In a case that has drawn considerable attention due to its unusual and unsettling nature, Marius Theodor Gustavson, a 46-year-old Norwegian man living in North London, was found guilty at the Old Bailey last May of performing genital amputations on numerous consenting men. Operating from a modest, unremarkable flat at Number 39 in Finsbury Park, Gustavson carried out these procedures over several years before a police raid in December 2022 brought his activities to light.
Gustavson, who is physically disabled and uses a wheelchair following the amputation of his leg, ran a website named eunuchmaker.com, which charged subscribers £100 annually and reportedly had 22,841 users. Through this platform, he made nearly £300,000 by posting filmed footage of the procedures. He was described in court as an ‘arch manipulator’ responsible for at least 29 such operations, which were characterised by the judge as “little short of human butchery.” Gustavson himself had undergone genital amputation, the removal of the tip of his nipple, and had his leg amputated after it was frozen.
Gustavson's activities were part of a larger movement known as the ‘Nullo’ cult or gender nullification, a group that seeks the removal of all external genitalia and sometimes other gender markers. Those who have undergone such modifications are often referred to as ‘nullos’ or ‘smoothies.’ Although some countries have qualified surgeons who perform these procedures under regulated conditions, Gustavson’s activities were conducted in a backstreet setting. His victims, mostly men, were said to be willing participants motivated by desires ranging from gender identity issues to expressions of sexuality.
The case took a further disturbing turn when Geoffrey Baulcomb, a 79-year-old former Church of England vicar expelled from the church last year, confessed to possessing indecent videos and images depicting child torture linked to the eunuch making group. Police arrested Baulcomb after uncovering his extensive phone contact with Gustavson. At the time of the offences, Baulcomb was still ordained. He admitted to possession of images that portrayed acts likely to cause serious injury to intimate areas and were described as “grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.”
The Nullo movement gained international notoriety in 2012 due to Japanese performance artist Mao Sugiyama, who had his genitalia surgically removed and later offered to prepare and serve the amputated parts to guests in a controversial event. Sugiyama's actions resulted in organisers being charged with indecent exposure in Japan, though charges were dropped in 2013 after arguments that attendees were fully aware of the event’s nature.
Although extreme body modification of this kind is rare, it is recognised in some medical quarters. For instance, Dr Peter Davis in Palo Alto, California, is known to perform gender nullification surgeries, also referred to as ‘male to eunuch’ or smoothy procedures, for gender non-conforming patients. This surgical process includes complete penectomy, orchiectomy, and other modifications tailored to create a smooth transition between abdomen and groin.
The Gustavson and Baulcomb case touches on complex issues regarding consent, legality, and personal autonomy. It revives debates about the limits of consenting adults performing body modifications that carry significant health risks. The legal system appears firm in its stance; Gustavson received a life sentence with a minimum of 22 years in custody, highlighting that the court views these actions as criminal regardless of consent.
This ruling echoes past legal precedents such as Operation Spanner, a Metropolitan Police investigation into consensual male sadomasochism that led to prosecutions despite the acts being consensual. The courts held that consent was not an absolute defence in cases involving serious bodily harm, emphasising the need to protect individuals from harm, even self-inflicted.
Gustavson’s case exposes a hidden world of extreme body modification that challenges conventional legal and social boundaries. The Old Bailey’s ruling underlines the judiciary’s position on such matters, reinforcing that even consensual actions that result in severe physical harm may be subject to criminal penalties.
Source: Noah Wire Services