![[Image: tumblr_mc3o3dtuzM1qjtuaro1_500.jpg]](https://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc3o3dtuzM1qjtuaro1_500.jpg)
On the night of June 23 in 1993 the police received a bizarre 911 call – women named Lorena Bobbit claimed to have severed off her husband’s penis and tossed it in a field outside of town. The police arrived, arrested her and after a meticulous search, the penis was located, put on ice and taken to the hospital where John Bobbit was being treated. In a miracle, the penis was able to be reattached and was and is fully functional.
The woman was clearly in a daze as the police escorted the woman to the station. She was subject to immediate questioning, where in response to a question as to her motive, she claimed, “He always have orgasm, I never have orgasm. He’s selfish. I don’t think it’s fair, so I pulled back the sheets and did it.” Understand that, in the heat of the moment, she was claiming she to have done it because of her inability to sexually climax. An open and shut case of sexual mutilation? No – not by a long shot.
Let’s step through the background of both people. John Wayne Bobbit wasn’t born into privilege and, at the time of the incident, 26, an ex-Marine and was a manual laborer. Lorena Bobbit was an Ecuadorian immigrant, who at the time of the incident, 23 and a manicurist. They met at a Marine ball, and they were wed in June 1989. Their relationship was stormy and characterized by abuse on the part of both parties. John was a typical irascible alcoholic, who apparently was physically and emotionally abusive. She claimed he put her down constantly and forced to her to get an abortion. For Lorena’s part, she was allegedly physically and emotionally abusive, as well. Her coworkers would eventually testify she claimed she would castrate her husband if he cheated or left her - they claimed she was possessive and jealous.
On the night of the slicing, John had gone out, as usual, and came home higher than a Georgia pine. According to Lorena, she claimed he forced himself on her and raped her. However, according to him, he told her he wanted a divorce. Remember, they had a very stormy relationship; they had been talking about a separation for some time. He then went to bed. She woke up in the middle of the night next to her alleged rapist, went down to the kitchen to grab a glass of water, but instead procured an eight-inch carving knife. She went back upstairs, flung off the sheets and quickly and brutally cut off his penis. She fled to her car, dick in hand, and went out to the countryside of Manassas, Virginia and tossed out the member into a field of grass.
As you already know, she immediately called the police, feeling very guilty about her act. She claimed she did because of her lack of orgasms. However, she quickly changed her story. She began to weave a tale of rape and domestic violence. Of course, this being the early 1990’s, feminism was at its zenith. The Anita Hill false sexual harassment debacle happened a couple years prior. Once this story reached the eyes and ears of feminists, an absolutely mind-boggling tsunami spent the nation.
Before we get into the feminist response, let’s talk about what happened legally. John was arrested on marital rape charges after Lorena accused him of raping her the night of the penis slicing – Lorena’s attorney referred to the incident as “The Cutting.” He was tried and acquitted of the rape charges. There was no evidence of bruising or resistance. Neighbors testified they were a loud, disruptive couple. They were very skeptical that she was raped because every other incident was marked by yelling, throwing stuff and general upheaval. Not that this trial and his acquittal received very little media attention. You could possibly characterize him as a false rape charge victim. When Lorena went on trial for malicious wounding was when the media circus began. Do note the same female prosecutor handled both trials.
When Lorena’s trial opened in January 1994, her lawyers claimed that she was temporarily insane due to an irresistible impulse. I am not going to step through the legal analysis of that defense because it is needlessly complicated – just know they claimed she was, at the time of the crime, unable to be held legally accountable for her actions. She and her lawyers decided she would take the stand, where described a history of all manner of abuse and rape. She claimed he boasted of his sexual infidelities repeatedly. John took the stand and on direct examination, he refuted all of her allegations. On cross, his version of events was seriously contradicted and he markedly hurt the prosecution’s case. After deliberation, she was found not guilty due the theory advanced by the defense. She did spend some time in a mental institution before being released.
![[Image: LorenaBobbitJohnBobbit.jpg]](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-bAP7tnAQ7wk/Toj3kHzmdfI/AAAAAAAAAu8/ocr55plD0-U/s1600/LorenaBobbitJohnBobbit.jpg)
However, throughout this trial there were incredible amounts of media coverage and social commentary. Just at the courthouse, supporters of either John or Lenora hawked T-shirts, mugs and all manner of supportive item. Protesters – mostly feminists – flooded the steps and sidewalks with signs supporting Lenora and denigrating John as an abuser and rapist – even though he was acquitted of rape charges before the trial.
Which leads into the feminist reaction – feminists were almost uniformly in support of Lenora. Even before the case developed in court, they were already developing the theme of and abused and raped woman who exacted justice on her oppressor. Feminists challenged marital rape laws and lobbied to strengthen enforce of them. However, the big issue was domestic violence and what was an appropriate response to it.
The positive attention was wicked. Vanity Fair magazine proclaimed her a “folk heroine,” The New York Times posited her as an inspiration to abused women – TIME magazine claimed a ripple of glee swept through the hearts of women when hearing this story. Notice how the narrative automatically assumed he was the aggressor and she the victim. I can’t stress this enough – he was acquitted on charges of rape. It didn’t matter – on accusation alone, he was a rapist. As for the abuse charges, I will deal with that later.
Quote:Quote:
Let’s review the response for women. She was lauded as a hero for women everywhere. She was even described as a critical person in the history of women. That person claimed that violence was so pervasive and systematic against women that she was the watershed moment for stopping that violence. Note that around 85% of violent crime is perpetrated against men. I am not even touching that ignorant comment about violence against women. Most feminists regarded her as a hero for gender liberation everywhere. Most importantly for the average male, many women proclaimed, “You go girl!” when told about the situation. Understand that the response to this situation was split along sex lines – most of Lorena’s supporters were women, most of John’s supporters were men.
As usual, the feminist tag-team was Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon was on the scene, decrying the institution of marriage as mere legal cover for rape and abuse of women. Horrifyingly, a woman named Stephanie Cutter of Sydney, Australia summed up the two radical feminists approaches in this quote:
Like most of the American mass media, you have framed the Lorena L. Bobbitt affair as an issue of penile mutilation. You ignore the social context of Lorena Bobbitt's actions.
Prof. Catharine MacKinnon of the University of Michigan and the writer Andrea Dworkin long ago pointed to the institution of marriage as a legal cover for the act of rape and the permanent humiliation 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 Lorena Bobbitt case has galvanized the women's movement worldwide in a way the Anita Hill case never did. No feminist is advocating emasculation as the weapon of first choice. And some women question the political prudence of "sociosexual vigilantism." But whatever the judgment 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.
What an irony that Ecuador, one of the world's most oppressively patriarchal societies, has generated such a potent symbol of female empowerment.
While I am literally sick reviewing the hatred of feminists, let’s step through one of the more important points about the feminists and female response – it revolves around male fear. Evil takes a female form in the form of columnist Ellen Goodman when she proclaimed that men “know see a dangerous enemy where they once saw a enemy.” Do note that she see assumes men see women as an enemy – that is pure feminist projection. I have long maintained feminists are only digging their own psychological grave – they have the complete and utter inability to describe anything but their own thoughts and impulses. Back on point Ellen Goodman finishes with her masterstroke of a feminist line, “If women smile at men who squirm, maybe it’s recognition of power.” Women piled behind Lenora, supporting her and her penis retaliation. Many women thought it was good men should fear women, as it would keep them from abusing their women. As usual, the guys would abuse women will do so with impunity – they often have anti-social tendencies so they don’t care about what the social mores are. For guys that wouldn’t beat their girlfriends or wives all it does it create unnecessary fear on their part. It is beyond predictable that women target their psychological equal – the insecure beta male. Unable to control the men they desire – they could be alphas – they double down on asserting supreme control over beta males. It is never satisfying for them.
![[Image: 150px-Bobbitt_Uncut.jpg]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f9/Bobbitt_Uncut.jpg/150px-Bobbitt_Uncut.jpg)
Let’s review their lives in the aftermath of the trials before I step through some psychological analysis. John did get his penis back and was fully functional. Due to legal and medical bills pilling up, he sought to cash in on his infamy. He tried to start a band, called “The Severed Parts,” that never amounted to anything. Then, he starred in two pornos, each called “John Wayne Bobbit: Uncut,” and “Frankenpenis.” He would work with the WWE in a match in 1998. He moved to Las Vegas for a time, working as a bartender and a pizza delivery driver – he even worked as a minister at a chapel. However, the most damning evidence about him was his continuous and repeated interactions with law enforcement. He was arrest on all manner of charges, from theft to grand larceny. However, the most damning was his repeatedly arrests for domestic violence. While I do not agree with the framework of domestic violence arrests and his notoriety, he was most likely a serial abuser. He was convicted once of domestic assault and acquitted in another. While he did marry three times, abuse was a common theme between them all. In all honesty, a serial criminal and an alcoholic who abuses his women? It is believable. However, lets step through Lenora’s life, as she bolsters my assertion.
After the trial, she sought a low profile – a very common trait of an abused person. They rarely seek the spotlight – they seek to either ignore the abuse or put it in their past and move on. She eventually became a real estate agent. She married again and had kids and started a charity to help abused women – called the Lorena’s Red Wagon. Notice the lack of rape in the organization setup.
Which brings me my final point – I do think she was an abused women. To be sure, the abuse was mutual - as many abusive relationships are. She was convicted of battering her mother over the wrong choice of a TV show – she has violent tendencies as well. However, his contradictory testimony on cross-examination, his alcoholism, his subsequent conviction of domestic violence and her comportment after the trial reinforce that fact he was most likely abusing her. Let’s go through why women stay with violent men – as usual I will be drawing on The Last Psychiatrist.
Here’s the link: http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/01/p...buser.html
Leave it TLP to drop some heat on domestic violence, but his piece reinforces my opinions about this situation. John says he will leave her and means it this time. She senses it. Her ultimate fear is abandonment of a male. She goes to a fitful sleep and awakes, thirsty as hell. In her mind, she focuses on the one thing that connected them – sex. She is young and attractive – she knows that sex is what is keeping them together. When she sees the knife in kitchen she thinks of not only severing that connection due to anger but also prolonging their relationship. She knows that if she mutilates him they will be connected for that much longer. She does it and immediately confesses – she needs to let him know that she is sorrowful while letting knowing their relationship will be elongated by this situation.
Her youth and good looks helped the public perception of the trial. Everybody loves a good-looking white girl. TLP points out that her youth helps out when dealing with situations such as this. People tolerate itinerant behavior on the part of youth because they consider them to be a “coming-of-age” situation or just youthful indiscretions. She married and had kids – it would not surprise me that she did so after she realized she hit the wall.
In the end, we have two people who lived radically different lives. On one hand, we have a woman who became enamored with a Marine who became a criminal and an alcoholic. As for John, we have a young man who married an attractive South American woman whom he went on to abuse. His life story is little more than a petty criminal. While their turbulent relationship was mutually abusive, he was the aggressor – which is too bad. When a man locks down some young, hot pussy he should be happy.
However, he picked the wrong female and fucked with her - and he wronged her, as well. They used each other as caricatures to deal with their childhood deficiencies. They used each other to act their childhood problems - him playing out the abusive father with her playing the retaliatory child. The relationship was mutually abusive. In the end, they knew they were both in the wrong. Their meetup in 2009 reinforced this. Lenora acknowledged his letters on Valentine's Day every year and claims he still loves her to this day. His actions don't disprove anything beyond the the cases that cast more aspersions on the case.
Oh well.
![[Image: the-thirst.jpg]](http://www.troll.me/images/thirst-crazy/the-thirst.jpg)
![[Image: lol.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/new/lol.gif)
