Safety vs Control

Recently I've been seeing many memes comparing the safety harness on a rock climber to the leash and collar put on a dog.  It has bugged me for a couple of weeks now.

The distinction between human safety gear and animal control devices is not merely one of species or size, but of fundamental purpose: preservation versus hierarchical control. This difference is starkly evident in the placement and function of the respective restraints, leading to the conclusion that comparing a climber’s safety line to a dog's collar is intellectually and ethically fallacious.

Human safety systems, such as those used in rock climbing, construction, or rescue operations, are meticulously designed to safeguard life without compromising vital structures. The force of a fall is distributed across the pelvis, hips, and chest via a harness, deliberately bypassing the neck and face, which contain the trachea, jugular, and carotid arteries. This design prioritizes the voluntary preservation of an autonomous agent. Conversely, control devices for domestic animals—such as the dog’s collar around the neck or the horse’s bit applying painful pressure to the sensitive tissues of the mouth—leverage the animal’s vulnerability in these areas to compel compliance. The placement of the restraint is intrinsically linked to control through discomfort or pain, emphasizing subjugation rather than mere protection.

Furthermore, a leash or lead is erroneously viewed as a communication tool. A leash is, at best, a safety tether or an emergency physical constraint—an instrument of enforcement. It acts as an involuntary brake, not a medium for dialogue. True, effective communication with any animal is achieved exclusively through training, which relies on consistent cues, reinforcement, and the establishment of a learned behavioral language. When a leash is pulled, the message received is one of physical consequence—a sudden, unavoidable force applied to a vulnerable area—not a nuance of request or command that forms the basis of genuine communication.

This contrast is made sharper when considering the historical use of similar devices on humans. Within the context of slavery, restraints resembling collars and neck yokes were instruments of degradation and enforced submission, physically representing the abrogation of a person’s autonomy. The function of these devices was solely control, dominance, and the prevention of escape.

To suggest that a rock climber’s life-saving harness, which is voluntarily donned and designed to protect the human body’s structure, is equivalent to an animal’s collar or bit—devices historically and functionally rooted in control, compliance, and leveraging points of vulnerability—is indeed ludicrous. The former enables freedom within risk; the latter enforces a mandate. The true comparison is not between a harness and a collar, but between the control exerted by an animal's restraint and the control historically inflicted upon enslaved people: both are fundamentally mechanisms for overriding free will and demanding submission.