sit. stay. roll over.

i've owned a fair number of dogs and cats in my life. some i've chosen, some have chosen me, and others i've rescued from an unnecessary end at the glue factory. you can lobby all day about how affectionate your hermit crab is, but i prefer my 4-legged friends furry. (ironic, since i like my 2-legged friends to be a bit prickly, but i digress...)part of your responsibility as an owner is to create a pet that is well-socialized and doesn't exhibit behavior you find objectionable. i find it disgusting to visit friends and have their cats winding through the place settings on the dinner table, or for dogs to be fed scraps from plates during meals. i don't think dogs, no matter how small, should be allowed to jump on visitors. like parents, pet-owners have a wide-range of variance when it comes to permissable behavior in their charges.

so how do you get rover to lay quietly in his bed while you have your chicken and asparagus, rather than drooling noisiy all over your lap? long ago, i unexpectedly became the foster owner of a pit bull. they'd suddenly become both trendy and vilified at once. this one was wildly affectionate, very smart and so strong and muscled it was like walking a determined dragon. thankfully a book called "no bad dogs" somehow found its way to me. woodhouse's theory being your dog is a pack animal and he wants you to accept him, but you must be the one setting the limits. especially with one so alpha as my guy who loved swinging from tree branches by his jaws for fun. reward good behavior -- even the tiniest step in the right direction-- and shun the bad. it worked brilliantly and other than wanting to eat any other dog he met, he was a very "good dog".

other than conforming to my codes, did it change "him"? other than him being less anxious because his days were now filled with far more incantations of "good boy!!", he remained the same goofy lovable loyal dog.my cat knows he's not allowed on eating surfaces and countertops. however, with my new black stove, i see ample evidence he's simply smart enough not to stroll across the range when i'm at home. so, when i'm not around, he still does what he wants. much like a man watching the game in his boxers while his wife is out of town, i suppose.

wild animal trainers use a technique they call "approximation". all those circus stunts like hyenas on skateboards
and elephants pirouetting aren't something they do on their time off. the article, which appeared weeks ago in the ny times, has been hotly e-mailed back and forth by anxious wives dying to "retrain" their sloppy/lazy/unaffectionate mates. but here's the thing: 99% of this training is in how the owner responds to behavior, both the "good" and the "bad". how many wives take it as a personal affront when he leaves his dirty socks on the floor, after nagging him for years that the "hamper is right there"? it's not an issue for him, and yet for her it's a constantly simmering vesuvius. so the wives who've sent me the article (why on earth? lol) seem mostly to be a mile-wide of the mark. it's all about their reaction. it's their responsibility, not his. walk right over the argyles, but give him a kiss and a thanks if a pair happens to land in the laundry.

in my own self, i've corrected numerous unpleasant behaviors. many years ago, i gave up smoking and i've also stopped a lazy immature conversational habit of prodigious, albeit colorful, swearing. but this is where i've been heading, because i no longer smoke, am i different? nope. not a bit. i still enjoy instant gratification as much as always, but i now narrow the outlets. now i avail myself more regularly of my large vocabulary, but it doesn't mean i'm not thinking cartoon-style blasphemy about some adversary. (**$$##@@!!~~~~****!!!)

just because he sometimes picks up his socks, has he changed? more importantly, do you really want a different man than the one you married? why did you marry him then? when did marriage become an arrangement of behavior modification and micro-managing?