To think its rude to order a starter if nobody else is?

[Iactuallydothinkso]

Well, mn jury. Is it?

I would probably pity the people that didn't order a starter tbh. I'd think 'what a shame they're not hungry enough to enjoy the best part of the meal and are going to miss out'.

I would NEVER think 'gosh, I'm making hungry people wait!'? wtf? hungry people order starters. That's what they're for.

YABU it's not rude... That's what you do when you go out isn't it? The idea is to chat and spend time lingering over your food, make an evening of it? Not to shovel it down as quickly as you can because you're starving? It wouldn't occur to me that it was rude and if we were starving hungry we'd either order a starter too or get some bread etc.

I never really thought about this til I met my 6 foot 6 DH. He's normally pretty hungry at meals and would like a starter. I have no probs not having one and sitting whilst he eats his - as starlight said, if I was hungry, I'd order one too!

I always order 3 courses, although I don't finish every last scrap of them.

It's rude not to order a starter.

And always ask for 2 forks. One to eat with and one to stab anybody who tries to pinch a bit of yours.

I love starters. I don't order one if no-one else is, but then always cross we haven't had them and it slightly ruins the meal for me. I agree that for me the pleasure is in lingering and chatting over the food, so I prefer to take my time. I don't normally have pudding, but always expect that someone on the table will, and never think it's rude of them to have one even though I'm not.

Meals out with MIL were always a bit annoying for me initially, as she doesn't have starters - saves herself for the pudding (and also her DH makes rude comments about how she shouldn't eat all that, she'll get fat but that's another story) But now than we know that's how we are, I have the starter, she the pud and we are both happy!