spiker
Bronze
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2025
- Posts
- 497
- Reputation
- 912
Just came across this image (on @Big Boss 's thread) of someone claiming to be a Lab Tech. This shook me ngl, but I decided to look into it obviously hoping to poke holes.
Things to keep in mind:
1. Anyone can say whatever they want on the internet (hi guys I have a phd!)
2. I don't want this to be true so this will contain confirmation bias
3. I am bored
THE ORIGINAL IMAGE THAT SPARKED MY INTEREST:
While it is true that women are told not to have sex for two days before an exam, instantly the author pulls "1 in 200-300 Pap Smears" out of thin air. Then claims he can tell how many different men have had sex with the subject. While this doesn't relate to the actual point of his story, it should cast doubt on his credentials if disproven.
I decided to see if you can actually differentiate sperm cells in a sample to tell how many men have contributed to it:
Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2665910721000712?via=ihub
As you can see here, if you were investigating a rape case with potentially multiple offenders, simply looking at the sample under a microscope wouldn't be enough to know if there was multiple contributors, let alone identify them, you would need to run some DNA tests if that was your goal. Another thing to note is samples can vary substantially between different ejaculates from the same man. (so its not like fingerprints where you can identify the culprit)
So now that we can already seriously question the legitimacy of the original claim, lets continue.
Are Pap smears even reliable?
Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3598516/
While routine Pap smears can occasionally detect sperm, they are not an ideal method to confirm or substantiate recent intercourse due to this unreliability.
Here is what a Pap smear looks like when detecting spermatozoa:
Source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8478504/figure/FI-1/
So now we know that Pap smears are unreliable for establishing recent intercourse or determining when semen was deposited, in the best case scenario would you be able to tell if a woman has recently had intercourse with a dog vs a human?
Canine Semen on the left, Human Semen on the right:
Sources: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11848706/ and https://minnstate.pressbooks.pub/bbbiology/chapter/spermatozoa-tutorial/ respectively.
The claim that canine sperm has a special “second bulge in the tail used for energy to get through a bitch’s long harsh uterine tract” is not an accurate description of canine sperm biology. While its not impossible, a routine Pap smear is not a validated inter species identification test, especially with less than ideal conditions, so microscopy alone would not justify confidently declaring ‘this is canine semen.’
He claims at the end that canine semen can work like birth control, I cannot find anything to support that, so further doubt can be cast.
Why would there even be canine sperm in a woman's cervix?
Sexual contact with a dog does not automatically mean ejaculation occurred, or that semen was deposited deep enough for sperm to reach the cervix. The anecdotes I’ve seen often involve short genital contact rather than ejaculation, although anecdotes obviously can’t establish what is typical (but its all I have to go on.....).
Conclusion: All of the evidence points to him fabricating these claims using kernels of truth to deceive. (all good lies have truth to them) With that being said I still don't know how common bestiality is among women.
So are there any actual studies done about women having sexual encounters with dogs?
Not really, unsurprisingly there is no solid statistic showing the % of women that have had intercourse with a dog, the closest I could find was this:
"3.6% of adult women in Kinsey’s 1953 sample reported at least one sexual encounter with an animal."
Source: https://muse.jhu.edu/book/42036/1000
3.6% would be much higher than the pre stated claim of 1 in 200-300 (of course you would already expect the Pap smear to be much worse at discovering sexual interactions with canines), but the study relates to "sexual encounters with an animal" an encounter could really be anything, the study is from 1953, and it could be any animal not just a dog.
I think it would be out of scope to find out the actual number, because lets be honest, what is the plan?
Survey for women:
Question one: "Have you ever had sex with a dog?"
Yes ☐
No ☐
Prefer not to answer ☐
I don't know about you but If I was a woman there is a 0% chance I'm checking that box.
The main thing that irks be about this is what is the point? What does he have to gain from making these claims? Only random men on online forums will see this and most of them probably already don't think very highly of women. Is this a psyop to further radicalize men to view women as degenerates? Being online has heavily distorted my perception of reality and I'm questioning if its best for me to stop lurking forums.
I wish I put this much effort into my assignments.
TLDR:
All of the evidence points to him fabricating these claims but at the same time I cannot find an accurate representation of how many women are engaging in bestiality, it for sure happens but I wouldn't count on it being very common at all.
Things to keep in mind:
1. Anyone can say whatever they want on the internet (hi guys I have a phd!)
2. I don't want this to be true so this will contain confirmation bias
3. I am bored
THE ORIGINAL IMAGE THAT SPARKED MY INTEREST:
While it is true that women are told not to have sex for two days before an exam, instantly the author pulls "1 in 200-300 Pap Smears" out of thin air. Then claims he can tell how many different men have had sex with the subject. While this doesn't relate to the actual point of his story, it should cast doubt on his credentials if disproven.
I decided to see if you can actually differentiate sperm cells in a sample to tell how many men have contributed to it:
Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2665910721000712?via=ihub
As you can see here, if you were investigating a rape case with potentially multiple offenders, simply looking at the sample under a microscope wouldn't be enough to know if there was multiple contributors, let alone identify them, you would need to run some DNA tests if that was your goal. Another thing to note is samples can vary substantially between different ejaculates from the same man. (so its not like fingerprints where you can identify the culprit)
So now that we can already seriously question the legitimacy of the original claim, lets continue.
Are Pap smears even reliable?
Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3598516/
While routine Pap smears can occasionally detect sperm, they are not an ideal method to confirm or substantiate recent intercourse due to this unreliability.
Here is what a Pap smear looks like when detecting spermatozoa:
Source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8478504/figure/FI-1/
So now we know that Pap smears are unreliable for establishing recent intercourse or determining when semen was deposited, in the best case scenario would you be able to tell if a woman has recently had intercourse with a dog vs a human?
Canine Semen on the left, Human Semen on the right:
Sources: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11848706/ and https://minnstate.pressbooks.pub/bbbiology/chapter/spermatozoa-tutorial/ respectively.
The claim that canine sperm has a special “second bulge in the tail used for energy to get through a bitch’s long harsh uterine tract” is not an accurate description of canine sperm biology. While its not impossible, a routine Pap smear is not a validated inter species identification test, especially with less than ideal conditions, so microscopy alone would not justify confidently declaring ‘this is canine semen.’
He claims at the end that canine semen can work like birth control, I cannot find anything to support that, so further doubt can be cast.
Why would there even be canine sperm in a woman's cervix?
Sexual contact with a dog does not automatically mean ejaculation occurred, or that semen was deposited deep enough for sperm to reach the cervix. The anecdotes I’ve seen often involve short genital contact rather than ejaculation, although anecdotes obviously can’t establish what is typical (but its all I have to go on.....).
Conclusion: All of the evidence points to him fabricating these claims using kernels of truth to deceive. (all good lies have truth to them) With that being said I still don't know how common bestiality is among women.
So are there any actual studies done about women having sexual encounters with dogs?
Not really, unsurprisingly there is no solid statistic showing the % of women that have had intercourse with a dog, the closest I could find was this:
"3.6% of adult women in Kinsey’s 1953 sample reported at least one sexual encounter with an animal."
Source: https://muse.jhu.edu/book/42036/1000
3.6% would be much higher than the pre stated claim of 1 in 200-300 (of course you would already expect the Pap smear to be much worse at discovering sexual interactions with canines), but the study relates to "sexual encounters with an animal" an encounter could really be anything, the study is from 1953, and it could be any animal not just a dog.
I think it would be out of scope to find out the actual number, because lets be honest, what is the plan?
Survey for women:
Question one: "Have you ever had sex with a dog?"
Yes ☐
No ☐
Prefer not to answer ☐
I don't know about you but If I was a woman there is a 0% chance I'm checking that box.
The main thing that irks be about this is what is the point? What does he have to gain from making these claims? Only random men on online forums will see this and most of them probably already don't think very highly of women. Is this a psyop to further radicalize men to view women as degenerates? Being online has heavily distorted my perception of reality and I'm questioning if its best for me to stop lurking forums.
I wish I put this much effort into my assignments.
TLDR:
All of the evidence points to him fabricating these claims but at the same time I cannot find an accurate representation of how many women are engaging in bestiality, it for sure happens but I wouldn't count on it being very common at all.
Last edited:
