mouthporn.net
#just rambling – @albino-whumpee on Tumblr
Avatar

To be ruined to satisfy another’s desire

@albino-whumpee / albino-whumpee.tumblr.com

Icon by @patomarzm || Whump || They/them // 23 // Moya // spicy content occasionally // vents a lot, sorry
Avatar
reblogged

BBU and Pet Welfare

So to preface this, I love the BBU. It's a fantastic shared sandbox with tons of amazing ideas and some really fantastic stories. It's a look into what human greed and corruption can produce when left unchecked, when you start seeing people as commodities rather than as people.

That said. I do have one issue. And I didn't even come up with this myself; it was brought to my attention by my lovely SO. I was trying to explain what the BBU was to them, and all the abuses that the pets experience.

SO, who is a vet student: yeah, except pets don't work that way.

Me: ???

SO: there are animal rights and animal welfare groups going nuts about our animal pets. There would absolutely be pets' rights/welfare groups in that setting.

Which. Is absolutely sound logic, and also something that I had never considered before. Because we don't just let people do whatever they want with their pets. There are groups like the ASPCA and RSPCA that go in and get involved if pets are being abused or neglected. They will seize animals that aren't being properly treated.

So why wouldn't there be anything like that for Pets?

Looking at it from a Doylist perspective, it feels like the answer is "because that doesn't make for as good of whump". But what's the Watsonian answer? What's the in-universe reason why there aren't protections for Pets? I find it hard to believe that WRU would manage to squash all of the dissent; in fact, it could be good for their image to help Pet welfare groups (or at least look like they're helping them). It could make people believe that they really do care about the pets that they train.

Obviously, having Pet welfare groups wouldn't solve everything. It would get really murky with Romantics, because consent from a brainwashed pet is... dubious at best. But I have trouble seeing any reason why Pet welfare groups wouldn't step in for things like physical abuse, or 'dog' fighting rings.

Is there a reason already developed about this that I just have missed? Or is this an avenue that the BBU could expand in?

Tagging some BBU writers that I know have great worldbuilding: @maracujatangerine, @ashintheairlikesnow, @haro-whumps, @the-host-and-colton, @cubeswhump

I think this is a really interesting question!

I think there are several parts to this (at least in the way I imagine it in my worldbuilding).

First, human Pets are normally only for the wealthy. Most people don’t personally know a pet and have rarely seen one in real life. There aren’t huge numbers of pets out there and that is because the training and acquisition process is so expensive and because only some of the candidates qualify (they want beautiful people, preferably ones without a lot of vocal family members and friends who might raise a fuss). I imagine that most of the WRU pets are volunteers, even if a few might be tricked or kidnapped. Of course, they don’t know what they actually are volunteering for.

Second, WRU has a lot of funding and a lot of influence on a global scale. The people buying their pets are rich and powerful and want to keep their fun to themselves. They lobby politicians, do lots of marketing and portray themselves as the good guys who would never mistreat their clients. Perhaps sometimes, they even let a carefully curated story of pet abuse escape, only to then take the poor, poor pet to be ‘rehabilitated’ at one of their facilities and then show it off to the media when they place it in its ‘forever home’. They deny the allegations of abuse.

Third. Most people have never met pets, but they have seen pets on TV. They are a staple in lots of tv series and movies (more often than not played by actors who are not pets themselves). Because WRU has lots of influence and funding the pets are always portrayed in a positive light, like happy and loyal friends and companions, servants and confidantes. (I recently have gotten into watching K-dramas and ‘the loyal secretary’ seems to be a staple, though that probably does not reflect real life in South Korea in any meaningful way. I think of human pets on TV like that.)

Fourth. The pet industry are seen as a solution to a real social problem. Automatisation, globalisation and other global changes have made manual jobs kinda scarce and created fairly large unemployment numbers. In combination with lacking social safety nets worldwide lots of people have it hard. To be accepted into the pet program is seen as a fairly good deal.

Fifth. Just like people unfortunately look at immigrants or people going on welfare with prejudice, people also have those prejudices against people who choose to become pets. That they are weak and can’t handle living in the world. Lydia decided to buy Coriander after having seen a WRU-sponsored documentary about how people who become pets are naturally ill-suited to manage life by themselves and how they need someone to take care of them. If someone complains about being mistreated, people can just say that that was a choice they made themselves and now they have to live with the consequences.

Lastly, I think there are some groups that try to raise the issue, but it isn’t something that the general public is very aware about.

Thanks for a great question!

You know, there was a case in Mexico about a lady who kept over 50 dogs in the same place and for some unfortunate reasons they began cannibalizing. It was videotaped and went viral, ending up in her going to jail for a while. Somehow, I know this lady personally. I spare you the details for the sake of the real reason of me bringing this up being animal rights activists taking up the case and viralizing even more similar cases.

Regardless of how animals can be known to be treated harshly, there will be outraging cases that will end up (in the most hopeful cases) making laws stricter and shifting people’s view on how to treat their pets.

Just as how shelters won’t let people adopt black cats in October and novemeber and sometimes, the most dedicated ones, will ask for a background checkup and constant updates, BBU universe could act the same. In fact in my own verse it’s mentioned how WRU keeps track of their sold pets, as they’re shady and is normal practice to kidnap people to fit the client’s order. However, in my verse, what’s seen as completely inhuman and cruel to make to a pet, is in a while different level. Some mutilation is seen as normal and even acceptable to ask from WRU, so welfare would only come to take the pet away if they were in a pretty horrible state where they’re stripped of their controlled autonomy entirely. For example, limb mutilation and permanent mental deterioration.

Sounds extreme, but following the “people won’t move unless the standard is lowered” statement, the qualifications to take a pet away lower after showing what “normal” treatment of pets with bad and cruel owners is like. So this welfare groups soar with new rules and promises of better quality of life by demanding better conditions and prerequisites to acquire pets.

However, what happens to the pets that have already gone past the point of no return? Or the ones hat are severely traumatized after their mistreatment? They’re silenced by WRU. Abandoned in pet only hospitals that compared to the shadiest hospital, the latter looks like a luxurious hotel. Besides that, there’s always gonna be cases with second hand shops, with laws from other countries and a long big etc, that means some pets will still be treated horribly and being “saved” from welfare groups that seem independent but are just a facade for WRU and others to look “good” with taking this poor pets in and giving them better training, better treatment, better owners what would make them look as the marvelous best enterprise to buy from.

Oh, and if we’re going into that, welfare groups would have such a hard time dealing with breeders. Because if pets are so popularized, there’s gotta be a second, cheaper option. Maybe a third. But that option must guarantee good results with no chance of failing by choosing only the very best of their products. Give people the chance to brag about impecable pedigree and you have a business.

Regardless of their origins, if welfare is searching for better quality of life for pets in a system that doesn’t truly care because of their perceptions about pets, then things like hospitals and procedures will be widely affected, thus, how they move and what they use to justify their actions against the industry will have to be reciprocal.

Also fun question to make to this welfare groups, but are they providing (or trying to) this better conditions to pets because they are pets and should at least be guaranteed a safe place or because regardless of their legal status they’re still people and should be treated with the minimum of respect as you would a fellow person? That subtle difference makes a world of difference in the whump.

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.
mouthporn.net