Cannibalism with consent; an offence?

This is weird, but yeah with consent I don’t see why not :) I bet we taste likeh chickehn!

Gag a maggot!

I have a hard time arguing if there is mutual consent. Still a bit strange, for me. I dunno.

@babybadger Human flesh has been referred to as long pork for many years.

Are you saying they’re having rump roast?

It seems this would require a significant self mutilation. I think that is prima facie evidence of being eligible for involuntary confinement in a psych ward. But I don;\‘t think it’s a crime.

Not to me.

The concept is sort of hard to digest. Let me chew on the idea for a little while.

It’s no skin off my ass.

This has been going on for centuries. Drinking and eating Jesus’ blood and flesh. He started it I guess.

Just another stunt for the shock value, whatever.

Sooo, would the consumption of ass meat be called ass-umption? lol

Wait, so is the question whether or not law enforcement can chew someone’s ass out for engaging in consensual cannibalism? I hope not. As long as it’s not my ass on the line, I don’t really care. Seems like it would be a pain in the butt, though.

Am I doing this right?

What I want to know is how big a chunk of each others’ butts did they eat?

Well, I’d happily sacrifice a little nibble on my breast to save the downy breast of my pet goose.
My breast would taste MUCH better with a little plum sauce on it. haha

Eat me.

If it’s ok to leave your body to science, I guess it would be ok to leave it to a restaurant.

Why not? I bet we taste like frog legs…..However, if still living and you ate a slice of me and we were enjoying dinner and then you burped me in the face of me….I’m punching you, probably repeatedly.

In Tennessee, its illegal to dispose of a corpse.

Eating a dead person would fall into that category.

If eating a live person is permissible by both parties, then they would be arrested for a psycholgical evaluation, under the law.

@Coloma it’s more like a gasstronomical experience than ass-umption. : )

@mazingerz88

Yeah, I wonder if they used a good meat marinade. Gluteus maximus mignon, would you like your butt cut rare or well done? ;-p

If eating a live person is permissible by both parties, then they would be arrested for a psycholgical evaluation, under the law.

That. As @ANef_is_Enuf said, I have a hard time disputing something if everyone is willing, to certain extents of course. But some might not know what they’re getting into, and might need to be informed. Not saying they should be arrested, but I personally think the matter should be looked into, when it comes to something like this, where permanent damage, both physical and psychological, can occur.

@mazingerz88 – Fair enough point about the sacraments, but just for clarification, only Catholics actually believe that they are eating flesh and drinking blood. The rest of us know it was meant to be symbolic. I used to have a bible teacher in school who reckoned that all Catholics were cannibals.

As to the question, if there is no law against it, there should be. Anyone who would do this is obviously mentally ill, and the mentally ill should not be given free licence to do as they please.

@Harold What any individual Christian believes is up to that person, of course, and many people are ignorant of the official doctrines held by the denominations to which they belong. But while Catholic and Protestant laity alike may see the Eucharist as ultimately metaphorical, the majority of churches hold to some form of the real presence doctrine (of which transubstantiation, consubstantiation, and sacramental union are all versions).

Transubstantiation says that the fundamental substances of the bread and wine are transformed into the fundamental substances of Jesus’ body and blood (there is always one substance present in each, but what it is changes due to the sacrament).

Consubstantiation says that the fundamental substances of the bread and wine remain and become co-located with the fundamental substances of Jesus’ body and blood (there is at first one substance present in each, but a second comes into existence alongside it due to the sacrament).

Sacramental union says that the presence of the body and blood of Christ is not a matter of the metaphysics of substance at all, but rather that body and bread, as well as blood and wine, are united due to the sacrament in the same way that body and soul are united in a person by God (despite being neither one single thing nor co-located).

While there are views on the real presence of Christ other than these, note that each of the positions described here (and most of the positions I’ve left out) do hold that the body and blood of Jesus Christ are truly present and consumed during the Eucharist. I am not claiming that all denominations hold such a view, but it is certainly not restricted to Catholics.

I enjoy nibbling on ladyfingers, but some prefer a crispy treat with more body.

In Germany, yes. A man ate another man with his consent and was sentenced to prison, but there was a lot of debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes#Retrial_and_murder_conviction

Seeing as nobody died or was hurt in this example then I see no problem at all with it.