“Neuter your ex” campaigns popped up across the country this year, from Maryland to Michigan to Washington state. Getting back at an ex can now mean neutering or spaying a cat because “some things shouldn’t breed,” as one New Jersey animal shelter put it.
I’m all for neutering and spaying but using sexual violence as a “joke” and “shock marketing” doesn’t sit well with me.
Okay bit of a hot take but bear with me here: if it’s implying sexual violence against a human, why isn’t it actual sexual violence against the animal?
The non-human animals aren’t in a position where consent (or lack thereof) can be accounted for. They aren’t neurologically able to comprehend the consequences of their activities or the detriment it brings about when they follow their instincts. They also don’t comprehend that the operation will make parenthood impossible, so they’re not left to suffer from any mental trauma or sense of loss afterwards.
And if all that isn’t enough, there just isn’t a viable alternative for controlling the domestic animal population: We can’t educate the animals to let them make informed decisions. We can’t get them to use contraceptives. We can’t convince or trick them to stop having sex. We also don’t have the means to keep them all contained, and in any case that would be far more detrimental to their mental and emotional health than being neutered.
I agree with that, but it made me ponder that many people don’t really comprehend the consequences of reproduction, especially when young.
The non-human animals aren’t in a position where consent (or lack thereof) can be accounted for. They aren’t neurologically able to comprehend the consequences of their activities or the detriment it brings about when they follow their instincts. They also don’t comprehend that the operation will make parenthood impossible, so they’re not left to suffer from any mental trauma or sense of loss afterwards.
With respect, this sounds remarkably like the arguments made by eugenicists for the forced sterilization of the “mentally retarded” (their words, not yours or mine). In fact, I could use the train of your statements here, replacing “The non-human animals” with “The people with down syndrome” to remarkably unflattering effect. I shall refrain.
Not for nothing, most humans do not walk around just comprehending the consequences of their activities or the detriment it brings when they follow their instincts (See: anthropogenic global warming), despite the common fallacy that we do.
Disregarding their consent, whether justified or not, whether it is possible to ascertain their consent or not, does not disqualify it from being sexually violent. Actually, rather the reverse: typically we understand those who are unable to give consent to be broadly unconsenting. We understand that those who are unable to consent are more susceptible to sexual violence than otherwise, and they are afforded legal protection to compensate.
And if all that isn’t enough, there just isn’t a viable alternative for controlling the domestic animal population: We can’t educate the animals to let them make informed decisions. We can’t get them to use contraceptives. We can’t convince or trick them to stop having sex. We also don’t have the means to keep them all contained, and in any case that would be far more detrimental to their mental and emotional health than being neutered.
That we have not found an alternative to this practice of mass forced sterilization which suits society’s apparent needs does not disqualify this practice from being sexually violent. This amounts to an argument from ignorance which begs the question.
Your reply did not answer the question: since “spay/neuter your ex” is implying sexual violence against a presumably unconsenting human, why isn’t it actual sexual violence against a definitely unconsenting animal? ‘Animals can’t consent’ can’t really be your answer to whether they are subjects of sexual violence, can it?
Violence implies that harm is happening. In mind, the most harmful thing about neutering a human without their consent is the subsequent trauma that the person needs to live the rest of their life knowing that they will not be able to reproduce. Non-human animals don’t carry that burden and therefore won’t experience that trauma. They can go about the rest of their lives in perfectly happy ignorance.
The physical aspect of the operation is a negligible concern. They recover from that just fine. Animals of all kinds need to undergo surgical operations for many reasons, and it’s not considered violence.
As for humans with severe hereditary genetic disorders, I personally think they should consider making a choice to not reproduce. If parenthood is something important to them and they’re qualified to be a parent, they should consider adopting. I have no inheritable genetic issues myself but I’m still of the mind that I should choose to adopt instead of giving birth even though there is a part of me that wants to have a biological child very badly. But I need to consider what’s good for humanity as a whole, and too many humans on this planet is not good, so I believe I should avoid contributing to that problem.
So the difference is, a human can be reasoned with and make their own decision. Whether or not people ordinarily do make reasoned decisions about important matters is another concern; the salient point is that they can.
I’m not going to force a person to make the decision that I personally think is right, but at least an attempt can be made. With non-human animals we can’t even make that attempt. And when it comes to people whose mental faculties are so severely limited that they can’t comprehend the situation they’re in, that kind of person is obviously not fit for parenthood and likely can’t function independently. At that point I hope their caretaker will make sure that they aren’t exposed to opportunities for unintentional childbirth.
I give you full marks for honesty and conviction. I’ve already taken my sleepy pills so I’ll be increasingly stupid until I pass out. That said, I want to take this point up: I ought to take you to task on this point of eugenics in the “feebleminded” (another word that fell off the euphemism treadmill in the 40s or so) but I would have to frankly learn a lot about that specifically, and while I think a good comparison is there to be made (which is I guess why I made it), I’m not convinced that it’s a perfect or generally useful comparison to the point that I’m trying to make, and was only offered in response to my perception of similarity to authors of eugenics papers, including Down himself. I will say that I think you’re painting with a very broad brush, especially in that last paragraph. I gave the specific example of down syndrome. Based on what I’ve read of you, I don’t think you’ll laugh when I point out that a woman with down syndrome was recently appointed to the spanish parliament. I don’t know whether that woman has a carer or if the genetic syndrome is even compatible with reproduction, but
oh no im rambling i’ve lost the thread help no please i want my brain for a little while longerrr
Look i dont know if you even want (or wanted for that matter) to have me write all the things I was going to say. If you do, I’ll write them tomorrow. If you don’t. thanks for this brief debate, it was genuinely stimulating, and I figuroed out my library has access to most of the NIH library and several important scholarly journals which I have always thought to be locked behind paywalls forever. I thank you for that boon, even if You did not grant it to me.
stupid bipolar disorder stupid insomnia
I intentionally avoided making any reference specifically to Down’s syndrome because I’ve known people with Down’s syndrome who are high functioning and independent, but I’ve also known people with Down’s syndrome who can’t get their own pants on without assistance (I mean this literally and objectively as a reference point for cognitive function, not as a joke).
So I’m not going to suggest that all people with Down’s syndrome should be actively prevented from birthing children. But I think anyone with a hereditary disorder that severely affects quality of life should be carefully and empathetically counseled through the question of procreation with an honest discussion of the risks involved. Someone with high functioning Down’s syndrome may be able to live a perfectly happy life without much assistance, but what kind of risk would they be putting on their prospective child who will have a high likelihood of also getting the syndrome and may have a much worse case of it?
I don’t believe in forced sterilization or forced prevention, and I don’t believe in selecting for genes based on race or “positive” qualities, so what I’m suggesting is not eugenics. It’s simply encouraging people to consider the long term consequences of their decisions and evaluate the risks they are placing on other people (their prospective children) who cannot consent to being born under those risks.
As for individuals with cognitive faculties that are too limited to make any assessment about those risks, they will not be living independently, so I hope their caretaker would not put them in a situation where procreation is a concern to begin with.
And going back to the original matter of non-human animals, I stand by my point that those animals won’t be burdened by the knowledge that they can no longer procreate so they won’t have any long lasting trauma from the operation. That combined with the importance of reducing unhoused dog and cat populations (which are extremely difficult to control because of how quickly they reproduce) makes the value judgment on this matter a very easy one for me.
I hope you don’t mind, I’m gonna focus my reply mostly to this previous response, since I was zonked out last night, and feel out of my depth in the focus on persons with intellectual disabilities without extensive research.
Violence implies that harm is happening. In mind, the most harmful thing about neutering a human without their consent is the subsequent trauma that the person needs to live the rest of their life knowing that they will not be able to reproduce. Non-human animals don’t carry that burden and therefore won’t experience that trauma. They can go about the rest of their lives in perfectly happy ignorance.
I would say the most harmful thing done to an unconsenting person who suffered a neutering procedure would be the lack of ability to reproduce thereafter. This disability, its consequences is what humans would consider traumatic, not necessarily the knowledge thereof. Being ignorant (I do not concede this ignorance but for the sake of argument) of the harm doesn’t mean the harm doesn’t occur, though I would grant it could prevent trauma. Further, I think you might accidentally be smuggling in an unsupported assumption. On the one hand you say animals can’t communicate (ie, we can’t ascertain their consent) but on the other that they aren’t traumatized. If they can’t communicate well enough to ascertain their consent, how can we ascertain their emotional status? Given that, on what basis can you say they definitively aren’t traumatized by this procedure, categorically?
The physical aspect of the operation is a negligible concern. They recover from that just fine. Animals of all kinds need to undergo surgical operations for many reasons, and it’s not considered violence.
Tentatively granted. Medically necessary surgeries are not violent, though they very often do entail trauma.
but I’m still of the mind that I should choose to adopt instead of giving birth even though there is a part of me that wants to have a biological child very badly.
I am incredibly empathetic on this line. I feel a huge urge to reproduce despite, y’know, gestures broadly. I hope I have the moral courage to do the objectively right thing here.
So the difference is, a human can be reasoned with and make their own decision. Whether or not people ordinarily do make reasoned decisions about important matters is another concern; the salient point is that they can.
My reading of this works out to “A human can make a rational decision, but sometimes doesn’t. By implication, animals are incapable of thinking rationally. By extension, animals will never control their population on their own. Therefore, animal populations should be controlled by mass sterilization.” [heavily paraphrasing, please let me know if I have taken any inappropriate liberties with your arguments here or elsewhere. I am not looking to argue with a straw man.]
I hope that you will agree once I point it out- this doesn’t answer the question. I’m not asking whether/how the practice is justified, I’m asking why it doesn’t it constitute sexual assault. (Obviously, since animals are (strictly legally speaking) considered chattel and therefore don’t have rights (their owners have rights over them), they aren’t protected by e.g. sexual assault statutes. I’m asking the moral question, rather than the legal one.) “If we don’t practice what you are arguing constitutes sexual assault, then there could be disastrous consequences for society,” [heavily paraphrasing] doesn’t answer the question “does this action constitute sexual assault?”
I can foresee an objection in your mind- I’m being too dismissive of your arguments and saying only the answer that I want will fit the question. I disagree. For one, I am not looking for any specific answer. For another, I’m not dismissing your arguments, I am defeating them (in my opinion😊).
but I’ve also known people with Down’s syndrome who can’t get their own pants on without assistance (I mean this literally and objectively as a reference point for cognitive function, not as a joke).
I’m feeling comfortable enough around you not to worry about that. It’s hard to tell with internet strangers sometimes, but you seem earnest enough. You get the Dark Night of the Soul 🦭 of approval.
I don’t believe in forced sterilization or forced prevention… so what I’m suggesting is not eugenics.
I did want to come back to this point, though. With the greatest possible respect, you have been advocating for animal eugenics all along (in my opinion), and I don’t see how you’re going to successfully argue that you weren’t, except perhaps in that nominal legal sense I referred to in parenthesis above.
I’m curious, do you have first hand experience with dogs before and after being neutered?
My father-in-law has three pedigree (blech) dogs, each one a different breed, one boy and two girls, who he refuses to neuter because he likes the idea of being able to breed them with other pedigree dogs and sell the puppies or give them to family.
Wait no sorry he HAD three dogs until the male started raping the females. That created a new generation of dogs in his household, and then the brothers started raping the sisters creating another generation. Now my FIL puts chastity belts on all the dogs, but that still didn’t stop another litter from showing up.
Even though he’s given away more than half the litter he still has 8 frenzied dogs occupying his household. The girls attack each other when they’re in heat, the boys fight each other and try to rape the girls even though they’re all wearing chastity belts so it just ends up being impotent acts of violence against each other. His house is a hellscape of barking and fighting but he still refuses to neuter because he has some ridiculous notions about God’s plan and procreation being sacred, even as he tries to prevent them from procreating using physical restraints.
In my own home I have two neutered rescue dogs, both mongrels, one male and one female. They don’t fight and the male never tries to rape the female. They’re very high anxiety dogs because of trauma in their early lives, but they’re calm at home with each other as long as no one rings the doorbell. The worst thing my male dog has ever tried to do to my female dog is aggressively sniff and lick her genitals, but we stop that whenever it starts up because that carries high risk of a yeast infection for her.
I don’t bring my dogs to the dog park anymore because too many assholes with large breed dogs that they refuse to neuter are unleashing their dogs there, and those big unneutered male dogs like to try raping my male dog. There’s no question that it’s rape because he tries to escape them, but these big dogs all swarm him and hump him like he’s a female. I’ve had to clean dog cum off of him before.
Now my male dog is traumatized and scared of larger male dogs by default, which is frustrating because there are some large male dogs in our neighborhood who are nice and would make good friends but my male dog is too scared to give them a chance.
So basically, I don’t really care about the semantic argument around whether or not neutering can qualify as sexual assault or sexual violence. Those terms imply harmful intent and/or harmful outcomes for the victim, and my personal experience tells me that there’s far more harm done by leaving dogs unneutered. I don’t believe in arguments about what’s “natural” because it’s part of human nature to manipulate our environment, and that manipulation can have positive or negative effects. We should judge the merit of our choices based on those effects. Letting nature run its course is not inherently virtuous.
I’m replying to let you know I’ve seen that you replied. I just got back from my night’s activities and am winding down. I look forward to reading your response.
Okay, I’m reading frustration- pointed at me- between the lines of what you’ve written. I’m going to drop the MrDebatePants persona I’ve adopted thus far and speak to you human-to-human. Regardless, I will still be making every effort to be respectful despite the difference in opinion we are having here. I hope and trust you will let me know when you feel disrespected and afford me the opportunity to correct it. /persona
Yes, I have. I was a kennel technician in a veterinary office for about 8 months. I was homeless at the time. Let’s see, this was… late 2020? early 2021? Somewhere around there. It was a nice deal. The shelter and the vet had some sort of arrangement with the government that they could basically lease out their tenants, pay them less than minimum wage. It’s a win win win, because the vet gets cheap labor and a tax break, the shelter gets some sort of kickback from the government, and I get shafted on pay and come “home” smelling like dogshit every night, much to the dismay of the other men with whom I was sharing a bunk/room, considering the extreme dysfunction of our showers and laundry.
I didn’t care. I was working with animals. Would you believe I have always been much better with animals than people? At first it was nice enough- take the dogs out three times a day in the remarkably well appointed attached private park specific to the vet’s office. Clean up their feces, feed them, later I was entrusted with medication and grooming tasks. The owner of the place, a retired vet, took great care to make sure there were facilities for the care of homeless dogs and cats. Humane, empathetic, I thought. And I guess, yes, actually it was, in comparison to the nothing he could have otherwise done. But it was also depressing. Not just for me. For them.
Prudence. A beautful, sweet 6-7 year old malamute/pyrenees who was in our care after being discovered in a crate not even big enough for her to stand up in. She had been sitting in her own filth, unrelieved, for an unknown but extended period of time. She was only discovered when the elderly demented man who was supposed to be her caretaker finally passed. He had been feeding her, and nothing else. Prior history unknown. She was going to be written off as a lost cause and euthanized. I begged to be allowed the opportunity to attempt to rehabilitate her. The vet kind of rolled her eyes and I guess decided it would be a teachable moment for me. So she went ahead. And I did. I took her on walks with an improvised sling, bearing most the weight from her hips on my shoulders. She would kind of kick the air with her back as we walked. Before long her front legs were strong enough that I could start easing her weight down a bit, lengthening the strap little by little. She would always be panting like mad when we got back in, but also happy in that dog way. About two months of this treatment and she was standing and walking short distances on her own. And she loved walking, so so much. I’ve never met a dog more happy to just be walked. I know, I know. All dogs like walks. This dog loved walking. Just the act thereof. I don’t do it or her justice in this description. She didn’t care one iota about being fixed. She was taken to a farm upstate (literally, I checked) and enjoyed another year of life before developing hip dysplasia severe enough that even she didn’t want to walk anymore. She was humanely euthanized, and I have every reason to believe she consented to that procedure. If I had not been there, simple and naive enough to actually try where the “professional” had given up before even starting, she would have been simply murdered by the same procedure. And nobody would have seen any problem with it.
Ricky. 2-4 year old boxer mix who had spent too long on the streets and was badly socialized to both humans and animals. I was warned about ricky when he came in for all of those reasons- aggressive, snappish, foul mannered, defensive, food guarding, all the hits. People mistrusted him without ever meeting or interacting him because of his history. I’m ashamed to say, so did I. One day we were feeding and I had accidentally forgotten to start the dishwasher for their bowls, so we used paper bowls instead. I put out the food and came back about twenty minutes later (far too long with paper, I should have known) to find Ricky chewing his bowl to shreds. I said, exasperated “Ricky…” and he looked kind of ashamed, in that way that some dogs will. I opened the cage and reached out my hand and- he recoiled. He absolutely drew back in the expectation that I was about to hit him. I tell you, my heart broke for him in that moment. I sat down next to him instead of cleaning up the pieces and just loved on him for a while. And he needed that, so so badly. I guess so did I. He pressed himself into me and I whispered that it’s okay and he’s a good boy and please don’t chew up your bowl. From then on he and I were best friends, and he seemed to come around to the rest of the staff quickly thereafter, too. If things had turned out differently, he’d be in my care right now here at home. But they didn’t. I liked ricky, you see, and he liked me. And he was extremely jealous of my attention. I was trying to work closely with him to socialize and was going to begin muzzled contact with other dogs soon, but… One day I had him out in the park. It has a few fenced off areas for holding troubled dogs away from the main area. I was in on one of my off days, playing in one such area, tug toy, fetch, that sort of thing. And he was being such a good boy… until another dog who was playing in the main area wandered over and saw that I was playing with toys and he wanted to play toys too and ricky didnt like that so he bit the other dog through the fence. Hard. And refused to let go. And tore his lip open. we stuck the needle in his arm and he died, knowing what was happening to him. I held him, and I tell you I wept like I never did before or since.
Have I seen the before and after? Yes, I have. I have seen dogs come in for humping the pillows go home not wanting to hump things anymore. I have seen the dog who got out because of owner negligence come home and have a litter of puppies they couldnt afford so they just give them away to god knows who without worrying too much about neutering, they’re just puppies, someone else will take care of it, no longer able to have puppies anymore. hooray, another victory. Dogs come in sexually aggressive and leave confused and worried while the staff laughs about the cone of shame preventing them from investigating the stump where there sex once was. Never is any sort of therapeutic intervention even considered. “Dog psychologist? Dont be naive.” Never is it suggested that it might just be the fault of the person nominally responsible. When people get bored or their charge becomes inconvenient, they dump their responsibility onto the street. Never had I seen that illustrated so literally as the day we were outside smoking at the shelter and someone just did a fucking drive by dump off. I guess they saw “shelter” and got the wrong idea. Fortunately I happened to work at the actual shelter they needed and was able to get that poor animal- abused, obviously, and sick- where it needed to be to get some help.
My mother is disgustingly similar to your FIL, except she had just the one dog at the time that I was still talking to her. Walking around whimpering all day long in heat with no way to satisfy her sexual needs. She let that poor girl just bleed on the floor and whine and lay around and yelled at her relentlessly for relentlessly trying to get out. “she knows better than that.” I begged her to please neuter that dog. Repeatedly. Literally on my knees at one point. She thought it was funny. That dog- let’s see, Daisy was her name- did manage to get out one day. And was hit by a car. And died of her wounds. My mom did not go to see her while she lay dying. For many reasons, this high among them, I do not speak to my mother anymore.
I didn’t develop these radical views even from all of those experiences combined. I wanted to adopt a rescue dog. I wanted to know what kind of rights that dog would have. I was shocked, angry and I don’t know the word to adequately express the magnitude of my disappointment because that word just doesn’t quite cut it- but somehow not actually surprised- to find that they have no rights. Animal rights do not exist, at least in america, atleast as far as I was able to find in a quite extensive (though necessarily not exhaustive) search of my state and local district and several other districts in my state and several other states and at a federal level. All “animal rights” legislation is actually a list of how hard you can “work” your animals, what treatments they may not be forced to endure (almost universally, they may not be subject to any treatment that will lead to death or inability to perform their “work”). They are slave codes. Animals are slaves. Legally defined, literally, as chattel. Moveable property. This is my real point. The question about sexual assault, while valid and I think important, is a framing device to get us to here and the larger more important question, “What are we supposed to do about this?”
I had to delete about a paragraph and a half here where I started to get back into MrDebatePants mode, because I told you I wouldn’t do that. There is just one thing I must say as a point of clarity, however: I am not arguing from nature. I understand how you could infer that from what I’ve said, but I’ve never implied it and it forms no part of my argument.
I hope this wasn’t too much. It was a lot, for me at least. Scrolling back up, it’s a lot to look at, too. I haven’t dressed my ideas up or tried to hide anything or tried to make myself sound as smart as I can. It is the plain, ugly, unvarnished truth as I recall it.
Actually, I’m at the character limit, so I bette
Why can’t we give them the pill contraceptive? Does progesterone not work on animals, or are pet owners just sadists that love mutilating their pets?
Pets don’t like taking pills, so it’s probably more harmful to force them to do so than to do a one time surgery. Also, that only works on female cats, so your male cat could still father kittens.
We have two cats from the same litter (got from neighbor for free, they still get to see their mother and original human family on occasion), one male and one female, and we got them spayed and neutered. It was horrible watching them suffer for a couple weeks, but I think it’ll be better than force feeding the girl birth control and preventing the boy from ever interacting with a female cat. I don’t know if cats do incest, but I absolutely do not want that to happen either, so the girl cat going into heat (not sure if they still do if using birth control) and not be able to get that particular itch scratched, except by her brother.
So I think it makes complete sense to sterilize cats. They can’t consent on their own, so owners need to make that decision for them, just like with surgeries for children under the age of legal consent.
I take it you are also for FGM then as
owners need to make that decision for them, just like with surgeries for children under the age of legal consent.
Wow, that’s… quite the leap.
I doubt very much they would agree with their characterization as sadists, but I also doubt they would be willing to pay for perpetual-upkeep progesterone, (or whatever the animal equivalent might be) for their animal children. It’s a wonderful intersection of convenient and cheap, and because animals are defined as being unable to consent (without the restrictions that would normally impose on a human subject), you don’t have to worry about pesky things like morality or ethical restrictions. By grabthar’s hammer, what a savings.
I doubt very much they would agree with their characterization as sadists
I see you’ve never met a cat before
That would be a masochist, but yes, cats are notorious sadists.
To those downvoting: Are you lost for words? Struggling to figure out how to successfully reply?
Perhaps that says more than you are willing to admit.
Edit: I think I got it right. You use the disagree button in place of an argument. I think that’s pretty fucking cowardly of you.
