The (Other) Omnivore's Dilemma

I think that the whole "oh, I could never be vegetarian cuz then my diet would be all boring" argument is pretty fatuous. In theory, an omnivorous diet would open a person up to a lot more variety than a vegetarian diet simply because the latter forgoes a potent food genre, but in practice I've found that the exact opposite is often the case. It all comes down to a certain mentality, you see: the kind of people who are willing to take on a vegetarian diet tend to be more adventurous than those who whine and bitch about it being SOOOO HAAARDDD.

Take a look at the average omnivore's diet and you'll probably find a whole lot of bland monotony. Meat and potatoes are the order of the day, with some iceberg lettuce and tomatoes occasionally thrown in for a little color. Even the meat choices are largely limited to chicken and beef (despite the pork industry's more or less recent PR campaigns, the whole "the other white meat" mentality has yet to catch on). This paradox occurred to me even when I was an unrepentant omnivore, although I can't say it really applied to my personal circumstances since I actively and enthusiastically sought out all kinds of animal flesh to eat (armadillos, wild boar, little bunny rabbits, etc).

The wonderful thing about vegetarianism is that it's introduced me to a whole world of new food and flavors. Two years ago, I had no idea that kale and almond milk existed and now they're both staples in my diet. One door closes but another fifty windows open. So omnivores: get over yourselves. Most of you wouldn't know variety if it sat on your face.