If you had to eat somebody to survive, and you have stored in a snowbank four potential doners: a stranger, a friend, a loved one, and a lover, which would you choose?
I’m thinking that I’d go w/ the lover. The act seems too intimate for anybody else.
A stranger. If I got out of there I would rather have my friend, loved one and lover.
Lessee…I got four donors “stored”?
Then I’d just eat the tender bits from all four. No sense in settling for second-rate cuts when there’s all that good stuff sitting there.
Whoever is freshest and most conveniently located. Once the person is dead they are pretty much just a pile of chemicals.
However I suppose that “loved one” would be the most disturbing. After cutting off the hands, head and feet though, it would probably not be too difficult to then think of it as an it.
I’d resist the most I could then eat the first one I trip over.
Wait… they’re dead already? Wouldn’t it be a more interesting survey if we had to kill them ourselves?
Remember: In such situations it is of utmost importance always to refer to one’s victuals as pieces of light or dark meat, and never as this or that bit of liver, tit, or testicle.
[sub]With apologies to J. P. Donleavy.[/sub]
I would eat all of them, and then see if I can find some fava beans.
I’d check to see who had the nicely marbled loins and then cut some steaks with about 1/4" of fat trim and get the charcoal grill going.
Sick question… I’d eat the stranger. Not much fun eating people you like or loved.
Loved one: my family are a pretty stringy bunch. Not much good eating flesh there.
Lover: too muscular, so I’m guessing whatever meat I could hack off would be tough and gamey. I’d need a good slow heat to tenderise it, which may hard to come by. Then again, I’ve had most of his body parts in my mouth at some earlier point of time, so it wouldn’t be too much of a progression…
Friend: most of my friends keep a pretty poor diet. I’d probably dislike the recycled taste of stale beer, cigarettes, fast food and late nights.
I’m going to have to go with the stranger.
Well, I always have had a taste for albatross soup.
I’d probably eat the friend and the stranger first.
I don’t know if I could eat the lover or the loved one…but if I did, I’d be sure to leave the head alone, as a sign of respect.
Ranchoth
(Must…save…the BRAIN!)
An Indian. I just love Indian.
How 'bout a nice bottle of Chianti?
Whoever was the fattest I guess. hopefully it would be the stranger.
Ha! “No offense, dear departed Uncle Joe, but I’m going to eat your arm. It’s not like the boatsman is going to make you swim the Styx.”
Once of my colleagues at work looks pretty tasty. She is a vegitarian so that is as close to “grain fed” as you can get.
I think I would prep her with a nice light Dijon and herb marinade.
mmmmmmmm…
Assuming they are all allready dead.
Logically you would want to avoid disease if possible, that would mean eating the healthiest of the people you knew. The stranger would only be an option if you knew the other three carry diseases you don’t yet suffer from.
You would also want to minimise the suffering of others, this depends on knowing about the person you might eat, and knowing their families beliefs about dead bodies of their relitives. Your loved one or lover would then be good choices, as you are part of that family that may suffer.
You would also want to minimise your own mental turmoil, if the idea of eating someone you know is hard to digest, then the stranger would be best choice.
I would probably chose to eat my lover first if I thought it would lead to a chance of survival. If I thought it would just prolong the inevitable, I would bury the bodies in snow, and bury myself, with my lover if she were my wife or we were to be married or else with my loved one.
The stranger, duh.