Invasion of the body snackers

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:57 am

Just about when I think I've seen it all, this little tidbit comes along nibbling at the far edges of detectability:

http://www.startribune.com/slideshows/16433531.html

I wonder tho, how far will we go with this use of the living human body. We have all by now, seen the body scape photographs. We have also seen the Hannibal Lecter style living brain salad so I wonder if this human body food tray will blossom one day into something....... more. I'll let you macabre types ponder on it.

I wasn't sure if this should be posted here, but I chose E & C as there is no nudity per se and there are ethical implications.

TheCope · Post by **TheCope** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:37 am

That place is about 5 blocks from where I work. I haven't had a chance to go there, as I am currently dating my right hand, but I don't think I'd eat food off of a guy. Now if it was beautiful young lady I might try it just for the experience.

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:00 am

So you're left handed Adam?

Some nice photos there,the bodies look great, you wouldn't need much though salt eh? Not really my cup of tea though.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:43 pm

That is so retarded.

It's also blatantly demeaning.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:49 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:That is so retarded.

It's also blatantly demeaning.

Seconded. That doesn't look appealing at all.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 2:40 pm

No worse than any other fetish.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:05 pm

roid · Post by **roid** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:05 pm

i remember hearing of a place like this when i was younger, tables were women - you ate off their backs.

not sure if it's related to forniphilia, probably is.

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:25 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:It's also blatantly demeaning.

To who? What a silly thing to say. Is anyone being abused, not at all.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:04 pm

That is retarded.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:16 am

It's not silly, it is absolutely, dead-on accurate.

It is demeaning. It essentially makes them less than human. They're obviously not wise enough to be troubled by it. I could never do something like eat food off of a person. All disgust aside, it would make a statement at once of inferiority (for them) and superiority that I would never, ever allow to be made of another human being. You may argue with me because you don't perceive the statement being made. The statement may be a little subtle for some of you, but I guarantee it's the only reason, aside from any sexual interest, that people get a thrill from it. It's like being a warlord for an hour in your own small way.

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:48 am

If the people that are lying down were being forced to do it, it would be demeaning, but they are not, they are being paid to do it.

It doesn't make 'them' less human, it makes 'humans' less human, it makes humans objects. Why are you trying to personalize it?

Like i said, it's not my cup of tea but neither is homosexuality, and i've absolutely nothing against that either.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:16 am

Flabby wrote:It doesn't make 'them' less human, it makes 'humans' less human, it makes humans objects. Why are you trying to personalize it?

Flabby, I think there's a misunderstanding. You seem to think that I'm saying these people are being directly wronged. It's not a direct wrong like murder or abuse. It's indirect. The indirect wrong of the models' cooperation (for a wage, obviously), and customers' taking part in it, is the demeaning of humanity. Thus it's wrong on a personal as well as a general level. The personal is that it's their--the model's--humanity being demeaned. The general is that humanity is being demeaned.

Making humans objects, or anything less than human, is demeaning.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:10 am

I wonder tho.. Anyone stop to ask these people why they do it instead of concluding that it's 'demeaning'?

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:45 am

You're right, Ferno. Maybe they just ran out of paper plates. Or maybe it's a tribute to humanity! And then that wouldn't be demeaning at all, would it? Maybe there's a reason behind it that will make us wish we hadn't been so hasty, and in the end leave us feeling good about ourselves, humanity, and these creative and intrepid entrepreneurs and their shapely, respectable, artistic employees who have been so misunderstood by culturally challenged folks such as myself.

Maybe monkeys will fly out of my rear end, Ferno.

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:56 am

[quote="Sergeant Thorne]Flabby, I think there's a misunderstanding. [quote]

No, i understand perfectly what you say. I think you're projecting your set of standards upon a group of people. I just happen not to agree with you. It's no biggie.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:58 am

Sergeant Thorne wrote:You're right, Ferno. Maybe they just ran out of paper plates. Or maybe it's a tribute to humanity! And then that wouldn't be demeaning at all, would it? Maybe there's a reason behind it that will make us wish we hadn't been so hasty, and in the end leave us feeling good about ourselves, humanity, and these creative and intrepid entrepreneurs and their shapely, respectable, artistic employees who have been so misunderstood by culturally challenged folks such as myself.

Maybe monkeys will fly out of my rear end, Ferno.

Wow, so much anger and a narrow-minded point of view. you react like this all the time when someone disagrees with you or asks a question you don't like?

roid · Post by **roid** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 5:18 am

Thorne, Some ppl are just into that sort of thing man. People on BOTH sides of the equation. Look into the fetish i mentioned in my previous post.

Some people find it relieving to pretend to be inanimate furniture.

check it out. the psychology is interesting
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=forniphilia

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:26 pm

Ferno wrote:
Sergeant Thorne wrote:You're right, Ferno. Maybe they just ran out of paper plates. Or maybe it's a tribute to humanity! And then that wouldn't be demeaning at all, would it? Maybe there's a reason behind it that will make us wish we hadn't been so hasty, and in the end leave us feeling good about ourselves, humanity, and these creative and intrepid entrepreneurs and their shapely, respectable, artistic employees who have been so misunderstood by culturally challenged folks such as myself.

Maybe monkeys will fly out of my rear end, Ferno.
Wow, so much anger and a narrow-minded point of view. you react like this all the time when someone disagrees with you or asks a question you don't like?

Sounds like a few other people on this board as well, who will remain nameless…but we know who they are.

roid · Post by **roid** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 6:38 pm

no, we don't

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 6:51 pm

If the people wearing the food are volunteers does it make it less exploitive to use them that way? There are events in certain social communities where people will willingly, and in fact eagerly, lie in the urinal trough. Is that demeaning or not?
Using people as servants is demeaning isn't it? They are the servant, you the master. No matter that you pay them. Waiters are much the same. They even call themselves servers in some places. Is it a demeaning job?
Not a lot of black and white to be seen here to my mind.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 6:51 am

Demeaning? Where do you come up with this? They volunteered to do it, they got paid to do it. They probably thought is was a scream. I'd do it if I had a tan. I certainly wouldn't be demeaning myself. It's called art. (Apparently)

Do you go out and eat at all, Thorne? The hostess, waiter, cook and busboy are all being demeaned, obviously! Maybe you can save them.

WillyP · Post by **WillyP** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:29 pm

I'd do it, too, but I'm sure I'd get an erection.

The very thought of eating food off of someone else, unless it was a hot chick, is pretty gross. And I'm shocked at Sgt. Thorne's statements in this post, given his statements in certain other posts. My jaw dropped when I read this:

Sgt. Thorne wrote:it would make a statement at once of inferiority (for them) and superiority that I would never, ever allow to be made of another human being.

Talk about the kettle calling the pot black!

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:42 pm

I don't think I'd manage not not have a reaction the first time or two I did this. After a bit, it wouldn't faze me. You can get used to anything. I am enough of a homophobe that I wouldn't do mixed company parties. Women only!

I used eat food off my girl all the time. I even made extra gravy just for that activity. *SINNER!!!!*

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:05 am

LOL@Testi.... me n the mrs used to have great dinner parties too!!

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 6:49 am

So you guys are saying I don't have to feel alone because I artfully decorated the ex with whipped cream and strawberry's, and ummm...ate my dessert?

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 8:55 am

Nope, Wood, I'd bet the only person who hasn't is Thorne.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:36 am

it would make a statement at once of inferiority (for them) and superiority that I would never, ever allow to be made of another human being.

As fond as I am of pitch forks and rope, I agree with Sgt.Thorne. I don't think it is fair to make an analogy between two people doing such acts who love each other, which can be seen as purely playful.

But the desire to eat off of a complete stranger must be derived from some pretty warped impulses. And I think Sgt.Throne is probably dead accurate in pinpointing the desire to that of superiority.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:24 am

I think he's dead wrong.

'Art' doesn't have those virtues. It's just something different. I doubt the girl who almost pulled the leaf off the guys crotch when grabbing the sushi had ANY thoughts of her 'superiority'. She was giggly and embarrassed. The whole segment had an air of purely playful. I'd be at that party too if it was a woman on the table, and I'd have zero thoughts about my 'superiority'. Also, the food never touched the skin, so it's hardly gross.

Going by Thorne's twisted logic, the Ambercrombie model in the store at the mall is no different than the models on the table.

It's just something different. Only those scared of something different and locked into a primitive mindset would be 'offended' by something as bland as this.

WillyP · Post by **WillyP** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:25 pm

Testiculese wrote:Nope, Wood, I'd bet the only person who hasn't is Thorne.

No that would be me... I munch the muff plain.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:18 pm

WillyP wrote:And I'm shocked at Sgt. Thorne's statements in this post, given his statements in certain other posts. My jaw dropped when I read this:
Sgt. Thorne wrote:it would make a statement at once of inferiority (for them) and superiority that I would never, ever allow to be made of another human being.
Talk about the kettle calling the pot black!

So instead of taking this opportunity to learn more about my personality, and allowing these statements to shed light on my other positions, you make me a hypocrite. I've never called anyone inferior, and if you think I have you've misunderstood me. Unless you think that saying someone is wrong is calling them inferior?

TMI woodchip, Flabby, Testi, WillyP. And Gooberman is right: there's a big difference between this topic and what you're talking about.

Testiculese wrote:I'd be at that party too if it was a woman on the table, and I'd have zero thoughts about my 'superiority'.

Sergeant Thorne skimmed wrote:but I guarantee it's the only reason, aside from any sexual interest, that people get a thrill from it.

Testiculese wrote:Also, the food never touched the skin, so it's hardly gross.

It's gross.

Testiculese wrote:Going by Thorne's twisted logic, the Ambercrombie model in the store at the mall is no different than the models on the table.

That was your twisted extrapolation of my logic. The Ambercrombie model only fits if you can go up and position her without getting a well-deserved slap on the face.

I treat waiters like human beings. I treat them with kindness and respect. Don't you? There's nothing inherently demeaning in it for them, as far as I'm concerned. It's their job. That being said there probably are people who treat them in a demeaning way. Shame on them.

Testiculese wrote:It's just something different. Only those scared of something different and locked into a primitive mindset would be 'offended' by something as bland as this.

Primitive mindset? I have heightened sensibilities regarding a number of issues, don't give me this "primitive" bull****. A lack of moral standards is what's primitive.

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 12:11 am

A lack of moral standards is what's primitive.

Hmmm.. I'm not sure I agree. The record of ancient civilizations indicate that they usually enforced some kind of strict code on the populace. The Pharaohs of Ancient Egypt decided which God was to be worshipped and how, the Mayans had what seem to be strictly enforced codes of conduct. There is lots of evidence of primitive societies shunning and exiling those that would not live the way the majority wanted. No I think zealous enforcement of a moral code as decreed by some ruling group or individual is a sign of a primitive, undeveloped monoculture.

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 12:38 am

Sergeant Thorne wrote:TMI woodchip, Flabby, Testi, WillyP. And Gooberman is right: there's a big difference between this topic and what you're talking about.

Obviously, i think we were being humorous in those few posts.

It all boils down to horses for courses. I will never get into your mindset, on practically all subjects you have an opinion on. But i'll accept them and finish my beer. Could you do the same?

Wings · Post by **Wings** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 1:53 am

Haha, there's nothing demeaning about it at all. They chose to do that, they're probably paid pretty well, they probably get a kick out of it themselves since they're doing it, and they probably enjoy showing off their bodies. There's nothing demeaning about it if it was entirely their own free will.
This is just something different that some people would like to try.

roid · Post by **roid** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 2:18 am

i'm not letting you Thorne, eat off my body. You have to PAY

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 2:31 am

Flabby Chick wrote:I will never get into your mindset, on practically all subjects you have an opinion on. But i'll accept them and finish my beer. Could you do the same?

I'm afraid not. While I could definitely accept my opinions, I hate the taste of beer.

I find this whole thread amazing. I didn't deal with this subject on a "religious" level at all. I dealt with it on the common ground of humanity and decency, and most of you just don't see it. Absolutely incredible.

Ford Perfect wrote:Hmmm.. I'm not sure I agree. The record of ancient civilizations indicate that they usually enforced some kind of strict code on the populace. The Pharaohs of Ancient Egypt decided which God was to be worshipped and how, the Mayans had what seem to be strictly enforced codes of conduct. There is lots of evidence of primitive societies shunning and exiling those that would not live the way the majority wanted. No I think zealous enforcement of a moral code as decreed by some ruling group or individual is a sign of a primitive, undeveloped monoculture.

Well I'm sure you don't agree. I would argue that moral standards are restraints that are not dictated by the obvious situation itself. Thus they are the very opposite of primitive.

roid · Post by **roid** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 2:33 am

10DOLLAR YOU PAY OR I CALL POLKICE

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 12:47 pm

Many fetishes are by design demeaning and degrading, its part of the ritual…so what’s the big deal if someone points that out?

Edited: Changed Most to Many

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 1:05 pm

She was giggly and embarrassed.

Why be embarressed? What is the root of her embarressment to eatting off of someone else.

Not agreeing with a 'statement' of ones superiority is a clear reason for embarressment.

Do you think it is sexual embarressment? I really don't view this 'activity' as sexual.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 1:09 pm

If not sexual…then what’s the point?

Invasion of the body snackers

Invasion of the body snackers

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: