no angst at all. He doesn't become morose because he's not like all the other dogs. He just looks around, says "oh ok, now i've got three" and from that point is normal. The reactions we think he might have are human emotional reactions -- based on our experience of the world, not the dog's.

We often restrict the free will of dogs both to make them more compatible with our lifestyles, but the reason this all works is because dogs are instinctively pack animals and are roughly oriented to follow orders from top dogs. We are the top dogs. Most dog training classes are actually human training, to train the humans in how to act in ways the dog instinctively understands.

We also restrict the free will of dogs to improve their lives. Given a "choice", a dog will eat week-old roadkill because he does not have the advanced thought processes to understand that his human master is able to guarantee a regular daily meal. (In fact I often stop mine from eating wires and hardware that's fallen on the floor, because domesticated dogs eat things just to see if they can digest it, even if it could possibly kill them.)

Perhaps you should read the start of this topic:

The original comment was me saying that cutting the nuts of a pig was abuse. To which this whole big tangent started, because LUVBUGZ doesn't seem to understand that there is a difference between castration and a vasectomy.

They're the one that started anthropomorphizing, when they stated that given the choice, dogs would opt to be castrated. My entire point is, if you could explain the difference to them, there is no way in hell they would choose to be castrated. See my post two back.

Again, for some reason unbeknownst to me, they still insist that dogs would opt to be castrated. I find this to be an absurd thought process.

But you are correct, we were both applying some human characteristics to the animal, in order to further our arguments. They give dogs the comprehension to understand what the argument does, so I give them the understanding to realize just how absurd the operation is.

Quzah.

Oh, OK.

There's another way of looking at it, which is the evolutionary big picture.

In this picture, it's the job of all species to try to reproduce their DNA. The ones that succeed at doing this "win" -- which means they get to continue on as a species.

Throughout time, species have done this by adapting to their environment. But when man came along, all the rules changed, and species now win by being adaptable to man.

The dog is remarkably good at being adaptable to man. Dogs struck a deal with man to interoperate as a species. They do whatever needs to be done, treat us as one of their pack, and in return we have helped them to reproduce their DNA, better than any other species EVER. We reproduce it in bizarre hairless 1-pound forms and massive Maximuses of 280 pounds, and everything in between.

Normally, all species guard their reproduction carefully so their DNA can carry on. So no species with enough brains to understand the concept would choose to have their gonaddy bits removed; it's instinctively offensive to nature. But it's precisely because dogs let humans do that, that they reproduce in enormous numbers. Their species made the choice for them, and it was definitely the right choice.

UT, I think you're making the mistake of Anthromorphizing quzah.:D

It is amazing that the start of this thread was over a sacrificed pig with no nuts to a heavy debate over eunichs and dog nuts...:rolleyes: lol

I know, sad isn't it?? If Quzah could just admit that he/she is totally fucking wrong we could move on to something else, but unfortunately for all of us the dumb ass has his/her head so far up his/her ass that nothing is able to sink in, so the debate continues.

[quote]Originally posted by quzah

And slavery was practiced for decades also. Does that make it right? It seems that you in your mind equate a vasectomy and castration. They are not even remotely the same.

Now you find it necessary to bring slavery into the conversation. Can’t you focus on resolving one issue at a time? Or, is your IQ at rock bottom and you’re incapable of doing so?

I know what castration is, I know what a vasectomy is. You were the fucking idiot that brought up vasectomies so I agreed w/ you and stated that “Yes, it is possible to give a pet a vasectomy rather than castrating them” and added that castration is the more common method of sterilizing pets.

I will not address this comment any further because it has absolutely nothing to do with spaying or neutering domestic pets, but I will say that I think you are confusing the "act of having sex" with the "ability to procreate".
And yet, you just did address the comment. Please make up your mind. Do or do not. Don't half ass it.

You got me there, I did comment. So, sue me asshole!!

Human example for your feeble little mind: An infertile man can have sex (perform the actual sex act), but is unable to procreate (produce children). BTY, you might want to check your spelling again, 'servent' is incorrect.
Here, let me help you, in your limited ability to tell the difference between castration and a vasectomy:

By removing the testicles, there is little if any desire to have sex at all. It alters the way the brain functions because there is now a lack of testosterone. But since you're supposedly a biologist, you should know the obvious basic shit like this, so why in the fuck is it so hard for you to understand?
No nuts = no desire to have sex.

As I mentioned above, I am fully aware of the difference between castration and a vasectomy. Did you find that article all by yourself, I’m impressed. I’m also aware that castrating an animal affects their physiopsycological functions by REDUCING their libido, but not ELIMINATING it. Try rereading the article you posted. Nowhere in it does it state that castration causes a total loss of libido. It only states that “copulatory ability decreases dramatically following castration”.

Let me illustrate another point for you, since you have no grasp of the obvious:
In animals, the common understanding of sexual behavior tells us that the only reason they have sex is to procreate. In humans this is not true in the slightest. Otherwise, why wouldn't they just castrate men instead of doing vasectomies?

This statement is incorrect. Humans are animals too and the reason they have sex is to procreate. The only difference is that for humans sex is also a method self-gratification (pleasure), but if precautionary actions are not taken offspring will ultimately be the end result whether the sex act was intended for procreation or pleasure.

Gee, I guess with my feeble mind I have a much better grasp of this concept than your highly skilled Biologist brain.

I beg to differ w/ this comment. I think your feeble little mind doesn’t have a grasp of much other than its location, which is deeply embedded up your ass.

I'm not sure what a "high health / school sex education class" is, but I do have a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Biology and I think I know what the function of the testes is. Just a suggestion, but maybe you should go back and take a high school English class.
I guess even fucking morons can get degrees now days.

True enough, I know of several, and now I know of one more “if” you have a degree.

Well, in keeping with your fucked up logic, why do you feel compelled to consider it "absurd" for an animal to opt for such procedures? There are millions of people (we're animals too) who have opted to sterilize themselves even though "the entire basis of animal life is to procreate" as you would have it. As humans we have the ability to observe and comprehend the results of over-population and many of us simply choose not to procreate for various reasons. In my statement I was stating that "if" pets had this ability that they too might opt NOT to procreate as well.
That's a mighty big "if". As I've already explained, animals are not considered to be "like humans" in that they do not follow the same thought patterns. Hell, people even debate if fish can actually feel pain. So now I'm to understand that dogs actually think about if they should procreate or not?

Your stupidity is mind-boggling. The whole premise of this discussion is based on “what if” animals had the ability to understand the ramifications of being neutered and whether or not they would then opt to have it done or not. You even pointed this fact out to UT in a subsequent post:
Quote originally posted by quzah to UT:
“Perhaps you should read the start of this topic:
Quote originally posted by LUVBUGZ:
Well, in this specific case, I would have to agree w/ you. I'm sure the piggy didn't enjoy the procedure, which most likely involved constricting blood flow to the family jewels until they fell off or simply cutting them off w/out anesthesia. I would have to consider this a form of abuse due to the pain involved.
But, if we start talking about the castration of domestic pets, that's a whole new ballgame. Before I go off on that, I'm curious...do you think that's abuse too?
Quote originally posted by quzah to UT:
The original comment was me saying that cutting the nuts of a pig was abuse. To which this whole big tangent started, because LUVBUGZ doesn't seem to understand that there is a difference between castration and a vasectomy.
They're the one that started anthropomorphizing, when they stated that given the choice, dogs would opt to be castrated. My entire point is, if you could explain the difference to them, there is no way in hell they would choose to be castrated. See my post two back.”

Get fucking real! Put any male dog with a female in heat and he'll be all over her. Cut his nuts of, and he won't. Give him a vasectomy, and he will.

Sterilization is not the same as castration. Please get this through your incredibly thick skull. THAT is why they would not opt for the operation. Because if they actually understood the difference between castration and a vasectomy, there is no fucking way in hell they would opt for castration. Period. No one in their right mind would opt for castration unless it was to do something like spare their life because they had cancer or something else.

One last time, because you're so god damn dense: Castration is nothing at all like a vasectomy. That is my entire point.

Just as I understand the difference between castration and a vasectomy, I am also aware of the definition of sterilization. I never said that sterilization is the same as castration. For your information castration AND a vasectomy are FORMS of sterilization. You’re so quick to point out the definitions of these terms, why don’t you fucking read them yourself before you get so high and might, ass wipe!! I don’t think you’d recognize “your point” if hit you upside the fucking head with a crowbar.

Castration is not "humane" as you put it. There is nothing humane about it. Here, go look it up. There is nothing humane about castration, because by the very definition of the word there is nothing at all positive about, or humanistic about it at all. Humans do not castrate eachother unless it is a form of punishment.

The actual castration procedure in not inhumane in that it is done under anesthetic, the animal is given a painkiller, and antibiotics are provided to prevent secondary infection. The small amount of “pain”, if any, felt by the ”individual” after the procedure is minute compared to the probable amount of inhumanity that would be felt by the unwanted offspring that this individual animal could produce if not sterilized. As I stated before, if our pets are not spayed or neutered the results lead to horrific acts of cruelty, abuse, and inhumanity. Since it is obvious that you have a problem with reading and comprehension I will repost my comment here so that you can maybe get a clue the second time around… No one said it was "natural", but domestic pets are in a sense not "natural" in that they are not "wild" creatures. Once humans domesticate an animal they take on the responsibility of caring for that animal and providing the safest most humane environment possible. This includes not allowing them to run all over producing offspring that are unwanted and abandoned or put to death at an animal shelter. Millions of stray pets suffer incredibly as a result of being abandoned. There are simply too many pets and not enough homes for them. They wander the streets sick and starving spreading disease. Many get injured in fights or hit by cars. Many are targets of abuse and torture at the hands of idiots who find it amusing to watch an innocent animal suffer. I think if an animal had the ability to realize the fate of many of its offspring that it would choose not to constantly procreate just because it can. But, since they don't have this ability, it is our responsibility to prevent such acts from occurring. Therefore, any responsible and caring pet owner SPAYS OR NEUTERS their pets!!!

Post too long, continued in next post.

Post Continued.....
 

Quote originally posted by quzah
Why do you hear people say "I'd like to castrate the bastard!"? Because they think it's a fucking reward? Get a clue.

I really wish someone would castrate you so I could be sure that you will no longer be able to breed. The last thing this world needs is a bunch of little quzah’s running around with diarrhea of the mouth like mommy/daddy.

This is almost like Radar vs. Cairo.

I think it's time to agree to disagree before someone says something hateful and hurts someones feelings.:p

If you want to talk abuse, how about circumcision ?

Re: Post Continued.....
 

I love people who are unable to admit they're wrong. That's ok, everyone here knows you're wrong. One final time, let me show you your hypocrisy.

So it's bad to castrate pigs, but good to castrate dogs. You boggle the mind.

So one more time: Because your dog gives you that warm fuzzy feeling, it's ok to castrate them, because you're being kind enough to give them pain killers first. You take the time to raise them and that's nice and fine.

But it's cruel to castrate a pig, because you're not being nice enough to it. I mean, it's just a god damn sandwich anyway, let's all worry about how nice we are to it before we kill it and eat it.

No. You're wrong. The reason, for people as a whole, is not to procreate. One of the reasons. You cannot possibly expect me to believe that every single time humans have sex, they intend to produce offspring. This is just an absurd statement. The porn industry exists because people want to have lots of kids, right?

You are trying to imply more truth than there is. The main reason people have sex, as a whole, is not to procreate. Procreation is a side effect. Yes, people set out to have children, but that is hardly means that "the reason" is simply to procreate. That's just absurd. Seriously, if this were true, and apparently you think it is, why would birth control exist? Why would sterilization exist?

The only reason dogs have sex is to procreate.

Oh, and I like how you just ignore the points you can't argue with. Ignore the fact that no one would choose castration over a vasectomy, and try and make yourself feel better by belittling my "potty mouth".

Here's, let's get a little closer to home for you. Removal of the breast is a good way to prevent breast cancer. So all women should have their breasts removed, since with bottled milk, there is no real actual need for them any more.

Surgery will be done in a humane way. They'll use lots of pain killers, so you can stay out of it until all pain is gone. You don't need them. They don't do anything useful for you. Cut them off to avoid the risk of cancer.

I mean, it's safe! It's humane! Why don't you see women jumping at the chance to have this operation?

Oh, that's right, because a mastectomy is nothing at all like a breast exam.

And here is where I stop wasting board space replying to you, since it's obvious that to you, castration as far as males are concerned has the same exact end result. When, to the rest of the world, it is obviously different. You still ignore the obvious points, intentionally. No male would choose castration. Period. It's inhumane to force it on a dog simply because we can. Why is it inhumane? Well because by definition of the word, go back and find if if you've ignored it, no human would opt for it, so it cannot, by definition, be humane.

We'll leave it at this: You think that males should be castrated, and by comparison, as a preventitive measure, you should have a mastectomy. It's better to be humane, and prevent a possible cancer in your case, than to make you risk the potential suffering it could theoreticly cause.

Since the only thing that makes it inhumane would be the lack of pain killers, we'll make sure you have plenty. Go for it. You have the Cellar backing your wise, humane decision.


Quzah.

I said that the only inhumane thing about castrating that pig is that it most likely was done w/out anestesia. Unlike you who thinks it's the end of the world if the pig doesn't feel like fucking all the time, I'm not overly concered with that and don't feel that the pig is now abused because he doesn't feel inclined to do so. The pig doesn't know what he's missing so goes on living none the wiser.

Yes, it is good to castrate domestic pets to prevent pet overpopulation which leads to the suffering, abuse, and death of millions of unwanted animals. From a human stand point, well your's anyway, vasectomies would be a "kinder" method of sterilization so that they still have the desire to procreate, but castration is the preferred method because as I pointed out it is cheaper and easier to perform. As UT pointed out, dogs, since they don't have the human capacity to realize that there is a more "humane" sterilization procedure, simply go with the flow. One day they have balls, the next day they don't. They simply go on with life.

Let me reword my statement about humans and sex:

Humans are animals too and "Nature's" purpose for having sex is to procreate. The only difference is that for humans, sex has also taken on a "Human" purpose to provide self-gratification (pleasure). So, if precautionary actions are not taken offspring will ultimately be the end result whether the sex act was intended for procreation or pleasure. Birth control is used to prevent unwanted pregnancies because humans have the ability to realize the ramifications of producing unwanted offspring. Dogs do not. If they did then we could just give them a condom and say have at it Fido. But, since they don't we have to provide them with a form of birth control. Currently, in our society, the accepted form is castration.

As far as removing women's breasts as a form of preventing breast cancer, I was the one who brought up this point and am aware of women who have done this. If women having big tits wasn't so important to men, maybe more women would do it. I'm not suggesting all women go out and cut off their breasts, but given the choice, some women have. Just like "if"our pets had the ability to choose to be sterilized, I think some would. [Not going into the castration vs. vasectomy thing, just would they choose sterilization.]

I will agree with you that given a choice a dog would prefer a vasectomy over castration, but as I stated, since this unfortunately isn't the prefered procedure in our society, it is much more humane to castrate "him" rather than let him produce unwanted "offspring", many of which will have to endure many inhumane acts in their lifetimes.

I would appreciate it if you don't put words into my mouth. As Dave has pointed out to me when I tried to place my meaning onto his words, "What I said is what I meant". Domestic pets should be SPAYED AND NEUTERED to prevent pet-overpopulation.

Hey, I got a question. I've always been told that dogs (or any animal except us) pursues sex to pass his genes and insure the survival of his kind. OK, how do he know?
I'm having trouble believing that the dog ponders these concepts. More likely it's raging hormones and after the first time, pleasant memory.
THAT'S, better living through chemistry.;)

Humans too. It's just not the biggest reason anymore necessarily...at least in western culture, IMO.

Yeah but we can understand the whole concept as explained on PBS. We know that kids result and how to enhance or prevent the chances said same.
I don't think the critters do. I wonder if they even grasp that they are reproducing or that's a coincidence?:confused:

As one of my teachers in high school once said: "They don't know what they're doing. And they don't know that they don't know what they're doing."

How true is that? *shrugs* I dunno...I'd say more true for some species than others.

Don't let the Christian Coalition find out.

I believe the Christian Coalition procreates too. After all they like to screw everyone else.;)

Hey, it wasn't so long ago in HUMAN history when we didn't make the connection between screwing and having kids. That was something we had to figure out.

Proof?

Hmmm, I always knew it and according to Syc and Dave, I'm up there with the Bristlecone Pines.:D

Straight Dope entry on mankind figuring out sex=pregnancy
But of course it gets weirder:

All animals have sex in order to pass on their genes and insure the survival of their species. They don't ponder this concept, it is simply "hard-wired" in their brains. This is true for humans as well, but humans have developed the additional use of sex as a means for self-gratification (pleasure).

That makes no sense. What does it mean for it to be "hard wired" into their brain, if not that they ponder the concept? Unless you are saying that nature or evolution has a goal, which it most definitely does not.

Is there any evidence that animals do not also do this? What about bonobos?

Hmm.. interesting speculation. :)

I guess the point I wanted to make was that you can't know what pre-agricultural civilizations knew or didn't know about sex. There's just no record of it.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by LUVBUGZ
All animals have sex in order to pass on their genes and insure the survival of their species. They don't ponder this concept, it is simply "hard-wired" in their brains.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by juju
That makes no sense. What does it mean for it to be "hard wired" into their brain, if not that they ponder the concept? Unless you are saying that nature or evolution has a goal, which it most definitely does not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Hard-wired" is a term almost every biology professor I've ever had used to describe "innate behavior". I would have to go through my biology texts to give you a more precise biological/physiological explaination. The way I understand the rules of Nature is that the basic purpose of a species is to reproduce (pass on its genes in order to insure the survival of the species). Evolution doesn't have a "goal", but rather is the process by which species (and their genes) are able to adapt and survive with everchanging environmental conditions. The ones that have what it takes are able to reproduce, thus passing on the very genes that allowed it to adapt and survive so that its offspring have a greater chance of surviving to continue passing down their genes and so on. This is Natural Selection, which you hear so much about and which is often used by people who don't really understand the concept. They just say "survival of the fittest" which is a correct statement, but many who use it don't know what it is actually describing.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by LUVBUGZ
This is true for humans as well, but humans have developed the additional use of sex as a means for self-gratification (pleasure).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by juju
Is there any evidence that animals do not also do this? What about bonobos?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I seem to recall some mention of this in my mammology class, but once again I'd have to research it before commenting. I think I remember that some primates do display so called "human" behavior regarding sex as well as "human " emotions such as love, saddness, and jealousy to name a few. I just remember someting like this, but again whould have to do some research to give you hard evidence.

I think what you mean by "hard wired" is that when animals have intercourse, it gives them intense pleasure. Don't you think that this reward mechanism is a pretty strong incentive for doing it? If not, why has the pleasure reward even evolved? Surely a species that is hard wired to have sex for the purposes of propogating its DNA would need no pleasure incentive at all. They'd do it just for the reason you say they do it. <i>[edit: and of course, if what you say is true, then they wouldn't hump our legs.]</i>

Also, although I know exactly what you mean, I don't think that species or Nature have a "purpose". I realize it's just a poorly chosen word, though.

You also never responded to my questions from 8/26. How do you know that animals would agree with you that being "less likely to bite, fight with other dogs, wander, chase cars, bark excessively, display too much aggressiveness, and screw your leg" are bad things? And also, could you elaborate on how the world would be a better place if some human males were neutered?

Hardwired is the term Profs use for raging hormones.

The dog humping your leg has nothing to do with sex. It's a dominance issue.
:cool:

I got one for ya...YOU wouldn't be able to populate the earth anymore, which would be a good thing...one baby juju is going to be more than enough. :)

Juju, I'm going to have to revert to my Dave philosophy on this. Don't "think what [ I ] mean", I meant what I said. The term "hard-wired" is refering to "innate behavior", ie. "inborn" behavior, meaning animals don't think about it, they just do it because that's what their brains tell them to do. And, their brains aren't telling them to do it for pleasure, but do it to reproduce and pass on their genes in order to insure the survival of their species. Other than humans, animals don't know why they need to have sex, only that they must do it.

Disregard humans for a moment. I don't believe that sex provides "intense pleasure" for animals and therefore your pleasure reward theory is irrelevant. I agree with your statement, "Surely a species that is hard wired to have sex for the purposes of propogating its DNA would need no pleasure incentive at all. They'd do it just for the reason you say they do it." This is exactly my point. Now as far as humans go, I don't know how sex has gone from being an act of procreation to being an act of self-gratification. This is one for a human behaviorist, which I am not.

Revert to Dave theory. I meant what I said. Nature certainly does have a "purpose", but not a "goal" as you stated in a previous post when once again you were trying to interpret the meaning of my commentary. [Juju said..."That makes no sense. What does it mean for it to be "hard wired" into their brain, if not that they ponder the concept? Unless you are saying that nature or evolution has a goal, which it most definitely does not.] I am agreeing with you right now, Nature has no "goal" in that there is an ultimate ending point for Nature to reach, but its purpose is "survival of species". Survival of species is hinged on them reproducing.

In fact I believe intercourse is downright painful for female cats. Although I couldn't find the Straight Dope column where I read that.

You're right UT. For many species sex is painful. Many females get injured quite badly during the sex act. The males often bite and scratch them resulting in painful wounds which in the wild also can result in death for the females. I can't think of any examples right off the top of my head, but I do know this is true. And for the male perspective, take a look at Black Widows. In this case, the male gets the raw end of the stick. He becomes the females after sex hors d'oeurve. This actually reminds me of salmon too. Juju's "pleasure reward" theory, although I know it is invalid, doesn't explain why many species die after producing off-spring. If in fact they "thought" sex was an intensely pleasurable act, they couldn't pass this info. onto their offspring because they are dead. Therefore, the need to reproduce is once again solely based on instinct and not on pleasure which is a "learned" emotional response to sex based on what humans "think" is pleasurable.

Most everything in nature has a symbiotic relationship, with at least one and usually more, other things. to fullfil that role becomes it's "goal"
Male animals have two modes;
1~ I want to do it.
2~ I'm glad I did it and I want to do it again.
Female animals have two modes, also;
1~ I want to do it.
2~ Get away from me.
I don't think either understand why, but they know what & when.
If "Survival of species" is the be-all/ end-all of nature, how do you explain evolution, that eliminates so many species?

I'm not sure I follow you here Bruce, but to answer your question...I have posted the definitions of Natural Selection and Evolution from the Harper Collins Biology Dictionary. I think that these terms are being misunderstood and use incorrectly by some in this discussion. I hope this helps:)

Evolution = an explanation of the way in which present-day organisms have been produced, involving changes taking place in the genetic makeup of populations, which have been passed on to successive generations. According to Darwinism, evolutionary mutations have given rise to changes that, through natural selection, either have survived in better adapted organisms or died out.

Natural Selection = the mechanism proposed by Charles Darwin by which gradual evolutionary changes take place. Organisms that are better adapted to the environment in which they live produce more viable young, increasing their proportion in the population and, therefore, being selected. Such a mechanism depends on the variability of individuals within the population. The variability arises through mutation, the beneficial mutants being preserved by natural selection.

So, basically, if a species is unable to adapt to its everchanging environment it will not produce enough viable offspring and will eventually die off. On the other hand, species who are able to adapt produce more viable offspring thus passing on the vary genes that allowed it to adapt, therefore, ensuring the survival of that "better adapted" species.

You're free to disagree, but you seem to have a misunderstanding of what I really meant.

I don't agree that pleasure is a learned response. You don't have to be taught that sex feels good, for the same reason you don't have to be taught that ice cream or chocolate tastes good.

Pleasure is a personal thing. Some take great pleasure in green veggies and many of us don't. I've met people who hate chocolate (sick bastards) and sweet things.
Because of physical problems and/or head trips, some don't like sex either.
Eating is driven by hunger pangs as sex is driven by the "fire down below". Nature has provided motivation for the things we need to survive as individuals and a species.

Right, but that doesn't mean that pleasure is learned. Except that the creatures learn that doing a certain thing makes them feel good.

The only thing that's learned is that it feels good. That's just a result of doing it, not the other way around.
I knew you were more than just another pretty face, Juju.:beer:

Juju....are you on crack? You just totally contradicted yourself with these two sentences. First you say that pleasure isn't learned, then you follow with "except that the creatures learn that doing a certain thing makes them feel good." What the fuck do you think learning is? You just described how animals "learn" pleasure it in your second sentence.

Pleasure isn't learned. It simply is. Pain isn't learned. It simply is. Learning is simply the fact that you encounter it for the first time and are now aware of what is. If you remember that fact, then you have learned what is. If not, you'll encounter it again and realize again that it is.

Oh, here's where I act like I'm holier-than-thou and bitch you out for your potty mouth. Like I said, hypocrite. Have a nice day.

Quzah.

Dave is a jerk. I really wouldn't recommend taking on his philosophies. But that's your call, of course. :)

In any case, I wasn't trying to deviously alter what you said in an attempt to undermine you. I just thought that's what you meant by the word. In truth, I don't think either of us can prove what goes on in an animals' mind. So it's all pretty much speculation.

Because you don't agree with me, my hypothesis is irrelevant? Can't I have more credit than that?


So, okay, first of all, what is the difference between a goal and a purpose?

Er.. secondly.. of course I'm trying to interpret what you said. I'm trying to understand you. That's communication. :)

Good point Juju, we really don't know that the other critters feel good having sex. There apparently are some cases, as UT pointed out, where someone figured out that some don't.
This reinforces that it is the hormones that make them scratch the itch and not pleasure because even the ones we are pretty sure don't like it, do it anyway.

aside~ BUGZ, calm the fuck down. It's not a contest, we's jus talkin. :D

Perhaps the female cat situation could be analagous to the human practice of rape?

I don't think lack of knowledge really reinforces a hypothesis. But perhaps I misunderstand you. In any case I have to attend to Kathy. I'll be back later. :)