Posted on 06/30/2011 3:29:04 PM PDT by NYer
Dogs are often given the title “man’s best friend.” I get that. However, a new title has surfaced which turns one’s dog from friend to family. These days people address their dog as “baby.”
Last December, I received a Christmas card in the mail with someone’s dog in the spotlight posing as Santa. Cute? Sure… until I read the caption which read, “Baby’s First Christmas.” This was just the beginning of my observations.
More recently, I met a rather chatty woman in the post office. She was in the process of picking out a Father’s Day card for her son. Her only requirement was that the card include a dog in its design. At first, I thought this to be an innocent request. After conversing longer, she shared that her son’s ex-girlfriend (who I gathered used to live with him) left her two dogs with this man after her departure. The mother was duly impressed with her thirty-year old son’s ability to take care of these creatures. So much so that that was in fact the motivation behind purchasing a Father’s Day card for him. So, would such a mentality make her a grandmother?
I found that encounter bizarre enough, and did not think it could be topped. I was wrong. In my neighborhood, it is not a rare sight to see folks taking advantage of trails that line the roads. On one occasion, I came across a woman roller-skating. As I passed in my car, I glanced over to see that she had a baby carrier strapped to the front of her chest. I expected to see a child. Instead, a dog was strapped in with its legs dangling and its ears blowing in the wind. I passed in shock.
A few days later, I ran a 5k in some brutal heat. Surely, if anyone had offered me water, I would have happily accepted. That didn’t happen, but I did overhear someone ask the couple behind me if their dog could use some water. I glanced behind me to see a bottle of water being held up to the dog’s mouth.
It is not just water alone that is being offered to dogs these days. The options are endless from doggie cones at the ice cream shop to the best beef in town in the dinner dish. With so many occurrences of dog doting, perhaps in this culture I am the one who is seen as odd. Minority belief or not, dogs will never be humans, and therefore we should stop pretending that they are.
After so many extreme episodes of canine care, I began to ponder why dogs have been promoted from pet to person. I believe it reveals a truth that is written on the human heart. The truth I am referring to is that humans are wired for self-donating love. Scripture reveals each person is made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 2:27). And who is God, if not Love? (1 John 4:8) The Triune God is a communion of Divine Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Call it a family of three. Richard of St. Victor explained that a requirement of perfect love is sharing with another person, and perfect love between two requires loving for the sake of a third.
All persons are made in the image of the Trinity, and therefore, are also drawn into communion. In marriage, God invites man and woman to model this triune love in their human family. We hear what is written on our soul echoed in God’s command to husband and wife: “God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it’” (Genesis 2:28). The love of spouses continues outside of themselves in the flesh of a human person. “For conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs forth from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2366).
What does this truth have to do with dogs? If in marriage, husband and wife do not heed to God’s command to be fruitful in the begetting of children, then this hunger to love something outside of themselves, in union with each other, will find false expression. As seen, one example of this is in the adoption of a pet, where an animal gains the privileges of a person. They are seen as the “third” in this communion of husband and wife. It is a twisted truth, a pacifier. What these couples truly desire is a child. “Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents” (Gaudium et Spes 50).
On the flip side of that, dogs back then didn’t normally live as long as they do today. You couldn’t get the kind of vet care then because half of it wasn’t known yet, many drugs they use today weren’t around then, equipment and procedures weren’t available, and people didn’t sue the crap out of doctors when their pet died during atempts to save it.
It’s not so much that our values are inverted as that we are desensitized to human killing because we watch it so regularly. Pet killing is rare enough to trouble people enough that it isn’t often shown—which makes it continue to be rare...
Right now I am in the process of getting another dog, for two reasons: 1) I have had my last dog with me for a year and a half and we've grown to know each other, so there is emotional room for another; and 2) Harvey would like a dog playmate.
And I really don't care what you folks who don't understand the dog-man connection think, dogs constitute my little family. And they're all I need.
“A sizable number of couples state that they are buying a certain house because their dog would like the yard, or the floors would be suitable for their pooch.There are no children.”
Great point; I hope their dog gets used to hearing Spanish, Chinese, and Arabic as a result of their choices.
I understand the logic of it; I’ve dealt with and cared for pets before, but know I’m too lazy to be a good owner. The fact is that the money could be put to better use, and when the extravagant pet bills rear their head go back to the tried & true sack with rocks.
: )
One could say that about anything that someone else chooses to spend money on. Fortunately it’s still a somewhat free country and many Americans choose to spend money caring well for some of God’s creatures. Would you have us all wear gunny sacks in our corrugated aluminum houses while we send our discretionary funds to something you deem a better cause??
You spend your money where you wish; I do (it happens to be on children). The foreigners that are inheriting this country always express amazement about the number of pets people have; I married one of them, and in her native language (Spanish) they don’t have a word for “pet”.
Ha! I think a lot of American children would be better off with less money spent on them. (Of course there are plenty of American children in need, too.)
Perhaps your wife has a limited vocabulary:
“...a pet in Spanish can be referred to as una mascota (the same word is used for a mascot, such as an animal symbolizing a team), un animal doméstico (the adjective doméstico can also be used to mean “pet” as an adjective, as in un perro doméstico, a pet dog) or un animal de compañía (again, the phrase de compañía can be appended to an animal’s name to indicate it is a pet).”
http://spanish.about.com/od/spanishvocabulary/a/pets.htm
There’s a natural instinct to “baby” and nurture. Having children is derided or seems too difficult. Getting an animal that will always remain at the desired level of dependence and totally in the adult’s control can be seen as a suitable substitute. What started as a fill in for never married women and old people lacking company has filtered down to child bearing women who lust for a care-giving role but see it too primitive to find a man and make a baby. So they baby a critter instead.
Until you have to call the vet to have your 13 y/o Sheltie put to sleep. I’m not sure she will cry the much at my funeral. And for the record she has a 34 y/o son.
They are domestic animals, like cows or goats (and don’t live in the house); nowadays, Spain is even weirder than the US, so maybe the language has evolved to reflect that: they probably use a new word for “pet”, and dropped “son” and “daughter” from the dictionary.
I’m not exactly well off, so my children are hardly having too much money spent on them. I’m not questioning your preference; if I did have a dog I just wouldn’t walk him too much (toughens the meat).
I have a friend who is a childless, 40-something woman with 3 dogs that she considers ‘her children’. The only time she really irritated me is when I would mention a mile-stone my youngest reached and she invariably answered that one of her dogs could do the same thing.
It’s a fad,when their friends have children they want children.It’s a social thing.Vet costs have gone up and when you walk in they want a credit card.Gone are the days when the kids would walk in with a sick pet.I know a woman who paid 20,000.00 for a dog that was hit by a car.Not her dog but her granddaughters.A man who spent 15,000.00 on a wolf who was having spasm’s.It was a pet and lived 3 years.He was losing his house.50 years ago my Father said he didn’t have the money to buy me an ice cream cone but bought one for my dog Tippy.A young man said I’ll buy you one.I married him:)
Someone in the background is really hamming it up.
I got my little dude a doggie cone with carob chips a few days after I sprung him from the shelter. He went all googly-eyed with joy.
I love dogs, and they generally love me - I’m one of those people that, if I were to visit your house for the first time, your dog would be in my lap (unless you have a really big dog, of course....). That said, they are not little furry people and we shouldn’t treat them as such.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.