Vets and Suspision

Not that common.. ways more in the veterinary field are strictly "Antis" while a few are okay or even active in it.

Low difference to overall population. Not like: "most Zoos end in veterinary field". Some do, most don't.
 
YanchaOkami said:
Not that common.. ways more in the veterinary field are strictly "Antis" while a few are okay or even active in it.

Low difference to overall population. Not like: "most Zoos end in veterinary field". Some do, most don't.
Click to expand...
This.

Theres no reason to even remotely think that Vet=Potential Zoo. Once your schooling is done, building a practice or keeping a job is paramount. I would speculate that the numbers in that field are LESS than the General Pop, not More
 
Quinazagga said:
Most are anti zoo sadist because we see the aftermath
Click to expand...
Yes, that adds to the prejudgement stance - to unfortunately experience the outcome of the worst animal abuse all the time.
But more often those that (willingly or ignorantly) let animals suffer are actually not(!) interested in the animal sexuality in any way. It's in most cases the "casual owner" who doesn't want to recognize the suffering they create. 🤷‍♂️

For those (vets or not) who want to pull a line between those occurrences, it's as well easy to differ between zoophiles and those that can't get mentioned with "philia" in one word, as love doesn't include abuse or torturing and resembles the opposite.
 
I wanted to be a veterinarian, specifically a Theriogenologist, but I hated school and the thought of 8+ more years after highschool.. Well that sorta shot in the dark.

Also on a similar subject, I have had various show dogs in my life and had been to 100s of dog shows and have often wondered how many people there have at least done something.
 
To be fair, we're probably the wrong people to ask this question. While we recognize the stigma of all this, it's still somewhat too 'normalized' by us to consider (or at least our awareness of it) ... and we're incentivized to consider such normal. Sort of like if you drive a yellow car, you start seeing yellow cars with more frequency. A statistician would be better prepared to take a neutral approach.
 
Puhp said:
To be fair, we're probably the wrong people to ask this question. While we recognize the stigma of all this, it's still somewhat too 'normalized' by us to consider (or at least our awareness of it) ... and we're incentivized to consider such normal. Sort of like if you drive a yellow car, you start seeing yellow cars with more frequency. A statistician would be better prepared to take a neutral approach.
Click to expand...
Nah, because the statistician doesn't include specific aspects of the "development" of a vet thorough time. Like the mentioned (by someone here) aspect that vets are prone to see the outcome of animal abuse (and the false-flagging it to "zoophiles" while it's just sadistic animal torturers often enough) more often due to their treating of those.

On the other hand they get desensitized towards sexual aspects of animals due to the necessary learned procedures and all-day activities with their customers (or more: their pets) and don't think twice about why someone talks knowledgeable about the sexual reproductive organs of an animal because for them (and in their echo chamber "work life") it's fully natural and to expect. Projection flows and changes, even to "outside echo chamber" people.

A statistician couldn't possible include all those aspects. On the other hand: if you visit your vet the first time and are knowledgeable about veterinary studies material / animal organism and body aspects due to as example interest in this profession itself, they surely don't recognize you as an animal fucker just because you exactly know how to perform specific sexual aspect related procedures and / or which trigger points cause the animal to behave like it does.

And this even reduces the projection of "ohh, they must be an animal fucker!" if your animal has some illness which you can recognize and describe easily (related to sexual activities).
 
alexisj said:
When we got our pit as a puppy we told our vet that we wanted to hold off on neutering him cause we wanted to breed him at some point but I didn’t know at the time it would be with me 🥴
Click to expand...
Maybe you had a plan all along 😉
 
YanchaOkami said:
A statistician couldn't possible include all those aspects.
Click to expand...

We agree to disagree. A good statistician could/would/should. Perhaps in concert with an anthropologist, as a study of behavior and culture/subculture.

Not picking at you/your comment, mind you, just musing out loud.

The reality is that we'll never know (not the specifics, anyway, or with any degree of accuracy). Design of the samping instrument alone will have huge impact on reporting results (think Kinsey, and Masters&Johnson). Even a sample or guestimate % wouldn't be revealing or truthful, as extrapolation around this is so laden with room for error. I suppose the closest we could hope for was some sort comparison between incidence of zoophilia in the general population vs. vets, to illuminate some sort of general/widely held belief within practice. What is the rate of sexual deviancy within any given sub-population vs the general population, with some specificity around medical professions (and any other characteristics of that sub-pop). eg, if vets hare more educated, does the rate of zoo-involvement go UP or DOWN with vet studies as opposed to any other medical field, any other education level, etc. Interesting question, but ultimately an answer that we'll have to philosophize over as (1) the stigma around our shared interest remains high, and (2) polling/observation/reporting remains inaccurate.

I mean, can you imagine the margin of error in such?
 
Puhp said:
The reality is that we'll never know (not the specifics, anyway, or with any degree of accuracy). Design of the samping instrument alone will have huge impact on reporting results (think Kinsey, and Masters&Johnson). Even a sample or guestimate % wouldn't be revealing or truthful, as extrapolation around this is so laden with room for error. I suppose the closest we could hope for was some sort comparison between incidence of zoophilia in the general population vs. vets, to illuminate some sort of general/widely held belief within practice.
Click to expand...
Puhp said:
I mean, can you imagine the margin of error in such?
Click to expand...
Too high, the margin of error.
Approach by most reliable aspects: Zoophiles ain't made in a specific hobbyist or interest order aside this specific animal aspect.

This leaves all areas of professions open for them, as well as possibilities that they don't want to include their sexual interests in their work time, they don't want to spend time around dying animals (or killing them off them self) due to their specific more personal emotional relationship to those, some might want to go that path due to more possibilities of quick sexual encounters, others will despise of this or don't want to take out castration procedures.

And the statistician would have to experience the whole life (best with some variety, so as example 20 vet's life) as a Zoophile and as a non-Zoophile to get a realistic (means: reducing the error margin quite a lot in some conceptual areas of this statistic abstraction) overview and projection unto their simplified results.

It's in the end same as realistic and fitting as the projections regarding human behavior in case of SARS-CoV-2 and all mutations were in the past. At best in the low 2-digit percentage area realistic. Random variations, decisions, ways of life inflicted greater variety in terms of the regional outcomes. 🤷‍♂️

Conclusion for me: Useless to think about if vets are / would be more prone to be Zoophiles. Same goes for pilots, Spec-Op units, Italian plumbers or any other job / profession. At the end it's only important to not stir unnecessary guesses and suspicions, not if that vet actually likes to fuck with animals (they could still out you, surely enough).
 
There are many articles about the disadvantages of spaying. Overall, on average bitches gain 9 months of life when spayed and usually die of a tumor, rather then trauma when intact.
Intact bitches age later than spayed, keep higher cognition levels, lower lesion risk, lower phobia risk and incontinence comes 'only' by degeneration of spinal cord, (incontinence rises 3000%, which has to be treated by restoring the hormones $$)
However you must note, mammary cancer incidence is high if she has more than 2-3 heats, (50% are malignant) surgery is not costly nor complex.
Hypometra is a real death risk, rarely fixable without spaying and it's a risky surgery. Incidence is high...

Spaying comes in variety of forms:
ovariohysterectomy - removal o all organs, the usual
hysterectomy - removal o uterus, a solution against pyometra
ovariectomy - removal of ovaries, nonsense.. used in laparoscopy spaying, as it reduces post-op complications
There is another, that just cuts the fallopians but doesn't bring health advantages (don't know the name)
 
Last edited:
Areion said:
There are many articles about the disadvantages of spaying. Overall, on average bitches gain 9 months of life when spayed and usually die of a tumor, rather then trauma when intact.
Intact bitches age later than spayed, keep higher cognition levels, lower lesion risk, and incontinence comes 'only' by degeneration of spinal cord, (incontinence rises 3000%, which has to be treated by restoring the hormones $$)
However you must note, mammary cancer incidence is high if she has more than 2-3 heats, (50% are malignant) surgery is not costly nor complex.
Hypometra is a real death risk, rarely fixable without spaying and it's a risky surgery. Incidence is high...

Spaying comes in variety of forms:
ovariohysterectomy - removal o all organs, the usual
hysterectomy - removal o uterus, a solution against pyometra
ovariectomy - removal of ovaries, nonsense.. used in laparoscopy spaying, as it reduces post-op complications
There is another, that just cuts the fallopians but doesn't bring health advantages (don't know the name)
Click to expand...
You're probably thinking of tubal ligation - The classic "Get your tubes tied" used to "fix" women. Essentially, cut/tie/burn/scar/otherwise block the fallopian tubes so that there's no path from ovary to uterus for the egg(s), and no path from vagina to egg for the sperm, thus, pregnancy from "penis into vagina" sex becomes essentially impossible.
 
UR20Z said:
You're probably thinking of tubal ligation - The classic "Get your tubes tied" used to "fix" women. Essentially, cut/tie/burn/scar/otherwise block the fallopian tubes so that there's no path from ovary to uterus for the egg(s), and no path from vagina to egg for the sperm, thus, pregnancy from "penis into vagina" sex becomes essentially impossible.
Click to expand...
Yes, and avoids all pregnancy, even AI. Only can get pregnant with in vitro.
Thus, to go through a surgery proccess and still being vulnerable to the worst disadvantage of being intact.. I can't see the appeal
 
I have never, ever, ever, ever had a vet question my decision regarding any animal I owned. I think you are being paranoid.
 
Areion said:
I had, asked why I would want to keep my boys balls. He was mutt and old
Click to expand...
Canned answer: "Sure, Doc! You can take his balls off - Right after I watch YOU take YOURS off. Any further questions?"

If there ARE any further questions that aren't directly related to whatever reason I brought the critter in, I pack up and hit the door without another word, and they never hear from me again for so much as "Need a scrip for SMZs".
 
Areion said:
I had, asked why I would want to keep my boys balls. He was mutt and old
Click to expand...
They did not ask that question because they think you are using him / her for a sexual partner. In the normal course of conversation, I am asked if I want them neutered, but the question comes along the same lines as it regards, worming, or do they need vaccinated, or.......... Vets are busy people, and their questions are related to animal health, and what you do or do not want inside the course of care and longevity. In other words, do you want the animal neutered / spayed is a normal question.
 
YanchaOkami said:
Same as male castrates keep their phallus. :husky_eyeroll:
The ancient way of "chopping everything off / sew it closed aside a peahole" is fortunately somewhat outdated due to health risk and complications.
Click to expand...
I guess one is loath to use the word "never" but that's not how really how animals were castrated in any documented sense. Castration is just the removal of the testicles.

Now, there are a thousand ways to do it and most early methods were very brutal... Though, having lived on a farm even in modern times brutality is pretty common when it comes to castration. Bulls, Pigs, Rams? In the USA? Unlikely to get any pain relief regardless of age... Just restrained in a chute.
 
wuffer660 said:
I guess one is loath to use the word "never" but that's not how really how animals were castrated in any documented sense.
Click to expand...

Depends on the animal species.

For humans that was quite a feat in the past. 🤷‍♂️ Humans are just animals as well (which get one off by dividing them self from animals, somehow, while bearing the same concept of mammalian nature).

The most gruesome handling / actions regarding other living beings are to be found at humans vs. humans, not humans vs. animals. Most humans fuck humans, as such they were either "protecting" or "destroying" those sexual aspects more brutal than those of different animals.
 
YanchaOkami said:
Depends on the animal species.

For humans that was quite a feat in the past. 🤷‍♂️ Humans are just animals as well (which get one off by dividing them self from animals, somehow, while bearing the same concept of mammalian nature).

The most gruesome handling / actions regarding other living beings are to be found at humans vs. humans, not humans vs. animals. Most humans fuck humans, as such they were either "protecting" or "destroying" those sexual aspects more brutal than those of different animals.
Click to expand...
Well with people you had eunuchs being made with both the penis and testicles being removed. This is significantly more dangerous than just taking out the balls.

Though, I wouldn't want to be one of those ancient animals!

In the Sami culture where they castrate reindeer with their teeth they are essentially mushing the balls up in the sac. In India when creating oxen it's still common for locals to tie large sticks to each other garroting the scrotum/testies, they then push the the nut through the big sticks effectively smashing them in the process.

That being said, if you look up a lot of the recorded punishments of slaves for minor offenses... It's pretty severe. You stole a pig? Castrated and ears cut off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top