Get togethers and menus

[Jay21]

I’m not saying your experiences aren’t real or valid, but the vast majority of vegetarians and vegans don’t complain and make get togethers uncomfortable or awkward. They’ve spent their lives learning to eat nothing but side dishes at get togethers catered by a meat eating home. In contrast, I’ve found the meat eaters to be more of the complaining type when their vegan hosts don’t serve them a slab of sausage.

YMMV.

 

[hairless wonder]

I’m not saying your experiences aren’t real or valid, but the vast majority of vegetarians and vegans don’t complain and make get togethers uncomfortable or awkward. They’ve spent their lives learning to eat nothing but side dishes at get togethers catered by a meat eating home. In contrast, I’ve found the meat eaters to be more of the complaining type when their vegan hosts don’t serve them a slab of sausage.

YMMV.

When I make a roast for parties I host, I also make a main vegetarian entree dish for my vegetarian family members. I never consign them to eating just side dishes.

 

[luvmysuper]

the vast majority of vegetarians and vegans don’t complain and make get togethers uncomfortable or awkward.

I’ve found the meat eaters to be more of the complaining type when their vegan hosts don’t serve them a slab of sausage.

Yeah, it's great that you have had that experience, It has not been the experience of either myself or my friends.
The problem is not repetitive, because the complainers never get re-invited.

 

[hairless wonder]

while refusing the concept that their invited guest would even be allowed to use a corner of the grill when the host was done to cook his pre-formed burger.

IMHO, it's incredibly rude for a guest to insist in cooking his own food at a party. It's insulting the host's hospitality.

 

[luvmysuper]

IMHO, it's incredibly rude for a guest to insist in cooking his own food at a party. It's insulting the host's hospitality.

If the host doesn't ensure that there is food suitable for the guest, AND the host refuses to cook food the guest has brought, AND the host refuses to allow the guest to even use the grill himself - then I'd say the host was the rude one, not the guest.

 

[hairless wonder]

If the host doesn't ensure that there is food suitable for the guest, AND the host refuses to cook food the guest has brought, AND the host refuses to allow the guest to even use the grill himself - then I'd say the host was the rude one, not the guest.

I guess the disconnect here is I fail to see how vegetarian/vegan dishes are unsuitable to meat eating guests unless the guest only eats meat.

For a guest to bring his own food is a major faux pas, IMHO. It's unacceptably rude (unless the guest has severe dietary restrictions AND cleared it with the host in advance).

 

[cleanshaved]

If the host doesn't ensure that there is food suitable for the guest, AND the host refuses to cook food the guest has brought, AND the host refuses to allow the guest to even use the grill himself - then I'd say the host was the rude one, not the guest.

I second that.

Even taking the veggie / meat debate out of the equation.
If my guest wants to cook his/her own steak to their liking on my grill. I would allow them to do that without any feeling of being disrespected. After all my guests are either friends or family. I'm not a paid chef at a restaurant. I won't be going all Gordan Ramsey on them, it's a relaxed occasion.
Hey if they bring their own meat/veggie meal dish and want to cook it themself. I'm all good with that too.

 

[luvmysuper]

unless the guest has severe dietary restrictions

This is assumed by the discussion

cleared it with the host in advance).

One would hope

 

[hairless wonder]

This is assumed by the discussion

One would hope

Is the assumption that the guest is strictly meat eating and can't eat anything not meat and also cannot eat any meat that was cooked with non-meat? If that's the case, then I can agree with your position. Otherwise, I'm still unsure why vegetarian/vegan food is unsuitable for someone who does eat meat.

 

[Darth Scandalous]

This may be a cultural thing but where I grew up and where I live now (not the same place, but similar culturally), "what can I bring?" is a very common response to an invitation, even if it's not explicitly a pot luck gathering. And it's equally common for multiple people to show up with sides, desserts, or drinks to share, even if you've done the traditional back and forth of "no need, we've got it covered." A lot of folks have been raised that you just don't show up at someone's house empty-handed.

I understand where you're coming from, just observing that it may not be universal.

For a guest to bring his own food is a major faux pas, IMHO. It's unacceptably rude (unless the guest has severe dietary restrictions AND cleared it with the host in advance).

 

[hairless wonder]

This may be a cultural thing but where I grew up and where I live now (not the same place, but similar culturally), "what can I bring?" is a very common response to an invitation, even if it's not explicitly a pot luck gathering. And it's equally common for multiple people to show up with sides, desserts, or drinks to share, even if you've done the traditional back and forth of "no need, we've got it covered." A lot of folks have been raised that you just don't show up at someone's house empty-handed.

I understand where you're coming from, just observing that it may not be universal.

To me, there's a difference between bringing food and bringing a gift for the host. For instance, the guest can bring a bottle of wine or something similar. That's generally acceptable (assuming the host is not a recovering addict). Heck, even flowers or a box of candies can be acceptable.

 

[luvmysuper]

Is the assumption that the guest is strictly meat eating and can't eat anything not meat and also cannot eat any meat that was cooked with non-meat? If that's the case, then I can agree with your position. Otherwise, I'm still unsure why vegetarian/vegan food is unsuitable for someone who does eat meat.

Thanks. I understand your perspective.
This isn't about whether someone "can" just eat vegetables with no meat for one meal.
This isn't about whether someone "can" just skip one single meal (meat or vegetable) with no ill affects.
This isn't about whether someone doesn't eat a certain item (nuts, gluten etc.) for dire health reasons.
This is about people who choose to eat a certain way based purely on a belief system, and who are so privileged as to think their own existence trumps all others.
If I have invited someone who I knew, or came to know was a Vegetarian, I would ensure that appropriate choices were available, up to and including providing the means for them to prepare their own meal at my place, as they are the most knowledgeable about what they are willing to consume, and how it should be prepared.
Again, this is not health related.

It is wrong for someone to steadfastly choose a path, while rebuking the choice made by another.
It is as wrong for an individual who eats meat to deny their guest the opportunity to eat their lifestyle choice as it is for an individual who does not eat meat to deny their guest the opportunity to eat their lifestyle choice.

What calls it all to the front, is the stream of complaints by one group regarding the supposition that specific options are not available to them, while simultaneously absolutely denying any other option but their own for others.

I don't care how "easy" it is for a meat eater to eat vegetables. I don't care that someone chooses to refuse the use of animal products. Live your life as you see fit.

But if you're going to refuse to cook or let someone cook a burger at your place because of your lifestyle choice, then DO NOT PITCH A FIT when someone does the same to you.

This is not a difficult concept. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
And if you won't, then don't complain. Just remember that skipping one meal won't cause any real harm.

 

[Doc4]

It's remarkable how much farther ahead one can get in life by simply ...

... asking nicely.

On the whole, I suggest that "it depends". If I'm inviting one or two couples over for dinner, I either know them well enough to know what dishes to prepare or avoid for a successful evening ... or I ask when inviting.

If it's a large gathering I just do what I can, what I think will be popular and well received and within my means and budget, and hope for the best. If I know in advance of certain food preferences some of my guests have, I'll try to take that into account.

At the same time, those people with oddball or extreme dietary requirements ... well, they know that they have that "need". So they need to take some ownership of the solution to the social situation. (Bottom line: this is not about food, it's a matter of a social situation and the obligations of hospitality ... obligations of both host and guest.)

The guest should gratefully accept the food provided (and then silently decide whether to eat it or not depending on his criteria.) The host should, if possible, avoid putting the guest in the predicament of having to decide whether or not to eat something he's not "allowed" to eat.

 

[luvmysuper]

It's remarkable how much farther ahead one can get in life by simply ...

... asking nicely.

On the whole, I suggest that "it depends". If I'm inviting one or two couples over for dinner, I either know them well enough to know what dishes to prepare or avoid for a successful evening ... or I ask when inviting.

If it's a large gathering I just do what I can, what I think will be popular and well received and within my means and budget, and hope for the best. If I know in advance of certain food preferences some of my guests have, I'll try to take that into account.

At the same time, those people with oddball or extreme dietary requirements ... well, they know that they have that "need". So they need to take some ownership of the solution to the social situation. (Bottom line: this is not about food, it's a matter of a social situation and the obligations of hospitality ... obligations of both host and guest.)

The guest should gratefully accept the food provided (and then silently decide whether to eat it or not depending on his criteria.) The host should, if possible, avoid putting the guest in the predicament of having to decide whether or not to eat something he's not "allowed" to eat.

AMEN, brother!

 

[Tirvine]

I have gotten used to making a Thanksgiving meal where the turkey and the butter are all the animal products. I have also gotten pretty good at making meals in their constituent parts and using vegetable broth. That way we can have coq au vin or BB, and the guests can have it without meat, or making risotto with separately cooked mushrooms so that the picky guest gets the boring leeks only version and I get extra mushrooms. It helps to have a background in commercial cooking and, even more, to define my "cooking territory" and keep everyone else out of it!

 

[hairless wonder]

Thanks. I understand your perspective.
This isn't about whether someone "can" just eat vegetables with no meat for one meal.
This isn't about whether someone "can" just skip one single meal (meat or vegetable) with no ill affects.
This isn't about whether someone doesn't eat a certain item (nuts, gluten etc.) for dire health reasons.
This is about people who choose to eat a certain way based purely on a belief system, and who are so privileged as to think their own existence trumps all others.
If I have invited someone who I knew, or came to know was a Vegetarian, I would ensure that appropriate choices were available, up to and including providing the means for them to prepare their own meal at my place, as they are the most knowledgeable about what they are willing to consume, and how it should be prepared.
Again, this is not health related.

It is wrong for someone to steadfastly choose a path, while rebuking the choice made by another.
It is as wrong for an individual who eats meat to deny their guest the opportunity to eat their lifestyle choice as it is for an individual who does not eat meat to deny their guest the opportunity to eat their lifestyle choice.

What calls it all to the front, is the stream of complaints by one group regarding the supposition that specific options are not available to them, while simultaneously absolutely denying any other option but their own for others.

I don't care how "easy" it is for a meat eater to eat vegetables. I don't care that someone chooses to refuse the use of animal products. Live your life as you see fit.

But if you're going to refuse to cook or let someone cook a burger at your place because of your lifestyle choice, then DO NOT PITCH A FIT when someone does the same to you.

This is not a difficult concept. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
And if you won't, then don't complain. Just remember that skipping one meal won't cause any real harm.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. IMHO, the golden rule is met by cooking for others what you know they can eat and what they will enjoy. But that doesn't mean you have to go out of your way to cook something you dislike. Similarly, the golden rule prevents me from demanding I be allowed to bring (let alone cook) my own food in my host's home.

We also differ in how we view dietary restrictions (aside from food allergies or biological intolerance). I don't consider religiously/morally-based dietary restrictions as a matter of choice. If someone believes eating something is morally objectionable or is sinful, I won't try to force him to change his mind.*

In my view, it's not really about one person trying to trump another's beliefs. I grew up in a very multicultrual environment where I was surrounded by people of varying faiths and dietary restrictions based thereon. It was never a big deal for me to adapt to the food restrictions of others so we could eat together. That said, they never tried to proselytize or change my beliefs. In my younger days, with my Jewish friends, I ate kosher; with my Muslim friends, I ate halal. With my Hindu and buddhist friends, I ate vegetarian. With my Catholic friends, I'd have fish on Fridays. With my atheist and protestant friends, I ate without restrictions. Similarly, with my vegetarian or vegan friends, I'd eat vegetarian or vegan. I was lucky to be surrounded by so many friends and to be invited to eat with them.

Now that I'm no longer so young, I appreciate being able to share a meal with those of different faiths and food restrictions even more. There's so much strife and division in the world, I honestly think much of it could be settled by just sitting down and breaking bread. Rather than focusing on what each of us can't eat, I prefer to think about what we all can eat. It's the commonalities between us all that will heal the divisions.

*IIRC, you're a Christian. If As such, I'm sure you're familiar with Romans 14:20. I kind if approach eating with others in the same manner as Paul. There's nothing I can't eat, but it is wrong to eat with someone in a way that causes him to sin.

 

[luvmysuper]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. IMHO, the golden rule is met by cooking for others what you know they can eat and what they will enjoy. But that doesn't mean you have to go out of your way to cook something you dislike. Similarly, the golden rule prevents me from demanding I be allowed to bring (let alone cook) my own food in my host's home.

We also differ in how we view dietary restrictions (aside from food allergies or biological intolerance). I don't consider religiously/morally-based dietary restrictions as a matter of choice. If someone believes eating something is morally objectionable or is sinful, I won't try to force him to change his mind.*

In my view, it's not really about one person trying to trump another's beliefs. I grew up in a very multicultrual environment where I was surrounded by people of varying faiths and dietary restrictions based thereon. It was never a big deal for me to adapt to the food restrictions of others so we could eat together. That said, they never tried to proselytize or change my beliefs. In my younger days, with my Jewish friends, I ate kosher; with my Muslim friends, I ate halal. With my Hindu and buddhist friends, I ate vegetarian. With my Catholic friends, I'd have fish on Fridays. With my atheist and protestant friends, I ate without restrictions. Similarly, with my vegetarian or vegan friends, I'd eat vegetarian or vegan. I was lucky to be surrounded by so many friends and to be invited to eat with them.

Now that I'm no longer so young, I appreciate being able to share a meal with those of different faiths and food restrictions even more. There's so much strife and division in the world, I honestly think much of it could be settled by just sitting down and breaking bread. Rather than focusing on what each of us can't eat, I prefer to think about what we all can eat. It's the commonalities between us all that will heal the divisions.

*IIRC, you're a Christian. If As such, I'm sure you're familiar with Romans 14:20. I kind if approach eating with others in the same manner as Paul. There's nothing I can't eat, but it is wrong to eat with someone in a way that causes him to sin.

Regardless of the basis for a choice, it's still a choice, not a medical or physical necessity.
And I'm not denigrating anyones choices.
What I'm saying, in a nutshell, is that if you don't provide an alternate option for others, then you have no business complaining when others don't offer an alternative option to you.

 

[razorboi]

These problems are a symptom of the times we live in and the people it creates.
Back in my youth in England, true vegetarianism was almost entirely unheard of. If some one said they were vegetarian, you would ensure there was a chicken dish set out, because everyone knew vegetarians didn't eat red meat, but they would eat fowl.
But if they said they were "really" vegetarian, there had to be a fish dish, because real vegetarians wouldn't eat fowl, only fish or shell-fish.
People that didn't eat either were virtually unknown...or known as nutters. I never met any until at least the early 1970's, when trendy reasons for the practice starting popping up.

To-day, the scope of self-imposed dietary restrictions is complex and far-reaching. It would prove impossible for any host to accommodate them all, nor should he even feel obligated to try. Presumably, they're not paying guests.
Neither need any host enquire further before extending invitations. The restrictions are theirs, not yours. They've been living with them most or all or their lives. They're used to being inconvenienced...or should be.
So go ahead and invite the vegetarian to your barbeque, the Jew to your pig-roast, the tea-totalling vegan to your cheese and wine social. Chances are, they'll eat before they come, if they come at all.
But for any of them to disingenuously express moral outrage that their dictated predilections have not been accommodated only serves to erase any pity I might otherwise have held for them.

And finally, any dedicated carnivore that goes to a party hosted by a vegetarian, has only himself to blame.

 

[Tirvine]

I am quite flexible, being a cheeseburger/barbecue vegetarian.

 

[hairless wonder]

Regardless of the basis for a choice, it's still a choice, not a medical or physical necessity.
And I'm not denigrating anyones choices.
What I'm saying, in a nutshell, is that if you don't provide an alternate option for others, then you have no business complaining when others don't offer an alternative option to you.

Like I said, I think we'll have to agree to disagree.