Quote from 20 Years Today Lorena Bobbitt Cuts Husband ***** Case Horrified Fascinated Nation[/quote »
It was the cut felt around the world.
Twenty years ago Sunday, a frustrated Virginia housewife grabbed a kitchen knife and turned the name Bobbitt into a verb by slicing off her drunken husband’s *****.
While John Wayne Bobbitt lay bleeding on his bed, wife Lorena roared off with the dismembered member and hurled it into a field for the buzzards to find.
And there the story might have ended had Lorena Bobbitt not come to her senses and called 911.
But call she did. And after an exhaustive search, the 26-year-old former Marine and his mutilated ***** were reunited — and reattached.
The Bobbitt case was one of the first cases that brought public attention to the subject of marital rape.[26][dead link] The case also brought attention to the issue of domestic violence. Within days of the incident, anti-domestic violence advocates and some feminist groups rallied around Lorena, citing the alleged continuous abuse she suffered at the hands of her husband that caused her to attack him, albeit in an unusual and violent manner.[27] In popular media, the case was seen as highlighting the rage around domestic violence and rape not being taken seriously and the demand that men be held liable for such assaults, and the insecurity and vulnerability of a masculinity that situates power in the phallus.
Media attention surrounding the case resulted in national debate and also sparked a flurry of jokes, limericks, T-shirt slogans, advertising gimmicks and an urban legend that Lorena had later been killed in a car accident because "some prick cut her off".[28] The incident was quickly adapted/parodied as a low-budget feature film called Attack of the 5'2" Women. In the film Fight Club, the character Tyler Durden comments that although the main character's house has been blown up, "You know, man... it could be worse, a woman could cut off your ***** while you're sleeping and toss it out the window of a moving car", referencing the Bobbitt case. The incident is also mentioned in the "Weird Al" Yankovic single "Headline News".
Shortly after the incident, episodes of "Bobbittmania", or copycat crimes, were reported.[29] The name Lorena Bobbitt eventually became synonymous with ***** removal. The terms "Bobbittised punishment" and "Bobbitt Procedure" gained social recognition.[30][dead link] The term "bobbittize" also entered medical literature.[31]
The worm Eunice aphroditois is colloquially known as Bobbitt worm.
So what do we make of this, should she have went to jail or worse? Or is the outcome of this situation so strange, that it should be left to the dust bin of history?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Looking back, things were much different 20 years ago, in many ways. I think how it was handled 20 years ago was correct, but I dont think someone could get away with it today without jail time.
Looking back, things were much different 20 years ago, in many ways. I think how it was handled 20 years ago was correct, but I dont think someone could get away with it today without jail time.
I'm not sure if the handling was correct - it's just such a weird case. It's in many ways unique, and the legal system isn't really a great tool for handling unique cases (since, by its nature, it's intended to produce broadly applicable results).
I agree with you that an identical case today would need to result in jail time. One big difference: women have effective legal recourse against marital rape and domestic violence. I'm not saying the problems are 100% fixed today, but it's still radically different than it was 20 years ago. If you have an effective legal recourse, violence is *not* an option.
Looking back, things were much different 20 years ago, in many ways. I think how it was handled 20 years ago was correct, but I dont think someone could get away with it today without jail time.
I'm not sure if the handling was correct - it's just such a weird case. It's in many ways unique, and the legal system isn't really a great tool for handling unique cases (since, by its nature, it's intended to produce broadly applicable results).
I agree with you that an identical case today would need to result in jail time. One big difference: women have effective legal recourse against marital rape and domestic violence. I'm not saying the problems are 100% fixed today, but it's still radically different than it was 20 years ago. If you have an effective legal recourse, violence is *not* an option.
In the 70s and 80s it was amazing to see society 'wake up' to things that have been either ignored, or people were naive about. This instance is just one of those things.
Usually the first time something happens, the legal system handles it the best they can. Its the instances after that get handled better. Once a situation becomes well known or main stream, then you are screwed if you try to do it.
My understanding of this case is that the marital rape was entirely made out of the whole cloth and both Bobbitts were abusive. Looking at the Jodi Arias trial by comparison we have made some strides. "Womens tears" have lost some of their effectiveness and the Radfem nonsense at work with Bobbitt would hopefully get challenged (although not nearly enough).
Being abused or having experienced abuse does not make your own abuse acceptable. I feel for them both but you simply cannot commit such violent acts even if all the marital rape issues was true you do not get to nearly kill a person like that.
Being abused or having experienced abuse does not make your own abuse acceptable. I feel for them both but you simply cannot commit such violent acts even if all the marital rape issues was true you do not get to nearly kill a person like that.
I don't disagree. At the same time, when the legal system presents no recourse, I have a hard time getting angry about it. People can only be pushed so far before they break. I pity both of them, and am glad that the loopholes which left Lorena with no real legal recourse have been addressed (again, not commenting on whether the solutions are perfect or not).
Neither Lorena nor John Wayne behaved as good people should, that's for sure. Who should, fairly, be punished? Both, neither, one, the other, you could make a serious case for any of those options. The legal system was not equipped to deal with this case.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_and_Lorena_Bobbitt
So what do we make of this, should she have went to jail or worse? Or is the outcome of this situation so strange, that it should be left to the dust bin of history?
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
I'm not sure if the handling was correct - it's just such a weird case. It's in many ways unique, and the legal system isn't really a great tool for handling unique cases (since, by its nature, it's intended to produce broadly applicable results).
I agree with you that an identical case today would need to result in jail time. One big difference: women have effective legal recourse against marital rape and domestic violence. I'm not saying the problems are 100% fixed today, but it's still radically different than it was 20 years ago. If you have an effective legal recourse, violence is *not* an option.
In the 70s and 80s it was amazing to see society 'wake up' to things that have been either ignored, or people were naive about. This instance is just one of those things.
Usually the first time something happens, the legal system handles it the best they can. Its the instances after that get handled better. Once a situation becomes well known or main stream, then you are screwed if you try to do it.
I don't disagree. At the same time, when the legal system presents no recourse, I have a hard time getting angry about it. People can only be pushed so far before they break. I pity both of them, and am glad that the loopholes which left Lorena with no real legal recourse have been addressed (again, not commenting on whether the solutions are perfect or not).
Neither Lorena nor John Wayne behaved as good people should, that's for sure. Who should, fairly, be punished? Both, neither, one, the other, you could make a serious case for any of those options. The legal system was not equipped to deal with this case.