He carried the weight of a lost companion, the shadow of a dog who had been his heart for 14 years, yet love tethered him to hope as they brought home a new pup. Despite his deep scars, he poured endless hours into nurturing this new life, walking ten kilometers a day, fighting to mold a bond that his girlfriend had wished for but never truly embraced.
But the strain of one-sided devotion began to unravel the fragile threads of their shared dream. When the trainers declared the pup untrainable, it wasn’t just a verdict on the dog—it was a shattering moment that exposed the cracks in their relationship, where love, responsibility, and sacrifice collided in painful dissonance.
AITAH for telling my GF and family that if they make me abandon my dog I will disappear from their lives?
As renowned family therapist Virginia Satir noted, “Feelings are much more important than facts, because people can change their facts, but it is very hard to change a feeling.” This situation clearly illustrates how deeply entrenched feelings—the OP’s grief and attachment, the girlfriend’s initial desire versus current reluctance, and the mother’s boundary setting regarding her home—are driving the conflict, overriding the logistical facts of dog ownership.
The dynamic presented shows a significant failure in establishing and respecting boundaries and shared responsibility from the outset. The girlfriend initiated the desire for the dog but failed to contribute financially or logistically, leading to the OP assuming 100% of the burden, which appears to be the source of the current strain. The OP’s statement of “my house, my rules” is a strong boundary assertion regarding his property, but it implicitly shifts the entire responsibility for the dog onto him, which he seems willing to bear until the dog proved ‘untrainable.’ The dog, therefore, became an unwelcome imposition on the mother and the relationship.
The OP’s threat to ‘sell everything off and disappear’ is a high-stakes emotional escalation signaling that the dog represents a non-negotiable attachment object, possibly symbolizing the grief he hasn’t fully processed from his previous pet. While the OP was appropriate in establishing that the dog was his responsibility within his home, the path forward requires direct, non-ultimatum communication. A constructive recommendation would be for the OP to separate the dog’s immediate future from his relationship status. He should seek specialized, private training options paid for solely by him, or, if the dog truly cannot remain safely in the home environment, begin the search for a specialized working-breed rescue network immediately, rather than threatening to abandon his entire life structure.
HERE’S HOW REDDIT BLEW UP AFTER HEARING THIS – PEOPLE COULDN’T BELIEVE IT.
The Original Poster (OP) is facing intense emotional distress because his girlfriend and mother are pressuring him to give up a dog that he deeply cares for, especially after the emotional toll of losing a previous pet. The central conflict lies between the OP’s commitment to the dog and his desire to maintain his living situation and relationship, against the stated desires of the two key women in his life to remove the animal from their environment.
Given the strong opposing views—the women seeking relief from the perceived burden of the dog, and the OP threatening to leave everything behind if forced to rehome it—the core question remains: Is the OP justified in prioritizing his bond with the dog to the extent of threatening to abandon his current life, or should he seek a compromise that addresses the family’s needs while protecting his emotional well-being?
