Well, yes, that's where I'd have to have more fundamental principles in place. Which I don't. Yet. But I do think that, say, in a job interview/ election context, isn't that exactly the default we want? - and it's the job interview/election context and subsequent actions which may well have a huge effect on bringing the ideal scenario into play.
The food thing does bug me, though, because where do we, as people, start taking responsibility for our responses to food? Cake, in itself, is morally neutral. Within a context of a balanced diet it's nutritionally fairly neutral too. BUT - my intelligent, educated, thoughtful colleagues, both male and female, talk about it in moral terms. It's naughty, wicked, sinful - or, if it contains fruit in any form, it's good for you, positively virtuous, etc. I know that some of it is tongue in cheek, but some of it isn't.
I know if I eat too much cake I won't fit into my clothes. That's not a moral issue, but it is a financial and health issue. So I eat cake when I feel like it, I enjoy it, but I don't feel the urge to binge or ban myself from eating it, because I don't attach moral connotations to it.
Food as a support to social bonds - absolutely. There is, to my mind, an atavistic pleasure in sharing food with friends, but also strangers - in a non-sinister context, a stranger offering you a sweet can be very nice. But I take responsibility for what I eat, and what I weigh, and how healthy I am. I don't blame cake for any lack of self-control.