My boyfriend and I are fighting.

I say that there is something qualitatively different (and better)
about graham crackers IN milk (as cereal would be) than merely graham
crackers dipped in milk (as from a cup.)  He thinks that the
distinction is naught.

Minus the fact that my boyfriend enjoys eating with his fingers (as I
do), I can think of multiple reasons why his impression is awry. As to
not bias your opinions, I will not list them. Please advise:

Is there any research to suggest that a full bowl of milky grahams is
actually better than the same grahams eaten, one by one, without full
spoonfulls of soggy goodness?

Thank you. 

An answer to this question is worth everything to us. (i.e. $2.)

Comments welcome. I will treat them as a scientifically-valid sample
of public opinion.

---

Clarification of Question by khalperin-ga on 28 Feb 2006 21:43 PST

Yes paramount37-ga: In both cases (bowl and cup) the crackery things
are in milk. The question is: should they be in a bowl, like cereal,
or dipped in milk one by one?

Dear Khalperin

De gustibus non est disputandum

I disagree with both of you.  I think that these crackery thingys
would have to be much better dipped in milk.

I find that milk in general is different from a glass and a bowl. The
only reasoning I can think of is the same as for wine or beer, namely
that increasing the surface area of the beverage sends up more smell,
and since smell is half of the eating experience, the experince is
more rewarding in the cereal format.

According to a gurl poll:
do you dunk your cookies in milk?
	
total votes cast so far: 9331
	
	
yes.	35% 	
		
no.	16% 	
		
depends on the cookie.	50% 	

Personally I would have to go with the dunk and not the bowl.  If I
wanted cereal...I'd have cereal.

Here is a link to a book called Graham Crackers & Milk...the cover
clearly shows a dip is going to result...not a bowl.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/068707472X/104-4247855-5594340?v=glance&n=283155

As for which is 'better'...the following recipe clearly shows the
addition of sugar is 'necessary' when putting GCs in a bowl:
http://www.mcgees.com/kitchen/recipes/kidstuff/k099904.htm

Therefore, the dunk is superior if looking to cut sugar from your diet....

;)

When you eat something one by one, it has more a feeling of a snack,
and you have to be constantly re-evaluating your portion size. If you
place your chosen portion into milk at the start, you have more a meal
feeling, and you don't have to think about how much you are eating.
Also, its easier to eat that way and watch TV. On the negative side,
your grahams might get too soggy.

I fall into the dunker group. Eating them IN a bowl results
in too much sogginess. There's also something tangible and
sensuous about the weight of a graham cracker being lifted
from a glass of milk. There's also the meditative aspect of
soaking them only long enough to maximize the amount of milk
without destroying their integrity (it breaks off in your
fingers, and falls into the glass). 

I'm also in agreement with the snack vs meal perspective.

I dunk 'em in milk. It's a brief dunk, so that the graham crackers
retain a bit of crunch. In a bowl, they turn into flabby mush.

In a bowl the crackers are in contact with the milk for an extended
period and thus infuse the milk with more graham-crackery goodness,
intensifying the grahamness of the experience (similar to what Amh8467
says).

This is not natural.

Throughout the history of our country, milk-bowl-eating graham cracker
enthusiasts have been persecuted. The Roanoke colony was initially
rumored to have been wiped out by a member who wasn't a dunker but a
"soaker truly fetid and festering of ye craker (sic) of Graham &
mylk." The Puritans banned bowls for a period to wipe out the
suspected activities of a couple of members (they realized that
wouldn't work pretty fast). During the Civil War General McLellan was
a notorious bowler until Lincoln, disgusted by the outrageous
bowl-related behaviour, fired the general. McLellan gave up the bowl
for the 1864 election fight against Lincoln but when he lost to Abe he
went back to it and died with a spoonful of soggy graham cracker
halfway to his lips. Supposedly, FBI director J Edgar Hoover had a
secret relationship with not one but TWO bowl-soakers at the same time
and later had them killed.

It is only recently that "bowlies" are finding out that they are not
alone, that there are others who share their... er, proclivities.

I'm a dunker, but when I was in school I might have experimented once
or twice with other bowlies. I didn't like it and I didn't swallow.

My father taught me to use a bowl and to drop lumps of strawberry jam on top.

I definitely prefer my graham crackers crisp and my milk pure, so
there is no contact between the two until they are in my mouth.
Nutritionally, of course, there can be no difference in the preferred
way to eat them, since in the end, they both end up in the stomach in
about the same mushy consistancy.

mmm-k, so the original question was, "Is there a qualitative
difference to grahams dipped v. grahams in a bowl?"  Answer:
Absolutely, grahams in a bowl becomes a soggy blob of mush while
grahams individually dipped usually become soften cookies and a soggy
blob of mush at the bottom of your glass.

second question: why does K prefer grahams in a bowl?
answer 1: K, you prefer grahams in a bowl cuz you's a lazy-ass.  you
will only expend one burst of energy in making your snack -- grahams
in bowl, milk in bowl, there! you're done!  you're as happy as a clam
to swallow soggy grahams so long as you can forget about the stress
and hassle of individually sopping each bite.  The easy decadence of a
pauper!!!
answer 2: K, you prefer grahams in a bowl because of some kinky
transference/disembodiment neurosis.  You're titillated by being able
to see what ordinarily goes on behind your sealed lips.  The bowl is
your mouth, the spoon is your tongue. Grahams in a bowl is literally
an out-of-body experience for you.

It?s all about the proportion of milk to graham in the bowl. All of
you dunkers with your derisions against soggy mush have probably not
tasted (at least not in years) the texture of this perfect dish! Do
you assume that grahams-in-a-bowl are as mushy and lifeless as the
zoop of crumbs drowned on the bottom of your cup post-dunking?? Well,
extrapolate no longer.  Birdonfire?s ?answer 2? is spiritually
right-on. Give your next graham experience the SPOON.

(Thank you, pinkfreud, for the social history of the graham
controversy. And lest we not forget the strong anti-dunking movement
that lobbied ?Grahams for S?mores Only? legislation in Tip O?Neill?s
congress. It was the bastard of an illicit affair between executives
at Nabisco and Hershey. Luckily, dunkers and bowlies united in
protest, and prevented the beginning of the end?)

The bowl gives you a higher milk to graham experience, which I prefer.
A compromise on the issue of soggyness might be to add the graham to
the bowl as you go along.

The Canadianhelper response was quite useful, however:

I agree with AMH8467.  The problem with putting the crackers directly
into the bowel is that they might sog to the point of disintegration. 
On the other hand, if you eat quickly enough, they might just achieve
optimal saturation.  I would have to say that unless you amend your
question to account for the specific amount of time each graham
cracker would spend in the bowl of milk (cereal style) at maximum. 
Clearly, the crackers eaten first from the bowel would retain some
degree of sturdiness, and therefore be quite nice.  Crackers eaten
from the bowl after you've consumed, let's say, 2/3 of them, might be
excessively soggy.  But not if you eat quickly.  See where this is
going?  Bottom line - define how long it would be before you consume
the final graham cracker (thereby determining how long it would have
to soak), otherwise I believe the ultimate question cannot be
answered.  There may be research that accounts for these conditions,
but I am not aware of any.

There is a bit of solice in knowing that google is around to settle
these heated arguments between me and my girlfriend. And, while I was
not aware of the perverted proclivities of bowlies, the exogeneous
incarnations of the spoon or the whole bowel analogy(this was no
spelling mistake, i assure you), I am feeling redeemed by the
overwhelming agreement with my position that graham crackers should be
dipped. Thank you all for your support, and while you have settled
this matter there are still others.

Continued gratitude (and 2 dollars for google personel) for anyone who
can convince my girlfriend that:
- peanut butter is not a meal, 
- all flying insects are not wasps, 
- fugue is not a common malady and she will not find herself in
another place ten years from now with no memory of what happened,
- a pasta and tuna fish sandwich is not made any more palatable with
the addition of banana
- our neighborhood cat does not fully comprehend her when she offers
to barter with it. (cat food for a dead squirrel or a can of tuna for
a mouse). --she also tells the cat that he must learn to provide for
himself and cannot depend on our handouts like a regular indigent.
- everything does not require a lever and pulley,
- the word teenage does not always refer to pornography. (she also
feels this way about the words "ninja" and "mutantturtle")
- finally, people cannot be analyzed by the type of snack they buy at
the concessions' stand of the movie theater. (at least not
scientifically).

Personally, I think you and your BF should look at the bigger picture.

You are fighting with your BF.

Now, obviously if he cannot control your graham cracker habits, its a
sign of bigger problems at hand. For instance, why are you superceding
his authority by asking the internet on how to stuff your face? A
proper and decent BF would SHOW YOU how its done in a manner that
would negate, discourage and basically make the internet totally
inconsequential to your graham cracker fixation.

For instance, perhaps he would suggest a routine of jumping jacks and
deep knee bends as opposed to this unproductive graham crackery of
yours.

Let me first say that my initial response was to side with you,
Khalpernin, since I have had the dubious pleasure of knowing your
boyfriend for 15 years. However, further consideration has led me to
the conclusion that while you may both feel your way of consuming
graham crackers and milk is the "best" or "correct" way, you have
failed to realize that the correct proportions have already been
estavlished in your biological makeup.
Let me explain: Each mouth has a different volume. The correct way to
obtain the perfect mixture is to fill your mouth to half capacity with
milk and then add graham to fill the empty space. Allow to soak,
(times vary with brand and freshness of the graham) then squish, no
chewing necessary. Simple and efficient because you don't need a bowl
and the cracker does not wilt like the French army. Therefore, it does
not drop on the floor, or in the bed. At this last example, you will
see the brilliance of my method because if your boyfriend drops it, he
won't pick it up. I'VE SEEN HIS ROOM!!!
Seriously, the purpose of dipping is so that you don't inhale the
extraordinarily dry crumbs and suffocate.

Wow.  If this ain't love, I don't know what is.  Khalperin asked an
important question, but her big bad voodoo BF asked for some help and,
being male and therefore on his side, I will lend an assist (also he
offered "continued gratitude" and "$2") to convince the GF that the BF
(hereinafter referred to as "J-Dawg") is correct on the following
issues:

*PEANUT BUTTER IS NOT A MEAL:  J-Dawg is correct.  Peanut butter alone
is not a meal; the minimum additive to convert peanut butter to a meal
is a majority carbohyrdate substance.  Bread, crackers, and Gatorade,
jelly, etc., suffice (I am forwarding UF the royalty for the use of
the term Gatorade now).  Evidence of this fact is that the peanut
butter alone, when it crosses the lip threshold, sticks to the roof of
your mouth; HOWEVER, when combined with the carb substance, it is
either scraped past/off the roof (in the case of bread or crackers),
or greased up enough to reduce the coefficient of friction enough to
let the PB slide off the roof (in the case of jelly or Gatorade).

* ALL FLYING INSECTS ARE NOT WASPS:  Is it called Wasp Tuna?  No. Seen
the picture on the can that stuff comes in?  Case closed.

* FUGUE IS NOT A COMMON MALADY AND SHE WILL NOT FIND HERSELF IN
ANOTHER PLACE TEN YEARS FROM NOW WITH NO MEMORY OF WHAT HAPPENED:
Fugue is a common malady among google forum users; however, a flu
pandemic will wipe us all out before Khalpernin endures enough mental
stress to be plagued by fugue.  If you find yourself in another place
with no memory of what happened, it means your BF got ahold of the
formaldahyde again.

* A PASTA AND TUNA FISH SAMMY IS NOT MADE MORE PALATABLE WITH THE
ADDITION OF BANANA: While bananas typically benefit all meals (e.g.,
peanut butter,gatorade and banana), the potassium in the banana
"drinks in" (on a molecular level) any fluid in its vicinity.  This
would reduce the "stickiness" of the mayo to the tuna, and thus cause
the tuna to be dry.  Dry tuna and pasta with 'nana ain't no good.

*OUR 'HOOD CAT NO COMPRENDE ELLA when she offers to barter it:  The
cat comprehends fully, and has been toying with you all this time. 
Still, Khalperin loses because she has been toyed with by the cat.

*EVERYTHING DOES NOT REQUIRE A LEVER AND A PULLEY:  Correct, that's
why we have velcro.  Leverage alone is insufficient.  Stickiness is
key.

- THE WORD TEENAGE DOES NOT ALWAYS REFER TO PORNOGRAPHY:  Teenage
refers to the mental state boyfriends remain in, regardless of age,
until approximately 20 years into marriage.

- PEOPLE CANNOT BE ANALYZED BY THE TYPE OF SNACK THEY BUY AT THE
CONCESSION STAND OF THE MOVIE THEATER (at least not scientifically): 
this is correct in part.  it cannot be scientifically proven (but only
because human knowledge of science is so limited), but people who eat
junior mints while watching cinema are infinitely wiser than those who
eat juju bees or skittles.

Good day.

As long as you close your mouth when chewing said Graham Crackers, who
cares if the person you're eating with chooses to eat them soggy or
crunchy?

Prof. Kilman Slick,
Your wit and wisdom acknowledged! But I feel it in order to clarify and rebut...
-KHalperin.


*PEANUT BUTTER IS NOT A MEAL

Response: If Ronald Reagan successfully achieved for ketchup the
classification as a vegetable, peanut butter can be anything it wants
to be. As a conservative you should agree: Jelly, bread, and NoleAde
are merely condiments; sufficient but not necessary to accompany the
PB. Although no case law exists to support my position, we can infer
from a comparable question: can a bun-less beef patty still be called
a hamburger? In Atkins v. USDA the 8-1 decision was: yes?- the most
salient ingredient of the classic American sandwich is the meat, and
thus, it remains a hamburger with or without the addition of carbs
(See footnote 4 of Scalia?s majority opinion, popularly referred to as
the Bigger-Beef-Than-Buns Test). I?ll give it to you that bread may
aid the palette, but more accomplished PB eaters are beyond such
devices.


*ALL FLYING INSECTS ARE NOT WASPS.

Response: I submit. I am the ?girl who cried Wasp!?



*FUGUE IS NOT A COMMON MALADY AND SHE WILL NOT FIND HERSELF IN
ANOTHER PLACE TEN YEARS FROM NOW WITH NO MEMORY OF WHAT HAPPENED.

Response: Serves me right, for keeping it in the house.


*A PASTA AND TUNA FISH SAMMY IS NOT MADE MORE PALATABLE WITH THE
ADDITION OF BANANA.

Response: Wouldn?t the high salt content of the tuna compete with the
bananas and retain moisture for the fish? Now, jelly and cheese in
that same said sandwich? that was just criminal of me and deserves
judgment.



*OUR 'HOOD CAT NO COMPRENDE ELLA.

Response: But to what loss? A few dollars worth of Deli-Cat (not kitty
kosher but better than kibbles) is all the stray has toyed out of me.
Is it wrong to kitty-nap the neighborhood cat when we move in the
summer? This may help the cat re-learn to adapt in the wild (which was
my main fear? that by feeding the little beast it would become
dependent and lose its capacity to survive alone). I will explain this
to the cat, and she will understand.


*EVERYTHING DOES NOT REQUIRE A LEVER AND A PULLEY. 

Response: Not true. There are plenty of devices in which stickiness is
not only irrelevant but also dangerous (think of that show on Spike TV
for instance). If you use Velcro for keeping the remote control
un-lost, it will always be taking up otherwise blank or uncluttered
space (coffee tables and couch cushions specifically). Consider
instead the lever and pulley: The remote dangles above your head and
only enters important space in those moments when it is needed. I
don?t mean to diss Velcro. It?s just that pulleys are elegant and
kinetic and clearly autonomous.


*THE WORD TEENAGE DOES NOT ALWAYS REFER TO PORNOGRAPHY.

Response: I like your logic there, but a more apt rebuttal would have
been to suggest that boyfriends just change the file names of their
illicit collections to remove any inference to adolescents.
Incidentally, what mental state do girlfriends remain in?


*PEOPLE CANNOT BE ANALYZED BY THE TYPE OF SNACK THEY BUY AT THE
CONCESSION STAND OF THE MOVIE THEATER (at least not scientifically):
 
Response: But do they enjoy the flicks more? My argument was not that
people themselves can be ?judged? by the candies they choose (though I
am sure they can, even scientifically)? Rather I suggested that a
study could prove that certain snacks in theaters result in a greater
or lesser degree of satisfaction with the movie, in the aggregate.
With a large enough sample size, it could be demonstrated that certain
snacks are actually instruments of the movie industry to induce more
thorough suspension of disbelief (through taste? maybe. Or simply
through tradition? As in finding that Americans enjoy movies more
while drugged on popcorn, while the French are disposed to bon-bons).

P.S. Friends Don't Let Friends Graham Dunk.