Yes I admit the article was limited and incomplete yet I do think that it makes a good point on what company we keep says about us, including what kind of dog we have. Whether it is a predisposition to choose a type of associate/dog/pet or whether we evolve after the choice is merely achademic. What it says about us/mirrors from within us (or our target/seducer) I believe is of more practical experance.

So for example if I saw Libby, and noticed (assuming I subscribed to the theory) that the dog she was walking indicated she was a person who likes to please, I would approach her in a different manner than if I saw her with a pit bull. (which wasn't in the article but I am pretty sure means something else).

PS. Also I don't think a poodle would be good for the Obama family. I think a long haired St. Bernard puppy would be preferable for them.

Yeah half pit bull adds another demission to the analysis. For example the friendly St. Bernard is strikingly similar to that of the vicious English Mastiff, since it was used to redevelop that breed when it was near extinction after World War II. Also I would say you are a better friend to have than an enemy. Haha. Serious though, it plays upon your seductive duality Libby. What I see funny about myself is a love of Persian cats which I would say would otherwise differ from my standard view of victims.

perhaps it is my misreading of the above or otherwise looking for a seugway that with box office success of "Twilight" a Vampire-esq seductive character type will remain in vouge. I expect a post "Goth" transformation similar to what was done to heavy metal (but with more girls and perhaps to a lesser degree MILFs).

I would say cats are closer to vampires and dogs naturally closer to werewolves. If there would be a middle then it would be a werecat or werepanther, which as far as I know has not been done by Hollywood since the 80s remake of the 1940 classic.