I notice the letter writer admits that the dog is already confined to a small part of the house, and that only this part smells. If there were some reason why she had to go there regularly, we'd know: she would have whined about it explicitly. She also admits her husband is in charge of all the clean-up. So all she'd really need to do, if it's bothering her so very much, is avoid that part of the house. Oh, the horror! the inconvenience!

She also seems to assume, with no critical thought whatsoever, that the moment she and her husband had kids, those kids took precedence over everything else in the entire universe. Need to walk the dog in the morning and after work, as you've probably done for the dog's entire life? Well, you'd better not: you've got kids, and they need their dinner RIGHT THIS MINUTE. And by god, she's not fixing it alone--he'd better get in here and start fulfilling his responsibilities to her (never mind that he has much longer-standing responsibilities to the dog, who needs him at least as much as the kids do, and who will certainly not be cared for by his wife).

She can't stand it that her husband is putting something else before her own precious preferences for a few minutes a day--it's got nothing to do with the fact that it's an animal, and not a person, who needs him.

it's "a small part of the house" where the dog is confined. I live with a cat that pees on things far more often than I'd like, and I agree that the smell is unpleasant, but she can avoid sacrificing her "olfactory comfort" by avoiding that "small part" of the house or, as many people have suggested, telling her husband to get some better cleaning products (everyone's right: "Nature's Miracle" is the most effective). Or she could (gasp) take some responsibility for changing the thing that's bugging her and participate in the cleaning, if it's not up to her standards. In the time it took to write Cary, she probably could've made a trip to the pet store, bought one of these fine anti-pet-pee products, and sprayed it on the offending surfaces.

How can she "survive these next few years"? Getting a grip might be a nice start.

LW has a BABY, so whatever she does is excused and whatever she prefers must be granted, because having a baby is sooooo haaaarrrrrd. Thanks, anonymous, for reminding us all of this critical fact.

must be a dingbat, to have inferred so much from the fact that I don't think having a baby justifies people in neglecting animals they've been responsible for for 15 years.

she DID say "small part" (hence the quotation marks), and she does appear to me to have the attitude that the dog (who is not more important than the children, but who *is* important and does have a claim on the husband's attention) is basically an inconvenience for her rather than a creature with legitimate needs, but my sarcasm about babies wasn't directed at her--it was directed at people here who are sounding like they think pets should be discarded when babies arrive. And I'm pleased to be able to inform you that sarcasm isn't an argument.

Here's what I'm saying: babies are important, but pets are important, too. Husbands have responsibilities to their families, but they also have responsibilities to pets. Husbands love their families, but it would also make perfect sense for them to love pets they have had for more than a decade. Wives ought to have some respect for such love. People who are bothered by smells ought to get better cleaning products and do some cleaning themselves instead of just getting upset when their partners aren't doing the cleaning exactly right. People who are annoyed that their partners spend time on something other than them and the Almighty Baby ought to talk with their partners and stop using "but I have a baaaaaaby to take care of" as an excuse for everything that inconveniences them. People who rank their own inconvenience (e.g. having to avoid a small room so as to escape an annoying smell) as more important than another person's or animal's basic survival needs (like having a place to live and getting minimal exercise) ought to rethink their priorities.

Is that better? You're free to disagree, as I don't doubt you will.

I'm learning so much about myself as woman who doesn't intend to have children! I hadn't previously realized that I was:

*genetically inferior

*doomed to immaturity

*superficial, concerned only with my own selfish pleasures

*a worse lover than women who have given birth

*less athletic and intelligent than women who have given birth

*incapable of the sort of love that would lead me to sacrifice myself for someone else

*tragically missing out on snuggly naps and silly "bander" (gee, I thought I got lots of both with my partner)

Some parents here seem to be reporting on the joys of their own lives and the choices they've made; their stories should be very helpful for people who are undecided about having kids.

Others seem to just want to declare themselves morally, psychologically, and genetically superior to anyone who can't have or chooses not to have kids--inadvertently or not, they're providing direct evidence that parenting does NOT necessarily "make you a better person."

Sundial