Why I Don't Have a "Relationship with Food"

The current reign of the diet deranged means a lot of their garbage jargon is being increasingly normalised, foisted on the unwary and the uninterested. One piece of empty phraseology that's achingly impressed with itself is "relationship with food", prefaced by such as "Your" or "What's your?" and the like.

To clear away any potential ambiguity.

I. Do. Not. Have. A. Relationship. With. Food: Full Stop.

Given the only people who appear to have less indifference to the word "NO", usually have to serve time if convicted. I'm going to condescend a few words to explain why folks need to miss me [and I've little doubt plenty others] with this one.

My idea of a relationship, and I'm sure most people's, is based on reciprocity. Meaning you can only have a real relationship with a living entity that has an inner life or consciousness. In other words a sentient being who can return or decline  (or indeed instigate) self-directed connection with your good self.

That doesn't have to be human, can be other animals of all types, as long as that creature is capable of responding to your attentions in some meaningful and measurable way.

Yes, a person might say; "Look how s/he goes" about a boat or car or whatever. But we all know that's just some anthropomorphising jazz. You cannot have a relationship with something that isn't alive or doesn't have some kind of neural structure.

If you do not have that, you are effectively engaging in what used to be termed, "mental masturbation". In other words, you are playing with yourself, your gratification depending on the imaginary device of projecting your own feelings onto an object.

s a device its fine, its when you start acting like you do not know this is not going on in your own mind. That said object is actually interacting with you in the real. The ventriloquist's dummy coming to life is always creepier than a talking doll.

This is perhaps another case of a verb "relate" turning into a noun "relationship" without recognising they aren't interchangeable. You can relate to someone without being in or having a relationship with said person.

You are never having a relationship with an object.

Yes, a person might say, "There s/he goes" about a car or a boat, but that's largely a self-amused reference to the amount of effort and or time the person has invested in said object. 

Cognitive snaggles of this kind torment stalkers and other miscreants d'amour. Feelings of sufficient ardour can leave the sense that this grand feeling must somehow be returned.The notable thing about sex pests is they are almost always acting  on this premise. Often refusing at first to believe the object of their affections could be oblivious to their affections.

The first step in their come down is usually acknowledging that their feelings are theirs and theirs alone. 

We've all fallen for this feeling in some way or t'other, we get over it, becoming aware that others think they're having a relationship with us-that they aren't having. We too realise we may well be in that position with others.

We have; ideas, experiences, myths, legends, tales, memories, associations even dreams about and around food, that's inevitable. Examining, altering, dropping them is a worthwhile notion. It doesn't require this infantilising nomenclature.

Women can have thoughts and ideas, we don't have to be treated, nor treat ourselves as infants to do an inventory of them.

Stop babytalking yourselves and other women and for goodness sake men, do not go down a rabbithole you have thus far escaped.