Sunday, March 30, 2014

The Limitations Of Inductive Inference In Marital Relations

Marriage is an educational institution, one where graduation is impossible and dropping out or expulsion out is the only escape. I should know; I flunked out on my first attempt, but it wasn't my fault. The primary instructor was distracted tutoring other students. Now I'm enrolled in another institution of higher learning, the School Of Kellie, and while there's still no hope of receiving a diploma, there's little risk that my tutelage will be interrupted because Kellie's campus is closed to new admissions. She has all she can handle with her one transfer student on perpetual academic probation. Thanks to my sustained lackluster performance, frequent remediation is required, and I regularly get schooled. This week's lesson, conducted aboard the Celebrity Century while cruising along the California Coast, explored the limitations of inductive inference in marital relations.

From a strictly deductive standpoint, it make little sense to always agree with your wife, especially if she's wrong, which is frequently the case. However, after 17 years of wedded bliss, during which time I conducted countless experimental trials, I've learned that the consequences for disagreeing with my wife bear little relationship to the validity of her reasoning or the veracity of her premises. Therefore, from a purely inductive perspective, and for my own well being, I've concluded that agreeing with her is always the best option. That's why I readily concurred when she complained that her ass was getting too fat. I may have erred. 

"So you don't want to have sex again on this cruise, do you?" she asked.

It was at precisely that moment that I first recognized the difficulty of using inductive logic under conditions of matrimony. I now know that there is at least one case where it's best to vehemently disagree with one's wife despite the obvious facts regarding the state of said wife's ass.

Later at dinner I was tested again. Kellie ordered two desserts but wasn't satisfied by either of her choices. She began eyeing the crème brûlée I was enjoying. 

"You are planning to share that with me, aren't you?" she asked.

I had no such plans, but after my earlier error I was somewhat hesitant to respond. I was tempted to explain the positive correlation between the number of desserts consumed and the circumference of one's ass, but I demurred. Kellie must have sensed my confusion because she immediately clarified the salient aspects of the dilemma.

"So, you do want to have sex again on this cruise, don't you?"

I said nothing and passed her the remainder of my crème brûlée. Inductive logic is hard.

After dinner, tired and worn out from the day's mental exercises, I suggested we take the elevator back to our room. Kellie reminded me that supermodels take the stairs. I might have mentioned that the time it would take to climb the number of flights required for her ass to achieve supermodel status would in all likelihood exceed the length of our cruise. Any reasonable inductive inference would have suggested a different response.

I'm a slow learner, but I finally mastered inductive reasoning. Based upon a careful analysis of the available evidence, I  correctly concluded that wouldn't be having sex for the remainder of the cruise.


Of course she's smiling, she ate my crème brûlée.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

16 comments:

  1. it's tough being a dude. always share your dessert. and your woman is never ever ever fat. done.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You'd think all the pop quizzes would have prepared you for the final.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You would think. I guess that's why I'm on academic probation.

      Delete
  3. Took me till the second, "do you want to have sex with me on the cruise" before I got it. I think ya'll got the basics down for a lifelong union.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She has the basics down. I'm still trying to figure it out.

      Delete
  4. Ah, the appliance of science to that most unfathomable subject matter: the female psyche. And the shameless use of feminine power to shape male behavior, using access to their sexual apparatus as positive reinforcement.

    Great post Joe; I can't seem to stop chuckling.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Positive reenforcement, is that what this is? Seems I'm not even as smart as Pavlov's dog.

      Delete
  5. This is hilarious.... And you have it wrong! Women are ALWAYS right. Sheesh...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, and who made that law?

      Delete
  6. Someone has to be right. It's probably just safer to assume it's your wife. Right? And it's bound to make the answer to the sex question land in the affirmative column.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, someone has to be right. How come it's never me?

      Delete
  7. Replies
    1. Of course. She critiques it and makes suggestions before I post.

      Delete
  8. LOL! This was really funny. Ahhh, inductive reasoning. It's harsh.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Never, EVER agree that she has a fat ass. Just make her feel sexy and the rest will fall into place. When she goes shopping, stay at home. She will ask your opinion on her new outfit. If it's ugly, let her friends tell her. There is no correct response to these types of questions, even if you're completely honest. If you say she looks nice, you're lying. If you say it's hideous, well then you're just an asshole. Tread carefully, my friend!

    ReplyDelete