Indonesian mother kills son over 'small penis'

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

What a waste of oxygen, that woman. To think that there really are people that mind numbingly stupid makes me sad.

Besides, what if he was a grower and not a shower?

That's so depressing and crazy, it's something I should be used to seeing by now but I can't grasp the concept.
Killing someone over something is pretty bad, and even for justified reasons- killing is quite bad regardless.

Killing your own child because you find his small manhood to be the end of the world....... there are no words or defenses to even justify this. I bet a lawyer would rather shoot him/herself then defend that case. Besides, he was only 9 years old- then again this cries out insanity on the mother's end.

Therumancer:
Okay, I've done some checking on this and it seems to be an Associated Press wire story (AFP = Associated Free Press) with the story originating in Jakarta, which is why it's been circulating so heavily. It's most likely real.

Actually it's not Associated Free Press it's from a news site called Agence France Presse and they seem to be the only original source, all news blogs have sourced from Agence France Presse and there are no other original sources. I think it's fake.

Also did some checking on Agence France Presse, the story doesn't exist on it, I checked recent news, and did article searches on keywords "jakarta, indonesia, indonesian, mother, woman, women, son, small penis, drown, drowns, drowned" and searched by date. Nothing was yielded. It's a fake source.

Some newblogs made up this story claimed AFP (AFP = IS NOT Associated Free Press but Agence France Presse) was the source but it doesn't exist on AFP (and they made it link to the website in french even though the website is avaiable in english maybe to make it harder to track down) and the story was copy/pasted and spread by a dozen different news blogs.

.........................
image
Seriously, didn't this woman hear of 'Penis enlargement surgeries'?
And the boy is nine years old.... Yup! Because nine year olds don't have small penises, at all!/sarcasm

Dirty Cop James funs:

Seriously, didn't this woman hear of 'Penis enlargement surgeries'?

Those surgeries have so many side effects/complications/risks that I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy :S

Captcha: cotton on
Ok...

Darken12:

Rascarin:

trooper6:
In the US, doctors who decide a infant's penis is too small just perform surgery making the infant a girl.
So we don't have murdering in a tub (though sometimes we have that, too), but we do have involuntary surgery on an infant's genitalia because we don't deal well with the complexity and variety of nature.

I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen, ever. There's one famous case where a young boy had his penis damaged during a routine operation, so they decided to change him into a girl (it didn't work), but I'm fairly certain that doctors don't just sex-change babies on a whim.

Yes, we do, and the reasoning is often extremely arbitrary, because goodness forbid we break out of our rigid gender constructs.

I got this link from work just the other day, it sums up the medical community mentality fairly well:

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2013/02/25/management-of-patients-with-intersexuality

Rear as male:

XY individuals with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (A.I.S.) (Grades 1-3)

XX individuals with Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (C.A.H.) with extensively fused labia and a penile clitoris

XY individuals with Hypospadias

Persons with Klinefelter syndrome

XY individuals with Micropenis

XY individuals with 5-alpha or 17-beta reductase deficiency

Rear as female:

XY individuals with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (A.I.S.) (Grades 4-7)

XX individuals with Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (C.A.H.) with hypertrophied clitoris

XX individuals with Gonadal dysgenesis

XY individuals with Gonadal dysgenesis

Persons with Turner's syndrome

For those individuals with mixed gonadal dysgenesis (MGD) assign male or female dependent upon the size of the phallus and extent of the labia/scrotum fusion.

[...]

True hermaphrodites should be assigned male or female dependent upon the size of the phallus and extent of the labia/scrotum fusion.

See all those XX individuals getting reared as male and those XY individuals getting reared as female.

That's a little different - still horrible and wrong - but its different assigning a gender to an intersex person than just deciding to lop a boys bits off and call him a girl because he's "too small", which is what I took from the first post I quoted.

Soxafloppin:
I'm pretty sure most 9 year olds have small dicks.

You shouldn't be looking.

OT: If this isn't a hoax, then it is seriously fucked up. As for the whole "Is she insane?" thing, I'd say so. There is no reason why anyone that isn't insane would do that.

Rascarin:
That's a little different - still horrible and wrong - but its different assigning a gender to an intersex person than just deciding to lop a boys bits off and call him a girl because he's "too small", which is what I took from the first post I quoted.

Yeah, patients with a micropenis are still reared as male because they have a proper, functioning scrotum. If the penis is too small AND the scrotum has fused with the labia enough to allow for a vagina, THEN we make a few adjustments here and there and tell the parents to raise it as a girl. Which is still horrible and wrong, but there is still a lot of leftover paternalism we haven't got rid of in the medical community.

Lieju:
It depends on your definition of mental illness, I guess. It can be argued that kiiling any other human being is a sign of mental instability.

From a legal standpoint, I think the important matter is whether she was responsible for her actions. Whether she had a psychotic episode, and the decision was based on delusion, or if she was fully aware of what she did. And furthermore, to what extent she was pressured into it.

Yeah, but that's for a psychiatrist to evaluate, really.

Darken12:

Rascarin:
That's a little different - still horrible and wrong - but its different assigning a gender to an intersex person than just deciding to lop a boys bits off and call him a girl because he's "too small", which is what I took from the first post I quoted.

Yeah, patients with a micropenis are still reared as male because they have a proper, functioning scrotum. If the penis is too small AND the scrotum has fused with the labia enough to allow for a vagina, THEN we make a few adjustments here and there and tell the parents to raise it as a girl. Which is still horrible and wrong, but there is still a lot of leftover paternalism we haven't got rid of in the medical community.

Surely it would make more sense to leave the genitals alone and let the child decide as it grows? How is that not a thing yet?

Rascarin:
Surely it would make more sense to leave the genitals alone and let the child decide as it grows? How is that not a thing yet?

Paternalism. The idea that the doctor knows best, and you should just nod and sign whatever he tells you to sign, and do whatever he tells you to do.

The medical community's arguments is that, in some very specific cases, the ovaries/testicles are a high-cancer risk, and might need preemptive removal, leaving the child in a very androgynous state where s/he receives no sexual hormones whatsoerver once they reach puberty, and require hormone replacement therapy in order to develop secondary sexual characteristics (such as breasts, facial hair and proper genital shape and form). What hormones to give the child is another question, as giving them both kinds would cause them to grow breasts AND facial hair AND muscles AND so on. So they might as well just pick the child's gender already and rear it like that from the beginning. And since we're doing that, we might as well operate and make the change complete.

The other aspect of the medical community on this is the same one being used to well-meaningly suppress minorities. Under the rationale that "the world is a harsh place and you won't fit in, and you will suffer terribly", doctors advise to rear the child male or female because the world isn't ready to accept intersexed people as a valid third gender, and the child would suffer terribly if they never fit in because they don't submit to the gender binary. So the doctor advises the parent to avoid unnecessary trauma and pain for the child by rearing them as either male or female (without realising, of course, that most LGBT+ people experience the very things doctors are trying to spare the child). And, of course, they're also trying to spare the parents. When you tell others you have a baby, the first thing they want to know is whether they're a boy or a girl. And if you explain their condition to them, the opinion you're most likely to hear is what gender are they eventually going to be reared as. And if you say "that's up to my baby to decide when they're older" then the immediately following questions are "but what are you going to do about school? They won't let you have a child there that isn't a boy or a girl! what about public restrooms? what kind of toys are you going to buy them? what kind of clothes? what about teasing from other children? Have you really thought this through? I think you're a very irresponsible parent. [insert rant about 'youth today' or 'libtards' and so on]" And just like the child becomes "that weird kid that isn't a boy or a girl" at school, the parents become "that weird couple with the weird kid" in the neighbourhood.

There IS a new wave of thought that seeks consent from the child instead of the parents, but most of the decisions have to be made very early in the child's life (for example, whether to remove the ovaries/testicles preemptively or whether to keep a close monitoring of the situation). So it's still a very hotly debated area of medicine.

So yeah, residual paternalism and social prejudices keep perpetuating a status quo where the social prejudices never go away.

Stupidity scale = 8 out of 10! Nicolas Cage's facial expression!!!

image

I've sort of come to a stupidity overload reading this. I feel like my mind broke... Sort of like this:

image

Sounds like
*glasses on*
he didn't die hard

Chaosritter:

Helmholtz Watson:

DevilWithaHalo:
Woman commits horrible crime... must be mentally unstable. How interesting.

She can get psychiatric help will rotting in prison for first degree murder.

...but you think a father would not get the same treatment? Is that correct?

Well, that's actually possible.

Read a story about a guy who raped his own infant daughter to death because he questioned her virginity and got free for paying a fine.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2273171/Fayhan-al-Ghamdi-raped-tortured-daughter-5-death-escapes-light-sentence.html

So I guess if a father had drowned his daughter for being flat at the age of nine, chances would be good he'd get out of this with a black eye.

And Indonesia is an islamic country whose law is based on the sharia. When a court decides that the small wang of the boy would have shamed the family, the punishment won't be that harsh.

Sounds stupid to us, but that's how they roll.

>dailymail.co.uk

Right, dude. OK.

There's no way that a guy would get out of this with "a black eye", infanticide is infanticide. Even under Sharia law.

And if we're taking that incredibly depressing route, just remember, they killed a boy, not a girl.

Say, wouldn't being dead make his future prospects slightly worse than having a small penis?

Ren_Li:

trooper6:
In the US, doctors who decide a infant's penis is too small just perform surgery making the infant a girl.
So we don't have murdering in a tub (though sometimes we have that, too), but we do have involuntary surgery on an infant's genitalia because we don't deal well with the complexity and variety of nature.

What. Erm, no they don't. Seriously, where did you get that idea?!

They tried it once that I'm aware of, when they accidentally removed the penis during an operation just after birth (one of the descriptions I read was rather... graphic.) And it didn't work. The little "girl" tried to urinate standing up, tried to be a boy- because, you know, he was a boy- and eventually stopped taking the female hormones they were forcing him to take, started taking male hormones, and transitioned to male.
And, just so you know, committed suicide a couple of years ago.

You cannot perform an operation to turn one functional set of genitalia into another set of genitalia. A child without functioning testes (or ovaries for that matter) will have to take hormone injections for their entire adult life- just like a trans-person- and will have the associated medical issues that go with it, as well as with the operation.
No doctor who has even a small amount of understanding of gender transition would actually think it would cause fewer complications than it causes. Jeez. The only time they alter infant's genitalia (which is still wrong) is when the baby is or appears to be intersex- ie, has both a penis and a vagina- and then they automatically operate to make them appear to have "normal" female genitalia and will still be able to have children.

Please tell me that was posted by a troll. I just got trolled, right?

I'm not trolling and I'm not wrong on this one. It has been routine to treat abnormal genitals--which includes microphallus--with infant sex change from male to female. Which, you are right, means that kid has to take hormone injections their entire life. Doctors have long felt that was better than a boy living with a microphallus. They would similarly cut down a female infant's clitoris if if were "too big." They would consider all of that intersex, not just having both a penis and a vagina. As a matter of fact, fighting against infant genital surgeries has been the raison d'etre of the Intersex Society of North America.

Check out this page here: http://www.isna.org/faq/standard_of_care
But also this one that mentions that the treatment of micorphallus in infants include nonconsentual sex change: http://www.news-medical.net/health/What-is-Micropenis.aspx

It isn't talked about, but it is done. More often that you'd think:

"Is it a boy or a girl? This question, routinely asked prior to or immediately following the birth of a baby, may not always have an obvious response. The multiple factors used to determine sex often provide inconsistent answers. It is not uncommon for an individual's chromosomes, hormones, internal sex structures, gonads, and external genitalia to vary from the dimorphic male-female mold. Thus, each year approximately seventeen out of every 1,000 children are born outside this dimorphic mold and are labeled "intersexuals." Of those, between one in 1,000 and one in 2,000 may be subjected to surgery because they have ambiguous-looking genitals that need to be "normalized." In one large U.S. hospital, four or five of these genital reconstructions occur each year; five such surgeries occur each day in the United States."
"Who Decides? Genital-Normalizing Surgery on Intersexed Infants" by Alyssa Lareau. Georgetown Law Journal, Nov 2003.

We aren't talking people with both a penis and vagina...a condition with is actually really, really rare. We are talking doctors deciding an infant has genitals that would be too embarrassing and then conducting surgery on them.

Due to the work of intersex activists, these surgeries are a bit less common, but they still happen.

DevilWithaHalo:
Woman commits horrible crime... must be mentally unstable. How interesting.

She can get psychiatric help will rotting in prison for first degree murder.

They don't think she's mentally unstable because she's a woman murderer, they think she's crazy because she thought that drowning a child for having a small penis is logical.

Darken12:

Paternalism. The idea that the doctor knows best, and you should just nod and sign whatever he tells you to sign, and do whatever he tells you to do.

Interesting read, thanks for sharing.

Since i intend to become part of the medical community its probably worth me thinking about these issues. Its quite delicate in and of itself and im probably not able to predict the social climate in the time where ill have a tiny say on what happens or not in these situations. Im leaning toward agreeing with you rather strongly. Like circumcision people should be able to decide their own fate.

BiscuitTrouser:
Interesting read, thanks for sharing.

Since i intend to become part of the medical community its probably worth me thinking about these issues. Its quite delicate in and of itself and im probably not able to predict the social climate in the time where ill have a tiny say on what happens or not in these situations. Im leaning toward agreeing with you rather strongly. Like circumcision people should be able to decide their own fate.

No problem, glad to help out a fellow future colleague.

A word of advice: Be extremely, extremely careful with your views, especially while you're young and in front of older physicians/professors. While you are still a student, just keep your views to yourself because you won't gain anything by getting into debates. Once you are actually asked to explain what you would do in X or Y case, make sure to print out and keep with you a stack of papers and studies supporting your decisions. Be VERY fluid with your Bioethics (and be ready to quote authors who support your views at the drop of a hat). The most important thing is that every single time you go against tradition in the medical community, you have to back that up with plenty of scientific evidence, and even then you will have stubborn professors who will cling to tradition because they have outdated values, and to them, making sure the child is "normal" and conforms to societal expectations of gender is far more important than silly things like allowing them to make the decision themselves when they're old enough to understand what's going on.

Obviously, the "keep a stack of studies supporting your decisions" advice goes for when you're a practising physician too, as you might be heavily questioned by your fellow colleagues, particularly while you're still under 35, and you need to prove that you aren't a clueless quack.

The sad thing is that this isn't very shocking to me.

I'm not sure if that's a good or a bad thing.

krazykidd:
Just out of curiosity , what would you think a normal person would do after killing their child ? Assuming that you don't think that anyone who kills is automatically mentally unsound . And for the record i personally think normal people can kill and still be mentally sound .

Hide it, deny it or try to get someone/something else the blame. Or if they felt bad about it just sit there and wait for someone to find out and call the authorities. Its hard to say if she actually had a mental illness, the mothers thinking patterns and solutions to imagined "problems" definitely seem unusual. The imagined problem has the hall marks of a delusion too, it could be a full blown psychiatric condition but it could also be a personality disorder. (the type where a persons belief system and thought structure is way outside the "norm" but not due to psychosis or other issues)

If I was to hazard a guess and try to say what mental illness it could be I would say a bipolar disorder, if she hit a stage of deep depression she might have genuinely felt her son would suffer all his life and wanted to spare his suffering. If thats the case she would also have applied her own state of mind to him, she could have believed his "problem" would have made his life a misery as much as her own issues have and believed she couldn't let him live like that.

After she calmed down she might have realized what she did, or felt the need for self destruction via the authorities rather than something like suicide.

All speculation of course, she could just a nasty person and trying to obfuscate the truth.

Im not going to say this is normal for that area... but seeing the location was not surprising. some people over there are crazy and take that stuff WAY too seriously, cause thats the culture (based on male success).

I....what....huh?

This is literally the most...I don't even know. That woman needs help.

image

What. the. fuck?!

You know, I feel that all people have a right to live but this woman should just go toss herself off a bridge.

image

...yikes, that's just not cricket. Does she not know that boys mature?

fallendong:

R.Nevermore:
Woah woah woah... Now lets not be too judgemental here... Just exactly how small are we talking here?

But seriously... Yeah that's pretty terrible, I feel like a terrible person for laughing at the absurdity.

I think it's pretty telling that you find a child being murdered for their genitalia's size is amusing stuff.

If you don't have a sense of humour about life you live miserably.

Like I said I didn't find it amusing that a child was murdered by his mother. I found the reasoning amusing. Do I think it's justified? No of course not. I think the woman is a waste of life.

If you don't like dark humour then go be all serious all the time, but claiming I am some sort of bad person for finding humour in the darkest of places is, as you say, 'telling'.

Ok, what the fuck?
I have never seen anyone this insane (well, except for Jessica Lynn Evert).
On a 1 to 10 scale of batshit insanity, it would be a 20.
I read stories about mothers killing their kids for not memorizing the Koran, money, liking another child or doing it for fun. Seriously, drowning a child because the child has a small penis.
What the fuck?

"...police ordered a psychological test to assess her mental condition."

NO FUCKING SHIT.

If she isn't found to be completely out of her mind, they need to send her to a real doctor, and not whatever quack that could sit there and declare her sane with a straight face.

Today started off so nice. I found out Whose Line Is It Anyway was coming back, I got a passing grade on a subject I hate, and I caught a cute girl in my class staring at me. And then I read this. Holy fuck, my day is absolutely ruined, because of how pissed off I am over this.

Just...holy shit.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked