• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

The implications of sexual cannibalism *NSFW*

^I'm not sure how much someone saying that killing or feeling that killing is more fun than sex means in the context of this thread, which is about the connections between sexual urges, sadism, sexual murder, and cannibalism. Sure, that could mean they get sadistic pleasure from killing, but unless it's sexualized murder involving cannibalism or cannibalism-like acts I think it's a largely independent topic.

Does anyone have any thoughts or comments on my previous two posts? I'm especially interested in whether you think it makes sense to think of cannibalism as the ultimate expression of sadism, and how to make sense of the rapid emergence of sexual sadism in the Staford Prison Experiment and at Abu Ghraib.


EDIT: From wiki, in regards to widespread sadistic cannibalism committed by Japanese soldiers during WWII. It's argued that they did it for sustenance, but clearly they did not need to do it the way described below. I suppose this could be regarded as weak evidence of sadism's ties with cannibalism, but not sexual cannibalism, nor does it rule out the possibility that those committing these particular tortures just happened to be sadists among those that needed to cannibalize due to hunger, and whose sadistic and cannibalistic urges were independent of one another.
The Australian War Crimes Section of the Tokyo tribunal, led by prosecutor William Webb (the future Judge-in-Chief), collected numerous written reports and testimonies that documented Japanese soldiers' acts of cannibalism among their own troops, on enemy dead, and on Allied prisoners of war in many parts of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.[notes 1][83]:80 According to historian Yuki Tanaka, "cannibalism was often a systematic activity conducted by whole squads and under the command of officers".[84]

In some cases, flesh was cut from living people. An Indian POW, Lance Naik Hatam Ali (later a citizen of Pakistan), testified that in New Guinea: "the Japanese started selecting prisoners and every day one prisoner was taken out and killed and eaten by the soldiers. I personally saw this happen and about 100 prisoners were eaten at this place by the Japanese. The remainder of us were taken to another spot 50 miles [80 km] away where 10 prisoners died of sickness. At this place, the Japanese again started selecting prisoners to eat. Those selected were taken to a hut where their flesh was cut from their bodies while they were alive and they were thrown into a ditch where they later died."[85]
 
Last edited:
some people think people are getting better and better over time (progressivism)

some people think people are as people are (human nature) (eg cyclical history)
 
^Yes, I mention both Meiwes and his "consensual" victim by name in my first post. As I recall, the original story shed some light on the cannibal fetishist scene on the internet. I think there's whole sites devoted to the scene, and Meiwes' search extended far beyond just the one ad that netted him his victim.

In the public consciousness sexualized cannibalism is typically only associated with serial killers regarded as behavioral anomalies rather than being considered as part of the natural human sexual spectrum in the way sadism is. I'm suggesting that the reason for that may be that acting on the compulsion is such an extreme behavior that it probably is in fact pretty rare, not to mention there are no salient features about the act that are overtly sexual and so the sexual connection is in no way obvious. But that doesn't mean that it's not something that a significant segment of the population doesn't fantasize about secretly in a sexual context, and that they rarely vocalize because it's so taboo. I've presented some facts in this thread that I feel become less anomalous when viewed through the lens of cannibalism as sexual sadism. I'm obviously not certain about it, but not to look at what may be an extreme pole of sexuality is to deny what may be a defining edge of our humanity.

It's extremely disturbing to consider something so monstrous as natural and innately human, and perhaps this is one of the strongest reasons why there isn't much theoretical exposition on the topic.

Another area of psychology that I feel is probably very important where I've found shockingly little published or popularly examined is the psychology of the whistle blower. By looking at how we treat that topic I think maybe we can better understand how we treat the topic of sexual cannibalism.

Think about the Mai Lai massacre or Abu Ghraib. These are situations where the AVERAGE PERSON is demonstrated to be profoundly weak, and this common weakness makes them complicit in, or even the instigators of, great "evil". We've heard lots about these events and we consider them to be revealing of human nature, but where are the practical and moral up shoots that we should expect anything so revealing to elicit? Why haven't the qualities of the whistle blower been researched in extraordinary depth, and why would we ever stop searching for greater understanding? Where are the attempts to teach these qualities of character in our schools (where instead we encourage repulsively simplistic, dysfunctionally competitive, conformist, and aggressive feelings of "spirit" through team sports -- and the even more inexplicably thoughtless and life wasting practice of team sports fandom?

NSFW:
Sorry, I know I'm not winning many over by saying that, and I admit it's a bit combative, but I do think it reveals something deep about our values and the average person's willful ignorance that such an overwhelmingly large portion of the free time of so many perfectly good minds is willingly sacrificed to something so blatantly disconnected from the rest of life by it's abject simplicity as team sports fandom. Also relevant to the conversation is that team sports fandom is singularly potent among types of common fandom (reality TV fans, theater fans, film fans, etc.) in its consumption of free time, tendency of fans to perform rituals prior to, during, and afterward, the amount and frequency of depression it creates in fans (due to losses), correlation with aggressive behavior, the consumption of alcohol (which is involved in 4 out of every 5 murders and rapes), and expressions of extreme conformity. It is a malignant cultural virus that the majority of people not only accept unquestioningly, but champion and encourage their impressionable children in. It's stunning, and deeply sad, and I've no doubt many will dismissively laugh away all this, but of course that's exactly how these these cancers work. Accepting that what I've said about sports fandom is a threat to a practice that provides the unquestioning with a sense of community and inclusion. It is this same sense that is under threat if we accept that the average person is dangerously conformist, or if we accept something so monstrous as the idea that sexual cannibalism is innate and naturally human. In all of these examples, we're not allowed to say that we and the people we value are exceptions, and so we tacitly accept that fact as proof of their absurdity.

I don't think we want to think too deeply about the events because most of us are average and don't like the idea that our averageness may just be an indicator that we're weak and, more (and most importantly), that this very weakness to conform that so defines our human character and the character of those we love, that we feel is so important to our sense of inclusion and common struggle, can easily lead us to commit acts that absolutely contradict our sense of ourselves as it relates to our reaction to historically common, that is, natural, circumstances. We don't like to consider that perhaps the truth is that an extreme minority are the strong and that at times of great importance and frequent circumstance they are the truly commendable among us, that theirs is the greatest courage. Historically, these heroes are most often held as traitors, and they return to a community where they were once accepted where now they are marred and silently untrusted. They're the weirdos that don't go along for reasons that aren't obvious to us, who we naturally ostracize and hold as contemptible. It is this contempt that we depend on to perceive ourselves and our in group as normal and good, and we don't like exploring anything that threatens these perceptions. By insisting that we do pay attention to it, we risk alienation. But by avoiding it we are irresponsible to ourselves and our society, and are ignoring a phenomenon of profound consequence whose honest consideration and discussion could do great good.
 
Last edited:
>>It's extremely disturbing to consider something so monstrous as natural and innately human, and perhaps this is one of the strongest reasons why there isn't much theoretical exposition on the topic>>

im not gonna say blank slate. but i will say that our brain has to create a reality out of nothing but random or nonrandom (nice mommy) chances, and add in some sexual tension. what that tension is attached to, depends on circumstance. ALL of our feelings and sights are routed through our brain, and our brain has the capability to build any reality possible. brains said let there be light. without brains, color no existo

im gonna get back to this thread. it's quite fascinating8o
 
Jeffrey Lionel Dahmer (May 21, 1960 – November 28, 1994) was an American serial killer and sex offender. Dahmer murdered 17 men and boys – many of whom were of African or Asian descent – between 1978 and 1991, with the majority of the murders occurring between 1987 and 1991. His murders were particularly gruesome, involving rape, torture, dismemberment, necrophilia and cannibalism. On November 28, 1994, he was beaten to death by an inmate at the Columbia Correctional Institution, where he had been incarcerated.

Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffery_Dahmer


See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_cannibals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cannibals_by_nationality
 
I followed both the Miewes and Dahmer cases. Miewes was extreme not just because of the act, but because of the 'consent' factor. I don't think the guy whose genitals were eaten by the two men was capable of giving consent. The media in the US didn't cover this case in too much detail.

Rape is a crime of
power, not sex. If these guys just wanted to get off, they'd masturbate.

As for Dahmer, I know IRL someone who strongly resembles him. Poor thing! Molesters never last long in prison. Sexual cannibalism is, well, one of the most repugnant things I can think of... Scary, weird, and depraved.
 
This has been an interesting read. I'm way too tired to type out a reply but wanted to recommend this documentary. It's about Meiwes but discusses some of the psychology behind it and why some people fetishize cannibalism. Kinda disturbing, but not at all graphic and worth watching imo.
 
Thankfully in Western Civilization, those types of sexual behaviours are limited mostly to fantasy; or when they actually are performed, they are consensual, and presumably after the participants have put a great deal of thought and consideration into such a decision.

I read the works of a lot of psychologists and philosophers like Jung, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Freud (although his theories aren't too accurate), etc., and studying these sorts of things interests me.

It could definitely be considered a "darker" side of human nature, but these types of sexual fantasies are actually a lot more common than it would seem. Its even a good possibility that the majority of people have had these fantasies at least a few times in their life.

The common nature of it is evident in the numerous examples seen in entertainment which reference or portray castration, biting of the genitals, or otherwise harming/endagering of the genitals.

These portrayals are usually done comically. One example that is so common it is has become cliche, and is even in children's movies: a bad guy getting hit in the balls.

When it comes to "cannibalism" (the word itself just seems gross, but if you use a word like "biting" or "chewing" the stigma seems completely absent) in particular, an example that comes to mind was this cheesy 80s/early-90s comedy about vampires, where the main character was stripped down to his underwear, tied to a chair, and an attractive female vampire began preparing to bite him in the crotch . Again, this was portrayed comically.


Why is it though that when a movie or show references harming/removing the genitals, it is usually done comically? The most obvious reason would be that its something that a lot of people fantasize about, but they realize that it is a seemingly awkward thing to be thinking about - so when they want to find out if other people think about it too, they bring it up as part of a joke, or in a non-serious comical way.

Here's are some examples of when I've noticed it in real life. Keep in mind that some of these stories are fairly personal to the people involved, and it would probably be a little embarrassing for these people if they knew that this was being talked about without their permission, so just keep in mind to be respectful if you bring these type of things up in conversation:

- My friend and his girlfriend have this fetish for biting each other, and the first time they slept together, they filmed themselves biting each other, and rubbing their blood across their upper bodies. My friend probably wouldn't have told me about it, but I came across a picture of it on his computer and asked him about it. He was actually really open to talk about it.

- A few years ago in highschool, I had this summer school class, and one day me and a few of the boys in the class were just talking casually with the teacher (she wasn't that old, probably in her late 20s), and for some reason we got on the topic of farm animals (I think we were talking about the movie jackass where the guy drinks bull semen). Someone mentioned the fact that bulls are usually castrated so they aren't as aggresive, and then the teacher said something like
"Yeah its so weird how they do it! they just like fasten this rubber band around the bull's testicles so that it cuts off circulation, and after a few days they eventually just fall off, Isn't that like so weird to think about?"
Then one of the boys said "UHH I would probably be out for blood if that happened to me. Its so weird to think about what it would be like to have that taken away from me"
Then eagerly agreeing with him, she said "I know right! " and you could tell from the look on her face and the way she said it that it was turning her on to talk about it with us.

- I remember when I was really young, other kids would always talk about how if your penis gets cut off, you turn into a girl.

- When I was a kid, older girls would always tease guys in younger grades by telling them that if they didn't do good in school, they would get their penis and balls cut off as punishment


I feel stupid bringing up all of these examples, but the point I'm trying to illustrate is that people think of these fantasies as being taboo and awkward only because everyone else does. The truth is, everyone has established some sort of exotic psychological connection between themselves and the possibility of losing their genitals. The male genitals especially are a very exposed and fragile organ, and its needed for reproduction (which is a very strong aspect of the will to live) so it becomes instinct from an early age to take special care of it and make sure it doesnt get damaged.

One of the girls I used to fool around with in High School always had these fantasies about taking guys who were sissies, too sensitive, or ugly and having them be forcefully castrated. She was also bisexual, so maybe that explains why she would have a fantasy involving "people who support traditional morality participating in something that is immoral". But maybe it just indicates an inherent characteristic of the female sex drive: to urge males to compete with each other, select the alpha-male for reproduction, and watch the beta-male begin to become feminine. After two males compete, the body of the alpha-male (the winner) begins producing more testosterone, and the body of the beta-male (the loser) begins producing more estrogen - making him more sensitive and compassionate. The sexual drive of the beta-males becomes restricted by traditional morality, and won't challenge moral restrictions due to their increased level of estrogen.

So a main psychological reason for genital removal fantasies may be that it helps establish the onset of territorial behavior in males. This is why most of the fantasies center around the genitals being removed not by accident, but by other people.

Ironically, the males who fantasize about this view it not as a fear, but as a fetish. Why is this? It is likely due to the nature of contemporary morals - which claim that males should be sensitive and compassionate, and also regard sex as immoral or inappropriate.

From an early age, it is instinctive for both boys and girls to explore the opposite sex by showing each other their nakedness. If the child is attractive enough for this childhood ritual to occur, their mind instinctively takes it as an indicator that they will be having a lot of sex in their life, and they should begin establishing a proactive desire for sexual intimacy. If the child isn't attractive enough and never goes through this childhood ritual, their mind instinctively accepts a life with little sex (or perhaps no sex at all), and doesn't establish a strong desire for sexual intimacy.

So, when an individual fantasizes about their penis being removed by other people (and is able to envision it as if it could actually happen) it is because the fantasy subconsciously confirms for the male that contemporary morality is a charade - and hence, it makes them feel like they're "missing out on sex, and other people are hiding this from them"... and then the mind thinks "if it is true, it means that I am morally entitled to receive sexual compensation"..

Therefore, the reason people fantasize about having their genitals removed is because they think it morally entitles them to sex.
To put it in layman's terms, they like to feel sorry for themselves and feel like they are missing out.

The connection between this and cannibalism is still not quite clear. It could just be that teeth are more instinctively recognized as being capable of breaking through flesh, and the human brain hasn't instinctively integrated the concept of "sharp cutting tools" quite yet - or at least not as well as teeth.

Could it be possible that the early primate ancestors of humans would use their teeth to castrate rebellious beta-males?

Anyways, there you have it. All right there and disturbingly accurate. I'm too tired and tweaked out to spice all of that up and make it sounds more "socially acceptable". I'd be glad to debate the validity of everything I in this post with whoever wants to, but just realize I'm going to be very pragmatic about all of it.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Spunky. Your example of blood-letting and ingestion as a sexual fetish is strongly indicative of ties to cannibalism.

I just came across something that's totally blowing my mind. I was looking to see if I could find any compelling evidence for locating pedophilia in the same essential sexually sadistic dimension I’ve been arguing sexual cannibalism belongs to and I stumbled across this astonishing finding related in the online edition of the New World Encyclopedia:
Others have concluded that at least a quarter of all adult men may have some feelings of sexual arousal in connection with children (Hall et al. 1995, Freund and Costell 1970, Quinsey et al. 1975). Hall's study, for example, found that approximately 30 percent of their sample—consisting of 80 adult males—exhibited sexual arousal to heterosexual pedophilic stimuli that equaled or exceeded their arousal to the adult stimuli. Further studies indicated that even men erotically fixated on adult females are generally prone to react sexually when exposed to nude female children (Freund et al. 1972). A significant proportion (one-third) of undergraduate students who acknowledged sexual attraction to small children also conceded some probability of actually having sex with a child if they could avoid detection and punishment (Briere and Runtz 1989).
Here’s the abstract of Hall et al. (1995):
Sexual arousal and arousability to pedophilic stimuli in a community sample of normal men

Self-reported and physiological sexual arousal to adult and pedophilic stimuli were examined among 80 men drawn from a community sample of volunteers. Over ¼ of the current subjects self-reported pedophilic interest or exhibited penile arousal to pedophilic stimuli that equalled or exceeded arousal to adult stimuli. The hypothesis that arousal to pedophilic stimuli is a function of general sexual arousability factors was supported in that pedophilic and adult heterosexual arousal were positively correlated, particularly in the physiological data. Subjects who were highly arousable, insofar as they were unable to voluntarily and completely inhibit their sexual arousal, were more sexually aroused by all stimuli than were subjects who were able to inhibit their sexual arousal. Thus, arousal to pedophilic stimuli does not necessarily correspond with pedophilic behavior
I doubt I’m the only one who has never heard of these physiological findings. I attempted to find a study that replicated Hall’s findings and found 23 that cited it but none that made an attempt to replicate it. I assume this means it’s not disputed and/or that replications have confirmed the findings and they simply haven’t been published in journals accessible to Google Scholar. Of course, it looks like Hall's study was itself a replication of the findings of those two earlier studies in the 1970s. In other words, there's really strong evidence their conclusions are true.

How the hell could we have never heard of findings that indicate almost 1 out of every 3 (30 percent) adult men have a sexual response to female children that is equal to or greater than their response to adult women? This basically implies that if you’re not a pedophile yourself you almost certainly have or have had a close relationship with one (and probably never suspected a thing). That seems really relevant and like something we should know, doesn't it? I feel really naïve.

Am I wrong in thinking this is totally at odds with prevailing attitudes, assumptions and popular discussions of pedophilia? If true it changes a whole hell of a lot. Since I assume most of these ~ 30 percent of all men don’t actually act on their urges, our society must contain a massive portion of people who are doubtlessly deeply frustrated in addition to the stress of having something very insistent that they don’t control demonized (I don’t think I’m wrong in thinking that our culture demonizes not just child molestation – which is understandable of course – but also the pedophilic mind state in itself; if this weren’t the case then why wouldn’t more men publicly admit to what physiological measures and self-reports of these study's anonymous men indicate)?

No wonder there’s so little on sexual cannibalism! Here's another case where evidence indicates an unacceptable truth about normal people and those normal people know. These darker forms of sexuality must have an enormous impact that we're somehow blind to if we don't see them. There must be extraordinarily powerful forces at work, both in our own minds and in the form of efforts made by external institutions, maintaining a great fantasy about the prevalence and implications of them.

One of the studies that cited Hall’s study had this to say about the popular construct of the pedophile, and it provides some possible reasons for why these fantasies are maintained:
The Political Use and Abuse of the “Pedophile”

The cognitive/affective construct designated by the term “pedophile” is delineated on the basis of how he is presented in the popular media. His salient characteristics are listed and then examined in the light of scientific and historical data. The “pedophile” is discovered to be a “social construct that floats in the thin air of fantasy.” Since the truth-value of the construct “pedophile” approaches zero, we are confronted with the question of why he continues to be such a central and emotionally fraught aspect of American culture. The answer to this question is found in his political usefulness. Specifically, the religious right uses him to further its agenda of sexual repression, and the political right uses him to dismantle the machinery of a free society.
 
Last edited:
i hope our society will significantly shift so that different sexualities (and children) will be able to live together without the police/system or people taking advantage of people. teens want to be seen as human and we can give them that, so i can see certain scenarios where there would be no coercion or psychological harm, or even benefit
 
I think this thread is suffering from something like a “spiral of silence”.

Wikipedia said:
The spiral of silence is a political science and mass communication theory propounded by the German political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann. The theory asserts that a person is less likely to voice an opinion on a topic if one feels that one is in the minority for fear of reprisal or isolation from the majority

C’mon people! We’re talking about how at the bottom of the lust we enjoy so much there may be a compulsion to eat people and how a great mass of scientific evidence indicates that one third of normal males are as physiologically responsive to prepubescent girls as they are to adult women. Fun stuff! What’s so controversial and uncomfortable about this? Heh heh … In all seriousness though our willfull ignorance of this kind of stuff is a big part of why it can continue to occur to the degree it does (think about German civilians who knew about the death camps and told themselves they didn’t; what if they had been honest with the reality of the situation and stared the truth in the face?).

Anyways, I finally read the full text of “Sexual arousal and arousability to pedophilic stimuli in a community sample of normal men,” the abstract of which I quoted from earlier. It turns out that its finding that greater than one quarter of a community sample of normal men respond physiologically (as measured by a penile plethysmograph) to sexual prepubescent female materials to a degree equivalent to or greater than their response to sexual adult female materials is actually the less surprising of two major findings. The 26.25 percent figure was for reactions to auditory stimuli (a narrated sexual story) involving prepubescent girls who both consented to sex and indicated they were enjoying the sex. However, for “frontal nude” photo slides of girls ... .
Twenty-six subjects exhibited sexual arousal to the child slides that equaled or exceeded their arousal to the adult slides.
Twenty-six out of 80, that’s 32.5 percent, nearly one-third of the participants! The study reports that this conclusion is in line with findings from previous smaller studies:
In recent studies, 12 to 32.7 percent of community and college samples of men reported sexual attraction to children (Briere & Runtz, 1989; Haywood, Grossman, & Cavanaugh, 1990) or exhibited penile response to pedophilic stimuli (Barbaree & Marshall, 1989; Fedora et al., 1992; Frenzel & Lang, 1989; Freund & Watson, 1991). Thus, arousal to pedophilic stimuli does not necessarily correspond with pedophilic behavior (Hall, 1990; Schouten & Simon, 1992)
Sweet god! Interestingly:
Many men who have molested children do not exhibit pedophilic patterns of arousal, particularly incest offenders (Barbaree & Marshall, 1989)) and those who are able to inhibit their arousal (Hall et al., 1988). Variables other than arousal to pedophilic stimuli may motivate many child molesters, including deviant cognitions, affective dyscontrol, and developmentally related personality problems (Hall & Hirschman, 1992). Thus, arousal to pedophilic stimuli may motivate some, but not all, sexually aggressive acts against children, and a sizable minority of men who do not report engaging in pedophilic behavior exhibit sexual arousal to pedophilic stimuli.
The study also noted a strong positive correlation between arousability to adult stimuli with arousability to pedophilic stimuli. In other words, the hornier a man is generally the more likely he will have a strong sexual response to pedophilic situations. This suggests these two reactions are tied together and that heterosexual “pedophilia” is part of normal heterosexual male sexuality. Holy fuck!

I think another of the study’s findings is relevant to understanding the psychology of pedophilic rapes and cannibalism in Congo. Namely, that the versions of the auditory sexual story about girls which stated that the girl in the story did NOT consent to the sex and abhorred what was happening to her, on average, resulted in a physiological response that was no different from a contrast condition (a non-sexual story about talking to a girl who is “under 12” in a supermarket). This helps to explain how so many men can have these sexual reactions yet child rape still isn't rampant.

This finding also makes the events in Congo that much more extraordinary, as it suggests that rape situations strongly detract from sexual arousal in normal men, yet it is normal men who are carrying out the widespread sexualized atrocities in Congo. This suggests that the psychological motivation to commit the atrocities relies on a socially permitted natural sexual reaction (in order to explain how the men can be erect to do the raping), but must draw heavily from powerful non-sexual factors that perhaps can be awakened in men in situations of extreme power imbalance. I suggest that sadism – whose ultimate expression I’ve argued above is cannabilism – is one of the most influential of these non-overtly-sexual motivating factors, and when sadistic thoughts are encouraged by the knowledge that one can actually get away with acting on them acting on pedophilic desires becomes more likely.

EDIT:
SpunkySkunk347 said:
Could it be possible that the early primate ancestors of humans would use their teeth to castrate rebellious beta-males?
This is interesting. I know that in primitive magical belief systems the penis and testicles are often thought to be the source of a man's power. Thus, in cannibalistic rituals in Africa today the penis and testicles of vanquished foes are reportedly relished and valued highly by victors in some conflicts as a means of taking another's power and becoming "invincible". Cannibalism of the defeated was also reported during the civil wars of Liberia and Sierra Leone. It is part of a larger phenomenon of the practice of "sympathetic magic," which pops up across cultures and history.

So central are reproductive organs to the perceptions of the magical believer that "penis thievery" is thought to exist to this day in Africa. ...

NSFW:
Harper's said:
In 1975, while posted in Kaduna, in the north of Nigeria, Dr. Ilechukwu was sitting in his office when a policeman escorted in two men and asked for a medical assessment. One of the men had accused the other of making his penis disappear. This had caused a major disturbance in the street. As Ilechukwu tells it, the victim stared straight ahead during the examination, after which the doctor pronounced him normal. “Exclaiming,” Ilechukwu wrote, “the patient looked down at his groin for the first time, suggesting that the genitals had just reappeared.”

According to Ilechukwu, an epidemic of penis theft swept Nigeria between 1975 and 1977. Then there seemed to be a lull until 1990, when the stealing resurged. “Men could be seen in the streets of Lagos holding on to their genitalia either openly or discreetly with their hand in their pockets,” Ilechukwu wrote. “Women were also seen holding on to their breasts directly or discreetly, by crossing the hands across the chest. . . . Vigilance and anticipatory aggression were thought to be good prophylaxes. This led to further breakdown of law and order.” In a typical incident, someone would suddenly yell: Thief! My genitals are gone! Then a culprit would be identified, apprehended, and, often, killed.

During the past decade and a half, the thievery seems not to have abated. In April 2001, mobs in Nigeria lynched at least twelve suspected penis thieves. In November of that same year, there were at least five similar deaths in neighboring Benin. One survey counted fifty-six “separate cases of genital shrinking, disappearance, and snatching” in West Africa between 1997 and 2003, with at least thirty-six suspected penis thieves killed at the hands of angry mobs during that period. These incidents have been reported in local newspapers but are little known outside the region.

The belief is so deep that men can actually look between their legs and blatantly not see their own penises -- belief literally erases perception from consciousness after the fact. They cannot feel their penises either, suggesting that the delusion profoundly affects the disparate perceptual systems of both vision and somatosensation at the same time, which should clue us into just how powerful the conceptual framework these belief systems build off of is. There is little hope that rational argument can influence it. Magical systems organized by the principals of sympathetic magic are naturally human, exceptionally deluded, and deeply affecting; and in a world where they are increasingly incongruous with that which is empirically corroborated and in which these beliefs are no longer evolutionarily advantageous they are dangerous beyond belief.

To everyone: All of these things that I'm arguing have been exposed to scrutiny for the first time here. They've been my private unfettered thoughts until now, and as such have been subject to my own delusional rationalizations. Don't waste my time nitpicking tiny details unless those details are rhetorical lynch pins, but if you can make a comprehensive evidence-based rational argument against what I'm suggesting these various facts imply, PLEASE DO. Intellectually eviscerate me. I will embrace masochism and smile with glee as you decorate this forum like a fucking Christmas tree with my shamefully ignorant guts, because I don't WANT to believe any of this.
 
Last edited:
ive said before, pedophilia will be the last taboo to go. we've shed many taboos, we'll soon have to shed our drugs taboo, we are in the process of shedding the sex taboo (would be already done, but the enemies won the sexual revolution :p) and eventually there will be legal, consensual, happy couples with age differences a primitive 2010 man would find atrosive and have to be dragged to a rehabilitation facility after beating the older of the two. after rehabilitation, he will be self actualized as well, though :)

this is interesting so i agree on the keep talking. i need to read the whole thread. i'll chime in when my limbic system motivates me to. don't notice the truism

p.s., with the power of the mind, holographic nature of reality, the oddity and beauty of the universe, and what i see in nature....... i wouldn't be surprised if, somewhere under the surface, we're driven to eat pretty girls

it could be a way for our DNA to tie our principle pleasure drive into the females' woo woos? ive always thought maybe there is a similar mechanism between kissing and sexing--both involve exchange of fluids and an attraction towards being inside another, both areas being made of similar epidermal tissue as well. as if, we are attracted to vaginas, and that *accidentally* got us attracted to mouths as well! :)
 
Last edited:
i think you'll find Foucault's "the history of sexuality" a very interesting read.
 
^Thanks, I just downloaded it. I’ll have to give it a look later.

A slightly off-topic discussion follows:

NSFW:
I watched an old British show call Brass Eye (kind of like a cross between Ali G and The Daily Show) a while back where a fake journalist was lampooning riots that occurred in the UK in 2001:
The News of the World, a raucous Sunday newspaper, embarked on a campaign to ''name and shame'' sex offenders who had been released from prison. The campaign led to lynch-mob attacks, firebombings and rioting in at least 11 communities, with vigilantes in some cases attacking people who looked like the men pictured or who had been incorrectly identified as past offenders. In one town, the home of a pediatrician was attacked when anti-pedophile campaigners got their spelling confused.
That episode received enormous numbers of complaints, and I think it was chiefly what got the show cancelled. Obviously, no one is seriously defending the act of rape, so why is the mere topic of pedophilia and the culture’s reaction to it so stirring for so many? Is it really just because it’s creepy and disturbing, or is it more because we’re afraid of what we’ll find if we look too close? Why, in the 21st century in first world nations, is the cultural construct of the pedophile so extraordinarily different from the characterizations that emerge from the decades of actual research that have existed silently alongside it? Why is research into something so emotionally fraught and of such grave consequence blatantly ignored?

In addition to its political usefulness to various institutions as alluded to earlier (also, see the blog post quote below), I think a lot of the blame for maintaining the erroneous construct falls on us. Think about it. Why hasn’t there been a “name and shame” campaign that releases the names and address of murderers and rapists of adult women who have been released from jail? How did murder become the far lesser crime according to our implicit attitudes? Sure, it’s a common belief that child molesters invariably reoffend and so we have to protect our communities, but the actual statistics don’t support this contention to anywhere near the degree the belief implies. I just searched and found this meta-analysis of recidivism studies:
Image18.gif


If there’s any one reason that mostly explains the singularly potent fervor of so many toward this issue the physiological reaction data suggest that it’s probably that the people who are most virulently hateful are the ones who are most deeply in conflict with their own desires. It’s textbook reaction formation. It’s why we so often hear about things like vociferously anti-gay preachers secretly snorting meth off of gigolos’ throbbing cocks. “Castrate these pedo-devils in the town square and flay them alive. They’re all absolute beings who are beyond the possibility of change!” It’s almost like we need the monstrous construct so we have something to pour our undiluted hate into, because only feeling something that extreme is enough to distract us from so much contradiction. Yet the feeliing provides no clear catharsis, just further motivates thoughtless violence and anger. Our self-delusion and intellectual negligence is a pretty terrible crime itself.
Muslim pedophile gangs prey on British Children
Of course you find pedophiles and rapists in all communities, but these are nearly always loners operating in secret, because pedophiles are despised and hated by normal people.

However Islam is different . Pedophilia is socially acceptable in Islam because 'the perfect man' Mohammed was a pedophile. In addition, pedophile attacks on 'kuffar' (non-Muslim) children are seen as a legitimate form of jihad, inflicting humiliation and demoralisation on the children and their parents.

The Islamic invasion of the West is one huge razzia (raid of rape and pillage) and Western children are war booty. Pedophila is widespread in Muslim communities, with Christian children being the main targets. The pedophiles operate in well-organised gangs and networks. They are protected and encouraged by their wider communities and enjoy immunity from prosecution so as not to damage 'Community Cohesion'
http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/muslim-pedophile-gangs-prey-on-british.html
Tellingly, the blog's posts are almost all about Muslim child rapists. It uses a topic that inspires thoughtless hate and emotionally eschews critical thought and associates it with a rival religion. How much more pathetically transparent could this blog's PR strategy be?
 
Last edited:
p.s., with the power of the mind, holographic nature of reality, the oddity and beauty of the universe, and what i see in nature....... i wouldn't be surprised if, somewhere under the surface, we're driven to eat pretty girls

it could be a way for our DNA to tie our principle pleasure drive into the females' woo woos? ive always thought maybe there is a similar mechanism between kissing and sexing--both involve exchange of fluids and an attraction towards being inside another, both areas being made of similar epidermal tissue as well. as if, we are attracted to vaginas, and that *accidentally* got us attracted to mouths as well! :)
Yes, possibly. Our modes of perception, sexual and emotional reactions themselves evolved largely in pre-human contexts. I don't think it would be that surprising if drives that were evolutionarily shaped so long ago as hunger and lust were tied together out of the necessity that sexual reproduction work. Many newer evolutionary adaptations naturally incorporate pre-existing adaptations (of course the new changes the old, too, but still), so the idea that sexuality might utilize the motivational capacities of the pre-existing and effective hunger drive to function reproductively is not implausible.
 
Wow Bluelight. So even insinuating and providing evidence that 1/3 of all the males you know -- your fathers, your brothers, your best friends -- or even you yourself, get turned on by nudie pics of little girls isn't enough to provoke a reaction? Sadly, I think the biggest real reason there's been no response is that people are intimidated by the amount of reading they'd have to do in this thread to address the arguments. Oh well ... bitches.
 
Wow Bluelight. So even insinuating and providing evidence that 1/3 of all the males you know -- your fathers, your brothers, your best friends -- or even you yourself, get turned on by nudie pics of little girls isn't enough to provoke a reaction? Sadly, I think the biggest real reason there's been no response is that people are intimidated by the amount of reading they'd have to do in this thread to address the arguments. Oh well ... bitches.

Well, the title of the thread might be repelling discussion.
For strictly discussing pedophilia, this thread would probably receive a better response if the topic title was "Implications of pedophilia in human sexuality" instead of "implications of sexual cannibalism"..

Also, your idea of a "reaction" seems to require having someone give a negative response (more specifically, an arrogant response seems to be what most of you are anticipating). You should consider the possibility that:

1) Everyone agrees, and a negative response would only be given due to a social stigma -- however, the nature of intelligent discussions is such that social stigmas are with-held by participants for the purpose of advancement in common knowledge (given that this discussion has so-far been of an intelligent nature).

2) A thread entitled "implications of sexual cannibalism *NSFW*" is going to deter any negative feedback, since in their minds they have inferred that negative feedback is going to be inherent in such a topic, and their involvement would be unnecessary. It could also be that the thread title is only going to draw in two/three crowds of people:

A - Those who are -by a sexual nature- curious/interested in the topic being discussed.

B - Those who are interested in the legitimate psychological analysis of the topic being discussed -- who could possibly fit into the first category as well, OR they still fail to produce negative feedback given that they are providing an opinion through a scientific lens.

This illustrates one of the largest paradoxes impeding psychological research. I believe someone in an earlier post had accurately mentioned that this topic is demonstrating a "spiral of silence".
This is also why modern psychological problems & phenomenon are difficult for people to just "sit down and discuss with one another in order to reach a conclusion" -- because the setting of the debate is innately prone to predetermine the outcome of the debate.

Furthermore, when one tries to go solo to find a solution (presumably by making deductions to find a logical conclusion while maintaining an unbiased scope of the issue), they stumble across the existence of "cognitive parallels" in their mind. These 'parallels' are barriers which are inadvertently formed as a result of "archetypes" within the collective unconscious. These "archetypes" (which are the cognitive tools used for calculating dilemmas in any social conflict) are found the same in every person, and their existence is stored genetically.

Why do the archetypes form barriers? First and foremost, because all social systemization is subjective (in that it varies depending on the environment) - causing moral codes to contradict each other when viewed at from a larger scale (or what could be considered a metaphorical "bird's eye view"). Second of all, evolution could not grant us a complete set of genetic moral guidelines because we are still in the process of forming it.
We are still evolving as living creatures, and we are still exploring the boundaries of our chaotic and constantly-fluctuating environment.

Jung described his frustration with the existence of 'cognitive parallels' as being "suspended within the waters of the collective unconscious; with no sense of direction or gravity".

A great amount of modern artwork (particularily in film and music) is Jungian influenced, and references to the "waters of the collective unconscious" are numerous.
Here are some of my more favorite examples:
- Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange", in which the protagonist Alex mentions that his obsession with sex & violence is like "silvery wine flowing in a space ship - gravity all non-sense now"
- The song "Otherside" by the Red Hot Chili Peppers, which illustates (in the video especially) the downward spiral of cognitive dissonance resulting from trying to find the solution to a broken heart.
- The song "The Grudge" by Tool, which describes cognitive dissonance (the cyclical reverberation between cognitive parallels) as either "Lifting you up like a child" or "Dragging you down like a stone [in the waters of the collective unconscious]"
- Any references to "overcoming gravity" or "supermen" are almost always alluding to the same phenomenon.

Most importantly, the existence of archetypes within the collective unconscious implies that human society is within (or near) an equilibrium - in which every type of person plays a vital role in the maintenance of all, and one type of individual can not be specifically discriminated against with 100% confidence.

So what does all of this imply? Moral clarity has to be gained through experience - and a person is never 100% at fault for what they do, they are just more/less experienced.

Some examples of cognitive parallels are as follows:

The outcome of moral calculations will ultimately boil down to unrelated & temporary factors such as:
- A person's current mood while making the calculation
- The setting in which the calculation is being made

The perceived "long-term psychological damage" resulting from prepubescent sexual activity ONLY exists because it is perpetuated by those who expect its existence. When incidences of prebuscent sexual activity occur, the psychological damage upon the child is inflicted not by the sexual perpetrator, but by the shock they experience when they find out that such activities are considered "taboo" by society. I.e., the very act of making a big deal out of pedophilia is what's making a big deal out of it. Similar to a "self-fulfilling prophecy". In some pacific tribes, pedophilia is not only accepted but ritually practiced between prepubescents and tribal elders - with seemingly no negative adverse reactions whatsoever.

It is immoral to "lie, cheat, kill, and steal", even though all life is seemingly a matter of lying, cheating, and stealing. Doesn't the venus fly trap lie to insects in order to trick them into entering its digestive system? Doesn't a hunter lie and cheat while wearing camoflauge and using animal calls to hunt more efficiently?

Don't corporations lie, cheat, and steal when using advertisement tactics to manipulate people into buying their products?

Contradictingly so - this grand universal exchange of "lying, cheating, killing, and stealing" is what is keeping the world go around as smoothly as it is. It has not so far been possible in human history for "interpersonal exchange" to exist solely for mutual benefit, because people end up banding together and viewing other bands of people as enemies in order to keep people motivated.

PS, it is perhaps the Most Important to recognize at all times that, when presuming the persona of anonymity (i.e., on an internet forum), your own hostility will be your greatest enemy. If you sincerely want to change traditional moral standards, then formulating your "plans" out of mutual compassion is the only way to successfully go about doing it. Forming them out of aggression or hostility is going to paradoxically push society backwards in progress - as interpretters will begin associating your beliefs with your hostile attitude.

Also, note that "not being hostile" doesn't mean you shouldn't be assertive. You still have to keep motivational reserves for the purpose of self-defense. If accusations are rooted in fallacies, then they can be undone and exposed through communicating your intellectual observations. But don't exploit that ability either.
 
Last edited:
Top