Thursday, July 17, 2008

Battle of the Big Wheel

There is an ongoing battle at my house that I need to vent about. Whenever we buy a package of treats, be they donuts, candy bars, oreos, or ice cream sandwiches, we decide up front how much each of us is entitled to.

For example, in a box of six donuts, two are for me, two are for Danyael, and the boys each get one. In a package of cookies, one row for me, one row for Danyael, and the boys share the third row. This is fair.

It is my fault that we have to make this apportionment at all. I admit that. I am guilty of eating more than my share on multiple occasions. With the above system, everyone is assured of getting their fair share. (I have issues with what is a fair share, but that is a an issue for anther day - Okay, briefly, shouldn't the largest share go to the person who both wants the most and has the most capacity to consume?)

Here is the problem. There is, in my freezer at home, at this very moment, a single big wheel ice cream sandwhich. That ice cream sandwhich has been in there, all by itself, for not less than 6-7 weeks. 6-7 weeks of chocolaty frozen goodness, tempting me, calling to me. But I can't touch it. Why? Because it belongs to Danyael. I already ate my share. If I suggest that she should eat it, or else I will, I get the beat down. It belongs to her.

This is ridiculous. The apportionment of share to specific foodstuffs should have an expiration date. When we bought the ice cream sandwhiches, and decided that that particular one belonged to Danyael, we should have also decided how long that apportionment lasted. The amount of time depends on the item. I think for a frozen treat, 72 hours is ideal, but would settle for one week. The time frame for Donuts? 24 hours. After that they are stale. In any case, once the time runs, the goodies are fair game.

This is logical right?

Right now, if you are reading and you are a dude, you are thinking "Yes absolutely, go eat the big wheel!" If you are reading and you are a female, you are thinking "Hey fair is fair, you had your share, she will eat it when she is good and ready."

7 comments:

Jacob S. Paulsen said...

yeah that is exactly right. if she really wanted it she would have eaten it within its due freshness period. But she hasn't and therefor has sacrificed her right of way. When you come to a 4 way stop intersection and the other dude was clearly there way before you but he isn't smart enough to go there is a clear allotted time in which you are expected to wait because he has the right of way. However after this clear allotted time you may of course take his right away and make your move. Same thing

Linda G. Paulsen said...

NOT! Part of the joy of possession is tormenting the one without! But beyond that, you are assuming that all gobblers are equal in consumption when you have clearly identified how they are unequal in fair division of treat portions. Vis.: Some folks are Snarfers: stuff in the mouth as quickly as can. Some are Nibblers: here a bite, there a bite over time. Some are Hoarders: don't have to eat at all to enjoy it, just know it's there. ETC. In simpler terms, treat consumption is only fair if all the factors are identified and adhered to. Thus, since this contract designated portion only, the Big Wheel is Danyael's--forever. Even if it wastes away and becomes a frozen pity. And my female point of view would point out that in males, the appetite overrides the brain, making it difficult to think clearly.

Linda G. Paulsen said...

Actually from Steven Paulsen:

It is probably unfair for me to comment on this item. When a box of donuts comes to our house, I get them all. The same with every other ice-cream, candy or other treat. Here however, is another point of view. When it comes to uneaten treats, perhaps they should become to property of the person most healthy and fit. That person is entitled because they can afford to consume treats without as much damage to their health.
A second perspective: Maybe, since Danyael is expecting a baby, she should be given special considerations. Her appetite for certain treats comes and goes. So I believe that she should get an "entitlement clause" in this matter.

Eric said...

Some comments:

Two points on Dad's comments. Danyael's pregnancy is a non-issue here.

1. This has been a problem since the dawn of time, not just during the pregancy.

2. At the very most, the pregnancy merely extends the expiration date to allow for shifting tastes, etc.

Also, giving the most to the person who is the most healthy? So that they can get fat to join the other guy? Why would I do that disservice to anyone? I will sacrifice myself.

The expiration date does and should allow for snarfers nibblers, and hoarders alike to have fair time to enjoy the treat. Having said that, if the hoarder or nibbler waits beyond the "freshness window" for a donut to eat it, that person should be punished by losing the treat to the one who will maximize the consumption of the treat while it is still in its prime.

The person who waits until the treat "wastes away and is a frozen pity" also deserves to be punished by loss of treat. Why let it waste when it could obviously provide some enjoyment to someone else? That is the same argument as the biblical story of two women fighting over the baby. You want to cut the baby in half, because that is fair. I want the baby to go the one who will enjoy it the most.

Linda G. Paulsen said...

In other words, you want the treat for yourself and any other argument is invalid. Truth, logic, fairness have little weight when faced with the OCD addict. Sounds rather like Korihor, to me...you spout the rhetoric long enough and you come to believe it, even though it's not only wrong, but an expression of pride and gluttony. You've been deceived, boy. And now, I suppose, you'll ask for a sign...

Shannon said...

I am learning that self-control and patience are 2 of the main reasons we are on this earth. And I know whereof I speak.

Eric said...

Yeah..... Not buying it. More ice cream please.