This just in - all work on the DSM V has been ceased, and all professional psychologists and psychiatrists have agreed to defer to billfish678’s opinions for diagnosis.
Is this really hard to believe?
90% of holidays involve some sort of meal. Every religion has some sort of ritual meal. In most cultures, sharing food with a guest is a very ritualized, very fundamental thing. Even in our fragmented modern society, the idea is still sharing a meal with your family, and going out to eat and drink is one of the most common ways to spend time with friends.
Easter, Halloween, Memorial Day, Veteran’s Day, Independence Day, Mother’s Day, Father’s Day…
I can’t think of any holidays in the American mainstream other than Thanksgiving or Christmas that typically involve meals, and even Christmas is dodgy on that one. In fact, I’d say 90% of holidays don’t involve a meal. And your bit that I bolded is, again, an unfounded assertion that requires citation.
If you want to call eating a social ritual, that’s inarguably true. If you want to apply the word ‘basic’ to it and imply that it’s nigh-universal, then you need to back that up.
WHY the HELL do you think people invite OTHERS along to eat out in the first place?
Safety in numbers? Group discount? Getting their rocks off under the table as they watch Betty stuff another chicken wing down those plump and inviting wings sauce drenched lips?
Yes, people go out to eat to actually eat. But if they didnt give a flying fuck about the company they kept while doing it, they wouldnt invite folks in the first place, they wouldnt sit at the same table when they got there, and MANY non picky eaters wouldnt accept a destination that wasnt their first and best personal choice.
You don’t have hard boiled eggs, ham, maddeningly hollow chocolate bunnies and cadbury eggs on easter? You didn’t spend the entire night going door to door looking for candy as a child on Halloween? You’ve never popped a bottle of champagne for New Years? Does your family avoid Mothers’ Day lunch? No 4th of July picnic?
I’ll give you Memorial Day, Veteren’s Day and Fathers’ Day. I’d argue, though, that we don’t really celebrate those in any way.
Christmas is really “dodgy” when it comes to being a meal-important holiday? I’m beginning to think you just grew up in a family that is vastly different than the mainstream.
And your asserting its NOT. Where’s your proof?
Asserting something as ‘basic’ is the extraordinary claim. I see no evidence that meals are anything more than a sometimes-context for what I believe to be the real basic unit of social interaction, which is conversation. Meals can be eaten alone. Conversations are fundamentally social.
I eat chocolate bunnies around Easter, but that’s not a “meal” or a “social dinner”, it’s a snack.
Of course I did. But I didn’t eat the candy in a group.
No champagne - which isn’t even food by the way - there’s no tradition of a Mother’s Day meal despite what Outback would like you to believe - and no, no 4th of July picnic tradition in my family. Some people may certainly choose to schedule meals around these holidays, but NONE of them have inherent or universal meal connotations.
We observe days off, moments of silence… and you really have a dinner on Mother’s Day, but not Father’s day? Interesting. On both occasions, my parents get a card and a phone call.
It’s dodgy in the sense that there’s nothing inherent about having a meal with the holiday. A lot of people do it, and my family does, but a lot of people don’t. However, I’d estimate that it’s more common than not, so I’m willing to concede it.
And in your experience, most meals where people choose to go out together the eating is generally done in silence?:rolleyes:
Yeah…right. So many people I know and interact with invite others along just so that they can share a meal in silence.
Yes, the basic unit of social interaction is talking. And most everybody TALKS when eating as group.
Most people DONT talk when going to the crapper.
Therefore, eating is a very social activity. Going to the crapper, not so much.
Again I ask, WHY do people so often invite others along to eat in the first place?
I think we’re getting beside the point - and that point is how spectacularly hallucinatory and egomanical this position is.
It’s an assertion that a dislike of a food category is purely the function of assholery.
You don’t like olives, avacado, and spicy food? And that mom-n-pop authentic mexican restraunt can’t keep itself away from these things? You are a self centered asshole.
You don’t like your pizzas dripping in grease? You are a self centered asshole.
You don’t want to pay twelve dollars for a small salad? You are a self centered asshole.
Shockingly, there are rational reasons for disliking entire restraunts - and even at least somewhat rational reasons for being dubious about new restraunts as a class. Not everyone has iron palates and cast-iron stomachs. Not everyone likes a plain salad. And not everyone sees a reason to eschew known places where good food can be gotten just because one loon with previously-proven-faulty taste buds wants to try some dubious-sounding new place.
To dismiss all possibility that the picky people have some rational reason to prefer the known and familiar suggests one of two things: Extreme self-centered paranoia perhaps coupled with a persecution complex - or perhaps the person arguing thusly realizes that their argument completely fails the instant they admit the picky people aren’t doing it just to be mean. If the people have real reasons not to want to go, you’d have to be an asshole to want to make them go. The arguer doesn’t want to admit to having assholish inclinations, so projection occurs.
While I do think you’ve been one of the more rational contributors to this thread, I think you might be overstating your case with this statement. While people such as the above are certainly annoying, especially if the reason for their refusal is apparently trivial to others in the group, I can’t assign it the level of malice “fuck you” implies. If they opt-out, even on a regular basis, I have no problem with it and I suspect you don’t either.
In contrast, what would be socially unacceptable would be if a colleague was approached with an offer to eat at X and they replied with, “Yes, I will come, but not to X. We’re actually going to Y.” because it is simply not appropriate to dictate a group’s behavior on your preference alone. Now somewhat more acceptable but still kind of annoying would be “I refuse to go to X but would consider A-W”. You’re still attempting to impose your preference on a group but are at least giving some control to others. Anyways, these are are only supposed to be guidelines for good social behavior, not absolute rules. Apply common sense liberally.
In fact, I’m pretty sure nearly every poster in this thread feels the same way but many have had their position grossly distorted into some twisted strawman. Can everyone agree not to announce that other posters “want to force everyone else to eat exactly what I want”? Because absolutely NO ONE has said anything like that.
Well, it sure isn’t for the joy of watching others politely swallow food they find unpleasant.
I would feel terrible if I found out that someone else had felt socially obligated to eat something they considered disgusting (or ethically/religiously objectionable, or too expensive) just because I’d suggested a restaurant. I would not consider even my favorite restaurant to be that important. If I care about spending time with someone, then I also care enough to want them to be comfortable and have an enjoyable time. I don’t want my friends and coworkers to choke down something they hate, try to satisfy their hunger with a side salad and roll when they’d rather be eating a full entree somewhere else, or pay for a meal that’s outside their budget. I’d prefer them to politely refuse the lunch invitation or suggest an alternate restaurant. I’ve had coworkers do this on occasion, and it didn’t bother me in the least.
If I knew someone I wanted to spend time with but who was so picky that it was impossible to find a restaurant we could both tolerate, then I simply wouldn’t eat out with them. Every social interaction doesn’t have to involve a meal. We could go to a coffee shop, rent a movie, or go for a walk or something. If I like this person then we must have something in common aside from our ability to chew.
Yes I believe you’re right, Io. I feel like I’m being pushed towEd stronger and stronger terms. But it basically comes down to this–in a social group proletariat routinely agree to dining arrangements that violate their own preferences in orderto let other members of a group enjoy their preferences. To consider this some sort of outlandish form of oppression is something one doesn’t expect ftom an adult.
Let me suggest this.
The** irritating **picky eater has no sense of proportion. Or perhaps an exagerated sense, depending on your point of view I guess.
They LIKE what they like. And what they like is very little. They HATE everything else.
Its like a teenagers mentalilty. They LOVE this. They HATE that. Even CONSIDERING having to endure what they don’t LOVE is an affront to their very identity.
On the other hand, normal, well adjusted adults have a whole range of man I loved those BBQ ribs to that fried catfish was pretty good to that steak wasnt bad to that chicken could have been a little moister to that shrimp wasnt very good at all to that was the nastiest chilli I have ever had.
Of course this sort of matter of taste thing occurs in many things other than food. But, the big difference again, is that EATING is a very social thing, and that EATING is probably the number one thing where folks of varying taste are sorta forced together socially (typically in the work lunch/after work dinner environment).
I disagree.
In a social group proletariat (?), people routinely agree to go to places that they feel maximize group dining pleasure. Necessarily this requires one to both take into account what members of the group want to do, and what members of the group don’t want to to. This does not require them to cater to lesser preferences over stronger preferences - in fact, it argues strongly against it!
Supposing for an extreme example, you have (only) two places to eat: Arbys and Dennys, and two people Anne and Dan. Anne is picky - she likes Arby’s well enough, but can’t stand Denny’s. Her reasons for this are technically irrelevent - but let’s presume they’re utterly frivolous. Maybe the cook is an ex-boyfriend, maybe she hates the smell of the place, maybe she think’s it doesn’t fit her image. Whichever - she hates the place and would be misterable if she ate there. Dan, on the other hand, thinks Arby’s is tolerable but much prefers Denny’s for some unknown reason. (Perhaps the color of the wall paint.)
So. Unquestionably, every time, if they go to Arby’s they will collectively be happier than if they go do Denny’s, becuase Anne’s burning hatred of Denny’s is more significant than Dan’s apathy towards Arby’s.
So, what do this couple do? Well, it comes down to who is a selfish asshole here.
If Dan is not a selfish asshole, they’ll never go to Denny’s together. Never. Period. Because as a non-selfish non-asshole, Dan would dislike Anne having to have a miserable meal, and would be appalled at the mere idea of Anne subjecting herself to this on his account. Lamia presents an example of this kind of non-asshole just above.
If Anne is not a selfish asshole… then they’ll still never go to Denny’s. But if she’s freakin’ Ghandi, they might - noble self-sacrifice for her beloved friend. Any personal sacrifice, any misery, so that he may have a slightly more enjoyable meal. (Presuming that he’s a selfish asshole of course.)
If Anne is a selfish asshole and Dan is not…he may never realize she’s a selfish asshole, since it would never come up.
If they’re both selfish assholes, well, fun in the sun for everyone! Bicker bicker bicker fight fight fight with no resolution.
Unless, of course, Bill and Charlie are along. They don’t care either way. If they’re not assholes, they’ll side with Anne every time, because that maximizes group pleasure - wether or not Anne and/or Dan are assholes. Though they would also be amenable to eating at Denny’s without Anne sometimes to give Dan a break. The only way anyone would desire to force Anne to have an unpleasant meal is if they’re assholes, of course - assholes and sadists in the case of Bill and Charlie, because they don’t even derive significant relative personal benefit from Denny’s aside from watching Anne suffer. So, a group of non-assholes will always stronly tend to cater to the pickiest among them (wether the picky person is assholish or not), to the potential chagrin of any selfish assholes in the group who have other ideas.
That’s my pragmatic assessment of the situation, anyway - considering all variables and considerations, if people are being so much as asked to do things that it’s known they don’t want to do, that there’s no otherwise compelling reason to ask them to do, then there are selfish (or sadistic) assholes involved. This goes double if they are coerced to do it - in reality non-assholes would be actively avoiding putting them in such situations - for the benefit of the entire group’s general happiness.
I love this part.
Maybe Anne just needs to grow the fuck up.
Of course the fact your analysis is so black and white just adds to the laugh factor.
I think that people who think Anne needs to grow the fuck up for their own petty personal benefit…
…wait for it…
…need to themselves grow the fuck up.
Suffice to say, I categorize your position as inherently that of the selfish asshole. By definition and unavoidably! Which, er, puts me in the position of requiring me to assume you don’t actually hold the position you present so as to skirt GD insult rules. Err, this is uncomfortable…
I don’t see anything irritating about this at all. What do I care if someone else only likes a very limited range of foods? If it were my kid and I were responsible for their diet then that would be a problem, but if this person is a friend or coworker then what they choose to put in their body really has nothing to do with me. I eat what I like, they can eat what they like. If a friend or coworker politely refuses a lunch invitation or suggests an alternate restaurant because they don’t like the food I suggested then that’s fine with me. I’m not going to take it as some sort of dire insult or a refusal to be a “team player”. People are allowed to like what they like and make their own decisions regarding their nutrition and finances.
When someone violates this type of “eat and let eat” policy problems can arise, but I don’t see any difference between a picky person who makes obnoxious comments over a meal or tries to impose their food preferences on others and a person who enjoys a wide variety of foods who makes obnoxious comments over a meal or tries to impose their food preferences on others. This kind of behavior is equally irritating regardless of who is doing it. Note however that it is the BEHAVIOR that is irritating, not the food preference. Anyone, picky or not, who’s bothered by other people’s harmless personal preferences really needs to find something else to occupy their minds.
Heh. My autocorrect is pranking me.
If Anne can never set aside her preference on some rare occasions so that Dan can have his preference, then Anne is the problem. Food preferences are not some kind of inviolable values handed down in stone from on high. When you are a guest in someone’s house, you have a bit of whatever is offered you, regardless of your personal preferences. When you are a member of a social group that routinely eats together, you occasionally concede your preferences so that other members can have their preferences. If you can never make that kind of infinitesimally tiny sacrifice, you’re sending a message – my personal tastes in food are more important than our relationship.
[quote=“Lamia, post:358, topic:531728”]
I don’t see anything irritating about this at all. /QUOTE]
Its irritating when AS A GROUP you try to decide AS A GROUP where to go to eat and one meal joe’s gotta have what he wants (every time) or he AINT going or just causes problems.
NOBODY here gives a rats ass what someone eats on their “own” time.