In a recent European case a man had a dream since his childhood to eat another man's flesh.
Having grown up and finding himself “lonely in a big house”, he decided to turn his childhood dreams into reality.
So he began advertising his desire to eat somebody on the Internet.
Having received a few hundred replies from people who “wanted to be eaten”, he invited one of such candidates to his lonely house.
First he, together with the man who wanted to be eaten, cut off the man's penis, and they tried to eat it together.
Then the cannibal killed his willing victim and for some time was eating his flesh.
In the end the cannibal was arrested, convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 8 and a half years in jail, with the likelihood that he would be released after 4 years on good behaviour.
It appears from this case that had the cannibal not killed his victim, but would have just cut off his victim's penis, with his victim's consent, and eaten it, while leaving his victim alive, then he would not have been found guilty of anything — and cannibalism (that is eating human flesh), in itself, is apparently not even a crime.
Some European press reported this act of cannibalism as “disgusting”. But this is what they used to say about sodomy 30 years ago. And now sodomy is no longer “disgusting”, but a respectable and even fashionable “alternative lifestyle”.
Once the cannibal is out of jail (and may be even while he is still inside), he will write a book about his exploits, and there will be a film.
And all this publicity will inspire many others to follow in his footsteps.
And once the politicals become aware of the existence of the cannibal “constituency”, how long will it be before they re‐brand “cannibalism” as “alternative dietary preference”?
And once this happens, you will see human flesh sold in “alternative dietary preference” meet shops, and bishops and government ministers will be advertising their “alternative dietary preferences” to gain publicity. — Just as it happened with sodomy.
How very civilized1!
1) At the trial hearing the judge noted that the accused was not an ordinary “uncivilized” cannibal (eating human flesh to allay hunger for food), but a “civilized” cannibal seeking to satisfy his sexual urges.