This article is really interesting, not for what's in it but for what isn't. Specifically, the author doesn't elaborate on what would happen if the other party consented to the cannibalism. The characterization of cannibalism as "illegal" (vs. immoral) is a tell.
https://twitter.com/Cosmopolitan/status/1359930803220848640
There is no language of morality in the piece that isn't rooted in consent. No notion that what a pair of consenting adults do can be objectively wrong by some standard other than consent. But surely cannibalism is such an objective wrong? The piece won't touch it, tho.
The clear thrust of this piece is that the problem with a cannibalism fetish is "consent" and not the cannibalism itself. But again, what about someone consenting to being eaten? The author, deliberately I think, leaves no ground for drawing that line. It's weird and bad.
This is exactly what I thought of, yeah. There have been a few of these cases where the being-eaten party consented to the arrangement. What is this writer's grounds for condemning it? She admits no such grounds that I can see.
https://twitter.com/VeloMontaigne/status/1360457787982151684
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
