Ship of Fools: Do your special diet choices constitute gluttony? (Vegan, gluten etc)

Thread: Do your special diet choices constitute gluttony? (Vegan, gluten etc) Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029142

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

This came up during a chat with someone with Celiac (Coeliac) Disease. This condition means that gluten (wheat and related grains contain it) causes serious intestinal damage over time and immediate symptoms of illness for days in a row.

The comment was that people who develop a belief that somehow they are promoting their health by suggesting they are gluten sensitive, or the vegans who are stringent* if ever animals shall come in contact with their food, impose their delicacy on others, and this is a version of CS Lewis' description of gluttony in Screwtape:

quote:
"Oh, please, please ... all I want is a cup of tea, weak but not too weak, and the teeniest weeniest bit of really crisp toast."

You see? Because what she wants is smaller and less costly than what has been set before he, she never recognizes as gluttony her determination to get what she wants, however troublesome it may be to others.

(the segment is longer quoted here.

The discussion went on to describe how particularly the gluten-sensitive-lifestyle-choice nonsense has made life much more difficult for people with CD, as wait staff in restaurants now treat people with this medical condition as "fussy". Which seems to suggest that the gluttony sin does what sin in general does: spreads and dominates and harms.

*I am further reminded of a friend who described a barbeque where he had to wash the grill and cover it with aluminum foil because the vegan-insistent guest feared that other barbequed things might contaminate the veggie burgers. The chap wasn't invited back needless to say.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

My brother and son are both veggie, but neither treat it as a religion. If they are given meat at a meal, they eat it without comment.

An excellent attitude imo.

My brother lives with us three days a week and we always eat veggie on those days. But, if we didn't, he'd eat whatever we were eating.

Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :

My attitude to food was shaped by years in a Zen Buddhist community - eat what you are given and be grateful, cook with compassion for yourself. I don't choose to eat meat when cooking for myself but if it is given to me I won't complain or demand special treatment. It seems trendy to be "intolerant" of various foods these days, are we going back to the era of the "sensitive" fop?

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

Would kosher Jews who keep two sets of cookware qualify?

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

Surely special diets can be motivated for a whole variety of reasons. Sometimes fear, sometimes lack of knowledge, sometimes obsession, sometimes a common sense working out of what foods make you feel unwell and eliminating them - and probably most often a combination of these.

People can have gluten sensitivity without being coeliac - I have a friend who gets unwell whenever she eats gluten, but is not coeliac, so it makes sense for her to eliminate gluten from her diet.

I myself can eat gluten, but I have various other food sensitivities, which have never been officially diagnosed, but apparently digestive problems are quite common if you're on the autism spectrum, as I am. So I avoid certain foods, and it's taken me several years of experimenting to work out a diet that works for me. Sometimes I've found myself scared or obsessed along the way, because it can be confusing and overwhelming, and getting frequently ill can be discouraging. I wouldn't call it gluttony though. But I do find that people with robust constitutions seem to genuinely have difficulty imagining how others may not be so fortunate, and can assume they are just being fussy and that it's 'all in their head' if they don't happen to have a testable illness like coeliac.

[ 16. April 2015, 14:24: Message edited by: Fineline ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

What Fineline said.

And I'm not sure why being vegetarian or vegan is such an awful thing--especially if it's for ethical reasons. (I'm an omnivore. I tried going veggie, though, but my health suffered.)

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

My sister is vegan and it is pretty much her religion. But since from outside most religions look at least as irrational as veganism, I prefer not to judge her refusal to eat anything of animal origin.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I've a friend who seems to have every sensitivity which can be named, gluten among them. He can be annoying in his hypochondria.
However, thanks to him, and others like him, another friend who actually has celiac's, has much more choice in available foods.
I view the trendy complainers as I do the supporters of the latest charity du jour, at least someone is benefiting.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

lilBuddha--

It's quite possible to be sensitive to all sorts of things. Many people with health problems have a long list of sensitivities, allergies, etc.

It may seem like hypochondria, but it might not be.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

People sometimes think I'm being a hypochondriac when I say that fluorescent lights can make me dizzy and faint (I know this isn't a food sensitivity, but it's the same sort of principal). I explain that for years and years I had no idea why I would randomly faint in certain situations, and when I finally began to notice it happened when I was directly under a fluorescent light, I thought that must be a bizarre coincidence, because surely fluorescent light don't make people faint. However, the pattern has continued, and when I start to feel faint, I now know to look to see if I'm under a fluorescent light, and I nearly always am, and moving to a different location helps. Now I am so aware that when I go into a room, I purposely seek out a spot that is not directly under a fluorescent light, and since I've been doing that, I barely ever faint. People may think I'm being an annoying nuisance for being 'picky' about where I sit, but it would be far more disruptive if I passed out (or, in the case of food sensitivities, threw up, or had to rush to the toilet, etc.).

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Having your food choices cause inconvenience to others is not gluttony. It may be selfish (I'm not saying it is, just saying it may be), but it is not gluttony.

Gluttony is putting something inside your body that you know will harm you, but doing it anyway.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

Gluttony simply means excessive eating. At least, in the English language.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

I wonder what C.S. Lewis's solution would be. To eat the food and become unwell, or to decline to dine with others? I did once know someone who always declined invitations that involved eating, because her diet was so restricted due to lupus that she said it just got awkward both for her and the people who invited her.

Looking at C.S. Lewis's example, I'm not really sure how requesting weak tea is a great inconvenience to others though. People often request weak tea or coffee. That's not difficult to make, but if what they're requesting seems too complicated and I'm likely to get it wrong, I'd simply get them to show me or do it themselves.

[ 16. April 2015, 15:38: Message edited by: Fineline ]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Notwithstanding that non-celiac gluten sensitivity may not exist, with research showing equivocal results, the gut certainly has emotional connections. Hence nervous stomachs and butterflies in the tummy.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I have just returned from a meal with my friend who has had a rare problem which means she has had to have a lot of her pancreas and stomach removed. Her diet is very, very restricted.

The restaurant were very good and did their best to make the meal she needed.

She was not fussy, she just straightforwardly let them know what she needed. Nothing wrong with that.

I am allergic to some fruits and eating them would result in severe anaphylaxis. So asking for food without them present certainly isn't picky, it's as essential as not eating poison.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Eating out with others can be a pain in the arse for me. I can't stand garlic. It makes me gag. Everyone else seems to love it. Another is mayonaise. Vile muck. If I ever get invited to eat anywhere I get very nervous, especially since I don't want to offend those who have taken time to prepare food but neither can I force myself to eat things I dislike intensely.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
lilBuddha--

It's quite possible to be sensitive to all sorts of things. Many people with health problems have a long list of sensitivities, allergies, etc.

It may seem like hypochondria, but it might not be.

I understand this. The human body is a quite variable machine. But I also know my friend and he has mild anxiety which manifests as hypochondria.
I get migraines. Anyone who does deals with the skepticism of those who do not. So I get that.
But I also observe tendencies and the conclusion either seems to be there are a lot of people who hid their maladies or have, with remarkable coincidence, discovered maladies at just the time they became newsworthy.
It is not an either/or, mind. There are people with physical sensitivities and people who think they have physical sensitivities.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Eating out with others can be a pain in the arse for me. I can't stand garlic. It makes me gag. Everyone else seems to love it. Another is mayonaise. Vile muck. If I ever get invited to eat anywhere I get very nervous, especially since I don't want to offend those who have taken time to prepare food but neither can I force myself to eat things I dislike intensely.

There are things I do not like, mayonnaise is one of them. In a restaurant I ask for it to be withheld.
The etiquette at someone's home is different, but IMO, should work both ways. Then onus should not be entirely on the guest.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

If I'm offered a beer but I really want water because I'm thirsty and beer doesn't satisfy the body's need for water, I'm being a glutton?

How about if I'm offered a beer but I'm an alcoholic clinging to the wagon, am I being a glutton to ask for water?

How about if I totally can't stand the taste of beer, I'm being a glutton to ask for water?

How about if alcohol consumption is against my religion?

Or if drinking beer causes me severe emotional distress because my father used to force beer on me to get me drunk before he raped me? (hypothetical, not real in my life, but real in some people's lives)

Calling these "gluttony" is dead wrong. (Not the first time I've thought Lewis wrong about something.)

Back in the 50s you ate what you were served even if you knew it would make you vomit or break out in hives or have nightmares or be awake all night. This self-abusive behavior was socially required, not eating what the hostess served was an insult.

Lewis was from that era, the war food shortages, be grateful you have any food even if you don't like it.

I disagree with CS Lewis if he is saying having any preference is wrong. I absolutely disagree if anyone is extending that to protecting your own health is wrong, you must eat foods you suspect are destructive to you. Really, what host wants to damage their guest?

Yes waitstaff dislike dealing with food intolerance, and many claim there is no such thing as sensitivity to gluten or to wheat or to milk or to peanuts or to caffeine (according to one web page discussion, it's common to grab the coffee pot and use it to refill both coffee and decaf, easier to lie and say "yes this is decaf" than go back for the other pot). But they are being paid to serve!

OTOH a private house can't be expected to provide alternatives. A friend carries her own coffee bag because many homes don't have any coffee, I often carry a tea bag. And if the host didn't ask ahead of time about food concerns, both host and guest have to accept there might be food the guest can't eat, and be content with that guest eating little or none of the offered food.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I think Lewis was getting at the ostentatiousness of it. The woman he was talking about was seeking to impress others with her petite appetite. Had she been at risk of illness had she eaten too much or too strong food and was trying to avoid it then a quiet, polite request would have sufficed - it was the making a show of it, much like those who make a show of giving large sums of money or praying long and loudly, that Lewis was calling gluttony.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

lilbuddha:

quote:
But I also observe tendencies and the conclusion either seems to be there are a lot of people who hid their maladies or have, with remarkable coincidence, discovered maladies at just the time they became newsworthy.

Or perhaps they've always had the problem but never realised what it was until it became newsworthy.

C S Lewis was making the point that there are other ways of committing the sin of gluttony without overeating (collecting gastroporn might be another). He obviously had a real person in mind with the weak tea and the toast that has to be done just right. I seriously doubt he intended to suggest that you have a moral obligation to eat something that will make you ill, just to avoid giving extra trouble to your host.

Feeding someone a peanut can kill them if they have a nut allergy. Even for someone who "merely" has a food intolerance, the consequences of eating the forbidden food can be extremely unpleasant. I have a friend who is sensitive to sodium metabisulphite, a common preservative used in processed food. Any time he eats something that has not been cooked by himself or his wife he has to cross-examine the chef to check what's in it, otherwise he is ill for two weeks afterwards. And he has the intolerance, not the allergy; if he was allergic to it he'd go into anaphylactic shock every time he ate something with sodium metabisulphite in.

I daresay there are people around who fake food intolerances because it's fashionable, but that is a matter for their own consciences. As a cook, I don't want to make my guests ill and I prefer to give them food they like. I am not going to cross-examine them about just how ill they are likely to be if they eat whatever-it-is by mistake, and I am not going to force-feed animal products to vegans either. St Paul said we shouldn't cause our brothers and sisters to stumble.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

But I also observe tendencies and the conclusion either seems to be there are a lot of people who hid their maladies or have, with remarkable coincidence, discovered maladies at just the time they became newsworthy.
It is not an either/or, mind. There are people with physical sensitivities and people who think they have physical sensitivities.

I think too there are people who struggle with undiagnosed health problems (whether physical or emotional - they two aren't so easily separated), who see a certain new 'trendy' malady in the news, and some of the symptoms match theirs, so they think they must have that. Not because they are hypochondriac, necessarily, but because they get so frustrated with having undiagnosed ailments that no one takes seriously, and they are desperate for a diagnosis, to be believed and get help.

Also, there is a vast amount of anecdotal stuff on the internet, which can make people hypervigilant. For instance, there is plenty of literature that suggests (from anecdotal evidence) that people on the autism specrum benefit from a gluten-free diet. I have quite a few friends on the autism spectrum who have gone gluten-free because of that, and they say it helps, and I tried it myself. What I found for myself, though, was that it was more artificial additives and processed food that affected me. Going gluten free did mean I was eating more natural foods, so at first it seemed like it was helping, but then when I tried the processed gluten-free alternatives to various processed foods, they still affected me as badly as the gluten-filled originals! But not everyone is going to analyse to that extent - and if they find something that works for them, why not go with it?

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
seems to be there are a lot of people who hid their maladies or have, with remarkable coincidence, discovered maladies at just the time they became newsworthy.

Or the news is what made them try eliminating certain foods and they were amazed at the difference in how they feel.

Lots of people assume it's normal to feel sluggish, sleep poorly, vague aches, headaches, big belly. I've seen amazing turn arounds from supposedly "normal" health when someone read or heard about a newly discussed food issue and experimented with eliminating that food. Nothing works for everyone, some things work for lots of people.

My belly started shrinking when I got off wheat. No calorie restriction, yet inches slowly faded away. I would not have thought on my own to go thru the hard work of changing diet by eliminating a food staple that makes eating out difficult and most handed down recipes impossible. The publicity is what sparked a "why don't I try it" which resulted in so many positive health changes I will never again eat American wheat, the kind that grows only 2 feet high.

I thought you are supposed to feel heavy and have to loosen your belt part way thru a meal! Nope! I thought you were supposed to feel sleepy after a meal, supposed to suffer mid-afternoon slump, supposed to need to get up a couple times at night. Nope! Eliminating wheat (which basically became eat high good fats low starch) eliminated all of those "normal health" issues and gave me amazing energy and vibrant love of life.

I felt happier and more energetic than I had felt in decades - because a friend suggested I try cutting out wheat for a month and see if it has any effects, because her health turned around after her husband suggested she try cutting out wheat, because he read about it somewhere.

That's how news "we've all been taught wrong about how we are should expect to feel as we age" spreads.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think Lewis was getting at the ostentatiousness of it. The woman he was talking about was seeking to impress others with her petite appetite.

I wonder if she really was, or if that is just how Lewis interpreted it.

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

I don't know if it's just the ostentation (though that's some of it) as it is the way in which someone is being picky and wanting things just so. I sincerely doubt that Lewis had anything against tea and toast, but asking for "weak, but not too weak" or "just the teensiest weensiest bit of really crisp toast" implies that things have to meet an arbitrary and perfect standard, that even the simplest food, when fussed over, can become a gluttonous obsession.

It reminds me of what Augustine says about fasting: is the person who better observes a fast one who happens to have a bit of leftover bacon fat with their humble potatoes, or some watered-down wine for their health, or the one who dines on truffles and exotic fruits, washed down with expensive artisan juices? One seems to violate the letter of the law, while the other uses the letter as an excuse and occasion to violate the spirit, indulging in ostentation and sensual indulgence. Even simple things, like tea and toast or Lenten lentils, can be taken to excess.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Lewis seemed to be saying that when you put your preferences and desires foremost in your mind, and then shape your behaviour and thoughts in the direction of them, and then impose them on others you're doing some harmful things. And perhaps trying to evangelise the rest of us via your annoying conduct, but you don't wish to convert us, rather you want to be recognized as having some admirable quality or as being superior in some way. Actual health issues are another thing entirely.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

Ah, I've read the whole extract now, and the bit about 'always turning from what has been offered her to say with a demure little sigh and a smile' adds more context. Although I'm not sure I'd call it gluttony - maybe more a self-righteousness thing. And yes, ostentation.

It reminds me of when my sister took her little girl to Tesco and let her buy some sweets, and the cashier offered the little girl a carrier bag, and my sister said 'No thanks, it's okay', but her little girl clearly wanted to carry a little carrier bag, so the cashier gave it to her - clearly with good intention, no doubt thinking my sister was just being polite in refusing. But then my sister made a point of saying, with that very 'demure little sigh', and an exaggerated patient-but-disapproving tone, 'We're trying to be green and not use carrier bags.' And it seemed to me that although the desire to be green is very laudable, here my sister had used it in a sort of self-righteous way to put down the cashier who was simply trying to make a little girl happy. And that simply accepting it and saying 'thank you' with a smile would have been preferable.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
and if they find something that works for them, why not go with it?

Because, as you found, what is ailing them is not necessarily what they thought.
Because if you remove something from your diet you need to make certain that it does not take with it something that you need.
Atkins is a good example. Yes, you can lose weight using it. But you can gain things like gout, greater risk of heart disease.
Eliminating meat from one's diet is not necessarily a bad thing, but one should take care to replace what it supplies.
IME, most people do not take the proper care to truly discern the real problem.
There are people with legitimate health issues, this I do not deny or attempt to lessen.
But, for the vast majority of us, it is the relative quantities and sedentary lifestyle which most affects our health.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
and if they find something that works for them, why not go with it?
Because, as you found, what is ailing them is not necessarily what they thought.
Because if you remove something from your diet you need to make certain that it does not take with it something that you need.

True, and my comment wasn't intended to apply to any random whim, but was more in the context of people feeling much better once they remove gluten from their diet. And besides, if your diet involves removing something that you need, it doesn't fit the criteria of being something that works for you.

Removing gluten from one's diet isn't harmful, and if it is improving one's health considerably, then I don't see a problem with it, even if the reason it's improving one's health is simply because one is eating more natural foods. In theory, it would be great if everyone could pinpoint the exact problem they have, but in reality that doesn't usually happen. A lot of people simply don't have the energy or resources to pursue something in great detail - and autistic people in particular (being the example I was giving) can get easily overwhelmed with trying to stay on top of the regular day-to-day activities of life.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

Coincidentally I'm in the middle of Alister McGrath's biog of Lewis. He mentions this passage in conjunction with Mrs Moore, who Lewis lived with for a long time and who was getting old and rather demanding/despotic according to Warnie, Lewis' brother who also lived with them.

It sounds like a control thing to me; the 7-deadlies being the useful axes of sin which they often are, I'd have gone for pride or vanity rather than gluttony, myself.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Mark in Manchester:

quote:
It sounds like a control thing to me; the 7-deadlies being the useful axes of sin which they often are, I'd have gone for pride or vanity rather than gluttony, myself.

Vanity, possibly, but pride is the sin that caused Satan to be cast out of heaven. I'm fairly sure that it wasn't a matter of insisting on weak tea, to the inconvenience of the rest of the heavenly host.

Classically, a glutton was someone who over indulged him or her self in food. A good example would be King Edward IV who used to stuff himself until he was full and then take an emetic to make him throw up so he could eat some more. Nowadays we would classify that as an eating disorder but, if we take away the pathological element, the point is that we give away self-mastery or submission to the will of God to the insistence on indulging our own appetite. This being the case, i don't think that a vegan, vegetarian or follower of Halal or Kosher diets can really be indicted of gluttony. They are not doing it for their own benefit but because they conscientiously believe that it is morally appropriate to abstain from particular foodstuffs. This is not quite the same as telling someone who has cooked you a meal, in all good faith, to take it away and bring you a piece of crisp toast and a cup of weak tea.In this case the claim is that appetite - in this case a dainty one, rather than an excessive one - ought to be put before the claims of hospitality. When I worked in an office the unspoken social contract was that you drank (or discreetly disposed of) any tea or coffee that was put before you because someone else had made it for you. I think the point is that if you are putting your appetite first you are indulging in the sin of gluttony and if you are putting your conscience or your duty to the Almighty first you are not.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

No sure about the meaning of "classically" given that St Thomas Acquinas defined one its species (it gluttony is the genus) as "studiose", meaning eating too daintily. St John of the Cross considered the pursuit of "sensible sweetness" problematic, but may have been referring more to a spiritual version of "taste and see".

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Coincidentally I'm in the middle of Alister McGrath's biog of Lewis. He mentions this passage in conjunction with Mrs Moore, who Lewis lived with for a long time and who was getting old and rather demanding/despotic according to Warnie, Lewis' brother who also lived with them.

It sounds like a control thing to me; the 7-deadlies being the useful axes of sin which they often are, I'd have gone for pride or vanity rather than gluttony, myself.

It sounds like a control thing to me too, caused by the feeling of powerlessness and fear of complete loss of control that people can get as they get older - where exercising control on small things is a way of not feeling totally powerless. I'm not sure I'd automatically see that as a sin as such, but more as a coping mechanism.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

Thinking about it, food does tend to be a huge area for people who feel a lack of control over their lives for various reason. I guess it makes sense - food is what goes into you, so maintaining some control over that can give a sense of personal boundaries when boundaries elsewhere feel transgressed, or if you feel a sense of inner chaos. It is why people who are held hostage often refuse food for the first few days. And eating disorders seem to be linked to feeling out of control. I know someone who became anorexic for this reason, and later when she recovered from anorexia, she became vegetarian, which was a healthier way of still maintaining strict boundaries around her body. I think you can't really judge people for special diets, because it's impossible to know what sort of factors might be influencing them.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

I have never forgotten an incident from my childhood. We were visiting an elderly relative we didn't see very often, and she had made enough food for about 20 people, all beautifully baked and decorated. There were 4 of us.

My mother turned to my brother, about 9, overweight and usually being held back from eating too much, and said quietly, "You can eat as much as you want."

Refusing hospitality freely given says you think you are more important than your host. Which I would think is pride rather than gluttony.

I have severe lactose intolerance. I usually offer to bring dessert, since that's the part of dinner that is a bit more challenging to cater. Most people accept.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I am allergic to everything that comes from a pig. I have a friend who invites me to Easter dinner every year. The meat is always ham, and I simply refrain from putting any on my plate. There is plenty of other food--veggies, salad, rolls, etc. No one has ever appeared to notice that I'm not eating the ham, and I'm very glad.

Moo

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I've always had an intolerance for one particular group of foods - most of the aliums. As a child I refused to eat them and was labelled 'faddy', and this continued even after I reached adulthood and had tests in hospital (after a particularly bad reaction) which showed that I was allergic to the food group.

It makes life difficult because so many everyday dishes contain the stuff but there is no question of eating because of the anaphylaxis that follows ingestion. I'm lucky in that nine times out of ten I get the rash, low blood pressure and gastrointestinal reaction but not a badly constricted airway but it is worsening with age.

However, the ignorance of restaurant staff is gobsmacking and increasingly if I go out with friends for a meal I end up eating dessert only.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

That's the way my vegetarian son does it, Moo. I would never expect a vegetarian to eat meat just because it's part of the meal the host has prepared when there are plenty of other things they can eat and rave about.

If C. S. Lewis's lady had just taken a slice of the plainest item on the tea tray and eaten the "teeniest tiny" bit of it, she probably would have been alright. It was requesting something special that got her criticized. Even so if she had medical or religious reasons I certainly wouldn't call it gluttony.

I do think some people enter the area of gluttony without eating excessively and those are usually the gourmands. People who plan all day what they'll have for dinner and only use the finest virgin olive oil and beef from that place fifty miles away and come to your house for dinner only to snoop through your kitchen asking questions about whether or not you used sea salt or regular. In short, my brother, who always makes me feel my meals would be the laughing stock of everyone at the Food Network and embarrasses us all to death when we eat out.

I've seen gluttony defined as over-interest in food as well as over eating in some very old texts.

Cross posted with L'Organist and I agree wait staff is generally clueless.

[ 16. April 2015, 23:47: Message edited by: Twilight ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:

Refusing hospitality freely given says you think you are more important than your host. Which I would think is pride rather than gluttony.

IMO, neither should have great precedence over the other. The guest should strive to accept what is given with grace and the host should try to accommodate where feasible. And both should try to be as aware and forgiving of each others custom.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

On a minor tangent that Orthodox Jew is going to have three or four sets of dishes (meat, dairy and Passover meat and dairy).

I think the celiac sufferer has far more gluten free choices. I remember reading about someone who was gluten intolerant in the 1950's and he had to get special frozen gluten free bread because there were no other options. Also eating out was risky because even if you didn't order wheat, there was likely to be gluten contamination.

Also, I think the rules are different for eating at peoples houses and eating in a restaurant. If you are polite about it, restaurants are happy to serve you because you give them money. If you're a long time customer, the cook may enjoy difficult or original orders when there isn't a rush and he's bored with the usual.
In general, if you're eating at someone's house, you can mention your diet and then eat what's provided or refrain quietly from eating what you can't.

Medical allergies are different. I had a friend who had a number of allergies. If he ate an egg he would need an ephedrine shot or go into anaphylactic shock. His mild wheat allergy also would tell him when the bar had replaced the expensive potato vodka in the bar bottle with grain alcohol. There was a period of time when I was doing chemotherapy that I couldn't eat any salt and thus no canned food.
If you have severe allergies, you don't suffer. If you're only mildly allergic, you make do with what you can eat and possibly eat things you might not want to. In either case, you're thankful for the hospitality.

As a host, if your guest announces allergies, you try to accommodate them. If you think they're making it up, don't invite them. However given the strength of placebos it's hard to criticize someone's dietary restrictions unless they announce their diet rules and then cheat on them.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
In short, my brother, who always makes me feel my meals would be the laughing stock of everyone at the Food Network and embarrasses us all to death when we eat out.

Pssst...everyone at FN probably goes home, throws together tuna, potato chip, and mushroom soup casserole; puts on their favorite, worn-out old clothes and some fuzzy slippers; eats the casserole while watching meaningless TV; and finishes the evening with a pint of Ben & Jerry's and either a late-night talk show or late-night PBS mysteries.
[Biased]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

My friends' son, who is thirty, often comes to dinner parties at our house with them. He announces what he can and cannot eat having asked at the door what the menu is. He then goes on to explain all the foods he can't/won't eat in great long winded detail.

We don't judge him for this, his food faddyness is due to his Aspergers. We love him for who he is - the best cornet player in the North West and a valued member of our Church music band.

How many people are judged troublesome, fussy (*sinful*?? whatever that means?) when they actually have undiagnosed, maybe very mild, Aspergers? Especially older people who were never on the radar for diagnosis.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

I think you're right, Boogie - you have to take it in the context of the whole person. I have a friend who is very concerned about diet - to the extent of carrying a supply of special bread in her handbag. But I can see the fears that drive her hypochondria, and it's no great challenge to me as a cook to come up with something she will happily eat.

I'm more of the You're going to die anyway, you might as well enjoy your dinner school.

[ 17. April 2015, 08:16: Message edited by: Firenze ]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
ostentation.

It reminds me of when my sister took her little girl to Tesco and let her buy some sweets, and the cashier offered the little girl a carrier bag, and my sister said 'No thanks, it's okay', but her little girl clearly wanted to carry a little carrier bag, so the cashier gave it to her - clearly with good intention, no doubt thinking my sister was just being polite in refusing. But then my sister made a point of saying, with that very 'demure little sigh', and an exaggerated patient-but-disapproving tone, 'We're trying to be green and not use carrier bags.' And it seemed to me that although the desire to be green is very laudable, here my sister had used it in a sort of self-righteous way to put down the cashier who was simply trying to make a little girl happy. And that simply accepting it and saying 'thank you' with a smile would have been preferable.

A stranger's desire to make a child momentarily happy should override a parent's effort to train the child in values the parent thinks important? A neighbor has a sugar-free house and battles constantly the efforts of relatives and strangers to give her child candy and cookies to "make the child happy." (Actually, one uncle said he brings candy because he wants the child to like him, self-interest.)

Yes the Mom sighs sometimes, at facing the battle against strangers ignoring her "we're sugar-free" statement again! Nothing ostentatious about having and sticking to values, especially when rearing kids!

When did parental values in rearing a child become something to dismiss instead of respect?

Yes your sister should have smiled at the cashier when saying "No, we're trying to train the child to avoid waste." No she should not have accepted the carrier bag, overruled her values to momentarily please a cashier who refused to accept a parental "no."

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
My friends' son, who is thirty, often comes to dinner parties at our house with them. He announces what he can and cannot eat having asked at the door what the menu is. He then goes on to explain all the foods he can't/won't eat in great long winded detail.

We don't judge him for this, his food faddyness is due to his Aspergers. We love him for who he is - the best cornet player in the North West and a valued member of our Church music band.

How many people are judged troublesome, fussy (*sinful*?? whatever that means?) when they actually have undiagnosed, maybe very mild, Aspergers? Especially older people who were never on the radar for diagnosis.

Or just because some people are blessed with not hating any particular foods to the point where there'd be able to understand why I, for example, could no more eat a fish dish than I could make myself drink the bin water. It's that disgusting. People calling that "fussy" or "picky" utterly boil my piss. They have no idea.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
In short, my brother, who always makes me feel my meals would be the laughing stock of everyone at the Food Network and embarrasses us all to death when we eat out.
Pssst...everyone at FN probably goes home, throws together tuna, potato chip, and mushroom soup casserole; puts on their favorite, worn-out old clothes and some fuzzy slippers; eats the casserole while watching meaningless TV; and finishes the evening with a pint of Ben & Jerry's and either a late-night talk show or late-night PBS mysteries.

Yummers all around. If I knew that was happening I'd have been right over.

Twilight -- old fashioned glutton of the "excess" type.

As to the debate about when kindness should over ride things like being green, I think it's a fine line (not our (((Fineline))) with the sad food restrictions.) I think it would have been a good opportunity to let the little girl take the carrier bag and then have a talk on the way home about not hurting peoples feelings when they give you a gift and then making sure to get lots of use out of that one special bag.

I have to confess something. I went to my aged aunt's house for a rare visit a few years ago. She had made a coffee cake at who knows what amount of trouble to her 90 something self. I declined since I was on a no-sugar diet, and because I knew my husband and son would eat nice big pieces. But I could see she was hurt and I've felt bad about it ever since.

Posted by Athrawes (# 9594) on :

Going back to the OP for a bit, I have always seen Screwtape as a means to get the reader to question their own behaviour and motives, rather than as a way to spot 'sin' in others. So to me, the point of the gluttony was that the old lady did not recognise her motives for the behaviour.

There would, in that view, be a big difference between someone who can't stand the taste of a food, or with religious or medical restrictions, asking for something else and someone on, say, a moral crusade, who wants to convert others. However, only the person themselves can make that call. The rest of us are not called to judge.

As someone who lived on a very restricted diet for many years due to allergies, and with family members who are diabetic, our practise is to bring a plate, or some contribution to the meal which we can share.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
[When did parental values in rearing a child become something to dismiss instead of respect?

Yes your sister should have smiled at the cashier when saying "No, we're trying to train the child to avoid waste." No she should not have accepted the carrier bag, overruled her values to momentarily please a cashier who refused to accept a parental "no."

Actually, this wasn't a child-rearing issue. It didn't occur to me that anyone would assume that, or I would have clarified. It wasn't about teaching the very young child that carrier bags were wasteful, but simply about my sister wanting to be a good, 'green' person. When she is doing things to teach values to her children, she has a very different approach - she overrides her instinct to look down on people, and I admire her for that. This wasn't one of those occasions. Anyway, she did accept the carrier bag, and also spoke disdainfully to the cashier for giving it.

But, you know, I might still question a parent trying to model 'green' values to her child if it were at the expense of speaking respectfully to a cashier. I would consider treating others with respect, particularly those who are serving you, a vital value to teach a child, and something far more tangible to a child than refusing a carrier bag. Parental values aren't beyond criticism.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

I would add, on the 'food faddiness because of Aspergers' line, that people with Aspergers can have a variety of reasons for finding certain foods difficult - digestive difficulties are very common, and some textures can cause pain or nausea. And processing differences make the world seem chaotic, and so someone forcing you to eat something that is causing you pain or discomfort feels very intrusive when you already have no sense of control over anything. It's like a violation of your body. (I like to clarify the sorts of reasons why people with Aspergers can be 'faddy' - because just saying 'because of Aspergers' doesn't really explain it.)

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
... A stranger's desire to make a child momentarily happy should override a parent's effort to train the child in values the parent thinks important? A neighbor has a sugar-free house and battles constantly the efforts of relatives and strangers to give her child candy and cookies to "make the child happy." (Actually, one uncle said he brings candy because he wants the child to like him, self-interest.)

Yes the Mom sighs sometimes, at facing the battle against strangers ignoring her "we're sugar-free" statement again! Nothing ostentatious about having and sticking to values, especially when rearing kids!

When did parental values in rearing a child become something to dismiss instead of respect?...

Maybe when some parents decided that minimizing their use of sugar or plastic bags was a PARENTAL VALUE!!! TA-ta-da-DAAAA! entitling them to ostentatiously demonstrate their moral superiority ("were sugar-free nyah-nyah"), rather than asking nicely for support ("I know you mean well, but please don't give my kid candy"). It's not like these strangers were offering the kids a baggie with mysterious contents or a chance to kick a puppy.

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

Not to belittle those who are genuinely sensitive to gluten, but this article pokes fun at those jumping on the gluten-free bandwagon as a health fad:

Portland Gluten Scare

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

I guess we should be grateful that Marathassa dumped her bunker C fuel into the harbour, not her grain cargo.

Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :

There are certain foods I try to steer clear of because I have Type 2 diabetes and foods aren't forbidden as much as they should just be avoided so my blood glucose doesn't shoot into the stratosphere. But managing my diabetes is on me not anyone else. When I was first diagnosed a few years ago, I thought people should accommodate me and was appalled at a family reunion when my sisters and their husbands all brought rich iced cakes and pop-tarts by the truckload to share with everyone but I wasn't "allowed" any of those things and I moped. Such a first world problem! I moaned and sulked and then saw how I had acted when a member of our church did the same thing, causing a big stink after service one day. I had to have my behavior mirrored back to me for me to understand how petty and childish I was being. Any diet or restriction can be a big pain in the ass for others if the person who is on said diet or restriction isn't gracious about it. Now I know to bring my own snacks and prepare my own meals when I'm at family or other gatherings. I think it's a sin to be such a little gobshite to other people and make them feel bad because you can't or won't permit yourself to have something. I feel kind of annoyed at all these anti-peanut people, too, but that's another jar of peanut butter for another time.

Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Eating out with others can be a pain in the arse for me. I can't stand garlic. It makes me gag. Everyone else seems to love it. Another is mayonaise. Vile muck. If I ever get invited to eat anywhere I get very nervous, especially since I don't want to offend those who have taken time to prepare food but neither can I force myself to eat things I dislike intensely.

I know exactly what you mean! When I lived in Seattle, I met loads of lovely people, some of whom are still my friends. But almost to a man (or woman), they were all garlic fiends. Now, I like a tiny little bit of garlic in Italian dishes and maybe a pinch in my Mexican food and pico de gallo but that's it, end of story. These folks, oh my god...they put a ton of garlic in everything! Yuck! I cannot abide the smell of garlic when it's more than one half clove. These same friends think nothing of putting several cloves of garlic in chicken noodle soup! Gross! It makes me throw up. If I'm out in public and I walk past restaurants that are primarily Asian, I have to hold my breath or I'll throw up.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
... A stranger's desire to make a child momentarily happy should override a parent's effort to train the child in values the parent thinks important? A neighbor has a sugar-free house and battles constantly the efforts of relatives and strangers to give her child candy and cookies to "make the child happy." (Actually, one uncle said he brings candy because he wants the child to like him, self-interest.)

When did parental values in rearing a child become something to dismiss instead of respect?...

Maybe when some parents decided that minimizing their use of sugar or plastic bags was a PARENTAL VALUE!!! TA-ta-da-DAAAA! entitling them to ostentatiously demonstrate their moral superiority ("were sugar-free nyah-nyah"), rather than asking nicely for support ("I know you mean well, but please don't give my kid candy").

And when the person offering candy to the sugar-free kid insists and tries to push around the parent or sneak the candy to the kid when the parent isn't looking?

Relatives and caretakers and neighbors and passersby can be amazingly pushy about imposing their values on someone else's kid! "There's nothing wrong with sugar" or "he'll like it" or "I just want to see him smile" or as with the uncle "I want him to like me." (Kids allergic to peanuts get fed peanuts when the parent is out of sight, in spite of being warned, for these reasons, too.) If a parent says no, ostentatious or not that decision should not be bypassed by outsiders unless there's a danger in complying.

"I think the parent is being ostentatious so I will thumb my nose at the parent's clearly expressed wishes about the child?"

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I have to confess something. I went to my aged aunt's house for a rare visit a few years ago. She had made a coffee cake at who knows what amount of trouble to her 90 something self. I declined since I was on a no-sugar diet, and because I knew my husband and son would eat nice big pieces. But I could see she was hurt and I've felt bad about it ever since.

This is a problem, the hostess who made "just for you" a food you have adverse reactions to.

One friend addicts quickly to chocolate, at a birthday gathering friends brought a chocolate birthday cake because "everyone loves chocolate" - and a birthday person is expected to eat the first slice. Should she eat it and suffer a week of headache withdrawal from chocolate again?

I sleep poorly if I've eaten sugar. Does the elderly person who made the special dessert intend to cause me a sleepless night? Or intend to reawaken the sugar cravings which are hard to quiet again?

If someone spent a lot of money on a special bottle of wine which they open just for you, but you are on the wagon, are you supposed to take up drinking again?

I hope graciousness doesn't require letting someone else dictate that you change your behavior in ways you think not good for you! But I admit being confused how best to handle the "I did it just for you" when the "it" is something I'm avoiding (with difficulty and determination) for carefully chosen reasons. No matter how gently you say no, you are not fulfilling their expectations. Neither side wants to hurt the other but hurt results.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
Not to belittle those who are genuinely sensitive to gluten, but this article pokes fun at those jumping on the gluten-free bandwagon as a health fad:

Portland Gluten Scare

Aha! I've been having a stomach upset this week - yesterday I ate steak, chips and red wine with no ill effects (OK, a bit of a headache), but threw up after a scone and coffee. Clearly, therefore, caffeine and gluten are Bad, red meat, carb, fat,salt and alcohol Fine.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
This is a problem, the hostess who made "just for you" a food you have adverse reactions to.

Really? I mean, I know everybody probably has at least one relative who someone manages to make it all about them while telling you it's all about you, but don't most people ask about dietary restrictions before making something "just for you"? And if you apologize and explain why you can't have what they're offering you, don't most people admit that they made it because they wanted an excuse to make sugary/fatty/somehow bad-for you dish?

quote:
One friend addicts quickly to chocolate, at a birthday gathering friends brought a chocolate birthday cake because "everyone loves chocolate" - and a birthday person is expected to eat the first slice. Should she eat it and suffer a week of headache withdrawal from chocolate again?

When making a birthday cake for someone, don't most people either already know or inquire about the person's preferences?

quote:
I sleep poorly if I've eaten sugar. Does the elderly person who made the special dessert intend to cause me a sleepless night? Or intend to reawaken the sugar cravings which are hard to quiet again?

Clearly they do intend you harm. I mean, it can't possibly have anything to do with them likely having lived through a time when sugar was a precious commodity. When you say 'much as I'd love to,' or 'as good as that looks' and 'sugar just doesn't agree with me,' the elderly person forces you to eat it anyway, right? Thus demonstrating their intent to harm.

quote:
If someone spent a lot of money on a special bottle of wine which they open just for you, but you are on the wagon, are you supposed to take up drinking again?

Who are these people who spend a lot of money on a bottle of wine for someone without knowing them well enough to know that they don't drink? (And can I become friends with them?) Who opens a bottle of wine without saying 'I was thinking of opening this bottle,' thus giving people the chance to tell them whether or not they drink?

quote:
No matter how gently you say no, you are not fulfilling their expectations. Neither side wants to hurt the other but hurt results.

If that's the case, then I'm going to suggest that people may be calibrating their hurt-o-meters a little too sensitively. Most hosts I've known make an effort to offer a variety of food and beverage options (for large groups) with the understanding that not everyone is going to be interested in everything for whatever reason and the hope that everyone can find something they can eat. Or they ask about special dietary needs when they invite a small group of people to dinner. Mostly they're worried about not fulfilling the needs of their guests, not about whether or not a particular person ate a particular thing.

OTOH I go to a lot of pot-lucks, because so many people are on so many crazy different diets, the only way to guarantee there's something for everyone is if everyone brings something they can eat.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

After thinking about it, I think my avoiding a gluten free diet would more correctly called glutteny rather than gluttony.

[Snigger]

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

Glory be! I agree with saysay!

M.

Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on :

A few of my friends are on the keto diet (essentially zero carbs — I think it's less than 20g per day if you're being strict).

This doesn't mesh well with vegetarian (my diet), although I've got quite adept at cooking the few things that do work.

Sometimes (actually quite often) it means we can't go to a certain restaurant. Lots of places just can't produce food with no carbs.

The times it annoys me are when a restaurant can cater for the keto people, with a little variation (such as serving the steak with cauliflower cheese, which is also on the menu elsewhere, instead of chips)… but the person in question refuses to ask them to do that, because they're shy and don't want to cause a fuss. We end up with a situation where we either go to the restaurant anyway and piss off the person on the diet, or we avoid the restaurant, and it's yet another place that becomes off limits.

Finding a restaurant where there are keto dishes on the menu without needing variation is rare. So IMO if you are on the keto diet and want to go to restaurants with friends, you should be proactive in finding restaurants to go to, to ensure you can eat something, and you should be prepared to explain your diet to the serving staff so that they can accommodate you. If you're not prepared to explain it, you can't then sulk that there's nothing to eat.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

On reflection, I think Lewis was identifying a form of idolatry, or materialism. Gluttony is more a sort of food-lust. Whereas most specialist diets have their roots in a real or perceived aversion or sensitivity.

Two of our oldest friends have special dietary requirements for health reasons. Preparing meals is a bit of a headache, but they are great company and sometimes bring food along (e.g. gluten-free bread) to help out. When we eat with them, they make reciprocal efforts.

Now I am prone to gluttony; love food, have a slow metabolism, need to watch my weight. So I guess I have special dietary requirements as well - nearly all of them subject to the struggle for self-control. Mostly I follow Slimming World guidelines, which have worked for me, helped to stabilise my weight and my seafood habits ("see food, eat it"). But I try not to get obsessive about it. Sometimes I succeed!

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Amorya--

Just a thought: are there any buffet restaurants around? More choices available. FWIW.

Posted by Hebdom (# 14685) on :

Just to add that some non-coeliac people who avoid wheat and opt for gluten free food actually have irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). What they are sensitive to is not the gluten in the wheat but fructans. This article explains it in some detail.

If you are in this situation a low FODMAP diet may help. Oh, and just eating gluten free food is no solution because gluten free food can still be high in substances like fructose.

/end of plea for tolerance

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

IANAD

However, before anyone is diagnosed with IBS it is good practice to have them tested for Coeliac (I have this on the authority of two medical doctors). IBS is not a single disease, but a set of symptoms, I suspect associated with an inflamed gut, and many of these symptoms overlap with Coeliac. The diagnosis of IBS is, therefore, the fallback diagnosis when the doctor can find no other causal relationship.

Just for information my sister has IBS diagnosis and we (she & me) suspect that it related to my lactose intolerance. You would have to know the two of us to understand why we think this; apart from the fact that lactose intolerance can also cause IBS style symptoms.

Jengie

[ 20. April 2015, 11:29: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Amorya--

Just a thought: are there any buffet restaurants around? More choices available. FWIW.

There are, but they cost double, and everyone tends to end up eating a lot more in order to get their money's worth. Fine for a special occasion but not for a casual meal out.

Pub grub tends to be the best bet — there's normally some kind of meat platter, and I'm usually happy with the vegetarian options these days. (Anywhere that has veggie lasagna as the only veggie dish tends to rile me, because that used to be the token option back in the 90s before vegetarianism was very common… but most pubs are better than that now.)

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
The times it annoys me are when a restaurant can cater for the keto people, with a little variation (such as serving the steak with cauliflower cheese, which is also on the menu elsewhere, instead of chips)… but the person in question refuses to ask them to do that, because they're shy and don't want to cause a fuss.

They need to get over that by remembering the waiter is there to serve, anything in the kitchen is available, the restaurant will cheerfully come up with a price.

A friend who waitered a while said he loved special orders, they meant bigger tips because people were pleased to be able to have what they want. Even in non-tip countries, it's no extra work, really.

I have vegetarian friends who look at all the "comes with" items and tell the waiter they are vegetarians and would like - and then name foods that show up on the menu, assembling a vegetarian plate. No waiter has ever fussed.

But I have been in restaurants where a friend can't eat anything on the menu, she's both wheat and milk intolerant, every dish is based on wheat (noodles, sandwiches) and slathered with cheese, the soups are all cream soups or noodle soups.

It's hard to be on a counter-cultural diet! The internet is a help, check out the menu ahead of time. Or find an ethnic group with foods that fit your diets. One friend always eats out Chinese because he knows there will be something on the menu he can eat with his diet.

Posted by Hebdom (# 14685) on :

What Jengie said.

IANAD either, but what you say about lactose intolerance makes perfect sense to me.

One word of warning, a low FODMAP diet is not for the faint hearted and should be prescribed by a specialist dietitian on referral from a GP.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Soror Magna:

quote:
Maybe when some parents decided that minimizing their use of sugar or plastic bags was a PARENTAL VALUE!!! TA-ta-da-DAAAA! entitling them to ostentatiously demonstrate their moral superiority ("were sugar-free nyah-nyah"), rather than asking nicely for support ("I know you mean well, but please don't give my kid candy").

Well, sure, but sometimes people make assumptions that are simply wrong. My daughter doesn't like sweets or cake (unnatural child). I am sure at least half the people who have their well-meant offers of treats rejected think we are horrible parents who don't allow her to eat these things, but she really doesn't like them. Should she force the Haribos down to avoid hurting these people's feelings?

In a situation where sweets are being handed out to all and sundry (eg in party bags), we have told her to accept them with thanks and pass them on to someone who does like them at the first opportunity. But this isn't always possible.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Amorya--

Just a thought: are there any buffet restaurants around? More choices available. FWIW.
There are, but they cost double, and everyone tends to end up eating a lot more in order to get their money's worth. Fine for a special occasion but not for a casual meal out.

Pub grub tends to be the best bet — there's normally some kind of meat platter, and I'm usually happy with the vegetarian options these days. (Anywhere that has veggie lasagna as the only veggie dish tends to rile me, because that used to be the token option back in the 90s before vegetarianism was very common… but most pubs are better than that now.)

even further back all you were offered as a veggie was a limp cheese salad..

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
My brother and son are both veggie, but neither treat it as a religion. If they are given meat at a meal, they eat it without comment.

An excellent attitude imo.

My brother lives with us three days a week and we always eat veggie on those days. But, if we didn't, he'd eat whatever we were eating.

If they eat meat when given a meal, they are not vegetarian. Surely the excellent attitude would be for hosts to actually be good hosts and respect dietary requirements? Would you expect a Jewish person to just eat shellfish or pork?

It is incredibly rude to knowingly serve vegetarians meat.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

I am someone who may need a low FODMAP diet (have been referred to a dietician by the gastro specialist at the hospital after negative coeliac tests and internal biopsies, so all above board). I am dreading eating out! I already have to cut out beans/pulses and wholemeal bread so somewhat used to awkward dietary choices.

I would be a vegetarian if I could, but cutting out pulses would make it extremely difficult, especially regarding eating out.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Pomona:

quote:
It is incredibly rude to knowingly serve vegetarians meat.

I agree. My prefered way of accommodating a vegetarian guest is to make the veggie side dish a veggie casserole. Example: make a broccoli casserole, give a scoop of it with the meat for the omnivores at the table, and a larger portion for the vegetarian(s), along with potato and salad for all. Voila! everyone's fed.

On the other hand, vegetarians as good guests will refrain from lecturing everyone else on how terrible their food choices are.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
If they eat meat when given a meal, they are not vegetarian. Surely the excellent attitude would be for hosts to actually be good hosts and respect dietary requirements? Would you expect a Jewish person to just eat shellfish or pork?

It is incredibly rude to knowingly serve vegetarians meat.

As I said - I never do.

My brother and son are vegetarian, it is not their religion 'tho - it's their food choice. Big difference imo.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I am dreading eating out! I already have to cut out beans/pulses and wholemeal bread so somewhat used to awkward dietary choices.

I've been to church pot lucks where there is nothing a wheat avoiding or dairy avoiding person can eat, or an MSG allergic person can trust.

Then there's the dessert table, preacher says "remember we have lots of diabetics" so people make desserts with fake sugars and don't think to warn those who react badly to Splenda et al, but with no sign on the pudding the no-sugar folks don't know if it's safe for them!

Once in my life I attended a pot luck where everyone put a recipe card in front of the dish. I usually attach a list of ingredients so anyone with dietary limits can tell if it's edible for them, I'm the only one I know who does that except for an occasional dish bears a warning it's spicy hot.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
If they eat meat when given a meal, they are not vegetarian. Surely the excellent attitude would be for hosts to actually be good hosts and respect dietary requirements? Would you expect a Jewish person to just eat shellfish or pork?

It is incredibly rude to knowingly serve vegetarians meat.
As I said - I never do.

My brother and son are vegetarian, it is not their religion 'tho - it's their food choice. Big difference imo.

Apologies for misreading your post.

It is really unhelpful for genuine vegetarians if people expect them to make exceptions for politeness' sake though, akin to being expected to eat fish or even chicken.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I am dreading eating out! I already have to cut out beans/pulses and wholemeal bread so somewhat used to awkward dietary choices.
I've been to church pot lucks where there is nothing a wheat avoiding or dairy avoiding person can eat, or an MSG allergic person can trust.

Then there's the dessert table, preacher says "remember we have lots of diabetics" so people make desserts with fake sugars and don't think to warn those who react badly to Splenda et al, but with no sign on the pudding the no-sugar folks don't know if it's safe for them!

Once in my life I attended a pot luck where everyone put a recipe card in front of the dish. I usually attach a list of ingredients so anyone with dietary limits can tell if it's edible for them, I'm the only one I know who does that except for an occasional dish bears a warning it's spicy hot.

Potlucks are less common over here but yes, huge problems with labelling and also cross-contamination. Often someone with coeliac disease cannot share butter or spreads or anything that's been in contact with a knife or plate that's been in contact with bread, for example. This is why one chalice and no gluten-free bread/wafer is an issue - they can't receive in one kind because the chalice is contaminated.

Posted by cynic girl (# 13844) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
I would add, on the 'food faddiness because of Aspergers' line, that people with Aspergers can have a variety of reasons for finding certain foods difficult - digestive difficulties are very common, and some textures can cause pain or nausea. And processing differences make the world seem chaotic, and so someone forcing you to eat something that is causing you pain or discomfort feels very intrusive when you already have no sense of control over anything. It's like a violation of your body. (I like to clarify the sorts of reasons why people with Aspergers can be 'faddy' - because just saying 'because of Aspergers' doesn't really explain it.)

That's a very clear way to put it. People often get very angry with me for my eating difficulties related to Asperger's. In reality, though, I do everything I can to mitigate difficulties for hosts. When they *ask* what I don't eat, I give them the (long) list - but I also say I'm happy to bring something. I bring gluten-free bread and pasta to people's houses (I'm non-coeliac gluten-intolerant - gluten causes me very nasty migraines). I've happily brought complete pre-cooked meals with me, free from the vegetables and spices I can't tolerate, with enough for everyone who is coming.

But, ultimately, if a host wants me at their house, they're going to have to deal with the whole package of me - disability included. Just as they'll need to turn down their radio and turn off their TV, and just as I'll need access to a downstairs loo and a seat that doesn't cause me physical pain, I'll also need food I can eat. It's not actually relevant what causes that need. It simply exists. And there are plenty of people who no longer invite me to their houses, and that's fine. I often invite people to mine, and I only cook what they are able to eat.

What society calls fussy, some of us call disability (or another kind of difference from the norm).

Posted by Esmeralda (# 582) on :

Well said cynic girl. My 20 year old son is Aspie and eats no fruit (not even jam!) and very few veg. I'm pretty sure that it's the textures more than the taste, as he's often happy to eat things flavoured with fruit. Sometimes it's colour as well, but he does eat several green things: cucumber, lettuce, celery.

I can remember not liking citrus fruit as a child, and I had to leave the house every time my mother cooked marmalade, so I can understand why he leaves the room when I eat a satsuma. Incidentally I myself am on mostly gluten free and low dairy for IBS. And my dad had a lot of digestive problems, so I do think there's a genetic component.

Posted by OliviaCA (# 18399) on :

I don't think that the C S Lewis example or people who insist on gf, ( or vegan, etc ) food fall into the category of gluttony, because they don't seem to me to be about food, and surely that is the definition of gluttony, that food itself is too important to someone.

The woman in C S Lewis' example and people on gf diets etc are thinking about their health, surely, or seeking attention, or have a need to control ( what enters their body, perhaps with good reason, or to organise/control other people, etc ).

Is there a sin-label for thinking too much about one's health? When a food might make the difference between depression and coping; insomnia and a good night's sleep; damage to one's thyroid and none. Preferring not to take the risk.

I'm surprised that C S Lewis didn't realise that it wasn't about the food, at all, ( who would want weak tea and dry toast, instead of cakes, a full meal, etc if they really thought too much about food? ) and that therefore it couldn't possibly be classified as gluttony.
.

[ 26. May 2015, 12:04: Message edited by: OliviaCA ]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I have friends who have some very serious food allergy problems, and one (perhaps two!) for whom their food issues are reflective of deeper issues. I am always able to manage this without trouble, primarily by putting a few serving dishes on the table from which people can compose their own plates. When the wheat allergy graduate student (WAGS for short) comes for lunch, I am careful about bread etc, and ensuring that plates etc went through the washer just before serving but otherwise guests have to put up with each other (much like life).

A young relation was troublesome and problematic with her parents about her food, to the point where they wondered if professional help was needed, but I never knew, as she cheerfully hoovered down whatever I had prepared for her. This was perhaps an instance of food as weapon or means of control, which I would see as a form of gluttony.

Posted by OliviaCA (# 18399) on :

PS. to my post above:

Unless Lewis meant that all the sins are about seeing/perceiving power in things other than God, ( whether money, physical beauty, or food ).

And the "tea and toast request" is a sin by virtue of how it is used as an almost religious ritual, to achieve satisfaction/happiness/salvation, etc.

I do wonder this sometimes about my own dietary exclusions. Are they functioning like a magic ritual in my life, to stave off "bad things" ...
.

[ 26. May 2015, 12:14: Message edited by: OliviaCA ]

Posted by OliviaCA (# 18399) on :

What is a sin anyway? And the "Seven Deadlies" in particular? They're an invention, a collections of things/behaviours which various people at various times have thought that certain people did too much of, and/or suffered from in that interfered with relationship with God/was sign of poor relationship with God.

You could say that worrying, about anything was as much of a sin, or even the one over-arching one for all of the "seven deadlies" , whatever it applied to, ( health, money, food, beauty, etc ).

ie. believing that anything at all other than God has the power to make you happy/"save you"/make things better is an error; making food etc into a mini-god, with power over one/over life-the world.

And yet I do it all the time, don't eat x because y; do do z because a, want more money because b, etc.

I think that the underlying fundamental "sin"/lack of or separation in C S Lewis's example is fear/worry, someone who can't deal with what they're offered, isn't comfortable in the social setting without these rituals/routine reactions/impositions on others, needs their little "gods" to reassure them, etc.

And ( as I said above ) I do wonder about my excluding gluten, avoiding dairy and sugar etc, how bad my relationship with God is, how far away I am from trusting in God ( my "real self" ) to handle things, to feed and clothe me, as the character Jesus says God will, because it's certainly not "me" that is organising that ...

... or whether my apparent reactions to gluten, etc are "real", part of the kingdom of heaven; have genuine correlates in the interactions between particles, waves, energy etc, and excluding gluten, avoiding dairy, sugar etc, are necessary disciplines, part of aligning myself more with God ..

... I have definitely noticed that when I eat gluten ( and lots of sugar, or dairy, coffee, etc ), I seem to lose touch with God/my "real self"; seem to forget the connection. It becomes faint or disappears totally. I usually put this down to cytokines ( immune system reaction/inflammation ) and food opioid effects! :lol [Smile]

And food exclusion has been an incredible tool, a discipline which made me notice, notice , notice. And taught me how much my behaviour is caused by food too ... [Biased]

.

[ 27. May 2015, 09:36: Message edited by: OliviaCA ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0