Golden Retriever Puppy Wants To Look at Cat Sibling but There's a Problem
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
A golden retriever puppy named Teddy, from New Zealand, has captured the hearts of social media users after his owner revealed the reason why he can't look directly at his feline sister.
In a viral TikTok video shared on Friday under the username @teddy_the_golden__, the puppy can be seen cautiously glancing at the kitty, and quickly turning his head around once he realizes she's staring him down.
"When you can't even make eye contact with your sister [because] she will punch you in the face," reads the caption.
While dogs are usually much bigger than their feline counterparts, it's actually not uncommon for them to petrified of cats. This is due to a mix of instincts, past experiences, and the felines' powerful personalities, according to Canada Vet.
A dog, who for example, experienced cats' claws or bites as a puppy, may still remember the way it felt, which can in turn cause them to be fearful. Some particular dog breeds, including smaller ones, or those bred for companionship, are more likely to be afraid of cats.
Dogs are easily scared of cats, but what are cats scared of? Cats are often afraid of loud noises, strangers, water, changes in their environment, humans, veterinarians, confined spaces, dogs sometimes, and even cucumbers, according to Pet MD.
While cucumbers may sound like an unreasonable fear, scientists believe that it's not the cucumber itself that cats are afraid of, but rather the fact that it's an unknown object that they have never seen and do not understand.
In most cases, cats and dogs can live together without any issues, and can even become best of friends! A 2020 study by Italian scientists, published in the journal PLOS ONE, found that over 64 percent of cats and dogs living together also played together; 58 percent chased each other; and 41 percent fought.
A stock image shows a cat staring a golden retriever down as they lay side by side on a rug on the floor.
A stock image shows a cat staring a golden retriever down as they lay side by side on a rug on the floor.
getty images
The video quickly went viral on TikTok and it has so far received over 283,000 views and 37,100 likes on the platform.
One user, Lifecoachph1, commented: "My American bully is scared of his cat boss sister just like this."
KM said: "This older sister-younger brother dynamic spans across all species I'm afraid."
The Essential wrote: "Ok. I see nothing in here mom—but actually crying for help 'momma did you see that,' such a best moment."
Newsweek reached out to @teddy_the_golden__ for comment via TikTok comments. We could not verify the details of the case.
Do you have funny and adorable videos or pictures of your pet you want to share? Send them to life@newsweek.com with some details about your best friend and they could appear in our Pet of the Week lineup.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
5 hours ago
- Newsweek
Woman Diagnosed With AIDS Given 2 Years to Live—Shock Over Her Health Now
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. "I kept my status hidden for decades to protect my family, but now it's my time to talk," Jennifer Comstock told Newsweek, 35 years after an AIDS diagnosis left her in denial. In 1990, Comstock and her first husband were on active duty in the Marine Corps. With her husband due to be sent out to the Persian Gulf, he submitted to a mandatory HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) test, which was positive. That wasn't when Comstock learned her fate, as she didn't know her husband was living with HIV until she visited him in the hospital and noticed countless warnings about HIV on his ward. Comstock was faced with the reality that her husband had been cheating on her with men and may have transmitted HIV. Just 20 years old, Comstock got tested and then came a perilous wait for the results. A month later, she was given the devastating news that she too was positive. "As I was on active duty in the Marine Corps, I was expected to be composed and to keep breathing, which I did," Comstock said. "In those early years, I lived in denial. I just believed I was going to be OK, without any real reason for feeling that way." During her first trip to the hospital, Comstock, now 55, learned that her T cells, a type of white blood cell that helps the immune system fight germs, were below 200. The normal range can vary, but The Cleveland Clinic suggests that generally it should be between 500 to 1,200 cells for a healthy adult. HIV is known to attack white blood cells and causes the body to make fewer T cells. By the time she learned of her diagnosis, Comstock's health had already deteriorated significantly. As a result, she was given an automatic AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) diagnosis. Jennifer Comstock in 1990 while in the Marine Corps, and with her second husband. Jennifer Comstock in 1990 while in the Marine Corps, and with her second husband. @positivejen / TikTok Untreated, HIV weakens the immune system and can become AIDS in around 8 to 10 years, according to the Mayo Clinic. People with AIDS are more likely to develop other diseases, causing symptoms such as sweats, chills, recurring fever, fatigue, mouth lesions, and weakness. Approximately 1.2 million people in the U.S. have HIV, and around 13 percent of them don't know. In 2022, an estimated 31,800 people acquired HIV in the U.S., with the highest rates in the South. Following her diagnosis, Comstock was given only 2 years to live and told to "get [her] affairs in order" before she passed. "It definitely makes you live life to the fullest," she said. "I did what I wanted to do. I joined the military, in a large part to be able to afford college. But then I thought, why bother? I won't live to graduate, so I'd rather not spend my time studying. By my 40s, I went to college and graduated cum laude with a degree in history. I've never done anything by halves since my diagnosis. I give my full self to everything and everyone I am involved with." She's been taking ART (antiretroviral therapy) since 1997, which prevents the disease from transmitting if there's an undetectable viral load. In 1994, Comstock met her second husband who was HIV negative. She dreaded having to tell him that she has AIDS, assuming he'd walk away before their relationship even got started. "Instead, he said he didn't care if we had 2 years or 20," Comstock said. Ultimately, they had 30 wonderful years together and Comstock welcomed three children, all HIV negative. When they vowed to love each other in sickness and in health, they both truly meant it. "I ended up being the one taking care of him after he had an aortic dissection in 2007. I took care of him through two open heart surgeries and 17 years of bad health. You just never know how life is going to work out," Comstock told Newsweek. "My husband and I always wanted to travel. It wasn't always easy when my husband was sick, but we always said we could be sick at home, or sick somewhere exciting." Jennifer Comstock with her second husband on vacation. Jennifer Comstock with her second husband on vacation. @positivejen / TikTok Life has thrown many challenges at Comstock, but she's remained resilient. In recent years, Comstock sadly lost her husband and son (both unrelated to HIV). She's battled many illnesses, but her health is much better now, and the disease is undetectable. Her immune system was severely damaged before ART medication became available. Indeed, if that breakthrough didn't occur when it did, Comstock thinks she "wouldn't have made it" because she was incredibly sick. There were complications at first, including cardiomyopathy, heart failure, pneumonia and mini strokes, but Comstock isn't certain if they were caused by HIV or the medication. "Some of those early meds were much harsher than the newer ones," she said. Despite being told she only had two years left, Comstock has gained a college degree, started a family, and become a qualified travel advisor. Jennifer Comstock with her second husband while traveling the world. Jennifer Comstock with her second husband while traveling the world. @positivejen / TikTok Comstock has been living with AIDS for 35 years and no longer feels like she has to live in secret. She stayed silent to protect her children, but now that they're grown up, she is using her voice to educate and raise awareness. She created a TikTok account (@positivejen) to discuss her diagnosis, answer questions, and to break the stigma. "I am here and so many are not," she said. "Someone needs to speak up, especially for women. I want people to understand that people living with HIV are normal. We have kids, husbands, careers, full lives. HIV is something we have, not who we are. HIV doesn't define me." She added: "I have people from all over the world contacting me for advice. So many are just happy to see someone like me living a normal life. I often have to correct people posting misinformation. AIDS denialism is still alive and well—it's not like 1990, but it's still there." Is there a health issue that's worrying you? Let us know via health@ We can ask experts for advice, and your story could be featured on Newsweek.
New York Post
6 hours ago
- New York Post
Why many women over age 52 have a higher risk of getting STIs
STIs are on the rise — but it's not just frat bros and free-lovers feeling the burn. While younger people still account for the majority of cases, studies show that some of the steepest spikes are happening in people 55 and up. Experts have offered several explanations for the surge, but research suggests there's a risk factor affecting many midlife and older women that has largely flown under the radar and could be playing a key role. Advertisement 4 More Americans are having sex in their senior years thanks to advancements in medicine. Monkey Business – More than a million American women hit menopause each year — and it's not just hot flashes and mood swings they're facing. The transition, which wraps up around age 52 on average, marks the end of reproductive years and is driven by a drop in estrogen as the ovaries slow hormone production. While vaginal dryness and loss of elasticity are well-known symptoms, research from Ohio State University (OSU) shows that menopause can also weaken the vaginal tissue itself, making it more prone to tearing. Advertisement That vulnerability comes down to changes at the cellular level. The vagina's surface is made up of multiple layers held together by key proteins like desmoglein-1 (DSG1) and desmocollin-1 (DSC1). 'These proteins strengthen the vaginal lining and restrict pathogen access to deeper tissue, reducing the risk of infection,' Dr. Thomas L. Cherpes, associate professor of otolaryngology at OSU, wrote in The Conversation. Advertisement 4 Menopause can bring a host of uncomfortable symptoms, including vaginal changes. – In their research, Cherpes and his colleagues found that postmenopausal women have significantly lower levels of DSG1 and DSC1 than women who haven't gone through the transition. To see how this might impact infection risk, the researchers removed the ovaries of mice in a lab to mimic estrogen loss in postmenopausal women. Compared to mice with intact ovaries, those without had far lower levels of DSG1 and DSC1 in their vaginal tissue. Advertisement The team also found that these mice were more vulnerable to infection with herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2), which causes genital herpes. They were less able to clear chlamydia infections from the lower genital tract as well. The findings help explain why postmenopausal women are more susceptible to STIs than their younger counterparts. Notably, when Cherpes and his colleagues applied estrogen cream to the mice without ovaries, it restored the vaginal lining's integrity and fully protected them from HSV-2 infection. 4 The vaginal tissue is more vulnerable to tearing after menopause, opening the door to infection. megaflopp – 'While additional research is needed, findings from our lab suggest that estrogen-containing compounds used to relieve vaginal irritation and other symptoms of genitourinary syndrome of menopause can also reduce susceptibility to STIs among older adults,' Cherpes wrote. Sex doesn't stop — and neither do the risks Americans might not like to talk about it, but older adults are still very much having sex. A 2018 survey found nearly 40% of people aged 65 to 80 are sexually active, and almost two-thirds remain interested in sex. Advertisement More recent AARP data shows that 26% of 60- to 69-year-olds and 17% of those 70 and older have sex weekly. 'Hormone-replacement therapy, vaginal lubricants and the approval of sildenafil (Viagra) and its relatives have extended people's sex lives,' Dr. Sandra Adamson Fryhofer told the American Medical Association. But while more people are living longer and staying sexually active, more are also paying the price. 4 Sex-crazed seniors are fueling a major spike in STIs nationwide. David – Advertisement 'Rates are highest in the under 25 age group, which accounts for about 50% of STIs, but we're definitely seeing a rise in infections in the older population, particularly in people over 65,' Dr. Angelina Gangestad said in an interview with University Hospitals. Between 2010 and 2023, the number of Americans over 65 diagnosed with chlamydia, gonorrhea or syphilis rose by roughly three-, five- and sevenfold, respectively, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Research also suggests women over 50 are at greater risk for HIV than their younger peers. Advertisement In addition to the effects of menopause, experts say several other factors are likely fueling the rise. Condom use is significantly lower among older adults compared to younger people. One study found that just 3% of Americans aged 60 and older have used a condom in the past year. Older adults also tend to have less knowledge about STIs, including how they spread, what symptoms look like and how to prevent them. Advertisement To make matters worse, research suggests that many doctors don't ask older patients about their sex lives — and seniors aren't exactly jumping to bring it up with their family or friends, either. 'No one wants to think about grandma doing this,' Matthew Lee Smith, an associate professor at the Texas A&M School of Public Health, told NBC News. 'You certainly aren't going to ask grandma if she was wearing condoms — and that's part of the problem, because every individual regardless of age has the right to intimacy.'
Scientific American
10 hours ago
- Scientific American
Strong Support for NASA and Project Artemis Will Advance the U.S.
During President Trump's first term in office, he signed Space Policy Directive 1, signaling the administration's desire to bring American astronauts back to the moon. This directive, and similar ones, later became Project Artemis, the lunar campaign with broader ambition to get the U.S. on Mars. But will we get to the moon, not to mention Mars? As the space race against China barrels forward, the White House first proposed $6 billion in total cuts to NASA funding, a roughly 24 percent reduction that experts said would be the largest single-year cut to agency funding in history. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. But in the aftermath of President Trump signing the ' One Big Beautiful Bill,' which did reintegrate certain funds for Project Artemis, Congressional appropriations committees have continued to push back against the administration's myriad cuts to NASA, which for the space agency's science unit alone was a 47 percent reduction to approximately $3.9 billion. The Senate committee's bill kept NASA science funding, integral to the support of Artemis and its mission, roughly at their current levels, while the House draft halved the cuts proposed by the White House. The Senate appropriations committee also firmly rejected the president's original proposal to terminate Project Artemis's Space Launch System and Orion Spacecraft after the conclusion of the Artemis III mission. This conflict and dizzying back and forth regarding America's moonshot project suggests a question: Are we committed to Artemis and the broader goal of understanding space? Or to put it another way: Do we want to win this new race to the moon? The current administration owes us an answer. There's more than just a soft-power victory over China's taikonauts at stake. This endeavor is about cementing the U.S. as a technological superpower, a center for understanding space and our solar system, and in due course, setting us up to be the first to live and work on the moon. Americans support this goal. A recent CBS News poll shows broad support for sending astronauts back to the moon. But it will be hard for the administration to reconcile its anti-government spending message with a full-throated support of Artemis and related missions. This isn't the first time the U.S. has faced such a debate. In the winter of 1967, Senator Clinton P. Anderson and his space committee initiated an inquiry into the disastrous Apollo 1 fire that killed three American astronauts. Letters flooded into Congress. Concerned citizens across the country offered their theories about the cause of the conflagration. But others asked a more poignant question that was at the center of national debate: Why are we going to the moon in the first place? 'I want to say here and now that I think the moon project is the most terrible waste of national funds that I can imagine,' wrote James P. Smith of Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y. in a letter housed at the Legislative Archives in Washington D.C. 'Let [the Russians] go to the moon and let us use our money to end the war in Vietnam and raise our standards of living.' Others pressed their representatives to not give up their support of the Apollo program. Julius H. Cooper, Jr., of Delmar, Md., said in his letter to Anderson's committee: 'Should a manned landing by the Soviets occur on the moon first make no mistake about it the political and scientific repercussions will be tremendous.' Today's America, in many ways, is the same. Social discord, financial struggles, and conflicts abroad continue to consume our country's time, energy and resources. But the value of Project Artemis goes beyond the scientific discoveries and technological advancements that await. The success of this new moonshot will at the very least prevent space dominance from adversaries, including Russia and China, which have partnered together on their own International Lunar Research Station. Both countries have declined to sign onto the Artemis Accords, a worrying sign that these nations don't agree with our approach to the 'peaceful' exploration and use of space. To be clear, this Artemis isn't just a jobs program. Although the work created by these missions will bring a positive economic impact, the reality is that humankind's future is among the stars. Our government should be the one to orchestrate the path there while inspiring the next generation to continue exploring the depths of space. But instead of leaning into the benefits of Project Artemis, the administration is creating hurdles for the moon bound mission. To start, NASA has no permanent leadership. The administration withdrew its nomination of tech billionaire and civilian astronaut Jared Isaacman to lead the space agency, so despite the recent appointment of Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy as interim administrator, NASA will continue for months without a leader pushing Project Artemis forward. And despite Duffy's assurance that Artemis is a critical mission, the message runs hollow if word from the Oval Office doesn't match. Again, the president initially called for the end of the program's Space Launch System and Orion crew capsule following the Artemis III mission for more cost-effective commercial systems. Trump's initial budget also called for the termination of the Gateway station, the planned lunar outpost and critical component of Project Artemis's infrastructure. This would effectively kill the program that President Trump championed with his initial space policy directive. Congress did ultimately provide funding for additional Artemis missions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, but it remains to be seen whether that reflects a sustained change in the administration's commitment. The success of Artemis requires extended support, not preemptively phasing out critical mission components or funding for NASA's incredibly valuable science missions. Artemis and NASA's science programs contribute an extraordinary amount toward America's technological might, so funding shouldn't be framed as an 'either/or' proposition. Now is the time to brush away uncertainty and put Artemis on a track forward. As critics have pointed out, it is unclear whether NASA has a tangible plan for getting to the moon and back. The lunar landing system is still in the concept stage. This is a chance for the president to show leadership by stepping in and pushing his government to achieve a monumental task, one that he might compare to the success of Operation Warp Speed during his first term. The administration needs to move fast and nominate a leader for NASA who will prioritize Artemis and its core mission. It needs to walk back plans to slim down government that are causing 2,000 senior officials to leave NASA at a time when leadership matters more than ever before. In short, Project Artemis requires financial certainty. The success of the program will come from the willingness of this administration to fully commit to it. In Air & Space magazine's June/July 1989 issue commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing, author Andy Chaikin opined on why America hadn't yet gone back. 'One of the lessons of Apollo is that the decision to 'go someplace' can't come from anyone in NASA, or from moon advocates, or from the Mars advocates,' he wrote. 'It's got to come from the top.' If President Trump supports this moonshot, Americans deserve a clear justification straight from the Oval Office. Americans need to buy into the message from the top, whether it's one of technological or political superiority, a desire to discover the unknown, or something else. Ultimately, Senator Anderson's 1967 space committee recommended that the Apollo program continue, with the caveat that improvements needed to be made. Today, boxes of letters sent into the Apollo 1 investigatory committee sit in the Center for Legislative Archives in Washington, D.C., serving as a time capsule of one of America's most contentious debates. Inside one of these boxes there's a handwritten letter from a woman named Ruth B. Harkness, of Wataga, Ill., inquiring about the U.S.'s determination to get to the moon. It distills down the very question we're struggling with now. 'May I ask, Why?' she wrote. Tell us, Mr. President.
