Woman Squeezes Man's Balls, Kills Him

This looks sufficient.... Nice design too. Chain-mail over lay would be a nice touch though.

 

Rape. A woman's genitals are more on the inside so every time a woman is raped - having something shoved into her vagina against her will - her genitals are being specifically targeted.

Irrational? Try something like these stories.

WARNING GRAPHIC PHOTO
http://www.bestgore.com/murder/photos-of-a-woman-who-was-raped-and-brutally-murdered/

and

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-01-17/Georgia-murder/52625834/1

 

Ew

 

I wish I had never read this thread. But like a bad accident on the road, I couldn't stop looking. FUCK!

That woman's punishment should be to have a sex-change operation (at her expense) in which she is fitted with a pair of testicles (preferably harvested from the man she killed), and then have a member of that man's family squeeze them until she dies!

And why does the word "testicle" have the word "ticle" in it? What kind of irony is that? Is it some kind of joke, or what?

 

You know where the term testify came from?

 

I shudder to think . . .

And I mean shudder!

 

From the Bible, Old Testament.

Genesis 24;
Now Abraham was old, well advanced in age; and the Lord had blessed Abraham in all things. 2 So Abraham said to the oldest servant of his house, who ruled over all that he had, “Please, put your hand under my thigh, 3 and I will make you swear by the Lord, the God of heaven and the God of the earth, that you will not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell; 4 but you shall go to my country and to my family, and take a wife for my son Isaac.” 5 And the servant said to him, “Perhaps the woman will not be willing to follow me to this land. Must I take your son back to the land from which you came?”
6 But Abraham said to him, “Beware that you do not take my son back there. 7 The Lord God of heaven, who took me from my father’s house and from the land of my family, and who spoke to me and swore to me, saying, ‘To your descendants I give this land,’ He will send His angel before you, and you shall take a wife for my son from there. 8 And if the woman is not willing to follow you, then you will be released from this oath; only do not take my son back there.” 9 So the servant put his hand under the thigh of Abraham his master, and swore to him concerning this matter.


The King James version cleans it up a bit, but I think you get the idea.

At least this is what I had heard was the origin of the term/idea.

 

and that developed into this;

One theory is that the word "testify" was derived from the ancient Roman custom of men holding their testicles with their right hands before giving testimony in court.
And why did the Romans have to hold their balls before they could testify in court? It was so that eunuchs and women were excluded.
We should say that etymologists aren’t unified on this: some say that the origin of testify came from the latin "testis" which means "third person standing by" or "witness." But that’s boring. (Source: American Heirtage Dictionary of the English Language)
http://www.neatorama.com/2008/03/05/trivia-the-ballsy-origin-of-testify/

"It is stated that under Roman law no man was admissible as a witness unless his testicles were present as evidence or “witnesses” of one’s virility because only verified men were allowed to give witness, or to testify, in legal matters. To swear by one’s testicles was an ancient form of oath. To detest, at root, means “to bear witness against;” therefore, to curse, and implicitly, to hate to the bottom of one’s testicles."

So the holding balls while swearing an oath goes back to Biblical times as noted in previous post, but Roman Law codified the word.

Am I right? Do I win a prize or something?

 

testify comes from 'testis' which is Latin and means 'witness'.

 

No response to the examples I provided you?

 

not even near the same as cutting off someone's genitalia. i know you'll disagree. women tend to overhype the rape thing. rape is bad, yes, but it doesn't incapacitate a female (or male) from ever having sex again. so, not an adequate analogy.

 

Now we're talking about cutting off genitals? I thought we were talking about irrational attacks focused on the genitals like the OP about having testicles squeezed.

 

Okay, Meridianwest - Here you go. This one includes the men having cut the women's breast off. I guess you could debate about breasts not being genitals...

http://floppingaces.net/2007/05/13/rape-mutilation-and-murder/

Here's some more breasts being cut off.

http://olive-drab.com/od_history_ww2_ops_battles_1937nanking.php

How about Sharon Tate having her baby cut out of her during the Manson Murders? Maybe it was a female that did that, though...

Let's see. Here's one about women having their Uterus's forcibly cut out.
http://acelebrationofwomen.org/?p=81246

Reports here of sexual assaults, usually with spears, machetes, sticks or gun barrels thrust into their vaginas. Increasingly, the trigger is being pulled.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Africa/Silence_Rape_DRCongo.html

 

i mentioned it before on this thread in association with the case the current thread is about. i could've gone and added 'and female going in to squeeze a man's testicles while her husband and brother are already engaged in a physical fight with the man' but damnit i really thought people were following the whole conversation not bits and pieces and that i didn't have to type out every single thing every time i made a new post.

where do you pull these news items anyway? you specifically target this sort of stuff? the Newsom and Christian thing is sick. but again it is not analogous. that shit was done by people who had already raped (and committed other crimes) before. additionally the atrocities in this case were committed by multiple persons, a situation where herd mentality starts playing an influencing factor.

I already specified in one of my posts that I meant an analogous situation perpetrated by a 'sane' or normal (be as wide as that term is) person. Child molesters, serial killers and the like hardly qualify as that.

the second case you provided doesn't count. Again: sane people under normal circumstances (not war, not acts committed under impulse of vengeance, religious agenda, etc), which is how these women perpetrated their crimes. This female was in a regular everyday situation, specifically choosing a parking spot for herself. And upon not getting what she wanted AND after she already had her husband and brother engaged in a physical fight with the guy she still goes in to inflict the worst pain you can on a guy. this was not the premeditated rape and murder, and kidnapping that you provided as analogies.

 

Meridianwest, you just keep changing the conditions mid-stream and attempting to divert attention to an attack on my internet viewing habits.

FAIL.

 

please stop bumping this thread ...the title makes want to puke every time i see it in new posts

 

Actually female rape victims may suffer from severe PTSD or other trauma and have an adversion to sex from the psychological trauma. So that's not so bad?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groin_attack

 

Predator Men sexual offenders ,rapist , killers ,etc. make up almost 100% of genital mutilation cases ,on women and on other men . Remember Dalmer ?

In a later post you say they don't count becuse "their insane" . Which is not true either . Most or NOT insane . In fact some are highly intelligent , Remeber Bundy ? He was anything but insane and a genital mutalater , breasts if memory serves .

I think the point you're trying to make is one is a sexual crime committed by men and the other is a revenge , anger crime committed by "irrational " women .

However ,this isn't entirely true either . Because men in mutual combat do attack other men's genitals as well . It's not a sexual thing , it's a weak spot thing . No diff. than pressure points / joint locks. And I'd venture to say men are more likely and do target other men's genitals in mutual combat then women do . While it's rare they "squeeze" them to this degree , it happens . And men are just as capable of being caught up in the "pack mentality " you mentioned .

But to say or suggest only "irrational", angry women attack/mutilate , and suggest only "insane", angry men do it , I just don't see it . Both are sane , and yes one is sex related . Both are anger related . And we can't forget men in combat smack each other in the ole beanbag too .

 

i didn't change anything. and neither was i attacking your internet viewing habits, stop being so damn sensitive and thinking every tiny innocent question is a personal attack against you.

you looked up and provided me with the most atrocious crimes committed by men you could find out there hoping i would accept them as analogies. i explained why they were not. it's not my fault you fail to understand the word 'analogy'.

men are capable of awful evil stuff. i never negated that. take Matthew Shephard's case. i'm the first one to point out how freaking irrational that whole thing was.

our 'argument' as such here is not about that. i'll provide you with a hypothetical example of what is an analogous situation to this one and other situations where a female has turned nuts and went and harmed or outright destroyed a man's genitalia. e.g. a guy quietly sitting at home and upon getting a refusal from the wife to make him a sandwich or something went and cut her breasts off (yes, I will consider that an analogy) or mutilated her **** or specifically incapacitated her in some other way. That is a regular everyday situation turned irrational violence, which is what the examples in the feminine were. that's an analogy. you find me an example and i will concede i was wrong in my assumption of only females capable of such stuff.