I find this thread much more enticing than the ego of man.

I am terribly hurt that the Sun left out pertinent details:

How, where and when did his mate "find the tackle?"

Was it still in her mouth at the time?

And just how long before had she been dumped by the now uniballed victim?

Wow that hurts just to read.

Wait, she's only 5'2" and manages to rip his pants off. Then she manages to rip his shorts off. Then she managed to rip his, ahem, off. Does anyone think he's not telling the whole truth?

Am reminded about that scene in There's Something About Mary.... 'we have a bleeder!'

Gives new meaning to no biting allowed...

Kevin, see what happens when you don't post the winners of the Weekend Caption Contest?

hah how disgusting. How did he let her get close enough (if he did not want to have sex) to allow her to bite (gross) off a testicle? I mean, think about it; it's not that easy to do. I can't even get my mind around this one.

Cindy

Okay, okay. I'll say it:

She's nuts.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

She should also be charged with attempted rape. After all, would not the man be charged as such in reversed circumstances? In these days of "gender equality," chivalry should not compel us to treat criminal behavior differently when it's committed by a woman.

Well, sure, on the negative side she'll rip your nuts off. But she obviously really, really likes having sex, which is always a plus. So I call it a draw.

Cindy: She didn't bite it off, she yanked the little sucker off.

Frank H.: How could she be charged with attempted rape? Because she expressed the desire for sex? Because she ripped his clothes off (it is questionable whether she could do it without his help)? When she ripped his testicle off? I would say that is the antithesis of sex. Mayhem yes, attempted rape, no.

Julie, I must agree with Frank. Do you REALLY think that if a man ripped off a woman's shirt and grabbed her breast and tugged, that he wouldn't be charged? She wanted sex, he said no, she ripped his clothes off, if the tables were turned...

"...in a rage after he refused to have sex..."

"The court heard..."

That means, they heard it, it's a possibility. Doesn't mean it's established truth...at least not yet.

Yes, she's nuts. I agree, if the facts fit here, that she's guilty of attempted rape and also assault (d'oh).

Some people are just completely crazy. Nuts. You get close to someone, over time, you excuse increased nuttiness and then, just look what can happen. Unfortunately.

Poor guy. Plastic surgery exists to assist his problem, however, and he'll be nearly good as new afterward. All you really need is one, you know, at least, that's the positive way to perceive this when recovering afterward in some distant, safe and protected place far away from this crazy female.

Mike:

Would you agree that a 5' 2" woman, who looks to be about 100-105 lbs, would not be able to get a man's pants and shorts off without some sort of cooperation, and therefore, it is consensual?

Let's say after she gets him nekkid, he exercises his right to say "No." So, how would her next act -- ripping his testicle off -- ever lead to sexual intercouse, sexual penetration, oral cop, or sodomy (I think I covered my bases here)?

Actually she did it without consent. It doesnt take much to get a guy's shorts off and an enraged woman can easily grab a guy's testicles and with her nails cut the skin. There's little you can do but poke her in the eyes and karate chop her neck to defend yourself and even then if she's determined you're still gonna be castrated.
The best punishment would me de-feminisation: i.e have her breasts chopped off. But British law doesnt allow that, nor does it allow a woman to rape a man... and this wasn't attempted rape.. it was just an assault.

@Julie, you are ignorant. Don't defend a woman just because she's 5'2", or because she's a woman. She's in the wrong. And was probably very drunk since it seemed it said it happened at a party.

Julie, yes, if the man were reluctant to use force and physically fight back (as men often are with women) a 5' 2" woman could do what she describes. Especially if the man had no reason to expect she was about to castrate him with her bare hands.

I have to agree with Frank too. If the the genders here were reversed then there would be rape/sexual assault charges pending against the man.

Monjo: Learn to read. I am not the person who claimed this was attempted rape. I said it was mayhem, a much more serious charge than assault which you claim it is. And no, I don't think a 5" 2" woman can get a man's pants off he resists. And seek help about your cutting off women's breasts fantasies.

Bryan C:

A man has to use very little force, if any at all, to keep a small woman from removing their pants. That they were removed, is indicative that it was consensual up to that point. [Now, the story is confusing in that it states his shorts were removed and he was left in his pants. Maybe, this is some weird English thing. However, who wears shorts in January in England?]

Are you arguing that if a man and a woman were getting hot and heavy, he begins removing her clothing, she starts staying no and pushing his hands away, he stops, but her blouse is off before he does -- he should be charged with attempted rape? Yikes!

I find it amusing that the men fail to see the seriousness of the crime she did commit because they are so hung up on their idea of reverse discrimination. In the US, the sentences for attempted rape or sexual assault is about three years max. The crime of mayhem is life. You're not victims. Get over it. Nobody wants to rape you.

Julie: You mentioned consent. The trial was in January, it didnt state when the incident happened. And yes you can get shorts off easily. He didnt resist because he wasn't aware it was happening. Stop defending the woman.
It isn't a fantasy. Disfigurement has been used as a punishment before.

You learn to read as I never stated you said it was rape or similar. I merely commented it could never be rape in the UK as women cant rape men.

Monjo:

I'm not defending the woman, I attacking your idiotic and offense comments.

He didnt resist because he wasn't aware it was happening.

You learn to read. He knew his pants were being removed. If it stopped there, and someone called the police, do you in your wildest sick dreams think she would have been arrested and convicted by a jury of attempted rape? And I assume there is the crime of rape by foreign object, and unlawful oral cop. in UK, so yes, a woman can be charged with rape. Learn to think or go read your own penal code before you open your fat yap again.

It isn't a fantasy. Disfigurement has been used as a punishment before.

Only by sickos. So, stop fantasizing about bringing it back.

[Now, the story is confusing in that it states his shorts were removed and he was left in his pants. Maybe, this is some weird English thing. However, who wears shorts in January in England?]

US English "underpants" = UK English "pants"

i.e., his shorts (as in athletic gear) were removed leaving him in his Y-fronts.

All clear now?

No. Got pictures?

The best punishment would me de-feminisation: i.e have her breasts chopped off.

Monjo, that is INCREDIBLY extreme. Amanda didn't rob the man of his penis, nor of both his testicles. He can function perfectly well with one, and he is still very much a male, with a male anatomy. So why should she have her breasts removed?

And I, for one, believe there is a lot missing in this story.

Theres no problem with this story - he was wrestling her off, she fell to the ground, grabbed him, and his shorts came down. Thats not difficult to do, he didn't expect it, they'd both been drinking, and he didn't EXPECT her to grab him and wrench his genitals - it was sudden, unexpected and drunken.

She got 2.5 years - see the UK news. Her lawyer defended her saying she felt "bereaved" cos their relationship had ended. Tried to play the 'poor little woman' car saying she had "small hands".
She should have got 5-10 for RUINING the poor guy's LIFE.

With £50,000 civil compensation for psychological and physical damage.