Let’s see, the wikipedia article on the word “pet” begins, “A pet is an animal kept for companionship and enjoyment or a household animal, as opposed to wild animals or to livestock, laboratory animals, working animals or sport animals, which are kept for economic or productive reasons.”
The site www.thefreedictionary.com provides the definition
pet 1 (pt)
n.
1. An animal kept for amusement or companionship.
2. An object of the affections.
3. A person especially loved or indulged; a favorite: the teacher’s pet.
adj.
1. Kept as a pet: a pet cat.
2.
a. Particularly cherished or indulged: a pet grandchild.
b. Expressing or showing affection: a pet name.
3. Being a favorite: a pet topic.
v. pet·ted, pet·ting, pets
v.tr.
To stroke or caress gently; pat. See Synonyms at caress.
v.intr. Informal
To make love by fondling and caressing.
[Scottish Gaelic peata, tame animal, pet, from Old Irish.]
I think the “learned” folk who came up with this claptrap have problems with being called “pets” themselves, thinking it demeaning (which applied to a human being, I suppose it might be by virtue of reducing the person to the status of a tame animal — I mean the phrase “teacher’s pet” always has a sneer about it.), so they fancy the word in its proper meaning is demeaning to that which it properly describes. (One wonders, though, in what context they get called “pet”. As I understand it, some folks afflicted by exotic carnal temptations like being demeaned . . . but I digress.)
Actually, what this is really about is the agenda of the animal rights movement to completely take animals out of interaction with humans. They desire to elevate all of the animal kingdom to the same level as people (or visa versa) and eventually you would not be able to keep pets (or eat animals—how can you eat something that has essentially the same level of legal protection as you?). This is serious business. They have already made inroads in laws regarding pet ownership and breeding. It’s coming.
Excellent and true post.
Thanks,
R.