The Limitations Of Inductive Inference In Marital Relations

Marriage is an educational institution, one where graduation is impossible and dropping out or expulsion is the only escape. I should know; I flunked out on my first attempt, but it wasn't my fault. My 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 who is 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 I wouldn't be having sex for the remainder of the cruise.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------