How about a three-day old honey bun?
Sawney Bean stories can be fun.
What did they find in the cannibal’s sewing basket?
Belly buttons.
What did they find in the cannibal’s Christmas stocking?
N****r toes. (An old, non-PC term for Brazil nuts.)
What did Jeffrey Dahmer say to Lorena Bobbit?
“Excuse me, you gonna eat that?”
Right; I’ll get me coat and hat… 
Most of those jokes I heard in Minnesota in the 1970’s about a guy named Ed Gein. You can google is you want, but warning: He was one sickening guy.
My older brother was telling them (in Minnesota) in the '50s, when Gein was in the news.
Why did Hannibal Lecter invite Jackie Chan over to his place?
He was in the mood for a little Chinese.
In the '80s I saw I Was A Teenage Alien, ‘The World’s First Science-Fiction/Horror Anti-Shoplifting Film’. An alien gets a visit from his superior and offers refreshment. He opens the freezer and pulls out a sash that says ‘Miss Copenhagen’. ‘Would you like a nice piece of Danish?’
xxx
[Moderating]:
Can we please let the old racist language just die out? Yes, I know that Brazil nuts were once called by a different name. There’s a reason why they aren’t any more. So, let’s not.
That’s amazing, since Wisconsin has the second largest deer population in the US, after Pennsylvania. (I learned this from the Highway Patrol while hitchhiking along the Interstate between Minneapolis and Milwaukee.)
One of my exes used to bring back huge venison salamis whenever she went home to visit her family. I’ll never be able to look at them the same way again! :eek:
Does Shrek eating people count as cannibalism? He’s portrayed as a sentient being; he speaks English, lives in a house, and is fully clothed. And all ogres have humanoid bodies- they have two arms and two legs.
Granted, he never actually eats anyone, but he does talk about it.
Given that people eat gorillas and chimps, and it’s not considered cannibalism, I would say no. However, since this is world in which a donkey can produce viable offspring with a dragon, I would say the species concept is a bit nebulous. (Also, Shrek is able to produce offspring with Princess Fiona, who was originally human, even if cursed to become an ogre.)
I can buy that they cook people with their clothes on but what I can never understand is where the hell did they get a giant, 4 foot diameter iron pot!? Other than boiling missionaries what would do with a pot like that?
Fess up, you started this thread to tell these groaners, didn’t you? 
Laundry? :dubious: 
I think we should do away with calling anything edible, nuts. As a guy it makes me a little self conscious and nervous! 
Especially pee-nuts. Way to make the association even clearer! :eek:
You might think that; but what actually prompted it was seeing yet another scene where someone was about to be roasted on a spit, alive and clothed. While there are tribes who throw animals directly onto a fire without gutting them, at least the animals are dead.
ISTR seeing the roasting-on-a-spit cannibalism trope used as a dramatic plot point; but more often it seems to be a comedic point, as in Indiana Jones and Return of the Jedi. It would be hard for The Hero to get out of the situation if his head were being shrunk, his guts were in the offal heap, his body was trussed to a spit, and his hide was tanning on a shed, so I can see why filmmakers use the trope. It’s shorthand for what many people would find a horrifying situation. It would be harder and more expensive to set up a more realistic scene, where The Hero and his Troupe see what’s about to happen to them. I think there are some people who wouldn’t ‘get’ the horror without the characters actually being tied over a fire. More, the ‘Hero Trying To Blow Out The Fire’ shot would be lost.
Cannibal jokes are great; but I just had to mention how silly the trope is.
When I was a kid, a couple cartoons in The Saturday Evening Post addressed the former. The first showed two white hunters (with clothes) simmering in the pot and one is complaining, “I could never figure out where they get these blasted pots.” Four weeks later was a cartoon of a large kettle being sold at auction. The auctioneer and half of the audience is staring at a black bare forearm with a coiled wire bracelet at the wrist upraised to bid on it. I don’t remember if it was the same cartoonist or not.
As to the second, I can’t find the cite but there was a Dutch company that in the 19th century produced large cast iron kettles as a trade item. They weren’t big enough to stew people in but [spoiler] it’s rare to find ten-yard diameter islands with a single palm tree on them, either.
The New Yorker had a collection of deeply offensive cartoons that I know I’ve seen; the one I remember showed a pair of archaeologists finding a mummy with a menstrual strain at the crotch. Caption was “Egads! This mummy is cursed!”
Need to take a moment to appreciate the brilliance of this horrible pun. BobLibDem, go off into a corner and think about what you’ve done…
Well, the fact of the matter, is, that while people who lived in the tropics, particularly near large bodies of water, did NOT boil their laundry, it WAS the practice in the US, from the time Europeans landed here, and probably the very last of it ended with WWII, but it wasn’t common then. My father was born in 1930, and never had laundry cleaned this way. Neither did his parents, but they were New Yorkers. However…his grandparents, he once said, did remember this practice. He said a huge pot was set to boil out in the yard.
So basically, people who drew and saw these cartoons originally, were probably people who had seen this practice in their childhood. Their families may not have done it, but they’d seen it done at some point.
Transplant the log fire, the pot, and the clearing in the yard to the tropics, and then stick in a couple of missionaries, who needed to be dressed for a couple of reasons-- they wore somewhat distinctive clothing, and drawing them naked wouldn’t do.
Yes, implying that cannibalism was about to happen was perfectly all right, but showing a white man naked from the waist up just wouldn’t do. Times change.
And yes, I’m serious that showing a naked white man was not OK, but naked “natives” was. in 1933, all kinds of naked-from-the-waist-up black actors were in King Kong, and no one blinked, but a year later, showing Clark Gable’s chest in It Happened One Night caused all kinds of ruckus.
Manifested especially in undershirt sales plummeting. Gable almost ruined the industry singlehanded! :eek: