So, with only three days left to Valentine’s Day, your honey still hasn’t firmed up the plans?
Could be he, or she, is planning to spend it with the pooch.
Rather than spending Valentine’s Day with their human partner, a fifth of adults would prefer to be with their pet, Reuters reports, based on a global poll conducted in conjunction with the market research company, Ipsos.
The survey of 24,000 people in 23 countries found, globally, 21 percent of adults would rather spend February 14 with their pet than their spouse or partner.
Interestingly, Turkish people were most inclined to want to spend the day with the dog (49 percent), while the French were least likely (10 percent).
The survey found that age and income were even bigger factors than country of residence, with younger, less affluent people more likely to choose their pet as their Valentine’s Day companion. About 25 percent of people aged under 35 opted for their pet over their partner, compared to 18 percent of those aged 35-54 and 14 percent of people aged 55 and over. Men and women were evenly split over the question.
About 1,000 individuals per country took part in the poll, with Turkey showing the largest numbers by far of owners who preferred their pet’s company on Valentine’s Day. Next came India with 41 percent, Japan with 30 percent, China with 29 percent, the United States with 27 percent and Australia with 25 percent.
The nations where residents were the least likely to want to spend the day with a pet over their spouse or partner were France at 10 percent, Mexico at 11 percent, the Netherlands at 12 percent and Hungary at 12 percent.
Posted by John Woestendiek February 11th, 2010 under Muttsblog.
Tags: age, animals, cats, companions, companionship, countries, date, dog love, dogs, gender, global, humans, income, love, partner, partners, pet love, pets, poll, prefer, preference, reuters, spend, spouse, survey, turkey, united states, valentine, valentine's, valentines day
Barack Obama’s use of the term “girly dog” has raised the hackles (and who knows what other body parts) of a Huffington Post blogger who says it was disparaging — a threat both to his manhood and that of his dog, Manuel.
“…Clearly Mr. Obama meant “girly” in the pejorative sense, not as an adjective denoting “nice for girls,” but rather to suggest a dog that lives in conflict with its own manly nature or the manly nature of dogs in general,” wrote blogger Billy Kimball.
I can’t get too bent out of shape about the president-elect’s remark — “girly” somehow sounds less pejorative coming from Obama’s mouth than, say, an Arnold Schwarzenegger. But, in hindsight, perhaps a more politically correct term would have been “little yappy pipsqueak dog.”
Kimball’s not willing to cut the president-elect any slack in his piece, written in response to an exchange between Obama and his wife, Michelle, during an interview with Barbara Walters. When Walters suggested the First Family get a Havanese, the small breed of dog she has (and Kimball has), Obama said, “It sounds kinda like a girly dog…We’re going to have a big rambunctious dog.”
“By saying that he wanted a ‘big, rambunctious dog,’ Obama was trying to don the mantle of the ‘guy’s guy.’ “ Kimball wrote. “Big rambunctious dogs, through their genetic link to working and hunting breeds, establish one’s bona fides with the masses. Those toy breeds who don’t have to work for living probably belong to people who don’t either – or so the conventional wisdom would have it.”
Kimball gives Obama points for considering a shelter dog, but says, “making distinctions about dogs based on breed is nothing less than a form of canine racism and exactly the sort of thing many of us had hoped we were leaving behind on Nov. 3. “
The truth is many small breeds have established themselves as some of the fiercest hunters. Kimball also misses the mark when he says Obama promised his children a dog if he won the election. Actually, he promised them one once it was over, win or lose.
Most ludicrous, though, is Kimball’s argument that it would be irresponsible to own a large breed of dog at the White House.
“Obama is acting irresponsibly by getting a dog much larger than is practical for people in his zip code who don’t have a Rose Garden and South Lawn for it to run around on,” Kimball says.
For one thing, Obama will have a Rose Garden and a South Lawn. For another, saying big dogs shouldn’t live in the city is precisely the kind of “canine racism” Kimball seems to be accusing Obama of.
A dog’s size doesn’t define it, and it shouldn’t define us — however much some people may try to read into things.
Your little dog doesn’t mean you’re “girly,” any more than my big dog means I’m compensating for some shortcoming with my bona fides.
Posted by John Woestendiek December 1st, 2008 under Muttsblog.
Tags: barack obama, big, big dogs, canine, dog, dogs, first family, first pet, gender, girly, girly dogs, havanese, interview, little, little dogs, manly, manly dogs, obama, pets, racism, size, stereotypes, walters
A new study has found that young male dogs playing with female pups will often let the females win, even if the males have a physical advantage.
Researchers suspect that, for dogs, the opportunity to play may be more important to them than winning.
The gentlemanly dog behavior is even accompanied with a bow, authors of the study told Discovery News.
“A play bow is a signal that dogs use when they want to communicate playful intentions to a potential play partner,” said Camille Ward, a lecturer in the Department of Psychology at the University of Michigan and author of the soon-to-be-released book, Relationship-Based Dog Training.
Ward and her colleagues studied puppy litters from four breeds — a shepherd mix, Labrador retriever, Doberman pincher and malamute, collecting data from the time the pups were between three and 40 weeks old.
The scientists examined how the puppies played with members of their own sex as well as with the opposite sex.
Females were more likely than males to initiate play with their own sex; males, meanwhile, seemed eager to play with females, and would go to all sorts of lengths to keep the play going.
The male puppies, for example, would sometimes lick the muzzles of their opponents, giving the female a chance to bite them in a vulnerable position. They would also even completely drop to the ground from a moving, standing or sitting position.
“We know that in feral dog populations, female mate choice plays a role in male mating success,” said Ward. “Perhaps males use self-handicapping with females in order to learn more about them and to form close relationships with them — relationships that might later help males to secure future mating opportunities.”
In other words, it seems, they are acting vulnerable in hopes of scoring. Those dogs!