Wow, just wow.
No pictures thank God but the descriptions might not be for the faint hearted.
As well as cutting off a guy's cock and balls...
Crimi-Appleby froze Gustavson's leg in dry ice, leading to its amputation, while Arnold part-removed a nipple.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67961089
I read about this a few weeks ago, mainly as it was in the local paper, and one of them was from Gretna, which is 5 miles away from us. It’s some sick stuff. All agreed to by the ‘victim’ who wanted them to cut his leg and other bits off iirc.
There was a similar thing around 20-30 years ago, I read it in the Telegraph then (It was a decent paper then), blokes were nailing their parts to wood etc, all part of some S/M group. They were charged and found guilty of GBH etc, even though they all willingly did it.
Funny enough was going to post this. Its nuts. Well actually nutless
I was stuck on a title eunuch Powell was one. But couldn't rise to the challenge of a good pun
There was a similar thing around 20-30 years ago, I read it in the Telegraph then (It was a decent paper then), blokes were nailing their parts to wood etc, all part of some S/M group. They were charged and found guilty of GBH etc, even though they all willingly did it.
I had to write an essay on that for a law A level…
@alanl welcome to the shire…..
Thanks. I’m finally getting out on the bike now, so fitness should be here for the Summer. Ae night rides on a Tuesday now, I’ve been up the local hill today, Brownmoor. It’s ok to get some fitness, but nothing much of interest, just some fire roads, strava shows some other bits off the fireroad, but it isnt obvious. With Ae and Mabie 30 mins away, I’m not short of destinations.
Oh, and, I know of someone in Gretna who’ll cut my bits off if I’m in the mood!
Wasn’t there a cannibal in Austria who had a willing victim. Cut off his dick and fried it. They then both ate it. Want to Google it now but scared I’ll end up on a watch list!
Edit - German
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2003/dec/04/germany.lukeharding
Wow.
I remember when at university, the law students doing an s and m case.. .nails, hammers, whips and ... hot wax dripped where frankly nothing should go. Consent doesn't make it legal.
The world has all sorts of people!
The "victim" here is also being charged.
There was a similar thing around 20-30 years ago, I read it in the Telegraph then (It was a decent paper then), blokes were nailing their parts to wood etc
Twenty years ago that was evening entertainment on TV. Anyone remember Dirty Sanchez on MTV?
I started reading the guardian article on that story yesterday. Had to give up as I felt nauseous at the blend of mutilation and sheer mental derangement 😩😬
This was a firm "not clicking on that" when I saw it on the BBC earlier.
So why did I open this bloody thread now? 🤦
The “victim” here is also being charged.
Hasn't got a leg to stand on, to be fair.
Wasn’t there a cannibal in Austria who had a willing victim. Cut off his dick and fried it.
Prosecutor said it was one of the wurst things he'd ever dealt with.
The last bit from the German "cook" is probably the most alarming...
Brandes spoke good English, he said, and since eating him his English had improved. He also revealed that he is now writing his memoirs. The trial, which is due to last three weeks, continues
The bit that weirded me out is the dates!
I thought it all happened in one go..like some crazy "eff me up fest".. but the cock'n'ballz was in 2017..the ice leg was 2019, and the nipple snipple was later still!
Odd to say the least..
DrP
The way healthcare is going in this country he'll be back out and operating in a theatre near you soon!! 😂
I had to skate over that I was so horrified (skate, hmmm, there's another story) but all the people involved in the case seemed to be women. Was there an opt-out (or opt-in) clause?
I dont understand why
a) consent doesnt make it legal
b) the victim can be charged?
a) consent doesnt make it legal
b) the victim can be charged?
I assume that in the same way as euthanasia (under UK law), giving permission doesn't make it legal.
It is odd that this sort of thing is a crime - you cannot consent to GBH effectively but piercings, tattoos and other bodily modifications are not. Its very hard to see a moral difference or where the legal line is drawn. Some things done like tongue splitting and scarification do irreversible damage
Its very hard to see a moral difference or where the legal line is drawn.
True - there is also the issue with FGM that has been reported on several times over the years.
Surely the defense of being mentally ill applies here..
I tried trimming my nut hair yesterday and it was nerve wracking enough, so that story was wince inducing..
Good article on the legal grey areas here:
Sounds like tongue-splitting etc does currently overstep the line beyond which consent is not a defence, so practitioners are at risk when they start chopping away.
We've been called to help out at A&E quite a few times to try and remove items that blokes clamp to John Thomas and the attached globes. Odd stuff goes on behind closed doors!
consent doesnt make it legal
If you consent to something so egregious, them you cannot be of sufficiently sound body and mind to proffer consent.
Fat blokes wearing lycra, Scottish people sunbathing…
I could agree to item 1. One should be able to tan without impediment subject to the correct sunscreen for the skin type being applied.
EDIT. Can we add wearing socks with sliders in a public place to banned activities?
How much manipulation involved, did one of them have something over the others?
I doubt there was any, some people are genuinely that unhinged or damaged. The line where self-expression becomes self-harm requiring intervention is a tricky one to draw, but this case is pretty obvious.
The 'victim' shouldn't be punished further though, hopefully they will get a hospital order.
he victim can be charged?
I think he was charged as he did similar to OTHERS... that's how i read it
DrP
Some things done like tongue splitting and scarification do irreversible damage
I think, happy to be proved wrong, that those things are strictly-speaking illegal? I remember the case of a tattoo/piercer who was getting charged despite the fact he took careful consent from his customers and many of them spoke at his trail? He was doing stuff like sclera dyeing and tongue splitting Dim memory though, so there's every chance I'm making it up. 🤷♀️
I think there's quite a big underground scene for this, I read about it probably 25 years ago on a newsgroup post. Dom gay men were using sheep castrators to attach elastic bands to their subs gingangoolies turning them into 'nullos'.
One of the guys I read about had it done against his will. His partner kept bringing it up and he was obviously unsure about it. Then one day the partner and a mate basically stripped him, held him down, applied the bands and left him crying in the corner, unable to remove them. By the time he came to his senses it was too late and his bits were already dead.
I actually assumed it was fake until i read an interview about the same guy some years later in some weird magazine that a housemate had (think it was 'Bizarre'). At the time of the interview he was still in a relationship with the same dom guy and they were joking about possibly removing his prostate too! Very very strange people.
Who else should we charge for things like that?
You for just about everything you ever do 🤣
Reminds me of a girl I went with for a while back in my student days. She kept asking if I would go with her to the 'NSW Club'. I knew it was a pretty extreme kinky club but it wasn't until someone else told be that I realise N.S.W stood for NO SAFE WORD. Safe to say that relationship didn't last much longer.
So to explore the ‘grey area’ a little more, how is cage fighting, or even boxing legal? I mean, some of it is pretty grim and has left people dead or with permanent disabilities on more than one occasion, but because ‘we, society’ like to see blokes physically assaulting each other for money, it’s okay?
hard to see much moral difference to be honest, other than the audience numbers.
I dont understand why
a) consent doesnt make it legal
b) the victim can be charged?
On a) There was a controversial tightening of the law a few years back. I forget the name of the Act, but I remember friends into such things being concerned that it made some relatively innocuous BDSM practices unlawful. Like, light spanking was OK but if you left a bruise then you could technically be prosecuted. Or something like that. Presumably the thinking was to protect those who were victims of abuse and then coerced into saying they consented.
Thinking about it, it's not wildly different from the "won't somebody think of the children!" argument currently being thrown around regarding encryption; it may be well-meaning but it will impact innocent people whilst being largely ineffective against preventing what it claims to prevent.
Ultimately though, I guess a line has to be drawn somewhere, Extreme Body Modification is a thing. Teenage girls have publicly visible tattoos; there is no minimum age for ear piercing (to my knowledge) so kids can have it done; no-one blinks anymore at lads walking round with beyond-the-point-of-no-return stretched earlobes; but a guy who's convinced that his left leg is possessed by the devil and has to go clearly needs psychological intervention to protect him from himself (and anyone willing to indulge him either needs help or to be in Solitary). The tricksy part is that there is a very large amount of grey between that last example and all the others.
Oh, and as for b), I don't know.
So to explore the ‘grey area’ a little more, how is cage fighting, or even boxing legal? I mean, some of it is pretty grim and has left people dead or with permanent disabilities on more than one occasion, but because ‘we, society’ like to see blokes physically assaulting each other for money, it’s okay?
hard to see much moral difference to be honest, other than the audience numbers.
It's a good question.
It's not for me and I really don't see the attraction. But I think it should be legal, for the simple reason that if it were banned it would simply go underground. Fights would still continue, only unregulated.
sclera dyeing
Holy hell. Don't Google that if you are queezy about needles and eyes.😐
v8ninety
Full MemberSo to explore the ‘grey area’ a little more, how is cage fighting, or even boxing legal? I mean, some of it is pretty grim and has left people dead or with permanent disabilities on more than one occasion, but because ‘we, society’ like to see blokes physically assaulting each other for money, it’s okay?
hard to see much moral difference to be honest, other than the audience numbers.
(serious) Injury is an unintended side-effect of fighting sports. You have rules and a trained referee to prevent this, and usually qualified doctors on hand. If an injury becomes apparent then the fight is stopped.
As opposed to a major surgical procedure guaranteed to cause permanent injury, performed by male prostitute using a kitchen knife. 🙂
It’s a good question.
It’s not for me and I really don’t see the attraction. But I think it should be legal, for the simple reason that if it were banned it would simply go underground. Fights would still continue, only unregulated.
Agreed, but by the same argument, it’s hard to argue against the bodily autonomy of the previously mentioned chap who doesn’t like his meat n two veg, or his leg. Makes me feel a bit queezy to think about it, but just because I don’t get it, doesn’t mean he doesn’t have capacity to make those decisions. That it shouldn’t be done by some very niche rent boys and girls goes without saying, but that’s an artefact of it being illegal and underground, rather than the ethical differences.
You have rules and a trained referee to prevent this, and usually qualified doctors on hand.
If the only difference between boxing and this extreme body modification scene is the presence of professional referees and medics, then I can see a(mother) lucrative side hustle for some doctors in the future. You’ve identified a practical and legal difference, but not a moral one.
