Conference quark::mennotes

    
    If her last name is Bobbit, find our her first name before dating her
    ;^).
    
    fred();

Re: .20

Wouldn't have worked in the celebrated case, as she had a different name
when she was single. :-)

			Steve

P.S.  I assume you meant Bobbitt.

    ...and if she is the famed one..... Keep sharp objects out of her hand.
    Or wear armor plated breifs.
    
    ...and if she does cut close to the bone. Remember there is some
    dispatcher who is trying to keep a streight face as he gets the MO on
    the misssing member of your family.:)

      Mz Bobbitt will keep you in stiches for sure.

    Re. Bobbett.
    
    Sleep on your stomach.... and.... sleep lightly.
    
    Jeff

    .25
    
    ....or always sleep with your hand on the family jewels.:)
    
    ....never say, "Hon, pass me the knife for my hot dog" to her either.;)

    re .25, it might be easier for men to just be nice to their wives.  :-)
    
    Maybe that should be one of the unwritten rules of life.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .27
    
>    re .25, it might be easier for men to just be nice to their wives.  :-)
>    
>    Maybe that should be one of the unwritten rules of life.
    
    Thats already one of the _written_ rules.
    
    fred();

    Of course Lorna... men should be nice to their wives.  I think there 
    was something about losing ones' 'manhood' to an angry wife that is
    errr.... unsettling.
    
    But there is an unwritten rule that people don't go around cutting 
    ones' anothers genitals off either.  Two wrongs don't make a right
    and all that.
    
    Jeff

    re .29, I never said that two wrongs make a right, and I don't think
    anybody should physically harm anybody else.  However, it has always
    seemed to me that it might help to eliminate that sort of thing if
    people tried to be nicer to each other, and treat each other with more
    respect.  What she did was wrong, but there is always the possibility
    that if he had tried to be a nicer husband she might never have done
    it.  
    
    

    
    Interesting note...a militant feminist's group in South America has
    issued a statement that, if Lorena is incarcerated, they will do the
    same to 100 men in protest.
    
    Ya know, you can buy property reeeeaaaal cheap down there...

>    respect.  What she did was wrong, but there is always the possibility
>    that if he had tried to be a nicer husband she might never have done
>    it.  

Ah, yes... the famous "it's the guy's fault".  

    re .33
    	Also known in some circles as "blaming the victim".  Term is only
    applied when "the victim" belongs to a select downtrodden group.
    						John
    

    re .33, no, that is not what I said.  It is not his fault.  Just
    because I said that if he had been nicer to her, she might not have
    done it, does *not* mean that I think it was his fault, or that I think
    that what she did was right.  
    
    But, if your happier jumping to conclusions and imagining that I think
    things that I don't really think, then have a ball.
    
    Lorna
    

So, like, if she had raped him (which, in effect she did, sort of), then it
might not have happened if he hadn't asked for it, huh?

...and I was gonna stay out of this one...;-)

tim

    re .34, then, I guess you don't think people have the right to defend
    themselves?  Is that it?  She claims that he repeatedly raped and beat
    her.  Do you always assume that women who claim their husbands abuse
    them are lying?   Why do you assume this woman is lying?
    
    Lorna
    

    I'm sure you men are right.  I just got confused for a moment.
    
    Hopefully, she'll get the electric chair.  Afterall, she did commit the
    greatest crime of all time.  She cut off a straight white man's penis,
    which as we all know is the most sacred object on earth.
    
    

    
        I just heard that he got pulled over by the police.
    
      
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    *****He was half cocked......

>    re .34, then, I guess you don't think people have the right to defend
>    themselves?  

Sorry, but I have a REAL difficult time accepting a defense plea when someone
commits a crime AFTER the supposed 'attacks'.  Why not wait 20 years, then
kill someone and claim self defense against the 20 year old 'crime'? Any action
not taken at the actual time of attack should not be considered self defense,
in my opinion.

>She claims that he repeatedly raped and beat her.  

He was acquitted, wasn't he??????  What was the reason she was unable to prove
the raping/beating?  No evidence perhaps?  The accused MUST have done it, else 
why would there even be an accusation?  No opne ever falsely accuses someone of
anything.

>Do you always assume that women who claim their husbands abuse
>    them are lying?   

No.  Do you always believe they are telling the truth (evidence to the
contrary)?

>Why do you assume this woman is lying?

Because some women lie.  In the current trial she is saying one thing. A 
female aquaintence(sp?) is saying the exact opposite.  It seems one of them
is not telling the truth.  

>    re .33, no, that is not what I said.  It is not his fault.  Just
>    because I said that if he had been nicer to her, she might not have
>    done it, does *not* mean that I think it was his fault, or that I think
>    that what she did was right.  

So, saying something like "if women were better wives, the husband might not
engage in wife abuse' is ok?  I do not think so.  It smacks of blaming the 
victim in the same way your comment did.  But I realize that it is your opinion.

>    But, if your happier jumping to conclusions and imagining that I think
>    things that I don't really think, then have a ball.

Sorry, but I do not appear to be the only one 'imagining' what your comment
says.  Perhaps it is not what you meant to say, but that is certainly the way
it comes across... to more than one person...  

>    Hopefully, she'll get the electric chair.  Afterall, she did commit the
>    greatest crime of all time.  She cut off a straight white man's penis,
>    which as we all know is the most sacred object on earth.

Men have been imprisoned for far less crimes against women.  But that seems
to be ok to some people.

So, is there a reason you keep mentioning the race of the victim????  Or
their sexual orientation????  Or the stereotypical 'sacred object'?
I would hate to jump to the obvious conclusions these terms engender.

    New and improved...
    
    Lorena Bobbitt took a knife
    and cut off Johnny's 
    with one swipe
    And when the job was nicely done
    she took the member just for fun....
    
    ;)))
    z
    7yGn W@X+

    In closing arguments in the Lorena Bobbitt trial, even one of the
    prosecutors says he believes John Bobbitt raped his wife Lorena.

    'Why couldn't she prove it in his trial?'  For one thing, the court
    only allowed testimony about the 5 days prior to the 'incident,'
    so all the many, many corroborating witnesses (who saw how abused
    Lorena has been over the years) were shut out of that trial.

    Further, such a rape is almost impossible to prove.  It doesn't make
    him guilty, but a lack of a conviction doesn't mean she lied about it.
    (It just means that his trial didn't result in a conviction.)

    The prosecutors don't think much of John Bobbitt (the prosecutor also
    said yesterday that it's clear that this guy is 'no rocket scientist.')
    The prosecutor also said that it's clear that Lorena didn't want to
    have sex with this guy that night.

    However, he can say this, because it's all pretty much beside the
    point.  The case boils down to whether or not the abuse drove her
    'temporarily insane' (so she was acting under an 'irresistible
    impulse') or whether she was just MAD at him (and the prosecution
    seems to admit that he did plenty to make her mad!)

    If she was simply mad at him, she's guilty.  Even if he raped her
    many, many times, *retaliation* for a crime is against the law.

    At this point, although I believe her story (she's had a long, long
    list of corroborating witnesses who saw her injuries over the years
    and who knew she was being abused) - I'm leaning to the idea that she 
    had simply had enough of his crap and was mad.

    In short, I'm leaning toward believing she is guilty.
    
    It'll be interesting to see if the jury decides that the case for
    temporary insanity has been successful enough to raise a reasonable
    doubt about her guilt.

    Bobbitt ADMITTED he likes 'rough sex'. That 'suggests' that he was a
    "bit" rough on her at times.  He said as much.  I think there is little
    doubt that in HER mind he raped her, whether it met the legal
    definition or rape or not.  I guess guys that we had better be careful
    how the woman is PERCEIVING what we are doing.
    
    I am not saying that she was right in what she did.
    
    And, no Lorna, cutting off a white mans' penis is not the worst crime
    possible.  Child molestation is. (On the West Coast there was a child
    molester who cut the boys penis off). Why didn't THAT make headlines
    like the Bobbitt case did?  
    
    On the alleged South American women out to seek revenge on men if she
    is found guilty:  If THAT doesn't make the statement men are hearing
    Ms. Bobbitt make I don't know what WILL.
    
    Jeff
    
    

    
    IMNSHO, even if (note if) he did rape her, that doesn't justify
    what she did.
    
    fred();

    RE: The South American women out for revenge on American men

    It was an anonymous call ('PRESUMED' to be made by a radical feminist
    group in Ecuador, per CNN) - but it could easily be a prank (the call
    could have been from almost anyone.)

    Lorena is from Ecuador originally.
    
    (P.S. John Bobbitt also admitted that he hit his wife with the door
    of a moving car and knocked her down.  I'd call that an admission
    of abuse.)

    RE: .26  fred();
    
    > IMNSHO, even if (note if) he did rape her, that doesn't justify
    > what she did.
    
    You're right.  As I said, retaliation for a crime is against
    the law.
    
    The only hope she has (in this trial) is if the jury thinks she
    acted under an irresistible impulse ('temporary insanity.')
    
    At this point, I don't think she did (so I think she's guilty,)
    but it's up to the jury to decide.

    Jeff,
    
        I read that story also about the man cutting off the boys penis.
    The boy was nine, the monster left him for dead, the boy lived. I agree
    with you that child molestation is the worse crime, but then again I
    would say that because I was there when I was 8. 
    
       Rose Marchand
    
       
    
        As far as what she did (cutting off his penis) I do have to say
    I'm back and forth with it. I think about what she may have gone
    through and say "Good for her!" But then I think , "How could she have
    done that?" "Why didn't she either try to get out of the marriage or
    seek help?"  It was totally wrong to do that I agree, but did she
    flip out so bad that she didn't think of consequences or anything? 
        
       This story is from when I was a child, she was a grown woman , so
    to some it may mean the difference between a little girl and a woman
    who should have more sense.   Here goes. One thing that my god-father
    used to do was bring me to bar rooms. This started at 8 and continued
    until I was 12. On the way home he used to fall down and tell me
    to help him. I hated his guts and I knew when we got back he would
    molest me. I would go across the street and pray that he would fall
    in front of a car. I would even go help him and walk him in the road,
    I wanted so badly for him to get hit by a car. But, I never did it. I
    wanted to real bad. but, what if I did? It was wrong to do it, it
    was wrong to think it. But, he raped me when I was 8 the first time,
    didn't I have a right to hate him? If I did it, would I have been
    able to plead insanity or should I have been sent to prison for life???
    
        But, like I said she's a woman and I was a child so maybe the 
    comparison was foolish.
    
        Rose 
    

    re .27
    
>    (P.S. John Bobbitt also admitted that he hit his wife with the door
>    of a moving car and knocked her down.  I'd call that an admission
>    of abuse.)
    
    This is irrelevant.  Unless you believe that revenge is justified
    and should be made legal.  The reverse of this situation would
    be that if (note if) my wife "abused" me, I should be able to 
    wait until she goes to sleep, then slice off one of her mammary
    glands?  
    
    fred();

    RE: .30  fred
    
    > Unless you believe that revenge is justified and should be made
    > legal.
    
    Well, obviously, I don't.
    
    As I've said twice now, retaliation for a crime is against the law.
    
    I think Lorena is guilty.

    Now Fred, I know you like to argue with Suzanne, and I normally
    take your side :-), however, she stated clearly at least twice
    that she thinks Lorena is guilty and that revenge is not justifiable
    for what she did.  C'mon, I think you two are for once in violent
    agreement.

    
    As far as "irresistible impulse" goes, one of Lorena's ex neighbors
    testified that Lorean had told her several weeks before the incident
    that if she ever caught John sleeping around that he'd cut off his
    penis.  Also her court testimony doesn't match up at all well with
    the statement she gave to the police the night of the incident.
    In court she said that she could not recall the actual act, but
    in the police report she described the entire night in detail.  
    Including the act.   If I were on the jury, she'd be toast.

    fred();

    oops, make it 3 times now :-)

    re .32

    My second response was notes collision do to "irrepressible impulse" :^).

    fred();

    fred
    
    :-)

    The witness who testified about the statement ('I'd cut his dick
    off if he cheated,' or whatever) said it happened years ago.
    
    Further, the witness indicated that SHE said (first) that she'd KILL 
    her husband (but it was said in jest.)
    
    If the conversation was serious, then this woman confessed to an
    intention to commit first degree murder.
    
    If the woman who said she'd KILL her husband could have jested about 
    it, then Lorena could have jested right back.
    
    I don't think this particular witness does much for the prosecution's
    case.

        re .37

>    If the woman who said she'd KILL her husband could have jested about 
>    it, then Lorena could have jested right back.
>    
>    I don't think this particular witness does much for the prosecution's
>    case.

    I disagree (surprise).  It does indicate a certain predisposition
    and premeditation as to the particular act of revenge she would
    choose should she ever decide she needed one.  Just as it would have
    if the other women in question had later actually killed her husband.

    fred();

    If this woman ends up killing her husband (while temporarily insane
    or in self-defense, for example) - the jesting statement she made
    about killing him if he cheated on her wouldn't prove premeditation.

    It might not sound great in the courtroom, but expressions like
    "I'd kill him" or "I'd break his knees" or "I'd cut off his dick"
    are epithets that can be made in jest by almost anyone.

    Such statements don't prove anything.
    
    (P.S. No, I don't think Lorena cut her husband in self-defense.)

    
    re .39
    
    "Jesting" that you are going to do something, then never doing it
    is one thing.  Saying that you are going to xxxx somebody, then
    acutally doing it is another.
    
    fred();

    "Jesting" about something doesn't make a person automatically
    guilty of breaking the law if it ends up happening, either.
    
    Jesting is jesting.  It's legal to jest.  If Lorena wasn't 
    temporarily insane when she cut her husband, then she's
    guilty of breaking the law.
    
    Jesting at some point in her life doesn't make her guilty,
    though.  The entire case is whether or not she was actually
    temporarily insane when the incident occurred.
    
    I still think she's guilty, but I disagree that this is the
    point that proves it beyond a reasonable doubt.
    
    It'll be interesting to see how seriously the jury takes this
    testimony, though.  Their opinions are the ones that count. :>

    
    The fact that she actually carried through with it makes it very
    questionable as to whether she was really "jesting" or whether
    she actually meant it.  As you say, the jury will decide.
    
    fred();

    
    One things for sure.  It's going to be a looooooong time before
    this woman gets another date, I tell you what 8^).
    
    fred();

    ....I dont thinks so fred, how many dates have you had that could give
    you a free trim and shave..:)
    

    In my mind the statement Ms. Bobbitt made years before the crime about
    cutting off his penis if he ran around changed my thinking on her case.
    While I hardly condone what she did even if she was raped I could at 
    least a little bit understand her rage and how she could have been
    driven to it: But then that statement and I think, "Ohhhhhhhhhhh, this
    is not a NEW idea to her at all, one she has been considering, and she
    DID IT! Temporary insanity indeed.  She lost it (so to speak) right
    there with me.
    
    The points people are raising about revenge is VERY relevent these 
    days I think.  We have choices to make. DO we punish criminals to seek
    justice, or revenge?  I think the true is BOTH.
    
    I think the noter who talks about being molested as a girl makes a
    vital point:  She thought about wanting him hit by a car and killed
    but she DIDN'T push him in front of the car and kill him however under
    standable her rage is.  I have great respect for her.. SHE acted in
    a civilized manner even though HE didn't.  But, charges should have been
    brought against him through the 'system' however inadequate it is.
    
    The minute we abandon the system we might as well all get out our guns
    and go back to the crude (effective?) methods of the Old West.  It
    seems to me we already have ENOUGH problems with hate and revenge.
    
    Ms. Bobbitt certainly hit a nerve (so to speak) with us guys though.
    
    Jeff

    
    re .44
    

>    ....I dont thinks so fred, how many dates have you had that could give
>    you a free trim and shave..:)
    
    Gee George, If that's what you want, I can do the job with my trusty
    double-bladed ax for less than what it would cost to take her out ;^}).
    
    fred();

    Even though I feel like many of the men about this subject, and hope
    that this woman gets fair and equal justice, 10-life, for what she did.
    One cannot help making sport of it. I only wish the Kinston Trio's
    version of Lizi Borden song could be adappeted. :) 
    
    Oh you can chop your hubbys of in Massachut'es (sp)
    Mass is a long cry from New York.... (to the best of my memory of their
    song)
    
    Jump like a fish
    jump like a porpous
    all join hand in 
    habious corpus!

    
    
    Whats the max sentence she can get? The death penalty?? 20 years??
    
    
    David

    The nature of 'irresistible impulse' makes it seem possible to me
    that her mind could have grabbed *any* thought she might have ever 
    had (either in anger or jest) about her husband.  I'm not convinced
    that she was under irresistible impulse, but I believe it could have
    gone this way (if she had been temporarily insane.)

    The main reason I don't buy the 'I'd cut off his dick' comment, though,
    is that is sounds like a one-upsmanship in kidding around:

    		Friend:  What would you do if your husband cheated on
    			 you?  I'd KILL my husband if he did that!

    		Lorena:  Oh, yeah?  Well, I'd do something WORSE!  I'd
    			 cut off his dick (which would be a fate worse
    			 than death to him!)

    The witness did say that Lorena said it would be worse than death
    to John.  In a jesting situation, it sounds to me as though she
    *topped* her pal's claim for retribution, that's all.

    This happened YEARS ago, and no one (of the many people she's known
    since then) has heard the same statement from Lorena.

    I don't buy this witness's testimony (just as I don't buy 
    John Bobbitt's story OR the 'temporary insanity' defense.)

    
    -1
    
     Yeah an Tonya Harding should endorse the club :-)
    
    
    David

    
    re .49

>    The main reason I don't buy the 'I'd cut off his dick' comment, though,
>    is that is sounds like a one-upsmanship in kidding around:

    Unlike some, I am not able to look into her head to see what 
    she was really thinking at the time.  I do know that more than
    on person has been sent to "The Chair" for stating, "I'll kill
    the *&^%$", and then the *&^%$ turns up dead.

    Moral of story: Be careful of which you jest.

    fred();

    re penalty

    I heard that the max is 20 years.  Actually they will both probably
    get rich off of the "movie of the week" rights.  She'll probably
    make a bundle off the feminist talk show circuit ala Anita Hill.

    I also heard that she has signed a large contract with Ginsu(sp)
    Knives :^).

    fred();

    *One* witness who claims Lorena said it (while kidding around) 
    years ago seems like a flimsy piece of testimony on which to 
    hang a conviction, though. 
    
    Other witnesses (more than one!) claimed that John Bobbitt said
    he liked "forced sex."  If he were convicted of RAPE based on
    this testimony about his words, it would have been just as
    flimsy as the one witness about Lorena.
    
    Meanwhile, a long, long list of other witnesses described how
    nervous and terrified she seemed to be about John Bobbitt.
    Why would their testimony be less valuable than the one person
    who says she made a comment about cutting his dick off?

    
    re .54

>    Meanwhile, a long, long list of other witnesses described how
>    nervous and terrified she seemed to be about John Bobbitt.
>    Why would their testimony be less valuable than the one person
>    who says she made a comment about cutting his dick off?

    You seem to be wanting to have it the other way though.  That
    what she said doesn't apply while what he said does?  He had
    his day in court.  They brought all that up when he was in
    court and still the jury wasn't convince.  As you said, it's
    the jury that will decide.

    fred();

    Correction, Fred:  NONE of those witnesses were allowed to testify
    at John's trial.  The judge restricted testimony to the 5 days prior
    to the rape, so none of the years and years of abuse was allowed to
    come forward at his trial.

    If the jury in his case had heard about the years and years of
    documented abuse (police and hospital personnel also testified
    for Lorena,) they may have seen a different John Bobbitt than
    the guy who seemed to have been charged with rape and abuse
    out of the blue.

    I don't question the judge's decision about the 5-day restriction
    in John's trial, but it makes no sense at all to hang a conviction 
    on ONE witness against Lorena, while ignoring the long, long list 
    of people who corroborated her story.

    As for what these two will do in the future:

    	John Bobbitt has his penis ('fully functional,' according to
    	recent reports.)

    	John Bobbitt is already making TV appearances (such as the
    	Howard Stern New Year's Eve program on cable) for money.

    	Lorena will probably be convicted and will rot in prison
    	(where she won't be allowed by law to make a penny for
    	her story.)

    I believe she is guilty of flying off the handle and cutting
    her husband (whom even the prosecutors seem to think is a 
    Class A jerk,) but I do feel sorry for her that she will
    probably go to prison for 10 - 20 years.

    By the way, I do feel sorry that John Bobbitt went through the
    pain of having his penis cut off (and I'm very glad they found
    it and were able to reattach it successfully.)
    
    Lorena made the reattachment possible (by calling and telling
    where to find it,) so if she is convicted, I hope they keep
    this in mind when the sentenced is passed.
    
    (My understanding is that the jury will be deciding her sentence,
    if they convict her.  Does anyone else know if this is true?)

        re .57

>    I believe she is guilty of flying off the handle and cutting
>    her husband (whom even the prosecutors seem to think is a 
>    Class A jerk,) but I do feel sorry for her that she will
>    probably go to prison for 10 - 20 years.

    Meaning you think she should be allowed to get away with it?
    Maybe he just "flew off the handle" when he (allegedly) beat her.
    (Oh sorry, I forgot that women are incapable of being flaming 
    &^%$-s).  Maybe all you should have to have to get away with almost 
    anything is a good sob story about how abused you were?
    
    fred();

    RE: .59  Fred
    
    >> I believe she is guilty of flying off the handle and cutting
    >> her husband (whom even the prosecutors seem to think is a 
    >> Class A jerk,) but I do feel sorry for her that she will
    >> probably go to prison for 10 - 20 years.
    
    > Meaning you think she should be allowed to get away with it?
    
    Thanks for asking.  No - 'meaning' that I do feel sorry for her
    that she will probably go to prison for 10 - 20 years (as I said.)
    
    John Bobbitt's already put her through hell.  I'm very sorry for
    her that she didn't do something else (other than cutting him)
    in response to his abuse.  (I wish this for his sake, too.)

    The verdict is in .......
    
    
    
    Lorena Bobbitt is NOT GUILTY!!
    
    (I am very surprised.  The jury did decide, though.)

    
    Maybe it's time to quit DEC and start a cast-iron jock strap company.
    
    I still think the worst punishment for her will be trying to find a 
    date.  Never know when she'll go "temporarily insane" again.
    
    fred();

    
    
    S_CONLON,
    
    
    >  John Bobbit is already making tv appearances for money
    
    
     Yeah he is $250k in the hole for medical and legal needs..
    
    
    David

    
    
    
    > the verdict is in NOT GUILTY
    
    
      ..sad day

    CNN has reported that John Bobbitt is $100,00 in the hole (for
    medical and legal bills,) while Lorena Bobbitt is $300,000 in
    the hole (for legal bills.)
    

    
    
    Maybe I could get John to help market my new "safety device".
    A 10 incn piece of 1 1/4 inch steel pipe with a wrap-aroung chain.
    
    Don't go home without it.
    
    fred( 8^}) )

So what?  Men will now start worrying about something that women
have had to worry about for decades; that they might be harmed by their
date/partner/spouse.   Good grief - hundreds of women are KILLED each year
by boyfriends and husbands, thousands are seriously injured.  How come some
men work up such a frenzy over what happened to John Bobbitt but don't seem
concerned over what happens to all of these women? 

It would be nice to think that this case might open some eyes, but I tend
to doubt it.

				Steve

    Steve,
    
    I will also concur with your note as well. I will also state that MAYBE
    there will be more light shed on the men who are killed by their wives,
    or spouces. And that they will be procuced as men are. Go to jail, go
    to the chair, etc. Vs temp insanity raps. Equality in the court does
    not exist.
    
    

    Men who are killed by their wives and by their wives co-herts seldom
    get the media attention as men who do in their wives. In the late
    80's there were a bunch of women pardon by the governer who had been
    put there for killing their men. Men who kill women get the chair.

    Very few people "get the chair", no matter what the crime. 

    	I thought that the jury was going to decide whether she was guilty
    of malicious wounding or a lesser charge I can't remember the name some-
    thing wounding which I believe referred to the temporary insanity plea.
    Am I to understand that she was found not guilty and gets off as if she
    did nothing?  She did cut it off there has to be some kind of guilt
    here.  Sometimes I take a while to catch on please enlighten me.  Thanks

    Joe

    
        re:67
    
           Studies consistantly show that when deadly force is used the
        homicide rate for men and women is almost equal. Studies also show  
        that men physically assault women ten to one although I heard 
        recent studies show women/men physical assault increasing slightly.
        The latter may be from short term studies.
           Just a comment to steve and others who think fatal domestic
        violence is a one way street! 
    
                                                         Bill
         
      
         

    
    
    Steve,
    
    > but don't seem concerned over what happens to all of these women
    
     We can be concerned about both at the same time. 
    
    David

    I think it's a shame this whole sordid affair happened at all...it was
    bad enough when I read the story in the paper back in June.. I tried to
    comprehend the scene :
       She cuts his penis off, drives away with it, throws it out a car
    window, it gets re-attached.....what a story for America to take to
    heart, as the gory details come out, the years of alleged abuse,
    her strict Catholic upbringing, the statements made by the NOW
    crowd, how she needs their support.... he appears on Stern's New Year's
    show, all the jokes......good taste is tough to find nowadays....
    
    I think they're both total losers, but since they each could not work
    out their problems without the glare of world-wide publicity, I suppose
    it was inevitable that we had the media circus we have had. What I really
    hate to see put forth is the notion that all women want to do what she did
    to their rotten, abusive men. It happened I heard some women on a local
    talk show who did not support what she did. The whole thing is beyond
    me, I guess....how long before we have a similar case happen ??? And
    start another 'us and them' saga.......
    
    Can't we just live together ? Can we just get along ???
    
    Only my opinions, of course.
                                

    RE: .71  Joe

    The jury could have found Lorena guilty of 'malicious wounding'
    or a lesser charge of 'unlawful wounding' (or something like
    that.)  Instead, they found her 'not guilty by reason of
    temporary insanity' (which means that she is not due for any
    prison time, but is presently in a mental hospital for observation 
    for a maximum period of 45 days.)

    The decision means that the jury found that she cut off her
    husband's penis under an 'irresistible impulse' after the
    years of physical and sexual abuse which was very thoroughly
    corroborated by a long line of witnesses.  (As I mentioned
    earlier, even the prosecuting attorney agreed that she had
    been raped on the night the wounding occurred.)  Even John
    admitted hitting Lorena with the door of a moving car on 
    one occasion.  The jury agreed with the defense that Lorena 
    finally 'snapped' (or whatever) after it happened.

    Lorena can be released from the hospital sooner than the 45 days
    maximum (if doctors evaluate her present condition and say she
    is not a danger to herself or others.)  In any case, they can't
    hold her longer than 45 days.
                          

    
    I think its fair to say given her face recognition that reptition
    of the crime is a pretty remote possibility
    
    what guy would take the chance?

    	You're joking. Most of what I know of the case has come from this
    notes file. As far as I know she has never appeared on television here.
    There was a short mention (without a photograph) on the back page of 
    the newspaper. I don't even know what colour hair she has (not that 
    she couldn't change that anyway). Since she isn't of U.S. origin in 
    the first place you shouldn't assume that the U.S. is the only place 
    in which she might commit a crime. There was talk of possible
    deportation if she had been convicted.

    
    
    Rah,
    
    > what guy would take the chance?
    
     Perhaps MTV's next sports special should be a videocam'd daring date
    contest with Lorena Bobbit. Call it the Black widow contest:-)
    
    
    David

    RE:.75
    
    	Thanks for the explanation.  Some how it just doesn't seem like
    enough time for the crime.
    
    Joe

    I have read comments in newspaper columns about 'HOW can people joke
    about this!?"  The answer is simple: People handle stress and difficult
    subjects by using humor, (laugh in the face of death etc.). I don't 
    see the jokes as disrespectful of either sides position.
    
    Jeff

>Retaliation for crimes is against the law.

 Unless you cry convincingly and claim to have "snapped." Apparently,
it doesn't even matter if your own expert witness says that you were
in control. Juries don't believe in applying the law.

    Note 110.70 More men get the chair then women and for the same crimes.
    Equality in the justice system has light years to go to understand that
    women are just as capable of commiting crime. And that if you can cry
    you can get off on a lesser charge. Maybe walk off scott free.....
    
    
    Insofar as the strict Catholic up bringing... bhaaa humbug. No one
    dismembers another in the faith of God.

    re: .81
    >Juries don't believe in applying the law.
    
    	If you really mean as a general rule, rather than this specific
    case, then you ought to be looking at your laws. In Britain, sheep
    stealing used to carry the death penalty automatically. Eventually,
    public standards changed, and no jury would ever find anyone guilty of
    sheep stealing, no matter how strong the evidence. With the penalty
    changed to a fine or a reasonable term of imprisonment it became
    possible to get convictions for sheep stealing again.
    
    	If by "juries" you mean "as a general rule" rather than "this
    specific collection of people" then maybe you should be looking at your
    system of punishment to alter it to something  that juries will accept.
    
    	This may not be "applying the law" as it is written at the time of
    the court case, but I believe it is a valuable function of juries to
    use their votes in this fashion to encourage changes in the law and
    penal system to accord with modern values.

    What I don't understand is why she didn't just throw the prick out the
    window.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
       Just kidding

    
    The Sunday morning "news" shows commented on how gleeful the women
    at their offices were that Lorena had been let off.  This case may
    be more of a setback to the feminist agenda than a help as more men
    wake up to just what the "feminists" are all about and decide, "now
    you've gone just to $#@% far".  If this case generates a bunch of 
    "copycat" crimes, the number of men who support the "women's movement"
    will drop like a laser-guided smart-bomb.

    Cokie Roberts was fairly bubbling with, "now we've got 'em scared
    and on the run", and was laughing about how men were being "made
    to squirm" over this case.  I'll tell you a little secret Cokie. 
    When men  get sacred, the tendency is not to run.
    
    fred();

    Fred, this case has generated a *lot* of jokes since it happened
    (ever watch Dave Letterman?  He's had quite a few all by himself!)

    The Challenger explosion generated a lot of jokes, too, and in that
    case, seven innocent people died.

    It's a phenomenon that happens in this culture.  If it's horribly
    wrong for women to joke about such things, perhaps our culture
    should rethink the entire practice of laughing at others' misfortunes.
    It's pretty sick all the way around.

Saw a picture in the paper yesterday of John Bobbitt signing autographs.
Also read this morning that he's up for a paternity test related to a
1-year-old kid born to a woman in the same town.

					Steve

    ....sounds like its working fine....despite the cutbacks.;)

110.83>This may not be "applying the law" as it is written at the time of
110.83>the court case, but I believe it is a valuable function of juries to
110.83>use their votes in this fashion to encourage changes in the law and
110.83>penal system to accord with modern values.

	I agree 100% with that.  There was some talk of a "Fully
	Informed Jury Amendment" which would force all judges to
	explain to all juries that they could use their verdicts
	for exactly this purpose.  I have heard of one case where
	a jury member told the rest of the jury that they could
	deliver a verdict based on their views of the law rather
	than based only on trial evidence; that person was slapped
	with a contempt-of-court ruling by the judge, was forced
	to apologize, and almost went to jail.  

	- craig

Re: .88

This would have been "before the cut".

		Steve

    
    re .88
    
    Assuming he is the father, then "the deed" was done before "the act".
    I guess *&^%$ing around on you wife only applies if your not President.
    Or at least a Governor.
    
    fred();

    Gotta remember something else Fred. And that is if the Somalies had
    dragged a half naked woman, dead, around thru the streets buy the heal.
    Our goverment and its people would have sent in thousands to desimate
    the country side. But is a man, another man, and they don't have value
    to our society execpt to pay as NCP's.

>Two wrongs don't make a right

Yes, but three lefts do.

So did you notice?  Those cops found John's missing member within two hours.
Makes you kinda wonder.  I mean, they never found Jimmy Hoffa or the 
Lindbergh baby but they found this.  They must have really WANTED to find
it.  I also think it is a good thing they have a strict leash law in that
town.  But the most important reason I am glad they found it is that now
we won't have to see it on milk cartons for the next 15 years.

Now that Lorena has been acquited of malicious wounding I wonder if the
might try prosecuting her for littering.


80)

    
    boy am I glad *I* just got married!
    
    -Jody
    

    
    		re. reply .92.....
    
    
    
    			huh ??
    

    
    I too was surprised the verdict of the jury.
    
    One juror mentioned their decission was based on the fact-
    
    "they could'nt get the evidence to standup in court"
    
    Bob (who's still laughing at this comment)
    

     Note 110.93by DELNI::JIMC
    
    The dispatcher told the cops that there was a double glazed crawler
    with a suprise in it. And if they brought it back, they would get
    $50.00 from the owner...... If they had told the cops that the
    Lindbergh baby was a double glazed. It would have been found in hours.
    Insofar as Jimmy Hoffa....... to big to tell a cop that thats a
    double glazed.:) 

    Note 110.96 by FLYSQD::MONTVILLE
    
    Dont quit your day job. You'll starve.

>    A 10 inch piece of 1 1/4 inch steel pipe with a wrap-aroung chain.

Little snug for me.  8-)))

    
    re .99
    
    >Little snug for me.  8-)))
    
    I could saw off about 6 inches of one of them for you then ;^}).
    
    fred();

    How about this as a money maker...;) you see the folks that cruze
    around with dice, sculls, sneekers, etc hanging off the rearview.
    How about assorted sizes of chopped off falons,..... rubber... or 
    pink plastic! For those feminist who have an ax to grind!:)
    
    Then there could be for the men, little thing-ies of womens on a string
    to hang off the mirror.;)

>    The decision means that the jury found that she cut off her
>    husband's penis under an 'irresistible impulse' after the
>    years of physical and sexual abuse which was very thoroughly
>    corroborated by a long line of witnesses.  

Yeh, right.  I wonder why all this meticulous evidence resulted in
a not guilty for him on the rape charges.

>    earlier, even the prosecuting attorney agreed that she had
>    been raped on the night the wounding occurred.)  

So!?!?!?!  That is just the prosecutor's opinion.... WOuldn't you agree????

>Even John
>    admitted hitting Lorena with the door of a moving car on 
>    one occasion.  

Yes, and she admitted to the amputation, right?  Maybe John just 'snapped' that
time with the door.  Hey, it is a good enough "defense" for the woman.  I hope
that defense can now be used by men in their defense.

-Joe

    Joe, the witnesses who corroborated Lorena's testimony about being
    abused for years were *not allowed* to testify at the rape trial
    (because the judge ruled that they could only go back 5 days before
    the incident.)
    
    As for John admitting to hitting Lorena with a car, he hasn't been
    on trial for this act, so he doesn't need any sort of defense for
    it.  He just got to do it to her without worrying about any sort
    of penalties for it.

    
>    on trial for this act, so he doesn't need any sort of defense for
>    it.  He just got to do it to her without worrying about any sort
>    of penalties for it.

Much like she is getting off as well,.....  I hope people are as eager to
accept the 'oh he just snapped' defense the next time a MAN does something
illegal.  

	The defense attorney's were on one of the talk shows either today
	or friday.   The said their strategy was to discredit John.  He
	testified that he never abused his wife.  Defense submitted paper
	work from hospital, etc that showed on last least 5 (or six) 
	occasions she was treated for abuse.   He also was caught 
	due to being on a bunch of talk shows saying things, and then
	when on trial said something completely different.   There
	was also something mentioned about the marines and something
	(this is kinda fuzzy) about counseling that was used to 
	prove that he was abusing her for a while..  

	Lorena's story on the other hand stayed consitant, she wasn't
	out doing the talk show rounds, interviews, etc..  
	
	John's main attorney was female.  Lorena's was male. (for what
	ever thats worth)

	/robin

    Isn't it the case that the *same* DA prosecuted both cases? Maybe the
    main thing that's been proven is that this particular DA doesn't know
    how to get a conviction.

    I heard that John got it reattached in New Hampshire.... at the
    Hitchcock Clinic.

    <<< Note 110.107 by SALEM::GILMAN >>>
    
    BAD PUN!!!!!;) I LOVE IT!
    
    

    re 110.84  She wanted to throw the prick out the window but he's too
    heavy....so she lopped off his penis.  Much lighter.
    
    The whole situation is SICK.  
    
    I feel sorry for her but if it was a man....sorry....he'd be doing
    time.    
    
    

    RE: .104  Joe
    
    > I hope people are as eager to accept the 'oh he just snapped'
    > defense the next time a MAN does something illegal.
    
    Some people seemed very "eager" to accept it when John Bobbitt was
    declared 'not guilty' at his trial for rape.
    
    Lorena Bobbitt went on trial, too, and the prosecution failed to
    prove she committed the act of 'MALICIOUS wounding.'  Why is it so
    shocking to find that some people accept a jury's verdict on this?

    Speaking of inconsistencies,  Lorena's statement that she gave to
    the police was worlds apart from her testimony in court.   In court
    she testified that she couldn't remember exactly what happened, but
    the described the entire process in detail to the police.  She testified
    in court that she was raped, but she told the police she was mad
    because, "he always enjoyed sex, and never waited for her to 'finish'".

    Interesting to note that "feminism"'s new "poster child" has just
    been hauled off to the nut house in handcuffs.  They'll probably
    bring her out and send her on the "lecture" circuit ala Anita HIll.

    Oh well, they're both going to make a gazillion dollars off of the
    Movie of the Week contract.

    fred();

    Personally, I think they should both be locked up.  It's perfectly
    obvious that they both committed heinous acts of violence against each
    other, and neither will be punished for it.  Some example our courts
    provide with all the talk of stopping violence.
    
    tim
    

    The initial reports about all this (which came out on the day of the
    incident) included Lorena's accusations about rape.  It wasn't
    something that popped up later, so to speak.
    
    As for being 'hauled off to the nut house in handcuffs,' it's part
    of Virginia law (for someone who is 'not guilty by reason of temporary
    insanity') to submit to 'observation' for a maximum of 45 days.
    
    She could be released from 'observation' sooner than this, of course.

    yes. she will make lots of money. <insert marshal music>

    Lorena owes $300,000 in legal fees.  It's more likely that she will
    be in a financial mess for a long, long time.
    
    (John Bobbitt owes $100,000 total in medical *and* legal fees.)

    
    Gee Susan, for someone who has repeatedly stated that you think she's
    guilty, you sure get awfully defensive about her?

    I think the real tragedy here, as well as in the Mendez (sp) trials
    is that the precedent has been set that you can get away with almost
    anything if you can come up with a good "I've been abused" story.

    It will be interesting to see just how long they keep Lorena in the
    cracker factory.  If she really is wacko, they can keep her
    indefinitely as "a threat to herself or others".  If they let her
    out in a couple days, she was not wacko in the first place and the
    jury bought a sob story.

    fred();

>If she really is wacko, they can keep her
>indefinitely as "a threat to herself or others".  If they let her
>out in a couple days, she was not wacko in the first place and the
>jury bought a sob story.


But she was found not guilty due to *temporary* insanity, no?

    Fred, I stated before the verdict that I didn't buy her defense,
    but you & I *both* agreed that it was up to the jury to decide 
    if the defense team made the case for her.  The jury has spoken.
    
    As for keeping her under 'observation,' it's been stated here many,
    many times that she is in for '45 days MAXIMUM.'  (This means that
    they can hold her for no longer than 45 days, but could release her
    sooner.)
    
    'Temporary insanity' is not regarded as a permanent condition, so
    when she is released (and she will be!) it doesn't indicate anything
    more than the legal requirement that she is 'not a danger to herself
    or others at this time.'

    
>        <<< Note 110.113 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>
>                -< 'Not guilty' are the operative words here. >-

    This, after all your professions about how you think she's guilty?


>    The initial reports about all this (which came out on the day of the
>    incident) included Lorena's accusations about rape.  It wasn't
>    something that popped up later, so to speak.

    She claimed she's been raped, then in almost the same breath she
    complained he didn't satisfy her.  Either we have a new definition
    of rape, or she's stretching credibility a bit.  Sort of reminds me
    of the old joke were a rapist drags a woman into an alley, rapes
    her, then asks, "There, what are you going to tell our husband about
    that".  Her response is, "I'm going to tell him you dragged me into
    an alley and raped me twice.  That is, if you are strong enough 
    and think you have time".
        
    fred();

    >        <<< Note 110.118 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>
>             -< The verdict surprised me, but I have accepted it. >-

    Sort of like "accepting" the fact that your team won the Super Bowl?

>    Fred, I stated before the verdict that I didn't buy her defense,
>    but you & I *both* agreed that it was up to the jury to decide 
>    if the defense team made the case for her.  The jury has spoken.

    If you were only as generous with John's verdict.

>    As for keeping her under 'observation,' it's been stated here many,
>    many times that she is in for '45 days MAXIMUM.'  (This means that
>    they can hold her for no longer than 45 days, but could release her
>    sooner.)

    The 'observation' can last a maximum of 45 days.  If, during that
    time, they find she really is wacko they can go ahead and keep her.
    I, and most credible psychiatrists, don't buy the "temporary" insanity
    business.  Its sort of like being pregnant.  Either you is, or you
    isn't.  Real insanity is a medical condition where the person really
    does have no control over his/her actions.  If this is going to be the 
    precedent, then, as another noter said earlier, I hope the next jury 
    is as generous with the next man who "just snaps" and pounds his wife 
    into a bloody pulp or slices of her breasts or some such.

    fred();

    RE: .120  Fred

    They can't hold her indefinitely based on this verdict.  Her demeanor
    on the stand indicates that she is not permanently 'wacko' (as you
    put it.)  'Temporary insanity' is treated (legally) as precisely that:
    temporary.

    > If this is going to be the precedent, then, as another noter said 
    > earlier, I hope the next jury is as generous with the next man who 
    > "just snaps" and pounds his wife into a bloody pulp or slices of 
    > her breasts or some such.
                                                
    This sounds like a call for retaliation against women for this verdict.

    How about if we treat each case on its own merits?  Evidently, the
    juries in both John's and Lorena's cases did so.

re: 120

Now c'mon Fred...

in a world of double standards that logic will never fly...

Men can get fired for oogling a woman, but a woman can mutilate
a man in his sleep and get off ('Scuse the punn.)..  

All Makes PERFECT sense to me..

The problem:  what sort of precident will this set THIS time!

Gawd, this society is sick..  Both Bobbit's were bubble heads,
and yet now, they're both famous, and will probably eek millions
out of book and movie rights....

Some people work at getting famous, some people fall into it in 
there sleep (As in the case of our hero John...)

And who do we really have to thank for it...  Hmmm? Why
Ginsu of course.. !

.113>  As for being 'hauled off to the nut house in handcuffs,' it's part
.113>  of Virginia law (for someone who is 'not guilty by reason of temporary
.113>  insanity') to submit to 'observation' for a maximum of 45 days.

       Yup, Virginia Law wants to make sure she can "cut the mustard" before
       being released back into Society...

       Meanwhile, the level of barbarism on the Planet Earth continues to rise
       as we argue who's right/wrong.  Absolutely NOBODY won during these two
       cases.  Some of the women inspired by Lorenna to fight back against
       their abuser will now be killed for the abuser won't want to take any
       chances...  So, escalation of abuse, on both sides, will continue to 
       occur and pretty soon we have Bosnia right here in our own country.

       But what will we do with the refugees?

    RE: .123

    Lorena Bobbitt's case hasn't inspired women to start cutting off men's
    sexual organs.

    If anything, the trial shows that no matter how many times her husband
    got away with physically and mentally abusing her (and the testimony
    went on for DAYS with corroboration for the crap he did,) she faced a
    possible 20 years in prison (and a very humiliating detailed account
    of her most private life played out to billions of people worldwide.)

    The "message" in this case is exactly what she said in the statement
    read to the press by her friend:  DON'T LET THINGS GO THIS FAR!!!!!
    (She said to TELL SOMEONE and GET HELP!)

    Now we have men who seem to want to take retaliation against women
    for this case.  It's insane!

        re .121

>    They can't hold her indefinitely based on this verdict.  Her demeanor
>    on the stand indicates that she is not permanently 'wacko' (as you
>    put it.)  'Temporary insanity' is treated (legally) as precisely that:
>    temporary.

    The 45 days means they have 45 days to hold her, wacko or not, to 
    determine if she is wacko or not.  If she is, they hold her
    indefinity.  If she isn't, the jury bought a sob story.

    >This sounds like a call for retaliation against women for this verdict.

    Not at all.  Just a call for "fairness".  How many times have I heard
    from women that "there is NO justification for this behavior".  Maybe
    John was just "temporarily" insane when he "raped" her.  His confusion
    over what happened when would be a better indication of that than
    her "demeanor" on the stand.

    fred();

    Fred, Lorena doesn't have to be permanently insane to justify the
    jury's verdict of 'temporary insanity.'

    If you believe that she's guilty if she doesn't spend the rest of
    her life in a mental institution, then perhaps you think we should
    go back to trial by water ('if she drowns while being held under
    water, then she's innocent of the charge of being a witch.  If she
    doesn't drown, then we burn her at the stake for being a witch.')

    Lorena will be released.  When she is released, the jury's verdict
    will still stand.  Temporary insanity is just that:  temporary.

    
    re .126

>    Lorena will be released.  When she is released, the jury's verdict
>    will still stand.  Temporary insanity is just that:  temporary.

    Like I said before, I just hope the next jury is as generous the
    next time a man goes "temporarily" insane.  The knife cuts both
    directions, so to speak.   Thanks again Susan for once again providing
    us with such an excellent example.

    fred()

    RE: .127  Frod Haddock
    
    > Like I said before, I just hope the next jury is as generous the
    > next time a man goes "temporarily" insane.  The knife cuts both
    > directions, so to speak. 
    
    Again, this sounds like you're seeking retaliation against women
    for the verdict in this one case.
    
    When Lorena is released, the jury's verdict still stands as valid
    (within Virginia law.)  The only requirement is that she undergo
    'observation.'  Once this is done, the law has been satisfied.

    reply .128
    
>    Again, this sounds like you're seeking retaliation against women
>    for the verdict in this one case.
    
    Not at all.  Just pointing out the hypocrisy of the case and how
    DANGEROUS this verdict is for both men and women.  But, given
    the hypocrisy of the case, it's probably more dangerous for men
    than women.  So what else is new!  
    
    fred();

    Lorena's attorneys made their case successfully, regardless of
    how others may perceive the 'message' involved.
    
    Would it have been fair for the jury to say, "The defense proved
    their case alright, but we should send this woman to prison anyway
    to keep from giving the wrong 'message' to people about all this"??
    
    The jury had an obligation to regard Lorena Bobbitt as an individual
    and to decide her case based on the information given at HER trial.
    Reports from the members of the jury indicate that this is precisely
    what they did.

    re 130
    
    Actually I think it is the smugness and glee with which the "feminists" 
    have greeted the verdict that I find most disgusting.  But there is a 
    brighter side to this in the number of men who now get an excellent
    example of the true "feminist" agenda.
    
    fred();

    Well, Fred, you must have more "feminist" connections than I do.

    I've only heard one statement from NOW (and it was along the lines
    of agreeing with the jury, with no sign of glee.)

    I didn't hear Cokie Roberts' statement (about the women in her
    office,) if this is what you're talking about.  These women are
    not representative of any group, as far as I've heard.
    
    By the way, are you the one who keeps claiming that Lorena will
    make the rounds of the 'feminist talk show circuit'?  I wasn't
    even aware that any "Feminist Talk Shows" exist.
    
    You're worrying about things I haven't even seen.

    re.131
    
    What is the true 'feminist' agenda?
    
    All I learned from this is the level we have degraded ourselves by
    creating such a spectical of a sad situation.  

    
    Like I said Susan.  Thanks for the excellent example.
    
    fred();

    Fred, if you're going to keep repeating this thing about 'examples'
    (rather than continuing our discussion on a rational basis,) at
    least spell my name right.
    
    Suzanne

        re .135

    >    (rather than continuing our discussion on a rational basis,) at

    And this coming from Suzanne?  The person who started out chastising
    me for not buying her repeated statements about how she thinks
    Lorena is guilty, and ends up bashing me because I don't "accept
    the verdict"?  Rational indeed!  Yes Suzanne, I do think you make
    a most excellent example.

    fred();

    RE: .136  Fred
    
    We're talking about various comments concerning this case.  If you
    want to continue discussing the case, let's do so.
    
    If you intend to just keep repeating vague statements about 'examples,'
    please do keep spelling my name right.  :>
    
    (P.S. Where have I asked you to 'accept the verdict'???  I haven't,
    as far as I know.)

    RE: .138  Fred

    > The defense rests

    Don't quit your day job, counselor.  :>

    > At the very least, you have repeatedly accused me of saying that I
    > want retaliation against women because I have said that, if this
    > is going to be the precedent set, I hope the same "temporary insanity"
    > defense will be extended to men in similar circumstance.

    Well, that isn't exactly what you said.  If you'd phrased it that
    a man were in PRECISELY the same situation, my response would have
    been different.

    .120> If this is going to be the precedent, then, as another noter said 
    .120> earlier, I hope the next jury is as generous with the next man who 
    .120> "just snaps" and pounds his wife into a bloody pulp or slices of 
    .120> her breasts or some such.

    .121> This sounds like a call for retaliation against women for this 
    .121> verdict.

    .121> How about if we treat each case on its own merits?  Evidently, the
    .121> juries in both John's and Lorena's cases did so.

    If the man had a good case for 'temporary insanity,' I'd agree with
    a similar verdict.  I'm not interested in the idea that some man
    be given this verdict simply because *Lorena* was able to get it.

    Let's decide each case on its own merit.  (As I said.)
    
    By the way, I didn't start out to be a supporter of Lorena Bobbitt.
    The responses I have seen to this case have been so 'off the wall'
    (including your little joke about marketing a weapon made of a
    metal rod and chains to use against one's wife - "DON'T GO HOME
    WITHOUT IT," remember?) - it's made the verdict a lot easier for
    me to accept.

What a Tinkle Contest!

>(including your little joke about marketing a weapon made of a
>metal rod and chains to use against one's wife - "DON'T GO HOME
 >WITHOUT IT," remember?)

I thought it was a device to protect one's "member" from one's 
wife?

I really hate to see this diatribe drag on indefinitely, but it seems 
a bit pathological to think there is a violent, anti-male feminist agenda.
Since when does the so-called 'feminist agenda' include mutilation of men's
genitals?  Retaliation is not the exclusive domain of some battered woman,
driven to a lunatic reprisal by years of abuse at the hands of a mistriant
husband.

It's really a shame that the judges didn't do something to prevent these
two from profitting by the media attention...but I suppose we'll be dealing
with that on a number of issues - Bobbitt, Harding/Kerrigan, etc...If they're
going to make a media circus of the whole sad event, they ought to be
made to pay for it out of their own pocket.  I mean, this isn't an isolated
incident - it has happened before in other cases, in other jurisdictions.
John-boy just got really, really lucky...which of course he certainly doesn't
deserve.  Not only did he get his manhood restored - well, in the biological
sense anyway, I certainly don't see any other 'manhood' present in that
pathetic sod - but he'll also probably make a bundle too.  Sad.

These two, and their media bedfellows, merely made this into a spectacle
because we, their public, are all to happy to launch into irrational, rabid
arguments over paranoid dilusions of some mysterious secret plot to subvert
the opposite sex by violence.  We've just seen that.  Feminist agenda?  Take
a valium, Fred().

I guess life is just too dull since the evil threat of World Communism fizzled,
huh kids?

tim

        re .142

>These two, and their media bedfellows, merely made this into a spectacle
>because we, their public, are all to happy to launch into irrational, rabid
>arguments over paranoid dilutions of some mysterious secret plot to subvert
>the opposite sex by violence.  We've just seen that.  Feminist agenda?  Take
>a valium, Fred().

    On "This Week with David Brinkley", Cokie Roberts was just bubbling
    over with how "men were being made to squirm".  There was discussion
    about how women at their various offices were cheering the news that
    Lorena was let off.  A Times-Mirror Poll this week showed that 11%
    of the women thought Lorena was "completely justified" with another
    40% thinking that she was "somewhat justified".  There was some
    woman's group or another picketing daily outside the courthouse in
    support of Lorena during the trial.  I suspect the same group that 
    will also tell you that there is NO excuse for a man to even defend 
    himself from a woman.

    The Silver lining to this is that it is and issue too far out in
    left field for even Sam Donaldson to support.  Maybe it will be
    what other men need ( Yoo Hoo, Tim ) to wake up and smell the coffee.

    I will be pleasantly surprised if there are no more if these cases.
    However, I did see just this week a woman got probation for pouring
    finger nail polish remover over her husband's genitals and setting
    him on fire.  

    fred();

    The jokes about this incident have run rampant in this country 
    since it happened - people in this *very topic* have joked about
    it.
    
    So, Cokie Roberts makes light of the situation.  So what?
    
    A lot of people supported Lorena during her trial (a lot of other
    people supported John Bobbitt during both their trials) - it doesn't
    mean they applauded what she did, but rather they agreed with her
    defense.
    
    As Tim suggested, 'take a valium, Fred().'  :>

    
        re .144

>    A lot of people supported Lorena during her trial (a lot of other
>    people supported John Bobbitt during both their trials) - it doesn't
>    mean they applauded what she did, but rather they agreed with her
>    defense.

    If you've watched any of the news reports on this, there is a major
    section of women out there who do applaud what Lorena did.  They
    think John _deserved_ what happened to him.  These are the women
    and the attitude I find disquieting.
    
>    As Tim suggested, 'take a valium, Fred().'  :>

    Maybe it's time for the "feminist movement" to "take a valium".
    Many/most improvements in womens' situation have been acquired
    with the help of men.  With "feminists" (even if it is just the
    radical fringe) supporting this type of behavior, it's becoming
    increasingly difficult for men (and a lot of women) to support
    "feminism".  At this point, if I were really "anti woman" 
    the absolute worst thing I could do to the "womens movement"
    is--nothing.

    fred();

    So Fred, you're expecting *feminists* to pay the price for what 
    happened to John Bobbitt, eh?

    You don't know the political affiliations of the 11% of the surveyed
    women who supposedly believe Lorena was justified in what she did.

    If you think most people will turn this thing into fuel for an
    anti-feminist agenda, I don't think so.  Some will, obviously.
    Others will see through it.

    CNN showed a survey which claimed that 57% of the women surveyed
    believe that the verdict in Lorena's trial is just.  Something
    like 34-37% of the men surveyed believe that the verdict is just.

    These are pretty major segments of the male and female populations
    of this country (and no one correlated this information with the
    political affiliations of those who responded.)

    Trying to tie all these people to the women's movement is a pretty
    weak argument, really.

    re .146
    
    Would you find it as acceptabale if the same percentage of men
    and/or women thought that wife-beating was just?  Would you have
    found it as funny if the jokes were about a woman getting mutilated?
    Would you have been as "tolerant" if it had been George Will sniggering
    about women being "made to squirm"? 
    
    Having had these little "discussions" with you in the past, I don't
    think I have to wait for your response  to answer that.  Bet I can
    make a pretty good guess.  That's why I think you make such a good
    example.
    
    fred();

    RE: .147  Fred

    > Would you find it as acceptabale if the same percentage of men
    > and/or women thought that wife-beating was just?

    Hold on - the people surveyed thought the *verdict* was just.
    They didn't say that cutting off a penis was just.

    (Or did you mean the 11% who supposedly thought the cutting
    was justified?  If so, I'd expect many more to believe that
    wife-beating is just, considering the incidence of domestic
    violence in our country.)
    
    > Would you have found it as funny if the jokes were about a woman
    > getting mutilated?

    Considering that most of the jokes about John Bobbitt's member
    (in this topic, especially!) are coming from males, I'm not
    sure what you're trying to say here.  Do you think men should
    be allowed to joke about it, but women should *not*?

    > Would you have been as "tolerant" if it had been George Will 
    > sniggering about women being "made to squirm"?

    How about if George Will sniggered about John Bobbitt (and men
    'being made to squirm'?)  Does he have some right that Cokie
    doesn't have (when it comes to joking about something that's
    been joked about by men all over this country?)

    
    re .148

>    (Or did you mean the 11% who supposedly thought the cutting
>    was justified?  If so, I'd expect many more to believe that
>    wife-beating is just, considering the incidence of domestic
>    violence in our country.)

    The way I understood it was that 11% thought that she was justified
    in cutting his penis off.  What I was asking was whether _you_
    believe that one is any more justifiable than the other.  I doubt
    that you'll find 11% of _women_ who thing wife-beating is justifiable.
    However, there appears to be at least that percentage of women
    who think mutilation of men is justifiable. 

>    Considering that most of the jokes about John Bobbitt's member
>    (in this topic, especially!) are coming from males, I'm not
>    sure what you're trying to say here.  Do you think men should
>    be allowed to joke about it, but women should *not*?

    I'm not sure that you really mean this or if you are just trying
    to play dumb.  What I was asking is would _you_ think the jokes
    were as funny if they were about _women_ getting mutilated instead
    of about _men_ getting mutilated.  

>    How about if George Will sniggered about John Bobbitt (and men
>    'being made to squirm'?)  Does he have some right that Cokie
>    doesn't have (when it comes to joking about something that's
>    been joked about by men all over this country?)

    Maybe, but I think you are once again just trying to confuse the
    issue.  I think the fact that it came from Roberst was significant.
    Just as (from my experience) you would have probably thought about
    similar remarks about women.  Robert's remarks were no joke.  She
    was "_glad_ men were being made to squirm" (a direct quote).  The
    exchange was between Roberts and Sam Donaldson.  I can't remember
    when I've seen Donaldson so utterly flabbergasted, and he's been
    around some.
    fred();
    

    RE: .149  Fred

    > The way I understood it was that 11% thought that she was justified
    > in cutting his penis off.  What I was asking was whether _you_
    > believe that one is any more justifiable than the other.  

    I don't think either (cutting a penis off *or* spousal abuse) is
    justifiable!  

    Lorena Bobbitt wasn't found 'not guilty due a justifiable wounding.'
    She was found to be temporarily insane (which is *not* the same
    thing as saying that her action against John was justified.)

    > I doubt that you'll find 11% of _women_ who thing wife-beating is 
    > justifiable.  However, there appears to be at least that percentage 
    > of women who think mutilation of men is justifiable. 

    The people being surveyed were asked about this specific case.  Like
    the jurors, I think people gave their answers based on this particular
    situation.  You don't know what their answers might have been if the
    questions had been phrased in more general terms.

    > What I was asking is would _you_ think the jokes
    > were as funny if they were about _women_ getting mutilated instead
    > of about _men_ getting mutilated.  
                   
    The jokes are about JOHN BOBBITT being cut and then sewn back
    together again (with the prospect of being 'fully functional'
    after some months of healing.)  

    Personally, I don't think *any* of the jokes about John Bobbitt
    are very funny - but a lot of men seem to think they're hilarious
    (there are already a million of 'em!)  So the answer to your
    question is that I *don't* think jokes about Bobbitt are funnier
    than jokes about (for example) Lorena Bobbitt being hit by a
    car driven by her husband, John.

    > Robert's remarks were no joke.  She was "_glad_ men were being made 
    > to squirm" (a direct quote).

    Well, I'm sorry if this is how it seemed to you.  I believe she
    was joking.

    
    	Is anybody taking bets as to who will get the last word in? :^)
    
    Joe

>    Some people seemed very "eager" to accept it when John Bobbitt was
>    declared 'not guilty' at his trial for rape.

 Yeah, I've noticed your glee factor has risen by about 1000% since she
was acquitted. You didn't seem to be as glib about the evidence not
being there to convict when she was the victim...

    The Daily Telegraph (UK newspaper) reports a 'Copy Cut' in Turkey where
    a jilted woman severed her boyfriend's penis in a revenge attack -
    possibly inspired by the Bobbitt trial suggests the report. Again the
    member was sewn back. (I hope they got it the right way up)
    
    Strange things happen in the British courts as I guess they do in all
    countries - It does seem odd, however, where people can carve bits from
    the bodies of others and claim temporary insanity as a valid defence
    (British spelling).
    
    To include temporary insanity a a valid excuse is literally a get-out-
    jail-free defence. How stupid of the local legislators to include it;
    they must have been temporarily insane at the time. Now the state of
    Virginia (it was Virginia wasn't it?) will have every Tom, Dick and
    Harry claiming this defence from Jay-walking, to bank robbery.
    
    Still, anything can happen in the USA. I'm still amazed by the story of
    the British drunk who rang a house doorbell seeking directions and was
    shot dead through the frosted glass by the householder who claimed self
    defence. The actions of the householder are amazing enough but the
    police; who I presume believe that no charge will stick in the US
    courts, amaze me more by not bringing charges against the shootist.
    
    So now it seems that the folks in the US can walk about shooting total
    strangers dead in the belief that they might pose a threat. Married
    people can chops lumps from one another whilst temporarily out of their
    minds; and get a free vacation of up to six weeks from the state.
    
    Perhaps the word 'free' in the expression, Land of the free, was always
    meant to read 'temporarily insane'.
    
    Bucko...
    

    RE: .152  Mark Levesque
    
    > Yeah, I've noticed your glee factor has risen by about 1000%
    > since she was acquitted.
    
    Which of my comments would you describe as being 1000% more
    gleeful that what I wrote before the verdict came out?
    
    > You didn't seem to be as glib about the evidence not being
    > there to convict when she was the victim...
    
    Have you seen me express tremendous regret that John Bobbitt
    wasn't convicted of rape?  I did say that one of the attorneys 
    who prosecuted Lorena Bobbitt expressed the opinion (in his
    closing remarks) that John Bobbitt did indeed rape her on the
    night of the incident.  (His comments are a matter of record.
    Complain to the prosecutor about what he said.)

    There is a big difference between a woman cutting off her husbands
    penis under normal conditions (not being abused by her husband) and
    after years of abuse.  I am not saying that Lorena was right to cut
    it off, but her abuse makes it more understandable (not right, under
    standable). I think that is reflected in the juries verdict.  They
    are both a 'couple of winners' and the depravity astounds me.
    
    The joking IMO is a normal outlet. Topics such as death, and mutilation
    build stress in people. Turning horror into humor helps ease the mental
    pain.  Some of you seem to be on a high horse regarding being above 
    joking about it. Well, please understand that some of us try laughing
    in the face of horror. That doesn't mean that there is no compassion
    for the victims.
    
    Jeff

    
    re .150

>    I don't think either (cutting a penis off *or* spousal abuse) is
>    justifiable!  
>
>    Lorena Bobbitt wasn't found 'not guilty due a justifiable wounding.'
>    She was found to be temporarily insane (which is *not* the same
>    thing as saying that her action against John was justified.)

    Do you think that there just _might_ be conditions when a husband,
    after years of mental, verbal, and physical abuse, might go 
    "temporarily insane" and pound his "loving wife" into a pulp?

    fred();

    Fred, each person on trial deserves to have his/her case looked
    at individually.

    In the history of our judicial system, men have used the "temporarily
    insane" defense successfully in a variety of cases.

    Is it possible that a man could use this defense successfully in
    a case where he is accused of beating up his wife?  Sure.

    If the man went to trial at all for this (and most men do not go
    on trial for beating up their wives,) I think this defense could
    be used with success (if he had a similar number of corroborating
    witnesses, etc., as Lorena had.)

Random stuff.

Yesterday's local paper mentioned that Lorena has signed on for a 
number of speaking arrangements as well as a 40 city radio tour. 
At least one movie is in the works as well as a book. She's 
hardly in financial difficulty.

It sad that she walks on a temporary insanity plea while that 
poor woman in Cal. who shot the scum that molested her son and then 
taunted her in the courtroom is doing time right now. The jury 
didn't buy the temporary insanity plea. 

daryll

    Why don't you cut each other some slack??

For an interesting look at the "irresistable impulse" plea, I recommend reading
the excellent novel "Anatomy of a Murder".  (I've heard that the movie made
from the book is good too, but haven't seen it.)  In the book, a woman tells
her husband that she was just raped by her boss; the husband storms out and
shoots the boss dead.  Husband is put on trial for murder; the defense
bases their case on "temporary insanity due to irresistable impulse" and
basically has to prove that the husband had good reason to believe that the
boss did in fact commit the rape.  Though a work of fiction, it provides a
lot of the background behind such a defense and what it means.

					Steve

    re .158
    
    No, Suzanne,  I didn't ask whether or not he should be able to use
    that defense.  I asked if _you_ thought that that could happen.
    (I ask because the answer is already in mumerous entries in this
    very conference).
    
    fred();

    Fred,
    
    That defense has been used by men in this state for spousal abuse and
    murders.  It is frequently successful.
    
    Meg

    re Meg,
    
    The question I asked was if _Susanne_ thinks  the situation could
    happen, not if the defense could be used.
    
    fred();

    Fred, I told you (in .158) that I thought this defense could
    be successful for a man in a similar situation as Lorena
    Bobbitt.  YES, it means that I think a man can go temporarily
    insane (and make this case in a court of law by having a similar
    number of corroborating witnesses that Lorena had.)  

    Spousal abuse is a tough example to use since most of the men
    who beat up their wives don't have to stand trial for it, though.
    
    Are we still talking about the Lorena Bobbitt case here?  It seems
    like you have something else on your mind.

    Fred, you've got yet another spelling of my name in here now.
    
    Add this to your dictionary:
    
    					Suzanne
    
    Thank you.

        re .165

    Since what Lorena did is essentially a form of spousal abuse, I'm
    just trying to reconcile your statements about Lorena with your
    previous statements about wife-beating.

    fred();

    
    >    Add this to your dictionary:
    
    Then I wouldn't be able to hit the "ignore" switch when it pops up
    on the spell checker ;^).
    
    fred();

    Lorena was found to have experienced 'temporary insanity' (by a
    court of law.)
    
    Men can also experience this (and have used it successfully as
    a defense.)
    
    You have my statements now on both of these situations, so they
    have been reconciled.
    
    If you have other statements of mine about this subject, please
    present them and we can discuss them in a topic devoted to
    Fred's concerns about Suzanne.
    
    This topic is about Lorena Bobbitt, however, not me.

    
    reply .169
    
>    If you have other statements of mine about this subject, please
>    present them and we can discuss them in a topic devoted to
>    Fred's concerns about Suzanne.
    
    Try DIR/NOTE=*.*/AUTHOR=S_CONLON.
    
    fred();

    Ok, I did a directory on my notes and I see no conflict.  Settled? :>
    
    Look.  I'm not Lorena Bobbitt.  I haven't cut anyone.  I wasn't even
    on the jury who acquitted Lorena for cutting John.
    
    I'm just a co-worker (and the SO of a man on *your exact team* at
    the CSC in Digital.)
    
    I have a different opinion than you do on this case.
    
    Oh well.
    
    I'm not going to be the one to pay the price for Lorena's act.

    
    re .171
    
    >    Ok, I did a directory on my notes and I see no conflict.  Settled? :>
    
    Well Surprise, Surprise (he said with Gomer Pyle accent) ;^).
    
    >        -< How about getting back to the topic (Lorena Bobbitt.) >-
    
    I thought wer were discussing they hypocritical attitudes of some
    of the "feminists" in relation to this case and previous positions
    on "spouse-abuse".
    
    >Look.  I'm not Lorena Bobbitt.  I haven't cut anyone.  I wasn't even
    >on the jury who acquitted Lorena for cutting John.
    
    >    I'm not going to be the one to pay the price for Lorena's act.
    
    I also find this statement rather interesting in light of your
    former statemts about men, rape, and abuse.
    
>    I'm just a co-worker (and the SO of a man on *your exact team* at
>    the CSC in Digital.)
    
    So? What's that got to do with it?
    
    >    I have a different opinion than you do on this case.
    
    If we didn't, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
    
    fred();

    RE: .172  Fred
    
    >> -< How about getting back to the topic (Lorena Bobbitt.) >-
    
    > I thought wer were discussing they hypocritical attitudes of some
    > of the "feminists" in relation to this case and previous positions
    > on "spouse-abuse".
    
    Well, evidently, YOU have been trying to make a case for this.
    (As I said before, don't quit your day job, counselor.)
    
    >> I'm not going to be the one to pay the price for Lorena's act.
    
    > I also find this statement rather interesting in light of your
    > former statemts about men, rape, and abuse.
    
    Fred, don't take your angst about this case out on me.  I have
    nothing whatever to do with it (except for having opinions about
    it, like a couple hundred million other people in this country.)
    
    >> I'm just a co-worker (and the SO of a man on *your exact team* at
    >> the CSC in Digital.)
    
    > So? What's that got to do with it?
    
    I'm not "the enemy."  I was nowhere near Virginia when this whole
    thing happened.  I'm your co-worker.  
    
    Ease up.

    By the way, let's not forget that Lorena has a tremendous amount of
    corroboration about being an abused spouse for 4 years.
    
    Striking out (as an 'irresistible impulse') after years of being
    abused is not the same situation as being a longtime abuser of
    someone else.
    
    Your mileage may vary, of course, but it isn't inconsistent to
    support an abused spouse who experienced one serious irresistible
    impulse after years of trauma. 

    
    re .173
    
    Sure looks different when it's your ox that's getting Algored..
    er gored..(freudian slip) doesn't is Suzanne?  I'm going to frame
    the last half dozen or so replies and hang them on my wall.
    
    fred();

    
>    Striking out (as an 'irresistible impulse') after years of being
>    abused is not the same situation as being a longtime abuser of
>    someone else.
    
    Maybe he just sufferes from multiple occurances of "irresistible
    impulse" and/or "temporary insanity" ;^).
    
    Tell you one thing,  I dont' want to be anywhere close the next
    time Lorena suffers "temporary insanity" ;^).
    
    fred();

    Well, I don't know what you meant about being gored, but do frame
    my notes.  :>
    
    As for John Bobbitt, I hope he recovers completely from his wounds.
    
    Lorena Bobbitt will most likely stay away from macho types in the
    future, so most of the men who hate and fear her won't need to
    worry about being sought by her.  :>

I don't think sensitive, non-macho men will be lining up at her door either.

    Sure they will.
    
    She's world famous, and if she ever finishes paying off her
    $300,000 legal bill, she may end up rich.

    
    re .179
    
    Offer $1M to a man if he'll allow his penis to be cut off and see
    how many (serious) takers you get.  The kind of men she'll attract
    because of her money will be precisely what she deserves.
    
    fred();

    Most people who know her won't presume that she'll cut off the penis
    of every man who gets close to her.
    
    Her fame and money will give her lots of opportunities to meet people.
    She wants a marriage, home and children.  I'll bet she finds someone
    nice who wants the same things.
    
    Men who think they'll get their dicks chopped off by her would be
    the worst punishment for her, probably, but luckily, they're likely
    to keep their distance.  :>

"Someone nice" would want to marry her because she's rich and famous?

I'd prefer not to have to write-lock this topic.  If participants have 
nothing NEW to say, please refrain from restating older entries, or
engaging in goading tactics.  Thanks.

				Steve

    RE: .182  Gerald Sacks
    
    What I said was that she'd get lots of opportunities to meet people
    (lots and lots of people!)
    
    Some of these people may be rich and famous themselves (who knows?)
    
    It's quite possible that she could meet someone nice (out of all
    these opportunities.)  Even rich people do find happiness once
    in a while.  :>
    
    I wish her the best.

    
    Beyond her tendency to wield sharp objects at sensitive parts of the
    body, I seriously doubt that she is the "sweet little thing" that
    she was portrayed in court.  A good sized chunk of the $300k "legal
    fees" were for a consultant to advise her how to dress and act in court. 
    Remember that in her statement to the police, the thing that sent her
    into "temporary insanity" was  "he didn't wait for her to be
    satisfied".  Some of the "witnesses" that testified to how she had
    been "abused" testified to "heated battles".  Last time I checked,
    it takes two to conduct a battle.

    fred();

    Court TV showed photographs of Lorena taken during their marriage
    and she looked pretty sweet in those, too.

    One picture stands out in my mind:  John is standing next to her
    and has his right arm around her and his right hand is reaching
    around to GRIP her arm very harshly (so that *her* hand sort of 
    sticks up in the air looking very awkward.)  

    He is smiling.  She looks uncomfortable.

    On the day of the incident, she reported the rape immediately (and
    was sent to the hospital for an examination which revealed the
    semen of recent sex.)  John said he hadn't had sex with her at all.

    Weeks later, John still said he hadn't had sex with her, but when
    faced with the evidence of semen, he admitted that he had.

    
    Why are you so sure that it was only him doing the beating?  (Oh
    yea, I forgot that only men are capable of "abusing" someone.  Andy
    Capp still thinks women beating men is supposed to be _funny_).  It
    seems to me that someone who is willing to mutilate someone with
    a knife will also not be too averse to using other forms of violence.

    This is one part of the case that I think the prosecutor (a woman)
    really let down.  What role did Lorena play in the violence that
    took place before "the night"?

    fred();

    By the way, the main prosecutor against Lorena was the man who
    gave the closing argument for the prosecution at her trial.
    
    Lorena was thoroughly corroborated about the abuse she suffered.
    If the prosecution could have blamed her for being hurt so many
    times all those years, perhaps they would have tried to do so.
    
    One thing that would have made this difficult, of course, is the
    fact that John wouldn't admit to having *ever* abused her.  It's 
    hard to claim she participated in abuse when the prosecution's star
    witness won't admit it happened (even when a long parade of defense
    witnesses corroborated the abuse.)
    
    In any case, the jury has spoken.  Lorena and John have broken up.
    
    It's over.

    
    and suzzane gets the last word as usual.

    Last night, according to Channel 9 local news station, WMUR, there 
    was another copy cat attempt. A woman with a knife, slashed her husband
    in the chest and grion area. In front of the children. A real folk hero
    that Loraina is..... 
    
    Some bimbo even waves a knife at me, she will find it and her hand up
    her dark cavity side.

    There was a case where a man tried the temp insanity trick. He DID NOT
    WALK OUT OF ANY COURT ROOM SCOTT FREE! He is still making license
    plates in New Hampshire.

re: 110.190

>    Last night, according to Channel 9 local news station, WMUR, there 
>    was another copy cat attempt. A woman with a knife, slashed her husband
>    in the chest and grion area. In front of the children. A real folk hero
>    that Loraina is..... 
>    
>    Some bimbo even waves a knife at me, she will find it and her hand up
>    her dark cavity side.


	I took a Korean martial art form years ago and learned well how to
defend myself.  A lot of that defense involves not getting into a fight in the
first place.  It seems to me that if "some bimbo" starts waving a knife you can
probably run from the situation - admittedly difficult to do if ego gets into
the way.
	I am not advocating run away and cower all the time - there are
situations that arise when you do *have* to respond to force with force.  I just
don't think you have to "over-respond".
	I am *not* trying to come down on you, but it seems this kind of
escalation (threat responded to by overwhelming force) and mindset seems to have
gotten the Bobbits started in the first place. 

George

    Peace is only had with superior fire power.;)


Peace, Love, and Large Handguns.:)

From last nights Mike Royko column:

Prof. Catherine MacKinnon of the University of Michigan 
long ago pointed to the institution of marriage as a legal cover 
for the act of rape and the permanent humilation of women.

"Lorena Bobbitt's life has been a poignant instance of that 
nightmare, which elicited a bold and courageous act of feminist 
self-defense."

"As one who recently returned from a conference of feminist 
activists in Europe, I can assure readers that the Bobbitt's case 
has galvanized the women's movement worldwide in a way that the 
Anita Hill case never did."

"But whatever the judgement of America's patriarchal legal 
system, Lorena Bobbitt is for most feminists no criminal. She is 
instead a symbol of innovative resistance against gender 
oppression everywhere."

daryll

    re .188
    
>    Lorena was thoroughly corroborated about the abuse she suffered.
>    If the prosecution could have blamed her for being hurt so many
>    times all those years, perhaps they would have tried to do so.
    
    The thing that bothers me most about that buisness is, as far as
    I can tell, NOBODY EVEN BOTHERED TO ASK what Lorenas part was in
    this violence (or dared to).  They just ASSUMED she was a sweet
    little thing and ASSUMED he was a scumbag.
    
    fred();

    re .194
    
    Now we have LORENA THE HERO and model woman for young girls everywhere!
    Where's my airplane bag.
    
    fred();

 Catharine MacKinnon is the original "twisted sister."

 Attacking a man with a knife while he's passed out is a "courageous act."
That's rich.

    > Attacking a man with a knife while he's passed out is a "courageous act."
    
    At least MacKinnon's statement preserved the context within which the
    violence occurred (years of domestic abuse, sexual and other violence)
    which is more than yours manages.
    
    DougO

    Today's Boston Globe contains an opinion piece by Ellen Goodman,
    which I have entered below.  My views are entirely in accord with hers
    on this subject.
    
    					Steve
    
    Watch out - the straw feminist is back, and they say she's mad
    By Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe, January 27, 1994
    
    The straw feminist has made another cameo appearance.  She is
    everywhere now, stalks of wheat sticking out of her militant clothing. 
    She is starring in the aftermath of the trial that found Lorena Bobbitt
    innocent by reason of temporary insanity.
    
    "This is a feminist dream come true," grumbled one man in the street,
    as he conjured her up for the television viewers.  "It's open season on
    men."
    
    "What you're doing is licensing the feminists to come and slice our
    [penises] off," added William Margold, a long-time porno star, in the
    Washington Post.
    
    Sidney Siller, the founder of something called the National
    Organization for Men, said on the "Today" show that after the verdict
    there was "a lot of glee from radical feminists."  He pointed to an
    Ecuadorean group that threatened to cut off a hundred penises if Lorena
    was found guilty.
    
    Well, I thought I had gotten used to the straw feminist.  Twenty-odd
    years ago she emerged like Eve out of the extra rib, or at least the
    excess stuffing, of the straw man.
    
    The straw man had been a useful creature throughout history.  Whenever
    people argued, he could be pulled together quickly out of the nearest
    available haystack and set up as an opponent.  The beauty of the straw
    man was that he was easily defeated.  You hardly had to huff and puff
    before you could blow him down.
    
    The straw man was also useful as a scarecrow.  The arguments attributed
    to him were not only flimsy, they were frightening.
    
    So I wasn't surprise when the straw feminist was sighted burning her
    bra - a dangerous thing for any straw person to do - at a "Miss
    America" pageant.  The fact that there never was a bra-burning was
    irrelevant.  Feminists became bra-burners.  Not to mention man-haters.
    
    The straw feminist wanted to drive all women out of their happy homes
    and into the work force.
    
    The straw feminist had an abortion as casually as she had a tooth
    pulled.
    
    The straw feminist - and her first cousin the radical feminist - was
    hostile to family life and wanted children warehoused in government-run
    day and night care.
    
    At times the straw feminist was painted slightly pinko by the
    anticommunists or rather lavender by the antilesbians.  But it was
    generally agreed upon that she was a castrating - well, you fill in the
    blank.
    
    This creature was most helpful for discrediting real feminists but also
    handy for scaring supporters away.  Whenever a woman stuck up for her
    rights, she could be asked through narrowing eyes, "You're not one of
    those feminists, are you?"
    
    It got so bad that many young women would begin their most modest
    statements with a nervous glance at this voodoo figure, saying "I'm not
    a feminist, but..."
    
    The funny thing is that over the years, remarkably few people
    investigated her stuffing.  Which feminists, for example, chirpily
    extol abortion "on demand"?  Names, please.  How many feminists have
    actually trashed the importance of child-raising?  Numbers, please. 
    The lady was simply accepted as real.
    
    I suppose it's possible to find a feminist for any position.  There is
    no admission exam to the sisterhood.  There is as much variety under
    the umbrella as there is outside it.
    
    But despitethe reappearance of the straw feminist, it's hard to find
    many who see Lorena Bobbitt as a standard-bearer of the movement and a
    role model for little girls everywhere.  Anita Hill she isn't.  Nor is
    she Hillary Clinton.
    
    It is harder still to find many who consider male genital mutilation as
    the way to even up the score between men and women.  Even the straw
    collectors had to go to Ecuador to find the raw material for this
    fantasy.
    
    In the wake of this unique and legally complicated case, women's groups
    were careful not to applaud violence.  Men as well as women weighed
    John's violence against Lorena's.  The jury itself, as one juror said,
    "walked through it and tried to put ourselves in her shoes."  They
    ultimately believed that the woman had been abused until she snapped. 
    So be it.
    
    For 45 days Lorena Bobbitt will be under observation in the hospital. 
    For those days, and more, keep and eye on the straw feminist.  In the
    current incendiary state, I fear she's being used as kindling.

    So, What/how have you folks explained this Bobbitt "saga" to your
    children?  How have they reacted?

    My six year old son is still too young to have picked up on this, and I 
    havn't pointed out this case to him either.  If militant feminists
    start making penile amputation a practice I will eventually have a duty
    to warn him.
    
    Actually, I don't think males are at a greatly increased risk because of
    this case, but it sure did get our attention didn't it guys?  I can't 
    think of a better way to loose the support of men than to have women 
    running around talking about cutting our penis' off.
    
    Jeff
    

    The straw feminist rides again.

    Yes, isn't that what this entire string is discussing?
    Are my comments irrelevant, or simply redundant to you?

    Jeff

    .199 Great story! Nicely said. 

    Jeff, your note is an example of the phenomenon Ellen Goodman
    described, IMO, that's all.
      

    Right.  What feminists are going around talking about cutting
    men's penises off?  Names, please.  If you can't provide any, why
    did you bring it up as if it were real?
    
    					Steve

    
    re .206
    
    >Right.  What feminists are going around talking about cutting
>    men's penises off?  
    
    See note 110.194.
    
    fred()

        re .199

    Who was it that said, "perception is everything".  Goodman's
    tirade looks like (yet another), "if you can't prove your point to
    my satisfaction, then you're wrong".  Where's __her__ names
    and numbers if she want's to make a point? 

    Rather than making a rational argument about "this is what feminism
    _really_ is" she has just provided those whom she is attacking 
    with a prime example of what they believe.
    
    fred();

    Fred, again with the 'prime example' statement, I see.
    
    You could save yourself a lot of time and effort by declaring
    that ALL people who disagree with you about men-women issues
    are 'prime examples' - or at least ALL women who disagree with
    you about these things.
    
    (Steve Lionel expressed a strong agreement with Ellen Goodman's
    column and I haven't seen you call him a 'prime example,' yet 
    - Steve is indeed a feminist, and he joined NOW long before
    I did.  Somehow, I'll bet he won't be on the receiving end of
    your favorite expression.)

    
    re .209
    
    See note .205
    
    fred();

    	The only thing that surprises me about all this is the amount of
    publicity. About 6 months ago I read a news article that in Thailand
    the sequence :
    1) Husband is unfaithful
    2) Wife finds out and cuts penis off
    3) Surgeon sews it back on again
    had become so common that the women were now feeding the penises to
    geese to prevent step 3. Maybe when it happens in the US there is more
    money involved?

    At least Ellen Goodman was talking about a very specific phenomenon
    (presentations of 'the straw feminist' who is claimed to be talking 
    about cutting men's members, etc.) and Jeff's note did precisely that.
    
    When you say 'prime example,' it's used in a generic way without ANY
    direct references to a particular argument at all.
    
    Someone says 'XXX,' you say 'AHA, a prime example' (but you never
    say an example of 'what.'  It's just a good ole 'prime example' of
    something you never explain.)  The person says 'YYY' in a different
    topic, and you say 'AHA, a prime example' (but you still don't say
    an example of 'what.')
    
    Now a newspaper columnist publishes an extensive argument (about
    the subject at hand in this topic,) and we have a new person
    saying 'ZZZ,' and you say 'AHA, a prime example.'
    
    If you have an opposing argument to what Ellen Goodman wrote,
    let's hear it.  'Prime example' (used in so many different
    contexts against multiple people, *without an explanation*)
    is meaningless.      

    re .212
    
    No Susan,  I've been around too long to fall for your "if you can't
    prove your point to my satisfaction then you're wrong" tactics.

    But you've stooped to a new low in credibility to attack me for
    something that you did not just 4 notes before.   I was just
    trying to save Steve some disk space ;^).

    IMHO, neither Steve Lionel nor Ellen Goodmen for that matter
    have any more credibility than anyone else.  Goodman's using a
    "porn star" and "a man from 'something called' National Organization
    of Men" doesn't do much for may faith in her objectiveness.   Steve's
    statement that "nobody has shown" I find rather shakey when not
    10 notes berore there was an article that did just that.  Also my
    own personal experience (ie Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson)  tends
    to cause me to lump Ellen Goodmen in the "radical feminist" category.

    fred();

    Fred, nowhere in .194 do I see anyone quoted as advocating
    cutting off of men's penises.  I tend to disagree strongly with
    McKinnon's philosophies, but you're just making things up in this
    case, and expecting others to try to knock down your "straw feminist"
    argument.  Sorry, I won't play that game.
    
    				Steve

    
    reply .214

    Well I think McKinnon is at least as good a reference as a "porn star".
    Since when was McKinnon made out of straw?

    McKinnon did call Lorena's act, "A bold and courageous act of feminist 
    self-defense" (among other things).  I suppose you think she was talking 
    about Lorena being  nice and telling the police where to look?

    Also we'd already discussed the Roberts-Donaldson exchange about
    how the women in their respective offices were so gleeful that men
    were being "made to squirm".  I suppose if the facts don't agree
    with the opinion then the facts to matter??
    
    fred();

    Re: .215
    
    You do like to keep changing the subject, don't you?
    
    How do you get from "an act of self-defense" to advocacy of lopping
    off penises in general?  The jury essentially agreed with McKinnon
    that Lorena's act was a form of self-defense.
    
    As for men being "made to squirm", I say it's about time.  Women have
    been squirming for years whenever they encounter reports of rape and
    assault.  It may be that the only good thing that comes out of this
    incident is that some men might start to feel as vulnerable as women
    always have.
    
    					Steve

    Steve, "its about time men were made to squirm and feel vulnerable
    etc":

    Since when does making a population (in this case males) fearful help
    anybodies cause?  The men who would rape will now just make sure that
    the victim 'can't' cut off his penis, and the men who never would rape
    anyway still won't rape, but will feel fearful... how does this help?

    For me, (a guy who hasn't the slightest inclination to rape) this case
    has formed an image in my mind of women running around cutting
    mens penis' off.  That doesn't make me feel friendly toward women who
    say, or imply, thats its about time, and it should be done more.

    As far as the women in India? who feed the cut off organs to geese:
    Amazing! They have actually found a way to make the crime WORSE.  Will
    ingenuity never cease!  Geez, what other horrors can we dream up?
    
    To me taking something (in this case a penis) so someone else can't
    'have it' is the height of selfishness... pure greed and hate in my
    book. If the men are running around.. then divorce them.
    
    Jeff

    
    re. 216

    >    You do like to keep changing the subject, don't you?

    Just responding to your notes, Steve.

>    How do you get from "an act of self-defense" to advocacy of lopping
>    off penises in general?

    I think _most_ readers who will go back and read .194 will be
    able to figure it out.  


>  The jury essentially agreed with McKinnon
>    that Lorena's act was a form of self-defense.

    No they didn't.  They said it was an act of "temporary insanity".  This
    does not justify Lorena's act as McKinnon tries to.

    >As for men being "made to squirm", I say it's about time.  Women have
    >been squirming for years whenever they encounter reports of rape and
>    assault.  It may be that the only good thing that comes out of this
>    incident is that some men might start to feel as vulnerable as women
>    always have.

    Need I say more.  I'm sure I won't be able to convince _you_, but
    I think anybody that takes an _objective_ view of this discussion
    will be able to figure it out.  So unless you can come up with 
    some _facts_ or anything other than personal attacks or one feminist
    quoting another feminist, I suggest you take your own advice/threat 
    and write-lock this thing.

    fred();

        
>    As for men being "made to squirm", I say it's about time.  Women have
>    been squirming for years whenever they encounter reports of rape and
>    assault.  It may be that the only good thing that comes out of this
>    incident is that some men might start to feel as vulnerable as women
>    always have.

    So you approve of women feeling vulnerable and think it's a good thing?
    I don't think that's what you mean but if it's not I don't understand
    why it is a good thing for men to feel more vulnerable. I would think
    that the better thing would be to make everyone feel safer and less
    vulnerable.

    		Alfred

    Well Fred(), I don't have to prove I'm right when I express my personal
    opinion that the article by Ellen Goodman has your name all over it. 
    Your entire paranoid tirade within this string is a perfect example of
    what she's talking about.  I for one am no more concerned about the
    increased risk of castration than I ever was, but like most males, the
    thought of the actual event evokes much the same reaction as discussing
    being kicked in the groin - a peculiarly male reaction, but normal.  In
    either case, I tend to wince at just the thought.  Ascribing such
    behavior to some straw feminist agenda is, IMHO, paranoid in the
    extreme.  You might as well try to attribute it to a racial or
    religious agenda - it makes no sense.
    
    If you're really having trouble sleeping over irrational acts like
    Lorena's, I suggest you just don't take it out as much...;-)
    
    tim
    

    Jeff, do you think women are going to jump out of the bushes and
    cut men's penises off?  Do you think men will wake up during the
    night to find strange women standing over them to cut off their
    penises?  Do you think men will walk to their cars at night and
    find women who dash up to them and hijack their cars (for the
    purpose of cutting off their penises?)  Remember, the fears
    you have expressed are for an act (by Lorena Bobbitt) committed
    within a marriage.  It has *nothing* to do with women 'running
    around cutting men's penises off.'
    
    We're talking about vulnerability within a love relationship.
    
    The men who habitually abuse women do it because they get a kick
    out of over-powering someone else (especially a wife who is very
    hesistant to leave.)  It's a power trip and such men do feel
    quite invulnerable (as John Bobbitt probably did while he abused
    his 95 pound wife.)
    
    Men who feed on invoking fear and intimidating women they've
    promised to love and cherish would do well to realize that they
    are NOT completely invulnerable.
    
    I do not relish the thought of *anyone* being afraid (especially
    in a marriage,) but when you have a cultural situation where one
    sex is typically vulnerable and the other is typically NOT, then
    you don't have a situation where everyone can feel safe.
    
    The men who habitually abuse women also do it because they know
    they won't have to pay any sort of price for it.  If they thought
    there *might* be a price, I don't think most of them enjoy the
    power trip enough to become murderers of every single woman they
    might have simply abused.  I think many of them might realize
    that it's not a very good idea to bring violence into a situation
    where they could easily be on the receiving end of it someday.

    
    re .220

    There's an "African American" conservative talk show host in Denver
    named Kin Hamlin that got a quit a bit of national press lately.  One 
    quote I heard from him that I tend to like, "I don't care what you
    call me.  All I care about is--IS IT TRUE".

    As far as Goodman goes, I believe I have already debunked her "straw
    feminist" theory.  Cokie Roberts, McKinnon, Steve Lionel, and Suzanne
    are all going to be really P.o'ed when they find out they are made
    of straw and can be "blown away" in the first breeze.  At this
    point I'll leave that up to the _objective_ reader.

    As far as your "opinion" goes, I view it as just another personal
    attack that Steve warned about a few back.

    fred();

    What is 'an attempted copy cat of local'?  Did she anesthetize him?
                          

    Fred, you didn't debunk Ellen Goodman's column.
    
    She claims that some men are running around with the notion that
    the 'straw feminist' (a fictional variation on the idea of the
    women's movement) is running around advocating that women cut
    men's penises off.  She didn't name the men who said this, but
    we've seen men say this very thing *here* (in this topic,) so
    we have evidence that it's true.
    
    She also notes that the only real source (for advocating penis-
    cutting) is the famous anonymous caller from Ecuador.
    
    You pointed to a quote from Catherine McKinnon as being one entire
    female human being whom you claimed *does* want women to cut off
    penises, but her actual words said no such thing (even if this
    one individual person *could* be used as proof that the entire
    women's movement advocates this stance, which isn't valid either.)
    
    You dislike Ellen Goodman's column, obviously, but you haven't
    come within light years of debunking it.

    
    re .225
    
    Again I see little in new reason or _facts_ in your last reply
    and much in repetition and personal attack that Steve has already 
    warned about.
    
    I have repeatedly stated that I'm willing to leave judgement up
    to the _objective_ reader at this point.   Apparently some are
    not so confident of their positions.
    
    fred();

    Well, a jury of objective participants in the Lorena Bobbit trial
    has already rendered the only official judgment we're likely to
    see about all this, and they have _indeed_ spoken.
    

    Fred(),
    
    So, basically what I hear you saying is, if we don't agree with you, 
    then we're not objective?  Have you not attributed the alleged glee
    with which people like Cokie Roberts may have displayed (which I doubt)
    to some nebulous 'feminist agenda'?  Sounds remarkably like the Goodman
    article to me.  Nothing personal, Fred(), but if the shoe fits...
    
    tim
    

    
    
    You're repeating yourself again Suzanne.  I guess mod-Steve's warning
    was only directed at us non-PC noters.
    
    fred();

    
    re .228
    
>    So, basically what I hear you saying is, if we don't agree with you, 
>    then we're not objective?  
    
    Sigh...  Back in math and science classes I was told that to debunk
    a theory, you only had to come up with one example that disproves
    the theory.  I provided four of them.  Nobody disupted  my examples
    other that to launch personal attacks against _me_ rather than against
    my facts and reasoning.
    
    If you guys are going to keep quoting Goodman as an expert, can
    I start quoting Rush?
    
    fred();

    	How about if I flip a coin, and whoever wins gets to have the last
    word?
    					John
    

    What 4 examples did you provide to disprove Ellen Goodman's argument?
    
    (The examples would have had to be feminists or women's groups who
    *do* advocate that women should cut men's penises off to 'even the
    score' between men and women.  You didn't provide even one.)

    
    re .232

>    What 4 examples did you provide to disprove Ellen Goodman's argument?
>    
>    (The examples would have had to be feminists or women's groups who
>    *do* advocate that women should cut men's penises off to 'even the
>    score' between men and women.  You didn't provide even one.)

    I know there is not enough disk space here to convince _you_ of that
    Suzanne.  So, once again, I'll leave that up to the objective reader 
    to decide.

    fred();

    Fred, you can't hide the fact that you haven't listed 4 examples
    of feminists and/or women's groups (who have supposedly advocated
    that women cut off men's penises) to debunk Ellen Goodman's column.
    
    Such a list would be objective data, and you can't just claim it 
    exists (somewhere in this topic!) as a matter of opinion.
    
    The list is either here, or it isn't.  (It isn't!)

    
    If you are going to continue quoting Goodman as "proof".  What 
    makes her any more of an "authority" than say, George Will,
    Rush Limbaugh, or even (gasp) Sam Donaldson?
    
    fred();

    .224 Nashua NH. I have been trying to get more info. It was a local on
    the morning news. 
    
    As I can, I will find more on this case.
    
    

    Lorena's crime is nothing new.  She just got a lot of press for it. 
    The fact that others follow suit hardly makes it a trend.  She wasn't
    the first, and she wasn't the last.
    
    No one is claiming Goodman is an expert.  Her article rings true - she
    has an opinion, and I happen to agree with it.  Just look at Fred()'s
    writing.  As for Rush, well, it's pretty obvious that the only thing
    he's an expert at doing is making a lot of money in self-promotion.
    
    Ok, Fred(), name four feminists who have openly (and not merely by
    implication) advocated castration of abusive (or non-abusive) men.  
    
    tim
    

    re .237
    
    Where did Goodman quote anyone saying that women were saying 
    sepcifically "get your knives"?  You're changing the rules to now
    to demand that I now name 4 women that are saying "get your knives".

    I can't name 4 that have come right out and said "let's get our 
    meat cleavers and go get 'em".  However, in contradiction to Goodman's
    claim, there _are_ enough "feminists" saying  "yea Lorena" to make
    enough smoke to certainly make one wonder where  the fire is.  The
    quote used by Goodmand to "prove" her "straw  feminist" theory ("A lot
    of glee") was demonstrated blatantly later  by Steve Lionel (ie, Make
    men squirm).  Suzanne, in spite of her professions to the contrary, IMO,
    has certainly been and adamant supporter  of Lorena and Goodman.  Cokie
    Roberts and Sam Donaldson were commenting on how the women in their
    offices were cheering Lorean's acquittal.   Cokie herself blantly (to
    Sam Donaldsons astonishment) said she was glad men were now the ones
    being "made to squirm".  McKinnon is the most blatant example of all
    and quotes her "feminist conference".  (Are there at least four in
    there)?
    
>    No one is claiming Goodman is an expert.  

    Oh really?

    >Her article rings true - she
>    has an opinion, and I happen to agree with it.  

    But why is she any more of an expert that McKinnon whom Suzanne
    said was, "just one voice".

    >Just look at Fred()'s
>    writing.  

    Keep trying.  If you say it often enough and loud enough, People
    may start to believe it.

    >As for Rush, well, it's pretty obvious that the only thing
>    he's an expert at doing is making a lot of money in self-promotion.

    I'd hardly call a 20M per week listening audience _only_.

    BTW a South Korean newspaper has reported that a man has died after
    he was found bleeding outside a motel with his penis cut off.  The 
    Korean newspaper is quoted as saying, "The Bobbitt syndrome has come 
    to Korea.  This indicates that a time of reckoning has come for this 
    male-dominated society".

    fred();

    re .237
    
    Where did Goodman quote anyone saying that women were saying 
    sepcifically "get your knives"?  You're changing the rules to now
    to demand that I now name 4 women that are saying "get your knives".

    I can't name 4 that have come right out and said "let's get our 
    meat cleavers and go get 'em".  However, in contradiction to Goodman's
    claim, there _are_ enough "feminists" saying  "yea Lorena" to make
    enough smoke to certainly make one wonder where  the fire is.  The
    quote used by Goodmand to "prove" her "straw  feminist" theory ("A lot
    of glee") was demonstrated blatantly later  by Steve Lionel (ie, Make
    men squirm).  Suzanne, in spite of her professions to the contrary, IMO,
    has certainly been and adamant supporter  of Lorena and Goodman.  Cokie
    Roberts and Sam Donaldson were commenting on how the women in their
    offices were cheering Lorean's acquittal.   Cokie herself blantly (to
    Sam Donaldsons astonishment) said she was glad men were now the ones
    being "made to squirm".  McKinnon is the most blatant example of all
    and quotes her "feminist conference".  (Are there at least four in
    there)?
    
>    No one is claiming Goodman is an expert.  

    Oh really?

    >Her article rings true - she
>    has an opinion, and I happen to agree with it.  

    But why is she any more of an expert that McKinnon whom Suzanne
    said was, "just one voice".

    >Just look at Fred()'s
>    writing.  

    Keep trying.  If you say it often enough and loud enough, People
    may start to believe it.

    >As for Rush, well, it's pretty obvious that the only thing
>    he's an expert at doing is making a lot of money in self-promotion.

    I'd hardly call a 20M per week listening audience _only_.  Besides,
    since when has it been a bad thing in the U.S.A. to make a few bucks.
    Legally that is, and so far I don't think anyone has accused Rush of
    making his money illegally.

    BTW (from the radio as I am writing this) a South Korean newspaper has
    reported that a man has died after he was found bleeding outside a
    motel with his penis cut off.  The  Korean newspaper is quoted as
    saying, "The Bobbitt syndrome has come  to Korea.  This indicates that
    a time of reckoning has come for this  male-dominated society".

    fred();

    	At least I have learned a new PC term from this topic.
    
    Dave, who will be celebrating 25 years of legalised monogamous rape
    (LMR?) in less than 6 months time.

    RE: .238 or .239 Fred

    Tim wrote: 

    .237> Ok, Fred(), name four feminists who have openly (and not merely by
    .237> implication) advocated castration of abusive (or non-abusive) men.  
                           
    You responded:

    .239> re .237
    .239> Where did Goodman quote anyone saying that women were saying
    .239> sepcifically "get your knives"?  You're changing the rules to now
    .239> to demand that I now name 4 women that are saying "get your
    .237> knives".

    Fred, more important, where did Tim (the author of .237) say anything
    about "get your knives"?  (You made this up!)

    .239> I can't name 4 that have come right out and said "let's get our
    .239> meat cleavers and go get 'em".

    NEITHER can you do what Tim really did ask of you:

    	You can't "name four feminists who have openly (and not merely by
        implication) advocated castration of abusive (or non-abusive) men"!  
                           
    > However, in contradiction to Goodman's claim, there _are_ enough 
    > "feminists" saying  "yea Lorena" to make enough smoke to certainly 
    > make one wonder where  the fire is. 

    You can't substantiate this, either, Fred.  Accepting and/or agreeing
    with the verdict in Lorena's trial is not the same thing as saying,
    "yea Lorena."

    Look - NO ONE demanded that you debunk Ellen Goodman's column.
    You made the foolish claim that you had done so, and people asked
    you to back up YOUR CLAIM (which you have been unable to do.)

    If you're trying now to accuse Steve Lionel and me of advocating
    that women cut off men's penises, you're only making your specious
    argument worse.  

        re .241

    Once again I am willing to leave that up to the _objective_ reader.
    I am quite comfortable that the objective reader will be able to 
    judge for themselves.  And once again I believe you make a better
    example than you do argument.

    My argument has been not that women are running around saying, "lets
    go cut off their penises", but to show that Goodmen's "straw feminist"
    is not as grassy as she would like us to believe.  If you (the
    objective reader) go back and re-read Goodman's column with an eye on
    just what she is really doing, you will find that Goodman, in true
    "journalist" style, deliberately and cleverly avoids  directly accusing
    anybody of  actually saying "lets cut off their penises".  Instead,
    what she actually does is to try to prove her "straw feminist" theory
    by inventing a "straw-antifeminist".  SHE DOES THE VERY THING SHE IS
    ACCUSING MEN OF DOING.

    fred();

    Fred,
    
    Anyone who is concerned about his or her SO chopping off body parts
    probably needs to seriously reexamine their relationship

    re .243

    The same might be said for women that are in "abusive" relationships.
    However, as I've said before, having a sane and rational relationship
    requires _two_ sane and rational people.  It isn't always real clear
    which one is sane and which one not.

    fred();

    RE: .242  Fred
    
    Ok, fine.
    
    Feminists who advocate women cutting off men's penises DO exist,
    but anti-feminists (who say feminists advocate women cutting off
    men's penises) DO NOT exist.  Right, Fred.
    
    This paradox makes about as much sense as anything you've ever
    written.  :>
    
    (If you're planning to say 'Once again [for the 6th or 7th time]
    I am willing to leave that up to the _objective_ reader' or
    something about a 'prime example' [for the countless time in
    this file] - save the keystrokes.  Consider it stated.  Again.)

    Re .221  "do I think women are going to jump out of bushes cutting off
    mens' penis'?"
    
    Susan, no I don't, I think I am FAR more likely to get shot in a drive
    by shooting.
    
    I was saying that having women jump around with glee at Lorenas' act
    shouting its about time, doesn't make me feel warmly toward those
    women.  Its the equavalent of a bunch of men yelling with glee over 
    a hypothetical breast amputation of one of Lorenas' breasts as revenge.
    
    My point is that 'feminists' wind up looking badly to men by being TOO
    delighted over what Lorena did.  She did have alternatives to using the
    knife, such as leaving him.
    
    Jeff

    RE: .246  Jeff
    
    > I was saying that having women jump around with glee at Lorenas' act
    > shouting its about time, doesn't make me feel warmly toward those
    > women. 
    
    What are the names of the women you've witnessed 'jumping around
    with glee'?  (You said 'impression' - did you mean that you haven't
    actually seen this?)
    
    By the way, how do you feel about the many, many men who have joked
    about John Bobbitt's severed penis.  Do you have the same feelings
    (of non-warmth) towards them?
    
    Suzanne

    ...many on both sides have made jokes about it. Because its soo sick
    and soo unbelieve-able that someone would actually do such. Yet... as
    the days pass, there are may local stories of copy cats..... beats me
    Susan. Esp with your programs of 'Take Back the Night', and other such
    things to make aware that there is crime against women. Yet, when the
    shoes are on the other foot.... it is a different game... self defence
    and of course marrital abuse. 
    
    Leaving him would have been the smartest move. I will certainly opt
    that as the premier option. 
    
    

    None of your 'local stories of copy cats' have made the national
    news (as far as I've seen.)
    
    Lorena Bobbitt was entitled to be tried on the merits of her own
    case, no matter *how* many women you are afraid will copy her actions.
    
    As for leaving him - *OF COURSE* that is what she should have done
    (and she recommends to abused women to *get help*, *tell someone*,
    or to take *any other action* that would help stop the abuse rather
    than do what she did.)
    
    She faced a court of law over what she did - and the case is over.

    
    re .249

    >    She faced a court of law over what she did - and the case is over.

    Would you say the same for Donna Yacklich?  Yet ABC is fixing to resurrect
    that whole sordid affair as a "poor little abused Donna" Made for TV 
    movie tomorrow night.  There's another tonight about some woman who
    hired four teenagers to murder her husband because "he abused me".

    FYI, Donna hired two brothers to shotgun her police-oficer husband
    as he returned home from work.  She promised to pay them out of a
    rather substantial insurance policy. The first trial ended in mistrial.
    It wasn't until the middle of the second trial that the "I've been
    abused" defense came up.  She was fixing to go down from Murder 1.
    During the trial, she tried to have Dennis's kids evicted from the
    house that Dennis had built with his own hands before they were
    even married so that she could sell it to help pay her attorney's 
    fees.  She was convicted of "conspiracy to commit murder" and got
    40 years.  In Colorado, she can keep the money from the movie.

    My wife knew both Dennis and Donna personally.  My sister-in-law
    went to school with him.

    fred();

    In the Donna Yacklich case, I agreed with that verdict, too.
    She was found guilty and is serving time.
    
    ABC can tell the story any way they want - it has nothing whatever
    to do with Lorena Bobbitt's trial (or the verdict.)
    

    ....lets us not forget Pam Smart who hired her young student beau's to
    bump off her husband, Paul Smart. Dont shoot him in front of the
    dog.... Dont want to tramitize the dog.........
    
    

    You guys are listing women who are serving 40 years (or life
    sentences) for killing their husbands.
    
    Earlier, I thought some of you said that women don't *do* much 
    time for this particular crime - didn't you?  :>
    
    (By the way, I agreed with the verdict in the Pam Smart case, too.)

    
    re .251

    It does have bearing on something that I pointed out early on in
    this topic.  That you can get away with almost anything if you can
    come up with a good "I've been abused" story.  IMO, Donna should have
    gone "up the river" for Murder-1.  Now she is trying to get the 40
    year sentence reduced or overturned.  As it is, she will be eligible
    for parole in 2006.  From what I've seen and heard about the ABC
    movie, it is extremely distorted from the facts.  I  don't know if
    I have enough airplane bags to allow me to set through the movie.

    fred();

    Fred, Donna is serving a 40 year sentence.  She didn't 'get away
    with almost anything.'
    
    Sure, she's trying to get the sentence overturned - it's what
    prison inmates DO in their spare time (they go for one appeal
    after another until they run out.)
    
    None of these cases have anything to do with Lorena Bobbitt's
    case (unless you think Lorena should have been tried based on
    Donna's or Pam Smart's actions.)
    
    If you were on trial, would you like to be convicted base on
    the idea that other people are probably guilty of their crimes
    (or the idea that no one wants anyone to COPY what you've been
    accused of doing?)
    
    Each case deserves to be tried on its own merits.

	>    ....lets us not forget Pam Smart who hired her young student beau's to
	>    bump off her husband, Paul Smart. Dont shoot him in front of the
    	>    dog.... Dont want to tramitize the dog.........
    
It was Greg Smart who was killed, and don't forget the white carpet!    
    
    /Bob

    
    re 255

>    Fred, Donna is serving a 40 year sentence.  She didn't 'get away
>    with almost anything.'

    Considering what she should have gotten, and the fact that she'll 
    get out of prison in a few years with a nice little nest egg, I'd
    say she got away with it.

>    None of these cases have anything to do with Lorena Bobbitt's
>    case (unless you think Lorena should have been tried based on
>    Donna's or Pam Smart's actions.)

    They do, however, have something to do with the larger topic of being
    able to use "I've been abused" as a defense for murder or mutilation.

    fred();

    Donna has been in prison for 5 years and goes up for a parole
    HEARING 12 years from now.
    
    She has no guarantee of being released on the first hearing,
    of course, but even if she is, '12 years from now' is not
    'a few years' from now.
    
    I do agree with you that criminals should not be allowed to
    profit from books about their crimes.  I was also bothered
    quite a bit when Jeffrey McDonald (the Marine who murdered
    his pregnant wife and two small children) was able to profit
    by the book about his crime (even though the author of
    "Fatal Vison" wrote the book in agreement with his guilty
    verdict.)
    
    NO ONE should be allowed to profit from books about their
    own crimes.

    Suzanne, re: .247 jumping with glee etc.
    
    Jumping with glee is a figure of speech which symbolizes attitude.
    There is a difference between being GLAD that she did it, which is
    the attitude I am referring to, and joking about it. I have joked
    about it in this string. That doesn't mean I am glad about it.
    
    I would feel the same way toward a man who was glad she did it. I
    have some understanding of WHY she did it but that doesn't mean I
    am glad she did it.
    
    Which women by name have I seen 'jumping with glee': As I said above
    jumping with glee is a figure of speech.  But I have seen women on TV
    who appear to be gleefull about it, I can't remember the names.
    
    Jeff

    Fred has brought up two cases where the criminal didn't benefit from
    claiming abuse.  
    
    So, um fred, what is your point?  I did notice that you were unable to
    detach yourself from the "woman" thing even though my last reply was
    emphatically NOT gender specific.

    re .260

    >    Fred has brought up two cases where the criminal didn't benefit from
    >claiming abuse.  

    Ahem.  I only brought up one of them.  And I'd certainly call it a
    benefit to get 40 years (only about 15 will actually be served) and
    a hefty TV contract rather than Life without parole or "the penalty"
    a benefit.  You may not, but your mileage will vary.

    >So, um fred, what is your point?  

    If you haven't caught on by now, it may be a bit difficult to explain
    it.  The point is the use of "I've been abused" as a justification/
    defense of up to and including murder.  Although the Menendez (sp)
    case is a notable male case, the vast majority of these cases have been
    women.

    I'm waiting for the "feminist" reaction to the first time a man
    claims he went "temporarily" insane because she tried to cut off his
    penis and so he took the knife way and slashed her to ribbons.

    >I did notice that you were unable to
>    detach yourself from the "woman" thing even though my last reply was
>    emphatically NOT gender specific.

    And someone's going to have a tough time detaching me from my
    "man" thing too, I tell you what ;^).

    fred();

    In Colorado, we also had the case of the man who got his girlfriend
    to kill his wife (a previous girlfriend whom he had asked to kill
    her had refused to do it.)
    
    The man said the girlfriend killed his wife on her own (because
    he had broken up with her,) but on the day of a killing, a
    policeman gave the two of them (the man and his girlfriend) 
    a verbal warning for going "parking" (as in having sex) in his
    car in broad daylight.  (Yes, it happened on the same day his
    wife was killed.)
    
    He called around to ask the location and time of a meeting his
    wife was attending, and lo and behold, during the exact time
    (10 minutes or so) when the crime was being committed, he made
    a series of short long-distance phone calls (nice alibi, eh?)
    
    He was convicted and got 16 years.  The girlfriend got 'life
    without possibility of parole.'
    
    So when Donna hired teens to kill her husband, the 40 years she
    got (although her first parole hearing will be at the 17 year
    point) is a lot more than the 16 years this guy got.
    
    He'll be up for parole *way* before she is (even though he's only
    been in prison for less than 18 months.)

Well, fred(), I'm an objective reader, and I strongly disagree with you.
That blows one of your theories...;-) (Re: .242)

I agree with Goodman simply because I hear people expressing opinions just
like yours, which Goodman describes and debunks quite neatly.  All she has
described is a classic, hysterical reactionary, of which your arguments
herein make a very clear example.  

Relax, fred(), the feminists aren't going to hurt you. ;-)

tim

    re .263, oh, don't tell him that!  I'd rather keep him on edge for
    awhile.  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    Fred,
    
    There was also the man in Denver who the judge gave 5 years work
    release after he hacked his wife to pieces.  The man had an
    "irrisistable impulse" to do this, because she had the gall to leave him
    after he had broken her collarbone, her nose, and she had recovered
    from multiple beatings in the past.  The beatings cfouldn't be brought
    into the hearing, as they had happened a month before.  
       
    Another note, while men are in more danger from random killings, it
    turns out the most likely place for a woman to be a victim of a violent
    crime is in her home, by someone she is involved with.
    
    Meg  

    other .263
    
>Well, fred(), I'm an objective reader, and I strongly disagree with you.
    
    8^})
    
    fred();
    

    
    re .265
    
    So maybe we can both agree that the "irresistable impules" is not
    such a good thing as a defense?
    
    fred();

    Meanwhile, the woman who was hacked to death is still dead.
    
    John Bobbitt is alive and well (with a fully functional penis,
    or so the reports are saying) and making personal appearances.
    
    

    
    re .268
    
    So?
    
    fred();

    .268
    
    ....so is Greg Smart. He is also dead. So is Tom West, he killed
    himself because he was beaten severly by his wife who took karata
    lessons that he paid for. 
    
    When he went to the Exeter police about it. They laughed at him. He
    filed for divorce. Then at the bad advice of his attorney, took 
    a job in Washington State. I guess he could not handle it and took
    his life..... He wored for Mircro Soft.
    
    There are many other dead men I could talk about too. Perhaps you
    should attend the fathers group out here in New Hampshire for a night.
    It is truely an eye opener. 
    
    The man who had his truck set on fire, that I deleted in the womens
    note.... He is still alive. He is lucky that he isnt dead from the
    hands of his ex who set afire his truck, has tampered with his phone,
    and has tampered with his mail. 
    
    I know another man, he is the acting president of this local chapter
    of the fathers group,,,,,
    His ex is an officer of some state held division of personel. Hired or
    oppointed by our beloved governer..... he has been beaten to, by his
    ex. He knew if he lifted a hand to defend himself, brused her in
    any way, he would look like the villian......he stood there and took
    it. His cut lip, blacked eye... beats me Susan. I guess this is 
    just another civil war.....north agianst the south, east vs west, women
    vs the men.....why? People thinking with thier loins before their
    heads/brains. If L had left Johnny before she got hurt. If this or
    that.....
    
    
    
     unsbs. ferlfi  

       In regards to Mr Bobbitt's member: one surgeon was reported in the
    media as saying- "in cases of this nature,full functionality is never
    regained."
       Perhaps an implant device might be considered a future possibility?

    RE: .270  Rauh
    
    As you know, there are many, many, many dead women (killed by their
    husbands or boyfriends) that I could write about, too.
    
    ...such as, the woman who was chased in a car in downtown Denver,
    and when her ex forced her car to stop in a gutter, she was
    gunned down when she tried to run away (in front of hundreds of
    people on their way to work during rush hour.)
    
    ...or the other woman in Denver who wrote lengthy "Goodbye"
    letters to her family and children because she knew her ex was
    going to kill her (but also knew that nothing could be done
    to stop him, since his threats to kill her just got worse after
    every move she made to protect herself.)  She left 2 very young
    boys behind with letters from her.
    
    John Bobbitt (who supposedly claims his penis is fully functional,
    although he says it works 'different' than before) is luckier than
    all these people.  He's also lucky that he wasn't beaten up for
    4 years (the way he had beaten up someone else.)

    Having waded through the mire that masquerades as dialog in this topic
    I have formed the conclusion that contributors: BSS::S_CONLON and
    CSC32::HADDOCK deserve one another. If left alone together for a
    sufficient length of time I wonder which bits each might be inclined to
    cut from the other?
    
    Bucko...
    

    Yea, this is getting a little tedious.  So...people of both genders are
    imminently capable of acting like total jerks (I'm talking about the
    Bobbitts here)...what else is new?
    
    Any votes for closing the topic as a stalemate?  This is going nowhere.
    
    tim
    

    You got my vote, Tim.
    
    The trial is over, and even John Bobbitt is moving towards getting
    on with his life.
    
    Let's do the same.  

    in the mean time there are 80 million women with missing parts in the
    world.  clitorectomies and infibulation AKA the sanitized name of
    female circumcizion going on and rarely does anyone raise hell about
    this.  One man loses his parts and may or may not be able to function
    completely and the world raises hell, but there are almost no voices
    regarding this brutality where these women will never have any function
    in their mutilated parts.

    I don't believe he could have regained full functionality... the nerves
    were cut, and, for the most part nerves don't regenerate.  I believe he
    is permanently injured physically, as she is mentally.
    
    Actually, I am sure they BOTH were injured mentally. Play hardball and
    you pay I guess.
    
    Jeff

    re .276
    Meg,
    	I think you have to bear in mind that the purpose of the news is to
    keep people entertained for two hours per night, and to sell a lot of
    detergent.  This incident pertains to here and now in the US.  An
    african practice that we may think of as barbaric just isn't going to
    sell a lot of soap.  There is some level of awareness about the issue
    in this country, but unless the news can sell it the way that they did
    Somalia, nothing is going to happen in this country.
    	Personally I would like to know what is happening with the Waco
    trial and whether Idaho is going to indict federal agents for their
    attack on the Weaver family.  Unfortunatly both of these although they
    might make better news than John and Lorena or Tonya and Nancy are
    being blacked out by most of the media.
    						John
    

>            clitorectomies and infibulation AKA the sanitized name of
>    female circumcizion going on and rarely does anyone raise hell about
>    this.

It seems to me that "female circumcision" is the euphemism, or at least
a misnomer.

There's also a significant difference.  Where clitorectomy is practiced,
it's generally part of the indigenous culture.  Penectomy (?) is not part
of American culture.  Please note that I am not defending clitorectomy.

================================================================================
Note 110.200                The Lorena Bobbitt topic                  200 of 279
SOLVIT::SOULE "Pursuing Synergy..."                   2 lines  27-JAN-1994 22:48
                        -< What do the children think? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    So, What/how have you folks explained this Bobbitt "saga" to your
    children?  How have they reacted?

Re: .280

My 10-year-old son appears to be unaware of this particular circus and hasn't
asked for any sort of explanation.  Why do you ask?

				Steve

Re.276

> 	One man loses his parts and may or may not be able to function
> 	completely and the world raises hell

	The malicious intent of the attack drove to the very core of mens
	manhood - that and that the attack took place in the worlds 1st
	nation is what caught everybodys attention.

	That Lorena was found not guilty and that the feminist movements in
	America are supportive of this action is very scary. Anybody in their
	right mind doesn't believe she was in the right.

>	in the mean time there are 80 million women with missing parts in the
>	world.

	I'm not sure where you get your figures from but I doubt that they
	are correct. The point though, which I agree with, is that even 1 
	woman having this done is one woman too many but influencing change 
	in other cultures takes time and money. We've learned that haven't
	we ?

	The only other point that I'd add is that the feminist movement 
	has achieved a great deal for womens' rights up to now but this
	action is one that a humanist would denounce: I hope that women
	maintain that sense.

	- Paul\

    John Wayne Bobbitt's willy has gone to heaven I'm afraid son.
    
    Bucko...

Re.280

> 	So, What/how have you folks explained this Bobbitt "saga" to your
>	children?  How have they reacted?

	Why would any parent choose to separate this crime from any of
	the other 'bodily harm' type crimes that some sick person in society
	might commit ? 

	This incidence will unfortuneatley only serve to hinder relationships
	between men and woman and it's already a politically correct minefield
	for our young, and older singles, as it is.

	- Paul.\

> John Wayne Bobbitt's willy has gone to heaven I'm afraid son.

	That's a great line, Bucko, I enjoyed that - typical you.

	- Paul.

	P.S. How's Debs - give her a kiss on the nose from me, please.

    Many thanks for the appreciative comment - I thought it was rather cute
    too.
    
    I shall pass on your regards to Deborah, and John, but since the
    verdict came in in Virginia last week physical relations between us are
    conducted through our lawyers so the kiss on the nose will have to be
    by proxy...
    
    Bucko...
    

    The figures of 80 million maimed women came from the World Health
    Organization.  There is now concern as we get more people coming in
    from the part of the world that practices mutilating young women, that
    this practice will occur here, just as it has started occuring in
    Europe, among people who have immigrated from those cultures.

    
        I'n not going to bother reading all these replies.  And I don't
    know if it's been brought up...... but...
    
       He would still have his manhood if he was a nice, caring, respectful
    type.  Maybe he has played the abuser/bully since grade school, and
    this is his payback.  Who knows. 
    
      I think our accumlative goodness or nastyness comes back to us in
    some form or another. ( key work here is accumulative )
    
      On the other side, if he was that bad behind closed doors, why
    didn't she just leave him long ago ???   Life's too short to spend time
    with someone if it doesn't work out.   If she had the guts to do this,
    she should had the guts to walk long ago.
    
    
       

        re .288

>       He would still have his manhood if he was a nice, caring, respectful
>    type.  Maybe he has played the abuser/bully since grade school, and
>    this is his payback.  Who knows. 

    That's sort of like saying, "If she was a better wife, maybe he
    wouldn't have beat her so much".  

    re female circumcision

    Just as soon as we fix Somalia, Bosnia, China, and a few other things
    we are finding we have no power to fix, we'll get around to it.
    I know.  If they don't stop it right now, we'll nuke-'em into a sheet
    of radioactive glass--That'l teach 'em %^}).

    fred();

Re: .282

>	That Lorena was found not guilty and that the feminist movements in
>	America are supportive of this action is very scary.


You (and others) speak of "the feminist movement(s)" as if it were a particular
organization with a well-defined leadership and political view.  There is no
such thing; in essence, you're describing Goodman's "straw feminist" again.
Why keep resurrecting this bogey-woman?

				Steve

    re .291
    
    >Why keep resurrecting this bogey-woman?
    
    Because the boogey-woman is already on the loose.
    
    fred();

    
 .280> Why do you ask?

       Curiosity on my part...  My six-year-old son also doesn't know (or at
       least hasn't said anything) about this affair but I imagine some
       folks children may have caught this on the news resulting in some
       type of discussion.  

 .284> Why would any parent choose to separate this crime from any of
 .284> the other 'bodily harm' type crimes that some sick person in society
 .284> might commit ? 

       In this particular case, the Circus came to town, and, what a sideshow!
       Usually when a "crime" is committed the perpetrator is punished (at
       least this is what we try to teach our children).  What message do 
       these cases send to impressionable children (or adults for that matter)?

 .284> This incidence will unfortuneatley only serve to hinder relationships
 .284> between men and woman...

       Maybe not...  There has been much "communication" about this topic,
       and, as a whole, people are distancing themselves from John and Lorena,
       i.e., John was/is a jerk and Lorena was wrong to do what she did (leave
       when abused is the "rational" thing to do)...  

       If John were to kill Lorena, would he get off?

      I shouldn't do this but here goes.......
    
    
       
    
       What did Jeffrey Dohmer say to Lorena Bobbitt?
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
       Are you going to eat that thing?
    
    
    

    > The malicious intent of the attack drove to the very core of mens
    > manhood
    
    I know exactly what you mean, but I disagree substantially with your
    evaluation of the importance to being a man of that body part.  You 
    are undoubtedly right that similar thinking by many people worldwide 
    is part of the reason for all the hoopla.  But the 'core' of manhood
    isn't the penis, its the mind; and the acts driven by that mind.  I
    would agree with your statement if you changed it thus: "...the attack
    drove to the very core of one man's manhood" because John Wayne Bobbitt
    probably does, or used to, define himself through his penis.  I don't,
    and I don't think men are wise to do so.
    
    DougO

    What I'd like to know is how in the heck is either one of them ever
    going to find another date after this?
    
    Who in their right mind would want to take a chance with either of
    them?
    
    And, if we do read in the news, in a year or two, that one or both of
    them have remarried, then we'll *really* know there are some sickos out
    there.
    
    I, basically, agree with Jack in .288.
    
    Lorna
    

    Hmmm, I don't think Lorena is all that dangerous, as long as you don't
    beat her, abuse her, and rape her for years.  I'm sure some other men
    who may actually meet her will feel the same way.
    
    DougO

    re .297, yeah, but, you know how sometimes when a nice person takes in
    a stray dog or cat that was abused by previous owners, it will still
    sometimes bite or scratch the nice new owner, for no reason at all?  I
    mean, if she was abused to the point where she got so fed up that she
    resorted to maiming another person, maybe she has a permanently short
    fuse now, and might fly off the handle and go beserk at the least
    little thing?  I don't know.  That's what I'd be thinking if I were a
    guy.  I just wouldn't want to deal with it.
    
    And, as far as John Bobbitt goes, I don't even want to imagine what it
    might look like now.  
    
    Lorna
    

    
    Another side note.  Jeff Galouli(sp) has just plead guilty to 
    Racketeering charges and has named Tanya Harding as a co-conspirator.
    The attorney for Tanya Harding has just stated, "Today's appearance
    by Galouli is just another case of Galouli's abuse of Tanya".

    fred();

        re 298

>    re .297, yeah, but, you know how sometimes when a nice person takes in
>    a stray dog or cat that was abused by previous owners, it will still
>    sometimes bite or scratch the nice new owner, for no reason at all?  I
>    mean, if she was abused to the point where she got so fed up that she
>    resorted to maiming another person, maybe she has a permanently short
>    fuse now, and might fly off the handle and go beserk at the least
>    little thing?  

    Lorna, You are engaging in the same "blaming the victim" that I've
    seen you rail against in the past.  This is the same thing as saying
    "she pushed him to beat her".

    fred();

    re .300, so far you've accused me of blaming the victim in regards to
    *both* of the Bobbits.  Just because I'm honest enough to admit that,
    were I a man, I wouldn't be interested in a date with Lorena Bobbit,
    doesn't mean I'm blaming anybody for anything.  It may mean I'm
    overcautious, on the other hand.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .296
    Some day in the future, two people will end up in the same room
    at the same time.  Panic will ensue as others spot them, and as
    the men and women run for their lives, these two will be left
    alone, and will come together by default - Lorena Bobbitt and
    Bob Packwood.
    
    bs

    Your feeling may be based on a news story you've forgotten:
    
    	Lorena's representatives announced immediately after the
    	verdict that she would be going back to her home country
    	to visit her parents as soon as she is released from the
    	hospital.  Then, she will return to the U.S. to work.

    A woman aged 51 has been charged in Frankfurt na der Oder, eastern
    Germany, with cutting off and burning the penis of a man who allegedly
    attacked her.
    
    In Ankara, a woman who cut off her lover's penis last week was released
    because he did not press charges, a Turkish newspaper said. - AFP
    
    Bucko...
    

>     <<< Note 110.292 by CSC32::HADDOCK "Don't Tell My Achy-Breaky Back" >>>
>
>    re .291
>    
>    >Why keep resurrecting this bogey-woman?
>    
>    Because the boogey-woman is already on the loose.
>    
>    fred();
    
    Really?  What's her name, this spokeswoman of the 'feminist movement'
    whom you keep mentioning...?
    
    tim
    

    >Thanks for the tip. I am going to write my congressperson to block
    >her returning to this country.
    
    Just out of curiosity: on what grounds?

    What does female 'circumcision' have to do with the Bobbit case?  How
    does a legal surgical procedure compare with a mutilation attack? If
    its a cultural practice (similiar to male circumcision in the U.S.) its
    quite different from being attacked with a knife and having a body part
    cut off. Female 'circumcision' may be a barbaric practice but IMO it
    doesn't compare to the Bobbit case, and not because its women involved
    instead of men.  Cutting mens penis' off is not an accepted U.S.
    cultural practice.  THAT is the difference.
    
    Jeff
    

    Actually, 'female circumcision' (so-called) is *exactly* the practice
    of attacking someone with a knife and having a body part cut off.
    
    The young girls (12 years old or so) are captured and taken to a
    barber who spreads their legs and cuts off portions of the screaming
    girls' labia (and sometimes sews up their vagina except for a small 
    hole for menstruation.)
    
    The husband brings a knife to the wedding night (and he cuts open
    the vagina before having sex with his wife.)
    
    The girls aren't given any sort of anesthetic when they are mutilated,
    nor are they given anesthetics when their husbands cut them open
    with a knife on the wedding night.

    Jeff said that 'female circumcision' didn't involve an attack with
    a knife to cut off body parts, so I was simply explaining to him
    that he is quite mistaken (since that is *exactly* what happens to
    young girls who experience this.)

    'Female circumcision' may be an accepted part of some cultures, but it
    is against the law in countries like Holland.
    
    Charles Mallo

    re .310, careful writing stuff like that, Suzanne.  (we don't want to
    get any of these guys turned on)
    
    re Jeff, Suzanne is exactly right.  Female circumcision is a maiming
    attack with a knife, whether it's legal in certain countries or not. 
    Read "Possessing the Secret of Joy" by Alice Walker.  It's both
    enlightening and horrifying.
    
    Lorna
    

RE:  307

    >> Thanks for the tip. I am going to write my congressperson to block
    >> her returning to this country.

AIMHI::RAUH --	Did you *really* do this?  Unless you're in the habit of 
		writing many letters to your congress-person, I can't believe
		someone would actually waste their time writing in 
		regards to such a *non-issue*.  I hope for your sake that 
		your comment was in jest.  If not...   

	--tom

    Oh. I sure didn't understand what was going on with it did I.  Well,
    now I know. So I think you can disregard my prior example.
    
    Jeff

    re: .309
    
    	Female circumcision is not that far from what John Bobbit
    experienced in that the clitorus - which is the female analog 
    of the penis -  is also often removed.  Makes you wonder why 
    there is so *much* interest (world wide, not just in the U.S.) 
    in the Bobbit case when there are so many women who are forced 
    to undergo a similar mutilation......
    
    Susan  

    re .319, there is a big difference between circumcizing 12 yr. old
    girls, and what is done to baby boys in this country.  All the
    circumcized men I have ever known have had no trouble with still
    enjoying sex, whereas many circumcized women are never able to have
    painless sex again in their entire lives.  It's torture for them.  If
    you actually took the time to read about this you would realize the
    difference.
    
    re .318, exactly.
    
    Lorna
    

    The men deported in the Big Dan rape were convicted of rape.  
    Ms. Bobbitt, in case you have forgotten, was deemed not guilty.
    
    So, I ask again: on what grounds?

Re: .319

>    Many baby males under go circumcision on a daily basis. It hurts them
>    too.

Although you are certainly entitled to your opinion on this issue, however
uninformed that opinion might be, it is painfully obvious from this one
entry that you don't have a clue as to what is being discussed.

>OK...its
>   done in other countries.... not here. And nether is circumcision of 
>   young women,

Culturally acceptable or not, this type of mutilation is, in fact, being
imported to our country.

>   Jeff, got to consider the source. Remember they have an adjenda they
>   want to stuff down your throat.

Indeed, consider the source - especially when it comes to which source
seems to be better informed on the topic of discussion.  Now, then, who
would appear to have the agenda (sp) to force upon the public?  It's
pretty difficult to take you seriously when appears that you are not
even adequately informed on the basic facts.

tim

    Tim. re. 225 difficult to take me seriously because I am uninformed on
    female circ.  I thought I stated a few back that I was misinformed on
    that topic and that my earlier entry on that topic should, therefore,
    be disregarded?
    
    What do you want anyway?
    
    Is that comment supposed to mean that anything I say is not to be taken
    seriously, or only on that subject?  If that is the case, I will save my
    breath and not bore you with more 'uninformed' opinions.
    
    Geez, give me a break.
    
    Jeff

    
    I *think* one possible point might be that there *is* a reason to
    compare.  *How* can you say it's not relevant?  
    
    
    
    
    
    Mutilation of women is culturally accepted, even, as I understand it
    culturally enshrined.
    
    Yet
    
    the mutilation of one man has the world aghast.
    
    
    
    Why? I don't get it.
    Jamd
    
    *IF* 

    Just to enlighten you about female circumcision vs male circumcision:
    the foreskin covering the glans is removed in male circumcision (my
    opinion on the barbarity of that doesn't come into play).  If a man had
    the equivelent of female circumcision performed on him he would be
    missing the ENTIRE penis with only a small hole left at the pelvis to
    pee through.  
    
    Meg

    Re: .326
    
>         <<< Note 110.326 by AIMHI::RAUH "I survived the Cruel Spa" >>>
>
>    Tim... Young women are not being multilated in the USA. Right? Why are
>    you trying to shove this with your buds into the issue of the Ms.
>    Bobbit? Whats your adjenda?
    
    I have none.  I'm just following YOUR conversation, if you don't mind. 
    ...and yes, I believe young women are being mutilated here in the US,
    too...I've seen a couple of recent articles on the subject, based on
    transplanted cultural traditions - I believe the article referred to
    immigrant Haitians, but I'm not sure.  But that's not really my point,
    which is that you are making an emotional argument before you have your
    facts straight - and that makes it hard to take you seriously.
    
    Re: .327 (Jeff)
    
    Look closer - I was quoting and referring to RAUH, not you...sorry if
    you got confused about that, but I thought the quotes and references
    were pretty clear...
    
    tim
    

    
    As has been repeated ad.naseum. NEITHER female circumcision NOR
    Bobbitting is acceptable in the U.S.  As we are becoming painfully
    aware in Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, China, North Korea, Russia, Cuba, 
    etc, etc, we have little or no control what happens outside the U.S. 
    (Unless you maybe want to send the B52's (the planes not the rock
    group) over and carpet-bomb 'em.  Or maybe we could send Rush
    Limbaugh's First Amazon Battalion ;^) ). Trying to justify Lorena
    Bobbitt by something that we have no control over (which it certainly
    appears that some are trying to do here) is hypocritical at best and
    fraud in the extreme.

    fred();

    The *point* is that John Bobbitt's injury didn't just make big news
    in this country.  It was a big story around the world!
    
    No one's trying to justify what Lorena did simply because 80 million
    women go through the same knife attack on their genitals that John
    received!
    
    It's just an abomination that one man's injury to his penis can be
    such a significant world event while the same injuries to 80 million
    women can be virtually ignored around the world.

>    It's just an abomination that one man's injury to his penis can be
>    such a significant world event while the same injuries to 80 million
>    women can be virtually ignored around the world.

Well, don't blame the folloowers of the news.  Generally they get news that is
given to them, not solicited by them.  People buy newspapers everyday, without
regard to the actual news stories.  The publishers may say 'this is what people
want to hear/see', but I think it is more 'this is what we are going to tell
you about today'.  The consumer does not define what is news, the newscasters
do... Unfortunately...

    According to a couple of TV shows I've watched, the main forces behind
    female "circumcision" are other women. Perhaps the reason so little 
    fuss is being raised by men is that they're giving in to the notion that
    women should decide women's issues?

    			Alfred

    'Female circumcision' occurs because women who don't have this
    done to them are considered "unclean" (and CAN NOT GET MARRIED!)
    
    As badly as women are treated in general in these cultures, the
    state of 'not being able to EVER get married' is akin to the kiss
    of death.
    
    The women must choose the lesser of two evils for their daughters
    (because of a situation beyond their control.)

Big news stories in the U.S. become big news stories around the world because
of cultural imperialism.  When was the last time you read about genocide in
the Sudan?

    
    >'Female circumcision' occurs because women who don't have this
    >done to them are considered "unclean" (and CAN NOT GET MARRIED!)

    Considered so by women who tell their sons and daughters until they
    believe it. The same thing was true of foot binding in China. 

    		Alfred

    re .339, men run these societies.  If the women don't do what the men
    want they would be outcasts.  If all the men in Africa made it clear to
    all the women that they wanted this horrible practice stopped it would
    stop.  Women do a lot of stupid things in their efforts to please men.
    
    Lorna
    

    Ok Tim, no problem.
    
    Jeff

    
    
    The practice of Female Circumcision is (as far as I can tell) a
    Cultural and Religious act.  Are you suggesting that we _force_
    our religion and culture and (gasp) morals on someone else?
    By military force if necessary?

    fred();

    re: .334
>    The *point* is that John Bobbitt's injury didn't just make big news
>    in this country.  It was a big story around the world!
    
    	I usually agree with Suzanne (hope I got the spelling right), but
    most of what I know of the case has come from notes files. As far as I
    know it has never appeared on television. It did make the back page of
    the newspaper two days running. We have had our own floods and
    avalanches, which got about equal billing with California. French
    political scandals have been much more prominent in the news. For the
    past few weeks the major story has been a rather gruesome murder of a
    rich old woman. Her gardner has been convicted and sentenced to 18
    years in prison, but there are so many peculiarities in the evidence
    that many think he was only convicted because of the strong
    anti-semitic movement in this area - he is of Moroccan Arabic origin.
    The average person here will remember his name a lot easier than
    "Bobbitt".
    
    	I read this notes file mainly because I am fascinated by U.S.
    culture, but most people have neither the access nor the interest.

    RE: .342  Fred
    
    The practice of 'female circumcision' has *no* religious significance.
    It is purely cultural.
    
    It is also very strongly protested by women's groups in these countries.
    
    Mothers have no choice but to submit their daughters to this practice
    because their daughters would be *permanently outcast* otherwise, but
    women's groups are working hard to try to eliminate it.

        re 344

    Good for them (sincerely since I don't support this practice), but 
    knowledge of this practice is certainly not something that just came
    to light yesterday.  Why did they wait until now to bring up the
    subject.

    Again, how am _I_ responsible for it, and what _realistically_ can
    be done about it?  Why is this problem any more important than any
    of the other genocide et al that is going on in the world?

    fred();

    They didn't "wait until now" to bring up the subject of the mutilation
    of women ('female circumcision.')
    
    The knowledge of this practice has been around (in the U.S. and
    elsewhere) for years and years.  It just rarely gets attention.
    

    Who prey-tell are these mutilation groups that practice this heinous 
    ritual that is here in the us so we can write our political leaders and
    tell them to stop, because this is child abuse. And we do not want
    child abuse being practice here in the USA...

    Re: Female 'circumcision' (actually I suppose a better description
    would be 'female penile amputation').
    
    Anyway, WHY do they do it?  I realize its cultural but there must be
    some 'philosophy' behind it?
    
    Jeff

    The woman is given an amputation so that she won't ever enjoy sex.
    The stated "reason" is that a non-amputated woman is "unclean."
    
    The woman's vagina is sewn up (to be cut open with a knife by the
    husband on their wedding night) so she can prove she is a virgin.

	re: .348

	I read an article recently (I think it was in U.S. News & World
	Report, but I really don't recall for sure) on certain human 
	mating behaviors which are universally observed - i.e., they
	are seen in every culture in the world.  Because these behaviors 
	are universal they are presumed to be rooted in human biology.

	One topic the article dealt with was the result of asking 
	men and women how they would feel if:  1) their partner had 
	sex with someone else, or 2) their partner became emotionally 
	involved with someone else - no sex.  Men most typically 
	disliked the notion of their partner having sex with another man.  
	Women most often disliked the idea of losing their partner's 
	attention and love.  The point then made by the article is that, 
	biologically, men's "success" is measured more in terms of the number 
	of children they father.  If a man's partner has sex with someone 
	else it decreases his chances of passing on his genes - he can't
	be sure that the children his partner gives birth to are his
	own (it also said, for those who like interesting factoids, that 
	it has been shown that men produce up to 3x the number of sperm
	upon having sex with their partner after a prolonged separation.
	And that this increase occurs whether the men have recently
	ejaculated or not... Sperm can survive a number of days in a 
	woman's body.  So, if she has had another partner during their
	separation producing more sperm might be a way for him to increase 
	the likelihood that one of one of his wins the race so to speak....).

	The article then stated that women most want their partner to 
	remain devoted to the raising of the children which the women 
	have given birth to.  Women *know* which children possess their 
	genes and seek to ensure the survival of these particular children.  

	Finally, it was stated that female circumcision is a means 
	whereby men in some cultures control the sexual behavior of 
	women. If the woman has no interest in sex (or worse, if it's
	nothing but physical pain) she's not likely to seek out
	multiple sexual partners.  So, female circumcision doesn't
	sound like a matter of "women deciding women's issues" (.336).  
    	In fact, according to some of the other notes posted here, it
    	sounds as though there are women in these cultures who are
    	actively fighting to eliminate this practice.
	
	

	re: .342

    	>>Are you suggesting that we _force_ our religion and culture and 
	  (gasp) morals on someone else? 

	Not religion and not culture, no.  But human rights, yes - though
	not by force as you suggest.  Consider, for example, that the 
	U.S. is currently responding to the annual report on the status 
	human rights - which I think includes details on treatment of 
	women - in countries around the world.  Some nations are concerned 
	that their trading status with the U.S. will be affected by the 
	human rights violations documented in this report.  

	If you don't believe that female circumcision is a violation of 
	human rights than I guess we ought to just ignore it, wherever it 
	may be practiced.


	Susan

    
    re .350

>    	>>Are you suggesting that we _force_ our religion and culture and 
>	  (gasp) morals on someone else? 
>
>	Not religion and not culture, no.  But human rights, yes - though
>	not by force as you suggest.  Consider, for example, that the 
>	U.S. is currently responding to the annual report on the status 
>	human rights - which I think includes details on treatment of 
>	women - in countries around the world.  Some nations are concerned 
>	that their trading status with the U.S. will be affected by the 
>	human rights violations documented in this report.  

    What about our morals?  Those who practice this apparently do not
    consider it immoral.  Just as some societies consider it moral to cut
    off certain body parts as punishment for crimes.   Do you really think 
    these "trade embargo" do any good?  Again I give you again China, 
    Haiti, North Korea, Serbia et al.  The biggest thing you will
    accomplish against the countries that particularly practice female 
    circumcision is the mass starvation of those you intend to help.
     
    The last time we tried to do it by military force was called Vietnam.
    Today Clinton is lifting the trade embargo on Vietnam, and the 
    Communist government (responsible for _millions_ of _deaths_ of their
    own and other people) are firmly in charge.

    Disclaimer--I do not support in any way the practice of Female
    Circumcision.  I am as shocked by it as anyone.  I just question
    why I should be held responsible for something I have little or
    not control over.  I question what we can realistically do about it.

    fred();

    
    
    re .352

>Well, I've heard of it lately, and I don't know Suzanne at all, nor am I
>a woman nor a feminist, per se.

    Now it's your turn to provide specific names and numbers.  Especially
    of those who support this as a practice in the U.S.

    fred();

     re: .353

>    What about our morals?  Those who practice this apparently do not
>    consider it immoral.  Just as some societies consider it moral to cut
>    off certain body parts as punishment for crimes.   Do you really think 
>    these "trade embargo" do any good?  Again I give you again China, 
>    Haiti, North Korea, Serbia et al.  The biggest thing you will
>    accomplish against the countries that particularly practice female 
>    circumcision is the mass starvation of those you intend to help.


	The idea here is that there might be some fundamental notion
	of human rights which most likely does not include lopping off 
	body parts - for whatever reason.  Taking your point that
	this might be a moral issue instead (meaning a value judgment 
	that has to be taken - and perhaps tolerated? - in context), 
	then, yes, I'm for attempting to impose our 'moral' standards 
    	when it comes to opposing human mutilation.

	As for trade related actions not doing any good, maybe so. 
	But, it's at least a non-violent option.  I'd also agree
	that any country which is engaged in gross violations of 
	human rights isn't likely to care if a few of their citizens 
	starve.... So, maybe we should just nuke 'em?  Reminds
	me of the Randy Newman song:  "...boom goes Russia and boom
	Paree, more room for you and more room for me...."


>    Disclaimer--I do not support in any way the practice of Female
>    Circumcision.  I am as shocked by it as anyone.  
>    I just question why I should be held responsible for something 
>    I have little or not control over.  I question what we can 
>    realistically do about it.


	So, who is holding you personally responsible?  I thought
	that we were sharing ideas and opinions, not assigning 
	blame.... In fact, what if our discussion actually led 
	us to come up with a way to *do* something??  Naw, could 
	never happen...

	
	Susan                           

    
    
    re .355

    >	starve.... So, maybe we should just nuke 'em?  Reminds

    I suggested that one a few notes back.  I also suggested doing
    it with conventional bombs with B52's.  Of course they'd all be
    dead after that, but at least the mutilation would stop.

>	So, who is holding you personally responsible?  I thought
>	that we were sharing ideas and opinions, not assigning 
>	blame.... In fact, what if our discussion actually led 
>	us to come up with a way to *do* something??  Naw, could 
>	never happen...

    Funny, all I have seen so far is an attempt to assign blame.
    A veritable torrent of "nobody cares".  Up until now there has 
    been precious little discussion about what to actually *do* about 
    the problem.  Now that we've established that nobody in the U.S.
    really supports this activity (or very few who are probably immigrants 
    from those countries and who will likely be charged with child abuse 
    if they practice this in the U.S.), if you come up with any good 
    ideas, I'm sure the State Department will be quite interested.  
    Maybe those ideas will help in about a hundred other countries.

    fred();

    >    Funny, all I have seen so far is an attempt to assign blame.
    
    Actually, what you saw here was somebody musing about why one man's
    penis getting sliced off roused such hoopla when the mutilation of
    millions of women worldwide as a daily cultural practise gets so 
    little notice.  No blame, no game, Fred; you saw a comparison.  If
    you can go back and find someone issuing blame anywhere to anyone
    you feel free to post a pointer.
    
    DougO

    re: .353
>    What about our morals?  Those who practice this apparently do not
>    consider it immoral.  Just as some societies consider it moral to cut
>    off certain body parts as punishment for crimes.   Do you really think 
    
    	Until a few years ago France considered it moral to cut off a body
    part known as the head as a punishment for some crimes. The U.K. used
    to consider that merely stretching the neck was adequate. Both of these
    countries have abolished this type of punishment. The U.S. is the only
    country that claims to be civilised and regularly uses poison gas
    against human beings.
    
    (a rathole that should probably be continued in another note, but none
    of the recent notes are on the base topic anyway)

    Timmy,
    
    You gotta stop smoking that weed lad. Its doing brain damage to yha!:)
    
    Say, do you know who these people are who practice this child abuse in
    the USA? Or what countries are these who practice this cult abuse?
    Inquiring minds need to know. This is the big chance to give it
    attention. 

    Somalia, Sudan, Ethiopia, are just three of the countries that practice
    female mutilation.  As more people emagrate from these countries, this
    practice is being exported to others within this subculture.  
    
    last year a young woman applied for sanctuary in France because her
    family wanted to mutilate her to make her "marriagable" to men in her
    subculture.  While this information was stashed back on the back pages
    of the world new sections, there was also information that Somalian 
    families are offering to pay practitioners in the countries they emigrate 
    to a substantial amount of money  to continue the practice of
    mutilation.
    
    Meg
    

    Thanks Meg. This is more for the goodness of why we should not give 
    any kind of aid to these countries. Esp Somalia where they drag
    dead Americans thru the streets, naked, by their heals. And the women
    stone the dead body.
    
    How about the USA? Anyone want to help report child abuse? 

    re .358, I think there's a big difference between punishing somebody
    for a crime, and mutilating an innocent child.
    
    Lorna
    

    Dismembering anyone is a heinous crime. 

    If you want to talk mutilation in the U.S. let's talk male
    circumcision.  Althought it is not as severe as the female
    type, it _is_ mutalation and it _is_ practiced in the U.S.
    The U.S. is the only civilized country that still practices
    male circumcision for non-religious purposes.
    
    fred();

>         <<< Note 110.359 by AIMHI::RAUH "I survived the Cruel Spa" >>>
>
>    Timmy,
>    
>    You gotta stop smoking that weed lad. Its doing brain damage to yha!:)
    
    How cute.
    
    First of all, my name is Tim, but I'm not surprised that you're still having
    trouble keeping the facts of the discussion straight.  Spare me the
    adolescent baiting.
    
    Secondly, you have just accused me, in writing, in a public forum, of
    committing a felony.  I suggest you apologize.  Once again, bad form. 
    Moderators, please take note - I protest such public defamation, vehemently.
    
    I can only assume you've completely run out of anything intelligent to
    contribute to the conversation.
    
    If I have the opportunity to dig up one of the articles that I read on
    the subject, I'll post it - but I'm in no hurry to go researching a
    bibliography - why don't you go look it up yourself, if you're so
    interested?  I think not - it's pretty obvious that you're more
    interested in the fight than the facts.  Or, perhaps you'd like to
    add another insult by accusing me of fabrication?  Once again, see if
    you can stick to the subject, and drop the emotionalism.
    
    tim
    

    Re: .364
    
    You've got to be kidding.
    
    tim
    

    
    re .365
    Yo Tim,
    
>    Secondly, you have just accused me, in writing, in a public forum, of
>    committing a felony.  I suggest you apologize.  Once again, bad form. 
>    Moderators, please take note - I protest such public defamation, vehemently.
    
    Weren't you one of 'em a few back that said I needed to go take a
    valium??  Hmmmm?
    
    fred();

>   Weren't you one of 'em a few back that said I needed to go take a
>   valium??  Hmmmm?
    
    Yes I did, fred().  Valium is legal, with a prescription.  Smoking weed
    is a felony, last time I checked.
    
    Thanks for your input.
    
    tim
    

    re 366
    Yo Tim,
    
    Weren't you the one just complaining about adolecent baiting 
    tactics and lack of intelligent argument?
    
    Must be that mutilation of men doesn't hold as high a priority 
    to some.
    
    fred();

    
>    Yes I did, fred().  Valium is legal, with a prescription.  Smoking weed
>    is a felony, last time I checked.

    However, personal attacks such as implying that someone is mentally
    unstable have been expressly verboten in this file in the past.
    Yo, mod-steve, is this true or does that just apply to the non-pc
    types?
    
>    Thanks for your input.
    
    Any time.
    
    fred();

>    However, personal attacks such as implying that someone is mentally
>    unstable have been expressly verboten in this file in the past.
    
    Which is precisely why I objected to RAUH's crack about brain
    damage...I have not made any such implications...but then, you have
    already shown a history of extrapolation of the writings of others,
    beyond the actual content of the text, so it wouldn't surprise me if
    you misinterpretted something I wrote as such.  Valium calms you down,
    but it doesn't mean you're unstable. 
    
>    Yo, mod-steve, is this true or does that just apply to the non-pc
>    types?
    
    This is simple, trite labelling, IMHO.  Let's stick to the subject, and
    not digress into a discussion of the popular notion that political
    correctness is somehow relevent to the topic, shall we?  I'm so weary
    of so many conversations boiling down to an issue of political
    correctness somehow being an underlying motive.  I don't give a damn
    about being politically correct any more than you do...but I'm entitled
    to my opinion.
    
    Pc-types?  What's the matter, fred(), has your argument faded to the
    point where you have to resort to name-calling? ;-)
    
    tim
    

    re:.362
>    re .358, I think there's a big difference between punishing somebody
>    for a crime, and mutilating an innocent child.
    
    	We were just following different forking ratholes in this topic.
    Mutilation of children has nothing much to do with the base topic, and
    nor does capital punishment, and I acknowleged in my note that it was a
    rathole. There was a vague link in suggestions that mutilation might or
    might not have been a suitable punishment for Mr. and/or Mrs. Bobbitt.
    I followed the rathole of punishment in different cultures while you
    were following the rathole of mutilation in different cultures.

    O.K. tim Who are these child abusers, molester, of this cult in the US?

    re .373, they are people who immigrated from the countries where the
    practice has been going on, and who are continuing to do it in this
    country.
    
    Lorna
    

Re: .370

Fred, I took Tim's comment as a use of a rather common bit of American
vernacular, meant in jest.   "Take a chill pill" is another such.  As
some long-time participants know well, I don't hesitate to return notes whose
sentiments I may agree with, but which were expressed inappropriately.

I'm still trying to figure out what people are trying to argue lately in
this topic.  It stopped making sense about 150 replies ago.

				Steve

>I'm still trying to figure out what people are trying to argue lately in
>this topic.  It stopped making sense about 150 replies ago.

I couldn't agree with you more.

tim

    Lorna,
    
    So, we deport these people? This is child abuse. 
    
    Where is this going? Good guess. I am trying to get informed. Tim
    called me uninformed. I want to get informed. I dont want my daughter
    hanging around people who are going to abuse her. I dont want to
    support country who practices cult things that are not acceptible in the
    world.
    
    I also am trying to cut thru the crappie to get to the bottom line of
    it all. I put Tim, and company on the spot because they are rattling
    off stats and are not backing it up. Thus this is called either
    hear say, or rederick.
    
    We send men to jail for beating their wives and children. I wish to
    support the concept that we will also send women to jail for the same.
    But we are not doing so. Ms. Bobbit got off because she was abuse.
    Good... she could walk away, she can do what ever she wants. 
    John should go to jail for beating on her. I dont wish to foster men
    who beat on their wives to walk away scott free. I dont wish to foster
    Ms. Bobbitt for doing what she did either. 
    
    She is a good Cathlic woman? She come from a culture that supports
    lopping off mens dicks in the USA? Un-acceptible. I also know good
    cathlic women who are from other countries, haved talked to them.
    And they do not support her too. Sooo. What can you do? Inform people?
    Write your congress person? 

    Again.... I have this deep burning question that is bothering me very 
    deeply. I am trying to become informed. And I hope that this is not
    more rederic. Who are these people who are doing this child abuse? I am
    looking because I am also a landlord and if such a clan moves in, I
    want to see the signs to report this act to the Division of Child
    Welfare.

Re: .377, .378

The word is rhetoric.

I don't keep a library in my office, but I will try to dig up a reference
on the subject that you can then go read, if you're really interested.

tim

    I am really interested. And would gladly run off to the libary to read
    up on it. Esp who these groups are.

        re .370

>Fred, I took Tim's comment as a use of a rather common bit of American
>vernacular, meant in jest.   "Take a chill pill" is another such.  As
>some long-time participants know well, I don't hesitate to return notes whose
>sentiments I may agree with, but which were expressed inappropriately.

    Now why am I not real surprised with that response.  Even your
    interpretation, however, still puts the comment outside the bounds
    of "personal attack" in implying that my argument is incorrect
    because I am somehow personally unstable.

    BTW, Me "taking a vallium" would also be an illegal act since I do
    not have a prescription.

    >I'm still trying to figure out what people are trying to argue lately in
    >this topic.  It stopped making sense about 150 replies ago.

    Well my take is that it's either a totally different topic or it
    is yet another attempt to justify one position (Lorena Bobbit or
    Goodman) by claiming "you're doing it too".  IMHO neither one is
    justified by the other.

    fred()

>    Now why am I not real surprised with that response.  Even your
>    interpretation, however, still puts the comment outside the bounds
>    of "personal attack" in implying that my argument is incorrect
>    because I am somehow personally unstable.

Fred() - Steve (and I suspect most intelligent readers of this conference)
understood the comment and it's implications correctly.  Your rhetoric 
is inflammatory, and emotional, and the sole implication of my comment was
"calm down".  In that sense, although I'm sure this isn't what you meant,
it IS "outside the bounds of personal attack", in that it was definitely
NOT a personal attack.

However, I still take issue with the direct personal insult of being
accused of a felony, and a victim of brain damage.  Now, there is little
doubt that that was a personal attack.  There's a big difference, but 
apparently you don't understand that either.

In fact, neither you nor RAUH appear to have much of a grasp of this 
subject material, and so we must endure endless reparte' of clever,
content-free ramblings.   We have degraded into a meaningless tangent 
from the original discussion, as well as a focus on nitpicking and personal
attacks and defenses thereof - in other words, we've beaten the subject
to death.

Moderators, PLEASE write lock this drivel so we can put an end to this
nonsense!

tim

>understood the comment and it's implications correctly.  Your rhetoric 
>is inflammatory, and emotional, and the sole implication of my comment was
>"calm 

Well, they do not seem to have the patent on that sort of thing :-).

>it IS "outside the bounds of personal attack", in that it was definitely
>NOT a personal attack.

Is it not the person 'attacked' that gets to describe it as such?  You may not
have intended it to be, but if the receipient believes it is...

>In fact, neither you nor RAUH appear to have much of a grasp of this 
>subject material, and so we must endure endless reparte' of clever,
>content-free ramblings.   

I see someone asking for specific pointers to the groups practicing mutilation.
At least they seem to making an attyempt at getting information (that does not
appear to be forthcoming).

>Moderators, PLEASE write lock this drivel so we can put an end to this
>nonsense!

Interesting solution... You are done talking about it so the entire note must be
write locked so others that might want to continue to discuss it cannot. Nothing
says that you MUST write anything in here, so you can at least do a 'virtual
write lock'.

-Joe

    
    re .282

    >Fred() - Steve (and I suspect most intelligent readers of this conference)

    At it again Tim, now I am not intelligent?

>However, I still take issue with the direct personal insult of being
>accused of a felony, and a victim of brain damage.  Now, there is little
>doubt that that was a personal attack.  There's a big difference, but 
>apparently you don't understand that either.

    The point is that "you been smokin weed?" is neither more or less
    a personal attack than "take a vallium".   You attacked someone
    from doing the very think that you had already done yourself.

>In fact, neither you nor RAUH appear to have much of a grasp of this 
>subject material, and so we must endure endless reparte' of clever,
>content-free ramblings.   We have degraded into a meaningless tangent 
>from the original discussion, as well as a focus on nitpicking and personal
>attacks and defenses thereof - in other words, we've beaten the subject
>to death.

    I see nothing here in the way of logic or facts.  Is this meant
    to support the the argument or just to launch another claim
    that my personality somehow negates my argument?

>Moderators, PLEASE write lock this drivel so we can put an end to this
>nonsense!

    I'll second that.  However I'd seriously disagree about where the
    "drivel" is coming from.

    fred();

This is becoming truly ludicrous.

Are we now discussing personalities?

I put forth the point that fred() and RAUH are uninformed on the subject of
discussion, while accusing me of smoking weed (not suggesting that I do so,
but accusing me), and having brain damage.  I have made no such accusations.

When I mention that I had read of specific cases of female mutilation, I'm
characterised as 'quoting stats', but as I said, when I find a reference to
the materials that I read, I'll post a reference.  Ah, yes, let's not
forget the vague reference to political correctness - we should leave out
the battle cry of the righteous right, should we? ;-)

Nevertheless, since we are no longer discussing the Bobbitt case, nor the
female mutilation case, but merely bantering over personalities, I suggest
that a write lock is appropriate.  

tim

A self-imposed write-lock is probably more appropriate.  If you stop responding
to taunts (or what you take for taunts), then the taunts stop.  By
continuing to respond you just drag it out.

Just grit your teeth and hit "next unseen".

			Steve

    
    re.385
    
    >This is becoming truly ludicrous.
    
    Well you got one thing right anyhow.
    
    >Are we now discussing personalities?
    
    If by _we_ you mean you have a frog in your pocket, then I'd say
    it certainly looks that way to me.
    
    >I have made no such accusations.
    
    That's _your_ opinion.
    
>Nevertheless, since we are no longer discussing the Bobbitt case, nor the
>female mutilation case, but merely bantering over personalities, I suggest
>that a write lock is appropriate.  
    
    As others have said, nobody is keeping you chained to your terminal.
    
    fred();

    Tim,
    
    Why not drop it. And lets move on to some more rudemtary point of this.
    The issue, if you want to nit about it was brought up by your team as a
    derailer. And you were sniping at us. So, I kindly, in jest, too one
    upon you. Your now getting upset over nothing, and should go home for
    the weekend, and relax. Watch a movie, taken in some of this fine
    winter and we'll take it up on monday.:)
    
    Mean time. Why not help un-informed me, and tell me who are these
    people are. As so I may write my congress person and tell them to help
    your cause.

    RAUH, you're repeatedly asking people to accuse specific individuals
    of committing crimes.  Obviously, if such people were named, Steve L.
    would have to delete the note.
    
    The practice of 'female circumcision' has been documented in a book
    by Alice Walker (who wrote "The Color Purple.")  If you're truly
    interested in learning more (as you keep claiming,) then this is a
    resource for you.
    
    As has been explained to you (a dozen or so times,) the practice
    occurs mostly in other countries.  Many cultural practices from
    other countries are brought to *this* country when people move
    here.  Even if this particular "custom" (if one can call it by such
    an innocuous name) isn't being performed anywhere in this country
    (and I truly hope it is NOT) - it's still very, very, very widespread
    in other countries (to the tune of 80 million women.)
    
    It sounds like you don't believe that any of this occurs.  So what?
    Some people do not believe in the Holocaust of World War II, either.

    Conlon, nit. I believe if there is document proof, like a goverment
    study, a local from some dept of goverment. 
    
    I cannot understand such goes on in the US with our child protection 
    laws, the informed/non-infrormed me, and other law govering bodies. 
    I would even take the list off line.  

    Rauh, you seem to have the mistaken impression that someone (God
    only knows who?) is basing his/her argument on the notion that this
    practice occurs in the United States.
    
    Most people have discussed the fact that this occurs *elsewhere*.
    This has been explained to you over and over and over and over.
    
    Are you suggesting that 80 million NON-American women don't matter
    (even though they are being attacked with knives as part of their
    culture?)

    Here Let me refresh your thought about what you have said and why this
    rat hole. Cause...............
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    
          <<< Note 110.346 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>
    
        >They didn't "wait until now" to bring up the subject of the
    	>mutilation of women ('female circumcision.')
    
        >The knowledge of this practice has been around (in the U.S. and
                               ^^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
    	>elsewhere) for years and years.  It just rarely gets attention.
    
    
    =======================================================================
    
    
    Lord know what mental relaps I am having when I re-read this stuff
    that YOU are talking about. I am a conserned parent, adult, and caring
    person whose heart does bleed for your cause. But your not giving me
    much to go on. Execpt sicking Tim on me, and telling me I am
    uninformed. Welp.... I want to get this right ol paint. I really want
    to understand this. 
    
    For as we all know that there are Millions of people who disapear at
    the hands of their goverments to be tortured, mutiliated, and other
    heinous crimes. Why there is even our own God fearing, voting, people
    who they slip LSD into, give massive quanities of bloody radio active
    material, exposed to chemials that we have no clue about,... why do you
    think I spoof about my green lizard tail? No clue,,right! 
    
    How about this for you.. I pay tax dollars to support these countries
    that Meg has brought forth, (hoping it was you), and we vote to send
    these guys to these countries that get killed to support their way of
    life... Now I got a clue to where I wish not to send these soldjers
    that are kids with guns to protect these women who are being
    mutulitated. 
    
    
    O.K. I have also made my point why I wish that Ms. Bobbit would be
    deported too. I really do care. But your giving me more crappie about
    it than can understand. And I really do want to understand.
    
    
    Anyhow.... I believe I made my points earlier, and I am just trying to
    get some help to this so Tim won't call me stupid anymore. I really
    want to know and will take this list off line. Other wise....poopie on
    the poddy with the facts or...please get off.;)
    
    
    

    RE: .392  Rauh

    Look.  This is how the conversation went:

    .345> [Haddock] Good for them (sincerely since I don't support this 
    .345> practice), but knowledge of this practice is certainly not 
    .345> something that just came to light yesterday.  Why did they wait 
    .345> until now to bring up the subject.

    So I responded with:

    .346> They didn't "wait until now" to bring up the subject of the
    .346> mutilation of women ('female circumcision.')
    
    .346> The knowledge of this practice has been around (in the U.S. and 
    .346> elsewhere) for years and years.  It just rarely gets attention.

    It is true that we've had the knowledge (in the U.S. and elsewhere) 
    about this cultural practice (in other countries) for years and years.
    It's been discussed in other notesfiles many times.  I've also seen
    news reports about the practice (including the profile of a 12 year
    old girl who experienced this firsthand.)

    > Lord know what mental relaps I am having when I re-read this stuff
    > that YOU are talking about. I am a conserned parent, adult, and caring
    > person whose heart does bleed for your cause. But your not giving me
    > much to go on.

    People have asked questions about this practice, so we've provided
    information about it.  It's a matter of "HUMAN RIGHTS" - it isn't
    just some cause of *mine*.

    > I really want to understand this.                                     

    You have a very strange way of showing it.  You've called this
    horrid practice "women generated info" (and have pounded people
    to ask for names of child abusers in the United States, which
    has not been the basis of *anyone's* argument here.)

    > O.K. I have also made my point why I wish that Ms. Bobbit would be
    > deported too. I really do care. But your giving me more crappie about
    > it than can understand. And I really do want to understand.

    Try harder.

    > I really want to know and will take this list off line. Other wise....
    > poopie on the poddy with the facts or...please get off.;)            

    You've been given a resource for the facts (Alice Walker's book.)
    Aside from that, people are offering as much information about
    this documented cultural practice as they have available.

    As for a list of people who are committing the crime of child abuse
    - it's pretty obvious why you're asking for this, but it still has
    nothing whatever to do with anyone's argument about this.

    I realize how mad you are about Lorena Bobbitt.  Fine.  Be mad.
    Go do your "poopie on the poddy" (as you put it) to your Congress-
    person as much as you like.

    One word of advice about any letters you might write to them:
    Use spell-checking and grammar-checking.  (It's not necessary
    in notes, of course, but it would make a better impression on 
    the people in power if you stated your case a bit better.)

    	The practice has been known about for a long time. If you read
    BONNET::VALBONNE note 88.13 you will see an American referring to
    clitorectomy in Ethiopia, and that note is dated almost 10 years ago.
    It is possible that the note author (Bob Wyman) could provide more
    details since he lived in Ethiopia. He currently works for Microsoft,
    but I am sure he is contactable over Internet. I had known of the
    practice long before he mentioned it in the notes file.
    
    	I would be quite surprised if people moving from that part of the
    world to the U.S. didn't take their cultural practices with them
    (though I have never heard of clitorectomy in the U.S.) since it
    happens with most other cultural practices - food preferences, style of
    dress, marriage traditions, ...

    I have done some research this weekend as suggested to Suzanne amd Tim.
    Looks like we are chasing shadows again. This is a small cult group in
    Africa. And that this is more properganda for her cause to gain
    sympithy.
    
    So, now that we have been totally derailed. Lets cut thru the chase,
    and get back to the base note.
    
    Mean time, I am going to watch Casablanca this sunday night. And when
    the nazi's start singing in Ricks Cafe, I am going to join in with
    the others singing the French national anthium.;)
    
    sv
    vac

    I think 'cultural practice' is very important in the context of female
    circumcision. i.e. a cultural practice is 'endorsed' by a culture isn't
    it?  That doesn't make it right, but it changes the legal aspects of it
    considerably.  For example, sacrificing young virgins (death) was a
    cultural practice in the past (at least I hope it was the past).
    Therefore, in that context it wasn't illegal in the culture, wrong
    maybe, but not illegal.  Drinking booze in the U.S. was illegal for a
    period of time, now of course its legal even though is a VERY harmful
    indulgence.  Male circumcision is a generally accepted cultural
    practice in the U.S. illegal? hardly. I believe there is a big
    difference between male and female circumcision.  Male circumcision
    does not generally disable the individual sexually, female circumcision
    does.

    Penile amputation does disable the individual sexually.

    My point is that I believe we are comparing apples to oranges and that
    cultural practices MATTER in a legal and moral sense. 

    If one views ANY type of non medically necessary cutting of the human
    body as mutilation then we had better stop piercing ears, stop naval
    piercing, stop platter insertion into the lips, stop those brass rings
    around the neck, etc, etc, etc. etc.  See? What is ok is CULTURAL.

    Jeff
    

      I wish someone would delete or archive this topic. I have been reading
    it since day 1, not replying till now, admittedly, but we are in real
    rathole mode here.
    
      Also, I really agree with the person who replied to AIMHI::RAUH about
    using grammar and spell checker..it would make deciphering those
    replies much easier......
    

    there is currently a bill being introduced to the US House of
    Representitives to make this practice illegal inthe US, and to also
    reach out educationally.  You can contact one of the bill's sponsors
    (Patricia Schroeder, Dem, Colorado) for more information.
    
    meg

    
    All serious-ness aside. As we were making sport of John Bobbit.;) One
    could also say that these women who have been trimmed give new meaning
    to a clean shaven woman.;)
    
    And in reguards to the spelling, I promise to use it more when at work.
    But when I am home on my pc, I will try not to use big words that I
    cannot spell correctly.;)
    

    Gee George, and to think I thought your fingers had a harelip...
    

    Rauh, the millions of women who are attacked with knives do not
    have surgeons spending 9 hours trying to reattach the parts that
    have been cut off their bodies.   Nor do they get invited to make
    personal appearances and sign autographs.
    
    Personally, I've never thought the Bobbitt jokes were funny.
    Jokes about the plight of millions of maimed women aren't
    funny either.

    Suzanne,

    I was told to try to make my spelling and grammar better. Please, if
    you would, either use the notes means of copying me as it is more
    common. Or use my first name, Or put a Mr. in front of that Rauh word.

    Second, sorry your lacking a sense of humor.

    And I cannot understand where your getting the millions word mixed up
    with a very small cult in Africa? Perhaps no larger than the World
    Sring Colletors or the International Worm Club.

    What is your first name, Rauh?

    Further, *none* of the information I've heard about this practice
    agrees with your notion that it is a "very small cult" which does this.

    Where did you do your checking?  (You surely didn't check the resource
    I suggested to you earlier.)

    Suzanne

    By the way, Rauh, you were so "concerned" about all this last week
    that you called it "child abuse" (and demanded the names of people
    who did this in the United States.)
    
    Now you think the mutilation of children is funny?
    
    *You* lack a sense of humor, pal.

        re .406

    You're twisting the facts to fit your opinion again, sister.

    George is talking about WHAT IS HAPPENING INSIDE THE U.S. THAT
    WE MIGHT HAVE SOME CONTROL OVER.  You appear to keep trying to rope 
    Ethopia into the U.S. somehow and keep trying to imply that because 
    this is happening in Ethopia we now need some law in the U.S.

    Btw.  Is this law that someone mentioned a few back going to outlaw
    male circumcision also?

    fred();

    re .404, George, according to everything I have read and heard, female
    circumcision is a wide-spread custom practiced throughout many countries, in
    Africa, and not simply practiced by a small cult, as you seem to have
    heard.  There are, also, many educated black women, in Africa, who
    protest this practice.  
    
    As far as the US goes, Pulitzer prize-winning author, Alice Walker,
    claims that it is being practiced, in the US, (on what scale, I don't 
    know), by certain immigrants.  I don't know who these immigrants are. 
    I don't know names, nor have I actually met any.  However, Alice Walker
    is a well respected author and college professor, and I don't think she
    would make idol accusations.  She has met with many black leaders from
    both Africa, and the US, and I think she knows what she's talking
    about.  Of course, the most serious problem is in Africa, but there is
    concern by some black feminists that this practice could be brought to
    the US.
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .407  Fred
    
    > You're twisting the facts to fit your opinion again, sister.
    
    What facts has he raised?
    
    > George is talking about WHAT IS HAPPENING INSIDE THE U.S. THAT
    > WE MIGHT HAVE SOME CONTROL OVER.
    
    So he's laughing about the mutilation of children in the U.S. now?
    
    > You appear to keep trying to rope 
    > Ethopia into the U.S. somehow and keep trying to imply that because 
    > this is happening in Ethopia we now need some law in the U.S.
    
    Try to keep up, Fred:
    
================================================================================
Note 110.398                The Lorena Bobbitt topic                  398 of 408
CSC32::M_EVANS "hate is STILL not a family value"     6 lines   7-FEB-1994 09:01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    there is currently a bill being introduced to the US House of
    Representitives to make this practice illegal inthe US, and to also
    reach out educationally.  You can contact one of the bill's sponsors
    (Patricia Schroeder, Dem, Colorado) for more information.
    
    meg

    RE: .410  Fred
    
    > Which is exactly the point that George (and I) have been trying to
    > make. 
    
    This law is proposed to make this practice illegal in the United States
    (and mention of the law was just made today.)
    
    If you've been trying to discuss this law all along, then I guess
    you're both clairvoyant.  :>  (You knew it would come up today.)
    
    Look - a separate law against this practice in the United States
    would make it easier to protect the CHILDREN who may be facing
    this practice.  If you don't support it, fine.  Others will (as
    is their right to do.)
    
================================================================================
Note 110.398                The Lorena Bobbitt topic                  398 of 408
CSC32::M_EVANS "hate is STILL not a family value"     6 lines   7-FEB-1994 09:01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    there is currently a bill being introduced to the US House of
    Representitives to make this practice *illegal inthe US*, and to also
    reach out educationally.  You can contact one of the bill's sponsors
    (Patricia Schroeder, Dem, Colorado) for more information.
    
    meg

        re .408

    Which is exactly the point that George (and I) have been trying to
    make.  The point we are trying to make is WHY DO WE NEED SOME LAW
    IN THE U.S. FOR SOMETHING THAT IS HAPPENING IN AFRICA?  This practice
    is ALREADY illegal in the U.S., IMHO, under existing CHILD ABUSE laws.

    So why all the fuss?  Why has this subject ratholed the Lorena Bobbitt
    topic? and (one more time) is this law going to outlaw the mutilation
    of male babies (aka circumcision) also?
    
    fred();

    If this law doesn't cover male circumcision, then you could always
    formulate a separate law.  No one is stopping you from trying.
    

    re .412
    
>    If you've been trying to discuss this law all along, then I guess
>    you're both clairvoyant.  :>  (You knew it would come up today.)
    
    What can I say, I'm a Seventh Son ;^).  But really it hasn't taken 
    crystal ball to see where this subject has been heading.
    
    Again--is this law also going to outlaw the mutilation of boy babies?
    
    fred();

    RE: .414  Fred
    
    > Again--is this law also going to outlaw the mutilation of boy babies?
    
    Meg's note doesn't say.  You could call Pat S. to find out (and if
    the proposed law doesn't cover 'male circumcision,' you could start
    the process to propose this as another law.  No one here is stopping
    you from doing so.)

     re .412

>    If this law doesn't cover male circumcision, then you could always
>    formulate a separate law.  No one is stopping you from trying.

    IMHO, this speaks volumes about the "feminist" attitude if not their
    agenda.  Demand that everyone support their agenda, then to *&^%
    with everyone else.

    fred();

    George Rauh, keep in mind that you're joking about CHILDREN being
    mutilated.
    
    If you do make T-shirts for the little girls who have been mutilated,
    be sure to order them in children's sizes.
    
    Let's hope you have better regard for the health and safety of your
    own child(ren).

    re 418
    
>    George Rauh, keep in mind that you're joking about CHILDREN being
>    mutilated.
    
    Apparently the only ones you are concerned about are the GIRL children.
    
>    Let's hope you have better regard for the health and safety of your
    >    own child(ren).
    
    D&^% I must be loosing it.  I thougt George was asking just a few
    back who the people that supported this activity were so he could
    protect his daughter from them.
    
    fred();

    RE: .417  Fred
    
    >> If this law doesn't cover male circumcision, then you could always
    >> formulate a separate law.  No one is stopping you from trying.

    > IMHO, this speaks volumes about the "feminist" attitude if not their
    > agenda.  Demand that everyone support their agenda, then to *&^%
    > with everyone else.
    
    No one has demanded that you support this law.  You asked earlier
    what YOU could do about this problem.  Now you have an answer.
    
    The practice being discussed is the female equivalent to what
    happened to John Bobbitt (which is already illegal.)
    
    'Male circumcision' doesn't maim boys or men.  If a law is needed
    for this, it should be separate.
    
    This has nothing to do with agendas, Fred.  This is about little
    girls being mutilated by an attack with a knife.  You said you
    didn't support this practice, but apparently you do.

    RE: .419  Fred
    
    >> George Rauh, keep in mind that you're joking about CHILDREN being
    >> mutilated.
    
    > Apparently the only ones you are concerned about are the GIRL children.
    
    If boys were routinely receiving injuries like the one John Bobbitt
    received (to his penis) last year, it would be a matter of very, very
    grave concern.  As it is, such injuries do happen to little girls
    routinely in some countries (which is a matter of very, very grave
    concern to some of us.)
    
    >> Let's hope you have better regard for the health and safety of your
    >> own child(ren).
    
    > D&^% I must be loosing it.  I thougt George was asking just a few
    > back who the people that supported this activity were so he could
    > protect his daughter from them.
    
    Well, he thinks it's all hysterically funny now.  He wants to make
    funny t-shirts for the little girls who have been permanently maimed.

    	Actually a federal law to try to stop the practice is a bad idea. 
    The feds don't have jurisdiction over this type of thing except on
    federal property and a few other places.  The existence of a federal
    law could be used to argue that in the absence of a state law, the
    practice is not illegal in state jurisdictions.  If there is no  
    federal law, existing state laws would unquestionably prohibit the 
    practice.
    					John 
    

    re .421
    
>    Well, he thinks it's all hysterically funny now.  He wants to make
>    funny t-shirts for the little girls who have been permanently maimed.
    
    I haven't seen anything where George thinks this is funny.  I have seen
    him "demonstrating absurdity by being absurd".  If you want to tie
    this into the Lorena Bobbitt subject, then I'll bet you can find
    a _bunch_ more women who think what Lorena Bobbitt did was ok than
    you can find men that think that female circumcision is ok.  Now who
    is inventing straw/boogie people?
    
    fred();

    RE: .423  Fred
    
    >> Well, he thinks it's all hysterically funny now.  He wants to make
    >> funny t-shirts for the little girls who have been permanently maimed.
    
    > I haven't seen anything where George thinks this is funny. 
    
    You must have missed his joke(s) about little girls being maimed
    (along with the suggestion for funny t-shirts about it.)
    
    Look - it doesn't matter.  Obviously, you and George seem to believe
    you can hurt women (somehow) by making light and/or dismissing the
    mutilation of little girls.
    
    Fine.  Whatever floats your boat.

    re .423
    
>    You must have missed his joke(s) about little girls being maimed
>    (along with the suggestion for funny t-shirts about it.)
    
    Actually they looked more like sarcasm than jokes.
    
>    Look - it doesn't matter.  Obviously, you and George seem to believe
>    you can hurt women (somehow) by making light and/or dismissing the
>    mutilation of little girls.
    
    Both George and I are already on record saying we DO NOT support
    this activity.  You are twisting the facts again.  The only one I
    see dismissing or making light of anythng here is you dismissal of 
    the mutilation of little boys.
    
>    Fine.  Whatever floats your boat.
    
    A parting shot across the bow (I hope)?
    
    fred();

    George, you still haven't mentioned WHO gave you the information
    that this practice is only done by a 'very small cult.'
    
    Many of the rest of us have heard otherwise.  I've asked you for
    this information, but you don't seem willing to give it.  I wonder
    why.
    
    

    I read some old book called 'All You Wanted to Know About Sex'. And
    discussed this with some local Father Members, On is a Dr. in
    anthropolige. I dont look for hear-say Suzanne. I try to find a good
    reliable source. Something that I am still trying to find from you.
    
    Mean time, did you find Elvis? Or is he everywhere? I have a hunch
    about Jimmy Hoffa. He is land fill in Jersey someplace. He is also
    been seen with Elvis. Playing cards.;)
    

    RE: .426  Fred
    
    > The only one I see dismissing or making light of anythng here is 
    > you dismissal of the mutilation of little boys.                     
    
    Injuries like the one John Bobbitt suffered are not common for little
    boys in this country (or anywhere, as far as I've heard.)  This very
    injury *is* common for little girls in some countries, though.
    
    These girls are permanently maimed.  Male circumcision does no such
    thing to boys.

    re .427
    
    You might want to go back and read .408 again.
    
    fred();

    RE: .428  George Rauh
    
    > I read some old book called 'All You Wanted to Know About Sex'. 
    
    How many decades old is this book (the movie came out in the 70s)?
    
    > And discussed this with some local Father Members, On is a Dr. in
    > anthropolige. I dont look for hear-say Suzanne. I try to find a good
    > reliable source. Something that I am still trying to find from you.
    
    I gave you the name of someone who has written on this (Alice Walker.)
    
    Your information does indeed sound like hearsay.

    
      George and fred why don't you both just stop responding to this
    issue?  S_conlin is doing what womans organizations do in the
    press and political process;  promoting only the female/victim
    male/victimizer ****exclusively****  side of the issue!!
    When you respond your being husled by these women. The best response
    is no response and get onto another issue!!
    
                                                Bill 
      

    
    re .429

>    These girls are permanently maimed.  Male circumcision does no such
>    thing to boys.

    There have been other discussions in Mennotes that disagree with this.
    Most medical people in the U.S. now agree that there is no medical
    justification for male circumcision.  Any benefit derived from 
    circumcision does not justify the wholesale practice of this activity.
    There _is_ evidence that male circumcision does impair the male 
    enjoyment of sex.

    So I guess it's ok if you only mutilate 'em a little bit??
    
    fred();.

    re bill
    
    Problem is, as Goebbels in 1933 Germany, if you don't challenge what 
    they say and they say it often enough and loud enough, then people
    start be believe it is true.
    
    fred();

    
    	
    		         To help lighten things up a bit...
    
    
    			   Official Bobbitt limericks ! !
    
    

    
    
 			There once was a Bobbitt named John
 			Who thought he was quite the Don Juan
 			His wife disagreed
 			So the next time he wee'd
 			John couldn't locate his wand.

    
    
    
    
    			Lorena wished John could be nicer
 			But he wasn't much of a de-icer
 			If she finds a new spouse
 			Let us hope he's no louse
 			Or we might have our first serial slicer.

    
    
 
    			
    			A surgeon was filled with great tension
 			Trying to sew on a thing we can't mention
 			He stitched and he sewed
 			Used all the skills that he knowed
 			But the wee thing won't stand at attention.

    
    
 
    
    			John Bobbitt was never a loner
 			In fact, he was known as a roamer
 			His wife seized his prize
 			And cut him to size
 			Now he is his own organ donor. 
    
    
    
 
    		                         
    			There once was a crime most venal
 			One might say 'twas inches from renal
 			It wasn't for sport
 			That she made him so short
 			Her intentions were nothing but penal.

    
    
    
    
 			The Bobbitt case sure is a dilly
 			Though it sounds a little bit silly
 			He said she's the hacker
 			Who lopped off his whacker
 			She said she was trying to Free Willy.

    
     (From the Limericks conference.....)
    

    Since this topic is open once again, and as a reference for some of the
    material discussed earlier, for those who were able to stay up a bit
    late on Thursday night, Nightline did a program on the subject of
    Female Genital Mutilation.  Paraphrasing that report, there are tens
    of millions of girls and young women in 30 countries in Africa, as well
    as Southeast Asia who are victimized by this cultural tradition.  More
    and more so, as people from these cultures migrate to the U.S., the
    problem has begun to show up in the States.  The procedure is extremely
    painful, performed without anesthetic, and totally unnecessary.
    
    If you want specific nations, well, they mentioned Nigeria and Somalia.
    
    It is also nothing like the procedure performed in a male circumcision
    - 'female circumcision' is purely a euphemism, the two procedures are
    worlds apart.
    
    fred() and George, you wanted a source - try ABC News.  If you are as
    concerned as you say you are, then order a transcript from Journal
    Graphics - I believe they're in Boulder, Colorado.
    
    tim
    

    
    let's stop food shipments to Somalia until they promise to stop.

    
    Well, you really couldn't do that...so, what could you do?  (The prof
    on Nightline said this has been in practice for 3 or 4 thousand years.)
    Somolia doesn't even have a government to pressure.  We couldn't even
    get them to stop shooting at our troops, who were only there to help
    feed the starving people.
    
    The issue that will publicize genital mutilation to the masses will be the
    court case Nightline mentioned concerning the women who is sueing for asylum
    in the U.S., stating that if she returns to Nigeria her two daughters
    will be forced to undergo it. (The daughters were born here so they
    are citizens.  The mother isn't.)  If she wins, it seems it could set
    a precedent and open the floodgates into the U.S. from every country
    that practices FGM in the world.  I guess the question would be, is
    FGM a political act? 

    	It certainly doesn't come into the conventional definition of
    political asylum. The woman does not appear to be in any danger for her
    political beliefs. The children are presumably too young to have
    political beliefs, otherwise they could remain in the U.S. without
    their mother. I am certain that the Nigerian government does not
    require clitorectomy,particularly of citizens of other countries,
    so she is trying to protect her daughters against
    their close relatives. Nigeria is a large country so it is not clear
    that her daughters would ever have to meet their close relatives.
    
    	Asylum is definitely not required for political reasons, and from
    the limited information it is not clear that it is required for
    humanitarian reasons. If you accept asylum for humanitarian reasons, I
    can think of a few million Bosnians who are even more in need of it.
    Many of them are getting even worse mutilation. Come to think of it,
    the Bosnians probably *could* justify political asylum.

        I hear the Lorena Bobbitt is to be given the First Annual
    Tanya Harding Sportsmanship award. :-)

    		Alfred

Who's Tanya Harding?  I know of a Tonya Harding, but I don't see any
connection between her and Lorena Bobbitt.

					Steve

    At least Lorena does her dirty work herself, and unlike the people
    hired by Harding's ex-husband, Lorena can apparently be counted on to
    be successful.  Maybe she has a whole new career ahead of her as hit
    woman.
    
    A real self-starter who works well under pressure.
    
    Lorna
    

    >>Maybe she has a whole new career ahead of her as hit  woman.
    
    unless someone hits her first.;) 

they both hit below the belt!

    
      Did you hear about the new drink inspired by Lorena Bobbitt and Tonya
    Harding ?
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    		          Club soda with a slice ! !
    
    
    

I do not understand the logic behind the linking of Tonya Harding with
Lorena Bobbitt.  Would someone please explain it to me?

From my perspective, Bobbitt directly attacked her husband out of either
revenge or self-defense, depending on to whom you listen.  Harding may or
may not have been "in" on the plot to disable her rival, but at the moment
the most she seems guilty of is bad judgement.

Perhaps it's the simultaneous notoriety of two women involved with
violence that links them together in people's minds.  It is certainly unusual
to have women in this particular spotlight, which is generally the domain of
men, so that may have something to do with it.

We seem to accept violence in men as natural and rarely make jokes about it
(except perhaps in the case of Jeffrey Dahmer), nor do we generally make
links between various men who commit violent acts.  But if it's a woman,
suddenly it's a national obsession.

What's wrong with us?

				Steve

>We seem to accept violence in men as natural and rarely make jokes about it
>(except perhaps in the case of Jeffrey Dahmer), nor do we generally make
>links between various men who commit violent acts.  But if it's a woman,
>suddenly it's a national obsession.

Whenever something shocking dominates the headlines, jokes pop up.
Jonestown, the Challenger, and David Koresh all triggered sick jokes.
There was at least one joke linking David Koresh and Jeffrey Dahmer.

    
>I do not understand the logic behind the linking of Tonya Harding with
>Lorena Bobbitt.  Would someone please explain it to me?

    Two women who used violence to "solve problems" when there were other
    less violent means available. BTW, you may believe that Harding was just
    guilty of bad judgment but I don't.

>We seem to accept violence in men as natural and rarely make jokes about it
>(except perhaps in the case of Jeffrey Dahmer), nor do we generally make
>links between various men who commit violent acts.  But if it's a woman,

    Who is this "we" you refer to? Since I've been a child jokes about
    violent actions by men have been the source of humor and jokes. As has
    violence by women. Ever hear the term "cat fight?" 

    Further more, violence *is* most definitely something I associate with
    women - though mostly against other women. Growing up it was always
    assumed that violence against a man was (physically) safer then against
    women. Men were associated with "fair" fights while women were
    associated with anything goes (dirty) fighting. Perhaps this comes from
    growing up in a urban area?

    >What's wrong with us?

    My first reaction what that it was just you and that you had no sense
    of humor. My second reaction is that I know you do have a sense of
    humor but it's just different from mine and from most men that I know.
    Not better or worse, just different.

    			Alfred

    Both the Bobbitt and Harding cases were different from routine
    violence.
    
    The Bobbitt case was unusual in that 'most' of the time women don't
    cut mens penis' off.  This case got 'our' attention because it was
    fortunately very unusual.  A woman being raped is just as important
    as a man getting his penis cut off, but unfortunately rape is so
    commonplace we collectively are desensitized to it.
    
    The Harding case is unusual too. Generally, people in the Olympics don't
    run around taking one anothers knees out.
    
    Jeff

    re .453, look out, George.  She could be headed for NH now!
    
    

    ..."dead men tell no lies."
    
    The GI Joe doll says this.
    

Re: .456

Unless you get one that got switched with a Barbie module, in which case it
says "Let's go shopping!"

				Steve

    Nope got the one that most girls say...'I hate math'.;]
    

    No, "I hate math" is what Calvin says.
    
    Your doll collection sounds pretty extensive, though, George.  :)

That's "Math is hard"

daryll

    Hummmm. Every time I drop GI Joe on his head he says that he likes to
    shop. And Barbi says that dead men tell no lies.:) 
    
    Guess I have a great collection.:) Hopefully I will cash them in when
    my daughter goes to college. Hopefully it will pay for a couple of
    years.:)
    
    

    Cannot wait till they come out with a Tonya doll that keeps breaking
    her skate lace.;)
    

    
    john bobbitt is heading west as fast as he can and with his back to the
    east..

    He's probably trying to dodge responsibility for the child he is
    99.9% certain (per the DNA tests) of having fathered while he was
    married to Lorena.
    

    
    News report this a.m. says some woman who met John in Las Vegas is
    claiming that they're engaged, but that they will wait until marriage
    to "consummate" the relationship.

    Quote from Lorena says that she'd like to someday marry again and try
    again to live the "American Dream". 

    fred();

    I think it is great that Lorena was let off easily.  She didn't
    deserve any punishment at all, but I guess they have to give
    her some token kind.  Let's hope after all of this, men will begin to 
    respect women a little more.
        If I remember correctly, the knife she used was a "Ginsu".
    I guess we can add that to the list of things it can slice and dice 
    through! 8*)
    
    Blair
                

    I heard a snippet on the news that said that Lorena can't leave the
    state without permission for a while yet. Anyone know what that's all
    about?
    
    		Alfred

    I heard the same thing Alfred, I understand she needs the court's
    permission, I dunno why, tho.
    
    And speaking of Ginsu, I got a set for Christmas, and I'm not
    impressed!

    re 476
    
    Lorena was released from the hospital because she was deemed to be 
    no longer "a threat to herself or others".  However, she was ordered
    to remain in "out patient" therapy for a while.
    
    fred();

    
    
       How many of you guys out there, (now that Lorena is a free woman)
    would actually date her?  Considering mutual attraction and all that
    fine stuff of course!  I think it's great that the woman stood up
    for herself, she fought and won and I respect her for that, but
    I think I would be a little bit cautious.
    
       Don't get me wrong.  I know John Wayne was assualting her and 
    beating her and her actions were based upon that.  But come on 
    everyone wouldn't you be a little worried if she slipped her hand
    in her purse to get that shiny compact out???  8*)
    
    
    Blair

    
    Re Blair
    
    Apparently you haven't read many of the last 470 replies.
    
    I find a couple of the last few a bit scary.  There is __NO__
    justification for what she did.  What he did and/or she did
    does not justify the other.  She got off because she was _insane_
    not because she was right or because of what he did.
    
    fred();

    RE:.471

    As -1 says she got off on an insane plea, there is no way in my opinion
    that this could ever be justified (again in my opinion this was a 
    premeditated act).  Also I believe Mr. Bobbit was found not guilty of 
    the charges brought against him, he wasn't found insane he was found 
    not guilty.

    Joe

    'Not guilty by reason of temporary insanity' is 'not guilty,' too,
    so both John and Lorena were acquitted (which is why neither of them
    went to prison.)
    
    We all have our opinions about who did what to whom, of course.
    

    Blair,

    I wouldn't date her with your pee-pee!:) You might not come home with
    all the functional parts attached. Sides thats like asking if some
    older man would adopt Lizzi Borden for a daughter after she chopped up
    her mother and father.

    Perhaps a money maker for the feminist/nazi clan out there could come
    of it all. Esp with the blatant support of Ms. Bobbitt. A rear view
    mirror decoration of a pee-pee. With 'Love John' embossed in blood red on
    it.;]

    Or you could replace the dog whose head goes up and down with Johns
    pee-pee.

   

    Lorena won't be bothered (anymore) by macho jerks who believe their
    manhood is defined by whether or not they knock women around (physically 
    and/or verbally.)  
    
    Such "men" will be terrified of her now, which is lucky for her.

    
    Since everyone else is repeating themselves, as I've said before,
    any man who will date Lorena now is exactly the kind of man she 
    deserves.

    fred();

    Actually, I agree with this - Lorena won't be dating macho types
    anymore, which is lucky for her!
    
    She undoubtedly deserves to date someone better than John Wayne Bobbitt
    and his ilk.

I don't know about "deserves", Suzanne.  Lorena doesn't appear to be all that
wonderful a person in her own right.

My fondest wish is to never hear anything more about either of them, but I
know this one won't come true.

				Steve

    Well, I think everyone "deserves" the opportunity to be with someone
    who isn't perpetually physically and verbally abusive.
    
    Lorena has close friends (who knew her before the whole media circus
    started) who care for her quite deeply.  They seem to think she's a
    worthwhile person.
    
    Like you, I wish we would never hear more about either Lorena or John,
    though.  And like you, I also know this wish won't come true.

    Actually, the ones who should get together are John Wayne Bobbitt
    and the guy who whacked Nancy on the leg.  They both have experience
    assaulting women.
    
    As for Tonya and Lorena - they've both received publicity (like many
    other people who have been the objects of media frenzies.) 
    
    A "get together" with media magnets would be a pretty large gathering. 

        re .471

    What she will be dating is some geek who wants to demonstrate
    that he is "macho" enough to handle "the" Lorena Bobbit or some 
    loser who can't find anything better.  Not a good basis for a long 
    term relationship.  

    fred();

    Hey, it's not like she won't have the chance to meet lots of men
    (being as famous as she is now.)
    
    She is seeking a happier relationship, and as long as she's happy
    with whomever she finds, that's all that counts.  Others' hopes 
    that she won't be able to date (as 'punishment' for what she's done)
    are meaningless.
    
    I wish her the best.

    
    Dismemberment is now a meaningless crime. Proven by the populas of this
    country. So, now its O.K. to lop off an organ. So long as you claim its
    self defence. 
    
    

    Why bother trying an individual for the specifics of a particular
    charge if the jury can send a 'bad message' to the rest of the
    world by judging the case on its own merits.
    
    Perhaps we should adopt a system where we just throw people in jail
    without ever being tried (as long as it makes others feel ok later.)
    
    <sarcasm off>

    Merrits only count if your a woman. Merrits dont count for men who have
    lost their jobs and are paying child support and go to jail for a
    lesser evil. Merrits dont count for men who cannot see their children,
    but toss em in jail for not making their weeky payroll of support.
    Merrits dont work either for what is called equality for men when it
    comes to getting a fair and equitible divorce, or when the police show
    up and they cuff you first, then ask questions because the SO is drunk
    and waving a knife at you and the kids, like one man tells me.
    
    Merrits only work for Boyscouts and Girlscouts.

    Oh, God, well then they should have thrown Lorena into prison without
    a trial to make up for non-custodial fathers, I guess, huh?
    
    She can't possibly be regarded as an individual if it torques some
    men off.
    
    Geeeeeeesh.

    I think that I have spelt out what I thought would be fair and just
    earlier in this long winded string. 
    
    At this time....I am going to stop replying to this string because, of
    course, we'll both get hot under the collar. And Steve will put this
    into a shut down mode. And I wish not to have that happen. Besides,
    we are off in a rodent hole again from the original question that was
    asked earlier.
    
    Mean time.... chill out Suzanne.

    The case is over - she has been released from the hospital and is
    getting on with her life (as is John and his 'johnson.')
    
    I wish them both the best, and hope they stay out of the news.  :|

    Suzanne,
    
    Your repeting your self.

    Actually, J.W. Bobbitt is doing the "repet[t]ing" of *himself* these
    days, if he dares.  :>

>    'Not guilty by reason of temporary insanity' is 'not guilty,' too,
>    so both John and Lorena were acquitted (which is why neither of them
>    went to prison.)

Except Lorena admitted to having done the crime.  The 'by reason of
insanity' was an excuse to "justify" the act legally.  John did NOT
admit to raping his wife, did he?

>    We all have our opinions about who did what to whom, of course.

Sorry, but actually having a severed organ is a little MORE than an opinion.  
Perhaps not in your mind since it was a male on the receiving end.  She 
admitted to having done it.  Seems it is NOT a matter of conjecture.
Wouldn't you agree?

    No, Lorena pleaded "not guilty" to the crime.  
    
    She was also acquitted of the crime.
    
    What happened to John was deemed by Lorena's jury to be the actions
    of a temporarily insane woman who had been beaten and raped by her
    husband (John Bobbitt.)  He won't do jail time because of their
    beliefs in his guilt, but they weren't prevented from having these
    beliefs simply because he hadn't been convicted.
    
    Neither is anyone else.  

    
    
          I find it *hard* to believe some of the opinions I'm getting
    from the male noters.  I myself, am a strong healthy male, who
    shares his life with his girlfriend.  It seems that some of you
    guys who are so willing to condemn Lorena, are either:
    (a) Insecure, (b) Cowardly, or (c) Male Chauvinists.
    
          She committed an act out of despair and anger and nobody
    in this file is in a position to say it was justifiable or not.
    Men could never understand the fear women experience, because
    we don't have to worry about going home to our wives and getting 
    the living sh*t kicked out of us.  Except for a very small minority.
          
           When I go out on a date, the thought of potential violence
     from the woman I'm with never enters my mind.  However, that same
     woman could possibly spend the whole date wondering if I'm going
     harm her in some way.  And that my friends, is sad
    
            I say BRAVO LORENA!!!
    
    Blair  

        re .495


>          She committed an act out of despair and anger and nobody
>    in this file is in a position to say it was justifiable or not.

    Does this include you??

>It seems that some of you
>    guys who are so willing to condemn Lorena, are either:
>    (a) Insecure, (b) Cowardly, or (c) Male Chauvinists.

    Wasn't it you who were just talking about people's right to make
    judgment??

>          I find it *hard* to believe some of the opinions I'm getting
>    from the male noters.  I myself, am a strong healthy male, who
>    shares his life with his girlfriend.  

    Don't you even have guts enough to marry the girl? (while we're in
    the business of judgments).

>           When I go out on a date, the thought of potential violence
>     from the woman I'm with never enters my mind.  However, that same
>     woman could possibly spend the whole date wondering if I'm going
>     harm her in some way.  And that my friends, is sad

    And that, my boy, is _her_ problem not mine (or yours actually).
    If she is going to worry and fear the whole date about what I am going to
    do, then she probably isn't the woman for me anyway.

    >            I say BRAVO LORENA!!!

    Then _you_ date her.

    fred();

    RE:.493

    	Thanks for responding to this for me I couldn't have said anything
    better than you did but as we know men are all low life scumbags not
    worth squat and woman can't do no wrong.  If you doubt this just ask
    Ms. Conlon she'll set you straight.

    Joe

    John Wayne Bobbitt isn't all men, Joe.  He's a guy who admitted hitting
    his wife with a car (and who Lorena's jury *didn't believe* when he said
    he'd never abused her, other than that.)  He's still walking around free
    after his day in court.
    
    Lorena isn't all women, either.  She's a woman who the jury found to
    have been temporarily insane due to years of substantiated abuse the
    night she cut him with a knife.  She's now free after her day in court.
    
    It doesn't take a low opinion of either sex to recognize these facts.

    I can't believe you guys are still going back and forth on this lame,
    tired topic.  When do you ever do any work?
    
    tim
    

    I think we've exhausted this topic in 500 replies.  I've
    write-locked the note.
    
    					Steve