Answers on a postcard please...
Something that has been bothering me for a while jumped back to the front of my mind today, and I'd be interested in thoughts on it.
Technically. I'm quite a fussy eater. I don't feel too guilty about this; there are several groups of food that I find so disgusting that in many cases I literally cannot consume them. Whole, uncooked tomatoes are the first, and invoke the strongest response (despite several attempts, I have never managed to swallow one, I gag first), and close behind follow the bigger problems (in terms of attending dinners etc.), non-melted cheese (stronger than cheddar) and most fish and/or seafood. I can just about get away with prawns, tuna, and anything which the flavour has been cooked out of (fish fingers, cheap fish and chips stuff), but in practice, I just don't eat any of it.
When I'm cooking for myself, this is obviously not a problem. It's marginally more of one in restaurants and cafes (at last count, of the tens of types of sandwich that Pret a Manger produce, a grand total of two have neither tomatoes nor cheese). When it really comes to a head is when I'm booking for things like formal hall, or submitting dietry requirements for fancy dinners. I tend to just go for no seafood and hope for the best, because accomodating all of these is usually too much of a pain.
A while back, Some people at a biology dinner, where I got a rather tasty vegetable concoction instead of the fish course, expressed the opinion that I was taking the piss by having the vegetarian option just because I don't like fish. And this got me rather irked because of a simple fact: society in general 100% accepts the choice of being a pescatarian (vegetarian who eats fish), and indeed it's one of the drop down options in the magdalen formal hall booking options, but apparently I, as someone who likes vegetables and meat, am not entitled to have food that I can eat at a meal I'm paying for. If a plate of fish was put in front of me, it would sit untouched before being returned to the kiitchens and thrown away, because even if I tried I probably wouldn't be able to finish it.
Now obviously, vegetarianism is sometimes a religious or medical requirement, so I understand why providing a vegetarian option is so important, but pescatarianism is usually a matter of personal choice. Why is that personal choice viewed as acceptable, but mine not?
Technically. I'm quite a fussy eater. I don't feel too guilty about this; there are several groups of food that I find so disgusting that in many cases I literally cannot consume them. Whole, uncooked tomatoes are the first, and invoke the strongest response (despite several attempts, I have never managed to swallow one, I gag first), and close behind follow the bigger problems (in terms of attending dinners etc.), non-melted cheese (stronger than cheddar) and most fish and/or seafood. I can just about get away with prawns, tuna, and anything which the flavour has been cooked out of (fish fingers, cheap fish and chips stuff), but in practice, I just don't eat any of it.
When I'm cooking for myself, this is obviously not a problem. It's marginally more of one in restaurants and cafes (at last count, of the tens of types of sandwich that Pret a Manger produce, a grand total of two have neither tomatoes nor cheese). When it really comes to a head is when I'm booking for things like formal hall, or submitting dietry requirements for fancy dinners. I tend to just go for no seafood and hope for the best, because accomodating all of these is usually too much of a pain.
A while back, Some people at a biology dinner, where I got a rather tasty vegetable concoction instead of the fish course, expressed the opinion that I was taking the piss by having the vegetarian option just because I don't like fish. And this got me rather irked because of a simple fact: society in general 100% accepts the choice of being a pescatarian (vegetarian who eats fish), and indeed it's one of the drop down options in the magdalen formal hall booking options, but apparently I, as someone who likes vegetables and meat, am not entitled to have food that I can eat at a meal I'm paying for. If a plate of fish was put in front of me, it would sit untouched before being returned to the kiitchens and thrown away, because even if I tried I probably wouldn't be able to finish it.
Now obviously, vegetarianism is sometimes a religious or medical requirement, so I understand why providing a vegetarian option is so important, but pescatarianism is usually a matter of personal choice. Why is that personal choice viewed as acceptable, but mine not?