Can we talk about this Dear Prudence?

[ttt]

I'm delaying marriage because of my dog. Am I crazy?

I have a 9 year old cocker spaniel. I've raised him since he was a puppy and I think of him as my four legged son. However, my boyfriend of 10 months is allergic to dogs. He also dislikes them. He was attacked by one as a child and now won't go near dogs at all. As such, he almost never comes to my place. We are very committed to each other and wish to get married soon. But the problem is that I can't allow myself to give my beloved doggy away to another family. He has a few medical problems related to age and the vet has told me he will probably live another two years or so, although of course nobody knows for sure. I've asked my boyfriend if we could delay our marriage until my dog dies, and he thinks I'm crazy. We both want to have kids soon, but considering I'm now 34 and he's 40, my boyfriend doesn't want to wait another 2 years. He understands that I love my dog, but he thinks marriage is more important and I should just find another loving family for him. I feel heartbroken at the very idea. Am I really nuts for putting my furry baby ahead of human babies?

A.
Emily Yoffe :

Your boyfriend sounds as if he's being overly dogmatic. If I were you, I'd like some more confirmation that your boyfriend is actually allergic to dogs. If he was attacked as a child and has avoided them for the rest of his life, I'm wondering if he truly knows he has allergies, or that is just a more convincing way of keeping dogs at bay than saying he was traumatized as a kid and has never gotten over it. However, your plan to wait until your beloved pooch dies before you move on with your reproductive plans is ill-conceived. You'd be astounded, with medical advances and the potential of large veterinary bills, how much life can be eked out of a ailing, aging dog -- and 9 is not that old. As your dog is decling, so is your fertility. You might easily be able to have children in your later 30s, but if you know you want them now and you've found the partner you want them with, it's not a good idea to wait.

Perhaps you can have your dog bathed and then the three of you can go for a walk. He'll see how unthreatening your baby is, and maybe he won't start wheezing. Perhaps if you move it together, your dog can be limited to certain areas of the house. Possibly your boyfriend can investigate allergy shots (if he really is allergic). I think he owes you the opportunity to have it all -- his love, your children, and your short-timer of a cocker spaniel.


My question is, why is the burden on him to love her dog? Why is his allergy, fear, and/or dislike of dogs irrelevant and just something he's supposed to get over? I'm not saying she is in the wrong here, but why is he? I wouldn't want to be miserable in my own home either.

Maybe dog people and non-dog people just aren't meant to be together.

[UMaineTeach]

I think it's on him b/c he knew about the dog from day one and let it go this far.
The girl and the dog were a package.

[emilyj]

It's not like she suddenly brought a dog home and said "Surprise!" He knew about the dog, and the fact that he expects her to just give it away to another family makes me side-eye the hell out of him.

[Deleted]

I'd get another boyfriend. Of course I wouldn't have carried on for ten months with an L7 weenie in the first place.

[cookiemdough]

Maybe dog people and non-dog people just aren't meant to be together.

I think this is probably true actually. I am pretty sure there will be a stream of posts about what a jerk he is for expecting her to give away her dog in order to pursue a relationship.

To be honest if I loved dogs, I wonder if I would be attracted to someone who found them so intolerable that he wouldn't even want to come spend time at my house. Now that I think about it, has she been leaving her dog at home alone a lot?

[cookiemdough]

Jun 18, 2012 18:26:36 GMT -5 UMaineTeach said:

I think it's on him b/c he knew about the dog from day one and let it go this far.
The girl and the dog were a package.

I think she was equally responsible for choosing not to pursue a relationship.

[ttt]

Jun 18, 2012 18:33:59 GMT -5 cookiemdough said:

Jun 18, 2012 18:26:36 GMT -5 UMaineTeach said:

I think it's on him b/c he knew about the dog from day one and let it go this far.
The girl and the dog were a package.

I think she was equally responsible for choosing not to pursue a relationship.

That's kind of what I'm saying. Yes, he probably should have dumped her as soon as he found out she had a dog, but she probably should have also realized that there was no good solution to this when your dog is non-negotiable and your new boyfriend can't be around them.

[statlerwaldorf]

I'm allergic to dogs. I've tried many different medications and nothing works for me. I could never live with a dog in my home. Not only would I be very uncomfortable, I have allergy induced asthma. I've also noticed certain breeds are worse than others and cocker spaniels are one of the worst for me.

That being said I kind of agree with the advice. If he is serious about the relationship, he should see an allergist and work to see if there is something that would work for him. If it is a fear, he should try to see a therapist if he hasn't already.

It's not all on him. I would expect her to do extra cleaning, keep the dog out of certain rooms especially the bedroom, bathe and get the dog groomed on a frequent basis, etc.

I'm blaming the both of them for letting this get so far. If he cannot live with a dog, I think this is a dealbreaker. I don't think she should get rid of her dog of 9 years.

[interro]

They were both foolish for continuing a relationship if the dog is a dealbreaker and has been from the start. Her, for assuming he would warm up to the dog or the dog would pass before they got married, and him for assuming she would rehome her beloved dog.

[thejackpot]

Oh my goodness, why would either of them let it get so far if this pet was such a wall between them. They should have treated the dog like it was a deal breaker b/c it certainly has turned out to be one. If she is on the fence about this then he is obviously not the man for her.

[heightsyankee]

Jun 18, 2012 18:30:11 GMT -5 emilyj said:

It's not like she suddenly brought a dog home and said "Surprise!" He knew about the dog, and the fact that he expects her to just give it away to another family makes me side-eye the hell out of him.

Exactly.

[msmerymac]

You get couples where one wants children and one doesn't who get to this point all the time. Which is also a bad idea. But in this case, I think it can be worked out. People who are allergic can adapt to their own pets, or they can keep the dog only in certain rooms of the house.

He's the one who needs to put in the effort, because rehoming a 9 year old dog is just cruel to the dog if there are other options, not to mention cruel to the girlfriend. If it's a deal breaker for him, then he needs to end it, IMO.

[gpw]

am I the only one who thinks the dog is a red herring?

[curmudgeon]

It shouldn't be all on him to change, but he is putting it all on her to make changes. Seeing an allergist then, if possible, seeing if he can warm up to the dog is a reasonable place to start the negotiation. I can't imagine why she thinks it is a good idea to marry him knowing she will never have another dog in the future since she does seem to enjoy dogs

[ttt]

Jun 18, 2012 18:45:54 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

You get couples where one wants children and one doesn't who get to this point all the time. Which is also a bad idea. But in this case, I think it can be worked out. People who are allergic can adapt to their own pets, or they can keep the dog only in certain rooms of the house.

But he's not just allergic - he's also both afraid of dogs and dislikes them. Sounds like living with a dog would be miserable for him.

Actually the kids/no kids analogy is probably pretty apt here. There's no real middle ground here.

[ttt]

Jun 18, 2012 18:55:17 GMT -5 curmudgeon said:

It shouldn't be all on him to change, but he is putting it all on her to make changes. Seeing an allergist then, if possible, seeing if he can warm up to the dog is a reasonable place to start the negotiation. I can't imagine why she thinks it is a good idea to marry him knowing she will never have another dog in the future since she does seem to enjoy dogs

because she's 34 years old and wants kids...I think that has blinded her judgment.

[dev22]

Jun 18, 2012 18:20:45 GMT -5 ttt said:

I'm delaying marriage because of my dog. Am I crazy?

I have a 9 year old cocker spaniel. I've raised him since he was a puppy and I think of him as my four legged son. However, my boyfriend of 10 months is allergic to dogs. He also dislikes them. He was attacked by one as a child and now won't go near dogs at all. As such, he almost never comes to my place. We are very committed to each other and wish to get married soon. But the problem is that I can't allow myself to give my beloved doggy away to another family. He has a few medical problems related to age and the vet has told me he will probably live another two years or so, although of course nobody knows for sure. I've asked my boyfriend if we could delay our marriage until my dog dies, and he thinks I'm crazy. We both want to have kids soon, but considering I'm now 34 and he's 40, my boyfriend doesn't want to wait another 2 years. He understands that I love my dog, but he thinks marriage is more important and I should just find another loving family for him. I feel heartbroken at the very idea. Am I really nuts for putting my furry baby ahead of human babies?

A.
Emily Yoffe :

Your boyfriend sounds as if he's being overly dogmatic. If I were you, I'd like some more confirmation that your boyfriend is actually allergic to dogs. If he was attacked as a child and has avoided them for the rest of his life, I'm wondering if he truly knows he has allergies, or that is just a more convincing way of keeping dogs at bay than saying he was traumatized as a kid and has never gotten over it. However, your plan to wait until your beloved pooch dies before you move on with your reproductive plans is ill-conceived. You'd be astounded, with medical advances and the potential of large veterinary bills, how much life can be eked out of a ailing, aging dog -- and 9 is not that old. As your dog is decling, so is your fertility. You might easily be able to have children in your later 30s, but if you know you want them now and you've found the partner you want them with, it's not a good idea to wait.

Perhaps you can have your dog bathed and then the three of you can go for a walk. He'll see how unthreatening your baby is, and maybe he won't start wheezing. Perhaps if you move it together, your dog can be limited to certain areas of the house. Possibly your boyfriend can investigate allergy shots (if he really is allergic). I think he owes you the opportunity to have it all -- his love, your children, and your short-timer of a cocker spaniel.


My question is, why is the burden on him to love her dog? Why is his allergy, fear, and/or dislike of dogs irrelevant and just something he's supposed to get over? I'm not saying she is in the wrong here, but why is he? I wouldn't want to be miserable in my own home either.

Maybe dog people and non-dog people just aren't meant to be together.

This is where I am at. I would NEVER EVER EVER EVER be in a relationship, let alone marry, someone that did not like animals. A dude telling me that he hates dogs would be a deal breaker. Full-stop.

So I think she may need to move on from this guy. With how much she loves her dog, is she really going to want to live the rest of her life without one?

Not to mention, any dude that asked me to dump my old, sick dog, would probably get a junk punch.

[Deleted]

Yeah, ttt but I don't see why she wasted 10 months on him? If you're really looking to settle down, axe the dealbreaker having dudes at the get.

[speckledfrog]

Here's how it got that far -

Her: Fido's such a sweet dog. Surely BF will come to love him.
Him: Fido's just a dog. Surely GF won't mind getting rid of him

[msmerymac]

Jun 18, 2012 18:55:49 GMT -5 ttt said:

Jun 18, 2012 18:45:54 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

You get couples where one wants children and one doesn't who get to this point all the time. Which is also a bad idea. But in this case, I think it can be worked out. People who are allergic can adapt to their own pets, or they can keep the dog only in certain rooms of the house.

But he's not just allergic - he's also both afraid of dogs and dislikes them. Sounds like living with a dog would be miserable for him.

Actually the kids/no kids analogy is probably pretty apt here. There's no real middle ground here.

Except that the dog WILL die eventually, he doesn't need to be responsible for it, and they won't have to get another one.

I feel like not wanting kids isn't always or even usually about "not being a baby person" or hating diapers, but it's those things, plus the drain on your time and resources, plus sometimes the fact that you don't want to reproduce with your DNA (in the case of severe genetic illness). Plus other things.

With dogs - it's basically that you don't like dogs, I'm assuming. It's a problem that fixes itself eventually.

But if this woman writes in that her dog was somehow accidentally poisoned after she gets married and has a kid, I guess people can call Prudence out for bad advice.

[basilosaurus]

I have to admit I have little sympathy for an adult with a dog phobia. You may just not like them, and I'm fine with that, although I think you can put up with a dislike for a dog that already exists for a few years if you love your girlfriend so much. But a fear should be worked on, yes. Allergies can be worked on, too.

I do think she needs to work on the allergy stuff, too. It shouldn't all be on him. Getting rid of a 9 year old dog is a definite no, so really, it's mostly on him, though, if he wants to stay in the relationship.

[dev22]

Jun 18, 2012 19:04:56 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

Jun 18, 2012 18:55:49 GMT -5 ttt said:

But he's not just allergic - he's also both afraid of dogs and dislikes them. Sounds like living with a dog would be miserable for him.

Actually the kids/no kids analogy is probably pretty apt here. There's no real middle ground here.

Except that the dog WILL die eventually, he doesn't need to be responsible for it, and they won't have to get another one.

I feel like not wanting kids isn't always or even usually about "not being a baby person" or hating diapers, but it's those things, plus the drain on your time and resources, plus sometimes the fact that you don't want to reproduce with your DNA (in the case of severe genetic illness). Plus other things.

With dogs - it's basically that you don't like dogs, I'm assuming. It's a problem that fixes itself eventually.

But if this woman writes in that her dog was somehow accidentally poisoned after she gets married and has a kid, I guess people can call Prudence out for bad advice.

Sure the dog will eventually die, but will the woman be happy living the rest of her life never ever able to have another dog?

[cookiemdough]

Jun 18, 2012 18:45:54 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

You get couples where one wants children and one doesn't who get to this point all the time.

I think a more analogous situation would be a woman with a child choosing to date a man who clearly doesn't like or want children. They have gone a little beyond a hypothetical.

[eclaires]

I think the last line really sums it up, b/c people who love dogs see them as family members and people who don't like them, or are scared, or are allergic just do not feel the same and it will always be a point of contention.

My SIL is an animal lover, and specifically a dog lover, but she married a man who has always said he would never, ever have a dog. They've compromised with cats, but it's a weird situation, for sure, and I think my SIL thought she'd be fine w/ no animals. But she's not, so they got the cats. Except he seems to really dislike them.

[msmerymac]

Jun 18, 2012 19:10:52 GMT -5 cookiemdough said:

Jun 18, 2012 18:45:54 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

You get couples where one wants children and one doesn't who get to this point all the time.

I think a more analogous situation would be a woman with a child choosing to date a man who clearly doesn't like or want children. They have gone a little beyond a hypothetical.

Well... then they would have to break up or HE would have to compromise. So it is kind of the same situation. She isn't the one who should be compromising here.

FWIW, my husband always LIKED animals, but never had a pet on his own as an adult. Growing up, the cats slept with his sister, the dogs slept with his parents. He fell in love with my cat, and then we got two more. And our female Persian just loves him to death and will curl up with him, and he can't believe how much he adores the cats.

I don't know if this guy will be BFFs with the cocker spaniel, but he might come around, and even might agree to more dogs in the future (though I wouldn't count on it if I were her).

[cookiemdough]

Jun 18, 2012 19:23:29 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

Jun 18, 2012 19:10:52 GMT -5 cookiemdough said:

I think a more analogous situation would be a woman with a child choosing to date a man who clearly doesn't like or want children. They have gone a little beyond a hypothetical.

Well... then they would have to break up or HE would have to compromise. So it is kind of the same situation. She isn't the one who should be compromising here.

FWIW, my husband always LIKED animals, but never had a pet on his own as an adult. Growing up, the cats slept with his sister, the dogs slept with his parents. He fell in love with my cat, and then we got two more. And our female Persian just loves him to death and will curl up with him, and he can't believe how much he adores the cats.

I don't know if this guy will be BFFs with the cocker spaniel, but he might come around, and even might agree to more dogs in the future (though I wouldn't count on it if I were her).

I really see this as something that is more on her. Not to compromise now of course, but I don't really understand how she compromised in the beginning. That is what I meant by the analogy. If I had a child, there would be no follow up date after I found out the person I liked didn't want children ever. I am thinking someone who already owned a pet for that length of time and loved animals would find it a dealbreaker from the start.

[shadow]

I think it gets this far b/c when you're in a relationship at first, you wouldn't think it make sense /or you would not want to focus on/face a really difficult issue b/c you don't know if you'll even need too. Especially if the dog might die and it would be moot anyway. So in hindsight, it's easy to judge, but otherwise, you can easily convince yourself that it just won't come to this.

[Deleted]

Jun 18, 2012 18:49:19 GMT -5 gpw said:

am I the only one who thinks the dog is a red herring?

Nope. I think the dog is an excuse - he doesn't want to marry her.

[Bumblebee]

I'm on team dog. No matter how the humans handle this situation, it should NOT involve rehoming a 9 year old dog.

They've only been together for 10 months. If she is willing to wait for marriage and kids for another 2 years, then she has plenty of time to find a boyfriend who likes dogs.

This is coming from a woman for whom dislike of dogs would've been a dealbreaker.

[sparrowsong]

Team Dog.

I don't understand people who don't like animals, I really don't. And I really don't think I could spend my whole life with someone who doesn't understand the depth of love I have for my animals and my commitment to them. Even if the dog does pass away soon, she will want another dog someday. Animal lovers lives are not quite complete without an animal. And I think his inablity to understand that is the real deal-breaker.

Also, I was attacked by a German Shepard when I was 16 yrs old. I do honestly have a harder time with that breed. Even now I flinch if they start barking at me. But I think being scared of a 9 yr old cocker spaniel is laughable. This man needs some therapy.