Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Re: Your Morning Dose of Anonymous


Oh dear God.

Posted by David Schmader | July 12, 2007 9:37 AM

That is horrifying.

Posted by Carollani | July 12, 2007 9:40 AM

Now that you've seen just how much they love kids, we can assume you've changed your mind about pibulls, yes?

Posted by Bison | July 12, 2007 9:40 AM

At breakfast, I read the story of the teens who forced a 12-year-old at gunpoint to rape his own mother (after themselves having gang-banged her). Just as lunch started, I got to read this.

I'm afraid to find out what dinner will bring.

Posted by Gloria | July 12, 2007 9:42 AM

WTF @ #4!?! That's disgusting! I hadn't even heard that story yet

Posted by FS | July 12, 2007 9:43 AM

Perhaps we should be banning teenagers. I suspect they're even more likely to rape innocent people than pit bulls.

Posted by tsm | July 12, 2007 9:45 AM

Maybe this should be filed under Every child deserves a loving pet..

I tease, I tease

Posted by CodyBolt | July 12, 2007 9:46 AM

Seriously, though, even though I think banning pit bulls outright might be going too far, I think it's reasonable to require that all pet pit bulls be neutered, thus reducing their aggression and preventing horror stories like this.

Posted by tsm | July 12, 2007 9:49 AM

I don't know what's worse. The baby being raped by the dog, or the baby growing up knowing that he was raped by a dog.

I truly hope the parents do not tell him this when he's older.

Posted by Mr. Poe | July 12, 2007 9:51 AM

To people who are taking anti-pit-bull prejudice personally... the issue isn't that pit bulls are always bad dogs. The issue is that when they start behaving in unacceptable ways, they are so strong that it's almost impossible to stop them before they do horrific damage to a human or other animal. The fact that Roy Horn's tigers all behaved in a tame manner for years (and the last one didn't even intend to hurt Roy) didn't matter, because it's a TIGER and it is well adapted to killing human-sized animals with great ease. A pit bull is far more effectively designed to choke or maul a human than most other breeds of domesticated dog, due to its unusally powerful jaw. That makes it a threat to communities, and some communities have dealt with that threat by banning them.

Posted by oljb | July 12, 2007 9:55 AM

As a dog owner, I'm guessing that the pitbull was mounting the child as a show of dominance. All dogs, male and female, do this at some point, it's part of dog psychology. My female dog did this when she was a puppy and we were playing. The owners of the dog did a poor job of socializing their pit and of showing it how to behave around their child. And the fact that they left a pitbull alone with a 2yo also shows that they were rather neglectful dog owners.

If one understands a bit of how dog pack behavior works, it is rather easy to use that to your advantage and train your dog to know its place in the pack/family. My bet is that the parents here didn't spend the time showing the dog that it has the lowest rank in the pack, leading to this sensational story of a dog raping a child. Dogs are not people and don't have our morals.

EVERY story of a dog harming a human is a story of a dog that wasn't properly trained and of dog owners that weren't sufficiently vigilant.

Posted by NaFun | July 12, 2007 9:55 AM

A pitbull once ate my cat. I hate the toothy little bastards.

But even scarier than pit bulls are the people who insist on owning pit bulls. They're a lot like people who enjoy walking around with a loaded handgun - they like the constant implied threat. Creeps me out, man.

Posted by Providence | July 12, 2007 9:58 AM

@ 11

I'd say they were more neglectful parents than dog owners. That dog should've been outside in or in another room where it couldn't get to the baby. The mom is an idiot! But she won't get in trouble will she? No, her dog will be put down. So because of HER neglect her baby and her dog suffer.

Nice job, lady.

Posted by FS | July 12, 2007 10:01 AM

That's just soooo freakin wrong.

Posted by monkey | July 12, 2007 10:04 AM

11 makes the most valid point in here...
owning a pit bull is like owning anything else that can harm someone (including other dog breeds) - you have to be responsible in how you train and supervise your pet. That's what it comes down to. You shouldn't leave your pet of any kind alone w/ your toddler or vulnerable family member.
What makes pit bulls dangerous is irresponsible owners, whether they're training them to kill or leaving them alone w/ their instincts.

Posted by errrr | July 12, 2007 10:06 AM

one more thing..I remember a year or two ago there was a story about a little girl who was mauled by two pits. She was a toddler, maybe 4 years old. Apparentely, the two dogs (either her family's or a neighbors) were playing in a yard and fighting over a toy. This FRONT OF HER PARENTS...went over to get the toy. Got IN BETWEEN the two dogs and of course they turned on her.

Who was at fault? Who suffered? Not the parents. If you're going to own these types of animals, you need to educate yourselves, your children, your friends..etc.

I believe that if a pit is being walked on a leash it should be muzzled. You don't have to completely ban them, but until you enforce some type of laws for ownership, then they should at least require some kind of precautionary measures since we really don't know how these animals are being raised.

Posted by FS | July 12, 2007 10:06 AM

One time, I saw this vicious Shih Tzu eat a Pit Bull. True story.

Posted by Mr. Poe | July 12, 2007 10:07 AM

12: Yeah... it's SO weird that a dog would eat a cat! That's like... so fucked up and against nature and shit! I can't believe it! Hey, did you leave your cat outside?

Posted by Carollani | July 12, 2007 10:16 AM

So much screams bullshit about that story. Humping the kid, as another poster said, is quite likely as it is part of dominance behaviour, but penetration isn't. Also, how was the kid left alone with the dog? How was the kid left alone *with an exposed ass* for the dog to fuck? Family members were there, but obviously not constantly present. And beating the dog to get it off? How about picking it up? It wasn't biting.

I'm surprised the story is simply being publicized as the dog sodomizing a toddler. I'm dubious about the amount of truth in this. If I was the cop the parents told that story to, I'd be really fucking carefully watching the parents.

Unless there is actual proof it was the dog, I'm calling bullshit.

Posted by Rebecca | July 12, 2007 10:23 AM

"When she got in the room, she told Lockport Police the dog had sodomized the toddler. The mother screamed, scaring the dog and it ran out of the house."

One neighbor told 2 On Your Side, she heard the mother screaming "the dog is raping my baby." Neighbors ran to help, but only one man was able to get the dog and child apart."

Excuse me, what the fuck? Two paragraphs following each other, in the same report, but containing completely different versions of events?

Posted by Rebecca | July 12, 2007 10:26 AM

@11, 15,

So it's completely the owners' fault, not the dogs', eh?

Why is it then that we never hear about all the fatal Yorkie maulings? What about the irresponsible Bichon Frise owners out there who aren't training their pets correctly, leading to fluffy, white rampages of dog crime? What about the rash of Golden Retriever rapings of toddlers?

Did all of these simply go underreported by the "breed profiling" media?

Posted by asdf | July 12, 2007 10:28 AM

You know, we can try to have this conversation without bringing up the nexus that exists between race, gangs, pit bulls, and illicit dog fighting, but I don't really see the point...

Posted by Trey | July 12, 2007 10:28 AM

I'm having trouble seeing where a Pit Bull actually ripped a dudes hand off, Dan.

You should re-word it. Makes it sound like you're embellishing it to prove your point(s).

Posted by Mr. Poe | July 12, 2007 10:28 AM

Yes, but poodles are much more vicious gossips.

Posted by Boomer in NYC | July 12, 2007 10:29 AM

Every vicious dog has or had an owner. It's the owner's responsibility to train and keep the dog. A dog sexually assualting a child is a shocking and titilating story to be sure, but the real culprit here is not the dog. It's the owner who failed to properly train and handle the animal.

Breed-specific restrictions are bullshit. If you want real change, you should push for tighter restrictions on dog ownership in general and more severe punishments for owners who fail to adequately train and handle their dogs.

Posted by TacomAroma | July 12, 2007 10:29 AM

i'm trying to think of a way to characterize the strapping young men who like to own pit bulls but aren't smart or disciplined enough to train & control them properly without sounding classist or predjudiced.

"young, dumb, and full of cum"?
"urban idiots"?

Posted by maxsolomon | July 12, 2007 10:29 AM

Full disclosure: I have a pit/lab mix. She has a bubbly lab personality and a big meaty pit head. While I love my dog and think she's great, I also know that she's a very powerful dog so I take that into account every single day.

I don't walk her unless I know I'm up for being completely in control and aware of our surroundings. She's 100% total sweetheart to humans (especially kids), but she does have some aggression toward other animals (as all pits do). So I know that, and I am very mindful of other animals around us. She's not really a fighter, but she does get very dominant and pushy around other dogs, so I just don't let her get into situations where she's able to exercise that dominance.

I never take her to the dog park when there are other dogs there, because I know she (and I) just can't handle it. But when it comes to humans she's been known to lay down and let toddlers crawl on her, pull at her lips, ears and tail without a second look. She's a sweetheart and it bums me out to hear people rail on about all pits this and that when it really just does come down to the responsibility and mindfulness of the owner.

Posted by Carollani | July 12, 2007 10:33 AM

You really have a strange attraction to stories that deal with dramatic, traumatic, and horrifying abuse of small children.

You REALLY need to take a look at that.

Posted by ecce homo | July 12, 2007 10:36 AM


We know you have one. We could tell by how defensive and sassy you're behaving. Now do us all a favor and put it in the bathtub. Go grab a shotgun. Make sure you handle the shower curtain well, cuz this is gonna be messy!!

Posted by Pit Bull Lover | July 12, 2007 10:36 AM

Big dogs scare the crap out of me. So do little dogs that bark/attempt to bite all the time. I think ALL dogs should be muzzled if they are out on a walk. But since there doesn't seem to be enforcement of the leash laws, I'd imsgine the only people that would follow a muzzle law are the people who are responsible dog owners already.


Posted by Original Monique | July 12, 2007 10:38 AM

@4: I read about that last week just after it happened. It's been a while since I've felt genuinely sick at a news article, but that did the trick...

@11: Yeah, a lot of the dog owners I know are stupid kids right out of college (well, a lot of the people I know are stupid kids right out of college, and some of them happen to have dogs). They tend to really not understand the kind of training you've got to do with a dog. They just want an adorable puppy and don't get that it isn't going to magically grow into a perfectly sweet, well-trained adult dog.

Posted by Darcy | July 12, 2007 10:40 AM

21 - It has not been said that pit bulls aren't powerful animals capable of damage. For their size, they're extremely powerful. They have the natural ability to do more damage than other dogs. That, btw, is why they require supervision. With great power, comes great responsibility.

Posted by 15 | July 12, 2007 10:42 AM

These are some unusual pit bulls in my experience. All the pit bulls I've known were well behaved, well trained, and so docile that my corgi would dominate them. Mind you, corgis were bred to herd cattle, so they're rather strong willed, but still.

Posted by Gitai | July 12, 2007 10:43 AM

This story is totally wierd, and obviously this dog is wired wrong or has owner's that have taught him some fucked up behavior. I'm not defending this dog or it's owner's, or any violent, dangerous dog. If a dog attacks someone (unless in valid defense of itself or it's owner) it should be put down. But just so you know in many states there have been laws passed banning pitbulls entirely, which means that anyonw who has a pitbull (or pitbull mix), even one that has never shown a single sign of aggression, will have their dog taken away and killed. I have a lab-pitbull mix, and she has the exact temperament of a lab. However, she has a big head and spots like a pit. She is the best dog I've ever had, loyal, non-agressive, and sweet around kids and animals. We have a tiny cat and they cuddle and sleep together all the time, and the only inappropriate thing she does to babies is try to smell their dirty diapers. The thought that in some cities and states she would be taken away and killed because she looks a little like a pit is awful. I understand that a lot of people don't like pitbulls, and I agree that pure-breeds can be really scary looking. But the fear about them has truly gotten out of hand. For one thing, only about 20 people die each year from dog bites in the entire united states, and so unless all twenty of these people are bit by pit bulls, they clearly aren't on some kind of killing spree. Also, the two most common types of pure-bred dogs that bite (non-fatally) are German shepherds and Chows. There are many reasons why the pit bull gets a bad wrap, but I think this summed it up well: "Since there may be error in the identification of the breed of dog(s) involved in a fatal attack as reported in newspaper stories, it would be a mistake to use information posted on this site to support agendas promoting legislation banning, limiting or curtailing the ownership of certain breeds of dog, such as a so-called "pit bull" dog (read "Problems with American pit bull terrier identification"). Note that a pit bull is not a breed of dog, but instead the term has come to be widely used to describe a dog that has an appearance similar to a American Pit Bull terrier of American Staffordshire terrier. In some cases a dog described as a pit bull may in fact be an American Staff (AKC recognized) or an American Pit Bull (UKC recognized), but in other cases it may not. Since other breeds of dog physically resemble these breeds, mistaken identity is frequntly made and consequently numbers are inflated for the number of attacks involving so-called "pit bulls". Further, correct breed identification becomes more problematic when the dog involved in an attack is a mixed-breed. Hence, ambiguity exists when using the term "pit bull". As stated above, there is no such breed as a pit bull. Dr. Polsky discourages and specifically requests that statistics on this site not be used to suppprt breed specific legislation. Note that other data collection techniques (animal control reports, police reports, witness observation) used for breed identification purposes in fatal dogs attacks may also be flawed for these reasons."
Dan, I love you and I love your column, I've read all your books. You are entitled to your opinion and your opinion is usually right. I just wanted to point out that there are already plenty of people who hate these dogs, and I'd love to have a media outlet that talked about it rationally, without just using anecdotal stories to prove how terrible they are. If you hate pit bulls don't get one and don't leave your kid alone with one. But I just wanted to say that for a lot of dog lovers this is kind of a serious issue. Sorry if I took your little comment too seriously, but it's us bleeding hearts that love your paper so much!

Posted by Anna | July 12, 2007 10:44 AM

@31 Same here. I came damn close to throwing up.

Posted by Gloria | July 12, 2007 10:47 AM


Who knows if this is *really* true, but it is disturbing.

It is funny to me, though, that in the comments here and in the previous article, certain Seattle liberals that undoubtedly bemoan the rantings of gun rights advocates are using very similar language to defend their love of large, potentially aggressive dogs.

And for me, after seeing how my roommate "trains" (or rather, doesn't train and doesn't pay attention to) his dog, I'm convinced that there are a lot of people out there that just shouldn't be allowed to have pets in this city. "Pit bull" or otherwise.

Posted by bma | July 12, 2007 10:50 AM

Chow Chows killed 11 people in the US between 1979 and 1998. ALL dogs are capable of killing children, even small dogs. Dobermans were involved in FEWER fatal attacks than Chows in the timeframe studied.

Yes, pits have killed the most people (about 60% of fatal attacks), but this is in large part because of the prevalence of using pits as fighting dogs--they are trained to behave in a certain way. Same reason Rottweilers are in the #2 spot, and German Shepherds #3.

Breed-specific bans DON'T WORK, because people just find another breed of dog to use and abuse in a way that makes them vicious. Making it illegal to have an uncut male dog unless one is a licensed breeder would do a lot more good than breed-specific bans. So would increasing the penalties for animal abuse and illegal dogfighting.

Posted by lohengrin | July 12, 2007 10:51 AM
Posted by OddlyEnough | July 12, 2007 10:51 AM

Bla bla bla. Dogs that happen to look like pit bulls cause almost 50% of dog-caused human deaths in the US.

Study from the CDC:

Posted by jamier | July 12, 2007 10:57 AM

"Big dogs scare the crap out of me. So do little dogs that bark/attempt to bite all the time. I think ALL dogs should be muzzled if they are out on a walk."

Frankly, if you'd be that scared by the existence of barking miniature poodles, I think that's your problem to deal with, not necessarily local or state government's.

Posted by tsm | July 12, 2007 11:00 AM

While I completely agree with the maxim "no bad dogs, just bad owners", the entire point of the phrase is that dog behavior is based on instinct and intrinsic dog-ness, and training/socialization by humans. While training and socialization are very important, a dog will always be a dog. A pit bull will always have some kernel of fighting dog in him, even if it's buried deep. And like humans, like any animal, a dog will fall back to instinctual behavior when it's stressed, scared, surprised, etc. And while a beagle is probably as likely (or more so) to snap at a child who pulls its tail, a beagle isn't big or strong enough to tear the child's face off in one pass. But for a pit bull, or any other dog bred specifically for strength, aggression, and vicious tenacity, a little "nip" can mean reconstructive surgery for wee Johnny.

Humans are ultimately to blame for all the trouble fighting dogs cause (through breeding and poor training), and all the grief and blame that falls upon the dogs. But regardless of who's fault it is, the fact remains that they are powerful animals who can cause much more damage than many other domestic animals. Controlling the breeding and ownership will only help the dogs themselves, by preventing more of them from hurting humans and then being put down for it.

Of course, until pit bulls lose their appeal as some perverted, "hardcore", macho status symbol, and until local governments take illegal breeding and dogfighting more seriously, I don't see anything changing.

Posted by Rabbit | July 12, 2007 11:07 AM

Having lived with two pitbulls without ever being raped, I must take issue with this. I think if there was ever an actual, rational study done on pitbulls, you would find that the dogs have less in common with those who are interested in adopting them. Pitbulls are glorified as vicious and badass, so people who are attracted to this breed are attracted to this stereotype. When I adopted my chihuahua baby, he almost immediately dominated my loving pitbull by hanging from her jowls - and the pitbull never once retaliated with violence. Because I trained that fucking dog myself.

The reason golden retrievers don't have a bad rap (even though ALL retrievers are pricks)? Because they're primarily adopted by upper middle class families who live in the 'burbs.

Posted by Meagan | July 12, 2007 11:11 AM

"Chow Chows killed 11 people in the US between 1979 and 1998."

That's not even a statistic.

Posted by Mr. Poe | July 12, 2007 11:13 AM

@42 - "even though ALL retrievers are pricks"

All retrievers aren't pricks, but they are mostly all morons, and often crippled by their overly-bred hips.

Pit Bulls, Retrievers, Chow Chows, sheesh. After mating brother to sister for 100s of generations, is it any wonder these breeds exhibit some freaky behavior and debilitating deformities? Give me a well-dispositioned mutt any day. Or better yet, a sweet old cat.

Posted by Providence | July 12, 2007 11:24 AM

>>Breed-specific bans DON'T WORK

Really? I've noticed that ban on people owning leopards in the city has almost entirely eliminated the problem of fatal leopard maulings. So in at least that one instance, I think the breed-specific ban is working just aces.

(And now all the leopard enthusiasts are going to jump on me, saying there are no bad leopards, just irresponsible owners.)

Posted by flamingbanjo | July 12, 2007 11:37 AM

29: Because I'm sassy and defensive I should kill my dog? You sound like a really neat person.

Posted by Carollani | July 12, 2007 11:39 AM

So no one else is disturbed by Dans love of stories that have in vivid detail the abuse of small children? I think it is quite telling AND disturbing at the same time.

Posted by ecce homo | July 12, 2007 11:54 AM

Well, well, well, look what topic is clearly the hottest Slog post of the morning.

I lived with a shar-pei for awhile that was the most aggressive dog I've ever known, especially towards all other living animals and small children. But at home he was the sweetest drooliest thing ever. I love that dog, but would never put him in a position where he could fuck up because I know he's hard wired to destroy.

The last couple pit bulls I met were perfectly charming, but I think I still fall on the "but their jaws are huge and strong and they're fucking ripped and powerful and maybe they've had the instinct to destroy branded into their DNA and if they should ever decide to kill me they have a pretty good chance so I'm going to go ahead and not own one" side of the fence. You, though, you own whatever kind of dog you want, just don't unleash it in my house without warning and we're cool.

I also have an unjustified (but perfectly rational I feel) fear of any animals actually larger than me, or of equivalent weight. In a practical sense, this relates mostly to domesticated livestock, but still, if that horse or cow decided you were looking at it funny, it could totally kill you, or hurt the shit out of you, so I give them their space and have no intention of ever putting myself in a position to get hurt.

I love dogs, though. Dogs are rad.

Posted by jackie treehorn | July 12, 2007 11:56 AM

Ecce's back. Joy.

Posted by Mr. Poe | July 12, 2007 11:57 AM


So you also love revelling in the pain and torture of small children? Is it entertainment for you? Perhaps you and Dan should have adopted together, seeing that you share a mutual love of these types of things.

Posted by ecce homo | July 12, 2007 12:11 PM


I think if there was ever an actual, rational study done on pitbulls, you would find that the dogs have less in common with those who are interested in adopting them. Pitbulls are glorified as vicious and badass, so people who are attracted to this breed are attracted to this stereotype.

And that's exactly why I hate those dogs. If I see a pitbull being walked by a non-stereotypical pit owner, I'll keep my distance. If I see a pit on a chain leash being walked by some meathead asshole, I cross the street. As far as I can tell, the overwhelming majority of pit owners don't have the slightest intention of taking care of those dogs properly.

Posted by keshmeshi | July 12, 2007 12:14 PM

@47 - "So no one else is disturbed by Dans love of stories that have in vivid detail the abuse of small children? I think it is quite telling AND disturbing at the same time."

OK, Ecce, I'll bite.

No, we're not disturbed by it. Reading outlandish news stories is part of Dan's job. Bringing the especially disturbing ones (which often have to do with children - that's why they're disturbing) to our attention is part of his job. We read his stuff (and by "we" I certainly do include *you*) because he writes about (among other things) crazy, disturbing stuff. If you don't want to read about crazy, disturbing stuff, you should go read USA Today or some other pap-vendor. But since you clearly do read Dan's stuff and feel the need to frequently blather about it, I'd say deep down you really do like it, if for no other reason than it gives you the opportunity to sound pompous.

Posted by Providence | July 12, 2007 12:14 PM

Ecce Homo: like A. Birch Steen, minus any wit.

Posted by tsm | July 12, 2007 12:23 PM

I'm with post @11 on this. EVERY case of dog against human brutality is a result of mistreatment. Some dogs are more difficult to train than others, just like people I suppose. I'm not for banning the breed, simply because not all breeds are as aggressive than others.

NEVER EVER EVER beat your dog

Posted by Matt | July 12, 2007 12:29 PM

if the dogs arent the problem, and the owners are, we should just ban people from owning them and let them all live free on the range to rassle around and be happy.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | July 12, 2007 12:32 PM

The question gnawing at me is this: what is the best way to stop a pitbull attack after it has begun. I am inclined to want to stab them in the eyes. Would this actually work or just make them more mad?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | July 12, 2007 12:35 PM

Here's the reason Pit Bulls either need to be banned or at the very least muzzled in public:

They need special training beyond that of a regular dog owner. I keep hearing that the Pit Bull attacks are because of "irresponsible" dog owners. I'm sure many of these dog owners are responsible people. These attacks ALWAYS come as a total surprise to the owners. The problem is that you can't just be a normal responsible person with this kind of dog, you have to be a dog owner that knows how to properly socialize this dog and that's asking too much of the average person. Hell, even if we license Pit Bull owners, there is no guarantee that the Pit Bull will respond to special "socializing" (I don't even know what that means.) Pit Bulls are not humans, they're dogs and this dog is deadly, much more so than other dogs.

Plus, it seems reasonable to leave your 2-year-old alone (maybe going into the kitchen to grab a soda?) for two minutes in the presence of the family dog without incident; I don't think those parents were irresponsible (except for the fact that they own a Pit Bull in a house with a child). How many of us grew up with our family dog by our side? (I know I have dozens of photos of myself as a 3-year-old next to our Shetland Sheepdog.)

Of course, people who own Pit Bulls aren't bad people or anything, but it's irresponsible to own one.

Posted by dog | July 12, 2007 12:45 PM

I'm generally no fan of ecce homo's comments at all, but I have to admit that I am sometimes a bit disturbed by how much Stranger writers focus on these kinds of stories, like really wallowing in it. I'm not singling out Dan; it's not just him.

Posted by Gabriel | July 12, 2007 12:48 PM

Ecce, my brother, why are you so stupid? If you're trying to be flip, you're failing miserably. I'm the only person who pwns flip on these boards, bitches. (Can you feel my ego purr?)

Actually, scratch that. Monkey makes me laugh a lot. He's pretty good at flip. Word. You, Ecce, and your bizarre serious hatred towards Savage, are annoying in every degree imaginable.

But it's a free-for-all here, so whatever. Do what you want.

Posted by Mr. Poe | July 12, 2007 1:17 PM

57: Why is it unreasonable to learn about, understand, and train your breed of dog as needed? That seems like exactly what every dog owner should be ready and willing to do.

Posted by Carollani | July 12, 2007 1:36 PM

No, ecce, we're not disturbed. Because we know that he's a parent and a worrywart (as he explores in his book The Commitment) and so he's obsessed with the thought that something like this might happen to his kid.

Posted by east coaster | July 12, 2007 1:44 PM

He's obsessed alright, but with some downright un-parentlike behavior.

Posted by ecce homo | July 12, 2007 2:17 PM

This story has a real "Weekly World News" quality to it. Frankly, I'm not biting (sorry).

Posted by saxfanatic | July 12, 2007 2:19 PM

I never, ever, ever thought I would ever say this- ever- but I agree w/ ecce. Dan normally places his kid torture/murder stories in a "but straight parents aren't any better" motif. What's his excuse for trotting out the freak show this time?

And east coaster? If "he's obsessed with the thought that something like this might happen to his kid", then that's not a healthy situation. Dan seems like a great parent, but obsessing over things like this isn't good for you or your kid.

Having a 9 year old kid myself, the Zina Linnik story makes me physically ill every time I hear about it. But I don't send updates about it to all my friends, I try not to think about it during the day, and when I go home tonight I'm going to be too busy reading her another chapter from Harry Potter book 6, and hearing about her day, to spend any cycles on it.

Posted by Big Sven | July 12, 2007 3:24 PM

ecce, if you are trying to say that these posts are evidence that Dan is an evil child molester, the answer is NO, nobody else with any sanity shares your suspicions, and you are only coming across as a homophobic asshole. Also, if you want to accuse Dan of being an evil child molester you should show some balls and say so directly instead of being roundabout.

Posted by east coaster | July 12, 2007 3:25 PM

This story is some straight up bullshit, not that i really fancied thinking out the logistics of the scenerio which seem to my logic completely absurd. Obviously the dog is taking the rap for some sick fuck of a parent or nieghbor or some other non k-9 rapist, and the parents even if non partisipents are complicent.
As for the pit-haters as far as i remember they don't make the top 5 in dangerous dogs, i believe as of a few years ago german sheperds were n.1. I do admit that there are a great many stupid ass knuckle headed fucks out there who seek to makeup for lackof power and real masculinity by turning these normily sweat, goofy, inteligent and very loyal creatures into killers. and therein lies the problem with pits, they posses the inteligents, emotional and otherwise of a four year old and just like a child if beaten and abused they will have become a blighted and vicious thing. And yes they do posses a singular sort of phisical attributes but i've seen pit mothers using those same jaws and teath to ever so gently carry their pups by the scruff of the neck or to tenderly scratch her pups back. The problem lies in our culture, esp. hip hop where dog fighting is glorified as a "real" man's sport and where these poor animals are brutilised to the point to where the become a sort of souless little land shark. I'd say the majority of pits in america are owned by the lower classes whether urban or rural and where their owners often feel compelled to assert some sort of image of there toughness thru these dogs, as well as using them as a sort of punching bag( literaly) for their frustrations, its as if because of pit bulls rep that its expected that you beat it, that thats what they're for and are all about(violence). Even when they aren't actual fighting dogs this same mentality is perpetuated because theyremain a statis symbol for how "hard" the owner is. Pit bulls as a breed are victims of humans and their popular culture ,and again, of hip hop and the purversion of american masculinity. The truly sad part is that the negative conditioning carried over the generations becomes hereditery and the genes will sour so that a brand new puppy won't have a chance. And whats scarry is that this parrelels many people in our society, often those who grow up to own pits.
This may seem like a rant but pits are sort of special to me I was kinda raise amongst a large family of southern boar hunters(imagine a pit the size of a boxer) till i was four. In fact a beatiful gentilmanof a brindle named Bear taught me how to walk by slowly and patiently leading me around while I held onto his back.And he nor any off his family laid a paw on me, although i do remember getting wacked in the fase constantly by wagging tails. But again this pack of pits were from a good line and lived in a home that allowed them to be the goofy loving happy dogs they deserved to be.

Posted by pidgin | July 12, 2007 3:31 PM


Did you ever fuck your mother? Are you your own grandpa?

Boar hunters? Jesus....

Posted by ecce homo | July 12, 2007 3:35 PM


What the fuck?! Was your comment in regards to my defense of pits, my retarded disregard for spelling or what?
And yes "boar hunters", seeing as pitbulls are not a fully recognised breed there are several subbreeds do mainly to region and the sort of work they are were utilised for. And why's the fact that they once were used to hunt boars so outlandish, dogs used to hunt us dipshit, you know as like wolves.

Posted by pidgin | July 12, 2007 3:56 PM

I don't know why I keep posting these things, it's the same rhetoric over and over again. And you know what? This is one those things where blanket statements and emphatic claims don't make any god damn sense. And honestly, sounds like hate mongering to me. Pit bulls do this, pit bulls do that, my uncle was in fact attacked by several chuhuahua's (a pack). There is a LOVELY story about a ferril chuhuahua population in Torrington CT. Fringe freak accidents, dare I say it, are part of life. You do what you can, and then you deal. But at some point you have to accept what can realistically be done.

Having said that, how the hell can you logistically ban a breed off dog when it's much more of a pain in the ass to even define it! It's a pain in the ass and takes many many years of petitioning and generations of inbreeding to define a breed of dog. Ironically, dog genes, from what I understand, are very maliable and you can breed all sorts of wonderful attributes in less generations than you may think. Can you think of another species with such an array of genetic expression?

The same logic going into banning pit bulls is like saying illegall imigrants don't pay taxes. Even if you don't like ilegal imigrants, you will still have to deal with them. But, I'm sorry freak accidents happen, unfortunate events are a part of life and we can only minimize so much. What I know for certain is that GERNALLY bad owners make bad dogs, just like people. That man who had a fucked up, tortured, and unfortunate childhood, took it all out when he raped your daughter. Will it happen to you daughter, most likely no, but can it happen yes, do we dwell on these things? no, because no sane person dwells on this ...

Posted by Matt | July 12, 2007 4:20 PM

Pidgin, ignore ecce. He's an idiot.

Posted by Gabriel | July 12, 2007 4:27 PM

I used to be a vet tech, and then an animal control officer. I've seen plenty of the "bad" breeds. I don't know. I actually never had a Pit (or Rott) try to bite me. Almost every Shih Tzu or Chow that I ever went near, however, was a nasty vicious beast. And unpredictable to boot. It's just that the Pits are stronger.

I'd support a ban on breeding (not owning) ANY dog without some kind of certification, requiring demonstration that you know something about animal health/temperment and breed-specific issues. If you're not a certified breeder, spay/neuter of pets should be mandatory, and if you're caught with an un-neutered animal, it should be confiscated and neutered at owner expense (this can actually already occur if your un-neutered animal shows up at the shelter multiple times).

This would be good for everybody. Especially the dogs. Because usually a "bad" dog actually has a bad owner (with exceptions; some critters just have screws loose, just like some humans).

Posted by violet_dagrinder | July 12, 2007 4:41 PM

Oh, yeah, and it is indeed very unlikely that the dog was actually "raping"/sodomizing the baby. It was probably mounting the kid. Still bad (dominant) behavior that I would never tolerate from a dog, but. . .sheesh.

Posted by violet_dagrinder | July 12, 2007 4:44 PM

"This may seem like a rant but pits are sort of special to me I was kinda raise amongst a large family of southern boar hunters(imagine a pit the size of a boxer) till i was four. In fact a beatiful gentilmanof a brindle named Bear taught me how to walk by slowly and patiently leading me around while I held onto his back."

Sounds like fucking deliverance to me. Was daddy and his buddies a little too friendly with you when you were four, during the pre-boar hunt drinking bouts? Did the whole sodomy of a toddler stick out to you or something. If so, you have the illustrious and talented Dan Savage to thank.

Posted by ecce homo | July 12, 2007 5:02 PM


you insensitive ass hole!

Posted by Matt | July 12, 2007 5:06 PM

Dog owners weigh in at the link below. You might try reading it, unless you're somehow opposed to things like logic and reason.

Usually I love you, but this is ridiculous, Dan.

Posted by Jessica | July 12, 2007 5:08 PM


Just a correction, it's ECCE, not ECCO.


E. Homo...

Posted by ecce homo | July 12, 2007 5:13 PM

hey ... what do you know ... it is ecce

just zooming back and forth from my lab bench to my computer ... I suppose I should be more committed to what I am doing ...

Posted by matt | July 12, 2007 5:16 PM

You know a town has finally been transformed into a yuppie mecca when the anti-pit bull hysteria takes hold.

Posted by Jay | July 12, 2007 5:20 PM

Seattle has arrived!

Posted by Jay | July 12, 2007 5:21 PM

Seattle ain't anti-pit...

It's anti-black and anti-mexican. THe capital hill white apologists and aspring yuppies are the most guilty. If your hair cut costs more than 15 bucks WITH tip, go throw yourself off the pier. We don't want you.

Posted by ecce homo | July 12, 2007 5:44 PM

#72: The kid needed surgery. It was a serious attack.

Posted by um | July 12, 2007 6:09 PM

For the sake of sensationalism surgery could mean a number things ... like stitches. And EVEN if the child was sodomized, I'm wracking my mind as to how the hell the dog got the paints of the kid? I mean are pit bulls THAT super human in that they can penetrate pants?

OR was the unpottytrained 2 year old just running around with his pants off ...

There is no substance to that story other than uttering the words "rape" "sodomy" "pitbull"

Let the feelings die down and logic set in I'm calling bull shit, unless some more details come.

Posted by Matt | July 12, 2007 6:15 PM


Dan, Ecce, etc.

Maybe, the whole pit-bull thing exposes our own hidden racism .... at least with respect to breeds of dogs.

I suppose I couldn't give a shit (yet I have nothing else better to do). My experience, I grew up with three dogs. The Doverman/shepherd/spanial, too smart for her own good, somewhat skittish at first, hard to train, but turned into the most loyal protective she dog on the planet. You did not mess with our family, same with our shepherd/husky, incredibly loyal but ESPECIALLY skittish around new people (had a couple of bad owners before us). Yet we as pet owners took responsibility and pretty much kept doggy play time togethor with the other family dogs ... didn't trust the dogs around strangers etc. etc. Now our pitbull/shepherd, a fricken lap dog, who knew. I guess, I can't justify disposing the pitbulls, nor can I justify why they were initially bred in the first place, but look at the owners who bred them for that purpose too.

Posted by Matt | July 12, 2007 6:24 PM

Is anyone else disturbed by ecce's apparent need to spew vitriol all over the place? I think it is very telling.

Posted by east coaster | July 12, 2007 7:43 PM

The problem is that a lot of these hip-hop ghetto animals use them for dog fighting. They need to be put down not the dogs.

Posted by robot ghost | July 12, 2007 7:55 PM

Sounds a little suspect, I could see a dominance mounting, but I'd find it hard to believe the thing got the pants of the kid to do the deed. Then again, my brother apparently went through a 'pantless phase' around that age, so maybe the kid took them off.

As to the "ran out of the house with the kid attached" portion of the story, sad to report that's possible.

***Freakish Gross Out Anatomy details Ahead***

*Ahem* Dogs have what's known as a bulbous glans, or knot at the base of the penis shaft, designed to lock them in their partner for up to a half hour after insertion. Scientists believe this is to help prevent sperm competition by ensuring nobody else can have sex with the female before the male's sperm has a good chance to get to the egg. This portion of the coitus is known as the 'tie' among breeders. It is possible, though very, very, very unlikely that the dog tied to the child during sex, and thus dragged the kid along.

I say it's terribly unlikely because the knot is quite ridiculously sized, and only appears when the dog is approaching ejaculation. I find it difficult to believe that a dog of such size could successfully tie with a child in the few moments between when it violated the kid and when the mom came in and screamed.

Further, once they tie, the knot acts like a huge plug. It won't go down on it's own for quite a while, even under stress. I find it very hard to believe that, if the dog tied, the neighbors some how got it's penis out without doing lethal damage to the kid, and very nasty damage to the dog.

This smacks of something else going on.

Lastly, I will say that pit bulls, for all their strength and aggression, are not monsters. We bred them to be aggressive and strong, and saying they should be banned wholesale or killed ignores the large number of pit bulls that have never harmed anyone. It also shirks off our responsibility for their developing such behavior. A good idea would be contacting pit bull breeders and registry groups, and putting pressure on them to look into new breeding directions to take the line, so they become less aggressive.

My personal choice would be to see some type of requirement for basic education in order to own a pit bull in the short run, and a world wide effort to redirect their breeding in the longer run.

Posted by Corinal | July 12, 2007 8:58 PM

I seriously loathe sensationalized stories like this one. The whole anti-pitbull thing is out of control. Yeah, if you go out of your way to look up "pitbull attacks", you're going to find a whole lot of them, for a number of unfair reasons.

Pitbull doesn't even refer to a recognized breed, but to at least three different ones with similar characteristics. If the media's going to jump on any dog attack stories with the label 'pitbull', then yeah, they're going to get a bad rep. Add to that the idiots who buy into that rep and raise their own pitbulls to be aggresive and ill-disciplined, and it does a serious misrepresentation of dogs that have been shown (see for example) in temperament tests to pass at higher levels than even popular family dogs like the golden retriever.

I've worked as a vet tech and most (but yeah, not all) of the pitbulls I've met have been the sweetest, nicest dogs imaginable. Especially those raised in loving, _normal_ households. I'm not saying go up to strange pitbulls and hug them, but give them a fair chance before labelling them babyrapists, please.

Posted by tiriq | July 12, 2007 9:15 PM

Besides, pitbulls were traditionally raised to fight dogs, not people. They've never been bred for human aggression -that wouldn't have been tolerated because they had to put up with close human contact and handling before and after their fights.

Posted by tiriq | July 12, 2007 9:19 PM

shred and reggan (dj's in wny) said today that video was found that show the parents made the dog and baby do "stuff" before, so if that is the case it is a learned behavior. the parents are now being charged.

Posted by crystal | July 12, 2007 9:30 PM

pit bulls are just dogs.
they're not evil monster. they are, however, bred for fighting. like any dog you have to train them. unlike other dogs, like say annoying bitey poodles, when pit bulls become aggressive they are far more dangerous. thats how we have created them. they're just dogs, they can be as sweet as any other dog. the difference is that we have bred them to be much more powerful than little dogs.
thats it. thats all.

Posted by nat | July 12, 2007 9:48 PM

Hey Ecce

If the subject were irish wolfhounds would you asume I was raised in Ireland and wolf hunting was a family passtime. I'm from west seattle dickwad. You insinuate dans some sort of sick fuck but he's just passing along news, albiet horrible news, whereas you have some kind of rot in your soul and feal that everyone ought to get a wif. Do i smell sociopath? But its all good, i forgive you your hate. Next time i'll simply remember not to take the bait as apperently more people on slog should.

Posted by pidgin | July 12, 2007 11:45 PM

but pidgin, without the haters this would just be a discussion among reasonable, well-adjusted people, and where's the fun in that?

Posted by ellarosa | July 13, 2007 1:33 AM

how the hell can you HATE an animal? its never an animals fault. people should not choose to keep pitbulls as pets because it is in their innate nature to take no shit from anybody. the pitbull is as worthwhile and great a creature as any other. it is just not meant to be kept in a confined domestic setting. so if you are stupid enough to buy a beast and then keep it cooped up in a home and are stupid enough to leave it alone with your family, don't be surprised when it fondles your wifes titties with its paws, uses your kid as a chew toy, and then proceeds to neuter your drunk uncle while he is passed out. I mean YOU chose to buy this beast as your pet. The pitbull did not ASK to be brought into your stupid boring home ok. don't hate the dog. If you dont want to get butt rammed, have your nuts bitten off, have your wife's boobs scraped, and then have a big pile of shit left on your bed, DON'T BUY A PITBULL! buy one of those giant poodles instead genius

Posted by the troll | July 13, 2007 1:36 AM

The media constantly puts up any negative news about Pitbulls who have gone awry, but never anything about other dog breeds. No one wrote anything about those CHOWS in Louisiana who mauled their owner to death about a month ago. Pitbulls have become the media's proverbial "whipping post" for dogs, and it's ludacris. Since when is it an animal's fault if the OWNER doesnt raise it properly and control it effectively. A Pitbull's temperment if raised correctly is in fact sweeter than Chows, German Shepherds, Akitas and yes DALMATIONS even! No one realizes that becuase they feed into and believe mass media hype instead of conducting their own research on the subject. Keep your mouths shut unless you are educated on the subject and I dont mean by watching CNN or the 6 o'clock news.

Posted by abigail | July 13, 2007 2:30 PM

Oh c'mon....I'm a petite white female who rescued a pit mix after neighbors (also white) abandoned it, and even my vet thinks BSL (breed specific laws) are moronic, AND I live in a conservative state.....I don't walk my dog to prove I'm tough, I walk her for exercise and bathroom relief (for her, not me). Add to that that she's nicer than my border collie and husky mix, and more obedient than my poodle. Meet a pit and learn more...educated opinions go a lot further than hearsay, guys.

Posted by Jennifer McKevitt | July 13, 2007 2:55 PM

Hear me out. I know I ramble, but there's a point or two in here. Especially towards the bottom.

I work at a dog daycare and what I've learned: I would never own a lab or a golden retriever. Besides boxers, they are the two most aggressive breeds we have... if not the dumbest. My favorite dogs there are pitbulls. They're the gentlest, most well-behaved dogs we have. Dogs should NEVER be blamed for their breed. A dog is a dog. The way they are raised and trained is what determines their temperament, etc. Rottweilers and german shepherd dogs are far smarter than those stupid, ugly labs and goldens... but because of movies and commercials, etc, people would prefer to have the dumber/uglier of the breeds. You dummies. You deserve a lab or a golden if you truly think pitbulls are bad dogs. You've obviously not done enough research to learn that movies aren't always true.. and that dogs in the news are only told about when something horrible happens. Pitbulls are raised to be mean and bad dogs because that's what people like you have taught some of their owners to think of pitbulls. If word ever gets out that labs and goldens suck as bad as they do, maybe bad people that raise dogs for "protection" and for fighting will start buying those breeds and allow good dogs like pitbulls, rottweilers, and dobermans a chance to redeem themselves.

(My thought of who's uglier is my opinion... and it is probably just my opinion that labs and goldens are dummer because they receive less training. If they were raised the same way mean pitbulls were raised, then they would be just as mean. Duh)

Posted by Kate | July 13, 2007 9:43 PM


Gee, you're a real asset to your doggie daycare center.

Posted by Anne | July 14, 2007 2:54 AM

I can't stress enough that male dogs NEED to be fixed if they are not being bred .

Posted by Brie | July 14, 2007 4:14 AM

When she got in the room, she told Lockport Police the dog had sodomized the toddler. The mother screamed, scaring the dog and it ran out of the house."

One neighbor told 2 On Your Side, she heard the mother screaming "the dog is raping my baby." Neighbors ran to help, but only one man was able to get the dog and child apart."

Excuse me, what the fuck? Two paragraphs following each other, in the same report, but containing completely different versions of events?

You don't read well.. she scared the dog out of the house but the baby was still attached .. uggg... poor baby .. Poor mama.. sad story

Posted by Brie | July 14, 2007 4:21 AM

A healthy two-year-old has to weigh, what, 15-20 pounds? That's some attachment. It's impossible to determine whether the two stories really describe different versions of the event, but I'm also extremely skeptical about penetration. How often can even fetishists get their dogs to fuck them?

Yeah, I would be watching the parents extra extra carefully. Actually, fuck it--they never get to own a dog again. I'd put the kid somewhere, too, if I didn't suspect that would seal his fate.

Posted by The Other Rebecca | July 14, 2007 11:36 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).