Zoophile vets ?

Goattobeloved

Citizen of Zooville
Many people come to be vets because they have a high affinity for animals. Looks like a "dream" job to pursuit. At least until you find the sad parts of the job.

And yes. For sure, as professional they should keep distance, but sure they are allowed to enjoy the views :)

Just on topic:

Doctor Dan had sex with his patient.
No matter how much he tried to forget, he couldn't. Guilt was overwhelming.
Every once in a while, he'd hear that soothing voice within, "don't worry about it, You aren't the first doctor to sleep with their patients, & you won't be the last. Let it go."
Invariably another voice would bring him back to reality: "Doc, you're a veterinarian!"
 

Goattobeloved

Citizen of Zooville
I think that might be a bit unethical.
No more than an hetero gyno. As long as he does a good job and knows how to keep work from fun.

Really I doubt many doctors/vets will get sexual stimulation from their work. You sort of disconect and... do your work.

Actually, if I knew an equally good vet that was zoo I would pick him/her over a non zoo just because some issues could be discussed more clearly and honestly and get professional timely advice.
 

Goattobeloved

Citizen of Zooville
Why unethical ? Does it hurt if a female vet proposes her patient some fun after work, just for those who need sex ?

Yeah. Sure.
No more than if your female mechanic takes your car out for an ilegal street race without telling you. Just for some after work fun, of course.
 

saintroc

Tourist
Yeah. Sure.
No more than if your female mechanic takes your car out for an ilegal street race without telling you. Just for some after work fun, of course.
A dog is not an object. He's got a brain, a cock and sexaul needs, like filling a vet's cunt. If the vet just satisfies his needs, is it unethical ?
 

Goattobeloved

Citizen of Zooville
Ethics is a human thing and hurts the humans implied. Nothing to do with the dog... or the car. Both are "objects" in this context in the sense of being the target of the desire.

In this case, being a professional, having rightful access to the dog and having owners full confidence in him broken, it IS unethical to me.
And it is no saint talking here *shrugs*
 

Katelyn

Citizen of Zooville
My vet can admire the goods of my lover as much as he wants, if he is into that, but he is here to do his job. He is a professional. He shouldn't be breaching trust or destroying his integrity.

I have a male vet just because he's just who I go to. I'd trust a female vet as well.

Same with my own job. I work with high income people in a casino, some of the women coming in flirt with me too. As much as I enjoy the attention, the tips, and would definitely enjoy a night with them, I keep professional distance. It's why I'm here, I'm not breaking integrity and trust.
 

YanchaOkami

Citizen of Zooville
It is unethical, because this animal actually is owned by a person.
As such it's usage of another person's possessions against the will or at least without further agreement of the owner. 🤷‍♂️ Doesn't matter which sexual needs the animal carries around. I wouldn't decline the needs / requests of the animals of non-zoophiles, if it offered a positive experience for both participants, but it stays unethical.

But at the end it doesn't bear much relevance, as unethical aspects happen all the times beneath quite a lot of people. Married couples with children and two to three sexual contacts outside the marriage, which all are lied to in regards of being the only one. Happens ways too often in human relationships, as such .. who cares about ethics.

Addendum: It's quite simple: those animals can and do communicate their needs. If their owners - which are actually bound and responsible to fulfill the needs of their animals, if they want to act ethical - don't care about the natural sexual interests and necessities of those living beings, then it is actually just fair to listen to those animals directly - and their requests.

For a veterinary it's the well-being of the animal which counts. Not that of the owner. And it can be very frustrating for any animal to have to live a sex-free life with forbidding rules, while their nature includes sexual activities and emotions as a norm, a given aspect of their life. They ain't plushies and their owners shouldn't handle them as plushies without sexual nature. 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:

RandomEquine

Zooville Settler
They exist, but they’re rare. At least the ones who are open about their interest. I’ve run into 3-4 over the years, but again, it’s not a subject that gets mixed up with bestiality for obvious reasons.
 

Mileena66

Zooville Settler
No more than an hetero gyno. As long as he does a good job and knows how to keep work from fun.

Really I doubt many doctors/vets will get sexual stimulation from their work. You sort of disconect and... do your work.

Actually, if I knew an equally good vet that was zoo I would pick him/her over a non zoo just because some issues could be discussed more clearly and honestly and get professional timely advice.

I think fundamentally on a fantasy level it's extremely hard to think about a vet engaged in this type of activity. It makes me excited just thinking about it. Although I think it should just stay that way a fantasy.
My issue comes with getting animals interested who have nonzoo owners used to the idea of sex with humans. And now you've made a new desire inside that animal that's not going to get fulfilled or perhaps even get it in trouble
 

YanchaOkami

Citizen of Zooville
And now you've made a new desire inside that animal that's not going to get fulfilled or perhaps even get it in trouble
It is not hard for those animals to individualize their requests or lived out interests based on who they meet. Else copulating with an animal would basically leaving it assuming & requesting the same activities and responses with all humans it meets.

And that's not the case, animals can quite clearly differ between "who" is responsible or open for specific aspects or requests.

Not different from food requests. Does your animal beg on each human with the same intensity regarding specific human-targeted or spiced, tasty food? Or does it tend to request specific treats from those humans it had a high rate of success with more often than with those not reacting to it? All intelligent mammals I know would learn to differ between "who" is the target audience of their request. 🤷‍♂️
 

Mileena66

Zooville Settler
It is not hard for those animals to individualize their requests or lived out interests based on who they meet. Else copulating with an animal would basically leaving it assuming & requesting the same activities and responses with all humans it meets.

And that's not the case, animals can quite clearly differ between "who" is responsible or open for specific aspects or requests.

Not different from food requests. Does your animal beg on each human with the same intensity regarding specific human-targeted or spiced, tasty food? Or does it tend to request specific treats from those humans it had a high rate of success with more often than with those not reacting to it? All intelligent mammals I know would learn to differ between "who" is the target audience of their request. 🤷‍♂️
.

I do not believe you are wrong in your arguments. And you actually made multiple good points but do you really think it's worth the risk to make potential confusion for the animal in the future? Sure it might be a consensual act but ultimately it's probably going to be a one and admittedly unlikely negative results from this have much more long-lasting effects than the positives would.
 

YanchaOkami

Citizen of Zooville
Hmm, I personally don't see the disadvantages of "having the possibility of one-time positive sexual experiences" vs. "having to forcibly living a celibate life"? But that's something each one has to decide themself.

I wonder how many humans would take the "have the possibility for one positive, enjoyable, great sexual encounter" over "having to live the whole life without any possibility for it", should be quite a lot.

The "confusion" aspect is something different, as it is scientifically impossible to explain a dog the reasons for a specific behavior and interests on both sides, that is true. But confusion in itself is nothing negative if the experienced time is kept in positive memory.

Remember: those (and many, many other) dogs might never in their whole life get the fair possibility to live out their nature, a part of what defines their character, their body, hormonal balance, almost everything life-related in a way. It's plainly forbidden - by humans, not by the animals which couldn't choose it for them self.

And as long as humans don't live a sexuality-free life out of their own applied rules for their own life, it leaves a pretentious impression on me if there's arguing regarding the "would zero be better than one - for a whole life" aspect. Not personally applied to you in this case, as after all you don't state that those dogs must and will live a worse or more negatively life after such an encounter with zoophiles.
 

Mileena66

Zooville Settler
Hmm, I personally don't see the disadvantages of "having the possibility of one-time positive sexual experiences" vs. "having to forcibly living a celibate life"? But that's something each one has to decide themself.

I wonder how many humans would take the "have the possibility for one positive, enjoyable, great sexual encounter" over "having to live the whole life without any possibility for it", should be quite a lot.

The "confusion" aspect is something different, as it is scientifically impossible to explain a dog the reasons for a specific behavior and interests on both sides, that is true. But confusion in itself is nothing negative if the experienced time is kept in positive memory.

Remember: those (and many, many other) dogs might never in their whole life get the fair possibility to live out their nature, a part of what defines their character, their body, hormonal balance, almost everything life-related in a way. It's plainly forbidden - by humans, not by the animals which couldn't choose it for them self.

And as long as humans don't live a sexuality-free life out of their own applied rules for their own life, it leaves a pretentious impression on me if there's arguing regarding the "would zero be better than one - for a whole life" aspect. Not personally applied to you in this case, as after all you don't state that those dogs must and will live a worse or more negatively life after such an encounter with zoophiles.
You make some very good points and I do agree with most of them but it is that possibility of a negative experience or having negative consequences because a single positive experience I wouldn't condemn somebody for partaking in it.
Especially because the last video I masturbated to was of a vet or a aid taking it inside the kennel in uniform. That would make me a hypocrite. but I do think there are some ethical concerns about this.
 

YanchaOkami

Citizen of Zooville
Concerns occur, true. But those are (my thoughts about how such negative situations would be able to occur by a zoophile vet and it's customers pets) more linked to what you mention as negative experiences: What if the vet would abuse the animal or use a given situation for the own advantage?

But as this somehow would evade the meaning of "zoophile" and tend to other, less animal-friendly or more egoistic directions.. I don't think it plays a role in regards of "veterinaries that are zoophiles". Would be more fitting with "veterinaries that abuse an animal", a clear difference compared to consensual experiences.

And even if the consensual experiences of a zoophile veterinary and the pet goes negatively, means: for any reason there's no positive outcome.. as long as the activity itself was consensual and without abuse I wouldn't think bad about this vet. Just a situation which didn't go like imagined.

It's not as if vets are the best and beloved friends of pets. 🤷‍♂️ They can't prevent or change the fact that they have to be involved in negative situations for the animal or the owner, no matter if they're zoophiles or not. But they shouldn't create such situations willingly without reasons while knowing about the negative outcomes, that's the difference.
 

FlowerWater

Tourist
🙋‍♂️

Important to note:
I never mix work and pleasure, if you are a health professional you need to behave as such. I strongly disencourage taking advantage from trusty non-suspicious owners.
It's nice to know there are decent people in the world :)
Finding out that a vet I chose to trust did something like that would bother me enough to report her/him to the police.
It'd be just as bad as having a doctor touch you inappropriately.
 

Mn42as

Citizen of Zooville
Well my vet has a massive which is intact, she also says not to help a dog iff it isn't medicly necessary, don't know if she is Zoophille but i like to think she is 😃
 

saintroc

Tourist
It's nice to know there are decent people in the world :)
Finding out that a vet I chose to trust did something like that would bother me enough to report her/him to the police.
It'd be just as bad as having a doctor touch you inappropriately.
Do you think your dog would be shocked or would you be jealous ?
 

Wolfspirit

Tourist
H
They exist, but they’re rare. At least the ones who are open about their interest. I’ve run into 3-4 over the years, but again, it’s not a subject that gets mixed up with bestiality for obvious reasons.
How have you managed to find 2-3 zoo vets??? What solar system are you residing in? I want to move there.
 

Tbaron

Tourist
I used to date a vet Tech about 11 years ago. She was into it. But never with an animal under her care. it was just with her own animals. She did not bring it to work.
 

UR20Z

Dumpster Diver
H

How have you managed to find 2-3 zoo vets??? What solar system are you residing in? I want to move there.
There are/were no less than 3 that at least CLAIMED to be vets who showed up here semi-regular. 2 of them either were vets, or were so good at pretending to be that I'd trust them. The third left me going "Uhhh... Ya... OK... Think I'll take a pass on this one." - not so much because of WHAT he had to say, but HOW he said it. Hard to say why he triggered that reaction, since it was a whole bunch of itty-bitty-teeny-tiny things that alone, each meant less than nothing, but the pattern they made over time put up big ol' red flags for me - kinda like the old pointilist painters... Each dot they put on the canvas means nothing by itself, but then you step back and look at the whole thing, and you're left with your jaw hanging open at how great the picture is. Same thing with this guy. HIs "dots" didn't mean much, but when you stepped back and looked at all of them - hoooo, boy - hard to get much more hinky, if you catch my meaning.
 

Wolfspirit

Tourist
There are/were no less than 3 that at least CLAIMED to be vets who showed up here semi-regular. 2 of them either were vets, or were so good at pretending to be that I'd trust them. The third left me going "Uhhh... Ya... OK... Think I'll take a pass on this one." - not so much because of WHAT he had to say, but HOW he said it. Hard to say why he triggered that reaction, since it was a whole bunch of itty-bitty-teeny-tiny things that alone, each meant less than nothing, but the pattern they made over time put up big ol' red flags for me - kinda like the old pointilist painters... Each dot they put on the canvas means nothing by itself, but then you step back and look at the whole thing, and you're left with your jaw hanging open at how great the picture is. Same thing with this guy. HIs "dots" didn't mean much, but when you stepped back and looked at all of them - hoooo, boy - hard to get much more hinky, if you catch my meaning.
Oh I thought you meant irl. So then can you dm me the who those 2 are or ask them to dm me? I have general questions, not gonna try and get free vet advice from them or anything like that lol
 
Top