The conventional wisdom about spicy-hot foods seems to be: if you like eating spicy foods, you are cool; if you do not, you are a wimp. Or, in other words: HOT = COOL; NOT HOT = NOT COOL.
This makes sense only if you are involved in something like a hot-wing eating competition, where the goal is not to enjoy your food, but rather to endure more suffering than your opponent. (The exact level of coolness that is imparted by the distinction of having gorged yourself on a messy food item is open to debate, but most people do seem to regard winners as inherently cooler than losers.)
However, if you are eating dinner out with your friends or family, where the goal is presumably to enjoy your food, the conventional wisdom makes less sense. To use myself as an example, I'm a fairly adventurous eater, but I generally don't like spicy-hot foods. My reason is that the burn interferes with my ability to taste other flavors in the food. It's hard to see how wanting to taste your food equates to being a wimp. Nevertheless, I am routinely called a wimp (jokingly, I'll admit) when I refuse the spicier options in favor of something I can actually taste.
It's also worth noting that there's some natural variation in people's ability to detect flavors. Does having a keener sense of taste than most people make you a wimp? Does being taste-impaired make you cool?
And finally, what about other food preferences? Folks don't get branded as wimps for preferring coffee over tea, or rice over pasta.
WTF, people?
With rising health awareness, I'd rather be called a wimp than a cool dude anyday if it means I get to avoid heartburn, high blood pressure, and the ultimate doozy: the heart attack.
ReplyDelete