Is being a picky eater inherently bad?

[ponzicar]

I’m an extremely picky eater. Apparently I’m also a selfish, childish, and stupid person, according to some of the people in this thread.

I don’t try to dominate other people’s eating habits. I don’t inconvenience people because of my tastes. I don’t shun people because they’re going out to eat. If the people I’m with are trying to decide what restaurant to go to, I let them choose any restaurant they prefer. If I’m invited to something that involves food, I’ll accept if I’m able to go. Once there, if there’s nothing that fits my tastes, I’ll just say that I’m not very hungry, order a soda, and socialize as normal.

I’m not lacking in intellectual curiosity either. I love to read and learn, I don’t see how not liking to put certain kinds of things into my mouth interferes with that.

It’s funny that people will accuse me of being childish because of this issue. An important part of growing up is realizing that other people have different opinions than you do, and that you have to, if not respect, at least tolerate this. How is having an opinion on food any different from having an opinion on music? Just as my favorite band can sound like a horrible cacophony to you, so can your favorite dish smell and taste like garbage to me.

[enipla]

@Lamia

*You quoted me, although you removed my name, but I’m not the one who called you a bully. I’d think someone who’s so quick to accuse others of making things up would be more careful about this sort of thing.

I think I called them bullys first. It was certainly deserved and I will stand behind it. And I will be glad to be quoted on it.

ascenrey and billfish – You both don’t seem to understand that there are many be people that are different than you.

This isn’t’ about not liking fish or what not. This is about tolerance and understanding.

I have read the entire thread, and no other conclusion can be drawn. ascenrey does not even want a consensus or consideration until everyone is in the car and committed to go. No choice now. A person cannot opt out. That says a great deal. “My way or the Highway”. Gosh, thanks.

Good luck with that approach in the real world. Not considering the opinions and needs of others and forcing your choices on them would get you so kicked out of my world that I doubt you would remember you where once on planet Earth. I said ‘would’ instead of ‘will’ because I have never in my life encountered such a person that has so little concern for others.

[Lamia]

@iophobon

Those occasions are exactly what we’re talking about. You didn’t get to eat exactly what you would have preferred and you didn’t make a fuss about it. That’s all we’re expecting of normal, socially adjusted adult human beings. Notice I said nothing about you being “required” to eat anything. Notice I said nothing about you not being allowed to opt-out. All I am saying is that when you found yourself in a situation that offended your food preferences (through no fault of your own), you didn’t a) attempt to change the entire venue of the event (most likely offending a large number of people), or b) bitch about how much you hate the food (most likely irritating a large number of people) as a good member of society should do.

I can both notice and respect that you have presented a reasonable opinion here, that when one is faced with a situation where the only food available is something one dislikes then it’s rude to make a big deal about it. I think almost anyone would agree with that. It also sounds like you’d be fine with someone just quietly not eating anything or making some polite refusal like “No thanks, I’m not really hungry” if nothing they consider at all acceptable is available. If that’s the case then we also agree on that point. But what you say above is very different from what some other posters in this thread have said.

*To summarize, I think our ONLY objection is to the people who try to get what they want when it is clear they either actually CAN’T get it, meaning they are unnecessarily bitching about how life sucks, or would decrease others enjoyment substantially if they did get it

*I think you may have forgotten some of what was posted earlier, because both ascenray and billfish678 have expressed objections far beyond this. Both have explicitly objected to coworkers wanting to make their own decisions about where to go for lunch. They have said they consider it offensive for a coworker to either refuse a lunch invitation or suggest an alternate restaurant if they dislike the place that was suggested. ascenray called refusal of a lunch invitation a “fuck you”, and billfish678 presented refusal as being just as bad as going to a restaurant and complaining about the food or otherwise making trouble (see for example here and here). They’ve also indicated that they believe their coworkers are at least occasionally obligated to eat things they dislike. Not that they would literally force the offending food down their coworkers throats, but that social order and the good of the group sometimes require their coworkers to eat something they dislike for lunch – and that those who refuse deserve to be judged harshly for it.

This is what I’ve been arguing against, and I think I’ve been pretty clear on that point. It’s unreasonable and inappropriate to expect one’s coworkers to eat food they don’t like. It’s also unprofessional to allow a coworker’s polite refusal of food they dislike to impact one’s work relationship. I don’t have any quarrel with you because you’re not the one who’s been making extreme claims, but other people here have.

[begbert2]

@acsenray

What is stunning about this debate is how many times people on your side of the equation keep inventing this arrant bullshit from thin air. This is nowhere near my position. My position is that adults sometimes have to eat things they don’t like. That means everybody.

And let me say this again – nobody likes everything, at least none of the people participating in this debate. There are foods I can’t stand, that smell to me like garbage. There are restaurants I don’t like. Nevertheless, I will occasionally go along with someone else’s choice for something I don’t like just to be sociable. That’s what grownups do.

You’re doing fine except for two statements which are dead flat completely wrong: “adults sometimes have to eat things they don’t like. That means everybody” and “That’s what grownups do.”

What grownups do is respect other people’s food preferences - which does not mean “require other people to eat things they don’t like so I don’t have to go through the hassle of trying to accomodate or otherwise deal with their food preferences”. There’s quite a difference there, in fact.

Now, this doesn’t mean that you always bend your will to the picky persons’ desire to go nowhere for lunch than the Maverick hot dog rotisserie. What it does mean is that you recognize their bizarre tastes and do the minimal decent amount to accomodate them - which is to say you do almost anything but say, “Come into my car, hot-dog boy --and now everybody, where should we drag hot-dog boy to to watch him suffer!”

@acsenray

Again, the imagination prevails.

It’s not a matter of what I think makes personal interactions smoother. It’s just what happens naturally when a social group becomes more and more familiar with each other. Really, you have never experienced this in your life, where the more you get to know someone, the less time is spend making explicit plans? These are simply facts of human nature. The fact that you’re calling me – someone you’ve never interacted with personally – a bully reveals that your problem is not with me, but with people acting like normal people.

When normal people in a social group become more and more familiar with one another, they start figuring out each other’s food preferences. Most times this doesn’t require elaborate accomodation - just the silent awareness that Fred doesn’t like mexican and Joe doesn’t like chicken, so since they’re along you’re not going to go to Taco Bell or KFC. You won’t even mention such places - you already knew that by inviting your friends into your car, as part of your social contract with the group you were promising to show them a good time.

That’s what normal people in a social group do, anyway. There may be people who think that being in a social group gives them dictatorial power to force other people to capitulate to their selfish whims in the name of group unity, but that’s not normal.

@acsenray

The assumption is that as an adult you have learned to go along. No one is going to sit there make you do anything. But routinely refusing to go along will result in distance from the group dynamic. Arguing with me about it and calling me a bully isn’t going to change that.

Actually, it’ll just distance them from the jerk who’s trying to drag the group to places its members don’t like. The whole purpose of socially grouping is to mutually enjoy experiences together, which doesn’t happen if you’re going and doing things members of the group don’t like.

For normal social groupings, anyway. There are social groupings where one person gathers others around them to act as non-argumentive followers and sycophants to boost their own self-esteem, and in cases like that the nominal leader will regularly dictate the terms of the activites the others engage in with little regard for the others’ actual preferences. Those others might follow along for various reasons, included a misguided loyalty to the unity of the group. In actuality of course their best course would be to leave the group since it’s not serving their needs - possibly reforming the group absent the dominatingly disruptive members.

@iophobon

It is indeed an obviously true statement. But it is also a statement with no measurable connection to reality, and therefore more of a tautology than a useful description. As has been mentioned both in this thread and by the Stones, as a normal adult member of society, “you can’t always get what you want”. If a picky eater can objectively demonstrate the utility of a group would be maximized by them all going to the one restaurant he or she likes every time they go out, more power to them. But I am skeptical that is ever the case.

It happens all the time - every group that accomodates any human’s taste preferences without whining, complaint, or passive-aggressive bullshit is operating this way. It’s just that when everyone involved is a mature adult, there’s no fanfare. Sam doesn’t like fish. His friends know he doesn’t like fish. So, when Sam’s around, they don’t go the place that only serves fish. They don’t even bring it up - they know already that Sam’ll be happier if they go someplace that everyone likes, and don’t particularly mind doing so - even if that means that they’ll have to get their fish some other time.

I’m firmly convinced that this happens all the time - not just because some people actually like their friends and thus have the double-incentive of not enjoying any place that will make their friends unhappy, but becuase it happens to me all the time. I don’t like spicy food. My friends and family don’t take me to Mexican restraunts. Not because I whine and throw fits - it’s because they’re mature adults and thus want everyone to have a good time. I’m sure that every other picky eater here can speak of similar experiences; groups will often find solutions that accomodate everyone, without much fuss or fanfare.