Spitting In Dog's Mouth

[Bulldust]

I think when they said "typical male" they meant as in, typical male believing that old wives tale... or as in typical male thinking if someone plays with another males bit's theyll luv ya for life you know the sort of typical men that are ruled by their little head instead of the big one

Edited April 11, 2008 by Bulldust

[Guest]

[

Pumpitdog, none of those other things were aimed at you in anyway

You just started the ball rolling for people to share some silly old wives tails they've heard about dogs and dog training.

You asked if other people had heard of the spitting myth or if they'd tried it, people only replied to say no and gave their reasons - there is absolutely no reason why it would work.

I am sure you are a good pack leader, and that's why your dogs respect you and obey you, not because you spat in its mouth

No, It wasn't taken too personally, however I was very surprised at some of the old wives tales... Some of them are appalling(but then some people thought mine was appalling )

but thanks to sas. I never thought to google it, that was rather interesting. and like i said if someone is willing to give it a go (like oceanaussie) I would be interested to see the results.

[Dogsfevr]

If it was as simple as spitting in there mouths there would be no pack issues world wide.

As for fondling a dog to get respect Any bloke that believes this to works has serious issues.

Collecting semen,natings is very different to simply wanking the dog for no good reason at all except to claim "respect" .

If people simply treated there dogs like dogs all would be fine.

People insist on treating them like little humans or accepting bad behaviour as "cute"

Dogs are people pleasers & one that respects you as the leader willl be the most loyal pet ever.

Most dogs pitfalls are simply due to owners lack of commonsense when dealing with animals & trying to create something they arent for the human pleasure

[stormie]

Not heard of that one. But I knew a guy who honestly believed that if you 'fondled' with an entire male until he ejaculated, he would be loyal for life. Typical male....

No, the guy you know is definitely not a typical male I doubt any of the males I know would be at all interested in fondling their animals genitals.

There's a name for people who sexually interfere with animals. I don't see anything funny in the behaviour either.

So people who collect semen are 'sexually interfering'? I'm not saying i'm agreeing with it, but just because some guy believed something he was told, doesn't make him some kind of psycho.

And my 'typical male' comment was more based around the concept of a young guy thinking sex makes something loyal, NOT for doing that particular thing. Was just a joke. Sorry if it offended

No need to aplogise, you didn't offend. I hope that guy you speak of doesn't have a dog though.

Just because he believed a story someone told him, doesn't mean he's going to do it, and doesn't deserve to own a dog.

Breeders who collect semen from their stud dogs are doing it for a totally different reason and have good reason to do so. Blood lines for future generations in their breeding program.

I agree, however it is still the same act of using a human hand.

It's hardly a similar situation to someone who would do that to keep his dog loyal. My dogs are loyal and I've never felt the need to play around with their bits.

It's not typical male behaviour, not from the males I know. I asked a male friend yesterday who works with dogs what he thought of it. I won't tell you what he said

If you re read my post you'll see I was referring to the fact that he was thinking with his 'lower brain', NOT that it was typical male behaviour to do this to a dog.

I don't think it's funny either but I guess we all have our own sense of humour.

It was a joke? Sorry, I thought you were serious that the guy really did think it was the way to keep a dog loyal.

Again, re read my post - the 'it was a joke' was referring to the 'typical male' comment.

I didn't mention the word psycho I said there was a name for people who sexually interefere with animals because there is.

Yes, I am aware there is a word for this. There's also a word for a guy who believed some old wives tale he was told. It's called gullible. No where in my post did I mention that anyone did, or was planning on 'sexually interfering' with a dog. I was simply telling of a person who was told something by someone, and believed them.

Edited April 12, 2008 by stormie

[Erny]

If it was as simple as spitting in there mouths there would be no pack issues world wide.

And us behaviourists wouldn't be as required as they are now.

Although I'm sure we could busy ourselves with researching as to whether the manner or angle with how you spit has an impact on how strong the bond and 'respect' you get from your dog. Or whether there was a difference if you'd eaten certain foods just before you spat. And then we could be busy going around doing demonstrations and teaching people how to spit properly.

The mind boggles.

[corrie]

There could be some basis in fact why this might work.

Foxes, dogs and other canines will often gorge large amounts of food then take it back and digorge it for pups to eat. So the mouth to mouth connection would represent this bond.

Food for thought?

That makes sense to me. Plus, people spit food in to their dogs mouths to get better focus and dogs eat gross things if given a chance so maybe human spit is also an acceptable food reward.

[Bow Wowy]

Spit in it's mouth? ....oops, I thought it was spit in it's eye......Sorry Fluffy

Just kidding.

[Erny]

There could be some basis in fact why this might work. Foxes, dogs and other canines will often gorge large amounts of food then take it back and digorge it for pups to eat. So the mouth to mouth connection would represent this bond. Food for thought?

However ......

Not all or many domesticated dogs will regurgitate - yet generally there appears no issue with "bonding".

Also, my readings have it that a pack of wolves in the wild will regurgitate for their pups and that this role does not necessarily solely belong to the pups' mother.

Therefore, I doubt that 'saliva exchange' would bear a big/any influence on specific bonding.

[Dogsfevr]

"

Although I'm sure we could busy ourselves with researching as to whether the manner or angle with how you spit has an impact on how strong the bond and 'respect' you get from your dog. Or whether there was a difference if you'd eaten certain foods just before you spat. And then we could be busy going around doing demonstrations and teaching people how to spit properly."

I think that needs serious research & i reckon you would be the great choice for testing direction,food,time of day.

I could just imagine googling & finding a report by yourself on this important aspect of dog training

What is scary you could probaly charge some bizarre price & make a fortune :rolleyes:

[Muttaburra]

There could be some basis in fact why this might work. Foxes, dogs and other canines will often gorge large amounts of food then take it back and digorge it for pups to eat. So the mouth to mouth connection would represent this bond. Food for thought?

However ......

Not all or many domesticated dogs will regurgitate - yet generally there appears no issue with "bonding".

Also, my readings have it that a pack of wolves in the wild will regurgitate for their pups and that this role does not necessarily solely belong to the pups' mother.

Therefore, I doubt that 'saliva exchange' would bear a big/any influence on specific bonding.

Well, while I'm not about to rush off and start spitting in my dogs mouth, I do find these sorts of things interesting.

For decades Mothers knew that putting honey on the baby's dummy would sooth a crying infant. Then there was the "enlightened" arguments against it, how it might be bad for the developing teeth, how it might influence the baby's palate towards too much sweet things.

Interestingly recent research showed how in fact this does work to sooth a griping infant. It is to do with the nervous/sensory system, when there is pain the baby feels it intensely, but if you give something sweet then the sensory input of the sweetness factor "distracts" the nervous system away from the pain sensation and gives some relief.

So I like to keep an open mind on these things.

My post mentioned "other canines" meaning not just the mother, and whilst modern canines might not disgorge there are many breeds that will gorge, and the gorging would be instinctive. I once knew a dog that would eat everything put in front of it, and selectively disgorge the chicken necks, wait for the other food to go down then eat the chicken necks, I guess this varies with the breed.

It is also believed that human kissing, part of the pair bonding/arousal, is a remnant of primate behaviour of feeding the infant primate with masticated food from the mothers mouth.

food for thought? :rolleyes:

[Erny]

Hi IDWT .....

I too am open minded on things, although I like to express my own doubts so that they can be explored.

The things you describe in your above post - especially the kissing example - relate to physical 'sensations' and I could expect some sort of 'relationship' to develop as a result of the pleasantness (associated reward) that comes with that. I don't argue that some domesticated animals still regurgitate (in fact I think I indicated that this was the case) - but it was the point that many don't, yet there is no issue of "bonding" in the absence of regurgitation. For those that do, delivery of the reward of food (especially when it is coupled with hunger satiation) would lend itself to a perhaps faster and perhaps stronger relationship (in terms of 'pack') and I think this has a bearing regardless of whether it comes from the mouth or the hand when attributed to humans being the provider of food. That many of us enjoy immensely strong bonds with our animals without having spat, regurgitated or otherwise delivered food from our mouths to those of our dogs is indicative (IMO) that "spitting" to the animal's mouth is not only non-essential but perhaps not even a strong or existent component of the dog's bonding process.

In the OP's case, I am suspicious of the fact that each person 'spat' into the dog they had claimed as "their own". I suspect that this mere (even if sub-conscious) perception of ownership may have had an influence over the respective pups' relationship to each of the OP and the OP's OH. Unless this could be conducted in a completely sterile environment under scientific conditions without emotion, there is no way that it can be accurately hypothesised that the pups responded to the recognition of the 'spit' delivered by their allocated owner.

But if we were to further discuss the hypothesis as presented and queried by the OP in the original post, it would mean that pups who were delivered food by way of regurgitation from their mother (or other surrogate) would not be loyal to their owner/s and I strongly believe this cannot be proven to be the case.

Edited April 14, 2008 by Erny

[Guest]

In the OP's case, I am suspicious of the fact that each person 'spat' into the dog they had claimed as "their own". I suspect that this mere (even if sub-conscious) perception of ownership may have had an influence over the respective pups' relationship to each of the OP and the OP's OH. Unless this could be conducted in a completely sterile environment under scientific conditions without emotion, there is no way that it can be accurately hypothesised that the pups responded to the recognition of the 'spit' delivered by their allocated owner.

I found this rather interesting, when i spat in Pumpit's mouth I guess i had decided she was mine and Scrubby was OH's already, so this could be very true but had never thought about that fact until you raised it. And it was definetely not a sterile unemotional environment... There was lots of loving, laughter and howling going on which is why we all have dogs .. for the joy they bring to our lives :D

[Erny]

I found this rather interesting, when i spat in Pumpit's mouth I guess i had decided she was mine and Scrubby was OH's already, so this could be very true but had never thought about that fact until you raised it. And it was definetely not a sterile unemotional environment...

We humans do a lot of things interactionally speaking on a (often unintentional) sub-conscious level which makes it difficult if not impossible for us to work out why our dogs behave as they do, unless someone with objectivity and understanding can point it out to us.

There was lots of loving, laughter and howling going on which is why we all have dogs .. for the joy they bring to our lives

:D ............. and so that we can spit in their mouths. Enjoy every day with them, Pumpitdog.

[Ali Baba]

It's disturbing to think that there are individuals out there that truly believe that masturbating a dog will make it more devoted to you, how do these ideas get started? just plain sickening.

[DeerhoundLover]

It doesn't have to be as gross as spitting. The belief in my family was that you occasionally give the dog some food from your mouth - ie when you have partially chewed a piece of meat or something you take it out and hand it to the dog.

We did this in my family but I couldn't say whether it made any difference or not.