Any idea why Bino's owner put a shock collar on him?

[Keeperixx]

I'm admittingly partially reopening a discussion I started in a previous topic, but I think this deserves to be talked about a little.

Why did Bino's owner put him in a shock collar? As shown in this strip?

https://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/2009/03/09/bzzt/

Later strips had Bino vaguely bring up a "problem" that prompted his owner to put that collar on him. But I've seen nothing in the previous strips that imply Bino has a history of violence and neither the "problem" nor the shock collar are brought up again in later strips.

I'm glad Grape destroyed the collar and it seems like Bino doesn't have to worry about it. But it still disturbs and baffles me that his owner would do something like that and it goes unaddressed.

I know Bino can be a jerk sometimes, but there's no way he deserved something like this.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on that situation?

[D-Rock]

Aren’t shock collars typically to condition a dog to stop barking? Could be he was being hostile to passerby, and his dislike of mailmen is canon.

[Keeperixx]

Aren’t shock collars typically to condition a dog to stop barking? Could be he was being hostile to passerby, and his dislike of mailmen is canon.

I might've have overlooked his dislike of mailman. But even then, again, I've seen nothing that implies Bino has any history of violence toward humans.

Did Bino address or explain himself on his dislike of mailman?

And I think you're not accounting for the fact Bino is sentient, and is in a setting where most "pets" are treated like human children by their owners.

With that in mind, why didn't Bino's owner resort to more, for lack of a better term, humane options of discipline?

Like grounding Bino?

Threatening to take away his TV or internet privileges?

Making him do additional chores?

I know if I was living in a setting like the Housepets universe and I was Bino's owner, a shock collar would never be an option for me, and I'd be begging his forgiveness if I even remotely considered it.

[Harry Johnathan]

It's implied Bino's owner isn't exactly the kindest owner. I believe that, even given this comic's universe, a shock-collar is too messed up. So maybe his owner made it himself. That would probably get him arrested, as Sasha's owner just neglects her but gets his ownership revoked, so maybe Grape's destruction of the collar prevented anyone from finding out.

[Keeperixx]

It's implied Bino's owner isn't exactly the kindest owner. I believe that, even given this comic's universe, a shock-collar is too messed up. So maybe his owner made it himself. That would probably get him arrested, as Sasha's owner just neglects her but gets his ownership revoked, so maybe Grape's destruction of the collar prevented anyone from finding out.

That at least makes more sense.

We can hope either Bino's owner also eventually thought the shock collar was going too far and moved on from whatever drove him to do it in the first place.

Though if he truly still is abusive like Sasha's owner, then he might give himself away through other means.

[D-Rock]

He’s very caring of Max the one time we actually see them talk for more than a sentence.

As for the mailman issue, he loved the mailman piñata that Peanut gave him, and later called him a traitor for being cordial with an actual mailman.

[Obbl]

I know if I was living in a setting like the Housepets universe and I was Bino's owner, a shock collar would never be an option for me, and I'd be begging his forgiveness if I even remotely considered it.

I don't know if you intended it, but this implies that putting a shock collar on a dog in this universe would be an option for you, and may I say that I would consider that equally unethical

Jeff also sometimes locks Max out of the house at night (presumably if it's late, he just locks up and figures Max'll fend for himself). So, yeah, not winning owner of the year any time soon -_-

Not to harp, but we have noted that HP! universe is mostly an analog for our universe with the sole exception that certain animals are sapient. Shock collars, locking pets out at night, etc. are just par for the course in the HP! world, and people have opinions on these actions much as people in our universe do. There's probably more discussion about the ethics in the HP! universe because animals can actually voice their discomfort, but the societal dialogue still seems to be more or less on the same page as in the real world.

[Keeperixx]

He’s very caring of Max the one time we actually see them talk for more than a sentence.

Kindness toward one pet does not excuse an act of abuse toward another, if anything, that implies bias toward one pet and/or against the other.

As for the mailman issue, he loved the mailman piñata that Peanut gave him, and later called him a traitor for being cordial with an actual mailman.

If that's all we have to go on in-canon, then Bino clearly has an irrational hatred that's been going unaddressed. Bino's owner should be looking into having Bino see a psychologist over it, not putting a shock collar on him.

[Obbl]

Yes? I'm not sure where you're going with this
The reason Jeff put a shock collar on Bino is the same reason people in our universe put shock collars on their pets. It's not a justification. It's just the reason.

[Leotamer]

In the least helpfully titled arc, "Oops, I arced.", it is stated that Bino has "zoning issue."

And I don't think it is any secret that he had a shock collar. It has an obvious lightning bolt on it, and neither Bino, Peanut or Grape find the concept unusual.

It might also be early installment weirdness, "Bino gets hurt" was the punchline of several arcs. He gets hospitalized at least twice, though one was entirely his fault.

[Harry Johnathan]

I honestly believe their owner is abusive, based on evidence we've seen. He locks Max out of the house for what I assume to be minor grievances (Max is the last person I assume could pull something deserving of such a severe punishment), he shocks Bino with a shock-collar I assume would be illegal in a universe like this (imagine selling plastic crucifixes to hang your children on for misbehaving for a real world analogue) and yeah. He's pretty bad.

[Obbl]

a shock-collar I assume would be illegal in a universe like this

I am very certain they're perfectly legal even in HP! universe
Unethical? Yes. Immoral? Yep. Illegal? No.

[Harry Johnathan]

Like I noted, my theory that Bino's owner created the collar himself.

[Obbl]

I did see that, but there's no reason to make Jeff out to be uniquely bad in this regard. Just as the shock collar is an unethical but perfectly legal device in our world, so it is in the HP! world. The fact that our society tolerates pets being subjected to such treatment is an indictment on our society much in the same way that it is an indictment on the society of HP!. People and societies have many problems and behave very badly at times. It's important to recognize the bad, and I feel that making Jeff out to be a uniquely bad person who is alone in using a shock collar ignores the bad in the rest of the HP! society

[Harry Johnathan]

Good point. Although I really am not keen on crapsack world tropes unless it matches the tone of the story (and Housepets! is not that kind of story) I understand that Housepets! is bascially a giant metaphor for the civil-rights movement, so yeah.

[D-Rock]

Is it really a crap sack world if the rest of the world emulates ours? Doesn’t that trope only work if the world is worse than ours?

[Keeperixx]

I know if I was living in a setting like the Housepets universe and I was Bino's owner, a shock collar would never be an option for me, and I'd be begging his forgiveness if I even remotely considered it.

I don't know if you intended it, but this implies that putting a shock collar on a dog in this universe would be an option for you, and may I say that I would consider that equally unethical

Please spare me that pedantic, shock collars wouldn't be an option for me in any universe.

Not to harp, but we have noted that HP! universe is mostly an analog for our universe with the sole exception that certain animals are sapient. Shock collars, locking pets out at night, etc. are just par for the course in the HP! world, and people have opinions on these actions much as people in our universe do. There's probably more discussion about the ethics in the HP! universe because animals can actually voice their discomfort, but the societal dialogue still seems to be more or less on the same page as in the real world.

Then you and I clearly are both clearly seeing this comic from very different angles.

"Analog of our universe"? I have to ask again where in our universe have you seen demigods, magic, humans polymorphing into animals, or time travel?

Maybe the comic started with the intent of being more grounded in reality, but I think it's safe to say Rick has thrown any pretense of the HP Verse being comparable to our universe out the window years ago.

And part of the reason I brought up this discussion was to make sense of why humans in the HP Verse treat the Anthros like they're no different from their real life counterparts despite the Anthros obviously being sentient.

And I finally got up-to-date on this comic, and everything I've seen points to the idea that I'm supposed view the Anthros' sentience as strictly comparable to humans and should be held in the same respect.

So where does that leave me to think of the HP Verse humans who are still unwilling to view the Anthros in the same respect that I hold for them? Aside from just viewing those particular humans as absurdly oblivious at best or anthro-phobic bigots at worse?

[D-Rock]

Most I can say is take that up with Rick.

[Obbl]

Please spare me that pedantic, shock collars wouldn't be an option for me in any universe.

I'm not being pedantic. It was important to me that it be noted in this discussion that I consider shock collars unethical in any universe. Since your phrasing left me unsure of your position, I decided to clarify. I even started with a "I don't know if you intended..." to give you the benefit of the doubt. I'm just trying to understand you, and that remains very difficult for me with you in particular ^^

"Analog of our universe"? I have to ask again where in our universe have you seen demigods, magic, humans polymorphing into animals, or time travel?

Now who's being pedantic?
If I wasn't clear, mea culpa, but I intended that the "analog" part refer solely to society's views on animals and their treatment. Limiting the comparison to this alone will indeed show a strong parallel.

And part of the reason I brought up this discussion was to make sense of why humans in the HP Verse treat the Anthros like they're no different from their real life counterparts despite the Anthros obviously being sentient.

And I finally got up-to-date on this comic, and everything I've seen points to the idea that I'm supposed view the Anthros' sentience as strictly comparable to humans and should be held in the same respect.

So where does that leave me to think of the HP Verse humans who are still unwilling to view the Anthros in the same respect that I hold for them? Aside from just viewing those particular humans as absurdly oblivious at best or anthro-phobic bigots at worse?

Yes. You are supposed to note that humans do not regard animals as equally sapient human beings. This is also not meant to be a good thing.
Imagine as an analogy, a story set in the deep south of the US in the early 1800's. We would immediately recognize that black people are treated extremely poorly for no good or justifiable reason, and we might also note that the white community still carries on regardless living relatively normal lives aside from this one glaring issue.
To me Housepets! is interesting in part because it just presents this world with all its problems and says, "Yep, that's just life in this world." It opens up all sorts of horribly dark issues to consider lurking beneath (and sometimes poking out above) the surface. And yet, this is just normal life to all the characters involved. How do you make sense of that? For me, I acknowledge the bad and determine that for a person to have a blind spot where they allow evil to persist (no matter how glaring that blind spot is to me) does not necessarily define them as an evil person. It also forces me to examine myself and find my own blind spots and the ways I allow evil to persist.

The society depicted in this comic is extremely problematic on the issue of animal rights, and in that way it's an interesting view into the problems of our own society, but even ignoring that, it's an interesting case study. However, the focus of this comic always comes back to "animals and their antics (with a heaping helping of supernatural shenanigans)", so most of that will likely remain mostly in the background, just defining the world as it is with no comment

[ToastBucket]

Personally I always just assumed these were related. I guess the reasoning was a lot more vague than I recalled, just being a generic "problem"

[Keeperixx]

Please spare me that pedantic, shock collars wouldn't be an option for me in any universe.

I'm not being pedantic. It was important to me that it be noted in this discussion that I consider shock collars unethical in any universe. Since your phrasing left me unsure of your position, I decided to clarify. I even started with a "I don't know if you intended..." to give you the benefit of the doubt. I'm just trying to understand you, and that remains very difficult for me with you in particular ^^

"Analog of our universe"? I have to ask again where in our universe have you seen demigods, magic, humans polymorphing into animals, or time travel?

Now who's being pedantic?
If I wasn't clear, mea culpa, but I intended that the "analog" part refer solely to society's views on animals and their treatment. Limiting the comparison to this alone will indeed show a strong parallel.

And part of the reason I brought up this discussion was to make sense of why humans in the HP Verse treat the Anthros like they're no different from their real life counterparts despite the Anthros obviously being sentient.

And I finally got up-to-date on this comic, and everything I've seen points to the idea that I'm supposed view the Anthros' sentience as strictly comparable to humans and should be held in the same respect.

So where does that leave me to think of the HP Verse humans who are still unwilling to view the Anthros in the same respect that I hold for them? Aside from just viewing those particular humans as absurdly oblivious at best or anthro-phobic bigots at worse?

Yes. You are supposed to note that humans do not regard animals as equally sapient human beings. This is also not meant to be a good thing.
Imagine as an analogy, a story set in the deep south of the US in the early 1800's. We would immediately recognize that black people are treated extremely poorly for no good or justifiable reason, and we might also note that the white community still carries on regardless living relatively normal lives aside from this one glaring issue.
To me Housepets! is interesting in part because it just presents this world with all its problems and says, "Yep, that's just life in this world." It opens up all sorts of horribly dark issues to consider lurking beneath (and sometimes poking out above) the surface. And yet, this is just normal life to all the characters involved. How do you make sense of that? For me, I acknowledge the bad and determine that for a person to have a blind spot where they allow evil to persist (no matter how glaring that blind spot is to me) does not necessarily define them as an evil person. It also forces me to examine myself and find my own blind spots and the ways I allow evil to persist.

The society depicted in this comic is extremely problematic on the issue of animal rights, and in that way it's an interesting view into the problems of our own society, but even ignoring that, it's an interesting case study. However, the focus of this comic always comes back to "animals and their antics (with a heaping helping of supernatural shenanigans)", so most of that will likely remain mostly in the background, just defining the world as it is with no comment

Ok, I get most of what you're saying, but here's a small detail I'm still tilting my head at.

If you agree with me that the HP! Anthros are strictly sentient, why is it in previous posts you kept trying to drawing comparisons between them and animals in real life like you were expecting me to view them as being like their real-life counterparts?

The comic itself has shown very little, if anything, to properly justify holding them in that kind of regard. That's why the human's treatment of them in the comic reminds nonsensical to me.

That's a big reason why I find it difficult to justify viewing the HP 'Verse as some "analog for our universe", there's too many outlandish or outright supernatural elements that draw it further and further away from our universe.

That's like asking me to hold the DC Universe as being similar to our universe, at best I can draw some commentary from a particular story, but the universe itself as a whole has too much setting it apart to hold it in similar regard to our universe.

I can follow viewing Zootopia or Beastars as "analogs of our universe" because those works had settings that are mostly grounded and realistic, at least moreso than Housepets. At the very least Zootopia and Beastars were written in ways that make it easier for me rationalize what's going on even if something isn't explained.

Your viewing the comic as some analog, while I'm trying to make sense of it as it's own universe standing it's own legs, as it's own established mythology.

[Amazee Dayzee]

Despite the fact that pets are sentient and more in line with being anthro characters that have some realistic traits, they are still viewed as pets and thus anything that can be used on a pet is legal even if we don’t understand it. Also treating pets like pets is something that can be expected. The reason why we have a hard time with that is because the Sandwiches have always treated their pets like children. In reality, there are different degrees to how pets could be treated ranging from treating them like they are children to being abusive and neglectful of them. I actually also came down pretty hard on Jeff for using a shock collar initially but now I realize that pets easily can be treated just like pets and their owners do the bare minimum with them.

To be fair, I still am kind of hard on Jeff. I might have been a bit more harder on him initially since one of the first fan-fictions I read here was by Karl in which Jeff had no problem giving Bino away. Even without that, Jeff seems pretty apathetic to Bino and Max and it can rub people the wrong way. I can understand him locking Max out since some cats are actually supposed to go outdoors at night so he probably just figured it was what Max wanted to do. Where I begin to take a hard dislike of Jeff is with the shock collar yes, but I understand that is legal like it is legal in our universe. However he comes off bad with losing the remote and leaving Bino to his own devices to suffer. THEN he leaves Bino in the pound for a week during the “Wolf’s Clothing” arc because he never received a phone call. At the very least it shows Jeff is pretty irresponsible because while I can understand him not worrying about Max, cats can come back where dogs might not and nobody lets their dog roam the neighborhood free like they do with cats.

So in my opinion, Jeff is real low on my list of Housepets! characters but I don’t think he is downright abusive and cruel like Sasha’s owner was. I would admittedly like to see him younger brother Jake or Ryan tell him off.

[Obbl]

Ok, I get most of what you're saying, but here's a small detail I'm still tilting my head at.

If you agree with me that the HP! Anthros are strictly sentient, why is it in previous posts you kept trying to drawing comparisons between them and animals in real life like you were expecting me to view them as being like their real-life counterparts?

All details are important in some context. I believe you were struggling at the time to understand why the animals themselves hadn't done anything to change their situation, to which the in universe answer is their general tendency toward contentment with the situation as is, and that this tendency is relatively greater than in humans. They also do show parallels to their real world animal counterparts (such as loyalty in dogs), though I believe D-Rock made a bigger point of that than I ever did.

The comic itself has shown very little, if anything, to properly justify holding them in that kind of regard. That's why the human's treatment of them in the comic reminds nonsensical to me.

I'm afraid I don't follow this in the slightest. There is a time in our history when people literally held other people as chattel slaves and treated them worse than their animals. And this was the norm for 100s of years. (And it continues in some form or other in certain places around the world today.) There need not be a justification for a bad situation to persist. Not to get political, but bad conditions continue to persist even in first world countries to this day, and people make excuses for them even now.
You call this nonsensical, but to me it simply looks very human.

Humans rule the HP! world and they see no reason to change it because they are not the ones being negatively impacted. That is one of the most human qualities I know. Even though it is wrong to treat animals in this manner, it will never be "nonsensical" to me. I will always perfectly understand why people do this: because humans quickly turn to apathy when regarding the suffering of others on scales larger than we feel capable of influencing, especially when it is part of the norm. We rationalize. We dismiss. We excuse. If this comic makes you feel uncomfortable at times, that shows empathy. And if it hits a little too close to home at times, that's because it should.

Also, a lot of people in your threads have been giving the excuses that humans in HP! probably use in order to rationalize their behavior, and those excuses from us are not meant to justify what takes place from our perspective, but merely to show how humans could (and very often do in real world parallels) "justify" the behavior in their own minds and then cease to consider it further.

[Harry Johnathan]

Keeperixx, always challenging our perceptions of the comic. You gotta admit, the guy does keep things interesting around here and gives off a different viewpoint.

[Keeperixx]

Ok, I get most of what you're saying, but here's a small detail I'm still tilting my head at.

If you agree with me that the HP! Anthros are strictly sentient, why is it in previous posts you kept trying to drawing comparisons between them and animals in real life like you were expecting me to view them as being like their real-life counterparts?

All details are important in some context. I believe you were struggling at the time to understand why the animals themselves hadn't done anything to change their situation, to which the in universe answer is their general tendency toward contentment with the situation as is, and that this tendency is relatively greater than in humans. They also do show parallels to their real world animal counterparts (such as loyalty in dogs), though I believe D-Rock made a bigger point of that than I ever did.

Again with that "contentment with the situation as is" thing?

You claim it's in-universe, but none of the strips I've read properly support that claim. Heck, the apparent gradual rise of Anthro Rights in recent strips seem to outright contradict or abandon that claim if I'm wrong and that claim was in actually in there.

At best, I can buy if certain "pets" are too lazy, ignorant, spoiled, or cynically resigned to their fates to act against or call out this unequal treatment.

At worst I have to think that a good amount of the human owners (deliberately or unintentionally) brainwashed their "Pets" into not seeing that they're being ripped off and preventing them from developing any sense of independence or self-respect.

[Amazee Dayzee]

I'm sure that some pets actually want to have more rights but the majority of them yes are probably just fine with their life the way it is. I don't think owners are deliberately or unintentionally training their pets to think they don't deserve independence or self-respect. Pretty sure pets already have all of those things.

[NHWestoN]

Fashion statement?

[Leotamer]

The HP! universe is messed-up and more than a light dark, but pethood, especially in a progressive, pet-friendly community like Babylon Gardens, doesn't seem to that bad of a deal. I think the only pets that have ever took issue with it have been ones that have been actively abused, and even then, Sasha still misses her owner. King, a transformed human, doesn't even seem to mind it.

The ECP has been playing a large part in the story, except in-story, it is the pet-project of one insanely wealthy ferret, and mostly benefits non-pet species. I believe the only pets living with the ECP is King and Sasha, and only because they were separated by their owners and the Miltons took them in and so they are apart of the program by default.

And it is entirely possible that there might be some pet-resistance movement, we do know that some pets will abandon their owners and turn stray if they are miss treated and PETA in-story has committed extreme acts that might fall under terrorism, but such a movement probably doesn't have much support in the more pleasant places to be a pet like Babylon Gardens.

[D-Rock]

What really got the ball rolling for the ECP was former humans being brought in. Remember, the pets didn’t care all that much about it when Keene called a press conference to announce that he was stepping down.

[Obbl]

Again with that "contentment with the situation as is" thing?

You claim it's in-universe, but none of the strips I've read properly support that claim. Heck, the apparent gradual rise of Anthro Rights in recent strips seem to outright contradict or abandon that claim if I'm wrong and that claim was in actually in there.

As has been mentioned, this was most explicitly laid out in a supplemental material many years ago (though perhaps it was never directly linked). Note that King Sylvester does not think anything can be done to improve the lives of his people until he sees the benefit of the life being offered by the humans, at which point he is finally compelled to act. Rick may have a more refined idea of it in his head by now, but it hsn't ever been laid out as neatly since, merely informing how the animals behave in the comic in general.
And on that note, to me the strongest examples of this are Bailey's reaction here to being "rehomed" by her "parents" (and Sasha's response in there too, though Sasha has other compounding issues to consider as well), and Jessica's response here to the idea that the humans may very well eventually overrun her natural habitat. It's not that they have no understanding of their own agency, it's that they see life as a bit of a balance between negative and positive and accept more readily situations as being "just the way things are". Humans also do this, and I referred to one common method as "apathy" in my earlier response, but canonically this is taken to be a trend in animals moreso than humans.
And again, this excuses nothing. If the pets are lacking in opportunity to live their lives the way they want to, then rights are almost certainly being denied them, and this is a failure on the part of society. Fox however makes an excellent case here for why he finds his own situation in life to be satisfying. Even later when he decides to try out his dream of joining the K9 force, that path is open to him. That's his privilege, but it's not as though all pets are living terrible lives (similarly to how being a pet in the real world falls on a spectrum). Being content with their life (or pragmatically resigned to things being "just the way they are") they do not think to change it.

So the society in HP! is flawed (much like our own) with sapient beings being denied the right to live their lives freely as they choose (much like in our own world) and the suffering of many sapient beings being ignored or overlooked (much like in our own society). If this bothers you in the comic, then I wonder how aware you are of how many people near you right now are suffering in fairly equal measure to the fictional animals in Housepets! and how little ability they have to change their circumstances without a lot of outside support being given to them. And I wonder what you would think of that considering you called the situation in Housepets! "nonsensical".

[Amazee Dayzee]

Admittedly I never really saw the parallels between people being denied the right to live freely in real life to the pets in the comic as I just thought that the comic was a fun little escape for real life. Now I can't help but think about the less fortunate who are in that sort of situation where they can't live like they want to.

[Keeperixx]

Again with that "contentment with the situation as is" thing?

You claim it's in-universe, but none of the strips I've read properly support that claim. Heck, the apparent gradual rise of Anthro Rights in recent strips seem to outright contradict or abandon that claim if I'm wrong and that claim was in actually in there.

As has been mentioned, this was most explicitly laid out in a supplemental material many years ago (though perhaps it was never directly linked). Note that King Sylvester does not think anything can be done to improve the lives of his people until he sees the benefit of the life being offered by the humans, at which point he is finally compelled to act. Rick may have a more refined idea of it in his head by now, but it hasn't ever been laid out as neatly since, merely informing how the animals behave in the comic in general.

Considered that page is pulled from the Wayback Machine out what looks like an older version of the website, you'll have to forgive me if I'm dubious to it's canonicity. 'Cause otherwise, why didn't Rick repost it on his current site?

And on that note, to me the strongest examples of this are Bailey's reaction here to being "rehomed" by her "parents" (and Sasha's response in there too, though Sasha has other compounding issues to consider as well), and Jessica's response here to the idea that the humans may very well eventually overrun her natural habitat. It's not that they have no understanding of their own agency, it's that they see life as a bit of a balance between negative and positive and accept more readily situations as being "just the way things are". Humans also do this, and I referred to one common method as "apathy" in my earlier response, but canonically this is taken to be a trend in animals moreso than humans.
And again, this excuses nothing. If the pets are lacking in opportunity to live their lives the way they want to, then rights are almost certainly being denied them, and this is a failure on the part of society. Fox however makes an excellent case here for why he finds his own situation in life to be satisfying. Even later when he decides to try out his dream of joining the K9 force, that path is open to him. That's his privilege, but it's not as though all pets are living terrible lives (similarly to how being a pet in the real world falls on a spectrum). Being content with their life (or pragmatically resigned to things being "just the way they are") they do not think to change it.

With Bailey's case, I might argue that she was simply used to the "Pet" life up until that point and was simply thrown off-balance over living a different life she considers uncharted territory for her.

Jessica's response I found a bit more concerning. Isn't it like if your house burns down to ash and you act like nothing's happened? I probably wouldn't mind so much if she at least gave some vague notion on how she expects such a scenario to "even out."

So the society in HP! is flawed (much like our own) with sapient beings being denied the right to live their lives freely as they choose (much like in our own world) and the suffering of many sapient beings being ignored or overlooked (much like in our own society). If this bothers you in the comic, then I wonder how aware you are of how many people near you right now are suffering in fairly equal measure to the fictional animals in Housepets! and how little ability they have to change their circumstances without a lot of outside support being given to them. And I wonder what you would think of that considering you called the situation in Housepets! "nonsensical".

Perhaps I should've elaborated that what I find "nonsensical" about it is specifically how the HP Verse humans flip-flop or outright ignore the fact that the Anthros are sentient.

Let me try to put this in perspective by comparing Housepets to a book series that has more or less a similar setting.

Before I even learned Housepets was a thing, I've been reading a book series called the Moreau Series (also called the Moreau Quartet because it's technically a four-book series) by Andrew S Swann.

It's admittingly more biopunk sci-fi and darker than Housepets, but it also features Anthros, who in the books are eponymously called "Moreaus", co-existing with humans and also being metaphors for marginalized groups.

I could probably open a separate topic comparing and contrasting Housepets with the Moreau series. But I'm only gonna bring up two points that hopefully will help shed some understanding of my perspective;

First and foremost, unlike the HP! humans, the humans in the Moreau series don't deny the Moreaus are sapient at all. Many of them are bigoted and show it in varying ways, but the book series made a point of establishing that the worst of bigots straight-up don't care. they acknowledge the Moreaus are sapient, they at worst treat them like the non-sentient animals they descended from because they simply don't care.

Unlike the HP! Humans, who often seem to be in denial that the "Pets" are sapient at all, like they think they're in our universe. That's all I meant by how I see their treatment of the HP! Anthros as being nonsensical. Unless Rick intended for me to view the HP! Verse humans that act this way as being idiots.

The second difference is that, unlike the HP! Anthros, the Moreaus don't deny at all that they're an oppressed and marginalized group. They fully acknowledge that they have less rights than the humans of their world and they are perfectly willing to take any opportunities they get to improve their station. Some are more resigned to their fates than others and some have it better than others, but they're fully aware that their generally getting ripped off.

Unlike the HP! Anthros, whom you're expecting me to follow that they naturally tend to "just be content" with whatever situation they get in. It's one thing to be resigned to a life you don't think will get better anytime soon, it's other to put your proverbial head in the sand and act like nothing bad's happening or a problem will solve itself. Which is especially concerning in Jessica's case since it feels like she's just gonna put herself perpetual denial of what she has to lose.

[DDeer]

Fashion statement?

A collar always looks good with any outfit

Back to the original question I assumed when reading the comic that Bino had been biting the Postman and or Barking at him but I don't know if you will find a definitive answer. I kind of like the fact that not everything is always all good, all bad or black and white in the comic and we are left to make up our own minds on the rights and wrongs of the HP Universe a lot of the time, it makes it more interesting. I think the comic medium allows more freedom on scenarios and sometimes a little suspension of disbelief allows for intriguing plots to develop.

Daunted

[Obbl]

Jessica's response I found a bit more concerning. Isn't it like if your house burns down to ash and you act like nothing's happened? I probably wouldn't mind so much if she at least gave some vague notion on how she expects such a scenario to "even out."

Well, it's not going to even out for her. Life is fairly unforgiving like that. Instead, it'll even out in the grand scheme of things. Like as an example, take mass extinction events. The environment changes rapidly, lots of species can't hack it and die, and the ones that survive take over from there: Balance.
Imagine a sapient being that is predisposed to this way of thinking. They still think "I'm gonna do the best I can with the life I have, and whatever happens happens," but unlike for us where "the best I can" usually includes trying to improve my current situation, they don't presume to make such changes unless the end result is clearly defined, clearly better, and clearly attainable. Otherwise, it's just wishful thinking. Life is the way that it is, and as long as it's "good enough", you live with the hand you're dealt. And if life conspires to kill you anyway, welp, that's life.
That's my reading of it at least. Though if you're gonna be the type to get hung up on canon to the point where you can't make any inferences from the text, you're gonna find yourself out of luck

Perhaps I should've elaborated that what I find "nonsensical" about it is specifically how the HP Verse humans flip-flop or outright ignore the fact that the Anthros are sentient.

...

Unlike the HP! Humans, who often seem to be in denial that the "Pets" are sapient at all, like they think they're in our universe. That's all I meant by how I see their treatment of the HP! Anthros as being nonsensical.

Thank you for elaborating. This was not clear to me. And part of the reason why is:
I have literally never seen this happen in the comic, nor anything that I would have remotely read in that way. Not sure where you're pulling this from at all, quite frankly. The humans in the HP! world are fully aware that the pets are sapient. (This has been directly stated by Rick, in case you're still dubious)

Unlike the HP! Anthros, whom you're expecting me to follow that they naturally tend to "just be content" with whatever situation they get in. It's one thing to be resigned to a life you don't think will get better anytime soon, it's other to put your proverbial head in the sand and act like nothing bad's happening or a problem will solve itself. Which is especially concerning in Jessica's case since it feels like she's just gonna put herself perpetual denial of what she has to lose.

Sure. I find it incredibly interesting to try to imagine a sapient species with a different mindset to my own, but if that's not your thing, it's not your thing.

[Leotamer]

While it is true that the HP! Universe is far from an egalitarian paradise, I think its society is more interesting than more people give it credit. I don't think that pets are a metaphor for marginalized groups.

Pets are a lower-class, but they are lower-class than humans. Compared to other animals, ferals, they are quite privileged. And ferals seem to have their own hierarchy based on the food chain.

Jessica wasn't the most well-positioned person even among ferals, until the events of the comics started and all of the higher-order predators left and she became a de-facto leader by virtue of having the biggest and well-furnished house. And her defining character traits have been pessimism and skepticism, with her original main shtick being that she was the one nay-sayer to the cult of the opener. Her position of rolling over and accepting it makes sense in the context that a normal opossum really can't do anything if humans decide to go out of their way to single one out. Jessica has long since ceased to be a normal opossum, but those type of mind-sets are hard to change, and it is probably hard to rap her head around the idea that she has become a useful pawn for the machinations of one insanely wealthy ferret and of one of those gods she specifically doesn't believe in.

[NHWestoN]

Just a short note on Jessica. She's clearly not the embittered, cynic survivor sort we met when she first appeared. Her friendship with Custom Ink (never understood that name), however, gave us glimpses of a softer side. She seems to have mellowed somewhat, having become both Zach Rabbit's "partner" and a possum of estate-worthy property. Her toleration of Ink's pious eccentricities, I think, reflect her continuing affection for the raccoon rather than any agreement with the "Cult of the Opener". Similarly, having become a host of a menagerie of various feral species, celestials, and transformed higher (Craig, Draig) and lower (Stewart) beings under very strict rules reflects a kind of grumpy generosity. However, her mistrust of authority still seems pretty strong. I kinda miss the treehouse crew, truth be told.

[Amazee Dayzee]

The name "Custom Ink" actually came from the fact that she was either born or raised behind a tattoo parlor that had the same name.

[Keeperixx]

Thank you for elaborating. This was not clear to me. And part of the reason why is:
I have literally never seen this happen in the comic, nor anything that I would have remotely read in that way. Not sure where you're pulling this from at all, quite frankly. The humans in the HP! world are fully aware that the pets are sapient. (This has been directly stated by Rick, in case you're still dubious)

I was pulling from the "Bino with shock collar" strip that started this topic.

I was pulling from strips that showed this arbitrary rule that "Pets" have to wear leashes in public places (granted it has a loophole where Anthros can get away with holding their own leashes, but it begs the questions why humans in-universe didn't just drop it the moment that loophole was discovered.)

Oh, and unless my memory betrays me, there were a few strips where humans see an Anthro without a collar and respond with fright or hostility, like they think they're facing dangerous beasts rather than sentient beings perfectly capable of reason.

Maybe those moments were meant be taken as "prejudice is irrational" things, but I think a little clarification would've been nice.

[Obbl]

The name "Custom Ink" actually came from the fact that she was either born or raised behind a tattoo parlor that had the same name.

I've only ever seen one person on this forum make that claim before, and I worry that it may just be a rumor

Maybe those moments were meant be taken as "prejudice is sometimes irrational" things, but I think a little clarification would've been nice.

It's been pretty clear to me and everyone else I've ever talked to about the comic. Like, the comic's main conceit is "Our world, but pets walk and talk", and by "our world" it means about as literally as Rick can get away with (again, ignoring the supernatural parts which are there because Rick can't help himself apparently )
So that means things like dogs and cats without a collar are liable to be picked up on truancy (from Rick). Why? Well, that's the main conceit of the comic. But also, yeah, given the history of pets that we get from the 5000BC arc and them filling the role of a dependent in the HP! world, I don't find it paticularly odd that this reality could exist. Leash laws are also part of the conceit of the story, but again, their presence follows just fine (imagine Victorian era laws), and their slow departure being preceeded by a loophole in certain cities is not a huge stretch for me.
Again, though, that is the main conceit of the comic. It's poking fun at the world by drawing parallels to our world that are much more of a stretch in this world. It's meant to be funny and not taken overly seriously. It just also isn't such a stretch to me that it breaks believability. Humans have done worse for worse reasons.

As for a wolf showing up in the city or at the zoo. I mean, surely it wasn't more than 100-150 years ago that wolves and humans actually did have inter-fighting and loss of life. Raids and such by wolves for human livestock certainly would have occurred. They are predators who predate on other sapient beings, why would they treat humans any differently until they realized that by targeting humans they'd bitten off more than they could chew? And why would humans forget that, especially given that if a person were to stray into the wrong wolf territory or run into a particularly hungry lone wolf...
I don't even know if this one falls into "conceit of the story" so much as it just follows naturally from them inhabitting the same ecological niche as in our world

[Amazee Dayzee]

Yeah now that you mention it Obbl, it probably was just a rumor. However I thought it was a rumor that took off and eventually became fanon though. LOL

But yeah, I couldn't find any mention of it in the old strips. Forget I said anything.