E: Right.  And here's someone who historically has like, been okay with addressing some complicated issues.  But not necessarily this one.  And I think you spend more of your time talking about corpses and human remains, how do you navigate that space?

C: Well, you know, again, I'm also not someone at "the table?" Necessarily?

E: Mm-hmm.

C: You know, I can speak from an outsider's perspective, but I think that the reason that people maybe ask me so much about it is because I talk so much about consent on my channel, and specifically consent around human remains and dead bodies. And what does it mean to have the family and the individual themselves before they die have a specific vision for what happens with their dead body, and that's important either culturally or religiously, and then have that violated in some way.

And so, we talk about that all the time. We have a series called "Iconic Corpse," and most of the iconic corpses, especially the women or female-identified corpses that we have on the channel, tend to be famous because they were dragged out or exploited in some way after their death.

E: And that talking point, just the concept of consent, I think, is at the heart of why the museum collections that are in possession of human remains is so problematic, because for the most part, the human remains that end up in museum collections were not done with the consent of the individual.

And that's not just looking at, you know, indigenous people from America - that's mummies, that's... the majority of human remains in collections are from marginalized groups of people from either socioeconomically, or they were prisoners, or they were patients who were mentally or physically disabled or ill - and none of these people -

E: - those individuals being displayed gave their consent to do so.

C: Oh, completely. Because then you feel like you're all on the same page of-, the conversation then is, "The human body is fascinating!" 

E: Yeah.

C: Not, "We took these people without their consent and flayed them and put them in acetone until they're now preserved having sex."

E: And the year is 2019 and I paid $28 to go see this.

C: Oh, it's more than that, I think it's - 

E: Yeah, nobody feels good about that situation.

C: No. No. Any display of human remains you want both the ancestors of the people that it came from, and the public engaging with it, and the museum that it came from to all be somewhat in the same place -

E: Yeah.

C: - with why this is happening and what we're learning from it.

E: I also look at-, you know, there are instances where people have, again, donated their bodies with consent, and it's ended up being a delightful interaction, right? I think about Grover Krantz; this guy was an anthropologist and was one of the first legitimate Sasquatch academics? Published academic papers on Bigfoot? He knew an anthropologist -

C: What is a "legit Sasquatch academic" mean? [E laughs] Hold on...

E: I wanna say he published papers, I don't know if they were peer-reviewed, and when he passed away, he had made a request to the Curator of Anthropology at the Smithsonian Museum that he wanted his body put in to the museum, and the curator agreed. And this wasn't long ago, this was like, 2002.

And so, they sent Grover Krantz's body and the body of one of his favorite Irish wolfhounds to a body farm in Tennessee, and now it's still on display there.

C: Yeah.

E: And that is a situation when one can feel good about this.

C: Absolutely!

E: Knowing that Grover was like, "I want to use my body to educate people! And I want to be with my dog forever!"

C: A lot of people DO want that. Scientific donation is a very valid, and frankly, less expensive thing that you can do with your body.

E: Yeah.

C: Whether it's going to a medical school or a private donation company - although, if you're thinking about -