In the quiet sanctuary of her final university year, a young woman found an unexpected companion in a stray cat she affectionately named Scribbles. Their bond was a silent rebellion against the loneliness of dorm life, a soft thread of warmth as Scribbles became a constant presence, curling up beside her through endless days and restless nights.
But that fragile comfort was shattered when a stranger’s arrival brought rules and cold authority, sealing the door that once welcomed Scribbles’ gentle paws. The cat’s desperate clawing and plaintive meows echoed the heartbreak of a friendship torn apart by rigid walls, leaving both girl and feline aching in a silence that no door could truly contain.
The cat is not to be allowed *into* students’ rooms
Dr. Martha Stout, a clinical psychologist known for her work on moral psychology and conscience, notes that “Prosocial lying, or bending the rules for the perceived emotional benefit of another, often stems from a strong sense of empathy and attachment, even when directed towards a non-human entity.”
The student’s actions demonstrate a clear pattern of attachment behavior toward the cat, Scribbles, escalating to calculated manipulation once the external environment (the new cleaner and the initial email) threatened that attachment. The student initially tried passive accommodation (leaving the door ajar) but transitioned to active, deceptive problem-solving when the threat became acute. By engineering a situation where the cat would slip past the cleaner, the student effectively forced the administration to issue a more lenient, nuanced rule. This strategy, while successful in achieving the immediate goal of allowing the cat unsupervised access during the day, relies on deception and violates principles of transparency in communal living situations.
The behavior exhibited can be viewed through the lens of boundary violation; the student prioritized their personal emotional needs over the established institutional boundaries meant to govern shared living spaces. A more constructive approach would have involved direct communication with the college administration or the professor who owned the cat, perhaps proposing a formal agreement for supervised visits rather than implementing a plan designed to bypass enforcement. While the attachment to Scribbles is understandable, future handling of such conflicts should favor open negotiation over strategic deception.
HERE’S HOW REDDIT BLEW UP AFTER HEARING THIS – PEOPLE COULDN’T BELIEVE IT.
Scribbles runs this campus
Dogs were not allowed in the college. At one point they were appointing a new Master of the college who refused to go without his dog.
The individual developed a strong emotional bond with the college cat, leading them to actively try and circumvent a clear institutional rule established after the previous cleaner left. The central conflict was between the student’s desire to keep the cat company and the administration’s policy regarding animals in student rooms.
Given the administration’s shift from a total ban to a restriction on unsupervised presence, was the student’s manipulative action a justifiable defense of a meaningful attachment, or an unacceptable breach of trust and college regulations?
