To think you don't need 4 eggs and 7 slices of ham to make an omelette for one person???

[PenguinBear]

This seems excessive to me... No-one needs that much in one omelette... Surely 2 eggs and 2 slices of ham would be fine?

bridget

The flip side to your rather hostile post that decided that the op expects her dh to not be able to eat the same as the rest of the family and she resented every mouthful of food he consumed is this..

One member of a household (obviously referring to adult members) who routinely with out thought or care to the other household members (including children) prioritising there own gratification over the others actual nutritional needs,in the full knowledge that this could prevent those others meeting essential nutritional needs and the income to do so is not availible is a very well known and understood aspect of financial abuse.

Its will fully depriving everybody else of a meal and only considering your own needs.

You decided the op was not happy for her dh to eat those items but she is ok for everybody else to. Its more likely that those items hopefully with the addition of a few more were intended to be shared as a meal by the entire family not just one member so it could be argued that its the dh who is resenting the food others eat and creaming off the best for himself.

Having women in my office who are stick thin and pale and ill due to hunger because of partners who only care about there own food intake demanding excessively large or particular types of meals selfishly refusing huge types of food because its not good enough for them when the budget just cannot allow for this type of behaviour is a daily occurrence. And its a form of abuse.

Oh and whilst I'm on a food related rant,

The average human being eats a huge amount more than their body really needs lots of them would have absolutely no idea of what a needed size portion even looks like in comparison to a desired size portion, and lots and lots of people get to the end of the day with a very incorrect idea of what has really gone into their mouth during that day and would be shocked if everything they ate and drank was documented.

We also end up dumping huge amounts of unused food that wouldn't get dumped if we shopped and planned more effectively.

I'm late to the party. I vote big meal, and that ham isn't actually that good for you. But it is delicious.

I do one egg, cheese, and tomato.

I also agree that generally speaking people (western) eat loads more than they need to.

I don't understand all these 'big meal' posts. Our meals are all the same size just divided out over the day. So an 800 cal meal 3x a day is probably what i have with DH having 1000. That isn't too much at all for a large active man.

sorry posted too soon, meant to say to bragmatic - your omelet would only have 200 cals, that's no where near enough to keep you going for 4-6 hours.

I know others might have more. I know others might need more. I wouldn't and it would keep me going for 4 hours easily. I'd have it on buttered toast probably. Then I'd probably buy a takeaway latte with full fat milk. That would be a decent breakfast for me.

I had no idea (up until now) how many calories was in an egg. I don't know the calorie count of anything and am always quite surprised when people do. Likewise with people who consider protein/carb ratio of meals. It just isn't something that occurs to me. That's not a criticism, or a loaded comment. Just a comment.

well with buttered toast (2 slices about 250 cals) and a latte you would probably be on 6-800.

In answer to questions I give him the food because he complains about the portion size. He refuses vegetarian meals and wants a lot of meat each time. Personally I'm perfectly happy to bulk with pasta and rice and cook veggie meals.

As for the the accusations of starving him, I've just calculated that yesterday he had 4770 calories yesterday. Is that really starving
Mind you I shocked myself when I added that up. DDS are both growing and not showing any signs of malnutrition.

Even with a physical job he doesn't need that many calories Grumpy. I'm really sad that you're going hungry so that he can overeat - I hope you realise that it isn't fair and you shouldn't have to do that.

4770 calories a day is just ridiculous imo.

How is he not overweight?

"a slice of ham" is not a standard amount that we can comment on.

No idea lottie

This thread hasn't half moved on since I last looked! But to clarify my post , my eggs cost £1.40 for 6 from tesco. And the ham I buy from m&s 25 thin slices for £2.99 . That's 12 p a slice .7 slices would be 84p. Not an expensive meal.

Sockreturningpixie I'm sure that if a man was dictating to a woman what she could and couldn't eat and insisting she go hungry in order to satisfy 'the nutritional needs' of her family I'm sure you would also be able to tell me that this was also some kind of 'well known abuse'.

The fact is no member of any family should have to go hungry. If a post appeared on here from a woman who was going hungry in order that her family was fed the thread would be full of helpful advice on how to make the budget go further and the meals more filling.

But because in this case it's a man the consensus seems to be that he should suffer and go hungry. There also seems to be a very sexist assumption that all the food in the house should belong to the woman to do with as she sees fit and that men should not be allowed to use food in their own home without some sort of permission, despite the fact they presumably contribute equally to the household.

I cannot understand why some posters cannot see the utter hypocrisy in this thread. If this was the other way round and a woman was married to someone who expected to control the food and wanted her to go hungry it would be a thread full of howls of 'That's emotional abuse' and 'Leave the bastard'. Yet when it's a woman doing this to a man apparently it's fine.

To be honest a lot of posts insisting that men shouldn't be allowed to eat as they wish or eat certain foods are a little too gleeful for my liking and smack of a kind of enjoyment in punishing men.

Part of the reason this has made me so angry is that as I said earlier in this thread I have been through this myself. I was in a situation where I was expected to feed a family of 3 for £30 and it was stipulated that this must be vegetarian to suit my ex.

To be able to do this it often involved me going without lunch when I was working as I could only afford to eat the communal meals. Should I have eaten an egg or a few pieces of bread from the meal plan I was castigated for stealing from the family and being selfish.

This is at the less extreme end of the scale but it's still the same ideas at play. I don't think however that my experience as a woman is somehow different from a man's. It still involves the idea of control and lack of concern for a partners most basic needs.

(£30 a week)

Ok so just to clarify me being upset that Dh has eaten the dinner ingredients is me being unfair and controlling but him eating 4770 calories while I get to eat what's left ie go hungry is him being just an adult who is hungry. I apologise for being so selfish then.

What do you suggest then? Give him more food. Walk to work tonight so I can buy more? Bearing in mind that would make me late even if I leave now as I start in less than 5 hrs.

But no sockreturningpixie, reread your post. You are clearly right. Men eating a couple of eggs and a few slices of ham is clearly 'financial abuse'. We should start a campaign about it, it should be a criminal offence.

Men who eat food without the permission of their wives should be treated as the abusers they are. You should be able to report them to the police for this dreadful abuse. I think that community service for a slice of bread, a prison sentence for a cheese string, life imprisonment if they actually make an omelette and if they were to cook a chicken they should be taken outside and summarily shot without trial.

How date they eat food which they have contributed to the purchase of without permission. What bastards.

Incidentally I have had a good search and the only definition of financial abuse relating to food which I can find is refusal to provide sufficient food or withholding resources - such as sufficient food.

Nowhere can I find financial abuse defined as eating more than a partner is allowed.

I've never heard such bollocks in my life. Eating an omelette is abuse.

Bridget I'm so sorry I've upset you and I've never saught to be in control of my DH. I rarely say anything when all the food is eaten I'll be sure to keep my mouth shut in future all the time and I'll pretend to have already eaten to avoid offence.

Grumpyoldbat, neither of you should have to go hungry. You say he is not overweight so obviously he is burning off these calories (presumably by doing the work which helps to provide the food in the first place). You need to find a way to provide the calories you need more cheaply if the money isn't there to buy more food.

You have to find a way so that neither of you go hungry. But basically what you want me to say is yes, you should let him go hungry (despite the fact he seems to need this amount of calories). He is too greedy, he deserves it.

As I have said before, if this was a thread where a woman was claiming that her husband said she was too greedy and had to eat less otherwise he would have to walk to work or turn off the electricity everyone would be screaming emotional abuse.

Yes he is obviously burning it off I'm not a complete idiot! FYI I'm the one working and bringing in the money.

I have already apologised and promised to let him have first pick of the food. I'm already working on earning more that's why I'm going to do a course so I can go for promotion. What more do you really want me to do?

Grumpyoldbat you are the one who has decided that this is an 'either or question'. You know that there is not enough food in your house for you both to eat with neither of you going hungry. Yet you are adamant you will not spend more on food nor change the kind of food you eat so that you both have enough.

The only answer you will accept is that either you go hungry or he does. And you refuse to accept any kind of answer which suggest an alternative, you ignore them or find an excuse not to use them.

Basically you want people to tell you that it's fine to leave your husband hungry as long as you have enough to eat. That you should neither try to find an alternative that suits you both nor try and compromise. I disagree, I don't think it is fair for either of you to go hungry.

Don't they say "Breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince, dine like a pauper"? So unless that person consumes the same or more later on, maybe they have judged it right especially if they have an active lifestyle.