I think when it escalates to the point of dismemberment for nonnecessary food (things are totally different if they're trapped somewhere and on the brink of starvation) it's clear that at least one person in the relationship is far too nuckingfuts to consider it truly consentual. Part of mutual consent implies being relatively close to all there.
I think when it escalates to the point of dismemberment for nonnecessary food (things are totally different if they're trapped somewhere and on the brink of starvation) it's clear that at least one person in the relationship is far too nuckingfuts to consider it truly consentual. Part of mutual consent implies being relatively close to all there. Do you conclude that the 'victim' was not all there solely from the fact that he did something really bizarre, painful and stupid by your standards?
Apparently, the victim was an employed computer engineer. So he was together enough to hold a responsible job. Does that change your conclusion?
What if everyone that knew him agreed he was odd, but fully capable of making decisions for himself? Does that change your conclusion?