It does indeed appear to not make sense if you take it as meaning that you cannot do both things in that order, rather than as a pair of statements that cannot logically be true simultaniously. One can certainly have a cake and THEN eat it, but if one has a cake, one cannot both retain possession of said cake while also eating it.supersupersuperguy said:I've never understood what it meant to "have one's cake and eat it too". I mean, what else are you going to do with a cake? A cake is functionally useless if you can't eat it. Unless, of course, you're going to throw it at someone, and I'm sure not going to do that. It's my cake! I have it and I'm going to eat it, too!
Perhaps the phrase would make more sense if it were reversed? "You can't eat your cake and have it." Admittedly, doesn't have quite the same ring to it though.