“When I come to my friends, I ask them to quickly lock their English bulldog in another room,” admits 27-year-old Ekaterina. She is not afraid of dogs, she just “cannot stand their presence.” Like Catherine, people who do not like animals often experience irritation, disgust, or, conversely, are completely indifferent to the animal world. “Often behind such rejection lies the inability to accept the open manifestation of the instinctive principle characteristic of all animals, their spontaneity and sincerity,” says psychotherapist Irina Zemtseva. “The unconditional love that pets show is also frightening.” Let's try to figure out why.
Negative experience or lack thereof
Animals charge us with positive emotions, give us their unconditional love, and we often begin to perceive them as true friends and equal family members. But this is difficult to accept for those who are not accustomed to communicating with them since childhood. Those who have never had a dog, a cat, or a hamster in their home and, therefore, have had no experience of this kind of relationship, often remain indifferent. Sometimes indifference is associated with an unconscious desire to protect oneself from possible mental trauma. “If, for example, in childhood a child had a hard time with the death or loss of a beloved dog, then, as he grows up, without realizing it, he will see in this situation - a dog in the house - a threat to his mental balance. And she will do everything to avoid it,” explains zoopsychologist Elena Fedorovich.
Mirror image
“Sometimes we can suddenly see ourselves in our animals,” says Irina Zemtseva. – Since they “are very sensitive creatures, they often adopt our characteristic traits. And they turn into a kind of mirror, becoming an unconscious projection of their owner.” So if someone, for example, states that they cannot stand cats, it may mean that they are not at odds with the animals of that species, but with the trait they embody for them. Cats are primarily associated with independence. Consequently, a person either does not possess this character trait (but would like to, because he suffers from his dependence on another person or circumstances), or, on the contrary, his independence causes him suffering (since it condemns him to difficult loneliness).
Georgy, 26 years old, engineer “I was able to communicate with them because I love their owners”
“Parents always said that animals are dirty and smell bad. Maybe that's why I never felt tender feelings for them? There is no emotion when I see a puppy on the street; it rather annoys me. Besides, it seems to me that there is no point in having pets, except perhaps as guard dogs or hunting dogs. But still, I think I like the two dogs. Largely because they belong to my best friends. It seems that I managed to love them because I love their owners. These dogs are so happy when I come that they evoke a response in me. However, this does not mean that I am ready to love other animals. But these dogs touch me, I’m used to them and I’m really happy to see them.”
What to do?
Be sensitive
Try to imagine yourself in the place of your friend who has a four-legged friend. What feelings does his pet give him? Why is your friend so attached to him? By trying to find answers to these questions, you may be able to see the situation in a new way: discover that pets deserve interest and even love. And you can really learn to have a warm attitude towards them.
Get comfortable with your body
Communication with animals includes physical contact. Perhaps he is unpleasant to you because you generally feel awkward from any touch, both from people and animals, it’s just that the latter are more direct in their desire for affection. Learn to enjoy tactile sensations. A professional massage, the gentle touch of your partner, or the evening ritual of applying creams or aromatic oils to your skin will help you discover these sensual pleasures.
Difficult feelings
Pets instinctively strive for physical contact with a person and expect a response from us. Communication with them always involves physical contact. When a person says that he does not like animals, this may mean that he is uncomfortable... in his body, as if he is cut off from his bodily sensations. Therefore, such a seemingly simple and natural physical interaction with a cat, dog or guinea pig causes fear and anxiety in him.
Those who in early childhood were forbidden by their parents to behave as small children usually behave, that is, guided by instincts and their own desires, are often treated with disgust towards pets. “It’s amazing, but later, in his friends’ cat, which suddenly jumped onto his lap, such a person will see a clingy, uncontrollable child,” continues Irina Zemtseva. “And, like his parents (who do not accept spontaneous behavior), he will become angry and dislike her.”
To the one who is nearby
You shouldn’t judge someone who doesn’t like animals: he has his own reasons. But you can try to establish contact between him and your pet. Talk about what exactly communication with him gives you. Having seen what role a four-legged friend plays in your life, what attention, tenderness and love he gives you, your interlocutor will be better able to understand the essence of the connection that is established between a person and a pet. You can slowly bring them closer together by showing what games and affection your pet especially prefers. But do not rush and do not force this communication under any circumstances.
MONITORING PUBLIC OPINION:
"LEAVE A TRACE ON THE EARTH..."
In memory of A.S. Sosnina (1925 -2002)
These notes are a tribute to the memory of a friend who left us 12 years ago. And this is a belated attempt to pay tribute to a wonderful and bright man, who for many years was the center of attraction for so many and very different people. For me personally, there is also a certain motive of repentance here. Because in the last years of his life, most of his close friends (including myself) were unable to rise above the well-known saying: “Plato is my friend, but the truth is dearer,” to step over political differences and their own ambitions (about their essence later) in order to to break through the veil of ideological loneliness that was increasingly enveloping him, which he was experiencing heavily.
What kind of person was this - Anatoly Semenovich Sosnin? Front-line soldier: an 18-19 year old young man who got into the war and survived thanks to the fact that his older comrades protected him (which he realized much later). Journalist, writer, film playwright. Author of stories, plays and scripts for feature films and one and a half dozen documentaries (one of which, “The Battle of Smolensk,” is sure to be shown on Victory Day, and not only in Smolensk). But he is better known as one of the creators and the permanent Chairman of the St. Petersburg Society for the Protection of Animals (OSH) for 9 years, the organizer of the country's first animal shelters. It was in this capacity that his name was included in the book: “The Best People of St. Petersburg” (1996). And, probably, that is why he was invited to a meeting with Queen Elizabeth of England, who visited our city in 1994.
He was only 12 days shy of his 77th birthday. Respectable age! But...thick, slightly curly hair, straight back, energetic gait. An ironic, sly look from under long eyelashes, in which at times some kind of poignant insecurity slipped through. And – a huge attractive charm. He was on equal terms with everyone: with the conventional woman Masha, feeding the cats in the gateway, and with high-brow intellectuals who loved to argue with him at a friendly table about the fate of Russia, about the eternal “damned questions” - what to do and who is to blame.
For animal rights activists, it will probably be a revelation to learn that the one with whom they sometimes desperately argued at meetings of the Society’s Board, with whom they transported animals and food for them to shelters in his old Zaporozhets, was a kind of “guru” in a wide circle friends and acquaintances. Among whom were many famous people. And for these latter, it may be surprising to know that day and night his phone did not stop ringing with cries for help, that at any time of the year, in any weather, he abandoned his work and rushed to these calls, rarely refusing anyone ( sometimes I had to, but I really didn’t like to do it). And even when I didn’t feel well or was busy with something, I still went, despite the protests of my family, to help out. Was it about rescuing an animal in trouble or about the urgent need to bring bones to Elena Vasilievna Vorobyova (there was such an owner of the so-called home shelter - eternal memory to her) for her always hungry 40-50 dogs.
At the same time, he never tired of repeating, as if objecting to potential opponents, that when helping an animal, he first of all thinks about the person who needs such help. Because many did not understand and often asked him the same question: how can you deal with cats and dogs when we are full of suffering people, and no one cares about them. He said that it is impossible to be kind and merciful “from now on,” that these concepts are inseparable, and that those who do not love animals will never love people. In this position he had such powerful forerunners as Albert Schweitzer (his “reverence for life”) and A.I. Solzhenitsyn, through the mouth of his hero Kostoglotov in Cancer Ward, once spoke with precisely these words.
The fact that Anatoly Semenovich abandoned his comfortable, prestigious job at the table and switched to animals was considered by some to be an eccentricity. But he was not an eccentric. It was a conscious choice. He believed that every socially responsible person is obliged to leave his mark on the earth. And I saw it in practical help to people who love four-legged “our little brothers” and worry about them. It must be said that to dogs and cats (and, I should add, to birds: bread crumbs and cereals were always pouring out of his pockets, with which he fed the birds on the nearby Champs of Mars, and they lay in wait for him and then followed him for a long time in a train like a kind of bird retinue) he did not arrive immediately. For a long time, both he and the animals existed as if in parallel worlds, almost without contact with each other. But one day a charming spaniel puppy was brought into the house...and that’s where it all began.
He saw, or rather, felt his kinship with a funny baby, who, like a person, is capable of experiencing the same emotions, the same pain, the same affections. And to understand a lot - much more than one would expect, looking from afar. And then - suddenly, one day - he saw the hungry eyes of homeless animals. And that’s all: now he could no longer follow by indifferently. He began to go to the “Ocean” store almost every day (there were some in Leningrad), buy cheap “trifles” there and scatter them in sponsored places (yards). Often I kept him company and watched how this happened. The cats were already waiting for him, running from everywhere, and it was clear how happy he was at this “public animal recognition.” I bought kilograms of jelly for the dogs. Every day for almost 10 years. Long before the creation of the OZH.
Someone may ask: didn’t he see in his creativity an opportunity to leave a mark on the earth? After all, it was quite successful. Two plays (“Night Talk”, “Where Rivers Flow”) were staged in the capital’s theaters. Two feature films based on his scripts (“Mushroom Rain” and “From Paycheck to Paycheck”), shot by good directors – Alexander Koshelev and Aida Manasarova, respectively – were successful in the pre-perestroika era. One of them (“From Paycheck to Paycheck”) was even awarded at the All-Union Film Festival in 1986, despite the nagging of the film bosses, who saw in it the ideas of the Polish Solidarity. The second film has stood the test of time - it has been shown on TV more than once with a high four-star rating on a five-point scale. I'm not even talking about the many good scripts for documentaries, stories, articles and reviews.
Everything that came from his pen was well thought out, talented, intelligent and honest. But he was very (maybe even excessively) self-critical, did not imagine himself to be a great writer, and understood that this was not how he could leave a “mark on the earth.” He wanted to do something visible and tangible to improve the situation with poor homeless dogs and cats.
At the age of 64, first as an ordinary member and then as a member of the Board, he joins the Leningrad organization of the All-Union Society for the Protection of Animals, which emerged in 1989, willingly carrying out instructions as its very first Chairman, the famous writer M.M. Chulaki, and 28-year-old A.S. Gippius (yes, a relative of that same famous Zinaida Nikolaevna), who was his (Chulaki’s) deputy at that time. A year later he headed the Society himself. And it was then, under his leadership, that real practical work began on structuring and developing all areas of the organization’s activities, and most importantly, on the construction of shelters for homeless animals. The first in the country.
There was a catastrophic lack of money for this, and a lot had to be done ourselves, with our own hands. He did not shy away from any kind of work, setting an example for others: he obtained and brought building materials, made various devices, cages and enclosures, and once even installed a bathroom in the shelter. Undoubtedly, this brought satisfaction, but it also almost completely consumed time and energy. My already severely damaged health was being undermined. The situation was further complicated by the nervous atmosphere on the Board, not a single weekly meeting of which was complete without arguments and shouting. His family and friends were very worried about him and tried to persuade him to give up everything at the most critical moments. But he couldn't go for it.
Because he was a man with an extremely developed sense of duty, which manifested itself in everything he undertook. And this is not an empty pretentious phrase, but a reality well known to those around him. Probably, this quality was inherent in him, as they say, by nature, but it also came from the mind - it was consciously maintained and cultivated (which some used without a twinge of conscience for their own selfish interests).
Another property was no less strongly developed in him, which could be considered a kind of exaggeration quite understandable in this situation - this is almost pathological modesty. It’s not enough to say that he didn’t like to push himself and his merits. It was unpleasant for him even to hear laudatory speeches addressed to him. And I think that he would be very dissatisfied with me for the panegyric style of these notes, as he probably would have thought. But how can one fail to note, for example, that he avoided using front-line regalia to obtain some benefits, did not strive to speak from the stands, which, however, he often had to do, since his position obliged him. Or it was simply impossible not to speak out, based on the principle: I cannot remain silent.
In general, he preferred to stay in the shadows. He assessed himself as a writer very self-critically (in my opinion, even too much). But overall, he knew his worth. And could it be otherwise when the “best minds” listened to him (quote from I. Brodsky: “and these best minds are Joseph Brodsky, Yakov Gordin ...”), certainly wanting to know his opinion on certain exciting controversial issues.
He also spoke about his past with amazing modesty: “I haven’t done anything outstanding in my life,” he writes in his autobiographical sketches. However, a little further we read: “However, the lives of ordinary people can also be of interest to history. As a fact, as a side dish, as a drop of vinegar in a bland dish.” Elsewhere you can read: “My life is classified as prosperous.” But here are completely different lines: “Life passed through the steep and stormy periods of the cruel twentieth century... Without shying away from its hardships and dangers, to the best of your ability and ability(!, emphasis added - N.Sh.) I saw and thought a lot... I was literally two steps away from death - well, twenty times, no less.”
At the very beginning of these notes, I promised to talk about the essence of the ideological differences that separated him in his views on modern reality not only with his friends, but even in his family - with his wife and daughter. It’s a strange thing: this ironic man, a subtle analyst who enthusiastically accepted perestroika, now had a completely uncritical attitude towards power, no matter who was at the top of the pyramid - Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Putin. He generally approved of their steps, believing that they were ultimately leading the country in the right direction - away from a possible restoration of communist orders. This was the main thing for him. He justified a lot of negative and alarming things by attributing them to growing pains.
In his civic position and political views, he was a staunch democrat. And not only in the sense of the state structure and regime, but also in relation to the demos itself - the people. I couldn't stand it when this last one was called a redneck. Contrary to the well-known formula: “every people deserves its own government,” it did not hold it responsible for everything that happened after October, including the years of Stalinist repressions and the cult of personality.
He welcomed perestroika primarily for glasnost, for information openness, for freedom of speech and press. I was confident that the transition of the state to democratic norms and principles declared in the Constitution would be realized. And its entry onto the European, civilized path of development is almost inevitable. He was a historical optimist. He was attracted by the social democratic model of development and was pleased that Russia was proclaimed a social state. And what came of it to this day, he was not allowed to see. He was not so much unable to foresee the changes that occurred after him, as he was unwilling: his entire nature, hopeful about perestroika, resisted the idea that everything could return “to normal.” And within the historically foreseeable period.
In the last years of his life, there was a noticeable tightening of the regime; alarming tendencies towards a gradual rollback from early perestroika freedoms had already appeared. It seemed impossible not to see this. But he brushed off these negative signs as something temporary and insignificant, surprising his friends. Now some of them are asking themselves: would he really not have discerned anti-democratic tendencies in the actions of the authorities today? And they don't find an answer. And then they entered into discussions with him, sometimes quite fierce, which separated the disputants on opposite sides of the ideological barricades. And it gave him a bitter feeling of loneliness. Obviously, unlike his opponents, he focused on some “coming years” (1), and not on “these” - his contemporary days.
Anatoly Semenovich had a bad heart. And his relatives tried to protect him from unwanted emotions, begging him not to argue with him, which only aggravated his oppressive feeling of isolation. But it was not always possible to completely eliminate the discussion component in communication. And then he would fly into a rage and shout: “All you need to do is la-la, but for me it’s heartache.” Naturally, the interlocutor fell silent.
His clear mind demanded food, he carefully followed publications, not missing a single significant one. But he wrote almost nothing himself. And not because he had nothing to say. It’s just that, clever, he believed that there were many people willing even without him. And everything he would like, one way or another, will be written sooner or later. Over the years, he increasingly preferred, so to speak, the conversational genre: “Orally, in a cheerful voice, at the tea table, over a glass (2) - that’s welcome.”
It would be wrong if the reader gets the idea of him as an “angel with wings.” No, he wasn't. Could undeservedly insult, especially in anger. He didn’t understand people very well and was childishly trusting. Sometimes he brought the unworthy closer to the family and alienated those who could be relied upon. What did he himself suffer from in the first place? But at the same time he never lost his charm. It was impossible to be seriously offended by him. His friends loved him. He was sympathized with by many whom he encountered throughout his life. And, of course, in an attempt to revive, after many years of oblivion, the ideas of a merciful, humane attitude towards all living things, which were propagated by the Imperial Society for the Protection of Animals back in Tsarist Russia, he left his mark on the earth. He succeeded. He did it.
N. Shustrova (in 1990 – 1998 – First Deputy Chairman of the St. Petersburg Society for the Protection of Animals
(1) “But we did not call for these days, but for the coming years” (A. Blok. To the Pushkin House).
(2) Just don’t think that he was partial to alcohol. Quite the opposite: his friends called him “Lemonade Joe.”
About A.S. Sosnina, see earlier on Kogita.ru:
(Attention! If, when you click on the name of the Kogita.ru material, you receive the answer: “Unfortunately, we did not find anything at the requested address,” do not be embarrassed and go to the end of the page that opens, where it says: “Perhaps you were looking for...” and the corresponding name. Click on it and you will be taken to the material you are looking for A.A.)
According to research conducted by University of Guelph psychology professor Hank Davis, caring for those who are smaller and weaker than us - be it children or animals - is embedded in the mind as a kind of “survival code.” Neural connections leave no choice: a person reacts emotionally to everything that fits the definition of “baby,” regardless of biological species.
Animals are like children. Even more: unlike human babies, they require constant care throughout their lives. You have to spend time, energy, money, emotions on them. But is it really necessary? Nobody forces anyone to have a pet - we courageously take upon ourselves this burden and carry it with pride. Although in fact, “animal” love often covers up a banal benefit: we use pets to solve our psychological problems.
LIVING MIRROR
There are often stories about how “the dog thought”, “the cat felt sorry”, “the fish listened”. By humanizing our animals, we often attribute to them the qualities of not only people, but even wizards - for example, when we claim that animals heal us. A specialist in psychodiagnostics and transactional analysis, psychologist Anna Shevtsova is skeptical: the level of nervous activity of animals, according to her, is not high enough for them to communicate on equal terms with their owners.
Relationships with pets are just a mirror, a projection from which we can read information about our needs or problems in relationships with people. Irina (28) found her beloved cat on the street: someone had left three blind newborn kittens in a box. The girl admits that before that she was not particularly fond of animals, but suddenly she could not pass by. At first I just wanted to feed the foundlings and then distribute them. But she couldn’t part with one, the weakest one.
“We don’t always pay attention if someone asks for help,” says consulting psychologist and systemic therapist Elizaveta Levina. “As a rule, this happens when we ourselves need it.” Irina had an unconscious need for care, which was not possible to receive. And she found a creature that she could take care of herself.
Anna Shevtsova believes: if you suddenly suddenly become interested in animals, you should pay attention to what is happening in your life. Perhaps you lack affection, love, or just someone to talk to.
Daria (24) dreamed of having a dog since childhood - she was not interested in cats. When the girl was ten years old, her mother brought home a kitten: cute, but with the habits of a misanthrope - he scratched, bit and did not like playing with children. “When the cat grew up and one day did not return from a walk, I was upset, but not for long,” admits Dasha. “I wanted a dog, but it never worked out to love a cat with all my soul.” Recently, a dream came true - a girl bought a puppy, and now devotes almost all her time to him: walking, taking him to individual training, and even sleeping in the same bed with him.
According to Elizaveta Levina, in this situation, when choosing an animal, the decisive role was played not so much by Dasha’s dislike of cats, but by her protest towards her mother - it is impossible to sincerely love what is imposed. But the girl chose the dog on her own, being ready to accept responsibility for her choice.
SENSE TRAINER
Sometimes we ourselves provide psychological reasons for our decision to have a pet. For example, it is a common practice among young couples to first have a dog or cat, and then children. Anna (25) has been married for two years, but before giving birth to a child, she and her husband decided to “practice” on someone - and took a dog into the house. “It seems to me that Businka and I are learning to overcome difficulties,” the girl shares. — It turned out that my husband and I have different views on education: Alexey is strict, but kind, and I am tougher, sometimes I can even shout. Now I'm learning to achieve my goal in other ways. I think we're better prepared to be real parents now."How successful are such animal experiments? To Elizaveta Levina, this method seems somewhat far-fetched: “The couple made a decision and follows it, although it does not bring anything globally useful. A child is very different from a dog - this will become clear as soon as Anna becomes pregnant. And now they are simply wasting time, delaying a step for which they are not mentally prepared.” The psychologist's opinion is confirmed by statistics: in an extensive study of the nature of the emotional connection between owners and animals, which was conducted by Indiana University sociologist David Blouin, there is evidence that married couples consider the animal to be their child only until they have real children. Then the difference in attitude becomes obvious. Anna Shevtsova looks at the problem from a different angle: “Sometimes couples are scared to have a child, because it’s easier with a cat or dog. If problems arise, the animal can be sold or given to someone, but you will have to build a relationship with the child in any case.” According to her, this is where it comes into play,
on the one hand, the desire for real relationships and experiences - to become a parent, to improve your personal life. On the other hand, fear or reluctance to work on it and put your soul into it manifests itself. It is better to resolve such an internal conflict peacefully - by sorting out your feelings, without involving either children or animals in the process.
TELL US WHO YOUR FRIEND IS
But why are some people crazy about cats, while others only respect dogs? Data from a study conducted by University of Texas psychologist Sam Gosling indicate that cat people are generally more vulnerable people who value solitude and have a more flexible assessment system. If a person is married, actively communicates with colleagues and at the same time adheres to more traditional views on life, a dog will most likely suit him. “Dogs are friends and companions who can be trained and subjugated to your will; physically and emotionally they are completely dependent on the owner, and a cat is an independent creature, it cannot be forced to do anything,” adds Anna Shevtsova.In addition, according to the psychologist, dogs are most often owned by “tyrants”, and cats
people-victims choose: they themselves want to serve someone, worship someone, admire someone. Often cats are owned by women who are tired of being “men” and showing
independence. In addition, these animals are unpredictable: no matter how much we love a cat, it will not necessarily reciprocate our feelings.
Dogs help you socialize—you almost always have to go out into the world with them and communicate with other owners. They can even serve as a pass to a different social circle. This was the case, for example, with small dogs, but the general fashion for Chinese crested dogs, Yorkies and Chihuahuas has nullified the former elitism of the owners of “pocket” babies.
By the way, if it is exotic animals that are difficult to care for and maintain that attract your attention, we are talking only about the desire to stand out. “In this case, love for living nature has nothing to do with it,” says Anna Shevtsova. “Therefore, an irresistible desire to buy an iguana is the first reason to make an appointment with a psychologist. Perhaps after this there will be no need to go to the pet store.”
HEALING WITH LOVE
Stories about how pets treat their owners have long moved from the “obvious-incredible” category to the everyday category. Experts, however, do not lose hope of finding out whether this is so, or whether we are falling under the influence of the placebo effect. A group of psychologists led by Doctor of Psychology Erica Friedman during the research process found that pets slightly improve the general condition of people with heart disease and some mental illnesses. But we are talking specifically about the rehabilitation period, which goes faster and easier if the patient has some kind of animal at home. Anna Shevtsova, in turn, believes: our pets, as dependent creatures, literally remove part of the negative energy from a person. People saturate the atmosphere of their home with their thoughts and feelings. Difficult feelings affect everyone. Animals, which, unlike us, do not have psychological protection, take upon themselves what is floating in space. “Sometimes it happens that animals in the family get sick,” adds the psychologist, “but people feel better. This can happen unconsciously: everything seems to be fine with everyone, but the cat suddenly dies from a serious illness.”Still, the controversy over the reliability of the medicinal properties of pets is unlikely to subside any time soon. Doctor of Psychology at Western Carolina University Hal Herzog conducted a study, the results of which are actively discussed
in the US medical and psychological communities. It turned out that there is simply no real data on which conclusions about the therapeutic effects of animals could be based. The effect of “animal” healing has been so little studied that Herzog literally called on his colleagues to seriously study this issue. He also notes that perhaps such a minor disclosure of the topic has something to do with profits: the multimillion-dollar turnover of companies producing food and pet products is directly dependent on the myth that, say, this cute Yorkie or Labrador can heal your heart, make you move more and drive away boredom.
INHUMAN SENSES
It is a fairly common belief that those of us who love animals also love people. In fact, these things are not connected and even vice versa - the more a person is attached to animals, the more complicated his relationship with people. It is not for nothing that the classic portrait of an avid dog lover or cat lover is the image of a hermit who left the world for the sake of communicating with our smaller brothers. Anna Shevtsova notes: “People demand from us mental and emotional investments, work in relationships and on ourselves. It can be hard, scary, painful, points out mistakes and forces you to change and grow. Animals allow us to remain as we are - it’s safe and pleasant.” When some single people get pets, it's more likely that they want love but are afraid that they aren't worthy of it. They expect pain and disappointment from those around them, and are afraid to enter into real deep relationships.”It turns out that our interaction with birds is largely determined, if not by problems, then by algorithms for relationships with people. Hal Herzog, analyzing the connections between humans and lesser brothers in his article, comes to the conclusion: humans are the only animals that make animals of another species “favorites”; other representatives of the fauna interact with each other
with a friend only on a partnership basis. We get animals for care, affection and joy. Perhaps, sooner or later, we will still learn to love them without a complex psychological background - simply so that in life there will be a little more positive emotions, the pure, unchanging joy of communication, which our pets give us “free of charge - that is, for nothing.”
TEXT: Lana Volokhova
The Privacy Policy explains how the information you provide to me is used and how to contact me if you have questions or concerns.
1. What information do we need?
If you decide to subscribe to an information product located on our site, we will ask you for information such as your name and email address. This is explained by the following considerations. We regularly prepare up-to-date information products (both paid and a large number of free ones) information marketing on the Internet. Your interest in a specific information product suggests that other information marketing products on the Internet and other topics may be interesting and useful to you. In order to inform you about these products, as well as to provide access to them, we need to send you an information letter. In addition, we may conduct a survey to find out your opinion about our products, as well as your wishes. Before providing us with other people's personal data, be sure to obtain permission from the relevant persons. Make sure you provide correct and accurate information.
3. Who else gets access to personal information?
To carry out mailing, we use the mailing service justclick.ru. This service processes your personal information (i.e. e-mail and name you provided) so that I can send you an e-mail with access to the product you have chosen or inform you about new relevant information marketing products on the Internet, or conduct a survey in order to identify the information you need. In exceptional circumstances, we may disclose your personal information if required to do so by law or to protect ourselves and others from illegal activities or other dangers.
4. Identification files (cookies)
Our website contains identification files, so-called cookies. Cookies are small text files sent to a website visitor’s computer to record his actions. Cookies are used on my site to personalize visits, study the behavior of visitors on the site and record their actions. You can disable the use of cookies in your browser settings. Please note, however, that in this case some functions will not be available or may not work correctly.
5. Security
We take reasonable steps to minimize the possibility of your personal information being lost, stolen, misused, unauthorized access, destroyed, altered or disclosed. At the same time, we cannot guarantee that the risk of unauthorized misuse of personal information will be completely eliminated. We kindly ask you to be very careful when storing account passwords and not to share them with anyone else (in the case of products containing access passwords). Please contact us immediately if you become aware of any breach of information security (for example, unauthorized use of your password).
6. Children
We fully share the wariness of parents regarding the use of personal information about their children. We urge all visitors under 18 years of age to obtain parental or guardian permission before providing any personal information. We do not knowingly collect information from children. If I become aware that I have received personal information about a child under 14 years of age.
Consent to the newsletter
As part of all our projects, my team and I provide you with a large number of useful bonus materials. In return, in most cases, we ask you to leave your contact information. Below I will tell you how this data can be used from the moment you agree to receive our newsletters. By leaving your contact information, you accept that we can use it either independently (within the privacy policy) or together with our partners, with your prior consent. We do not transfer your personal data without your consent.
The following is a list of all types of possible uses of your contact information, both requiring and not requiring separate consent on your part, but relevant by default, from the moment the contacts enter our database.
At the moment you submit your data, you agree:
- To use your data to inform you about all our projects, including those implemented jointly with a third party, as well as to organize the process of your participation in the implementation of these projects.
- To provide your contacts to companies working on our behalf (according to an official agreement).
- To use your contacts in our subsidiaries and joint ventures. In other words, in companies where we have at least 50% equity participation. At the same time, we undertake to enter into an additional non-disclosure agreement with these companies.
- To use your data in partner projects, or projects positioned for us as joint ones. In this case, you will be notified of the use, which will occur in accordance with the privacy policy of the partner site.
- When selling our business, since in this case we reserve the right to transfer the entire business to the new owner, along with the client base.
Regardless of whether you have given your consent, we may use your data at the request of government services, as well as for the purpose of protecting and preventing illegal actions in the manner prescribed by applicable law.
In any case, at your first request (including by clicking the “unsubscribe” button). Your data will be excluded from our current database without the right to resume mailing without your re-transmitting your contact information to us.
Sincerely, Tatyana Bakhtiozina
Terms and conditions of service
1. Copyright
It is not allowed to transfer training handouts to third parties, as well as to replicate and distribute these materials without the consent of the administration of this site.
3. Payment terms
Payment for goods and services is made through the payment systems 2checkout, assist or rbkmoney.
Payment by bank cards is made by redirecting to the website of the electronic payment system 2checkout (www.2co.com) or Assist (www.assist.ru). In the ASSIST system, payment security is ensured by using the SSL protocol to transfer confidential information from the client to the ASSIST system server for further processing. Further transfer of information is carried out through closed banking networks of the highest degree of security. The collection and processing of received confidential client data (card details, registration data, etc.) is carried out at the processing center, and not on the seller’s website. Thus, Oleg Goryacho’s store cannot obtain the client’s personal and banking data, including information about his purchases made in other stores. To protect information from unauthorized access at the stage of transmission from the client to the ASSIST system server, the SSL 3.0 protocol is used, the server certificate (128 bit) was issued by Thawte, a recognized center for issuing digital certificates. You can check the authenticity of the server certificate.
4. Procedure and terms of delivery of goods
The goods will be sent within three days from the moment the money is received in Tatyana Bakhtiozina’s account. Information about the time and place of training will be provided upon registration and payment for the relevant training by a personal manager by phone and e-mail.
All trainings are provided in electronic format, available for download.
5. Our guarantee
If, after receiving the training product, for some reason you did not achieve the desired result, then we will refund your money in full.
The period during which you can take advantage of this opportunity is 30 days from the date of payment for the distance training product. To make a refund, you will need to state the reason for the return and return to us all handouts (text materials, audio, video) in their original form (without mechanical damage), received upon delivery and/or within the specified period.
When paying for an order with a bank card, a refund is made to the card from which the payment was made.
This guarantee is valid once. If you have taken advantage of this guarantee, then, unfortunately, we are no longer suitable for each other. Do not count on any communication or cooperation in the future. Also, do not buy courses again, we will not refund any more money!
6. Contact information
Any questions can be sent to
If a person doesn't like animals, is he bad?
I have come across such statements, but more often than not, those who expressed them still loved at least some animals, even if not the usual domestic cats and dogs, but at least they like some animals.
A categorical and groundless dislike for animals would ring a bell for me. This does not mean that a person is necessarily bad, love for animals is not a matter of life and death, it’s just my personal opinion: I love animals very much and I have two animals at home, and I want more, that is, even spending time with me for such a person It would be stressful, and for me too. I have friends like that, and for them there’s even one cat hair on their clothes (I’m not an animal fan who doesn’t see the difference between one hair and a fur coat like after brushing a cat) - Oh, you’re covered in fur! and other similar comments.
yes, and you need to choose your husband or wife based on your love for animals. After all, as you know, all maniacs start by abusing animals.
I think that in relation to animals you can create some idea about a person in general, if a person is simply loyal to our smaller brothers, it’s normal not necessarily to show any love for them, but if he is a hater and a flayer, then this of course can to say that a person, by definition, cannot be good.
No, he's not bad. The main thing is for a person to take responsibility for those he has tamed, because in most cases animals end up on the street, freeze, and die. The question is, why did they take the animal if you didn’t need it?
Some people like to knit. and some people do cross stitch. Which one is bad and which one is good? Nobody - they are just different!
It’s exactly the same with animals - some people love them, others don’t. They are neither good nor bad - just different.
Some of those who love animals (which ones again? I love dogs and rats, I’m indifferent to birds, I tolerate cats, but I hate cockroaches... and they’re all animals) is a total bastard (doesn’t that really happen? Hitler adored dogs... . Chikatilo cats... Wonderful people?), and some of those who don’t love are good, kind people.
In light of recent statements on the Internet, people who declare their love for animals do not look kind and decent...
Well, maybe he's a little callous. Well, help him. If you like him. There are different people. And they behave differently. See how he behaves in other circumstances. And yes, honest people are like non-living things. they don't care about anyone but themselves. Just don't make hasty conclusions.
I wasn't talking about food. You misunderstood me. I'm just such an example. And the question itself is not entirely clear. I have a friend who is afraid of insects. Any. What do you mean he doesn’t love? He's probably just indifferent to them. And he is not interested in your cat or dogs. Maybe the fur is falling off them and he doesn’t want to cuddle them or play with them.
I agree. Because a person who does not love animals does not have love in his soul. I had a friend like this when I was a child. He was a real sadist. Cats and dogs hid when they saw him. He reeked of aggression. He not only didn’t like, he hated animals and loved to physically abuse them. Not loving animals means not understanding what they are needed for, why they live on Earth. This is a kind of selfishness. Man can live on Earth, but animals are superfluous. That’s why I believe that a person who doesn’t love any animals at all is a heartless, selfish and tough person. Let such people think about evolution, about the food chain, about how important every animal on our planet is.
