Analog Dilemma: Public Displays of…Cannibalism?Posted By: Barry Belmont

Situation:

Two lovers in a park. Children swing on swing sets, others play with their dogs. Parents look on. Two lovers on a bench in a park. A public park where all are allowed in. A couple of “bums” (they are homeless, however, the current vernacular labels them as bums) are digging through a trash can, probably in search of cans, maybe food. They aren’t bothering anyone. Neither are they: the two lovers kissing each other on a bench in a park.

They are not just kissing each other. It started out that way, but then the one on the left (my left) bit deeply into the lip of the one on the right (my right). Blood starting trailing down their chins. Blood and saliva. The one on the right then went in for the cheek of the left. Took a big chunk out of it. Sinewy musculature and generally unseen teeth on full bloody display, the left goes for rights neck, right for left’s shoulder.

Blood and saliva and flesh drip from the two lovers on a bench in a park. They pause for a moment. Right take’s left’s index finger and bites off the first two digits. Left does the same.

They continue, biting each other, tearing flesh from bone. Blood and saliva and flesh and viscera pour off their bodies. The children have stopped swinging. Parents look on. The bums have stopped rummaging through the trash.

Questions:

Damn it, Barry, does any of this make any sense? Why would any two people consent  to do this to each other? Isn’t the very implausibility of this scenario the very answer to every single one of these questions you’re about to pose? Couldn’t you just respond with “Does that matter?” I mean after all, isn’t this series supposed to be about all the things we simply don’t think about? Well then, what could possibly be the point of considering two people eating each other in public? Is it supposed to show us that even in the most public of places, there are limits on the actions of people? In fact, isn’t because it is in public that we find it objectionable? Would we allow this in the privacy of the two lovers’ homes? Is cannibalism…ok? Or rather, in what contexts is cannibalism permitted? Is it allowable in the throes of passion? Why or why not? What about under dire circumstances such as the situation involving the Donner Party? What is the connection between the two? Should cannibalism be banned outright? Is there anything wrong with eating the consenting? Is there anything wrong with eating the non-consenting (such as animals)? Is consent relevant when it comes to eating other living things? Why or why not?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
Comments Posted in Analog Dilemma
Tagged ,
  • If consenting people want to eat each other I don't see any problem with it. It doesn't violate anybody's rights (because you can totally consensually surrender rights, see Murderpark), so to ban consensual cannibalism would be to apply some arbitrary value that says "Cannibalism is wrong" to the general public, which is wrong.

    There is no such thing as a public place, somebody owns this park, and it's up to them to post the "No munching on people" sign if they don't want it to happen. If they continue to eat each other despite this, then of course there is a problem which can be dealt with.

    Animals are property, they can be used at will.
blog comments powered by Disqus