Are you for it or against it?

I've written about Flexpetz not once but twice.

As you will recall, Flexpetz is the company that acts as a pimp for the dogless. The owner of the monumentally bad idea rents dogs to people for a day or a weekend or whatever.

These poor animals — the dogs, not the humans — are taken by people who are given a minimal amount of training and pay a lot of money for the privilege of being allowed to think they are — for the moment — dog owners.

A New York Times puff piece on the company quoted a woman who said the dog she rents makes it easier for her (the woman) to meet people. Unfortunately, the article never bothered to talk to any dog behavior specialists who might have said how this money-making venture could be detrimental to the dog.

Well, now there is an online petition that wants the company to take the animals' well-being into consider.

We the undersigned feel that your business may have unintended consequences for both the animals and humans involved.

First, the pets may suffer unintentional emotional damage by not having a single stable environment to live in.

Second, this may adversely effect the humans involved if one of these animals can no longer take the pressure of this type of a life.

Finally, we feel that the use of animals for profit is unacceptable, especially when there is the possibility of emotional damage.

We will continue to feel this way until you issue a public statement declaring that you are taking the emotional well being of the animals into account and focus more on helping the animals than making money.

There is more at stake here than profit.

And yes, I realize the petition misspells the word "prostitutes," but we get the idea.