This weekend I’m blogging on Love Bytes Reviews about how much I love M/M books with pets in the story.
Also, I had a beta suggest that LGBTQ and childless couples may wince at having their pets called their “fur babies” in implication that they are replacements for human children. What do you think? Like this term or hate it?
Hmm. I love pets too (in general and in books). I don’t think referring to pets as ‘fur babies’ is off-putting. My daughter refers to her three cats and dog that way. She doesn’t have children. I don’t necessarily think they’re replacements. Some people aren’t cut out for (or don’t want) children, for a variety of reasons. That doesn’t make their pets a replacement. On the other hand, often pets are treated like a member of the family and they are more than just ‘pets’.
I’m glad if the term seems natural to you. In my circles we use it a lot for our pets, whether we have children or no. But once pointed out, I could see where occasionally it might be taken as a jibe. Maybe more in the past, when fewer gay couples had children or were allowed to have children.