Licking/kissing your dog

Francesca said:"But seldom if ever will the alpha dog in a group allow its own face to be licked by subordinate animals."

:h If you goggle "dog licking alpha" you will see many sources that say just the opposite. Licking is generally accepted as a sign of submission, that the alpha dog accepts from others.

rvten wrote:
I would rather have a dog that is a licker than a biter.

I'm of the opinion that except for potential "damage", there's little difference between the two behaviors. I think both to be a show of dominance, even if only defensive or preemptive.

As proof, I'd point to the earlier assertion that one sees this face-licking behavior between/among dogs...this is true. But seldom if ever will the alpha dog in a group allow its own face to be licked by subordinate animals.

Oh Fiddlelicks, Now I'm really worried. I wonder if Dr. OZ wants us to give up our sex lives, since ... well you know. I guess I'll have to sell the ole camper too now cause no way I can go near the mountains, beaches,planet EARTH and it's really gonna be hard not kissing and huggin the kids and grandkids. You know, those nasty scabies and pinworms and impetiago etc. Handshakes are off limits. I could go on and on but I think I'm making my point and now I'm gonna go give my pooch a big fat kiss....lick the hubby tooooo.... thanks for the chuckle on this thread....dw

Similar to some others, I'm more concerned about the germs I'll collect from other humans than from my dogs. So many people use a toilet facility that has been used by thousands of others, and so few wash their hands, then open the door to leave the washroom, further spreading the germs, then want to shake my hand when they greet me. ICK. I'll take my dogs' licking...I know where those tongues have been, at least.

Same reason we prefer RVing -- just can't fathom sleeping overnight in a hotel room that has been shared by thousands of others who I don't know.

Then there's the present expert train of thought that the increased allergies being experienced by humans is because they aren't exposed to stuff in their youth. Their bodies don't build natural immunities because humans have become paranoid about bacteria and germs.

Farm kids have less allergies according to the TV show, Nature of Things. Yet they live in an environment full of crap, literally.

http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/episodes/the-allergy-fix

Excerpts:

Clues to the increase may be found on farms, because kids growing up on dairy farms have far fewer allergies than city kids. It’s called “the farming effect”, after a German study revealed farm kids had only half the allergies of urban kids. It seems that without the kinds of bacteria that have traditionally lived around us and within us for hundreds of thousands of years, our immune systems have become confused.

AND

Since discovering the germ theory of disease, we have cleaned up our world. We’ve sanitized our urban environment and mostly defeated bacteria with antibiotics. But at what cost? The antibiotics may be killing off microbes in our gut that work symbiotically with our immune system. A theory known as “the hygiene hypothesis” suggests that exposure to certain germs actually protects our system and lowers our allergy risk.

I would rather have a dog that is a licker than a biter.
Everything that is bad for today. Will be good for you tomorrow.

Go Dogs wrote:

Dog Folks wrote:
Go Dogs Thank you for your opinion.

I respectfully disagree, as I feel we are on topic. The Dr.OZ show was mentioned in the OP as the source of the information.

I have faith that if it gets too far of topic, the moderators will warn the posters or take other action. It is their job.

dturm: Thanks for your real world expert input.

The Dr. Oz show was only sited, incidentally-not as the 'source' of the information. Are you saying that this Dr. Oz segment is the only time you have ever heard of people allowing dogs to lick their face??

All depends on how one defines "source."

One definition: ": a person, book, etc., that gives information" Merriam-Webster

But alas, we are falling off topic as you previously pointed out, so I will refrain from further posts on this subject.

I would rather believe dturm and his experience than a TV show, or a internet forum for that matter. :)

Dog Folks wrote:
Go Dogs Thank you for your opinion.

I respectfully disagree, as I feel we are on topic. The Dr.OZ show was mentioned in the OP as the source of the information.

I have faith that if it gets too far of topic, the moderators will warn the posters or take other action. It is their job.

dturm: Thanks for your real world expert input.

The Dr. Oz show was only sited, incidentally-not as the 'source' of the information. Are you saying that this Dr. Oz segment is the only time you have ever heard of people allowing dogs to lick their face??

Go Dogs Thank you for your opinion.

I respectfully disagree, as I feel we are on topic. The Dr.OZ show was mentioned in the OP as the source of the information.

I have faith that if it gets too far of topic, the moderators will warn the posters or take other action. It is their job.

dturm: Thanks for your real world expert input.

CA POPPY wrote:
Dogs don't have hands, so they can't pet us back. Licking is their version and some dogs are much more touchy-feely than others. Our Poquita was notorious for her patented "nano-second flash lick." Never met the human who could dodge it. As far as I know, there were no fatalities.

I agree! I try to keep the doggie-kisses from my mouth area, but the girls are quicker than I am some times. :B

Dog Folks wrote:

SooperDaddy wrote:
I've never been a fan of Doctor OZ! Groups of notable physicians are collaborating to take Dr. Mehmet Oz MD, to task on what they’re calling outlandish claims and bad medical advice. Their suggestion is to no longer pay attention to that man behind the curtain!

I couldn't agree more. You have to consider the source.

EVERY DAY Dr. OZ is going to present some new thing that is either going to kill me or help keep me alive and I have to watch. Please......

Also, how many times has the medical community said:

"Coffee is bad for you"

"No, wait, coffee is not that bad."

"No, wait, coffee is harmless."

(Coffee was used here as an example only)

The bottom line is they just do not know and there are no absolutes.

Actually, the OP had really nothing to do with Dr. Oz's teachings. I don't watch his show, I turned on the last 3 minutes of his show, while waiting for local news. He was showing video of people allowing their dog to lick them in the face/mouth. Dr. Oz was not even speaking one way or the other. So, if someone wants to start a Dr. Oz thread, do it elsewhere, as it's derailing this thread.
And yes, years ago things were different. No seatbelts, lead paint, cigarettes everywhere, etc.
Now, we know a little better on certain things. How many of you would want to go to your health care provider, (doctor's office or hospital) and see no one using gloves, or merely rinsing the glass thermometer between patients?