It's been posted before, but it's a good one:

http://f23.parsimony.net/forum52609/messages/89.htm

That's got to be one of the most interesting ways of a woman fighting back against sexual assault that I've seen; right next to the "makeshift flamethrower" (light a flame with a cigarette lighter and spray a can of hairspray through it at the attacker - this can be dangerous to yourself though due to the possibility of the can exploding) one!

I wonder how the man coped with suddenly loosing his testicles like that? Hopefully his testosterone was the main reason that drove him to sexual assault.

I read that story awhile back. While no decent people would condone a sex attack this case brought to light some irony as what or may have happened. First of all I want to point out that it is not right to bite off a mans testicles and no one should make a joke out of someone's misfortune without getting all the fact, sadly in this case the fact may never be known.

Question may be ask as to why an attacker would allow his testicles to be anywhere near his "victim's mouth"? The alleged victim claim that she did not intend to bite him but only did so when he hit her and it was a reaction to being hit that she responded and could not control her reaction. I would imagine that is her defence otherwise if she told the court that she bit him because she wanted to get her own back at a potential sex attacker she would end up in jail! Thats is probably the most likely scenario, however that fact the she was allowed to bite him in the groin may have been attributed to a fact that she may have coerced her attacker into believing that she was all up for it and when he lets his guard down believing he was getting a BJ from her she took revenge by castraing him. The judge and jury most likely knew that is what may have happened but in the USA they hate sex attacker even without being legally convicted they like to have an alleged attacker to be physically castrated if not legally then by the "victim" so they can send a message to would be assailent. Somehow the whole truth may never be known but I stand by the idea that the would be attacker was deliberately and savagely attacked by his would be "victim", so who is guilty? Both of them and a fair conviction would be that both parties be sent down for prison, in my opinion the women assumed victim turned perpertrator should be sent down for 5 years without parole and fined $50k to compensate her victim, the attacker turned victim also gets 5 years suspended because of his injury he may lost the drive to "attack" again and will never father a child but must seek counselling. Now some might argue that why the hell should he be getting away from being jailed, one must also remember that there is no strong evidence to suggest he had carried out a sex attack but rather he was being sexually attacked with evidence to support that!

I think that is a fair outcome, but that will never be in a society that is preconditioned in its justice system that is anti men and even more so anti sex attacker guilt or not.

I think you are right about never knowing what really happened. There is definitely the problem of how much she may have "led him on". On the other hand, maybe the guy wanted to have his testicles bitten off by a woman. It is a fantasy of mine, and many others on this forum. Too bad you have to rape to get it to happen though!

In that case the woman was not raped in fact there was hardly any evidence to say she was sexually assaulted, it seems that she may have turned the table on her would be attacker, but there is no legal ruling to say that someone should launch an attack in self defence when not being attacked in the first place. Its somewhat like drawing a gun and shooting at someone who who ask you for money because you think he might mug you.

Whatever fantasy he may have is of no consequence.

Actually that is not true. You ARE allowed by law to draw a gun on someone who you "reasonably" think is trying to mug you.

In fact just raising my fist (without touching you) is enough that if you hit me first it can still be considered self-defence.

There is nothing that says self-defence cannot be more extreme than the attack that provoked it.

If the woman reasonably felt that she might have her throat slit after the guy coerced her into oral sex, then she is allowed to fight "back" preemptively.

I realize it is not fair, as it basically allows you to hurt people that might not intend to hurt you. But it is also not fair to say that you have to wait to be hurt before you defend yourself.

I dont agree with the idea that it is right to draw a gun at someone, anybody, whome you think might mug you and be defended under law, that will only be decided by the court in whats constitute a reasonable means of self defence. Perhaps its reasonable to pull out a gun if some threaten you with a weapon or you are being attacked that your life may be threatened, again that can only be determine by all the evidence presented at court.

As for the Chicago woman case, there is no evidence to say that she was threatened at the time she bitten her alleged attacker even though she may have been threatened prior to the incident, she also claim that she bit him only after he hit her in the head and it was just a reaction but why did she had her teeth around his testicles just at that moment? A reaction to being hit still does not allow enough force to bite off a scrotum. A surgeon who attended to the male victim confirmed details of the injury was the result of intense gnawing and persistence tearing with multiple injury so severe that he was unable to reattache the organ, this evidence contradict what the the woman was claiming in her defence that she bitten him as a result of a nee jerk reaction to being hit in the head, yet the evidence produced by the surgeon would contradict the woman's claim and does conclude that she was lying. This may well prove that she had given the "come on" to her alleged attacker so she can exact her revenge against him, could also be that she hated men and those abuse women, still to me it vigilantism which does not make it right for het to take the law into her own hand or teeth, and yes she should be sent to prison for 5 years without parole and pay $50k to her victim.

I think our difference in opinion shows the difference between North American thinking and UK regarding the right to self-defence. The laws are probably different.

Here though I know that if some dangerous-looking guy told me to give him my wallet, that I could shoot him and not get significant punishment.

The problem with your way of thinking is that it makes the average person into victims -- they have to wait until they are at a disadvantage (already being attacked, or already have a gun drawn on them) before they can defend themselves.

You are right about the ability to abuse the North American laws. Basically, any woman could shoot you in a dark alley and claim that it was self defence (that you were trying to rape her), and she would probably get away with it.

Regarding the drawing your gun first if you think you're in reasonable danger idea:

If I wait for a knife at my throat or a gun in my face to begin drawing my weapon, I'm dead. The courts cannot remedy that.

Regarding women and sexual assault:

Not to blame the woman here, but what the hell is anyone doing walking alone in a city at 330 at night? Stupid. Plain stupid.

I completely agree with the idea that the fogginess of this situation, and really any sexual assault case, leaves the door open for abuse of the laws and other citizens. Unfortunately, I have no plan that seems more effective.

Just a few thoughts.....

frankie

SplitDick (imported) wrote: Sat Jan 05, 2002 10:06 am I think our difference in opinion shows the difference between North American thinking and UK regarding the right to self-defence. The laws are probably different.

Here though I know that if some dangerous-looking guy told me to give him my wallet, that I could shoot him and not get significant punishment.

The problem with your way of thinking is that it makes the average person into victims -- they have to wait until they are at a disadvantage (already being attacked, or already have a gun drawn on them) before they can defend themselves.

You are right about the ability to abuse the North American laws. Basically, any woman could shoot you in a dark alley and claim that it was self defence (that you were trying to rape her), and she would probably get away with it.

But also the criminal may have second thoughs as that his victim may end his criminal ways for good. That is why there is more crime in the US where there is more gun control laws.