She might have
done him a favour - y'know that 'ribbed' feeling without the condom...
A Turkish woman who cut off her lover's penis is now anxiously awaiting the result of a todger-reattachment op which will determine the length of her prison sentence*, Reuters reports. The 39-year-old woman claimed she was prompted to separate her 28-year-old boyf from his manhood after he "had broken his promise to marry her …
Now, that's what I call a hard time.
Mrs. Bobbitt would be - er - proud?
(Subject slightly off - but being Friday - many years ago, the Times Crossword had a clue that read "Heard of a sexual deviation? (5,2,4,4)" (scroll for answer, but have a go first. First letter of first word is "P". Mate of mine, who was a floor cleaner in a factory in Leamington Spa could do the Times Crossword in about 15 minutes. 20, if it was a Sunday lunchtime and he was pissed out of his head. Phenomenal)
To which the answer was "Prick up your ears")
@ The Vociferous Time Waster
How can you come to a conclusion from this article alone that :
a) She made a complaint about him abusing her
b) indeed he was taken to court and let off?
Never mind eh, don't let the truth get in the way of making racist / zenofobic comments.
>> I don't understand why the punishment for dismemberment should be any less severe just because they could reattach it. I'd say she was having a good go at ensuring it couldn't be by throwing it on the neighbour's roof, no?
Easy way to think about it to compare it to a (attempted) murder case. If the doctors manage to treat the patient and prevent them from dying, the damage done is lessened - despite the fact that the accused intended to kill the victim. The punishment for dismembering shouldn't be less, however if the damage is permanent the punishment should be greater.
To all those saying he deserved it, has he actually been charged and and found guilty of the allegations of beating and prostitution, or are too many people a bit too willing to believe the first excuse that comes into the culprit's mind? What, you think a criminal never lies to try to get off the hook...? It does sound a bit like the old "well they were asking for it" justification...
And there was me thinking I was reading El Reg, not The Sun.
I think we've all had a few tense moments when duplication equipment fails due to improper removal. I'm shocked you need to ask.
The IT angle is it is friday afternoon and no one wants to do more work than necessary, and checking out an important article in a technical journal looks sufficiently like work to pass a casual monitoring thereby filling in ti,e untl it is ok to go to a call-out from which there need be no return to office
<<The IT angle hangs to the left>>
Obviously as you're a female you've never been in for a suit fitting, and been asked the delicate question "Which way does one dress, sir"
When will we stop? When you cease to be the Great Moderatrix, natch. Then we'll all bugger off and go to the Inquirer. Or, read the Daily Mail.
Nah. We wouldn't go that low. Would we?
I don't care what he did, it doesn't justify cutting his dongle off. If someone stole my Playstation it would not justify me cutting both his hands off. But this even sounds like just a personal dispute. "he promised to marry me waaaah".
If he actually broke the law and was beating her or somesuch, then the solution is still not to extricate his obelisk. For one thing, the victim should never sentence the criminal, for another it is for a court to decide not her, him doing something wrong does not give her justification for committing a crime of her own, two wrongs don't make a right, etc.
Plus let's not forget how heinous it is to snip someone's willy off. She deserves every one of those eight years if she gets them. (as others have said, whether his mancannon is functional should not matter to the sentence).
"broken his promise to marry her" ... So she still wanted to marry him ... after ... "forced her into prostitution and beat her" ... ! ... huh?! ... so what has this evil guy got to do before she doesn't want to marry him?! ... invade Poland?!
So instead of just leaving him, she will now end up in prison for years. I don't know which of them is the more mixed up.
@nickrw re: Understated Ouch
"I'd say she was having a good go at ensuring it couldn't be [reattached] by throwing it on the neighbour's roof, no?"
Probably, but not necessarily. In regards to John Wayne Bobbitt, back in 1994, Andrew "Dice" Clay said "He's lucky, he's lucky, I'm telling you. I mean, she could have threw it in the trash compactor, she could have flushed it down the toilet, she was nice about it. She hid it like an Easter egg."
@The Vociferous Time Waster re: "forced her into prostitution and beat her"
"yet she's the criminal?"
Uh, yeah. It's pretty bloody obvious (no pun intended) that yes, she IS a criminal. Instead of walking away from him, she decided, with forethought and malice, to cut off his penis. How can you NOT consider that a crime? I'm not defending him because IF what she said is true (yes, I still believe in innocent unless* proven guilty), he deserves to be in jail (or dead), but that does not nullify the criminality of what she did.
* Yes, "innocent UNLESS proven guilty", not "until". "Innocent until proven guilty" means you ARE guilty, and the prosecutor simply has not yet shown proof of guilt.
@AC re: "So, what about him being charged?"
"If what she says is true, why is she being charged with anything? Wouldn't that be a case of self-defense?"
Umm, no? How on earth do you equate cutting off a man's penis with "self-defense"? Was his penis attacking her and she couldn't get away from it? If he was attempting to rape her at the time, then I could understand possibly thinking of it as self-defense, but not in any other case. Even if it could be viewed as self-defense, she would still need to be charged until an investigation (if not a full trial) showed proof that it was self-defense.