its probably just sex and horny
well i thought so too but then i reread chapter one and its kinda giving monch monch his internal conversation was like "i wanna eat him... no lets think of something sexy instead. i wonder if maybe appetite and lust can be the same thing?" which made me think he literally wanted to eat him and then had to divert his attention to lust. also, they talk about a lady who was "eaten" in a back alleyway and it was wayyyy too ambiguous for me
I think you'll have to think about it like our concept of taste and smell; they're highly connected and smelling strawberry milk *feels* like strawberry. Alternatively, if they expose you to a "wrong" smell as you eat something the taste of it totally changes in your mind
So for cakeverse I think forks are physiologically hungry as they smell cakes but there is an added cognitive function that takes into account the fact that it is a person and bends the internal interpretation as an attraction point blank. Now with the smell and the instinct to put your mouth closer forks are inclined to say "it's lust" as much as they're inclined to say "it's hunger" (just as you'd be inclined to say "it's only the smell" or "it's only the taste")
Point is, you have to rationalize it to get to the correct answer, or in the cakeverse, the correct action and if they aren't properly regulated then their internal interpretation to begin with isn't balanced to just be "attraction" but rather tips one way or another and in gore cases it's genuine hunger and cannibalism
I think as the authors considers the threat to be more likely then they'll create a story that's paranoid about those events happening or would openly display the gory events
im still confused... by "eating" and "appetite", do they mean like cannibalism????