Arens' primary hypothesis is that despite claims made by western explorers and anthropologists since the 15th century, there is no firm, substantiable evidence for the socially accepted practice of cannibalism anywhere in the world, at any time in history.

[4] In the preface to The Man-Eating Myth, Arens notes that he was first inspired to begin a fuller investigation of cannibalism while teaching an introductory course on anthropology at Stony Brook University, New York.

First, to assess critically the instances of and documentation for cannibalism, and second, by examining this material and the theoretical explanations offered, to arrive at some broader understanding of the nature and function of anthropology over the past century.

In contrast, Arens argues that the Aztecs found the idea of cannibalism – even in survival conditions – socially reprehensible, and believed that some of their neighbouring peoples were guilty of it.

Regarding the former, Arens discusses E. E. Evans-Pritchard's work in disproving that the Azande people were cannibalistic, before arguing that the stories of socially accepted cannibalism in the "Dark Continent" were based largely on misunderstandings and the sensationalist claims of European travellers like Henry Morton Stanley, and that there was no reputable first-hand accounts of such a practice anywhere in Africa.

Instead, he notes that many African societies found cannibalism to be a reprehensible anti-social activity associated with witchcraft, drawing comparisons with the Early Modern European witch hunt.

[11] In the fourth chapter, entitled "The Prehistoric World of Anthropophagy", Arens deals with archaeological arguments for socially approved cannibalism in European and North American prehistory.

He then moves on to look at North American examples, including those from the Pueblo period in the Southwestern United States and among the Iroquois in the country's northeast, in both instances critiquing an interpretation of socially sanctioned cannibalism.

He also describes the manner in which many societies hold origin myths that involve them once being incestuous cannibals before they became civilised, in this way referencing the ideas expressed by the psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud in his Totem and Taboo.

[14] In The Man-Eating Myth, Arens notes that he was unable to find any form of "adequate documentation" for the existence of socially sanctioned cannibalism in any recorded society.

[8] He nevertheless refused to rule out the possibility that it had ever occurred, maintaining that the correct methodological stance was to hold an open mind on the issue, and that it would be impossible to conclusively state that no society throughout human history has ever culturally sanctioned cannibalism.

As evidence, he asserts that rumors that the Indigenous Americans of Northeastern Canada were cannibals arose when foreign societies learned of their folkloric beliefs in man-eating giants who lived in the wilderness and conflated this fantasy with reality.

[21] Arens' third primary argument is that ever since the development of the discipline, the anthropological community have continually perpetuated the "Man-Eating Myth" that cultural cannibalism was widespread across the world.

In this way, he sees anthropologists as following in the path of Christian friars from the Early Modern period who asserted the existence of cannibalism "beyond the pale of civilization", in societies that are either historically or geographically distinct to western culture.

Criticizing what he saw as the "chatty 'Holier-than-Thou' tone" of the book, Rivière asserted that at only 160 pages of text, Arens had failed to give sufficient attention to the subject and evidence, instead devoting much of the space to constructing and demolishing straw men arguments.

Coming to the defence of those who believe the account of Staden regarding cannibalism among the Tupinambá by arguing that it could indeed reflect the German explorer's genuine experiences, Rivière notes that Arens has not tackled all of the claims which assert that this South American people committed anthropophagy.

Casting a critical eye on his claims, she notes that his use of source material was "selective and strangely blinkered", which detracted from his ideas of "collective prejudice" which she considers valuable.

Critiquing his discussion of the Fore people of New Guinea as being littered with inaccuracies, she draws comparisons between cannibalism and sexual activity, noting the latter is also not directly observed by anthropologists but nonetheless undoubtedly goes on.

Noting that the book was "provocative" in its thesis, he felt that it was bound to raise many "hackles", and that it would lead future anthropologists to challenge other long-standing beliefs about non-western "primitive" societies, such as that of widespread incest and promiscuity.

Unfortunately, however, Arens fails to support satisfactorily his main thesis that no adequate documentation for cannibalism exists for any culture, an argument that seems too much the result of the author's personal convictions and too little the product of careful research.

Although concurring that reports of cannibalism have been all too readily accepted without being properly scrutinized, Krabacher nonetheless argues that he has used a "careless and selective" approach to the literary sources.

[33] The German journal Anthropos published a largely positive review of Arens' work by John W. Burton, in which he described it as an "extensive and meticulous" study which was the model of a "fair and reasoned argument".

Van de Velve felt that the book contained several weaknesses, for instance Arens did not, he notes, explain how the claim for cultural cannibalism can be successfully refuted.

[35] Archaeologist Paola Villa, one of the primary excavators of Fontbrégoua Cave, a Neolithic site in Southeastern France where the team argued for the existence of cannibalism, made reference to Arens' work in a 1992 paper of his published in the Evolutionary Anthropology journal.

Proceeding to defend various ethnographic accounts of cultural cannibalism, he argues that this thoroughly disproves the beliefs which "Arensite" anthropologists find it "comfortable or fashionable" to believe.

[37] Later in The Buried Soul, he proclaims that Arens' book is pervaded by a "hollow certainty of viscerally insulated inexperience", and he claims that such a flawed methodology has echoes in the anthropologist Jean La Fontaine's Speak of the Devil: Tales of Satanic Abuse in Contemporary England (1998); Taylor himself suggests that multiple claims of the Satanic ritual abuse have been incorrectly dismissed for being considered "improbable".

[39] Claude Lévi-Strauss summarily dismissed Arens's work, calling it "a brilliant but superficial book that enjoyed great success with an ill-informed readership", but failed to convince the academic community: "No serious ethnologist disputes the reality of cannibalism".

Thomas Abler investigated Arens's dismissal of Iroquois cannibalism, concluding that his summary rejection of many detailed accounts cannot be justified and that he totally overlooked important other sources.

Kajsa Ekholm Friedman called this "a remarkable opinion in a culture [the European/American one] that has been capable of the most extreme cruelty and destructive behavior, both at home and in other parts of the world.

His argument is based on the implicit idea that everybody throughout human history must have shared the strong taboo placed by his own culture on cannibalism, but he never even attempts to explain why this should be so, and "neither logic nor historical evidence justifies" this viewpoint, as Siefkes commented.