To all readers, who are "concerned" about the proper functioning of male BALLS after their owner caused a painful meeting with my knee for them, I would like to say the following things.
Balls are tough little guys! A simple knee in them can't "destroy" them, as far as I know. The fact that it hurts so much is only caused by the presence of many nerve endings right in the balls. A good thing! :-)
One of the nice things about doing a man in the eggs is that SO LITTLE force is needed to bring SO MUCH pain. It's easy to do, and just a tiny bit of force is enough to make strong waves of male agony circle through the man’s body in a crazy-making way.
The fact that only a relatively small amount of force that is needed to make any man aware of his weakness between the legs in the most DRAMATIC way, can be concerned as some kind of a safety valve. You don't have to apply a lot of force on male balls to have a more than satisfying result.
In fact, a knee in the balls seems even to be safer to me than a kick. While kicking with sharp pointed shoes, the energy in the kick could reach one ball more than the other. During a kneeing job, both balls are pressed against the pelvic bone for a short moment, while "peacefully" laying on the knee, during the trip upwards. The applied energy is "spread out" more or less to the surface of both balls.
I'm great in ball mechanics, as you can read here! :-) I would like to study that item at university... I would like to get an academic degree in ball mechanics! :-)
I don't agree with the first reaction on my contribution, where is said that the guy didn't deserve this. He DID deserve what happened, and I don't regret what I did. He was not only annoying us girls in a verbal way. He also touched us. One of us was even touched on one of her breasts. We warned the guy SEVERAL times to leave us alone. He didn't listen. And what's more: he had been annoying other girls at another table as well.
I'm sure that my action is justifiable under the given circumstances. If he would sue me, we could sue him as well, for sexual intimidation. This suing of his, wouldn't have any chance for success where I live! I'm pretty sure of that. And what's more: his only "damage" was that he suffered ball pain some time. I don't believe that the painful meeting his balls did have with my knee, has brought him infertility or any other permanent damage. If the guy would try to sue me, any judge here would laugh out loudly, while hearing the story, and the verdict would be that there is no basis for an assignment for a claim, because the guy "asked" for it, and also because there is no lasting damage. Of course the judge would write down in the sentence that the guys "asked" for it.
That thought would be written down in nice judicial words like:
Under the given circumstances the action of Mrs. Van Buren was understandable and justifiable. Mr. @ had been annoying Mrs. Van Buren and her companions for some time, and he even had sexually intimidated them, by touching their bodies. One of the women was even touched on the breasts. Mr. @ was asked repeatedly to back of, but he didn't do so. He continued to annoy Mrs. Van Buren and her companions. In order to get rid of Mr. @, Mrs. Van Buren attacked Mr. @ in the groin. Concerning the facts of this case, this action was not a disproportional one. In any book about self defense for women, one can read that a knee in the groin is an effective way to get rid of men behaving like Mr. @ did. Mr. @ had his own responsibility in this case. His behavior initiated the action of Mrs. Van Buren.
The fact that Mrs. Van Buren didn't react disproportional, and that her action was understandable and justifiable under the given circumstances, leads the conclusion that there is no basis for condemning Mrs. Van Buren to pay any compensation to Mr. @, even if Mr. @ had been able to prove the existence of permanent damage, caused by Mrs. Van Buren.
Mr. @ claims that Mrs. Van Buren's attack in the groin has been extremely painful, but he didn't produce any evidence of any lasting damage to his genitals, nor did he produce evidence for the existence of necessary costs made for medical treatment of possible injuries, caused by Mrs. Van Buren. The court therefore takes the view that Mr. @ didn't suffer any material damage, and the court doesn't consider "a severe pain in the testicles during a short period of time" as an immaterial form of damage, suitable for financial compensation.
To the courts opinion, there are two arguments to deny the claimed compensation.
Mr. @ hasn't been able to prove that he suffered any damage caused by Mrs. Van Buren. If he had been able to prove the existence of any damage, Mrs. Van Buren couldn't be condemned to pay compensation to Mr. @, because her action was proportional, understandable and justifiable under the given circumstances.
The court will deny the claim of Mr. @, and he shall be condemned to pay the costs of this trial.
That's more or less, how a court over here would build up a decision. Nice huh???
I think there is a third argument WHY the court wouldn't condemn me! The judges would probably afraid that I would do THEM in the nuts as well!!! But that's not a valid argument to write down in a verdict.... :-)