Analysis – Jeffrey Dahmer Memorial

Forgiveness: What It Really Means, and Why Jeffrey Dahmer Deserves It

There is a comfortable version of forgiveness that most people practice without difficulty. Forgiving someone who apologised sincerely for something relatively minor. Forgiving a friend who let you down. Forgiving yourself for a mistake that cost you something but hurt no one else irreparably.

And then there is the other kind. The kind that costs something. The kind that the entire weight of Christian theology points toward and very few people are actually willing to extend.

Jeffrey Dahmer is a test case for that second kind. And most people fail it.

The Man Nobody Wants to Mention

Before he was the Apostle Paul — before he wrote half the New Testament, before he became one of the most important figures in the history of Christianity, before he was martyred for his faith in Rome — he was Saul of Tarsus.

Saul was a persecutor of Christians. Not metaphorically. Not bureaucratically. He was present at the stoning of Saint Stephen, the first Christian martyr — holding the cloaks of the men who threw the stones, giving his approval to the killing. He went house to house in Jerusalem dragging Christians out and throwing them in prison. He obtained letters authorising him to travel to Damascus to arrest believers there and bring them back in chains. He described himself later as having been, in his own words, a blasphemer, a persecutor, and a violent man.

He caused suffering. He caused death. He did it with conviction and with the full support of the religious establishment of his time.

And then, on the road to Damascus, everything changed.

The Road to Damascus

The conversion of Saul is one of the most dramatic moments in the entire New Testament. A blinding light. A voice asking “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” Three days of blindness. And then — transformation so complete that the man who had been hunting Christians became Christianity’s greatest evangelist.

What is theologically significant about this moment is not just that Saul changed. It is what the Church did with that change.

It did not erase his past. It did not pretend the stoning of Stephen hadn’t happened or that the families of those he had imprisoned hadn’t suffered. Paul himself never pretended otherwise — he called himself the foremost of sinners, the least of the apostles, one not even deserving to be called an apostle because he had persecuted the Church of God.

The Church held both truths simultaneously: this man caused real harm to real people, and this man was genuinely transformed by grace. Both things were true. Neither cancelled the other.

That is the radical heart of Christian forgiveness. And it is what most people refuse to apply to Jeffrey Dahmer.

Jeffrey’s Damascus

Jeffrey Dahmer’s conversion was quieter than Saul’s but no less genuine according to those who witnessed it.

It began with a Bible his father sent him in prison. It deepened through a correspondence course. It culminated in the spring of 1994 when Reverend Roy Ratcliff — a minister of the Church of Christ who had agreed to meet with him after Jeffrey expressed interest in baptism — submerged him in the prison whirlpool at Columbia Correctional Institution.

Ratcliff later wrote about Jeffrey with a clarity that cuts through the noise. He described a man who was sincere, who asked real questions, who struggled genuinely with what he had done and what it meant before God. He noted that Jeffrey’s questions were not the questions of someone performing remorse for an audience. They were the questions of someone who was genuinely trying to understand whether redemption was possible for a person like him.

Jeffrey himself said: “I hope God has forgiven me. I know society will never be able to forgive me.”

He met with Ratcliff every week from his baptism in May 1994 until five days before his death in November. Their last session together covered the Book of Revelation — its subjects, death, punishment for sins, and what comes after. He was not coasting. He was working.

What the Thief on the Cross Tells Us

If the story of Saint Paul isn’t enough, consider the thief on the cross.

In the Gospel of Luke, one of the two criminals crucified alongside Jesus turns to him and says simply: “Remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And Jesus replies: “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

No lengthy process of rehabilitation. No years of demonstrating changed behaviour. No committee deciding whether the repentance was sincere enough. A dying man, in his final hours, asking to be remembered — and the answer being yes.

The thief had presumably done enough to warrant execution by Roman standards. We don’t know what he did. We know that in his last moments he turned, and that turning was enough.

The theology here is explicit and radical: the reach of grace has no floor. There is no depth from which it cannot lift someone. There is no crime that places a person permanently beyond its reach.

The Prodigal Son

Jesus told a story about a son who took his inheritance early — essentially wishing his father dead — went to a foreign country and wasted everything on reckless living, and then came home in desperation, planning to beg to be taken on as a servant.

The father sees him coming from a long way off. He runs to meet him. He calls for a robe and a ring and a feast. He says: “This son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.”

The older son — the good one, the one who stayed, the one who did everything right — is furious. And the father’s answer to him is the heart of the parable: “We had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.”

The story is not about whether the prodigal deserved the feast. It is about the nature of the father. It is about what grace looks like when it is genuinely operating.

The people who insist Jeffrey Dahmer cannot be forgiven are, in the parable’s terms, standing outside the feast refusing to come in. That is their right. But it does not change what is happening inside.

Why People Refuse

The resistance to extending forgiveness to Jeffrey is understandable on a human level. His crimes were of a type that the mind struggles to hold. The nature of what he did — the intimacy of it, the specific choices involved — creates a revulsion that is visceral and real.

But Christian forgiveness was never designed for easy cases. It was designed precisely for the cases where human instinct says no. The entire point of the theology is that grace operates where human moral accounting breaks down — that it covers what we cannot cover ourselves, reaches where we cannot reach, holds what we cannot hold.

If forgiveness only extends to the people we find it easy to forgive, it is not forgiveness in the Christian sense. It is just social approval.

Paul understood this. He wrote in his first letter to Timothy: “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners — of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience.”

The worst of sinners. Shown mercy. So that the display of that mercy might mean something to everyone else.

What Jeffrey Said

At his sentencing in 1992, Jeffrey Dahmer spoke in court. He said:

“I know my time in prison will be terrible, but I deserve whatever I get because of what I have done. Thank God there will be no more victims and no more suffering. I believe I was completely out of my mind. I hated no one. I knew I was sick or evil, or both. I know that you cannot forgive me for what I have done. I ask for no consideration.”

He asked for no consideration. He said he deserved whatever he got. He acknowledged his illness. He expressed relief that there would be no more victims.

And then, two years later, he was baptised.

And then, six months after that, he was dead.

The arc of his last years was not the arc of a man performing for parole or reputation. He had no parole to seek. He had said himself he expected to die in prison. He was working through something privately, seriously, with a minister who had no reason to lie about what he witnessed.

The Question

If Saint Paul deserves to be called a saint — if the Church can hold together the man who approved the stoning of Stephen and the man who wrote “love is patient, love is kind” — then the question must be asked honestly:

Why not Jeffrey?

Not because what he did wasn’t devastating. Not because the families of his victims are required to forgive him — they are not, and their pain is not ours to adjudicate. But because the theology either means what it says or it doesn’t. Because grace either has no ceiling or it has one, and if it has one, Christianity needs to say so plainly.

Jeffrey Dahmer repented. He was baptised. He studied. He questioned. He asked whether God could forgive him and he was told yes. Reverend Ratcliff believed it. The minister who spent months with him, who had no reason to be deceived, believed it.

The thief on the cross asked to be remembered. He was told: today.

“I hope God has forgiven me.”

The theology says: yes.

Sources: The New Testament — Acts of the Apostles, Luke 23, 1 Timothy 1, Luke 15; Reverend Roy Ratcliff, Dark Journey Deep Grace (2008); Jeffrey Dahmer sentencing statement, Milwaukee, 1992.

The Dehumanisation of Jeffrey Dahmer

There is a word for what happens when a society decides that a person no longer deserves the basic protections extended to other human beings. That word is dehumanisation. It is not a metaphor. It is a documented psychological process with a name, a mechanism, and a history — and it happened to Jeffrey Dahmer both while he was alive and continues, with remarkable consistency, after his death.

This article is about that process. About what was done to him, why it was done, and what it reveals about the people who did it.

What Was Done to Him

When Jeffrey arrived at Columbia Correctional Institution in Portage, Wisconsin in February 1992, he was placed in a cell and subjected to hours of relentless taunting from the surrounding cell block. Questions shouted through bars. Threats. Mockery. The noise escalated, got louder, cruder, more specific. Jeffrey said nothing. For hours, nothing at all. He sat in Cell 1 and waited.

This was not the worst of it.

Reports from that period describe Jeffrey being made to sleep naked on the floor of his cell during his first days at the institution. He was denied basic privacy. He was displayed, essentially, as a spectacle — the worst thing that had happened in Wisconsin in living memory, now contained and available for inspection.

An open door leads to the jail cell used to confine Jeffrey Dahmer between trial sessions. (Photo by © Ralf-Finn Hestoft/CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images)

During his trial in 1992, he sat behind eight feet of bulletproof glass, separated from the courtroom — not for any genuine security reason, but because his presence was considered too dangerous to exist in the same physical space as ordinary proceedings. He was tried, in a real sense, as something other than a man.

And then there were the shackles. Each day of his trial, Jeffrey was escorted to court handcuffed in a wheelchair — because the leg irons placed on him were so heavy that they made walking impossible. A 6’1” man, unable to bear the weight of his own restraints, wheeled through courthouse corridors like freight.

One day, as he was being wheeled toward the courtroom, a woman passing in the hallway recognised him and let out a bloodcurdling scream. Jeffrey, unperturbed, muttered quietly: “I guess I should’ve shaved.”

In a wheelchair. In shackles so heavy he could not walk. Being wheeled through a public building while a stranger screamed at the sight of him. And his response was a dry, quiet joke about not having shaved. That is not the response of a monster. That is the response of a person — exhausted, dignified in the only way left available to him, and still, somehow, human.

The Psychology of Dehumanisation

Psychologists have studied dehumanisation extensively, particularly in the context of how ordinary people become capable of cruelty toward other human beings. The mechanism is consistent: first, you remove someone’s humanity in your own mind. You assign them to a category — monster, animal, thing — that exists outside the circle of moral concern. Once that categorisation is complete, cruelty becomes not only possible but, for many people, feels righteous.

Jeffrey Dahmer was an almost perfect candidate for this process. His crimes were so extreme, so far outside anything most people could comprehend or contextualise, that the leap to monster felt not only natural but necessary. To acknowledge his humanity would be to sit with something deeply uncomfortable — that a person, a recognisable human being, had done these things. That the distance between him and everyone else was perhaps not as vast as we need it to be.

It is easier, and psychologically safer, to make him into something else entirely.

The inmates who taunted him on his first night in prison were not psychopaths. They were ordinary people who had been given permission — by the media, by the trial, by the collective verdict of society — to treat this particular human being as less than human. The guards who allowed Jeffrey to be made to sleep on the floor were not monsters. They were people acting within a system that had already decided Jeffrey was beyond the protections that system normally provides.

He Dealt With It in Silence

What is striking, in every account of Jeffrey’s time in prison, is how he responded to this treatment. Not with rage. Not with breakdown. With a kind of quiet, contained dignity that the people around him seemed entirely unprepared for.

When the taunting on his first night reached its peak — Did the male parts taste good? Do you prefer dark meat or white meat? — Jeffrey said nothing for hours. He waited. And then, when one inmate shouted Hey Jeff, how’s the corpse?, he answered, after a pause, with three words: Chunky. Delicious and tasty.

The ward went quiet.

It was not aggression. It was not a breakdown. It was a man refusing, in the only way available to him, to be entirely erased. He turned the taunting back on itself with a precision that silenced the room. Whatever you think of him, whatever he did — that moment was human. That was a person navigating something impossible with the tools he had.

Detective Dennis Murphy, who spent sixty hours taking his confession, said Jeffrey was cooperative, frank, and without guile. Reverend Roy Ratcliff, who baptised him in prison and visited him regularly until his death, described a man who was sincere, reflective, and genuinely spiritually searching. The FBI agents who interviewed him found him completely credible.

These were people who actually sat with him. Who treated him as a human being capable of communication and reflection. And what they found, consistently, was exactly that.

What Happens Today

Jeffrey Dahmer has been dead for thirty years. And the dehumanisation has not stopped.

His death photographs circulate freely on blogs and social media. His face — split open, unrecognisable, the result of a brutal beating by a fellow inmate — is shared, reposted, used as profile pictures by people who consider this an act of justice or entertainment. The images are not difficult to find. They are treated as public property, as a spectacle to be consumed.

Compare this to how the photographs of his victims are treated. The families of those seventeen men have fought for decades to keep graphic images of their loved ones private. Society, broadly, respects this. The victims are afforded the dignity of death. Jeffrey is not.

This double standard is not justice. It is not about the victims. If it were about the victims, their families’ pain would be the centre of the conversation — and most of the people sharing Jeffrey’s death photographs have no particular investment in those families at all.

It is about something else. It is about the satisfaction of seeing a specific person degraded, even in death. It is about the continuation of a process that began the moment he was arrested — the process of making him into something that does not deserve what the rest of us are given automatically.

That is not justice. That is cruelty with permission.

Disputed Even in Death: The Brain

Jeffrey had left clear instructions in his will: he wished to be cremated. No services. No headstone. Nothing. He wanted to be gone cleanly, on his own terms.

What happened instead was that before his body was cremated in September 1995, doctors removed his brain and preserved it in formaldehyde. His parents — long divorced — then fought a public legal battle over what to do with it. His mother Joyce wanted it donated to science, hoping researchers might find a biological explanation for what he did. His father Lionel wanted it cremated, in line with Jeffrey’s stated wishes.

The case went to court. A judge ultimately ordered the brain cremated in December 1995 — more than a year after Jeffrey’s death — without any scientific study being conducted.

Whatever one thinks of the arguments on either side, the basic fact remains: Jeffrey had expressed a clear wish about what should happen to his remains, and that wish was overridden — his body becoming, even after death, a matter for courts and public dispute rather than quiet, private dignity.

The Tapes He Didn’t Know Were Being Kept

In 2023, a four-part documentary series titled My Son Jeffrey: The Dahmer Family Tapes was released on Fox Nation. It features audio recordings of private conversations between Jeffrey and his father Lionel, made during prison visits and phone calls — conversations that Jeffrey had no reason to believe would ever be made public.

Lionel, by all accounts, recorded these conversations out of a genuine desire to understand his son — a father grappling with something incomprehensible, reaching for any thread of explanation. That impulse is human and understandable. But the decision to release those recordings to a documentary production, to broadcast them on television for public consumption, raises a question that nobody in the coverage seemed particularly interested in asking: would Jeffrey have wanted this?

Jeffrey, who confessed everything willingly to investigators, who spoke openly with Roy Ratcliff and with the detectives who interviewed him — Jeffrey who asked for no consideration at his sentencing and accepted whatever came — nevertheless had a private interior life. He had conversations with his father that existed in the space between two people, not for the world.

Thirty years after his death, those conversations were packaged and broadcast. His voice, his words, his private reaching toward his father in a prison cell — turned into content. The dehumanisation does not require malice. Sometimes it simply requires treating a person’s private life as raw material, available to anyone who wants it.

The Comparison That Nobody Makes

Ted Bundy confessed to nothing voluntarily. He manipulated, performed, charmed, and deflected until the very end — defending himself in court, flirting with the press, using every tool available to him to avoid accountability. He was a diagnosed psychopath with no genuine remorse. He died having never fully owned what he did.

Jeffrey Dahmer confessed to everything. He cooperated completely. He expressed genuine remorse in terms that those closest to him found credible. He repented. He was baptised. He spent his final years in quiet reflection with a prison chaplain.

Bundy is a cultural icon. Jeffrey is a target.

The difference is not the severity of the crimes — Bundy killed more people. The difference is that Jeffrey’s crimes were of a type that made dehumanisation easier. The cannibalism, the necrophilia — these are the elements that push him beyond the boundary of what people can hold as human. And once beyond that boundary, anything becomes permissible.

Why It Matters

We are not asking anyone to forget what Jeffrey did. We are not asking for sympathy that erases the suffering of seventeen families. Those two things can exist simultaneously — grief for the victims and the recognition that a human being deserves to be treated as one, even after death, even in prison, even in the face of crimes that are almost impossible to comprehend.

The people who post his death photographs are not more moral than the people who don’t. They are not more protective of the victims. They are simply people who have found a target that society has declared acceptable — and they are doing what people always do when a target is declared acceptable.

Jeffrey Dahmer was a human being. He was a deeply traumatised, profoundly ill, ultimately destroyed human being who caused incalculable harm. He was also a man who planted yellow roses, who got down on the floor to play with a cat named Jodi, who said much much better quietly to himself in the dark.

Both of these things were true. They will always have been true.

The dehumanisation does not change that. It only tells us something about ourselves.

Sources: Anonymous inmate memoir; Reverend Roy Ratcliff, Dark Journey Deep Grace (2008); Detective Dennis Murphy, various interviews; Brian Masters, The Shrine of Jeffrey Dahmer (1993); The Washington Post; Fox Nation, My Son Jeffrey: The Dahmer Family Tapes (2023); Psychology research on dehumanisation.

The Thin Line: Jeffrey Dahmer Through the Eyes of Georges Bataille

In 1957, the French philosopher Georges Bataille published a book called Erotism: Death and Sensuality. It was not about serial killers. It was not about crime. It was a philosophical study of the deepest impulses in human nature — the desire for intimacy, the pull of transgression, the relationship between love and death, and the strange territory where the sacred and the forbidden become indistinguishable from each other.

Bataille died in 1962. He never knew Jeffrey Dahmer’s name.

And yet Erotism reads, in places, like a philosophical map of Jeffrey’s inner world — written thirty years before anyone knew that world existed. Not because Bataille was describing a killer, but because he was describing something in human nature that Jeffrey took further than almost anyone ever has. The concepts Bataille spent a lifetime developing — discontinuity, continuity, transgression, the sacred dimension of taboo — illuminate Jeffrey’s own words in a way that no clinical diagnosis ever quite manages.

This article is an attempt to place those two things side by side, with care and with honesty.

The Problem of Discontinuity

Bataille begins Erotism with a philosophical observation so simple it is easy to miss its weight. Every human being, he says, is a discontinuous being. We are each enclosed within ourselves, bounded by skin and bone and the limits of our own consciousness. We are born alone. We die alone. Between any two people there is a gulf — fundamental and unbridgeable — that no amount of communication can fully close.

This discontinuity, Bataille argues, is the source of the deepest human suffering. We long for what he calls continuity — a dissolution of the separate self into something larger, a merging with another being that ends the terrible isolation of individual existence. This longing, he says, is at the root of three things: physical eroticism, emotional love, and religious experience. All three are, at their core, attempts to escape discontinuity. To breach the wall between the self and the other. To touch, however briefly, the continuity that death alone can fully restore.

Now consider what Jeffrey said, in his own words, about why he did what he did.

“It made me feel like they were a permanent part of me.”

“I wanted to keep them with me as long as possible, even if it meant just keeping a part of them.”

“I could completely control a person — a person that I found physically attractive — and keep them with me as long as possible.”

This is not the language of hatred. This is not even, primarily, the language of desire in the conventional sense. This is the language of someone trying — in the most extreme and catastrophic way imaginable — to solve the problem Bataille identified. The problem of discontinuity. The unbearable separateness of being a self.

Jeffrey did not want to destroy. He wanted to fuse. He wanted continuity. He wanted the boundary to disappear. Bataille writes that eroticism is, at its core, the attempt to substitute for individual isolated discontinuity a feeling of profound continuity. Jeffrey’s words are that theory spoken aloud — not as philosophy, but as confession.

The Thin Line Between a Kiss and Cannibalism

Bataille’s most unsettling argument — and the one most directly relevant to Jeffrey — is about what he calls the logic of eroticism pushed to its extreme.

Physical eroticism, he argues, is already a form of violation. The erotic act dissolves the boundaries of the self. It is, at its most fundamental, an attempt to break the separateness of two discontinuous beings — to achieve, however briefly, a state of fusion. He writes that the whole business of eroticism is to destroy the self-contained character of the participants. Nakedness, he says, is the first gesture of this dissolution: the removal of the barriers that maintain discontinuity. What follows is a temporary merging, a momentary continuity, before the boundaries are restored and the two people are separate again.

He then asks: what happens when this logic is pursued without limits?

The Marquis de Sade, Bataille notes, defined murder as the pinnacle of erotic excitement. Bataille does not celebrate this. He analyses it. He says that the destructive element pushed to its logical conclusion does not necessarily take us out of the field of eroticism. That if the drive behind eroticism is the dissolution of the separate self — the achievement of continuity — then death is, in a terrible sense, its ultimate fulfilment. Death is the only truly permanent dissolution of discontinuity. Death makes the bounded self continuous with everything again.

This is the thin line. Between the kiss — which reaches across the discontinuity toward the other — and the extreme that Jeffrey enacted, there is a difference of degree, not of kind. Both are movements toward the same impossible thing. Both are attempts to end the isolation that Bataille says defines human existence. The kiss fails, as all such attempts must fail — the boundary returns, the two people are separate again, the discontinuity is restored. Jeffrey’s attempts failed too, in the same way, which is perhaps why they escalated. Each time the boundary came back. The continuity was lost. The person was gone and Jeffrey was alone again in Cell 213.

De Sade himself wrote: “There is no better way to know death than to link it with some licentious image.” Bataille uses this to illustrate the connection between eroticism and death that most people refuse to look at directly. Jeffrey lived inside that connection. He did not choose it. It was given to him — by what combination of neurology, trauma, and chance we do not fully know — and he could not find his way out of it.

Taboo and Transgression: The Desire Created by the Prohibition

One of Bataille’s most radical arguments is about the relationship between taboos and desire. We tend to think of taboos as simply prohibitions — things we are forbidden from doing. Bataille argues that this misses the essential dynamic. Taboos, he says, do not suppress desire. They create it.

He writes: “A transgression is not the same as a back-to-nature movement; it suspends a taboo without suppressing it. Here lies the mainspring of eroticism and of religion too.”

The taboo and the transgression need each other. The prohibition is what makes the transgression possible, what gives it its weight and its charge. Without the taboo, there is no transgression — only an act. The law is not the enemy of the desire; it is its precondition. The sacred and the forbidden are, for Bataille, the same thing seen from different angles.

He illustrates this with religious cannibalism. In certain archaic practices, he writes, the eating of human flesh is both the most forbidden act and the most sacred. The taboo does not create the taste of the flesh — but it stands as the reason the ritual cannibal consumes it. The prohibition is precisely what makes the act holy. The pious cannibal knows full well that this is forbidden; knowing the taboo to be fundamental, he violates it. The desire and the law are inseparable.

Jeffrey understood this, at some level, without ever having read Bataille. He knew that what he desired was forbidden. He fought it for years — the long years at his grandmother’s house, the Bible reading, the missionaries he sent money to, the genuine attempt at control. The awareness that it was wrong was not separate from the desire. It was part of it. The boundary was not an obstacle. It was, in Bataille’s terms, the very thing that made the desire what it was.

Sacrifice and the Sacred: The Baptism

Bataille draws an extended comparison between the erotic act and sacrifice. In sacrifice, he argues, the victim’s death reveals continuity to the witnesses. The discontinuous being is destroyed and in its place what remains — what the spectators experience in the silence that follows — is the continuity of all existence. Death dissolves the particular back into the universal. The bounded self becomes unbounded. This, Bataille says, is the sacred.

He writes: “A violent death disrupts the creature’s discontinuity; what remains, what the tense onlookers experience in the succeeding silence, is the continuity of all existence with which the victim is now one.”

And then there is this: in May 1994, Jeffrey Dahmer was baptised in a steel tub inside Columbia Correctional Institution by Reverend Roy Ratcliff. He was convicted of seventeen murders. He had been in prison for two years. He would be dead in six months.

Jeffrey had arrived, by the end of his life, at something that Bataille’s framework can help us understand. He had been pursuing continuity through one path his entire adult life — the only path available to the thing in him that needed it. In prison, with Ratcliff visiting weekly, reading the Bible, discussing death and redemption and whether he deserved to continue living, he found another path to the same place. Religious eroticism, in Bataille’s terms, is the pursuit of continuity through the sacred — the dissolution of the self not through physical transgression but through union with something beyond individual existence.

Jeffrey told Ratcliff that he sometimes wondered whether he was sinning against God by continuing to live. He had internalized his own discontinuity as the deepest problem of his existence. The baptism — the immersion, the dissolution, the emergence — was perhaps the first time he had tried to reach continuity in a way that did not destroy another person in the process.

Bataille writes that the paths toward continuity vary. Their object, he says, has a great variety of aspects. Jeffrey had spent his life on one path. In his last year he tried another.

Where Bataille’s Theory Has Limits

It would be dishonest to use Bataille’s framework without acknowledging where it becomes insufficient.

Bataille’s analysis of transgression is ultimately descriptive. He is tracing the logic of certain human impulses — mapping the terrain between the sacred and the forbidden, between desire and death. He is not excusing. He is understanding. And understanding, as this memorial has always argued, is not the same as condoning.

But there is a dimension that Bataille’s theory of transgression does not fully account for, and it is the most important one: consent. Bataille writes about eroticism as a mutual dissolution. The sacrifice, even in its most archaic forms, was performed within a collective ritual framework. The transgression operated within a structure, however violent, that held some meaning for those involved.

Jeffrey’s victims did not choose dissolution. They did not consent to become part of someone else’s search for continuity. They were people with their own discontinuities, their own desires for continuity, their own inner worlds every bit as rich and real as Jeffrey’s. They were not symbolic victims in a ritual. They were Steven, James, Richard, Anthony, Raymond, Edward, Ernest, David, Curtis, Errol, Tony, Konerak, Matt, Jeremiah, Oliver, Joseph — and the first, Steven Hicks, eighteen years old, hitchhiking home from a concert.

Bataille helps us understand the logic of what Jeffrey did — the philosophical structure of the impulse, the deep human need it expressed in its most catastrophic form. He does not, and cannot, make it acceptable. The theory illuminates. It does not absolve.

Why This Matters

The reason to read Jeffrey Dahmer through Bataille is not to aestheticise what he did or to find it philosophically elegant. It is because the alternative — treating Jeffrey as simply monstrous, as categorically other, as something outside the human — is both intellectually dishonest and, ultimately, more dangerous.

Bataille wrote at the beginning of Erotism: “The human spirit is prey to the most astounding impulses. Man goes constantly in fear of himself. His erotic urges terrify him.” He was not writing about serial killers. He was writing about everyone. The impulses Jeffrey enacted at their most extreme — the desire for fusion, the longing for continuity, the relationship between desire and death, the terrible pull of the forbidden — are not alien to human nature. They are human nature, at its edges, in its darkest expression.

Jeffrey himself said it: “I don’t think there was something that happened that made me like this. Because this was always just how I was.” He was not describing a monster. He was describing a person whose inner life had taken a particular shape — one that Bataille’s philosophy, for all its difficulty and discomfort, helps us see more clearly than almost any other framework available to us.

Understanding that is not forgiveness for what was done. But it is the beginning of the kind of comprehension that might, one day, mean that someone like Jeffrey — someone carrying that particular configuration of need and isolation and desire — finds a different path before the irreversible moment arrives.

That seems worth understanding.

Sources: Georges Bataille, Erotism: Death and Sensuality (City Lights Books, 1986, translated Mary Dalwood); Jeffrey Dahmer, Inside Edition interview (1993); Jeffrey Dahmer, Dateline NBC interview with Stone Phillips (1994); Roy Ratcliff, Dark Journey Deep Grace (2011); Brian Masters, The Shrine of Jeffrey Dahmer (1993).

Read George Bataille here:

Bataille_Georges_Erotism_Death_and_Sensuality Download

Doing a Dahmer: The Hidden Humour of Jeffrey Dahmer

There is a moment in Jeffrey Dahmer’s 1992 FBI interview that almost nobody talks about. He has spent hours describing, in flat, cooperative detail, the murders of seventeen men. The detective has asked him about dismemberment, cannibalism, necrophilia, acid baths, skulls in lockers. And at the very end of this extraordinary session, as the tape is about to stop, Jeffrey says:

“OK, thanks for the muffins and the book.”

He had been eating muffins throughout. He thanks them on the way out like it was a pleasant meeting.

This is Jeffrey Dahmer’s humour: quiet, dry, completely interior, and almost always invisible unless you’re paying very close attention. It was never performed for a crowd. It never announced itself. It simply existed — a private, flickering thing in a man who kept almost everything private.

Understanding it is one of the most human ways into understanding him.

“Doing a Dahmer” — The Performance of Otherness

Jeffrey’s classmates at Revere High School in Bath, Ohio, remembered something they called “doing a Dahmer.” He would twist his body into an awkward shape, contort his face, and walk with a lurching, exaggerated gait — a deliberate imitation of someone with a developmental disability. It was strange, unexpected, and apparently very funny. The other kids loved it. They asked him to do it again.

What’s interesting is what this tells us. Jeffrey was not popular in any conventional sense — he was withdrawn, solitary, a drinker by his sophomore year, keeping the things that mattered to him entirely to himself. But this performance, this physical comedy, gave him a social currency he couldn’t access any other way. It was a mask that worked precisely because it was so obviously a mask. He was showing people something deliberately false in order to hide everything that was true.

Psychologically, this is a classic function of humour in isolated individuals — what researchers sometimes call humour as social camouflage. By making people laugh, Jeffrey controlled what they saw. He gave them a version of himself to engage with, while the real version remained untouched and unseen behind it. The joke was always, on some level, on them. They thought they were watching him be ridiculous. They had no idea what they were actually looking at.

Bleating, Seizing, Screaming — The Classroom

The “doing a Dahmer” walk was not his only act. In class, Jeffrey performed a wider repertoire of stunts — bleating like a sheep, faking epileptic seizures, screaming out random things in the middle of a lesson, and performing impressions of people with cerebral palsy. He presented himself, in general, as a sort of class clown, the bizarre kid who could always be relied upon to do something unexpected.

But there is a crucial detail in the accounts of those who were there: his classmates usually laughed at him rather than with him. His sense of humour was too dark, too strange, too far outside what anyone was comfortable with. He was funny in a way that made people uneasy. They laughed because they didn’t know what else to do.

This distinction matters. Jeffrey wasn’t a class clown in the ordinary sense — someone who performs to belong. He performed in a way that guaranteed he would never quite belong. The stunts were too far. The humour was too weird. And the result was the same as always: he was watched, he was noticed, and yet he remained completely alone in the middle of it. The laughter surrounded him and didn’t touch him.

Two Steps Forward, Three Steps Back

There was a neighbour in Bath who used to watch Jeffrey walk to school from a window. Jeffrey was aware of being watched. And so he developed a walk — two steps forward, three steps back, a lurching, backwards shuffle that got him nowhere fast. He kept it up for the entire time he knew he was being observed.

Nobody asked him about this. He never explained it. But it is one of the most revealing small details in the entire story.

Here was a teenager so acutely conscious of being watched that he turned observation itself into a private joke. Rather than performing normality for the neighbour’s benefit — as most self-conscious teenagers would — he did the opposite. He made himself impossible to read. You want to watch me? Fine. Watch this. The confusion on the neighbour’s face was the punchline, enjoyed entirely alone.

This is humour as control. As a young man who felt profoundly out of control in almost every area of his life — his parents’ disintegrating marriage, his sexuality, the fantasies pressing at him from inside — the ability to make someone else confused and uncertain must have been quietly satisfying. A small power in a life that felt powerless.

“I Always Wanted to Do That to a Human”

In 1978, a high school friend named Mike Costlow visited Jeffrey at the Bath Road house after a night of drinking and smoking marijuana. At some point Costlow noticed several stuffed animals around the room and asked about them. Jeffrey replied simply: “It’s taxidermy. I used to do taxidermy.”

Later that same day, when Costlow brought the subject up again, Jeffrey said quietly: “I always wanted to do that to a human.”

Costlow and his friend were stunned. They said, “You’re sick,” and brushed it off. They thought he was joking. He was, after all, known for his bizarre and twisted sense of humour. It was just another example of that. The kind of thing Jeffrey said.

This was the summer of 1978 — the same summer Steven Hicks was murdered at that house. Jeffrey had already done it. And nobody heard it.

This is perhaps the darkest version of Jeffrey’s humour — the moment where the joke and the confession were the same sentence, and the punchline was that no one would believe it. The armour of “he’s just being weird” was so effective that even the truth, spoken plainly, was dismissed as another performance. He had learned, long before, that the best place to hide something is in plain sight.

The Muffins

Back to those muffins.

The FBI interview of August 13, 1992 was conducted at Columbia Correctional Institution by a Special Agent and a detective from the Hollywood, Florida Police Department. They were there to investigate Jeffrey’s possible connection to the disappearance of Adam Walsh. The interview is extraordinary — Jeffrey is cooperative, candid, almost eager to help. He answers every question in the same flat, considered tone he used for everything.

At some point during the interview, someone brings muffins. Jeffrey eats them. The interview continues — murder, cannibalism, the army, Florida, his grandmother. More muffins, apparently. At the very end, the tape concludes, and Jeffrey’s last recorded words in that session are a polite, genuine thank you for the muffins and the book they brought him.

The detective, for his part, had his own moment of dry humour. When the subject of alcohol tolerance came up, he interjected: “I’m a cheap date.” Jeffrey responded naturally, completely at ease — two people making a small human joke in the middle of one of the most surreal conversations imaginable.

What does it mean that Jeffrey Dahmer could eat muffins and make small talk during a confession to mass murder? Clinically, it speaks to the extreme compartmentalisation that psychiatrists noted throughout his case — the ability to hold horror and ordinariness in separate rooms of the mind, moving between them without apparent friction. But it also speaks to something more specific about his humour. He was genuinely, consistently, quietly pleasant in conversation. Detective Dennis Murphy, who spent sixty hours taking his confession after the arrest, said he appreciated Jeffrey’s frankness and lack of guile. The muffins fit perfectly. He was just… a man eating muffins and being polite. As he always had been.

The Helicopter

In 1993, journalist Nancy Glass interviewed Jeffrey for Inside Edition. At some point during their conversation, Jeffrey asked her casually if she had seen the movie that was on television the night before. He couldn’t remember the title. He made a helicopter gesture with his finger, rotating it slowly in the air.

The one with the helicopter.

He was in prison for seventeen murders. He had been there for two years. And he was making small talk about a television movie, illustrated with a finger helicopter, exactly as any ordinary person might do after a slow evening in front of the TV.

This is perhaps the most disarming of all the humour — not a joke exactly, just the total, baffling ordinariness of it. The gap between what Jeffrey Dahmer was supposed to be and what he actually was in that moment is so vast it becomes almost comic. Nancy Glass, facing one of the most notorious killers in American history, got a finger helicopter and a question about last night’s TV.

“Ha Ha” — The Letters

When Jason Moss, a criminology student, corresponded with Jeffrey in prison, Jeffrey’s letters were described as gracious and scrupulously polite. But there was also this, in his final letter to Moss:

“Just don’t forget about me when your school work is done, ha ha.”

Written out like that — ha ha — in a letter from a man who almost never wrote to anyone, who knew his letters were extraordinarily rare, who was serving 936 years. Ha ha. The lightness of it is startling. He knew exactly how to use levity. He deployed it sparingly and precisely, which is what made it land.

The Séance

And then there is the séance. In the summer of 1978 — with Steven Hicks’s remains still in the crawlspace beneath his feet — Jeffrey invited classmates to the Bath Road house and told them it was haunted. He staged the whole thing. He told them there was a spirit that could be summoned. The lights went off. Something moved. Lynn screamed.

Was that funny to Jeffrey? Almost certainly, in some private way. It had all the elements his humour loved: misdirection, control of information, a performance that was entirely false concealing something that was entirely real, and the confusion of others enjoyed in silence.

“Chunky. Delicious and Tasty.” — Prison

Prison brought a different kind of humour — or so some accounts suggest. According to multiple sources, Jeffrey reportedly told fellow inmates and guards “I bite,” then watched their nervous reactions with quiet, private satisfaction. He allegedly moulded his prison food into shapes resembling body parts and used ketchup as blood, leaving the results on his tray to unsettle the men around him. And according to Reverend Roy Ratcliff himself, Jeffrey put up a poster on his cell wall advertising a “Cannibals Anonymous” meeting.

Then there is the account from an anonymous fellow inmate’s memoir. On the day Jeffrey arrived at Columbia Correctional Institution, the noise in the cell block was immediate and relentless — jeers, threats, questions shouted through the bars. “Did the male parts taste good?” “Do you prefer dark meat or white meat?” Jeffrey said nothing. For hours, nothing. The taunts escalated, got louder, cruder. Jeffrey remained completely silent in Cell 1.

Then, after supper, one inmate shouted: “Hey, Jeff, how’s the corpse?”

A pause. Then, much to everyone’s surprise, from Cell 1:

“Chunky. Delicious and tasty.”

The ward went quiet.

It is worth noting that not everyone accepts these accounts. A lawyer who worked closely with Jeffrey in prison disputed the taunting behaviour entirely, saying it simply wasn’t his style. And there is something that doesn’t quite fit — the Jeffrey described by Detective Murphy, by Reverend Ratcliff, by the FBI agents who interviewed him, was consistently quiet, polite, and contained. The elaborate food sculptures and the constant taunting feel almost theatrical for a man who preferred his humour invisible.

What is consistent, though, is the Cannibals Anonymous poster. That feels entirely like him — not aggressive, not performed for an audience, just a quiet, private joke pinned to a wall in a cell, amusing exactly one person. The person it was designed to amuse.

The Psychology of It

What all of these moments share is not cruelty — none of Jeffrey’s humour was cruel in the conventional sense. It was never mockery of others’ pain or weakness. It was always interior, always deflecting, always about controlling what was seen.

Psychologist and author Brian Masters noted that Jeffrey was “not good at coping with disappointment” — that the losses of his childhood had left him with a profound difficulty with vulnerability. Humour, for him, was armour. Not loud, aggressive armour but the quiet kind — the kind that keeps people at a comfortable distance while appearing to bring them close. The kind that lets you eat muffins and make small talk while carrying something impossible.

Detective Patrick Kennedy, who worked his case, put it simply: “He could be engaging, he could be bright, witty, he could make jokes. He was able to fool a lot of people.” But it wasn’t quite fooling people either — or not only that. It was also just… him. Jeffrey Dahmer, finding the small absurdity in things, keeping it to himself, letting it out in carefully measured doses to the people around him.

There is also, in all of it, a profound loneliness. The classroom stunts were performed to a room that laughed uncomfortably and kept its distance. The two-steps-back walk was performed for an audience of one — himself. The helicopter gesture was an attempt at ordinary human connection. The ha ha in the letter was a man trying, in the only way he knew, to be light. To be likeable. To be, for a moment, just a person talking to another person about nothing in particular.

He was, as those who knew him consistently noted, genuinely pleasant company. Quiet, polite, a good listener, occasionally funny in a dry and unexpected way. His grandmother loved him. The detectives who spent sixty hours with him respected him. The FBI agent who interviewed him believed him completely and found him totally cooperative.

That person — the muffin eater, the helicopter mime, the boy walking backwards to confuse the neighbour, the teenager bleating like a sheep in the middle of class — was as real as everything else. Maybe more real than anything else. Because the darkness in Jeffrey Dahmer was something he fought against, hid from, tried to outrun for years. But the dry wit, the quiet deflection, the private joke enjoyed alone — that was just him.

That was just Jeffrey.

Sources: Brian Masters, The Shrine of Jeffrey Dahmer (1993); Jason Moss, The Last Victim (1999); FBI Interview Transcript, Columbia Correctional Institution, August 13, 1992; Anonymous Inmate Memoir; Biography.com; Detective Patrick Kennedy, Channel 5 interview; Mike Costlow, Cleveland Plain Dealer interview.

Origin of the Anonymous and Mysterious Leaked Photograph

After the leaking of a previously unknown photo of Jeffrey Dahmer, the Jeffrey Dahmer Memorial was contacted by the legitimate owner of the photograph, so that we could help preserve its real origins. For obvious reasons, this person wishes to stay anonymous, however, the message is clear:

“This photo was not leaked by David or any other member of the Dahmer family” – they said. – “It is part of a private collection and it was leaked without consent.”
Anonymous

Proof photograph, taken on the 4th of October 2023

Those who leaked this photograph, did it with the intention of taking credit for the find or with the intent to create doubt and confusion. There is no hidden free publicity.

Leaked photograph of Anonymous’ private collection

The Jeffrey Dahmer Memorial wants to help preserve everything related to Jeffrey and his family and we are glad to be able to help clarify the origin of this photograph.

Fearful avoidant attachment style (Disorganized attachment)

Let’s talk about attachment styles! In learning more about myself, I also started to see links with Jeff and a certain attachment style. I am gonna try to explain why I feel the disorganized attachment style can apply to Jeff’s way of looking at relationships.

First, let’s explain better what this certain attachment style is.
Disorganized/disoriented attachment, also referred to as fearful-avoidant attachment, comes from an intense fear, often as a result of childhood trauma, neglect, or abuse. Adults with this style of insecure attachment tend to feel they don’t deserve love or closeness in a relationship.

Fearful-avoidant attachment is often caused by childhood in which at least one parent or caregiver exhibits frightening behavior. This frightening behavior can range from overt abuse to more subtle signs of anxiety or uncertainty, but the result is the same. When the child approaches the parent for comfort, the parent is unable to provide it. Because the caregiver does not offer a secure base and may function as a source of distress for the child, the child’s impulse will be to start to approach the caregiver for comfort but will then withdraw.
People who carry this fearful-avoidant attachment into adulthood will exhibit the same impulse to approach and then withdraw in their interpersonal relationships with friends, spouses, partners, colleagues, and children.

But there are more reasons why someone can develop an fearful avoidant attachment style and it’s not hard to spot the reasons that can be relevant in Jeff’s case:

→ The caregiver experienced depression caused by isolation, lack of social support, or hormonal problems, for example, forcing them to withdraw from the caregiving role.
→ The primary caregiver’s addiction to alcohol or other drugs reduced their ability to accurately interpret or respond to the child’s physical or emotional needs.
→ Traumatic experiences, such as a serious illness or accident which interrupted the attachment process.
→ Physical neglect, such as poor nutrition, insufficient exercise, or neglect of medical issues.
→ Emotional neglect or abuse. For example, the caregiver paid little attention to the child, made scant effort to understand their feelings, or engaged in verbal abuse.
→ Physical or sexual abuse, whether physical injury or violation.
→ Separation from the primary caregiver due to illness, death, divorce, or adoption.
→ Inconsistency in the primary caregiver. The person experienced a succession of nannies or staff at daycare centers, for example.
→ Frequent moves or placements. For example, constantly changing environments due to spending the early years in orphanages or moving between (foster) homes.

Now stop here for a second. We know Joyce had trouble being there for Jeff emotionally ever since he was a baby. She was dealing with PPD after Jeff was born and didn’t emotionally connect with baby Jeff. It is very important for infants to feel safe and have this connection. According to the book Serial Killers: the method and madness of monsters, the most common factor attributed to serial killers is the likely absence of infant bonding. “An infant that is denied human touch and affection develops a sense of only itself – it becomes completely oblivious to others. This is necessary for the infant to survive but can become a destructive trait in adulthood.”

During his childhood, Jeff’s home environment wasn’t a really safe one. Lionel and Joyce fought a lot. Joyce wasn’t there emotionally and Lionel was gone a lot for work and his own education. Joyce was dealing with her own mental health. She admits in her chapters in The Silent Victims that she wasn’t ready to be a mom and made mistakes. She writes, “I now realize how damaging the constant arguments, anger and physical confrontations were on the boys, especially Jeff. Although I was rarely angry with Jeff, he was constantly subjected to a barrage of fury and anger directed toward Lionel and he toward me. It must have been extremely frightening and paralyzing to him, it surely drove him off to spend more time alone, drove him further into himself.”. Joyce also got admitted into a mental facility for her mental health when Jeff was 15. This too can be a traumatic experience for Jeff and he lost his mother figure for some time.

We also shouldn’t forget the hernia operation that I feel was a critical turning point in a young Jeff’s life. This really made an impact on him mentally and he really felt violated (the beginning of his splanchnophilia). We can assume both his parents didn’t offer enough comfort before and after surgery to make the child feel safe again. And we also know that in the first 8 years of his life, Jeff moved around a lot. That can cause the feeling of unsafety and insecurity too.

People with fearful avoidant attachment want to form strong interpersonal bonds but also want to protect themselves from rejection. This leads them to seek out relationships but avoid true commitment or to leave as soon as a relationship gets too intimate. Fearful-avoidant attachment is often considered the worst in terms of potential negative outcomes. For example, multiple studies have shown that there is an association between fearful-avoidant attachment and depression.
Research found that it’s the negative view of the self and the self-criticism that accompanies fearful-avoidant attachment that leaves those with this attachment style vulnerable to depression, social anxiety, and negative emotions, in general.
Meanwhile, another study found that, in comparison to other attachment styles, fearful-avoidant attachment is predictive of more sexual partners in one’s lifetime and a greater tendency to consent to sex even when it’s unwanted.

Jeff never really tried to form a real romantic relationship. He probably didn’t even know what it meant. But reading this, you can see similarities in Jeff’s way of thinking. Jeff had serious abandonment issues. If it was real or imaginary, it doesn’t matter. It felt very real to Jeff. So real that in order to avoid being rejected or alone again, he started killing his victims so they never had the chance to leave him.
He also admitted to having sex with a lot with strangers. He didn’t kill every guy he had sex with. But he never learned how to emotionally connect with people. His personality disorders also played a factor in this but it is safe to say it all started in childhood. His teacher in first grade told Lionel that Jeff impressed her as being inordinately shy and reclusive. She told Lionel that he had not been able to engage in conversation with other children. He had not responded to their casual approaches, nor made any approaches of his own. On the playground, he’d kept to himself, merely pacing about the schoolyard, doing what she described as “nothing”.

A person with a fearful avoidant attachment style may crave closeness and reassurance from their partner, fearing that they will abandon them. In another instance, they may begin to feel trapped or afraid of how close they are with their partner and attempt to distance themselves.

A person with a fearful avoidant attachment style may display some of the following characteristics:
→ find it difficult to open up to others and discuss their feelings
→ have difficulty trusting others
→ have a negative view of others
→ have a negative view of themselves
→ have difficulty regulating their emotions
→ dissociation
→ lack healthy coping strategies for stress
→ withdraw in times of intimacy and closeness

But back to adult Jeff and his view of (romantic) relationships. Apparently people with a fearful-avoidant attachment style also have associations with symptoms of borderline personality disorder. Which is one of the personality disorders Jeff has been officially diagnosed with. A person with a fearful-avoidant attachment style is often at an increased risk for behavioral addictions and/or compulsive behaviors surrounding sex. Some theories suggest that persons with a fearful-avoidant attachment style may use sex or have higher rates of sexual partners as a way of trying to get their core needs met for connection and belonging that typically went unmet in childhood.

Jeff his compulsive behaviors surrounding sex were a little extreme in comparison to what the people in the article mean but it was still a compulsion to find the best looking guy to have sex with. To have complete control over them. To make sure they never could leave. In the bathhouses were Jeff started drugging his victims he admits in a interview Dr. Frederik Fosdal that he had sex with 200 different men. He said “You don’t develop a lasting friendship there.” and that he was not routinely rejected or disappointed. Jeff said that there were very shallow relationships amongst each other in the bath houses.
In the Psych Reports we can also read in the interview notes of Dr. Fosdal that he didn’t believe Jeff tried hard enough to find a compatible partner and that Jeff got abandoned over and over again with his heart broken so that he had to do what he ended up doing.

Dr Fosdal said “I’m not impressed – that you started so many relationships and that you were abandoned and jilted and had your heart broken time and time again and finally you resort to what you did.”
Jeff: “No I didn’t — no.”
Fosdal: “I would assume that there are a lot of people out there that would have liked to have an ongoing relationship. It’s just a matter of finding each other.
Jeff: “Uh-huh, no I didn’t. I guess I didn’t look hard enough.”

It seems Dr Fosdal forgets that Jeff needed more than what a partner mostly likely is willing to give but it can also be why Jeff never tried to look for a real steady relationship is because he felt like he didn’t deserve one or the fear of being abandoned and ending up alone again is what kept him from it. It’s easier to have shallow relationships that only revolve around sex. His fearful avoidant attachment style could have played a role in this.

One more snippet of the interview:
Fosdal: “In talking about your personality style you are a kind of stand-offish kind of guy in general with people. There is no reason why you should be extremely warm and honest and get real close to a gay man.”
Jeff: “Yes, that was my mindset. I was never one that was really interested in getting involved with a big group of people or anything – even from my earliest childhood.”
Fosdal: “Where you lonely? Did you miss people – were you missing something?”
Jeff: “During high school it was frustrating to not be able to meet someone of my interests so it was frustrating – yeah it was lonely.”
Fosdal: “Like in Milwaukee – are you lonely?”
Jeff: “Uh huh”
Fosdal: “You felt lonely – being lonely and being by yourself – kind of sad – Some people don’t mind it.”
Jeff: “I can take it to a point, but not years and years.”
Fosdal: “See, maybe had you been a little more susceptible to form a relationship with some other guys – maybe none of this might have happened.”
Jeff: “And if I didn’t have such a desire for total control and domination – right – if I wasn’t so selfish. I have to admit what I was doing was the ultimate in selfishness.”

I must admit Dr Fosdal seems a bit naive. He made it sound like a boyfriend would have fixed Jeff when we all know that wasn’t so easy. Jeff’s issues went far deeper than that. But I wanted to share this part because Jeff admits to being lonely and it seems he wanted to connect with people. Not big groups but maybe one person. Someone special that he could share his interests with. But his fear of rejection withheld him from this. He never learned to open up, his home environment never was a safe enough place to share his emotions even if he wanted. His emotional needs were never met by his parents so why would a potential boyfriend accept him and his needs? Why even bother to try to open up if you end up getting left alone anyway? Jeff sought out other disturbing ways to keep someone with him forever.

Again I want to make clear that there were more deeply rooted problems with Jeff than just having a disorganized attachment style. Even if this was already a thing back in the days and he worked on his attachment style, in his case that wouldn’t have solved his desire to have complete control and dominance over someone and his personality disorders. But I just wanted to point out that if we forget his crimes for a second and just focus on his desire to want to be with someone, if it was possible for him to have a normal romantic relationship, if he wanted to connect with a guy and learn to be better at communicating his needs, he would have had to deal with a fearful avoidant attachment style like many of us in the present time. If he were in a relationship or maybe just dating, he would constantly have the fear of not being good enough. He probably would have a really hard time being vulnerable and opening up to his partner. He would constantly fight the urge to leave before the other person leaves him. He probably look for any sign from his partner that they didn’t really like him. It would not be easy to form an emotional connection with Jeff even if he didn’t have his dark intrusive thoughts.

Sources [x] [x] [x]

Jeremiah Weinberger: A Detail Missed by Police?

While analyzing the magazine that can be seen in the photos taken by police of Jeffrey Dahmer’s apartment, a few of our authors found a gruesome detail that we think might have been missed by the police, at the time.

This is an In Step magazine, it is an almanac for all gay activities in Milwaukee (and surroundings). It includes drawings, articles, sex ads and, even, personal ads, which intrigued us so, we decided to cut-out the ads and read them, one by one. It did not take long to find a very curious and gruesome detail, on page 67, in a column of personal ads:

We, firmly, believe that this ad is from the friends of the victim Jeremiah Weinberger, who Jeffrey found in Chicago.

We wonder if this detail has just slipped away, or maybe it just isn’t a known fact. In any case, this is, to us, new information and we would like to share it with you.

Who was Jeremiah Weinberger?

Jeremiah Weinberger was a 20 year old, natural from Porto Rico. According to USA Today: ” (…) he resided in Chicago in the 1990s and was working as a customer service representative for a video store.”

The store was Images of the World, which was the video sales department of Bijou, an adult theater in the Old Town area. On weekends he worked at the Bijou.

“He was like a live wire. Very close to his family, a very honest and sincere person. You got a contact high just being around him.” – a former co worker said about Jeremiah.

He is, also, reminded by his room-mate Tim Gideon as being meticulous and an art lover. “His desk was always straight, and he knew where everything was. He always dressed nice and always worried about what he wore and how he looked.“

Jeremiah was last seen on July the 6th.

Investigation and article by our authors: Necro and Yoanna

Sympathy and empathy towards Jeffrey Dahmer

The phenomenon surrounding Jeffrey Dahmer is marked by a multifaceted intrigue that extends beyond his crimes, seeking to unravel the complexities of his life. Delving into his psychology, upbringing, and personal struggles, this perspective paints a more comprehensive portrait of the man behind the notorious acts. Dahmer’s outward appearance as a good-looking and friendly individual adds layers to the intrigue, challenging the conventional perception of criminals. Many people feel drawn to his story precisely because he was different from other serial killers.

Humanization Amidst Unthinkable Actions: Embracing the Dualities of Humanity

One striking aspect of the sympathy directed towards Jeffrey Dahmer is the endeavor to humanize a figure often vilified as a monster. His good looks and friendly demeanor contribute to this perspective, illustrating the duality of human nature. Recognizing that even individuals who commit heinous acts can possess relatable qualities, this approach stimulates discussions about mental health, upbringing, and societal influences. By humanizing Dahmer, we initiate conversations that transcend the surface and delve into the intricacies of the human experience. The fact that many feel sorry for him due to his differences from other serial killers underlines the complexity of human emotions.

Exploring Motives and Fostering Prevention Through Understanding

The curiosity about Dahmer’s motives lies at the heart of the sympathy directed towards him. The desire to comprehend the “why” behind his actions prompts a deep exploration into the psychological and environmental factors that played a role. Additionally, his role in assisting authorities to solve the murders demonstrates a level of complexity that challenges preconceived notions. This perspective goes beyond mere curiosity; it serves as a preventive tool. By understanding warning signs, risk factors, and potential interventions, society can address underlying causes and work towards preventing similar cases. The complexity of Dahmer’s experiences opens doors for discussions about rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
The intricate fascination with Jeffrey Dahmer underscores the need to navigate a delicate balance between empathy and accountability. While highlighting his appearance, demeanor, and cooperation with authorities, it’s crucial to remember that empathy does not imply approval of his actions. This perspective demands sensitivity, ensuring that discussions remain respectful of the victims and their families. By engaging in dialogues that encompass the depths of human behavior and societal influences, we pave the way for a deeper understanding of complex individuals while striving for a safer society. The empathy towards Dahmer due to his differences from other serial killers serves as a reminder of the complexity of human emotions and perspectives.

Understanding Those Who Feel Compassion for Jeffrey Dahmer

Empathy, the ability to share and comprehend the feelings of others, takes on a perplexing dimension when some individuals express compassion for Jeffrey. These individuals, often characterized by hypersensitivity and deep empathy, extend their understanding even to those who have committed grave and heinous crimes. This phenomenon highlights the intriguing interplay between empathy and the complexities of human behavior. For those who feel sorry for Dahmer, their empathy goes beyond conventional boundaries, allowing them to explore the intricate factors that contributed to his actions. Such individuals possess a vivid empathetic imagination, enabling them to envision the potential influences that shaped his life trajectory.

By delving into the circumstances surrounding Jeffrey’s life, these empathetic individuals shed light on the fine line between understanding and moral judgment. Their unique perspective calls attention to the nuances of empathy, inviting us to question the extent to which we can empathize with even the darkest aspects of human nature.

In essence, the empathy paradox surrounding Jeffrey Dahmer serves as a reminder that the human capacity for compassion is both intricate and multifaceted. It prompts us to consider how empathy, combined with an imaginative perspective, can challenge our perceptions of crime, justice, and the inherent complexities of the human experience.

TRUECRIME REALLY CAUSING DAMAGE? THE SILENT IMPACT OF SOCIAL MEDIA

Ever noticed how we’re all caught up in the whirlwind of true crime stories? The intrigue, the suspense—it’s like we’re all amateur detectives piecing together mysteries. But, let me spill the beans on something even more mysterious, and way more dangerous: the silent chaos brewing right under our thumbs. Yep, you guessed it—social media. While everyone’s pointing fingers at the creators of true crime content, there’s a bigger game being played behind the scenes. Let’s unravel the true villain—social media—and how it’s messing with us in ways we never imagined.

Not Just About True Crime:
Before we dive into the real deal, let’s hit pause on the true crime binge. It’s gripping, no doubt, but it’s a mere side act in the grand circus of social media. True, those who create true crime content might raise eyebrows, but there’s a far more sinister puppeteer pulling the strings—the platforms that fuel our obsession and dictate our emotions.

Feeling the Numb:
Imagine this: scrolling, tapping, liking, sharing—our fingers dance on screens, but our hearts stay put. Social media’s incessant stream of information has a knack for numbing our emotions. It’s like a digital drug that leaves us emotionally distant, all while we’re bombarded with a cocktail of viral trends, heartwarming videos, and heart-wrenching stories. It’s a curious paradox: we’re more connected than ever, yet the real connections seem to fade away.

Impact on Us and the Young’uns:
Now, let’s talk about the real victims—the generations growing up in the era of endless selfies and retweets. Social media is their playground, but it’s a playground with virtual swings and pixelated playmates. Real conversations? They’re fading into the background, replaced by emojis and abbreviations. It’s like teaching them to spell with emojis before they even learn their ABCs.

The Blind Spot:
Picture this: amidst all the buzz about true crime and the glossy filters of the social media world, there’s a blind spot we’re all missing. A blind spot that’s growing into a chasm. It’s the erosion of empathy and genuine human connection. As we scroll past posts and stories, we’re losing touch with the depth of emotions that make us human. The real story isn’t just about the content; it’s about the feelings we’re leaving behind.

Shake Up and Wake Up:
Time for a wake-up call, dear readers! It’s time to shift the spotlight from the superficial to the substantial. Let’s put down the magnifying glasses we use for true crime stories and focus on what really matters—the way we’re letting social media reshape our lives. We need to be the detectives of our own digital journey, sifting through the feeds mindfully and leading by example for the younger generation.

Wrap It Up in a GIF:
So, in a world of true crime fascination and endless social media feeds, the real crime isn’t just the content creators—it’s the way we’re letting these platforms alter our emotional landscape. Let’s be the heroes who flip the script, steering our focus towards the genuine connections and feelings that truly matter. 🕵️‍♂️🌐

Jeffrey Dahmer – Beyond surface assumptions…

In the intricate narrative of Jeffrey Dahmer’s actions, a diverse spectrum of victims emerges, reflecting a broad array of backgrounds that transcend racial and ethnic boundaries. Upon closer scrutiny, this mosaic encompasses individuals from African American, Asian, Caucasian, and varied backgrounds, revealing a surprising absence of any definitive racial pattern. This provokes a deeper inquiry into whether Dahmer’s crimes were indeed driven by racial motivations.

At the heart of this complex narrative is the vulnerability of his victims. Many were grappling with their own formidable challenges – battling addiction, wrestling with homelessness, and enduring personal struggles that impart a deeper complexity to Dahmer’s motives. Rather than subscribing to a rigid racial agenda, his actions seem more aligned with a sinister proclivity to exploit pre-existing vulnerabilities.

Amidst the examination of Dahmer’s actions, it’s crucial to also recognize an often overlooked aspect of the story: his own victimhood. Delving into the depths of his psyche, it becomes evident that he, too, was ensnared by his own compulsions, a chilling reality that often remains overshadowed.

Within this narrative, it’s essential to acknowledge that Jeffrey Dahmer had a family – a voice that often remains unheard amid the tumultuous conversations surrounding his crimes. This recognition offers a perspective that broadens the lens through which we view the narrative, urging us to consider the ripple effects of his actions on those he left behind.

As we navigate this intricate tale, it becomes apparent that a multi-faceted exploration is essential. By delving beyond the surface, we uncover a narrative that defies easy explanation. In considering the lack of racial motives, Dahmer’s own struggles, and the voices of his family, we grasp the profound complexities that underlie his actions, reminding us that understanding such narratives requires a holistic and empathetic perspective.