The Cat and Dog Relationship Test

Do you like cats? Do you like dogs? With tongue partly in cheek, I suggest that how these two simple questions are answered, especially by guys, is an important relationship litmus test and can tell us volumes about whether the guy in question (and sometimes women) will make for a good date, companion, husband/wife or life-partner, or just a quickie roll in the hay. In my experience as a family and couples counselor for over 40 years, I´ve found the answers to these questions can be more reliable predictors than the old Rorschach Inkblot test and may even be more revealing than personality tests that take hours to administer. How´s that you might ask?

As a counseling psychologist, I´ve often been in the position of discussing with my single-and-looking or my married-and-miserable women clients just what qualities they should seek in a man under consideration or in one that is already under roof that will make him "livable". The Cat and Dog Test seems to apply mostly to males regardless of sexual orientation. That´s not to say it´s not helpful with females, but that´s a topic for a whole nother article. It´s application seems to work best with male-female relationships and male-male relationships. But before describing the C&D Test, let me first talk about and expand on my meaning of the word "livable".

Livability, is another key concept in the old relationship game. Unfortunately, it´s an idea most people don´t stop to think about while in the troughs of crazy mad love or while planning a marriage. Livability, for my purposes here, is defined as that bundle of personality and behavioral qualities that makes a person a suitable match(as determined by their significant other)for a long-term live together situation in close quarters (under the same roof) as in sharing the same bed, potty and bathroom mirror. Some components of livability are easy and obvious. Others are more difficult to pin down. Whether the person is a slob or a neatnic, their level of attention to hygiene, and their ease of conversation (to the degree that´s valued),the fitting together of interests, activities, music and such - these are some of the more easily observed parts of the bundle. Other components of livability are, as I've said, more subtle and less easily identified or measured - especially on the fly and in the midst of passionate love: such things as - their sense of empathy and couple inclusiveness (their ability to "think" as a couple as opposed to a solo person living alone), their need to control others and their tendency to be overly possessive. In fact, so many of the things about another person that you need to know about their livability qualities are often only discovered after you have already bought into the relationship and have become "committed´ emotionally and/or legally via a marriage.

And then, there is yet another twist by Mother Nature that cannot be explained except possibly by those versed in the science of evolutionary biology: When it comes to "attraction" to a man by a woman, the very qualities that are "attractive" and can be said to be a "turn-on" are most often qualities that make for poor livability. Now if all you´re interested in is a roll in the hay, then you don´t need to read further. Go at it and be happy, be safe. But if you´re looking for a longer term relationship, then you might want to at least be alert to the idea of the old "livability" bundle mentioned above and take some of it into consideration as you calculate your chances of success.

Keep in mind that initial attraction between the sexes (or same-sex people for that matter) is a complex mix of emotional signals mostly triggered by physical characteristics. How else do you explain love at first sight - something that really does happens - or falling into love or lust within just a few moments of meeting someone? The characteristics of a male that attract a female (and sometimes a gay male)are obviously mostly physical. Let´s call a spade a spade and not be coy. Big broad shoulders, tall and handsome, muscular, looking good in a tight pair of jeans, eye color, hair color, a take control demeanor, a tight bubble butt (well at least for some), an aura of being able to protect and defend (the strong silent type) these and similar phrases might describe qualities and physical features that make a girl swoon and fall under the spell of what appears to be a Mr. Right. But, like I said, Mother Nature is a trickster. The very things about a man that may make him "attractive" (he´s "a hunk") are oftentimes the very qualities that make him a poor candidate for anything other than a short term situation. Men who are, for example, hyper-masculine have difficulty in relating to a female, except when the situation is directly sexual. They often don´t understand nor can they engage in subtle forms of physical intimacy without jumping to the conclusion that it´s time for penetration sex. Many wives complain that they can't approach their husbands for a hug or cuddle without the guy immediately interpreting the advance as an intro to sex. Males are typically bad at decoding subtle intimacy needs that are non-sexual and hyper-masculine males can be the worst offenders. I think something similar might apply to hyper-feminine women as well. Let´s face it – a hyper feminine woman or a hyper-masculine man will have little in common with a person of the opposite sex and except for "sex", two such persons cannot generally find much on which they will agree (interest, hobbies, activities, etc.) and on which they might build a satisfying relationship. It´s not that hyper-masculinity or hyper-femininity are always mutually exclusive to livability, they just make it a long-shot bet.

So, where does the C&D Test come into all this? Well, anyone who has owned a cat or a dog as a pet can tell you about their typical traits. Cats, for example, unlike dogs, do not much care when we make it home from a long day at the office. They do not jump up, lick our faces or make happy barking sounds. Cats are known for their independence, stubbornness and stand-offishness. Sure there are exceptions but just how many people do you see walking their cats in the park? Cats generally seem to care little about human ego needs. They usually don´t come when called and often seem unfamiliar with even their own names. Call them kitty-kitty or Suzy-Q…it doesn´t matter. Cats can go for days without human attention (as long as they have a supply of cat food, water and their litter is cleaned) while dogs are needful and high maintenance on a daily basis. Some have observed that cats allow we human to attend to their needs but beyond that just give up the idea that we "own" our cats. Dogs are loyal and obedient when well trained. They will fetch a stick, a newspaper or your slippers. Can you imagine a cat bringing you anything other than a dead mouse? Dogs are ego builders and their love is unconditional. Cats will just as soon rub for comfort a table leg as a human one. Dogs can be abused and mistreated and still hunger for your attention and acceptance. I could go on, but I´m sure you get the picture.

By now you´re also probably way ahead of me about the Cat and Dog Test and how an answer to the question "Do you like cats or dogs" can be a give away to a man´s (and sometimes a woman´s) livability quotient. To spell it out: If a guy hates cats and can only think in terms of drowning them in the nearest river, he is probably not good long-term relationship material. Run as fast as you can in the opposite direction – even if he is a muscle hunk with a great ass. The cat hating man is likely one who has an intense need for control and dominance. His ego requires constant feeding and he tends to interpret his world in black and white terms. He probably belongs to a specific political party and has a truck with a gun rack (just kidding about that one). He is uncomfortable with emotions and ambivalence of any kind. He wouldn´t dream of seeing a "chick flick". I´ll admit there are exceptions to these descriptions but, in those situations like this that I know of, it´s a circumstance where the woman (as an emotional defense and attempt to identify) has set aside as unimportant many of her own needs and personality traits and adopted or bent to the qualities of the male for the sake of maintaining a stable relationship. It´s a fairly one-sided arrangement but seems to work for some.

I propose a 1 to 10 measurment and conclusion scale along which cat dislike and livability scores can be marked. At "one", we have a person who is mostly neutral about cats - genuinely doesn´t care one way or another: might just never have been around them cause his dad killed them all off. He may make for a good livability quotient but other tests might be required. Then as we go up the scale to "ten" we have increasing cat hatred and the increasing likelihood of a limited livability quotient. At "10" the hate and negative livability quotient should warn off even the most amorous. A scale like this is not even necessary for those who like cats and accept their eccentricities. The probability of good livability characteristics in such a circumstance increases - though it still can´t be guaranteed. Sometimes you can get the better sense of the guy by comparing and contrasting their expressed liking for cats and dogs. A "dogs only" guy might be livable if you´re willing to match up to his ego needs. A guy who says its the cat or me, needs to be given the boot. Like I said, it does depend somewhat on their prior exposure to cats (and maybe if they have an allergy to cat hair). If the guy (or gal) refuses to even allow a cat into the house, there will probably be livability issues in the relationship at some point that may even overpower "love" and commitment.

So there you have the theory and practice of the Dave Muskera´s sure-fire Cat and Dog Relationship Test (CDRT). Feel free to apply as needed. It is copywrited but don´t worry about that. There is no user fee.