I'm a bit surprised to read how much some posters in this thread eat out, but I guess I shouldn't be. On other food-centric forums I see some people eat out all the time, and if they have the money for it and/or they'd rather not cook, why not?

But that's not me. I work at home and my budget doesn't stretch to eating out more than about once or twice a month, so I'm on the low end of the spectrum. When I used to commute to work, I ate lunch out just about every day, of course.

I disagree with the poster who said:

Not that I discount that that's the poster's experience, but it's not mine. In my experience, two people eating out almost always costs $10-$15 per person at least, without drinks, whereas feeding two people at home can usually be accomplished for much less than $10/person. Dishwashing takes little enough time that I don't factor it in, and we do buy in bulk and make good use of a freezer. I grew up in a household of nine (!) people, so it took me some time to learn how to scale down to cooking for two and not make too much food routinely, but I let hardly anything go to waste, and I think our weeknight meals probably average under $5/person. Our occasional desires for takeout--more my husband's than mine--throw off the average.

Maybe people in different countries have different expectations of what eating out should cost. When I watch Ramsey's Kitchen Nightmares, for example, and see people in the UK asked about what they'd be willing to pay for a certain dinner at a certain place, I'm routinely shocked. Is it just farm subsidies that make USofAns and UKans have such different ideas of what eating out should cost? No, I know it's not. I live in the US Midwest, just outside Chicago. I know people who live in NYC and SFO, for example, spend a lot more on food---at home and in restaurants---than we do here.

I enjoy cooking, so it doesn't bother me not eating out much. I enjoy it more for the social interaction than for the food itself -- I enjoy a couple of opportunities a month to go out for a drink and/or a meal with a friend or family member. An attractively lit place with some nice appetizers and wines, conducive to lingering and conversing, I'll pay for that. Molded plastic bench seats or ordering through bullet-proof glass, I'd rather eat at home.

When I eat out I try to order somewhat more exotic things that I wouldn't know how to make or wouldn't be likely to try to make at home, partly because (along the lines of what indianwells said) it annoys me to pay for a mediocre dish that I could easily have made better myself at home.

For example, fried chicken is big among the eat-outers in Chicagoland lately, and if you don't know how to make it or you find frying foods intimidating or your little tiny city apartment kitchen isn't conducive to frying up a big batch of chicken, it's great it you can get it at restaurants. But I can make fried chicken at home or get it from Popeye's, so I don't need to spend a bunch of money to go downtown to get some.

I am the kind of person who is happy with a dinner put together from one or more appetizers rather than one big entrée (a good steak or seafood entrée excepted). I am also the kind of person who doesn't much want to spend my going-out $$ at places that don't serve alcohol or allow BYOB. Barbecue on white bread comes to mind as an example. I'd rather pick it up and take it home.

I am a confused about the premise of the original post. What else can you do but eat out when travelling away from home, unless you count eating in your hotel room as eating at home?