Sooo....

[skull_bearer]

I'm watching a program about that guy in Germany who ate his boyfriend. I'm not enjoying it because I kinda think that if someone wants to be eaten and you want to eat him, then hey, feel free. It's not as though he's murdering random people like Hannibal. Unfortuantely the program is treating this like the last Lecter film, and seem to be desperate for us to agree that the poor bastard deserves to remain behind bars. When what he really did was little worse than assisting suicide (cannbalism wasn't illegal in Germany at the time).
Dude, the guy was catering to cannibal fetishes, and the vast majority of people he met through this he didn't eat because they didn't want to die. Get it? They wanted him to pretend to eat them, but not to really do it. If the guy really was a psychopath, do you think they'd have left alive? But they did, and somehow, no matter how much you flash strobe lights at me and graphically describe his fantasies, you still can't convince me this guy is a threat to society.

The real cherry on the cake was when I finally lost interest and changd channel, only to see that my other choices were 'Kill the Man', 'Rambo III', or 'Military campaigns of WW2'.

There's something slightly wrong here.

Comments

[pepperjackcandy.livejournal.com]

How do we know for sure that all of the people he ate really wanted to be eaten?

I don't think "he took 'no' for an answer sometimes" would be sufficient proof of non-guilt in a rape case.

[skull-bearer.livejournal.com]

He only ate the one person, and no one's disagreeing that he /wanted/ to be eaten, they found all these trascripts of discussions they had had, and it all was pretty solid proof that everything that happened there was voluntary. It's just that there were a bunch of other people that went to the cannibal's house for role-play games, and he didn't do anything they didn't want. I'm just saying that if this guy's only eating people who seriously /want/ to be eaten, then he's not exactly a threat to society.

[pepperjackcandy.livejournal.com]

Ah. I missed that he only ate the one person.

[delfeus.livejournal.com]

I completely agree. I was rather offended when I heard about it on the news. Then again, my morals are rather grey in some areas... but I do feel that if it's something between two adults and they both agree to it, they have a right to it. Even if it's cannibalism, as long as the person eaten makes it very clear that they WANT to be eaten. As in, there's concrete evidence of it. I don't feel that it is anyone else's business then. Hell, if I wanted someone to kill myself - with or without eating :P - and they did it, I wouldn't want them charged for murder! They would have done just what I asked them to. And I don't think it should be anyone else's business. But the society is not like that... they aim to protect the majority.

[skull-bearer.livejournal.com]

But the society is not like that... they aim to protect the majority.

But that's the thing, the majority were in no need of protecting. The guy was actually mentally assessed and the conclusion was that while he was undeniably disturbed, he was no danger to anyone. Yet he gets life in prison. How is that fair?

[delfeus.livejournal.com]

It's not, but that's the way things are. Their logic is that since he did it once, he may do it again, or some shit like that.

[skull-bearer.livejournal.com]

Well, why couldn't he do it again? If he only eats consenting people...

[delfeus.livejournal.com]

I don't think that you can compare this to a rape case because it suggests that there is a victim who suffered for it and took it to court saying that what was done to them was wrong, whereas here it was documented that the "victim" wanted what was happening and it was the society that did the attacking. Meaning that it's closer to the society considering BDSM games rape than to actual rape.

[pepperjackcandy.livejournal.com]

Again, I thought he'd eaten more than one person, so when skull_bearer said, I kinda think that if someone wants to be eaten and you want to eat him, then hey, feel free, my first thought was how we could be sure that all of the what-I-took-to-be-two-or-more people had consented.

Does that make sense? It's 2:30 a.m. here.

[delfeus.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I guess it's easy to think of it that way if you missed the news about it when it happened.

[shadowvalkyrie.livejournal.com]

I agree. They both thought it was okay, no innocent bystanders were harmed, so why make such a fuss? I'd agree that killing people to eat them (without saying a plane crash on a lonely island etc) is murder and wrong, but in this case it was clearly consenting, wasn't it?
*headshakes* Only because a lot of people think being eaten is horrible, that doesn't mean that has to be everyone's opinion. You could even argue that rotting in some graveyard is a lot more disgusting than being nice and crispy and give someone the dinner of a lifetime -as long as you aren't killed against your will, anyway.

[skull-bearer.livejournal.com]

You could even argue that rotting in some graveyard is a lot more disgusting than being nice and crispy and give someone the dinner of a lifetime

I laughed so hard at that. Because yeah, to be honest that does sound better. I mean, you're going to be eaten anyway, so it might as well be by people rather than maggots. And cremation is cliche.

[shadowvalkyrie.livejournal.com]

I'd still rather be cremated, though. I wouldn't want to rot, (I'd be too impatient to do that peacefully, anyway, see zombie SV rise), and neither very much to be eaten, except in cases of emergency. Not for any moral reasons, but just because the thought of someone literally knowing me inside and out like that (yeah, bad pun) is vaguely embarrassing. And I think I might not be such a very healthy piece of meat, too much flab and too little muscle plus too much hormones and antibiotics over the course of my lifetime and no bio-food to balance it out... "X-D