Pasta for dinner

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually am puzzled in that when I read about picky kids eating away from home buttered noodles are often mentioned. Was OP supposed to have asked if the guest kid wanted sauce?

Many Americans use the following formula to serve lunch and dinner meals: main +2 or main +3. If you google "divided kids plates" or "divided disposable plates," you'll see compartments with enough room for either main +2 or main +3. These are often available in-person at Targets and Walmarts. It's that common.

There are exceptions, like how pizza or large salads are often served alone. Many times soups may be served with only bread or crackers, but the general convention is to serve more than a main dish. Obviously that's not everyone's convention, hence the insane food war this thread has sparked. It is, however, a thing for many people.

So, no, OP wasn't supposed to have asked if the guest wanted sauce. OP's friend was thrown for a loop when she saw only a main served. Her response was rude, and probably would have been avoided if OP had served some sides with the pasta or turned the pasta into a large pasta salad with the sides basically in the dish.

I'm not saying OP "should" have done that, though, because one convention isn't better than the other. This is more like the "shoes vs no-shoes in the house" debate. No-shoes in the house may be cleaner, but it's not so much so that it's a big deal either way. Serving more food would have been better nutritionally, but ultimately is nbd for one meal. Neither position deserves the vitriol that has been spilled on this thread.

Strong disagree. The neurotic control freak almond moms who think their kids will immediately get colon cancer or scurvy and drop dead because they weren’t offered random fruit and vegetables that they may or may not have even eaten at an impromptu, post-playground lunch deserve ALL the vitriol they have received (and more).

Yet nobody actually cares about your opinion and they aren’t going to feed their kid junk food or trash bc you called them names. You’re outnumbered and come across as foolish.

Nobody cares what you feed your spawn in your own home. People just care that you exhibit basic manners when invited to someone else’s home. OP’s friend acted like a rude brat. That’s what this thread is ultimately about.

This isn’t a difficult concept to understand.

OP felt no shame to give her guests depression-era food. Hospitality = C-
OP's friend felt surprised and asked a question but just ate that slop once it was clear that there were no sides.

This isn't a difficult concept to understand.

+1

But OP’s friend was unnecessarily rude. (NP)

I don't think so. She was surprised and blurted out something. If she would have been really rude she would have asked more questions or made more comments and certainly would not have eaten the food. Boy, this was like a Seinfeld episode.

The food that OP served may have been very traditional in the sense what most Italians eat in Italy etc...but in the US, we are used to a somewhat more balanced meal - some veggies, some protein etc. So, no one is rude - this is merely a cultural divide.

Yes… and that was extremely rude. You realize that one can be *unintentionally* rude, don’t you?

It was not extremely rude. That's an overreaction to something mildly annoying at worst.

What reaction? You don’t know what words mean, ma’am. Maybe that’s why you’re rude AND annoying?

Good. Here to serve. Acting like this woman kicked puppies is weird. She wasn’t “extreme” anything.

She’s an extremely socially inept b i atch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually am puzzled in that when I read about picky kids eating away from home buttered noodles are often mentioned. Was OP supposed to have asked if the guest kid wanted sauce?

Many Americans use the following formula to serve lunch and dinner meals: main +2 or main +3. If you google "divided kids plates" or "divided disposable plates," you'll see compartments with enough room for either main +2 or main +3. These are often available in-person at Targets and Walmarts. It's that common.

There are exceptions, like how pizza or large salads are often served alone. Many times soups may be served with only bread or crackers, but the general convention is to serve more than a main dish. Obviously that's not everyone's convention, hence the insane food war this thread has sparked. It is, however, a thing for many people.

So, no, OP wasn't supposed to have asked if the guest wanted sauce. OP's friend was thrown for a loop when she saw only a main served. Her response was rude, and probably would have been avoided if OP had served some sides with the pasta or turned the pasta into a large pasta salad with the sides basically in the dish.

I'm not saying OP "should" have done that, though, because one convention isn't better than the other. This is more like the "shoes vs no-shoes in the house" debate. No-shoes in the house may be cleaner, but it's not so much so that it's a big deal either way. Serving more food would have been better nutritionally, but ultimately is nbd for one meal. Neither position deserves the vitriol that has been spilled on this thread.

Strong disagree. The neurotic control freak almond moms who think their kids will immediately get colon cancer or scurvy and drop dead because they weren’t offered random fruit and vegetables that they may or may not have even eaten at an impromptu, post-playground lunch deserve ALL the vitriol they have received (and more).

Yet nobody actually cares about your opinion and they aren’t going to feed their kid junk food or trash bc you called them names. You’re outnumbered and come across as foolish.

Nobody cares what you feed your spawn in your own home. People just care that you exhibit basic manners when invited to someone else’s home. OP’s friend acted like a rude brat. That’s what this thread is ultimately about.

This isn’t a difficult concept to understand.

OP felt no shame to give her guests depression-era food. Hospitality = C-
OP's friend felt surprised and asked a question but just ate that slop once it was clear that there were no sides.

This isn't a difficult concept to understand.

+1

But OP’s friend was unnecessarily rude. (NP)

I don't think so. She was surprised and blurted out something. If she would have been really rude she would have asked more questions or made more comments and certainly would not have eaten the food. Boy, this was like a Seinfeld episode.

The food that OP served may have been very traditional in the sense what most Italians eat in Italy etc...but in the US, we are used to a somewhat more balanced meal - some veggies, some protein etc. So, no one is rude - this is merely a cultural divide.

Yes… and that was extremely rude. You realize that one can be *unintentionally* rude, don’t you?

It was not extremely rude. That's an overreaction to something mildly annoying at worst.

What reaction? You don’t know what words mean, ma’am. Maybe that’s why you’re rude AND annoying?

Good. Here to serve. Acting like this woman kicked puppies is weird. She wasn’t “extreme” anything.

She’s an extremely socially inept b i atch.

You seem to have some rigid thinking which is it’s own red flag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually am puzzled in that when I read about picky kids eating away from home buttered noodles are often mentioned. Was OP supposed to have asked if the guest kid wanted sauce?

Many Americans use the following formula to serve lunch and dinner meals: main +2 or main +3. If you google "divided kids plates" or "divided disposable plates," you'll see compartments with enough room for either main +2 or main +3. These are often available in-person at Targets and Walmarts. It's that common.

There are exceptions, like how pizza or large salads are often served alone. Many times soups may be served with only bread or crackers, but the general convention is to serve more than a main dish. Obviously that's not everyone's convention, hence the insane food war this thread has sparked. It is, however, a thing for many people.

So, no, OP wasn't supposed to have asked if the guest wanted sauce. OP's friend was thrown for a loop when she saw only a main served. Her response was rude, and probably would have been avoided if OP had served some sides with the pasta or turned the pasta into a large pasta salad with the sides basically in the dish.

I'm not saying OP "should" have done that, though, because one convention isn't better than the other. This is more like the "shoes vs no-shoes in the house" debate. No-shoes in the house may be cleaner, but it's not so much so that it's a big deal either way. Serving more food would have been better nutritionally, but ultimately is nbd for one meal. Neither position deserves the vitriol that has been spilled on this thread.

Strong disagree. The neurotic control freak almond moms who think their kids will immediately get colon cancer or scurvy and drop dead because they weren’t offered random fruit and vegetables that they may or may not have even eaten at an impromptu, post-playground lunch deserve ALL the vitriol they have received (and more).

Yet nobody actually cares about your opinion and they aren’t going to feed their kid junk food or trash bc you called them names. You’re outnumbered and come across as foolish.

Nobody cares what you feed your spawn in your own home. People just care that you exhibit basic manners when invited to someone else’s home. OP’s friend acted like a rude brat. That’s what this thread is ultimately about.

This isn’t a difficult concept to understand.

OP felt no shame to give her guests depression-era food. Hospitality = C-
OP's friend felt surprised and asked a question but just ate that slop once it was clear that there were no sides.

This isn't a difficult concept to understand.

+1

But OP’s friend was unnecessarily rude. (NP)

I don't think so. She was surprised and blurted out something. If she would have been really rude she would have asked more questions or made more comments and certainly would not have eaten the food. Boy, this was like a Seinfeld episode.

The food that OP served may have been very traditional in the sense what most Italians eat in Italy etc...but in the US, we are used to a somewhat more balanced meal - some veggies, some protein etc. So, no one is rude - this is merely a cultural divide.

Yes… and that was extremely rude. You realize that one can be *unintentionally* rude, don’t you?

It was not extremely rude. That's an overreaction to something mildly annoying at worst.

What reaction? You don’t know what words mean, ma’am. Maybe that’s why you’re rude AND annoying?

Good. Here to serve. Acting like this woman kicked puppies is weird. She wasn’t “extreme” anything.

She’s an extremely socially inept b i atch.

You seem to have some rigid thinking which is it’s own red flag.

And you need a hobby

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually am puzzled in that when I read about picky kids eating away from home buttered noodles are often mentioned. Was OP supposed to have asked if the guest kid wanted sauce?

Many Americans use the following formula to serve lunch and dinner meals: main +2 or main +3. If you google "divided kids plates" or "divided disposable plates," you'll see compartments with enough room for either main +2 or main +3. These are often available in-person at Targets and Walmarts. It's that common.

There are exceptions, like how pizza or large salads are often served alone. Many times soups may be served with only bread or crackers, but the general convention is to serve more than a main dish. Obviously that's not everyone's convention, hence the insane food war this thread has sparked. It is, however, a thing for many people.

So, no, OP wasn't supposed to have asked if the guest wanted sauce. OP's friend was thrown for a loop when she saw only a main served. Her response was rude, and probably would have been avoided if OP had served some sides with the pasta or turned the pasta into a large pasta salad with the sides basically in the dish.

I'm not saying OP "should" have done that, though, because one convention isn't better than the other. This is more like the "shoes vs no-shoes in the house" debate. No-shoes in the house may be cleaner, but it's not so much so that it's a big deal either way. Serving more food would have been better nutritionally, but ultimately is nbd for one meal. Neither position deserves the vitriol that has been spilled on this thread.

Strong disagree. The neurotic control freak almond moms who think their kids will immediately get colon cancer or scurvy and drop dead because they weren’t offered random fruit and vegetables that they may or may not have even eaten at an impromptu, post-playground lunch deserve ALL the vitriol they have received (and more).

Yet nobody actually cares about your opinion and they aren’t going to feed their kid junk food or trash bc you called them names. You’re outnumbered and come across as foolish.

Nobody cares what you feed your spawn in your own home. People just care that you exhibit basic manners when invited to someone else’s home. OP’s friend acted like a rude brat. That’s what this thread is ultimately about.

This isn’t a difficult concept to understand.

OP felt no shame to give her guests depression-era food. Hospitality = C-
OP's friend felt surprised and asked a question but just ate that slop once it was clear that there were no sides.

This isn't a difficult concept to understand.

+1

But OP’s friend was unnecessarily rude. (NP)

I don't think so. She was surprised and blurted out something. If she would have been really rude she would have asked more questions or made more comments and certainly would not have eaten the food. Boy, this was like a Seinfeld episode.

The food that OP served may have been very traditional in the sense what most Italians eat in Italy etc...but in the US, we are used to a somewhat more balanced meal - some veggies, some protein etc. So, no one is rude - this is merely a cultural divide.

Yes… and that was extremely rude. You realize that one can be *unintentionally* rude, don’t you?

It was not extremely rude. That's an overreaction to something mildly annoying at worst.

What reaction? You don’t know what words mean, ma’am. Maybe that’s why you’re rude AND annoying?

Good. Here to serve. Acting like this woman kicked puppies is weird. She wasn’t “extreme” anything.

She’s an extremely socially inept b i atch.

You seem to have some rigid thinking which is it’s own red flag.

And you need a hobby

Why are you here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What restaurants are you guys going to that offer buttered noodles on the menu? I see a lot of mac n cheese but I don't think I've ever seen buttered noodles.

Restaurants will use butter rather than sauce if you ask. I like chicken ziti and broccoli but hate Alfredo sauce. I’ll ask for butter instead, no problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually am puzzled in that when I read about picky kids eating away from home buttered noodles are often mentioned. Was OP supposed to have asked if the guest kid wanted sauce?

Many Americans use the following formula to serve lunch and dinner meals: main +2 or main +3. If you google "divided kids plates" or "divided disposable plates," you'll see compartments with enough room for either main +2 or main +3. These are often available in-person at Targets and Walmarts. It's that common.

There are exceptions, like how pizza or large salads are often served alone. Many times soups may be served with only bread or crackers, but the general convention is to serve more than a main dish. Obviously that's not everyone's convention, hence the insane food war this thread has sparked. It is, however, a thing for many people.

So, no, OP wasn't supposed to have asked if the guest wanted sauce. OP's friend was thrown for a loop when she saw only a main served. Her response was rude, and probably would have been avoided if OP had served some sides with the pasta or turned the pasta into a large pasta salad with the sides basically in the dish.

I'm not saying OP "should" have done that, though, because one convention isn't better than the other. This is more like the "shoes vs no-shoes in the house" debate. No-shoes in the house may be cleaner, but it's not so much so that it's a big deal either way. Serving more food would have been better nutritionally, but ultimately is nbd for one meal. Neither position deserves the vitriol that has been spilled on this thread.

Strong disagree. The neurotic control freak almond moms who think their kids will immediately get colon cancer or scurvy and drop dead because they weren’t offered random fruit and vegetables that they may or may not have even eaten at an impromptu, post-playground lunch deserve ALL the vitriol they have received (and more).

Yet nobody actually cares about your opinion and they aren’t going to feed their kid junk food or trash bc you called them names. You’re outnumbered and come across as foolish.

Nobody cares what you feed your spawn in your own home. People just care that you exhibit basic manners when invited to someone else’s home. OP’s friend acted like a rude brat. That’s what this thread is ultimately about.

This isn’t a difficult concept to understand.

OP felt no shame to give her guests depression-era food. Hospitality = C-
OP's friend felt surprised and asked a question but just ate that slop once it was clear that there were no sides.

This isn't a difficult concept to understand.

+1

But OP’s friend was unnecessarily rude. (NP)

I don't think so. She was surprised and blurted out something. If she would have been really rude she would have asked more questions or made more comments and certainly would not have eaten the food. Boy, this was like a Seinfeld episode.

The food that OP served may have been very traditional in the sense what most Italians eat in Italy etc...but in the US, we are used to a somewhat more balanced meal - some veggies, some protein etc. So, no one is rude - this is merely a cultural divide.

Yes… and that was extremely rude. You realize that one can be *unintentionally* rude, don’t you?

It was not extremely rude. That's an overreaction to something mildly annoying at worst.

You invite someone new over, serve them food you cooked, and they say, "That's lunch?" and tell us how you feel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually am puzzled in that when I read about picky kids eating away from home buttered noodles are often mentioned. Was OP supposed to have asked if the guest kid wanted sauce?

Many Americans use the following formula to serve lunch and dinner meals: main +2 or main +3. If you google "divided kids plates" or "divided disposable plates," you'll see compartments with enough room for either main +2 or main +3. These are often available in-person at Targets and Walmarts. It's that common.

There are exceptions, like how pizza or large salads are often served alone. Many times soups may be served with only bread or crackers, but the general convention is to serve more than a main dish. Obviously that's not everyone's convention, hence the insane food war this thread has sparked. It is, however, a thing for many people.

So, no, OP wasn't supposed to have asked if the guest wanted sauce. OP's friend was thrown for a loop when she saw only a main served. Her response was rude, and probably would have been avoided if OP had served some sides with the pasta or turned the pasta into a large pasta salad with the sides basically in the dish.

I'm not saying OP "should" have done that, though, because one convention isn't better than the other. This is more like the "shoes vs no-shoes in the house" debate. No-shoes in the house may be cleaner, but it's not so much so that it's a big deal either way. Serving more food would have been better nutritionally, but ultimately is nbd for one meal. Neither position deserves the vitriol that has been spilled on this thread.

Strong disagree. The neurotic control freak almond moms who think their kids will immediately get colon cancer or scurvy and drop dead because they weren’t offered random fruit and vegetables that they may or may not have even eaten at an impromptu, post-playground lunch deserve ALL the vitriol they have received (and more).

Yet nobody actually cares about your opinion and they aren’t going to feed their kid junk food or trash bc you called them names. You’re outnumbered and come across as foolish.

Nobody cares what you feed your spawn in your own home. People just care that you exhibit basic manners when invited to someone else’s home. OP’s friend acted like a rude brat. That’s what this thread is ultimately about.

This isn’t a difficult concept to understand.

OP felt no shame to give her guests depression-era food. Hospitality = C-
OP's friend felt surprised and asked a question but just ate that slop once it was clear that there were no sides.

This isn't a difficult concept to understand.

+1

But OP’s friend was unnecessarily rude. (NP)

I don't think so. She was surprised and blurted out something. If she would have been really rude she would have asked more questions or made more comments and certainly would not have eaten the food. Boy, this was like a Seinfeld episode.

The food that OP served may have been very traditional in the sense what most Italians eat in Italy etc...but in the US, we are used to a somewhat more balanced meal - some veggies, some protein etc. So, no one is rude - this is merely a cultural divide.

Yes… and that was extremely rude. You realize that one can be *unintentionally* rude, don’t you?

It was not extremely rude. That's an overreaction to something mildly annoying at worst.

You invite someone new over, serve them food you cooked, and they say, "That's lunch?" and tell us how you feel.

100%. It was ungrateful and rude AF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What restaurants are you guys going to that offer buttered noodles on the menu? I see a lot of mac n cheese but I don't think I've ever seen buttered noodles.

Restaurants will use butter rather than sauce if you ask. I like chicken ziti and broccoli but hate Alfredo sauce. I’ll ask for butter instead, no problem.

Yes, they will. They will also serve you just a side of broccoli, or just ice cream if you ask. That doesn't mean that just broccoli or just ice cream isn't a surprising thing to be offered as an entire meal when you are expecting lunch.

Also ziti with butter, chicken and broccoli, is very different from ziti with just butter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually am puzzled in that when I read about picky kids eating away from home buttered noodles are often mentioned. Was OP supposed to have asked if the guest kid wanted sauce?

Many Americans use the following formula to serve lunch and dinner meals: main +2 or main +3. If you google "divided kids plates" or "divided disposable plates," you'll see compartments with enough room for either main +2 or main +3. These are often available in-person at Targets and Walmarts. It's that common.

There are exceptions, like how pizza or large salads are often served alone. Many times soups may be served with only bread or crackers, but the general convention is to serve more than a main dish. Obviously that's not everyone's convention, hence the insane food war this thread has sparked. It is, however, a thing for many people.

So, no, OP wasn't supposed to have asked if the guest wanted sauce. OP's friend was thrown for a loop when she saw only a main served. Her response was rude, and probably would have been avoided if OP had served some sides with the pasta or turned the pasta into a large pasta salad with the sides basically in the dish.

I'm not saying OP "should" have done that, though, because one convention isn't better than the other. This is more like the "shoes vs no-shoes in the house" debate. No-shoes in the house may be cleaner, but it's not so much so that it's a big deal either way. Serving more food would have been better nutritionally, but ultimately is nbd for one meal. Neither position deserves the vitriol that has been spilled on this thread.

Strong disagree. The neurotic control freak almond moms who think their kids will immediately get colon cancer or scurvy and drop dead because they weren’t offered random fruit and vegetables that they may or may not have even eaten at an impromptu, post-playground lunch deserve ALL the vitriol they have received (and more).

Yet nobody actually cares about your opinion and they aren’t going to feed their kid junk food or trash bc you called them names. You’re outnumbered and come across as foolish.

Nobody cares what you feed your spawn in your own home. People just care that you exhibit basic manners when invited to someone else’s home. OP’s friend acted like a rude brat. That’s what this thread is ultimately about.

This isn’t a difficult concept to understand.

OP felt no shame to give her guests depression-era food. Hospitality = C-
OP's friend felt surprised and asked a question but just ate that slop once it was clear that there were no sides.

This isn't a difficult concept to understand.

+1

But OP’s friend was unnecessarily rude. (NP)

I don't think so. She was surprised and blurted out something. If she would have been really rude she would have asked more questions or made more comments and certainly would not have eaten the food. Boy, this was like a Seinfeld episode.

The food that OP served may have been very traditional in the sense what most Italians eat in Italy etc...but in the US, we are used to a somewhat more balanced meal - some veggies, some protein etc. So, no one is rude - this is merely a cultural divide.

Yes… and that was extremely rude. You realize that one can be *unintentionally* rude, don’t you?

It was not extremely rude. That's an overreaction to something mildly annoying at worst.

You invite someone new over, serve them food you cooked, and they say, "That's lunch?" and tell us how you feel.

If you are not living in a cardboard box under a bridge then this poverty lunch was completely unacceptable.

Why would OP's feeling be hurt? She is completely weird for serving just pasta with butter to invited guests. It was not that these guests dropped in uninvited, FFS. OP invited these people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What restaurants are you guys going to that offer buttered noodles on the menu? I see a lot of mac n cheese but I don't think I've ever seen buttered noodles.

Restaurants will use butter rather than sauce if you ask. I like chicken ziti and broccoli but hate Alfredo sauce. I’ll ask for butter instead, no problem.

Yes, they will. They will also serve you just a side of broccoli, or just ice cream if you ask. That doesn't mean that just broccoli or just ice cream isn't a surprising thing to be offered as an entire meal when you are expecting lunch.

Also ziti with butter, chicken and broccoli, is very different from ziti with just butter.

+1

This is weird food to serve to invited guests.
I have never ever seen a single restaurant offering pasta with butter in their menu.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually am puzzled in that when I read about picky kids eating away from home buttered noodles are often mentioned. Was OP supposed to have asked if the guest kid wanted sauce?

Many Americans use the following formula to serve lunch and dinner meals: main +2 or main +3. If you google "divided kids plates" or "divided disposable plates," you'll see compartments with enough room for either main +2 or main +3. These are often available in-person at Targets and Walmarts. It's that common.

There are exceptions, like how pizza or large salads are often served alone. Many times soups may be served with only bread or crackers, but the general convention is to serve more than a main dish. Obviously that's not everyone's convention, hence the insane food war this thread has sparked. It is, however, a thing for many people.

So, no, OP wasn't supposed to have asked if the guest wanted sauce. OP's friend was thrown for a loop when she saw only a main served. Her response was rude, and probably would have been avoided if OP had served some sides with the pasta or turned the pasta into a large pasta salad with the sides basically in the dish.

I'm not saying OP "should" have done that, though, because one convention isn't better than the other. This is more like the "shoes vs no-shoes in the house" debate. No-shoes in the house may be cleaner, but it's not so much so that it's a big deal either way. Serving more food would have been better nutritionally, but ultimately is nbd for one meal. Neither position deserves the vitriol that has been spilled on this thread.

Strong disagree. The neurotic control freak almond moms who think their kids will immediately get colon cancer or scurvy and drop dead because they weren’t offered random fruit and vegetables that they may or may not have even eaten at an impromptu, post-playground lunch deserve ALL the vitriol they have received (and more).

Yet nobody actually cares about your opinion and they aren’t going to feed their kid junk food or trash bc you called them names. You’re outnumbered and come across as foolish.

Nobody cares what you feed your spawn in your own home. People just care that you exhibit basic manners when invited to someone else’s home. OP’s friend acted like a rude brat. That’s what this thread is ultimately about.

This isn’t a difficult concept to understand.

OP felt no shame to give her guests depression-era food. Hospitality = C-
OP's friend felt surprised and asked a question but just ate that slop once it was clear that there were no sides.

This isn't a difficult concept to understand.

+1

But OP’s friend was unnecessarily rude. (NP)

I don't think so. She was surprised and blurted out something. If she would have been really rude she would have asked more questions or made more comments and certainly would not have eaten the food. Boy, this was like a Seinfeld episode.

The food that OP served may have been very traditional in the sense what most Italians eat in Italy etc...but in the US, we are used to a somewhat more balanced meal - some veggies, some protein etc. So, no one is rude - this is merely a cultural divide.

Yes… and that was extremely rude. You realize that one can be *unintentionally* rude, don’t you?

It was not extremely rude. That's an overreaction to something mildly annoying at worst.

You invite someone new over, serve them food you cooked, and they say, "That's lunch?" and tell us how you feel.

100%. It was ungrateful and rude AF.

You are dumb. This was garbage food. It was not hospitable. It was rude and insulting to serve this trash to a guest. OP sounds like she has intellectual disabilities. Rude AF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually am puzzled in that when I read about picky kids eating away from home buttered noodles are often mentioned. Was OP supposed to have asked if the guest kid wanted sauce?

Many Americans use the following formula to serve lunch and dinner meals: main +2 or main +3. If you google "divided kids plates" or "divided disposable plates," you'll see compartments with enough room for either main +2 or main +3. These are often available in-person at Targets and Walmarts. It's that common.

There are exceptions, like how pizza or large salads are often served alone. Many times soups may be served with only bread or crackers, but the general convention is to serve more than a main dish. Obviously that's not everyone's convention, hence the insane food war this thread has sparked. It is, however, a thing for many people.

So, no, OP wasn't supposed to have asked if the guest wanted sauce. OP's friend was thrown for a loop when she saw only a main served. Her response was rude, and probably would have been avoided if OP had served some sides with the pasta or turned the pasta into a large pasta salad with the sides basically in the dish.

I'm not saying OP "should" have done that, though, because one convention isn't better than the other. This is more like the "shoes vs no-shoes in the house" debate. No-shoes in the house may be cleaner, but it's not so much so that it's a big deal either way. Serving more food would have been better nutritionally, but ultimately is nbd for one meal. Neither position deserves the vitriol that has been spilled on this thread.

Strong disagree. The neurotic control freak almond moms who think their kids will immediately get colon cancer or scurvy and drop dead because they weren’t offered random fruit and vegetables that they may or may not have even eaten at an impromptu, post-playground lunch deserve ALL the vitriol they have received (and more).

Yet nobody actually cares about your opinion and they aren’t going to feed their kid junk food or trash bc you called them names. You’re outnumbered and come across as foolish.

Nobody cares what you feed your spawn in your own home. People just care that you exhibit basic manners when invited to someone else’s home. OP’s friend acted like a rude brat. That’s what this thread is ultimately about.

This isn’t a difficult concept to understand.

OP felt no shame to give her guests depression-era food. Hospitality = C-
OP's friend felt surprised and asked a question but just ate that slop once it was clear that there were no sides.

This isn't a difficult concept to understand.

+1

But OP’s friend was unnecessarily rude. (NP)

I don't think so. She was surprised and blurted out something. If she would have been really rude she would have asked more questions or made more comments and certainly would not have eaten the food. Boy, this was like a Seinfeld episode.

The food that OP served may have been very traditional in the sense what most Italians eat in Italy etc...but in the US, we are used to a somewhat more balanced meal - some veggies, some protein etc. So, no one is rude - this is merely a cultural divide.

Yes… and that was extremely rude. You realize that one can be *unintentionally* rude, don’t you?

It was not extremely rude. That's an overreaction to something mildly annoying at worst.

You invite someone new over, serve them food you cooked, and they say, "That's lunch?" and tell us how you feel.

100%. It was ungrateful and rude AF.

I would not be grateful for noodles. I’d rather have a cup of coffee or tea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually am puzzled in that when I read about picky kids eating away from home buttered noodles are often mentioned. Was OP supposed to have asked if the guest kid wanted sauce?

Many Americans use the following formula to serve lunch and dinner meals: main +2 or main +3. If you google "divided kids plates" or "divided disposable plates," you'll see compartments with enough room for either main +2 or main +3. These are often available in-person at Targets and Walmarts. It's that common.

There are exceptions, like how pizza or large salads are often served alone. Many times soups may be served with only bread or crackers, but the general convention is to serve more than a main dish. Obviously that's not everyone's convention, hence the insane food war this thread has sparked. It is, however, a thing for many people.

So, no, OP wasn't supposed to have asked if the guest wanted sauce. OP's friend was thrown for a loop when she saw only a main served. Her response was rude, and probably would have been avoided if OP had served some sides with the pasta or turned the pasta into a large pasta salad with the sides basically in the dish.

I'm not saying OP "should" have done that, though, because one convention isn't better than the other. This is more like the "shoes vs no-shoes in the house" debate. No-shoes in the house may be cleaner, but it's not so much so that it's a big deal either way. Serving more food would have been better nutritionally, but ultimately is nbd for one meal. Neither position deserves the vitriol that has been spilled on this thread.

Strong disagree. The neurotic control freak almond moms who think their kids will immediately get colon cancer or scurvy and drop dead because they weren’t offered random fruit and vegetables that they may or may not have even eaten at an impromptu, post-playground lunch deserve ALL the vitriol they have received (and more).

Yet nobody actually cares about your opinion and they aren’t going to feed their kid junk food or trash bc you called them names. You’re outnumbered and come across as foolish.

Nobody cares what you feed your spawn in your own home. People just care that you exhibit basic manners when invited to someone else’s home. OP’s friend acted like a rude brat. That’s what this thread is ultimately about.

This isn’t a difficult concept to understand.

OP felt no shame to give her guests depression-era food. Hospitality = C-
OP's friend felt surprised and asked a question but just ate that slop once it was clear that there were no sides.

This isn't a difficult concept to understand.

+1

But OP’s friend was unnecessarily rude. (NP)

I don't think so. She was surprised and blurted out something. If she would have been really rude she would have asked more questions or made more comments and certainly would not have eaten the food. Boy, this was like a Seinfeld episode.

The food that OP served may have been very traditional in the sense what most Italians eat in Italy etc...but in the US, we are used to a somewhat more balanced meal - some veggies, some protein etc. So, no one is rude - this is merely a cultural divide.

Yes… and that was extremely rude. You realize that one can be *unintentionally* rude, don’t you?

It was not extremely rude. That's an overreaction to something mildly annoying at worst.

You invite someone new over, serve them food you cooked, and they say, "That's lunch?" and tell us how you feel.

If you are not living in a cardboard box under a bridge then this poverty lunch was completely unacceptable.

Why would OP's feeling be hurt? She is completely weird for serving just pasta with butter to invited guests. It was not that these guests dropped in uninvited, FFS. OP invited these people.

You don’t have friends so stop commenting

[Anonymous]

Pasta with butter is a completely normal dish to serve children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Husband and I are both Italian. His parents “are off the boat”. My grandparents were too and my parents were born in this country.

We have always had pasta for lunch or dinner.

I was with my kids (girl age 6 and boy 4) and a friend and her kids at a park. I invited them back to our house for lunch.

I made pasta-penne with butter for the kids and vodka sauce for myself and my friend.

She looked at it and said “is this lunch? A bowl of pasta?”

I said yes this is what we usually have. She looked at me oddly and didn’t say anything else and ate.

But what a weird response.

What is weird is serving a lunch with no protein and no vegetables (and probably no whole grains). And, it was rude for her to point it out

A 2 oz (dried) serving of standard white flour pasta alone has 7-8 grams of protein, FYI. And anyone criticizing a meal another serves to them is a poorly-raised moron.

I’m diabetic and wouldn’t be able to eat the pasta, even if anything else was offered. I wouldn’t have an issue with a salad, with or without protein. However, I wouldn’t simply say thanks, but I’m not hungry.