Be honest. Do you care for your dog or cat more than your spouse or partner?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a stupid thread to begin with. You can't categorize bonds in this way. It's like comparing how one loves a spouse over a child, a friend over another friend, a parent over a grandparent.There are those that can have very close bonds with animals which transcend what we understand as communication, and bonds for our spouse which involve other means. Those who love their pets deeply have a relationship with them as if they were children. It's not an either/or though.

No they don't, because pets are not children, so whatever these deluded folk think they have with their animals, it's not a parent/child relationship.

That's the point. It's totally dysfunctional to put people on the same level as animals, and the only reason they're even doing it is because people who "bond" to animals like they are "children" have psychological problems which inhibit their healthy bonding with other human beings.

Trying to rationalize or justify it is rather pointless.

You know I guess it's OK if you want to think of your dog as if it's your child but then you are limiting your relationship possibilities with human beings to other equally nutty people. I would think that's rather unhealthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you care for your dog or cat more than your spouse or partner?

yes.

PP, you realize the issue is with you, not with your spouse or your dog?

And ?

I can replace my spouse. My pet ?

no.

Especially if your spouse is imaginary, which in your case, is probable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm thinking it depends on the dog and the spouse. If you have a spouse who isn't so great, then I would say the pet wins hands down. A cheater, someone that isn't there for you, put's their in-laws above you, that kind of thing.

People have close bonds with animals, certainly doesn't mean they have a screw loose. I can say there are many pets I would put above some of the crappy people I know or have encountered. Actually some people are shit bags. I've seldom met a shit bag dog or cat, lol.

DH - Selfish and lazy. Big inheritance and benefits if he dies.
Pet - Loving and does their job without fail.

Not a lot to ponder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a stupid thread to begin with. You can't categorize bonds in this way. It's like comparing how one loves a spouse over a child, a friend over another friend, a parent over a grandparent.There are those that can have very close bonds with animals which transcend what we understand as communication, and bonds for our spouse which involve other means. Those who love their pets deeply have a relationship with them as if they were children. It's not an either/or though.

No they don't, because pets are not children, so whatever these deluded folk think they have with their animals, it's not a parent/child relationship.

That's the point. It's totally dysfunctional to put people on the same level as animals, and the only reason they're even doing it is because people who "bond" to animals like they are "children" have psychological problems which inhibit their healthy bonding with other human beings.

Trying to rationalize or justify it is rather pointless.

You know I guess it's OK if you want to think of your dog as if it's your child but then you are limiting your relationship possibilities with human beings to other equally nutty people. I would think that's rather unhealthy.

It's over a billion dollar industry so I'm afraid you're wrong. There are animals that are much better than certain people. That's a given.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a stupid thread to begin with. You can't categorize bonds in this way. It's like comparing how one loves a spouse over a child, a friend over another friend, a parent over a grandparent.There are those that can have very close bonds with animals which transcend what we understand as communication, and bonds for our spouse which involve other means. Those who love their pets deeply have a relationship with them as if they were children. It's not an either/or though.

People are people and it's not for me or you to tell them how to feel or think. All different situations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No I don't. I had my dog before I met my now DH and if they hadn't gotten along at the beginning of the relationship, it would have been a deal breaker. However, I love my husband and I care about him more than I do our dogs.

How strange.

Your husband had to live up to not only your standards, but your dog's, in order to be privileged to date you.

Lucky him.

My dog is a well behaved and affectionate dog. The only people who don't get along with him are people that actively dislike dogs in general. Which is fine but they are not the kind of people I would want to live with as they are not the kind of people that are ok with having dogs in their living space. I have always had dogs, have been active in dog rescue organizations and dog fostering, and will likely always have dogs. I don't think it's unreasonable to want a partner that is ok with dogs when I have always loved having dogs and want to continue having dogs.

I think dogs are OK and have nothing against them. However--they're very dirty and messy at best. They chew things up, get hair everywhere, crap everywhere, and are generally a source of chaos. Multiple dogs is even worse. I have no problem with dogs per se but do I necessarily want your dog hopping in the bed with me at night? No but that doesn't make me a bad person. Anyone who would put dogs above people has a screw loose. Sorry PP but that's you.

NP. What an effing ridiculous thing to say. In the beginning of a relationship there are all kinds of tests a prospective partner has to pass before they can be permanent. Are you, pp, arguing that if I had a few good dates with a dog hater and they asked me to get rid of the dog that I had loved for years that I should do so based solely on the possibility that this relationship panned out? If my DH didn't like sushi at the beginning of our relationship I might not have pursued him, if he hated TV I might have dumped him.

Obviously a person that would prioritize dogs over a spouse either has some issues or the marriage has SERIOUS issues but the idea that while dating one wouldn't prioritize the dog over a boyfriend is ridiculous. Put a ring on it if you want to make such demands. And if someone asked me to get rid of something I loved as much as I love my dog on a whim I wouldn't really think they loved me enough for me to marry them. What a ridiculous oversimplification PP.

It's not ridiculous at all to understand that an emotionally healthy person who owns a pet would almost immediately elevate the importance of a human partner above that of the pet--that's assuming the person actually wants to explore a serious relationship with another emotionally healthy human being. There is no reason at all to mandate that a potential human partner will necessarily be able to get along with your pet even if generally speaking he doesn't mind dogs. Maybe your pet is jealous of him or something.

You give a couple of examples which completely disprove your point. If you would seriously not date someone for something as trivial as not liking sushi or T.V. despite whatever other good qualities he might have, then basically you're pretty much of an immature superficial idiot. Same applies to not dating someone unless he's as in love with your mangy mongrel as you are. The only reason you have such a close bond with Clifford the Big Red Dog in the first place is because of your difficulties in bonding with actual humans. Place the dog where it belongs in your emotions--a housepet--and you will probably start to have better actual human relationships too.

It sounds like for women these dogs are replacements for the little dollies they had when they were children. It would be considered inappropriate for a "grown up" woman to play with little dollies (you know pretend you are the mommy and the dolly is your baby) so the dog is the substitute but basically that's what these women are actually doing. The dog is a surrogate love object because the emotionally immature person is incapable of or afraid of an actual relationship with another adult human.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a stupid thread to begin with. You can't categorize bonds in this way. It's like comparing how one loves a spouse over a child, a friend over another friend, a parent over a grandparent.There are those that can have very close bonds with animals which transcend what we understand as communication, and bonds for our spouse which involve other means. Those who love their pets deeply have a relationship with them as if they were children. It's not an either/or though.

No they don't, because pets are not children, so whatever these deluded folk think they have with their animals, it's not a parent/child relationship.

That's the point. It's totally dysfunctional to put people on the same level as animals, and the only reason they're even doing it is because people who "bond" to animals like they are "children" have psychological problems which inhibit their healthy bonding with other human beings.

Trying to rationalize or justify it is rather pointless.

You know I guess it's OK if you want to think of your dog as if it's your child but then you are limiting your relationship possibilities with human beings to other equally nutty people. I would think that's rather unhealthy.

So most dogs growl at you and can tell you're a nasty human being.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm thinking it depends on the dog and the spouse. If you have a spouse who isn't so great, then I would say the pet wins hands down. A cheater, someone that isn't there for you, put's their in-laws above you, that kind of thing.

People have close bonds with animals, certainly doesn't mean they have a screw loose. I can say there are many pets I would put above some of the crappy people I know or have encountered. Actually some people are shit bags. I've seldom met a shit bag dog or cat, lol.

DH - Selfish and lazy. Big inheritance and benefits if he dies.
Pet - Loving and does their job without fail.

Not a lot to ponder.

This is so funny. My friend couldn't stand her husband but had to stay because they were over 50, retirement and he earned the most.

She loved her dogs! (not him) Use to say, "I wish they could earn a paycheck though".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a stupid thread to begin with. You can't categorize bonds in this way. It's like comparing how one loves a spouse over a child, a friend over another friend, a parent over a grandparent.There are those that can have very close bonds with animals which transcend what we understand as communication, and bonds for our spouse which involve other means. Those who love their pets deeply have a relationship with them as if they were children. It's not an either/or though.

No they don't, because pets are not children, so whatever these deluded folk think they have with their animals, it's not a parent/child relationship.

That's the point. It's totally dysfunctional to put people on the same level as animals, and the only reason they're even doing it is because people who "bond" to animals like they are "children" have psychological problems which inhibit their healthy bonding with other human beings.

Trying to rationalize or justify it is rather pointless.

You know I guess it's OK if you want to think of your dog as if it's your child but then you are limiting your relationship possibilities with human beings to other equally nutty people. I would think that's rather unhealthy.

So most dogs growl at you and can tell you're a nasty human being.

I had one that would pee on a guy like that. Funny how some know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No I don't. I had my dog before I met my now DH and if they hadn't gotten along at the beginning of the relationship, it would have been a deal breaker. However, I love my husband and I care about him more than I do our dogs.

How strange.

Your husband had to live up to not only your standards, but your dog's, in order to be privileged to date you.

Lucky him.

My dog is a well behaved and affectionate dog. The only people who don't get along with him are people that actively dislike dogs in general. Which is fine but they are not the kind of people I would want to live with as they are not the kind of people that are ok with having dogs in their living space. I have always had dogs, have been active in dog rescue organizations and dog fostering, and will likely always have dogs. I don't think it's unreasonable to want a partner that is ok with dogs when I have always loved having dogs and want to continue having dogs.

I think dogs are OK and have nothing against them. However--they're very dirty and messy at best. They chew things up, get hair everywhere, crap everywhere, and are generally a source of chaos. Multiple dogs is even worse. I have no problem with dogs per se but do I necessarily want your dog hopping in the bed with me at night? No but that doesn't make me a bad person. Anyone who would put dogs above people has a screw loose. Sorry PP but that's you.

So, in your mind, a single person that has a dog should be willing to give that dog up if a person they've just started casually dating doesn't like their dog because the person they are casually dating is a person and the dog is just a dog? Even though they have no attachment to the person but they have a bond with and an obligation to the dog?

No they don't have to do anything they don't want to do.

Life is about choices. If some people think their relationship with a dog is more important than with a human, that simply means they don't regard the other person very highly. But it's kind of ridiculous to rule out a possible soulmate/life partner (human) simply because he and your dog might not happen to get along. In fact it's downright crazy.

Let me try to put it to you in other terms--let's say you meet a great guy, no problem, he even likes your dog, you get serious, set a marriage date. All of a sudden a previously unknown dog allergy crops up and he simply can't be anywhere around the dog and he can't live in a house where the dog lives because of the hair etc. causing his allergy to flare up.

It actually sounds like you are saying you would give up the human in favor of the dog. If so different strokes but it might explain why a lot of these ladies are stuck loving dogs rather than people in the first place.

Another example, you have this dog you really love, your husband loves it, you have a baby, for whatever reason it bites the baby. Do you get rid of the dog (maybe give it a way, not necessarily put it down) or the baby?

Anyone who is remotely sane has no difficulty at all making the right choice but I can tell you are thinking to yourself: "Baby...or dog? Baby...or dog?" It really shouldn't be such a tough choice for you.

I'm not sure what part of "if they hadn't gotten along at the beginning of the relationship" was difficult for you to understand. My statement had no bearing on what would happen once I was in a committed relationship. Nothing else you posted is remotely accurate. I hope you can get over your irrational disdain for dogs and people who care for dogs at some point in your life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a stupid thread to begin with. You can't categorize bonds in this way. It's like comparing how one loves a spouse over a child, a friend over another friend, a parent over a grandparent.There are those that can have very close bonds with animals which transcend what we understand as communication, and bonds for our spouse which involve other means. Those who love their pets deeply have a relationship with them as if they were children. It's not an either/or though.

No they don't, because pets are not children, so whatever these deluded folk think they have with their animals, it's not a parent/child relationship.

That's the point. It's totally dysfunctional to put people on the same level as animals, and the only reason they're even doing it is because people who "bond" to animals like they are "children" have psychological problems which inhibit their healthy bonding with other human beings.

Trying to rationalize or justify it is rather pointless.

You know I guess it's OK if you want to think of your dog as if it's your child but then you are limiting your relationship possibilities with human beings to other equally nutty people. I would think that's rather unhealthy.

It's over a billion dollar industry so I'm afraid you're wrong. There are animals that are much better than certain people. That's a given.

What part of what I said is "wrong"? That animals aren't human children? Because "it's a billion dollar industry"?

There are animals that are much better than certain people--well if your dog is Lassy, Rin Tin Tin, or Scooby Doo maybe you have a point. But the reality is these women who are in love with their dogs don't really care about their dogs as "individuals." The dog is just a focal point for their self centered projection of an immature self-love. They love the dog as much as a child because the relationship is really with themself. The dog loving fanatic projects whatever traits she wants onto her dog. She never says how disgusting it is when she catches the dog eating its own filth (time after time), rolling in another dog's dogshit and bringing it home all over the house, biting people, vomiting on the rug, barking all night, and all the other nonsense that dogs get into.

Placing this much emotional emphasis on a pet is just a first world emotional affectation by emotionally stunted women. I'm not sure why you would expect any healthy person to buy into it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No I don't. I had my dog before I met my now DH and if they hadn't gotten along at the beginning of the relationship, it would have been a deal breaker. However, I love my husband and I care about him more than I do our dogs.

How strange.

Your husband had to live up to not only your standards, but your dog's, in order to be privileged to date you.

Lucky him.

My dog is a well behaved and affectionate dog. The only people who don't get along with him are people that actively dislike dogs in general. Which is fine but they are not the kind of people I would want to live with as they are not the kind of people that are ok with having dogs in their living space. I have always had dogs, have been active in dog rescue organizations and dog fostering, and will likely always have dogs. I don't think it's unreasonable to want a partner that is ok with dogs when I have always loved having dogs and want to continue having dogs.

I think dogs are OK and have nothing against them. However--they're very dirty and messy at best. They chew things up, get hair everywhere, crap everywhere, and are generally a source of chaos. Multiple dogs is even worse. I have no problem with dogs per se but do I necessarily want your dog hopping in the bed with me at night? No but that doesn't make me a bad person. Anyone who would put dogs above people has a screw loose. Sorry PP but that's you.

So, in your mind, a single person that has a dog should be willing to give that dog up if a person they've just started casually dating doesn't like their dog because the person they are casually dating is a person and the dog is just a dog? Even though they have no attachment to the person but they have a bond with and an obligation to the dog?

No they don't have to do anything they don't want to do.

Life is about choices. If some people think their relationship with a dog is more important than with a human, that simply means they don't regard the other person very highly. But it's kind of ridiculous to rule out a possible soulmate/life partner (human) simply because he and your dog might not happen to get along. In fact it's downright crazy.

Let me try to put it to you in other terms--let's say you meet a great guy, no problem, he even likes your dog, you get serious, set a marriage date. All of a sudden a previously unknown dog allergy crops up and he simply can't be anywhere around the dog and he can't live in a house where the dog lives because of the hair etc. causing his allergy to flare up.

It actually sounds like you are saying you would give up the human in favor of the dog. If so different strokes but it might explain why a lot of these ladies are stuck loving dogs rather than people in the first place.

Another example, you have this dog you really love, your husband loves it, you have a baby, for whatever reason it bites the baby. Do you get rid of the dog (maybe give it a way, not necessarily put it down) or the baby?

Anyone who is remotely sane has no difficulty at all making the right choice but I can tell you are thinking to yourself: "Baby...or dog? Baby...or dog?" It really shouldn't be such a tough choice for you.

I'm not sure what part of "if they hadn't gotten along at the beginning of the relationship" was difficult for you to understand. My statement had no bearing on what would happen once I was in a committed relationship. Nothing else you posted is remotely accurate. I hope you can get over your irrational disdain for dogs and people who care for dogs at some point in your life.

Nothing difficult at all. What don't you understand about choices and that any relationship which ends up as serious starts as casual? Every relationship has a "beginning." What you're saying is someone could actually be your soulmate, perfect in every way, other than (let's say) your dog just doesn't like the guy for some reason. Maybe the dog doesn't like his smell. Your problem is you are actually equating your simulated emotions for a dog with those for a human being. This is childish on your part. It's just like a little girl playing pretend with a little dolly. The dog who you project all your emotions onto in such an unhealthy way would just as soon be mindlessly humping your leg, pooping on your shoes, and licking its balls.

Have a great relationship with your dog/soulmate honey.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a stupid thread to begin with. You can't categorize bonds in this way. It's like comparing how one loves a spouse over a child, a friend over another friend, a parent over a grandparent.There are those that can have very close bonds with animals which transcend what we understand as communication, and bonds for our spouse which involve other means. Those who love their pets deeply have a relationship with them as if they were children. It's not an either/or though.

No they don't, because pets are not children, so whatever these deluded folk think they have with their animals, it's not a parent/child relationship.

That's the point. It's totally dysfunctional to put people on the same level as animals, and the only reason they're even doing it is because people who "bond" to animals like they are "children" have psychological problems which inhibit their healthy bonding with other human beings.

Trying to rationalize or justify it is rather pointless.

You know I guess it's OK if you want to think of your dog as if it's your child but then you are limiting your relationship possibilities with human beings to other equally nutty people. I would think that's rather unhealthy.

It's over a billion dollar industry so I'm afraid you're wrong. There are animals that are much better than certain people. That's a given.

What part of what I said is "wrong"? That animals aren't human children? Because "it's a billion dollar industry"?

There are animals that are much better than certain people--well if your dog is Lassy, Rin Tin Tin, or Scooby Doo maybe you have a point. But the reality is these women who are in love with their dogs don't really care about their dogs as "individuals." The dog is just a focal point for their self centered projection of an immature self-love. They love the dog as much as a child because the relationship is really with themself. The dog loving fanatic projects whatever traits she wants onto her dog. She never says how disgusting it is when she catches the dog eating its own filth (time after time), rolling in another dog's dogshit and bringing it home all over the house, biting people, vomiting on the rug, barking all night, and all the other nonsense that dogs get into.

Placing this much emotional emphasis on a pet is just a first world emotional affectation by emotionally stunted women. I'm not sure why you would expect any healthy person to buy into it.

WOW!! You may think of yourself as "healthy", but you are also bat shit crazy!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pregnant but would still choose DH over the unborn baby and my beloved dog. DH is my life partner.

Yikes hopefully after the child is born you'll feel differently.

Hopefully. Currently we could always have another pregnancy. Baby isn't even a real baby yet.

LOL you're crazy aren't you. I feel sorry for your fetus, why not just abort it right now rather than bring it into the hellish world it will face with you as its "mother."

Her DH probably wants a kid, and to keep him she must produce an heir.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm thinking it depends on the dog and the spouse. If you have a spouse who isn't so great, then I would say the pet wins hands down. A cheater, someone that isn't there for you, put's their in-laws above you, that kind of thing.

People have close bonds with animals, certainly doesn't mean they have a screw loose. I can say there are many pets I would put above some of the crappy people I know or have encountered. Actually some people are shit bags. I've seldom met a shit bag dog or cat, lol.

DH - Selfish and lazy. Big inheritance and benefits if he dies.
Pet - Loving and does their job without fail.

Not a lot to ponder.

This is so funny. My friend couldn't stand her husband but had to stay because they were over 50, retirement and he earned the most.

She loved her dogs! (not him) Use to say, "I wish they could earn a paycheck though".

No your friend was crazy like a fox and greedy. She stayed for the money. A complete back stabber and not worthy of the loyalty of even a smelly canine.