Here’s another two cents worth on the pet issue. We didn’t cover this sort of coercive situation, so Ima make another post in the name of Buffistean completeness. Elizabeth Marshall Thomas, author of The Social Lives of Dogs, received “…many letters from women whose husbands or boyfriends didn’t like their dogs. In every case, the man wanted the woman to get rid of her dog. However, the woman loved the dog and was placed in a terrible dilemma, hence the letter. My advice on this question is always the same. Lose the man. Keep the dog. You are far better off with the dog than with a man who would ask such a thing of you.”
I am a crazy cat person and proud of it. I am eternally grateful that I fell in love with a man who loves the kitties as much as I do. We see our home as a safe habitat, and ourselves as having a sort of guardianship responsibility, because we want to be the sort of people who help make up for the terrible things that some people do. When I adopt a pet, I offer what I call a double-lifetime guarantee: I promise that I will love them for the rest of their life, as well as for the rest of mine. That’s nice and symmetrical.
Sometimes I think about What If I had had to make a Sophie’s Choice about them, well. It would be a terrible thing for me. When I am bewailing my hard lot in life, sometimes I think about JZ’s cats, and I see that fortune has truly favored me because I didn’t have to give anything up to have DH. I’m so happy to have finally discovered what became of them and that everybody is OK; I loved every word of her post about it.
It really depends on how the person says it. A coworker who informed me that he didn't watch the tele and was thinking of getting rid of the one he had because he thought his wife watched too much? I passed on feeling defensive and just put him in the jerk column.
It really depends on the tone, for me. I know people (my sister used to be one of them) who felt it made them special, and it shows in the voice. Others just don't care about TV one way or another, or don't have the time, or are scared of the addiction.
This exactly. If they act all superior, then yes, it bugs. If they say it in the same way that I say I don't have a baseball glove (in other words, they don't care in the least about it and it has no value judgement), then no.
What cracks me up are the people who are horrified that I don't have cable.
A coworker who informed me that he didn't watch the tele and was thinking of getting rid of the one he had because he thought his wife watched too much? I passed on feeling defensive and just put him in the jerk column
I have a friend whose GF won't let him hook the TV up to anything other than computer games. Knowing him, she's right. She might as well break up with him as get cable -- give him 4 or 5 channels, and she'd never have quality time with him again.
I feel really defensive about it. I'm too old to be this insecure!
What cracks me up are the people who are horrified that I don't have cable.
t points, screams, a la Invasion of the Body Snatchers
Whoa.
Big ass clap of thunder just
shook my house.
I repeat,
SHOOK MY HOUSE.
Freaked the cats, but not the kid.
It really depends on the tone, for me.
See, I think maybe I infer the tone for them sometimes. I just had a convo with a guy who said he went cold-turkey 4 years ago. At first I was making a conscious effort not to assume he was implying intellectual superiority - but then he said something about people who watch a lot of TV having something like 11th-grade level intelligence or somesuch. He did do a bit of back-pedaling when I said that I watch (I consider) a lot of TV.
Maybe I've just never heard it without the implied superiority tone.
Knowing him, she's right.
Knowing my co-worker even better now (since he made that remark) I was right.
I repeat, SHOOK MY HOUSE.
Weird. Here it's just vaguely rumbly. Which is unusual in itself.
