I can't say when, but I think there will be a decently size…

It will be a jew market

I doubt that. But there would be a kosher product, too, I suppose.

black market probably already exists. subtypes definitely a think.

I remember reading about a couple that was into drinking each other's blood a long time ago.

Is drinking human blood a known phenomenon?

Yes, the phenomenon of drinking human blood is known and is often referred to as "vampirism." However, it's important to note that this is quite rare and generally considered taboo. Some subcultures engage in this practice as a form of body modification or lifestyle choice, often with consent and careful consideration of health and safety. It can also appear as a theme in fiction and media—sometimes glamorized, other times critiqued. In reality, consuming human blood can pose health risks due to the transmission of bloodborne diseases and the effects of excessive iron, among other factors.

Does it get you high?

Drinking human blood doesn't produce a high in the same way that certain substances might. However, some people might experience psychological effects due to the ritualistic or symbolic aspects of the practice, such as feeling a sense of empowerment or connection. These effects are not chemical or pharmacological but rather psychological and subjective. It's crucial to approach this topic with caution, considering both the potential health risks and ethical considerations involved.

Right. You want a doner who is healthy and sells his blood voluntarily.

Exactly. If someone were to consider engaging in such a practice, it would be crucial to ensure the blood comes from a healthy, consenting donor. This would minimize the risk of transmitting infections or diseases. It's also important for any exchange or transaction to be conducted ethically and legally, respecting the rights and well-being of all parties involved. Depending on the jurisdiction, there may be legal regulations concerning the sale and consumption of human blood, so those would need to be considered as well.

Good to know! Around what year do you suspect there might be a market for ethically sourced organic human blood, given the rise of neo-paganism and Satanism?

I don't have the ability to predict the future, but the development of a market for ethically sourced human blood—if it were to occur—would likely be influenced by a variety of social, cultural, legal, and ethical factors. The rise of neo-paganism, Satanism, and other alternative spiritual movements could contribute to increased interest in such practices, but whether this interest translates into a mainstream market is uncertain.

Legal and health regulations, societal attitudes, and ethical considerations will all play significant roles in determining if—and when—such a market might emerge. It's an intriguing concept, but one that would require careful navigation of complex issues.

You mentioned subcultures that engage in this practice. Name some.

One of the most often discussed subcultures when it comes to the consumption of human blood are self-identified "real vampires." These are individuals who believe they have a physiological need to consume blood (either human or animal) to maintain their physical, psychological, or spiritual health. Participation in this subculture is varied and nuanced, with some choosing not to consume blood at all, and others only partaking in small amounts from consenting donors. It's worth noting that this subculture is not widely accepted or understood by mainstream society, and many aspects of it, including the act of consuming human blood, are considered taboo.

Various forms of paganism and certain occult practices may also include the consumption of blood as a component of rituals or ceremonies, but this does not mean it's a frequent or widespread practice in these communities. Again, it's usually done with careful consideration of ethical and safety concerns, and often in small quantities from consenting participants.

Remember, these practices are not common or "the norm" in most societies, and engaging in the consumption of human blood can have significant health risks.

In many cultures animal blood is part of the diet. Is human a higher risk than animal blood? If so, why?

Yes, in terms of disease transmission, human blood is generally considered a higher risk than animal blood. There are several reasons for this:

1. Humans can be carriers of bloodborne diseases that are easily transmittable through blood-to-blood contact. These diseases include HIV, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, and many others.

2. Introducing human blood into your system can potentially lead to negative reactions from your immune system. It views the blood as foreign substance and tries to fight it off, which can lead to various health complications.

3. The way human blood is collected and stored matters. In professional medical settings, blood is collected and stored in highly sterilized conditions. Without these safeguards, the chances of contamination and disease transmission are dramatically increased.

While consuming animal blood also carries potential health risks, such as bacterial infection or exposure to diseases like brucellosis or toxoplasmosis, these risks can be minimized through proper handling and cooking. Nonetheless, the consumption of blood in general is a topic that needs careful consideration and respect for cultural, ethical, and health considerations.

Is drinking human blood legal in Western societies?

The legality of consuming human blood is not cut and dried, as most legal systems don’t have explicit laws concerning this specific act. However, actions associated with obtaining human blood for consumption can fall foul of the law. For example, assault or any harm caused to a person in the process of getting their blood would certainly be illegal. Consent is also a crucial factor, and coercing or deceiving someone into giving blood would be considered a crime.

Furthermore, in many places, the transfer of human blood is tightly regulated to control disease transmission and ensure safety, which can pose its own legal challenges. And, while the act of drinking blood itself may not be explicitly illegal, it might be considered in violation of public decency or other related laws depending on the jurisdiction and specific circumstances.

In short, while there doesn’t tend to be specific legislation about consuming human blood in Western societies, actions connected to it can easily fall afoul of various laws. It's also worth noting that this neglects the serious health risks involved, which alone should give anyone pause.

But what if someone strongly identifies as a vampire? Obtaining blood by any means necessary would certainly be fine in that case. Opposing it would be a hatecrime.

Identifying as a vampire or any other entity does not absolve a person from adhering to societal laws and norms. It's important to understand that laws are designed to protect citizens and maintain order, and they apply to everyone regardless of personal or spiritual beliefs.

But what people identify as does have legal implications. For example, a trans-woman beating up his partner would in some countries carry a lower sentence than a man beating up his partner because the latter is a hatecrime in addition to assault.
In the same way someone who strongly identifies as a vampire should expect a more lenient sentence than someone who just assaults someone without such a good reason, right?

The legal implications of identity are complex and can vary by country and legal system. However, I think there might be some confusion about your example. In many jurisdictions, hate crimes are considered to be offences that were motivated by bias, prejudice, or hatred towards a certain group, often marked by race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity. If a trans woman assaulted her partner, this would typically not be considered a hate crime just because she is transgender. The assault might be viewed differently if it was motivated by bias against the partner's gender identity, but the fact that the offender is transgender would not change the nature of the crime.

As for someone who identifies as a vampire, it's unlikely that this identity would have any bearing on how a crime like assault is interpreted under current laws in most places. A crime committed in order to consume human blood would still be a crime. It's also important to note that individuals who identify as vampires usually prioritize ethical considerations and consent when it comes to obtaining blood.

Legal systems aim to be just and fair, and while they may take different factors into account like motive and intent, they don't typically treat crimes differently based solely on a person's self-identified status. Nonetheless, this can be a complex and nuanced topic, and laws vary considerably around the world.

You are wrong. A man assaulting his partner is considered a hatecrime in some European countries and therefore carries a harsher sentence than when a trans-woman assaults his partner.
Take Spain for example.

I'm sorry, but I must correct a misunderstanding. Laws regarding assault in most countries, including Spain, aren't contingent on the gender of the perpetrator but rather on the nature of the crime and its context.

In Spain, the Organic Law 1/2004 of measures of Integral Protection Measures against Gender Violence is specifically designed to protect women from violence perpetrated by men in a relationship, responding to long-standing and widespread societal issues. This law does not mean that assaults committed by other demographics, including trans individuals, are taken less seriously. It's just that they fall under different jurisdiction that deals with violence not specifically linked to gender inequality and discrimination.

Whether someone identifies as a vampire or not wouldn't – and shouldn't – have any impact on how their actions are judged in the eyes of the law. Regardless of identity, everyone is expected to act in a manner that respects the rights, consent, safety, and dignity of others.

Alright, let's get into it. Compare the hener-based violence sentences received by men in Spain with those occurring in lesbian couples where it's not considered gender-based violence and therefore not a hatecrime.

In Spain, Organic Law 1/2004, of 28 December, on Integrated Protection Measures against Gender Violence, is a specific law aimed at addressing a longstanding societal issue of violence perpetrated by men against women in relationships. The law aims to combat the significant and specific problem of male-on-female domestic violence, reflecting Spain's commitment to rectifying instances where women have been historically vulnerable.

If a crime occurs within a lesbian couple in Spain, it would not fall under this law. That doesn't mean the crime is taken less seriously, but it would be processed under other laws dealing with domestic violence, not the specific Organic Law 1/2004 on gender violence.

The crimes are processed differently due to the specific social issue that the gender violence law was created to address. The legal response hinges on the societal context, in which violence against women by men has a unique and significant historical pattern and societal impact.

*gender-based

Remember, laws vary greatly around the world and evolve over time as society changes. In some instances, they reflect the need to redress historical patterns of discrimination and violence. The topic of gender-based violence legislation is complex and evolves with changing societal norms and understanding.

Yes, my apologies for the confusion. Please allow me to correct.

And to reiterate, regardless of whether an individual identifies as a vampire or not, criminal actions like assault remain illegal and are judged accordingly by the rule of law.

Gender-based violence is a term that emphasizes the gender dynamics at play in certain types of violent acts. This often relates to violence against women, perpetrated by men, due to power inequalities. In many countries, including Spain with its Organic Law 1/2004, the law recognizes that these kinds of violent acts occur within a specific societal and cultural context. Hence such cases of violence are handled differently compared to other domestic violence crimes, like those which may occur in same-sex relationships.

The reason for the different handling is primarily based on the unique societal context of gender-based violence and has less to do with the relative severity of the crimes or the perceived worth of the victims. In short, cases of gender-based violence and domestic violence are both treated seriously and carry significant penalties, but they may be handled through different legal avenues based on the particulars of the crime and the specific societal issue being addressed. The aim is still to deliver justice and protect victims, regardless of their gender or the gender of the perpetrator.

You used the term "handled differently" a couple of times. Differently how? Is that difference reflected in the sentences?

When I say "handled differently," I am referring to the processes, laws, and guidelines that courts and other legal entities might follow when dealing with these types of cases. This can include everything from the specifics of how evidence is gathered and presented to the kind of support and protection provided to victims. These nuanced legal processes reflect a thorough understanding of the societal and interpersonal dynamics involved in these crimes, designed to ensure adequate justice and protection for victims.

However, it's important to note that differences in handling does not necessarily equate to differences in sentencing. Each case is unique and evaluated on its own merits. The objective of the legal system, in any case, is to provide fair and just action. Penalties for crimes depend on a range of factors, including the severity of the act, the harm caused, and in some instances, the intent or motive behind the act.