Talk:Penis removal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Crime  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
Votes for deletion This article was the subject of a previous vote for deletion.
An archived record of the discussion can be found here.

Older discussion[edit]

Other forms of penis-related violence have also been recorded. For example, in July 2000, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, a 17-year-old girl superglued her boyfriend's erect penis to his abdomen to punish him for his infidelity. The boyfriend required emergency medical attention but not removal of the penis.

 This is an urban legend 

This was created only because the idea was mentioned on VfD. It's somewhere between a light-hearted joke and a potentially serious article, based upon Wikipedians' demand. I'll raise no objections if it's deleted. :)

But two penises does not a list make. What about Rasputin? I'm sure there are others.... I don't think Dillinger should count (I wouldn't count posthumous detachments....one must have standards, after all) - Nunh-huh 04:03, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wow, guys. Nice job with the article. It actually has some really good information now, which ought to be preserved in some form or another, though I'm still undecided on whether or not the article itself should be kept or deleted.

(By the way, I wrote the original. I saw the concept in VfD and thought it might be funny to make that link blue instead of red.)

At any rate, the stub tag is hilarious in the context of this article. Read it again if you don't see why. Mike Church 06:41, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

vote to rename Penis-related violence. Exploding Boy 07:23, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
For some reason, that title sounds rather comic, to me.... Dysprosia 07:25, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps a little, but better than the current one. Besides, the article has become about more than just severed penises (and anyway, should it be about the men who've had their penises severed, not about their penises?. Exploding Boy 07:27, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

The name sounds just fine. No one's here just because they're "men", though that would seem to be a minimum requirement: they're here because of their severed penises. Most of the entries have some information about what was done with the stolen member after the severing: it's about severed penises. -- Scamp 07:56, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. It's not just about severed penises anyway, and the name sounds silly. Think about it: can you envision a "list of severed arms"? Without the people from whom they were severed you'd have nothing. I still prefer penis-related violence. Exploding Boy 08:06, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

Something related to the social-ness and symbolic-ness should be worked into the title. Dysprosia 08:11, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that the content of this article, some of which is good, ought to be under some subheading on the castration page. The current title does not seem to be an acurate representation of the content, in addition to sounding at least very odd and most probably uslessly silly. Qaz

I don't have time or energy to work up a contribution, but here's a link for someone else to work up into one: [1] - PML.

rename penis removal? (not all of it pertains to violence) --`Jiang

List of severed penises is just the right name. Penis-related violence would be beating someone over the head with your penis. Castration and penectomy are two separate manoeuvres with two separate consequences. Perhaps Parade of Purloined Pruned Penises. -- Scamp 08:27, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Very funny, but your definition is not quite right. I support renaming as penis removal. Exploding Boy 08:35, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)


What is meant exactly by Some men have undergone penectomies as a voluntary body modification, but professional opinion is divided as to whether or not the desire for penile amputation is a pathology.? Dysprosia 09:27, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What is it you're not understanding? To expand, there are men who have voluntarily removed/had removed their own penises for non-medical reasons (ie: as a voluntary body modification). Not everyone agrees that people who have amputation "fetishes," more specifically, people who desire to amputate healthy parts of their own bodies, are pathological. Some people who do this sort of thing see it as just another form of body modification, akin to piercing, branding, tattooing or reshaping the body in other ways. Hope that helps. Exploding Boy 09:31, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
There seems to be some grey area between removal of certain things due to body dysmorphic disorder and related to body modification which don't appear to be the same thing, which is why I was prompted to ask. Going by your comment, should mention be changed to body dysmorphic instead, which sounds more accurate? Dysprosia 09:36, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure that they're the same thing. As you say it's kind of a grey area, so if you do change it please make sure it's quite clear. Exploding Boy 09:53, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

The problem is I'm not so sure either, if it's best to change or not. BDD seems to be a pathology, whilst BM does not seem to include it. I've an idea, though... Dysprosia 09:59, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Seems to me that the content in the article on penectomy and this one should be merged. 69.140.117.123 09:44, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That seems to have resulted in a very inaccurate penectomy article. Penectomy is a surgical procedure, and most of the information previously here and now moved there is not about that surgical procedure. - Nunh-huh 22:59, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Thanks for the clarification, Dysprosia. Regarding the Humour section, is this really necessary? Is it encyclopaedic? The way this section is currently written doesn't seem that way to me. Exploding Boy 11:10, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)


Someone added this:

The myths and legends of ancient Egypt are filled with symbolism, and this one is certainly no exception. When Osiris was collected and lovingly put back together, the ceremony was crowned by his RE-MEMBERING, the replacing of his lost phallus. Symbolically, the Initiate acheives a higher state of being when he "re-members" himself; upon looking inward, and deeply so, the Initate loses himself only to eventually be "reborn", into the fullness of the One; the Many are folded into the One; the One becomes the Many. The realization of Oneness and Unity helps stimulate the act of RE-MEMBERING, a recapitulation of psyche and even soul. Soul Recapitulation is among the highest acts of Egyptian Magic possible, a gateway to the doors beyond.

and I, in the absense of any evidence that the Egyptians linked memory with penises, have removed it. Egyptian symbolism is not based on English puns: the words "Memory" and "member" have different etymological origins. I suppose next we'll hear that "recapitulation" is related to the restoration on a man's "little head", the one on his penis, and that the Egyptians thought so too. - Nunh-huh 06:33, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hot dog??[edit]

Someone recently added;

-- "A recent phenomenon in the news is the connection with psychedelic drugs, such as LSD. Usually, the drug user would slip into an altered state of mind and their perception of reality is drastically changed. Generally, the drug user recalls seeing their erect penis and believes it to be some type of food, typically a hot dog or sausage and consumes it out of hunger. Under the effect of the drug, the guy isn't aware of what is actually happening until their effect of the drug wears off." --

Any evidence to support this? Have to say, it sounds like a bit of an urban legend - Pete C 2 July 2005 23:04 (UTC)

  • The only recent one I've seen is the last case listed in the documented cases section of the article. The text should expand on that case and contextualize it mainly as an urban legend. Sixpence 3 July 2005 01:41 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it's in the realm of urban legends. I'll try to see to if integration is possible. Morrid 3 July 2005 01:55 (UTC)

This is a quite typical urban legend. It might SEEM plausible at first glance, yet at closer inspection it turn out to be highly unlikely to have ever happened. I seariusly doubt that human teeth can cut throug living human skin. If that is the case the guy had to use some kind of sharp object to remove the ”sausage” from his body. Cutting off the penis in this way causes much pain and severe bleading. The only drug I know can make pain dissapear altogether is laughing gas. (That is why it have been used as anaesthesia.) However, it does NOT cause hallucinations: it just makes almost anything funny. Furthermore, the poor guy minght blead to death before he realises what he have done! Most people seem to have no idea of how much a man would blead if you cut of his penis.

2007-02-12 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

John Wayne Bobbit[edit]

The following was added to the section on John Wayne Bobbit by User:210.9.52.226:

While in his station as a minister, he was charged for the systematic rape of 5 young boys, Nick Xanthis, Ben Lai, Tom Reid, Kristian Stavropolous and Peter Reid over a period of 5 months at a special needs care centre.

I can't find any mention of these names in this context on Google. Can someone provide a source for the sentence? --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 02:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The image of John Wayne Bobbit's severed penis under the "Documented cases" section is rather graphic - it's linked to, with a clear warning, from the John_Wayne_Bobbitt article. It wouldn't be unreasonable to do the same here, I think. MMad 02:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Michael Alig[edit]

Michael Alig cut off the penis of Angel Menendez after killing him. May be worth adding at the end to the list of real cases.

Urban Legends?[edit]

i had previously removed the rather long and not terribly well-written description of the urban legend, which has been reverted. i'd like some discussion on this. i don't see any point in urban legends in an encyclopedia, unless of course they're in an encyclopedic entry on "urban legends". in the same way, urban legends are fiction, and as such would be appropriate to an encyclopedic entry on "fiction". this entry should deal with fact. thoughts? Anastrophe 07:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It is a fact that people believe this. The reason why we have an article on penis removal and not hand removal is because neither is terribly interesting from a physical viewpoint; it's all about people's reactions to the concept. An urban legend is one part of people's reactions.--Prosfilaes 07:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
but there are people who also believe the moon landing was faked; that doesn't mean it deserves inclusion in the article on the moon landing *except as specifically describing a conspiracy theory related to the actual moon landing*. the question is, how relevant is it to the actual topic. are not the existing descriptions of *actual* penis removals enough?? at minimum, it should be placed near the end of the article, under the appropriate heading of 'urban legend'. Anastrophe 09:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
They aren't enough for describing penis removal under the influence of drugs.--Prosfilaes 17:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
urban legends are fiction. they are not a valid source to use for describing penis removal under the influence of drugs. The case of 'andreas w' is clearly described in the 'documented cases' portion of the article, which *is* an adequate description of removal under the influence of drugs. i'm going to move the urban legend to its own identified portion of the article. Anastrophe 18:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


Assault v Battery[edit]

May I suggest that consideration be given to changing the heading to more accurately reflect the proper definition of physical violence, i.e. battery?

Even the Wiki article about battery reflects that physical violence is a battery, whereas assault can be, but not always is physically exhibited. thanks!

For non native americans, this legal rephrasing is only confusing. --Procrastinating@talk2me 20:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Picture removed[edit]

The photograph that was attached to this article depicted a severed penis that is offensive and far more graphic than needed for this website. {—Preceding unsigned comment added by Duxburyboi (talkcontribs)

  • Reverted. It is not for us to judge whether is it "offensive", "vile", "graphic" or otherwise. In this instance, it is illustrative, relevant and informative - Alison 05:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The title of the article being "Penis_removal", I beleive it is the LEAST offensive picutre we can have. --Procrastinating@talk2me 13:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
WP:NOT#CENSOR Jimp 05:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hoaxes?[edit]

We need sources for each case listed on this page, otherwise we're just opening it up for vulgar hoaxes. --Daniel Olsen 00:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It is claimed that the penis of Napoléon I was removed after his death. This sounds like a case of “false relic”: a human organ of disputable origin is claimed to be from a dead celebrity. Before Napoléon was buried on Saint Helena his mummy was on display for some time, fully dressed he was laid on his back with his head on a couple high pillows. I can imagine that they removed parts of his inner organs in order to reduce his swollen belly: otherwise they would not had been able to dress him up. (The doctors who performed the autopsy reported a much enlarged liver.) Except for the large cut in the belly for the autopsy his outer parts (such as skin and skeletal muscles) was probably left intact. However, his hair was shaved off so that his friends and relatives could have samples as memories from him. Why would someone cut off the penis of a dead political leader unless that person hates him? The autopsy was lead by Francesco Antommarchi who had been sent to Saint Helena by the Bonapartes. (He arrived just days before his intended patient’s death.) All the other doctors were Britons who had tried to treat Napoléon when he was ill. If they had hated him – as many Britons did – they would not had agreed to examine and treat him. I know he had have some problems to pee, but it probably did not have with his penis to do.

2006-12-03 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Well, my previous entry included too many suppositions. After reading a book on the subject of Napoléon I's death I can put more weight on my claim of forgery. The autopsy was lead by Francesco Antommarchi who had been sent to Saint Helena by Napoléon's relatives. He arrived in September 1819 not just a few days before Napoléon died (May 1821). The post-mortem team consisted of Francesco, three British medical doctors which had attempted to treat Napoléon, and four other British doctors which where on the island at the time. Present at the autopsy where also an Italian-spoken priest with some medical training and at lest three of Napoléon's friends. The only organs removed where the stomach and the heart. Francesco wanted to take the stomach with him but Napoléon's friends did not allow it. They in turn wanted to give the heart to the ex-empress Marie-Louise. However, they where told that she had already declined to such an offer. The two removed organs where placed in a sealed container filled with alcohol. Later the same day as the autopsy the hair on the head was shaved off by a valet named Jean Abram Noverraz. A cast was made of the front half of the head with parts of the neck and chest. Then the clay was washed and fully dressed. Before Napoléon's coffin was soldered close the container with the two missing organs where placed in it. So the hairs consists the only tissues removed after his death that was not buried with him.

2008-10-04 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Castrati[edit]

I removed castrati reference. Castrati had their testicles removed, but not their penises. That's why they got all the women, because women never had to worry about getting pregnant. Thank you music history. 71.194.28.102 04:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

At least some castrati had their penises removed, but this might not have been the norm. You seem to assume that castration would not affect someone’s sexual drive significantly. This is compleatly wrong! Sexual drive is mostly caused by hormones produced by the gonads. If they are surgically removed sexual drive is greatly reduced. Is the person’s sexual drive is already low it will be virtually non-exist after the surgery. Castrati was always castrated before their voices begun to break: that is why they remained childlike throughout their lives. How much sexual drive do you think boys of that age have? I assume that it is quite low in pre-pubertal boys bur varying greatly between individuals (as in adults). In that case adult castrati would feel little or no sexual drive. That in turn would have made it very hard or impossible to satisfy all the women who wanted to have sex with them. I am not even sure whether castrati could get an erection, since they never experienced a (full) puberty. Anyone who can verify my assumption?

Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Well, castrati might not have had their penises removed. I have been affirmed that if a boy is castrated before puberty he will feel little or no sexual drive as adult. However, this may not always have applied to castrati: some where castrated after the onset of puberty but before their voices begun to break. Even if they did feel some sexual drive I still wonder if they could get an erection. Is there any credible source mentioning someone being penetrated by a castrato?

2007-06-22 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Removed the following sentence:[edit]

"The population of castrates in the US includes thousands of prostate cancer survivors." as - it contradicts the international POV policy of wikipedia and there is nothing extraordinary about the situation in exactly this country. - 'thousands' is not an exact number; there is no source - the info is a minor statistic and thus does not belong in the header. - It's bloody obvious. 84.167.240.80 16:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don’t think that notation is relevant to this article. In the medical sense “castration” means “removal of the tests”: not “removal of the penis”. However, some people might think of penis removal when they hear the word. They are probably influenced by Siegmund Freud’s ideas of penis envy and castration anxiety. Which by the way are unsupported by empirical evidence.

2007-07-10 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Thailand[edit]

I removed the following:

In Thailand, penis attacks are reputedly more common than in any other country.[citation needed] In fact, in Thailand more penis reattachment surgeries are performed than in any other nation. In contrast to such battery in Western nations, the motivating factors in Eastern nations world vary and are not necessarily lovers' quarrels. For example, in November 2004 Manit Srithammathan cut off two teenage boys' penises and threw them in a canal. When the police questioned Srithammathan, he said he had cut off and disposed of their penises because the boys refused to confess to stealing $1,250 from his ATM account after they were shown videotape evidence of their theft. Typically also, the perpetrator's disposal of severed penises is unconventional. In 1997, a Thai wife had severed her husband's penis while he was asleep and attached it to helium balloons. There is a metaphor in Thailand that translates loosely as "Feed the ducks". This comes from a frustrated wife who cut off the penis of her philandering husband, then fed it to ducks outside the house.

It has no citations and most of its sentences are unclear. For example, does "more common" mean in total or per capita? Is this information factual or merely reputed to be so? Are "facts" about Thailand alone being generalized to all Eastern nations?

Without statistics and citations this paragraph has no purpose in an encyclopedia. Quux0r 04:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Lol whoever wrote that though? Originally? It would sound great over some booze207.216.33.144 (talk) 10:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Over-referenced[edit]

Is it necessary to have 23 references for the April 22, 2007 item? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I am going to agree with you on this. Many of the events have a reference overkill that is rather redundant and unneeded. I think one to five sources would be sufficient. Andrew Colvin (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Anything over 20 is definitely overkill, especially when at least half of the articles referenced for each incident seem to be just re-postings of the same wire stories without any significant differences in information or, often, even wording. However, many articles of this sort tend to disappear off news sites which originally run them, at unpredictable intervals after publication, so that if a particular incident has only (for example) three references cited, it's possible for all three to become dead links within a couple of years after their being added to the article. Ironically, the likelihood of "news of the weird!" type reports disappearing from more-reliable journalistic sources is often higher than the likelihood of a reprint, partial-reprint or restating of the details of a particular event on a blog-type site disappearing within the same length of time. Wikipedia favours journalistic sources (websites of print newspapers, or local or cable TV stations with news programming, etc.) over blog sources in general, but in the case of this type of reportage, it might be best to include pairs of sources -- one more reputable, one more likely to still be there in 3, 5 or 10 years but containing substantially the same information as the more reputable source -- for these types of incidents, rather than prune out all but the most reliable-but-potentially-transitory sources. Obviously it would also be ideal to have at least some of the pairs of sources have evidence of independent reporting rather than seeming to have been copied word-for-word from a wire story. --76.209.175.51 (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is rapidly becoming a list of what seems to be every documented case of penis removal, including trivial details, and has well over 100 references.Fliponymous (talk) 23:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The whole article List of cases of penis removal is rapidly becoming a list of trivial cases, tottaly unencyclopedic.Bunser (talk) 04:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Term[edit]

Isn the term "penis removal" same as "castration"? Alex discussion 05:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Castration relates to testes but penis removal relates to, well, Penis - different parts of the male body ;) - Alison 05:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a good reason why this isn't titled "male genital mutilation"? When a womans clitoris is cut off it's called "mutilation" in wikipedia, a word which has more emotional weight than "removal". I always thought mutilation was mutilation and that this term was not relative to the sex of the victim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.197.168 (talk) 11:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Penectomy contains all the relevant information[edit]

Come to think of it, why do we have a separate article on penis removal when penectomy contains the relevant information? All the foreign language wikipedias which link to this page are actually on penectomy, and also appear on the penectomy page.Bunser (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Penectomy is a specialized medical procedure. This article is about general penis removal. Morrid (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

asia?[edit]

From 1973 to 1980 one hundred cases of Thai women cutting off their husband's penises were recorded.[14] Most of them were not reattached.[15]

On July 21, 2008, in Nanjing, China, it was reported that several wives cut off their husband's penis because they could not stand that their husbands were gambling or cheating on them. These are classified as a "crime of impulsion" by prosecutors in Nanjing, because the women go through an "emotional crisis". Most of these female criminals were younger than 35, most get only a suspended sentence or one below three years, and are sent back home

Does someone have an obsession with portratying asian females as castrators? Whats the deal with this article?Sino-Malay (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

resurrection of the list of penis removals[edit]

this is the third time that this list was created, of totally random, and non notable incidents of guys losing their penis in an accident or assault. They don't meet notability requirements, first of all, and see WP:NOT for the reasons why this article doesn't have a list of these incidents. They are non notable, and totally random. Thats like inserting a murder case from your local newspaper into the wikipedia articles on murder and killing. the last time the list was created, it was deleted for copyvio and non notability.Bunser (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

seconded.Sino-Malay (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

more info[edit]

the article can be rewritten in a professional manner and without using tabloids as sources. there are many medical journals and other books sources which describe epidemics of penis removals or the process of reattachment and/or disposal.Flereks (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You mind showing us the "process of reattachment" from these medical journals or are you going to keep on listing random cases? I would actually like for someone to summarize the medical procedures behind treatment and reatachment, you don't seem to be up to it. I already explained above why the list was removed.Bunser (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
the reason the other article deleted was because it was stand alone. Your rationale for deletion doesn't stand if there is no copyvio. The list is fine as long as it is part of this article.Flereks (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Castration[edit]

Is routinely performed in the UNITED STATES PRISON SYSTEM. It is NOT RARE.

Look it up.

There was a man in TEXAS, USA (under GEORGE BUSH administration, home of ***DEATH*** PENTALY) arrested for urinating behind a bush at a MUSIC ART concert and was charged as SEX OFFENDER!! He had to have his TESTICLES REMOVED by THE STATE or serve 9 years in PRISON!! No choice, what so ever (He was NEGRO!!).

What would YOU CHOOSE??

BS PROPAGANDA!! In all RUSSIAN shcool books and library. Look for self!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.253.94.198 (talk) 08:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

"Treatment and Effects"[edit]

Is the final part of that section really necessary? "Various methods used to prevent reattachment of the penis after severing include flushing them down the toilet, feeding them to animals like ducks, dogs, boiling them in water, contaminating the penis with dirt or sand, or grinding the penis in a garbage disposal or a kitchen blender."

It just doesn't seem to actually have anything to do with the subject directly, especially since all of these methods are obvious and are basically the same as you could do with any other body part. It also provides no useful information, at all.

For now, I'm going to remove that part of the article, because Im supposed to be bold. 74.132.252.16 (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Confusion with castration[edit]

The article at some points seems to indicate "castration" is a valid term for penis removal, while in other parts it explicitly states castration is just about the testicles... So, which is it? --TiagoTiago (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)