There’s nothing wrong, most of the commenters said, with posting a photo of one’s dog, along with a sign describing how he or she has misbehaved, on the Internet.
What dogs don’t know won’t hurt them was the common refrain. Dogs don’t get on the Internet, and wouldn’t be smart enough to be humiliated even if they could. The photos, many added, are posted in a spirit of humor and love (at least most of the time). How dare I suggest that, rather than making a sign, taking a photograph and posting it on the Internet, some pet owners might be better served by applying that time to fixing the dog’s recurrent misbehavior?
How dare I raise the question of how humans might like it if they were the subject of “shaming” posts, presented of course in a spirit of humor and love, and all in good fun?
And shame on me for expressing my personal opinion — that I wouldn’t want my dog’s lasting and permanent legacy to be photo and statement of misdeed on the Internet. And for pointing out that, as species go, humans have much more to be ashamed of than dogs.
Dogs would never post pictures of us misbehaving on the Internet, I don’t think, even if they could.
But PETA would, and has.
PETA has come out with a series of photographs — these are but a few of them — that turns the tables, depicting humans confessing to their misdeeds when it comes to their pets.
As PETA notes, “Dogs give us all their love and affection, but what are some people giving them in return? Dog shaming. Dogs don’t deserve that, but we can’t say the same for some guardians.”
You can find more shame on PETA’s official blog, The PETA Files.
(Photos: The PETA Files)
Posted by jwoestendiek September 17th, 2012 under Muttsblog.
Tags: animals, behavior, dog, dogs, dogshaming, guardians, humans, misbehavior, owners, pet owners, peta, pets, photos, shame, shameful, shaming, the peta files, training, websites
As is now known by fans of Irving the talking dog — and I’m not one of them, at least when it comes to the talking part – the Boston terrier didn’t make it to the finals of “America’s Got Talent.”
Still, in terms of the exposure alone, it was a win for ventriloquist Todd Oliver, whose Branson, Missouri-based act has become more popular than ever.
Branson features three dogs in his performances, all equipped with flapping contraptions attached to their lower jaws. He controls the devices remotely, making the dog’s mouth move in time with the words he supplies, via ventriloquism.
In other words, Oliver uses his dogs for dummies.
No, I don’t think Oliver’s act should be banned. I don’t think we need to get PETA on the phone. I don’t think the appendages attached to the dogs for the act are hurting the dogs, or even bothering them to any great extent.
I am merely saying that it’s another example of us putting words in dogs’ mouths, of our humanization of them — solely for our own amusement.
I don’t like that Pedigree’s DentaStix ad campaign, featuring dogs with human dentures, either — for the same reason. In addition to the TV ads, the campaign allowed us to, with help from our computers, put not just human dentures, but the words of our choice, into dog mouths.
I’m not one of those to unnecessarily sound the anthropomorphization alarm — mainly because it’s too hard a word to say — but I do believe we should enjoy dogs as dogs, and not try to transform them into us.
Oliver seems like a nice guy who does a lot for dogs and animals, and as far as what he does to them for the act, it’s probably not abusive and even somewhat cute, at least for the first few minutes.
He says on his website that the device was developed with a veterinarian.
“Todd is just a true animal lover. He often assists local shelters and rescues dogs from unfit environments,” the website says. ”Everything in Todd’s act is 100% safe and registered with the USDA and the Missouri Department of Agriculture.”
I know that, again, I will be criticized for being overly sensitive, but in my opinion we’ve already tinkered with dogs too much — by shaping them, over the centuries, into breeds whose looks please us; by using them in lab experiments and, in recent years, cloning them; by dressing them up, teaching them to dance, and all the other things we do for our own amusement.
They’re pretty amusing and animated just as they are, without our help. Our attempts to make them more amusing, I think, are often both dopey and disrespectful. But who’s going to listen to me?
If only I could get a dog to say it.
Posted by jwoestendiek September 4th, 2012 under videos.
Tags: act, america's got talent, amusement, animals, anthropomorphization, dentures, dog, dogs, dogshaming, dummies, dummy, entertainment, funny dogs, humanization, humans, irving, irving the talking dog, mouth, pedigree, pets, talking dogs, tinkering, todd oliver, ventriloquism