agonyaunt | (no subject)

Dear Annie: I grew up never allowed to have pets. I've been married almost 30 years to a man who allowed me to have a small inside dog, and he doesn't mind her so much but hates the two we have outside. Both are rescues, one from his oldest son that had him tied to a tree, the other from a rescue group. Both weigh under 7 pounds. He hates them and looks for any excuse to get mad about them. One is a thief but doesn't chew up her finds. The other digs tiny holes that a pecan can fit in, but not very many, two or three at any given time.

The issue is that, if our granddaughter brings a pet for us to take care of, it can do no wrong because we love our granddaughter, no matter how stinky or destructive the animal. This hurts my heart and makes me feel like he puts up with them because he loves her. What about me? -- Protective of Pets

Dear Protective: It sounds like there's a significant imbalance in how your husband views your pets compared to those of your granddaughter, which understandably feels personal since your animals mean so much to you. It's important to address not just the specifics of this pet situation but also your feelings of being underloved in your relationship.

Sit down with your husband to tell him how much it means to you to care for your animals and how it hurts to feel like this interest of yours is not reciprocated. Encourage him to engage more with the pets with the hope that it might make him feel more connected to them, just as he feels connected to your granddaughter's pets, and see what boundaries there are to set to make him feel more comfortable having the dogs in your shared space. May this raw, candid conversation be a step toward understanding each other better and strengthening your marriage.

Link

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Am I the only one who is halfway between "weirded out" and "seriously alarmed" that LW refers to her husband as "allowing" her to have a pet dog? You're a grown woman in a marriage of 30 years. Adults do not "allow" their spouses to do this or that - they agree, they compromise... or they don't, but the point is LW's husband does not have the authority to allow or disallow pets any more than LW has the authority to allow or disallow him from... I don't know, whatever it is he wants to do.

Also, a person who takes out anger ("finds excuses to get mad") on their romantic partner's pets (or picks fights about those pets, I don't know how to read this) is already dangerously three steps on the abuse cycle.

I alerted to all of these things, too. Very worrisome.

Yup. Whole man disposal was my thought. Aggression towards animals is a HUGE red flag.

I’m not really clear if he’s getting aggressive towards their dogs or if he’s getting angry at their behavior - for a good reason or none at all - and then yelling at LW.

One isn’t really better than the other.

It's an uncomfortable phrasing but it's clear that LW wanted these pets and her husband didn't, so the result of the discussion / compromise was that she got what she wanted.

That's the same vibe I got-- LW insisted until Husband gave in.

Sure, that's the other possibility. No way of knowing from here, but either way, it does not sound like the healthiest relationship.

This is how I read it as well. “Allow” can be another phrasing for tolerating something but it’s never what you would have picked or wanted if you had unilateral control; you’ll agree to it under pressure from the other person, but it’s not what you wanted.

It seems like it’s possible LW’s husband didn’t want dogs at all, LW pressured until they got one, and he was fine with that dog. Then LW added two more. If that’s the case, I can fully understand why LW’s husband would be resentful about the two additional dogs and it would be an ongoing sore spot.

It’s also unclear what is meant by “pets” that granddaughter brings them “to take care of”. Are these dogs or other animals? Maybe it’s just dogs he’s had enough of. Is this taking-care a temporary arrangement or is she constantly adding permanently to her grandparents’ menagerie? A lot of folks don’t mind short-term petsitting even if they wouldn’t want another animal around full-time.

As someone who doesn't want pets, this sounds a lot like someone who has coerced their partner into accepting multiple, destructive pets but is still not satisfied. They are now trying to make loving the pets their partner never wanted into a referendum on how much the partner loves LW and that's manipulative bullshit.

Acting excited about being a temporary carer for a grandchild's pet is much easier!

Meanwhile, this animal rescuer is furious that 7-pound dogs are being forced to live outside, one tied to a tree. “Protective of Pets”? Really?

It doesn't sound like LW is keeping the dog tied to a tree, but that her stepson was, and she rescued the dog from him. That said, I agree with the general sentiment. I've never understood people who have pets they never allow in the house.

I really want to know exactly what the granddaughter's pets are (this is suspiciously not mentioned - ?hamsters? mice?), and if husband's issue is actually DOGS.

I wonder if he's allergic and LW refused to hear that.

The use of "allowed" is a red flag for me, too.

On the other hand, I am not willing to live in a household with a dog. Call me a cat if you will, but I'm just not a dog person. (Other people's dogs are fine, just not in my house.) So if I had a spouse, they would be able to claim I wouldn't allow them to have a dog.