Cannibalism and Sex: A Justification and Condemnation
By Brian Cohen, with comment by Eddie Strumfels
[1] It is almost universally accepted in the modern world that cannibalism is “wrong.†Yet although western culture prides itself on its ability to discern between moral and immoral behavior, such an assumption is not only unfounded but shortsighted. In fact, when the western infatuation with sex is pitted against the Tupinambas’ cannibalistic behaviors in How Tasty Was My Little Frenchman, the sexual acts are much less substantiated than cannibalism.
[2] In How Tasty Was My Little Frenchman, the Tupinambas are an Indian tribe that engages in cannibalistic behaviors based on rigid rituals. At a pivotal scene near the end of the film, Seboipebe, the Frenchman’s wife, explains his impending death to him. He asks her, “But then you’ll eat me?†-- to which she sternly replies, “Yes.†Seboipebe then goes on to explain, moment by moment, the process by which the tribe will ultimately kill and eat him. She explains, “Women will pour hot water on your body, both your arms and legs will be cut, and everybody will eat a piece. My little neck!†-- to which both she and the Frenchman laugh. The Frenchman then proceeds to lure Seboipebe down to the ground and engages in sexual intercourse with her. And so, this explanation process is by all means undercut by the Frenchman, who disregards his impending fate amidst the cannibals by instead having sex. Because this process will follow only shortly thereafter, the Frenchman ultimately disposes of his last opportunity to escape before he is killed.
[3] The ceremony that follows is very rigid, ordered, and ritualistic, but by no means savage. In fact, it would not be a far stretch to liken the service to any western-accepted ceremonial killing, such as death by electric chair or a hanging. And so, the viewer can safely assume that based on the previous ceremony, the consumption of the Frenchman would likewise be quite structured. Thus, although we use the act of cannibalism as a means to determine primitiveness, in many instances a cannibalistic ceremony is very much modern. If it is acceptable, then, to engage in murderous ceremonies in modern-day settings in industrialized countries, is not a proportionately ordered ceremony in a tribal village not only acceptable but actually exceeding of the expectations that we would have placed upon them, based on their “savage†reputation?
[4] The most pressing issue is that the Tupinambas are cannibals. However, who is to say that cannibalism is actually wrong? Rather, “wrongness†is a relative term. It is certain that industrialized civilizations do not agree with or engage in cannibalism, but it is essentially no more than a lifestyle choice, and humans are free to engage in whatever decisions they want. We are not limited by instinctual drives but are instead a free-thinking species. In fact, humans would not be the only animals to engage in cannibalistic behaviors. Many animals, including rats, mice, gerbils, hamsters, sharks, snakes, lizards, lions, and insects, have all been known to eat their own species. And so, while a society may deem cannibalism wrong, that proclamation is only appreciable by that society’s inhabitants. Likewise, a religion may deem cannibalism wrong as well, but the decrees of a religion only apply to its believers. Thus, just because most people do not believe in or support cannibalism is no basis to condemn it; that is just simply an instance of majority versus minority. Furthermore, it would be hypocritical to completely condemn cannibalism, because in instances of famine, cannibalism has often been resorted to throughout history by “modernized†humans, including at Jamestown during the founding of America. And so, if this were truly a moral dilemma, it would not be justified to accept cannibalism sometimes and condemn it other times. Rather, it is a choice that independently-minded humans are allowed to make for themselves.
[5] However, perhaps more unnerving is the fact that, even in the face of his impending fate, the Frenchman not only refused to escape while Seboipebe explained the process of his imminent death, but he actually had sex with her. Is that not a stronger testament to the instability of one’s livelihood than participating in a structured and traditional cannibalistic ceremony? In fact, modern civilization is so obsessed with sex that we allow it to distort decision-making, judgment, and nearly every other higher-order need that we have developed. However, both sex and eating are equally important in serving as basic human desires. And so, while sex is never condemned, why is cannibalism? In the instance of How Tasty Was My Little Frenchman, it is clear that while the cannibalistic ceremony was clearly laid out and rational, so to speak, to the natives. And yet it was the act of sexual intercourse that warrants a complete lack of rationality. The Frenchman literally gave up his chance to escape just to have sex with his "wife" (a woman, mind you, who jovially explained the process of his impending death to him with a smile on her face). And so, rather than being shocked that a society would ritualistically eat humans -- just as their ancestors have, and just as unrestricted humans are free to do -- should we not be more shocked that sexual intercourse is so important as to essentially give up a chance to escape bondage and, ultimately, to live?
[6] In the case of How Tasty Was My Little Frenchman, two very different and clashing cultural backgrounds are depicted. As modern audiences view the film, we are expected to condemn the Tupinambas’ cannibalistic behaviors. However, while their behaviors were known and imminent, we should instead condemn the irrational and unfounded behaviors of the Frenchman who knowingly disregarded his impending doom to satisfy his sexual desires. (see comment by Eddie Strumfels)
Comments
I found myself happily agreeing with Brian until his final paragraph, where he proposes that we ought to condemn the Frenchman for choosing sex over freedom from captivity. It's a disappointing conclusion, because it seems to misunderstand his own point (or perhaps I'm stretching his point further than he wanted to). Brian was very right to point out that cannibalistic rituals share more in common with certain aspects of Western culture than we care to admit, and so to condemn the cannibals as immoral while withholding that same criticism against a culture that practices capital punishment is troublesome and contradictory. Brian also argues that since humans are free and independent thinking creatures, cannibalism is akin to a lifestyle choice and that humans are "free to engage in whatever decisions they want." This final idea really makes his concluding paragraph puzzling to say the least. Why isn't the Frenchman's decision to pick sex over life justified as a "choice that independently-minded humans are allowed to make for themselves,"? I think we ought to extend Brian's original idea of relative morality and condemn neither the cannibals nor the Frenchman, and I don't understand why he undercut his argument at the very end to perpetuate the ugly process of condemning this but not that. If you want to argue that the cannibals are not immoral for simply making a lifestyle choice, then you need to extend that same freedom to the Frenchman who would rather make love to his wife rather than run back to somewhere he may not want to be, and live a life he may not want to live. The cannibals have the freedom to kill, and the Frenchman has the freedom to die.
