DEAR MISS MANNERS: My family and I never grew up with dogs or any kind of animal inside our house, partly due to our allergies. So naturally, when we go to a house that does have animals, it makes us a little uncomfortable. I don't want to pet a dog or a cat for fear that I might then touch my eyes or nose and have an allergic reaction.

When I am a guest in the house of someone who has an animal, I feel obligated to pet it because it's considered one of their children.

Is it rude not to pet it at all? If I do pet it, I want to run to the bathroom and wash my hands immediately. Would this be considered rude as well? What do you do when a pet is insistent that you pet it?

I also have a problem with dogs begging for food at the table when I'm trying to enjoy my meal. I know I'm not the only one who feels this way. It's not always the allergies that bother me; sometimes I just don't want to pet the animal if it's not well groomed.

GENTLE READER: Hold on there. You say you have to pet these animals because they are like the hosts' children? So, you think you have to pet your hosts' children?

No, no, no. You may be in a position where politeness will require you to express admiration for the children, the pets or both, but that is different. People who cannot express admiration while keeping their hands to themselves are apt to end up in a heap of trouble.

Not that most people mind others' petting their dogs, although the dogs sometimes do. If the pet makes overtures, you certainly have an easy excuse if you back off and plead your allergies (to the host; dogs don't seem to care). People who don't have allergies do it all the time.

It is not necessary, however. You need only say, "I'm afraid I'm not good with dogs, so I prefer to admire him from afar." This also works if people thrust unwelcome babies in your lap, although you must remember to substitute the word "children" for "dogs."

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I write on behalf of about a dozen friends and colleagues of all ages who have not taken their husbands' surnames, but who receive mail addressed as, for example, "Mrs. Sean Brown" when the woman's last name is "Stone." We all find it very insulting.

Isn't it proper to inquire what surname a newly married woman will be using? Usually, an inquiry is not even necessary. When my husband and I sent thank you cards to the people who attended our wedding, and "at home" cards to those who did not, his last name was clearly noted as "Brown" and mine as "Stone."

Since a clear majority of women today -- and a significant minority of women I know in their 50s and 60s -- do not take their husbands' surnames, why do some people persist in addressing a woman who, in fact, does not exist? My friends and I look forward to reading your thoughts on this and hope it will spark the writers of etiquette books to update their manuals.

GENTLE READER: For at least the last 20 years, a clear majority of the writers of etiquette manuals have been telling people to address people as they wish to be addressed, warning that there are now several choices and one should pay special attention after weddings and divorces to see which was selected. A significant minority does so.

Miss Manners made up that statistic, of course, but you also made up yours. She merely wishes to make the point that not everyone pays close attention to change. Unless you know that your correspondents' intention is to insult you, you ought to assume that it was inattention to change, rather than meanness, which prompted them. Miss Manners has graciously made that assumption about your inattention to what is actually being written in etiquette manuals.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: For decades now, I have loaned books to friends and family for them to enjoy and, eventually, return. I have always loved to read, and I count as my friends dozens of people who also love to read.

In the past several years, I have realized that some of these friends have not been returning the books. When I politely inquired of them whether they had finished with the book, I have received puzzling replies.

One told me that she liked it so much she had loaned the book to her mother, who had taken it back to Florida with her. Another insisted that the books had already been returned, and then admitted that they might have been swept up into a box of books destined for the church rummage sale. Others have simply said they haven't finished reading it yet, over a year since it was borrowed, and have not returned it. One promised to purchase the books at a used bookstore for me, but has not actually done so. I don't think this will happen, as the promise was made over a month ago.

These are friends that I have borrowed books from myself, but I actually return their books to them.

I so enjoy reading that I am reluctant to refuse my friends' requests for lending of books on the grounds of probable future larceny. If I did so, I doubt that they would take it well. With one of them, I refused to loan a book on the grounds that I was not finished with it, and have received some argument and evident hurt feelings in return. Still, I have not been able to come up with an appropriate way of dealing with these petty crimes.

Should I simply attempt to find better friends? Have the rules for book borrowing changed? I had considered loaning them some of your books, as a delicate hint, but was afraid they would either not get the hint or not return the books. Please help.

GENTLE READER: When you find that better class of friends, who not only appreciate literature but return it promptly, kindly introduce them to Miss Manners. She has a few volumes missing from her own library.

Unfortunately, she also has a volume or two that may not be her own property, languishing in her very tall "To Read" stack. So, although politeness demands that a borrowed book be speedily read and returned, she hesitates to declare that violating this rule is a clear indication of bad character.

This does not mean that she countenances the failure to return a book eventually, or whenever asked, which you must learn to do firmly, by saying merely "I'm afraid I need it now." Scofflaws should be stricken from your lending list, along with that dreadful person who took offense at your reading your own book instead of handing it over to her. But the merely careless should be alerted to the fact that both new and used books are easier to find, now that they are listed on the Internet, and given a chance to redeem themselves.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I made a blunder by going out with a friend, and as one thing lead to another, I ended up kissing and caressing her. I thought she was into it but then she suddenly got up and abruptly ended it all.

I apologized for what happened. But she said I have taken advantage of her. I said I didn't. My only probable reason to her was that I got carried away by the romantic notion of the encounter. I felt very bad for my actions, and I could feel her cold and unenthusiastic response when I called her, unlike before. I want to make amends and hope we can be friends again. I am married with no children. Miss Manners, what would be your advice?

GENTLE READER: Miss Manners' advice is for you to keep your hands off the telephone and everything else. Otherwise, the next advice you seek should be on the legal, rather than the etiquette, aspect of your behavior.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: When you need to pass seated patrons at a live performance or a movie theater, which way shows better etiquette? My wife, who grew up in Europe, states that the way Americans will shuffle sideways with their backsides facing the seated spectators, is considered rude by Europeans. I say it may have to do with the habit of Americans of buying food and souvenirs before the show or game and then taking them to their seats. I guess Americans don't want to hold their food in the faces of seated fans while looking at the faces of these people.

What is your recommendation? Some married American men could get in the doghouse if they were smiling and staring at the faces and assets of beautiful women on the way to their seats.

GENTLE READER: Well, you certainly do make a revolting -- Miss Manners meant to say compelling -- case for facing away from the spectators. That theater-goers might leer at those they must pass so closely, or drag French fries under their noses would be reason enough to establish the custom of facing away from those who are seated.

But the custom already existed before the invention of the motion picture (and its enhancement with junk food), although not before the invention of the leer. Actually, the correct posture is an angle at which the latecomer is mostly facing away from those he is passing, but at which he can say "Excuse me" if the event has not already begun.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Is it permissible to have the major participants -- not the bride and the groom -- wear nametags at the reception? Tags for mothers, stepmothers, fathers and stepfathers? Just names, not the relationships, as people should be able to figure those out for themselves once they have the names straight.

Both the groom and our family have confusing relationships with steps and exes. Although there will be a receiving line, and we'll get everybody in the right order, and we'll do introductions, many of the guests will have no clue as to who is who after 10 minutes even though they've gone through a line or been introduced. Is this idea tacky?

GENTLE READER: Life would certainly be easier if everyone bore a label; Miss Manners cannot deny that. But why just names?

The relationships are what people really want to know: "Bernard 'Studs' Woollcott/Bride's Mother's Second Husband." And if you really want to make things easier on the guests, you should also list the ingredients: "Lorelei MacIntosh/Half-sister of Bridegroom/Contains bile, artificial sweetener, some added coloring."

You probably don't want to do that because, if you think about it, you probably don't want to spoil the clothes and atmosphere of the occasion by making it look like a convention. In other words, yes, it is a tacky idea.

But Miss Manners has this comfort to offer you: Wedding guests don't really care whether they get the names of all the relatives, as they do not expect to see them again. And if they do, there are plenty of people around to ask.

: