You mess with the rod, you get the female bod

WD_Gaster said:
You mess with the rod, you get the female bod

I wish it worked like that!

Sh1tzor said:
I wish it worked like that!

Same

I'm usually not into GT, but I'm ok with this; he deserves it for trying to take the good boy's balls. I'm really against neutering pets; not in a pervery way, just...well....you like having YOUR nuts don't you!? I know why it's done, but why do we have to cut them off? Can't vets just do doggy vasectomies? Plus doesn't it really hurt the dog's health too?

ChattyWallFlower said:
I'm usually not into GT, but I'm ok with this; he deserves it for trying to take the good boy's balls. I'm really against neutering pets; not in a pervery way, just...well....you like having YOUR nuts don't you!? I know why it's done, but why do we have to cut them off? Can't vets just do doggy vasectomies? Plus doesn't it really hurt the dog's health too?

Honestly, it's mainly done as a convenience for the sake of the owners. It's hardly a hidden fact what happens when you lose testosterone in a body evolved to use it to function; you get serious health problems, like low bone density, increased cancer risk, etc. It's addressed in human males, but conveniently ignored for animals because it supposedly reduces aggression. Truth is, it would most likely make for an anxious dog instead. And a dog with anxiety is a dog that may bite out of fear. There's chemical sterilization available that eliminates many of the adverse effects, and only halving the testosterone, but still many go to castration. They say it'll make for a long healthy happy life, but I disagree.

(Somewhat relevant:
As much as I love sanctuaries for wolves, surgically sterilizing—while I see the point–is not going to leave them healthy. Who knows, perhaps a wolf could live past 20 intact! (However I don't know if the wolves that have lived to 19+ were fixed or not; if indeed intact, then maybe that's why they'd been living so long))

Anyways, it's infuriating. It's just wrong.
Here's a relevant link , but there are far more research which has been growing on this.
Please, for the love of dogs, don't just go castrating or spaying your dogs.

e a t s h i t B o b B a r k e r

No u

"What a naughty boy, who taught you that trick?"

That should be obvious-- that trick cums naturally!

BlueMoonstruckWolf said:
Honestly, it's mainly done as a convenience for the sake of the owners. It's hardly a hidden fact what happens when you lose testosterone in a body evolved to use it to function; you get serious health problems, like low bone density, increased cancer risk, etc. It's addressed in human males, but conveniently ignored for animals because it supposedly reduces aggression. Truth is, it would most likely make for an anxious dog instead. And a dog with anxiety is a dog that may bite out of fear. There's chemical sterilization available that eliminates many of the adverse effects, and only halving the testosterone, but still many go to castration. They say it'll make for a long healthy happy life, but I disagree.

(Somewhat relevant:
As much as I love sanctuaries for wolves, surgically sterilizing—while I see the point–is not going to leave them healthy. Who knows, perhaps a wolf could live past 20 intact! (However I don't know if the wolves that have lived to 19+ were fixed or not; if indeed intact, then maybe that's why they'd been living so long))

Anyways, it's infuriating. It's just wrong.
Here's a relevant link , but there are far more research which has been growing on this.
Please, for the love of dogs, don't just go castrating or spaying your dogs.

[CITATION NEEDED]

BlueMoonstruckWolf said:
Honestly, it's mainly done as a convenience for the sake of the owners. It's hardly a hidden fact what happens when you lose testosterone in a body evolved to use it to function; you get serious health problems, like low bone density, increased cancer risk, etc. It's addressed in human males, but conveniently ignored for animals because it supposedly reduces aggression. Truth is, it would most likely make for an anxious dog instead. And a dog with anxiety is a dog that may bite out of fear. There's chemical sterilization available that eliminates many of the adverse effects, and only halving the testosterone, but still many go to castration. They say it'll make for a long healthy happy life, but I disagree.

(Somewhat relevant:
As much as I love sanctuaries for wolves, surgically sterilizing—while I see the point–is not going to leave them healthy. Who knows, perhaps a wolf could live past 20 intact! (However I don't know if the wolves that have lived to 19+ were fixed or not; if indeed intact, then maybe that's why they'd been living so long))

Anyways, it's infuriating. It's just wrong.
Here's a relevant link , but there are far more research which has been growing on this.
Please, for the love of dogs, don't just go castrating or spaying your dogs.

Less neutering means more puppies and an increase in the amount of “problematic” behaviors that most dog owners are too stupid to correct. Both of those mean more dogs in shelters. More dogs in shelters means more dogs dying in shelters on top of the millions that already die every year.

In an ideal world, overpopulation wouldn’t be a problem and dog owners would be responsible enough to prevent their dogs from breeding, have the competence to train their pets, and ensure that they receive a healthy diet in addition to appropriate veterinary care. This is far from our reality, though, and most owners don’t even care enough to feed their dogs anything but the cheapest kibble brand. Further, most *breeders* won’t so much as consider testing their stock to prevent crippling and painful conditions like hip dysphasia, luxating patellas, brachycephaly, etc that doom so many purebred animals to live in constant pain and discomfort.

If you want to help dogs... Encouraging people to own intact animals is far from a good start. You can start by encouraging responsible dog ownership, healthy diets, and breeders focusing on HEALTH instead of aesthetics. It’s just so silly to focus on the *possibility* of minor health side effects from neutering compared to dogs being slaughtered en masse, being fed toxic corn-filled garbage, or being bred in a way that ensures a lifetime of pain.

notknots said:
Less neutering means more puppies and an increase in the amount of “problematic” behaviors that most dog owners are too stupid to correct. Both of those mean more dogs in shelters. More dogs in shelters means more dogs dying in shelters on top of the millions that already die every year.

In an ideal world, overpopulation wouldn’t be a problem and dog owners would be responsible enough to prevent their dogs from breeding, have the competence to train their pets, and ensure that they receive a healthy diet in addition to appropriate veterinary care. This is far from our reality, though, and most owners don’t even care enough to feed their dogs anything but the cheapest kibble brand. Further, most *breeders* won’t so much as consider testing their stock to prevent crippling and painful conditions like hip dysphasia, luxating patellas, brachycephaly, etc that doom so many purebred animals to live in constant pain and discomfort.

If you want to help dogs... Encouraging people to own intact animals is far from a good start. You can start by encouraging responsible dog ownership, healthy diets, and breeders focusing on HEALTH instead of aesthetics. It’s just so silly to focus on the *possibility* of minor health side effects from neutering compared to dogs being slaughtered en masse, being fed toxic corn-filled garbage, or being bred in a way that ensures a lifetime of pain.

Well if you read the whole message, they clearly weren't just saying they shouldn't be sterilized, but that castration isn't the way to do it

notknots said:
Less neutering means more puppies and an increase in the amount of “problematic” behaviors that most dog owners are too stupid to correct. Both of those mean more dogs in shelters. More dogs in shelters means more dogs dying in shelters on top of the millions that already die every year.

In an ideal world, overpopulation wouldn’t be a problem and dog owners would be responsible enough to prevent their dogs from breeding, have the competence to train their pets, and ensure that they receive a healthy diet in addition to appropriate veterinary care. This is far from our reality, though, and most owners don’t even care enough to feed their dogs anything but the cheapest kibble brand. Further, most *breeders* won’t so much as consider testing their stock to prevent crippling and painful conditions like hip dysphasia, luxating patellas, brachycephaly, etc that doom so many purebred animals to live in constant pain and discomfort.

If you want to help dogs... Encouraging people to own intact animals is far from a good start. You can start by encouraging responsible dog ownership, healthy diets, and breeders focusing on HEALTH instead of aesthetics. It’s just so silly to focus on the *possibility* of minor health side effects from neutering compared to dogs being slaughtered en masse, being fed toxic corn-filled garbage, or being bred in a way that ensures a lifetime of pain.

One word destroys your entire argument. Vasectomy. It accomplishes everything while keeping the dog healthy. Don't defend castration when you don't need to.

why is he wearing finger-less gloves with a polo

ChattyWallFlower said:
I'm usually not into GT, but I'm ok with this; he deserves it for trying to take the good boy's balls. I'm really against neutering pets; not in a pervery way, just...well....you like having YOUR nuts don't you!? I know why it's done, but why do we have to cut them off? Can't vets just do doggy vasectomies? Plus doesn't it really hurt the dog's health too?

Really, it's just a cruel way for humans to ruin their dogs libido so they can pretend they are "fur babies", innocent and non-promiscuous. Truth is, they are not children. It is a false equivalence perpetuated by humans who treat their animals more as a precious commodity than a family member.

somewhiteguy said:
why is he wearing finger-less gloves with a polo

I love IT! Thank you for changing the subject.

notknots said:
Less neutering means more puppies and an increase in the amount of “problematic” behaviors that most dog owners are too stupid to correct. Both of those mean more dogs in shelters. More dogs in shelters means more dogs dying in shelters on top of the millions that already die every year.

In an ideal world, overpopulation wouldn’t be a problem and dog owners would be responsible enough to prevent their dogs from breeding, have the competence to train their pets, and ensure that they receive a healthy diet in addition to appropriate veterinary care. This is far from our reality, though, and most owners don’t even care enough to feed their dogs anything but the cheapest kibble brand. Further, most *breeders* won’t so much as consider testing their stock to prevent crippling and painful conditions like hip dysphasia, luxating patellas, brachycephaly, etc that doom so many purebred animals to live in constant pain and discomfort.

If you want to help dogs... Encouraging people to own intact animals is far from a good start. You can start by encouraging responsible dog ownership, healthy diets, and breeders focusing on HEALTH instead of aesthetics. It’s just so silly to focus on the *possibility* of minor health side effects from neutering compared to dogs being slaughtered en masse, being fed toxic corn-filled garbage, or being bred in a way that ensures a lifetime of pain.

Imagine not reading the whole message.

The biggest question nobody addressed is why wasn't he wearing an underwear.

valterox said:
You mess with the rod, you get the female bod

you deserve an award for that masterpiece

notknots said:
Less neutering means more puppies and an increase in the amount of “problematic” behaviors that most dog owners are too stupid to correct. Both of those mean more dogs in shelters. More dogs in shelters means more dogs dying in shelters on top of the millions that already die every year.

In an ideal world, overpopulation wouldn’t be a problem and dog owners would be responsible enough to prevent their dogs from breeding, have the competence to train their pets, and ensure that they receive a healthy diet in addition to appropriate veterinary care. This is far from our reality, though, and most owners don’t even care enough to feed their dogs anything but the cheapest kibble brand. Further, most *breeders* won’t so much as consider testing their stock to prevent crippling and painful conditions like hip dysphasia, luxating patellas, brachycephaly, etc that doom so many purebred animals to live in constant pain and discomfort.

If you want to help dogs... Encouraging people to own intact animals is far from a good start. You can start by encouraging responsible dog ownership, healthy diets, and breeders focusing on HEALTH instead of aesthetics. It’s just so silly to focus on the *possibility* of minor health side effects from neutering compared to dogs being slaughtered en masse, being fed toxic corn-filled garbage, or being bred in a way that ensures a lifetime of pain.

This is why I keep only male dogs. Why not a female, they go in heat and he neighbors dog will go crazy, he already tries to get in my yard imagine if I had a female dog.

CHEH

bluemoonstruckwolf said:
Honestly, it's mainly done as a convenience for the sake of the owners. It's hardly a hidden fact what happens when you lose testosterone in a body evolved to use it to function; you get serious health problems, like low bone density, increased cancer risk, etc. It's addressed in human males, but conveniently ignored for animals because it supposedly reduces aggression. Truth is, it would most likely make for an anxious dog instead. And a dog with anxiety is a dog that may bite out of fear. There's chemical sterilization available that eliminates many of the adverse effects, and only halving the testosterone, but still many go to castration. They say it'll make for a long healthy happy life, but I disagree.

(Somewhat relevant:
As much as I love sanctuaries for wolves, surgically sterilizing—while I see the point–is not going to leave them healthy. Who knows, perhaps a wolf could live past 20 intact! (However I don't know if the wolves that have lived to 19+ were fixed or not; if indeed intact, then maybe that's why they'd been living so long))

Anyways, it's infuriating. It's just wrong.
Here's a relevant link , but there are far more research which has been growing on this.
Please, for the love of dogs, don't just go castrating or spaying your dogs.

say it louder for the people in the back