[motohagiography]

Maybe they wouldn't be as budget constrained if they were easier to invite places? I can't invite my teetotaling and vegetarian friends out to many of the casual things I enjoy, and their purity issues create a self-imposed artificial constraint on their life opportunities. Someone with an actual medical issue learns to adapt to life and live it, where someone with a purity constraint selects for oppotunities where they can impose it on others. Not all vegetarians/non-drinkers, etc, but often it's a control ritual that could be satisfied psychologiclaly in other more productive ways. Also, if someone is struggling financially, adding a social purity constraint to their lives seems like a self sabotaging substitute where they are choosing for luck and opportunity to pass them over instead of accepting their circumstances and changing them. As though they can afford purity, without considering what it costs.

Dining out isn't about the food, it's about company and companionship, and I don't eat with anyone I'm not willing to pick up the entire tab for, because the pleasure of their company is well worth it. If their company is not worth that, I'd say that's the definition of wasted time.

[leoedin]

> I can't invite my teetotaling and vegetarian friends out to many of the casual things I enjoy

I'm curious about this. Why not? I'm not vegetarian, but I go out for dinner with vegetarian friends all the time. They order a vegetarian dish, I order a meat one. It isn't an issue.

Similarly with drinking. As long as they want to be there, why would I care if they drink? If they're judging you for drinking, that's a tangential issue.

You say "Dining out isn't about the food" - so then why do you care what food your companion eats? As long as they're happy, what difference does it make?

[motohagiography]

Dining out isn't about the food because you can make anything yourself with a little effort, and splitting the bill based how many calories you ingest misses the point of going out.

If you said to someone "we should get a coffee sometime" and they said, "thanks, but I don't drink coffee," they would have missed the point or were being bizzarely rude. I'm saying many dietary choices have the same effect. If I said, "we should get a burrito," and you said, "No thanks, I'm gluten intolerant," you're not going to get a second invitation, not because you have a medical issue, but because the person inviting you was expecting a, "yes lunch in principle, and we'll deal with details after."

Maybe you legit used your condition as an excuse to avoid socializing, which fine and your own business, but when you decline invitations, they dry up and nobody owes you another one. Being "lame," means too weak or injured to do something, and a lot of restrictions when you lead with them just make people think you are lame.

[tristor]

> I'm curious about this. Why not?

I also have friends that are on restrictive diets or who don't drink and I invite them out with me regularly. The reality though, is that many people take personal choices and turn them into a religion that they then feel the need to proselytize. I simply don't spend time with people like that, but I can imagine those are the sorts of people grandparent has in mind when they wrote that comment.

[lotsofpulp]

> I can't invite my teetotaling and vegetarian friends out to many of the casual things I enjoy, and their purity issues create a self-imposed artificial constraint on their life opportunities. Someone with an actual medical issue learns to adapt to life and live it, where someone with a purity constraint selects for oppotunities where they can impose it on others.

Who is imposing on whom? I did not write the vegetarians and teetotalers force others to not eat meat or not drink alcohol.

> Also, if someone is struggling financially, adding a social purity constraint to their lives seems like a self sabotaging substitute where they are choosing for luck and opportunity to pass them over instead of accepting their circumstances and changing them. As though they can afford purity, without considering what it costs.

I do not even understand what the context of the word “purity” is in your comment. I find the whole theme of the comment to be bizarre.

> Dining out isn't about the food, it's about company and companionship, and I don't eat with anyone I'm not willing to pick up the entire tab for, because the pleasure of their company is well worth it. If their company is not worth that, I'd say that's the definition of wasted time.

I would go out almost every day of the week in my 20s in a very expensive city. With lots of different people, and random people could be invited at anytime by anyone. I certainly do not think it reasonable to want to, or even be able to, pick up the entire tab for all the groups one goes out with.

I am not talking about a small group or one on one meal with a friend you see once every year. For that, yes, paying or splitting evenly is not a big deal, although I would never let my friends consistently pay extra for me outside of occasions.

[tristor]

> Dining out isn't about the food, it's about company and companionship, and I don't eat with anyone I'm not willing to pick up the entire tab for, because the pleasure of their company is well worth it. If their company is not worth that, I'd say that's the definition of wasted time.

Well said. In fact, I've made it a personal rule that if I invite someone out I pick up the tab to simply remove any budget constraint barriers for people spending time with me. Some of the people I most enjoy spending time with are much more budget constrained than I am, but I have no issue with picking up the tab if it lets me have a conversation with them for a few hours in a place where they can be relaxed enough from the stress of their daily life to mutually enjoy it.

[goodpoint]

> Someone with an actual medical issue learns to adapt to life and live it

That's quite harsh to all the people who cannot join you for dinner on a hike because of some illness or disability.

Describing non-drinking as a "control ritual" and "self sabotaging substitute" is an equally harsh description of people's personal choices or medical needs. E.g. pregnancy.

> I don't eat with anyone I'm not willing to pick up the entire tab for, because the pleasure of their company is well worth it.

I never thought of measuring friendship and companionship with money...

[motohagiography]

I have numerous friends who don't drink or eat meat and for different reasons (religious, addiction, medical, health, caste, politics, personal), and they manage because they know how to navigate socially. I can think of more than a few invites I don't get for related reasons.

In the scenario you propose, the disabled person meets us at the bar, the recovering alcoholic drinks cranberry juice, and the pregnant woman buys because she's probably the only one with a job, some chirp back and forth, nobody complains, and we get to be together. It's not hard. The lifestyle vegan isn't there because we have other things to talk about, and we can always see him at crossfit.

If we have something to manage in a social situation, I think it's still on us to show we are capable of enjoying ourselves.

[satellite2]

> pick up the entire tab for, because the pleasure of their company is well worth it. If their company is not worth that, I'd say that's the definition of wasted time.

So you restrict yourself to life opportunities (restaurants) where you can afford an entire group tab?

You naughty penny pincher!

[jayski]

that was very well said.