Yes.
Within the context of American society, yes. I understand that there’s no objective definition of picky eater. :rolleyes::rolleyes: Wow, making faces is fun!
This is the statement that has struck me the most in the thread – so much so, that I have to wonder if I’m misunderstanding your point. Are you honestly saying you don’t understand why someone would not want to eat something that they not only didn’t find pleasurable, but actively found unpleasant? I don’t eat most fish for no other reason than I find the taste to be repulsive. Are you really saying you don’t understand that, that you’re confused why I don’t just eat it anyway even though I find the taste to be miserable? I’m sorry if I’m misunderstanding your point, but I’ve read it a few times, and I cant reason out any other interpretation.
I think there’s a little bit of hyperbole at play.
But just to take a different tack - you mean to say that you can’t eat ANY fish at all?
Whether it be steamed Garoupa, poached rainbow trout, sashimi, battered and fried elephant fish, baked cod, sea bass in white wine sauce? To me that’s a little bit weird.
There is such a wide range of tastes and ways of preparing fish that (for me anyway) to hear someone say “I don’t eat fish”* smacks of picky eating and an unwillingness to try.
It’s the same for someone to say “I don’t eat Chinese” - there is such a massively huge range of Chinese food that if you can’t find something you like, its because there’s something wrong with your attitude, not your tastebuds.
*Unless it’s because of an allergy or dietary restrictions
Note - on preview this is coming across as a bit snarky, its not intended that way, I just genuinely can’t quite understand what I am reading.
Nope, that’s why I said “I don’t eat most fish”. I like shellfish; I love shrimp and scallops, and I enjoy crab and lobster. I like smoked salmon, but not salmon prepared any other way that I’ve tried. Other than those – no, I don’t think I’ve ever had a fish dish that I haven’t found to be repulsive. Really, it’s not from a lack of being adventurous. I’m open to trying anything, and enjoy a very wide variety of food. I love caribou, I’ve eaten and enjoyed cow’s tongue. I’ve not tried haggis yet, but I’m planning a trip to Scotland soon to visit a friend, and I plan on trying it! I frequently have people, on finding out I hate almost all fish, who will urge me to try the dish they’re eating: “Oh, try this, you’ll like it, it isn’t a very fishy-fish…”. And I have no problem trying it, but almost always, I find it repulsive. And even when I don’t find it repulsive, I can’t recall ever enjoying it enough that I would go out of my way to have it again. Seriously, I don’t WANT to hate most fish, I would love to have more options of things to enjoy when I eat at a restaurant, but again, I’m not going to eat something I find to be repulsive.
I guess maybe this is the line between so-called “picky eaters” and “non-picky eaters”… you guys who enjoy (or at least aren’t repulsed by) the taste of everything are lucky!
You could be right that there was hyperbole in the quote I was questioning, but I didn’t read it in it. As I said in my post, I’m willing to admit I misinterpreted it.
It depends on the availability of religion-appropriate cuisine in the area, IMHO.
Muslim visiting Singapore and insisting on a Halal meal? Not picky at all. Muslim visiting a small town in (say) New Zealand and insisting that everything at the local cafe be Halal? Sorry, that’s picky.
Similarly, a Westerner visiting Indonesia and refusing to eat dinner anywhere that won’t serve beer or wine? Picky. Malay not wanting to have dinner with Chinese colleagues at a non-Halal restaurant? Not picky.
I know this was not directed at me, but as a non picky eater that does not enjoy seafood, I want to reply.
“For you anyway.” Not for everyone. Frankly, this attitude sort of pisses me off.
I’ve tried all shell fish, and as I have said will prepare seafood for my Wife (I make a mean grilled salmon apparently). I’ve tried fresh seafood on both coasts and the Caribbean. To me, no mater how it’s prepared, there is an underlying flavor to all of it that I just do not like. Oh, I could eat it if I was starving. But why should I eat something that I clearly do not enjoy?
I am not willing to order an entire portion of a fish I have never eaten before. I have an active dislike of overly fishy fish like mackeral. I prefer a very neutral flavored cod/haddock/sole. I absolutely detest sardines, or smelt and can’t get them close enough to my mouth to actually eat as the oily uberfishy smell repulses me. The strongest flavored fish I will eat is salmon [and not canned salmon]
I will pick a taste off someone elses plate to see if I am willing to eat it. That is how I know what fishes I won’t eat ever.
No, it sounds like he’s leery of taking the advice of people whose advice is of unknown quality. Which, frankly, is not unreasonable.
Everybody knows someone who, if that person adores and highly recommends a book or movie, you can take that as a strong sign you won’t like it, right? If you don’t yet know these people are like that, and you take their advice, you wind up with some real lemons, right? After the first lemon or two, you become a bit skeptical of their recommendations, right? And after a while you stop believing a damn word they say about whether something is good, right? Same thing happens with food.
I’m not by any reasonable definition a picky eater–I’ll try damn near anything and like or at least be neutral to 75% of it. But I have learned over the years to be leery of the judgments of certain people, and to be skeptical of unknown people using unspecified terms like “good” and “spices.” “Good” is a totally subjective term, and people’s mileage varies what constitutes good. Likewise, “spices” covers a huge, huge range of tastes, some of which I adore and some of which I hate with the fire of a thousand nuns. Something that’s “good” and has “spices” is a total crapshoot if that’s all the description you have–it might be something transcendent, or it might be something like the dish at August that had “spices” and that the waiter assured me I would love. My husband and I refer to it as “the ass duck.”
It doesn’t take many ass duck experiences for someone to just stop taking the recommendations of people whose tastes they’re not familiar with, unless those people can describe in great detail the specifics of the dish.
I think you make a good point, but also are making way too big a deal out of this whole thing. Losing a big part of the world by being a picky eater seems a bit exaggerated.
(Bolding mine). In the part of the world Bengangmo and I are from, not liking seafood automatically makes you a picky eater. Quite seriously.
Also have to remember that, at least in Islam, if there are no Halal alternatives available a Muslem gets a “free pass” in that they are allowed to consume non halal food. And there are also varying degrees of “kosherness”. For some muslems that I eat with, “no pork, no lard” is good enough - others expect a full Halal certificate.
No, I totally agree with you. It’s very rare to find vegetarian food in America. Here are some exotic restaurants which offer vegetarian food (I’ve listed their country of origin in parenthesis):
Subway (India), El Torito (the Russian steppes), Del Taco (the planet Mars), TGIFridays (the Queen’s kingdom in Alice in Wonderland), and McDonald’s (the legendary city of El Dorado).
If you live in a big city in America, and there’s an ethnic enclave, you might just be lucky enough to find one of these.
And attaching a somewhat derogatory label on someone because they don’t enjoy something that you do is narrow minded. Seriously.
Not in this case it isn’t.
I didn’t say “Everyone must love seafood!” But, in Australia & New Zealand, seafood is a popular and widely consumed food (There are Fish & Chip shops everywhere for a reason) and anyone saying “I don’t like seafood” for non-religious (maybe) or health reasons would run a very high chance of more or less be labelled a picky eater because of that. It’d almost be like saying “I don’t drink water”.
And the point I was addressing is that you can’t call yourself a “Non-picky eater” and then say you won’t eat any of one of major things used as a main component in meals.
If the term is merely a categorization and not meant as an insult, why hold back? Why would religious or health reasons get you an exception, if the term wasn’t just being used for its pejorative nature, which you want to mitigate if you approve or their reasons (with “it makes me want to vomit” not being considered a good enough reason)?
Religious reasons gets (semi-) pass because it depends on the nature of the dietary restriction and how much it inconveniences other people. “No pork or lard” isn’t hard to work around. “Nothing even vaguely animal related” basically means all your friends have to eat vegan food as well. Food making you throw up is a “health reason” IMHO so you get a pass there.
Why? I have friends who are vegan, and unless I’m eating at their place, I can eat with them without having to eat vegan food as well. And if I’m eating at their place, well, it’s their place and they can cook what they want to.
But if it just makes you want to throw up it is not a health reason, and you know that’s what I was referring to.
Depends where you’re eating. Try getting a completely Vegan (as opposed to Vegetarian) meal at a “normal” restaurant in this part of the world and see how far you get (Not very). So you can’t go to “normal” restaurants with Vegan friends because they won’t eat there, which limits your dining options because of your friend’s lifestyle choice.
Years ago I had a hard-core Vegan girlfriend, and it turned something as simple as “getting a bite to eat on the way back from the movies” into a major issue because she couldn’t be 100% sure the food wasn’t completely free of anything even slightly animal-related.