« Happy Mother's Day! | Home | Cute Pack #2 »

May 14, 2006

...and, Happy Step-mom/adoptive mom's day too

Let's also shout out to all the folks in a Mom's role—Happy Mother's Day to yous too:

Dog: snooorff
Baby: [looks up at insane parent]


Dog: [Thinking] Feels cushiony!
Baby: "Malllgh!"


Dog: [slurp!]
Baby: Well, I uh... sure. OK. sure.


Dog: [awkward hug while making large snorting sounds]
Baby: "Holy MUFFLEPUFF!"


Biiiiig, slobbery thanks to Donya S.

Email to a Friend | Add to del.icio.us |


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference ...and, Happy Step-mom/adoptive mom's day too:

» York! from Dean's World
Now there's a good dog! [Read More]


Eee hee hee. I love it when dogs want to protect babies like that!

 |  May 14, 2006 at 09:42 AM

that is like the cutest thing ever!!!!!!!!

 |  May 14, 2006 at 09:44 AM

awwww I love the doggy hug! Cute dog, cute baby. Baby looks like a Glow Worm - totally prosh! :)

 |  May 14, 2006 at 09:46 AM

omg... THAT is the the sweetest/cutest/slobberyest thing I have EVAR seen. What a fabulous dog <3

 |  May 14, 2006 at 09:46 AM

OH, so very cute. Especially the hug at the end. They are best pals! *HEART*

 |  May 14, 2006 at 09:47 AM

Ahh - this is hilarious! (And true.)

E. Collison
 |  May 14, 2006 at 09:49 AM

That dog is not "protecting" the baby, it's expressing dominance.

Anybody who allows a large dog to play with thier infant quite frankly ought to be beat about the head until they get some sense knocked into them.

Stormy Dragon
 |  May 14, 2006 at 09:54 AM

That's scary as all get out.

 |  May 14, 2006 at 10:10 AM

Great big loving doggy! That dog is a total Nana.

 |  May 14, 2006 at 10:11 AM

Mum's right there taking the photos, it's not like this situation's unsupervised and dogs tend to "express dominance" towards creatures they see as a threat, it's far more likely to see a baby as a vulnerable puppy like thing that needs protecting.
Besides, some big dogs can be surprisingly gentle, while some small dogs can be surprisingly dangerous, only the owner knows this animal's individual temperament.

I think this looks cute, so long as they're careful.

 |  May 14, 2006 at 10:16 AM

The 2nd photo does look a bit too squashy considering what those dogs weigh,
but the last one's so cute-the sweetest hug and the baby's smiling not scared.

 |  May 14, 2006 at 10:20 AM

Does anyone know what kind of dog that is? He's adorable!

 |  May 14, 2006 at 10:27 AM

Happy baby (und dog).

 |  May 14, 2006 at 10:32 AM

Amen, SD. Dogs do not recognize babies as alphas (as they *should* recognize their owners) and therefore, trouble often ensues. This dog is clearly establishing its dominance over this kid, and that is a very dangerous precedent to set. Let's not forget, if something happens to this (I say it grudgingly) cute kid, the dog will be the one to pay. We who check CO obsessively for our daily visual prozac are all animal lovers - but let's not let that turn us into blubbering senseless idiots (as it would appear has occured this owner/parent).

My 2 cents. You may now yell at me for being 'too serious' and not loving the cute. Go ahead. I don't mind.

 |  May 14, 2006 at 10:33 AM

wow, i would be freaked out...

 |  May 14, 2006 at 10:34 AM

totally precious!

 |  May 14, 2006 at 10:39 AM

Scary. Very scary.

 |  May 14, 2006 at 10:39 AM

i'm thinking that in the second pic the baby needs a diaper change and the dog is gonna roll in the stinky.
adorable - simply adorable pics and both of them look happy and at home to me - can you not see the smiles in the last pic!!!

 |  May 14, 2006 at 10:41 AM

AAAARRRRRGGGGHHHH!!! Can't help myself:

1) Babies smile when they pass gas, get tickled and get their diaper changed. They are not credible sources of information. Smiling baby *does NOT* equal safe situation. Baby doesn't really know much at this point, let's be honest.

and perhaps most importantly

2) For the love of pete: DOGS ARE NOT HUMANS. I really don't get it when people anthropomorphize/misinterpret dog behavior for human behavior. Kills me every time. And yes, I know dogs smile and can cuddle and have lots of emotions. But they ain't people, so stop thinking they will act as such.

My 4 cents. I will shut up now.

 |  May 14, 2006 at 10:51 AM

It all depends on the dog and the owner. Also, I think if the dog has been around longer than the baby (as would seem to be the case here) and if the dog is still treated with love and not ignored in favor of the baby, then the dog will see the baby as something to be protected. I used to babysit for some people who had two toddlers and a German Shepherd they had had for several years before the babies, and that dog was VERY protective. To the point that if one of them was crying and I was trying to comfort him, the dog would watch me very closely to make sure I wasn't doing anything to hurt the child!

 |  May 14, 2006 at 10:53 AM

cute, dangerous, but cute

 |  May 14, 2006 at 10:58 AM

If the dog had dropped a little too much weight onto that baby's neck, simply due to his sheer size, he could have killed the child. Very stupid parents. And wouldn't be considered a cute picture then.

 |  May 14, 2006 at 11:01 AM

Look, before everyone gets all het up and carried away - dogs can and often do protect babies. Our family dod did, and my niece and her husband have seen the same thing happen with their little guy + dog. (Cribs and playpens are guarded, etc.) Everyone was/is supervised, and nobody's gotten hurt. (Except maybe for the dogs, since little kids tend to pull on ears, skin and tails...)

In other words [raises hand shyly]: "Please, Sir? I just like the pictures, Sir."

E. Collison
 |  May 14, 2006 at 11:05 AM

"Does anyone know what kind of dog that is? He's adorable!"

It's a Neapolitan Mastiff. They're very sweet breeds that weigh a bloody ton.

I agree that there's a bit of a danger with the baby. Dogs that are very well-socialized are hyper aware of biting pressures- but tend to be used to the biting pressures appropriate for other dogs, or adult humans, and run the risk of accidentally harming the baby in play. They're also *so* not aware of things like weight/crushing and their toenails.

The dog does look like a sweetheart, and the kid doesn't look at all afraid. And there is such a thing as being too paranoid. :p As for dominance, babies aren't exactly dominant over dogs. They can't be. And nothing that an adult human does can establish the "dominance" of the baby. The most we can really hope for is that the dog recognizes the baby as a member of it's pack, loves it, and knows it's limits with it. By being comfortable around the baby and learning how not to hurt it while under supervision, it's less likely to accidentally harm the baby during times where the baby and the dog come into accidental unsupervised contact.

 |  May 14, 2006 at 11:06 AM

Very cute pictures, but that dog is gigantic. One wrong move, and... :(

 |  May 14, 2006 at 11:16 AM

Safari issue seems to be fixed! The home page is looking good.

These pictures are cute, but the second one is scary!

 |  May 14, 2006 at 11:22 AM

jesus---what idiots---why take the chance?

 |  May 14, 2006 at 11:28 AM

I think that is the cutest damn thing i have ever seen. Happy Mothers day to all the moms

christina r
 |  May 14, 2006 at 11:35 AM

This is the most adorable child endangerment ever!

Roy thought tigers were cute too
 |  May 14, 2006 at 11:48 AM

Oh my the baby looks really upset in the 2nd pic, the huge dog is squishing him why does the parent keep taking pics when the kid shows distress?
My friend has a mastiff and they are huge, really heavy. That dog could easily harm the baby and not know it weather it meant to or not.
The last pic is cute but the whole thing makes me nervous to look at since the baby is just a infant.
I think if the last pic was posted only nobody would feel so uneasy abou it and just say, "oh how cute" the other pics are just scary looking, I could never let a huge heavy dog be on top a infant.

 |  May 14, 2006 at 11:53 AM

I can hardly look at this series of photos. I have worked with numerous surgeons who have had to attempt to repair the faces and other body parts of children who were attacked by the family dog who had "never shown aggression before," "was always so protective and sweet," etc. No animal is predictable. Owners who believe so are dangerously misguided, even though their bias is based in love for their pet.

Also, it is not possible for the parent "standing by" with the camera to move quickly enough to protect the child were the dog to attack. Even if they could, there are few if any adults with the strength to overpower an animal of that size.

This series, in my opinion, depicts nothing less than child neglect and endangerment. If the posting stays up, it belongs in the "cute or sad?" category.

Otherwise, love CO! :)

medical student
 |  May 14, 2006 at 11:57 AM

We had an oversized doberman pinscher when my baby sister was born who was only a little smaller than the mastiff. Happy would play around the baby all the time and while it did look a little scary, he was always protective. Our smaller, but more jealous, pointer/lab mix we had when I was born was a very different story. If you know the dog's temperment, they've reacted consistently to the baby and the dog's under voice control, everything's fine.

Genny from the Burbs
 |  May 14, 2006 at 12:01 PM

oh my god, someone call social services

 |  May 14, 2006 at 12:05 PM

Dangerous, dangerous, dangerous. That's all. These parents are playing with fire. And I say that as a dog lover and dog owner of many years.

 |  May 14, 2006 at 12:14 PM

I agree that a dog can consider a baby a packmate, as I have seen it myself. That second picture still gives me the heebie jeebies.

 |  May 14, 2006 at 12:15 PM

It's funny how pics like this bring out the people who never post, or else ones who do normally post but suddenly use a different ID. I am by no means saying that danger never exists between animals and babies. My point is that it isn't yours to judge, at least not here.

No one can speak to this individual situation except the family of the baby/dog. Obviously everything turned out as cute as the pictures appear. Geez, will every picture now have to come with a disclaimer that "no animals and/or humans were injured in the taking of these pictures"?

Here's one example for you: My sister chose a dog (Newfoundland dog - also a very large animal) specifically due to its protective nature toward children. Even she, as the "Alpha" to her dog, would get growled at if she roughhoused with her boys.

All I know is that these pics, again "as they appear", are really cute so I'm not going to let the naysayers ruin it for me.

 |  May 14, 2006 at 12:17 PM

ahh! he totally digs her!

 |  May 14, 2006 at 12:19 PM

"By being comfortable around the baby and learning how not to hurt it while under supervision, it's less likely to accidentally harm the baby during times where the baby and the dog come into accidental unsupervised contact."

And it's quite possible, as this isn't a newborn, that the parents have seen the baby and the dog interacting enough to have a good sense of how safe the baby is. If it were a dog that isn't familiar with the baby, or vice versa, I'd consider it very dangerous. That baby's a few months old. The parents might have a very good clue about what to expect.

It's definitely a "don't try this at home" situation.

 |  May 14, 2006 at 12:20 PM

I wouldn't want my baby's face near ANY dog's face, regardless of it's size...period.

 |  May 14, 2006 at 12:27 PM

Speaking for myself, I think this photo sequence is hilarious. Although I agree it's likely to hypnotize untold numbers of parents into feeding their dogs to giant dog-eating babies, and that can't be good. Anyway, it has that effect on me. But I have years of experience that keeps me safe.


 |  May 14, 2006 at 12:27 PM

ay! commentroversy indeed! "Giant dog-eating baby" would be like movie Honey, I Blew up the Kid. hehehe

 |  May 14, 2006 at 12:33 PM

C'mon Theo, you KNOW that bathing kitties is waaaaaaaaaaay worse than these pics. ;-)

 |  May 14, 2006 at 12:35 PM

I dearly love this series of pics!

& to all Mom's out there...
Happy Mother's Day!

Netherland Dwarf rabbit, owner!!♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
 |  May 14, 2006 at 12:40 PM


 |  May 14, 2006 at 12:47 PM

Crunch - I think you might be leaking...

 |  May 14, 2006 at 01:03 PM

my dog, a very large st. bernard with teeth that could crush bones, pulled me out of a hole in the yard i fell into when i was two. he ran over before my mom could get there and got me out by one arm and i didn't have a scratch on me.

i learned to walk on the back of this same dog, and he slept every night at the foot of my crib, and my cat slept in my crib with me as my pillow.

animals aren't completely stupid around small children, in fact quite the opposite, dogs do know their own strength and how delicate small or baby animals are, a puppy can be even more fragile than an infant.

and i agree with mary that like my parents, the parent of that baby knew the behavior of the dog well enough to know that this was a safe situation that probably happens all the time.

that being said, this is positively adorable and i'm glad mom could catch the moment. hooray for moms!

 |  May 14, 2006 at 01:06 PM

That dog is expressing dominance. That is not cute, it is dangerous.

a reader
 |  May 14, 2006 at 01:11 PM

Here's My 2 cents, as a nurse that baby is obviously several months old. While I've always had big dogs in the family I have never had a situation where one of My well behaved, properly trained dogs have injured any of our kids. While it may appear in the picture that the child was in distress I have faith in most animal lovers parenting abilities to know when to say no. A picture is taken in a split second and it is obvious both the dog and child were repositioned. I have often made the suggestion to soon to be parents, if they want to get used to being on call for care 24/7 to get a puppy. I truly enjoyed the pics and I don't think there's any harm in the proximity or behavior of the beautiful four-legged family member.

 |  May 14, 2006 at 01:14 PM

what sweet photos and great captions. "human" is after all relative - certainly, many people are more dangerous than that motherly dog.

little miao
 |  May 14, 2006 at 01:23 PM

Well... to go along with all the warnings of endangerment, I've decided to never let my children have pets just in case something *might* possibly go wrong... but I also won't ever leave them with a babysitter or family member incase they happen to go crazy, put them on a SCHOOL BUS incase the bus driver doesn't drive to my standards, or let my child be anywhere without wearing full body protection in case a bookshelf happens to fall over in their vicinity. Quit judging those parents- you don't know them, you don't know the situation. The pictures were sent in for the cute factor, not so everyone could whine and moan about safety issues... Frankly, it's none of any of your business.

 |  May 14, 2006 at 01:28 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

« Happy Mother's Day! | Home | Cute Pack #2 »




  • Receive the daily content of CuteOverload in your email box. Free!

    Your email address will only be used for this purpose and not given out to any other third party.

    Enter your Email

    Powered by FeedBlitz

Cute Caps!

  • Did you know you can add CuteCaps to your own webpage? Try it!

Got Cute?

  • Think you have a cute photo, Punk? [Clint Eastwood voice] If you think it fits our seriously stringent requirements, send it to us. We just might post it! But if we don't, it's really for the best [patting your back.]

Choosey bloggers choose:

  • TypePad!

    If TypePad helps your blog survive a Slashdotting, you know it's strong.

    Set Up Your Blog For Free with TypePad! If I can do it, you tewtelly can.

Email Me

  • press-related: press [at] cutelabs.com
  • business-related: meg [at] cutelabs.com
  • submissions: cuteoverload [at] frostdesign.net

Press Coverageses

  • Don't miss our Press page for ALL pattings on the back!


Powered by TypePad