The (Human) Pet Thread

[Lizzie_Borden]

I'm sceptical about how much an online test can tell someone about themselves.

Yeah, they're too black and white for most cases.

Mmmm, maybe I should have done that test as the husband... it was a little too... plain for my liking.

Yes I like getting presents, but I love giving them more. And while it would be nice occasionally to have help with stuff around the house, that's just not *ahem* his job and I'm fine doing it, unless I've asked him to do his "I'm the man" thing and change a lightbulb cos I'm scared to.

 

[BiBunny]

The relationship between a person and a dog is straightforward IF the human has done a competent job training the canine.

Think about this. If dogs were all wired to submit, how could there ever be an alpha in a wild or feral pack?

It is more correct to say that dogs are pack animals, wired for a social structure in which there is a clearly designated leader. In the absence of a figure that is demonstrably in charge, most dogs will try to fill that gap.

So when a human is inconsistent or irresponsible in training, you get a confused, manipulative, or even overtly aggressive dog as a pet. The relationship is anything BUT simple. It's a big unhealthy mess.

It's like this with horses, too, assuming you factor in each one's particular personality quirks. They're just bigger and more prone to flight when they're afraid.

 

[00Syd]

I don't see looking at the specific peculiarities of different animal behaviors, and the way they act as pets, as particularly relevant to the idea of a human pet, in the D/s sense, unless the people involved in the relationship desire for the pet to be as similar to any specific animal as possible. Obviously there will be comparisons between a human pet and an animal pet, but to hold one up against the other and see how closely they match, seems a pointless task.

Maybe my idea of what it means to be a human pet is as different on this board as my idea of what makes someone submissive.

 

[00Syd]

Yeah, they're too black and white for most cases.

Not to mention that the only gender options were male and female.

Of course in my personal opinion, ones gender only causes superficial differences between people. I don't believe that the way people like to be shown affection has anything to do with their gender.

I clicked on the link for the quiz, and the first question was of my gender, so I just closed it.

 

[BiBunny]

I don't see looking at the specific peculiarities of different animal behaviors, and the way they act as pets, as particularly relevant to the idea of a human pet, in the D/s sense, unless the people involved in the relationship desire for the pet to be as similar to any specific animal as possible. Obviously there will be comparisons between a human pet and an animal pet, but to hold one up against the other and see how closely they match, seems a pointless task.

Maybe my idea of what it means to be a human pet is as different on this board as my idea of what makes someone submissive.

I think people are just very invested in the idea that pet = animal. I thought specifying "human" pet in this thread would help keep some of that at bay, but I'm not sure it's possible for people to see things differently at this point.

Like I said, when Mistress first heard Master say he called me his pet, she thought it was creepy. Then, she met me and understood. Maybe that's how it works, people have to see it to believe it.

 

[00Syd]

You're a dog person, aren't you? The more stand-offish of my two cats is on my lap at present. She doesn't have to be. She shares the house with me; she doesn't have to, she's free to leave, and she eats very little of the food I put down because she feeds herself almost entirely by hunting. The relationship between a person and a dog is simple. Dogs are pack animals and will follow the pack leader - the human - whatever, will submit to the pack leader, will bask in the attention of the pack leader. Domestic cats are solitary predators. They are not programmed to identify with one leader and follow him; they choose, or they don't choose.

Relationships with cats are not simple. Relationships with cats are subtle. As with a woman, you have to woo a cat, and, as with a woman, you have to work to maintain the relationship. But, as with a woman, the rewards can be very well worth it. I would like my woman to be somewhat like a cat.

You would get along with my boyfriend He's a cat person too, and he loves and nurtures my cat-like qualities.

 

[00Syd]

I think people are just very invested in the idea that pet = animal. I thought specifying "human" pet in this thread would help keep some of that at bay, but I'm not sure it's possible for people to see things differently at this point.

Like I said, when Mistress first heard Master say he called me his pet, she thought it was creepy. Then, she met me and understood. Maybe that's how it works, people have to see it to believe it.

I'm not surprised that people are stuck on the idea of pet = animal, it makes sense. It's just already tough to try to talk about and explain my views on things, and having to push past the pet = animal idea makes it even tougher.

And you may be right. It might be the kind of dynamic that's difficult for people to grok until they witness it.

 

[graceanne]

I'm not surprised that people are stuck on the idea of pet = animal, it makes sense. It's just already tough to try to talk about and explain my views on things, and having to push past the pet = animal idea makes it even tougher.

And you may be right. It might be the kind of dynamic that's difficult for people to grok until they witness it.

I have to say that when I first heard about pet play and all that I also figured that it meant pretending to be a certain animal.

I've known BB long enough to know that that's not true. Besides, humans are animals. Only some animals make good pets, and that includes human animals.

 

[00Syd]

I have to say that when I first heard about pet play and all that I also figured that it meant pretending to be a certain animal.

I see a difference between being a pet as your relationship role, and pet play, which I see as a whole range of things, but primarily as pretending to be a specific kind of animal for play.

But then at the same time, there are people who identify as a specific animal, and that is their role in their relationship. That's cool! I guess the main difference is if you are that pet all the time, if that is your dynamic, or if it's something that's only done on occasion, for play.

So yeah, being a pet is different, to me, than pet play.

Besides, humans are animals. Only some animals make good pets, and that includes human animals.

That's a really nice way to put it

 

[graceanne]

So yeah, being a pet is different, to me, than pet play.

True enough.

That's a really nice way to put it

Thank you.

 

[JMohegan]

It's like this with horses, too, assuming you factor in each one's particular personality quirks. They're just bigger and more prone to flight when they're afraid.

I've seen feral horses, wandering in herds on the Virginia side of Assateague Island. I think the lead horses were all mares. But it was a while ago, and it's possible I'm misremembering.

Prone to flight makes sense, for herbivores who once upon a time existed on some other animal's menu.

 

[Trinique_Fire]

The most I have to contribute at this point is that I think I'm still Luna's petling or petlette.

Cannot remember which or even the difference between the two.

 

[unpredictablebijou]

Fascinating thread; I'm just catching up and really liking everyone's take on this.

I do use the term "pet" pretty regularly, but like many others, I don't equate it with any sort of animal play. One metaphor I've always used, if there were a need for some sort of animal equivalent, is that of a "pet dragon." I've thought this way about people I love, even outside the D/s relationship, for many years. The way I see it is that it does define a certain sort of ownership and responsibility: the onus is on me to provide care and nourishment and a good environment, but I can't assume that I understand the one I'm caring for, any more than one would assume an understanding of a dragon.

I certainly assume that my Pet is as intelligent as I am (actually more, I'm pretty sure) and that he is a highly complex creature, and I count on the dynamic between the two of us to help me understand how best to maintain his well-being. There is, though, a quality of responsibility there that differs from my relationships with other people, and I think that's where the title of Pet really comes in handy. One assumes more of a caregiver role than in non-D/s relationships.

Forgive me if this is a threadjack, but I'm curious about the folks who define their D/s and M/s relationships within a parent/child dynamic. I'm wondering about the similarities and differences in how people see their roles with one another. Is there a distinct line for most people, or does it move back and forth between a pet dynamic and a child and parent interaction for some?

Thanks for this thread.

 

[Crescent_Kit]

-scampers in, tripping and falling on his face, his fox ears twitching- :c

 

[graceanne]

I asked my mom once what animal I'd be if I were an animal, and she said a horse. I'm prone to flight if I feel threatened, I'm a hard worker, and stubborn.

 

[00Syd]

Forgive me if this is a threadjack, but I'm curious about the folks who define their D/s and M/s relationships within a parent/child dynamic. I'm wondering about the similarities and differences in how people see their roles with one another. Is there a distinct line for most people, or does it move back and forth between a pet dynamic and a child and parent interaction for some?

Thanks for this thread.

I do see my Person/pet relationship as being similar to a Daddy/girl relationship, but with some very different inflections. I don't know if I can really articulate the differences right now, but I know that they are there.

 

[BiBunny]

I've seen feral horses, wandering in herds on the Virginia side of Assateague Island. I think the lead horses were all mares. But it was a while ago, and it's possible I'm misremembering.

Prone to flight makes sense, for herbivores who once upon a time existed on some other animal's menu.

Yep, in a wild herd, the alpha mare basically runs the show. The stallion is there for procreation and to keep intruders out, more or less.

 

[BiBunny]

I do see my Person/pet relationship as being similar to a Daddy/girl relationship, but with some very different inflections. I don't know if I can really articulate the differences right now, but I know that they are there.

*Nods*

We're not Daddy/girl or whatever because we're not into the incest play part of it. (Yes, I know some people who are into Daddy/girl are not into incest, etc., etc., but to us, that's what the "Daddy" thing implies.) I identify as both pet and little girl, actually, but they're always my Owner people. The name for their roles doesn't change, LOL.

So, yes, there is a lot of overlap with some distinct differences. I find that I'm more likely to be pet-like when I'm happy and more likely to be little girl-like when I'm not.

 

[intothewoods]

I've seen feral horses, wandering in herds on the Virginia side of Assateague Island. I think the lead horses were all mares. But it was a while ago, and it's possible I'm misremembering.

Prone to flight makes sense, for herbivores who once upon a time existed on some other animal's menu.

Ohhhh we keep meaning to go there!

oops, hijack.

 

[graceanne]

Ohhhh we keep meaning to go there!

oops, hijack.

Shame! Shame on you! Hijacking . . .

Oh look! Flowers!

*wanders off*

 

[CurlyKat]

I agree that there are some similarities between identifying as a pet and taking part in a Daddy/little girl relationship. Most of it comes down to the need to be taken care of and nurtured, I think. Both a real child and an animal pet need specific care to survive, and these characteristics come into play when it comes to adult play, too.

So, yes, there is a lot of overlap with some distinct differences. I find that I'm more likely to be pet-like when I'm happy and more likely to be little girl-like when I'm not.

Interesting differentiation. Do you know why you would lean towards one during one mood, the other in another mood?

 

[BiBunny]

I agree that there are some similarities between identifying as a pet and taking part in a Daddy/little girl relationship. Most of it comes down to the need to be taken care of and nurtured, I think. Both a real child and an animal pet need specific care to survive, and these characteristics come into play when it comes to adult play, too.



Interesting differentiation. Do you know why you would lean towards one during one mood, the other in another mood?

No idea. I think maybe it's because, really, when you get down to it, pets are a lot more self-sufficient than little kids. So when I'm in a good mood, not needy or sad or insecure, then I don't have to lean on them as much. I'm not sure.

 

[JMohegan]

Ohhhh we keep meaning to go there!

oops, hijack.

I recommend the Virginia side of the island very highly. It really is wonderful to see horses wandering around in wild herds.

The Maryland side is a different story. Human/horse interaction is allowed, and the animals have become beggars. It's disgusting, really.

There's a fence clear across the island, at the state line, to keep the MD and VA horses separate.

 

[CurlyKat]

No idea. I think maybe it's because, really, when you get down to it, pets are a lot more self-sufficient than little kids. So when I'm in a good mood, not needy or sad or insecure, then I don't have to lean on them as much. I'm not sure.

Makes sense. I haven't really done any little girl play, but definitely express my neediness through more pet-like characteristics. The times when I need more of something, whether it be attention or comforting or something like that, I like being able to do the almost animal thing of literally crawling into his lap. My neediest times are when I really, really need to curl up at his feet, too, just for closeness until I can calm down enough to deal with whatever's wrong or for the comfort of knowing he's still there until the mood passes.

 

[the captians wench]

I think people are just very invested in the idea that pet = animal. I thought specifying "human" pet in this thread would help keep some of that at bay, but I'm not sure it's possible for people to see things differently at this point.

Like I said, when Mistress first heard Master say he called me his pet, she thought it was creepy. Then, she met me and understood. Maybe that's how it works, people have to see it to believe it.

Jounar did the same thing actually. He still doesn't call me "pet" often. When he heard that a friend/former playmate called me "pet" and that was our dynamic, he called me a furry. He still teases me when I get the urge to put my fox tail butt plug in. But other than that very physical action, I think he understands what being a pet means to me and how it works into my personality.

I think he still thinks of me more as a slave, but his deffinition of slave is slightly different than mine. The differences are probably just as slight as my deffinition of "pet" and his.