Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Over 45  > Sincerely with Our Dogs and Cats in our Middle Ages????      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 51
Sincerely with Our Dogs and Cats in our Middle Ages????Page 3 of 11    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)

The original post does seem to clearly say that people in middle age have pets to console them for their loneliness/singleness and that if one meets Mr/Ms Right, then there is no need for a pet.


Yes, I think it is this insinuation that people are responding to. If pets were only valid as consolation prizes for single persons, how come so many couples and families have pets?

Nobody here is saying that they'd rescue their pets from a burning house BEFORE they rescued their children,if a choice had to be made.

OP- while I do to some extent understand your reaction to other posters' reactions, I think what a lot of the "pro-pet" responses are really about,is a sense in your OP, that people who have accepted the RESPONSIBILITY of having a companion animal are "resigned", that they put their companion animals ABOVE people, that they are guilty of disordered priorities.
Granted, it may be simply something being read into your OP on the receiving end, but if so, quite a few people are reading it that way!-but there seems to be a suggestion that "finding someone to be with" ought to be everyone's A#1, top-of-the-list priority, and anyone who puts anything( other than perhaps their children) over "finding someone to be with" has a couple of bolts sheared off.
There is almost a note of condescension, and judging by the responses, I'm not the only one who heard that note...


It doesn't matter that you are not the allergic person. Your inquiry comes across as cold, selfish and rather judgmental.


Yeah, that too.

Igor, message# 50-well nailed! LOL.

RR, many of your posts in the forums are balanced, thoughtful, fair. I'm not sure whether this topic is in the nature of pure "field research", a fishing expedition, or if your response about the private emails is an attempt to invalidate the responses of posters who have come out as "pro" pet/companion animal.( I agree, I prefer the term "companion animal")


The actual question in the opening post is: when someone states a deal breaker clearly, should someone else be outraged and/or disregard that deal breaker and go ahead and contact? (Because doing so is going to make the contactor feel enormously superior to the contactee.)


That's another valid point/another facet of the OT-an implied character/emotional inferiority of persons who would place their existing relationship with a companion animal above "finding someone to be with".

So, OP, while I certainly do not insist that sheer numbers makes a point valid, or that "might"(sheer numbers) is always the master of "right", I think this thread clearly demonstrates that quite a few middle-aged people have places that they will NOT go,to secure a relationship.

Message#62, it sounds like what was REALLY going on here was a guy who had inadequate skils and resources to manage his dogs. I know TONS of people who have dogs, horses, etc and if they need or want to travel, they have organized a system to manage them.


Actually, I'm pretty sure Hell just froze over, because I liked a portion of BlandeAngel's post.

It did, and I'm skating on it,LOL. I liked her posts too!

To those who have posted that allergy issues limit or prohibit their ability to be in contact with companion animals; you have my sympathy. The bond with a companion animal is very rewarding.
Cindy O
 Giggles10000
Joined: 6/17/2011
Msg: 52
Sincerely with Our Dogs and Cats in our Middle Ages????
Posted: 5/20/2012 11:46:12 AM

There are regularly threads on here where people state they are only attracted to and will only date someone of a certain race or height or IQ, etc. None of those things are choices: they are what a person is born with . Your 'defect' is your allergies. Another person's is his height. Another's is intelligence. And it goes on and on. Accept. And accept gracefully, now with this passive agressive bs, 'My loss, I guess.'


Wow, what a serious lack of thought process is that whole statement!

a defect

Allergies makes a person defective and height and intelligence ---guess we figured out what your defect is based on that post.

IMHO --none of that is a defect--some people have high intelligence but can still be rather stupid especially when they say and do stupid things.

A life choice is different from a defect-some prefer to have pets and some don't none is defective in their thinking
 Miss W
Joined: 12/4/2006
Msg: 53
Sincerely with Our Dogs and Cats in our Middle Ages????
Posted: 5/20/2012 12:12:41 PM

That leaves me with the impression that animals are disposable and they would put the dog in a trash bag and dump it in the lake should the right person come along that doesn't like animals.

Pretty much. I am thankful for the warning and it inspired me to make some changes to my profile that will scare the animal haters away. Not that I'm a fanatic, but people who dislike animals will probably not get along with me.

Trust me I have met many pets that I liked way better than some of the dates I have met.

Isn't that the truth? The last guy I dated had objected to the dog I was temporarily fostering and when he said "no animals", I told him that I liked them better...

Message 62: Not being able to get sitters for the dogs is a bunch of hooey. There are a lot of pet sitting businesses who will come to your home to look after the dogs. I don't board my birds, so I have friends who are happy to house sit for me because they have fallen on hard times and have gone back to live with parents for the time being and are happy to get away.
 02hdf150
Joined: 3/24/2012
Msg: 54
Sincerely with Our Dogs and Cats in our Middle Ages????
Posted: 5/20/2012 1:02:00 PM
Since I have a dog if I come across someone i've made contact with and they have listed in their profile that they have no pets, I tell them about my dog and ask them if they have issues with dogs. That's why I included a picture of him on my profile so they can see that he's a 20 pound terror...I mean terrier mix. lol
 fillyphilly
Joined: 5/12/2012
Msg: 55
Sincerely with Our Dogs and Cats in our Middle Ages????
Posted: 5/20/2012 1:22:39 PM
^^^Cutest dog ever. Looks like a toy.
 Miss W
Joined: 12/4/2006
Msg: 56
Sincerely with Our Dogs and Cats in our Middle Ages????
Posted: 5/20/2012 1:38:00 PM

^^^Cutest dog ever. Looks like a toy.

I second it!
 02hdf150
Joined: 3/24/2012
Msg: 57
Sincerely with Our Dogs and Cats in our Middle Ages????
Posted: 5/20/2012 1:44:47 PM

Cutest dog ever. Looks like a toy.




I second it!


Thanks ladies. He's great to have around and i'm glad I was able to rescue him.
 FunnyGirly1
Joined: 5/17/2012
Msg: 58
Sincerely with Our Dogs and Cats in our Middle Ages????
Posted: 5/20/2012 2:56:12 PM
Awwwwwwwww very cute dog.
 Ready_Real
Joined: 12/30/2010
Msg: 59
Sincerely with Our Dogs and Cats in our Middle Ages????
Posted: 5/21/2012 8:59:32 AM
First and foremost! As the OP I have very much appreciated reading the responses to this thread. I am not the "fishette" in the actual thread --- most specifically in that I do not have pet allergies but do have a child with very severe allergies --- but of course I do have my own thoughts on this topic. And since I saw fit to post the thread, I take full responsibility for how it was written and now would like offer an apology for any "sarcasm" that its tone may have communicated. I do believe that sarcasm has its place --- but wish to be very clear that when I wrote "Are you kidding?" I was NOT (italics) employing sarcasm.

The thread was written to ask whether/not people over 45 who state absolutely that nobody should contact them if they cannot unconditionally embrace their pets are being 100% serious.

From the responses, it is pretty clear that the answer is "yes."

Those who posted that this is simply another "must have," --- no different from any other "must have" such as no young children, smokers, or separated persons --- have really "taught" me something. And it makes perfect logical sense. So thanks:) One is never too old to learn.

Therefore, what I personally have learned as a result of this thread is that the old saying, "Love me, love my dog" is literally true for many. And I would like to go on record as saying that while I personally do not agree with this, I absolutely respect the thinking that has been expressed about the unconditional love between pets and "Their Special Humans." I can do this because I was personally blessed to spend the first 40 years of my life experiencing that kind of love with my own pets --- plural:) :)

But then I had a child whose allergies were deemed "the most severe" his allergist had "documented in the past 10 years of [his] 30 year career." Shots twice weekly as well as medication with consequent side effects only made these allergies "manageable". Which meant constant sneezing, coughing, throat clearing, fatigue.
The kid trooped on, but the allergies never really stopped. Today as much as we all love the outdoors, he can last an hour, maybe two, before the "constant everything" comes back with a vengeance. Needless to say, he lives in a high rise in a huge urban environment, where he does much better. When he visits home, and we hike along our county park trails, we have about two hours max to feed the chickadees out of our hands and enjoy the rest of the beautiful outdoors. He loves animals. One of the two greatest regrets of my parenting has been my inability to provide this child with the love of a pet. The same kind of love that carried me through all those painful childhood and young adult life "things" would undoubtedly have done the same for my child, particularly during the death of his father.

I could go on, but hopefully, this "part" of the OP is a little more clear to some. Just as the part about "must haves" shared by others has expanded my own perspective, and absolutely earns my respect!

So, in retrospect, now that most of us have had children, and developed more "mature" adult perspective on our life's experiences, what are peoples' thoughts about:
----- hunting animals for sport?
----eating animals?
----using cosmetics that have evolved as the result of animal testing?
----using medications that have evolved as the result of animal testing?
I have many friends, for example, who are now in the middle life years becoming vegetarians. Others stopped using any cosmetics that arrive on the market via previous testing on any animals and among their dating profile "must haves" is no sport hunters. As we get older, our need for meds is more likely to increase. What about using medications to ease some of those 45+ health challenges that have been the result of animal testing?

Would those people for whom the love of an animal is absolutely as equal as the love of a human care to comment on the above?

And P.S. To the lady invoked biblical passages in commanding me not to "dare" bring up this topic, I'm assuming that you would never ever do any of the above?
 Savona
Joined: 11/22/2010
Msg: 60
Sincerely with Our Dogs and Cats in our Middle Ages????
Posted: 5/21/2012 9:13:23 AM
I definitely would NOT give up my doggies for any man. No matter what. Period.
 1388SmartBlonde
Joined: 5/15/2011
Msg: 61
Sincerely with Our Dogs and Cats in our Middle Ages????
Posted: 5/21/2012 10:57:01 AM
Message #71 & 74: You are both right...there are dog sitters for responsible dog owners, but in my experiences in dating men dog owners from POF, they were neither responsible for their dogs' training/toileting nor did they have the resources to kennel their dogs while we were dating. After giving up travel plans and shelling out my own cash for carpet cleaning/replacing things in my home that their dogs damaged, I decided not to date another dog owner and I limited my search for someone without pets or who had low maintenance pets. Like-mindedness in pet ownership is after all, part of that mutual compatibility we look for in a mate. My current beau grew up on a dairy farm and is an animal lover like me, and a former dog owner. He shares my view that having pets does enhance life but is in full agreement that dogs are a lot of work and having a cat only at this stage in life makes more sense for our working couple on-the-go lifestyle.
 gtr1025
Joined: 3/5/2010
Msg: 62
Sincerely with Our Dogs and Cats in our Middle Ages????
Posted: 5/21/2012 11:04:32 AM
Smart Blonde, I agree. Dating with pets does not work, well at least not for me. Nothing against pets but it does limit travel or long weekends. My kids have wanted me to get a god for years. I will not! lol They have 3 horses, 3 dogs and 4 or 5 cats, some barn cats some indoor cat at their mom's. They have plenty of pets!
 forums1
Joined: 2/14/2010
Msg: 63
Sincerely with Our Dogs and Cats in our Middle Ages????
Posted: 5/21/2012 11:36:19 AM

Those who posted that this is simply another "must have," --- no different from any other "must have" such as no young children, smokers, or separated persons --- have really "taught" me something. And it makes perfect logical sense. So thanks:) One is never too old to learn.


Everyone has preferences - hey, I read your opening post and:

Aging fishette checks out aging profilee. He has height. He has hair. And his profile statement spells "He has heart." Shares most of her interests.

Soo... in other words, if he's short and balding, even if he could be "The One", he's off the list, forget about emailing him? Hmm... and yet, if he wants a 'pet person' he's wrong for it? I think you see the hypocrisy of that.


Therefore, what I personally have learned as a result of this thread is that the old saying, "Love me, love my dog" is literally true for many. And I would like to go on record as saying that while I personally do not agree with this, I absolutely respect the thinking that has been expressed about the unconditional love between pets and "Their Special Humans." I can do this because I was personally blessed to spend the first 40 years of my life experiencing that kind of love with my own pets --- plural:) :)

But then I had a child whose allergies were deemed "the most severe" his allergist had "documented in the past 10 years of [his] 30 year career." Shots twice weekly as well as medication with consequent side effects only made these allergies "manageable". Which meant constant sneezing, coughing, throat clearing, fatigue.
The kid trooped on, but the allergies never really stopped. Today as much as we all love the outdoors, he can last an hour, maybe two, before the "constant everything" comes back with a vengeance.


Well, there is a difference when its a child - its not like dating, and one certainly isn't going to 'toss their newborn back in the pond to keep fishing' (to use the POF metaphor), that would just be absurd to think about.

You didn't say, OP, but did you have a pet when your son was born? And, if so, I would guess when you discovered your son's allergies you would have given it up - but I would also guess that you didn't just take it to a local 'kill' shelter or had it put to sleep, you probably would have put some effort into finding it a good home (perhaps a close friend or relative), etc.

The problem with the way most people tend to word it is that it most often comes out as a 'demand' in a way, ie, "I think you *must* give up your pet for someone", and I'll tell you - a few years back when my 13y/o cat had cancer, and I knew he'd be lucky probably to get a year (and I took him for chemo treatments), if someone "expected" me to give him away "for them" I would have told them where to go (in no uncertain terms) - not get another cat after he died, sure I'd consider that, but give up my dying pet just when he needs me the most? Hell no.

Now, I can't say that I would ever put such a statement as: "So if you have allergies or issues with dog and or cat hair, trust me I will not give them up for you." in my profile (not that I'm looking at this point), since I've usually had pets included in my pictures, most people who are allergic would probably say 'next' anyways. However, I could see if I got 'inundated' with emails from women (hahaha) who were allergic, and came off with an expectation I'd 'dump' my pets for them right away, putting that in there? Much the same as I see women's profiles stating "must have a full head of hair and be at least 6' tall" - um, yeah, I won't be emailing her, I don't fit her 'preferences' (regardless of whether I could really be "The One", right?). Who knows how many "The One's" someone who wants a "full head of hair and tall" might have missed out on, who knows how many "The One's" someone who won't give up their pets has missed out on... if you want to go with the premise of this thread that your preferences could have you 'missing out'.

So saying "I have allergies, and why wouldn't a guy who loves his pets give them up for me" is somewhat the equivalent of saying "She wants a guy with a full head of hair, and I'm bald, so why won't she give up her preference for fully haired guys for me, I'm a (shudder) 'nice guy'?" It is what it is, no point in whining about it.


So, in retrospect, now that most of us have had children, and developed more "mature" adult perspective on our life's experiences, what are peoples' thoughts about:
----- hunting animals for sport?
----eating animals?
----using cosmetics that have evolved as the result of animal testing?
----using medications that have evolved as the result of animal testing?


Well, my sister is vegan, so she is against all of those. Me, well... I'm against hunting purely for "sport", but if you eat what you hunt, I'm far more open to it. Eating animals? My cats hunt, and eat their prey, its a part of nature... I'm strongly against some of the horribly inhumane ways the food industry treats the animals they 'raise', but not really against eating meat. Being a guy, I don't use cosmetics , so that doesn't really apply to me personally, but having a pharmaceutical company in town (and knowing a ton of people there via an ex, I played on their company pool league after work for years after her and I split), I know one of the guys who's job it is to take care of the animals used for testing (and euthanize them) - he understands the need of testing HIV drugs (or SIV, simian AIDS), and he's always sad putting them down, but makes sure they are treated well and suffer the minimum possible. Not saying I *like* the idea, but I can assure you if your son had cancer, you wouldn't care if the medication that puts him in remission was tested first on animals, would you? I'm far more against, say, the Canadian Tar Sands, destroying the ecosystem and huge amounts of wildlife, than I am against selective testing of new drugs on a small set of animals. The former, if you want to think of this way, is destroying the environment our children will inherit (leaving them with the destruction we've wrought on the planet), the latter is sacrificing a few animals to better their future.
 Ready_Real
Joined: 12/30/2010
Msg: 64
Sincerely with Our Dogs and Cats in our Middle Ages????
Posted: 5/21/2012 12:18:33 PM


I read your opening post and:
Aging fishette checks out aging profilee. He has height. He has hair. And his profile statement spells "He has heart." Shares most of her interests. Soo... in other words, if he's short and balding, even if he could be "The One", he's off the list, forget about emailing him? Hmm... and yet, if he wants a 'pet person' he's wrong for it? I think you see the hypocrisy of that.


It is common knowledge that height and hair are among the top "must haves" for women while age and weight are among the top must haves for men. In using these, I was not indicating my own personal preferences. Although, i will say that two of the three greatest loves of my life were my height: one when I wore 2 inch heels and the other when I wore um, my birthday suit:) And yes: I agree that rejecting persons on the basis of height, hair, weight, or age would be far less easy to accept than rejecting persons on the basis of their love for an animal. But the OP was more about the "what about those with severe allergies" issue.


I would guess when you discovered your son's allergies you would have given it up - but I would also guess that you didn't just take it to a local 'kill' shelter or had it put to sleep, you probably would have put some effort into finding it a good home (perhaps a close friend or relative), etc

In answer to your question, no. But, there is absolutely no way I could personally justify euthanizing any animal for any reason whatsoever --- unless that animal were in latest stages debilitating terminal pain & suffering, such as the pain experienced by our family's Siamese cats (aka: "The Boys") who lived to be 23 which was another 10 years after I was grown and married and living on my own. As it was, my dad --- former ranger and WWII and Korea combat engineer -- couldn't bring himself to accompany my mom to the vet even though he agreed with her and the vet that they were so ill from the multiple afflictions of their age that their suffering was virtually constant. Throughout what was then their 30 year marriage, my mom had only seen him cry once. On her return from the vet, she saw him cry for the second time. And my dad wasn't the only member of our family to shed tears at the loss of our boys for many many years to come.

So if I had a pet and were to meet somebody, he would have to wait until my pet's life came to its natural end before moving in with me. I would, however, sacrifice getting a new pet if I were to fall in love with someone whose health problems could not accommodate a pet. On the other hand, knowing what I know about smoking's potential for pain and suffering (we lost my dad to lung cancer courtesy of his 3 pack a day Camels) I would not sacrifice my own health by becoming romantically involved with a smoker. So I have definitely come to see that we all have needs and choices at various times in our lives.
 BLoNde__ANgeL
Joined: 9/20/2011
Msg: 65
Sincerely with Our Dogs and Cats in our Middle Ages????
Posted: 5/21/2012 12:55:07 PM
And for a pet?

Consider the multitude of confirmed eccentric "cat-ladies" profiles on POF for many years that displace most of their human need for affection onto less demanding furry creatures..
that's right...my current beau & all the men I dated in the past were just for sex ;0)

It is you that has the issue.
It is you that is demanding someone bow to your terms.
Sad ... very sad.


people who hold such feelings for their pets, IMO, demonstrate an amazing level of loyalty, dedication and sense of responsibility.


Human behaviour is a fascinating thing:)


Well OP, since you are so offended at being misunderstood


And for a pet?
you say that like a bad thing, like a "pet" is somehow inferior...domestic animals have the cognitive ability of a 4 yr old child & the emotions as well...your OP belittles animals & those who love & care 4 them...I'm not religious, but spiritual, every major religion has something in their scriptures regarding animal stewardship...

Proverbs 12:10
A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.

Judaism places great stress on proper treatment of animals. Unnecessary cruelty to animals is strictly forbidden, and in many cases, animals are accorded the same sensitivity as human beings. This concern for the welfare of animals is unusual in Western civilization. Most civilized nations did not accept this principle until quite recently; cruelty to animals was not outlawed until the 1800s, and even now it is not taken very seriously.

The primary principle behind the treatment of animals in Jewish law is preventing tza'ar ba'alei chayim, the suffering of living creatures. Judaism expresses no definitive opinion as to whether animals actually experience physical or psychological pain in the same way that humans do; however, Judaism has always recognized the link between the way a person treats animals and the way a person treats human beings. A person who is cruel to a defenseless animal will undoubtedly be cruel to defenseless people. Modern psychology confirms this understanding, with many studies finding a relationship between childhood animal cruelty and adult criminal violence.

http://www.jewfaq.org/animals.htm

God, the Creator of human beings and animals, has made animals subservient to us. We depend on animals for the food we eat and the milk we drink. We bring animals into our homes for love and companionship. We survive critical illness and live longer because of biomedical research on animals. We visit to zoos and aquariums to gain an appreciation for the spectacular diversity of life on earth. We benefit from specially trained dogs that detect drugs, guide the blind, and assist the disabled. God says in the Quran:

“And the cattle, He has created them for you. You have in them warm clothing and (other) advantages, and of them you eat. And therein is beauty for you, when you drive them back (home) and when you send them out (to pasture). And they carry your heavy loads to regions which you could not reach but with great distress to yourselves. Surely your Lord is Compassionate, Merciful. And (He made) horses and mules and asses that you might ride upon them and as an ornament. And He creates what you know not.” (Quran 16:5-8)

The mercy of Islam extends beyond human beings to all living creations of God. Islam prohibits cruelty to animals. Fourteen hundred years ago, long before the modern animal rights movement began with the publication of Peter Singer’s book, “Animal Liberation,” in 1975, Islam required kindness to animals and cruelty to them a sufficient reason for a person to be thrown into the Fire!

Once, the Prophet of Mercy spoke of God’s forgiveness due to the humane treatment of animals. He told his companions the story of a man who got thirsty on his way. He found a well, climbed down inside it to the water, and quenched his thirst. When he came out he saw a panting dog licking on mud out of extreme thirst. The man thought to himself, ‘The dog has become as thirsty as I was!’ The man went down the well again and got some water for the dog. God appreciated his good work and forgave him. The companions asked, ‘O Prophet of God, do we get rewarded on humane treatment of animals?’ He said, ‘There is a reward in (doing good to) every living being.’[1]

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/185/


My guess? Consciously, or unconsciously, OPie has been playing a game of Double Gotcha. First posits some "old person" so seriously warped that animals are more important than people. Damns them. Asks for agreement with her view. Doesn't get it. Then proceeds to damn those who don't support her.


It was quite the feint.
Chiding once, chiding twice, victim stance, white knight, smug.
Huh. Never saw it coming.


Entitlement issues much?


And since I saw fit to post the thread, I take full responsibility for how it was written and now would like offer an apology for any "sarcasm" that its tone may have communicated. I do believe that sarcasm has its place --- but wish to be very clear that when I wrote "Are you kidding?" I was NOT (italics) employing sarcasm.

So, in retrospect, now that most of us have had children, and developed more "mature" adult perspective on our life's experiences, what are peoples' thoughts about:
----- hunting animals for sport?
----eating animals?
----using cosmetics that have evolved as the result of animal testing?
----using medications that have evolved as the result of animal testing?

I have many friends, for example, who are now in the middle life years becoming vegetarians. Others stopped using any cosmetics that arrive on the market via previous testing on any animals and among their dating profile "must haves" is no sport hunters. As we get older, our need for meds is more likely to increase. What about using medications to ease some of those 45+ health challenges that have been the result of animal testing?

Would those people for whom the love of an animal is absolutely as equal as the love of a human care to comment on the above?

And P.S. To the lady invoked biblical passages in commanding me not to "dare" bring up this topic, I'm assuming that you would never ever do any of the above?

re-read, I quoted the bible & some judaic & Islamic scriptures -that illustrate God's view on animal stewardship & said do not dare belittle them as just a pet. I do not think anyone in here would be so _____ as to suggest they know better than God...or scriptures of 3 major religions...and remember GOD spelled backwards is DOG!;0)

So, now that you have apologized & backpedaled on YOUR opening post, why the need to throw this at us:
----- hunting animals for sport?
----eating animals?
----using cosmetics that have evolved as the result of animal testing?
----using medications that have evolved as the result of animal testing?

after reading this post I think I will go & read 2 other threads in here...BPD - What would you do? and Why Are Women So Mean to Other Women? :0P
 browneyesboo
Joined: 5/19/2005
Msg: 66
Sincerely with Our Dogs and Cats in our Middle Ages????
Posted: 5/21/2012 2:37:32 PM
I do eat chicken.
I don't hunt.
I don't use cosmetics that are the result of animal testing.
I don't take medications, but yeah, if my life or someone else's
depended on medication tested on animals, I'd do it.

I wouldn't give up my pets for someone else and I wouldn't
expect them to give up their pets for me.
Of course if I was younger and had a child that was allergic to
a pet I already had, I might think differently. But I'm not, I
don't so I'm won't.

And thank you for the apology, even though you did mean it
sarcastically, as before people actually answered and you saw
their arguments, you did think they were a bit dumb.
 Ready_Real
Joined: 12/30/2010
Msg: 67
Sincerely with Our Dogs and Cats in our Middle Ages????
Posted: 5/21/2012 4:02:19 PM

And thank you for the apology, even though you did mean it
sarcastically, as before people actually answered and you saw
their arguments, you did think they were a bit dumb.


BEB, we don't always agree on things, and good for us: the forums wouldn't be very enlightening if we were all in lockstep. And as already stated, I'm as fond of sarcasm as the next forumite -- maybe even more so. However. In this post, I was being geuinely incredulous as in "Whaaaaaaaaaaaaattt? R u kidding me????" I've taken responsibility for writing what I wrote -- poorly conveyed as it was. You can take or leave my apology as genuine. You can also choose to believe or not that as a result of the vast majority of replies, I have learned that the entire issue merits a far less dismissive attitude on my part. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
 Greatcatch12345
Joined: 5/2/2011
Msg: 68
Sincerely with Our Dogs and Cats in our Middle Ages????
Posted: 5/22/2012 5:25:49 AM
Yep, I concur with the other posters...this happens to be a deal-breaker. Could be religious..ie: jewish, political, or lifestyle: couch-potato, etc..that are deal-breakers for you..
You're obviously not a dog/cat person. I am very allergic to cats..not much i can do about it....and its severe, there's alot of fish in the sea..w/o cats..so thats where i fish.
I suggest you move on...this guy is not for you.
 ConnCat
Joined: 10/28/2011
Msg: 69
view profile
History
Sincerely with Our Dogs and Cats in our Middle Ages????
Posted: 5/22/2012 9:50:48 AM
Hmm, I have a cat and it has never even occurred to me to run that by anybody first. Seems to me she and I will first see how we like each other, and we'll deal with the cat thing later. If people make pets a deal-breaker on either end of the issue, they're definitely not for me.
 BLoNde__ANgeL
Joined: 9/20/2011
Msg: 70
Sincerely with Our Dogs and Cats in our Middle Ages????
Posted: 5/22/2012 10:08:37 AM
after i had surgery, my man scooped all the litter boxes 4 me...6 cats, all good eaters...one pees like a racehorse...poop poop de doop...if he didn't like cats...
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 71
Sincerely with Our Dogs and Cats in our Middle Ages????
Posted: 5/22/2012 10:55:53 AM
Throughout my life, I've been owned by or associated with horses,mules,dogs, cats, sheep, goats,cattle, squirrels,rabbits and even a raccoon.
Right now I have only 1 cat.
But I would not give up a pet for someone with allergies,and because a lot of my activities are outdoors, around animals,may involve camping in a tent, I just don't think I would match well with someone who has severe allergies.

As far as hunting-I don't anymore, but I used to, and my philosophy towards animals is not inconsistent with being in favor of responsible hunting.
As far as eating meat, I have no quarrel. I do sometimes have some concerns about the humane handling of animals that produce milk, meat and eggs. But I do not find being a lover and respecter of animals as inconsistent with a healthy diet that includes some meat, milk and eggs.
As far as testing of cosmetics, medicines, or production of them that has an animal involvement(clothing and shoes as well) that is something that I look at based on the particulars of the product in question.
Cindy O
 DeerTaint
Joined: 4/3/2012
Msg: 72
Sincerely with Our Dogs and Cats in our Middle Ages????
Posted: 5/22/2012 11:12:27 AM
I have a Pit Bull. I use him as birth control. LOL
 BlackLady1953
Joined: 5/27/2011
Msg: 73
view profile
History
Sincerely with Our Dogs and Cats in our Middle Ages????
Posted: 5/22/2012 12:42:47 PM
I have a cat and I always let "potentials" know that, because severe allergies can kill people (I have some severe food allergies). I think it is only fair.
 soicat
Joined: 5/17/2012
Msg: 74
Sincerely with Our Dogs and Cats in our Middle Ages????
Posted: 5/23/2012 10:49:42 AM
Love me, love my neighbor's cat (who pretty much lives with me).

If you can't be loyal to something that loves you unconditionally, how could you ever be loyal to a human being?
 onehappyfellow
Joined: 9/21/2008
Msg: 75
view profile
History
Sincerely with Our Dogs and Cats in our Middle Ages????
Posted: 5/23/2012 7:40:27 PM
To each his/her own. To me owning a pet of any kind is a deal breaker. No I don't hate pets but want to simplify my life. Following a dog around with a plastic bag in my hand or cleaning cat litter is not my ideal way of spending,my time. Now if you have a person you are looking after -I'm your man with tons of experience and patience.
Show ALL Forums  > Over 45  > Sincerely with Our Dogs and Cats in our Middle Ages????