YIKES!!
July 25, 2003 7:49 PM Subscribe
He gave up everything for him and now he describes himself as "a nullo". If true, this has got to be one of the most bizarre and disturbing stories I've ever read. Text, but NSFW or for the squeamish.
I...um....well....hmm.
posted by eastlakestandard at 8:18 PM on July 25, 2003
posted by eastlakestandard at 8:18 PM on July 25, 2003
There was an article in Esquire about this awhile ago, although not quote as fucked up as this story.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:26 PM on July 25, 2003
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:26 PM on July 25, 2003
Reads like fiction to me. Sick fiction, but fiction nonetheless.
posted by RylandDotNet at 8:27 PM on July 25, 2003
posted by RylandDotNet at 8:27 PM on July 25, 2003
I don't think so, Tim.
posted by angry modem at 8:38 PM on July 25, 2003
posted by angry modem at 8:38 PM on July 25, 2003
This has got to be fake. I doubt seriously that this sort of procedure could be performed successfully outside of a hospital (especially the part about boring El Nullo a new pisshole).
But, just on the off chance that it is for real, let me just say for the record -- EEEEEEEEEEEEEEW!
posted by MAYORBOB at 8:48 PM on July 25, 2003
But, just on the off chance that it is for real, let me just say for the record -- EEEEEEEEEEEEEEW!
posted by MAYORBOB at 8:48 PM on July 25, 2003
This is fake.
This is way, way, way worse, and not fake.
posted by stonerose at 8:57 PM on July 25, 2003
This is way, way, way worse, and not fake.
posted by stonerose at 8:57 PM on July 25, 2003
I think it could be done outside of a hospital. Doctors aren't magicians, you know. What they do can be done by anyone.
That said, you know NSFW means "not safe for work" It's very unlikely that text is not worksafe, and your squeemishness has nothing to do with it. (the propper term there is 'not safe for anybody')
posted by delmoi at 9:03 PM on July 25, 2003
That said, you know NSFW means "not safe for work" It's very unlikely that text is not worksafe, and your squeemishness has nothing to do with it. (the propper term there is 'not safe for anybody')
posted by delmoi at 9:03 PM on July 25, 2003
The 'great' thing about this story is that, if whoever wrote it has this sort of domination fantasy, he gets to vicariously 'nullify' every male who reads it ... and imagines it happening ... in first person. Thanks pyramid termite. Thanks a lot.
posted by wobh at 9:49 PM on July 25, 2003
posted by wobh at 9:49 PM on July 25, 2003
Reminds me of that story a couple of years ago about the twin brothers who were so into piercing that they agree to swap body parts. One took the other's arm and had it attached to his chest, or something.
That was fake too.
posted by jpoulos at 10:01 PM on July 25, 2003
That was fake too.
posted by jpoulos at 10:01 PM on July 25, 2003
Well! That's enough to make me rethink my closely held belief that anything consenting adults do behind closed doors should be legal. Which, I suppose, must be the point, since I don't believe for a moment that it's real.
posted by electro at 11:01 PM on July 25, 2003
posted by electro at 11:01 PM on July 25, 2003
re: timb's link
um. all right, so I know everyone is different and just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's wrong or messed up or bad.
BUTT. this is messed up and bad.
posted by mcsweetie at 4:56 AM on July 26, 2003
um. all right, so I know everyone is different and just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's wrong or messed up or bad.
BUTT. this is messed up and bad.
posted by mcsweetie at 4:56 AM on July 26, 2003
That said, you know NSFW means "not safe for work" It's very unlikely that text is not worksafe, and your squeemishness has nothing to do with it. (the propper term there is 'not safe for anybody')
Isn't it true that there are workplaces where employees randomly scan the webpages their empoyees look up for naughty words and such forth. Or was that just a paranoid nightmare I had..
posted by ascullion at 6:40 AM on July 26, 2003
Isn't it true that there are workplaces where employees randomly scan the webpages their empoyees look up for naughty words and such forth. Or was that just a paranoid nightmare I had..
posted by ascullion at 6:40 AM on July 26, 2003
1. I don't believe the story - or at least parts of it. "Balls" don't simply "fall off."
2. Whether true or not, it is, quite simply, sick & twisted beyond imagination.
posted by davidmsc at 7:19 AM on July 26, 2003
2. Whether true or not, it is, quite simply, sick & twisted beyond imagination.
posted by davidmsc at 7:19 AM on July 26, 2003
"Balls" don't simply "fall off."
Well mine did the moment I said "I Do".
*rimshot*
I will be checking Snopes frequently. This cannot be true. Please say it's not true.....Please?
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 7:50 AM on July 26, 2003
Well mine did the moment I said "I Do".
*rimshot*
I will be checking Snopes frequently. This cannot be true. Please say it's not true.....Please?
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 7:50 AM on July 26, 2003
Ick.
That said, I have to disagree with davidmsc's point 1... When lambs are born, they have long tails. It is common for shepherds to put an incredibly thick and tight rubber band around the tail...about a week later, the part below the band has lost all blood flow, shriveled up, and then it falls off.
Still...ick.
posted by ArsncHeart at 8:08 AM on July 26, 2003
That said, I have to disagree with davidmsc's point 1... When lambs are born, they have long tails. It is common for shepherds to put an incredibly thick and tight rubber band around the tail...about a week later, the part below the band has lost all blood flow, shriveled up, and then it falls off.
Still...ick.
posted by ArsncHeart at 8:08 AM on July 26, 2003
I'm fascinated by everyone's reaction to this - personally, I was much more horrified by the verified story I linked to above, in which a man agreed to be butchered, had his penis cut off, ate it with his killer, then was killed and devoured, on videotape.
Is it the unverified nature of the original link that fascinates you? The (faux) interview with the 'victim'? Or am I missing something?
I'm not trying to promote my own link - the disproportionate disgust afforded one story over the other just really interests me.
posted by stonerose at 8:22 AM on July 26, 2003
Is it the unverified nature of the original link that fascinates you? The (faux) interview with the 'victim'? Or am I missing something?
I'm not trying to promote my own link - the disproportionate disgust afforded one story over the other just really interests me.
posted by stonerose at 8:22 AM on July 26, 2003
If I had to guess, I'd say one of them is the main link in the thread and lots of people read it, and the other is an add on link described as worse than a link which had just disgusted the hell out of most of us, so lots of people didn't.
posted by jacquilynne at 8:29 AM on July 26, 2003
posted by jacquilynne at 8:29 AM on July 26, 2003
That makes sense. The social scientist in me was looking for more interesting, less obvious reasons. :-)
posted by stonerose at 8:32 AM on July 26, 2003
posted by stonerose at 8:32 AM on July 26, 2003
If this is true--
What gets me is the non-consensuality of it. If the bottom had consented to the eventual removal of his genitals, I wouldn't have so much of a problem with it--even though I think permanent, irreversible body mods are a bad idea (tattoos excepted). But since he didn't... Not cool.
In terms of consensuality, how is this any different from the people who have Body Identity Integrity Disorder (discussed here)?
If it's not true--
Hey, whatever gets your rocks off. So to speak. There's a lot of consensual snuff stuff out there--Dolcett girls come to mind (here and here--first one is NSFW, but the second one is just text with one SFW image). It's not my particular kink, but it doesn't hurt anyone, either, to fantasize about it.
What I find sad are the comments after the interview/story. What do people gain by being so hateful? I can't think of anything in the world that would make me write some of the shit that appears in the comments.
posted by eilatan at 9:16 AM on July 26, 2003
What gets me is the non-consensuality of it. If the bottom had consented to the eventual removal of his genitals, I wouldn't have so much of a problem with it--even though I think permanent, irreversible body mods are a bad idea (tattoos excepted). But since he didn't... Not cool.
In terms of consensuality, how is this any different from the people who have Body Identity Integrity Disorder (discussed here)?
If it's not true--
Hey, whatever gets your rocks off. So to speak. There's a lot of consensual snuff stuff out there--Dolcett girls come to mind (here and here--first one is NSFW, but the second one is just text with one SFW image). It's not my particular kink, but it doesn't hurt anyone, either, to fantasize about it.
What I find sad are the comments after the interview/story. What do people gain by being so hateful? I can't think of anything in the world that would make me write some of the shit that appears in the comments.
posted by eilatan at 9:16 AM on July 26, 2003
The debate reminds me of the Spanner case here in the UK. Basically, a group of adult consenting gay and bisexual guys (some married and closeted, some out) would meet and engage in s&m activities, in private, consensually.
How the cops found out about it I don't recall (I think they found a video belonging to one of the participants). The tabloid press reported people's dicks and balls being nailed to wooden boards - the kind of thing that makes me cringe to think about, but who am i to judge?
Anyway, the police questioned the guys who all agreed that it was them, and that they all consented. But the police still prosecuted; some of the men were jailed; a couple committed suicide (IIRC) because their wives knew nothing of it, they were professionally ruined etc.
The basis of the judgement was, i believe, that it is impossible in law to consent to assualt (defined as leaving marks other than for adornment , eg tatooing, piercing etc).
I haven't heard much about the case lately - but it shows you that here in the UK, Big Mother Government still knows what's best for you
posted by Pericles at 9:50 AM on July 26, 2003
How the cops found out about it I don't recall (I think they found a video belonging to one of the participants). The tabloid press reported people's dicks and balls being nailed to wooden boards - the kind of thing that makes me cringe to think about, but who am i to judge?
Anyway, the police questioned the guys who all agreed that it was them, and that they all consented. But the police still prosecuted; some of the men were jailed; a couple committed suicide (IIRC) because their wives knew nothing of it, they were professionally ruined etc.
The basis of the judgement was, i believe, that it is impossible in law to consent to assualt (defined as leaving marks other than for adornment , eg tatooing, piercing etc).
I haven't heard much about the case lately - but it shows you that here in the UK, Big Mother Government still knows what's best for you
posted by Pericles at 9:50 AM on July 26, 2003
"Balls" don't simply "fall off."
I have to protest as well. The method described in the "interview" is the same used to castrate pigmy goats at the Metro Washington Park Zoo (or whatever it's called these days).
But, yeah, this was written, not transcribed. Plausibility of the content aside, it didn't read like an interview. It read like a Confessions Of A Nullo story off a.s.s with a few Probing Questions slapped in to move the story along.
posted by cortex at 11:03 AM on July 26, 2003
I have to protest as well. The method described in the "interview" is the same used to castrate pigmy goats at the Metro Washington Park Zoo (or whatever it's called these days).
But, yeah, this was written, not transcribed. Plausibility of the content aside, it didn't read like an interview. It read like a Confessions Of A Nullo story off a.s.s with a few Probing Questions slapped in to move the story along.
posted by cortex at 11:03 AM on July 26, 2003
"Balls" don't simply "fall off."
Yep, they do. In the old days a wet leather strap used. As it dries, it constricts... well you get the idea.
posted by Dean_Paxton at 10:19 PM on July 26, 2003
Yep, they do. In the old days a wet leather strap used. As it dries, it constricts... well you get the idea.
posted by Dean_Paxton at 10:19 PM on July 26, 2003
The process described in the article is pretty much a male, consensual, safe form of what's generally called 'female circumcision'. Which is neither safe nor consensual.
Think about that. Think about it hard.
posted by Hogshead at 8:10 AM on July 30, 2003
Think about that. Think about it hard.
posted by Hogshead at 8:10 AM on July 30, 2003
« Older Access to tools | Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
That it was done against his will, well, I guess there is some grounds for a court case, if need arises.
posted by notsnot at 8:12 PM on July 25, 2003