To eat meat every day?

[Sparrowlegs248]

And ask you for easy alternatives?

Theres just me and DH. I would happily go without meat most days but he prefers meat. Not that he would dare complain....

We do have fish once a week, and omlette once a week but that sometimes has ham or bacon in it.

I do all the cooking and am late home weekdays so tend to go for grilled meat with new potatos and veg as its quick and easy. Or chilli/bolognaise

Any suggestions?

Impatient Why does a wife have the right to dictate what her husband eats?

Not dictate, noone could read the OP and think she is dictating, more the opposite But since you ask:
Maybe because she is cooking
Maybe because the shared aspects of a relationship involve compromise

Fair enough re your grandparents, I was genuinely curious. My Turkish relatives / acquaintance eat SO much meat!

Andrew yes yes, because I have said that people are entitled to air their moral views, I mean they are entitled to accost perfect strangers in the street. That is it exactly

Cote the classic game theory problem is the prisoner's dilemma, which is about imperfect information. This is classic market externalities / external preference. Self regarding v other regarding actions, as Mill had it. And yes all the things you list affect others too. They are all discussed and negotiated - formally and informally - too. So we have fuel tax and air passenger duty. For example.

Be careful putting in Quorn. Some people react badly to it

Yes, relationships do involve compromise, but would you expect a vegetarian to compromise and eat meat because the other half is doing the cooking?

Do people stop reading the original post after a few responses?

To clarify, not that I have to....

DH likes a 'proper' meal. So a baked potato and beans, or soup and bread, is not 'proper' in his mind. They are lunch. I would happily have them as dinner but he would probably waste away. And ask where the meat
is to go with the potato.

If i wereon my own I would rarely have meat.

To reiterate.....any suggestions for quick alternatives?

Well I don't think it's the same thing, Impatient, because a vegetarian eating meat is to give up vegetarianism ie not a compromise but abandonment of the principle. Whereas a meat eater can eat less meat and not be vegetarian.

That said I know many couples where one person is vegetarian and the other person has a largely vegetarian diet at home in the spirit of - well, love, I suppose. Others eat separate meals so that each can be to their own. But that's for each couple to decide. My DH has a preference for less meat than I do and I have cooked more vegetarian meals to accommodate this, I am happy to. Equally he doesn't criticise what I produce, meat heavy or not, out of respect and appreciation for the labour I've put into it. So I think it doesn't have to be so adversarial, not either / or.

Then he buys his own meat and cooks it. Why are you skivvyng for him? You are not running a restaurant.

Rootypig - it might not be the same for you, but for some people eating meat is a big deal in the same way that vegetarianism is a big deal for others. My DH and children are like the OPs DH and would question where the meat is if I served up a vegetarian main meal (which I wouldn't because I like meat as much as they do). Why is it unacceptable to expect vegetarians to not be forced to eat meat but acceptable to expect omnivores to not have meat?
If you think it's acceptable to ask an omnivore to reduce their meat intake the perhaps we should ask vegetarians to increase their meat intake. After all they can still have their veg, nobody is stopping them.
It's just patronising controlling bullshit. If somebody likes meat then their partner should not expect them to reduce their consumption of it just because they want to reduce their own intake.

Why is it unacceptable to expect vegetarians to not be forced to eat meat but acceptable to expect omnivores to not have meat?

In my view, because of the environmental impact of meat and because meat is not necessary for human health. Others would say animal rights, or animal welfare (I would probably agree with the latter, in that high meat consumption probably implies intensive rearing). You would disagree with all of the above. As a social scientist, I would say that the public good (environmental protection) should prevail. That is my personal answer to your question.

Anyway I think you're shadow boxing here. The OP says "I would happily go without meat most days". So I saw this thread as a partner asking for advice on how both people in the relationship can be happy, if they are to share meals. And so I gave some advice about satisfying vegetarian meals, before the bun fight began.

I should have said, high levels of meat consumption are not necessary for human health, or daily meat consumption is not necessary for human health. As I said earlier, I am not prepared to give up meat entirely myself. But I have reduced my family's meat consumption drastically, to perhaps once a week. I barely notice any more, though I would miss meat if I cut it out entirely.

rooty - Prisoner's Dilemma is just one Game Theory problem. The most basic one taught on the 1st day of a GT course.

I'm not skivvying. I do the cooking because I like to. I like to cook for us both. Although thats really not what I was asking about.

Clearly some of you think IABU for forcing DH to eat less meat. As i said, he just wants a proper sized meal and I just want some practical suggestions.

I do agree that high levels of meat consummation are not essential, but i don't think that one human should force another human to reduce their meat intake if they don't wish to do so.

Am amazed that there are people who eat meat every day!

Thank you again rootypig

Cote Sure - I mean, my economics is just undergraduate and a long time ago. I was being finickity about what you might consider the 'classic' game theory dilemma to be. Because it just didn't strike me as a classic game theory issue, because each person is making their choice based on personal preference alone and not necessarily in anticipation of another person's choice, iyswim. I'd be interested if you want to explain.

No need to thank me OP - not sure what for! I am just on my soapbox like everyone else. Second H F-W's book as full of good quick recipes, though it is not meat substitute ideas really, have a flick before you buy it, it might be meals that are too light for DH's preference.

For DW and me, and when still lived at home for DS too, the main meal is not just about refuelling; it is about being together, talking together, acting as a family. That's not going to work without some compromise, some give and take, about what goes on the table, and we all sometimes eating what the other particularly enjoys.

My niece is a vegetarian, and for some years until she moved out DSis and BIL managed to have two meals running, so it can be done, but only because DN never criticised them, cooked the meat when it was her turn (in a three way rota) and helped was up meaty dishes. DW and I would have done the same and under the same rules for my DS if he had turned vegetarian. But I would not have stood for any lectures from him about the evils of meat and if I were a vegetarian and he turned meat-eater (in his own home) I hope I would not have given him any.

I think eating meat everyday is not great for the environment and your health may benefit from the variety of some veggie meals.

Try swapping meat mince for soya mince (or quorn mince, though I prefer soya) when making spaghetti bolognese or chilli. I did this and no one noticed you can buy veggie mince in the freezer in supermarkets.

How about veggie stir fry? Or veggie curry? (I love butternut squash curry). Or a roasted vegetable lasagne? Mmm I'm hungry now!

Well Impatient I don't know where all the people forcing other people not to eat meat are tbh. Not me, not the OP, not you.....

Game Theory often looks at instances where an individual's interests clash with those of society at large, and that is what I meant by meat eating being a classic game theory problem - tangible personal benefit against an insignificant (per person) incremental benefit to the collective.

Eating meat & fish is definitely beneficial to me. Therefore, I intend to continue doing it. But it is not that great for the animals involved and possibly the environment, hence the society. Do I or don't I care so much about the near-zero effect that my going vegetarian would have on the planet that I stop eating meat, and thereby depriving myself of the tangible benefits of eating meat?

if everyone cut down on their meat consumption, the amount of land that is currently used to produce feed for animals, that could be used to provide food for humans, would be massive. Cattle and sheep could be kept for land that is unsuitable for agriculture. If the market for meat was smaller (and if people were prepared to pay a proper price for meat, instead of tuppence ha'penny) then it could be produced less intensively, which would be better for the animals. I guess that the meat-every-day crowd really don't give a fuck about these issues, just their own 'right' to eat that amount of meat. Depressing that in 2014 in this country there are still people who think like that.

In answer to your question, there are loads of meat-free pasta, rice and noodles dishes you could try. Hugh Fearnley-Whitingstall's Veg is a good place to start, it's aimed not at vegetarians but those wanting to consume less meat and fish.

Otherwise, you could do what people used to and get a joint for Sunday but get about 3 meals from it (growing up we would have roast Sunday, cold meat with salad and jps Monday and some kind of stew on Tuesday, all from the same joint - that's a family of 4).

Game Theory often looks at instances where an individual's interests clash with those of society at large, and that is what I meant by meat eating being a classic game theory problem - tangible personal benefit against an insignificant (per person) incremental benefit to the collective.

But game theory is about strategic decision making? I understand externalities, which you describe, but I am still confused as to how game theory would be applied here. I can see that you could describe the loss of public good in game theoretic terms, but not how you would model the individual's choices, iyswim, because people don't make a choice to eat meat or not based on what everyone else does. So I can see how game theory works for say driving and travel, because the dominant strategy is to anticipate non cooperative behaviour from everyone else. The public good fails. But meat eating is not contingent in that way for most? AM I making sense? probably not!