Influencer's Freeze-Dried Pet Dog Sparks Heated Debate Online

Influencer's Freeze-Dried Pet Dog Sparks Heated Debate Online

How to Send Off a Deceased Pet and Keep Them in Memory. Cremation, burial, bone accessories, memorial photos—the more options there are, the more weight the words "there is no single correct answer" carry. Amidst this, an influencer chose to preserve her deceased dog through "freeze-drying." The post quickly spread, sparking a typical social media debate with strong aversion and strong empathy simultaneously.


What Happened: Public Display of the Freeze-Dried "Body"

According to reports, she received many questions about what she did with her deceased dog, prompting her to reveal that she keeps the preserved dog in a glass case. The video showed the dog preserved in a state close to its "living appearance," and there was a scene where she hugged it. She explained her choice not as mere eccentricity but because "it was painful not to see the face again" and "having it back home was comforting."


However, from the moment it was posted on social media, viewers' reactions did not converge into one. Rather, they split right from the start. The reason is simple. This is both a "mourning" and a "content to be shown" in the form of a video.


Core Criticism: "Creepy," "Lacks Dignity," "Don't Show It"

The backlash can be broadly divided into three main categories.


1) Physiological Aversion (Creepy, Scary)
"With its eyes open, it looks alive," "I wouldn't feel at ease having it at home," "The wound of loss is reopened every time"—these reactions stem from the shock of the "appearance" rather than ethics. Many people feel strong resistance to placing objects that evoke death in their everyday spaces.


2) Animal Welfare and Dignity Perspective (Pitiful, Treating as an Object)
Criticism such as "Don't treat the body like an accessory" and "The dog's dignity is compromised" was directed more at the "display" and "lifting it up to show" rather than the act of preservation itself. Even if the purpose is mourning, there are moments when it appears as a "spectacle" to outsiders, which became the spark of controversy.


3) The Act of Posting on Social Media Itself (Do It in Your Own Home)
The harshest line is, "If it's personal mourning, do it as you please. But don't post it online." In other words, the issue is not the freeze-drying method itself but the act of visualizing and spreading it. Combined with resentment towards the mechanism of turning loss into content on social media, some even claimed, "She used the dog for approval-seeking."


Core Defense: "Everyone Grieves Differently," "A New Form of Mourning"

On the other hand, the defense side also has a coherent logic.


1) Grief is Individual and Not for Others to Decide
Just as there are diverse ways to mourn a family member, there can be diverse ways to mourn a pet. As long as the person says it "brings comfort," outsiders condemning it as "disgusting, stop it" is considered violent.


2) Freeze-Drying is Just "One Option" and Simply Unknown
Reports indicate that her post led to reactions like "I learned for the first time that such a method exists" and "People with similar feelings are saved." In a culture where cremation and burial are the norms, there is value in the mere existence of alternative options.


3) Criticism is Overheated (Too Much Interference in Mourning the Dead)
"There are your values," "If you don't like it, don't look"—there is a certain number of people who are fed up with the "moral policing" on social media. The defense is not only about protecting the person's choice but also resisting online witch hunts.

The Issue is Not "Freeze-Drying" but the Problem of "Visible Mourning"

The essence of this uproar is not so much about the pros and cons of preservation technology, but rather the phenomenon wheremourning becomes public property when visualized on social media.


Quietly embracing mementos at home is understandable to many. However, the moment it is turned into a video, with music and captions, viewers assume the "position of the viewer." Then, viewers begin to evaluate not only the person's grief but also the presentation, context, timing, and "the meaning of showing this." Grief is personal, but the post is public.


Moreover, for influencers, posting is part of their life and is tied to revenue and dissemination. It is somewhat natural for viewers to doubt, "This is not mourning but content." This creates a tension different from mourning posts by ordinary people.


Diversification of Pet Memorials and the Reality Society Hasn't Caught Up

Legally, pets are classified as "objects," but they are felt as family. Therefore, the farewell is deep, and the loss lingers. In recent years, services that "preserve connections," such as bone pendants, hair preservation, cloning technology, and memorial jewelry, have increased. Freeze-drying can be placed along this continuum.


However, society still lacks a common etiquette for "how to handle" the death of a pet. Without established rituals like funerals, when individual choices become visible, value conflicts are more likely to occur. This controversy is an example of that gap surfacing all at once.


"Correctness" vs. "Boundaries": What Triggers Aversion

At the core of the criticism is, ultimately, a discussion about "boundaries."

  • To what extent should the body be preserved to look "like it did in life" (eyes, posture, touchable proximity)

  • Whether it is confined to the home or shown to others

  • When does the expression of grief start to look like "performance"

  • When does the love for a pet start to appear as "ownership"


Boundaries differ from person to person. That's why "creepy" and "comforting" can coexist. And social media is not a place for carefully mediating boundary differences; it is structured to easily clash strong emotions with strong words. As a result, regardless of the person's intent, the controversy tends to roll into a "moral trial."

Lessons from This Event: For Both the Sender and the Receiver

Finally, let's summarize the lessons this controversy has thrown at us.


For the Sender

  • If you are going to post personal mourning, it needs to be designed with "how viewers will perceive it" in mind.

  • Expressions dealing with bodies or death, especially when sensitive, easily invite misunderstanding and backlash.

  • In addition to saying "I was comforted," considering the reality that "there are people who don't want to see it" (warnings, expression restraint) can function as a preventive measure against backlash.


For the Receiver

  • Don't mistake your aversion for "universal justice."

  • However, the feeling of "I don't want to see it" can also be a legitimate reaction in public space.

  • Before denying the other person's grief, it is more constructive to verbalize "what was uncomfortable (boundary)."


The sorrow of losing a pet is not someone else's problem for anyone. That's why this controversy is not just gossip; it shows that our "distance from death" and "mourning etiquette" are in the process of being updated. It's not about whether freeze-drying is right or wrong, but"where to draw the line between private and public." That boundary will increasingly be questioned in the future.


Sources

Related Articles