On Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 7:49:12 PM UTC-10, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 12:51:10 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
> > On 2016-02-02 10:54 AM, sf wrote:
> > > On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 21:07:31 -0500, Dave Smith
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Desserts generally come as a single serving
> > >> portion and there should be no assumption that they are willing to share
> > >> it with everyone at the table.
> > >
> > > If you call the monstrous desserts they serve a single portion, I'm
> > > surprised you aren't a blimp.
> > >
> >
> > I don't usually have dessert for myself in restaurants and I don't live
> > in the land of ginormous piles of mediocre food. I did say that my wife
> > I occasionally split on, in which case we ask for two spoons or forks. I
> > think it is ludicrous for a group of people to expect to share a dessert
> > with the whole table.
>
> Why does sharing dessert have to mean you're eating with more than one
> other person?
>
> --
>
> sf

Sharing food has some social and cultural significance. Americans are used to having their individual plate of food but for the rest of the world that's not the norm. When I eat with the family in restaurants, we're always eating off of each other's plates. Sharing a dessert with my son's girlfriend or daughter's boyfriend is not just sampling a sweet morsel, it means acceptance into the family - at least tentatively. It's a small step but certainly not trivial.