Does It Need To Be a Choice? Can't I Just Cake?

     Today, I was in a place to overhear the phrase, "Have your cake and eat it too.", and it gave me pause. In the traditional sense of how people use this phrase, the idea is that they have something pleasant and want something else pleasant as well. In reality, wouldn't this be a much more realistic (and common) "Have your cake in vanilla and another cake in chocolate"? When presented as wanting options, things take on a very different tone; not so demeaning and minimizing. However, the intent of the statement is generally to have the 'offending' party to come across as selfish and uncaring, especially when related to relationships and careers.in a broader sense though, is it really?

      I am experiencing my own form of this right now - I want a healthy body, but I also really want Doritos. My desire for a flat stomach does not negate my longing for delicious, cheese covered goodness. As such, the desire to meet both needs becomes an exercise in compromise. If I exercise more and eat less (but still some) wonderful chippy goodness, I can accomplish both things. (Have my Doritos and eat them too?) The long held idea of choosing one over the other need not apply, unless I decide to stay home and stuff my face with carbs when I should be going for a walk.

      Then there are the passive factors. When I first start working out, my body is so tired and wants to be lazy. In time, it feels great to have abundant energy and stamina, but the road there is a bumpy one. Sitting around covered in the sweet orange Doritos dust is ver relaxing, but obviously lends itself to the blasé feeling my body experiences so much of the time when I'm out of shape.  Add to this the conditioning that comes with the pleasure centers that junk food dances upon, and you have a very simple concept that requires a very large commitment quotient. 

     Who doesn't have multiple wants, some of which may conflict or seem mutually exclusive? Isn't the transition to figuring a way to meet these needs the very definition of the human condition?