AIBU to think most people have something sweet after dinner daily?

[QuickPearlFox]

To have something sweet/ pudding every day after dinner?
kind of thought the majority did this but after talking to friends maybe not. So for example after dinner every night will have something sweet eg bar of chocolate, biscuits

Me and DH, literally never. DS will have some yoghurt or fruit.

I generally don't eat chocolate anymore, just gone right off it but I truly found a square of chocolate was enough for me but maybe that's because I like really dark chocolate and anymore than that is a bit much.

I agree. I do occasionally eat chocolate and it is the highest cocoa percentage I can get (85% usually) and one of those squares is enough as it is so strong and rich.

I was with you until pickled cucumbers.

Now I think you are fucked up.

😉

My grocery has a pickle barrel. They're so good.

As a committed deviant I also drink black Turkish coffee and snack on raw white onions.

Don’t send help, I am beyond it 🫡

I am ok with the coffee and as I am allergic to raw/undercooked onion, we will call it a draw on that as I have no idea if I would like it!

No, never happens in this household.

And good in antioxidants.

No. I think people who want starters are quite selfish if the majority at the table don’t. If someone on the table is having a starter then the main course always comes later than if they didn’t. It is different if you order desert because people are not waiting while they are hungry.

LOL. It's always dark chocolate too isn't it? Dark chocolate is horrible. Unless it's flavoured, like a Terry's Chocolate Orange, or a Frys mint bar.

You seriously think most people just eat fruit or honey or a "small piece of chocolate" most day?😂

Occasionally I get virtuous and decide to swap to dark chocolate. I last about a week before I leave half the pack and revert to the shit stuff. I realise it's the sugar I want, not the cocoa. That's just to make the sugar palatable.

Tapas was made for people who like starters.
I always preferred a starter instead of a pudding but have recently discovered the pleasure of having pudding and hour or two after dinner.

Huh? I didn't mention anything about insisting on a starter if other people don't want one. At least, I don't think I did. Op was asking about our preferences, and I gave mine.
It would also work the other way btw. If we ate in a group and one person insisted on a dessert then that could be seen as selfish, as everyone else has finished and needs to sit around waiting to leave. The thread wasn't about etiquette.

How do you know that the other people at that poster’s table don’t want starters though?

@JustMeHello @SlugJam
I don’t know that is why I said if.
If you are in a hurry and someone is having desert you can always make your excuses and leave.

Why is me having a starter on my own any more selfish than you having dessert while I sit there ready to go, having to wait for you?

It comes down to consideration for others, you wait for me to have my starter, I wait for you to have dessert. Neither is more or less selfish than the other.

What I find to be selfish is pushing me to not have what I want because you dont want to wait for me.

Well if you have a starter, your main meal will take longer to come. Your friend will be waiting extra time while she is hungry. If your friend has a desert then this is usually while people are chatting, having coffee or finishing off their wine and you will not be hungry. If you don’t want to wait you can leave.

It doesn't always work this way though does it? I mean, I didn't mind because I expected it and it isn't a big deal, but I went out for lunch yesterday and everyone got pudding other than me. I would have rather have left and got on with something else, but I wasn't the driver. The equivalent of 'You can just leave' is 'If you don't want a starter, arrive 20 mins later than me because I do want one'.

It's give and take really. I don't think either choice is selfish overall. If you're having a leisurely meal out, you allow for others who may want a starter when you don't, or a pudding, or a glass of wine/coffee etc.

Well no, a non starter person still has to order their main course with everyone else. You don’t really know the timings of when the meal will arrive. If you don’t have dessert then it is different because you are finished.
I would say maybe if you don’t want to stay and chat after a meal then you should drive yourself.
If we have a meal in town with friends, it is quite common for the non dessert eaters to pop out to the shops for 10 mins. Some stay and chat.

If you go for a meal you generally know that some people will want starters, some won’t, some will want desserts, some won’t. It’s just standard. If you’re too hungry to wait while someone has a starter, have a snack before you go. It would be selfish to expect other people not to have a starter just because you don’t want one.

If some of a group order a starter, it delays everyone's main. Those who don't want a starter have to wait longer to eat.

Some may be happy to stay and chat after a meal, but don't want a pudding so therefore the 'after the meal' is delayed which is the same as the 'before' being delayed other than they're no longer hungry.

It didn't bother me at all as I've said, but ideally I would have liked for us to not linger quite so long. I'd never become irked about it, my choice to not have anything else to eat. I don't have a sweet tooth at all I wouldn't have wandered off and left the group though, that looks selfish I think, or at least as if you're rushing them, breaking the group up, disapproving, bored etc which I was none of.
In my personal situation we were nowhere near any shops anyway.

I think the extra wait while you are hungry is the main thing though. I can do either or both and usually go with what everyone else eats.

One square of chocolate 🍫 is just torture 😂 and wouldn't the chocolate go stale before you ate it I'd rather have no chocolate than tease myself with one sad little square