Mathanxiety
"I wonder why anyone would think they should have the freedom to say no to dishes that someone has taken time and trouble to prepare in hopes of providing an enjoyable evening for all."
Brickoverfence
"Seriously??
If someone thinks that the only way they can provide an enjoyable evening to all is to have every part of every dish eaten by every person (how do they police this at buffets, I wonder?), then I think they have their entertaining priorities a bit skewed.
What do you do if you entertain elderly relatives with tiny appetites - do you think that they shouldn't have the freedom to say no to food, either? Or is that just for people whose food choices you suspect of being unreasonable?"
So much for nuance. Not even nuance actually. Taking something that was clear and turning it into something else entirely.
I was talking about saying no to dishes that a fussy eater has said he or she enjoys or can eat, in response to an inquiry by the host, and that have therefore been prepared by the host. I did not say anyone has to eat every part of every dish but I have suggested that a guest should have the grace to eat at least part of what they said they could or would enjoy. What I want to explore is why you think you should be free to turn down the meat dish or the veg or rice or pasta or whatever else there was that you yourself had said you could eat or would feel comfortable eating and why the idea of freedom is so important to you that it gets in the way of other important elements of social interaction such as manners or consideration for the time, expense and effort someone else has expended in order for your meal to appear on the table in front of you.
People don't ask theoretical questions of their prospective guests when they are hosting -- they genuinely want to help you have an enjoyable time and therefore don't want to prepare food that you won't/can't eat, or waste their own time or money on food that won't be eaten. Breaking bread together is what a meal with other people is about, not everyone except one partaking in the meal. This is because the shared experience of the food is what eating with others is all about. It's not about the food but the communality. There is nothing selfish or controlling in the desire to feed someone else a meal they might enjoy and to share the experience of eating it with them. If you feel there is, then you have the option to refuse invitations that involve meals.
What I don't understand is why a fussy eater thinks there is force involved here or why freedom trumps manners when it comes to eating. Presumably freedom takes a back seat to manners if you are at the theatre or the cinema or at a funeral or waiting for a bus. You might love to blow bubbles with your bubble gum or sing along at the opera or push your way to the door of the bus when it arrives, but most people accept that what you precisely want in those situations is not what you can have a reasonable expectation of getting.
Why should eating with others be an exception to what society reasonably expects by way of setting aside one's own individual pov for the sake of a greater aim? Why is the arena of eating seen as the one where society's demands are considered unreasonable when we accept all sorts of restrictions on individual freedom in other areas, including things we do to our bodies and with them -- clothing, hygiene, high heeled shoes, bras, use of sanpro, nail polish and fake nails, etc.