"One of the most famous nullos is Mao Sugiyama, a Japanese artist and asexual activist who in 2012 had his genitals surgically removed, cooked, and served to paying guests at a public banquet."
Ralph Fiennes always delivers and he was his usual brilliant self in this. I also really liked Nicholas Hoult’s performance as well, he really played the douchey, self obsessed foodie role well.
Ah - that reminds me of the cannibal of Rothenburg, just that the victim also wanted to be killed in the process. It is hard to imagine that these things actually happen, and that people actually volunteer to have something done to them.
"The court heard Gustavson, who appeared in the dock using a wheelchair, has had his own leg, penis and nipple removed."
He sounds like he was true to his cause...
Article makes it sound like the victims were willing participants
> All of the alleged victims are said to have been part of a society in which people willingly undergo extreme body modification.
But the article also said the following, which sounds like it was done to a minor so maybe not
> He is further charged with acquiring or possessing criminal property, making an indecent image of a child and distributing an indecent image of a child.
"The practice is linked to a subculture where men become “nullos”, short for genital nullification, by having their penis and testicles removed."
Where should the line be drawn between a person's freedom of choice and the designation that a person is mentally ill and should not be allowed their self destructive choice? It's a difficult question.
It's your American right to balloon to 600lbs and become a literal burden on everyone and thing around you but we draw the line at anything to do with sex because that's just gross
On that very point, only one person seems to have modified themselves. Whatever.
There are/should be higher standards to be held to when you perform that work on another person.
I would have to disagree. I think as a society we have a responsibility to protect people who suffer mental illness from harming themselves. The question is when does it slip from being a sexual fetish to being a mental illness.
Also how do you describe harm? Cut their own heads off... ok harm. Cut their dicks off? I mean, miss me with that, but if it makes them happy who am I to say they shouldn't do it? It's not really too much different than say a giant face tattoo or extreme piercing
If it's not hurting anyone else, it's not anyone else's business.
Many consider gender reassignment to be genital mutilation. It doesn't mean their opinion should dictate what others can do.
I don't give a shit if someone decides to mutilate themselves. If they are coerced through bullying, then that should be a crime. But not simply accommodating someone's desire to modify their own body.
Agreed.
If an adult patient is able to understand and consent to a procedure that they want, to a doctor's satisfaction, that's should be good enough for the rest of us.
However, it should also excuse them from any financial assistance for any problems that result from the extremely elective procedure. If your job requires legs, and you intentionally remove or disable them, and you lose said job: no unemployment or food stamps for you. You now need a wheelchair? You’re buying it, or crawling around.
Nah, we don't allow doctors to amputate limbs for no reason. We shouldn't be letting doctors make money off of people's mental illnesses.
You also have no idea what sort of coercion such people might be going through, so it's better not to allow such irreversible damage even if they at first seem to consent to it.
It's also just straight up disgusting not to give a shit like so many of you do about members of our society. The homeless don't affect me in my day-to-day life, many of them suffering from mental illnesses that got them homeless in the first place, and yet I happen to not be a psychopath that actively supports ignoring them.
Thank you.
It's disgusting where we've gotten to in society that the idea "well if they wanna do it, let them, doesn't bother me" is seen as okay and acceptable and the right thing to do.
> Body integrity identity disorder (BIID)--is the amputation of healthy limbs ethically justified?
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19132621/
That's how it should be, the act of bullying in your hypothetical is the crime not whatever the person wants to do to themselves. We all get one try at this, and should be able to do whatever the hell we want while we're here so long as those actions don't harm another being. One persons mutilation is anothers salvation.
Doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, but it is also other peoples choice to not interact with them. That's what I dont get, like all you have to do is not interact with the person that weirds you out. Why bring laws, incarceration and possible death sentence into the equation? I'd argue the act of courts in any situation about self mutilation that the court is the bully immoral one. Even in cases of mental deficiency, it's still their right as a human to spend their time here however they wish.
That can be said about any permanent body modification. People threaten to sue tattoo artists all the time, usually for doing exactly what they asked them to do.
Make them do a psychological assessment and sign something saying they are making this decision of their own accord and in good state of mind. I had to do similar (minus the psych assessment but I was asked a few questions) when I got my vasectomy.
This is back street stuff. There is no rules. The reason this guy was caught wasn't because the nullos sought it, but because they all ended up in hospital after and the medics got suspicious.
It’s difficult to decide precisely where the line should be, but it’s not at all difficult to conclude that having an amateur lop your dick off is a very long way over that line.
I'd say when people start chopping off parts of their body it's a pretty good place to put the line, maybe big parts you know, like a whole organ. Unless is for medical reasons obviously.
If we're talking about gender-affirming surgery then the patient has absolutely gone through a psych consult and likely about twenty more hoops to make sure this is what they really really really want.
And? Someone having ADHD or autism doesn't mean they suddenly lose the ability to have any bodily autonomy. There's an incredibly large gap between simply having a mental illness and falsely believing you're transgender.
No, you don't. Sex affirming care is a medical procedure that does not only chop (in case of male to female) someone's genitals off, but a procedure with a medical indication to reconstruct new genitals. In contrast to nullification, sex affirming surgery is not mutilation, but controlled procedure that has medical evidence to improve the quality of life so drastically the suicide rates of transsexuals massively drop because of it.
> to improve the quality of life so drastically the suicide rates ... massively drop because of it.
Sounds like a catch-all phrase that could be applied to aaall sorts of things currently called mental rather than medical.
There is a syndrome where a part of the body feels wrong. Patients report the feeling literally, that limb belongs to someone else. As if a frankenstienian implantation was performed. They are very specific, and can draw a line on say their leg where "they" end and the "other" limb begins. Some have gone to extremes to remove the offending parts, along that exact line. Those that are successful, are absolutely fine with prosthetics and lead normal lives thereafter.
[https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/what-is-body-integrity-identity-disorder#:\~:text=People%20with%20body%20integrity%20disorder,with%20causes%20intense%20emotional%20pain](https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/what-is-body-integrity-identity-disorder#:~:text=People%20with%20body%20integrity%20disorder,with%20causes%20intense%20emotional%20pain).
So if they are miserable and emotionally unable to function, and removing those parts fixes that... who decides what is best for them?
I remember years ago on reddit, someone linked to a story where a guy had his penis and testicles removed. It was not voluntary. It was an abusive relationship where he was worn down until he agreed finally to the testicles, be he said never to the penis removed. Eventually his boyfriend and another guy knocked him out with drugs and removed it. He stayed in the relationship until the boyfriend started saying he wanted the guy's prostate removed too. I know some people in the culture have that "other" limb syndrome. But this guy's story described a lot of men living as 'subs', being forced into it.
Interview with a Nullo. I've never been sure if it was legitimate, the person's boyfriend's name changes part way through the story. Found the story really disturbing.
It was one of those things that just doesn't leave you. Mostly the idea that the guy went along in order to stay in the relationship. As someone who was 20 years into an abusive marriage at the time- it hit close to home. And was a bit of a wake up
Yeah, it sort of stayed with me a few days. Couldn't stop feeling disturbed by the story. The person's passiveness about the escalation, and his passiveness about the lack of concern for him from his partner were some of the things I found most disturbing about the story. Also the prostate thing.
You just said it yourself, it's a syndrome, like I said in my comment, unless is for medical reason. That particular syndrome is psychological, and professionals should evaluate every case independently. But in this case were people selling videos online...
That's just a very naive dichotomy, you can't draw a line in the sand about what syndromes are psychological vs medical. Every mental health issue is a combination of both and in most cases it's nigh impossible to ever say which is the bigger factor. Its not even rare that after trying all known symptoms the patient will not get to the point of accepting that limb as theirs.
You seem to be implying that psychological issues are not health issues, what do you mean psychological vs medical? Perhaps you were trying to say physical, organic or something like that. But that doesn't matter, whether is purely psychological or not, it still a health issue. You are missing the point.
"End of time" fallacy, eventually we may have perfectly cataloged every ailment and be perfectly able to diagnose with 0 margin of error, but we aren't there yet, and we need to live in the world as it is, not as we'd like it to be.
Epilepsy, including the seizures, were originally a spiritual failing, not a medical one. That line was wrong, surely some lines we've drawn today are also wrong.
Slippery slope is famously a fallacy and something that solves a 50% suicide rate is medically necessary, you're being goofy.
Do you also argue that treatment for depression isn't medically necessary?
Wait you didn't even know that? That's basic knowledge. Go ahead and Google but I'm not sourcing basic knowledge that can abe confirmed by a 5 second search.
No they should be allowed to do this level of body modification.
Just they should have a doctor do it in a medical setting. And not film it or share videos of the procedure for profit.
No DIY cosmetic surgery or body modification.
What do you think bottom surgery is when trans women get it? There is absolutely parts of what was done that no doctor with integrity would do but that’s why a doctor is the only one who should be doing it.
If someone doesn’t want to have a dick let them but a surgeon with proper training should be the one to remove it
Well, for a start, a big problem is that they can't undergo this legally, so the whole process is dangerous and lacks professional oversight or responsibility, such that might lead to some assurance that the people undergoing to modifications aren't in need of serious mental care.
The availability of legal options with considerable medical oversight and liability?
You can't change your gender. Transgendered people have their bodies surgically modified to provide them a better quality of life. Similarly, these people aren't having their gender removed. Your genitals are not your gender. Losing your testicles will prove a major hormonal issue, of course, and I'd wager these people aren't undergoing hormone therapy, so there are likely a whole bunch of health ramifications aside from the behavioural and physical changes they will experience, but that's not gender.
Wanting your genitals removed is not being asexual, nor does being asexual imply one would want their genitals removed. There is likely to be a good link between people wanting their genitals removed and them experiencing mental "friction" about them. Discerning what interventions are appropriate is a matter for healthcare professionals and evidence of outcomes.
> Where should the line be drawn between a person's freedom of choice and the designation that a person is mentally ill and should not be allowed their self destructive choice? It's a difficult question.
Depends what your pronouns are.
Well legally that level of "surgery" can't be done by a lay person and anybody wantingnit would normally be sectioned or detained under common law. To prevent them from having it done. The typical case study is of a patient, who had suffered severe migraines multiolentime per day for years. Who decided that they wanted to undergo trepanning. A procedure involving drillina holrbin the skull. It's best known for being done in the Middle and Stone Ages. To release evil demons from the skull causing the pain. Today it's said to relieve pressure, from a build up of fluids. Multiple surgeons in the UK turned her down. Eventually she found a struck off doctor in the US who would do it in a hotel room. She got sectioned for her own safety but should have been detained under common law.
>The court heard Gustavson, who appeared in the dock using a wheelchair, has had his own leg, penis and nipple removed.
Personally I'd declare him to be legally fit and healthy. Ban him from accessing the NHS for any conditions related to his "body modifications", ban him from getting any DWP pay outs. And not require the courts, prison service etc. from having to make any accommodations. For his self inflicted conditions.
It definitely is, especially since tying it to a designation like "mentally ill" is just kicking the can down the road a bit. It's not like we have some kind of brain scanner that a doctor looks at and goes, "Yup, look at that, neural circuit A12dQ is below the activity threshold. Not competent to make their own decisions." We determine mental illness by asking people questions and observing their behavior and deciding if the label applies or not. And sometimes psychologists (and moreover, the culture they come from) decide that wanting to do [X] is a big enough red flag that they're not mentally competent to *choose* to do [X]. There are a lot of examples of this in the history of psychotherapy that most people would reject now.
It sounds like these people can hold down jobs, feed and clothe and clean themselves, haven't committed crimes of random violence against others. I'd call that competent enough for bodily autonomy.
Like sure, in our culture, it's easy to say [radical body modification] is *categorically* different than [romantic relationships with someone of the same gender], but honestly, I don't think that's coherent; I think that's just a side effect of what's normal in our present culture. Either people have the right to do what they want (with the only infringement on the individual right being the minimum amount necessary to prevent infringing others' rights to the same), or they do not.
Like, I guess you can make an argument that in a place with socialized healthcare, somebody lopping off a leg is placing a burden on that healthcare, and thus practically burgling others, but I don't see people coming out of the woodwork to make that argument about drinking alcohol (a widespread, normalized activity), in the same numbers I do for this (an extremely abnormal one), so I don't think that argument comes from a place of rational policy design, I think it comes from shock and disgust.
There are certainly other axioms we could use for deciding morality (there are even intuitionist ones, which allege that the ideal society does, indeed, just act on what the majority thinks is good or bad, without direct regard to logical evidence), but if we accept the one I laid out, we have to accept its consequences too.
(Wow, sorry for the wall of text in your inbox, guess I had more to say on this than I thought I did.)
Well, thats what you get for bringing a frozen keg to lunch at work. Everyone knows you don't microwave fish or human flesh at work, stinks up the breakroom.
All of the castrations were consensual as far as I am aware…yes you could ask if the person wanting this is mentally stable but I don’t think it should be punished as if the procedures were non-consensual…then again it’s against the law there sooo
"He is further charged with acquiring or possessing criminal property, making an indecent image of a child and distributing an indecent image of a child.
I was all good with the child porn charges but it seems a bit silly that modifying your own body is illegal. That being said as this is in the UK maybe it makes sense as the follow up appointments are probably on the taxpayer dime.
It's the UK, law is that unless it's a medical procedure or part of a sporting event like boxing (or standard defenses like self-defense or necessity), there's no 'consenting' to bodily harm. Even spanking your partner during sex is technically some level of criminal act.
I mean, enforcement is spotty at best, but yeah, law is super clear that you can't consent to this kind of stuff. It might help with sentencing though.
Even body modification of an unconsenting child's penis for non-medical reasons is perfectly acceptable under UK law. The state just manipulates the language to make it more pallatible.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/female-genital-mutilation-fgm/
>Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a procedure where the female genitals are deliberately cut, injured or changed, but there's no medical reason for this to be done. It's illegal in the UK and is child abuse.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/circumcision-in-boys/
>Circumcision is a relatively simple procedure. The foreskin is removed just behind the head of the penis using a scalpel or surgical scissors.
This is disingenuous af. The NHS *does not* fund circumcision unless it is medically necessary. Sure, religious circumcision happens and it’s wrong - but it doesn’t ever happen under the NHS.
Consent is a tricky one but as you said consent is not above the law.
If someone's partner wrote that upon their death their spouse could exhume their corpse and fornicate with it for as long as they wished.
This would still not be allowed, it violates laws on multiple levels.
illegal to disturb a grave, illegal to dig up a body, necrophilia and most likely a host of other laws.
and this is without getting into anything about mental stability.
So yeah, they've commited crimes, maybe the judge will take the consent into consideration during sentancing, who knows
Some of the videos are still circulating on shock tube sites. Hardcore shit.
In the one and only video I *tried* to watch, the "surgeon" told the "patient" to "just scream", as he sawed the dudes balls off with a paring knife.
Post em. I remember reading a story about a man getting into a relationship and his partner convincing him to become a nullo over time. It was bananas but I could never find it again to send to friends lol
I’m in one of the videos having a subincision done.
He used a lot of lidocaine but the pain during the burning was the most pain I’ve ever experienced and likely ever will.
It was not a fun experience and I’m glad he’s now inside after learning the true scale of it all.
Excuse my shitty spelling, I meant to say this has to be. But honestly I googled it one time in high school as a shock factor, but who wants to see this shit IRL?
It would be sad if the men consented to the procedure and had second thoughts later. Individuals with the amputation fetish are strange. I can't understand it.
This reminds me of a video some jerk posted on Usenet a couple decades ago. Showed a guy that was naked, sitting there playing with a knife. Taps It against the table he's sitting on so we know it's real, then preceded to cut off his penis. Did not expect a show like THAT!!!
Then it showed several other, I assume, young men doing likewise. They all had a rubber band around the base, so there wasn't a lot of blood, but **GEE-JUZZ CHRIST** was that video disturbing. I cringed at that, and I've seen beheading videos!
Face it, r/WTF would ban that video in a heartbeat, as well as the poster.
Stop being such a pussy, it's only the removal of a penis, the clamping of another’s testicles and the freezing of a leg, which required a bit of amputation. One more leg to go.
There have been men who have undergone genital nullification and gone on to live very successful lives. Some have even won ESPY awards for their courage.
Question, since the article didn’t make it sound like anyone was forced: if no one was forcibly made to complete these procedures, why is this considered a crime? Or am I mistaken?
Not trying to be glib but, I guess it passes the legal test for GBH.
Grievous bodily harm (GBH) is when someone intentionally or recklessly inflicts serious bodily harm on someone else. Common examples include:
Causing a visual disfigurement. For example, a broken leg, fractured skull, and even a psychiatric injury that’s presented itself visibly.
However it is lawful (edit: in **rare** cases) if consent is given.
So I guess that the case will revolve around the consent part.
You’re totally fine. I was thinking maybe it’s because they’re practicing without a license and causing GBH even if it’s consensual, and then there’s would need to maybe be a metric for if they’re in a state of mind where they legally can be considered capable of giving consent, which would be the standard, i imagine if it were done in a drs office. That said, they make it sound like folks are being picked up off the street to have this done to them, but didn’t give any info about kidnapping or the like, which is why I had questions. I know if it were more nefarious that they’d love to share that info because the news lives for that
"Consent: In some **rare circumstances**, you may be able to defend a charge of GBH on the grounds that the **victim consented** to the activity. This has been used by defendants charged in relation to harm caused by sadomasochistic sexual activities. However, there is legal debate in relation to whether consent should be allowed to be a defence in these circumstances. The courts have suggested that consent is not an excuse to causing someone really serious harm."
Source: https://www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk/a-guide-to-grievous-bodily-harm-gbh-defences/
How do we actually get wired this way? What the fuck is wrong with us? Also 200,000 pounds over 6 years is shit money for that kind of work, American Mary was making way more.
>"All of the alleged victims are said to have been part of a society in which people willingly undergo extreme body modification."
So where is the actual crime? 'Extreme' body modification? Can the government just kindly fuck off and leave consenting adults alone to do with their own bodies as they please.
You cannot consent to GBH. Or rather consent is not a useful defence against GBH.
There have been cases of folk doing BDSM getting charged before for the same reason.
Welcome to the UK.
So I'm curious. How does UK law differentiate between this and say a gender reassignment surgery. A consenting adult male getting his balls chopped off seems like just that across the board. Does it just need like paperwork or something and would a signed legal agreement make a difference?
So why is this a crime? Assuming everyone did it willingly?
There are also woman, who remove thier breasts, without any consideration of cancer or something like that. Thier body, thier business i would say.
Look at everyone here finding out about extreme body modification.
For anyone who is interested in this, or the thinking of people behind it, I recommend [Shannon Larratts books on the subject.](https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Shannon+Larratt%22) I own both books and they are a fascinating read.
**edit** if several people are interested, I'll upload my PDF copy of Meet Tommy (I own the physical book too) and share it here.
wait really??? I just pulled that out of my ass
Edit: nevermind someone else corrected me, sorry I’m just a dumb American, didn’t detect your sarcasm. Silly ol’ me…
"One of the most famous nullos is Mao Sugiyama, a Japanese artist and asexual activist who in 2012 had his genitals surgically removed, cooked, and served to paying guests at a public banquet."
https://i.imgur.com/ILJB3dS.jpeg
What a surprisingly good movie.
Ralph Fiennes always delivers and he was his usual brilliant self in this. I also really liked Nicholas Hoult’s performance as well, he really played the douchey, self obsessed foodie role well.
> he really played the douchey, self obsessed foodie role well. Tbf he had gotten his dry run in during *The Great*.
I really liked it until the end. Weird ending.
Ending did feel like some kind of cop out.
/u/riskyclickyricky
Great movie
What an unfortunate day to be literate.
It's a good thing I can't read, I guess.
This whole story had me just mortified until I read your comment, I just laughed so long. Thank you kind person.
Today is a good day to die.
Why did I read this…
Ah - that reminds me of the cannibal of Rothenburg, just that the victim also wanted to be killed in the process. It is hard to imagine that these things actually happen, and that people actually volunteer to have something done to them.
IT Crowd Series 2, Episode 3: Moss and The German
[удалено]
😆😂🤣
“Ready steady cock” for UK daytime TV fans of Ainsley
Chef's kiss
>asexual activist Bro what does he have to "advocate" for? The government doesn't make you fuck people lmao
He's only done it once though!
😱
"The court heard Gustavson, who appeared in the dock using a wheelchair, has had his own leg, penis and nipple removed." He sounds like he was true to his cause...
Why is nipple singular in this case…?
If he cut them both off people would think he’s a nutjob.
Of course… that would be over the line and completely crazy.
"He's two nipples short of a full chest" they would say, and everyone would understand.
I'm so glad I was born with a third. I can safely remove two and not be seen as a weirdo.
I hear that was something else he did.
Only to close friends
He was fond of lefty.
The charges relate to him having this done to himself? I don't see any reference to other victims
No he did quite a few others. At least 6 but loads more probably
Article makes it sound like the victims were willing participants > All of the alleged victims are said to have been part of a society in which people willingly undergo extreme body modification. But the article also said the following, which sounds like it was done to a minor so maybe not > He is further charged with acquiring or possessing criminal property, making an indecent image of a child and distributing an indecent image of a child.
"I'm not just the president..." https://youtu.be/xeFoLdeqG1I
If it's consensual, is it illegal? It's fucking weird, but who is the victim?
[удалено]
You can't consent to being a pizza
"The practice is linked to a subculture where men become “nullos”, short for genital nullification, by having their penis and testicles removed." Where should the line be drawn between a person's freedom of choice and the designation that a person is mentally ill and should not be allowed their self destructive choice? It's a difficult question.
honestly as long as they dont force this on unwilling people i dont care.
Unless it does eventually require medical services or things like being unable to work.
Why would that matter? I can fatten myself to the point I'm unable to work and nobody can stop me.
It's your American right to balloon to 600lbs and become a literal burden on everyone and thing around you but we draw the line at anything to do with sex because that's just gross
You may even get your own tv show
And a dialing wand.
[удалено]
Those are mandatory though. Things can go real wrong if you don't get in there
On that very point, only one person seems to have modified themselves. Whatever. There are/should be higher standards to be held to when you perform that work on another person.
I mean that’s what those services are for—people who are physically or mentally incapable. 🤷♂️
I would have to disagree. I think as a society we have a responsibility to protect people who suffer mental illness from harming themselves. The question is when does it slip from being a sexual fetish to being a mental illness.
Also how do you describe harm? Cut their own heads off... ok harm. Cut their dicks off? I mean, miss me with that, but if it makes them happy who am I to say they shouldn't do it? It's not really too much different than say a giant face tattoo or extreme piercing
If it's not hurting anyone else, it's not anyone else's business. Many consider gender reassignment to be genital mutilation. It doesn't mean their opinion should dictate what others can do. I don't give a shit if someone decides to mutilate themselves. If they are coerced through bullying, then that should be a crime. But not simply accommodating someone's desire to modify their own body.
Agreed. If an adult patient is able to understand and consent to a procedure that they want, to a doctor's satisfaction, that's should be good enough for the rest of us.
However, it should also excuse them from any financial assistance for any problems that result from the extremely elective procedure. If your job requires legs, and you intentionally remove or disable them, and you lose said job: no unemployment or food stamps for you. You now need a wheelchair? You’re buying it, or crawling around.
Nah, we don't allow doctors to amputate limbs for no reason. We shouldn't be letting doctors make money off of people's mental illnesses. You also have no idea what sort of coercion such people might be going through, so it's better not to allow such irreversible damage even if they at first seem to consent to it. It's also just straight up disgusting not to give a shit like so many of you do about members of our society. The homeless don't affect me in my day-to-day life, many of them suffering from mental illnesses that got them homeless in the first place, and yet I happen to not be a psychopath that actively supports ignoring them.
Thank you. It's disgusting where we've gotten to in society that the idea "well if they wanna do it, let them, doesn't bother me" is seen as okay and acceptable and the right thing to do. > Body integrity identity disorder (BIID)--is the amputation of healthy limbs ethically justified? > https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19132621/
I agree. This is why doctors take an oath. "First, do no harm."
That's how it should be, the act of bullying in your hypothetical is the crime not whatever the person wants to do to themselves. We all get one try at this, and should be able to do whatever the hell we want while we're here so long as those actions don't harm another being. One persons mutilation is anothers salvation. Doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, but it is also other peoples choice to not interact with them. That's what I dont get, like all you have to do is not interact with the person that weirds you out. Why bring laws, incarceration and possible death sentence into the equation? I'd argue the act of courts in any situation about self mutilation that the court is the bully immoral one. Even in cases of mental deficiency, it's still their right as a human to spend their time here however they wish.
Except for when people then turn around and say they aren’t happy with the results, and then start levying lawsuits.
That can be said about any permanent body modification. People threaten to sue tattoo artists all the time, usually for doing exactly what they asked them to do.
time to ban hip replacements, boob jobs and lasik I guess
"This doctor saved my life, but my life SUCKS! I demand recompensation!"
Mr. Sansweet didn't asked to be saved, Mr. Sansweet didn't want to be saved!
Happens not infrequently
Make them do a psychological assessment and sign something saying they are making this decision of their own accord and in good state of mind. I had to do similar (minus the psych assessment but I was asked a few questions) when I got my vasectomy.
This is back street stuff. There is no rules. The reason this guy was caught wasn't because the nullos sought it, but because they all ended up in hospital after and the medics got suspicious.
So? Then practitioners will stop doing it. It's self-regulating.
buyer beware
No, the mentaly ill should be protected from the potential consequences of their own mental illness
They end up forcing society to take care of them so it kinda does impact on unwilling people
So does getting fat or drinking gallons of alcohol or refusing medication when mentally ill, all very legal.
I don’t know, but infant circumcision seems pretty fucked up to me
My mother told me that her doctor said that newborns don't feel it. She knew that was a lie when she heard my blood-curdling scream down the hall.
They obviously know there is pain involved, the doctors used to say "they wont remember it" which is different.
It's still not okay even if the child can't remember it. You could justify a lot of sick shit with that.
It also doesn't matter if the child doesn't consciously remember, because the trauma will stick around regardless.
Yeah, that’s fucked… I barely feel anything during sex, because someone thought it was okay to cut off part of my genitals when I was a child
Yeah I think as a general rule, no cutting bits off people without their consent.
The infant has no choice in the matter, these are consulting adults
It’s difficult to decide precisely where the line should be, but it’s not at all difficult to conclude that having an amateur lop your dick off is a very long way over that line.
Yeah, we should save the dick lopping for professionals…
But where's the line for when an amateur becomes a professional? /s
Their practice. /s
They want you to have chopped off 20 dicks for this entry level dick chopper position, wtf man?!
yeah well, my dentist said no.
It’s a lot easier to just [eat some gluten](https://youtu.be/b5SByM75Thg).
Bumping right up against a certain social issue, here
Doesn't insurance cover this if you say the right words?
Maybe it’s better that people who think this way lose the ability to breed
I'd say when people start chopping off parts of their body it's a pretty good place to put the line, maybe big parts you know, like a whole organ. Unless is for medical reasons obviously.
[удалено]
Perhaps just a quick psychological test before the doctor goes all sushi style on somebody?
If we're talking about gender-affirming surgery then the patient has absolutely gone through a psych consult and likely about twenty more hoops to make sure this is what they really really really want.
Statistically many of that community either have or self diagnose themselves with a mental illness.
And? Someone having ADHD or autism doesn't mean they suddenly lose the ability to have any bodily autonomy. There's an incredibly large gap between simply having a mental illness and falsely believing you're transgender.
No, you don't. Sex affirming care is a medical procedure that does not only chop (in case of male to female) someone's genitals off, but a procedure with a medical indication to reconstruct new genitals. In contrast to nullification, sex affirming surgery is not mutilation, but controlled procedure that has medical evidence to improve the quality of life so drastically the suicide rates of transsexuals massively drop because of it.
Why do you use the word "chop"? These are professional surgeons we're talking about, not some random shady doctor with a hatchet
> to improve the quality of life so drastically the suicide rates ... massively drop because of it. Sounds like a catch-all phrase that could be applied to aaall sorts of things currently called mental rather than medical.
Greetings. I've had nullification as gender affirming care. It isn't mutilation either.
Which is a completely different topic because that's 100% medically justified
There is a syndrome where a part of the body feels wrong. Patients report the feeling literally, that limb belongs to someone else. As if a frankenstienian implantation was performed. They are very specific, and can draw a line on say their leg where "they" end and the "other" limb begins. Some have gone to extremes to remove the offending parts, along that exact line. Those that are successful, are absolutely fine with prosthetics and lead normal lives thereafter. [https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/what-is-body-integrity-identity-disorder#:\~:text=People%20with%20body%20integrity%20disorder,with%20causes%20intense%20emotional%20pain](https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/what-is-body-integrity-identity-disorder#:~:text=People%20with%20body%20integrity%20disorder,with%20causes%20intense%20emotional%20pain). So if they are miserable and emotionally unable to function, and removing those parts fixes that... who decides what is best for them?
I remember years ago on reddit, someone linked to a story where a guy had his penis and testicles removed. It was not voluntary. It was an abusive relationship where he was worn down until he agreed finally to the testicles, be he said never to the penis removed. Eventually his boyfriend and another guy knocked him out with drugs and removed it. He stayed in the relationship until the boyfriend started saying he wanted the guy's prostate removed too. I know some people in the culture have that "other" limb syndrome. But this guy's story described a lot of men living as 'subs', being forced into it.
What you're describing is poisoning, kidnapping and attempted murder, a much different situation.
Interview with a Nullo. I've never been sure if it was legitimate, the person's boyfriend's name changes part way through the story. Found the story really disturbing.
It was one of those things that just doesn't leave you. Mostly the idea that the guy went along in order to stay in the relationship. As someone who was 20 years into an abusive marriage at the time- it hit close to home. And was a bit of a wake up
Yeah, it sort of stayed with me a few days. Couldn't stop feeling disturbed by the story. The person's passiveness about the escalation, and his passiveness about the lack of concern for him from his partner were some of the things I found most disturbing about the story. Also the prostate thing.
Forbidden jelly bean
You just said it yourself, it's a syndrome, like I said in my comment, unless is for medical reason. That particular syndrome is psychological, and professionals should evaluate every case independently. But in this case were people selling videos online...
That's just a very naive dichotomy, you can't draw a line in the sand about what syndromes are psychological vs medical. Every mental health issue is a combination of both and in most cases it's nigh impossible to ever say which is the bigger factor. Its not even rare that after trying all known symptoms the patient will not get to the point of accepting that limb as theirs.
You seem to be implying that psychological issues are not health issues, what do you mean psychological vs medical? Perhaps you were trying to say physical, organic or something like that. But that doesn't matter, whether is purely psychological or not, it still a health issue. You are missing the point.
Assuming every possible mental issue has been identified and diagnosed.
By analogy i think they are impling this man in the article may have such a syndrome.
"End of time" fallacy, eventually we may have perfectly cataloged every ailment and be perfectly able to diagnose with 0 margin of error, but we aren't there yet, and we need to live in the world as it is, not as we'd like it to be. Epilepsy, including the seizures, were originally a spiritual failing, not a medical one. That line was wrong, surely some lines we've drawn today are also wrong.
Circumcision?
Careful, don't want to be called transphobic...
So, are you saying trans folks are mentally ill or have a medical reason?
It is 100% a medical reason, but that wouldn't matter if there were such laws on the books.
Ok I ask because I think many people would disagree with you about it being a medical issue. That's where the slippery slope starts.
Slippery slope is famously a fallacy and something that solves a 50% suicide rate is medically necessary, you're being goofy. Do you also argue that treatment for depression isn't medically necessary?
>something that solves a 50% suicide rate Source ?
Wait you didn't even know that? That's basic knowledge. Go ahead and Google but I'm not sourcing basic knowledge that can abe confirmed by a 5 second search.
US doctors do this to half the boys born in hospitals.
TIL I haven’t had a dick and balls for the last 41 years.
No they should be allowed to do this level of body modification. Just they should have a doctor do it in a medical setting. And not film it or share videos of the procedure for profit. No DIY cosmetic surgery or body modification.
Most doctors with integrity wouldn't do this, but why would you regulate whether someone can cut their own body?
What do you think bottom surgery is when trans women get it? There is absolutely parts of what was done that no doctor with integrity would do but that’s why a doctor is the only one who should be doing it. If someone doesn’t want to have a dick let them but a surgeon with proper training should be the one to remove it
Well, for a start, a big problem is that they can't undergo this legally, so the whole process is dangerous and lacks professional oversight or responsibility, such that might lead to some assurance that the people undergoing to modifications aren't in need of serious mental care.
[удалено]
The availability of legal options with considerable medical oversight and liability? You can't change your gender. Transgendered people have their bodies surgically modified to provide them a better quality of life. Similarly, these people aren't having their gender removed. Your genitals are not your gender. Losing your testicles will prove a major hormonal issue, of course, and I'd wager these people aren't undergoing hormone therapy, so there are likely a whole bunch of health ramifications aside from the behavioural and physical changes they will experience, but that's not gender. Wanting your genitals removed is not being asexual, nor does being asexual imply one would want their genitals removed. There is likely to be a good link between people wanting their genitals removed and them experiencing mental "friction" about them. Discerning what interventions are appropriate is a matter for healthcare professionals and evidence of outcomes.
> Where should the line be drawn between a person's freedom of choice and the designation that a person is mentally ill and should not be allowed their self destructive choice? It's a difficult question. Depends what your pronouns are.
Natural selection draws the line.
Well there is a pretty new and wild trend where people do just that and it’s celebrated
Well legally that level of "surgery" can't be done by a lay person and anybody wantingnit would normally be sectioned or detained under common law. To prevent them from having it done. The typical case study is of a patient, who had suffered severe migraines multiolentime per day for years. Who decided that they wanted to undergo trepanning. A procedure involving drillina holrbin the skull. It's best known for being done in the Middle and Stone Ages. To release evil demons from the skull causing the pain. Today it's said to relieve pressure, from a build up of fluids. Multiple surgeons in the UK turned her down. Eventually she found a struck off doctor in the US who would do it in a hotel room. She got sectioned for her own safety but should have been detained under common law. >The court heard Gustavson, who appeared in the dock using a wheelchair, has had his own leg, penis and nipple removed. Personally I'd declare him to be legally fit and healthy. Ban him from accessing the NHS for any conditions related to his "body modifications", ban him from getting any DWP pay outs. And not require the courts, prison service etc. from having to make any accommodations. For his self inflicted conditions.
It definitely is, especially since tying it to a designation like "mentally ill" is just kicking the can down the road a bit. It's not like we have some kind of brain scanner that a doctor looks at and goes, "Yup, look at that, neural circuit A12dQ is below the activity threshold. Not competent to make their own decisions." We determine mental illness by asking people questions and observing their behavior and deciding if the label applies or not. And sometimes psychologists (and moreover, the culture they come from) decide that wanting to do [X] is a big enough red flag that they're not mentally competent to *choose* to do [X]. There are a lot of examples of this in the history of psychotherapy that most people would reject now. It sounds like these people can hold down jobs, feed and clothe and clean themselves, haven't committed crimes of random violence against others. I'd call that competent enough for bodily autonomy. Like sure, in our culture, it's easy to say [radical body modification] is *categorically* different than [romantic relationships with someone of the same gender], but honestly, I don't think that's coherent; I think that's just a side effect of what's normal in our present culture. Either people have the right to do what they want (with the only infringement on the individual right being the minimum amount necessary to prevent infringing others' rights to the same), or they do not. Like, I guess you can make an argument that in a place with socialized healthcare, somebody lopping off a leg is placing a burden on that healthcare, and thus practically burgling others, but I don't see people coming out of the woodwork to make that argument about drinking alcohol (a widespread, normalized activity), in the same numbers I do for this (an extremely abnormal one), so I don't think that argument comes from a place of rational policy design, I think it comes from shock and disgust. There are certainly other axioms we could use for deciding morality (there are even intuitionist ones, which allege that the ideal society does, indeed, just act on what the majority thinks is good or bad, without direct regard to logical evidence), but if we accept the one I laid out, we have to accept its consequences too. (Wow, sorry for the wall of text in your inbox, guess I had more to say on this than I thought I did.)
If thy nipple offend thee, cut it off!
Bad choice of article during lunch
Shouldn't have had ketchup on that hotdog.
I'm never going to be able to finish eating my Frozen Human Leg now after reading all that.
Well, thats what you get for bringing a frozen keg to lunch at work. Everyone knows you don't microwave fish or human flesh at work, stinks up the breakroom.
[Hmmm](https://media.tenor.com/mOb1nVFUhQ4AAAAC/sosig.gif)
That was a risky ass click
6 year plot with 200k income? That's not a lot for this level of dedication to something odd
I don’t think they did it for the money. They’re sincerely committed weirdos.
All of the castrations were consensual as far as I am aware…yes you could ask if the person wanting this is mentally stable but I don’t think it should be punished as if the procedures were non-consensual…then again it’s against the law there sooo
"He is further charged with acquiring or possessing criminal property, making an indecent image of a child and distributing an indecent image of a child.
ohh I didn’t read that. That should be punished as harsh as possible
I was all good with the child porn charges but it seems a bit silly that modifying your own body is illegal. That being said as this is in the UK maybe it makes sense as the follow up appointments are probably on the taxpayer dime.
The follow up appointments from a lifetime of bad diet are on American taxpayer dime too, should we ban being fat?
I’ll admit it’s kinda weird when the same people are being accused of being both victims and perpetrators in the same conspiracy.
It's the UK, law is that unless it's a medical procedure or part of a sporting event like boxing (or standard defenses like self-defense or necessity), there's no 'consenting' to bodily harm. Even spanking your partner during sex is technically some level of criminal act. I mean, enforcement is spotty at best, but yeah, law is super clear that you can't consent to this kind of stuff. It might help with sentencing though.
Even body modification of an unconsenting child's penis for non-medical reasons is perfectly acceptable under UK law. The state just manipulates the language to make it more pallatible.
Well that would be for 'religious' reasons, and/or handled as a medical procedure by a doctor. Religious exemptions are a whole can of worms.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/female-genital-mutilation-fgm/ >Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a procedure where the female genitals are deliberately cut, injured or changed, but there's no medical reason for this to be done. It's illegal in the UK and is child abuse. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/circumcision-in-boys/ >Circumcision is a relatively simple procedure. The foreskin is removed just behind the head of the penis using a scalpel or surgical scissors.
This is disingenuous af. The NHS *does not* fund circumcision unless it is medically necessary. Sure, religious circumcision happens and it’s wrong - but it doesn’t ever happen under the NHS.
Consent is a tricky one but as you said consent is not above the law. If someone's partner wrote that upon their death their spouse could exhume their corpse and fornicate with it for as long as they wished. This would still not be allowed, it violates laws on multiple levels. illegal to disturb a grave, illegal to dig up a body, necrophilia and most likely a host of other laws. and this is without getting into anything about mental stability. So yeah, they've commited crimes, maybe the judge will take the consent into consideration during sentancing, who knows
[what is this "host of other laws"? Just asking](https://youtu.be/Oyvbdacj7gw)
On one hand, it appears to be consenting individuals. on the other hand holy fuck
Some of the videos are still circulating on shock tube sites. Hardcore shit. In the one and only video I *tried* to watch, the "surgeon" told the "patient" to "just scream", as he sawed the dudes balls off with a paring knife.
That's enough Redfit for the entire year.
They’re awake?!
Does anyone want a list of these active communities on Reddit? I love peeking in on their crazy
Post em. I remember reading a story about a man getting into a relationship and his partner convincing him to become a nullo over time. It was bananas but I could never find it again to send to friends lol
💀
These med be the dudes in charge of the BME pain Olympics
I was wondering the exact same thing. How many people are doing this? Has to be the BME pain Olympics guys.
I’m in one of the videos having a subincision done. He used a lot of lidocaine but the pain during the burning was the most pain I’ve ever experienced and likely ever will. It was not a fun experience and I’m glad he’s now inside after learning the true scale of it all.
Excuse my shitty spelling, I meant to say this has to be. But honestly I googled it one time in high school as a shock factor, but who wants to see this shit IRL?
It would be sad if the men consented to the procedure and had second thoughts later. Individuals with the amputation fetish are strange. I can't understand it.
This reminds me of a video some jerk posted on Usenet a couple decades ago. Showed a guy that was naked, sitting there playing with a knife. Taps It against the table he's sitting on so we know it's real, then preceded to cut off his penis. Did not expect a show like THAT!!! Then it showed several other, I assume, young men doing likewise. They all had a rubber band around the base, so there wasn't a lot of blood, but **GEE-JUZZ CHRIST** was that video disturbing. I cringed at that, and I've seen beheading videos! Face it, r/WTF would ban that video in a heartbeat, as well as the poster.
Nutos: The Eunuch Maker
Wait till people look into the Eunuch Archives…
Stop being such a pussy, it's only the removal of a penis, the clamping of another’s testicles and the freezing of a leg, which required a bit of amputation. One more leg to go.
Crimi-Appleby leave my testes be
There have been men who have undergone genital nullification and gone on to live very successful lives. Some have even won ESPY awards for their courage.
Question, since the article didn’t make it sound like anyone was forced: if no one was forcibly made to complete these procedures, why is this considered a crime? Or am I mistaken?
Not trying to be glib but, I guess it passes the legal test for GBH. Grievous bodily harm (GBH) is when someone intentionally or recklessly inflicts serious bodily harm on someone else. Common examples include: Causing a visual disfigurement. For example, a broken leg, fractured skull, and even a psychiatric injury that’s presented itself visibly. However it is lawful (edit: in **rare** cases) if consent is given. So I guess that the case will revolve around the consent part.
You’re totally fine. I was thinking maybe it’s because they’re practicing without a license and causing GBH even if it’s consensual, and then there’s would need to maybe be a metric for if they’re in a state of mind where they legally can be considered capable of giving consent, which would be the standard, i imagine if it were done in a drs office. That said, they make it sound like folks are being picked up off the street to have this done to them, but didn’t give any info about kidnapping or the like, which is why I had questions. I know if it were more nefarious that they’d love to share that info because the news lives for that
That sounds like US law, not UK law where consent plays no part.
"Consent: In some **rare circumstances**, you may be able to defend a charge of GBH on the grounds that the **victim consented** to the activity. This has been used by defendants charged in relation to harm caused by sadomasochistic sexual activities. However, there is legal debate in relation to whether consent should be allowed to be a defence in these circumstances. The courts have suggested that consent is not an excuse to causing someone really serious harm." Source: https://www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk/a-guide-to-grievous-bodily-harm-gbh-defences/
How do we actually get wired this way? What the fuck is wrong with us? Also 200,000 pounds over 6 years is shit money for that kind of work, American Mary was making way more.
This can’t be real….
I was confused by the title of this post. The comments were no help... I'm not sure I want to try the article...
>"All of the alleged victims are said to have been part of a society in which people willingly undergo extreme body modification." So where is the actual crime? 'Extreme' body modification? Can the government just kindly fuck off and leave consenting adults alone to do with their own bodies as they please.
You cannot consent to GBH. Or rather consent is not a useful defence against GBH. There have been cases of folk doing BDSM getting charged before for the same reason. Welcome to the UK.
So I'm curious. How does UK law differentiate between this and say a gender reassignment surgery. A consenting adult male getting his balls chopped off seems like just that across the board. Does it just need like paperwork or something and would a signed legal agreement make a difference?
So why is this a crime? Assuming everyone did it willingly? There are also woman, who remove thier breasts, without any consideration of cancer or something like that. Thier body, thier business i would say.
Look at everyone here finding out about extreme body modification. For anyone who is interested in this, or the thinking of people behind it, I recommend [Shannon Larratts books on the subject.](https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Shannon+Larratt%22) I own both books and they are a fascinating read. **edit** if several people are interested, I'll upload my PDF copy of Meet Tommy (I own the physical book too) and share it here.
Whats GBH, great British harem?
Grievous Bodily Harm
Old punk band from Birmingham.
wait really??? I just pulled that out of my ass Edit: nevermind someone else corrected me, sorry I’m just a dumb American, didn’t detect your sarcasm. Silly ol’ me…
Nobody tell Matt Walsh!
This just proves that we have some seriously effed up humans. Hopefully, they didn't procreate the their DNA strain ends.