Woman Hurts Man with Impunity
by Marc H. RudovIn Massachusetts (where else), in 1994, a woman shifted her position during lovemaking, landed awkwardly on her boyfriend, fractured his penis, and rendered him impotent.
The poor man had emergency surgery, to no avail. He sued her in 1997 and lost, and then appealed. Just this week, the state supreme court ruled that “a woman isn’t legally responsible for injuries her boyfriend suffered while they were having consensual sex.”
Guys, let me ask you this: Had the situation been reversed, do you suppose a man would not be held legally responsible for injuries his girlfriend sustained while they were having consensual sex? Can you imagine what NOW and the ACLU and Barbara Boxer would do? What about Hillary Clinton? Please make your comments below.
CLICK HERE for full story.
May 31st, 2005 at 9:17 pm
I like the way you turn gender-specific assumptions on their head.
Good reading.
June 8th, 2005 at 5:56 pm
That’s kind of comparing apples to oranges isn’t it? I mean, he can’t get it up (I totally understands that this directly affects how he views his masculinity) but damaging a woman’s reproductive organs mean she can’t reproduce. The guy can still produce sperm and have it fertilize an egg. But damage a woman’s organs and she may never even have the ability produce an egg to get fertilized and/or carry a child and give birth.
Am I totally misguided on this one?
Moxie
sexandmoxie.blogspot.com