For many widows, the hardest part is mealtime (2019) | Hacker News Reader

For many widows, the hardest part is mealtime (2019)

nytimes.com

119 pointswallflower124 comments

I'll be seven months in as of two days from now.

I find myself making way too much food, and having to freeze things back. Things I used to make in bulk that would last us 3 meals now take me over a week to finish, if I don't just throw it out.

If I don't want to cook, the thought of going out to eat by myself, getting a table for one, just feels pathetic and I don't want to do it. If I order delivery, I still end up getting too much.

If I make some new thing, something she never got to try, I feel like crap because it's another experience we didn't get to have together. Same for going to a new restaurant. All of this will get easier with time but I wouldn't wish this life on anyone.

I’m so sorry, that sounds unimaginably hard. It’s hard for me to cook interesting things when my SO is just out of town for a bit.

One thing that did work for me when we were separated for a while was treating food like a chore, like showering or running. I gave myself permission to be monotonous, and just kept eating the same simple healthy things.

I have my phone remind me do to all those simple things that used to be effortless, like take a shower, eat something, feed the cat, water the plants, etc.

It does tend to be a lot of the same stuff. I've made more or less the same breakfast for 7 months now.

Right after my spouse passed, my neighbors very cleverly asked me if I could make them coffee and bring it over every morning - I had an espresso maker, it was still peak pandemic with limited access to coffee shops, I'd been so isolated and careful as a caretaker that I wasn't a risk, and they were desperate to have lattes.

That got me out of bed every day for months, right when I wanted to the least. I'd eventually have to leave the house to pick up coffee and milk. It meant making someone happy every day, doing something I enjoyed, saying hi and talking to someone face-to-face even if it was brief. That kept me going and held me accountable. Anything you can do like that is going to make things easier.

Sounds like you have wise and kind neighbors. I'm very sorry for your loss but I'm happy they were able to help keep you connected to life.

Got a very remotely similar story. My sister-in-law recently passed and people have been bringing us food. Which is a lovely thought, but we'd just returned from 10 weeks overseas and cooking for ourselves in our kitchen was something I'd been looking forward to. Instead, we have four lasagnes that our children won't touch because they prefer ours. I think staying busy and involved with people is more positive, at least for me.

Just chiming in to say that I went through all of this myself in 2015. It’s a long adjustment and grief is non-linear, but ultimately adjust you will.

I'm so sorry for your loss.

I understand that the main issue is the sadness, but there is nothing wrong with going to a restaurant by yourself. Absolutely nothing, and there is nothing to be ashamed of or pathetic. No one else in the restaurant will think twice about it either.

Right on. I do sometimes notice when people dine out alone, but I don't see it as strange or lesser than. I really just see them as a strong person, and wonder about their story.

I used to dine out a lot by myself. At first it is strange, but you can get over it. Other people assume you are traveling or working late. The waitstaff tend to pay more attention to you in my experience. Places I frequented would do things like bring me tea right away.

I still dine out alone at times because my family doesn't like some of the places I like to eat (spicy foods mostly) and I don't care what anyone thinks, it doesn't bother me.

There's so much more to it than embarrassment when grief is involved.

For me it felt pathetic because their absence overshadowed absolutely everything else, making it all feel wasted, from the effort to get out of the house to the order to eating to returning home.

It didn't matter if the restaurant or bar was full or empty, what others thought about me never crossed my mind, because all I could think about was the empty seat across from me, the empty stool next to me. Why bother when I can feel like that at home?

That's it, right there. It's less about what I imagine people around me are thinking and more about that inner critic. It's a hard thing to silence.

> Why bother when I can feel like that at home?

Well, the food is better, mostly.

I wish this were true, but I can tell when someone thinks I'm a weirdo for eating out alone. Just a month or two ago I went to a McMenamins (a pub/restaurant chain in Oregon and Washington) to have lunch and poke on my laptop, and the guy seating me literally asked if I didn't, like, have a wife or kids or anything.

What a rude host, damn.

"They died in a car accident. Thanks for asking."

"Yes, they came last week, and i wanted to see if you're as big a cunt as they said you were."

You're not a weirdo. That host is a weirdo.

If a one penny tip was ever warranted, this is the time.

Probably wanted to scout if you’re on a business trip and more likely to tip. Don’t assume malice…

None of his business. It's an absolutely rude comment no matter what the reason is.

Hard to judge, if you weren't there and don't know what was said verbatim, don't you think ? You may be right, but you also may be very wrong. I really dislike the piling on in thread. Jeez!

If a buzzy restaurant or show has a long queue outside you can usually skip it on your own. Feels very cool!

I was bored, went to a pub alone once, played pool with random people, was quite fun. For couple of hours. But didn’t like it as a general habit. But no one cared.

>going out to eat by myself, getting a table for one, just feels pathetic

I do this all the time, movies as well. Never had a spouse, I don't see anything wrong with it. I think you should try it, even if it makes you feel pathetic. You need to learn to live by yourself for a while maybe

I agree with your general sentiment, but try to understand that if you've never been married it might put you into a vastly different frame of mind from someone who has rarely eaten alone without their SO for a long time.

Also, they most certainly do NOT have to "learn to live by yourself", at least not immediately.

It took me about 14 months to get to the point where enjoying something novel didn't invoke guilt. It has gotten, and does and will get, easier, but I also remember where you were very well and I know there's not much I can say that will help you now - it's terrible.

Sorry for your loss. It's never easy.

However, I do want to take away the stigma of eating alone, watching a movie alone, etc. In my previous life, I was a tech consultant who traveled with a team and then was left behind by myself to finish the job. I spent more time alone in New Orleans, Columbus, Newark, and Dallas than I would have ever expected.

What I learned is that many people are alone. Those of us that were alone, together often met others and weren't so alone. It made the time better.

More importantly, you may not want to go out and eat dinner or go to a movie. That is a reasonable choice. That said, if you do and if you are worried about people thinking about you being alone you should know that most people don't notice anyone else. So they are not making judgments.

Most importantly, there are a lot of us who are alone out there. If you sit at the bar (and don't worry about drinking or not), you'll fit right in with the rest of us who are doing the same thing. We're all in this together.

"Yes they're sharing a drink they call loneliness, but it's better than drinking alone."

Billy Joel - The Pianoman.

Going to a movie alone sucks. It also sucks when going with someone, just not as much.

The better choice is to watch the movie at home. Then you can pause it when you need to use the bathroom, you can eat whatever food/snacks you want without paying a fortune, the sound won't be too loud, you won't have to deal with obnoxious jerks around you, you won't have to worry about getting shot by some crazy off-duty cop, you won't have to sit through 30 minutes of ads, I could go on and on...

I love going to the movie theater by myself. I dont think it sucks at all and its quite great.

Its easier to get fully immersed. Its easier to find a seat. I can still chat with friends who saw the movie later by themselves.

>I dont think it sucks at all and its quite great.

You enjoy sitting there uncomfortable with a full bladder? Or you don't mind missing 5 minutes of the movie when you need to go?

I like going to the movies by myself. I used to do this all the time when I was single. I can just watch the movie and not worry about anything else.

It's ok to go to movies with other people too, but you aren't really socializing while you are watching the movie, unless you want to disturb the people around you.

I am sorry for you loss. someone I hold dear shared "A short story for support, by an old man" with me and I found it helpful. I don't know who wrote it, but perhaps I can share it here.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I2OnFobFvY0m3i4SGuDFh2kH...

Divorced for two years and I did most of the cooking, it didn't affect me much because I was already making large batches of food and freezing it. Here's my system:

- I cook about two dishes per week that freeze and re-heat well. (chilis, curries, soups, stews, refried beans, hummus, beans, etc) - I cook 6-8 servings at a time, eat one right away and put two away and freeze the rest - Before I eat up the rest of what's in the fridge, I get another 2-4 servings out of the freezer and put them in the fridge - If I don't want to have what's in the fridge or freezer I cook a quick meal (stir fry, omelet, mac & cheese, pasta, ramen, etc)

I never get bored of my food and I don't spend a ton of time cooking. I also like to make things that can be "remixed" into other dishes to keep things interesting.

Divorced and Widowed is not the same thing. In later specially in happy marriage grief component is very profound. In case of divorce grief might not be present.

I'll add to this, gently. There can be some awkwardness around how others refer to the person in your life who died. "Ex" is definitely not it. Gently correct them.

Also, when I talk about that time or person in my life, depending how much I want to get it into it and the level of familiarity, I describe that person using one of:

- My late wife

- My wife, who passed away

- My wife at the time

- A family friend

- I know someone who...

If I'm trying to relate to something a relative stranger is telling me, I'll use one of the later versions unless I want to drop the (often unknown what to do with) bomb that I experienced such-and-such with my dead wife, too. Many people don't know how to handle that.

> If I'm trying to relate to something a relative stranger is telling me, I'll use one of the later versions unless I want to drop the (often unknown what to do with) bomb that I experienced such-and-such with my dead wife, too. Many people don't know how to handle that.

Asking as someone that wants someone such as yourself, a total stranger, to feel like they can share however much they need if it helps in any way: how _should_ I handle that?

It kinda pains me to hear you basically explain how you have to consider another person's feelings when you are in pain. I can't imagine even having that capability myself, were I walking in your shoes.

I guess I just mostly mean keeping the seriousness level of the conversation at about the same place. If it's someone I know well or we're talking pretty seriously, I'd bring up the topic. If it's a light conversation, especially with a stranger or lesser-known acquaintance, I'd relate things in a way that doesn't necessarily bring up a death unless that's relevant to the topic at hand.

being a victim of divorce court is entirely a circumstance of your choosing.

first, I absolutely agree that divorcee and widow are entirely different concepts and experiences.

But, unpopular opinion : becoming romantically involved with another is also a circumstance of your choosing; and although the death of a partner is rarely the choice of a spouse, the emotional involvement and entangled lives are the product of choices by both parties.

root parent : I can't myself imagine the loss of my partner, as I have grown so dependent on the relationship and the companionship provided. I think you are coping very well compared to how I see myself handling something similar, and I hope your days continue to improve.

As for the restaurant judgements : who cares what other people think? Screw 'em. There's a lot of judgemental bastards out there, and their opinion doesn't mean a damn thing.

That's simply not true, and I'm not entirely sure what would motivate someone to say such a thing. I would speculate, however, that it's a gleeful kind of trolling, a chance to say, "But it was your fault!" in the face of someone in great pain.

Consider the case where your child dies. Yet, you chose to have a child, knowing that he or she may die. So, you are also suffering from a circumstance of your choosing, no? Well, no, that is absurd. In fact, any misfortune can be similarly characterized as "of your choosing" since choice always affects the situation we experience. The logical problem is that the situation is not a function only of choice; change factors in, as do the choices of others. The ethical, or moral problem is that such a statement openly expresses contempt for those in pain, and a positive desire to increase that pain, and I think sadists like that serve no purpose on this Earth.

It will get easier. Six and a half years for me, after almost ten of marriage. I wasn't the main meal preparer, but everything about mealtime took a different tack, including going out and experiencing new things in life. I felt like half of a team tackling the world. Eventually I moved to the mindset that the number one thing she would have wanted for me was to keep adventuring and getting out there, and I took to it quickly. Just as we grew to a be a team, I grew for a while to be solo, and then eventually grew to be a team with someone else. Our hearts heal and our patterns can change.

It has been 14 months since my wife passed after thirty years of marriage. There is a lot of good advice here. All I can say is things can get better. Grief is a process. Be kind to yourself. Seek out the company others if you can remotely tolerate it. Honor your wife by trying to be healthy and happy. You are not alone in your struggle.

Every time things like this come up, people rightly mention multigenerational households.

But then someone else brings up the lack of privacy and imposition of having multiple generations under one roof.

What I never heard people talk about, though is changing our architectural practices to support multigenerational households. There are "mother-in-law suites" you see sometimes (though these days they seem to be mostly for renters). But I think there is a huge opportunity to innovate in how we design homes to balance the need for community with larger families against the need for privacy and solitude.

> changing our architectural practices to support multigenerational households

Yes this. Our house has a mother in law suite. While we have tiny kids it's my office and my partner's art studio but it converts nicely into a guest suite. When my kids are grown I expect at least one of them will want to move to the MIL suite on a semi-permanent basis.

> changing our architectural practices to support multigenerational households

This is true about so many things. Infrastructure and architecture around us lead to a majority of emergent properties in the way society interacts.

In the 3rd world, it is fairly common to purchase an apartment for your parents in the same neighborhood as where you settle in. The free daycare itself makes up for the mortgage and the old people sitting by benches on evenings serve as communal protection while the kids play seemingly unsupervised.

At this point it's a topic beaten to death, and it's edgy to say, but I really believe the suburb/highway model 95% of America is stuck with is the root of all evil. Whether people voluntarily seek it out or they're trapped in it. Every bad thing I can think of seems to stem from it in one way or another. Physical, mental, financial, environmental, and political health all considered.

> topic beaten to death, and it's edgy to say

It's sad that that when a big enough part of a population reaches the obvious conclusion, it is considered edgy because the magnitude of the damage that was caused is so large, and is finally recognized as such.

> suburb/highway model 95% of America is stuck with is the root of all evil

There are very few mono-causal absolutes that I actually agree with and this is one of them.

>but I really believe the suburb/highway model 95% of America is stuck with is the root of all evil.

I think you're mistaking "occasionally challenged" for edgy. People who believe what you believe are dominant on HN. You're basically just bemoaning that you're not so dominant that you never see criticism.

One common objection I hear is that there's clearly a revealed preference for that kind of housing in North America, because it's still relatively in-demand.

But by that standard there's also a revealed preference for airline food on airliners.

Excellent analogy. And pretty much no one who advocates for allowing more flexible housing wants to forbid suburban single family detached homes. Buy that, if that's what you want. Just stop limiting everyone else to that.

Some I've discussed this issue with eventually reveal that they like the status quo because it gives them more options for their preference, others' preferences be damned.

Of course. The core idea behind zoning is limiting other's preferences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_of_Euclid_v._Ambler_Re....

People want safety and space and cities didn’t provide that so those who could left.

In my limited experience (I immigrated to a developing country in Asia 10 years ago) it's more common to inherit your sole home from your parents, and live with them in it your whole lives. It's not unusual to have three or four families living in a 20 square meter home -- although these properties thankfully usually have 2-3 floors. So you're never alone, ever -- for better and worse.

Wealth here is primarily inherited, not earned. It is uncommon for people to afford to buy an apartment over the course of their lives. In my city at least, an OK apartment is around USD 200k-300k (not even close to the city center). An OK salary is about USD 500 a month.

The free daycare aspect is absolutely critical so that both parents can work, and maybe bring in enough to send their children to university. It's not uncommon for one or both parents to additionally have a side gig evenings or weekends. Later on, maybe when one parent can afford to work less, you care for your parents.

Also as an additional thing, there's always a family shrine. You still cook meals for ancestors. You leave a place for them at special occasions, and celebrate their death anniversary. It's not unusual for someone to stand up in front of the shrine and talk to them for a long period. I'm not a spiritual person, but that frequent shared connection to the past, and its interaction with grief, is interesting.

Anyway, I thought you would appreciate that small slice of life here.

I wish we'd at least go back to putting walls in houses. These open floorplans that look so nice in real-estate photos and have that "wow" factor when you walk through the front door suck to live in, but it's most of what gets built these days. Give me rooms with doors, damnit.

We had a small bungalow with so many doors. Literally every room except the common room had them. I removed a few, but once kids arrived it was clear why it was built that way.

They don’t suck to live in. I would much rather live in an open floor plan. Maybe your needs are different and you need privacy within the common areas of your house, but not everyone has those same needs.

It's a give and take.

We have an open floor plan in our main living area. It's a "give" in that I am able to watch my children playing in the common area from the kitchen. It's a "take" in that if I am cooking with the exhaust fan on, there's no way you can hear the TV.

It's also a take in the sense that when people come over, they see the mess in the kitchen if there is one. Sometimes a door is nice that way.

They're fine when you've got a huge amount of square footage to spare, for the number of people in the house. A common time to realize how much nicer some walls and doors would be is after having kids. Walls and doors let you have a larger number of occupants living in a given space without sacrificing comfort.

Our house has an open kitchen + living room + entryway + stairway, and that's not so bad—because we also have a huge basement, four bedrooms for 2 adults + 3 kids, two extra rooms that are walled off with doors (we had to add the doors, though...), et c. So that open space is OK, because we have way more house than we'd need to be similarly-comfortable if it were better laid out, including having more walls and doors.

> ...opportunity to innovate in how we design homes... @munificent

This sounds like a statement made by someone that's never gone through the US process of purchasing a new home.

New homes have floorplans that are not designed to be 'consumer usable.' The floorplans and layout of the development are designed to maximize profit. That means squeezing tiny spaces into tiny plots in order to make several million more dollars per development, sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars.

These generic plans are drawn up by the lowest-cost bidder, and then sold to buyers who can barely afford those.

The entire market is complicit in this, and it is by design.

Want a multi-generational house? It won't be in a development, and it will cost more than two houses that are in a development.

Good luck with that...

You can have a custom home built. In general they are 10-20% more expensive. Because any savings in economies of scale a developer might see get converted to profit, not savings. Architects are a thing and do take on SFH projects when asked.

If these crap floorplans didn't sell people wouldn't build them. If they sold worse there'd be alternatives.

I don't see why people want them but clearly they do.

It could be a classic information asymmetry (people don't know what they want until they've lived with it, or even know that something better is possible).

The same process that has turned most store-bought strawberries into freakishly-large flavorless blobs.

People generally pick a location, set some criteria (must have X bedrooms, Y bathrooms, Z square footage, parking), see the small integer number of houses in the market in that location satisfying those criteria in-budget, and go with the one whose maintenance seems least daunting.

There aren't even really enough options to be picky about floor-plan most of the time, especially if the house with the wonderful floor-plan hasn't had the roof replaced for 15 years.

^This^

Looking to buy a home soon. Our checklist on location wipes out most of the market. IE not in floodzone, near enough to work, train station, reasonable schooling, shops.

Get a solar sensible(not passive, not perfect, just vaguely right) house with those requirements? "Tell him he's dreamin'!"

I haven't even got to caring about the floorplan being open or not...

You're absolutely right that I've never bought a new house because exactly as you note, the floorplans of new construction are built to maximize profit and wow naïve buyers when touring the house.

That doesn't change the fact of my statement: The way we design houses is worse for our psychological health. Therefore, there is an opportunity to improve our mental health by designing them different. There may be economic problems in the way of that opportunity, but the opportunity is still there.

By "opportunity" I don't mean "easy thing we can do" I mean "understood problem that is possible to solve".

"Granny flats", they're called here, but they fell out of fashion because:

(a) New houses tend to be built in housing estates as either terraces or semi-detached without the land to add on a granny flat like in a lot of the pre-1950s houses that had them added on later.

(b) A lot of them were rather shoddily built.

(c) The end of single-income households for most of the populace means that even if someone was living in a granny flat, the younger generation would not be around to offer company/assistance because both are working.

> (b) A lot of them were rather shoddily built.

Yeah, I don't think my mother-in-law suite has a true right angle in it anywhere other than my IKEA bookshelf :V

Not terribly surprising it was a DIY build by my landlord's father back in the 60s.

The main reason is that zoning makes it impossible to build them in most places. That has recently changed in CA and the amount of permits submitted for ADUs has increased by multiple magnitudes in the last 5 years (in certain locales, LA being one).

And even when it's legal, it's often not "by right". So you end up with restrictions against e.g. renting out both the main house and the ADU.

I know this isn't the discussion but felt relevant to add - I think they should be legal to build and live in as a primary residence, but if the plan is just to rent it out then I think there should be restrictions. That seems like it would incentivize people to do more rent-seeking and build multiple smaller houses instead of selling the land to someone that wants to actually live there.

Not sure how popular this opinion is on here but I generally think we should be disincentivizing rental properties as long as we have a shortage in the housing market. Otherwise land and rental prices just rise because it makes more sense to rent than to sell. My naïve solution is something like "You pay 60% property tax on your primary residence and add 40% for each additional one". Then if you wanted to own and rent 8 houses you could but you'd be paying 300% property tax on the 8th house, which would change the incentives so it makes more sense to sell than to buy up properties and plan to rent them out

Unless this was paired with some serious house building incentives, I think this will enable the 20th-40th percentile by wealth to buy houses, at the cost of preventing the 0th-20th percentile from ever moving out of their parent's house.

So you'd have the bottom 20th percentile unhappy because of the limits to their living situation, and the 80th percentile upwards unhappy because of the reduction in their rental income. I can't see it being politically viable.

Definitely agreed it's not politically viable haha, just seems like a good solution to the issue of housing affordability.

Also as some others said it would need to be paired with building incentives to also make it easier for people to build homes, but in the short term the benefit would be incentivizing people to sell rental properties at a lower price and promote home ownership.

I agree people won't be happy about reduction in rental income, but I don't think we should be incentivizing people to use housing as a way to make money - that's basically going to guarantee that prices are higher than they should be because the whole goal is to profit from it.

Some restrictions might be appropriate, but a lot of people don't have the savings to buy even a small house and need inexpensive places to rent, so more in-law apartments in cities would help a lot.

You don’t have to do any of that. Rentals provide a huge value to society. There is a large portion of the population in any given city that would prefer renting over buying.

To fix our housing issues we just need to make it easier to build homes. That is it.

They didn't _quite_ "fall out of fashion" - they were made illegal by a certain group of people, in order to reduce the relative power/independence of other groups of people.

In India, some families do follow this type of setup. My neighbor was asking me if I wanted to sell my apartment because he wanted to combine his apartment with mine so that his parents could stay with him. In my neighborhood there are few families, who could afford, have bought 2-3 apartments and combined them so that three generations can stay under one roof.

Yes, this is a great idea. This would have been built a long time ago, however zoning doesn't allow for it in the vast majority of cities in the US.

California is making a tiny bit of progress by pushing for ADU's, but for the most part, it's just not allowed.

I met someone who was recently retired and who had built their dream. The guest bedrooms were immediately the left and right of the entry, at the end of whi h a giant open living room dining room and kitchen. Opposite the entry is another set of double doors which separated the garage+masterBd.+distillery, with another door to the master at the end

Guests could come and go and you wouldnt even need to acknowledge them if you didnt feel like it. And you wouldnt hear them.

I remember thinking how odd it was that I was looking into a bedroom as soon as i entered and ive only ever thought more and more how great an idea it was for intermittent visitors.

While eating at a restaurant yesterday I saw my old friend who lost his partner to cancer 2 months ago eating alone. He was looking very lonely, and I was struck with how eating is an immense part of our social life as humans.

I walked over and chatted after which he looked physically healthier. Let's not forget our loved ones.

In general I have a rule - if I see someone at a restaurant I know who is alone I offer to join them. Or if they walk in I wave them over.

I don’t get a ton of chances to utilize this rule, but it’s been successful.

You're a nice person. I'm often alone, and I might or might not welcome the company, depending.

It's probably easier for a table of three or more to welcome a stranger. There are actually restaurants where "big tables full of strangers" are the rule, not the exception.

"Sit at the bar" is my recommendation. Being alone is more normal there, and it's easy to chat with the person next to you.

Yeah, one of the nicest things about Amtrak long-distance trains is you sit to dinner at a packed table for 4 no matter how many are in your party. Somehow that leads to conversation when sitting next to someone for ten hours on a plane doesn't.

I found this one of the most obnoxious aspects of riding the Zephyr.

Even when there were plenty of open dining tables staff packed us in like sardines with complete strangers who half the time devolved the conversation into insane right-wing politics and spouting q-anon level conspiracy theories.

It only served to further cement my preference for fasting on train rides. That round-trip was shared with my mother who attended every meal in the dining car, and sometimes I just went with to keep her company. The social aspect could be great if the quality of the people were more predictably good... but it's an outmoded form of travel inching across the USA, I found the people mostly unwelcome at the shared table.

Different strokes. Maybe you and your mother could subtly make fun of the crazies, in a way that you two could laugh about later.

I knew a guy whose standard answer to a crazy conspiracist was to look seriously at them and say, "It's even worse than you think!" Never tried that, myself.

That's not really what I'm interested in when trying to enjoy/share a meal.

Much of the social problems in the Zephyr's dining car are created by Amtrak. I'm not sure if it was this way pre-covid, but presently only sleeper car passengers have dining car access. It could be another form of skimpflation. But the current experience on that train is highly segregated coach vs. sleeper car passengers. This selects for a specific demographic in the dining car.

The socializing is much healthier and more diverse in the lounge car where all passengers have access, and you get to choose where you sit and have freedom to move around at will.

What goes on in the dining car today is a complete shit show.

(I rode the Zephyr between IL and CA four times this year, twice in coach and twice in a sleeper (two round trips))

I know that you're doing it with a good heart, just wanted to point out that are some of us who do like to eat out alone. After my divorce about 10 years ago there were a few years when I went out eating all by myself and I couldn't say that I was sad during those going outs, quite the contrary.

Also, I personally don't like socialising, as in talking, while eating, and I guess I'm not alone in this.

Each to his own. Just don't forget the vastly different experiences everyone on this planet has.

Of course, hence my comment.

There's a lesser version of this in the "empty nest" scenario. When my daughter (only child) went to college, there were suddenly some meals I had no reason to cook - it's funny how you can miss cooking something you never particularly cared to eat - and many snacks I had no reason to stock. Even the meals I do cook have often needed adjustment for two people instead of three. Still haven't found a good half-size pan for my "Hamtramck style" pizza (Detroit style with kielbasa). The kitchen is definitely a sadder place than it used to be, and it does make me wonder about the days when it'll be just one.

Also, now I understand better why my mother always kept my favorite cookies around even though we only visited once a year or less. I never had the heart to tell her that they were always stale by the time we got there.

My oldest recently moved out, youngest off to college... I'm finding it difficult to adjust cooking habits as well. It's interesting to me how our behaviors adjust to accommodate life's needs and how noticeable they become once they're no longer needed.

Lloyd Pans makes really great detroit style pizza pans in several sizes (the 8"x10" one might be good for two people depending on how much you eat), hope that helps a bit. https://lloydpans.com/detroit-style-pizza-pans.html

Several months ago I learned I have celiac disease (the "no gluten" autoimmune disease) and I also have extremely high LDL cholesterol (~200 LDL-C), so I've removed all gluten and almost all saturated fat from my diet. At this point I don't believe I can eat out anymore, and yeah, it sucks. So many old friendships were maintained by a lunch meeting every 6 months. Eating is just the default social activity everyone participates in. I don't know a replacement for that.

The standard American diet lives up to its acronym. It's sad that a single food allergy and a goal to follow dietary guidelines eliminates almost all fast food and resturaunt food. Hell, at this point I believe anyone simply wanting to follow saturated fat guidelines is excluded from eating out.

Nobody has to die in order for you to find yourself eating alone every meal.

If your friends know of your condition, perhaps during the warmer months instead of meeting at a restaurant you can meet at a park nearby - they can grab some takeout and you can bring something that meets your needs.

It's relatively easy to find "gluten free" these days (though that varies on how actually gluten free it is) but the saturated fats are going to be harder to miss.

I've had similar experience. I found that I went through a kind of mourning for my old life for a while. It's a huge adjustment.

It also eats up a huge amount of time - reading labels for hidden ingredients, trying to come up with a meal that you can make that doesn't include the bad things etc. It became very isolating. Eventually I decided I had to figure out a middle ground.

I will meet people for "lunch" and just have coffee, or whatever I can tolerate from the menu. I have people over more often because I know what I cook won't make me sick. I went back to eating out - it takes a while to figure out/trust restaurants you can eat at. There will be mistakes along the way.

Good luck - I hope it gets easier for you.

I somehow started inviting friends and meetings for walks instead of meals.

It started because I was tired of sitting all day. And because I was connected to a VC and had meetings where I could dictate the terms, I’d let people know that I didn’t want to sit and see a PowerPoint. I wanted to walk along the beach (near my office) and walk.

Now I also have a few friends I do this with. Friends I don’t see often. I find walking to be better for conversation, health, and just more fun.

Not sure if this is possible. I live and work by the beach and near a lot of parks. But I strongly recommend at least offering it. There must be other people sick of sitting all the time.

Does keto diet work for you? Based on your description I guess it would. Some restaurants offer some dishes which work for keto diet, but its still not widespread.

It may, but unlike most omission diets, celiac disease requires strict cross-contamination avoidance requiring special considerations in the prep area (or better yet, a separate prep area). It's difficult for restaurants to provide safe gluten-free meals but in general I've noticed the options are much better than they were a decade ago.

Just someone handling flour in the same space will contaminate a celiac's food, a Keto person would never notice.

Find restaurants that are celiac-safe. You may find it safer to pick cuisines that naturally don't include wheat, than to get the gluten-free option at a regular gluten-y restaurant.

South-east Asian cooking in general doesn't naturally include wheat or other grains and is usually a safe option.

A good portion of Chinese and Japanese dishes work too. Soy is gluten-free but dark soy is 50-50.

While soy is gluten free, most soy sauce brands are not..

My dad passed away recently. My mom was constantly trying to cook for me. She did all the cooking for my dad.

Was weird in that he wanted food cooked the same exact way as she had done for the last 48 years, no variation tolerated.

Trouble being that she was is a terrible cook and he liked his food burnt to hell and loaded with sugar and massive quantities of taco seasoning.

Pretty sure Taco Bell is healthier.

So I ended up doing all the cooking.

She seemed to make up for lack of cooking time by showing me things of his I might want for hours on end for multiple weeks.

Me and siblings now have tons of boxes of stuff we don’t want. But it calmed her down for us to take it.

I didn’t realize how important making the meals was to her. Not that she cares about the food. She knew it was terrible. She was excited to start eating the way she wants to.

But 40+ years of habit is really hard to break.

Side tip. We leaned hard way that social security survivor benefits and various pensions will stop immediately and take multiple months to switch to widow benefits. We got her covered. But was a nasty surprise.

Seeing this up close with my mother-in-law. Her husband passed away 2 years ago and she's still in the same broken state as the day he died.

After 50 years together, the triggers are unavoidable. The town, every place in it, every routine, everything in the house, every action she does...it's all connected to him in an inescapable way.

She's functional but it's as if any meaning and purpose was rugged away. She can't grow over it or recover, it runs too deep. 50 years isn't a phase, it's a blended life now brutally ripped apart.

She's now effectively waiting for it to be over. Still living independently in an apartment building full of her kind, as us men pass early. Her future now holds waiting to become care-dependent, lose all control and dignity, and then some more waiting.

Yes, controversial as it may be, I question the humanity of our "humane" approach. But I digress, and would emphasize to cherish your loved ones and your good years.

The only senior living situation I've ever witnessed that actually seemed like an enviable one is the one my paternal grandparents lived in. Place reminded me a lot of my rather nice university living situation, but with significantly larger apartments. Communal spaces including several dining halls with appropriately nice food, activities both actively organized (trips, approachable hikes, various clubs, classes, guest lecturers) and simply available (sports courts, a wood shop, a gym with a pool). Basically, university for those with a lower tolerance for discomfort, with a significantly more busy health clinic.

Of course, that all came with the requirement of spending a not-so-small fortune. But it really demonstrates, to me at least, that the dichotomy between "living alone" and "wasting away in a care home that resembles a hospital" is a false one, a product of a cruel economic system more than anything else.

When a person is enveloped in grief, cooking a meal is the most impossible thing to do. The reasons are many, but it is so.

If someone you know has just lost their loved one, in those days soon after, visit them, and take containers with some meals you have prepared. Like, heat'em and eat'em.

Even if you only go to check in and hug and drop them off.

It will relieve that person of a burden.

A counterblanace to this:

My stepfather is dying of melanoma. My mom says the last thing she wants is people bringing food by--largely because she just doesn't have the energy left to deal with socializing, in any capacity, even the polite "Oh, thanks" of receiving the food, or much worse the inevitable "So how's he doing? How are you?"

I considered asking her if something like leaving a fridge accessible for people to stash things in without contact would help, but I felt a bit like I was missing the point: I think so often in situations like this we, those outside of the emotional experience, focus on ways we can help because it makes us feel better. Consistently what's been helpful for her, and for me, in talking with others isn't so much having suggestions or problem-solving, but just sharing the absolutely crushing absurdity of the experience of watching another human slowly die, and have the other person say "I don't even know what to say, that just sounds exhausting/insane/stressful."

Culturally we seem to focus so much on accelerating these seasons of grief because we don't want people to remain in pain, but some of it's necessary. There's a balance of being able to sit in the loss, and let it be real, that's a necessary part of the grieving process.

I might be missing your point a bit: of course having access to healthy food is useful when you're incapable of doing it yourself. I think I just personally wish for more awareness that most "outsiders'" immediate reaction when exposed to emotional pain of this magnitude is to find A Thing To Do to alleviate them of the emotional pressure they feel, regardless of the energy it requires from the sufferer to engage with that.

I'm always going to caveat this with a request to get permission before bringing food. Aside from all the usual dietary concerns, it can backfire the same ways as other well-meaning acts - flowers that die in front of you, cards or gifts that make the worst memories persist.

If multiple people do this without coordination, or I'm not hungry or simply don't like it, I felt guilty throwing it out. Even if I did eat it, if I ate it alone I associated that food with the grief and absence in that moment, which compounded the grief and made me resent the food, which festered guilt anyway.

What I wanted so, so, so much more than the food was the company. I'd take a frozen pizza or a cold drive-thru burger and an evening of talking in those first weeks and months over a delicious homecooked meal that was dropped off with a brief visit and left alone with me, every single time.

Staying as company felt inclusive and distracting in ways that helped. Dropping it off felt like I was a burden, a responsibility getting checked off of a list. In retrospect I know better, but in the moment it was a dangerous feeling.

If that's all you can do, it's more than nothing, and it can be appreciated. But just ask first, communicate that, if you can then offer to do more when you're able to.

In a short span, we were brought 3-4 butter chickens and 3-4 lasagnes, none of which our kids will eat and all brought mostly at the same time. I was putting lasagne in the compost last night after the children all turned it down. My wife is grieving her sister and was hoping not to receive flowers, though that has proven hard to avoid and they're starting to die off.

Helping with food after the funeral, helping with tasks like picking up the children, dropping off some kitchen staples, etc have certainly been appreciated.

My grandmother became a widow this year, after almost 70 years of marriage.

She talked daily about how she finds it hard to eat, or make food, for one. Our solution now is that she visits other family members for dinner instead, and that helps at least for dinner time.

After my dad passed away, my mom returned home, where they had stayed for more than a decade. My sister called my mom that evening during dinner time to enquire how she was doing and whether she had her dinner. My mom said, "I am cooking, and I feel that he(i.e. my dad) is sitting at the dinner table wait to be served dinner. Even during lunch I felt his presence. I am not alone."

My sister just hung up the phone and drove along with her husband to pick up my mom and bring her back with them. My mom is staying with them ever since.

One of the things I did with my family was disbanding the shared dinner.

I’ll make food, anyone can make their own food, and eat whenever. I do restrict unhealthy food for the kids. It’s not a total free for all.

By separating food and socializing, I hope to reduce their risk of obesity, which is not uncommon in my family. So far so good.

This is a really bad idea. The shared family meal is essential to the proper socialization of children. There has been study after study done.

You are making a terrible mistake.

=========================== The Theory of Holes ===========================

The Theory of Holes is a fundamental idea used in the Diamond Approach. Under usual circumstances, people are full of what we call “holes,” which refer to any parts of you that have been lost, meaning any parts of you that you have lost consciousness of.

Ultimately what we have lost awareness of is our essence or pure Being—who we truly are. When we are not aware of our essence, it stops manifesting. Then we feel a sense of deficiency. So a hole is nothing but the absence of a certain part of our essence. It could be the loss of love, loss of value, loss of capacity for contact, loss of strength, any of the qualities of Essence. However, to say we have lost parts of Essence does not mean they are gone forever. You are simply cut off from consciousness of them.

Let’s take, for example, the quality of value or self-esteem. When you are cut off from your value, the actual experience is a sense that there is a hole inside that feels empty. You feel a sense of deficiency, a sense of inferiority, and you want to fill this hole with value from the outside. You may try to use approval, praise, whatever. You try to fill the hole with acquired value.

We walk around with lots of holes, but we usually aren’t aware of them. We’re usually aware of desires: “I want praise. I want to be successful. I want this person to love me. I want this or that experience.” The presence of desires and needs indicates the presence of holes.

These holes originated during childhood, partly as a result of traumatic experiences or conflicts with the environment. Perhaps your parents did not value you. They didn’t treat you as if your wishes or presence were important, or act in ways that let you know that you mattered. They ignored your essential value. Because your value was not seen or acknowledged, you got cut off from that part of you; what was left was a hole.

When you relate to someone in a deep way, you fill your holes with the other person. Some of your holes get filled with what you believe you’re getting from the other person. For example, you may feel valued because this person appreciates you. You don’t know consciously that you’re filling the hole with their appreciation. But when you are with that person, you feel valuable, and unconsciously you feel the other person is responsible for your value. Whatever this person is giving you feels like a part of you; it is part of the fullness that you experience. Except that the value you now feel is dependent on the presence of the other person.

Your unconscious does not see as separate that part of the person that makes you feel valuable; you see it as part of you. When the person dies or the relationship ends, you don’t feel that you’re losing that person; you feel you’re losing whatever is filling the hole. You experience the loss of a part of yourself. It feels like you’re being cut and something is being taken out of you. You may feel as if you lost your heart, your security, your strength, your will—whatever the person fulfilled for you. When you lose a person close to you, you feel whatever hole that person has filled.

It is rare that another person fills all your holes. You have many people and activities in your life, and still, they don’t fill all your holes. There will be some holes left, and this keeps the dissatisfaction going.

Our society is set up to teach us that we should get the outside to fill our holes; we should get value, love, strength, and so on from outside. We talk about how wonderful it is to do things for other people, or to fall in love, or have a meaningful profession, as if these activities are what give life meaning. We attribute the meaning to the person or thing we think is responsible for it rather than to Essence, which is really responsible.

People try to fill holes in different ways. A woman may think, “Oh, so that’s what I’m doing with my husband! I’m trying to use him to fill my holes. Okay, now I won’t talk to him for the next two weeks.” She is trying to fill her holes by blaming her husband for filling them in the past. It is very clever how we try to fill our holes.

It takes a long time for people to understand that trying to fill holes doesn’t work. It is Essence, and only Essence, that can eliminate holes—deficiencies—and it does so from the inside.

Sounds interesting. But I don't like the business model on the website.

Maybe create an intuitive to make arts/theatre productions based on the concepts? (and get revenue from per-ticket-sales / per-artwork-sales / wonderfruit-like-festival-entrance-fee ?)

Even a set of in-person yoga classes will be different.

Juicing directly from people-in-need online is a bit sad, don't you think

eg On the website ->

> Standard Tuition

> The standard tuition for this 11-month course is $900. If you cannot afford to pay for the full course up front, we offer a monthly payment option of $90/month for 10 months.

This is just another negative to not diversifying your happiness sources and friend circles.

When literally the only shared activity you engage in is eating at the same table with few other people, and that activity is also the only thing you do that brings pleasure, you're completely destroyed when it's disrupted.

It's such a lazy, low-effort existence. Invest more effort and time in doing fun stuff, go camping, hiking, cycling, sailing, running, climbing... find good active friends who do diverse fun things where eating is an inconvenience because there's so much better things to do and you're no longer addicted to shoving comforting things in your mouth, go take some effing risks.

Don't be surprised when you don't bother and what pittances of pleasure sources you had vanish and you're up shit's creek without a paddle, and probably don't even have your health because you've been pleasure eating for decades while likely living an otherwise sedentary boring ass life.

This is such a lazy, bad take.

I was deeply moved by the article thinking about my own relationship of twenty years, and imagining the inevitable death of one of us in the future.

Much of my own pain would involve activities you suggest while giving advice about something you don't understand.

I immediately thought about how my ski routine would be a trigger like this for me. I ski near 100 days a year. My first thought reading the article was how much I would hurt making morning coffee and breakfast without my husband and not talking and making ski plans for the day. And how hard and long it would be for that break in daily routine to no longer be a constant reminder of absence. All the harder by it's very routineness and connection to something that is otherwise very pleasurable to me.

That this type of pain would be mitigated by "getting out there and doing fun stuff and having more friends and not pleasure eating" is a perspective with zero understanding of what the bond in a decades long marriage is like or why meal time is so emotionally salient.

I just had to help my grieving mother with house repairs all summer and she's steeped in exactly this easily mitigated outcome.

It's a completely absurd self-created easily predicted misery and extremely depressing to witness.

Easily mitigated by what? Doing less things with your partner seems to be your suggestion?

I am active with close friends that I have maintained for even longer! I am lucky enough to continue having close friends of 25 years I still do things with (including skiing).

The idea that my friends and activities mitigates this problem is absurd and I think shows how little you understand.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com