Maybe I’m just crabby because of the excessive heat—it’s been 106 degrees for two days in Portland—but does it strike anyone else as depressing that the most popular new column in the New York Times is about raising a dog? And there’s no “Ha, ha, ha, can you believe I’m writing a whole column about my new puppy chewing and barking?” in The Puppy Diaries, a 2-week-old enterprise that spent much of its first week on the Times‘s most-read list. I have a baby and he cries sometimes. Does that interest anyone?
How can this…
There is the special puppy smell, much like the distinctive scent, better than perfume, of a new baby’s head. There is the reflexive urge to smother with kisses. There is the getting up in the middle of the night. There is the singing of lullabies to sleep, lying next to Scout’s crate as if it were a cradle. There is the arrangement of play dates for socialization.
and this…
We have a puppy gate that keeps Scout in the rear of our house, where we have an open kitchen and family room. But even sequestered and puppy-proofed, the area has a million temptations, from the cording on the couch upholstery to the wires of our computers. We live in fear of puppy electrocution.
…not be tongue in cheek? Puppy-proofing? There’s got to be a business in that.
It’s called buying a cat instead.
Yeah, you’re right. That’s pretty fucking obnoxious.
Dogs are PETS, people, not children, not human. They lick their butts and eat their vomit. These are not precious creatures to be coddled.
They’re ANIMALS. Draw a fucking line and don’t cross it.
For more fun, read all the comments chastising the author for buying a pup from a breeder and the Times for publishing/publicizing buying a dog from a breeder.
The author does have extraordinarily stupid logic for getting a dog from a breeder instead of a shelter.
Is dog hate the fun new hipster thing or just a condition for employment at the Stranger?
Perhaps it is the heat making folks cranky, but there are very real issues surrounding raising non-human companion animals.
For many people, due to the changing nature of family and community dynamics, having a non-human companion (usually a dog or cat) serves as a way that they can emotionally connect with another being.
Also, many who choose not to have human kids find that there is much to be gained by having emotional surrogates.
On the whole this is a good and positive thing. It becomes a problem when some people forget that their non-human companions have needs (biological, social, and emotional) that are distinct to their species, and that those needs must be taken into account – i.e. they aren’t little humans in fuzzy suits.
On the surface it may seem like an easy thing to make fun of, but the realization that companion animals are more than property, and should be given more consideration than what you would give to a chair, is positive for society on a number of levels.
@6 – Regarding emotional surrogates:
Humanizing an animal and creating an emotional attachment to it seems couter-productive to emotional health. Science has shown over and over how people with constant positive human contact are generally healthier by every standard. People who offer compassion and emotional and physical support to others report higher feelings of happiness and satisfaction than those who do not (selfish, or reclusive, or pet owners… (kidding)).
So by humanizing an animal and devoting yourself to its care, you may be withdrawing more from the kind of social and human contact your mind and soul needs to survive healthfully. I am not suggesting that everyone needs to get married and breed, but there are plenty of children out there who need a little extra care and attention, shut-ins who need care, and adults (even active adults) who could use another supportive friend.
I’m sorry if I sound all hearts-and-flowers here, but perhaps we’d need a little less prozac (or whatever is popular now) if we spent less time fixated on non-human contact and more time creating human bonds.
@7: The ones who tend to benefit the most from the emotional benefits of non-human companionship are often those who fall into the categories that you mention: “children out there who need a little extra care and attention, shut-ins who need care, and adults (even active adults) who could use another supportive friend”.
Shut-ins and the elderly who have access to non-human companionship tend to do better in regards to health and interactions with other people. Also, for many children their pet may be the only one who they feel safe with – either physically or emotionally.
That’s not to say that non-humans should take the place of all social and emotional interaction within the lives of many individuals, rather that they can enhance and the lives of those people and in many cases spark them into becoming more engaged with the human world around them.
@2 & @3 you’re right on. people’s current elevation of dogs to human-like status is fucked-up & obnoxious. I’m not liking the new trend of people taking their dogs in stores & restaurants. It’s exhibits serious signs of insecurity to prefer dog companions to people and to carry them everywhere like a baby with a security blanket. I don’t see the trend changing anytime soon though. Pretty soon they’re gonna pass laws to allow dogs every-fucking-where.
@8 I agree that for those in desperate need of emotional attachments with little chance for outlets, caring for an animal may certainly help. But what about everybody else? Most of the pampered-dog owners I know and have known, their dogs and cats are replacements for human relationships. What if those people who are capable pampered-dog owners actually stepped out of their own self-obsessed little worlds for a few hours a week to offer care and emotional support to one of those kids or shut-ins, even the ones with pets? They can keep their pampered pets and still find an appropriate outlet for their need to offer care and compassion and love.
Yeah. I don’t have a problem with freak-ohs having “special emotional relationships” or whatever it is you’re doing with your pets. I don’t really care one way or the other. I just don’t want to read about it in The Newspaper of Record. It’s stupid and embarrassing middle-class wankery. Do something interesting with your life, shithead. Having a puppy is not “something”. This rates considerably below having a complicated model train set on the interesting scale.
They might as well call the column Why Big City Liberals Will Never Make Anything Happen.
holy barf face…..
http://stfumarrieds.tumblr.com/
The Puppy Diaries deserves a similar treatment.
allyn, i’d rather hang out with my dog than you, that’s for sure.
Just because you associate with self-involved, social incompetent people doesn’t mean that everyone is that way. I have rarely noticed a difference with social interaction between people who have pets and people who don’t. And, by the way, I’m a crazy cat lady AND I go out, volunteer, and interact with and help other people.
In my experience, people who hate animals are usually the worst people to be around. Their hatred for animals usually translates into a hatred for other people as well.
Pile on for volunteering. Whether you have pets or not, there’s a world of hurt out there that needs fixing. Find something and make a commitment, and I don’t just mean the soup kitchen on Thanksgiving morning.
@15 Hold on a second and unwad your panties. There’s a difference between regular people who own pets and those who think their pets are their children. I also know pet owners who love their pets, but manage to remember that they are not human.
And who said anything about hating animals? It’s a far range between realizing dogs are animals and not replacements for human relationships and outright hatred… yeesh.
And, “taint”, right back at ya there.
@3 Funny, that is exactly the way I have always felt about children.
Oh, and just so you know, science has shown that pet owner actually live longer. So, I will happily let my dog pee on your grave stone!
Dogs and humans have lived together and been each other’s emotional companions for 10,000 years. Literally. There is nothing particularly unique in the cushy status modern dogs have in humans’ lives, either; look only to the ancient Chinese imperial court, to ancient Egypt (where dogs were even revered as gods), etc. ad nauseam. Even Jack in Little House on the Prairie got fussed over by the Ingalls girls.
Dog owners live longer, have lower rates of various chronic diseases, and lower stress. And not all dogs are yappy, badly trained animals: most dogs are well-socialized, trained members of their families who don’t let them pee in your yard to bring them into QFC.
The anti-dog crowd needs to get over themselves and stop universalizing their anti-dogism onto everyone who DOES “get” the contribution that dogs make to life.
Most dogs have better personalities than people. Especially commenters in slog.