I’d say it comes down to the person whether to link emotions with spirituality.
Strong disagree. I think some people desire to become parents (or otherwise feel a need to care for things) and I would say fulfilling that desire can fall into the realm of “spirituality”. It also makes sense to talk of a spiritual obligation to nurture or otherwise care for something, specifically abandoned pets and children.
I put this into the polls though, with questions 1 and 2.
~Max
Based on this you should vote “Disagree” with questions 2. and 4.
For you, questions 1. and 3. are asking whether you think other people have that desire or adopt pets based on it.
~Max
I’ve hidden the results for 2. and 4. until the polls close, because seeing those results could impact how you answer questions 1. and 3.
~Max
This is really all I’m getting at.
Neither can I. (will continue discussion re:Pope in Pit topic)
~Max
So saying that they’re all in the category of “things that can be nutured” does not mean that they’re equivalent, or that people are making choices about them as if they were equivalent.
I don’t know why this had to be so complex.
I had a nice anecdote about a childless couple on my street that were carrying their puppy around in a papoose, and anthropomorphizing it in various ways.
But it’s a poll of leading questions, and a burden of proof-switched title. Makes me uncomfortable about adding fuel to the fire.
The premise is flawed, so the poll is dumb. Much like the Pope’s ignorant remark.
There is certainly a class of people, mainly women, who treat their pets, not really like children, but like dolls, and gush gooey-sentimental spew all over them and anyone within range has to endure it. The Fur Baby set. I have always loathed it.
Women also do this with BABIES. It is not children that is the equivalent, it is infants. It is sometimes the reason otherwise sane women choose to have a lot of children; it isn’t the children they want, it is the babies. Once they turn into children, the woman wants another baby to baby.
You know what is a more accurate comparison? Pets and adult friends. Some people would rather hang out with their dog, cockatiel, cat, or iguana, than with other humans. I know plenty of people like that.
Last night we took Kizzy to her second agility class, passing up an offer to get together with friends. I totally understand the feeling.
I’d say that’s an accurate statement.
But one of the reasons is, they have cats. i.e. that cats fulfill their need to nurture.
It’s interesting to me that all the hypothetical conversations people posted afterwards are in the context of couples. These two are very much single.
You’ve never hung out with real catladies, have you? I spend less on my kids’ medical bills than they do on vet bills. I suspect our meals are sometimes cheaper, too. And they need grooming. These are not moggies picked up from rescue. One is into Norwegian Forest Cats.
Naah, the 3rd one is clearly different - you’ve jumped from emotional to spiritual. They are not the same thing.
I’ve had a Siberian forest cat and a Maine coon cat, which are both closely related to Norwegian forest cats. Neither needed to be groomed. I used to brush the coon cat a few times during shedding season, but if i hadn’t, it just would have meant a couple extra hairballs.
I don’t think literal “need” comes into it with her. Bad phrasing on my part. To her, they require regular grooming to look their best, just like she “needs” regular haircuts and mani-pedis.
Fair enough. My understanding is that Persian cats kind of need to be groomed, or else they turn into a matted mess. In contrast, my long-haired cats groomed themselves. I probably helped the coon cat remove a mat about once a year. I don’t think I ever had to help the Siberian with that. And my understanding is that Norwegians don’t need much grooming, either.
She also does cat shows.
The other friend is not into taking the cats to parlours, but she does brush them fairly regularly. I think they are Persians, or some other flat-faced long-haired cat.
This is a good observation. We have a dog in our home. We have kids of our own. None of this was for the joy of nurturing or raising them. Simply put, it’s love and companionship, just the joy of having these loving people and animals in our lives. Quite frankly, the nurturing/rearing part of childraising kids is exhausting and backbreaking work, and sometimes it honestly doesn’t feel like a very good tradeoff.
Had I understood how intensely exhausting it is to raise kids (twins), I would have taken a step back and maybe just settled for the dog. Not that the dog is a remotely adequate substitute for my wonderful children, but kids will consume your literal entire life 24x7 for 18 years (or longer) in a way that a dog will not. I will probably get some hate for saying that, but I know many people who have second thoughts about kids after grinding it out for 5, 10, 15 years. If you think babysitting for an evening or a weekend gives you an adequate flavor of what it’s like, I can assure you it does not.
There is just something uncanny-valley-esque about the phrasing of this poll. I can’t put my finger on it. It sounds like a robot trying to determine something about human behavior in order to win an argument with other robots about how to properly operate a ranch of humans.
Nailed it.
Yep.
char requirement.
That would be fine except for the fact that you really can’t party with your pets at restaurants and bars. LOL
There’s lots of things you can’t do with pets that you can do with humans, and vice versa. They aren’t all that similar. But it’s a closer match than the robot fishing expedition.
I have a saying about parenting: it isn’t rocket science; it’s just hard fucking work every single day of your life.
Most of my friends have kids. In quiet moments (read: drunk), every single one of them has said to me at one point or another, “I love my kids, but if I had it to do over again, I wouldn’t have had them.”
Not for nothin’: I’ve never heard anything similar said about pets …
There’s another aspect about having kids that may be neither common nor prevalent, but exists: there can be a huge ego component.
“I’m going to do a much better job than my parents did,” or
“I’m going to raise perfect children. Other people whine and complain, but they simply aren’t me, and it just isn’t that hard.”
Again: I’ve never seen anything particularly equivalent from pet owners.
And some people – as, I think, @SmartAleq brought up – there are people who look at that quarter-mil (avg cost to raise a kid to 18) and, instead, see lots of travel, a vacation house, better cars, dining out, etc., etc.
Those aren’t “substitutions for” having kids. They’re simply different choices for different reasons.
You’re joking, right? Cats and other pets are more like children than they are like roommates. I would expect a roommate to pay their share of the rent and clean up after themselves, or at least use the toilet and flush. Kids and cats pull their weight just by existing; you want them, so you take care of them. The caretaking is far less for a cat, but you still need to do it.