We’ve heard these types of comparisons since we were little. The peachiest skin was the purest, the best one (the most corruptible one) while every cosmetics brand is still killing themselves to make the most cherry-like lipstick, the most desirable to the weak mind –shall we call it the freest one, or is it too soon?-, the one color that will make you want to take a bite. Little do they know (or perhaps they do know) that it’s the flesh that matters to the craving eye and not what’s embellishing it. We want the plumb lips in our mouths, not the glitter. 

It was the writer George Bataille who first dared to speak the wise and stimulating words “a kiss is the beginning of cannibalism”, and while I was reading about this metaphor that’s growing in popularity in social media since the release of films such as Bones and All (Luca Guadagnino, 2022) or books like A Certain Hunger (Chelsea G. Summers, 2011) the question of how had Bataille arrived to this conclusion, if it was a child of reflection and not only a gothic brush-stroke to his writing, came to my mind. Who would relate something full of love -or desire, at least- with the death and destruction of what is loved? 

However, the answer was fairly simple, even though quite difficult to find. The main problem is, once again, the prejudices society has put so deep into our heads that they are no longer considered prejudices. There’s a black “aura” surrounding the word “cannibalism”. When we hear of it, mouths shut, warning looks fly across the room. It sounds ancient -it is-, forbidden. It almost seems as if the Spanish Inquisition is back again. “Why is cannibalism being brought up?” “Who said that word?” “Why are you so interested in cannibalism?” and my particular favorite: “But you don’t actually want to… eat your partner?”

Nevertheless, the word “cannibalism” is not the first problem society finds in this quote. Instead, the kiss is. The human species has proven to be bullet-proof to all kinds of immoralities, more than willing to turn a blind eye to human suffering. From slavery to genocides, there has always been a valid justification to violate people’s dignity. Why is it, then, that we are so horrified when someone’s soul shows a fascination for how cannibalism could easily be one of the greatest forms of love? Is it as inhuman as portrayed to follow one’s deepest desire? Is passion not human? Have we become reproducing machines? 

The answer to these questions, fortunately, is a plain and simple no. However, there has been an exhaustive quest throughout history to try and turn us into one. This is why love, among some of the most representative emotions of the raw, human soul, has been rendered like forbidden aspects of our marrow, ones that ought to be erased. The fact that it is associated with cannibalism is just an excuse to ban love and human passion.

How many of the Seven Deadly Sins can be related, if not directly, to love and desire? Gluttony, for one. The fixation on meat, on wine, as prohibited food unless they are previously blessed. The desire to have our stomach fuller than we need to, the insatiable want of just grabbing what our body asks for. The interdict of desire. Greed. All of the words used for gluttony could be used for this sin, whose offense goes beyond money. Pride, and how can desire make you win it, make you lose it just as fast. Is it not rebuked, the way love can make one proud enough to claim someone else as their own partner, to declare some sort of control over someone else? Envy. One of the most desire-filled sins, closely followed by the atrocious -and self-explanatory- wrath. 

Last but never least, lust. “Desire” can be used as a synonym if objectivity is aimed. The Sin. Lust embraces all of the mentioned above, and engraves anything and everything that can get a human soul into Hell. Sexual appetite has been punished since early times, although Greeks did seem to have great fun with orgies. An exemplary man must cherish chastity and celibaty and live a strak, dull life. At least protestants have figured out the uselessness of forbidding their priests to get some physical contact for their own sake. Opposite to the saint, the witch can be found, often pictured as a lascive creature. Burnt in the fire, ironically purificating her. It has never been the intention of anyone to hide what manners of controlling the population have been put to use. Love has been punished. Desire has been painted as dangerous. Those who fought for it were silenced. The ones who just stroked the flesh of others in the dark and cleaned their hands before entering church, celebrated. The truth is love is inevitable, as well as each and every one of the Seven Deadly Sins. Even so, we are still troubling ourselves with the burying of this conception. 

Religion is only one of many examples, but other social components such as a toxic view on masculinity -although cannibalism has been a way of portraying the masculine control over the body, femininity and women, thus the majority of known cannibals such as Dracula or Hannibal being men- have affected the way love, particularly the love accompanied by desire, is seen through judgemental eyes.

This historical journey that has led us to where we are makes an arid job for an already afflicted society to shake the prejudices off its shoulders. Cannibalism is not the main problem. The actual problem is its relation to love.

But, even if the primary issue is its affinity with love, there is still a problem with cannibalism, as well as an enchantment surrounding the concept of cannibalism. For it is a mere concept to the vast majority of us. Depending on the context it can be acknowledged as a crime, as a historical justification, or as, once again, a sin, but as we dive into humanities it becomes more of an abstract theme, but mostly, one of the purest forms of honesty. To eat one another is a type of hunger we all, metaphorically, have in us. It is a contradictory, morbid curiosity, and this discrepancy that creates in the mind makes cannibalism an easily avoided subject, for it is difficult to comprehend how can the destruction of the loved object be the intention of love’s subject. It is a contradiction, indeed, but not one without an answer: cannibalism (as a representation of love) is not only destruction but also transformation. While it may appear as an external destruction of that who is loved, it is the most intimate way of merging two bodies into one. It’s the only way with which two bodies can be truly united and live in perfect harmony with each other. The creation of a greater One frequently entails the destruction of two inconsequential ones.

Immorality is one of the first word that may come to one’s mind when cannibalism is brought up. However, isn’t love immoral? What is immoral? We must not forget the discussion being had is in literary terms. Cannibalism indeed collides with the occidental moral, but that’s why art and every form of expression are created. To go beyond the rules that are so rooted inside of us that we are incapable of getting rid of outside of a theoretical plane. Is love not immoral? The monogamous conception we as a society have of love, however evolved it is, still has some of the most immoral aspects that we tend to ignore and be a part of. Is it the disappearance of rights that involvement in the act of cannibalism takes part into greater than the consensus you have to take part once you put yourself into a normative romantic relationship? Is it not this why we can relate as much as we do to eating one another, because we are already doing so? I have nothing against monogamous relationships as long as what is perceived as a universal morality is imposed on me by them. Humans are immoral, morality being only an endless goal to “be” better, to fit better, but never being considered as reachable. Morality is just a guide, comparable to God itself, and I find rather hypocritical the disdain that the metaphor of cannibalism as a symbol for love receives in comparison to other accepted but morally questionable ways of expressing love individuals carry on in their daily lives.

As immorality has been brought up, I might as well consider treason as a refutation to the metaphor. It is true, if we use the classical definition of treason, that cannibalism is a kind of treason. Acting towards the destruction of your kind. Eating them, to be precise. It is true that, historically, cannibalism has been punished just as centuries later spying would be. Cannibals were as traitors as pirates, many times considered the same in stories to scare children off. Cannibalism is surrounded by myths and tales. I find it not an act of treason if it is an act of love. The aim of this metaphor is not to promote cannibalism, neither is it to end with the human race. 

As far as I'm concerned, the way cannibalism is used as a metaphor for love presumes three things: that this cannibalism is consensual, that it is performed in a third plane that our physical bodies can't enter even though they are being eaten, and that the inside of a human body, such as the outside, is the same as the soul of an individual. These are the three statements that made me feel startled when discussing this subject, the word “treason” came up. Besides, the word treason has connotative hues that may paint a more Christian and oppressing picture of this essay and of the metaphor itself, which can and should be considered an actual act of treason. The root of this metaphor is freedom and associating it with such vocabulary may give an oppressive side to it that it would not dare to even consider having.

It is also, as mentioned before when talking about toxic masculinity, a way of expressing control over others. This has been seen throughout history mostly in graphic art, especially in Mesoamerican tribal art. However, the image of uncivilized populations that we have when we picture this kind of art, as it reflects reality and not just another artistic expression to show control and the different roles of power in a society, has been stereotyped since colonial times, when Spanish colonists exaggerated the cultural traits that were found odd to use it as an excuse to justify the imposture of their culture and the genocides that were being committed. The Man-Eating Myth, by Arens, takes us into a wonderful challenge of how history can be manipulated, hidden, and distorted around cannibalism to absolve cruelty and for the sake of morbidness. The prejudice of cannibalism was attached to enemies and foreigners for many centuries. Not only did Europeans transfer this belief to the Mesoamerican culture, although this has been the most outrageous example occidental history has faced, but it has also happened the other way around. African populations such as Swahilis or Nigerians of the eighteenth century also had the popular belief that Europeans ate their African babies, and the expression “blood-sucker” was common when referring to colons. Haitians, Aztecs, Maoris, and other cultures have also received these types of accusations. Most of the art representations we use as evidence are created by colons themselves, and their historical accuracy can’t be proven after the knowledge acquired over the years of the use of cannibalism as a way of portraying the unknown. 

However, there are records of Aztec and Maias rituals that involved taking the heart out of the defeated warriors to gain their strength, but what was done with them is based only on speculations of historical facts. It is not my intention in any way to deny the practice of cannibalism in some cultures, but I do wish to shed some light on the level of accuracy and the prejudice-filled nature of history that we know and the lack of objectivity on historical fact. In many ways, we overvalue the objectivity of history but we must remember that we only know one part of it. There are enough historical testimonies of many different cultures that may lead us to doubt the veracity of some of the atrocious acts the different American tribes carried on according to the history told by the conquerors. 

Historical facts are not the only aspect of the past that have influenced what we conceive as cannibalism (although in general terms it is a fairly simple term to define), but some theories such as Freud’s have also stained and added to the reason why we cover our eyes when we hear about cannibalism but also peek between our fingers. Even if he was right when he hinted that cannibalism was a way of depicting “the alterity”,  he argued that cannibalism is an actual desire most of us have inside us. Not in the form of a metaphor. If Freud ever read these words, he would surely laugh at my face and argue that I’m using the term “metaphor” because I’m a coward oppressed by society. I might be oppressed by it, but that doesn’t make me a murderer. Freud stated that certain kinds of desires were so horrible that we had never let them show to others, not even to ourselves, since pre-social times. One of these desires is cannibalism. Psychology has advanced enough to discard most of Freud’s theories despite their contribution to modern medicine, but the repudiation of the way he described human beings brought up in people still remains in our present society. I believe Freud’s theory, such as its descendants Lacan’s and Mill's, are in many ways mistaken and meant to make something humongous out of traits of limited importance.

Society has a problem with love and has had it since the beginning of ethics, morality and standards for many unjustified and too exigent grounds. It feels off limits, vulnerable in the cruelest of ways. We seem to lose a tad of our value as beings when we fall in love, acts of love are constantly looked down on, avoided, and glazed upon. The matter intensifies when it is associated with cannibalism. Once this is done, a vicious cycle is created. Which one of them is worse? Cannibalism, undoubtedly. Is it, though? A scarier question arises. What attracts us more? Where do we want to fall first? Why am I writing an essay about it? I am writing an essay because of all of these questions. Because of the ordinary of them, the frustration that overwhelms me when disgust and desire crash against each other and create fascination. I write this out of sensationalism, out of curiosity, and out of complaint. I am here to seek rationality to not be demanded in an artistic piece. As a very wise man once said, all art is quite useless. That’s the basis of it. Art for art’s sake. I am writing this because cannibalism is just another rhetorical figure that we use to express the inexpressible and I am here to defend its legitimacy. I could have chosen another metaphor, of course, but I find this one to pick on some subjects we seem to only discuss when the sun goes down, and I should find it rather refreshing to speak my mind about it in such a white paper.

Cannibalism used as an expression of love is not a new metaphor or theme, nor it is a new obsession. This bizarre concept goes back many centuries, to early medieval times. Art has used it in many different ways and with several kinds of techniques, from cinema and paintings to literature. Euphemisms of it can be found in even more pieces of work,  such as vocabulary relating to eating. As a way of expressing the unspeakable and playing with the limits of morality and rationality, it is not rare to find it in art. Perhaps as we go through a few examples of how cannibalism is portrayed to signify love and desire the reasonable part of us may begin to understand this morbid longing for it.

As I said, research of the rhetorical figure leads us to such early times as the Ancient Greeks. Already in Greek mythology, there existed a myth in which Dionysus, also known as Bacus, was eaten by Titans. They devour everything but his heart, from where he is reborn once again. This myth is a version of an older one, and there are two things to underline on it: firstly, the importance of the God devoured being Dyonisus, the god of life, wine and desire. Of temptation, irrational freedom, the first defender of the decay of rationality. Could it be more explicit? Cannibalism is related to a darker part of the human mind, belonging to lust, desire, parties and orgies. One interpretation of the myth could be the eating of Dyonisus as an acceptance of all that he represents. How is it that they don’t eat the heart, then? The second part of the analysis comes with it: they don’t eat the heart as the most pure act of love. Titans are not in love with the god, of course, but they do want him. To leave the heart uneaten, and for Dyonisus to resurrect from it is one of the clearest representations of the essence of the metaphor of cannibalism. The disappearance of the body opposed to the immortality of the soul (the heart). An eternity so big Dyonisus can come back to life from it. His body never mattered. His body could be given to the Titans. The only thing that truly represents the god is his heart. Once he is reborn from it, he is both himself and the Titans. He is in the two of them. He belongs to them as much as he belongs to himself.

Medieval tales also find a place to introduce cannibalism. There is one particular story that has survived through time as one of the earliest representations of it, The Eaten Heart by Bocaccio. It speaks of a woman who has a passionate lover. Their love is so intense that her husband finds out and decides to get his revenge. One dark night, he murders the lover and takes out his heart. When his wife wakes up, she finds herself with breakfast already served: on one plate, the heart of his lover is set out for her to eat. As much as she tried to talk to his husband and beg for his forgiveness, he would not relent. She had to eat his heart. If the love she had for her lover was greater than the love she had for her husband and had led her to commit adultery, she would have no problem eating the heart as an irrevocable act of love. We are once again faced with a particular organ, the heart. He could have given her any other part, but he chose the heart and disposed of the rest, for eating the heart is as close as someone can get to devouring both physically and spiritually a person, especially a loved one. 

Dracula -and other vampires- are also related to the metaphor. Aren’t they filled with lust? The bites on such an erotic part of the body as the neck –goosebumps arise just thinking about soft lips caressing the skin–. Society has developed a strange fascination about vampires that could be justified with the desire of the forbidden, the possessiveness of the bite of a vampire and how they cannot help themselves to do anything but the wrong thing. 

Literature is not the only type of art that uses cannibalism as a way of expression. Not only plastic art like Bougereau’s Dante and Virgilio or Mei’s Sigismunda, but also the musical industry has caught up and introduced cannibalism as a metaphor for love. Artists like Hozier, who has played with it since his first self-titled album with lyrics like “Honey, don’t feed it, it will come back” (Hozier, It will come back) to Eat your young lines “I’m starving, darling, let me put my lips to something…”(Hozier)  that talk about love, power and desire, to Adrianne Lenker’s “everything eats and is eaten” (Adrianne Lenker, Ingydar) have explicitly mention the way consuming an object or a concept is a way of owning  it on a different level of possessiveness and union at the same time. It shows fierce respect to it, for we are careful to only put in our mouth things we want, but it is also done to impose a right over it. An even more clear example is Ethel Cain’s Preacher’s Daughter, which describes how she is kidnapped by her lover and eaten. It is okay for her, for even if she dies, she dies being his (Ethel Cain, A House in Nebraska). In the dark songs that dare to explore and touch heavier subjects such as sexual abuse, cannibalism appears as another way of control that she sees as love, even as she is being eaten. She is his and she condones her death to spend that eternity with him “So I died there under you, every night, all night” (Ethel Cain, A House in Nebraska). Later in the album, she states that “he wants to love her right now”, but a few lines later, that “he wants to hurt her” (Ethel Cain, Gibson Girl). These two sentences combine in what seems contradictory and a sign of fatal love -as it is, there’s no doubt about it- but it is also a paradox that comes with the use of cannibalism as a metaphor for love. In a more graphic description, the eating of the flesh involves physical harming of the body, but it is only a means to arrive at a greater love that the metaphor tries to explain. It is clarified in this same song a few verses later “He says he’s in love with my body, that’s why he’s fucking it up”.

Back to the question laid out before: do I want to eat my boyfriend? 

I don’t. As much as I want to kill myself when I say “I’m about to kill myself”. But there’s beauty in it. There’s something raw -forgive the pun- in making true the irrational feeling that overcomes us when we’re hugging someone in this rare genuine-love-filled hugs, when our hearts are truly bursting like Sigismunda’s hand is tightening around them, and in our minds it pops up. You just want to keep squeezing. To hug your loved one more tightly, and then some more, keep putting pressure until there’s no space, you’re only one, there are no bones anymore, no air, no flesh, no feelings. You have consumed them. You have been consumed. Now, you’re only one entity. There’s no closer anymore. Finally. You feel full. You feel satisfied.

That hug is cannibalism.

It goes without saying that you don’t actually want to choke your partner to death. It just symbolizes the amount of love that overcomes you, how much of them is in you. That’s why it is a metaphor. Again, I don’t want to eat my boyfriend -not in that sense, anyway– but through the artistic expression of cannibalism I find a new and accurate way of portraying the flaming, gut-wrenching and sleep-depriving desire that he ignites in me.

It is also used, as director Luca Guadagnino cleverly commented in an interview, to show love’s obstacles, love’s ultimate impossibility. Again, we’re back on desire. It is the hopeless need of being eternally held, perpetually craved and to crave imperishably without being drained by it that makes cannibalism such a good metaphor. We’re faced with a contradiction. The desire to eat -or be eaten, for that matter- someone we love to achieve an impossible level of nearness and showing our truest love also entails the end of this relationship and the eventual death of the subject of love. This step to an eternity as one single entity also means the annihilation of one of the lovers, this one existing only in a new spiritual plane. 

Why are we so fascinated by it, then?

To eat one another is a type of hunger we all, metaphorically, have in us. We’ve tried to cover it up, too scared of it even if it’s just a thought we’d never act upon, but I personally don’t think it is only curiosity that takes us on the journey of research, contemplation and even creation of fiction where other people eat each other as the ultimate love language. It is a means to free even our darkest lust, our deepest desire the rational mind cannot comprehend. That’s one of the main characteristics that make this metaphor so attractive to an audience since centuries ago, from vampires to Hansel and Gretel and Hozier’s Eat Your Young: it is to give up the constant fight we keep having with our own desires as if they are not as human as any other aspect of us. And that is our greatest mistake: desire is not rational. Hunger is not rational. We are allowed to feel, we are allowed to think, even if we are taught we aren’t. 

It might feel wrong, and we ought to keep in mind that the term “cannibalism” has been stained since colonialism times, going through Freud's questionable theories and becoming a prohibited subject among those who advocate for reason as the only beneficial human quality. That's why we don’t even dare to consider it as something that may sustain beauty and not only primitivism, treason and mental illness. The use of cannibalism as a metaphor for love is one of the deepest, most genuine and even more important, especially if we’re talking about something as colossal as love, human metaphors that have been used in art and creation.

References

• Eating your lover’s otherness (openedition.org) 

• Cannibalism consumes love in ‘Yellowjackets’ and ‘Hannibal’ (michigandaily.com) 

• Medieval Europe Couldn't Quit This Story About a Woman Eating Her Lover's Heart - Gastro Obscura (atlasobscura.com) 

• A Perverse History of the Human Heart - Milad Doueihi - Google Books 

• greek - Story of Dionysus being slaughtered as a bull-calf and eaten by the Titans? - Mythology & Folklore Stack Exchange 

• Dionysus | Powers, God, Parents, Meaning, Symbols, & Facts | Britannica 

• The Man-Eating Myth, Ardens

• Freud on Cannibalism, Maryta Vyrgioti