"double dipping" in Spanish

[chuni_buni]

Hi,
is there a Spanish equivalent for the term "double dipping" (when people put a food item or a spoon into a dip (food), take a bite and put it back in)?
if not, what is the best way to formulate "No double dipping!" in Spanish?
Thank you.

Comments

[anonym_mouse]

An interesting question.

First, I totally share the amazement of "dorsetgirl" about the term and the practice.

In my own culture something similar to what you termed "double-dipping" might be imagined as pictures from an 'old life' in the past, a 19-century (and rather poor) peasant family sitting to a meal, where a bowl of soup is taken from the oven and put on a table and then, after the father (or the oldest male) have given his sign, the family would start their meal putting their own individual spoons into this common bowl. Each one would be allowed no more than "one dip" per each spoon eaten by the oldest family member, and more unregulated "dip order" would be allowed would be allowed after he finished, sated.
Nothing like that existed in town families, nor does it exist today. So - no specific term in the language.

However it raises the question of what is "disgusting" and what is not in different cultures.
I read that Japanese keep in their heads an idea of a 'clean' versus 'unclean' surface, and would have a separate set of slippers for their 'restrooms' sitting in front of the facility. Even if one uses slippers for the rest of the house/apartment (rather than walking barefoot or in socks), those would be different.

In Russia they would universally demand that a visitor or a family member should take off his/her outdoor shoes before stepping from an entrance hall into the apartment. This is something common to virtually all cities and all households. In US/Britain the common practice is to walk freely in one's house without changing the shoes, and it would look kind of rude (-ish) to demand to cast them off on entry and step into some slippers the host is supposed to supply.

In British (less) and in US movies (universally) people would sit on a toilet in their clean clothes and not think twice about it - I find it disgusting. The toilet bowl is not a 'clean' place psychologically, however clean it could be in physical reality.

I am not sure it's not another feature invented by the Hollywood - as opposed to real life - but the depiction of people who would fall into their beds (drunk and/or exhausted) with their shoes still on is absolutely common. This is also disgusting and a no-no in my culture, unless the person is portrayed as not being able 'to keep it', a disintegrating personality going down in life (e.g. bcs of drinking, drugs, mental illness etc).

Another constant source of irritation for us is the way Americans are portrayed as not being able to unpack anything without tearing the package in pieces and throwing them about. Etc, etc.

An interesting and big topic, deserving a few hundred comments in a medium-scale flamewar ;)

Here's what immigrants use in US/UK to compensate for the lacking mixer - and unwillingness to wash their hands and faces from the sink filled with water (being ill at ease with such practice, the internal feeling is that the water must be fresh and flowing to apply it to your face):

[chuni_buni]

Being Russian (Ukranian, but never mind), I can refer to the shoes thing -
it is exactly as you say. It is OK in the former USSR, but not common anywhere else. I live in Israel, and only with my close friends I may rarely let myself ask them to take the shoes off (for example, if I've just cleaned the floor), especially if there's a a crawling baby in the house.

[thekumquat]

That DIY mixer tap is such a clever idea! Mixer taps are a lot more common than they used to be - in many places with separate taps the hot tap was either never connected or would never result in hot water - you would wash in cold, or have a bath.

Many Brits will take their shoes off in their own houses, but would never dream of asking a visitor to do so - imposing your own views onto a visitor is the rudest thing an English host could do! Traditionally English houses battled to keep out the damp, and slippers just don't keep your feet warm enough.

I'll have to look out for Hollywood/drama depictions of people falling into bed with their shoes on - my impression is that it is only ever used to show desperation of a disintegrating personality like you describe, but I guess the boundary line could be in a different place! Over-dramatic package-tearing is a symptom of over-emoting in crap American dramas - try counting how often an American character will say a line, then put on a facial expression, then stand there gurning for a couple seconds before moving on. It's practically commedia del'arte...

Your clothes don't touch the toilet when sitting on it - you lower your trousers or lift a skirt, so it's only part of your thighs in contact. 'Hovering' is considered antisocial as likely to result in spraying, and also discouraged by doctors for leading to incomplete bladder emptying and thus urine infections. Not sure how true this is, and whether the same applies to proper squatting over toilets designed for it...

[anonym_mouse]

By "sitting on the toilet in your clothes" I did not mean 'using it' -- sorry for the confusion my wording created.
What I meant is a scene, so common in the movies, of someone sitting on a lid of a closed toilet as if it was a
regular seat, with one's clothes on - and talking to someone else on the phone, looking through mail, or arguing
with a boyfriend/girlfriend.

I cannot say I've seen that in real life, but it is as common in the movies as falling into a bed with one's shoes on.
Or sticking one's head into the toilet bowl, hands embracing it, to vomit.
And then going on as if nothing happened - touching things and people, even kissing.
Maybe it's a Hollywood thing after all, not something from real life.

[thekumquat]

Oh. Yes. Cultural difference, then - sitting on the toilet lid very common in England - probably more so than in America because most of our bathrooms aren't large enough for a chair. I probably do it most days, chatting to my partner, supervising the children in the bath, combing my hair... The lid makes it 'clean', mentally, I guess. Especially if it has a fluffy cloth cover! (which I can't stand as they must get dirty...)

Whereas most people would never fall asleep with shoes on, and grow out of throwing up into the toilet after a night out.

[jillsmyth]

As a Canadian, the shoe thing is not just Russian. I feel extremely uncomfortable NOT removing my shoes upon entry to another persons home. I would not expect them to have slippers for me to wear, I would just walk around in my socks. And that's common across Canada.

[chuni_buni]

Maybe I should consider moving to Canada :)

[embryomystic]

Seconding this. That's how we roll, eh.

[helenadax]

This mixer is amazing! And I agree, each culture has its own rules about what's disgusting.

[akibare]

Shoes in Japan: When you enter a house, you remove your shoes. In a Japanese house the entryway (the "genkan") is lower than the rest of the house, and it's officially a bit of "outside" that inside your front locking door. So, the floor there is cement, stones, or even just dirt. You step up into the house (the step is "agaribana" "agarikmachi" etc). At that point usually you put on slippers, each family member will have a pair of slippers and then there are some for guests.

Your shoes get either put into a cabinet, OR lined up with the toes pointing toward the door (ready for you to slip them back on) ideally.

You can tell a happening party by the mountain of shoes inside the door.

So then you're in the house, on wooden floors. If you step into a traditional room with rice mat flooring (tatami), usually then you take off the slippers and go in there in your socks (or bare feet).

The toilet room (which is separate from the room with a bath in it) has a special set of slippers for it that stay in the toilet room. Usually they are waterproof vinyl or similar (the other house house slippers are often felt or some sort of more "fuzzy" cloth). Often the toilet room slippers would SAY "toilet" or "WC" on them. You slip out of the house slippers into the toilet slippers, do your thing, then switch back.

(There's some stories of Americans who didn't recognize the term "WC" buying cheap slippers that say "WC" on it for use as normal house slippers and getting laughed at...)

In schools we removed our shoes. At the entrance to the school is a room with lots of cubbyholes in it where you store your outside shoes. You have a pair of inside shoes (cheap sneakers that never touched the outside ground) that you wear inside the school, those sit in the cubby when you're not in school. There's usually a wooden platform with slats in it you stand on to change shoes, so, you take your outside shoes off, stand on the platform, put your inside shoes on, then step up into the school floor.

Usually most houses have some pairs of slip on wooden sole sandals or cheap clogs in their "genkan" that you can just slide on when running out to get the mail or whatever tiny errands like that and you don't want to bother with putting on a proper pair of nice shoes.

[anonym_mouse]

Amazing, without knowing all these details, I seem to have implemented the same very system in my own apartment ;)))))
I have regular "room slippers", one room where I walk barefooted, then another set of slippers for the bathroom and toilet, and one more for the summer in case I need to run quickly out to a corner shop or get my mail.

Interesting how the logic of it seems so natural.
In the southern countries, without so much moisture and dirt in the streets, this fuss about changing shoes/slippers and distinguishing between "clean" and "dirty" surfaces may even be classified as a psychological problem (and we all know the exact term, right? )

[akibare]

Yeah, I think the Japanese are notorious for "ooh they don't wear shoes inside! How interesting!" example (at least in the US) but they're hardly the only ones who do that...

I can kinda understand the people who define "floor in the house" as also "outside" or "dirty" (and so obviously don't sit on the floor, and they will remove their shoes if they put their feet up on the couch or whatever) but the one group that kinda surprises me are the people who do "no shoes in the house" for their family but then let guests keep their shoes on. Reason being, that seems to blur the line. If the guest wears shoes, that makes the floor change to "outside" doesn't it? So I would want to wear shoes too now.

Though on another forum I mentioned that, and was told "don't start that flamewar" so...!

[shizuku_san]

I always take my shoes off when I get inside my apartment, and usually do the same when entering the houses of people that I am very comfortable around. We have a big shoe rack just outside our door and guests frequently take their shoes off unprompted when they see it, or they ask if they should. No one has ever suggested that it would be rude for me to request guests remove shoes. (Although I don't actually request it, I just personally prefer not to wear shoes, everyone else is welcome to do as they please.)

In the daycare I work at, it is a health and safety requirement that outside shoes not be worn in the infant room. Hardly surprising since babies are crawling around on it!

[dorsetgirl]

people who do "no shoes in the house" for their family but then let guests keep their shoes on

My mum does that, and in her case it's nothing to do with "dirty" - it's purely to preserve the carpets. So long as the regular inhabitants never wear shoes in the house, the occasional visitor doing so doesn't matter very much. The carpets in her house, all laid new in 1975, are immaculate to this day. Horrible (1970s!) but immaculate.

[akibare]

Something else about Japan though, when it comes to food. Usually if there's a common dish that people are to serve themselves from, there's a pair of chopsticks just for that purpose sitting on that dish and you'd use those. Or, you can use your own chopsticks to serve yourself all the foods BEFORE you eat.

If you need to take more food after you ate from your chopsticks already and there are no common serving chopsticks, then some people will say it's okay if you're picking up a food in a way that you know you will ONLY touch the one you're going to eat.

But if it's noodles or whatever, the OLD way that was drummed in my head as a kid was, you turn your chopsticks around and grab with the ends that didn't touch your mouth. This was completely common, but now apparently (?) it's old fashioned manners or something, some modern people seem to find it odd and ask questions on google about it which spawns threads...

[anonym_mouse]

Right - as it would be a special fork/spoon/ladle sitting in the common bowl with which you are supposed to pick and move some of the food to your own plate. The same principle, I'd say.