The substantiation provided for this very peculiar observation, from Vanderbilt's Kelly Oliver, in the Times' usually engaging philosophical corner, "The Stone," is so thin, it's absurd:
Despite the proliferation of "cute" pet pictures and anecdotes on the Web, actual displays of affection towards oneβs pet or companion animal, or grief expressed over their illness or death, is looked upon with ridicule.
To love animals is to be soft, childlike, or pathological. To admit dependence on animals β particularly emotional and psychological dependence, as pet owners often do β is seen as a type of neurosis.
Jesus, what kind of creeps does Prof. Oliver hang with? They believe it's "pathological" to love animals? "Neurotic" to confess one's emotional attachment?
Look, animals, especially dogs, are people too. And all I know is that our border collie, Jackson Bidwell Carpenter, rarely moved from my ill wife's bedside for more than a year -- unless of course moving meant a poop-walk in the park. His patience was heroic, his tenderness touching, and his primitive insight a thing of advanced wonder. He wanted to be there and he knew he was needed, and there was absolutely nothing "neurotic" -- on my wife's part or his -- about it.