Does dressing your dog humanize him?

Spoiler: No. And thinking that is classist, speciesist and retrograde.

In recent years, dressing our dogs or cats has become a beautiful way to express love, protection, and creativity. However, some people still react with phrases like , "That's abuse," "Don't humanize them," or "Clothes are only for humans."

And it's not just a misunderstanding... often these phrases are loaded with something deeper: classism, speciesism, and a retrograde view of the human-animal bond.

Today we want to talk about that.

1. No, putting clothes on your pet is not humanizing it.

Humanizing an animal means forcing it to live as if it were human, denying its true needs as a species. For example:

• Trying to feed him like a human (giving him food that hurts him).
• Expecting him to understand human emotions or rules (such as getting angry if he doesn't sit in a chair).
• Forcing them to wear uncomfortable shoes, glasses, or costumes just for aesthetics (and not for protection).

That can cause discomfort. But dressing your dog in a garment designed for his comfort and size? No.

It is not humanizing when…

• You put a sweater on him because he's shivering from the cold.
• You make him a little collar or a bandana to protect him from the sun or the wind.
• You sew him a hoodie because he just got shaved and is more vulnerable.
• You make him a light shirt to prevent him from licking a wound, without having to wear the uncomfortable veterinary cone.
• You wear a garment to cover areas with allergies or scars while they heal.
• You make something special for him simply because you love him, and sewing for him is also your way of creating, channeling, and connecting.

Our Pawtrons are designed with intention : To adapt to your body, to respect your movements, to provide shelter or protection as needed.

And yes, also to give space to the creativity of those of us who love to sew and want to make beautiful things for those who accompany us every day.

This isn't humanizing. This is loving, caring, and expressing. And that will never be a mistake.

2. And what does classism have to do with this?

When a woman with too much time on her hands comments, “Clothing dogs humanizes them,” she is assuming—perhaps unwittingly—that only certain humans have the right to care for, clothe, or pamper animals.

Because criticism is never directed at those who buy designer dog clothes for thousands of pesos. It's directed at those of us who dress our dogs in handmade clothes, with creativity and love. In his mind, "only rich or ridiculous people dress their dogs." As if it were an excess, a luxury, an absurd eccentricity.

And that's where classism comes in:

It is judged based on the belief that only certain social sectors can express themselves, tenderly care for, or personalize the lives of their pets.

But if you sew a sweater for your dog with your own hands, with love... that's not luxury. It's care. And whoever criticizes it from their moral high ground is really saying:

“That’s not your business.”
“That’s ridiculous because you’re not part of the group I would allow to do that.”

Because obviously, if Gucci does it, it's fashionable and we should applaud it, but if you do it yourself, it's "ridiculous," right? as if care, aesthetics or detail were only valid when they come from above.

It's also a deeply uninformed and privileged view of animals' real needs. Because saying "dogs shouldn't wear clothes" is part of the privilege of having a healthy dog ​​with a full coat in a warm home.

But what about rescued puppies, those who are cold, hairless, allergic, or already old?
They need shelter. And these people would rather watch an animal shivering from the cold than question their limited idea of ​​what's "natural."

Furthermore, the phrase “clothes are for humans only” also carries its own classism:

• As if a coat were only valid when it was bought expensively.
• As if protecting your pet were a frivolity.
• As if beauty, handmade, emotional… were unnecessary.

But here we're creating from a different place. From what we have: needle, thread, intention, and tenderness. And that's uncomfortable. Because there are those who can't stand that creativity and care can also be forms of resistance.

Note: Honestly, I don't know if those who criticize dog clothes also comment on luxury brands or commercials. But the fact that they choose to point fingers at Pawtrones , an independent, handmade project made with a lot of love, already says something. They're not questioning the act of dressing a dog. They're questioning who does it, where they do it, and what resources they use . And when judgment only falls on what's accessible, artisanal, or popular... yes, that's classism too.

3. It is also a speciesist comment.

Speciesism is the idea that humans are above other species. That only we feel, think, or deserve comfort and protection.

When someone says “clothes are only for humans,” what they are really saying is:

“Only humans deserve warmth, style, tenderness, expression.”

That's speciesism. Animals feel cold too, they get sick too, they have vulnerable bodies that deserve care. And if that care comes wrapped in fabric, colors, stitches, and love, even better.

4. And yes, it is a retrograde idea.

At this point, to continue thinking that caring with tenderness is wrong… that making something nice for your pet is ridiculous… that creativity only belongs in “human” clothing… is an old, limited, and rather sad idea.

Today we know that our pets are part of our family, our ritual, our daily magic. And dressing them with intention, with design, with awareness, is not only valid, it's beautiful.

5. What if I put glasses, a hat, or accessories on just for a photo? Is that also humanizing?

Many of us wonder this, because we do: sometimes we put a hat, glasses, or a bandana on them just for the photo, and then we wonder if that's wrong. The answer lies in how you do it, how long it lasts, and how your pet reacts.

It is not humanizing in a negative way when…

• Your dog is calm, not stressed, and not trying to take it away.
• It's just for a moment, as part of a shared activity.
• You do it from love, with care and without forcing anything.
• You reward him, you accompany him, and it's a fun moment between you.

Santi, for example, loves it. He already knows that he wins his favorite prizes at every modeling shoot, and he even gets excited when he sees the camera.
Even Coco—who hates clothes (rightfully so)—agrees to model for a few minutes in exchange for treats. She's a husky and gets very hot, so I never leave her clothes on for longer than that . I only include her in some photos so those with larger dogs can imagine what the finished pattern looks like.
I always respect their limits and I do so with love and agreement between both of us.

Yes, it would be problematic if…

• You force him to wear something that clearly makes him uncomfortable.
• You keep him dressed or in costume for hours without a break.
• You use it as an accessory for your image, without recognizing its emotions.

At Pawtrones, we believe that anything done with respect, tenderness, and consent (yes, even with dogs) is valid. Dressing your pet with love isn't humanizing; it's sharing a moment of connection, creativity, and play.

And if Santi wants to model with his cap and glasses... then let him reign.

So... Sewing for your dog isn't abuse. It's love. It's art. It's caring.

And to you, lady concerned about the alleged “abuse” of a sweater, we dedicate this message:

Instead of leaving comments on posts by people who do things with their hearts, why not use that time to help dogs in real situations of abandonment? Make a donation, rescue one, share adoption campaigns, spread the word about spays and neuters... Or at least, stop getting in the way of those of us who are doing things with love.

There is no abuse here.
There is sewing, community and caring.
And that doesn't need your approval.