A couple of days ago, my “Teeny-Tiny Paris-Style Pocket Pooches” post attracted a bit of characteristically bilious invective.  In case you’ve never read this post or its unspooled thread of comments, it seems to attract a surprising number of negative comments relative to the rest of Dolittler’s content.

In case you assume such negativity annoys me, reconsider: I love knowing that people are finding this site seeking teacup bliss and instead landing on a post laced with the kind of info on teenies they weren’t exactly expecting.

While I don’t necessarily imagine I’m changing any minds in the war against unscrupulous backyard breeders, their pet shop purveyors and the clueless pet purchasers wholly unprepared for their problems (all three the targets of this post), I still revel in the occasionally indignant comment that assures me someone out there is still reading this old entry.

Normally, I get lots of impassioned Paris defenses in this thread. But the last quibble under “Teeny Tinies” was a tad off the beaten path—to its author’s credit. It was over the issue of whether the “fashionable set” and the fashion industry in general deserved to take the brunt of my disdain when it comes to pocket-sized teacups or the concept of pets as accessories.

The commenter in question, one “Educated Fashionista,” a self-described student of fashion, was first angered by my assertion that fashionable and educated were not mutually exclusive terms. I guess I wasn’t clear (mea culpa) and so let me now explain: I believe that one can be fashionable in one’s choice of pets and still be educated.

I mean, I’ve been known to design knitwear for profit, don gilded designer platforms at work and keep Frenchies as pets. Let’s face it: most people would consider me a “fashionista.” And I certainly wouldn’t consider myself uneducated—though I’ll readily concede I won’t be winning any Nobels or Pulitzers in the near future.

In other words, loving teacups, Frenchies or any other fashionable kind of dog doesn’t automatically make you a stupid suck-up to the US marketing machine or a “fashion victim” with nary a thought as to the welfare of your breed of choice. I’ll heartily apologize for my lack of clarity on that point.

Yet her principal complaint, it seemed, pertained to the depiction of pets as fashion accessories and to the fashion industry’s promulgation of pets into the mainstream as fashion accessories. No way, she claims, are pets supported by the fashion industry as accessories. Hmmm…I’ll have to take issue with that one, I’m afraid.

Though this commenter is clearly defending her profession much as I’ve been known to defend mine, animal welfare has never been one of her colleagues’ strong suits. As long as a sizable percentage of fashion houses still support the animal trapping industry, I see no reason to change my view on that score.

Furthermore, with the emergence of Pet Fashion Week in New York City every year and the likes of Paris Hilton as a walking, talking teacup-as-accessory billboard, I have to wonder how anyone in the industry can fail to see the connection between Louis Vuitton pet carriers and, well, Louis Vuitton.

So at the risk of appearing to cruelly bash an obviously educated, intelligent reader from up high on my bully pulpit, (and, hypocritically, as someone known to create knitwear for her dogs) here’s my visual rebuttal to her comment. I’ll contribute but a few examples beyond the typical furry arm-candy we’re so besieged by in our mainstream media. Here goes…

The diva of doggie-style herself (sorry, I couldn’t pass up the pun on her sordid past, which I’m sure none of you have personally witnessed)…

Peacocks anyone?…

The cutest and fuzziest of them all, the Chinchilla, as worn by none other than Madonna…

Not to beat a dead horse, but I know you have more. Bring ‘em on…