Dog or Marriage?

[Fez]

I'm not a dog person. But nobody's gonna come between me and my cat. He doesn't sleep on the bed that often, but he's welcome to whenever he wants. 

And I'm not unreasonable. If he's being too aggressive I will shut him out of the bedroom and I would show some moderation in how many blood sacrifices I performed daily to sustain him, if that were task required by Khorne.

[sologdin]

ZOMG animals can go fend for themselves. there's precisely one person i want in my bed.

[Rippounet]

So... Should I point out that this was not really about the pet... ? Or is it so obvious that everyone is just playing along?
I mean, the whole thing happened over a dog, but it could have happened over pretty much anything (clothes, hobbies, friends... etc). I see this more as a failed attempt at using patriarchal privilege.

As far as the dog/pet thing is concerned, obivously in a less patriarchal society, this is the type of things that would most likely come up at the first date. No pet lover would date someone who wouldn't accept their pets ; conversely, people who don't like pets are unlikely to start dating someone who has one.

Since most of us come from Western countries, I think if you want to ask a tricky question, it would be better to ask: what if the person you've been with for some time (at least a year, but the longer the better) and consider marrying suddenly develops an extremely serious allergy to your pet(s).

And an even better one: what if you realize your newborn baby has a serious allergy to your pets...

Perhaps the answer won't be as easy now...

Yeah, i'm fun at parties...

[A Horse Named Stranger]

On 17.9.2016 at 8:40 AM, sologdin said:

ZOMG animals can go fend for themselves. there's precisely one person i want in my bed.

Comrad, I have to ask. A Karl Marx clone?

[The Anti-Targ]

On 18/09/2016 at 1:17 PM, Rippounet said:

So... Should I point out that this was not really about the pet... ? Or is it so obvious that everyone is just playing along?
I mean, the whole thing happened over a dog, but it could have happened over pretty much anything (clothes, hobbies, friends... etc). I see this more as a failed attempt at using patriarchal privilege.

As far as the dog/pet thing is concerned, obivously in a less patriarchal society, this is the type of things that would most likely come up at the first date. No pet lover would date someone who wouldn't accept their pets ; conversely, people who don't like pets are unlikely to start dating someone who has one.

Since most of us come from Western countries, I think if you want to ask a tricky question, it would be better to ask: what if the person you've been with for some time (at least a year, but the longer the better) and consider marrying suddenly develops an extremely serious allergy to your pet(s).

And an even better one: what if you realize your newborn baby has a serious allergy to your pets...

Perhaps the answer won't be as easy now...

Yeah, i'm fun at parties...

@  bold Unless it was a relationship with a formalised live-in arrangement (such as marriage) I don't see it being a problem. You just have sleep overs at the place where there isn't a pet. And to be on the safe side you sleep nude, or you have clean PJs permanently stashed at the no-pet home. But the pet owner might well think twice about progressing to a permanent live-in situation sans pet, which has probably been a much longer standing relationship than the human one. So probably best to keep it semi-casual I think.

I'd also say that while there is no doubt some of that patriarchal control going on in the story that prompted the OP, it is also the case that some people really are averse to dogs and/or cats and could well make it a condition of the marriage. My sister-in-law is cat-phobic, so if she was, hypothetically, going into an arranged marriage situation and the prospective husband had a cat, she would most definitely be "it's the cat or me". In an arranged marriage situation often neither the man or woman have much say in the preliminary negotiations. The fact that the woman was able to make keeping the dog a non-negotiable is actually pretty enlightened in the arranged marriage culture. Effectively both had the power of veto, and they kind of both mutually exercised their veto. Probably making for a happier outcome on both sides.

 

[Arkhangel]

On 18/09/2016 at 11:17 AM, Rippounet said:

So... Should I point out that this was not really about the pet... ? Or is it so obvious that everyone is just playing along?

The latter.

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

Yeah sorry I like dogs, but by insisting that the dog shares the bed she seems completely bananas.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 11:40 PM, The Anti-Targ said:

IMO she made the right call.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11709644

A phase..a PHASE!!

I hope she finds a dog lover out there, who will share her life and her love for dogs.

I think the question of pets can legitimately be a deal breaker when it comes to nuptial considerations. Though I mostly think people can be reasonably accommodating and moderate in their handling of that topic.

 

Call me odd but people who generally don't like dogs are... a tad off in my opinion.
 

ETA:

If you have an allergy or some medical reason to not be around dogs or cats, fine.  We wouldn't give up my pets.  They are part of our family.

1 dog, 3 cats, and a Rabbit.