His penis belongs to me!
 

I've read this article in the Australian papers about a woman who suspected that her husband was cheating on her, so she burnt his penis because 'it belonged to her'.

In the process she burnt the house down, her husband succumbed to his injuries and died a few weeks later, and she racked up a massive bill against her.

She's pleaded not guilty to murder.

so what does TFP think? does a mans penis belong to his partners once they sign some papers? or vice versa?

She is using the notion that people are chattels, and thus can be owned, bought or sold. Her husband on the other hand wasnt 'sold' to her, but rather had a contractual agreement with her. if she doesnt own the person, she certainly cannot own one of his organs. This doesnt give anyone the right to assault another person irrespective of cause.

This quote from another article gave me a chuckle


i personally think they should throw the book at her regardless whether her suspicions about her husband were true.

Um, no, I do not think Satish Narayan's penis belonged to Rajini Narayan.

I think it's obvious she's got some dysfunction of the old neurochemical command center going on there.

Really? This happens? Wow. This story makes me lose faith in humanity.
There has to be some issue with language, or translation? Oh wait, this happened in Australia. Nevermind.

I find it difficult to address the question posed by the OP, but here goes:
None my husband's organs belong to me. I wouldn't sell his kidney if we were tight on funds. I wouldn't man-whore him out, either. I might joke that he's mine, but I wouldn't actually think that he belongs to me. So even if one insisted he was my property and attempted to make the argument that some portion of him belonged completely to me...When we married everything we owned suddenly belonged to each of us equally. He owns the laptop I'm typing on just as much as I do. So, with that argument in mind, he "owns" me just as much as I "own" him.

People do not equal property to me.

However, the equation of people with property is not a new one. Children were widely regarded as property in Western culture into the 20th century, and still are in some cultures. Similarly, wives have been regarded as property in the same manner. Many of the traditions surrounding a wedding stem from the transfer of property.

That said, I think there is something more than culture at play here.

LOCK THIS BITCH UP!

I agree with mixedmedia, she has some big time mental issues to go off and burn her husbands dick. She's stupid for another reason too: she can't burn her husbands dick without burning the whole damn house down. I wish she died so she could make it into the Darwin Awards where she belongs.

i dont think that culture is at play here to be honest snowy. i know many indian families in Australia and in UAE and ive never seen or heard anyone saying that people are chattels. in indian culture, its more likely that the woman be treated as chattel than men because of the dowry system. but for an indian woman to have exclusive rights over a mans let alone his penis in indian culture in unheard of.

i see an enraged woman, but as MM said, a disturbed one. but does this mean that you believe that she gets off the hook because she's got mental issues?

GG, you own your husbands chattels, but do you own the exclusive right to his penis? and do you have the right to discard of it the way you think is fit?

it seems to be a growing trend where women seem to think along these lines. Lorraine bobbit, this woman, the dick sniffer chick (link here http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/general...43794-bad.html) , some chick in the philliphines if i recall who bit off ( or tried to) her husbands penis while giving him a blowjob because he was cheating on her.

I don't think anyone gets off the hook because they have mental issues. They're just treated differently than those who are possessed of a requisite amount of mental faculty...and rightfully so. All I have is the story to go by, so I don't really have a strong opinion as to what her fate should be.

Maybe just sensationalism.

maybe its just plain ol' reporting.

before the Bobbit story, i'd never heard of such a thing. it just seems that in the last 10-15 years, there's been more and more of these stories popping up in the press.

sure the stories are interesting, but i dont see the sensationalism in a lot of these stories except for the comical factor. what sensationalism do you see here?

I think the subject matter itself is sensational and provocative. How many other murder stories can you report on that you read from the same newspaper that made you feel the same creepy way? Not only is the penis itself provocative, but the heinousness, the craziness, all of it is sensational.

Give her exactly the same penalty a man would get for burning his wife to death. Nothing less. Oh and no, no person owns the person or body parts of another.

Interesting point, but I don't think this will happen. Most Judiciaries are still very conservative, and even in developed countries the application of all law is still gender-biased towards protection/leniency of women.

I doubt she'll be found not-guilty, but I wouldn't be surprised at a drastically suspended sentence compared to a man who abused and torched his wife.

Well, isn't there a Sati in order then?

I think she is nuts and I feel bad for her three children.

(Slowly unclenching legs)

Other than the obvious tragedy of this guy being killed by an insane partner, a couple of things about this strike me as odder than the other bits. First is the relatively calm straightforward admission of what was done. This woman is psychopathic on a very disturbing level, à la Hannibal Lecter. Granted there is no real context around her statements, but there seems to be a callous cold-bloodedness about them that suggests an inability to understand the nature of her actions.

The second issue is about burning his penis "so it belongs to me and no-one else". What could this possibly mean? Branding it with her initials? (unclench, slowly) Something like a ritual sacrifice along the lines of using it as a candle? (wishing I still drank right now... need a VERY stiff drink for that image to go away). This just doesn't enter the realm of sanity.

MM is probably right that there is a major chemical imbalance there, but I'm not so sure that people aren't treated differently due to their psychological state. Given that the neuro-chemical balance affects behaviour, and different brains have different degrees of sensitivity to those chemicals, then it is obvious that different people either get different treatment for the same levels of neuro-chemicals, or they get different treatment for the same action. I would maintain we can't say with any certainty what impact the actual chemical balance of the brain has on behaviour for an individual. Therefore, it is necessary to judge only the action, and not the individual. Otherwise, at some point, you end up being unfair to someone.

I just like to point out that the following words and phrases were used in posts:

nuts
popping up
bits

Now, on to my contribution: Eddie Murphy did a pretty funny bit about how women go nuts once you make them go "Oooohhhhhh, Oooohhhhh". That bit will probably pop up on YouTube if you search. While I agree that she is nuts, she also committed a pre-meditated crime and clearly knew right from wrong. Hence, she is guilty of a crime. Considering the fact that she specifically targetted the differentiating organ between genders, I say we call it a hate crime and double her sentence. I'm not trying to be a penis about the whole thing, but you can't just come in the house and set a man's johnson on fire. Chances are, this case will be in and out of the courthouse for months. Then, upon conviction, she will be in and out of the penal colony for life. You just don't wake up one day this batshit crazy.

I will find this post more amusing than most of you. I'm okay with that. It's been that sort of day.

I think that is on Raw, and the skit is about cumming hard - specifically that "this bitch is mine!" once you make a woman cum hard.

well, sort of my thoughts, but I don't agree with anyone in particular, as there should be clear distinction here called 'common sense'.

I don't think because of the actions and the obvious delusional-paranoid statements of some crazy-pyscho-bitch should cause us to debate her sentiments about love, marriage, and lifelong entitlement to ownership, especially when it is used to dismiss her previous actions to assault, mutilate and permanently damage another human being. (we're not dismissing it, and I'm sure prosecutors will not, but she, herself the accused, by addressing the media, is dismissing her admittedly-heinous, negligent, criminal, and moral affronts to society as something altogether less-than-supposed, cavalier even, to her murderous wrath and ignorant state-of-mind to confront her husband's supposed infidelity. There's barely a word that qualifies for how evil and oblivious this person is.)

It's as ridiculous as me, starting a hypothetical argument by posting the Kansas story of twins, wherby one of them strangles and then beheads the other, and states that he had just cause to do it, and should face no legal ramifications whatsoever because they 'were blood, we were brothers, we are the same person'.

It's funny. I'm not sure where I saw it, or if I'm recalling it correctly, but there is this quick memory blurb in mind of a local news network conducting an interview on this scenario, a penis-lopping-off situation, and the crew interviews all these women, and the general consensus was amongst these women was if they caught their husbands cheating on them, they'd do the same thing. It was filmed in Australia, or New Zealand somewhere. Also, there is a certain underground sterotype that you don't piss off a Chinese/ Thai/Southeast Asian woman, or prepare to take precautions of one morning waking up in a pool of blood, missing a certain appendage. It's a cruel joke to make light of the fact if you piss off a woman by being unfaithful, you can be slashed, deformed, even killed, and they'll calmly state it was 'just desserts'.

Not that I'm discounting the previous points made in this thread, but the initial premise of human ownership, and then to take it futher, actual corporeal mutilation, based upon the ramblings of some insane, jealous cold-blood-murdering, stupid, with no consequence for ramifications, just plain-insane woman, living without an ounce of sense in her mind, that's the travesty.

She gets play and recognition for being so ludicrously crazy we need to debate the ethics of basic human rights. Great.

I am all for her immediate lockup, and I also wouldn't mind if this thread were locked up just as quickly.

right, batshit insane murderess- straight to the firing squad, solves that easilly- same as for "honor" killings, wife murdering husbands- you know, pretty much the usual- why is this even a question- if a man did the same would the discussion even happen?

If his dick really belonged to her she would have wanted to stuff it and save it for personal use later, I would think...... If something is yours and it pisses you off you find a way to make it work for you or you toss it, you typically only burn combustibles in proper burn places, not between a mans legs, :eek::orly::eek: aaarrggghhhhhh :no: eeeeeeewwwwwww :sad:.

Had this not been vindication for a supposed injury caused to her by “his” dick, she would have wanted his dick later. Things you don't want or things that are no longer useful, in general, are burn worthy, his dick was for urinating also, ergo, useful to him and not burn worthy ownership allowed………. By the way, since when is it the dicks fault anyways, it’s not like it got up and went out whoring all by itself…… The man carried it along and forced it to go, I think the dick was totally innocent and should never have been injured, the man the dick was attached to, however, well, I still think the punishment was way over the line of sanity.

When she decided to burn his dick she gave up all loving ownership rights of that tool and should have given it back, but, since she would rather torment the "owner" of said tool (the dick) by damaging his goods because they did not satisfy her desires anymore, she becomes a selfish, greedy wacko job that makes men think all women are crazy.......

The only dick I own is the one my husbands’ dick is attached to :oogle:...... I know, I'm just fuckin with ya! (we have been married long enough that even he will admit to being a dick at times)

She gets Life imo, that's what she took, with total disregard to his children and the rest of his body, all this for a dick. He should have bought her a dildo and threw it at her as he took the kids and ran, money says she would have never burned the dildo, we all know this wasn’t about the dick, it was about the dick…….. Unjustifiable death sentence for him, life in jail for her. May God help the children find so form of peace. So sad for the kids, she is one real crazy sick woman.

No, no one owns anyone else. Not their body parts nor their bodies entirely.

Unrelated ...
Dlishs, this may have made you laugh but it scared me.
This is classic psychopathic behavior. The same mindset that people who hurt others have. They are not bothered by the burning of the penis off the mans loins, what bothers them is the entire drama caused by the "harmless exercise in lunacy": mainly because they lost the house. Isn't it how serial killers retell their tales? "Before I strangled that bitch she bit me really hard on my arm, my arm hurt for a long time, I had to get stitches." i.e. They dwell on a derailed and far away point which is important to them but takes away of the issue.

This lady has probably killed someone in her past.

My penis belongs to whoever I say it does. Lucky me, so far I still have it.

I can still work up a shudder thinking of Lorena driving off, clutching it, until she realized what it was & then THREW IT OUT THE WINDOW. Thanks a lot, dlish! There go the twenty-three minutes a day I spent not thinking about Him, for the time being.