Bohiney Magazine

Volume 1, Issue 11 – Saturday, April 26, 1947

“America’s Trusted Source for Satirical Truth”

Supreme Court Strikes Down Restrictive Covenants While Real Estate Agents Prepare Creative Workarounds

WASHINGTON, DC – In what civil rights advocates are calling a significant victory and real estate professionals are calling “an inconvenient obstacle requiring alternative discrimination methods,” the Supreme Court ruled this week that racially restrictive housing covenants cannot be legally enforced, theoretically opening neighborhoods to Negro families while practitioners immediately began developing unofficial ways to maintain segregation without explicit legal language.

The case, Shelley v. Kraemer, centered on a St. Louis family attempting to purchase a home in a neighborhood where property deeds explicitly prohibited sale to “people of the Negro or Mongolian Race,” a restriction that approximately 80% of American residential properties contain through covenants written during periods when people felt comfortable documenting their racism in legal documents.

Chief Justice Vinson’s opinion holds that while private individuals can be as racist as they want privately, courts cannot enforce their racism, making restrictive covenants legally meaningless even though the racism motivating them remains perfectly legal and widely practiced.

“This is a great day for equality,” announced NAACP lawyers while real estate agents across the nation gathered in back rooms to discuss how to achieve identical segregation results through methods not explicitly prohibited by the Supreme Court.

The National Association of Real Estate Boards has issued guidance suggesting that while explicit racial restrictions are now unenforceable, agents can still accomplish segregation through a variety of creative techniques including: informing white sellers that property values will decline if they sell to Negroes, directing Negro buyers exclusively toward certain neighborhoods, inflating prices for Negro buyers, claiming properties are already sold when Negro families inquire, and the classic “I don’t personally discriminate but my clients have preferences I must respect” approach.

“We’re not discriminating,” explained real estate agent Herbert Pennington while describing his strategy of showing Negro clients only properties in neighborhoods where they’ll “feel more comfortable,” which coincidentally are never the neighborhoods with better schools, services, or property values. “We’re simply respecting cultural preferences and community character.”

This reasoning – that segregation is natural community preference rather than enforced discrimination – will likely become standard industry practice now that explicit legal restrictions are unavailable.

The decision affects millions of property deeds containing restrictions that owners believed were permanent and binding, discovering now that their carefully documented bigotry has no legal standing even though the social and economic structures supporting that bigotry remain entirely intact.

Some white homeowners have expressed outrage that they purchased property specifically because covenants “protected” the neighborhood from integration, claiming they were defrauded when sold homes with unenforceable racist provisions. These complaints suggest they believed racial segregation was a property feature equivalent to plumbing or electricity rather than illegal discrimination.

The ruling technically prevents courts from enforcing private racial covenants but does nothing about:

• Banks refusing mortgages to Negro applicants
• Real estate agents steering buyers to segregated areas
• White neighbors making life unbearable for Negro families who move in
• Property owners simply refusing to sell to Negro buyers
• Zoning boards rejecting development in white areas
• Violence and intimidation against integrated neighborhoods
• Employment discrimination limiting Negro economic mobility
• Every other mechanism maintaining residential segregation

Civil rights lawyers acknowledge the decision represents progress while recognizing it addresses one legal mechanism among dozens of extralegal practices achieving identical results. “They can’t enforce it in court anymore,” noted one attorney. “But they don’t need courts when they have banks, real estate agents, neighborhood associations, and social pressure all working toward the same segregated outcome.”

The decision has prompted some white homeowners to organize neighborhood associations dedicated to maintaining “community standards” and “property values,” which are code phrases for maintaining segregation through social pressure now that legal covenants have failed. These associations will likely prove more effective than covenants ever were because they operate through informal mechanisms difficult to challenge legally.

Real estate industry observers predict that residential segregation will continue virtually unchanged despite the ruling, maintained through practices everyone understands but nobody documents. “We’ll just do what we’ve always done,” one agent admitted anonymously. “We just won’t write it down anymore.”

Some optimistic observers suggest the decision could prompt gradual integration as Negro families with sufficient resources purchase homes in previously restricted neighborhoods. Pessimistic observers note that Negro families with sufficient resources are rare due to employment discrimination, educational inequality, and wealth gaps created by decades of policies designed to prevent exactly the economic mobility that would enable home buying in better neighborhoods.

As of press time, real estate agents were attending seminars on “maintaining neighborhood character through legal means,” which is apparently industry code for “how to keep doing discrimination without getting caught,” while civil rights advocates prepared for decades of additional legal challenges addressing the dozen other mechanisms maintaining segregation that the Supreme Court’s ruling didn’t touch.

Man’s Elaborate Morning Routine Disrupted by Wife Using Bathroom First

CLEVELAND, OH – In what he describes as “a complete disaster that ruined everything,” area resident Theodore Whitmore’s carefully timed morning bathroom schedule was thrown into chaos yesterday when his wife Dorothy entered the bathroom at 7:03 AM, three minutes before his scheduled entry, creating a cascade of timing failures that delayed his day by approximately seven minutes.

“I have a system,” Whitmore explained with the anguish of someone whose system has been violated. “I wake at 6:45, read the paper until 7:00, coffee until 7:06, bathroom at 7:06, then proceed with day. This system is precise. It depends on bathroom availability at exactly 7:06. Not 7:03. Not 7:09. Exactly 7:06.”

When his wife entered the bathroom at 7:03 for what she described as “just quickly washing my face,” Whitmore experienced what psychologists term “schedule disruption panic” – the male response to any deviation from established routines, characterized by standing outside the bathroom door emitting frustrated sighs and checking his watch dramatically.

“How long will you be?” he called through the door at 7:06, 7:07, and 7:08, each inquiry becoming progressively more urgent despite his wife being inside for less than six minutes.

“Just a minute,” Dorothy replied, a phrase that Whitmore correctly interpreted as “an indeterminate period that could mean anything from thirty seconds to eternity.”

The Smithsonian Institution has documented what researchers call “Morning Routine Inflexibility Syndrome” where men develop elaborate bathroom schedules they believe are essential to functioning properly despite being arbitrary sequences they invented themselves and could easily modify.

Dr. Reginald Pemberton explains that morning routines become ritualistic for men who believe that deviation causes catastrophic day failure. “They establish patterns, then convince themselves these patterns are required rather than preferred,” he noted while observing Whitmore pace outside the bathroom like an expectant father awaiting birth news. “Any disruption triggers disproportionate anxiety despite nothing actually important depending on bathroom access at specific time.”

Whitmore’s morning routine, established over seventeen years, consists of:

6:45 AM – Wake, sit in bed staring at wall for three minutes 6:48 AM – Put on slippers, walk downstairs 6:50 AM – Start coffee, retrieve newspaper 6:52 AM – Coffee pours, first sip 6:53-7:06 AM – Read paper while drinking coffee in exactly this order: front page, local news, sports, comics 7:06 AM – Bathroom (15 minutes allocated) 7:21 AM – Dress for work 7:35 AM – Leave house

This schedule allows zero flexibility for variables like wives existing or having their own bathroom needs or daring to disrupt his precise timing through the selfishness of their own morning routines.

“Every morning, same schedule,” Whitmore insisted while finally entering the bathroom at 7:13, seven minutes late by his calculations. “Then she waltzes in at 7:03 and ruins everything. How am I supposed to maintain structure when people randomly use the bathroom?”

His wife pointed out that 7:03 is not random, she uses the bathroom every morning, and perhaps he could adjust his rigid schedule to accommodate another human living in the house. Whitmore dismissed this suggestion as “impractical” and “missing the point about routine importance.”

The disruption caused what Whitmore describes as “cascading delays” throughout his morning:

7:13 – Finally entered bathroom (7 minutes late) 7:28 – Exited bathroom (still 7 minutes behind) 7:35 – Should have left house, still getting dressed 7:42 – Actually left house (7 minutes late)

“My whole day is ruined,” Whitmore announced while leaving exactly seven minutes later than usual, a delay that will have zero impact on anything but which he treated as catastrophic schedule failure requiring extended complaint session with his wife, coworkers, and anyone who will listen.

Dr. Millicent Hargrove, who studies household dynamics, notes that bathroom scheduling conflicts represent common marital tension where one spouse (usually husband) establishes rigid routine assuming other spouse will naturally accommodate it without discussion. “He created a schedule that requires his wife not to use the bathroom between 7:03 and 7:21,” Dr. Hargrove explained. “He didn’t ask her agreement. He just assumed the bathroom belongs to him during these times because he decided it does.”

This assumption, which makes no sense when examined, makes perfect sense to Whitmore who believes his routine takes precedence over his wife’s bathroom needs because his routine is more important due to being his routine.

Dorothy reports this represents typical morning conflict. “He acts like I deliberately sabotaged his schedule,” she noted while describing previous incidents where she dared shower at 6:50 or use the bathroom at 7:08, both times Whitmore treated as personal attacks. “I’m just living in the house. But apparently living requires coordination with his bathroom calendar that he never shared with me.”

Whitmore has proposed several solutions:

• Dorothy wakes earlier and completes bathroom usage before his schedule begins
• Dorothy waits until after his bathroom time concludes
• Dorothy uses different bathroom (house has one bathroom)
• Dorothy develops psychic awareness of his needs and avoids bathroom during his times

All proposals require Dorothy adjusting her behavior to accommodate his schedule while he makes zero adjustments, which Dorothy describes as “absolutely not happening” and “exactly the kind of thinking that got us here.”

As of press time, Whitmore had arrived at work seven minutes late, blamed his wife for the delay, and was already planning tomorrow’s identical bathroom conflict that will unfold exactly the same way with identical results.

Local Woman’s “We Need to Talk” Paralyzes Husband with Fear for Six Hours

BALTIMORE, MD – Following his wife’s calm announcement that “we need to talk tonight,” area resident Harold Finchley spent his entire workday experiencing what medical professionals describe as “advanced anticipatory dread” while imagining every possible catastrophic conversation that might occur when he arrives home to talk about something that is probably nothing but might be everything.

“We need to talk,” Dorothy Finchley stated at 7:30 AM before leaving for her own job, providing zero context, no hints about topic, and no reassurance that the talk wouldn’t end with divorce, financial ruin, or revelation of some terrible mistake Harold made but cannot remember making.

“About what?” Harold asked with the desperation of someone seeking any information that might reduce panic levels from “severe” to “moderate.”

“Just some things,” Dorothy replied unhelpfully before leaving Harold to spend eight hours imagining increasingly dire scenarios ranging from “she’s slightly annoyed about something minor” to “she’s planned my murder and tonight is when it happens.”

The National Institutes of Health has documented “We Need to Talk Syndrome” as legitimate stress condition affecting primarily husbands whose wives announce upcoming conversations without providing context, creating anxiety spirals where imagination fills gaps left by insufficient information.

“The lack of context is deliberate,” explained Dr. Millicent Hargrove while reviewing Harold’s elevated stress indicators throughout the day. “If she wanted him calm, she’d say what the talk is about. Instead she says ‘we need to talk,’ activating every fear center in his brain while providing zero information to counter those fears.”

Harold’s workday consisted almost entirely of:

8:00-9:00 AM – Trying to remember anything he might have done wrong

9:00-10:00 AM – Reviewing finances to see if he spent money without permission

10:00-11:00 AM – Wondering if she discovered something from his past he forgot to mention

11:00 AM-12:00 PM – Checking whether she’s mad about birthday present from three months ago

12:00-1:00 PM – Considering if she’s leaving him and how he’ll explain this to family

1:00-2:00 PM – Wondering if this is about thing he said last week that seemed fine at the time

2:00-3:00 PM – Panicking about possibility she knows about thing he doesn’t know about

3:00-4:00 PM – Accepting that whatever it is, he’s definitely in trouble

4:00-5:00 PM – Practicing apologies for crimes he hasn’t identified yet

Total work accomplished: Approximately nothing, as his mind was occupied entirely with dread about unspecified evening conversation.

“I called her twice,” Harold reported to his coworker Ernest Potts, who nodded sympathetically having experienced identical terror during his own marriage. “She didn’t answer. That’s probably bad, right? If it was nothing, she’d answer. She’s definitely mad about something.”

Potts agreed this was dire sign, though admitted his wife once said “we need to talk” and it turned out she wanted his opinion about curtains, suggesting that “we need to talk” can mean anything from “I need your thoughts on decorating” to “I’ve hired a divorce lawyer.”

The phrase “we need to talk” triggers male panic response because it:

• Signals upcoming conversation requiring attention and participation
• Provides no context suggesting severity or topic
• Demands emotional availability men struggle to provide
• Implies husband has done something wrong but doesn’t specify what
• Creates extended anxiety period before actual conversation occurs

Dr. Theodore Pemberton notes that wives use “we need to talk” intentionally, understanding that advance notice without context serves as punishment for whatever transgression prompted the need to talk. “She’s mad about something,” he explained. “Rather than discuss it immediately, she announces a future discussion, ensuring he suffers extended anxiety. It’s psychological warfare disguised as communication scheduling.”

Harold attempted to deduce the topic through detective work:

Review recent conversations – Found nothing but analyzed everything suspiciously

Check calendar for forgotten events – Discovered nothing but doubted memory

Examine credit card statements – Found nothing unusual but questioned every charge

Ask children if mother seemed upset – Children had noticed nothing but now seemed worried

Call mother-in-law – Got voicemail, interpreted silence as ominous

Consider fleeing – Rejected as impractical but remained option of last resort

By 5:00 PM, Harold had convinced himself the talk would address: his failings as husband, father, provider, and human being generally; financial irresponsibility he can’t identify; something he said three years ago that she’s been saving for opportune moment; or possibly she’s actually just leaving without explanation and the “talk” is formality.

He arrived home at 5:47 PM with elevated blood pressure, sweaty palms, and elaborate apologies prepared for every conceivable offense. Dorothy was in the kitchen cooking dinner normally, which Harold interpreted as either good sign or trap.

“So what did you want to talk about?” he asked with the caution of someone approaching unexploded ordnance.

“Oh, I was thinking we should paint the dining room,” Dorothy replied casually. “What color do you think?”

The conversation Harold had spent eight hours dreading concerned paint colors. Not divorce. Not financial catastrophe. Not evidence of wrongdoing. Paint.

“That’s it?” Harold asked with the confusion of someone whose entire day was consumed by anxiety about a conversation regarding beige versus taupe.

“What did you think it was about?” Dorothy asked, genuinely curious.

Harold listed his top seventeen fears developed over eight hours, none involving paint. Dorothy listened with growing amusement at the panic she’d inadvertently caused through casual morning statement that seemed innocuous to her but activated every anxiety trigger her husband possesses.

“I just meant we need to talk about paint,” she explained. “I didn’t realize ‘we need to talk’ would make you think I was leaving you or that you’d done something terrible. It’s just paint, Harold. Calm down.”

But Harold cannot calm down, having spent his entire day in panic mode that doesn’t simply switch off because the threat was imaginary. His body experienced real stress about imaginary crisis, and that stress doesn’t dissipate just because the crisis never existed.

As of press time, Harold was arguing passionately about paint colors he doesn’t care about while experiencing delayed relief that his marriage isn’t ending, his finances aren’t ruined, and he hasn’t committed crimes he doesn’t remember, though Dorothy has made note that “we need to talk” creates useful leverage for future negotiations about paint colors and everything else.

Revolutionary Study Confirms Nobody Actually Knows What They’re Doing

BOSTON, MA – After interviewing 10,000 adults across various professions and life situations, the Institute for Human Competence has reached a startling conclusion: approximately 100% of people are making it up as they go along, pretending to understand what they’re doing while hoping nobody notices they have no idea what they’re doing.

“We expected to find some people who actually know what they’re doing,” reported lead researcher Dr. Sebastian Crumpet while admitting he’s also just guessing at research methodology. “Instead we found universal pretending. Doctors making medical decisions based on partial information and good guesses. Lawyers citing laws they half-remember. Engineers building bridges while quietly terrified they miscalculated something. Everyone is improvising constantly while maintaining facade of competence.”

The study examined confidence levels versus actual knowledge across professions from entry-level to executives. Results showed that confidence and competence have no correlation, with many highly confident individuals possessing minimal knowledge while knowledgeable individuals doubt themselves constantly because they understand how much they don’t know.

“I’ve been a doctor for twenty years,” admitted test subject Dr. Harold Pemberton while describing how much of medicine involves educated guessing dressed up as expertise. “Half the time I’m looking at a patient thinking ‘I have no idea what’s wrong with you’ while nodding thoughtfully and ordering tests hoping the tests reveal something because I certainly don’t know. Medicine is part science, part guesswork, part hoping problems resolve themselves.”

This revelation that medical professionals frequently don’t know what they’re doing prompted existential crisis among patients who assumed doctors possess god-like knowledge when many are just consulting reference books frantically while pretending they remember this from medical school.

The Smithsonian Institution has begun collecting testimonials from professionals admitting they’re improvising, including:

Lawyers – “I cite cases I barely understand hoping opposing counsel also doesn’t understand them”

Engineers – “We build things using safety margins because we’re not entirely sure about our calculations”

Teachers – “Sometimes students ask questions I don’t know answers to and I just say ‘look it up’ like that was my pedagogical intent”

Executives – “Business decisions are 10% data, 90% hoping we’re right, 100% pretending we’re certain”

Politicians – “We vote on legislation we haven’t read hoping someone read it, probably nobody did”

Parents – “Child-raising is guessing what might work then hoping children survive our incompetence”

Test subject Margaret Thornbury, accountant for fifteen years, admitted that much of accounting involves “making numbers look right while following rules I don’t fully understand but pretending I do because clients expect confidence.” She noted that tax law changes constantly and nobody fully understands it, including tax lawyers who write contradictory opinions about identical situations.

“We’re all just doing our best with incomplete information,” she explained while describing how she files tax returns hoping they’re correct because the tax code is incomprehensible even to professionals. “But we can’t admit that because people need to believe someone knows what’s happening.”

This need for someone to be competent creates what researchers call “mutual pretending” where everyone acts knowledgeable so everyone else feels secure, despite nobody actually being as knowledgeable as they pretend. Doctors pretend to patients, patients pretend to families, families pretend to each other, creating layers of false confidence that somehow makes society function.

Dr. Theodore Whitmore notes that admitting incompetence is career suicide even when honesty would improve outcomes. “If I tell patients ‘I’m not sure what’s wrong,’ they lose confidence and might sue me,” he explained. “If I say ‘I believe it’s this condition’ with fake certainty, they feel better even though my uncertainty was more honest. We’re incentivized to pretend competence even when admitting uncertainty would be more accurate.”

The study found that some professions are entirely built on pretending:

Financial Advisors – Cannot predict market but pretend they can through confident assertions about unpredictable future

Weather Forecasters – Guess about weather based on patterns while acknowledging atmosphere is chaos system defying prediction

Economic Forecasters – Wrong constantly but continue forecasting with confidence because admitting they’re guessing destroys credibility

Management Consultants – Tell companies obvious things dressed up as insight while charging enormous fees for common sense

Life Coaches – Provide advice they don’t follow themselves while pretending their lives are together

The most troubling finding involved people in positions of authority admitting they don’t know what they’re doing but cannot admit it publicly because people need to believe someone is in charge even when nobody is.

“I’m a judge,” admitted one anonymous participant. “I make decisions affecting people’s lives. Sometimes I’m genuinely uncertain about correct ruling but must project confidence because justice system requires belief in judicial wisdom. But I’m just a person interpreting rules I sometimes don’t fully understand.”

Parents particularly struggled with this reality. “I have no idea what I’m doing,” confessed Ernest Potts, father of two. “I’m making parenting decisions hoping they’re right because children don’t come with instructions. But I can’t tell my kids I’m guessing because they need to believe I know what I’m doing. So I pretend competence while terrified I’m ruining them.”

As of press time, researchers were preparing to publish findings while acknowledging they’re not entirely sure they’ve done the research correctly but are publishing anyway because that’s apparently what everyone does – pretend competence while secretly uncertain, creating world where everyone is faking expertise while assuming everyone else actually knows what they’re doing.

Local Man’s “Just Browsing” Actually Means “Will Buy Nothing But Waste Salesperson’s Time”

PHILADELPHIA, PA – Store clerk Margaret Thornbury has learned to recognize the phrase “just browsing” as code for “I have no intention of purchasing anything but will examine every item in your store, ask numerous questions, and leave empty-handed” after area shopper Theodore Whitmore spent forty-seven minutes “browsing” before departing without buying anything, exactly as predicted.

“Just browsing,” Whitmore announced upon entering the hardware store, activating what retail workers recognize as “time waster protocol” where they must provide assistance to someone who will not become customer.

“Let me know if you need help,” Thornbury replied with the resignation of someone who knows helping will be required extensively despite zero probability of sale.

What followed was forty-seven minutes of Whitmore examining tools, asking detailed questions about specifications, requesting demonstrations of equipment, and providing extensive explanation of hypothetical projects he might someday undertake requiring these exact items he definitely won’t purchase today.

“I’m thinking about building a shed,” Whitmore explained while handling various saws with the intensity of someone planning imminent construction project. “What would you recommend?”

Thornbury provided detailed recommendations about appropriate saws for shed-building, knowing with certainty that Whitmore has no shed-building plans, will not purchase any saws, and is simply enjoying having someone’s undivided attention discussing theoretical projects.

“Very helpful,” Whitmore responded after seventeen-minute saw discussion. “I’ll think about it.”

Translation: Will never think about it again, certainly won’t return to purchase recommended saw, has already moved on mentally to browsing different section.

The National Retail Federation estimates that “just browsing” customers consume approximately 40% of retail employee time while accounting for less than 2% of sales, creating situations where workers must provide enthusiastic assistance to people who have announced upfront they’re not buying anything.

“We can’t ignore them,” explained store manager Harold Finchley while watching Whitmore migrate to the paint section despite having no painting projects. “They might be genuine customers. Usually they’re not. But sometimes the browser becomes buyer, so we treat everyone like potential sale even though most are just killing time.”

Whitmore’s browsing pattern followed predictable sequence:

Minutes 0-8: Examined saws, asked detailed questions, showed no intention of buying

Minutes 8-15: Moved to power tools, requested demonstrations, seemed engaged but wasn’t

Minutes 15-23: Discussed drill bits at length, learned nothing, purchased nothing

Minutes 23-31: Browsed paint section despite not painting, asked about every color

Minutes 31-40: Returned to saws, asked same questions again, learned he’d already discussed this

Minutes 40-47: Wandered aisles aimlessly before exiting without purchasing anything

Total investment: 47 minutes of employee time Total sales: $0 Likelihood of return purchase: 0% Whitmore’s assessment of shopping trip: “Very productive”

His wife Dorothy reports this represents typical behavior. “He browses hardware stores like other people browse museums,” she explained while describing Theodore’s weekend hobby of visiting stores to examine items he has no plans to purchase. “It’s recreational browsing. He enjoys talking to salespeople about tools. He has no intention of buying anything. But he’ll spend hours acting like serious customer.”

This recreational browsing has made Whitmore familiar figure at every hardware store in Philadelphia, where employees recognize him and know not to expect sales but must provide service anyway because store policy requires treating all customers as potential buyers even when they’re definitely not buyers.

“Oh, it’s you again,” Thornbury said upon Whitmore’s third visit this month, each lasting 30+ minutes, none resulting in purchases. “What are we not buying today?”

Whitmore took offense at this characterization despite its complete accuracy. “I’m a serious customer,” he protested while examining hammers he neither needs nor will buy. “Just because I haven’t purchased anything yet doesn’t mean I won’t eventually.”

Store records show Whitmore has “browsed” seventeen times over six months, accumulating roughly nine hours of employee time, purchasing nothing. His defense that he might “eventually” buy something rings hollow to staff who recognize his browsing as entertainment rather than shopping.

Dr. Reginald Pemberton, who studies consumer behavior, explains that “just browsing” serves multiple functions: killing time, enjoying free consultation, feeling important through sales attention, learning about products with no purchase intent, and avoiding admission that you’re lonely and store interaction provides human contact.

“Many browsers are simply seeking engagement,” Dr. Pemberton noted while observing Whitmore discuss lumber grades with patience that suggests he’s not busy. “They don’t want to buy wood. They want someone to talk to them about wood. The store provides free social interaction disguised as customer service.”

Retail workers have developed strategies for managing chronic browsers:

Polite Distance – Provide minimal assistance while making yourself available for actual customers

Strategic Absence – “Help” browser by suggesting they “take their time looking around” then disappear

Group Browsing – Assign newest employee to browser duty, freeing experienced staff for real customers

Honest Assessment – “Are you actually buying anything today or just browsing?” (results in complaints to management)

As of press time, Whitmore had visited a different hardware store where he was unknown, beginning another 47-minute browsing session examining items he won’t purchase while employee wondered if “just browsing” should legally require warning label like “Store reserves right to charge consultation fees to non-buying customers who waste extensive time.”

Scientists Baffled as Man’s “Five More Minutes” Stretches Into Forty-Five Minutes

DETROIT, MI – Following what he described as a request for “just five more minutes” of sleep, area resident Ernest Potts remained in bed for an additional forty-five minutes yesterday morning, baffling chronologists who note that five and forty-five are different numbers representing different quantities of time that Potts somehow confused as equivalent.

“Five more minutes,” Potts mumbled at 7:00 AM when his wife Dorothy suggested he should wake up for work, activating what scientists call “Temporal Estimation Failure Syndrome” where requested time bears no relationship to actual time elapsed.

“It’s been forty-five minutes,” Dorothy announced at 7:45 AM while watching her husband continue sleeping peacefully through what he believed was a five-minute extension.

“No it hasn’t,” Potts protested while checking the clock and discovering that it had, in fact, been forty-five minutes. “It felt like five minutes. Maximum.”

The National Institutes of Health has documented this phenomenon affecting approximately 87% of people who request “five more minutes” of sleep, with actual additional sleep time averaging thirty-seven minutes despite genuine belief that five minutes elapsed.

Dr. Millicent Hargrove explains that sleeping brains cannot accurately track time, creating situations where people request five minutes, sleep forty-five minutes, and genuinely believe they honored their five-minute commitment because unconsciousness prevents time perception.

“He thinks he’s being honest when he says five minutes,” Dr. Hargrove noted while reviewing data showing Potts has never once actually woken after five minutes despite requesting it daily. “In his mind, five minutes and forty-five minutes feel identical because he’s unconscious for both. Time doesn’t exist when you’re sleeping.”

Potts’s morning routine consists entirely of: 6:45 AM – Alarm sounds, requests five more minutes (actually sleeps 30+ minutes) 7:15 AM – Wife wakes him, requests five more minutes (actually sleeps 15+ minutes)
7:30 AM – Wife threatens him, requests five more minutes (actually sleeps 10+ minutes) 7:40 AM – Actual wake time, late for work

Total “five more minutes” requested: Three times Total additional time: Approximately 55 minutes His perception of time elapsed: Maybe 15 minutes total

“I don’t understand how it happens,” Potts admitted while rushing to prepare for work after oversleeping by forty-five minutes that he swore was five minutes. “I say five minutes. I mean five minutes. Then somehow it’s later and Dorothy is mad and I’m late and none of it makes sense.”

His wife has learned that “five more minutes” translates roughly to “indeterminate period that definitely exceeds five minutes and might extend indefinitely if not physically forced awake.” She now factors this translation into morning schedules, waking him forty-five minutes before he needs to rise and accepting that his “five minutes” will consume most of that buffer.

“I’ve tried every method,” Dorothy explained while describing failed attempts to make her husband wake after his requested five minutes. “Alarm clocks, phone reminders, physically shaking him, threatening divorce. He says five minutes, I assume forty-five minutes, he’s confused about why I’m angry. This is our life now.”

The phenomenon extends beyond sleeping. Test subjects report that “five more minutes” playing video games actually means ninety minutes, “five more minutes” at the bar means three hours, and “five more minutes” of television means watching until programming ends or consciousness fails.

Dr. Theodore Pemberton notes that five-minute requests represent “aspirational time estimates that ignore reality of human behavior.” People genuinely intend to honor five-minute limits while subconsciously knowing they’ll vastly exceed them because five minutes feels arbitrary and insufficient for whatever they’re doing.

“Nobody naturally stops activities after five minutes,” Dr. Pemberton explained. “Five minutes is too short to feel satisfying. So they request it believing they’ll honor it, then don’t, then are confused about the gap between intention and behavior.”

Potts has attempted several solutions:

• Setting alarm for five minutes after “five more minutes” request (sleeps through alarm)
• Promising to actually wake after five minutes (doesn’t)
• Requesting ten minutes instead (sleeps forty-five minutes anyway)
• Accepting he can’t estimate time (continues requesting five minutes)

The only successful strategy involves his wife not believing his five-minute claims and physically removing him from bed at whatever time she deems appropriate, which Potts describes as “unfair” despite his demonstrated inability to honor any time commitment involving sleep.

As of press time, Potts had arrived at work seventeen minutes late after requesting “five more minutes” three separate times, accumulating fifty-two additional minutes of sleep while maintaining his request was accurate and time itself had somehow malfunctioned rather than admitting he can’t tell the difference between five and forty-five when unconscious.

About This Issue

Bohiney Magazine – Volume 1, Issue 11 – Published every Saturday from our offices in Washington, DC.

Editorial Staff, 1947: Editors-in-Chief: Corporal Henry “Hank” Bohiney & Sergeant Lester “Les” Krupke
Senior Correspondents: Dorothy Ashworth, Harold K. Pennington III
Contributing Satirist: Reginald “Reggie” Buttonworth

All articles are works of satire. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental and intended for humorous purposes.