Wife ripped open husband's scrotum by lifting him up by his testicles using her fingernails

[Emn1ty]

11 hours ago, kalel83 said:

He didn't loose functionality of either of his testicles or his penis.

 

He did loose eye sight in one eye.

 

 

If it was he lost something, sure I am with you. But just taking a temporary wound, nope. He has nerve damage, but it doesn't say it prevents him from having babies or maintaining an erection.

 

The hole will heal. Nerve damage can tune out (I deal with some from a surgery).

That eye will not come back.

 

 

Also that gif is brutal. He just lays there for 3 kicks..

Would you say the same for a woman who got similar treatment? Just curious.

[adrynalyne]

Just now, Emn1ty said:

Would you say the same for a woman who got similar treatment? Just curious.

Probably not due to no scrotum, penis, or testicles.

[Emn1ty]

Just now, adrynalyne said:

Probably not due to no scrotum, penis, or testicles.

My point is, if a man had cause just a "temporary" wound, and their attacks had resulted in blindness in one eye for a woman, would a two year prison sentence seem like enough?

[adrynalyne]

Just now, Emn1ty said:

My point is, if a man had cause just a "temporary" wound, and their attacks had resulted in blindness in one eye for a woman, would a two year prison sentence seem like enough?

Perhaps you quoted the wrong post, because there was no mentioning of sentencing in there.

[Emn1ty]

1 hour ago, adrynalyne said:

Probably not due to no scrotum, penis, or testicles.

It does however say it in the article, of which this thread is about.

 

PS: Edited to reflect the correct post this was in response to.

Edited August 8, 2016 by Emn1ty

[adrynalyne]

 

4 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

It does however say it in the article, of which this thread is about.

 

 

Quote

 

What kind of nonsense is that?

 

Drunk this early in morning? Oh wait, you are in Russia right? What time is it there?

 

 

No...I don't think it does.

[Emn1ty]

7 minutes ago, adrynalyne said:

No...I don't think it does.

Then maybe you should start reading, or at least do a simple ctrl+f on the page before saying that:

[adrynalyne]

3 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

Then maybe you should start reading, or at least do a simple ctrl+f on the page before saying that:

 

 

 

LOL, ironic comment.

 

You have quoted two unrelated responses and are telling me to read.

 

 

[Emn1ty]

Just now, adrynalyne said:

LOL, ironic comment.

 

You have quoted two unrelated responses and are telling me to read.

You're being highly confusing. First, I respond to a post asking if they think a similar result would be adequate to have happen to a male. You then make a quip about how they aren't male. I reply again with clarification as in terms to the injuries (of which the original person I quoted downplayed them and only talked about the physical harm and how it would heal, whereas similarly for women the focus isn't just the physical damage but the emotional damage and abusive environment). You then tell me that the article doesn't say something (twice) and when I prove that wrong you decide to say I'm off topic?

Interesting thought process, most likely just trolling.

[adrynalyne]

1 minute ago, Emn1ty said:

You're being highly confusing. First, I respond to a post asking if they think a similar result would be adequate to have happen to a male. You then make a quip about how they aren't male. I reply again with clarification as in terms to the injuries (of which the original person I quoted downplayed them and only talked about the physical harm and how it would heal, whereas similarly for women the focus isn't just the physical damage but the emotional damage and abusive environment). You then tell me that the article doesn't say something (twice) and when I prove that wrong you decide to say I'm off topic?

Interesting thought process, most likely just trolling.

Dude, you need to cool off and view this topic in the forum on a PC or something. Then it will all become very clear to you. If you want a discussion, quote what you are responding to.

 

I'll save time and accept your apology now

 

[ThisSiteHasLostItsCharm]

11 hours ago, Nashy said:

Gets off because she's a female.  Where are all the feminists calling for equal rights now?

too busy watching ghostbusters.

[trag3dy]

13 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

I did quote what I was responding to. Point out where I didn't, please. You might want to refresh your browser if you think otherwise, the forums are displaying fine on my Mac.

Your confusion (or his) comes from this post:

 

30 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

It does however say it in the article, of which this thread is about.

 

 

In which he was originally replying to @oldtimefighter whose only contribution to the thread was attacking several members for no real particular reason other than a misplaced sense of self righteousness. 

[adrynalyne]

Just now, trag3dy said:

Your confusion comes from this post:

 

In which he was originally replying to @oldtimefighter whose only contribution to the thread was attacking several members for no real particular reason other than a misplaced sense of self righteousness. 

Thanks. I was starting to doubt my own sanity. Its sane if others can see the same things...right?

 

[MikeChipshop Member]

Two years for an attack that was one in a long line of attacks? That seems a little off kilter.

 

Related: I actually tore my scrotum once, thanks to definitely not landing on the Skateboard with the right part of my body. It wasn't actually particularly painful. Not something I'd repeat mind you.

[Emn1ty]

1 minute ago, adrynalyne said:

I'm saying if you don't want confusion and relevant responses, quote more carefully. What I discussed was on-topic with what you quoted. In fact, not one person here can assert your meaning when you quoted @kalel83 to be about the sentencing because context.

 

Backpedal all you want. You accused me of not reading and trolling when I was not and I have now proven it.

I apologize for the accusation, since the forum was obviously not performing as expected. But still, the context was given and clarified after you quoted that topic and despite that you still think I can't talk about the sentencing because the post I replied to didn't have it mentioned. I can, and I did.

So to reiterate, I was making a point that @kalel83 was focusing entirely on the physical damage and not the emotional damage or the abusive environment/history of this couple whereas with wife abuse it's the opposite. It's not about how much physical damage is done, but how much emotional damage is done. In an effort to illustrate that often double standard, I asked if he'd say the same in the case of roles reversed. Does that make sense?

[adrynalyne]

6 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

I apologize for the accusation, since the forum was obviously not performing as expected. But still, the context was given and clarified after you quoted that topic and despite that you still think I can't talk about the sentencing because the post I replied to didn't have it mentioned. I can, and I did.

So to reiterate, I was making a point that @kalel83 was focusing entirely on the physical damage and not the emotional damage or the abusive environment/history of this couple whereas with wife abuse it's the opposite. It's not about how much physical damage is done, but how much emotional damage is done. In an effort to illustrate that often double standard, I asked if he'd say the same in the case of roles reversed. Does that make sense?

I understand where you are going now, but his post was directed towards me. That post was replying to me about preferring damage to man bits vs eyeballs (I said eye, he said man bits). It wasn't specific to who did it or what gender they were. It was a side conversation, so of course it was missing the emotional aspect of the conversation.

 

 

[+JHBrown Subscriber¹]

Looks scary enough not to marry, yet alone be allowed anywhere near my scrotum...

 

 

[kalel83]

5 hours ago, oldtimefighter said:

 

 

 

I can't tell if you are joking or don't know how gifs work?

 

GO to youtube and look at the video. She does it three times.

 

Or maybe you are just saying you don't know how gif work? You can just google search that man.

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

thread cleaned. please stay on topic.

[FloatingFatMan]

5 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

My point is, if a man had cause just a "temporary" wound, and their attacks had resulted in blindness in one eye for a woman, would a two year prison sentence seem like enough?

Two year suspended sentence... Disgusting. The psycho should be locked up for at least 10 for what she's done.

[oldtimefighter]

2 hours ago, kalel83 said:

GO to youtube and look at the video. She does it three times.

 

Or maybe you are just saying you don't know how gif work? You can just google search that man.

Are you kidding? You weren't referring to the gif that was posted in a comment? Sorry, I don't do YouTube searches for videos of woman kicking dudes in the balls so I guess am out of the loop there.

 

No judgment here... I know a woman who will do it for $50 a pop if that's what you are into man.